Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to

Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park,

White Pine County, Nevada 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073

Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: Cave Springs discharge area. View is southeast toward Garrison, Utah in Snake 

Valley. Nearest rock outcrop in center of photograph is middle Cambrian Pole Canyon 

Limestone. Nearest rock outcrop on right side of photograph above meadow is Tertiary 

granite. (Photograph taken by David E. Prudic, U.S. Geological Survey, September 7, 

2007.)
Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to

Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, 

White Pine County, Nevada

By David E. Prudic and Patrick A. Glancy

Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

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

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Prudic, D.E., and Glancy, P.A., 2009, Geochemical investigation of source water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073, 28 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Description of Cave Springs ..............................................................................................................1

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

Collection of Water and Rock Samples......................................................................................................5

Location and Description of Sampling Sites ....................................................................................5

Sampling Procedures.........................................................................................................................10

Analyses of Water and Rock Samples .....................................................................................................10

Water Chemistry ..........................................................................................................................................11

Source of Water to Cave Springs..............................................................................................................15

Stable Isotopes....................................................................................................................................15

Source of Calcium, Bicarbonate, and Strontium at Cave Springs..............................................19

Modeling Water Chemistry at Cave Springs ..................................................................................20

Estimated Mean Age of Water at Four Sampling Sites .........................................................................24

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................26

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................27

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................27
iv

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County,

Nevada, and precipitation gages used for collecting stable isotopes of

hydrogen and oxygen ..................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Map showing generalized geology near Cave Springs, location of Lehman

Caves Visitor Center, Lehman Creek and Baker Creek campgrounds, Great

Basin National Park, Nevada, and water and rock sampling sites .................. 3

Figure 3. Cross sections showing two possible geologic profiles along Lehman Creek

showing (A) granite intrusion splitting Pole Canyon Limestone and (B) granite

replacement of Pioche Shale between Prospect Mountain Quartzite and

Pole Canyon Limestone beneath alluvial and glacial deposits at Cave

Springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada............................................. 4

Figure 4. Photographs showing four water sampling sites at Cave Springs, permanent

pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park,

Nevada ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 5. Photographs showing three rock sampling sites near Cave Springs, Great

Basin National Park, Nevada, September 8, 2007 ....................................... 7

Figure 6. Graph showing relation between specific conductance and dissolved solids

in water sampled from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves,

and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, 

September 2007.............................................................................. 13

Figure 7. Diagram showing distribution of water chemistry from samples collected

from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby

springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007 ........................ 14

Figure 8. Graph showing deuterium and oxygen‐18 in water samples collected

September 2007 from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and

two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, in relation to

precipitation collected from Cave Mountain, Connors Pass, and Mount

Moriah in neighboring mountain ranges between April 1991 and 

June 1997 .................................................................................... 16

Figure 9. Graph showing relation between delta carbon‐13 (δ13C) and dissolved

inorganic carbon in water samples collected from Cave Springs, a

permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin

National Park, Nevada, September 2007 ................................................ 17

Figure 10. Graph showing relation between the ratio of strontium‐87 to strontium‐86

and strontium concentrations in water samples collected from Cave Springs,

a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, and in rock

samples of Pole Canyon Limestone, Tertiary granite, and Prospect Mountain

Quartzite, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007 ..................... 19
v

Tables

Table 1. Location and elevation of water and rock sampling sites at Great Basin

National Park, Nevada ..................................................................... 9

Table 2. Selected constituents analyzed in water and rock samples collected near

Cave Springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada, and U.S. Geological

Survey laboratories used for analysis ................................................... 11

Table 3. Concentrations of selected dissolved constituents in water collected from

Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs at

Great Basin National Park, Nevada ...................................................... 12

Table 4. Concentrations of nutrients in water collected from Cave Springs, a

permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs at Great Basin

National Park, Nevada ..................................................................... 13

Table 5. Stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and strontium in water

collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two

nearby springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada ................................. 15

Table 6. Stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon in rock sample of Pole Canyon

Limestone and ratio of strontium isotopes and concentration of strontium in

rock samples of Pole Canyon Limestone, Tertiary granite, and Prospect

Mountain Quartzite near Cave Springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada...... 18

Table 7. Saturation indexes for selected minerals and the partial pressure of carbon

dioxide gas calculated from dissolved chemistry in water from Cave Springs

prior to and after reconstruction of water-collection system and from

Marmot Spring, Great Basin National Park, Nevada.................................... 21

Table 8. Dissolved constituents and mineral and gas phases used to model

geochemical reactions assuming initial waters from Cave Springs prior to

reconstruction of water-collection system and Marmot Spring, and final

water from Cave Springs after reconstruction, Great Basin National Park,

Nevada ....................................................................................... 22

Table 9. Results of geochemical modeling using NETPATH to evaluate dissolution of

carbonate rocks at Cave Springs assuming initial water is water from Cave

Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system, Great Basin

National Park, Nevada ..................................................................... 23

Table 10. Results of geochemical modeling using NETPATH to evaluate dissolution of

carbonate rocks at Cave Springs assuming initial water is water from

Marmot Spring, Great Basin National Park, Nevada.................................... 23

Table 11. Concentrations of dissolved gases and chlorofluorocarbons in water

collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two

nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada .................................... 24

Table 12. Estimated recharge temperatures from dissolved gases and range in age

from chlorofluorocarbon analyses of water sampled from Cave Springs, a

permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin

National Park, Nevada ..................................................................... 25
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.40 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.59 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

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

Chemical concentrations, volumes of water, and mass of rocks collected for analyses are 

reported in SI units:

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Excess air concentration

cubic centimeter per liter (cm3/L) 0.2310 cubic inch per U.S. gallon (in3/gal)

Chemical concentration

milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) 0.0070 grain per pound (gr/lb)

milligram per liter (mg/L) 0.05841 grain, avoirdupois per gallon (gr/gal)

picogram per kilogram (pg/kg) 7.0×10-12 grain per pound (gr/lb)

Volume

cubic centimeter (cm3) 0.0610 cubic inch (in3)

liter (L) 0.2642 U.S. gallon (gal)

milliliter (mL) 0. 001057 quart (qt)

Mass

picogram (pg) 1.543×10-11 grain, avoirdupois (gr)

milligram (mg) 0.01543 grain, avoirdupois (gr)

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound, avoirdupois (lb)

Flow rate

liter per minute (L/min) 0.2642 gallon per minute (gal/min)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F= (1.8×°C) +32.
vii

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentration units for chemical constituents in water are milligrams of solute per liter of 

solution (mg/L).

Concentration units for dissolution of a mineral in water are millimoles of dissolved mineral per 

kilogram of water (mmol/kg).

Concentration units for chemical constituents in rock are milligrams of constituent per kilogram 

of rock (mg/kg).

Concentration units for excess air dissolved in water are cubic centimeters per liter (cm3/L).

Concentration units for chlorofluorocarbon concentrations dissolved in water are picograms of 

chlorofluorocarbon per kilogram of water (pg/kg).

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NAVD 29). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Conversion Factors and Datums—Continued
viii

This page intentionally left blank.
Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, 

Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada 

By David E. Prudic and Patrick A. Glancy

Abstract

Cave Springs supply the water for the Lehman Caves 

Visitor Center at Great Basin National Park, which is about 

60 miles east of Ely, Nevada, in White Pine County. The 

source of water to the springs was investigated to evaluate the 

potential depletion caused by ground-water pumping in areas 

east of the park and to consider means to protect the supply 

from contamination. Cave Springs are a collection of several 

small springs that discharge from alluvial and glacial deposits 

near the contact between quartzite and granite. Four of the 

largest springs are diverted into a water-collection system 

for the park. Water from Cave Springs had more dissolved 

strontium, calcium, and bicarbonate, and a heavier value of 

carbon-13 than water from Marmot Spring at the contact 

between quartzite and granite near Baker Creek campground 

indicating that limestone had dissolved into water at Cave 

Springs prior to discharging. The source of the limestone at 

Cave Springs was determined to be rounded gravels from a 

pit near Baker, Nevada, which was placed around the springs 

during the reconstruction of the water-collection system in 

1996.

Isotopic compositions of water at Cave Springs and 

Marmot Spring indicate that the source of water to these 

springs primarily is from winter precipitation. Mixing of 

water at Cave Springs between alluvial and glacial deposits 

along Lehman Creek and water from quartzite is unlikely 

because deuterium and oxygen-18 values from a spring 

discharging from the alluvial and glacial deposits near upper 

Lehman Creek campground were heavier than the deuterium 

and oxygen-18 values from Cave Springs. Additionally, 

the estimated mean age of water determined from 

chlorofluorocarbon concentrations indicates water discharging 

from the spring near upper Lehman Creek campground is 

younger than that discharging from either Cave Springs 

or Marmot Spring. The source of water at Cave Springs is 

from quartzite and water discharges from the springs on the 

upstream side of the contact between quartzite and granite 

where the alluvial and glacial deposits are thin. Consequently, 

the potential for depletion of discharge at Cave Springs from 

ground-water pumping in Snake Valley east of the park is 

less than if the source of water was from alluvial and glacial 

deposits or carbonate rocks, which would be more directly 

connected to downstream pumping sites in Snake Valley. 

Introduction 

Great Basin National Park encompasses about 120 mi2

of the highest parts of the southern Snake Range in eastern 

White Pine County, Nevada, near the border with Utah 

(fig. 1). The Southern Nevada Water Authority has applied 

for rights to withdraw large quantities of ground water from 

adjacent Spring Valley and Snake Valley. The National Park 

Service is concerned that pumping of ground water could 

adversely affect water resources of the park and in particular, 

the discharge of Cave Springs. Additionally, Cave Springs 

are near two popular camping areas and park managers are 

concerned about potential sources of contamination to the 

springs.

Description of Cave Springs 

Cave Springs are in the Lehman Creek drainage about 

1 mi upstream of Lehman Caves and four of the larger springs 

are diverted at the source into a water-collection system that 

is used as the water supply for the Lehman Caves Visitor 

Center (fig. 2). The springs discharge from alluvial and 

glacial deposits near the contact between Proterozoic Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite and Tertiary granite (fig. 2). The granite 

west of Lehman Caves was called an aplitic granitoid rock by 

Lee and Van Loenen, 1971, p. 40. The discharge from Cave 

Springs is about 0.1 ft3/s (Gretchen Baker, National Park 

Service, Great Basin National Park, written commun., 2004). 

