. .

THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Special Paper 381 oF AMERICA

Hydraulic Tests of Miocene Volcanic Rocks at

Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa and Implications for
Groundwater Flow in the Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field, Nevada and California

by Arthur l. Geldon
 Hydraulic tests of Miocene volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain and
Pahute Mesa and implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field, Nevada and California

by

Arthur L. Geldon
Fractured Planet Hydrogeologic Consulting
10104 W. Lake Drive
Littleton, Colorado 80127
USA

Special Paper 381

3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140 USA

2004
Copyright 2004, The Geological Society of America, Inc. (GSA). All rights reserved. GSA grants
permission to individual scientists to make unlimited photocopies of one or more items from this volume
for noncommercial purposes advancing science or education, including classroom use. For permission to
make photocopies of any item in this volume for other noncommercial, nonprofit purposes, contact the
Geological Society of America. Written permission is required from GSA for all other forms of capture
or reproduction of any item in the volume including, but not limited to, all types of electronic or digital
scanning or other digital or manual transformation of articles or any portion thereof, such as abstracts,
into computer-readable and/or transmittable form for personal or corporate use, either noncommercial
or commercial, for-profit or otherwise. Send permission requests to GSA Copyright Permissions,
3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA.

Copyright is not claimed on any material prepared wholly by government employees within the scope of
their employment.

Published by The Geological Society of America, Inc.

3300 Penrose Place, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140, USA
www.geosociety.org

Printed in U.S.A.

GSA Books Science Editor: Abhijit Basu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Geldon, Arthur L.
Hydraulic tests of Miocene volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa and implications for
groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic field, Nevada and California / by Arthur L. Geldon.
p. cm. (Special paper ; 381)
Includes bibliographic references.
ISBN 0-8137-2381-7 (pbk.)
1. Groundwater flow--Nevada--Pahute Mesa. 2. Groundwater flow--Nevada--Yucca Mountain.
3. Geology, Stratigraphic--Miocene. 4. Rocks--Nevada--Pahute Mesa--Permeability. 5. Rocks--Nevada--
Yucca Mountain--Permeability. 6. Aquifers--Testing. 7. Borings--Nevada--Pahute Mesa. 8. Borings--
Nevada--Yucca Mountain. I. Title. II. Special papers (Geological Society of America) ; 381.

GB1025.N4G45 2004
551.4909793dc22
2004054589

Cover: Northern end of Yucca Mountain (right) and Tram Ridge (left), looking up Solitario Canyon
from Crater Flat.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ii
 Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Location of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Regional Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Regional Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hydrostratigraphic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Groundwater in the Younger Tertiary Tuff and Lava Flows Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Hydraulic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Well Completion and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Flow Distribution in Boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Earth Tides and Barometric Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Constant-Rate Pumping, Injection, and Airlift Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Slug-Injection and Swabbing Recovery Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Analytical Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Effects of Test Scale on Determination of Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The C-holes Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 22 to June 1, 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Miscellaneous Hydraulic Tests at the C-holes Complex, 19841998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Drill Hole Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Frenchman Flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Well Cluster ER-20-6, Western Pahute Mesa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Knickerbocker Site, Western Pahute Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Relation of Lithology to Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Yucca Mountain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Pahute Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

iii
 Geological Society of America
Special Paper 381
2004

Hydraulic tests of Miocene volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain and

Pahute Mesa and implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field, Nevada and California

Arthur L. Geldon*
Fractured Planet Hydrogeologic Consulting, 10104 W. Lake Drive, Littleton, Colorado, 80127, USA

INTRODUCTION

Yucca Mountain is a windswept, barren, volcanic ridge

~150 km northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Fig. 1). From its sum-
mit, one looks out on vast panoramas of emptinessCrater Flat
to the west, Jackass Flats to the east, and the Amargosa Desert
and mountains flanking Death Valley to the south. In an end-
lessly repeating series of ridges, mesas, and narrow mountain
ranges that protrude above broad, sediment-filled basins in the
Great Basin desert, Yucca Mountain is inconspicuous. It is unre-
markable, except that the United States government has chosen
Yucca Mountain to be the site of the first permanent repository in
the nation for storing nearly 60 years of accumulated high-level
nuclear waste. Consequently, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Nye County
Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, the national laborato- Figure 1. Yucca Mountain, Nevada, looking south from the crest to
ries (Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Berkeley), and other inter- Jackass Flats, the Amargosa Desert, and the Funeral Mountains.
ested parties have conducted extensive geological, hydrological,
geophysical, and geochemical studies to justify selecting Yucca
Mountain as the final resting place for the nations nuclear junk.
About 25 km north of Yucca Mountain, in the northwest
corner of the Nevada Test Site, is Pahute Mesa, a high volcanic
plateau (Fig. 2). Between 1966 and 1991, 85 nuclear devices
were exploded beneath this plateau, which makes Pahute Mesa
the site of the second largest number of nuclear tests conducted
on the Nevada Test Site (Townsend and Grossman, 2001). All of
these tests were conducted in vertical emplacement holes, most of
which extended near or below the water table. Numerous explor-
atory and observation wells were drilled to obtain geologic and
hydrologic data before and after detonations. During the nuclear
testing period, hydraulic testing was done in exploratory observa-
tion, and emplacement boreholes as opportunities arose. Since

*ageldon@msn.com Figure 2. Pahute Mesa and Oasis Valley looking north from Tram Ridge.

Geldon, A.L., 2004, Hydraulic tests of Miocene volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa and implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field, Nevada and California: Geological Society of America Special Paper 381, 93 p. For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org.
2004 Geological Society of America

1
2 A.L. Geldon
1990, the U.S. Department of Energy has conducted the multidis-
ciplinary Underground Testing Areas (UGTA) project to evaluate
contaminant transport by groundwater flow on the Nevada Test
Site and in hydraulically downgradient areas. A three-dimensional
groundwater model was developed to evaluate the Death Valley
regional groundwater flow system (IT Corporation, 1997a), and
similar models are being developed for specific Nevada Test Site
nuclear-test areas (e.g., IT Corporation, 1998c).
Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa form much of the east-
ern part of the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field, a voluminous
outpouring of predominantly silicic to intermediate Miocene vol-
canic rocks (Warren et al., 1998). The several hundred hydraulic
tests conducted at Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa from 1958 to
1999 to support the nations nuclear agenda provide insights into
the hydrogeology of the entire Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field.
In this report, groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada
Volcanic Field, a non-stratiform, fracture-dominated aquifer
system, is discussed. Approaches to studying hydraulic prop-
erties of the volcanic rocks in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic
Field, which were proven by trial and error to be effective at
Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa, are proposed as models
for future hydrologic studies in the volcanic field. Factors that
affected analysis of hydraulic tests, such as test scale, Earth
tides, atmospheric pressure, and water temperature, are dis-
cussed. Transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity
of Miocene volcanic rocks in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic
Field are quantified, and spatial and statistical distributions of
these hydraulic properties are presented.
Material presented in this study is the culmination of
research started while the author was employed as a hydrologist
by the USGS on the Yucca Mountain Project and the Death Valley
Flow System regional modeling study from 1987 to 2001. This
study builds upon, and somewhat supersedes, ideas expressed
by the author in six USGS and DOE reports and two abstracts
that are cited throughout. The author acknowledges funding by
the USGS and the support of colleagues that were required to
conduct this study.
LOCATION OF STUDY AREA
Yucca Mountain, Pahute Mesa, and the Southwest Nevada
Volcanic Field are in the Death Valley region of the Great Basin.
The Death Valley region is located in southeastern California and
Nevada between latitudes 35 and 3815 N and longitudes 115 Cashman, 1999). Late Pennsylvanian to Late Permian formations
and 118 W (Fig. 3). The area of the Death Valley region varies
according to the purpose for which boundaries are delineated.
For example, IT Corporation (1997a) incorporated an area of
26,200 km2 in its three-dimensional groundwater flow model of
the Death Valley region. Laczniak et al. (1996) conceptualized
groundwater flow within an area of ~40,900 km2. Workman et al.
(2002) presented a geologic map of the Death Valley region with
an area of 57,000 km2, which is slightly larger than the area of a
regional groundwater flow model that currently is being devel-
oped by the USGS (DAgnese and Faunt, 1999).
The terrain in the Death Valley region typically consists
of northerly and northwesterly trending mountain ranges sur-
rounded by broad sediment-filled basins. The Spring Mountains,
the highest topographic feature in the area, rise to an altitude of
more than 3600 m above mean sea level (AMSL). Summit alti-
tudes on Pahute Mesa increase eastward from 1800 m to 2250 m
AMSL (Minor et al., 1993). Yucca Mountain, which consists
of a series of northerly trending ridges, crests at an altitude of
~1760 m AMSL (Day et al., 1998). Intermontane basins border-
ing Pahute Mesa and Yucca Mountain include Oasis Valley and
Crater Flat on the west, Sarcobatus Flat and the Amargosa Desert
on the south, Jackass Flats, Frenchman Flat, and Yucca Flat on
the east, and Emigrant Valley, Kawich Valley, and Gold Flat on
the north. Death Valley, the topographically lowest feature in the
region, descends to an altitude of 86 m below sea level. Death
Valley National Park and the Ash Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge are hydraulically downgradient from Yucca Mountain.
Pahrump, Beatty, and Goldfield, Nevada, are the largest of sev-
eral small towns in the area.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Geologic units present in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and
Pahute Mesa range from Early Proterozoic to Quaternary in age
(Table 1). Figure 4 shows their general distribution.
Early Proterozoic (1.71.4 b.y. old) gneiss, schist, marble,
metaconglomerate, metadiorite, and granite crop out mostly in or
near Death Valley (Hunt and Mabey, 1966). Clastic and carbon-
ate sedimentary rocks and diabase of the Late to Middle Pro-
terozoic Pahrump Group overlie the eroded surface of the Early
Proterozoic rocks from Death Valley to Pahrump Valley (Hunt
and Mabey, 1966).
Deposition of the Noonday Dolomite during the Late
Proterozoic period marked the beginning of alternately marine
and terrestrial sedimentation, which continued without lengthy
interruption into the Jurassic period (Laczniak et al., 1996). Late
Proterozoic to early Middle Cambrian rocks consist mostly of
quartzite, sandstone, and argillite, but carbonate rocks inter-
tongue. Late Middle Cambrian to Middle Devonian rocks
consist mostly of limestone and dolomite, but clastic intervals
are present. During the Mississippian period, carbonate rocks
accumulated in stable shelf areas, and clastic rocks accumulated
in foreland basins associated with the Antler Orogeny (Cole and
are mostly marine, whereas Triassic and Jurassic formations are
mostly terrestrial. Between the Late Proterozoic and Jurassic
periods, more than 11,000 m of sedimentary rocks accumulated
in the Death Valley region (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975).
During the Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous Sevier
Orogeny, major thrust faults, wrench faults, and folds devel-
oped that severely disrupted the stratigraphic continuity of
previously deposited sedimentary rocks (Faunt, 1997). Intru-
sion of granitic magmas, mostly as scattered small stocks,
accompanied this tectonic activity and continued after it into
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 3

Stone Quinn
Cabin Railroad Valley Canyon-Death Valley Region
Valley Range Boundary
Reveille
Alkali Spring Valley Valley
Kawich
Range Sand
Stonewall Cactus Flat Spring
Mountain Valley
Stonewall Flat Kawich
Goldfield Valley
Hills Belted Range
Gold
Flat
Emigrant
Valley

Pahranagat Range
Sarcobatus Flat Pahute Mesa

Timber
Mt Yucca
Shoshone
Bullfrog Hills Mt - Nevada Test Site
Oasis
Beatty Valley Yucca Mt
Grapevine Mts
Crater Jackass Frenchman Desert Range
Flat Flats Flat
Amargosa
Valley Indian
Death Valley Springs
Valley Sheep Range
Funeral Mts
Amargosa Desert

Ash Spring Mts

Meadows
Alkali
Flat
Panamint Range Pahrump Valley

Black Mts

BOUNDARY OF SOUTHWEST NEVADA VOLCANIC FIELD

Figure 3. Geographic features in the Death Valley region, Nevada and California.
4 A.L. Geldon

TABLE 1. STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN FOR THE DEATH VALLEY REGION

Geologic age (system) Geologic units Thickness
(m)
Quaternary to Pliocene Stream, lake, playa, marsh, eolian, fan, evaporite, and spring-carbonate sediments 01220+
with basalt flows and cinder cones
Miocene Ash-flow, ash-fall, and reworked tuff; rhyolite to andesite lava flows; and 03010
sedimentary rocks
Miocene to Oligocene Zeolitized and argillized tuff, tuff breccia, sedimentary rocks, and rhyolite to 1752500
andesite lava flows
Eocene to Jurassic Granodiorite and quartz monzonite stocks and plutons Unknown
Jurassic to Permian Aztec Sandstone, Chinle and Moenkopi Formations, Kaibab Limestone, Toroweap 02400
Formation, White Rim Sandstone, and Supai Group (mostly as inliers in the
Spring Mountains)
Permian to Pennsylvanian Bird Spring Formation, equivalent to Tippipah Limestone in Yucca Flat and Ely 10702500
Limestone in northeast Nye County
Mississippian Scotty Wash Quartzite, Chainman Shale, and Eleana Formation, equivalent in 3002040
eastern areas to Monte Cristo Group
Joana Limestone and Pilot Shale 50280
Devonian Guilmette Formation 350990
Simonson Dolomite 120365
Sevy Dolomite (Lone Mountain Dolomite at Bare Mountain) 275500
Silurian Laketown Dolomite (Roberts Mountain Formation at Bare Mountain) 250285
Ordovician Ely Springs Dolomite 50200
Eureka Quartzite 6150
Pogonip Group 3201050
Cambrian Nopah Formation 345766
Bonanza King Formation 5801700
Carrara Formation 350500
Zabriskie Quartzite 30350
Wood Canyon Formation 6001150
Late Proterozoic
Stirling Quartzite 7002100
Johnnie Formation 6002000
Noonday Dolomite 457
Late-Middle Proterozoic Pahrump Group 12501570
Early Proterozoic Metamorphic and igneous rocks Unknown
Note: Compiled from Workman et al., 2002; Warren et al., 1998; Laczniak et al., 1996; Bartley and Gleason, 1990; Hoover and Magner, 1990;
Taylor, 1990; Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1985; Ekren et al., 1973; Hunt and Mabey, 1966.

the Tertiary period. During the early Tertiary period, the Death
Valley region began to be pulled apart along northerly trending,
high-angle, normal faults and northwesterly trending strike-
slip faults associated with the Walker Lane Belt (Scott, 1990;
Blakely et al., 1999; Fridrich, 1999).
Episodic eruptions of tuffaceous rocks and rhyolitic to
basaltic lava flows began during the Oligocene epoch. In Oli-
gocene and early Miocene time, several extensive ash-flow tuff
sheets were emplaced from northern and eastern source areas
(Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1985; Jayko, 1990; Minor et al., 1993).
Volcanism in middle to late Miocene time (~167 million years
ago) formed the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field. Generalized
stratigraphic nomenclature for the Southwest Nevada Volcanic
Field in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa is
listed in Table 2.
The Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field comprises 17 exten-
sive ash-flow tuff sheets and associated lava flows that erupted
from at least seven large, overlapping caldera complexes (Lacz-
niak et al., 1996; Warren et al., 1998). Pahute Mesa, at the center
of the Silent Canyon and Timber Mountain caldera complexes,
is underlain by thick rhyolite, rhyodacite, and trachyte lava flows
intercalated with tuff, whereas Yucca Mountain, on the apron of
these caldera complexes, is underlain mostly by tuffaceous rocks
(Fig. 5). Tertiary volcanic rocks beneath western Pahute Mesa
are >4170 m thick (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973).
As volcanism waned from Pliocene to Holocene time,
coarse-grained detritus shed from uplifted areas filled syntec-
tonic basins, together with lesser amounts of fine-grained lacus-
trine, playa, and marsh sediments, eolian sand and silt, evaporite
deposits, and spring-carbonate deposits. These basin-fill deposits
are >1200 m thick locally (Laczniak et al., 1996).
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa are located at the terminus
of a large series of interconnected hydrographic basins that com-
prise the Great Basin regional aquifer system (Prudic et al., 1993;
Plume, 1996). As shown in Figure 6, Yucca Mountain is in the
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 5

Figure 4. Generalized surface distribution of geologic units in the Death Valley region (Laczniak et al., 1996).
6 A.L. Geldon

TABLE 2. STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF QUATERNARY AND TERTIARY VOLCANIC ROCKS

IN THE VICINITY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND PAHUTE MESA
Yucca Mountain, Jackass Flats, and Western Pahute Mesa, Timber Eastern Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa,
System Age (ma) Crater Flat Mountain, and Oasis Valley Yucca Flat,and Frenchman Flat
00.05 Quaternary Alluvium
0.050.1 Basalt of Lathrop Wells Cone
Quaternary 0.10.9 Quaternary Alluvium Quaternary Alluvium Quaternary Alluvium
0.91.1 Crater Flat cinder cones
1.11.6 Quaternary Alluvium
1.63.7 Pliocene Alluvium
Pliocene Pliocene Alluvium Pliocene Alluvium
3.75.3 Basalt of southeast Crater Flat
5.36.7 Miocene Alluvium
Miocene Alluvium Miocene Alluvium
6.77.3 Basalt of Frenchman Flat
7.37.8 Volcanics of Stonewall Mountain
7.88.3 Basalt of Yucca Flat
8.39.0 Rhyolite of Obsidian Butte
9.09.3
9.39.35 Trail Ridge Tuff
9.359.4 Pahute Mesa Tuff
9.49.45 Rocket Wash Tuff
9.459.5 Comendite of Ribbon Cliff
9.510.0 Basalt of Jackass Flats Basalt of Black Mountain region
10.010.5 Rhyolite of Shoshone Mountain Rhyolite of Boundary Butte
10.511.3 Basalt of Skull Mountain
11.311.45 Fortymile Wash Volcanics
11.4511.5 Ammonia Tanks Tuff Ammonia Tanks Tuff Ammonia Tanks Tuff
Miocene
11.511.6 Basalt of Oasis Valley
11.611.67 Rainier Mesa Tuff Rainier Mesa Tuff Rainier Mesa Tuff
11.6711.7 Rhyolite of Fluorspar Canyon Rhyolite of Fluorspar Canyon
11.711.75 Tuff of Holmes Road Tuff of Holmes Road
11.7511.8 Basalt of Tierra Basalt of Tierra
11.812.5 Rock avalanche breccia
12.512.6 Rhyolite of Windy Wash Rhyolite of Windy Wash
12.612.7 Rhyolite of Comb Peak Rhyolite of Benham Rhyolite of Scrugham Peak
12.7 Tuff of Pinyon Pass
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tiva Canyon Tuff
12.712.75 Tiva Canyon Tuff
12.75 Yucca Mountain Tuff Rhyolite of Delirium Canyon Rhyolite of Delirium Canyon
12.7512.76 Rhyolite of Black Glass Canyon Rhyolite of Echo Peak Rhyolite of Echo Peak
12.76 Pah Canyon Tuff Rhyolite of Silent Canyon
12.7612.8 Topopah Spring Tuff Topopah Spring Tuff Topopah Spring Tuff
12.813.0 Calico Hills Formation Calico Hills Formation Calico Hills Formation
(continued)

Alkali FlatFurnace Creek groundwater basin, which is bordered
on the north and west by the Pahute MesaOasis Valley groundwa-
ter basin and on the east by the Ash Meadows groundwater basin.
In the Alkali FlatFurnace Creek groundwater basin and
adjacent areas, groundwater moves at local, intermediate, and
regional scales through multiple aquifers. In deep structural
basins, such as the Amargosa Desert, groundwater flows pro-
fusely through basin-fill sediments (Dudley and Larson, 1976;
Claasen, 1985). At Yucca Mountain (Luckey et al., 1996) and
Pahute Mesa (Laczniak et al.,1996), thick rhyolitic to rhyodacitic
lava flows, ash-flow tuff sheets, and bedded tuff deposits can be
very transmissive. At Yucca Mountain, high-angle, generally
westerly dipping faults disrupt the stratigraphic continuity of
easterly dipping volcanic formations (Fig. 7) and cause major
production zones in different areas to be located randomly
among these formations (Fig. 8). Deep interbasin flow occurs
primarily through fractured Paleozoic carbonate rocks (Dettinger
et al., 1995). Cambrian to Early Proterozoic quartzite, argillite,
and metamorphic rocks compartmentalize groundwater flow
within overlying aquifers (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975).
In the Alkali FlatFurnace Creek groundwater basin,
relatively sparse precipitation recharges aquifers by infiltration
on Pahute Mesa, Timber Mountain, and Shoshone Mountain
(DAgnese et al., 1997). Linear zones of elevated temperature,
hydraulic gradients, aquifer tests at Yucca Mountain, and hydro-
chemical data indicate that additional recharge occurs by water
rising from Paleozoic carbonate rocks along northerly trending
faults, such as the Midway Valley, Paintbrush Canyon, and Bow
Ridge Faults (Fridrich et al., 1994; Geldon et al., 2002). Hydrau-
lic tests indicate that subsurface flow into the Alkali FlatFurnace
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 7

TABLE 2. STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF QUATERNARY AND TERTIARY VOLCANIC ROCKS

IN THE VICINITY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND PAHUTE MESA (continued)
Yucca Mountain, Jackass Flats, and Western Pahute Mesa, Timber Eastern Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa,
System Age (ma) Crater Flat Mountain, and Oasis Valley Yucca Flat, and Frenchman Flat
13.013.08 Wahmonie Formation
13.0813.09 Tuff of Pool Tuff of Pool
13.0913.1 Rhyolite of Inlet Rhyolite of Inlet
13.113.11 Basalt of Fontina
13.1113.12 Tuff of Jorum Tuff of Jorum
13.1213.15 Prow Pass Tuff Prow Pass Tuff Prow Pass Tuff
13.1513.2 Andesite of Grimy Gulch Andesite of Grimy Gulch
13.213.33 Bullfrog Tuff Bullfrog Tuff Bullfrog Tuff
13.3313.45 Tram Tuff Tram Tuff Tram Tuff
13.4513.72 Dead Horse Flat Formation Dead Horse Flat Formation
13.7213.75 Trachyte of Muenster
Grouse Canyon Tuff
13.7513.8 Grouse Canyon Tuff
13.813.9 Comendite of Split Ridge
13.913.97 Andesite and dacite lava flows
13.9714.0 Lithic Ridge Tuff
14.014.05 Units A and B of USW G-1
14.0514.15 Rhyolite of Picture Rock
Miocene 14.15 Andesite of USW G-2
14.1514.2 Comendite of Quartet Dome Comendite of Quartet Dome
14.214.25 Rhyolite of Handley
14.2514.26 Rhyolite of Coyote Cuesta
14.2614.3 Tuff of Sleeping Butte
Tunnel Formation Tunnel Formation
14.314.35 Tuff of Tolicha Peak
14.3514.4 Rhyolite of Monte Cristo Spring
14.414.5 Rhyolite of Quartz Mountain
14.515.0 Volcanics of Mt. Helen Tub Spring Tuff
15.015.1 Tunnel bed 2 Tunnel bed 2
15.115.15 Tuff of Yucca Flat Tuff of Yucca Flat
15.1515.2 Tunnel bed 1
15.215.4 Red Rock Valley Tuff Red Rock Valley Tuff
15.415.55 Tuff of Twin Peaks Tuff of Twin Peaks
15.5515.6 No Data Rhyolite of the Hump
15.615.7 Tuff of Argillite Wash Tuff of Argillite Wash
15.716.2
16.216.3 Tuff of Whiterock Spring Tuff of Whiterock Spring
Note: Compiled from Orkild and Jenkins (1978); Carr and Parrish (1985); Kilroy and Savard (1996); Plume and La Camera (1996); Robledo
et al. (1997); Warren et al. (1998); and Fridrich (1999).

Creek groundwater basin is inhibited by the Solitario Canyon and
Southern Windy Wash Faults on the west side of Yucca Mountain
and by faults following Fortymile Wash on the east side of Yucca
Mountain (Geldon, 2000). Groundwater in the basin generally
moves southward and discharges as springflow and evapo-
transpiration at Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows, Alkali Flat, and
Death Valley (Fridrich et al., 1994; Tucci and Burkhardt, 1995;
DAgnese et al., 1997). Figure 9 shows a potentiometric surface
and general groundwater flow directions in the Yucca Mountain
area that are based on data obtained mostly from 1996 to 2002.
Static water levels are in Miocene volcanic rocks, except where
these formations pinch out in southeastern Fortymile Wash and
in the Amargosa Desert. Shallowest static water levels in the lat-
ter areas generally are in Quaternary-Tertiary alluvium and playa
sediments or Tertiary sedimentary rocks.
Hydrostratigraphic Units
Stratabound aquifers and aquitards, as conceived by Wino-
grad and Thordarson (1975), have long been the basis for dis-
cussions and numerical simulations of groundwater flow in the
Death Valley region. However, this categorization fails to account
for structurally and lithologically controlled variations in hydrau-
lic properties within geologic units and vertical groundwater flow
between geologic units of diverse lithology, which regionally
are the prevailing influences on groundwater flow. Classifying
related geologic units that have similar lithologic and hydraulic
properties over laterally extensive areas as hydrostratigraphic
units (HSUs) or hydrogeologic units (HGUs), instead of aquifers
and aquitards, avoids misleading inferences about transmissive
properties that do not persist on a regional scale.
8 A.L. Geldon

Figure 5. Lithofacies changes in Miocene volcanic rocks, Pahute Mesa to Yucca Mountain.

