Water Resources and Potential Effects of 

Ground-Water Development in Maggie, 

Marys, and Susie Creek Basins, 

Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada

By Russell W. Plume

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4222

Prepared in cooperation with the

NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

Carson City, Nevada 

1995
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GORDON P. EATON, Director

Any use of trade names in this publication is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information Copies of this report can be 

write to: purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Information Services 

333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Box 25286, MS 517 

Carson City, NV 89706-0866 Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0046
CONTENTS

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

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Study Approach.......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Data Collection and Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 4

Aquifer Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Geophysical Data........................................................................................................................................... 6

Streamflow..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Observation-Well Network ............................................................................................................................ 7

Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Physical Setting .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Geography ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Climate ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Hydrogeologic Units ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Bedrock.......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Carbonate Rocks and Clastic Sedimentary Rocks ............................................................................. 15

Volcanic Rocks ................................................................................................................................... 17

Intrusive Igneous Rocks ..................................................................................................................... 17

Basin-Fill Deposits ........................................................................................................................................ 18

Carlin Formation of Regnier (1960) .................................................................................................. 18

Alluvial-Fan Deposits ........................................................................................................................ 25

Rood-Plain Deposits .......................................................................................................................... 25

Subsurface Relations of Units ....................................................................................................................... 25

Hydrologic System ............................................................................................................................................................... 30

Surface Water ............................................................................................................................................................ 30

Maggie Creek ................................................................................................................................................ 30

Marys Creek .................................................................................................................................................. 34

Susie Creek .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Humboldt River ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Ground Water ............................................................................................................................................................ 37

Recharge ........................................................................................................................................................ 40

Discharge ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Chemical and Isotopic Composition of the Water .................................................................................................... 46

Chemical Composition of Ground Water ...................................................................................................... 46

Isotopic Composition of Ground Water and Surface Water .......................................................................... 46

Geochemical Interpretation of Hypothetical Flow Paths .............................................................................. 52

Water Budgets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Water-Resources Budgets.......................................................................................................................................... 55

Ground-Water Budgets .............................................................................................................................................. 57

Conceptual Model of Hydrologic System in Lower Maggie Creek Area ............................................................................ 59

Measured and Potential Effects of Pumping ........................................................................................................................ 61

Potential for Artificial Recharge ........................................................................................................................................... 63

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 64

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 68

Basic Data ............................................................................................................................................................................. 71

CONTENTS III
Figures

1-3. Maps showing:

1. Location, features, and basins of study area................................................................................................... 3

2. Features and basins of lower Maggie Creek area........................................................................................... 5

3. Locations of 14 weather stations in northeastern Nevada.............................................................................. 10

4. Graphs showing relation of mean annual precipitation to station altitude and relation of

difference between predicted and measured precipitation to predicted mean annual precipitation ..................... 11

5. Hydrogeologic map of lower Maggie Creek area.................................................................................................. 12

6-11. Graphs showing analyses of aquifer tests:

6. Water-level recovery at production well 52 after step-drawdown test........................................................... 16

7. Water-level drawdown at observation well 13 during constant-discharge test at

production well 13a........................................................................................................................................ 19

8. Water-level recovery at production well 13a after step-drawdown test......................................................... 20

9. Water-level drawdown at observation wells 13 and 14 during step-drawdown test at

production well 13a........................................................................................................................................ 21

10. Step-drawdown test at production well 41 and observation wells 42 and 42a; water-level

recovery at well 41 and water-level drawdown at wells 42 and 42a.............................................................. 22

11. Water-level recovery at well 43 after step-drawdown test............................................................................. 24

12-13. Maps of lower Maggie Creek area showing:

12. Complete Bouguer gravity field..................................................................................................................... 26

13. Total-intensity magnetic field......................................................................................................................... 27

14-15. Generalized geologic sections and corresponding profiles of complete Bouguer gravity anomaly and 

magnetic intensity:

14. Section A-A'................................................................................................................................................... 28

15. Section B-B'................................................................................................................................................... 29

16. Map showing locations of stream-gaging stations and miscellaneous streamflow-measurement sites in

lower Maggie Creek area....................................................................................................................................... 31

17-21. Graphs showing:

17. Frequency distribution of discharge of Maggie Creek near its mouth, water years 1914-24......................... 32

18. Flow characteristics of Maggie Creek at upper and lower gages, water years 1990-91................................ 33

19. Daily mean discharge of Marys Creek at Carlin, water years 1990-91; and

Susie Creek near Carlin, water years 1956-58............................................................................................... 35

20. Daily mean discharge of Humboldt River near Carlin, water years 1982-91................................................ 36

21. Streamflow gains of Humboldt River between Carlin and Palisade gages, water years 1944-91.................. 37

22-24 Maps showing:

22. Altitude of shallow ground-water levels in lower Maggie Creek area, September 1990............................... 38

23. Distribution of phreatophytes and irrigated cropland in study area............................................................... 43

24. Locations of wells, springs, and surface-water sites sampled for water quality in lower

Maggie Creek area.......................................................................................................................................... 47

25. Graph showing general chemical character of sampled ground water in lower Maggie Creek area.................... 48

26. Map showing areal distribution of tritium and deuterium values for ground water and surface water in

lower Maggie Creek area....................................................................................................................................... 49

27. Graph showing relation between deuterium and oxygen-18 for ground-water and surface-water samples in

lower Maggie Creek area....................................................................................................................................... 51

28. Conceptual hydrogeologic section A-A' in lower Maggie Creek area.................................................................. 60

29. Map showing wells in lower Maggie Creek area where water-level changes were measured,

March 1989-September 1990 ................................................................................................................................ 62

IV Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Tables

1. Altitude, mean annual precipitation, and period of record for 14 weather stations in northeastern Nevada......... 10

2. Summary of hydrogeologic units and their properties in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.......... 14

3. Summary of aquifer-test results............................................................................................................................. 17

4. Water use, by calendar year, in study area............................................................................................................ 34

5. Estimated potential ground-water recharge from precipitation in study area........................................................ 41

6. Estimated long-term ground-water discharge in study area................................................................................... 44

7. Mass transfer of mineral and gas phases along four hypothetical ground-water flow paths in

	lower Maggie Creek area....................................................................................................................................... 53

8. Saturation indices for mineral phases in ground water at ends of four hypothetical flow paths in

	lower Maggie Creek area....................................................................................................................................... 53

9. Long-term water-resources budgets for study area................................................................................................ 56

10. Long-term ground-water budgets for study area.................................................................................................... 58

11. Streamflow and other data for surface-water sites in lower Maggie Creek area................................................... 72

12. Data for springs in lower Maggie Creek area........................................................................................................ 75

13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area................................................................................. 76

14. Water-quality data used for geochemical modeling of ground-water flow paths in lower Maggie Creek area..... 86

CONVERSION FACTORS, TEMPERATURE, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATIONS OF METRIC 

WATER-QUALITY AND GEOPHYSICAL UNITS

Multiply

acre

acre-foot (acre-ft)

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

cubic foot per second (tf/s)

foot (ft)

foot per day (ft/d)

foot per year (ft/yr)

foot squared per day (tf/d)

foot squared per second (ft?/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min)

inch (in.)

inch per year (in/yr)

mile (mi)

square mile (mi2)

By

0.4047

0.001233

1,233

28.32

0.3048

0.3048

0.3048

0.0929

0.0929

3.785

25.40

25.40

1.609

2.590

To obtain

square hectometer

cubic hectometer

cubic meter per year

liter per second

meter

meter per day

meter per year

meter squared per day

meter squared per second

liter per minute

millimeter

millimeter per year

kilometer

square kilometer

Temperature: Degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by using the formula °F = [1.8(°C)]+32. Degrees 

Fahrenheit can be converted to degrees Celsius by using the formula °C = 0.556(°F-32).

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

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

Metric water-quality and geophysical units:

g/cm3 (gram per cubic centimeter) mGal (milliGal) nT (nanotesla) 

ug/L (microgram per liter) mg/L (milligram per liter) permil (parts per thousand) 

urn (micrometer) mmol/kg (millimole per kilogram) pCi/L (picocurie per liter) 

US/cm (microsiemens per centimeter at 25°C)

CONTENTS V
Water Resources and Potential Effects of 

Ground-Water Development in Maggie, 

Marys, and Susie Creek Basins, 

Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada

By Russell W. Plume

Abstract

The Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins 

(combined area, about 630 square miles) are tributaries of the Humboldt River in north-eastern 

Nevada. The basins are along part of the Carlin 

trend, an area of large, low-grade gold deposits. In 

the Maggie Creek Basin, pumping of ground water 

at the Gold Quarry mine, including dewatering of 

the open pit, is expected to affect ground-water 

levels, streamflow, and the flow of Carlin spring, 

which is the water supply for the town of Carlin, 

Nevada.

Bedrock forms two structural basins in the 

Maggie Creek study area. One underlies the topographic basin of upper Maggie Creek, and contains 

as much as 7,000-8,000 feet of basin-fill deposits. 

The other structural basin underlies the topographic basins of lower Maggie Creek and adjacent parts of Marys Creek and Susie Creek Basins, 

and contains as much as 4,000 feet of the deposits. 

The principal aquifers in the study area are in 

basin-fill deposits.

A combination of geologic, hydrologic, and 

geochemical evidence supports the following conclusions regarding ground-water flow and streamaquifer relations in the study area: (1) Ground 

water flows from recharge areas in the Tuscarora 

and Independence Mountains and unnamed hills 

northeast of Maggie Creek canyon toward upper 

Maggie Creek, and discharges as evapotranspiration and as inflow to the stream channel; (2) bedrock of Schroeder Mountain is sufficiently 

permeable that small amounts of ground water 

flow from the upper Maggie Creek Basin to the 

lower basin; (3) ground water in the combined 

area of the lower Maggie Creek Basin and adjacent 

parts of the Marys and Susie Creek Basins flows 

south and southeast to the main discharge area 

along the Humboldt River; (4) a large part of 

ground-water recharge in the lower Maggie Creek 

Basin comes from infiltration of streamflow along 

lower Maggie Creek; and (5) volcanic rocks interbedded with basin-fill deposits function as a 

permeable drain through which streamflow losses 

from lower Maggie Creek flow southward into 

Marys Creek Basin and discharge at Carlin spring.

The only source of water to the combined 

area of the Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins 

is an estimated 420,000 acre-feet per year of precipitation (there is no evidence of ground-water 

underflow from basins adjacent to the study area). 

Streamflow runoff from the three basins, which 

includes ground-water discharge to stream channels, is an estimated 38,000 acre-feet per year. The 

remaining 380,000 acre-feet per year is believed to 

be consumed as evapotranspiration of soil moisture and ground water. Ground-water recharge to 

the three basins, which comes from infiltration of 

precipitation, is an estimated 25,000 acre-feet per 

year. Ground water is discharged as evapotranspiration (11,000 acre-feet per year) and as springAbstract
flow and inflows to the Humboldt River channel 

(7,000 acre-feet per year), for a total of 18,000 

acre-feet per year. The estimate of recharge 

exceeds the estimate of discharge by 7,000 acrefeet per year. Reasons for this imbalance may be 

that the estimate of annual precipitation is too high 

or that the estimated percentage of precipitation 

that becomes recharge is too high. However, the 

estimates of discharge also could be too low.

Water levels in the study area have declined 

as a result of a prolonged drought and pumping at 

Gold Quarry mine. The effects of the drought are 

most apparent along stream flood plains. Near 

Gold Quarry mine, water levels have declined 

5-10 feet at most wells and 41 feet at a well in 

carbonate rocks on the west side of Schroeder 

Mountain. Future water-level declines may be 

mostly in the immediate vicinity of Schroeder 

Mountain if the hydraulic connection between 

bedrock of the mountain and adjacent basin-fill 

deposits proves to be poor. If the hydraulic connection is better than presently thought, waterlevel declines may extend to basin-fill deposits 

east and west of Schroeder Mountain. Widespread 

water-level declines would affect the flow of upper 

Maggie Creek because ground-water discharge 

to the stream channel would be reduced or 

eliminated.

When pumping of ground water ceases at 

Gold Quarry mine, lower Maggie Creek east of 

Schroeder Mountain may flow only during the 

snowmelt runoff. Most of the baseflow of the 

stream could be captured where water levels 

decline as a result of mine dewatering. This reduction of streamflow and of recharge to the underlying aquifer eventually could affect the flow of 

Carlin spring. The hydrologic effects of dewatering the mine might be reduced by impounding 

streamflow in the Maggie Creek canyon after 

mining cease. Impounded water could be used as 

a recharge source for the area where ground-water 

levels decline and to maintain flow in lower Maggie Creek a recharge source for Carlin spring. 

However, impoundment of streamflow would be 

unlikely if it affected downstream water rights.

INTRODUCTION

Background

Development of low-grade gold deposits at 

Schroeder Mountain in the Maggie Creek Basin, about 

8 mi northwest of Carlin, Nev. (fig. 1), began in the late 

1970's at the Maggie Creek mine (Ekburg and others, 

1991, p. 630). By 1986, this mine and adjacent parts of 

the mountain were included in the Gold Quarry mine, 

which is one of the largest gold mines in North America (Ekburg and others, 1991, p. 628 and 630). Annual 

ground-water pumpage for processing gold ore and 

other mining-related activities increased from 790 

acre-ft in 1985 to 6,000 acre-ft in 1990. Dewatering of 

the Gold Quarry mine began in 1993, when the pit floor 

was extended below the water table. Initial pumping 

rates were 5,000-10,000 acre-ft/yr and will increase to 

a rate of about 70,000 acre-ft/yr in the late stages of 

dewatering. Mining is expected to continue until the 

year 2001 (C.J. Zimmerman, Newmont Gold Co., written and oral commun, 1992).

Pumping of such large volumes of ground water 

has caused concern regarding potential effects on the 

water resources of the area. Specific concerns include:

(1) Reductions of discharge at Carlin spring , the 

main water supply for Carlin;

(2) increased infiltration of streamflow from 

Maggie Creek and the Humboldt River to underlying 

aquifers, which could affect downstream water uses;

and

(3) uncertainty regarding the long-term response

of ground water in aquifers in the area.

In response to the concerns listed above, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, began a study of 

the Maggie Creek area in August 1988. The study was 

made to improve understanding of water resources in 

the Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins (fig. 1). 

The study had five specific objectives:

(1) Define the hydrogeologic framework of the 

lower Maggie Creek area, including hydrologic characteristics, boundaries, and possible 

interactions of the several hydrogeologic 

units;

*This spring has never been formally named. It is locally 

referred to as railroad spring, city spring, and Carlin spring. In this 

report, it is referred to as Carlin spring.

2 Water Resources and Potential Effecta of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeaatern Nevede
116°00' 115045'

.& KZ-- ?" J.&f-

" l-jAY'.***** 

mf i«.ii jj^ U*^T. 'rfX i^rGGKi \ :* . . i ,* jfrF^J/;.^*" ~'ij ' Basin- - ?-*! - ^ 1 - * ' >" ^ ' - «*-*£ '. .jC .

-v/j ^--"P^ V* .' ^^f^ *j,i' X< ^

Lowe^Maggie Creek area 

Bbundary5jTpwr?in figures 

"" 12,113fi6,>22,"24

40045'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Shaded-relief base from 1:250,000-scale digital elevation 

model: sun illumination from northwest at 30 degrees 

above horizon

i Basin boundary

EXPLANATION

(x)

Stream-gaging station on Susie Creek near Carlin 

Site shown on this figure because it is beyond 

map area of figure 18. which shows all other sites 

where streamflow is measured

10 KILOMETERS

Open-pit gold mine Letter indicates mine 

name. From south to north, mines are: R. 

Rain Mine; Q. Gold Quarry Mine; C, Carlin 

Mine; G, Genesis and Blue Star Mines; P, 

Post-Betze Mine; and D, Dee Mine

Figure 1. Location, features, and basins of study area, northeastern Nevada.

INTRODUCTION
(2) document hydrologic conditions, including 

ground-water levels, water quality, streamflow, and any responses to pumping during 

the 1989-90 water years;

(3) update estimated water budgets for the three 

basins;

(4) develop a conceptual model of the flow system in the lower Maggie Creek area (fig. 2) 

and use it to evaluate probable effects of 

pumping during the anticipated life of Gold 

Quarry mine; and

(5) identify potential areas for artificial recharge 

of ground water.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the geographic and geologic setting of the entire study area, 

and the surface-water and ground-water resources 

thereof. The report presents a conceptual hydrogeologic model of the lower Maggie Creek area, describes 

measured and potential effects of the mining-related 

pumping, and discusses the potential for artificial 

recharge using impounded streamflow of Maggie 

Creek.

The geographic focus of the study was on the 

lower Maggie Creek area (fig. 2) where ground water 

pumping was concentrated. The scope of this part of 

the study was to evaluate existing hydrologic data and 

collect other data where needed.

The study also included a reconnaissance-level 

survey of hydrologic conditions throughout the three 

basins of Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks. The objectives for broadening the study area were twofold. First, 

the headwaters of the three basins are the principal 

source areas for ground-water recharge and streamflow. 

Revised water budgets could not be developed unless 

sources of water to each basin were identified. Second, 

a realistic conceptual model of the ground-water flow 

system in the lower Maggie Creek area could not be 

developed unless hydrologic conditions in adjacent 

areas were well understood.

Study Approach

Approaches used to accomplish the purposes 

listed above were to:

(1) Use geologic and geophysical information to 

define the hydrogeologic framework of the 

lower Maggie Creek area;

(2) use measurements of streamflow and groundwater levels to define flow characteristics and 

interactions of surface water and ground 

water;

(3) use geochemical data to assess sources of 

ground-water recharge and discharge and to 

evaluate possible ground-water flow paths; 

and

(4) develop water budgets for each of the three

basins and for the entire study area. 

Methods of data collection and analysis are 

described below.

Data Collection and Analysis

Several types of data were collected during this 

study. In addition, existing published and unpublished 

data were obtained. Most of the conclusions regarding 

hydrologic conditions in the study area are based on 

analysis of all available data. This section of the report 

describes the methods used to collect and analyze the 

data.

Aquifer Tests

Data for six aquifer tests at four wells were provided by Newmont Gold Co. As a part of the study, 

these data were analyzed to determine aquifer properties transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storage coefficient. A constant pumping rate and a single 

observation well were used for one test. For this test, a 

delayed-yield type curve (Lohman, 1972, p. 36-40) was 

used to analyze the water-level drawdown in the observation well. The other five tests were made using incremental pumping rates and are referred to as stepdrawdown tests. A pair of observation wells was used 

during two of the step-drawdown tests. For these two 

tests, water-level drawdowns in the observation wells 

were analyzed using a method developed by Cooper 

and Jacob (1946). Observation wells were not available for the other three step-drawdown tests. For these 

tests, the water-level recovery in the pumped well, after 

pumping ceased, was interpreted using a method documented by Harrill (1970). In addition, this method was 

used for one of the step-drawdown tests where observation wells were available, as another way of estimating transmissivity.

Watar Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggia Creek area, northeastern Navada
116°20' 116°00'

40°50'

40°40' -

Upper Maggie 

Creek Basin

Lower Maggie i 

Creek Basin

Maiys^Creek f /&

x^i. . . f:^

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1987); modified by R.W. Plume, 1991

EXPLANATION

Basln-fHI deposits Deposits of flood 

plains and alluvial fans and Carlin 

formation of Regnier (1960)

Bedrock Intrusive igneous, volcanic, 

clastic sedimentary, and carbonate rocks

Gold Quarry Mine Extent of 

open pit as of 1993

 - ^ Basin boundary

Figure 2. Features and basins of lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

INTRODUCTION
These methods for interpreting aquifer tests are 

based on several simplifying assumptions (Lohman, 

1972, p. 15): (1) The aquifer is homogeneous and 

isotropic, (2) the ground-water body has infinite areal 

extent compared to the effects of the pumping well,

(3) the screened interval of the pumping well penetrates the entire saturated thickness of the aquifer,

(4) the diameter of the well is infinitesimal, and

(5) water removed from storage is released instantaneously with decline in head. If conditions during the 

test violate one or more of the assumptions, interpretations based on the test could either be invalid or at least 

would need to be qualified. The only assumption 

known to be consistently violated by the tests is that of 

the well fully penetrating the aquifer. Thus, transmissivities determined from test results represent only a 

tested interval of aquifer and not its full thickness. In 

addition, the assumptions that the aquifers are homogeneous and isotropic and that water is released instantaneously from storage may not be entirely valid. Some 

of the test results may have been affected by leaky confining beds, delayed releases from storage, and flow 

through fractured rock.

Water-level trends before pumping, barometric 

effects, and influences of nearby pumping wells usually 

are recorded as part of a properly designed and executed aquifer test. Although information of this type 

was not provided, the potential effects of each can be 

inferred. First, water-level trends before pumping and 

barometric effects during pumping probably would not 

have caused water-level changes of more than a few 

tenths of a foot during the tests. In contrast, water-level 

declines recorded during pumping ranged from 2.5 ft 

to about 325 ft. Any corrections for water-level trends 

before pumping or for barometric effects during pumping probably would not change the interpretations used 

to determine aquifer properties. Second, none of the 

tests are known to have been affected by nearby 

pumping wells.

Geophysical Data '

Gravity and aeromagnetic data collected previously were used to develop a generalized understanding of the relations of the different hydrogeologic units 

at depth. These hydrogeologic units are described in a 

subsequent section of this report. Gravity data can be

used to distinguish rocks or deposits of relatively low 

density, such as basin-fill deposits, from denser units 

such as those that make up bedrock. Aeromagnetic 

data can be used to distinguish rocks having high 

contents of magnetic minerals, from typically less 

magnetic rocks.

Gravity and aeromagnetic data were evaluated for 

this study using two methods. First, the data were qualitatively evaluated by visual examination of maps 

showing the gravity and magnetic fields in the study 

area. Highs and lows in the gravity and magnetic fields 

are referred to as anomalies. They provide information 

on the subsurface distribution of hydrogeologic units.

Second, the gravity and aeromagnetic data were 

used with a computer program (Webring, 1985) to 

develop two cross-sectional models. The models consist of several contiguous bodies, each representing one 

or more hydrogeologic units. The geometry and values 

of density and magnetic susceptibility for each body 

were repeatedly changed during the process of model 

development. After one or more changes were made, 

the program was used to calculate the gravity and magnetic profiles from the overall model. The calculated 

profiles were then compared to the corresponding measured profiles. This process continued until a satisfactory fit of calculated and measured profiles was 

achieved. An exact fit of calculated and measured profiles was never obtained because of the uncertainties 

involved in the process.

Geologic models developed using the methods 

described above can be constrained by knowledge of 

the geologic setting, such as thickness of hydrogeologic units, density and magnetic susceptibility of 

units, and by the measured profiles being used to guide 

the process. However, neither of the models used was 

very well constrained because density and magnetic 

susceptibility have not been measured, and the thickness of basin fill has been defined at only two wells, 

both in the lower Maggie Creek Basin. Surficial geology was used to constrain the models at and near land 

surface. Simultaneous use of gravity and magnetic 

data provided an additional constraint because the two 

provide contrasting information. However, neither of 

the models present unique configurations. Similar fits 

of calculated and measured profiles could be achieved 

by changing model geometries and physical properties. 

In spite of these limitations, both models are considered reasonable conceptualizations of the subsurface 

relations of bedrock and basin-fill deposits.

6 Water Resources end Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek eree, northeestern Nevada
Streamflow

At the beginning of the study, streamflow was 

being recorded at two gaging stations on the Humboldt 

River, near Carlin and at Palisade. Periods of record at 

these two stations are water year 1944 to present and 

water year 1903 to present, respectively. Another 

gaging station, on Maggie Creek near its mouth, was 

operated from water year 1914 to 1924. No other 

streamflow data were available for the study area. 

Consequently, the first priority was to begin making 

miscellaneous streamflow measurements at selected 

sites. Measurements began in August 1988 at eight 

sites along lower Maggie Creek and in November 1988 

at six sites along the Humboldt River. Additional sites 

were subsequently established along the river, on 

Marys Creek below Carlin spring, and on Susie Creek 

near its mouth. Streamflow measurements were made 

intermittently at these sites through October 1991. The 

measurements were made to (1) identify suitable sites 

for installation of recording stream gages, (2) quantify 

baseflow conditions of the streams, and (3) quantify 

gains or losses of streamflow over short reaches of 

Maggie Creek and the Humboldt River.

On the basis of the miscellaneous streamflow 

measurements, sites for three continuously recording 

stream gaging stations were selected in summer 1989. 

The gages were installed and operation began in the fall 

of 1989. Two of the gages were installed along Maggie 

Creek to measure streamflow entering the lower Maggie Creek Basin and to measure changes in streamflow 

in the reach of the stream next to Gold Quarry mine. 

The third gage was installed on Marys Creek to measure its discharge below Carlin spring.

Observation-Well Network

A network of wells for measuring water levels in 

the study area was established early in the fall of 1988. 

This network was expanded as additional wells were 

located and as additional observation wells were 

installed as part of the study. Three observation wells 

were installed by Newmont Gold Co. Two are near the 

drainage divides between Maggie and Susie Creeks 

and between Maggie and Marys Creeks. The third well 

is between lower Maggie Creek and Carlin spring. 

Seven other shallow observation wells were installed 

by the U.S. Geological Survey along Maggie Creek to 

monitor water levels near the stream. At the end of the

study, the network included a total of more than 60 

wells. Water levels at these wells were measured twice 

each year from late 1988 to late 1990.

Water Quality

Defining the chemical character of ground water 

and surface water was important for two reasons. First, 

such data can be used as a basis for evaluating future 

changes in water quality. Second, inferred groundwater flow paths, recharge sources, and ground-water 

ages could be evaluated using these data. Ground 

water at 13 wells and 4 springs was sampled for major 

dissolved constituents, dissolved trace elements, dissolved nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, total and 

dissolved cyanide, tritium, deuterium, and oxygen-18. 

A radon sample was collected at Carlin spring only. At 

all of the sites, temperature, pH, specific conductance, 

alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen were measured in the 

field using appropriate instruments. Alkalinity was 

determined by incremental titration with sulfuric acid 

of known concentration (Wood, 1976, p. 15-18).

Ground water at an additional well and three 

springs, and surface water at six sites, were sampled 

only for chloride, iodide, bromide, deuterium, and 

oxygen-18. At these sites, only temperature and 

specific conductance were measured in the field.

Samples for laboratory analysis were collected as 

follows. Water for major- and trace-constituent analyses was filtered through a 0.45-|lm membrane filter and 

collected in polyethylene bottles. Samples for cation 

and trace-constituent analyses were acidified to a pH of 

less than 3.0 with pure nitric acid (Wood, 1976, p. 7-9). 

Samples for nutrient analyses were collected in opaque 

polyethylene bottles, preserved with mercuric chloride, 

and kept at 4°C until the analyses were made (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1990, p. 3-3). Dissolved organic 

carbon samples were filtered through a stainless-steel 

filter using a 0.45 |lm silver membrane filter and collected in glass bottles that had been baked at 350°C. 

These samples were kept at 4°C from the time of collection to analysis (Wershaw and others, 1987, p. 7-8). 

Dissolved-cyanide samples were filtered through a 

0.45 |lm membrane filter and collected in polyethylene bottles. Total-cyanide samples were unfiltered and 

were also collected in polyethylene bottles. Both totaland dissolved-cyanide samples were preserved with 

sodium hydroxide to a pH of at least 12.0 and kept at 

4°C until the analyses were made (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1990, p. 3-3). Tritium samples were unfiltered

INTRODUCTION
water collected in glass bottles. The radon sample was 

collected in a liquid-scintillation vial containing mineral oil. All of the samples described above were analyzed using standard methods (U.S. Geological Survey, 

1990, p. 5-5 to 5-22) at the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Arvada, Colo.

Deuterium and oxygen-18 samples were unfiltered water collected in glass bottles. Samples were 

analyzed using standard methods (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1990, p. 5-9 and 5-14) at U.S. Geological 

Survey laboratories in Reston, Va., and Menlo Park, 

Calif.

Acknowledgments

The study documented in this report was made in 

cooperation with the Nevada Division of Water 

Resources. The success of the study depended, in large 

part, on the cooperation and assistance of many different agencies, groups, and individuals. Newmont Gold 

Co. provided aquifer-test data, logs for selected wells, 

interpretations of proprietary aeromagnetic data, and 

tritium analyses. In addition, the company installed 

three observation wells and provided equipment for 

excavations needed at the two stream gages installed 

along Maggie Creek. Three Newmont Gold Co. 

employees who were particularly helpful during the 

study are William J. Stone and Laurie Scheer Wilson, 

hydrologists with the company, and Charles J. Zirnmerman, Manager of Hydrology.

City of Carlin employees were always ready and 

willing to assist in the study. Peter J. Aiazi, City Foreman, was particularly helpful. He excavated the site 

for installation of the Marys Creek stream gage and 

provided access to municipal facilities, sometimes on 

short notice.

Wayne Fahsholtz, manager of the Maggie Creek 

Ranch, and Bill Hogan, manager of the TS Ranch, 

granted permission for installation of the two Maggie 

Creek stream gages on lands owned by the respective 

ranches. In addition, both managers provided access to 

wells on ranch lands.

Several other landowners provided access to their 

land for measurement of water levels, streamflow, and 

water quality. These people are Mr. and Mrs. Tom 

Tomera, Rachael Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Grube, and 

Dave Strachen.

The assistance of James M. Thomas, geochemist 

with the U.S. Geological Survey in Carson City, also is 

acknowledged. He provided guidance needed for analysis of the geochemical data.

PHYSICAL SETTING 

Geography

The study area consists of the drainage basins of 

Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks^, all of which are 

tributaries of the Humboldt River (figs. 1 and 2). The 

three-basin area is about 630 mi2 in Elko and Eureka 

Counties and is along the Carlin trend, a structurally 

controlled, northwest-trending alignment of low-grade 

gold deposits (Knutsen and Wilson, 1990). Gold 

Quarry mine, the only active gold mine in the study 

area, is in the Maggie Creek Basin, about 8 mi northwest of the town of Carlin (figs. 1 and 2). The 1990 

population of Carlin was 2,220 (U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, 1992); however, several thousand people, most 

of whom live in Elko, are employed along the Carlin 

trend at Gold Quarry mine and at other mines outside 

the study area (fig. 1).