A recently completed study (Elliott and others, 2006) indicated 

that the Lehman Creek drainage near and downstream of Cave 

Springs likely is susceptible to ground-water withdrawals 

farther downstream in Snake Valley because ground water in 

the alluvial and glacial deposits are connected with similar 

deposits in the valley. 
2 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

tac09-4150_fig 01

White Pine County

Lincoln County

NEVADA

UTAH

Cave Mountain

Mt. Moriah

Conners Pass

Spring Valley

Snake Valley

Baker

39°20'

39°0'

38°40'

114°30' 114°10'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000, 1979–1988. 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, 

North American Datum of 1983, Zone 11

0 5

5

10 MILES

0 10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Great Basin National Park Precipitation gage

Creek

Pruess

Lake

Baker 

Lehman Creek 

Reno

Elko

Ely

MAP

AREA

Las 

Vegas

NEVADA

Figure 1. Location of Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada, and 

precipitation gages used for collecting stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. Data from 

precipitation gages are from Friedman and others (2002).
Introduction 3

tac09-4150_fig 02

11,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

11,000

11,000

9,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

7,000

6,000

12,000

12,000

13,000

12,000

Spring

Creek

Lehman

Baker

North

South

Fork

Fork

Creek

Rowland

Spring

Baker

Lake

Marmot

Spring

488

A’

A

Diversion

3

LC2

Cave

Springs

Jeff Davis

Peak

Wheeler

Peak

39°

02'

39°

00'

38°

58'

114°18' 114°16' 114°14' 114°12'

Lower

Lehman

Creek

Upper Campground Lehman

Creek

Campground

Lehman Caves

Visitor Center

Wheeler

Peak

Campground

Baker Creek

Campgrounds

1

2

4

6 5 7

Geology modified from digital data

(National Park Service, 2009)

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

1979–1988. Universal Transervse Mercator projection,

North American Datum of 1983, Zone 11

Contour—Interval is 1,000 feet

EXPLANATION

Geology Great Basin National Park boundary

Spring

Water sampling site listed in table 1

Rock sampling site listed in table 1

A’A Geologic profile shown in figure 3

4

5

Water sampling site (Acheampong, 1992) LC2

Talus and Landslide deposits

Alluvium

Glacial deposits

Older alluvium

Biotite granite

Granite

McCoy Creek Group, undifferentiated

Pole Canyon Limestone, undifferentiated

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mountain Quartzite

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure 2. Generalized geology near Cave Springs, location of Lehman Caves Visitor Center, Lehman Creek and Baker 

Creek campgrounds, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, and water and rock sampling sites. Geology modified from a 

digital geologic map available from the National Park Service (2009) that is based on 1:24,000 scale maps by Miller and the 

Stanford Geological Survey (2007).
4 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Discharge at Cave Springs could be shallow ground 

water from alluvial and glacial deposits associated with 

Lehman Creek, from Prospect Mountain Quartzite, from 

middle Cambrian Pole Canyon Limestone that might be buried 

beneath the alluvial and glacial deposits, or from a mixture of 

water flowing through these different formations (Elliott and 

others, 2006). The susceptibility of a decreasing discharge to 

Cave Springs due to ground-water pumping partly depends 

on the formations that provide water to the springs. If the 

water source is from alluvial and glacial deposits or Pole 

Canyon Limestone that are connected to alluvial deposits 

farther downstream, then drawdown of water levels from 

downstream pumping sites could propagate upstream and 

decrease the flow of Cave Springs. If the source of water was 

from Prospect Mountain Quartzite near the contact with the 

Tertiary granite, however, then drawdown of water levels from 

downstream pumping sites would not likely decrease flow of 

the springs because the granite would be an effective barrier 

that would restrict the upstream propagation of drawdown 

farther upstream. Furthermore, if the source of Cave Springs is 

from ground water in the shallow alluvial and glacial deposits, 

Great Basin National Park may need to expand their present 

fenced area to minimize contamination to the springs.

The Tertiary granite intruded and assimilated the Pioche 

Shale that separates the Prospect Mountain Quartzite from the 

Pole Canyon Limestone (Lee and Van Loenen, 1971, p. 40). 

Although the nearest outcrop of Pole Canyon Limestone is 

about 2,000 ft southeast of Cave Springs (fig. 2), the limestone 

might be present beneath the alluvial and glacial deposits at 

Cave Springs if the granite split the limestone as illustrated 

in figure 3. This concept was invoked by Elliott and others 

(2006, p. 33) because the specific conductance of Cave 

Springs during 2003 and 2004 was much greater than that in 

Lehman Creek and greater than the specific conductance from 

Marmot Spring (name of spring provided by Gretchen Baker, 

National Park Service, Great Basin National Park, written 

commun., 2008) at the contact between Prospect Mountain 

Quartzite and the Tertiary granite in the adjacent Baker Creek 

drainage (fig. 2). Conversely, if the limestone is absent beneath 

Cave Springs then the discharge from Cave Springs could be 

from the Prospect Mountain Quartzite at the contact with the 

Tertiary granite, and the higher specific conductance has some 

other cause. 

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the geochemical investigation of 

Cave Springs to determine the source of water discharging 

from the springs and to determine if the water has been in 

contact with carbonate rocks. Water samples were collected 

in September 2007 from Cave Springs, a spring discharging 

from alluvial and glacial deposits near upper Lehman Creek 

campground, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves within 

the Middle Cambrian Pole Canyon Limestone, and Marmot 

Spring at the contact between Prospect Mountain Quartzite 

with Tertiary granite in the Baker Creek drainage (fig. 2). The 

samples were analyzed for major ions, selected trace elements, 

nutrients, stable isotopes (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and 

strontium), dissolved gases, and chlorofluorocarbons. Samples 

of Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Tertiary granite, and Pole 

Canyon Limestone were collected from outcrops near Cave 

Springs and analyzed for stable isotopes of strontium. The 

limestone also was analyzed for stable isotopes of carbon and 

oxygen. The source of water to Cave Springs was investigated 

by using the geochemical analyses of the water and rock 

samples and the geochemical models PHREEQC (Parkhurst, 

1995; Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999) and NETPATH (Plummer 

and others, 1994; Parkhurst and Charlton, 2008).

tac09-4150_fig 03

?

?

?

?

?

Cave

Springs

?

?

? ?

8,000

5,000

7,000

6,000

Cave

Springs

Pole Canyon Limestone

Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite

and Pioche Shale

(undifferentiated)

Tertiary granite

8,000

5,000

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE DATUM

At the present vertical scale, Qa and Qg normally 

would not be visible and are displayed schematically.

Vertical Exaggeration X 2

7,000

6,000

A

A

A’

A’

EXPLANATION

? Contact—Approximately located, queried 

where existence or identity questionable

Geologic units described in figure 2

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

A.

B.

Z

Z

Figure 3. Two possible geologic profiles along Lehman Creek 

showing (A) granite intrusion splitting Pole Canyon Limestone 

and (B) granite replacement of Pioche Shale between Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite and Pole Canyon Limestone beneath alluvial 

and glacial deposits at Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, 

Nevada. Cross section A modified from Elliott and others, 2006 (fig. 

18). Geologic profiles were drawn on the basis of geology by Hose 

and Blake (1976) and Miller and others (1995a and 1995b). Location 

of profile is shown in figure 2.
Collection of Water and Rock Samples 5

Collection of Water and Rock Samples

Location and Description of Sampling Sites

Cave Springs (site 1), a permanent pool in Lehman Caves 

(site 2), a spring near upper Lehman Creek campground that 

discharges from glacial deposits (site 3), and Marmot Spring 

in the Baker Creek drainage that discharges at the contact 

between Prospect Mountain Quartzite and Tertiary granite 

(site 4) were selected for sampling in this study (fig. 2). The 

permanent pool in Lehman Caves was selected to obtain a 

water sample that was only in contact with the Pole Canyon 

Limestone. The caves are in the outcrop area of the Pole 

Canyon Limestone (fig. 2) and deeper parts of the accessible 

area of the cave system near the permanent pool are dry, thus 

the only plausible source of water in the pool is infiltration 

of precipitation through the Pole Canyon Limestone. The 

spring near upper Lehman Creek campground discharges 

at the end of a terminal moraine and the water has the same 

specific conductance as water in adjacent Lehman Creek. 

The discharge of the spring was in excess of 1 ft3/s when it 

was sampled, which doubled the flow in Lehman Creek. The 

Overflow outlet Overflow outlet

A. Site 1—Overflow outlet at Cave Springs, view is to west. 

volumetric flow rate was far too great and the temperature 

too cold for it to be ground-water flow through the Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite. Consequently, water discharging from 

the spring near upper Lehman Creek campground likely 

represents water from alluvial and glacial deposits upstream of 

Cave Springs, and water from the spring is a possible source 

of water to Cave Springs. Finally, the geology near Marmot 

Spring in the Baker Creek drainage is similar to that at Cave 

Springs (fig. 2). 

Cave Springs was sampled at the overflow outlet of 

the water-collection system used to supply water to Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center (fig. 4A). The collection system at Cave 

Springs was rebuilt in 1996. A 1.5-ft deep pool was excavated 

at the end of the overflow outlet. A permanent pool in Lehman 

Caves was sampled at the deepest part, which also was about 

1.5 ft deep (fig. 4B). Similar depth pools were excavated at the 

overflow outlet of the spring discharging from glacial deposits 

near upper Lehman Creek campground and from Marmot 

Spring (fig. 4C and 4D). 

Three rock samples were collected from outcrops 

between Lehman Caves Visitor Center and upper Lehman 

Creek campground (fig. 2). The first sample was of Pole 

Canyon Limestone collected from an outcrop on the south side 

Figure 4. Four water sampling sites at Cave Springs, permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two 

nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Site locations are shown in figure 2.

of Lehman Creek drainage 

between Lehman Caves 

and Cave Springs (fig. 5A). 

The sample of Pole Canyon 

Limestone had been somewhat 

metamorphosed because of 

its proximity to the intruded 

granite. The second sample 

was of the Tertiary granite 

also collected from an outcrop 

on the south side of Lehman 

Creek drainage between 

where the Pole Canyon 

Limestone was collected and 

Cave Springs (fig. 5B). The 

third sample was of Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite. This 

sample was collected from 

outcrop on the south side of 

Lehman Creek drainage at the 

east end of the upper Lehman 

Creek campground (fig. 5C). 

Locations and land surface 

altitudes of water and rock 

sampling sites are summarized 

in table 1. 
6 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

tac09-4150_fig04ab

Pool that was sampled

A. Site 1—Overflow outlet at Cave Springs, view is to west. 

B. Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves. 

Figure 4.—Continued

C. Site 3—Marmot Spring near Baker Creek campground, view is to north. 
Collection of Water and Rock Samples 7

tac09-4150_fig04cd

D. Site 4—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground, view is to southwest. 

C. Site 3—Marmot Spring near Baker Creek campground, view is to north. 

Figure 4.—Continued

A. Site 5—Outcrop of Pole Canyon Limestone near Lehman Caves, view is to south.

Outcrop of Pole 

Canyon Limestone

Figure 5. Three rock sampling sites near Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, 

September 8, 2007. Site locations are shown in figure 2. 
8 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

tac09-4150_fig05ab

B. Site 6—Outcrop of Tertiary granite near Cave Springs, view is to east.

A. Site 5—Outcrop of Pole Canyon Limestone near Lehman Caves, view is to south.

Water supply storage tank

Outcrop of Pole 

Canyon Limestone

Cave Springs area

C. Site 6—Outcrop of Tertiary granite near Cave Springs, view is northwest toward Cave Springs.

Figure 5.—Continued 
Collection of Water and Rock Samples 9

tac09-4150_fig05cd

D. Site 7—Outcrop of Prospect Mountain Quartzite at upper Lehman Creek campground, view is to south. 

C. Site 6—Outcrop of Tertiary granite near Cave Springs, view is northwest toward Cave Springs.

Figure 5.—Continued 

Table 1. Location and elevation of water and rock sampling sites at Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Site identification No. was used to obtain data from National Water Information System (NWIS) database. Degrees, 

minutes, and seconds determined from Global Positioning System using horizontal coordinate information referenced to North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83). Land surface altitude also determined from Global Positioning System using vertical coordinate information referenced to the North American 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NAVD 29). The land surface altitude of Lehman Caves is near the entrance and is not that of the pool inside the cave. –, data not 

entered into NWIS database]

Site No. Site name Site identification 

No.

