U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Hydrogeology and Water Resources of 

Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Prepared in cooperation with the 

NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 

and the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5247
COVER: Ruby Valley looking northwest toward Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Ruby Mountains.

Photograph by David L. Berger, U.S. Geological Survey, 2001. 
Hydrogeology and Water Resources of 

Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

By David L. Berger

Prepared in cooperation with the 

NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES and the

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2005-5247

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada, 2006

For more information about the USGS and its products:

U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Berger, D.L., 2006, Hydrogeology and water resources of Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

 Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5247, 39 p., available at URL: <http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2005-5247>.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................2

Physiography.........................................................................................................................................4

Climate and Vegetation........................................................................................................................4

Hydrogeologic Framework...........................................................................................................................7

Geologic History and Structural Setting ...........................................................................................7

Areal Extent of Hydrogeologic Units ...............................................................................................11

Water Resources .........................................................................................................................................12

Precipitation.........................................................................................................................................15

Runoff ..................................................................................................................................................17

Evapotranspiration..............................................................................................................................22

Ground Water......................................................................................................................................24

Sources and Movement ...........................................................................................................24

Recharge.....................................................................................................................................28

Water Quality..............................................................................................................................29

Lakes ..................................................................................................................................................29

Water Budget ...............................................................................................................................................34

Inflow ..................................................................................................................................................34

Outflow..................................................................................................................................................34

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................35

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................36

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location and general features of the Ruby Valley area, northeastern 

Nevada and location of selected precipitation stations, evapotranspiration sites, 

and spring and streamflow discharge sites.............................................................................3

Figure 2. Graphs showing annual precipitation, as percent departure from average 

(1971–2000) for selected precipitation stations and SNOTEL sites in and near 

Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada ............................................................................................6

Figure 3. Map showing distribution of hydrogeologic units, faults, and depth to pre-Cenozoic 

basement rock, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada..............................................................10

Figure 4. Graph showing difference between measured and predicted average annual 

precipitation versus the predicted average annual precipitation for 18 stations 

in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada, 1971–2000.................................................17

Figure 5. Map showing distribution of annual precipitation based on altitude-location 

relation, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada...........................................................................18
iv

Figure 6. Graph showing comparison of average annual precipitation for 18 stations in 

and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada, 1961–90 and 1971–2000 ..............................19

Figure 7. Graph showing Palmer drought severity index for northeastern Nevada, 

1895–2004 .....................................................................................................................................19

Figure 8. Graphs showing (A) relation of Franklin River daily average streamflow to 

Lutts Creek instantaneous streamflow and (B) comparison between predicted 

streamflow and measured streamflow for Lutts Creek, Ruby Valley, northeastern 

Nevada .........................................................................................................................................21

Figure 9. Map showing site number and depth to ground water, for selected wells in 

spring 2003, in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada...............................................25

Figure 10. Hydrographs showing changes in water levels in selected wells in Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada, 2000–03.................................................................................................26

Figure 11. Map showing generalized ground-water levels in basin-fill deposits, spring 2003, 

in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada .....................................................................27

Figure 12. Graph showing major ion composition of ground water sampled in and near 

Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada ..........................................................................................32

Figure 13. Graph showing relation between delta deuterium and logarithm of chloride 

concentrations in sampled water in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada.........33

Figure 14. Graph showing relation of delta deuterium to delta oxygen-18 in sampled water 

from evapotranspiration, ground-water, spring, and surface-water sites in and 

near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada .................................................................................33

Tables

Table 1. Average annual precipitation at sites in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada ......5

Table 2. Summary of hydrogeologic units, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada...................................8

Table 3. Site number, location, and type of data available for selected evapotranspiration, 

well, spring, and surface-water sites, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada.......................12

Table 4. Range in average annual precipitation for Ruby Valley Hydrographic Area, 

northeastern Nevada .................................................................................................................16

Table 5. Results of varying location coefficients in equation 1 on the distribution of 

precipitation, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada.................................................................16

Table 6. Computed or estimated annual streamflow, drainage area, and annual unit-area 

runoff for Franklin River, Lutts Creek, and Overland Creek, Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada .................................................................................................................20

Table 7. Estimated annual water budget for the Ruby Valley Hydrographic Area, 

northeastern Nevada .................................................................................................................23

Table 8. Results of chemical analyses for water samples from selected evapotranspiration, 

well, spring and surface-water sites, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada........................30
CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

acre-foot per square mile (acre-ft/mi2) 476.25 cubic meter per square kilometer (m3/km2)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

Transmissivity*

cubic foot per day per foot width of 

aquifer (ft2/d) 0.09290 cubic meter per day per meter width of aquifer (m2/d)

Flow rate

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

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

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Volumetric rate

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

Hydraulic gradient

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

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.

Datum: Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 

unless otherwise stated.

Temperature: Degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by using the formula 

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32.

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times foot of 

aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot squared per day 

(ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Water-quality units: 

mg/L milligrams per liter

μg/L micrograms per liter
vi
Abstract

Ruby Valley is a topographically closed, relatively 

undeveloped basin in northeastern Nevada that is 

experiencing slow but steady rural development. In 1999 

the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Nevada 

Division of Water Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, began a phased evaluation of the water resources in 

Ruby Valley. Phase 1 was completed in 2001 and provides 

evapotranspiration data from wetland habitats within the Ruby 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Phase 2 of the evaluation, 

presented in this report, was designed to provide information 

on the water resources of the entire Ruby Valley Hydrographic 

Area, including an updated water budget. 

The distribution of precipitation in Ruby Valley, derived 

from four estimates, range from 700,000 acre-ft/yr (acre-feet 

per year) developed from the Hardman precipitation map of 

Nevada to 910,000 acre-ft/yr based on a relation among annual 

precipitation, altitude, and location developed for this study. 

Predictions based on the Hardman precipitation map estimates 

about 25 to 31 percent less precipitation than the other 

estimates. Most of the differences in total precipitation are 

related to differences in climatic conditions during the period 

of estimated precipitation. Annual runoff generated in the 

mountain blocks that border Ruby Valley ranges from about 

82,000 to 100,000 acre-ft/yr. The Ruby Mountains and East 

Humboldt Range generate about 80 percent of the total runoff. 

The depth to ground water in basin-fill deposits during 

the spring of 2003 ranged from less than 5 feet along the 

margins of Ruby Lake to more than 200 ft beneath the alluvial 

slope in the northeast part of the valley. During the 4-year 

period from 2000 to 2003 water levels generally declined over 

much of the study area due to below average precipitation. 

Average ground-water recharge from precipitation is about 

100,000 acre-ft/yr, based on basin-scale reconnaissance 

level methods. Water samples were collected from 16 wells 

and 11 springs in and near Ruby Valley and analyzed for 

major ions, nutrients, and stable-isotopic composition. No 

primary drinking-water standards were exceeded for any of 

the constituents that were analyzed. Secondary drinkingwater standards were exceeded for manganese, sulfate, iron, 

dissolved solids, and pH at three wells. Most of the water 

sampled is a calcium-bicarbonate type. 

Total annual inflow to Ruby Valley ranges from about 

710,000 to 930,000 acre-ft/yr. Precipitation makes up the 

largest inflow component. Subsurface inflow, from Huntington 

and Northern Butte Valleys, represent less than 2 percent 

of the total inflow. Estimates of total annual outflow range 

from 780,000 to 870,000 acre-ft/yr. Evapotranspiration (ET) 

represents the largest outflow and is subdivided into areas 

of the mountain block, alluvial slope, and valley floor. ET 

from mountain-block areas that border Ruby Valley is about 

270,000 acre-ft/yr based on mass-balance calculations. 

Estimates of ET on alluvial slopes, where the only source 

of water is soil moisture from precipitation and infiltrated 

streamflow, is about 180,000 acre-ft/yr. Total ET on the Ruby 

Valley floor in 2001 ranges from about 330,000 to 420,000 

acre-ft/yr and is comprised from five different land-cover 

types. Subsurface outflow represents less than 1 percent of 

the outflow from Ruby Valley and takes place northeastward 

toward Clover Valley and possibly southwestward toward 

Long Valley. 

Introduction

Nevada is experiencing one of the fastest population 

growth rates in the Nation. This growth is the driving force 

behind most present and emerging water-resources problems 

in the State. Ruby Valley is a relatively undeveloped and 

sparsely populated area in northeastern Nevada and currently 

the subject of water-right adjudication proceedings. In July 

1985, the office of the Nevada State Engineer declared 

Ruby Valley a “Designated Basin,” which limits the exercise 

of committed ground-water rights to not exceed a basin’s 

estimated long-term recharge (Nevada Revised Statute 

534.120, 2003). 

Water resources in Ruby Valley were last evaluated more 

than 50 years ago by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; 

Eakin and Maxey, 1951) and provided a reconnaissance-level 

estimate of the ground-water budget. Since then additional 

climatic and hydrologic data have been collected and the 

development of remote-sensing techniques have provided 

new tools and approaches for water-resources analyses. This 

current study, made by the USGS in cooperation with the 

Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, 

Northeastern Nevada

By David L. Berger
   Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Nevada Division of Water Resources and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was designed to evaluate the water resources 

of Ruby Valley, with emphasis on updating the water budget. 

Purpose and Scope

This water-resources evaluation of Ruby Valley was 

divided into two 3-year phases. Phase 1 was designed to 

quantify annual evapotranspiration (ET) from the Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (Ruby Lake NWR) for the 2000 

water year (Berger and others, 2001). The 2000 water year is 

from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000. Presented in 

this report are the results of phase 2 of the overall investigation. This report presents information on the hydrogeologic 

framework and water resources of Ruby Valley, including an 

updated water budget and estimates of ground-water recharge. 

Previous Investigations

One of the earliest water-resources investigations in Ruby 

Valley was done by the USGS in the late 1940’s by Eakin and 

Maxey (1951). Their study briefly describes the hydrography 

of Ruby Valley and presents estimates of ground-water 

recharge and discharge. Other early studies of the USGS that 

provide information on Ruby Valley include a bulletin by Hill 

(1916) and a memorandum report on ground water by Taylor 

(1940). As part of a series of reconnaissance studies to provide 

preliminary appraisals of Nevada’s water resources, Rush 

and Everett (1966) and Glancy (1968) provide estimates of 

subsurface inflow to Ruby Valley from adjacent basins. In a 

hydrogeologic appraisal of hydrothermal systems in northern 

and central Nevada, Olmsted and others (1975) provide 

information on the Sulphur Hot Springs thermal area in westcentral Ruby Valley. Several report products of the USGS 

Great Basin Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) 

included the Ruby Valley area. These RASA reports include 

Bedinger and others (1984), Thomas and others (1986), 

Harrill and others (1988), Prudic and others (1995), and Plume 

(1996). In addition, Nichols (2000) included Ruby Valley as 

part of a regional ground-water ET study of nearly 15,000 mi2 

in eastern Nevada. 

Several reports by Sharp (1938, 1939a, 1939b, 1940, and 

1942) and Howard (1966a,1966b, 1971, and 1980) included 

geology, geologic structure, and geomorphology of the 

Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range. Dudley (1967) 

used geomorphic features to infer the hydrogeology of the 

central Ruby Mountains and their influence on streamflow 

and ground-water movement. Chemistry of ground water 

in the carbonate rocks of the southern Ruby Mountains was 

described by Johnson (1980). A detailed discussion of the 

regional geology of Elko County, which includes most of 

Ruby Valley, is presented by Coats (1987). Geology of the 

southern part of Ruby Valley that lies in White Pine County is 

presented by Hose and Blake (1976). Csuti (1987) describes 

an ecological survey and assessment of land adjacent to 

Franklin Lake in the north-central part of the valley. The last 

40,000 years of environmental and climatic change, based on 

palynological data from sediment cores from Ruby Lake, are 

described by Thompson (1992). 

As a result of phase 1 of the current overall USGS study 

in Ruby Valley, Berger and others (2001) present seasonal and 

annual ET rates for major habitats within the Ruby Lake NWR 

for the 2000 water year. Daily ET rates, miscellaneous streamdischarge and water-level measurements, and water-quality 

data collected as part of the overall Ruby Valley study have 

been published annually in data reports of the USGS (Allander 

and others, 2001; Garcia and others, 2002; Berris and others, 

2003).

Acknowledgements

The author expresses appreciation to the many private 

land owners and residents who granted access to their property and provided descriptions of Ruby Valley history. Further 

gratitude is expressed to the personnel at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service stationed at the Ruby Lake NWR and the 

Gallagher State Fish Hatchery.

Description of Study Area

Ruby Valley is an elongated, topographically closed basin 

in northeastern Nevada, about 30 mi southeast of Elko, Nev. 

(fig. 1). The valley occupies a north-south-trending structural 

basin in the Great Basin region of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province. The boundary of the Ruby Valley 

Hydrographic Area1 (HA; fig. 1), which coincides with the 

drainage-area boundary, encompasses about 1,000 mi2 in Elko 

and White Pine Counties. 

The residential population in the study area is distributed 

among several ranches around the north, northwest, and 

northeast sides of the valley. The principal industries are 

ranching, which is supported by large acreages of irrigated 

land, and recreational activities. On the basis of landsat 

imagery collected in 1985, 1989, 1995, and 2001 an average of 

about 4,300 acres of land were irrigated. Near the center of the 

valley is Franklin Lake, 3,200 acres of which are managed by 

the Nevada Division of Wildlife (fig. 1). The Ruby Lake NWR 

headquarters and Gallagher State Fish Hatchery are located 

along the east flank of the Ruby Mountains adjacent to Ruby 

Lake, in the southern part of the valley. Shantytown, a seasonal 

community, is about 3 mi south of the refuge headquarters.

1

 The U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Division of Water Resources 

delineated formal hydrographic areas in Nevada systematically in the late 

1960’s for scientific and administrative purposes (Cardinalli and other, 1968; 

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

boundaries continue to be used in Geological Survey scientific reports and 

Division of Water Resources administrative activities. Hydrographic-area 

boundaries generally coincide with drainage-area boundaries. 
Figure 1. Map showing location and general features of the Ruby Valley area, northeastern Nevada and location of 

selected precipitation stations, evapotranspiration sites, and spring and streamflow discharge sites.

Description of Study Area 

Elko County

White Pine County

Eureka County

Elko

Arthur

Wells

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

1p

2p

3p

4p

5p

6p

7p

8p

9p

10p

11p

12p

13p

14p

15p 17p

18p

1

2

3, 4, 5

6

7, 8, 9

77

78

79

80

66

68 67

69

70

71

75

72

76

73

74

Ruby Mountains

Medicine

Range

Maverick Springs Range

East Humboldt Range

Northern

Ruby Butte Valley

Valley

Butte Valley

Long Valley

Ruby Wash

Clover

Valley

Valley

Mountain

Huntington

Valley

Delcer

Buttes

16p

(Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Headquarters)

16p

(Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Headquarters)

Franklin

Lamoille

Creek

Franklin

Lake

Ruby

Lake

Harrison

Pass Creek

River

Overland

 Creek

Lutts

Creek

MAP

AREA

Reno

Las

Vegas

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1988. Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11. Shaded-relief from 30-meter Digital

Elevation Model; sun illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.

EXPLANATION

Ruby Valley hydrographic-area 

 boundary

Lake

Wetland Precipitation station—

 Site number listed in table 1

Evapotranspiration site—

 Site number listed in table 3

Spring-measurement site— Spring

 Site number listed in table 3

Streamflow-discharge site—

 Site number listed in table 3

15p

2 80

76

115°45' 115°15' 114°45'

41°00'

40°30'

40°00'
 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Physiography

The Ruby Mountains form the entire western border of 

Ruby Valley (fig. 1). This mountain range is a narrow, asymmetrical fault block that extends nearly 80 mi to the south 

from its northern extension near Wells, Nev. Along nearly its 

entire length, the east slope of the Ruby Mountains is steeper 

than the west slope; in many places, the crest of the range 

is west of the drainage divide (Sharp, 1940, p. 343). Several 

peaks in the range have altitudes that exceed 11,000 ft. The 

Ruby Mountains merge in the north with the East Humboldt 

Range (fig. 1), which forms the north and northeast borders 

of the valley. Summit altitudes of the East Humboldt Range 

are between 8,000 and 11,000 ft. The Ruby Mountains and 

the East Humboldt Range are the most dominant features in 

the study area and are the principal source areas for inflow 

of water to Ruby Valley. The eastern border of the valley is 

composed of low hills and alluvial divides in the north and the 

Medicine and Maverick Springs Ranges (fig. 1), which reach 

altitudes of nearly 8,000 ft, in the south. 

The floor of Ruby Valley lies just above an altitude of 

5,900 ft, making it one of the higher valleys in the Great 

Basin. The valley is divided into two internally drained basins 

separated by an alluvial ridge at an altitude of about 6,000 ft. 

The lowest parts of these two basins are occupied by Franklin 

Lake in the north and Ruby Lake in the south. Wave action of 

the two lakes, aided by sediment from Harrison Pass Creek 

(fig. 1), probably built the alluvial ridge that separates the two 

lakes (Sharp, 1938, p. 318). The altitude of the valley floor 

increases northward from Franklin Lake to about 6,100 ft and 

southward from Ruby Lake to about 6,300 ft. Streams issuing 

from the east side of the Ruby Mountains north of Harrison 

Pass Creek and from the southwest flank of the East Humboldt 

Range, under natural conditions, terminate in Franklin Lake. 

