Response to memorandum by Rowley and Dixon regarding U.S. 

Geological Survey report titled “Characterization of Surface-Water 

Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their 

Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White 

Pine County, Nevada” 

By David E. Prudic, U.S. Geological Survey, Nevada Water Science Center, Carson City, Nevada 

Open File Report 2006-1342 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1 
2 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

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

 

For product and ordering information: 

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
3 

Abstract 

Applications pending for permanent permits to pump large quantities of ground water in 

Spring and Snake Valleys adjacent to Great Basin National Park (the Park) prompted the 

National Park Service to request a study by the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate the 

susceptibility of the Park’s surface-water resources to pumping. The result of this study was 

published as U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5099 

“Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their 

Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada,” 

by P.E. Elliott, D.A. Beck, and D.E. Prudic. That report identified areas within the Park where 

surface-water resources are susceptible to ground-water pumping; results from the study showed 

that three streams and several springs near the eastern edge of the Park were susceptible. 

However, most of the Park’s surface-water resources likely would not be affected by pumping 

because of either low-permeability rocks or because ground water is sufficiently deep as to not 

be directly in contact with the streambeds. 

A memorandum sent by Peter D. Rowley and Gary L. Dixon, Consulting Geologists, to 

the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) on June 29, 2006 was critical of the report. The 

memorandum by Rowley and Dixon was made available to the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the public during the Nevada State Engineer’s “Evidentiary Exchange” 

process for the recent hearing on applications for ground-water permits by SNWA in Spring 

Valley adjacent to Great Basin National Park. The U.S. Geological Survey was asked by the 

National Park Service to assess the validity of the concerns and comments contained in the 

Rowley and Dixon memorandum. 

An Administrative Letter Report responding to Rowley and Dixon’s concerns and 

comments was released to the National Park Service on October 30, 2006. The National Park 

Service subsequently requested that the contents with three minor changes to the Administrative 

Letter Report be released to the public. The first paragraph was revised to better explain how the 

memorandum was brought to the attention of the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological 

Survey and the purpose of the Administrative Letter Report. The second and third changes were 

minor word changes to the end of the first sentence at the top of page 11 and in the Summary 

statement, respectively. The Administrative Letter Report with these minor changes is 

reproduced herein. 

Lastly, the National Park Service asked me to explain the difference between potentially 

and likely susceptible areas used in the report. Admittedly, the report did not clearly explain their 

usage. Potentially susceptible areas were used in the report to identify areas where (1) ground 

water interacts with water in the creeks but the connection between permeable rocks in the 

mountains with the basin fill is uncertain or where (2) ground-water interaction with water in the 

creeks is less certain but permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely susceptible areas 

were used to identify areas in the mountains and valleys where ground-water interacts with water 

in the creeks or discharges as springs and permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely 

susceptible areas are, therefore, more vulnerable to ground-water pumping. 
United States 

Department of the Interior 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

NEVADA WATER SCIENCE CENTER 

2730 N. Deer Run Road 

Carson City, Nevada 89701 

October 30, 2006 

Mr. Charles W. Pettee, Chief 

Water Rights Branch 

Water Resources Division 

National Park Service 

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

Subject: Administrative Letter Report –Response to memorandum by Rowley and Dixon 

regarding U.S. Geological Survey report titled “Characterization of SurfaceWater Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their 

Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine 

County, Nevada” 

Dear Mr. Pettee: 

This letter is my response to your request to assess comments contained in a 

memorandum sent by Peter D. Rowley and Gary L. Dixon, Consulting Geologists, to the 

Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) on June 29, 2006 that was critical of a recent report 

we did for the National Park Service titled “Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the 

Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in 

Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada,” by P.E. Elliott, D.A. Beck, and D.E. Prudic and 

published as U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5099.” The 

memorandum by Rowley and Dixon was made available to the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the public during the Nevada State Engineer’s “Evidentiary Exchange” 

process for the recent hearing on applications for ground-water permits by SNWA in Spring 

Valley adjacent to Great Basin National Park. 

4 
5 

Before I begin my response, I would like to summarize the purpose and objectives of the 

study that led to the report. Applications pending for permanent permits to pump large quantities 

of ground water in Spring and Snake Valleys adjacent to Great Basin National Park (referred 

hereafter as the Park) prompted the National Park Service to request a study to evaluate the 

susceptibility of the Park’s surface-water resources to pumping. Susceptible areas are defined as 

areas where ground water interacts with water in the creeks and where underlying rocks and 

deposits are sufficiently permeable to provide a connection with basin-fill deposits in the valley. 