Latitude Longitude Land surface 

altitude (degrees minutes seconds)

Water Samples

1 Cave Springs 390055114140601 39o 00’ 55.1’’ 114o 14’ 09.4’’ 7,270 ± 20

2 Pool in Lehman Caves 390021114130801 39o 00’ 21.1’’ 114o 13’ 11.7’’ 6,830 ± 20

3 Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground 390042114152601 39o 00’ 42.2’’ 114o 15’ 29.9’’ 7,920 ± 30

4 Marmot Spring 385931114135401 38o 59’ 31.2’’ 114o 13’ 57.0’’ 7,370 ± 20

Rock Samples

5 Pole Canyon Limestone – 39o 00’ 36.0’’ 114o 13’ 18.4’’ 6,870 ± 30

6 Tertiary granite – 39o 00’ 43.0’’ 114o 13’ 55.2’’ 7,170 ± 30

7 Prospect Mountain Quartzite – 39o 00’ 43.7’’ 114o 14’ 55.4’’ 7,640 ± 40
10 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Measurements of temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

and dissolved oxygen were made by placing the probe for 

each measurement into the pool. Specific conductance and pH 

were calibrated to standards at the time of sampling. Dissolved 

oxygen was calibrated once at the beginning of sampling. 

Alkalinity also was determined at the time of sampling. 

A 50-mL sample of filtered water was titrated by using an 

inflection-point method with 0.16 N sulfuric acid. Bicarbonate 

concentrations were calculated from alkalinity. 

Fresh rock samples were collected at the three sampling 

sites by removing weathered surfaces with a standard rock 

hammer. About 2 kg of rock samples were placed in yellow 

plastic sample bags. 

Analyses of Water and Rock Samples

The water samples were shipped to four U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) laboratories depending on the type of analysis 

required. The types of analyses and the laboratories used are 

summarized in table 2. Water samples collected for major 

dissolved ions, aluminum, boron, 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 Laboratory (RSIL) in 

Reston, Virginia. Water samples collected for dissolved 

gases and chlorofluorocarbons were sent to the USGS 

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. 

Water and rock samples for strontium, strontium isotope ratio 

(87Sr/86Sr), dissolved inorganic carbon, and stable carbon 

isotopes (13C and 12C) were sent to the Yucca Mountain Project 

Environmental Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado. 

Results of all analyses done by the different laboratories 

are stored in the USGS National Water Information System 

(NWIS) database (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/nwis). 

The analytical procedures used by the NWQL are available 

at http://nwql.cr.usgs.gov/usgs/catalog/index.cfm. Analytical 

procedures used by the RSIL are available at http://isotopes.

usgs.gov/Methods.htm and analytical procedures used by 

the CFC Laboratory are available at http://water.usgs.gov/

lab. Sampling and analytical procedures used by the Yucca 

Mountain Project Environmental laboratory for analyzing 

strontium concentrations and strontium ratios in water and 

rock are described in Paces and others (2007). Procedures for 

analyzing total dissolved inorganic carbon and stable carbon 

isotopes in water are listed in two 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). Procedures for analyzing 

Sampling Procedures

Water for analysis of dissolved major ions plus 

aluminum, iron, bromide, and boron, and nutrients was 

collected by using a portable battery-operated peristaltic 

pump equipped with C‐flex tubing. The tubing was rinsed 

with deionized water prior to each sample collection. One 

end of the tubing was placed in the deepest part of a pool and 

water was pumped at a rate of about 1 L/min. A high volume 

Whatman capsule filter was attached to the other end after 

water had been pumped from the pool for at least 3 minutes. 

All sample bottles were rinsed three times prior to 

collecting the sample by using either filtered or unfiltered 

water. Duplicate samples were collected at each site. Filtered 

water for dissolved cation and trace element analysis was 

collected in acid-rinsed 500-mL polyethylene bottles. These 

samples were preserved with 7.7N 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 low-level nutrient analysis was collected in 125-mL 

polyethylene bottles. 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 less than 1 using 1 mL of 

4.5 N sulfuric acid. The low-level nutrient samples were kept 

at or below 4°

C prior to analysis.

Unfiltered water for stable isotopes of hydrogen and 

oxygen was collected in 60-mL clear glass bottles. Filtered 

water for stable isotopes of carbon (carbon-13/carbon-12) 

was collected in 500-mL amber glass bottles and sealed with 

Teflon lined caps. Unfiltered water for strontium isotopes was 

collected in 500-mL polyethylene bottles. 

Water for dissolved gas was collected in 150-mL clear 

glass serum bottles. The collection procedure was to place 

the serum bottle upside down at the bottom of the pool then 

slowly turn it towards the direction of flow. The bottle was 

filled and emptied three times prior to collecting a final 

sample. Once all air bubbles had been removed from the 

sample, a rubber stopper with needle placed to remove excess 

water was inserted into the open end of the bottle while the 

bottle was at the bottom of the pool. The needle was removed 

under water after the rubber stopper was in place.

Chlorofluorocarbon samples were collected in 125-mL 

Boston round clear-glass bottles and sealed with white plastic 

caps with aluminum foil liner. The dip and fill method was 

used to collect samples at the bottom of each pool. Each bottle 

was filled and emptied three times prior to collecting a sample. 

The foil-lined cap was placed and tightened while the bottle 

was at the bottom of the pool with the bottle completely filled 

with water. A total of five chlorofluorocarbon samples were 

collected at each site. 
Water Chemistry 11

stable carbon and oxygen isotopes in rock are listed in a third 

technical procedures manual (R.L. Moscati, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Lakewood, Colorado, written commun., 2007).

Because of the limited number of samples collected, no 

field blanks were analyzed. However, all laboratories used to 

analyze the water samples have been 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 at the RSIL are 

documented at http://isotopes.usgs.gov/Quality.htm. Duplicate 

samples (two each for dissolved gases and five each for 

chlorofluorocarbon analyses) were sent to the CFC laboratory 

as part of their quality-assurance procedure. Multiple tests of 

the samples were done on the samples sent to the laboratory. 

Only one sample from the permanent pool in Lehman Caves 

differed greatly from two other duplicate samples for analysis 

of CFC-11, but CFC-11 concentrations were greater than the 

current concentration in the atmosphere in all three samples 

collected at this location.

Water Chemistry

Major- and trace-element concentrations in water 

collected from the four sites are listed in table 3. The most 

dilute water was from the spring that discharges from glacial 

deposits near upper Lehman Creek campground; whereas, 

water from the permanent pool in Lehman Caves had the 

highest concentration of dissolved minerals. 

Low-level nutrient concentrations are listed in table 4. 

Ammonia concentrations were below detection in all four 

samples and the maximum concentration of total nutrient 

nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen) was 

from the water sample collected from the permanent pool 

in Lehman Caves (0.94 mg/L as N). Dissolved phosphorus 

and orthophosphate were uniformly low and ranged from 

only 0.02 mg/L as P in water from the spring near upper 

Lehman Creek campground and Marmot Spring (sites 3 and 4, 

respectively) to about 0.05 mg/L as P in water collected from 

the permanent pool in Lehman Caves (site 2). 

Specific conductance is a simple measurement typically 

used to ascertain the relative ionic concentration of water. 

However, because natural waters contain a variety of ionic 

and undissociated species of widely varying concentrations, 

the determination may not be related simply to individual or 

dissolved-solids concentrations (Hem, 1985, p. 67). With this 

precautionary note, the relation between specific conductance 

and dissolved solids among the four samples is exceptional 

(fig. 6). Specific conductance in water samples ranged from 

only 36 μS/cm at 25°C from the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground (site 3) to 440 μS/cm at 25°C from the 

permanent pool in Lehman Caves. Cave Springs has higher 

specific conductance and dissolved solids than that of the 

spring near upper Lehman Creek campground and Marmot 

Spring but less than that from the pool in Lehman Caves. 

The low specific conductance and dissolved solids of the 

spring near upper Lehman Creek campground and water in 

Lehman Creek (30–40 μS/cm at 25oC as reported by Elliott 

and others, 2006, p. 32) is within the range of snowmelt in the 

Sierra Nevada (Feth and others, 1964). Although the specific 

conductance of snowmelt at Great Basin National Park was 

not measured, the low specific conductance and dissolved 

solids of the spring and Lehman Creek indicates rapid flow 

through the glacial deposits and little dissolution of Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite. 

Table 2. Selected constituents analyzed in water and rock samples collected near Cave Springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada, 

and U.S. Geological Survey laboratories used for analysis.

[All analyses completed at U.S. Geological Survey laboratories]

Constituent Water samples Rock samples Laboratory

Chlorofluorocarbons Yes No Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory

Dissolved gases Yes No Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory

Dissolved inorganic carbon Yes No Yucca Mountain Project Environmental Laboratory

Low-level nutrients Yes No National Water Quality Laboratory

Major and trace elements Yes No National Water Quality Laboratory

Stable isotopes carbon Yes Yes1 Yucca Mountain Project Environmental Laboratory

Oxygen No Yes1 Yucca Mountain Project Environmental Laboratory

Hydrogen and oxygen Yes No Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory

Strontium Yes2 Yes Yucca Mountain Project Environmental Laboratory

1

 One rock sample of Pole Canyon Limestone.

2

 Includes dissolved-strontium concentration in water.
12 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Table 3. Concentrations of selected dissolved constituents in water collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, 

and two nearby springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Analyses were done by laboratories listed in table 2. Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system:

Analyses of Cave Springs water prior to reconstruction of water-collection system in 1996 (Gretchen Baker, National Park Service, Great Basin National Park, 

written commun., 2008). Nevada State Health Laboratory collected and analyzed sample. All values are in milligrams per liter except for specific conductance, 

pH, and temperature. Temperature is rounded to nearest 0.1 degree Celsius (oC); pH is rounded to nearest 0.01 unit. Symbols: –, not determined; <, less than; E, 

estimated]

Dissolved constituent Site 1 

Cave Springs

Site 2 

Pool in Lehman 

Caves

Site 3 

Spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground

Site 4 

Marmot Spring

Cave Springs prior 

to reconstruction of 

water system

Sample date 09-07-07 09-06-07 09-07-07 09-06-07 07-22-87

Time of sample 12:30 10:30 17:00 15:45 –

Silica (SiO2

) 14.9 45.0 7.85 13.7 16

Aluminum (Al) E0.0013 <0.0016 0.0165 <0.0016 –

Boron (B) 0.020 0.144 0.0065 0.024 –

Iron (Fe) 0.311 <0.006 0.016 E0.003 0.030

Manganese (Mn) 0.209 E0.0002 0.0002 0.0012 0.000

Strontium (Sr) 0.144 1.03 0.054 0.060 –

Calcium (Ca) 31.6 48.0 4.20 11.9 13

Magnesium (Mg) 3.52 20.9 0.960 2.80 3.0

Sodium (Na) 6.58 25.4 1.59 7.20 7.0

Potassium (K) 1.04 3.49 0.43 0.75 1.0

Carbonate (CO3

) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Bicarbonate (HCO3

)1 124 E250 17 E48 56

Sulfate (SO4

) 2.88 20.0 1.38 4.11 3.0

Chloride (Cl) 5.33 14.5 0.62 4.97 5.0

Bromide (Br) 0.03 0.12 E.01 0.03 –

Fluoride (F) 0.13 0.39 <0.10 E0.08 0.11

Nitrate as (NO3

2) 0.279 2.83 2.10 1.62 2.7

Dissolved solids3 127 323 20 72 78

Dissolved inorganic carbon 

(DIC) as (HCO3

)

108 E206 45.5 72 –

Alkalinity as (CaCO3

) 102 E210 14 E40 46

Hardness as (CaCO3

) 93 210 14 41 45

Specific conductance 

(microsiemens at 25oC)1

192 442 36 110 132

pH (units)1 6.9 7.1 5.0 5.8 7.0

Temperature (degrees Celsius)1 12.6 11.4 5.6 10.6 –

Dissolved oxygen1 0.8 4.8 8.8 2.8 –

1

 Field measurement.

