Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service

Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and 

Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park 

and Vicinity, Nevada 

Professional Paper 1819

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover images: 

Upper left: Installation of piezometer PL3 on Lehman Creek by Mark Pepper and Jon 

Reynolds, National Park Service. Photograph taken by Christine Hatch, University 

of Nevada, Reno, July, 2009.

Upper right: Snake 5 deep well, Snake Creek. Photograph taken by Christine Hatch, 

University of Nevada, Reno, June, 2011.

Upper center: Piezometer PL2 on Lehman Creek. Photograph taken by Christine 

Hatch, University of Nevada, Reno, November, 2011.

Lower right: Big Springs Northwest well. Photograph taken by Donald Sweetkind, 

U.S. Geological Survey, October 8, 2009.

Background: Wheeler Peak, southern part of Snake Range, Nevada. Photograph 

taken by Donald Sweetkind, May 29, 2009.
Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs 

and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin 

National Park and Vicinity, Nevada 

By David E. Prudic, Donald S. Sweetkind, Tracie R. Jackson, K. Elaine Dotson, 

Russell W. Plume, Christine E. Hatch, and Keith J. Halford

Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service 

Professional Paper 1819

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Government.

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

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

Suggested citation:

Prudic, D.E, Sweetkind, D.S., Jackson, T.R., Dotson, K.E., Plume, R.W., Hatch, C.E., and Halford, K.J. 2015, Evaluating 

connection of aquifers to springs and streams, Great Basin National Park and vicinity, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1819, 188 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

ISSN 2330-7102 (online) 
iii

Acknowledgments

The study was developed cooperatively among the National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and the University of Nevada, Reno. The National Park Service, as the lead agency, 

prepared and submitted a proposal for funding through the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act Round 8—Conservation Initiatives category for White Pine County.

Many people assisted with the design, oversight, management, data collection, and data 

verification for this project. First and foremost, we wish to acknowledge the numerous contributions of William P. (Bill) Van Liew, Hydrologist from the National Park Service, Water 

Resources Division, for his ongoing efforts to understand the hydraulic connection of groundwater in the Great Basin National Park with the groundwater in Snake and Spring Valleys and 

how pumping in the valleys might affect surface and groundwater resources in the park. Bill 

also was assigned the task of oversight and project management. Robert Boyd, of the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, and James Prieur, of Southern Nevada Water Authority, spent 

many hours in the design of the project and in coordination with ongoing data collection by 

other agencies. Gary Karst, Hydrologist at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, spent many 

hours in the removal of fiber-optic cable from Lehman Creek and assisting in the oversight of 

the drilling of test wells at two places: one next to Snake Creek and the other next to Baker 

Creek. 

Andrew Ferguson, former Great Basin National Park Superintendent, oversaw support of 

the project. This included providing personnel for helping with the permits, providing logistical 

support for the semi-annual public meetings, obtaining previously collected data, and assisting with data collection. Acknowledgements are extended to park personnel Gretchen Baker 

(Ecologist) and Benjamin Roberts (Chief of Natural Resources) for their guidance and help 

in obtaining permits, providing documents on caves and previously collected data; Gretchen 

also spent many hours collecting water samples and making discharge measurements as part 

of this study. Laura Belica (Fisheries Biologist at the park) helped install temperature cables 

in Lehman Creek and assisted in discharge measurements along Snake Creek. Mark Pepper 

(Fisheries Biologist) and Jonathan Reynolds (Fisheries Technician) provided much needed help 

and enthusiasm in driving steel well points into the boulder and cobble streambeds of Baker, 

Lehman, and Snake Creeks and in the installation of cable along Lehman Creek. Also, Carol 

Ferguson, park volunteer, kindly assisted in the installation and removal of fiber-optic temperature cable along sections of Lehman Creek during the summer and fall of 2009 and again in 

May 2010. 

Graduate students Michaela Wörndl and Wes Hanson, both from University of Nevada, 

Reno, and Lauren Shumaker, University of California–Santa Cruz, assisted with various hydrologic and geologic field-data collection during the summer of 2009. George (Buck) Douglass, 

Jr., Nevada Department of Wildlife, assisted in the installation and removal of fiber-optic 

temperature cable along a section of Snake Creek, in the collection of water samples at Spring 

Creek Spring, and in the aquifer test of the supply well at the Spring Creek fish-rearing station. 

Wendy Hayes (environmental scientist, San Francisco Bay area) and Jim Reynolds (University of Alaska, Fairbanks, emeritus) helped with stream discharge measurements and temperature cable installation.

Special thanks are extended to the land owners for access to reaches of Baker, Lehman, and 

Snake Creeks that crossed their properties. These include Craig, Tom, David, and Dean Baker 

of the Baker Ranches; Ray Okelberry of Big Springs Ranch; Don and Veronica Duff; Donald 

and Susan Geary; Gordon and Marcella Swallow; and Andrew and Carol Ferguson. We also 

thank William Dearden for allowing access to the Utah Department of Transportation yard in 

Garrison to temporarily store equipment and supplies.
iv

Robert N. Pennington, James L. Wood, Alan Priessler, and Carl Thodal (U.S. Geological 

Survey, Carson City, Nevada) helped with field data collection. Toby Welborn (U.S. Geological 

Survey, Carson City, Nevada) compiled information on mean annual precipitation and acreage 

of altitude intervals for selected drainage basins in the southern Snake Range and assisted in 

the collection of geophysical data. Alan Wallace (retired, U.S. Geological Survey) helped in the 

collection of geologic information and provided many insightful discussions about the geology of the study area. Special thanks are extended to the drilling crew of the U.S. Geological 

Survey Western Region Drilling Program. Finally, researchers David A. Stonestrom and Mark 

Huebner at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, graciously analyzed backup 

water samples from selected sites for dissolved anions that were originally collected for stable 

isotopes of water. 
v

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 5

Description of Study Area ................................................................................................................. 5

Previous and Concurrent Hydrogeologic Studies ......................................................................... 6

Description of Geologic and Hydrogeologic Investigations ................................................................. 8

Geologic Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Stratigraphy and Hydrostratigraphy .............................................................................................. 10

Consolidated Sedimentary Rocks ......................................................................................... 10

Igneous Crystalline Rocks ...................................................................................................... 13

Cenozoic Valley-Fill Deposits ................................................................................................. 13

Oligocene Volcanic Rocks ............................................................................................. 13

Miocene Sedimentary Rocks......................................................................................... 14

Tertiary and Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits ......................................................... 14

Hydrostratigraphy ............................................................................................................................. 14

Structural Geology ............................................................................................................................ 15

Geophysics and Investigation of Basin Shape and Depth in Study Area ............................... 16

Descriptive Geology of Valleys in the Study Area ....................................................................... 16

Spring Valley ............................................................................................................................. 16

Hamlin Valley ............................................................................................................................ 18

Snake Valley ............................................................................................................................. 18

Hydrologic Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 18

Surface Water ................................................................................................................................... 21

Lakes ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Streams ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Springs and Caves ................................................................................................................... 22

Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins .......................................................................................... 26

Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 26

Geology................................................................................................................................................ 29

Distribution of Rocks ................................................................................................................ 29

Geologic Structure of the Range Front ................................................................................. 29

Extent and Continuity of Pole Canyon Limestone................................................................ 33

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained Deposits from Logs of Well Drillers’ Logs ....33

Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams .......................................................................... 35

Mountain-Upland Zone............................................................................................................ 35

Streamflow........................................................................................................................ 36

Relation of Annual Mean Discharge at Gaging Stations to Precipitation.............. 39

Mean Annual Water Yield .............................................................................................. 39

Water Budget ................................................................................................................... 42
vi

Selected Water Chemistry to Evaluate Water-Budget Estimates .......................... 45

Estimating Mean Age of Water with Tritium ..................................................... 45

Stable Isotope Concentrations of Water for Evaluating Evaporation ........... 46

Dissolved Chloride and Chloride-Mass Balance .............................................. 46

Karst-Limestone Zone.............................................................................................................. 48

Streambed-Seepage Rates............................................................................................ 48

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed .......................................................................... 53

Aquifers ............................................................................................................................. 53

Water Budget ................................................................................................................... 54

Bulk Transmissivity of Limestone.................................................................................. 55

Rowland Spring and Evidence for Groundwater Flow between Baker and 

Lehman Drainage basins .................................................................................. 55

Upper-Piedmont Zone .............................................................................................................. 59

Streamflow ....................................................................................................................... 60

Streambed-Seepage Rates ........................................................................................... 61

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed .......................................................................... 63

Aquifers ............................................................................................................................. 63

Aquifer Test next to Baker Creek ......................................................................... 66

Estimates of Transmissivity from Specific-Capacity Data ............................... 68

Lower-Piedmont Zone ............................................................................................................. 69

Streamflow Losses .......................................................................................................... 70

Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed ........................................................... 71

Aquifers ............................................................................................................................. 71

Valley-Lowland Zone ............................................................................................................... 71

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 72

Snake Creek Drainage Basin.................................................................................................................... 73

Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 73

Geology................................................................................................................................................ 74

Distribution of Rocks ................................................................................................................ 74

Snake Range Detachment Fault ............................................................................................ 74

Extent of Miocene Deposits and Faults near Snake Creek .............................................. 76

Quaternary Fault and Thickness of Quaternary Alluvium .................................................. 77

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained Sediments from Well-Drillers’ Logs ............. 77

Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams .......................................................................... 77

Mountain-Upland Zone............................................................................................................ 78

Karst-Limestone Zone.............................................................................................................. 80

Streamflow ....................................................................................................................... 80

Net Streamflow Gain and Loss...................................................................................... 81

Streambed-Seepage Rates............................................................................................ 82

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed .......................................................................... 86

Aquifers ............................................................................................................................. 87

Water Budget ................................................................................................................... 88

Upper-Piedmont Zone .............................................................................................................. 89

Streamflow ....................................................................................................................... 90

Streambed-Seepage Rates............................................................................................ 90

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed .......................................................................... 96
vii

Calcite Precipitation as a Mechanism for Clogging Streambed ............................. 96

Aquifers ........................................................................................................................... 101

Hydraulic Properties of Deposits and Rocks ................................................... 102

Geochemical Evidence for Flow through Carbonate Rocks ......................... 103

Water-Level Trend in Fractured Limestone ...................................................... 104

Water Budget ................................................................................................................. 106

Lower-Piedmont and Valley-Lowland Zones ..................................................................... 106

Streambed-Seepage Rates.......................................................................................... 107

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed ........................................................................ 107

Aquifers ........................................................................................................................... 109

Water-Level Trends in Basin-Fill Deposits ....................................................... 109

Hydraulic Properties of Deposits and Rocks ................................................... 111

Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 112

Big Springs ................................................................................................................................................ 113

Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 113

Spring Flow .............................................................................................................................. 113

Potential Source Area ........................................................................................................... 116

Geology.............................................................................................................................................. 116

Distribution of Rocks .............................................................................................................. 116

Subsurface Geology of Southern Snake and Northern Hamlin Valleys ........................ 117

Aquifers ............................................................................................................................................. 121

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained Deposits from Well-Drillers’ Logs............... 122

Hydraulic Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits ....................................................................... 124

Hydraulic Properties of Carbonate Rocks .......................................................................... 125

Petroleum Exploration Wells in Carbonate Rocks ............................................................ 126

Groundwater Flow Beneath the Limestone Hills........................................................................ 127

Source of Water to Big Springs .................................................................................................... 130

Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 133

Limitations and Considerations ............................................................................................................. 134

Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 135

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 138

Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 149

Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 2009–

October 2010 ................................................................................................................................ 151

Baker Creek 4 Aquifer-Test Site .................................................................................................... 151

Snake 5 Wells ................................................................................................................................... 153

Big Springs Northwest Well .......................................................................................................... 154

Big Springs Southwest Well .......................................................................................................... 154

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 154

Appendix 2. Records at Bulk-Precipitation Stations on Mount Washington, Unnamed 

Peak Northwest of Mount Mariah, and Cave Mountain, White Pine County, 

Nevada for Water Years 1984–2011 ......................................................................................... 159

Reports with Bulk Precipitation at Stations in Nevada ............................................................ 159

Appendix 3. Discharge Measurements in and near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2009–11 ............................................................... 161

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 161
viii

Appendix 4. Daily-Mean Discharge at Temporary Gaging Stations in and near Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2005–11 ..........................163

Appendix 5. Daily Mean Water Level and Temperature in Monitoring Wells at Baker 4 

Aquifer-Test Site and Stage in Baker Creek, near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2009–11 ................................................................165

Appendix 6. Daily Mean Water Levels in the Shallow and Deep Wells at Snake 5, near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

Water Years 2010–11 .................................................................................................................. 166

Appendix 7. Daily Mean Depth to Water in Wells Northwest and Southwest of Big 

Springs, Southern Part of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, Water 

Years 2010–12 .............................................................................................................................. 167

Appendix 8. Baker Creek Stage, Groundwater Levels, Water Temperatures, and 

Pumping Rates Measured before, during, and after a 92-Hour Aquifer Test at 

Baker 4 Aquifer-Test Site, near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, October 2009 ................................................................................................................ 168

Appendix 9. Temperature, Depth to Water, and Drawdown in Nevada Department of 

Wildlife Well next to Snake Creek during and following a 5-Hour Aquifer Test on 

June 23, 2009, White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................ 170

Appendix 10. Depth to Water and Drawdown in Northwest and Southwest Big Springs 

Well before, during, and after Aquifer Tests, South End of Snake Valley, White 

Pine County, Nevada, October and November 2010 ............................................................. 171

Appendix 11. Slug-Test Data at Snake 5 Deep Well, Southern Part of Snake Range, White 

Pine County, Nevada, June 2011 .............................................................................................. 172

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 172

Appendix 12. Depth to Groundwater in Southern Spring Valley MX Wells and Pumping 

Rates before, during, and after a Step-Drawdown and Two Constant-Rate Tests, 

South End of Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada, September 1980 ............................. 173

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 173

Appendix 13. Description of Piezometer Installation, Stream Stage, and Water Levels 

in Shallow Piezometers and Hydraulic Gradients at Selected Sites on Baker, 

Lehman, and Snake Creeks, near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada ......................................................................................................................................... 174

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 177

Appendix 14. Description of Water-Temperatures in Streambed Piezometers Used for 

Determining Streambed-Seepage Rates and Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity at 

Selected Sites on Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, near Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................ 178

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 181

Appendix 15. Description of Placement and Measurement of Stream Water Temperature 

Using Fiber-Optic Cables and a Distributed Temperature Sensing Method near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ..................................................... 182

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 183

Appendix 16. Summary of Water-Quality Data at Selected Stream Sites, Springs, and 

Wells, Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, White Pine County, Nevada, 

September 2007–January 2010 ................................................................................................ 184

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 187
ix

Figures

1. Map showing location of Great Basin National Park in the Snake Range and selected 

features in eastern Nevada and western Utah ................................................................................ 3

2. Map showing location of Great Basin National Park and surrounding area in eastern 

White Pine and northern Lincoln Counties, Nevada ....................................................................... 4

3. Map showing simplified geologic map of southern Snake Range and vicinity, eastern 

Nevada and western Utah ................................................................................................................. 11

4. Stratigraphic columnar sections, southern Snake Range and vicinity, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 12

5. Map showing thickness of Cenozoic basin fill for the study area, eastern Nevada and 

western Utah ........................................................................................................................................ 17

6. Map showing mean precipitation rates from 1971 to 2000, Great Basin National Park 

and vicinity, eastern Nevada and western Utah ............................................................................ 19

7. Graph showing variation in mean summer and winter precipitation rates for 

1985–2011 at lower altitude weather stations at Eskdale, Utah, and in Great Basin 

National Park near Lehman Caves Visitor Center and at bulk-precipitation stations 

northwest of Mount Moriah, on the west slope of Mount Washington, and on Cave 

Mountain in the Schell Creek Range, White Pine County, Nevada ............................................ 20

8. Graph showing annual variation in snow-water equivalent at end of March or beginning 

of April from 1942 to 2011 at the middle Baker Creek snow course and in winter 

precipitation from 1949 to 2011 at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor 

Center, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................ 21

9. Map showing potentiometric surface of groundwater for southern Snake and Spring 

Valleys and northern Hamlin Valley, Nevada and Utah, for late winter and early 

spring 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 25

10. Map showing Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins in the southern Snake Range 

and Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ...................................................... 27

11. Graphs showing precipitation and temperature means relative to land-surface 

altitudes from Baker, Nevada, to Wheeler Peak, for 1971–2000, and annual values 

at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, for water years 1938–2011 .............................................................. 28

12. Map showing geology of the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................... 30

13. Diagrams showing interpretive geologic cross sections in the Baker and Lehman Creek 

drainage basins, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................31

14. Map showing distribution of clasts in alluvial deposits in the Baker and Lehman Creek 

drainage basins, White Pine County, Nevada, between the mountain front and 

valley floor ............................................................................................................................................ 34

15. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and 

Lehman Creeks in the mountain-upland zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 36

16. Graphs showing measured discharge on selected dates between September 1992 

and August 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .............................. 37

17. Graphs showing mean, median, minimum and maximum daily mean discharges, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, for water years 1948–55, 1993–97, 

and 2002–10 .......................................................................................................................................... 38

18. Graph showing annual runoff at gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, for water years 1948–55, 1993–97, 

and 2003–10 .......................................................................................................................................... 39

19. Graphs showing relation of annual mean discharge at gaging stations on Baker and 

Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................ 40
x

20. Graph showing estimated mean annual runoff from mountain-upland zone and 

calculated mean annual water yield compared with total mean annual precipitation 

for six drainage basins in the southern Snake Range, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 42

21. Map showing locations of discharge-measurement sites, streambed piezometers, 

and wells in the karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones of the Baker and 

Lehman Creek drainage basins between June 2009 and August 2011, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................... 44

22. Diagram showing relation of deuterium and oxygen-18 in water samples collected 

from Baker and Lehman Creeks, Pole Canyon, and Cave and Marmot Springs in the 

mountain-upland zone as well as in the volume-weighted mean annual, mean-winter, 

and mean-summer precipitation collected in vicinity of Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 46

23. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and 

Lehman Creeks in the karst-limestone zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 49

24. Graphs showing streambed temperatures from piezometers in karst-limestone zone of 

Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................. 51

25. Graphs showing daily mean stream stage and groundwater head above streambed 

and daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient for piezometers in Lehman Creek 

at lower end of karst-limestone zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................. 52

26. Graphs showing discharge measurements taken between July 20, 2010, and August 18, 

2011, in the karst-limestone zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................. 57

27. Graphs showing constituent concentrations in water samples collected from Baker 

Creek upstream of the Narrows, Lehman Creek near lower Lehman campground, 

and Rowland Spring between July 2010 and August 2011, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 58

28. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and 

Lehman Creeks in the upper-piedmont zone, downstream of Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 60

29. Graphs showing measured discharge for selected dates between September 1992 and 

March 2010 in the upper-piedmont zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 61

30. Map and graphs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................. 62

31. Graphs showing streambed temperatures in four piezometers in the upper-piedmont 

zone of Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 64

32. Graphs showing daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and 

hydraulic gradient in the upper-piedmont zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 65

33. Graphs showing results of 94-hour aquifer test and 10 days following test, September 

26 to October 23, 2009, in monitoring wells at Baker 4 aquifer-test site downstream 

from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ..................................................... 67

34. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and 

Lehman Creeks in the lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones, downstream of 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .............................................................. 70

35. Map showing Snake Creek drainage basin in the southern Snake Range and Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................... 73

36. Map showing geology of the Snake Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 75

37. Diagram showing interpretive geologic cross section along Snake Creek from mountain 

front to Nevada–Utah state line ........................................................................................................ 76
xi

38. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the mountain-upland and 

karst-limestone zones along Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 78

39. Graph showing the runoff rate of Snake Creek at the gaging station at the eastern 

boundary of Great Basin National Park in relation to the winter and annual 

precipitation rates at the bulk-precipitation station on Mount Washington for 

water-years 2003–09, White Pine County, Nevada ........................................................................ 80

40. Graph showing daily mean discharge in Snake Creek at a gaging station at the eastern 

boundary of Great Basin National Park for water-years 2003–09, White Pine County, 

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................. 81

41. Graph showing discharge data from four gaging stations on Snake Creek from October 1, 

2002, to September 30, 2004, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ........... 82

42. Map showing monitoring locations in Snake Creek drainage basin from 1 mile inside 

Great Basin National Park to the Nevada–Utah state line, White Pine County, Nevada ....... 83

43. Graph showing discharge measurements in Snake Creek for six dates between 

September 1992 and February 2010, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 84

44. Graphs showing creek and streambed temperatures in two piezometers in karstlimestone zone on Snake Creek for selected 2-week periods Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................... 85

45. Graphs showing daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and daily 

mean and measured hydraulic gradient at piezometers in Snake Creek, at the lower 

end of karst-limestone zone, between May 2009 and February 2010, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................... 86

46. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the upper-piedmont zone, 

downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................. 90

47. Map and graphs showing distributed-temperature sensing measurements every 3.28 feet, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .............................................................. 92

48. Graphs showing streambed temperatures in four piezometers in the upper-piedmont 

zone of Snake Creek for September 2–15, 2009, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada ........................................................................................................................... 93

49. Graphs showing streambed temperatures at two piezometers PS7 and PS5 during two 

selected 2-week periods in upper-piedmont zone of Snake Creek downstream from 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .............................................................. 94

50. Graphs showing daily mean stream stage and piezometer head above streambed and 

daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient at piezometers in Snake Creek in the 

upper-piedmont zone between May 2009 and February 2010, downstream from Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ......................................................................... 95

51. Diagrams showing water levels in near-surface deposits next to Snake Creek on July 3, 

2009, and September 7, 2009, downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 97

52. Graph showing selected dissolved constituents and ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 

relative to dissolved-chloride concentration in Snake Creek, piezometer PS11 and 

Spring Creek Spring downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, during January 16–17, 2010 ............................................................................................... 98

53. Graph showing calcium concentrations relative to the percentage of dissolved carbon 

dioxide volume in water samples collected along Snake Creek, Nevada, during 

January 16–18, 2010 .......................................................................................................................... 100

54. Graph showing saturation index for calcium relative to temperature for surface-water 

and groundwater samples collected along Snake Creek, Nevada, during 

January 16–18, 2010 .......................................................................................................................... 101

55. Graph showing daily mean depth to water in the Snake 5 wells in relation to daily mean 

discharge of Snake Creek near the boundary between the upper-piedmont and lowerpiedmont zones and Spring Creek Spring, January 2010–September 2011, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................. 105
xii

56. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the lower-piedmont and 

valley-lowland zones, White Pine County, Nevada and Millard County, Utah ........................ 107

57. Graph showing streambed temperatures at piezometers PS10 and PS9 in upperpiedmont zone of Snake Creek, downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................. 108

58. Graphs showing daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and daily 

mean and measured hydraulic gradient at piezometers in Snake Creek in the lowerpiedmont zone, downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .... 109

59. Graphs showing daily mean depth to water in Utah Geological Survey monitoring wells 

in lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones of Snake Creek drainage basin near 

Garrison, Millard County, Utah, 2009–11 ........................................................................................ 110

60. Graphs showing well data from fractured limestone in upper-piedmont zone through 

basin-fill deposits in lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones in the Snake Creek 

drainage to fractured limestone in the Burbank Hills, White Pine County, Nevada and 

Millard County, Utah ......................................................................................................................... 111

61. Map showing location of Big Springs in southern Snake Valley, Big Spring Wash at the 

south end of the Snake Range in northern Hamlin Valley, Limestone Hills that divide 

southern Spring Valley from northern Hamlin Valley, and water level contours that 

depict a groundwater divide in southern Spring Valley, south of Baking Powder Flat, 

Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada .................................................................................... 114

62. Graph showing daily mean discharge in the north and south channels and combined 

daily mean discharge of Big Springs for water years 2006–11, southern Snake Valley, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................. 115

63. Map showing geology of the Big Springs area in southern Snake Valley, including the 

south end of the Snake Range, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern Spring Valley 

in Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada ............................................................................... 118

64. Perspective view showing the subsurface geology of southern Snake Valley, northern 

Hamlin Valley, and southern Spring Valley, as interpreted from well data, seismicreflection profiles, and modeled gravity data ............................................................................... 120

65. Map and diagrams showing location and two-dimensional resistivity profiles of lowfrequency magnetotelluric (MT) data collected in the vicinity of the Limestone Hills 

in northern Hamlin Valley and southern Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada ................... 121

66. Maps showing location of wells with subsurface lithologic data in the vicinity of 

Big Springs, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada ............................................................. 123

67. Graphs showing distribution of groundwater pumping and comparison of measured 

and simulated drawdown during September 1980 for the MX test wells in southern 

Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada .......................................................................................... 126

68. Map showing distribution of basin-fill deposits and carbonate rocks and depth to 

groundwater in southern Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern 

Snake Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada ........................................................... 128

69. Map showing conceptualization of groundwater flow to southern Snake Valley from 

source areas in the south end of the Snake Range, southern Spring Valley, and 

northern Hamlin Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada ......................................... 132

1–1. Map showing location of completed and planned wells near Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................................................................... 152

1–2. Map showing location of Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site, near Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................................................................... 153

1–3. Diagram showing lithologic and geophysical logs for the Snake 5 well .................................... 155

1–4. Diagram showing lithologic and geophysical logs for the Big Springs northwest well .......... 156

1–5. Diagram showing lithologic and geophysical logs for the Big Springs southwest well .......... 157
xiii

Tables

1. Index of gaging stations in the southern part of Snake Range and Snake Valley, Great 

Basin National Park, and Cleve Creek in nearby Schell Creek Range, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 23

2. Lithologic classes in drill holes in the vicinity of Baker and Lehman Creeks, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 33

3. Mean annual precipitation volume and water yield from the mountain-upland zone in the 

Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins and from four nearby drainage basins, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ......................................................................... 40

4. Water budgets for the mountain-upland and karst-limestone zones in the combined 

drainage basins of Baker and Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................... 43

5. Selected water chemistry of creeks and springs near the contact between mountainupland and karst-limestone zones, at Model Cave in karst-limestone zone, and at 

Rowland Spring near contact between karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 1990–2011 .......................................... 45

6. Discharge measurements, streamflow loss or gain, streambed width and length, and 

net streambed-seepage rates for selected reaches on Baker Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, July 2009 to August 2011 ...................................... 49

7. Discharge measurements, streamflow loss or gain, streambed width and length, and net 

streambed-seepage rates for selected reaches on Lehman Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, July 2010 to August 2011 ...................................... 50

8. Streambed−seepage rates, hydraulic gradients, and hydraulic conductivities at six 

piezometers driven into Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, June 2009 to November 2010 ......................................................... 50

9. Summary of hydraulic properties of the younger alluvial and older basin-fill deposits 

estimated from an aquifer test from October 9, 2009, to October 13, 2009, at the 

Baker 4 aquifer-test site downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................. 68

10. Summary of transmissivity estimates derived from specific capacities reported in welldrillers’ logs for Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, vicinity of Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .................................................................................... 69

11. Water budgets for the mountain-upland, karst-limestone, and upper-piedmont zones 

in the Snake Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................. 79

12. Net streambed-seepage rates from stream-discharge measurements along selected 

reaches on Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

July 2009 through February 2010 ...................................................................................................... 84

13. Streambed-seepage rates and hydraulic conductivities of the streambed at 10 

piezometers driven into Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, May 2009 through February 2010 ...................................................................................... 87

14. Saturation indices of calcite and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide for water 

samples collected January 16–18, 2010, from Snake Creek, springs, and wells, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.......................................................................... 99

15. Geochemical modeling results of mineral-phase mass transfer for each of four segments 

along Snake Creek from water samples collected January 16–17, 2010, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ...................................................................................102

16. Summary of transmissivity estimates from specific capacities reported in well-drillers’ 

logs and from two aquifer tests for wells in the Snake Creek and Big Wash drainage 

basins, vicinity of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada .............................103

17. Geochemical modeling results of mineral-phase mass transfer for flow paths to the 

Snake 5 deep well from spring and well-water samples collected January 16–18, 

2010, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ...................................................104
xiv

18. Summary of transmissivity estimates from specific capacities reported in well-drillers’ 

logs and from aquifer tests for wells in southern Snake, northern Hamlin, and southern 

Spring Valleys, vicinity of Big Springs, White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada ............... 124

19. Summary of transmissivity from aquifer tests for wells in southern Snake, northern 

Hamlin, and southern Spring valleys, vicinity of Big Springs, White Pine and Lincoln 

Counties, Nevada .............................................................................................................................. 125

20. Mean annual precipitation volume and groundwater recharge in southern Spring 

Valley, Big Spring Wash drainage basin in northern Hamlin Valley, and eastern slope 

of southern Snake Range in southern Snake Valley, Lincoln and White Pine 

Counties, Nevada .............................................................................................................................. 129

21. Selected water-quality constituents in water for wells and springs in southern Spring 

Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern Snake Valley sampled between October 

2010 and May 2011, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada ................................................ 130

22. Selected water-quality constituents in water from Big Springs and test wells northwest 

and southwest of the springs in southern Snake Valley sampled in October and 

November 2010, White Pine and Lincoln counties, Nevada ...................................................... 131

1–1. Monitoring wells drilled near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

as part of this study, 2009–2010 ....................................................................................................... 151

1–2. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Snake Creek 5 monitoring wells, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ....................................................................... 158

1–3. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Big Springs Northwest well, southern 

part of the Snake Range, White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................... 158

1–4. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Big Springs Southwest well, south 

end of the Snake Range, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................................ 158

2–1. Description of bulk-precipitation stations in and near Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada ......................................................................................................................... 159

2–2. Record of bulk precipitation at station on Mount Washington, southern part of the 

Snake Range, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 1984–2011............... 159

2–3. Record of bulk precipitation at station on unnamed peak northwest of Mount Moriah, 

northern part of the Snake Range, White Pine County, Nevada, 1984–2011 ........................... 159

2–4. Record of bulk precipitation at station on Cave Mountain, Schell Creek Range, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 1985–2011 ..................................................................................................... 159

3–1. Location and description of discharge measurements at selected sites in the Baker, 

Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage basins, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, water years 2009–11 ........................................................................................... 162

3–2. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the Baker Creek drainage basin, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11 ................................ 161

3–3. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the Lehman Creek drainage basin, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11 ..................... 161

3–4. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the Snake Creek drainage basin, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11 ...................... 161

3–5. Discharge measurements at selected sites on Big Springs Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11 ............................................161

4–1. Location and description of National Park Service and University of Nevada, Reno, 

gaging stations in the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage basins in and 

near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2005–11............. 163

4–2. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service gaging station on Baker Creek at 

Narrows near Baker, Nevada (station 10243240), water years 2005–10 .................................. 163

4–3. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service gaging station on Rowland Spring at 

Great Basin National Park boundary near Baker, Nevada (station 10243265), 

water years 2005–10 ......................................................................................................................... 163

4–4. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service gaging station on Snake Creek at 

Great Basin National Park boundary near Baker, Nevada (station 10243232), 

water years 2005–09 ......................................................................................................................... 163
xv

4–5. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on 

Pole Canyon upstream of Pioche Shale outcrop near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 385858114131901), water year 2011 ......................................................... 163

4–6. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on 

Pole Canyon near confluence with Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 3859221141251), water year 2011 ............................................................. 164

4–7. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on 

Model Cave resurgent spring near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385922114123701), water year 2011 ................................................................................................ 164

4–8. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno temporary gaging station on 

Rosethorn spring near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 385948114114401), 

water years 2010–11 ......................................................................................................................... 164

4–9. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on 

Spring Creek Spring, Nevada Department of Wildlife Spring Creek fish-rearing 

station, near Garrison, Utah (site-identification number 385434114063901), 

water years 2009–11 ......................................................................................................................... 164

4–10. Daily mean water temperature at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging 

station on Pole Canyon upstream of Pioche Shale outcrop near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385858114131901), water year 2011 ................................................ 164

4–11. Daily mean water temperature at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging 

station on Pole Canyon near confluence with Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 3859221141251), water year 2011 .................................................... 164

4–12. Daily mean water temperature at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging 

station on Model Cave resurgent spring near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385922114123701), water year 2011 ................................................................................. 164

4–13. Daily mean water temperature at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging 

station on Rosethorn spring near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385948114114401), water years 2010–11 ........................................................................................ 164

4–14. Daily mean temperature at University of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station 

on Spring Creek Spring, Nevada Department of Wildlife Spring Creek fish-rearing 

station, near Garrison, Utah (site-identification 385434114063901), water years 

2009–11 ................................................................................................................................................ 164

5–1. Daily mean depth to water in 6-inch diameter monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifertest site next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385947114113201), water years 2009–11 ........................................................................................ 165

5–2. Daily mean depth to water in shallow monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385947114113202), water years 2009–11 ....................................... 165

5–3. Daily mean depth to water in deeper monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385947114113203), water years 2009–11 ....................................... 165

5–4. Daily mean depth to water in shallow monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 385947114113204), water years 2009–11 ................................................. 165

5–5. Daily mean depth to water in deeper monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 385947114113205), water years 2009–11 ................................................. 165

5–6. Daily mean stage in Baker Creek at site 2 near upstream monitoring wells at Baker 4 

aquifer-test site (site-identification number 385946114113301), water years 2009–11 .......... 165

5–7. Daily mean water temperature in 6-inch diameter monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifertest site next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385947114113201), water years 2009–11 ........................................................................................ 165

5–8. Daily mean water temperature in shallow monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385947114113202), water years 2009–11 ........................................165
xvi

5–9. Daily mean water temperature in deeper monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385947114113203), water years 2009–11 ....................................... 165

5–10. Daily mean water temperature in shallow monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 385947114113204), water years 2009–11 ................................................. 165

5–11. Daily mean water temperature in deeper monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test 

site about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385947114113205), water years 2009–11 ....................................... 165

5–12. Daily mean temperature in Baker Creek at site 2 near upstream monitoring wells at 

Baker 4 aquifer-test site (site-identification number 385946114113301), water 

years 2009–11 ..................................................................................................................................... 165

6–1. Daily mean depth to water in Snake 5 shallow well next to Snake Creek near 

Garrison, Utah (site-identification number 385524114045602), water years 2010–11 ............ 166

6–2. Daily mean depth to water in Snake 5 deep well next to Snake Creek near 

Garrison, Utah (site-identification number 385524114045601), water years 2010–11 ............ 166

7–1. Daily mean depth to water in northwest Big Springs well before, during, and after 

48-hour aquifer test at well (site-identification number 384227114082701), south end 

of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2010–12 ......................................... 167

7–2. Daily mean depth to water in southwest Big Springs well before, during and after 

48-hour aquifer test at well (site-identification number 384112114091101), south end 

of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2010–11 ......................................... 167

8–1. Names and locations of monitoring wells at Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site and 

temporary gaging stations in Baker Creek near Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada .................................................................................................................................. 168

8–2. Temperature, depth to water, drawdown, and pumping rate in 6-inch diameter well at 

Baker 4 aquifer-test site (site-identification number 385947114113201), October 2009 .........169

8–3. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in shallow 2-inch monitoring well about 

37 feet southeast (downstream) of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

(site-identification number 385947114113202), October 2009 ..................................................... 169

8–4. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in deeper 2-inch monitoring well about 

37 feet southeast (downstream) of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

(site-identification number 385947114113203), October 2009 ..................................................... 169

8–5. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in shallow 2-inch monitoring well about 

50 feet south (upstream) of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (site-identification 

number 385947114113204), October 2009 ...................................................................................... 169

8–6. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in deeper 2-inch monitoring well about 

50 feet south (upstream) of 6-inch pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

(site-identification number 385947114113205), October 2009 ..................................................... 169

8–7. Hourly mean temperature and stage for pressure transducers in Baker Creek near 

Baker 4 aquifer-test site, October 2009 ......................................................................................... 169

9–1. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in Nevada Department of Wildlife well 

next to Snake Creek during and following 5-hour aquifer test on June 23, and 

June 24, 2009, Spring Creek fish-rearing station, White Pine County, Nevada ...................... 170

10–1. Depth to water and drawdown in northwest Big Springs well before, during, and after 

42-hour aquifer test at well (site-identification number 384227114082701), south end 

of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, October 4–10, 2010 ............................................ 171

10–2. Depth to water and drawdown in southwest Big Springs well before, during, and after 

47.25-hour aquifer test at well (site-identification number 384112114091101), south 

end of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, November 2–4, 2010 .................................. 171

11–1. Slug-test data for test 1 at Snake 5 deep well on June 1, 2011, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................................................................... 172

11–2. Slug-test data for test 2 at Snake 5 deep well on June 1, 2011, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ....................................................................................................172
xvii

11–3. Slug-test data for test 3 at Snake 5 deep well on June 1, 2011, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada ................................................................................................... 172

12–1. Site-identification number, location, well diameter, casing depth, and depth to top and 

bottom of screened interval of pumped and observation wells in southern Spring 

Valley used for aquifer tests as part of U.S. Air Force MX missile-siting investigation, 

White Pine County, Nevada, September 1–21, 1980 .................................................................... 173

12–2. Depth to water and drawdown in the 10-inch diameter pumped well before, during, 

and after one step-drawdown and two constant-rate aquifer tests as part of U.S. 

Air Force MX missile-siting investigation (site-identification number 383704114225001), 

south end of Spring Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, September 1–21, 1980 ................... 173

12–3. Depth to water and drawdown in the 2-inch diameter observation well before, during, 

and after the two constant-rate aquifer tests as part of U.S. Air Force Missile siting 

program (site-identification number 385947114113203), south end of Spring Valley, 

White Pine County, Nevada, September 10–21, 1980 .................................................................. 173

13–1. Location, land-surface altitude, depths, screen length, and dates of installation and 

removal of piezometers driven into the streambed or near streambed of Baker, 

Lehman, and Snake Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada ......... 174

13–2. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PB1 driven into the streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–3. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PB2 

driven into the streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–4. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PL1 

driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–5. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements piezometer 

PL2 driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–6. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements piezometer 

PL3 driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–7. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements piezometer PL4 

driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–8. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS1 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–9. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS2 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–10. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS3 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176
xviii

13–11. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS4 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–12. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS5 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–13. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS6 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–14. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS7 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–15. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS8 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–16. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater water head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS9 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–17. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater water head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS10 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................. 176

13–18. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS11 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–19. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative to streambed, and hydraulic 

gradient from pressure-transducer data and manual measurements in piezometer 

PS12 driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13 ........................................................................................................ 176

13–20. Daily mean groundwater head relative to land surface and temperature from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS4_sb1 driven into ground 

14 feet south of piezometer PS4 in Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13 ........................................................................................................ 177

13–21. Daily mean groundwater head relative to land surface and temperature from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS4_sb2 driven into ground 

45 feet south of piezometer PS4 in Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13 ........................................................................................................ 177

13–22. Estimates of lateral hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in piezometers driven into the 

streambed of Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–2013 .................................................................................................... 177

14–1. Hydraulic and thermal properties used to estimate streambed-seepage rates and 

vertical hydraulic conductivity at piezometers driven into the streambeds at selected 

locations along Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada ............................................................................................................. 179

14–2. Hourly temperature and water level at selected depths in piezometer PB1, driven into 

the streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2010 ...................................................................................................................................... 180
xix

14–3. Hourly temperature and water level at selected depths in piezometer PB2, driven into 

the streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................................ 180

14–4. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PL1, driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 .........................................................................................................180

14–5. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PL2, driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2010 ................................................................................................................180

14–6. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PL3, driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2010 ................................................................................................................180

14–7. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PL4, driven into the streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 180

14–8. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at bottom of piezometer PS1, driven 

into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009 ...................................................................................................................................... 180

14–9. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at bottom of piezometer PS2, driven 

into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009 ...................................................................................................................................... 180

14–10. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PS3, driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009 ............................................................................................................... 180

14–11. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PS4, driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 180

14–12. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at bottom of piezometer PS5, driven 

into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................................ 180

14–13. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PS7, driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 180

14–14. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and at selected depths in piezometer 

PS9, driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 ........................................................................................................ 180

14–15. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and near bottom of piezometer PS10, 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009 ........................................................................................................................ 180

14–16. Hourly temperatures at selected depths in piezometer PS11, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10 .............. 180

14–17. Hourly temperature and water level at selected depths in piezometer PS12, driven into 

the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................................ 180

15–1. Distributed temperature sensing measurements from selected reaches of Lehman and 

Snake Creeks in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10 ................................................................................................................................ 182

16–1. Sampling locations for water chemistry from creeks, springs, caves, and wells in and 

near Great Basin National Park, southern Snake Valley, Nevada ............................................ 184

16–2. Field parameters at selected surface-water sites for water chemistry in and near Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ....................................................... 186

16–3. Dissolved major-ion concentrations at selected surface-water sites in and near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............................................ 186
xx

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............................................ 186

16–5. Nutrient concentrations at selected surface-water sites in and near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 .................................................................. 186

16–6. Stable- and radioactive-isotope chemistry at selected surface-water sites in and near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............................................ 186

16–7. Field parameters at selected caves, springs, and groundwater sites for water chemistry 

in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ...................... 186

16–8. Dissolved major-ion concentrations at selected caves, springs, and groundwater sites 

in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ...................... 186

16–9. Dissolved trace-element concentrations at selected caves, springs, and groundwater 

sites in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............. 186

16–10. Nutrient concentrations at selected caves, springs, and groundwater sites in and near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............................................ 186

16–11. Stable- and radioactive-isotope chemistry at selected caves, springs, and groundwater 

sites in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............. 186

16–12. Dissolved chlorofluorocarbon and gas concentrations at groundwater sites in and near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11 ............................................ 186

 16–4. Dissolved trace-element concentrations at selected surface-water sites in and near 
xxi

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Water-Quality Units 

Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2

) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square foot (ft2

) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) .590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

cubic mile (mi3

) 4.168 cubic kilometer (km3) 

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

)

acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 cubic hectometer (hm3

) 

Flow rate

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

/yr)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 0.001233 cubic hectometer per year (hm3

/yr)

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

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

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

cubic foot per second per square 

mile [(ft3

/s)/mi2]

0.01093 cubic meter per second per square 

kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

cubic foot per day (ft3

/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day (m3/d)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

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

Radioactivity

picocurie per liter (pCi/L) 0.037 becquerel per liter (Bq/L) 

Hydraulic conductivity

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

Hydraulic gradient

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

Transmissivity

foot squared per day (ft2

/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), 

unless otherwise specified.

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

otherwise specified.
xxii

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

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

aquifer thickness [(ft3

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

is used for convenience.

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

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Concentrations of radioactive tritium (hydrogen-3 or 3

H) are given in picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and 

carbon-14 (14C) is given as a percentage of modern carbon-14.

Concentrations of of deuterium (hydrogen-2 or 2

H), oxygen-18 (18O), and carbon-13 (13C) are given in delta 

(δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil) where delta is the relative difference between the ratios of 

deuterium to protium (hydrogen-1 or 1

H) or oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 (16O) in water samples to the respective 

ratios in Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW; Giofiantini, 1978), and carbon-13 to carbon-12 (12C) 

in water to that in a sample from the Pee Dee Formation of South Carolina (PDB; Craig, 1957). A negative 

value represents water with less deuterium relative to protium or oxygen-18 relative to oxygen-16 than 

VSMOW and less carbon-13 relative to carbon-12 than PDB.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AMT Audiomagnetotelluric

BS-NW Big Springs northwest well

BS-SW Big Springs southwest well

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CSAMT controlled-source audio-magnetotelluric

DTS distributed temperature sensing

GBNP Great Basin National Park

HSU hydro stratigraphic unit

LVVWD Las Vegas Valley Water District

Ma million years ago

MT magnetotelluric

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife

PVC polyvinyl chloride

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority

UGS Utah Geological survey

UNR University of Nevada, Reno

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, 

Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada 

By David E. Prudic1,3, Donald S. Sweetkind2, Tracie R. Jackson1, K. Elaine Dotson1, Russell W. Plume3, Christine 

E. Hatch1

, and Keith J. Halford3

Abstract 

Federal agencies that oversee land management for much 

of the Snake Range in eastern Nevada, including the management of Great Basin National Park by the National Park 

Service, need to understand the potential extent of adverse 

effects to federally managed lands from nearby groundwater 

development. As a result, this study was developed (1) to 

attain a better understanding of aquifers controlling groundwater flow on the eastern side of the southern part of the Snake 

Range and their connection with aquifers in the valleys, (2) to 

evaluate the relation between surface water and groundwater 

along the piedmont slopes, (3) to evaluate sources for Big 

Springs and Rowland Spring, and (4) to assess groundwater 

flow from southern Spring Valley into northern Hamlin Valley. 

The study focused on two areas—the first, a northern area 

along the east side of Great Basin National Park that included 

Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, and a second southern 

area that is the potential source area for Big Springs. Data 

collected specifically for this study included the following: (1) 

geologic field mapping; (2) drilling, testing, and water quality sampling from 7 test wells; (3) measuring discharge and 

water chemistry of selected creeks and springs; (4) measuring 

streambed hydraulic gradients and seepage rates from 18 shallow piezometers installed into the creeks; and (5) monitoring 

stream temperature along selected reaches to identify places of 

groundwater inflow. 

The Snake Range was formed by a generally normalfaulted uplift, where late Proterozoic and Cambrian siliciclastic rocks and metamorphic rocks are present at the highest 

altitudes and younger Paleozoic carbonate rocks are exposed 

along the flanks. The consolidated rocks are intruded by Jurassic to Tertiary age plutons, which are most common between 

the Lehman and Snake Creek drainage basins. Older Cenozoic 

rocks, including Oligocene volcanic rocks and Miocene sedimentary rocks, crop out locally and fill the basins that underlie 

Snake, Spring, and Hamlin Valleys. Younger Tertiary and 

Quaternary sedimentary (basin-fill) deposits overlie the older 

Cenozoic rocks. 

The rocks and deposits can be divided into three distinct 

aquifers. These aquifers include (1) basin-fill aquifers that consist of the permeable parts of the Cenozoic basin fill and some 

fractured or jointed Cenozoic volcanic rocks, (2) an upper carbonate-rock aquifer that consists of upper Paleozoic carbonate 

rocks overlying a regionally extensive middle Paleozoic siliciclastic confining unit, and (3) a lower carbonate-rock aquifer 

that consists of lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks. Secondary 

openings created by faults, shear zones, fractures, and, in the 

carbonate rocks, karst solution features, largely determine the 

water-transmitting properties of the volcanic- and carbonaterock aquifers. The basin-fill aquifers are composed of a wide 

variety of rock types and have highly variable hydraulic properties. The three aquifers are stratigraphically and structurally 

heterogeneous, causing large variations in the ability to store 

and transmit water. The aquifers are separated by confining 

units in some areas and are in contact with each other in other 

areas, yet function as a single, composite aquifer system. 

Basin-fill aquifers most often overlie or adjoin the lower and 

upper carbonate-rock aquifers.

Baker, Lehman and Snake Creek drainage basins were 

divided into five hydrologic zones on the basis of climate, 

geology, and topography. The five zones, from highest to 

lowest altitudes, are the mountain-upland, karst-limestone, 

upper-piedmont, lower-piedmont, and valley-lowland zones. 

The primary hydrologic connection between the mountainupland and the valley-lowland zones is streamflow. Much of 

the streamflow from the mountain-upland zone is generated 

above tree line.

Groundwater flow increases in the karst-limestone zone 

because of increased permeability caused by dissolution, 

which results in increased streamflow losses. Most of the 

increased groundwater flow is to springs near faults that form 

the boundary with the upper-piedmont zone. Thus, groundwater flow from the karst-limestone zone to the upper-piedmont 

zone was only 10 percent of the combined flow of streams and 

springs that exit the karst-limestone zone. About 60 percent of 

the water flowing from Rowland Spring in the Lehman Creek 

drainage basin was from streamflow losses along Baker Creek. 

The remaining flow from Rowland Spring comes from local 

recharge in the karst-limestone zone. 

1

University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, 

Reno, Nevada2

, U.S. Geological Survey, Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center, Denver, Colorado3

, U.S. Geological Survey, Nevada Water Science Center, 

Carson City, Nevada. 
2 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

In the upper-piedmont zone, the water table by Baker, 

Lehman and Snake Creeks was near the water level in the 

creeks for several hundred feet downstream from the karstlimestone zone. Water levels in piezometers along Snake 

Creek downstream from its confluence with Spring Creek 

were far below the streambed, indicating gravity drainage 

beneath this section of the creek. Estimated vertical hydraulic 

conductivity along a 3-mile reach of Snake Creek downstream of this confluence was 0.5 foot per day, which was 

an order of magnitude less than that estimated for Baker and 

Lehman Creeks. The low vertical hydraulic conductivity in 

the streambed along the lower reaches of Snake Creek results 

from chemical precipitation of calcite caused by off-gassing of 

carbon dioxide derived from springs at the end of the karstlimestone zone.

The younger alluvial deposits thicken rapidly across faults 

that form the upper boundary of the lower-piedmont zone. The 

absence of springs or groundwater flow to the creeks upstream 

of these faults indicates they are not a complete barrier to 

groundwater flow. The water table was shallow in the valleylowland zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, 

whereas the water table was more than 50 feet below land 

surface in the Snake Creek drainage basin. In contrast to thick 

basin fill in the valley-lowland zone in the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins, fractured and karst limestone underlie 

basin fill at relatively shallow depths in Snake Creek drainage 

basin. The underlying limestone acts as a drain for groundwater in the basin fill beneath Snake Creek.

A groundwater divide in southern Spring Valley south 

of Baking Powder Flat separates groundwater flow to the 

flat from southeastward flow into northern Hamlin Valley. 

Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley south of the 

groundwater divide into northern Hamlin Valley was estimated 

to range from 6,000 to 11,000 acre-feet per year. This groundwater does not flow to Big Springs in southern Snake Valley; 

rather, the source of water to Big Springs is groundwater 

recharge in the Big Spring Wash drainage basin and in nearby 

smaller drainage basins at the south end of the Snake Range.

Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley continues through the western side of Hamlin Valley before being 

directed northeast toward the south end of Snake Valley. This 

flow is constrained by southward-flowing groundwater from 

Big Spring Wash and northward-flowing groundwater beneath 

central Hamlin Valley. The redirection to the northeast corresponds to a narrowing of the width of flow in southern Snake 

Valley caused by a constriction formed by a steeply dipping 

middle Paleozoic siliciclastic confining unit exposed in the 

flanks of the mountains and hills on the east side of southern 

Snake Valley and shallowly buried beneath basin fill in the 

valley. The narrowing of groundwater flow could be responsible for the large area where groundwater flows to springs or 

is lost to evapotranspiration between Big Springs in Nevada 

and Pruess Lake in Utah.

Introduction 

Great Basin National Park (GBNP) is in eastern Nevada 

near the border of Utah and includes about 125 square miles 

(mi2) of the highest altitudes in the southern part of the Snake 

Range (fig. 1). The lands within the GBNP are the head-water 

area for streams and an important recharge area for groundwater in Snake and Spring Valleys. Streamflow generated 

in GBNP and groundwater in Snake and Spring Valleys are 

primarily used for agriculture. Large quantities of groundwater 

are stored in the basin-fill deposits beneath the valleys (Welch 

and others, 2007, p. 41). Groundwater also supports substantial areas of evapotranspiration in Snake and Spring Valleys 

(Welch and others, 2007; Gardner and others, 2011). The 

principal recharge areas for groundwater in the valleys next to 

GBNP are the Snake Range between Snake and Spring Valleys 

and the Schell Creek Range on the west side of Spring Valley (fig. 1). Estimated groundwater recharge to these valleys 

exceeds current water use for irrigation, stock watering, mining activities, and public and domestic supplies (Laczniak and 

others, 2007, p. 44, 64). Nevada and Utah share Snake Valley 

and its water resources. With increasing demand for water in 

Nevada and Utah, several proposals have been made to use the 

groundwater in Snake and Spring Valleys.

The National Park Service began discussions with the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in May 2000 about how to evaluate potential effects of groundwater pumping in Snake and 

Spring Valleys on water resources in GBNP. These discussions 

led to a USGS study to characterize surface-water resources in 

GBNP and to evaluate the susceptibility of those resources to 

groundwater pumping in Snake and Spring Valleys (Elliott and 

others, 2006). The initial assessment was designed to characterize the surface-water resources in GBNP first and then 

assess areas that were likely to be susceptible or potentially 

susceptible to depletions from groundwater pumping. Areas 

were identified in and near GBNP on the basis of geology and 

from water gain and loss studies along selected creeks in and 

near GBNP. The study began in September 2002, and data collection continued until September 30, 2004. 

Results from the initial assessment identified three drainage basins on the east side of GBNP where surface-water 

resources potentially could be affected by groundwater 

pumping in Snake Valley (fig. 2). Other streams and springs 

were identified both east and west of GBNP on public lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management and on privately 

owned lands near the valley margins of Spring and Snake Valley or on the valley floors (fig. 2).

Hood and Rush (1965, p. 35) listed five suggestions for 

future studies during the water-resources reconnaissance study 

of Snake Valley that provided guidance for this study: (1) a 

comprehensive inventory of the water resources, including 

data on all existing wells, springs, and streams, both in the 

valleys and mountain uplands; (2) a systematic geologic study 

of the basin fill to evaluate the aquifer framework and its relation to the carbonate-rock aquifer; (3) the drilling of several 

test holes at selected sites to evaluate the relation between the 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Location of Great Basin National Park in the Snake Range and selected features in eastern Nevada and western Utah.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

White Pine

Millard

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

LincolnBeaver

Baker

Creek

Snake

Creek

Lake

Wash

Big

Valley

Hamlin

Creek

Cleve

Lehman Creek

Springs Creek

Pruess

Lake

Creek

21

487

488

486

893

159

6

93 6

93

50 50

894

114°40' 113°40'

39°20'

38°40'

Wheeler 

Peak

0 5 10 20 Miles

0 5 10

15

15 20 Kilometers

Baker

Garrison

Shaded relief base from Environmental Systems Research Institute 

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003

Wilderness Area boundaries from Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Insitute, 2011

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, NAD 83 Baking Powder Flat

Hamlin Valley

Lake Valley

Spring Valley

Snake Valley

Spring Valley

Area of figure 2

Connors

Pass

Limestone Hills

Burbank

Hills

Mountain Home Range

Fortification Range

Wilson Creek

 Range

Schell Creek Range

Snake Range

Snake Range

Confusion Range

Sacramento

Pass

Mount 

Moriah

Cave

Mountain

Ferguson Desert

Big

Springs

EXPLANATION

Great Basin National Park

Wilderness area

Focused study area

Areas susceptible to groundwater 

withdrawals—Elliott and others, 2006

Likely

Potentially

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Spring

Gaging station

Nevada

Utah

Carson

City

Las Vegas

Salt Lake

City

Study

area
4 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 2. Location of Great Basin National Park and surrounding area in eastern White Pine and northern Lincoln Counties, Nevada.

21

487

488

159

6 6

93

50

50

894

White Pine

Lincoln

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

NEVADA

UTAH

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

Shaded relief base from Environmental Systems Research Institute 

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

114°22'30" 114°00'

39°00'

38°45'

0

42 6

2 4 6 8 Miles

0 8 Kilometers

Bald

Mountain

Pyramid Peak

Windy Peak

Jeff Davis

Peak

Wheeler 

Peak

Baker 

Peak

Narrows

Mount 

Washington

Nevada Department 

of Wildlife fishrearing stationValley Snake

Baker

Garrison

Minerva

Osceola

Lehman Caves

Visitor Center

Model Cave

Snake Range

Hamlin Valley

Baking Powder Flat Valley Spring

Snake

Spring Creek

Spring

Pole Canyon

Baker LakeBaker Lake

Johnson Lake

Dead LakeDead Lake Canyon

WilliamsWilliams

Canyon

Lincoln

North Fork

Lake

Creek

Dearden

Springs

Big

Springs

Big

Spring

Creek

Big

Springs

South

Fork

LexingtonLexington Creek 

Big Wash

Murphy 

Wash 

Johns Wash

Wash

Hamlin

Valley

Wash

DecathonDecathon

Canyon

StrawberryStrawberry

Weaver Creek

Shingle Creek

Creek Baker

Rowland Spring

Kious Spring

Baker 

Reservoir

Creek

Lehman

Creek

Ridge CreekRidge Creek

Pine CreekPine Creek

Cave

Springs

Stella LakeStella Lake Teresa LakeTeresa Lake

Brown LakeBrown Lake

Creek

Pruess

Lake

Creek

Baker

EXPLANATION

Great Basin National Park

Focused study area

Areas susceptible to groundwater 

withdrawals—Elliott and others, 2006

Likely

Potentially

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Spring

Gaging station

U.S. Geological Survey/National Park Service 

Southern Nevada Water Authority

Utah Geological Survey 
Introduction 5

basin-fill and carbonate-rock aquifers; (4) the continued use of 

existing gaging stations and adding temporary gaging stations 

selected for systematic observations; and (5) continued waterlevel measurements in selected observation wells.

Purpose and Scope 

Results from the Elliot and others (2006) study, and the 

suggestions for future studies by Hood and Rush (1965), were 

used to develop this study of selected areas along the eastern 

and southern slopes of the southern part of the Snake Range 

(southern Snake Range). The 4-year study that is the subject of 

this report began in August 2008. The purposes of this study 

were to gain a better understanding (1) of the distribution of 

aquifers that control groundwater flow on federal lands on 

the eastern side and south end of the Snake Range in White 

Pine County, Nevada; (2) of the connection between aquifers 

and surface water, because of the importance of ecologically 

sensitive areas along streams and at springs; (3) of the source 

areas for Big Springs and Rowland Spring; and (4) of groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley into northern Hamlin 

Valley (fig. 2). Results from the initial assessment by Elliot 

and others (2006) helped develop focused studies in two areas 

(fig. 2). The first area extended southward from the Lehman 

Creek drainage basin to the Snake Creek drainage basin and 

was further subdivided into two parts for the purposes of the 

report: a northern part that includes the water resources in the 

Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins and a southern part 

that includes the water resources of the Snake Creek drainage 

basin. The second area was south of GBNP and included the 

south end of the Snake Range, the south end of Spring Valley (southern Spring Valley), the north end of Hamlin Valley 

(northern Hamlin Valley), and Big Springs in the south end of 

Snake Valley (southern Snake Valley; fig. 2).

 The study was divided into four study elements (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008). Study element one was an assessment 

of the geometry and hydraulic properties of Cenozoic sedimentary rocks and coarse- and fine-grained basin-fill deposits. 

This element included an inventory of existing wells, the distribution of coarse- and fine-grained deposits in well drillers’ 

logs, and aquifer testing of selected wells that were drilled for 

this study. Study element two was an evaluation of the streambed properties along selected reaches of Baker, Lehman, and 

Snake Creeks and of the interaction between surface water and 

groundwater. This element included analysis of streamflow 

losses and gains by (1) assessing differences between discharge measurements along selected reaches; (2) installing and 

monitoring shallow piezometers at selected locations in the 

streambed; (3) drilling a series of wells, and doing an aquifer 

test next to Baker Creek outside GBNP; and (4) monitoring stream temperature along selected reaches of Lehman 

and Snake Creeks. Study element three was to determine the 

source areas for Rowland Spring and Big Springs. Rowland 

Spring is near the eastern boundary of GBNP and is the largest 

perennial spring within GBNP. Big Springs has the most flow 

of the springs studied and forms the headwaters to Big Springs 

Creek, which flows northeast into Utah. This element included 

(1) analysis of streamflow losses where alluvium along Baker 

and Lehman Creeks overlie limestone, (2) drilling of monitoring wells northwest and southwest of Big Springs, and (3) 

collection and analysis of water samples for evaluating source 

areas to the springs. Study element four was to assess the 

groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley into northern 

Hamlin Valley because it is a potential source of water to Big 

Springs (Hershey and others, 2007). This element included (1) 

the delineation of the groundwater divide in southern Spring 

Valley, (2) analyses of the geology from southern Spring 

Valley to southern Snake Valley, (3) analyses of coarse- and 

fine-grained basin-fill deposits, (4) estimates of the hydraulic 

gradient and aquifer properties of rocks and basin fill, and (5) 

geochemical analysis of water-quality samples from selected 

wells and springs. 

This report is divided into four main sections. The first 

section includes the introduction, a summary of the types of 

geologic and hydrogeologic investigations used for this study, 

and a description of the regional geologic and hydrologic setting that provides a basis for the subsequent detailed studies. 

The second and third sections describe, respectively, detailed 

studies in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins and 

in the Snake Creek drainage basin and include selected data 

from previously published reports. In each of these sections, 

the range-front hydrology is divided into five distinct hydrogeologic zones on the basis of topography, geology, climate, 

streamflow, and groundwater, in which the connection of aquifers to springs and streams vary. The fourth section describes 

the geology and hydrology in the vicinity of Big Springs and 

in a broader southern study area that includes potential source 

areas to Big Springs from southern Spring Valley eastward 

across the southern Snake Range and Limestone Hills to 

southern Snake Valley. Much of the data collected during this 

study, along with selected data previously collected by other 

state and federal agencies, are presented in the appendixes. 

Each appendix is briefly described at the end of the report; 

data associated with the appendixes are presented in tables. 

These tables are available for download at the persistent 

URL where this report is archived, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

pp1819. 

Description of Study Area 

The study area included southern Snake and Spring Valleys; northern Hamlin Valley; the southern Snake Range, 

which forms the topographic divide between Spring and Snake 

Valleys; and the Limestone Hills, which form the topographic 

divide between southern Spring and northern Hamlin Valleys 

(fig. 1). Two smaller areas were the focus of this study. These 

two areas included (1) the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek 

drainage basins in the GBNP to the Nevada–Utah state line 

and (2) an area extending from southern Spring Valley eastward across the southern Snake Range and Limestone Hills to 

southern Snake Valley, where Big Springs, at the margin of the 

valley floor, is the headwater to Big Springs Creek (fig. 1). 
6 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The study area is sparsely populated, and the land in the 

valleys is used primarily for grazing cattle and sheep and 

for growing alfalfa, along with some corn, wheat, and oats. 

Besides individual ranches that are scattered along the valley 

floors, most people reside in three small communities in southern Snake Valley. These hamlets include (1) Baker, Nevada, 

which lies at the toe of the alluvial fans of Baker and Lehman 

Creeks; (2) Garrison, Utah, which lies at the toe of the alluvial 

fan of Snake Creek; and (3) a small housing development 

named Lehman Creek Estates, which lies next to the eastern 

boundary of the GBNP along the Lehman Creek drainage 

basin (fig. 2). The population of Baker, the largest community, 

was estimated at 68 in 2010 (Nevada Demographer, 2011). 

Land-surface altitude in the study area ranges from 

13,063 feet (ft) above mean sea level at the top of Wheeler 

Peak to 5,750 ft on Baking Powder Flat, in southern Spring 

Valley, and to 5,100 ft near where Baker Creek crosses the 

border between Nevada and Utah (fig. 2). 

Perennial streams are mostly in the northern half of the 

southern Snake Range. Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks 

have the greatest streamflow and generally drain eastward into 

Snake Valley. Perennial streams on the west side of the range 

include Pine, Ridge, and Shingle Creeks, and Williams Canyon. Because the northern half of the southern Snake Range 

is steeper on its west side than its east side, perennial streams 

draining eastward to Snake Valley have longer stream lengths 

and larger drainage basins than those draining westward to 

Spring Valley.

Where the perennial streams on both sides of the southern Snake Range flow onto the alluvial fans, many have 

been diverted into pipelines or concrete-lined ditches. The 

water is then diverted to ranches on the valley floors, where 

the water is used for irrigation of crops. Snake Creek is the 

only creek that is diverted in GBNP. A pipeline diverts as 

much as 3 cubic feet per second (ft3

/s) where the creek flows 

across permeable bedrock in GBNP. Although Snake Creek is 

intermittent along the section where water is diverted into the 

pipeline and along a second section near the eastern boundary of GBNP, the creek is perennial at the Nevada–Utah state 

line. Snake Creek and Spring Creek Spring are used to supply 

water to the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s (NDOW) Spring 

Creek fish-rearing station, which lies just east of GBNP and 

south of Snake Creek, and the combined flow in the creek is 

used to irrigate crops near Garrison, Utah. 

Streams in the southern half of the southern Snake Range 

are either intermittent or ephemeral. Intermittent or ephemeral 

streams that drain into Snake Valley or northern Hamlin Valley 

include Big Wash and Big Spring Wash. Ephemeral streams 

that drain into southern Spring Valley are Johns and Murphy 

Washes and Lincoln Canyon (fig. 2).

The largest springs in the study area are the group associated with Big Springs, which is at the south end of Snake 

Valley (fig. 2). Flow from these springs, along with several 

nearby smaller springs, forms Big Springs Creek, which 

flows northeast to the Nevada–Utah state line, where the 

creek’s name changes to Lake Creek (fig. 2). Another series 

of springs, called Dearden Springs or Stateline Springs, add 

flow to the creek at the state line. Big Springs and Lake Creek 

are used to irrigate native pasture along their lengths. Lake 

Creek flows into Pruess Lake, which was dammed in the late 

1800s (Meinzer, 1911). Because of leakage through the dam 

into underlying carbonate rocks, the lake never reached its 

expected size. Water from Pruess Lake and Snake Creek is 

used for irrigation of crops near Garrison, Utah.

Previous and Concurrent Hydrogeologic Studies 

Prior to this study, information and data had been collected 

in the area since the late 1800s. Initial surveys, known as the 

Wheeler Surveys, U.S. Army, Engineer Department (Wheeler 

and Lockwood, 1875; Wheeler, 1875), described the geography, geology, water, plants, and animals for the region west 

of the 100th meridian. Reports by the USGS that focus on the 

water resources of the area began with an initial study of the 

Utah part of Snake Valley in the early 1900s (Meinzer, 1911). 

The first valley-wide water-resource appraisals were done 

in the mid-1960s (Hood and Rush, 1965; Rush and Kazmi, 

1965). These reports were followed by regional studies of 

groundwater resources in Nevada and Utah, some of which 

included groundwater-flow models (Mifflin, 1968; Eakin and 

others, 1976; Gates, 1984; Carlton, 1985; Bedinger and others, 

1990; Dettinger and others, 1995; Prudic and others, 1995; 

Harrill and Prudic, 1998). More recent studies, as discussed 

in subsequent paragraphs, have focused on data collection 

to provide a better understanding of the quantities of surface 

water and groundwater. 

Water-resource appraisals of Snake and Spring Valleys by 

Hood and Rush (1965) and Rush and Kazmi (1965), respectively, evaluated the surface-water and groundwater resources 

of each respective valley and produced the first valley-wide 

water budgets. Rush and Kazmi (p. 24) estimated about 

4,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) of groundwater from the southeastern 

part of Spring Valley flowed annually across the Limestone 

Hills into northern Hamlin Valley (fig. 1), principally from the 

south end of the Snake Range, and that groundwater development in the “southern part of [Spring] Valley might reduce this 

outflow somewhat” (p. 29). Hood and Rush (1965) concluded 

that about 60 percent of the groundwater recharge in Snake 

Valley was generated from the Nevada side (mostly from the 

southern Snake Range) and that “groundwater development 

could affect some of the springs in Snake Valley, depending on 

the location and extent of development” (p. 35). 

Additional data collection and analysis of water resources 

were done for the U.S. Department of Defense as part of an 

MX missile-siting investigation from the mid-1970s to the 

early 1980s (Ertec Western, 1981a–d). During this study, 

numerous small-diameter borings, ranging in depth from about 

90 to 200 ft, were drilled in eastern Nevada and western Utah 

as part of the siting investigation. Data collected from these 

borings were used in the design of the MX missile-basing 

system and to select locations to drill larger diameter test wells 
Introduction 7

(Mason and others, 1985). The larger diameter test wells were 

drilled to depths between 300 and 1,400 ft and were designed 

to determine well yields and estimate effects of planned withdrawals. More than 70 shallow wells were drilled in Spring, 

Hamlin, and Snake Valleys. One larger-diameter test well 

was drilled in southern Spring Valley, and another was drilled 

east of the Limestone Hills in northern Hamlin Valley. Data 

collected from these test wells provided important information 

about the aquifer properties of the basin-fill deposits. All data 

collected from these studies and all test wells were given to 

the USGS, and most of the wells have been used for long-term 

monitoring (Bunch and Harrill, 1984; Mason and others, 1985; 

Tumbusch and Schaefer, 1996). 

Since the initial application for rights to pump groundwater 

from Snake and Spring Valleys by the Las Vegas Valley Water 

District (LVVWD) in 1989, several studies have been completed, and several more are ongoing, that describe the water 

resources of the two valleys. Although the initial applications 

were filed by the LVVWD, the LVVWD became a member 

of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in 1991, 

along with six other agencies, for regional management of the 

water needs in southern Nevada. The initial applications were 

transferred to the SNWA in December 2003 (Southern Nevada 

Water Authority, 2009a). Many of the water-resource studies 

since 1990, particularly in Spring Valley, were funded by the 

LVVWD and, later, by the SNWA (Dixon and others, 2007; 

Southern Nevada Water Authority and U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 2008). Additional funds for specific studies also 

have been provided by the National Park Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, USGS, State of Utah (Utah Geological 

Survey), and Utah counties that include parts of Snake and 

Hamlin Valleys. 

Studies by the LVVWD included an analysis of steadystate groundwater flow, streamflow, and groundwater flow 

(Brothers and others, 1993; Brothers and others, 1994; 

Broadbent and others, 1995; Katzer and Donovan, 2003). In 

2005, the SNWA began an intensive geologic and hydrologic 

study of Spring Valley that included the drilling of several test 

wells and analyzing aquifer-test results (Eastman and Muller, 

2009a–d; Muller and others, 2009; Prieur and others, 2009, 

2010a–b; Mace and Muller, 2010a–d). 

Prior to a September 2006 water rights hearing by the 

Nevada State Engineer’s Office on the SNWA’s groundwater 

applications filed in 1989 by LVVWD in Spring Valley, a 

“Stipulation” was “made and entered into between the SNWA 

and the United States Department of the Interior on behalf of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (collectively, the ‘DOI Bureaus’)” (U.S. Department 

of the Interior and Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2006). 

The Stipulation required that the SNWA implement a systematic monitoring plan in coordination with the DOI Bureaus in 

Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern Snake 

Valley. As of 2012, the SNWA had implemented most of the 

plan in Spring Valley and had produced annual status and data 

reports on the results of monitoring of groundwater levels, 

streamflows, spring flows, and water chemistry (Southern 

Nevada Water Authority, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011, and 2012). 

Also included in the plan was the long-term monitoring of 

flow at Big Springs in southern Snake Valley by the USGS 

and the drilling of six monitoring wells in an area near the 

topographic divide between Spring and Hamlin Valleys along 

the Limestone Hills eastward to the Nevada–Utah state line 

(figs. 1, 2). The monitoring of flow at Big Springs is ongoing. 

An exploratory well in southern Spring Valley in this area that 

previously had been drilled by the SNWA was selected as one 

of the six proposed monitoring wells. The other five drilling sites were identified in the fall of 2007 and had not been 

drilled as of August 2013.

Hydrogeologic studies of Snake Valley area by the SNWA 

were published in a Utah Geological Association Guidebook 

in 2009. The studies included the characterization of streams 

and springs (Kistinger and others, 2009), water chemistry 

(Acheampong and others, 2009), and characterization of the 

geology and hydrogeology (McPhee and others, 2009; Rowley 

and others, 2009). 

A federal study began in 2005, following the passing of 

legislation (Section 301(e) of the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004: PL 108-424), 

that directed the Secretary of Interior to study the water 

resources of the basin-fill and carbonate-rock aquifers in 

White Pine County and nearby smaller areas in surrounding 

counties in Nevada and Utah. This study was done cooperatively by the USGS, the Desert Research Institute, and 

the State of Utah (Welch, and others, 2007). The study was 

named BARCAS for Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifer 

system. The study evaluated the (1) extent, thickness, and 

hydrologic properties of aquifers; (2) volume and quality of 

water stored in aquifers; (3) subsurface geologic structures 

controlling groundwater flow; (4) groundwater-flow directions 

and gradients; and (5) distributions and rates of groundwater 

flow. This study led to a greater understanding of the thickness and extent of basin-fill and carbonate-rock aquifers and to 

improved methods for estimating groundwater discharge from 

evapotranspiration. Estimates of groundwater evapotranspiration for Snake Valley greatly exceeded previous estimates and 

exceeded estimates of groundwater recharge. Because their 

analysis included multiple basins, excess water in other basins 

(such as Spring Valley) was balanced by assuming much of 

this excess water moved through permeable regions, such as 

the Limestone Hills between Spring and Hamlin Valleys, into 

Snake Valley (Laczniak and others, 2007, p. 71). 

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) began an assessment of groundwater resources in western Utah in 2005. 

The purpose was to evaluate potential effects from proposed 

groundwater pumping in eastern Nevada (Kirby and Hurlow, 

2005). The assessment was completed in 2014 (Hurlow, 2014). 

As part of the assessment, UGS developed a groundwatermonitoring network in Utah’s western deserts that included 

northern Hamlin and Snake Valleys (Utah Geological Survey, 2011). The monitoring network required drilling of new 

monitoring wells on the east side of Snake Valley in Utah, the 
8 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

establishment of gaging stations to measure spring flow, and 

the installation of shallow piezometers in wetlands as part 

of a habitat inventory. This long-term monitoring network 

was requested by the Utah State Legislature in response to 

proposed water-development projects in east-central Nevada 

and southwestern Utah. Objectives of the monitoring program 

included (1) drilling of monitoring wells near planned pumping wells to assess potential effects on groundwater resources 

in Utah, (2) collecting data to assess water-level and chemical 

trends, (3) the monitoring of flow from selected springs, (4) 

using aquifer tests to assess the capacity of aquifers to transmit 

and store groundwater, and (5) evaluating regional groundwater-flow patterns. Data from this network can be obtained from 

the UGS website: http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/

map.php?proj_id=1.

In 2007, the USGS began a federally funded water-availability study of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer 

system in western Utah and eastern Nevada. The study was 

part of a groundwater-availability program that assesses water 

availability in the Nation’s major aquifer systems. Specific 

objectives of the study included quantifying current groundwater resources, evaluating how those resources have changed 

over time, and developing tools to assess system responses to 

stresses from future human uses and climate variability (Heilweil and Brooks, 2011; Brooks and others, 2014). Although 

regional in scope, the study included the carbonate-rock and 

basin-fill aquifers in Snake and Spring Valleys; selected data 

collected for the study were incorporated into the analyses 

presented in this report.

The National Park Service has funded several studies 

related to the potential effects of groundwater pumping in the 

valleys next to the GBNP. A geophysical seismic-refraction 

near Lehman Creek downstream of the GBNP was completed 

in 2004 (David L. Berger, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson 

City, Nev., written commun., 2004). A geochemical assessment of the source water for Cave Springs and its relation to 

the carbonate-rock aquifer was done in the fall of 2007 (Prudic 

and Glancy, 2009). Beginning in 2009, five other studies were 

done. The first comprised a series of seismic-refraction surveys along Baker Creek from the eastern boundary of GBNP 

upstream to the Narrows (Allander and Berger, 2009). The 

second involved the collection of water-quality samples from 

Baker and Snake Creeks and, in each of their drainage basins, 

from selected caves and springs in February 2009 (Paul and 

others, 2014). The third was an audio-magnetotelluric geophysical survey along and near Baker Creek for the purpose 

of characterizing the range-front faults (Asch and Sweetkind, 2010, 2011). The fourth analyzed pumping effects on 

groundwater levels, groundwater loss to phreatophytes, and 

spring flows in Snake and Spring Valleys by using a numerical groundwater-flow model (Halford and Plume, 2011). The 

fifth was a study between September 2011 and April 2012 to 

determine the connection of Baker Creek and Pole Canyon 

with water in caves and at springs in the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins by placing fluorescent dyes in the 

creeks upstream of the limestone outcrops (Thomas Aley, 

Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc., Protem, Missouri, written commun., 2013).

Finally, several counties in Utah, funded a study of Snake 

Valley that began in 2010 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011; 

Masbruch and others, 2014). Project objectives were (1) 

to improve the understanding of groundwater flow in the 

basin-fill and carbonate aquifers, of connections between the 

aquifers, and of sources of water to springs and wells in Snake 

Valley and (2) to constrain estimates of interbasin groundwater 

flow.

Description of Geologic and 

Hydrogeologic Investigations 

Several geologic and hydrogeologic investigations were 

done to fulfill the objectives of this study. Descriptions of 

these investigations are provided in this section, including the 

methods used and links to data presented in the appendixes. 

The data and their interpretation are discussed in detail in 

subsequent sections of this report. Geologic investigations 

included (1) field mapping and evaluation of structures in the 

southern Snake Range and the Limestone Hills; (2) mapping 

of Miocene stratigraphic units along the east side of the southern Snake Range; (3) compilation and geologic interpretation 

of well-drillers’ logs obtained from the Nevada Division of 

Water Resources well-log database (Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, 2008) for southern Spring Valley, northern Hamlin 

Valley, and southern Snake Valley; and (4) drilling of monitoring wells at selected sites near Baker Creek (Baker 4 aquifertest site), Snake Creek (Snake 5 wells), and Big Springs (Big 

Springs NW and SW wells). Well location, drilling methods, 

lithologic descriptions, geophysical logs, and well-completion data for each of the completed sites are summarized in 

appendix 1.

Precipitation and temperature records were compiled 

for this study. These data were obtained from the Western 

Regional Climate Center (2011, 2012a, 2012b) for cooperative stations near Lehman Caves; Eskdale, Utah; and Garrison, 

Utah. Snowpack data from the Baker Creek snow course were 

obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(2011). Bulk-precipitation stations at high altitudes in the 

Snake Range and in the nearby Schell Creek Range were 

compiled from data published in the USGS annual water-data 

reports for Nevada (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/); data 

for water years 1985–2011 are in appendix 2 along with references to annual water-data reports available in printed form. 

During the study, discharge was measured at 14 sites in the 

Baker Creek drainage basin, at 9 sites in the Lehman Creek 

drainage basin, at 15 sites in the Snake Creek drainage basin 

between June 2009 and September 2011, and at 3 places along 

Big Springs Creek in November 2009. The measurements 

were made in an effort to quantify gains and losses along each 

creek. Measurements were made by personnel from the U.S. 
Description of Geologic and Hydrogeologic Investigations 9

Geological Survey, the National Park Service, and University 

of Nevada, Reno. Measurements by the National Park Service 

were in support of this study. Discharge measurements of 

creeks and springs were made by using a pygmy or standard 

AA meter attached to a wading rod according to procedures 

described by Rantz and others (1982, chapter 5) and Nolan 

and others (2000). Measurement sites were selected on the 

basis of access to the creeks, the distribution of flow across the 

channel, and geology. These discharge measurements are summarized in appendix 3. 

Three gaging stations have been operated by the National 

Park Service at Rowland Spring (USGS station number 

10243265), Baker Creek (USGS station number 10243240), 

and Snake Creek at boundary of GBNP (USGS station number 

10243230) since October 1, 2004. Data collected at Rowland 

Spring and Baker Creek gaging stations during water years 

2005–10, and at Snake Creek during water years 2005–09, 

were analyzed by this study to determine daily mean discharge. Daily mean discharges at these gaging stations are 

listed in appendix 4 along with data from four temporary 

gaging stations in the Baker Creek drainage basin (two on 

Pole Canyon, one at Model Cave resurgent spring, and one at 

Rosethorn spring) and one temporary gaging station at Spring 

Creek Spring in the Snake Creek drainage basin that were 

established as part of this study and operated for selected periods between June 2009 and September 2011.

Groundwater investigations included (1) the measurement of groundwater levels in many existing wells in southern 

Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and the Nevada part of 

southern Snake Valley during the spring and fall of 2009; (2) 

the estimation of transmissivity from 32 specific-capacities 

reported in well-drillers’ logs; (3) 2 aquifer tests at wells completed near Big Springs during fall 2010 and 1 next to Baker 

Creek in October 2009; (4) an aquifer test of a domestic-supply well at the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station during June 2009; (5) a slug test of a well completed in carbonate 

rock next to Snake Creek in June 2010; and (6) the installation 

of 18 piezometers in the streambed at selected locations along 

Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks and 2 streambank piezometers next to Snake Creek during summer of 2009. Groundwater measurements of wells in southern Spring Valley, northern 

Hamlin Valley, and southern Snake Valley were coordinated 

with measurements made by SNWA, the USGS Water Science 

Center in Utah, and the UGS. The measurements were used 

to develop a new groundwater potentiometric surface contour 

map that included all water-level measurements in the study 

area (Gardner and others, 2011). 

Pressure transducers were used to record water level and 

temperature every 15 minutes in the five monitoring wells 

at the Baker 4 aquifer-test site next to Baker Creek between 

September 2009 and September 2011. Daily mean data are 

summarized in appendix 5. Water-level and temperature data 

were recorded hourly in the Snake 5 deep well next to Snake 

Creek between January 2010 and September 2011 and in the 

shallow well between June and August 2011, after water was 

first measured in the shallow well. Only daily mean depth to 

water data in the Snake 5 wells are summarized in appendix 

6 because water temperature in the deep well was constant 

at 10.9 degrees Celsius (°C), and water in the shallow well 

was only present for a few weeks. Pressure transducers also 

were used to record water levels hourly in the two monitoring 

wells near Big Springs. Daily mean water levels in the well 

northwest of Big Springs between November 2009 and January 2012 and in the well southwest of Big Springs between 

September 2010 and June 2011 are summarized in appendix 

7. The data from the four aquifer tests are listed in appendixes 

8–10. Data for three slug tests at the Snake 5 deep well are 

listed in appendix 11. Data from an aquifer test at a monitoring well in southern Spring Valley done as part of the MX 

missile-siting investigation in Nevada and Utah were found in 

the USGS files, but no analysis of the data was ever published 

(Bunch and Harrill, 1984). The test data are listed in appendix 

12 and were analyzed as part of this study.

Two shallow piezometers were driven at selected locations into the streambed of Baker Creek, four were driven into 

the streambed of Lehman Creek, and twelve were driven into 

streambed of Snake Creek to measure the hydraulic gradient 

between the creek and shallow groundwater and to estimate 

the streambed-seepage rate. The methods for piezometer 

installation and data collection used to determine the hydraulic 

gradient of the streambed at each piezometer, and for slug tests 

used to evaluate the connection of the piezometer to sediments 

beneath the streambed, are given in appendix 13. Methods for 

determining streambed-seepage rates and vertical hydraulic 

conductivity of the streambed are described in appendix 14, 

and the hourly temperature data collected at each piezometer 

are provided as well. 

Groundwater flow to selected reaches of Lehman and 

Snake Creeks was evaluated by using distributed temperature 

sensing (DTS). DTS measures temperature by using Ramanspectra backscattered light along a fiber-optic cable (Selker 

and others, 2006; Tyler and others, 2009). Temperatures were 

measured along one 2,800-ft reach on Snake Creek immediately downstream of the eastern boundary of GBNP during 

the summer of 2009 and along two adjoining reaches (totaling 

5,300 ft) from the Lehman Creek gaging station past the eastern boundary of GBNP beginning in October 2009 and ending 

in May 2010. Details of the installation of the fiber-optic cable 

in the selected reaches of Lehman and Snake Creeks are provided in appendix 15. 

Lastly, a total of 34 surface-water samples were collected from 13 sites along Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks 

between February 2009 and August 2011, and a total of 31 

groundwater samples were collected from 17 springs and 

wells. Four surface water samples and seven groundwater 

samples collected in the Baker and Snake Creek drainage 

basins during February 2009 were for a related, but separate, study (Paul, 2014), and groundwater samples collected 

from Rowland Spring in the Lehman Creek drainage basin, 

from Marmot Spring in the Baker Creek drainage basin, and 

from Outhouse and Spring Creek Springs in the Snake Creek 

drainage basin during May 2010, as well as a sample from the 
10 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Snake Creek 5 deep well in June 2010, were collected by the 

Utah Water Science Center of the USGS as part of a separate 

study (Philip Gardner, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2011). The water samples were analyzed for different 

constituents, depending on the purpose of each collected 

sample. The samples were used to evaluate the connection of 

streams with aquifers and to evaluate source areas to Rowland 

Spring and Big Springs. Description of sample collection 

methods, laboratories used for the chemical analyses, the collecting agency, and the constituents analyzed at each sampling 

site are provided in appendix 16.

Geologic Setting 

Introduction 

The history of the study area is preserved in a geologic 

setting of rocks and geologic structures that span more than 

a billion years. This geology ranges from Late Proterozoic 

sedimentary rocks to widespread Quaternary alluvial deposits 

and active faults (Stewart, 1980; Hintze and Kowallis, 2009). 

The geologic framework strongly affects groundwater flow. 

Any water-resources assessment of the area can benefit from 

considering the complex geologic history and understanding the distribution of the diverse rock types and geologic 

environments. 

The Snake Range is a generally north-trending normal 

fault-bounded uplift, where late Proterozoic and Cambrian 

siliciclastic rocks or metamorphic rocks are present at or near 

the surface (fig. 3). These rocks form the lowest parts of the 

consolidated rock stratigraphic section, yet are at the highest 

altitudes in the range, including Mount Moriah in the northern 

Snake Range and Wheeler Peak in the southern Snake Range 

(fig. 3). In contrast, outcrops of Pennsylvanian- and Permianaged carbonate rocks, some of the highest consolidated rocks 

stratigraphically, are widely exposed in the southern part of 

the Schell Creek Range to the west, and in the Burbank Hills 

and Confusion Range to the east, of the study area (fig. 3). 

These ranges feature regional-scale synclines that preserve 

the entire thickness of the Paleozoic consolidated-rock section 

(Gans and Miller, 1983). Snake Valley separates the structurally complex Snake Range from the relatively simple structure 

and stratigraphy of the Confusion Range to the east (fig. 3). 

Volcanic rocks dominate to the south of the study area where 

voluminous ash-flow tuffs were erupted from large volcanic 

calderas of the Indian Peak caldera complex. These volcanic 

rocks are exposed in outcrops south of the Limestone Hills, in 

the Fortification Range, in the Mountain Home Range (fig. 3), 

and in the subsurface in Spring and Hamlin Valleys (Sweetkind and du Bray, 2008).

The structural geologic setting of the study area is complex, exhibiting several ages and styles of deformation. The 

study area was affected by two general phases of deformation: a Late Devonian to Eocene compressional deformation 

characterized by regional folding and overthrusting and a 

subsequent Neogene extension characterized by at least two 

periods of normal faulting. Locally, Miocene calderas and 

transverse and strike-slip faults are important structural elements. Miocene-aged low-angle normal faults dominate the 

northern Snake Range, the northern half of the southern Snake 

Range, and parts of the Schell Creek Range (Gans and Miller, 

1983; Bartley and Wernicke, 1984; fig. 3). Arcuate normal 

faults that involve Miocene sedimentary rocks and are interpreted to connect with the low-angle normal faults at depth 

are present to the east of Sacramento Pass and in the Snake 

Creek drainage basin (Grier, 1984; Miller and others, 1999; 

fig. 3). Young, moderate- to high-angle normal faults bound 

the eastern side of the Schell Creek Range, the western side 

of the Snake Range and the Limestone Hills, and the western 

side of the Mountain Home Range and are present along the 

eastern flank of the southern Snake Range south of Lexington 

Creek (fig. 3).

Stratigraphy and Hydrostratigraphy 

Stratigraphic units in the study area (fig. 4) span from late 

Precambrian through Triassic consolidated sedimentary rocks 

and their metamorphic equivalents, igneous crystalline rocks 

that range in age from Jurassic to Tertiary, various types of 

Oligocene volcanic rocks, Miocene and younger semi-consolidated basin fill, and poorly consolidated to unconsolidated 

Tertiary and Quaternary basin-fill.

Consolidated Sedimentary Rocks 

East-central Nevada and western Utah were in a region 

with relatively continuous deposition of predominantly marine 

sediments on the subsiding western continental shelf of North 

America from the late Precambrian through Triassic periods 

(Stewart and Poole, 1974; Poole and others, 1992). Where 

not disturbed by structural complications, this stratigraphic 

sequence is up to 30,000 ft-thick (fig. 4). In the vicinity of the 

Snake Range, most stratigraphic sections are incomplete as a 

result of faulting, uplift, and subsequent erosion, but can be 

confidently correlated with more complete sections to the west 

of the study area in the Egan Range (Kellogg, 1963) and to the 

east in the House Range, Mountain Home Range, and Confusion Range (Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2003). Formational 

designations, thicknesses, and regional facies variations have 

been described by Langenheim and Larson (1973), Stewart 

(1980), Poole and others (1992), and Hintze and Kowallis 

(2009).

The lowest part of the stratigraphic section consists of a 

late Proterozoic to Middle Cambrian section of quartzite and 

shale, including the McCoy Creek Group, Prospect Mountain 

Quartzite, and Pioche Shale (fig. 4). This basal siliciclastic 

section is over 6,000 ft thick, and its base is not exposed. The 

overlying Middle Cambrian through Devonian section consists 

of a Middle Cambrian to Lower Ordovician limestone section 
Geologic Setting 11

Figure 3. Simplified geologic map of southern Snake Range and vicinity, eastern Nevada and western Utah.

Indian Peak

caldera complex

Confusion Range 

Synclinorium

Synclinorium

Butte

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

LincolnBeaver

White Pine

Millard

Baker

Creek

Creek Snake

Creek

Lake

Wash Big

Big

Creek

LexingtonLexington

Creek

Creek

Leh

Straw

man

Creek

Baker

Springs

Big

Creek

Spring

Wash

berry

Pruess

Lake

Wash

Valley

Hamlin

21

487

488

486

893

159

6

93 6

93

50 50

894

0 5 20 Miles

0 5 25 Kilometers

10

10

15

15 20

39°20'

38°40'

114°40' 113°40'

Great Basin

National

Park

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Geology modified from Stewart and Carlson, 1978; 

Raines and others (2003); Hintze and others, 2000; 

and National Park Service, 2007

Baker

Garrison

Sacramento

Pass

Mount

Moriah

Wheeler

Peak

Burbank

Baking Hills

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Confusion

Range

Spring

Valley

Schell Creek Range

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

EXPLANATION

Geologic unit

Playa deposits

Younger alluvium and valley fill

Older alluvium and alluvial fans

Cenozoic volcanic rocks, undivided

Miocene sedimentary rocks

Upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Mississippian siliciclastic rocks

Lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Proterozoic and Lower Cambrian

 siliciclastic rocks

Intrusive rocks, undivided

Great Basin National Park

Geologic structures

Low-angle normal or detachment fault

Inferred detachment fault

Normal fault

Inferred normal fault

Thrust fault

Buried fault, interpreted from 

geophysical data

Quaternary fault

Caldera boundary

Syncline

Inferred syncline
12 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 4. Stratigraphic columnar sections, southern Snake Range and vicinity, White Pine County, Nevada.

LCAU

USCU

UCAU

VU

LBFU

UBFU

LCAU

LSCU

LBFU

UBFU

HSU

HSU

ORDOVICIAN DEVONIAN MISSISSIPPIAN

PENN.

PERM.