Maggie Creek Basin is the largest of the three 

basins, covering an area of nearly 400 mi2. It consists 

of an upper basin and a lower basin. Upper Maggie 

Creek Basin trends north-northeast and is bounded on 

the west by the Tuscarora Mountains. The northern 

part of the basin is bounded on the east by the Independence Mountains. The southern part is bounded on the 

east by an upland consisting of unnamed hills southwest of the Independence Mountains and by Schroeder 

Mountain (figs. 1 and 2). This upland is informally 

referred to as the Schroeder Mountain uplift (C.J. 

Zimmerman, Newmont Gold Co., oral commun., 

1994). Altitudes are 5,200-5,700 ft above sea level 

along basin lowlands, 5,950 ft at Schroeder Mountain,

^The three basins of the study area consist of all, or parts of, 

three hydrographic areas defined by Rush (1968). The Maggie 

Creek hydrographic area consists only of the Maggie Creek Basin. 

The Marys Creek hydrographic area consists of the Marys Creek 

Basin and a small area between the southern basin boundary and 

the Humboldt River. The Susie Creek hydrographic area consists 

of the Susie Creek Basin and a small watershed to the east called 

the Dry Susie Creek Basin.

8 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
and 8,786 ft at Beaver Peak in the Tuscarora Mountains. Maggie Creek flows south-southwest for about 

25 mi and then turns to the southeast in a canyon that 

cuts between Schroeder Mountain and the unnamed 

hills. This canyon is informally referred to in this 

report as the Maggie Creek canyon.

The boundary between upper and lower Maggie 

Creek Basins is the topographic divide formed by the 

Schroeder Mountain uplift (fig. 2). Maggie Creek 

flows to the southeast through the canyon and across 

semiconsolidated sediments for about 10 mi to the 

Humboldt River. Lower Maggie Creek Basin is separated from Susie Creek Basin to the east and northeast 

and from Marys Creek Basin to the south by low, 

poorly defined topographic divides.

Susie Creek Basin covers an area of about 180 

mi2. This basin is oriented north-south and is about 25 

mi long and 3-10 mi wide. The basin is bounded on the 

east by the Adobe Range and on the west by the Independence Mountains, the unnamed hills, and the topographic divide with the lower Maggie Creek Basin. 

Altitudes range from 4,900 to 5,900 ft along the flood 

plain of the stream to more than 7,000 ft in the Adobe 

Range and more than 8,000 ft in the Independence 

Mountains.

The Marys Creek Basin covers about 46 mi2 and 

is bounded to the west by Marys Mountain. The basin 

is oriented east-west and is about 10 mi long and 7-8 mi 

wide. Altitudes range from 4,900 ft where Marys 

Creek enters the flood plain of the Humboldt River to 

7,699 ft at Marys Mountain. Carlin spring, the principal water supply for the town of Carlin, is in the lower 

part of the basin (fig. 2).

Reference to the "lower Maggie Creek area" is 

made throughout much of this report. For the purpose 

of this study, this area is defined as consisting of the 

basins of lower Maggie Creek, southern parts of Susie 

Creek and upper Maggie Creek, and the entire basin of 

Marys Creek (fig. 2). The entire three-basin area 

(fig. 1) is referred to as the study area.

Climate

An understanding of the water resources of the 

study area begins with an analysis of climate because 

the source of all water in the area streamflow and 

ground water is precipitation, which falls as rain or 

snow. The study area spans two climate zones in northern Nevada: mid-latitude steppe and subhumid continental (Houghton and others, 1975, p. 3). The midlatitude steppe zone has a semiarid climate. Summers 

in this zone are warm to hot and winters are cold; 

annual precipitation, as rain and snow, is 6-7 in. 

(Houghton and others, p. 69). The subhumid continental zone has cool to mild summers and cold winters. 

Annual precipitation in this zone, mostly as snow, is as 

much as 25 in. (Houghton and others, p. 71). The 

boundary between the two zones in northern Nevada 

(Houghton and others, p. 3) is at an altitude of about 

6,000 ft.

The seasonal distribution of precipitation in 

northern Nevada depends largely on the westerly 

winds. These winds come out of the west and northwest during the winter and bring moisture as lowpressure air masses, which are the principal source of 

precipitation. These types of storms bring rain and 

snow to lowland areas and snow to the higher areas. 

The annual, high-altitude snowpack is the principal 

source of runoff and ground-water recharge in the 

study area. In addition, the low-altitude snowpack, 

which varies from year to year, is important because 

it can affect baseflow of streams.

During the summer, the westerly winds can 

bring warm, moist air from the Gulfs of Mexico and 

California and the tropical Pacific Ocean (Houghton 

and others, 1975, p. 10). Summer storms can be sudden 

and intense and produce large amounts of precipitation, 

mostly as rain; however, precipitation from summer 

storms does not constitute a large part of the annual 

total because such storms typically affect only small 

areas.

Several approaches have been used to define the 

distribution of precipitation in Nevada as a means of 

estimating potential ground-water recharge for a basin. 

An early approach was to subdivide the basin into precipitation zones based on the State precipitation map 

and to estimate potential recharge as a percentage of 

total precipitation in each zone (Maxey and Jameson, 

1948, p. 40, and Eakin and others, 1951, p. 26-27). 

More recently, attempts have been made in southern 

and central Nevada to statistically define relations 

between precipitation and altitude on the basis of data 

from widely scattered weather stations (Quiring, 1965). 

However, these approaches are area specific because of 

the effect of latitude on winter storm tracks (see 

Houghton and others, 1975, p. 8-19, for a discussion of 

storm tracks).

PHYSICAL SETTING 9
Precipitation data for 14 stations were analyzed as 

a part of the present study to develop a relation between 

precipitation and altitude for northeastern Nevada. The 

data for each station are summarized in table 1 and 

station locations are shown in figure 3. Figure 4A is a 

graph on which mean annual precipitation is plotted 

against station altitude. The 14 data points are scattered closely about a straight line, which is the linear 

regression between the variables mean annual precipitation (P) and station altitude (A). The equation for this 

line,

117°00' 

41'SO1

116°30r 116°00' 115°30'

P = 0.00356A - 8.56 , (1)

was developed using the principle of least squares 

(Iman and Conover, 1983, p. 360-361). The regression 

statistic, R-squared (R2), is a measure of how well the 

equation explains the data. A perfect fit of the line to 

the data gives an R2 of 1; R2 for the line in figure 4A is 

0.93 (see Iman and Conover, 1983, p. 362-363, for a 

discussion of R2).

41°00'

40°3ff

0 10 20 30 MILES

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

 Study-area boundary

^>9 Weather station Station number 

in table 1 is indicated

Figure 3. Locations of 14 weather stations in northeastern Nevada.

Table 1 . Altitude, mean annual precipitation, and period of record for 14 

weather stations in northeastern Nevada

Site 

number 

(figure 3)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Station

Battle Mountain

Beowawe

Emigrant Pass

Elko

Adobe Summit

Carlin Mine

Willow Creek

Taylor Canyon

Midas

Toe Jam

Tuscarora

California Creek

Pratt Creek

Beaver Creek

Altitude 

(feet above 

sea ievei)

4,539

4,695

5,755

5,075

6,560

6,520

6,040

6,200

7,200

7,700

6,170

6,358

6,960

6,390

Mean 

annual 

precipitetion 

(inches)

'8.03

'8.70

'12.26

J9.50

213.78

H3.73

213.59

3 13.00

418.73

419.02

'12.62

213.01

2 17.21

2 13.86

Period of 

record 

(water yeara)

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1961-85

1980-91

1983-91

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1967-90

1 Value computed from monthly totals, water years 1967-90. Data source: National 

Climatic Center (1966-90).

2 Data source: Wayne Testolin (Nevada Division of Water Resources, Elko, Nev., 

written common., 1991).

3 Data source: Kaiser (1991, p. 20).

4 Data source: Roy Kaiser (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, oral commun., 1991).

10 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
The reliability of the equation also can be evaluated by computing predicted values of mean annual precipitation using the values of station altitude. Residual 

values, which are the difference between measured and 

predicted precipitation, may then be plotted against values of predicted precipitation. The relation of residual 

values to predicted values is shown in figure 4B. This 

graph can be used to test for violations of several 

assumptions, all of which must be satisfied for a valid 

linear regression (see Iman and Conover, 1983, p. 366- 

372, for a discussion of these assumptions). All residual

25

20

O CO 

LU LU 

DC I 

Q- O 15

10

P = (0.00356 x A) - 8.58, where P Is 

predicted mean annual precipitation, 

and A is station altitude

4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL

8 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

PREDICTED MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION,

IN INCHES

Figure 4. (A) Relation of mean annual precipitation to station 

altitude for 14 weather stations in northeastern Nevada (locations shown in figure 3). (B) Relation of difference between 

predicted and measured precipitation (residual values) to predicted mean annual precipitation.

values, except for one, are scattered approximately 

equal distances above and below zero in figure 4B. In 

addition, the graph shows no trends that suggest that 

any of the assumptions have been violated.

The relation described above is useful for estimating mean annual precipitation in altitude zones ranging 

from 4,000 to 8,000 ft in northeastern Nevada. For altitude zones above 8,000 ft, the relation will produce 

estimates of annual precipitation that are increasingly 

uncertain. The reason for this uncertainty is that the 

relation is not supported by high-altitude precipitation 

data (8,000 ft and above) because such data are not 

available. Water budgets based in part on the relation 

(see sections titled "Ground Water" and "Water Budgets") are not believed to be greatly affected by the 

uncertainty because most of the study area is at altitudes below 8,000 ft.

Hydrogeologic Units

Rocks and deposits in the lower Maggie Creek 

area range in age from Cambrian to Quaternary. They 

are grouped into seven hydrogeologic units on the basis 

of hydrologic and lithologic similarities (fig. 5 and 

table 2). The seven units are:

(1) Carbonate rocks of Cambrian to Devonian 

age;

(2) clastic sedimentary rocks of Ordovician, 

Silurian, and Devonian age;

(3) volcanic rocks of Jurassic and Tertiary age;

(4) intrusive igneous rocks of Tertiary age;

(5) Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) of 

Miocene age;

(6) alluvial-fan deposits of Quaternary age; and

(7) stream flood-plain deposits of Quaternary age.

The first four units are collectively referred to as 

bedrock and the last three as basin-fill deposits. Bedrock forms mountain ranges and structural basins in 

which basin-fill deposits have accumulated. The properties and distribution of each unit are described below 

and summarized in table 2.

PHYSICAL SETTING 11
116°20' 116°00'

40°50'

40"40' -

Base from U.S Geological Survey digital data. 1:100.000,1983 

Universal Transverse Msrcator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and othsrs (1967) and 

Coats (1967); modified by R.W. PLume, 1991

Figure 5. Hydrogeology of lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

12 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
EXPLANATION

BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS

Flood-plain deposits (Quaternary) Well to poorly sorted deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders along 

stream flood plains. Thicknesses may range from less than 10 feet along smaller streams and a few tens of 

feet along Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks to 100 feet or more along Humboldt River

Alluvial-fan deposite (Quaternary) Unsorted or poorly sorted deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders 

along east margin of Tuscarora Mountains. Similar deposits probably underlie area east of Marys Mountain, 

but have not been mapped there

Carlln formation of Regnler (1960; Miocene) Interbedded sediments and volcanic rocks deposited In lakes and 

streams. Includes tuffaceous slitstone, sandstone, and conglomerate, vitrlc tuff, thin dlatomite beds, and basaltic tuff

BEDROCK

Intrusive Igneoue rocks (Tertiary) Quartz porphyry In Independence Mountains and dlorlte on Marys Mountain

Volcanic rocks (Tertiary) Solid red pattern shows mapped extent. Stippled gray pattern shows extent at land surface and 

in subsurface based on Interpretation of proprietary aeromagnetlc data (T.V. Wels, Newmont Exploration Limited, 

written commun. 1990). Includes Palisade Canyon Rhyolite along Humboldt River west of Carlln, basaltic andesite 

flows interbedded with Carlin formation of Regnler (1960) In lower Maggie Creek area, latite flows along crest of 

Marys Mountain and In Independence Mountains, and Frenchie Creek Rhyolite on south side of Marys Mountain

Claetlc sedimentary rocks (Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovlclan) Mudstone, shale, chert, sltstone, gray quartzite. 

pillow lava, and minor limestone. Includes Woodruff Formation, Slaven Chert, and Vinlnl Formation

Carbonate rocks (Devonian to Cambrian) Limestone, dolomite, quartzite, and shale. Exposed parts of unit Include 

Rodeo Creek unit of Ettner(1989), Popovich Formation, Roberts Mountain Formation, Hanson Creek Formation, Eureka 

Quartzite, Pogonip Group, and Hamburg Dolomite. Probably also includes unexposed underlying units of limestone, 

dolomite, and shale

OTHER SYMBOLS

Gold quarry mine Extent of open prt as of 1993

_ - -... High-angle fault Dashed where approximately located; dotted where inferred

> > A. J>- Thrust fault Sawteeth on upper plate. Dashed where approximately located

IV A' Location of hydrogeologic section Section shown in figures 14,15, and 28

 - - Baeln boundary

> ^5 Well penetrating volcanic rocks Well number in table 13 is Indicated above line; top of volcanic rocks, In feet above sea level, 

is indicated below line

O Production well for aquifer teet Well number In tables 3 and 13 Is indicated

42 Observation well for aquifer test Well number in tables 3 and 13 Is indicated

Figures. Continued.

PHYSICAL SETTING 13
Table 2. Summary of hydrogeologic units and their properties in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[Abbreviations: ft, feet; gal/min, gallons per minute. Data sources: Regnier, 1960; Roberts and others, 1967; Coats, 1987; and Ettner, 1989]

Period ydrogeoiogic Rock-stretigrsphic 

unit Thickness

Lithoiogy end 

water-bearing 

properties

Basin-fill deposits

Quaternary

I

Flood-plain 

deposits

Alluvial-fan 

deposits

Carlin 

formation 

of Regnier 

(1960)

Flood-plain 

deposits

Alluvial-fan 

deposits

Carlin 

formation 

of Regnier 

(1960)

Few tens of feet along 

small streams to perhaps hundreds of feet 

along Humboldt River.

Zero at basin margins to 

hundreds of feet.

8,000 ft in upper Maggie 

Creek, 2,000-4,000 ft in 

lower Maggie Creek, 

and less than 1,000 ft 

beneath Humboldt 

River flood plain.

Sorted to poorly sorted clay, silt, sand, 

gravel, and boulders. Contain shallow 

water-table aquifers.

Unsorted to poorly sorted clay, silt, sand, 

gravel, and boulders. Upper parts of 

unit in unsaturated zone. Where saturated, permeability may range through 

several orders of magnitude because 

unit is so heterogeneous.

Interbedded sediments and volcanic rocks 

deposited in lakes and streams. 

Includes siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, ash, tuff, and lavas. Unit yields 

water to wells at rates of less than 100 

gal/min to more than 1,000 gal/min.

Bedrock

!

Tertiary and Jurassic

Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician

1

a

o

Intrusive 

igneous 

rocks

Volcanic 

rocks

Clastic 

sedimentary 

rocks

Carbonate 

rocks

Quartz porphyry in 

Independence Mountains and diorite at 

Marys Mountain

Palisade Canyon Rhyolite southwest of 

Carlin, basaltic andesite interbedded with 

Carlin formation 

along lower Maggie 

Creek, latite at Marys 

Mountain and Independence Mountains, 

and Frenchie Creek 

Rhyolite at Marys 

Mountain.

Includes Woodruff 

Formation, Slaven 

Chert, and Vinini 

Formation

Rodeo Creek unit of 

Ettner (1989), 

Popovich, Roberts 

Mountains, and 

Hanson Creek Formations, Eureka Quartzite, Pogonip Group, 

and Hamburg 

Dolomite

200-500 ft

1,600 ft

Exposed parts of unit 

2,600-3,200 ft thick. 

Total thickness including unexposed parts 

may be as much as 

7,000 ft.

Unit believed to be poorly permeable. 

May be capable of yielding small quantities of water to wells near fault zones.

Mostly flows with lesser amounts of tuff. 

Discharge of Carlin spring closely associated with volcanic rocks. Irrigation 

wells finished partly in volcanic rocks 

near lower Maggie Creek yield as much 

as 2,000 gal/min.

Chert, mudstone, shale, and calcareous 

siltstone. Water-bearing properties 

unknown.

Unit structurally overlain by clastic sedimentary rocks along Roberts Mountains 

thrust. Consists of limestone, dolomite, 

quartzite, sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. Unit can be very permeable 

where fractured along fault zones; also 

can be poorly permeable where less 

fractured. Yields from wells completed 

along or near fault zones as much as 

3,000-4,000 gal/min.

14 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Meggie Creek eree, northeestern Nevede
Bedrock

Carbonate Rocks and Clastic Sedimentary Rocks

Carbonate rocks and clastic sedimentary rocks, 

both of Paleozoic age, are the oldest hydrogeologic 

units in the study area. The two units are described 

together because of their association during deposition 

several hundred million years ago and because of their 

present structural relations.

The continental margin of western North America 

was hi what is now the eastern Great Basin from late 

Precambrian time through early Mesozoic time 

(Stewart, 1980, p. 14-60). During part of this period, 

marine sedimentary rocks were deposited along a shallow continental shelf and in a deeper ocean basin on the 

adjacent continental slope and rise. Carbonate rocks 

accumulated on the continental shelf and clastic sedimentary rocks hi the deeper basin. During Devonian 

and Early Mississippian time, the clastic sedimentary 

rocks were emplaced over the carbonate rocks along a 

thrust fault referred to as the Roberts Mountains thrust 

fault.

The carbonate rocks are exposed hi relatively 

small areas called windows where structural uplift and 

subsequent erosion have removed the overlying clastic 

sedimentary rocks. Such exposures are in the Tuscarora Mountains, Independence Mountains, Schroeder 

Mountain, and at small areas at Marys Mountain and hi 

the unnamed hills (fig. 5). Carbonate rocks are 

believed to underlie the entire area at differing depths.

The unit of carbonate rocks consists mostly of 

limestone and dolomite but includes minor amounts of 

sandstone and shale. Exposed parts of the unit range hi 

age from Cambrian to Devonian and include the Hamburg Dolomite, Pogonip Group, Eureka Quartzite, 

Hanson Creek Formation, Roberts Mountains Formation, and Popovich Formation (Roberts and others, 

1967, pi. 3) and the Rodeo Creek unit of Ettner (1989, 

p. 60-70). The combined stratigraphic thickness of 

these rock units is 2,600-3,200 ft (Stratigraphic Committee of the Eastern Nevada Geological Society, 1973; 

Ettner, 1989, p. 66). An additional 4,000 ft of mostly 

limestone and dolomite underlies the Hamburg Dolomite in the northern Independence Mountains 40-60 mi 

north of the study area and in the Roberts Mountains 

about 60 mi to the south (Stratigraphic Committee of 

the Eastern Nevada Geological Society, 1973). Thus,

the total stratigraphic thickness of the carbonate rocks 

hi the study area, including unexposed parts, could be 

as much as 7,000 ft.

Analysis of an aquifer test made at a well penetrating carbonate rocks along a fault zone on the east 

side of Schroeder Mountain produced an estimated 

transmissivity of 300,000 ft/d and hydraulic conductivity of 400 ft/d (well 52, figs. 5 and 6 and table 3). 

The geologic setting suggests that the rocks yielding 

water to the well are highly fractured. Consequently, 

the assumption that the aquifer is homogeneous and 

isotropic may not be valid (see section in Introduction 

titled "Data Collection and Analysis"). Areas of high 

transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity in carbonate 

rocks at Schroeder Mountain and other parts of the 

lower Maggie Creek area are believed to be mostly 

along fault zones. Less fractured carbonate rocks in 

areas between fault zones are less permeable.

Clastic sedimentary rocks are of Ordovician, 

Silurian, and Devonian age (fig. 5 and table 2). These 

rocks consist of shale, siliceous shale, and chert of the 

Vuiuii Formation hi the Tuscarora Mountains (Roberts 

and others, 1967, pi. 3); claystone, shale, mudstone, 

siltstone, sandy limestone, and chert at Marys Mountain (Smith and Ketner, 1975, p. 12,17-18, and 27); and 

chert, shale, and limestone at Schroeder Mountain and 

the unnamed hills (Evans and Cress, 1972). In early 

studies (Roberts and others, 1967, pi. 1), the Roberts 

Mountains thrust fault was mapped as structurally separating the Roberts Mountains Formation (carbonate 

rocks) from the overlying Vinini Formation (clastic 

sedimentary rocks). The position of the thrust fault is 

now thought to be the top of the Rodeo Creek unit of 

Ettner (1989, p. 66).

Clastic sedimentary rocks underlie much of the 

study area (fig. 5). Rocks of this hydrogeologic unit 

were penetrated at a depth of about 820 ft in a geothermal well drilled at Carlin High School (William E. 

Nork, Inc., 1985, p. 8). Similar rocks were penetrated 

hi an observation well at Gold Quarry mine (well 13, 

fig. 5 and table 13) at a depth of about 835 ft. According to the driller's log, the geothermal well penetrates 

chert, thin-bedded shale and siltstone, and limestone of 

the Vinini Formation at depths of 820-924 ft. The well 

is perforated hi its lower 74 ft. Results of an aquifer test 

at this well produced an estimated transmissivity of 

about 90 fr/d and hydraulic conductivity of about 

1 ft/d (William E. Nork, Inc., 1985, p. 12).

Hydrogeologic Units 15
g5

-5

VALUE OF RESIDUAL-DRAWDOWN TERM (UNITLESS; PLOTTING SYMBOL")

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

LLJ 

LL

DC

w 10

I

o

15

LLJ 

CD

20

LLJ 

Q

25

30

Recovery

Drawdown

PUMPING RATES

Time

(minutes)

0-60

61 -120

121 -180

181 -2,326

Average

Gallons 

per minute 

1,400 

2,600 

3,500 

4,100

4,000

35.3x4,100 

0.5

= 300,000 feet squared 

per day

10 100 1,000 10,000 

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES (PLOTTING SYMBOL-)

EXPLANATION

Points on drawdown curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level at time, /, after pumping started 

(lower X axis). First two limbs of curve show rising water levels, probably because pumping rates at beginning of first 

and second pumping periods exceed average rate for each period.

Points on recovery curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level and residual-drawdown term (upper 

X axis).

Residual-drawdown term

where /,, t2, t,, and t, = elapsed times at end of first, second, third, and fourth pumping periods, in minutes; Q4 = pumping 

rate at end of fourth pumping period, in gallons per minute; AQ,, AQ2 , AQ3, and AQ4 = changes In pumping rate, In gallons 

per minute, for each period; and /' = time since pumping stopped, in minutes.

For computation of transmissivity (T), Q= Q4 and As1 is change in depth below static water level, in feet, during water-level 

recovery over one logarithmic cycle of X axis. Analytical method used from Marrlll (1970, p. 212-213). Data source: 

Newmont Gold Company, Cariln, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 6. Analysis of water-level recovery at production well 52 in lower Maggie Creek area, 

northeastern Nevada, after step-drawdown aquifer test (see figure 5 for well location and table 13 

for well data).

16 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Neveda
Table 3. Summary of aquifer-test results in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[Abbreviations: S, step-drawdown test with no observation well; O, step-drawdown test with observation well; C, constant-discharge test with observation 

well; --, not available or not applicable]

Pumped 

weli 1

52

(figure 6)

13a

Date of 

test

6/1-3/88

3/5-7/84

Type 

of 

test

S

C

Hydrogeologlc 

unit 

yielding 

water

Carbonate rocks

Basin-fill deposits

Perforated 

intervei 

(feet)

803

410

Observation 

well1

..

13

Trensmissivity 

(feet squared 

per day)

300,000

870

Hydraulic 

conductivity 

(feet per 

day)

400

2.1

Storage 

coefficient

0.0011

(figure 7)

13a 4/30/84 S Basin-fill deposits 

(figure 8)

13a 5/1-4/84 O Basin-fill deposits 

(figure 9) O

41 6/22-23/88 S Basin-fill deposits 

(figure 10) O 

O

43 6/24-25/88 S Basin-fill deposits 

(figure 11)

410

410

575

13

14

42 

42a

780

1,100

3,000

2,700

2,500

3,600

1,500

1.9

2.7 

7.3

4.7 

4.3 

6.3

.0019

.0019

(2)

.0019

1 Figure 5; table 13.

2 Value computed from test results (0.000094) is physically unrealistic.

Volcanic Rocks

Volcanic rocks in the lower Maggie Creek area 

span two separate periods of geologic time (table 2). 

The Frenchie Creek Rhyolite of Jurassic age is exposed 

on the south flank of Marys Mountain above the Humboldt River. These rocks consist of rhyolite flows, ashflow tuffs, and volcanic wackes (Roberts and others, 

1967, p. 45). Younger volcanic rocks are of late 

Eocene or early Oligocene to late Miocene age. These 

rocks include flows and tuffs of latite and andesite in 

the Independence Mountains (Coats, 1987, pi. 1) and 

flows of the Palisade Canyon Rhyolite interbedded 

with basin-fill deposits at Marys Mountain and in 

southern parts of the Marys Creek Basin (Regnier, 

1960, p. 1198; Smith and Ketner, 1976, p. 39).

Flows of basaltic andesite are exposed as low 

bluffs over a small area east of Maggie Creek about 

5 mi north of Carlin (fig. 5). These rocks are much 

more extensive in the subsurface and consist of two 

separate bodies, which slope gently southward beneath 

lower Maggie Creek and Marys Creek Basins

(T.V. Weis, Newmont Exploration, Limited, written 

commun., 1990). The southern extent of these volcanic 

rocks underlies the orifice of Carlin spring.

Intrusive Igneous Rocks

Intrusive igneous rocks of late Eocene or early 

Oligocene age are exposed in the Independence Mountains and at the south end of the Tuscarora Mountains. 

Those in the Independence Mountains consist of quartz 

porphyry (Coats, 1987, pi. 1) and in the Tuscarora 

Mountains consist of diorite and granodiorite (Roberts 

and others, 1967, p. 54). In both mountain ranges, 

these rocks have intruded carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks (fig. 5). Intrusive rocks can be sufficiently fractured to yield small quantities of water to 

wells; however, these types of rocks generally impede 

the movement of ground water. No wells in the study 

area are known to have been finished in intrusive rocks. 

Thus, the capacity of these rocks to yield water to wells 

has not been quantified in the study area.

Hydrogeologlc Units 17
Basin-Fill Deposits

Basin-fill deposits occupy structural basins as 

deep as 7,000-8,000 ft in parts of the lower Maggie 

Creek area (see section titled "Subsurface Relations of 

Units"). These deposits contain some of the principal 

aquifers in the area and are the main source of ground 

water except for a few high-yield wells completed in 

carbonate rocks.

Carlln Formation of Ragnler (1960)

Deposits of Miocene and Pliocene age along the 

Humboldt River in northeastern Nevada were named 

the Humboldt Formation (King, 1878, p. 434-443; 

Sharp, 1939). Similar deposits in the Carlin area and 

Pine Valley, south of the lower Maggie Creek area, 

later were named the Carlin formation (Regnier, 1960, 

p. 1198-1199). In an attempt to clarify discrepancies 

between the different names, Smith and Kettner 

(1976, p. 32-39) described the Humboldt Formation 

(restricted) on the basis of a reference section along 

Huntington Creek about 20 mi southeast of Carlin. 

They also mapped and described the Humboldt Formation (restricted) in the south part of the area shown 

in figure 5. Their Humboldt Formation (restricted) 

includes the Carlin formation of Regnier (1960). In 

spite of this attempt to clarify the nomenclature for the 

Miocene stratigraphy of the area, usage of the name 

Carlin formation has continued. Thus, the name is also 

used in this report.

The Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) was 

named for tuffaceous sediments exposed about 5 mi 

west of Carlin and 2 mi east of Carlin along Susie 

Creek (Regnier, 1960, p. 1198-1199). The section west 

of Carlin is 625 ft thick. The lower 214 ft consists of 

lake deposits of volcanic ash and tuff interbedded with 

diatomite and limestone. This part of the section is 

overlain by 400 ft of siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate (Regnier, 1960, p. 1200). The section along Susie 

Creek consists of 176 ft of lake deposits overlain by 

325 ft of sandstone and conglomerate for a measured 

thickness of 501 ft (Regnier, 1960, p. 1200-1201). 

Neither section was believed to be complete.

Logs for two wells drilled in the lower Maggie 

Creek area include detailed descriptions of the Carlin 

formation of Regnier (1960). The geothermal well at 

Carlin High School (see section titled "Carbonate rocks 

and Clastic Sedimentary Rocks") penetrated about 680 

ft of tuffaceous sandstone, siltstone, tuff, ash, clay, and 

limestone of the Carlin formation (William E. Nork, 

Inc., 1985, p. 8). According to the driller's log, the 

Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) rests on chert, 

shale, and siltstone of the Vuiini Formation at a depth 

of 820 ft and is overlain by about 140 ft of clay, sandy 

clay, and gravel. An observation well near Gold 

Quarry mine (well 13, fig. 5 and table 13) penetrated 

about 840 ft of claystone, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate of the Carlin formation of Regnier (1960). 

At this well, the Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) 

overlies argillite and quartzite (clastic sedimentary 

rocks) and is overlain by about 10 ft of silty sand and 

gravel.

Estimates of the hydraulic properties of the Carlin 

formation are based on five aquifer tests made at three 

wells (figs. 7-11 and table 3). Estimated transmissivity 

ranges from 780 to 3,600 ft2/d; mean and median 

values are both 2,000 ft2/d. Hydraulic conductivity 

ranges from 2 to 7 ft/d; mean and median values are 4 

ft/d. Estimated storage coefficient ranges from 0.0011 

to 0.0019; mean and median values are 0.0017 and 

0.0019, respectively.

