U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5077

Prepared in cooperation with Elko, Nevada

Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 

Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater 

Interactions in the Upper Humboldt River Basin, 

Northeastern Nevada
Cover image: Meadow in Lamoille Creek flood plain looking north from Lower 

Lamoille Road toward Peko Hills. Photograph by J.L. Smith, USGS, July 23, 2009.
Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 

1971–2000 Water Budget, and SurfaceWater-Groundwater Interactions in the 

Upper Humboldt River Basin, 

Northeastern Nevada

By Russell W. Plume and J. LaRue Smith

Prepared in cooperation with Elko County, Nevada

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5077

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

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

U.S. Government.

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

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

Suggested citation:

Plume, R.W., and Smith, J.L., 2013, Properties of basin-fill deposits, a 1971–2000 water budget, and surface-watergroundwater interactions in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2013-5077, 38 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5077/.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................. 3

Description of Study Area .................................................................................................................. 3

Previous Studies .................................................................................................................................. 4

Methods Used in this Study ............................................................................................................... 4

Hydrogeologic Setting ................................................................................................................................. 4

Summary of Hydrogeologic Units ..................................................................................................... 4

Basin-Fill Deposits............................................................................................................................... 6

Lithology ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Transmissivity .............................................................................................................................. 9

Water-Budget Components ...................................................................................................................... 12

Precipitation Distribution for the Period 1971–2000 .................................................................... 13

Evapotranspiration ............................................................................................................................ 13

Net Evapotranspiration............................................................................................................ 13

Delineation of Discharge Areas and Evapotranspiration Units ............................... 16

Net Evapotranspiration and Net Irrigation Water Requirement Rates .................. 18

Net Evapotranspiration Discharge ............................................................................... 19

Evapotranspiration of Precipitation ...................................................................................... 19

Surface-Water Outflow .................................................................................................................... 19

Subsurface Flow ................................................................................................................................ 19

Pumpage ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Water Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions ............................................................................................ 22

Seepage Runs .................................................................................................................................... 22

Marys River................................................................................................................................ 24

Starr Valley Area....................................................................................................................... 24

North Fork Humboldt River...................................................................................................... 24

Lamoille Creek........................................................................................................................... 24

Huntington Creek ...................................................................................................................... 29

South Fork Humboldt River...................................................................................................... 29

Mainstem Humboldt River....................................................................................................... 29

Shallow Flood Plain Groundwater Levels...................................................................................... 33

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 36

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 36

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................... 37

References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Appendixes ................................................................................................................................................. 39
iv

Figures

1. Map showing selected features of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Hydrogeologic map of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ................. 5

3. Map showing extent of Miocene Elko basin and Pliocene lake, upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada ........................................................................................... 8

4. Map showing extent of Miocene Elko basin, Pliocene lake, and percentages of finegrained sediments in upper 200 feet of basin fill, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada ............................................................................................................... 10

5. Map showing extent of Miocene Elko basin, Pliocene lake, and estimated transmissivity of basin-fill deposits, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada .... 11

6. Map showing distribution of estimated annual precipitation, 1971–2000, upper 

Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada....................................................................... 14

7. Map showing discharge areas and evapotranspiration units delineated July 20–24, 

2009 in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ....................................... 15

8. Pie chart showing distribution of evapotranspiration by evapotranspiration unit, 

as a percentage of total discharge area, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada......................................................................................................................... 18

9. Bar chart showing annual flow of the Humboldt River near Carlin, 1945–2010, 

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

10. Map showing locations of subsurface flow sections, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada ............................................................................................................... 21

11. Graphs showing streamflow conditions at six gaging stations before and during 

the fall seepage runs in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada: 

A, October 2008 and B, October and early November 2009 .............................................. 23

12. Map showing locations of sites where streamflow was measured during fall 

seepage runs, 2008–09, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ................ 25

13. Map showing A, locations of sites where streamflow was measured in the Marys 

River Area during the fall seepage runs of 2008 and 2009 and B, Streamflow 

measurements along Marys River between sites MR1 and MR5, upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada ......................................................................................... 26

14. Map showing A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in the North 

Fork Area during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and B, Streamflow 

measurements along the North Fork Humboldt River between sites NF1 and NF7, 

upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ........................................................... 27

15. Map showing A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in Lamoille 

Valley during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and B, Streamflow measurements along Lamoille Creek and its diversions between sites LC1 and LC8, upper 

Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada....................................................................... 28

16. Map showing A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in Huntington 

Valley during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and (B) Streamflow measurements along Huntington Creek between sites HC1 and HC8, upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada ......................................................................................... 30

17. Map showing A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured on the South 

Fork Humboldt River during the fall seepage runs, 2008–09, and B, Streamflow 

measurements along the South Fork Humboldt River between sites SF1 and SF12, 

upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ........................................................... 31
v

18. Map showing A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured on the 

mainstem Humboldt River during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and 

B, Streamflow measurements along the mainstem Humboldt River between 

sites HR1 and HR16, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ...................... 32

19. Map showing location of shallow wells MR-1, MR-2, MR-3 and MR-4 drilled in 

the Humboldt River flood plain below Elko, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada ............................................................................................................... 34

20. Graph showing stage of the Humboldt River and groundwater levels in the 

adjacent flood plain near Elko, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada .... 36

Tables

1. Hydrographic areas of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ............... 3

2. Lithology, thickness, extent, and water-bearing characteristics of hydrogeologic 

units in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada......................................... 6

3. Summary statistics for transmissivity of basin-fill aquifers in the upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada ......................................................................................... 12

4. Summary statistics for annual precipitation, 1971–2000, in hydrographic areas of 

the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada .................................................... 13

5. Evapotranspiration units delineated within discharge areas, upper Humboldt River 

basin, northeastern Nevada .................................................................................................. 17

6. Areas of evapotranspiration units and volumes of net evapotranspiration in discharge areas by hydrographic area in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ...........................................................................................................18

7. Estimates of subsurface flow at eight aquifer cross sections in the upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada ......................................................................................... 20

8. Annual water budget, 1971–2000, for the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

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

9. Lithology of Humboldt River flood plain deposits penetrated by wells MR-1, MR-2, 

MR-3, and MR-4 near Elko, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ......... 35

Appendix 1. Sites where streamflow was measured, October 2008 and November 

2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ................................................ 39

Appendix 2. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, October 20–24, 

2008, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ............................................... 42

Appendix 3. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, November 2–6, 

2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada ................................................ 44
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

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

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

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

inch per year (in/yr) 2.54 centimeter per year (cm/yr)

Specific capacity

gallon per minute per foot 

[(gal/min)/ft)]

0.2070 liter per second per meter 

[(L/s)/m]

Hydraulic gradient

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

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

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

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

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

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

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.
vii

Abbreviations 

ET evapotranspiration 

GIS geographic information system

Ma millions of years before present

MSAVI Modified-Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index

NAIP National Agricultural Imagery Program

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources

NIWR net irrigation water requirement

PRISM Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model

TM Thematic Mapper 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Abstract

This study was done in cooperation with Elko County, 

Nevada in response to concerns over growing demand for 

water within the county and increasing external demands that 

are occurring statewide. The upper Humboldt River basin 

encompasses 4,360 square miles in northeastern Nevada and 

includes the headwaters area of the Humboldt River. Nearly all 

of the mean annual flow of the Humboldt River originates in 

this area. Basin-fill deposits function as the principal aquifers 

in the upper Humboldt River basin. Over much of the basin 

lowlands, the upper 200 feet of basin fill consists of clay, silt, 

sand, and gravel deposited in a lake of middle to late Pliocene 

age. Fine-grained lacustrine sediments compose from 30 to 

more than 70 percent of the deposits. Mean values of transmissivity are less than 1,000 feet squared per day. Total inflow to 

the upper Humboldt River basin, about 3,330,000 acre-feet per 

year, is entirely from annual precipitation. Total outflow from 

the basin, about 3,330,000 acre-feet per year, occurs as evapotranspiration, streamflow, subsurface flow, and pumpage. The 

uncertainty of these values of inflow and outflow is estimated 

to be 25 percent.

Baseflow of the Humboldt River is minimal upstream of 

the Elko Hills and in downstream reaches almost all baseflow 

comes from tributary inflow of the North Fork and South Fork 

Humboldt Rivers. However, the baseflow of these two tributaries comes from groundwater discharge to their respective 

channels in canyons incised in volcanic rocks along the North 

Fork and in carbonate rocks along the South Fork. Water 

levels in the shallow water-table aquifer along the Humboldt 

River flood plain fluctuate with changes in stage of the river. 

During high rising river stage in spring and early summer, 

streamflow enters the aquifer as bank storage. As stage begins 

to decline in early to mid-summer groundwater in bank storage begins discharging back into the river channel and this 

continues through late summer. In years of below average 

flow some reaches of the river are dry in late summer. Flood 

plain deposits are more permeable than adjacent and underlying fine-grained sediments of the Pliocene lake and the two 

aquifers are poorly connected.

Introduction

The Humboldt River basin is the largest river basin that 

is entirely within the State of Nevada. Numerous diversions 

reduce flow in the river1, and diverted surface water is used 

almost exclusively for irrigation, especially in the middle and 

lower reaches. Average annual flow of the river at the western side of the upper Humboldt River basin is about 270,000 

acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr; Maurer and others, 1996, p. 29). 

Downstream of here the river consistently loses flow and the 

only perennial tributary is Pine Creek with average annual 

flow of 9,600 acre-ft/yr (Maurer and others, 1996, p. 29). Even 

though the upper Humboldt River basin encompasses only 

about 25 percent of the entire river basin (fig. 1), the upper 

basin is the source more than 95 percent of the total flow of 

the river.

Elko County officials and citizens are concerned about the 

growing demand for water within the county and increasing 

external demands that are occurring statewide. Because flow 

of the Humboldt River and its tributaries is fully appropriated, 

any additional water needed to support growth in the upper 

Humboldt River basin presumably would come from groundwater. However, groundwater and streamflow are believed to 

be connected in parts of the study area where groundwater 

discharge to stream channels may sustain baseflow during 

periods of low flow. Decisions to further develop the groundwater resources within the upper Humboldt River basin will 

need to consider the potential effects of such development on 

streamflow. County and State water-resources managers need 

additional information that will enable them to make informed 

decisions regarding future use of the groundwater resources of 

the upper Humboldt River basin. To address these needs and 

concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with Elko County, has adopted a phased approach for assessing the water resources of the upper Humboldt River basin in 

northeastern Nevada. Phase one was completed in 2007–08 

and describes the hydrogeologic framework and groundwater 

conditions (Plume, 2009). Results of phase two, conducted 

1

 The duration of the irrigation season in the upper Humboldt River basin 

each year is April 15–August 15 (Malone, 1932, p. 13).

Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water 

Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions in 

the Upper Humboldt River Basin, Northeastern Nevada

By Russell W. Plume and J.L. Smith
2 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 1. Selected features of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Defue

Spring

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

0 5 10 20 Miles

0 5 10 20 Kilometers

Marys

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Carson

City

Map

area

Humboldt

River Basin

15

80
Introduction 3

in federal fiscal years 2009–11, are presented in this report, 

which describes properties of basin-fill deposits, presents an 

overall water budget for the period 1971–2000, and describes 

interactions of groundwater and streamflow along the mainstem Humboldt River and its main tributaries.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of phase two of the overall study—properties of basin-fill deposits, a refined annual 

water budget for the period 1971–2000, and characteristics 

of surface-water and groundwater interactions in the upper 

Humboldt River basin. Well drillers’ logs, available from the 

Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) website 

(http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/) were used to determine 

hydraulic and lithologic properties of basin-fill aquifers. 

Components of the water budget were refined based on recent 

(1971–2000) estimates of annual precipitation, streamflow, 

evapotranspiration (ET) rates, estimates of subsurface outflow, and annual groundwater pumpage. The overall water 

budget for the upper Humboldt River basin integrates the 

eight hydrographic areas encompassing the basin. Interactions 

between surface water and groundwater were characterized 

by identifying locations of streamflow losses to infiltration 

and streamflow gains from groundwater seepage, and along a 

select reach of the river by comparing stage of the river with 

adjacent groundwater levels.

Description of Study Area

The upper Humboldt River basin covers about 4,360 square 

miles (mi2) in northeastern Nevada, and consists of eight 

hydrographic areas—Marys River Area, Starr Valley Area, 

North Fork Area, Lamoille Valley, South Fork Area, Huntington Valley, Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area, and the Elko 

Segment (fig. 1; table 1). The eight areas compose the headwaters of the Humboldt River, which is the source of more than 

95 percent of the total flow of the river in years of average 

flow. From west to east, the main tributaries of the upper 

Humboldt River are South Fork Humboldt River, North Fork 

Humboldt River, Lamoille Creek, and Marys River (fig. 1). 

Other less significant tributaries include Secret, Starr, Tabor, 

and Bishop Creeks. Altitude of land surface in the study area 

ranges from 4,900 to 5,900 feet (ft) along the flood plain of the 

Humboldt River to greater than 11,000 ft in the highest parts 

of the Ruby Mountains.

The Marys River Area covers 1,073 mi2 and is drained 

by Marys River and its tributaries on the north and west and 

by Bishop and Tabor Creeks on the east (fig. 1). The area is 

bounded by the Snake Mountains to the east, the Jarbidge 

Mountains to the north, the Peko Hills to the west, and by the 

Humboldt River to the south.

The Starr Valley Area covers 332 mi2 and is drained by 

Starr and Secret Creeks and their tributaries (fig. 1). The area 

consists of a northwest sloping pediment bounded by the East 

Humboldt Range to the east and the Humboldt River to the 

northwest (fig. 1).

The North Fork Area covers 1,110 mi2 and consists of 

an upper and lower basin both drained by the North Fork 

Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 1). The upper basin is 

bounded by the Independence Mountains to the west, the south 

end of the Jarbidge Mountains to the northeast, and the Adobe 

Range to the southeast. The lower basin is bounded by the 

Adobe Range and Peko Hills to the west and east, respectively, 

the south end of the Jarbidge Mountains to the north, and the 

Humboldt River to the south. The two basins are connected by 

the North Fork Humboldt River which flows through an unnamed canyon at the north end of the Adobe Range.

Lamoille Valley covers an area of 257 mi2 and is drained 

by Lamoille Creek and its tributaries (fig. 1). The area consists 

of Lamoille Canyon in the Ruby Mountains and a northwest 

sloping pediment bounded to the southeast by the Ruby Mountains, to the northwest by the Humboldt River, and by low 

topographic divides between the Starr Valley Area to the east 

and the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area to the west.

The South Fork Area covers 99 mi2 and is drained by the 

South Fork Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 1). The 

area is bounded by topographic divides between the Dixie 

Creek-Tenmile Creek Area to the north and Huntington Valley 

to the south. The two divides converge to the northwest and 

join at the confluence of the South Fork Humboldt River and 

Huntington Creek. The Ruby Mountains form the high-altitude 

uplands of the area.

Huntington Valley covers 787 mi2 and is drained by Huntington Creek and by several tributaries that originate in the 

northeast part of the area. The area is bounded by the Ruby 

Mountains to the east, by the Pinion Range and Diamond 

Mountains to the west, by a low topographic divide to the 

south, and by the South Fork and Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 

Areas to the north.

Table 1. Hydrographic areas of the upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada.

[See figure 1 for locations of hydrographic areas. Hydrographic area: Formal 

hydrographic areas in Nevada were delineated systematically by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and Nevada Division of Water Resources in the late 1960s (Cardinalli and others, 

1968; and Rush, 1968). These areas have been the basic units for assembling hydrologic 

data and for regulating water use in the State since 1968. The official hydrographic area 

names, numbers, and geographic boundaries continue to be used in U.S. Geological 

Survey scientific reports and Nevada Division of Water Resources administrative 

activities. Area (square miles): From Rush (1968)]

Hydrographic area

Name Number Area

(square miles)

Area

(acres)

Marys River 42 1,073 686,720

Starr Valley 43 332 212,480

North Fork 44 1,110 710,400

Lamoille Valley 45 257 164,480

South Fork 46 99 63,360

Huntington Valley 47 787 503,680

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 48 392 250,880

Elko Segment 49 314 200,960

Totals (rounded) 4,360 2,790,000
4 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

The Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area covers 392 mi2 and is 

drained by the South Fork Humboldt River and its two main 

tributaries in the area—Dixie and Tenmile Creeks (fig. 1). 

Since December 1987, flow has been regulated by the South 

Fork Reservoir, which has a maximum altitude of 5,231.4 ft. 

The Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area is bounded by the South 

Fork Area and Huntington Valley to the south, Lamoille Valley 

to the east, the Pinion Range to the west, and to the north, by a 

group of unnamed hills that extend from the Elko Hills to the 

north end of the Pinion Range.

The Elko Segment covers 314 mi2 and consists of the Humboldt River flood plain and adjacent uplands (fig. 1). The area 

is bounded by the Adobe Range to the north and the Elko Hills 

and north end of the Pinion Range to the south.

Previous Studies

One of the earliest water-resources investigations in the 

Humboldt River basin was done by the USGS in the early 

to middle 1960s (Eakin and Lamke, 1966). They divided the 

Humboldt River basin into upper, middle, and lower basins, 

and their study describes the hydrologic processes, water 

budgets, and general water chemistry of the entire basin. At 

the same time, the USGS also evaluated the water resources 

of Huntington Valley and the South Fork and Dixie CreekTenmile Creek Areas (Rush and Everett, 1966). The results 

of phase one of the present study provide general information 

on the hydrogeologic framework of the upper basin, and the 

occurrence and movement of groundwater in the eight hydrographic areas that make up the upper basin (Plume, 2009).

Methods Used in this Study

Several methods of investigation were used during the 

course of this study to provide information needed to characterize hydraulic properties of basin-fill deposits, develop 

a water budget, and define interactions between groundwater and surface water. The lithology of basin-fill deposits, 

expressed as percent of fine-grained sediments, was determined from well drillers’ logs filed with the NDWR and 

available at http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/. Percentages of 

fine-grained sediments in the upper 200 ft of basin fill were 

determined from 354 well logs. Well logs also were used to 

estimate the transmissivity of basin-fill aquifers using values 

of specific capacity determined from drillers’ logs that report a 

pumping test after completion of the well.

Estimates of subsurface flow are used in this report to quantify the amount of groundwater outflow at eight aquifer cross 

sections. The method uses the equation:

Q=0.0084 T wi (1)

where

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

year,

T is the transmissivity of the aquifer in feet squared 

per day,

w is the effective width of the aquifer flow section, in 

feet,

i is the hydraulic gradient driving groundwater 

flow, in feet of water-level change per foot of 

horizontal distance, and

0.0084 is a factor to convert cubic feet per day to acre-feet 

per year.

Two of the eight sections are where groundwater leaves the 

upper Humboldt River basin, and six are at downgradient ends 

of hydrographic areas. Groundwater flow across each of these 

sections is discussed in the “Subsurface Flow” section of this 

report. The uncertainty of this method is such that estimates of 

subsurface flow are reported to only one significant figure.

Interconnections between groundwater and surface water 

are evaluated using measurements of (1) streamflow made 

at more than 100 sites on the upper Humboldt River and its 

tributaries in October 2008 and November 2009; and (2) continuous records of Humboldt River stage and water levels in 

shallow wells adjacent to the river near Elko.

Hydrogeologic Setting

The hydrogeologic framework of the upper Humboldt 

River basin was described in detail as part of phase one of the 

present study (Plume, 2009). Therefore, the general hydrogeology of the area is only summarized in this section of the 

report. However, the lithology and hydraulic properties of 

basin-fill deposits are discussed in some detail in this section.

Summary of Hydrogeologic Units

The upper Humboldt River basin consists of several deep 

structural basins in which basin-fill deposits of Quaternary and 

Tertiary age and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age have accumulated. The bedrock of each basin and adjacent mountains 

are composed of carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks of 

Paleozoic age and metamorphic and granitic rocks of Cambrian, Jurassic and Tertiary age. As part of the phase one study, 

rocks and basin-fill deposits in the study area were grouped 

into six hydrogeologic units (fig. 2; table 2). The units, from 

oldest to youngest, are (1) carbonate rocks and interbedded 

clastic sedimentary rocks of Cambrian to Permian age, (2) 

clastic sedimentary rocks of Ordovician to Devonian age, (3) 

crystalline rocks consisting of granitic intrusive and metamorphic rocks of Cambrian, Jurassic and Tertiary age, (4) volcanic 

rocks of Tertiary age, (5) older basin-fill deposits of Tertiary 

and Quaternary age that compose most of the alluvial fill in 

each basin, and (6) younger basin-fill deposits of Quaternary 

age that consist mostly of deposits along stream flood plains. 

Basin-fill deposits and carbonate rocks can have relatively 

high permeability and transmit groundwater, whereas the other 
Hydrogeologic Setting 5

Figure 2. Hydrogeologic map of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Geology modified from Maurer and others, 2004

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Defue

Spring

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Younger basin-fill deposits

Older basin-fill deposits

Volcanic rocks

Intrusive and metamorphic rocks

Carbonate rocks

Sandstones and siltstones

Hydrographic area boundary
6 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

[Abbreviations: Mtn, Mountain; Fm, Formation]

Hydrogeologic 

unit Geologic age Rock or stratigraphic unit Lithology Thickness and locality Water-bearing characteristics

Younger basinfill depositsQuaternary Alluvium and glacial moraines Sorted and interbedded clay, 

sand, and gravel along stream 

flood plains. Poorly sorted to 

unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel, 

and boulders of alluvial fans and 

moraines.

Deposits of flood plains probably 

do not exceed a few tens of feet 

in thickness. Moraines and deposits of alluvial fans probably 

range from hundreds to more 

than 1,000 feet thick.

Together with older basinfill deposits, comprise 

shallow water-table aquifers and deeper confined 

aquifers.

Older basin-fill 

deposits

Quaternary 

and Tertiary

Older alluvium of stream 

terraces (Coats, 1987, p. 

70), sedimentary deposits of 

the Miocene and Pliocene 

Elko Basin (Wallace and 

others, 2008, p. 59–62), and 

limestone, conglomerate, 

sandstone, shale, and tuff of 

Oligocene to Paleocene age 

(Coats, 1987, p. 51–62).

Poorly consolidated deposits of 

fluvial and lacustrine origin. Includes deposits of alluvial fans, 

stream flood plains, and shallow 

lakes. Deposits commonly are 

tuffaceous and are extensively 

interbedded with volcanic rocks.

Total thickness including interbedded volcanic rocks ranges 

from less than 500 feet mostly 

along basin margins to more 

than 5,000 feet in a deep and 

narrow structural basin that extends from southern Huntington 

Valley to northern Marys River 

Area (fig. 2).

Together with younger 

basin-fill deposits, 

comprise shallow watertable aquifers and deeper 

confined aquifers.

Volcanic rocks Tertiary Volcanic rocks Ash-flow and air-fall tuffs, lava 

flows, and domes. Lithologies 

include basalt, andesite, dacite, 

latite, and rhyolite (Coats, 1987, 

pl. 1 and p. 51–67).

Extensively interbedded with 

older basin-fill deposits. See 

above for composite thickness.

Mostly impedes groundwater flow because tuffs 

weather to clay and 

because of interbedded 

fine-grained lake deposits. 

Presence of perennial 

streams in watersheds underlain by these rocks also 

indicates low permeability.

Metamorphic 

and igneous 

intrusive 

rocks

Cambrian and 

Jurassic

Metamorphic rocks Metamorphic rocks include 

marble, schist, and gneiss. They 

are metamorphosed carbonate 

and siliciclastic sedimentary 

rocks of Paleozoic age in the 

central and northern Ruby Mtns 

and Elko Hills.

Extend to great depths and can 

be much more extensive than 

indicated by outcrop area.

Impedes the movement of 

groundwater.

Jurassic and 

Tertiary

Granitic intrusive rocks Granitic rocks consist of granodiorite in the central Ruby Mtns 

and alaskite in the southern 

Independence Mtns.

Table 2. Lithology, thickness, extent, and water-bearing characteristics of hydrogeologic units in the upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada. 

rock units generally have low permeability and impede the 

flow of groundwater. The lithology and water-bearing properties of each unit are summarized in table 2.

Basin-Fill Deposits

The principal aquifers in the upper Humboldt River basin 

are the basin-fill deposits that underlie each of the hydrographic areas to depths of up to several thousand feet or more 

(Plume, 2009, p. 8–11). The basin-fill deposits are subdivided 

into younger and older based on lithology and occurrence. 

Younger basin-fill deposits occur as unconsolidated, sorted 

sand and gravel with interbedded clay and silt along the 

flood plains of active stream channels and as heterogeneous 

deposits on alluvial aprons between mountain fronts and basin 

lowlands. Deposits along stream flood plains are probably no 

thicker than a few tens of feet. 

The oldest basin-fill deposits in the study area are of 

Eocene and earliest Oligocene age, are interbedded with 

volcanic rocks, and are mostly north of the Humboldt River. 

They consist of a basal conglomerate overlain by a sequence 

of welded tuffs, deposits of the Elko Formation (claystone, 

siltstone, shale, limestone, and tuff), and rhyolitic lava flows 

and domes (Coats, 1987, p. 51–58). All of the basin-fill 

deposits are tuffaceous to differing extents. The total thickness 

exceeds 3,000 ft although these rocks and deposits apparently 

do not constitute a continuous blanket over northern parts of 

the study area. According to Henry (2008), these rocks and 

deposits accumulated in and along a minimum of three deep 

and wide eastward draining valleys during Eocene time. The 

valleys were separated by uplands on which any air-fall tuffs 

were eroded and deposited in lowlands of each valley. From 

late Eocene to middle Miocene the upper Humboldt River 

basin was an area probably undergoing erosion, because 

deposits and volcanic rocks of this age span are not present.

Since middle Miocene time three geologic events have 

affected the distribution, lithology, and water-bearing properties of basin-fill deposits in the upper Humboldt River basin: 
Hydrogeologic Setting 7

(1) structural formation and filling of the Miocene Elko basin, 

(2) formation of a Pliocene lake in part of the Elko basin, 

and (3) glaciation mostly in the Ruby Mountains-East Humboldt Range. Beginning about 15–14 Ma (millions of years 

before present), the Elko basin began to form as a result of 

low-angle and high-angle faulting along the west sides of the 

Ruby Mountains, East Humboldt Range, and Snake Mountains 

(Wallace and others, 2008, p. 58–61). The Miocene Elko basin 

was large, extending from what is now southern Huntington 

Valley to northern Marys River and from the Ruby MountainsEast Humboldt Range-Snake Mountains on the east to the 

Adobe and Pinion Ranges on the west (fig. 3; Wallace and others, 2008, p. 58). Materials eroded from these mountain ranges 

spread across the basin accumulating as fine-grained lake sediments in lowlands and as alluvial fan and stream flood plain 

sediments toward basin margins. In addition to sediments 

derived from the mountains, air-fall tuffs mostly from distant 

sources accumulated in the sediments. This pattern of deposition continued into the late Miocene (10–9 Ma) when the Elko 

basin began to drain externally, resulting in non-deposition of 

sediments and erosion of existing ones (Wallace and others, 

2008, p. 63).

Non-deposition, erosion, and transport of sediments out of 

the Elko basin continued from the late Miocene through the 

Pleistocene except for a period in the middle Pliocene when 

external drainage was blocked forming a lake in which fluvial 

and lacustrine sediments accumulated along basin margins and 

in lowlands, respectively (Wallace and others, 2008, 

p. 61). This lake persisted until the late Pliocene when external 

drainage resumed. The Pliocene lake was smaller than the 

Elko basin, extending southwest from the central Marys River 

Area to the South Fork Humboldt River between the Ruby 

Mountains on the east and the Peko and Elko Hills on the west 

(fig. 3). It also extended along the Humboldt River flood plain 

between the Elko Hills and Adobe Range as far as Carlin 

(fig. 3; Wallace and others, 2008, fig. 10). The Pliocene lake 

deposits are as thick as 900 ft at a drill hole east of the Elko 

Hills (Wallace and others, 2008, p. 61).

[Abbreviations: Mtn, Mountain; Fm, Formation]

Hydrogeologic 

unit Geologic age Rock or stratigraphic unit Lithology Thickness and locality Water-bearing characteristics

Clastic 

sedimentary 

rocks

Devonian to 

Ordovician

Woodruff Fm

Valmy Fm

Vinini Fm

Shale, siltstone, sandstone, quartzite, chert, and marine volcanic 

rocks. These rocks are part of 

the upper plate of the Roberts 

Mtns thrust and they structurally 

overlie, along the thrust, various 

units of carbonate rocks that are 

part of the lower plate.

Thickness about 2,000 feet in the 

Snake Mtns, 9,000 feet in northern Independence Mtns, 4,700 

feet in the Pinyon Range, and 

4,000–10,000 feet in the Ruby 

Mtns (Coats, 1987, p. 10–13 and 

29–34).

Generally impedes movement of groundwater. Presence of perennial streams 

in watersheds underlain by 

these rocks also indicates 

low permeability.

Carbonate and 

interbedded clastic 

sedimentary 

rocks

Permian,

Pennsylvanian 

and Mississippian

Edna Mtn Fm

Schoonover Fm

Diamond Peak Fm

Chainman Shale

Webb Fm

Shale, sandstone, sandy limestone, 

conglomerate, and chert. Depositionally overlie various units of 

carbonate rocks

Thickness at least 20,000 feet in 

the Ruby Mtns, 10,000 feet in 

the Pinyon Range and Snake 

Mtns, and about 4,000 feet in 

the Independence Mtns. An oil 

well penetrated 4,500 feet of 

carbonate rocks from the Devils 

Gate Limestone to the Hanson 

Creek Fm at the north end of the 

Pinyon Range (Coats, 1987, p. 

13–47).

Comprise carbonate-rock 

aquifers generally beneath 

basin-fill aquifers. High 

permeability due to solutional widening of fracture 

zones. Absence of perennial streams in watersheds 

even partly underlain by 

these rocks indicates high 

permeability.

Permian to 

Cambrian

Phosphoria Fm

Strathearn Fm

Moleen Fm

Tomera Fm

Ely Limestone

Joana Limestone

Pilot Shale

Devils Gate Limestone

Nevada Formation

Lone Mtn Dolomite

Roberts Mtns Fm

Hanson Creek Fm

Eureka Quartzite

Pogonip Group

Windfall Fm

Dunderberg Shale

Hamburg Dolomite

Secret Canyon Shale

Geddes Limestone

Eldorado Dolomite

Pioche Shale

Prospect Mtn Quartzite

Intervals of limestone and 

dolomite interrupted by thinner 

intervals of shale, quartzite, and 

conglomerate. All units rarely 

present in a single mountain 

range. Underlie entire study 

area, but are concealed over 

large parts of mountain ranges 

by various units of siliciclastic 

sedimentary rocks.

Table 2. Lithology, thickness, extent, and water-bearing characteristics of hydrogeologic units the upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada.—Continued 
8 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 3. Extent of Miocene Elko basin and Pliocene lake, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 1050 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Pliocene-age lake

Miocene Elko basin

Hydrographic area boundary

Miocene Elko basin and Pliocene lake

from Wallace and others, 2008
Hydrogeologic Setting 9

The Ruby Mountains, East Humboldt Range and northern 

Independence Mountains were glaciated during two substages, 

the Lamoille and Angel Lake, from 300,000–130,000 and 

110,000–10,000 years ago, respectively (Sharp, 1938; Coats, 

1987, p. 71; and Howard, 2000). During both substages, 

glacial outwash deposits accumulated on pediments adjacent 

to the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range in the 

Starr Valley Area, Lamoille Valley, the Dixie Creek-Tenmile 

Creek and South Fork Areas, and in Huntington Valley as far 

as 10 to15 miles (mi) south of Jiggs (Sharp, 1938). Outwash 

also accumulated in northernmost parts of the Independence 

Mountains in the North Fork Area (Sharp, 1938; and Coats, 

1987, p. 71). In addition to outwash deposits, glaciation in 

Lamoille Canyon deposited moraines as far as a mile north of 

the canyon mouth during the Lamoille substage (Sharp, 1938, 

p. 303–304 and 319; and Howard, 2000). Outwash deposits 

of the Lamoille substage consist of sand and gravel near the 

mouth of Lamoille Canyon and, with increasing distance from 

the canyon mouth, sand, gravel, and interbedded sandstone, 

siltstone, and claystone (Howard, 2000). Outwash deposits of 

the Angel Lake substage consist of sand and gravel north of 

Lamoille Canyon (Howard, 2000).