SIL. CENOZOIC

Age Age CENOZOIC CAMBRIAN PRECAMBRIAN

Stratigraphic unit

(thickness, feet)2 HSU

Pogonip Group (1,600’)

Ely Limestone (2,500’)

Arcturus Formation (2,500’)

Chainman Shale (1,800’)

Guilmette Formation

 (3,500’)

Simonson Dolomite (650’)

Sevy Dolomite (1,300’)

Laketown Dolomite (1,500’)

Ely Springs Dolomite (350’)

Eureka Quartzite (500’)

Pilot Shale (500’)

Joanna Limestone (500’)

Oligocene volcanic rocks

Younger and older

alluvial and fluvial

 deposits (<500’)

Miocene and Pliocene

basin-fill deposits (5,000’)

Section exposed at south end of Snake Range

Section exposed in Confusion Range 

and Burbank Hills Basin-filling units in Hamlin

Valley and Spring Valley

Basin-filling units in 

Snake Valley

Cambrian to 

Devonian units are 

present in the 

vicinity of Snake 

Creek and Big Wash 

in the southern 

Snake Range as 

incomplete, 

complexly faulted 

sections above the 

southern Snake 

Range detachment.

2 Generalized unit thickness after Hintze and Davis, 2003

Stratigraphic section, north end

of southern Snake Range Stratigraphic section, south end of southern Snake Range and vicnity

Middle Cambrian and Ordovician carbonate rocks occur as local 

faulted blocks. Odrovician through Permian rocks have been removed

by faulting and are not exposed, but are possibly present in subsurface

Stratigraphic unit

(thickness, feet)1

Younger and 

older alluvial, fluvial

and glacial deposits

(<500’)

Pole Canyon 

Limestone 

(1,500’)

Pioche Shale (300’)

Prospect Mountain

Quartzite 

(4,500’)

Tgr Kgr

Jgr

1 Generalized unit thickness after Miller and others, 1995a.

McCoy Creek Group

Jurassic (Jgr), 

Cretaceous (Kgr)

 and Tertiary (Tgr) 

plutonic rocks

Precambrian and Cambrian units are not 

exposed in Confusion Range but inferred to 

exist at depth.

Notes

SIL., Silurian; PENN., Pennsylvanian; PERM., Permian

HSU, Hydrostratigraphic unit

UBFU, Upper basin-fill unit; LBFU, Lower basin-fill unit; VU, volcanic-rock unit

UCAU, Upper carbonate-rock aquifer unit; USCU, Upper silastic-rock confining unit

LCAU, Lower carbonate-rock aquifer unit; LSCU, Lower silastic-rock confining unit

LSCU

LCAU

Miocene 

conglomerate,

with LSCU and 

LCAU megabreccia 

and lacustrine 

deposits (5,000’)
Geologic Setting 13

(including the Pole Canyon Limestone, Lincoln Peak Formation, Johns Wash Limestone, Corset Spring Shale, Notch Peak 

Limestone, and Pogonip Group), a distinctive Middle Ordovician quartzite (the Eureka Quartzite), and an Upper Ordovician to Middle Devonian dolomite section (including the Fish 

Haven and Laketown Dolomites, Sevy Dolomite, and Guilmette Formation) (Whitebread, 1969; Hose and Blake, 1976; 

fig. 4). Late Proterozoic to Middle Cambrian siliciclastic rocks 

and local exposures of Middle Cambrian carbonate rocks form 

most of the sedimentary rock exposed in the northern part of 

the southern Snake Range near Wheeler Peak (fig. 3). The 

Ordovician through Devonian section is present in fault-disrupted sections near Snake Creek and as an intact stratigraphic 

section at the south end of the range and in the Limestone 

Hills (figs. 3, 4).

The thick lower Paleozoic carbonate section is overlain by 

a Mississippian-aged mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone that 

represent the siliciclastic influx associated with thrust-fault 

uplift of the Antler orogenic event in central Nevada (Poole 

and Sandberg, 1977; Miller and others, 1992). This interval, 

which includes the Mississippian Chainman Shale and other 

siliciclastic rocks, is widely distributed across eastern Nevada 

and western Utah and, where not structurally thinned, generally ranges in thickness from 1,000 to greater than 3,000 ft 

(Hose and Blake, 1976; fig. 4). Chainman Shale is only present 

at the south end of the Snake Range as isolated, fault-bounded 

blocks, but it forms continuous relatively thick sections in the 

Confusion Range, Burbank Hills, and Mountain Home Range 

in western Utah (Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2003).

The stratigraphically highest consolidated sedimentary 

rocks are thick, widespread Pennsylvanian and Permian carbonate-rock units that include up to 5,000 ft of Ely Limestone 

and Arcturus Group limestones and silty limestones (Hose and 

Blake, 1976; fig. 4). The only Mesozoic rocks present in the 

study area are minor exposures of Triassic rocks preserved in 

the downfolded core of the regional-scale Confusion Range 

syncline to the northeast of the study area (fig. 3).

Igneous Crystalline Rocks 

The consolidated rocks of the Snake Range were intruded 

by plutons of Jurassic (from 155 to 160 million years ago, or 

Ma), Cretaceous (from 90 to 110 Ma), and Tertiary (from 36 

to 28 Ma) ages (Lee and Van Loenen, 1971; Lee and others, 1981; Miller and others, 1989). Intrusive rocks are most 

common in the northern half of the southern Snake Range 

(fig. 3), such as near Strawberry Creek and in the area between 

the Lehman and Snake Creeks (Whitebread, 1969; McGrew 

and others, 1995; National Park Service, 2007). The Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite, Pioche Shale, and Pole Canyon Limestone are all in intrusive contact with these plutons (fig. 3). In 

some instances, plutons intrude along the Pioche Shale, separating the Pole Canyon Limestone and the Prospect Mountain Quartzite (Whitebread, 1969; Miller and others, 1995b; 

National Park Service, 2007).

Cenozoic Valley-Fill Deposits 

Older Cenozoic rocks crop out locally in the study area 

and underlie the alluvial basins of Spring, Snake, and Hamlin 

Valleys. These rocks include Oligocene volcanic rocks and 

Miocene sedimentary rocks. Younger Pliocene and Quaternary 

sedimentary deposits overlie the older Cenozoic rocks (fig. 4).

Oligocene Volcanic Rocks 

The middle Tertiary geologic evolution of east-central 

Nevada was dominated by volcanic events that produced 

many ash-flow tuffs deposited during caldera-forming eruptions (Best and others, 2013). Fractured Cenozoic volcanic 

rocks near the major volcanic fields are locally thick enough 

to be important subregional aquifers that could contribute 

groundwater to regional flow systems in the underlying 

Paleozoic carbonate rocks, where the two rock types are in 

contact (Harrill and others, 1988; Dettinger and others, 1995). 

Eruption dynamics caused ash-flow sheets to be distributed as 

far as tens of miles from their sources, to pond in topographic 

lows, and to mantle topography. Near their volcanic sources, 

individual ash-flow sheets can be up to several hundred ft 

thick, and the aggregate thickness of the outflow deposits that 

erupted from multiple calderas in east-central Nevada can be 

thousands of ft thick (Sweetkind and du Bray, 2008). 

The Indian Peak caldera complex, to the south of the study 

area at the south end of the Limestone Hills (fig. 3), erupted 

about 2,400 cubic miles (mi3

) of volcanic rock between about 

32 and 27 Ma (Best and others, 1989a, 2013). At least four 

major calderas have been identified in this complex on the 

basis of thick intracaldera tuff sequences and collapse breccias; two other calderas were inferred from the presence of 

regionally extensive ash-flow sheets (Best and Grant, 1987; 

Best and others, 1989a, 2013; Loucks and others, 1989; Williams and others, 1997). Best and others (1989a) estimated 

that ash-flow tuffs erupted from the Indian Peak caldera 

complex alone cover about 21,000 mi2 in east-central Nevada. 

Within the study area, many of the ash-flow tuffs erupted 

relatively early in the extensional history of the area (Axen 

and others, 1993). As a consequence, regionally distributed 

ash-flow tuffs typically are preserved deep in the stratigraphy 

of the downfaulted basins and often covered by thick intervals 

of younger sedimentary deposits. On the basis of the reported 

thickness of volcanic-rock outcrops in the White Rock Mountains and the Mountain Home Range, Sweetkind and du Bray 

(2008) estimated that volcanic rocks could be 6,000 ft thick 

or more in the southern part of Hamlin Valley. Seismic data in 

the north-central part of Hamlin Valley indicated that volcanic 

rocks could be about 3,000 ft thick (Shah Alam, 1990). Local 

outcrops of volcanic rocks are present at the north end of the 

Limestone Hills (fig. 3),which are a high-standing horst block 

that was not involved in the downfaulting that created the 

basins beneath Snake and Spring Valleys.
14 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Miocene Sedimentary Rocks

Semi-consolidated Miocene strata are present along the 

east flank of the southern Snake Range in the vicinity of 

Sacramento Pass, Snake Creek, and the south end of the range 

in Big Spring Wash (fig. 3). The area east of Sacramento Pass 

is underlain by a 5,000–10,000 ft-thick section of generally 

nonresistant Cenozoic strata that were deposited in a faultbounded depression between and east of the northern and 

southern parts of the range (Miller and others, 1995b). The 

section includes relatively thin Oligocene volcanic rocks 

at the base overlain by Miocene-aged, fine-grained, locally 

ash-rich lacustrine sedimentary rocks that have substantial 

quantities of limestone clasts, which are, in turn, overlain by 

coarse-grained, commonly conglomeratic, moderately to wellcemented conglomerates and other alluvial sediments (Grier, 

1984; Miller and others, 1995b; National Park Service, 2007). 

Incorporated within the Tertiary section are coherent megablocks of Paleozoic strata and extensive lenses of monolithologic breccia that have been interpreted as landslide deposits 

derived from the rapidly uplifting Snake Range during major 

Miocene extension and uplift. Megablocks and megabreccia 

lenses in this section range in size from a few tens of feet to 

more than 1,000 ft long (Grier, 1984; Miller and others, 1995a; 

National Park Service, 2007). The sediments that compose 

the Miocene section were shed from and deposited along the 

flanks of the range during uplift.

Tertiary and Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits

Late Tertiary and Quaternary unconsolidated sediments 

blanket at least half of the study area, filling the broad, intermontane basins that formed during late Tertiary and Quaternary crustal extension. Included in these young sedimentary 

sequences are fine-grained sediments deposited in localized 

lakes in the Pliocene and Pleistocene (Reheis, 1999). Intermontane basins are typically filled with poorly sorted, stream 

and alluvial fan deposits of sands and gravels along the basin 

margins and with playa silts and clays along the basin axes.

Older alluvium, which is Quaternary and possibly Pliocene 

in age, tends to cap ridges and form high-standing alluvial surfaces. The younger Quaternary alluvium, which includes some 

glacial outwash deposits, occupies active channels and fans 

(Miller and others, 1995a; National Park Service, 2007).

Hydrostratigraphy 

The diverse geologic units of the study area can be 

grouped into hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) to help conceptualize the aquifer system. HSUs have considerable lateral 

extent, and each HSU includes geologic units that have similar 

physical characteristics in terms of their capacity to store and 

transmit water. Similar to hydrostratigraphic groupings used 

in previous studies in the Great Basin region (Winograd and 

Thordarson, 1975; Belcher, 2004; Welch and others, 2007; 

Gardner and others, 2011; Heilweil and Brooks, 2011), the 

consolidated pre-Cenozoic and igneous rocks of the study 

area can subdivided into four consolidated-rock HSUs: (1) a 

lower siliciclastic confining unit (fig. 4), representing lowpermeability Precambrian and Lower Cambrian siliciclastic 

formations and also including intrusive igneous rocks of all 

ages; (2) a lower carbonate aquifer unit (fig. 4), representing high-permeability Middle Cambrian through Devonian 

limestone and dolomite; (3) an upper siliciclastic confining 

unit, representing low-permeability Mississippian shale; and 

(4) an upper carbonate aquifer unit (fig. 4), representing highpermeability Pennsylvanian and Permian carbonate rocks. The 

basin-filling Cenozoic units can be generally subdivided to 

include three HSUs: (1) a volcanic unit (fig. 4), representing 

areas of volcanic rocks with highly variable permeability; (2) a 

lower basin-fill unit (fig. 4), representing the lower, relatively 

less permeable part of the Cenozoic basin fill; and (3) an upper 

basin-fill unit (fig. 4), representing the upper, more permeable 

part of the Cenozoic basin fill that includes the most recent 

alluvial deposits.

The hydrostratigraphic units in the study area form three 

distinct aquifer systems: a basin-fill system that includes 

permeable parts of the upper and lower basin-fill HSUs, and 

some Cenozoic volcanic rocks in the volcanic unit, and two 

consolidated-rock carbonate aquifer systems consisting of the 

lower and upper carbonate aquifer HSUs. Matrix permeability, 

which defines the rock’s primary permeability, is low both for 

the consolidated carbonate-rock aquifers (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975) and for the welded parts of ash-flow tuff volcanic-rock aquifers (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973). Secondary 

openings created by faults, shear zones, fractures, and, in the 

carbonate rocks, karst solution features, largely determine the 

water-transmitting properties of these consolidated rocks. The 

HSUs that correspond to the Cenozoic basin-fill aquifer units 

include a wide variety of rock types and can have highly variable hydraulic properties. Grain size, sorting, compaction, and 

cementation are important influences on hydraulic conductivity of the basin-fill HSUs (Belcher and others, 2001). Each of 

these units can include one or more water-bearing zones, but 

are stratigraphically and structurally heterogeneous, resulting 

in a highly variable ability to store and transmit water.

In parts of the study area, the three aquifer systems can be 

separated by less permeable rock units, such as consolidated 

siliciclastic rock HSUs or low-permeability zones in the Cenozoic units. In some places, two or more of the aquifer systems 

can be in contact with each other and function as a single 

composite aquifer. The Paleozoic carbonate rocks of the lower 

carbonate aquifer unit are underlain at depth by the lower permeability siliciclastic and crystalline rocks of the lower siliciclastic confining unit. Where not structurally disrupted, the 

upper and lower carbonate-rock aquifer HSUs are separated by 

the intervening low-permeability upper siliciclastic confining 

unit HSU. This succession is present in the ranges to the east 

of Snake Valley and can be inferred at depth beneath parts of 

Snake Valley. In the Snake Range itself, the upper part of the 

Paleozoic section is missing, and the lower siliciclastic and 

lower carbonate HSUs are exposed at the surface. Throughout 

most of the study area, basin-fill aquifers most often overlie or 

adjoin the lower and upper carbonate aquifer HSUs.
Geologic Setting 15

Structural Geology 

The oldest structural features in the study area are compressional folds and thrust faults. From the Late Jurassic 

through the early Tertiary periods, the entire width of northern 

Nevada was compressed in a general west to east direction. 

During this time, western Utah and eastern Nevada were 

strongly affected by a major east-directed thrust fault system; 

the deformational event in this area has been called the Sevier 

orogeny (Armstrong, 1968). In the study area, regional folds 

in the carbonate-rock section are the main manifestation of 

this deformational belt. Two regional synclines are present in 

the study area, the Butte and Confusion synclinoriums (Hose, 

1977). These structures have broadly sinuous, but generally 

north-trending, fold axes, and they preserve rocks as young as 

Triassic in the core of the fold and have the entire Paleozoic 

carbonate-rock section present beneath (fig. 3). A small thrust 

related to the Sevier deformation is exposed in the Mountain 

Home Range; Mesozoic-age structures are not evident in the 

southern Snake Range itself.

Cenozoic deformation of the region is characterized by 

a variety of structural patterns that overlap in space and 

time and include the following: (1) local extreme extension along detachment faults associated with the development of metamorphic core complexes and the development 

of greatly extended zones (Wernicke, 1992); (2) generally 

younger basin-range extension along steeply dipping faults; 

(3) development of discrete strike-slip faults and transverse 

structures that accommodate slip between adjacent normal 

fault domains; and (4) Cenozoic volcanism that preceded and 

was contemporaneous with regional extension, creating huge 

caldera complexes and depositing voluminous material into 

the evolving basins.

Prior to regional extension and block faulting that created much of the present Basin and Range physiography, 

large-magnitude extension in localized highly deformed and 

extended areas created metamorphic core complexes (Coney, 

1980; Armstrong, 1982; Wernicke, 1992, 2013). Largemagnitude extension in the study area was along a gently to 

moderately dipping extensional fault (Cooper, 2008; Cooper 

and others, 2010) that has been called the Snake Range décollement by Miller and others (1983, 1999), but is here referred 

to as a detachment fault, as these features are often called 

(Armstrong, 1982; Wernicke, 1992, 2013). In the northern 

Snake Range, the gently dipping detachment fault generally 

separates ductilely deformed and metamorphosed Neoproterozoic and Cambrian rocks that lie beneath the fault from 

the highly faulted, brittle, deformed, non-metamorphosed 

Paleozoic rocks above it (Miller and others, 1983; Cooper and 

others, 2010). In the southern and central parts of the northern 

Snake Range, the detachment fault generally follows the top of 

the Lower Cambrian Pioche Shale (Miller and others, 1983), 

but in the northern part of the range, the fault cuts upsection, 

and the Middle Cambrian Pole Canyon Limestone is present 

beneath the detachment fault (Cooper and others, 2010). On 

the basis of seismic reflection data, the moderately dipping 

detachment fault was interpreted to dip beneath Snake Valley 

and the Confusion Range to the east of the northern and southern Snake Range (Allmendinger and others, 1983).

The magnitude of extension and intensity of lower-plate 

deformation decrease to the south in the southern Snake Range 

(Miller and others, 1999), but the detachment fault can be 

mapped to the south end of the Snake Range (McGrew and 

others, 1995; Miller and others, 1999; National Park Service, 

2007). The southern Snake Range detachment fault approximately parallels the northeastern boundary of the GBNP 

from Strawberry Creek southward to about 2 miles north of 

Snake Creek and then trends southwest across the crest of the 

range (fig. 3). In the southern Snake Range, rocks beneath 

the detachment fault include the Neoproterozoic and Lower 

Cambrian Prospect Mountain Quartzite, the Lower Cambrian 

Pioche Shale, the Middle Cambrian Pole Canyon Limestone, 

and intrusive rocks of various ages (McGrew and others, 

1995; Miller and others, 1999; National Park Service, 2007). 

These rocks exhibit low-grade metamorphism and brittle-toductile fabrics. Above the detachment, Lower Paleozoic rocks 

are brittle, deformed, and complexly faulted, particularly in 

the vicinity of Snake Creek and Big Wash (McGrew, 1993; 

McGrew and others, 1995; fig. 3).

Thick sections of partly consolidated to consolidated 

Miocene sedimentary rocks are exposed to the north of the 

Lehman Creek, in the vicinity of Sacramento Pass along U.S. 

Highways 6 and 50, and to the south along Snake Creek and 

Big Wash (fig. 3). These thick, west-tilted sections of middle 

Miocene rocks overlie the southern Snake Range detachment 

fault and were derived from the Snake Range during middle 

Miocene faulting and related uplift (McGrew, 1993; McGrew 

and others, 1995; Miller and others, 1999). The stratigraphy 

and structure of the Miocene section in the vicinity of Sacramento Pass have been described in detail (Gans and Miller, 

1983; Grier; 1984; Miller and others 1995b); these exposures 

provide insight into the history of faulting that led to the uplift 

of rocks in the northern and southern Snake Range and the 

development of the topography of this region. The Sacramento 

Pass section is tilted moderately to the west and is repeated 

by three major down-to-the-east listric normal faults (Grier, 

1984; Miller and others, 1995b; National Park Service, 2007). 

Geologic maps portray these faults as arcuate in shape and 

merging with the Snake Range detachment fault to the north 

and the range-front fault to the south (Grier, 1984; Miller 

and others, 1995b). In cross section, these normal faults are 

scoop-shaped, in the hanging wall of the detachment fault, and 

are interpreted to merge with the detachment fault at shallow 

depth (Grier, 1984; Miller and others, 1995b). Tilted Tertiary 

strata are in fault contact with bedrock of the southern and 

northern Snake Range along the Snake Range detachment 

fault, which is inferred to have been responsible for the uplift 

of the range and is the dominant structural feature on the east 

side of the range (Gans and Miller, 1983; Grier; 1984; Miller 

and others, 1999; Cooper, 2008; fig. 3). East of the northern 

Snake Range, seismic data have been interpreted to indicate 

that the detachment fault dips gently eastward beneath Snake 
16 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Valley and continues with minimal offset beneath the western 

part of the Confusion Range (Allmendinger and others, 1983; 

McCarthy, 1986).

Generally, the Basin and Range physiography of eastcentral Nevada is the result of Miocene through Holocene 

extension that created steeply dipping, range-bounding faults 

and intervening downfaulted basins (Zoback and others, 1981; 

Stewart, 1998). These faults have produced elongate mountain 

ranges and intervening Neogene basins. Moderately-dipping, 

listric to planar, extensional faults, with several thousands 

of feet of displacement, separate basins from ranges on 

one, or in most cases, both sides (Dohrenwend and others, 

1996). Most of the range-bounding faults strike north and 

are relatively straight or gently arcuate. Locally, ranges are 

bounded by multiple en-echelon fault segments, rather than a 

single fault (Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1985). Some basins have 

a half-graben form in which the basin fill and basin floor are 

tilted toward a master fault on one side of the basin; this fault 

accommodates much of the extensional deformation and subsidence, producing a tilted, asymmetric basin (Stewart, 1998). 

More commonly, basins have the form of a symmetric graben, 

with major faults bounding both sides of the basin (Stewart, 

1998; Watt and Ponce, 2007).

Geophysics and Investigation of Basin Shape 

and Depth in Study Area 

Regional gravity investigations and models have played 

a critical role in defining major basin-bounding and intrabasin faults, the thickness of Cenozoic geologic units, and 

the subsurface three-dimensional geometry of pre-Cenozoic 

rocks (Saltus and Jachens, 1995; Blakely and Ponce, 2001; 

Mankinen and others, 2006; Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009). The pre-Cenozoic basement rocks 

are much denser than the overlying Cenozoic volcanic rocks 

and sedimentary basin fill, which can be used to estimate the 

depth-to-basement in Cenozoic basins (Saltus and Jachens, 

1995). Gravity measurements are mathematically inverted 

to produce a map of regional-scale thickness of Cenozoic 

deposits (fig. 5), also referred to as “depth to pre-Cenozoic 

basement” (Watt and Ponce, 2007). The inversion process to 

determine the thickness of Cenozoic deposits is subject to a 

number of limitations, including the following: (1) gravity 

data coverage, especially for stations on basement outcrops; 

(2) accuracy of the density-depth function; (3) accuracy or 

scale of geologic mapping; and (4) simplifying assumptions 

regarding concealed geology (Watt and Ponce, 2007). A more 

detailed discussion of the accuracy and limitations of the 

inversion method are provided by Jachens and Moring (1990). 

Because of the regional depth-to-basement process, limitations 

mentioned previously, and the inherent ambiguity in the gravity method, caution needs to be exercised when thicknesses 

less than 1,500 ft are interpolated (Watt and Ponce, 2007).

Gravity data revealed that most of the valleys are underlain 

by basins in which the long axes run north-south (fig. 5) and 

that contain one or more elongate sub-basins (Watt and Ponce, 

2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009). According to estimates 

based on the inversion of regional gravity data, most basins 

reach depths to pre-Cenozoic basement of about 5,000 ft; 

some exceed 10,000 ft in depth, and the deepest basins are 

in northern Lake and Spring Valleys and in localized areas in 

Snake and Hamlin Valleys (fig. 5). Some of the valleys outside 

of the study area are underlain by basins with a half-graben 

structure and a dominant range-front fault on one side of the 

basin (Watt and Ponce, 2007). Some valleys are more symmetric and have a graben beneath the valley axis with shallow 

pediments on either side (Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen 

and McKee, 2009). The valleys that flank the southern Snake 

Range have several sub-basins with different extensional 

dynamics. In between these sub-basins, transfer zones have 

developed to accommodate differential extension. A number 

of basins have several sub-basins (fig. 5) separated by buried, 

structurally controlled, intrabasin highs (Watt and Ponce, 

2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009).

Descriptive Geology of Valleys in the Study Area 

Spring Valley 

Spring Valley is bordered by the Schell Creek Range to the 

west and the Snake Range to the east; the southernmost part 

of Spring Valley is bounded by the Fortification Range to the 

west and the Limestone Hills to the east (fig. 1). The valley 

is a graben with large, high-angle, basin-range faults (fig. 3) 

bounding both sides of the valley (Mankinen and others, 2006; 

Dixon and others, 2007; Watt and Ponce, 2007). Pleistocene, 

if not Holocene, fault scarps follow the western side of the 

valley, and Holocene scarps are present farther to the east, 

away from the range front (Dohrenwend and others, 1996). 

Late Pleistocene faults follow the western base of the southern 

Snake Range. Spring Valley is covered by Quaternary sediments, and a late Pleistocene lake covered most of the valley 

(Reheis, 1999). Lacustrine sediments are at and near land 

surface in much of the valley.

Gravity data indicated that the Cenozoic section throughout most of Spring Valley is less than 3,000 ft deep (fig. 5) 

and that the basin is segmented into local sub-basins separated 

by buried bedrock highs (Mankinen and others, 2006; Watt 

and Ponce, 2007). In the north-central part of the basin, an 

east-dipping normal fault at the eastern base of the Schell 

Creek Range has displaced Tertiary and Quaternary rocks to 

a depth of at least 6,000 ft (Gans and others, 1985). This deep 

northern basin is separated from the southern half of Spring 

Valley by an east-west trending structural high that, at least 

partly, is composed of Tertiary volcanic rocks (Mankinen and 

others, 2006). A central sub-basin is present south of where 

U.S. Highway 6 and 50 crosses the valley (fig. 5). Cenozoic 

basin fill in this sub-basin, which underlies Baking Powder 

Flat, is mostly less than 3,000 ft thick (fig. 5), except for a 
Geologic Setting 17

Figure 5. Thickness of Cenozoic basin fill for the study area, eastern Nevada and western Utah.

Indian Peak

caldera complex

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

LincolnBeaver

21

487

488

486

893

159

6

6 93

93

50 50

894

0 5 20 Miles

0 5 25 Kilometers

10

10

15

15 20

39°20'

38°40'

114°40' 113°40'

Great Basin

National

Park

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baker

Garrison

Sacramento

Pass

Burbank

Baking Hills

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Confusion

Range

Spring

Valley

Schell Creek Range

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Northern

Snake

Range

Valley

Lake

Southern

Snake

Range

Thickness of Cenozoic deposits 

from Mankinen and others, 2006, and 

Watt and Ponce,2007

White Pine

Millard

Thickness of Cenozoic deposits, in feet

 Less than 100

 100 to 500

 501 to 1,000

EXPLANATION

2,501 to 3,000

3,001 to 3,500

3,501 to 4,000

1,001 to 1,500 Greater than 4,000

1,501 to 2,000

2,001 to 2,500

Structures

Fault interpreted from gravity gradient

Buried bedrock high

Caldera boundary

Great Basin National Park
18 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

small circular area at its south end (Mankinen and others, 

2006; Watt and Ponce, 2007). The southernmost sub-basin in 

Spring Valley is separated from the northern parts of the valley 

by a northeast-southwest trending basement high visible in the 

gravity data (fig. 5). Density variations in the pre-Cenozoic 

basement rocks in the vicinity of this buried high (Watt and 

Ponce, 2007) indicated that the basement rocks are Paleozoic 

carbonate rocks. The southern sub-basin, between the Fortification Range and the Limestone Hills, is up to 5,000 ft deep 

in places and was shown by audio-magnetotelluric data to be 

internally faulted (McPhee and others, 2006, 2008).

Hamlin Valley 

Hamlin Valley is graben, bounded on the west by the Limestone Hills (fig. 3), which contain east- to southeast-dipping 

lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks (Rowley and others, 2009). 

Carbonate rocks on the east side of the valley in the Mountain 

Home Range are mostly upper Paleozoic rocks. These rocks 

are folded into a tight anticline-syncline pair and disrupted by 

a small thrust fault on the west side of the range (Hintze and 

Davis, 2002a). The northern margin of the Indian Peak caldera 

complex underlies southern Hamlin Valley (fig. 3). Ash-flow 

tuff erupted from the caldera complex is exposed in the Mountain Home Range and, on the basis of geophysical and well 

data, is known to occur in the subsurface in Hamlin Valley 

(Best and others, 2013). The middle of the valley is covered 

by Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium.

The configuration of the Cenozoic section beneath Hamlin 

Valley is known through gravity (Watt and Ponce, 2007), seismic (Shah Alam, 1990), and drill-hole data (Hess and others, 

2004). These data, discussed in a subsequent section of the 

report, indicated Hamlin Valley is made up of three sub-basins 

separated by buried bedrock highs (fig. 5).

Snake Valley 

Snake Valley is bordered on the west by the Snake Range, 

Deep Creek Range, and the Kern Mountains and on the east by 

the Confusion Range and the Burbank Hills (fig. 1). The north 

end of the valley merges into the Great Salt Lake Desert. 

West-dipping, faulted Miocene orogenic sediments are 

exposed east of Sacramento Pass; data from an oil and gas 

exploration hole to the east of Baker, Nevada (Hess and others, 2004), showed that these sediments extend in the subsurface beneath the main part of the valley. Similar Miocene 

sediments are exposed farther north, between the northern 

Snake and Kern Mountains. Volcanic rocks are thin and only 

locally present in Snake Valley and the flanking ranges (Hintze 

and Davis, 2002a, 2002b). Lake Bonneville extended south 

into the valley to about 3 miles (mi) north of Garrison, Utah 

(Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2002b); lithologic data from shallow water wells indicated that lacustrine sediments are present 

in the shallow subsurface. 

The Cenozoic section in Snake Valley is generally less 

than 3,000 ft thick (fig. 5) and, in many places, is less than 

1,600 ft thick (Watt and Ponce, 2007). Thicker Cenozoic basin 

fill, probably mostly middle Miocene sediments, is east of Big 

Springs, east of Sacramento Pass, east of the Kern Mountains, 

and east of the Deep Creek Range. Gravity data indicated 

that these areas have the greatest depths to basement in Snake 

Valley (fig. 5), reaching at least 6,000 ft thick and locally more 

than 9,000 ft thick (Mankinen and others, 2006; Watt and 

Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009).

Hydrologic Setting 

The quantity and location of surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the GBNP are dependent on the topography, geology, soil, and climate of the area. Topography is, in 

a large part, controlled by the geologic forces that formed the 

numerous mountains and valleys in the Great Basin region 

of Nevada and Utah. The variation in topography is critical 

to local climatic variability between mountains and valleys 

throughout the Great Basin (Houghton and others, 1975). 

Surface water is prevalent in mountain areas where exposed 

bedrock is not permeable and less prevalent where bedrock 

is permeable or where thick unconsolidated deposits or soils 

cover consolidated rocks in the mountains or valleys (Prudic 

and others, 1995, p. D9). In contrast, groundwater is prevalent 

in mountain areas where bedrock is permeable and in the valleys where thick, unconsolidated deposits cover consolidated 

rocks. Most groundwater in the Great Basin is pumped from 

unconsolidated deposits on or next to the valley floors (Harrill 

and Prudic, 1998).

Climate 

The climate at and near the GBNP is similar in character 

to the rest of the Great Basin in Nevada and Utah, where the 

generally cooler mountains receive more precipitation than the 

generally warmer valleys. The most common storms form as 

low-pressure systems in the Pacific, dropping much of their 

water on the west slopes of the Sierra Nevada, the Cascade 

Range, and the coastal ranges south of the Sierra Nevada, 

prior to moving across the Great Basin (Houghton and others, 

1975). These storms are most prevalent from November to 

April and typically result in snow accumulations in the mountain ranges of the Great Basin, but can occasionally produce 

heavy snowfall in the valleys as well. Continental storms are 

a second type of storm that result when low-pressure systems 

build over Nevada and Utah along cold fronts from polar-air 

masses brought southward by northerly winds. A third type of 

storm is the convective thunderstorm that results from moist 

air moving north from the Gulf of California and the Gulf 

of Mexico, which can bring intense rainfall from August to 

October (Houghton and others, 1975). 

Mean precipitation rates range from less than 8 inches 

per year (in/yr) on the valley floor of southern Snake Valley 

to more than 32 in/yr on top of the highest peaks in GBNP 

(fig. 6). Mean precipitation rates for the period of record 
Hydrologic Setting 19

Figure 6. Mean precipitation rates from 1971 to 2000, Great Basin National Park and vicinity, eastern Nevada and western Utah.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

Millard

White Pine

NEVADA

UTAH

LincolnBeaver

Area of figure 2

Baker

Creek

Creek Snake

Creek

Lake

Wash Big

Big

Creek

LexingtonLexington

Creek Lehman

Springs

Big

Creek

Spring

Wash

Pruess

Lake

Cleve 

Creek

Big

Springs

Hamlin Valley

Wash

21

487

488

486

893

159

6

6 93 50 50

894

0 5 20 Miles

0 5 25 Kilometers

10

10

15

15 20

39°20'

38°40'

114°40' 113°40'

Great Basin

National

Park

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrography from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baker

Garrison

Sacramento

Pass

Burbank

Baking Hills

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Confusion

Range

Spring

Valley

Schell Creek Range

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Snake Range

Valley

Lake

Connors

Pass

Mount 

Moriah

Cave

Mountain

Wilson Creek Range

Snake Range

Eskdale

Mean precipitation rates from PRISM 

Climate Group, Oregon State University, 

http://prism.oregonstate.edu, created 

Sept. 7, 2011

Mean precipitation rate, in inches per year

Greater than 6 to 12

Greater than 12 to 20

Greater than 20 to 24

Greater than 24 to 28

Greater than 28 to 33

EXPLANATION

U.S. Geological Survey bulk-precipitation station

Precipitation only

Precipitation and stable isotopes of water

National Resources Conservation Service snow course

National Weather Service cooperative station

Great Basin National Park

Drainage Divide

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

 

Baker Creek 

snow course

Mount 

Washington
20 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

were 6.3 in/yr at the Eskdale weather station (water years 

1967–2011), 13.2 in/yr at the weather station near Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center (water years 1938–1947, 1949, and 

1951–2011), 18.2 in/yr at the bulk-precipitation station on top 

of an unnamed peak northwest of Mt. Moriah (water years 

1985–2011), and 25.6 in/yr at the bulk-precipitation station on 

Mt. Washington (water years 1985–2011); mean precipitation 

rates at the various stations corresponded well to the contoured 

mean precipitation rates from the PRISM Climate Group 

shown in figure 6.

Bulk precipitation data at gaging stations was collected 

twice yearly, typically in May or June and again in October 

or November (appendix 2), but the dates varied depending on 

weather and snow conditions. Mean precipitation rates at the 

bulk-precipitation stations were divided into summer (June–

October) and winter (November–May) periods and compared 

with comparable periods for weather stations at Eskdale, Utah, 

and near Lehman Caves Visitor Center (fig. 7). Mean precipitation rates for water years 1985–2011 ranged widely, from 

2.9 in. per winter at Eskdale, Utah, to 20.4 in. per winter at 

Mount Washington, whereas summer precipitation rates varied 

little between the two locations.

Mean annual temperature generally ranged from 10.4 °C 

at the weather station near Eskdale, Utah, to 9.0 °C at the 

weather station near Lehman Caves (Western Regional Climate Center, 2012). Although no long-term temperature data 

have been collected at the highest altitudes in GBNP, the mean 

temperature at the top of Wheeler Peak in 2009 was −4 °C 

(Reinemann and others, 2011). During 2007–09, the mean 

winter lapse rate between the valley floor near Baker and 

Wheeler Peak was 1.34 °C per 1,000 ft (2.41 °F per 1,000 ft), 

and the mean summer lapse rate was greater than in winter 

at 2.15 °C per 1,000 ft (3.87 °F per 1,000 ft; Reinemann and 

others, 2011).

Variations in precipitation and temperature between Snake 

Valley and the southern Snake Range create a range of vegetation and habitat zones (National Park Service, 2012a). The 

climate in southern Snake and Spring Valleys is mid-latitude 

steppe and is characterized by mean precipitation rates less 

than 10 in/yr (semiarid to arid), cold winters, and hot summers (Houghton and others, 1975). Sagebrush (Artemisia L.) 

is the dominant vegetation. The climate in the higher parts of 

the southern Snake Range is humid continental and is characterized by mean precipitation rates in excess of 20 in/yr, 

cold winters, and mild summers (Houghton and others, 1975). 

Figure 7. Variation in mean summer and winter precipitation rates for 1985–2011 at lower altitude weather stations at Eskdale, Utah, 

and in Great Basin National Park near Lehman Caves Visitor Center and at bulk-precipitation stations northwest of Mount Moriah, on 

the west slope of Mount Washington, and on Cave Mountain in the Schell Creek Range, White Pine County, Nevada.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Eskdale, 

Utah

Mount

Moriah

Cave 

Mountain

Mount

Washington

Summer precipitation rate (June–October)

Winter precipitation rate (November–May)

3.3

2.9

5.4

8.2

15.3

4.6

13.6

5.2

20.4

4.9

6.2 inches 

per year

13.6 inches 

per year

18.2 inches 

per year

20.2 inches 

per year

25.6 inches 

per year

Lehman Caves 

Visitor Center

Mean precipitation rate, in inches per season or year
Hydrologic Setting 21

Pinyon (Pinus monophylla)–juniper (Juniperus L.) woodlands prevail on the lower slopes of the mountains, and aspen 

(Populus tremuloides)–conifer forests prevail on the higher 

slopes, except at the highest altitudes, where alpine tundra is 

dominant (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992; Orndorff and 

others, 2001; Elliott and others, 2006).

Much of the precipitation in the higher parts of the mountains falls as snow beginning in October or November and 

continuing through March. Three snow courses in the Baker 

Creek drainage basin have been used to estimate the annual 

snowpack since the winter of 1942 (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011). The water content of the snowpack 

(snow-water equivalent, in inches) is routinely measured at the 

end of March or beginning of April. The data from the middle 

snow course are shown in figure 8. Snowmelt usually begins 

in April and continues into summer, with snow at the highest 

altitudes melting last. Snow can remain in some protected, 

high-altitude areas throughout the year; an example is a small 

glacier that remains in the cirque, a depression carved by glacial ice, on the north side of Wheeler Peak (Osborn and Bevis, 

2001).

Surface Water 

Annual precipitation in the southern Snake Range, particularly at altitudes greater than 11,000 ft, generally exceeds 

annual evapotranspiration, so the presence of streams and 

lakes is largely a function of the permeability of rocks that 

are exposed at the surface. At lower altitudes in Snake Valley, 

the presence of streams is mostly dependent on streamflow 

from the mountains or springs near the margins of the valley. Some streams have been altered in their lower reaches 

by human activity to prevent or reduce water infiltration or 

uptake by vegetation and to allow the water to reach areas of 

crop production. Stream alteration includes confinement in a 

man-made pipe or ditch, channel straightening, and vegetation 

removal.

Lakes 

Six small (about 3 acres or less in size) and shallow 

(about 20 ft or less deep) lakes are found in depressions in 

the southern Snake Range, and all are in GBNP (National 

Figure 8. Annual variation in snow-water equivalent at end of March or beginning of April from 1942 to 2011 at the middle Baker Creek 

snow course and in winter precipitation (October–March) from 1949 to 2011 at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. Inches of water

0

10

20

30

40

Year

194219451948195119541957196019631966196919721975197819811984198719901993199619992002200520082011

1952

2005

1982

Middle snow course in the Baker Creek drainage basin, average 

snow-water equivalent 15.7 inches at beginning of April

Lehman Cave Visitor Center, average winter precipitation 6.7 

inches from October to April
22 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Park Service, 2012b). Stella and Teresa Lakes in the Lehman 

Creek drainage basin, Baker Lake in the Baker Creek drainage 

basin, and Johnson Lake in the Snake Creek drainage basin 

are cirque lakes (National Park Service, 2012b). Brown Lake 

in the Lehman Creek drainage basin and Dead Lake in the 

Snake Creek drainage basin are in depressions formed behind 

moraines (National Park Service, 2012b). Teresa Lake is fed 

by a spring at the base of a talus deposit below Wheeler Peak. 

Johnson Lake is also fed by a spring, but the other lakes are 

fed by snowmelt or from groundwater flow through glacial 

deposits. Surface water flows out of the cirque lakes only during snowmelt in years with abundant precipitation. No surface 

water flows out of Brown and Dead Lakes. 

Lakes are absent in areas where Paleozoic limestone and 

dolomite are exposed in the southern Snake Range. A few 

beaver ponds and man-made ponds are present in the Big 

Wash and Weaver Creek drainage basins. Pruess Lake, south 

of Garrison, Utah, is the only natural lake on the valley floor. 

The lake is in a shallow depression partly blocked by Paleozoic limestone. The lake receives inflow from Lake Creek and, 

during high-water years, from Lexington Creek and Big Wash. 

A small dam was built to enlarge the lake in the late 1800s 

(Meinzer, 1911), but leakage through the limestone limits its 

storage capacity. The lake is used for irrigation of agriculture 

in Garrison, Utah.

Streams 

Perennial streams are common in drainage basins in the 

northern half of GBNP where exposed rocks are Precambrian 

to Cambrian quartzite and Mesozoic to Cenozoic granite. 

Perennial streams that have headwaters in GBNP and drain 

into Snake Valley include Baker, Lehman, Snake, and Strawberry Creeks and the upper section of South Fork Big Wash 

(fig. 2). Only Baker, Lehman, Snake, and Strawberry Creeks 

routinely supply water to the valley floor and are used for 

irrigation in Snake Valley. Baker, Lehman, and Strawberry 

Creeks have been diverted into pipelines or concrete-lined 

ditches that, even during low flows, convey water across the 

alluvial fans. Snake Creek has a pipeline that diverts low flow 

(up to 3 ft3

/s) around a section of Pole Canyon Limestone 

in GBNP (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 37). This diversion, 

however, is only partly effective; the creek is intermittent at 

the eastern boundary of GBNP during most years because 

of losses from infiltration into Paleozoic limestone. Baker, 

Lehman, Snake, and Strawberry Creeks are first- and secondorder headwater streams, and each has flow contributions from 

springs (National Park Service, 2012b).

Gaging stations were operated near the boundary of GBNP 

on Baker, Lehman, Snake, and Strawberry Creeks, and the 

South Fork of Big Wash from October 2002 to September 

2004 (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 8). The Lehman Creek gaging station has been operated by the USGS periodically from 

1947 to 2012 on Lehman Creek (table 1), and the data are 

available from the National Water Information System database (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). GBNP has continued 

to operate the gaging stations near the eastern boundary of 

GBNP on Baker and Snake Creeks (Gretchen Baker, National 

Park Service, Great Basin National Park, Baker, Nev., written 

commun., 2010). Snake Creek has the largest drainage area 

in GBNP, whereas Baker Creek has the greatest mean annual 

runoff (table 1).

Springs and Caves 

Springs are common in GBNP and along the mountain 

front. Springs also are present where the toe of alluvial fans 

meet the valley floor. Personnel at GBNP documented more 

than 425 springs in GBNP between 2003 and 2004 (relatively 

dry years), of which 150 were in the Baker Creek drainage 

basin (National Park Service, 2012b). In drainage basins south 

of Snake Creek, underlain by limestone and dolomite, noticeably fewer springs were found. 

Most of the springs in GBNP are small (discharges less 

than 0.1 ft3/s—less than 40 gallons per minute) and are in 

glacial deposits that overlie low-permeability rocks (mostly 

quartzite and granite). The spring at the base of a large talus 

pile below Wheeler Peak that flows into Teresa Lake discharges at a rate greater than 0.1 ft3

/s. Two other springs 

with relatively large discharges are in the South Fork of Big 

Wash drainage basin. The largest spring in GBNP is Rowland Spring, which is in the Lehman Creek drainage basin; 

the mean discharge of the spring was 2.7 ft3/s in water years 

2002–10 (table 1). Several other springs (discharges greater 

than 0.1 ft3/s) are along faults on the northeastern flank of 

the southern Snake Range from Weaver Creek, just north of 

U.S. Highway 6 and 50, south to Spring Creek Spring along 

the south side of the Snake Creek drainage basin (fig. 2). The 

mean discharge of Spring Creek Spring from June 2010 to 

August 2011 was 1.8 ft3/s (table 1).

The gaging station on Rowland Spring has been operated 

since October 2002, first, by the USGS, through September 

2004 (Elliott and others, 2006), then by the National Park 

Service (Gretchen Baker, National Park Service, Great Basin 

National Park, Baker, Nev., 2010, written commun.; table 1). 

Daily mean discharge of this spring ranged from 0.8 ft3

/s, on 

January 29, 2003 (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 80), to 4.8 ft3/s, 

on July 24, 2005 (appendix table 4–2). A gaging station on 

Spring Creek Spring, which is a tributary to Snake Creek, has 

been operated by SNWA since June 24, 2009, and the daily 

mean discharge ranged from about 0.9 ft3/s, on several dates 

in February 2010, to 3 ft3/s, on several dates between July 22, 

and August 4, 2011 (Gavin Kistinger, Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, Las Vegas, Nev., written commun., 2011). Daily 

mean discharge also was estimated from data collected by the 

University of Nevada, Reno at a 9-inch Parshall flume (appendix table 4–5).

The largest spring along the eastern and southern sides of 

the southern Snake Range is Big Springs near the valley floor 

at the south end of Snake Valley (fig. 2). Big Springs has several orifices that combine to form a north and south channel. 

Both channels have gaging stations that have been operated 
Hydrologic Setting 23

Table 1. Index of gaging stations in the southern part of Snake Range and Snake Valley, Great Basin National Park, and Cleve Creek 

in nearby Schell Creek Range, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Station number and name are from source agency. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NPS, National Park Service; SNWA, Southern Nevada Water Authority; UGS, Utah Geological 

Survey. Data can be obtained from source agency. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Estimated mean annual runoff corrected to 41.9-year mean at the Cleve Creek gaging station (June 1914 through September 2011) in the 

Schell Creek Range except Spring Creek Spring and Big Springs north and south channel gaging stations were estimated on basis of mean precipitation during period of record to 

long-term mean precipitation at the Great Basin National Park weather station. Mean annual precipitation volume estimated from 1971–2000 from rates obtained from the PRISM 

Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; yyyy, four digit year. Symbol: <, less than; —, not determined]

Gaging 

station 

number

Gaging station name

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude

(feet above 

vertical 

datum) 

Drainage 

area

(square 

miles)

Mean 

discharge 

for period 

of record 

(cubic feet 

per second)

Estimated 

mean 

annual 

runoff

(acre-feet)

Total mean 

annual 

precipitation volume 

(acre-feet)

Period of record at 

gaging station

(mm/yyyy)

Source 

agency Decimal degrees

10243700 Cleve Creek near Ely, Nevada 39.217 114.530 6,140 31.8 10.9 7,900 —

06/1914–12/1916

10/1959–09/1967

10/1976–09/1981

12/1982–09/1987

03/1990–09/2011

USGS

10243280

Strawberry Creek above Great 

Basin National Park boundary near 

Baker, Nevada

39.064 114.259 6,840 7.59 0.58 630 8,500 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

10243640

Shingle Creek near Great Basin 

National Park boundary near 

Osceola, Nevada

39.005 114.360 7,860 1.98 0.84 930 2,800 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

10243260 Lehman Creek near Baker, Nevada 39.012 114.214 6,700 9.01 5.3 4,100 12,000

12/1947–09/1955

10/1992–09/1997

10/2002–09/2011

USGS

USGS

USGS

10243265 Rowland Spring at Great Basin 

National Park near Baker, Nevada 39.010 114.208 6,580 — 2.7 2,100 — 10/2002–09/200410/2004–09/2010

USGS

NPS

10243240 Baker Creek at Narrows near 

Baker, Nevada 38.991 114.207 6,730 16.6 9.5 7,300 21,000

12/1947–09/1955

10/1992–09/1997

10/2002–09/2004

09/2004–09/2010

USGS

USGS

USGS

NPS

10243230 Snake Creek above pipeline near 

Baker, Nevada 38.922 114.224 7,620 9.32 2.7 3,000 12,000 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

10243232

Snake Creek at Great Basin 

National Park boundary near Baker, 

Nevada

38.919 114.133 6,190 22.6 3.9 2,900 23,000 10/2002–09/2004

09/2004–09/2009

USGS

NPS

 1951510 Spring Creek Spring near Garrison, 

Utah 38.909 114.113 6,125 — 1.8 1,200 — 06/2009–09/2011 SNWA

10243233 Snake Creek below Spring Creek 

near Garrison, Utah 38.919 114.101 5,815 25.8 4.1 4,500 25,000 01/2003–09/2004 USGS

1951508 Snake Creek near Garrison, Utah 38.926 114.076 5,576 28.4 4.7 4,400 26,000 05/2008–09/2011 SNWA

10243233 Snake Creek at Nevada–Utah state 

line near Garrison, Utah 38.930 114.049 5,350 32.7 3.4 4,000 29,000 01/2003–09/2004 USGS

10243228

South Fork Big Wash above Great 

Basin National Park boundary near 

Baker, Nevada

38.884 114.188 6,880 6.62 0.53 580 7,440 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

10243630 Williams Canyon above aqueduct 

near Minerva, Nevada 38.945 114.359 7,320 2.58 1.13 1,250 3,470 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

10243228

Decathon Canyon below Great 

Basin National Park boundary near 

Minerva, Nevada

38.816 114.281 8,410 5.11 0.0 <10 7,200 10/2002–09/2004 USGS

102432241 Big Springs Creek north channel 

near Baker, Nevada 38.699 114.131 5,570 — 3.8 2,400 — 10/2005–09/2011 USGS

10243224 Big Springs Creek south channel 

near Baker Nevada 38.699 114.131 5,570 — 6.1 3,800 — 05/2005–09/2011 USGS

68040311 Big Springs Creek above Deardon 

Springs 38.772 114.047 5,445 — 8.8 — — 10/2009–09/2011 UGS

67789745 East middle ditch below Deardon 

Springs 38.777 114.048 5,430 — 9.3 — — 10/2009–09/2011 UGS

67948638 West middle ditch below Deardon 

Springs 38.778 114.043 5,430 — 6.4 — — 10/2009–09/2011 UGS
24 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

by the USGS, in cooperation with SNWA, since October 1, 

2005. The daily mean discharge of the combined flow at the 

springs ranged from 8.7 ft3/s, for several days in October 

2005, to 12.3 ft3

/s, on April 23, 2007 (data are from USGS, 

National Water Information System, http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/nwis). The second largest springs are at Dearden Springs, 

also known as Stateline Springs, in southern Snake Valley 

along Big Springs Creek and Lake Creek at the Nevada–Utah 

state line (fig. 2). The estimated mean discharge from these 

springs, from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2011, was 

6.9 ft3

/s. The discharge was estimated by using monthly totals 

from three gaging stations (one upstream on Big Springs 

Creek and two on ditches downstream of Dearden Springs) 

that are operated by the UGS (Utah Geological Survey, data 

accessed, August 20, 2013, at http://files.geology.utah.gov/esp/

snake_valley_project/sv_surface_data.htm). 

The GBNP contains over 40 known caves in limestone 

and dolomite (National Park Service, 2012b). These caves are 

clustered in four geographically distinct groups in GBNP: the 

Lehman Hill cave system, the Baker Creek cave system, four 

widely scattered caves in the Snake Creek drainage basin, 

and alpine caves in high-altitude areas. The Lehman Hill cave 

system is near the Lehman Caves Visitor Center (fig. 2). The 

close proximity and similar orientation of the passages in 

the cave system indicate that these caves could have formed 

from a single, evolving, subsurface drainage network between 

Lehman Hill and Rowland Spring (National Park Service, 

2012b). 

The Baker Creek cave system comprises 15 known limestone caves that underlie Baker Creek (National Park Service, 

2012b). Six of these caves are hydrologically interconnected, 

forming the cave system (Bridgemon, 1965). Lange (1958) 

hypothesized that all the caves were continuous at one time, 

and that the Narrows, which is about 500 ft long and no more 

than 125 wide and 100 ft deep, represents an area where part 

of the cave system collapsed. Collapse of the Narrows diverted 

Baker Creek, which had previously flowed northeast to 

Lehman Creek, into the Pole Canyon drainage basin (Lange, 

1958; Bridgemon, 1965; Pease and others, 1969). Some 

of the caves have active underground streams that are supplied by excess water leaving Baker Creek’s channel during 

seasonal overflow, which normally takes place from mid-June 

to August (Lange, 1958; Pease and others, 1969). Part of the 

streamflow lost to the Baker Creek cave system during spring 

snowmelt re-enters Baker Creek after it reemerges from Model 

Cave downstream of the Narrows.

Groundwater 

Groundwater exists throughout the study area at varying 

depths and in rocks with varying ability to transmit and store 

water. Most groundwater in Nevada is pumped from basinfill aquifers in the valleys next to mountains because (1) the 

majority of people live in the valleys, (2) groundwater typically is at shallow depths, and (3) wells drilled into sand and 

gravel in the basin fill readily yield water (Harrill and Prudic, 

1998, p. A7). The study area is no exception. In addition, the 

study area lies in the middle of the carbonate-rock province of 

eastern Nevada and western Utah (Harrill and Prudic, 1998, p. 

A16). This area is characterized by thick sequences of Paleozoic carbonate (limestone and dolomite) rocks in the mountain 

ranges that underlie basin-fill deposits at depth beneath the 

valleys and form a regional consolidated-rock aquifer (Harrill 

and others, 1988; Harrill and Prudic, 1998). Eocene and Oligocene volcanic aquifers, less than 500 ft thick, locally overlie 

the carbonate rocks, where not removed by erosion.

In the mountain regions of the study area, groundwater is 

in thin aquifers (tens of feet thick) of unconsolidated coarsegrained alluvial and glacial deposits or in thick carbonate-rock 

aquifers (hundreds to thousands of feet thick). These aquifers 

allow for the movement of groundwater from the mountains 

toward the valleys. In the valleys, groundwater is in unconsolidated sand and gravel basin-fill aquifers that are hundreds 

to thousands of ft thick. Basin-fill aquifers beneath the valleys 

are interbedded with fine-grained silts and clays that act to 

confine deeper sand and gravel aquifers.

The carbonate-rock aquifers can be hydraulically connected to the basin-fill aquifers in the mountains and valleys 

where the carbonate-rock aquifers are overlain or can abut 

permeable sand and gravel. Older basin-fill deposits of Miocene age can function locally as a confining unit between the 

two types of aquifers either because they are well-cemented 

fanglomerates or they consist of thick and impermeable 

sequences of weathered clay, lacustrine deposits, or anhydrite.

Groundwater fills the pore spaces between individual 

grains in the coarse, clastic basin-fill aquifers as well as 

the shallow alluvial and glacial deposits in the mountains. 

Groundwater in the basin-fill aquifers flows through interconnected pores between individual grains, whereas groundwater in the carbonate-rock aquifers flows mostly along 

bedding planes, through fractures or through tubular openings caused by dissolution of the rocks by water (Davis and 

DeWeist, 1966). The volume of pore space in the sand and 

gravel parts of the unconsolidated basin-fill aquifers typically ranges between 26 and 53 percent (Morris and Johnson, 

1967, p. D20). The percentage of space from fractures and 

tubular openings in the total volume occupied by rock in the 

carbonate-rock aquifers of eastern Nevada and western Utah 

is much less than that, and the porosity of the carbonate-rock 

aquifers—although highly variable—typically ranges from 

less than 0.01 percent to about 10 percent, as estimated from 

core samples and borehole geophysical logs (Plume, 1996, p. 

41–58; Harrill and Prudic, 1998, p. A15; Halford and Plume, 

2011). These porosities were reported for discrete zones that 

are a small fraction of the total volume of the carbonate-rock 

thickness.

Water levels from alluvial wells and carbonate-rock wells 

in Snake Valley were contoured together because basin-fill and 

carbonate-rock aquifers have been interpreted to be hydraulically connected and to function as a single system (Gardner 

and others, 2011). Groundwater in the study area generally 

flows from higher potentiometric-surface contours in and next 

to the mountains to lower potentiometric-surface contours near 

the valley floor (fig. 9). In southern Spring Valley, groundwater 
Hydrologic Setting 25

Figure 9. Potentiometric surface of groundwater for southern Snake and Spring Valleys and northern Hamlin Valley, Nevada and Utah, 

for late winter and early spring 2010.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

LincolnBeaver

Baker

Creek

Creek Snake

Creek

Lake

Wash Big

Big

Creek

LexingtonLexington

Creek

Creek

Leh

Straw

man

Creek

Baker

Springs

Big

Creek

Spring

Wash

berry

Pruess

Lake

Wash

Valley

Hamlin

Creek

Cleve

21

487

488

486

893

159

6

6

93

93

50

50

894

0 5 20 Miles

0 5 25 Kilometers

10

10

15

15 20

39°20'

38°40'

114°40' 113°40'

Great Basin

National

Park

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Geology modified from Stewart and Carlson, 1978; 

Hintze and others, 2000; Raines and others, 2003; 

and National Park Service, 2007

Baker

Garrison

Mount

Moriah

Burbank

Hills

Snake

Valley

Spring

Valley

Schell Creek Range

Range

Pine

Fortification

Valley

Mountain Range Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Lake Valley

Northern Snake

Range

Southern

Snake

Range

Ferguson Desert

Confusion

Range

Modified from Gardner and others, 2011 Baking Powder Flat

5900

5450

4750

5500

4900

4850

5600

5550

5350

4900

5250

4850

5350

4850

4800

5650

4900

5250

5250

4950

5150

4000

5050

5100

5850

5300

5000

5200

5900

5300

5350

5750

5850

5760

5770

5400

5100

5700

5150

5050

5780

5770

5000

4950

5790 5790

5200

5650

5700

5750

5800

5800

5760

EXPLANATION

Generalized geologic units

Basin-fill deposits

Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks

Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Non-carbonate consolidated rocks

Well used for water-level measurements

Well completed in basin fill

Well completed in volcanic rocks

Well completed in carbonate bedrock

Spring

Water-level contour—Shows altitude at which 

water level would have stood in tightly cased 

wells. Contour interval variable [after Gardner 

and others, 2011]

Thin line shows 10-foot intermediate contour 

interval [after Gardner and others, 2011]

5700
26 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

flows west from the southern Snake Range and east from the 

Schell Creek Range toward Baking Powder Flat, where it is 

the source for springs or is lost to evapotranspiration. The 

5,790-foot potentiometric contours in southern Spring Valley 

define a groundwater divide that separates northwestward flow 

to Baking Powder Flat from southeastward flow toward the 

northern Limestone Hills (fig. 9; also, see figure 5–3 in Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2008). The location of this divide 

is similar to the one originally defined by Rush and Kazmi 

(1965, p. 20). 

In southern Snake Valley, the potentiometric-surface 

contours indicated that groundwater flows from the southern 

Snake Range east to Snake Valley (fig. 9), where some of the 

groundwater is lost to evapotranspiration on the valley floor 

(Laczniak and others, 2007). Water sources on the valley floor 

are a combination of precipitation along with streamflow and 

groundwater flow from the southern Snake Range. Beneath 

the southernmost part of the valley floor, groundwater flows 

generally northeast along the valley axis. 

Groundwater flow is through basin-fill aquifers in much of 

the Snake Valley as well as through the lower carbonate-rock 

aquifer beneath the western side of the valley and through 

the upper and lower carbonate-rock aquifers beneath the east 

side of the valley and the Burbank Hills. Groundwater flow 

is generally to the northeast, and on the basis of the potentiometric-surface contours (fig. 9), groundwater is interpreted 

to move from the basin-fill aquifer in Snake Valley into the 

carbonate-rock aquifer in the Burbank Hills and the Confusion 

Range (Gardner and others, 2011). Fault offset on the western 

sides of these ranges is minimal (Hintze and Davis, 2002a; 

2002b), and the shape of the contours indicates that flow is not 

impeded along the western edge of these ranges. In northern 

Hamlin Valley and southern Snake Valley, westward flow into 

Pine Valley appears to be restricted by the presence of steeply 

dipping, low-permeability Chainman Shale on the east side 

of the Confusion Range synclinorium (fig. 3; also Welch and 

others, 2007, p. 16, plate 1; Gardner and others, 2011). Farther 

north, groundwater flow to the east is unrestricted in the 

Ferguson Desert, where carbonate-rock aquifers are buried by 

300 ft to more than 1,000 ft of basin-fill deposits (Gardner and 

others, 2011), and in the Confusion Range, where the Chainman Shale is structurally disrupted and favorably oriented 

structures allow flow into Tule Valley.

Baker and Lehman Creek 

Drainage Basins 

Physical Characteristics 

Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins are on the eastern side of the topographic divide between Snake and Spring 

Valleys in the southern Snake Range (fig. 10). Baker Creek 

drains the southern side of Wheeler and Jeff Davis Peaks, 

and Lehman Creek drains the north side. Both creeks flow 

eastward into Snake Valley, where the water is used for irrigation near the town of Baker, Nevada. Altitudes range from 

about 5,330 ft at Baker, Nevada, to 13,063 ft at Wheeler Peak.

The Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins include 

four small high-mountain lakes: Baker Lake in the Baker 

Creek drainage basin and Stella, Teresa, and Brown Lakes 

in the Lehman Creek drainage basin. The drainage basin 

area of Baker Creek upstream of the gaging station at the 

GBNP boundary is 16.6 mi2

, and the drainage basin area of 

Lehman Creek upstream of the gaging station is 9.0 mi2 (Toby 

Welborn, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev., written commun., 2011). Stream lengths upstream of the gaging 

stations are 6.8 mi for Baker Creek and 5.5 mi for Lehman 

Creek (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 8). Streams lengths at 

Baker, Nevada, are 11.8 mi for Baker Creek (measured along 

the natural channel) and 11.2 mi for Lehman Creek (Toby 

Welborn, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev., written 

commun., 2009). 

Baker and Lehman Creeks have similar streambed slopes. 

Slope of the streambeds exceeds 12 percent in the mountain 

areas. The slope decreases to 8 percent through the Narrows of 

Baker Creek and between lower Lehman Creek campground 

and the gaging station. The natural streambed slope decreases 

to about 6 percent downstream of GBNP. Baker Creek was 

diverted from its natural channel in the early 1900s about 

0.9 mi downstream of the gaging station (fig. 10). The natural 

channel downstream of the diversion has a grove of trees and 

once had numerous beaver ponds. Occasionally, the melting of 

large accumulations of snow causes streamflow to overtop the 

diversion and flow down the natural channel. The combined 

drainage area down to the confluence of the diverted Baker 

Creek with Lehman Creek is 33.4 mi2

. About 0.1 mi downstream of this confluence is a concrete-lined ditch that diverts 

as much as 26 ft3/s (Craig Baker, Baker Ranches, Inc., Baker, 

Nev., written commun., 2010) and is able to accommodate 

the combined streamflow in Baker and Lehman Creeks most 

of the time. Occasionally, the combined streamflow exceeds 

the capacity of the ditch, and excess water enters an overflow channel next to the ditch or, in high water years, spreads 

across multiple channels. The concrete ditch extends 1.6 mi 

down the slope of alluvial deposits and ends about 1.2 mi 

upstream of the town of Baker. The slope along the 1.6-mi 

long concrete ditch is 5 percent, and downstream of the ditch, 

the slope gradually decreases to 3 percent at Baker. The natural channel of Baker Creek has a slope similar to that of the 

concrete ditch, and it gradually decreases to 3 percent south of 

Baker as well.

The patterns of precipitation and streamflow in the Baker 

and Lehman Creek drainage basins are typical of mountain 

drainage basins in the Great Basin that have formed over 

low-permeability rocks. Precipitation and temperature, which 

control streamflow, vary in relation to altitude and to annual 

and seasonal climate patterns. Mean precipitation rates 

(1971–2000) in the two drainage basins ranged from about 

8 in/yr at Baker, Nevada, to slightly more than 32 in/yr on 

Wheeler Peak; mean temperatures ranged from about 10 °C 
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 27

Figure 10. Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins in the southern Snake Range and Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

? ?

Baker

?

Creek

Creek

Lehman

Stella

Lake

Baker

Lake

Kious

Spring

Cave

Springs

Teresa

Lake

Brown

Lake

Rowland

Spring

487

488

0 3 5 Miles

0 3

4

4 5 6

2

2

1

1 7 Kilometers

Baker

Shaded relief base from Environmental Systems Research Institute 

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Great

Basin

National

Park

Bald

Mountain

Jeff Davis

Peak

Pyramid

Peak

Wheeler

Peak

Lehman

Caves

Lehman Hill

Cave system

The Narrows

Baker Creek

Cave system

Home

Farm

Rowland

Ranch Concrete ditch

Diversion

Pole Canyon

39°02'

39°00'

38°58'

38°56'

114°20' 114°15' 114°10' 114°05'

EXPLANATION

Drainage area

Great Basin National Park

Profile of mean annual precipitation 

and mean temperature (1971–2000)

Spring

Gaging station

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

snowpack-measurement site

National Weather Service cooperative 

station

Quaternary glacial deposits

Hydrogeologic zones—Zone boundary 

queried (?) where uncertain

Mountain upland

Karst limestone

Upper piedmont

Lower piedmont

Valley lowland

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area

at Baker to less than 1 °C on Wheeler Peak (fig. 11A). About 

80 percent of the precipitation at higher altitudes accumulated 

as snow during the cold winter months (fig. 7). The melting 

of this snowpack results in a large increase in streamflow in 

Baker and Lehman Creeks, where streamflow typically peaks 

in May and June. 

A weather station has been in operation at or near Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center since October 1937 (fig. 11B). Some 

years have months when no precipitation data were collected, 

which resulted in no estimates of annual precipitation for 

water years 1948 and 1950 and no annual mean temperature estimates for water years 1938–1950, 1997, and 1998. 

Precipitation rates at the weather station near Lehman Caves 

Visitor Center ranged from a low of 5.3 in/yr, for water year 

1953, to 22.3 in/yr, in water years 1982 and 2005. Annual 

mean temperature at the Lehman Caves weather station ranged 

from 7.0 °C in 1992 to 11 °C in 1996. This small difference 

in annual mean temperature (4 °C) corresponds to a change in 

land-surface altitude of more than 3,000 ft. The inter-annual 

variations in precipitation and temperature result in interannual variability in annual runoff at the gaging stations.
28 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 11. Precipitation and temperature A, means relative to land-surface altitudes from Baker, Nevada, to Wheeler Peak, for 

1971–2000, and B, annual values at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center, Great Basin National Park, While Pine County, 

Nevada, for water years 1938–2011.

A

B

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Water year 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mean annual temperature, in degrees Celsius

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

Annual mean temperature, in degrees Celsius

0

5

10

15

20

25

1982 2005

1952 2011

Weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center

Precipitation rate, mean 13.2 inches per year

Temperature, mean 9 degrees Celsius

Annual mean temperature

Precipitation-Altitude Regressions on 

Independent Slopes Model (PRISM), 1971–2000

Precipitation

Temperature, average of maximum and minimum

Weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center 

temperature, 1951–2011

Weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center 

precipitation, 1938–2011

Land-surface altitude, in feet above North Amercian Vertical Datum of 1988

Precipitation rate, in inches per year Mean precipitation rate, in inches per year
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 29

Geology

Distribution of Rocks

The surface geology of the Baker and Lehman Creek 

drainage basins is shown in figure 12 and is based on a 

1:24,000-scale digital geologic map of GBNP (Brown and 

Davila, 1995; National Park Service, 2007) that was modified according to geologic mapping during this study. The 

bedrock geology consists of a thick section of Neoproterozoic 

and Lower Cambrian quartzite that is successively overlain by 

relatively thin Lower Cambrian shale and Middle Cambrian 

limestone (Whitebread, 1969; McGrew and others, 1995; 

National Park Service, 2007). Up to 5,000-ft thick Neoproterozoic and Lower Cambrian Prospect Mountain Quartzite 

underlies Wheeler Peak and the upland headwaters of Baker 

and Lehman Creeks. The lower part of this formation consists 

of thickly bedded (1–5 ft), coarse-grained quartzite, which 

grades upward to thinner-bedded quartzite with occasional 

interbeds of silty quartzite and siltstone. Conformably overlying the quartzite is the Lower Cambrian Pioche Shale, which 

has a maximum thickness of about 300 ft. The Pioche Shale 

consists of thin-bedded dark siltstone and shale that is recessive-weathering, forming valleys or low points on ridges near 

Cave Springs and in the vicinity of Pole Canyon (fig. 12).

Overlying the Pioche Shale is the Middle Cambrian Pole 

Canyon Limestone, a 1,500–1,800-ft-thick, mostly massive 

limestone. The Pole Canyon Limestone forms the hill in 

which the Lehman Hill cave system has developed and also 

underlies prominent hills along Baker Creek and the lower 

reaches of Pole Canyon (fig. 12). The Pole Canyon Limestone, 

where highly fractured or where dissolution has enlarged the 

fractures and bedding planes, can transmit large quantities of 

water. The Pole Canyon Limestone is inferred to exist in the 

subsurface in the area between the Narrows of Baker Creek 

and Rowland Spring (fig. 13A). The Lehman Hill (including Lehman Caves) and the Baker Creek cave systems were 

formed in this limestone (Bridgemon, 1965). The Baker 

Creek cave system includes a western part near the Narrows 

of Baker Creek, and Model Cave is the eastern part (fig. 12). 

The western part of the Baker Creek cave system includes 

several caves, including Ice, Sink, Crevasse, Wheelers Deep, 

Dynamite, and Systems Key Caves, which form a 9,000-ft 

long compact, overlapping-maze system of hydrologically 

interconnected small passageways (Bridgemon, 1965; Pease 

and others, 1969). Model Cave is about 0.3 mi to the east and 

is 4,000-ft long. The cave is a simple passage tubular in shape 

and large, with a perennial stream in its lower part. Model, 

Systems Key, and Dynamite Caves are connected to Ice, Crevasse, and Wheelers Deep Caves (Bridgemon, 1965).

The Cretaceous Pole Canyon granitic pluton intrudes the 

Prospect Mountain quartzite in upper Pole Canyon (Lee and 

others, 1981; McGrew and others, 1995). Most other outcrops 

of granitic rocks in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage 

basins belong to the Tertiary Young Canyon pluton (Miller and 

others, 1989; Miller and others, 1995a), a medium-grained, 

equigranular granite. Upper parts of this pluton invade the 

Pioche Shale as sill-like intrusive bodies, such as to the west 

of Lehman Caves (Miller and others, 1995b), or form small 

isolated exposures, such as along Baker Creek to the east of 

the Narrows (McGrew and others, 1995; fig. 12).

Bedrock units are concealed beneath older and younger 

Quaternary alluvium and glacial deposits to the east of the 

mountain front (fig. 13). Material mapped as older alluvium 

is Quaternary and possibly Pliocene in age (fig. 12) and tends 

to cap ridges and form high-standing alluvial surfaces (Miller 

and others, 1995b). These deposits are exposed in low hills 

of unconsolidated to partly consolidated clay, silt, sand, and 

gravel deposited as alluvial material and glacial outwash. 

The glacial deposits consist mostly of ground moraine in the 

upper reaches of Baker and Lehman Creeks, but also include 

a prominent outwash deposit that forms the ridge on the north 

side of Lehman Creek (fig. 12). The younger Quaternary 

deposits include glacial outwash and younger stream deposits. 

These deposits are in active channels and fans and are typically unconsolidated, consisting of a heterogeneous mix of 

clay, silt, sand, and gravel as well (McGrew and others, 1995; 

Miller and others, 1995a, 1995b).

Geologic Structure of the Range Front

The southern Snake Range detachment fault and associated 

hanging-wall normal faults, which cut and tilted the Miocene 

units in the Sacramento Pass section, project south toward the 

entrance to GBNP and along the east side of the Snake Range 

(Miller and others, 1995b). The location of the range-bounding 

fault in the vicinity of Baker and Lehman Creeks is not easily 

determined, however, because of the presence of extensive 

young sedimentary cover and overall geologic complexity. 

The inferred location of the detachment fault in the vicinity 

of the creeks is based on the following types of geologic and 

geophysical data: (1) mapped exposures of the detachment 

fault nearby, (2) presence of Miocene conglomeratic deposits 

and megabreccia, (3) well control, and (4) results from electrical geophysical profiles. The detachment fault is exposed 

on a low ridge to the south of Kious Spring (fig. 12), where 

steeply west-dipping Cambrian and Ordovician carbonate 

rocks overlie the subplanar, gently east-dipping detachment 

fault surface that projects into Snake Valley without apparent 

interruption. Beneath the detachment fault is sheared, cataclastically deformed, and chlorite-altered granitic rocks of the 

Young Canyon pluton (Lee and Christiansen, 1983; Miller 

and others, 1995b). Near Strawberry Creek, to the north of 

Baker and Lehman Creeks, a moderately north- and northeastdipping fault along the range front separates Jurassic granite 

from Tertiary conglomerate of the Sacramento Pass section, 

which dips to the southwest toward the fault (Miller and others, 1995a, 1995b).

Although not well exposed in the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins, Miocene sediments can be inferred 

to exist in the subsurface beneath Quaternary cover. Tertiary 
30 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 12. Geology of the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Qoa

CZpm

CZpm

Cpc

Qoa

Cpc

Qoa

Tgr

CZpm

Qoa

Cpc

Cpc

Cpi

Qoa

CZpm Qt

Tgr

Cpi

CZpm

Qt

Cpi Qoa

Qt

OCn

Kgr

OSfl

Clp

CZpm

Qt

OSfl

Cpc

CZpm

Qoa

Qa

Cpi

Tgr

Tgr

Cpc

Cpc

Op

Oe

Oe

Cpc

Baker

Creek

Creek

Lehman

Baker CreekBaker Creek

Lehman Creek

487

488

Model

 Cave 

Sink

 Cave 

Lehman 

Hill

cave

 system

A

A’

B’

B

C’

C

0 2 Miles

0

1

1 2 Kilometers

Shaded relief base from Environmental Systems Research Institute 

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003

Wilderness Area boundaries from Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Insitute, 2011

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Great

Basin

National

39° Park 00'

38°

58'

114°15' 114°10'

Geology adapted from National Park Service (2007). 

For clarity, some small polygons are not labeled

Quaternary fault

Baker

Pole Canyon

Baker 4

aquifer-test site

Cave

Springs

92847

SLE

Rowland

Spring

The Narrows 

Lehman Caves

Visitor Center

Kious

Spring

Marmot

Spring

southern Snake Range

detachment fault

Baker Creek

cave system

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area

EXPLANATION

Cenozoic rocks

Alluvium

Older alluvium

Talus

Paleozoic rocks above Snake Range detachment

Fish Haven and Laketown Dolomites

Eureka Quartzite

Notch Peak Limestone

Lincoln Peak Formation

Cambrian rocks that generally lie below Snake 

Range detachment

Pole Canyon Limestone

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mountain Quartzite

Granitic rocks that intrude rocks below Snake 

Range detachment

Tertiary granite

Cretaceous granite

Geologic structures

Detachment fault

Detachment fault, concealed

Normal fault

Normal fault with Quaternary motion

Quaternary fault—U.S. Geological Survey and 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2006

Buried fault, interpreted from geophysical data

Great Basin National Park

Hydrologic features and measuring sites

Spring

Cave

Gaging station

Gaging station with telemetry

Well—SLE, Sewage lagoon east well

Qa

Qoa

Qt

OSfl

Oe

Cpc

Cpi

CZpm

Tgr

Kgr

OCn

Clp
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 31

Figure 13. Interpretive geologic cross sections in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, White Pine County, Nevada: A, 

Section A–A’, Pole Canyon to Rowland Spring; B, Section B–B’, Baker Creek; and C, Section C–C’, Cave Springs to Lehman Caves.

A

A’

B’

B

C’

C

No vertical exaggeration

Lithologic patterns are diagrammatic and do not exactly portray bedding attitude

A A'

Southwest Northeast

Meters

Feet

Bend in section

5,000

4,000

6,000

7,000

Altitude, in feet

Baker Creek

Narrows

Lehman Creek

Rowland Spring

Pole Canyon

Baker Creek Cave system southern Snake Range

detachment fault

1,200

5,000

4,000

1,700

2,200

1,950

1,450

6,000

7,000

Qoa

Qoa

Cpc

Cpi

Cpi

CZpm

gr

Qal

CZpm

B B'

West East

Bend in section Bend in section

Baker

Creek

Narrows

Baker Creek Cave system

Quaternary fault

Baker Creek 4

aquifer-test site

Meters Feet

5,000

4,000

3,000

6,000

7,000

No vertical exaggeration

Lithologic patterns are diagrammatic and do not exactly portray bedding attitude

5,000

4,000

3,000

6,000

7,000

1,200

950

1,700

2,200

1,950

1,450 Qoa

Mi

Cpc

Cpi

CZpm

gr

Qal

Cpc

Mi

Cpi

southern Snake Range detachment fault Mi

Qoa CZpm

CZpm Cpc

Cpc

Altitude, in feet

No vertical exaggeration

Lithologic patterns are diagrammatic and do not exactly portray bedding attitude

Altitude, in feet

Lehman Creek

6,000

7,000

C

Northeast

Lehman Caves

C'

Southwest

Meters

Feet

1,700

2,200

1,950

6,000

7,000

Cpc Cpi

CZpm

gr

Qal

Cave Springs

1,450

Great

Basin

National

Park Quaternary fault

Baker

Pole Canyon

Cave

Springs

Rowland

Spring

The Narrows 

See figure 12 for full size map

Southern Snake Range

detachment fault

Mi

Bend in section

EXPLANATION

Alluvium

Older alluvium

Miocene sediments

Pole Canyon Limestone

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mountain Quartzite

Granitic rocks, undivided

CZpm

Cpi

Cpc

gr

Qoa

Mi

Qal
32 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

conglomerates near Strawberry Creek can be traced to the 

southeast, where they are buried by younger deposits (Miller 

and others, 1995a, 1995b). Elevated rolling topography north 

of the Lehman Creek drainage basin indicates that the Tertiary 

conglomeratic section exists in the shallow subsurface, buried 

beneath a pediment surface of older alluvium and glacial 

outwash (Miller and others, 1995b; National Park Service, 

2007). Isolated exposures of carbonate, granitic, and siliciclastic rocks were mapped by McGrew and others (1995) on the 

low ridge that separates the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage 

basins. Geologic mapping done for this study indicated that 

these outcrops are Miocene conglomerates and megabreccia blocks that lie above the detachment fault and are locally 

exposed in outcrop under thin alluvial cover (fig. 12). On the 

basis of map relations, Miocene deposits were inferred to 

underlie the entire ridge north of Baker Creek to the east of 

bedrock outcrops of the Pole Canyon Limestone. Map relations showed that the contact between these conglomeratic 

deposits and Pole Canyon Limestone exposed at the west end 

of this ridge dips moderately to the east (Miller and others, 

1995b).

At the Baker 4 aquifer-test site (fig. 12), the deepest monitoring well first penetrated a block of Pioche Shale at 35 ft 

below land surface and bottomed in this shale at a depth of 

60.5 ft (appendix table 1–1). This shale block was interpreted 

to be a megabreccia block in the Miocene conglomeratic section, similar to exposures on the hillside immediately north 

of the well site. A well drilled north of Lehman Creek and 

1,300 ft east of the GBNP boundary (fig. 12, well 92847) first 

encountered unconsolidated alluvial deposits, then consolidated sediments, prior to intercepting Paleozoic limestone 

at 150 ft below land surface (Nevada Division of Water 

Resources well-drillers’ log 92847, http://water.nv.gov/data/

welllog/index.cfm), indicating the continuity of limestone 

beneath younger and older alluvium.

Two controlled-source audio-magnetotelluric (CSAMT) 

geophysical profiles were collected on the eastern flank of the 

southern Snake Range along Baker Creek and in the vicinity 

of Kious Spring to investigate the location and geometry of 

faults along the range front (Asch and Sweetkind, 2010; Asch 

and Sweetkind, 2011). The two CSAMT lines were similar in their electrical response and were interpreted to show 

generally similar subsurface geologic conditions to depths 

of 2,000–2,500 ft, which consisted of three distinct domains 

on the basis of the electrical response (Asch and Sweetkind, 

2010, 2011). The first was a shallow 300–600 ft-deep domain 

that was interpreted to be the result of a heterogeneous assemblage of Miocene conglomerate and incorporated megabreccia 

blocks overlying the shallowly eastward-dipping southern 

Snake Range detachment fault. The second domain was a 

greater-than-800-ft deep region of generally higher resistivity 

that was interpreted to be Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and 

Mesozoic and Cenozoic plutonic rocks beneath the detachment surface. Of note, the resistivity boundaries at depth had 

no counterparts in the shallow section, which was evidence of 

the low-angle nature of the southern Snake Range detachment 

fault (fig. 13B). A third, eastern electrical response domain 

was interpreted to be a section of Miocene strata overlain by 

Quaternary alluvial fill. These deposits lie east of a subvertical to steeply east-dipping normal fault that cuts all units and 

the detachment fault and has as much as 1,300 ft of east-sidedown offset. These results indicated a two-stage history of 

faulting, where an older Miocene period of low-angle faulting, 

probably associated with large-magnitude normal offset, was 

followed by much younger basin-range faulting removed from 

the mountain range front (Asch and Sweetkind, 2010; Asch 

and Sweetkind, 2011).

Geologic mapping, well data, and the CSAMT data were 

used to define the southern Snake Range detachment fault 

along the eastern flank of the Snake Range, where the fault 

is mostly covered and difficult to locate using surface geologic mapping (fig. 12). Hydrologic evidence, discussed in a 

later section, indicated that the covered trace of the detachment fault could pass to the east of both Rowland and Kious 

springs. These data and models helped define the subsurface 

geometry of faults and geologic units, but the degree of 

subsurface hydraulic connection is dependent on the relative 

permeability of the geologic units and the faults, information that cannot be obtained from this application of CSAMT 

alone. Kistinger and others (2009) suggested that Rowland 

Spring (figs. 12, 13A) was along a north-northwest-trending 

basin-range fault that continued west to Cave Springs with 

about 300 ft of down-to-the-east offset. Paleozoic limestone 

was encountered at similar depths in wells drilled 1,700 ft 

southwest (well SLE, fig. 12) and 600 ft east of Rowland 

Spring (well 92847, fig. 12), however, so little, if any, offset of 

the Paleozoic limestone is possible. Irregular topography near 

the spring orifice is likely the result of alluvial incision and 

historic changes in the course of Lehman Creek, rather than 

from fault offset of Quaternary sediments.

Young Quaternary faults are mapped or interpreted to the 

east of the present range front (U.S. Geological Survey and 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2006; Rowley and 

others, 2009). One such fault, locally mapped about 3 mi east 

of the eastern boundary of GBNP (fig. 12), was selected as the 

boundary between the upper and lower piedmont hydrogeologic zones and is discussed in a following section. Additional 

Quaternary faults are mapped farther to the east, near Baker, 

Nevada; they coincide with gravity gradients that indicate 

thickness of the Miocene and younger basin fill increasing 

from less than 1,600 ft on the west to greater than 3,200 ft 

thick on the east (Watt and Ponce, 2007). Quaternary scarps 

are not well developed and appear as local gentle swales that 

affect the alluvial surfaces. Because these faults are far from 

the topographic range front, they were not responsible for the 

formation of the range front itself, unlike many other basin 

and range settings, where the majority of the uplift was late 

Miocene (about 10 Ma) and younger, and the faulting was at 

the range front.
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 33

Extent and Continuity of Pole Canyon Limestone

In the covered interval between the limestone outcrops 

in GBNP and the town of Baker, the subsurface extent and 

continuity of the Pole Canyon Limestone is not known with 

certainty. Pole Canyon Limestone was inferred in the subsurface as far east as Rowland Spring on the basis of limestone 

outcrops on nearby hills, presence of limestone at the bottom of well SLE (fig. 12) drilled to the northwest of Rowland Spring (Prudic, 2012a; also Nevada Division of Water 

Resources well-drillers’ log 115321, http://water.nv.gov/data/

welllog/index.cfm), and inferences based on the characteristics of Rowland Spring (Elliott and others; 2006). To the east 

of Rowland Spring, limestone was found at a depth of about 

150 ft in well 92847 (fig. 12), which was drilled south of the 

main entrance road to GBNP and about a quarter of a mile 

downstream of GBNP (Nevada Division of Water Resources 

well drillers’ log 92847, http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/

index.cfm). A USGS seismic-refraction survey was completed about 1 mi east of the test hole on the western end of 

Rowland Ranch (fig. 10). Results from this survey indicated 

high-velocity material, interpreted as Paleozoic limestone, at 

depths of 250 ft to 280 ft below land surface (David L. Berger, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev., written commun., 2004). Pole Canyon Limestone was interpreted at depth 

beneath Baker Creek and to the south of Kious Spring on the 

basis of characteristically high resistivity values measured at 

depth along the two CSAMT geophysical profiles (Asch and 

Sweetkind, 2010; Asch and Sweetkind, 2011). The oil-exploration well Baker Creek 12–1, 3 mi east of the town of Baker, is 

the only deep well to penetrate the Paleozoic section beneath 

basin fill east of the Quaternary fault (fig. 14; Hess and others, 

2004). This well was drilled through 4,610 ft of Cenozoic 

basin fill before it penetrated the top of the Ordovician Eureka 

Quartzite. Given the deformed nature of surface outcrops of 

Paleozoic rocks to the east in the Confusion Range (fig. 3), the 

Eureka Quartzite is unlikely to be horizontal and widespread 

beneath the Cenozoic basin fill; rather, the quartzite is likely 

tilted and interbedded with Paleozoic carbonate rocks that lie 

both above and below it.

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained 

Deposits from Logs of Well Drillers’ Logs

Water wells in the vicinity of Baker, Nevada, are mostly 

less than 300 ft deep and penetrate various mixtures of sand 

and gravel and fine sand, silt, and clay deposits interpreted to 

be younger alluvium (Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

accessed July 2009, at http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/index.

cfm). Some wells penetrate cemented intervals that could be 

equivalent to the older alluvium observed in outcrops. Welldrillers’ descriptions of down-hole intervals from lithologic 

logs were assigned to one of four general lithologic classes—

cobbles, gravel, sand, or clay—to facilitate comparison of 

grain size and sorting characteristics among the lithologic 

logs (table 2). A single lithologic class tended to be dominant 

in any given well; for example, wells that contained intervals 

of cobble-sized particles tended to be dominated by cobbles. 

Only six wells could be described as mixed, with sub-equal 

percentages of all four general lithologic classes. All wells 

were symbolized by dominant lithologic class and plotted 

in map view to evaluate the spatial distribution of lithology 

classes (fig. 14). Cobble-sized deposits could be confined to 

the active, high-energy stream channels, based on the results 

from wells along Lehman Creek near the GBNP boundary. 

Gravel-dominated deposits are more widely distributed along 

the range front and probably represent coalescing alluvial 

fans. Wells at the distal ends of these fans, just to the east of 

the town of Baker and Nevada State Highway 487, display a 

heterogeneous mixture of lithologic classes. All of the mixed 

classification wells are in this area, and gravel-dominated 

wells are next to clay-dominated wells (fig. 14). Lithologic 

variability probably results from differences in stream energy 

and in depositional environment as the fans interfingered with 

fine-grained deposits in the basin axis (fig. 14).

The Baker Creek 12–1 oil exploration well, 3 mi east of 

the town of Baker (fig. 14), is the only deep well in the area. 

Between the start of logging at 560 ft below land surface and 

a depth of 1,400 ft, this well penetrated interlayered gravel, 

sand, and clay before entering a thick section of heterogeneous, clay-rich material that is probably the Miocene 

Table 2. Lithologic classes in drill holes in the vicinity of Baker and Lehman Creeks, White Pine County, Nevada.

[Lithologic classes defined as follows: cobbles include all intervals described as containing cobbles; gravel includes all intervals described as conglomerate, gravel, or gravel and 

sand; sand includes all intervals described as sandstone or sand; clay includes all intervals described as clay, sandy clay, or clay and gravel; mixed includes interbedded layers of 

the other lithologic classes in nearly equal proportions. Lithologic descriptors not considered in lithologic class assignment include hard layer, limestone, granite, soil, and intervals 

without a lithologic description]

Dominant lithologic class Number of drill holes Total footage drilled

Footage of lithologic class divided by total footage drilled in each class 

(percentage of total footage drilled)

Cobbles Gravel Sand Clay

Cobbles 8 205 76 16 3 6

Gravel 24 1,431 4 76 6 14

Sand 4 163 6 0 85 8

Clay 30 1,506 3 15 5 77

Mixed 6 398 17 29 16 38
34 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

sedimentary section (Hess and others, 2004). Lithologic 

descriptions, drilling rate, and geophysical logs indicated local 

intervals of quartzite and limestone in this section that could 

represent megabreccia blocks. The altitude of the top of this 

inferred Miocene section is consistent with the interpreted 

altitude of the down-dropped Miocene section on the east 

end of the CSAMT geophysical profile collected along Baker 

Creek west of Baker (Asch and Sweetkind, 2010; Asch and 

Sweetkind, 2011).

Figure 14. Distribution of clasts in alluvial deposits in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, White Pine County, Nevada, 

between the mountain front and valley floor.

Baker

Creek

Creek

Creek

Lehman

StrawberryStrawberry

Baker Creek

21

487

488

159

6 50

114°15' 114°05'

39°

06'

38°

58'

0 1 5 Miles

0 1 5 Kilometers

2

2

3 4

3 4

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Geology modified from Stewart and Carlson, 1978; 

Raines and others, 2003; Hintze and others, 2000; 

and National Park Service, 2007.

Colors of geologic map units as on figure 3. Heavy 

dashed line represents buried fault defined by 

gravity data, Watt and others, 2007

Baker

Lehman

Caves

Visitor

Center

Wheeler

Peak

Brown

Lake

Baker 12-1

Great Basin

National

Park

Rowland

Spring

White Pine

Millard

Southern Snake Range

detachment fault

NEVADA

UTAH

Drill hole—Symbolized by 

predominant lithologic 

class in each hole

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand

Clay

Mixed

Oil exploration well

EXPLANATION

Lithologic log symbology—Showing lithologic class. 

Vertical scale of the lithologic logs is in feet

Cobbles

Cobbles

Gravel

Conglomerate

Gravel

Gravel and sand

Sand

Sandstone

Sand

Clay

Clay and gravel

Sandy clay

Clay

Not considered in lithologic 

class assignment

Hard layer

Geologic structures

Detachment fault

Detachment fault, concealed

Normal fault

Buried fault, interpreted from 

geophysical data

Great Basin National Park

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area

0

250

500

750

1,000

0

125

0

250

500
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 35

Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams

Streamflow in Baker and Lehman Creeks and its connection with groundwater are directly related to the geology in the 

drainage basins. The headwaters of Baker Creek are underlain 

primarily by Prospect Mountain Quartzite (fig. 12). Outcrops 

of Tertiary granite are on both sides of the creek about half 

a mile west of the Narrows. The granite is inferred to have a 

tabular, sill-like geometry on the basis of its coincidence with 

the Pioche Shale horizon, and it probably underlies the streambed alluvium in this area (fig. 13B). Baker Creek cuts through 

northeast-dipping Pole Canyon Limestone at the Narrows 

(fig. 13B ). East of GBNP, the stream flows over alluvial and 

glacial deposits, inferred to be underlain by Miocene sedimentary rocks (fig. 13B).

The headwaters of Lehman Creek originate from glacial 

cirques on the north side of Wheeler Peak and from the south 

side of Bald Mountain (fig. 10). The creek in this area flows 

over thin alluvial and glacial deposits that overlie Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite. Cave Springs, about 1 mi upstream of 

Lehman Caves, is used for the GBNP’s water supply. The 

springs flow from alluvial and glacial deposits near the contact 

between Proterozoic Prospect Mountain Quartzite and Tertiary granite (Prudic and Glancy, 2009). To the east of Cave 

Springs, intrusive rocks (fig. 12) are exposed on the south 

side of Lehman Creek and could continue northward beneath 

the alluvial and glacial deposits. East of the granite outcrops, 

a small north-south trending valley is underlain by Pioche 

Shale that has been partially invaded by the granite (fig. 13C). 