Unfortunately, there will never be universal agreement on
hydrogeologic nomenclature in the Death Valley region, because
the rationale for combining a large number of geologic units into
a much smaller number of HSUs or HGUs will always depend on
the purpose and scope of the study. Conceptual framework stud-
ies tend to have the smallest number of HSUs or HGUs, because
these studies emphasize regional influences on groundwater flow.
For example, Winograd and Thordarson (1975) identified 11
HGUs above Precambrian metamorphic and igneous basement
rocks in the vicinity of the Nevada Test Site, whereas Laczniak
et al. (1996) recognized only 9 equivalent HGUs. Studies such as
this one or that of Belcher et al. (2001), which synthesize sparsely
distributed hydraulic data to enable interpretations, require a
small number of HSUs or HGUs to optimize available data
for detecting and discussing trends in the data. Both this study
and that of Belcher et al. (2001) delineated 11 HSUs or HGUs,
although units were defined somewhat differently in the two
studies. Numerical modeling studies utilize simple or complex
schemes of nomenclature that are commensurate with the model
complexity. For example, DAgnese et al. (1997) incorporated
10 HGUs into three model layers to simulate groundwater flow
in the Death Valley region. In contrast, IT Corporation (1997a)
constructed a groundwater flow model of the Death Valley region
involving 26 HSUs distributed in 20 model layers. Geologists
generally have tried to retain the largest number of established
geologic units in developing hydrogeologic nomenclature for the
Death Valley region. For example, Workman et al. (2002) incor-
porated 111 broadly defined geologic units into a geologic map
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 9

EXPLANATION

Ground-water Basins and Sections

(1) Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley Basin

a. Kawich Valley Section
b. Oasis Valley Section

(2) Ash Meadows Basin

a. Pahranagat Valley Section
b. Tikaboo Valley Section
c. Indian Springs Valley Section
d. Emigrant Valley Section
e. Yucca-Frenchman Flat Section
f. Specter Range Section

(3) Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek Basin

a. Fortymile Canyon Section
b. Amargosa River Section
c. Crater Flat Section
d. Funeral Mountains Section

Ground-water Flow Direction

Figure 6. Groundwater flow in the central Death Valley subregion. (Modified from DAgnese et al., 1997.)

that was compiled to support groundwater modeling. Although
this large number of units preserves genetic and structural com-
plexity, insufficient data exist to quantify hydraulic properties of
most of these map units. The map nomenclature will have to be
simplified substantially for numerical modeling and other syn-
theses of hydraulic data.
Eleven HSUs were recognized in this study for the purpose
of discussing hydraulic properties in the Death Valley region.
Table 3 lists these HSUs and compares nomenclature used in this
study with nomenclature used in some previous hydrologic stud-
ies of the Death Valley region. Lithologic and hydrologic proper-
ties of HSUs identified in this study are described briefly below.
Most basin-fill sediments are included in the Quaternary-
Tertiary fan, floodplain, and stream alluvium HSU. Component
geologic units are Holocene to Pliocene in age. Included sedi-
ments consist of sand, gravelly sand, sandy gravel, and gravel,
with cobbles, boulders, silty to clayey intervals, and thin inter-
beds of clay and silt, that were deposited mostly in alluvial fans,
floodplains, and stream channels. Subordinate eolian silt and
sand, landslide deposits, debris flows, talus, colluvium, basalt
flows, and tuff layers are present locally. Generally uncon-
solidated at and near the water table, sediments become more
indurated with increasing depth. This HSU tends to be an aquifer
regionally, but finer grained sediments and intercalated volcanics
impede groundwater movement.
The Quaternary-Tertiary playa and spring deposits HSU
consists of playa, lake, marsh, and spring-deposited clay, marl,
limestone, silt, sand, gravel, evaporite deposits, and thin tuff lay-
ers. Component geologic units are Holocene to Pliocene in age.
Regionally, this HSU tends to be a confining unit, but limestone
and sand layers can be very productive aquifers.
The Quaternary-Tertiary basalt lava flows HSU consists
of mafic lava flows intercalated with and underlying basin-fill
sediments, and also cinder cones that are present locally in topo-
graphic basins. Component geologic units, which are Holocene
to Miocene in age, are not laterally extensive. Hydraulic proper-
10 A.L. Geldon

Figure 7. Hydrogeologic section through

the C-holes complex at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. (Section, location shown in Fig-
ure 39, is from Geldon et al., 1998.)

Figure 8. Static water levels and ma-

jor transmissive intervals in Miocene
tuffaceous rocks in boreholes drilled at
Yucca Mountain. (Modified from Gel-
don, 1993.)
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 11

4085000
Yucca Wash Fault Bow Ridge Fault
Sever Wash Fault WT6 1000 Midway Valley Fault
Pagany Wash Fault G2 900
WT24 800 Paintbrush Canyon Fault
Solitario Canyon WT16 750775Fortymile Wash Fault
Fault WT18
H1 735
4080000 WT4
H5 WT15
B1
H6
H4
WT2 WT14
ONC1
C2P1 WT13
WT7 H3
WT1
4075000 G3
WT10 WT17 J13
WT3
VH1 Yucca Mountain
J11
UTM NORTH, IN METERS

WT11 WT12
4070000
731
Crater 730
Flat J12 Jackass
Flats 729
18P
Fortymile
Southern Wash 728
Windy Wash Stagecoach
Fault Road Fault 10P
4065000

1S 725
22PB
12PB 9SX 722
23P
4060000 3S 720
15P 71519D 5S NEVADA TEST SITE
1X
2DB
710 4PB

Highway 95 Fault AD2AAMARGOSA VALLEY

AD2
4055000
Amargosa Desert

4050000
535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 565000

UTM EAST, IN METERS

EXPLANATION
FAULT (Generally concealed partially by alluvium

LINE OF EQUAL STATIC WATER LEVEL, IN METERS

ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVELContour interval variable

APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW

Figure 9. Potentiometric surface in the Yucca Mountain area, 19962002. (Water-level data are from files of the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office.)

Hydrostratigraphic Unit
(this report)
Quaternary-Tertiary fan,
floodplain, and stream
alluvium
Quaternary-Tertiary playa
and spring deposits
Quaternary-Tertiary basalt
lava flows
Tertiary sedimentary rocks
Younger Tertiary tuff and
lava flows
Older Tertiary tuff and lava
flows
Tertiary and Mesozoic
granitic rocks
Mesozoic and Permian
sedimentary rocks
Paleozoic carbonate rocks
Paleozoic and Proterozoic
clastic rocks
Early Proterozoic igneous
and metamorphic rocks
12
TABLE 3. HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS, REPRESENTATIVE GEOLOGIC UNITS,
AND CORRE LATIVE HYDROGEOLOGIC AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS IN THE DEATH VALLEY REGION
Hydrogeologic or Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Representative Geologic Units Laczniak et al. (1996) DAgnese et al. (1997) IT Corporation (1997a)
Quaternary stream-channel and floodplain alluvium; Valley-fill Aquifer Quaternary-Tertiary valley fill Alluvial aquifer
Quaternary-Tertiary fan alluvium
Quaternary-Tertiary lacustrine and playa sediments Valley-fill Aquifer Quaternary playa deposits Alluvial aquifer
and spring-carbonate deposits
Basalt of Crater Flat area, Basalt of Jackass Flats, No equivalent Quaternary-Tertiary lava flows Volcanic aquifer; Volcanics
PostThirsty Canyon basalt flows; undifferentiated
Funeral Formation
Furnace Creek, Artist Drive, Muddy Creek, Horse No equivalent Tertiary volcanic and Tertiary sediments and Death
Spring, and Pavits Spring Formations volcaniclastic rocks Valley section
Volcanics of Fortymile Canyon; Timber Mountain, Lava flow and welded tuff Tertiary volcanic rocks; Timber Mountain aquifer; Tuff
Paintbrush, Crater Flat, and Belted Range Groups; aquifers (locally tuff confining Quaternary-Tertiary lava flows cones; Bullfrog confining
Calico Hills and Wahmonie Formations unit) unit; Belted Range aquifer;
Volcanic aquifer
Tram Ridge Group; Tunnel Formation; Tuff of Yucca Tuff confining unit (locally welded Tertiary volcanic rocks; Basal confining unit; Basal
A.L. Geldon
Flat; Tub Spring, Redrock Valley, Shingle Pass, Hiko, tuff or lava flow aquifer) Quaternary-Tertiary lava aquifer; Volcanic confining
and Monotony Tuffs; Volcanics of Quartz Mountain; flows; Tertiary volcanic and unit; Volcanics undifferen-
Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak volcaniclastic rocks tiated;
Tertiary, Cretaceous, and Jurassic intrusive rocks Granite TertiaryLate Jurassic granitic Intrusives
rocks
Chinle, Moenkopi, Kaibab, and Toroweap Formations; No equivalent Mesozoic sedimentary and No equivalent
Permian redbeds metavolcanic rocks
Monte Cristo and Pogonip Groups; Guilmette, Nopah, Lower carbonate-rock aquifer Paleozoic carbonate rocks Lower carbonate aquifer
Bonanza King, and Carrara Formations; Simonson,
Sevy, Laketown, and Ely Springs Dolomites
Bird Spring, Eleana, Wood Canyon, and Johnnie Upper carbonate-rock aquifer, Paleozoic-Precambrian clastic Upper carbonate aquifer;
Formations; Chainman Shale; Eureka, Zabriskie, and Eleana confining unit, Quartzite rocks Upper clastic confining unit;
Stirling Quartzites; Pahrump Group confining unit Lower clastic confining unit
Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks. No equivalent Precambrian metamorphic No equivalent
rocks
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
ties of individual lava flows are extremely variable, and cinder
cones typically are above the water table.
The Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU consists of
nonwelded to densely welded ash-flow tuff, depositional and
fault-related tuff breccia, ash-fall tuff, reworked tuff, volcaniclastic
rocks, and rhyolite, comendite, and trachyte lava flows. Component
geologic units are Pliocene to Miocene in age. The volcanic rocks
that comprise this HSU tend to have both fracture and matrix per-
meability. Fracturing, which is most intense near faults, is believed
to enhance permeability. Alteration of rock-forming minerals to
zeolite, clay, carbonate, silica, and other minerals, which is most
intense toward eruptive centers, is believed to reduce permeability.
Hydraulic properties within this HSU are extremely variable later-
ally and vertically. Fortuitous combinations of lithology and struc-
ture can result in very transmissive intervals or major impediments
to groundwater flow over large areas.
The Older Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU consists mostly of
ash-flow tuff, ash-fall tuff, reworked tuff, tuff breccia, volcanicla-
stic rocks, rhyolite, comendite, rhyodacite, and dacite lava flows,
but shale, sandstone, and conglomerate are intercalated. Compo-
nent geologic units are Miocene to Oligocene in age. The volcanic
rocks that comprise this HSU tend to have both fracture and matrix
permeability. Ash-flow tuffs tend to be nonwelded, but they can
be partly to densely welded. Alteration of ash-flow, ash-fall, and
reworked tuffs to zeolite, clay, carbonate, silica, and other minerals
is common. Regionally, this HSU tends to be a confining unit.
The Tertiary and Mesozoic granitic rocks HSU consists
of granodiorite, quartz monzonite, granite, and tonalite stocks
and larger plutons. Component geologic units are Oligocene to
Jurassic in age. Although these intrusive rocks can produce small
quantities of water from fractures and weathered zones, they
impede groundwater flow wherever they are present.
The Mesozoic and Permian sedimentary rocks HSU consists
of interbedded conglomerate, gravelly sandstone, sandstone,
siltstone, shale, calcareous shale, limestone, and gypsum. Com-
ponent geologic units are Jurassic to Permian in age. Hydraulic
properties are extremely variable. The Shinarump Conglomerate
Member of the Chinle Formation and the Kaibab Limestone are
regional aquifers, and other sandstone and limestone intervals
transmit water locally. Conversely, intervals predominantly com-
posed of shale, such as upper members of the Chinle Formation,
are regional confining units.
The Paleozoic carbonate rocks HSU interfingers with the
Paleozoic and Proterozoic clastic rocks HSU. The Paleozoic car-
bonate rocks HSU consists of cherty, siliceous, silty, shaly, and
fine-grained limestone and cherty, silty, sandy, and fine-grained
dolomite with subordinate chert, shale, siltstone, sandstone, and
quartzite. Component geologic units are Permian to Cambrian
in age. Although clastic intervals confine flow, Mississippian,
Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Cambrian limestone and
dolomite are aquifers throughout the Great Basin and adjacent
physiographic provinces.
The Paleozoic and Proterozoic clastic rocks HSU consists of
argillite, shale, siltstone, quartzite, sandstone, and conglomerate
13
with subordinate chert, limestone, dolomite, and diabase. Com-
ponent geologic units are Permian to Middle Proterozoic in age.
Although limestone, dolomite, and clastic rocks locally transmit
water, this HSU regionally is considered a confining unit.
The Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks HSU
consists of schist, metaconglomerate, gneiss, marble, and metadio-
rite, which are intruded by monzonitic to granitic dikes. Although
these rocks can produce small quantities of water from fractures
and weathered zones, they constitute a confining unit that is the
base of the groundwater flow system in the Death Valley region.
The remainder of this report focuses on the Younger Tertiary
tuff and lava flows HSU. This HSU at Yucca Mountain extends
downward from the Rainier Mesa Tuff in the Timber Mountain
Group to the Lithic Ridge Tuff in the Tram Ridge Group. This
HSU at Pahute Mesa extends downward from the Volcanics
of Stonewall Mountain to the Comendite of Split Ridge in the
Belted Range Group. As indicated in Figure 10, this HSU is one
of the most permeable in the Death Valley region.
Groundwater in the Younger Tertiary Tuff and Lava Flows
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Transmissive intervals in the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava
flows HSU are bound not by stratigraphic or lithologic contacts
but by terminations of vertically continuous fractures zones or,
less commonly, zones with relatively large matrix permeability.
Within these intervals, there is no correlation between the inten-
sity of fracturing or the degree to which tuff layers are welded
(Geldon, 1996, tables 4, 5, and 6). Whereas faults cutting the
tuffaceous rocks commonly enhance their transmissivity (Gel-
don, 1996; Geldon et al., 1998), secondary zeolitization tends to
inhibit flow through these rocks (Laczniak et al., 1996).
In cross-hole hydraulic tests, the effective aquifer is the
total thickness of transmissive intervals in the volume of rock
between the production and observation wells. The upper and
lower limits of the effective aquifer change depending on the
interval that is open in the production well. Thus, for example,
in an injection test conducted from June 11 to September 1,
1998 (Geldon et al., 1999), the injection well, UE-25 c#3, was
open in the Prow Pass Tuff, the open interval between UE-25
c#3 and UE-25 ONC#1 is believed to have been open in the
same interval, and the total thickness of transmissive rock
between the two wells was estimated to be 19 m. In a pumping
test conducted at Yucca Mountain from May 22 to June 1, 1995
(Geldon et al., 1998), the pumping well, UE-25 c#3, was open
from the Calico Hills Formation to the Tram Tuff, the open
interval between UE-25 c#3 and UE-25 ONC#1 is believed
to have extended, also, from the Calico Hills Formation to the
Tram Tuff, and the total thickness of transmissive rock between
the two wells was estimated to be 176 m. Hypothetical flow
paths between UE-25 c#3 and UE-25 ONC#1 in these two tests
are shown in Figure 11.
As shown in Figure 12, diverse rock types and fracture
frequency, among other factors, impart layered heterogeneity to
14
100
QUATERNARY-TERTIARY
BASIN FILLSEDIMENTS
90
YOUNGER TERTIARY
CUMULATIVE PERCENT EQUAL OR LESS THAN
TUFF AND LAVA
80 OLDER TERTIARY
TUFF AND LAVA
70 TERTIARY-MESOZOIC
GRANITIC ROCKS
MESOZOIC-PERMIAN
60 SEDIMENTARY
PALEOZOIC
50 CARBONATE ROCKS
PALEOZOIC-
PROTEROZOIC
40 CLASTIC ROCKS
30
20
10
0
0.00001 0.0001
the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU. HSU boundaries
are irrelevant for determining hydraulic conductivity, because
hydraulic tests can be conducted in multiple combinations of
variably transmissive intervals at any site within this HSU.
The extent to which transmissive intervals can be traced
laterally largely depends on the length, spacing, and intercon-
nectivity of fractures. Tests in which tracers were injected into
boreholes ER-20-6#1 and ER-20-6#2 in June 1997 and recov-
ered in borehole ER-20-6#3 established the lateral continuity
of transmissive intervals in rhyolite lava flows of the Calico
Hills Formation on Pahute Mesa over distances of 89131 m
(IT Corporation, 1998b). Tests in which tracers were injected
into boreholes UE-25 c#1 and UE-25 c#2 in 1996 and 1997
and recovered in borehole UE-25 c#3 established the lateral
continuity of transmissive intervals in the Bullfrog and Tram
Tuffs at Yucca Mountain over distances of 2985 m (Fahy,
1997). Cross-hole seismic tomography confirmed that trans-
missive intervals in the Bullfrog and Tram Tuffs at Yucca
Mountain extend 29 m between boreholes UE-25 c#2 and
UE-25 c#3 (E. Majer, Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-
tory, 1993, written commun.)
Regional groundwater flow between transmissive intervals
is maintained by downward or upward hydraulic gradients.
Vertical flow is enhanced by well-developed fracture networks
related to regional structural fabrics. The principal structures
affecting the Yucca Mountain area are a series of high-angle,
north-northeasterly striking, extensional faults, including the
Southern Windy Wash, Solitario Canyon, Stagecoach Road,
A.L. Geldon
GEOMETRIC MEAN
Figure 10. Log-normal distributions of
hydraulic conductivity in Death Valley
region hydrostratigraphic units. (Data
from Appendix B.)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, IN METERS PER DAY
Ghost Dance, Bow Ridge, Midway Valley, Paintbrush Canyon,
and Fortymile Wash Faults (most of these are shown in Fig. 9).
Most fractures encountered in traverses of outcrops at Yucca
Mountain are aligned with these faults (Geldon, 1993, Fig. 18),
as are most fractures detected in boreholes (Fig. 13). Of sec-
ondary importance are northwesterly trending, predominantly
right-lateral, strike-slip faults of the Walker Lane Belt (Carr,
1988), which include the Highway 95, Dune Wash, Drillhole
Wash, Pagany Wash, Sever Wash, and Yucca Wash Faults, the
Antler Wash Fault Zone, and the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone
(most of these are shown in Fig. 9). An overprint of Walker
Lane tectonics is evident in the fracture frequency in boreholes
UE-25 c#1 and UE-25 c#2 (Fig. 13).
The coexistence of north-northeasterly and northwesterly
faults and related fractures in the Yucca Mountain area imparts
lateral (x-y) heterogeneity to the area. An example of this
heterogeneity in a 21 km2 area was demonstrated by pumping
borehole UE-25 c#3 at a rate of 17.9 L/s from May 22 to June
1, 1995. (This test is described fully by Geldon et al. [1998] and
in more detail later in this report.) The pumping well, UE-25
c#3, was open in the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow Pass,
Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs. Six observation wells that were used
in the test were open in formations ranging from the Topopah
Spring Tuff down to the Lithic Ridge Tuff. The pattern of draw-
down after 10 days clearly showed the influences of the two
prominent fault sets. Drawdown in four wells that responded to
pumping ranged from 0.072 to 0.42 m and was distributed along
north-northeasterly and northwesterly trending axes (Fig. 14).
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
Drawdown in boreholes UE-25 c#2, UE-25 ONC-1, and USW
H-4 decreased as a function of distance in a northwesterly
direction. Drawdown in UE-25 c#1, north-northeast of, and
about three times farther from the pumping well than UE-25
c#2, exhibited drawdown that was 26% larger than that in UE-
25 c#2. Plotted as a function of time, drawdown in UE-25 c#2,
UE-25 ONC-1, and USW H-4 (Fig. 15) indicated horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of 14 m/d in a northwesterly direction,
whereas recovery in UE-25 c#1 (Fig. 16) indicated horizontal
15
Figure 11. Hypothetical flow paths between
the production well, UE-25 c#3, and an ob-
servation well, UE-25 ONC#1: (A) UE-25
c#3 open in the Prow Pass Tuff during an
injection test in 1998; and (B), UE-25 c#3
open in the Calico Hills Formation and the
Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs during
a pumping test in 1995.
hydraulic conductivity of 7 m/d in a north-northeasterly direc-
tion. The Antler Wash Fault Zone, in which boreholes UE-25
c#2, UE-25 ONC-1, and USW H-4 are present, is believed to
have influenced drawdown in these observation wells. UE-25
c#1 might have been far enough from the Antler Wash Fault
Zone that the Midway Valley Fault, which intersects UE-25
c#1, was the principal influence on drawdown in this well.
Faults can act as either conduits or barriers to regional
groundwater flow. A recharging fault conducts water between
16 A.L. Geldon
transmissive intervals on either side that have been brought into
proximity by displacement of confining layers. The most promi-
nent fault conduit in the Yucca Mountain area is the Midway
Valley Fault (Fig. 9). Gravity and magnetic surveys and geologic
mapping indicate that this high-angle, normal fault has ~4060 m
of down-to-the-west displacement (Simonds et al., 1995). The
Midway Valley Fault intersects the Tram Tuff in boreholes UE-25
c#3 and UE-25 c#1 at Yucca Mountain. Pumping UE-25 c#3 at a
rate of 26.8 L/s from October 30 to November 15, 1984 induced
recharge from the Midway Valley Fault to the Tram Tuff in UE-25
c#1. This recharge is indicated in Figure 17 by the development of
steady-state drawdown ~4500 min after pumping started.
Recharge from the Midway Valley Fault dramatically
affected drawdown in two observation wells during the lower
Bullfrog pumping test, which was conducted May 8, 1996,
to November 12, 1997, in borehole UE-25 c#3 (discussed by
Geldon et al., 2002, and in more detail later in this report). Pump-
Figure 12. Lithologic and hydrologic
heterogeneity in borehole UE-25 c#1 at
Yucca Mountain. (Compiled from Gel-
don, 1993, 1996; Geldon et al., 2002.)
ing the lower Bullfrog interval in UE-25 c#3 at an average rate
of 9.21 L/s produced drawdown in 11 observation wells located
296414 m away. Unlike the nine other observation wells that
responded to pumping, boreholes USW H-4 and UE-25 WT#14
(Fig. 9) appear to have received a flux from a recharge boundary
during the test. USW H-4, 2245 m northwest of UE-25 c#3, was
open in the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, Tram, and Lithic Ridge Tuffs.
UE-25 WT#14, 2249 m northeast of UE-25 c#3, is believed to
have been connected hydraulically to UE-25 c#3 during the test
through the Topopah Spring Tuff, Calico Hills Formation, Prow
Pass Tuff, and Bullfrog Tuff.
On June 27, 1996, after 72,000 min of pumping, drawdown
in USW H-4, peaked at 0.21 m and then oscillated between
0.18 and 0.20 m at least through December 1996. After 72,000
min of pumping, drawdown in UE-25 WT#14 peaked at 0.15 m
and then oscillated between 0.06 and 0.10 m at least through
December 1996. An image-well solution (Walton, 1970)
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 17

240
Q W (u )
UE-25 c#1 T= (1)
4s
200
NUMBER OF FRACTURES

UE-25 c#2
160 K = T/b (2)

120 4Ttu
S= (3)
r2
80
where T is transmissivity (L2/T); Q is the discharge or injec-
40
tion rate (L3/T); W(u) is the exponential integral function; u is a
dimensionless parameter defined by Equation 3; K is hydraulic
conductivity (L/T); b is the transmissive thickness (L); S is stor-
0
250-290 291-339 340-20 21-69 ativity (dimensionless); t is the time since pumping or injection
started or stopped corresponding to u; s is the water-level change
STRIKE AZIMUTH, IN DEGREES
(L) corresponding to W(u); and r is the distance from the test well
Figure 13. Distribution of non-mineralized fractures in Yucca Moun- to an observation well or the test well radius (L).
tain boreholes. (Data from Geldon, 1996.) Image well positions are located by solving the following
equation for all observation wells exhibiting boundary effects:

was applied to drawdown data for these two wells to obtain ri = r (t t )

hydraulic properties. An image-well solution avoids overesti-
mating transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity by removing
recharge from the boundary which is superimposed on draw-
down from pumping. Additionally, this solution was used to
locate the boundary.
In an image-well solution, the exponential integral curve of
Theis (1935) is fit to drawdown data plotted as a function of time
on log-log scales before and after boundary effects are observed
for every observation well that exhibits these effects. Hydraulic
properties are determined by applying the following equations to
the pre-boundary match-point values:
i p (4)
where: ri is the distance from the image well to the observation
well (L); r is the distance from the pumped well to the observation
well (L); tp is the time required to attain any value of drawdown,
sp, before boundary effects are observed (T); and ti is the time
required to attain a departure between the matched pre-boundary
and post-boundary type curve traces equal to sp (T).
For each observation well, a circle with radius ri is drawn
with the observation well at the center. The intersection of two
circles indicates two possible positions for the image well. The
intersection of three circles indicates one possible position for the

4078000
0.

