Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20075205

Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, and Updated Estimates of Ground-Water Inflow and the Ground-Water Budgets for Basin-Fill Aquifers of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California

Abstract

Recent estimates of ground-water inflow to the basin-fill aquifers of Carson Valley, Nevada, and California, from the adjacent Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains ranged from 22,000 to 40,000 acre-feet per year using water-yield and chloride-balance methods. In this study, watershed models were developed for watersheds with perennial streams and for watersheds with ephemeral streams in the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains to provide an independent estimate of ground-water inflow. This report documents the development and calibration of the watershed models, presents model results, compares the results with recent estimates of ground-water inflow to the basin-fill aquifers of Carson Valley, and presents updated estimates of the ground-water budget for basin-fill aquifers of Carson Valley. The model used for the study was the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System, a physically based, distributed-parameter model designed to simulate precipitation and snowmelt runoff as well as snowpack accumulation and snowmelt processes. Geographic Information System software was used to manage spatial data, characterize model drainages, and to develop Hydrologic Response Units. Models were developed for * Two watersheds with gaged perennial streams in the Carson Range and two watersheds with gaged perennial streams in the Pine Nut Mountains using measured daily mean runoff, * Ten watersheds with ungaged perennial streams using estimated daily mean runoff, * Ten watershed with ungaged ephemeral streams in the Carson Range, and * A large area of ephemeral runoff near the Pine Nut Mountains. Models developed for the gaged watersheds were used as index models to guide the calibration of models for ungaged watersheds. Model calibration was constrained by daily mean runoff for 4 gaged watersheds and for 10 ungaged watersheds in the Carson Range estimated in a previous study. The models were further constrained by annual precipitation volumes estimated in a previous study to provide estimates of ground-water inflow using similar water input. The calibration periods were water years 1990-2002 for watersheds in the Carson Range, and water years 1981-97 for watersheds in the Pine Nut Mountains. Daily mean values for water years 1990-2002 were then simulated using the calibrated watershed models in the Pine Nut Mountains. The daily mean values of precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and ground-water inflow simulated from the watershed models were summed to provide annual mean rates and volumes for each year of the simulations, and mean annual rates and volumes computed for water years 1990-2002. Mean annual bias for the period of record for models of Daggett Creek and Fredericksburg Canyon watersheds, two gaged perennial watersheds in the Carson Range, was within 4 percent and relative errors were about 6 and 12 percent, respectively. Model fit was not as satisfactory for two gaged perennial watersheds, Pine Nut and Buckeye Creeks, in the Pine Nut Mountains. The Pine Nut Creek watershed model had a large negative mean annual bias and a relative error of -11 percent, underestimated runoff for all years but the wet years in the latter part of the record, but adequately simulated the bulk of the spring runoff most of the years. The Buckeye Creek watershed model overestimated mean annual runoff with a relative error of about -5 percent when water year 1994 was removed from the analysis because it had a poor record. The bias and error of the calibrated models were within generally accepted limits for watershed models, indicating the simulated rates and volumes of runoff and ground-water inflow were reasonable. The total mean annual ground-water inflow to Carson Valley computed using estimates simulated by the watershed models was 38,000 acre-feet, including ground-water inflow from Eagle Valley, recharge from precipitation on eolian sand and gravel deposits, and ground-water recharge from precipitation on the western alluvial fans. The estimate was in close agreement with that obtained from the chloride-balance method, 40,000 acre-feet, but was considerably greater than the estimate obtained from the water-yield method, 22,000 acre-feet. The similar estimates obtained from the watershed models and chloride-balance method, two relatively independent methods, provide more confidence that they represent a reasonably accurate volume of ground-water inflow to Carson Valley. However, the two estimates are not completely independent because they use similar distributions of mean annual precipitation. Annual ground-water recharge of the basin-fill aquifers in Carson Valley ranged from 51,000 to 54,000 acre-feet computed using estimates of ground-water inflow to Carson Valley simulated from the watershed models combined with previous estimates of other ground-water budget components. Estimates of mean annual ground-water discharge range from 44,000 to 47,000 acre-feet. The low range estimate for ground-water recharge, 51,000 acre-feet per year, is most similar to the high range estimate for ground-water discharge, 47,000 acre-feet per year. Thus, an average annual volume of about 50,000 acre-feet is a reasonable estimate for mean annual ground-water recharge to and discharge from the basin-fill aquifers in Carson Valley. The results of watershed models indicate that significant interannual variability in the volumes of ground-water inflow is caused by climate variations. During multi-year drought conditions, the watershed simulations indicate that ground-water recharge could be as much as 80 percent less than the mean annual volume of 50,000 acre-feet.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38° to 41° latitude; -120° to -118° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anne E. Jeton, Douglas K. Maurer. 2007. Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, and Updated Estimates of Ground-Water Inflow and the Ground-Water Budgets for Basin-Fill Aquifers of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20075205

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