East-dipping Pole Canyon Limestone forms the eastern end of 

the ridge south of Lehman Creek in the vicinity of the Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center (fig. 13C). Map relations indicated a 

continuous east-dipping stratigraphic section, with no evidence for the presence of a range-front normal fault in the 

vicinity of Cave Springs. Pole Canyon Limestone was inferred 

to underlie the alluvial and glacial deposits beneath Lehman 

Creek downstream of Cave Springs, although a well drilled 

east of the sewage lagoons in 2012 indicated that the limestone 

could be thin to nonexistent because granite intruded into the 

limestone (Prudic, 2012a). 

Rowland Spring flows from young alluvial and glacial 

deposits south of Lehman Creek. Elliott and others (2006) 

interpreted Rowland Spring to be sustained by deeper groundwater flow through carbonate rocks of the Pole Canyon 

Limestone on the basis of flow and elevated temperatures. The 

inferred buried trace of the southern Snake Range detachment 

fault is likely to be east of Rowland Spring, allowing groundwater flow in carbonate bedrock to the west of the fault trace 

and providing a local permeability contrast that diverts water 

upward. East of GBNP, Lehman Creek and water from Rowland Spring flow over alluvial and glacial deposits inferred to 

be underlain by Miocene sedimentary rocks.

Conceptually, the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage 

basins can be separated into five distinct hydrogeologic zones 

on the basis of topography, geology, climate, streamflow, 

and groundwater flow in which the connection of aquifers 

to springs and streams vary. The five zones are named (1) 

mountain upland, (2) karst limestone, (3) upper piedmont, (4) 

lower piedmont, and (5) valley lowland (fig. 10). These zones 

are defined by multiple features and are used here to describe 

differences in the types of aquifers and their connection to 

springs and streams. A series of conceptualized diagrams were 

used to illustrate the relation among geology, streamflow, and 

groundwater flow in and between zones. The conceptual diagrams portray a generalized version of the subsurface hydrogeology roughly along an east-west profile parallel to Baker 

and Lehman Creeks; these profile diagrams do not exactly correspond to the geologic section B-B ́ (fig. 13), although many 

geologic relations are similar.

Mountain-Upland Zone

The mountain-upland zone includes the upper parts of 

Baker and Lehman Creeks and Pole Canyon in Great Basin 

National Park upstream of the limestone outcrops (figs. 10, 

12). Distinct features of the mountain-upland zone are (1) 

high-altitude terrain with steep slopes and thin soils; (2) a wet 

and cold climate; (3) active erosion with relatively thin talus, 

glacial, and alluvial deposits overlying poorly-permeable 

quartzite, granite, and shale; (4) a high percentage of streamflow relative to precipitation; and (5) shallow groundwater 

circulation that contributes to streamflow along the creeks.

The mountain-upland zone lies at altitudes greater than 

7,000 ft, and the climate is colder and wetter than the other 

zones (fig. 11A). Between the altitudes of 7,000 and 11,000 ft, 

this zone is densely covered with a coniferous forest, above 

which is bare rock and tundra (Houghton and others, 1975). 

The only source of water to this zone is precipitation, a large 

fraction of the which is lost to evapotranspiration, particularly 

in the forested areas; most of remaining water exits the zone 

as streamflow. Groundwater flow in this zone is limited to 

relatively shallow, short flow paths from the mountain ridges 

and slopes to deeply incised stream channels. 

Groundwater flow is mostly through large pores in glacial 

deposits and through smaller pores in thin colluvium and alluvial deposits that mantle the generally less permeable quartzite. No wells are present in this zone, and information regarding groundwater flow is limited to streamflow gains along the 

stream channels and at springs that form where the glacial 

deposits end or along the contact between quartzite and granite 

or shale. Surface exposures of the quartzite show abundant 

relic-bedding planes and bedding-parallel fractures. Slightly 

longer and deeper groundwater-flow paths can go through the 

quartzite, although flow is still relatively shallow because of 

steep topographic slopes and because granite underlies the 

quartzite at relatively shallow depth (fig. 15). Much of what 

little groundwater flow there is in the mountain upland is lost 

to evapotranspiration or flows to creeks and springs or as subsurface outflow through thin glacial and alluvial deposits and, 

perhaps, through fractures in the shale and granite.
36 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Streamflow

Gaging stations have been operated periodically since 

1947 at one site each on Baker and Lehman Creeks near the 

eastern boundary of GBNP (table 1; fig. 10). Both these gaging stations are downstream of the mountain-upland zone, and 

most of the streamflow at the two gaging stations is from the 

mountain-upland zone. The streamflow recorded at the gaging 

stations integrated snowmelt, groundwater flow to the creeks 

(from springs and diffuse flow along the streambed) and 

streamflow loss to groundwater, upstream of the gaging stations. Repeated discharge measurements upstream of the gaging stations between 2009 and 2011 showed net losses along 

the creeks in the karst-limestone zone (fig. 16). Thus, mean 

annual discharge (in cubic feet per second) from the mountainupland zone in both creeks was greater than the mean annual 

discharge at the gaging stations.

The mean of daily mean discharge measured at the gaging 

stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks were similar in both 

creeks during the period of record for water years 1947–55, 

1993–97, and 2002–10 (fig. 17). In both creeks, the mean of 

the daily mean discharge was dominated by snowmelt, which 

resulted in high flows from May through July. Because of a 

lack of streamflow during the winter months, the minimum 

daily mean discharge was between December and February. 

Maximum and minimum daily mean discharges in Lehman 

Creek differed less than those in Baker Creek. The ratio of 

maximum to minimum daily mean discharges for Lehman 

Creek ranged from about 2 in February to as much as 50 in 

late May and early June, whereas the ratio for Baker Creek 

ranged from about 3 in October to more than 200 in January. 

The same ratio for Baker Creek during snowmelt in late May 

to early June ranged from 40 to 98. The largest ratios of maximum to minimum daily mean discharges were during January in Baker Creek and reflected a large variation for any day 

because, during some years, much of the water in the creek 

near and upstream of the gaging station was frozen.

The mean and median of the daily mean discharges at the 

gaging stations on both creeks were the same during low flow, 

but the means were greater than the median during high flow. 

The latter reflected large accumulations of snow during a few 

winters that resulted in much greater daily mean discharge 

during snowmelt than in most other years. 

Daily mean discharge at the gaging stations on Baker and 

Lehman Creeks were totaled to get annual runoff in acre-feet. 

The annual runoff at the Baker Creek gaging station exceeded 

the mean annual runoff only 5 years, and the annual runoff at 

the Lehman Creek gaging station exceeded the mean annual 

runoff 7 years (fig. 18).

Figure 15. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and Lehman Creeks in the mountain-upland 

zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

West East

Mountain-upland zone

Karst-limestone zone

EXPLANATION

Coarse glacial deposits

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Fractured quartzite

Shale

Limestone

Granite

Cave filled with air

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 37

Figure 16. Measured discharge on selected dates between September 1992 and August 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, for A, Baker Creek, and B, Lehman Creek. Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Distance downstream from stream head, in miles

0.1

1

10

100

0.1

1

10

100

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

Baker Creek 

Lehman Creek

A

B

Mountain-upland zone Karst-limestone zone

The Narrows

Mountain-upland zone Karst-limestone zone

Park boundary

Pole Canyon

Sink Cave

Ice Cave

Site B2

Site B3Site B5

Site B2A

Park boundary

Site L2 Gaging station

Site L1

Sites L2A, B

September 1–2, 1992*

July 22, 2003*

October 8, 2003*

July 22, 2009

August 25, 2010

October 27, 2010

January 25, 2011

April 19, 2011

June 2, 2011

August 18, 2011

September 1–2, 1992*

July 22, 2003*

October 8, 2003*

July 20, 2010

August 26, 2010

October 28, 2010

January 25, 2011

April 19, 2011

June 2, 2011

August 18, 2011

* Data are from Elliott and others (2006)

Site B1
38 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 17. Mean, median, minimum and maximum daily mean discharges, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

for water years 1948–55, 1993–97, and 2002–10, at gaging stations on A, Baker Creek (station number 10243260), and B, Lehman Creek 

(station number 10243240).

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

Daily mean discharge, in cubic feet per second

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

B

Lehman Creek gaging station 

A

Baker Creek gaging station 

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 39

Relation of Annual Mean Discharge at Gaging Stations to 

Precipitation

Annual mean discharge (in cubic feet per second) at the 

gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks correlated with 

the snow-water equivalent on or about April 1 from the middle 

snow course in the Baker Creek drainage basin (fig. 19A) 

and with the water-year precipitation rate at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center (fig. 19B). The best 

correlations used an exponential equation, with water years 

1952, 1995, and 2005 producing more annual mean discharge 

relative to the snow-water equivalent and annual precipitation rate. At least three factors could explain the exponential 

equations (fig. 19B). The first could be that evapotranspiration 

was water limited during most years, and once precipitation 

exceeded this limit, the proportion that became streamflow 

was increased. The second could be that proportionately more 

snow accumulated at higher altitudes in the drainage basins 

than at the snow course and the weather station during years 

of well above-average precipitation. The third could be that 

cooler temperatures during the wet years reduced evapotranspiration, allowing for a greater fraction of snowmelt to become 

streamflow.

Mean Annual Water Yield

Mean annual water yield (runoff plus groundwater flow) 

from the mountain-upland zone in the southern Snake Range 

was estimated assuming water not consumed by evapotranspiration exited the zone primarily as runoff in seven drainages 

basins that included Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks and 

the four nearby basins of Strawberry Creek, Shingle Creek, 

Williams Canyon, and Pole Canyon. In mountainous areas 

of the Great Basin, mean annual water yield from a drainage 

basin was less dependent on drainage area than on the magnitude of precipitation and evapotranspiration, which change 

substantially with altitude (Riggs and Moore, 1965, p. 199).

The method for estimating water yield is a function of 

the magnitude of precipitation in each drainage basin. Precipitation in each drainage basin was divided into two to four 

areas with varying mean precipitation rates. Coefficients that 

represented the fraction of precipitation in each area that 

became water yield were adjusted until the computed mean 

annual water yield approximated the mean annual runoff 

(groundwater flow assumed minor) best in the six drainage 

basins that excluded Pole Canyon because it did not have 

an estimate of mean annual runoff from a gaging station. A 

mean precipitation was estimated for each of the drainage 

basins by multiplying an area with the mean precipitation 

rate in each area. Mean precipitation rates from 1971 to 2000 

were obtained from the PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State 

University (http://prism.oregonstate.edu, September 7, 2011); 

mean precipitation for selected areas, with a range in annual 

precipitation rates, and a total mean precipitation for each of 

the drainage basins are listed in table 3. 

Mean annual runoff for the six drainage basins excluding Pole Canyon was estimated from gaging stations and was 

assumed equal to water yield. Gaging stations were operated 

near the end of the mountain-upland zone on Snake, Strawberry, and Shingle Creeks and Williams Canyon between 

October 2002 and September 2004 (Elliott and others, 2006). 

Gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks have a longer 

record (table 1) but are downstream of the mountain-upland 

Figure 18. Annual runoff at gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, for 

water years 1948–55, 1993–97, and 2003–10. Annual runoff, in thousands of acre feet

Water year

1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

Baker Creek

Annual runoff

Mean annual runoff, 6,900 acre-feet

Lehman Creek

Annual runoff

Mean annual runoff, 3,850 acre-feet

1948–55 1993–97 2003–10
40 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 19. Relation of annual mean discharge at gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, A, to the snow-water equivalent for the middle snow course in the Baker Creek drainage basin on or near April 1, and 

B, to water-year precipitation rates (October–September) at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center. Annual mean discharge at gaging station, in cubic feet per second

Precipitation rate at weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center, in inches per year

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Snow-water equivalent on or about April 1st at middle snow course in Baker Creek drainage basin, in inches

Baker

Lehman

Baker

Lehman

1995 2005

1952

1995

2005

1952

Discharge = 2.76e0.066 (snow-water equivalent)

R2 = 0.63

Discharge = 2.24e0.048 (snow-water equivalent)

R2 = 0.62

Discharge = 1.44e0.128 (precipitation)

R2 = 0.64

Discharge = 1.31e0.098 (precipitation)

R2 = 0.70

1995 2005 1952

1995

1952

2005

Table 3. Mean annual precipitation volume and water yield from the mountain-upland zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage 

basins and from four nearby drainage basins, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Mean annual water yield estimated from discharge measurements in all drainage basins except Pole Canyon, which was estimated from equation 1. Mean chloride concentrations of 

streamflow are flow-weighted for Baker Creek, Lehman Creek, and Pole Canyon. Mean precipitation rates from 1971–2000 (PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, 

http://prism.oregonstate.edu, created 7 Sept. 2011). Symbol: —, not determined; >, greater than] 

Drainage basin

Drainage 

area

 (square 

miles)

Mean annual water yield

(acre-feet) 

Total 

mean 

annual 

precipitation 

volume 

(acre-feet)

Mean annual precipitation volumes (acre-feet) Mean chloride 

concentration of 

Range in mean precipitation rates (inches per year) streamflow

Estimated from 

discharge 

measurements

Computed from 

equation 1 >12–16 >16–20 >20–24 >24–28 >28 (milligrams 

per liter)

(number of 

samples)

Baker Creek 12.7 9,320 7,630 17,400 22 2,220 3,730 3,220 8,230 1.2 14

Lehman Creek 8.38 4,650 5,580 11,800 57 689 2,080 2,930 6,000 1.1 12

Strawberry Creek 7.79 850 1,050 8,650 735 2,220 3,290 2,200 206 4.2 4

Shingle Creek 1.98 930 820 2,670 0 0 483 1,650 536 1.0 4

Williams Canyon 2.58 1,250 2,130 4,580 0 230 904 1,190 2,260 1.0 2

Snake Creek upstream 

of pipeline 9.33 2,980 2,980 11,800 0 1,100 5,660 2,540 2,460 1.2 5

Pole Canyon 3.34 — 250 3,540 0 1,540 2,000 0 0 6.7 8
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 41

zone. Mean annual runoff from the six drainage basins was 

adjusted to the long-term mean at the gaging station on Cleve 

Creek in the Schell Creek Range on the west side of Spring 

Valley (table 1). Gaging stations on Baker and Lehman 

Creeks were downstream of the mountain-upland zone, and 

each creek had losing stream reaches in the karst-limestone 

zone. Consequently, the mean annual runoff listed in table 1 

for the gaging stations on Baker and Lehman Creeks is less 

than the mean annual runoff that exited the mountain-upland 

zone in the two drainage basins and the mean annual runoff on Strawberry Creek is more than at the gaging station 

because of additional inflow during snowmelt. Mean annual 

runoff from the mountain-upland zone for Baker and Lehman 

Creeks was adjusted further on the basis of periodic discharge 

measurements, recorded between 2009 and 2011 near the end 

of the mountain-upland zone, by using a method presented by 

Moore (1968). Similarly, Strawberry Creek was adjusted using 

periodic discharge measurements at the end of the mountainupland zone in 2003 (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 19). 

The method for estimating water yield in the seven drainage basins was similar to that used by Riggs and Moore (1965) 

and Moore (1968), except their empirical equations for mean 

annual runoff were based on land-surface altitudes in a drainage basin. The relation between mean annual water yield and 

precipitation was done to determine (1) the principal areas 

that contribute runoff from the mountain-upland zone and (2) 

the quantity of groundwater recharge in the karst-limestone 

zone assuming that water not lost to evapotranspiration either 

becomes streamflow in the mountain-upland zone or groundwater recharge in the karst-limestone zone. 

The calculation of mean annual water yield for each of 

the drainage basins assumed no long-term change in storage (snowpack, lake levels, or in groundwater). Because the 

mountain-upland zone is underlain by thin glacial and alluvial 

deposits that overlie quartzite or granite of low permeability, 

little or no groundwater was assumed to exit the zone; rather, 

nearly all shallow groundwater returns to stream channels in 

the mountain-upland zone. The continued, slow melting of a 

permanent ice field at the foot of Wheeler Peak in the Lehman 

Creek drainage basin during the past 50 years could result 

in a greater estimate of water yield for that drainage basin. 

No other permanent ice fields exist in the other five drainage 

basins, however, so the overall effect of the melting ice field 

on the mean annual water yield is slight. 

The six lakes in the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek 

drainage basins are small and have no documented mean 

change in water levels during the past 50 years. Thus, given 

the assumptions that the drainage basins are in dynamic equilibrium and that groundwater flow out of the mountain-upland 

zone is minor, the difference between mean annual precipitation and water yield for each selected area can be assumed to 

be equal to the mean annual evapotranspiration for those areas 

(Ward and Trimble, 2004, p. 94). 

Two empirical equations were developed that produced 

similar estimates of mean annual water yield. Total mean precipitation in the first equation was divided into four areas with 

different mean precipitation rates that resulted in the following 

equation, which had a root-mean error of 870 acre-ft and produced 195 acre-ft more overall than the combined estimated 

mean annual runoff from all six drainage basins excluding 

Pole Canyon:

Yld = 0.03 × PPT>12−16 + 0.07 × PPT>16−24 + 0.22 × PPT>24−28 + 0.79 × PPT>28 (1)

where

Yld

^

is the calculated mean annual water yield, in 

acre-ft;

P

—PT—>—

12−

—

16 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 12 

to 16 inches per year, in acre-ft;

P

—PT—>—

16−

—

24 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 16 

to 24 inches per year, in acre-ft;

P

—PT—>—

24−

—

28 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 24 

to 28 inches per year, in acre-ft; and

P

—PT—>—

28 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 

28 inches per year, in acre-ft.

The second equation produced a similar result as the first 

equation; however, when the total mean precipitation was 

divided into two areas having different precipitation rates 

(from greater than 12 to 28 in/yr and greater than 28 in/yr), as 

shown in the following equation, it had a root-mean error of 

830 acre-ft and produced 85 acre-feet more overall than the 

combined estimated mean annual runoff from all six drainage 

basins excluding Pole Canyon:

Yld = 0.10 × PPT>12−28 + 0.83 × PPT>28 (2)

where

P

—PT—>—

12−

—

28 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 12 

to 28 inches per year, in acre-ft, and 

P

—PT—>—

28 is the mean precipitation for rates greater than 

28 inches per year, in acre-ft.

These two empirical equations are limited to the total mean 

precipitation determined for each of the seven drainage basins 

listed in table 3. Results from the four-rate equation indicated 

that most of the water yield was generated in areas where 

mean precipitation rates exceeded 28 in/yr, and only 3 percent 

was generated in areas where mean precipitation rates ranged 

from greater than 12 to 16 in/yr. This indicated that 21 percent 

of the mean precipitation (or about 6 in.) was lost to evapotranspiration in areas where mean precipitation rates exceeded 

28 in/yr, and 97 percent of the mean precipitation (or about 

13.6 in.) was lost to evapotranspiration in areas where mean 

precipitation rates ranged from greater than 12 to 16 in/yr. 

Decreasing evapotranspiration with increasing altitudes in the 

southern Snake Range is consistent with lower temperatures 

at higher altitudes. A similar pattern was determined for the 

two-interval equation, except that 90 percent of the mean 

annual precipitation was lost in areas where mean precipitation rates ranged from greater than 12 to 28 in/yr. The greater 

fraction of water yield for mean precipitation rates greater than 

28 in/yr in both equations was related to land-surface altitudes 

greater than 11,000 ft and generally corresponded to areas 
42 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

above treeline, where vegetation was sparse and mean annual 

temperatures were less than 4° C.

Even though two equations produced nearly the same 

overall mean annual water yield as the combined mean annual 

runoff from the six drainage basins excluding Pole Canyon, 

they consistently underestimated the mean annual water yield 

in the Baker and Shingle Creek drainage basins and overestimated the mean annual water yield in the Lehman Creek and 

Williams Canyon drainage basins (fig. 20). The likely reason 

for the variation in the estimated mean annual water yield 

relative to the estimated mean annual runoff is that the areas 

of mean precipitation rates in excess of 28 in/yr were underestimated for the Baker Creek and Shingle Creek drainage 

basins and overestimated for Lehman Creek and Williams 

Canyon (no weather stations collected data in places where the 

mean precipitation rate was greater than 28 in/yr). Even with 

the variation between predicted and estimated mean annual 

water yields among the six drainage basins, the dependence 

on mean precipitation rates greater than 28 in/yr in each of 

the drainage basins resulted in different quantities of mean 

annual water yield relative to total mean annual precipitation 

in the mountain-upland zone of each of the six drainage basins 

(fig. 20). Strawberry Creek had more total mean precipitation 

than Shingle Creek and Williams Canyon, yet the mean annual 

water yield was about the same because a greater fraction of 

the drainage areas for Shingle Creek and Williams Canyon had 

mean precipitation rates greater than 28 in/yr (table 3). Similarly, total mean annual precipitation in the mountain-upland 

zone of Snake Creek was greater than that of Lehman Creek, 

yet the mean annual water yield in Lehman Creek exceeded 

that of Snake Creek; again, this was caused by Lehman Creek 

having a larger area with mean precipitation rates greater 

than 28 in/yr. Baker Creek had the greatest total mean annual 

precipitation and mean annual water yield from the mountainupland zone because nearly half of the total mean annual 

precipitation in its drainage basin was from areas where mean 

precipitation rates exceeded 28 in/yr.

Water Budget

A mean annual water budget for the mountain-upland zone 

for the combined Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins 

was used to determine the relative importance of the various outflow components and to estimate inflow to the karstlimestone zone, where groundwater flow increases because of 

streamflow losses. The total mean annual precipitation for the 

combined drainage area that lies in mountain-upland zones in 

both drainage basins was 34,000 acre-ft (table 4) and included 

the mountain-upland zone in Pole Canyon. The uncertainty 

for this estimate was 20 percent, even though 15 percent 

Figure 20. Estimated mean annual runoff from mountain-upland zone and calculated mean annual water yield compared with total 

mean annual precipitation for six drainage basins in the southern Snake Range, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. Mean annual runoff, in acre-feet

Total mean annual precipitation in mountain-upland zone, in acre-feet

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

Baker and Lehman Creeks

Lehman Creek

Snake Creek 

Williams

Canyon

Shingle Strawberry Creek Creek 

Estimated from discharge measurements

Estimated from two precipitation areas

Estimated from four precipitation areas

Baker Creek
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 43

uncertainty of the mean annual precipitation from the PRISM 

Climate Group, Oregon State University was estimated at 

weather stations by Jeton and others (2005).

The mean annual runoff from the mountain-upland zone in 

table 4 is the sum of runoff for Baker Creek, Lehman Creek 

and Pole Canyon listed in table 3 plus an estimate of mean 

annual runoff of 160 acre-ft from an unnamed tributary in 

the Lehman Creek drainage basin west of Lehman Caves. 

Pole Canyon was included because it is a tributary to Baker 

Creek and contributes water to the karst-limestone zone in 

the combined Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins. 

The mean annual runoff from the mountain-upland zone was 

14,400 acre-ft (table 4), with uncertainty approximated at 15 

percent for Baker and Lehman Creeks and 40 percent for the 

Pole Canyon and the unnamed tributary to Lehman Creek. 

Mean annual runoff from the mountain-upland zone for Baker 

and Lehman Creeks was estimated from discharge measurements near the end of the mountain-upland zone, corrected 

to the long-term mean annual runoff at the respective gaging 

stations. The estimate of mean annual runoff for Pole Canyon and the unnamed tributary was from equation 1, which 

resulted in a greater estimated uncertainty compared to the 

other estimates. 

Groundwater flow from the mountain-upland zone into the 

karst-limestone zone was estimated by using Darcy’s Law. The 

estimated cross-sectional area of flow through shallow alluvial 

deposits that overlie granite–shale was 20,000 square feet (ft2

) 

for Baker Creek (width of 400 ft and depth of 50 ft), 10,000 ft2

for Lehman Creek (width of 200 ft and depth of 50 ft), and 

1,000 ft2 for Pole Canyon (width of 100 ft and depth of 10 ft). 

The estimated cross-sectional area of flow through the granite–

shale was estimated at 5,400,000 ft2 (width of 18,000 ft and 

depth of 300 ft). The lateral hydraulic conductivity of the shallow alluvial deposits was estimated at 20 feet per day (ft/d) 

on the basis of an aquifer test in alluvial deposits along Baker 

Creek, and the lateral hydraulic conductivity of the granite–

shale was assumed to be 0.001 ft/d. The hydraulic gradient for 

the shallow alluvial deposits was assumed to be equal to the 

streambed slope of 0.08 feet per foot (ft/ft), and the hydraulic 

gradient for the granite and shale was assumed to be 0.8 ft/ft 

because of its low hydraulic conductivity. The estimated mean 

annual flow through the shallow alluvial deposits beneath 

Baker and Lehman Creeks and Pole Canyon was 400 acre-ft, 

whereas the estimated mean annual flow through the granite 

and shale was 40 acre-ft (table 4). The estimated uncertainty 

of groundwater flow was 50 percent.

The total mean annual flow of springs along the contact between the mountain-upland and karst-limestone zone 

was estimated to be 150 acre-ft. This includes the combined 

annual flow from Cave and Marmot Springs (fig. 21) of about 

90 acre-ft (Gretchen Baker, National Park Service, Great 

Basin National Park, Baker, Nev., written commun., 2009) 

Table 4. Water budgets for the mountain-upland and karst-limestone zones in the combined drainage basins of Baker and Lehman 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[PRISM is from the 1971–2000 mean annual precipitation obtained from the PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu; tables 1 and 3 are from 

this report; measurements are a combination of records from gaging stations listed in appendix 4, from periodic discharge measurements listed in appendix 3, and from other available information on the flow of small springs; Darcy’s Law are calculations of groundwater flow assuming a cross-sectional area, a lateral hydraulic conductivity, and a hydraulic 

gradient; calculation is the difference in the total inflow less all other outflows in a zone; and sum is the total of either all inflows or outflows assuming no change in storage. 

Symbol: —, not determined]

Water budget component

Mountain upland 

drainage area 25.4 square miles 

Karst limestone 

drainage area 4.2 square miles Source of 

Mean annual volume Estimated uncertainty Mean annual volume Estimated uncertainty estimates

Acre-feet

Inflow

Precipitation 33,000 6,600 3,200 600 PRISM

Runoff 0 — 14,400 2,300 Tables 1 and 3

Spring flow 0 — 150 75 Measurements

Groundwater 

Younger alluvial deposits 0 — 400 200 Darcy’s Law

Older alluvial deposits/consolidated rocks 0 — 40 20 Darcy’s Law

Total 33,000 6,600 18,200 3,200 Sum

Outflow

Evapotranspiration 18,000 9,000 2,800 800 Calculation

Runoff 14,400 2,300 11,400 1,100 Tables 1 and 3

Spring flow 150 75 2,700 300 Measurements

Groundwater 

Younger alluvial deposits 400 200 500 300 Darcy’s Law

Older alluvial deposits/consolidated rocks 40 20 800 400 Darcy’s Law

Total 33,000 11,600 18,200 2,900 Sum
44 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

and about 60 acre-ft from minor springs between Baker and 

Lehman Creeks. The estimated uncertainty in the total mean 

annual flow of springs was 50 percent (table 4).

The mean annual evapotranspiration for the mountainupland zone was estimated to be 19,000 acre-ft by subtracting 

estimates of mean annual runoff from mean annual precipitation. Uncertainty of 50 percent was determined by subtracting the sum of the minimum estimates of all outflows except 

evapotranspiration from the difference in the maximum 

estimate of precipitation minus mean evapotranspiration. 

The water budget for the mountain-upland zone indicated 

that about 56 percent of mean annual precipitation was lost 

to evapotranspiration, whereas 42 percent was runoff and 2 

percent was groundwater flow to springs and to the karstlimestone zone. Thus, the estimated water yield from the 

mountain-upland zone was about 44 percent of the mean 

annual precipitation. This water yield was more than that of 

35 percent determined for the Ash Canyon drainage basin on 

the east slope of the Carson Range near Carson City, Nevada 

(mean annual precipitation of 29.6 inches; Maurer and Berger, 

1997, p. 34), and less than the 56 percent water yield for the 

upper Kings River on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada 

Figure 21. Locations of discharge-measurement sites, streambed piezometers, and wells in the karst-limestone and upper-piedmont 

zones of the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins between June 2009 and August 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada.

7000

7000

6000

8000

8000

8000

Sewage

Lagoons

488

0 2 Miles

0 2 Kilometers

1

1

39°01'

38°59'

114°14' 114°11'

Great Basin

National

Park

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baker Creek

Cave system

Joe’s Way

Sage Way Rowland

Ranch

Diversion Natural channel

Overflow Ditch

channel

Reach 1

Reach 2

Upper

Lehman

Creek

Campground

Lower Lehman

Campground

Model Cave

Wheelers

Deep

Cave

Ice Cave

Sink

Cave

Baker

Creek

Campground

Grey Cliffs

Campground

Reach 1 Reach 2

Reach 3

Lehman Hills

cave system

Lehman

Caves

Visitor

Center

Baker Creek

Lehman Creek

The Narrows

Pole Canyon

Rowland

Spring

Cave

Springs

Marmot

Spring

Rosethorn

spring

EXPLANATION

PB2

SLE

Hydrogeologic zones

Mountain upland

Karst limestone

Upper piedmont

Great Basin National Park boundary

Land-surface contour—Interval is 1,000 feet. 

Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Defined reach along Baker Creek

Reach 1 along Baker and Lehman Creeks

Reach 2 along Baker and Lehman Creeks

Reach 3 along Baker Creek

Cave entrance

Spring

Gaging station

Miscellaneous measurement site, 1992

Miscellaneous measurement site, 2003

Miscellaneous measurement site, 2009–11

Well with name or number

Baker 4 aquifer-test site

Streambed piezometer

National Weather Service cooperative station

SLE

92847

PB1

PB2

PL1

PL2

PL4 PL3

Private

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 45

(mean precipitation of 38.7 inches; Goulden and others, 2012). 

Goulden and others (2012) found evapotranspiration decreased 

at altitudes above 7,900 ft because of colder temperatures. 

Typically, in mountain drainage basins underlain by low-permeability rocks, the percentage of water yield to precipitation 

increased with increasing precipitation (Maurer and Berger, 

1997, p. 35; Hunsaker and others, 2012, p. 669).

Selected Water Chemistry to Evaluate WaterBudget Estimates 

Radioactive tritium concentrations, stable isotopes of 

water, and dissolved chloride concentrations were used to 

evaluate the mean age of water in the mountain-upland zone 

and the relation between evaporation (which enriches stable 

isotope concentrations of water) and transpiration (which 

increases dissolved chloride concentrations, Clark and Fritz, 

1997, p. 80, 92). The selected water chemistry was assessed 

for samples from Baker and Lehman Creeks, Pole Canyon, 

and Cave and Marmot Springs, in the mountain-upland zone, 

and from Model Cave and Rowland Spring, in the karst-limestone zone (table 5). The data were compiled from analyses 

of samples that were a composite of samples collected during 

this study, from previous data available in the National Water 

Information System Database, and from analyses of samples 

collected by the National Park Service (Gretchen Baker, 

National Park Service, Great Basin National Park, Baker, 

Nev., written commun., 2010) and reported by Acheampong 

(1992). Averages listed in table 5 for the creeks, Rowland 

Spring, and Model Cave are flow weighted. Simple averages 

were used for Cave and Marmot Springs. The water chemistry 

of samples collected during this study is summarized in appendix 16. Daily mean discharge measurements for Rowland 

Spring, Baker Creek, Pole Canyon, and Model Cave resurgent 

spring not available in the National Information System Database are listed in appendix tables 4–2, 4–3, 4–7, 4–8, and 4–9.

Estimating Mean Age of Water with Tritium 

Tritium is used to estimate the mean age of water less 

than 60 years old and was used to evaluate the age of water in 

Baker and Lehman Creeks and from Marmot Spring and Rowland Spring. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that 

forms naturally in the upper atmosphere and quickly combines 

to form tritiated water (Farmer and others, 1998). Over time, 

tritium is converted to helium by the release of a beta particle 

(Clark and Fritz, 1997, p. 174). The half-life of tritium is about 

12.3 years (Lucas and Unterweger, 2000; Eaton and others, 

2005), which means that tritium is not present in water that has 

not been exposed to the atmosphere since the 1940s. Tritium 

concentrations are increased in the atmosphere by nuclear testing and nuclear power plants. Nuclear testing caused tritium 

concentrations in precipitation at Salt Lake City, Utah, to peak 

at about 25,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L, or 8,000 tritium 

units, where 1 tritium unit equals 3.24 pCi/L) during the spring 

of 1963 (Plummer and others, 2000, p. 270). If tritiated water 

entered groundwater in 1963, and was not mixed with any 

other water, the maximum concentration of that water in 2011 

would be about 1,700 pCi/L (Clark and Fritz, 1997, p. 181). 

The tritium concentration in precipitation at Salt Lake City 

decreased rapidly following its peak and, by the mid-1990s, 

was estimated to range between 30 and 45 pCi/L. Measurements of precipitation during 1995–97 in Las Vegas, Nevada, 

showed seasonal variation from about 16 pCi/L in the fall 

and winter to about 40 pCi/L during the spring and summer 

(Farmer and others, 1998, p. 105). Although precipitation 

near the Lehman Caves in GBNP is not analyzed routinely for 

tritium, tritium concentrations from two samples collected in 

2010 from Baker and Lehman Creeks (table 5) were similar 

to the tritium concentration of precipitation measured during 

1995–97 at Las Vegas, Nevada, and to that estimated for the 

mid 1990s for Salt Lake City, Utah, which indicated a recent 

water source. A water sample from Marmot Spring collected 

Table 5. Selected water chemistry of creeks and springs near the contact between mountain-upland and karst-limestone zones, at 

Model Cave in karst-limestone zone, and at Rowland Spring near contact between karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 1990–2011. 

[Site locations are shown in figure 21. Flow-weighted averages for Baker Creek, Lehman Creek, Pole Canyon, Rowland Spring and Model Cave; means for Cave and Marmot 

Springs from available analyses. Stable-isotope ratios reported in delta (δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil). Delta is the relative difference between the ratios of hydrogen-2 

(deuterium) to hydrogen-1 (2

H/1H) or oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 (18O/16O) in water samples to the respective ratios in Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW; Giofiantini, 

1978). A negative value represents water with less 2

H relative to 1H or 18O relative to 16O than VSMOW. Standard error at 95-percent confidence level is 2 permil for δ D and 0.2 

permil for δ 18O. Symbol: —, not analyzed] 

Site location

Tritium Stable-isotope ratios in delta notation Specific conductance Dissolved chloride 

Picocuries 

per liter

Number of 

samples

Deuterium Oxygen-18 Number of 

samples

Microsiemens per 

centimeter at 25 

degrees Celsius

Number of 

samples

Milligrams 

per liter

Number of 

samples Permil

Baker Creek upstream of narrows in Grey 

Cliffs group campground 24.8 2 −112 −15.3 10 42 12 1.2 14

Lehman Creek at campsite 5 in lower 

Lehman campground 26.9 2 −114 −15.5 9 41 12 1.1 11

Pole Canyon at shale contact — 0 −114 −15.2 4 240 8 6.8 8

Cave Springs — 0 −115 −15.6 17 120 4 5.1 7

Marmot Spring 26.2 1 −113 −15.3 2 95 6 3.9 6

Model Cave — 0 −114 −15.3 4 110 8 2.5 8

Rowland Spring 19.7 2 −112 −15.1 11 120 19 3.4 17
46 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

in May 2010 had a tritium concentration similar to that of 

Baker and Lehman Creeks. Using the variation of tritium 

concentrations in precipitation between winter and summer 

measured near Las Vegas, Nevada, and proportioning those 

concentrations according to the seasonal percentages of mean 

precipitation rates resulted in a range of 21 pCi/L for altitudes 

higher than 11,000 ft to 29 pCi/L for altitudes near Lehman 

Caves. Because the average tritium concentration in the two 

samples from Lehman Creek was 27 pCi/L (table 5), the value 

from Lehman Creek was used in place of modern precipitation 

in the drainage basins. These data indicated a short residence 

time for streamflow and water flowing from Marmot Spring 

due to relatively shallow groundwater circulation in the 

mountain-upland zone.

Stable Isotope Concentrations of Water for 

Evaluating Evaporation 

The flow-weighted average ratios of the stable isotopes of 

hydrogen and oxygen relative to sea water (table 5) were similar to the volume-averaged ratios in precipitation of −113 parts 

per thousand (permil) for delta deuterium and −15.3 permil 

for delta oxygen-18 that were determined from 5 years of data 

from three nearby bulk-precipitation stations (fig. 6; Friedman and others, 2002) and from 1 year of data from Baker and 

Lehman Creek drainage basins (Acheampong, 1992, p. 29). 

The similarity of these ratios to those in precipitation indicated 

minimal evaporation prior to becoming streamflow or groundwater recharge (Craig, 1961a; Clark and Fritz, 1997, p. 80). 

Transpiration by plants does not affect the stable-isotope ratios 

in water because fractionation takes place at the leaf surface 

and not at root uptake. Consequently, the stable isotopes of 

water in the mountain-upland zone indicated that much of the 

water lost to evapotranspiration was not from evaporation. 

The seasonal variation in deuterium and oxygen-18 ratios 

for water in the creeks and from Cave and Marmot Springs 

was close to the volume-weighted mean annual deuterium and 

oxygen-18 ratios in precipitation and differed less than the 

volume-weighted mean annual winter- and summer-precipitation ratios (fig. 22). The lack of pronounced seasonal variation 

in the ratios indicated mixing of winter and summer precipitation, perhaps through shallow-groundwater circulation.

Dissolved Chloride and Chloride-Mass Balance 

Dissolved-chloride concentrations in water from Baker and 

Lehman Creeks and the springs were greater than would be 

Figure 22. Relation of deuterium and oxygen-18 in water samples collected from Baker and Lehman Creeks, Pole Canyon, and Cave 

and Marmot Springs in the mountain-upland zone as well as in the volume-weighted mean annual, mean-winter, and mean-summer 

precipitation collected in vicinity of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Delta oxygen–18, in permil

Delta deuterium, in permil

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12

Global meteoric water line (Craig, 1961a)

Summer weighted average 1991–97 (Friedman and others, 2002)

Winter weighted average 1991–97 (Friedman and others, 2002)

Weighted average 1991–97 (Friedman and others, 2002)

Baker Creek 2009–11

Lehman Creek 2010–11

Pole Canyon 2009–11

Average Cave Springs, 1990–91 (Acheampong, 1992)

Cave Springs, Sept. 2007 (Prudic and Glancy, 2009)

Marmot Spring 2007–10
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 47

expected from atmospheric deposition of salts in the mountain-upland zone (table 5). The dissolved chloride concentration of precipitation has been monitored at the GBNP since 

January 1985 as part of a national network for monitoring the 

chemistry of precipitation (National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program, 2011). The mean volume-weighted concentration of 

chloride in precipitation was 0.16 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

This concentration did not include chloride deposited by dust 

between periods of precipitation. The chemical composition of 

dust (dry fall) has been collected in the GBNP since May 1995 

as part of the national program for monitoring water chemistry 

in precipitation; however, chloride is not part of the analyses 

(National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2011). 

Assuming chloride was only introduced by precipitation, the mean concentration of chloride in surface water and 

groundwater in the drainage basins would be equal to the mass 

of chloride deposited on the land surface from precipitation or 

to the concentration multiplied by precipitation minus water 

lost through evapotranspiration. Given an estimated evapotranspiration of 56 percent of total mean annual precipitation 

for the combined drainage basins (table 4), the mean concentration of dissolved chloride in surface water and groundwater 

would not be more than 0.36 mg/L, if atmospheric chloride 

deposition was 0.16 mg/L. The flow-weighted mean chloride 

concentration was 1.2 mg/L for Baker Creek and 1 mg/L 

for Lehman Creek, however, and chloride concentrations 

were higher in water from Pole Canyon and from Cave and 

Marmot Springs (table 5). Four explanations for this are (1) 

mean annual runoff was less than a third of that estimated, (2) 

mean annual precipitation and evapotranspiration were more 

than estimated, (3) chloride salts are present in measureable 

quantities in the rocks, and (4) chloride attached to dust (dry 

fall, Dettinger, 1989) was deposited in sufficient quantities to 

account for the chloride in the creeks and springs. 

Assuming the mean annual runoff at the gaging stations 

was the same as that from the mountain-upland zone and 

the flow-weighted mean chloride concentrations, the mean 

annual precipitation and evapotranspiration in the mountainupland zone would need to be at least three times greater than 

was estimated, but such large quantities of precipitation and 

evapotranspiration are unreasonable. Minerals in the rocks 

do not contain enough chloride to account for the chloride 

concentrations in the creeks (Lee and Van Loenen, 1971), and 

chemical precipitation of salts (particularly chloride) from the 

actively eroding mountains with moderate precipitation would 

be unlikely. Thus, only chloride salts on dust deposited from 

the atmosphere could account for the chloride concentrations 

in the water in creeks and springs.

Chloride mass balance is useful for estimating groundwater recharge in drainage basins (or parts of drainage 

basins) underlain by permeable rocks (Dettinger, 1989), but 

it requires an estimate of total atmospheric chloride deposition. To estimate groundwater recharge for the karst-limestone 

zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, for 

the karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones in the Snake 

Creek drainage basin, and for drainage basins at the south end 

of the Snake Range that potentially contribute flow to Big 

Springs, the water-budget components listed in table 4 and 

the dissolved-chloride concentrations in table 5 were used to 

estimate the mean annual dissolved-chloride concentration 

from atmospheric deposition (in precipitation and from dust) 

in the mountain-upland zone of Baker and Lehman Creeks 

and Pole Canyon by using the chloride-mass balance method 

(Dettinger, 1989). The method assumes no dissolution of 

chloride from the rocks and that the annual chloride mass 

from precipitation and dust is balanced by outflow of the same 

chloride mass, or no annual change in chloride mass in the 

mountain-upland zones. The chloride mass-balance equation 

was rewritten as follows:

Cppt =

(CBVB) + (CLVL) + (CPVP) + (CgwBVgwB) + (CgwLVgwL) + (CgwPVgwP) + (CspVsp)

Vppt

(3)

where

Cppt is mean chloride concentration from precipitation and dry fall, in mg/L; 

CB is mean chloride concentration of water in Baker Creek, in mg/L; 

CL is mean chloride concentration of water in Lehman Creek, in mg/L; 

CP is mean chloride concentration of water in Pole Canyon, in mg/L; 

CgwB is mean chloride concentration of groundwater beneath Baker Creek, in mg/L; 

CgwL is mean chloride concentration of groundwater beneath Lehman Creek, in mg/L; 

CgwP is mean chloride concentration of groundwater beneath Pole Canyon, in mg/L; 

Csp is mean chloride concentration of spring water, in mg/L; 

Vppt is mean annual precipitation, in acre-ft; 

VB is mean annual runoff in Baker Creek, in acre-ft; 

VL is mean annual runoff in Lehman Creek, in acre-ft; 

VP is mean annual runoff in Pole Canyon, in acre-ft; 

VgwB is mean annual groundwater flow beneath Baker Creek, in acre-ft; 

VgwL is mean annual groundwater flow beneath Lehman Creek, in acre-ft;

VgwP is mean annual groundwater flow beneath Pole Canyon, in acre-ft; and

Vsp is mean annual spring flow, in acre-ft.
48 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The mean chloride concentration in the shallow alluvium 

beneath the creeks was assumed to be the same as the mean 

chloride concentration in the creek water. A water sample from 

the Baker Creek test-well downstream of GBNP had a chloride 

concentration of 1 mg/L in October 2009, which was similar to 

the concentration in water from Baker Creek. The mean chloride concentrations in water from Cave and Marmot Springs 

were averaged. A range in the inflows and outflows were used 

to account for uncertainty in the mean annual precipitation, 

runoff, groundwater flow, and spring flow listed in table 4. 

This resulted in an estimated mean annual chloride concentration of 0.6 mg/L, with an uncertainty of 0.2 mg/L (a range of 

0.4–0.8 mg/L). Dettinger (1989, p. 62) also reported a chloride 

concentration of 0.6 mg/L from atmospheric deposition that 

included dry fall for Nevada. 

An estimate of mean chloride concentrations from atmospheric deposition also was calculated by using the total mean 

annual precipitation for each of the seven drainage basins 

listed in table 3 along with the estimated mean annual runoff 

and mean chloride concentrations for each creek. The mean 

chloride concentrations in water from Baker and Lehman 

Creeks and Pole Canyon were flow-weighted means, whereas 

only a simple average of the 2–5 samples collected from the 

other creeks near the end of the mountain-upland zone was 

used for the other drainage basins. 

The resulting mean precipitation-weighted chloride 

concentration was 0.5 mg/L and ranged from 0.35 mg/L in 

Snake Creek to 0.6 mg/L in Baker Creek. The estimated mean 

chloride concentrations of atmospheric deposition for the two 

drainage basins on the west side of the southern Snake Range 

(Williams Canyon and Shingle Creek) and Snake Creek to 

the south of Baker Creek were less than the overall mean, 

whereas the concentrations for Strawberry and Lehman Creeks 

to the north and Pole Canyon to the east were near the mean 

of 0.5 mg/L. The lower concentrations in Snake, Shingle, 

and Williams Canyon drainage basins could be an artifact of 

using a non-flow weighted average from the limited number of 

chloride analyses or could indicate less atmospheric chloride 

deposition in those drainage basins. The mean chloride concentration for atmospheric deposition of 0.6 mg/L used in this 

study resulted in somewhat greater estimates of mean annual 

runoff and groundwater water recharge compared with those 

obtained by using an estimate of 0.5 mg/L.

Karst-Limestone Zone

The karst-limestone zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek 

drainage basins (shown on fig. 21) begins where Middle Cambrian Pole Canyon Limestone outcrops on the lower slopes 

in the mountain part of the drainage basins or lies at shallow 

depth beneath thin glacial and alluvial deposits. Distinctive 

features of this zone are as follows: (1) moderate-altitude terrain with steep to moderate slopes between ridges and stream 

channels and thin soils; (2) a moist and cool climate; (3) active 

erosion with thin, young, glacial and alluvial deposits along 

stream channels that overlie karst and permeable limestone; 

(4) losing stream reaches; and (5) shallow-groundwater circulation. The limestone in this zone has become more permeable 

from dissolution by shallow circulating groundwater, which 

has created numerous caves and large tubular openings, some 

of which are above the groundwater table (fig. 23).

Water losses along Baker and Lehman Creeks contribute to 

flow through the karst limestone either as percolation through 

alluvial deposits above the limestone or as flow directly into 

caves. Both creeks consistently lost flow in the karst-limestone 

zone. Much of the loss was along Baker Creek in the Narrows, even though during the spring and summer of 2011, 

flow from Pole Canyon and from a resurgent spring near 

Model Cave entered Baker Creek. Some streamflow in Baker 

Creek typically is lost to Ice and Sink Caves. Ice Cave is near 

the entrance to the Narrows, and Sink Caves is about midway between Ice Cave and the confluence with Pole Canyon 

(fig. 21).

Streambed-Seepage Rates

Net streambed-seepage rates were estimated for Baker 

and Lehman Creeks in the karst-limestone zone by taking 

discharge measurements at different locations along a creek 

on a single day and then dividing the streamflow loss (or 

gain) between two measurements by the estimated area of 

the streambed between them. Values are reported in ft/d (for 

ft3/d/ft2) so that they can be compared directly with estimates 

of streambed-seepage rates from streambed piezometers. Net 

streambed-seepage rates for Lehman Creek also were estimated by measuring the temperature of the streambed in two 

shallow piezometers, PL1 and PL4, every 15 minutes, as the 

temperature changed during the day. Piezometer PL1 was 

about 20 ft downstream of the gaging station, and piezometer 

PL4 was immediately downstream of GBNP. The methods 

used to estimate streambed-seepage rates from temperature 

and water-level data in streambed piezometers are described in 

appendix 14. 

Net streambed-seepage rates estimated from differences 

between discharge measurements at selected locations along 

Baker and Lehman Creeks are summarized in tables 6 and 7, 

respectively. The tables include net streambed-seepage rates 

for both creeks at selected locations in the upper-piedmont 

zone. The reach in the karst-limestone zone (reach 1) extended 

from upstream of the Narrows to the eastern boundary of 

GBNP on Baker Creek and from the lower Lehman Creek 

campground to just upstream of the eastern boundary of 

GBNP on Lehman Creek (fig. 21). Net streambed-seepage 

rates ranged from −1.1 to −8.6 ft/d, where negative values 

represent streamflow losses, for reach 1 on Baker Creek 

(table 6) and from –0.8 to –3.5 ft/d on Lehman Creek (table 7), 

and streamflow loss was greater as discharge measurements 

increased. Much of the loss on Baker Creek was actually from 

flow into Ice and Sink Caves; thus, the streamflow losses estimated for Baker Creek, particularly at higher discharge rates, 

could be exaggerated. No direct losses to caves were observed 

along Lehman Creek; thus, streamflow losses were diffused 

along the streambed. The greater streamflow losses along 
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 49

Figure 23. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and Lehman Creeks in the karst-limestone 

zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

Southwest Northeast

Karst-limestone zone

Upper-piedmont zone

Mountain-upland zone

EXPLANATION

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Fractured quartzite

Shale

Limestone

Granite

Cave filled with air

Cave filled with water

Southern Snake Range detachment fault

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring

Table 6. Discharge measurements, streamflow loss or gain, streambed width and length, and net streambed-seepage rates for 

selected reaches on Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, July 2009 to August 2011. 

[Reach 1 is between measurements at Grey Cliff group campground and park boundary; reach 2 is between park boundary and trail crossing diverted Baker Creek downstream 

of spring inflow (spring inflow subtracted from discharge at downstream end); reach 3 is between trail crossing diverted Baker Creek and confluence with Lehman Creek. Gain is 

positive; loss is negative. Discharge and gain or loss rounded to three significant figures; uncertainty and net streambed-seepage rate rounded to two significant figures. Abbreviation: 

mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year; e, estimated with uncertainty assumed at 25 percent. Symbol: —, net streambed-seepage rate less than uncertainty]

Date

mm/dd/yyyy

Reach 

number

Upstream 

discharge

measurement

(cubic feet per 

second)

Downstream 

discharge

measurement

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

Estimated 

uncertainty 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Estimated 

stream 

length 

(feet) 

Estimated 

average 

stream width 

(feet)

Net streambedseepage rate 

(feet per day)

7/22/2009 1 12.7 8.18 −4.5 Loss 1.7 6,500 13 −4.6

7/20/2010 1 e11.0 6.52 e−4.5 Loss 3.3 6,100 13 −4.9

8/25/2010 1 4.43 0.70 −3.73 Loss 0.41 6,100 12 −4.4

9/28/2010 1 3.06 1.49 −1.57 Loss 0.36 6,100 12 −1.9

10/27/2010 1 4.76 2.99 −1.77 Loss 0.62 6,100 12 −2.1

12/08/2010 1 3.66 2.77 −0.89 Loss 0.51 6,100 12 −1.1

1/25/2011 1 3.71 2.16 −1.55 Loss 0.47 6,100 12 −1.8

4/19/2011 1 13.2 7.50 −5.70 Loss 1.7 6,500 12 −6.3

6/02/2011 1 44.7 32.9 −11.7 Loss 6.2 6,500 18 −8.6

8/18/2011 1 14.8 7.33 −7.47 Loss 1.8 6,500 15 −6.6

7/22/2009 2 8.18 10.8 2.62 Gain 1.5 6,300 12 3.0

7/22/2009 3 11.1 10.9 −0.20 Neutral 1.8 4,600 12 —
50 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Lehman Creek in 2011 compared with 2010 were caused, in 

part, by overbank flows to distributary channels. If the mean 

streambed-seepage rate of −1 ft/d estimated during low flow 

was assumed for the higher flows, then the area of streamflow 

would need to be about three times greater to account for the 

measured streamflow losses.

No piezometers were driven into the streambed of Baker 

Creek in the karst-limestone zone because of large quartzite 

boulders in the channel. Mean, maximum, and minimum of 

daily streambed-seepage rates for Lehman Creek at piezometers PL1 and PL4 in the karst-limestone zone are listed in 

table 8 and were estimated by using methods described in 

appendix 14. Piezometer PL1 was driven into the streambed on May 30, 2009, and, in early June 2009, temperatures 

were similar at all depths (fig. 24). This yielded a streambedseepage rate of −3.5 ft/d on June 4, 2009, whereas, in August 

and early September 2009, greater differences in temperature 

with depth yielded a rate of about −0.5 ft/d. Differences in 

Table 7. Discharge measurements, streamflow loss or gain, streambed width and length, and net streambed-seepage rates for 

selected reaches on Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, July 2010 to August 2011. 

[Reach 1 is between measurements at lower Lehman campground and downstream of park entrance road; reach 2 is between park boundary and upstream side of Sage Way road 

crossing. Gain is positive; loss is negative. Discharge and gain or loss rounded to three significant figures; uncertainty and net streambed-seepage rate rounded to two significant 

figures. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year. Symbol: —, net streambed-seepage rate less than uncertainty]

Date

mm/dd/yyyy

Reach 

number

Upstream 

discharge

(cubic feet per 

second)

Downstream 

discharge 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

Estimated 

uncertainty 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Estimated 

stream length 

(feet) 

Estimated 

average 

stream width 

(feet)

Net streambedseepage rate 

(feet per day)

7/20/2010 1 7.35 6.64 −0.71 Neutral 1.1 11,000 9 —

8/26/2010 1 4.32 3.04 −1.28 Loss 0.59 11,000 9 −1.1

9/28/2010 1 2.78 1.6 −1.18 Loss 0.35 11,000 9 −1.0

10/28/2010 1 3.15 1.85 −1.30 Loss 0.40 11,000 9 −1.1

12/07/2010 1 2.08 0.96 −1.12 Loss 0.24 11,000 9 −1.0

1/25/2010 1 2.17 1.29 −.88 Loss 0.28 11,000 9 −0.8

4/19/2011 1 5.24 3.53 −1.71 Loss 0.70 11,000 9 −1.5

6/02/2011 1 18.5 14.2 −4.30 Loss 2.6 11,000 12 −2.8

8/18/2011 1 15.9 10.6 −5.30 Loss 2.1 11,000 12 −3.5

11/07/2009 2 1.82 2.11 0.29 Neutral 0.31 1,800 6 —

2/24/2010 2 1.05 1.18 0.13 Neutral 0.18 1,800 6 —

3/23/2010 2 1.06 1.21 0.15 Neutral 0.18 1,800 6 —

Table 8. Streambed−seepage rates, hydraulic gradients, and hydraulic conductivities at six piezometers driven into 

Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, June 2009 to November 2010. 

[Piezometer locations are shown in figure 21. Numbers following piezometer name are distances in miles downstream of gaging station. Flow from creek to 

streambed is negative (losing stream); flow from streambed to creek is positive (gaining stream). Streambed−seepage rate and hydraulic gradient rounded to 

two significant figures; hydraulic conductivity rounded to one significant figure. Methods used to estimate vertical hydraulic conductivity discussed in appendix 14; land−surface altitude, depth, diameter, and screened interval for each piezometer and method used to estimate lateral hydraulic conductivity discussed 

in appendix 13. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year. Symbol: >, greater than; —, not determined]

Streambed 

piezometer

Measurement period

mm/dd/yyyy

Streambed−seepage rate 

(feet per day)

Hydraulic gradient 

(foot per foot)

Hydraulic conductivity 

(feet per day)

Mean Range Mean Range Vertical Lateral

Karst-limestone zone—Lehman Creek

PL1−0 

6/14/2009 to 9/04/2009 −0.53 −0.59 to −0.43 −0.36 −0.39 to −0.32 2 >100

3/24/2010 to 8/25/2010 −0.88 −1.0 to −0.44 −0.33 −0.42 to −0.18 4 >100

PL4−0.44 3/24/2010 to 5/20/2010 −2.0 −3.1 to −1.4 −0.03 −0.04 to −0.02 90 100

Upper-piedmont zone—Baker Creek

PB2−1.48 9/05/2009 to 3/23/2010 −0.08 −3.0 to 3.0 −0.08 −0.40 to 0.40 10 —

PB1−2.29 3/26/2010 to 11/03/2010 −0.08 −0.80 to 0.20 −0.03 −0.30 to 0.10 3 >100

Upper-piedmont zone—Lehman Creek

PL3−1.60 3/24/2010 to 8/25/2010 −0.62 −1.4 to −0.37 −1.1 −1.3 to −0.45 1 100

PL2−2.42 3/24/2010 to 11/03/2010 −0.15 −0.24 to 0.04 −0.18 −0.29 to 0.05 1 >100
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 51

Figure 24. Streambed temperatures from piezometers in karst-limestone zone of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, for selected 2-week periods: A, piezometer PL1, June 1–14, 2009; B, piezometer PL1, August 1–14, 2009; C, piezometer 

PL4, September 14–27, 2009; and D, piezometer PL4, April 1–14, 2010. Temperature, in degrees Celsius

June 2009

August 2009

September 2009

April 2010

0

2

4

6

8

10

4

6

8

10

12

6

8

10

12

14

6

8

10

12

14

D

A

C

B

Piezometer PL4

Piezometer PL1

Piezometer PL4

Piezometer PL1

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

2.5 feet below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

2.5 feet below streambed

0.3 foot below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

2.5 feet below streambed

0.3 foot below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

2.5 feet below streambed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
52 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

temperature with depth measured in June 2010 were similar 

to those from August and late September 2009, and yielded 

streambed-seepage rates of about −0.9 ft/d.

The greatest rates of loss (most negative streambed-seepage rates) from the streambed in Lehman Creek at PL1 were 

measured in early June 2009, reflecting disturbance at the site 

from driving the piezometer into the streambed. Within a few 

weeks, however, the streambed-seepage rates had become 

nearly constant at −0.5 ft/d. During the same period, the 

hydraulic gradient of the streambed at PL1 became more negative, indicating that the head in the piezometer was declining 

more rapidly than it was in the creek (fig. 25). This indicated 

that the area around the piezometer that was disturbed during 

installation became sealed with fine-grained sediments within 

a month. The lowest streambed-seepage rate of −0.4 ft/d 

was measured from August 12 to 18, 2009, when streambed 

hydraulic gradients were nearly stable at −0.37 ft/ft (fig. 25).

Streambed temperatures at piezometer PL4 showed the 

greatest diurnal changes at the shallowest depths; temperature 

changes dampened and lagged with increasing depth beneath 

the streambed during September 14–27, 2009 (fig. 24C). The 

hydraulic gradient of the streambed at PL4 was only slightly 

negative (fig. 25). The September temperature data were consistent with downward flow from the creek into the streambed, 

but the large diurnal fluctuations indicated that the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity was greater than it was at PL1. From 

September 12, 2009, to March 24, 2010, daily mean stream 

stage at PL4 was estimated by adjusting the stage at the gaging station near PL1 to the stream stage measured on specific 

dates at the piezometer. A pressure transducer was placed in 

the creek next to the piezometer on March 24, 2010, and stage 

data were recorded until August 26, 2010, when the pressure 

transducer and temperature logger were removed. The pressure transducer in the piezometer failed on May 20, 2010. 

From September 12, 2009, to May 12, 2010, the hydraulic gradient varied little; the head in the piezometer closely 

matched that in the creek, indicating groundwater flow at 

piezometer PL4 paralleled flow in the creek (fig. 25). The 

slightly positive hydraulic gradients estimated for some 

days from late January 2010 until the pressure transducer 

was installed on March 24, 2010, were the result of estimating the stage at the gaging station near PL1 because of ice. 

Consequently, streambed-seepage rates were estimated only 

for March 24–May 20, 2010, during which time pressure 

transducers in the creek and piezometer were working, and the 

daily hydraulic gradients varied little from −0.03 ft/ft.

Streambed temperatures at piezometer PL4 showed 

similar diurnal fluctuations during April 1–14, 2010, as those 

in September 2009 (fig. 24D), and the hydraulic gradients in 

September 2009 were similar to those between March and 

May 2010. Even though the hydraulic gradients were low 

at PL4, and groundwater flow could parallel the stream, the 

diurnal-temperature fluctuations from late summer to fall 2009 

and in spring 2010 indicated that some water from the creek 

infiltrated the shallow groundwater either at the piezometer or 

nearby. The estimated streambed-seepage rates at PL4 averaged −2 ft/d and ranged from −3.1 to −1.4 ft/d. Nevertheless, 

the estimated streambed-seepage rates at the two piezometers 

were similar to the net streambed-seepage rates estimated from 

discharge measurements in reach 1 of Lehman Creek (table 7). 

A fiber-optic cable was placed in Lehman Creek between 

PL1 and PL4 to measure water temperature every 3.28 

feet (1 meter) along with a distributed temperature sensing 

(DTS) instrument (appendix 15). This method is useful for 

Figure 25. Daily mean stream stage and groundwater head above streambed and daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient for 

piezometers in Lehman Creek at lower end of karst-limestone zone, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, between 

May 2009 and November 2010, for A, piezometer PL1, and B, piezometer PL4.

2009 2010

Stage or head, in feet above streambed 

or hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot -1.0

0

1.0

2.0

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

A

B

Piezometer PL1

Piezometer PL4

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 53

identifying areas of groundwater flow when groundwater 

temperatures are higher than those in the creek. Temperatures 

in Lehman Creek were measured three times between October 

2009 and February 2010. During the early morning, prior to 

solar heating of water in the creek, water temperatures indicated no place in the channel where cooler or warmer groundwater entered the creek upstream of piezometer PL4. The lack 

of temperature differences along the creek indicated either that 

the temperature of shallow groundwater beneath the creek was 

similar to that in the creek or that deeper groundwater, as represented by the temperature of water flowing from Rowland 

Spring, did not flow to Lehman Creek between piezometers 

PL1 and PL4 in any great quantity. The temperature of Rowland Spring varied little from October 2001 to September 2010 

(Elliot and others, 2006, p. 114–119; Gretchen Baker, National 

Park Service, Great Basin National Park, Baker, Nev., written 

commun., 2011), with daily means between 8 °C and 10 °C. 

Piezometer PL4 and the downstream end of the cable were 

east and at a slightly lower altitude than Rowland Spring.

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

Slug tests were done when the piezometers were driven 

into the streambed to evaluate the connection of the screened 

interval with the streambed sediments. Hydraulic conductivity 

from these tests was evaluated and is summarized in appendix table 13–22. Results from the slug tests represented the 

most permeable materials and were assumed to represent the 

lateral hydraulic conductivity of sediments that parallel the 

streambeds. Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed 

was estimated from the diurnal temperature changes used to 

estimate streambed-seepage rates at the piezometers. Estimated lateral and vertical hydraulic conductivities are listed in 

table 8. Some estimates of lateral hydraulic conductivity from 

slug tests exceeded 100 ft/d; because of uncertainty about how 

water was poured into the piezometers, estimates greater than 

100 ft/d were simply listed as greater than 100 ft/d.

Estimates of vertical hydraulic conductivity at PL1 ranged 

from 2 to 4 ft/d during periods in the summer of 2009 and in 

spring and summer of 2010 (table 8). This vertical hydraulic 

conductivity was about 25 times less than the lateral hydraulic 

conductivity estimated from slug tests and was slightly greater 

than the vertical hydraulic conductivity of 2 ft/d estimated 

along the alluvial fan of Trout Creek in north central Nevada 

(Prudic and others, 2007, p. 332) and the 1.6 ft/d estimated 

from the aquifer test next to Baker Creek in October 2009 

(Jackson, 2010). The vertical and lateral hydraulic conductivities differed because the streambed was lined with large 

cobbles and boulders, and the pores were clogged with clay, 

silt and sand (Ronan and others, 1998; Prudic and others, 

2007, p. 332). Clogging of the streambed with fine sediments 

reduces the area of infiltration, which results in a vertical 

hydraulic conductivity, when averaged over an area of the 

streambed, much less than the lateral hydraulic conductivity of 

the shallow sediments beneath the streambed (Schälchli, 1992; 

Rehg and others, 2005). Because of this, lateral hydraulic 

conductivities estimated from slug tests in the piezometers 

were not reliable for estimating streambed-seepage rates.

The vertical hydraulic conductivity estimated from 

streambed-seepage rates at PL4 was greater than that at PL1 

(table 8), mostly, because the hydraulic gradient was near zero, 

and the diurnal temperature changes penetrated deeply in the 

streambed (fig. 24). Conduction of heat, alone, was insufficient 

to explain the diurnal temperature fluctuations measured at 

depths of 0.8 and 1.5 ft below the streambed. Model calibration to these intermediate temperatures required a vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of 90 ft/d (nearly the same as the lateral 

hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in PL4). 

The reason the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the 

streambed at piezometer PL4 near the contact between the 

karst-limestone zone and upper-piedmont zone was the same 

as the lateral hydraulic conductivity is unknown. Perhaps 

fine-grained sediments did not filter into the streambed at this 

site because of the low vertical hydraulic gradient (averaged −0.035 ft/ft). Additionally, the piezometer was just to 

the northeast of Rowland Spring where a seismic refraction 

study indicated the young alluvial deposits are less than 10-ft 

thick (Benjamin Roberts, National Park Service, Great Basin 

National Park, Baker, Nev., written commun., 2012). Water 

flowing from the creek to the piezometer was inferred because 

water temperatures in the piezometer during April 2010 

(fig. 24D) were much colder than water from Rowland Spring 

(daily means between 8 and 10 °C), indicating that the large 

diurnal temperature fluctuations measured at different depths 

in PL4 could result from shallow lateral flow parallel to the 

creek.

Aquifers

Groundwater flow through aquifers in the karst-limestone 

zone is primarily through shallow alluvial deposits and deeper, 

but still shallow, circulation through fractures and tubular 

openings (caves) in the Pole Canyon Limestone. Inflow to the 

aquifers is primarily from streamflow losses in the karst-limestone zone. A small quantity of groundwater enters through the 

thin glacial and alluvial deposits beneath and next to creeks 

from the mountain-upland zone. Much of the shallow groundwater that enters the karst-limestone zone along these creeks 

infiltrates the underlying limestone, so the shallow glacial 

and alluvial deposits are unsaturated beneath Baker Creek 

upstream of the Narrows (Allander and Berger, 2009) or, at 

least, perched above a deeper water table in the limestone 

(fig. 23). 

The depth of groundwater flow through the karst-limestone 

zone was limited by the depth of karst features and fractures in 

the limestone and by the relatively shallow depth to the underlying granite or shale. A considerable quantity of groundwater 

flows from the limestone back to the shallow glacial and alluvial deposits and to springs upstream of the southern Snake 

Range detachment fault that forms the boundary between the 

karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones (fig. 23). 
54 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The numerous caves and tubular openings that both follow and cut across the bedding planes at shallow angles form 

conduits that create a complex pattern of rapid groundwater 

flow from outcrop areas at higher altitudes on the west and 

south sides of the zone to lower altitudes on the east and north 

sides (fig. 23). Caves near the west and south sides of the zone 

were unsaturated. The most visited of these caves are Lehman 

Caves, although many more caves have been explored in the 

Baker Creek Cave System both north and south of the Narrows (Bridgemon, 1965; Pease and others, 1969). Seismicrefraction surveys at selected locations along the north side 

of Baker Creek at the upstream end of the Narrows indicated 

that the depth to groundwater was about 100 ft beneath Baker 

Creek (Allander and Berger, 2009). This relatively great depth 

to water was also indicated by a dry cave passage in Systems 

Key Cave trending north to northeast about 60 ft beneath 

Baker Creek near the upstream end of the Narrows (Benjamin 

Roberts, National Park Service, Great Basin National Park, 

Baker, Nev., oral commun., 2009).

Granite is surrounded by limestone at the surface on both 

sides of Baker Creek downstream of the confluence with 

Pole Canyon and downstream of an intermittent spring that 

flows from Model Cave during spring snowmelt. Model Cave 

was first described during a speological expedition in 1952 

(DeSaussure and others, 1953). The relation of Model Cave 

to other caves in the Baker Creek Cave system was described 

by Lange (1958), who noted that large seasonal fluctuations of 

the water level in Model Cave were caused by streamflow of 

Baker Creek into Ice and Dynamite Caves (the article did not 

mention Sink Cave in the channel of Baker Creek). During the 

winter months, a permanent stream in Model Cave has a flow 

of about 0.2 to 0.3 ft3

/s and does not resurface downstream 

(Lange, 1958). At least as much flow continues through fractures and tubular openings in the limestone that surrounds the 

intruded granite in the Baker Creek drainage basin (illustrated 

as underflow beneath the highest spring in fig. 23). Farther 

downstream, groundwater flowing through fractures and tubular openings in the limestone resurfaces near the detachment 

fault in Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, of which, 

Rowland Spring has the largest perennial flow.

Water Budget

Total mean annual inflow to the karst-limestone zone was 

about 18,000 acre-ft, of which, 14,400 acre-ft, or 79 percent, 

was runoff from the mountain-upland zone (table 4). Precipitation on this zone was only 3,200 acre-ft, or 18 percent. Inflow 

from the springs at the end of the mountain-upland zone was 

only 150 acre-ft, and another 440 acre-ft was groundwater 

flow, mostly through shallow glacial and alluvial deposits 

associated with Baker and Lehman Creeks. Estimates of 

groundwater flow from the mountain-upland zone to the karstlimestone zone are discussed in the “Mountain-Upland Zone” 

section of this report.

Outflow from the karst-limestone zone to the upperpiedmont zone is through one of three modes. The first and 

largest component of outflow is runoff in the stream channels 

and from springs at the end of the karst-limestone zone. The 

second is groundwater flow through relatively thin (less 

than 100 ft thick), younger glacial and alluvial deposits that 

underlie Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins. The third 

is deeper groundwater flow through older basin-fill deposits, 

fractures, and tubular openings in limestone of the karstlimestone zone that enters older basin-fill deposits or fractured 

limestone beneath the upper-piedmont zone. 

Total mean annual outflow from the karst-limestone zone 

was assumed to be equal to the total mean annual inflow 

because changes in storage were assumed to be negligible. The 

mean annual runoff in Baker and Lehman Creeks leaving the 

karst-limestone zone was estimated by using the mean annual 

runoff at the gaging stations listed in table 1. The mean annual 

runoff for Baker and Lehman Creeks totaled 11,400 acre-ft, 

or 63 percent of the total outflow. Rowland Spring and several 

minor springs in the vicinity of the spring are about 400 ft 

south of where Lehman Creek crosses over the southern Snake 

Range detachment fault. Smaller springs are present near 

the detachment fault in the Baker Creek drainage basin. The 

estimated mean annual groundwater flow to springs at the end 

karst-limestone zone, marked by the southern Snake Range 

detachment fault, totaled 2,700 acre-ft, or 15 percent of the 

total outflow from this zone. Spring flow included estimated 

mean annual runoff of 2,100 acre-ft for Rowland Spring from 

water years 2002 to 2010 (table 1) plus an additional 400 acrefeet to account for the gain in flow between the spring and 

about 400 ft downstream, which was estimated from periodic 

discharge measurements taken between July 2010 and August 

2011 (appendix table 3–2, site L3A). A small spring also adds 

to the outflow in the Baker Creek drainage basin near the end 

of the karst-limestone zone. The mean annual flow of this 

spring, called “Rosethorn” spring in this report, was 200 acreft and was estimated from periodic discharge measurements 

taken (appendix table 3–3, site B5C) as well as from daily 

mean discharge at a temporary gaging station between July 

2009 and August 2011 (appendix table 4–6) and adjusted to 

the mean precipitation rate at the weather station near Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center. 

Evapotranspiration in the karst-limestone zone was estimated by using chloride-mass balance with a ratio of 0.12 

between atmospheric deposition (0.6 mg/L) and mean chloride 

concentrations for Pole Canyon and Cave and Marmot Springs 

(about 5 mg/L, table 5). This ratio was multiplied by the mean 

annual precipitation to estimate groundwater recharge in the 

karst-limestone zone. Two dissolved-chloride samples were 

collected from a test well drilled in May 2012, east of the sewage lagoons, and the chloride concentration in groundwater 

was 5 mg/L (Prudic, 2012a). The estimated annual groundwater recharge from precipitation in the karst-limestone zone 

was about 400 acre-ft, which means at least 2,800 acre-ft 

was lost to evapotranspiration annually. The uncertainty of 

evapotranspiration was estimated by using the maximum and 

minimum estimates of groundwater recharge derived from the 

minimum and maximum atmospheric deposition estimates of 

0.4 and 0.8 mg/L, the maximum and minimum mean annual 
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 55

precipitation estimated to range from 3,800 and 2,600 acre-ft, 

and the maximum and minimum dissolved chloride concentration in groundwater estimated to range from 7 mg/L (Pole 

Canyon) to 3 mg/L (Rowland Spring). The estimate of mean 

annual evapotranspiration assumed little evapotranspiration 

of surface water in the creeks. Subtracting the total of all 

outflows, except for groundwater, from the total inflow to the 

karst-limestone zone resulted in an estimate of total mean 

annual groundwater flow from the karst-limestone zone to the 

upper-piedmont zone of 1,300 acre-ft. 

Groundwater outflow from the karst-limestone zone was 

estimated for three units: shallow alluvial deposits, older 

basin-fill deposits, and consolidated rocks (table 4). The shallow alluvial deposits included younger glacial and alluvial 

deposits. The thickness of younger glacial and alluvial deposits at the end of the karst-limestone zone near Lehman Creek 

and Rowland Spring was estimated to be about 10 ft on the 

basis of shallow seismic refraction lines done as part of the 

design for the sewage lagoons (Benjamin Roberts, National 

Park Service, Great Basin National Park, Baker, Nev., written 

commun., 2012). A test well drilled in May 2012, east of the 

southern sewage lagoon, encountered 146 ft of younger and 

older basin-fill deposits (Prudic, 2012a), which was similar to 

that encountered in a private well drilled about a quarter of a 

mile downstream of the eastern boundary of GBNP and north 

of Lehman Creek. The younger deposits were about 20 ft 

deep at the test well and about 100 ft thick at the private well. 

The older deposits ranged from about 50 to 100 ft thick. Thin 

intervals of permeable sand and gravel were encountered in 

the older deposits, indicating some groundwater could exit the 

karst-limestone zone through them. 

The estimated groundwater outflow through the younger 

alluvial deposits in the Lehman Creek drainage basin was 

about 150 acre-ft per year (acre-ft/yr). This estimate assumed 

a lateral hydraulic conductivity of 90 ft/d (piezometer PL4, 

table 8), a hydraulic gradient of 0.05 ft/ft, a saturated thickness of 10 ft, and a width of 400 ft. The estimated groundwater 

flow through the younger alluvial deposits next to Baker Creek 

was 350 acre-ft/yr based on a numerical groundwater-flow 

model used to evaluate aquifer properties near the Baker 

Creek aquifer-test site (Jackson, 2010). The mean annual 

groundwater outflow through younger glacial and alluvial 

deposits in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins was 

about 500 acre-ft (table 4).

The remaining 800 acre-ft/yr of groundwater outflow to 

the upper-piedmont zone was a combination of flow through 

older basin-fill deposits and through fractured limestone 

(table 4). The older deposits included those that underlie 

glacial deposits, and they bound the drainage divide on the 

northern side of Lehman Creek (fig. 12). The glacial deposits along the northern drainage divide divert Lehman Creek 

southward at the upstream end of the karst-limestone zone. 

The springs at Home Farm could be fed by flow either through 

older buried alluvial deposits or through the underlying Pole 

Canyon Limestone. The mean annual flow of the Home Farm 

springs was estimated at about 400 acre-ft/yr, so at least half 

of the estimated 800 acre-ft/yr of groundwater flow through 

the older basin-fill deposits and fractured limestone flowed to 

the surface at Home Farm.

Bulk Transmissivity of Limestone

A bulk transmissivity for the limestone was estimated on 

the basis of a total mean annual flow of 4,200 acre-ft moving 

through fractures and solution openings in the limestone. This 

total mean annual flow included flow from Rowland Spring, 

lesser springs near Rowland Spring, and Rosethorn spring 

(total annual of 2,700 acre-ft); groundwater flow through the 

older basin-fill deposits and fractured limestone (800 acre-ft); 

and flow from the Model Cave resurgent spring (700 acre-ft). 

A mean hydraulic gradient of 0.05 ft/ft was assumed and was 

the same as the streambed gradient of Lehman Creek. Bulk 

transmissivity is dependent on the width of flow used. If the 

width of flow included the total width of fractures, solution 

openings, and limestone, then it would be about 3 mi., because 

a straight line projected from where the upper-piedmont zone 

crosses the eastern boundary of GBNP north of Lehman Creek 

to where it crosses the southern drainage divide of Baker 

Creek is about 3 mi. The estimated bulk transmissivity was 

about 600 square feet per day (ft2/d). This estimate is 50–70 

percent of the range for the transmissivity of younger alluvial 

deposits estimated from an aquifer test along Baker Creek 

(Jackson, 2010; http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/

snake_valley_baker.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker). 

The bulk transmissivity of the fractured limestone is increased 

when the total width is replaced by an effective width of flow 

through fractures and solution openings. When the effective 

width of flow was reduced to 5 percent of the total width (5 

percent porosity), the effective transmissivity of the fractures 

and solution openings was13,000 ft2/d. Thus, the range in 

transmissivity of the karst limestone can be large, even when 

the total mean annual flow is the same; the range in transmissivity varies with the width of flow used in the calculation.

Rowland Spring and Evidence for Groundwater Flow 

between Baker and Lehman Drainage basins

Rowland Spring has a mean annual runoff of 2,100 acre-ft, 

(table 1), which was unusually high, relative to the mean 

annual precipitation of 3,200 acre-ft in the karst-limestone 

zone, table 4). The only other sources for flow to Rowland 

Spring included streamflow losses along creeks and losses 

from springs that enter the karst-limestone zone from the 

mountain-upland zone and groundwater flow through alluvial 

deposits that cross over the boundary between the mountainupland and karst-limestone zone and through low-permeability 

consolidated rocks. Elliott and others (2006, p. 32, 35) considered Baker Creek to be the likely source of flow at Rowland 

Spring. They concluded this because of streamflow losses to 

the Pole Canyon Limestone in the Narrows, the northeast dip 

of the limestone between Baker Creek and Rowland Spring, 

and a higher land-surface altitude for Baker Creek in the Narrows than the altitude of Rowland Spring. Furthermore, the 
56 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

outcrop of Tertiary granite immediately downstream of Model 

Cave could restrict eastward groundwater flow through the 

limestone beneath the Baker Creek drainage basin. 

A direct connection between streamflow losses in the 

karst-limestone zone along Baker Creek and Pole Canyon 

with Rowland Spring was determined by adding different 

fluorescent dyes to the two creeks at the end of the mountainupland zone on September 27, 2011, and then measuring 

the concentration of those dyes in Rowland Spring (Thomas 

Aley, Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc., Protem, Missouri, 

written commun., 2013). The travel time from the introduction of a dye to the peak concentration at Rowland Spring was 

2.75 days for the dye added to Baker Creek and 47.8 days for 

the dye added to Pole Canyon, although the total mass of each 

dye at Rowland Spring was only a fraction of that added to 

the creeks. Thus, at least some of the streamflow losses along 

Baker Creek and Pole Canyon in the karst-limestone zone 

flows to Rowland Spring and flow from Baker Creek to Rowland Spring is relatively rapid. 

Discharge measurements taken on nine dates between July 

2010 and August 2011 routinely showed streamflow losses 

in the karst-limestone zone on Baker and Lehman Creeks 

(fig. 26A, B). Water samples collected from the upstream 

discharge-measurement sites on both creeks and at Rowland Spring were analyzed for selected water chemistry. The 

purpose of these measurements and water sample analyses 

was to determine if the creeks were the only source of water 

to Rowland Spring or if an additional source was required. 

Although losses along Lehman Creek probably flow through 

older deposits and limestone to the springs at Home Farm, 

evaluation of the streamflow losses along Lehman Creek was 

included. Water samples were analyzed for the stable-isotope 

ratios of hydrogen and oxygen (appendix table 16–6) and dissolved concentrations of chloride, sulfate, fluoride, bromide, 

nitrate, and phosphate (appendix table 16–3). Additionally, 

two sets of water samples were collected following peak 

flow in July 2010 and during low flow in December 2010 for 

detailed water chemistry analyses. Losses along Baker Creek 

included flow directly into Ice and Sink Caves.

The streamflow loss in the karst-limestone zone along 

Baker Creek ranged from 0.9 ft3

/s on December 8, 2010, 

to about 15 ft3/s on June 2, 2011 (fig. 26C), and averaged 

4.1 ft3/s. Inflow to Baker Creek from Pole Canyon and from 

the resurgent spring below Model Cave was measured on three 

dates between April and August 2011 when discharge also 

was measured on Baker Creek (appendix table 3–2, sites BC4 

and PC2), and those discharges were added to the discharge 

measurement of Baker Creek upstream of the Narrows prior 

to subtracting the measured discharge at the gaging station 

to obtain the net streamflow loss for the measurement dates. 

Some of the flow from the resurgent spring could have been 

lost along its channel prior to reaching Baker Creek because 

flow from the resurgent spring was measured at a site about 

400 ft upstream of the confluence. The streamflow loss along 

Lehman Creek ranged from 0.7 ft3

/s on July 20, 2010, to 

5.3 ft3

/s on August 18, 2011 (fig. 26C), and averaged 2 ft3/s. 

Lehman Creek had no tributary inflows. Discharge measured 

about 400 ft downstream of Rowland Spring ranged from 

3.28 ft3/s on December 7, 2010, to 5.3 ft3/s on July 20, 2010 

(fig. 26C), and averaged 4.2 ft3/s. Because the average streamflow loss of Baker Creek was about the same as the average 

discharge measured about 400 ft downstream of Rowland 

Spring, it could account for most of the flow at Rowland 

Spring. Discharge measured about 400 ft downstream of 

Rowland Spring exceeded the combined streamflow loss from 

Baker and Lehman Creeks in the karst-limestone zone on four 

dates between September 28, 2010, and January 25, 2011, 

however, indicating that a source of water to the spring other 

than rapid flow through limestone fractures and solution openings is needed to explain the fall and winter flows. Additional 

sources of water for Rowland Spring include local recharge, 

recharge from streamflow losses in the karst-limestone zone 

from Pole Canyon in the Baker Creek drainage basin, recharge 

from streamflow losses in the karst-limestone zone along a 

small creek that enters a northeast-trending valley west of 

Lehman Caves in the Lehman Creek drainage basin, and 

recharge from springs at the end of the mountain-upland zone.

Tritium concentrations in water from Rowland Spring were 

less than those in Baker and Lehman Creeks (table 5). The 

mean age of water for Baker Creek and Rowland Spring relative to that of Lehman Creek (assuming the tritium concentration in Lehman Creek was representative of recent precipitation) was estimated using a radioactive half-life for tritium 

of 12.3 years (Lucas and Unteweger, 2000) and the equation 

from Clark and Fritz (1997, p. 181). The mean age of water in 

Baker Creek relative to that of Lehman Creek was 1.5 years 

and to that of Rowland Spring was 5.6 years. The older mean 

age of water from Rowland Spring relative to Lehman Creek 

indicated either a longer residence time for water in the limestone compared with water in Baker and Lehman Creeks or 

that water from Rowland Spring was a mixture of young water 

from the creeks along with older water that had moved more 

slowly through the glacial and alluvial deposits and through 

small fractures in the limestone.

If the residence time for all water in the limestone was 

5.6 years, then the stable-isotope ratio of deuterium to 

hydrogen at Rowland Spring would not vary as much as the 

deuterium ratios in the creeks, which was not the pattern that 

was determined from samples between July 2010 and August 

2011 (fig. 27A). One standard deviation for the deuterium 

ratios is ±1 permil; thus, deuterium ratios for any date among 

the three sampling locations did not differ significantly, but the 

ratios changed from more negative ratios between April and 

July (depleted by winter precipitation) to less negative ratios 

between September and January (enriched by evaporation), 

indicating that some fraction of the flow at Rowland Spring 

was rapid flow from one or both creeks through limestone to 

the spring.

Dissolved-chloride concentrations in the creeks were lowest in July 2010, then increased during the fall and winter, and 

peaked at the start of snowmelt in April 2011 (fig. 27B). The 

dissolved-chloride concentrations in Rowland Spring were 

about three times greater than those in the creeks, even though 
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 57

Figure 26. Discharge measurements taken between July 20, 2010, and August 18, 2011, in the karst-limestone zone, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, A, at upstream and downstream sites on Baker Creek; B, at upstream and downstream sites 

on Lehman Creek; and C, streamflow loss between discharge-measurement sites on Baker and Lehman Creeks and discharge measured 

400 feet downstream of Rowland Spring.

2010 2011

Discharge, in cubic feet per second Flow, in cubic feet per second

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

4

8

12

16

20

A

C

7/20 8/26 9/28 10/28 12/7 1/25 4/19 6/2 8/18

Baker Creek above Narrows plus Pole Canyon and Model Cave

Baker Creek at gaging station

Baker Creek loss

Lehman Creek loss

Discharge 400 feet downstream from Rowland Spring

Discharge, in cubic feet per second 

B

Lehman Creek at lower Lehman Campground

Lehman Creek near park boundary

0

4

8

12

16

20

Locations of sites are shown in figure 21
58 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 27. Constituent concentrations in water samples collected from Baker Creek upstream of the Narrows, Lehman Creek near 

lower Lehman campground, and Rowland Spring between July 2010 and August 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, for A, delta deuterium; B, dissolved chloride; C, dissolved sulfate; D, dissolved nitrate; and E, ratio of dissolved nitrate to 

dissolved chloride.

2010 2011

Delta deuterium, in permil Dissolved constituent, in milligrams per liter Ratio of nitrate to chloride

-116

-114

-112

-110

-108

-106

0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

A

B

C

D

E

Delta deuterium

Dissolved chloride

Dissolved sulfate

Dissolved nitrate

Ratio of nitrate to chloride

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr June July Aug May

Baker Creek

Lehman Creek

Rowland Spring

Locations of sampling sites are shown in figure 21
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 59

the seasonal pattern was nearly the same. Because Pole Canyon Limestone only contains trace concentrations of chloride 

(Lee and Van Loenen, 1971, p. 9), the most likely explanation 

for the higher chloride concentration at Rowland Spring is 

that it represents a mixture of water from the creeks and from 

diffuse recharge, where the chloride in precipitation had been 

concentrated through evapotranspiration. Another potential 

source of dissolved-chloride in flow at Rowland Spring is 

leakage from the sewage lagoons. 

Dissolved-sulfate concentrations in water were also higher 

in Rowland Spring than in the creeks, but all showed a peak 

concentration at the start of snowmelt in April 2011 (fig. 27C). 

The mean volume-weighted sulfate concentration in precipitation at the weather station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center 

during 1985–2010 was four times greater than the chloride 

concentration (National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 

2011). The mean flow-weighted ratio of sulfate to chloride 

in Baker and Lehman Creeks was 2, whereas the ratio at 

Rowland Spring was 1.1. The ratio of sulfate to chloride in 

water decreases from precipitation to streamflow, and then to 

groundwater, largely as a result of adsorption or biological 

incorporation, consumption, or transformation (Williams and 

Melack, 1997, p. 126). 

The temporal differences in dissolved-nitrate concentrations in water from Rowland Spring and the creeks differed from those of chloride and sulfate in that highest 

nitrate concentrations were measured in January 2011, and 

dissolved-nitrate concentrations at Rowland Spring generally 

were higher than those in Baker Creek (fig. 27D). The mean 

volume-weighted nitrate concentration in precipitation at the 

weather station near Lehman Caves during 1985–2010 was 

six times greater than that of chloride (National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program, 2011). The ratio of dissolved nitrate to 

dissolved chloride in the creeks and Rowland Spring (fig. 27E) 

was much less than that in precipitation, and the lowest mean 

ratio was at Rowland Spring. The low dissolved-nitrate concentrations in Rowland Spring relative to dissolved-chloride 

concentrations indicated little leakage from the lined sewage 

lagoons. The sewage lagoons are large lined ponds that have 

little biological activity to remove nitrate from the water, 

and leakage through cracks in the lining of the ponds would 

infiltrate quickly through the underlying glacial and alluvial 

deposits. Leakage from the lagoons would increase nitrate 

and chloride concentrations as well as the ratio of nitrate to 

chloride compared with the ratios in water from Baker and 

Lehman Creeks. Consequently, the most reasonable explanation for increased chloride concentrations in water from 

Rowland Spring compared with the creeks is that creek water 

mixed with diffuse recharge containing greater dissolvedchloride concentrations, similar to the chloride concentrations 

measured in water from Pole Canyon and Cave and Marmot 

Springs.

The percentage of local groundwater in water at Rowland 

Spring and nearby smaller springs not associated with rapid 

flow from streamflow losses directly to the karst limestone 

along Baker Creek was estimated by assuming (1) a range in 

mean dissolved-chloride concentration in local groundwater 

from 5 to 7 mg/L, (2) a mean dissolved-chloride concentration 

in water from Baker Creek of 1.2 mg/L, and (3) an estimated 

mean annual flow from Rowland Spring and minor springs 

that contribute flow downstream of 2,500 acre-ft. The total 

mean annual contribution of water from Baker Creek, and 

perhaps Lehman Creek, to Rowland Spring and nearby smaller 

springs was estimated to range from 1,300 to 1,600 acre-ft, 

and the remaining 900–1,200 acre-ft was estimated to come 

from groundwater. Total mean annual groundwater flow to 

the karst-limestone zone, not including losses along Baker 

and Lehman Creeks, was about 1,400 acre-ft and included 

recharge from direct precipitation in the karst-limestone zone 

(400 acre-ft), groundwater flow from the mountain-upland 

zone (440 acre-ft), streamflow losses along Pole Canyon 

and an unnamed creek west of Lehman Caves (400 acre-ft), 

and recharge of water from Cave and Marmot Springs 

(150 acre-ft). The difference in mean annual chloride concentrations between Baker Creek and Rowland Spring indicated 

that between 50 and 60 percent of the flow from Rowland 

Spring and smaller nearby springs was from Baker Creek or 

a combination of water from Baker and Lehman Creeks. The 

losses along Lehman Creek could actually flow to the springs 

at Home Farm; thus, the majority of the flow at Rowland 

Spring derived from surface water was probably from Baker 

Creek.

Upper-Piedmont Zone

The upper-piedmont zone (fig. 21) begins where the southern Snake Range detachment fault overlies the limestone and 

intersects land surface or is buried at shallow depth beneath 

younger alluvial and glacial deposits. Distinct features of this 

zone are as follows: (1) moderate slopes with relatively minor 

relief between ridges and stream channels; (2) a relatively 

moist and warm climate; (3) a combination of erosion and 

deposition, with thin soils on top of young glacial and alluvial 

deposits that overlie older basin-fill deposits and limestone; 

(4) slightly losing to slightly gaining stream reaches in generally close contact with shallow groundwater; and (5) relatively 

shallow groundwater circulation through younger and older 

deposits, and deeper, but still relatively shallow, groundwater 

circulation through fractures in limestone. The fractured limestone in this zone is overlain by the detachment fault that is in 

turn overlain by older and younger deposits (fig. 28).

A water budget was not estimated for the upper-piedmont 

zone for three reasons. First, the quantity of flow and loss 

down the natural channel of Baker Creek during peak flow 

was unknown. Flow down the natural channel is limited to 

periods of peak flow. The original wooden diversion structure 

was buried by cobbles and boulders, and streamflow in the 

original channel varied irregularly depending on the channel geometry at the diversion structure (Craig Baker, Baker 

Ranches, Inc., Baker, Nev., written commun., 2012). Second, 

insufficient discharge measurements were made near the 

confluence of the two creeks to evaluate increases or decreases
60 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

in streamflow at the downstream end of the upper-piedmont 

zone. Third, no estimates of evapotranspiration or water use 

were done for Rowland Ranch or for the riparian corridor 

along the natural channel of Baker Creek.

