USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20115066

Precipitation and runoff simulations of select perennial and ephemeral watersheds in the middle Carson River basin, Eagle, Dayton, and Churchill Valleys, west-central Nevada

Abstract

The effect that land use may have on streamflow in the Carson River, and ultimately its impact on downstream users can be evaluated by simulating precipitation-runoff processes and estimating groundwater inflow in the middle Carson River in west-central Nevada. To address these concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, began a study in 2008 to evaluate groundwater flow in the Carson River basin extending from Eagle Valley to Churchill Valley, called the middle Carson River basin in this report. This report documents the development and calibration of 12 watershed models and presents model results and the estimated mean annual water budgets for the modeled watersheds. This part of the larger middle Carson River study will provide estimates of runoff tributary to the Carson River and the potential for groundwater inflow (defined here as that component of recharge derived from percolation of excess water from the soil zone to the groundwater reservoir). The model used for the study was the U.S. Geological Survey's 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. Models were developed for 2 perennial watersheds in Eagle Valley having gaged daily mean runoff, Ash Canyon Creek and Clear Creek, and for 10 ephemeral watersheds in the Dayton Valley and Churchill Valley hydrologic areas. Model calibration was constrained by daily mean runoff for the 2 perennial watersheds and for the 10 ephemeral watersheds by limited indirect runoff estimates and by mean annual runoff estimates derived from empirical methods. The models were further constrained by limited climate data adjusted for altitude differences using annual precipitation volumes estimated in a previous study. The calibration periods were water years 1980-2007 for Ash Canyon Creek, and water years 1991-2007 for Clear Creek. To allow for water budget comparisons to the ephemeral models, the two perennial models were then run from 1980 to 2007, the time period constrained somewhat by the later record for the high-altitude climate station used in the simulation. The daily mean values of precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater inflow simulated from the watershed models were summed to provide mean annual rates and volumes derived from each year of the simulation. Mean annual bias for the calibration period for Ash Canyon Creek and Clear Creek watersheds was within 6 and 3 percent, and relative errors were about 18 and -2 percent, respectively. For the 1980-2007 period of record, mean recharge efficiency and runoff efficiency (percentage of precipitation as groundwater inflow and runoff) averaged 7 and 39 percent, respectively, for Ash Canyon Creek, and 8 and 31 percent, respectively, for Clear Creek. For this same period, groundwater inflow volumes averaged about 500 acre-feet for Ash Canyon and 1,200 acre-feet for Clear Creek. The simulation period for the ephemeral watersheds ranged from water years 1978 to 2007. Mean annual simulated precipitation ranged from 6 to 11 inches. Estimates of recharge efficiency for the ephemeral watersheds ranged from 3 percent for Eureka Canyon to 7 percent for Eldorado Canyon. Runoff efficiency ranged from 7 percent for Eureka Canyon and 15 percent at Brunswick Canyon. For the 1978-2007 period, mean annual groundwater inflow volumes ranged from about 40 acre-feet for Eureka Canyon to just under 5,000 acre-feet for Churchill Canyon watershed. Watershed model results indicate significant interannual variability in the volumes of groundwater inflow caused by climate variations. For most of the modeled watersheds, little to no groundwater inflow was simulated for years with less than 8 inches of precipitation, unless those years were preceded by abnormally high precipitation years with significant subsurface storage carryover.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.0142° to 39.4714° latitude; -119.7469° to -119.2° 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. 2011. Precipitation and runoff simulations of select perennial and ephemeral watersheds in the middle Carson River basin, Eagle, Dayton, and Churchill Valleys, west-central Nevada. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20115066

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↗