Prepared in cooperation with 

DOUGLAS COUNTY

Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows 

Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, 

and Alpine County, California, 1990–2002

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5179
(Back of Cover)
Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows 

Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, 

and Alpine County, California, 1990–2002

by Douglas K. Maurer, Sharon A. Watkins, and Robert L. Burrows

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Carson City, Nevada

2004

Prepared in cooperation with 

DOUGLAS COUNTY

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5179
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

____________________________________________________________________________________

For additional information Copies of this report can be

contact: purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Geological Survey Information Services

333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Building 810

Carson City, NV 89706–0866 Box 25286, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225–0286

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

http://nevada.usgs.gov
 iii

CONTENTS

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

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

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Geographic Setting of Carson Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hydrologic Setting of Carson Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Previous Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methods Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Uncertainty of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix: Graphs showing computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and 

ungaged perennial streams tributary to Carson Valley, 1990–2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

FIGURES

1. Map showing locations of Carson River Basin and Carson Valley Hydrographic Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Map showing location of surface-water sites used for this study, Carson Valley subarea 

and study area, and physiographic features of Carson Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

3. Map showing location of surface-water sites used for delineation of boundaries in previous 

studies, Carson Valley subarea and study area, and physiographic features of Carson Valley . . . . . . .5

4. Scatter plots of measured and simulated flows for (A) Water Canyon Creek and 

(B) Sheridan Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Graphs showing estimated daily mean flow and periodic measurements of flow 

for ungaged perennial drainages, 1990–2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Graphs showing computed and estimated mean annual flow for gaged and 

ungaged perennial streams tributary to Carson Valley, 1990–2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7. Graphs showing (A) annual flow of the East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville, 

Nevada, and average annual flow for 1939–2002 and 1990–2002 and (B) annual 

precipitation at Minden, Nevada, for period of record and average annual precipitation 

for 1971–2000 and 1990–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

TABLES

1. Site identifier information, period of record, and drainage area for surface-water sites

in Carson Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. Regression model equations, R2 values, percent error, and number of measurements 

for ungaged drainages in Carson Valley with periodic measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

3. Computed and estimated mean annual flow of gaged and ungaged perennial streams

and ephemeral drainages tributary to Carson Valley, 1990–2002, mean annual flow 

for period of record at gaged sites, annual flow estimated by Maurer (1986), drainage 

area, and unit-area flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iv 

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

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

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

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

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

°C = 0.556(°F-32).

Sea level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929, 

formerly called “Sea-Level Datum of 1929”), which is derived from a general adjustment of the first-order 

leveling networks of the United States and Canada.
Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows 

Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, 

and Alpine County, California, 1990–2002

by Douglas K. Maurer, Sharon A. Watkins, and Robert L. Burrows

ABSTRACT

Rapid population growth in Carson Valley has caused 

concern over the continued availability of water resources 

to sustain future growth. The U.S. Geological Survey, in 

coopera-tion with Douglas County, began a study to update 

estimates of water-budget components in Carson Valley for 

current climatic conditions. Data collected at 19 sites included 

9 continuous records of tributary streamflows, 1 continuous 

record of outflow from the valley, and 408 measurements of 

10 perennially flowing but ungaged drainages. These data 

were compiled and analyzed to provide updated computations 

and estimates of streamflows tributary to Carson Valley, 

1990–2002.

Mean monthly and annual flows were computed from 

continuous records for the period 1990–2002 for five streams, 

and for the period available, 1990–97, for four streams. Daily 

mean flow from ungaged drainages was estimated using multivariate regressions of individual discharge measurements 

against measured flow at selected continuous gages. From the 

estimated daily mean flows, monthly and annual mean flows 

were calculated from 1990 to 2002. These values were used to 

compute estimates of mean monthly and annual flows for the 

ungaged perennial drainages. Using the computed and estimated mean annual flows, annual unit-area runoff was computed for the perennial drainages, which ranged from 0.30 to 

2.02 feet.

For the period 1990–2002, estimated inflow of perennial 

streams tributary to Carson Valley totaled about 25,900 acrefeet per year. Inflow computed from gaged perennial drainages 

totaled 10,300 acre-feet per year, and estimated inflow from 

ungaged perennial drainages totaled 15,600 acre-feet per year. 

The annual flow of perennial streams ranges from 4,210 acrefeet at Clear Creek to 450 acre-feet at Stutler Canyon Creek. 

Differences in unit-area runoff and in the seasonal timing of 

flow likely are caused by differences in geologic setting, 

altitude, slope, or aspect of the individual drainages. 

The remaining drainages are ephemeral and supply inflow 

to the valley floor only during spring runoff in wet years or 

during large precipitation events. Annual unit-area runoff for 

the perennial drainages was used to estimate inflow from 

ephemeral drainages totaling 11,700 acre-feet per year.

The totaled estimate of perennial and ephemeral tributary 

inflows to Carson Valley is 37,600 acre-feet per year. Gaged 

perennial inflow is 27 percent of the total, ungaged perennial 

inflow is 42 percent, and ephemeral inflow is 31 percent. The 

estimate is from 50 to 60 percent greater than three previous 

estimates, one made for a larger area and similar to two other 

estimates made for larger areas. The combined uncertainty of 

the estimates totaled about 33 percent of the total inflow or 

about 12,000 acre-feet per year.

INTRODUCTION

Rapid population growth and residential development 

in Carson Valley is causing concern over the continued availability of water resources to sustain future growth. As growth 

continues, the effects of changes on ground-water recharge and 

discharge are uncertain. These effects may change the outflow 

of the Carson River and, in turn, affect water users dependent 

on sustained river flow downstream from Carson Valley (fig. 1).

In the early 1980’s, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

made estimates of water-budget components for Carson Valley 

(Maurer, 1986). Since that time, much additional hydrologic 

data have been collected in the valley. The USGS, in cooperation with Douglas County, began a study in February 2003 to 

update estimates of water-budget components in Carson Valley 

to reflect current climatic conditions.

Data on streamflows tributary to Carson Valley have been 

collected by the USGS since the early 1980’s, in cooperation 

with Douglas County and the Carson Water Subconservancy 

District. Data were collected at 9 continuously recording 

streamflow gages and at 10 sites in ungaged drainages where 

periodic measurements were made (fig. 2). The analysis of the 

data collected provides updated computations and estimates of 

streamflow tributary to Carson Valley.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents updated computations and estimates 

of perennial streamflows tributary to Carson Valley. The 

computations are derived for drainages having continuously 

recorded streamflow, and the estimates are derived from 
2 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

Figure 1. Locations of Carson River Basin and Carson Valley Hydrographic Areas.

30 MILES

0 30 KILOMETERS

0

Pyramid

Lake

Truckee

River

Humboldt

River

Carson

River Lahontan

Reservoir

Lahontan

Dam

Carson

Lake

Lake

Tahoe

West

Fork

East

Fork

West

East

Walker

River

Walker

River

Walker

River

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

NE

VADA

CALIFORNIA

Truckee Canal

Lahontan

Valley

Stillwater

Point

Reservoir

Bradys Hot

Springs

CARSON VALLEY

HYDROGRAPHIC

AREA

Churchill

Valley

Dayton

Valley

Eagle

Valley

Carson

City

Minden

Gardnerville

Markleeville

Woodfords

Dayton

Silver

Springs

Fernley

Reno

Hazen

Fallon

Sierra Nevada

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

San

Francisco

Los

Angeles

Las Vegas

Reno

EXPLANATION

Boundary of Carson

River Basin

Boundary of

Hydrographic Areas
INTRODUCTION 3

Figure 2. Location of surface-water sites used for this study, Carson Valley subarea and study area, and physiographic features

of Carson Valley. See table 1 for site names.