2

 Nitrate concentrations reported as nitrate (NO3) and were calculated for the four samples collected in September 2007 as the difference in nitrate-plus-nitrite 

and nitrite concentrations listed in table 4.

3

 Residue upon evaporation at 180°C.
Water Chemistry 13

Table 4. Concentrations of nutrients in water collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby 

springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Nutrient analyses were done by U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory. All values are in 

milligrams per liter as reported by the laboratory. Symbols: <, less than; E, estimated]

Nutrient Site 1 

Cave Springs

Site 2 

Pool in Lehman 

Caves

Site 3 

Spring near upper 

Lehman Creek 

campground

Site 4 

Marmot Spring

Sample date 09-07-07 09-06-07 09-07-07 09-06-07

Time of sample 12:30 10:30 17:00 15:45

Ammonia (NH3

) as nitrogen (N) (filtered) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Nitrate (NO3

) + nitrite (NO2) as N (filtered) 0.065 0.640 0.476 0.367

Nitrite (NO2

) as N (filtered) E0.002 E0.001 E0.001 E0.001

Total nutrient nitrogen as N (filtered)1 0.12 0.94 0.50 0.40

Total nutrient nitrogen as N (unfiltered)1 0.45 0.94 0.51 0.64

Phosphorus (P) (filtered) 0.035 0.048 0.017 0.022

Orthophosphate (PO4

) as P (filtered) 0.032 0.052 0.017 0.022

Total phosphorus as P (unfiltered) 0.115 0.051 0.020 0.061

1

 Total nutrient nitrogen includes ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen in sample.

y = (0 .7 4 5 4 ) x -9 .1 1 5 4

r 2 = 0 .9 9 9 7

0

80

160

240

320

400

Site 1—Cave Springs

Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground

Site 4—Marmot Spring

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0 100 200 300 400 500

 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS PER 

CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS

Figure 6. Relation between specific conductance and 

dissolved solids in water sampled from Cave Springs, a 

permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, 

Great Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007. Site 

locations are shown in figure 2.
14 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

The reason for the good correlation between specific 

conductance and dissolved solids is that the dominant 

dissolved ions in all four samples are calcium, magnesium, 

and bicarbonate (fig. 7) and the concentrations of dissolved 

ionic species increases (1) with increased residence times 

(Marmot Spring) and (2) contact with the Pole Canyon 

Limestone (Lehman Caves). Although the water in the 

permanent pool in Lehman Caves has dissolved solids 16 

times more than that from the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground, the overall proportions of the dissolved 

species are nearly the same. The only marked difference is 

that the ratio of magnesium to calcium is 0.45 at Lehman 

Caves, which is nearly twice the ratio of the spring near upper 

Lehman Creek campground. The increase in magnesium 

relative to calcium in the pool at Lehman Caves compared to 

the other samples is caused by the chemical precipitation of 

calcium carbonate that forms the many types of speleothems 

in the caves.

EXPLANATION

Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system

Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground

Site 4—Marmot Spring

Site 1—Cave Springs

8 0

2 0

6 0

4 0

4 0

6 0

2 0

8 0

2 0

8 0

4 0

6 0

6 0

4 0

8 0

2 0

8 0

6 0

4 0

2 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

8 0

6 0

4 0

2 0

8 0

6 0

4 0

2 0

BICARBONATE + CARBONATE

CALCIUM + MAGNESIUM

CHLORIDE + FLUORIDE + SULFATE

SODIUM + POTASSIUM

SULFATE

CALCIUM

MAGNESIUM

CHLORIDE + FLUORIDE

Figure 7. Distribution of water chemistry from samples collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in 

Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007. Site locations are 

shown in figure 2.
Source of Water to Cave Springs 15

Water from Marmot Spring had proportionately more 

chloride and fluoride than either the spring near upper 

Lehman Creek campground or the pool in Lehman Caves, 

whereas Cave Springs had proportionately more calcium and 

bicarbonate and less magnesium and sulfate. An increase in 

calcium and bicarbonate at Cave Springs can be explained 

by dissolution of limestone without much magnesium. A 

decrease in sulfate is explained by the reduction of sulfate to 

hydrogen sulfide (dissolved oxygen is less than 1 mg/L). A 

faint but distinct hydrogen-sulfide smell was present during 

sampling. The chemical composition of Cave Springs in 

July 1987, 9 years prior to the reconstruction of the water 

supply at the springs, was nearly the same as Marmot Spring. 

The difference in chemistry before and after the reconstruction 

indicates that the reconstruction somehow altered the chemical 

composition of water discharging from Cave Springs.

Source of Water to Cave Springs

Stable Isotopes

 Stable isotope values in water from the four water 

samples are listed in table 5. Values of stable isotopes of 2

H (deuterium or D), 18O, and 13C are reported in delta (δ) 

notation, whereas the ratio of strontium (87Sr to 86Sr) is 

expressed simply as a ratio. The delta notation is used to 

distinguish variations in the concentration of the stable 

isotopes among samples and is determined as the difference 

between the isotopic ratio in a sample and the ratio in a 

reference standard divided by the ratio in the reference 

standard (Clark and Fritz, 1997, p. 6). The values are 

expressed as parts per thousand or permil difference from the 

reference standard. The reference standard for determining 

δD and δ18O in water is the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean 

Water (VSMOW). The reference standard for oxygen and 

carbon in carbonate minerals is the internal calcite structure 

from a fossil Belemnitella Americana from the Cretaceous Pee 

Dee Formation of South Carolina (PDB; Craig, 1957; Clark 

and Fritz, 1997, p. 9). A negative value of δD,δ18O, and δ3C 

represents water with less D, 18O, and 13C relative to 1H, 16O, 

and 12C, respectively, than the reference standard. 

The global meteoric waterline (Craig, 1961) shows the 

general relation between δD and δ18O in precipitation whereby 

isotopically lighter values (more negative) are associated 

with cold regions and winter precipitation and isotopically 

heavier values (less negative) are associated with warm 

regions and summer precipitation (fig. 8). A local meteoric 

waterline was estimated for Great Basin National Park from 

the isotopic composition of summer and winter precipitation 

reported by Friedman and others (2002). Composite samples 

of precipitation were collected at three specially designed 

gages near Great Basin National Park between April 1991 

and June 1997 (Friedman and others, 2002, p. ACL 15-5). 

Table 5. Stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and strontium in water collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in 

Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Analyses were done by laboratories listed in table 2. Sample dates and times for sites 1–4 are listed in tables 3 and 4. 

Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system: Analyses of Cave Springs water prior to reconstruction of water-collection system in 1996 

are from Acheampong (1992). Average of 15 analyses from samples collected between August 15, 1990, and September 15, 1991. Environmental Isotope 

Laboratory of the Water Resources Center at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas, Nevada, did the analysis. Symbol: –, not determined]

Stable isotope Site 1 

Cave Springs

Site 2 

Pool in Lehman 

Caves

Site 3 

Spring near upper 

Lehman Creek 

campground

Site 4 

Marmot Spring

Cave Springs prior 

to reconstruction of 

water system

Hydrogen-2/hydrogen-1 (2

H/1H) as δD 

in permil1

-115 -94.2 -106 -113 -116

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 (18O/16O) as δ18O 

in permil1

-15.5 -12.2 -14.7 -15.4 -15.7

Carbon-13/carbon-12 (13C/12C) as δ13C 

in permil2

-14.0 -10.0 -16.0 -15.0 –

Strontium-87/strontium-86 (87Sr/86Sr)3 0.71713 0.71121 0.71813 0.71271 –

1

 Ratios reported in delta (δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil). Delta is the relative difference between the ratios of hydrogen-2 or 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 2H relative to 1H or 18O relative to 16O than VSMOW. Standard error at 95-percent confidence level is 2 permil 

for δD and 0.2 permil for δ18O.

2

 Ratios reported in delta (δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil). Delta is the relative difference between the ratios of carbon-13 to carbon-12 (13C/12C) in 

water samples to that in a sample of belemnite from the Pee Dee Formation of South Carolina (PDB; Craig, 1957). A negative value represents a sample with 

less 13C relative to 12C than in the standard sample of PDB. Standard error at 95-percent confidence level is 0.5 permil.

3

 Ratios are based on repetitive analyses on the seawater standard, EN-1. The error on the ratio of strontium-87 to strontium-86 (87Sr/86Sr) is ± 0.00005 at the 

95-percent confidence level. 
16 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

The composite samples for summer precipitation typically 

spanned May through October and the composite samples 

for winter precipitation typically spanned November through 

April. Locations of the three precipitation gages are shown in 

figure 1 and were designated as Cave Mountain (elevation of 

10,650 ft above mean sea level), Connors Pass (elevation of 

8,275 ft above mean sea level), and Mount Moriah (elevation 

of 9,375 ft above mean sea level) by Friedman and others 

(2002, p. ACL 15‐4). Although δD was determined routinely 

for precipitation during summer and winter, δ18O was not 

always analyzed; therefore, the number of precipitation 

samples used to determine the local meteoric waterline in 

figure 8 is less than the total number of samples. The local 

meteoric waterline determined from regression of the data 

from the three precipitation gages is close to the global 

meteoric waterline and when the one outlier from Connors 

Pass is excluded from the regression, the local meteoric 

waterline is nearly the same as the global meteoric waterline.

tac09-4150_fig08

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

DELTA OXYGEN-18, IN PERMIL

DELTA DEUTERIUM, IN PERMIL

Cooler temperatures 

Warmer temperatures

Site 1—Cave Springs

Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground

Site 4—Marmot Spring

Cave Mountain—Grey is winter precipitation and blue summer precipitation

Conners Pass—Grey is winter precipitation and blue summer precipitation

Global meteoric water line (Craig, 1961)

EXPLANATION

Mount Moriah—Grey is winter precipitation and blue summer precipitation

Local meteroric water line (all precipitation values)

Local meteroric water line (not including the one outlier from Conners Pass)

Figure 8. Deuterium and oxygen‐18 in water samples collected September 2007 from Cave Springs, 

a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, in 

relation to precipitation collected from Cave Mountain, Connors Pass, and Mount Moriah in neighboring 

mountain ranges between April 1991 and June 1997. Delta deuterium and oxygen‐18 values from 

precipitation are from Friedman and others (2002). Locations of precipitation sites are shown in figure 1

and water sampling sites are shown in figure 2. 
Source of Water to Cave Springs 17

Cave Springs, Marmot Spring, and the spring near 

upper Lehman Creek campground fall on the global and local 

meteoric waterlines. This indicates that water discharging from 

the three springs has not been altered greatly by evaporation 

or by chemical reactions with calcite in the rocks. The δD and 

d18O of Cave Springs and Marmot Spring are isotopically the 

lightest (most negative values) of the four samples. The values 

at these two springs essentially are the same (95-percent 

confidence level) and indicate the source of water to these 

springs primarily is winter snowmelt. 