Streamflow

Streamflow along Baker and Lehman Creeks generally 

increases at the beginning of the upper-piedmont zone because 

of springs along the detachment fault. Downstream of the 

GBNP boundary, Baker Creek had a net gain in flow or was 

neutral in the upper-piedmont zone to its confluence with 

Lehman Creek for the two measurements in 1992 and 2003, 

but increased about 2 ft3/s during a period of high flow on 

July 22, 2009 (fig. 29), indicating that shallow groundwater in 

the alluvial deposits was adding flow to the creek during that 

time. Downstream of GBNP, Baker Creek is diverted to the 

north side of its alluvial plain (fig. 21) and crosses over older 

basin-fill deposits that are exposed along the divide between 

the Baker and Lehman Creeks. Sources of gain included 

inflow from small springs north of the creek, an intermittent 

tributary spring, and a series of small springs that add flow to 

the abandoned natural channel south of the diverted channel. 

The flow from the small springs along the abandoned natural 

channel is added to the diverted channel downstream of the 

aquifer-test site along Baker Creek.

Evaluating streamflow along Lehman Creek was more difficult because Rowland Spring forms a parallel channel about 

400 ft south of Lehman Creek (fig. 21). Because this channel 

is at a slightly higher altitude than Lehman Creek, some water 

flows northward through small, channel-like depressions and 

joins with Lehman Creek. Additionally, water from Rowland 

Spring is used as a domestic supply for homes between the 

channels. The flow in both channels can be diverted to multiple channels to irrigate Rowland Ranch, which complicates 

the evaluation of streamflow gains and losses downstream of 

Sage Way. Consequently, in figure 29, the discharge measured 

from Rowland Spring was added to the discharge measured in 

Lehman Creek. Finally, water from excess irrigation on Rowland Ranch can return to Lehman Creek or Baker Creek near 

their confluence or to small channels north of Lehman Creek 

that do not return back to the main channels, which complicates assessment of streamflow gains and losses in Lehman 

Creek by the ranch.

Figure 28. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and Lehman Creeks in the upper-piedmont 

zone, downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

Lower-piedmont zone

West East

Upper-piedmont zone

Karst-limestone zone

EXPLANATION

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Limestone

Granite

Cave filled with water

southern Snake Range detachment fault

Quaternary fault—Arrows show relative 

direction of movement

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 61

Streambed-Seepage Rates

Net streambed-seepage rates were estimated by comparing 

discharge measurements in the upper-piedmont zone along 

Baker Creek on July 22, 2009 (table 6). Streamflow in Baker 

Creek was less than its peak flow, but greater than low flow 

during the fall and winter. The difference in discharge measurements between the GBNP boundary and about midway 

to the confluence with Lehman Creek (reach 2), not including contributions from springs, indicated streamflow gains of 

about 2.6 ft3

/s and resulted in a positive streambed-seepage 

rate of 3 ft/d. The difference between discharge measurements 

in the lower reach (reach 3), from the end of reach 2 to just 

upstream of the confluence with Lehman Creek, was less than 

the uncertainty; thus, the net streambed-seepage rate was near 

zero. 

Differences between discharge measurements on Lehman 

Creek from downstream of the GBNP boundary to near Sage 

Way in the upstream section of the upper-piedmont zone were 

all less than the uncertainty, although discharge measurements between November 2009 and March 2010 indicated a 

slight streamflow gain at the downstream site near Sage Way 

(table 7). If the slight streamflow gain was correct, the net 

streambed-seepage rate ranged from 1 to 2 ft/d. The slight 

streamflow gain was consistent with results from distributed 

temperature sensing (DTS) measurements along two fiberoptic temperature cables placed in Lehman Creek from the 

gaging station on Lehman Creek to downstream of Sage Way 

(appendix table 15–1).

Stream temperatures were averaged between 8:00 and 

9:00 a.m. pacific standard time (PST) on November 7, 2009, 

for each 3.28-ft distance (1 meter) along the two fiber-optic 

cables (figs. 30A, B). An increase of about 0.5 °C between the 

end of the first cable, near piezometer PL4, and the beginning 

of the second cable, just upstream of Joe’s Way, indicated 

groundwater seepage to the creek between the two cables 

and for another 300 ft downstream of Joe’s Way. Recording 

thermistors in the creek at the end of the upper cable and at the 

beginning of the lower cable also showed an increase in temperature. This increase in stream temperature is near where the 

detachment fault crosses Lehman Creek (fig. 12) and where 

Figure 29. Measured discharge for selected dates between September 1992 and March 2010 in the upper-piedmont zone, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, in A, Baker Creek, and B, Lehman Creek.

October 8, 2003*

July 22, 2003*

September 1–2, 1992*

March 23, 2010

February 24, 2010

November 7, 2009

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Distance downstream from stream head, in miles

A

B

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Park boundaryGaging stationTrail crossing nearpiezometer PB2

Karst-limestone zone Upper-piedmont zone

Upper-piedmont zone

Karstlimestone 

zone

Baker Creek

Sage Way

Circle M Road

Gaging stationPark boundaryJoe's Way

Baker Creek

Lehman Creek

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Lehman Creek

July 22, 2009

October 8, 2003*

July 22, 2003*

September 1–2, 1992*

*Data from Elliot and others (2006)

Baker 4 aquifer-test site
62 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

wet meadows are present along the north side of the creek, 

indicating some groundwater was diffusely added to the creek.

Water temperature increased about 0.4 °C at 3,700 ft 

downstream of the gaging station, as measured along the creek 

during the morning on November 7, 2009; about 0.1 °C at 

4,130 ft downstream; and about 0.3 °C at 4,650 ft downstream 

(fig. 30B). The point source at 3,700 ft was by a wet meadow 

that borders the north side of the creek just upstream of where 

Lehman Creek splits into two channels and near a depressionlike channel (possibly an abandoned channel) that potentially 

connects water from Rowland Spring creek to Lehman 

Creek (fig. 30A). The middle source was associated with an 

upward shift in a downward temperature slope and to another 

depression-like channel between Rowland Spring creek and 

Lehman Creek (fig. 30B). The farthest downstream source was 

near a sharp bend in the creek, but with no observable connection between water from Rowland Spring creek and Lehman 

Creek.

On February 25, 2010, the greatest temperature increase 

in the creek was 4,130 ft downstream of the gaging station 

Figure 30. Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, showing A, location of two fiber-optic cables placed in Lehman 

Creek from the gaging station to 1.04 miles downstream; B, averaged stream temperatures from distributed-temperature sensor 

measurements every 3.28 feet (1 meter) for November 7, 2009, from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.; and C, averaged stream temperatures from 

distributed-temperature sensor measurements every 3.28 feet (1 meter) for February 25, 2010, from 4:30 to 5:30 a.m.

A

C

B

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

0 375 750 1,500 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

114°12'48" 114°12'

39°00'32"

39°00'40"

Joe’s Way

Unnamed spring

Upper cable in

Upper cable out

PL1

PL4

Lower cable in

Lower cable out

Rowland

Spring

Point

Point source

source

Point

source 488

Sage Way

Loop

in cable

Channel-like 

depression

Great Basin

National

Park

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

Distance from gaging station, in feet along Lehman Creek

0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000 4,800 5,600

-1

0

1

3

2

4

Karst-limestone zone Upper-piedmont zone

Upper cable Lower cable

Karst-limestone zone

Upper-piedmont zone

Point source

cable out of water

Park boundary

Joe’s Way

Piezometer PL4

Point source Point source

Sage Way

November 7, 2010 8:00–9:00 a.m.

February 25, 2010 4:30–5:30 a.m.

EXPLANATION

PL4

Great Basin National Park boundary

Spring

Gaging station

Discharge-measurement site, 2009–11

Streambed piezometer
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 63

(fig. 30C), where the slightest temperature increase was noted 

previously. Throughout the night and early morning, temperatures at this location were 0.5 to 0.8 °C warmer than at the 

downstream end of the cable and up to 0.4 °C warmer than the 

water temperature at the gaging station. Because nighttime air 

temperatures in February were about −10 °C, the increase in 

water temperature could only be caused by groundwater flow 

to the creek. Cooler temperatures downstream indicated no 

additional groundwater seepage to the creek. Elsewhere along 

the creek, no temperature increases were measured, indicating 

groundwater seepage along reach 2 of Lehman Creek from 

near the GBNP boundary to Sage Way were not large, which 

was consistent with discharge measurements (table 7). 

Streambed-seepage rates were estimated by using temperature loggers placed inside four piezometers at selected depths 

using methods described in appendix 14; two piezometers 

were driven into each streambed in the upper-piedmont zone 

of Baker and Lehman Creeks. The two sites on Baker Creek 

were along the diversion downstream of the aquifer-test site 

(fig. 21). Results of streambed-seepage rates and vertical 

hydraulic conductivity are listed in table 8. Temperature data 

from each of the four piezometers for selected 2-week periods 

are shown in figure 31. A general decrease in amplitude diurnally and an increasing lag in peak temperatures with greater 

depth indicated downward flow through the streambed.

Mean streambed-seepage rates indicated that, on average, 

water was lost from the creek to the streambed (table 8). The 

largest range in streambed-seepage rates was from −3 to 3 ft/d 

between September 5, 2009, and March 23, 2010, at piezometer PB2. The greatest mean loss in this zone was estimated 

at piezometer PL3 on Lehman Creek, downstream of GBNP 

and upstream of Rowland Ranch (fig. 21), where the vertical 

hydraulic gradient was generally −1.1 ft/d, except during peak 

flow during end of March to April 2010, indicating gravity 

drainage most of the time beneath the streambed (fig. 32).

The daily mean hydraulic gradient was determined by 

calculating the difference between the daily mean stage of the 

creek at each piezometer with the daily mean water level in 

each piezometer on the dates in table 8. The difference was 

divided by the distance from the top of the streambed to the 

midpoint of the piezometer to obtain the daily mean hydraulic gradient. The hydraulic gradients at the four piezometers 

indicated active surface-water interactions with shallow 

groundwater in the alluvial deposits in the creeks. The greatest 

depth to groundwater beneath the creek was at piezometer 

PL3. The water level in piezometer PL3 increased from late 

March to early April 2010 (fig. 32C), likely as the result of 

local recharge caused by snowmelt in the upper-piedmont 

zone, because stream stage was nearly constant during that 

period. Similar, but lesser, rises in water level were measured 

at piezometers PL2 and PB1 that resulted in brief periods of 

positive hydraulic gradients at both piezometers, indicating 

groundwater seepage to the creek.

The daily mean hydraulic gradient also was estimated 

at the Baker 4 aquifer-test well nearest to Baker Creek. The 

altitude of the well and the pressure transducer in the creek 

next to the well were surveyed to the nearest 0.05 ft, and the 

water level in the well was consistently lower than the stage 

of Baker Creek (fig. 32E). The hydraulic gradient ranged from 

−0.15 ft/ft, during peak stream stage in early June 2010, to 

about −0.4 ft/ft, during lowest stream stage in January 2010. 

The aquifer test caused the hydraulic gradient to change 

from −0.3 ft/ft, before the test on October 8, 2009, to nearly 

−0.5 ft/ft, during most of the test from October 8 to 11, 2009. 

Thus, although the data indicated generally lower water levels 

beneath and next to both creeks in the upper-piedmont zone, 

the hydraulic gradient of the streambeds were near the water 

level in the creek, except at streambed piezometer PL3, which 

indicated a direct connection between the creeks and shallow 

groundwater.

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

In the upper-piedmont zone, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed ranged from 1 ft/d, at the two 

piezometers on Lehman Creek, to 10 ft/d at piezometer PB2, 

downstream of the aquifer-test site on Baker Creek; the greatest vertical hydraulic conductivity was estimated at the end of 

the karst-limestone zone in Lehman Creek at piezometer PL4 

(table 8). The vertical hydraulic conductivities were much less 

than the lateral hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug 

tests (table 8), except for those at piezometer PL4. Estimates 

of vertical hydraulic conductivity for piezometers PL1, PL2, 

PL3, and PB1 were only slightly greater than the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of 1.6 ft/d estimated for the Baker 

Creek streambed from an aquifer test during October 2009 

(Jackson, 2010; results available at 

http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_baker.

cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker).

Greater lateral to vertical hydraulic conductivity is typical of stratified alluvial deposits (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, 

p. 147–148). Streambeds can have a pronounced decrease in 

vertical hydraulic conductivity and porosity near the interface 

in losing reaches of a stream resulting from clogging of the 

streambed by fine sediments. The vertical hydraulic conductivity at PL4 was the same as the lateral hydraulic conductivity, 

and, although the water level at PL4 was slightly below the 

water level in the creek, the hydraulic gradient was near zero 

and near an area of groundwater flow to Lehman Creek, which 

was consistent with a previous study that found greater vertical hydraulic conductivities in areas where groundwater flow 

was to the stream compared with areas losing flow to groundwater (Rosenberry and Pitlick, 2009).

Aquifers

The two main aquifers in the upper-piedmont zone are the 

younger alluvial deposits and the underlying Pole Canyon 

Limestone. Groundwater flow is relatively shallow, and much 

of the flow to upper-piedmont zone from the karst-limestone 

zone is through the younger glacial and alluvial deposits that 

lie beneath and next to Baker and Lehman Creeks, and somewhat deeper flow is through less permeable older basin-fill 
64 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 31. Streambed temperatures in four piezometers in the upper-piedmont zone of Baker and Lehman Creeks, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, during selected 2-week periods: A, October 1–14, 2009, at piezometer PB2, near aquifer-test 

site on Baker Creek; B, July 17–31, 2010, at piezometer PB1, upstream of confluence of Baker Creek diversion with Lehman Creek; C,

July 17–31, 2010, at piezometer PL3, upstream of Rowland Ranch on Lehman Creek; and D, July 17–31, 2010, at piezometer PL2, upstream 

of confluence of Lehman Creek with Baker Creek diversion. Temperature, in degrees Celsius

July 2010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

18

20

A

B

C

D

Piezometer PB2

Piezometer PB1

Piezometer PL3

Piezometer PL2

0.3 foot below streambed

1.2 feet below streambed

2.3 feet below streambed

0.7 foot below streambed

1.2 feet below streambed

1.7 feet below streambed

Creek

3.2 feet below streambed

Creek

0.82 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

2.8 feet below streambed

October 2009

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 65

Figure 32. Daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and hydraulic gradient in the upper-piedmont zone, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, between May 2009 and November 2010, for A, piezometer PB2 in Baker Creek; B, 

piezometer PB1 in Baker Creek; C, piezometer PL3 in Lehman Creek; D, piezometer PL2 in Lehman Creek; and E, the upstream shallow 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site.

Lehman Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient

Lehman Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient

A

B

C

D

E

Piezometer PB2

Piezometer PB1

Piezometer PL3

Piezometer PL2

Baker 4 upstream shallow well

Stage or piezometer head, in feet above streambed

Hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot

2009 2010

May July Aug Sept June Oct AprMarFebJanDecNov May July Aug Sept June Oct Nov

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

-1.0

0

1.0

2.0

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

6,372

6,376

6,380

6,384

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

-1.0

0

1.0

2.0

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

Baker Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient

Baker Creek stage

Head in well

Hydraulic gradient across streambed

Baker Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient

Stage or head, 

in feet above mean sea level 

Aquifer test
66 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

deposits (some of which could be consolidated and fractured) 

and the fractured limestone beneath the older basin-fill deposits (fig. 28). Unfractured consolidated older deposits (including fault breccia consisting of cemented quartzite cobbles and 

boulders) and unfractured limestone both act as confining 

units that restrict the vertical movement of groundwater and 

effectively confine lateral groundwater flow to the fractures in 

the limestone. 

Fractured marble was encountered at a depth of 146 ft, in a 

well east of the sewage lagoons in GBNP (well SLE; fig. 21), 

and limestone was encountered at a depth of 150 ft, in another 

well 1,300 ft east of GBNP (well 92847; fig. 21. This indicated little offset of the younger and older deposits across the 

detachment fault that separates the karst-limestone zone from 

the upper-piedmont zone. Depth to bedrock (presumably limestone) increased to 250 ft along the seismic-refraction line on 

the west side of Rowland Ranch (David L. Berger, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev., written commun., 2004); 

the greater depth was consistent with the dip of the limestone. 

A geophysical survey along the north side of Baker Creek also 

showed a gradual increase in the thickness of younger and 

older deposits underlain by limestone (Asch and Sweetkind, 

2010, 2011).

Beneath the upper-piedmont zone, the confined groundwater in the fractured limestone was not in contact with atmospheric carbon dioxide, making it a “closed system” (Drever, 

1988, p. 67–68). The lack of a continuous supply of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere limits continued dissolution of 

fractures in the limestone. Thus, groundwater flow through 

the limestone in the upper-piedmont zone is conceptualized as 

flow through gradually decreasing tubular openings, where, 

eventually, groundwater flow is limited to small fractures and 

bedding planes as the water becomes saturated with respect 

to calcite. This gradual decrease in the number and size of 

tubular openings in the limestone could result in an overall 

decrease in the porosity and transmissivity of the limestone in 

the upper-piedmont zone. 

Limited domestic-well data in the Lehman Creek drainage basin indicated deeper water levels in wells farther 

away from the creek and at deeper depths. Results from a 

seismic-refraction survey on the western side of Rowland 

Ranch indicated that the average depth to groundwater was 

about 24 ft below land surface (D.L. Berger, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Carson City, Nev., written commun., 2004), but a well 

drilled to a depth of 150 ft slightly west of the south end of 

Rowland Ranch had an initial depth to water of 42 ft in 1993. 

In the Baker Creek drainage basin, the water level in nested 

wells drilled next to Baker Creek as part of an aquifer test was 

deeper than in the creek and had the same pattern of greater 

depths to water in the deeper well relative to the shallower 

well in the same test hole (Jackson, 2010). All of these data 

indicated that groundwater flowed downward from the creek 

to the shallow alluvial deposits and then to the older, deeper, 

fractured, consolidated alluvial deposits, which is shown in 

figure 28. Downward flow through the alluvial deposits can 

be explained, in part, by an increase in the thickness of the 

younger and older deposits to the east. The quantity of downward flow is limited by the hydraulic gradient and vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of the deposits and limestone.

Aquifer Test next to Baker Creek

An aquifer test was done in October 2009 at the Baker 4 

aquifer-test site (fig. 21) in the upper-piedmont zone, where 

three test holes were drilled next to Baker Creek (appendix 1; 

Jackson, 2010; http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/

snake_valley_baker.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker). 

The wells were drilled in a riparian corridor about 0.8 mi 

downstream of GBNP and just downstream of where Baker 

Creek is diverted and routed northeast along the northern 

boundary between younger and older deposits. The test was 

started on October 7, 2009, at 14:39 PDT, and ended on 

October 11, 2009, at 12:31 PDT. The 6-in. diameter well 54 ft 

north of Baker Creek, and screened from 20 to 40 ft below 

land surface, was pumped at a constant rate of 26 gal/min for 

94 hours. Pressure transducers were placed in the pumping 

well and in the four 2-in. diameter monitoring wells, as well as 

at four locations along Baker Creek—two upstream and two 

downstream (appendix 1). Data collected from the aquifer test 

are summarized in appendix 5. 

Analytical methods for evaluating hydraulic properties 

could not replicate measured water-level declines (drawdown) 

in the monitoring wells (Jackson, 2010, p. 87). Consequently, 

a three-dimensional finite-difference model was developed 

and used to estimate the hydraulic properties of the alluvial 

deposits in the vicinity of the aquifer test (Jackson, 2010, p. 

97–151; http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_baker.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker). Model simulated water-level declines and recovery following the test are 

shown in figure 33A. The upstream deep well was screened in 

a megablock of Pioche Shale in older basin-fill deposits, and 

its drawdown was much less than the drawdown in the other 

wells, which were screened in younger deposits.

The younger deposits are heterogeneous, and lateral 

hydraulic conductivity parallel to the natural channel of 

Baker Creek ranged from 0.3 to 37 ft/d, whereas the vertical hydraulic conductivity ranged from 0.2 to 3 ft/d, and the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed was 1.6 ft/d 

(table 9). This heterogeneity reflects the high-energy environment in which the sediments were deposited. The sediments 

in the younger deposits consist of a poorly sorted mixture of 

silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders deposited by glaciofluvial and fluvial processes. In the numerical model, the older 

deposits were represented with a simplified geometry in the 

vicinity of the aquifer test (Jackson, 2010, p. 97–151), because 

only one monitoring well was completed in the older deposits, 

and the results reported by Asch and Sweetkind (2010) were 

not sufficient to increase the geologic complexity.

The reported transmissivity of the younger alluvial deposits was 900 ft2

/d (http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/

snake_valley_baker.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker), 

assuming the lateral hydraulic conductivity perpendicular to 

the natural Baker Creek channel was the same as that parallel 
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 67

Figure 33. Results of 94-hour aquifer test and 10 days following test, September 26 to October 23, 2009, in monitoring wells at Baker 

4 aquifer-test site downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, comparison of model-simulated and 

measured drawdown; B, model-simulated changes in streamflow along Baker Creek; and C, stream stage recorded from four pressure 

transducers in Baker Creek.

A

B

C Baker Creek

Model simulated streamflow loss

Measured and simulated drawdown

Hourly mean stage ,

in feet above streambed

Modeled change in streamflow, 

in gallons per minute Drawdown, in feet

0

7

14

21

28

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0

1.8

3.6

5.4

7.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Days since start of pumping

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Pumping 

period

Recovery period

Decreased streamflow (sum of decreased gain and 

increased loss)

Decreased streamflow (percentage of pumping 

rate)

Decreased streamflow gain

Increased streamflow loss

BCA1

BCA2

BCA3

BCA4

Percentage of pumping rate

Modified from Jackson, 2010, figures. 6.28–6.33

Upstream deep

Measured

Simulated

Upstream shallow

Measured

Simulated

Downstream shallow

Measured

Simulated

Downstream deep

Measured

Simulated

Pumping well

Measured

Simulated
68 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

to the channel. This contrasts with an average transmissivity of 

the younger deposits parallel to the Baker Creek of 1,300 ft2/d. 

This value was determined by dividing the modeled inflow 

along the upstream boundary of 41,700 cubic feet per day 

(ft3/d), prior to pumping, with the product of the mean width 

of 550 ft and the mean hydraulic gradient of 0.06 ft/ft. The 

somewhat greater estimate of transmissivity parallel to the 

natural channel of Baker Creek was reasonable because the 

model had a lateral anisotropy of 0.6 perpendicular to the 

natural channel in the upper 16 ft of younger deposits.

The connection between the younger glacial and alluvial 

deposits and Baker Creek was evaluated with the numerical model (fig. 33B), because the pumping rate in the 6-in. 

diameter well was insufficient to measure a change in flow or 

stage along Baker Creek. Model simulated vertical hydraulic 

conductivity of the streambed (table 9) was less than vertical 

hydraulic conductivities estimated from shallow piezometers 

in the upper-piedmont zone along Baker and Lehman Creeks 

(table 8). Drawdown in the shallow wells near Baker Creek 

was sensitive to the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the 

streambed. Increasing the vertical hydraulic conductivity of 

the streambed in the model resulted in too little drawdown in 

the nearby shallow wells and required decreasing the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity between model layers. Even with the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed at 1.6 ft/d, 

model simulations resulted in an increase in streamflow loss, 

as well as a decrease in streamflow gain, from groundwater flow to Baker Creek downstream of the aquifer-test site 

(fig. 33B). The model simulated a reduction in groundwater 

flow to the diverted channel of Baker Creek, downstream of 

the aquifer-test site. Simulated streamflow loss at the end of 

the 94-hour (hr) test was about 21 percent of the pumping rate. 

This simulated decrease in streamflow could not be evaluated against the differences in discharges estimated from the 

temporary gaging stations upstream and downstream of the 

aquifer-test site, because the uncertainty in the discharge at the 

temporary gaging stations exceeded the maximum potential 

decrease of 0.05 ft3

/s from pumping.

The hourly mean stage at the four pressure-transducer 

locations showed slowly rising water levels in the creek up 

to 10 days before the test, but, during the test, the stage in 

the creek was steady (fig. 33C). The stage began rising again 

near the end of the 94-hr test, which could have caused the 

quick water-level recoveries in the monitoring wells. Three 

discharge measurements were made before the test at the 

upstream and downstream transducers in Baker Creek (BCA1 

and BCA4, respectfully). The first measurement, on September 5, 2009, indicated no difference in measured discharge 

between sites, whereas later measurements indicated a slight 

increase in measured discharge between sites, from 1.51 to 

1.71 ft3

/s, on September 17, 2009, and from 1.77 to 2.09 ft3/s, 

on October 8, 2009. The measured increases were about the 

same as the estimated error of the measurements.

Estimates of Transmissivity from Specific-Capacity Data

Well-drillers’ logs obtained from the Nevada Division of 

Water Resources (Nevada Division of Water Resources, 2008) 

were used to estimate transmissivity from the specific capacity reported in the logs. Transmissivity was calculated from 

specific capacity by using the method described by Theis and 

others (1963, p. 331–345). Their equation 1 was modified to 

convert to units used in this study as follows:

T = −15.32 (−

Q

s ) (0.577 loge [—r2

4Tt

S

]) (4)

where

(−

Q

s ) is the specific capacity of a pumped well, in 

gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

r is the effective radius of pumped well, in ft;

S is the storage coefficient, dimensionless;

t is the time, in days; and

T is the transmissivity, in ft2/d.

The equation requires an estimate of the range in storage 

coefficient, an initial guess of transmissivity, and repeated 

iteration to replace the initial guess with a new estimate until 

the right-side transmissivity equals the left-side transmissivity 

Table 9. Summary of hydraulic properties of the younger alluvial and older basin-fill deposits estimated from an aquifer test from 

October 9, 2009, to October 13, 2009, at the Baker 4 aquifer-test site downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada. 

[Younger alluvial deposits were divided into 5 units with unit 1 the shallowest and unit 5 the deepest (Jackson, 2010, p. 134). Symbol: —, not determined]

Hydraulic property Baker Creek 

streambed

Younger alluvial deposits Older basin-fill 

deposits Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5

Thickness (feet) 3.28 3.28 13.1 3.28 13.1 26.2 3.28–59.0

Lateral hydraulic conductivity (feet per day) — 3.28 12.1 0.59 33.5 37.7 0.02

Vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet per day) 1.64 1.64 1.0 0.33 3.0 0.8 0.02

Lateral anisotropy ratio (dimensionless) — 0.60 0.6 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.00

Lateral to vertical hydraulic conductivity ratio 

(dimensionless) — 2.00 12.1 1.79 11.3 44.2 1.15

Storage coefficient (dimensionless) — 1.0E−2 1.5E−6 1.5E−6 1.5E−5 1.1E−5 2.5E−5
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 69

(Prudic, 1991). The storage coefficient used in the calculations 

ranged from a specific yield of 5 percent to a minimum value 

estimated by multiplying the thickness of the well screen with 

a specific storage of 1 x 10–6 per ft (Lohman, 1972). 

Four well-drillers’ logs in the upper-piedmont zone had 

sufficient information to estimate transmissivity (table 10). 

All wells were drilled in the Lehman Creek drainage basin 

between GBNP and Rowland Ranch. The estimated range in 

transmissivity for the three wells screened or perforated in 

younger deposits was 700–3,000 ft2/d. The estimated transmissivity from specific-capacity data at the aquifer-test site next 

to Baker Creek was 900 ft2/d, assuming a storage coefficient 

of 0.00002. The estimate was in the lower range of transmissivity estimates from the aquifer test because the analysis 

using specific-capacity data did not include turbulent well 

losses or any boundary effects caused by lower permeability 

of the older deposits or leakage of Baker Creek. Transmissivities estimated from specific capacity of a pumping well are 

typically less when compared with estimates of transmissivity 

from aquifer tests determined from one or more observation 

wells (Prudic, 1991). Still, the range of estimated transmissivities for the younger deposits was consistent with the 

transmissivity of 1,300 ft2/d determined from the 94-hr test 

at the aquifer-test site (Jackson, 2010). The transmissivity 

estimated for the well screened in the fractured, older deposits had a range of 200–300 ft2

/d, which is consistent with the 

older deposits being less permeable than the younger deposits. 

The actual transmissivity at each well could be greater than 

that estimated from the specific-capacity data, although one 

comparison between specific-capacity data and that estimated 

from an aquifer-test in observation wells next to Baker Creek 

was 70 percent of the greatest estimate of transmissivity from 

the numerical model.

The estimated range in hydraulic conductivity was about 

3 ft/d for the fractured, consolidated older deposits and 

10–300 ft/d for the younger deposits, when assuming a thickness of only the screened or perforated interval. Although the 

range in hydraulic conductivity for the younger deposits was 

indicative of reasonably permeable materials, the transmissivity of these deposits in the upper-piedmont zone is limited 

because the deposits have little saturated thickness.

Lower-Piedmont Zone

The boundary between the upper-piedmont and lowerpiedmont zones coincides with one or more Quaternary 

faults associated a rapid thickening of younger deposits on 

the downthrown side of the fault, with an offset of 1,300 ft 

(Asch and Sweetkind, 2011, p. B4–B6). This results in an 

increase in transmissivity that causes the depth to water to 

increase across the fault (fig. 34). Features of this zone are the 

following: (1) decreasing streambed slopes, with little relief 

Table 10. Summary of transmissivity estimates derived from specific capacities reported in well-drillers’ logs for Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins, vicinity of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Nevada well-log number and data obtained from Nevada Division of Water Resources. Assumed well for well-log number 74561 was pumped for 6 hours. Transmissivity rounded 

to one significant figure. Symbol: <, less than] 

Nevada 

well-log 

number

Hole 

diameter 

(inches)

Screened 

interval 

(feet below 

land surface)

Geologic Unit

Pump rate 

(gallons per 

minute)

Drawdown 

(feet)

Hours well 

pumped

Range in 

storage 

coefficient

Estimated 

transmissivity 

(feet squared 

per day)

Upper-piedmont zone

9421 11 60–70 Sand and gravel 70 6 0.5 5E−2–1E−5 1,000–3,000

22314 10 50–151 Cobble, sand and gravel 20 2 2 5E−2–1E−4 2,000–3,000

22315 10 50–129 Cobble, sand and gravel 20 4 2 5E−2–7E−5 700–1,000

92847 12 105–145 Fractured rock 80 80 18.5 4E−4–4E−5 200–300

Lower-piedmont zone

22316 10 51–151 Sand and gravel 20 10 3 1E−1–1E−4 300–400

22317 10 50–156 Sand and gravel 20 10 3 1E−1–1E−4 300–400

25197 7 126–146 Sand 20 70 2 1E−2–2E−5 40–70

33372 9 130–158 Sand and gravel 8 105 24 1E−2–3E−5 10–20

650 9 70–132 Sand and gravel 30 <1 2 1E−1–6E−5 5,000–9,000

43528 15 75–245 Sand and gravel 450 1 8 3E−1–2E−1 90,000–100,000

Valley-lowland zone

33373 16 145–240 Clay, sand and gravel 150 135 8 1E−3–2E−4 200–300

34161 22 65–410 Clay, sand and gravel 600 100 8 1E−1–3E−4 1,000–2,000

40151 16 55–500 Clay, sand and gravel 440 105 6 1E−1–4E−4 600–900

74561 16 33–347 Clay, sand and gravel 372 62 6 1E−1–3E−4 800–1,000

94995 24 50–560 Clay, sand and gravel 1,200 113 2 1E−1–3E−4 1,000–2,000
70 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

between channels and greater soil development compared with 

zones higher in the drainage basins; (2) a dry climate with 

relatively cold winters and warm summers; (3) a combination 

of erosion and deposition, with migrating stream channels 

overlying thickening alluvial and basin-fill deposits; (4) little 

to no streamflow generated from precipitation in the zone; 

(5) relatively large streamflow losses, except where water is 

diverted into a concrete-lined ditch; (6) groundwater circulation through younger and older deposits, where an intervening unsaturated zone separates losses along channels from 

underlying groundwater; and (7) inferred deeper groundwater 

circulation through fractured limestone.

Streamflow Losses

The greater thickness of an unsaturated zone associated with the rapid thickening of younger alluvial deposits 

(fig. 34) results in increased streamflow losses in the lowerpiedmont zone. The natural streamflow losses that recharged 

groundwater in the lower-piedmont zone diminished after 

Baker Creek was diverted to Lehman Creek in the early 1900s 

and the combined flow of the two creeks was diverted to a 

concrete ditch in 1962 or 1963 (fig. 34; Craig Baker, Baker 

Ranches, Inc., Baker, Nevada, written commun., 2012). 

Streamflow that enters the lower-piedmont zone along the old 

channel of Baker Creek is unknown. The concrete ditch has a 

capacity of 26 ft3/s (Craig Baker, Baker Ranches, Inc., Baker, 

Nev., written commun., 2012), which, when exceeded, causes 

the excess flow to continue down along natural channels next 

to the ditch. Assuming little streamflow loss between the gaging stations on the two creeks and along the channel downstream of Rowland Spring during water years 2002–10, the 

combined daily mean discharge at the gaging stations on the 

two creeks and at Rowland Spring exceeded the capacity of 

the ditch 14 percent of the time.

Figure 34. Idealized cross section showing streamflow and groundwater flow along Baker and Lehman Creeks in the lower-piedmont 

and valley-lowland zones, downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

West East

Lower-piedmont zone

Valley-lowland zone

Upper-piedmont zone

Concrete ditch

Irrigated fields and phreatophytes

EXPLANATION

Fine-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Limestone

Granite

southern Snake Range detachment fault

Quaternary fault—Arrows show relative

 direction of movement

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring
Baker and Lehman Creek Drainage Basins 71

From the confluence of Baker and Lehman Creeks to the 

valley-lowland zone, the estimated streamflow loss during 

low flow, prior to the construction of a concrete ditch, was 

about 4 ft3/s (Dean Baker, Baker Ranches, Inc., Baker, Nev., 

oral commun., 2009). During a study in September 2, 1992, 

discharge measurements immediately upstream of the ditch 

and at three locations downstream of the ditch, near Baker 

(Elliott and others, 2006, p. 17), yielded a net streamflow loss 

that ranged from 0 to 1.4 ft3/s, depending on which downstream measurement was used. Thus, before the concrete ditch 

was constructed, much of the streamflow loss took place in the 

approximately 2 mi. of natural channel that was replaced by 

the ditch. The average loss rate per mile of channel was 2 ft3

/s 

when flow was around 4 ft3

/s or less, with gravity drainage 

beneath the streambed. Greater streamflow losses are likely 

during high flow because of increased channel width and 

higher stream stage.

Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed along 

Lehman Creek in the lower-piedmont zone was estimated at 

3 ft/d, assuming that 4 ft3/s was lost along the natural channel 

(prior to construction of the concrete ditch) before reaching 

the valley-lowland zone at Baker. This estimate also assumed 

the natural channel was 10–12 ft wide and that gravity drainage was controlled by a vertical hydraulic gradient of –1 ft/ft 

in the streambed. This estimate was similar to the estimated 

range of 1.6 to 4 ft/d for vertical hydraulic conductivity in the 

streambed in the upper-piedmont zone (tables 8, 9).

Aquifers

The most productive aquifer in the lower-piedmont zone is 

the relatively thick, shallow, coarse-grained, younger alluvial deposits. The older basin-fill deposits and the fractured 

limestone could allow some additional and deeper groundwater flow through the zone. Groundwater flow to the lowerpiedmont zone is limited to groundwater flow that can pass 

through the Quaternary fault in younger deposits, in older 

basin-fill deposits, and in fractured limestone (fig. 34). The 

mean annual precipitation in lower-piedmont zones is insufficient to produce appreciable groundwater recharge. Except 

for springs along the Quaternary fault at the Home Farm, the 

faults in this area are sufficiently permeable by Baker and 

Lehman Creeks to allow for most of the groundwater flow 

beneath the creeks to pass from the upper-piedmont zone to 

the lower-piedmont zone.

Specific-capacity data were available from six welldrillers’ logs in the lower part of the lower-piedmont zone 

(table 10). Four wells in Baker, Nev. (well-logs 22316, 22317, 

25197, and 33372), were drilled for domestic supply. The 

other two wells (well-logs 650 and 43528) were drilled to 

the south near the natural channel of Baker Creek for irrigation (well-log 650) and municipal supply (well-log 43528). 

The wells generally were drilled into sand and gravel that had 

lenses of clay. Estimated transmissivities ranged from 10 to 

100,000 ft2

/d, with the greater values in wells farther west and 

south that encountered coarser-grained sediments (well-logs 

650 and 43528). Both those wells had reported drawdowns of 

1 ft or less.

Nearly half the wells with specific-capacity data had 

estimated transmissivities that exceeded estimates from wells 

drilled in the upper-piedmont and valley-lowland zones, indicating that the alluvial deposits in this zone have intervals that 

are more permeable than elsewhere in the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins. Dividing the estimated transmissivity 

by the screened interval yielded a range in hydraulic conductivity from 0.5 to 600 ft/d. The lesser values were similar to 

those in the older basin-fill deposits in the upper-piedmont 

zone, and the greater values exceeded all estimates of hydraulic conductivity in the younger alluvial deposits in the upperpiedmont zone, yet were consistent with hydraulic conductivities estimated for sand and gravel along the Humboldt River 

near Winnemucca, Nev. (Cohen and others, 1965), and for 

sand and gravel along the West and East Forks of the Carson 

River in Carson Valley, Nev., and in California (Maurer, 1986, 

p. 30).

The lower-piedmont zone generally provides an ideal 

location for deposition of well-sorted sand and gravel because 

most of the large cobbles have been dropped farther up the 

drainage basins, and the silt and clay are carried farther onto 

the valley floor (fig. 14; Zones, 1961, p. 35–39). Typically, 

areas with the greatest transmissivities are near the toe of 

alluvial fans associated with perennial mountain streams, such 

as Baker and Lehman Creeks (Zones, 1961, Bredehoeft, 1963, 

Bredehoeft and Farvolden, 1963). Even though the lowerpiedmont zone is generally more permeable than the other 

zones, groundwater flow through it is limited by groundwater 

flow from the upper-piedmont zone and streamflow losses 

in the zone, which are less since diversion of Baker Creek to 

Lehman Creek and the construction of a 2-mi-long concrete 

ditch in the upper section of the lower-piedmont zone (fig. 34).

Valley-Lowland Zone

The boundary between the lower-piedmont and valleylowland zones coincides with one or more Quaternary faults 

(fig. 34; U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology, 2006; Rowley and others, 2009). The valleylowland zone is separated from the lower-piedmont zone by a 

decrease in the coarseness of the alluvial and basin-fill deposits, which is generally coincident with a large-offset normal 

fault, as defined by gravity data, that increased the thickness of 

basin-fill deposits in the valley-lowland zone. Features of this 

zone are as follows: (1) shallow land-surface slopes with thick 

soil development; (2) an arid climate with cold winters and 

hot summers; (3) deposition of sediments mostly eroded from 

higher in the drainage basins; (4) a thick sequence of interbedded coarse and fine-grained younger and older basin-fill 

deposits; (5) streamflow diverted for irrigation and groundwater pumping from relatively shallow depths; and (6) inferred, 

deep groundwater circulation through limestone that underlies 

fine-grained and cemented Miocene sedimentary rocks.
72 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Groundwater in the valley-lowland zone is characterized 

by flow through lenses of sand and gravel near the lowerpiedmont zone that progressively thin and grade to finergrained deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Groundwater levels 

in this zone are typically near land surface, and the general 

direction of flow changes to lateral and upward, where much 

of the shallow groundwater is lost to evapotranspiration 

(fig. 34). Streamflow that reaches the valley-lowland zone is 

used for irrigation of crops and, during periods of excessive 

flow, some streamflow can pond in shallow depressions, where 

it is lost to evapotranspiration or slowly infiltrates to shallow 

groundwater. 

Several wells have been drilled in the valley-lowland 

zone, and some are used for supplemental irrigation of crops 

before the spring snowmelt or during years when snowmelt is 

insufficient to provide the water necessary for irrigation. Five 

well-drillers’ logs for this zone had sufficient information to 

estimate transmissivity (table 10). The wells were drilled for 

irrigation in younger alluvial deposits of alternating layers 

of clay, sand, and gravel. Estimated transmissivities ranged 

from 200 to 2,000 ft2

/d. Because of the greater thickness of the 

deposits, these transmissivities were similar to those estimated 

in the upper-piedmont zone. Dividing the estimated transmissivity by the screened interval yielded a range in hydraulic 

conductivity from 1 to 5 ft/d. These deposits were generally 

less permeable than the coarser sediments of the upper- and 

lower-piedmont zones. 

Summary

Much of the mean annual runoff in the mountain-upland 

zone is generated in areas that exceed 11,000 ft above mean 

sea level, where an estimated 80 percent of the mean annual 

precipitation becomes runoff because, in the mountain-upland 

zone, low-permeability quartzite and granite bedrock is covered by thin soil or by thin glacial and alluvial deposits, which 

limit groundwater flow and storage. Inflow to the mountainupland zone is precipitation, and outflow is mostly by evapotranspiration in the zone and runoff to the karst-limestone 

zone. Evapotranspiration in the mountain-upland zone was 

estimated at about 56 percent of the mean annual precipitation, 

and mean annual runoff was estimated at 42 percent. 

Runoff from the mountain-upland zone is the dominant 

inflow to the karst-limestone zone, accounting for 79 percent of the total inflow; precipitation in the zone accounts 

for another 18 percent, and the remaining 3 percent is from 

groundwater inflow. Groundwater flow increases in the karstlimestone zone relative to the mountain-upland zone primarily 

because of the presence of the Pole Canyon Limestone and 

increased permeability caused by dissolution along bedding 

planes and fractures. This results in net streamflow losses 

along Baker and Lehman Creeks and Pole Canyon of about 

3,300 acre-ft annually, which is about a 23 percent decrease in 

the mean annual runoff that enters from the mountain-upland 

zone. Most of the groundwater flow in the karst-limestone 

zone is through large tubular openings and supplies springs 

near the low-angle, southern Snake Range detachment fault 

or to an intermittent resurgent spring from Model Cave along 

Baker Creek. This spring is just upstream of granite outcrops 

and a decrease in the thickness of the limestone, which force 

flow to the surface. Rowland Spring accounts for about 80 

percent of the spring flow along the detachment fault. Chloride 

mass-balance calculations indicated that about 60 percent of 

the flow to Rowland Spring was from streamflow loss in the 

Narrows of Baker Creek. The source of springs at the Home 

Farm north of Lehman Creek drainage basin is probably from 

streamflow loss along Lehman Creek because the Pole Canyon 

Limestone dips to the northeast. Outflow from the karst-limestone zone to the upper-piedmont zone is mostly runoff and 

flow from springs near the detachment fault. 

The groundwater connection between the karst-limestone 

zone at the eastern edge of GBNP and the valley-lowland 

zone near Baker, Nev., is through three aquifers. The shallowest and most used aquifer is the younger glacial and alluvial 

deposits. This aquifer is thin and in direct contact with Baker 

and Lehman Creeks in the upper-piedmont zone. The creeks 

generally lose small quantities of flow to the younger deposits 

in this zone. These losses are limited, however, by the low 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambeds (generally 

2–4 ft/d). The younger deposits thicken rapidly across one 

or more Quaternary faults (Asch and Sweetkind, 2011) that 

define the boundary between the upper- and lower-piedmont 

zones. The thickening of the younger deposits corresponds 

to an increase in the transmissivity and greater depth to the 

water table. Streamflow losses along Baker and Lehman Creek 

increase in the lower-piedmont zone because streamflow loss 

through the streambed is controlled by gravity drainage. At 

least 4 ft3

/s was needed for streamflow to reach Baker, Nev., 

prior to the construction of a 2-mile long concrete ditch in the 

zone during the early 1960s (Craig Baker, Baker Ranches, 

Inc., Baker, Nevada, written commun., 2012). Construction 

of the concrete-lined ditch reduced streamflow losses and, 

subsequently, decreased groundwater recharge in the lowerpiedmont zone.

The second aquifer consists of permeable zones in the 

older basin-fill deposits, but overall, this aquifer is less permeable than the overlying shallow aquifer. Flow through this 

aquifer is limited to inflow from shallow groundwater in the 

karst-limestone zone and to vertical flow from the overlying 

shallow aquifer. 

The third aquifer is the fractured limestone that underlies 

the older basin-fill deposits in the upper- and lower-piedmont 

zones. The hydraulic conductivity of the fractured limestone 

beneath the older basin fill is probably less than that in the 

karst-limestone zone because dissolution of fractures in the 

limestone beneath the older basin-fill deposits is limited by 

carbon dioxide that enters with groundwater from the karstlimestone zone. Furthermore, if large tubular openings from 

dissolution of the limestone were continuous beneath the older 

basin-fill, then springs near the end of the karst-limestone zone 

would not exist. Depth to the fractured limestone in the lowerpiedmont zone exceeds 2,000 ft (Asch and Sweetkind, 2011, 

p. B5), and groundwater from fractured limestone beneath the 
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 73

upper-piedmont zone could move to the thicker younger alluvial deposits in the lower-piedmont zone, with little groundwater flow through the deeper, fault-offset fractured limestone. 

The younger alluvial deposits thicken rapidly again across 

another Quaternary fault that forms the boundary between the 

lower-piedmont slope and valley lowland. Groundwater in 

the valley lowland flows predominately through the younger 

deposits, and this zone is generally an area where groundwater 

is lost to evapotranspiration on the valley floor.

Snake Creek Drainage Basin

Physical Characteristics

The Snake Creek drainage basin lies on the eastern side 

of the crest along the southern Snake Range (fig. 35). The 

drainage basin is between the Baker Creek drainage basin to 

the north and the Big Wash drainage basin to the south. Snake 

Creek flows eastward to Snake Valley, where it is used for irrigation near the town of Garrison, Utah. Land-surface altitudes 

range from about 5,280 ft at Garrison, Utah, to 11,926 ft at 

Pyramid Peak (fig. 35). The drainage basin includes two small 

high-altitude lakes, Johnson and Dead.

In the GBNP, the drainage area is 22.6 mi2, and the stream 

has a length of 9.9 mi (table 1; Elliot and others, 2006, p. 8). 

Snake Creek has the largest drainage area in the GBNP. The 

drainage area at the Nevada–Utah state line is 32.7 mi2, and 

the stream length is 15 mi (table 1; Elliot and others, 2006, 

p. 8). In the GBNP, Snake Creek has a streambed slope of 

more than 13 percent along its uppermost 3.3 mi, which 

abruptly decreases to an average 5 percent slope for the last 

6.6 mi to the GBNP boundary. Spring Creek joins Snake Creek 

Figure 35. Snake Creek drainage basin in the southern Snake Range and Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Snake

Big Wash

Creek

Pruess

Lake

Spring 

Creek

Dead

Lake

North

Fork

Lake

Creek

Gruden

Springs

Spring

Creek

Spring

Johnson

Lake

21

159

487

0 1 5 Miles

0 1 5 Kilometers

2

2

3 4

3 4

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Great Basin

National

Park

114°15'

38°56'

38°54'

114°05'

NEVADA

UTAH

Pyramid

Peak

Pipeline Burbank Hills

Fish-rearing

station

Garrison

EXPLANATION

PW01

Snake 5

Drainage areas

Quaternary glacial deposits

Hydrogeologic zones

Mountain upland

Karst limestone

Upper piedmont

Lower piedmont

Valley lowland

Great Basin National Park

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

U.S. Geological Survey bulk-precipitation station

National Weather Service cooperative station

Spring

Gaging station—2002–04; Elliott and others, 2006

Gaging station—2009; Southern Nevada Water Authority

Miscellaneous streamflow measurement site,1992

Miscellaneous streamflow measurement site, 2003

Nevada Department of Wildlife domestic well

MX-missle test hole—Dry at depth of 200 feet

Private domestic well

Utah Geological Survey monitoring well

U.S. Geological Survey monitoring well

Cave entrance

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area

PW01

PW03

AG13

Squirrel Spring Cave

Mount

Washington

Snake 5 

wells
74 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

about 3.4 mi upstream of the Nevada–Utah state line or 3.2 mi 

downstream of GBNP after first filling ponds for the NDOW 

Spring Creek fish-rearing station (fig. 35). The average streambed slope is 3 percent from GBNP to the Nevada–Utah state 

line (Toby Welborn, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, 

Nev., written commun., 2010). 

Precipitation and evapotranspiration vary in relation to 

altitude in the drainage basin and in relation to annual and seasonal climate variations. Mean precipitation rates ranged from 

less than 8 in./yr at Garrison, Utah (Western Regional Climate 

Center, 2011), to more than 30 in./yr in the highest parts of 

the drainage basin (fig. 6). Mean annual temperature ranged 

from about 10.3 °C at Garrison, Utah, to less than 3 °C at the 

highest altitudes. The bulk-precipitation station on Mount 

Washington is southwest of the Snake Creek drainage basin, 

and about 80 percent of the precipitation at higher altitudes 

accumulated as snow during the winter months (fig. 7).

Geology

The surface geology of the Snake Creek drainage basin 

is shown in figure 36 and is based on a 1:24,000-scale digital 

geologic map of GBNP (Brown and Davila, 1995; National 

Park Service, 2007), which was modified for this study with 

geologic mapping. The area around Snake Creek is characterized by complexly faulted bedrock uplands, flanked to the east 

by extensive, partly buried, Miocene conglomeratic deposits 

that are overlain and flanked to the east by younger Quaternary 

deposits in the vicinity of the Nevada–Utah state line (fig. 36). 

The southern Snake Range detachment fault (McGrew, 1993; 

Miller and others, 1999) is the dominant structural feature in 

the drainage basin; the development of this fault affected the 

exposure and configuration of most of the consolidated and 

partly consolidated rocks in this area.

Distribution of Rocks

Consolidated rocks that lie above the southern Snake 

Range detachment fault consist of a mosaic of normal-fault 

bounded blocks of various non-metamorphosed lower Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that are predominantly carbonate, but 

include locally important exposures of Ordovician Eureka 

Quartzite (fig. 36). These fault blocks are brittlely deformed, 

exhibit variable dip and direction, and possess incomplete 

fragments of the known regional stratigraphy (McGrew, 1993; 

Miller and others, 1999). Consolidated rocks that lie below the 

detachment fault surface have greater lateral continuity, but 

are, in part, ductilely deformed and weakly metamorphosed 

and consist of a structurally thinned, but coherent, stratigraphy 

of the Pole Canyon Limestone and Prospect Mountain Quartzite intruded by Tertiary and older granitic rocks (figs. 36, 37; 

McGrew, 1993; McGrew and others, 1995).

Just to the east of GBNP, Paleozoic rocks are juxtaposed 

against a thick section of Miocene conglomeratic rocks 

across an east-dipping, down-to-the-east fault (Tertiary fault 

in fig. 36). This conglomeratic section also is exposed in the 

Big Wash drainage basin, where it is unconformably overlain 

by older alluvium. A horst block of the Devonian Guilmette 

Formation limestone is present along the east edge of these 

conglomeratic exposures to the north and south of Snake 

Creek. The east side of this block is bounded by another 

down-to-the-east fault that separates all exposures of Miocene conglomeratic rocks on the west from older and younger 

basin-fill deposits on the east (fig. 36). Basin-fill deposits 

occupy an area about 4 mi wide in this part of Snake Valley, 

where Devonian Guilmette Formation limestone crops out just 

to the east of Garrison (fig. 3).

Snake Range Detachment Fault

The southern Snake Range detachment fault lies along the 

eastern front of the range between Baker Creek and Snake 

Creek. Just north of the Snake Creek drainage basin, the map 

trace of the fault swings southwestward into the main part 

of the range between Snake Creek and Big Wash (fig. 36; 

McGrew and others, 1995; National Park Service, 2007). The 

fault surface has gentle, map-scale warps and corrugations 

that trend approximately east-west; the complexly faulted 

Paleozoic rocks in the Snake Creek area are preserved in a 

shallow downwarp of the detachment fault surface to the south 

of the Young Canyon pluton (McGrew and others, 1995). The 

Paleozoic section above the detachment fault is broken into a 

mosaic of fault blocks of varying stratal dip and dip direction. 

The low-angle faults that disrupt the carbonate rocks above the 

detachment fault are hanging-wall normal faults that merge 

with the main detachment fault in the shallow subsurface 

(fig. 37; McGrew, 1993; McGrew and others, 1995). 

On average, the detachment fault dips 10 to 15 degrees 

to the southeast and projects eastward beneath Snake Valley 

(fig. 37; McGrew and others, 1995; fig. 37). Miller and others 

(1999) analyzed the thermal history of footwall and hanging 

wall rocks and documented rapid slip and major fault-related 

uplift on this portion of the detachment fault during the 

Miocene (about 17 Ma). On the basis of a distinct reflector on 

regional seismic lines, the detachment fault was interpreted in 

the subsurface to the north of Garrison, Utah (Allmendinger 

and others, 1983), where it is observed to plunge beneath 

Snake Valley and the Confusion Range with little modification by post-Miocene, high-angle, normal faults. The detachment fault also was interpreted from seismic reflection data 

collected during oil and gas exploration of Snake and Hamlin 

Valleys as a distinct reflector plunging to the south and southeast (Shah Alam, 1990). Complexly faulted and tilted blocks 

of Paleozoic bedrock have been inferred to exist beneath Miocene and younger sedimentary cover east of GBNP (fig. 37). 

The configuration of fault blocks is unknown, but the altitude 

at the top of the Paleozoic section is consistent with the results 

of an audiomagnetotelluric survey along an east-west traverse 

about 2 mi south of Snake Creek (McPhee and others, 2009). 

Similar to surface exposures to the west, these fault blocks 

were inferred to lie above the east-dipping detachment fault 

and merge with it at depth (fig. 37; McGrew, 1993; McGrew 

and others, 1995). The buried faults were depicted as dying 

out upward in the Miocene sedimentary section because they 
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 75

Figure 36. Geology of the Snake Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Tgr

CZpm OCn

Kgr

Clp CZpm

Qt

CZpm

Tgr

Jg

Cpi OCn Cpc

Qt

Tc

Oph

Cpc

Cpc

Qt

Clp

OCn OSfl

Op

Cpi

Qg

OSfl

OCn

Clp Cjw Tc

Dg

Tc Cpi Op

Dg

Clp

Op

Jg

OSfl

Cpc

Oe

Oe

Op

OSfl

Cpc

Op

Cpc

Cpi

Oe

CZpm

Op

Oe

Oe

Op

Clp

Dse Op

Dse Tmp Cpc

Dse Ds

Clp Dg

Tc

Op Oe

Dg

OCn Dse

Op Cpc

Ds

Dg

Clp

Qa

Qa

Tc

Ql Ql

OCn

Cpc

Qoa

Qoa

Qa

Dg OSfl

Tc

Tc Tc

Tc

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qa

Op

Op

OCn

OCn

Snake

Big Wash

Creek

Gruden

Springs

Spring

Creek

Spring

487

159

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Great Basin

National

Park

NEVADA

UTAH

Pipeline

GarrisonGarrison

114°15'

38°

58'

114°05'

38°

52'

Tertiary fault

0 1 2 3 Miles

0 1 2 3 Kilometers

Quaternary fault

SSRD

EXPLANATION

Qg

Qt

Qal

Ql

Qoa

Tc

Cenozoic rocks 

Alluvium

Older alluvium

Landslide deposits

Talus

Glacial deposits

Miocene sediments, includes 

megabreccia

Paleozoic rocks above Snake Range 

detachment

Guilmette Formation

Simonson Dolomite

Sevy Dolomite

Fish Haven and Laketown Dolomites

Eureka Quartzite

Pogonip Group, undifferentiated

Notch Peak Limestone

Johns Wash Limestone

Lincoln Peak Formation

Dg

Ds

Dse

OSfl

Oe

Op 

OCn

Cjw

Clp

Cambrian rocks that generally lie 

below Snake Range detachment

Pole Canyon Limestone

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mountain Quartzite

Granitic rocks that intrude rocks 

below Snake Range detachment

Tertiary granite

Cretaceous granite

Jurassic granite

Tgr

Kgr

Jg

Cpc

Cpi

CZpm

Geology adapted from National Park Service, 2007. 

For clarity, many small polygons are not labeled

SSRD, southern Snake Range Detachment

Geologic structures

Normal fault, known or certain

Normal fault, approximate

Normal fault, concealed

Detachment fault, known or certain

Detachment fault, concealed

Hydrologic measuring sites

Gaging station

U.S. Geological Survey well

Other well

Spring

Map

area

Garrison

Baker Great

Basin

National

Park

Snake 5

 wells

PW01

A

A’
76 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

were interpreted to have had predominantly Miocene motion 

and then were buried by latest Miocene conglomerates derived 

from erosion of the uplifted range. These faults are not shown 

on the geologic map (fig. 36) because they are buried and do 

not cut the rocks and deposits exposed on the surface.

Extent of Miocene Deposits and Faults near 

Snake Creek

Along the mountain front, where Snake Creek emerges 

from the canyon in consolidated rocks, the Paleozoic section 

is juxtaposed against a west-tilted conglomeratic sedimentary 

section across an east-dipping, down-to-the-east fault (Tertiary 

fault in figs. 36, 37). Faulted, west-tilted conglomerate and 

other semi-consolidated alluvial deposits are well-exposed 

along the eastern parts of Snake Creek drainage basin and 

in the Big Wash drainage basin (fig. 36) and were inferred 

to underlie Quaternary deposits in the near subsurface in the 

vicinity of Garrison, Utah (fig. 37). These semi-consolidated 

deposits are lithologically diverse, including partly cemented 

to cemented alluvial-fan conglomerate, gravel, and sand, with 

lesser amounts of marl and tuff (McGrew and others, 1995). 

Included in these deposits are blocks of internally brecciated 

Paleozoic strata that range in dimension from tens to hundreds 

of feet. Like the Sacramento Pass section farther to the north, 

these coarse-grained sediments and included megabreccia 

blocks were interpreted to be synorogenic sediments deposited 

following rapid Miocene uplift of the range front (McGrew, 

1993; Miller and others, 1999). Lithologic heterogeneity and 

lack of continuous markers within the Miocene section make 

delineation of true stratigraphic thickness difficult to define. 

However, outcrop relations clearly indicate that the section 

thickens westward toward the range front, where the section could be as thick as 1,500 ft (fig. 37). In Big Wash, the 

section is uniformly southwest dipping, nearly unfaulted, and 

4,400 ft thick (McGrew and others, 1995). Audiomagnetotelluric (AMT) data along an east-west traverse about 2 mi south 

of Snake Creek estimated the Tertiary sediments to be about 

4,000 ft thick near the range front, shallowing and thinning 

eastward to a fault or pinch out against the upfaulted Paleozoic 

horst block (McPhee and others, 2009). The Snake 5 wells 

(appendix 1), near the upfaulted Paleozoic block, penetrated 

78 ft of Cenozoic section, a thickness generally consistent with 

results from the AMT line to the south.

The age of the conglomeratic sedimentary section is less 

than about 16 Ma based on fission-track ages on granitic boulder clasts from these deposits (Miller and others, 1999). Bedded, reworked ash deposits in this section have been correlated 

on the basis of major, minor, and trace-element chemistry with 

volcanic eruptions from the Snake River Plain, Idaho, that 

took place around 11.6 Ma (Mike Perkins, University of Utah, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, written commun., May 2010). These 

ages, the presence in these deposits of clasts eroded from 

granite below the detachment, and the relatively intact nature 

Figure 37. Interpretive geologic cross section along Snake Creek from mountain front to Nevada–Utah state line.

Big

Wash

Creek Snake

A A' NEVADA UTAH

Great Basin

National Park

boundary

Southern Snake Range Snake Valley

southern Snake

Range detachment

Snake 5

wells

Quaternary fault

Altitude, in feet 5,000

4,000

8,000

6,000

7,000

Vertical exaggeration x 1.5

5,000

4,000

6,000

7,000

1,200

950

1,450

1,700

1,950

2,200

West East

Geology modified from McGrew, 1993

and McPhee and others, 2009

Tertiary fault PW01

(projected)

Feet Meters

Great Basin

National

Park

NEVADA

UTAH

A A’

Bend in section

Jg

Cpc Cpi

CZpm

Jg

Tc

Tc

Tc Oe Cpc

Cpi

Qal/Qoa

Precambrian

EXPLANATION

Qal/Qoa

Tc

Cenozoic rocks 

Younger and older alluvium, undivided

Miocene sediments, includes megabreccia

Paleozoic rocks above Snake Range detachment

Upper part of Paleozoic section, undivided

Eureka Quartzite

Lower part of Paleozoic section, undivided

Oe

Cambrian and Precambrian rocks that generally lie 

below Snake Range detachment

Pole Canyon Limestone

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mountain Quartzite and other 

Precambrian rocks

Granitic rocks that intrude rocks below Snake 

Range detachment

Jg Jurassic granite

Cpc

Cpi

CZpm

Geologic structures

Normal fault, known or certain

Detachment fault, known or certain

Arrows show relative sense of offset

Map

area

Garrison

Baker Great

Basin

National

Park
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 77

of the section, in contrast to the complexly faulted mosaic of 

Paleozoic rocks exposed to the west, all indicated that these 

Cenozoic sediments are younger than most, if not all, of the 

faulting associated with the detachment fault (McGrew, 1993; 

Miller and others, 1999). The west-dipping, conglomeratic 

sedimentary section is overlain by undated, nearly flat-lying, 

older alluvial-fan deposits (fig. 36). The angular unconformity 

between older alluvial-fan deposits and Miocene sediments is 

well exposed in the Big Wash drainage basin.

The fault (Tertiary fault, fig. 36) that separates the Paleozoic rocks from the conglomeratic sedimentary section 

appears to have had predominantly Tertiary (Miocene) motion 

based on the units it offsets and its relation to the detachment 

fault. The conglomeratic sedimentary section generally dips 

moderately (up to 40 degrees) to the west-southwest toward 

this fault, thickens against it, and is offset by it, indicating that 

this fault was active during and shortly after deposition of the 

sediments. Older alluvial-fan deposits (fig. 36) show little to 

no offset across this fault. The fault is curved in map view 

and appears to merge northward with the surface trace of the 

detachment fault (McGrew and others, 1995). Also, the fault 

has listric geometry based on AMT data (McPhee and others, 

2009) and map relations and likely merges with the detachment fault at depth. McGrew (1993) suggests that geologic 

relations are not conclusive, however, and that this fault could 

cut the detachment fault in the subsurface.

Quaternary Fault and Thickness of 

Quaternary Alluvium

Flat-lying to gently tilted, unconsolidated to consolidated 

alluvial-fan, sand and gravel deposits underlie pediment 

surfaces along the eastern flank of the southern Snake Range. 

The well data and gravity-based models of the thickness of 

Cenozoic basin fill (Watt and Ponce, 2007) indicated that these 

younger basin-fill deposits thicken rapidly to the east of the 

limestone horst block that outcrops east of the Snake 5 wells 

(fig. 36). The east side of this block is bounded by one or 

more down-to-the-east faults that offset Quaternary deposits. 

This fault, east of the limestone horst block, is labeled as the 

“Quaternary fault” for purposes of discussion in subsequent 

sections.

Wells to the east of the Nevada–Utah state line and west of 

Garrison, Utah, penetrate as much as 820 ft of coarse-grained 

basin-fill deposits that are likely to be Quaternary in age. A 

monitoring well, drilled by the UGS, close to the state line 

and north of the Snake Creek drainage basin (PW01, fig. 36) 

penetrated 1,837 ft of basin-filling sediments without penetrating underlying bedrock.

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained 

Sediments from Well-Drillers’ Logs

Only four wells exist in the Snake Creek drainage basin 

between the Tertiary fault and the floor of Snake Valley at 

the Nevada–Utah state line: the Snake 5 wells, two wells on 

the NDOW property near the confluence of Spring Creek 

and Snake Creek, and a well on private property west of 

the NDOW wells. Depth to bedrock is generally shallow at 

these locations. The Snake 5 wells, drilled near the horst of 

Devonian carbonate rock (fig. 36), penetrated 40 ft of mostly 

coarse-grained alluvial material and another 38 ft of weathered 

clay before encountering carbonate rock. One of the NDOW 

wells penetrated about 20 ft of alluvium before encountering 

what the driller labeled “granite bedrock;” the second NDOW 

well penetrated about 30 ft of sand and gravel. The fourth 

well, upstream from the NDOW wells, was drilled to a depth 

of about 104 ft through sandy clay with layers of more coarse 

material before encountering carbonate rock. 

The limited lithologic data along this part of Snake Creek 

did not permit a spatial analysis of the distribution of lithology, but some general observations could be made. First, a 

channel of extremely coarse alluvial material, such as was 

observed in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, is 

not evident from the available well-log data. Each of the four 

wells has some gravel beds, but layers of clay and sandy clay 

were also observed. Near the Tertiary fault in the vicinity of 

Gruden Springs, surficial material on the banks of the creek 

is generally fine-grained. The next closest available lithologic 

data in the area were from wells east of the Nevada–Utah state 

line near Garrison, Utah. Several of these wells encountered 

thick intervals of cobbles and gravel interbedded with sand 

and gravel, sand, and finer-grained material.

Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams

The connection of aquifers to springs and Snake Creek was 

evaluated on the basis of the same five hydrogeologic zones 

used to describe the water resources of the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins (fig. 35). Similar to Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins, streamflow in Snake Creek and its connection with groundwater are directly related to the geology. 

The headwaters to Snake Creek are in relatively impermeable 

Prospect Mountain Quartzite and intrusive units, where the 

detachment fault has been eroded away (fig. 36). Downstream, 

in the karst-limestone zone, but still beneath the detachment 

fault, the creek crosses the Pole Canyon Limestone and is 

diverted to a pipeline in this section to prevent streamflow 

losses. Between the east end of the pipeline and the eastern 

GBNP boundary and in the karst-limestone zone, the creek 

flows over complexly faulted blocks of the upper plate, which 

are dominated by carbonate rocks (fig. 36). Before Snake 

Creek leaves the karst-limestone zone, the creek crosses the 

base of the southwest-dipping fault block, which includes 

Ordovician Eureka Quartzite (fig. 36). The Eureka Quartzite in 

this locality is dense, massive, and highly cemented and creates a partial impediment to groundwater flow (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 39). Downstream of this fault block, Snake Creek 

flows over highly fractured rocks of the Cambrian and Ordovician Pogonip Group (Whitebread, 1969; McGrew and others, 

1995). The creek then crosses a fault with large offset and over 

Cenozoic sedimentary rocks (fig. 36). Gruden Springs, along 

Snake Creek, issue from the alluvial deposits and underlying 
78 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Cenozoic section near this fault. Spring Creek originates from 

a spring that issues from the undifferentiated Laketown and 

Fish Haven Dolomites along the same fault contact south of 

Snake Creek (fig. 36).

Mountain-Upland Zone

The mountain-upland zone includes the headwater area 

in Great Basin National Park at altitudes between 7,600 

and 11,926 ft, which are upstream of Paleozoic limestone 

in an area underlain mostly by granitic rocks (fig. 35). Most 

of the zone is covered by coniferous forest (Houghton and 

others, 1975), because only a fraction lies above an altitude 

of 11,000 ft. Consequently, more precipitation is lost to 

evapotranspiration, and less contributes to runoff, than in the 

mountain-upland zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins (table 3).

Groundwater flows mostly through large pores in glacial 

deposits and through smaller pores in thin colluvium and 

alluvial deposits that mantle the, generally, less permeable 

granite. The shallow groundwater helps maintain perennial 

flow in Snake Creek near the end of this zone. No wells were 

present, and only one set of discharge measurements taken 

on September 3, 1992, were available to evaluate changes in 

streamflow in the mountain-upland zone (Elliot and others, 

2006, p. 18). Discharge measurements on that date indicated 

Snake Creek lost about 0.8 ± 0.3 ft3/s between the end of 

the glacial deposits and the first gaging station that is at the 

end of the mountain-upland zone (fig. 35). Much of this loss 

infiltrated the alluvial deposits next to the stream and was 

either used to replenish groundwater or exited the mountainupland zone as shallow groundwater flow mostly through 

the alluvial deposits (fig. 38). Slightly longer and deeper 

groundwater could flow through fractures in the granite, but 

because unweathered granite generally has low permeability, 

such flow would be a fraction of the flow through either the 

alluvial aquifers or streamflow to the karst-limestone zone. 

Consequently, unweathered granite that underlies much of the 

Figure 38. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the mountain-upland and karst-limestone zones along Snake 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

West East

Karst-limestone zone

Mountainupland 

zone

Upperpiedmont 

zone

Park boundary

Pipeline

EXPLANATION

southern Snake Range detachment fault

Tertiary fault—Arrows show relative

 direction of movement

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring

Groundwater exits drainage to south

Coarse glacial deposits

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Prospect Mountain Quartzite

Eureka Quartzite

Shale

Limestone

Granite

Cave filled with air

Cave filled with water
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 79

northern Snake Range was assumed to be an effective barrier 

to deep groundwater flow, so much of the groundwater in this 

zone flows through shallow glacial and alluvial deposits that 

overlie the granite.

A mean annual water budget of the mountain-upland 

zone was used to determine the relative importance of the 

processes contributing to water loss and to estimate mean 

annual flows to the karst-limestone zone (table 11). Mean 

annual precipitation in the mountain-upland zone was estimated to be 12,000 acre-ft, and the uncertainty was estimated 

to be 20 percent. At the uppermost gaging station, which was 

operated from 2002 to 2004 near the end of the mountainupland zone, the mean annual runoff was 3,000 acre-ft, with 

uncertainty approximated at 10 percent (table 11). By using 

Darcy’s Law, an estimated cross-sectional area of flow through 

shallow alluvial deposits of 4,000 ft2, a hydraulic conductivity of 50 ft/d, and a hydraulic gradient equal to the streambed 

gradient of 0.06 ft/ft, the mean annual groundwater flow out 

of the mountain-upland zone was approximated as 100 acre-ft 

(table 11), with an estimated uncertainty of 50 percent. 

Evapotranspiration was estimated by subtracting runoff and 

groundwater flow from precipitation, and the estimated uncertainty of evapotranspiration was determined by subtracting the 

minimum estimated runoff and groundwater flow estimates 

derived from the uncertainty for those estimates from the 

maximum precipitation estimate.

About 75 percent of the mean annual precipitation was 

estimated to be lost to evapotranspiration, and 25 percent 

exited the zone as runoff. Evapotranspiration was greater 

than in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins because 

most of the precipitation fell in the area where altitudes were 

below 11,000 ft, where trees are present (mean precipitation 

rate is less than 28 in/yr). The average chloride concentration 

of Snake Creek near the mountain-upland zone was 1.2 mg/L 

based on five samples (table 3). This indicated that the mean 

annual chloride concentration in precipitation (wet and dry 

fall) in the mountain-upland zone was about 0.3 mg/L, which 

was about half of the 0.6 mg/L estimated for precipitation in 

the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins. 

Table 11. Water budgets for the mountain-upland, karst-limestone, and upper-piedmont zones in the Snake Creek drainage basin, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[PRISM is from the 1971–2000 mean precipitation rates obtained from the PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu; table 1 is in this report; 

measurements are a combination of records from gaging stations listed in appendix 4, from periodic discharge measurements listed in appendix 3, and from other available information 

on the flow of small springs; Darcy’s Law are calculations of groundwater flow assuming a cross-sectional area, a lateral hydraulic conductivity, and a hydraulic gradient; calculation 

of evapotranspiration for mountain-upland and upper-piedmont zones is the difference between inflow and all other outflows; equation 1 used to estimate evapotranspiration for karstlimestone zone because inflow from Big Wash was calculated from the difference in inflow less all other outflows. Symbol: —, not determined ; <, less than]

Water budget component

Mountain upland

drainage area 9.3 square miles 

Karst limestone 

drainage area 16.1 square miles

Upper piedmont

drainage area 5.5 square miles

Mean annual Source of estimates

volume 

Estimated 

uncertainty

Mean annual 

volume 

Estimated 

uncertainty

Mean annual 

volume 

Estimated 

uncertainty

Acre-feet

Inflow

Precipitation 12,000 2,400 13,000 2,600 2,600 500 PRISM

Runoff 0 — 3,000 300 2,900 300 Table 1

Spring flow 0 — 0 — 2,200 600 Measurements

Groundwater

Younger alluvial deposits 0 — 100 50 <10 — Darcy’s Law

Older alluvial deposits 0 — 0 — 0 — Darcy’s Law

Consolidated rocks 0 — <10 — 400 200 Darcy’s Law

Big Wash drainage 0 — 1,700 800 0 — Difference between inflow and outflow

Total 12,000 2,400 17,800 3,750 8,100 1,600 Sum

Outflow

Evapotranspiration 8,900 3,000 12,000 4,000 3,300 2,000 Calculation or equation 1 or 2

Runoff 3,000 300 2,900 300 4,400 400 Table 1

Spring flow 0 — 2,200 600 0 — Measurements

Groundwater

Younger alluvial deposits 100 50 <10 — <10 — Darcy’s Law

Older alluvial deposits 0 — 0 — <10 — Darcy’s Law

Consolidated rocks <10 — 400 200 400 200 Darcy’s Law

Big Wash drainage — — 300 200 0 — Calculation

Total 12,000 3,350 17,800 5,300 8,100 2,400 Sum
80 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The mean annual precipitation estimated for the mountainupland zone was slightly more than that estimated for the 

Lehman Creek drainage basin, which was consistent with its 

larger drainage basin area (table 3). The mean annual runoff 

in Snake Creek was 60 percent of that estimated for Lehman 

Creek, however. Less runoff in Snake Creek corresponded to 

less mean annual precipitation in areas with mean precipitation rates greater than 28 in/yr. Groundwater flow from the 

mountain-upland zone could be more than was estimated, but 

this seems unlikely, because granite is not typically permeable 

and would require a large percentage of fractures to accommodate much groundwater flow.

Karst-Limestone Zone

The karst-limestone zone makes up a greater fraction of 

the drainage basin area of Snake Creek compared with those 

of the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins. This zone 

has similar topographic and hydrologic features as those in 

the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, but differs 

geologically, because many large tilted fault blocks of Paleozoic carbonate rocks are present above the southern Snake 

Range detachment fault (fig. 37). Flow through this zone near 

Snake Creek is shown conceptually in figure 38. Some water 

is lost along Snake Creek to limestone where the creek exits 

the mountain-upland zone and where the detachment fault 

has been eroded away. However, most of the flow through 

the karst-limestone zone is streamflow in Snake Creek, with 

relatively shallow circulation of groundwater in faulted blocks 

above the detachment fault or in shallow alluvium associated 

with Snake Creek.

Streamflow

Streamflow in Snake Creek varied along its length. Two 

types of measurements along Snake Creek were presented by 

Elliott and others (2006, p. 38, p. 83–90): (1) multiple discharge measurements from a single day at different locations 

along Snake Creek and (2) continuous records at four gaging 

stations from October 2002 to September 2004. Analyses of 

these data are presented in this report.

The GBNP has operated the gaging station on Snake Creek 

at its boundary (station number 10243232) since October 2004 

(Gretchen Baker, National Park Service, Great Basin National 

Park, Baker, Nev., written commun., 2011). From October 1, 

2002 to September 30, 2009, the mean discharge was 3.9 ft3/s. 

When adjusted to the 41-yr mean of Cleve Creek, the mean 

annual runoff was 2,900 acre-ft (table 1). 

Snake Creek is intermittent at the eastern boundary of 

GBNP. Melting of the winter snowpack increases the daily 

mean discharge from May to July each year. Snake Creek 

ceases to flow between early August and September in most 

years, but not during water-year 2005 (fig. 39). Peak daily 

mean discharge in 2005 was 10 times more than in 2004, and 

the creek remained perennial through water-year 2006, then 

ceased flowing in September 2007.

Figure 39. Runoff rate of Snake Creek at the gaging station at the eastern boundary of Great Basin National Park in relation to the 

winter and annual precipitation rates at the bulk-precipitation station on Mount Washington for water-years 2003–09, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

Daily mean discharge, in cubic feet per second

Water year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 81

The runoff rate is the annual runoff in acre-feet divided 

by the drainage area upstream of the gaging station in acres 

and converted to inches per year. The runoff rate at the gaging 

station at the eastern boundary of GBNP was used to compare 

with winter and annual precipitation rates at the bulk-precipitation station on Mountain Washington (fig. 40). Typically, the 

runoff rate was less than 5 percent of the winter precipitation 

rate recorded at bulk-precipitation station on Mount Washington, except for water years 2005 and 2006 following a large 

accumulation of winter precipitation from November 2004 to 

April 2005. Summer precipitation, indicated by the difference 

between winter and annual precipitation rates, did not appear 

to affect the runoff rate as much as the winter precipitation 

rate, because, during water-year 2009, the annual precipitation rate was almost as much as during 2005, but the runoff 

rate was much less. The runoff rate in 2009 was nearly the 

same as that in 2003, which had a similar winter precipitation rate (fig. 40). The percentage of the runoff rate to winter 

precipitation rate increased to 28 percent during water year 

2005, which was more than five times that of most years, and 

indicated both increased runoff from precipitation as well as 

an increase in the area that contributes water to Snake Creek 

in the drainage basin. This increased percentage of the runoff 

rate to winter precipitation rate continued through 2006, when 

the winter precipitation rate at the bulk-precipitation station 

on Mount Washington was only slightly more than in 2003, 

yet the percentage of the runoff rate to the winter precipitation 

rate, at 16 percent, remained greater than that of most years. 

This indicated that water entered groundwater storage in the 

karst-limestone zone in 2006 and continued to supply water to 

Snake Creek at the eastern boundary of GBNP, as indicated by 

continued daily mean discharge throughout the fall and winter 

of 2006 and 2007 (fig. 39).

Net Streamflow Gain and Loss

The change in daily mean discharge from one gaging station to the next for four gaging stations along Snake Creek that 

were in operation during water-years 2003 and 2004 (Elliott 

and others, 2006) were used to estimate the daily net streamflow gains and losses between the gaging stations (Dotson, 

2010). These gaging stations, which were all in continuous 

operation from January 9, 2003, to September 30, 2004, 

included gaging stations near the end of the mountain-upland 

zone, a gaging station at the eastern boundary of GBNP, a 

gaging station downstream of the confluence with Spring 

Creek, and a gaging station at the Nevada–Utah state line 

(fig. 35). During the 21-month period, the reach through most 

of the karst-limestone zone lost flow on 99 percent of the days 

at an average rate of 1.6 ft3/s (fig. 41). This reach included a 

pipeline that can convey up to 3 ft3/s across an outcrop of Pole 

Canyon Limestone (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 37). When 

upstream flows exceeded 3 ft3/s, some of the flow in the natural channel overlying the limestone was lost.

Figure 40. Daily mean discharge in Snake Creek at a gaging station at the eastern boundary of Great Basin National Park for wateryears 2003–09, White Pine County, Nevada. Precipitation rate, in inches per season or year and runoff rate, in inches per year

Water year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

8

16

24

32

40

48

Winter precipitation

Annual precipitation

Annual runoff
82 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The pipeline was constructed in the early 1960s along a 

2-mi long section where Snake Creek first flowed over the 

Pole Canyon Limestone, then crossed the detachment fault, 

and flowed over an isolated block of Prospect Mountain 

Quartzite above the detachment fault (fig. 36). Measured and 

estimated streamflow losses prior to construction of the pipeline ranged from 2 to 5 ft3

/s along the 2-mi section, beginning 

where Snake Creek crossed onto the Pole Canyon Limestone, 

with most of the streamflow loss in the first mile (Craig Baker, 

Baker Ranches, Inc., Baker, Nev., 2013, written commun.). 

Because the Pole Canyon Limestone dips to the southeast, 

much of the streamflow lost to the Pole Canyon Limestone in 

this section could exit the drainage basin to the south (Elliott 

and others, 2006, p. 37). This water did not resurface in the 

karst-limestone zone of Big Wash, because the North Fork of 

Big Wash is ephemeral, and a perennial reach on the South 

Fork is maintained by a spring at the base of a large block of 

carbonate rocks above the southern Snake Range detachment 

fault.

Although considerable flow can be lost next to the pipeline along Snake Creek when discharges exceed 3 ft3

/s, this 

study focused on the connection between surface water and 

groundwater from about 1 mi upstream of the eastern boundary of GBNP, near where Snake Creek crosses over the Eureka 

Quartzite, to the Nevada–Utah state line (fig. 42). A series 

of discharge measurements were done along this reach on 

July 19, 2009, September 10, 2009, and February 10, 2010, 

to augment discharge measurements on three dates reported 

by Elliot and others (2006). Together, the discharge measurements on all six dates showed persistent losses from Snake 

Creek in the lower part of the karst-limestone zone in GBNP 

and a gaining reach across the Tertiary fault and in the upperpiedmont zone (fig. 43).

Streambed-Seepage Rates

Net streambed-seepage rates were estimated by dividing 

the difference between selected discharge measurements with 

an estimate of the streambed area (table 12). On July 21, 2009, 

the net streambed seepage rate was about −4 ft/d (negative 

values indicate losses through the streambed) for reach 1, from 

upstream of where Snake Creek crosses the Eureka Quartzite 

to start of the fiber-optic cable downstream of piezometer 

PS1. The streamflow loss measured for this reach was similar 

to previous measurements (fig. 43). In reach 2, from the start 

of the fiber-optic cable downstream of piezometer PS1 to 

upstream of piezometer PS2, the net streambed-seepage rates 

on two days in 2009 were 14.8 and 20.5 ft/d (positive values 

indicate gains). The net rates excluded estimated flow from 

north Gruden Spring. In reach 3, from upstream of piezometer PS2 to upstream of piezometer PS4, the net streambedseepage rate was less than the uncertainty in the discharge 

measurement on the same two days in 2009 as for reach 2. 

This indicates that more groundwater entered the creek along 

reach 2 than reach 3, and much of the streamflow gain for the 

Figure 41. Discharge data from four gaging stations on Snake Creek from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, daily mean discharge at each gaging station, and B, change in daily mean discharge between 

gaging stations. Precipitation rate, in inches per season or year and 

runoff rate, in inches per year

Water year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

8

16

24

32

40

48

Winter precipitation

Annual precipitation

Annual runoff
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 83

combined reaches on September 10, 2009, and February 25, 

2010, was along reach 2 (table 12). 

Two piezometers were installed in the lower part of the 

karst-limestone zone (PS1 and PS11). Piezometer PS1 was 

downstream of the gaging station at the GBNP boundary 

in reach 1; Piezometer PS11 was immediately upstream of 

flow from north Gruden Spring (fig. 42). The streambedseepage rate for piezometer PS1 was estimated by using the 

amplitude-ratio of temperatures in the creek compared with 

temperature recorded by the pressure transducer at the bottom 

of the piezometer. Temperatures at this site had consistent 

diurnal temperature fluctuations in mid-July, with lower 

amplitudes below the streambed than in the creek (fig. 44A). 

By September 4, 2009, flow downstream of piezometer PS1, 

measured at the upstream site of reach 2, had decreased to 

0.22 ft3

/s and, then, became intermittent until September 24, 

2009, when flow ceased entirely (figs. 44B, 45A). The streambed-seepage rate ranged from −0.7 to −2.1 ft/d, with a mean 

of –1.1 ft/d (table 13), indicating the creek consistently lost 

flow during that period at the piezometer. The greatest rates of 

loss were during high flow in June and July 2009, and the least 

were during low flows in early September 2009.

Streambed temperatures were different at PS11, in a gaining reach of Snake Creek, from those at PS1. From July 22 

to 27, 2009, the diurnal temperature fluctuations at a depth 

of 0.3 ft in PS11 were much less than those at PS1; in PS11, 

Figure 42. Monitoring locations in Snake Creek drainage basin from 1 mile inside Great Basin National Park to the Nevada–Utah state 

line, White Pine County, Nevada.

6000

7000

7000

8000

487

Hidden Canyon Ranch road

Dirt road to Garrison, Utah

Dirt road to State Highway 487

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Great Basin

National

Park

NEVADA

UTAH

114°10' 114°05'

38°54'

38°56'

0 1 2 Miles

0 1 2 Kilometers

Nevada Department 

of Wildlife’s Spring Creek

fish-rearing station 

Approximate boundary

Nevada Department 

of Wildlife’s Spring Creek

fish-rearing station 

Snake

Creek

Gruden

Springs

Spring

Creek

Spring

PW01

Reach 1

Reach 2

Reach 3

Reach 4

Reach 5

PS12

PS2

PS1

PS3 PS11

PS10

PS8

PS7

PS6

PS5

PS4

PS9 Snake 5 wells

Hydrogeologic zones

Mountain upland

Karst limestone

Upper piedmont

Lower piedmont

Valley lowland

Defined reach along Snake Creek

Reach 1

Reach 2

Reach 3

Reach 4

Reach 5

EXPLANATION

PS11

Great Basin National Park

Normal faults, ball on downthrown side

Approximate

Concealed

Spring

Gaging station—National Park Service

Gaging station—University of Nevada, Reno

Gaging station—Southern Nevada Water Authority

Discharge measurement

Stream water-quality sampling site 

Streambed piezometer and number

Spring Creek fish-rearing station well

Snake 5 deep well

Utah Geological Survey monitoring well

U.S. Air Force MX Missile site bore hole

PW01

Map

area

Baker Great

Basin

National

Park
84 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 43. Discharge measurements in Snake Creek for six dates between September 1992 and February 2010, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Distance downstream, in miles

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

4

8

12

16

20

Pipeline

Karst-limestone zone Upper-piedmont zone Lower-piedmont 

zone

Sept. 3, 1992*

June 10, 2003*

Oct. 7, 2003*

July 21, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

Feb. 10, 2010

Near Eureka Quartzite

Gruden Springs

Park boundary

Confluence with Spring Creek 

Snake 5 wells 

Nevada–Uath state line

Reach 1 Reach 3

Reach 2 Reach 4

Reach 5

*Data from Elliott and others (2006)

Table 12. Net streambed-seepage rates from stream-discharge measurements along selected reaches on Snake Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, July 2009 through February 2010. 

[Reach1 is from discharge measurement upstream of park boundary to start of fiber-optic cable; reach 2 is from start of fiber-optic cable to upstream of piezometer PS2, reach 3 is 

from upstream of piezometer PS2 to upstream of piezometer PS4; reach 4 is from upstream of PS4 to near Snake 5 wells, and reach 5 is from Snake 5 wells to the Nevada–Utah state 

line. Reaches are shown in figure 42. Gain is positive; loss is negative. Discharge and gain or loss rounded to three significant figures; uncertainty and net streambed-seepage rate 

rounded to two significant figures. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year. Symbol: —, net streambed-seepage rate less than uncertainty]

Date

mm/dd/yyyy

Reach 

number

Upstream 

discharge

(cubic feet per 

second)

Downstream 

discharge 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

(cubic feet per 

second)

Gain or loss

Estimated 

uncertainty 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Estimated 

stream length 

(feet) 

Estimated 

average stream 

width (feet)

Net streambedseepage rate 

(feet per day)

07/21/2009 1 5.16 3.25 −1.91 Loss 0.52 6,200 7 −3.8

07/21/2009 2 3.25 1

4.23 0.98 Gain 0.65 820 7 14.8

09/04/2009 2 0.22 1

1.39 1.17 Gain 0.18 820 6 20.5

07/21/2009 3 4.83 5.14 0.31 Neutral 0.64 1,600 7 —

09/04/2009 3 2.04 1.90 −0.14 Neutral 0.32 1,600 7 —

09/10/2009 2+3 0.00 1

1.37 1.37 Gain 0.20 2,420 5 9.8 

02/25/2010 2+3 0.00 1

0.80 0.80 Gain 0.15 2,420 5 5.7 

07/21/2009 4 5.14 2

5.50 0.36 Neutral 1.3 11,300 7 —

09/04/2009 4 1.90 2

0.64 −1.26 Loss 0.46 11,300 6 −1.6

02/25/2010 4 1.45 2

1.90 0.45 Gain 0.39 11,300 6 0.6

07/21/2009 5 7.99 7.50 −0.49 Neutral 1.4 11,000 8 —

02/25/2010 5 2.80 2.28 −0.52 Loss 0.41 11,000 6 −0.7

1

 Estimated flow of north Gruden Spring subtracted from downstream discharge. 

2

 Flow of Spring Creek Spring subtracted from downstream discharge. 
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 85

Figure 44. Creek and streambed temperatures in two piezometers in karst-limestone zone on Snake Creek for selected 2-week 

periods, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, July 14–27, 2009, piezometer PS1; B, September 4–17, 2009, 

piezometer PS1; C, July 22–August 4, 2009, piezometer PS11; D, January 1–14, 2010, piezometer PS11.

D

C

B

A

Piezometer PS11

Piezometer PS11

Piezometer PS1

Piezometer PS1

January 2010

July 2009

September 2009

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

July 2009

6

8

10

12

14

11

12

13

14

10

8

12

16

20

24

8

10

12

14

16

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

6 98 11 14

30

5 12 13

1 2 3 4

7

2322 24 25 26 27 2928 31

1 2 3 4 10

August 2009

0.3 foot below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

3.3 feet below streambed

No flow period

Creek

2.3 feet below streambed

Creek

2.3 feet below streambed

0.3 foot below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed

3.3 feet below streambed
86 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

maximum temperatures at 0.3 ft deep were at least 1 °C less 

than those at PS1 (fig. 44A, C), and the minimum temperatures at the bottom of PS1 were similar to those at the bottom 

of the PS11, which were constant at 11.8 °C. During the first 

half of January 2010, the temperature at the bottom of PS11 

was 11.9 °C, while the temperature at a depth of 0.3 ft showed 

diurnal temperatures that ranged from about 8 °C at night to 

11 °C during the day (fig. 44D). The conduction of heat from 

the creek to the streambed resulted in colder temperatures at 

intermediate depths compared with deeper ones (fig. 44D), 

even though the water level in the piezometer was higher than 

that in the creek (fig. 45B). 

The streambed-seepage rate at piezometer PS11 was estimated by using the daily mean temperatures between depths of 

0.3 ft and 3.3 ft and the daily mean hydraulic gradient between 

the creek and piezometer, as described in appendix 14. The 

daily streambed-seepage rate ranged from 1.9 to 3.1 ft/d, with 

a mean gain of 2.4 ft/d (table 13), which was about an order 

of magnitude less than the net streambed-seepage rate estimated for reach 2a (table 12). Although the streambed-seepage 

rate at PS11 indicated groundwater continuously flowed to 

Snake Creek, the difference between it and the net seepage 

rate determined from a few discharge measurements indicated 

considerable spatial variability in streambed-seepage. The 

difference between these estimates could be caused by more 

groundwater inflow upstream of PS11, where shallow flow 

of water lost upstream returns to the creek, than near PS11, 

where deeper groundwater flow returns to the creek. The 

water temperature measured from July 21 to 24, 2009, at 

north Gruden Spring was 1 °C cooler than that at PS11. North 

Gruden Spring is about 40 ft north of Snake Creek and 90 ft 

upstream of PS11, but its flow enters Snake Creek downstream 

of PS11.