The objectives were to assess the surface-water resources and to identify areas susceptible to 

ground-water pumping. Thus, the study was a simple vulnerability analysis. 

The approach we took for the study was to install streamflow gages on the principal 

creeks draining the Park and on a spring at the Park’s boundary near Lehman Caves. We 

classified the different groups of rocks and deposits into general categories on the basis of their 

permeability. Discharge along the creeks was measured at sites corresponding to changes in 

geology. Results from the study showed that most of the Park’s surface-water resources likely 

would not be affected by ground-water pumping because of either low-permeability rocks 

(granite and quartzite) or because ground water is sufficiently deep as to not be directly in 

contact with the streambeds. The latter is the case for much of the southern end of the Park. 

Rowley and Dixon listed four concerns regarding the report, which are: 

1. “Its fundamental premise that data from seepage tests or stream gages can be used to 

pinpoint streams that might dry up from well pumping of groundwater miles away and 

hundreds of feet lower”; 

2. “Methodology problems that make some conclusions doubtful”; 

3. “Inaccurate application of geology”; and 

4. “Poor writing that hinders understanding of the report”. 

My response to each concern is discussed sequentially in the following paragraphs. 

Response to Rowley and Dixon’s first concern “ its fundamental premise that data from 

seepage tests or stream gages can be used to pinpoint streams that might dry up 

from well pumping of groundwater miles away and hundreds of feet lower”: 

A standard approach for evaluating stream interaction with ground water is the 

measurement of gains and losses along a stream using seepage tests and streamflow gages. Many 

studies that used measurements of gains and losses from seepage tests and streamflow gages are 

listed at the end of the letter. The references are but a few examples of such studies. Besides 

numerous studies that used seepage tests and streamflow gages to evaluate ground-water 

interactions with streams, a large body of literature has been written on stream depletion caused 

by ground-water pumping. Many of these studies also are listed in the references. 
6 

The work on stream depletion caused by ground-water pumping began with a famous 

publication by C.V. Theis (1940). Theis noted in this paper that the cone of depression around a 

well (or group of wells) will expand until the volume removed by pumping is replenished by an 

equal volume of increased ground-water recharge, decreased natural discharge, or a combination 

of both. Theis also noted that the cone of depression could extend miles from pumping wells; 

studies in areas of concentrated pumping confirm his statement. 

 We know from the ground-water flow equations for confined and unconfined flow 

(Fetter, 1994, p. 141–152) that a cone of depression can expand quickly for many miles soon 

after the well is pumped when the rocks are permeable and have minimal storage capacity. 

Similarly, a cone of depression will expand much slower when rocks are less permeable and 

have a high storage capacity. Consequently, the cone of depression from pumping in either 

Spring Valley or Snake Valley could extend up into the southern Snake Range and is dependent 

on the quantity and location of the pumping, the permeability and storage capacity of the various 

rocks and deposits, and areas of ground-water discharge or recharge that can be captured. Thus, 

Rowley and Dixon’s contention that “it is a real stretch of the imagination to conceive of a cone 

of depression reaching miles and hundreds of feet up the flank of the Snake Range to where any 

stream within Great Basin Park exists” can only be correct if pumping in the adjacent valleys is 

less than what can be captured from evapotranspiration and the rocks in the mountains are 

impermeable, which means ground-water recharge in the mountains would be nil. 

Four examples are used to illustrate why Rowley and Dixon’s statement is incorrect. 

First, pumping from many wells for irrigation in Pahrump Valley in southern Nevada resulted in 

the demise of both Bennett and Manse Springs (Harrill, 1986, p. 22), and a recent reduction in 

ground-water pumping has resulted in the reemergence of flow at Manse Spring. Second, 

ground-water pumping from numerous wells has lowered the ground-water head over a large 

region south of Sacramento, California, and caused the Cosumnes River to become intermittent 

during fall salmon runs (Fleckenstein and others, 2004, Journal of Water Resources Planning and 

Management, v. 130, no. 4, p. 301–310). Third, cumulative pumping in the Arkansas River 

Valley in Colorado, including wells many miles from the river, lowered ground-water head and 

resulted in a marked decrease in streamflow of the Arkansas River in Kansas (Sophocleous, 

2000, p. 27–43). 