Analysis of water-level drawdowns during two 

aquifer tests (figs. 7 and 9 and table 3) indicates that the 

basin-fill aquifer near production well 13a is unconfined. For a constant-discharge test, the drawdown 

curve at observation well 13 (fig. 7) matches a delayedyield type curve (Lohman, 1972, p. 36-40 and pi. 8) 

where drawdowns late in the test are less than those that 

would be predicted for a confined aquifer. For a subsequent step-drawdown test, the drawdown curves for 

observation wells 13 and 14 (fig. 9) deviate late in the 

test, from the middle, linear part of the curve. Storage 

coefficients (0.0011, 0.0019, and 0.0019, table 3) indicate that compression of the aquifer and expansion of 

ground water were the sources for pumped water during most of each test. However, the source of pumped 

water late in each test also was drainage from aquifer 

pore space, which resulted in a decrease in the rate of 

drawdown. Test results probably would have produced 

storage values more representative of specific yield had 

the tests continued for several more days.

18 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
1,000

tD

LU 

LU

cc

LU

I

g

I

LJJ

m

LJJ 

Q

100

10

0.1

,. Q 230,000 cubic feet per day T= - = - - - - = 870 feet squared per day 

4ns 4n x 21 feet

47"f 4 x 870 feet squared per day x 0.0016 day 

= = =

Delayed-yield type curve 

from Lohman (1972, pi. 8)

4it7s

= 1

Q

s = 21 feet 

t = 2.3 minutes = 0.0016 day

Q = 1,200 gallons per minute = 230,000 cubic feet per day 

/ =70feet

10 100 1,000 

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

10,000

EXPLANATION

Water-level drawdown curve matches a delayed-yield type curve where r/B = 0.1 (Lohman, 1972, pi. 8). At match point, 

values for 4 7"f/r2 Se and 4n Ts/Q were determined from the type curve (Lohman, 1972, pi. 8), and values for s and t were 

determined from the graph shown. Variable names: 7, transmisslvlty, in feet squared per day; Se, storage coefficient early 

in pumping; Q, discharge rate of pumping well, in cubic feet per day; s, depth below static water level, In feet, at observation 

well; t, time, In days, since pumping started; and r, distance, In feet, from observation well to pumped well. Analytical method 

used was for delayed yield from storage in unconfined aquifer during early part of pumping (Lohman, 1972, p. 36-40). Data 

source: Newmont Gold Company, Cariin, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 7. Analysis of water-level drawdown recorded at observation well 13, in lower Maggie Creek 

area, northeastern Nevada, during constant-discharge aquifer test at production well 13a (see figure 5 

for well locations and table 13 for well data).

Hydrogeologic Units 19
Ill

111

cc

HI

o

I

CO1111 

co

|

Q

VALUE OF RESIDUAL-DRAWDOWN TERM (UNITLESS; PLOTTING SYMBOL")

. 1 10 100 1,000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

180

200

220

Drawdown

T= 35.3 X Q 35.3X990

As1

= 780 feet squared 

per day

45

PUMPING RATES

Time 

(minutes)

0-130 

131 -211 

212 - 283 

284 - 420 

421 - 580

Gallons 

per minute 

230 

480 

500 

750 

990

10 100 1,000

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES (PLOTTING SYMBOL-)

EXPLANATION

Points on drawdown curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level at time, f, after pumping started 

(lower X axis).

Points on recovery curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level and residual-drawdown term (upper 

Xaxls).

Residual-drawdown term =

where f,, f2, f3, f4, and % = elapsed times at end of first, second, third, fourth, and fifth pumping periods, in minutes; O5 = 

pumping rate at end of fifth pumping period, In gallons per minute; AO,, AO2, AO3, AO4,and AO5 = changes in pumping 

rate, in gallons per minute, for each period; and t' = time since pumping stopped, in minutes.

For computation of transmissivity (T),Q=QS and As1 is change in depth below static water level, in feet, during water-level 

recovery over one logarithmic cycle of X axis. Analytical method used from Harrill (1970, p. 212-213). Data source: 

Newmont Gold Company, Cariin, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 8. Analysis of water-level recovery at production well 13a, in lower Maggie Creek area, 

northeastern Nevada, after step-drawdown aquifer test (see figure 5 for well location and table 13 for 

well data).

20 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevade
o 

o

LU 

CO 

IT 

LU 

Q.

2 10

o

CO

O

IT 15 

LU

LU

LL 20

Q

I

CC

o

LL 

O

LU 

85

30

40

T= 2.303

0.0346 foot squared 

per second

0.0128 foot squared 

per second

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHTED LOGARITHMIC MEAN OF ft/t, IN FEET SQUARED PER SECOND

1,000

EXPLANATION

Values for specific drawdown (Y axis) and weighted logarithmic mean of r2/f (X axis) were computed as follows: Specific 

drawdown is ratio of water-level drawdown, s, to sum of all increments of pumping, Q, up to time water level was measured. 

Weighted logarithmic mean of r 2/t first involves calculation of ratio of square of r, distance of observation well to pumping 

well, In feet, to f, time, In seconds, when water level was measured. Products of each pumping increment, in cubic feet per 

second, and logarithm of each corresponding ratio are then summed. Sum is then divided by sum of all prior pumping 

increments to obtain value for weighted logarithmic mean of r 2/t.

For computation of transmissivity (T) and storage coefficient (S), A(s/Q) = change in specific drawdown, in feet per cubic 

foot per second, over one logarithmic cycle of X axis and (r*/t)0 = weighted logarithmic mean on straight-line part of graph, 

in feet squared per second, when s/Q= 0. Analytical method used from Cooper and Jacob (1946). Data source: Newmont 

Gold Company, Carlin, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 9. Analysis of water-level drawdown at observation wells 13 and 14, in lower Maggie Creek area, 

northeastern Nevada, during step-drawdown aquifer test at production well 13a (see figure 5 for well locations and table 13 for well data).

Hydrogeologic Units 21
Hi

LU

rr LU

o

I

LU

m 

I

LU 

Q

VALUE OF RESIDUAL-DRAWDOWN TERM (UNITLESS; PLOTTING SYMBOL" )

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

10

20

25

30

35.3 xQ 35.3x350 

4.5

2,700 feet squared 

per day

'^"""""^^ta

Recovery

Drawdown

PUMPING RATES

Time

(minutes)

0-60

61 -120

121 -1,432

Gallons

per minute

200

300

350

10 100 1,000 

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES (PLOTTING SYMBOL')

10,000

EXPLANATION

Points on drawdown curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level at time, t, after pumping started (lower 

X axis).

Points on recovery curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level and residual-drawdown term (upper 

X axis).

Residual-drawdown term = t'

where fv f2 , and t, = elapsed times at end of first, second, and third pumping periods, In minutes; Q3 = pumping rate at end 

of third pumping period, In gallons per minute; AQ,, AQ2 , and AQ3 =changes in pumping rate, In gallons per minute, for each 

period; and t' = time since pumping stopped, in minutes.

For computation of transmlsslvity (T), Q=Q3 and As1 is change in depth below static water level, in feet, during water-level 

recovery over one logarithmic cycle of X axis. Analytical method used from Harrill (1970, p. 212-213). Data source: 

Newmont Gold Company, Carlin, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 10. Analysis of step-drawdown aquifer test at production well 41 and observation wells 42 and 42a, 

in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada. A, Water-level recovery at well 41; B, Water-level drawdown at observation wells 42 and 42a (see figure 5 for well locations and table 13 for well data).

22 Water Resources and Potentiel Effects of Development In Meggle Creek erea, northeastern Nevada
8

LU 

CO

cc

LU 

0-

fc

S

g 

co

o

cc

LU 

0-

LLI 

14.

I

O

I

Q 

O 

LL

o

UJ 

Q. 

CO

10

15

B

20

0.01

7=

0.0291 foot squared 

per second

= 0.0417 foot squared 

per second

0.1 1 10 100 

WEIGHTED LOGARITHMIC MEAN OF rW, IN FEET SQUARED PER SECOND

EXPLANATION

Values for specific drawdown (Y axis) and weighted logarithmic mean of r 2/t (X axis) were computed as follows: Specific 

drawdown is ratio of water-level drawdown, s, to sum of all increments of pumping, Q, up to time water level was measured. 

Weighted logarithmic mean of r*/t first involves calculation of ratio of square of r, distance of observation well to pumping 

well, in feet, to t, time, in seconds, when water level was measured. Products of each pumping increment, in cubic feet per 

second, and logarithm of each corresponding ratio are then summed. Sum is then divided by sum of all prior pumping 

increments to obtain value for weighted logarithmic mean of r 2/t.

For computation of transmissivity (T) and storage coefficient (S), t*(s/Q) = change in specific drawdown, in feet per cubic 

foot per second, over one logarithmic cycle of X axis and (r2/t)0 = weighted logarithmic mean on straight-line part of graph, 

in feet squared per second, when s/Q = 0. Analytical method used from Cooper and Jacob (1946). Data source: Newmont 

Gold Company, Cartin, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 10. Continued.

Hydrogeologlc Units 23
5

LU

oc

LU

I 

o

I I

CD

LLI 

Q

VALUE OF RESIDUAL-DRAWDOWN TERM (UNITLESS; PLOTTING SYMBOL" )

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

15

20

25

30

35

40

Drawdown

PUMPING RATES

Time

(minutes)

0-60

61 -120

121 -1,440

Gallons

per minute

150

250

350

35.3 X Q 35.3 X 350

AS1

= 1,500 feet squared 

per day

8.0

10 100 1,000 

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES (PLOTTING SYMBOL - )

10,000

EXPLANATION

Points on drawdown curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level at time, f, after pumping started (lower 

X axis).

Points on recovery curve are plotted from values of depth below static water level and residual-drawdown term (upper 

X axis).

Residual-drawdown term

,, (AQ,/Q3) +

where f,, f2 , and t, = elapsed times at end of first, second, and third pumping periods, in minutes; Q3= pumping rate at end 

of third pumping period, in gallons per minute; AQ,, AQ2 , and AQ, = changes in pumping rate, in gallons per minute, for each 

period; and f' = time since pumping stopped, in minutes.

For computation of transmissivity (T), Q = Q, and As1 is change in depth below static water level, in feet, during water-level 

recovery over one logarithmic cycle of X axis. Analytical method used from Harrill (1970, p. 212-213). Data source: 

Newmont Gold Company, Cariln, Nev. (written commun., 1989).

Figure 11. Analysis of water-level recovery at well 43, in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada, 

after step-drawdown aquifer test (see figure 5 for well location and table 13 for well data).

24 Water Resources end Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Alluvial-Fan Deposits

The Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) is overlain by alluvial-fan deposits along the east side of the 

Tuscarora Mountains (fig. 5). Similar deposits probably occur along other basin margins in the study area, 

but may not have been mapped either because of 

limited extent and thickness or perhaps because they 

are difficult to distinguish from the Carlin formation. 

Alluvial-fan deposits consist of unsorted to poorly 

sorted mixtures, which range in size from clay to boulders. Where present in the study area, these deposits 

are probably above the saturated zone and, thus, may 

not be important sources of ground water. Where they 

are saturated, however, the hydraulic properties of 

alluvial-fan deposits probably range through several 

orders of magnitude because they are so heterogeneous.

Flood-Plain Deposits

The flood plains of the Humboldt River, Maggie 

Creek (and its larger tributaries), Marys Creek, and 

Susie Creek are underlain by poorly to well-sorted 

deposits, which range in size from clay to gravel. 

The deposits commonly consist of beds of fine-grained 

material (clay and silt) interbedded with intervals 

of coarse-grained material (sand and gravel). The 

deposits can range in thickness from a few tens of feet 

or less along the smaller streams to perhaps 100 ft or 

more along the Humboldt River. West of the study 

area, flood-plain deposits along the Humboldt River are 

several hundred feet thick (Bredehoeft, 1963, p. 27 and 

46). In addition, these deposits are relatively permeable. Estimated transmissivity ranges from 5,000 to 

50,000 ft2/d, and hydraulic conductivity ranges from 

16 to 1,100 ft/d (Bredehoeft, 1963, p. 46).

Subsurface Relations of Units

Two types of geophysical data gravity and 

aeromagnetic were used to develop a generalized 

understanding of the relations of hydrogeologic units 

at depth in the lower Maggie Creek area. Techniques 

used to interpret these data are described in the "Data 

Collection and Analysis" section of this report.

The gravity map for the lower Maggie Creek area 

(fig. 12) has several anomalies related to the distribution of hydrogeologic units. The source body for the 

prominent gravity low in the upper Maggie Creek 

Basin is a thick section of basin-fill deposits, which is 

bounded on the east and west by denser bedrock of the 

Schroeder Mountain uplift and of the Independence

and Tuscarora Mountains. A broad gravity high is centered over Marys Mountain, and extends to the northeast along the axis of the Schroeder Mountain uplift 

and Independence Mountains. The source for this high 

is uplifted bedrock. The source body for the poorly 

defined gravity low in lower Maggie and Marys Creek 

Basins and adjacent parts of the Susie Creek Basin also 

is a section of basin-fill deposits. Two small gravity 

highs in the southern and eastern parts of the Marys 

Creek Basin indicate that bedrock is relatively shallow 

in these parts of the basin.

Two types of magnetic anomalies are evident on 

the aeromagnetic map of the lower Maggie Creek area 

(fig. 13). One type, mostly in the southwest part of the 

area, is of short wavelength, low amplitude, and irregular shape. Source bodies for these anomalies are volcanic rocks on Marys Mountain. These anomalies are 

superimposed on, and partly obscure, a much broader 

anomaly. This broader anomaly extends from the 

southern part of Marys Mountain to the southern Tuscarora Mountains and from the west side of the lower 

Maggie Creek area to the west side of Marys Mountain. 

The source for this anomaly has been interpreted to be 

a large body of intrusive igneous rocks (Mabey, 1976, 

p. 44). The source for the smaller magnetic anomaly in 

the Independence Mountains also is a body of intrusive 

rocks, that is partly exposed nearby (figs. 5 and 13).

Subsurface relations between bedrock and basinfill deposits in the lower Maggie Creek area are illustrated by the two generalized geologic sections in figures 14 and 15. The two sections were developed using 

a geophysical modeling process described in an earlier 

section (see "Data Collection and Analysis"). The calculated and measured gravity and magnetic profiles 

that accompany each geologic section were used to 

guide the process of model development. Section A-A' 

consists of two segments. The northwestern segment is 

perpendicular to the axis of upper Maggie Creek Basin 

and extends southeast from the Tuscarora Mountains to 

the unnamed hills northeast of Schroeder Mountain 

(fig. 5). The southern segment extends south-southeast 

across lower Maggie and Marys Creek Basins from the 

unnamed hills to the Humboldt River west of Carlin 

(fig. 5). The location and orientation of both segments 

were chosen to coincide, as closely as possible, with 

directions of ground-water flow. Section B-B' is oriented northeastward; it extends from near the foot of 

Marys Mountain across lower Maggie and Susie Creek 

Basins, and ends in the Adobe Range east of Susie 

Creek (fig. 5).

Hydrogeologic Units 25
116°20' 116°00'

4Q°S0

40°40' -

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1987); modified by R.W. Plume, 1991

EXPLANATION

Basin-fill deposlte -180 Line of equal Bouguer gravity anomaly 

In mllliGals, at density of 2.67 grams per cubic

Bedrock centimeter. Interval, 2 milllGals. Gravity

contouring by R.W. Plume, 1990; based on

Basin boundary data from Saltus (1988)

A A' Location of geologic section

Figure 12. Complete Bouguer gravity field in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

26 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
116°20' 116W

40°50' c40°40'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1987); modified by R.W. Plume, 1991

EXPLANATION

Basln-flil deposite 

Bedrock 

Basin boundary

- 200 Line of equal magnetic Intensity Shows

total-intensity magnetic field of Earth relative 

to arbitrary datum (1,000 feet above land 

surface). Interval, 20 nanoteslas. Magnetic 

contouring by R.W. Piume, 1990, based on data 

from T.G. Hildenbrand (U.S. Geological Survey, 

written commun.,1988)

fa fa' Location of geologic section

Figure 13. Total-intensity magnetic field in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

PHYSICAL SETTING 27
WUJ 3

g^ffi I- O I-

-130

cc .

5; 5 z

-165

-175.

-185

-195

-205

- Calculated

FEET Tuscarora

Mountains

10,000-1

15,000

Lower

10 MILES

J

I

0 5 10 KILOMETERS 

NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

EXPLANATION

Basin-fill deposits

Intrusive Igneous rocks

Csrbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks

Figure 14. Generalized geologic section A-A' and corresponding profiles of complete 

Bouguer gravity anomaly and magnetic intensity, in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada. See figures 5,12, and 13 for section location.

28 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
II

B

FEET Marys

Mountain 

10,000 -,

B1

Susie 

Creek

5,000 

SEA LEVEL

5,000 - 

10,000 - 

15,000

5 MILES

J

I I I I I I

01234 5 KILOMETERS

NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

EXPLANATION

Basin-fill dsposits

Intrusive Ignsous rocks

Carbonste snd clastic sedlmsntary rocks

Wsll Penetrates 840 feet of basin-fill 

deposits overlying bedrock

Figure 15. Generalized geologic section B-B' and corresponding profiles of complete Bouguer gravity anomaly and 

magnetic intensity in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada. See figures 5,12, and 13 for section 

location.

The geophysical models shown as sections in figures 14 and 15 represent the complex geology of the 

area as three simplified bodies: (1) Basin-fill deposits 

of the Carlin formation of Regnier (1960), alluvial fans, 

and stream flood plains; (2) bedrock consisting of carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks; and (3) bedrock 

consisting of intrusive igneous rocks. Carbonate and 

clastic sedimentary rocks were combined as one unit 

because gravity and magnetic data were not sufficiently 

detailed to distinguish the two. In addition, the data 

were not sufficiently detailed to distinguish basin-fill 

deposits from interbedded shallow volcanic rocks in 

lower Maggie Creek Basin. Assumed values of density 

and magnetic susceptibility of the bodies are tabulated 

below:

Hydrogeoiogic unit

Basin-fill deposits 

Intrusive igneous rocks 

Carbonate and clastic 

sedimentary rocks

Density 

(grams 

per cubic 

centimeter)

2.12 

2.57 

2.47

Msgnetic 

susceptibility 

(dimensioniess)

0.0001 

.0012 

.00001

These values are within ranges of values published for 

similar rock types (Carmichael, 1989, p. 333-349; 

Olhoeft and Johnson, 1989, p. 161-173).

The structural basin underlying the topographic 

basin of upper Maggie Creek is bounded on the west by 

the Tuscarora Mountains structural block and on the 

east by the Schroeder Mountain uplift. The structural 

basin is asymmetric and its deepest parts underlie the 

east side of the topographic basin, where basin-fill 

deposits are as much as 7,000-8,000 ft thick (fig. 14).

The topographic basins of lower Maggie, Marys, 

and Susie Creeks are underlain by a broad, poorly 

defined structural basin. Proprietary gravity and aeromagnetic data suggest that the structural basin is complex and consists of several fault-bounded subbasins 

(TV. Weis, oral commun., 1990). Between the 

Schroeder Mountain uplift and the Humboldt River, 

the structural basin contains basin-fill deposits as much 

as 4,000 ft thick (fig. 14). The deposits are less than 

1,000 ft thick near Marys Mountain (fig. 15) and about 

1,000 ft thick beneath the Humboldt River flood plain 

(fig. 14). Thickness of basin fill is known at one site 

along section B-B', where a well penetrates 840 ft of 

the deposits (fig. 15).

Hydrogeoiogic Units 29
Igneous rocks have intruded the carbonate and 

clastic sedimentary rocks beneath the west side of 

upper Maggie Creek Basin, the Schroeder Mountain 

uplift, and the west sides of lower Maggie and Marys 

Creek Basins (figs. 14 and 15). These bodies are 

believed to be parts of the extensive intrusive body that 

underlies Marys Mountain and the southern Tuscarora 

Mountains. Estimated depths to the bodies are about 

7,000 ft in the upper Maggie Creek Basin, more than 

10,000 ft at the Schroeder Mountain uplift, about 2,000 

ft along the east side of Marys Mountain, and as much 

as 18,000 ft in the lower Maggie Creek Basin.

Comparison of calculated and measured gravity 

and magnetic profiles suggest that sections A-A' and 

B-B' (figs. 14 and 15) are geologically reasonable. This 

is especially true for the calculated gravity profiles, 

which closely fit the corresponding measured profiles. 

The calculated and measured magnetic profiles also 

agree fairly well except for part of section B-B' along 

the east side of Marys Mountain and the west side of 

the adjacent structural basin (fig. 15). Several attempts 

were made to improve the fit of the calculated and measured magnetic profiles for section B-B'. These 

attempts involved changing the assumed geometry and 

magnetic susceptibility of the body of intrusive igneous 

rocks beneath Marys Mountain. However, changes in 

the geometry of the body diminished the fit of calculated to measured gravity profiles. Changes in the 

value for magnetic susceptibility diminished the overall fit of calculated to observed magnetic profiles. Reasons for the poor fit of calculated to measured magnetic 

profiles along section B-B' are not clear. Perhaps more 

detailed measurements of the gravity and magnetic 

fields in the area would make it possible to improve the 

fit. In addition, detailed field measurements of the density and magnetic susceptibility of all hydrogeologic 

units would reduce the uncertainty of both models.

HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM 

Surface Water

The principal streams in the lower Maggie Creek 

area are Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks, all of which 

are tributary to the Humboldt River. A large part of 

total annual runoff for each stream comes from snowmelt, which can last from late winter through early 

summer. During this part of the year, flow characteristics of the four streams are similar. During other times 

of the year, flow characteristics of the streams differ 

because of differences in baseflow and the effects of 

evapotranspiration.

Baseflow of a stream is sustained by groundwater inflow, either directly into the stream channel or 

from nearby springs. Baseflow can vary from year to 

year or over shorter periods because different sources 

of ground water can dominate. The minimum baseflow, the amount of flow that will be sustained in the 

stream during dry years, is the long-term average discharge of the underlying aquifer into the stream channel. Higher values of baseflow in the study area are due 

to a combination of the minimum baseflow and the 

effects of short-term recharge from low-altitude snowmelt. The volume of the low-altitude snowpack can 

vary widely from year to year. In some years, none is 

available, and in others, April 1989 for instance, the 

low-altitude snowpack is substantial.

Streamflow measurements at sites along Maggie, 

Marys, and Susie Creeks and the Humboldt River were 

used to identify gaining and losing reaches of the 

streams, to quantify parts of water budgets, and to 

better understand relations of streams and aquifers. 

Streamflow-measurement sites in the lower Maggie 

Creek area are shown in figure 16.

The 12-month period from October 1 to September 30 is referred to as the water year. This period is 

used in this report for discussing annual and long-term 

flow characteristics of a stream. References to the calendar year in this report are accompanied either by the 

month or time of year (September 1990, or fall of 1990, 

for instance).

Maggie Creek

The earliest documented stage and streamflow 

measurements on Maggie Creek were made above the 

bridge at old Highway 40 (near site MC-8, fig. 16) during water years 1914-24. Maximum discharge during 

the snowmelt runoff ranged from 100 ft /s in some 

years to nearly 800 ft3/s in water year 1922 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1960, p. 374). After the snowmelt runoff, the flow rapidly decreased each year, usually to less 

than 1 frVs. Total annual runoff ranged from a low of 

about 3,000 acre-ft in 1924 to a high of about 34,000 

acre-ft in 1914 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1960, p. 374).

Average annual runoff at the mouth of Maggie 

Creek was 17,000 acre-ft/yr for the period 1914-24. 

This value is believed to be a reasonable estimate for

30 Water Resources end Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
116°20' 116°00'

40°50' -

40°40' -

Upper Maggie 

Creek Basin

Lower Maggie i MC-S 'A 

Creek Basin ' ^

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection Zone11 EXPLANATION

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1967); modified by R. W. Plume. 1991

Basin-fill deposits 

Bedrock 

Basin boundary

MC-3, Stream-gaging station Site designation in table 11 

is indicated. Abbreviations: HR, Humboldt River; 

MA, Marys Creek; MC, Maggie Creek; and SU, 

Susie Creek. Numbers are in downstream order. 

Stream-gaging station on upper Susie Creek not 

shown because it is beyond map area. 

See figure 1 for location of this site

Miscellaneous-measurement site Site designation in 

table 11 is indicated. Abbreviations: HR, Humboldt 

River; MA, Marys Creek; MC, Maggie Creek; and 

SU, Susie Creek. Numbers are in downstream order

Figure 16. Stream-gaging stations and miscellaneous streamflow-measurement sites in lower 

Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

MC-1

HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM 31
long-term, average annual runoff at the site for the following reason. Nearby at the stream gaging station on 

the Humboldt River at Palisade (site HR-10, fig. 16), 

the average annual runoff for 1914-24 was about 

290,000 acre-ft/yr (from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Information System). The long-term 

(1903-91) average annual runoff at the gaging station 

also is about 290,000 acre-ft/yr (Garcia and others, 

1992, p. 190). The 1914-24 and long-term averages for 

the Humboldt River at Palisade are about the same. 

This suggests that the average annual runoff for 1914- 

24 at the mouth of Maggie Creek provides a reasonable 

estimate of average runoff under natural or near natural, long-term conditions.

Near its mouth, Maggie Creek commonly was dry 

in the summer during the period 1914-24. This is illustrated by the flow-duration curve in figure 17, which 

shows the probability that flow of any magnitude will 

be equaled or exceeded. Flows of 1 ft3/s were equaled 

or exceeded about 72 percent of the time. Thus, the 

flow was less than 1 ft /s about 30 percent of the time 

during 1914-24. The shape of the curve at low flows 

indicates that Maggie Creek near its mouth has little or 

no baseflow (R.P. Williams, U.S. Geological Survey, 

oral commun., 1990).

Streamflow measurements along Maggie Creek 

were made intermittently at eight sites (fig. 16) beginning in August 1988. Stream gaging stations were 

established at two of the sites (MC-3 and MC-6) to 

monitor streamflow along the reach of the stream next 

to the Gold Quarry mine. The gage at the upper site has 

been operating since September 1989 and the gage at 

the lower site since December 1989.

Streamflow characteristics of upper and lower 

Maggie Creek differ markedly. Upper Maggie Creek is 

a gaining reach of stream along the west side of the 

unnamed hills. Measured streamflow at site MC-1 has 

ranged from 1.6 ft3/s on August 29,1988, to 200 ft3/s 

on April 13,1989. Flow of the stream measured at the 

site during October and November, after evapotranspiration had begun to approach minimum rates, was 4.4 

ft3/s on October 26,1988; 5.2 ft3/s on November 21, 

1988; 8.8 ft3/s on November 14,1989; and 5.8 ft3/s on 

October 24,1991 (table 11). The lower values of 

streamflow measured during the fall (4.4 and 5.2 ft3/s, 

table 11) are believed to be due to long-term groundwater discharge. The higher value of 8.8 ft3/s, measured during fall 1989, is believed to be due to a

1,000 p

O 

o

LLJ 

CO

cc

LLJ 

0-

tH

o

CD 

O

LU

O 

CO

LLJ

5

5 

< 

Q

PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT, THAT INDICATED 

DISCHARGE WILL BE EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

Figure 17. Frequency distribution of discharge of Maggie 

Creek, northeastern Nevada, near its mouth (site MC-8 in 

table 11 and figure 16), water years 1914-24 (data from 

Schroer and Moosbumer, 1978, p. 261). Example: A flow 

of 4 cubic feet per second was equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the time.

combination of the estimated minimum baseflow and 

the effects of the low-altitude snowmelt of the previous 

late winter and spring.

The reach of lower Maggie Creek southeast of 

Maggie Creek canyon consistently loses flow and is 

dry over much of the reach from mid-summer to late 

fall. The upper gaging station on Maggie Creek (site 

MC-3, fig. 16) is at the mouth of the Maggie Creek 

canyon. Total runoff of the stream at this site was about 

8,100 acre-ft in the 1990 water year (Bostic and others, 

1991, p. 166) and was 5,400 acre-ft in the 1991 water 

year (Garcia and others, 1992, p. 185). Flows ranged 

from as much as 50-60 ft3/s in late February 1990 

(fig. 18A, and Bostic and others, 1991, p. 166) to no 

flow from July 23 to September 26,1991 (Garcia and 

others, 1992, p. 185). This was the first time since the 

study began in August 1988 that a period of no flow

32 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
was documented along this part of Maggie Creek. The 

extended drought and testing of dewatering wells at 

Gold Quarry mine are the most likely reasons for the 

period of no flow; however, the effect of each cannot be 

fully quantified until the drought ends.

The lower recording gage on Maggie Creek (site 

MC-6, fig. 16) was not activated until December 1, 

1989 (fig. ISA). Estimated total flow for the 1990 

water year is based on the following: (1) flow began at 

the station sometime in late October or early November 

1989 and (2) total flow recorded during December 

1989 was about 130 acre-ft (Bostic and others, 1991, 

p. 166). Assuming that November flows were less than 

December flows, total flow prior to activation of the 

gage probably did not exceed 100 acre-ft. Based on 

this assumption and the flow recorded at the station 

after activation (about 4,100 acre-ft; Bostic and others, 

1991, p. 167), total flow for the 1990 water year was an 

estimated 4,200 acre-ft. Total flow of Maggie Creek at 

the station in the 1991 water year was about 1,400 acreft (Garcia and others, 1992, p. 187). Streamflow losses 

were about 4,000 acre-ft/yr between the upper and 

lower gaging stations during both water years. Most of 

this streamflow loss entered underlying aquifers as 

recharge.

The upper Maggie Creek Basin is the contributing 

area for all streamflow at the upper gaging station and 

for most of the flow at the lower gaging station (sites 

MC-3 and MC-6, fig. 16). Streamflow gains and losses 

between the upper and lower stations from December 

1989 through September 1991 are illustrated in figure 

18B. This reach of the stream consistently lost flow 

during almost all of that period. The only exception 

was during late February and early March 1990 when 

the reach gained flow as a result of a low-altitude snowmelt. The greatest losses were about 15 f^/s during 

peak flows at the upper station in the snowmelt runoff 

of both years.