88

208

5

4

3

2

1

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

9

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

Boundary of Carson Valley subarea and study area

EXPLANATION

Continuous gage site

Periodic measurement site

Boundary of perennial stream drainage

Minden

Gardnerville

Douglas County

Carson City Lyon County

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

West

Fork

Fork

Carson

East

River

Minden

Gardnerville

Douglas County

Carson City Lyon County

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

West

Fork

Fork

Carson

East

River

Daggett

Creek

Daggett

Creek

Marlette

Lake

Pine

Nut

Mountains

Pine

Nut

Mountains

Carson

Valley

Carson

Valley

Carson

Range

Carson

Range

Clear Creek

Genoa

Carson

City

Carson

City

Woodford oodfords

Douglas County

Douglas County

Alpine CountyAlpine Co nt

39°00'

119°52'30" 11 119°45' 9°37'30" 119°30'

39°07'30"

38°52'30"

38°45'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1979–1988. Universal Transverse Mercator projection, North American Datum of 1927.

Shaded-relief base from 30-meter Digital Elevation Model; sun illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.
4 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

analysis of streamflow data collected at ungaged drainages. The 

computations and estimates are made for a common period of 

record 1990–2002. 

Mean monthly and annual flows were computed from 

continuous records for the period 1990–2002 for five streams, 

and for the period available, 1990–97, for four streams. 

Multivariate regression equations were developed to estimate 

daily mean streamflows at the 10 perennial but ungaged 

drainages using the flow at selected gaged sites. The estimated 

daily mean flows for each of the 10 ungaged drainages from 

1990 to 2002 were used to calculate monthly and annual mean 

flows for each month and year, and mean monthly and annual 

flow for the period 1990–2002. Mean annual flows computed 

for the gaged drainages are compared to long-term values. Unitarea runoff values are calculated for the perennial streams and 

used to estimate tributary inflows from ephemeral drainages. 

Total tributary inflow is compared to previous estimates, and 

uncertainties in the estimates are discussed.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank John Ascuaga and the Sierra Nevada 

Golf Ranch for providing access to private property for 

streamflow measurements.

Geographic Setting of Carson Valley

Carson Valley is in Douglas County, NV, about 4 mi south 

of Carson City, Nevada’s capital (fig. 1). The southern end of 

the valley extends about 3 mi into Alpine County, CA. The floor 

of the valley is oval-shaped, about 20 mi long and 8 mi wide, 

and slopes from about 5,000 ft above sea level at the southern 

end to about 4,600 ft at the northern end. On the western side of 

the valley floor, the Carson Range rises abruptly with mountain 

peaks ranging from 9,000 to 11,000 ft. On the eastern side of the 

valley, the Pine Nut Mountains rise more gradually to peaks 

ranging from 8,000 to 9,000 ft. 

The valley floor is covered with native pasture grasses, 

crop lands of alfalfa with some garlic and onion, and near the 

northern end, phreatophytes such as greasewood, rabbitbrush, 

and big sage. In 2002, about 31,000 acres of land in Douglas 

County were irrigated of which 16,000 acres were harvested 

cropland and 15,000 acres were pasture lands (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2004). On the western side of the valley, 

bitterbrush and sagebrush cover steep alluvial fans, and 

manzanita and ponderosa pine cover the slopes of the Carson 

Range. On the eastern side of the valley, sagebrush and 

rabbitbrush cover the alluvial fans and foothills of the Pine Nut 

Mountains and piñon and juniper are found on the slopes. 

The major incorporated towns in the valley are Minden 

and Gardnerville (fig. 1) with populations of 2,800 and 3,400, 

respectively, in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Subdivisions 

on the southern and northern ends of the valley are growing 

rapidly, with populations totaling greater than 20,000 in 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). In addition, development is active 

along the eastern and western sides of the valley, and on the 

valley floor on land that historically has been agricultural. 

Douglas County as a whole has grown from a population of 

about 28,000 in 1990 to 41,000 in 2000, an increase of about 49 

percent (Economic Research Service, 2004).

The major hydrographic feature of the valley is the Carson 

River. The East and West Forks of the Carson River enter the 

valley from the southeast and southwest corners, respectively, 

and flow northward to join near Genoa. The mainstem of the 

Carson River continues north and leaves the valley southeast of 

Carson City. Flow of the Carson River is diverted across the 

valley floor through a network of canals and ditches for flood 

irrigation of crops. 

Hydrologic Setting of Carson Valley

For purposes of this study, the boundary of Carson Valley 

was delineated as a subarea of the entire Carson Valley 

Hydrographic Area1 (fig. 3). The subarea boundary was 

selected to include only those parts of the hydrographic area 

connected by permeable aquifer materials capable of transmitting ground water to aquifers beneath Carson Valley. The 

greatest difference between the subarea and overall hydrographic area is along the southern study-area boundary, where 

the headwaters of the West and East Forks Carson River have 

been excluded. The Carson Valley subarea is 253,570 acres or 

about 396 mi2 (fig. 3) out of a total drainage of 876 mi2.

The hydrology of Carson Valley is dominated by flow of 

the Carson River. Mean annual inflow from the East and West 

Forks, respectively, is 276,400 acre-ft (period of record 1890–

2002; fig. 1) and 80,320 acre-ft (period of record 1901–2002; 

Berris and others, 2003, p. 178 and 185) for a total of 356,720 

acre-ft. Mean annual outflow of the mainstem Carson River is 

296,500 acre-ft (period of record 1940–2002; Berris and others, 

2003, p. 191). Numerous perennial streams drain the Carson 

Range, whereas only two perennial streams, Buckeye and Pine 

Nut Creeks (fig. 2), drain the Pine Nut Mountains. 

Infiltration of surface water through the beds of streams 

and ditches, and beneath flood-irrigated fields maintains a 

shallow water table below much of the valley floor where depth 

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.
INTRODUCTION 5

Figure 3. Location of surface-water sites used for delineation of boundaries in previous studies, Carson Valley subarea and 

study area, and physiographic features of Carson Valley.

Lyon County Lyon County yon County

Lake

Tahoe

Lake

Tahoe

Lake

Tahoe

Topaz

Lake

Topaz

Lake

Topaz

Lake

88

89

4

208

Minden

Gardnerville Gardnerville ardnerville

CarsonCarsonCarson

Genoa

Woodfords Woodfords oodfords

Markleeville Markleeville arkleeville

RiverRi er

West

East Fork

For

IndianIndian

Fork

Clear 

Creek

Clear CreekClear 

Cree

Creek

0 10 MILES 5

0 10 KILOMETERS 5

EXPLANATION

Boundary of Carson Valley 

 Hydrographic Area

River drainage

Streamflow gaging station

Area downstream of Gardnerville 

 and Woodfords gages on East 

 and West Forks of Carson River

Area between Gardnerville 

 and Markleeville gages on 

 East Fork of Carson River

Boundary of Carson Valley

 subarea and study area

East Fork Carson River

near Gardnerville, NV

East Fork Carson River

near Gardnerville, NV

East Fork Carson River

near Gardnerville, NV

West Fork 

Carson River 

at Woodfords, CA

West Fork 

Carson River 

at Woodfords, CA

West Fork 

Carson River 

at Woodfords, CA

East Fork 

Carson River 

near 

Markleeville, CA

East Fork 

Carson River near 

Markleeville, CA

East Fork 

Carson River near 

Markleeville, CA

38 ̊22'30"

38o30'

38o37'30"

38o45'

38o52'30"

39o00'

39o07'30"

119o45' 119o37'30" 119o30' 119o22'30"

Carson County

Douglas County

Carson County

Douglas County

Carson County

Douglas County

Douglas County

Alpine County

Douglas County

Alpine County

Douglas County

Alpine County

 NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1979–1988. Universal Transverse 

Mercator projection, North American Datum of 1927. Shaded-relief base from 30-meter Digital 

Elevation Model; sun illumination from northwest at 30 degrees above horizon.
6 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

to ground water is less than 5 ft (Maurer and Peltz, 1994, sheet 

2). Depth to water beneath alluvial fans on the western side of 

the valley increases to greater than 200 ft within 1 mi of the 

valley floor; whereas, depth to water on the eastern side of the 

valley increases more slowly, reaching 200 ft about 3 mi from 

the valley floor (Maurer and Peltz, 1994, sheet 2). Beneath the 

valley floor, ground water flows at a low gradient towards the 

Carson River from the east and west, and then flows northward. 