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

Hydraulic conductivity was estimated for lateral and vertical flow. Lateral hydraulic conductivity of the streambed was 

estimated from multiple slug tests at PS1 and PS11 to be about 

60 ft/d and 40 ft/d, respectively (table 13). The 1 ft/d vertical 

hydraulic conductivity at PS1 was determined by dividing the 

streambed-seepage rate by the daily mean hydraulic gradient, 

whereas the 20 ft/d vertical hydraulic conductivity at PS11 

was estimated through numerical modeling as described in 

appendix 14. The lower vertical hydraulic conductivity compared with lateral hydraulic conductivity at PS1 was consistent 

Figure 45. Daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient at 

piezometers in Snake Creek, at the lower end of karst-limestone zone, between May 2009 and February 2010, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada: A, piezometer PS1, and B, piezometer PS11.

B

A

2009 2010

Stage or head, in feet above streambed, or hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Piezometer PS11

-3.0

-1.5

0

1.5

0

1.0

2.0

Piezometer PS1

Creek dry

Piezometer dry

Creek stage

Piezometer head

Hydraulic gradient

Measured hydraulic gradient
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 87

with piezometers, where water from the creek flowed downward through the streambed. The lower vertical hydraulic 

conductivity indicated fine-grained sediments filtered into the 

streambed, thereby reducing porosity and vertical flow. The 

vertical hydraulic conductivity estimated at PS11 was 20 times 

greater than that at PS1, even though the lateral hydraulic 

conductivity at PS1 was similar to that at PS11 (table 13). This 

indicated the streambed was not clogged with fine-grained 

sediments in its gaining reach, which was consistent with 

Rosenberry and Pitlick (2009) reporting greater streambed 

vertical hydraulic conductivities in gaining stream reaches 

compared with losing stream reaches.

Aquifers

Aquifers in the karst-limestone zone consist of thin alluvial 

deposits associated with Snake Creek that overlie complexly 

faulted Paleozoic limestone and dolomite rocks (figs. 36, 37). 

Unlike the karst-limestone zone in the Baker and Lehman 

Creek drainage basins, where the shallowly dipping southern Snake Range detachment fault marks the surface contact 

between older basin-fill deposits and the Pole Canyon Limestone, younger Paleozoic limestone and dolomites overlie the 

detachment fault higher in the southern Snake Range (fig. 37). 

The large faulted blocks on top of the detachment fault in 

much of the karst-limestone zone feature abrupt changes in 

stratigraphy and stratal dip, resulting in the formation of many 

relatively shallow and localized groundwater-flow systems 

(fig. 38). 

The exception to this general pattern of relatively shallow 

compartments of groundwater flow is the outcrop of Pole Canyon Limestone along Snake Creek at the uppermost end of the 

karst-limestone zone (figs. 36, 37). Considerable streamflow 

can be lost across the limestone when streamflow at the end 

of the mountain-upland zone exceeds the carrying capacity 

of the pipeline used to convey water across the limestone and 

detachment fault (Elliott and others, 2006, p. 37). Springs next 

to Prospect Mountain Quartzite in the dry channel of Snake 

Creek, at the end of the pipeline, are too small to account for 

the water lost in the section of the Pole Canyon Limestone 

during snowmelt.

An impediment to groundwater flow through carbonate rocks above the detachment fault and downstream of the 

pipeline is the dense, tightly cemented, Eureka Quartzite 

that outcrops on both sides of the creek in GBNP (Elliott and 

others, 2006, p. 39). The quartzite is depicted in the geologic 

cross section (fig. 37). The quartzite results in shallow groundwater flow upstream of the outcrop through alluvial deposits 

and tilted carbonate rocks on top of the detachment fault. 

Springs are present just upstream of the quartzite, and Snake 

Creek is perennial from the end of the pipeline (because of 

the pipeline) to downstream from where the creek crosses the 

quartzite. Downstream from the quartzite, streamflow is lost 

in carbonate rocks (fig. 38), and Snake Creek is intermittent at 

the GBNP boundary (fig. 39). Water lost from along reach 1 

(fig. 42) is likely to be the first groundwater that returns to the 

surface at the end of the karst-limestone zone, where a Tertiary 

fault has placed westward-dipping older alluvial deposits 

against the limestone (figs. 36–38). The hydraulic properties of 

the carbonate-rock aquifers in this zone are unknown, and the 

lateral hydraulic conductivity of the shallow alluvial deposits 

are probably similar to the estimates determined at piezometers PS1 and PS11 (60 and 40 ft/d, respectively; table 13).

Table 13. Streambed-seepage rates and hydraulic conductivities of the streambed at 10 piezometers driven into Snake Creek, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, May 2009 through February 2010. 

[Piezometer locations are shown in figure 42. Numbers following piezometer name are distances in miles downstream of gaging station at park boundary. Flow from creek to 

streambed is negative (losing stream); flow from streambed to creek is positive (gaining stream). Methods used to estimate vertical hydraulic conductivity discussed in appendix 14; 

land-surface altitude, depth, diameter, and screened interval for each piezometer and method used to estimate lateral hydraulic conductivity are presented in appendix 13. Hydraulic 

conductivity reported to one significant figure. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year. Symbol: >, greater than; <, less than]

Streambed 

piezometer

Dates

mm/dd/yyyy

Streambed-seepage rate 

(feet per day)

Hydraulic gradient 

(foot per foot)

Hydraulic conductivity 

(feet per day)

Mean Range Mean Range Vertical Lateral

Karst-limestone zone

PS1−0.26 05/27/2009 to 09/05/2009 −1.1 −2.0 to −0.7 −1.21 −1.37 to −0.88 1 60 

PS11−0.39 07/22/2009 to 02/24/2010 2.4 1.9 to 3.1 0.15 0.12 to 0.19 20 40

Upper-piedmont zone

PS2−0.5 07/04/2009 to 02/24/2010 −0.3 −0.4 to −0.2 −0.06 −0.10 to −0.03 6 30

PS12−0.71 08/10/2009 to 02/24/2010 −0.007 −0.01 to 0.0 −0.19 −0.27 to −0.06 0.03 0.03

PS4−0.81 06/25/2009 to 02/24/2010 −0.006 −0.01 to 0.0 0.00 −0.01 to 0.01 <1 50

PS3−1.39 05/31/2009 to 09/10/2009 −3.2 −4.1 to −2.4 −0.07 −0.09 to −0.06 40 >100

PS7−1.88 06/25/2009 to 02/24/2010 −0.6 −0.8 to −0.4 −0.10 −0.14 to −0.05 1 1

PS5−2.91 06/25/2009 to 02/24/2010 −1.2 −2.9 to −0.6 −0.91 −0.10 to −0.66 1 20

Lower-piedmont zone

PS10–3.38 07/22/2009 to 09/03/2009 −0.6 −0.8 to −0.6 −0.89 −1.32 to −0.53 0.7 100

PS9–4.93 06/25/2009 to 02/24/2010 −0.8 −1.6 to −0.4 −0.83 −0.97 to −0.39 1 10
88 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Water Budget

Inflow to the karst-limestone zone includes runoff and 

groundwater from the mountain-upland zone and precipitation 

that falls in the zone (table 11). Additional groundwater flow 

from the Big Wash drainage basin could account for the flow 

of Spring Creek Spring. More water flows from this spring 

than can be explained by the water budget for the karst-limestone zone. The estimate of mean annual precipitation in the 

karst-limestone zone included areas with outcrops of lowpermeable rocks (fig. 35), and the mean annual precipitation 

was more than that in the mountain-upland zone because the 

drainage basin area was 1.7 times larger (table 11). 

Mean annual outflow from the karst-limestone zone was 

dominated by evapotranspiration, which was estimated to be 

12,000 acre-ft (table 11). Evapotranspiration was estimated 

by subtracting the mean annual precipitation from the mean 

annual water yield derived from the average of equations 1 

and 2 (mean annual water yield for equation 1 was 640 acreft and for equation 2 was 1,320 acre-ft) and rounded to the 

nearest 1,000 acre-ft. The calculation assumed no change in 

soil-water or groundwater storage. The mean annual runoff out 

of the zone was estimated to be about 2,900 acre-ft (table 11), 

which indicated a net annual loss of 100 acre-ft compared with 

runoff that entered the zone. This differs from the 1,100 acreft/yr measured as a net streamflow loss between the gaging 

stations upstream of the pipeline and at the GBNP boundary 

during water years 2003–04, which were years with average 

to below-average precipitation and runoff. The reason for the 

difference is that considerable flow is added to Snake Creek 

in the karst-limestone zone during above-average precipitation years, such as water year 2005. About 2,200 acre-ft of 

groundwater exited the zone through springs, in addition 

to about 700 acre-ft as groundwater flow through alluvial 

deposits and fractured limestone (includes 300-acre-ft of flow 

through the Pole Canyon Limestone in the area of the pipeline). The estimated total mean annual inflow to groundwater 

in the karst-limestone zone was 2,900 acre-ft and included (1) 

streamflow losses along Snake Creek (1,100 acre-ft—about 

1,000 acre-ft of mean annual water yield generated in the 

zone was assumed to enter Snake Creek upstream from the 

Eureka Quartzite); (2) groundwater flow from the mountainupland zone (100 acre-ft); and (3) groundwater flow from the 

Big Wash drainage basin to the Snake Creek drainage basin 

between south of the park boundary and south of Spring Creek 

Spring (1,700 acre-ft), which was used to balance the water 

budget (table 11). Precipitation on the carbonate-rock outcrop 

in the hills to the south of Spring Creek Spring and to the 

south of Gruden Springs is insufficient to account for the mean 

annual flow of the springs. Estimated mean annual water yield 

in these hills is between 50 and 200 acre-ft when equations 1 

and 2 are used. Thus, the most likely source of groundwater 

flow to these springs is from the Big Wash drainage basin.

Some of the streamflow in Snake Creek was lost in the 

channel next to the pipeline when discharges exceeded 3 ft3

/s, 

and much of the loss was in the section of the creek underlain by Pole Canyon Limestone. Streamflow loss to the Pole 

Canyon Limestone was estimated by first determining when 

daily mean discharge exceeded 3 ft3

/s at the upstream gaging 

station during water years 2003–04. More than 80 percent of 

the time, the daily mean discharge was less than 3 ft3/s, and 

streamflow losses between the two gaging stations averaged 

1.2 ft3/s. This mean streamflow loss was assumed to represent 

losses downstream of the outcrop of Eureka Quartzite along 

the lower reach and was similar to the measured loss from 

discharge measurements (fig. 43). The mean loss from this 

lower reach was subtracted from the total loss for days when 

the daily mean discharge at the upper gaging station (upstream 

of the pipeline and the Pole Canyon Limestone) exceeded 

3 ft3/s. The daily streamflow loss along the pipeline ranged 

from 0 to 27 ft3/s, and the mean was 2 ft3/s. The measured 

loss on June 10, 2003, was 2.6 ft3/s, whereas the estimated 

daily loss for that day was 1.9 ft3/s. The estimated annual 

runoff lost to the Pole Canyon Limestone during water years 

2003–04 was 300 acre-ft. This indicated a mean annual loss of 

about 800 acre-ft downstream of the Eureka Quartzite during 

2003–04. An estimate of the mean annual runoff lost to the 

reach along the pipeline, assuming no pipeline and a mean 

streamflow loss of 2 ft3/s for the entire year, was 1,400 acre-ft. 

Thus, the pipeline could add 1,100 acre-ft of mean annual runoff in the creek at the Eureka Quartzite, of which much is lost 

along the creek downstream of the Eureka Quartzite and then 

returned to springs downstream of the park boundary.

Water lost in the channel crossing the western-most section of Pole Canyon Limestone has little chance to return to 

Snake Creek because of a large intervening section of Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite and the detachment fault. The direction of 

groundwater flow in the Pole Canyon Limestone is unknown, 

but it could recharge a deep regional groundwater flow system 

(fig. 38). Because the limestone dips to the southeast, Elliott 

and others (2006, p. 37) postulated that water exited the Snake 

Creek drainage basin to the south into the North Fork of Big 

Wash drainage basin, where the Pole Canyon Limestone 

outcrops along its channel (fig. 36). The channel of North 

Fork is normally dry, however, and no springs were evident 

where the Pole Canyon Limestone outcrops. The detachment 

fault intersects the channel of Big Wash upstream from the 

confluence of the two forks. Small springs are present along 

Big Wash downstream from the confluence of the two forks 

at the end of the Sevy Dolomite, which is a tilted block above 

the detachment fault (fig. 36). The source of these springs is 

most likely groundwater locally recharged in the tilted blocks 

of carbonate rocks above the detachment fault. Groundwater 

that exited Snake Creek drainage basin to Big Wash drainage 

basin through the Pole Canyon probably continues southeast 

or east beneath the overlying Lincoln Peak Limestone and the 

detachment fault, unless younger faults allow pathways for 

flow to return back to the rocks above the detachment fault 

somewhere.

The mean annual streamflow loss of 800 acre-ft downstream from the Eureka Quartzite was returned to Snake 

Creek at the end of the karst-limestone zone at north Gruden 

Spring and upstream of PS11, where springs along Snake 
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 89

Creek accounted for an annual gain of about 1,000 acre-ft. 

Thus, 200 acre-ft of groundwater in the karst-limestone zone 

could flow back to Snake Creek, in addition to the streamflow lost downstream of the Eureka Quartzite. The remaining 

1,200 acre-ft of spring flow listed in table 11 was from Spring 

Creek Spring.

Some groundwater is likely to exit the karst-limestone 

zone through the shallow alluvium and the underlying karstlimestone zone; otherwise Snake Creek would not gain flow 

downstream of north Gruden Spring, and Snake Creek would 

become a losing stream after crossing over the Tertiary fault. 

The estimated mean annual groundwater flow through the 

shallow alluvium at that end of the karst-limestone zone 

was only 20 acre-ft (listed as minor in table 11), assuming 

a hydraulic conductivity of 50 ft/d, the average of lateral 

hydraulic conductivities from slug tests at piezometers PS1 

and PS11; a thickness of 20 ft; a width of 50 ft; and a hydraulic gradient equal to the streambed slope of 0.05 ft/ft. Similarly, the mean annual groundwater flow through carbonate 

rocks out of the zone was estimated to be 400 acre-ft on the 

basis of the transmissivity estimated from three slug tests at 

the Snake 5 deep well (Prudic, 2012b), a width of flow of 

5,000 ft, and a hydraulic gradient of 0.025 (half the streambed 

slope). 

 Calculations of chloride mass in the karst-limestone zone, 

assuming all chloride in the creek and in groundwater was 

from atmospheric deposition, differed from chloride concentrations in the creek and springs measured in February 2009 

and January 2010. Assuming a mean chloride concentration of 

0.6 mg/L in precipitation, the chloride concentration in the 640 

to 1,300 acre-ft/yr of water yield estimated after evapotranspiration, would be between 11 and 6 mg/L, respectively. Mixing 

this mass of chloride and assuming this water enters the creek 

upstream of the Eureka Quartzite with the estimated chloride 

mass entering from the mountain-upland zone, minus the mean 

annual streamflow loss along the creek where it flows over 

Pole Canyon Limestone (2.4 mg/L times 2,700 acre-ft/yr), 

yielded a mean chloride concentration of between 3.6 (mean 

annual water yield of 1,300 acre-ft) and 4.3 mg/L (mean water 

yield of 640 acre-ft) in Snake Creek at the Eureka Quartzite. 

Chloride concentrations in Snake Creek were 1.1 mg/L at the 

end of the pipeline and 6 mg/L near the Eureka Quartzite in 

February 2009 (Paul and others, 2014; appendix table 16–3). 

During the same time, chloride concentrations at selected 

springs were 20 mg/L at Squirrel Spring Cave midway along 

the pipeline, 10 mg/L at the middle Outlet Spring at the end 

of the pipeline, and 4.8 mg/L at Outhouse Spring upstream of 

the Eureka Quartzite (Paul and others, 2014; appendix table 

16–8). The chloride concentration of 11 mg/L at PS11 in January 2010 was within the range of chloride concentrations from 

springs upstream of the Eureka Quartzite in February 2009 

and was slightly more than the chloride concentrations of 9.3 

and 9.7 mg/L measured in February 2009 and January 2010, 

respectively, at Spring Creek Spring. A second sample was 

collected from Outlet Spring in May 2010, and that sample 

had a chloride concentration of 16 mg/L, or 1.6 times that of 

the sample collected in February 2009.

For groundwater in the karst-limestone zone to have 

chloride concentrations similar to those observed in springs 

and at piezometer PS11, the mean annual water yield for the 

zone would need to be about 700 acre-ft or about the same 

as that estimated from equation 1 assuming that the mean 

chloride concentration in precipitation was 0.6 mg/L and all 

the water yield became groundwater recharge. However, the 

water samples were collected during years of below-average 

snowpack and the samples potentially did not represent the 

mean chloride concentration accurately. Another possibility is that the chloride in precipitation and in runoff from the 

mountain-upland zone were not the only sources of chloride 

in the karst-limestone zone. Chloride concentrations of rocks 

were only available for the different granites, Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Pioche Shale, and Pole Canyon Limestone in 

the southern Snake Range (Lee and Van Loenen, 1971). A rock 

outcrop at the Squirrel Spring Cave had a distinct sulfurous 

odor when freshly exposed with a rock hammer. Chloride and 

sulfate concentrations in springs and caves were generally 

greater in the Snake Creek drainage basin than in springs and 

caves in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins (Paul 

and others, 2014; appendix table 16–8), which could reflect 

dissolution from some the carbonate rocks in the Snake Creek 

drainage basin.

Upper-Piedmont Zone

The upper-piedmont zone makes up a similar fraction of 

the Snake Creek drainage basin as it does in the Baker and 

Lehman Creek drainage basins. The upper-piedmont zone is 

separated from the karst-limestone zone by the Tertiary fault. 

The detachment fault is deeply buried beneath older alluvial deposits and rotated blocks of carbonate rocks (fig. 38). 

Groundwater flow in the upper-piedmont zone is conceptualized as shallow flow through young alluvial deposits associated with Snake Creek and deeper flow through older, consolidated alluvial deposits tilted westward along older faults 

and carbonate rocks (fig. 46). Carbonate rocks are exposed 

north and south of Snake Creek, near the downstream end of 

the upper-piedmont zone (fig. 36), and were encountered in 

two wells drilled in this zone. The Snake 5 wells encountered 

limestone at a depth of 80 ft, after drilling through 40 ft of 

alluvium, followed by 38 ft of clay. A second well drilled on 

private land, west of the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing 

station in 2011, encountered limestone at a depth of 104 ft 

(George Douglass, Jr., Nevada Department of Wildlife, Baker, 

Nev., oral commun, 2011).
90 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Streamflow

Snake Creek primarily gains streamflow in the first 0.5 mi 

downstream from the Tertiary fault (figs. 36, 43). Additional 

water is added to Snake Creek from Spring Creek, after it 

and some water from Snake Creek is circulated through the 

NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station. Gruden and Spring 

Creek Springs contribute much of the gain to Snake Creek in 

the upper-piedmont zone (fig. 43). 

Snake Creek, between the gaging stations at the 

GBNP boundary and downstream of the confluence with 

Spring Creek, had an average gain of 2.7 ft3/s, or about 

2,000 acre-ft/yr, during a 21-month period from January 9, 

2003, to September 30, 2004 (fig. 41). This gain was relatively 

constant, regardless of streamflow at the GBNP boundary. The 

streamflow gain included inflows from Gruden Springs, Spring 

Creek after passing through ponds at the NDOW Spring Creek 

fish-rearing station, and several smaller springs. The mean 

annual runoff at Spring Creek Spring was estimated to be 

1,200 acre-ft (table 1) and indicated that the spring could contribute about half the streamflow gain to Snake Creek between 

the GBNP boundary and the confluence with Spring Creek.

The character of streamflow in Snake Creek changes 

downstream of its confluence with Spring Creek; during the 

21-month period from January 9, 2003, to September 30, 

2004, the average streamflow loss was 0.7 ft3

/s, or about 

500 acre-ft/yr, between gaging stations downstream from the 

confluence with Spring Creek and at the Nevada–Utah state 

line (fig. 41). This included streamflow losses from the lower 

reach in the upper-piedmont zone as well as along the lowerpiedmont zone to the Nevada–Utah state-line (fig. 42).

Streambed-Seepage Rates

Net streambed-seepage rates from discharge measurements 

were divided into two reaches in the upper-piedmont zone—

reaches 3 and 4 (fig. 42; table 12). Reach 3, at the beginning 

of the upper-piedmont zone, was short and extended from 

upstream of piezometer PS2 to the upstream side of a culvert 

beneath a private road crossing the creek near piezometer PS4. 

Reach 4 was long and extended from upstream of the culvert 

near PS4 to near the Snake 5 wells. The net streambed-seepage 

rate for reach 3 on 2 days in July and September 2009 could 

not be estimated because the streamflow gain or loss was 

Figure 46. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the upper-piedmont zone, downstream of Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Diagram not to scale

West East

Karst-limestone zone

Upper-piedmont zone

Lowerpiedmont 

zone

Flow

through

discrete

fractures

Spring Creek

fish-rearing

station well Confluence

with

Spring Creek

Snake 5

wells

EXPLANATION

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Limestone

Cave filled with air

Cave filled with water

Tertiary fault—Arrows show relative

 direction of movement

Quaternary fault—Arrows show relative

 direction of movement

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Spring
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 91

less than the uncertainty in the discharge measurements. The 

net streambed-seepage rate along reach 4 varied from losing 

to gaining after flow of Spring Creek Spring was subtracted 

from the downstream discharge measurement near the Snake 

5 wells. This variation in net streambed-seepage rates could 

be a result of transient storage in the fish-rearing ponds, but, 

overall, the reach was neither gaining or losing. These results 

indicated that, downstream of GBNP, much of the measured 

streamflow gain was in reach 2 (table 12), where Snake Creek 

crosses over the Tertiary fault, and from Spring Creek Spring, 

after flowing through ponds at the NDOW Spring Creek fishrearing station.

A fiber-optic cable was placed in Snake Creek on July 

18, 2009, in the area where Snake Creek gains flow from 

Gruden Springs and shallow groundwater flow to the creek 

at the transition from the karst-limestone zone to the upperpiedmont zone (fig. 47A; appendix 15). Water temperatures 

measured at 3.3-ft intervals (1-m interval) along the cable 

were averaged during the coolest (early morning) and warmest (late afternoon) hours on July 22, 2009, and September 6, 

2009 (figs. 47B, C). During the coolest hour on July 22, 2009, 

temperatures were nearly constant upstream of north Gruden 

Spring, increased slightly where flow from north Gruden 

Spring entered Snake Creek, cooled slightly and remained 

constant for another 500 ft downstream of PS11, before slowly 

warming to the end of the cable. The slight warming could be 

from warmer water entering the creek from the meadow south 

of the creek, or it could be caused by no additional inflow and 

air temperature warmer than that of the water in the creek. 

During the warmest hour of the day on July 22, 2009, stream 

temperatures decreased where the cable entered the creek to 

north Gruden Spring and decreased again where water from 

north Gruden Spring entered the creek downstream of PS11 

(fig. 47B). This colder water mixed rapidly with the warmer 

creek water, and water temperatures increased for about 100 ft 

downstream, then remained nearly constant for another 400 ft 

before temperatures began to increase slowly, most likely 

because the air temperature was much warmer than the water 

in the creek and because warming from solar radiation. These 

results were consistent with discharge measurements on July 

21, 2009, that showed reach 2 had the most net streamflow 

gain, and reach 3 had little to no net gain (table 12).

Averaged water temperatures along the cable for the coolest and warmest hours on September 6, 2009, showed a similar 

pattern to the measurements from July 22, except that the 

creek was dry for the first 100 ft, and a large part of the cable 

upstream of north Gruden Spring was out of the water before 

groundwater flow to the creek provided sufficient stream depth 

to cover the cable (fig. 47C). During the coolest hour of the 

day, the temperature at north Gruden Spring increased from 

11 °C on July 22, 2009, to 11.5 °C on September 6, 2009, 

whereas, during the warmest hour, the average temperature 

was cooler on September 6, 2009, than on July 22, 2009. 

Again, increasing temperatures about 500 ft downstream of 

PS11 were consistent with no net increase in streamflow along 

reach 3 on September 4, 2009. The measured gain between 

where the fiber-optic cable entered the creek to immediately 

upstream of north Gruden Spring was 0.47 ft3

/s on September 

4, 2009, and 0.51 ft3/s on September 10, 2009. Streamflow 

gains of 0.40 and 0.41 ft3/s were measured on July 21, 2009, 

and February 25, 2010, respectively, indicating a nearly 

constant gain at the beginning of reach 2 from July 2009 to 

February 2010 (appendix table 3–4). 

Six piezometers were driven into Snake Creek in the 

upper-piedmont zone (fig. 43). Piezometers PS2 and PS12 

were installed in reach 3, where the fiber-optic cable had 

been placed. Piezometers PS4 and PS3 were installed in the 

upper part of reach 4, downstream of the fiber-optic cable 

and upstream of the pond used to divert Snake Creek to the 

NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station. Piezometers PS7 

and PS5 were installed in the lower part of reach 4, downstream from the confluence with Spring Creek (fig. 42). 

Streambed-seepage rates are summarized in table 13. Streambed-seepage rates for piezometer PS2 and PS5 were estimated 

by using the amplitude-ratio method described in appendix 14, 

whereas rates for the other piezometers (PS3, PS4, PS7, and 

PS12) were estimated by using a numerical model for each 

piezometer that is also described in appendix 14. 

Mean streambed-seepage rates indicated flow from the 

creek into the streambed at all six piezometers; the highest 

mean rate was at PS3, and the lowest was at PS12. During 

September 2–15, 2009, temperatures at the bottom of piezometers PS2, PS12, and PS4 were nearly constant; the temperature at PS2 was almost 13 °C, and temperatures at PS12 and 

PS4 were slightly cooler (fig. 48). The daily diurnal temperature fluctuations in Snake Creek were about 2 °C, except on 

September 14, 2009, when a thunderstorm increased streamflow in the creek and decreased the temperature of the creek. 

These lower temperatures propagated downward at PS2, but 

had little effect on temperatures at the bottom of PS12 and 

PS4. The greatest diurnal temperature fluctuations in the creek 

and in the streambed were measured at PS3. This piezometer 

was driven into loose sand and gravel, where the stream was 

deeper than normal because of the diversion dam downstream 

and had the highest estimated lateral hydraulic conductivity 

(table 13).

The ranges in streambed-seepage rates and hydraulic 

gradients at PS7, downstream from the confluence with Spring 

Creek, were similar to those at PS2, whereas the range in 

streambed-seepage rates and hydraulic gradients at PS5 more 

closely approximated those at PS1 in the karst-limestone 

zone (table 13). Creek water temperatures at PS7 were 

generally warmer than the temperature at the bottom of the 

piezometer from September 2 to 15, 2009, except following 

the thunderstorm on September 14, 2009 (fig. 49A). Diurnal 

temperature fluctuations in the creek were about 1 °C, and 

the water temperature at the bottom of the piezometer was 

nearly constant. In January 2010, creek water was colder and 

continued to show a greater diurnal temperature fluctuation 

than at the bottom of the piezometer. Temperature fluctuations 

at PS5 showed a different pattern compared with the other 

piezometers (fig. 49). Diurnal temperature fluctuations in the 
92 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 47. Distributed-temperature sensing measurements every 3.28 feet (1 meter), Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada: A, location of fiber-optic cable placed in Snake Creek at the Tertiary fault marking the transition from the karst-limestone zone 

to the upper-piedmont zone; B, averaged stream temperatures for the coolest and warmest hour on July 22, 2009; and C, averaged 

stream temperatures for the coolest and warmest hour on September 6, 2009.

A

C

B

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

0 375 750 Feet

0 125 250 Meters

114°07'36" 114°07'12"

38°55'08"

38°55'04"

North

Gruden Spring

Cable in

creek

Cable

on land

Cable

on land

Cable out 

of creek

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

Distance along cable from where cable entered creek, in feet

July 22, 2009

September 6, 2009

11

12

13

14

15

16

10

17

11

12

13

14

15

16

10

17

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800

Loop of cable in North Gruden Spring

Cable not in water

Inflow from North Gruden Spring

Loop of cable in North Gruden Spring

Cable not in water

No

flow

in

creek

Snake Creek

PS12

PS11

PS2

Inflow from North Gruden Spring

Warmest hour

Warmest hour

Coolest hour

Coolest hour

PS2

EXPLANATION

Spring

Discharge-measurement site, 2009–11

Streambed piezometer
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 93

Figure 48. Streambed temperatures in four piezometers in the upper-piedmont zone of Snake Creek for September 2–15, 2009, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, PS2; B, PS12; C, PS4; and D, PS3.

B

C

A

September 2009

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

8

10

12

14

16

10

12

14

16

32 54 76 98 10 11 12 13 14 15

Piezometer PS3

Piezometer PS4

Piezometer PS12

Piezometer PS2

Creek

1.4 feet below streambed

2.7 feet below streambed

Creek

0.5 foot below streambed

2.5 feet below streambed

Creek

2.4 feet below streambed

D

0.3 foot below streambed

0.8 foot below streambed

1.5 feet below streambed
94 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

creek and bottom of piezometer were greater than 2 °C during 

September 2–15, 2009, indicating little attenuation in the fluctuation with increasing depth. The thunderstorm on September 

14, 2009, had a much greater effect at PS5 than that at PS7. 

Perhaps, water from Spring Creek had a stabilizing effect on 

the creek temperature, or considerable overland flow from the 

thunderstorm entered the creek between PS7 and PS5. The 

diurnal temperature fluctuations decreased between September 2009 and February 25, 2010, when the data loggers were 

removed. A decrease in the diurnal temperature fluctuation at 

the bottom of the piezometer relative to the creek was evident 

in early January (fig. 49D). The change in the character of 

the diurnal temperature fluctuations between the creek and 

piezometer indicated a continual decrease in the streambedseepage rate at PS5, from –2.9 to –0.6 ft/d.

The mean vertical hydraulic gradients at all piezometers, 

except PS5, were slightly negative (mean between 0.0 and 

–0.2 ft/ft; table 13). The daily mean hydraulic gradients were 

generally consistent from July 2009 to February 2010 (fig. 50), 

except at piezometer PS12, where 1 ft of scour in early August 

resulted in a change in the stream stage and groundwater level 

relative to the streambed. The stream stage and water level in 

piezometer PS4 were nearly identical and resulted in a daily 

mean vertical hydraulic gradient that ranged from –0.01 to 

Figure 49. Streambed temperatures at two piezometers PS7 and PS5 during two selected 2-week periods in upper-piedmont zone of 

Snake Creek downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, September 2 to 15, 2009, at PS7; B, September 

2 to 15, 2009, at PS5; C, January 1 to 14, 2010, at PS7; and D, January 1 to 14, 2010, at PS5.

B

C

A

32 54 76 98 10 11 12 13 14 15

321 54 76 98 10 11 12 13 14

Piezometer PS5

Piezometer PS7

Piezometer PS5

Piezometer PS7

Creek

2.5 feet below streambed

D

January 2010

September 2009

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

8

9

6

10

12

14

16

18

12

14

16

Creek 1.5 feet below streambed 3 feet below streambed

Creek 1.5 feet below streambed 3 feet below streambed

Creek

2.5 feet below streambed
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 95

Figure 50. Daily mean stream stage and piezometer head above streambed and daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient at 

piezometers in Snake Creek in the upper-piedmont zone between May 2009 and February 2010, downstream from Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada: A, piezometer PS2; B, piezometer PS12; C, piezometer PS4; D, piezometer PS3; E, piezometer PS7; and 

F, piezometer PS5.

B

C

A

D

E

F Piezometer PS5

Piezometer PS7

Piezometer PS3

Piezometer PS4

Piezometer PS12

Piezometer PS2

2009 2010

Stage or head, in feet above streambed, or hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-1

0

1

2

3

-1

0

1

2

3

-1

0

1

2

3

-1

0

1

2

3

-1

0

1

2

3

Streambed scour of 1 foot

Creek stage

Hydraulic gradient

Piezometer head

Measured hydraulic gradient

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
96 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

0.01 ft/ft. The mean vertical hydraulic gradient at PS5 was 

–0.91 ft/ft, which gradually became more negative as the 

water level in the piezometer gradually decreased, while the 

stream stage remained nearly constant (fig. 50F). Both the 

decreasing streambed-seepage rate and the gradually greater 

depth to water in the piezometer indicated that the streambed 

was disturbed when it was installed. Although the streambed 

became partly sealed by fine-sediments next to the piezometer, 

the streambed continued to seal with time. Similar observations were made at piezometers PS6, PS8, PS9, and PS10.

Two stream-bank piezometers were placed along a transect 

south of piezometer PS4 to evaluate the potential for groundwater flow to the creek in an area where the bank was water 

logged during June 2009 (fig. 51). Piezometer PS4_sb1was 

driven into a wet area about 14 ft south of PS4. The south 

bank of Snake Creek was midway between these piezometers. 

The surface materials of the bank were gray silt and fine sand 

that were saturated to land surface. A second piezometer, 

PS4_sb2, was driven 31 ft south of piezometer PS4-sb1 and 

45 ft south of PS4. This piezometer encountered a gravel layer 

at a depth of about 3.9 ft, and the piezometer was driven until 

the midpoint of the piezometer was 4.2 ft below land surface 

(fig. 51). Piezometer PS4_sb2 was flowing at the time it was 

installed. Piezometer PS4_sb1 was in the fine sediments and 

responded slowly to water being removed from the piezometer; its hydraulic conductivity was estimated from a slug test 

in October 2013 at 0.1 ft/d (appendix table 13–22). Piezometer 

PS4_sb2 was pumped, and the resulting recovery indicated 

an estimated hydraulic conductivity of 1 ft/d; a later slug test 

in October 2013 produced an estimate of 2 ft/d (appendix 

table 13–22). Although the water levels in both stream-bank 

piezometers were above the stream stage at PS4, the hydraulic 

conductivity of the near surface deposits south of Snake Creek 

was insufficient to support much groundwater flow to the 

creek. The low permeability of the near surface deposits was 

consistent with discharge measurements that indicated little 

groundwater contribution to Snake Creek downstream of reach 

2, except for the inflow from Spring Creek.

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

Lateral hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug 

tests immediately after the piezometers were installed in the 

streambed ranged from about 0.03 ft/d at PS12 to greater than 

100 ft/d at PS3 (table 13). Slug tests at piezometers PS5, PS6, 

and PS8 near the Snake 5 wells repeated 2 months after installation showed lateral hydraulic conductivities decreased an 

order of magnitude at PS5, whereas the estimates for piezometers PS6 and PS8 decreased less than a factor of 2 (appendix 

table 13–22). Nevertheless, these tests provided additional evidence that driving piezometers into the streambed can cause 

preferential flow along the pipe until that pathway becomes 

sealed by fine-grained sediments. The highest estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity was 40 ft/d at piezometer PS3, just 

upstream of the pond used to divert Snake Creek water to the 

NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station; this was consistent 

with the large diurnal temperature fluctuations at depth and 

a mean hydraulic gradient of –0.07 ft/ft (table 13). Vertical 

hydraulic conductivities were considerably less than the lateral 

hydraulic conductivity, except at PS12, where thermal conduction controlled the movement of heat because the hydraulic 

gradient was near zero. Piezometer PS12 was driven into 

fine-grained sediments at the south edge of Snake Creek near 

a large marshy area, similar to the conditions by piezometer 

PS4_sb1.

Calcite Precipitation as a Mechanism for 

Clogging Streambed

While attempting to move cobbles in the streambed next 

to the Snake 5 wells, it became evident that calcite could 

be cementing the streambed in Snake Creek downstream of 

where springs supply all the flow to the creek during low 

flow. The sand and silt surrounding the cobbles had a strong 

reaction to 5-percent hydrochloric acid solution. This cement 

was thought to be the hard, resistive layer encountered while 

driving piezometers into the streambed at sites downstream 

of the confluence with Spring Creek. Calcite also was deposited on piezometer standpipes during streamflow recession. 

These physical observations, combined with vertical hydraulic 

gradients that became more negative with time and streambedseepage rates that decreased with time, indicated that calcite 

deposition could be an important process in the lower reaches 

of Snake Creek. Subsequently, a geochemical analysis of the 

water in Snake Creek from GBNP to the Nevada–Utah state 

line was done in January 2010 to investigate the primary 

mechanisms that were causing the formation of calcite cement 

in the streambed (Dotson, 2010). 

Six water samples were collected from Snake Creek from 

about 0.5 mi upstream of the GBNP boundary to the Nevada–

Utah state line during January 16–17, 2010, and were analyzed 

for major-ion chemistry and for stable isotopes of water. 

Water samples also were collected from Spring Creek Spring 

(January 16, 2010) piezometer PS11 (January 17, 2010), a 

domestic well used to supply residents at the NDOW Spring 

Creek fish-rearing station (January 16, 2010), and the Snake 5 

deep well (January 18, 2010). Selected dissolved constituents 

and the ratio of 18O to 16O for these samples are compared with 

dissolved-chloride concentrations in figure 52. 

The general water-quality trend in Snake Creek was for 

chloride and other dissolved constituents to increase (except 

calcium) downstream of the first sampling site in GBNP 

(fig. 42; Dotson, 2010, p. 36). At the time of sampling, the 

estimated discharge in Snake Creek at the uppermost site was 

1 ft3/s, and all the flow in the creek was lost before reaching 

the eastern boundary of GBNP. Flow did not begin again until 

about 300 ft upstream of piezometer PS11, where groundwater 

flow to the creek resulted in a measured discharge of about 

0.5 ft3/s just upstream of where north Gruden Spring entered 

the creek. Concentrations of sodium, magnesium, and chloride 

nearly doubled between the first two sampling sites, whereas 

calcium only increased by 15 percent (fig. 52). The other 
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 97

Figure 51. Diagrams showing water levels in near-surface deposits next to Snake Creek on July 3, 2009, and September 7, 2009, 

downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Horizontal distance in feet

Altitude above streambed, in feet

0

-4

 4

 8

0

-4

 4

 8

North South

North South

July 3, 2009

September 7, 2009

Snake Creek

Snake Creek

0 10 20 30 40 50

PS4_sb2

PS4_sb1

Gray silt and fine sand

Screened interval

Cobbly

stream 

deposits

Hydraulic

conductivity

40 feet per day

PS4_sb2

PS4_sb1

PS4

Gray silt and fine sand

Silt, sand, and gravel Cobbly

stream 

deposits

Screened interval

Silt, sand, and gravel

Hydraulic conductivity 1 foot per day

PS4

Water level 

in piezometer

Creek water level 

above streambed

Water level 

in piezometer

Creek water level 

above streambed

Hydraulic conductivity 0.1 foot per day

Vertical exaggeration x 2.5

constituents generally increased about 25 percent, except the 

ratio of 18O to 16O, reported in units of delta 18O permil relative 

to the ratio in sea water (Craig, 1961b; Giofiantini, 1978), 

which did not change. Water was sampled from piezometer 

PS11 (fig. 42) instead of north Gruden Spring because it 

was easier to access. Water in the creek, the spring, and the 

piezometer were assumed to be the same because of their 

proximity to the start of streamflow in Snake Creek.

Water from Spring Creek Spring had less sodium, chloride, 

and fluoride than water in piezometer PS11, but more calcium, 

magnesium, potassium, and sulfate (fig. 52). Concentrations 

of dissolved constituents in Snake Creek between piezometer 

PS11 and the confluence with Spring Creek (sampling site 6) 

showed a slight increase in dissolved chloride and other constituents, but a large decrease in manganese and iron (appendix tables 16–3, 16–4). The delta 18O ratios shown on figure 52 

indicated some possible enrichment (less negative), but all 

samples were within the 2 standard deviation uncertainty of 

±0.2 permil. The delta 18O ratios differed slightly from those 

presented by Dotson (2010) because the analytical results were 

revised following recalibration of the instrument at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) stable-isotope laboratory (Simon 
98 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Paulson, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nev., written 

commun., 2011). The potentially slight enrichment of delta 18O 

ratios and the increase in chloride downstream of the confluence with Spring Creek indicated some evaporation of water 

in the creek, because water levels in piezometers in this reach 

indicated downward flow from the creek to the streambed.

Simple mixing of Spring Creek Spring water with Snake 

Creek water did not fully explain the dissolved concentrations downstream of their confluence (Dotson, 2010, p. 36). 

Although no discharge measurements were done while sampling, about 60 percent of the flow downstream of the confluence was estimated to be from Snake Creek (discharge measurements on February 25, 2010; appendix table 3–5), and 40 

percent was from Spring Creek Spring (daily mean discharge 

between January 17 and 18, 2010; appendix table 4–5). Even 

so, variations in the percentage of flow could not explain the 

higher concentrations downstream from the confluence with 

Spring Creek for sodium, magnesium, fluoride, chloride, and 

sulfate (appendix table 16–3). During January 2010, nearly all 

the flow in Snake Creek was diverted to the fish-rearing ponds, 

where water from Snake Creek and Spring Creek Spring 

mixed before being released back to Snake Creek. Evaporation 

of water in the fish-rearing ponds or increased salts from fish 

food or waste could explain measured concentrations greater 

than can be explained by simple mixing (Dotson, 2010).

Speciation calculations to determine the likelihood of 

calcite precipitation along Snake Creek were done by Dotson 

(2010) using PHREEQC, a geochemical modeling program 

(Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999). Dotson (2010) divided the geochemical modeling into two types of calculations—batch reaction and inverse (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999). Batch-reaction 

calculations were used to determine the importance of mixing 

Spring Creek Spring with Snake Creek, of carbon dioxide 

(CO2

) off-gassing, and of temperature on calcite precipitation 

on and in the streambed. Inverse calculations were used to 

evaluate geochemical reactions that accounted for the change 

in chemical composition of water in Snake Creek.

The saturation indices of calcite (CaCO3

) and the partial 

pressure of carbon dioxide gas (PCO2) were calculated in the 

modeling (Dotson, 2010, p. 42). Calcite has a greater capacity to dissolve in systems exposed to the atmosphere (known 

as open systems) because carbon-dioxide (CO2) gas from the 

atmosphere maintains a nearly constant PCO2 across the air–

water interface (Drever, 1988, p. 68). In contrast, the PCO2 in a 

closed system is not constant because the reactions for calcite 

dissolution consume the aqueous CO2, and it is not replenished 

by the atmosphere. Water in limestone aquifers is generally 

close to equilibrium with calcite, and its PCO2 is almost always 

greater than atmospheric, indicating dissolution of calcite in 

open systems (Drever, 1988, p. 69). Water in Snake Creek is 

open to the atmosphere. In January, however, the creek was 

Figure 52. Selected dissolved constituents and ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 relative to dissolved-chloride concentration in Snake 

Creek, piezometer PS11 and Spring Creek Spring downstream from Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, during 

January 16–17, 2010.

Modified from Dotson, 2010, figure 13

Delta oxygen–18, in permil

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

Dissolved constituent, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-15.4

-15.3

-15.2

-15.1

-15.0

-14.9

-14.8

-14.7

-14.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.5 mile upstream of park boundary Spring Creek Spring Piezometer PS11 Near piezometer PS4 Near piezometer PS3 Near Spring Creek confluence Near piezometer PS5 Nevada–Utah state line

Calcium

Magnesium

Potassium

Sodium

Sulfate

Delta oxygen-18
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 99

fed by springs and groundwater flow to the streambed from 

limestone aquifers that had a PCO2 much greater than atmospheric (table 14). Although the PCO2 values in Snake Creek 

(10−3.23 to 10−3.01) were less than those from the springs and in 

groundwater (10−2.41 to 10−1.78), the values were consistently 

greater than the atmospheric PCO2 of about 10−3.5 (Dotson, 

2010, p. 41). If the majority of water in Snake Creek was not 

from springs flowing from limestone aquifers, the PCO2 in the 

stream would have remained nearly the same as the water 

sampled about 0.5 mi upstream from the eastern boundary of 

GBNP (Dotson, 2010).

The speciation for each water sample was calculated for 

the batch reaction modeling, and a calcite solubility curve for 

the system was created by using a stepwise reaction of water 

chemistry at the uppermost sampling site (0.5 mi upstream of 

the GBNP boundary) that assumed calcite equilibrium with 

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Dotson, 2010, p. 40). Water 

samples collected from Snake Creek downstream of piezometer PS11 to the Nevada–Utah state line were supersaturated 

with respect to calcite (fig. 53). Samples from piezometer 

PS11 in the streambed, Spring Creek Spring, the domestic 

well at the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station, and the 

Snake 5 deep well were undersaturated with respect to calcite 

(Dotson, 2010, p. 40).

Batch-reaction mixing calculations were developed by 

using the water sample collected from Snake Creek just 

upstream from the diversion for the NDOW Spring Creek 

fish-rearing station and from Spring Creek Spring to evaluate 

the importance of mixing on calcite precipitation downstream 

of the confluence with Spring Creek (Dotson, 2010, p. 42). 

The water chemistries of the two sampling sites were mixed 

at ratios that were incrementally increased by 10 percent, 

beginning with all water from Snake Creek upstream of the 

diversion and ending with all water from Spring Creek Spring. 

The mixed solution became saturated with respect to calcite 

when about 60 percent of water from Snake Creek upstream 

of the diversion pond was mixed with about 40 percent of 

Spring Creek. When more than 70 percent of the water was 

from Snake Creek, the mixture became supersaturated. The 

daily mean discharge at Spring Creek Spring was nearly constant between mid-January and the last part of February 2010 

(appendix table 4–5), when discharge was measured on two 

dates in Snake Creek (appendix table 3–5). Assuming nearly 

constant streamflow in Snake Creek and flow through the fishrearing ponds on the two dates, about two-thirds of the streamflow downstream of the confluence with Spring Creek was 

from Snake Creek upstream from the diversion and one-third 

was from Spring Creek Spring. The mixed water downstream 

of the confluence was expected to be near saturation with 

respect to calcite. All samples downstream of the confluence, 

however, were supersaturated with respect to calcite, indicating other processes were affecting the water chemistry at and 

downstream of the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station 

(Dotson, 2010, p. 43).

Batch-reaction calculations also were used to evaluate the 

relation between temperature and calcite precipitation because 

calcite precipitation increases with increasing temperatures 

(Dotson, 2010, p. 44). All the surface-water samples collected 

from Snake Creek were supersaturated with respect to calcite 

between temperatures of 0 and 25 °C (fig. 54). Groundwater 

from Spring Creek Spring and from the deep well at Snake 5 

were undersaturated with respect to calcite at temperatures less 

than 15 °C and were supersaturated at temperatures greater 

than 15 °C, whereas groundwater samples from piezometer 

PS11 and from the domestic well at the NDOW Spring Creek 

fish-rearing station were always undersaturated with respect to 

calcite (fig. 54). Surface-water temperatures ranged from 1.5 

to 9.5 °C and were largely dependent on the time of sampling. 

The temperature of groundwater samples ranged from 10.0 to 

13.4 °C, and Spring Creek Spring was the warmest (Dotson, 

2010, p. 44). These analyses indicated that temperature was 

less important for calcite precipitation than the off-gassing of 

excess carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the water.

Table 14. Saturation indices of calcite and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide for water samples collected January 16–18, 2010, 

from Snake Creek, springs, and wells, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

[Modified from Dotson, 2010, table 2]

Sample location Date sampled in 

January 2010

Time sampled

(Pacific Standard)

Saturation index for 

calcite

Log partial pressure 

of carbon dioxide

Snake Creek about 0.5 mile upstream from Great Basin National 

Park boundary 17 13:45 0.072 -3.16

Piezometer PS11 (groundwater) 17 12:20 −0.295 −2.41

Snake Creek near piezometer PS4 17 11:10 0.583 −3.23

Snake Creek near piezometer PS3 and upstream from diversion 16 13:00 0.573 −3.21

Spring Creek Spring (groundwater) 16 15:15 −0.005 −2.29

Snake Creek downstream of confluence with Spring Creek 17 09:50 0.548 −3.06

Snake Creek near piezometer PS5 and Snake 5 wells 17 15:30 0.491 −3.01

Snake Creek near piezometer PS9 and Nevada–Utah state line 17 08:15 0.641 −3.23

Snake 5 deep well (groundwater) 18 09:30 −0.034 −2.10

Spring Creek fish-rearing station well (groundwater) 16 10:35 −0.386 −1.78
100 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Inverse geochemical calculations were used to evaluate the chemical evolution along Snake Creek, including 

the effects of mixing Spring Creek Spring water with Snake 

Creek water (Dotson, 2010, p. 46). Constraints for the models 

included the elements calcium, carbon, chlorine, fluorine, iron 

(Fe2+ and Fe3+), magnesium, manganese, oxygen, potassium, 

silica, strontium, and sulfur. Mineral phases included calcite, 

chalcedony, dolomite, fluorite, halite, iron sulfide, plagioclase, 

potassium mica, pyrolusite, and strontianite. The mineral 

phases were chosen on the basis of speciation reactions and 

the types of rocks that outcrop in the Snake Creek drainage 

basin (Dotson, 2010, p. 46). Halite was included because a 

source of chloride was needed in the calculations, and evaporite deposits have been found in the older basin-fill deposits 

(Sweetkind and others, 2007). The gradual increase in chloride 

and slightly enriched ratios of delta 18O downstream along 

Snake Creek (fig. 52) indicated evaporation changed water 

chemistry. Evaporation was calculated by using water vapor 

content (Dotson, 2010, p. 46). All the normal mole-balance 

equations in PHREEQC were included, with the exception of 

soil organic carbon (CH2O) and plagioclase. The mole-balance 

equations for these reactions were specified, as follows, from 

Dotson (2010, p. 46):

CH2O + H2O = CO2 + 2H+ + 4e− and (5)

Na0.62Ca0.38Al1.38Si2.62O8) + H2O = 0.62Na+ + 

0.38Ca2+ + 1.38Al3+ + 2.62H4SiO4 (6)

Snake Creek was divided into four segments for the 

inverse geochemical calculations. The first segment was 

from 0.5 mi upstream of the GBNP boundary to piezometer 

PS11. The second segment was from piezometer PS11 to just 

upstream of the diversion for the fish-rearing ponds. The third 

segment was from upstream of the fish-rearing ponds diversion to the confluence with Spring Creek downstream from 

the ponds and included water from upstream of the diversion 

mixed with water from Spring Creek Spring. The last segment 

was downstream from the confluence with Spring Creek to the 

Nevada–Utah state line. The first segment had an uncertainty 

of 3 percent, and 11 results that could explain the changes in 

water chemistry; the second segment had an uncertainty of 5 

percent, and 3 results; the third segment had an uncertainty 

of 3 percent, and 11 results; and the fourth segment had an 

uncertainty of 3 percent, and more than 100 results (Dotson, 

2010, p. 47–50). The most probable model for each reach is 

listed in table 15.

Figure 53. Calcium concentrations relative to the percentage of dissolved carbon dioxide volume in water samples collected along 

Snake Creek, Nevada, during January 16–18, 2010. Dissolved calcium, in millimoles per liter

Dissolved carbon dioxide, in percent of total sample volume

Modified from Dotson, 2010, figure 16

EXPLANATION

Calcite supersaturated Calcite undersaturated

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.5 mile upstream of park boundary

Piezometer PS11

Near piezometer PS4

Near piezometer PS3

Spring Creek Spring

Below confluence with Spring Creek

Near piezometer PS5

Nevada–Utah state line

Spring Creek fish-rearing station well

Snake 5 deep well 

Mixing line between Snake and Spring creeks
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 101

Results from geochemical modeling indicated that evaporation is important along Snake Creek (table 15). Off-gassing 

of carbon dioxide gas was important in segments downstream 

of north Gruden Spring. Dissolution of dolomite and precipitation of calcite and strontianite (dedolomitization) were simulated along the first three segments (table 15), and precipitation of dolomite, calcite, and strontianite was simulated along 

segment 4, downstream of the confluence with Spring Creek. 

Although no physical evidence exists for dedolomitization, 

the presence of dolomite in the drainage basin, as well as an 

increase in magnesium concentrations downstream, supports 

the theoretical model results (Dotson, 2010, p. 47). Calcite 

precipitates were found on cobbles downstream of north 

Gruden Spring (segments 2–4) as well as evidence of dissolution (pits in carbonate cobbles). Chalcedony (amorphous SiO2

) 

precipitation was simulated in all segments, and iron-sulfide 

precipitation was simulated for segments downstream of north 

Gruden Spring (table 15). Consequently, the model results 

supported the observations indicating calcite precipitation 

in the streambed is effectively reducing streambed-seepage 

rates by cementing the streambed and decreasing the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity. Precipitation of all carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, and strontianite) downstream of the 

confluence of Spring Creek is primarily caused by the mixing 

of Spring Creek Spring water and Snake Creek water, either in 

the ponds or in the creek, as well as evaporation and off-gassing of carbon-dioxide gas. Stream-water temperature was not 

important when streamflow in Snake Creek was dominated by 

spring flow along the Tertiary fault. Clogging of the streambed 

with calcite downstream of the confluence with Spring Creek 

was furthered by large negative vertical hydraulic gradients 

causing downward flow of creek water to the streambed. 

These results indicated that groundwater flow from limestone 

to streams in eastern Nevada, where streamflow is dominated 

by groundwater inflow, could result in the clogging of streambeds from calcite precipitates that can reduce pore sizes and 

streamflow loss rates on the alluvial fans.

Aquifers

The main aquifers underlying the upper-piedmont zone are 

the shallow, younger alluvial deposits along Snake Creek and 

open fractures in carbonate rocks that underlie older alluvial 

deposits (fig. 46). The older alluvial deposits (Miocene) are 

generally a consolidated mixture of cobbles, sand, silt, and 

clay that dip west. The contact between the west-dipping, 

older basin-fill deposits and the underlying carbonate rocks is 

uncertain and is depicted as a series of faulted and tilted blocks 

in the idealized cross section along Snake Creek (fig. 46). 

Only nine wells or test borings have been drilled in the 

upper-piedmont zone: seven were at the NDOW Spring Creek 

fish-rearing station, one was a test boring on private land 

immediately west of it, and the last were the Snake 5 wells 

drilled for this study (appendix 1) next to Snake Creek about 

Figure 54. Saturation index for calcium relative to temperature for surface-water and groundwater samples collected along Snake 

Creek, Nevada, during January 16–18, 2010.

EXPLANATION

0.5 mile upstream of park boundary

Near piezometer PS4

Spring Creek Spring

Near piezometer PS5

Deep well at Snake 5

Piezometer PS11

Near piezometer PS3

Below confluence with Spring Creek

Nevada–Utah state line

Spring Creek fish-rearing station well

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Solubility index for calcium

Temperature, in degress Celsius

0

Sample temperature

Modified from Dotson, 2010, figure 17
102 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

0.5 mi upstream of the Quaternary fault (fig. 36). Two wells at 

the fish-rearing station were drilled for domestic supply; one 

was drilled in 1955, and a second test boring that was intended 

to replace the 1955 well was drilled in 1987 to west of the first 

well. The 1987 well was filled with concrete after the boring 

reportedly encountered granite at a depth of 20 ft that continued to a depth of 163 ft (Nevada Division of Water Resources 

Well Drillers’ Log 29074). The other five wells at the fishrearing station were shallow monitoring wells (9–12 ft deep) 

near the ponds and were abandoned in 2002.

The contact between the west-dipping older basin-fill 

deposits and the underlying Paleozoic limestone is irregular 

and is depicted in figure 46 as resulting from a series of faults 

that offset and tilt the limestone blocks and the lower part of 

the older basin-deposits. Limestone was encountered at the 

Snake 5 wells at a depth of 80 ft after drilling through about 

40 ft of alluvial deposits and an underlying 38 ft of clay. The 

test boring drilled on private land west of the fish-rearing 

station and north of the Tertiary fault encountered fractured 

limestone at a depth of 104 ft (George Douglass, Jr., Nevada 

Department of Wildlife, Baker, Nev., oral commun., 2011). 

The description of granite encountered in the test boring at the 

fish-rearing station was unusual; if the rock was described correctly by the driller, it could be a large megablock in the older 

basin-fill deposits or simply cemented cobbles that are primarily granite. The irregular nature of this contact is evident in the 

Big Wash drainage basin south of Snake Creek, where, apparently, one well was completed in the older basin-fill deposits 

and a nearby well was completed in fractured limestone.

Hydraulic Properties of Deposits and Rocks

The hydraulic properties of the younger basin-fill deposits 

in Snake Creek were evaluated from a 5-hr single-well aquifer 

test at the domestic well for the NDOW Spring Creek fishrearing station (Jackson, 2010, p. 77). A description of the test 

and results also are available at http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/

AquiferTests/Snake_Valley_NDOW.cfm?studyname=Snake_

Valley_NDOW. Transmissivity of the younger basin-fill deposits at the well was estimated at 300 ft2

/d and was nearly the 

same as that estimated from specific capacity when the storage 

coefficient was 0.1 (table 16).

The hydraulic properties of Miocene basin-fill deposits are 

unknown in the upper-piedmont zone of Snake Creek drainage basin because no wells have been completed in these 

deposits. A well was drilled in the Big Wash drainage basin 

to the south, however, and the drillers’ log (Nevada Division 

of Water Resources well drillers’ log 49244) indicated mostly 

consolidated (sedimentary) gravel and clay in the screened 

interval of the well. Transmissivities estimated from specificcapacity data for this well ranged from 1 to 2 ft2

/d (table 16). 

The estimated hydraulic conductivity for the older basin-fill 

deposits encountered in the Big Wash drainage basin was 

about 0.01 ft/d, which was similar to the value estimated 

for older basin-fill deposits from an aquifer test along Baker 

Creek (Jackson, 2010). The hydraulic properties of the older 

basin-fill deposits are probably more variable than indicated 

by these results.

The hydraulic properties of fractured limestone were estimated from three slug tests in the Snake 5 deep well (Prudic, 

Table 15. Geochemical modeling results of mineral-phase mass transfer for each of four segments along Snake Creek from water 

samples collected January 16–17, 2010, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

[Modified from Dotson, 2010, tables 3–6. Segment 1 is between samples collected 0.5 mile upstream of park boundary and at piezometer PS11. Segment 2 is between samples 

collected at piezometer PS11 to immediately upstream of diversion to fish-rearing ponds. Segment 3 is between samples collected immediately upstream of diversion to fish-rearing 

ponds and immediately downstream of confluence with Spring Creek and includes mixing of water from Spring Creek and ponds. Segment 4 is between samples collected immediately downstream of confluence with Spring Creek and at the Nevada–Utah state line. Positive values represent mineral dissolution and negative values mineral precipitation. Loss 

of carbon dioxide to off-gassing and loss to evaporation is represented by a negative value. Symbol: —, no mineral phase or process transfer simulated]

Mineral phase or process Chemical formula

Stream segments

1 2 3 4

(moles per liter)

Calcite CaCO3 −2.28E−04 −8.19E−05 −7.79E−05 −3.56E−05

Carbon dioxide gas, dissolved CO2(aq) — −1.76E−04 −1.29E−04 −7.34E−05

Chalcedony SiO2 −7.10E−05 −2.09E−05 −2.67E−05 −2.54E−05

Dolomite CaMg(CO3

)2 1.11E−04 4.82E−05 1.73E−05 −2.60E−05

Evaporation H2

O(g) −1.79E+01 −8.07E+00 −5.41E+00 −4.24E+00

Fluorite CaF2 2.30E−07 −4.14E−07 1.34E−07 —

Halite NaCl 9.05E−05 −1.12E−05 1.08E−05 2.51E−05

Iron sulfide, precipitate FeS — −4.96E−06 −4.73E−06 −6.25E−07

Plagioclase Na0.62Ca0.38Al1.38Si2.62O8 — — — 6.34E−06

Potassium-mica KAl3

Si3O10(OH)2 — — — −2.92E−06

Pyrolusite MnO2 1.15E−07 −1.27E−07 8.86E−09 −2.93E−08

Soil organic matter CH2

O 1.83E−04 −4.22E−05 2.34E−05 −2.92E−05

Strontianite SrCO3 −1.26E−07 −1.39E−07 −1.25E−07 −7.20E−08
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 103

2012b; appendix tables 11–1, 11–2, 11–3). Transmissivity for 

the fractured limestone ranged from 300 to 500 ft2/d and was 

dependent on estimated storage coefficients that ranged from 

5 x 10–6 to 2 x 10–9 (table 16). The range in storage coefficients was estimated on the basis of fracture porosity ranging 

from 1 to 10 percent. Dividing the estimated transmissivity of 

fractured limestone by the screened interval of 20 ft yielded an 

estimated hydraulic conductivity from 15 to 25 ft/d. The well 

drilled in the Big Wash drainage basin south of the NDOW 

Spring Creek fish-rearing station encountered unfractured 

limestone at a depth of 69 ft before intersecting a fracture at 

a depth of 105 ft. The estimated transmissivity from specificcapacity data ranged from 300 to 500 ft2

/d, assuming storage 

coefficients ranging from 1 x10–4 to 5 x10–6 (table 16). Both 

wells had similar transmissivity estimates, and considerable 

thickness of unfractured limestone was encountered prior to 

intersecting a fracture. These limited tests indicated a small 

storage coefficient for the limestone because of infrequent 

open fractures in relatively thick intervals of unfractured or 

calcite-filled fractured limestone. The result was hydraulic 

diffusivity (transmissivity divided by storage coefficient) that 

ranged from 5 x106

 to 2 x1011 ft2/d, which allows for rapid 

propagation of head changes through the fractures.

Geochemical Evidence for Flow through Carbonate Rocks

Dotson (2010) used PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo, 

1999) to do inverse geochemical calculations to evaluate the 

possible sources of water in the Snake 5 deep well, including water from Snake Creek downstream of the confluence 

with Spring Creek and shallow groundwater in the younger 

basin-fill deposits indicated by the water chemistry from the 

domestic well at the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station. 

Constraints for the inverse calculations included the elements 

calcium, carbon, chlorine, fluorine, iron (Fe2+ and Fe3+), magnesium, manganese, oxygen, potassium, silica, strontium, and 

sulfur. Mineral phases included anhydrite, calcite, dolomite, 

fluorite, halite, iron sulfide, kaolinite, plagioclase, potassium 

mica, pyrolusite, rhodochrosite, and strontianite; dissolved 

carbon dioxide was included in the gas phase. The molebalance equations were the same as those used for inverse 

calculations along Snake Creek.

Results indicated that the water chemistry of Snake Creek 

downstream of its confluence with Spring Creek or next to 

the Snake 5 wells could not explain the water chemistry in the 

Snake 5 deep well (Dotson, 2010, p. 51); however, the water 

chemistry of Spring Creek Spring and water from piezometer 

PS11 could explain water chemistry in the well (table 17). 

The uncertainty of these simulations was 2 percent for both 

models (Dotson, 2010, p. 51). A total of 12 results were found 

to explain the chemistry at the Snake 5 deep well by using 

water from Spring Creek Spring, and 1 result was found by 

using water from piezometer PS11. Calcite and dolomite were 

dissolved, carbon dioxide increased, and kaolinite was chemically precipitated in all models (table 17). Many attempts 

were made to include water from shallow groundwater in the 

basin-fill deposits near the domestic well at the NDOW Spring 

Creek fish-rearing station. Inverse geochemical calculations 

could only reproduce the water chemistry in the Snake 5 deep 

well to within 5 percent uncertainty when less than 10 percent 

Table 16. Summary of transmissivity estimates from specific capacities reported in well-drillers’ logs and from two aquifer tests for 

wells in the Snake Creek and Big Wash drainage basins, vicinity of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Nevada well-log number and data obtained from Nevada Division of Water Resources. Utah well-log number and data obtained from Utah State Engineer. Transmissivity rounded to 

one significant figure. Symbol: —, not applicable]

Well name/

Nevada well-log 

number/Utah 

well-log number

Hole 

diameter 

(inches)

Screened 

interval 

(feet below land 

surface)

Geologic unit

Pump rate 

(gallons per 

minute)

Drawdown 

(feet)

Hours well 

pumped

Range in storage 

coefficient

Estimated 

transmissivity 

(feet squared per day)

Upper-piedmont zone—Snake Creek drainage

Fish-rearing 

station well 6 16–32 Sand and gravel 18 10 5 1E−1–2E−5 300–500

Snake 5 deep 7 290–310 Fractured limestone — — — 2E−6–2E−9 300–500

Upper-piedmont zone—Big Wash drainage

49244 10 109–289 Consolidated gravel and clay 3 253 3 5E−2–2E−4 1–2

67897 8 104–109 Fractured limestone 21 10.5 6 1E−4–5E−6 500–600

Lower-piedmont zone

21273 14 80–300 Cobbles and gravel 1,500 100 10 1E−1–2E−4 3,000–4,000

Valley-lowland zone

21277 10 35–95 Cobbles, clay and gravel 26 46 6 2E−1–5E−5 70–100

21287 16 163–270 Cobbles, clay and gravel 1,500 97 24 1E−2–1E−4 3,000–5,000

21313 16 60–250 Gravel, clay and sand 600 100 72 1E−1–2E−4 1,000–2,000

21314 6 126–146 Clay, sand and gravel 32 44 4 1E−1–6E−5 100–200

22541 6 130–160 Sand and gravel 20 <1 2 1E−1–3E−5 4,000–6,000

22542 10 130–160 Sand and gravel 40 <1 2 2E−1–5E−5 7,000–12,000
104 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

of the water was from the domestic well at the NDOW Spring 

Creek fish-rearing station and more than 90 percent was either 

from Spring Creek Spring or piezometer PS11 (Dotson, 2010, 

p. 53; table 17). This indicated that much of the water in the 

Snake 5 deep well was from flow through fractures in limestone that underlie the older basin-fill deposits. Finally, the 

water chemistry at the domestic well at the NDOW Spring 

Creek fish-rearing station could be explained by using water 

from either piezometer PS11 or from Spring Creek Spring, 

indicating the source of water in the shallow alluvial deposits 

was from limestone aquifers upstream of the older normal 

fault (Dotson, 2010, p. 54–56).

Water-Level Trend in Fractured Limestone

The water level in the Snake 5 deep well was monitored 

hourly starting January 18, 2010. The initial pressure transducer could monitor a recordable range in water level of 

about 45 ft (Schlumberger Diver with a reported 10-meter 

range). The transducer was placed 9.4 ft below the water level 

measured on January 18, 2010. The water level remained at a 

depth of about 210 ft until mid-February 2010, when it began 

to rise slowly (fig. 55). The water level rose 26 ft between 

June 3 and June 8, 2010, at an average rate of about 4 ft/d. 

On June 8, the water level rose above depths the transducer 

recorded and did not fall within the pressure transducer range 

until July 2, 2010. No water was detected in the shallow well 

screened in sand and gravel from 30 to 35 ft below land surface during the recorded rise in the fractured limestone in the 

deep well. A 40-ft section of clay residuum and another 210 ft 

of calcite-filled fractured limestone separate the two wells.

Two additional pressure transducers were placed in the 

deep well above the bottom transducer on April 20, 2011, 

to record water-level rises above its range, and a pressure 

transducer with a recordable range of 165 ft was installed on 

June 1, 2011, at a depth of 215 ft along with pressure transducer with a range of about 45 feet at a depth of 65 ft. At the 

same time, a temperature logger was installed at a depth of 

300 feet near the mid-point of the screened interval. A pressure 

transducer also was installed at the bottom of the screened 

interval in the shallow well on June 1, 2010, because 0.3 ft 

of water was measured at the bottom of the well below the 

screened interval. No evidence was found to indicate that 

water on the surface entered through the top of the well casing. 

Snake Creek was bank full on June 1, 2011, and soon after 

overflowed its banks upstream and downstream of the Snake 5 

wells, but no flow was observed at the wells.

The water level in the deep well rose from 198 ft below 

land surface on April 1, 2011, to a maximum of 58 ft below 

land surface on June 25, 2011 (fig. 55). During this period, the 

maximum daily rise was 6 ft, and the average daily rise was 

1.6 ft. A rapid water-level rise also was recorded in the shallow 

well in June. The water level in this well rose to a maximum 

of 21 ft below land surface on June 25, 2011, the same day 

that the water level in the deep well peaked. The peak water 

level in the shallow well was about 15 ft below the streambed 

of nearby Snake Creek. The rapid water-level response of the 

deep well was consistent with a confined aquifer, where flow 

is through discrete fractures in the limestone, which generally 

has a low storage coefficient.

Table 17. Geochemical modeling results of mineral-phase mass transfer for flow paths to the Snake 5 deep well from spring and wellwater samples collected January 16–18, 2010, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

[Modified from Dotson, 2010, tables 7–10. Water chemistry of north Gruden Spring is represented by water from streambed piezometer PS11 driven beneath Snake Creek next to 

spring. Positive values represent mineral dissolution and negative values mineral precipitation. Increase in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is represented by a positive value. 

Abbreviation: NDOW, Nevada Department of Wildlife. Symbol: —, no mineral phase or process transfer simulated]

Mineral phase or process Chemical formula

Mixing 10 percent of NDOW fish-rearing 

station well water with 90 percent

Spring Creek 

Springs 

North Gruden 

Spring

Spring Creek 

Spring 

North Gruden 

Spring

(moles per liter)

Anhydrite CaSO4 — 2.41E−05 −1.24E−05 1.10E−05

Calcite CaCO3 2.07E−04 4.99E−04 2.88E−04 4.99E−04

Carbon dioxide, dissolved CO2(aq) 5.87E−04 1.01E−03 4.07E−04 8.22E−04

Dolomite CaMg(CO3

)2 8.27E−05 1.51E−04 — 8.94E−05

Fluorite CaF2 1.58E−07 −1.58E−07 −1.39E−07 −4.24E−07

Halite NaCl 1.01E−04 5.67E−05 5.09E−05 −1.48E−05

Iron sulfide, precipitate FeS 1.24E−06 −1.12E−05 1.08E−06 −1.01E−05

Kaolinite Al4

Si4O10(OH)8 −9.92E−06 −1.45E−05 — −1.53E−05

Plagioclase Na0.62Ca0.38Al1.38Si2.62O8 2.22E−05 1.16E−05 — 1.14E−05

Potassium-mica KAl3

Si3O10(OH)2 −3.58E−06 4.35E−06 — 4.94E−06

Pyrolusite MnO2 — −6.05E−05 −6.35E−10 −5.59E−05

Rhodochrosite MnCO3 −1.66E−09 6.04E−05 — 5.58E−05

Strontianite SrCO3 — 7.83E−07 — 6.94E−07
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 105

The water level in the Snake 5 deep well followed the 

same trend as the daily mean discharge in Snake Creek at 

the SNWA gaging station, except that the peak daily mean 

discharge in Snake Creek preceded the peak water level in the 

deep well by 8 days (fig. 55; daily mean discharge provided 

by Gavin Kistinger, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las 

Vegas, Nev., written commun., 2011 and 2012). The gaging 

station is about 0.5 mi downstream of the Snake 5 wells and 

just upstream of piezometer PS10 (fig. 42). In contrast, the 

peak daily mean discharge at Spring Creek Spring lagged 

considerably from Snake Creek and in the Snake 5 deep well, 

indicating that the water-level response in the fractured limestone was related to snowmelt in the karst-limestone zone of 

the Snake Creek drainage basin more than to pressure changes 

at Spring Creek Spring. The slow response of Spring Creek 

Spring to snowmelt indicated a longer flow path with greater 

storage than in the fractured limestone at the deep well.

Although the water level in the deep well responded 

quickly to snowmelt during the summer of 2010, temperature 

in the middle of the screened interval remained a constant 

10.9 °C from June 1, 2011, to June 2, 2012, indicating that 

the rapid water-level response was pressure controlled and 

not caused by rapid groundwater flow from spring snowmelt 

through large fractures in the limestone between areas of 

outcrop and the well or from stream leakage in neighboring 

Snake Creek.

The tritium concentration in a water sample collected June 

3, 2010, from the Snake 5 deep well was 22 pCi/L (Phillip 

Gardner, U.S. Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah, written 

commun., 2011). Assuming the mean atmospheric concentration of tritium is between 27 pCi/L (estimated from tritium 

analysis of Lehman Creek; table 5) and 32 pCi/L (Clark and 

Fritz, 1997, p. 182) and has a half-life of 12.3 years, the mean 

age of water in the Snake 5 deep well was 4 to 7 years old 

based on the equation from Clark and Fritz (p. 181). This was 

consistent with geochemical modeling that indicated most of 

the water in the fractured limestone at the deep well traveled 

through limestone beneath the older basin-fill deposits.

An estimate of the mean hydraulic conductivity for the 

fractured limestone between the areas of outcrop and the 

Snake 5 deep well was approximated from the mean age of 

water in the well, assuming water traveled between 3 and 5 mi 

(the distance from the well to lower and upper ends of karstlimestone zone in the Snake Creek drainage basin) from the 

karst-limestone zone beneath Snake Creek, a fractured porosity for the limestone from 1 to 10 percent (Prudic, 2012b), and 

Figure 55. Daily mean depth to water in the Snake 5 wells in relation to daily mean discharge of Snake Creek near the boundary 

between the upper-piedmont and lower-piedmont zones and Spring Creek Spring, January 2010–September 2011, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

250

2010 2011

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 0

10

20

30

40

50

Daily mean discharge, in cubic feet per second

0

50

100

150

200

Depth to water, in feet below land surface 

Dry

Depth to water in Snake 5 shallow well

Depth to water in Snake 5 deep well

Snake Creek daily mean discharge, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Spring Creek Spring daily mean discharge, University of Nevada Reno
106 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

a hydraulic gradient of 0.03 ft/ft (half the streambed slope). 

The mean hydraulic conductivity of the fractured limestone 

equals the mean velocity of the water (travel distance divided 

by time) multiplied by the fractured porosity, divided by the 

hydraulic gradient; therefore, the mean hydraulic conductivity ranged from 2 to 60 ft/d. The range was consistent with an 

estimated hydraulic conductivity of 15–25 ft/d from three slug 

tests at Snake 5 deep well (Prudic, 2012b). Thus, the mean age 

of water in the fractured limestone in the deep well provided 

additional evidence for a hydraulic diffusivity that can produce 

rapid water-level changes in the fractured limestone in the 

upper-piedmont zone. Discrete fractures in the limestone allow 

for relatively rapid transport of water (4–7 years) from the 

karst-limestone zone through the upper-piedmont zone and 

to the lower-piedmont zone, even though groundwater flow 

through the limestone is only a fraction of streamflow that 

exits the upper-piedmont zone (table 11).

Water Budget

Inflow to the upper-piedmont zone consists of precipitation, runoff in Snake Creek from the karst-limestone zone, 

springs along the Tertiary fault, and groundwater flow through 

the younger basin-fill deposits along Snake Creek and through 

fractures in the limestone across the fault. Total mean annual 

inflow was about 8,100 acre-ft/yr (table 11). Mean annual precipitation accounted for about 32 percent of the total inflow, 

runoff in Snake Creek accounted for 36 percent, springs along 

the fault accounted for another 27 percent, and the remaining 5 

percent was groundwater inflow. 

Outflow consisted of evapotranspiration, runoff to the 

lower-piedmont zone, and groundwater flow through fractured limestone. The majority of the outflow from the zone 

was runoff, accounting for 54 percent of the total (table 11). 

Evapotranspiration was assumed to be the difference between 

all estimated inflows and estimates of all other outflows and 

accounted for 41 percent of total outflows. The remaining 5 

percent was groundwater that flows through fractured limestone and subsequently enters a thicker section of younger 

basin-fill deposits on the downthrown side of the Quaternary 

fault. The estimate of groundwater outflow to the lower-piedmont zone through fractured limestone was based on a transmissivity of 300–500 ft2

/d of fractured limestone, an effective 

width of 5,000–3,000 ft, and a hydraulic gradient of 0.03 ft/ft 

(the estimated mean gradient between the Snake 5 deep well 

and the shallowest well at UGS site PW01). The estimated 

groundwater flow from the upper-piedmont was a fraction of 

the mean annual runoff. 

A set of water-quality samples was collected in January 

2010, when all the flow in Snake Creek was from groundwater flow to springs, and none was from snowmelt. A simple 

mixing model was used to estimate the mean chloride concentration of runoff leaving the upper-piedmont zone, assuming 

mean chloride concentrations of 3.4 mg/L in Snake Creek 

water and 12 mg/L in groundwater entering the zone, and 

that about 700 acre-ft/yr of runoff and groundwater flow in 

the zone was lost to evapotranspiration. The estimated mean 

chloride concentration in runoff leaving the zone was about 

8 mg/L and was 5–7 mg/L less than the chloride concentration for Snake Creek water in January 2010 downstream of 

the confluence with Spring Creek. Using the estimate of mean 

chloride concentrations and summing chloride mass for all 

water budget components in the upper-piedmont zone, assuming that the mean chloride concentration of precipitation was 

0.6 mg/L, the estimated groundwater flow leaving the zone 

was 200 acre-ft/yr, about half that estimated for table 11, but 

within the uncertainty of that estimate.

Lower-Piedmont and Valley-Lowland Zones

The lower-piedmont zone is similar in characteristics to 

that of Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins. The zone 

extends from the Quaternary fault downstream of the Snake 

5 wells to east of the Nevada–Utah state line (fig. 35). The 

valley-lowland zone includes only a small part of the Snake 

Creek drainage basin, near Garrison, Utah. Snake Creek is 

diverted for irrigation, along with groundwater pumping in 

basin-fill deposits, on the Utah side of the lower-piedmont 

zone and in the valley-lowland zone. The combined younger 

and older basin-fill deposits were at least 1,600 ft thick at the 

UGS site PW01 (fig. 42). 

Most of the water passing through the lower-piedmont and 

valley-lowland zones is in Snake Creek. Groundwater flow is 

primarily through basin-fill deposits, except near the eastern 

edge, where limestone in the Burbank Hills could allow water 

in the basin-fill deposits to flow into carbonate rocks (fig. 56). 

The Quaternary fault caused the limestone on the upthrown 

side to be placed against coarse-grained sand and gravel in the 

younger basin-fill deposits. As groundwater flows from discrete fractures in the limestone across the fault to the porous 

sand and gravel, the increased transmissivity and greater 

storage capacity in the sand and gravel causes a downward 

deflection of groundwater flow and a drop in the water table 

(fig. 56). Groundwater flow along Snake Creek in the valleylowland zone merges with northward-moving groundwater 

flow beneath Lake Creek. Much of this flow is through fractured limestone rocks that underlie the alluvial deposits at a 

relatively shallow depth or are in contact with alluvial deposits 

to the east along the Burbank Hills.

Little, if any, water from precipitation contributed to 

flow in Snake Creek or recharged groundwater in the lowerpiedmont and valley-lowland zones. Streambed seepage from 

Snake Creek added some water to groundwater beneath the 

creek but was limited by the low vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed. Some groundwater could move downward to the underlying limestone or move laterally in limestone near the base of the Burbank Hills (fig. 56), which could 

be the principal reason for the lower groundwater levels in the 

valley-lowland zone compared with those in the Lehman and 

Baker Creek drainage basin. No water budget was developed 

for the lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones because 

streamflow losses and groundwater pumping were not estimated in Utah.
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 107

Streambed-Seepage Rates

The streambed-seepage rate along reach 5 estimated from 

discharge measured on February 25, 2010, from near the 

Snake 5 wells to the Nevada–Utah state line, was −0.7 ft/d 

(table 12). Although the estimated streamflow loss for the 

reach on July 21, 2009, was the same as the loss on February 

25, 2010, the uncertainty for the discharge measurements precluded an estimate of the streambed-seepage rate. The mean 

streamflow loss between the gaging stations at the confluence 

with Spring Creek and at the Nevada–Utah state line, operated 

from January 9, 2003, to September 30, 2004 (fig. 41), was 

−0.7 ft3/s. Assuming a mean streambed area between the two 

gaging stations of 115,000 ft2, an average streambed-seepage 

rate for the 3.1-mi long reach was −0.5 ft/d. 

The net streambed-seepage rates estimated from streamflow losses were similar to streambed-seepage rates at 

piezometers PS10 and PS9 (table 13) estimated by using the 

temperature-amplitude ratio method described in appendix 14. 

Diurnal temperature fluctuations were greatest in the creek and 

decreased and lagged at the bottom of the piezometers from 

the end of August to mid-September 2009 (fig. 57). Although 

diurnal temperature fluctuations in the creek at PS9 from January 1 to 14, 2010, were about half the range of those during 

September 2009, fluctuations in the piezometer were even 

more attenuated, which resulted in a streambed-seepage rate 

that was half that calculated for September 2009. The gradual 

decrease in streambed-seepage rates at PS9 shown in fig. 57 

indicated that the streambed was disturbed by pounding the 

piezometer into the streambed, which slowly resealed. 

Hydraulic Conductivity of Streambed

The lateral hydraulic conductivity at piezometers PS10 

and PS9 differed by an order of magnitude (table 13). Vertical hydraulic conductivities at PS10 and PS9 were estimated 

by dividing the daily streambed-seepage rate estimated from 

diurnal temperature fluctuations by the daily mean hydraulic 

gradient between the creek and the mid-point of the screened 

interval of the piezometers. The hydraulic gradient through 

Figure 56. Idealized cross section showing flow along Snake Creek in the lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones, White Pine 

County, Nevada and Millard County, Utah.

Diagram not to scale

West East

Lower-piedmont zone

NEVADA

UTAH

Valley-lowland zone

Garrison

Upperpiedmont 

zone

Irrigation well 

and fields

Burbank

Hills

EXPLANATION

Glacial and alluvial deposits

Older undifferentiated deposits

Fractured limestone

Fault—Arrows show relative

 direction of movement

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Streamflow, length proportional to flow

Water table

Subsurface flow path above water table

Groundwater flow path

Groundwater enters drainage from south
108 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

the streambed at PS10 and PS9 was negative, indicating 

downward flow through the streambed (fig. 58). The pressure 

transducer in the creek at PS10 was removed on September 4, 

2009, and, from September 4, 2009, until February 25, 2010, 

the daily mean stage was estimated by using the stage at PS9 

corrected to manual measurements. The hydraulic gradient at 

PS9 rapidly became more negative after the piezometer was 

driven into the streambed in June 2009, then gradually continued becoming more negative. It was −1 ft/ft in January and 

February 2010. This was caused by a greater decrease in the 

water level in the piezometer than in the stream stage (fig. 58). 

The gradual increase in the hydraulic gradient was consistent 

with a gradual sealing of the streambed following the installation of the piezometer causing a corresponding decrease in the 

streambed-seepage rate, as estimated from diurnal temperature 

fluctuations. The hydraulic gradient at PS10 was measured 

through September 4, 2009, and estimated afterwards. The 

increase in the piezometer water levels, starting in September 

2009 and peaking in November 2009, was unexplained, but 

could be caused by a reduction in evapotranspiration losses 

along the creek facilitating an increase in lateral groundwater 

flow in the streambed beneath the creek.

The mean vertical hydraulic conductivity at PS10 was 

0.6 ft/d between July 22, 2009, and September 3, 2009. The 

mean vertical hydraulic conductivity at PS9 was 0.9 ft/d 

between June 25, 2009, and February 24, 2010. The values 

at both piezometers were nearly the same as the mean vertical hydraulic conductivity estimated from streambed-seepage 

rates derived from discharge measurements (see previous 

section) assuming gravity drainage beneath the streambed 

and a vertical hydraulic gradient of −1 ft/ft. Thus, the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of the streambed along Snake Creek 

in the lower-piedmont zone was much less than the lateral 

hydraulic conductivity estimated from slug tests, which further 

Figure 57. Streambed temperatures at piezometers PS10 and PS9 in upper-piedmont zone of Snake Creek, downstream of Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, for selected 2-week periods: A, PS10 from August 21, 2009, to September 3, 2009; B, PS9 from 

September 2 to 15, 2009; and C, PS9 from January 1 to 14, 2010.

B Piezometer PS9

Creek

3.3 feet below streambed

Creek

3.3 feet below streambed

September 2009

2009 September

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

A Piezometer PS10 Creek 2.1 feet below streambed

August

C

Piezometer PS9

January 2010

10

12

14

16

18

12

14

16

18

2

3

4

5

6

32 54 76 98 10 11 12 13 14 15

2221 2423 2625 2827 29 30 31 1 2 3

321 54 76 98 10 11 12 13 14
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 109

indicated clogging of the streambed from infiltration of fine 

sediments and chemical precipitation of calcite in the streambed (Dotson, 2010).

Aquifers

No information about groundwater is available in the 

lower-piedmont zone of Nevada. One test boring was 

drilled to a depth of 200 ft, as part of the U.S. Air Force’s 

MX missile-siting investigation in the early 1980s, near the 

drainage divide between Snake Creek and Big Wash midway 

between the Quaternary fault and the Nevada–Utah state line 

(Tumbusch and Schaefer, 1996; fig. 42). The test boring did 

not encounter groundwater, so no well was installed. 

 The UGS installed three nested wells in a hole drilled just 

east of the Nevada–Utah State line and about 0.75 mi north of 

Snake Creek (site PW01, fig. 42; well location and data were 

obtained from UGS, http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/map.php?proj_id=1, accessed July 20, 2012). The three 

nested wells range in depth from 250 to 1,617 ft, and each has 

a 20-ft long screen. The near-surface deposits are mostly sand 

and gravel, as indicated from the lithologic log at PW01 The 

deposits become finer-grained with increasing depth and grade 

to mixtures of sand, silt, and clay.

Mean annual seepage from the streambed to the basin-fill 

between the Quaternary fault and the Nevada–Utah state line 

was estimated to be about 400 acre-ft from the difference in 

estimated mean annual discharge at the SNWA gaging station near the Quaternary fault and the gaging station at the 

Nevada–Utah state line (table 1). Much of this loss recharged 

the underlying groundwater because the estimated mean 

annual evapotranspiration is only about 20 acre-ft. Evapotranspiration was estimated for the 1.6-mi reach by assuming 

an annual water loss of 6 ft (72 in.) and a 10-ft swath of riparian vegetation on both banks of the creek, for a total width of 

20 ft. Combining the estimate of groundwater flow from the 

upper-piedmont zone (table 11) and recharge from seepage 

through the streambed of Snake Creek produced an estimated 

mean annual groundwater flow from Nevada to Utah of about 

800 acre-ft, or about 1 ft3

/s. Therefore, the total annual water 

yield in the Snake Creek drainage basin across the Nevada–

Utah state line was about 4,800 acre-ft, of which more than 80 

percent was streamflow.

Water-Level Trends in Basin-Fill Deposits

Water-levels in the nested wells at site PW01, about 

0.75 mi north of Snake Creek, showed similar trends, and the 

depth to water below land surface in a well 250 ft deep and in 

another 995 ft deep were nearly the same (fig. 59A). The water 

level in the deepest well (depth of 1,617 ft) was lower than the 

shallower wells, and measurements indicated slow recovery 

after pumping the well. Although no tests of transmissivity 

for the three nested wells at PW01 have been published, the 

deepest well had a low transmissivity on the basis of this slow 

recovery. In part, the slow recovery could result from inadequate purging of drilling mud following completion of the 

well (Hurlow, 2014), but the sediments next to the well screen 

Figure 58. Daily mean stream stage, piezometer head above streambed, and daily mean and measured hydraulic gradient at 

piezometers in Snake Creek in the lower-piedmont zone, downstream of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

between May 2009 and February 2010: A, piezometer PS10; and B, piezometer PS9.

B

A

2009 2010

Stage or head, in feet above streambed, 

or hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Piezometer PS9

Piezometer PS10

Creek stage

Hydraulic gradient

Piezometer head

Measured hydraulic gradient
110 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

had a large fraction of clay as well. The rapid rise in water 

levels from mid-June to mid-July (fig. 59A) corresponded 

to a rapid rise in water levels in the fractured limestone in 

the Snake 5 deep well (fig. 55). Similar trends in peak water 

levels indicated that groundwater was able to move from the 

fractured limestone across the Quaternary fault to the basin-fill 

deposits relatively quickly. The lesser water-level rise in the 

basin-fill deposits reflected the greater storage capacity of the 

basin-fill deposits.

Water levels rose gradually in all three nested wells at site 

AG13 from November 2009 to April 2010 (fig. 59B), but the 

water-level rises in the two deeper wells were greater (Data 

for wells at site AG13 were accessed from UGS, http://apps.

geology.utah.gov/groundwater/map.php?proj_id=1). accessed 

July 20, 2012 The reason for this is the deeper wells were 

confined. The shallow well was screened at the water table; 

the screened interval was 65 to 85 ft below land surface, and 

the water level rose from about 70 ft below land surface in 

November 2009 to 65 ft in April 2010. Sharp water-level 

rises were measured from the end of May to mid-June, during 

mid-July, and again in mid-August 2011. These rises took 

place during a period of generally declining water levels and 

indicated that nearby groundwater pumping ceased, perhaps, 

for cutting of alfalfa (Gretchen Baker, Great Basin National 

Park, Baker, Nev., written commun., 2013).

The greater-than-normal depth to water in wells in the 

valley-lowland zone indicated (1) little infiltration of water 

from Snake and Lake Creeks and from irrigated fields, (2) 

groundwater pumping for irrigation lowered groundwater levels, (3) downward or lateral water movement from the basinfill deposits to fractured limestone that crops out in the nearby 

Burbank Hills, or (4) a combination of these possibilities. 

Water-level altitudes in wells from fractured limestone 

in the lower end of the upper-piedmont zone (Snake 5 deep 

Figure 59. Daily mean depth to water in Utah Geological Survey monitoring wells in lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones of Snake 

Creek drainage basin near Garrison, Millard County, Utah, 2009–11: A, PW01; and B, AG13.

B

A

2009 2010 2011

Depth to water, in feet below land surface 

80

100

120

140

40

60

80

100 O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S

PW01

AG13

Well pumped

Well pumped?

Well A, total depth 85 feet

Well B, total depth 158 feet

Well C, total depth 305 feet

Well A, total depth of well 250 feet

Well B, total depth of well 995 feet

Well C, total depth of well 1,617 feet

Land-surface altitude is 5,312.7 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Land-surface altitude at well A is 5,263.8 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Land-surface altitude at wells B and C is 5,262.1 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Data from Utah Geological Survey, 2012, 

http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/site.php?site_id=1

Data from Utah Geological Survey, 2012, 

http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/site.php?site_id=13
Snake Creek Drainage Basin 111

well) through the basin-fill deposits in the lower-piedmont and 

valley-floor zones indicated that groundwater flow beneath 

Snake Creek is parallel to the slope of the creek (fig. 60A). The 

daily mean hydraulic gradient was calculated between wells 

at four monitored sites from October 1, 2009, to September 

30, 2011 (fig. 60A). The mean hydraulic gradient between 

the Snake 5 deep well and the shallow well at PW01 was 

0.03 ft/ft. The maximum hydraulic gradient was estimated during the peak water level at the Snake 5 deep well, which was 

on June 26, 2011. The peak water level in the shallow well at 

PW01 lagged 17 days and was reached on July 13, 2011. The 

mean hydraulic gradient between the Snake 5 deep well and 

the shallowest well at PW01 was more than those between 

shallow wells at PW01 and AG13 and AG13 and PW03, 

where the mean hydraulic gradient was 0.007 and 0.008 ft/ft, 

respectively. Water-level data for wells PW01, AG13, and 

PW03 were obtained from the UGS, http://apps.geology.utah.

gov/groundwater/map.php?proj_id=1; accessed July 20, 2012. 

Hydraulic Properties of Deposits and Rocks

Data about the hydraulic properties of the basin-fill 

deposits in the lower-piedmont and valley-lowland zones were 

limited to wells drilled in Utah (table 16). Only one well in 

the lower-piedmont zone had a specific capacity estimate. In 

2007, the UGS drilled a well into fractured limestone near the 

base of the Burbank Hills encountered considerable water, but 

no specific-capacity estimate was available (Utah Geological 

Survey, http://files.geology.utah.gov/esp/snake_valley_project/

logs/lithologic/UGS-PW03AB-lithlog.pdf, accessed July 20, 

2012). All other well-drillers’ logs that had specific-capacity 

estimates were in the valley-lowland zone. The estimated 

Figure 60. Well data from fractured limestone in upper-piedmont zone through basin-fill deposits in lower-piedmont and valley-lowland 

zones in the Snake Creek drainage to fractured limestone in the Burbank Hills, White Pine County, Nevada and Millard County, Utah, 

October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2011: A, water-level altitude; and B, hydraulic gradient.