The infiltration capacity of the channel of Maggie 

Creek, between the upper gaging station and the site 

near its mouth (sites MC-3 and MC-8, fig. 16) to 

recharge the underlying aquifer can be estimated on the 

basis of comparisons of miscellaneous flow measurements at the two sites (table 11). When flows were 

about 12 ft3/s or less at the upper site (MC-3), little of 

that flow reached the lower site. This suggests that 

streamflow losses can infiltrate the channel of lower 

Maggie Creek at a rate of 10-20 ft3/s (7,000-14,000 

acre-ft/yr) if sufficient flow is available at the start of 

the reach. However, when the flow of Maggie Creek at

100

o 

o

LU

I

QO

CO

z> 

o

10

0-1

0.01

ONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAS 

1990 1991

WATER YEAR

ONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAS 

1990 1991

WATER YEAR

Figure 18. Flow characteristics of Maggie Creek, northeastern Nevada, water years 1990-91. A, Daily mean discharge 

at upper and lower gaging stations (sites MC-3 and MC-6, 

respectively, in table 11 and figure 16); and B, Change in 

daily mean discharge between the two stations (computed 

as flow difference between iower and upper sites).

the upper site exceeds some threshold value, probably 

in the range from 10 to 20 ft3/s, virtually all of the additional flow will enter the Humboldt River as runoff. 

The smaller value (10 ft3/s, 7,000 acre-ft/yr) was used 

as a conservative estimate of ground-water recharge 

from infiltration of streamflow in the lower Maggie 

Creek Basin (see subsequent sections titled "Ground 

Water" and "Water Budgets").

HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM 33
The flow of Maggie Creek is diverted at several 

sites for irrigation of crops and meadows. Total diversions have not been measured; however, amounts that 

can be diverted each year, according to permits on file 

at the Nevada Division of Water Resources, are 3,487 

acre-ft in the upper Maggie Creek Basin and 1,379 

acre-ft in the lower basin (table 4).

Marys Creek

Marys Creek consists of two reaches, each having 

different flow characteristics. Streamflow in the reach 

upstream from Carlin spring is ephemeral; it flows only 

during the snowmelt runoff or in response to heavy precipitation. Otherwise, this reach of Marys Creek is a 

dry wash. Streamflow in the lower reach of Marys 

Creek, from Carlin spring to its mouth, is perennial as 

a result of the discharge of the spring. Since November

1989, the flow of Marys Creek has been measured at a 

continuously recording stream-gaging station below 

the spring (site MA-1; fig. 16).

Runoff due to snowmelt from the Marys Creek 

Basin during water years 1990 and 1991 began in late 

February and mid-March, respectively (fig. 19A). Peak 

flows were 20-24 ft3/s and 11 ftVs during the two water 

years. The duration of the runoff during both years was 

short, lasting no more than about 2 weeks. During the 

rest of each year, the flow of Marys Creek at the gaging 

station represented the discharge of Carlin spring, 

minus the amount diverted from the spring for the town 

of Carlin. Daily mean flow sometimes was less than 

1 ft3/s during the summer of 1991 (fig. 19A).

Annual discharge of Carlin spring can be computed as total discharge measured at the Marys Creek 

gaging station plus the amount diverted for municipal

Table 4. Annual water use in study area, northeastern Nevada, 1985-90 

[Values, rounded, in acre-feet per year; Abbreviations: , not available; <, less than]

Calendar year

Use 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Surface Water

Agriculture *

Maggie Creek2 <4,900 <4,900 <4,900 <4,900 <4,900 <4,900 

Marys Creek 3 <630 <630 <630 <630 <630 <630

Municipal 4 - -- 750 730 800 600

Ground water

Agriculture 5

Mining 6

Municipal 7

<1,800

790

0

<1,800

1,700

0

<1,800

2,600

0

<1,800

3,600

0

<1,800

7,100

0.2

<1,800

6,000

3

1 Data from Nevada Division of Water Resources, Elko, Nev.

2 Permitted annual diversions are 3,487 acre-feet from upper Maggie Creek and 1,379 acrefeet from lower Maggie Creek, for total of less than 4,900 acre-feet per year.

3 Permitted annual diversion is 629 acre-feet. Diversion point is downstream from Marys 

Creek gaging station.

4 Diversion from Carlin spring above Marys Creek gaging station. Data from C.L. Aiazi, 

Carlin City Clerk, written commun., 1992.

5 Two irrigation wells in lower Maggie Creek Basin (wells 25 and 26, table 13). Permits 

allow pumpage of 1,782 acre-feet per year. Data from Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Carson City, Nev.

6 All pumpage from lower Maggie Creek Basin. Data for 1985-89 from Newmont Gold 

Co., Carlin, Nev. Data for 1990 from Nevada Division of Water Planning, 1990 Water Use 

Survey Mining Database for 1990.

7 Municipal well in lower Maggie Creek Basin (well 35, table 13). Data from CJL. Aiazi, 

written commun., 1992.

34 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
100

1990 1991

WATER YEAR

100

1956 1957

WATER YEAR

1958

Figure 19. Daily mean discharge of (A) Marys Creek at 

Carlin, water years 1990-91 (site MA-1 in figure 16) and 

(B) Susie Creek near Carlin, water years 1956-58 (see 

figure 1 for location of site).

use by Carlin, minus the estimated volume of the snowmelt runoff from the basin above the spring. The total 

volume of flow measured at the gaging station during 

the first water year of operation (Nov. 18,1989- 

Sept. 30,1990) was about 2,400 acre-ft (Bostic and 

others, 1991, p. 168). During the same period, the 

municipal diversion was an estimated 600 acre-ft 

(C.L Aiazi, Carlin City Clerk, written commun., 1992). 

The snowmelt runoff appears to have begun on

February 25 and to have ended 16 days later on March 

12,1990 (Bostic and others, 1991, p. 168). The volume 

of the runoff was computed as total volume of flow during the 16-day period (350 acre-ft) minus an estimated 

spring discharge of 130 acre-ft (4 ft3/s). Thus, the 

volume of the runoff was an estimated 220 acre-ft. 

Total flow from Carlin spring during the part of the 

water year that the gaging station was operated was an 

estimated 2,800 acre-ft. The average flow was about 

3.9 ft3/s.

During the 1991 water year, the total volume of 

flow measured at the Marys Creek gaging station was 

about 2,200 acre-ft (Garcia and others, 1992, p. 188), 

and the municipal diversion was an estimated 640 

acre-ft (C.L. Aiazi, written commun., 1992). The 

snowmelt runoff appears to have begun on March 18 

and ended 16 days later on April 2,1991 (Garcia and 

others, 1992, p. 188). The total volume of flow during 

the 16-day period was 260 acre-ft and the discharge of 

the spring was an estimated 130 acre-ft (4 ft3/s). Thus, 

the volume of the snowmelt runoff was an estimated 

130 acre-ft. Total volume of discharge from Carlin 

spring during water year 1991 was about 2,700 acre-ft, 

for an average flow of 3.7 ft /s.

The values of average flow of Carlin spring for 

water years 1990-91 may represent long-term average 

flow of the spring. However, the total volume of flow 

will have to be determined for additional water years, 

especially those in which precipitation is normal, 

before a reliable value of average long-term flow can 

be determined. A value of 4 ft Is (3,000 acre-ft/yr) is 

used for making water-budget calculations in subsequent sections of this report.

In addition to the municipal diversion at Carlin 

spring, streamflow of Marys Creek is diverted below 

the stream gaging station for irrigation of crops and 

meadows. Amounts diverted for municipal use were 

750,730, 800, and 600 acre-ft, respectively, for the 

years 1987 to 1990 (table 4). The amount that may be 

diverted for agricultural use is 629 acre-ft/yr, according 

to permits on file at the Nevada Division of Water 

Resources.

Susie Creek

The flow of Susie Creek was measured continuously during water years 1956-58 at a gaging station 

15 mi upstream from its mouth near the confluence of 

Adobe Creek (site, shown in fig. 1, is beyond map area 

of fig. 16). During all 3 years, periods of runoff in early

HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM 35
to mid-winter were of short duration (fig. 19B). These 

runoff periods could have been the result of intense 

winter rainfall or the melting of low-altitude snowpack. 

The snowmelt runoff each year was of longer duration. 

After the snowmelt, the flow of the stream rapidly 

declined to a summer flow, which was consistently less 

than 1 ft3/s. Total annual flow at the gaging station during the 3 years was about 4,600,4,400, and 4,300 acreft, respectively (U.S. Geological Survey, 1963, p. 250). 

Average long-term flow at the site is an estimated 

4,000-5,000 acre-ft/yr.

Streamflow of Susie Creek was measured during 

the present study at the Highway 40 bridge (site SU-1 

in table 11 and fig. 16). Measured flows at the site 

during late fall were 0.98 ft3/s on November 21,1988; 

3.2 ftS/s on November 13,1989; and 0.36 ft3/s on 

October 24,1991. These differences in baseflow from 

year to year are the result of variations in the effects 

of low-altitude snowmelt during the previous spring. 

The low-altitude snowmelt in spring 1989 may have 

produced recharge along the lowlands near Susie Creek 

sufficient to maintain relatively high baseflow 

9 months later. In contrast, baseflows in the fall of 

1988 and 1991 may have been less because little lowaltitude snow was available as a source of local, shortterm recharge in those years.

Humboldt River

The Humboldt River forms the southern boundary of the lower Maggie Creek area. The flow of this 

reach of the river has been measured continuously 

since water year 1944 at streamflow gaging stations 

near Carlin and at Palisade (sites HR-1 and HR-10, 

respectively, fig. 16). Total annual runoff and groundwater discharge from the combined three basins of the 

study area can be estimated from the records for the 

two gaging stations.

Basins tributary to the reach of the Humboldt 

River between the two gaging stations are those of 

Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks, Dry Susie Creek 

east of the study area, and Woodruff Creek south of the 

river. The latter two basins are small and constitute 

only about 5 percent of the combined area of the five 

basins. Perhaps even more importantly, neither basin 

has areas of high altitude comparable to the three 

basins of the study area. Consequently, the reach of the 

river between the two gaging stations gains flow as runoff and ground-water discharge to the river channel

mostly from the basins of the study area. These three 

basins constitute about 95 percent of the area tributary 

to this reach of the river.

Flow of the Humboldt River near Carlin during 

water years 1982-91 (fig. 20) includes some of the 

highest (1984) and some of the lowest (summers of 

1987-91) flows measured in the 48-year period of 

record. The flow of the river during the snowmelt runoff differs from year to year according to the condition 

of the high-altitude snowpack in the mountain ranges of 

northeastern Nevada. After the snowmelt, the flow of 

the river rapidly decreases to the summer low flow. 

Early in the fall of each year, evapotranspiration 

declines to minimum rates. As a result, flow of the river 

increases to a baseflow that represents the combined 

effects of long-term ground-water discharge and, in 

some years, local recharge from low-altitude snowmelt 

during the previous spring.

Annual gains of the river between the Carlin and 

Palisade gaging stations have ranged from a low of 

5,000 acre-ft in 1961 to a high of about 160,000 acre-ft 

in 1983 (fig. 2L4). The average annual gain was about 

38,000 acre-ft. These gains represent runoff from the 

study area due to the spring snowmelt, intermittent 

intense storms, discharge from Carlin spring and other 

unnamed springs nearby (sites 103,106, and 107; table 

12), as well as ground-water discharge into the 

river channel.

10,000 c

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 

WATER YEAR

Figure 20. Daily mean discharge of Humboldt River near 

Carlin, northeastern Nevada, water years 1982-91 (site 

HR-1 in figure 16).

36 Water Resources end Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevade
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 19T5 1960 1965 1990

WATERYEAR

Figure 21. Streamflow gains of Humboldt River in the 

reach between Carlin and Palisade gaging stations, northeastern Nevada, (sites HR-1 and HR-10; figure 16), water 

years 1944-91. (A) Annual gain; horizontal line is combined 

mean annual runoff and ground-water discharge from three 

basins of study area. (B) October gain; horizontal line is 

gain due to long-term ground-water discharge from three 

basins of study area.

The annual gain in flow of the Humboldt River 

due to ground-water discharge from the lower Maggie 

Creek area can be estimated by comparing mean 

October flows at the Carlin and Palisade gaging 

stations (fig. 21B). October was selected as the best 

period for making this comparison because evapotranspiration, ice, and early winter storms usually do not 

affect baseflow. Mean gains in October flow of the 

river from 1944 to 1991 were as little as 10-12 ft3/s 

during some years to nearly 60 ft3/s in 1985 (fig. 21B). 

Variations in mean October flow are believed to be due 

to the amount of local recharge from low-altitude 

snowmelt during the previous spring and possibly to 

releases from bank storage.

Water years 1983 and 1984 were both exceptional 

for the high flows of the Humboldt River during the 

snowmelt runoff (fig. 20) and also for the combined 

runoff from Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins 

(fig. 21A). As a result, gains in mean October flows for 

1983 and 1984 between the Carlin and Palisade gaging 

stations were among the largest for the period of 

record. However, the largest gain by far was in October 

1985, following a year of normal runoff. The large 

gain over this reach of the river in 1985 may be the 

result of 2 years of recharge from low-altitude snowmelt in the springs of 1983 and 1984.

The smaller gains in mean October flows are 

believed to be due only to average ground-water discharge from the Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek 

Basins and from watersheds south of the river. Since 

water year 1944, gains in mean October flows have 

never been less than about 10 ft3/s (fig. 21fi). This 

minimum value for mean October gain of the river 

between the Carlin and Palisade gaging stations is due 

mostly to ground-water discharge from the study area 

and is used as a part of the water budget for the area 

(see section titled "Ground Water"). Ground-water 

discharge from the small watersheds south of the river 

is probably minimal.

Streamflow of the Humboldt River was measured 

intermittently at ten sites in the fall of 1988,1989, and 

1991 (table 11). Measured flows above Carlin (sites 

HR-2 and HR-3; table 11) and above Palisade (sites 

HR-8 and HR-9; table 11) show that this reach of the 

river was gaining flow. Gains were 17 ft /s on November 21, 1988; 10 ft3/s on November 13-14, 1989; and

9 ft3/s on October 22,1991. The gain of 17 ft3/s was 

affected by melting snow and does not represent baseflow. The other two gains, however, were not affected 

by recent storms or ice, and are further evidence that 

baseflow of this reach of the river is sustained by about

10 ft^/s of ground-water discharge to the river channel.

Ground Water

Water levels in wells and mining exploration 

holes were used to define the shallow potentiometric 

surface (fig. 22) and to document water-level changes 

in the lower Maggie Creek area. Hole depths range 

from 10 to 15 ft at shallow wells along lower Maggie 

Creek to 800-900 ft at some of the deeper wells. Most 

of the wells are open to a single hydrogeologic unit 

where water was first found during drilling. The 

water-level contours in figure 22 generally are believed 

to represent the water table in the lower Maggie 

Creek area.

Ground Water 37
116°20' 116-001

40°501 -

40°40' -

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100.000.1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

zone 11 EXPLANATION

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1987); modified by R.W. Plume. 1991

Basin-fill deposits

Volcanic rocks Interbedded with 

basin-fill deposits Dark pattern 

shows mapped extent. Stippled pattern 

shows extent in subsurfaca based on 

interpretation of proprietary aeromagnetic 

data (T.V. Weis. Newmont Exploration 

Limited, written commun., 1990)

Bedrock

Gold quarry mine Extent of pit as of 1993 

 Basin boundary

Direction of shallow ground-water flow 

Approximately located

 5000 Water-level contour Shows altitude of shallow

ground-water level. Dashed where approximately 

located. Contour interval, in feet, is variable. Datum 

is sea level

11.

435

13a,

Observation well Used for constructing contours. 

Penetrates basin-fill aquifer and, in places, interbedded 

volcanic rocks. Site number in table 13 is indicated

Observation well Used for constructing contours. 

Penetrates carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks

Flowing well Heads measured at well not used for 

constructing contours because well penetrates deeper 

parts of basin-fill aquifer. Site number In table 13 is 

indicated

Production well for mining and milling Water-level 

measurements not available. Site number in table 13 

is indicated

Figure 22. Altitude of shallow ground-water levels in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada, 

September 1990.

38 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Ground water in the upper Maggie Creek Basin 

flows southeast from recharge areas in the Tuscarora 

Mountains and westward from the recharge areas in the 

unnamed hills northeast of the Maggie Creek canyon 

(fig. 22). A broad ground-water divide coincides with 

the topographic divide of the unnamed hills.

Southwest of the Maggie Creek canyon, ground 

water flows from upper Maggie Creek Basin, through 

Schroeder Mountain, to lower Maggie Creek Basin 

(fig. 22). The recharge area for this ground water is in 

the southern Tuscarora Mountains at the extreme 

southern end of the upper Maggie Creek Basin.

Ground water flows upward in the vicinity of the 

Maggie Creek flood plain north of Schroeder Mountain. Heads measured at three flowing wells (sites 41, 

42, and 43; table 13 and fig. 22) are 4-9 ft above land 

surface. In addition, two of the wells are adjacent to 

each other and extend to depths of 120 and 575 ft, 

respectively. The head in the deep well was 0.6 ft 

above the head in the shallow well in March 1989. 

(Water levels at these wells were not used to construct 

contours, because the heads may not represent shallow 

conditions.)

The net effect of the Schroeder Mountain uplift 

(Schroeder Mountain southwest of the Maggie Creek 

canyon and the unnamed hills northeast of the canyon) 

seems to be that it partly impedes ground-water movement between the upper and lower Maggie Creek 

Basins. This conclusion is based on the following evidence. First, water-level contours and ground-water 

flow lines indicate that ground water moves away from 

the topographic divide of the unnamed hills (fig. 22). 

Second, heads at the three flowing wells, which are 

completed to different depths, indicate an upward gradient for ground-water flow in the area adjacent to the 

west side of the unnamed hills. The heads indicate that 

an upward gradient extends from depths of at least 

1,000 ft to as shallow as 160 ft. Third, the minimum 

baseflow of Maggie Creek adjacent to the west side of 

the unnamed hills is an estimated 5 ft3/s. This baseflow 

is thought to be sustained by ground-water discharge to 

the stream channel resulting from the upward movement of ground water. Water-level contours and 

ground-water flow lines indicate that bedrock of the 

unnamed hills functions as a barrier to ground-water 

flow between the upper and lower Maggie Creek 

Basins. In contrast, contours and flow lines indicate 

that ground water flows from southern parts of the 

upper Maggie Creek Basin through permeable bedrock 

of Schroeder Mountain to the lower basin.

In the lower Maggie Creek Basin and adjacent 

parts of Marys and Susie Creek Basins, ground water 

flows toward production wells near Gold Quarry mine 

and toward discharge areas at Carlin spring and along 

the Humboldt River (fig. 22). The ground water flows 

east and southeast from recharge areas on Marys 

Mountain, southeast from Schroeder Mountain, and 

south from the unnamed hills northeast of Maggie 

Creek canyon. Topographic divides between the three 

basins do not function as ground-water divides.

A trough in the potentiometric surface extends 

northward from Carlin spring near the Humboldt River 

toward Maggie Creek and then northwestward to 

Schroeder Mountain (fig. 22). This appears to be a 

single feature; however, hydrologic evidence suggests 

that the trough is the result of two unrelated phenomena. The northwest-trending part of the trough is the 

result of pumpage from production wells at Gold 

Quarry mine (fig. 22).

The 5,000-ft contour defines this part of the 

trough where four production wells pump from basinfill deposits (fig. 22). The 5,050-ft contour also defines 

the trough farther west along the southeast side of 

Schroeder Mountain where two production wells pump 

from carbonate rocks. The shape of these two contours 

probably would be similar to the 4,925- and 4,950-ft 

contours if water levels had not declined as a result of 

the pumping.

The southern part of the trough is broader and 

partly coincides with shallow volcanic rocks interbedded with basin-fill deposits (see section titled "Hydrogeologic Units"). Horizontal gradients are relatively 

steep southeast of the unnamed hills and west of Marys 

Mountain. However, gradients are not nearly as steep 

in areas underlain by volcanic rocks. This flattening of 

the gradient, the broader trough in the potentiometric 

surface, and the convergence of ground-water flow 

lines towards Carlin spring (fig. 22) all indicate that the 

volcanic rocks function as a permeable drain for 

ground-water flow. Ground-water flow lines also indicate that pumping at Gold Quarry mine is intercepting 

ground water that otherwise would be flowing to Carlin 

spring (fig. 22).

Streamflow data presented previously in this 

report indicate that the reach of Maggie Creek in the 

lower basin loses flow and is dry during the summer 

and early fall. When this reach of the stream is dry, an 

unsaturated zone as deep as 30-40 ft develops between 

the stream channel and the underlying aquifer. During 

periods of streamflow, especially during snowmelt

Ground Water 39
runoff, ground water is recharged by infiltration of 

streamflow, which creates a saturated zone that connects the stream channel with the underlying aquifer. 

When flow ceases, however, this mound of recharge 

under the channel gradually subsides until the next 

period of streamflow provides another pulse of 

recharge.

Water levels measured at well 11 (fig. 22 and 

table 13) during the study provide some of the best evidence for the effects of recharge from Maggie Creek on 

water levels in the lower basin. This well is about 200 

ft southwest of the stream channel of Maggie Creek. 

Water levels were measured at this well from October 

1988 to November 1991. During this period, some 

of the shallowest water levels (20-28 ft below land 

surface) were measured in the spring, when runoff was 

providing recharge to the aquifer. In contrast, the 

deepest water levels during that period (26-61 ft) were 

measured in the fall, after unusually dry winters. The 

shallowest water level ever measured at well 11 (less 

than 7 ft below land surface) was on April 30,1982 

(table 13). Total runoff of the Humboldt River at the 

Carlin gaging station was well above the average 

during that year (Frisbie and others, 1983, p. 158). 

Correspondingly high flows of Maggie Creek may 

have produced sufficient recharge to cause such 

shallow depth to water at the well.

Recharge

Ground-water recharge in the Maggie, Marys, 

and Susie Creek Basins comes from infiltration of rain 

and snowmelt and from infiltration of streamflow, most 

notably along lower Maggie Creek. Hydrologic evidence indicates that underflow of ground water from 

basins adjacent to the study area is negligible.

The method used to make estimates of groundwater recharge by infiltration of precipitation in the 

Great Basin is empirical. The method is based on 

estimated precipitation at different altitudes and on the 

assumption that only a fraction of total precipitation at 

a given altitude eventually infiltrates below the soil 

zone to become recharge*. The method was first 

developed and used in southern Nevada (Maxey and 

Jameson, 1948, p. 107-109). The approach was to

*This method of estimating recharge includes (1) infiltration 

of precipitation and (2) infiltration of streamflow near mountain 

fronts. However, infiltration of streamflow along main stream 

channels in basin lowlands is not included, and is a separate 

recharge source.

estimate total annual precipitation for altitude zones 

above 6,000 ft, because recharge was believed to be 

negligible below that altitude. Ground-water recharge 

was then estimated as a percentage of the total precipitation for each zone.

The approach used for the present study was to 

develop a relation between annual precipitation and 

altitude for northeastern Nevada (fig. 4). This relation 

was used to estimate average annual precipitation for 

the midpoint of each 1,000-ft increment of altitude in 

the study area. Estimated potential recharge for each 

altitude zone was computed as the product of estimated 

annual precipitation for the zone, estimated percentage 

of precipitation becoming recharge, and the area of the 

zone in each basin (table 5). Values listed in table 5 are 

referred to as potential recharge because part may not 

infiltrate downward; instead, it may leave the basin as 

runoff (Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 26-27). Recharge 

estimates for areas below an altitude of 6,000 ft were 

made because results of a recent study (Stone, 1992) 

indicate that as much as 2 percent of total precipitation 

below this altitude may become recharge.

Several uncertainties are inherent to this method 

of estimating recharge. First, the method is based on 

widely spaced precipitation data representing differing 

periods of record. Second, the method probably does 

not account for rain-shadow and other localized meteorological effects. Third, the percentages used to compute recharge are only estimates; these values have 

never been systematically measured. In spite of the 

uncertainties, however, the estimates of potential 

recharge provide a basis for developing water budgets.

Estimated potential recharge from infiltration of 

precipitation in each of the basins of the study area are 

as follows (table 5):

(1) Upper Maggie Creek, about 16,000 acre-ft/yr;

(2) lower Maggie Creek, about 990 acre-ft/yr;

(3) Marys Creek, about 1,300 acre-ft/yr; and

(4) Susie Creek, about 6,400 acre-ft/yr.

The combined annual total for the three basins of 

the study area is about 25,000 acre-ft/yr. The basin 

values are nearly the same as earlier estimates (Scott 

and others, 1971, p. 43).

Underflow into the study area from adjacent 

basins is probably negligible because water levels are 

much lower in basins to the west, and in basins to the 

east, directions of ground-water flow are toward the 

south and east (Eakin and Lamke, 1966, pi. 1). Within 

the study area, ground water flows through Schroeder 

Mountain from the upper Maggie Creek Basin to the 

lower Maggie Creek Basin (fig. 22). Ground-water

40 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Meggle Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Table 5. Estimated potential ground-water recharge from precipitation in study area1

[Abbreviations: ft/yr; feet per year; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per year; -, not applicable]

Altitude zone 

(feet above 

sea level)

Above 8,000

7,000-8,000

6,000-7,000 

Below 6.0004

Precipitation

Average 2

(ft/yr)

1.8

1.5

1.2 

.9

Percent as 

recharge 3

25

15

7 

2

Upper Maggie Creek

Area 

(acres)

1,100

26,100

93,600 

97,000

Potential 

recharge 

(acre-ft/yr)

500

5,900

7,900 

1,700

Lower Maggie Creek

Area 

(ecres)

0

539

3,720 

31,300

Potential 

recharge 

(acre-ft/yr)

0

120

310 

560

Marys Creek

Area 

(acres)

0

1,120

8,730 

19,800

Potential 

recharge 

(acre-ft/yr)

0

250

730 

360

Totals 218,000 16,000 35,600 990 29,600 1,300

Altitude zone 

(feet above 

sea level)

Above 8,000

7,000-8,000

6,000-7,000 

Below 6,000 l

Precipitation

Average 1 

(ft/yr)

1.8

1.5

1.2 

.9

Percent as 

recharge 1

25

15

7 

2

Susie Creek

Area 

(acres)

54

3,060

55,200 

59,100

Potential 

recharge 

(acre-ft/yr)

24

690

4,600 

1,100

Combined three-basin 

area

Area 

(ecres)

1,160

30,800

161,000 

207,000

Potential 

recharge 

(acre-ft/yr)

520

6,900

14,000 

3,700

Totals 117,000 6,400 400,000 25,000

1 Areas rounded to three significant figures; recharge estimates rounded to two significant figures. 

1 Computed from precipitation-altitude relation developed as part of study.

1 For altitude zones above 6,000 feet, percent of precipitation as recharge taken fromEakin (1961, p. 20); for zone below 6,000 feet, percent 

from Stone (1992, p. 4-5).

1 Lowest part of this zone is along Humboldt River flood plain at altitude of about 4,900 feet.

flow lines indicate that the recharge area for this underflow is at the south end of the Tuscarora Mountains 

(fig. 22) where estimated potential recharge is probably 

no more than a few hundred acre-feet per year. Large 

quantities of ground water probably do not move 

through the mountain. Total underflow through 

Schroeder Mountain to the lower Maggie Creek Basin 

probably does not exceed 1,000 acre-ft/yr.

Infiltration of streamflow is a source of recharge 

to the aquifer in the lower Maggie Creek Basin. In a 

previous section of this report, "Surface Water," the 

capacity of the lower Maggie Creek channel to transmit 

water to underlying aquifers was estimated to be 10-20 

ft3/s. If the lower value is used as a conservative estimate, recharge from Maggie Creek to the lower basin 

is an estimated 7,000 acre-ft/yr.

Ground water also flows between lower Maggie 

Creek Basin and lower parts of the Marys Creek Basin 

through volcanic rocks and adjacent basin-fill deposits.

Ground-water flow lines (fig. 22) indicate that much of 

this underflow discharges at Carlin spring. The total 

flow of the spring, including the municipal diversion, is 

an estimated 3,000 acre-ft/yr (4 ft3/s). Total underflow 

between the two basins probably exceeds 3,000 acreft/yr because all of the underflow does not necessarily 

discharge at Carlin spring. Some also discharges 

directly into the Humboldt River channel.

Discharge

Ground-water discharge is the result of four 

processes in the study area:

(1) Evapotranspiration from phreatophytes and 

bare soil,

(2) underflow between basins,

(3) ground-water discharge to stream channels, 

and

(4) pumping for mining and agriculture (see next 

section).

Ground Water 41
Evapotranspiration is a process that consumes 

soil moisture and ground water throughout the study 

area. It also is the process that controls the percentage 

of annual precipitation that becomes ground-water 

recharge.

Evapotranspiration of ground water is limited to 

areas where water levels are sufficiently shallow that 

ground water is used by phreatophytes. Phreatophytes 

are defined as plants that obtain their water directly 

from the water table (Robinson, 1958, p. 10). The most 

common phreatophytes in the study area are big sage 

(Artemisia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus 

sp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), willow 

(Salix), small areas of saltgrass (Distichlis stricta), and 

various grasses in meadows (Harrington, 1954). These 

plants, especially the shrubs, occupy low-lying areas, 

generally along stream flood plains where water levels 

are no deeper than 40-60 ft below land surface (fig. 23).

Differing rates of ground-water usage have been 

defined for phreatophytes in the Great Basin. In early 

studies, the rates were empirically determined. In 

water-budget studies for Pine and Huntington Valleys 

south and southeast of the present study area, rates of 

ground-water use by evapotranspiration were estimated to be 0.1-0.5 ft/yr for greasewood, rabbitbrush, 

saltgrass, and willow where depths to water range 

from a few feet to 20 ft below land surface. Rates of 

0.75-1.25 ft/yr were used where water is near land surface in meadows and pastures (Eakin, 1961, p. 22, and 

Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 22).

Micrometeorological methods for quantifying the 

components of the energy budget near the ground surface have been applied to determine evapotranspiration 

rates at several sites in central and northern Nevada in 

the summers of 1991 and 1992 (MJ. Johnson, U.S. 