The Franklin Lake drainage area covers the northern twothirds of the Ruby Valley HA. The existence of Franklin Lake 

is a result of accumulated precipitation and resultant streamflow from adjacent mountains (Csuti, 1987, p. 4). However, 

the Franklin River, which drains the southern part of the East 

Humboldt Range, flows to Franklin Lake only during sustained periods of above average precipitation. Streams south 

of and including Harrison Pass Creek and those issuing from 

the Maverick Springs Range terminate in Ruby Lake. Most 

of these streams are perennial only in the upper parts of the 

watersheds. Ruby Lake, in the southern third of Ruby Valley, 

is the site of the Ruby Lake NWR. The refuge covers nearly 

38,000 acres of open water, wetland, and adjacent areas consisting of meadow, grassland, and shrub upland.

Climate and Vegetation

Ruby Valley is in a middle-latitude desert and steppe 

climate that is dominated by tropical air masses in the summer 

and continental polar air masses in the winter (Houghton and 

others, 1975, p. 13, 69–70). In the Ruby Mountains and East 

Humboldt Range, average annual precipitation is about 33 in., 

based on Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) data (1971–2000) 

from five stations (sites 5p, 6p, 11p, 13p, and 15p; fig. 1; 

table 1; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002). The 

Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range create a severe 

rain shadow and as a result precipitation abruptly decreases to 

the east. In addition, many storm tracks move southeast over 

southern Idaho and retain moisture until the Ruby Mountains 

and East Humboldt Range are encountered. Precipitation data 

collected at the headquarters of Ruby Lake NWR (site 16p; 

fig. 1) and at a weather station near Arthur, Nev. (site 8p; 

fig. 1), in the northern part of the valley indicate that average 

annual precipitation on much of the valley floor during the 

30-year reference period (1971–2000) is about 14 in. (table 1). 

Farther east, annual precipitation on valley floors is about 8 in. 

(sites 4p, 17p, and 18p; fig. 1; table 1). 

Generally, precipitation throughout northeastern Nevada 

was below average during the period of this study (1999–

2003). Annual precipitation on the valley floor of Ruby Valley 

was about 30 percent below the 30-year average (1971–2000) 

on the basis of data collected at Ruby Lake NWR and Arthur 

(sites 16p and 8p, respectively; fig. 2). Annual precipitation 

in the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range, based 

on available data (1979–2003) recorded at two SNOTEL 

sites (site 6p and 15p; fig. 2), indicate similar below average 

precipitation. The effects of below average precipitation in the 

study area appear to have been cumulative. The areal extent of 

flooded areas in the Ruby Lake NWR decreased from nearly 

13,800 acres in the spring of 2000 to about 8,600 acres in the 

spring of 2004 (Jeffrey Mackay, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, oral commun., 2004).

Monthly precipitation on the floor of Ruby Valley generally is evenly distributed during October through May and 

averages about 1.34 in. monthly. During the remainder of the 

year monthly precipitation averages about 0.74 in., with the 

lowest amount typically recorded in July. In the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range, average monthly precipitation 

during the period of October through May is more than twice 

that on the valley floor and represents the greatest source of 

inflow water to the valley. 

Temperature data collected at Ruby Lake NWR (site 16p; 

1971–2000) indicate that daily maximum temperatures in the 

summer typically exceed 85°F but reach 100°F on only 1 or 

2 days during late July or early August. The average daily 

minimum summer temperature is about 40°F. Daily maximum 

temperatures during the winter range between 30 and 50°F 

and daily minimum temperatures typically range from about 

0 to 30°F but have been recorded as low as -15°F in January. 

Annual evaporation (September 1999–October 2000) measured at an open-water site in the south marsh of Ruby Lake 

NWR was about 65 in. (site 7; fig. 1; Berger and others, 2001, 

p. 16). Pan-evaporation measurements collected at the refuge 

headquarters from 1978 through 2003 average about 48 in. 

from April through October (Jeffrey Mackay, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, written commun., 2004). 
Table 1. Average annual precipitation at sites in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada

Site 

number 

(see fig. 

1 for site 

location)

Station name

Available 

period of 

record

Altitude1, in 

feet above 

sea level

Average annual 

precipitation, in inches

Estimated average annual 

precipitation, in inches

1961–19902 1971–20002 PRISM3

1961–1990

Altitudelocation 

relation4

1971–2000

1p Elko WB airport 1890–2004 5,196 9.93 9.59 11 11

2p Deeth 2 SW 1951–2004 5,380 12.27 12.46 13 11

3p Wells 1948–2004 5,633 10.58 10.22 11 12

4p Oasis 1987–2004 5,977 6.7 8.11 11 12

5p Hole-in-mountain 1982–2004 7,693 33.6 35.0 30 29

6p Dorsey Basin 1979–2004 8,011 31.9 32.4 30 32

7p Clover Valley 1965–2004 5,793 14.07 14.42 13 12

8p Arthur 4 NW 1948–2004 6,213 15.10 14.85 17 16

9p Lamoille Yost 1975–2004 5,862 14.47 14.05 13 14

10p Lamoille PH 1917–1972 7,152 20.09 18.81 22 25

11p Lamoille #3 1981–2004 8,234 33.9 33.3 34 33

12p Jiggs 1948–1972 5,597 12.37 16.01 11 12

13p Green Mountain 1981–2004 8,247 32.9 32.5 34 32

14p Jiggs 8 SSE ZAGA 1978–2004 5,694 13.54 13.35 13 11

15p Corral Canyon 1979–2004 8,343 29.8 29.7 30 32

16p Ruby Lake 1948–2004 6,473 13.26 13.66 17 16

17p Currie Highway station 1961–1991 5,797 7.24 7.27 9 7

18p Lages 1984–2004 6,085 7.70 7.90 9 7

1 Altitude based on 90 meter digital elevation model.

2 Data from Natural Resources Conservation Service (2002) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2002). Average annual precipitation for 

stations with incomplete years are estimated using a weighting function derived from observed relations between a candidate’s monthly observations and those 

of up to 20 neighboring stations whose observations are most strongly correlated with the candidate site (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002, p. 3).

3 Estimate based on May 1997 simulation of Precipitation-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM; Daly and others, 1994).

4 Estimate based on altitude-location relation (eq. 1) developed for this study.

Description of Study Area 
   Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

-100

-50

0

50

100

1971

19731975197719791981

1983

1985

1987

198919911993

1995

1997199920012003

-100

-50

0

50

100

-100

-50

50

100

-100

-50

50

100

D

E

P

A

R

T

U

R

E FR

O

M

A

V

E

R

A

G

E, IN

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

0

0

Site 16p

Site 8p

Site 15p

Site 6p 1999–2003 study period was generally below average precipitation 

YEAR

Figure 2. Graphs showing annual precipitation, as percent departure from average (1971–2000) for selected 

precipitation stations and SNOTEL sites in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2002; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002). See table 1 for site 

information. 
From about the middle to upper parts of the alluvial 

slopes that border the valley floor to nearly 9,000 ft in the 

surrounding mountains, the vegetation is characterized by a 

pinyon-juniper woodland assemblage (Charlet, 1996, p. 233). 

Sagebrush and grasses make up the understory of this assemblage and above about 7,500 ft mountain mahogany and aspen 

often are present, particularly along stream channels and in 

areas of ground-water seeps. Above 9,000 ft the subalpine 

zone includes whitebark pine, limber pine, Engleman spruce 

(only found in East Humboldt Range; Coats, 1987, p. 7), 

and aspen. Ancient bristlecone pines are found in the southern Ruby Mountains. The alpine-tundra zone is above about 

11,000 ft (Nichols, 2000, p. C8). 

The sagebrush community covers the lower parts of the 

alluvial slopes adjacent to the valley floor and in areas of the 

valley floor where the water table is greater than about 35 ft. 

This plant community is the largest in the study area. Several 

species of sagebrush are found in this community, including 

big, dwarf, and black. Spiny hopsage, bitterbrush, Morman 

tea, green rabbitbrush, and numerous species of grasses also 

are present. 

In the lowlands of the valley, plants of the shadscalegreasewood and salt-desert communities are found. Phreatophytes, plants that have deep root systems and transpire 

water directly from the water table or capillary fringe above 

the water table, are included in these communities. Within the 

shadscale-greasewood community are shadscale, greasewood, 

basin wildrye, saltbrush, spiny hopsage, winterfat, big sage, 

and rabbitbrush. Greasewood is the principal phreatophyte 

and grows in areas where the depth to ground water ranges 

from about 5 ft to nearly 35 ft (Berger, 1995, p. 35). Along 

the margins of Franklin Lake and along the east side of Ruby 

Lake and other areas on the valley floor, picklewood, saltsage, 

and saltgrass make up the salt-desert community. Saltgrass is 

the most common phreatophyte of this community and grows 

in areas where depth to ground water is less than about 8 ft 

(Nichols, 2000, p. C8). Wetlands of the Ruby Lake NWR 

consist of areas of open water that contain submerged aquatic 

vegetation as well as areas of moderate to dense bulrush and 

scattered stands of cattails. The wetlands are bordered by 

meadows in places where the water table rises periodically 

and causes flooding, or is very near the land surface. Riparian 

vegetation and grasses are found near springs and canals along 

the west side of the refuge as well as along stream channels in 

adjacent mountain blocks. 

Hydrogeologic Framework

The geologic history that has shaped Ruby Valley is 

complex and includes periods of regional metamorphism, 

thick accumulations of sedimentary and volcanic rocks, major 

tectonic events, glaciation, and cyclic fluctuations of a large, 

closed-basin lake. The combination of geologic events and 

lithology greatly influences the hydrology of the study area by 

affecting the water-yield characteristics of the mountain blocks 

and controlling the movement of ground water. The more 

than two dozen geologic units recognized in the study area 

are grouped, using nomenclature modified from Maurer and 

others (2004a), into nine hydrogeologic units on the basis of 

lithology and hydrologic similarities. The hydrogeologic units 

are described in terms of geologic characteristics, occurrence, 

and general water-bearing properties in table 2 and the generalized hydrogeology of the study area and depth to pre-Cenozoic basement rock are shown in figure 3.

Geologic History and Structural Setting

From as early as late Precambrian time to at least early 

Triassic time, the Ruby Valley area was within the miogeosynclinal belt of what was once the continental margin of 

North America (Stewart and Poole, 1974; Hose and Blake, 

1976, p. 1; Stewart, 1980, p. 14–60). During that period, tens 

of thousands of feet of continental deposits and carbonate and 

shale sediments accumulated (Stewart, 1980, p. 14). Nearly 

17,000 ft of continuous Paleozoic rock, consisting mostly of 

dolomite and limestone, make up the southern Ruby Mountains, and form the carbonate hydrogeologic unit used in this 

report (fig. 3; Sharp, 1942, p. 651). These Paleozoic carbonate 

rocks exhibit karstic features such as sinkholes and solution 

channels. The Paleozoic rocks that comprise the northern part 

of the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range have been 

subjected to regional metamorphism, which included intense 

recumbent folding and intrusion of granitic rocks (Howard, 1980 p. 336–337). Howard (1980, p. 335) describes the 

results of this regional metamorphism as a metamorphic-core 

complex which probably formed during the Jurassic(?) period. 

Granitic rocks of the Harrison Pass Pluton separate the metamorphic-core complex from the relatively simple structured 

Paleozoic rocks that comprise the southern part of the range. 

The depositional environment in northeastern Nevada 

was disrupted by several tectonic events. The dominant 

disturbance was the Antler orogeny, which occurred during 

Late Devonian to early Early Mississippian time (Stewart, 

1980, p. 36; Coats, 1987, p. 80). The most significant feature 

of the Antler orogeny was the Roberts Mountain thrust, which 

brought deep-water siliceous rocks eastward over shallowwater carbonate rocks of the same age (Stewart, 1980, p. 36). 

Although Ruby Valley lies east of Roberts Mountain thrust, 

the Antler orogeny created highlands that provided a depositional source of clastic material to many of the basins in the 

region, including Ruby Valley. A second period of intense 

tectonic activity, in the form of extensional faulting, took place 

in the late Tertiary. This extensional faulting is thought to have 

created the block-faulted basins and ranges that characterize 

the basin-and-range topography of today. The last major uplift 

of the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range and most 

mountains that border Ruby Valley is thought to have occurred 

in late Pliocene to mid-Pleistocene time (Sharp, 1939a, p. 

902–904). 

Hydrogeologic Framework   
Table 2. Summary of hydrogeologic units, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada [Composite description from Sharp (1939a, 1939b), Hose and Blake (1976), Stewart and Carlson (1978), and Coats (1987). Abbreviations: mi2, square miles; ft, feet] Hydrogeologic unit1 (see fig. 3) Geologic description Occurrence and general 

Cenozoic basin-fill deposits Valley-floor deposits Moderate to well sorted unconsolidated sand and silt with interbedded layers of clay. Playas unconsoli- dated clay and silt. Occupies area of unconsolid

than 3 percent slope (MaureComprises largest part of stuPermeability moderate to low toward valley center. Alluvial-slope deposits Poorly to moderately sorted, unconsolidated sand, gravel, and some silt. Occupies margin between vablock (290 mi2). Permeabilittends to decrease toward the 

Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks Tuffaceous rocks and sediments Light gray to white beds of ash and tuff in lower part of section. Tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone, conglomerate, claystone, and thinly bedded limestone most abundant in upper half of section. Interbedded with andesite, basaltic, and rhyolitic flows through- out. Some beds have been altered to montmorillonite. Comprises much of northwe

cine Range (42 mi2) as scattelarge part of Humboldt FormThickness at least 2,000 ft (Sp. B35) and may underlie m1939a, p. 894). Mostly fine gpermeability. Rhyolitic flows Rhyolitic to dacitic flows, may occur as volcanic domes that generally are porphyritic with glassy to aphanitic ground mass. Crops out as minor exposure erick Springs Range, along sPermeability typically develjoints, and cooling cracks. Gthan Cenozoic basaltic flows 2004a). 

Andesitic flows Pyroxene andesite, hornblende rhyodacite, and biotite-quartz latite. Basal unit typically white to green 

tuffaceous clastic rock and pumice breccia.

Large accumulation exposed Springs Range along basin bisolated exposures occur in sand East Humboldt Range. Tft (Hose and Blake, 1976, p. permeable of Cenozoic volcothers, 2004a).

Volcanic breccias and tuffs Medium gray to grayish red jasperoid breccia. Crops out as isolated exposu

ern part of Ruby Mountains Range. Fills deep cuts in bed(Hose and Blake, 1976, p. 22permeability. 
Paleozoic sedimentary rocks

Carbonate rocks Limestone, dolomite, and mixtures of limestone and 

clastic rocks.

Comprises most of the south(south of Harrison Pass CreeMaverick Springs and Medic168 mi2). Outcrops along weHumboldt Range. Total thickabout 16,500 ft (Sharp, 1942Limestone, Devils Gate, NevFormations, and Pogonip Liranges from low in impure lisolution enlargement along jability typically in direction 1967, p. 30–32).

Mesozoic and Cambrian-Precambrian sedimentary rocks

Clastic rocks Interbedded calcareous sandstone, sandy and shaley 

limestone, shale, siltstone, quartzite, and conglomerate. 

Crops out in northern part of central Ruby Mountains (noCreek). Includes the Dinwootions and Prospect Mountain ranges from very low in qualimestone.

Cenozoic and Mesozoic intrusive and metamorphic rocks

Intrusive and metamorphic rocks Diorite, granodiorite, quartz monzonite, and foliated 

metaquartzite.

Intrusive rocks crop out in cincludes Harrison Pass Plutorocks comprise most of nortand East Humboldt Range. Eporosity or permeability and to ground-water movement.

1 Delineation of hydrogeologic units follows nomenclature presented by Maurer and others (2004a).
10 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Figure 3. Map showing distribution of hydrogeologic units, faults, and depth to pre-Cenozoic basement rock, Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada (modified from Maurer and others, 2004a).

40°45'

115°37'30" 115°15' 114°52'30"

40°22'30"

40°00'

Elko County

White Pine County

Ruby Mountains

Medicine

Range

Maverick Springs Range

East Humboldt Range

Northern

Butte Valley

Clover

Valley

Valley

Mountain

500

1000

2000

4000

2000

1000

3000

500

3000

3000

4000

4000

6000

500 1000

1000

500

2000

10000

8000

1000

6000 2000 2000

6000

3000

500

500

1000

2000

500

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

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

1988. Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11.

Shaded-relief from 30-meter Digital Elevation Model; sun

illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.

Delineation of hydrogeologic units

from Maurer and others (2004a)

EXPLANATION

Line of equal basin-fill thickness—

 Interval in feet variable. 