B

A

2009 2010 2011

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S

Hydraulic gradient, in foot per foot 

5,700

5,500

5,100

5,300

0.01

0

0.02

0.03

0.04

Snake 5 deep well 

Shallow well at PW01

Shallow well at AG13

Shallow well at PW03

Snake 5 deep well to shallow well at PW01

Shallow well at PW01 to shallow well at AG13

Shallow well at AG13 to shallow well at PW03

Water-level altitude, in feet above

North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Data for shallow wells at PW01, AG13, and PW03 from Utah Geological Survey, 2012, 

http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/site.php?site_id=1 , 13 and 3

Data for shallow wells at PW01, AG13, and PW03 from Utah Geological Survey, 2012, 

http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/site.php?site_id=1 , 13 and 3
112 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

transmissivity for the well in the lower-piedmont zone ranged 

from 3,000 to 4,000 ft2/d, assuming the storage coefficient 

ranged from 0.01 to 0.0002. The transmissivities for six 

wells in the valley-lowland zone for which specific capacities were estimated ranged from 70 to 12,000 ft2

/d. No aquifer 

tests were available to evaluate the effect of well loss on the 

transmissivity estimates. Consequently, transmissivity could 

be greater than reported in table 16. An order of magnitude 

increase in transmissivity from the fractured limestone in the 

upper-piedmont zone to the basin-fill deposits in the lowerpiedmont and valley-lowland zones was supported by a similar 

decrease in the hydraulic gradient, indicating that much of the 

change in the hydraulic gradient between zones was the result 

of an increase in transmissivity in the basin-fill deposits on the 

downthrown side of the Quaternary fault.

Summary

The drainage basin was divided into five zones to help 

understand the nature of the groundwater connection between 

the mountain and valley in the Snake Creek drainage basin and 

its relation to surface water: mountain upland, karst limestone, 

upper piedmont, lower piedmont, and valley lowland. The primary hydrologic connection between the wet mountain-upland 

zone and the dry valley-lowland zone is runoff from Snake 

Creek, which composed nearly 80 percent of the mean annual 

water yield (runoff and groundwater flow) across the Nevada–

Utah state line from the Snake Creek drainage basin. 

 In the mountain-upland zone, granite and quartzite are 

covered by thin soil or by thin glacial and alluvial deposits, 

which limit groundwater flow. The only inflow to the mountain-upland zone is precipitation, and outflows are evapotranspiration and runoff to the karst-limestone zone. 

Groundwater flow increased in the karst-limestone zone, 

primarily, because of increased permeability of the karst and 

fractured limestone. The increased permeability resulted in a 

net mean annual streamflow loss of about 100 acre-ft, even 

though more precipitation fell in this zone than in the mountain-upland zone. Groundwater flow in the karst-limestone 

zone was through tilted and faulted blocks of Paleozoic rock 

that overlie the southern Snake Range detachment fault. The 

juxtaposition of varying stratigraphic units in these faulted 

blocks resulted in alternating losing and gaining reaches along 

Snake Creek. The estimated outflow from the karst-limestone 

was not in balance with the inflow, indicating that much of the 

flow at Spring Creek Spring on the south end of the drainage basin was groundwater flow from the Big Wash drainage 

basin.

In the upper-piedmont zone, a shallow unconfined aquifer 

in the younger basin-fill deposits associated with Snake Creek 

was separated from a confined aquifer in the fractured limestone by less permeable older basin-fill deposits. The water 

table in the younger deposits was higher than or near the stage 

in Snake Creek for a distance of at least 500 ft downstream of 

the Tertiary fault because of streamflow gains. The water level 

in the shallow alluvial deposits remained near the stream stage 

until downstream from the confluence with Spring Creek, 

where water levels in piezometers were lower, and the vertical 

hydraulic gradient of the streambed was about −1 ft/ft. These 

negative gradients did not result in greater streambed-seepage 

rates. The mean streambed-seepage rate was between −0.5 and 

−0.7 ft/d (ft3

/d/ft2).

Results from a geochemical investigation of water in Snake 

Creek and of the streambed sediments indicated the streambed was cemented by calcite precipitated after off-gassing of 

excess carbon dioxide gas downstream of springs at the Tertiary fault (Dotson, 2010). This takes place from late summer 

to winter, when all the streamflow in Snake Creek comes from 

groundwater flow to springs along the fault.

Comparison of water chemistry from samples at the Snake 

5 deep well with that of other water samples in the drainage 

basin indicated that most of the water in the deep well was 

from flow through fractured limestone beneath younger and 

older basin-fill deposits (Dodson, 2010). The chemistry of 

water from Snake Creek downstream of its confluence with 

Spring Creek and from a domestic well in younger basin-fill 

at the NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station collected in 

January 2010 differed sufficiently from the water chemistry 

at the Snake 5 deep well that they were not its likely sources, 

nor were mixtures of water from these sites with water from 

Spring Creek Spring or from groundwater where it enters 

Snake Creek near the Tertiary fault. The tritium concentration 

in water from the Snake 5 deep well indicated a mean age of 4 

to 7 years and relatively rapid transport through open fractures 

in limestone in the upper-piedmont zone, even though this 

flow was a fraction of the streamflow in Snake Creek.

The lower-piedmont zone is separated from the upperpiedmont zone by a Quaternary fault associated with a rapid 

thickening of the younger basin-fill deposits. The fault resulted 

in fractured limestone lying next to younger basin-fill deposits. 

The greater transmissivity and higher storage capacity of the 

basin-fill deposits relative to the limestone resulted in a lowering of the water table across the fault. An order of magnitude 

increase in transmissivity in the younger basin-fill deposits 

compared to the limestone was supported by a corresponding 

decrease in the lateral hydraulic gradient in the younger basinfill deposits. 

Depth to water in the valley-lowland zone was more than 

50 ft below land surface, which precluded much groundwater 

loss to evapotranspiration. Fractured limestone underlies the 

basin-fill deposits in the valley-lowland zone, but is next to the 

basin-fill deposits along the Burbank Hills to the east. Water 

levels in monitoring wells in the fractured limestone next to 

the Burbank Hills were lower than water levels in basin-fill 

deposits beneath the valley-lowland zone, indicating groundwater flows across the valley-lowland zone to the fractured 

limestone in the Burbank Hills east of Garrison, Utah. Thus, 

groundwater flows from the karst-limestone zone in the Snake 

Range to the valley-lowland and to the fractured limestone in 

the Burbank Hills, where it merges with northward-flowing 

groundwater. Groundwater flow from the karst-limestone 
Big Springs 113

zone in GBNP to the valley-lowland zone in Utah is limited 

by the relatively low transmissivity of the fractured limestone 

beneath the upper-piedmont zone. The low transmissivity 

reflects the small percentage of open fractures and the concomitant small confined storage coefficients (on the order of 

10–6–10–9). These small confined storage coefficients result 

in large aquifer diffusivity, however, which allows for rapid 

head changes to propagate quickly in the fractured limestone 

beneath the upper-piedmont zone.

Big Springs

Physical Characteristics

The southern study area focused on Big Springs at the 

south end of Snake Valley and included potential source areas 

to the springs from the south end of the Snake Range and 

from southern Spring Valley as groundwater flow beneath 

the Limestone Hills to the south and across northern Hamlin 

Valley (fig. 61). Northern Hamlin Valley merges with southern 

Snake Valley.

All mountain drainage basins along the southern Snake 

Range south of Lexington Creek are ephemeral. The largest 

of these ephemeral drainage basins is Big Spring Wash, which 

drains to northern Hamlin Valley before turning northeast and 

joining northward-trending Hamlin Valley Wash near southern 

Snake Valley (fig. 61). Hamlin Valley Wash is a long, northnortheast trending ephemeral channel that drains northward 

along the topographic axis of Hamlin Valley. Big Spring Wash 

forms a large alluvial fan where the toe extends from Big 

Springs southeast at least 3 mi to the middle of northern Hamlin Valley. Big Spring Wash is deeply incised in the upper part 

of the fan, indicating it had major periods of flow in the past. 

During 2002–04, a gaging station was operated on Decathon 

Canyon, a tributary to Big Spring Wash (fig. 61), where flow 

was recorded only on 2 days during that period; the daily 

mean discharge for those days was 0.1 ft3

/s (Elliott and others, 

2006, p. 15).

The group of springs known as Big Springs was called 

“Big Spring” from the late 1800s to the 1960s (Wheeler and 

Lockwood, 1875; Meinzer, 1911; Hood and Rush, 1965). 

Big Springs has the most flow of all springs on the east side 

of the southern Snake Range (fig. 61). Two groups of spring 

orifices and smaller seeps form two main channels that are 

the headwaters of Big Springs Creek. The springs have been 

interpreted to be controlled by a series of north-northeast 

striking faults that have Quaternary displacement (Kistinger 

and others, 2009; Rowley and others, 2009). These faults form 

a prominent break in slope between the fans and lowlands in 

southwestern Snake Valley (Kistinger and others, 2009). The 

springs are near the convergence of the foot of a large alluvial fan formed by Big Spring Wash with steep alluvial fans 

formed by lesser drainage basins along the southeast front of 

the Snake Range. 

Several springs are present near the toe of the alluvial 

fans in an area that extends north from Big Springs along the 

west side of Big Springs Creek to the Nevada–Utah state line 

(fig. 61). Additional springs also are present southeast of Big 

Springs at the foot of the alluvial fan formed by Big Spring 

Wash. Big Springs is about 5,570 ft above mean sea level. The 

springs north of Big Springs are nearly at this same altitude, 

whereas the springs to the southeast are 5 to 10 ft lower. The 

springs roughly define the western and southern edge of an 

area of phreatophytes and meadows that are supported by 

springs and shallow groundwater. 

Flow at Big Springs and from smaller nearby springs produces perennial flow down the water course that is called Big 

Springs Creek in Nevada and Lake Creek in Utah (fig. 61). 

Another group of springs near the Nevada–Utah state line, 

called Dearden Springs (Bunch and Harrill, 1984), and more 

recently called Stateline Springs (Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, 2012), are on both sides of the creek as well as in 

the creek channel. Discharge downstream of the springs was 

reported at 18 ft3

/s in the early 1900s (Meinzer, 1911, p. 129) 

and ranged from 15 to 19 ft3/s between June and November 

1972 (Walker, 1972). The mean discharge in the two main 

ditches (East and West middle) averaged 15.7 ft3/s between 

October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011 (table 1). Flow in 

Lake Creek continues northeastward to Pruess Lake, where, 

at high water levels, water is held behind a small dam and 

released during spring and summer for irrigation of fields at 

Garrison, Utah. Both Big Springs Creek in Nevada and Lake 

Creek in Utah, upstream of Pruess Lake, are diverted and used 

for irrigation of natural pasture, which affects streamflow 

along the creeks.

Spring Flow

Much of the flow of Big Springs Creek in its upper reaches 

originates at two main spring orifices about 50 ft apart. 

Discharge from each of the orifices has been recorded since 

2005 at USGS gaging stations named Big Springs Creek south 

channel and Big Springs Creek north channel (USGS site 

numbers 10243224 and 102432241, respectively). The gaging 

station in the south channel has been continuously recording 

discharge since May 2005, and its overall record is considered 

to be fair to good. The gaging station in the north channel has 

been continuously recording discharge since October 2005, 

and its overall record is considered to be poor to fair. The reason for the poor quality of record at the north channel gaging 

station is that aquatic vegetation frequently chokes the stream 

channel and interferes with the control. The two channels join 

to form the headwaters of Big Springs Creek about 50 ft east 

of the two gaging stations.

 Daily mean discharges in the south channel ranged from 

a maximum of 7.2 ft3/s on December 6, 2006, to a minimum 

5.1 ft3/s during June 29–July 2, 2009 (fig. 62). The mean discharge from May 1, 2005, to September 30, 2011, was 6.1 ft3

/s 

(table 1). Daily mean discharge in the north channel ranged 

from a maximum of 5.9 ft3

/s on May 22, 2007, to a minimum 
114 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 61. Location of Big Springs in southern Snake Valley, Big Spring Wash at the south end of the Snake Range in northern 

Hamlin Valley, Limestone Hills that divide southern Spring Valley from northern Hamlin Valley, and water level contours that depict a 

groundwater divide in southern Spring Valley, south of Baking Powder Flat, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

LincolnBeaver

Wash

Hamlin

Valley

Creek

Lake

Wash Big

Creek

LexingtonLexington

Wash

Murphy

Wash

Johns

Big

Spring

Wash

Pruess

Lake

Big

Springs

0 2 4 8 Miles

0 2 8 Kilometers

6

4 6

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baking

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Southern

Snake

Range

The 

Troughs

114°30' 114°00'

38°50'

38°25'

Creek

Springs

Big

Great

Basin

National

Park Decathon Canyon

5750

5850

5790

5790

5750

5250

5300

5350

5400

5450

5500

5550

5600

5650

5700

South Little 

Spring

North Little Spring

Needle 

Point 

Spring

MX wells

Southern Spring 

MX wells

BS-NW

BS-SW

184W101

Hamlin 

MX wells

184W508M

EXPLANATION

BS-SW

184W101 5700

Monitoring wells

U.S. Air Force MX missile siting investigation

Aquifer-test well

Monitoring well

Southern Nevada Water Authority

U.S. Geological Survey

Utah Geological Survey 

Other

Center pivot groundwater irrigation

Great Basin National Park

Drainage boundary

Water-level contour—Shows altitude 

at which water level would have 

stood in tightly cased wells, in feet 

above North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988. Contour interval variable. 

Dashed where inferred. Modified from 

Gardner and others, 2011 

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Spring

U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations

Water years

2006–11

2002–04 

Utah Geological Survey gaging station 

2009–11

Discharge measurement
Big Springs 115

of 2.8 ft3/s on several days in October 2005 and March 2006 

and on March 8, 2007. The mean discharge from October 1, 

2005, to September 30, 2011, was 3.8 ft3/s (table 1). The combined mean discharge of both channels was 9.9 ft3

/s.

The combined annual mean discharge of the two channels 

decreased 0.9 ft3/s from an annual mean of 10.3 ft3/s in water 

year 2007 to 9.4 ft3/s in water year 2011. The uncertainty in 

the annual mean from the quality of the records ranged from 5 

to 10 percent for the south channel and from 10 to 15 percent 

for the north channel. Combining these uncertainties with 

the annual mean discharge of the two channels produced an 

uncertainty ranging between 0.6 and 1.2 ft3/s. Thus, the apparent decrease in annual discharge was within the uncertainty 

associated with the combined annual discharge. Daily mean 

discharge in the south channel was less variable and had less 

uncertainty (fig. 62), yet the annual mean discharge decreased 

0.5 ft3/s between water years 2007 and 2011, although the 

value was still in the uncertainty range of 0.3–0.6 ft3/s. A time 

bias in the combined annual discharge was required to explain 

the trend, however; otherwise, if the errors were unbiased, the 

variability in annual discharge would not have shown a trend.

If the trend of decreased discharge was not a bias resulting 

from the data collection, the apparent decrease in annual mean 

discharge could have been caused by groundwater pumping. 

An analysis of groundwater pumping in an area northeast of 

Big Springs (fig. 61) for 2001–03 was used to estimate the 

hydraulic properties of the basin-fill and carbonate-rock aquifers that resulted in an estimated a drawdown at Big Springs 

of about 0.5 ft at the end of the 2003 irrigation season (Dong 

and others, 2012). The drawdown estimated by the analysis 

indicated that increased groundwater pumping could explain 

the decreased flow at Big Springs between water years 2006 

and 2011. Whether or not groundwater pumping affected the 

combined flow at Big Springs is uncertain. Continued monitoring at the gaging stations, along with a few monitoring 

wells between Big Springs and the area of groundwater pumping, could help identify if the trend of decreasing discharge is 

related to groundwater pumping.

Figure 62. Daily mean discharge in the north and south channels and combined daily mean discharge of Big Springs for water years 

2006–11, southern Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada. Daily mean discharge, in cubic feet per second

Water year

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

North channel

South channel

Combined
116 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Potential Source Area

The size of the source area that contributes water to Big 

Springs is uncertain. Precipitation in small drainage basins 

immediately west of the springs is insufficient to explain flow 

at the springs. The spring flow could be from the Big Spring 

Wash drainage basin, which includes a large part of the south 

end of the Snake Range (fig. 61). Also, some of flow at Big 

Springs could come from southern Spring Valley (Hershey 

and others, 2007). Water levels in wells in northern Hamlin 

Valley were lower than water levels in southern Spring Valley. 

A groundwater divide (where the hydraulic gradient is zero) 

in the basin-fill deposits separates northwest-moving groundwater near Baking Powder Flat in southern Spring Valley from 

southeast-moving groundwater. This groundwater divide, 

coupled with depth to water in wells greater than 100 ft below 

land surface, led Rush and Kazmi (1965) to hypothesize that 

groundwater flows from southern Spring Valley to northern 

Hamlin Valley because groundwater flow did not return to the 

surface at springs or was lost to evapotranspiration in southern 

Spring Valley. The approach in the present study was to evaluate a potential source area to Big Springs that included areas 

immediately west of the springs, Big Spring Wash drainage 

basin, and Spring Valley south of the groundwater divide.

Geology

Distribution of Rocks

The general geology of the southern study area and the 

vicinity of Big Springs is shown in figure 63, which was created by merging and modifying a 1:24,000-scale digital geologic map of the GBNP (Brown and Davila, 1995; National 

Park Service, 2007) with 1:100,000-scale map data in Utah 

(Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2002b) and, where no more detailed 

digital data were available, with 1:500,000-scale geologic map 

data from Nevada (Stewart and Carlson, 1978; Raines and 

others, 2003) and Utah (Hintze and others, 2000). In contrast 

to the upland areas of the northern parts of the southern Snake 

Range, where granitic and siliciclastic rocks predominate 

(Whitebread, 1969; National Park Service, 2007), the bedrock 

geology at the south end of the Snake Range predominantly 

consists of lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks with minor siliciclastic layers and local faulted sections of Devonian and Mississippian carbonates and Tertiary volcanic rocks (Hose and 

Blake, 1976; Rowley and others, 2009; fig. 63). The Paleozoic 

sedimentary section is present in relatively intact east- and 

southeast-dipping tilt blocks that are bounded by high-angle 

normal faults. These carbonate-rock tilt blocks form prominent 

ridge crests to the north, but become lower in altitude toward 

the south end of the Snake Range, where a low-altitude pass, 

the Troughs, separates the Snake Range from the Limestone 

Hills (fig. 63).

The southern Snake Range detachment fault, instrumental 

in the structural setting of the northern parts of the southern 

Snake Range, is not exposed at the south end of the range 

(Miller and others, 1999; National Park Service, 2007; fig. 63). 

Map relations and subsurface data indicated that the detachment fault plunges south into the subsurface at the south end 

of the range (Miller and others, 1999; Shah Alam and Pilger, 

1991). Seismic and geologic data indicated that the normal 

faults along the east side of the southern Snake Range dip 

moderately to the east; offset on these faults increases southward (Hose and Blake, 1976; Shah Alam, 1990; Rowley and 

others, 2009).

To the south of the Snake Range, the Limestone Hills form 

a low bedrock ridge that separates southern Spring Valley from 

northern Hamlin Valley (fig. 63). The Limestone Hills are 

mostly Ordovician to Devonian carbonate rocks with gentle 

east tilts (Hose and Blake, 1976; Rowley and others, 2009). 

Geologic mapping (Hose and Blake, 1976; Rowley and others, 

2009), gravity data (Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and 

McKee, 2009), AMT data (Dixon and others, 2007: McPhee 

and others, 2009), and seismic data (Shah Alam, 1990; Shah 

Alam and Pilger, 1991) indicated that the Limestone Hills 

are bounded by normal faults both on the eastern and western sides (fig. 63). The western side of the Limestone Hills is 

bounded by a young fault that is mapped as having Quaternary 

offset (Dohrenwend and others, 1996). The eastern side of the 

Limestone Hills appears to be older because the Hills are generally flanked by alluvial fans that head far into the hills, with 

no young fault scarps present. Thus, range-bounding faults on 

the eastern side of the Limestone Hills are either buried under 

young alluvium or extend far into the basin to the east of the 

range front (Rowley and others, 2009, plate 1). The Limestone 

Hills are internally faulted by both northwest- and north-striking faults. North-south striking faults offset the carbonate-rock 

section by tens to hundreds of feet. Field mapping indicated 

that some of these faults were, at one point in their history, 

dilatant and feature blocky, irregular fault breccias, typically 

cemented by banded calcite vein material. Relatively rare 

northwest-striking strike-slip faults in the Limestone Hills are 

tight, closed features with little fault gouge or attendant brecciation. Some of these faults could serve as connectors that 

transfer displacement between the tips of nearby normal faults. 

South of the Limestone Hills, the Wilson Creek Range 

consists of mostly Oligocene volcanic rocks of the Indian 

Peak caldera complex (Best and others, 1989a, b). The caldera 

complex margin trends south-southeast between the Limestone 

Hills and the Wilson Creek Range (fig. 63); ore deposits of the 

Atlanta mining district are found at this boundary (Willis and 

others, 1987). At least four major calderas have been identified 

in this complex on the basis of the presence of thick, intracaldera tuff sequences and intracaldera collapse megabreccias; 

two other calderas were inferred from the presence of regionally extensive ash-flow sheets (Best and Grant, 1987; Best 

and others, 1989a, 2013). The intracaldera rocks south of the 

caldera margin belong mostly to the Needles Range Group, are 

probably many thousands of feet thick, and are likely underlain by a buried intrusion (Sweetkind and DuBray, 2008; Best 

and others, 2013). Volcanic rocks associated with this complex 

extend northwest to the Fortification Range (fig. 63); outflow 

tuff from this caldera complex caps the central part of the 

Mountain Home Range to the east of Hamlin Valley (fig. 63). 
Big Springs 117

The Mountain Home Range bounds the eastern side of the 

northern part of Hamlin Valley and consists mostly of folded, 

middle to upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks (Hintze and Davis, 

2002a, 2003; fig. 63). The main bounding fault of the range 

is along its western side (Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2003) 

and is mapped as having Quaternary offset (Dohrenwend and 

others, 1996). The internal structure of the range consists of 

a syncline-anticline pair and a local thrust fault that placed 

lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks over upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks (Hintze and Davis, 2002a, 2003). The north-trending 

Needle Point anticline at the north end of the range has been 

prospected for oil (Hintze and Davis, 2003). The anticline 

plunges northward beneath southern Snake Valley, where it 

creates a buried bedrock high evident in gravity and seismic 

data (Shah Alam, 1990; Watt and Ponce, 2007). The south 

end of the range mostly consists of east-dipping ash-flow tuffs 

from the Indian Peak caldera complex (Best and Grant, 1987). 

A well drilled in the western flank of the range by the UGS 

penetrated 800 ft of volcanic rock and bottomed in volcanic 

rocks without hitting underlying Paleozoic rocks (Utah Geological Survey, accessed April 2012, at http://apps.geology.

utah.gov/groundwater/site.php?site_id=4).

Paleozoic carbonate rocks are exposed at the south end 

of the Snake Range, in the Limestone Hills to the south, in 

the Mountain Home Range to the east of Hamlin Valley, and 

at the north end of the Fortification Range at the southwestern side of Spring Valley (fig. 63). Only a few wells were 

drilled deeply enough to penetrate Cenozoic volcanic rocks 

or Paleozoic rocks below the Cenozoic basin fill in Snake, 

Hamlin, and Spring Valleys. Some of the wells that intercept 

carbonate rocks at depth were drilled next to outcrops of the 

Paleozoic section; others were drilled on buried bedrock highs, 

such as the wells drilled on the buried part of the Needle Point 

anticline on the Nevada–Utah state line (fig. 63). These well 

intercepts, combined with the regional prevalence of carbonate bedrock in surrounding ranges, indicated that a relatively 

continuous carbonate-rock section could exist beneath the 

basin-fill deposits in southern Snake Valley, northern Hamlin 

Valley, and southern Spring Valley.

In contrast to the Sacramento Pass area and Snake Creek, 

older Tertiary sedimentary rocks do not commonly outcrop 

south of the Snake Range. The only major outcrop is in Big 

Spring Wash (fig. 63). These Tertiary sediments unconformably overlie faulted Devonian carbonate rocks at the south end 

of the Snake Range.

A broad, cemented piedmont surface of older alluvium 

slopes gently to the east and southeast, away from the mountain front, in the vicinity of the Big Wash and Lexington Creek 

drainage basins. Although it has the morphologic appearance 

of an alluvial fan, this surface is erosional in nature, and all 

younger alluvium has been removed to the level of a highly 

cemented, older alluvial layer, which caps the surface. This 

cemented surface can be traced southward and southeastward 

in the subsurface, where it is identified on seismic reflection 

profiles (Shah Alam, 1990) as a series of subhorizontal reflectors that unconformably overlie steeply dipping reflectors 

that are interpreted by Shah Alam (1990) to correspond to 

synextensional Miocene deposits. The highly cemented nature 

of the older alluvium in this area could be the result of the 

prevalence of carbonate rocks in the headwaters of the Big 

Wash and Lexington Creek drainage basins, which could have 

provided calcium and carbonate-rich water and, ultimately, 

produced the carbonate cement. Drainage basins to the north 

of Snake Creek have predominantly granite or quartzite in 

the headwaters; alluvial materials in these drainage basins are 

much less cemented. 

Surficial deposits in southern Snake and northern Hamlin 

Valleys are mainly coalescing alluvial fans and channel alluvium along ephemeral stream courses. Spring Valley contains 

a playa called Baking Powder Flat to the northwest of the 

groundwater divide, but Spring Valley south of the divide or 

the parts of Snake and Hamlin Valleys in the southern study 

area have no playas.

Subsurface Geology of Southern Snake and 

Northern Hamlin Valleys

Gravity data, combined with seismic and drill-hole data, 

helped define the thickness and subsurface configuration of 

basin-fill deposits underlying southern Snake and northern 

Hamlin valleys (Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and McKee, 

2009; fig. 64). Geologic sections, based on interpretation of 

seismic profiles (Shah Alam, 1990; Shah Alam and Pilger, 

1991) across northern Hamlin Valley and southern Snake 

Valley, depict basin-fill deposits that range in thickness from 

3,000 ft thick in the northern part of the area to greater than 

6,500 ft thick in the south. Basin-fill deposits were interpreted 

to overlie Oligocene volcanic rocks and Paleozoic carbonate 

bedrock at depth.

Shah Alam (1990) subdivided the Quaternary and Tertiary 

basin-fill deposits into three unconformity-bounded sedimentary sequences on the basis of seismic-reflection character, 

including the presence of truncated seismic reflectors. The 

stratigraphy interpreted from the seismic profiles was tied to 

data from oil exploration holes in the center of Hamlin Valley 

to define the basin-fill stratigraphy from oldest to youngest. 

Tertiary volcanic rocks are the oldest and deepest basin-fill 

unit and underlie the three sedimentary basin-fill units. The 

volcanic rocks correlate with outcrops and drill hole intercepts 

of the 34–26 Ma volcanic rocks of the Needles Range Group 

on the eastern side of Hamlin Valley (Shah Alam and Pilger, 

1991). The units are the thickest beneath the south-central part 

of Hamlin Valley and thin northward (fig. 64). No volcanic 

rocks were interpreted by Shah Alam (1990) to be present at 

depth beneath southern Snake Valley, an interpretation consistent with the absence of magnetic anomalies on published 

aeromagnetic data (Watt and Ponce, 2007).

The oldest sedimentary basin-fill unit forms a thick, 

localized depocenter in central Hamlin Valley (fig. 63). This 

section, likely 26–17 Ma in age, consists of an upper 1,800-ft 

thick section dominated by anhydrite interbedded with minor 

claystone and limestone, underlain by a 2,300-ft thick section 
118 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 63. Geology of the Big Springs area in southern Snake Valley, including the south end of the Snake Range, northern Hamlin 

Valley, and southern Spring Valley in Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

Wash

Hamlin

Valley

Creek

Lake

LexingtonLexington Creek

Wash

Murphy

Wash

Johns

Big

Spring

Wash

Big

Springs

894

21

0 2 4 6 Miles

0 2 4 6 Kilometers

Great

Basin

National

Park

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baking

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Southern

Snake

Range

The 

Troughs

38°

50'

38°

25'

114°20' 114°00'

Wilson Creek

 Range

Geology modified from Stewart and Carlson, 1978; 

Hintze and others, 2000; Raines and others, 2003; and 

National Park Service, 2007; Subsurface geologic data 

from Hess and others, 2004; Gardner and others, 2011

Decathon

Canyon

BS-NW

BS-SW

184W508M

184W101

Fletcher No. 1

Hamlin Wash

 No. 18-1

Hamlin Wash 

No. 19-1

UGS

PW04AB

UGS PW02AB

Outlaw Federal

No. 1

Needle

Anticline 1

Ensign 

1-16

Gould

State 

1-16

Cobb Creek

Federal

No. 11-1
Big Springs 119

of interbedded claystone and limestone (Shah Alam, 1990; 

Shah Alam and Pilger, 1991). The generally fine-grained 

nature of the sediment and presence of thick anhydrite beds 

indicate a lacustrine depositional setting that was strongly 

evaporative at times. This west-dipping sequence is only 

present in Hamlin Valley; it is not present in southern Snake 

Valley. 

An intermediate alluvial section, likely 17–10 Ma (Shah 

Alam and Pilger, 1991), is widespread in the subsurface, based 

on a consistent reflection character for all of the seismic lines 

(fig. 64). This sequence is an 825-ft thick section composed 

of poorly-sorted sands and gravels, with volcanic rocks as the 

predominant clasts. This sequence dips westward and thickens 

toward the bounding faults on the west side of Hamlin Valley 

and southern Snake Valley (fig. 64). Although truncated seismic reflectors show that this sequence is separated from the 

overlying section by an unconformity, this sequence is lithologically indistinguishable from the overlying sequence, where 

it is described from drill-hole cuttings. The youngest alluvial 

section evident from the seismic data was interpreted by Shah 

Alam and Pilger (1991) to be younger than 10 Ma and to 

have been deposited following a regional change in extension 

direction. The young basin-fill deposits on the seismic sections 

consist of a 1,400-ft-thick section of poorly-sorted sands and 

gravels, with volcanic rocks as the predominant clast. This 

unit is subhorizontal, blankets the entire valley, and is interpreted to have been deposited in an alluvial fan setting. The 

youngest Quaternary sediments are too shallow to be imaged 

on the seismic sections (Shah Alam, 1990). 

The southern part of Snake Valley is underlain by two 

basins that are separated by a buried ridge that is the northwest 

projection of the Needle Point anticline in the Mountain Home 

Range (Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009; 

fig. 64). In the small basin to the east of the buried bedrock 

ridge, basin-fill deposits are generally less than 2,000 ft thick. 

The basin that lies between the buried Needle Point bedrock 

ridge and the eastern flank of the southern Snake Range is a 

narrow, fault-bounded graben in which Cenozoic basin-fill 

deposits are greater than 4,000 ft thick. The western bounding 

fault of this deep trough is the major normal fault that bounds 

the eastern front of the southern Snake Range (fig. 64). The 

location of the fault, as defined by gravity data, is based on 

the offset of consolidated Paleozoic rocks in the subsurface. 

Because the fault dips moderately to the east, the map-view 

location of the gravity-defined fault in the Paleozoic section 

is offset to the east from the surface-mapped fault trace, as 

defined by AMT studies (McPhee and others, 2009) or mapped 

Quaternary fault scarps at the base of the range (Dohrenwend 

and others, 1996). 

The central part of Hamlin Valley, opposite the highest part 

of the Limestone Hills, is a west-dipping half graben (fig. 64), 

bounded on the west side by an east-dipping normal fault that 

is near the base of the Limestone Hills and partly buried by the 

youngest basin-filling deposits (Shah Alam, 1990). Seismic 

and gravity data are in agreement that this bounding fault is up 

to 1.5 mi east of the northern Limestone Hills and is next to 

the eastern side of the southern Limestone Hills (Shah Alam, 

1990; Watt and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and McKee, 2009, 

fig. 4; Rowley and others, 2009, plate 1). The half graben 

beneath the northern part of Hamlin Valley contains a Cenozoic section that is greater than 4,000 ft thick in its western 

part, but the basin shallows rapidly to the east to less than 

1,500 ft thick (fig. 64). Drilling data from wells in the northern 

part of Hamlin Valley showed Paleozoic rocks at depths of 

3,060 ft to more than 7,500 ft.

The differences in Cenozoic basin-fill stratigraphy indicated that Hamlin Valley is an older basin than southern Snake 

Valley (Shah Alam, 1990; Shah Alam and Pilger, 1991). Oligocene volcanic rocks and the oldest, fine-grained sedimentary 

basin-fill unit are present only in Hamlin Valley, whereas the 

Snake Valley sections are dominated by the younger units. 

The basin that underlies Hamlin Valley was apparently active 

during Oligocene and Miocene time and, thus, received more 

basin-fill deposits in middle Cenozoic time (Shah Alam, 1990; 

Shah Alam and Pilger, 1991). The basin underlying southern 

Snake Valley was apparently inactive during this early phase 

of basin development.

EXPLANATION

Geologic unit

Playa deposits

Younger alluvium and valley fill

Older alluvium and alluvial fans

Cenozoic volcanic rocks, undivided

Miocene sedimentary rocks

Pennsylvanian–Permian carbonate rocks

Mississippian siliciclastic rocks

Ordovician–Devonian carbonate rocks

Ordovician Eureka Quartzite

Cambrian–Ordovician carbonate rocks

Intrusive rocks, undivided

Great Basin National Park

Geologic structures

Low-angle normal or detachment fault

Normal fault, dashed where inferred

Thrust fault

Quaternary fault, from Dohrenwend and others, 1996

Caldera boundary

Syncline, dashed where inferred

Anticline

Structures inferred from geophysical studies—From Watt 

and Ponce, 2007; Mankinen and others, 2006

Inferred fault based on gravity gradient

Buried bedrock high

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Spring

U.S. Geological Survey well

Well that penetrates volcanic rocks beneath basin fill

Well that penetrates carbonate rocks beneath basin fill

Oil and gas exploration well in the Mountain Home Range
120 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

During 2005 and 2006, the USGS collected and processed 

data from low frequency magnetotelluric (MT) sites along two 

east-west profiles in southern Spring Valley and Hamlin Valley 

(fig. 65). The MT method is a passive surface-geophysical 

technique that uses the Earth’s natural electromagnetic fields 

to investigate the electrical resistivity of the subsurface from 

depths of tens of feet to several miles (Vozoff, 1991). The 

2005–06 data were reprocessed for this study and two-dimensional MT models were constructed for each profile (fig. 65). 

Data collection and MT modeling methods were similar to 

those described by Williams and Rodriguez (2004). In the two 

transects from southern Spring Valley to Hamlin Valley, the 

carbonate bedrock of the Limestone Hills is electrically resistive, with resistivity greater than 250 ohm-meter (ohm-m), and 

the valley fill is electrically more conductive, with resistivity 

between 10–50 ohm-m. The highly conductive layers could 

represent brines associated with anhydrite or high-conductivity 

welded tuffs. The faulted subsurface contacts between limestone bedrock and late Cenozoic basin-fill deposits appeared 

on the model profiles as abrupt, steeply-dipping transitions 

between high- and low-resistivity regions on either side of the 

Limestone Hills and in Hamlin Valley (fig. 65).

Figure 64. Perspective view showing the subsurface geology of southern Snake Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern Spring 

Valley, as interpreted from well data, seismic-reflection profiles, and modeled gravity data.

View is from the southwest (200 degrees) looking to the northeast

from an elevation of 45 degrees above the horizon. No vertical 

exaggeration. Horizonal and vertical scales 

vary as a result of the effects of 

perspective view.

Cross sections and drill holes are

located in their proper map locations

and hung from land surface. 

For visibility, topograhic base

arbitrarily placed at an altitude below

cross sections and drill holes such that

they appear to project above land.

Colors superimposed on the

topograhic base represent the 

subsurface thickness of Cenozoic

basin-fill deposits as modeled 

from gravity data (Mankinen, 

2006; Watt and Ponce (2007).

740,000

750,000

760,000

770,000

4,260,000

4,280,000

4,300,000

6,000

3,000

0

Northing (UTM meters)

Easting (UTM meters)

Altitude, feet

Snake 

Range

Limestone Hills

Mountain Home Range

Outlaw Federal No. 1

Hamlin Wash No. 18-1

Hamlin Wash No. 19-1

Cobb Creek 

Federal No. 11-1

Hamlin Valley

boundary

Caldera

Snake Valley

NEVADA

UTAH

Cylinders represent the location and vertical extent of selected oil 

and gas explortaion drill holes; selected wells that intercept 

Paleozoic bedrock are shown. Colors represent lithologic units 

intercepted downhole. Colors appear variable because of the 

effects of illumination from below and southeast. 

Thickness of Cenozioc basin fill, in feet

Less than 100

100 to 500

501 to 1,000

1,001 to 1,500

1,501 to 2,000

Fault interpreted from gravity gradient

Buried bedrock high

EXPLANATION

Vertical sections

Young basin-fill deposits

Intermediate basin-fill deposits

Old basin-fill deposits

Tertiary volcanic rocks

Paleozoic rocks, undivided

Drill holes

Young and intermediate basin-fill deposits

Old basin-fill deposits

Tertiary volcanic rocks

Upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Mississippian siliciclastic rocks

Lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks

2,001 to 2,500

2,501 to 3,000

3,001 to 3,500

3,501 to 4,000

Greater than 4,000

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1981 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Projection, Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

southern Spring Valley
Big Springs 121

The AMT data were collected and analyzed along four 

east-west profiles on the eastern flank of the southern Snake 

Range between Snake Creek and Big Springs (McPhee and 

others, 2009, p. 289). Similar to the MT profiles in Spring and 

Hamlin Valleys, the AMT profiles imaged a high-resistivity 

basement, most likely associated with carbonate bedrock as 

well as more conductive basin fill. Several faults were interpreted along the profiles on the basis of subsurface resistivity 

contrasts (McPhee and others, 2009).

Aquifers

Basin-fill deposits and carbonate rocks compose the principal aquifers in southern Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, 

and southern Snake Valley, but hydraulic connections between 

the two types of aquifers are not well understood. Where 

basin-fill deposits and carbonate rocks are in fault or depositional contact, the two types of aquifers could be hydraulically 

connected and form a single aquifer system (Gardner and others, 2011). The interconnections can be poor or non-existent 

where older basin-fill deposits of Miocene age or volcanic 

Figure 65. Location and two-dimensional resistivity profiles of low-frequency magnetotelluric (MT) data collected in the vicinity of the 

Limestone Hills in northern Hamlin Valley and southern Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada.

West East

West East

Northern MT transect

Southern MT transect

Spring Valley Limestone Hills Hamlin Valley

Spring Valley Limestone Hills Hamlin Valley

Limestone

bedrock

Limestone

bedrock Limestone

bedrock Limestone

bedrock

Welded tuff?

Easting, in feet

Easting, in feet

8,000

10,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

-4,000

-2,000

8,000

10,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

-2,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

Resistivity, in ohm-meter Resistivity, in ohm-meter

Altitude, in feet Altitude, in feet

1,005,000 1,010,000 1,015,000 1,020,000 1,025,000 1,030,000 1,035,000 1,040,000 1,045,000 1,050,000

1,020,000 1,025,000 1,030,000 1,035,000 1,040,000 1,045,000 1,050,000 1,055,000 1,060,000 1,065,000

EXPLANATION

Generalized geologic units

Basin-fill deposits

Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks

Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Non-carbonate consolidated rocks

Modeled MT profile

AMT profile—McPhee and others, 2009

Fault—Arrows show direction of relative motion

MT field-measurement station

Hamlin Valley

Snake Valley

Spring Valley

Limestone Hills

Mountain Home Range

Fortification Range

Snake Range

NEVADA

UTAH

WHITE PINE

LINCOLN

MILLARD

BEAVER

Northern

 MT transect

Southern 

MT transect

Index map
122 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

rocks underlie younger basin-fill deposits and overlie carbonate rocks, however.

Distribution of Coarse- and Fine-Grained 

Deposits from Well-Drillers’ Logs

Water wells in the vicinity of Big Springs Creek and Lake 

Creek in southern Snake Valley are between 30 ft and 805 ft 

in depth. Many of the wells are near the Nevada–Utah state 

line on the western side of Needle Point, at the north end 

of the Mountain Home Range; only a few wells are on the 

alluvial fans flanking the valley (fig. 66). The wells penetrate 

different proportions of interbedded sand, gravel, fine sand, 

silt, and clay deposits, probably representing transitional 

facies between alluvial fan and basin-axis deposits. Drillers’ descriptions of down-hole intervals from lithologic logs 

were obtained for wells in Nevada (Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, accessed March 2009, at http://water.nv.gov/data/

welllog/index.cfm) and Utah (Utah Division of Water Rights 

accessed March 2009, at http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgibin/wellview.exe?Startup). More detailed lithologic descriptions were obtained for monitoring wells drilled by the UGS 

(Utah Geological Survey, accessed April, 2012, at 

http://apps.geology.utah.gov/groundwater/map.php?proj_id=1)

and from the two wells drilled on the alluvial fans northwest 

and southwest of Big Springs as part of this study (fig. 61). 

Individually described down-hole intervals were interpreted as 

dominantly coarse-grained, medium-grained, or fine-grained, 

on the basis of the predominant grain size of the sediment 

and the presence or absence of a clay component. Intervals 

described as containing gravel or cobbles were classed as 

coarse-grained, provided the clay content was low. Sand-dominated intervals or mixtures of sand and gravel were classed as 

medium-grained deposits. Intervals in which the clay component was greater than one-third of the described lithologic 

types were classed as fine-grained, regardless of the size of 

the remaining clasts. This classification relied on the depth 

intervals and descriptions presented in the drillers’ logs; it was 

not possible to subdivide an interval described as “clay, sand, 

and gravel” into thinner beds of a single clast type.

In an analysis of fluvial and alluvial materials in basins 

in north-central Nevada, Bredehoeft and Farvolden (1963) 

emphasized the importance of the total thickness of gravel in 

the alluvial section as the defining characteristic that controls 

the porosity and permeability characteristics of basin-fill aquifers. The present analysis modified that approach by giving 

some credit to sand-bearing intervals. In this approach, lithologic characteristics were generalized for the depth ranges less 

than or equal to 100 ft, greater than 100 to less than or equal 

to 250 ft, and greater than 250 to less than or equal to 500 ft. 

The total thickness of coarse-grained, medium-grained, and 

fine-grained intervals were determined for each of the three 

depth ranges, then a texture score was computed by using 

100 percent of the coarse-grained thickness, 50 percent of the 

medium-grained thickness, and 5 percent of the fine-grained 

thickness. These values were added and normalized to the 

thickness of the depth range, as shown in the following 

equation:

TS = ( )×100

TCG + (0.5 × TMG) + (0.05 × TFG)

(TCG + TMG) + TFG) (7)

where

TS is the texture score, in percent of total thickness of 

a specified depth interval:

TCG is the total thickness of coarse-grained sediments in 

the specified depth interval, in feet; 

TMG is the total thickness of medium-grained sediments 

in the specified depth interval, in feet; and 

TFG is the total thickness of fine-grained sediments in 

the specified depth interval, in feet.

The textural scores provide a numerical representation of 

the relative grain-size for the three depth intervals. A depth 

interval composed entirely of cobble and gravels would have 

a textural score of 100; an interval composed of 50 percent 

gravel and 50 percent sand would generate a textural score 

of 75; an interval composed entirely of clay would have a 

textural score of 5. Similar to the approach of the analysis of 

Bredehoeft and Farvolden (1963), the textural scores relied 

on the aggregate thickness of a grain-size class and did not 

specifically account for thin, coarse-grained beds that can be 

important local aquifers.

The depth interval from 0 to 100 ft showed a crude spatial 

zonation of grain sizes, with coarse-grained deposits associated with the alluvial-fan piedmont, and grain size generally 

decreasing toward the valley floor (fig. 66A). Textural variations are especially complicated at the fan toe, where basinaxis and fan deposits appeared to be intimately interbedded as 

a result of varying episodes of fan progradation into the basin. 

Shallow-well 2335 exemplified this situation, with layers of 

alluvial fan gravels alternating with clay intervals (fig. 66A). 

Far fewer wells penetrated the depth intervals from greater 

than 100 to less than or equal to 250 ft and from greater than 

250 to less than or equal to 500 ft (figs. 66B, 66C). Because 

of limited data and clustering of the wells at the north end 

of Hamlin Valley Wash, it was difficult to discern an overall 

pattern; in general the data were characterized by textural 

heterogeneity, where coarse-grained and fine-grained intervals are present in close proximity. The area to the northeast 

of the Needle Point anticline, represented by two wells in the 

depth interval from greater than 100 ft to less than or equal to 

250 ft in the northeast corner of the map (fig. 66B), appeared 

to be uniformly fine-grained, perhaps as a result of a damming 

effect of the shallowly-buried bedrock high that traps coarsergrained particles upstream and allows only fines to continue 

along the stream course. In contrast to the conclusions presented by Bredehoeft and Farvolden (1963), none of the maps 

show a gravel-dominated fluvial channel along the valley axis. 

Instead, the system appeared to be dominated by the alluvial 
Big Springs 123

Figure 66. Location of wells with subsurface lithologic data in the vicinity of Big Springs, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada, 

and texture scores for the following depth intervals: A, between 0 and 100 feet; B, between 100 and 250 feet; and C, between 250 and 500 

feet. 

21

21

21

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

NEVADA

UTAH

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

Shaded relief base from Environmental Systems Research Institute 

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

NDWR log number 2335

USGS site-identification number 384236114042701

USGS site name 195 N10 E70 25D 1

Depth, in feet

From To

0 5 Clay

 5 11 Dry gravel

 11 32 Water gravel, main aquifer

 32 40 Clay

 40 41 Gravel, other aquifer

 41 50 Clay

 50 54 Gravel, other aquifer

 54 70 Clay

Drillers’ description

A

B

C

0 to ≤100 feet depth

>100 to ≤250 feet depth

>250 to ≤500 feet depth

Snake 

Range

Snake 

Range

Snake 

Range

Snake Valley

Well

2335

Big Springs Creek

Lake Creek

Lake Creek

Big Springs Creek

Big Springs Creek

Lake Creek

Needle Point

Needle Point

Needle Point

0 1 2 3 4 Miles

0 2 3 4 Kilometers 1

Snake Valley

Snake Valley

Topographic setting is valley lowland. Perforated intervals at 

11–32, 40–41, and 50–54 ft. Static water level 8 ft. Aquifer at 11–32 ft 

may be water table and deeper ones confined

Example lithologic log, well 2335. Location shown on figure 66A

Nevada Department of Water Resources (NDWR)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

25

75

50

50

75

25

25

60 30

5

20

78

11 79

12

28 21

19 10

50

77

52

30

34

48

67 38 50

28

23,17

33

16 41

49

60

6

65

5 5

80

10

5

8

60

5 8

14

100

57 26

87

33

15

40

29

50

100

20

71

100

72

EXPLANATION

Generalized geologic units

Basin-fill deposits

Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks

Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Non-carbonate consolidated rocks

Approximate contour of well texture scores

Well with lithologic data, symbolized by texture 

score—Wells are labeled with texture score. 

Derivation of score explained in text

≤25

>25 to ≤50

>50 to ≤75

>75

Well location, not used for analysis

Oil and gas exploration well

MX wells

Symbols

Less than or equal

Greater than

≤

>

50

6
124 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

fan complexes along the valley margins, with fines transported 

out farther into the valley axis. This difference could be the 

result of the streams in southern Snake Valley originating from 

springs rather than perennial streams that exit the mountains 

and flow across the valley. No wells penetrate deep in the 

valley-axis sediments, however, so little is known about the 

sedimentary character along the basin axis.

Hydraulic Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits

Estimates of transmissivity of the basin-fill deposits were 

limited. Specific-capacities from the well-drillers’ logs were 

limited to five wells in the center-pivot irrigation area east of 

Big Springs Creek and near the Nevada–Utah state line and to 

three wells with aquifer tests—two from the U.S. Air Force’s 

MX missile-siting investigation and one by this study on the 

fan northwest of Big Springs (fig. 61). Transmissivity was 

estimated by using the method by Theis and others (1963; 

see equation 4), and the results are summarized in table 18. 

This equation requires an estimate of the storage coefficients 

to obtain transmissivity. Estimates derived by this equation 

usually underestimate the actual transmissivity because the 

method does not consider turbulent losses in the pumped well 

(Fetter, 2001, p. 206). Empirical equations that relate specific 

capacity to transmissivity can be used, but, generally, these are 

limited to particular aquifers. Because of the limited number 

of specific-capacity estimates and aquifer tests in the study 

area, an empirical equation was not developed. Consequently, 

the estimates of transmissivity listed in table 18 probably 

underestimate the actual transmissivity, particularly for wells 

completed in coarse-grained basin-fill deposits or in fractured 

limestone rocks. Estimates of transmissivity from specific 

capacities in the center-pivot irrigation area ranged from about 

100 to 3,000 ft2/d. These results were consistent with the estimated transmissivity of basin-fill deposits reported by Halford 

and Plume (2011) and (Dong and others, 2012).

The estimated transmissivity from specific-capacity data 

collected during a 48-hr aquifer test at the BS-NW well ranged 

from 2,000 to 3,000 ft2/d (table 18), which was only 20–30 

percent of the 10,000 ft2/d estimated from analysis of the aquifer test (table 19). The estimated transmissivity from specificcapacity data for the MX test well in northern Hamlin Valley 

was much less, ranging from 300 to 700 ft2/d (table 18), but, 

again, was only 20 percent of that estimated from the analysis 

of water-level declines in a nearby observation well (table 19).

The greatest estimated transmissivity of the basin-fill 

deposits from specific-capacity data ranged from 10,000 to 

13,000 ft2/d from an aquifer test at the southern Spring Valley MX test well (table 18) south of the groundwater divide 

(fig. 61). Although attempts were made by contractors for the 

U.S. Air Force to analyze the aquifer-test data from the observation well, the results were reported as “not conclusive” (U.S. 

Air Force, 1983, p. 7; Bunch and Harrill, 1984) because of a 

pump malfunction (Ertec Western, Inc., 1981b). Data from a 

step test and two constant-rate tests during September 1980 

were found and used to analyze the transmissivity and storage 

coefficient of the basin-fill deposits in the vicinity of the well. 

Results from the analysis are listed in table 19 and the measured drawdown in the pumped and observations wells were 

compared to drawdowns simulated from the Theis equation 

Table 18. Summary of transmissivity estimates from specific capacities reported in well-drillers’ logs and from aquifer tests for wells 

in southern Snake, northern Hamlin, and southern Spring Valleys, vicinity of Big Springs, White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada. 

[Location of wells is shown in figure 61. Well-log number and data obtained from Nevada Division of Water Resources. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SNWA, Southern Nevada 

Water Authority; BS-NW, Big Spring northwest well; BS-SW is Big Springs southwest well; Hamlin MX and southern Spring MX test wells were drilled for the U.S. Air Force’s 

MX missile-siting investigation (Bunch and Harrill, 1984); and 184W508M and 184W101 are wells drilled for Southern Nevada Water Authority. Transmissivity rounded to one 

significant figure. Symbol: —, not determined]

Nevada well-log 

number/USGS/

SNWA well names

Hole 

diameter 

(inches)

Screened 

interval 

(feet below 

land surface)

Geologic unit Texture 

score

Pump rate 

(gallons per 

minute)

Drawdown 

(feet)

Hours 

pumped

Range in 

storage 

coefficient

Estimated 

transmissivity 

(feet squared 

per day)

Center-pivot irrigation area in southern Snake Valley

19237 12 12–345 Clay and gravel 11 700 64 20 2E−1–2E−4 2,000–3,000

64851 14 40–800 Clay, sand and gravel 9 866 371 3 1E−1–3E−4 300–500

67360 10 300–400 Clay 5 200 352 1 1E−2–3E−4 70–100

68651 14 100–605 Clay, sand and gravel 12 950 200 20 1E−1–3E−4 800–1,200

Wells northwest and southwest of Big Springs

BS-NW 12 300–460 Sand, gravel and cobbles 71 260 24 42 2E−1–2E−4 2,000–3,000

BS-SW 12 500–700 Fractured limestone — 170 39 48 1E−4–1E−6 1,000–2,000

MX missile-siting investigation test wells in Hamlin and southern Spring Valleys

Hamlin MX 18 320–440 Clayey sand and sand — 110 83 120 1E−1–2E−4 300–400

southern Spring MX 18 400–700 Sand — 600 14 120 1E−1–3E−4 10,000–13,000

Southern Nevada Water Authority test wells in southern Spring Valley

184W508M 15 376–1,140 Volcanic rock — 80 155 1 5E−2–1E−4 50–100

184W101 20 800–1,760 Fractured limestone — 2,520 225 72 3E−2–5E−5 2,000–4,000
Big Springs 125

(Theis, 1935) for a confined aquifer (fig. 67). Data from the 

tests are listed in appendix 12. Again, the estimated transmissivity from specific-capacity data was only 20 percent of that 

estimated from analysis of the drawdown in the pumped and 

observation wells.

Well losses estimated from the step test were included in 

the analysis of transmissivity at the pumped well (fig. 67). The 

transmissivity of 60,000 ft2/d (table 19) was much greater than 

could be justified from the sand lithology that was reported for 

the well, indicating that a confined aquifer analysis of the data 

overestimated the transmissivity. The reported pump malfunction (Ertec Western, Inc., 1981b) happened after 2.5 days of 

pumping during the first constant-rate test because the pump 

ran out of fuel (appendix table 12–2), and a second constantrate test began 33 hours later (fig. 67). The large transmissivity is based on the assumption of a confined aquifer without 

consideration of vertical leakage and that the reported pumping rate was about 600 gal/min. Assuming the reported pumping rate was correct, the actual transmissivity of the basin-fill 

deposits in the vicinity of the MX test wells in southern Spring 

Valley is probably between 10,000 and 60,000 ft2/d. Another 

aquifer test could be done at the well because neither the 

pumped well nor the observation well have been destroyed. 

Hydraulic Properties of Carbonate Rocks

Water and petroleum exploration wells drilled in the 

carbonate rocks in the Big Springs area provided information 

on the properties of carbonate rocks. Two water exploration 

wells were drilled in carbonate rocks at the south end of the 

Snake Range. One was drilled by SNWA in southern Spring 

Valley 1–2 mi west of the north end of the Limestone Hills 

(well 184W101; fig. 61); the other was drilled by the USGS as 

part of the present study (appendix 1) about 1.5 mi southwest 

of Big Springs (BS-SW; fig. 61) and about 5.5 mi northeast of 

the north end of the Limestone Hills.

The SNWA well 184W101 penetrated fractured limestone 

and intervals of limestone and clay throughout its total depth 

of 1,760 ft (Prieur and others, 2010a). The saturated zone at 

this well is more than 1,300 ft thick. The well was pumped 

at a rate of 2,520 gal/min during a 72-hour multiple-well 

aquifer test, and transmissivity was estimated at approximately 

10,000 ft2/d (table 19; Prieur and others, 2010a). This well 

was interpreted to intersect a high-angle fault and associated 

fracture zones in the tested interval (Prieur and others, 2010a), 

so the transmissivity computed for this well could be representative of fractured limestone in fault zones.

The BS-SW well (fig. 61) penetrated 215 ft of basin-fill 

deposits consisting of sand, gravel, and cobbles and 485 ft 

of limestone of probable Devonian age. There were severe 

drilling mud losses in the hole from 220 to 240 ft. A borehole 

televiewer log of the well revealed that the mud losses resulted 

from large open fractures in unsaturated limestone. Total depth 

of the well is 700 ft, with the bottom 200 ft screened in fractured limestone. The well was pumped at a rate of 170 gal/min 

during a 47-hour single-well aquifer test, and the estimated 

transmissivity was approximately 4,000 ft2/d (table 19). Again, 

estimated transmissivity from specific-capacity data (table 18) 

was about 20 percent of that estimated from the aquifer test, 

indicating turbulent losses in the well.

Analysis of water-level fluctuations in the vicinity of the 

center-pivot irrigation area northeast of Big Springs and along 

the Nevada–Utah state line indicated an estimated transmissivity in the range of 7,000–16,000 ft2

/d for the carbonate-rocks 

in the vicinity of Needle Point Spring (fig. 61; Dong and 

others, 2012). This range was comparable to that from the two 

aquifer tests in carbonate rocks listed in table 19 and from an 

aquifer test of a well drilled in carbonate rocks by the SNWA 

in Spring Valley west of the study area that showed a reported 

transmissivity of 11,000 ft2/d (Prieur and others, 2010b) and 

indicated that the carbonate rocks in this area are at least as 

transmissive as the basin-fill deposits.

Table 19. Summary of transmissivity from aquifer tests for wells in southern Snake, northern Hamlin, and southern Spring valleys, 

vicinity of Big Springs, White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada. 

[Location of wells is shown in figure 61. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SNWA, Southern Nevada Water Authority; USAF, U.S. Air Force; BS-NW, Big Spring-northwest well; 

BS-SW is Big Springs-southwest well; Hamlin MX and southern Spring MX test wells were drilled for the U.S. Air Force’s MX missile-siting investigation (Bunch and Harrill, 

1984); and 184W101 is a test well drilled for Southern Nevada Water Authority. Aquifer tests for BS-NW and BS-SW had no observation well, drawdown reported for pumped well. 

Drawdown rounded to two significant figures for values greater than 1 foot. Transmissivity rounded to one significant figure. Symbol: —, not applicable]

Well name 

Observation 

well from 

pumped 

well (feet)

Screened interval 

(feet below land surface) Pump rate 

(gallons per 

minute)

Drawdown in 

observation or 

pumped well 

(feet)

Hours 

pumped

Transmissivity 

(feet squared 

per day)

Storage 

coefficient Source

Pumped Observation

Basin-fill deposits

BS-NW — 300–460 — 260 24 42 10,000 — USGS

Hamlin MX 500 320–440 320–420 110 1.6 120 2,000 0.01 USAF

southern Spring MX 1,020 400–700 400–700 600 0.8 120 60,000 0.003 USGS

Limestone

BS-SW — 500–700 — 170 39 48 4,000 — USGS

184W101 175 800–1,780 480–1,780 2,520 21 72 10,000 0.02 SNWA/USGS
126 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Petroleum Exploration Wells in Carbonate Rocks

Petroleum exploration companies have drilled a number of exploration wells in the Big Springs area since about 

1980. Six wells were drilled in Nevada—one about 6.5 mi 

northeast of Big Springs along the Nevada–Utah state line 

and five 11–25 mi to the south in Hamlin Valley. Eight wells 

were drilled about 8 mi to the east, in Utah, at the north end 

of the Mountain Home Range (fig. 63). The most common 

exploration target was the Devonian Guilmette Formation, 

which ranges from land surface at the Utah wells to more 

than 3,000 ft below land surface in Hamlin Valley and more 

than 6,000 ft below land surface at the hole in Nevada, 6.5 mi 

northeast of Big Springs. Each of the petroleum test wells is 

referenced using its American Petroleum Institute (API) number1

. The records for these wells can be found online at the 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology website at http://www.

nbmg.unr.edu/Oil&Gas/NVWellInfo.html and at the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining website at http://oilgas.ogm.utah.

gov/Data_Center/LiveData_Search/well_information.htm.

1

 Whenever an oil exploration well is drilled, the American Petroleum Institute assigns it an API number denoting the state and county in which the well 

is located. Each API number consists of three numbers separated by dashes. 

The first number indicates the state—Nevada is 27, and Utah is 43. The 

second number indicates the county—White Pine County in Nevada is 033, 

Lincoln County in Nevada is 017, and Millard County in Utah is 027. The last 

number is assigned sequentially in each county.

Figure 67. Distribution of groundwater pumping and comparison of measured and simulated drawdown during September 1980 for 

the MX test wells in southern Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada, for a step test, and two constant-rate tests: A, pumping rate; B,

pumped well; and C, observation well.

September 1980

Pumping rate, in

gallons per minute Drawdown, in feet

0

0.5

1.0

0

400

800

0

5

10

15

20

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

-0.5

0

0.5

-1.0

0

1.0

-0.5

 0.5

A

B

C

Observation well

Pumping rate

Pumped well Computed

Measured

Residual

Storage coefficient = 0.003 cubic foot per cubic foot

Transmissivity = 60,000 feet squared per day

Residual between computed and measured, in feet

Location of wells is shown in figure 61
Big Springs 127

The deepest exploration well drilled in the Big Springs 

area is the one 6.5 mi to the northeast of Big Springs, in 

Nevada (27-033-05245; Outlaw Federal No. 1, fig. 63). It 

penetrated 1,254 ft of basin-fill deposits and then 11,746 ft of 

Paleozoic rocks from the Ely Limestone to the Pogonip Group, 

for a total depth of 13,000 ft. The formation tops listed for this 

well indicated that the entire Paleozoic carbonate rock section 

is present in parts of the Big Springs area. 

The eight wells drilled at the north end of the Mountain 

Home Range in Utah are 5–7 mi south of the exploration 

well (27-033-05245; fig. 63). The exploration target for 

all of these wells was the Devonian Guilmette Formation. 

Well-drillers’ logs for three of these wells (43-027-20295, 

43-027-30002, and 43-027-30004) indicated that drilling in 

the Guilmette Formation and overlying shale was complicated 

by zones of lost circulation, resulting in no cutting returns, 

and by zones that produced large quantities of water. Similar 

conditions were encountered in Hamlin Valley, where a hole 

(27-017-05217; Cobb Creek Federal No. 11-1, fig. 63) drilled 

in the Guilmette Formation was abandoned at a depth of 995 ft 

below land surface because of lost circulation at 959 ft and 

what the driller described as a large influx of fresh water at 

995 ft. Although these well reports provided only qualitative 

information on the transmissivity of the carbonate rocks in the 

Big Springs area, they indicated that the carbonate rocks can 

be transmissive even at depths greater than 1,000 ft below land 

surface.

Groundwater Flow Beneath the Limestone Hills

A groundwater divide in southern Spring Valley south of 

Baking Powder Flat separates groundwater flow to the flat 

from southeastward flow to northern Hamlin Valley (fig. 61), 

which was first described by Rush and Kazmi (1965, p. 19). 

The divide coincides with a buried bedrock high (fig. 63). 

North of the groundwater divide, water-level altitudes in wells 

decrease toward Baking Powder Flat, where depth to groundwater is less than 20 ft below land surface (fig. 68). South 

of the divide, water-level altitudes decrease southeastward, 

and depth to groundwater exceeds 50 ft throughout southern 

Spring Valley and northern Hamlin Valley, indicating little 

groundwater is lost to evapotranspiration until it reaches 

southern Snake Valley. Depth to groundwater east of the Limestone Hills was less than 20 ft below land surface only near 

Big Springs and along Big Springs and Lake Creeks in southern Snake Valley. Thus, little groundwater flow is to springs or 

is lost to evapotranspiration in southern Spring Valley, south of 

the groundwater divide, where groundwater flow is southeastward toward the Limestone Hills.

Because of the lack of springs and areas where groundwater flow is lost to evapotranspiration in southern Spring Valley 

and northern Hamlin Valley, groundwater must flow from 

southern Spring Valley to northern Hamlin Valley and then 

to southern Snake Valley, which indicates that the carbonate 

rocks underlying the Limestone Hills are sufficiently permeable to allow flow (Rush and Kazmi, 1965, p. 19). Recently 

completed test wells in carbonate rocks in southern Spring 

Valley (SNWA well 184W101) and southwest of Big Springs 

(USGS well BS-SW) indicated that the fractured sections 

of carbonate rocks in the region are at least as transmissive as the basin-fill deposits. Although Gillespie and others 

(2012) reported lower water levels in northern Hamlin Valley 

compared with southern Spring Valley, they concluded that 

groundwater did not flow through the Limestone Hills on the 

basis of computer generated contours of delta deuterium and 

carbon-14 ages from sparse data, without regard to the hydrogeology or, more importantly, to the depth to groundwater, 

which indicated little groundwater was lost to evapotranspiration south of the groundwater divide, except in southern Snake 

Valley.

 Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley to northern Hamlin Valley is a potential source for Big Springs 

(Hershey and others, 2007). Groundwater flow from southern 

Spring Valley to northern Hamlin Valley was first estimated 

at 4,000 acre-ft/yr by Rush and Kazmi (1965, p. 24). This 

estimate was increased to 8,000–12,000 acre-ft/yr by Nichols 

(2000, p. C34) and was increased again to 33,000 acre-ft/yr by 

Laczniak and others (2007, p. 73). Recent estimates of groundwater flow through the Limestone Hills to northern Hamlin 

Valley have been reduced again to 5,600 acre-ft/yr (Halford 

and Plume, 2011) and 4,400 acre-ft/yr (Burns and Drici, 2011, 

p. 7-7). 

 The estimate of groundwater flow beneath the Limestone 

Hills in this report is based on a three-part approach. The first 

part of the approach included the measurement of the groundwater levels in wells during the spring of 2010 that provided 

data for a new water-level map of Spring, Hamlin, and Snake 

Valleys (fig. 61) as part of a regional analysis of groundwater levels in eastern Nevada and western Utah (Gardner and 

others, 2011). The second part was to estimate the total mean 

annual precipitation in southern Spring Valley, and the third 

part was to estimate groundwater recharge in southern Spring 

Valley southeast of the groundwater divide. The water-level 

map is described earlier in this section; descriptions of the 

other two approaches follow.

The estimate of groundwater flow from southern Spring 

Valley through the Limestone Hills was limited to the mean 

annual precipitation in the drainage area south of the groundwater divide (drainage areas used to calculate the mean annual 

precipitation and recharge is shown in fig. 61) and assumed 

the groundwater divide in the basin fill extends down to the 

underlying carbonate rocks. The drainage area for southern 

Spring Valley was divided into two parts along a line drawn 

from the center of the groundwater divide southeastward to 

SNWA well 184W101 (fig. 61). The northern part included 

Johns and Murphy Washes at the south end of the Snake 

Range, and the southern part included the eastern slope of the 

Fortification Range and western slope of the Limestone Hills. 

The total mean annual precipitation was estimated for the two 

parts by multiplying the area for each of the mean precipitation rates.
128 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 68. Distribution of basin-fill deposits and carbonate rocks and depth to groundwater in southern Spring Valley, northern Hamlin 

Valley, and southern Snake Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

LincolnBeaver

Creek

Lake

Creek LexingtonLexington

Big

Spring

Wash

Needle Point Wash

 Spring

Murphy

Wash

Johns

Big

Springs

Creek

Big Springs

Wash

Hamlin

Valley

894

21

114°00'

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

38°

25'

114°20'

38°

50'

0 2 4 6 Miles

0 2 4 6 Kilometers

Great Basin

National

Park

Geology modified from Stewart and Carlson, 1978;

 Hintze and others, 2000; Raines and others, 2003; and

National Park Service, 2007

Baking

Powder

Flat

Spring

Valley

Snake

Valley

MountainMountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin Valley

Snake Range

Canyon

Decathon

Range

Fortification

200

EXPLANATION

Generalized geologic units

Basin-fill deposits

Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary 

rocks

Paleozoic carbonate rocks

Non-carbonate consolidated rocks

Depth to water

Depth to water less than 20 feet below 

land surface. Data from Gardner and 

others, 2011

Shows depth to water below land 

surface. Contour interval variable

Well used for water-level measurements— Labeled with depth to water 

below land surface; well identifier 

shown for selected wells

Well completed in basin fill

Well completed in volcanic rocks

Well completed in carbonate bedrock 

50

50

100

100

100

100

50

200

200

200

200

20

20

20

200

184W101

Southern

Spring MX wells

BS-NW

BS-SW

15.98

41.95

65.44 92.97

13.81 17.1 17.88 29.27

28.07 69.33

67.36

144.45

5.43 70.6 135.95

208.15

213.97

227.8

355.15

196.13

105.7

155.15

118.33

276.89

224.99

483.29

406.6

150.5

71.94

119.25

90 109.88 591.36

591.56

223.9

99.92

68.51

184W508M184W508M

Hamlin 

MX wells

175.08

157.05

154.86

208.18

213.84

252.45

80.32
Big Springs 129

A range for mean annual groundwater recharge from the 

total mean annual precipitation in southern Spring Valley was 

first estimated by using the water-yield equations developed 

for six drainage basins in the northern part of the southern 

Snake Range in Great Basin National Park, assuming that 

annual runoff in southern Spring Valley was minimal. The 

first equation (equation 1) portioned the total mean annual 

precipitation among four zones of precipitation rates, greater 

than 12 to 16 in/yr, greater than 16 to 24 in/yr, greater than 24 

to 28 in/yr, and greater than 28 in/yr, with coefficients for each 

zone of 0.03, 0.07, 0.22, and 0.79, respectively. The second 

equation (equation 2) used only two zones, greater than 12 to 

28 in/yr and greater than 28 in/yr, with coefficients of 0.1 and 

0.83, respectively and produced somewhat greater recharge 

rates. The reason for the greater recharge rates from equation 

2 is a greater fraction of precipitation became water yield for 

areas with less mean annual precipitation. Most the total mean 

annual precipitation in the two parts of southern Spring Valley fell in areas where the mean precipitation rates were less 

than 20 in/yr (table 20). No groundwater recharge from mean 

precipitation rates greater than 10 to 12 in/yr was used in the 

calculations because that zone was on the valley floor, where 

it was assumed to be lost to evapotranspiration, even though 3 

percent was used as a coefficient for greater than 8 to 12 in. by 

Eakin and others (1951, p. 26–27).

Total mean annual groundwater recharge of the combined 

northern and southern parts in southern Spring Valley ranged 

from 6,000 to 11,000 acre-ft and, overall, was 4–7 percent 

of the total mean annual precipitation of the combined parts 

(table 20). The mean annual recharge from the northern part 

that included the southwestern end of the Snake Range was 

40–50 percent of the total combined recharge estimate, even 

though the northern part accounted for only 25 percent of 

the total drainage area in southern Spring Valley south of 

the groundwater divide. The mean annual recharge for the 

northern part was 7–10 percent of the total mean annual 

precipitation in that part, whereas mean annual recharge for 

the southern part was 2–6 percent of the total mean annual 

precipitation in that part.

Dissolved chloride concentrations in wells in southern 

Spring Valley and northern Hamlin Valley were used to evaluate the percentage of groundwater recharge. This method 

uses the ratio of the chloride concentrations in precipitation 

from wet and dry fallout to the chloride concentration in a 

well or spring (table 21). The mean chloride concentration of 

0.6 mg/L for wet and dry fallout estimated for the Baker Creek 

drainage basin was used for the south end of the Snake Range.

The chloride ratio method assumes no long-term storage 

of chloride in the drainage basin, no chloride is removed by 

runoff, and the only source of the chloride is from precipitation. The unsaturated zone in arid areas can store much of 

the chloride deposition from precipitation for thousands of 

years (Scanlon, 1991; Phillips, 1994; Prudic, 1994; Tyler and 

others, 1996; Stonestrom and others, 2004), but that usually 

happens in areas where the mean precipitation rates are less 

than 8 in.yr, where mean annual temperatures are warmer than 

they are in this study area, and where groundwater recharge is 

minimal. The chloride concentrations at the MX test wells in 

Hamlin Valley and southern Spring Valley were within 1 mg/L 

between analyses done for the U.S. Air Force in September 

1980 (Bunch and Harrill, 1984, p. 51, 103) and those reported 

by SNWA for November 2010 and May 2011 (Southern 

Nevada Water Authority, 2012, p. F-4). The lack of variation 

in chloride concentrations at these sites indicated a nearly 

uniform movement of chloride through the unsaturated zone to 

groundwater.

The dissolved chloride concentration in water at SNWA 

well 184W101was 5.3 mg/L, which indicated that about 11 

percent of the mean annual precipitation in the northern part 

of southern Spring Valley, including the southwestern end of 

the Snake Range, becomes groundwater recharge (table 21). 

This was slightly greater than the groundwater recharge 

estimated by using the two water-yield equations (equations 

1 and 2). The greater chloride ratios compared with recharge 

to precipitation ratios indicated slightly more precipitation 

could recharge groundwater in the more permeable carbonate 

rocks of the southern Snake Range than was indicated by the 

water-yield equations derived from areas of less permeable 

Table 20. Mean annual precipitation volume and groundwater recharge in southern Spring Valley, Big Spring Wash drainage basin 

in northern Hamlin Valley, and eastern slope of southern Snake Range in southern Snake Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, 

Nevada. 

[Drainage areas are shown in figure 61. Mean precipitation rates from 1971–2000 (PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu, created 7 Sept. 

2011). Recharge estimated from equations 1 and 2 assuming all water yield became groundwater recharge. Precipitation rounded to 3 significant figures; estimated mean annual 

recharge rounded to one significant figure. Symbol: >, greater than]

Drainage basin

Drainage 

area

(square 

miles)

Total mean 

annual 

precipitation 

volume

(acre-feet)

Mean annual precipitation volumes (acre-feet) Range in 

estimated mean 

annual recharge

(acre feet)

Percent of 

mean annual 

recharge to 

precipitation

Range in mean precipitation rates (inches per year)

>10–12 >12–16 >16–20 >20–24 >24–28 >28

southern Spring Valley—Snake Range 57.7 45,400 11,500 17,600 5,140 6,750 2,960 1,420 3,000–4,000 7–10

southern Spring Valley—Fortification 

Range and Limestone Hills 

(southern part)

174 118,000 46,300 57,900 14,200 0 0 0 3,000–7,000 2–6

Big Spring Wash 69.1 61,900 5,290 19,100 16,100 12,800 7,310 1,320 5,000–7,000 8–11

southern Snake Valley—Snake Range 53.7 40,500 11,700 14,300 10,200 4,050 230 0 1,000–3,000 4–7
130 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

rocks in the northern part of the southern Snake Range. In the 

northern part of southern Spring Valley, estimated total mean 

annual groundwater recharge was 4,000 acre-ft, which was 

derived by multiplying the chloride ratio of 5.3 mg/L from 

well 184W101 by the total mean annual precipitation for the 

area of mean precipitation rates greater than 12 in/yr. Dissolved chloride concentrations from two wells in the southern 

part of southern Spring Valley (SNWA 184W508M well and 

southern Spring Valley MX well) and one well in northern 

Hamlin Valley (Hamlin MX well) east of the Limestone Hills 

ranged from 9.4 mg/L to 17 mg/L (table 21). The ratio of chloride in water to chloride in precipitation for these three wells 

ranged from 0.04 to 0.06; when these ratios are multiplied 

with the total mean annual precipitation for rates greater than 

12 in/yr in the southern part of southern Spring Valley, estimated mean annual groundwater recharge ranged from 2,000 

to 4,000 acre-ft, a range that is about 50 percent less than 

the estimate of mean annual recharge for the southern part 

in southern Spring Valley listed in table 20. Thus, the range 

in total mean annual groundwater recharge of the combined 

two areas in southern Spring Valley estimated using chloride 

concentrations was 6,000 to 8,000 acre-ft, which was at the 

lower end of the range in mean annual groundwater recharge 

estimated from the two water-yield equations (equations 1, 2). 

Assuming a range in groundwater flow from 6,000 to 

11,000 acre-ft/yr, a hydraulic gradient of 20 ft/mi, and a width 

of flow of 18 mi, the transmissivity of saturated carbonate 

rocks beneath the Limestone Hills was 2,000 to 4,000 ft2

/d. 

This range was less than half of the transmissivity estimated 

from an aquifer test at SNWA well 184W101 (table 19). Much 

of the groundwater flow through the Limestone Hills could 

be limited to the northern part, however, which is east of the 

SNWA well 184W101 (fig. 61). Assuming the transmissivity 

for the northern part of the Limestone Hills was the same as 

at the SNWA well, or 10,000 ft2

/d, the width of flow would be 

only 4 mi.

Source of Water to Big Springs

A geochemical study indicated that some of the flow at 

Big Springs could come from groundwater in southern Spring 

Valley (Hershey and others, 2007), whereas a more recent geochemical study indicated that flow to the springs was locally 

derived from the south end of the Snake Range (Gillespie and 

others, 2012). As a starting point in evaluating groundwaterflow direction, a simple three-point analysis was done using 

the water-level altitudes in BS-NW and BS-SW (fig. 61) 

along with the land-surface altitude at the main orifice of Big 

Springs south channel. Land-surface altitudes at the three locations were determined by using differential global positioning systems (GPS) to an accuracy of ±0.08 ft (Toby Welborn, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nev., written commun., 

2011). The three-point analysis assumed the water surface 

forms a uniformly sloping surface, from which the magnitude and direction of the hydraulic gradient can be estimated 

and the direction of groundwater flow can be approximated. 

The result indicated a direction of groundwater flow that was 

north 57 degrees east, with a hydraulic gradient of 50 ft/mi 

(0.01 ft/ft). The direction of groundwater flow approximated 

the course of Big Springs Creek downstream of the springs 

(fig. 61). This analysis indicated that much of the flow at Big 

Springs was groundwater flow beneath alluvial fans at the 

south end of the Snake Range (fig. 63). 

Big Springs and well BS-NW are located where groundwater flow direction changes from northeastward, south of 

Big Springs, to generally eastward, north of Big Springs 

Table 21. Selected water-quality constituents in water for wells and springs in southern Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and 

southern Snake Valley sampled between October 2010 and May 2011, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada. 

[Location of wells and springs is shown in figure 61. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SNWA, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Hamlin MX and southern Spring MX test wells were 

drilled for the U.S. Air Force’s MX missile-siting investigation (Bunch and Harrill, 1984). Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; PMC, percent modern 

carbon, rounded to two significant figures; Chloride concentrations rounded to two significant figures. Symbol: <, less than]

 Well/Spring

Dissolved 

solids

(mg/L)

Stable isotopes of water 

(permil) Tritium 

(picocuries 

per liter)

Carbon-14 

(PMC)

Strontium Chloride

Source

Delta 

deuterium

Delta 

oxygen-18 (μg/L) Ratio 

87Sr/86Sr (mg/L) Precipitation 

ratio

Southern Spring Valley

SNWA 184W101 well 215 −114 −15.2 <2.5 4.2 185 0.71056 5.3 0.11 SNWA

SNWA 184W508M well 218 −109 −14.4 <2.5 60 130 0.71090 9.4 0.06 SNWA

southern Spring MX well 185 −107 −13.9 <2.5 32 310 0.71069 11 0.05 SNWA

Northern Hamlin Valley

Hamlin MX well 253 −114 −15.0 <2.5 6.8 391 0.71302 17 0.04 SNWA

Southern Snake Valley

Big Springs south channel 202 −111 −15.0 4.9 31 121 0.71119 5.1 0.12 USGS/

SNWA

Big Springs-northwest well 272 −108 −14.7 <0.7 58 79 0.71006 12 0.05 USGS

Big Springs-southwest well 199 −111 −15.1 2.0 34 118 0.71107 4.0 0.15 USGS

Stateline spring 226 −111 −14.6 <2.5 24 361 0.70960 23 0.03 SNWA
Big Springs 131

(fig. 69). Groundwater flow beneath Hamlin Valley Wash is 

mostly northward, until it coincides with southward groundwater flow beneath Big Spring Wash in the southern Snake 

Range, eastward groundwater flow from southern Spring 

Valley, and eastward groundwater flow from the eastern slope 

of the Snake Range. Groundwater recharge was estimated 

for all the areas shown on figure 69, except for groundwater 

beneath Hamlin Valley Wash (table 20). The mean annual 

groundwater recharge estimated from the water-yield equations (equations 1 and 2) in the drainage basins north of 

Big Springs to the drainage basin south of Big Wash on the 

eastern slope of southern Snake Valley was from 1,000 to 

3,000 acre-ft, or 4–7 percent of the total mean annual precipitation. The ratio of chloride in precipitation to chloride in the 

well northwest of Big Springs was 0.05 (table 21) or 5 percent 

of the total mean annual precipitation and was within the 4–7 

percent of the total mean annual precipitation. Mean annual 

groundwater flow from recharge areas that included the east 

slope of the southern Snake Range north of Big Springs, Big 

Spring Wash, and southern Spring Valley ranged from about 

12,000 to 21,000 acre-ft; but the range derived by multiplying the chloride ratios for each area listed in table 21 to the 

total mean annual precipitation for rates greater than 12 in/yr 

(table 20) was 14,000–16,000 acre-ft. The change in direction 

of groundwater flow from these areas, as well as groundwater 

flow beneath Hamlin Valley Wash, was likely caused by a narrowing in width of groundwater flow in southern Snake Valley 

because of the upper Paleozoic siliciclastic unit (Mississippian Chainman Shale) that dips steeply at the north end of the 

Mountain Home Range and continues to the Burbank Hills 

(Gardner and others, 2011; fig. 3). The limited width of flow 

allowed by the steeply dipping confining unit also can explain 

the large area of groundwater lost to evapotranspiration from 

Big Springs in Nevada to Pruess Lake in Utah (fig. 69). 

Chemical analyses were performed on groundwater samples collected from the Big Springs northwest and southwest 

wells and from the north spring orifice in the south channel of 

Big Springs. Analyses included the standard dissolved constituents and trace elements (appendix tables 16–8, 16–9) along 

with specific analyses to help identify the source of the spring 

water and to estimate its mean age. Radioactive isotopes of 

carbon (carbon-14) and hydrogen (tritium) were used for 

evaluating the mean age of water, whereas the stable isotopes 

of carbon, strontium, and uranium were used to evaluate the 

types of rocks that resulted in the dissolved constituents found 

in the spring water (tables 21, 22). Dissolved chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFC), introduced to the atmosphere after World 

War II, also can be used to estimate the mean age of relatively 

young water (Plummer and others, 1993). This analysis was 

included because previous studies that sampled water from 

Big Springs indicated some modern water was present (Hershey and others, 2007, p. 29; Gillispie, 2008, p. 30).

Water chemistry results (tables 21, 22) indicated that 

most of the water in the south channel of Big Springs was 

groundwater from southwest of the springs, as represented by 

water from well BS-SW. The similar water chemistry in the 

south channel of Big Springs and in water from well BS-SW 

was consistent with the northeast-directed groundwater flow 

estimated from water-level altitudes in the two wells compared 

with the land-surface altitude at Big Springs 

The water chemistry at well BS-NW indicated that water 

in this well was older than water from BS-SW and Big Springs 

because it lacked tritium (table 21) and had lower concentrations of dissolved CFC gases (table 22). The estimated mean 

age, assuming similar recharge altitudes and temperatures, was 

the mid-1950s for water in BS-NW and the mid to late 1960s 

for water in BS-SW. The mean age of water sampled from 

the two wells and Big Springs included much older and much 

younger water. If, for example, all the water in well BS-SW 

was recharged in the mid-1960s, during the peak atmospheric 

tritium concentration from thermonuclear bomb tests, the 

tritium concentration would be several hundred picocuries 

per liter. The trace, but detectable, concentration of tritium 

indicated that the water was a mixture of water with a range in 

ages.

Total dissolved solids and chloride concentrations in 

water from well BS-NW were higher than in water from the 

south channel of Big Springs and well BS-SW (table 21). The 

higher concentration of chloride at well BS-NW was consistent with enrichment of delta deuterium and delta oxygen-18; 

consequently, more precipitation in the catchment area of well 

BS-NW was lost to evapotranspiration compared with that 

of BS-SW. The carbon-14 concentration in water from well 

BS-NW was nearly twice that in water from the springs and 

well BS-SW, however. The higher carbon-14 concentration in 

water from well BS-NW, combined with lower concentrations 

Table 22. Selected water-quality constituents in water from Big Springs and test wells northwest and southwest of the springs in 

southern Snake Valley sampled in October and November 2010, White Pine and Lincoln counties, Nevada. 

[Location of wells and Big Springs is shown in figure 61. Spring orifice on south channel of Big Springs sampled November 2, 2010; Big Springs-northwest well sampled October 4, 

2010; Big Springs-southwest well sampled November 3, 2010. Sample splits were collected at Big Springs and analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey and Southern Nevada Water 

Authority separately; values listed are those stored in the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database. Estimated year of recharge from dissolved chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) are based on an assumed recharge altitude of 8,000 feet above vertical datum and a mean annual temperature of 8 degrees Celsius. Abbreviation: mg/L, milligrams 

per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 234U, uranium-234; 238U, uranium-238]

Well/spring

Dissolved constituent (mg/L) Delta 

Carbon-13 

permil

Uranium Estimated range in 

year of recharge from 

Bicarbonate Calcium Fluoride Magnesium Sodium (μg/L) dissolved CFC

Ratio 

234U/238U

Big Springs south channel 205 48 0.15 20 4 −7.1 1.38 3.68 1965–69

Big Springs-northwest well 299 53 0.06 29 9 −9.2 0.64 4.64 1953–57

Big Springs-southwest well 210 47 0.13 19 5 −7.2 1.46 3.74 1965–69
132 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 69. Conceptualization of groundwater flow to southern Snake Valley from source areas in the south end of the Snake Range, 

southern Spring Valley, and northern Hamlin Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

LincolnBeaver

Creek

Lake

Big Wash

Big

Creek

LexingtonLexington

Springs

Creek

Big

Spring

Wash

Pruess LakePruess Lake

Hamlin Valley Wash

Big Springs

Murphy

Wash

Wash

Johns

894

21

0 42

0 42

6

6

8 Miles

8 Kilometers

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baking

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Spring

Valley

Range

Fortification

MountainMountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin Valley

Snake Range

114°30' 114°00'

38°50'

38°25'

Canyon

Decathon

5750

5850

5790

5790

5750

5700

5650

5600

5550

5450

5500

5400

5350

5300

5250

Monitoring Wells

U.S. Air Force MX missile-siting investigation

Aquifer-test well

Monitoring well

Southern Nevada Water Authority

U.S. Geological Survey

Utah Geological Survey

Other

Spring

EXPLANATION

BS-SW

184W508M

Outcrop of Chainman Shale

Groundwater-flow areas

Hamlin Valley Wash

Southern Spring Valley

Big Spring Wash

Southeastern Snake Range

5700 Water-level contour—Shows altitude at 

which water level would have stood in 

tightly cased wells, in feet above North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988. 

Contour interval variable. Dashed where 

inferred. Modified from Gardner and 

others (2011) 

Great Basin National Park

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Needle 

Point 

Spring

South

Little 

Spring

North Little Spring

MX wellsMX wells

Hamlin 

MX wells

Southern

Spring 

MX wells

BS-NW

BS-SW

184W101 184W508M
Big Springs 133

of fluoride, strontium, and uranium, as well as differences 

in isotope ratios of strontium and uranium (tables 21, 22), 

indicated that water in well BS-NW had reacted with different 

rocks than water in well BS-SW and at Big Springs (Wiggly 

and Plummer, 1976). Thus, differences in water chemistry 

between wells BS-NW and BS-SW also indicated a northeast 

direction of groundwater flow from near the southwest well to 

Big Springs.

The mean annual groundwater recharge in the Big Spring 

Wash and and in local drainage basins between Big Spring 

Wash and Big Springs (drainage area for Big Spring Wash 

and local drainage basins is shown on fig. 61) estimated 

by using the two water-yield equations (equations 1 and 2) 

ranged from 5,000 to 7,000 acre-ft and was 8–11 percent of 

the total mean annual precipitation (table 20). These percentages were similar to those in the northern part of southern 

Spring Valley south of the groundwater divide that includes 

Murphy and Johns Washes. Groundwater recharge in the Big 

Spring Wash and nearby smaller drainage basins bound the 

estimate of the mean annual runoff of the two channels at 

Big Springs of 6,200 acre-ft (table 1).The chloride concentration and the ratio of chloride in precipitation to that in water 

from the north spring orifice of the south channel of Big 

Springs was nearly the same as those in water from SNWA 

well 184W101 (table 21). This ratio indicated that about 12 

percent of the precipitation in the Big Spring Wash drainage basin could account for the flow at Big Springs, which 

was similar to that estimated from the water-yield equations 

(table 20). An additional calculation compared the total mean 

annual chloride mass at Big Springs to the total mean annual 

chloride mass in precipitation for mean precipitation rates 

exceeding 12 in/yr in the Big Spring Wash drainage basin and 

in smaller drainage basins between Big Spring Wash and Big 

Springs (drainage area for Big Spring Wash and local drainage basins is shown on fig. 61). The mean annual chloride 

mass that enters Big Spring Wash and nearby smaller drainage 

basins from precipitation was 46 tons, if the mean chloride 

concentration of precipitation and dry fallout was 0.6 mg/L, 

and the total mean annual of precipitation for mean precipitation rates greater than 12 in/yr was 57,000 acre-ft (table 20). 

The mean annual chloride mass from the north and south 

channels of Big Springs also was 46 tons, assuming the mean 

chloride concentration of water from both channels was 5.5 

mg/L (average of five samples from Big Springs between 1983 

and 2010 and available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) and 

the mean annual runoff from both channels of Big Springs is 

6,200 acre-ft (table 1). Thus, chloride mass in the Big Spring 

Wash and nearby smaller drainage basins can account for the 

mean annual runoff from Big Springs. Consequently, groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley was conceptualized as 

moving south of Big Springs between groundwater flow under 

Big Spring Wash to the north and flow under Hamlin Valley 

Wash to the south and east (fig. 69). Some of this flow could 

be lost to evapotranspiration on the eastern side of Big Springs 

Creek or could contribute to flow at springs near the Nevada–

Utah state line.

The temperature of water at the orifice of the south channel 

of Big Springs ranged from 17 to 19 °C, which was warmer 

than the 9 °C mean annual air temperature at the weather 

station near Lehman Caves Visitor Center. This difference in 

temperature can be explained by groundwater circulation to a 

depth of about 1,000 ft, assuming temperature in the ground 

increases about 1 °C every 100 ft in depth (Nathenson and 

Guffanti, 1988). The water temperature from well BS-SW was 

16 °C in November 2010, where the screened interval was 

500–700 ft below land surface, and the water temperature in 

well BS-NW was 13 °C in October 2010, where the screened 

interval was 300–460 ft below land surface, which is an 

increase of 3 °C over 220 ft in depth between the midpoint of 

each screen or an increase of about 1.4 °C for every 100 ft of 

depth. Such an increase in temperature indicated that water at 

Big Springs could originate from depths less than 1,000 ft.

Summary

The greatest spring flows in the study area were from Big 

Springs and springs on the valley floor of southern Snake 

Valley near the Nevada–Utah state line. Both spring areas 

are close to outcrops of Paleozoic carbonate rock and upland 

areas where streams are ephemeral. Water chemistry of water 

from the south channel of Big Springs was similar to that 

of water in a well southwest of Big Springs, indicating that 

groundwater flows northeast to Big Springs. All water flowing 

at Big Springs can be accounted for by precipitation in the 

Big Spring Wash drainage basin and smaller drainage basins 

between the wash and springs either by comparing the mean 

annual discharge at the springs with estimated groundwater 

recharge in the drainage basins or by comparing the mean 

annual chloride mass from precipitation with that from the 

springs. Much of the groundwater recharged in Big Spring 

Wash and nearby smaller drainage basins is likely the source 

to Big Springs. 