Fourth, pumping at the Lone Tree mine near Valmy, Nevada that commenced in 1992 

resulted in a water-level decline of about 20 feet in 8 years at a monitoring well (well MIL2001-

1) on Battle Mountain (the mountain, not the town) 10 miles south and 1,000 feet higher in 

elevation (Bureau of Land Management, 2003, p. 3–32). The well is in low-permeability rocks 

(Valmy Formation), and the mine and well are separated by several faults. Declines of more than 

50 feet were observed at wells near Marigold mine and a couple of miles closer to Lone Tree 

mine. The observed declines occurred even though the Humboldt River and its flood plain are 

less than 3 miles to the north of Lone Tree mine (Prudic and others, 2003). Ground-water 

declines at Marigold mine are of particular interest because seldom do hydrologists have 

streamflow and ground-water data in the mountains to evaluate effects caused by ground-water 

pumping in adjacent valleys. 
7 

Rowley and Dixon failed to recognize when they stated “Seepage tests are valuable in 

water-rights adjudication, to define streamflow availability, and to assess and manage water 

resources” that streamflow depletion from ground-water pumping is a growing problem for water 

managers throughout the United States. The problem is highlighted by a recent court decision 

that awarded damages for the depletion of streamflow from ground-water pumping in the 

Arkansas River Valley of Colorado to the State of Kansas (Littleworth, 2003). 

Response to Rowley and Dixon’s second concern “methodology problems that make some 

conclusions doubtful”:

Rowley and Dixon state that “seepage tests require error analysis so that the reader can be 

convinced that an apparent gain or loss in a reach exceeds the error associated with the 

measurement of that value.” A measure of error was provided for each set of synoptic discharges 

and is indicated in the headnote of table 4, pages 19–22 of the report. The terms “good, fair and 

poor” are not relative as implied by Rowley and Dixon. These terms are specifically defined 

related to standard USGS data collection protocols for stream discharge measurements. The term 

“good” refers to a measurement error that is less than 5 percent of the discharge, “fair” is 

between 5 and 8 percent, and “poor” is greater than 8 percent (Sauer and Myer, 1992). The 

percent range in measurement errors of the synoptic discharges also are stated on page 18 of the 

report, in addition to the statement of good, fair, and poor referenced by Rowley and Dixon in 

their memorandum. 

Rowley and Dixon continue by stating “Nonetheless, the authors present many 

conclusions about losing or gaining reaches even though (a) the numbers from the lower 

measurement site are only slightly different from the upper site, (b) gains or losses made during a 

second seepage test contradict the first test, or (c) the so-called gains or losses do not make 

common sense based on the geology.” Darcy’s law (Fetter, 1994, p. 94–95) tells us that the 

exchange of water across the streambed is dependent on (1) the permeability of the streambed 

and underlying rocks and deposits, and (2) the head gradient between the stream and ground 

water, which is the head difference divided by the length from top of streambed to a particular 

point in the subsurface that corresponds to the ground-water head. No gain or loss can be 

attributed to an impermeable streambed or a zero head difference. Because streamflow 

measurements in our study are some distance apart, the lack of a gain or loss simply means that 

the sum of gains and losses along the streambed result in no net gain even though ground water 

is interacting with water in a creek, which is why we also measured specific conductance of the 

water. Although Rowley and Dixon were critical of specific conductance, specific conductance 

proved valuable in assessing ground-water interactions with the creeks. Additionally, the highgradient creeks in and near the Park have sand and gravel beds that are permeable, thus places 

along the creeks with no net gain or loss between sites were indicative of ground-water heads 

that are close to the water level in the creek. 

Rowley and Dixon apparently do not comprehend the reasoning behind the two sets of 

synoptic streamflow measurements; otherwise, there is no basis for them noting a contradiction 

in gains and loses between the first set of measurements during snowmelt runoff and the second 

set during low flow. The intent of making stream discharge measurements at spring snowmelt 

and then at low flow was to evaluate the effects of different stream discharges and ground-water 
8 

conditions on gains and losses (described on page 3 of the report). Differences in head between a 

stream and ground water are what drive variations in gains and losses along a stream and these 

differences are known to change daily and seasonally. Gains and losses during spring snowmelt 

will almost certainly be different than the gains and losses during low flow. A stream that 

changes from gaining during snowmelt to losing during low flow or vice versa is an indication 

that ground water is in direct communication with the stream. Contrastingly, a stream, no matter 

its discharge, that consistently loses at nearly the same rate between measurement sites is a good 

indication that ground water is below the streambed and stream loss is not dependent on groundwater head but only on gravity drainage across the streambed (Niswonger and others, 2005, fig. 

8). 