Carson Valley lies in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada. 

In the valley, annual precipitation at Minden averages 8.4 in/yr 

(period of record 1971–2000; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, p. 12). In contrast, the top of the 

Carson Range receives 25.5 in/yr (period of record 1971–2000, 

Western Regional Climate Center, 2003). Near the top of the 

Pine Nut Mountains precipitation averages 15.7 in/yr (period of 

record 1984–2002; Dan Greenlee, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, written commun., 2003). 

Previous Investigations

The first estimate of streamflows tributary to Carson 

Valley was made by Piper (1969). Piper used gaged streamflow 

at 15 sites in and near Carson Valley to derive a relation 

between runoff and altitude, and a map showing the distribution 

of a term called “coefficients of horizontal variability” of runoff 

over gaged and ungaged drainages. From these coefficients he 

estimated about 24,800 acre-ft/yr of long-term mean runoff 

from drainages tributary to Carson Valley, including the Clear 

and Indian Creeks drainages (fig. 3; Piper, 1969, p. 7). 

The Nevada State Engineer (1971, p. 57) estimated 24,000 

acre-ft of annual runoff from the mountain blocks to the valley 

floor. No details are provided about the method used to estimate 

runoff or if the estimate includes perennial and ephemeral flows 

(Nevada State Engineer, 1971, p. 51–52). The area included in 

the estimate likely is similar to that of the present study. 

Glancy and Katzer (1976) estimated streamflows tributary 

to Carson Valley using an indirect method developed by Moore 

(1968). Moore’s method uses a relation between altitude and 

runoff that varies for different regions within Nevada and does 

not distinguish between perennial and ephemeral streamflows. 

The estimates of runoff were refined using measurements of 

channel geometry as described by Moore (1968, p. 36–38), and 

checked for accuracy using miscellaneous streamflow measurements (Glancy and Katzer, 1976, p. 32). The resulting estimate 

of average streamflows tributary to Carson Valley was 15,000 

acre-ft/yr for the Nevada portion of the valley, and 34,000 acreft/yr for the combined Nevada and California segments of the 

valley downstream from Woodfords on the West Fork Carson 

River and Markleeville on the East Fork Carson River (fig. 3; 

Glancy and Katzer, 1976, p. 34).

Spane (1977) estimated annual runoff within the Carson 

Valley Basin using methods similar to those of Glancy and 

Katzer (1976), including perennial and ephemeral streamflows. 

Spane derived estimates of about 27,400 acre-ft/yr for the 

Carson Range including the Clear Creek drainage, 15,400 acreft/yr for the Pine Nut Mountains, and 1,900 acre-ft/yr for the 

Indian Creek drainage for a total of about 45,000 acre-ft/yr 

(Spane, 1977, p. 65 and 66). 

Streamflow tributary to Carson Valley was estimated by 

Maurer (1986) who made periodic measurements from 1981 

through 1983 at eight perennial streams draining the Carson 

Range which included Sierra Canyon, Genoa Canyon, Mott 

Canyon, Monument, Stutler Canyon, Jobs Canyon, Luther, and 

Fredericksburg Creeks (fig. 2, table 1). These measurements 

were used to develop correlations between flow at each sites 

and the recorded flow at the USGS gaging station at Daggett 

Creek near Genoa, NV (site 8; fig. 2). The correlations were 

then used to estimate mean annual streamflow for the eight 

streams. The resulting estimate of streamflow from the eight 

perennial streams including Daggett Creek was 18,400 

acre-ft/yr (Maurer, 1986, p. 15). To estimate streamflow from 

ephemeral drainages surrounding Carson Valley, Maurer 

(1986, p. 37) subtracted the estimate of 18,400 acre-ft/yr for 

perennial flow from the estimate of 24,000 acre-ft/yr for the 

total runoff to Carson Valley by the Nevada State Engineer 

(1971, p. 57) to obtain an estimate of total ephemeral streamflow of about 6,000 acre-ft/yr. Maurer (1986, p. 16) estimated 

the mean annual flow of principal springs in Carson Valley 

including Benson, Miller, Barber, Sheridan, and Walley’s Hot 

Springs to total 5,200 acre-ft/yr. 

Hess (1999, p. 4 and 9) used the recorded flow at 3 USGS 

gaging stations along with annual precipitation at 3 stations to 

develop regression equations for flow from 10 perennial 

streams tributary to Carson Valley. The 10 streams included 

Clear, Sierra Canyon, Genoa Canyon, Daggett, Mott Canyon, 

Monument, Sheridan, Jobs Canyon, Luther, and Fredericksburg 

Creeks. Equations were used to compute daily streamflow for 

input to a surface-water routing model of the Carson River for 

the period 1978–97 (Hess, 1999, p. 9). However, long-term 

average values of tributary streamflows from the 10 streams 

were not reported. 

METHODS USED

Updated computations and estimates of streamflows 

tributary to Carson Valley were derived for 18 sites and for 

Carson River outflow from the valley. Streamflow data were 

collected continuously at 8 tributaries and Carson River 

outflow, and periodically at 10 sites in ungaged drainages (fig. 

2, table 1). The data from the gaged streams and the periodic 

measurements have been previously published in the annual 

series “Water Resources Data for Nevada.” The computations 

and estimates are made for a common and recent period of 

record 1990–2002. 

The tributaries include: Clear, Water Canyon, James 

Canyon, Sierra Canyon, Genoa Canyon, Daggett, Mott Canyon, 

Monument, Stutler Canyon, Sheridan, Jobs Canyon, Luther, 

and Fredericksburg Creeks; Miller Spring; East and West Forks 

Carson River draining the Carson Range; and Buckeye and Pine 
Table 1. Site identifier information, period of record, and drainage area for surface-water sites in Carson Valley[Abbreviations: C, continuous gage site; P, periodic measurement] 

Site no. 

(see 

fig. 2)

Site type Site identifier Site name

Latitude Longitude

Period of record 

in degrees, minutes, seconds

1In Eagle Valley Hydrographic Area.

11 C 10311200 Ash Canyon Creek near Carson City, NV 39°10′35′′ 119°48′17′′ 1976–2002 

2 C 10310500 Clear Creek near Carson City, NV 39°06′48′′ 119°47′50′′ 1963–1981 1989–2002 3 C 10311000 Carson River near Carson City, NV 39°06′28′′ 119°42′44′′ 1939–2002 4 P 10310430 Water Canyon Creek near Genoa, NV 39°04′17′′ 119°50′52′′ 1996–2002 5 P 10310425 James Canyon Creek near Genoa, NV 39°03′07′′ 119°50′25′′ 1997–2002 6 P 10310415 Sierra Canyon Creek near Genoa, NV 39°01′01′′ 119°50′52′′ 1981–1983 1988–1996 7 P 10310410 Genoa Canyon Creek at Genoa, NV 39°00′02′′ 119°51′00′′ 1981–1982 1988–2000 8 C 10310400 Daggett Creek near Genoa, NV 38°57′55′′ 119°50′55′′ 1965–1983 1988–2002 9 P 10310385 Mott Canyon Creek near Minden, NV 38°55′44′′ 119°50′57′′ 1981–1983 1987–1996 

10

P 10310380 Monument Creek near Minden, NV 38°55′03′′ 119°50′44′′ 1997–2002 

11

P 10310375 Stutler Canyon Creek near Minden, NV 38°54′35′′ 119°50′32′′ 1997–2002 

12

P 10310370 Sheridan Creek near Minden, NV 38°53′46′′ 119°50′49′′ 1981–1983 1989–1996 

13

P 10310360 Jobs Canyon Creek near Minden, NV 38°53′26′′ 119°50′20′′ 1981–1983 1989–2002 

14

C 10310350 Miller Spring near Sheridan, NV 38°52′43′′ 119°49′07′′ 1989–1997 

15

P 10310330 Luther Creek near Fredericksburg, CA 38°51′26′′ 119°48′32′′ 1981–1983 1989–1996 

16

C 10310300 Fredericksburg Canyon Creek near Fredericksburg, CA 38°49′38′′ 119°47′56′′ 1989–2000 