 Datum is land surface

Hydrogeology Ruby Valley hydrographic-area boundary

Fault

3000

Tuffaceous rocks and sediments

Rhyolitic flows

Andesitic flows

Volcanic breccias and tuffs

Carbonate rocks

Clastic rocks

Intrusive and metamorphic rocks

Valley-floor deposits

Alluvial-slope deposits 
Accompanying the late Tertiary extensional tectonics, 

large volumes of detritus were eroded from adjacent mountain 

blocks and deposited in Ruby Valley and other down-dropped 

basins within the region. Designated as upper Tertiary 

sedimentary and volcanic rocks by Coats (1987, p. 62–63), 

these deposits include a large part of the Miocene Humboldt 

Formation (Sharp, 1939b, p. 133) and are grouped with the 

tuffaceous rocks in table 2. The estimated thickness of the 

Tertiary sediments is several thousand feet and largely consist 

of semiconsolidated fluvial and lacustrine sedimentary rocks 

interbedded with andesite, basaltic and rhyolitic flows, ash, 

and associated tuffs (Sharp, 1939b; Smith and Ketner, 1976, 

p. B32; Stewart, 1980, p. 89). Results from an oil and gas 

exploration well indicate the Tertiary sediments are nearly 

2,700 ft thick near the center of the valley (Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology, 2004). Sharp (1939b, p. 146) suggests 

that the Humboldt Formation and presumably other upper 

Tertiary sedimentary rocks rest directly on pre-Tertiary 

rocks and make up most of the Cenozoic basin-fill deposits 

that fill the structural basin beneath Ruby Valley. Eakin and 

Maxey (1951, p. 77) report that the Humboldt Formation was 

penetrated by a well at a depth of about 170 ft in the northern 

part of Ruby Valley. 

Large and frequent climatic fluctuations during the 

Quaternary period resulted in extensive glaciation and the 

development of large pluvial lakes in many of the basins in 

northeastern Nevada. During the Pleistocene (Wisconsin stage) 

two separate substages of glaciation took place in the northern 

Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range (Sharp, 1938). 

Pluvial Lake Franklin was synchronous with the glaciation and 

at its maximum extent covered about 480 mi2 in Ruby Valley 

and the northern part of Butte Valley to a depth of about 115 

ft (Mifflin and Wheat, 1979; Benson and Thompson, 1987, p. 

247). Shorelines at an altitude of about 6,300 ft indicate that 

an earlier Pleistocene lake that inundated the study area was 

nearly 300 ft deep (Sharp, 1942, p. 685–686). Palynological 

data from sediment cores indicate that from about the middle 

Wisconsin (40,000 yr before present) to the middle Holocene 

(between 5,000 to 4,700 yr before present), the pluvial lakes 

in Ruby Valley cycled from shallow saline conditions and 

complete desiccation to a deep freshwater lake (Thompson, 

1992). The overlying Pleistocene deposits are almost 

entirely clastic and are coarser and less consolidated than 

the underlying upper Tertiary sedimentary rocks (Eakin and 

Maxey, 1951, p. 75; Morrison, 1968, p. 874). 

The most spectacular structural features within the study 

area are the escarpments associated with range-bounding 

faults along the east side of the Ruby Mountains (fig. 3). 

Repeated uplifts of the westward-tilted Ruby Mountains have 

produced vertical displacements of at least 6,500 ft along the 

east boundary fault (Sharp, 1942, p. 687). Gravity data (David 

A. Ponce, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2003) 

indicate depth to pre-Cenozoic basement may be 10,000 ft 

east of the southern Ruby Mountains (fig. 3) suggesting the 

displacement probably is much greater than 6,500 ft. Although 

the surface expressions of the east boundary faults are buried 

near their southern end, the line of springs along Ruby Lake 

are evidence of the continuation of the faults (fig. 2).

The structural basin underlying Ruby Valley consists of a 

series of elongated grabens or depressions in the pre-Cenozoic 

basement rock (fig. 3). These depressions generally trend 

north-northeast and are structurally controlled by dip-slip 

boundary faults (Sharp 1939a, p. 898). The Cenozoic basinfill deposits and volcanic and sedimentary rocks that fill the 

structural basin, range in thickness from less than 500 ft along 

the margins of the valley to about 10,000 ft beneath the southcenter part of the valley (fig. 3). 

Areal Extent of Hydrogeologic Units

Cenozoic basin-fill deposits are grouped into two hydrogeologic units: valley-floor deposits and alluvial-slope deposits (table 2; fig. 3). These units represent distinct geomorphic 

features and consist mostly of unconsolidated gravel and sand 

that readily transmit water. The valley-floor deposits, which 

cover about 370 mi2, are defined as the area with a slope of 

less than 3 percent (fig. 3; Maurer and others, 2004a, p. 8). 

Included in the valley-floor unit are deposits of lacustrine 

origin that generally have low permeabilities. North of Delcer 

Buttes, valley-floor deposits extend into Northern Butte Valley 

along a low alluvial divide. Along the margin of the valley 

floor, between the consolidated rock of the mountain blocks 

and the valley-floor deposits, lay the alluvial-slope deposits. 

This unit covers about 290 mi2 and consists of dissected pediments and alluvial fans (fig. 3). Unlike many basins in Nevada 

where alluvial slopes commonly have considerable thicknesses, the alluvial slopes in Ruby Valley, particularly along 

the east side of the Ruby Mountains, are comprised of thinly 

covered pediments (fig. 3; Sharp, 1940, p. 355). 

Consolidated rocks, which form the mountain blocks and 

underlie the deposits that fill the valley, are grouped into seven 

hydrogeologic units (table 2). These units commonly have 

low permeability, with the exception of carbonate rocks, and 

do not readily transmit water except where fractured or along 

solution-enlarged joints and fissures. Outcrops of the carbonate unit cover nearly 170 mi2 and make up the entire southern 

Ruby Mountains and much of the Maverick Springs Range 

and Valley Mountain (fig. 3). The existence of Ruby Lake 

and the associated wetland is due in large part to the highly 

permeable nature and stratigraphic position of the carbonate 

unit (Sharp, 1942, p. 685; Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 13). The 

water yield from the southern Ruby Mountains essentially has 

no streamflow component due to the enhanced permeability of 

the carbonate rocks, and as a consequence the eastward drainage is almost entirely made up of spring discharge (Dudley, 

1967, p. 75; Johnson, 1980, p. 15–17; Thompson, 1992, p. 2). 

The hydrogeologic characteristics of the carbonate unit 

are in sharp contrast to the characteristics of the intrusive and 

metamorphic unit that makes up the central and northern Ruby 

Mountains and much of the East Humboldt Range (fig. 3). 

These rocks, in part, have very low permeability, and typically act as barriers to ground-water movement. Relatively 

Hydrogeologic Framework 11
12 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

few springs issue from this hydrogeologic unit. Due to the 

relatively low permeability, streamflow makes up the largest 

component of the water yield from these areas (Dudley, 1967, 

p. 73). 

The tuffaceous rocks and sediments unit makes up much 

of the Medicine Range (about 42 mi2) and probably underlies 

much of the valley floor (Sharp, 1939a, p. 894). This unit 

mostly is semiconsolidated, fine- to coarse-grained deposits 

that generally have low permeability. Other hydrogeologic 

units within Ruby Valley are of lesser areal extent and include 

three units of Cenozoic volcanic rocks and one unit of clastic 

rocks ranging from Precambrian to the Mesozoic age. The 

Cenozoic volcanic rocks consist mostly of rhyolitic and 

andesitic flows, breccias, and tuffs. These units may develop 

some permeability along fractures and cooling joints, but 

typically are considered to have low permeability. 

Water Resources

Most ground water in Ruby Valley originates as precipitation that falls within the drainage basin, either in the form of 

rain or snow. Precipitation typically increases with altitude, 

and tends to decrease eastward with distance from the Ruby 

Mountains. Streams that issue from the surrounding mountains 

either infiltrate to the ground-water system as they cross the 

alluvial slope, are consumed by ET, or continue flowing to 

Franklin or Ruby Lakes. Although Ruby Valley is a topographically closed basin, the ground-water system in Ruby 

Valley is not a closed system and is connected to adjacent 

basins to the east through basin-fill deposits. Table 3 lists site 

numbers, location, and type of data available for selected ET, 

well, spring, and surface-water sites used in this study.

Table 3. Site number, location, and type of data available for selected evapotranspiration, well, spring, and surface-water sites, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada

[Available data: ET, micrometeorological; GL, geophysical logs; Q, discharge; QW, water chemistry; WL, ground-water levels. Data from Allander and others 

(2001), Berger and others (2001), and Garcia and others (2002). Symbol: --, not available or unknown]

Site number U.S. Geological Survey site designations1 Site name Available data

Local identification Standard identification

Evapotranspiration Sites

1 176N28E5822DABB1 401731115246001 Phreatophyte-2 ET

2 176N27E5817BBDA1 401334115280401 Bulrush marsh ET,QW

3 176N27E5832DDDC1 401022115272201 Phreatophyte-4 ET

4 176N27E5832DDDC1 401013115271301 Phreatophyte-1 ET

5 176N27E5833CDCA1 401013115263901 Phreatophyte-5 ET

6 176N26E5809CDCA1 400834115264801 Phreatophyte-3 ET

7 176N25E5701BCAA1 400449115302601 Open water ET,QW

8 176N25E5702ABDA1 400440115310001 Meadow ET

9 176N25E5703DACD1 400425115320401 Desert-shrub uplands ET

Well Sites

10 176N33E6118CBDC1 404417115081501 -- WL

11 176N33E6021BDCD1 404335115123801 -- WL,QW

12 176N33E6024DDDA1 404315115082701 Pole Creek well WL

13 176N32E6009DBDA1 403958115121101 -- WL,QW

14 176N32E5925BAAA1 403755115155501 Highway Dept. well WL

15 176N31E6004CACD1 403535115123701 Company well WL

16 176N31E6117CAAB1 403401115064501 -- WL

17 176N31E5924ABBC1 403334115155101 Bucket well WL,QW

18 176N31E6023BCCA1 403316115103501 USBLM WL

19 176N31E6028BBBA1 403242115125501 -- WL

20 176N31E6031BABB1 403152115150101 -- WL

21 176N31E6034AABD1 403148115105301 -- WL
Table 3. Site number, location, and type of data available for selected evapotranspiration, well, spring, and surface-water sites, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada—Continued

Site number U.S. Geological Survey site designations1 Site name Available data

Local identification Standard identification

Well Sites—Continued

22 176N30E6005ABCD1 403050115134401 South well WL

23 176N30E6006ACAD1 403041115144101 -- WL

24 176N30 E6003DCBC1 403018115112901 USBLM WL

25 176N30E6002DDDD1 403013115095201 -- WL

26 176N30E6107DDDC1 402918115074301 -- WL

27 178AN30E6218CDCB1 402827115013601 Dry Lake well WL

28 176N30E5922DCAD1 402744115181001 USBLM WL

29 176N30E5928ABDC1 402724115192101 River well WL

30 176N30E5933CADB1 402607115193901 -- WL

31 178AN30E6233CACC1 402555114591801 USBLM WL,QW

32 176N29E6105BDBD1 402529115071201 Frenchy well WL

33 176N29E5915BBBC1 402360115190101 Cross county windmill WL,QW

34 176N29E6016BDBD1 402343115125801 Basque well no. 2 WL,QW

35 176N28E5804CBAC1 402010115265001 Irrigation well QW

36 176N28E5802CADA1 402001115241301 -- WL

37 176N28E5906DBDC1 402001115214601 Stock well WL

38 176N28E5809CBDB1 401913115265701 -- WL,QW

39 176N28E5909CDAA1 401900115200001 Ruby Valley 1 WL

40 176N28E5816CBAA1 401827115265601 Irrigation well WL

41 176N28E5917CACA1 401818115210001 USBLM WL

42 176N28E5815CCBB1 401813115255201 Ruby Lake Estates 1 WL,QW

43 176N28E5814DDCB1 401805115235401 Stock well WL

44 176N28E5822DBDA1 401728115250501 USFWS WL

45 176N28E5929DDBC1 401623115203101 Stock well WL

46 176N27E5806BADD1 401515115284901 -- WL,QW

47 176N27E5902DDBD1 401437115170401 Ruby Wash well WL

48 176N27E5910ABCD1 401417115182701 Rock Cabin well WL

49 176N27E5818BCCA1 401323115292801 USFWS WL

50 176N27E5828DBDD1 401121115262301 USBLM WL

51 176N26E5805ABAA1 401012115272901 USFWS WL

52 176N26E5810DDBB1 400838115251101 USBLM WL,QW

53 176N26E5816BBAA1 400827115265401 USFWS WL

54 176N25E5803DDBA1 400417115251901 USBLM WL,QW

55 176N25E5711BBBC1 400405115314901 Fort Ruby Ranch 1 WL,QW

56 176N25E5711BBBC2 400405115314902 Fort Ruby Ranch 2 WL

57 176N25E5711DADC1 400330115305101 -- WL

58 176N25E5714ADBB1 400301115305901 -- WL

Water Resources 13
14  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Table 3. Site number, location, and type of data available for selected evapotranspiration, well, spring, and surface-water sites, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada—Continued

Site number U.S. Geological Survey site designations1 Site name Available data

Local identification Standard identification

Well Sites—Continued

59 176N25E5714ADBC1 400258115305901 -- WL

60 176N25E5714BDDC1 400252115312701 Fort Ruby Ranch agriculture well WL

61 176N25E5724BABB1 400222115302001 -- WL

62 176N25E5827BAAA1 400131115254501 RV-2 WL,QW,GL

63 176N25E5829ABDC1 400119115274501 -- WL

64 176N25E5829ABDC2 400119115274801 RV-1 shallow WL,QW,GL

65 176N25E5829ABDC3 400119115274802 RV-1 deep WL,QW,GL

Spring Sites

66 176N27E6032CC 1 402039115141801 Medicine Spring QW

67 176N27E5802BD 1 401508115242201 Hot Springs main pond east side QW

68 176N27E5807BD 1 401412115285601 0.89 mi N Bressman Cabin QW

69 176N27E5724DC 1 401205115301101 Cave Spring QW

70 176N27E5736AA 1 401105115292801 Nino Spring at Fish Hatchery QW

71 176N26E5714CD 1 400751115313001 Spring at N County Line Pond QW

72 176N25E5711DB 1 400450115303401 Spring at south pond QW

73 176N25E5711BB 1 400403115314701 Fort Ruby Spring QW

74 176N25E5711DD 1 400330115304801 1.09 mi SE Fort Ruby QW

75 176N25E5712DD 1 400328115293801 0.64 mi N Station Springs QW

76 176N25E5713AD 1 400255115293801 Station Springs at orifice QW

Surface-Water Sites

77 176N34E6118CD 1 404925115081001 Franklin River near Arthur Q,QW

78 176N31E5902BB 1 403610115172001 Lutts Creek near Ruby Valley Q

79 176N30E5823DD 1 402730115233001 Overland Creek near Ruby Valley Q

80 176N28E5817DB 1 401822115274001 Harrison Pass Creek Q,QW

1

Each U.S. Geological Survey data-collection site is assigned a unique identification on the basis of geographic location. For convenience, short site 

numbers (1–80) also are used for sites discussed in this report. A local site designation is used to identify a site by hydrographic area (Rush, 1968) 

and by the official rectangular subdivision of the public lands referenced to the Mount Diablo basde line and meridian. Each site designation consists 

of four units. The first unit is the hydrographic area number. The second unit is the township, preceded by “N” to indicate location north of the base 

line. The third unit is the range, preceded by “E” to indicate location east of the meridian. The fourth unit consists of the section number and letters 

designating the quarter section, quarter-quater section and so on (A, B, C and D indicate the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quarter, 

respectively), following by a number indicating the sequence in which the site was recorded.

The standand identification is based on the grid system of latitude and longitude. The number consists of 15 digits. The first six digits denote the 

degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude; the next seven digits denote the dgrees, minutes, and seconds of longitude; and the lst two digits (assigned 

sequentially) identify the sites within a 1-second grid. The assigned number is retained as a permanent identifier even if a more precise latitude and 

longitude are later determined.
Precipitation

The distribution of annual precipitation in Ruby Valley 

(table 4) was previously estimated by Eakin and Maxey (1951) 

and Nichols (2000). Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80) estimated 

precipitation to be about 700,000 acre-ft/yr on the basis of 

the 1936 precipitation map of Nevada developed by Hardman 

(1936). The Hardman (1936) precipitation map was prepared 

from weather-station data correlated with data on altitude, general topography, latitude, and types of vegetation (Hardman 

and Mason, 1949, p. 54). Hardman (1936) found that the areal 

extent of native vegetation was a good indicator of the amount 

of annual precipitation. Accordingly, the Hardman precipitation map represents a long-term estimate of the distribution of 

annual precipitation prior to about 1934 (Hardman and Mason, 

1949, p. 54).

Nichols (2000, p. C20) used the results from the May 

1997 version of the computer model called Precipitationelevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM; 

Daly and others, 1994) and estimated average precipitation 

in the study area to be about 870,000 acre-ft/yr. PRISM is 

designed to estimate and distribute precipitation at regional 

scales and represents average annual precipitation for the 

30-year period (1961–90). For comparison purposes the 

PRISM data set used by Nichols was reanalyzed using a more 

accurately defined boundary (1:24,000 scale compared to the 

original 1:750,000 scale) for the hydrographic area of Ruby 

Valley. The revised PRISM estimate of 880,000 acre-ft/yr 

(table 4) is only about 1 percent different from the original 

estimate of Nichols (2000, p. C20), and probably is within the 

error associated with these estimates. However, both PRISM 

estimates are about 25 percent greater than the earlier estimate 

developed by Eakin and Maxey (1951). 

To include more recent and local precipitation data and to 

resolve the rain-shadow effect created by the Ruby Mountains 

and East Humboldt Range, a relation between average annual 

precipitation, and station altitude and location was developed 

for the study area. Average annual precipitation over the 

30-year period (1971–2000) for 18 stations in and near Ruby 

Valley (fig.1; table 1) was used in the development of the 

following regression equation: 

 Pave = (E)(-6.76 x 10-5) + (N)(5.48 x 10-5) + (1)

(A)(0.0082) + (-33.92)

where 

 Pave is average precipitation (1971–2000), in inches per year; 

 E is easting location of precipitation station relative to site 

10p in east direction, in meters;

 N is northing location of precipitation station relative to 

site 10p in north direction, in meters; and

 A is altitude of precipitation station, in feet.