Geological Survey, written commun., 1993). Three of 

the sites are in the upper Maggie Creek Basin (fig. 23).

Evapotranspiration rates were measured from 

July 24 to August 7, 1991, at site 1 (fig. 23), where 

phreatophytes consist of rabbitbrush and grass. Rates 

were measured from June 20 to July 7,1992, at site 2, 

where phreatophytes also consist of rabbitbrush and 

grass, and at site 3, where phreatophytes consist of 

meadow grass. Average daily evapotranspiration rates 

measured at the three sites were 0.0046 ft/d at site 1, 

0.0059 ft/d at site 2, and 0.0089 ft/d at site 3 (M.J. 

Johnson, written commun., 1993). The evapotranspiration rate at site 3 was higher than at the other two sites 

because the plant density in areas of meadow grass is 

greater than in areas of rabbitbrush and grass. In addition, water levels were at or near land surface in areas 

of meadow grass, but ranged from about 10 ft to more 

than 30 ft below land surface in areas of rabbitbrush.

Nichols (1993, p. 2775) concluded that the annual 

growing season for greasewood in central and northern 

Nevada ranges from 140 to 165 days. During the first 

40-65 days of the season, soil moisture derived from 

winter precipitation sustains the plants, and for the 

remaining 100 days the plants use ground water 

(Nichols, 1993, p. 2775). If this conclusion is applied 

to the rates measured at the sites in the upper Maggie 

Creek Basin, annual rates of ground-water evapotranspiration are an estimated 0.5 ft/yr in areas of rabbitbrash and grass and 0.9 ft/yr in areas of meadow grass. 

The rate for rabbitbrush and grass also was used for 

areas of greasewood.

In upper Maggie Creek Basin, phreatophytes 

cover an estimated 12,700 acres (table 6). Phreatophytes consist mostly of meadow grass and willow in 

lowlands along Maggie Creek and its principal tributaries, whereas big sage and rabbitbrush occupy much 

larger areas beyond the meadows. The two phreatophyte types are not distinguished in figure 23. On the 

basis of field mapping, the estimated area of each type 

is 1,800 acres of meadow grass and willow (rate of 

0.9 ft/yr) and 10,900 acres of big sage and rabbitbrush 

(0.5 ft/yr). Using these areas and rates, evapotranspiration in the upper Maggie Creek Basin is an estimated 

7,100acre-ft/yr.

Phreatophytes in lower Maggie Creek Basin 

cover an estimated 3,380 acres (table 6). Big sage, 

rabbitbrush, and meadow grass are the principal 

phreatophytes in the basin, although greasewood is 

common near the Humboldt River. The total area also 

includes about 400 acres of irrigated agriculture, where 

annual evapotranspiration rates are an estimated 1 ft/yr. 

If annual rates of 0.5 ft/yr are applied to areas of big 

sage, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and meadow grass and 

1 ft/yr is applied to irrigated areas, then total groundwater discharge by evapotranspiration is an estimated 

l,900acre-ft/yr.

The principal phreatophytes in the Susie Creek 

Basin are greasewood near the Humboldt River and big 

sage and rabbitbrash in other parts of the basin. The 

total area of phreatophytes is about 3,480 acres (table 

6). The estimated annual evapotranspiration rate from 

ground water is 0.5 ft/yr, and total ground-water discharge is about 1,700 acre-ft/yr.

42 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevade
116°30' 116°00' 115°45'

41°00'

40°45'

r^

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000.1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Phreatophyte mapping by R.W. Plume, 1992

10 MILES

I 

10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

| s " !! "^"'"[ Phreatophytes and irrigated cropland 

 Basin boundary

^ Site where evapotranspiretion rate was measured 

Site number is referred to in text

Figure 23. Distribution of phreatophytes and irrigated cropland in study area, northeastern Nevada.

Ground Water 43
Table 6. Estimated long-term ground-water discharge in study area, 

northeastern Nevada

[Totals rounded to nearest 1,000. Abbreviations: acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per year; frVs, cubic feet per 

second; ft/yr, feet per year]

Maggie Creek

Item Upper Lower Marys Susie 

Creek Creek

Total for 

three-basin 

study area

Evapotranspiration

Rate (ft/yr)

Area of phreatophytes 

(acres)

Annual volume 6 

(acre-ft/yr)

(i)

12,700

7,100

(2)

3,380

1,900

< 3> 40.5

970 3,480

700 1,700

(5)

20,000

11,000

Springflow and discharge to stream channels

Annual volume 

(acre-ft/yr)

Annual volume 

(acre-ft/yr)

74,000

"1,000

(8)

Underflow

123,000

93,000 <8>

0 0

107,000

0

Basin totals 13

12,000 85,000 84,000 82,000 18,000

1 Rates used were 0.5 ft/yr for 10,900 acres of big sage and rabbitbrush and 0.9 ft/yr for 1,800 

acres of meadow grass and willow.

2 Rates used were 0.5 ft/yr for 2,980 acres of big sage and rabbitbrush and 1 ft/yr for 400 

acres of irrigated agriculture.

3 Rates used were 0.5 ft/yr for 520 acres of big sage and rabbitbrush and 0.9 ft/yr for 450 

acres of willow and meadow grass.

4 Rate used was 0.5 ft/yr for greasewood near the Humboldt River and for big sage and rabbitbrush in other parts of the basin.

5 Average rate for three-basin area not computed.

6 Computed as product of area of phreatophytes and rate (rounded to nearest 100).

7 Value based on minimum baseflow of Maggie Creek of 5 frVs.

8 Discharge to Humboldt River channel could not be reliably measured.

9 Value is based on estimated average discharge of Carlin spring (4 fr'/s). Value does not 

include additional discharge to Humboldt River channel.

10 Estimated total study-area discharge to Humboldt River channel based on minimum 

October baseflow (10 ft3/s) for Humboldt River.

11 Estimated underflow to lower Maggie Creek Basin.

12 Underflow from lower Maggie Creek Basin to Marys Creek Basin, estimated as flow of 

Carlin spring.

13 Values are column totals of evapotranspiration, springflow and discharge to stream channels, and underflow. Totals for individual basins are believed to be low because discharge to the 

reach of the Humboldt River channel adjacent to each basin could not be quantified.

44 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Phreatophytes cover an estimated 970 acres in the 

Marys Creek Basin (table 6). They consist of about 520 

acres of big sage and rabbitbrush (0.5 ft/yr) to the north 

and west and about 450 acres of willows and meadow 

grass (0.9 ft/yr) from Carlin spring to the Humboldt 

River. Using these areas and rates, the estimated 

annual ground-water discharge by way of evapotranspiration is 700 acre-ft/yr.

Ground-water underflow between basins of the 

study area was discussed as a recharge source in the 

previous section of this report. Underflow from the 

upper Maggie Creek Basin through Schroeder Mountain to the lower basin is estimated to be 1,000 acreft/yr or less (table 6). Underflow from lower Maggie 

Creek Basin to Carlin spring in Marys Creek Basin is 

estimated to be at least 3,000 acre-ft/yr (table 6).

Ground-water discharge that sustains the baseflow of a stream is listed in table 6 as the total of 

spring-flow near the stream and inflow directly into 

the channel because the two cannot always be distinguished. In the upper Maggie Creek basin, total 

ground-water discharge to the Maggie Creek channel 

is estimated to be 4,000 acre-ft/yr based on the estimated minimum baseflow of the stream (5 f^/s) 

adjacent to the unnamed hills.

The individual contribution of ground-water discharge from each basin of the study area to the Humboldt River could not be quantified because streamflow 

gains or losses were difficult to measure over the short 

reach of the river adjacent to each basin. However, 

combined discharge to the longer reach of river channel 

adjacent to the three basins of the study area was measured and is an estimated 7,000 acre-ft/yr. This 

includes inflow directly to the river channel and the discharge of Carlin spring and two other unnamed springs 

nearby (sites 103,106, and 107; table 12). The orifice 

for one of the springs (site 103) is at the base of bluffs 

north of the Humboldt River about 3 mi southwest of 

Carlin. The spring is not in Marys Creek Basin, but all 

of its discharge originates in the basin.

Use

The principal uses of ground water in the study 

area are agriculture, mining, and municipal (table 4). 

Agricultural uses are subdivided into irrigation of crops

and watering stock. Only two irrigation wells are in use 

in the study area. Total annual pumpage permitted at 

the two wells is 1,782 acre-ft/yr; however, that pumpage depends in part on the amount of surface water 

diverted from Maggie Creek. Each of the wells produces 1,800-2,000 gal/min and neither is operated for 

more than 90 days each year (Wayne Fahsholtz, 

Maggie Creek Ranch, oral commun., 1992). A rate 

of 2,100 gal/min was measured at well 25 (table 13) 

in June 1990 using the trajectory method for estimating 

discharge from a horizontal pipe (Howe, 1950, p. 226). 

Pumping at this rate for 90 days at both wells would 

constitute an annual rate of about 1,700 acre-ft/yr.

Livestock use of ground water is small compared 

with other uses in the study area. The Nevada Division 

of Water Resources permits pumpage of 20 gal/d for 

large animals such as horses and cows. The study area 

supports about 4,000 head of cattle year round. At a 

daily rate of 20 gallons per animal, pumpage of ground 

water for livestock is an estimated 90 acre-ft/yr. The 

actual value may be somewhat less because streamflow, where available, also is used to supply livestock 

needs.

Pumpage for industrial use of ground water in the 

study area is dominated by the mining industry. In 

1985, about 790 acre-ft of ground water was pumped 

for mining use; by 1989-90, pumpage had increased to 

6,000-7,000 acre-ft/yr (table 4). This ground water 

was consumptively used for processing ore, dust control, and other aspects of mining. Beginning in 1993, 

the pumping rate increased when dewatering of Gold 

Quarry mine began. The annual rate may reach 70,000 

acre-ft/yr in the later stages of dewatering, in about the 

year 2000 (C.J. Zimmerman, written commun., 1992). 

To the extent possible, this water will be used for mining and milling and for irrigating cropland; however, as 

much as 50,000-60,000 acre-ft/yr will leave the area by 

way of Maggie Creek and the Humboldt River.

Municipal use of well water in the study area 

began in 1989, when a well was drilled near Carlin to 

supplement diversions from Carlin spring. Pumpage 

from this well was 0.2 acre-ft in 1989 and 3 acre-ft in 

1990 (table 4).

Ground Water 45
Chemical and Isotopic Composition of the 

Water

Chemical Composition of Ground Water

As a part of the study, water samples were collected at 14 wells and 7 springs (fig. 24). Samples from 

13 of the wells and 4 of the springs were analyzed for 

overall chemical composition, which is summarized in 

the diagram in figure 25. The diagram consists of five 

fields two triangular and three rectangular. Each 

chemical analysis is plotted as five points hi the diagram. In combination, the five points plotted for each 

sample provide a general idea of the overall chemical 

character of the water. The relative proportions, in percent of total milliequivalents, of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and major 

anions (sulfate, chloride, and bicarbonate) are shown 

on the left and upper triangles, respectively. The pH 

and dissolved-solids concentration for each sample are 

shown on the bottom and right rectangles, respectively. 

The arrows in figure 25 show how values for the 

analysis of a sample for site 36 are plotted in the triangular fields and are projected, by way of the central 

rectangle, to the fields for pH and dissolved solids.

The general chemical character of ground water 

in the Maggie Creek study area does not differ much 

from sample sites near recharge areas to sites near discharge areas. With two exceptions, the ground water is 

a calcium to sodium bicarbonate type (fig. 25). The 

water is near neutral: pH ranges from 6.6 to 7.9. 

Dissolved-solids concentrations range from less than 

100 to 345 mg/L.

The two sites with ground water that differs 

chemically from the other sampled ground water are a 

spring near a mineralized area and mine dumps in the 

Tuscarora Mountains and a well finished in basin-fill 

deposits along the edge of the Humboldt River flood 

plain (sites 101 and 36; tables 12 and 13 and fig. 24). 

Water from the spring is a calcium sulfate type. The 

dissolved-solids content is 1,240 mg/L. The pH of 6.6 

at this spring was one of the two lowest values measured in the study area. The slightly acidic pH in this 

water suggests that it has been in contact with sulfide 

minerals in mineralized zones or in mine dumps.

Ground water from site 36, the well along the 

edge of the Humboldt River flood plain, is a sodium 

sulfate type. The dissolved-solids content of 1,550 

mg/L was the highest value measured in the study area. 

Possible reasons for the different chemical quality of

the water are evaporite beds in the basin-fill deposits 

penetrated by the well or contamination from an 

unidentified source.

Isotopic Composition of Ground Water and 

Surface Water

Many chemical elements have more than one 

isotope. All isotopes of an element have the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus but have differing 

numbers of neutrons. Thus, the isotopes of an element 

all have the same atomic number but have different 

atomic weights. Two types of isotopes radioactive 

and stable were used herein to estimate ages of 

ground water and to evaluate conclusions made earlier 

regarding sources of recharge and possible mixing of 

water from different sources.

Radioactive isotopes undergo radioactive decay. 

This means that the isotope eventually decays into a 

lighter element and, in the process, emits atomic 

particles. Analyses of radioactive isotopes are useful 

for estimating the length of time since recharge of the 

water, or age. Concentrations of radioactive isotopes 

are expressed in picocuries per liter (pCi/L).

Concentrations of the radioactive isotope, tritium, 

in ground water from 10 wells and 5 springs in the 

lower Maggie Creek area are shown in figure 26. 

Eleven of the sites were sampled as a part of the study. 

Tritium values for water at the other four sites were 

provided by Newmont Gold Co. (C.J. Zimmerman, 

written commun., 1991). Water samples from six of 

the sites had values less than the analytical detection 

limit of 0.3 pCi/L. Two samples had a value of 6 pCi/L, 

and seven had values that ranged from 12 to 60 pCi/L. 

Values less than 0.3 pCi/L indicate ground water older 

than about 60 years, whereas values of 6 pCi/L indicate 

that the sampled ground water is about 40-60 years old 

(Robertson and Cherry, 1989, p. 1108). Ground water 

with values of 6 pCi/L or less came from relatively 

deep wells finished in basin-fill deposits and carbonate 

rocks at Schroeder Mountain, and from two unnamed 

springs southwest of Carlin (sites 103 and 107; table 12 

and fig. 26).

Tritium values of 12-60 pCi/L indicate that the 

ground water was recharged in the last 40 years. Four 

of these sites are two springs near recharge areas in the 

southern Tuscarora Mountains and Marys Mountain, a 

well along a tributary of upper Maggie Creek, and a 

well near the Humboldt River flood plain (sites 102, 

105, 67, and 36; tables 12 and 13 and figs. 24 and 26).

46 Watar Rasourcaa and Potantiai Effects of Devalopmant in Maggia Creek araa, northaaatern Nevada
116°20' 116°00'

40°50' -

40°40' -

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1967); modified by R.W. Plume, 1991

EXPLANATION

Basin-fill deposits 

Bedrock 

 Basin boundary ,36 

.106

Ground-water flow path Chemical quality of 

ground water at each end of path was used 

to evaluate chemical evolution along path

Well Site number in table 13 is indicated 

Spring Site number in table 12 is indicated

AMA"1 Surface-water site Site number in table 11 and 

figure! 6 is indicated

Figure 24. Locations of wells, springs, and surface-water sites sampled for water quality in lower 

Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

Chemical and Isotoplc Composition of the Water 47
NOTE: TRILINEAR PLOTS 

INDICATE PERCENTAGES, ON 

BASIS OF MILLIEQUIVALENTS 

PER LITER

100>P

MAGNESIUM, 

AS PERCENT OF TOTAL CATIONS

\f7<0

~*-$.

^\ G^ .&

° 5

6

I 7

°-

8

9

ff

101 K

101 K

>

3

36

X

x x

X X

X

*t X*

x

-

-

X v

* x

X X K X -

8

1

36

K *

x

$* K101

0 100 1,000 10,C

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

100

-80

- 80

20

0 20 40 80 80 100

BICARBONATE, 

AS PERCENT OF TOTAL ANIONS

Figure 25. General chemical character of sampled ground water in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada. 

Arrows show projection of values for a single sample (from site 36) from triangles to rectangles, indicating water type, 

pH, and dissolved-solids concentration of sample.

48 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
116°20' 116°00'

40°50' -

40°40'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100,000, 1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone11 EXPLANATION

Basin-fill deposits Bedrock

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats (1987); modified by R.W. Plume, 1991

 Basin boundary

Well Sampled by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for deuterium; selected sites also sampled for tritium Top number 

is deuterium value, in permil. Bottom number or symbol indicates as follows: number is tritium value, in picocuries 

per liter (pCi/L); <, tritium value less than analytical reporting limit of 0.3 pCi/L; , no tritium analysis available

Well Sampled by USGS for deuterium and by Newmont Gold Co. for tritium. Top number is deuterium value, in 

permil. Bottom number is tritium value, in pCi/L

Spring Sampled by USGS for deuterium; selected sites also sampled for tritium. Top number is deuterium value, in 

permil. Bottom number or symbol indicates as follows: number is tritium value, in pCi/L; <, tritium value less than 

analytical reporting limit of 0.3 pCi/L; , no tritium analysis available

Spring Sampled by USGS for deuterium and by Newmont Gold Co. for tritium. Top number is deuterium value, in 

permil. Bottom number or symbol indicates as follows: number is tritium value, in pCi/L; <, tritium value less than 

analytical reporting limit of 0.3 pCi/L

^124 Surface-water site Number is deuterium value, in permil

Figure 26. Areal distribution of tritium and deuterium for ground water and surface water in lower 

Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada.

49

-125 ~

-128

-123

~ 60

Chemical and Isotopic Composition of the Water 49
Tritium values for these sites were 60,12, 37, and 29 

pCi/L, respectively. The source of water from the two 

springs most likely is high-altitude recharge from 

nearby mountains. The source of water from the two 

wells is probably leakage of streamflow, because both 

wells are shallow and near the stream.

Three other ground-water sites having high 

tritium values are an irrigation well along Maggie 

Creek, a municipal well between Maggie Creek and 

Carlin spring, and Carlin spring (sites 25, 35, and 106; 

tables 12 and 13 and figs. 24 and 26). Both wells are 

finished partly in volcanic rocks. Tritium values were 

33 pCi/L at the irrigation well, 49 pCi/L at the municipal well, and 22 pCi/L at the spring. The values suggest 

that streamflow from Maggie Creek enters the volcanic 

rocks along the stream channel, moves rapidly southward through the rocks, and discharges at the spring. 

Residence times of the water in the volcanic rocks cannot be computed accurately because the tritium content 

of streamflow when it became ground-water recharge is 

not known. However, the small change in tritium 

values between the irrigation well and Carlin spring 

indicate short residence times for the water, possibly 

less than 20-30 years.

Stable isotopes do not undergo radioactive decay. 

Their concentrations are indirectly determined as a proportion that is the ratio of the concentration of the isotope of interest to the most abundant isotope of the 

same element. Isotopic values are expressed as the 

difference between the measured ratio and the ratio of 

an accepted standard. For example, the stable isotope 

oxygen-18 (18O) has two more neutrons in its atomic 

nucleus than the more abundant form, oxygen-16 

( 16O). The proportion of 18O in a water sample is 

expressed as the amount, in permil, by which the ratio 

18Q/16Q offers from the accepted standard. This deviation of 18O/16O from the standard is termed delta 

oxygen-18 and is expressed as 818O.

Stable isotopes, especially the lighter ones, are 

useful in hydrologic studies because their proportions 

change as a result of geochemical, biological, and 

physical processes. The difference resulting from these 

processes is called isotopic fractionation. During evaporation, for example, SO increases because 1 °O is 

lighter and leaves the water at a greater rate than the 

heavier 18O. As a result, the remaining water becomes 

enriched in 18O compared with 16O during evaporation. The water, after evaporation, is said to be isotopically heavier compared to the original water. The terms

isotopically heavier and isotopically lighter are relative 

and are used for comparing the composition of water 

samples.

Figure 27 shows the relation of 818O to 8D (delta 

deuterium) in ground and surface water in the lower 

Maggie Creek area. Deuterium is a stable isotope of 

hydrogen. The data on this graph represent ground 

water from wells and springs and surface water, sampled during baseflow conditions, from Maggie, Marys, 

and Susie Creeks and the Humboldt River (see fig. 24 

for sample locations). The isotopically lightest ground 

water sampled in the lower Maggie Creek area came 

from three flowing wells (sites 41,42, and 43; figs. 24, 

26, and 27). These wells penetrate relatively deep parts 

of the basin-fill aquifer in the upper Maggie Creek 

Basin along the west side of the Schroeder Mountain 

uplift. This ground water probably originated as highaltitude recharge in the Tuscarora and Independence 

Mountains in the northern part of the upper Maggie 

Creek Basin.

Isotopically light ground water similar to that at 

the three flowing wells was not found in the lower 

Maggie Creek Basin. In this part of the study area, 

ground water from wells is isotopically heavier 

(figs. 26 and 27), which suggests that most highaltitude recharge from northern parts of the Tuscarora 

and Independence Mountains is discharged in the 

upper Maggie Creek Basin. The data support the conclusion made in a previous section that ground-water 

underflow between the basins of upper and lower Maggie Creek is minimal. Ground water that discharges 

into the channel of upper Maggie Creek may be isotopically light when it enters the stream channel. 

However, the water is isotopically heavier because of 

evaporation by the time it is available as a source of 

recharge in the lower Maggie Creek Basin (fig. 27).

Ground water that is isotopically heavier than 

water from the three flowing wells came from relatively shallow wells and springs in the southern part of 

the upper Maggie Creek Basin, lower Maggie Creek 

Basin, and the Marys Creek Basin (fig. 26). Recharge 

areas for ground water from these wells and springs are 

at altitudes 1,000-2,000 ft lower and 10-30 mi south of 

recharge areas in northern parts of the Tuscarora and 

Independence Mountains. The variability in composition of the isotopically heavier ground water is probably due mostly to seasonal and topographic effects. 

The values suggest that part of the ground-water 

recharge to the lower Maggie Creek area comes from 

nearby mountain ranges. Comparison of values for

50 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Meggle Creek area, northeastern Neveda
-110

-120

DC 

HI 

Q.

-130

HI

HI 

Q

Qj -140 

Q

-150

*107

43

-19

Mn

-18 -17 -16 -15 -14 

DELTA OXYGEN-1 8 (818 O), IN PERMIL

EXPLANATION

Ground-water site Well or spring. Site number In text and figure 24 is Indicated 

Carlln spring

Surface-water site on Maggie, Marys, or Susie Creeks Site designation in figures 1 6 

and 24 is indicated

Surface-water site on Humboldt River Site designation in figures 1 6 and 24 is indicated

Figure 27. Relation between deuterium and oxygen-18 for ground-water and surfacewater samples in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada. Equation for meteoric 

water line 8D = 8 (818O) + 10 (Craig, 1961).

ground water with values for water from Maggie and 

Susie Creeks also suggests that infiltration of streamflow is a source of recharge (fig. 27).

Comparison of the isotopic composition of water 

from the Humboldt River above and below Carlin with 

the composition of water at Carlin spring (sites HR-3, 

HR-8, and 106, respectively; fig. 24) supports a conclusion made earlier that ground water discharges into the 

river. Deuterium values of water in the Humboldt 

River on November 16,1989, were -117 and -124 

permil above and below Carlin, respectively (fig. 27). 

Three days earlier, the flow of the river at the two sites 

was about 44 ft3/s above Carlin and about 54 ft3/s 

below Carlin (table 11), indicating a gain of 10 ft3/s. 

Using the deuterium values and measured flows of the 

river, a mass-balance calculation can be used to compute an estimated gain in flow due to ground water 

entering the river. The equation

(Q.C,) = (QbCb) (2)

Q Q IS IS

can be used to compute the estimated flow increase 

assuming that the deuterium composition at Carlin 

spring (-127 permil) is representative of ground water 

entering the river. In the equation, Q is flow, in cubic 

feet per second, C is deuterium composition, in permil, 

and the subscripts indicate water from the river (a) 

above and (b) below Carlin and (g) ground-water discharge. Substitutions of values for flow and deuterium 

composition of the river above and below Carlin and 

for the deuterium composition of water at Carlin spring 

yield a value for Qg of 12 ft3/s. This value is close to 

the gain of 10 ft3/s measured 3 days earlier.

Chemical and Isotopic Composition of the Water 51
Geochemical Interpretation of Hypothetical Flow 

Paths

Geochemical mass-transfer models were used to 

evaluate the chemical character of ground water along 

four flow paths identified on the basis of geologic, 

hydrologic, and isotopic evidence. The models were 

developed using the computer program NETPATH 

(Plummer and others, 1991).

The program results consist of sets of reactions, 

each a separate hypothesized model, which attempt to 

account for the chemical evolution of water from an 

initial (recharge area) to final (discharge area) composition. Each model is constrained (1) by the chemical 

composition of water at a well or spring at the beginning and end of the flow path (table 14), and (2) by mineral and gas phases identified or presumed to be present 

and reacting with ground water along the flow path 

(tables 7 and 8). On the basis of these constraints, the 

program determines all possible reactions that could 

account for the chemical composition of ground water 

at the end of the path being evaluated. These reactions 

include exchange of calcium and magnesium in the 

water with sodium on clay minerals (cation exchange), 

precipitation and formation or dissolution of mineral 

phases, and exsolution or dissolution of carbon dioxide 

gas.

Each set of reactions must be evaluated to reject 

unreasonable models and to identify one or more reasonable ones. Models generally are rejected for either 

of two reasons. First, one or more reactions may indicate processes that would not be expected (precipitation of the minerals andesine or biotite, for instance). 

Second, the mass transfer of each phase for a particular 

model (table 7) should be consistent with the saturation 

index for the phase at the end of the flow path (table 8). 

For example, a model indicating dissolution of calcite 

along a flow path (table 7) is considered valid only if 

the saturation index for calcite at the end of the flow 

path (table 8) indicates that the water is undersaturated 

with respect to calcite. The result generally is that more 

than one model can account for the chemical evolution 

of water from an initial to final composition because 

no single model represents a unique solution to the 

problem.

A fit of the measured data to a seemingly reasonable model does not prove that ground water is moving 

from the beginning to the end of the flow path. The 

model simply indicates that ground water at the end of

the proposed flow path could have evolved chemically 

from the composition of water at the beginning of the 

path.

The first flow path evaluated is in the upper 

Maggie Creek Basin and involves ground-water flow 

from recharge areas in the Tuscarora Mountains to the 

discharge area along upper Maggie Creek. For this 

flow path, water from a spring adjacent to the Tuscarora 

Mountains (site 102; fig. 24) was chosen to represent 

the chemical composition of ground water near the 

recharge area. Although the spring orifice is in basinfill deposits, its flow originated as recharge in carbonate 

and clastic sedimentary rocks in the adjacent mountains (figs. 5 and 24). Water from a flowing well (site 

41; fig. 24) was chosen to represent the chemical composition of ground water in the discharge area at the 

end of the flow path.

Ground-water flow lines shown in figure 22 

indicate that the flow path described above is hydrologically reasonable. However, water from the spring 

is isotopically heavier than relatively deep ground 

water discharging from the well. The reason for this 

isotopic difference may be that water from the well 

originated as high-altitude recharge in northern parts of 

the basin. The isotopic difference, however, does not 

necessarily indicate that chemical differences between 

ground water near recharge areas in northern parts of 

the basin and ground water near recharge areas in 

southern parts are significant. Clastic sedimentary 

rocks structurally overlie carbonate rocks throughout 

the Tuscarora Mountains. For this reason, water discharging from the spring is thought to be chemically 

representative of ground water near recharge areas 

throughout the mountain range.

The mass-transfer model for the flow path from 

site 102 to site 41 (table 7) indicates that water from the 

flowing well at the end of the flow path could have 

evolved chemically from water at the spring near the 

recharge area in the southern Tuscarora Mountains. 

The composition would change by dissolving the minerals calcite, dolomite, pyrite, halite, andesine, and 

potassium feldspar and by exchanging dissolved calcium and magnesium with sodium on clays (table 7). 

Other phases are also chemically and thermodynamically feasible. For example, pyrite was chosen to represent the source of sulfate in the water in this model 

because of sulfide mineralization in the area; however, 

gypsum also is in rocks of the study area, and an 

acceptable model results if pyrite is replaced by 

gypsum.

52 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek aree, northeastern Nevada
Table 7. Mass transfer of mineral and gas phases along four hypothetical ground-water flow paths in lower Maggie Creek 

area, northeastern Nevada

[Negative value indicates that phase is leaving solution as mineral precipitation, mineral formation, or outgassing; positive value indicates that phase is 

dissolving. For cation exchange, positive value indicates that sodium is entering solution and calcium and magnesium are being removed from solution. 

Symbol: --, constituent not used for mass-transfer calculation. Computed using computer program NETPATH (Plummer, and others, 1991)]

Carbonate minerals Aluminosilicate minerals Other phases

Flow path 1

Cation

Calclte Dolomite Andesine Blotite Kaollnlte K-feldspar Pyrite Halite C02 exchange2

gas

Mass-transfer quantities (millimoles per kilogram of water)

102 to 41

102 to 106

25 to 106

102 and 25

to 106 3

0.21

.26

.02

.14

0.29

.42

.07

0.12

.64

.03

.02

0.22

-0.84 .16

0.00 - -.01

_.

.02

0.15

.21

-.03

.01

0.17

.40

-.03

.04

0.01

1.62

.40

.53

0.36

-.04

-

1 Numbers are site numbers in tables 12-14 and figure 24. For first three flow paths, first number is site at beginning of flow path and second number 

is site at end of flow path. For last flow path, first two numbers are sites at beginning of flow path and third number is site at end of flow path.

2 Exchange of calcium and magnesium for sodium is based on calcium-to-magnesium ratio in water at end of path.

3 For this model, water from sites 102 and 25 was mixed to obtain composition of water at site 106.

Table 8. Saturation indices 1 for mineral phases in ground water at ends of four 

hypothetical flow paths in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[Calculated using computer program NETPATH (Plummer and others, 1991)]

Site No. 