17

C 10310000 West Fork Carson River at Woodfords, CA 38°46′11′′ 119°49′58′′ 1938–2002 

18

C 10309000 East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville, NV 38°50′42′′ 119°42′13′′ 1939–2002 

19

C 10309050

Pine Nut Creek near Gardnerville, NV 38°51′34′′ 119°34′02′′ 1980–1997 

20

C 10309070 Buckeye Creek near Minden, NV 38°58′59′′ 119°34′23′′ 1980–1997 
8 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

Nut Creeks draining the Pine Nut Mountains (table 1). Records 

of the Nevada State Engineer (1914) indicate that the drainage 

labeled Jobs Canyon on the Minden 1:24,000-scale USGS 

topographic map was previously called Barber Canyon. To 

reduce confusion and maintain consistency with published 

USGS topographic maps, canyon and creek names from USGS 

topographic maps will be used in this report. Measurements of 

Sheridan Creek include flow from a drainage labeled Barber 

Creek on 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps. Measurements of Stutler Creek do not include small diversions upstream 

of the measuring point. The Clear Creek drainage is north of the 

Carson Valley hydrographic area and the Carson Valley 

subarea and study area for this report, but is tributary to the 

northern part of Carson Valley, entering the Carson River about 

1.5 mi upstream from the point where the river leaves the 

hydrographic area. 

With the exceptions of Mott Canyon, Sheridan, and Jobs 

Canyon Creeks, all data-collection sites draining the Carson 

Range are upstream of the contact between bedrock forming 

the mountain block and unconsolidated sediments forming 

alluvial fans at the mouths of the creeks. The site at Mott 

Canyon Creek is about 2,000 ft downstream from the bedrock 

contact; whereas, the sites at Sheridan and Jobs Canyon Creeks 

are about 1 mi downstream. Estimates of tributary inflow at 

these sites do not account for streamflow that may be lost to 

infiltration between the bedrock contact and the point of 

measurement. The sites at Buckeye and Pine Nut Creeks are 

near the bedrock contact of the Pine Nut Mountains and near the 

downstream point where streamflow consistently is perennial. 

Mean monthly and annual flows were computed from 

continuous records for the period 1990–2002 for five streams 

(sites 2, 3, 8, 17, and 18; fig. 2, table 1), and for the period 

available, 1990–97, for four streams (sites 14, 16, 19 and 20). 

The daily mean flows recorded at 5 gaged drainages in 

the Carson Range were used to derive estimates of streamflow 

tributary to Carson Valley from the 10 ungaged drainages 

where 408 measurements have been made. The gaged drainages 

selected were Ash Canyon, Clear, and Daggett Creeks, and the 

West and East Forks Carson River (sites 1, 2, 8, 17, and 18). 

These drainages were selected to obtain the longest common 

and recent period of record from gaged drainages on the east 

side of the Carson Range in or near Carson Valley that 

coincides with the period when flow measurements were made 

at the ungaged drainages, 1990–2002. 

The use of gaged streamflow data and individual flow 

measurements to derive estimates of mean monthly and annual 

flow for ungaged drainages is presented by Riggs (1969). Riggs 

compared individual flow measurements made at the same time 

each month on ungaged streams with the daily mean flow on the 

same day of a nearby gaged stream with continuous flow 

record. By using this method it is assumed that the discharge 

measured at the middle of the month has about the same ratio to 

the daily mean discharge on the gaged stream as the ratio of the 

two streams’ monthly means. Using a different relation for each 

month, estimates of monthly mean, annual mean, and long-term 

mean annual flow may be made for the ungaged drainages. 

Periodic measurements were made on about a quarterly basis at 

the 10 ungaged drainages in Carson Valley (table 1), but the 

monthly data indicated by Riggs (1969) are not available. For 

this reason an alternative approach was derived. 

The method used for this study follows Riggs’ (1969) 

general concept of comparing individual discharge measurements of ungaged streams against daily mean discharge for the 

same day on gaged streams. Similar to the method of Riggs, it 

is assumed that the individual measurements adequately represented daily mean flow for the ungaged drainages, and most 

measurements were made when flow was stable. Multivariate 

regression models were created for each ungaged drainage. 

All five of the continuous record sites were considered in each 

model, rather than choosing one particular drainage for each 

model. Instead of estimating monthly mean flows, the models 

were used to compute daily mean flows for the period 1990–

2002. 

Standard statistical methods and software were used 

to develop regression equations (SAS Institute, Inc., 1989). 

Individual measurements of flow at each of the ungaged 

drainages were the dependent variables, and the concurrent 

daily mean flow at the gaged drainages were the independent 

variables. Although flows are estimated for the ungaged 

drainages for the period 1990–2002, discharge measurements 

from as early as 1969 were used in developing the regression 

models. The number of discharge measurements available for 

individual drainages ranged from 24 to 65 (table 2). 

Logarithmic models were used for the analysis, with the 

dependent and independent variable transformed by taking the 

common (base 10) logarithm. Stepwise forward and backward 

regression procedures were used to identify the stream gages 

that best predicted streamflow at the ungaged sites and derive 

the final models (routine PROC REG; SAS Institute, Inc., 

1999). 

Stepwise forward regression enters the most significant 

variable not currently included in the model at each step, provided that the significance is at or below a minimum required 

significance, as determined by an F-test. The threshold significance for entry was 0.15. All variables in the model at that step 

are then examined and any with a significance that falls above 

a threshold value of 0.05 are eliminated. Backward regression 

enters all the variables at the first step and eliminates the least 

significant above a threshold value of 0.10 at each step, until all 

remaining variables are significant at or below a threshold value 

of 0.05. This process includes all variables in the final models 

that are significant at the 95 percent confidence level, and 

determines the significance of combinations of the independent 

variables. 

Examination of plots of simulated daily mean flows and 

measured flows led to adding a variable of observed flows that 

had been lagged by 1 day for some drainages. For example, the 

lagged flow of Ash Canyon Creek on January 3, 1995, would be 

the daily mean flow from January 2, 1995. Lagging by 1 day 

attempts to adjust for the difference in timing of hydrologic 

response in the compared drainages to precipitation events. The 

base 10 logarithms for lagged flows were added to the models 
METHODS USED 9

and the models were rerun using lagged values, again using 

stepwise forward and backward regression. In some cases, 

model improvements were great enough to warrant the addition 

of the lagged variables (table 2). 

When the stepwise forward and backward regression 

procedures resulted in different models for either the lagged or 

unlagged data, the model with the coefficients of higher 

significance was chosen. The assumption in this approach is 

that, in a statistical manner, the gaged basins having 

characteristics of the greatest similarity to those of the ungaged 

drainages are selected. The flow data from the gaged streams 

directly define the coefficients of the models, reflecting a 

combination of applicable basin characteristics and the 

hydrologic conditions of the period to be estimated. 

The final regression equations listed in table 2 have 

significant independent variables ranging from 1 to 4 in number 

and coefficients of determination (R2) ranging from 0.61 to 

0.94, 6 of 10 which are greater than 0.8. For comparison, two 

plots of measured versus simulated flow are shown in figure 4; 

one showing results for site 4, Water Canyon Creek (fig. 4A; 

R2 = 0.91), and one showing results from site 12, Sheridan 

Creek (fig. 4B, R2

 = 0.61). Because the R2 values may be 

strongly influenced by outliers such as the high-flow 

measurements included in some of the data sets (Helsel and 

Hirsch, 1992, p. 247), the percent errors associated with the 

final regression models are included in table 2. The percent 

error is the standard error expressed as a percent of the mean or 

the standard error divided by the mean of the measured flows 

and multiplied by 100 (Tasker, 1978). The percent errors range 

from 21 percent at Mott Canyon Creek to 92 percent at Jobs 

Canyon Creek (table 2).

The final model for each ungaged drainage was used to 

develop a data set of daily mean flows for the period 1990–

2002. The simulated flows were plotted for visual comparison 

of fit and inspected for event timing and overall similarity to 

gaged values at nearby streams. The final hydrographs for the 

ungaged drainages showing estimated daily mean flow and 

periodic discharge measurements from 1990 to 2002 are shown 

in figure 5. 