0.40
05

H-4 WT#14
0.05

0.35
UTM NORTH (METERS)

ONC-1

4076000 C#1 0.30

H-3 C#2 WT#13

0.25 Figure 14. Asymmetric drawdown in

observation wells at Yucca Mountain
0.1
5 0.20 14,000 min after pumping started in
borehole UE-25 c#3 on May 22, 1995
05

4074000
0.

0.10 (Data from Geldon et al., 1998).

0.15
NW
0.0
5 0.10
WT#3
NNE 0.05
4072000
547000 549000 551000 553000 555000
DRAWDOWN,
UTM EAST (METERS) IN METERS
 1
18 A.L. Geldon
Early-time
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

Match point

0.1

Figure 15. Analysis of drawdown in ob-

servation wells by the method of Neu-
USW H-4
man (1975), pumping test in UE-25 c#3,
0.01 UE-25 ONC#1 Yucca Mountain, May 22June 1, 1995.
UE-25 c#2
(Data from Geldon et al., 1998.)

UE-25 c#1
TYPE CURVE
0.001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED/DISTANCE SQUARED, IN MINUTES PER SQUARE METER

Early-time Match
point
RECOVERY, IN MINUTES

0.1
+ +
Late-time Match
Point
Figure 16. Analysis of recovery in bore-
hole UE-25 c#1, June 19, 1995, by the
method of Neuman (1975), pumping test
0.01 in UE-25 c#3, Yucca Mountain, May 22
DATA June 1, 1995 (Geldon et al., 1998).
TYPE CURVE

0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STOPPED, IN MINUTES

10
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

Figure 17. Analysis of drawdown in the

Match Tram Tuff interval in borehole UE-25
Point c#1 caused by pumping borehole UE-25
c#3 October 30November 15, 1984.
0.1
(Modified from Geldon, 1996.)
Transmissivity = 730 m2/d
Hydraulic conductivity = 12 m/d
Storativity = 0.003 DATA
Analyzed by method of Cooper (1963) TYPE CURVE

0.01
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
image well. The boundary is located at half the distance between
the image well and the pumped well.
For USW H-4 and UE-25 WT#14, Theis (1935) curves
were matched to the drawdown data before 30,000 min and from
30,000 to 300,000 min. Figure 18 shows the analytical solution
for USW H-4. Equations 13 applied to early-time match points
indicated transmissivity of 560710 m2/d, hydraulic conductivity
of 4.25.0 m/d, and storativity of 0.002.
Equation 4 applied to values of tp and ti indicated that image
wells were located 4762 m from USW H-4 and 3681 m from UE-
25 WT#14. Circles with a radius of 4.8 km centered on USW H-4
and a radius of 3.7 km centered on UE-25 WT#14 were drawn
on the 1:24,000-scale geologic map of Day et al. (1998). The two
circles intersected at the southern end of Fran Ridge and at the
juncture of Midway Valley and Yucca Wash (Fig. 19). Because
USW H-4 and UE-25 WT#14 are north of the pumping well,
UE-25 c#3, the juncture of Midway Valley and Yucca Wash, also
north of UE-25 c#3, is the more likely of the two intersections
for the location of the image well. By definition, the boundary is
half the distance between the image well and the pumping well.
This solution indicated that the recharge boundary is the Midway
Valley Fault zone, 2713 m northeast of UE-25 c#3.
Faults act as barriers to regional groundwater flow where
transmissive intervals are offset against non-transmissive inter-
vals. One of the most prominent barrier-boundary faults in the
Yucca Mountain area is the Solitario Canyon Fault (Figs. 9 and
s i = 0.1 m
t i = 90,000 minutes
MATCH
POINT
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
0.1
sp = 0.1 m
t p = 20,000 minutes
0.01
DATA
EARLY-TIME W(u) TYPE CURVE
LATE-TIME W(u) TYPE CURVE
0.001
1000 10000 100000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
19
19), which dips ~70 westward. Bedrock displacement along
this fault ranges from 61 m down to the east at its northern end
to >500 m down to the west at its southern end (Simonds et al.,
1995). Primarily, barrier-boundary faults segment the Alkali
FlatFurnace Creek and Ash Meadows groundwater basins
(Fig. 6) into separate hydrologic domains.
Extensive hydraulic testing conducted at Yucca Mountain
from 1995 to 1998 had no effect on water levels in production
wells located in Jackass Flats to the east (Fig. 6). This observa-
tion appears to indicate that Yucca Mountain and Jackass Flats
are located in separate hydrologic domains. In fact, potentio-
metric contours, geophysical lineaments, and pumping-test data
indicate that hydrologic boundaries isolate Yucca Mountain on
all sides. Faults coincide with all boundaries of the Yucca Moun-
tain hydrologic domain. Faults bounding the northern part of this
hydrologic domain are shown in Figure 20.
The west side of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain is
demarcated by the north-northeasterly trending Solitario Canyon
and Southern Windy Wash Faults, both of which dip steeply west-
ward and have mostly down-to-the-west displacement (Simonds
et al., 1995). Steepened hydraulic gradients across the Solitario
Canyon and Southern Windy Wash Faults (Fig. 9) indicate that
these faults inhibit groundwater flow. At the south end of Yucca
Mountain, the Southern Windy Wash Fault is a barrier to flow
because it offsets transmissive welded tuff and tuff breccia in the
Rainier Mesa and Tiva Canyon Tuffs against non-transmissive
Figure 18. Analysis of drawdown in
USW H-4, pumping test in UE-25 c#3,
May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997.
(Data from Geldon et al., 2002.)
1000000
20 A.L. Geldon

1162730 1162600

EXPLANATION

H-4 USW H-4

Pinnacles Ridge
C#3 UE-25 c#3
WT#14 - UE-25 WT#14
M Midway Valley Fault
Yucca Wash F Fortymile Wash Fault
S Solitario Canyon Fault

WT#14
365230 BOREHOLE
Midway CIRCLE WITH
Valley RADIUS EQUAL
M TO DISTANCE
BETWEEN
H-4 OBSERVATION
WT#14
AND IMAGE
WELLS
C#3
Yucca Fran
Mountain Ridge FAULT

DISTANCE
S Fortymile BETWEEN
Wash IMAGE AND
364730 F PUMPING
Busted WELLS - Cross
Butte
at recharge
boundary

Figure 19. Identification of the Midway Valley Fault as a recharge boundary by an image well solution of a pumping test conducted in UE-25 c#3
at Yucca Mountain, May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 21

1162730 1162600

EXPLANATION

WELL ABBREVIATIONS
YUCCA
WASH G-2 - USW G-2
FAULT
H-1 - USW H-1
H-3 - USW H-3
H-4 - USW H-4
H-5 - USW H-5
G-2 H-6 - USW H-6
B#1 - UE-25 b#1
WT#16 C#1 - UE-25 c#1
365230 C#2 - UE-25 c#2
C#3 - UE-25 c#3
PAGANY WASH ONC#1 - UE-25 ONC#1
H-1 FAULT WT-1 - USW WT-1
WT#4 ALICE WT#3 - UE-25 WT#3
H-5 DRILL WT#4 - UE-25 WT#4
POINT WT#15
HOLE WT-7 - USW WT-7
H-6 WASH B#1 MIDWAY WT-10 - USW WT-10
VALLEY WT-11 - USW WT-11
H-4 WT#14 WT#13 - UE-25 WT#13
YUCCA
MOUNTAIN WT#14 - UE-25 WT#14
ONC#1 WT#13 WT#15 - UE-25 WT#15
C#1
WT-7 C#3 WT#16 - UE-25 WT#16
H-3 C#2
WT-1
FRAN FAULT
BOW RIDGE FORTYMILE BOUNDARY
RIDGE WASH
WT-10
J-13
ONC#1 BOREHOLE
DUNE WITH
WT#3
364730 WASH JACKASS DRAWDOWN
FLATS IN 1996-97
PUMPING
TEST IN
WT-11 UE-25 c#3
BUSTED J-12
BUTTE
J-13 BOREHOLE
WITH NO
SOLITARIO FORTYMILE DRAWDOWN
CANYON WASH FAULT IN 1996-97
FAULT PUMPING
TEST IN
UE-25 c#3

Figure 20. Boundaries of the northern Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain, as indicated by a pumping test conducted in borehole UE-25 c#3
May 8, 1996 to November 12, 1997. (Data from Geldon et al., 2002.)
22 A.L. Geldon
Tertiary sedimentary rocks and a bedded interval in the Bullfrog
Tuff (Fig. 21).
The northern boundary of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic
domain is demarcated by the en echelon, northwesterly trending
Yucca Wash, Sever Wash, and Pagany Wash Faults, which dip
steeply to the southwest and exhibit predominantly strike-slip
displacement (Simonds et al., 1995). A large hydraulic gradient
in the regional potentiometric surface extends across the area
where these faults are present (Fig. 9). Fridrich et al. (1994)
interpreted this large hydraulic gradient to be the result of a bur-
ied fault at the interface between Paleozoic clastic and carbonate
rocks that diverts water recharged to the volcanic rocks north
of the fault into the more permeable Paleozoic carbonate rocks
south of the fault. This interpretation is supported by a negative
heat-flow anomaly in the vicinity of the large hydraulic gradient,
which was discussed by Sass et al. (1988).
The east side of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain is a
poorly delimited graben that follows the trend of Fortymile Wash
from Yucca Wash to the town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada. At
its northern end, this graben probably includes two faults shown
on a geologic map by Day et al. (1998), a concealed fault in
Fortymile Wash east of Alice Point, and the Busted Butte Fault.
Electrical resistivity and gravity data indicate additional seg-
ments of this graben on both sides of Fortymile Wash (Ponce and
Oliver, 1995). Offsets of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks
between wells NC-EWDP-15P and NC-Washburn 1x establish
Figure 21. Geologic section across the
southern end of Yucca Mountain north
of U.S. 95. (Interpreted from Nye Coun-
ty Nuclear Waste Repository Project Of-
fice borehole lithologic logs available at
http://www.nyecounty.com/.)
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
the location of the Fortymile Wash Graben at the southeastern
end of Yucca Mountain (Fig. 21). Step-like decreases in the water
table across faults bounding the graben (Fig. 21) indicate that
these faults inhibit groundwater flow across them.
The south side of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain is
inferred to be the broad, complex Highway 95 Fault zone, which
extends northwesterly along the Nevada-California state line from
Pahrump Valley to the southern Amargosa Desert and exhibits
predominantly strike-slip displacement (Blakely et al., 1999). A
southward 44 m decrease in static water levels between wells NC-
EWDP-9SX and NC-EWDP-12PB, which straddle the Highway
95 Fault zone at the southwestern end of Yucca Mountain, indi-
cates that the fault zone inhibits groundwater flow across it.
23
North of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain, north-
northeasterly trending, high-angle, extensional faults and the
structural walls of overlapping caldera complexes disturb
regional groundwater flow (Laczniak et al., 1996; Blankennagel
and Weir, 1973). The north-northeasterly trending, high-angle
faults can act as either barriers or conduits, depending on how
they offset transmissive and non-transmissive volcanic rocks.
Different sequences of lava flows and tuff emplaced within
individual calderas and faults associated with caldera walls
impede groundwater flow. The Ammonia Tanks and Rainier
Mesa calderas (Fig. 22) probably cause limited hydraulic con-
nection between Pahute Mesa and areas to the south (Laczniak
et al., 1996).
Figure 22. Generalized geologic map of
the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
between Yucca Mountain and Pahute
Mesa, showing caldera complexes and
related volcanic rocks. (Modified from
Fleck et al., 1996.)
24 A.L. Geldon
HYDRAULIC TESTS
Despite the complexity of the groundwater system in the
eastern Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field, extensive hydraulic
testing has been done there successfully for nearly 50 years.
Hydraulic testing in the area evolved over the years from
window-of-opportunity efforts during drilling of exploration,
monitoring, and emplacement boreholes for nuclear tests to sys-
tematic, multidisciplinary approaches in boreholes dedicated for
hydrologic research. Planning of the later tests benefited from the
knowledge of what worked and what did not in the earlier tests.
Whereas identification of transmissive intervals initially relied
on crude lithologic logs and relative specific-capacity profiling,
it became standard practice to use detailed borehole lithologic
and geophysical logs and increasingly refined borehole flow-
survey techniques in this effort. Ongoing geologic mapping at
increasingly larger scales, together with petrographic correlation
of a growing number of borehole lithologic logs and repeated
refinements of stratigraphic nomenclature for Tertiary volcanic
UTM COORDINATES, IN METERS, SHOWN ON AXES
rocks supported the planning and analysis of hydraulic tests. As
more funding became available for hydraulic testing, down-hole
pressure transducers replaced steel and electric tapes for obtain-
ing borehole water levels, and sophisticated flowmeters replaced
weirs, flumes, and buckets for measuring borehole discharge.
Electronic data loggers and computers replaced notebooks for
data acquisition and storage. Continuing development of analyti-
cal methods has made it possible to analyze both newly obtained
and previously published hydraulic-test data consistently with
diverse hydrogeologic settings and to produce increasingly accu-
rate determinations of hydraulic properties. Hydraulic-test data
for the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU were obtained
from 41 sites in the eastern Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field,
which are shown in Figure 23.
Well Completion and Instrumentation
Most of the wells shown in Figure 23 were drilled by air-
rotary, reverse-rotary, and hydraulic-rotary methods (Table 4).
Figure 23. Pumping, injection, and
observation wells used in tests which
provided hydraulic properties of the
Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows
hydrostratigraphic unit at Pahute Mesa,
Yucca Mountain, Timber Mountain,
Frenchman Flat, and Yucca Flat.
+ TEST WELL
 TABLE 4. COMPLETION DATA FOR WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC TESTS OF THE YOUNGER TERTIARY TUFF
AND LAVA FLOWS HSU, YUCCA MOUNTAIN, PAHUTE MESA, AND ADJACENT AREAS
Hole Casing
LSD Depth diameter diameter
Well and source of data (m AMSL) (m) Drilling method (cm) Casing (cm) Seals Openings
J-13 (Thordarson 1983) 1011.5 1063.1 Hydraulic rotary 6619 Cased to 1,032 m 4614 Cemented to 132 m and partly Casing perforated 304422 m
and air rotary cemented between sections and 8201010 m; open hole
of perforated casing below 1032 m
WW-4 (Gillespie et al., 1996) 1097.7 447.4 Air rotary 9151 Cased to 438 m 7834 Cemented to 163 m Casing perforated 287438 m;
open hole below
WW-4a (Gillespie et al., 1996) 1099.0 457.8 Reverse rotary 12252 Cased to 458 m 9134 Cemented to 34 m Casing slotted 325390 m and
416444 m; open hole below
458 m
UE-2aw (USGS, 1302.1 710 Unknown 3431 Cased to 23 m No Data Casing apparently uncemented Open hole below 23 m
unpublished data)
PM-3 (Kilroy and Savard, 1774.8 920.2 Hydraulic rotary 6125 Cased to 449 m 4127 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 449 m
1996)
ER-206#1 (IT Corporation, 1973.5 898.2 Mud rotary and 4431 Cased to 891 m 3414 Mostly cemented to top of well Well screen 743891 m, open
1998a) air rotary screen hole below
ER-206#2 (IT Corporation, 1973.6 897.6 Air rotary 6131 Cased to 894 m 3414 Cemented to top of well screen Well screen 736894 m, open
1998a) hole below
ER-206#3 (IT Corporation, 1970.8 855.6 Air rotary 7631 Cased to 855 m 5114 Cemented to top of well screen Well screen 742855 m, open
1998a) hole below
UE-18r (Carr et al., 1981) 1688.0 1525.2 Unknown No Data Cased to 496 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 496 m
UE-19c (Blankennagel and 2143.7 2587.4 Air rotary 6625 Cased to 738 m 5032 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 738 m
Weir, 1965)
UE-19e (Blankennagel and 2108.9 1830.3 Air rotary 6625 Cased to 754 m 5134 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 754 m
Weir, 1965)
UE-19fs (Blankennagel and 2052.9 2118.4 Air rotary 6622 Cased to 782 m 5134 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 782 m
Weir, 1973)
UE-19 gs (Blankennagel 2048.0 2287.8 Hydraulic rotary 6625 Cased to 808 m 5134 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 808 m
and Weir, 1965)
UE-19i (Blankennagel and 2084.5 2438.4 Air rotary 6625 Cased to 883 m 5134 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 883 m
Weir, 1965)
U-20a-2 WW (Blankennagel 1972.7 1371.6 Air rotary 6627 Cased to 262 m 4634 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 262 m
and Weir, 1973)
U-20d (Orkild and Jenkins, 1905.6 1277.7 Unknown No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
1978)
Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field

UE-20d (Blankennagel and 1905.9 1369.2 Air rotary 6624 Cased to 746 m 5127 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 746 m
Weir, 1973)
UE-20e-1 (Blankennagel 1919.3 1949.2 Air rotary 6616 Cased to 457 m 5134 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 457 m
and Weir, 1965)
UE-20f (Blankennagel and 1864.3 4171.5 Air rotary 6616 Cased to 1,358 m 5124 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 1358 m
Weir, 1965)
UE-25 a#1 (Spengler and 1199.2 762.2 Hydraulic rotary 448 Cased to 8.5 m 34 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 8.5 m
others, 1979)
UE-25 b#1 (Lahoud et al., 1200.7 1219.8 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 518 m 5131 Cemented to 89 m Casing perforated 477508 m;
1984) open hole below 518 m
25

(continued)
 TABLE 4. COMPLETION DATA FOR WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC TESTS OF THE YOUNGER TERTIARY TUFF
26
AND LAVA FLOWS HSU, YUCCA MOUNTAIN, PAHUTE MESA, AND ADJACENT AREAS (continued)
Hole
LSD Depth diameter Casing diameter
Well and source of data (m AMSL) (m) Drilling method (cm) Casing (cm) Seals Openings
UE-25 c#1 (Geldon, 1993) 1130.6 914.4 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 415 m 7627 Cemented to 112 m and Open hole below 418 m
394418 m
UE-25 c#2 (Geldon, 1993) 1132.2 914.4 Air rotary 9125 Cased to 415 m 7627 Cemented to 98 m and 398 Open hole below 416 m
416 m
UE-25 c#3 (Geldon, 1993) 1132.4 914.4 Air rotary 12225 Cased to 403 m 7627 Cemented to 96 m and 391 Open hole below 417 m
417 m
UE-25 p#1 (Craig and 1114.2 1805.3 Air rotary 7625 Cased to 1,197 m 6141 Cemented to 99 m and at Open hole below 1197 m
Robison, 1984) bottom of casing
USW H-1 (Rush et al., 1303.0 1828.8 Air rotary 12222 Cased to 687 m 7824 Cemented to 102 m and at Casing perforated 572673 m;
1984) bottom of casing open hole below 687 m until
1982; modified after 1982
USW G-2 (OBrien, 1998) 1533.9 1830.6 Air rotary 448 Cased to 242 m 3424 Cemented to 85 m Open hole below 242 m
USW H-3 (Thordarson et 1483.2 1219.2 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 792 m 7625 Cemented to 38 m and at Casing perforated 754792 m;
al., 1985) bottom of casing open hole below
USW G-4 (Lobmeyer 1986) 1269.6 914.7 Air rotary 4422 Cased to 615 m 3424 Cemented to 12 m and at Casing perforated 549567 m
bottom of casing and 594600 m; open hole
below 615 m
USW H-4 (Whitfield et al., 1248.7 1,219.2 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 560 m 7627 Cemented to 95 m and 548 Casing perforated 533540 m;
1985) 560 m open hole below 560 m
USW H-5 (Robison and 1478.9 1,219.2 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 788 m 7627 Cemented to 95 m and 783 Casing perforated 707712 m
Craig, 1991) 788 m and 718782 m; open hole
below 788 m
A.L. Geldon

USW H-6 (Craig and Reed, 1302.1 1,219.9 Air rotary 9122 Cased to 581 m 7627 Cemented to 95 m and 562 Casing perforated 530562 m;
1991) 581 m open hole below 581 m
UE-25 ONC#1 (Nye County 1162.8 469.2 Dual-wall 3112 Cased to 134 m 2214 Cemented to 11 m; 8 packers Open hole below 453 m
NWRPO, 1995) percussion and between 134 and 453 m
reverse-rotary
USW WT-1 (Nelson et al., 1201.1 514.8 Air rotary 6622 Cased to 10 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 10 m
1991)
UE-25 WT#3 (Nelson et al., 1030.1 348.1 Air rotary 12222 Cased to 12 m 4127 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 12 m
1991)
UE-25 WT#4 (Nelson et al., 1169.2 481.6 Air rotary 3822 Cased to 15 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 15 m
1991)
USW WT-11 (Nelson et al., 1094.1 440.7 Air rotary 3822 Cased to 14 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 14 m
1991)
UE-25 WT#12 (OBrien, 1074.7 398.7 Air rotary 3822 Cased to 21 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 21 m
1997)
UE-25 WT#14 (Nelson et 1076.0 399.3 Air rotary 3822 Cased to 37 m 27 Cemented to bottom of casing Open hole below 37 m
al., 1991)
NC-EWDP-3D (Questa 798.3 762.0 Unknown 4621 Cased to 121 m 17 Casing apparently uncemented Open hole below 121 m
Engineering Corporation,
1999)
USW VH-1 (Thordarson and 963.2 762.3 Air rotary 3116 Cased to 278 m 2419 Cemented to 16 m and at Open hole below 278 m
Howells, 1987) bottom of casing
Note : Observation wells that did not respond to tests are not listed; LSDland surface datum (altitude); AMSLabove mean sea level. NWRPO Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
Core-drilling was done in selected intervals to provide samples
for laboratory determinations of mineralogy, porosity, perme-
ability, bulk density, and other physical properties. Generally, a
mixture of air and foam was used as the drilling fluid to make
details of borehole walls visible to geophysical logs, to facilitate
detection of the static water level, and to avoid contaminating
the chemistry of potential water samples. As a check against
contamination of samples by drilling fluid, lithium chloride
tracer commonly was added to the drilling fluid (Geldon, 1993).
Samples considered to be representative of formation water were
not collected until lithium concentrations approached natural
concentrations in water used during drilling and completion of
the well. Also, the point at which lithium concentrations in the
injection and discharge lines diverged could be interpreted to
indicate the static water level, which was necessary to know for
making decisions about well completion, geophysical logging,
and testing while advancing the well to its final depth.
In general, holes were started with large-diameter drill bits
to accommodate emplacement of surface casing and a cement
seal. Holes and casing were telescoped downward, until the
hole diameter desired for potential test intervals was reached
(Table 4). The targeted hole diameter typically was between 16
and 31 cm. Casing typically was extended a few meters to tens
of meters below the static water level. Relatively few holes were
cased their entire length. In those holes, sections of perforated
casing, slotted casing, or well screen were emplaced opposite
known transmissive intervals. Many holes were cemented to the
bottom of casing, but it was more common to emplace cement to
100 m or less and tack-cement the bottom of casing.
Geophysical logs were run in most boreholes, usually before
and during hydraulic tests to: (1) provide details about borehole
construction; (2) refine geologic contacts; (3) correlate geologic
units among boreholes; (4) determine the depth of fracture and
fault zones; (5) determine the strike and dip of fractures, faults,
and bedding; (6) determine physical properties of rocks; and
(7) locate transmissive intervals (Blankennagel, 1967; Keys,
1988; Hess, 1990). Gyroscopic logs indicate the extent to
which boreholes deviate from a vertical axis. Caliper logs indi-
cate enlarged sections of borehole (commonly associated with
fracture zones) and constrictions (caused by caving of unstable
rock). Temperature logs show the thermal gradient in a borehole,
and deflections in this gradient indicate where water is flowing
into or out of the borehole. Flow surveys locate transmissive
and non-transmissive intervals in a borehole Induction, focused,
and dielectric resistivity logs indicate permeable, water-yielding
intervals, changes in effective porosity, and zones of zeolitic or
argillic alteration. Borehole-compensated gamma-gamma logs
and epithermal neutron logs indicate primary and secondary
porosity, whereas acoustic logs are not sensitive to fractures
and indicate only primary porosity. Porosity values determined
from gamma-gamma and acoustic logs can be used to calculate
the bulk modulus of elasticity and specific storage. Acoustic
televiewer and television camera logs can detect strikes and dips
of fractures, partings, and geologic contacts where boreholes are
27
free of turbid drilling fluid. Many other geophysical logs were
run in boreholes within the study area, but time and experience
demonstrated that these logs were useless or marginally useful,
and they are not discussed.
In the early days, slug-injection and swabbing recovery tests
were considered more useful than pumping tests for determin-
ing hydraulic properties. Consequently, a short (12 day), crude,
constant-rate pumping test preceded slug-injection and swabbing
recovery tests in most of the earlier boreholes. With time and
experience, constant-rate pumping tests were found to be more
accurate than slug-injection and swabbing recovery tests, and the
test sequence was reversed to enable results of the slug-injection
and swabbing recovery tests to be used for planning and analyz-
ing the pumping tests. In the early days, most pumping tests were
conducted between the bottom of casing and the bottom of the
hole, but modern testing methods usually employ some combi-
nation of straddle packers, well screens, and perforated casing to
isolate one or more test intervals in a borehole. Modern pumping
tests typically use sophisticated electronic and mechanical equip-
ment, such as pressure transducers, flow meters, and barometers.
Pumps, packers, and pressure transducers are suspended on drill
tubing to target intervals in these tests. With an understanding
that the test design can influence the shape of the drawdown
curve (Fig. 24) and, hence, the determination of hydraulic prop-
erties, 12 weeks commonly is allowed in modern pumping tests
to develop the full drawdown curve. With the recognition that
drawdown in the pumping well is influenced strongly by turbu-
lence near the well, damage to borehole walls by drilling, pump
placement, and other factors not related to physical properties of
the rock being tested (Kruseman and de Ridder, 1983), cross-hole
pumping tests using observation wells have been conducted at
four sites since 1980.
Results of hydraulic tests in the eastern Southwest Nevada
Volcanic Field were compiled for this study to provide a
representative distribution of hydraulic properties within the
Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU. The hydraulic-
property database for this HSU contains 86 analyses from
41 withdrawal, injection, and observation wells (Fig. 25).
This database includes 40 published hydraulic test results,
36 revised analyses of published hydraulic test results, and
10 analyses of recently collected and archived data that have
never been published. All hydraulic-test results compiled from
published reports were verified by independent analytical solu-
tions appropriate for the hydrogeologic setting in which these
tests were conducted. Some previously published hydraulic
test results were excluded from the database, because careful
evaluation of these test results indicated problems either in test
design or data collection that made data analyses suspect. Some
analyses in the database are the combined results of several
individual analyses. For, example, in UE-25 b#1 and other
wells with several slug-injection tests conducted in the same
geologic unit, transmissivity values determined from individual
tests were added, and hydraulic conductivity values determined
from individual tests were averaged to provide single values
28 A.L. Geldon