Water from the spring near upper Lehman Creek 

campground is slightly heavier and colder (tables 3 and 2, 

respectively) relative to Cave Springs or Marmot Spring. 

The slightly heavier δD at the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground is within the range of δD in Lehman 

Creek collected at an altitude of 9,600 ft upstream from the 

spring in August 1990 and September 1990 (Acheampδong, 

1992, location LC2, p. 96). The δD of Lehman Creek at 

sampling site LC2 (see fig. 2 for location) ranged from -101 

in September 1990 to -114 in January 1991. The stable 

isotope composition of Lehman Creek was interpreted to be 

a combination of winter and summer precipitation as well 

as evaporated lake water from three shallow lakes in the 

headwater area (Acheampong, 1992, p. 58). 

The isotopically heavier δD and δ18O values in water 

from the permanent pool in Lehman Caves indicates that water 

in the caves was derived from local precipitation that has a 

greater fraction of summer precipitation than the samples 

from the three springs. Lehman Caves lies above the water 

table and water in the pools is from infiltration of precipitation 

through the soil and limestone above the caves. The water 

in the permanent pool does not fall on either the global or 

local meteoric waterline indicating it is slightly heavier in 

18O relative to deuterium compared with precipitation. The 

enrichment indicates that water in the cave has undergone 

some evaporation. 

The δ13C in water from the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground had a value of -16 permil PDB. This spring 

had the least dissolved inorganic carbon of the four sites 

sampled (fig. 9), which is expected because little carbonate is 

in the quartzite rocks (Lee and Van Loenen, 1971, p. 8) and 

because of minimal soil development in the glaciated drainage 

upstream of the spring. The δ13C in water from Cave Springs 

is heavier and dissolved inorganic carbon is more relative 

to water from Marmot Spring and the spring near the upper 

Lehman Creek campground but less than water from the pool 

in Lehman Caves. The high values of δ13C and dissolved 

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

0 60 120 180 240

Site 1—Cave Springs

Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground

Site 4—Marmot Spring

DELTA CARBON-13, IN PERMIL PDB

DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON AS BICARBONATE, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

-18

Standard error at 95-percent confidence level

Figure 9. Relation between delta carbon‐13 (δ13C) and dissolved inorganic carbon in water 

samples collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby 

springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007. Site locations are shown in 

figure 2.
18 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

inorganic carbon in water from the permanent pool in 

Lehman Caves are caused by dissolution of the Pole Canyon 

Limestone, which is nearly pure calcium carbonate (Lee and 

Van Loenen, 1971) and has a δ3C value of -0.82 permil PDB 

(table 6). 

The dissolved-strontium concentration in water is least 

from Marmot Spring and the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground and greatest in the permanent pool at 

Lehman Caves (table 5; fig. 10). Strontium isotopes in water 

show a decrease in the ratio of 87Sr/86Sr from the spring near 

upper Lehman Creek campground to the pool in Lehman 

Caves (table 5; fig. 10). The ratio of 87Sr/86Sr in Pole Canyon 

Limestone associated with the pool in Lehman Caves is less 

than that of the ratio in the Prospect Mountain Quartzite at 

upper Lehman Creek campground or in the Tertiary granite 

near Cave Springs. Ratios of 87Sr/86Sr for Pole Canyon 

Limestone and Prospect Mountain Quartzite reported by 

Lee and others (1986, p. 173) are 0.70911 and 0.79620, 

respectively, and are similar to those listed in table 6. One 

Tertiary granite sample near Marmot Spring had 87Sr/86Sr 

ratio of 0.7821 (Lee and others, 1986, p. 173), which is much 

higher than the value listed in table 6. 

The strontium isotope ratio in water from the spring 

near upper Lehman Creek campground is consistent with 

dissolution of strontium from the quartzite. However, the 

strontium isotope ratio in water from the Marmot Spring 

is much less than water from Cave Springs and the spring 

near upper Lehman Creek campground. The reason for the 

difference is not known but could be caused by variations 

in the ratios of soluble strontium isotopes in the Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite or in the Tertiary granite through which 

ground water flows prior to discharging at Marmot Spring. 

Because the granite may have similar strontium isotope ratios 

as the quartzite, the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in water can best be used 

to determine if the water has been primarily in contact with 

carbonate or noncarbonate rocks in the study area but not 

between quartzite and granite. Another possibility is that water 

discharging from Marmot Spring may have come in contact 

with the Pioche Shale into which the granite intruded or the 

Pole Canyon Limestone. The possibility of Pole Canyon 

Limestone near the spring seems unlikely however, because 

dissolved-strontium concentration in the water is nearly 

the same as that from the spring near upper Lehman Creek 

campground and considerably less than that in water from 

Cave Springs (fig. 10). 

Stable isotope/ 

constituent in rock

Site 5 

Pole 

Canyon 

Limestone

Site 6 

Tertiary 

granite

Site 7 

Prospect 

Mountain 

Quartzite

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 (18O/16O) 

as δ18O in permil VSMOW1

 2.0 – –

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 (18O/16O) 

as δ18O in permil PDB2

-28.0 – –

Carbon-13/carbon-12 (13C/12C) 

as δ13C in permil PDB2

-0.82 – –

Strontium-87/strontium-86 

(87Sr/86Sr)3

0.71358 0.72695 0.75487

Strontium (milligrams per 

kilogram of rock)

240 47 6.6

1

 Ratio reported in delta (δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil). Delta 

is the relative difference between ratios of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 (18O/16O) 

in sample of Pole Canyon Limestone to that in Vienna Standard Mean Ocean 

Water (VSMOW; Gonfiantini, 1978). A positive value represents a sample 

with more 18O relative to 16O than VSMOW. Standard error at 95-percent 

confidence level is 0.2 permil.

2

 Ratios reported in delta (δ) notation as parts per thousand (permil). Delta 

is the relative difference between the ratios of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 

(18O/16O) and carbon-13 to carbon-12 (13C/ 12C) in sample of Pole Canyon 

Limestone to the respective ratio in a sample of belemnite from the Pee Dee 

Formation of South Carolina (PDB; Craig, 1957). Negative values of δ18O 

and δ13C represent samples with less 18O and 13C relative to 16O and 13C in the 

standard sample of PDB, respectively. Standard error at 95-percent confidence 

level is 0.2 permil for δ18O and 0.5 permil for δ13C.

3

 Ratios are based on repetitive analyses on the seawater standard, EN-1. 

The error on the ratio of strontium-87 to strontium-86 (87Sr/86Sr) is ± 0.00005 

at the 95-percent confidence level.

Table 6. Stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon in rock sample 

of Pole Canyon Limestone and ratio of strontium isotopes and 

concentration of strontium in rock samples of Pole Canyon 

Limestone, Tertiary granite, and Prospect Mountain Quartzite near 

Cave Springs at Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. All rock samples were collected on 

September 8, 2007, between 7:45 and 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time. 

Analyses were done by U.S. Geological Survey Yucca Mountain Project 

Environmental laboratory, Lakewood, Colorado. Symbol: –, not determined]
Source of Water to Cave Springs 19

Source of Calcium, Bicarbonate, and 

Strontium at Cave Springs

No outcrop of Pole Canyon Limestone was found at or 

upstream of Cave Springs. Glacial deposits consisted of large 

boulders of quartzite upstream of the springs and a mixture of 

quartzite and granite at the springs. However, several pieces 

of rounded limestone gravel were removed during the hand 

deepening of a pool at the overflow outlet from the watercollection system. The 2–4 in. diameter limestone gravel was 

much smaller than the large boulders and cobbles strewn 

about the land surface upstream of the springs. Because the 

limestone gravel was rounded, it had to be transported a 

considerable distance by water yet there is no evidence of a 

limestone outcrop at or upstream of the springs. 

Upon further inquiry as to the source of the rounded 

limestone gravel at Cave Springs, Craig Baker, a local rancher, 

recalled hauling many tons of gravel in 1996 during the 

reconstruction of water-collection system at Cave Springs. 

The gravel was taken from a pit on the Baker ranch at the base 

of the alluvial fan on Lehman and Baker Creeks near Baker, 

Nevada (fig. 2), and contains rounded gravel of Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite, granite, and Pole Canyon Limestone. 

The gravel was used as filter material around each of the four 

principal springs and around the drain pipe.

A water sample from Cave Springs was collected July 22, 

1987, prior to reconstruction (table 3; data from Gretchen 

Baker, National Park Service, Great Basin National Park, 

written commun., 2008) had a dissolved chemistry nearly 

identical to water from the Marmot Spring, although the pH at 

Cave Springs was 7.0 instead of 5.8 (table 3). The similarity 

in chemistry between water from Cave Springs prior to 

reconstruction and Marmot Spring indicates that the source 

of additional calcium, strontium, and bicarbonate in water 

sampled in September 2007 at Cave Springs is from the gravel 

placed around the four orifices during reconstruction of the 

water-collection system. 

tac09-4150_fig10

0.710

0.714

0.718

0.722

0.726

0.730

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

0.71

0.72

0.73

0.74

0.75

0.76

0 60 120 180 240 300

Site 1—Cave Springs

Site 2—Permanent pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3—Spring near upper Lehman Creek campground

Site 4—Marmot Spring

Site 5—Pole Canyon Limestone

Site 6—Tertiary granite

Site 7—Prospect Mountain Quartzite

STRONTIUM-87 TO STRONTIUM-86

RATIO IN WATER (SITES 1−4)

STRONTIUM CONCENTRATION IN WATER,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER (SITES 1−4)

STRONTIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROCK,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM (SITES 5−7)

STRONTIUM-87 TO STRONTIUM-86

RATIO IN ROCK (SITES 5−7)

Figure 10. Relation between the ratio of strontium‐87 to strontium‐86 and 

strontium concentrations in water samples collected from Cave Springs, a 

permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, and in rock samples of 

Pole Canyon Limestone, Tertiary granite, and Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Great 

Basin National Park, Nevada, September 2007. Site locations are shown in figure 2.
20 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Lehman Creek campground (tables 3 and 5) were substituted 

instead. The second model used the water chemistry of the 

Marmot Spring as the initial water. Dissolved ions in Marmot 

Spring were nearly the same as that of Cave Springs before 

reconstruction (table 3) except the pH at Marmot Spring was 

more acidic. 