The simulated daily mean flow values for each ungaged 

drainage were used to compute mean flow estimates for each 

month and year from 1990 to 2002. These values were then used 

to compute mean monthly (appendix) and annual flow 

estimates (fig. 6) for the same period in units of acre-feet. The 

computed and estimated mean annual flow of the perennial 

streams was used to determine the unit-area runoff, in units of 

Table 2. Regression model equations, R2 values, percent error, and number of measurements for ungaged drainages in Carson Valley 

with periodic measurements

Drainage Final regression model equation

1Q(t) is daily flow, Q(t-1) is daily flow lagged by 1 day, Qwfc is daily flow at West Fork Carson River, Qefc is daily flow at East Fork Carson River, Qcl is daily 

flow at Clear Creek, Qdag is daily flow at Daggett Creek, Qash is daily flow Ash Canyon Creek.

1

Water Canyon Creek log[Q (t)] = 0.38 log[Qwfc (t)] + 1.63 log[Qcl (t)] - 1.16 log[Q cl (t-1)] - 0.68 0.91 42 27

James Canyon Creek log[Q(t)] = 1.37 log[Qdag (t-1)] + 0.69 log[Qash (t-1)] - 0.59 0.89 36 24

Sierra Canyon Creek log[Q(t)] = 0.56 log[Qash (t)] + 0.51 log[Qcl (t-1)] - 0.39 0.86 35 46

Genoa Canyon Creek log[Q(t)] = 1.05 log[Qwfc(t)] - 1.05 log[Qwfc(t-1)] + 0.61 log[Qcl(t-1)] - 0.33 0.94 22 65

Mott Canyon Creek log[Q(t)] = -0.16 log[Qwfc(t)] +0.15 log[Qcl(t)] + 0.42 log[Qash(t)] + 0.35 0.68 21 52

Monument Creek log[Q(t)] = -0.13 log[Qwfc(t)] + 0.57 log[Qdag(t)] + 0.24 log[Qcl(t)] + 0.5 0.88 57 27

Stutler Canyon Creek log[Q(t) = -0.23 log[Qefc(t)] + 0.53 log[Qcl(t)] + 0.49 log{Qdag(t-1)] - 0.16 0.81 26 33

Sheridan Creek log[Q(t)] = -0.36 log[Qwfc(t)] + 1.28 log[Qash(t)] + 0.18 0.61 65 36

Jobs Canyon Creek log[Q(t)] = 0.54 log[Qdag(t)] - 0.36 log[Qwfc(t-1)]+ 1.05 log[Q ash(t-1) + 0.27 0.74 92 60

Luther Creek log[Q(t)] = 0.79 log[Qash(t-1)] + 0.059 0.76 34 38

R2 Percent

error

Number of

measurements
10 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

A Water Canyon Creek (site 4)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

MEASURED FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

ESTIMATED FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ESTIMATED FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

B Sheridan Creek (site 12)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Figure 4. Measured and simulated flows for (A) Water Canyon Creek and (B) Sheridan Creek.
6LHUUD&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH 0RQXPHQW&UHHNVLWH

-DPHV&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH 0RWW&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH:DWHU&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH *HQRD&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH

(VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU 

(VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU (VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU (VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU 

(VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU (VWLPDWHGGDLO\0HDVXUHGU 

                         

'$7( '$7(































)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21' )/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21' )/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21' )/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'   







Figure 5. Estimated daily mean flow and periodic measurements of flow for ungaged perennial drainages, 1990–2002. See figure 2 for site loca
6KHULGDQ&UHHNVLWH /XWKHU&UHHNVLWH 6WXWOHU&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH -REV&DQ\RQ&UHHNVLWH (VWLPDWHGGDLO\ 0HDVXUHG U  (VWLPDWHGGDLO\ 0HDVXUHG U  (VWLPDWHGGDLO\ 0HDVXUHG U  (VWLPDWHGGDLO\ 0HDVXUHG U         '$7( '$7(                   

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'

)/2:,1&8%,&)((73(56(&21'    

















Figure 5. Estimated daily mean flow and periodic measurements of flow for ungaged perennial drainages, 1990–2002—Continued.
Figure 6. Computed and estimated mean annual flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to Carson Valley, 1990See figure 2 for site location.

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

CLEAR

CREEK

(SITE 2)

* SIERRA

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 6)

* MOTT

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 9)

* SHERIDAN

CREEK

(SITE 12)

* LUTHER

CREEK

(SITE 15)

BUC

CR

(SI

ANNUAL FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

* WATER

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 4)

* JAMES

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 5)

* GENOA

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 7)

DAGGETT

CREEK

(SITE 8)

* MONUMENT

CREEK

(SITE 10)

* STUTLER

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 11)

* JOBS

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 13)

MILLER

SPRING

(SITE 14)

FREDERICKSBURG

CANYON

CREEK

(SITE 16)

PINE NUT

CREEK

(SITE 19)

* Estimated value
Table 3. Computed and estimated mean annual flow of gaged and ungaged perennial streams and ephemeral drainages tributary to Carso

mean annual flow for period of record at gaged sites, annual flow estimated by Maurer (1986), drainage area, and unit-area flow

[Abbreviation: na, not applicable] 

Site no. 

(see fig. 2) Site name

Computed and estimated 

annual flow 1990–2002

1Computed flow rounded to three significant figures, estimated flow rounded to two significant figures.

1

, 

in acre-feet

Perennial streams

2 Clear Creek 4,210 4,070 na 9,920 4 Water Canyon Creek

3Annual flow estimated from regression equations.

3 1,900 na na 1,720 

5 James Canyon Creek3 1,300 na na 1,325 6 Sierra Canyon Creek3 1,500 na 1,000 2,040 7 Genoa Canyon Creek3 960 na 900 1,415 8 Daggett Creek 1,200 1,360 1,400 2,445 9 Mott Canyon Creek3 1,700 na 2,300 1,290 

10 Monument Creek3 2,600 na 2,300 1,515 11 Stutler Canyon Creek3 450 na 1,200 1,495 12 Sheridan Creek3 1,300 na 900 645 13 Jobs Canyon Creek3 1,700 na 1,800 2,015 14 Miller Spring 632 633 na indetermin15 Luther Creek3 2,200 na 2,800 2,845 16 Fredericksburg Canyon Creek 2,890 3,230 4,700 2,375 

Total: West side 24,500 na na 21,125

4Calculated using total flow on western side minus flow of Miller Spring.

19

Pine Nut Creek 665 918 na 6,390 

20 Buckeye Creek 692 645 na 29,155 

Total: East side 1,360 na na 35,545 

Total: Perennial stream inflow 25,900 na 18,400 56,670 

Ephemeral drainages

Ephemeral drainages above valley floor, western side 8,100 na na 14,200

5Half of unit-area flow for perennial streams on western side because most drainages do not extend to top of Carson Range.

Ephemeral drainages above valley floor, eastern side 3,600 na na 89,000

6Unit-area flow for perennial streams on eastern side.

Total: 

Ephemeral inflow 11,700 na 6,000 103,200 

TOTAL: All tributary inflow 37,600 na 24,000 159,870 

Mainstem Carson River

17 West Fork Carson River 75,150

7From Berris and others (2003).

780,320 na 741,860 

18 East Fork Carson River 257,000 7276,400 na 7227,840 

3 Carson River near Carson City, NV 287,300 7296,500 na 7567,040 

Annual flow for 

period of record, 

in acre-feet

Annual flow

estimated by

Maurer (1986),

in acre-feet

Drainage ar

in acres

2Computed or estimated annual flow 1990–2002 divided by drainage area, unless otherwise noted.
UPDATED COMPUTATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF STREAMFLOWS TRIBUTARY TO CARSON VALLEY 15

feet, by dividing by the area, in acres, of each drainage. These 

values were used to estimate tributary inflow from ephemeral 

drainages on the western and eastern sides of Carson Valley.