100
DRAWDOWN, IN CENTIMETERS

10 Figure 24. Changes in drawdown trends

in the lower Bullfrog interval of bore-
hole UE-25 c#1 as a function of the rate
June 1995, 22.5 L/s (Confined) and duration of pumping.
February 1996, 8.5 L/s (Leaky confined)
May 1996, 9.5L/s (Dual permeability)
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

40
NEW ANALYSES
35
REVISED ANALYSES

30 PUBLISHED ANALYSES
NUMBER OF ANALYSES

25

20 Figure 25. Distribution of hydraulic-test

data for the Younger Tertiary tuff and
15 lava flows hydrostratigraphic unit in
the vicinity of Pahute Mesa and Yucca
Mountain. (Data in Appendix B.)
10

0
Cross-hole, Cross-hole, Cross-hole, Single-well, Single-well, Single-well,
constant-rate constant-rate constant-rate constant-rate slug-injection swabbing-
pumping injection airlift pumping recovery

TEST TYPE

of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity for the geologic
unit. For many wells in the study area that were open in several
geologic units, such as PM-3, pumping tests were first analyzed
to determine the composite transmissivity of the open part of
the well. Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity were then
apportioned among geologic units open to the well using flow
survey data and results of slug-injection and swabbing tests (as
described in the next section).
Flow Distribution in Boreholes
Boreholes completed in volcanic rocks in the study area typi-
cally are open in both transmissive and non-transmissive intervals
that encompass several rock types and, commonly, more than one
geologic formation. Figure 26 shows two borehole flow surveys
that unequivocally demonstrate the occurrence of flow from dis-
crete intervals in Tertiary volcanic rocks at Pahute Mesa and Yucca
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 29

B
440
A 760 Static Water Level

DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN METERS

BULLFROG TUFF
500
860 TRAM TUFF Calico Hills Formation

960 560

1060
DEPTH, IN METERS

620
1160 Prow Pass Tuff
DEADHORSE FLAT FORMATION 680
1260

1360 740

Bullfrog Tuff
1460 800

1560
860
1660
TRACHYTE OF MUENSTER 920 Tram Tuff
1760
GROUSE CANYON TUFF
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FLOW, IN PERCENT FLOW, IN PERCENT

Figure 26. Tracejector flow surveys in (A) borehole UE-19e, Pahute Mesa, August 31, 1964 and (B) UE-25 b#1, Yucca Mountain, August 1981 (Lahoud
et al., 1984; Thordarson and Rush, unpublished U.S. Geological Survey report available through GSA Data Repository; see footnote 1).

Mountain. As indicated in Figure 26, transmissive intervals typi-
cally represent a small proportion of the open part of a borehole.
Borehole flow survey techniques used in the study area
have included (1) tracejector flow surveys (Blankennagel, 1967);
(2) spinner flow surveys (Blankennagel, 1967); (3) heat-pulse
flowmeter surveys (Hess, 1990); and (4) oxygen-activation flow
surveys. Although flow surveys are the most direct indicators
of the distribution of transmissive intervals in a borehole, they
are not precise. Different types of flow surveys conducted in the
same borehole can indicate similar but slightly different distribu-
tions of transmissivity (Fig. 27).
In addition to flow surveys, a variety of techniques has been
used in the study area to identify transmissive intervals in bore-
holes completed in Tertiary volcanic rocks. These techniques
have included (1) drilling production logs; (2) relative specific
capacity profiles determined from slug-injection and swabbing-
recovery tests; (3) temperature logs; (4) resistivity logs, used
with temperature, acoustic televiewer, television, and caliper
logs; and (5) lithologic logs, used together with other indicators
or alone. Specific methods used to identify transmissive intervals
in individual boreholes depended on the funding and the under-
standing of the efficacy of different methods available at the time
that hydraulic tests were conducted in them.
When a sufficient number of slug-injection and swabbing-
recovery tests are done to cover all or most of the open interval of
a borehole, quantitative analyses of these tests, together with lith-
ologic and geophysical logs, can be used to compile a hydraulic-
conductivity profile of the open interval. Geldon (1996) showed
that hydraulic properties determined from slug-injection tests are
comparable to hydraulic properties determined from analyses of
pumping-well drawdown. Figure 28 shows a typical design for
slug-injection tests conducted in the study area. Figure 12 shows
a profile of hydraulic-conductivity in borehole UE-25 c#1, from
the Calico Hills Formation to the Tram Tuff, which was devel-
oped from 20 slug-injection tests.
Complete hydraulic conductivity profiles for the open inter-
val of a borehole based on slug-injection and swabbing-recovery
tests would not be possible if many of the tests attempted in
the interval were unsuccessful. These tests can fail because of
mechanical problems, such as leakage around packers, but they
also can be unsuccessful when head recovery is so rapid that it
cannot be recorded or analyzed. Because head recovers most
rapidly in the most transmissive intervals, slug-injection and
swabbing-recovery tests cannot be used to determine hydraulic
properties of the most transmissive intervals open to a borehole.
Depending on the injection tool, the upper limit of transmissivity
restricting the use of these tests is 510 m2/d (Craig and Robison,
1984; Lahoud et al., 1984).
The relative specific capacity distribution determined from
slug-injection and swabbing-recovery tests can be an effective
indicator of transmissive intervals in the open part of a borehole,
especially if used in combination with a lithologic log. Relative
specific capacity is the rate at which a straddle-packed interval
accepts water during a slug-injection test or yields water during
a swabbing-recovery test, divided by the difference between the
static water level and a water level measured 34 min after the
start of the test (Blankennagel et al., 1964; Blankennagel, 1967).
Relative specific capacity is expressed in gallons per minute per
foot of drawdown (gpm/ft).
Relative specific capacity values typically are used to identify
transmissive intervals, but in combination with an incomplete flow
survey, they can be used to complete apportioning flow within the
open part of a borehole. For example, a tracejector flow survey
conducted in borehole UE-20f at Pahute Mesa accounted for
80% of flow from the borehole during a pumping test conducted
August 911, 1964. The flow survey results are listed in Table 5.
30
400
CALICO HILLS FORMATION
500
DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN METERS
PROW PASS TUFF
600
BULLFROG TUFF
700
800
TRAM TUFF
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT FLOW
Relative specific capacity values obtained from nine slug-
injection tests and one swabbing-recovery test between depths
of 1358 and 2739 m in UE-20f mostly ranged from 0 to 0.05
gpm/ft, but the interval from 1392 to 1451 m, which is a rhyolite
lava flow in the Rhyolite of Inlet, had a relative specific capacity
value of 0.39 gpm/ft. Because the relative specific capacity of
the lava flow in the Rhyolite of Inlet was so much larger than
that of the other intervals tested, this lava flow appears to be the
only transmissive interval indicated by the slug-injection and
swabbing-recovery tests. The 20% of flow not detected by the
tracejector survey in the open part of borehole UE-20f is inter-
preted to be coming from the rhyolite lava flow present between
depths of 1392 and 1451 m.
Used singly or together, geophysical logs effectively can
identify transmissive intervals in wells. Figure 29 is a tempera-
ture log that was run in borehole UE-25 c#3 at Yucca Mountain.
Inflections in the thermal gradient indicate inflow or outflow to
the well, and acoustic televiewer, television, and resistivity logs
establish upper and lower limits of the intervals transmitting
water to or from the well (Geldon, 1996). Most points where
water enters or leaves the well are associated with intervals of
A.L. Geldon
Figure 27. Flow surveys conducted in
borehole UE-25 c#3, 19841995. (Data
and geologic information from Geldon,
1993, 1996; Geldon et al., 2002.)
OXYGEN ACTIVATION
SPINNER
TRACEJECTOR
HEAT-PULSE FLOWMETER
60 70 80 90 100
moderately to very fractured rock and not lithologic variations,
such as the degree to which ash-flow tuff layers are welded.
Earth Tides and Barometric Effects
Water-level altitudes in wells completed in the study area
are affected by Earth tides and changes in atmospheric pressure
associated with semidiurnal atmospheric heating and cooling and
the movement of weather systems through the area (Galloway
and Rojstaczer, 1988). The five principal solar and lunar tides
have frequencies of 0.92.0 cycles per day. Although a lag is pos-
sible, atmospheric-pressure changes in the study area typically
cause synchronous water-level changes in wells that are opposite
in sense and less than the full magnitude of the atmospheric-pres-
sure changes (Fig. 30).
Earth tides and atmospheric-pressure change superimpose
water-level changes on those caused by the withdrawal or injec-
tion of water during a hydraulic test. In the production well, these
superimposed water-level changes generally are much smaller
than water-level changes caused by the test and can be ignored.
In the proportionately few tests in which observation wells were
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 31

transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity, although

Figure 28. Configuration of slug-injection tests in borehole UE-25 c#1
at Yucca Mountain (Geldon, 1996).
used, it was found that removing the effects of Earth tides and
atmospheric-pressure change was advantageous but not always
necessary. For example, analyses of drawdown in observation
well UE-25 c#2 during pumping tests conducted in UE-25
c#3 in May 1984 and May 1995 produced the same values of
corrections for atmospheric-pressure change were made only in
the second test (Geldon, 1996; Geldon et al., 1998). UE-25 c#2
is located ~29 m from UE-25 c#3. In observation wells that are
hundreds to thousands of meters from a production well, Earth
tides and atmospheric-pressure change inevitably obscure hydro-
logic responses to pumping and injection and must be removed
to detect these responses.
A study was done in 1993 to evaluate effects of Earth tides
and atmospheric-pressure change on water-level altitudes in wells
at Yucca Mountain (Geldon et al., 1997). Simultaneous records of
water-level altitudes in the C-holes, boreholes UE-25 c#1, UE-25
c#2, and UE-25 c#3, and atmospheric pressure at and near the
C-holes were obtained from July 15 to September 8, 1993. Each
of the C-holes, was open from the water table, at or near the top
of the Calico Hills Formation, to the Tram Tuff. Earth tides and
semidiurnal atmospheric-pressure changes were removed from
continuously monitored water-level altitudes and atmospheric
pressures by applying a low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of
0.8 cycles per day. As shown in Figure 31, long-term trends in the
data were not disturbed by filtering.
The barometric efficiency of boreholes UE-25 c#1, UE-25
c#2, and UE-25 c#3 was determined by fitting a straight line to
a plot of changes in filtered water-level altitudes as a function of
concurrent changes in filtered atmospheric pressures. The slope of
this line (the barometric efficiency) averaged 0.94 for the C-holes
in the 1993 study. As shown in Figure 32, applying a barometric-
efficiency correction of 0.94 to water-level changes recorded in
borehole UE-25 c#1 during the passage of two storms over Yucca
Mountain between August 24 and September 5, 1993, dampened
these water-level changes to ~1 ft (0.3 m). Successful applica-
tion of the methods used to remove the effects of Earth tides and
atmospheric-pressure change on water levels in the 1993 study
validated these methods for use in analyzing constant-rate pump-
ing and injection tests that followed.
Barometric efficiency was determined for 18 intervals in 7
wells before, during, or after cross-hole hydraulic tests conducted
at Yucca Mountain from 1995 to 1998 using methods developed
in the 1993 study (Geldon et al., 1998; 1999; 2002). The baro-
metric efficiency of these intervals was found to range from 0.83
to 1.0 (Table 6). If the barometric efficiency of an interval from
which water-level data were obtained during a constant-rate

TABLE 5. TRANSMISSIVE INTERVALS INDICATED BY A TRACEJECTOR FLOW SURVEYIN BOREHOLE UE-20F, PAHUTE MESA, AUGUST 1964
Depth to top Depth to bottom Percent
of interval of interval Geologic unit Lithology borehole flow
(m) (m)
2214 2326 Bullfrog Tuff Zeolitized, nonwelded to partly welded ash-flow tuff 4
2549 2974 Dead Horse Flat Formation Comendite lava flows 61
2974 3011 Grouse Canyon Tuff Silicified, nonwelded tuff 4
3011 3018 Rhyolite of Handley Rhyolite flow breccia 8
3708 3739 Dacite of Mt. Helen? Rhyodacite lava flow 3
Note: Flow data from Thordarson and Rush, unpublished U.S. Geological Survey report; geology from Orkild and Jenkins, 1978; Warren et al., 1998.
32 A.L. Geldon

400

CALICO HILLS FORMATION

450

500
DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN METERS

550

PROW PASS TUFF

600

Figure 29. Temperature log run in bore-

650 hole UE-25 c#3 during a pumping test
conducted in May 1984, showing the
BULLFROG TUFF relation between zones of moderately to
700 very fractured rock and intervals where
water enters or leaves the well. (Com-
piled from data in Geldon, 1996.)
750

800
TRAM TUFF

850

900
37 38 39 40 41 42
TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

7
DIFFERENCE FROM MEAN, IN CENTIMETERS

6 WATER PRESSURE
5 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

4
3
2
Figure 30. Synchronous changes in at-
1
mospheric pressure and water pressure
0 in the lower Bullfrog Tuff in borehole
-1 UE-25 c#2, June 2329, 1995 (Geldon
et al., 2002).
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
ELAPSED TIME, IN MINUTES
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
hydraulic test was needed but unknown, it was estimated from
this range of known values.
Analytical Methods
Analytical methods used in this study are discussed briefly.
These methods are considered the simplest appropriate for
hydrogeologic settings in the study area. Early attempts to
analyze hydraulic tests conducted in the C-holes at Yucca Moun-
tain demonstrated that alternative analytical methods to those
discussed were neither more accurate nor conceptually more
33
Figure 31. Result of filtering out Earth
tides from water altitudes recorded June
1522, 1993, in borehole UE-25 c#1 at
Yucca Mountain (Geldon et al., 1997).
Figure 32. Result of applying a correc-
tion for atmospheric-pressure change to
water-level altitudes recorded August
24 to September 5, 1993, in borehole
UE-25 c#1 at Yucca Mountain (Geldon
et al., 1997).
realistic (Geldon, 1996). Alternative analytical methods used to
obtain hydraulic properties without modification from published
reports, while considered most appropriate by the authors of
those reports, are not discussed herein.
Constant-Rate Pumping, Injection, and Airlift Tests
Constant-rate pumping, injection, and airlift tests were
analyzed by conventional methods developed for porous media
(Walton, 1970; Lohman, 1979; Driscoll, 1986; Dawson and Istok,
1991). These hydraulic tests were analyzed by curve-fitting meth-
ods and by straight-line fitting methods. Curve-fitting methods
34 A.L. Geldon

involve matching drawdown or recovery data plotted as a function
of elapsed time on log-log scales to dimensionless type curves,
and then substituting the match-point values into analytical equa-
tions to determine hydraulic properties. Straight-line fitting meth-
ods involve regression of drawdown or residual drawdown data
as a function of the log of elapsed time or distance from the test
well, and then substituting the slope of the line fit to the data into
analytical equations to determine hydraulic properties.
Under the assumption of an infinite, homogeneous, isotro-
pic, confined aquifer, drawdown or recovery data from an obser-
vation well can be matched to the exponential integral curve of
Theis (1935) to determine transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity,
and storativity. Data from the production well can be used to
determine transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity. Equations
13 are used to calculate hydraulic properties.
Under the same assumptions applicable for the solution of
Theis (1935), the slope of a straight line fit to drawdown or recov-
ery data plotted as a function of log time can be used to determine
transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity using Equa-
tion 2 and the following equations (Cooper and Jacob 1946):
2.3 Q
T= (5)
4 sd
2.25Tt0
S= (6)
r2
where sd is the drawdown over 1 log cycle of time; t0 is the time
at which the drawdown is 0; and all other variables are the same
as in Equations 13.
Residual drawdown in the production well can be analyzed
to determine transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity by plot-
ting residual drawdown as a function of the log of the ratio of
time since withdrawal or injection started to time since with-
drawal or injection stopped. This analytical solution is called
the Theis (1935) recovery method. Equations 2 and 5 are used
to solve for hydraulic properties, except that sd in Equation 5
in this method is the residual drawdown.
Under the assumption of a leaky, confined aquifer without
storage in the confining layer, Cooper (1963) developed analyti-
cal solutions to determine transmissivity, hydraulic conductiv-
ity, and storativity from drawdown or recovery data plotted on
log-log scales as a function of either elapsed time or the ratio of
elapsed time to the square of the distance from the production
well. The relevant equations are Equation 2 and:
Q L(u, v)
T= (7)
4s
4T t r 2
S= (8)
lu
v = r 2 K (Tb ) (9)
where L(u, ) is the well function of a leaky, confined aquifer
without storage in the confining layer; u is a dimensionless
parameter defined by Equation 8; is a dimensionless param-
eter defined by Equation 9; t/r2 is the ratio of elapsed time to the
square of distance from the test well (L/T2) corresponding to 1/u;

TABLE 6. BAROMETRIC EFFICIENCY VALUES DETERMINED FROM CONCURRENT MEASUREMENTS OF ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
AND STATIC WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDES IN WELLS AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Borehole Interval Barometer Period of record Barometric Regression
location efficiency coefficient
UE-25 c#1 Calico Hills Formation to Tram Tuff WX-3 July 15-Sept 8, 1993 0.95 0.86
UE-25 c#1 Prow Pass Tuff C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.96 0.98
UE-25 c#1 Upper Bullfrog Tuff C-holes June 2429, 1995 0.99 0.97
UE-25 c#1 Lower Bullfrog Tuff C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.97 0.98
UE-25 c#2 Calico Hills Formation C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.93 0.94
UE-25 c#2 Prow Pass Tuff C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.93 0.97
UE-25 c#2 Upper Bullfrog Tuff C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.93 0.97
UE-25 c#2 Lower Bullfrog Tuff C-holes June 2329, 1995 0.91 0.96
UE-25 c#3 Calico Hills Formation to Tram Tuff WX-3 July 15Aug 17, 1993 0.93 0.86
UE-25 c#3 Calico Hills Formation C-holes February 78, 1996 0.83 0.89
UE-25 c#3 Calico Hills Formation C-holes Apr 20May 1, 1998 0.94 No Data
UE-25 c#3 Prow Pass Tuff C-holes Apr 20May 1, 1998 1.0 No Data
UE-25 c#3 Lower Bullfrog Tuff C-holes May 913, 1996 0.87 0.92
UE-25 ONC#1 Prow Pass Tuff UE-25 ONC#1 July 1Sept 13, 1995 0.99 0.90
UE-25 ONC#1 Prow Pass Tuff UE-25 ONC#1 Apr 20May 1, 1998 0.99 No Data
USW H-4 Prow Pass Tuff to Lithic Ridge Tuff UE-25 ONC#1 June 812, 1995 0.91 0.87
UE-25 WT#3 Bullfrog Tuff C-holes June 412, 1995 0.91 0.82
UE-25 WT#14 Topopah Spring Tuff and Calico Hills C-holes June 412, 1995 0.89 0.94
Formation
Note: Data from Geldon et al., 1997; 1998; 1999; 2002.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
s is drawdown or recovery (L) corresponding to L(u, ); K is
vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining layer (L/T); b is
the thickness of the confining layer (L); and all other variables are
the same as in previous equations.
Under the assumption of a leaky, confined aquifer with stor-
age in the confining layer, Hantush (1961) developed analytical
solutions to determine transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and
storativity from drawdown or recovery data plotted on log-log
scales as a function of elapsed time. Relevant equations are Equa-
tion 2, 3, and:
T = Q H(u, )
(10)
4s
= r ( 4b) [ (K S) (KS ) ]
s s (11)
where H(u, ) is the well function of a leaky, confined aquifer
with storage in the confining layer; s is drawdown or recovery
(L) corresponding to H(u, ); is a dimensionless parameter
defined by Equation 11; Ss is the specific storage of the confin-
ing layer (L1); Ss is the specific storage of the aquifer (L1); and
all other variables are the same as in previous equations.
Under the assumption of an infinite, homogeneous, aniso-
tropic, unconfined aquifer, Boulton (1963), Stallman (1965),
and Neuman (1975) developed analytical solutions to determine
transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, anisotropy, and storativity
from drawdown or recovery data plotted on log-log scales as a
function of elapsed time. For the solution of Neuman (1975), the
relevant equations are:
Q W (uA , uB ,)
T= (12)
4 s
Kr = T/b (13)
b2
KZ Kr = (14)
r2
4TtA uA
S= (15)
r2
4TtBuB
Sy = (16)
r2
where W(uA, uB, ) is the well function of an anisotropic, uncon-
fined aquifer; uA is a dimensionless parameter defined by Equa-
tion 15; uB is a dimensionless parameter defined by Equation 16;
is a dimensionless parameter defined by Equation 14; tA is the
elapsed time (T) corresponding to uA; tB is the elapsed time (T)
corresponding to uB; s is drawdown or recovery (L) correspond-
ing to W(uA, uB, ); Kr is horizontal hydraulic conductivity (L/T);
Kz is vertical hydraulic conductivity (L/T); Kz/Kr is the vertical
to horizontal anisotropy; Sy is the specific yield (dimensionless);
and all other variables are the same as in previous equations.
35
Under the assumption of dual fracture and matrix perme-
ability in a confined aquifer, Streltsova-Adams (1978) developed
an analytical solution to determine transmissivity, fracture and
matrix hydraulic conductivity, and fracture and matrix storativity
from drawdown or recovery data plotted on log-log scales as a
function of elapsed time. Relevant equations are:
Q W (, r B)
T= (17)
4 s
Kf = T/b (18)
Kb =
TH
B2
(19)
4T t (20)
Sf = r2
Sb = Sf ( 1) (21)
where W(, r/B) is the well function of a confined aquifer with
fracture and matrix permeability; B is a dimensionless param-
eter defined by Equation 19; is a dimensionless parameter
defined by Equation 20; is a dimensionless parameter defined
by Equation 21, assumed to equal 10 in this study; H is the
distance from the center of a block to a bounding fracture (L),
which is equivalent to half the average distance between frac-
tures; t is the elapsed time (T) corresponding to ; s is draw-
down or recovery (L) corresponding to W(, r/B); Kf is fracture
hydraulic conductivity (L/T); Kb is matrix hydraulic conductiv-
ity (L/T); Sf is fracture storativity (dimensionless); Sb is matrix
storativity (dimensionless); and all other variables are the same
as in previous equations.
Slug-Injection and Swabbing Recovery Tests
In slug-injection tests, water is injected into a well instanta-
neously. In single-run swabbing-recovery tests, water is displaced
from a well instantaneously by lowering a mechanical device into
the well. In both types of tests, the recovery to the static water
level is analyzed. Cooper et al. (1967) developed a method for
analyzing these tests, which was modified later by Bredehoeft
and Papadopulos (1980). In the solution of Cooper et al. (1967),
ratios of the water level as the test progresses to the static water
level (H/H0) are plotted as a function of log time since the test
started, and the data curve is then matched to a dimensionless
type curve to obtain hydraulic properties. Transmissivity is
obtained from the equation:
T = rc2/t (22)
where T is transmissivity (L2/T); is a dimensionless parameter
defined by Equation 22, which generally is picked to equal 1 in
order to simplify the calculation; rc is the radius of the casing
36 A.L. Geldon
in which the water-level fluctuates (L); and t is the time since
the test started.
Hydraulic conductivity usually is determined by dividing
the length of the open interval into the transmissivity value,
although it generally is known in advance that the entire test
interval is not equally transmissive. Theoretically, storativity
can be calculated by this method, but these calculations are
imprecise and are not recommended (Barker and Black, 1983;
Cooper et al., 1967).
In some swabbing-recovery tests, a mechanical device is
lowered into the well to displace water repeatedly. After the
swabbing is finished, the average withdrawal rate is calculated as
the total volume of water removed divided by the time required to
remove the water. This calculation does not account for drainage
back to the well between swabbing runs. Residual drawdown is
then analyzed using the Theis (1935) recovery method.
Analytical Uncertainty
An omnipresent feature of hydraulic tests at Yucca Mountain,
Pahute Mesa, and in adjacent areas is the tendency for most of
the drawdown and recovery to occur very rapidly, especially in a
pumping well (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Geldon, 1993).
In many pumped wells, 80%90% of the drawdown and recovery
occurs within 10 min of starting or stopping the pump. These
rapid water-level changes generally are attributable to draining of
water stored in the well (commonly termed borehole storage)
and well losseshead lost from (1) water turbulently entering the
well from the aquifer; (2) inefficient placement of the pump, open-
ings, and other well-design features; and (3) drilling-caused dam-
age to the aquifer near the well. Estimates of transmissivity from
specific capacity typically are way too large, because the equation
used to estimate transmissivity from specific capacity (Lohman,
1979) assumes that drawdown is spread out over the length of the
test instead of being concentrated within the initial part of the test.
In tests with rapid recovery, the Theis (1935) recovery method
also fails, because the analysis tends to be weighted toward very
small water-level changes toward the end of the recovery period.
These small changes have a very flat slope, which is inversely
proportional to transmissivity. Thus, the Theis (1935) recovery
method tends to overestimate transmissivity.
Another straight-line fitting method that must be used with
caution in the study area is that of Cooper and Jacob (1946). This
analytical method assumes a homogeneous, isotropic, confined
aquifer. In such an aquifer, drawdown or recovery data plotted
as a function of the log of elapsed time conform to a straight
line. The slope of this line can be used to calculate transmissiv-
ity. Typically, two to three straight-line segments, in addition to
a steeply sloping segment caused by well losses, are obtained in
constant-rate pumping and injection tests in the volcanic rocks
at Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa (Fig. 33). If three segments
are present, and the first and third segments have about twice
the slope as the second segment, the response is characteristic
of either an anisotropic, unconfined aquifer or a confined aquifer
with dual fracture and matrix permeability. A straight line fit to
the third segment will produce a reasonable value of transmis-
sivity using the method of Cooper and Jacob (1946). If two
segments are present, in addition to a steeply sloping segment
caused by well losses, the response could be interpreted as either
an incomplete dual-permeability-aquifer response caused by
premature termination of the test or a leaky, confined-aquifer
response. With a two-segmented response, analysis of the first
segment would produce the most reasonable value of transmis-
sivity. Because the correct analytical model cannot be known in
advance of a hydraulic test, selecting the segment for analysis by
the method of Cooper and Jacob (1946) often is arbitrary. Use
of this method to analyze multi-segmented hydrologic responses
typically results in overestimates of transmissivity.
Type-curve matching has its own problems. The method
chosen must be appropriate for the hydrogeologic setting. Given
the time-dependent nature of the hydrologic response (Fig. 24),
different analytical methods might seem appropriate as a hydrau-
lic test progresses. Furthermore, the data often are inadequate for
a unique match within a family of type curves.
Values of transmissivity and storativity in the database are
believed to be accurate to at least one significant figure, but val-
ues of hydraulic conductivity are more uncertain. Hydraulic con-
ductivity can be calculated from the known thickness of trans-
missive intervals within a test interval, the entire thickness of
the test interval, or any assumed thickness of transmissive rock.
Borehole flow surveys do not always agree with other indicators
of flow, such as relative specific capacity values computed from
slug-injection tests or temperature gradient inflections. Because
of uncertainty regarding transmissive thickness, determining
hydraulic conductivity can be subjective, even when transmissiv-
ity has been determined confidently.
Effects of Test Scale on Determination of Hydraulic Properties
Values of intrinsic permeability, hydraulic conductivity, and
transmissivity are dependent on the scale of the tests conducted
to obtain these properties (Dagan 1986; Neuman, 1990). This
phenomenon generally is attributed to increasing access to con-
duits for fluid flow as the volume of the medium encompassed by
the test increases. Permeameter tests of core samples done in the
laboratory indicate rock matrix properties. Single-well hydraulic
tests, such as slug-injection and swabbing-recovery tests, opti-
mally determine hydraulic properties in the near-borehole envi-
ronment. Cross-hole hydraulic tests incorporate the influence of
field-scale features, such as faults, facies changes, and strati-
graphic pinch-outs. Figure 34, a plot of hydraulic conductivity
values determined for Miocene volcanic rocks in the study area
as a function of the radial distance in permeameter tests, single-
well hydraulic tests, and cross-hole hydraulic tests, shows that
hydraulic conductivity values determined at different test scales
generally are incompatible.
As shown in Figure 35, data obtained from pumping tests
conducted at two sites at Yucca Mountain, Bow Ridge and Drill-
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 37
0
Pumping test in UE-19gs, Pahute
2
A Mesa: Bullfrog, Tram, and Grouse
Canyon Tuffs, and Dead Horse Flat
Formation, March 2627, 1965
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