The estimate of average precipitation using equation 1 is 

about 910,000 acre-ft/yr (table 4). Precipitation and location 

data for the 18 stations were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2002, 2005). Altitude 

data for each station and as input to equation 1 were derived 

from a 90-meter digital elevation model (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2001). The location of site 10p (easting 629574 m; 

northing 4504520.32 m) was used as the reference point in 

determining easting and northing locations. The coefficient 

of determination (r2 = 0.913) for equation 1 indicates that 

about 91 percent of the variance in annual precipitation at the 

selected stations can be explained by the regression relation. 

The residual plot shown in figure 4 indicates little evidence 

of structure and that residuals are nearly normally distributed; 

thus, the relation between average annual precipitation, and 

station altitude and location used in this analysis is acceptable.

The distribution of precipitation in the area of study based on 

equation 1 is shown in figure 5. Annual precipitation estimated 

for the mountain blocks that make up the eastern border of 

the study area likely is over estimated using equation 1. The 

accuracy of equation 1 above about 8,300 ft, the altitude of the 

highest station used in the relation, is unknown. Regardless of 

these uncertainties, equation 1 provides an estimate of average 

annual precipitation that incorporates recent data collected in 

and near Ruby Valley.

Estimates of precipitation commonly are made based on 

the relation between station altitude and annual precipitation. 

The Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range create a 

significant rain shadow on the distribution of precipitation 

in the area of study. Varying the coefficients (slopes) of the 

easting and northing variables in equation 1 was used to 

determine the importance of incorporating station location 

in estimating the distribution of precipitation in Ruby Valley 

(table 5). Increasing the rain-shadow effect by doubling the 

easting and northing coefficients results in about a 7 percent 

decrease in total precipitation and lowers the r2 value to about 

0.86 (table 5). Reducing the coefficients by half, diminishes 

the rain-shadow effect, increases total precipitation by about 4 

percent, and slightly lowers the r2 value to about 0.89. Varying 

the coefficients of the location variables only has a small effect 

on the estimate of total precipitation; however, the distribution 

of precipitation is affected greatly. Doubling the coefficients 

creates unreasonably low estimates of precipitation in 

the lower altitudes, which represents the largest area in 

Ruby Valley. Reducing the coefficients by half increases 

precipitation in the low-altitude area, but leads to unreasonably 

low precipitation in the higher altitudes of the Ruby Mountains 

and East Humboldt Range.

The resultant estimate of average annual precipitation 

using equation 1 predicts about 4 percent more precipitation 

than the PRISM estimates (table 4) and about 31 percent more 

than estimated by Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80). Although 

the PRISM estimates and the results of equation 1 represent 

different 30-year periods (1961–90 compared to 1971–2000), 

average annual precipitation at the 18 stations for those two 

periods generally are similar (fig. 6). Most of the differences 

in total precipitation between the estimate of Eakin and Maxey 

(1951, p. 80) and the other estimates are related to differences 

in climatic conditions during the period of estimated 

precipitation. 

Water Resources 15
Table 4. Range in average annual precipitation for Ruby Valley Hydrographic Area1, northeastern Nevada [Symbol: >, greater than] Precipitation range, in inches Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80) Nichols (2000, p. C50) Revised Precipitation-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) Altitude-

Area, in acres Estimated precipitation, in acre-feet Area, in acres Estimated precipitation, in acre-feet Area, in acres Estimated precipitation, in acre-feet Area, in acres 

 8–12 372,400 310,000 161,395 161,870 162,358 162,332 176,046 

12–15 126,100 142,900 240,590 279,195 241,563 280,268 219,774 15–20 82,500 120,000 144,181 209,517 150,185 218,011 124,183 

>20 58,900 122,800 92,769 216,641 92,541 216,210 126,629 

Total (rounded) 640,000 700,000 639,000 870,000 647,000 880,000 647,000 

1 The U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Division of Water Resources delineated formal hydrographic areas in Nevada systematically in the late 1960’s for scientific and ad(Cardinalli and other, 1968; Rush, 1968). The official hydrographic-area names, numbers, and geographic boundaries continue to be used in Geological Survey scientific repResources administrative activities. Hydrographic-area boundaries generally coincide with drainage-area boundaries. 

Table 5. Results of varying location coefficients in equation 1 on the distribution of precipitation, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada

Equation 1 Easting coefficient1 Northing coefficient1 Altitude coefficient Intercept Coefficient of determination (r2) Change2, in percent

Best fit -6.764 x 10-5 5.485 x 10-5 0.00818 -33.92 0.913 0

Increase rain-shadow effect -1.353 x 10-4 1.097 x 10-4 0.00822 -32.70 0.858 93Decrease rain-shadow effect -3.382 x 10-5 2.742 x 10-5 0.00816 -34.53 0.894 104

1 Location of site 10p (fig.1, table 1) is used as a reference point (easting 629574 m; northing 4504520.32 m).2 Percent change from precipitation derived from best fit.
The Palmer Drought Severiy Index (PDSI) responds to 

long-term weather conditions and provides a cursory indication of regional meteorological wet or dry periods (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005). The period 

of record used in the development of the Hardman precipitation map generally was prior to about 1934 (Hardman and 

Mason, 1949, p. 54). The PDSI indicates dry conditions dominated the period from about 1915 through 1939 in northeastern 

Nevada, with severe to extreme drought conditions occurring 

from 1924 through 1940 (fig. 7). Reconstruction of precipitation in northeastern Nevada from tree-ring data indicate that 

1934 was the driest year since at least 1600 (Smith, 1986, p. 

1257). 

In comparison, the PDSI for the two 30-year periods 

(1961–90 and 1971–2000) indicate somewhat wetter conditions (fig. 7). The effect of these different climatic conditions 

are represented, in part, by differences in areas associated with 

particular precipitation zones (table 4). The area estimated 

by Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80) to receive 8 to 12 in/yr is 

two times larger than the other estimates. In addition, the area 

estimated by Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80) to receive more 

than 20 in/yr is considerably less and the average amount of 

precipitation in that zone is about 3 in/yr less than the other 

estimates. 

Runoff

For purposes of estimating runoff, watersheds are 

grouped in subareas on the basis of annual precipitation, 

water-yield characteristics, and hydrogeology. Streams in 

mountains that form the eastern border of the study area, 

mainly the southern extension of the East Humboldt Range, 

Valley Mountain, Delcer Buttes, Medicine Range, and 

Maverick Springs Range (fig. 1) are ephemeral and flow 

reaches the valley floor only during exceptionally wet seasons 

or after periods of intense rainfall. Because of the intermittent 

flow and small size of the eastern drainage areas, these streams 

probably contribute relatively small amounts of inflow to the 

ground-water system. In the carbonate terrain of the southern 

Ruby Mountains, streamflow largely is nonexistent due to the 

solution enlargement along joint fractures which enhances 

infiltration (Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 13; Dudley, 1967, 

p. 74; Johnson, 1980, p. 16). However, numerous streams 

issue to Ruby Valley from the northern Ruby Mountains and 

East Humboldt Range. Many of these streams are perennial 

and often reach the valley floor, where much of the water is 

diverted and used for irrigation. 

Streamflow data in the area of study generally are sparse; 

however, continuous gaged streamflow data are available 

for Franklin River and Overland Creek (fig. 1; table 3; sites 

77 and 79, respectively). Periodic streamflow measurements 

also are available for Franklin River, Lutts Creek, Overland 

Creek, and Harrison Pass Creek (fig. 1; table 3; sites 77, 78, 

79, and 80). The data from the gaged streams and the periodic 

measurements have been previously published in the USGS 

annual series “Water Resources Data for Nevada.” 

The Franklin River is the principal watershed that 

drains the southern flank of the East Humboldt Range and 

has a drainage area of about 11.1 mi2 (site 77; fig. 1). Average annual discharge from the Franklin River for 19 years 

Figure 4. Graph showing difference between measured and predicted average annual precipitation 

versus the predicted average annual precipitation for 18 stations in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada, 1971–2000. See table 1 and figure 1.

12p

5p

6p 13p 11p

7p 14p

2p 18p

17p

9p 8p

16p

1p

4p

10p

15p

3p

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

0 10 20 30 40

PREDICTED AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND 

PREDICTED ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES 

Water Resources 17
18  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Figure 5. Map showing distribution of annual precipitation based on altitude-location relation, Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada (derived from eq. 1).

40°45'

115°37'30" 115°15' 114°52'30"

40°22'30"

40°00'

Elko County

White Pine County

0.0/14.0

0.4/32.4

2.4/14.4

-1.1/14.9

0.3/33.3

0.5/32.5

2.4/13.4

-2.3/29.7

-2.3/13.7

4.0/16.0

-6.2/18.8

Ruby Mountains

Medicine

Range

Maverick Springs Range

East Humboldt Range

Northern

Butte Valley

Clover

Valley

14

16

18 20

30 40

12

12

12

14 16

14

16

18 20

14

30

18

20

16

14

16

18

20

20

14

16

20

16

30 40

20

30

40

20

18

50

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

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

1988. Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11.

Shaded-relief from 30-meter Digital Elevation Model; sun

illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.

EXPLANATION

Line of equal annual precipitation—

 Interval in inches variable

Ruby Valley hydrographic-area boundary

16

Precipitation station—First number is difference 

 between measured and predicted precipitation, 

 in inches; second number is average precipitation, 

 1971–2000 

-2.3/13.7
4p

17p

18p

1p 3 2p

12p

16p

14p9p

7p 8p

10p

15p

6p

13

11p

5p

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (1961-1990), IN INCHES 

A

V

E

R

A

G

E

A

N

N

U

AL P

R

E

CIPIT

A

TIO

N (1971-2000), IN IN

C

H

E

S

Line of equal 

precipitation

Figure 6. Graph showing comparison of average annual precipitation for 18 stations in and near Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada, 1961–90 and 1971–2000. See table 1 and figure 1.

Figure 7. Graph showing Palmer drought severity index for northeastern Nevada, 1895–2004 (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2005).

Water Resources 19

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

PALMER DROUGHT SEVERITY INDEX 

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

YEAR

Area of severe to extreme wetness

Area of severe to extreme drought

PRISM (Nichols)

This

Hardman study
20 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Table 6. Computed or estimated annual streamflow, drainage area, and annual unit-area runoff for Franklin River, Lutts 

Creek, and Overland Creek, Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada

Watershed

(see fig. 1)

Station 

identification 

number1

Drainage area, 

in square miles

Average annual 

streamflow, 

in acre-feet

Annual unit-area runoff, 

in acre-feet per square 

miles, rounded

Franklin River (site 77) 10244720 11.1 8,2602 740

Lutts Creek (site 78) 10244650 7.5 7,1303 950

Overland Creek (site 79) 10244745 9.1 8,1902 900

Average (rounded) 860

1 Number includes the 2-digit part number (10) plus the 6–8 digit downstream-order number (244720).

2 Data published in the U.S. Geological Survey annual series “Water Resources Data, Nevada.”

3 Estimated from relation between Franklin River daily average streamflow and Lutts Creek instantaneous streamflow (see fig. 8A).

(1965–83) is about 8,260 acre-ft/yr. Although Franklin Lake is 

the terminus for the Franklin River, flow of the river typically 

infiltrates to the water table or is used for irrigation in the 

northern part of the valley before reaching the lake. Overland 

Creek, which drains the east side of the Ruby Mountains near 

the center of the valley, has a drainage area of about 9.1 mi2 

(site 79; fig. 1). Average discharge from Overland Creek for 

13 years (1960–67 and 1977–81) is about 8,190 acre-ft/yr 

(table 6). 

Lutts Creek also drains the east side of the northern 

Ruby Mountains and has a drainage area of about 7.5 mi2 (site 

78; fig. 1). Although Lutts Creek does not have continuous 

streamflow data, about 90 miscellaneous streamflow measurements are available over a 20-year period (1964–83). Gaged 

streamflow data (daily mean) from Franklin River that coincides in time with individual flow measurements from Lutts 

Creek were used to derive an estimate of annual streamflow 

for Lutts Creek for the period of 1964–83 (fig. 8). Based on 

the relation shown in figure 8A, average annual streamflow for 

Lutts Creek is about 7,130 acre-ft/yr (table 6). The coefficient 

of determination (r2 = 0.913; fig. 8A) for this relation indicates 

that about 91 percent of the variance in streamflow at Lutts 

Creek can be explained by the relation with Franklin River 

shown in figure 8A. Comparison of predicted streamflow with 

measured streamflow (fig. 8B) indicates the relation predicts 

annual streamflow for Lutts Creek reasonably well for the 

period of record (1964–83). 

The Ruby Mountains, north from about Harrison Pass 

Creek and the southern flank of the East Humboldt Range 

(fig. 1), generate the greatest amount of surface-water runoff in 

the study area. About 61 individual watersheds, encompassing 

about 105 mi2, make up this area and range in drainage area 

from less than 0.1 to about 11.1 mi2. Of these 61 watersheds, 

about 21 (about 18 mi2) do not extend to the mountain crest 

and most are ephemeral. To estimate annual runoff from 

the northern Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range, 

estimates of annual unit-area runoff were derived on the 

basis of data from Franklin River, Lutts Creek, and Overland 

Creek. Annual unit-area runoff was calculated by dividing 

the computed or estimated annual streamflow, in acre-feet 

per year, by drainage area, in square miles. Annual unit-area 

runoff for the three watersheds ranged from about 740 to 950 

acre-ft/mi2 and averaged about 860 acre-ft/mi2 (table 6). 

Applying the estimated range of unit-area runoff to the 

drainage area of the 40 perennial watersheds (about 87 mi2) 

results in about 64,000 to 83,000 acre-ft of annual runoff from 

the northern Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range. 

Maurer and others (2004b, p. 17) assumed that unit-area 

runoff from ephemeral watersheds along the east slope of 

the Carson Range in western Nevada is about half that of 

perennial watersheds. The Carson Range, which is part of 

the Sierra Nevada, consists mostly of granitic rock with low 

permeability where the water yield is dominated by surfacewater runoff, similar to the northern Ruby Mountains and 

East Humboldt Range. Applying an annual unit-area runoff 

of 430 acre-ft/mi2, about half of the average of the perennial 

watersheds, results in about 7,700 acre-ft of annual runoff 

from ephemeral watersheds. Combining the runoff estimates 

for perennial and ephemeral watersheds in the northern Ruby 

Mountains and East Humboldt Range results in a range of 

runoff to Ruby Valley of 72,000 to 91,000 acre-ft/yr. The east 

side of the northern Ruby Mountains contributes about 59,000 

to 74,000 acre-ft/yr of this total. In comparison, Rush and 

Everett (1966, p. 17), using the method of Riggs and Moore 

(1965), estimated runoff from the west side of the northern 

Ruby Mountains to be about 124,000 acre-ft/yr. Runoff from 

the east side of the northern Ruby Mountains is about 50 to 60 

percent of the estimated runoff generated on the west side. 

Streamflow in the southern Ruby Mountains, Medicine 

Range, Maverick Springs Range, and the southern extension 

of the East Humboldt Range is ephemeral. Because of this 

and the lack of runoff data, estimates of surface-water runoff 

for these areas are presented cautiously. Dudley (1967, p. 

77) noted that during spring runoff many streams that drain 

the east side of the southern Ruby Mountains can carry a 

fair amount of flow, but by the end of June the streams are 

dry. During the course of the current study (1999–2003), 

however, no streamflow was observed to reach Ruby Lake. 

Most of the runoff is lost to infiltration as the stream traverses 

highly permeable carbonate rock and alluvial-slope deposits 
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

FRANKLIN RIVER DAILY AVERAGE STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

LUTTS CREEK INSTANTANEOUS STREAMFLOW, 

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

YEAR

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

A

B

1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984

Predicted streamflow 

Measured streamflow 

LC = (0.5951 x FR) + 3.07, where LC is Lutts 

Creek predicted streamflow, and FR is Franklin 

River daily average streamflow (r2=0.913)

Figure 8. Graphs showing (A) relation of Franklin River daily average streamflow to Lutts Creek instantaneous 

streamflow and (B) comparison between predicted streamflow and measured streamflow for Lutts Creek, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada.

Water Resources 21
22 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

and as a result contributes relatively large amounts of inflow 

to the ground-water system (Dudley, 1967, p. 78). The 29 

watersheds that make up the southern Ruby Mountains cover 

about 40.7 mi2, of which about 39.2 mi2 (27 watersheds) 

extend to the mountain crest and receive more than 40 in. 

of annual precipitation. Applying a unit-area runoff of 430 

acre-ft/mi2, half of the estimated perennial unit-area runoff, 

to the watershed area in the southern Ruby Mountains results 

in about 18,000 acre-ft/yr of runoff. Most likely this value 

is unreasonably high when compared to the runoff estimate 

of 13,000 acre-ft/yr for the west side of the southern Ruby 

Mountains (Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 17). Using similar 

runoff ratios (about 50 to 60 percent), as those observed 

between the east and west drainages of the northern Ruby 

Mountains, a more reasonable estimate for runoff for the 

southern Ruby Mountains may range from 9,000 to 10,000 

acre-ft/yr. 