The saturation index is used in NETPATH to determine 

if the dissolved chemistry of water is in equilibrium with a 

mineral (table 7). The saturation index is the log of the ratio 

of ion activity product (IAP) to the solubility product at the 

measured temperature (Kt). Water is in equilibrium with 

a mineral when the saturation index is zero. The water is 

undersaturated with respect to a mineral when the value is less 

than zero and oversaturated with respect to a mineral when the 

value is greater than zero. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

were used for redox. The water from Marmot Spring and at 

Cave Springs before and after reconstruction of the watercollection system are all undersaturated with respect to the 

carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, siderite, rhodochrosite, 

and strontianite), sulfate minerals (gypsum and celestite), 

fluorite, and a few silicate minerals (potassium feldspar, 

albite, and anorthite) indicating the water could dissolve these 

minerals when present. All three samples are undersaturated 

with respect to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide gas. The 

carbonate minerals commonly are associated with limestone 

and the silicate minerals are associated with granitoid 

rocks such as the Tertiary granite. The water is saturated to 

oversaturated with respect kaolinite, manganese hydroxide 

(manganite), and iron oxide (goethite) indicating that these 

minerals could precipitate. Water from Cave Springs also is 

saturated to oversaturated with potassium mica, illite, and 

gibbsite (table 7).

The chemical composition of the three rock types are 

reported in Lee and Van Loenen (1971). The Pole Canyon 

Limestone is nearly pure calcite whereas the Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite in nearly pure silica dioxide (more than 

90 percent by weight, respectively; Lee and Van Loenen, 

1971, p. 36). The Tertiary granite west of Lehman Caves 

consists of quartz (35 percent), plagioclase (32 percent), 

microcline (23 percent), and muscovite (8 percent; Lee and 

Van Loenen, 1971, p. 42, sample 127). The plagioclase 

primarily is albite. Iron, manganese, and fluoride are present 

at low concentrations in all three rock types whereas chloride 

is below detection. Magnesium is most abundant in the Pole 

Canyon Limestone, but is only 2 percent by weight (Lee and 

Van Loenen, 1971, p. 36). Finally, strontium concentrations 

reported by Lee and Van Loenen are similar to those listed in 

table 6. 

The limestone gravel removed at the end of the overflow 

outlet pipe was pitted and etched indicating active dissolution 

of limestone and is consistent with the change in chemistry of 

Cave Springs between 1987 and 2007. Additionally, a small 

spring (discharging about 1 L/min) at the base of the Prospect 

Mountain Quartzite about 300 ft west of Caves Springs had a 

specific conductance of 106 μS/cm at 25°C and a temperature 

of 11.6°C at the time that overflow from the Caves Springs 

collection system was sampled. These measurements are 

similar to those at Marmot Spring; therefore, Pole Canyon 

Limestone likely does not underlie the glacial deposits beneath 

Cave Springs as suggested by Elliott and others (2006, 

p. 32) and illustrated in figure 3A. Water likely discharges 

at or near the contact between Prospect Mountain Quartzite 

and the Tertiary granite that is covered by a thin veneer of 

glacial deposits (fig. 3B). Because the springs discharge from 

a thin veneer of glacial deposits at the upstream side of the 

contact between quartzite and granite, the potential for spring 

depletion from ground-water pumping in Spring Valley east of 

the park is less than if permeable carbonate rocks were present 

beneath the springs and connected with the thicker alluvial and 

glacial deposits along Lehman Creek drainage. 

Modeling Water Chemistry at Cave Springs

The dissolved chemistry of water discharging from 

Cave Springs has changed since the water-collection system 

at Cave Springs was reconstructed in 1996. Because gravel 

containing Pole Canyon Limestone was used in the area of 

the four main springs that constitute most of the discharge at 

Cave Springs, the likely source of the increased concentrations 

of bicarbonate and calcium in the springs is the dissolution 

of the limestone gravel. The geochemical models PHREEQC 

and NETPATH (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999 and Plummer 

and others, 1994, respectively) were used to determine 

if dissolution of limestone can explain the increase in 

bicarbonate and calcium in water at Cave Springs. The latest 

version NETPATHXL (Parkhurst and Charlton, 2008) was 

used in entering the geochemical data and in evaluating results 

from the NETPATH models.

Two geochemical models were tested. The first model 

used the major ion chemistry of the sample from Cave Springs 

collected in July 1987 prior to reconstruction of the watercollection system as the initial water and the chemistry of 

Cave Springs sample collected in September 2007 as the final 

water. Because dissolved strontium, d13C, and 87Sr/86Sr were 

not analyzed for the sample collected prior to reconstruction of 

the water-collection system, values from the spring near upper 
Source of Water to Cave Springs 21

Mineral Saturation index

Name Cations

Site 1 

Cave Springs 

July 1987

Site 1 

Cave Springs 

September 2007

Site 4 

Marmot Spring 

September 2007

Carbonate minerals

Calcite Calcium -1.70 -1.11 -2.96

Dolomite Calcium, magnesium -3.90 -3.00 -6.41

Siderite Iron -11.34 -9.72 -12.20

Rhodochrosite Manganese -3.31 -0.82 -4.53

Strontianite Strontium -3.50 -2.94 -4.80

Partial pressure of 

carbon dioxide (gas)

– -2.32 -1.83 -1.21

Sulfate minerals

Gypsum Calcium -3.58 -3.29 -3.48

Celesite Strontium -4.22 -3.95 -4.16

Fluoride mineral 

Fluorite Calcium -3.30 -2.84 -3.61

Silicate minerals

Quartz – 0.63 0.57 0.57

Potassium feldspar Potassium, aluminum -0.86 -1.48 -4.07

Albite Sodium, aluminum -2.53 -3.15 -5.61

Anorthite Calcium, aluminum -5.05 -5.54 -11.03

Potassium mica Potassium, aluminum, 

magnesium, iron

6.77 5.50 0.07

Clay minerals

Illite Aluminum 0.97 -0.08 -4.61

Kaolinite Aluminum 4.12 3.34 0.51

Hydroxide minerals

Gibbsite Aluminum 1.05 0.72 -0.70

Manganite Manganese 2.58 4.23 0.26

Oxide minerals

Goethite Iron, hydrogen 7.26 8.15 5.29

Table 7. Saturation indexes for selected minerals and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide gas calculated from dissolved chemistry 

in water from Cave Springs prior to and after reconstruction of water-collection system and from Marmot Spring, Great Basin National 

Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Concentration of dissolved oxygen was used for the Redox state. Saturation index: A measure of disequilibrium expressed 

as the log of the ratio of the ion activity product (IAP) divided by the solubility product at the measured water temperature (Kt). A value of zero means the water 

is in equilibrium with a particular mineral. A value less than zero means the water is undersaturated with respect to a particular mineral and a value greater than 

zero means the water is oversaturated with respect to a particular mineral]
22 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Many combinations of minerals can produce reasonable 

geochemical models. However, the models tested were 

limited to the dissolution of the various carbonate minerals 

likely associated with the Pole Canyon Limestone. Chemical 

precipitation was limited to iron sulfide and kaolinite. Carbon 

dioxide, soil organic matter (represented by CH2O), and 

hydrogen sulfide gas were included as potential reactants 

in the model. Hydrogen sulfide was included in the models 

because the water at Cave Springs had the distinct smell of 

the gas while sampling. Phases considered in the models are 

listed in table 8. The models were constrained by the mass 

balance of several ions, as well as δ13C and 87Sr/86Sr. Values 

δ13C and 87Sr/86Sr ratio listed in table 6 were used in the 

analysis. Uncertainty for δ13C was assumed to be 1 permil, 

whereas the uncertainty of the 87Sr/86Sr ratio was assumed to 

be 0.007. Although the limestone consists mostly of calcium 

carbonate, magnesium, strontium, iron, and manganese, 

can be substituted for calcium (Mason and Berry, 1968, 

p. 330–349). This analysis assumed the limestone consisted 

of calcite, dolomite (calcium and magnesium) and strontianite 

(strontium) that had the same δ13C composition.

When the initial water was Cave Springs, prior to 

reconstruction of the water-collection system, a reasonable 

result was found by dissolving carbonate minerals, carbon 

dioxide, and soil organic matter, precipitating kaolinite, 

and releasing a small amount of hydrogen sulfide gas 

(0.001 mmol/kg of water; table 9). The geochemical model 

was able to reproduce the value of d13C given an initial value 

of -16 permil determined from the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground. The model also reproduced the 87Sr/86Sr 

ratio of the final water by dissolving a small quantity of 

anorthite assuming the trace concentration of strontium in the 

granite (table 6) was associated with anorthite. The chemical 

equation for anorthite was modified in PHREEQC as:

0.995 0.005 2 2 8 2

+2 +2

-

4 4 4

Ca Sr Al Si O + 8 H O 

 = 0.995Ca + 0.005Sr

 + 2 Al(OH) + 2 H SiO .

The amount of anorthite dissolved was 0.14 mmol/kg of water 

and resulted in the chemical precipitation of slightly more 

kaolinite (table 9). 

When the initial water was Marmot Spring, a reasonable 

result was determined by off gassing (evolving) carbon 

dioxide instead of dissolving it into water because of the low 

pH of 5.8 in the water (table 3). Results from the geochemical 

model using water from Marmot Spring are listed in table 10

and are similar to those when the initial water was Cave 

Springs prior to reconstruction of the water-collection system, 

except carbon dioxide was off-gassed and no strontianite 

needed to be dissolved because of the already low ratio of 

87Sr/86Sr ratio in the water at Marmot Spring. The measured 87Sr/86Sr ratio was obtained in the model by dissolving a small 

quantity of anorthite (about 0.1 mmol/kg of water) but the 

calculated value of δ13C was heavier than observed because of 

the off gassing of carbon dioxide. 

The modeling results presented herein indicate 

that the increase in dissolved calcium, strontium, and 

bicarbonate measured in water sampled at Cave Springs in 

September 2007 can be explained by dissolution of limestone 

and granitoid rocks. Additionally, the dissolution is best 

explained by the placement of gravel containing rounded 

clasts of limestone during reconstruction of the watercollection system at the springs. 

Dissolved constituents 

used in inverse model 

calculations

Mineral and 

gas phases

Aluminum Anorthite [Ca0.995Sr0.005AL2

Si2O8]

Calcium Calcite [CaCO3

]

Carbon Carbon dioxide gas [CO2

]

Chloride Chalcedony [SiO2

]

Delta carbon-13 Dolomite [CaMg(CO3

)2]

Magnesium Goethite [HFeO2

]

Redox Hydrogen sulfide gas [H2

S]

Silica Iron sulfide [FeS]

Sodium Kaolinite [Al4

Si4O10(OH)8]

Strontium Sodium chloride [NaCl]

 Strontium-87 to

 strontium-86 ratio

Soil organic matter [CH2

O]

Sulfur Strontianite [SrCO3]

Table 8. Dissolved constituents and mineral and gas phases 

used to model geochemical reactions assuming initial waters from 

Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system 

and Marmot Spring, and final water from Cave Springs after 

reconstruction, Great Basin National Park, Nevada. 