UPDATED COMPUTATIONS AND 

ESTIMATES OF STREAMFLOWS 

TRIBUTARY TO CARSON VALLEY

The computations and estimates of mean annual flow of 

perennial streams tributary to Carson Valley show estimated 

inflow for the period 1990–2002 totaled about 25,900 acre-ft/yr 

(fig. 6, table 3). The inflow includes 6 streams with continuously recording gages and estimates for 10 ungaged drainages, 

representing all perennial streams tributary to the valley. Inflow 

computed from gaged drainages totals 10,300 acre-ft/yr, and 

inflow estimated from ungaged drainages totals about 15,600 

acre-ft/yr. These drainages have a total area of about 56,670 

acres; 21,125 acres cover the western side of the valley and 

35,545 acres cover the eastern side (table 3).

Mean annual flow for the period 1990–2002 is within 

about 10 percent of the flow computed for the entire period of 

record at most gaged drainages (table 3). Mean flow for Pine 

Nut Creek is about 30 percent greater for the entire period of 

record than for 1990–97. With the exception of Clear and 

Buckeye Creeks, mean flows for all other streams computed for 

the entire period of record are greater than those computed for 

1990–2002. This indicates that the period 1990–2002 was 

somewhat drier than normal. Figure 7A graphically shows the 

difference in the mean annual flow of the East Fork of the 

Carson River for the period 1939–2002 and for 1990–2002. 

As stated previously, the 1971–2000 average annual 

precipitation at Minden, NV, was 8.38 in/yr (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, p. 12) and is nearly the 

same as average annual precipitation for the period 1990–2002 

at 8.45 in/yr (fig 7B; Western Regional Climate Center, 2003). 

Similarly, the average annual precipitation for 1971–2000 at 

Heavenly Valley, CA, is 32.9 in/yr (Chris Pacheco, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, oral commun., 2003), and the 

average for 1990–2002 is 33.3 in/yr (Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 2004). Heavenly Valley is near the crest 

of the Carson Range near the Mott Canyon Creek drainage (site 

9; fig. 2). Thus, from available data near the floor of Carson 

Valley and the crest of the Carson Range, precipitation for the 

period 1990–2002 was not significantly different than for the 

period 1971–2000.

Although precipitation averages are about equal for 1971–

2000 and 1990–2002, conditions during 1990–2002 were quite 

variable. Prior to the early 1980’s, precipitation generally 

fluctuated almost annually from above normal to below normal 

with relatively few periods of extended above or below normal 

conditions. Following two extremely wet years in 1982 and 

1983, conditions fluctuated from generally below average for 

1984–92 to above average for 1993–98 and below average for 

1998–2002 (fig. 7B). Flow of the East Fork Carson River 

generally has followed the trends in annual precipitation (fig. 

7A). Because of the extended periods of below and above 

normal precipitation from 1990–2002, it may be largely 

fortuitous that average precipitation for that period is similar to 

the 1971–2000 average.

The annual flow of perennial streams ranges from 4,210 

acre-ft/yr at Clear Creek to 450 acre-ft/yr at Stutler Canyon 

Creek (fig. 6, table 3). The drainage area for Clear Creek is by 

far larger than any other in the Carson Range tributary to Carson 

Valley (table 1). However, the drainage area for Stutler Canyon 

Creek is quite similar to other drainages. Similarly, the drainage 

areas for Pine Nut and Buckeye Creeks are quite large 

compared to streams draining the Carson Range, yet mean 

annual flow is relatively small. 

For a more direct comparison, annual unit-area runoff for 

the drainages, in feet, was calculated by dividing the computed 

or estimated annual flow, in acre-feet, by the area of the drainages, in acres (table 3). Annual unit-area runoff for streams 

draining the Carson Range ranges from 0.30 ft for Stutler 

Canyon to 2.02 ft for Sheridan Creek. Unit-area runoff for Pine 

Nut and Buckeye Creeks draining the Pine Nut Mountains is 

much less, 0.1 and 0.02 ft, respectively. This difference likely is 

caused by the rain-shadow effect of the Sierra Nevada, which 

decreases the amount of annual precipitation in the Pine Nut 

Mountains. 

Variations in the seasonal distribution of inflow are 

apparent from the graphs of mean monthly flow shown in the 

appendix. On the East and West Forks and mainstem of the 

Carson River, monthly flows are greatest during spring runoff, 

generally in May and June. Similar flow distributions are seen 

for Water Canyon, James Canyon, Sierra Canyon, Daggett, 

Luther, Fredericksburg, and Pine Nut Creeks. Monthly flows 

are greatest during winter months, typically December through 

March, at Clear, Genoa Canyon, Monument Canyon, Jobs 

Canyon and Buckeye Creeks. At Miller Spring, flow is 

relatively uniform, but greatest during late summer and fall with 

lowest flows during spring months. At Mott Canyon, Stutler 

Canyon, and Sheridan Creeks, flow also is relatively uniform 

throughout the year. These variations and variations in unit-area 

runoff likely are caused by differences in geologic setting, 

altitude, slope, or aspect of the individual drainages. 

The remaining drainages tributary to Carson Valley are 

largely ephemeral and supply flow to the valley floor only 

during spring runoff in extremely wet years or during large 

precipitation events. The area of ephemeral drainages above the 

valley floor (about 4,800 ft above sea level) totals about 14,200 

acres on the western side of the valley and 89,000 acres on the 

eastern side (fig. 2, table 3). Many of the ephemeral drainages 

do not extend to the crest of the Carson Range on the western 

side of the valley, and ephemeral drainages cover large areas of 

low altitude on the eastern side of the valley. 

On the western side of Carson Valley, annual unit-area 

runoff for the combined area of perennial drainages is 1.13 ft, 

excluding flow of Miller Spring which has an indeterminate 

drainage area (table 3). Because the ephemeral drainages on the 
16 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

B

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

DATE

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Average 1971-2000

Average 1990-2002

A

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

ANNUAL FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

Average 1939-2002

Average 1990-2002

Figure 7. (A) Annual flow of the East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville, Nevada, and average annual flow for 

1939–2002 and 1990–2002 and (B) annual precipitation at Minden, Nevada, for period of record and average annual 

precipitation for 1971–2000 and 1990–2002.
UPDATED COMPUTATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF STREAMFLOWS TRIBUTARY TO CARSON VALLEY 17

western side of the valley generally do not extend to the crest of 

the Carson Range, a reasonable assumption may be that the 

unit-area runoff from these drainages is about half (0.57 ft) that 

of the perennial drainages. This value is less than those for most 

perennial drainages on the western side of the valley, but greater 

than three drainages: Clear, Daggett, and Stutler Canyon Creeks 

(table 3). Applying a unit-area runoff of 0.57 ft to the 14,200 

acres of ephemeral drainages results in an estimate of about 

8,100 acre-ft/yr for 1990–2002 (table 3).

On the eastern side of Carson Valley, annual unit-area 

runoff for the combined area of Pine Nut and Buckeye Creeks 

is 0.04 ft (table 3). These drainages cover areas of relatively 

high altitude along the crest of the Pine Nut Mountains (fig. 2). 

Ephemeral drainages on the eastern side of the valley cover only 

a small part of the crest of the Pine Nut Mountains, with the 

remainder at relatively low altitudes, indicating a relatively 

low unit-area runoff may be applicable. However, streamflow 

from the ephemeral drainages generally is not derived from 

snowmelt runoff but usually occurs during intense summer 

thunderstorms, generating large peak flows, but of a very short 

duration. Peak flows as great as 1,400 and 3,000 ft3/s have been 

estimated for ungaged drainages on the northeastern side of the 

valley (Berris and others, 2003, p. 420), indicating a relatively 

high unit-area runoff may be applicable. For these reasons, a 

unit-area runoff of 0.04 ft may provide a reasonable average 

value for the ungaged ephemeral drainages. Applying an annual 

unit-area runoff of 0.04 ft to the 89,000 acres of ephemeral 

drainages results in an estimate of about 3,600 acre-ft/yr (table 

3). Total ephemeral inflow from the eastern and western sides 

of the valley is 11,700 acre-ft/yr. 