Lithology

Drillers’ well logs filed with the NDWR were used to define 

the areal distribution of fine-grained sediments (clay and 

silt) in the study area and their proportion relative to coarsegrained deposits (sand and gravel) in the upper 200 ft of basin 

fill. The approach used was to select logs from the NDWR 

website (http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/) for all wells 200 ft 

or deeper. The initial result yielded over 4,100 records, each 

representing a well at least 200 ft deep in the upper Humboldt 

River basin. A subset of these well log records was selected 

for analysis and as a result the number of well logs examined 

was reduced to 354.

The symbols on figure 4 each represent a well where the 

amount of fine-grained sediments in the upper 200 ft is 0 to 

less than 30, 30 to less than 70, or 70 to 100 percent. The total 

thickness of clay and silt plus one-half the total thickness of 

intervals such as sandy or gravelly clay, or clayey or silty 

gravel, or sand was divided by 200 to compute the percent of 

fine-grained sediments penetrated by the well. Following are 

two examples: (1) for a log that records 200 ft of sandy clay, 

the proportion of fine-grained sediments is 50 percent (200 ft 

divided by 2 = 100 ft of fine-grained materials divided by 200 

= 50 percent); and (2) for a log that records 100 ft of clay, 

40 ft of gravel, and 60 ft of sandy clay, the proportion of finegrained sediments is 65 percent (60 ft divided by 2 + 100 ft = 

130 ft of fine-grained materials divided by 200 = 65 percent). 

Figure 4 shows the distribution of fine-grained sediments (clay 

and silt) and, by inference, the distribution of coarse-grained 

sediments (sand and gravel) in the upper 200 ft of basin fill in 

the upper Humboldt River basin.

Fine-grained sediments compose anywhere from 30 to 

more than 70 percent of the upper 200 ft of basin-fill deposits 

over nearly all of the area covered by the Pliocene lake. The 

main exception to this is in the area between the mouth of 

Lamoille Canyon and the Elko Hills along and on both sides 

of the boundary between Lamoille Valley and the Dixie CreekTenmile Creek Area (fig. 4). The presence of coarse-grained 

sediments in this area is the result of large floods originating 

in Lamoille Canyon mostly during the Pleistocene, when the 

Lamoille and Angel Lake glacial substages produced large 

volumes of outwash and moraines beyond the mouth of the 

canyon (Sharp, 1938; and Howard 2000). Fine-grained sediments compose from 30 to more than 70 percent of the upper 

200 ft of basin-fill deposits in most of the Marys River Area, 

southernmost North Fork Area, Starr Valley Area, and the 

Elko Segment along the Humboldt River flood plain. However, coarse-grained sediments also are common between the 

flood plain and Adobe Range as alluvial fan deposits and at 

the mouth of the North Fork Humboldt River, possibly as river 

delta deposits. The Pliocene lake did not extend into the South 

Fork Area or Huntington Valley and fine-grained sediments are 

not as predominant in the basin fill. However, coarse-grained 

sediments are common on the east sides of both areas, as a 

result of deposition of glacial outwash.

Transmissivity

The specific capacity of a well, expressed as gallons per 

minute per foot of drawdown, is determined from the results 

of a pumping test, and is computed as the average pumping 

rate, in gallons per minute, divided by the total water-level 

drawdown, in feet, measured at the end of the test. Specific 

capacity is generally considered to be proportional to the 

transmissivity of the aquifer yielding water to the well, especially with increasing time (Lohman and others, 1972, 

p. 11). Thomasson and others (1960, p. 222) found that 

specific capacity multiplied by 230 yields a reasonably good 

estimate of transmissivity (in feet squared per day).

The areal distribution of transmissivity in basin-fill aquifers 

in the upper Humboldt River basin (fig. 5) was determined 

from the results of drillers’ pumping tests reported on logs 

filed with the NDWR (http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/). Test 

results are reported on a driller’s log as pumping rate, in gallons per minute, water-level drawdown below original static 

water level, in feet, and pumping time usually in hours. The 

NDWR website has summaries of logs that include specific 

capacity for more than 4,000 wells in the upper Humboldt 

River basin. Two criteria were used to pare such a large data 

set down to manageable size and to reject questionable tests. 

Only well logs with tests of 1 hour or more duration and with 

pumping rates of at least 25 gallons per minute (gal/min) were 

used. 2 The resulting data set consisted of 332 estimates of specific capacity that were multiplied by 230 to obtain estimated 

transmissivity. 

2

 This restriction on a minimum pumping rate could skew transmissivity 

toward higher values. However, low pumping rates do not always adequately 

stress an aquifer and can result in inaccurate values of specific capacity. 
10 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 4. Extent of Miocene Elko basin, Pliocene lake, and percentages of fine-grained sediments in upper 200 feet of basin fill, upper 

Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Pliocene-age lake

Miocene Elko basin

Hydrographic area boundary

Percent fine-grained material 

penetrated by wells

0 to less than 30

30 to less than 70

70 to 100

Miocene Elko basin and Pliocene lake

from Wallace and others, 2008
Hydrogeologic Setting 11

Figure 5. Extent of Miocene Elko basin, Pliocene lake, and estimated transmissivity of basin-fill deposits, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada.

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Pliocene-age lake

Miocene Elko basin

Hydrographic area boundary

Transmissivity, feet squared per day

10 to less than 100

100 to 1,000

Greater than 1,000

Miocene Elko basin and Pliocene lake

from Wallace and others, 2008
12 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

The areal distribution of the transmissivity of basinfill aquifers in the upper Humboldt River basin is shown 

on figure 5 in intervals of 10 to 100 feet squared per day 

(ft2/d), 100 to 1,000 ft2/d, and greater than 1,000 to less than 

10,000 ft2/d. The greatest transmissivities are clustered in three 

areas. High transmissivities northwest of Lamoille Canyon 

are attributed to coarse-grained glacial outwash of Pleistocene age. The high transmissivities below the confluence of 

Huntington Creek and the South Fork Humboldt River might 

also be attributed to coarse-grained outwash from the South 

Fork Area; however, proportions of fine-grained sediments 

in the upper 200 ft of basin fill in this area are relatively high 

(fig. 4) suggesting that transmissivities should be low. Three 

of the wells with high transmissivities are less than 200 ft deep 

and were not used for the analysis of fine-grained sediments 

discussed above. Further, the logs for the wells show substantial thicknesses of clay with interbedded sand and gravel. 

This illustrates the importance of relatively thin intervals of 

coarse-grained sediments even when they are separated by 

thicker intervals of clay. The transmissivity of deposits along 

and adjacent to the Humboldt River flood plain northeast and 

southwest of Elko agree with the distribution of fine- and 

coarse-grained sediments shown in figure 4. Both illustrate the 

heterogeneity of the deposits in the flood plain and the adjacent alluvial fans, and of the deposits in the Pliocene lake.

Table 3 lists mean, median, minimum, and maximum 

values of estimated transmissivity for each hydrographic area 

in the upper Humboldt River basin. Mean values in the table 

are rounded to one significant figure due to uncertainty of the 

estimates. For the most part, mean values of transmissivity 

range from more than 500 to less than 900 ft2/d. The exceptions are the Starr Valley and South Fork Areas where mean 

values of transmissivity are 300 ft2/d. Mean values of transmissivity in table 3 were used for estimating subsurface flow 

across eight aquifer sections in the “Subsurface Flow” section 

of this report.

Water-Budget Components

Two types of water budgets can be developed for hydrographic areas in Nevada—groundwater budgets and total 

water budgets. Components of inflow to either type of budget 

consist mostly of annual precipitation and, to a lesser extent, 

subsurface inflow from adjacent areas. Components of outflow 

consist mostly of evapotranspiration (ET) and, to a lesser 

extent, streamflow and subsurface flow to adjacent areas. The 

difference between the two types of budgets is that groundwater budgets are developed for hydrographic areas where 

streamflow is minor or is along a through-flowing stream, 

whereas total water budgets are developed for areas where 

streamflow is a substantial part of the budget and is hydrologically connected with groundwater such that the contribution 

of each cannot be individually quantified. For instance, ET in 

riparian areas along streams consumes both groundwater and 

streamflow; however, the individual contribution of each cannot be quantified. Some of the earliest water-resources studies 

in the upper Humboldt River basin recognized the futility 

of attempting to quantify groundwater recharge (Eakin and 

Lamke, 1966, p. 31; and Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 26–27). 

For these reasons, no attempt was made to develop a groundwater budget for the upper Humboldt River basin; instead, 

a total water budget was developed for the 30-year period, 

1971–2000, using the following inflow-outflow relation (values in acre-ft/yr):

Pt=ETp+ETn+SWo+GWo+P (2)

where

Pt is average annual precipitation;

ETp is basin-wide evapotranspiration of precipitation 

and includes evapotranspiration of soil 

moisture originating from precipitation and 

sublimation of snowpack;

ETn is net evapotranspiration in discharge areas only, 

and it is the evapotranspiration in excess of ETp

and originates from groundwater, open water, 

and irrigated crops;

SWo is average annual flow of the Humboldt River 

near Carlin;

GWo is subsurface outflow of groundwater; and

P is pumpage.

ETt = ETp + ETn (3)

where

ETt is total ET.

Equation (2) would also include an additional term for a 

basin where changes in groundwater storage have occurred. 

However, net changes in storage are believed to be negligible 

in comparison with the other water-budget components during 

the period 1971–2000. Each of the water-budget components 

discussed below is an estimate based on the best available 

data. Even so, the uncertainty of the estimates can be as much 

as 25 percent.

Table 3. Summary statistics for transmissivity of basin-fill 

aquifers in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

Hydrographic area

Number 

of 

samples

Transmissivity (feet squared per day)

Mean1 Median Minimum Maximum

Marys River 32 700 544 82 2,182

Starr Valley 10 300 179 54 690

North Fork 29 500 215 83 2,056

Lamoille Valley 39 900 460 95 5,750

South Fork 3 300 169 122 460

Huntington Valley 9 600 719 38 1,314

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 56 900 521 41 4,259

Elko Segment 133 700 276 21 8,353

1

 Values rounded to one significant figure.
Water-Budget Components 13

Precipitation Distribution for the 

Period 1971–2000

Annual precipitation is the only source of inflow to the 

upper Humboldt River basin; there is no evidence of subsurface flow from any adjacent hydrographic area. The distribution of precipitation shown in figure 6 was developed using 

PRISM for the period 1971–2000. PRISM is an acronym 

for Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes 

Model (Daly and others, 1994). PRISM uses point measurements of climatic data to produce continuous, digital grid 

estimates of climatic parameters, in this case precipitation. 

The method is described in detail by Jeton and others (2006, 

p. 3–6).

Average annual precipitation in the upper Humboldt River 

basin during the period 1971–2000 ranged from 8 to 11 inches 

per year (in/yr) in lowland areas to 46 in/yr in the highest parts 

of the East Humboldt Range and Ruby, Independence, Snake 

and Jarbidge Mountains (fig. 6; table 4). The total annual 

volume of precipitation is an estimated 3,330,000 acre-ft/yr. 

Among the eight hydrographic areas of the upper Humboldt 

River basin, the Elko Segment received the least precipitation, 

about 191,000 acre-ft/yr, and the Marys River Area received 

the most, about 795,000 acre-ft/yr. Mean annual precipitation 

ranged from 11.4 in/yr in the Elko Segment to 23.2 in/yr in the 

South Fork Area.

Estimates of annual precipitation using PRISM are uncertain, and, as a result, values predicted by the PRISM model 

can differ from values recorded at weather stations. The uncertainty of PRISM estimates of annual precipitation in the upper 

Humboldt River basin for the 1971–2000 period generally are 

within plus or minus 15 percent (Jeton and others, 2006, figs. 

10 and 11). However, the uncertainty of PRISM estimates 

tends to increase with increasing altitude; uncertainties at two 

sites in the Ruby Mountains are 54 percent at one and –60 

percent at the other (Jeton and others, 2006, fig. 11).

Evapotranspiration

Evapotranspiration is by far the largest outflow component 

of the upper Humboldt River basin water budget. It is also 

the most uncertain. Evapotranspiration is a process by which 

water at the Earth’s surface is transferred to the atmosphere 

and involves two separate but related processes—evaporation and transpiration. Direct evaporation occurs from open 

water, shallow groundwater, soil moisture, and sublimation of 

snowpack. Transpiration is the process by which plants take 

up water through their roots and release it as vapor from the 

plant surface. 

The upper Humboldt River basin can be divided into two 

types of areas: (1) discharge areas where total evapotranspiration (ETt

) is greater than precipitation (Pt) with the difference 

being net evapotranspiration (ETn); and (2) non-discharge 

areas where ETt is equal to evapotranspiration of precipitation 

(ETp) and is less than or equal to Pt. 

Discharge areas represent areas where evapotranspiration of 

shallow groundwater (ETg), open water (ETw), and water from 

irrigated crops (ETag) occurs. The sum of ETg, ETw, and ETag

is equivalent to ETn. ETg mainly occurs through transpiration 

by phreatophytic vegetation, which includes shrubs, meadows, 

and riparian areas. Areas of shallow groundwater generally 

occur near streams, springs, and in low topographic areas. ETw

occurs as evaporation and is from open water along streams, 

lakes, and reservoirs. ETag occurs mainly as crop transpiration 

and evaporation of irrigation water and soil moisture originating from irrigation water. Irrigated crop areas occur mostly 

along the Humboldt River and its tributaries but can be away 

from surface water if groundwater pumpage is the source of 

irrigation supply. ETt from discharge areas is the sum of ETp

and ETn. ETp is assumed to be equal to Pt in discharge areas.

Non-discharge areas represent the rest of the area in the 

upper Humboldt River basin and ETt is equal to ETp. In nondischarge areas, ETt

 is less than Pt when precipitation results 

in runoff or infiltration to the water table.

Net Evapotranspiration

Discharge areas in the upper Humboldt River basin were delineated in 

the summer of 2009 using a combination of remote sensing techniques and 

field mapping (fig. 7). Discharge areas 

were further classified into areas of 

similar vegetation type and similar ETn

rates and are called ET units. ETn rates 

were estimated for each of the ET units 

by extrapolation from rates measured 

in similar environments outside the 

upper Humboldt River basin. Outflow 

resulting from ETn was estimated by 

multiplying ETn rates by respective ET 

unit areas.

Table 4. Summary statistics for annual precipitation, 1971–2000, in hydrographic areas 

of the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Hydrographic area Minimum 

(inches1)

Maximum 

(inches1)

Mean 

(inches1)

Area 

(acres)

Annual 

precipitation2

(acre-feet/year)

Marys River 10.4 45.6 13.9 686,720 795,451

Starr Valley 10.7 45.4 18.1 212,480 320,491

North Fork 9.9 44.7 13.2 710,400 781,440

Lamoille Valley 10.8 35.9 17.1 164,480 234,384

South Fork 11.1 36.7 23.2 63,360 122,496

Huntington Valley 9.9 40 14.7 503,680 617,008

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 10.2 32.4 13 250,880 271,787

Elko Segment 8.2 15.7 11.4 200,960 190,912

1

 Determined from precipitation grid (fig. 6).

2

 Computed as mean annual precipitation, in inches, divided by 12 inches and multiplied by area, in acres.
14 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 6. Distribution of estimated annual precipitation, 1971–2000, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Anual precipitation, in inches

Less than 10

10 to less than 20

20 to less than 30

30 to less than 40

Greater than 40

Hydrographic area boundary
Water-Budget Components 15

Figure 7. Discharge areas and evapotranspiration units delineated July 20–24, 2009 in the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada. 

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Phreatophytic shrublands

Riparian areas

Meadows

Irrigated croplands

Open water

Hydrographic area boundary

Field mapping observation points
16 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Delineation of Discharge Areas and 

Evapotranspiration Units

Discharge areas were identified and mapped in the study 

area (fig. 7) using techniques similar to those used by Smith 

and others (2007) to define potential areas of groundwater 

discharge in the eastern Great Basin. Areas outside of the discharge areas (non-discharge areas) are discussed later. 

Discharge areas were iteratively delineated using remote 

sensing methods and field verification during July 20–24, 2009 

(fig. 7). A combination of Landsat imagery, high-resolution 

imagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program 

(NAIP), and a digital-elevation model were used to initially 

identify discharge areas. Field mapping and verification at 

59 locations were used to fine tune adjustments of the remote 

sensing methodology to properly and more accurately identify 

the discharge areas. See Smith and others (2007) for a detailed 

discussion of this method. 

The discharge areas were further classified into five 

individual ET units: phreatophytic shrublands, riparian areas, 

meadows, irrigated croplands, and open water (fig. 7). This 

was done by using a combination of methods depending on 

the ET unit being delineated.