4
WELL LOSS
6

8 WATER FROM
AQUIFER
10

WATER RECHARGED FROM

12 ABOVE OR BELOW A
CONFINED AQUIFER

14
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

0.0
Pumping test in USW VH-1,
0.2 B Crater Flat: Topopah Spring,
Prow Pass, and Bullfrog Tuffs,
0.4 February 10-11, 1981

0.6
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

WATER FROM Figure 33. Typical multi-segmented

0.8 FRACTURES
TRANSITIONAL FLOW OF
pumping responses of Tertiary volcanic
WATER FROM MATRIX TO rocks in the Yucca Mountain and Pahute
1.0
FRACTURES Mesa areas. (A) Well loss and two-seg-
1.2 mented response of a leaky confined
aquifer. (B) Three-segmented response
1.4 of a confined aquifer with dual fracture
and matrix permeability. (C) Three-
1.6
WATER FROM MATRIX segmented response of an unconfined,
1.8 STORAGE AND anisotropic aquifer. (Data from Thordar-
FRACTURE DRAINAGE son and Howells, 1987; Blankennagel
2.0 and Weir, 1965; Winograd, 1965.)
2.2
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

7
Pumping test in J-13, Jackass

8
C ELASTIC RELEASE OF WATER
Flats, Topopah Spring, Tram,
and Lithic Ridge Tuffs,
FROM AQUIFER STORAGE February 1822, 1964
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

10
TRANSITIONAL DRAINAGE OF
11 WATER FROM AQUIFER STORAGE
TO UNCONFINED PORES

12

DRAINAGE OF WATER FROM

13
UNCONFINED PORES

14
1 10 100 1000 10000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
38
hole Wash, demonstrate that much larger drawdown occurs in
the pumping well than in nearby observation wells in the same
test. Because drawdown is inversely proportional to transmissiv-
ity, analysis of the pumping well data indicates much smaller
values of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity than analyses
of observation well data in the same test. Analyses of pump-
ing-well data are unreliable indicators of aquifer properties.
Unfortunately, hydraulic tests at most sites in the study area were
conducted without observation wells. Appendix B lists 20 sites
where hydraulic-property data were obtained from analyses of
drawdown or recovery in the pumping well, but only five sites
where hydraulic-property data were obtained from analyses of
observation well data.
Plotted distributions of hydraulic properties in the Younger
Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU developed using data from
single-well and cross-hole hydraulic tests, together, would
be misleading. The expectation that knowledge of this situ-
ation is going to produce more cross-hole tests is unrealistic.
Single-well hydraulic tests require much less time and money
to carry out than cross-hole hydraulic tests, and neither federal
nor state agencies are committed to widespread cross-hole
hydraulic testing in the study area in the immediate future. One
can throw out all of the single-well test data and rely only on
the limited cross-hole test data for modeling groundwater flow
and contaminant transport. Unfortunately, that would be very
simplistic, because the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows
HSU is very heterogeneous. One has to find a way to convert
data from the single-well hydraulic tests to cross-hole scale to
account for this heterogeneity. An empirical approach using
(1) paired analyses of production well and observation well
data for the same test and (2) analyses of data obtained from
tests conducted at different scales in the same well interval
100
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, IN METERS PER DAY
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0.01 0.1
A.L. Geldon
appears to be the only way to scale up the single-well hydraulic
test data. Statisticians might object to this approach because of
an insufficient number of data pairs, but if more cross-hole test
data existed, there would be no need to find a way to make the
single-well test data usable.
A scaling equation was developed from (1) seven paired
analyses of pumping well and observation well data from six
pumping tests in four wells, and (2) three paired analyses of data
obtained from tests conducted at different scales in three intervals
of borehole UE-25 c#1 (Table 7).
Hydraulic conductivity values obtained at a cross-hole scale
were plotted as a function of hydraulic conductivity values at a
single-well test scale (Fig. 36): With a correlation coefficient of
0.74, the following relation was determined:
Kch = 23.541 Ksw0.575 (23)
where Kch is cross-hole-scale hydraulic conductivity (L/T); and
Ksw is single-well-test-scale hydraulic conductivity (L/T).
Equation 23 can be used for the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava
flows HSU anywhere in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field to
estimate hydraulic conductivity which might be present hundreds
of meters from a well in which a pumping or injection test has
been conducted. This equation was used to estimate distributions
of hydraulic conductivity which are discussed later in this report.
HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
The determination of hydraulic properties from cross-hole,
constant-rate, pumping and airlift tests conducted at Yucca
Mountain, Pahute Mesa, and Frenchman Flat is discussed below.
The Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain is represented by tests
Figure 34. Relation of the hydraulic
conductivity of Miocene volcanic rocks
to the scale of hydraulic tests conducted
at Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa and
in adjacent areas. (Field test data from
Appendix B; Permeameter test data
CROSS-HOLE HYDRAULIC TESTS
from Anderson 1981, 1991, 1994; Thor-
SINGLE-WELL PUMPING TESTS darson 1983; Lahoud et al., 1984; Rush
et al., 1984; Geldon 1993, 1996.)
SLUG-INJECTION AND SWABBING TESTS
PERMEAMETER TESTS
1 10 100 1000 10000
RADIAL DISTANCE, IN METERS
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 39

at two sitesBow Ridge (the C-holes complex) and Drill Hole
Wash. The Pahute Mesa hydrologic domain is represented, also,
by tests at two sites the Bullion nuclear test site (the ER-20-6
well cluster) and the Knickerbocker nuclear test site. Because
discussion of all hydraulic tests in the study area that were used
to prepare this report would be impractical, Appendix B presents
summary hydraulic-property data from all of these tests.
The C-holes Complex
The C-holes complex was constructed from 1983 to 1984
on the east flank of Yucca Mountain to determine hydraulic
properties of volcanic rocks in the saturated zone near the poten-
tial nuclear waste repository site (Geldon, 1993). The C-holes
complex, at an altitude of 11301132 m AMSL, consists of
three orthogonally oriented boreholes, UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2,
and UE-25 c#3, that are located where an ephemeral stream cuts
through the northern end of Bow Ridge (Fig. 20). The C-holes
are 30.476.6 m apart at the land surface (Fig. 37), but because of
borehole deviation during drilling, the boreholes are ~2979 m
apart at the water table and ~3087 m apart at total depth. Each
of the boreholes was drilled to a depth of 914.4 m, but they have
collapsed several to tens of meters since they were drilled. The
boreholes are telescoped downward (Fig. 38). Tack-cemented

100
A
10
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

0.1

0.01 UE-25 a#1 (Observation well)

UE-25 b#1 (Pumping well)

0.001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED/DISTANCE FROM PUMPING WELL, IN MINUTES/METER SQUARED Figure 35. Drawdown in observation
and pumping wells. (A) Pumping test
in UE-25 b#1, Calico Hills Formation to
Bullfrog Tuff, Drillhole Wash, August
100
29September 1, 1981. (B) Pumping
B test in UE-25 c#3, Calico Hills Forma-
tion to Tram Tuff, Bow Ridge, May
22June 1, 1995. (Data from Moench,
10
1984; Geldon et al., 1998.)
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

0.1

UE-25 c#2 (Observation well)

UE-25 c#3 (Pumping well)

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED/DISTANCE FROM PUMPING WELL, IN MINUTES/METER SQUARED

40 A.L. Geldon

TABLE 7. PAIRED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES DETERMINED AT SINGLE-WELL AND CROSS-HOLE HYDRAULIC TEST SCALES
FROM PUMPING AND INJECTION TESTS CONDUCTED AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND FRENCHMAN FLAT
Pumping or Date Test type K Analytical Obser- Date Test type K Analytical method Geologic units
injection well (m/d) method vation (m/d)
well
Water well 4 02/22/90 Pumping 0.79 Neuman Water 02/22/90 Pumping 20 Streltsova-Adams Rainier Mesa and
(1975) well 4a (1978) Topopah Spring Tuffs
UE-25 b#1 08/29/81 Pumping 0.87 Neuman UE-25 08/29/81 Pumping 7.8 Neuman (1975) Calico Hills Formation
(1975) a#1 to Bullfrog Tuff
UE-25 c#3 05/04/84 Pumping 0.10 Cooper UE-25 05/04/84 Pumping 13 Neuman (1975) Calico Hills Formation
(1963) c#2 to Tram Tuff
UE-25 c#3 05/22/95 Pumping 0.11 Cooper UE-25 05/22/95 Pumping 7.3 Neuman (1975) Calico Hills Formation
(1963) c#1 to Tram Tuff
UE-25 c#3 05/08/96 Pumping 0.67 Cooper UE-25 05/08/96 Pumping 20 Streltsova-Adams Lower Bullfrog Tuff
(1963) c#2 (1978)
UE-25 c#3 05/08/96 Pumping 0.67 Cooper UE-25 05/08/96 Pumping 40 Streltsova-Adams Lower Bullfrog Tuff
(1963) c#1 (1978)
UE-25 c#2 06/02/98 Pumping 0.029 Cooper UE-25 06/02/98 Pumping 3.4 Cooper (1963) Prow Pass Tuff
and Jacob c#1
(1946)
UE-25 c#1 10/09/83 Slug- 0.009 Cooper UE-25 05/04/84 Pumping 0.82 Neuman (1975) Calico Hills Formation
injection and others c#1
(1967)
UE-25 c#1 Oct. 69, Slug- 0.011 Cooper UE-25 06/12/95 Pumping 3.2 Theis (1935) Prow Pass Tuff
1983 injection and others c#1
(1967)
UE-25 c#1 Oct. 711, Slug- 0.042 Cooper UE-25 06/12/95 Pumping 2.0 Theis (1935) Upper Bullfrog Tuff
1983 injection and others c#1
(1967)
Note: Data from Lahoud et al., 1984; Moench 1984; Geldon et al., 1998, 1999, 2002; Geldon 1993, 1996; U.S. Geological Survey files; K (m/d),
hydraulic conductivity in meters per day.

100
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM CROSS-HOLE TESTS,

10
IN METERS/DAY

Figure 36. Relation between paired hy-

draulic conductivity values determined
at single-well and cross-hole hydraulic
test scales from pumping and observa-
tion well data in the same tests and from
1 different scale tests in the same well in-
terval, Yucca Mountain and Frenchman
Flat. (Data from Table 7.)

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FROM SINGLE-WELL TESTS, IN METERS/DAY

 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
casing extends <20 m below the water table, which is 400402 m
below the land surface at the site. Individual boreholes are sealed
from surface contamination by cement emplaced around casing
to depths of 96112 m.
The C-holes are completed in Miocene volcanic rocks
(Fig. 39), which consist of nonwelded to densely welded ash-
flow tuff with tuff breccia and bedded ash-fall tuff, reworked
tuff, sandstone, and siltstone (Geldon, 1993). The volcanic
Figure 37. Surface locations of boreholes UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2, and
UE-25 c#3 (the C-holes complex) at Yucca Mountain; boreholes are
referenced to Nevada State, Zone 2, coordinates (Geldon 1993).
41
rocks, which are pervaded by tectonic and cooling fractures
(Fig. 13), are ~10401590 m thick in the vicinity of the C-holes
(Geldon et al., 1998). They are covered by a thin veneer of Qua-
ternary alluvium and underlain unconformably by Paleozoic
limestone and dolomite (Fig. 7). North-northeasterly trending,
westerly dipping faults, including the Paintbrush Canyon, Mid-
way Valley, Bow Ridge, and Dune Wash Faults (Fig. 39), dis-
placed the volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain down to the west
and tilted these rocks to the east at angles of 5 to 20 (Frizzell
and Shulters, 1990). Subsequent to this extensional faulting, the
northwesterly trending Antler Wash Fault zone cut across and
offset north-northeasterly trending faults at Bow Ridge (Geldon
et al., 2002).
Six discrete intervals in the Calico Hills Formation and the
Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs transmit water to the C-holes
(Fig. 40). These transmissive intervals have fracture and matrix
permeability that are not correlated with either fracture orientation,
fracture intensity, or the degree of welding. The principal influence
on permeability appears to be the faults that intersect the C-holes,
because 90% of the water produced from these wells comes from
intervals in close proximity to cross-cutting faults.
Nine constant-rate, cross-hole pumping and injection tests
were conducted at the C-holes complex from March 1984 to Sep-
tember 1998 (Geldon, 1996; Geldon et al., 1998, 2002). These
hydraulic tests were designed to determine: (1) hydraulic proper-
ties of the full saturated zone thickness of the Younger Tertiary
tuff and lava flows HSU at the C-holes complex; (2) hydraulic
properties of the six discrete transmissive intervals within this
HSU at the C-holes complex; (3) possible heterogeneity related
to fault and fracture orientations within the structural block con-
taining the C-holes; (4) the extent to which diverse geologic units
that transmit water in the vicinity of the C-holes are connected
hydraulically; (5) the locations of recharge boundaries within,
and barrier boundaries adjacent to the Yucca Mountain hydro-
logic domain; and (6) possible hydraulic connection between
Tertiary volcanic rocks and underlying Paleozoic carbonate
rocks in the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain. Borehole flow
surveys (Fig. 27), borehole temperature logs (Fig. 29), borehole
resistivity, acoustic televiewer and television logs (Geldon, 1996),
cross-hole seismic tomography, slug-injection tests (Fig. 12),
step-drawdown tests, brief performance tests, and hydrochemical
sampling were done before, during, and after the cross-hole tests
to assist in the design, analysis, and interpretation of these tests.
To conduct the cross-hole hydraulic tests, dual-mandrel
packers were attached to drill tubing and lowered to selected
depths in observation and production wells, where they were
inflated to isolate test intervals. In the six tests conducted from
1995 to 1998, packers were placed in thick, unfractured, smooth-
walled intervals above and below the well-delineated tops and
bottoms of transmissive intervals to minimize potential leakage
between packed-off intervals. Sections of well screen and slot-
ted casing were emplaced in the drill-tubing string for hydraulic
communication with test intervals. Continuous records of pres-
sure and temperature in packed-off intervals during hydraulic
42 A.L. Geldon
Figure 38. Completion of boreholes UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2, and UE-25 c#3 (Geldon, 1993).
tests were obtained using differential or absolute pressure trans-
ducers suspended inside plastic tubing or attached to the drill
tubing. Data acquired during hydraulic tests conducted in 1984
were recorded by electronic data loggers. During tests conducted
from 1995 to 1998, data from the C-holes were monitored in real
time and stored onsite on a personal computer, whereas data from
other wells monitored in these tests were stored in electronic data
loggers. Table 8 lists instrumentation used in the C-holes during
the 19841998 hydraulic tests (for descriptions of instrumenta-
tion in monitoring wells other than the C-holes, see Nye County
Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, 1995; Graves, 2000).
Continuous records of atmospheric pressure during all of
the hydraulic tests except the one conducted in May 1984 were
obtained by barometers placed inside a temperature-controlled
trailer at the C-holes complex and at borehole UE-25 ONC#1. All
calculations of drawdown in continuously and periodically moni-
tored observation wells, pumping wells, and injection wells in all
hydraulic tests in the C-holes, except the May 1984 test, incorpo-
rated corrections for atmospheric-pressure change. Calculations of
drawdown in continuously monitored observation wells in which
drawdown was anticipated to be smaller than the magnitude of
Earth tides (wells more distant than UE-25 ONC#1) incorporated
corrections for Earth tides. Corrections of drawdown for atmo-
spheric-pressure change and Earth tides were made as described in
the section titled Earth Tides and Barometric Effects.
Water pressures obtained by transducers, after correction for
barometric effects and Earth tides, were converted to the length
of the water column using an equation derived from the variation
in water density with temperature at 1 atmosphere (Streeter and
Wylie, 1975). This equation is:
Pft = (2.3064 + 0.000031866 T + 0.0000098745 T 2) Ppsi (24)
where: Pft is pressure, in feet of water (ft); Ppsi is pressure, in
pounds per square inch (psi); and T is water temperature, in
degrees Celsius.
Water temperatures in the C-holes during pumping tests
generally ranged from 35 to 42 C. Rounded to two decimal
places, a conversion factor of 2.32 ft/psi was obtained at all tem-
peratures. Multiplied by 0.3048 m/ft, this conversion factor equals
0.707 m/psi.
During pumping tests conducted in the C-holes in
February 1996 and from May 1996 to November 1997, all
hydrogeologic intervals in the C-holes that were being moni-
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 43

Figure 39. Geologic map of Yucca Mountain, showing exploratory tunnels and boreholes (Modified from Day et al., 1998).
44 A.L. Geldon

tored responded to pumping, regardless of the interval being

pumped. It is unlikely that all packers failed to seal properly,
because the packers were seated in non-rugose, sparsely frac-
tured zones. A more reasonable interpretation is that pumping
caused vertical flow between transmissive intervals through
fractures beyond borehole walls. Pumping test analyses had to
account for this extraneous flow.
Spinner and oxygen-activation flow surveys (Fig. 27) were
run in UE-25 c#3 during the hydraulic test in June 1995 to
determine the flow distribution in the C-holes under pumping
conditions. However, these flow surveys failed to detect flow
from the Prow Pass interval that was indicated by heat-pulse
flowmeter surveys conducted without pumping in the C-holes
in 1991 (Geldon, 1996). Results of the 1991 and 1995 flow sur-
veys were combined algebraically to estimate flow distributions
in UE-25 c#1 and UE-25 c#2 during the hydraulic test in June
1995, which are listed in Table 9. These flow distributions were
adjusted for the hydraulic tests conducted in February 1996 and
May 1996 to November 1997 (Table 8) by inserting discharge
and drawdown values recorded at the same elapsed time in the
three hydraulic tests into the following equation:
Q1 P1 s2
P2 = (25)
Q2 s1
where P1 is the proportion of flow determined for a hydrogeologic
interval during the hydraulic test in June 1995; P2 is the proportion
of flow determined for a hydrogeologic interval during a hydraulic
test in either February 1996 or May 1996 to November 1997; Q1 is
the average discharge during the hydraulic test in June 1995; Q2 is
the average discharge during a hydraulic test in February 1996 or
May 1996 to November 1997; s1 is the drawdown in a hydrogeo-
logic interval during the hydraulic test in June 1995; and s2 is the
drawdown in a hydrogeologic interval during a hydraulic test in
either February 1996 or May 1996 to November 1997.
In the three hydraulic tests listed in Table 9, the Lower
Bullfrog interval consistently contributed ~70% of the flow from
observation wells to UE-25 c#3, the pumping well at the C-hole
complex; the Upper Tram interval consistently contributed ~20%
of this flow; and all other intervals combined contributed ~10%
of the total flow. To analyze drawdown in any hydrogeologic
interval in these three tests, the total discharge from UE-25 c#3
was first multiplied by the percentage of flow contributed by the
interval being analyzed, in order to avoid calculating erroneously
large values of transmissivity and storativity (both of which are
directly proportional to discharge).

Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 22 to June 1, 1995

A pumping test was conducted in borehole UE-25 c#3 from
May 22 to June 1, 1995, after which recovery was monitored until
June 12, 1995 (Geldon et al., 1998; Table 8). Boreholes UE-25
c#1, UE-25 c#2, UE-25 ONC#1, USW H-4, UE-25 WT#3, and
UE-25 WT#14 were used as observation wells (locations shown in
Figures 14, 20, and 39). Observation wells that responded to pump-
ing were located 29.02245 m from the pumping well, UE-25 c#3 Figure 40. Transmissive intervals in the C-holes (Geldon et al., 1998).
 TABLE 8. INSTRUMENTATION IN THE C-HOLES FOR HYDRAULIC TESTS CONDUCTED 19841998
Borehole Packer depths Pump Flow measurement Data acquisition Data recorder
(m)
March 718, 1984
UE-25 c#2 No packers Submersible pump attached to 14-cm- Flowmeter inside a 15- Differential pressure transducer suspended Electronic data logger
diameter drill tubing, with an intake cm-diameter discharge inside a 6.1-cm-diameter plastic tube, 417.3 m
depth at 441.0 m line below the top of the tube
UE-25 c#1 765.0768.1, Not applicable Not applicable Differential pressure transducers suspended Electronic data logger
792.5795.5 inside a 7.4-cm, outside-diameter plastic tube,
413.0 and 417.3 m below the top of the tube
May 4June 12, 1984
UE-25 c#3 No packers Submersible pump attached to 14-cm- Flowmeter inside a 15- Differential pressure transducer suspended Electronic data logger
diameter drill tubing, with an intake cm-diameter discharge inside a 6.1-cm-diameter plastic tube, 432.8 m
depth at 443.2 m line below the top of the tube
UE-25 c#2 No packers Not applicable Not applicable Differential pressure transducer suspended Electronic data logger
inside a 7.4 cm, outside-diameter plastic tube,
408.4 m below the top of the tube
UE-25 c#1 486.2489.2, Not applicable Not applicable Three temperature-compensated, differential Electronic data logger
512.1515.1 pressure transducers suspended on 7.4 cm,
outside-diameter plastic tubing
October 30December 7, 1984
UE-25 c#3 No packers Submersible pump attached to 14-cm- Flowmeter inside a 15- Differential pressure transducer suspended Electronic data logger
diameter drill tubing, with an intake cm-diameter discharge inside a 6.1-cm-diameter plastic tube, 406.6 m
depth at 443.2 m line below the top of the tube
UE-25 c#2 717.8720.5, Not applicable Not applicable Three temperature-compensated, differential Electronic data logger
754.4757.1 pressure transducers suspended on 7.4 cm,
outside-diameter plastic tubing
UE-25 c#1 766.3769.3, Not applicable Not applicable Three temperature-compensated, differential Electronic data logger
790.7793.4 pressure transducers suspended on 7.4 cm,
outside-diameter plastic tubing
May 22June 12, 1995
UE-25 c#3 No packers Submersible pump attached to 14-cm- Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
diameter drill tubing, with an intake cm-diameter discharge transducer suspended on 14-cm-diameter drill
Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field

depth at 450.2 m line tubing at a depth of 441.1 m

UE-25 c#2 No packers Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
transducer suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter drill
tubing at a depth of 610.4 m
UE-25 c#1 No packers Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
transducer suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter drill
tubing at a depth of 552.0 m
45
 46

TABLE 8. INSTRUMENTATION IN THE C-HOLES FOR HYDRAULIC TESTS CONDUCTED 19841998 (continued)
Borehole Packer depths Pump Flow measurement Data acquisition Data recorder
(m)
June 1222, 1995
UE-25 c#3 No packers Submersible pump attached to 13.9- Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
cm-diameter drill tubing, with an cm-diameter discharge transducer suspended on 14-cm-diameter drill
intake depth at 450.1 m line tubing at a depth of 441.1 m
UE-25 c#2 531.3533.1, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.6607.5, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
696.5698.3, drill tubing at depths of 519.8, 536.3, 610.7,
791.9793.7, and 701.6 m
869.6871.4
UE-25 c#1 547.4549.3, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.3607.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
698.3700.1, drill tubing at depths of 552.1, 610.0, and
797.1798.9, 703.0 m
869.9871.7
February 813, 1996
UE-25 c#3 540.4542.2, Submersible pump suspended on Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
609.9611.7, offset from 7.3-cm-diameter drill cm-diameter discharge transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
695.0696.8, tubing, with an intake depth of line drill tubing at depths of 533.8, 614.5, and
877.5879.4 ~450 m 817.7 m
UE-25 c#2 531.3533.1, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.6607.5, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
A.L. Geldon

696.5698.3, drill tubing at depths of 519.8, 536.3, 610.7,

869.6871.4 and 701.6 m
UE-25 c#1 547.4549.3, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.3607.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
698.3700.1, drill tubing at depths of 552.1, 610.0, and
869.9871.7 703.0 m
May 8, 1996November 12, 1997
UE-25 c#3 694.6696.5, Submersible pump suspended on Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
812.9814.7, 7.3-cm-diameter drill tubing, with an cm-diameter discharge transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
878.1880.0 intake depth of ~650 m line drill tubing at depths of 691.3, 708.9, and
819.3 m
UE-25 c#2 531.3533.1, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.6607.5, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
696.5698.3, drill tubing at depths of 519.8, 536.3, 610.7,
791.9793.7, and 701.6 m
869.6871.4
UE-25 c#1 547.4549.3, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.3607.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
698.3700.1, drill tubing at depths of 552.1, 610.0, and
797.1798.9, 703.0 m
869.9871.7
 TABLE 8. INSTRUMENTATION IN THE C-HOLES FOR HYDRAULIC TESTS CONDUCTED 19841998 (continued)
Borehole Packer depths Pump Flow measurement Data acquisition Data recorder
(m)
June 211, 1998
UE-25 c#3 473.3475.2, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
540.4542.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
609.9611.7, drill tubing at depths of 471.5, 591.6, 593.4,
616.0624.3 and 619.7 m
UE-25 c#2 487.7489.5, Submersible pump suspended on Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
533.1534.9, 7.3-cm-diameter drill tubing, with an cm-diameter discharge transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
605.6607.5, intake depth of 599.8 m line drill tubing at depths of 485.8, 587.0, 588.6,
612.0613.9 and 615.7 m
UE-25 c#1 547.4549.3, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.3607.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
698.3700.1, drill tubing at depths of 552.1, 610.0, and
797.1798.9, 703.0 m
869.9871.7
June 11 to September 1, 1998
UE-25 c#3 473.3475.2, Positive displacement pump at land Inline flowmeter Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
540.4542.2, surface transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
609.9611.7, drill tubing at depths of 471.5, 591.6, 593.4,
616.0624.3 and 619.7 m
UE-25 c#2 487.7489.5, Submersible pump suspended on Flowmeter inside a 15- Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
533.1534.9, 7.3-cm-diameter drill tubing, with an cm-diameter discharge transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
605.6607.5, intake depth of 599.8 m line drill tubing at depths of 485.8, 587.0, 588.6,
612.0613.9 and 615.7 m
UE-25 c#1 547.4549.3, Not applicable Not applicable Temperature-compensated, absolute pressure Personal computer
605.3607.2, transducers suspended on 7.3-cm-diameter
698.3700.1, drill tubing at depths of 552.1, 610.0, and
797.1798.9, 703.0 m
Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field

869.9871.7
Note: Information from Geldon, 1996; Geldon et al., 1998, 1999, 2002.
47
48 A.L. Geldon

TABLE 9. INTERVAL DISCHARGES 5800 MIN AFTER PUMPING STARTED,

HYDRAULIC TESTS IN UE-25 C#3, JUNE 1995 TO NOVEMBER 1997
June 1995 February 1996 May 1996 to November 1997
Hydrogeologic Unit Discharge Drawdown Flow Discharge Drawdown Flow Discharge Drawdown Flow
(L/s) (cm) (%) (L/s) (cm) (%) (L/s) (cm) (%)
UE-25 c#1
Calico Hills 22.5 N/D 3.8 8.45 N/D 0.5E 9.72 N/D 1.1E
Prow Pass 22.5 43.0 2.9 8.45 14.0 2.5 9.72 14.9 2.3
Upper Bullfrog 22.5 52.1 3.9 8.45 21.6 4.3 9.72 19.2 3.3
Lower Bullfrog 22.5 49.7 68.3 8.45 N/D N/D 9.72 21.0 66.8
Bullfrog-Tram 22.5 N/D 89.4 8.45 19.5 92.7 9.72 N/A N/A
Upper Tram 22.5 N/D 21.1 8.45 N/D N/D 9.72 N/D 26.5
Lower Tram 22.5 N/D trace 8.45 N/D trace 9.72 N/D trace
UE-25 c#2
Calico Hills 22.5 351.7 3.8 8.45 16.4 0.5 9.72 43.0 1.1
Prow Pass 22.5 75.6 2.9 8.45 14.6 1.5 9.72 22.2 2.0
Upper Bullfrog 22.5 62.2 3.9 8.45 25.0 4.2 9.72 26.5 3.8
Lower Bullfrog 22.5 49.4 68.3 8.45 N/D N/D 9.72 21.9 70.2
Bullfrog-Tram 22.5 N/D 89.4 8.45 21.0 93.8 9.72 N/A N/A
Upper Tram 22.5 283.2 21.1 8.45 N/D N/D 9.72 N/D 22.9
Lower Tram 22.5 239.6 trace 8.45 N/D trace 9.72 N/D trace
Note: Flow proportion for the Bullfrog-Tram interval shown in June 1995 is the sum of values for the Lower Bullfrog and Upper Tram intervals.
L/sliters per second. Eestimated. N/Anot applicable. N/Dno data.

(no response was detected in UE-25 WT#3 and UE-25 WT#14).
Many aspects of this test were discussed previously in the section
titled Groundwater in the Younger Tertiary Tuff and Lava Flows
Hydrostratigraphic Unit. This test was conceived mainly to quan-
tify hydraulic properties of the composite thickness of Miocene
volcanic rocks in the saturated zone at the C-holes complex, in
order to validate subsequent determinations of hydraulic proper-
ties of selected intervals at this site. Only aspects of this test related
to determining hydraulic properties of the Miocene volcanic rocks
at the C-holes complex are discussed in this section.
Each of the C-holes was open for its entire thickness below
the bottom of casing and cement in the Calico Hills Formation
and the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs. Borehole UE-25
c#3 was open from 417.0 to 900.4 m below land surface. The
total thickness of transmissive intervals in the borehole during the
test was determined from borehole flow surveys, fracture logs,
thermal gradient inflections, and low-resistivity intervals to be
274 m (Geldon, 1996). Borehole UE-25 c#2, 29.0 m from UE-25
c#3, was open from 416.0 to 910.1 m below land surface. The
total thickness of transmissive intervals in UE-25 c#2 during the
test was determined with the same methods used for UE-25 c#3
to be 165 m (Geldon, 1996). Borehole UE-25 c#1, 82.6 m from
UE-25 c#3, was open from 417.9 to 897.6 m below land surface.
The total thickness of transmissive intervals in UE-25 c#1 during
the test was determined with the same methods used for UE-25
c#3 to be 252 m (Geldon, 1996).
Pumping started at 14:58 on May 22, 1995, and continued
without interruption until 15:01 on June 1, 1995, a period of 10
days (14,403 min). The average discharge from UE-25 c#3 dur-
ing the test was 17.9 L/s, which caused 7.76 m of drawdown in
the well (Fig. 35B). Ninety percent of this drawdown occurred
within 10 min of starting the pump. Recovery after the pump was
shut off was equally rapid. It is estimated that 83% of the draw-
down in UE-25 c#3 was caused by well losses.
Drawdown in UE-25 c#2 was detected 1 min after pump-
ing started, and drawdown in UE-25 c#1 was detected 1.5 min
after pumping started. Drawdown in UE-25 c#2 reached 0.32 m
after 10 days of pumping (Fig. 15). Contrary to expectations in
a homogeneous, isotropic, confined aquifer, drawdown in UE-25
c#1 exceeded that in the closer observation well, UE-25 c#2, and
reached 0.42 m after 10 days of pumping (Fig. 15). Recovery in
UE-25 c#2 was complete on June 11, 13,600 min after pumping
stopped (Geldon et al., 1998). Recovery in UE-25 c#1 was com-
plete on June 9, 11,400 min after pumping stopped (Fig. 16).
Drawdown in UE-25 c#2 was characteristic of an uncon-
fined aquifer, which was expected because the water table is only
14 m above the top of the interval open to the well. Drawdown
data plotted as a function of time since pumping started matched
the type curve of Neuman (1975) for = 0.004 (Fig. 41). This
analysis indicated transmissivity of 2100 m2/d, horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of 13 m/d, vertical hydraulic conductivity
of 1.7 m/d, storativity of 0.003, and a specific yield of 0.2.
With the water table 16 m above the top of the interval open
to the well, recovery in UE-25 c#1 also was characteristic of
an unconfined aquifer. Recovery data plotted as a function of
time since pumping stopped matched the type curve of Neuman
(1975) for = 0.004 (Fig. 16). This analysis indicated transmis-
sivity of 1800 m2/d, horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 7.3 m/d,
vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.3 m/d, storativity of 0.001,
and a specific yield of 0.01.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
1
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
0.1 Late-time Match Point
Early-time Match Point
0.01
0.001
1 10 100
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
Miscellaneous Hydraulic Tests at the C-holes Complex,
19841998
Six hydraulic tests that were conducted at the C-holes com-
plex between 1984 and 1998 show a typical range in hydraulic
properties that can be present in the Younger Tertiary tuff and
lava flows HSU at a single site. Five of these tests are discussed
briefly below. A test conducted from 1996 to 1997 is discussed in
the next section because of its broader scope.
A pumping test conducted May 4 to June12, 1984, (Table 8)
determined hydraulic properties of the Calico Hills Formation in
UE-25 c#1 (Geldon, 1996). The pumping well, UE-25 c#3, was
open from 417.0 to 914.4 m in the Calico Hills Formation and the
Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs. UE-25 c#1, 78.9 m from
UE-25 c#3, was open from 417.9 to 486.2 m in nonwelded tuff of
the Calico Hills Formation and from 486.2 to 512.1m in bedded
tuff of the Calico Hills Formation. Flow surveys and other geo-
physical logs indicated that 55.5 m of nonwelded tuff and 4.9 m of
bedded tuff in packed-off intervals of UE-25 c#1 were transmis-
sive (Geldon, 1996). Pumping started at 22:57 on May 4, shut off
for 163 min on May 9 (6520 min into the test), and terminated
at 10:02 on May 14. Discharge, which averaged 26.4 L/s for the
13,625 min that the pump was operating, caused 3.355.49 m of
drawdown in the two intervals of the Calico Hills Formation that
were monitored in UE-25 c#1. Recovery from pumping was mon-
itored from May 14 to June 12. Drawdown in the nonwelded tuff
interval of the Calico Hills Formation in UE-25 c#1 and recov-
ery in the bedded tuff interval of the Calico Hills Formation in
UE-25 c#1 were analyzed. With the water table in the Calico Hills
Formation, drawdown and recovery in UE-25 c#1 conformed to
unconfined aquifer type curves of Neuman (1975).
A pumping test conducted October 30 to December 7, 1984
(Table 8) determined hydraulic properties of the Tram Tuff in
49
Figure 41. Analysis of drawdown in
borehole UE-25 c#2 by the method of
Neuman (1975), pumping test in UE-25
c#3, Yucca Mountain, May 22June 1,
1995 (Geldon et al., 1998).
DATA
TYPE CURVE
1000 10000 100000
UE-25 c#1 (Geldon, 1996). The pumping well, UE-25 c#3, was
open from 417.0 to 907.1 m in the Calico Hills Formation and the
Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs. UE-25 c#1, 85.3 m from
UE-25 c#3, was open from 793.4 to 902.8 m in the Tram Tuff.
Flow surveys and other geophysical logs indicated that 63.4 m of
the Tram Tuff in UE-25 c#1 were transmissive (Geldon, 1996).
Pumping started at 17:56 on October 30, shut off for 8.3 min on
November 2 (3839 min into the test), and terminated at 13:42 on
November 15. Discharge, which averaged 26.8 L/s over a period
of 15.8 days (22,786 min), caused 0.96 m of drawdown in the
Tram Tuff in UE-25 c#1. Drawdown became essentially constant
after ~5000 min of pumping apparently as a result of recharge
from the Midway Valley Fault. Recovery from pumping was
monitored from November 15 to December 7, but it was com-
plete by November 28. Drawdown was analyzed by the method
of Cooper (1963) for leakage from a confining layer without stor-
age (Fig. 17), a situation analogous to fault recharge.
A pumping test conducted June 1222, 1995, (Table 8) deter-
mined hydraulic properties of the Calico Hills, Prow Pass, Upper
Bullfrog, and Lower Bullfrog intervals in UE-25 c#2 and UE-25
c#1 (Geldon et al., 2002). The pumping well, UE-25 c#3, was open
from 417.0 to 900.4 m in the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow
Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs. UE-25 c#2, 28.629.3 m from
UE-25 c#3 at depths tested, was open from 416.0 to 531.3 m in
the Calico Hills interval, from 533.1 to 605.6 m in the Prow Pass
interval, from 607.5 to 696.5 m in the Upper Bullfrog interval, and
from 698.3 to 791.9 m in the Lower Bullfrog interval. Flow sur-
veys and other geophysical logs indicated that 45.4 m of the Calico
Hills interval, 23.8 m of the Prow Pass interval, 24.1 m of the
Upper Bullfrog interval, and 29.9 m of the Lower Bullfrog interval
in UE-25 c#2 were transmissive. UE-25 c#1, 78.385.6 m from
UE-25 c#3 at depths tested, was open from 549.3 to 605.3 m in the
50
Prow Pass interval, from 607.2 to 698.3 m in the Upper Bullfrog
interval, and from 700.1 to 797.1 m in the Lower Bullfrog interval.
Flow surveys and other geophysical logs indicated that 18.9 m of
the Prow Pass interval, 46.0 m of the Upper Bullfrog interval, and
62.8 m of the Lower Bullfrog interval in UE-25 c#1 were transmis-
sive. Pumping started at 14:24 on June 12 and continued without
interruption until 15:07 on June 16. Discharge, which averaged
22.5 L/s over a period of 4.0 days (5803 min), caused 10.9 m of
drawdown in the pumped well, 0.4935.2 m of drawdown in inter-
vals of UE-25 c#2, and 0.430.52 m of drawdown in intervals of
UE-25 c#1. Recovery from pumping was monitored June 1622.
Drawdown and recovery in the Calico Hills interval conformed to
type curves of Neuman (1975) for an unconfined aquifer. Draw-
down and recovery in all other intervals conformed to the exponen-
tial integral curve of Theis (1935) for a homogeneous, isotropic,
confined aquifer. Figures 4245 are representative analyses of
drawdown and recovery from this test.
A pumping test conducted February 813, 1996, (Table 8)
determined hydraulic properties of the combined Lower Bull-
frog and Upper Tram intervals in UE-25 c#1 and UE-25 c#2,
from which it was possible using data from the previous test to
separate properties of the Upper Tram intervals in UE-25 c#1 and
UE-25 c#2 (Geldon et al., 2002). The pumping well, UE-25 c#3,
was open from 696.8 to 877.5 m in the Bullfrog-Tram interval
(the combined Lower Bullfrog and Upper Tram intervals). UE-
25 c#2, 29.0 m from UE-25 c#3, was open in the Bullfrog-Tram
interval from 698.3 to 869.6 m, and UE-25 c#1, 86.3 m from
10
Early-time Match Point
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
0.1
0.01
1 10 100
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
A.L. Geldon
UE-25 c#3, was open in the Bullfrog-Tram interval from 700.1
to 869.9 m. Flow surveys and other geophysical logs indicated
that the Bullfrog-Tram interval had a transmissive thickness of
51.2 m in UE-25 c#2 and 112 m in UE-25 c#1. Pumping started
at 13:55 on February 8 and continued without interruption until
10:18 on February 13. Discharge, which averaged 8.49 L/s over
a period of 4.85 days (6984 min), caused 2.86 m of drawdown in
the pumped well, 0.21 m of drawdown in UE-25 c#2, and 0.18 m
of drawdown in UE-25 c#1. Recovery data were not obtained
because the pumping test was terminated by a tracer test. Draw-
down in both observation wells appeared to conform to the
exponential integral curve of Theis (1935) for a homogeneous,
isotropic, confined aquifer.
A pumping test conducted June 211, 1998, (Table 8) deter-
mined hydraulic properties of the Prow Pass interval in UE-25 c#1
and UE-25 c#3 (Geldon et al., 1999). The pumping well, UE-25
c#2, was open from 485.9 to 605.6 m in the Prow Pass interval.
UE-25 c#3, 28.7 m from UE-25 c#2, was open from 542.2 to
609.9 m in the Prow Pass interval, and UE-25 c#1, 82.6 m from
UE-25 c#2, was open from 549.2 to 605.3 m in this interval. Flow
surveys and other geophysical logs indicated that the Prow Pass
interval had a transmissive thickness of 31.7 m in UE-25 c#3 and
18.9 m in UE-25 c#1. Discharge, which averaged 0.33 L/s over a
period of 8.68 days (12,500 min), caused 128 m of drawdown in
the pumped well, 0.54 m of drawdown in UE-25 c#3, and 0.12 m
of drawdown in UE-25 c#1. Recovery data were not obtained
because the pumping test was terminated by a tracer test. Draw-
Figure 42. Analysis of drawdown in
UE-25 c#2 Calico Hills interval by the
method of Neuman (1975), pumping
test in UE-25 c#3, June 1216, 1995.
(Data from Geldon et al., 2002.)
DATA
TYPE CURVE
1000 10000
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 51

Match Point
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

0.1

Figure 43. Analysis of drawdown in UE-

25 c#1 Prow Pass interval by the method
of Theis (1935), pumping test in UE-25
c#3, June 1216, 1995. (Modified from
0.01 Geldon et al., 2002.)

DATA
TYPE CURVE

0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

10
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

Figure 44. Analysis of drawdown in

UE-25 c#2 Upper Bullfrog interval by
the method of Theis (1935), pumping
test in UE-25 c#3, June 1216, 1995.
0.1 (Modified from Geldon et al., 2002.)
Match Point

DATA
TYPE CURVE

0.01
1 10 100 1000 10000

TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

52
1
RECOVERY, IN METERS
Match Point
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1 1 10
TIME SINCE PUMPING STOPPED, IN MINUTES
down in both observation wells conformed to type curves of Coo-
per (1963) for a leaky, confined aquifer. Transducers above and
below the Prow Pass interval indicated that this leakage appeared
to be coming from the Calico Hills interval in UE-25 c#3 and both
the Calico Hills and upper Bullfrog intervals in UE-25 c#1.
Table 10 summarizes hydraulic properties of intervals in the
C-holes that were determined from hydraulic tests discussed in
this section. In general, these tests showed that most transmissive
intervals in the C-holes are confined, but the Calico Hills interval,
near the water table, is unconfined, and the Tram Tuff receives
recharge from the cross-cutting Midway Valley Fault. The Calico
Hills interval is the least transmissive interval, because it is the
farthest interval vertically from the Midway Valley Fault. The
Lower Bullfrog and Upper Tram intervals are the most transmis-
sive intervals because they are nearest vertically to the Midway
Valley Fault. The Prow Pass and Upper Bullfrog intervals consis-
tently had the smallest storativity, possibly because fractures are
responsible for most flow from these intervals.
Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997
A pumping test was conducted in borehole UE-25 c#3 from
May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997 (Table 8), after which recov-
ery was monitored until December 31, 1997 (Geldon et al., 2002).
The pumping was intended to establish a steep, quasisteady-state
hydraulic gradient for tracer tests that began May 15, 1996, and
it was expected that tracer-test operations would terminate the
record that could be analyzed as a pumping test. Neither tracer
tests nor unplanned pump shut-offs were found to affect records
of drawdown in observation wells long enough to hinder their
analysis for most of the time that UE-25 c#3 was pumped. The
pumping test was planned to quantify hydraulic properties of the
A.L. Geldon
Figure 45. Analysis of drawdown in
UE-25 c#1 Lower Bullfrog interval by
the method of Theis (1935), pumping
test in UE-25 c#3, June 1216, 1995.
(Modified from Geldon et al., 2002.)
DATA
TYPE CURVE
100 1000 10000
Lower Bullfrog interval in the C-holes, which was accomplished,
but pumping much longer than in any previous test at the site
changed perceptions about flow in this transmissive interval and
required previously unanticipated analytical methods to determine
hydraulic properties. Although water was pumped from the lower
Bullfrog Tuff, observation wells open in the Topopah Spring Tuff,
Calico Hills Formation, and the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, Tram, and
Lithic Ridge Tuffs in an 81 km2 area were affected by pumping.
This test, which is termed the lower Bullfrog test in this report,
demonstrated conclusively that the diverse geologic units affected
by the pumping comprise a single HSU (the Younger Tertiary tuff
and lava flows HSU) and not separate aquifers and confining lay-
ers, as previously thought by Winograd and Thordarson (1975),
Luckey et al. (1996), and other workers in the area. The test also
delineated boundaries of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain,
and it established that the Midway Valley Fault is a recharge
boundary. This last aspect of the lower Bullfrog test was discussed
thoroughly in the section titled Groundwater in the Younger Ter-
tiary Tuff and Lava Flows Hydrostratigraphic Unit and will not
be addressed further in this section of the report.
The monitoring network for the lower Bullfrog test initially
consisted of the pumping well, UE-25 c#3, and six continuously
monitored observation wells, UE-25 c#2, UE-25 c#1, UE-25
ONC#1, UE-25 WT#3, UE-25 WT#14, and USW H-4 (Fig. 20).
The test persisted long enough that 16 wells included in a net-
work established at Yucca Mountain for periodic measurements
of water levels (Graves, 1998, 2000) could be incorporated into
the test monitoring network (Geldon, 1999). The additional
observation wells were J-12, J-13, USW G-2, USW H-1, USW
H-3, USW H-5, USW H-6, USW WT-1, UE-25 WT#4, USW
WT-7, USW WT-10, USW WT-11, UE-25 WT#13, UE-25
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 53

TABLE 10. SUMMARY HYDRAULIC-PROPERTY DATA FOR TRANSMISSIVE INTERVALS IN THE C-HOLES DETERMINED FROM
PUMPING TESTS CONDUCTED MAY 1984 TO JUNE 1998
Interval Borehole Transmissive Percent Test date Transmissivity Hydraulic Storativity or Aquifer type
thickness flow (m2/day) conductivity specific yield
(m) (m/day)
Calico Hills UE-25 c#1 60.4 4.5 May 4, 1984 9.3 0.15 0.003 (sy) Unconfined
UE-25 c#2 45.4 3.8 June 12, 1995 5.5 0.12 0.02 (sy) Unconfined
Prow Pass UE-25 c#1 18.9 2.9 June 12, 1995 60 3.4 0.0003 Confined
UE-25 c#2 23.8 2.9 June 12, 1995 40 1.7 0.0004 Confined
UE-25 c#1 18.9 N/A June 2, 1998 65 3.4 0.00001 Leaky confined
UE-25 c#3 31.7 N/A June 2, 1998 17 0.55 0.00005 Leaky confined
Upper UE-25 c#1 46.0 3.9 June 12, 1995 90 2.0 0.00006 Confined
Bullfrog UE-25 c#2 24.1 3.9 June 12, 1995 100 4.2 0.00003 Confined
Lower UE-25 c#1 62.8 68.3 June 12, 1995 1,800 29 0.0004 Confined
Bullfrog UE-25 c#2 29.9 68.3 June 12, 1995 1,900 64 0.003 Confined
Tram UE-25 c#1 63.4 58.0 October 30, 1984 730 12 0.003 Leaky confined
UE-25 c#1 49.7 (upper) 21.1 February 8, 1996 700 13 0.0001 Confined
UE-25 c#2 21.3 (upper) 21.1 February 8, 1996 600 28 0.0008 Confined
Note: N/Anot applicable; syspecific yield.