A groundwater divide is present in basin-fill deposits in 

southern Spring Valley above a buried bedrock high. Two 

aquifer tests, one in basin-fill deposits and the other in carbonate rocks south of the divide, indicated transmissivities 

greater than 10,000 ft2

/d. Depth to groundwater was greater 

than 100 ft in southern Spring Valley and greater than 50 ft in 

northern Hamlin Valley, indicating little if any groundwater 

flow is lost to evapotranspiration before reaching southern 

Snake Valley, where depth to groundwater was less than 20 ft. 

These observations indicated that groundwater in southern 

Spring Valley flows beneath the Limestone Hills and the north 

end of Hamlin Valley. 

The mean annual groundwater flow beneath the Limestone 

Hills from southern Spring Valley was estimated to range from 

6,000 to 11,000 acre-ft. The mean annual groundwater flow 

southward to northern Hamlin Valley from the Big Spring 

Wash drainage basin and nearby smaller drainage basins at 

the south end of the Snake Range was estimated to range from 

5,000 to 7,000 acre-ft, and the mean annual groundwater flow 
134 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

in ephemeral drainage basins along the eastern slope of the 

southern Snake Range from north of Big Springs to south of 

Big Wash was estimated to range from 1,000 to 3,000 acre-ft. 

This eastward and southward groundwater flow converges 

with northward groundwater flow beneath Hamlin Valley 

Wash, which is constricted to a relatively narrow width in 

southern Snake Valley. The constriction is caused by the 

steeply dipping siliciclastic confining unit (Mississippian 

Chainman Shale) exposed along the eastern side of Snake Valley at the north end of the Mountain Home Range and in the 

Burbank Hills. Because the width of groundwater flow in this 

area narrows, considerable quantities of groundwater flows to 

springs or is lost to evapotranspiration between Big Springs in 

Nevada and Pruess Lake in Utah.

Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley beneath 

the Limestone Hills is conceptualized to continue eastward 

south of Big Springs, where it turns in a northeast direction to 

accommodate northward flow beneath Hamlin Valley Wash. 

Although little if any groundwater from southern Spring 

Valley flows to Big Springs, some of the groundwater from 

southern Spring Valley is likely to be the source of flow to the 

springs near the Nevada–Utah state line or is lost to evapotranspiration along Big Springs Creek and Lake Creek. Any 

remaining groundwater from southern Spring Valley would 

continue as northeastward regional flow through carbonate 

rocks on the east side of Snake Valley.

Limitations and Considerations 

The discussion of surface-water and groundwater flow 

presented in this report is supported by the integration of 

diverse data sets, but a full characterization of the connections 

of surface-water and groundwater in the southern Snake Range 

with groundwater in southern Snake and northern Hamlin Valleys was limited by geologic and hydrologic data deficiencies 

and the need for a better understanding of the local geologic 

framework that controls the connections. This study focused 

on two principal areas of importance to the National Park 

Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management: the drainage basins of Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks on the eastern 

slopes of the southern Snake Range and the area of groundwater connection between southern Spring Valley and southern 

Snake Valley. This section describes the limitations specific to 

these two areas and presents additional field investigations that 

could reduce uncertainty. 

Five limitations and further investigations that bear on the 

conceptualization of the surface-water and groundwater systems in the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage basins 

are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

First, the principal range-front faults along the eastern side 

of the southern Snake Range north of Snake Creek either are 

interpreted as low-angle features that developed primarily in 

Miocene time (McGrew, 1993; Miller and others, 1999) or as 

high-angle features with primarily young offset (Dixon and 

others, 2007; Rowley and others, 2009). Understanding the 

location, continuity, and degree of offset along these faults 

is critical to hydrogeologic interpretation, especially where 

faults are in, or buried by, young alluvial sediments. Highangle and low-angle faults were interpreted from two AMT 

profiles in the vicinity of Baker Creek and Kious Spring (Asch 

and Sweetkind, 2010, 2011), but the hydraulic significance 

of these structures was not investigated. Additional studies of 

the range-front faults and their properties are needed to gain 

a better understanding of the potential for these faults to limit 

the effects of groundwater pumping in the lower-piedmont and 

valley-lowland zones on the water resources in Great Basin 

National Park.

Second, a water budget could not be calculated for the 

upper-piedmont zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage 

basins because of uncertainties in estimates of mean annual 

runoff and groundwater flow from the zone. Information 

needed to develop a water budget for the upper-piedmont zone 

includes (1) determining the mean annual runoff in the natural 

channel of Baker Creek downstream from the diversion to 

Lehman Creek and the mean annual runoff of the combined 

Baker and Lehman Creeks upstream of the concrete ditch, (2) 

determining the hydraulic properties of the fractured limestone 

buried beneath younger and older basin-fill deposits, and (3) 

determining the flow and source of springs at the Home Farm 

north of the Lehman Creek drainage.

Third, the errors associated with the computation of wateryield in the mountain-upland zone are of an unknown magnitude as a result of (1) limited availability of precipitation and 

streamflow records, (2) the assumption that groundwater flow 

was a minor component of water yield, and (3) the assumption 

that water storage did not change. Additional precipitation and 

gaging stations are needed to improve estimates of water yield 

in the mountain-upland zone, particularly precipitation stations 

at altitudes above 11,000 ft. Furthermore, monitoring tritium 

and bulk chloride (wet and dry deposition) concentrations 

at the cooperative weather station at Lehman Caves Visitor 

Center can improve estimates of the mean age of water in the 

creeks and springs and provide additional information about 

the groundwater storage capacity in the mountain-upland zone. 

Fourth, structural disruption in the karst-limestone zone 

in the Snake Creek drainage basin creates complex and 

incompletely understood connections between surface water 

and groundwater in this area. In particular, the groundwater 

connections with the Big Wash drainage basin to the south 

are poorly known and additional investigations are needed 

to evaluate the potential for groundwater flow beneath the 

drainage divide between the two basins. Streamflow losses 

to the Pole Canyon Limestone at the upper end of the karstlimestone zone in Snake Creek drainage basin do not reappear 

in the lower reaches of the Snake Creek drainage, and the path 

of these waters is poorly understood. Also, the local drainage 

area to Spring Creek Spring is insufficient to support its flow, 

indicating that groundwater from the Big Wash drainage basin 

could contribute to the spring. 
Summary and Conclusions 135

Fifth, water-yield estimates in the karst-zone limestone 

zone of the Snake Creek drainage determined from three 

methods produced different results. The method that used 

chloride concentrations in water produced an estimated water 

yield less than that of the computation of water yield developed for the mountain-upland zone or from annual runoff at 

two gaging stations and from flow at springs. The estimated 

water yield from chloride concentrations had greater uncertainty than the other two methods, which could be reduced 

by (1) measuring chloride concentration from atmospheric 

deposition, (2) analyzing the chloride concentrations of the 

younger carbonate rocks, and (3) measuring flow combined 

with chloride concentrations at selected locations in the Snake 

Creek drainage.

Three limitations and further investigations of the conceptualization of the groundwater connection between southern 

Spring Valley and southern Snake Valley are discussed in the 

following paragraphs.

First, although mean annual precipitation in Big Spring 

Wash is sufficient to explain the flow of Big Springs, the 

source area of water to Big Springs is incompletely understood. Only water sampled from the southern springs at Big 

Springs was analyzed for chemical constituents, and the 

chemistry of that water differed from the chemistry of water 

from the well northwest of Big Springs. The groundwater-flow 

direction north of Big Springs remains uncertain, and additional measurements of flow and water chemistry analyses at 

all the springs north of Big Springs could assist in the evaluation of groundwater flow. 

Second, a groundwater divide in basin fill overlies a buried 

bedrock ridge in southern Spring Valley; however, the geologic nature and hydrologic importance of the bedrock ridge 

are not well understood. A buried ridge of carbonate rocks 

is consistent with the results of geophysical surveys, but this 

inference remains uncertain in the absence of test holes drilled 

into the bedrock ridge. Additional investigations could determine the type of bedrock, its hydraulic properties, and whether 

a groundwater divide in the underlying bedrock is different 

from the groundwater divide in the basin fill. 

Third, estimates of groundwater flow from southern 

Spring Valley to northern Hamlin Valley still have considerable uncertainty. The completion of planned wells (United 

States Department of the Interior and Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, 2006; Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2008; 

appendix 1) near the drainage divide between the two valleys 

could provide information about where groundwater flows 

beneath the Limestone Hills. Drilling of the planned well at 

the south end of the Limestone Hills could improve understanding of the hydraulic properties of carbonate rocks near 

the contact with the Indian Peak caldera complex.

Summary and Conclusions

The desire by the Department of Interior (DOI) bureaus 

to understand the possibility and extent of adverse effects 

of groundwater pumping in the valleys on important water 

resources in federal lands led to this study. The purposes of 

this study were (1) to gain a better understanding of the aquifers controlling groundwater flow on the eastern side of the 

southern part of the Snake Range and their connection with 

aquifers in the valleys, (2) to evaluate the relation between 

surface water and groundwater along the piedmont slopes, (3) 

to evaluate sources for Big Springs and Rowland Spring, and 

(4) to assess groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley 

to northern Hamlin Valley. The study focused on two areas—

the first included the drainage basins of Lehman, Baker, and 

Snake Creeks, and the second was the potential source area for 

Big Springs in the south end of Snake Valley that included the 

south end of the Snake Range, the Limestone Hills, the south 

end of Spring Valley, and the north end of Hamlin Valley.

A variety of data were compiled and collected for this 

study, including data from other federal and state (Nevada and 

Utah) agencies and the SNWA that routinely collect waterresource related data in the study area, as well as data collected for oil exploration and for local ranchers and homeowners. Data from other sources included precipitation; chemistry 

of precipitation, stream- and spring-water, and groundwater 

from wells; geology; previously drilled wells; streamflow and 

spring flow records; groundwater levels; and hydraulic properties from aquifer tests. Tasks performed specifically for this 

study included the following: (1) geologic field mapping in the 

Limestone Hills and the Baker, Lehman, Snake Creek, and Big 

Spring Wash drainage basins; (2) drilling test wells at specific 

sites to evaluate the geology, to monitor groundwater levels, 

to evaluate hydraulic properties through aquifer testing, and to 

assess the groundwater chemistry; (3) measuring streamflow 

and spring flow and sampling streams and springs for water 

chemistry; (4) installing shallow piezometers in the streambed 

of Baker, Lehman and Snake Creeks to determine streambed 

hydraulic gradients and seepage rates; and (5) monitoring temperature along selected reaches of Lehman and Snake Creeks 

to determine groundwater seepage through the streambed. 

The southern Snake Range forms a fault-bounded uplift, 

where late Proterozoic and Cambrian siliciclastic rocks and 

intrusive rocks are present at or near the surface in the northern half of the range, and Paleozoic carbonate rocks outcrop in 

the southern half of the range. An Ordovician through Devonian section is present in fault-disrupted sections near Snake 

Creek and as an intact stratigraphic section at the south end of 

the range and in the Limestone Hills. The consolidated rocks 

of the Snake Range were intruded by plutons from Jurassic to 

Tertiary age. Intrusive rocks are most common in the northern half of the southern Snake Range, particularly in the area 

between the Lehman and Snake Creek drainage basins. The 

Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Pioche Shale, and Pole Canyon 

Limestone are all in intrusive contact with these plutons.
136 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Cenozoic rocks crop out locally and fill the basins that 

underlie Snake, Spring, and Hamlin Valleys. The oldest Cenozoic rocks are Oligocene volcanic rocks that were erupted 

from large volcanic calderas of the Indian Peak caldera complex. These volcanic rocks are exposed south of the Limestone 

Hills, in the Fortification Range southwest of the south end 

of the Snake Range, and in the Mountain Home Range to the 

southeast and are in the subsurface in southern Spring Valley and Hamlin Valley. Semi-consolidated Miocene strata are 

present along the eastern flank of the southern Snake Range 

in the vicinity of Sacramento Pass, by Snake Creek, and at the 

south end of the range in Big Spring Wash. Exposures of the 

Miocene section are rare elsewhere, but these rocks are known 

or inferred to exist in the subsurface on the eastern flank of the 

range. Miocene strata are highly heterogeneous and contain 

coarse conglomeratic facies and megabreccia deposits that 

record a major uplift of the Snake Range during Miocene 

time. Younger Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary (basinfill) deposits overlie the older Cenozoic rocks and form the 

upper parts of basin-fill material in Snake, Spring, and Hamlin 

Valleys. These deposits consist of poorly-sorted stream and 

alluvial fan deposits of sand and gravel along the basin margins and of playa silts and clays along the basin axes. Glacial 

deposits are preserved locally in valleys in the northern part of 

the range. 

Cenozoic deformation of the region is characterized by 

local extreme extension along a low-angle detachment fault, 

which is overprinted by generally younger Basin and Range 

extension along steeply dipping faults. The southern Snake 

Range detachment fault is the dominant structural feature 

along the east flank of the southern Snake Range from Snake 

Creek drainage basin northward to Sacramento Pass; the 

development of this fault affected the exposure and configuration of most of the consolidated and partly consolidated 

rocks in this area. The southern Snake Range detachment 

fault approximately parallels the northeastern boundary of 

GBNP from Strawberry Creek southward to Snake Creek and, 

then, trends southwest across the crest of the range. Rocks 

beneath the detachment are typically ductilely deformed and 

weakly metamorphosed Late Proterozoic to Middle Cambrian 

siliciclastic rocks, intrusive rocks, and some carbonate rocks. 

Above the detachment fault, Lower Paleozoic rocks are complexly faulted, particularly in the vicinity of Snake Creek and 

Big Wash. Thick, west-tilted, middle Miocene rocks, which 

were derived from the Snake Range during middle Miocene 

faulting and related uplift, are present locally. Displacement 

on the fault decreases southward; south of Snake Creek and 

Big Wash, it plunges far below the surface outcrops. The south 

end of the range features tilted panels of middle and upper 

Paleozoic carbonate rocks that are separated by high-angle 

normal faults; this structural pattern continues southward to 

the Limestone Hills. The eastern range front has been modified 

by post-Miocene to Quaternary-aged faults. Along the northern half of the range, this modification is minor; young faults 

were imaged by geophysical methods beneath some rangefront alluvial fans and in the deep basins east of the range. The 

southern Snake Range between Snake Creek and Big Springs 

shows the clearest evidence for recent fault offset.

Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage basins were 

divided into five hydrologic zones on the basis of distinct 

climatic, geologic, and topographic features. The five zones, 

from the mountain crest to the valley floor, are the mountainupland, karst-limestone, upper-piedmont, lower-piedmont, and 

valley-lowland zones. The primary source of water in the dry 

valley-lowland zone is streamflow generated in the precipitation-rich mountain-upland zone in the Baker, Lehman, 

and Snake Creek drainage basins. Much of the streamflow 

from the mountain-upland zone is generated at land-surface 

altitudes that exceed 11,000 ft above mean sea level, where 

about 80 percent of the total mean annual precipitation was 

estimated to become annual runoff because poorly-permeable 

quartzite and intrusive rocks are covered by thin soil or by thin 

glacial and alluvial deposits that limit groundwater recharge, 

flow, and storage.

Groundwater flow increases in the karst-limestone zone of 

all three drainage basins, primarily, because of the presence of 

permeable carbonate-rock aquifers and increased permeability 

from dissolution of the limestone. This resulted in combined 

streamflow losses along the creeks of 3,300 acre-ft/yr in the 

Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins and 1,100 acre-ft/

yr in the Snake Creek drainage basin, although the mean 

net streamflow loss was only 100 acre-ft/yr in Snake Creek 

because of intermittent tributary and groundwater inflows to 

the creek following winters with above-average precipitation. 

Much of the groundwater flow in the karst-limestone zone is 

through large tubular openings to fault-controlled springs in 

the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage basins. Outflow 

from the karst-limestone zone to the upper-piedmont zone is 

mostly by streamflow and spring flow along faults. The mean 

annual runoff and the flow of springs totaled 13,600 acre-ft in 

the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins and 5,100 acre-ft 

in the Snake Creek drainage basin. 

In contrast to mean annual runoff and the flow of springs, 

the mean annual groundwater inflow to the upper-piedmont 

zone was 1,600 acre-ft for the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, about half of which was through fractured limestone. Mean annual groundwater inflow to the upper-piedmont 

zone was 440 acre-ft in the Snake Creek drainage basin, 

mostly through fractured limestone. In the upper-piedmont 

zone, groundwater can be divided into an unconfined aquifer 

in the younger alluvial deposits associated with each creek and 

a confined aquifer in the fractured limestone, which are separated by less permeable older basin-fill deposits. The water 

table in the younger deposits was generally near the streambed, as indicated by little stream gain or loss and water levels 

in piezometers that were near the water level in the creeks. An 

exception was the lower reach of Snake Creek drainage basin, 

downstream from the confluence with Spring Creek, where 

hydraulic gradients indicated gravity drainage (hydraulic gradients near −1 ft/ft), which continued to the lower-piedmont 

zone to the Nevada–Utah state line. Streamflow in this 3.1-mi 

reach of Snake Creek was disconnected from the groundwater 
Summary and Conclusions 137

system. The net streamflow loss in this reach averaged only 

0.7 ft3/s between January 2002 and October 2004 and resulted 

in a net streambed-seepage rate of 0.5 ft/d. This rate was consistent with estimates from three streambed piezometers and, 

because of gravity drainage, the vertical hydraulic conductivity was also about 0.5 ft/d, an order of magnitude less than the 

vertical hydraulic conductivity estimated for the streambeds 

along Baker and Lehman Creeks. The reason for the low 

hydraulic conductivity was that the streambed sediments are 

cemented with calcite caused by off-gassing of carbon dioxide 

gas in water that came from springs at the end of the karstlimestone zone from late summer to winter, when all the flow 

in Snake Creek was from the springs. 

Specific-capacity estimates and aquifer tests indicated that 

the transmissivity of the fractured limestone beneath the older 

basin-fill deposits in the upper-piedmont zone was less than 

that in the karst-limestone zone, likely because dissolution 

of the fractured limestone was limited by the availability of 

dissolved carbon dioxide gas that entered with groundwater 

leaving the karst-limestone zone. The estimated transmissivity 

of the fractured limestone from slug tests at the Snake 5 deep 

well next to Snake Creek was about 500 ft2

/d. Geochemical 

modeling indicated that water from the Snake Creek 5 deep 

well traveled mostly through carbonate-rocks beneath the 

older basin-fill deposits. The mean age of water, estimated 

from tritium concentration in the well water, was 4–7 years. 

This indicated relatively rapid transport through fractures from 

the karst-limestone zone in Great Basin National Park to the 

well, even though groundwater flow through the fractured 

limestone was 9 percent of the estimated mean annual runoff 

in Snake Creek at the end of the upper-piedmont zone.

Much of the groundwater flow to the upper-piedmont zone 

in all three drainage basins becomes groundwater flow to the 

lower-piedmont zone, particularly in the Baker and Snake 

Creek drainage basins. The younger alluvial deposits thicken 

rapidly downslope of the Quaternary faults that separate the 

upper-piedmont zone from the lower-piedmont zone, which 

causes a corresponding increase in transmissivity and in depth 

to groundwater. Groundwater flow through the younger deposits in all three drainage basins was not always inhibited by the 

Quaternary faults; otherwise groundwater would flow to the 

surface along the creek in the upper-piedmont zone upstream 

of the fault, similar to the flow of groundwater to springs 

between the karst-limestone and upper-piedmont zones. An 

exception was the fault-controlled springs at the Home Farm, 

north of the Lehman Creek drainage basin, the source of 

which could be groundwater flow from stream losses in the 

karst-limestone zone by Lehman Creek.

In the lower-piedmont zone in the Snake Creek drainage basin, groundwater flow from the Quaternary fault to 

the Nevada–Utah state line included 400 acre-ft/yr from the 

fractured limestone beneath the upper-piedmont zone and 

another 400 acre-ft/yr of streamflow loss. Most of this flow 

was through younger alluvial deposits above a relatively thick 

section of older basin-fill deposits that are mostly fine sand, 

silt, and clay. The depth to water in the valley-lowland zone of 

the Snake Creek drainage basin in Utah was about 50 ft below 

land surface, which precluded much groundwater loss to 

evapotranspiration. Fractured limestone underlies the basin-fill 

deposits in the valley-lowland zone and abuts the deposits to 

the east. The relatively deep water table in the valley-lowland 

zone can be explained by the presence of relatively permeable 

limestone beneath the basin-fill deposits and in the Burbank 

Hills that acts as a drain for the younger and older basin-fill 

deposits. Finally, groundwater flow in the Snake Creek drainage basin is continuous between the karst-limestone zone in 

Great Basin National Park and the valley-lowland zone in 

Utah. Groundwater flow from the karst-limestone zone to the 

valley-lowland zone, however, was limited by the small percentage of open fractures in the limestone beneath the upperpiedmont zone.

Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley through 

the Limestone Hills to northern Hamlin Valley previously was 

considered to be a potential source of Big Springs. A groundwater divide south of Baking Powder Flat in southern Spring 

Valley separates northward flow to the flat from southeast 

flow to northern Hamlin Valley. The mean hydraulic gradient 

between wells near the groundwater divide and in northern 

Hamlin Valley east of the Limestone Hills was 20 ft/mi. The 

depth to water below land surface in these wells exceeded 

50 ft, which precluded much groundwater loss to evapotranspiration in southern Spring Valley and northern Hamlin Valley. 

Because of the eastward flow in southern Spring Valley, and 

no place for groundwater to be lost to evapotranspiration until 

southern Snake Valley, groundwater flow is likely to be continuous from southern Spring Valley beneath the Limestone 

Hills and northern Hamlin Valley to southern Snake Valley.

Mean annual groundwater flow beneath the Limestone Hills was estimated to range from about 6,000 to 

11,000 acre-ft on the basis of groundwater recharge estimated 

by using the water-yield equations from the mountain-upland 

zone and the total mean annual precipitation for mean precipitation rates greater than 12 in/yr in southern Spring Valley 

south of the groundwater divide. The ratio of chloride in 

precipitation to chloride in wells in southern Spring Valley, multiplied by the total mean annual precipitation for 

mean precipitation rates greater than 12 in/yr, indicated a 

range in groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley of 

6,000–8,000 acre-ft, which was similar to that estimated by 

using the water-yield equations. 

Groundwater flow to Big Springs in southern Snake Valley 

can be accounted for by precipitation in the Big Spring Wash 

drainage basin and smaller basins between the wash and the 

springs. This conclusion was based on (1) a simple three-point 

analysis of water levels in wells northwest and southwest of 

Big Springs and the land-surface altitude at the springs, (2) 

the chemistry of water from the wells and Big Springs, and 

(3) groundwater recharge in the Big Spring Wash and nearby 

smaller drainage basins estimated from the water-yield equations and from a calculation of total chloride mass in precipitation and spring flow. Except for one well at the northwest 

end of the Limestone Hills in southern Spring Valley and near 
138 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

the south end of the Snake Range, groundwater chemistry in 

southern Spring Valley and northern Hamlin Valley contained 

more dissolved salts than water at Big Springs, indicating that 

these waters did not flow to Big Springs. 

Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley beneath 

the Limestone Hills is conceptualized to continue eastward 

south of Big Springs, where it turns in a northeast direction to 

accommodate northward flow beneath Hamlin Valley Wash. 

Although little if any groundwater from southern Spring Valley flows to Big Springs, some of the groundwater from southern Spring Valley is likely to be the source of water at springs 

near the Nevada–Utah state line or is lost to evapotranspiration along Big Springs Creek and Lake Creek. Any remaining 

groundwater from southern Spring Valley would continue as 

northeastward regional flow through carbonate rocks on the 

east side of Snake Valley.

References Cited

Acheampong, S.Y., 1992, Isotope hydrology of Lehman and 

Baker Creek drainages, Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 

Las Vegas, Nev., University of Nevada, Las Vegas, unpublished M.S. Thesis, 105 p.

Acheampong, S.Y., Farnham, I.M., and Watrus, J.M., 2009, 

Geochemical characterization of ground water and surface 

water of Snake Valley and the surrounding areas in Utah, in

Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, and Jordan, J.L., eds., Geology 

and Geologic Resources and Issues of Western Utah: Utah 

Geological Association Publication 38, p. 325–344. 

Allander, K.K., and Berger, D.L., 2009, Seismic velocities 

and thicknesses of alluvial deposits along Baker Creek in 

the Great Basin National Park, east-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1174, 14 p.

Allmendinger, R.W., Sharp, J.W., Von Tish, Douglas, Serpa, 

Laura, Brown, Larry, Kaufman, Sidney, Oliver, Jack, and 

Smith, R.B., 1983, Cenozoic and Mesozoic structure of the 

eastern Basin and Range Province, Utah, from COCORP 

seismic reflection data: Geology, v. 11, p. 532–536.

Armstrong, R.L., 1968, Sevier orogenic belt in Nevada 

and Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 79, 

p. 429–458.

Armstrong, R.L., 1982, Cordilleran metamorphic core complexes—from Arizona to southern Canada: Annual Review 

of Earth and Planetary Science, v. 10, p. 129–154.

Asch, T.H., and Sweetkind, D.S., 2010, Geophysical characterization of range-front faults, Snake Valley, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1016, 226 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1016/.

Asch, T.H., and Sweetkind, D.S., 2011, Audiomagnetotelluric 

characterization of range-front faults, Snake Valley, Nevada: 

Geophysics, v. 78, no. 1, p. B1–B7, doi:10.1190/1.3511358.

Axen, G.J., Taylor, W.J., and Bartley, J.M., 1993, Space-time 

patterns and tectonic controls of Tertiary extension and 

magmatism in the Great Basin of the western United States: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p. 56–76.

Bartley, J.M., and Wernicke, B.P., 1984, The Snake Range 

décollement interpreted as a major extensional shear zone: 

Tectonics, v. 3, p. 647–657.

Bedinger, M.S., Sargent, K.A., and Langer, W.H., 1990, 

Studies of geology and hydrology in the Basin and Range 

province, southwestern United States, for isolation of highlevel radioactive waste—Characterization of the Bonneville 

region, Utah and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1370–G, 38 p. 

Belcher, W.R., ed., 2004, Death Valley regional ground-water 

flow system, Nevada and California—Hydrogeologic 

framework and transient ground-water flow model: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–

5205, 408 p.

Belcher, W.R., Elliot, P.E., and Geldon, A.L., 2001, Hydraulicproperty estimates for use with a transient ground-water 

flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow 

system, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4210, 28 p.

Best, M.G., and Grant, S.K., 1987, Stratigraphy of the volcanic Oligocene Needles Range Group in southwestern Utah 

and eastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1443-A, 28 p.

Best, M.G., Christiansen, E.H., and Blank, H.R., Jr., 1989a, 

Oligocene caldera complex and calc-alkaline rocks of the 

Indian Peak volcanic field, Nevada and Utah: Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, v. 101, p. 1076–1090.

Best, M.G., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Grommé, C.S., 

McKee, E.H., and Noble, D.C., 1989b, Excursion 3A: 

Eocene through Miocene volcanism in the Great Basin of 

the western United States: New Mexico Bureau of Mines 

and Mineral Resources Memoir, v. 47, p. 91–133. 

Best, M.G., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Grommé, Sherman, Hart, G.L., and Tingley, D.G., 2013, The 36-18 Ma 

Indian Peak-Caliente ignimbrite field and calderas, southeastern Great Basin, USA: Multicyclic super-eruptions: 

Geosphere, v. 9, p. 864–950.

Blakely, R.J., and Ponce, D.A., 2001, Map showing depth to 

pre-Cenozoic basement in the Death Valley Ground-water 

model area, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2381-E, 6 p., 1 plate.
References Cited 139

Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., Jr., 1973, Geohydrology 

of the eastern part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

712-B, 35 p.

Bredehoeft, J.D., 1963, Hydrogeology of the lower Humboldt 

River basin, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin, 21, 50 p.

Bredehoeft, J.D., and Farvolden, R.N., 1963, Disposition of 

aquifers in intermountain basins of northern Nevada: International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Commission 

of Subterranean Waters Publication 64, p. 197–212.

Bridgemon, R.R., 1965, The caves of Baker Creek with reference to the Baker Creek cave system, White Pine County, 

Nevada: Tucson, Arizona, University of Arizona Association of Cavers Grotto of the National Speleological Society, 

Arizona Caver, v. 2, no. 4, p. 45–79.

Broadbent, R.C., Katzer, Terry, and Brothers, Kay, 1995, 

Mountain front runoff and groundwater recharge in eastcentral Nevada: Las Vegas Valley Water District, Cooperative Water Project, Series Report no. 17, 16 p.

Brooks, L.E., Masbruch, M.D., Sweetkind, D.S., and Buto, 

S.G., 2014, Steady-state numerical groundwater flow 

model of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer 

system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2014-5213, 124 p., 2 pl. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

sir20145213.

Brothers, Kay, Buqo, T.S., and Tracy, J.V., 1993, Hydrology 

and steady state ground-water model of Snake Valley, eastcentral Nevada, and west-central Utah: Las Vegas Valley 

Water District, Cooperative Water Project, Series Report 

no. 9, 66 p.

Brothers, Kay, Buqo, T.S., Bernholtz, A.J., and Tracy, J.V., 

1994, Hydrology and steady state ground-water model of 

Spring Valley, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada: 

Las Vegas Valley Water District, Cooperative Water Project, 

Series Report no. 13, 69 p.

Brown, J.L., and Davila, Videl, Jr., 1995, Large-scale geologic 

mapping in Great Basin Nation Park, in van Riper, Charles, 

III, ed., Proceedings of the second biennial conference 

on research in Colorado Plateau National Parks: National 

Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/

NRNAUINRTP-95/1 l, p. 55–66.

Bunch, R.L., and Harrill, J.R., 1984, Compilation of selected 

hydrologic data from the MX missile-siting investigation, 

east-central Nevada and western Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 84–702, 123 p.

Burns, A.G., and Drici, W., 2011, Hydrology and water 

resources of Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar Valleys, 

Nevada and vicinity: Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Las Vegas, Nev., presentation for Water Rights Hearing on 

Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar Valleys, Nevada State 

Engineer’s Office, Carson City, Nev., Exhibit 258, variously 

paged, http://water.nv.gov/hearings/past/springetal/browseabledocs/Exhibits/SNWA%20Exhibits/SNWA_Exh_258_

Burns%20and%20Drici%20Report/SNWA_Exh_258_

Burns%20and%20Drici%20Report.pdf.

Carlton, S.M., 1985, Fish Springs multi-basin flow system, 

Nevada and Utah: Reno, Nev., University of Nevada, Reno, 

Mackay School of Mines, unpubl. M.S. thesis, 103 p.

Clark, I.D., and Fritz, Peter, 1997, Environmental isotopes in 

hydrogeology: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press LLC, 328 p.

Cohen, Philip, and others, 1965, Water Resources of the 

Humboldt River Valley near Winnemucca, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1795, 143 p.

Coney, P.J., 1980, Cordilleran metamorphic core complexes; 

an overview, in Crittenden, M.D., Coney, P.J., and Davis, 

G.K., eds., Cordilleran Metamorphic Core Complexes, Geological Society of America Memoir 153, p. 7–34.

Cooper, F.J., 2008, Structural and thermobarometric constraints on the exhumation of the northern Snake Range 

metamorphic core complex, Nevada: Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Ph.D. dissertation, 200 p.

Cooper, F.J., Platt, J.P., Platzman, E.S., Grove, M.J., and 

Seward, Gareth, 2010, Opposing shear senses in a subdetachment mylonite zone: Implications for core complex 

mechanics: Tectonics, v. 28, p. 997–1,020.

Craig, Harmon, 1957, Isotopic standards for carbon and oxygen and correction factors for mass-spectrometric analysis 

of carbon dioxide: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 

12, p. 133–149.

Craig, Harmon, 1961a, Isotopic variations in meteoric water: 

Science, v. 133, no. 3465, p. 1,702–1,703.

Craig, Harmon, 1961b, Standard for reporting concentrations 

of deuterium and oxygen-18 in natural waters: Science, v. 

133, no. 3467, p. 1,833–1,834. 

Davis, S.N., and DeWeist, R.J.M., 1966, Hydrogeology: New 

York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 463 p.

DeSaussure, Raymond, Mowat, G.D., and Lange, A.L., 1953, 

Report of the California-Nevada Speleological Survey: 

Western Speleological Institute Technical Report 2, 198 p.

Dettinger, M.D., 1989, Reconnaissance estimates of natural recharge to desert basins in Nevada, U.S.A., by using 

chloride-balance calculations: Journal of Hydrology, v. 106, 

p. 55–78.
140 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Dettinger, M.D., Harrill, J.R., Schmidt, D.L., and Hess, J.W., 

1995, Distribution of carbonate-rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent 

parts of California, Arizona, and Utah; 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 91–4146, 

100 p.

Dixon, G.L., Rowley, P.D., Burns, A.G., Watrus, J.M., Donovan, D.J., and Ekren, E.B., 2007, Geology of White Pine 

and Lincoln counties and adjacent areas, Nevada and Utah: 

The geologic framework of regional groundwater flow systems: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. HAM–ED–0001, 157 p.

 Dohrenwend, J.C., Schell, B.A., Menges, C.M., Moring, 

B.C., and McKittrick, M.A., 1996, chap. 9, Reconnaissance photogeologic map of young (Quaternary and late 

Tertiary) faults in Nevada, in Singer, D.A., ed., An analysis of Nevada’s metal-bearing mineral resources, Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96–2, 

p. 9–1–9–12.

Dong, Weiquan, Naranjo, R.C., and Halford, K.J., 2012, Analysis of water-level fluctuations from pumpage for irrigation 

during multiple drought years in Snake Valley, HA195, near 

Needle Point and south of Garrison, Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Aquifer Test, http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_needlepoint.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_needlepoint .

Dotson, K.L., 2010, Geochemical analysis of calcium carbonate cementation and its role in reducing loss rates along 

Snake Creek, southern Snake Valley, White Pine County, 

Nevada: Reno, Nev., University of Nevada, Reno, unpubl. 

M.S. thesis, 72 p.

Drever, J.I., 1988, The geochemistry of natural waters (2d 

ed.): Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc., 437 p.

Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., Robinson, T.W., Fredericks, J.C., 

and Loeltz, O.J., 1951, Contributions to the hydrology of 

eastern Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources 

Bulletin 12, 171 p.

Eakin, T.E., Price, Don, and Harrill, J.R., 1976, Summary 

appraisals of the Nation’s ground-water resources—Great 

Basin region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

813-G, 37 p., 1 plate. 

Eastman, H.S., and Muller, D.C., 2009a, Geologic data 

analysis report for monitor well 184W506M and test well 

184W105 in Spring Valley: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern 

Nevada Water Authority, Doc. No. RDS-ED-0011, 41 p. 

Eastman, H.S., and Muller, D.C., 2009b, Geologic data analysis report for monitor well 184W508M in Spring Valley: 

Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, Doc. 

No. RDS-ED-0010, 34 p. 

Eastman, H.S., and Muller, D.C., 2009c, Geologic data 

analysis report for monitor well 184W101 in Spring Valley: 

Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, Doc. 

No. RDS-ED-0009, 48 p. 

Eastman, H.S., and Muller, D.C., 2009d, Geologic data 

analysis report for monitor well 184W504M and test well 

184W103 in Spring Valley: Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, Doc. No. RDS-ED-0008, 49 p. 

Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., Rice, E.W., and Greenberg, A.E., 

2005, Standard methods for the examination of water and 

waste water: American Public Health Association, 1,368 p.

Elliott, P.E., Beck, D.A., and Prudic, D.E., 2006, 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: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5099, 156 p.

Ertec Western, Inc., 1981a, MX Siting Investigation, Water 

Resources Program, Technical Summary Report Volume I, 

Report E–TR-52-I, prepared for the U.S. Department of the 

Air Force, Ballistic Missile Office, Norton Air Force Base, 

California, 97 p.

Ertec Western, Inc., 1981b, MX Siting Investigation, Water 

Resources Program, Technical Summary Report Volume II, 

Report E–TR-52-II, prepared for the U.S. Department of the 

Air Force, Ballistic Missile Office, Norton Air Force Base, 

California, 286 p.

Ertec Western, Inc., 1981c, MX Siting Investigation, Water 

Resources Program, Technical Summary Report Volume 

IIA, Report E–TR-52-II, prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Air Force, Ballistic Missile Office, Norton Air Force 

Base, California, 41 p.

Ertec Western, Inc., 1981d, MX Siting Investigation, Water 

Resources Program, Technical Summary Report Volume 

IIB, Report E–TR-52-II, prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Air Force, Ballistic Missile Office, Norton Air Force 

Base, California, 131 p.

Farmer, D.E., Glew, T.R., and Faller, S.H., 1998, Measurement 

of current tritium concentrations in winter and summer precipitation at Las Vegas, Nevada (USA): Transactions on the 

Ecology and the Environment, v. 23, p. 97–112.

Fetter, C. W. 2001, Applied Hydrogeology (4th ed.): Upper 

Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 598 p. 

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 604 p.

Friedman, Irving, Smith, G.I., Johnson, C.A., and Moscati, 

R.J., 2002, Stable isotope compositions of waters in the 

Great Basin, United States 2—Modern precipitation: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 107, no. 4401, 22 p.
References Cited 141

Gans, P.B., and Miller, E.L., 1983, Styles of mid-Tertiary 

extension in east-central Nevada, in Gurgel, K.D., ed., 

Geologic excursions in the overthrust belt and metamorphic core complexes of the intermountain region, Nevada: 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 59, 

p. 107–160.

Gans, P.B., Miller, E.L., McCarthy, Jill, and Ouldcott, M.L., 

1985 Tertiary extensional faulting and evolving ductilebrittle transition zones in the northern Snake Range and 

vicinity: New insights from seismic data: Geology, v. 13, 

p. 189–193.

Gardner, P.M., Masbruch, M.D., Plume, R.W., and Buto, S.G., 

2011, Regional potentiometric-surface map of the Great 

Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system in Snake Valley 

and surrounding areas, Juab, Millard, and Beaver Counties, Utah, and White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3193, 

2 sheets.

Gates, J.S., 1984, Hydrogeology of northwestern Utah and 

adjacent parts of Idaho and Nevada: Utah Geological Association Publication 13, p. 239–248.

Gillespie, J. M., 2008, A conceptual model of groundwater 

flow in Spring Valley, NV, and Snake Valley, NV-UT: 

Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, unpubl. M.S. 

thesis, 80 p.

Gillespie, J.M., Nelson, S.T., Mayo, A.L., and Tingey, D.G., 

2012, Why conceptual groundwater flow models matter—a 

trans-boundary example from the arid Great Basin, western 

USA: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 20, p. 1,133–1,147.

Giofiantini, R., 1978, Standards for stable isotope measurements in natural compounds: Nature, v. 271, p. 534–536. 

Goulden, M.L., Anderson, R.G., Bales, R.C., Kelly, A.E., 

Meadows, M., and Winston, G.C., 2012: Evapotranspiration 

along an elevation gradient in California’s Sierra Nevada: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 117, G03028, 13 p., 

doi:10.1029/2012JG002027.

Grier, S.P., 1984, Alluvial fan and lacustrine carbonate deposits in the Snake Range: A study of Tertiary sedimentation 

and associated tectonism: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, unpubl. M.S. thesis, 61 p.

Halford, K.J., and Plume, R.W., 2011, Potential effects of 

groundwater pumping on water levels, phyreatophytes, and 

spring discharges in Spring and Snake Valleys, White Pine 

County, Nevada and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2011–5032, 50 p. and 8 appendices.

Harrill, J.R., and Prudic, D.E., 1998, Aquifer systems in the 

Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent States—

Summary report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1409-A, 66 p.

Harrill, J.R., Gates, J.S., and Thomas, J.M., 1988, Major 

ground-water flow systems in the Great Basin region of 

Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, scale 

1:1,000,000, 2 sheets p.

Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., 2011, Conceptual 

model of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer 

system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5193, 191 p.

Hershey, R.L., Heilweil, V.M., Gardner, Philip, Lyles, B.F., 

Earman, Sam, Thomas, J.M., and Lundmark, K.W., 2007, 

Groundwater chemistry interpretations supporting the Basin 

and Range Regional Carbonate-rock Aquifer System (BARCAS) study, eastern Nevada and western Utah: Reno, Nev., 

Desert Research Institute DHS publication 41230, 86 p.

Hess, R.H., Fitch, S.P., and Warren, S.N., 2004, Nevada Oil 

and Gas Well Database (NVOILWEL): Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Open-File Report 04–1, 242 p.

Hintze, L.F., and Davis, F.D., 2002b, Geologic map of the 

Tule Valley 30’ x 60’ quadrangle and parts of the Ely, Fish 

Springs, and Kern Mountains 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, northwest Millard County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Map 

186, scale 1:100,000.

Hintze, L.F., and Davis, F.D., 2002a, Geologic map of the Wah 

Wah Mountains North 30’ x 60’ quadrangle and part of the 

Garrison 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, southwest Millard County 

and part of Beaver County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey 

Map 207DM, scale 1:100,000, CD-ROM.

Hintze, L.F., and Davis, F.D., 2003, Geology of Millard 

County, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 133, 305 p.

Hintze, L.F., and Kowallis, B.J., 2009, Geologic History of 

Utah: A Field Guide to Utah’s Rocks: Brigham Young University Geology Studies Special Publication 17, 225 p.

Hintze, L.F., Willis, G.C., Laes, D.Y.M., Sprinkel, D.A., 

and Brown, K.D., 2000, Digital geologic map of Utah: 

Utah Geological Survey Map 179DM, CD-ROM, scale 

1:500,000.

Hood, J.W., and Rush, F.E., 1965, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Snake Valley area, Utah and Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources-Reconnaissance Report 34, 43 p.

Hose, R.K., 1977, Structural geology of the Confusion Range, 

west-central Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 971, 9 p.
142 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

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. 

Houghton, J.G., Sakamoto, C.M., and Gifford, R.O., 1975, 

Nevada’s weather and climate: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Special Publication 2, 78 p.

Hunsaker, C.T., Whitaker, T.W. and Bales, R.C., 2012: Snowmelt runoff and water yield along elevation and temperature 

gradients in California’s southern Sierra Nevada: Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association, v. 48, no. 4, p. 

667-678, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00641.x 

Hurlow, Hugh, ed., 2014, Hydrogeologic studies and groundwater monitoring in Snake Valley and adjacent hydrographic areas, west-central Utah and east-central Nevada: 

Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 135, 304 pages, 4 Plates, 

Appendices and data tables.

Jachens, R.C., and Moring, B.C., 1990, Maps of the thickness 

of Cenozoic deposits and the isostatic residual gravity over 

basement for Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 90–404, 15 p.

Jackson, T.R., 2010, Evaluation of the hydraulic connection 

between streams and aquifers at Baker and Snake Creek 

near Great Basin National Park, Snake Valley, White Pine 

County, Nevada: Reno, Nev., University of Nevada, Reno, 

unpubl M.S. thesis, 236 p.

Jeton, A.E., Watkins, S.A., Lopes, T.J., and Huntington, Justin, 

2005, Evaluation of precipitation estimates from PRISM for 

1961–1990 and 1971–2000 data sets, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5291, 

26 p.

Katzer, T., and Donovan, D.J., 2003, Surface-water resources 

and basin water budget for Spring Valley, White Pine and 

Lincoln Counties, Nevada, Report for the Las Vegas Valley 

Water District, 70 p.

Kellogg, H.E., 1963, Paleozoic stratigraphy of the southern 

Egan Range, Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 74, p. 685–708. 

Kirby, Stefan, and Hurlow, Hugh, 2005, Hydrogeologic setting 

of the Snake Valley hydrologic basin, Millard County, Utah, 

and White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada—Implications for possible effects of proposed water wells: Utah 

Geological Survey Report of Investigations 254, CD-ROM. 

Kistinger, G.M., Prieur, J.P., Rowley, P.D., and Dixon, G.L., 

2009, Characterization of streams and springs in the Snake 

Valley area, Utah and Nevada, in Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, and Jordan, J.L., eds., Geology and Geologic 

Resources and Issues of Western Utah: Utah Geological 

Association Publication 38, p. 299–323. 

Kleinhampl, F.J., and Ziony, J.I., 1985, Mineral resources of 

northern Nye County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Bulletin 99–B, 243 p. 

Laczniak, R.J., Flint, A.L., Moreo, M.T., Knochenmus, L.A., 

Lundmark, K.W., Pohll, Greg, Carroll, R.W.H., Smith, 

J.L., Welborn, T.L., Heilweil1 V.M., Pavelko, M.T., Hershey, R.L., Thomas, J.M., Earman, Sam, and Lyles, B.F., 

2007, Ground-water budgets, in Welch, A.H., Bright, D.J., 

and Knochenmus, L.A., eds., 2007, Water resources of the 

Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifer system, White Pine 

County, Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2007–5261, p. 43–82. 

Lange, A.L., 1958, Stream piracy and cave development along 

Baker Creek, Nevada: Santa Barbara, Calif., Western Speleological Institute Bulletin 1, p. 1–24.

Langbein, W.B., and Iseri, K.T., 1995, Science in your 

watershed, general introduction and hydrologic definitions, Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-Water 

Techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1541-A, http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html.

Langenheim, R.L., Jr., and Larson, E.R., 1973, Correlation of 

Great Basin stratigraphic units: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Bulletin 72, 36 p, 3 plates.

Lee, D.E., and Christiansen, E.H., 1983, The granite problem 

as exposed in the southern Snake Range, Nevada: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 83, p. 99–116.

Lee, D.E., and Van Loenen, R.E., 1971, Hybrid granitoid rocks 

of the Southern Snake Range, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 668, 48 p.

Lee, D.E., Kistler, R.W., Friedman, Irving, and Van Loenen, 

R.E., 1981, Two-mica granites of northeastern Nevada: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86, no. B11, p. 10,607–

10,616, doi:10.1029/JB086iB11p10607.

Lohman, S.W., 1972, Ground water hydraulic: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p.

Loucks, M.D., Tingey, D.G., Best, M.G., Christiansen, E.H., 

and Hintze, L.F., 1989, Geologic map of the fortification 

Range, Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 

I-1866, scale 1:50,000.

Lucas, L.L., and Unterweger, M.P., 2000, Comprehensible 

reviews and critical of the half-life of tritium: Journal of 

Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, v. 105, no. 4, p. 541–549.

Mace, J.T., and Muller, D.C., 2010a, Geologic data analysis 

report for monitor well SPR7007M and test well SPR7007X 

in Spring Valley: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, Doc. No. RDS-ED-0019, 31 p. 
References Cited 143

Mace, J.T., and Muller, D.C., 2010b, Geologic data analysis 

report for monitor well SPR7006M in Spring Valley: Las 

Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, Doc. No. 

RDS-ED-0018, 23 p. 

Mace, J.T., and Muller, D.C., 2010c, Geologic data analysis 

report for monitor well SPR7005M and test well SPR7005X 

in Spring Valley: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, Doc. No. RDS-ED-0017, 30 p.

Mace, J.T., and Muller, D.C., 2010d, Geologic data analysis 

report for monitor well SPR7008M and test well SPR7008X 

in Spring Valley: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, Doc. No. RDS-ED-0020, 30 p. 

Mankinen, E.A., and McKee, E.H., 2009, Geophysical setting of western Utah and eastern Nevada between latitudes 

37°45’ and 40°N, in Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, and Jordan, 

J.L., eds., Geology and geologic resources and issues of 

western Utah: Utah Geologic Association Publication 38, p. 

271–286.

Mankinen, E.A., Roberts, C.W., McKee, E.H., Chuchel, B.A., 

and Moring, B.C., 2006, Geophysical data from the Spring 

and Snake Valleys area, Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006–1160, 39 p. 

Masbruch, M.D., Gardner, P.M., and Brooks, L.E., 2014, 

Hydrology and numerical simulation of groundwater movement and heat transport in Snake Valley and surrounding 

areas, Juab, Millard, and Beaver Counties, Utah, and White 

Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5103, 108 p. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145103.

Mason, J.L., Atwood, John, Buettner, Priscilla, 1985, Selected 

test well data from the MX-missilesiting study, Tooele, 

Millard, Beaver, and Iron Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 85–347, 13 p., 1 pl.

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

ground-water pumping 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 Berger, D.L., 1997, Subsurface flow and 

water yield from watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley 

hydrographic area, West-Central Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4191, 

56 p.

McCarthy, Jill, 1986, Reflection profiles from the Snake 

Range metamorphic core complex: A window into the 

mid-crust, in Barazangi, M., and Brown, L., eds., Reflection 

Seismology: The Continental Crust: American Geophysical 

Union Geodynamics Series, v. 14, p. 281–292. 

McGrew, A.J., 1993, The origin and evolution of the southern 

Snake Range décollement, east central Nevada: Tectonics, 

v. 12, no. 1, p. 21–34.

McGrew, A.J., Miller, E.L., and Brown, J.L., compiler, 1995, 

Geologic map of Kious Spring and Garrison 7.5’ quadrangles, White Pine County, Nevada and Millard County, 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–10, 

scale 1:24,000.

McPhee, D.K., Chuchel, B.A., and Pellerin, Louise, 2006, 

Audiomagnetotelluric data from Spring, Cave, and Coyote 

Spring Valleys, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006–1164, 41 p.

McPhee, D.K., Chuchel, B.A., and Pellerin, Louise, 2008, 

Audiomagnetotelluric data and preliminary two-dimensional models from Spring, Snake, and Three Lakes Valleys, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–

1301, 59 p.

McPhee, D.K., Pari, Keith, and Baird, F.A., 2009, Audiomagnetotelluric investigation of Snake Valley, Eastern Nevada 

and Western Utah, in Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, Jordan, 

J.L., eds., 2009, Geology and Geologic Resources and 

Issues of Western Utah: Utah Geological Association Publication 38, p. 287–297.

Meinzer, O.E., 1911, Ground water in Juab, Millard, and Iron 

Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 277, 162 p.

Mifflin, M.D., 1968, Delineation of ground-water flow 

systems in Nevada: University of Nevada Desert Research 

Institute Technical Report H-W no. 4, 112 p.

Miller, E.L., Gans, P.B., and Garing, J., 1983, The Snake 

Range décollement—An exhumed mid-Tertiary ductilebrittle transition: Tectonics, v. 2, p. 239–263.

Miller, E.L., Gans, P.B., Wright, J.E., and J.F. Sutter, 1989, 

Metamorphic history of the east-central Basin and Range 

province–Tectonic setting and relationship to magmatism, 

in Ernst, W.G., ed., Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution, 

Western Conterminous United States, Rubey Volume VII: 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, p. 649–682.

Miller, E.L., Miller, M.M., Stevens, C.H., Wright, J.E., and 

Madrid, R., 1992, Late Paleozoic paleogeography and tectonic evolution of the western U. S. Cordillera, in Burchfiel, 

B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., The Cordilleran 

Orogen: conterminous U. S.—The Geology of North 

America, Volume G-3, Decade of North American Geology: 

Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, p. 57–106.

Miller, E.L., Gans, P.B., Grier, S.P., and Brown, J.L., compiler, 

1995a, Geologic map of Windy Peak 7.5’ quadrangle, White 

Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 94–687, scale 1:24,000.
144 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Miller, E.L., Grier, S.P., and Brown, J.L, compiler, 1995b, 

Geologic map of the Lehman Caves quadrangle, White Pine 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 1758, scale 1:24,000.

Miller, E.L., Dumitru, T.A., Brown, R.W., and Gans, P.B., 

1999, Rapid Miocene slip on the Snake Range-Deep Creek 

Range fault system, east-central Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 6, p. 886–905.

Moore, D.O., 1968, Estimating mean runoff in ungaged semiarid areas: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources Water Resources Bulletin no. 36 (reprinted from 

International Association of Scientific Hydrology XIII 

Annee No. 1, p. 29–39).

Morris, D.A., and Johnson, I.A., 1967, Summary of hydrologic and physical properties of rock and soil materials as 

analyzed by the Hydrologic Laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1948–60: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1839-D, 41 p.

Muller, D.C., Eastman, H., Gurnee, T., and Mace, J., 2009, 

Borehole geophysics and geology of test and monitor wells 

in Eastern Nevada, in Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, and Jordan, J.L., eds., Geology and Geologic Resources and Issues 

of Western Utah: Utah Geological Association Publication 

38, p. 345–360.

Nathenson, M., and Guffanti, M., 1988, Geothermal gradients 

in the conterminous United States: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 93, no. 7, p. 6,437–6,450.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2011, Monthly 

water chemistry of precipitation at Great Basin National 

Park from 1985–2011: National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program, accessed November 10, 2011, http://nadp.sws.

uiuc.edu/.

National Park Service, 2007, Digital geologic map of Great 

Basin National Park and vicinity, Nevada: National Park 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed October 

27, 2009, http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/datastore.

cfm?ID=44849.

National Park Service, 2012b, Natural features and ecosystems: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed August 17, 2012, http://www.nps.gov/grba/

naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm.

National Park Service, 2012a, Plants: National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed August 17, 2012 

http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescience/plants.htm.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011, Snow course 

and monthly SNOTEL data tables: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, accessed 

December 23, 2011, http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/

state-site.pl?state=NV&report=snowcourse.

Nevada Demographer, 2011, Nevada’s census population by 

incorporated city and census designated place for 2000 and 

2010: Nevada State Demographer, University of Nevada, 

Reno, accessed May 5, 2011, http://nvdemography.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/NV-Total-Census-Population-ByCity-and-Place.pdf.

Nevada Division of Water Resources, 2008, Well log database: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada, 

accessed February 8, 2008, http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/

index.cfm.

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 82 p.

Nolan, K.M, Shields, R.R., and Rehmel, R.S., 2000, Measurement of stream discharge by wading: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00–4036, 

accessed May 10, 2011, http://training.usgs.gov/TEL/Nolan/

SWProcedures/Index.html.

Orndorff, R.L., Wieder, R.W., and Filkorn, H.F., 2001, Geology underfoot in Central Nevada: Missoula, Mountain Press 

Publishing, 294 p.

Osborn, Gerald, and Bevis, Ken, 2001, Glaciation in the Great 

Basin of the Western United States: Quaternary Science 

Reviews, v. 20, p. 1,377–1,410. 

Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, Users guide to 

PHREEQC (version 2)—A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse 

geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 99–4259, 312 p.

Paul, A.P., Thodal, C.E., Baker, G.M., Lico, M.S., and Prudic, 

D.E., 2014, Preliminary geochemical assessment of water 

in selected streams, springs, and caves in the Upper Baker 

and Snake Creek drainages in Great Basin National Park, 

Nevada, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5108, 33 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

sir20145108.

Pease, Charles, Clark, Larry, Bridgemon, Ron, and Shuttles, 

Cameron, 1969, The Baker Creek cave system: National 

Speleological Society, NSS news, p. 36–138.

Phillips, F.M., 1994, Environmental tracers for water movement in desert soils of the American Southwest: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 58, p. 15–24.

Plume, R.W., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the Great 

Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-B, 64 p.

Plummer, L.N., Michel, R.L., Thurman, E.M. and Glynn, P.D., 

1993, Environmental tracers for age dating young ground 

water, in Alley, W.M., ed., Regional Ground-Water Quality: 

New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 255–294.
References Cited 145

Plummer, L.N., Rupert, M.G., Busenberg, Eurybiades, and 

Schlosser, Peter, 2000, Age of irrigation water in ground 

water from the eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, southcentral Idaho: Groundwater, v. 38, no. 2, p. 264–283.

Poole, F.G., and Sandberg, C.A., 1977, Mississippian paleogeography and Tectonics of the western United States, in

Stewart, J.H., Stevens, C.H., and Fritsche, A.E., eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the western United States: Pacific 

Section, Society Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 67–85. 

Poole, F.G., Stewart, J.H., Palmer, A.R., Sandberg, C.A., 

Madrid, R.J., Ross, R.J., Jr., Hintze, L.F., Miller, M.M., and 

Wrucke, C.T., 1992, Latest Precambrian to latest Devonian 

time; development of a continental margin, in Burchfiel, 

B.C., Lipman, P.W., and Zoback, M.L., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen—conterminous U.S.: Geological Society of 

America, The Geology of North America, v. G-3, p. 9–54.

Prieur, J.P., Farnham, I.M., and Fryer, W., 2009, Hydrologic 

data analysis report for Test Well 184W105 in Spring Valley: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. DAR-ED-0002, 81 p.

Prieur, J.P., Farnham, I.M., and Ashinhurst, C.S., 2010a, 

Hydrologic data analysis report for Test Well 184W101 in 

Spring Valley Hydrographic Area 184: Southern Nevada 

Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, Doc. No. DARED-0003, 78 p. 

Prieur, J. P., Farnham, I. M., and Ashinhurst, C.S., 2010b, 

Hydrologic Data Analysis Report for Test Well 184W103 

in Spring Valley Hydrographic Area 184: Southern Nevada 

Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada, Doc. No. DARED-0004, 79 p.

Prudic, D.E., 1991, Estimates of hydraulic conductivity from 

aquifer-test analyses and specific-capacity data, Gulf Coast 

regional aquifer systems, south-central United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 

90–4121, 38 p.

Prudic, D.E., 1994, Estimates of percolation rates and ages 

of water in unsaturated sediments at two Mojave Desert 

sites, California—Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 94–4160, 19 p.

Prudic, D.E., 2012b, Analysis of slug test for Snake5 deep 

well (site ID 385524114045601): Snake Valley, Nevada, 

June 1, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey, http://nevada.usgs.

gov/water/AquiferTests/Snake5.cfm?studyname=Snake5.

Prudic, D.E., 2012a, Report on the drilling of monitoring wells 

near Lehman Caves, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, May-June 2012: University of Nevada, 

Reno, final report for National Park Service, August 30, 

2012, National Park Service unpublished report 2198459, 

38 p., https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2198459.

Prudic, D.E., and Glancy, P.A., 2009, Geochemical investigation of the source water to Cave Springs, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073, 28 p.

Prudic, D.E., Harrill, J.R., and Burbey, T.J., 1995, Conceptual 

evaluation of regional ground-water flow in the carbonaterock province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and 

adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-D, 102 p.

Prudic, D.E., Niswonger, R.G., Harrill, J.R., and Wood, J.L., 

2007, Streambed infiltration and ground-water flow from 

the Trout Creek drainage, an intermittent tributary to the 

Humboldt River, Chap. K in Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, 

Jim, Ferre, T.P.A., and Leake, S.A., eds., 2007, Groundwater recharge in the arid and semiarid southwestern United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1703, p. 

313–351, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1703.

Raines, G.L., Connors, K.A., Moyer, L.A., and Miller, R.J., 

2003, Spatial digital database for the geologic map of 

Nevada (ver. 3.0): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03–66, 33 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement of stage and 

discharge by conventional current-meter method, Chap. 5 in

Rantz, S.E., and others, eds., Volume 1: Measurement and 

computation of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2175, p. 79–183.

Reheis, Marith, 1999, Extent of Pleistocene lakes in the 

western Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Field Studies Map MF-2323, scale 1:800,000.

Rehg, K.J., Packman, A.I., and Jianhong, R., 2005, Effects of 

suspended sediment characteristics and bed sediment transport on streambed clogging: Hydrological Processes, v. 19, 

p. 413–427, doi: 10.1002/hyp.5540.

Reinemann S.A., Patrick, N.A., Baker, G.M., Porinchu, D.F., 

Mark, B.G., and Box J.E., 2011, Climate change in Great 

Basin National Park—Lake sediment and sensor-based 

studies: National Park Service, Science Applications, Park 

Science, v. 28, no. 2, p. 31–35. 

Riggs, H.C., and Moore, D.O., 1965, A method of estimating 

runoff from ungaged basins in mountainous regions: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 525-D, p. D199–

D202.

Ronan, A.E., 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. 2,137–2,154.
146 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Rosenberry, D.O., and Pitlick, John, 2009, Local-scale 

variability of seepage and hydraulic conductivity in a 

shallow gravel-bed river: Hydrological Processes, v. 23, 

issue 23, p. 3,306–3,348, doi:10.1002/hyp.7433.

Rowley, P.D., Dixon, G.L., Burns, A.G., Collins, C.A., 2009, 

Geology and hydrogeology of the Snake Valley area, Western Utah and Eastern Nevada in Tripp, B.T., Krahulec, Ken, 

and Jordan, J.L., eds., Geology and Geologic Resources 

and Issues of Western Utah: Utah Geological Association 

Publication 38, p. 251–270. 

Rush, F.E., and Kazmi, S.A.T., 1965, Water resources 

appraisal of Spring Valley, White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Water Resources-Reconnaissance 

Report 33, 39 p.

Saltus, R.W., and Jachens, R.C., 1995, Gravity and basindepth maps of the Basin and Range Province, western 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations Map 1012, scale 1:2,500,000.

Scanlon, B.R., 1991, Evaluation of moisture flux from 

chloride data in desert soils: Journal of Hydrology, v. 128, 

p. 137–156.

Schälchli, U., 1992, The clogging of coarse river beds by fine 

sediment: Hydrobiologia, v. 235/236, p. 189–197.

Selker, J., Thevanaz, L., Huwald, H., Mallet, A., Luxemburg, 

W., van de Giesen, N., Stejskal, M., Zeman, J., Westhoff, 

M., and Parlange, M.B., 2006, Distributed fiber-optic temperature sensing for hydrologic systems: Water Resources 

Research, v. 42, W12202, 8 p, doi:10.1029/2006WR005326.

Shah Alam, A.H.M., 1990, Crustal extension in the southern 

Snake Range and vicinity, Nevada–Utah: An integrated 

geological and geophysical study: Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 126 p.

Shah Alam, A.H.M., and Pilger, R.H., Jr., 1991, An integrated geologic and geophysical study of the structure and 

stratigraphy of the Cenozoic extensional Hamlin Valley, 

Nevada–Utah, in Raines, G.L., Lisle, R.E., Schafer, R.W., 

and Wilkinson, W.H., eds., Geology and ore deposits of the 

Great Basin: Symposium Proceedings, Geological Society 

of Nevada, p. 93–100.

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2008, Spring Valley stipulation agreement hydrologic monitoring plan status and data 

report: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. WRD-ED-0001, 76 p.

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2009a, Water resource plan 

09: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

67 p., http://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr_plan.pdf

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2009b, 2008 Spring Valley 

hydrologic monitoring and mitigation plan status and data 

report: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. WRD-ED-0004, 109 p.

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2010, 2009 Spring Valley 

hydrologic monitoring and mitigation plan status and data 

report: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. WRD-ED-0007, 120 p. 

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2011, 2010 Spring Valley 

hydrologic monitoring and mitigation plan status and data 

report: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. WRD-ED-0010, 126 p.

Southern Nevada Water Authority, 2012, 2011 Spring Valley 

hydrologic monitoring and mitigation plan status and data 

report: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada Water Authority, 

Doc. No. WRD-ED-0014, variously paginated.

Southern Nevada Water Authority and U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 2008, Baseline characterization report for 

Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties groundwater 

development project: Las Vegas, Nev., Southern Nevada 

Water Authority, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

1,156 p, accessed July 11, 2013, http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/

en/prog/planning/groundwater_projects/snwa_groundwater_project/documents_and_maps.html.

Stewart, J.H., 1980, Geology of Nevada: a discussion to 

accompany the geologic map of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Special Publication 4, 136 p.

Stewart, J.H., 1998, Regional characteristics, tilt domains, 

and extensional history of the late Cenozoic Basin and 

Range province, western North America, in Faulds, J.E., 

and Stewart, J.H., eds., Accommodation zones and transfer 

zones: The regional segmentation of the Basin and Range 

Province: Geological Society of America Special Paper 323, 

p. 47–74.

Stewart, J.H., and Carlson, J.E., compilers, 1978, Sources of 

data for the geologic map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 930, 1 sheet.

Stewart, J.H., and Poole, F.G., 1974, Lower Paleozoic and 

uppermost Precambrian Cordilleran miogeocline, Great 

Basin, western United States, in Dickinson, W.R., ed., 

Tectonics and Sedimentation: Tulsa, Okla., Society of Economic Petrologists and Mineralogists, p. 27–57.

Stonestrom, D.A., Prudic, D.E., Laczniak, R.J., and Akstin, 

K.C., 2004, Tectonic, climatic, and land-use on groundwater 

recharge in an arid alluvial basin: Amargosa Desert, U.S.A., 

in Hogan, J.F., Phillips, F.M., and Scanlon, B.R., eds., 

Groundwater recharge in a desert environment—The southwestern United States: Washington D.C., American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application 9, p. 29–48.
References Cited 147

Sweetkind, D.S. and du Bray, E.A., 2008, Compilation of 

Tertiary volcanic-rock stratigraphic thicknesses and caldera 

structures—east-central Nevada and west-central Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Digital Data Series DS–271, 40 p. 

Sweetkind, D.S., Knochenmus, L.A., Ponce, D.A., Wallace, 

A.R., Scheirer, D.S., Watt, J.T., and Plume, R.W., 2007, 

Hydrogeologic framework, in Welch, A.H., Bright, D.J., 

Knochenmus, L.A., eds., Water resources of the Basin and 

Range carbonate-rock aquifer system, White Pine County, 

Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5261, 

p.11–17. 

Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the 

piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge 

of a well using groundwater storage: Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 16, no. 5, p. 519–524.

Theis, C.V., Brown, R.H., and Meyer, R.R., 1963, Estimating 

the transmissibility of aquifers from the specific capacity of 

wells, in Bentall, Ray, Methods of determining permeability, transmissibility and drawdown: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1536-I, p. 331–341.

Thornbury, W.D., 1969, Principles of Geomorphology (2d 

ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 594 p.

Tumbusch, M.L., and Schaefer, D.H., 1996, Selected hydrologic data for and location of MX wells in east-central and 

southern Nevada, January 1980 through May 1996: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–469, 37 p.

Tyler, S.W., Chapman, J.B., Conrad, S.H., Hammermeister, 

D.P., Blout, D.O, Miller, J.J., Sully M.J., and Ginanni, 

J.M., 1996, Soil-water flux in the southern Great Basin, 

United States—Temporal and spatial variations over the 

last 120,000 years: Water Resources Research, v. 32, p. 

1,481–1,499.

Tyler, S.W., Selker, J.S., Hausner, M.B., Hatch, C.E., Torgersen, T., Thodal, C.E., and Schladow, S.G., 2009, Environmental temperature sensing using Raman spectra DTS fiberoptic methods: Water Resources Research, v. 45, W00D23, 

doi:10.1029/2008WR007052.

U.S. Air Force, 1983, Air Force M-X multiple protective 

shelter water resources program—Nevada, A summary: 

Norton Air Force Base, Calif., Regional Civil Engineer-MX 

(AFESC), 18 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992, Great Basin National 

Park, Nevada—Final general management plan, development concept plans, environmental impact statement: Denver, Colo., U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, 434 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior and Southern Nevada Water 

Authority, 2006, Stipulation for withdrawal of protests, 

September 8, 2006: Southern Nevada Water Authority, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, 18 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, A study of the connection 

among basin-fill aquifers, carbonate-rock aquifers, and 

surface-water resources in southern Snake Valley, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3071, 2 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, Great Basin carbonate and 

alluvial aquifer system (GBCAAS) water availability: U.S. 

Geological Survey, accessed April 6, 2011, http://ut.water.

usgs.gov/projects/greatbasin/index.html

U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for the 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed October 

27, 2009, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.

Utah Geological Survey, 2011, West desert groundwater monitoring network: Utah Geological Survey, accessed April 

7, 2011 http://geology.utah.gov/esp/snake_valley_project/

overview.htm#description.

Vozoff, K., 1991, The magnetotelluric method, in Nabighian, 

M.N., ed., Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics: 

Tulsa, Okla., Society of Exploration Geophysicists, v. 2, 

part. B, p. 641–711.

Walker, W.R., 1972, Preliminary report on the results of investigation of the Big Springs Irrigation Company, June 10, 

1972 to November 18, 1972: Delta, Utah, Office of Sevier 

River Commissioner, November 30, 1972, 4 p. 

Ward, A.D., and Trimble, S.W., 2004, Environmental Hydrology (2d ed.): Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, CRC 

Press, 475 p.

Watt, J.T., and Ponce, D.A., 2007, Geophysical framework 

investigations influencing ground-water resources in eastcentral Nevada and west-central Utah, with a section on 

geologic and geophysical basin-by-basin descriptions by 

Wallace, A.R., Watt, J.T., and Ponce, D.A.: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open–File Report 2007–1163, 40 p. 2 plates, scale 

1:750,000.

Welch, A.H., Bright, D.J., and Knochenmus, L.A., 2007, 

Water resources of the Basin and Range carbonate-rock 

aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent 

areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5261, 96 p.

Wernicke, Brian, 1992, Cenozoic extensional tectonics of 

the U.S. Cordillera, in Burchfiel, B.C., Lipman, P.W., and 

Zoback, M.D., eds., The Cordilleran Orogen; conterminous 

U.S: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, p. 553–581.
148 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Wernicke, Brian, 2013, The detachment era (1977–1982) and 

its role in revolutionizing continental tectonics, in Ring, 

Uwe, and Wernicke, Brian, eds., Extending a continent: 

Architecture, rheology and heat budget: London, Geological 

Society, Special Publications, v. 321, p. 1–8.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2011, Garrison, Utah, 

period of record monthly climate summary, 1903–1990: 

Desert Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center, 

accessed March 24, 2011, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/

cliMAIN.pl?ut3138.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2012a, Great Basin 

National Park, Nevada, period of record monthly climate 

summary: Desert Research Institute, Western Regional 

Climate Center, accessed August 18, 2012, http://www.wrcc.

dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv3340.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2012b, Eskdale, Utah, 

period of record monthly climate summary: Desert 

Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center, 

accessed August 18, 2012, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/

cliMAIN.pl?ut2607.

Wheeler, G.M., 1875, Report upon geographical and geological explorations and surveys west of the one hundredth 

meridian: U.S. Army, Engineer Department, 681 p.

Wheeler, G.M., and Lockwood, D.W., 1875, Preliminary 

report upon the reconnaissance through southern and southeastern Nevada made in 1869: Government Printing Office, 

Washington D.C., U.S. U.S. Army, Engineer Department, 

72 p.

Whitebread, D.H., 1969, Geologic map of the Wheeler Peak 

and Garrison quadrangles, Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 

I-578, scale 1:48,000.

Wiggly, T.M.L., and Plummer, L.N., 1976, Mixing of carbonate waters: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 42, 

p. 1,117–1,139.

Williams, J.M., and Rodriguez, B.D., 2004, Magnetotelluric 

survey to locate the Archean/Proterozoic suture zone in 

northeastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1215, 212 p.

Williams, M.R., and Melack, J.M., 1997, Atmospheric deposition, mass balances, and processes regulating streamwater solute concentrations in mixed-conifer catchments of 

the Sierra Nevada, California: Biogeochemistry, v. 37, 

p. 111–144.

Williams, V.S., Best, M.G., and Keith, J.D., 1997, Geologic 

map of the Ursine–Panaca Summit–Deer Lodge area, Lincoln County, Nevada, and Iron County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2479, 

scale 1:50,000.

Willis, J.B., Best, M.G., Kowallis, B.J., and Best, V.C., 1987, 

Preliminary geologic map of the northern Wilson Creek 

Range, Lincoln County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF–1971, scale 1:50,000. 

Winograd, I.J., and Thordarson, William, 1975, Hydrogeologic 

and hydrochemical framework south-central Great Basin, 

Nevada-California, with special reference to the Nevada 

Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C, 

126 p. 

Zoback, M.L., Anderson, R.E., and Thompson, G.A., 1981, 

Cenozoic evolution of the state of stress and style of 

tectonism of the Basin and Range province, of the western 

United States, in Vine, F.J., and Smith, A.D., eds., Extensional Tectonics Associated with Convergent Plate Boundaries: London, The Royal Society, p. 189–216.

Zones, C.P., 1961, Ground-water potentialities in Crescent 

Valley, Eureka and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1581, 50 p.
Glossary 149

Glossary 

Annual runoff is the total water discharged at a particular 

location on a stream, canal, ditch, or at a spring during a year. 

Units of the annual quantity of runoff used in this report are 

acre-feet.

Aquifer is a rock or sediment in a formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is saturated and sufficiently 

permeable to transmit economic quantities of water to wells 

and springs.

Confining unit is a rock or sediment that has a low hydraulic 

conductivity.

Daily mean discharge is the daily averaged volumetric flow 

rate determined from records at a gaging station on a stream, 

ditch, canal, spring or pipe.

Discharge is the volumetric flow rate of water in a stream, 

ditch, canal, spring or through an aquifer past a specific location. Units used in this report are cubic feet per second or 

gallons per minute.

Drainage area is the surface area of a stream that is delineated by a continuous topographic divide in which all runoff 

joins a single stream and extends downstream to where the 

stream crosses the divide.

Drainage basin is a part of the earth’s surface that is occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream 

or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water.

Evapotranspiration is water withdrawn from a land area by 

evaporation of water and by plant transpiration. Units of the 

annual quantity of evapotranspiration used in this report are 

acre-feet.

Evapotranspiration rate is the quantity of water that is withdrawn from a land area by evaporation of water and by plant 

transpiration, expressed as a volume per unit area for a given 

period. Units used in this report are cubic inches per square 

inch per season or year or as a depth in inches per season or 

year.

Formation is a body of rock identifiable by lithologic characteristics and stratigraphic position that is mappable at the 

Earth’s surface or traceable in the subsurface.

Gaging station is a particular site on a stream, canal, spring, 

lake, or reservoir where systematic observations of gage 

height, discharge, or other hydrologic data are obtained.

Groundwater divide is a boundary between two adjacent 

groundwater basins and is represented by a high in the water 

table.

Groundwater flow is the movement of water through openings in a rock or sediment.

Hydraulic conductivity is the coefficient of proportionality describing the rate at which water can move through a 

fractured rock or porous sediment and includes the density and 

viscosity of the water.

Hydraulic diffusivity is a property of an aquifer defined as 

the transmissivity divided by the storage coefficient, or the 

lateral hydraulic conductivity divided by the specific storage, 

where the aquifer is confined, and as the transmissivity divided 

by the specific yield for an unconfined aquifer.

Hydraulic gradient is the change in hydraulic head with a 

change in distance in a given direction. 

Hydraulic head is the sum of the altitude head and the pressure head at a given location in an aquifer, when the velocity 

head is neglected.

Hydrostratigraphic unit is a rock or sediment in a formation, 

group of formations, or part of a formation that has similar 

physical characteristics with respect to the capacity to store 

and transmit water.

Lateral is parallel to land surface or streambed slope.

Precipitation is water that is precipitated from the atmosphere onto the earth’s surface over a specified area. Precipitation includes rainfall, snow, hail, and sleet. Units of the annual 

quantity of precipitation used in this report are acre-feet.

Precipitation rate is the quantity of water that is precipitated 

from the atmosphere onto the earth’s surface, expressed as a 

volume per unit area or depth for a given period. Units used in 

this report are cubic inches per square inch per season or year 

or as a depth of inches per season or year.

Runoff is the same as annual runoff.

Runoff rate is the quantity of runoff divided by the drainage area for a given period. Units used in this report are cubic 

inches per square inch per year or as a depth of inches per 

year. 

Snow-water equivalent is water that would be obtained if 

the snow should be completely melted. Units of the quantity of 

snow-water equivalent used in this report are cubic inches per 

square inch or as a depth in inches.

Specific capacity is the volumetric rate of water discharging 

from a well divided by the water-level decline in the well over 

a particular interval of time.

Specific storage is the volume of water that is added to or 

released from a unit volume of aquifer due to a unit change in 

pressure head.

Specific yield is the ratio of the unit volume of water 

drained by gravity from a unit volume of rock or sediment.

Storage coefficient is the volume of water an aquifer 

releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area of 

aquifer per unit change in total hydraulic head.

Streambed is the material over which water in a stream 

channel flows.

Streambed seepage is water that flows through a streambed. 

Units of the annual quantity of streambed seepage used in this 

report are acre-feet. 
150 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Streambed-seepage rate is the volumetric rate of water 

flowing through a unit area of streambed. Units used in this 

report are cubic feet per square foot per day or as a depth of 

feet per day.

Streamflow is used in this report to describe the flow of 

water down a natural channel. 

Streamflow gain or gaining stream is a reach of a stream 

where flow is increased by groundwater inflow.

Streamflow loss or losing stream is a reach of a stream 

where flow is lost through the streambed.

Surface water is water found on the surface of the earth.

Water budget is the evaluation of all inflows and outflows 

with respect to an aquifer or drainage basin.

Water table is the surface in an aquifer or confining unit at 

which the pore-water pressure is atmospheric.

Water year is the 12-month period, October 1 to September 

30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which 

it ends and includes 9 of the 12 months.

Water yield is the runoff from a drainage basin plus groundwater outflow that bypasses the stream and leaves the basin 

underground, expressed as a volume during a year. Water yield 

is the annual precipitation minus the annual evapotranspiration. Units of the annual quantity of water yield used in this 

report are acre-feet.

Additional definitions of hydrologic terms can be found (1) 

in glossary of terms for U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Reports (http://water.usgs.gov/ADR_Defs_2004.pdf ); (2) in 

Langbein and Iseri, 1995 (http://water.usgs.gov/glossaries.

html); and in Fetter, 2001.
Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 2009–October 2010 151

Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 

2009–October 2010. 

Geologic and geophysical data were summarized for test wells drilled by the U.S. Geological Survey between September 

2009 and October 2010. Three shallow boreholes were drilled along Baker Creek at the Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site; a deep 

borehole was drilled next to Snake Creek at the Snake 5 site; and two deep boreholes were drilled northwest and southwest of 

Big Springs at the south end of the Snake Range (BS NW and SW wells). Two of the boreholes drilled along Baker Creek and 

the deep borehole next to Snake Creek had two wells installed in each hole (nested wells). One well was installed in the other 

boreholes. The location and depth of each well (including nested wells) are listed in table 1–1; site locations are shown in figure 

1–1.

Permission for drilling three sites in the Great Basin 

National Park, near Lehman Caves, was not obtained during 

this study. One of these wells, SLE (fig. 1–1), was completed 

in May and June 2012, and the results are described in a 

University of Nevada–Reno report (Prudic, 2012a). A well 

at the south end of the Limestone Hills was planned, but was 

not drilled because costs for the other wells exceeded the 

estimates. The planned locations of five monitoring wells that 

were to be drilled by the Southern Nevada Water Authority as 

part of the systematic monitoring plan in Spring Valley, northern Hamlin Valley, and southern Snake Valley also are shown 

in figure 1–1.

Baker Creek 4 Aquifer-Test Site

The Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site (fig. 1–2) consists of 

a 6-inch (in.) diameter monitoring well 54 feet (ft) north of 

Baker Creek along a four-wheel drive trail and near dualcompletion monitoring wells drilled closer to the creek both 

upstream and downstream of the 6-in. well. The three holes 

were drilled by using an asymmetric air-percussion hammer 

bit (under-reaming bit) that pulled steel casing as the hole was 

deepened (Dewey and Miller, 1996). The steel casing was 

removed as the hole was backfilled following the placement 

of 6-in. schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing for the 

6-in. diameter monitoring well or 2-in. diameter schedule 

80 PVC casing for the nested monitoring wells. A 20-ft long 

screen with 0.020-in. machine slots was placed at the bottom 

of the 6-in. diameter well, and 5-ft screens with the same size 

openings were placed at the bottom of the nested wells, except 

in the deep well at the upstream site, which had a 10-ft long 

screen. Fine gravel to very-coarse sand was placed around 

each well screen; bentonite was used to seal the annulus 

between nested monitoring wells; and cement grout was used 

to seal the borehole near land surface. The 6-in. diameter 

monitoring borehole penetrated quartzite gravel and boulders 

with sand and little to no silt and clay to a depth of 30 ft and 

mostly quartzite gravel and sand with minor quantities of silt 

and clay between a depth of 30 and 40.7 ft.

The upstream hole penetrated coarse quartzite gravel and 

boulders, with lesser quantities of sand and silt, to a depth 

of 32 ft. The hole penetrated clay starting at 32 ft and, at a 

depth of 35 ft, alternating thin layers of calcareous shale and 

siltstone. The hole was deepened to 62 ft without casing by 

using a 7-in. air-percussion hammer bit, and the hole remained 

in shale to its total depth. The deeper monitoring well in the 

upstream hole was placed at a depth of 60.5 ft because some 

materials fell to the bottom of the hole as the drill bit was 

removed. The downstream hole penetrated coarse sand, gravel, 

cobbles, and boulders to a depth of 35 ft. The depth of each 

monitoring well is listed in table 1–1.

Table 1–1. Monitoring wells drilled near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, as part of this study, 2009–2010. 

[U.S. Geological Survey site-identification number can be used to obtain data from the National Water Information System. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. NDWR, Nevada Division of Water Resources. Abbreviation: 

mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy, four digit year]

Name

U.S. Geological Survey 

site-identification

number

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude 

(feet)

Well 

diameter 

(inches)

Date well

completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Well 

depth 

(feet)

NDWR 

log 

number

Geophysical 

logs Decimal degrees

Baker 4: 6-inch well 385947114113201 38.996 114.192 6,390 6 09/18/2009 40.7 108854 no

Baker 4: upstream shallow 385946114113201 38.996 114.192 6,387 2 09/10/2009 20.5 108857 no

Baker 4: upstream deep 385946114113202 38.996 114.192 6,387 2 09/10/2009 60.5 108858 no

Baker 4: downstream shallow 385946114113101 38.996 114.192 6,389 2 09/14/2009 17.5 108855 no

Baker 4: downstream deep 385946114113102 38.996 114.192 6,389 2 09/14/2009 34.5 108856 no

Snake 5 shallow 385524114045601 38.923 114.082 5,617 2 09/08/2009 35.0 108852 yes

Snake 5 deep 385524114045602 38.923 114.082 5,617 2 09/08/2009 309.5 108853 yes

Big Springs-northwest well 384227114082701 38.708 114.141 5,815 8 10/13/2009 460.0 116598 yes

Big Springs-southwest well 384112114091101 38.687 114.153 6,020 8 08/31/2010 700.0 112248 yes
152 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 1–1. Location of completed and planned wells near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

White Pine

Lincoln

Millard

Beaver

NEVADA

UTAH

White Pine

Millard

LincolnBeaver

NEVADA

UTAH

Baker

Creek

Creek Snake

Creek

Lake

Wash Big

Big

Creek

Lexington

Creek

Creek

Leh

Straw

man

Creek

Baker

Springs

Big

Creek

Spring

Wash

berry

Pruess

Lake

Creek

Cleve

Big Springs 21

487

488

486

893

159

6

6

93

93

50

50

894

0 5

0 5

10

10

15 Miles

15 20 Kilometers

39°20'

38°40'

114°40' 113°40'

Great Basin

National

Park

Shaded relief base from ESRI ArcGIS Online Map Service

Hydrology from 1:24,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset, 1974–2009

Great Basin National Park boundary from Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Management Agency dataset, 2003 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD 83

Baker

Garrison

Sacramento

Pass

Mount

Moriah

Wheeler

Peak

Burbank

Baking Hills

Powder

Flat

Snake

Valley

Confusion

Range

Spring

Valley

Schell Creek Range

Range

Spring

Fortification

Valley

Mountain

Range

Home

Limestone

Hills

Hamlin

Valley

Wilson Creek

 Range

Snake Range

Snake Range

Ferguson Desert

Connors

Pass

Cave

Mountain

Schell

Creek

Range

Lake Valley

Hamlin

Valley

Wash

EXPLANATION

BS-SW

Great Basin National Park

Stream

Perennial

Intermittent

Ephemeral

Monitoring wells

U.S. Geological Survey, drilled, showing 

abbreviated well name

U.S. Geological Survey, planned

Southern Nevada Water Authority, planned

Spring

BS-NW

BS-SW

Snake 5

Baker 4

SLE
Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 2009–October 2010 153

No geophysical logs were run on any of the Baker Creek 

wells because they were relatively shallow and because they 

needed to be cased while drilling, because the unconsolidated 

deposits were unstable.

Snake 5 Wells

Drilling and construction of the Snake 5 wells (fig. 1–1) 

were done during September 3–8, 2009. The same method was 

used to drill the first 80 ft as was used to drill the Baker Creek 

wells. The first 80 ft of the hole penetrated mostly noncalcareous quartzite cobbles and gravel, with slightly calcareous sand 

and silt from 0 to 30 ft; non-calcareous gravel, sand, and silt 

from 30 to 40 ft; a moderate brown, plastic clay from 40 to 

60 ft; a moderate brown clay with increasing percentages of 

carbonate rock chips from 60 to 73 ft; and mostly carbonate 

rock chips from a depth of 73 to 80 ft. The drilling method 

was changed at a depth of 80 ft, and the hole was deepened 

by using a 7-in. air-percussion hammer bit without casing to 

a depth of 310-ft below land surface. From 80 ft to 295 ft, the 

hole penetrated extensively fractured, sulfurous limestone of 

the Guilmette Formation, but all fractures were filled with 

secondary calcite and small quantities of Snake Creek water 

were injected to help circulate cuttings. The cuttings began 

exhibiting iron staining at a depth of 290 ft, and water entered 

the hole at a depth of 300 ft, so injection of water from the 

creek was stopped. The hole was deepened to a depth of 310 ft 

when drilling stopped because water from the hole began to 

overwhelm the cyclone separator used to separate fine cuttings 

(silt and clay size) from coarse cuttings (sand and gravel size).

Figure 1–2. Location of Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site, near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

Rosethorn

spring

Four-wheel 

drive trail

DiversionDiversion

UpstreamUpstream

Downstream

To Lehman

Creek

Abandoned channel

Baker Creek

38°59'44”

38°59'50”

114°11'40” 114°11'25”

0 50 100 150 200 Yards

0 50 100 150 200 Meters

Service Layer Credits: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, 

AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Baker Creek Road

EXPLANATION

Temporary gaging station

Spring

6-inch diameter pumping well

Observation well

Great

Basin

National

Park

Map

area
154 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

A suite of geophysical logs was run in the hole (fig. 1–3), 

as was a downhole televiewer log that provided information about the distribution of fractures in the test hole. The 

televiewer logs showed that, from a depth of 80 to 295 ft, the 

limestone had fractures that were filled with calcite veins and, 

thus, had low porosity and permeability. Solution-widened 

fractures appeared at a depth of 295 ft and extended to the bottom of the hole at a depth of 310 ft.

The hole was completed by installing two 2-in. schedule 

80 PVC monitoring wells. The deeper well was screened from 

a depth of 289.5 to 309.5 ft below land surface in the zone of 

fractured limestone. Coarse sand was poured through a tremie 

pipe to fill to a depth of 280 ft. From 280 to 40 ft, the hole was 

backfilled with a liquid bentonite grout (American Colloid 

Pure Gold Grout) that was pumped through a tremie pipe. The 

steel casing was removed from 80 to 40 ft depth while the 

hole was filled with grout. A gamma log was used in the cased 

part of the hole to identify a logical depth to place the shallow monitoring well. The log indicated the coarsest alluvial 

deposits were between a depth of 30 and 35 ft, and, consequently, the screened interval of the shallow well was placed 

there. First, coarse sand was poured in the hole to fill it from 

a depth of 40 to 35 ft. The well screen and casing were placed 

in the hole, and coarse sand was added to fill it to a depth of 

25 ft. The remainder of the hole was grouted with bentonite 

to within 3 ft of land surface, and the uppermost part of the 

hole was filled with concrete. The last of the steel casing was 

removed as the hole was backfilled.

Big Springs Northwest Well

The hole at Big Springs Northwest well was drilled to 

a depth of 460 ft by using mud rotary (Driscoll, 1986, p. 

286–289; fig. 1–1). The hole penetrated mostly sand, gravel, 

and cobbles composed of carbonate rocks throughout the 

entire depth. Small balls of clay in the cuttings indicated thin 

clay beds at depths of 160–180 ft, 298–300 ft, 405–425 ft, 

and 440–460 ft. Geophysical logs, including natural gamma, 

spontaneous potential, caliper, resistivity, and sonic, were run 

in the hole on September 30, 2009, prior to installing a 8-in. 

diameter steel casing (fig. 1–4). The bottom 160 ft of hole was 

screened with 0.03-in. machine slotted-steel casing. The annulus around the well screen was filled with coarse sand poured 

through a tremie pipe to a depth of 230 ft. From 230 ft to 

within 5 ft of land surface, the annulus was filled with bentonite, and the remaining 5 ft was filled with concrete. A 5-ft long 

piece of 12-in. casing was embedded 2.5 ft in the concrete to 

protect the monitoring well.

Big Springs Southwest Well

The hole at Big Springs Southwest well (fig. 1–1) was 

drilled to a depth of 220 ft by using mud rotary, after which 

the hole was deepened by using a combination of casing 

pulled down the hole with an under-reaming air-percussion 

hammer bit and by an air-percussion hammer bit without casing. Geophysical logs were run on August 17, 2010 (fig. 1–5). 

Difficulties were encountered during drilling because highly 

fractured limestone was encountered above the water table. 

The hole penetrated sand, gravel, and cobbles composed of 

carbonate rocks from a depth of 0 to 213 ft below land surface; 

fractured, fairly competent limestone re-cemented by calcite 

from 213 to 236 ft; less competent limestone, with numerous solution-widened and open fractures, from 236 to 305 ft; 

fractured limestone re-cemented by white calcite from 305 to 

515 ft; limestone with solution-widened fractures from 515 to 

575 ft; and fractured limestone re-cemented by white calcite 

with occasional open fractures from 575 to 700 ft. Below a 

depth of 235 ft, the drill bit tended to follow the open fractures 

in the limestone, resulting in a borehole deviating from vertical. The bottom of the hole is offset 55 ft east and 18 ft north 

of the well collar location.

Lithologic descriptions for the Snake 5 and the two wells 

near Big Springs have been compiled in tables (tables 1–2, 

1–3, and 1–4). These tables list the following information for 

Snake 5, Big Springs NW, and Big Spring SW wells:

• Top of interval, in feet.

• Base of interval, in feet.

• Lithologic unit.

• Lithologic description.

References Cited

Dewey, C.H., and Miller, G.C., 1996, Drilling and under reaming simultaneously: A cost-effective option: Denver, Colo., 

Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 6–9, 1996. 

doi 10.2118/36462-MS

Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells (2d ed.): St. Paul, 

Minn., Johnson Division, 1,089 p.

Prudic, D.E., 2012, Report on the drilling of monitoring wells 

near Lehman Caves, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, May–June 2012: University of Nevada, 

Reno, final report for National Park Service, August 30, 

2012, National Park Service unpublished report 2198459, 

38 p., https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2198459.
Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 2009–October 2010 155

Figure 1–3. Lithologic and geophysical logs for the Snake 5 well.

32-inch normal resistivity 8-inch normal resistivity

64-inch normal resistivity 16-inch normal resistivity

Explanation of Resistivity Curves

Cobbles and

gravel 

Limestone

bedrock

Lithologic

description Lithology

Depth below

land surface,

in feet

Resistivity, in

ohm-meter

(range 600–6,000)

Lateral

resistivity, in

ohm-meter

Gamma

counts

per second

Caliper,

in inches

Fluid

resistivity,

in ohm-meter

Temperature,

in degrees

Celsius

Single

point

resistance,

in ohm-meter

Density

counts

per second

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Snake Creek well

Clay

Gravelly

sand

Sand and

silt

Limestone

with clay

7008009001,0001,00005001,0001,5002,00002550751001,0001,2501,5001,7502,0006810123334353610.511.011.5
156 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Figure 1–4. Lithologic and geophysical logs for the Big Springs northwest well.