(figure 24)

Carbonate minerals

Calcite Dolomite Albite

Aluminosilicate minerals

Anorthite Biotite Kaolinite

Halite

Recharge areas

25 

102

-0.4 

-2.2

-1.2 

-4.8

0.1 

-1.1

-2.6 

-3.0

-9.3 

-15.1

4.5 

5.6

-7.8 

-8.9

Discharge areas

41 

106

i

SI =

-0.3 

-0.6

IAP , log-j 

K.T

-0.9 

-1.5

0.3 

-.4

-2.6 

-3.1

-4.6 

-9.8

3.2 

4.1

-8.0 

-7.9

where SI is saturation index, LAP is ion-activity product, and KT is equilibrium constant at water temperature T, 

for mineral of interest (Drever, 1988, p. 23). Positive value of SI indicates mineral can precipitate from solution; 

negative value indicates mineral can dissolve if present. Aluminum concentration of 10 micrograms per liter was 

used for calculations.

Chemical and Isotoplc Composition of the Water 53
The flow-path model discussed above may be 

representative of the chemical evolution of ground 

water between recharge areas in the Tuscarora Mountains and discharge areas near Maggie Creek. However, the model is not representative of the process if 

ground water near recharge areas in the northern part of 

the mountain range is not chemically similar to ground 

water near recharge areas in the southern part. This 

issue could be resolved by obtaining and analyzing 

other water-quality data for springs in the northern part 

of the mountain range. Such data are not available.

The second flow path evaluated involves groundwater flow from recharge areas in the southern 

Tuscarora Mountains and northern Marys Mountain to 

the discharge area at Carlin spring (from site 102 to site 

106; table 7). The spring used to represent the chemistry of ground water near a recharge area for the first 

flow-path model also was used for this model for two 

reasons. First, ground-water flow lines extend from the 

southern Tuscarora Mountains to production wells near 

Gold Quarry (fig. 22). These flow lines probably 

extended to Carlin spring prior to development of the 

mine. Second, ground water near recharge areas on 

Marys Mountain could be chemically similar to ground 

water in recharge areas at the southern end of the 

Tuscarora Mountains because the same hydrogeologic 

units are in both areas (fig. 5). Phases used for this 

flow-path model were those used for the first model, 

except that the clay mineral kaolinite was allowed to 

form instead of using cation exchange. The reason for 

this change is that the increased residence time of water 

in the aquifer along the longer flow path could result in 

the formation of clay minerals. The model results for 

this flow path are similar to the results for the first flow 

path. However, amounts of mass transfer were greater 

for this longer flow path (tables 7 and 8).

The third flow path evaluated is shallow and 

extends from an irrigation well along lower Maggie 

Creek to Carlin spring (from site 25 to site 106; tables 7 

and 8). The chemical composition of water at the well 

is assumed to be typical of recharge from Maggie 

Creek. Water at Carlin spring is assumed to be typical 

of water at the end of the flow path near the discharge 

area. Phases used for this model were the same as those 

used for the first flow-path model in the upper Maggie 

Creek Basin, except that biotite was used as a possible 

source of magnesium instead of dolomite because the 

ground water is moving through volcanic rocks. The 

model results indicate that pyrite, halite, and potassium 

feldspar should precipitate from the water, and sodium

in solution should exchange for calcium and magnesium on clays (table 7). In contrast, saturation indices 

(table 8) indicate that ground water is undersaturated 

with respect to pyrite, halite, and potassium feldspar at 

both ends of the flow path. If present, these minerals 

should be dissolving. Thus, this model does not seem 

to be reasonable; however, the mass transfers involved 

in the formation of these minerals are very small 

(table 7), ranging from 0.01 to only 0.04 mmol/kg. 

Such small amounts of mass transfer are within the 

uncertainties involved with the collection and analysis 

of the samples. The only phase involving more than 

0.04 mmol/kg of mass transfer is carbon dioxide gas, 

which is probably being dissolved in the soil zone near 

Maggie Creek. This model suggests that water discharging from Carlin spring is chemically similar to 

water from the well next to Maggie Creek. This similarity is the result of minimal chemical reactions as the 

ground water moves rapidly through the volcanic rocks 

from Maggie Creek to Carlin spring. The tritium data 

discussed earlier also support this interpretation.

The fourth flow-path model involves ground 

water from two recharge sources: (1) recharge from the 

southern Tuscarora Mountains in the upper Maggie 

Creek Basin (site 102; fig. 24) and (2) infiltration of 

streamflow along lower Maggie Creek (site 25; fig. 24). 

Water from the two sources is mixed and discharges at 

Carlin spring (site 106; fig. 24). Mineral and gas 

phases for this model were calcite, dolomite, pyrite, 

halite, andesine, potassium feldspar, and carbon 

dioxide. The mixing of water from the two sources 

constitutes another phase in the model. The model 

results suggest that the composition of water at Carlin 

spring could have evolved from the two recharge 

sources by dissolution of the phases used in the model 

(tables 7 and 8).

The results of the fourth flow-path model also 

suggest that water discharging from Carlin spring 

could be a mixture of about 80 percent recharge from 

lower Maggie Creek and about 20 percent recharge 

from the southern end of the Tuscarora Mountains, 

northern end of Marys Mountain, Schroeder Mountain, 

and the unnamed hills. Total discharge of Carlin spring 

is an estimated 3,000 acre-ft/yr (see section titled 

"Surface Water"). Thus, as much as 2,000 acre-ft/yr 

(80 percent) of the spring discharge may have originated as streamflow losses along Maggie Creek.

54 Water Resouroee and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
WATER BUDGETS

Two types of water budgets for the study area are 

described in this section of the report. The first is a 

water-resources budget a generalized budget that 

attempts to account for all of the water entering each 

basin and the mechanisms by which the water exits 

each of the basins. The second type of budget is more 

specific it describes processes of ground-water 

recharge and discharge for each basin.

Water-Resources Budgets

Water-resources budgets for the Maggie, Marys, 

and Susie Creek Basins, and for the combined threebasin area are summarized in table 9. The only known 

source of water for the three-basin area is precipitation; 

presently available hydrologic evidence indicates that 

ground-water underflow from basins beyond the study 

area is negligible. Water ultimately leaves the threebasin area as a result of evapotranspiration and runoff. 

A small fraction of precipitation infiltrates downward 

and becomes ground-water recharge. However, this 

ground water also eventually discharges as evapotranspiration or leaves the area as the baseflow part of 

runoff.

Annual precipitation for the three-basin area is an 

estimated 420,000 acre-ft/yr (table 9). Average runoff 

is estimated to be 38,000 acre-ft/yr on the basis of 

annual flow differences between the Carlin and Palisade gaging stations on the Humboldt River for water 

years 1944-91 (see section titled "Surface Water"). The 

remaining 380,000 acre-ft of precipitation is consumed 

by evapotranspiration. If this amount of evapotranspiration is distributed over the combined area of the three 

basins (400,000 acres; table 5), the average, basin-wide 

evapotranspiration rate is about 1 ft/yr. This includes 

areas of phreatophytes where water levels are shallow 

and areas where water levels are sufficiently deep that 

only soil moisture supports plant growth. The product 

of this rate and the area of each basin listed in table 5 

was used to compute total evapotranspiration from 

each of the three basins for the water budgets (table 9).

Average annual precipitation for the Maggie 

Creek Basin is 270,000 acre-ft/yr (table 9). This is the 

only water entering the basin because underflow from 

the adjacent basins of Marys and Susie Creeks is negligible. Water leaves the basin as evapotranspiration, as 

runoff, as underflow to Marys Creek Basin, and as

ground-water discharge to the Humboldt River channel. Total annual evapotranspiration in the basin is an 

estimated 250,000 acre-ft/yr, using the rate defined 

above and the basin area (254,000 acres; table 5). The 

average annual flow of Maggie Creek measured near its 

mouth during water years 1914-24 was 17,000 acreft/yr. For reasons stated previously, this value is also 

thought to be a reasonable estimate of a long-term average flow from the basin. Ground-water underflow to 

Marys Creek Basin is estimated to be at least 3,000 

acre-ft/yr. Ground-water discharge from Maggie 

Creek Basin that supports baseflow of the Humboldt 

River has not been measured but is assumed to be 

included as a part of total runoff from the three-basin 

area. Thus, the minimum amount of water leaving the 

Maggie Creek Basin is an estimated 270,000 acre-ft/yr.

Water enters the Marys Creek Basin as precipitation and as ground-water underflow from the Maggie 

Creek Basin. Total annual precipitation is an estimated 

30,000 acre-ft/yr, and underflow is estimated to be at 

least 3,000 acre-ft/yr. Total inflow to the basin is an 

estimated 33,000 acre-ft/yr. Water leaves the basin as 

evapotranspiration, runoff, spring discharge, and 

inflow to the river channel. Using the rate defined 

above, annual evapotranspiration is an estimated 

30,000 acre-ft/yr. Average runoff from the basin is at 

least 3,000 acre-ft/yr (approximately equivalent to 

Carlin springflows, 4 ft /s), but will vary from year to 

year depending on the snowmelt runoff. Ground-water 

discharge supporting baseflow of the river has not been 

measured but is assumed to be included as a part of the 

value of total runoff from the three-basin area. Thus, 

the minimum amount of water leaving the Marys Creek 

Basin is estimated to be at least 33,000 acre-ft/yr.

The major source of water to the Susie Creek 

Basin is precipitation, which is an estimated 120,000 

acre-ft/yr. Ground-water underflow from upper Maggie Creek Basin to the west and other basins to the east 

is negligible. Water leaves the basin as evapotranspiration, runoff, and inflow to the river channel. Total 

annual evapotranspiration is an estimated 117,000 

acre-ft/yr, using the rate defined above and the basin 

area listed in table 5. Annual runoff from the entire 

basin has not been quantified; however, a total annual 

flow of more than 4,000 acre-ft/yr was recorded at a 

gaging station about 15 mi upstream from the mouth 

during water years 1956-1958 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1963, p. 250). Thus, total annual runoff from the 

basin is believed to be 4,000-5,000 acre-ft/yr. Groundwater discharge from Susie Creek Basin that supports

WATER BUDGETS 55
Table 9. Long-term water-resources budgets for study area, northeastern Nevada

[Values, in acre-feet per year. Individual budget elements rounded to nearest 1,000; totals rounded to two significant 

figures. Abbreviations: , not applicable; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per year; ftVs, cubic feet per second]

Item Maggie Creek Marys Creek Susie Creek

Total for 

three-baeln 

study area

Total precipitation '

Inflows

270,000 30,000 120,000 420,000

Ground- water underflow 

from basins: 

In study area 

Beyond study area

Total inflow

Evapotranspiration 4

Stream runoff

0 33,000 

0 0

270,000

250,000

6 17,000

33,000

Outflows

30,000

73,000

0 

0

120,000

117,000

84,000-5,000

0

420,000

5380,000

938,000

Ground-water underflow

to basins: 

In study area 

Beyond study area

103,000

0

Water use u

Streamflow diversions 

Pumpage 

Total outflow 14

4,000-5,000 

137,000-8,000

15270,000

12 1,200 

0

1533,000

0 

0

15 120,000

5,000-6,000 

7,000-8,000

420,000

1 Totals may not equal sum of three basins because of rounding.

2 Basin values computed from areas of altitude zones and annual precipitation for each zone listed in table 5.

3 Estimated underflow from lower Maggie Creek Basin.

4 Values computed from basin-wide rate of 1 foot per year and basin areas listed in table 5.

5 Value computed as difference between total precipitation and runoff.

6 Estimated from record for gaging station operated 1914-24 (Schroer and Moosbumer, 1978, p. 261).

7 Minimum value based on estimated flow of Carlin spring (4 ftVs). Includes about 600-700 acre-ft/yr diverted 

for town of Carlin.

8 Range of values based on 3-year record at gaging station about 15 miles upstream from the mouth (U.S. Geological Survey, 1963, p. 250).

'Long-term gain in annual flow of Humboldt River between Carlin and Palisade gaging stations. Value includes 

baseflow due to ground-water discharge to river channel and springflow.

10 Estimated underflow to Marys Creek basin.

11 Values not included as part of total basin outflows, because most eventually is lost as evapotranspiration.

12 Includes about 600 acre-ft/yr diverted for Carlin and 600 acre-ft/yr for agriculture.

13 Includes about 6,000 acre-ft/yr for mining in 1990 (table 4) and 1,800 acre-ft/yr or less for agriculture.

14 Totals do not include values for water use.

15 Values for individual basins do not include ground-water discharge to Humboldt River channel.

56 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
baseflow of the Humboldt River has not been measured 

but is assumed to be included as a part of the value of 

total runoff from the three-basin area. The minimum 

amount of water leaving the Susie Creek Basin is an 

estimated 120,000 acre-ft/yr.

Estimated evapotranspiration and precipitation 

are the largest parts of each budget presented above. 

The errors in each of these budget elements may 

exceed the total estimates for other parts of each 

budget. In addition, the sum of estimated runoff from 

the three basins (table 9) is only 24,000-25,000 acre-ft. 

This is far short of the measured runoff from the threebasin area, which is 38,000 acre-ft/yr (table 9). To 

resolve this discrepancy, runoff values for each basin 

need to be measured under conditions of normal precipitation.

Ground-Water Budgets

Ground-water budgets for the study area are listed 

in table 10. Budgets are shown for the basins of upper 

and lower Maggie Creek, the entire basins of Maggie, 

Susie, and Marys Creeks, and the combined three-basin 

area. Budget imbalances can be accounted for either as 

errors in one or more of the estimates or, if estimated 

recharge exceeds estimated discharge, as potential 

recharge that instead leaves the basin as runoff. In 

addition, estimates of discharge are believed to be more 

reliable because the values for evapotranspiration, 

seepage, and springflow are based on field measurements. In contrast, estimates of potential recharge are 

empirically derived.

The water budget for the basin of Maggie Creek 

is separated into budgets for the upper and lower parts 

of the basin because the two differ hydrologically. 

Together, these two budgets and the budget for the 

entire Maggie Creek Basin provide a better understanding of the movement of ground water and interactions of ground water and surface water than the entirebasin budget would alone.

The basin of upper Maggie Creek is the main 

recharge area for the entire basin, and potential 

recharge as infiltration of precipitation, including 

infiltration of streamflow near mountain fronts, is an 

estimated 16,000 acre-ft/yr. Underflow of ground 

water from adjacent basins and infiltration of upper 

Maggie Creek streamflow are negligible. Thus, total 

recharge is an estimated 16,000 acre-ft/yr.

Ground water discharges from upper Maggie 

Creek Basin as evapotranspiration (7,100 acre-ft/yr), as 

inflow to upper Maggie Creek (4,000 acre-ft/yr), and as 

a small amount of underflow through Schroeder Mountain to the lower basin (less than 1,000 acre-ft/yr). 

Total estimated discharge is about 12,000 acre-ft/yr. 

The budget imbalance between estimated recharge and 

discharge is about 4,000 acre-ft/yr (table 10).

Ground water is recharged in the basin of lower 

Maggie Creek as infiltration of precipitation (990 acreft/yr), as infiltration of streamflow (7,000 acre-ft/yr), 

and as underflow from upper Maggie Creek Basin (less 

than 1,000 acre-ft/yr). Total estimated recharge is 

about 9,000 acre-ft/yr.

Ground water discharges from the lower Maggie 

Creek Basin as evapotranspiration (1,900 acre-ft/yr), as 

an unqualified amount of inflow into the channels of 

Maggie Creek near its mouth and the Humboldt River, 

and as underflow through volcanic rocks and basin-fill 

deposits to the Marys Creek Basin (3,000 acre-ft/yr). 

Total discharge is estimated to exceed 5,000 acre-ft/yr. 

The budget imbalance between estimated recharge and 

discharge is about 4,000 acre-ft/yr (table 10).

For the entire basin of Maggie Creek, groundwater recharge from infiltration of precipitation is an 

estimated 17,000 acre-ft/yr. Ground-water discharge 

as evapotranspiration is about 9,000 acre-ft/yr, and as 

underflow to Marys Creek Basin is about 3,000 acreft/yr. Inflow to the channel of the Humboldt River 

could not be quantified. Total discharge is estimated to 

exceed 12,000 acre-ft/yr. The budget imbalance of 

about 5,000 acre-ft (table 10) includes errors in estimation and components of discharge that have not been 

fully quantified.

Three items in the budgets for the basins of upper 

and lower Maggie Creek are not included in the budget 

for the entire basin. These items are ground-water 

discharge to upper Maggie Creek (4,000 acre-ft/yr), 

underflow between the two basins (about 1,000 acreft/yr), and infiltration of streamflow along lower 

Maggie Creek (7,000 acre-ft/yr). The reason is that the 

three items represent movement of water between the 

upper and lower basins of Maggie Creek. They are not 

sources of recharge to or discharge from the basin as a 

whole.

Ground water is recharged to Marys Creek 

Basin as infiltration of precipitation (1,300 acre-ft/yr) 

and as underflow from lower Maggie Creek Basin (at 

least 3,000 acre-ft/yr). Total estimated recharge is 

about 4,000 acre-ft/yr. Ground water discharges as

WATER BUDGETS 57
Table 10. Long-term ground-water budgets for study area, northeastern Nevada

[All values in acre-feet per year. Basin totals are rounded to nearest 1,000. Symbol: , not measured or not applicable. 

Abbreviation: ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Maggie Creek

Upper Lower Entire basin

Marys Creek Susie Creek

Total for 

three-basin 

study area

Recharge

Potential recharge from

precipitation '

Infiltration of streamflow

Underflow from basins:

In study area

Beyond study area

Total recharge

16,000

0

0

0

16,000

990

27,000

3 1,000

0

9,000

17,000

0

0

0

17,000

1,300

0

43,000

0

4,000

6,400

0

0

0

6,000

25,000

0

0

25,000

Evapotranspiration

Net discharge to 

stream channels

Underflow to basins: 

In study area 

Beyond study area

Springflow 

Total discharge

Discharge

7,100 1,900 9,000 700

64,000 0

3 1,000

0

0

43,000

0

0

0

43,000

0

0

1,700 11,000

0 77,000

0

0

83,000

0

0 0

(9)

12,000 5,000 12,000 4,000 2,000 18,000

Budget imbalance

(recharge minus discharge) 4,000 4,000 5,000 0 4,000 7,000

'See table 5.

2 Estimated recharge from streamflow in lower Maggie Creek provided flow of at least 10 ftVs is available at upper end of reach.

3 Underflow from upper basin to lower basin; not included in entire basin total.

4 Underflow from lower Maggie Creek Basin to Marys Creek Basin.

5 See table 6.

6 Baseflow of upper Maggie Creek (5 ft3/s).

7 Value is average baseflow gain (10 ft3/s) of Humboldt River during October, water years 1944-91, between Carlin and 

Palisade gaging stations.

8 Value based on estimated average flow of 4 ft3/s at Carlin spring.

9 Included as part of net discharge to Humboldt River channel.

evapotranspiration (700 acre-ft/yr), as flow of Carlin 

spring (3,000 acre-ft/yr), and as an unquantified 

amount of inflow to the channels of Marys Creek below 

Carlin spring and the Humboldt River. Total estimated 

discharge is about 4,000 acre-ft/yr. Estimated recharge 

and discharge are about the same (table 10). However, 

these estimates have uncertainties that are common to 

the same estimates for other basins in the study area.

Ground-water recharge to the Susie Creek Basin 

as infiltration of precipitation is an estimated 6,400 

acre-ft/yr. Ground-water discharge as evapotranspiration is an estimated 1,700 acre-ft/yr. Groundwater discharge as inflow to the channel of the 

Humboldt River cannot be quantified. Total estimated 

discharge exceeds 2,000 acre-ft/yr. The budget imbalance between estimated recharge and discharge is

58 Water Resourcee and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
4,000 acre-ft/yr (table 10) and can be accounted for, in 

part, as the unqualified discharge to the Humboldt 

River channel.

The combined area of Maggie, Marys, and Susie 

Creek Basins receives an estimated 25,000 acre-ft/yr of 

recharge as infiltration of precipitation. Ground-water 

discharge as evapotranspiration is an estimated 11,000 

acre-ft/yr, and the total inflow to the river channel and 

nearby springflow is an estimated 7,000 acre-ft/yr, for 

a total estimated discharge of 18,000 acre-ft/yr. The 

budget imbalance is 7,000 acre-ft/yr (table 10).

The principal reason for the budget imbalance 

may be that recharge from infiltration of precipitation is 

overestimated. The potential ground-water recharge 

included in this overestimate could be part of the 

annual snowmelt runoff. In addition, ground-water 

discharge to the Humboldt River channel (7,000 acreft/yr) could be underestimated. The value for this 

budget element is based on comparison of the longterm records at two stream gaging stations and on 

the minimum gains in streamflow measured during 

the study. The actual value could be more than 

7,000 acre-ft/yr.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF 

HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM IN 

LOWER MAGGIE CREEK AREA

A conceptual model is a clear, qualitative, physical picture of how a natural system operates (Franke 

and others, 1987, p. 1). In the context of this definition, 

the conceptual model of the hydrologic system in the 

lower Maggie Creek area includes hydrologic boundaries, the different hydrogeologic units that make up 

the system, the hydraulic properties of the units, 

sources and locations of ground-water recharge, locations and processes of ground-water discharge, directions of ground-water movement, and interactions of 

streams and aquifers. Each of these parts has been 

defined in preceding sections of this report. In this 

section of the report, the different components of the 

hydrologic system in the lower Maggie Creek area are 

brought together and presented as a conceptual model 

(fig. 28).

The shallow hydrologic system in the lower Maggie Creek area has several types of boundaries. Impermeable or poorly permeable rocks, which may include 

all of the hydrogeologic units that compose bedrock, 

form the lateral boundaries. These boundaries coincide

with the Tuscarora Mountains and Marys Mountain to 

the west and the Adobe Range to the east. The Independence Mountains and bedrock of the unnamed hills 

northeast of the Maggie Creek canyon form an impermeable boundary between upper Maggie Creek Basin 

and Susie Creek Basin. The unnamed hills also form an 

impermeable boundary between the upper and lower 

Maggie Creek Basins. However, the bedrock of 

Schroeder Mountain is permeable and allows a minimal amount of ground-water flow between the upper 

and lower Maggie Creek Basins. Topographic divides 

between the lower Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek 

Basins do not form ground-water divides. Groundwater flow in this part of the study area is across the 

three basins. The southern boundary is the Humboldt 

River, which is the destination (a line sink) of groundwater flow.

The boundary of the Maggie Creek flow system at 

depth is not well defined. Also, limited evidence indicates the presence of deep ground-water flow in addition to shallow flow. Evidence for deep flow includes 

hot springs in the Adobe Range and along the channel 

of the Humboldt River, a geothermal well at Carlin, and 

thermal water in deep wells at Gold Quarry mine. 

Depths to which thermal water circulates in the study 

area and the boundary between shallow and deep flow 

also are uncertain. Shallow flow over much of the 

study area may be mostly in basin-fill deposits and in 

shallow bedrock such as at Schroeder Mountain 

(figs. 22 and 28). Deep flow may be mostly in bedrock 

beneath structural basins.

The upper boundary of ground-water flow in the 

lower Maggie Creek area may be mostly represented 

by water-table conditions. Upward gradients have 

been verified only in the southern part of the upper 

Maggie Creek Basin (fig. 22); however, these gradients 

are a result of the effects of poorly permeable bedrock 

of the unnamed hills northeast of the Maggie Creek 

canyon rather than confining beds in the basin-fill 

aquifer. Upward gradients between bedrock and overlying basin-fill deposits have been identified at wells 

recently drilled near Gold Quarry mine (C.J. Zimmerman, oral commun., 1992).

Ground water in the upper Maggie Creek Basin 

moves from recharge areas in the Tuscarora Mountains 

and Independence Mountains, toward Maggie Creek 

(figs. 22 and 28) and then southward along the axis of 

the basin. Ground water discharges as evapotranspiration in lowlands along the flood plain and as inflow to 

the stream channel that sustains the baseflow of upper

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM IN LOWER MAGGIE CREEK AREA 59
A

FEET

SEA LEVEL 

2,000 

4,000

8,000 | Tuscarora 

Mountains

8,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0

h-H-i

5 MILES

0 5 KILOMETERS

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION APPROXIMATELY X5 

EXPLANATION

Contact Dotted where Inferred

Inferred Fault Arrows Indicate relative 

movement. RMT Indicates Roberts 

Mountains thrust fault

Generalized direction of ground-water flow

Basin-fill deposits

Flood-plain deposits Some thicknesses 

may be exaggerated

Alluvial-fan deposits at base of 

Tuscarora Mountains

Carlin formation of Regnier (1960) 

Bedrock

Intrusive Igneous rocks 

Volcanic rocks 

Clastic sedimentary rocks 

Carbonate rocks 

Unknown

Figure 28. Conceptual hydrogeologic section A-A1 in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada (see figure 5 for 

section location). Surficial geology is from figure 5; configuration of contact between bedrock and basin fill and position of intrusive igneous rocks are from figure 14; positions of faults, including Roberts Mountain thrust, are inferred.

60 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Maggie Creek. Baseflows leave the basin by way of 

upper Maggie Creek and enter the lower Maggie Creek 

Basin. Ground water moves through fractured bedrock 

of Schroeder Mountain to the lower Maggie Creek 

Basin (fig. 22). The extent of deep ground water in carbonate rocks is uncertain (fig. 28).

Ground water in the lower Maggie Creek, Marys 

Creek, and Susie Creek Basins generally moves southward and eastward from recharge areas to the main discharge area along the Humboldt River (figs. 22 and 28). 

Ground water is recharged by infiltration of precipitation on Marys Mountain and the Independence Mountains, by leakage of streamflow from Maggie Creek, 

and by a small amount of underflow from the upper 

Maggie Creek Basin. The only other underflow in this 

part of the study area is through volcanic rocks and 

basin-fill deposits from lower Maggie Creek Basin to 

Marys Creek Basin. Ground water discharges as 

evapotranspiration, as springflow, and as inflow 

directly to the Humboldt River channel, which is the 

regional sink for ground-water flow.

MEASURED AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

OF PUMPING

Water-level changes in the lower Maggie Creek 

area from March 1989 to September 1990 consisted 

mostly of declines, although water levels did rise, but 

less than 1 ft, at two wells (fig. 29 and table 13). Some 

of the declines, especially those exceeding 10 ft, are 

due mostly to pumping at Gold Quarry mine. The 

largest decline recorded was 41 ft at a well finished 

in carbonate rocks on the west side of Schroeder 

Mountain. This well may be hydraulically connected, 

by way of fractured bedrock along a fault, to the east 

side of Schroeder Mountain where high-yield production wells penetrate carbonate and clastic sedimentary 

rocks.

A third consecutive year of drought also contributed to the water-level declines in 1989-90. The effects 

of the drought are most apparent along stream flood 

plains. The largest water-level decline related to the 

effects of the drought was 10 ft, in a well along lower 

Maggie Creek (well 11; table 13, fig. 29). The water 

level in this well responds rapidly to changes in Maggie 

Creek streamflow (see section titled "Ground Water").

Long-term pumping of ground water at the Gold 

Quarry mine, on the flank of Schroeder Mountain, will 

affect water resources in the lower Maggie Creek area 

in two ways. First, ground-water levels will decline

over an area, the eventual extent of which will depend 

on the distribution of pumping and on the nature of the 

hydraulic connection between bedrock of Schroeder 

Mountain and adjoining basin-fill deposits. Second, 

the flow of Maggie Creek will change in response to 

changes in ground-water levels at Schroeder Mountain 

and to discharge of water from the pit into the stream 

channel farther downstream.

Pumping for dewatering at Gold Quarry mine 

may continue for as long as the mine operates. 

Initial pumping rates required for dewatering are 

5,000-10,000 acre-ft/yr and could increase to a maximum rate of about 70,000 acre-ft/yr around the year 

2000 (C.J. Zimmerman, oral commun., 1993).

Water not needed for mining and milling is stored 

in a reservoir on the east side of the unnamed hills 

northeast of the Maggie Creek canyon (fig. 2). Part of 

this water is used to irrigate crops and pastures, part 

may leak through the reservoir floor back into the 

ground-water system, part of it evaporates, and some 

is released into the channel of lower Maggie Creek. 

An estimated 60,000 acre-ft/yr may have to be released 

into Maggie Creek during the late stages of dewatering 

(C.J. Zimmerman, oral commun., 1993). This amount 

of water is more than twice the estimated annual 

ground-water recharge to the combined area of the 

Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins (table 10). 

The amount leaving the basin as runoff will be proportionately less if leakage from the reservoir is 

appreciable.

Water-level declines resulting from dewatering of 

the Gold Quarry mine initially will be in carbonate and 

clastic sedimentary rocks of Schroeder Mountain. As 

mining and consequent pumping extend deeper and 

fractures in these rocks are drained, any of several 

situations could develop with regard to water levels in 

basin-fill deposits beyond Schroeder Mountain and to 

flow of Maggie Creek.

A combination of hydrologic, geochemical, 

and water-budget evidence indicates that only small 

amounts of ground water move through sedimentary 

rocks of Schroeder Mountain between the upper and 

lower Maggie Creek Basins. If this conclusion is correct, then water-level declines may be restricted mostly 

to the sedimentary rocks and extend only short distances into basin-fill deposits of adjoining parts of 

upper and lower Maggie Creek Basins.

Faults in the carbonate and clastic sedimentary 

rock of Schroeder Mountain and the unnamed hills may 

function as either barriers to or conduits for groundwater flow. Thus, water-level declines in the Schroeder

MEASURED AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PUMPING 61
116020' 116°00'

40°50' -

40°40' -

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100.000.1983 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11

Geology from Roberts and others (1967) and 

Coats 0987); modified by R.W. Plume. 1991

EXPLANATION

| Basin-fill deposits

J Bedrock

 Basin boundary

Water-level change at well

O Rose less than 1 foot Q Declined more than 5 but

less than 10 feet

© Declined less than 1 foot

10 A Declined 10 feet or more.

{§) Declined 1-5 feet ^P Number indicates decline,

in feet

Figure 29. Wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada, where water-level changes 

were measured, March 1989 - September 1990.