A Modified-Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (MSAVI) was 

computed from Landsat imagery (Qi and others, 1994) and 

was used to identify areas of phreatophytic shrublands, meadows, and riparian ET units and areas of xerophytic vegetation in discharge areas (July 11, 2008, standardized Landsat 

Thematic Mapper [TM] data). Areas of xerophytic vegetation 

were removed from the discharge areas because they are areas 

of no discharge.

Phreatophytic shrubland, meadow, and riparian ET units 

were identified by computing and classifying MSAVI from 

Landsat images of June 9, July 11, and September 13, 2008. 

These three images span the optimum period for delineating ET units responsible for ETg

 during the summer while 

minimizing the effects and influences of vegetation that rely 

on precipitation for their greenness (such as spring grasses and 

sagebrush).

A vegetation index is a number that is generated by a combination of the visible red and near-infrared remote sensing 

bands and thus has some relation to the vegetation in a given 

image pixel. Vegetation indexes have been used to quantify the 

abundance and vigor of vegetation imaged by multispectral 

sensors (U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center, 2006). 

The MSAVI (Qi and others, 1994) removes soil influences 

from the vegetation index, which makes this index more 

applicable to areas of sparse vegetation densities than other, 

similar vegetation indices (for example: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, Rouse and others, 1973; and Enhanced 

Vegetation Index, Huete and others, 2002). Thus, the MSAVI 

is an appropriate index to use to map changes in the sparse 

plant cover in the Nevada desert landscape. MSAVI values are 

dimensionless and range from –1 to 1.0.

The use of a vegetation index to map vegetation cover is 

based on the assumption that the greener, denser, and more 

vigorous the vegetation, the greater the vegetation index. 

Nichols (2000) observed that in some areas of phreatophytes 

in the Great Basin, medium and short shrubs generally are the 

dominant vegetation type where plant cover is less than about 

35 percent, and grasses, tall shrubs, and trees dominate where 

plant cover is greater than 35 percent. Xerophytic areas are 

those where plant cover is less than about 7 percent and bare 

soil is common. The ET units were iteratively determined by 

using field reconnaissance photographs and high-resolution 

imagery to identify the ranges in MSAVI that adequately 

segregated vegetation characteristics into units that could 

be readily described as in table 5. The initial MSAVI ranges 

and ET unit descriptions used in this iterative process were 

taken from Smith and others (2007). The MSAVI ranges were 

adjusted until discharge areas were effectively and consistently 

subdivided into areas of open water, xerophytes, phreatophytic 

shrublands, riparian areas, meadows, and irrigated croplands. 

For instance, values of MSAVI were repeatedly adjusted until 

areas of open water produced by the data analysis matched 

obvious areas of open water such as the South Fork Reservoir 

and the reservoir in Lamoille Valley. MSAVI values used to 

distinguish ET units in discharge areas were: (1) less than 

0.025 for open water; (2) between 0.025 and less than 0.115 

for xerophytes; (3) between 0.115 and less than 0.165 for 

phreatophytic shrublands; (4) between 0.165 and less than 

0.315 for riparian areas; and (5) 0.315 or greater for meadows 

or recently irrigated crops.

Irrigated acreage was manually delineated as circular and 

rectangular polygons from the Landsat TM images. Each of 

the imagery band combinations was used during the delineation process. For example, riparian vegetation and field runoff 

may be inseparable from irrigated croplands based solely on 

the natural color composite but may be identified based on the 

false-color infrared composite. Recently harvested fields also 

may not show the spectral characteristics typically associated 

with an irrigated field in the false color composite but may be 

clearly defined using a vegetation index. Supplemental geographic information system (GIS) data sets were used to aid in 

the delineation process. For this study, the NAIP imagery was 

used as secondary guides in the delineation process.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of discharge areas and ET 

units in the upper Humboldt River basin. All ET units, except 

recently irrigated cropland were filtered based on a minimum 

mapping unit, which was set at four adjacent pixels, an area 

of about 0.9 acre in the source imagery. An area this size was 

found to provide sufficient resolution within the source areas 

of similar land ET stations in a study by Moreo and others 

(2007). If an ET unit encompassed less than 0.9 acre, it was 

replaced with the value of the ET unit that was closest to it. 

The acreage for each ET unit and total acreages by hydrographic area are listed in table 6 and shown on figure 8 as percentages of the total discharge area. The irrigated crop ET unit 

is the largest of the ET units with 78,461 acres and accounts 

for about 33 percent of the discharge area. The phreatophytic 

shrubland ET unit has the next largest area with 74,933 acres, 

accounts for about 31 percent of the discharge area, and is 
Water-Budget Components 17

Table 5. Evapotranspiration units delineated within discharge areas, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

[See figure 7 for locations of evapotranspiration units. Abbreviations: ET, evapotranspiration; MSAVI, Modified Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index; ft, feet; TM, Thematic Mapper; 

NAIP, National Agricultural Imagery Program; ft/yr, feet per year; Pt; total annual precipitation from fig. 6; ETt, total ET—difference between ETt and Pt is net ET (ETn); ETg, 

groundwater ET—includes ETt in phreatophytic shrublands, riparian, and meadows; ETag, ET of soil moisture originating from precipitation and applied irrigation water—ETag minus Pt

is net irrigation water requirement (NIWR); ETw, evaporation from open water] 

ET unit name ET unit description Photograph

Phreatophytic shrublandsArea is characterized by sparse to moderately dense desert shrubs in open desert with dry 

sandy soil. Shrubs mainly include greasewood, rabbitbrush, and saltbush. Has MSAVI ranging from 0.115 to 0.165. Depth to water can range from about 10 to 50 ft. Vegetation mainly 

relies on soil moisture originating from precipitation, but can occasionally use ground 

water when soil moisture from precipitation is not adequate and depth to water is within the 

plant’s root system. Unit primarily occupies outer parts of discharge areas. ETt rate 1.1 ft/yr.

Riparian areas Area is characterized by cottonwood trees, shrubs such as willows, and marsh vegetation 

such as rushes and reeds. Has MSAVI ranging from 0.165 to 0.315. Depth to water can 

range from about 5 to 20 ft. Vegetation uses soil moisture originating from precipitation and 

groundwater, part of which comes from streamflow losses. Unit primarily occupies areas 

along stream channels. ETt rate 4.1 ft/yr.

Meadows Area is characterized by a dense mixture of phreatophytic shrubs, some saltcedar and moderate to dense understory of saltgrass. Has MSAVI greater than 0.315. Depth to water can 

range from a few feet to 10 ft. Vegetation uses soil moisture originating from precipitation 

and groundwater. This unit primarily occupies areas between riparian areas and phreatophytic shrublands or recently irrigated croplands. ETt

 rate 2.6 ft/yr.

Irrigated croplands Area dominated by irrigated cropland. Soil moisture varies with irrigation practice, but 

typically alternates from very moist to semi-dry during growing season. Irrigated cropland 

areas were determined from photographic interpretation of Landsat TM and NAIP imagery. 

Depth to water typically is greater than 5 ft. Vegetation uses soil moisture originating from 

irrigation. ETag rate, based on net irrigation water requirement, varies from 2.2 to 2.8 ft/yr 

depending on location in study area. See text and table 6 for NIWR rates.

Open water Area of open water, including lakes, reservoirs, Humboldt River and ponds. Reservoir water 

bodies vary in size seasonally. MSAVI value less than 0.025. Unit represents an unlimited 

source of water available for evaporation. ETt rate 5.1 ft/yr.
18 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

dispersed fairly evenly throughout the study area. The riparian ET unit has an area of 63,885 acres, accounts for about 27 

percent of the discharge area, and mainly occurs adjacent to 

streams and springs and along the Humboldt River flood plain. 

The meadow ET unit has an area of 21,400 acres and accounts 

for about 9 percent of the discharge area. The open-water ET 

unit occupies an area of 2,279 acres and accounts for less than 

1 percent of the discharge area.

Net Evapotranspiration and Net Irrigation Water 

Requirement Rates

Net ET rates used for ET units in the upper Humboldt 

River basin were those used for a hydrologic study in eastern 

Nevada (Welch and others, 2007, appendix a). 3 Net ET rates 

used for the upper Humboldt River basin are: phreatophytic 

shrublands, 0.3 ft/yr; riparian areas, 3.3 ft/yr; meadows, 

1.7 ft/yr; and open water, 4.3 ft/yr.

The net irrigation water requirement (NIWR) of an irrigated 

crop is the rate at which water must be applied for the crop to 

grow and remain healthy. The NIWR of a crop is equivalent 

to the net ET rate for other ET units in that both rates equal a 

total rate minus the annual precipitation. Values of NIWR for 

crops in each hydrographic area in Nevada are presented at the 

NDWR website at http://water.nv.gov/mapping/et/et_general.

cfm. NIWR rates for alfalfa and highly managed pasture grass 

are 2.4 ft/yr for the Marys River Area, 2.4 ft/yr for the Starr 

Valley Area, 2.2 ft/yr for the North Fork Area, 2.3 ft/yr for 

Lamoille Valley, 2.5 ft/yr for the South Fork Area, 2.4 ft/yr 

for Huntington Valley, 2.8 ft/yr for the Dixie Creek-Tenmile 

Creek Area, and 2.6 ft/yr for the Elko Segment.

3

 This appendix is a spreadsheet that can be found at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2007/5261/. The discharge-rate tab in the spreadsheet lists net ET rates for 

ET units at 26 sites in 12 basins in eastern Nevada. Net ET rates used for the 

upper Humboldt River basin are averages determined from the spreadsheet. 

ET units in the upper Humboldt River basin correspond with similar units in 

eastern Nevada as follows: phreatophytic shrublands in the upper Humboldt 

River basin correspond with moderately dense desert shrubland in eastern 

Nevada; riparian areas with marshland; meadows with meadowlands; and 

open water with open water. Figure 8. Distribution of evapotranspiration by evapotranspiration unit, as a percentage of total discharge area, upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Table 6. Areas of evapotranspiration units and volumes of net evapotranspiration (ETn) in discharge areas by hydrographic area in the 

upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

[See table 5 and figure 7 for ET unit descriptions and locations. Abbreviations: ET, evapotranspiration; acre-ft/yr, acre feet per year; ft/yr, feet per year]

Hydrographic area

Phreatophytic 

shrublands Riparian areas Meadows Irrigated croplands Open water Totals

Area

(acres)

Volume1

(acre-ft/yr)

Area

(acres)

Volume1

(acre-ft/yr)

Area

(acres)

Volume1

(acre-ft/yr)

Area

(acres)

Volume2

(acre-ft/yr)

Area

(acres)

Volume1

(acre-ft/yr)

Area

(acres)

Volume

(acre-ft/yr)

Marys River 19,376 5,810 17,091 56,400 6,607 11,232 10,804 25,900 109 470 53,987 99,800

Starr Valley 13,164 3,950 10,430 34,400 2,766 4,702 17,976 43,100 3 13 44,339 86,200

North Fork 11,302 3,390 9,251 30,500 5,266 8,952 10,118 22,300 116 500 36,053 65,600

Lamoille Valley 8,685 2,610 7,537 24,900 1,998 3,397 16,450 37,800 436 1,870 35,106 70,600

South Fork 4,357 1,310 4,143 13,700 2,107 3,582 4,383 11,000 1 4 14,991 29,600

Huntington Valley 12,343 3,700 8,544 28,200 1,174 1,996 11,172 26,800 12 52 33,245 60,700

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 3,073 920 1,809 5,970 230 391 3,488 9,770 1,481 6,370 10,081 23,400

Elko Segment 2,633 790 5,080 16,800 1,252 2,128 4,070 10,600 121 520 13,156 30,800

Totals 74,933 22,500 63,885 211,000 21,400 36,400 78,461 187,000 2,279 9,800 240,958 467,000

1

 Volumes of net ET (ETn), in acre-feet per year, calculated as product of ET unit area and net ET rate for each unit (fig. 7). Net ET rates, in feet per year as follows: 0.3 ft/yr for 

phreatophytic shrublands, 3.3 ft/yr for riparian areas, 1.7 ft/yr for meadows, and 4.3 ft/yr for open water. 

2

 Volumes of ET from irrigated crops (ETag), in acre-feet per year, calculated as product of crop area and net irrigation water requirement (NIWR) of crop. Values of NIWR are 

listed for each hydrographic area in the upper Humboldt River basin range on the Nevada Division of Water Resources website at http://water.nv.gov/mapping/et/et_general.cfm. 

Alfalfa and highly managed pasture grass are believed to be most common crops in the upper Humboldt River basin. Average values of NIWR for these two crops, in feet per year, 

are: 2.4 ft/yr-Marys River, 2.4 ft/yr-Starr Valley, 2.2 ft/yr-North Fork, 2.3 ft/yr-Lamoille Valley, 2.5 ft/yr-South Fork, 2.4 ft/yr-Huntington Valley, 2.8 ft/yr-Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek, 

and 2.6 ft/yr-Elko Segment.

Irrigated

croplands

33%

Phreatophytic

shrublands

31%

Riparian areas

27%

Meadows

9%

Open water

Less than 1%

%, percent
Water-Budget Components 19

Net Evapotranspiration Discharge

Volumes of net evapotranspiration (ETn), in acre-feet per 

year, for each hydrographic area in the upper Humboldt River 

basin (table 6) were computed as the sum of the products of 

the area, in acres, of each ET unit and its appropriate net ET 

rate or NIWR, in feet per year. Total volumes of ETn from the 

five ET units shown in table 6 range from 9,800 acre-ft/yr 

for the open water ET unit to 211,000 acre-ft/yr for riparian 

areas. Volumes of ETn from the eight hydrographic areas in the 

upper Humboldt River basin range from 23,400 acre-ft/yr in 

the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area to 99,800 acre-ft/y in the 

Marys River Area. Total net evapotranspiration from discharge 

areas in the upper Humboldt River basin is 467,000 acre-ft/yr. 

As mentioned earlier, the proportions of groundwater and surface water that contribute to this total cannot be determined.

Volumes of net ET discussed above and listed in table 6 

are uncertain for reasons that include the accuracy of the field 

mapping of the ET units and the net ET rates that were used. 

Generally, the outer boundary of discharge areas and of ET 

units could be clearly distinguished from the imagery used for 

the mapping. However, some areas of phreatophytic shrubs 

were mixed with other desert shrubs or were very sparse, 

especially along outer fringes and here the boundary of the 

discharge area was more difficult to define. The outer boundary of phreatophytic shrubs generally occurs at or near the 

same altitude in a given area due to similar depths to groundwater. Where this boundary was not easily defined on the basis 

of data from the field mapped points and NAIP imagery, the 

boundary was estimated using equal altitude contours from a 

digital elevation model.

The net ET rates used to compute net volumes of ET were 

developed in parts of east-central Nevada that are as much 

as 200 mi south of the upper Humboldt River basin. The 

net ET rate, in feet per year, at any site is assumed to be the 

local difference between total ET and total annual precipitation. Annual precipitation in the upper Humboldt River basin 

generally is greater than in areas of Nevada farther south, and 

for this reason the net ET rates used for the present study may 

not be as accurate as if ET rates were directly measured in the 

study area. Measurement of ET rates at strategically located 

micrometeorological stations in the upper Humboldt River 

basin would reduce this uncertainty.

Several basins in east-central Nevada have extensive 

discharge areas including open water, marshes, and meadows (Welch and others, 2007, fig. 34), and for this reason are 

similar to the discharge areas in the upper Humboldt River 

basin. Statistical analysis of the uncertainties of net discharge 

volumes for these basins produced uncertainties of about 25 

percent. It is assumed that this is the approximate uncertainty 

of estimates of net ET for the upper Humboldt River basin.

Evapotranspiration of Precipitation

ET of precipitation (ETp) is the second largest water-budget 

component in the upper Humboldt River basin. It is exceeded 

only by total precipitation (Pt) and it exceeds all other outflow 

components combined. ETp occurs in both discharge areas and 

in non-discharge areas. In discharge areas, ETp is assumed to 

be equal to Pt. In non-discharge areas, ETp is less than or equal 

to Pt and represents ETt. Any differences between ETp and Pt

are due to runoff of precipitation or infiltration of precipitation to the water table. Direct estimation of ETp

 for this study 

was not possible because ET rates in non-discharge areas are 

so variable. Therefore ETp is estimated as the residual of the 

water budget equation (equation 2) and as a result all errors 

and uncertainties in the outflow terms in equation 2 are incorporated in this single term.