WT#15, UE-25 WT#16, and UE-25 b#1 (Fig. 20). Completion
data for all of the monitored wells, except six that did not respond
to pumping in any test included in the study database (Appendix
B)USW WT-7, USW WT-10, UE-25 WT#13, UE-25 WT#15,
UE-25 WT#16, and J-12are listed in Table 4. Graves (1998)
contains completion data for the six wells omitted from Table 4.
Table 8 contains descriptions of instrumentation in the C-holes
during this test; Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project
Office (1995) contains a description of instrumentation in UE-25
ONC#1; Graves (1998, 2000) contains descriptions of instru-
mentation in all other monitoring wells used in this test. The
12 wells that responded to pumping are discussed briefly below
before presenting analyses and interpretations of this test.
Each of the C-holes was open between straddle packers in
the lower Bullfrog interval. UE-25 c#3 was open between depths
of 696.5 and 812.9 m, where flow surveys and other geophysical
logs indicated 66.4 m of transmissive rock. UE-25 c#2, 29.3 m
from UE-25 c#3, was open between depths of 698.3 and 791.9 m,
where flow surveys and other geophysical logs indicated 29.9 m of
transmissive rock. UE-25 c#1, 85.6 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
between depths of 700.1 and 797.1 m, where flow surveys and
other geophysical logs indicated 62.8 m of transmissive rock.
Borehole UE-25 ONC#1, 842.8 m from UE-25 c#3, was
open between depths of 453.2 and 469.4 m in the Prow Pass
Tuff (Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office,
1995). Water movement through the Bullfrog Tuff must have
occurred to establish hydraulic connection to the pumping well
during the test. The thickness of transmissive rock between the
observation and pumping wells cannot be established with any
certainty, but it was estimated on the basis of assumed linear
variation between transmissive thicknesses in UE-25 c#2 and
USW H-4 to be 90 m.
Borehole USW WT-1, 1992 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
between depths of 470.8 and 514.8 m in the Calico Hills Forma-
tion and Bullfrog Tuff (Nelson et al., 1991). The total thickness
of transmissive rock between USW WT-1 and UE-25 c#3 was
estimated to be 65 m on the basis of the geology between the two
boreholes and the thickness of transmissive rock in UE-25 c#3.
Borehole USW H-4, 2245 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
between depths of 560.5 and 1181.5 m in the Prow Pass, Bull-
frog, and Tram Tuffs (Whitfield et al., 1985). A tracejector flow
survey conducted in May 1982 indicated that the total thickness
of transmissive rock in the Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs is 111 m
(Whitfield et al., 1985). Although the Tram Tuff contains 3 trans-
missive intervals between depths of 820 and 922 m in USW H-4,
it was assumed that flow to the pumping well was radial and,
therefore, that these intervals did not contribute flow to the pump-
ing well. If the Tram Tuff in USW H-4 contributed flow in this
test, hydraulic conductivity would be smaller than calculated in
analyses of data from USW H-4.
Borehole UE-25 WT#14, 2249 m from UE-25 c#3, was
open between depths of 346.4 and 399.3 m in the Topopah
Spring Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation (Nelson et al., 1991).
Water movement through the Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs must
have occurred to establish hydraulic connection to the pumping
well during the test. A total transmissive thickness of 170 m was
estimated by comparison with the hydrogeology of nearby UE-
25 p#1 (Craig and Robison, 1984).
Borehole UE-25 b#1, 2722 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
between depths of 470.1 and 1219.8 m in the Calico Hills
Formation, Prow Pass Tuff, and Bullfrog Tuff (Lobmeyer et al.,
1983; Lahoud et al., 1984). A tracejector flow survey conducted
in August 1981 (Fig. 26 B) indicated 109 m of transmissive
rock in this well.
54 A.L. Geldon
Borehole UE-25 WT#3, 3526 m from UE-25 c#3, was
open between depths of 300.4 and 348.1 m in the Bullfrog Tuff
(Nelson et al., 1991). A total transmissive thickness of 52 m was
estimated by comparison with the hydrogeology of nearby UE-
25 p#1 (Craig and Robison, 1984).
Borehole UE-25 WT#4, 3573 m from UE-25 c#3, was
open between depths of 438.4 and 481.6 m in the Calico Hills
Formation (Nelson et al., 1991). Water movement through the
Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs must have occurred to establish
hydraulic connection to the pumping well during the test. A total
transmissive thickness of 109 m was estimated by comparison
with the hydrogeology of nearby UE-25 b#1.
Borehole USW H-1, 4625 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
in the Prow Pass Tuff between depths of 572 and 673 m and in
the Bullfrog Tuff between depths of 716 and 765 m (Rush et
al., 1984). Tracejector flow surveys conducted in October and
December 1982 indicated 103 m of transmissive rock in this
well (Rush et al., 1984).
Borehole USW WT-11, 6414 m from UE-25 c#3, was open
between depths of 363.5 and 440.7 m in the Topopah Spring
Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation (Nelson et al., 1991). Water
movement through the Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs must have
occurred to establish hydraulic connection to the pumping well
during the test. A total transmissive thickness of 109 m was esti-
mated from the site geology and transmissive thicknesses deter-
mined for boreholes UE-25 b#1, USW H-4, and UE-25 WT#14.
Pumping in the lower Bullfrog test began at 11:17 on May 8,
1996. Tracers were injected into the lower Bullfrog intervals in
either UE-25 c#2 or UE-25 c#1 on May 15, June 18, and October
9, 1996 and on January 9 and 10, 1997. Tracer injections gener-
ally disturbed water levels for 16 days, although recirculation of
water between the injection and recovery wells in one test caused
water levels in the injection well to rise for 16 days. The pump
went down 11 times for periods of 2185 min between May 24,
1996, and March 26, 1997, frequently between March 26 and
May 8, 1997, seven times between May 30 and September 29,
1997, and at least once a day between October 15 and November
12, 1997. The pumping and tracer tests were terminated because
of irresolvable generator problems at 16:00 on November 12,
1997, 553 days (796,663 min) after pumping started.
Discharge from UE-25 c#3 averaged 9.53 L/s between May
8, 1996, and March 26, 1997, but it fluctuated erratically March
26May 8, 1997, and decreased steadily from 9.3 to 8.9 L/s there-
after because of generator problems. Discharge averaged 9.21 L/s
for the entire test. Pump shutoffs typically caused rapid and nearly
complete recovery in UE-25 c#3, but these effects were reversed
just as rapidly when pumping resumed. Tracer test operations
affected drawdown in the pumping well minimally. The frequent
pump shutoffs prevented drawdown in UE-25 c#3 from exceeding
5.98 m, which was reached on March 26, 1997, 464,134 min after
pumping started. On the basis of hydraulic properties determined
from this test, it is estimated that 80% of the drawdown in UE-25
c#3 was caused by well losses. Recovery in UE-25 c#3 was com-
plete on December 12, 1997, 29.8 days after pumping stopped.
Analyzable drawdown records for 11 observation wells in the
lower Bullfrog test ranged from 300,000796,663 min. Only UE-
25 ONC#1 had a usable, continuous record for the entire 796,663
min of pumping. Drawdown in 10 other wells was extrapolated to
the end of pumping using hydraulic properties determined during
the test. Measured and extrapolated drawdown in these 11 wells
ranged from 0.14 to 0.47 m (Fig. 46). Drawdown clearly was influ-
enced by the northwesterly trending Drill Hole Wash Fault in the
vicinity of boreholes UE-25 b#1, UE-25 WT#4, and USW H-1, but
the drawdown distribution appears to have been influenced mainly
by north-northeasterly trending faults, such as the Paintbrush Can-
yon, Midway Valley, and Bow Ridge Faults (See Figure 39 for
locations of faults). As shown in Figures 20 and 46, lines separat-
ing observation wells that did not respond to pumpingJ-12, J-13,
UE-25 WT#13, UE-25 WT#15, UE-25 WT#16, USW G-2, USW
H-5, USW H-6, USW H-3, USW WT-7, and USW WT-10from
wells that responded to pumping generally coincide with traces of
faults that delineate the northern boundaries of the Yucca Mountain
hydrologic domain. Figure 46 appears to indicate that the lower
Bullfrog test affected most of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic
domain, as it was defined previously in this report.
Drawdown in the Lower Bullfrog intervals in UE-25 c#1 and
UE-25 c#2 during the lower Bullfrog test is different in several
ways from drawdown in these intervals that was observed during
previous hydraulic tests of much shorter duration. As shown in
Figure 47, drawdown after 158,000 min increased at a faster rate
than could be anticipated by extrapolation of earlier drawdown
using analytical equations by Theis (1935), Equations 1 and 3 in
this report. The larger-than-anticipated drawdown during the lat-
ter part of the test indicates that the spreading cone of depression
encompassed less transmissive rock as the test progressed.
Although previous tests indicated a confined-aquifer response
to pumping, the lower Bullfrog test progressed long enough for a
double-humped drawdown curve characteristic of dual fracture
and matrix permeability to develop. Consequently, drawdown
trends in the Lower Bullfrog intervals of UE-25 c#2 and UE-25
c#1 in the lower Bullfrog test were analyzed by the method of
Streltsova-Adams (1978). Drawdown in both UE-25 c#2 (Fig. 48)
and UE-25 c#1 conformed to the type curve for = 10 and r/b
= 0.05. These analyses indicated transmissivity of 1300 m2/d,
hydraulic conductivity of 2040 m/d, matrix storativity of
0.0020.02, and fracture storativity of 0.00020.002. Hydraulic
conductivity and storativity were larger in a west-northwesterly
direction, parallel to the Antler Wash Fault zone than in a north-
northeasterly direction, parallel to the Midway Valley Fault.
Average hydraulic properties of Miocene volcanic rocks
within the part of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain affected
by the lower Bullfrog test were determined in two ways: (1) by
analyzing continuously recorded drawdown as a function of time
in the four observation wells not affected by a recharge bound-
ary (UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2, UE-25 ONC#1, and UE-25 WT#3);
and (2) by analyzing drawdown in all of the observation wells
except USW WT-1 as a function of distance from the pumping
well before the recharge boundary was encountered. Table 11 lists
 4085000
Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
DRAWDOWN, 55
G2 IN METERS
WT16

4080000 H1
WT4 0.40
H5 WT15
B1
H6
H4 WT14 0.35
ONC1
UTM NORTH (METERS)

C2 WT13
WT7 H3
4075000 WT1 0.30

5
0.2
WT10 J13

0.2
WT3 0.25
Figure 46. Drawdown distribution after

0
05
796,663 min of pumping, lower Bull-

0.

5
0.1
WT11 0.20
frog test in UE-25 c#3, Yucca Mountain,
0.10
4070000
J12 May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997.
0.15

0.10
4065000
0.05

4060000
535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000
UTM EAST (METERS)

70
Tracer injected
60 Tracer injected
DRAWDOWN, IN CENTIMETERS

50
Tracer injected
40 Figure 47. Drawdown in UE-25 c#2,
lower Bullfrog interval, pumping test in
30 UE-25 c#3, May 8, 1996 to November
12, 1997. Downward spikes mostly are
20 unplanned pump shut-offs. (Modified
RECORDED from Geldon et al., 2002.)
10
EXTRAPOLATED
0
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES

10

DATA
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

TYPE CURVE
1

Figure 48. Analysis of drawdown in

UE-25 c#2, lower Bullfrog interval, by
the method of Streltsova-Adams (1978),
pumping test in UE-25 c#3, May 8,
0.1
1996, to November 12, 1997. (Data
Match Point from Fig. 47.)

0.01
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
56 A.L. Geldon

TABLE 11. HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES DETERMINED FROM DRAWDOWN IN OBSERVATION WELLS, LOWER BULLFROG TEST,
MAY 8, 1996, TO NOVEMBER 12, 1997
Well Distance to Geologic units T K Storativity Storativity, Storativity,
UE-25 c#3 (m2/d) (m/d) fractures matrix
(m)
UE-25 c#2 29.3 Bullfrog Tuff 1,300 40 0.02 0.002 0.02
UE-25 c#1 85.6 Bullfrog Tuff 1,300 20 0.002 0.0002 0.002
UE-25 ONC #1 842.8 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs 970 11 0.01 0.001 0.01
USW WT-1 1992 Calico Hills Formation to Bullfrog Tuff 630 9.7 0.01 No Data No Data
USW H-4 2245 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs 560 5.0 0.002 No Data No Data
UE-25 WT #14 2249 Topopah Spring Tuff to Bullfrog Tuff 710 4.2 0.002 No Data No Data
UE-25 b#1 2722 Calico Hills Formation to Bullfrog Tuff 980 9.0 0.004 No Data No Data
UE-25 WT #3 3526 Bullfrog Tuff 800 15 0.01 0.002 0.01
UE-25 WT#4 3573 Calico Hills Formation to Bullfrog Tuff 960 8.8 0.002 No Data No Data
USW H-1 4625 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs 650 6.3 0.001 No Data No Data
USW WT-11 6414 Topopah Spring Tuff to Bullfrog Tuff 980 9.0 0.002 No Data No Data
Note: Ttransmissivity; Khydraulic conductivity; m2/dmeters squared per day; m/dmeters per day.

values of hydraulic properties determined from analyses of draw-
down observed in 11 observation wells during the lower Bullfrog
test for comparison with these multiple-well solutions.
Figure 49 shows drawdown data for UE-25 c#2, UE-25
c#1, UE-25 ONC#1, and UE-25 WT#3 through March 26, 1997,
464,100 min after pumping started, plotted together as a function
of time and matched to the type curve of Theis (1935) for a con-
fined aquifer. This analysis indicated transmissivity of 2200 m2/d
and storativity of 0.002. To calculate hydraulic conductivity,
values of transmissive thickness in the 11 observation wells that
responded to pumping were plotted and contoured. An average
transmissive thickness of 100 m was estimated visually from this
plot and from the geometric mean of transmissive thickness val-
ues for wells listed in Table 11, 84 m. A hydraulic conductivity
value of 22 m/d was calculated from the transmissivity and aver-
age transmissive thickness values. This analysis provides average
values of hydraulic properties for the 21 km2 area encompassed
by the observation wells involved in the analysis.

1
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

0.1
Match
Point
Figure 49. Analysis by the method of
Theis (1935) of drawdown in observa-
tion wells as a function of time, pump-
ing test in UE-25 c#3, May 8, 1996, to
UE-25 c#2
November 12, 1997. (Modified from
0.01 Geldon et al., 2002.)
UE-25 c#1

UE-25 ONC#1

UE-25 WT#3

TYPE CURVE

0.001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED/DISTANCE SQUARED, IN MINUTES PER SQUARE METER
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
Figure 50 shows drawdown data for all observation wells
except USW WT-1 (an outlier) plotted together as a function of
distance from UE-25 c#3 through 70,000 min of pumping (2000
min before the effects of recharge from the Midway Valley Fault
became noticeable). Drawdown values in wells UE-25 c#2, UE-
25 ONC#1, UE-25 WT#14, USW H-4, and UE-25 WT#3 were
plotted as recorded. Undisturbed drawdown in UE-25 c#1 at
70,000 min had to be estimated because of an ongoing tracer test
in the well. Transmissivity and storativity determined from UE-
25 c#1 drawdown during the lower Bullfrog test and Equations
5 and 6 were used to estimate the undisturbed drawdown in UE-
25 c#1 at 70,000 min. Drawdown in the periodically monitored
wells UE-25 b#1, UE-25 WT#4, USW H-1, and USW WT-11,
also, had to be estimated, because water levels in these wells
were not measured 70,000 min after pumping started. Drawdown
in the periodically monitored wells was estimated by the same
method used for UE-25 c#1. As indicated in Figure 50, a straight
line with a slope of 0.129 m per log cycle of distance was fit to
the drawdown data. Transmissivity and storativity were deter-
mined with equations of Cooper and Jacob (1946). Hydraulic
conductivity was calculated from transmissivity using an esti-
mated transmissive thickness of 100 m. This analysis indicated
transmissivity of 2400 m2/d, hydraulic conductivity of 24 m/d,
and storativity of 0.0006 for the 81 km2 area encompassed by the
11 responding observation wells. Results of this analysis were
very similar to the analysis of drawdown as a function of time
using multiple observation wells in this test and to the analysis of
drawdown as a function of time using multiple observation wells
in the test conducted May 22 to June 1, 1995.
0.00
s = -0.129 x Log r + 0.555
R2 = 0.85
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.40
10 100 1000
DISTANCE FROM UE-25 C#3, IN METERS
Figure 50. Analysis by the method of Cooper and Jacob (1946) of
drawdown in observation wells as a function of distance from the
pumping well 70,000 min after pumping started, pumping test in UE-
25 c#3, May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997. (Data from Graves, 1998,
2000; U.S. Geological Survey files.)
57
Drill Hole Wash
Only one cross-hole hydraulic test was conducted at Yucca
Mountain at a site other than the C-holes complex. This test, a
pumping test involving boreholes UE-25 a#1 and UE-25 b#1,
was conducted August 29 to September 1, 1981, near the mouth
of Drill Hole Wash, which is shown in Figure 39. This pump-
ing test was described by Lahoud et al. (1984) and analyzed by
Moench (1984). Moenchs analytical method assumes transient
block to fracture flow impeded by fracture skin. A simpler
analysis of this test, which does not depend on the many unverifi-
able assumptions used in Moenchs analysis, is discussed below.
The Drill Hole Wash complex was constructed from 1978 to
1981 (Spengler et al., 1979; Lobmeyer et al., 1983). Boreholes
UE-25 a#1 and UE-25 b#1, which are at altitudes of 11991201 m
AMSL, straddle the northwesterly trending Drill Hole Wash Fault
zone (Fig. 39). Borehole UE-25 a#1 is 106.8 m south-southwest
of borehole UE-25 b#1 at the land surface, but interborehole
distances at depth differ because the boreholes deviated during
drilling. UE-25 a#1 was drilled to a depth of 762.2 m, and UE-25
b#1 was drilled to a depth of 1219.8 m, but both boreholes have
collapsed tens of meters since they were drilled. Completion data
for the two boreholes are listed in Table 4.
The Drill Hole Wash complex was constructed in faulted Mio-
cene volcanic rocks that are covered by a thin veneer of Quater-
nary alluvium. Volcanic formations known to be present at the site
extend downward from the Tiva Canyon Tuff to the Lithic Ridge
Tuff (Fig. 51). In both boreholes, the water table is in the Calico
Hills Formation. Below the water table, the volcanic rocks consist
of nonwelded to moderately welded ash-flow tuff with bedded ash-
fall tuff and volcaniclastic rocks. The Calico Hills Formation, Tram
Tuff, and Lithic Ridge Tuff generally are zeolitized to argillized;
the Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs contain zeolitized intervals.
The Drill Hole Wash Fault zone where it intersects bore-
holes UE-25 a#1 and UE-25 b#1 contains several prominent
fault splays that dip at high angles to the southwest and have
displaced formations down to the southwest (Fig. 51). Where
two of these fault splays intersect UE-25 b#1, bedded tuff at
the bottom of the Calico Hills Formation and nonwelded to par-
tially welded tuff at the top of the Prow Pass Tuff have been cut
out, and underlying partially to moderately welded tuff in the
Prow Pass Tuff is brecciated and zeolitized. Another fault splay
that intersects UE-25 b#1 extensively fractured moderately
welded tuff in the Bullfrog Tuff.
Five discrete intervals transmit water to boreholes at the
Drill Hole Wash complex. These intervals were identified by a
tracejector flow survey done in August 1981 during a pumping
10000 test in UE-25 b#1 (Fig. 26B). This flow survey indicated that the
Calico Hills Formation produces 32% of the water in UE-25 b#1,
the Prow Pass Tuff produces 19% of the water in UE-25 b#1, and
the Bullfrog Tuff produces 49% of the water in UE-25 b#1. The
total thickness of transmissive intervals in UE-25 b#1 is 109 m.
A pumping test was conducted in borehole UE-25 b#1 from
August 29 to September 1, 1981, with UE-25 a#1 used as an obser-
58 A.L. Geldon
vation well (Lahoud et al., 1984). Both boreholes were open from
the water table to total depth. UE-25 b#1 was open between depths
of 470.6 and 1219.8 m in the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow
Pass, Bullfrog, Tram, and Lithic Ridge Tuffs. UE-25 a#1 was open
from 468 to 762 m in the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow Pass
and Bullfrog Tuffs. The known thickness of transmissive rock in
UE-25 b#1, 109 m, was assumed for UE-25 a#1.
Pumping UE-25 b#1 at an average rate of 35.7 L/s for 4200
min caused 10.4 m of drawdown in UE-25 b#1 and 0.64 m of
drawdown in UE-25 a#1. As in pumping tests conducted at the
C-holes complex, drawdown in the pumping well was rapid.
Eighty-three percent of the drawdown in UE-25 b#1 occurred
within 10 min of starting the pump. It is estimated from hydraulic
properties determined from drawdown in UE-25 a#1 in this test
and from hydraulic properties determined from drawdown in
UE-25 b#1 in the lower Bullfrog test that 44%55% of the draw-
down in UE-25 b#1 in this test was caused by well losses.
Drawdown in UE-25 a#1 conformed to the = 0.1 type
curve of Neuman (1975) for an unconfined aquifer (Fig. 52).
This analysis indicated transmissivity of 850 m2/d, horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of 7.8 m/d, vertical hydraulic conductiv-
ity of 0.8 m/d, storativity of 0.0009, and a specific yield of 0.07.
In comparison, Moench (1984) determined transmissivity of
350 m2/d, fracture hydraulic conductivity of 0.85 m/d, matrix
Figure 51. Geologic cross section across
Drill Hole Wash, Yucca Mountain.
(Compiled from Spengler and Rosen-
baum, 1980; Lahoud et al., 1984.)
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
hydraulic conductivity of 0.17 m/d, fracture storativity of 0.0006,
and matrix storativity of 0.024. Analytical results indicate that
volcanic rocks at Drill Hole Wash appear to be less permeable
and less capable of yielding water from storage than volcanic
rocks at the C-holes complex.
Frenchman Flat
Frenchman Flat contains one of five sites in the eastern
Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field where cross-hole hydraulic
tests were conducted in the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows
HSU. A pumping test involving water wells 4 and 4a was con-
ducted February 2225, 1990, in the northwest corner of French-
man Flat (Fig. 23), in an area informally known as the CP basin.
A description of this pumping test has never been published.
Water wells 4 and 4a, which are located at altitudes of
10981099 m AMSL, were drilled to supply water to Nevada
Test Site facilities (Gillespie et al., 1996; Wood and Reiner,
1996). Water well 4 was drilled in 1981 to a depth of 450.8 m,
but it caved below 447.4 m. It contains perforated casing
from 287.1 to 437.7 m and is uncased from 438.3 to 447.4 m
(Table 4). Water well 4a, 371 m southwest of water well 4,
was drilled in 1990 to a depth of 462.1 m, but it caved below
457.8 m. It contains slotted casing from 324.9 to 390.4 m and
from 416.0 to 444.1 m and is uncased from 457.5 to 457.8 m
(Table 4).
Water wells 4 and 4a are completed in Miocene volcanic
rocks, which are covered by Quaternary-Tertiary alluvium that
thickens from 158 to 226 m toward the southwest (Gillespie
Early-time Match
Point
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
0.1
0.01
0.001
1 10
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
59
et al., 1996; Warren et al., 1998). Volcanic formations known
to be present beneath the alluvium extend downward from the
Ammonia Tanks Tuff to the Prow Pass Tuff. The water table is
in the Ammonia Tanks Tuff, ~255 m below the land surface.
The Ammonia Tanks, Rainier Mesa, Tiva Canyon, and Topopah
Spring Tuffs consist mostly of unaltered, nonwelded to densely
welded ash-flow tuff. The Calico Hills Formation consists of
zeolitized bedded tuff. The Prow Pass Tuff consists of zeolitized,
nonwelded to partially welded ash-flow tuff.
Transmissive intervals in these wells must be inferred,
because flow surveys were not conducted in either well. Gil-
lespie et al. (1996) state that water production appears to origi-
nate primarily from fractures in the more densely welded parts
of the Rainier Mesa and Topopah Spring Tuffs in water well 4.
Because published lithologic descriptions for water wells 4 and
4a are vague, transmissive intervals in both wells were assumed
to be the Rainier Mesa Tuff opposite perforated or slotted cas-
ing and all of the Topopah Spring Tuff. The total thickness of
transmissive rock was estimated to be 109.1 m in water well 4
and 103.4 m in water well 4a.
With water well 4a used as an observation well, a pumping
test was conducted in water well 4 February 2225, 1990 (K. Reh-
feldt, HSI-Geotrans, 1999, written commun.). Pumping water
well 4 for three days (4320 min) at an average rate of 36.3 L/s
caused 5.12 m of drawdown in water well 4 and 0.50 m of draw-
down in water well 4a. Typical of pumping tests in volcanic rocks
in the area, 87% of the drawdown in the pumped well occurred
within 10 min of starting the pump, and an estimated 59% of the
drawdown in this well was caused by well losses. Recovery was
Late-time Match
Point
Figure 52. Analysis of drawdown in
UE-25 a#1 by the method of Neuman
(1975), pumping test in UE-25 b#1,
August 29 to September 1, 1981. (Data
from Moench, 1984.)
DATA
TYPE CURVE
100 1000 10000
60
not monitored continuously, but a measurement made at 10:00
on February 26 indicates that recovery in the pumped well was
complete less than 20 hours after pumping stopped.
Consistent with the water table being 70 m above the open
interval in water well 4a and an observed relation between frac-
turing and water production at this site, drawdown in water well
4a was characteristic of a confined aquifer with fracture and
matrix permeability. As shown in Figure 53, drawdown in water
well 4a matched the type curve of Streltsova-Adams (1978) for
= 10 and r/B = 2.0. This analysis indicated transmissivity of
2100 m2/d, hydraulic conductivity of 20 m/d, matrix storativity
of 0.002, and fracture storativity of 0.0002. Analytical results
from this test, which apply to the Rainier Mesa and Topopah
Spring Tuffs, are comparable to area-averaged values of trans-
missivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity obtained for the
Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain, where water is transmitted
mostly by the Crater Flat Group and Calico Hills Formation. This
test demonstrates that the Topopah Spring Tuff is not inherently
more permeable than typically less welded tuff of the Crater Flat
Group and Calico Hills Formation, although many reports state
otherwise (see, for example, Fridrich et al., 1994).
Well Cluster ER-20-6, Western Pahute Mesa
The Pahute Mesa hydrologic domain is bounded on the
west, north, and, east by the margins of the Silent Canyon Cal-
10
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS
Match
Point
0.1
0.01
1 10 100
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN MINUTES
A.L. Geldon
dera complex and on the south by the northern rim of the Timber
Mountain Caldera complex (Fig. 54). Pumping tests, considered
in this study to be scientifically valid, were conducted in 9 bore-
holes on Pahute Mesa from May 1964 to September 1965 and in
September 1988. Cross-hole airlift tests were conducted at the
Knickerbocker nuclear test site in July and August 1966, and an
87-day cross-hole pumping test was conducted in the ER-20-6
well cluster from June to August 1997. Many of these tests were
conducted in lava flows, whereas pumping tests at Yucca Moun-
tain were conducted mostly in tuff, tuff breccia, and tuffaceous
sedimentary rocks.
Well cluster ER-20-6 was constructed in 1996 on Pahute
Mesa, in the northwestern corner of the Nevada Test Site,
166296 m southwest of emplacement hole U-20bd, in which
the Bullion nuclear test was conducted (IT Corporation, 1998a).
The well cluster was constructed to evaluate (1) the hydraulic and
transport properties of the volcanic rocks in which the nuclear
test was conducted; and (2) the extent of radionuclide migra-
tion from the Bullion explosion cavity. With ER-20-6#3 as the
pumping and recovery well and ER-20-6#1 and ER-20-6#2 as
injection and observation wells, pumping and tracer tests were
conducted from June 2 to August 28, 1997. IT Corporation
(1998b) analyzed the initial 6-hour hydrologic response in ER-
20-6#1 and ER-20-6#2 but ignored the remainder of the record.
The 87-day record of drawdown in ER-20-6#1 was analyzed in
this study and is discussed below.
Figure 53. Analysis of drawdown in wa-
ter well 4a by the method of Streltsova-
Adams (1978), pumping test in water
well 4, February 2225, 1990. (Unpub-
lished data from HSI-Geotrans, written
communication, 1999.)
DATA
TYPE CURVE
1,000 10,000
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 61