Rowley and Dixon’s statement that “the so-called gains or losses do not make common 

sense based on the geology” further illustrates their lack of understanding the basic principles of 

ground-water flow and interactions with streams. The gains and losses are not necessarily 

correlated to geology because they also are dependent on ground-water head. A good example of 

the relation between gains and losses and geology described in the report is Lehman Creek. A 

marked gain in discharge in Lehman Creek occurs in the vicinity where the Pole Canyon 

Limestone becomes capped by a less permeable rock (consolidated or cemented rock 

encountered at a depth of 104 feet in a test well 1⁄4-mile downstream of Rowland Spring). 

Subsurface flow upslope of the capped limestone exceeds the capacity of the aquifer below the 

confining unit and causes ground-water heads to increase vertically and consequently, water to 

discharge at Rowland Spring and numerous seeps adjacent to Lehman Creek. This is akin to 

stormwater in a gutter that exceeds the capacity of a storm drain. Water in excess of the drain’s 

capacity will simply continue flowing down the street. Two other good examples where gains 

and losses are related to geology and interactions with ground water are Snake Creek and South 

Fork Big Wash. Considerable detail was provided in the report (pages 36–43) to explain the 

rather complex gains and losses along these creeks and how they relate to geologic and groundwater conditions. 

Response to Rowley and Dixon’s third concern “inaccurate application of geology”:

The comments regarding our application of the geology are unfounded and the criticisms 

are not substantiated by references to published material. Rowley and Dixon comment in several 

places on the antiquity of our published map sources; for instance, in stating “the geologic map 

was compiled from a 30-year-old reconnaissance map...” and made numerous references to 

“modern mapping” without stating a specific published source. The map of White Pine County 

(Hose and Blake, 1976) was used as a geologic base for the figures because the map was readily 

available in digital form and thus served as a convenient base layer for the figures. The text and 

references therein make it clear that we are aware of the wealth of recent studies of the Snake 

Range by Elizabeth Miller and her students at Stanford University. We also used unpublished 

USGS geophysical data to corroborate our field analysis. Although the modern mapping of 

Miller and colleagues has dramatically reinterpreted the nature and significance of faults in the 

Snake Range, the rock units, their descriptions, and locations have not changed appreciably since 

they were first described. We categorized the units broadly into rocks or deposits that were 

permeable and not permeable because that was our interest. 
9 

Rowley and Dixon express concerns about out treatment of the Cenozoic section stating, 

“the Tertiary rocks (Tr) unit consists of Tertiary basin-fill units that should be lumped with the 

QTs unit, and a Tertiary volcanic unit should have been mapped, even though it should appear 

only in cross sections.” We agree that basin-filling rocks of Miocene and Pliocene (Tertiary) and 

younger age (Quaternary) may have a wide range of hydraulic properties and a number of ways 

could be imagined by which to subdivide them. Our intent in using the Tertiary rock unit was to 

capture the geologic relations shown so clearly at Big Wash and at Sacramento Pass where a 

tilted Miocene-aged section of relatively consolidated conglomerate is unconformably overlain 

by less consolidated alluvial fill. We agree that additional complexity could be present within the 

buried basin fill in Snake Valley, but unraveling the complexity of the basin fill was not part of 

or directly relevant to the study. Instead, we wanted to capture this first-order hydrogeologic 

distinction. 

We considered the Tertiary rocks to be mostly permeable except for rocks and deposits 

that were well consolidated or cemented. We chose not to divide the Tertiary rocks and deposits 

because we were uncomfortable in drawing units on our cross sections where we think they may 

exist but have no real evidence. We recognized in our report that our Tertiary unit includes 

volcanic rocks. We concluded that given the subdued magnetic character of the valley fill in 

southern Snake Valley and the generally Oligocene age of many of the ash-flow tuffs, the 

Tertiary volcanic rocks would likely occur deep within the basin fill and not play a major role in 

the shallow subsurface shown on our geologic profiles along selected creeks. 

Rowley and Dixon state that “the cross sections that show the geology are not the work of 

a professional geologist: in most places they are simplistic....in other places the sections are 

absurd.” Rowley and Dixon certainly must realize the necessity to generalize complex geology 

for the purposes of hydrologic analysis. Second, Donald Sweetkind (U.S. Geological Survey, 

Geologic Discipline, Denver, Colorado) provided guidance in our development of the 

classification, geologic map, and geologic profiles along the selected creeks and reviewed the 

report. He also spent several days with us walking each selected creek where we discussed the 

profiles. The profiles are not geologic cross sections because they follow the creek and not a 

straight line. The sections are distorted in this regard because the length of the stream course is 

longer than a line on a map. 