62 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Mountain uplift eventually could be extensive or 

restricted to relatively small fault-bounded areas. If the 

sedimentary rocks of Schroeder Mountain prove to be 

hydraulically connected to adjacent basin-fill deposits, 

water-level declines in the deposits could extend appreciable distances to the south, east, and northwest of 

Schroeder Mountain. In addition, dewatering eventually could result in reduced hydraulic heads in bedrock 

where it is overlain by basin-fill deposits in areas northwest and southeast of Schroeder Mountain. Reduced 

heads in bedrock could induce water-level declines in 

the overlying basin-fill aquifer. Water levels will begin 

to recover once pumping ceases; however, the time 

required for complete recovery is not known.

Streamflow of Maggie Creek also is expected to 

be affected by the dewatering of sedimentary rocks at 

Schroeder Mountain. Maggie Creek in the canyon at 

Schroeder Mountain (sites MC-1 to MC-3; fig. 16) has 

been a losing reach under most conditions of flow measured during the past few years (table 11). The flow of 

Maggie Creek at site MC-3 ceased in late summer 1991 

for the first time since the study began in August 1988. 

This effect was probably the result of both the testing 

of dewatering wells at Gold Quarry mine and the continuing drought.

The extent of upper Maggie Creek eventually 

affected by dewatering of Schroeder Mountain will 

depend on the response of ground-water levels in 

basin-fill deposits adjacent to the mountain. If water 

levels decline over only a small area, then the effect on 

the flow of upper Maggie Creek should be minimal. 

If water-level declines are appreciable, upper Maggie 

Creek in the reach adjacent to the unnamed hills could 

cease to flow except during the snowmelt runoff.

Releases from the reservoir during dewatering 

would maintain the flow of lower Maggie Creek, ensuring that the stream would continue to be a source of 

recharge to the lower Maggie Creek Basin. This 

recharge would continue as long as reservoir releases to 

Maggie Creek exceed the capacity of the stream channel to transmit water to the underlying aquifer. Excess 

flow would leave the basin as runoff to the Humboldt 

River. Once dewatering ceases, most of the flow of 

upper Maggie Creek, except for snowmelt runoff, 

would be captured at Schroeder Mountain at the cone 

of depression created by dewatering. The result probably would be that lower Maggie Creek would flow 

only during the snowmelt runoff. Thus, ground-water 

recharge from infiltration of lower Maggie Creek 

streamflow to the underlying aquifer may be greatly

reduced once dewatering of Gold Quarry mine ceases. 

This could eventually result in reduced flow of Carlin 

spring. Reduced flows of Maggie Creek also could 

reduce the flows of the Humboldt River and eventually 

affect downstream water rights.

Reservoir releases to lower Maggie Creek would 

increase the magnitude of average flows outside the 

normal snowmelt-runoff period and, thus, may increase 

bank erosion and sediment transport by the stream. 

Part of the sediment would enter the Humboldt River. 

Part also would be deposited along the channel of 

lower Maggie Creek where the stream gradient 

decreases near the edge of the Humboldt River flood 

plain. However, evaluation of the hydrodynamics of 

lower Maggie Creek was beyond the scope of this 

study.

POTENTIAL FOR ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE

Artificial recharge could help offset water-level 

declines and reduced streamflow expected to result 

from pumping of ground water at Gold Quarry mine. 

Use of recharge wells was not considered to be a feasible approach for artificial recharge for two reasons 

(CJ. Zimmerman, Newmont Gold Go., oral commun., 

1991). First, basin-fill deposits were not believed to be 

sufficiently permeable. A large number of recharge 

wells would be required for reinjection of water into 

the basin-fill aquifer. Second, reinjection of water into 

permeable bedrock could create conditions whereby 

the water would circulate between recharge wells and 

dewatering wells.

Snowmelt runoff from the basin of Maggie Creek 

could be available as a source of artificial recharge in 

the lower Maggie Creek area. This runoff from the 

basin could be used as a source of recharge in two 

ways. First, runoff could be impounded in Maggie 

Creek canyon at Schroeder Mountain. Second, water 

from the impoundment could be released into the 

stream channel and one or more open ditches in the 

lower Maggie Creek Basin.

The Maggie Creek canyon was considered as a 

potential dam site in 1963 (Sax, 1963, p. 64). The dam 

was proposed to be used for flood control, recreation, 

and storage of water for irrigation. Estimated storage 

was 5,000 acre-ft behind a dam 50 ft high and 900 ft 

long (Sax, 1963, p. 64). As far as is known, feasibility 

studies for the site were never made. Although a dam 

at the site now could serve those uses, its main purpose

POTENTIAL FOR ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 63
would be to enhance ground-water recharge where 

water levels are expected to decline in response to 

long-term dewatering of Gold Quarry mine. Such a 

project could begin no earlier than the late stages of 

dewatering; otherwise, the infiltration of impounded 

water to underlying aquifers would contribute to the 

dewatering problem at the mine.

The capacity of the channel of Maggie Creek and 

carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks at Maggie 

Creek canyon to transmit impounded water is not well 

defined. However, this reach of the stream has been a 

losing reach under most conditions of flow (sites 

MC-1, MC-2, and MC-3; fig. 16 and table 11). Continued streamflow measurements made over this reach of 

Maggie Creek would better define the capacity of the 

stream channel to transmit water to the underlying 

aquifer.

Another advantage of impounding water in the 

Maggie Creek canyon would be that releases of water 

to lower Maggie Creek could be controlled. As long as 

water was available and downstream uses were not 

affected, controlled releases could take full advantage 

of the capacity of the channel of lower Maggie Creek 

to transmit water to the underlying aquifer.

SUMMARY

A hydrologic study of the Maggie Creek area in 

northeastern Nevada began in August 1988 in response 

to concern over possible effects of ground-water pumping at the Gold Quarry mine near Maggie Creek. 

Pumpage at the mine increased from 790 acre-ft in 

1985 to more than 6,000 acre-ft in 1990. In 1993, pit 

dewatering began, and the pumping rate may gradually 

increase to about 70,000 acre-ft/yr near the end of 

dewatering, in about the year 2000. Specific concerns 

over possible effects of long-term pumping at the mine 

include changes in the flow of Maggie Creek and the 

Humboldt River, declining ground-water levels over 

large areas, and reduced flow of Carlin spring the 

historical water supply for the town of Carlin.

Seven hydrogeologic units, ranging in age from 

Cambrian to Quaternary, underlie the Maggie Creek 

area as bedrock and basin-fill deposits. Bedrock consists of carbonate rocks of Cambrian to Devonian age; 

clastic sedimentary rocks of Ordovician, Silurian, and 

Devonian age; volcanic rocks of Jurassic and late 

Eocene or Oligocene to Miocene age; and intrusive

rocks of late Eocene or Oligocene age. Bedrock forms 

mountain ranges and structural basins in which basinfill deposits, thousands of feet thick, have accumulated.

Maggie Creek consists of two reaches with differing baseflow characteristics. The upper reach gains 

flow as a result of ground-water discharge to the stream 

channel in the area near the unnamed hills northeast of 

the Maggie Creek canyon. Long-term minimum baseflow of this reach of the stream is an estimated 5 ft3/s.

The lower reach of Maggie Creek, from 

Schroeder Mountain to the Humboldt River, consistently loses flow that infiltrates the stream channel and 

recharges the underlying aquifer. This reach is dry 

from mid-summer to early fall.

Total flows in water years 1990-91 at two gaging 

stations on lower Maggie Creek one at the mouth of 

Maggie Creek canyon, and the other about 5 mi downstream were 8,100 and 5,400 acre-ft, respectively, at 

the upper station and 4,200 and 1,400 acre-ft, respectively, at the lower station. Flow losses as infiltration 

through the stream channel during both years were 

about 4,000 acre-ft.

Comparison of flow measurements made at the 

upper gaging station with measurements made at a site 

near the stream mouth indicates that potential streamflow infiltration rates through the channel of lower 

Maggie Creek are 10-20 fr/s. This infiltration of 

streamflow could provide at least 7,000 acre-ft/yr of 

recharge to the aquifer in the lower Maggie Creek 

Basin, provided sufficient flows are available at the 

upper gaging station.

At a site near its mouth, peak flows of Maggie 

Creek in water years 1914-24 ranged from 100 to 800 

ft3/s during the snowmelt runoff. However, little or no 

flow was measured in middle to late summer and fall 

during the period. Total annual flows ranged from 

about 3,000 acre-ft in 1924 to about 34,000 acre-ft in 

1914. The average annual flow for the period was 

17,000 acre-ft.

Over most of its length, Marys Creek flows only 

during the snowmelt runoff and intense storms. The 

lower mile of the stream flows continuously as a result 

of the discharge of Carlin spring. Total flow of Marys 

Creek below the spring, from November 18,1989, to 

September 30,1990, was about 2,400 acre-ft and in the 

1991 water year, was 2,200 acre-ft. Annual discharge 

of the spring, including municipal diversions, is an estimated 3,000 acre-ft/yr (4 ft3/s).

64 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Few flow measurements of Susie Creek have 

been made. Annual flows measured during water years 

1956-58 at a gaging station about 15 mi upstream from 

its mouth ranged from 4,300 to 4,600 acre-ft/yr. Baseflows measured near the mouth of the stream as a part o *

of the present study ranged from 0.36 fr/s, in October 

1991, to 3.2 ft3/s, in November 1989. Values less than 

1 ft3/s probably reflect baseflow due only to long-term 

ground-water discharge into the stream channel.

Comparison of the flow of the Humboldt River at 

stream gaging stations above Carlin and below Carlin 

at Palisade for water years 1944-91 was useful for 

quantifying annual runoff and annual ground-water 

discharge from the combined three-basin area of 

Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creeks. The three basins of 

the study area constitute 95 percent of the area tributary 

to the river between the two stations. During the period 

of record, this reach of the river consistently gained 

flow. The total annual gain has ranged from a low of 

5,000 acre-ft in 1961 to a high of 160,000 acre-ft in 

1983. The average annual gain during the period was 

about 38,000 acre-ft/yr.

Comparison of average October flows at the 

Carlin and Palisade gaging stations indicates that baseflow gains hi the river ranged from as little as 10 ft^/s 

in some years to nearly 60 ft3/s in 1985, the year after 

the highest flows ever recorded. The low value of 10 

ft3/s is thought to represent the minimum contribution 

of long-term ground-water discharge to the river channel from the three basins of the study area. Higher values represent a combination of long-term ground-water 

discharge and the short-term effects of low-altitude 

snowmelt.

Ground water moves from recharge areas in the 

Tuscarora and Independence Mountains into the basinfill aquifer in the upper Maggie Creek Basin. Most of 

this water leaves the basin as evapotranspiration and as 

inflow to the channel of Maggie Creek adjacent to the 

west side of the unnamed hills northeast of the Maggie 

Creek canyon. A small amount of ground water moves 

as underflow through permeable bedrock of Schroeder 

Mountain to the basin-fill aquifer in the lower Maggie 

Creek Basin. Ground water in the lower Maggie Creek 

Basin and adjacent parts of Marys and Susie Creek 

Basins moves southward and southeastward from 

recharge areas in the Independence Mountains, the 

unnamed hills, Schroeder Mountain, and Marys Mountain, and along lower Maggie Creek toward the Humboldt River, which is the destination (line sink) for 

ground-water flow in the area. A narrow trough in the

potentiometric surface, extending southeastward from 

Schroeder Mountain and then southward from lower 

Maggie Creek, is the result of two separate phenomena. 

Near Schroeder Mountain, the trough is the result of 

pumping of production wells in basin-fill deposits and 

carbonate rocks. Between lower Maggie Creek and 

Carlin spring, the trough coincides with the subsurface 

extent of volcanic rocks that function as a permeable 

drain in which streamflow losses from lower Maggie 

Creek move rapidly southward and discharge at Carlin 

spring.

Chemical and isotopic compositions of ground 

water and surface water were used to evaluate ages of 

ground water, recharge sources, and hypothetical 

ground-water flow paths. Ground water in the study 

area generally is a calcium or sodium bicarbonate type, 

with the pH near neutral and dissolved-solids concentrations of less than 345 mg/L. Tritium concentrations 

indicate that ground water from basin-fill deposits adjacent to the east and west sides of Schroeder Mountain 

and in carbonate rocks at the mountain is from 40 to 

more than 60 years old. In contrast, tritium concentrations indicate that water near recharge areas can be 

younger. For instance, water from Carlin spring and 

from two wells finished partly in volcanic rocks 

between the spring and Maggie Creek could be less 

than 20-30 years old.

Deuterium and oxygen-18 concentrations in 

ground water provide evidence for recharge sources hi 

the study area. The isotopically lightest ground water 

found hi the study area was from three flowing wells hi 

the upper Maggie Creek Basin adjacent to the unnamed 

hills northeast of the Maggie Creek canyon. Ground 

water from these wells probably originated as highaltitude recharge hi northern parts of the Tuscarora and 

Independence Mountains. Isotopically heavier ground 

water represents ground-water recharge at relatively 

lower altitudes in the southern parts of the two mountain ranges and at Marys Mountain.

Four hypothetical ground-water flow paths were 

evaluated using geochemical mass-transfer models. 

Model results suggest that each of the four groundwater flow paths is geochemically realistic. The first 

flow path extends from the recharge area hi the 

southern Tuscarora Mountains to the area along upper 

Maggie Creek, where baseflow conditions and flowing 

wells indicate that ground water discharges to the 

stream channel. The second flow path extends from the 

same recharge area to Carlin spring, and represents 

ground-water flow from recharge areas hi the southern

SUMMARY 65
Tuscarora Mountains and Marys Mountain. The third 

flow path extends from lower Maggie Creek to Carlin 

spring. The model results for the third flow path, and 

approximate ages of the water based on tritium concentrations, indicate that the movement of ground water 

through volcanic rocks is rapid and involves minimal 

mass transfer of constituents. The fourth flow path 

involves mixing water from the second and third flow 

paths. The model results suggest that water at Carlin 

spring consists of about 80 percent recharge from lower 

Maggie Creek and 20 percent recharge from Marys 

Mountain and the southern end of the Tuscarora 

Mountains.

The only source of water to the three basins of the 

study area is precipitation, and the only processes by 

which water leaves the area are streamflow and evapotranspiration. Total precipitation is an estimated 

420,000 acre-ft/yr, and runoff including groundwater discharge is an estimated 38,000 acre-ft/yr. 

The remaining 380,000 acre-ft/yr is consumed as 

evapotranspiration at a rate of about 1 ft/yr. The entire 

Maggie Creek Basin receives an estimated 270,000 

acre-ft/yr of precipitation, Marys Creek Basin receives 

an estimated 30,000 acre-ft/yr as precipitation and 

3,000 acre-ft/yr as underflow from the Maggie Creek 

Basin, and Susie Creek Basin receives 120,000 acreft/yr of precipitation. An estimated 270,000 acre-ft/yr 

leaves Maggie Creek Basin, 33,000 acre-ft/yr leaves 

Marys Creek Basin, and 120,000 acre-ft/yr leaves 

Susie Creek Basin.

Ground water is recharged from infiltration of 

precipitation mostly in mountainous areas, from infiltration of streamflow, and from underflow between 

basins of the study area. The Maggie Creek Basin 

receives an estimated 17,000 acre-ft/yr of recharge, 

Marys Creek Basin receives at least 4,000 acre-ft/yr, 

and Susie Creek Basin receives an estimated 6,000 

acre-ft/yr. Ground water is discharged as evapotranspiration, inflow to stream channels, springflow, and 

underflow. Minimum ground-water discharge from the 

three basins is an estimated 12,000 acre-ft/yr for 

Maggie Creek, 4,000 acre-ft/yr for Marys Creek, and 

2,000 acre-ft/yr for Susie Creek.

The combined three-basin area receives an estimated 25,000 acre-ft/yr of ground-water recharge, all 

as infiltration of precipitation. Ground-water discharge 

is an estimated 18,000 acre-ft/yr, and consists of about 

11,000 acre-ft/yr of evapotranspiration and 7,000 acreft/yr of discharge to the Humboldt River channel. 

Ground-water underflow between the study area and 

adjacent basins is negligible.

For the ground-water budgets summarized above, 

recharge generally exceeds discharge, possibly because 

infiltration of precipitation through the soil zone is 

overestimated; instead, a larger proportion of precipitation may leave the area as runoff. In addition, groundwater discharge to the Humboldt River channel may be 

underestimated.

A conceptual model of the hydrologic system in 

the lower Maggie Creek area was developed as a part 

of the study. Hydrologic boundaries of the system consist of the following: (1) Bedrock of the Tuscarora and 

Independence Mountains, unnamed hills northeast of 

Maggie Creek canyon, Marys Mountain, and the 

Adobe Range form impermeable or poorly permeable 

lateral boundaries; (2) bedrock of Schroeder Mountain 

is sufficiently permeable that small amounts of ground 

water flow through the mountain between the upper 

and lower Maggie Creek Basins; (3) the Humboldt 

River is a line sink for ground-water flow and forms the 

southern boundary of the study area; (4) the water table 

represents the upper boundary of the shallow flow system over most of the area; and (5) the lower boundary 

for the shallow system, may be at the contact between 

basin-fill deposits and the underlying bedrock. Deep 

ground-water flow may be mostly in fractured bedrock 

beneath structural basins.

From March 1989 to September 1990, water 

levels in the study area declined as the result of pumping at Gold Quarry mine and a prolonged drought. The 

effects of the drought are most apparent along stream 

flood plains where water levels in shallow wells 

declined as much as 5 ft at several wells and over 10 ft 

at one. Water-level declines near Gold Quarry mine 

exceeded 5 ft at most wells. The largest decline was 

41 ft at a well in carbonate rocks near a fault zone on 

the west side of Schroeder Mountain.

Water levels will decline in the carbonate and 

clastic sedimentary rocks at Schroeder Mountain as a 

result of the dewatering of Gold Quarry mine, which 

began in 1993. The extent of long-term water-level 

declines in basin-fill deposits beyond Schroeder 

Mountain will depend on the nature of the hydraulic 

connection between these deposits and the bedrock of 

the mountain. If the connection is poor, water levels 

may decline only in bedrock of Schroeder Mountain 

and immediately adjacent basin-fill deposits. If the 

hydraulic connection is better than presently thought,

66 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
water-level declines may spread over a much larger 

area of basin-fill deposits east and west of Schroeder 

Mountain.

Mine dewatering also may affect the flow of 

Maggie Creek. Water-level declines in basin-fill 

deposits west of the Schroeder Mountain uplift would 

reduce flow of upper Maggie Creek, first by reducing 

baseflow, and later by increasing infiltration of streamflow to the underlying aquifer. The flow of lower 

Maggie Creek will be sustained during mine dewatering by releases of pumped ground water to the stream 

channel. However, Maggie Creek east of Schroeder 

Mountain may flow only during the snowmelt runoff

once dewatering ceases. This reduction of flow eventually could affect the flow of Carlin spring, because 

streamflow losses from lower Maggie Creek are a 

recharge source for the spring.

The hydrologic effects of dewatering Gold 

Quarry mine might be reduced by impounding excess 

flows of Maggie Creek during the snowmelt runoff in a 

reservoir in Maggie Creek canyon. Such a reservoir 

could be a source of ground-water recharge where 

water levels have declined as a result of dewatering, 

and releases to the channel of Maggie Creek could be 

controlled so that flows do not exceed the capacity of 

the channel to transmit water to underlying aquifers.

SUMMARY 67
REFERENCES CITED

Bostic, R., Hitch, D., Van Gordon, L., and Swanson, R., 

1991, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1990: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-90-1, 

358 p.

Bredehoeft, J.D., 1963, Hydrogeology of the lower Humboldt River basin, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources 

Bulletin 21,50 p.

Carmichael, R.S., 1989, Magnetic properties of rocks and 

minerals, in Carmichael, R.S., ed., Physical properties 

of rocks and minerals: Boca Raton, Fla., Chemical 

Rubber Co., p. 299-358.

Coats, R.R., 1987, Geology of Elko County, Nevada: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 101, 

112 p.

Cooper, H.H., Jr., and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized 

graphical method of evaluating formation constants and 

summarizing well-field history: Transactions of the 

American Geophysical Union, v. 27, no. 4, p. 526-534.

Craig, Harmon, 1961, Isotopic variations in meteoric waters: 

Science, v. 133, no. 3465, p. 1702-1703.

Drever, J.I., 1988, The geochemistry of natural waters: 

Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 437 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1961, Ground-water appraisal of Pine Valley, 

Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources Reconnaissance Report 2,41 p.

Eakin, T.E., andLamke, R.D., 1966, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Humboldt River basin, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 32, 107 p.

Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., and Robinson, T.W, 1951,

Ground water in Goshute and Antelope Valleys, Elko 

County, Nevada, in Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., 

Robinson, T.W, Fredericks, J.C., and Loeltz, O.J., 

Contributions to the hydrology of eastern Nevada: 

Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 12, 

p. 17-34.

Ekburg, C.E., Rota, J.C., and Arkell, B.W, 1991, Geology 

and mineral deposits of the Maggie Creek subdistrict, 

Carlin trend, Eureka County, Nevada, in Raines, G.L., 

Lisle, R.E., Schager, R.W, and Wilkinson, W.H., 

Geology and ore deposits of the Great Basin: Geological Society of Nevada Symposium, April 1990, Proceedings, p. 625-633.

Ettner, D.C., 1989, Stratigraphy and structure of the Devonian autochthonous rocks, north-central Carlin trend of 

the southern Tuscarora Mountains, northern Eureka 

County, Nevada: Idaho State University, unpublished 

M.S. thesis, 177 p.

Evans, J.G., and Cress, L.D., 1972, Preliminary geologic 

map of the Schroeder Mountain quadrangle, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

MapMF-324, scale 1:24,000.

Franke, O.L., Reilly, T.E., and Bennett, G.D., 1987, 

Definition of boundary and initial conditions in the 

analysis of saturated ground-water flow systems An 

introduction: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. B5, 

15 p.

Frisbie, H.R., LaCamera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Wood, D.B., 

1983, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1982: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-82-1, 

360 p.

Garcia, K.T., Gortsema, G.C., Pennington, R.N., and 

Preissler, A.M., 1992, Water resources data, Nevada, 

water year 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report NV-91-1,481 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1970, Determining transmissivity from the 

water-level recovery of a step-drawdown test, in 

Geological Survey Research 1970: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 700-C, p. 212-213.

Harrington, H.D., 1954, Manual of the plants of Colorado: 

Chicago, The Swallow Press, 666 p.

Houghton, J.G., Sakamato, C.M., and Gifford, R.D., 1975, 

Nevada's weather and climate: Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Special Publication 2, 78 p.

Ho we, J.W, 1950, Flow measurement, in Rouse, Hunter, ed., 

Engineering hydraulics: New York, John Wiley, 

p. 177-227.

Iman, R.L., and Conover, W.J., 1983, A modern approach to 

statistics: New York, John Wiley, 497 p.

Kaiser, Roy, 1991, Nevada annual data summary Water 

year 1990: Reno, Nev., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 

22 p.

King, Clarence, 1878, Systematic geology Geological 

exploration of the fortieth parallel, v. 1: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 803 p.

Knutsen, G.C., and Wilson, M.L., 1990, Carlin trend, 

Nevada Geological setting and subdistricts [abs.]: 

Geological Society of Nevada Great Basin Symposium, 

April 1990, Program with Abstracts, p. 66.

Lohman, S.W, 1972, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708,70 p.

Mabey, D.R., 1976, Aeromagnetic survey, in Smith, J.F., Jr., 

and Kettner, K.B., 1976, Stratigraphy of post-Paleozoic 

rocks and summary of resources in the Carlin-Pinon 

Range area, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 867-B, p. 43-44.

Maxey, G.B., and Jameson, C.H., 1948, Geology and water 

resources of Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Indian Spring 

Valleys, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 5, 292 p.

68 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development In Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
National Climatic Center, 1966-90, Climatological data, 

annual summaries, Nevada, 1966-90: Asheville, N.C., 

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, v. 81 to v. 105, no. 13 (published annually).

Nichols, W.D., 1993, Estimating discharge of shallow 

groundwater by transpiration from greasewood in the 

northern Great Basin: Water Resources Research, v. 29, 

no. 8, p. 2771-2778.

Olhoeft, G.R., and Johnson, G.R., 1989, Densities of rocks 

and minerals, in Carmichael, R.S., ed., Physical 

properties of rocks and minerals: Boca Raton, Fla., 

Chemical Rubber Co., p. 139-176.

Plummer, L.N., Prestemon, B.C., and Parkhurst, D.L., 1991, 

An interactive code for modelling net geochemical 

reactions along a flow path: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4078,227 p.

Quiring, R.F., 1965, Annual precipitation amount as a function of elevation in Nevada south of 38 latitude: Las 

Vegas, Nev., U.S. Weather Bureau Research Station 

report, 8 p.

Regnier, Jerome, 1960, Cenozoic geology in the vicinity of 

Carlin, Nevada: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 71, p. 1189-1210.

Roberts, R.J., Montgomery, K.M., and Lehner, R.E., 1967, 

Geology and mineral resources of Eureka County, 

Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines Bulletin 64, 152 p.

Robertson, W.D., and Cherry, J.A., 1989, Tritium as an 

indicator of recharge and dispersion in a ground water 

system in central Ontario: Water Resources Research, 

v. 25, no. 6, p. 1097-1109.

Robinson, T.W, 1958, Phreatophytes: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1423, 84 p.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources, Information Report 6, 

38 p.

Rush, F.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966, Water-resources

appraisal of the Huntington Valley area, Elko and White 

Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources - 

Reconnaissance Report 35, 37 p.

Saltus, R.W., 1988, Gravity data for the state of Nevada on 

magnetic tape: Sioux Falls, S.D., EROS Data Center.

Sax, K.W., 1963, Northern Nevada reservoir site investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 72 p.

Scarcer, C.V., and Moosburner, Otto, 1978, Nevada streamflow characteristics: Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, Information Report 28,478 p.

Scott, B.R., Smales, T.J., Rush, F.E., and Van Denburgh, 

A.S., 1971, Nevada's water resources: Nevada Division 

of Water Resources, Water for Nevada Report 3, 87 p.

Sharp, R.P., 1939, The Miocene Humboldt formation in 

northeastern Nevada: Journal of Geology, v. 47, no. 2, 

p. 133-160.

Smith, J.F., Jr., and Ketner, K.B., 1975, Stratigraphy of Paleozoic rocks in the Carlin-Pinon Range area, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 867-A, 

87 p.

 1976, Stratigraphy of post-Paleozoic rocks and summary of resources in the Carlin-Pinon Range area, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

867-B, 48 p.

Stewart, J.H., 1980, Geology of Nevada A discussion to 

accompany the geologic map of Nevada: Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4, 

136 p.

Stone, W.J., 1992, Ground-water recharge estimates, Maggie 

and Marys Creek basins, northeastern Nevada: Carlin, 

Nev., Newmont Gold Company, 34 p.

Stratigraphic Committee of the Eastern Nevada Geological 

Society, 1973, Correlation of Great Basin Stratigraphic 

units: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 

72, 36 p.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

Wyoming computer file, in 1990 census of population 

and housing: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape 

File CD 90-3 A-15 (1 computer laser optical disk, 

4-3/4 in.).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1960, Compilation of records of 

surface waters of the United States, through September 

1950 Part 10, The Great Basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1314,485 p.

 1963, Compilation of records of surface waters of the 

United States, October 1950 to September 1960 Part 

10, The Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1734, 318 p.

-1990, National Water-Quality Laboratory services

catalogue: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

89-386,131 p.

Webring, Michael, 1985, SAKI A FORTRAN program for 

generalized linear inversion of gravity and magnetic 

profiles: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

85-122, 110 p.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, 

L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A3, 80 p.

William E. Nork, Inc., 1985, Carlin High School geothermal 

well: Reno, Nev., William E. Nork, Inc., report, 16 p.

Wood, W.W, 1976, Guidelines for collection and field

analysis of ground-water samples for selected unstable 

constituents: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 1, chap. D2, 

24 p.

REFERENCES CITED 69

fi Mws)
BASIC DATA

Tables in this section of the report list only some of the data collected during the study. Only 

those data specific to discussions in the text are included. All of the data collected during the study 

have been published elsewhere (Bostic and others, 1991, Garcia and others, 1992, and Pupacko and 

others, 1990). Table 11 lists streamflow and other information for surface-water sites. Table 12 lists 

information for springs. Table 13 lists water levels and other information for wells. Table 14 lists 

water-quality data for the two wells and two springs used to evaluate hypothetical ground-water flow 

paths. These data and other information for the sites can be retrieved from U.S. Geological Survey 

data bases upon request to the U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev.

BASIC DATA 71
Table 11. Streamflow and other data for surface-water sites in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[TVpe of station: R, continuously recording gaging station; M, site at which miscellaneous Streamflow measurements are intermittently made. 