Runoff from the mountain blocks that form the eastern 

boundary of the study area (Medicine Range, Maverick 

Springs Range, and the southern extension of the East 

Humboldt range) is unknown and likely is small. The 

watersheds in these mountain blocks have a combined area 

of about 70 mi2 of relatively low altitude area that lies in the 

rain shadow of the Ruby Mountains and as a result receive 

significantly less precipitation than the Ruby Mountains and 

East Humboldt Range. Glancy (1968, p. 17) reports that only 

ephemeral streamflow takes place from the east side of the 

Medicine Range. Maurer and others (2004b, p. 17) estimate 

that ephemeral drainages on the east side of Carson Valley 

have a combined unit-area runoff of about 24 acre-ft/mi2. 

The Carson Range acts as a rain shadow to mountain blocks 

farther east, similar to the Ruby Mountains. The estimate of 

Maurer and others (2004b, p. 17) is very similar to the 21 acreft/mi2 estimated by Glancy (1968, p. 21) for the northeastern 

flank of the Medicine Range and southeastern flank of Valley 

Mountain in Northern Butte Valley (fig. 1). For computational 

purposes, a range of 20 to 25 acre-ft/mi2 was applied to the 

watersheds along the eastern side of the study area and results 

in about 1,400 to 1,800 acre-ft/yr of runoff. Combining 

all estimates, total runoff to Ruby Valley from mountainblock areas ranges from 82,000 to 100,000 acre-ft/yr. For 

comparison, a runoff relation developed in mountain-block 

areas of north-central Nevada (Berger, 2000a, p. 14, eq. 1) 

was applied to the mountain-block areas in Ruby Valley and 

resulted in about 110,000 acre-ft of annual runoff. 

The estimated annual runoff from the northern Ruby 

Mountains and East Humboldt Range accounts for nearly 50 

percent of the annual precipitation that falls in those areas. 

This is similar to that of the Lamoille Creek watershed, which 

drains the west side of the northern Ruby Mountains (Berger, 

2000a, p. 15). Average annual precipitation at available 

stations in and near the study area over the 20-year period 

(1964–83) of available streamflow data (sites 1p, 3p, 8p, and 

16p; fig. 1) was about 5 to 6 percent greater than the average 

annual for two 30-year periods (1961–90 and 1971–2000). The 

range in annual runoff derived from unit-area calculation may 

represent an above average range. The percent of precipitation 

that becomes runoff in the southern Ruby Mountains is 

estimated to be about 15 percent. The remaining precipitation 

is either consumed by evapotranspiration and sublimation or 

infiltrates and recharges the ground-water system. Surfacewater runoff generated in the northern Ruby Mountains and 

East Humboldt Range represent about 80 percent of the total 

runoff to the area of study.

Evapotranspiration

The amount of water lost through ET is an important 

consideration in describing the water resources of Ruby 

Valley. ET represents the largest outflow and for this study was 

subdivided into several individual components. Measurements 

of ET and sublimation are not available for mountain-block 

areas in northeastern Nevada. Berger (2000a; 2000b) used 

a mass-balance approach between precipitation and water 

yield to estimate ET in mountain-block areas in north-central 

Nevada. A method to estimate average annual water yield for 

watersheds in western Nevada (Maurer and Berger, 1997, p. 

32) was modified to include areas in north-central Nevada 

(Berger, 2000a, p. 15) and used in this study to estimate about 

150,000 acre-ft/yr of water yield from mountain-block areas 

in Ruby Valley. From equation 1, about 420,000 acre-ft/yr of 

precipitation falls on mountain-block areas in Ruby Valley of 

which about 270,000 acre-ft/yr is lost to ET and sublimation. 

The remainder of the precipitation either contributes to runoff 

or infiltrates and provides inflow to the ground-water system 

as recharge. 

The estimated rate of ET on alluvial slopes in the area 

of study, where the only source of water is soil moisture from 

precipitation and infiltrated streamflow, is 180,000 acre-ft/yr 

(table 7). Micrometeorological data collected on an alluvial 

slope in southern Ruby Valley (site 9; fig. 1) indicate that 

during the 2000 water year, ET was about 12.0 in/yr (Berger 

and others, 2001, p. 16). Additional micrometeorological data 

collected in low hills that border the Truckee River basin and 

an alluvial fan in western Nevada indicate ET ranges from 

about 11.0 to 18.0 in/yr (Carl Thodal and Mary Tumbusch, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005; Maurer and 

others, in press). As part of a water-budget evaluation of 14 

hydrographic areas in north-central Nevada, Berger (2000a; 

2000b) reports that ET on alluvial slopes may range from 9.0 

to 12.0 in/yr, depending on altitude and precipitation. Annual 

precipitation, in part, appears to be the limiting factor for 

ET in areas where the water table is too deep to be reached 

by vegetation. A rate of 12.0 in/yr, similar to the ET rate 

measured in Ruby Valley, was applied to an area of about 

184,000 acres to estimate annual ET from the alluvial slopes. 

Total estimated ET on the valley floor in Ruby Valley in 

2001 ranges from 330,000 to a maximum of about 420,000 

acre-ft/yr and is comprised from five different land-cover types 

(table 7) on the basis of a July 16, 2001, satellite image. These 

types include areas of natural phreatophytic and nonphreatophytic vegetation, areas of open water and associated wet-
Table 7. Estimated annual water budget for the Ruby Valley 

Hydrographic Area, northeastern Nevada

[The U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Division of Water Resources 

delineated formal hydrographic areas in Nevada systematically in the late 

1960’s for scientific and administrative purposes (Cardinalli and other, 

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

geographic boundaries continue to be used in Geological Survey scientific 

reports and division of Water Resources administrative activities. Hydrographic-area boundaries generally coincide with drainage-area boundaries]

Budget component

Estimated flow, in acre-feet

Minimum Maximum

Inflow (rounded)

Precipitation 700,0001 910,0002

Subsurface inflow

 Huntington Valley3 9,000 15,000

 Northern Butte Valley4 800 800

Total inflow (rounded)....................... 710,000 930,000

Outflow (rounded)

Evapotranspiration

 Mountain block5 270,000 270,000

 Alluvial slope6 180,000 180,000

 Valley floor7

 Phreatophytic vegetation6 170,000 170,000

 Nonphreatophytic vegetation8 100,000 130,000

 Open water and wetlands6 46,000 95,000

 Wet playas9 1,500 5,000

 Irrigated land10 11,000 16,000

 Valley floor subtotal (rounded).... 330,000 420,000

Subsurface outflow

 Long Valley11 2,000 2,000

 Clover Valley12 1,000 4,400

Total outflow (rounded)..................... 780,000 870,000

 1 Calculated from table 3 of Eakin and Maxey (1951, p. 80).

 2 Altitude-location relation, equation 1 this report.

 3 Dudley (1967).

 4 Glancy (1968).

 5 Mass-balance approach, this report.

 6 Evapotranspiration rates from Berger and others (2001).

 7 Areal distributions of land-cover types used to estimate 

evapotranspiration on valley floor are based on satellite imagery 

obtained on July 16, 2001.

 8 Evapotranspiration rates from Berger (2000a).

 9 Evapotranspiration rates from Nichols (2000).

10 Evapotranspiration rates from Harrill (1968), Prudic and Herman 

(1996), Berger and others (1997), Plume (2003), and Maurer and others (in 

press). 

11 Prudic and others (1995).

12 Calculated from equation 2 this report.

lands, wet playas, and areas of irrigated land. Each land-cover 

type covers different areas on the valley floor and has different 

annual ET rates.

Based on the July satellite image, about 108,000 acres 

of the valley floor include phreatophytic vegetation where 

the depth to ground water generally is less than about 35 ft 

below land surface. The source of water for ET in these areas 

is soil moisture derived mostly from precipitation and shallow 

ground water. Annual ET rates for phreatophytic vegetation 

in Ruby Valley have been determined from an energy-budget 

calculation based on micrometeorological data collected from 

May 1999 to October 2000 (Berger and others, 2001). The ET 

estimates were made in areas of sparse to moderate cover of 

mixed phreatophytes where the depth to ground water ranges 

from less than 5 ft to nearly 200 ft below land surface (sites 1 

and 3–6; fig. 1). The average ET rate for the five sites is about 

19.0 in/yr and is used to estimate about 170,000 acre-ft/yr of 

ET in areas of phreatophytic vegetation. For comparison, other 

ET estimates based on an energy-budget calculation range 

from 7.0 to 17.0 in/yr in areas of sparse to moderately dense 

shrub land in southern Nevada, where the water table ranges 

from 5 to about 20 ft below land surface (Reiner and others, 

2002, p. 30).

Nonphreatophytic vegetation on the valley floor covers 

about 133,000 acres, where the depth to ground water generally is greater than about 35 ft below land surface and the 

source of water for ET principally is soil moisture derived 

from precipitation. Estimates of ET for nonphreatophytic vegetation on valley floors in Nevada are scarce. For purposes of 

developing the water budget for Ruby Valley, ET rates similar 

to those applied on the alluvial slopes in north-central Nevada 

(9 to 12 in/yr; Berger, 2000a; 2000b) where annual precipitation is less, were used. ET in areas of nonphreatophytic 

vegetation on the valley floor of the study area is estimated to 

range from 100,000 to 130,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). 

In Ruby Valley, the ET rate for open-water bodies was 

about 64 in/yr and for bulrush marsh was about 50 in/yr 

(Berger and others, 2001, p. 16). In 2001, about 9,900 acres 

were covered by open water and marsh vegetation in the Ruby 

Lake area. About 41 percent (4,050 acres) of the total area 

is open water and the remainder (5,830 acres) is covered by 

marsh vegetation. ET rates estimated by Berger and others 

(2001, p. 16) were applied for these area types that resulted in 

a total ET rate of about 46,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). Franklin 

Lake had no areas of open water and consisted mostly of wet 

playa in 2001. In 1985, an estimated 8,500 acres of valley 

floor were covered by open water and about 12,000 acres were 

covered by marsh vegetation. Applying similar rates results in 

total ET of about 95,000 acre-ft in 1985 and may represent a 

maximum ET from these land-cover types. 

As open-water bodies and wetlands associated with Ruby 

and Franklin Lakes recede, due to below average precipitation 

and evaporation, wet playas are created. ET take place through 

bare-soil evaporation in these wet playa areas. In Ruby Valley, 

wet playas covered about 9,800 acres in 2001 and about 

33,000 acres in 1985. Depth to ground water beneath these wet 

Water Resources 23
24  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

playas typically is less than 1 ft and the soils characteristically 

are saturated. Using an estimated ET rate of 1.8 in/yr for 

playas in Ruby Valley reported by Nichols (2000, p. C44) 

results in a minimum of about 1,500 to a maximum of about 

5,000 acre-ft of ET in 2001. 

The amount of irrigation water that is applied and 

subsequently consumed by ET depends, in part, on the 

application method. In 2001, about 2,000 acres of alfalfa 

were irrigated in Ruby Valley using the center-pivot sprinkler 

method. The center-pivot sprinkler method uses ground water 

from a well in the center of a circular field. The sprinkler 

system revolves in a circle of about 1/4-mile radius from the 

center-pivot well. Water-application rates by center-pivot 

sprinkler systems to irrigate alfalfa fields in central Nevada 

typically range from 2.5 to 3.0 acre-ft/acre per year (30 to 

36 in/yr; Prudic and Herman, 1996, p. F. 28; Plume, 2003, p. 

11). Using this range in application rate, an estimated 5,000 

to 6,000 acre-ft/yr of water is used to irrigate the 2,000 acres 

in Ruby Valley. Harrill (1968, p. 47) reported that about 75 

percent of the total amount of water pumped for center-pivot 

sprinklers is consumed by ET or lost by spray and surface 

evaporation in Diamond Valley, about 15 mi southwest of 

Ruby Valley. Applying a similar consumption rate in Ruby 

Valley, results in an ET estimate for center-pivot irrigation 

from 3,800 to 4,500 acre-ft/yr. The remaining 25 percent is 

assumed to infiltrate to the water table. 

Surface water that issues from the Ruby Mountains and 

East Humboldt Range was used to flood irrigate about 3,700 

acres in Ruby Valley in 2001. Application rates for alfalfa 

using the flood-irrigation method range from about 3.0 to 

4.0 acre-ft/acre per year (36 to 48 in/yr; Prudic and Herman, 

1996, p. F. 28; Plume, 2003, p. 11). Using this range in 

application rate, an estimated 11,000 to 15,000 acre-ft/yr of 

water is used to flood irrigate the 3,700 acres in Ruby Valley. 

Micrometeorological data collected in Carson Valley indicates 

ET rates for flood irrigation range from 2.0 to about 3.0 acreft/acre per year (24 to 36 in/yr; Maurer and others, in press). 

Applying this range to the 3,700 acres in Ruby Valley results 

in 7,400 to 11,000 acre-ft/yr of ET in flood irrigated areas. 

Estimated total ET for irrigated land in Ruby Valley ranges 

from 11,000 to 16,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). 

Ground Water

Virtually all ground water in Ruby Valley is derived 

from three sources: precipitation that falls within the 

hydrographic area, infiltration of streamflow from the west 

side of the southern Ruby Mountains, and subsurface inflow 

from Northern Butte Valley. Ground-water outflow takes 

place northeastward toward Clover Valley and possibly 

southeastward toward Long Valley. Most of the readily 

available ground water in the area of study occurs in basin-fill 

deposits under both unconfined (water table) and confined 

conditions. 

Sources and Movement

The depth to ground water in basin-fill deposits in 

Ruby Valley during the spring of 2003 ranged from less than 

5 ft along the margins of Ruby Lake to more than 200 ft 

beneath the alluvial slope in the northeast part of the valley 

(fig. 9). Depth to ground water tends to increase eastward and 

away from major sources of inflow generated in the Ruby 

Mountains. 

During a 4-year period, (2000–03) water levels generally 

declined over much of the study area (fig. 10). The greatest 

decline, about 7 ft, was measured at well site 61 in the extreme 

southern part of the valley. Seasonal fluctuations in water 

levels were observed at well sites near Franklin and Ruby 

Lakes in response to changes in the lake’s stage (sites 43 

and 51, respectively; figs. 9 and 10). Well sites near areas of 

irrigation exhibited relatively steeper declines (sites 13 and 

29; figs. 9 and 10), probably due to increased ground-water 

pumpage in response to below average precipitation and 

runoff. Ground-water levels in the east-central part of the 

valley show little change (site 32; figs. 9 and 10). 

The general configuration of the water table in Ruby 

Valley in the spring of 2003 is shown in figure 11. The 

water-level contours were constructed from water-level 

measurements collected mostly in May 2003; however, for 

well sites 12, 13, and 16 (fig. 9) data collected in the previous 

spring were used. During this study, well site 26 was not 

accessible to collect water-level data. Water-level data from 

Glancy (1968, p. 30) was used for well site 26 and is assumed 

to be a fairly good representation of depth to water for spring 

2003 based on small differences (about 1 ft) in water levels 

at sites 27 and 31 for the same measurement periods (1968–

2003). Because the characteristics of the basin-fill aquifer 

are for the most part unknown, the water-level contours were 

constructed assuming homogeneous aquifer properties using 

linear interpolation between water-level data points. Total 

drilled depth of most wells used to construct the contour map 

is 200 ft or less, implying that the water-level data, for the 

most part, represent the water table. 

In the southern part of the valley, ground-water flow 

generally is toward Ruby Lake from adjacent mountains and 

continues north from Ruby Lake toward Franklin Lake. The 

amount of ground water that moves toward Franklin Lake 

from the Ruby Lake basin can be estimated using a modified 

form of Darcy’s Law (Heath, 1983, p. 26): 

 Q = 0.0084 T W dh/dl (2)

where 

 Q is the quantity of ground-water flow, in acre-feet per 

year;

 T is the transmissivity, in squared feet per day;

 W is the effective width of the flow section, in feet;

 dh/dl is the hydraulic gradient, in feet of water-level change 

per foot of horizontal distance; and 

0.0084 is the factor to convert cubic feet per day into acre-feet 

per year.
Figure 9. Map showing site number and depth to ground water, for selected wells in spring 2003, in and near 

Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada.

Water Resources 25

Elko County

White Pine County

Franklin

Lake

Ruby

Lake

10/215

12/149

11/16

13*/13

14/5

15/10

17*/6 16/166 18/42 19/14

20/6 21/37

22/15 25/92

27/76

28/12 29/8

30/8

31*/35

32/130

33*/8 34*/92

36/7 37/3

38*/77 39/37

40/49 41/52

42*/29

43/4

44/6

45/113

46/138

47/122 48/72

49/64

50/26

51/5

52/28

53/9

54/87 55*/4

59/26

61/43

64*-65*/129

62*/124

26/128

40°45'

115°37'30" 115°15' 114°52'30"

40°22'30"

40°00'

Ruby Mountains

Medicine

Range

Maverick Springs Range

East Humboldt Range

Northern

Butte Valley

Clover

Valley

Valley

Mountain

Huntington

Valley

Delcer

Buttes

EXPLANATION

Ruby Valley hydrographic-area boundary

54/87

Lake

Wetland Well—First number is site number; second number is depth to 

water in feet below land surface. Site numbers listed in table 8. 

Red symbol indicates hydrograph shown in figure 10; asterisk 

indicates water-quality data listed in table 8

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

1988. Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11.