Combining the estimates of ephemeral inflow with the 

computed and estimated inflows from gaged and ungaged 

perennial drainages results in a total tributary inflow of about 

37,600 acre-ft/yr (table 3). Gaged perennial inflow is 27 percent 

of the total, ungaged perennial inflow is 42 percent, and 

ephemeral inflow is 31 percent.

Comparison of the estimate of total tributary inflow with 

previous estimates is difficult because previous work often 

covered different areas. The estimate of 37,600 acre-ft/yr is 

about 50 percent greater than that of Piper (1969, p. 7) who 

estimated 24,800 acre-ft/yr for an area including the Clear and 

Indian Creeks drainages. The estimate also is about 60 percent 

greater than that of Maurer (1986, p. 37), 24,000 acre-ft/yr, who 

did not include flow from Water Canyon, James Canyon, 

Sheridan Canyon, Pine Nut, and Buckeye Creeks; and the 

Nevada State Engineer (1971, p. 57), 24,000 acre-ft/yr for a 

similar area. The estimate is similar to the 34,000 and 42,000 

acre-ft/yr estimated by Glancy and Katzer (1976, p. 34) and 

Spane (1977, p. 65–66), respectively. However, the studies of 

Glancy and Katzer and Spane covered larger areas. 

Comparison of the estimated flow for individual streams 

made previously by Maurer (table 3; 1986, p. 15) shows estimates at most streams increased with the exception of Sierra, 

Genoa, and Monument Creeks. Estimates increased from 10 to 

as much as 60 percent for Stutler Canyon Creek. Estimates for 

Sierra, Genoa, and Monument Creeks decreased from about 6 

to 40 percent. Estimates made by Maurer (1986) were based on 

relatively few measurements made during 1981–83. 

Uncertainty of Estimates

The uncertainty associated with the estimates of perennial 

tributary inflow may be approximated from the descriptions of 

records for gaged streams. The uncertainty of the estimates of 

ungaged perennial and ephemeral inflow is more difficult to 

determine.

Descriptions of records for gaged streams are good at 

Clear and Daggett Creeks, fair at Pine Nut and Buckeye Creeks 

and mainstem Carson River gages, and poor at Fredericksburg 

Canyon Creek and Miller Spring (Berris and others, 2003, p. 

178, 185–186, and 190–191; Allander and others, 2001, p. 163; 

Bonner and others, 1998, p. 147–148 and 153). Records 

described as good, fair, and poor have accuracies within 10, 15, 

and greater than 15 percent, respectively (Berris and others, 

2003, p. 21). The combined accuracy of gaged data may be 

reasonably approximated by an overall value of about 15 

percent. Applying this percentage to the total 10,300 acre-ft/yr 

of gaged inflow an uncertainty of about 1,500 acre-ft/yr is 

obtained or about 4 percent of the total tributary inflow.

The uncertainty of the estimates for ungaged perennial 

inflow, in part, depends on the number and distribution of 

streamflow measurements during 1990–2002 used to develop 

the regression equations. Genoa Canyon and Jobs Canyon 

Creeks have the greatest number of measurements, distributed 

over the entire 12-year period (table 2). However, the percent 

error for the regression equation developed for Jobs Canyon 

Creek is large (92 percent). The remaining drainages have fewer 

measurements and the measurements were made either over the 

first part or last part of the 12-year period. The percent error for 

regression equations developed for these drainages ranges from 

21 to 57 percent. However, the percent error values apply only 

to the daily mean flows estimated for the days of measurement 

on the ungaged drainages, and cannot be directly applied to the 

entire series of estimated daily mean flows. A reasonable 

maximum uncertainty of the estimates of inflow from ungaged 

perennial drainages may be about 30 percent of their total 

15,600 acre-ft/yr or about 5,000 acre-ft/yr. This volume is about 

13 percent of the total tributary inflow. 

A large amount of uncertainty is associated with the 

estimate of 11,700 acre-ft/yr of flow from ephemeral drainages 

in Carson Valley. However, the lack of streamflow data from 

these drainages precludes more accurate estimates. Varying the 

annual unit-area runoff for ephemeral drainages on the western 

side of the valley from 0.30 to 1.0 ft, the range for most 

perennial drainages, results in a range of 4,200 and 14,200 acreft/yr. Similarly, for ephemeral drainages on the eastern side of 

the valley, varying the annual unit-area runoff from 0.02 to 0.1, 

the values for Buckeye and Pine Nut Creeks, respectively, 

results in a range of 1,800 and 8,900 acre-ft/yr. Combining 

these ranges results in estimates of total ephemeral flow from 
18 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

6,000 to 23,000 acre-ft/yr. The value of 23,000 acre-ft/yr is 

unreasonably high given the relatively low altitude of the 

ephemeral drainages. A more reasonable estimate for the range 

in ephemeral inflow is from 6,000 to 18,000 acre-ft/yr. Thus, 

the uncertainty in estimates of ephemeral inflow is plus or 

minus 6,000 acre-ft/yr, about 50 percent of the total 11,700 

acre-ft/yr, or 16 percent of the total tributary inflow. Combining 

the uncertainty of inflow from gaged, ungaged, and ephemeral 

drainages results in a total of 33 percent of the total tributary 

inflow or about 12,000 acre-ft/yr. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

To address concerns over continued availability of water 

resources in Carson Valley, the USGS, in cooperation with 

Douglas County, began a study in 2003 to update estimates of 

water-budget components in Carson Valley to reflect current 

climatic conditions. Streamflow data were collected at 9 continuously recording streamflow gages and at 10 sites in ungaged 

drainages where 408 measurements were made. Data collected 

at these sites were compiled and analyzed to provide updated 

computations and estimates of tributary streamflows and 

Carson River outflow from the valley for the period 1990–2002.

Mean monthly and annual flows were computed from 

continuous records for the period 1990–2002 for five streams, 

and for the period available, 1990–97, for four streams. Multivariate regression equations were developed to estimate daily 

mean streamflows at the 10 perennial but ungaged drainages 

using the continuous flow record at selected gaged sites. The 

estimated daily mean flows for each of the 10 ungaged drainages from 1990 to 2002 were used to calculate monthly and 

annual mean flows for each month and year, and mean monthly 

and annual flow for the period 1990–2002. 

For the period 1990–2002, the computations and estimates 

of mean annual flow of perennial streams tributary to Carson 

Valley indicate estimated inflow totaled about 25,900 acreft/yr. Inflow computed from gaged perennial drainages totals 

10,300 acre-ft/yr, and inflow estimated from ungaged perennial 

drainages totals 15,600 acre-ft/yr. The remaining drainages are 

ephemeral and supply flow to the valley floor only during 

spring runoff in wet years or during large precipitation events. 

Mean annual flow for the period 1990–2002 is within 

about 10 percent, but less than flow computed for the entire 

period of record at most of the six gaged drainages. This 

indicates that the period 1990–2002 was somewhat drier than 

normal. From available data near the floor of Carson Valley and 

the crest of the Carson Range, it appears that precipitation for 

the period 1990–2002 was not significantly different than for 

the period 1971–2000. However, prior to the early 1980’s, 

precipitation generally fluctuated almost annually from above 

normal to below normal with relatively few periods of extended 

above or below normal conditions. After the early 1980’s, 

conditions fluctuated from generally below average for 1984–

92 to above average for 1993–98 and below average for 1998–

2002. Because of the extended periods of below and above 

normal precipitation from 1990–2002, it may be largely fortuitous that average precipitation for that period is similar to the 

1971–2000 average.

The annual flow of perennial streams ranges from 4,210 

acre-ft/yr at Clear Creek to 450 acre-ft/yr at Stutler Canyon 

Creek. Calculated annual unit-area runoff for the drainages in 

the Carson Range ranges from 0.30 ft for Stutler Canyon to 2.02 

ft for Sheridan Creek. Unit-area runoff for Pine Nut and 

Buckeye Creeks draining the Pine Nut Mountains is much less, 

0.1 and 0.02 ft, respectively. The difference, likely is caused by 

the rain-shadow effect of the Sierra Nevada, which decreases 

the amount of annual precipitation in the Pine Nut Mountains. 