Rowley and Dixon assert that “high-angle faults....are not shown on the maps used in 

this study” and generally contend that we have ignored the presence and significance of highangle faults. Rowley and Dixon are correct that we do not show high-angle faults on the geologic 

map compilation. We made a decision, for the sake of clarity, to omit the numerous faults in map 

view. Nonetheless, we have clearly shown several faults on our geologic profiles along 

Strawberry Creek, Snake Creek, and Big Wash. We included the low-angle detachment fault 

(décollement) on our geologic map because it was important for the interpretation of gains and 

losses and provides a reason why a water-diversion pipeline was placed along a mountain section 

of Snake Creek downstream of the granite outcrop. It was also important in explaining the lack 

of surface water in the North Fork Big Wash drainage in comparison with the many localized 

springs and areas of streamflow caused by the highly-faulted upper-plate rocks that outcrop over 

most of the South Fork Big Wash drainage. 
10 

Rowley and Dixon incorrectly state that “No range-front faults that are the cause for the 

uplift of the Snake Range are shown in the cross sections.” Detailed mapping in the Snake Range 

and fission-track dating studies by Elizabeth Miller (Stanford University) and colleagues have 

shown that uplift of the Snake Range is primarily the result of movement along the Snake Range 

detachment fault system. As such, our geologic profiles subscribe to the conceptual model of 

Miller and her student, Allen McGrew, which conclude that in many places the Snake Range 

detachment itself represents the range-bounding fault. This is essentially the geometry portrayed 

in our geologic profiles along Snake Creek and Big Wash. Similarly, our geologic profile along 

Strawberry Creek at the north end of the Park portrays a range-bounding fault separating the 

synorogenic rocks of the Sacramento Pass section from the bedrock in the uplands. 

Range-bounding faults that are approximately perpendicular to the general flow of water 

from the mountains to the valleys are most important to ground-water flow when they abut lowpermeability rocks against high-permeability rocks. Range-bounding faults typically result in a 

rapid thickening of basin fill on the valley side of the fault and often produce a drop in groundwater head. This drop in head is the result of an increase in transmissivity caused by a greater 

thickness of the more permeable basin fill compared with less permeable consolidated rocks on 

the upslope side of the fault. A drop in head will not occur across the fault when the consolidated 

rocks are more permeable than the basin fill. Thus, the lack of surface water in the southern part 

of the Park is because the permeability of the limestone rocks in the mountains exceeds that of 

the basin fill, which results in springs discharging along the edge of the valley floor where there 

is a marked decrease in permeability of the basin fill. Only the springs and creeks on the valley 

floor were mapped as being susceptible in this area because ground water is well below 

intermittent creeks in the mountains. 

The relative abundance of surface water in the northern part of the Park is because 

consolidated rocks in the highest altitudes have a much lower permeability than the 

predominately limestone rocks to the south. Creeks that form in these areas flow to the adjacent 

valleys; each creek on its path to the valley encounters a variety of consolidated rocks and 

deposits, some permeable and some not. Only a small percentage of the northern part of the Park 

was determined susceptible because most of the region is underlain by consolidated rocks of low 

permeability. The small percentage that was mapped as being susceptible were places where 

ground water interacted with creeks that crossed permeable consolidated rocks and basin fill that 

abutted with the basin fill in the valley. Thus, the inference made by Rowley and Dixon that the 

range-front faults will limit the extent of ground-water head declines to the valleys is incorrect 

because it ignores areas where permeable consolidated rocks in the mountains abut permeable 

basin fill in the valleys. 

Rowley and Dixon’s statement “In fact, the authors in places (p. 30, 32, 35, 36) make 

conclusions that these faults could not be crossed by the streams because they recognize no 

abrupt changes to a losing stream in the basin-fill deposits” is distorted. Our statements refer to 

profiles along creeks where we made measurements. We think any faults that increase the 

thickness of basin fill beneath Shingle Creek (page 30) occur near the beginning of the waterdiversion pipeline. We think the same occurs near the beginning of the concrete aqueduct from 

combined Lehman and Baker Creeks (pages 32, 35, and 36). The pipelines and aqueducts are 
11 

expensive to install and maintain and their presence indicates that streamflow losses increase 

somewhere near their beginning. 

Finally, Rowley and Dixon state “Based on our geologic mapping and on geophysical 

profiles, we and some of the modern mappers showed faults that cross all profiles” then called 

into question our repeated measurements of streamflow; their assertion is incorrect. They 

apparently assume the faults always abut low-permeability consolidated rocks with highpermeability basin fill and that the mapping of faults is without error or uncertainty. The recent 

test well drilled 1⁄4-mile downstream of Rowland Spring in the Lehman Creek drainage 

encountered the geology that we had indicated in our geologic profile. That profile, confirmed by 

the test hole, indicates no fault with vertical displacement between Lehman Caves and at least 1⁄4-

mile downstream of Rowland Spring. A fault with vertical displacement likely exists further 

downstream where the concrete aqueduct begins but, it would abut saturated and permeable Pole 

Canyon Limestone against saturated and permeable basin-fill deposits providing a continuous 

ground-water connection among Lehman and Baker Cave systems, Rowland Spring, and the 

basin fill. 