[Dissolved constituents used in inverse model calculations: Concentration 

of dissolved oxygen was used for the Redox state. Dissolved strontium 

concentration, delta carbon-13, and strontium-87 to strontium-86 ratio for 

Cave Springs sample collected in July 1987 prior to reconstruction of water 

collection system were assumed equal to values from spring near upper 

Lehman Creek campground. The concentration of dissolved oxygen, however, 

was assumed to be the same as that from Marmot Spring. Mineral and 

gas phases: Mineral and gas phases allowed to interact with the initial water 

to produce water discharging from Cave Springs in September 2007]
Source of Water to Cave Springs 23

Mineral 

and 

gas phases

Dissolving phases, 

in millimole per 

kilogram of water

Delta 

carbon-13, 

in permil 

PDB

Strontium-87 to 

strontium-86 

ratio

Anorthite 0.141 – 0.719

Calcite 0.363 -0.82 –

Carbon dioxide gas 0.990 -15.2 –

Chalcedony 0.00001 – –

Dolomite 0.0206 -0.82 –

Hydrogen sulfide 

gas 

 0.00000 – –

Goethite 0.00408 – –

Iron sulfide 0.00000 – –

Kaolinite -0.141 – –

Sodium chloride 0.00000 – –

Soil organic matter 0.162 -25

Strontianite 0.00021 -0.82 0.707

Isotopic composition

Measured in final 

water

– -14.1 0.717

Computed in final 

water

– -14 0.717

Table 9. Results of geochemical modeling using NETPATH to 

evaluate dissolution of carbonate rocks at Cave Springs assuming 

initial water is water from Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of 

water-collection system, Great Basin National Park, Nevada. 

[Dissolving phases: Mineral and gas phases used to produce water 

discharging from Cave Springs in September 2007; positive values are phases 

that add dissolved minerals to water at Cave Springs, whereas negative values 

are phases that remove dissolved minerals from water at Cave Springs. Delta 

carbon-13 and strontium-87 to strontium-86 ratio: Values for carbonate 

minerals are from analyses of Pole Canyon Limestone listed in table 6 and 

measured values in water from Cave Springs are listed in table 5 adjusted 

by PHREEQC on basis of rock uncertainty. Estimated uncertainty for delta 

carbon-13 in the limestone was 1 permil and in carbon dioxide gas and soil 

carbon was 2 permil. Estimated uncertainty for strontium-87 to strontium-86 

ratio in rock was 0.007. Magnesium in limestone assumed as dolomite. 

Strontium substitutes for calcium in the limestone but was assumed as 

separate mineral for the analysis (Mason and Berry, 1968, p. 331). Delta 

carbon-13 was assumed to be the same for all carbonate minerals. Values of 

delta carbon-13 and strontium-87 to strontium-86 ratios used for the initial 

water at Cave Springs prior to reconstruction of water-collection system were 

from the spring near upper Lehman Creek campground. Abbreviations: –, not 

applicable; PDB, Pee Dee Formation of South Carolina] Mineral 

and 

gas phases

Dissolving phases, 

in millimoles per 

kilogram of water

Delta 

carbon-13, in 

permil PDB

Strontium-87 to 

strontium-86 

ratio

Anorthite 0.209 – 0.719

Calcite 0.300 -0.82 –

Carbon dioxide gas -1.99 -15.9 –

Chalcedony -0.00001 – –

Dolomite 0.0288 -0.82 –

Goethite 0.211 – –

Hydrogen sulfide -0.0125 – –

Iron sulfide 0.00000 – –

Kaolinite -0.209 – –

Sodium chloride 0.00000 – –

Soil organic matter 0.342 -25 –

Strontianite -0.00002 -0.82 0.707

Isotopic composition

Measured in final 

water

– -14.1 0.717

Computed in final 

water

– -11.3 0.717

Table 10. Results of geochemical modeling using NETPATH to 

evaluate dissolution of carbonate rocks at Cave Springs assuming 

initial water is water from Marmot Spring, Great Basin National 

Park, Nevada. 

[Dissolving phases: Mineral and gas phases used to produce water 

discharging from Cave Springs in September 2007; positive values are phases 

that add dissolved minerals to water at Marmot Spring, whereas negative 

values are phases that remove dissolved minerals from water at Marmot 

Spring. Delta carbon-13 and strontium-87 to strontium-86 ratio: Values 

of delta carbon-13 and strontium-87 to strontium-86 ratios for carbonate 

minerals are from analyses of Pole Canyon Limestone listed in table 6 and 

observed values in water from Cave Springs are listed in table 5 adjusted 

by PHREEQC on basis of rock uncertainty. Estimated uncertainty for delta 

carbon-13 in the limestone was 1 permil and in carbon dioxide gas and soil 

carbon was 2 permil. Estimated uncertainty for strontium-87 to strontium-86 

ratio in rock was 0.007. Magnesium in limestone assumed as dolomite. 

Strontium substitutes for calcium in the limestone but was assumed as 

separate mineral for the analysis (Mason and Berry, 1968, p. 331). Delta 

carbon-13 was assumed the same for all carbonate minerals. Abbreviations: 

–, not applicable; PDB, Pee Dee Formation of South Carolina]
24 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Estimated Mean Age of Water at Four 

Sampling Sites

Concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons dissolved in water 

collected from the four sampling sites were used to estimate 

the average age of ground water discharging from the springs 

and water in the permanent pool in Lehman Caves. Dissolvedgas concentrations were collected at the same time to estimate 

excess air, which is used in the calculation of the mean age 

of water from the chlorofluorocarbons. Concentrations of 

dissolved gases and chlorofluorocarbons at the four sampling 

sites are listed in table 11. Chlorofluorocarbons in water 

from the four sampling sites include a mixture of different 

chlorofluorocarbon concentrations from younger water and 

older water and thus only a mean age of ground water can be 

estimated. 

Chlorofluorocarbon and dissolved-gas concentrations 

used to estimate the mean age of water can be affected 

by anoxic environments (absence of dissolved oxygen) 

where nitrogen-gas concentrations may be increased by 

denitrification and concentrations of chlorofluorocarbon 

decreased by degradation. Denitrification can result in an 

overestimate of recharge temperature and excess air that may 

affect the estimate of age. Additionally, anoxic environments 

result in the decomposition of chlorofluorocarbon that 

effectively will increase the estimate of age (Reston 

Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, 

written commun., 2007). The first chlorofluorocarbon to 

degrade is CFC-11 followed by CFC-113 and then CFC-12 

(Plummer and others, 1993). CFC-12 has proved to be the 

most reliable estimate of age. Only the sample for Cave 

Springs had low dissolved oxygen, a slight odor of hydrogen 

sulfide, and its water temperature was higher than the other 

three samples. Denitrification at Cave Springs could be 

occurring because total filtered nutrient nitrogen (table 4) was 

0.12 mg/L, which was about 0.3 and 0.4 mg/L less than that 

at Marmot Spring and the spring near upper Lehman Creek 

campground, respectively. 

The temperature of water at the sampling sites and the 

average elevation of recharge were used in the calculation of 

the average recharge temperature and excess air. The recharge 

altitude for the pool in Lehman Caves is from percolation 

through Pole Canyon Limestone above the cave and thus, 

Dissolved gas or 

chlorofluorocarbon

Site 1 

Cave Springs

Site 2 

Pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3 

Spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground

Site 4 

Marmot Spring

Dissolved gas (in milligrams per liter)

Number of samples analyzed 2 2 2 2

Nitrogen (N2) 13.8 13.7 15.2 14.2

13.7 13.7 15.1 14.2

Argon (Ar) 0.515 0.522 0.578 0.543

0.511 0.520 0.577 0.539

Oxygen (O2) 0.475 4.01 5.43 3.32

0.772 3.83 6.38 0.627

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 13.6 7.57 13.8 19.2

11.4 7.74 13.0 21.7

Methane (CH4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC; concentration in picograms per kilogram of water)

Number of samples analyzed 3 3 2 2

CFC-11 270 1270 621 454

268 814 612 445

318 743 – –

CFC-12 167 261 315 240

155 265 313 244

148 257 – –

CFC-113 34.1 62.2 86.8 59.6

28.5 62.4 87.5 60.3

25.5 63.0 – –

Table 11. Concentrations of dissolved gases and chlorofluorocarbons in water collected from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in 

Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Analyses were done by U.S. Geological Survey Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory, Reston, Virginia. Sample dates and times 

are listed in tables 3 and 4. Abbreviation: –, no value for third sample because only two samples analyzed]
Estimated Mean Age of Water at Four Sampling Sites 25

the estimated elevation of the pool of 6,800 ft was used as 

the recharge elevation. The cold temperature (5.6°C) of 

the water discharging from the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground (site 3; table 3) indicates that the average 

recharge altitude is higher than that of the spring. The mean 

annual air temperature at the spring was estimated to be about 

6.4°C on the basis of the 30-year mean annual temperature 

of 8.6°C at Lehman Caves Visitor Center (Elliott and others, 

2006), an increase in land-surface elevation of 1,090 ft 

between the spring and the visitors’ center (table 1), and a 

temperature lapse rate of -2°C per 1,000 ft similar to that in 

the Wasatch Range near Salt Lake City, Utah (Hely and others, 

1971). Discharge from this spring likely originates from 

recharge to alluvial and glacial deposits at the base of the north 

slope of Wheeler Peak where the temperature of the water 

remains cold because of shallow and relatively rapid groundwater flow through coarse alluvial and glacial deposits (fig. 2). 

The average altitude of the alluvial and glacial deposits was 

estimated to be 9,500 ft. 

Water discharging from Cave Springs and from the 

Marmot Spring likely originates from precipitation on the 

east slope of Jeff Davis Peak (fig. 2). Water discharging from 

Cave Springs and Marmot Spring had warmer temperatures 

(12.6°C and 10.6°C, respectively; table 3) than the spring near 

upper Lehman Creek campground indicating one or more of 

the following: a lower altitude of recharge; a deeper depth of 

ground-water flow; or a longer residence time of ground water. 

An average altitude of recharge is unknown but the springs 

are at an altitude of about 7,300 ft (table 1) and Jeff Davis 

Peak is more than 12,000 ft. Because much of the highest 

elevation around Jeff Davis Peak drains north to Lehman 

Creek and south to Baker Creek, the average recharge altitude 

was estimated at 9,000 ft and resulted in an average recharge 

temperature of 6.2°C for Marmot Spring and 8.4°C for Cave 

Springs (table 12). 

Dissolved gas or 

chlorofluorocarbon

Site 1 

Cave Springs

Site 2 

Pool in Lehman Caves

Site 3 

Spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground

Site 4 

Marmot Spring

Estimated recharge temperature and excess air from dissolved gases

Number of samples analyzed 2 2 2 2

Assumed recharge altitude, in feet above 

mean sea level1

9,000 6,800 9,500 9,000

Recharge temperature, in degrees Celsius2 8.4 10.8 3.2 6.2 

Excess air, in cubic centimeters at 

standard temperature and pressure per 

liter of water2

0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0

Estimated range in age of water 

Estimated mean age in years3

CFC-11 31-33 Contaminated 24 27

CFC-12 27-30 <15 19 21–22

CFC-113 24-27 <19 19 21

Estimated year of recharge4 1977-83 After 1990 1988 1985-86

1

 Assumed recharge altitude for sites 1 and 4 are based on average land-surface elevation in drainage and site 3 estimated from average land-surface elevation 

of glacial deposits. A change in the estimate of recharge altitude of 1,000 feet resulted in an uncertainty in the average age of water of 0.5 year for sites 1 and 4, 

1 year for site 3, and several years for site 2. 