Surface-Water Outflow

All surface-water outflow from the upper Humboldt River 

basin is recorded at the Humboldt River near Carlin gaging 

station (USGS site identification number 10321000). This 

station has been in continuous operation since 1944 and the 

mean annual flow for the 65-year period of record is 266,000 

acre-ft/yr (fig. 9). The mean annual flow for the 30-year period 

1971–2000 is 316,000 acre-ft/yr and this is the value used for 

the total water budget.

Flow of the Humboldt River at this site has ranged from 

about 46,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) in 1959 to 1,250,000 acre-ft in 

1984. Years of above average runoff result from a combination 

of warm winter storms and high- and low-altitude snowmelt. 

Years of below-average runoff originate mostly from sparse 

high-altitude snowmelt. From 1945 through 1980, the duration 

of periods of above-average runoff was 1 to 3 years and the 

duration of periods of below-average runoff was 3 to 4 years. 

Since 1980 three droughts of 4, 5, and 8 years duration have 

resulted in extended periods of below-average runoff. However, above-average runoff in 1983–84, 1995–98, and 2005–06 

more than compensated for below-average flows in other years 

and as a result, the 1971–2000 average annual flow exceeds 

the long-term average by 50,000 acre-ft/yr. The record at the 

Carlin gaging station is generally rated as fair, which means 

that the uncertainty of annual volumes of flow shown in figure 

9 is 15 percent (Allander and others, 2001, p. 21 and 208).

Subsurface Flow

Subsurface flow is a minor outflow component of the upper 

Humboldt River basin water budget. However, it can be used 

to estimate subsurface flow between hydrographic areas and 

thus provide minimum estimates of groundwater recharge and 

discharge between hydrographic areas. Subsurface flow is estimated using equation 1. The transmissivity of the aquifer, its 

effective width, and the gradient driving groundwater flow are 

the three variables used in the equation. Locations of subsurface flow sections are shown on figure 10 and aquifer properties and estimates of subsurface flow are listed in table 7.
20 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Sections are located at the downgradient ends of the Marys 

River Area (section A–A’), Starr Valley Area (B–B’), North 

Fork Area (C–C’), Lamoille Valley (D–D’), Huntington Valley 

(E–E’), and Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area (F–F’). Subsurface flow ranges from about 400 acre-ft/yr at the north end of 

Huntington Valley to 3,000 acre-ft/yr in the Starr Valley and 

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Areas. Subsurface outflow from 

the upper Humboldt River basin at the southwest end of the 

Elko Segment (section G–G’, fig. 10 and table 7) is estimated 

to be about 100 acre-ft/yr through Humboldt River flood plain 

deposits and adjacent basin-fill deposits.

Groundwater also leaves the upper Humboldt River basin 

in the southern Ruby Mountains 

(flow section H–H’, fig. 10). The 

relatively high permeability of the 

carbonate rocks in the southern 

Ruby Mountains is indicated by the 

absence of perennial streams (fig. 1). 

This, combined with the eastward 

dip of the rocks, probably results in 

eastward groundwater flow from the 

west side of the Ruby Mountains 

to Ruby Valley east of the study 

area (Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 15; 

and Dudley, 1967, p. 88–98). Rush 

and Everett (1966, p. 15) estimated 

subsurface outflow to Ruby Valley at 

10,000 acre-ft/yr and Dudley (1967, 

p. 97) found that the groundwater 

divide between Huntington and 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Annual flow, in acre-feet per year

1945–2010 average flow

266,000 acre-feet per year

1971–2000 average flow

316,000 acre-feet per year

1945195519651975198519952005

Table 7. Estimates of subsurface flow at eight aquifer cross sections in the upper 

Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Hydrographic area Section1

Mean 

transmissivity2

(feet squared 

per day)

Gradient3

Cross section 

width1

(miles)

Annual 

subsurface flow 

(acre-feet/year)

Marys River A–A' 700 0.004 18 2,000

Starr Valley B–B' 300 0.013 20 3,000

North Fork C–C' 500 0.003 10.4 700

Lamoille Valley D–D' 900 0.003 11 1,000

Huntington Valley E–E' 600 0.002 7 400

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek F–F' 900 0.006 13 3,000

Elko Segment G–G' 700 0.001 4.4 100

Southern Ruby Mountains H–H' 5,000 0.001 20 4,000

1

 See figure 10.

2

 See table 3.

3

 Values for sections A-A' through G-G' from Plume (2009, pl. 1). Value for section H-H' from Berger (2006, p. 27).

Figure 9. Annual flow of the Humboldt River near Carlin, 1945–2010, northeastern Nevada.
Water-Budget Components 21

Figure 10. Locations of subsurface flow sections, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin Lamoille

Jiggs

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Marys River

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

North Fork Area

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Basin fill

Consolidated rocks

Subsurface flow section

Hydrographic area boundary

A’

A

A A’

B’

B

D’

D

C’

C

G’

G

F

F’

E E’

H’

H
22 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Ruby Valleys may be as much as 2 mi west of the topographic 

divide between the two valleys. Total subsurface flow through 

the southern Ruby Mountains is estimated to be about 4,000 

acre-ft/yr based on a transmissivity of 5,000 ft2/d, a flow section width of 20 mi (fig. 11), and a gradient of 0.001 (Berger, 

2006, p. 27).

The estimates of subsurface outflow from the upper 

Humboldt River basin, 100 and 4,000 acre-ft/yr at the southwest end of the Elko Segment and in Huntington Valley at 

the southern end of the Ruby Mountains, respectively, are 

uncertain mostly because the values of transmissivity are so 

uncertain. Transmissivity estimates shown on figure 5 can vary 

by three orders of magnitude over short distances in the upper 

Humboldt River basin. Fortunately, subsurface flow estimates 

are small and are a minor component of the upper Humboldt 

River basin water budget.

Pumpage

Groundwater in the upper Humboldt River basin is mainly 

used for municipal and domestic purposes and irrigation of 

crops. The population of Elko County in 1990, a little more 

than halfway through the 1971–2000 water-budget period, 

was 33,530 (http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/

nv190090.txt). As of 1999 the per capita annual water use 

for domestic and municipal purposes in the Humboldt River 

basin was an estimated 0.4 acre-ft/yr (Prudic and others, 

2006, p. 11). This water-use rate probably did not change 

substantially during the 1971–2000 water-budget period, and 

estimated pumpage for domestic and municipal purposes is 

an estimated 13,000 acre-ft/yr. The area of irrigated croplands (alfalfa and grass) in the upper Humboldt River basin is 

78,461 acres (table 6), but most of this area is irrigated with 

surface water, so pumping for irrigation purposes is most 

likely less than 10,000 acre-ft/yr. In addition, this volume 

of pumpage has been accounted for as ET from the irrigated 

croplands unit. As a result only total annual pumping for 

domestic and municipal uses, 13,000 acre-ft/yr, is used as the 

value of estimated pumpage for the water budget. 

Water Budget

The water budget for the 

upper Humboldt River basin 

is shown in table 8. Total 

inflow, 3,330,000 acre-ft/

yr, comes entirely from 

annual precipitation. Total 

outflow consists of ETp,

which cannot be reliably 

estimated, ETn (467,000 

acre-ft/yr), surface-water 

outflow (316,000 acre-ft/yr), 

subsurface outflow (4,100 

acre-ft/yr), and municipal 

and domestic pumpage 

(13,000 acre-ft/yr). For purposes of this budget total inflow 

and total outflow are assumed to be equal so evapotranspiration of precipitation, 2,530,000 acre-ft/yr, is computed as the 

difference between total inflow and the sum of ETn, surfacewater outflow, subsurface flow and municipal and domestic 

pumpage. As mentioned above ETp is the largest and most 

uncertain of the outflow components and the overall budget 

probably has an uncertainty of 25 percent.

Surface-Water-Groundwater 

Interactions

Surface water and groundwater are interconnected in parts 

of the upper Humboldt River basin. Groundwater seepage to 

stream channels is the main source of streamflow during baseflow periods in late summer and fall and infiltration of streamflow is a source of groundwater recharge. Two methods were 

used to understand these interactions: (1) late fall seepage runs 

and (2) analysis of water-level records in shallow wells along 

the Humboldt River flood plain. 

Seepage Runs 

During a seepage run, flow is measured along a reach 

of stream at multiple sites over as short a time as possible. 

Changes in flow rates between pairs of sites are used to identify stream reaches that either gain flow from groundwater 

seepage to the stream channel, or that lose flow as infiltration 

to the underlying aquifer. Seepage runs typically are done during low flow conditions in late fall after irrigation diversions 

have ended, evapotranspiration rates have decreased to minimum values, before ice accumulates in the stream, and before 

winter storms have affected streamflow. In the upper Humboldt River basin, diversions of streamflow for irrigation end 

each year on August 15 (Malone, 1932, p. 13). When interpreting changes in flow between seepage run sites, it is important 

to know if flow of the stream was changing before or during 

Table 8. Annual water budget, 1971–2000, for the upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.

Inflow (acre-feet per year1) Outflow (acre-feet per year)

Precipitation 3,330,000 Net evapotranspiration in discharge areas (ETn

)2 467,000

Evapotranspiration of precipitation (ETp)3 2,530,000

Streamflow, Humboldt River near Carlin 316,000

Subsurface groundwater flow 4,100

Municipal and domestic pumpage 13,000

Total inflow 3,330,000 acre-feet per year4 Total outflow 3,330,000 acre-feet per year4

1

 See table 4. 

2

 See table 6.

3

 Computed as difference between inflow and total of all other outflow components.

4

 Uncerainty is probably at least 25 percent.
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 23

B October and early November 2009 Flow in cubic feet per second Flow in cubic feet per second

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10/1 10/8 10/15 10/22 10/29 11/5

U.S. Geological Survey gaging station and number

Marys River, 10315500

Lamoille Creek, 10316500

North Fork, 10317500

Humboldt River near Elko, 10318500

South Fork above Dixie Creek, 10320000

Humboldt River near Carlin, 10321000

U.S. Geological Survey gaging station and number

Marys River, 10315500

Lamoille Creek, 10316500

North Fork, 10317500

Humboldt River near Elko, 10318500

South Fork above Dixie Creek, 10320000

Humboldt River near Carlin, 10321000

Seepage run

Seepage run

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

10/1 10/8 10/15 10/22 10/29

A October 2008

Figure 11. Streamflow conditions at six gaging stations before and during the fall seepage runs in the upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada: A, October 2008 and B, October and early November 2009. 
24 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

the seepage run. Figure 11 shows hydrographs recorded at six 

stream gaging stations—two on the mainstem Humboldt River 

near Elko and Carlin and four on its main tributaries. These 

hydrographs are used as an aid in interpreting the seepage run 

data.

Seepage runs were done during the weeks of October 

20–24, 2008, at 88 sites and November 2–6, 2009, at 103 sites 

(fig. 12; appendixes 1–3). Analysis of the 2008 streamflow 

data was used to adjust the number and locations of sites for 

the 2009 run. During the two seepage runs streamflow was 

measured on the mainstem Humboldt River and on its tributaries. Site locations are shown on figures 12 and 13A–18A. 

Changes in streamflow are shown as graphs of streamflow 

plotted against distance, in miles, downstream of the uppermost site on each stream (figs. 13B–18B). Each streamflow 

measurement is shown on the graphs as a vertical bar that 

represents its uncertainty. Nearly all of the measurements were 

rated as fair (8 percent) and this is the range shown by each 

bar.

Marys River

Streamflow was measured at 13 sites in the Marys River 

Area (fig. 13A; appendix 1). Six of the sites were on Bishop 

and Tabor Creeks which are tributaries of the Humboldt River, 

two were on T and Currant Creeks which are tributaries of 

Marys River, and five were on Marys River. The reach of 

Marys River between sites MR1 and MR2 lost 2.5 cubic feet 

per second (ft3/s) to infiltration in 2008 and gained 1.9 ft3/s in 

2009, possibly in part from tributary inflow of T and Currant Creeks (fig. 13 and appendixes 2 and 3); however, this 

small gain is questionable because it is within the uncertainties of the two flow measurements used to calculate it. Flow 

between sites MR2 and MR3 increased by 2.0 ft3/s in 2008 

and decreased by 4.1 ft3/s in 2009. The reasons for a flow 

gain in one year and a loss in the next are not clear. In both 

years Marys River rapidly lost flow below site MR3; and in its 

lower reaches at and below site MR4, the river was dry. This 

is consistent with a statistical analysis of Marys River streamflow that indicates the lower reaches have no baseflow (Plume, 

2009, p. 5). The hydrographs for flow of Marys River at site 

MR3 in figure 11 indicate that flow was not changing appreciably either before or during either of the seepage runs.

Starr Valley Area

The Starr Valley Area is drained by several small streams 

that are tributaries of the Humboldt River (fig. 12; appendix 

1). During the 2008 and 2009 seepage runs these streams 

contributed only minor amounts of streamflow to the river 

(appendix 1). For this reason no detailed analysis of the flow 

of these streams is presented.

North Fork Humboldt River

Streamflow was measured at 15 sites in the North Fork 

Area, 7 on the North Fork Humboldt River and 8 on its 

tributaries (fig. 14A; appendix 1). Flow changes between sites 

NF1, NF2, and NF3 were minimal in both 2008 and 2009, 

which indicates little or no interchange of groundwater and 

streamflow along this reach of the North Fork Humboldt 

River (fig. 14B). Site NF3A is on the North Fork Humboldt 

River just below the mouth of Pie Creek. Streamflow at this 

site was not measured; the value shown on figure 14B is the 

sum of measured flow at the mouth of Pie Creek (PC2) and 

in the river just above Pie Creek at site NF3. Pie Creek is an 

ephemeral stream in its upper reaches in the North Fork Area. 

However, the flow of Pie Creek increased from 6.3 to 13 ft3/s 

in 2009 as a result of groundwater seepage to its channel along 

the reach that is 0.6 mi above its mouth (fig. 14B and appendix 3). The channel of Pie Creek is incised in older basin-fill 

deposits that, along with younger basin-fill deposits, are the 

principal aquifer in the upper part of the North Fork Area 

(Plume, 2009, pl. 1). Groundwater discharge to the channel of Pie Creek probably is the result of eastward thinning 

of the aquifer which is underlain by and juxtaposed against 

poorly permeable volcanic rocks consisting of rhyolite flows 

on the east side of the upper basin (Coats, 1987, pl. 1). The 

North Fork Humboldt River lost 1.2 and 5.7 ft3/s, respectively 

between Pie and Beaver Creeks (sites NF3a and NF4) as a 

result of infiltration into underlying volcanic rocks which are 

described as welded tuffs (Coats, 1987, pl. 1). These rocks 

are probably fractured and, as a result, may be fairly permeable. The North Fork Humboldt River gained 5.6 and 6.1 ft3

/s, 

respectively, between sites NF4 and NF5 in 2008 and 2009. 

A small part of the gains were from Beaver Creek (0.7 and 

1.7 ft3/s in 2008 and 2009, respectively) and the rest from 

groundwater seepage to the North Fork channel. This reach 

of the river is incised into several types of volcanic rocks 

and older basin-fill deposits (Coats, 1987, pl. 1), and it is not 

known which is the source of groundwater seepage to the 

stream channel. The North Fork Humboldt River loses flow 

between sites NF5, NF6, and NF7 at its mouth as a result of 

infiltration to the underlying aquifer. The hydrographs for flow 

of the North Fork Humboldt River at site NF5 in figure 11 

indicate that flow variations were about 1 ft3/s just before and 

during both of the seepage runs. However, these fluctuations 

were not enough to affect interpretation of the seepage run 

data.