Big Springs

Northwest well

Lithologic

description Lithology

Depth below

land surface,

in feet

Induction

resistivity, in

ohm-meter

Sonic

micro-seconds

per foot

Spontaneous

 potential, in

millivolts

Gamma

counts

per second

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Gravelly sand

Cobbles and gravel

Sandy gravel

Cobbles and gravel

Sandy gravel

Gravelly sand with clay

Gravelly sand

Cobbles and gravel

Sandy gravel

Gravelly sand

Cobbles and gravel

Gravelly sand

Cobbles and gravel

Gravelly sand

Gravelly sand with clay

Sandy gravel with clay

Gravelly sand with clay

Cobbles and gravel

Gravelly sand with clay

1,4001,4501,5001,5501,60002550751001751952150102030405022032042052012131415

Lateral

resistivity, in

ohm-meter

Caliper,

in inches
Appendix 1. Geologic and Geophysical Data for Test Wells Drilled September 2009–October 2010 157

Figure 1–5. Lithologic and geophysical logs for the Big Springs southwest well.

32-inch normal resistivity 8-inch normal resistivity

64-inch normal resistivity 16-inch normal resistivity

Explanation of Resistivity Curves

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

-1000100200

1,000

050100

0200400600800

35363738

912141719

Cobbles and

gravel 

Limestone

bedrock

Big Springs

Southwest well

Lithologic

description Lithology

Depth below

land surface,

in feet

Resistivity, in

ohm-meter

(range 600–6,000)

Gamma

counts

per second

Caliper,

in inches

Fluid

resistivity, in

ohm-meter

Spontaneous

 potential, in

millivolts

Sonic

micro-seconds

per foot
158 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 1–2. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Snake 

Creek 5 monitoring wells, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada. 

Table 1–3. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Big 

Springs Northwest well, southern part of the Snake Range, White 

Pine County, Nevada. 

Table 1–4. Lithologic description of down hole intervals, Big 

Springs Southwest well, south end of the Snake Range, White 

Pine County, Nevada. 
Appendix 2. Records at Bulk-Precipitation Stations 159

Appendix 2. Records at Bulk-Precipitation Stations on Mount Washington, 

Unnamed Peak Northwest of Mount Mariah, and Cave Mountain, White Pine 

County, Nevada for Water Years 1984–2011. 

Site descriptions of the three bulk-precipitation stations are 

summarized in table 2–1. Precipitation recorded at the station 

on the west slope of Mount Washington in the southern part of 

the Snake Range is listed in table 2–2. Precipitation recorded 

at the station on an unnamed peak northwest of Mount Moriah 

in the northern part of the Snake Range is listed in table 2–3. 

Precipitation at the station on Cave Mountain in the Schell 

Creek Range west of Spring Valley is listed in table 2–4. All 

three stations are at altitudes in excess of 9,000 feet above 

mean sea level. Data for each bulk-precipitation station have 

been published routinely in the annual water-data reports for 

Nevada by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1985. Precipitation reported between October 1984 and October 2003 at these 

gaging stations is only available through printed annual waterdata reports for each water year (references for these reports 

are listed in the “Reports with Bulk-Precipitation at Stations in 

Nevada” section). Since October 2003, the reported values are 

available online and can be accessed at http://wdr.water.usgs.

gov/.

Table 2–1. Description of bulk-precipitation stations in and near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Latitude and longitude are referenced to North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). 

Land-surface altitude is referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 

29). Data for each station can be obtained by using the U.S. Geological Survey siteidentification number as the site-selection criteria at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/]

Station name

U.S. Geological Survey 

site-identification

number

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude 

(feet) Decimal degrees

Mount Washington 385409114185401 38.902 114.315 10,440

Unnamed peak northwest of Mount Moriah 391913114143101 39.32 114.242 9,300

Cave Mountain 390946114364901 39.163 114.614 10,650

Tables 2–2, 2–3, and 2–4 list the following information for 

each bulk-precipitation station:

• Date data collection began.

• Date data collection ended.

• Depth of precipitation, in cubic inches per square 

inch.

• Season (winter or summer).

• Water-year total precipitation.

• Remarks.

• Source of data.

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 2–2. Record of bulk precipitation at station on Mount 

Washington, southern part of the Snake Range, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 1984–2011.

Table 2–3. Record of bulk precipitation at station on unnamed 

peak northwest of Mount Moriah, northern part of the Snake 

Range, White Pine County, Nevada, 1984–2011.

Table 2–4. Record of bulk precipitation at station on Cave 

Mountain, Schell Creek Range, White Pine County, Nevada, 

1985–2011.

Reports with Bulk Precipitation at Stations in 

Nevada 

Allander, K.K., Gortsema, G.G., Hutchinson, D.D., and 

Schwertzenberger, J.T., 2001, Water resources data, Nevada, 

water year 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report NV–00–1, 561 p.

Bauer, D.J., Foster, B.J., Joyner, J.D., and Swanson, R.A., 

1996, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–95–1, 734 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, 592 p.

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

J.R., 1998, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1997: 

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

636 p.

Bonner, L.J., Evetts, D.M., Swartwood, J.R., and Wilson, J.W., 

2005, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–04–1, 606 p., 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/.

Bostic, R.E., Hitch, Daniel, Van Gordon, Lloyd, and Swanson, Robert, 1991, Water resources data, Nevada, water 

year 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

NV–90–1, 358 p.

Bostic, R.E., Kane, R.L., Kipfer, K.M., and Johnson, A.W., 

1997, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1996: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–96–1, 611 p.
160 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Clary, S.L., McClary, D.R., Whitney, Rita, and Reeves, D.D., 

1995, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1994: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–94–1, 768 p.

Emett, D.C., Hutchinson, D.D., Jonson, N.A., and O’Hair, 

K.L., 1994, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1993: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–93–1, 

596 p.

Frisbie, J.R., La Camera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Wood, D.B., 

1984, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1984: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–84–1, 247 p.

Frisbie, J.R., La Camera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Wood, D.B., 

1985, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1985: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–85–1, 255 p.

Garcia, K.T., Gortsema, G.C., Pennington, R.N., and Priessler, 

A.M., 1992, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1991: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–91–1, 

481 p.

Garcia, K.T., Munson, R.H., Spauling, R.J., and Vasquez, S.L., 

2002, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2001: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–01–1, 562 p.

Hess, D.L., Mello, K.A., Sexton, R.J., and Young, R.L., 1992, 

Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–92–1, 511 p.

Jones, C.Z., Rowe, T.G., Sexton, R.J., and Tanko, D.J., 2000, 

Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–00–1, 600 p.

Preissler, A.M., Roach, G.A., Thomas, K.A., and Wilson, J.W., 

1999, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1998: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–98–1, 598 p.

Pupacko, Alex, La Camera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Swartwood, 

J.R., 1986, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1986: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–86–1, 

263 p.

Pupacko, Alex, La Camera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Swartwood, 

J.R., 1989a, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1987: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–87–1, 

256 p.

Pupacko, Alex, La Camera, R.J., Riek, M.M., and Swartwood, 

J.R., 1989b, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 1988: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–88–1, 

271 p.

Pupacko, Alex, Van Gordon, L.G., Swartwood, J.R., and 

Collins, R.P., 1990, Water resources data, Nevada, water 

year 1989: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

NV–89–1, 342 p.

Stockton, E.L., Jones, C.Z., Rowland, R.C., and Medina, R.L., 

2003, Water resources data, Nevada, water year 2003: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report NV–03–1, 707 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006–12, Water resources data, 

Nevada, water years 2005–2010: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Reports NV–05–1 to NV–11–1 (published 

annually), http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/.
Appendix 3. Discharge Measurements in and near Great Basin National Park 161

Appendix 3. Discharge Measurements in and near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2009–11. 

More than 200 discharge measurements, along with less 

frequent measurements of specific conductance and temperature, were taken among all sites in the Baker Creek, Lehman 

Creek, and Snake Creek drainage basins and at three sites 

along Big Springs Creek in and near Great Basin National 

Park. Measurements were taken by personnel from the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

University of Nevada, Reno. Because of the infrequency of 

these measurements, they were not compiled by water year, 

and no monthly averages are reported; this appendix simply 

lists every measurement taken at each location during water 

years 2009–11.

The measurements have been compiled in six tables in this 

appendix. Table 3–1 includes the location and description of 

each discharge-measurement site.

Tables 3–2 to 3–5 lists the following information at each 

discharge measurement site:

• Site name following the naming convention of sites 

by Elliott and others (2006).

• Date.

• Time span referenced to Pacific Daylight Time.

• Discharge, in cubic feet per second.

• Discharge measurement accuracy, as defined by 

Sauer and Meyer (1992).

• Area of flow, in square feet.

• Width of flow, in feet.

• Specific conductance of water, in microsiemens per 

centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. 

• Water temperature, in degrees Celsius.

• Remarks.

• Agency that took the measurement.

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 3–2. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the 

Baker Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11. 

Table 3–3. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the 

Lehman Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11. 

Table 3–4. Discharge measurements at selected sites in the 

Snake Creek drainage basin, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11.

Table 3–5. Discharge measurements at selected sites on Big 

Springs Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, water years 2009–11. 

References Cited

Elliott, P.E., Beck, D.A., and Prudic, D.E., 2006, 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: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5099, 156 p.

Sauer, V.B., and Meyer, R.W., 1992, Determination of error in 

individual discharge measurements: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 92–144, 21 p.
162 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Table 3–1. Location and description of discharge measurements at selected sites in the Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creek drainage 

basins, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2009–11. 

[Site name is based on Elliott and others, 2006. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988]

Site name 

Latitude Longitude Land-surface 

altitude 

(feet)

Site description Decimal degrees

Baker Creek

B2 38.991 114.226 7,210 At Grey Cliffs group campground C-loop

B2A 38.991 114.224 7,160 At Grey Cliffs group campground 30 feet downstream of B-loop culvert

B3 38.990 114.218 7,030 In the Narrows upstream of Dynamite Cave and Sink Cave

B3A 38.990 114.213 6,880 At walk bridge downstream of confluence with Pole Canyon

B4 38.989 114.210 6,820 Model Cave resurgent spring about 175 feet downstream of orifice

B5 39.010 114.207 6,560 At gaging station at Great Basin National Park boundary

B5A 38.996 114.194 6,417 About 400 feet upstream of Baker 4 aquifer-test site

B5B 38.997 114.191 6,358 Diverted Baker Creek about 400 feet downstream of Baker 4 aquifer-test site

B5C 38.997 114.195 6,480 Rosethorn spring

B5D 39.002 114.184 6,220 Ditch near its confluence with diverted Baker Creek

B6 39.002 114.184 6,220 Diverted Baker Creek about 30 feet upstream of four-wheel trail crossing

B7 39.008 114.172 5,950 Diverted Baker Creek about 100 feet upstream of confluence with Lehman Creek 

Pole Canyon (Baker Creek drainage basin)

PC1 38.983 114.222 7,160 At trail crossing upstream of Pioche Shale outcrop

PC2 38.989 114.214 6,920 About 50 feet upstream of confluence with Baker Creek

Lehman Creek

L1 39.033 114.239 6,700 At lower Lehman campground; camp site 5

L2 39.012 114.214 6,560 About 50 feet downstream of gaging station

L2A 39.010 114.209 6,220 About 100 feet downstream of main park road

L2B 39.010 114.207 6,560 About 100 feet upstream of Joe’s Way

L3 39.009 114.208 6,580 Rowland Spring

L3A 39.009 114.207 6,540 Rowland Spring creek about 400 feet downstream of Rowland Spring

L3B 39.010 114.199 6,420 Rowland Spring creek about 200 feet downstream of Sage Way

L4 39.011 114.200 6,430 About 100 feet upstream of Sage Way

L7 39.008 114.172 5,970 About 100 feet upstream of confluence with diverted Baker Creek

Snake Creek

Sn1 38.972 114.224 7,620 At gaging station upstream of pipeline diversion

Sn2A 38.916 114.148 6,400 Upstream of Eureka Quartzite outcrop and near Outhouse spring

Sn4 38.919 114.133 6,190 Gaging station at Great Basin National Park boundary

Sn4A 38.919 114.127 6,130 About 1,600 feet downstream of park boundary

Sn4B 38.919 114.126 6,120 About 70 feet upstream of confluence with north Gruden Spring 

Sn4C 38.919 114.126 6,115 About 20 feet upstream of confluence with north Gruden Spring 

Sn4D 38.919 114.124 6,110 About 40 feet downstream of confluence with north Gruden Spring 

Sn4E 38.919 114.124 6,100 About 400 feet downstream of confluence with north Gruden Spring 

Sn4F 38.918 114.119 6,030 About 50 feet upstream of culvert on Duff property

Sn5 38.909 114.113 6,125 Spring Creek Spring about 3 feet upstream of 9-inch Parshall flume

Sn6A 38.923 114.084 5,630 About 360 feet upstream of Snake 5 wells

Sn6B 38.923 114.083 5,620 Next to Snake 5 wells

Sn6C 38.924 114.083 5,610 About 390 feet downstream of Snake 5 wells

Sn7 38.926 114.077 5,576 At Southern Nevada Water Authority gaging station

Sn8 38.926 114.049 5,350 At Nevada–Utah state line

Big Springs Creek

BS1 38.738 114.100 5,476 Big Springs Creek below Big Springs Ranch near Baker, Nevada

BS2 38.760 114.068 5,450 Big Springs Creek below transmission line near Baker, Nevada

BS3 38.760 114.071 5,449 Big Springs Creek diversion below transmission line near Baker, Nevada
Appendix 4. Daily-Mean Discharge at Temporary Gaging Stations 163

Appendix 4. Daily-Mean Discharge at Temporary Gaging Stations in and near

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2005–11. 

Daily mean discharges were computed for gaging stations 

maintained by the National Park Service on Baker Creek at 

Narrows (water years 2005–10), on Rowland Spring at Great 

Basin National Park boundary (water years 2005–10), and on 

Snake Creek at Great Basin National Park boundary (water 

years 2005–09). Additionally, the following temporary gaging 

stations were established and operated by the University of 

Nevada, Reno, at selected sites in and near the park: (1) Pole 

Canyon inside Great Basin National Park, where the creek 

crosses over Pioche Shale (June 2011–September 2011); (2) 

Pole Canyon near its confluence with Baker Creek (June 

2011–September 2011); (3) Model Cave resurgent spring in 

the Narrows of Baker Creek (June 2011–September 2011); 

(4) Rosethorn spring in the Baker Creek drainage basin 

(March 2010–September 2011); and (5) Spring Creek Spring 

at NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station near Garrison, 

Utah (June 2009–September 2011). Daily mean discharge 

was estimated for each of these sites from 15-minute readings 

of stream stage, which was then related to discharge through 

rating curves, except for the gaging station on Spring Creek 

Spring. Stage at this site was recorded at a 9-inch (in.) Parshall 

Flume, and discharge was estimated from a standard rating 

equation. Daily mean temperatures were compiled at the five 

temporary gaging stations. Table 4–1 summarizes the location 

and description of gaging stations operated by the National 

Park Service and the University of Nevada, Reno.

Tables 4–2 to 4–9 list daily mean discharge, by month and 

day, for each water year of record in a similar format as that 

used for reporting daily mean discharge at gaging stations 

listed in the annual water-data reports by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 4–2. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service 

gaging station on Baker Creek at Narrows near Baker, Nevada 

(station 10243240), water years 2005–10.

Table 4–3. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service 

gaging station on Rowland Spring at Great Basin National Park 

boundary near Baker, Nevada (station 10243265), water years 

2005–10.

Table 4–4. Daily mean discharge at National Park Service 

gaging station on Snake Creek at Great Basin National Park 

boundary near Baker, Nevada (station 10243232), water years 

2005–09.

Table 4–5. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, 

temporary gaging station on Pole Canyon upstream of Pioche 

Shale outcrop near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385858114131901), water year 2011.

Table 4–1. Location and description of National Park Service and University of Nevada, Reno, gaging stations in the Baker, Lehman, 

and Snake Creek drainage basins in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2005–11.

[A water year is defined as beginning on October 1 of the prior calendar year and ending on September 30 of the designated year. Latitude and longitude are referenced to the North 

American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Abbreviation: mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; 

yyyy, four digit year] 

Site name

U.S. Geological Survey 

site-identification 

number

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude 

(feet)

Daily mean gaging station records

Decimal degrees Type of record Period of record 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Gaging stations operated by National Park Service

Baker Creek at Narrows near Baker, Nevada 10243240 38.991 114.207 6,730 Discharge 10/01/2005–09/30/2010

Rowland Spring at Great Basin National Park near 

Baker, Nevada 10243265 39.010 114.208 6,580 Discharge 10/01/2005–09/30/2010

Snake Creek at Great Basin National Park boundary near Baker, Nevada 10243232 38.919 114.133 6,190 Discharge 10/01/2005–09/30/2009

Temporary gaging stations operated by University of Nevada, Reno

Pole Canyon at trail crossing upstream of Pioche 

Shale near Baker, Nevada 385858114131901 38.983 114.222 7,160 Discharge and 

temperature 06/01/2011–09/30/2011

Pole Canyon near confluence with Baker Creek 

near Baker, Nevada 385922114125101 38.989 114.214 6,920 Discharge and 

temperature 06/01/2011–09/30/2011

Model Cave resurgent spring in Baker Creek 

drainage basin near Baker, Nevada 385922114123701 38.989 114.210 6,820 Discharge and 

temperature 06/01/2011–09/30/2011

Rosethorn spring in Baker Creek drainage basin 

near Baker, Nevada 385948114114401 38.997 114.196 6,460 Discharge and 

temperature 03/25/2010–09/30/2011

Spring Creek Spring at Nevada Department of 

Wildlife fish-rearing station near Garrison, Utah 385433114064501 38.909 114.113 6,125 Discharge and 

temperature 06/24/2009–09/30/2011
164 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Table 4–6. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, 

temporary gaging station on Pole Canyon near confluence with 

Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

3859221141251), water year 2011.

Table 4–7. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno, 

temporary gaging station on Model Cave resurgent spring near 

Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 385922114123701), 

water year 2011.

Table 4–8. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, Reno 

temporary gaging station on Rosethorn spring near Baker, Nevada 

(site-identification number 385948114114401), water years 2010–11.

Table 4–9. Daily mean discharge at University of Nevada, 

Reno, temporary gaging station on Spring Creek Spring, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife Spring Creek fish-rearing station, near 

Garrison, Utah (site-identification number 385434114063901), water 

years 2009–11.

Daily mean temperatures at temporary gaging stations at 

the two sites on Pole Canyon, the site on Model Cave resurgent spring, and the site on Rosethorn spring in the Baker 

Creek drainage basin and Spring Creek Spring in the Snake 

Creek drainage basin are listed in tables 4–10 to 4–14. These 

tables list daily mean temperature, by month and day, for each 

water year of record in a similar format as that used for reporting daily mean temperature at gaging stations listed in the 

annual water-data reports by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Table 4–10. Daily mean water temperature at University of 

Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on Pole Canyon upstream 

of Pioche Shale outcrop near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385858114131901), water year 2011.

Table 4–11. Daily mean water temperature at University 

of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on Pole Canyon 

near confluence with Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (siteidentification number 3859221141251), water year 2011.

Table 4–12. Daily mean water temperature at University 

of Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on Model Cave 

resurgent spring near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385922114123701), water year 2011.

Table 4–13. Daily mean water temperature at University of 

Nevada, Reno, temporary gaging station on Rosethorn spring 

near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 385948114114401), 

water years 2010–11. 

Table 4–14. Daily mean temperature at University of Nevada, 

Reno, temporary gaging station on Spring Creek Spring, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife Spring Creek fish-rearing station, near 

Garrison, Utah (site-identification 385434114063901), water years 

2009–11.
Appendix 5. Daily Mean Water Level and Temperature in Monitoring Wells at Baker 4 Aquifer-Test Site 165

Appendix 5. Daily Mean Water Level and Temperature in Monitoring Wells at 

Baker 4 Aquifer-Test Site and Stage in Baker Creek, near Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, Water Years 2009–11.

Table 5–5. Daily mean depth to water in deeper monitoring well 

at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next 

to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385947114113205), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–6. Daily mean stage in Baker Creek at site 2 near 

upstream monitoring wells at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (siteidentification number 385946114113301), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–7. Daily mean water temperature in 6-inch diameter 

monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site next to Baker Creek 

Three holes were drilled at the Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

along Baker Creek about 0.8 miles (mi) east of the Great Basin 

National Park boundary along a four-wheel drive trail during 

September 9–18, 2009. The Baker 4 aquifer-test site consisted 

of a 6-inch (in.) diameter monitoring well that was drilled 

about 54 feet (ft) north of Baker Creek to a depth of 40.7 ft 

below land surface and two dual-completion 2-in. monitoring wells that were drilled near the edge of Baker Creek at an 

upstream and downstream location. These wells were constructed as part of an aquifer test designed to characterize the 

hydraulic connection between the groundwater and surface 

water along Baker Creek by estimating the streambed and 

underlying aquifer hydraulic properties for a 1,200-ft stream 

section. Additionally, these wells provided seasonal trends 

in groundwater levels near Baker Creek from October 2009 

through September 2011. 

Water levels and temperatures in the monitoring wells 

and in Baker Creek were monitored hourly by using absolute 

pressure transducers (Schlumberger mini-diver, http://www.

swstechnology.com/groundwater-monitoring/groundwaterdataloggers/mini-diver accessed September 18, 2012), except 

during 4 weeks that began with a 94-hour aquifer test on 

October 9, 2009, when water levels were monitored every 5 

minutes. Daily mean water levels and temperatures from when 

the pressure transducers were installed to September 2011 are 

listed in12 tables (tables 5–1 to 5–12). 

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 5–1. Daily mean depth to water in 6-inch diameter 

monitoring well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site next to Baker Creek 

near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 385947114113201), 

water years 2009–11. 

Table 5–2. Daily mean depth to water in shallow monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113202), water years 2009–11. 

Table 5–3. Daily mean depth to water in deeper monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113203), water years 2009–11. 

Table 5–4. Daily mean depth to water in shallow monitoring well 

at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 50 feet south of 6-inch well next 

to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 

385947114113204), water years 2009–11.

near Baker, Nevada (site-identification number 385947114113201), 

water years 2009–11.

Table 5–8. Daily mean water temperature in shallow monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113202), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–9. Daily mean water temperature in deeper monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 37 feet southeast of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113203), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–10. Daily mean water temperature in shallow monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 50 feet south of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113204), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–11. Daily mean water temperature in deeper monitoring 

well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site about 50 feet south of 6-inch 

well next to Baker Creek near Baker, Nevada (site-identification 

number 385947114113205), water years 2009–11.

Table 5–12. Daily mean temperature in Baker Creek at site 2 

near upstream monitoring wells at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (siteidentification number 385946114113301), water years 2009–11.

The six tables reporting water levels list daily mean water 

levels, by month and day, for each water year of record in a 

similar format as that used for reporting daily mean water 

levels in wells listed in the annual water-data reports by the 

U.S. Geological Survey; the six tables reporting temperature 

list daily mean temperatures, by month and day, for each water 

year of record in a similar format as that used for reporting 

daily mean temperatures in wells listed in the annual waterdata reports by the U.S. Geological Survey. 
166 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 6. Daily Mean Water Levels in the Shallow and Deep Wells at 

Snake 5, near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

Water Years 2010–11. 

The Snake 5 wells included a deep well, screened from a 

depth of 289.5–309.5 feet (ft) below land surface (bls), and a 

shallow well, screened from 30–35 ft bls. Daily mean water 

levels and temperatures were computed by using hourly measurements from absolute pressure transducers in both wells. 

An absolute pressure transducer was placed in the deep well 

on January 18, 2010. The pressure transducer was capable of 

monitoring a water-level change as great as 40 ft, but during 

June and July 2010, the water level rose more than 40 ft and 

over-pressured the transducer. Subsequently, the transducer 

was replaced in June 2011 with one that had a range of 165 ft, 

and a shallower transducer was added to ensure a complete 

hydrograph of the well. Also, in June 2011, a temperature 

logger was placed at a depth of 300 ft, near the middle of the 

screened interval. No water was detected in the shallow well 

until June 1, 2011, when water was measured, but was below 

the bottom of the screen. A pressure transducer was added 

to this well and recorded a water-level rise of about 15 ft 

between June 1 and June 25, 2011. The water level dropped 

below the bottom of the screen on July 4, 2011, and remained 

below the bottom of the screen through June 2012. Recorded 

water levels from the pressure transducers were within a few 

hundredths of a foot compared with measurements taken with 

a calibrated tape. 

Tables 6–1 and 6–2 list daily mean water levels, by month 

and day, for each water year of record in a similar format as 

that used for reporting daily mean water levels in wells listed 

in the annual water-data reports by the U.S. Geological Survey. No water temperature data are given for the Snake 5 wells 

because water temperature in the deep well from a temperature 

logger next to the well screen was consistently 10.9 degrees 

Celsius between June 2011 and June 2012, and the shallow 

well only briefly had water above the bottom of the screen. 

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 6–1. Daily mean depth to water in Snake 5 shallow well 

next to Snake Creek near Garrison, Utah (site-identification 

number 385524114045602), water years 2010–11.

Table 6–2. Daily mean depth to water in Snake 5 deep well next 

to Snake Creek near Garrison, Utah (site-identification number 

385524114045601), water years 2010–11.
Appendix 7. Daily Mean Depth to Water in Wells Northwest and Southwest of Big Springs 167

Appendix 7. Daily Mean Depth to Water in Wells Northwest and Southwest of 

Big Springs, Southern Part of Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, Water 

Years 2010–12. 

The Big Springs northwest (BS-NW) and Big Springs 

southwest (BS-SW) wells are at the south end of the Snake 

Range in southwestern Snake Valley in White Pine County, 

Nevada. Daily mean water levels measured in the two wells 

were compiled from water levels recorded hourly, except during aquifer tests of the wells, when water levels were recorded 

at 1-minute intervals. Mean, maximum, and minimum water 

levels were computed on a monthly basis from the daily 

means. The data logger for the BS-SW failed in early July 

2011; consequently, no water-level data are reported for that 

well after June 30, 2011. Recorded water levels at the wells 

were within a few hundredths of a foot compared with water 

levels periodically measured by hand using a calibrated tape. 

The data for these two wells are compiled in two tables (tables 

7–1 and 7–2). The two tables list daily mean water level, by 

month and day, for each water year of record in a similar format to that used for reporting daily mean water levels of wells 

listed in the annual water-data reports by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 7–1. Daily mean depth to water in northwest Big Springs 

well before, during, and after 48-hour aquifer test at well (siteidentification number 384227114082701), south end of Snake 

Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2010–12.

Table 7–2. Daily mean depth to water in southwest Big Springs 

well before, during and after 48-hour aquifer test at well (siteidentification number 384112114091101), south end of Snake 

Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, water years 2010–11.
168 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 8. Baker Creek Stage, Groundwater Levels, Water Temperatures, 

and Pumping Rates Measured before, during, and after a 92-Hour Aquifer Test at 

Baker 4 Aquifer-Test Site, near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, October 2009. 

http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_baker.

cfm?studyname=snake_valley_baker.

The 6-inch (in.) diameter well at the Baker 4 aquifer-test 

site was pumped at an average rate of 26 gallons per minute 

(gal/min) for 94 hours starting October 7, 2009, at 14:39 and 

ending October 11, 2009, at 12:31. The 6-in. diameter well 

was drilled to a depth of 40.7 feet (ft) below land surface 

about 54 ft north of Baker Creek and screened from 20–40 ft 

below land surface. One 8-in. diameter hole was drilled near 

the edge of Baker Creek both upstream and downstream of 

the 6-in. well. The upstream hole was drilled 50 ft south of 

the 6-in. diameter well and next to the creek. The downstream 

hole was drilled about 37 ft southeast of the 6-in. diameter 

well and was 25 ft downstream from the upstream hole. Both 

the upstream and downstream holes were completed with two 

2-in. diameter schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wells in 

the deep and shallow parts of each hole. 

Water levels and temperature were recorded in the 6-in. 

diameter monitoring well, in the four nearby 2-in. diameter 

PVC wells, and at four selected sites along Baker Creek. 

Pressure transducers measured water levels simultaneously at 

3-minute intervals between September 12, 2009, and November 1, 2009, a period that spanned from 2 weeks before the 

test to 2 weeks after the test. The measurement interval was 

increased to hourly in the months following the aquifer test. A 

report describing the configuration of the monitoring wells, the 

aquifer test, and results is available online: 

Data collected at the Baker 4 aquifer-test site are compiled 

in seven tables (tables 8–1 to 8–7). Table 8–1 lists the name 

and locations of the monitoring wells used in the aquifer tests 

and the name and locations of four temporary gaging stations 

on Baker Creek upstream and downstream of the aquifer-test 

site. 

Table-8–2 summarizes data collected at the pumped well 

before, during, and after a 94-hour aquifer test. The listed data 

were selected from temperature and water-level data collected 

every three minutes. The table lists the following information:

• Date and time.

• Temperature.

• Depth to water.

• Time since pumping began.

• Drawdown.

• Total gallons pumped.

• Pumping rate.

• Remarks.

Table 8–1. Names and locations of monitoring wells at Baker Creek 4 aquifer-test site and temporary gaging stations in 

Baker Creek near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada.

[U.S. Geological Survey site-identification number can be used to obtain data from the National Water Information database. Latitude and longitude are referenced 

to North American Datum of 1983. Altitude is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Altitude is at land surface for wells and at pressure transducer 

for temporary gaging stations on Baker Creek. Temporary gaging stations numbered from upstream to downstream. Symbol: —, not applicable] 

Site name

U.S. Geological Survey siteidentification 

number

Latitude Longitude

Altitude 

(feet)

Well 

diameter, nominal 

(inches)

Depth below land surface (feet)

Decimal degrees Well bottom Top of screen

Well next to Baker Creek

Six-inch pump well 385947114113201 38.9964 114.1922 6,384.51 6 40.7 20.2

Downstream shallow 385947114113202 38.9963 114.1921 6,383.30 2 18.2 13.0

Downstream deep 385947114113203 38.9963 114.1921 6,383.30 2 35.1 29.7

Upstream shallow 385947114113204 38.9962 114.1922 6,382.56 2 20.6 15.2

Upstream deep 385947114113205 38.9962 114.1922 6,358.02 2 60.5 50.2

Temporary gaging station on Baker Creek

Baker Creek 1 — 38.9956 114.1939 6,417.15 — — —

Baker Creek 2 — 38.9961 114.1924 6,382.33 — — —

Baker Creek 3 — 38.9962 114.1920 6,376.52 — — —

Baker Creek 4 — 38.9971 114.1913 6,358.02 — — —
Appendix 8. Baker Creek Stage, Groundwater Levels, Water Temperatures, and Pumping Rates 169

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 8–2. Temperature, depth to water, drawdown, and 

pumping rate in 6-inch diameter well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site 

(site-identification number 385947114113201), October 2009.

Tables 8–3 to 8–6 summarize data collected at the four 

nearby monitoring wells before, during, and after a 94-hours 

aquifer test. These data were selected from temperature and 

water-level data collected every 3 minutes. The tables list the 

following information for each of the four monitoring wells:

• Date and time.

• Temperature.

• Depth to water.

• Time since pumping began.

• Drawdown.

Table 8–3. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown 

in shallow 2-inch monitoring well about 37 feet southeast 

(downstream) of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (siteidentification number 385947114113202), October 2009.

Table 8–4. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown 

in deeper 2-inch monitoring well about 37 feet southeast 

(downstream) of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (siteidentification number 385947114113203), October 2009. 

Table 8–5. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in 

shallow 2-inch monitoring well about 50 feet south (upstream) 

of pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (site-identification 

number 385947114113204), October 2009.

Table 8–6. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in 

deeper 2-inch monitoring well about 50 feet south (upstream) of 

6-inch pumped well at Baker 4 aquifer-test site (site-identification 

number 385947114113205), October 2009.

Hourly means of temperature and stage measured by the 

four pressure transducers in Baker Creek are listed in table 

8–7. Data from the four pressure transducers in Baker Creek 

were collected between noon on September 5, 2009, and noon 

on October 24, 2009. Table 8–7 lists the following information 

for each of the four pressure transducers:

• Date and time.

• Temperature.

• Stage above the pressure transducer. 

Table 8–7. Hourly mean temperature and stage for pressure 

transducers in Baker Creek near Baker 4 aquifer-test site, October 

2009.
170 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 9. Temperature, Depth to Water, and Drawdown in Nevada 

Department of Wildlife Well next to Snake Creek during and following a 5-Hour 

Aquifer Test on June 23, 2009, White Pine County, Nevada. 

Table 9–1. Temperature, depth to water, and drawdown in 

Nevada Department of Wildlife well next to Snake Creek during 

and following 5-hour aquifer test on June 23, and June 24, 2009, 

Spring Creek fish-rearing station, White Pine County, Nevada.

This table is distributed as part of this report in Microsoft®

Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

A single-well aquifer test was done in the Snake Creek 

drainage basin, east of Great Basin National Park, utilizing a preexisting Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 

well next to Snake Creek at the Spring Creek fish-rearing 

station. The NDOW well was pumped for 5 hours at 

17 gallons per minute on June 23, 2009. During the test, water 

levels were measured at 3-minute intervals with a pressure 

transducer and periodically measured with an electric tape. A 

report discussing test results is available online: 

http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_ndow.

cfm?studyname=snake_valley_ndow.

The data from this test are compiled in table 9–1, which 

lists the following information:

• Time.

• Temperature.

• Depth to water below land surface.

• Time since pumping began.

• Drawdown.

• Remarks.
Appendix 10. Depth to Water and Drawdown in Northwest and Southwest Big Springs Well 171

Appendix 10. Depth to Water and Drawdown in Northwest and Southwest Big

Springs Well before, during, and after Aquifer Tests, South End of Snake Valley, 

White Pine County, Nevada, October and November 2010. 

Water levels were monitored a couple of weeks prior to 

each aquifer test and a few weeks after pumping ceased. A 

report discussing test results at BS-NW is available online: 

http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_bsnw.cfm?studyname=snake_valley_bsnw. A report 

discussing test results at BS-SW is available online: http://

nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/snake_valley_bssw.

cfm?studyname=snake_valley_bssw. 

The Big Springs northwest well (BS-NW) was pumped for 

42 hours at 260 gallons per minute between 12:19 on October 

4, 2010, and 06:35 on October 6, 2010. The pumping rate was 

determined by using a totalizing flow meter. Starting water 

level was 227.53 feet (ft) below land surface. Water levels 

were recorded every minute by using a pressure transducer. 

The well is about three quarters of a mile northwest of Big 

Springs on an alluvial fan between the Snake Range and 

Snake Valley in White Pine County, Nevada, and is identified by the U.S. Geological Survey site-identification number 

384227114082701. Its altitude is 5,815.18 ft above the North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988. The well is 460 ft deep and 

perforated from 360 to 400 ft. The aquifer consists of sand, 

gravel, and cobbles.

The Big Springs southwest well (BS-SW) was pumped 

for 47.25 hours at 170 gallons per minute between 14:28 on 

November 2, 2010, and 13:48 on November 4, 2010. The 

pumping rate was determined by using a totalizing flow meter. 

The starting water level was 355.55 feet (ft) below land surface. Water levels were recorded every minute by using a pressure transducer. The well is about 1.5 miles southwest of Big 

Springs and was completed in carbonate rocks of Devonian 

age at the south end of the Snake Range in White Pine County, 

Nevada. The U.S. Geological Survey site-identification number is 384112114091101, and its altitude is 6,019.53 ft above 

the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The 

well is 700 ft deep and perforated from 500 to 700 ft.

The data from each test have been compiled in tables 10–1 

and 10–2, which list the following information:

• Date and time.

• Depth to water below land surface.

• Time since pumping began.

• Drawdown.

• Remarks. 

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 10–1. Depth to water and drawdown in northwest Big 

Springs well before, during, and after 42-hour aquifer test at well 

(site-identification number 384227114082701), south end of Snake 

Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, October 4–10, 2010.

Table 10–2. Depth to water and drawdown in southwest Big 

Springs well before, during, and after 47.25-hour aquifer test at 

well (site-identification number 384112114091101), south end of 

Snake Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, November 2–4, 2010.
172 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 11. Slug-Test Data at Snake 5 Deep Well, Southern Part of Snake 

Range, White Pine County, Nevada, June 2011. 

Three slug tests were done in the Snake 5 deep well 

on June 3, 2011, by using an air injection method (Greene 

and Shapiro, 1995). Results of the slug tests are available 

online: http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/AquiferTests/Snake5.

cfm?studyname=Snake5. Air was injected into a sealed well 

to a gaged pressure of 120 inches of water (10 feet of water). 

Two absolute pressure transducers were installed inside the 

sealed well. One was 20 feet below the water level in the well 

and had a 30 foot range in pressure above atmospheric, and the 

other was in air near the top of the well and had a 3 foot range 

in pressure above atmospheric. Both pressure transducer were 

set to read absolute pressure every 0.5 second, and an average 

offset between the two pressure transducers was determined 

by setting them next to each other before and after the tests. 

In the two subsequent tests, the well was pressurized to a gage 

pressure of 240 inches of water or 20 feet of water. The latter 

two tests over pressured the transducer in the air, however, so 

the maximum displacement and the first data collected after 

air was released from the well were inaccurate because of the 

time needed for air to return back to atmospheric pressure. The 

maximum displacement for the last two tests was estimated at 

20 feet, equal to the gaged pressure while injecting air into the 

well. 

Data from the three slug tests (one table per test) are in 

tables 11–1, 11–2, and 11–3, which include the following 

information:

• Date and time.

• Absolute pressure of water plus air above pressure 

transducer in water.

• Absolute pressure of air near top of well.

• Average air offset between pressure transducers.

• Water head above transducer.

• Time since maximum water displacement.

• Head displacement.

• Ratio of head displacement to maximum head displacement.

• Remarks.

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 11–1. Slug-test data for test 1 at Snake 5 deep well on 

June 1, 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

Table 11–2. Slug-test data for test 2 at Snake 5 deep well on 

June 1, 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

Table 11–3. Slug-test data for test 3 at Snake 5 deep well on 

June 1, 2011, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada.

References Cited

Greene, E.A. and Shapiro, A.M., 1995, Methods of conducting 

air-pressurized slug tests and computation of type curves 

for estimating transmissivity and storage: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 95–424, 43 p. 
Appendix 12. Depth to Groundwater in Southern Spring Valley MX Wells 173

Appendix 12. Depth to Groundwater in Southern Spring Valley MX Wells and 

Pumping Rates before, during, and after a Step-Drawdown and Two ConstantRate Tests, South End of Spring Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada, September 1980. 

A step-drawdown test and two constant-rate tests were 

done in September 1980 to determine the hydraulic properties of the basin-fill deposits in southern Spring Valley, 

Lincoln County, Nevada, as part of the U.S. Air Force’s MX 

missile-siting investigation in eastern Nevada and western 

Utah. The 10-inch (in.) test well was pumped for 120 hours at 

600 gallons per minute and had 16 feet (ft) of drawdown during the second constant-rate test. A 2-in. diameter observation 

well is 1,020 ft north and west of the 10-in. well (Tumbusch 

and Schaefer, 1996). Detailed lithologic logs of the pumped 

and observation well indicated sand was the aquifer material. 

The test data included a step drawdown test, an aborted 

constant-rate test (the pump ran out of gasoline during the 

night), and a second constant-rate test that lasted 120 hours. 

The pumping rate was not constant because the drawdown in 

the pumped well rose 1 ft between measurements and then 

slowly declined during the rest of the test. The observation 

well showed the same drawdown pattern, but it had a time lag.

The data for the wells at this site are in three tables 

(tables 12–1 to 12–3).

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 12–2. Depth to water and drawdown in the 10-inch 

diameter pumped well before, during, and after one stepdrawdown and two constant-rate aquifer tests as part of U.S. Air 

Force MX missile-siting investigation (site-identification number 

383704114225001), south end of Spring Valley, White Pine County, 

Nevada, September 1–21, 1980. 

Table 12–3. Depth to water and drawdown in the 2-inch 

diameter observation well before, during, and after the two 

constant-rate aquifer tests as part of U.S. Air Force Missile siting 

program (site-identification number 385947114113203), south end 

of Spring Valley, White Pine County, Nevada, September 10–21, 

1980

References Cited

Tumbusch, M.L., and Schaefer, D.H., 1996, Selected hydrologic data for and location of MX wells in east-central and 

southern Nevada, January 1980 through May 1996: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–469, 37 p.

Table 12–1. Site-identification number, location, well diameter, casing depth, and depth to top and bottom of screened interval of 

pumped and observation wells in southern Spring Valley used for aquifer tests as part of U.S. Air Force MX missile-siting investigation, 

White Pine County, Nevada, September 1–21, 1980.

[Latitude and longitude are referenced to North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Wells drilled August 1980 for 

U.S. Air Force MX missile-siting investigation. Aquifer-test data obtained from U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada, April 2012. Land-surface altitude for 10-inch diameter 

well obtained from Southern Nevada Water Authority, Document Number WRD-ED-0014, March 2012, p. A-3. Altitude for 2-inch well from 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 

data determined by Toby Welborn, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada, April 2012, written communication] 

U.S. Geological Survey 

local well name

U.S. Geological Survey siteidentification 

number

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude 

(feet)

Well 

diameter, 

nominal 

(inches)

Casing depth 

below land 

surface 

(feet)

Depth below land 

surface (feet)

Decimal degrees Well bottom

Top of 

screen

184 N09 E68 30AAAB1 383704114225001 38.6177 114.3841 6,000.52 10 699 679 559

185 N09 E68 30AB3 385947114113203 38.6186 114.3867 6,016. 2 700 700 553
174 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 13. Description of Piezometer Installation, Stream Stage, and Water 

Levels in Shallow Piezometers and Hydraulic Gradients at Selected Sites on 

Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, near Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada. 

1.254-in. diameter schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was 

used. A drive cap was screwed onto the top of the galvanized 

pipe, and either a 25-pound (lb) or 50-lb fence-post driver was 

used to pound the well point and pipe 2–3 ft into the streambed. Piezometers with schedule 80 PVC pipe were driven into 

the streambed by placing a piece of nominal 0.75-in. diameter 

pipe into the piezometer that protruded from the top of the 

PVC pipe and then pounding the piezometer by using either 

the 25-lb or 50-lb fence-post driver.

A total of 12 piezometers were driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek from Great Basin National Park boundary to the Nevada–Utah state line (table 13–1). Additional 

Shallow piezometers were hand driven into the streambed 

of Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks at selected locations. 

All but one of the piezometers were driven into the streambed outside of Great Basin National Park. The piezometers 

were made of a nominal 1.25-inch (in.) diameter, 1-foot (ft) 

long, stainless-steel pipe. Approximately 0.25-in. diameter 

holes were drilled every 0.75 in. over a 6-in. interval and 

were wrapped with 0.01-in. stainless-steel gauze covered with 

0.05-in. stainless-steel mesh. The end of the pipe was threaded 

onto a hardened-steel point. A coupling was used to attach a 

5-ft long piece of 1.254-in. diameter galvanized pipe threaded 

at both ends, except for two piezometers for which nominal 

Table 13–1. Location, land-surface altitude, depths, screen length, and dates of installation and removal of piezometers driven into the 

streambed or near streambed of Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Numbers following piezometer name are distances in miles downstream of gaging station at or near park boundary. Latitude and longitude are referenced to North American Datum of 

1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Hydrogeological zones: karst, karst-limestone zone; upper, upper-piedmont zone; lower, lowerpiedmont zone. All piezometers used nominal 1-1/4-inch pipe. Piezometers PS4sb1 and PS4sb2 were driven into ground 14 and 45 feet south of piezometer PS4, respectively. Depth 

below streambed to screen midpoint corrected for pipe angle. Abbreviation: PVC, polyvinyl chloride; mm, two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy; four digit year]

Streambed 

piezometer

Latitude Longitude Landsurface 

altitude 

(feet)

Hydrogeologic 

zones

Type of pipe 

above well 

point

Total inside 

length 

(feet)

Depth below 

streambed 

to screen 

midpoint 

(feet)

Screen 

length 

(feet)

Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

Decimal degrees Installed Removed

Baker Creek

PB2–1.48 39.002 114.184 6,220 Upper Steel 6.3 2.66 0.59 07/16/2009 11/04/2010

PB1–2.29 39.008 114.172 5,970 Upper Steel 6.2 1.45 0.53 07/15/2009 11/04/2010

Lehman Creek

PL1–0 39.012 114.214 6,700 Karst Steel 6.4 1.96 0.56 05/29/2009 11/04/2010

PL4–0.44 39.010 114.207 6,560 Karst Steel 6.2 2.05 0.54 07/16/2009 11/04/2010

PL3–1.60 39.010 114.187 6,220 Upper Steel 6.3 2.83 0.66 07/16/2009 11/04/2010

PL2–2.42 39.008 114.172 5,970 Upper Steel 6.3 2.42 0.58 07/15/2009 11/04/2010

Snake Creek

PS1–0.26 38.919 114.128 6,160 Karst PVC 6.2 1.80 0.51 05/27/2009 11/03/2010

PS11–0.39 38.919 114.126 6,110 Karst Steel 6.3 3.51 0.54 07/19/2009 11/03/2010

PS2–0.50 38.919 114.123 6,090 Upper PVC 6.2 2.21 0.56 05/29/2009 not removed

PS12–0.71 38.918 114.120 6,040 Upper Steel 6.5 3.44 0.63 07/19/2009 not removed

PS4–0.81 38.918 114.118 6,025 Upper Steel 6.3 2.45 0.63 06/24/2009 not removed

PS4sb1–0.81 38.918 114.118 6,028 Upper Steel 6.4 4.32 0.47 06/24/2009 not removed

PS4sb2–0.81 38.918 114.118 6,030 Upper Steel 6.5 4.19 0.50 06/24/2009 not removed

PS3–1.39 38.918 114.109 5,890 Upper Steel 6.6 1.95 0.52 05/29/2009 11/03/2010

PS7–1.88 38.919 114.100 5,800 Upper Steel 6.2 2.91 0.57 06/25/2009 11/03/2010

PS8–2.90 38.923 114.084 5,623 Upper Steel 6.1 2.01 0.58 06/25/2009 11/03/2010

PS5–2.91 38.923 114.084 5,620 Upper Steel 6.4 2.85 0.60 06/24/2009 11/03/2010

PS6–2.92 38.923 114.083 5,619 Upper Steel 6.3 2.75 0.52 06/24/2009 11/03/2010

PS10–3.38 38.926 114.076 5,540 Lower Steel 6.3 2.72 0.54 07/15/2009 11/03/2010

PS9–4.93 38.929 114.049 5,360 Lower Steel 6.2 3.10 0.54 06/25/2009 11/03/2010
Appendix 13. Description of Piezometer Installation, Stream Stage, and Water Levels 175

piezometers were driven into the ground about 7 and 38 ft 

south of Snake Creek on private land in a meadow area, where 

groundwater was at shallow depth (piezometers PS4sb1 and 

PS4sb2, respectively, in table 13–1). Four piezometers were 

driven into Lehman Creek between the Lehman Creek gaging station (U.S. Geological Survey gaging-station number 

10243260) and the confluence with Baker Creek (table 13–1). 

Only two piezometers could be driven into the streambed of 

Baker Creek (table 13–1), despite several attempts, because 

the presence of quartzite boulders greater than 2 ft in diameter 

prevented it. One piezometer driven into Baker Creek near the 

confluence with Lehman Creek was damaged when a boulder 

rolled onto the pipe. Another piezometer, farther upstream and 

closer to the aquifer-test site, was destroyed during peak flow 

in June 2010 after a boulder rolled over it.

Following installation of the piezometers, usually 1 liter 

(about 1 quart) of water was rapidly poured into each piezometer, and its response to the added water was measured by 

using a pressure transducer that recorded changes in water 

level every 0.5 seconds. The process was repeated at least 

twice, except at piezometers PS7, PS12 and PS4_sb2. Data 

collected from the response of water added or removed were 

analyzed to estimate hydraulic conductivity in the vicinity of 

the screened interval by using the method described by and 

Bouwer and Rice (1976). Results from the slug tests represented the most permeable materials near the well screen and 

were assumed to represent the lateral hydraulic conductivity of 

sediments that parallel the streambed. The following equation 

from Bouwer and Rice (1976) was used to estimate hydraulic 

conductivity:

K = loge

rc

2 loge (Re/R)

2Let (H

H

t

o

) (13–1)

where

 K is the hydraulic conductivity, 

 rc is the radius of the well casing,

 R is the radius of the well screen or gravel envelope, 

 Re is the effective radial distance over which head is 

dissipated, 

 Le is the length of the well screen through which water 

can enter,

 Ho is the drawdown at start of test,

 Ht is the drawdown at time t, and 

 t is the time since equalled.

The natural log of the ratio of the effective radial distance, 

divided by the radius of the well screen, can be estimated, 

assuming the aquifer thickness was equal to the distance from 

the static water level in the piezometer to the bottom of the 

screened interval, by using the following equation:

loge (R

Re

) = [ 1.1

loge (L

R

w) + L

C

e ]

−1

 (13–2)

R

where

 C
176 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 13–2. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements in piezometer PB1 driven into the 

streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–3. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements in piezometer PB2 driven into the 

streambed of Baker Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–4. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements in piezometer PL1 driven into the 

streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–5. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements piezometer PL2 driven into the 

streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–6. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements piezometer PL3 driven into the 

streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–7. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements piezometer PL4 driven into the 

streambed of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–8. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements in piezometer PS1 driven into the 

streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–9. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head relative 

to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressure-transducer 

data and manual measurements in piezometer PS2 driven into the 

streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–13.

Table 13–10. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS3 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–11. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS4 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13.

Table 13–12. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS5 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 13–13. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS6 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–14. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS7 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–15. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS8 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–16. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS9 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–17. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater water head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS10 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–18. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS11 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10. 

Table 13–19. Daily mean stream stage, groundwater head 

relative to streambed, and hydraulic gradient from pressuretransducer data and manual measurements in piezometer PS12 

driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13. 

Data from the piezometers driven into the stream bank 

south of Snake Creek and next to piezometer PS4 are listed in 

tables 13–20 and 13–21, which list the following information: 

• Date (month, day, year).

• Daily mean piezometer head, in feet below land 

surface.

• Daily mean piezometer temperature, in degrees 

Celsius.

• Time of manual measurement, if any, for a particular 

date.

• Manual measurement of piezometer head, in feet 

below land surface.

• Remarks.
Appendix 13. Description of Piezometer Installation, Stream Stage, and Water Levels 177

Table 13–20. Daily mean groundwater head relative to land 

surface and temperature from pressure-transducer data and 

manual measurements in piezometer PS4_sb1 driven into ground 

14 feet south of piezometer PS4 in Snake Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13.

Table 13–21. Daily mean groundwater head relative to land 

surface and temperature from pressure-transducer data and 

manual measurements in piezometer PS4_sb2 driven into ground 

45 feet south of piezometer PS4 in Snake Creek, Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–13.

Table 13–22 contains information regarding slug tests at 

the piezometers and lists the following information:

• Piezometer name.

• Date (month, day, year).

• Time at start of test (Pacific Daylight Time).

• Inside radius of casing (rc), in centimeters.

• Inside radius of well screen (R), in centimeters.

• Screen length (Le), in centimeters.

• Distance from bottom of screen to static water level 

(Lw), in centimeters.

• Volume of water added to or removed from piezometer, in cubic centimeters. 

• Time taken to add water, in seconds.

• Computed initial displacement, assuming instantaneous slug, in centimeters.

• Measured maximum displacement, in centimeters.

• Computed volume using maximum displacement, in 

cubic centimeters.

• Time for water level to rise or fall to 37 percent of 

the initial displacement, in seconds. 

• Estimate of hydraulic conductivity, in centimeters 

per second. 

• Estimate of hydraulic conductivity, converted to feet 

per day.

Table 13–22. Estimates of lateral hydraulic conductivity from 

slug tests in piezometers driven into the streambed of Baker, 

Lehman, and Snake Creeks, Great Basin National Park, White Pine 

County, Nevada, 2009–2013.

This table is distributed as part of this report in Microsoft® 

Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

References Cited

Bouwer, Herman, and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with 

completely or partially penetrating wells: Water Resources 

Research, v. 12, no. 3, p 423–428.
178 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 14. Description of Water-Temperatures in Streambed Piezometers 

Used for Determining Streambed-Seepage Rates and Vertical Hydraulic 

Conductivity at Selected Sites on Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, near 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

One to three Onset Computer Corporation Water Temp simulated temperature at a selected depth between the creek 

Pro v2 and bottom of the piezometer. ® temperature loggers were hung on a nylon cord in 

many of the streambed piezometers at depths ranging from 

0.3 to 1.5 feet (ft) below the streambed (description of each 

streambed piezometer is given appendix 13, table 13–1). 

These temperature loggers, along with temperatures measured 

by pressure transducers in the creek and near the bottom of the 

piezometers, were used to measure the vertical temperature 

gradient through the streambed. The data from the temperature 

loggers were collected at the same 15-minute interval as 

the data from the pressure transducers. Temperature profiles 

were used to quantify the seepage rate and vertical hydraulic 

conductivity between a stream and shallow groundwater 

beneath the stream (Stonestrom and Constantz, 2003). 

Because water has a greater heat capacity than most streambed 

sediments, temperature measurements can effectively quantify 

streambed-seepage rates (Anderson, 2005). 

Two different methods were used to estimate the 

streambed-seepage rate and vertical hydraulic conductivity. 

A graphical software program for simulating fluid flow 

and solute or energy transport in variably saturated porous 

media, named VS2DI (Hsieh and others, 1999), was used in 

conjunction with the computer program VS2DH to simulate 

flow and energy transport (Healy and Ronan, 1996). Version 

1.3 was obtained from http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/

GW_Unsat/vs2di1.3/index.html. The computer program was 

used to simulate temperature and head changes between the 

creek and the screened interval of the piezometer by using 

either hourly or daily mean values. 

Model simulations from data collected at the piezometers 

were calibrated to one or two intermediate temperatures from 

temperature loggers placed inside the piezometer. Calibration 

was done by adjusting the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

by using the procedure described by Niswonger and Prudic 

(2003). Daily mean temperatures and water levels were used 

for piezometers PB1, PB2, PS11, and PS12, whereas the daily 

mean stream stage and hourly temperatures and water levels 

were used for piezometers PL1, PL2, PS4, PS5, and PS7, 

where stream stage was measured. Porosity of the streambed 

was at the low end of the range reported by Niswonger 

and Prudic (2003, p. 86), because the streambed contained 

large stones (boulders and cobbles), and the void space was 

filled with silt and sand, which reduced pore space relative 

to the total volume (Fetter, 2001, p. 71). The values listed 

in table 14–1 are for saturated sand with a porosity of 31 

percent (Tottori sand; Stonestrom and Blasch, 2003, p. 76). 

The models were calibrated by minimizing the square root 

of the sum of the squared difference between measured and 

The two most sensitive variables during model calibration 

were vertical hydraulic conductivity and thermal conductivity 

at saturation. Thermal conductivity was less sensitive than vertical hydraulic conductivity, except when the vertical hydraulic 

gradient of the streambed was near zero (greater than −0.01 

and less than 0.01) or when the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

was less than 1 foot per day, which made thermal conductivity 

(thermal diffusivity) the primary mechanism by which heat 

propagated vertically through the streambed. Thermal conductivity was assumed to be constant in all calculations, because 

of a lack of information about variations in porosity or in the 

chemical composition of the minerals (assumed to be quartz) 

in the streambed, both vertically and laterally. Longitudinal 

dispersivity was generally insensitive and was set to 0.1 meter 

for all model analyses. Because the models only assumed vertical flow and heat transport, transverse dispersivity was not 

used in the VS2DH calculations, but was required as input to 

the model. The value was always set to one tenth of the longitudinal dispersivity (0.01), although a value of zero produced 

the same results. 

The amplitude ratio of the analytical time-series method 

(Hatch and others, 2006) was used to estimate the streambedseepage rates for piezometers where only temperatures of the 

creek water and at the bottom of the piezometer were measured, because water in the piezometer was near its bottom or 

because the inside diameter of the stand pipe was too small 

for the temperature loggers (piezometers PL3, PS1, PS3, PS5, 

PS9, and PS10). The time-series method was well suited for 

these piezometers because flow was in the same direction as 

the diurnal thermal pulse, and the daily mean temperatures in 

the creek and at the bottom of the piezometer were nearly the 

same. The equation for one-dimensional heat and fluid flow 

(known as the one-dimensional conduction-advection dispersion equation, Stallman, 1965) is as follows:

= Ke − ∂ ∂T 2

T

∂z

∂T

∂t ∂z

2

v

nγ

(14-1)

where

T is temperature, in degrees Celsius (varies with 

time, t, and depth, z), 

Ke is effective thermal diffusivity (0.073 meter 

squared per day was used), 

γ is the ratio of volumetric heat capacity of the 

saturated sediments in the streambed to that of 

water (0.62 was used), 
Appendix 14. Description of Water-Temperatures in Streambed Piezometers 179

v is the thermal-front velocity in meters per day, and 

n is the porosity, dimensionless. 

Assuming the top of the streambed is zero, a positive 

thermal-front velocity indicates creek water flows to the 

streambed (losing stream), and a negative value indicates flow 

from shallow groundwater to the creek (gaining stream). The 

thermal-front velocity was a function of the daily amplitude 

ratio between two selected depths (a positive value). The 

amplitude ratio was used because it could be easily computed. 

The following equation was used for the amplitude ratio 

method (Hatch and others, 2006): 

VAr = loge Ar +

2Ke α+v2

Δz √ 2 (14-2)

where

VAr and v are the thermal-front velocity on the left and 

right sides of the equation, in meters per day, 

respectively; 

Δz is the vertical distance between two points 

beneath the streambed, in meters;

Ar is the daily amplitude ratio of the deeper 

temperature logger to the shallower 

temperature logger, where the amplitude was 

computed as half of the sum of the maximum 

and minimum temperatures during a day, and

α = v4 + (8

where

P is the period used to compute the amplitude ratio 

(1 day).

Because the thermal-front velocity is on both sides of the 

equation, the equation was solved iteratively in Excel by using 

the “Solver” function until the thermal-front velocity was the 

same on both sides of the equation. The vertical streambedseepage rate, in meters per day, was calculated as follows:

qstrbd = —v

nγ (14-3)

where

—nγ

v is the average linear-pore-water velocity, in meters 

per day. 

A negative streambed-seepage rate indicates downward movement of water from the creek through the streambed (losing 

stream), and a positive streambed-seepage rate indicates 

groundwater moving upward to the creek (gaining stream); 

this convention was used to be consistent with the hydraulic 

gradients computed for the piezometers. 

Model simulations using VS2DH are more robust than the 

time-series method because the model considers temperature 

and pressure-head changes simultaneously between the creek 

and the screened interval in the piezometer and accounts 

Ke

√ p )

Table 14–1. Hydraulic and thermal properties used to estimate streambed-seepage rates and vertical hydraulic conductivity at 

piezometers driven into the streambeds at selected locations along Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada. 

[Time units for hydraulic conductivity and thermal conductivity for saturated sediment and for sediment at residual water content converted to hours by dividing values listed by 24 

hours per day]

Hydraulic or thermal property Value Standard international units 

Properties used for variably saturated two-dimensional heat transport model

(VS2DH: Healy and Ronan 1996)

Porosity 0.3 Cubic meter per cubic meter

Specific storage 3.x10-6 Cubic meter per square meter

Residual water content 0.1 Cubic meter per cubic meter

van Genuchten retention model

Alpha 1 Cubic meter per square meter

Beta 5 Dimensionless exponent

Heat capacity of dry sediment (quartz) 1.9x106 Joules per cubic meter per degree Celsius

Heat capacity of water 4.2x106 Joules per cubic meter per degree Celsius

Thermal conductivity of saturated sediment 1.9x105 Joules per meter per day per degree Celsius

Thermal conductivity at residual water content 650 Joules per meter per day per degree Celsius

Longitudinal dispersivity 0.2 Meter

Properties used for analytical time-series method (Hatch and others, 2006)

Heat capacity of saturated sediment (quartz) 2.6x106 Joules per cubic meter per degree Celsius

Thermal dispersivity of saturated sediment 0.073 Meter squared per day

Gamma 0.62 Ratio of volumetric heat capacity of saturated sediment to volumetric heat capacity of 

water
180 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

for changes in storage of water and heat in the profile. Both 

methods assume vertical flow of water through the streambed, 

however, and the analytical method also assumes the same 

mean temperature throughout the profile (that is, no change 

in heat storage; Hatch and others, 2006). Lateral flow parallel 

to the creek can affect the streambed-seepage rates, particularly when lateral flow is dominate. This can happen when the 

piezometer is near the edge of the creek and the streambed is 

deeper in the center or when lateral hydraulic gradients of the 

channel are greater than the vertical ones. Furthermore, the 

times-series method does not consider changes in the direction 

of flow and storage through the profile as a result of changes 

in the hydraulic gradient between the creek and the bottom 

of the piezometer. Neither method can accurately determine 

the streambed-seepage rate when the hydraulic gradient 

approaches zero because conduction (thermal conductivity or 

thermal diffusivity) becomes the dominant driver of changes 

in temperature in the profile. Thus, vertical hydraulic conductivities are only reported to one significant figure.

The time-series method determined the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed (Kv) at the piezometers by 

dividing the mean streambed-seepage rate (qstrbd) by the mean 

hydraulic gradient, or Δ—Δ

h

z

 according to Darcy’s Law and assuming vertical flow ( ). The term is the head in the 

piezometer minus the head in the creek. Hydraulic gradients 

less than −1 feet per foot (ft/ft), indicating gravity drainage, 

were assigned a value of −1 ft/ft in calculations of vertical 

hydraulic conductivity.

Hourly temperatures and water levels used to estimate 

streambed-seepage rates and vertical hydraulic conductivity 

for the streambed piezometers are listed in tables for piezometers in Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks (tables 14–2 to 

14–17). 

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 14–2. Hourly temperature and water level at selected 

depths in piezometer PB1, driven into the streambed of Baker 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2010.

Table 14–3. Hourly temperature and water level at selected 

depths in piezometer PB2, driven into the streambed of Baker 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2009–10.

Table 14–4. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PL1, driven into the streambed 

of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–5. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PL2, driven into the streambed 

of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2010.

Kv = −qstrbd / ][Δh

Δz

Table 14–6. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PL3, driven into the streambed 

of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2010.

Table 14–7. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PL4, driven into the streambed 

of Lehman Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–8. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at bottom of piezometer PS1, driven into the streambed of Snake 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2009.

Table 14–9. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at bottom of piezometer PS2, driven into the streambed of Snake 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2009.

Table 14–10. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PS3, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009.

Table 14–11. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PS4, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–12. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at bottom of piezometer PS5, driven into the streambed of Snake 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2009–10.

Table 14–13. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PS7, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–14. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek and 

at selected depths in piezometer PS9, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–15. Hourly temperatures and water levels in creek 

and near bottom of piezometer PS10, driven into the streambed 

of Snake Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009.

Table 14–16. Hourly temperatures at selected depths in 

piezometer PS11, driven into the streambed of Snake Creek, Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

Table 14–17. Hourly temperature and water level at selected 

depths in piezometer PS12, driven into the streambed of Snake 

Creek, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 

2009–10.
Appendix 14. Description of Water-Temperatures in Streambed Piezometers 181

References Cited

Anderson, M.P., 2005, Heat as a ground water tracer: Ground 

Water, v. 46, no. 6, p. 951–968, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-

6584.2005.00052. Fetter, C.W., 2001, Applied hydrogeology (4th ed.): Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice 

Hall, 598 p.

Hatch, C.E., Fisher, A.T., Revenaugh, J.S., Constantz, Jim, and 

Ruehl, Chris, 2006, Quantifying surface water-groundwater 

interactions using time series analysis of streambed thermal 

records—methods development: Water Resources Research, 

v. 42, W10410, 14 p, doi:10.1029/2005WR004787.

Healy, R.W., and Ronan, A.D., 1996, Documentation of computer program VS2DH for simulation of energy transport 

in variably saturated porous media—modification of the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s computer program VS2DT: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

96–4230, 36 p., http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri964230.

Hsieh, P.A., Wingle, William, and Healy, R.W., 1999, 

VS2DI—a graphical software package for simulating fluid 

flow and solute or energy transport in variably saturated 

porous media: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4130, 16 p., http://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/pubs/wri/wri994130.

Niswonger, R.G., and Prudic, D.E., 2003, Modeling heat as a 

tracer to estimate streambed seepage and hydraulic conductivity, Appendix B in Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, Jim, 

eds., Heat as a tool for studying the movement of groundwater near streams: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 

p. 81–89.

Stallman, R.W., 1965, Steady one-dimensional fluid flow in a 

semi-infinite porous medium with sinusoidal surface temperature: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 70, 

p. 2,821–2,827.

Stonestrom, D.A., and Blasch, K.W., 2003, Determining 

temperature and thermal properties for heat-based studies 

of surface-water ground-water interactions, Appendix A in

Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, Jim, eds., Heat as a tool 

for studying the movement of groundwater near streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, p. 73–80.

Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, Jim, eds., 2003, Heat as 

a tool for studying the movement of groundwater near 

streams: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 96 p.
182 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 15. Description of Placement and Measurement of Stream Water 

Temperature Using Fiber-Optic Cables and a Distributed Temperature Sensing 

Method near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. 

Groundwater flow to Snake and Lehman Creeks was 

evaluated by using distributed temperature sensing (DTS). 

The fiber-optic cable was first installed along Snake Creek 

just downstream of the Great Basin National Park on July 

18, 2009. The cable was custom-made with a white plastic 

outer protective casing to limit solar heating (Neilson and 

others, 2010). The uppermost part of the reach was intermittent, but the lower part of the reach was perennial, indicating 

groundwater discharge to the creek (Elliot and others, 2006, 

p. 36–40). The fiber-optic cable entered the upstream end of 

the reach from a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) access 

road (lat 38°55′09′′N., long114°07′36′′W., North American 

Datum of 1983, or NAD83) at an altitude of about 6,120 feet 

(ft) above mean sea level (msl) and left the reach just upstream 

of a culvert (lat 38°55′06”N., long 114°06′51′′W, NAD83) at 

an altitude of about 5,970 ft above msl. The fiber-optic cable 

was secured to the streambed by cobbles, which were common in the reach. The total length of cable in the stream was 

2,824 ft. About 65 ft of the fiber-optic cable was placed in 

north Gruden Spring (lat 38°55′09′′N., long 114°07′36′′W, 

NAD83). The spring was approximately 40 ft north of the 

creek and 4 ft higher in altitude. Extra cable was coiled at the 

upstream and downstream ends for temperature calibration 

during deployments at all sites. 

The cable was connected to a Sensornet Limited®

SentinelTM DTS and 4-channel Multiplexer (Hertfordshire, 

United Kingdom), which provides temperature data at 3.28-

feet (1-meter) spatial resolution on four channels up to 3.2 mi 

or 5 kilometers (km) in length and can sample as often as 

every 10 seconds. Measurements along fiber-optic cable can be 

made either in one direction (single-ended) or both directions 

(double-ended). Fiber-optic cables used in study were 0.2 by 

0.3 inch All Dielectric Self-Supporting (ADSS) Flat DropTM 

cable (AFL Telecommunications, LLCTM is a subsidiary 

of Fujikura Ltd., Japan) 3,280 ft (1,000 meters) long that 

contained two optical fibers. If these fibers are spliced together 

at one end of the cable and are both connected to the DTS unit 

at the other, double-ended measurement configurations can 

be used; if not, only single-ended configurations are possible. 

Independent temperature measurements for calibration of 

DTS data were made in portable coolers that were either filled 

with stream water or an ice-and-water mixture. The water and 

ice-and-water baths were continually mixed with an aquarium 

bubbler. Temperatures of the calibration baths were measured 

continuously when the DTS was in operation by using a 

combination of Onset Computer Corporation (Bourne, Mass.) 

WaterTemp Pro® (ceramic thermistor) temperature loggers, 

with a resolution of 0.02 degrees Celsius (°C) and accuracy 

of 0.15 °C between -4 and 37 °C, ThermoWorks Logmaster 

(Alpine, Utah) RTDTemp101® (100 ohms platinum resistance 

thermocouple, PT100) temperature loggers, with a resolution 

of 0.01 °C and accuracy of 0.05 °C between -40 and 80 °C, 

and PT100 temperature loggers incorporated into the Sentinel 

DTS unit.

The DTS was connected to the cable in Snake Creek 

three times between July and October 2009 (table 15–1): 

5 days, from July 19 to 24, 2009; 7 days, from September 

3 to 10, 2009; and 2 days, from October 7 to 9, 2009. 

Table 15–1. Distributed temperature sensing measurements from selected reaches of Lehman and Snake Creeks in and near Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–10.

[Longitude and latitude are referenced to the North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Abbreviation: mm, 

two digit month; dd, two digit day; yyyy; four digit year; hh, two digit hour; mn, two digit minute] 

Stream

Measurement date/time 

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mn)

Pacific Daylight Time

Measurement 

type

Cable location at upstream end Length of 

cable in 

stream 

(feet)

Latitude Longitude Land-surface 

altitude

Begin End Decimal degrees (feet)

Lehman Creek, upstream cable 10/09/2009 18:34 10/10/2009 08:55 Single ended 39.012 114.214 6,700 2,544

Lehman Creek, upstream cable 10/10/2009 09:10 10/11/2009 11:41 Double ended 39.012 114.214 6,700 2,544

Lehman Creek, upstream cable 11/03/2009 17:43 11/05/2009 16:49 Single ended 39.012 114.214 6,700 2,544

Lehman Creek, upstream cable 11/05/2009 17:59 11/08/2009 09:59 Single ended 39.012 114.214 6,700 2,544

Lehman Creek, downstream cable 11/05/2009 17:01 11/08/2009 09:59 Single ended 39.010 114.207 6,560 2,739

Lehman Creek, upstream cable 02/24/2010 16:20 02/26/2010 13:36 Single ended 39.012 114.214 6,700 2,544

Lehman Creek, downstream cable 02/24/2010 16:20 02/26/2010 13:36 Single ended 39.010 114.207 6,560 2,739

Snake Creek 07/19/2009 11:56 07/24/2009 08:37 Double ended 38.919 114.127 6,120 2,824

Snake Creek 09/03/2009 10:50 09/10/2009 07:39 Double ended 38.919 114.127 6,120 2,824

Snake Creek 10/07/2009 15:00 10/09/2009 07:49 Double ended 38.919 114.127 6,120 2,824
Appendix 15. Description of Placement and Measurement of Stream Water Temperature 183

During each deployment, the Sentinel DTS was powered 

by a generator and contained in a temperature-controlled 

trailer. Two calibration baths were used—an ice and water 

bath upstream and stream water downstream—and were 

logged independently with PT100 thermistors. The July and 

September deployments were accompanied by measurements 

of stream temperature at one upstream and one downstream 

location by using PT100 temperature loggers. 

During October and November 2009, two fiber-optic 

cables were placed in Lehman Creek. The upstream cable was 

installed on October 8, 2009. The cable entered the creek next 

to the gaging station inside Great Basin National Park (U.S. 

Geological Survey station number 10243260: lat 39°00′42′′N., 

long 114°12′52′′W., NAD83) at an altitude of about 6,700 

ft msl and exited the creek outside Great Basin National 

Park and upstream of Joe’s Way (lat 39°00′35.1′′N., long 

114°12′25.6′′W., NAD83) at an altitude of about 6,540 ft msl. 

The upstream and downstream cables both were secured with 

cobbles. The length of cable in the creek was 2,297 ft, 2,231 ft, 

and 2,667 ft in October, November, and February, respectively 

(length differences reflect different lengths of cable used for 

calibration at cable ends). The downstream cable was installed 

on November 7, 2009. This cable entered the creek about 

120 ft downstream from the first cable and 20 ft upstream 

from the culvert beneath Joe’s Way; (lat 39°00′40′′N., long 

114°12′00′′W., NAD83) at an altitude of about 6,430 ft msl; 

the downstream end of this cable was about 260 ft downstream 

from where Sage Way crosses Lehman Creek, and it was 

looped back upstream to Sage Way. The length of cable in the 

creek was 2,985 ft in November and 2,999 ft in February. Both 

cables were removed in May 2010. The total distance of both 

cables downstream of the gaging station was 1.06 mi. This 

distance did not include the excess cable left at the beginning 

and end of each cable to connect with the DTS instrument 

and for use in temperature calibration baths nor the repeating 260-ft section downstream from Sage Way. Additionally, 

lengths of cable were placed next to the channel to avoid sharp 

meanders and places where vegetation made wading difficult. 

The distance downstream from the gaging station on Lehman 

Creek was used to denote the location of the cable in the creek 

relative to the gaging station and included where the cable was 

placed on ground next to the creek. 

In Lehman Creek, the DTS was connected to the upstream 

cable on Lehman Creek and operated three times prior to 

the installation of the downstream cable: 1 day, from October 9 to 10, 2009 (single-ended); 1 day, from October 10 to 

11, 2009 (double-ended); and 2 days, from November 3 to 

5, 2009 (table 15–1). Two calibration baths were logged by 

using PT100 temperature loggers; the upstream bath contained 

stream water, and the downstream bath had an ice-and-water 

mixture. Upstream temperatures also were monitored at the 

site where the cable entered the creek. Temperature measurements were collected during three periods (October 9–11, 

2009; November 3–8, 2009; and February 24–26, 2010), and 

temperatures were monitored at several key locations along 

the cable, to evaluate where Lehman Creek gained flow from 

shallow groundwater. Flow was continuous through the reach 

during all three measurement periods. 

Once the lower reach cable was installed on Lehman 

Creek, subsequent DTS measurements of the two cables were 

synchronous. The first combined measurements were for 3 

days from November 5to 8, 2009, and the second were for 2 

days from February 24 to 26, 2010 (table 15–1). Six calibration baths were used and included stream water, heated 

water, snow, and ice-and-water baths. Upstream, midstream, 

and downstream temperatures, along with calibration bath 

temperatures, were monitored during the DTS measurements 

with a combination of PT100 and WaterTemp Pro temperature 

loggers.

References Cited

Elliott, P.E., Beck, D.A., and Prudic, D.E., 2006, 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: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5099, 156 p.

Neilson, B.T., Hatch, C.E., Ban, H., and Tyler, S.W., 2010, 

Solar radiative heating of fiber-optic cables used to monitor temperatures in water: Water Resources Research, v. 46, 

W08540, doi:10.1029/2009WR008354.
184 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Appendix 16. Summary of Water-Quality Data at Selected Stream Sites, 

Springs, and Wells, Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, White Pine County, 

Nevada, September 2007–January 2010. 

sample of the centroid of the stream was taken at each stream 

sampling location. Samples from springs were obtained by 

driving a 3/8-inch (in.) stainless-steel well point with a 2-in. 

long screen placed about 3 in. up from a machined point into 

the spring, then using a peristaltic pump to remove water from 

Chemical analyses of water samples collected from 

selected stream locations, springs, and wells during the study 

(table 16–1) were used to evaluate the connection of streams 

with aquifers and to evaluate source areas to Rowland Spring 

and Big Springs. Because water in the creeks is well-mixed, a 

Table 16–1. Sampling locations for water chemistry from creeks, springs, caves, and wells in and near Great Basin National Park, 

southern Snake Valley, Nevada.

[U.S. Geological Survey site-identification number can be used to obtain data from the National Water Information System database. Longitude and latitude are referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1983. Land-surface altitude is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Abbreviation: NDOW, Nevada Department of Wildlife]

Site name

U.S. Geological Survey 

site-identification 

number

Latitude Longitude Land-surface 

altitude

(feet)

Sample type Decimal degrees

Lehman Creek drainage basin

Lehman Creek at lower Lehman Campground campsite 5 10243260 39.033 114.238 7,350 Surface water

Rowland Spring 10243265 39.010 114.208 6,580 Spring

Baker Creek drainage basin

Marmot spring near Baker Creek Campground 385931114135401 38.992 114.633 7,370 Spring

Baker Creek at Grey Cliffs near C-loop campground 385926114133501 38.991 114.226 7,210 Surface water

Baker Creek at Grey Cliffs B-loop road crossing near Narrows 385928114144201 38.991 114.245 7,160 Surface water

Wheelers Deep Cave in Narrows of Baker Creek 385921114130401 38.989 114.218 6,970 Cave water

Pole Canyon at trail crossing upstream of Pioche Shale 385858114131901 38.983 114.222 7,170 Surface water

Model Cave 385918114124001 38.988 114.211 7,000 Cave water

300 feet downstream of Model Cave resurgent spring 385922114123701 38.989 114.210 6,820 Surface water

Rosethorn Spring in Baker Creek drainage 385948114114401 38.997 114.196 6,460 Spring

Baker 4 aquifer-test site, 6-inch diameter monitoring well 385947114113201 38.996 114.192 6,390 Groundwater

Snake Creek drainage basin

Squirrel Spring Cave in Snake Creek drainage 385510114114401 38.919 114.196 7,200 Cave water

Outlet Spring near end of pipeline on Snake Creek 385445114102601 38.913 114.174 6,755 Spring

Snake Creek at end of pipeline 385445114102301 38.913 114.173 6,750 Surface water

Outhouse Spring north side of Snake Creek 385456114085501 38.916 114.149 6,395 Spring

Snake Creek at Outhouse Spring 385456114085501 38.916 114.149 6,390 Surface water

Snake Creek 0.4 mile upstream of Cave Canyon Creek 385506114083201 38.918 114.142 6,310 Surface water

Piezometer 11 in Snake Creek near north Gruden Spring 385509114073301 38.919 114.126 6,120 Groundwater

Snake Creek about 50 feet upstream of culvert on Duff property 385505114070801 38.918 114.119 6,030 Surface water

Snake Creek upstream of diversion for fish-rearing station 385505114063001 38.918 114.108 5,900 Surface water

NDOW Spring Creek fish-rearing station well 385503114062201 38.918 114.106 5,885 Groundwater

Spring Creek Spring 385433114064501 38.909 114.113 6,125 Spring

Snake Creek downstream of fish-rearing station 10243233 38.921 114.092 5,815 Surface water

Snake 5 deep well 385524114045601 38.923 114.082 5,620 Groundwater

Snake Creek at Snake 5 wells 385524114045501 38.923 114.082 5,615 Surface water

Snake Creek at Nevada–Utah state line 10243234 38.928 114.042 5,350 Surface water

Big Springs area

Big Springs, north orifice of south channel 384158114075201 38.699 114.132 5,570 Spring

Big Springs northwest well 384227114082701 38.708 114.141 5,815 Groundwater

Big Springs southwest well 384112114091101 38.687 114.153 6,020 Groundwater
Appendix 16. Summary of Water-Quality Data at Selected Stream Sites, Springs, and Wells 185

the well point. Well samples were collected by pumping each 

well. Two samples were collected from the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s domestic well, which has a dedicated pump 

at the Spring Creek fish-rearing station. The first sample was 

collected in June 2009 during an aquifer test, and the second 

sample was collected in January 2010, when water samples 

were collected at selected sites in and near Snake Creek. Water 

from the domestic well was collected from an outlet prior to 

entering a pressurized storage tank after many pore volumes 

were pumped from the well. Water samples from monitoring wells drilled during this study required a pump. Pumps 

capable of withdrawing more than 250 gallons per minute 

(gal/min) were lowered into the two wells drilled northwest 

and southwest of Big Springs, and samples were collected 

during aquifer tests after many pore volumes were removed 

from the wells. A 4-in. diameter well was lowered into the 

6-in. diameter well next to Baker Creek and used for a 92-hour 

aquifer test. The well was pumped at a rate of 26 gal/min, 

and many pore volumes were removed before collecting a 

water sample. A small-diameter Bennett® pump capable of 

pumping up to 2 gal/min was lowered into Snake 5 deep well. 

The pump produced only 0.75 gal/min because the depth to 

water in the well exceeded 200 ft in January 2010. The well 

was pumped for 2 hours prior to collecting a sample. A battery 

operated peristaltic pump was used to sample water from 

streambed piezometer PS11 near north Gruden Spring. The 

piezometer was pumped at a rate of 0.1 gal/min for 30 minutes 

prior to collecting a sample.

Water from each sampling location was measured for 

temperature, specific electrical conductance, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, and alkalinity by using procedures described by 

Radke and others (2005), Lewis (2006), Rounds (2006), Ritz 

and Collins (2008), and Wilde (2006, 2008). Specific electrical 

conductance and pH were calibrated to standards at the time of 

sampling. Dissolved oxygen was calibrated at each sampling 

location. Alkalinity was determined by titration of a 50 milliliter (mL) sample of filtered water by using an inflection-point 

method with 0.16 Normal (N) sulfuric acid. Bicarbonate concentrations were calculated from alkalinity (Rounds, 2006). 

All sample bottles were rinsed three times with filtered 

or unfiltered water prior to collecting the sample. Duplicate 

samples were collected at each site. A portable battery-operated peristaltic pump equipped with C-flex tubing was used 

to filter water through a high volume, 0.45 micron filter. The 

tubing was rinsed with deionized water prior to each sample 

collection (Wilde, 2004). Water was pumped through the peristaltic pump at a rate of 0.1 gal/min. Filtered water was poured 

into amber bottles, whereas unfiltered water was poured 

into plain bottles. Water in the amber bottles was untreated, 

whereas water in the plain bottles was acidified to a pH of 

less than 1 with 1 mL of 4.5 N sulfuric acid. Filtered water for 

dissolved-cation and trace-element analysis was collected in 

acid-rinsed 500-mL polyethylene bottles. These samples were 

preserved with 7.7 N Ultrex nitric acid to a pH of less than 2. 

Filtered water for dissolved anion analysis was collected in 

250-mL polyethylene bottles. Additionally, unfiltered water 

was collected in 250-mL polyethylene bottles. Water for lowlevel nutrient analysis was collected in 125-mL polyethylene 

bottles; these samples were kept at or below 4 degrees Celsius 

(°C) prior to analysis.

Unfiltered water for analysis of stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen was collected in 60-mL or 20-mL clear-glass 

bottles with polyseal caps. The 60-mL bottles were sent to the 

U.S. Geological Survey Isotope Laboratory or to the Yucca 

Mountain Laboratory, and the 20-mL bottles were sent to the 

Geological Sciences Department Isotope Laboratory at the 

University of Nevada, Reno. Unfiltered water for analysis of 

radioactive tritium (hydrogen-3 or 3

H) was collected in 1-liter 

(L) polyethylene bottles. Filtered water for analysis of stable 

isotopes of carbon (carbon-13/carbon-12 or 13C/12C) and for 

radioactive carbon (carbon-14 or 14C) was collected in 500-mL 

amber-glass bottles and sealed with Teflon-lined caps. Unfiltered water for analysis of strontium and uranium isotopes was 

collected in acid-rinsed 500-mL polyethylene bottles. 

Water for analysis of dissolved gases was collected in 

150-mL clear-glass serum bottles by placing the serum bottle 

upside down at the bottom of the pool at a spring, then slowly 

turning it toward the direction of flow or, when pumped, by 

filling a stainless-steel container from the bottom up and 

allowing excess water to pour over its top. After all air bubbles 

were removed from the sample, a rubber stopper with a needle 

to remove excess water was inserted in the open end of the 

bottle while the bottle was at the bottom of the pool or container. The needle was removed under water after the rubber 

stopper was in place.

Five chlorofluorocarbon samples were collected at each 

sampling site. Neither dissolved gases nor chlorofluorocarbon 

samples were collected from the creeks. Although spring pools 

can be considered surface-water sites, water samples collected 

from the bottom of each spring (pools less than 2 feet deep) 

and from well points driven into the springs were classified as 

groundwater sites. Chlorofluorocarbon samples were collected 

in 125mL Boston round, clear-glass bottles and sealed with 

white-plastic caps lined with aluminum foil. The dip-and-fill 

method was used to collect samples from the bottom of each 

spring when it was more than 1 foot deep, and samples were 

collected from the well point when the spring was less than a 

foot deep by using the same method as was used to fill stainless-steel containers for dissolved gas samples described previously. The foil-lined cap was tightened on the bottle while it 

was at the bottom of the pool or stainless-steel container after 

the bottle had completely filled with water. The caps on all the 

water samples were sealed with black-plastic electrical tape to 

prevent loosening during storage and shipment. 

Water samples were shipped to several different U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) laboratories and to the stable-isotope 

laboratory at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). Water 

samples collected for major dissolved ions, selected trace elements, and low-level nutrients were sent the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado. 

Water samples collected for stable isotopes of hydrogen 

and oxygen were sent to the USGS Reston Stable Isotope 
186 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Laboratory (RSIL) in Reston, Virginia, or to the stable isotope 

laboratory at UNR. Water samples collected for dissolved 

gases and chlorofluorocarbons were sent to the USGS Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. Water 

samples for strontium isotope ratio (87Sr/86Sr), uranium isotopes (234U/235U), and a few samples for stable carbon isotopes 

(13C and 12C) and stable isotopes of water (18O/16O and 2H/1H) 

were sent to the Yucca Mountain Project Environmental 

Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado. Samples for stable carbon 

isotopes and radioactive carbon collected from the two wells 

near Big Springs were sent to the research laboratory at Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Lastly, backup water samples initially collected between 

August 2010 and August 2011 for analysis of stable isotopes 

of water from (1) Lehman Creek at lower Lehman Campground, (2) either site on Baker Creek at Grey Cliffs (either 

near C-loop campground or B-loop road crossing) upstream 

from the Narrows, and (3) Rowland Spring (table 16–1) were 

analyzed at a research laboratory in Menlo Park, California, by 

using an ion chromatograph. 

Results of all of the analyses by the different laboratories 

are stored in the U.S. Geological Survey NWIS database 

(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/nwis). The analytical 

procedures used by the NWQL can be found at http://nwql.

usgs.gov/OFR-00-212.shtml. Analytical procedures used by 

the RSIL can be found at http://isotopes.usgs.gov/lab/methods.

html, and those used by the CFC Laboratory can be found at 

http://water.usgs.gov/lab. Sampling and analytical procedures 

used by the Yucca Mountain Project Environmental Laboratory for strontium concentrations and ratios in water and rock 

are described in Paces and others (2007). Procedures for analyzing stable carbon isotopes in water are listed in a Technical 

Procedures of the Yucca Mountain Project as part of the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s requirements for quality assurance 

and quality control (R.L. Moscati, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Lakewood, Colorado, written commun., 2007). 

All laboratories used to analyze the water samples were 

quality assured. Standard laboratory procedures for quality 

assurance at the NQWL are documented by Pirkey and Glodt 

(1998) and Maloney (2005). Standard procedures for quality 

assurance for the stable isotopes of deuterium and oxygen–18 

at the RSIL are documented at http://isotopes.usgs.gov/lab/

services/RSIL_SOP_1700.pdf. Duplicate samples (two for 

dissolved gases and five for chlorofluorocarbon analyses) were 

sent to the CFC Laboratory as part of their quality-assurance 

procedure. Multiple tests were done on the samples sent to the 

CFC laboratory. 

Chemical analysis of water samples are listed in separate 

files. The files include water chemistry collected at sites listed 

in table 16–1 as a part of other U.S. Geological Survey studies 

in the study area during 2009–11. The surface-water chemistry 

are in five tables (tables 16–2 to 16–6), and the groundwater 

chemistry are in six tables (tables 16–7 to 16–12). Table 16–12 

lists concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons and dissolved gases 

collected from selected groundwater sites.

Microsoft® Excel 2010 format and is available for download at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819. 

Table 16–2. Field parameters at selected surface-water sites 

for water chemistry in and near Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–3. Dissolved major-ion concentrations at selected 

surface-water sites in and near Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–4. Dissolved trace-element concentrations at selected 

surface-water sites in and near Great Basin National Park, White 

Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–5. Nutrient concentrations at selected surface-water 

sites in and near Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, 

Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–6. Stable- and radioactive-isotope chemistry at 

selected surface-water sites in and near Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–7. Field parameters at selected caves, springs, and 

groundwater sites for water chemistry in and near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–8. Dissolved major-ion concentrations at selected 

caves, springs, and groundwater sites in and near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–9. Dissolved trace-element concentrations at selected 

caves, springs, and groundwater sites in and near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–10. Nutrient concentrations at selected caves, springs, 

and groundwater sites in and near Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–11. Stable- and radioactive-isotope chemistry at 

selected caves, springs, and groundwater sites in and near Great 

Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

Table 16–12. Dissolved chlorofluorocarbon and gas 

concentrations at groundwater sites in and near Great Basin 

National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, 2009–11.

The tables of field parameters list field measurements of 

discharge or pumping rate, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, and alkalinity. The 

tables of dissolved major-ion concentrations list calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, bromide, chloride, 

fluoride, nitrate, sulfate, silica, and organic carbon, as well as 

dissolved solids. The tables of trace-element concentrations 

list dissolved ions that are typically less than 1 milligram 

per liter; it includes arsenic, boron, iron, lead, manganese, 

strontium, and uranium, among other elements. The tables 

of nutrient concentrations list different species of nitrogen 

and phosphorus. The tables of stable and radioactive isotope 

chemistry list concentrations or ratios of concentrations of 

the stable or radioactive isotopes of water, carbon, strontium, 

sulfur, and uranium. The table of dissolved chlorofluorocarbon and gases in groundwater samples lists concentrations of 

the chlorofluorocarbons—trichlorofluoromethane (CFC11), 

The following tables are distributed as part of this report in 
Appendix 16. Summary of Water-Quality Data at Selected Stream Sites, Springs, and Wells 187

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC12), and trichlorotrifluoromethane (CFC113)—for samples collected from Wheelers Deep 

Cave and selected springs and wells. Concentrations of gases 

dissolved in the water include argon, carbon dioxide, methane, 

nitrogen, and oxygen. The dissolved chlorofluorocarbons and 

gases were used to estimate the mean age of groundwater, 

which is also listed for each sample. 

References Cited

Lewis, M.E., 2006, Dissolved oxygen (ver. 2.1): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A6, section 6.2, June, accessed June 9, 2009, 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/.

Maloney, T.J., ed., 2005, Quality management system, U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 3005–1263, version 

1.3, 9 November 2005, chapters and appendixes variously 

paged.

Paces, J.B., Peterman, Z.E., Futo, Kiyoto, Oliver, T.A., and 

Marshall, B.D., 2007, Strontium isotopic composition of 

Paleozoic carbonate rocks in the Nevada Test Site vicinity, 

Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada, Inyo County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series Report 280, 

42 p.

Pirkey, K.D., and Glodt, S.R., 1998, Quality control at the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–026–98, 4 p.

Radke, S.A., Davis, J.V., and Wilde, F.D., 2005, Specific electrical conductance (ver. 1.2): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, 

section 6.3, August, accessed June 9, 2009, 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/.

Ritz, G.F., and Collins, J.A., 2008, pH (version 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, section 6.4, October, accessed June 

9, 2009, http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/.

Rounds, S.A., 2006, Alkalinity and acid neutralizing capacity (version 3.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, section 

6.6, July, accessed June 9, 2009, http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

twri9A6/.

Wilde, F.D., ed., 2004, Cleaning of equipment for water 

sampling (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A3, 

April, accessed June 9, 2009 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

twri9A3/.

Wilde, F.D., 2006, Temperature (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chap. A6, section 6.1, March, accessed June 9, 2009, 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/.

Wilde, F.D., 2008, Guidelines for field-measured water quality 

properties: (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, section 

6.0, October, accessed June 9, 2009, http://pubs.water.usgs.

gov/twri9A6/.
188 Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada

Cover4 Report Title

Prudic and others—Evaluating Connection of Aquifers to Springs and Streams, Eastern Part of Great Basin National Park and Vicinity, Nevada—Professional Paper 1819

ISSN 2330-7102 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1819