2

 Estimated temperature and excess air estimated from dissolved gas concentrations of nitrogen and argon, and assumed recharge altitude. Recharge temperature estimated by iteration until excess air computed from nitrogen and argon concentrations are the same. Increasing the recharge altitude 1,000 feet decreased 

the recharge temperature by about 1 degree Celsius and increased the excess air by about 0.05 cubic centimeter per liter at standard temperature and pressure. 

Decreasing the recharge altitude 1,000 feet increased the recharge temperature and decreased the excess air by a corresponding value. 

3

 Estimated mean age of water was computed using estimates of recharge altitude, temperature, and excess air and assuming piston flow. 

4

 Estimated year of recharge is based on mean age of water using CFC-12 and CFC-113. Water at Cave Springs (site 1) may be less than listed because of 

potential degradation caused by low dissolved oxygen concentrations; however, the mean age estimated from CFC-12 is older than that from CFC-113 and if 

degradation was a problem, the mean age of CFC-113 would be older because it degrades more rapidly than CFC-12.

Table 12. Estimated recharge temperatures from dissolved gases and range in age from chlorofluorocarbon analyses of water 

sampled from Cave Springs, a permanent pool in Lehman Caves, and two nearby springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada.

[Site locations are shown in figure 2. Analyses were done by U.S. Geological Survey Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory Reston, Virginia. Abbreviation: CFC, 

chlorofluorocarbon. Symbol: <, less than]
26 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

A possible explanation of the warmer recharge 

temperature for Cave Springs is thermal and gas 

re-equilibration within the buried water-collection system. The 

water sample collected at Cave Springs was from an overflow 

pipe in the water-collection system. The water-collection 

system is buried several feet beneath the land surface, so the 

amount of thermal heating and mixing that occurs with the 

atmosphere prior to where water was sampled is unknown. 

The increase in temperature likely is small because the 

temperature of a seep at the base of the outcrop of Prospect 

Mountain quartzite about 300 ft west of Cave Springs was 

11.6°C at the time when water was sampled from Cave 

Springs. Assuming a recharge temperature for Cave Springs 

is the same as Marmot Spring (6.2°C), the mean age of water 

listed in table 12 increases by 1 year. 

Although the estimate of the average recharge altitude 

is uncertain for the three springs, the uncertainty results in a 

small change in the estimated mean age of water. Increasing 

the recharge altitude by 1,000 ft for Cave Springs and Marmot 

Spring causes a decrease in the estimated recharge temperature 

of about 1°C, an increase in excess air of about 0.05 cm3

/L, 

and an increase in the mean age of 0.5 yr; whereas, decreasing 

the recharge altitude by 1,000 ft causes a similar increase in 

recharge temperature, decrease in excess air, and a decrease 

in the mean age. Changing the recharge altitude of the pool 

in Lehman Caves by +100 ft, causes a larger change in the 

range of estimated mean age because of the lack of sensitivity 

in using chlorofluorocarbon concentrations after 1990 

(table 12). Water is added to the pool in Lehman Caves each 

spring from percolation through the Pole Canyon Limestone 

above the cave. Water in the caves was expected to have CFC 

concentrations consistent with current CFC concentrations in 

the atmosphere because water infiltrates through the soil and 

rock above the caves and drips from the cave roof into the 

pool. 

Water discharging at Cave Springs had the oldest mean 

age of the four sampling sites followed by the spring near 

Baker Creek campground, the spring near upper Lehman 

Creek campground, and finally the youngest water was in the 

pool at Lehman Caves. Degradation of CFC at Cave Springs is 

only possible if CFC-12 degraded more than CFC-113, which 

is inconsistent with typical degradation of CFC-113 then 

CFC-12 (Plummer and others, 1993). Sampling Cave Springs 

between late winter and early spring might result in a younger 

estimate of mean age of water at the springs because of local 

recharge from snowmelt near the springs. 

Summary and Conclusions

Cave Springs are the water supply for the Lehman 

Caves Visitor Center at Great Basin National Park, which is 

about 60 miles east of Ely, Nevada, in White Pine County. 

Cave Springs were investigated to determine if ground water 

discharging at the springs could be shallow ground water 

moving through alluvial and glacial deposits associated 

with nearby Lehman Creek, through the quartzite, through 

limestone, or some combination of these rocks and deposits. 

Knowing the source of water to Cave Springs is important in 

evaluating its potential for depletion caused by ground-water 

pumping as well as to protect the supply from contamination. 

Cave Springs consist of several small springs that 

discharge from alluvial and glacial deposits near the contact 

between quartzite and granite. The four largest springs 

are diverted into a water-collection system. Water from 

the collection system at Cave Springs had more dissolved 

strontium, calcium, and bicarbonate, and was heavier in 

the stable isotope of carbon-13, which is denoted as delta 

carbon-13 or δ13C, than water from the spring at the contact 

between quartzite and granite near Baker Creek campground 

indicating that water at Cave Springs had dissolved limestone 

prior to discharging. The source of the limestone at Cave 

Springs was determined to be rounded gravels from a pit near 

Baker, Nevada, which was placed around the springs during 

the reconstruction of the water-collection system in 1996. 

A water sample from Cave Springs collected July 1987 had 

similar dissolved concentrations of calcium, magnesium, 

and bicarbonate as the water sampled in September 2007 

from Marmot Spring indicating a similar source prior to 

reconstruction of the water-collection system. A geochemical 

model using the water chemistry prior to reconstruction 

resulted in a plausible reaction model involving the dissolution 

of calcite and dolomite to produce the water chemistry at Cave 

Springs in September 2007. 

Stable isotopes of hydrogen (δD) and oxygen (δ18O) were 

lightest (most negative values) at Cave Springs and Marmot 

Spring and heaviest (least negative values) at a permanent 

pool in Lehman Caves. Comparison of stable isotopes in 

water at Cave Springs with winter and summer precipitation 

indicates that the source of water is primarily from winter 

precipitation. Mixing of water at Cave Springs from alluvial 

and glacial deposits along Lehman Creek with water from 

quartzite as represented by Marmot Spring is unlikely because 

δD and δ18O values from the spring near upper Lehman Creek 

campground is heavier than those at Cave Springs and Marmot 

Spring. Additionally, the estimated mean age of water from 

dissolved chlorofluorocarbon concentrations indicates water 

discharging from the alluvial and glacial deposits is younger 

than that discharging from either Cave Springs or Marmot 

Spring. 

Because Cave Springs discharges from alluvial and 

glacial deposits at the upstream side of the contact between 

quartzite and granite, the potential for spring depletion 

from ground-water pumping in Snake Valley is less than if 

carbonate rocks were present beneath the springs providing a 

better connection with alluvial aquifers in the valley. Finally, 

the present protective fence enclosure around Cave Springs 

is sufficient because most of the source area to the springs is 

from the steep eastern slope of Jeff Davis Peak and not from 

alluvial and glacial deposits west of the springs. 
References Cited 27

Acknowledgments 

The National Park Service, Water Rights Branch, in 

Fort Collins, Colorado, funded the study. William Van Liew 

(National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado) assisted in the 

design. Gretchen Baker (National Park Service, Great Basin 

National Park, Baker, Nevada) provided guidance on all the 

necessary forms needed to sample water from Lehman Caves 

and the three springs, escorted us into and out of Lehman 

Caves and assisted in the collection of the water sample in 

the cave. Mrs. Baker also provided written information on the 

reconstruction of the water-collection system of Cave Springs 

and on historical chemical and stable isotope analyses of 

samples from Cave Springs, and ascertained the origin of the 

limestone gravel at Cave Springs.

References Cited

Acheampong, S.Y., 1992, Isotope hydrology of Lehman 

and Baker Creek drainages, Great Basin National Park, 

Nevada: Las Vegas, University of Nevada, Department of 

Geoscience, M.S. Thesis, 105 p.

Clark, I.D., and Fritz, Peter, 1997, Environmental isotopes in 

hydrogeology: New York, Lewis Publishers, 328 p. 

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, iss. 1–2, p. 133–149.

Craig, Harmon, 1961, Isotopic variations in meteoric water: 

Science, v. 133, no. 3465, p. 1702–1703.

Elliott, P.E., Beck, D.A., and Prudic, D.E., 2006, 

Characterization of surface-water resources in the Great 

Basin National Park and their susceptibility to groundwater withdrawals in adjacent valleys, White Pine County, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006-5099, 156 p.

Feth, J.H., Rogers, S.M., and Roberson, C.E., 1964, Chemical 

composition of snow in the northern Sierra Nevada and 

other areas: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 

1535-J, 39 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. D19, 4401, 

doi:10.1029/2001JD000566, p. ACL 15-1–15-2.

Giofiantini, R., 1978, Standards for stable isotope 

measurements in natural compounds: Nature, v. 271, 

no. 5645, p. 534–536.

Hely, A.G., Mower, R.W., and Harr, C.A., 1971, Water 

resources of Salt Lake County, Utah: Utah Department of 

Natural Resources Technical Publication no. 31, 244 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of Natural Water (3rd ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Hose, R.K., and Blake, M.C., Jr., 1976, Geology and mineral 

resources of White Pine County, Nevada, Part I, Geology: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 85, 105 p.

Lee, D.E., Kistler, R.W., and Robinson, A.C., 1986, The 

strontium isotope composition of granitoid rocks of the 

southern Snake Range, Nevada, in Peterman, Z.E., and 

Schnabel, D.C., eds., Shorter contributions to isotope 

research: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1622, 

p. 171–179. 

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.

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, ver. 1.3, 

variously paged (93 p. total).

Mason, Brian, and Berry, L.G., 1968, Elements of mineralogy: 

San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Co., 550 p. 

Miller, E.L., Gans, P.B., Grier, S.P., and Brown, J.L., 

compilers, 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.

Miller, E.L., Grier, S.P., and Brown, J.L., compilers, 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., and the Stanford Geological Survey, 2007 

(mapping 1993-1997), Geologic map of Great Basin 

National Park and environs, Southern Snake Range, 

Nevada: Palo Alto, Calif., Stanford Geological Survey, 

scale 1:24,000. 

National Park Service, 2009, Digital geologic map of Great 

Basin National Park and vicinity, Nevada: National Park 

Service, accessed February 3, 2009, at http://science.nature.

nps.gov/nrdata/datastore.cfm?ID=44849

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 280, 42 p.
28 Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Parkhurst, D.L., 1995, Users guide to PHREEQC—A 

computer program for speciation, reaction-path, advectivetransport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 95-4227, 143 p.

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.

Parkhurst, D.L., and Charlton, S.R., 2008, NetpathXL—An 

Excel® interface to the program NETPATH: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A26, 11 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 98-026, 4 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.

Plummer, L.N., Prestemon, E.C., and Parkhurst, D.L., 1994, 

An interactive code (NETPATH) for modeling NET 

geochemical reactions along a flow PATH, version 2.0: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 94-4169, 130 p.
 

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

 Director, Nevada Water Science Center

 U.S. Geological Survey 

 2730 N. Deer Run Road

 Carson City, Nevada 89701

 http://nevada.usgs.gov/water/
Prudic and Glancy—Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, Nevada—Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073