Lamoille Creek

During the two seepage runs Lamoille Creek lost flow, 

4.1 ft3/s in 2008 and 4.5 ft3/s in 2009, between site LC1 at the 

mouth of Lamoille Canyon and site LC8 near the confluence 

with the Humboldt River (fig. 15). The flow losses occurred as 

a result of diversions and infiltration of streamflow into permeable deposits of glacial outwash and till. Historical records 

for the Elko airport weather station, available on the internet, 
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 25

Creek

Bishop

Creek

Dixie

Creek

Huntington

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River Humboldt

Fork South

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

South Fork

Reservoir

Marys River

Foreman

Creek

Pie Creek

Wells

Deeth

Elko

Carlin

Lamoille

Jiggs

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

40°00'

41°30'

116°00'

115°00'

Jarbidge

Mountains Snake

Mountains

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 20 Miles

Marys 0 5 10 20 Kilometers

River

Area North Fork

Area

Elko

Segment

Starr

Valley

Area

Lamoille

Valley

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Huntington

Valley

Elko

Hills

Ruby

Mountains

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

East

Humboldt

Range

Adobe

Range

Peko

Hills

Independence

Mountains

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2008

2009

2008 and 2009

Figure 12. Locations of sites where streamflow was measured during fall seepage runs, 2008–09, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada.
26 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 13. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in the Marys River Area during the fall seepage runs of 2008 and 2009 

and B, Streamflow measurements along Marys River between sites MR1 and MR5, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

Creek Bishop

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Starr Creek

Tabor

Creek

Marys River

6

6

BC1

MR5

MR2

CC1

TB1&2

TB3

MR4

MR3

MR1

TB4

TC1

BC2

Deeth

Wells

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers

115°30' 114°45'

41°45'

41°00'

Peko 

Hills

Snake

Mountains

East Humboldt

Range

Jarbidge

Mountains

See appendix 1 for site information

Starr

Valley

Area

Marys

River North Fork Area Area Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles below site MR-1

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

MR1

MR1

MR2

MR2

MR3

MR3

MR4 MR5

Oct. 2008

Nov. 2009

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements 

A

B

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2009

2008 and 2009
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 27

Figure 14. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in the North Fork Area during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, 

and B, Streamflow measurements along the North Fork Humboldt River between sites NF1 and NF7, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada.

River

Humboldt

North

Fork

Humboldt

River

ForemanCreek

Sheep Creek

MahalaCreek

Cottonwood Creek

Pie Creek

Beaver Creek

NF7

NF1

CT1

NF5

NF6

ML1

SH1

PC1

FC1&2

NF2

NF3

PC2 NF4

BV1

NF3A

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2009

2008 and 2009

116°00' 115°30'

41°30'

41°00'

Peko 

Hills

Jarbidge

Mountains

See appendix 1 for site information

North Fork

Area

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers

Independence

Mountains

Lamoille

Valley

Elko

Segment

Adobe

Range

Marys

River

Area

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles below site NF-1

Oct. 2008

Oct. 2009

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NF1

NF1

NF2

NF2

NF3

NF3

NF4

NF4

NF5

NF5

NF6

NF6

NF7

NF7

NF3a

NF3a

A

B
28 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

 Figure 15. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in Lamoille Valley during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and B, 

Streamflow measurements along Lamoille Creek and its diversions between sites LC1 and LC8, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.

Creek

Talbot

Creek

Thorpe

ColdCreek

Creek

Day

John

Lake 

Phyllis

Lamoille

Creek

R Humboldt

North

Fork

Creek

Secret

River

Humboldt

Fork S

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

LC8

CL1

LC1

JD1

LC2&3

TL1

TH1

TL2 LC4,5,6&7

Lamoille

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2008 and 2009

115°35' 115°10'

40°55'

40°35'

See appendix 1 for site information

North Fork

Area

0 2 4 6 8 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers

Lamoille

Valley

Ruby

Mountains

Starr Valley

Area

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area

South Fork

Area

East

Humboldt

Range

Elko

Hills

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles below site LC1

Nov. 2009

Oct. 2008

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

LC1

LC8

LC2&3

LC4,5,6,&7

LC1

LC8

LC2&3

LC4,5,6,&7

A

B
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 29

show that about 0.4 inch (in) of rain fell in early October 

2008 (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv2573), 

and a similar amount fell during middle to late October 2009 

(http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv2573). These 

storms briefly affected the flow of Lamoille Creek in both 

years (fig. 11), but neither appears to have affected flow during 

the seepage runs. 

Huntington Creek

Huntington Creek originates in southern Huntington Valley 

at Defue Spring (site HC1, fig. 16A). Between this site and 

HC4 at Jiggs, a channel distance of about 30 mi, Huntington 

Creek gradually lost about 3.6 and 4.3 ft3/s in the 2008 and 

2009 seepage runs, respectively (fig. 16B). These flow losses 

are believed to be due to infiltration to the underlying aquifer because no irrigation diversions were operating and no 

tributaries had any flow. South of Jiggs, Huntington Valley 

is bounded by permeable carbonate rocks and all mountain 

streams are ephemeral (Plume 2009, p. 7). As a result this 

30-mi reach of Huntington Creek receives tributary inflow 

only during periods of flooding.

The increase in flow of Huntington Creek in 2008–09 

between sites HC4 at Jiggs and HC8 at its confluence with the 

South Fork Humboldt River can be attributed to groundwater 

discharge to its channel and to a lesser extent tributary inflow 

(fig. 16A and B; appendixes 2 and 3). Between sites HC4 and 

HC5 the total gain in 2008 and 2009 was 0.82 and 1.7 ft3/s, 

respectively. In 2008 all of the gain was from groundwater; in 

2009, 0.34 ft3/s was from Smith Creek and 1.4 ft3/s was from 

groundwater. Between sites HC5 and HC6 total gains in 2008 

and 2009 were 2.1 and 2.5 ft3/s, respectively, almost entirely 

from groundwater seepage. Between sites HC6 and HC7 total 

gains in 2008 and 2009 were 1.6 and 2.5 ft3/s, respectively. 

In 2008 the gain was 1 ft3/s from Willow Creek and 0.56 ft3/s 

from groundwater. In 2009 the gain was 1.2 ft3/s from Willow 

Creek and 1.4 ft3/s from groundwater. Thus, total groundwater 

discharge to the channel of Huntington Creek downstream 

from Jiggs during the 2008 and 2009 seepage runs was 3.5 

ft3/s and 5.3 ft3/sec, respectively.

South Fork Humboldt River

The South Fork Humboldt River originates in the South 

Fork Area, passes through the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 

Area, and joins the mainstem Humboldt River in the Elko 

Segment (fig. 17A). Flow is regulated by South Fork Reservoir in the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area and is reflected 

by the gap in the curves on figure 17B. Its main tributaries are 

Huntington Creek above South Fork Reservoir and Tenmile 

and Dixie Creeks below the reservoir. Sites SF1, SF2, SF3, 

and SF4 are in the reach of the South Fork Humboldt River 

above the reservoir. This reach of the river abruptly gains flow 

between sites SF3 and SF4. In 2008 the gain was 6.8 ft3/s of 

which 3.9 ft3/s was from Huntington Creek (site HC8) and 

2.9 ft3/s was from groundwater discharge to the stream channel 

(appendix 2). In 2009 flow of the South Fork Humboldt River 

at its confluence with Huntington Creek was 11 ft3/s (combined flow of sites SF3 and HC8), but instead of a downstream 

gain due to groundwater seepage there was an infiltration 

loss of 1.2 ft3/s at site SF4 (appendix 3). However, this loss 

may not be significant because it barely exceeds the 8 percent 

uncertainty of the measurements.

The South Fork Humboldt River passes through a rugged canyon below South Fork Reservoir before entering the 

Elko Segment and joining the mainstem Humboldt River. 

The main hydrogeologic unit in this area is carbonate and 

clastic sedimentary rocks consisting of interbedded limestone, 

dolomite, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate (Smith and 

Ketner, 1972; Plume, 2009, pl.1). The flow in this reach of 

the river comes from releases from the reservoir, intermittent 

inflow from Tenmile and Dixie Creeks and discharge from 

numerous springs in the lower part of the canyon. Site SF5 is 

about 1.7 mi below the reservoir and its flow in 2008 and 2009 

(Tenmile Creek and reservoir releases) was 4.2 and 6.7 ft3/s, 

respectively (appendixes 2 and 3). During both seepage runs, 

releases from the South Fork Reservoir had minimal effects 

on flow of the river at site SF5 (http://water.nv.gov/data/

southfork/). The river gradually lost flow to channel infiltration between sites SF5 and SF8, a river channel distance of 

about 4.8 mi. However, the river abruptly gained flow from 

numerous springs discharging from carbonate and clastic 

sedimentary rocks between sites SF8 and SF11, a river channel distance of 4.6 mi. In October 1964 this reach of the river 

gained about 12 ft3/s (Rush and Everett, 1966, p. 23). In 2008 

and 2009 the gains were about 15 ft3/s and 13 ft3/s, respectively. The largest part of the gain in 2009, 8.6 ft3

/s, occurred 

between sites SF9 and SF11, a river channel distance of less 

than 1 mi (appendix 3). The South Fork Humboldt River lost 

nearly 2 and 4 ft3/s in 2008 and 2009, respectively, between 

the mouth of the canyon at site SF11 and its confluence with 

the mainstem Humboldt River at site SF12 as a result of channel infiltration.

One of the main conclusions of the phase one report was 

that northward groundwater flow from Huntington Valley, 

across the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area, and through 

the hills between the Elko Hills and Pinyon Range to the 

Elko Segment was distributed along a 10-mi wide flow section (Plume, 2009, p. 13). However, the seepage run results 

indicate that this groundwater flow instead converges at the 

springs in the South Fork Humboldt River canyon.

Mainstem Humboldt River

The Humboldt River channel is the designated boundary 

between the Marys River and North Fork Areas on the north 

and the Starr Valley Area and Lamoille Valley on the south 

(fig. 18A). At the east end of the Elko Hills the river enters the 

Elko Segment and leaves the upper Humboldt River basin near 

Carlin. The main tributaries of the upper Humboldt River are 

Marys River, Lamoille Creek, North Fork Humboldt River, 
30 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 16. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured in Huntington Valley during the fall seepage runs, 2008 and 2009, and 

B, Streamflow measurements along Huntington Creek between sites HC1 and HC8, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.

River

Humboldt Fork

South

Defue

Spring

Creek

Smith

Creek

Huntington

Willow Creek

Creek

Cottonwood

HC1

HC7

HC8

SM3

WC1

HC2

HC3

SM1

HC4 SM2

HC5 CW1

HC6

Jiggs

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2008 and 2009

2009

116°00' 115°15'

40°30'

40°00' See appendix 1 for site information

0 2 4 6 8 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers

Ruby

Mountains

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area South Fork

Area

Diamond

Mountains

Pinon

Range

Huntington

Valley

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles below site HC1

Oct. 2008

Nov. 2009

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements

0

2

4

6

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

HC1 HC2

HC3

HC4

HC5

HC5

HC6

HC6

HC7

HC7 HC8

HC8

A

B
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 31

Figure 17. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured on the South Fork Humboldt River during the fall seepage runs, 

2008–09, and B, Streamflow measurements along the South Fork Humboldt River between sites SF1 and SF12, upper Humboldt River 

basin, northeastern Nevada.

Lamoille

Creek

River

Humboldt Fork

South

Creek

Tenmile

River

Huntington Creek

Creek

Dixie

South Fork

Reservoir

Humboldt

HC8

SF3

SF2

SF1

SF12

DX1

SF6

SF8

SF11

SF7 TM4

SF4

DX2

SF5 DX3

SF9

SF10

TM5

Elko

Lamoille

Jiggs

Above South Fork Reservoir South Fork Reservoir Below Fork Reservoir

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

116°00' 115°30'

40°50'

40°20'

See appendix 1 for site information

Huntington

Valley

0 2 4 6 8 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers

Lamoille

Valley

Ruby

Mountains

Elko

Segment

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area

South Fork

Area

Elko

Hills

Pinon

Range

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2009

2008 and 2009

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles below site SF-1

Oct. 2008

Oct. 2009

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SF1

SF2

SF2 SF3

SF3

SF4

SF4

SF5

SF5

SF6

SF6

SF7 SF8

SF8

SF9

SF10

SF11

SF11

SF12

SF12

A

B
32 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 18. A, Locations of sites where streamflow was measured on the mainstem Humboldt River during the fall seepage runs, 2008 

and 2009, and B, Streamflow measurements along the mainstem Humboldt River between sites HR1 and HR16, upper Humboldt River 

basin, northeastern Nevada.

Lamoille

Creek

R

Humboldt Fork

South

Creek

Tenmile

Humboldt

River

Humboldt

River

Creek

Dixie

South Fork

Reservoir

Creek Bishop

Marys River

Tabor

Creek

Creek

Secret

River

Humboldt

North Fork

HR2

HR5

HR6

HR7

HR8

HR10 HR9

HR11

HR13

HR14

HR15

HR16

HR12

HR3

HR1

HR4

Halleck

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Hillshade from 30-meter USGS National Elevation Dataset, 1999 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, NAD of 1983

116°00' 115°10'

41°20'

40°40'

See appendix 1 for site information

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers

Lamoille

Valley

Ruby

Mountains

Elko

Segment

Dixie CreekTenmile Creek

Area

South Fork

Area

Peko

Hills

Pinon

Range

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Discharge measurement sites

2008

2009

2008 and 2009

Independence

Mountains

Elko

Hills Elko

Lamoille

Deeth

North Fork

Area

Starr Valley

Area

East

Humboldt

Range

Marys

River

Area

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Miles downstream from site HR16

Oct. 2008

Oct. 2009

Vertical error bars indicate 8 percent 

range of uncertainty of measurements

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

HR3 HR4&5

HR2

HR1 HR6&7 HR8 HR9

HR10

HR10

HR11

HR11

HR13

HR12

HR12

HR13

HR14

HR14

HR15

HR15

HR16

HR16

A

B
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 33

and South Fork Humboldt River. Several small streams in the 

Starr Valley and Marys River Areas contribute flow to the river 

during the snowmelt runoff, but contribute little flow during 

the baseflow period of late summer and fall. Flow of the upper 

Humboldt River was measured at 15 sites in 2008 and 2009. 

Four of these are site pairs where the river has two channels 

(sites HR4 and HR5 at Deeth and HR6 and HR7 near Halleck). The uppermost site is just above the confluence with 

Bishop Creek (HR1) and the lowermost is near Carlin (HR16, 

USGS site number 10321000), a river channel distance of 

about 104 mi (fig. 18A and B). In 2008–09 the Humboldt 

River had no flow in its reaches above the North Fork Humboldt River (appendixes 2 and 3) with four exceptions: (1) 

flow was 0.48 ft3/s in 2009 at site HR1 just above the confluence with Bishop Creek, (2) flow was 3.4 ft3

/s in 2008 at site 

HR2 probably from tributary inflow from Bishop Creek, (3) 

flow was 0.31 ft3/s in its right channel near Halleck at site HR6 

in 2009, and (4) flow was 0.36 and 1.0 ft3/s in 2008 and 2009, 

respectively, above the confluence with the North Fork Humboldt River at site HR9. Flow of the upper Humboldt River 

was well below average in 2008–09 which accounts partly for 

the minimal baseflow. In years of normal precipitation and 

high-altitude snowpack, baseflow might be present in most of 

this reach of the river.

The upper Humboldt River abruptly gained about 8.4 ft3/s 

in 2008 and 16 ft3/s in 2009 between sites HR9 and HR10. 

Most of these gains were due to tributary inflow from the 

North Fork Humboldt River (site NF7 appendixes 2 and 3). 

However the upper Humboldt River also gained flow, 1.8 ft3/s 

in 2008 and 3.2 ft3/s in 2009, as groundwater discharge to its 

channel in the reach from below its confluence with the North 

Fork Humboldt River to site HR10. Flow of the Humboldt 

River at the Elko gaging station (site HR10) increased by 

about 0.7 and 1 ft3/s during the 2008 and 2009 seepage runs, 

respectively (fig. 11). Both of these increases in flow during 

the seepage runs makes the magnitude of the gains attributed 

to groundwater uncertain. 

Between sites HR10, HR11, and HR12 the river lost flow, 

8.7 ft3/s in 2008 and 4.5 ft3/s in 2009, as infiltration to the 

underlying aquifer. Between sites HR12 and HR15 the river 

gained about 1.5 ft3/s in 2008 and 1.7 ft3/s in 2009. However, 

the changes in flow over the reaches of river channel between 

each of these five pairs of sites are very uncertain because all 

are well within the uncertainty of the measurements (fig. 18B).

The upper Humboldt River again abruptly gained flow 

between sites HR15 and HR16—17 ft3/s in 2008 and 19 ft3/s 

in 2009. Most of these gains were due to tributary inflow from 

the South Fork Humboldt River, which originates as spring 

discharge over a short reach of river channel. The Humboldt 

River channel also appears to have gained 1.6 ft3/s in 2008 and 

5.0 ft3/s in 2009 (appendixes 2 and 3) downstream from the 

confluence with the South Fork Humboldt River. However, 

the 2008 gain is well within the uncertainties of the measurements used to compute it. Finally, flow of the Humboldt River 

at the Carlin gaging station (site HR16) increased from 15 to 

18 ft3/s during the 2008 seepage run and fluctuated between 32 

and 35 ft3/s during the 2009 seepage run (fig. 11). As a result, 

apparent flow gains of the Humboldt River downstream from 

the South Fork Humboldt River are considered to be very 

uncertain. 