On the mainstem of the Carson River and at Water 

Canyon, James Canyon, Sierra Canyon, Daggett, Luther, 

Fredericksburg, and Pine Nut Creeks, monthly flows are 

greatest during spring runoff, generally in May and June. 

Monthly flows are greatest during winter months, typically 

December through March, at Clear, Genoa Canyon, Monument 

Canyon, Jobs Canyon, and Buckeye Creeks. At Miller Spring 

and Mott Canyon, Stutler Canyon, and Sheridan Creeks, flow is 

relatively uniform throughout the year. Streamflow variations 

and variations in unit-area runoff likely are caused by differences in geologic setting, altitude, slope, or aspect of the 

individual drainages. 

The area of ephemeral drainages above the valley floor 

totals about 14,200 acres on the western side of the valley and 

89,000 acres on the eastern side. Many of the ephemeral drainages on the western side of the valley do not extend to the crest 

of the Carson Range, and on the eastern side of the valley, cover 

large areas of low altitude. On the western side of the valley, 

applying an annual unit-area runoff half of that for perennial 

streams, 0.57 ft, results in an estimate of about 8,100 acre-ft/yr 

for inflow from the ephemeral drainages. On the eastern side of 

the valley, applying an annual unit-area runoff for the combined 

area of Pine Nut and Buckeye Creeks, 0.04 ft, results in an estimate of about 3,600 acre-ft/yr for inflow from the ephemeral 

drainages. Total estimated ephemeral inflow is 11,700 acreft/yr.

Combining the estimates of inflow from ephemeral drainages with the computed and estimated inflows from perennial 

drainages results in a total tributary inflow of about 37,600 acreft/yr. Gaged perennial inflow is 27 percent of the total, ungaged 

perennial inflow is 42 percent, and ephemeral inflow is 31 

percent. Comparison of the estimate of tributary flow with 

previous estimates is difficult because previous work covered 

different areas. The estimate of 37,600 acre-ft/yr is from 50 to 

60 percent greater than three previous estimates, one made for 

a larger area and similar to two other estimates made for larger 

areas. 

The uncertainty associated with the estimates of inflow 

from perennial drainages was approximated from the descriptions of records for gaged streams to be about 15 percent; 1,500 

acre-ft/yr of their total or 4 percent of the total inflow. The 

uncertainty associated with estimates of ungaged perennial 

inflow is about 30 percent; 5,000 acre-ft/yr of their total or 
REFERENCES CITED 19

about 13 percent of total inflow. The uncertainty of inflow from 

ephemeral drainages, estimated by applying a range of annual 

unit-area runoff values to their areas on the western and eastern 

sides of the valley, was 6,000 acre-ft/yr; 50 percent of their total 

or about 13 percent of the total inflow. The resulting uncertainty 

of gaged, ungaged, and ephemeral tributary inflows is about 33 

percent of the total 37,600 acre-ft/yr or about 12,000 acre-ft/yr. 

REFERENCES CITED

Allander, Kip, Gortsema, Gary, Hutchinson, Douglas, and 

Schwartzenberger, James, 2001, Water Resources Data 

Nevada Water Year 2000: U.S. Geological Survey WaterData Report NV-00-1, 570 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.

Bonner, L.J., Elliott, P.E., Etchemendy, L.P., and Swartwood, 

J.R., 1998, Water Resources Data Nevada Water Year 2000: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV-97-1, 636 p.

Cardinalli, J.L., Roach, L.M., Rush, F.E., and Vasey, F.J., 

comps., 1968, State of Nevada hydrographic areas: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources Bulletin 33, 162 p.

Economic Research Service, 2004, County-level population 

data for Nevada: Accessed on March 5, 2004, at URL 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Population/ Poplist.asp?ST=

NV&LongName=Nevada>.

Glancy, P.A., and Katzer, T.L., 1976, Water-resources 

appraisal of the Carson River Basin, Western Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series, Report 59, 126 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: Studies in Environmental Science 49: 

Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, NY, 521 p.

Hess, G.W., 1999, Hydrologic data for water years 1978–97 

used in daily flow-routing and river-operations models for 

the upper Carson River Basin, California and Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-256, 16 p.

Maurer, D., K., 1986, Geohydrology and simulated response to 

ground-water pumpage in Carson Valley, a river-dominated 

basin in Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86-4328, 109 p.

Maurer, D.K., and Peltz, L.A., 1994, Potential for, and possible 

effects of, artificial recharge in Carson Valley, Douglas 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4126, 4 sheets.

Moore, D.O., 1968, Estimating mean runoff in ungaged 

semiarid areas: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin No. 36, 39 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, 

Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and 

heating and cooling degree days, 1971–2000, Climatology of 

the United States, no. 81, Nevada: National Climatic Data 

Center, Asheville, NC, 26 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004, Accumulated 

precipitation and monthly statistics: Accessed on January 20, 

2004, at URL: <http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

climate/avg/export.html>.

Nevada State Engineer, 1914, Cultural plat maps of Barber 

Canyon Creek: 1:7,200 scale, October 2, 1914, 2 sheets.

Nevada State Engineer, 1971, Nevada’s water resources: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, Water for Nevada 

Report 3, 87 p.

Piper, A.M., 1969, A water budget of the Carson Valley, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 417-F, 8 

p.

Riggs, H.C., 1969, Mean streamflow from discharge 

measurements: Bulletin of the International Association of 

Scientific Hydrology, v. 24, no. 4, p. 95–110.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources, Information Report 6, 38 p.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1989, SAS/STAT User's Guide, version 6: 

Cary, NC, 4th ed., v. 2, 846 p.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1999, SAS OnlineDoc, version eight: 

Accessed on August 23, 2004, at URL: 

<http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml>.

Spane, F.A., 1977, Evaluation of factors influencing the 

inorganic water-quality regimen of Carson River, Carson 

Valley, Nevada–California: University of Nevada, Reno, 

Ph.D. thesis, 205 p.

Tasker, G.D., 1978, Relation between standard errors in log 

units and standard errors in percent: U.S. Geological Survey, 

WRD Bulletin, Jan–Mar — Apr–June 1978, p. 86–87.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2003, Census 2000 geographic 

comparison table: Accessed in December 2003, at URL: 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004, 2002 Census of 

agriculture, Nevada, county summary highlights: Accessed 

on August 23, 2004, at URL: 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census>. 

Western Region Climate Center, 2003, 1971–2000 Climate 

Summary: Accessed on August 23, 2004, for Minden at 

URL: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/ 

cliMAIN.pl?nvmind>, and for Daggett Pass at URL: 

<http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nvdagg>.
20 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002
APPENDIX 21

Appendix: Graphs showing computed and estimated 

mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial 

streams tributary to Carson Valley, 1990–2002
22 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002
APPENDIX 23

Clear Creek (site 2) - Computed

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Water Canyon Creek (site 4) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

James Canyon Creek (site 5) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002. See figure 2 for site locations.
24 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

Daggett Creek (site 8) - Computed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sierra Canyon Creek (site 6) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Genoa Canyon Creek (site 7) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.
APPENDIX 25

Mott Canyon Creek (site 9) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Monument Creek (site 10) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Stutler Canyon Creek (site 11) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.
26 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

Miller Spring (site 14) - Computed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sheridan Creek (site 12) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Jobs Canyon Creek (site 13) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.
APPENDIX 27

Fredericksburg Canyon Creek (site 16) - Computed 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Pine Nut Creek (site 19) - Computed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Luther Creek (site 15) - Estimated

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.
28 Updated Computations and Estimates of Streamflows Tributary to Carson Valley, Douglas County, NV, and Alpine County, CA, 1990–2002

Buckeye Creek (site 20) - Computed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville, NV (site 18) - Computed

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

West Fork Carson River at Woodfords, CA (site 17) - Computed

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.
APPENDIX 29

Carson River near Carson City, NV (site 3) - Computed

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

FLOW, IN ACRE-FEET

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Appendix. Computed and estimated mean monthly flow for gaged and ungaged perennial streams tributary to 

Carson Valley, 1990–2002—Continued.