Response to Rowley and Dixon’s fourth concern “poor writing that hinders understanding 

of the report”:

This concern is a matter of opinion; the report went through several technical reviews and 

one editorial review prior to publication. 

Summary: 

Peter Rowley and Gary Dixon’s concerns and criticisms described in their memorandum 

to the Southern Nevada Water Authority are without merit. Their comments show that they do 

not understand basic principles of ground-water flow. Depletion of streamflow and springs 

caused by ground-water pumping has been documented in many parts of the country, including 

places in Nevada. The study for the Park was a simple vulnerability analysis of the surface-water 

resources. Its purpose was to identify areas in and near the Park that are susceptible to groundwater pumping. Susceptible areas in and near the Park are where ground water interacts with 

water in the creeks and where underlying rocks and deposits are sufficiently permeable to 

provide a connection with basin-fill deposits in the valley. Results from the study indicate that 

surface-water resources in most of the Park are not susceptible to ground-water pumping in the 

adjacent valleys. However, we identified a few areas within and near the Park’s boundaries that 

are susceptible (potentially or likely); these areas warrant additional monitoring and study. The 

results presented in the report would have been the same no matter what government agency 

requested the study. 

Sincerely, 

David E. Prudic 

Hydrologist 
12 

References: 

Cited in text: 

Bureau of Land Management, 2003, Final supplemental environmental impact statement, Glamis 

Marigold Mining Company’s millennium expansion project: Bureau of Land Management 

Field Office, Winnemucca, Nevada, 409 p. 

Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied Hydrogeology (3d ed.): Macmillan College Publishing Co., 691 p. 

Fleckenstein, Jan, Anderson, Michael, Fogg, Graham, and Mount, Jeffrey, 2004, Managing 

surface water-groundwater to restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River: American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, v. 130, no. 4, 

p. 301–310. 

Harrill, J.R., 1986, Ground-water storage depletion in Pahrump Valley, Nevada-California, 

1962–75: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2279, 53 p. 

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, 105 p. 

Littleworth, A.L., 2003, Fourth report of the Special Master in Kansas v. Colorado: Supreme 

Court of the United States, No. 105, 270 p. 

Niswonger, R.G., Prudic, D.E., Pohll, Greg, and Constantz, Jim, 2005, Incorporating seepage 

losses into the unsteady streamflow equations for simulating intermittent flow along mountainfront streams: Water Resources Research, v. 41, W06006, doi:10.1029/2004WR003677, 16 p. 

Prudic, D.E., Niswonger, R.G., Wood, J.L., and Henkelman, K.K., 2003, Trout Creek—

estimating flow duration and seepage losses along an intermittent stream tributary to the 

Humboldt River, Lander and Humboldt Counties, Nevada, in Stonestrom, D.A., and 

Constantz, Jim, Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground water near streams: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1260, p. 57–71. 

Sauer, V.B., and Myer, R.W., 1992, Determination of error in individual discharge 

measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92–144, 21 p. 

Sophocleous, Marious, 2000, From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources—

the Kansas experience: Journal of Hydrology, v. 235, p. 27–43. 

Theis, C.V., 1940, The source of water derived from wells—essential factors controlling the 

response of an aquifer to development: Civil Engineering, v. 10 p. 277–280. 

Selected studies that used seepage tests and streamflow gages to evaluate groundwater interactions with streams 

Anderson, M.T., Driscoll, D.G., Williamson, J.E., 1999, Ground-water and surface-water 

interactions along Rapid Creek near Rapid City, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 98–4214, 99 p. 

Bevans, H.E., 1986, Estimating stream-aquifer interactions in coal areas of eastern Kansas by 

using streamflow records, in Seymour Subitzky (ed.), Selected papers in the Hydrologic 

Sciences: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2290, p. 51–64. 

Burkham, D.E., 1970a, Depletion of streamflow by infiltration in the main channels of the 

Tucson basin, southeastern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1939–B, 

36 p. 
13 

Burkham, D.E., 1970b, A method for relating infiltration rates to streamflow rates in perched 

streams: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700–D, p. D266–271. 