Results of the October 2008 and November 2009 seepage 

runs on the upper Humboldt River and its tributaries indicate 

that in years of below-average runoff, the reach of the river 

east of the Elko Hills has minimal baseflow, and in the reaches 

to the west, most baseflow comes from tributary inflow of the 

North Fork and South Fork Humboldt Rivers. However, the 

flow of these two tributaries comes from groundwater discharge to their respective channels where they have incised 

canyons in bedrock. The canyon incised by the North Fork 

Humboldt River is in volcanic rocks 16 to 26 mi upstream 

from its mouth. The canyon incised by the South Fork Humboldt River is in carbonate rocks 3 to 7 mi upstream from its 

mouth.

Shallow Flood Plain Groundwater Levels

To understand the interactions between flow of the Humboldt River and groundwater, four shallow wells were drilled 

across the river flood plain near Elko in November 2008 

(fig. 19). Well MR-1 was drilled on the left (south) bank of the 

river, MR-2 was drilled about 110 ft from the left bank, MR-3 

was drilled at 530 ft, and MR-4 was drilled at 1,900 ft from 

the left bank. The wells range from 14.5 to 26 ft in depth and 

all four penetrated 4 to 12 ft of soil, silt, and clay and 3 to 13 ft 

of clean sand and gravel (table 9). Wells MR-1 and MR-4 bottomed in hard green clay. This clay is at an altitude of about 

5,022 ft at both wells and may underlie the Humboldt River 

flood plain and adjacent areas in the Elko Segment.

Pressure transducers with recorders were installed in each 

of the wells and in the river in early March 2010 to record 

hourly depths to groundwater and river stage. Figure 20 shows 

five hydrographs, one for river-stage altitude and four for 

water-level altitude in the wells for the period early March 

2010 through September 2011. The curves on the graph show 

that shallow groundwater beneath the Humboldt River flood 

plain at wells MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 and flow in the river 

are well connected at distances at least as far as well MR-3, 

530 ft from the left bank of the river. Water levels in the three 

wells closely track changes in the stage of the river. In contrast, flow in the river and water levels at well MR–4, 1,900 

ft from the left bank, are not as well connected. Water-level 

responses in this well to abrupt changes in river stage were 

much more gradual and subdued than water levels in wells 

MR-1, MR-2 and MR-3. Even though data for well MR-4 are 

missing during the streamflow peak of 2010, its hydrograph is 

consistently subdued compared with hydrographs for the other 

three wells. Water-level changes in MR-4 in 2011 were also 

subdued but more closely tracked river stage because the 2011 

spring and early summer runoff was more prolonged than in 

2010. The MR-4 hydrographs both indicate that the connection between the river and shallow flood plain aquifer becomes 

tenuous between 530 and 1,900 ft from the left bank of the 

river.
34 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 19. Location of shallow wells MR-1, MR-2, MR-3 and MR-4 drilled in the Humboldt River flood plain below Elko, upper Humboldt 

River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

Basemap modified from USGS Digital data, 2011

Base from National Agricultural Imagery Program 2010 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11

North American Datum of 1983

115°49'

0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet

0 100 200 300 400 Meters

EXPLANATION

Well and identification number

MR-4

MR-2

MR-1

MR-3

115°48'20"

40°48'10"

40°48'40"

Location of

image shown
Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions 35

Table 9. Lithology of Humboldt River flood plain deposits penetrated by wells MR-1, MR-2, MR-3, and MR-4 near 

Elko, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 

[See figure 19 for well locations]

Well name Nevada log number1

Depth (feet) Thickness

(feet) Lithology

From To

MR-1 107797 0 7 7 Road fill

7 9 2 Brown silty clay

9 9.5 0.5 Fine brown sand

9.5 15 5.5 Sandy gravel, rounded pebbles up to 1 inch

15 17 2 Gravel, rounded pebbles to 1 inch

17 18 1 Sand

18 22 4 Gravel

22 22.5 0.5 Greenish-brown clay, hard drilling

MR-2 107796 0 2 2 Cobbly road fill

2 4 2 Gravelly sand

4 6 2 Sandy clay

6 13 7 Clayey sand

13 14.5 1.5 Gravel and sand

MR-3 107795 0 0.5 0.5 Black clay soil

0.5 1 0.5 Gravel

1 5 4 Black silty clay

5 9 4 Sand and gravel

9 11.5 2.5 Sandy gravel, rounded pebbles to 1 inch

11.5 14.5 3 Sand and gravel with clay stringers

MR-4 107794 0 8 8 Brown silty sand, little clay

8 12 4 Brown silty clay

12 25.5 13.5 Rounded gravel to 1.5 inches and cobbles to 

4 inches

25.5 26 0.5 Green hard clay

1

 Nevada drillers’ logs can be accessed at http://water.nv.gov/data/welllog/

Together the five hydrographs show substantial differences 

in response to the snowmelt runoff in 2010 and 2011. The 

spring 2010 runoff began in mid-April and was over before 

mid-June. In contrast, the spring 2011 runoff began in midFebruary and did not begin to decline until early July. The 

duration of the 2011 runoff was more than twice that in 2010 

because of the substantially greater snowpack especially at 

low altitudes. In addition, cool temperatures in April and May 

ensured that the snowpack melted gradually.

The spring 2010 runoff was short because of a belowaverage late spring snowpack and warm temperatures. As a 

result the limited snowpack melted so rapidly that peak stages 

exceeded those of the substantially longer and larger 2011 

runoff. From late April through early July, river stage was 

a few tenths of a foot higher than groundwater levels in the 

adjacent flood plain at wells MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3, and 

streamflow moved into bank storage in the shallow aquifer. 

The spring snowmelt runoff began to decline by about June 

9, and the decline in stage continued through the summer to 

around August 6. By early July, river stage was lower than 

groundwater levels in the flood plain and groundwater in bank 

storage began to be released back into the river channel.

River stage again began to rise around August 6 and continued through early October. The period during which flow 

of the upper Humboldt River can be diverted for irrigation 

use each year is April 15 to August 15 (Malone, 1932, p. 13) 

and this helps explain the rising stage of the river after August 

15. However, the reason for the rise in stage between August 

6 and 15 is not clear unless irrigators were already ending 

diversions of streamflow. By about mid-October, river stage 

and water levels in well MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 were similar, 

differing by only a few tenths of a foot; this continued through 

the winter of 2010–11.

The peaks of the stage hydrograph and hydrographs for the 

three wells nearest the river (wells MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3) 

closely coincide from October 2010 through February 2011. 

From late February through mid-June 2011, river stage rose 

during several warm periods separated by intervening cool 

periods and lower stages. From early March through late 

July 2011, river stage was higher than groundwater levels in 
36 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Figure 20. Stage of the Humboldt River and groundwater levels in the adjacent flood plain near Elko, upper Humboldt River basin, 

northeastern Nevada. Altitude in feet above sea level

Month and year

5,032

5,034

5,036

5,038

5,040

5,042

Mar. 2010 June 2010 Sept. 2010 Jan. 2011 Apr. 2011 July 2011

See figure 19 for site locations

River stage

MR-1

MR-2

MR-3

MR-4

the adjacent flood plain. However, the volume of streamflow 

available for bank storage exceeded the capacity of the shallow aquifer to store the water as indicated by water levels 

that rose to land surface at wells MR-2 and MR-3. The spring 

snowmelt runoff began to decline by about mid-June, and by 

late July, stream stage had declined below water levels in the 

shallow aquifer along the river flood plain releasing water in 

bank storage back to the river channel.

Conclusions

The present channel of the Humboldt River occupies a 

flood plain that ranges in width from about 1,000 feet (ft) in 

the canyon through the Elko Hills to 1 to 3 miles in upstream 

and downstream reaches. This wide flood plain was created 

by the ancient Humboldt River during the Lamoille and Angel 

Lake glacial substages when flows were much higher than 

at present. The ancient Humboldt River incised a channel in 

deposits of a Pliocene lake, and as flows gradually decreased 

after the last glacial substage the present Humboldt River 

came to occupy a narrow part of the flood plain. Flood plain 

deposits probably are less than 50 ft thick and consist of sand 

and gravel interbedded with silt and clay that function as a 

shallow water-table aquifer. During the spring snowmelt each 

year, this aquifer is recharged by streamflow that enters the 

aquifer as bank storage. Later in the summer, as stream stage 

declines, the same water leaves bank storage and helps sustain 

flow in the river. The timing and duration of the snowmelt runoff each year depend on the volume of high-altitude snowpack 

and on daily temperatures during spring and early summer. 

Along a reach of the river near Elko, flood plain deposits are 

more permeable than adjacent and underlying fine-grained 

sediments of the Pliocene lake and, as a result, the two are not 

well connected hydraulically. This is true for most reaches of 

the river because it has very little baseflow that can be attributed to groundwater discharge to its channel. Water levels in 

flood plain deposits change in response to changes in stage 

of the Humboldt River. Water-level changes in sediments of 

the Pliocene lake have little or no influence on water levels in 

flood plain deposits because of the poor hydraulic connection 

between the two.

Summary

Elko County, Nevada, and state water-resource managers 

need information that will enable them to make informed decisions regarding future use and development of the groundwater resources of the upper Humboldt River basin. To address 

these needs and concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey, in 

cooperation with Elko County, conducted a study to develop 

an improved understanding of the water resources of the upper 

Humboldt River basin in northeastern Nevada. This report 
References Cited 37

summarizes the findings of phase two of the study, which was 

conducted in federal fiscal years 2009–11, and describes the 

lithologic and hydrologic properties of basin-fill aquifers, presents a water budget for the period 1971–2000, and explains 

interactions between groundwater and surface water.

The upper Humboldt River basin covers an area of about 

4,360 square miles in northeastern Nevada and consists of 

eight hydrographic areas—Marys River Area, Starr Valley 

Area, North Fork Area, Lamoille Valley, South Fork Area, 

Huntington Valley, Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area, and 

the Elko Segment. These eight areas are the headwaters of 

the Humboldt River, and nearly all of the annual flow of the 

river in years of average flow originates from this area. The 

main tributaries of the upper Humboldt River are South Fork 

Humboldt River, North Fork Humboldt River, Lamoille Creek, 

and Marys River.

Basin-fill deposits function as the principal aquifers in the 

upper Humboldt River basin. Over much of the basin lowlands, the upper 200 ft of these deposits consist of a mixture 

of fine- and coarse-grained sediments that were deposited in 

a lake of middle to late Pliocene age. The deposits consist of 

relatively thick sequences of clay and silt deposited during 

high stands of the lake and interbeds of sand and gravel deposited by streams during low stands. Fine-grained lacustrine 

sediments compose from 30 to more than 70 percent of the 

deposits and mean values of transmissivity are less than 1,000 

feet squared per day.

Total inflow to the upper Humboldt River basin, 3,330,000 

acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr), comes entirely from annual 

precipitation. Total outflow is assumed to equal inflow and 

occurs as evapotranspiration of precipitation (2,530,000 

acre-ft/yr), net evapotranspiration from discharge areas 

(467,000 acre-ft/yr), flow of the Humboldt River (316,000 

acre-ft/yr), subsurface flow (4,100 acre-ft/yr), and municipal 

and domestic pumpage (13,000 acre-ft/yr). The uncertainty of 

this water budget is estimated to be about 25 percent.

The results of October 2008 and November 2009 seepage 

runs on the upper Humboldt River and its tributaries indicate 

that in years of below-average runoff, the reach of the river 

east of the Elko Hills has minimal baseflow, and in reaches to 

the west, most baseflow comes from tributary inflow of the 

North Fork and South Fork Humboldt Rivers. However, the 

flow of these two tributaries comes from groundwater discharge to their respective channels where they have incised 

canyons in bedrock. The canyon incised by the North Fork 

Humboldt River is in volcanic rocks 16 to 26 miles upstream 

from its mouth. The canyon incised by the South Fork Humboldt River is in carbonate rocks 3 to 7 miles upstream from 

its mouth.

Stage of the Humboldt River and water levels in the adjacent water-table aquifer were monitored at a site near Elko 

between March 2010 and September 2011. In 2010 streamflow was going into bank storage in late April and continued 

through the end of June at which time water from bank storage 

began discharging back into the river channel. In 2011 streamflow was going into bank storage in late February and this 

continued through late July at which time groundwater began 

discharging back into the river channel.

The results of the 2008–09 seepage runs and stage and 

water-level altitudes measured adjacent to the river near Elko 

suggest that the aquifers recharged by flow of the Humboldt 

River are mainly those in its flood plain. These aquifers are 

shallow and may not be well connected with the basin-fill 

aquifers of the upper Humboldt River basin away from the 

river flood plain.

Acknowledgments

This study was done in cooperation with Elko County, 

Nevada, and is the result of discussions with, and input from, 

the Elko County Board of Commissioners and Elko County 

Water Planning Commission over several years. The authors 

thank property owners in the study area for providing USGS 

field personnel access to stream channels during the fall 

seepage runs of 2008 and 2009. The authors also thank Alan 

Wallace with USGS in Reno for helpful discussions regarding 

Cenozoic basins in northeastern Nevada. Finally, the authors 

express their thanks to Bruce and Sydney Miller for granting 

the USGS permission to install the four shallow wells on their 

ranch along the Humboldt River flood plain near Elko.

References Cited

Allander, K.K., Gortsema, G.C., Hutchinson, D.D., and 

Schwartzenberger, James, 2001, Water resources data, 

Nevada—Water year 2000: U.S. Geological Survey WaterData Report NV–00–1, 570 p.

Berger, D.L., 2006, Hydrogeology and water resources of 

Ruby Valley, northeastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5247, 39 p.

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

1968, State of Nevada hydrographic areas: Nevada Division 

of Water Resources map, scale 1:500,000.

Coats, R.R., 1987, Geology of Elko County, Nevada: Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 101, 112 p.

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, R.P., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A 

statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological 

precipitation over mountainous terrain: Journal of Applied 

Meteorology, v. 33, no. 2, p. 140–158.

Dudley, W.W., Jr., 1967, Hydrogeology and ground-water flow 

system of the central Ruby Mountains, Nevada: Urbana, Ill., 

University of Illinois, unpublished doctoral thesis, 107 p.

Eakin, T.E., and Lamke, R.D., 1966, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Humboldt River Basin, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water 

Resources Bulletin 32, 107 p.
38 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Henry, C.D., 2008, Ash-flow tuffs and paleovalleys in northeastern Nevada—Implications for Eocene paleogeography 

and extension in the Sevier hinterland, northern Great 

Basin: Geosphere v. 4, no. 1, p. 1–35.

Howard, K.A., 2000, Geologic map of the Lamoille quadrangle, Elko County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology Map 125.

Huete, A.R., Didan, Kamel, Miura, Tomoaki, Rodriguez, E.P., 

Gao, Xiang, and Ferreira, L.G., 2002, Overview of the 

radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS 

Vegetation Indices: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 83 

p. 195–213.

Jeton, A.E., Watkins, S.A., and Huntington, Justin, 2006, 

Evaluation of precipitation estimates from PRISM for the 

1961–90 and 1971–2000 data sets, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5291, 54 p.

Lohman, S.W., and others, 1972, Definitions of selected 

ground-water terms—Revisions and conceptual refinements: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988, 

21 p.

Malone, G.W., 1932, Humboldt River distribution and different features affecting these deliveries for the years 1927 to 

1931, inclusive: Carson City, Nev., State Printing Office, 

111 p.

Maurer, D.K., Plume, R.W., Thomas, J.M., and Johnson, A.K., 

1996, Water resources and effects of changes in groundwater use along the Carlin Trend, north-central Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 96–4134, 146 p.

Maurer, D.K., Lopes, T.J., Medina, R.L.; Smith, J.L., 2004, 

Hydrogeology and hydrologic landscape regions of Nevada: 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5131, 41 p.

Moreo, M.T., Laczniak, R.J., and Stannard, D.I., 2007, 

Evapotranspiration rate measurements of vegetation typical 

of ground-water discharge areas in the Basin and Range 

carbonate-rock aquifer system, Nevada and Utah, September 2005–August 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5078, 36 p., accessed March 6, 

2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5078/

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 82 p.

Plume, R.W., 2009, Hydrogeologic framework and occurrence 

and movement of groundwater in the upper Humboldt River 

Basin, northeastern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5014, 22 p.

Prudic, D.E., Niswonger, R.G., and Plume, R.W., 2006, Trends 

in streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and 

Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005–5199, 58 p.