Shaded-relief from 30-meter Digital Elevation Model; sun

illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS
26 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

DEPTH TO WATER, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

213

214

215

216

40

41

42

43

129

130

131

132

0

2

4

6

10

11

12

13

1

3

5

7

9

0

2

4

6

34

36

38

40

42

44

YEAR YEAR

Site 10 Site 13

Site 18 Site 29

Site 32 Site 43

Site 51 Site 61

Figure 10. Hydrographs showing changes in water levels in selected wells in Ruby Valley, northeastern 

Nevada, 2000–03. See table 3 for site information.
Figure 11. Map showing generalized ground-water levels in basin-fill deposits, spring 2003, in and near 

Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada. 

Water Resources 27

Elko County

White Pine County

Warm

Springs

6000

5990

598

597

0

0

6150

6100

6000

5970

5950

5960

5970

5970

598

597

0

0

5960

5940

5920

5910

5930

5950

5970

5990

6010

6130

6030

6050

6010

5990

6050

5950

5877

5939 (2002)

5941

5925 5895

(1967) 5957

5964

5953

5962

5981

5974

6047

6019

(2002)

6139

6039

(2002)

6061

5926

5938

5989

5942 5953

5945

5947

5946 5953

5957

5960

5981

6161

6154

5959

5962

5963

5961

5982

5966

5974

5964

5976 5960

6003

6003 5999

6047

6008

6036

5961

5734

[land-surface

altitude]

5612

(1983)

5588

(1970)

5595

40°45' (1967)

115°37'30" 115°15' 114°52'30"

40°22'30"

40°00'

Ruby Mountains

Medicine

Range

Maverick Springs Range

East Humboldt Range

Northern

Butte Valley

Clover

Valley

Valley

Mountain

Delcer

Buttes

EXPLANATION

Line of equal water-level altitude—

 Interval in feet above sea level variable.

 Dashed where uncertain

Ruby Valley hydrographic-area boundary

5970

Well with water-level altitude—In feet.

 Number in parentheses indicates year

 water level was measured 

5595

(1967)

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

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

1988. Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11.

Shaded-relief from 30-meter Digital Elevation Model; sun

illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.
28  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

A reasonable range of transmissivity for the basin-fill 

deposits between Ruby and Franklin Lakes is from 2,000 to 

8,000 ft2/d (Glancy, 1968, p. 30; Harrill, 1968, p. 15; Prudic 

and others, 1995, p. D20). The effective flow width of the 

section is about 5 mi (26,400 ft) and the hydraulic gradient 

is 5.3 ft/mi (0.001 ft/ft). The estimated quantity of groundwater flow toward Franklin Lake from the south, based on 

equation 2, is from about 400 to 1,800 acre-ft/yr. 

South of Ruby Lake, in the extreme southern part of 

the study area, well sites 64 and 65 (fig. 9) are housed in the 

same borehole and screened in basin-fill deposits (site 64) and 

carbonate rock (site 65). Water-level data from these wells 

indicate that there is a slight downward hydraulic gradient 

(less than 0.001 ft/ft), indicating the potential for vertical flow 

of ground water from the basin-fill deposits to the underlying 

carbonate rock in that part of the study area during the 

measurement period (July 2002–August 2003). An unknown 

amount of ground water may flow through the carbonate 

rocks and out of the Ruby Valley HA to the south. Results of 

flow-model simulations indicate that about 2,000 acre-ft/yr of 

ground water flows south toward Long Valley along deep flow 

paths from Ruby Valley (Prudic and others, 1995, p. D80). 

Rush and Everett (1966, p. 15) estimate about 10,000 

acre-ft/yr of streamflow infiltration flows from Huntington 

Valley (HA 47) to Ruby Valley through solution openings in 

the carbonate rocks of the southern Ruby Mountains. Their 

estimate was based on lower than anticipated streamflow in 

Huntington Valley when compared to watershed drainage area 

and altitude. The movement of water from the west side of the 

southern Ruby Mountains to Ruby Valley is enhanced by the 

stratigraphic position and eastward dip of the carbonate rocks 

(Sharp, 1942, p. 685; Berger and others, 2001, p. 6). Dudley 

(1967, p. 77) states that, in addition, sinkholes and cirque lakes 

that form in the carbonate rocks are a source of persistent 

infiltration to the ground-water system in Ruby Valley. Based 

on synthesis of field evidence and results of an electric analog 

model, Dudley (1967, p. 98) estimated interbasin flow from 

Huntington Valley to Ruby Valley may range from 9,000 to 

15,000 acre-ft/yr, which brackets the estimate of Rush and 

Everett (1966, p. 15). Much of this inflow is assumed to 

discharge at springs that lie along the western side of Ruby 

Lake and presumably beneath the lake. 

The greatest concentration of perennial springs in the 

study area lie along the west side of Ruby Lake in the southern 

part of Ruby Valley (fig. 1). A spring inventory made in 1994 

of 47 springs within the Ruby Lake NWR estimated nearly 

75,000 acre-ft of ground-water discharge (Michael L. Richey, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, written commun., 1994). The 

1994 estimate of spring discharge may represent a minimum 

because precipitation in the Ruby Mountains generally was 

below average during the 9-year period preceding the spring 

inventory in 1994 (fig. 2). Cave Spring (site 69; fig. 1), which 

accounts for more than half of the total spring discharge within 

the Ruby Lake NWR, issues directly from the carbonate rocks 

and flows to Ruby Lake. The sulfur hexafluoride age-dating 

method (Busenberg and Plummer, 2000) was used to date the 

discharge from Cave Spring. The age-dating results indicate 

that recharge water in the southern Ruby Mountains takes 

about 5 to 7 years to discharge at Cave Spring. Similar travel 

times are assumed for other perennial springs in the area. 

In the east-central part of the valley, water-level contour 

data indicate that ground water enters Ruby Valley from 

Northern Butte Valley (HA 178A) beneath an alluvial divide 

between Valley Mountain and Delcer Buttes (fig. 11). Glancy 

(1968, p. 30), applying Darcy’s Law, estimated about 800 

acre-ft/yr of ground-water inflow beneath this divide through 

basin-fill deposits from Northern Butte Valley. Glancy (1968, 

p. 30) used a hydraulic gradient across the divide of 7 ft/mi 

(0.0013 ft/ft), a transmissivity of about 6,700 ft2/d, and an 

effective flow width of about 2 mi. 

Water-level data indicate that ground water moves from 

Ruby Valley, northeastward toward Clover Valley (fig. 11; 

HA 177), beneath an alluvial divide north of Valley Mountain. 

Based on available spring and ground-water-level data in 

Clover Valley, the hydraulic gradient across the divide ranges 

between 12 and 14 ft/mi (0.0023–0.0027 ft/ft). Applying 

Darcy’s Law (eq. 2) and assuming an effective flow width 

of the basin-fill deposits between consolidated rocks of 

about 4.5 mi (24,000 ft) and a range in transmissivity of 

2,000 to 8,000 ft2/d, ground-water outflow to Clover Valley 

is estimated to range from about 1,000 to 4,400 acre-ft/yr 

through basin-fill deposits. This estimate may be a minimum 

if the carbonate rocks that make up the southern extension of 

the East Humboldt Range are permeable. Average discharge 

from Warm Springs, a regional spring along the eastern side of 

the southern extension of the East Humboldt Range in Clover 

Valley (fig. 11), is about 3,300 acre-ft/yr (Eakin and Maxey, 

1951, p. 108). The land-surface altitude of Warm Springs 

(about 5,734 ft; fig. 11) and available ground-water levels, 

are more than 100 ft lower than water levels in Ruby Valley. 

Prudic and others (1995, p. D33) simulated 5,000 acre-ft/yr of 

discharge from Warm Springs in a regional ground-water flow 

model of the carbonate-rock province. 

Recharge

Precipitation is the principle source of ground-water 

recharge to Ruby Valley. Ground-water recharge from 

precipitation is unpredictable, particularly in arid and semiarid 

environments where precipitation is episodic and often of 

short duration. Previous estimates of ground-water recharge to 

Ruby Valley range from 68,000 acre-ft/yr (Eakin and Maxey, 

1951, p. 80) to 146,000 acre-ft/yr (Nichols, 2000, p. C54). 

Both estimates were derived as fixed fractions of precipitation 

and are a direct function of the particular precipitation data 

used in the recharge estimate. Basin-scale methods commonly 

are used to estimate recharge from precipitation in Nevada and 

generally are considered to be reconnaissance-level estimates. 

The chloride-balance method is another basin-scale 

reconnaissance method for estimating ground-water recharge 

that is, in part, a function of precipitation (Claassen and 

others, 1989; Dettinger, 1989). Because the concentration of 
chloride dissolved in ground water generally is not affected 

by adsorption or ion exchange, it can be used as a natural 

tracer for estimating ground-water recharge from precipitation, 

assuming that all sources of chloride are known. This method 

is based on the balance between total chloride concentration in 

bulk precipitation (dry and wet) that falls in recharge-source 

areas (typically mountain-block areas and upper parts of 

alluvial slopes) and chloride concentration in ground water 

in and near recharge areas. The annual volume of groundwater recharge based on the chloride-balance method can be 

approximated as follows: 

 R = P(Clp/Clr) (3)

where 

 R is recharge, in acre-feet per year,

 P is total precipitation that falls in recharge-source areas, 

in acre-feet per year,

Clp is chloride concentration in bulk precipitation, in 

milligrams per liter, and

Clr is chloride concentration in ground water from recharge 

areas, in milligrams per liter.

About 420,000 acre-ft/yr of precipitation (P) falls on 

mountain-block areas and about 230,000 acre-ft/yr falls on 

the alluvial slopes in Ruby Valley and are assumed, in this 

study, to represent principal recharge-source areas. Chloride 

concentration in precipitation (Clp) is reported to be about 0.4 

mg/L for much of the Great Basin (Dettinger, 1989, p. 62; 

Berger and others, 1997, p. 46). Concentration of chloride 

in ground water from recharge areas (Clr) is assumed to be 

represented by the average concentration in samples from sites 

38, 42, 55, 69, 70, 71, and 76 and is about 2.6 mg/L (table 8; 

figs. 1 and 9). Substituting these values into equation 3 results 

in an estimate of about 100,000 acre-ft/yr. 

Additional ground-water recharge takes place from 

applied irrigation water. Applied irrigation water not 

consumed by ET is assumed to recharge the shallow groundwater system. About 4,800 to 5,500 acre-ft/yr were estimated 

to become recharge beneath irrigated lands in Ruby Valley 

in 2001. Average ground-water recharge to the Ruby Valley 

ground-water flow system is about 105,000 acre-ft/yr.

Water Quality

Water samples were collected from 16 wells and 11 

springs in and near Ruby Valley (table 8; figs. 1 and 9) and 

analyzed for major-ion and nutrient concentrations and stableisotopic composition. Field parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, 

specific conductance, and water temperature) were measured 

on site. Concentrations of selected constituents measured in 

the ground water are compared to primary and secondary 

drinking-water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005). Primary standards are an enforceable, 

maximum concentration allowed in public water supplies; 

secondary standards are not enforceable and are based on 

aesthetic properties of constituents, not health related effects. 

No primary drinking-water standards were exceeded for any 

of the constituents that were analyzed. Several secondary 

standards were exceeded at three wells (sites 17, 31, and 

33; table 8; fig. 9). Samples from sites 17 and 33 were 1.98 

mg/L and 2.04 mg/L for fluoride, respectively, very near the 

secondary standard of 2 mg/L, and site 17 was 57.2 μg/L for 

manganese, which exceeded the secondary standard of 50 

μg/L. Site 31 exceeded the secondary standard of 300 μg/L 

for iron at 2,620 μg/L and manganese at 80 μg/L. Secondary 

standards for sulfate (250 mg/L) and dissolved solids (500 

mg/L) also were exceeded in samples from site 31 at 300 

mg/L and 883 mg/L, respectively (table 8). Site 33 was outside 

the range of the secondary standard for pH of 6.5 to 8.5 at 8.9 

and exceeded the standard for dissolved solids at 1,330 mg/L. 

Trilinear (Piper) diagrams (fig. 12) show the chemical 

character of water in terms of milliequivalents-per-liter 

percentages of major dissolved constituents (Hem, 1985). 

Most ground water sampled in the area of study is a calciumbicarbonate type water (fig. 12). The sample from well site 31, 

in Northern Butte Valley, is a sodium-sulfate type water with 

dissolved-solids concentration of 883 mg/L. The sample from 

well site 33, near the center of Ruby Valley, is a sodiumbicarbonate type water with dissolved-solids concentration of 

1,330 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentration for the remaining 

sites range from 177 to 346 mg/L (table 8). 

The elevated dissolved-solids concentration in groundwater samples from sites 31 and 33 (fig. 1) is a result of either 

ET or dissolution of evaporative salts. The relation between 

the stable hydrogen isotope of water (delta deuterium) and 

chloride concentration has been used to indicate the processes 

concentrating ions in ground water (Welch and Preissler, 1990, 

p. 31; Berger, 1995, p. 32). On the basis of a plot of delta 

deuterium as a function of chloride concentration, the increase 

in dissolved solids in the ground water appears to be related 

to transpiration or the dissolution of evaporative salts, or both, 

rather than direct evaporation (fig. 13). Transpiration and salt 

dissolution increase ion concentrations in solution without 

appreciably changing the delta-deuterium composition. Water 

sampled from the Ruby Lake NWR (sites 2 and 7; fig. 13) 

have much more positive delta-deuterium values than most 

ground water in the study area indicating the lake water has 

been evaporated.

Lakes

Ruby and Franklin Lakes are terminal lakes that occupy 

the lowest areas in Ruby Valley (fig. 1). Ruby Lake is 

maintained primarily from perennial spring discharge with 

little surface-water inflow with only about 20 to 25 percent 

direct precipitation (Thompson, 1992, p. 2). Ruby Lake has 

maintained at least small open-water pools through nearly all 

of the historic droughts (Thompson, 1992, p. 2). In contrast, 

Franklin Lake was completely dry for 6 of the 26 years 

between 1960 and 1986 (Csuti, 1987) and is maintained 

Water Resources 29
30 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Table 8. Results of chemical analyses for water samples from selected evapotranspiration, well, spring and surface-water sites, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada

[Abbreviations and symbols: mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees 

Celsius; per mil, parts per thousand; <, less than; E, estimated value; —, not determined. Deuterium and oxygen are relative to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean 

Water]

Site 

number 

(figs. 1 

and 9)

Date 

sampled

Dissolved 

oxygen, 

in mg/L

pH, in 

standard 

units

Specific 

conductance, 

in μS/cm

Temperature, 

in °C

Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium Bicarbonate Carbonate

in milligrams per liter

Evapotranspiration sites

2 05/23/2000 — — 394 18.3 — — — — — —

7 03/22/2000

05/23/2000

—

—

—

—

912

1,180

2.5

19.0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Well sites

11 10/10/2002 — — — — — — — — — —

13 05/01/2002 3.4 7.6 510 10.5 72.4 7.12 1.48 13.3 273 <1

17 10/09/2002 <0.2 7.6 504 10.0 69 7.98 2.48 36.1 304 <1

31 10/09/2002 <0.2 7.5 1,040 16.0 59.4 40.5 24.4 144 237 <1

33 05/25/2000

10/10/2002

—

<0.2

—

8.9

1,930

2,000

12.5

13.0

—

1.2

—

0.91

—

23.1

—

502

—

1,100

—

68

34 04/30/2002 6.3 8.0 370 12.0 30.8 7.66 5.32 24.7 133 <1

35 05/25/2000 — — 291 12.9 — — — — — —

38 10/08/2002 8.2 7.9 340 13.2 45.2 13.5 1.37 14.4 210 <1

42 04/30/2002 2.9 8.0 360 12.5 39.4 15.1 1.68 10.1 206 <1

46 05/25/2000 — — 339 12.8 — — — — — —

52 03/21/2000 — — 517 10.1 — — — — — —

54 03/21/2000 — — 251 7.8 — — — — — —

55 05/02/2002 7.2 8.0 310 11.5 31.7 18.5 0.87 5.11 188 <1

62 08/20/2002

08/21/2002

—

5.3

—

7.8

—

343

—

11.5

—

20.2

—

8.73

—

5.69

—

48.4

—

180

—

<1

64 08/20/2002 6.5 7.5 353 13.0 26.4 14.4 3.71 42.3 151 <1

65 08/20/2002

09/10/2003

3.5

2.7

7.8

7.7

255

330

13.0

13.7

28.2

30.2

10.3

11.2

3.96

3.98

21.5

15.8

154

145

<1

<1

Spring sites

66 03/23/2000 — — 382 13.7 — — — — — —

67 03/22/2000 — — 1,010 35.4 — — — — — —

68 05/25/2000 — — 291 13.0 — — — — — —

69 03/21/2000

05/23/2000

01/11/2001

05/01/2002

—

—

—

9.6

—

—

—

8.1

210

138

—

250

7.4

6.2

—

7.5

—

—

—

36.3

—

—

—

10.5

—

—

—

0.36

—

—

—

1.43

—

—

—

172

—

—

—

<1

70 05/23/2000 — — 304 10.6 — — — — — —

71 05/23/2000 — — 259 24.7 — — — — — —

72 03/22/2000 — — 919 2.2 — — — — — —

73 03/21/2000 — — 274 6.8 — — — — — —

74 03/23/2000 — — 385 5.2 — — — — — —

75 03/21/2000 — — 338 5.5 — — — — — —

76 03/21/2000

05/23/2000

—

—

—

—

367

383

10.1

11.7

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Surface-water sites

77 10/10/2002 — — — — — — — — — —

80 09/19/2000 — — — — — — — — — —
Table 8. Results of chemical analyses for water samples from selected evapotranspiration, well, spring and surface-water sites, Ruby 