Cohen, Philip, 1963, An evaluation of the water resources of the Humboldt River Valley near 

Winnemucca, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources Bulletin No. 24, 104 p. 

Dumouchelle, D.H., 2001, Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, 

west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations Report 2001–4202, 13 p. 

Harrold, L.L., 1934, Relation of streamflow to ground-water levels: Transactions of American 

Geophysical Union, v. 15, p. 414–416. 

Ineson, Jack, and Downing, R.A., 1964, The ground-water component of river discharge and its 

relationship to hydrogeology: Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers, v. 18, no. 7, 

p. 519–541. 

Lines, G.C., 1996, Ground-water and surface-water relations along the Mojave River, Southern 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4189, 43 p. 

Metzger, Loren, 2002, Streamflow gains and losses along San Francisquito Creek and 

characterization of surface-water and ground-water quality, southern San Mateo and northern 

Santa Clara counties, California, 1996–97: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 2002–4078, 49 p. 

Norris, S.E., 1970, The effect of stream discharge on streambed leakage to a glacial outwash 

aquifer: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700–D, p. D262–265. 

Olmsted, F.H. and Hely, A.G., 1962, Relation between ground water and surface water in 

Brandywine Creek basin Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 417–A, 

21 p. 

Richardson, Donald, and Rantz, S.E., 1962, Interchange of surface and ground water along 

tributary streams in the Central Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

62–106, 253 p. 

Rorabaugh, M.I., 1964, Estimating changes in bank storage and ground-water contributions to 

streamflow: International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Publication no. 63, p. 432–

441. 

Rorabaugh, M.I. and Simons, W.D., 1966, Exploration of methods relating ground water to 

surface water, Columbia River basin—Second phase: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 66–117, 62 p. 

Ronan, A.D., Prudic, D.E., Thodal, C.E., and Constantz, Jim, 1998, Field study and simulation of 

diurnal temperature effects on infiltration and variably saturated flow beneath an ephemeral 

stream: Water Resources Research, v. 34, no. 9, p. 2137–2152. 

Rowe, T.G. and Allander, K.K., 2000, Surface- and ground-water characteristics in the Upper 

Truckee River and Trout Creek watersheds, South Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada, JulyDecember 1996: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000–4001, 

39 p. 

Wahl, K.L., and Tortorelli, R.L., 1997, Changes in flow in the Beaver-North Canadian River 

Basin upstream of Canton Lake, Western Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations Report 96–4304, 58 p. 

Wilson, L.G., and DeCook, K.J., 1968, Field observations on changes in the subsurface water 

regime during influent seepage in the Santa Cruz River, Water Resources Research, v. 4, no. 6, 

p. 1219–1234. 
14 

Woodward, D.G., Gannett, M.W., and Vaccaro, J.J., 1998, Hydrogeologic framework of the 

Willamette Lowland aquifer system, Oregon and Washington: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1424–B, 89 p. 

Selected studies that evaluated stream depletion from ground-water pumping 

Burns, A.W., 1983, Simulated hydrologic effects of possible ground-water and surface-water 

management alternatives in and near the Platte River, South-Central Nebraska: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1277–G, 29 p. 

Darama, Yakup, 2001, An analytical solution for stream depletion by cyclic pumping of wells 

near streams with semipervious beds: Ground Water, v. 39, no. 1, p. 79–86. 

Dunlap, L.E., Lingren, R.J., and Carr, J.E., 1984, Projected effects of ground-water withdrawals 

in the Arkansas River Valley, 1980–99, Hamilton and Kearny Counties, Southwestern Kansas: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4082, 168 p. 

Gannett, M.W., and Lite, K.E., Jr., 2004, Simulation of regional ground-water flow in the upper 

Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–

4195, 84 p. 

Glennon, Robert, 2002, Water follies—groundwater pumping and the fate of America’s fresh 

water: Washington, DC, Island Press, 313 p. 

Glover, R.E., and Balmer, C.G., 1954, River depletion resulting from pumping a well near a 

river: Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 35, p. 468–470. 

Hantush, M.S., 1959, Analysis of data from pumping wells near a river: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 64, p. 1921–1932. 

Hantush, M.S., 1965, Wells near streams with semipervious beds: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 70, no. 12, p. 2829–2838. 

Hunt, Bruce, 1999, Unsteady stream depletion from ground water pumping: Ground Water, v. 

37, no. 1, p. 98–102. 

Hunt, Bruce, Weir, Julian, and Clausen, Bente, 2001, A stream depletion field experiment: 

Ground Water, v. 39, no. 2, p. 283–289. 