Qi, Jiaguo, Chehbouni, Abdelghani, Huete, A.R., Kerr, Y.H., 

and Sorooshian, Soroosh, 1994, A modified soil adjusted 

vegetation index: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 48, p. 

119–126.

Rouse, J.W., Haas, R.H., Schell, J.A., and Deering, D.W., 

1973, Monitoring vegetation systems in the great plains 

with ERTS: Third ERTS Symposium, NASA SP–351, v. 1, 

p. 309–317.

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

Nevada Division of Water Resources Information Report 6, 

38 p.

Rush, F.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Huntington Valley area, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series 

Report 35, 40 p.

Sharp, R.P., 1938, Pleistocene glaciation in the Ruby-East 

Humboldt Range, northeastern Nevada: Journal of Geomorphology, v. 1, no. 4, p. 296–323.

Smith, J.F., and Ketner, K.B., 1972, Geologic map of the 

Carlin, Dixie Flats, Pine Valley, and Robinson Mountain 

Quadrangles, Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF–481.

Smith, J.L., Laczniak, R.J., Moreo, M.T., and Welborn, T.L., 

2007, Mapping evapotranspiration units in the Basin and 

Range carbonate-rock aquifer system, White Pine County, 

Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5087, 

20 p., accessed August 2, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2007/5087/

Thomasson, H.G., Jr., Olmsted, F.H., and LeRoux, E.F., 1960, 

Geology, water resources, and usable ground-water storage 

capacity of part of Solano County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1464, 693 p.

U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center, 2006, Greenness 

of the conterminous U.S.: U.S. Geological Survey data 

available on the Web, accessed May 4, 2007, at http://ivm.

cr.usgs.gov/.

Wallace, A.R., Perkins, M.E., and Fleck, R.J, 2008, Late Cenozoic paleogeographic evolution of northeastern Nevada—

Evidence from the sedimentary basins: Geosphere, v. 4, no. 

1, p. 36–74.

Welch, A.H., Bright, D.J., and Knochenmus, L.A., 2007, 

Water resources of the basin and range carbonate-rock aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent areas 

in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5261, 96 p.
Appendixes 39

Appendixes 

[See figure 12 for site locations. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site 

name

Site description Latitude

(decimal degrees)

Longitude

(decimal degrees)

Marys River Area

BC1 Bishop Creek below Bishop Creek Reservoir 41.2389 –114.9573

BC2 Bishop Creek above confluence with Humboldt River 41.1409 –115.1404

TB1 Tabor Creek at County Road 753 41.3996 –115.1251

TB2 Tabor Creek below Forbes Butte 41.4000 –115.1254

TB3 Tabor Creek near County Road 753 41.2764 –115.1756

TB4 Tabor Creek above confluence with Humboldt River 41.0858 –115.2393

MR1 Marys River below Orange Bridge—USGS gaging station 10313400 41.5497 –115.3097

TC1 T Creek above confluence with Marys River 41.5386 –115.2240

CC1 Currant Creek above confluence with Marys River 41.5259 –115.2016

MR2 Marys River at River Ranch 41.4075 –115.2422

MR3 Marys River above Hot Springs Creek—USGS gaging station 10315500 41.2528 –115.2556

MR4 Marys River below Twin Buttes—USGS gaging station 10315600 41.1544 –115.2703

MR5 Marys River at Highway 230 above Humboldt River 41.0578 –115.2784

Starr Valley Area

HD1 Herder Creek near Deeth 41.0252 –115.2330

DC1 Deering Creek near Deeth 41.0006 –115.2357

BL1 East Fork Boulder Creek near Deeth 40.9799 –115.2610

BL2 West Fork Boulder Creek near Deeth 40.9777 –115.2628

ST1 Star Creek above Humboldt River near Deeth 41.0500 –115.2791

SP1 Stephens Creek near Deeth 40.9661 –115.2725

SC1 Secret Creek at County Road 703 near Secret Pass 40.8805 –115.3168

MC1 Murphy Creek at County Road 703 near Halleck 40.8218 –115.3166

SV1 Soldier Creek at County Road 703 near Halleck 40.8087 –115.3410

North Fork Area

NF1 North Fork Humboldt River at North Fork 41.4798 –115.8144

NF2 North Fork Humboldt River above Foreman Creek 41.3872 –115.7890

FC1 North Channel Foreman Creek at Highway 225 41.3871 –115.7976

FC2 South Channel Foreman Creek at Highway 225 41.3858 –115.7969

SH1 Sheep Creek above confluence with North Fork Humboldt River 41.3587 –115.7912

ML1 Mahala Creek at Highway 225 41.2975 –115.7876

NF3 North Fork Humboldt River above Pie Creek 41.3009 –115.7019

PC1 Pie Creek 0.6 mile above confluence with North Fork Humboldt River 41.2931 –115.7075

PC2 Pie Creek at confluence with North Fork Humboldt River 41.3009 –115.7013

NF4 North Fork Humboldt River above Beaver Creek 41.3148 –115.6115

BV1 Beaver Creek above North Fork Confluence 41.3375 –115.5807

CT1 Cottonwood Creek above North Fork Confluence 41.3169 –115.5268

NF5 North Fork Humboldt River at Devils Gate—USGS gaging station 10317500 41.1834 –115.4936

NF6 North Fork Humboldt River 5.8 miles above confluence with Humboldt River 41.0123 –115.5308

NF7 North Fork Humboldt River above Humboldt River confluence 40.9295 –115.5494

Appendix 1. Sites where streamflow was measured, October 2008 and November 2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.
40 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

[See figure 12 for site locations. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site 

name

Site description Latitude

(decimal degrees)

Longitude

(decimal degrees)

Lamoille Valley

LC1 Lamoille Creek near Lamoille—USGS gaging station 10316500 40.6907 –115.4770

LC2 West Channel Lamoille Creek at Lamoille 40.7274 –115.4811

LC3 East Channel Lamoille Creek at Lamoille 40.7277 –115.4791

LC4 West Channel Lamoille Creek at Lower Lamoille Road 40.7658 –115.4783

LC5 East Channel Lamoille Creek at Lower Lamoille Road 40.7659 –115.4714

LC6 Lamoille Creek diversion at Lower Lamoille Road 40.7659 –115.4763

LC7 Lamoille Creek diversion at Lower Lamoille Road 40.7659 –115.4698

JD1 John Day Creek at County Road 703 40.8044 –115.3767

CL1 Cold Creek at Lower Lamoille Road 40.8050 –115.3789

TH1 Thorpe Creek at County Road 704 40.7549 –115.4381

TL1 Talbot Creek at County Road 704 40.7385 –115.4467

TL2 Talbot Creek at Lower Lamoille Road 40.7663 –115.4601

LC8 Lamoille Creek above Humboldt River near Halleck 40.9315 –115.4627

Huntington Valley

HC1 Huntington Creek below Defue Spring 40.0266 –115.7473

HC2 Huntington Creek near Railroad Pass 40.1163 –115.7684

HC3 Huntington Creek near Homestead Spring 40.2031 –115.7539

HC4 Huntington Creek near Jiggs 40.4213 –115.7071

SM1 South Fork Smith Creek near Jiggs 40.4222 –115.6673

SM2 North Fork Smith Creek near Jiggs 40.4232 –115.6667

SM3 Smith Creek at Jiggs 40.4284 –115.6657

HC5 Huntington Creek above Cottonwood Creek confluence 40.5043 –115.7289

CW1 Cottonwood Creek near Jiggs 40.4856 –115.6631

HC6 Huntington Creek above Willow Creek confluence 40.5364 –115.7229

WC1 Willow Creek at Highway 228 near Jiggs 40.5197 –115.6634

HC7 Huntington Creek below Willow Creek confluence 40.5629 –115.7188

HC8 Huntington Creek above confluence with South Fork Humboldt River 40.6179 –115.7292

South Fork Area

SF1 South Fork Humboldt River at Lee 40.5643 –115.6068

SF2 South Fork Humboldt River at Highway 228 40.6057 –115.6914

SF3 South Fork Humboldt River above confluence with Huntington Creek 40.6224 –115.7266

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area

SF4 South Fork Humboldt River above Tenmile Creek—USGS gaging station 10319900 40.6274 –115.7307

MT1 Mitchell Creek near Spring Creek 40.6959 –115.6238

UN1 Unnamed Creek near Spring Creek 40.7026 –115.6238

BF1 Butterfield Creek near Spring Creek 40.7064 –115.6239

DR1 Dry Creek near Spring Creek 40.7198 –115.6241

TM1 Tenmile Creek near Spring Creek 40.7240 –115.6234

TM2 Tenmile Creek tributary near Spring Creek 40.7357 –115.6241

SP1 Spring Creek near Spring Creek 40.7531 –115.6304

TM3 Tenmile Creek at Highway 228 40.7356 –115.7010

TM4 Tenmile Creek near South Fork Reservoir 40.7042 –115.7534

TM5 Tenmile Creek above South Fork Humboldt River confluence 40.6872 –115.7920

Appendix 1. Sites where streamflow was measured, October 2008 and November 2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.—Continued
Appendixes 41

[See figure 12 for site locations. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site 

name

Site description Latitude

(decimal degrees)

Longitude

(decimal degrees)

Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area—Continued

SF5 South Fork Humboldt River above Dixie Creek—USGS gaging station 10320000 40.6849 –115.8139

SF6 South Fork Humboldt River above confluence with Dixie Creek 40.6844 –115.8409

DX1 Dixie Creek at Dixie Creek Flat 40.6294 –115.8627

DX2 Dixie Creek below Dixie Creek Flat 40.6592 –115.8547

DX3 Dixie Creek above confluence with South Fork Humboldt River 40.6826 –115.8443

SF7 South Fork Humboldt River near Dixie Creek 40.6978 –115.8349

SF8 South Fork Humboldt River below Bullion Road 40.7233 –115.8306

SF9 South Fork Humboldt River near spring 40.7444 –115.8479

SF10 South Fork Humboldt River below spring 40.7462 –115.8525

SF11 South Fork Humboldt River at mouth of South Fork Canyon 40.7460 –115.8601

SF12 South Fork Humboldt River above Humboldt River confluence 40.7721 –115.8877

Mainstem Humboldt River

HR1 Humboldt River above Bishop Creek confluence 41.1417 –115.1111

HR2 Humboldt River below Trout Creek 41.1400 –115.1402

HR3 Humboldt River at Highway 230 41.0551 –115.2758

HR4 Center Channel Humboldt River near Deeth 40.9971 –115.4102

HR5 Right Channel Humboldt River near Deeth 40.9926 –115.4219

HR6 Right Channel Humboldt River near Halleck 40.9508 –115.4473

HR7 Center Channel Humboldt River near Halleck 40.9497 –115.4437

HR8 Humboldt River above Lamoille Creek 40.9311 –115.4716

HR9 Humboldt River at Elburz 40.9262 –115.5112

HR10 Humboldt River near Elko—USGS gaging station 10318500 40.9337 –115.6259

HR11 Humboldt River at Last Chance Road near Elko 40.8774 –115.7006

HR12 Humboldt River at 12th Street Bridge in Elko 40.8339 –115.7503

HR13 Humboldt River at Elko sewage disposal plant 40.8182 –115.7886

HR14 Humboldt River at Miller Ranch 40.8073 –115.8123

HR15 Humboldt River above South Fork Humboldt River confluence 40.7716 –115.8857

HR16 Humboldt River near Carlin—USGS gaging station 10321000 40.7273 –116.0095

Appendix 1. Sites where streamflow was measured, October 2008 and November 2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.—Continued
42 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

[See figures 12–18 and appendix 1. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Marys River (fig. 13a-b)

Site name Discharge (ft3/s)

MR1 2.53

MR2 0.00

MR3 2.00

MR4 0.00

MR5 0.00

North Fork Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 14a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

North Fork Foreman Creek Sheep Creek Mahala Creek Pie Creek Beaver Creek Cottonwood Creek

NF1 2.18

NF2 1.99

FC1 0.00

FC2 0.00

SH1 0.00

ML1 0.00

NF3 1.07

PC2 6.01

NF4 5.85

BV1 0.69

CT1 0.00

NF5 11.40

NF6 6.95

NF7 6.59

Lamoille Creek (fig. 15a-b)

Site name Discharge (ft3/s)

LC1 4.27

LC2 1.05

LC3 0.64

LC4 0.54

LC5 0.00

LC6 0.00

LC7 0.12

LC8 0.13

Huntington Creek and its tributaries (fig 16a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

Huntington Creek Smith Creek Cottonwood Creek Willow Creek

HC1 3.78

HC2 3.39

HC3 2.36

HC4 0.13

SM3 0.00

HC5 0.95

CW1 0.04

HC6 3.04

WC1 1.00

HC7 4.60

HC8 3.87

Appendix 2. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, October 20–24, 2008, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada. 
Appendixes 43

[See figures 12–18 and appendix 1. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

South Fork Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 17a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

South Fork Huntington Creek Tenmile Creek Dixie Creek

SF2 1.66

SF3 0.74

HC8 3.87

SF4 7.58

TM5 2.27

SF5 4.23

SF6 4.51

DX3 0.00

SF8 2.24

SF11 16.97

SF12 15.00

Humboldt River and its tributaries

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

Bishop Creek Humboldt River Tabor Creek Marys River Starr Creek Lamoille Creek North Fork South Fork

BC2 3.56

HR2 3.39

TB4 0

HR3 0.00

MR5 0

ST1 2.02

HR4&5 0.00

HR6&7 0.00

HR8 0.00

LC8 0.13

HR9 0.36

NF7 6.59

HR10 8.74

HR11 5.71

HR12 0.00

HR13 1.90

HR14 1.60

HR15 1.54

SF12 15

HR16 18.14

Appendix 2. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, October 20–24, 2008, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.—Continued
44 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

[See figures 12–18 and appendix 1. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Marys River (fig. 13a-b)

Site name Discharge (ft3/s)

MR1 7.63

MR2 9.00

MR3 4.90

MR4 0.00

MR5 0.00

North Fork Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 14a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

North Fork Foreman Creek Sheep Creek Mahala Creek Pie Creek Beaver Creek Cottonwood Creek

NF1 4.81

NF2 5.85

FC1 0.00

FC2 0.00

SH1 0.00

ML1 0.00

NF3 5.82

PC1 6.31

PC2 12.60

NF4 12.70

BV1 1.73

CT1 0.00

NF5 18.80

NF6 15.60

NF7 12.69

Site name Discharge (ft3/s)

LC1 4.88

LC2 0.71

LC3 2.07

LC4 0.65

LC5 0.00

LC6 0.78

LC7 0.00

LC8 0.41

Huntington Creek and its tributaries (fig 16a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

Huntington Creek Smith Creek Cottonwood Creek Willow Creek

HC1 4.50

HC2 3.93

HC3 2.30

HC4 0.17

SM3 0.34

HC5 1.91

CW1 0.08

HC6 4.40

WC1 1.15

HC7 6.90

HC8 6.93

Appendix 3. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, November 2–6, 2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern Nevada.
Appendixes 45

[See figures 12–18 and appendix 1. Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

South Fork Humboldt River and its tributaries (fig. 17a-b)

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

South Fork Huntington Creek Tenmile Creek Dixie Creek

SF1 1.28

SF2 3.84

SF3 4.03

HC8 6.93

SF4 9.73

TM5 3.06

SF5 6.66

SF6 6.38

DX3 0.00

SF7 5.85

SF8 5.17

SF9 9.27

SF10 13.80

SF11 17.90

SF12 14.10

Humboldt River and its tributaries

Site name

Discharge (ft3/s)

Bishop Creek Humboldt River Tabor Creek Marys River Starr Creek Lamoille Creek North Fork South Fork

HR1 0.48

BC2 6.98

TB4 0.00

HR3 0.00

MR5 0.00

ST1 1.08

HR4&5 0.00

HR6&7 0.31

HR8 0.00

LC8 0.41

HR9 1.03

NF7 12.69

HR10 16.90

HR11 14.70

HR12 12.40

HR13 13.50

HR14 14.60

HR15 14.10

SF12 14.10

HR16 33.20

Appendix 3. Streamflow on the Humboldt River and its tributaries, November 2–6, 2009, upper Humboldt River basin, northeastern 

Nevada.—Continued
46 Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions

Plume and Smith—Properties of Basin-Fill Deposits, a 1971–2000 Water Budget, and Surface-Water-Groundwater Interactions in the Upper Humboldt River Basin, Northeastern Nevada—SIR 2013–5077