Valley, northeastern Nevada—Continued

[Abbreviations and symbols: mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees 

Celsius; per mil, parts per thousand; <, less than; E, estimated value; —, not determined. Deuterium and oxygen are relative to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean 

Water]

Site 

number 

(figs. 1 

and 9

SulfateChloride Fluoride Bromide Silica

Dissolved 

solids1

Nitrite 

plus 

nitrate

Nitrite

Orthophosphate

Iron, 

in μg/L

Manganese, 

in μg/L

Delta 

deuterium

Delta 

oxygen-18

in milligrams per liter in per mil

Evapotranspiration sites—Continued

2 <3.6 1.9 0.13 <0.008 — — — — — — — -106 -13.11

7 —

90.1

—

60.2

—

0

—

0.3

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

 —

-75.8

—

-6.4

Well sites—Continued

11 — — — — — — — — — — — -127 -16.71

13 9.7 8.93 E0.07 0.04 26.4 288 0.37 — 0.06 <10 <2.0 -122 -16.34

17 23.6 8.39 1.98 0.05 47.7 346 — — — 78 57.2 -127 -16.55

31 300 114 1.21 0.66 49.6 883 — — — 2,620 80 -128 -16.73

33 15.4

7.8

42.7

89.2

0

2.04

0.2

0.49

—

47

—

1,330

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

<30

—

E4.3

-139

-137

-17.85

-17.30

34 24.2 25.1 0.33 0.13 51.1 251 1.68 — — E7 <2.0 -137 -17.43

35 7.2 4.5 0.17 — — — — — — — — -127 -16.55

38 16 7.15 0.29 0.04 18 222 — — — <10 <2.0 -124 -16.33

42 10.9 2.85 E0.08 E0.02 17.6 202 0.44 — — E9 E1.1 -129 -16.95

46 8.7 5.6 0.04 — — — — — — — — -125 -15.60

52 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

54 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

55 7.9 2.06 <0.10 E0.02 13.4 177 0.46 — — <10 <2.0 -129 -16.99

62 —

42.1

—

10.0

—

0.29

—

0.03

—

50.3

—

284

—

0.21

—

—

—

2.98

—

11

—

26

-127

-123

-16.28

-15.64

64 25.6 32 0.24 0.16 46.2 297 5.25 0.187 2.95 22 29.9 -121 -14.98

65 20

17.9

10.0

11.9

0.17

0.2

0.06

0.09

43.3

44.7

220

221

0.44

0.74

0.026

0.026

0.61

2.22

<10

<8

41

20.6

-127

—

-16.28

—

Spring sites—Continued

66 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

67 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

68 4.5 — 0.07 <0.008 — — — — — — — -122 -16.76

69 —

2.1

—

2.6

—

0.8

—

1.08

—

<0.008

—

<0.10

—

—

—

<0.03

—

—

—

5.75

—

—

—

152

—

—

—

0.41

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

<10

—

—

—

<2.0

—

-124

-122

-125

—

-16.67

-16.60

-16.72

70 8.3 1.5 0 <0.008 — — — — — — — -125 -16.71

71 6.1 2 0.02 — — — — — — — — -121 -16.06

72 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

73 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

74 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

75 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

76 13.4

—

3.5

—

0.11

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-128

—

-16.72

Surface-water sites—Continued

77 — — — — — — — — — — — -120 -16.06

80 — — — — — — — — — — — -122 -15.73

1

 Dissolved solids determined as residue on evaporation at 180°C.

Water Resources  31
32 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

31

62

64

34 65

65

17

38

42

13

55 69

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CALCIUM PLUS MAGNESIUM

SULFATE

SODIUM PLUS POTASSIUM

MAGNESIUM

CARBONATE PLUS BICARBONATE

SULFATE PLUS CHLORIDE

CALCIUM CHLORIDE PLUS FLUORIDE

Figure 12. Graph showing major ion composition of ground water sampled in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern 

Nevada. See table 8 for site information.

ephemerally by direct precipitation, surface-water runoff, and 

irrigation return flow, and as a result fluctuates with seasonal 

precipitation and evaporation. Satellite imagery indicates 

that in June 1985, Franklin Lake had about 5,800 acres of 

open water and bulrush marsh, whereas Ruby Lake had about 

15,000 acres. Although precipitation in 1985 generally was 

below average, the 3 years preceding 1985 were well above 

average (fig. 2). Conditions in 1985 may represent a near 

maximum extent of open water during the 30-year period 

(1971–2000). In July 2001, Franklin Lake had no open water 

and Ruby Lake had declined to about 4,000 acres of open 

water and about 5,800 of wetland vegetation.

The proportion of the stable isotopes of oxygen-18 and 

deuterium in water molecules can be used to infer the source 

and evaporative history of the water. The relation of oxygen-18 

to deuterium in water sampled for this study is shown in figure 

14. Because a local meteoric water line has not been developed for the area of study, the mean global meteoric-water line 

developed by Craig (1961) is used to represent the isotopic 

composition of precipitation. During the process of evaporation, water becomes progressively enriched in oxygen-18 and 

deuterium (less negative values). This enrichment results in 

a deviation from the meteoric-water line along a trajectory 

with a lower slope (evaporation line). Samples collected from 

Ruby Lake NWR define an evaporation line that indicates the 

source of water to Ruby Lake principally is spring discharge, 

although precipitation may contribute a small amount (fig. 14; 

sites 2 and 7). 

The generally low salinity of Ruby Lake initially was 

reported by Dudley (1962, p. 72) who stated that because 

there is no surface-water outlet, ground-water outflow from 

the lake basin must take place in order for the lake to remain 
Figure 13. Graph showing relation between delta deuterium and logarithm of chloride concentrations 

in sampled water in and near Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada. See figures 1 and 9 for site location.

DELTA OXYGEN-18, IN PERMIL

-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6

DELTA DEUTERIUM, IN PERMIL

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

Evaporation line trajectory

2

7

Global meteoric water line (Craig, 1961)

Evapotranspiration sites 2 and 7

Ground-water sites 11,13,17, 31, 

 33-35, 38, 42, 46, 55, 62, 64 and 65 

Spring sites 68, 69, 70, 71, and 76

Surface-water sites 77 and 80

Figure 14. Graph showing relation of delta deuterium to delta oxygen-18 in sampled water from 

evapotranspiration, ground-water, spring, and surface-water sites in and near Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada.

Water Resources  33

TRANSPIRATION OR DISSOLUTION 

2

7

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Evapotranspiration sites 2 and 7

Ground-water sites 13, 17, 31, 33-35, 

 38, 42, 46, 55, 62, 64, and 65

Spring sites 69, 70, 71, and 76

CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DELTA DEUTERIUM, IN PERMIL

1 10 100

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70
34  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

fresh. Dudley (1967, p. 72) also stated ground-water inflow 

to the lake probably is significantly greater than ground-water 

outflow. A chloride-mass-balance calculation was used to 

better understand the mechanisms that maintain the freshwater 

quality of the lake. The chloride-mass-balance equation can be 

written as:

 ClpQp + ClsprQspr = CletQet + ClowQow (4)

where 

Clp, Clspr, Clet, and Clow are concentrations of chloride in 

precipitation, spring discharge, water vapor, and 

outflow water, respectively, in milligrams per liter;

and 

Qp, Qspr, Qet, and Qow are quantities of precipitation that falls 

directly on the lake, spring discharge to the lake, 

evapotranspiration from the lake, and ground-water 

outflow from the lake basin, respectively, in acre-feet 

per year.

Chloride concentration in precipitation (Clp) is reported 

to be about 0.4 mg/L for much of the Great Basin (Dettinger, 

1989, p. 62; Berger and others, 1997, p. 46). Water samples 

from spring sites 69 and 70 (table 8), indicate chloride 

concentration in springs that discharge directly to the lake 

(Clspr) is about 1.1 mg/L. Chloride is not removed by ET 

processes, so Clet is zero. Chloride concentration in Ruby 

Lake, representing outflow water (Clow; site 7; table 8) is 60.2 

mg/L. The quantity of precipitation that falls directly on Ruby 

Lake (Qp) is about 8,000 acre-ft/yr (Berger and others, 2001, 

p. 25). Spring discharge to the lake (Qspr) is estimated to be 

75,000 acre-ft/yr (Michael L. Richey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, written commun., 1994). Evapotranspiration from 

Ruby Lake (Qet) and associated wetlands is about 50,000 acreft/yr (Berger and others, 2001, p. 24). However, because Clet is 

zero, the value is not used in the calculation. 

Solving equation 4 for ground-water outflow (Qow) results 

in about 1,400 acre-ft/yr of ground-water outflow required to 

maintain the chloride balance and the freshwater quality of 

the lake. This estimate falls within the range of ground-water 

outflow derived using Darcy’s Law of 400 to 1,800 acre-ft/yr. 

The low salinity in Ruby Lake appears to be maintained by 

the large contribution of freshwater from spring discharge and 

to a lesser extent by ground-water flow toward Franklin Lake. 

Using the previous values of inflow and outflow in a water 

budget for Ruby Lake results in an imbalance of about 32,000 

acre-ft. Either the quantity of ET is underestimated, the inflow 

from spring discharge is overestimated, or some combination 

of the two accounts for the imbalance.

Water Budget

The hydrologic conditions used to develop the water 

budget for Ruby Valley are characterized by data collected 

as part of the overall study of Ruby Valley and other 

contemporary investigations. Estimates for many of the 

budget components presented in the following section have 

been derived from recently collected data, generally spanning 

from 1999 through 2003. For purposes of this analysis, the 

precipitation distribution determined from equation 1, which 

is based on recent data (1971–2000), is used in the water 

budget for consistency. Determination of areal distributions 

of open-water bodies, wetlands, wet playas, phreatophytic 

and non-phreatophytic vegetation, and irrigated lands were 

developed from a satellite image obtained on July 16, 

2001, and augmented by comparison with earlier satellite 

images and recent field mapping. Areas of open water and 

associated wetland vegetation and wet playas vary seasonally 

and annually, depending on the quantity of precipitation in 

proceeding years. Precipitation during 2001 generally was 

below the average for the period 1971–2000 (fig. 2). Estimates 

of inflow and outflow that make up the annual water budget 

for Ruby Valley are summarized in table 7.

Inflow

Total inflow to Ruby Valley ranges from about 710,000 to 

nearly 930,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). Precipitation represents the 

largest inflow component and ranges from 700,000 acre-ft/yr, 

based on the Hardman (1936) precipitation map (Eakin and 

Maxey, 1951, p. 80), to 910,000 acre-ft/yr, derived from the 

relation between altitude and location (eq. 1). Precipitation in 

the mountain-block areas accounts for about 46 percent of the 

total precipitation. About equal amounts of precipitation fall 

on the alluvial slopes and valley floor annually. Estimates of 

subsurface inflow represent less than 2 percent of the total and 

range from about 10,000 to 16,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7; Rush 

and Everett, 1966, p. 15; Dudley, 1967, p. 98; Glancy, 1968, p. 

30). 

Outflow

Estimates of total outflow from Ruby Valley range from 

about 780,000 to 870,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). Estimated total 

ET on the valley floor of Ruby Valley ranges from about 

330,000 to 420,000 acre-ft/yr (table 7). Subsurface outflow 

northeast toward Clover Valley and south toward Long Valley 

totals about 3,000 to 6,400 acre-ft/yr and represents less than 

1 percent of the total outflow from Ruby Valley (table 7). 

These estimates may represent minimum values because some 

ground water may move through carbonate rocks that is not 

accounted for in these estimates.

Although the estimated water budget is subject to a number of qualifications and uncertainties, the budget illustrates 

the relative distribution and movement of water. The range 

in values for several budget components also illustrates the 

uncertainty, some of which may be due to climatic variability, 

particularly precipitation and components of ET. Uncertainty 

in the water-budget components could be reduced by collection of additional climatic and hydrologic data. Additional 
precipitation data on the valley floor and in the mountains that 

border the eastern part of Ruby Valley would help in understanding the rain-shadow effect on the distribution of annual 

precipitation. A numerical ground-water flow model could 

be used with additional hydrologic data to refine estimates of 

subsurface inflow and outflow, particularly through carbonate 

rocks that border the area of study. 

Annual precipitation estimated from the altitude-location 

relation (eq. 1) was derived using 30-year averages (1971–

2000). In contrast, much of the ET components are based on 

2001 hydrologic conditions. Although age-dating of spring 

discharge indicates a 5- to 7-year lag time between precipitation and discharge, the relation between annual precipitation 

and the distribution of ET is unknown. A more complete analysis of temporal satellite images may provide insight to the 

relation among annual precipitation, ET, and the areal extent 

of Ruby and Franklin Lakes and associated wetland areas. 

Summary and Conclusions

Ruby Valley is a large, topographically closed basin in 

northeastern Nevada with an area of about 1,000 mi2 in Elko 

and White Pine Counties. The valley is relatively undeveloped 

and currently the subject of water-right adjudication proceedings. Although Ruby Valley is sparsely populated, steady rural 

development is taking place and expected to increase in the 

future. Because Ruby Valley is a “Designated Basin,” the use 

of committed ground-water rights are limited to the basin’s 

long-term recharge. The water resources of Ruby Valley were 

last evaluated in 1951 and since then additional hydrologic 

and climatic data have been collected, and new techniques and 

approaches have been developed for water-resources analysis. 

The geologic history that has shaped Ruby Valley is 

complex and includes periods of regional metamorphism, 

thick accumulations of sedimentary and volcanic rocks, 

major tectonic events, glaciation, and cyclic fluctuations of 

a large closed-basin lake. The more than two dozen geologic 

units recognized in the study area are grouped into nine 

hydrogeologic units on the basis of lithology and hydrologic 

similarities. Cenozoic basin-fill deposits are grouped into two 

hydrogeologic units, valley-floor and alluvial-slope deposits. 

Valley-floor deposits cover about 370 mi2 and consist mostly 

of unconsolidated gravel and sand that readily transmit water. 

Included in the valley-floor unit are deposits of lacustrine 

origin that generally have low permeabilities. Alluvial-slope 

deposits, which cover about 290 mi2 and occupy the area 

between the valley floor and the mountain blocks, consists of 

several topographic parts, including dissected pediments and 

alluvial fans. 

Consolidated rocks, which form the mountain blocks 

and underlie the deposits that fill the valley are grouped into 

seven hydrogeologic units. The carbonate unit covers nearly 

170 mi2 and makes up the entire southern Ruby Mountains and 

much of the Maverick Springs Range and Valley Mountain. 

The existence of Ruby Lake and the associated wetland is due 

to the highly permeable nature and stratigraphic position of 

the carbonate unit. The water yield from the southern Ruby 

Mountains essentially has no streamflow component due to 

the enhanced permeability of the carbonate rocks, and as a 

consequence the eastward drainage is almost entirely made up 

of spring discharge. The hydrogeologic characteristics of the 

carbonate unit are in sharp contrast to the characteristics of 

the intrusive and metamorphic units that makes up the central 

and northern Ruby Mountains and much of the East Humboldt 

Range. Due to the relatively low permeability, streamflow 

makes up the largest component of the water yield from these 

areas. The tuffaceous rocks and sediments units probably 

underlie much of the valley floor. The remaining hydrogeologic units are of limited extent and consist of three units of 

Cenozoic volcanic rocks, and one clastic unit of Precambrian 

to Mesozoic age. The Cenozoic basin-fill deposits, and volcanic and sedimentary rocks that fill the structural basin beneath 

Ruby Valley range in thickness from less than 500 ft along the 

margins to about 10,000 ft beneath the south-central part of 

the valley.

The amount of precipitation in Ruby Valley, derived from 

four estimates, ranges from about 700,000 acre-ft/yr developed 

from the Hardman precipitation map of Nevada to 910,000 

acre-ft/yr based on a relation that incorporates station altitude 

and location. The Hardman precipitation map shows about 25 

to 31 percent less annual precipitation than the other estimates. 

Most of the differences in the total precipitation are related, 

in part, to differences in climatic conditions during the period 

of estimated precipitation. The Hardman precipitation map 

was developed prior to 1935 when severe drought conditions 

were occurring in northeastern Nevada. The other estimates, 

however, were developed based on data from 1961–90 and 

1971–2000, when the climatic conditions were somewhat wetter. 

Total runoff to Ruby Valley, based on a range in unit-area 

runoff from 740 to 950 acre-ft/mi2 per year, is about 82,000 to 

100,000 acre-ft/yr. Runoff that issues from the east side of the 

Ruby Mountains north of Harrison Pass Creek and from the 

southwest flank of the East Humboldt Range, under natural 

conditions, terminates in Franklin Lake. Streams south of and 

including Harrison Pass Creek and those issuing from the 

Maverick Springs Range terminate in Ruby Lake. The northern Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range generate about 

80 percent of the total runoff to Ruby Valley. 

Virtually all ground water in Ruby Valley is derived from 

three sources: precipitation that falls within the hydrographic 

area, infiltration of streamflow from the west side of the southern Ruby Mountains, and subsurface inflow from Northern 

Butte Valley. Ground-water outflow takes place northeastward 

toward Clover Valley and possibly southward toward Long 

Valley. Most of the readily available ground water in the area 

of study occurs in basin-fill deposits under unconfined and 

confined conditions. The depth to ground water in basin-fill 

deposits in Ruby Valley during the spring of 2003 ranges from 

less than 5 ft along the margins of Ruby Lake to more than 20 

Summary and Conclusions  35
36 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

ft beneath the alluvial slope in the northeast part of the valley. 