Jenkins, C.T., 1968a, Techniques for computing rate and volume of stream depletion by wells: 

Ground Water, v. 6, no. 2, p. 37–46. 

Jenkins, C.T., 1968b, Electric-analog and digital-computer model analysis of stream depletion by 

wells: Ground Water, v. 6, no. 6, p. 27–34. 

Jenkins, C.T., and Taylor, O.J., 1972, Stream depletion factors, Arkansas River Valley; 

southeastern Colorado, a basis for evaluating plans for conjunctive use of ground and surface 

water: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 72–192, 21 p. 

Kendy, Eloise, and Bredehoeft, J.D., 2006, Transient effects of groundwater pumping and 

surface-water-irrigation returns on streamflows: Water Resources Research, v. 42, W08415, 

doi:10.1029/2005WR004792, 11 p. 

Moore, J.E., and Jenkins, C.T., 1966, An evaluation of the effect of groundwater pumpage on the 

infiltration rate of a semipervious streambed: Water Resources Research, v. 2, no. 4, 

p. 691–696. 

Nyholm, Thomas, Christensen, Steen, and Rasmussen, K.R., 2002, Flow depletion in a small 

stream caused by ground water abstraction from wells: Ground Water, v. 40, no. 4, 

p. 425–437. 

Nyholm, Thomas, Christensen, Steen, and Rasmussen, K.R., 2003, Estimates of stream depletion 

and uncertainty from discharge measurements in a small alluvial stream: Journal of Hydrology, 

v. 274, p. 129–144. 
15 

Oakes, D.B., and Wilkinson, W.B., 1972, Modeling of groundwater and surface water systems—

I-theoretical relationships between groundwater abstraction and baseflow: Reading, Great 

Britain, Reading Bridge House, Water Resources Board, no. 16, 37 p. 

Oki, D.S., Wolff, R.H., and Perreault, J.A., 2006, Effects of surface-water diversions and 

ground-water withdrawals on streamflow and habitat, Punaluu Stream, Oahu, Hawaii: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5153, 114 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. 

Stamos, C.L., Martin, Peter, Nishikawa, Tracy, and Cox, B.F., 2001, Simulation of ground-water 

flow in the Mojave River Basin, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 01–4002, 129 p. 

Taylor, O.J., and Luckey, R.R., 1974, Water-management studies of a stream-aquifer system, 

Arkansas River valley, Colorado: Ground Water, v. 12, no. 1, p. 22–38. 

Theis, C.V., 1941, The effect of a well on the flow of a nearby stream: Transactions American 

Geophysical Union, v. 22, p.734–738. 

Theis, C.V., and Conover, C.S., 1963, Chart for determination of the percentage of pumped 

water being diverted from a stream or drain: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1545–C, p. C106–109. 

Vionnet, L.B., and Maddock, Thomas, III, 1992, Modeling of ground-water flow and 

surface/ground-water interactions for the San Pedro Basin—Part 1—Mexican Border to 

Fairbank, Arizona: Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and 

Water Resources report HWR 92–101. 

Vionnet, L.B., Maddock, Thomas, III, and Goddrich, D.C., 1997, Investigations of streamaquifer interactions using a coupled surface-water and ground-water flow model: Tucson, 

Arizona, University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Report 

HWR97–020. 

Wahl, K.L., and Wahl, T.L., 1988, Effects of regional ground-water level declines on streamflow 

in the Oklahoma Panhandle: Proceedings of Symposium on Water-Use Data for Water 

Resource Management, American Water Resources Assoc., August 1988, Tucson, Arizona, p. 

239–249. 

Wallace, R.B., Darama, Yakup, and Annable, M.D., 1990, Stream depletion by cyclic pumping 

of wells: Water Resources Research, v. 26, no. 6, p. 1263–1270. 

Weeks, E.P., Ericson, D.W., and Holt, C.L.R., Jr., 1965, Hydrology of the Little Plover basin, 

Portage County, Wisconsin, and the effects of water resource development: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1811, 78 p. 

Williamson, A.K., Prudic, D.E., and Swain, L.A., 1989, Ground-water flow in the Central 

Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401–D, 127 p. 

Young, R.A., and Bredehoeft, J.D., 1972, Digital computer simulation for solving management 

problems of conjunctive groundwater and surface water systems: Water Resources Research, 

v. 8, no. 3, p. 533–556. 

Zlotnik, V.A., 2004, A concept of maximum stream depletion rate for leaky aquifers in alluvial 

valleys: Water Resources Research, v. 40, WO6507, doi:10.1029/2003WR002932, 9 p.