Availability of water-quality data: A, data in USGS data bases include analyses for major cations and anions, trace elements, nutrients, and, at some 

sites, analyses for oxygen-18 and deuterium; L, data in USGS data bases are limited to analyses for chloride, iodide, and bromide and/or oxygen-18 

and deuterium; N, as far as is known, water at site has not been sampled. Symbol: --, not available or not applicable]

Site identification1

Site 

name 

(figure 16)

Downstreamorder 

number

Land-net location

Land- 

- surface 

altitude 

(feet 

above aea 

ievel)

Miaceiianeous fiow 

meaaurements

Type of 

atation

Date (time)

Discharge 

(cubic feet 

per 

aecond, 

rounded)

Availability 

of waterquality 

data

Humboldt River

HR-1

HR-2

HR-3

HR-4

HR-5

HR-6

HR-7

HR-8

HR-9

HR-10

MC-1

10321000

10321100

10321250

10321600

10322100

10322110

10322200

10322400

10322425

10322500

10321940

SESE S21 T33N R53E

SESW S20T33NR53E

SESW S20T33NR53E

NWSW S25T33NR52E

SWSE S26T33NR52E

NENE S34T33NR52E

NESE S33 T33N R52E

SWNESW S04T32NR52E

SWNW S20T32NR52E

SESE S35T32NR51E

SENE S22T34NR51E

4,932

4,940

4,920

4,900

4,890

4,880

4,880

4,870

4,860

4,826

Maggie Creek

5,130

R

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

R

M

--

10-22-91 (0930)

11-21-88 (1010)

11-13-89(1100)

7-26-91 (1041)

7-26-91 (1655)

11-21-88 (1150)

11-13-89(1400)

11-21-88 (1250)

11-13-89(1500)

11-21-88(1345)

11-13-89(1550)

11-14-89(1030)

11-21-88 (1435)

11-14-89 (1140)

7-26-91 (1220)

10-22-91 (1100)

11-21-88 (1550)

11-14-89 (1255)

7-26-91 (1340)

10-22-91 (0950)

7-26-91 (1055)

7-26-91 (1450)

10-22-91 (1055)

8-29-88 (1210)

9-23-88 (1050)

10-26-88 (1025)

1 1-21-88 (--)

4-13-89(0930)

4-13-89 (1235)

6-23-89 (0940)

6-23-89 (1330)

11-14-89(1030)

8-22-90 (--)

6-18-91 (--)

6-19-91 (--)

10-24-91 (1245)

-

23

45

44

61

50

47

49

46

49

50

53

50

46

51

69

27

62

54

69

32

79

63

32

1.6

3.1

4.4

5.2

200

190

13

13

8.8

4.2

7.2

6.7

5.8

A

N

L

N

N

N

N

L

N

L

L

72 Water Reaourcea and Potentiai Effects of Deveiopment in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Table 11. Streamflow and other data for surface-water sites in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Site identification 1 Landsurface

Site Downstream- altitude TvPeof 

name order Land-net location <feet station 

(figure 16) number above sea 

level)

Maggie Creek Continued

MC-2 10321945 SWNE S26T34NR51E 5,100 M

MC-3 10321950 SENESES26T34NR51E 5,100 R

MC-4 10321955 SWNWS32 T34N R52E 5,030 M

MC-5 10321965 SWSW S04T33NR52E 4,990 M

Miscellaneous flow measurements

Date (time)

8-29-88 (1305)

9-23-88 (1200)

10-26-88(1120)

1 1-21-88 (--)

4-13-89(1025)

6-23-89 (1040)

11-14-89(1145)

8-22-90(1115)

6-19-91 (--)

10-24-91 (1345)

8-29-88 (1335)

9-23-88 (1600)

10-26-88 (--)

11-21-88 (--)

4-13-89 (1100)

6-23-89(1130)

9-22-89 (--)

11-14-89 (1230)

8-22-90 (--)

6-19-91 (1015)

10-24-91 (1400)

8-29-88 (--)

9-23-88 (--)

10-26-88 (--)

1 1-21-88 (--)

4-13-89(1148)

4-14-89 (0955)

4-14-89 (1415)

6-23-89 (0945)

6-23-89 (1225)

11-14-89(1400)

8-22-90 (1240)

6-19-91 (--)

10-24-91 (--)

8-29-88 (--)

9-23-88 (--)

10-26-88 (--)

1 1-21-88 (-)

4-14-89(1050)

6-23-89 (1035)

11-14-89(1500)

8-22-90 (--)

6-19-91 (-)

10-24-91 (--)

Discharge 

(cubic feet 

per second, 

rounded)

0.68

2.8

4.0

10

200

13

8.8

3.6

5.6

4.2

.15

1.6

3.3

10

180

12

5.0

8.2

3.4

5.4

2.1

0

0

1.8

6.6

190

190

190

9.7

11

6.8

1.8

4.3

0

0

0

0

5.6

180

8.2

5.2

0

1.6

0

Availability 

of waterquality 

data

L

A

N

N

BASIC DATA 73
Table 11. Streamflow and other data for surface-water sites in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Site identification 1 Landsurface

Site Downstream- altltude TvPeof 

name order Land-net location <feet station 

(figure 16) number above sea 

level)

Maggie Creek Continued

MC-6 10321970 NENWSE S09 T33N R52E 4,980 R

MC-7 10321975 NENE S22T33NR52E 4,930 M

MC-8 10322000 NESENW S26 T33N R52E 4,910 M

Marys Creek

MA-1 10322150 SESESE S28 T33N R52E 4,920 R

Susie Creek

SU-1 10321590 NWNENW S25 T33N R52E 4,910 M

Miscellaneous flow measurements

Date (time)

8-29-88 (--)

9-23-88 (--)

10-26-88 (--)

11-21-88 (--)

4-14-89(1140)

6-23-89(1140)

11-14-89(1615)

8-22-90 (--)

6-19-91 (1055)

10-24-91 (--)

8-29-88 (--)

9-23-88 (--)

10-26-88 (--)

11-21-88 (-)

4-14-89 (1240)

6-23-91 (1220)

11-14-89 (--)

8-22-90 (--)

6-19-91 (--)

10-24-91 (--)

8-29-88 (--)

9-23-88 (--)

10-26-88 (--)

11-21-88 (--)

4-14-89 (1330)

6-23-89 (1255)

9-22-89 (-)

11-13-89 (1250)

8-22-90 (--)

6-19-91 (--)

10-24-91 (-)

11-21-88(1420)

5-12-89 (1030)

11-13-89 (1645)

11-17-89(1100)

11-21-88 (1040)

11-13-89 (1200)

10-24-91 (1445)

Discharge 

(cubic feet 

per second, 

rounded)

0

0

0

0

180

6.1

4.0

0

.94

0

0

0

0

0

170

.92

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

170

.50

0

1.4

0

.14

0

4.1

3.4

3.8

3.0

0.98

3.2

.36

Availability 

of waterquality 

data

L

N

L

A

L

1 Each data-collection site is assigned unique identifications on the basis of geographic location a "downstream-order" number and a land-net designation. In this report, a short site name also is used (for example, HR-1).

In the downstream-order system, an eight-digit number is used to identify each site. For example, site number 10321000 (site HR-1) consists of a twodigit part number (10) followed by a six-digit downstream-order number (321000). The part number refers to a drainage area or group of areas that is generally 

regional in extent. Records in this report are for sites in Part 10 (the Great Basin). The downstream-order number is assigned according to the geographic location 

of the station in the drainage network; larger number stations are downstream from smaller number stations.

The land-net designation is based on the official rectangular subdivision of the public lands, referenced to the Mount Diablo base line and meridian. Each 

designation consists of four units. For example, the designation for site HR-1 is SESE S21 T33N R53E. This site is in the southeast quarter of the southeast 

quarter of section 21, Township 33 north, Range 53 east, Mount Diablo base line and meridian.

74 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Table 12. Data for springs in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[Water use: P, public supply; S, stock; U, unused. Availability of water-quality data: A, data in USGS data base include 

analyses for major cations and anions, trace metals, nutrients, tritium, oxygen-18, and deuterium; L, data in USGS data base 

limited to analyses for chloride, iodide, bromide, oxygen-18, and deuterium]

»!» Site

number 

(figure 24)

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Site designations

Local

identification

51 N35 E50 13BBAC1

51 N35 E51 30DDCB1

52N32E5205CDBA1

52N33E5115BCC1

52N33E5121DCAA1

52 N33 E52 28DC 1

52 N33 E52 33DBDC1

i

Standard

identification

405456116183201

405314116164601

404104116091401

404449116141301

404342116143801

404242116074001

404200116074801

Name 2

Unnamed

Unnamed

Unnamed

Unnamed

Cherry Spring

Carlin spring

Unnamed

Landsurface

aititude

(feet

above sea 

levei)

6,120

5,560

5,000

5,880

6,040

4,940

4,890

Water

use

S

S

S

S

S

P

u

Availability

of

waterquality 

data

A

A

A

L

L

A

L

1 In this table, each site is identified by U.S. Geological Survey site designations that consist of the local (Nevada) siteidentification system and a standard identification number. The two designations are usually the most convenient means of identifying and retrieving information for a specific site from computer data bases operated by the U.S. Geological Survey. For convenience, a short site number also is used in this report. For springs, the numbers range from 101 to 107.

The local site-identification system is based on an index of hydrographic areas in Nevada (Rush, 1968) and on the rectangular 

subdivision of the public lands referenced to the Mount Diablo base line and meridian. Each number consists of four units: The 

first unit is the hydrographic area number. The second unit is the township, preceded by an N to indicate location north of the base 

line. The third unit is the range, preceded by an E to indicate location east of the meridian. The fourth unit consists of the section 

number and letters designating the quarter section, quarter-quarter section, and so on (A, B, C, and D indicate the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quarters, respectively), followed by a number indicating the sequence in which the well was recorded. 

For example, the local identification for site number 101 in this table is 51 N35 E50 13BBAC1. This site is in the Maggie Creek 

Basin (hydrographic area 51) and is the first site recorded in the southwest quarter (C) of the northeast quarter (A) of the northwest 

quarter (B) of the northwest quarter (B) of section 13, Township 35 north, Range 50 east, Mount Diablo base line and meridian.

The standard identification for each site is based on the grid system of latitude and longitude. The number consists of 15 

digits. The first six digits denote degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude; the next seven digits denote degrees, minutes, and 

seconds of longitude; and the last two digits (assigned sequentially) identify sites within a 1 -second grid. For example, the standard 

identification for site number 101 in this table is 405456116183201. This number refers to 40°54'56" latitude and 116°18'32" 

longitude, and it is the first site recorded in that 1 -second grid. This 15-digit number is retained as a permanent identifier even if a 

more precise latitude and longitude are determined later.

2 Except for Cherry Spring, springs are not formally named. However, the informal name, Carlin spring, is used for the large 

spring that is the water supply for Carlin.

BASIC DATA 75
-J 

o>

Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada

[Site number: * indicates well measured in September 1990, and water level used for constructing contours in figure 22; wells sampled for water qual

Water-level depth: minus sign indicates water level above land surface; all other water levels are below land surface. Water use: D, dewatering; H, 

N, industrial; P, public supply; S, stock; U, unused. Availability of water-quality data: A, data in USGS data base include analyses for major cation

tritium, oxygen-18, and deuterium; L, data in USGS data base are limited to analyses for chloride, iodide, and bromide and/or oxygen-18 and deuterium

sampled by sources other than USGS, but data availability is uncertain; N, as far as is known, water from site has not been sampled. Symbol: , data 

&

(Q

O

O

JT

n> 

5

S

oit H . 1 Land- Well Depth of open intervals Water

brteaes.gnat.ons surface depth (feet below land surface) measu

altitude (feet 

level) surface)

Susie Creek Basin

la* 50 N33 E52 13BD 1 404452116043701 4,960 - - - 10-25-88

03-14-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

1* 50 N33 E52 13CABA1 404445116043801 4,960 294 - - 10-25-88

03-14-89

04-12-90

09-13-90

11-10-91

2* 50 N33E5224CAC1 404345116044401 4,950 300 200 300 10-27-88

03-16-89

10-18-89

04-13-90

09-13-90

3* 50 N33E5224CC 1 404333116045201 4,947 53 37 47 02-19-88

10-27-88

03-16-89

10-16-89

04-13-90

09-13-90

4* 50 N34E5215AADA1 405020116061301 5,210 400 180 400 05-11-49

03-15-89

10-18-89

09-13-90

11-10-91

5* 50 N34E5221ADA1 404923116073301 5,350 395 -- -- 09-09-83

03-15-89

10-18-89

09-13-90
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

<2 

o

o

Site designations 1

Site Local Standard 

number identification identification

9 51 N33 E51 12AB 1 404601116111501

10 51 N33 E51 12CBA 1 404535116114101

11* 51 N33 E52 04CCB 1 404613116082601

12 51 N33 E52 04DCCD1 404605116074901

13* 51 N33 E52 06ABD 1 404649116100401

13a 51 N33 E52 06ABC 2 404649116100402

14* 51 N33E5206ACA1 404643116100401

15* 51 N33E5206DAB1 404630116095001

Land- Well Depth of open intervals 

surfece depth t*68* ^low lend surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin

5,240

5,247 1,040

5,010 100 30 100

4,995 175 152 172

5,150 880 336 885

5,150 724 264 714

5,135 785 120 785

5,115

Wa

mea

Date

03-13-89

10-18-89

09-23-88

03-13-89

10-18-89

04-05-62

04-30-82

10-25-88

03-16-89

10-19-89

11-17-89

04-14-90

09-13-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

11-05-90

03-24-91

06-18-91

08-20-91

11-10-91

03-14-89

10-17-89

04-12-90

09-10-90

03-14-89

10-17-89

04-12-90

09-10-90

03-14-89

10-16-89

04-12-90

09-10-90
-g 

oo Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Water Resources

S

0.

2

S

3.

si

3

|

a

5-

1

(D

3

5"

(Q»'

O

§w

PT

a>

5 

»

D

a

3P

ff(D

5

f

a>

o. 

a>

Site designations

Site Local 

number identification

16* 51 N33E5206ADD1

17 51 N33E5206DA1

18 51 N33E5206DDD1

19* 51 N33E5206DDD2

20* 51 N33 E52 07DCD 1

21* 51 N33E5209BBB1

22* 51 N33E5209BBB2

23 51 N33E5209DDA1

24 51 N33 E52 10CCAD1

1

Standard 

identification

404632116094501

404630116102301

404605116094101

404605116094102

404518116095901

404600116081601

404600116083301

404523116073001

404522116070501

Land- Well DePlh of °Pen intervals 

surface depth <feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin Continued

5,130

5,120 540 140 520

5,105 795 196 776

5,105 575 75 575

5,130

5,005 143 105 140

5,030

4,975 989

4,985 97 77 97

Wa

mea

Date

03-14-89

10-17-89

04-12-90

09-10-90

09-09-84

07-10-84

05-02-84

03-14-89

10-16-89

04-12-90

09-10-90

09-23-88

10-27-88

03-13-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

11-11-91

07-01-88

03-16-89

10-19-89

09-13-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

03-16-89

10-19-89

04-14-90

09-13-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

06-14-89

10-16-89

04-15-90

11-02-90

03-24-91

06-18-91

11-10-91
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

03

« 

o

-si

to

Site designations

Site Locel 

number identification

25* 51 N33 E52 15BCBA1

26* 51 N33 E52 15CBD 1

27 51 N33 E52 15CBDD1

28 51 N33E5215DDA1

29* 51 N33E5216ADD1

30 51 N33E5216ADD2

31* 51 N33 E52 16DCCC1

1 Land- Well Depth of open intervels 

surface depth (feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

Standard (feet ^low 

identification above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Crek Basin Continued

404459116071601 4,970 130 48 115

404430116070001 4,955

404435116065401 4,955 200 100 200

404430116061701 4,945 10 9 10

404457116072601 4,970 100 75 95

404457116072602 4,970 63 43 63

404421116075301 5,020 160 127 147

Wa

mea

Date

04-15-78

04-29-82

03-23-89

05-11-89

06-13-89

10-18-89

04-14-90

09-11-90

03-16-89

03-23-89

10-19-89

09-13-90

04-15-78

03-23-89

05-11-89

04-14-90

06-16-89

09-13-89

09-22-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

09-13-89

09-22-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

09-12-89

09-22-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

06-18-91

11-11-91
§ Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Water Resources

a

3 

Q.

I

5?ID

i

a

w 

o

o

8

6"

1

o

E5'

I

<a 

«

0

i

a

8ID

g

3

m

S

5

ID

Q. 

ID

Site designations

Site Local 

number identification

32 51 N33E5222AAC1

33* 51 N33E5222DDC1

34 51 N33 E52 23CCDD1

35 51 N33 E52 27BAB 1

36 51 N33 E52 27DCBC1

37 51 N33E5228CD 1

38* 51 N34E5010DAB1

39* 51 N34E5103ABBB1

40* 51 N34E5107BBB1

41 51 N34E51 10DC 1

1

Standard 

identification

404412116062501

404329116062001

404332116055501

404325116065801

404244116064501

404253116075701

405010116185001

405215116133701

405120116173301

405036116133001

Land- Well DePth <* OP6" intervals 

surface depth (feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin Continued

4,940 10 9 10

4,990

4,500

5,080 654 207 649

4,900

4,960

5,720 250 217 238

5,235 69

5,520 301 246 292

5,170 755 160 735

Wa

mea

Date

10-18-89

04-15-90

03-17-89

10-18-89

04-15-90

09-13-90

04-29-82

08-24-88

09-23-88

10-27-88

03-15-89

05-11-89

10-19-89

04-12-90

-

09-17-91

06-29-56

10-17-89

09-12-90

11-11-91

04-29-82

03-14-89

10-17-89

04-14-90

09-12-90

11-11-91

12-14-79

10-17-89

06-11-90

09-12-90

11-11-91

03-14-89

10-16-89

06-11-90

09-13-90

11-11-91
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

o 

o

Site 

number

42

42a

43

44*

46*

47*

48

49

50*

51

52

Site designations

Local 

identification

51 N34E51 10DC 2

51 N34E51 10DC 3

51 N34E51 15BDD1

51 N34E5121BAA1

51 N34E5125BCAB1

51 N34E5125DBB1

51 N34E5125CAB1

51 N34E5125CAD1

51 N34E5125DAA2

51 N34E5125DDA1

51 N34E5126DDD1

1

Standard 

identification

405036116133002

405036116132701

405010116134101

404936116145001

404806116114601

404816116111601

404816116113501

404808116113001

404805116105302

404805116105301

404753116120401

Land- Well Depth of open intervals 

surface depth (feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin Continued

5,170 163 43 163

5,155

5,150 1,000

5,240

5,100 14 13 14

5,140

5,140 605 585 605

5,110

5,075 13 12 13

5,075

5,180 1,208 398 1,208

Wa

mea

Date

03-14-89

~

03-14-89

10-16-89

06-11-90

09-13-90

11-11-91

03-14-89

10-16-89

04-14-90

09-13-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

06-14-89

10-16-89

04-11-90

09-13-90

06-18-91

09-17-91

11-11-91

10-16-89

04-15-90

09-12-90

06-18-91

09-12-90

10-16-89

04-15-90

10-16-89

04-15-90

09-12-90

06-18-91

03-16-89

03-14-89

10-16-89
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Water Resources

5

Q.

E

2L

m

o

5>

8.

o o

I

5'

f

(Q

(Q

O

i

I

s

3 

O

I0)

3

Z

S

a

gSite designations 1

Site Local Standard 

number identification identification

53* 51 N34E5126DDD2 404754116120401

54* 51 N34E5128DD 1 404802116142201

55 51 N34E5135ABD1 404741116122101

56 51 N34E5135CACB1 404718116124701

57 51 N34 E51 36AAD 1 404739116105201

58 51 N34E5136ABA1 404746116110601

59* 51 N34 E52 20BAA 1 404937116091001

60* 51 N34E5227DCA1 404803116062601

61* 51 N34E5231ADD1 404725116094301

Land- Well "^P* of OP6" intervals 

surface depth (feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea land Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin Continued

5,170 387 100 382

5,600

5,280

5,131 1,330 250 1,322

5,095

5,090

5,420 92 30 90

5,200 295 277 297

5,050

Wa

mea

Date

03-14-89

10-16-89

04-12-90

09-10-90

03-14-89

10-16-89

09-13-90

06-18-91

11-11-91

03-14-89

10-16-89

-

10-17-89

04-12-90

10-17-89

04-12-90

05-29-59

03-16-89

10-16-89

04-15-90

09-12-90

11-11-91

09-14-89

09-19-89

10-18-89

06-12-90

09-13-90

11-10-91

10-26-88

03-16-89

03-23-89

10-16-89

04-12-90

09-12-90

06-18-91

10-23-91

11-11-91
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

oo

o 

o

8

Site 

number

62*

63*

64*

65

66

67

68*

69*

70

Site designations

Local 

identification

51 N34E5231ADD2

51 N34E5231DBB1

51 N34 E52 32BCC 1

51 N35 E51 04DABB1

51 N35 E51 04DABB2

51 N35 E51 27AACC1

51 N35 E51 30AAAA1

51 N35 E51 31DDD 1

51 N35 E51 32CB 1

1

Standard 

identification

404727116094001

404724116101301

404731116093401

405704116141801

405703116142001

405352116131601

405400116163001

405217116163401

405234116161901

Land- Well DePth of °Pen '"terva's 

surface depth <feet below land surface)

altitude (feet 

(feet below 

above sea lend Shallowest Deepest 

level) surface)

Maggie Creek Basin Continued

5,045 14 13 14 .

5,085

5,040 11 10 11

5,540 318 308 318

5,540 58 48 58

5,340

5,520

5,380 152 115 139

5,380

Wa

mea

Date

06-14-89

10-16-89

04-11-90

09-12-90

06-18-91

10-24-91

11-11-91

03-14-89

10-16-89

04-12-90

09-24-90

06-14-89

10-16-89

04-11-90

09-12-90

06-18-91

10-23-91

11-11-91

08-21-91

11-11-91

08-21-91

11-11-91

04-29-82

04-14-90

10-17-89

04-11-90

09-12-90

11-11-91

01-02-80

10-17-89

04-11-90

09-12-90

03-14-89

10-17-89

04-11-90

09-12-90

11-11-91
 = £" '§ 5

^ «

1 1

1 1

If

ntervals surface)

*~ "c

ii

II

J

*

^

^f

^ TI

. g

ll

_J 3

(0

g

1

O) i^

in

i £ 

"5 § '"3 «

S § '

£ 0)

|§

f?^I

till

S »

1O

I 

1

8

§

1

en

|1 c §

£ $ ^s

(0

(R

5 1 > 8

"^1"

c

<5 'n

 g Jj « ' g

en §

_o

75 a

Q **S

-1 ' §

.1

«! .8

c

Z Z

& &

S

en NO en NO w> "* 

Tt NO t NO O ON CS NO

^t ft Tt vt vt o 3 >rt t~- 1~-

00 00 ON ON Q\ 00 00 ON ON ON

TtNOT-HtSrH ONOenCSr-H

S^8iS2^Si

i i/-) 1 t~-

1 I [C

1

2

I

M ' r^ » ' 2

^

^

'§! o o

S ?i, S£

o o

en I-H -H tS

CS 00

i-H ^J

^5 ^5

i i i i 

VO <5

i I CO

CS CO

^^ 1 1

8 8

O QQ

U-l 00

en ts

T-H tS

S

V") 

W

en en

Z Z

^ H i 1

* *

r-l tS

Z

1/1

g

§g

§

Si i

0

c^

_

^NO*

r-H

8i i

i i

i i

T-H

00

CO

8

BBBCl

NO

i i

S

fn

Z

1 1

en

Z

1/5

ts

oH

OOT(; 

w-lfN

00 55

rilOO

1

2

NO

p

00

cf NO"

1 1

o 

en

i i

NO

00

1

BDCCl

NO

en

^H

S

en

Z

1 1

^

z

1/5

o

s£

Ss1 1

CO

S

i i ts

en

NO

O

o

12

NO

en

§

DCBCl

NO

ts

a

en

Z

£

m

Z

&

NO NO tS C5

§§§§

00 00 ON ON

r^r-^

i

1

 1

8)

1 :

M

i*

S

o

PJ

11 1

12i i

o

i i

CQ

8i i 

o

i i

£2

ts

en

Z

ts

*

z

&

r-l ON NO 00

en O r-i en 

ON ON ON ON

ON ON O O 00 00 ON ON

en oo ts T-H

82^

'

!

i

o

S

8

S

12i i

ON

en

i i

u 

u

8

ts

£2

en 

en

Z

ts

*

Z Z

& &

^ (SO ON

s III ' i

^H 00 ON ON O O ON oo 00 00 ON QS

I> I> CO 00 CS i^

Si=S^i4

g !

oo ;

i i

8 '

cs

u-i u-i

8 8

S §

ON ON

VO ^O

i i i i

IO 'O

CO CO

< S!

33

s s

ts ts

W pj

en en 

en en

Z Z

ts ts

00 ON

84 Water Resources and Potential Effects of Development in Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada
Table 13. Water levels and data for wells in lower Maggie Creek area, northeastern Nevada Continued

Site designations 1 Landsurface

Site Local 

number identification

altitude

Standard (feet 

identification above ses 

lavel)

Well Depth of open intervals Wat

dapth ^eet '>e'ow 'and surface) meas

(feet 

below 

land Shallowest Deepei

surface)

st Date 

Marys Creek Basin Continued

80* 52 N33 E52 27DDBA1 404240116025001 4,895 500 - - 03-24-70

04-06-71

04-05-72

04-25-73

04-03-74

04-16-75

03-19-76

03-08-77

04-10-78

03-23-79

03-19-80

03-18-81

10-27-88

03-15-89

10-19-89

04-12-90

09-13-90

81* 52 N33 E52 28DBD 1 404250116074101 4,925 -- - - 04-13-89

05-12-89

10-18-89

04-12-90

09-11-90

00

tn 

o

oo 

en

1 In this table, each site is identified by U.S. Geological Survey site designations that consist of the local (Nevada) site-identification system and 

two designations are usually the most convenient means of identifying and retrieving information for a specific site from computer data bases operated 

convenience, a short site number also is used for sites in this report. For wells, these numbers range from 1 to 81.

The local site-identification system is based on an index of hydrographic areas in Nevada (Rush, 1968) and on the rectangular subdivision of the 

Diablo base line and meridian. Each number consists of four units: The first unit is the hydrographic area number. The second unit is the township, pre

of the base line. The third unit is the range, preceded by an E to indicate location east of the meridian. The fourth unit consists of the section number an

quarter-quarter section, and so on (A, B, C, and D indicate the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quarters, respectively), followed by a num

well was recorded. For example, the local identification for site number la in this table is 50 N33 E52 13BD1. This site is in the Susie Creek Basin (h

recorded in the southeast quarter (D) of the northwest quarter (B) of section 13, Township 33 north, Range 52 east, Mount Diablo base line and meridi

The standard identification for each site is based on the grid system of latitude and longitude. The number consists of 15 digits. The first six dig

of latitude; the next seven digits denote degrees, minutes, and seconds of longitude; and the last two digits (assigned sequentially) identify sites within a 

identification for site number lain this table is 404452116043701. This number refers to 40°44'52" latitude and 116°04'37" longitude, and it is the first 

15-digit number is retained as a permanent identifier even if a more precise latitude and longitude are determined later.
Table 14. Water-quality data used for geochemical modeling of ground-water flow paths in lower Maggie Creek are

[Abbreviations: (iS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, mil

micrograms per liter; permil, parts per thousand; pCi/L, picocuries per liter. Symbols: <, less than; , not available or not applicable; 8D, delta 

3

B>

3 

Q.

I

a 

2.

9

£

(Q5'

JP 

to

B>

§ 

Q. 

B)

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25 

41 

102

106

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25

41

102

106

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25

41

102

106

Local well number

51 N33 E52 15BCBA1 

51 N34E51 10DC1 

51 N35 E51 30DDCB1

52 N33 E52 28DC 1

Oxygen, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

5.0

1.4

4.7

4.4

Chloride, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asCI)

19

10

3.9

15

Hardness 

total 

(mg/L 

as 

CaC03)

160

78

29

170

Fluoride, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asF)

0.5

.5

<.l

.4

Calcium 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asCa)

43

21

8.5

47

Bromide, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asBr)

0.07

<.01

<.01

Date

06-12-90 

04-10-89 

08-30-90

04-10-89

Magnesium, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asMg)

12

6.2

1.9

12

Iodide, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asl)

0.002

.001

.001

Sodium, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asNa)

30

32

10

27

Silica, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

as 

SiOjj)

50

85

26

54

Time

1100 

1545 

1345

1115

Sodium 

adsorption 

ratio

1

2

.8

.9

Solids, 

residue 

at 

180°C, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

96

Depth 

of well 

(feet 

below 

land 

surface)

130

755

-

Potassium, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asK)

8.8

11

2.3

8.5

Solids, 

sum of 

constituents, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

311

262

87

308

Specific 

conductance 

(nS/cm

466 

326 

108

458

Bicarbonate, 

dissolved 

(mg/L as 

HC03)

196

126

51

195

Solids, 

dissolved 

(tons 

per 

acrefeet)

0.42

.36

.13

.42

pH, 

whole 

water, 

field 

(standard 

units)

7.3 

7.7 

6.6

7.5

Carbonate

dissolved 

(mg/L a

C03)

0

0

0

0

Nitrogen

nitrite, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asN)

<0.01

<.01
Table 14. Water-quality data used for geochemical modeling of ground-water flow paths in lower Maggie Creek are

Nevada Continued

<2 

o

D

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25 

41 

102 

106

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25 

41 

102 

106

Site 

number 

(figure 24)

25 

41 

102 

106

Nitrogen, 

ammonia + 

organic, 

dissolved 

(mg/L as N)

<0.2 

.2

Cadmium, 

dissolved 

(ng/L 

asCd)

<1.0 

<1.0 

<1.0 

<1.0

Nickel, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asNi)

<10 

<10 

2 

<10

Orthophosphorus, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asP)

0.09 

.06

Chromium, 

dissolved 

(ng/L

asCr)

<5 

<5

<1 

<5

Selenium, 

dissolved

(ng/L

asSe)

<1

2

Carbon, 

organic, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asC)

1.5

Cobalt, 

dissolved

(fig/las Co)

<3 

<3 

<3 

<3

Silver, 

dissolved

(ng/L

asAg)

<1.0 

<1.0 

<1.0 

2.0

Cyanide, 

dissolved 

(mg/L 

asCN)

<0.01

Copper, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asCu)

<10 

<10

1 

<10

Strontium, 

dissolved 

Oig/LasSr)

260 

110 

59 

290

Aluminum, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asAI)

~

Iron, 

dissolved

(ng"-

asFe)

4 

34

5

Vanadium, 

dissolved

(Wl/las V)

9 

27 

<6 

9

Antimony, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asSb)

1

Lead, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asPb)

<10 

<10 

1 

<10

Zinc, 

dissolved 

(ng/L 

asZn)

4 

<3

4

Arsenic, 

dissolved

Oig/L

asAs)

17 

9

Lithium, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

as Li)

49 

28 

<4 

36

Total 

radon222 

(pCi/L)

530

Barium, 

dissolved 

Oig/L 

asBa)

110 

89 

170 

110

Manganese, 

dissolved 

(ng/L 

asMn)

<1 

4 

38 

1

Total 

tritium 

(pCi/L)

33 

6.0

22

M

(