During the 4-year period (2000–03) water levels generally 

declined over much of the study area. 

Previous estimates of ground-water recharge from 

precipitation range from 68,000 to 146,000 acre-ft/yr. Results 

of applying the chloride-balance method indicate average 

ground-water recharge is about 100,000 acre-ft/yr. These 

basin-scale estimates are considered reconnaissance-level 

estimates and generally are a function of the particular 

precipitation data used in the recharge estimate.

Water samples were collected from 16 wells and 11 

springs in and near Ruby Valley and analyzed for major-ion 

and nutrient chemistry and stable-isotopic composition. No 

primary drinking-water standards were exceeded for any of 

the constituents that were analyzed. Secondary drinkingwater standards were exceeded for manganese, sulfate, iron, 

dissolved solids, and pH at three wells. Most of the water 

sampled in the area of study is a calcium-bicarbonate type. 

Although Ruby Lake is a terminal lake and has no 

surface-water outlet, the lake water generally is fresh. Based 

on a chloride-mass-balance calculation, the low salinity in 

Ruby Lake is maintained by a large contribution of freshwater 

from spring discharge and to a lesser extent by ground-water 

flow toward Franklin Lake. Ruby Lake has maintained at 

least small open-water pools through nearly all of the historic 

droughts. In contrast, Franklin Lake was completely dry for 6 

of the 26 years between 1960 and 1986. Ruby Lake receives 

perennial spring discharge, whereas Franklin Lake is maintained ephemerally by direct precipitation, surface-water 

runoff, and irrigation return flow. Based on satellite imagery, 

in June 1985 an estimated 5,800 acres of valley floor was 

covered by open water and about 15,000 acres was covered 

by marsh vegetation. In July 2001, Franklin Lake had no open 

water and Ruby Lake had declined to about 4,000 acres.

The hydrologic conditions used to develop the water budget for Ruby Valley are characterized by data collected as part 

of the overall study of Ruby Valley and other contemporary 

investigations. Total inflow to Ruby Valley ranges from about 

710,000 to nearly 930,000 acre-ft/yr. Precipitation represents 

the largest inflow component and ranges from about 700,000 

acre-ft/yr, based on the Hardman precipitation map, to 910,000 

acre-ft/yr, derived from the relation between altitude and 

location. Estimates of subsurface inflow represent less than 2 

percent of the total inflow and range from 10,000 to 16,000 

acre-ft/yr. 

Estimates of total outflow from Ruby Valley range from 

about 780,000 to 870,000 acre-ft/yr. Evapotranspiration represents the largest outflow and is subdivided into areas of the 

mountain block, alluvial slopes, and valley floor. Estimated ET 

from mountain-block areas that border Ruby Valley is about 

270,000 acre-ft/yr. Estimated ET on alluvial slopes in the area 

of study, where the only source of water is soil moisture from 

precipitation, is about 180,000 acre-ft/yr. Estimated total ET 

on the valley floor of Ruby Valley ranges from about 330,000 

to 420,000 acre-ft/yr and is comprised from five different 

land-cover types. These types include areas of natural phreatophytic and nonphreatophytic vegetation, areas of open water 

and associated wetlands, wet playas, and areas of irrigated 

land. Based on estimates from five sites in Ruby Valley, about 

170,000 acre-ft/yr of water is consumed by ET in areas of 

phreatophytic vegetation. Nonphreatophytic vegetation on the 

valley floor covers about 133,000 acres and is estimated to 

use about 100,000 to 130,000 acre-ft/yr. ET in areas of open 

water, associated wetlands, and wet playas ranges from about 

48,000 to 100,000 acre-ft/yr. The amount of applied irrigation water that is consumed by ET depends on the application 

method of irrigation. About 3,800 to 4,500 acre-ft/yr of water 

is consumed by ET in areas that use center-pivot irrigation and 

about 7,400 to 11,000 acre-ft/yr is consumed in areas that use 

flood irrigation. 

Subsurface outflow northeast toward Clover Valley and 

southwest toward Long Valley total about 3,000 to 6,400 acreft/yr and represents less than 1 percent of the total outflow 

from Ruby Valley. These estimates may represent minimum 

values because some ground water may move through carbonate rocks that is not accounted for in these estimates.

Although the estimated water budget is subject to a number of qualifications and uncertainties, the budget indicates 

the relative distribution and movement of water. The range 

in values for several budget components also indicates the 

uncertainty, some of which may be due to climatic variability, 

particularly components of precipitation and ET. Uncertainty 

in the water-budget components could be reduced by collection of additional climatic and hydrologic data. 

References Cited

Allander, K.K., Gortsema, G.C., Hutchinson, D.D., and 

Schwartzenberger, J.T., 2001, Water resources data, Nevada 

water year 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

NV-00-1, 570 p. 

Bedinger, M.S., Harrill, J.R., and Thomas, J.M., 1984, Maps 

showing ground-water units and withdrawal, Basin and 

Range Province, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83-4119-A, 10 p., 2 sheets, 

scale 1:500,000.

Benson, Larry, and Thompson, R.S., 1987, The physical 

record of lakes in the Great Basin, in Ruddiman, W.F., and 

Wright, H.E., Jr., eds., The geology of North America, 

volume K-3, North America and adjacent oceans during 

the last deglaciation: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of 

America, p. 241–260. 

Berger, D.L., 1995, Ground-water conditions and effects of 

mine dewatering in Desert Valley, Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties, northwestern Nevada, 1962–91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4119, 

94 p.
Berger, D.L., 2000a, Water budgets for Pine Valley, Carico 

Lake Valley, and Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic 

Areas, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central 

Nevada—Methods for estimation and results: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4272, 40 p. 

Berger, D.L., 2000b, Water-budget estimates for the 14 

hydrographic areas in the middle Humboldt River Basin, 

north-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 00-4168, 55 p.

Berger, D.L., Johnson, M.J., Tumbusch, M.L., and Mackay, 

Jeffrey, 2001, Estimates of evapotranspiration from 

the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge area, Ruby 

Valley, northeast Nevada, May 1999–October 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4234, 38 p. 

Berger, D.L., Ross, W.C., Thodal, C.E., and Robledo, A.R., 

1997, Hydrogeology and simulated effects of urban 

development on water resources of Spanish Springs Valley, 

Washoe County, west-central Nevada, U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4297, 

80 p.

Berris, S.N., Crompton, E.J., Joyner, J.D., and Ryan, Roslyn, 

2003, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2002: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-02-1, 600 p. 

Bossong, C.R., Caine, J.S., Stannard, D.I., Flynn, J.L., 

Stevens, M.R., and Heiny-Dash, J.S., 2003, Hydrologic 

conditions and assessment of water resources in the Turkey 

Creek watershed, Jefferson County, Colorado, 1998–2001: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03-4034, 140 p. 

Busenberg, E., and Plummer, L.N., 2000, Dating young 

groundwater with sulfur hexafluoride: Natural and 

anthropogenic sources of sulfur hexafluoride: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36(10), p. 3011–3030.

Cardinalli, J.L., Roach, L.M., Rush, F.E., and Vasey, B.J., 

comps., 1968, State of Nevada hydrographic areas: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources Map, scale 1:500,000.

Charlet, D.A., 1996, Atlas of Nevada conifers: Reno, 

University of Nevada Press, 320 p.

Claassen, H.C., Reddy, M.M., and Halm, D.R., 1989, Use 

of the chloride ion in determining hydrologic-basin water 

budgets—A 3-year case study in the San Juan Mountains, 

Colo., USA.: Journal of Hydrology, v. 85, p. 49–71.

Coats, R.R., 1987, Geology of Elko County, Nevada: Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 101, 112 p. 

Craig, H., 1961, Isotopic variations in natural water: Science, 

v. 133, p. 1702–1703. 

Csuti, Blair, 1987, Franklin Lake, Nevada, ecological survey: 

Report from the files of the Great Basin Field Office of the 

Nature Conservancy, 12 p. 

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, R.P., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A 

statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological 

precipitation over mountainous terrain: Journal of Applied 

Meteorology, v. 33, no. 2, p. 140–158.

Dettinger, M.D., 1989, Reconnaissance estimates of natural 

recharge to desert basins in Nevada, U.S.A., by using 

chloride-balance calculations: Journal of Hydrology, v. 106, 

p. 55–78.

Dudley, W.W., Jr., 1967, Hydrogeology and ground-water flow 

system of the central Ruby Mountains, Nevada: Urbana, 

University of Illinois, unpublished doctoral thesis, 107 p.

Eakin, T.E., and Maxey, G.B., 1951, Ground water in Ruby 

Valley, Elko and White Pine Counties, 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. 65–93. 

Garcia, K.T., Munson, R.H., Spaulding, R.J., and Vasquez, 

S.L., 2002, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2001: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-01-1, 528 p. 

Glancy, P.A., 1968, Water-resources appraisal of Butte Valley, 

Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada Division of 

Water Resources, Reconnaissance Report 49, 50 p.

Hardman, George, 1936, Nevada precipitation and acreages 

of land by rainfall zones: University of Nevada, Reno, 

Agricultural Experiment Station report, 10 p. and map.

Hardman, George, and Mason, H.G., 1949, Irrigated lands 

in Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin 183, 57 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1968, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping 

in Diamond Valley, Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada, 

1950–65, with a section on Surface water, by R.D. Lamke: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 35, 85 p. 

Harrill, J.R., Gates, J.S., and Thomas, J.M., 1988, Major 

ground-water flow systems in the Great Basin region of 

Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, 2 sheets.

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p.

References Cited  37
38  Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada

Hess, Ronald, Davis, David, and Boldi, Karen, comps., 2004, 

Oil and gas well drilled in Nevada listed by township, 

range, and section: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 

accessed January 4, 2005, at URL: <http://www.nbmg.unr.

edu/lists/oil/oillisttr.php>.

Hill, J.M., 1916, Notes on some mining districts in eastern 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 648, p. 54–63.

Hose, R.K., and Blake, M.C., Jr., 1976, Geology and mineral 

resources of White Pine County, Nevada, Part I, Geology: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 85, 35 p., 

1:250,000.

Houghton, J.G., Sakamoto, C.M., and Gifford, R.O., 1975, 

Nevada’s weather and climate: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology Special Publications 2, 78 p.

Howard, K.A., 1966a, Large-scale recumbent folding in 

the metamorphic rocks of the northern Ruby Mountains, 

Nevada [abs.]: Geological Society of America Special Paper 

87, 210 p.

Howard, K.A., 1966b, Structure of the metamorphic rocks of 

the northern Ruby Mountains, Nevada [Ph.D. thesis]: New 

Haven, Conn., Yale University, 302 p.

Howard, K.A., 1971, Paleozoic metasediments in the northern 

Ruby Mountains, Nevada: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 82, no. 1, p. 259–264.

Howard, K.A., 1980, Metamorphic infrastructure in the 

northern Ruby Mountains, Nevada, in Crittenden, M.D., 

Jr., Coney, P.J., and Davis, G.H., eds., Metamorphic core 

complexes: Geological Society of America Memoir 153, 

p. 335–347. 

Johnson, C.A., 1980, Environmental controls on occurrence 

and chemistry of ground water in a carbonate terrace of 

eastern Nevada: University of Nevada, Desert Research 

Institute, publication no. 41066, 101 p. 

Maurer, D.K., and Berger, D.L., 1997, Subsurface flow and 

water yield from watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley 

Hydrographic Area, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4191, 

56 p.

Maurer, D.K., Berger, D.L., Tumbusch, M.L., and Johnson, 

M.J., in press, Rates of evapotranspiration, recharge from 

precipitation beneath selected areas of native vegetation, 

and streamflow gain and loss in Carson Valley, Douglas 

County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5288. 

Available at URL: <http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2005-

5288>.

Maurer, D.K., Lopes, T.J., Medina, R.L., and Smith, J.L., 

2004a, Hydrogeology and hydrologic landscape regions of 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2004-5131, 35 p.

Maurer, D.K., Watkins, S.A., and Burrows, R.L., 2004b, 

Updated computations and estimates of streamflows 

tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and 

Alpine County, California, 1990–2002: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5179, 29 p., 

available at URL: <http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2004-

5179>.

Mifflin, M.D., and Wheat M.M., 1979, Pluvial lakes and 

estimated pluvial climates of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Bulletin 94, 57 p. 

Morrison, R.B., 1968, Pluvial lakes, in Fairbridge, R.W., ed., 

The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology: Reinhold Book 

Corp., p. 873–883.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, 

Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and 

heating and cooling degree days, 1971–2000: National 

Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C., Climatography of the 

United States, no. 81, (Nevada), 26 p. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005, 

National Climatic Data Center, Palmer Drought Severity 

Index: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

accessed March 22, 2005, at URL: <http://www.drought.

noaa.gov>.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002, SNOTEL 

data network: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, accessed March 22, 2002, 

at URL: <http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow>.

Nevada Revised Statues, 2003, Nevada water laws: Division of 

Water Resources, Title 48–water (chapters 532–544), 319 p. 

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 82 p. 

Olmsted, F.H., Glancy, P.A., Harrill, J.R., Rush, F.E., and Van 

Denburgh, A.S., 1975, Preliminary hydrogeologic appraisal 

of selected hydrothermal systems in northern and central 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75-56, 

267 p.

Plume, R.W., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the Great 

Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-B, 64 p.
Smith, W.P., 1986, Reconstruction of precipitation in 

northeastern Nevada using tree rings, 1600–1982: Journal of 

Climate and Applied Meteorology, v. 25, no. 9, p. 1255–

1263.

Smith, J.F., Jr., and Ketner, K.B., 1976, Stratigraphy of postPaleozoic rocks and summary of resources in the CarlinPinon Range area, Nevada, with a section on Aeromagnetic 

survey, by D.R. Mabey: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 867-B, 48 p.

Stewart, J.H., 1980, Geology of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Special Publication 4, 136 p.

Stewart, J.H., and Carlson, J.E., 1978, Geologic map of 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000.

Stewart, J.H., and Poole, F.G., 1974, Lower Paleozoic 

and uppermost Precambrian Cordilleran miogeocline, 

Great Basin, Western United States, in Dickinson, W.R., 

ed., Tectonics and sedimentation: Society of Economic 

Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 22, 

p. 28–57.

Taylor, G.H., 1940, Memorandum relative to ground water in 

Ruby Valley, Nevada (typewritten report in files of USGS), 

9 p.

Thomas, J.M., Mason, J.L., and Crabtree, J.D., 1986, Groundwater levels in the Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, 

and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA-694-B, 2 sheets, scale 1:1,000,000.

Thompson, R.S., 1992, Late Quaternary environments in Ruby 

Valley, Nevada: Quaternary Research, v. 37, p. 1–5.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, List of 

contaminants & their MCLs: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National drinking water regulations, accessed May 

20, 2005, at URL: <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.

html#mcls>.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, USGS geographic data 

download—Digital line graph (DLG) digital elevation 

model (DEM) distribution update: U.S. Geological Survey 

topographic map series accessed 2001, available at URL: 

<http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata/>.

Welch, A.H., and Preissler, A.M., 1990, Geothermal resources 

of the western arm of the Black Rock Desert, northwestern 

Nevada—Part II, Aqueous geochemistry and hydrology: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 87-4062, 91 p.

Plume, R.W., 2003, Ground-water use, locations of production 

wells, and areas irrigated using ground water in 1998, 

middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4227, 16 p.

Prudic, D.E., Harrill, J.R., and Burbey, T.J., 1995, Conceptual 

evaluation of regional ground-water flow in the carbonaterock province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and 

adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-D, 102 p. 

Prudic, D.E., and Herman, M.E., 1996, Ground-water flow 

and simulated effects of development in Paradise Valley, a 

basin tributary to the Humboldt River in Humboldt County, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-F, 

92 p.

Reiner, S.R., Laczniak, R.J., DeMeo, G.A., Smith, J.L., 

Elliott, P.E., Nylund, W.E., and Fridrich, C.J., 2002, 

Ground-water discharge determined from measurements of 

evapotranspiration, other available hydrologic components, 

and shallow water-level changes, Oasis Valley, Nye 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 01-4239, 65 p. 

Riggs, H.C., and Moore, D.O., 1965, A method of estimating 

mean runoff from ungaged basins in mountainous regions, 

in Geological Survey Research 1965: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 525-D, p. D199–D202.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas in Nevada: 

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.

Sharp, R.P., 1938, Pleistocene glaciation in the RubyEast Humboldt Range, northeastern Nevada: Journal of 

Geomorphology, v. 1, no. 4, p. 296–323.

Sharp, R.P., 1939a, Basin-range structure of the Ruby-East 

Humboldt Range, northeastern Nevada: Geological Society 

of America Bulletin, v. 50, p. 881–919.

Sharp, R.P., 1939b, The Miocene Humboldt Formation in 

northeastern Nevada: Journal of Geology, v. 47, p. 133–160.

Sharp, R.P., 1940, Geomorphology of the Ruby-East 

Humboldt Range, Nevada: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 51, p. 337–371.

Sharp, R.P., 1942, Stratigraphy and structure of the southern 

Ruby Mountains, Nevada: Nevada: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 53, p. 647–690.

References Cited  39
Berger—Hydrogeology and Water Resources of Ruby Valley, Northeastern Nevada — Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5247