Well cluster ER-20-6, at an altitude of 19711974 m AMSL,
consists of three boreholes, ER-20-6#1, ER-20-6#2, and ER-20-
6#3, that were drilled along an approximate radial from emplace-
ment hole U-20bd, roughly parallel to locally predominant north-
easterly striking fractures (IT Corporation 1997b, 1998a, 1998b).
ER-20-6#1 is 131.4 m northeast of ER-20-6#3, and ER-20-6#2
is 89.1 m northeast of ER-20-6#3 (Fig. 55). Each of the holes
was drilled to a depth of 975.4 m, but ER-20-6#1 and ER-20-6#2
were backfilled to a depth of ~898 m below land surface, and ER-
20-6#3 was backfilled to a depth of ~856 m below land surface.
Each of the holes was telescoped downward, isolated from the
surface and the saturated zone above the intended test interval
with cement, and open in the intended test interval with slotted
casing and well screen (Table 4). Figure 56 schematically shows
the completion of well ER-20-6#1.
None of the wells in the ER-20-6 cluster is open to the water
table, which is ~616618 m below the land surface at the site.
The water table descends stratigraphically from the Rhyolite of
Delirium Canyon in ER-20-6#1 to the Calico Hills Formation in
ER-20-6#3 as borehole locations change from the axis of a syn-
cline to its southwestern limb (Fig. 57). Below the water table,
formations present include the Rhyolite of Delirium Canyon, the
Rhyolite of Echo Peak, and the Rhyolite of Silent Canyon, which
consist of zeolitized bedded tuff, and the Calico Hills Formation,
which consists mostly of rhyolite lava flows (IT Corporation,
1998a; Warren et al., 1998) Stony to glassy in the center, lava
flows of the Calico Hills Formation grade to pumiceous lava
and flow breccia at their tops, bottoms, and distal edges and are
separated by intervals of zeolitized, bedded ash-fall tuff and non-
welded ash-flow tuff.
Transmissive intervals in the ER-20-6 well cluster were
identified on the basis of water production logs recorded as
the wells were drilled (IT Corporation, 1998a). Seven discrete
intervals in the Calico Hills Formation transmit water to ER-
20-6#2, and five discrete intervals in the Calico Hills Formation
transmit water to ER-20-6#3. In ER-20-6#2, 26 m of zeolitized,

11630

PAHUTE MESA Tr Tr
Tr
UE-20e-1
Tst
UE-19gs Silent Canyon
Caldera Complex
Tst
Tmt
Tst UE-19e
Tr
Tr
Tst
UE-20f UE-19c
ER-20-6 well
cluster Tr
UE-20d/U-20d UE-19i
UE-20a-2 3715
PM-3
Timber Mountain
Caldera Complex
Tr
UE-19fs
Tmt Tr Tqt Figure 54. Geologic map of Pahute
Mesa, showing locations of boreholes
0 5 10 KILOMETERS used for hydraulic tests. (Modified from
Workman et al., 2002.)
0 5 MILES

EXPLANATION
TERTIARY VOLCANIC ROCKS

Tr RHYOLITIC LAVA FLOWS

Tst VOLCANICS OF STONEWALL MOUNTAIN AND THIRSTY CANYON GROUP

Tmt TIMBER MOUNTAIN GROUP

Tqt COMENDITE OF QUARTET DOME AND TUNNEL FORMATION

HIGH-ANGLE NORMAL FAULT Ball on downthrown side

CALDERA BOUNDARY Hachures on topographic wall pointing inward;

dashed where concealed and approximately located

UE-20f BOREHOLE WITH HYDRAULIC-TEST DATA

62 A.L. Geldon

bedded ash-fall tuff and nonwelded ash-flow tuff transmit 27% ER-20-6#1
4123690
of the water, but in the open interval of the well, between depths 46.1 m
of 764.4 and 897.6 m, all water is transmitted from 62.8 m of
rhyolite lava flows (Fig. 58). The same transmissive thickness is 4123670
ER-20-6#2
assumed for the open interval of ER-20-6#1, which is near ER-

UTM NORTH (METERS)

20-6#2 but did not have a production log available. In ER-20-
4123650
6#3, all water is produced from rhyolite lava flows. About 50% 89.1 m
of this production is from the pumiceous tops and bottoms of
these flows. In the open interval of ER-20-6#3, between depths 4123630
131.4 m
of 765.4 and 855.6 m, all water is transmitted from 41.6 m of
rhyolite lava flows.
4123610
Pumping in ER-20-6#3 to establish a steep, quasi-steady-
state hydraulic gradient for tracer tests in the Calico Hills Forma-
tion at the ER-20-6 well cluster began at 12:04 on June 2, 1997 4123590

and continued until 14:45 on August 28, 1997 (IT Corporation, ER-20-6#3

1998b). Discharge from ER-20-6#3 averaged 7.32 L/s during the 4123570
87.1 days that the pump was in operation. Operating the pump 551270 551290 551310 551330 551350 551370 551390

outside of its optimal performance range required repeated UTM EAST (METERS)
adjustment of the pump speed to keep the pumping rate within Figure 55. Surface locations of ER-20-6 wells, Bullion site, Pahute
its target range. The pump shut off 19 times because of prob- Mesa. (Coordinates from IT Corporation, 1998a.)
lems with the generators supplying power to the pump. These
shutoffs lasted 5420 min and caused water levels in ER-20-6#3
to recover 44%96% while the pump was off. Tracer-test opera-
tions had no effect on water levels in ER-20-6#3.
Pumping from ER-20-6#3, as in other hydraulic tests dis-
cussed in this report, caused rapid drawdown and recovery in the
pumped well and much less drawdown in observation wells (IT
Corporation, 1998b). Drawdown in ER-20-6#3 reached ~11 m
less than 30 min after pumping started, oscillated between 8 and
14 m during the first 10 days of pumping, and then decreased to
~7 m during the remainder of the pumping. Within 9 h of shut-
ting off the pump, the water level in ER-20-6#3 had recovered
to 94% of its pre-pumping value. In contrast to the pumping
well, drawdown in ER-20-6#2 reached 1.61 m, and drawdown
in ER-20-6#1 reached 1.44 m by the end of pumping. Pumping
intermittently at rates of ~0.3 L/s to inject tracers into ER-20-6#1
and ER-20-6#2 negligibly disturbed water levels in the injection
wells (IT Corporation, 1998b).
Drawdown in ER-20-6#1 between 0.0031 and 87 days
(4.5125,280 min) after pumping started, which was not affected
by pump shutoffs, tracer injections, or pumping in the injection
wells, was analyzed by the method of Streltsova-Adams (1978)
for a confined aquifer with fracture and matrix permeability.
Data were matched to the type curve for = 10 and r/B = 0.5
adequately, despite three different wells pumping at different
times and partial recovery during numerous pump shutoffs
(Fig. 59). This analysis indicated transmissivity of 200 m2/d,
fracture hydraulic conductivity of 3.2 m/d, fracture storativity
of 0.0007, and matrix storativity of 0.006. In comparison, IT
Corporation (1998b) analyzed 6 h of drawdown in well ER-20-
6#2 in the same test by the method of Theis (1935) and obtained
transmissivity of 150 m2/d, hydraulic conductivity of 2.4 m/d,
and storativity of 0.0003. Values of hydraulic conductivity and
storativity from both observation wells are consistent with each Figure 56. Completion of borehole ER-20-6#1 (IT Corporation, 1998a).
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
other and with values of these hydraulic properties obtained from
previously discussed pumping tests of tuff at Yucca Mountain
and in Frenchman Flat.
Knickerbocker Site, Western Pahute Mesa
Although numerous hydraulic tests were done to support
85 underground nuclear tests conducted beneath Pahute Mesa
from 1965 to 1991 (Laczniak et al., 1996), cross-hole hydrau-
lic tests are known to have been done at only one location, the
Knickerbocker nuclear test site. Drilling of the emplacement
hole for the Knickerbocker nuclear test, U-20d, was stopped
twice to conduct a series of hydraulic tests (USGS unpublished
data, available through the GSA Data Repository1). A pumping
test in UE-20d reported by Blankennagel and Weir (1973) was
1
GSA Data Repository Item 2004150, U-20d airlift and pumping tests, is avail-
able on request from Documents Secretary, GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO
80301-9140, USA, editing@geosociety.org, or at www.geosociety.org/pubs/
ft2004.htm.
63
Figure 57. Geologic section through
the ER-20-6 well cluster, Pahute Mesa.
(Modified from IT Corporation, 1998a.)
attempted, but it was disrupted by concurrent drilling of, and
discharge from, U-20d and could not be analyzed convincingly.
In five of the tests, water was airlifted or pumped from U-20d,
and the water level response in UE-20d, 25.9 m to the south,
was recorded. These five hydraulic tests were analyzed in this
study and are discussed below. Results of two tests are included
in Appendix B.
Exploration hole UE-20d, at a surface altitude of 1906 m
AMSL, was drilled in 1964 to a depth of 1369.2 m (Thordar-
son et al., 1967; Orkild and Jenkins 1978). The hole was tele-
scoped downward and cased to a depth of 745.5 m (Table 4),
~113 m below the water table. From the bottom of casing to
the bottom of the hole (745.51369.2 m), UE-20d was open
in the Rhyolite of Benham, Tiva Canyon Tuff, and Topopah
Spring Tuff of the Paintbrush Group and in the Calico Hills
Formation (Orkild and Jenkins 1978; Warren et al., 1998).
The Paintbrush Group at the Knickerbocker site consists of
nonwelded to densely welded ash-flow tuff and zeolitized,
bedded tuff, tuffaceous sandstone, and siltstone. The Calico
64 A.L. Geldon

600
Hills Formation at this site consists of zeolitized, bedded and Static Water Level

nonwelded tuff overlying rhyolite lava flows. Rhyolites of Delirium Canyon, Echo Peak & Silent Canyon-Zeolitized Bedded Tuff
640
Drilling of U-20d, a large-diameter emplacement hole, Calico Hills Formation Zeolitized Bedded Tuff

began in 1966 at the same altitude and in the same geologic units Rhyolite Flow Breccia
680
as UE-20d. Drilling of U-20d was stopped July 2528, 1966,
with casing advanced to a depth of 632 m and the hole at a depth
720 Zeolitized, Nonwelded Ash-flow Tuff
of 919.3 m, to conduct hydraulic tests in the Tiva Canyon Tuff.

The test interval, between depths of 745.5 and 919.3 m, extended
from the bottom of casing in UE-20d to the bottom of U-20d.
Slug-injection tests reported by Blankennagel et al. (1964) were
interpreted to indicate that all water in the test interval was trans-
mitted by 46.3 m of moderately to densely welded tuff, which in
UE-20d, occurred between depths of 785.8 and 832.1 m.
Water was airlifted from U-20d on July 26, 1966, from
00:50 to 10:32, a period of 582 min. Discharge, which was
monitored by a flume, averaged 9.46 L/s and caused 1.36 m of
drawdown in UE-20d. By 13:30, 178 min after airlifting ended,
residual drawdown in UE-20d was 0.29 m, and recovery was
1.25 m (92% of the pre-test water level). Consistent with the
test interval being well below the water table, recovery data
were analyzed by the method of Streltsova-Adams (1978)
for a confined aquifer with fracture and matrix permeability.
Data from 6 to 178 min after airlifting ended were matched
adequately to the type curve for = 10 and r/B = 0.5 (Fig. 60).
This analysis indicated transmissivity of 110 m2/d, fracture
hydraulic conductivity of 2.4 m/d, fracture storativity of 0.001,
and matrix storativity of 0.01.
With drilling of U-20d stopped at depths of 11841195 m,
three airlift tests and one pumping test using UE-20d as an
observation well were conducted August 1012, 1966 (Fig. 61).
As before, the test interval extended from the bottom of casing
in UE-20d to the bottom of U-20d. The top of the test interval
was 745.5 m and, depending on the test, the bottom of the inter-
val was between 1184 and 1195 m. At the new depth of U-20d,
the Topopah Spring Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation above
the top of rhyolite lava flows in the formation were included
with the Tiva Canyon Tuff in the test interval. Slug tests
reported by Blankennagel et al. (1964) indicated that rhyolite
lava flows in the Calico Hills Formation below the test interval
are transmissive, but water-level changes in UE-20d during the
second series of tests did not indicate upward leakage from
these lava flows. Hence, the thickness of transmissive rock
apparently did not change from 46.3 m as the length of the test
interval increased from the first to the second series of tests.
Airlift test 2, which is representative of the second series of
tests, was conducted on August 11, 1966, from 05:00 to 10:38,
a period of 338 min. Discharge from U-20d at an average rate
of 8.71 L/s caused 1.44 m of drawdown in UE-20d. By 12:39,
121 min after airlifting ended, recovery in UE-20d was com-
plete. Residual drawdown data from 4 to 121 min after airlifting
stopped were fit to a straight line with a slope of 0.988 m per
log cycle of time (Fig. 62). Analysis of the residual drawdown
data by the method of Theis (1935) indicated transmissivity of
140 m2/d and hydraulic conductivity of 3.0 m/d.
DEPTH, IN METERS
760
Pumiceous Rhyolite Lava Flow
800
840
880
Rhyolite Lava Flow
920
Pumiceous Rhyolite Lava and Flow Breccia
960
TOTAL TRANSMISSIVE Zeolitized, Bedded Ash-fall Tuff and
THICKNESS=102 METERS Nonwelded Ash-flow Tuff
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FLOW, IN PERCENT
Figure 58. Production log for ER-20-6#2 recorded as the well was
drilled on Pahute Mesa in March 1996. Although rhyolite lava flows pro-
duced most of the water, 33% of the water produced by this well is from
zeolitized bedded tuff, nonwelded ash-flow tuff, and tuff breccia (Pro-
duction data and geologic information from IT Corporation, 1998a).
Analyses of airlift tests at the Knickerbocker site indicate
that welded ash-flow tuff there appears to be as permeable as
rhyolite lava flows at the site of the ER-20-6 well cluster. These
tests raise the possibility that the long-held perception that lava
flows are a better source of water than tuff beneath Pahute Mesa
might be the result of preferential drilling of wells in rhyolitic
lava flows.
DISTRIBUTION OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
In this part of the report, the effects of structure and stratig-
raphy on the distribution of hydraulic conductivity in the east-
ern Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field are evaluated. Hydraulic
conductivity values used in this part of the study were deter-
mined directly from cross-hole hydraulic tests or extrapolated
from single-well hydraulic tests to cross-hole scale using Equa-
tion 23 to prevent scale effects from influencing interpretations.
It is recognized that the accumulation of more data in future
years might prove hydraulic conductivity values derived from
Equation 23 to be inaccurate. It is recognized, also, that spatial
distributions of hydraulic conductivity shown in this part of the
report are based partly on the authors interpretations of factors
that affect groundwater flow in the study area and, therefore, are
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 65

10

1
Match Point
DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

Figure 59. Analysis by the method of

0.1 Streltsova-Adams (1978) of drawdown in
ER-20-6#1, pumping test in ER-20-6#3,
Pahute Mesa, June 2August 28, 1997.
(Data from IT Corporation, 1998b.)

0.01

DATA

TYPE CURVE

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, IN DAYS

10
RECOVERY, IN METERS

1 Figure 60. Analysis of recovery in UE-

Match Point 20d by the method of Streltsova-Adams
(1978), airlift test 1 in U-20d, Pahute
Mesa, July 26, 1966. (Data from U.S.
Geological Survey files.)

DATA

TYPE CURVE

0.1
1 10 100 1000

TIME SINCE AIRLIFTING ENDED, IN MINUTES

66
DEPTH TO WATER BELOW MEASURING POINT, IN METERS A.L. Geldon

631

Airlift Test 2 Airlift Test 3 Pumping Test 1 Airlift Test 4

632

633

Figure 61. Hydrologic response of UE-

20d to discharge from U-20d, August
634 1112, 1966. (Data from U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey files.)

635

636
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400

TIME SINCE WITHDRAWAL STARTED, IN MINUTES

0.0

0.2
RESIDUAL DRAWDOWN, IN METERS

0.4

0.6

0.8 Figure 62. Analysis of residual draw-

down in UE-20d by the method of Theis
(1935), airlift test 2 in U-20d, August
1.0 s = 0.988 x Log (t/t') - 0.570
11, 1966. (Data from U.S. Geological
R2 = 0.99 Survey files.)
1.2

1.4

1.6
1 10 100
TIME SINCE AIRLIFTING STARTED/TIME SINCE AIRLIFTING STOP
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 67

non-unique. However, computer software does not exist at the
date of this writing that can contour hydraulic properties while
accounting for non-mathematical aspects of geology that influ-
ence distributions of hydraulic properties.
Relation of Lithology to Hydraulic Conductivity
Four lithologic categories were distinguished from avail-
able data to evaluate the influence of lithology on hydraulic
conductivity: (1) nonwelded to densely welded ash-flow tuff,
(2) bedded tuff, tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, and ash-flow
tuff, (3) tuff breccia and tuff; and (4) silicic to intermediate
lava flows. Zeolitic to argillic alteration of tuffaceous rocks
as an influence on hydraulic conductivity was evaluated, also.
The inclusion of tuff with tuff breccia and the inclusion of ash-
flow tuff with bedded tuff and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks
were unavoidable because of limitations in available data. Tuff
breccia generally is so fractured and poorly indurated that it
probably controls the hydraulic conductivity of intervals where
ash-flow tuff or bedded tuff is intercalated. Bedded tuff and
tuffaceous sedimentary rocks generally are so zeolitized or
argillized that they probably control the hydraulic conductivity
of intervals where ash-flow tuff is intercalated. Despite some
ambiguity in the data, it appears that ash-flow tuff might be
slightly more permeable than silicic to intermediate lava flows,
and that zeolitic to argillic alteration decreases the permeability
of tuffaceous rocks (Table 12 and Fig. 63).
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Yucca Mountain
to the Solitario Canyon, Pagany Wash, Sever Wash, Paintbrush
Canyon, and Busted Butte Faults (the latter is interpreted in this
report to be a section of the Fortymile Wash Fault).
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Pahute Mesa
Somewhat dependent on the distribution of geologic forma-
tions, hydraulic conductivity decreases toward the lateral center
and the west side of Pahute Mesa (Fig. 65). Whereas all areas of
the mesa with large hydraulic conductivity are associated with
formations that transmit water from rhyolite or comendite lava
flows, some areas with relatively small hydraulic conductivity,
also, can be associated with rhyolite or comendite lava flows.
Areas with relatively small hydraulic conductivity in the western
part of Pahute Mesa invariably are associated with formations
that transmit water from intervals of tuffaceous rocks or tuff inter-
calated with rhyolite or comendite lava flows. Trends in the data
appear to be independent of the numerous northerly striking faults
that transect the mesa. However, hydraulic conductivity clearly
increases toward the southern and eastern margins of the Silent
Canyon Caldera complex. This relationship was extrapolated to
indicate increased hydraulic conductivity toward the northern
margin of the Silent Canyon Caldera complex, also. Topographic
expression of the northern, eastern, and southern margins of the
Silent Canyon Caldera complex indicates collapse of blocks into
the calderas, which probably caused extensive fracturing of rock
in the collapsed blocks. Fracturing of this origin would explain
the increased hydraulic conductivity that appears to be associated
with the margins of the caldera complex.

At Yucca Mountain, the distribution of hydraulic conductivity SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

is independent of formations that comprise the Younger Tertiary
tuff and lava flows HSU, but faults appear to be associated spa-
tially with trends in the data (Fig. 64). Increased hydraulic con-
ductivity appears to be related to the Midway Valley, Bow Ridge,
and Ghost Dance Faults, and the area where the Midway Valley,
Bow Ridge, Dune Wash, and East Ridge Faults terminate in close
proximity. Decreased hydraulic conductivity appears to be related
Yucca Mountain, ~150 km northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada,
has been chosen by the United States government to be the site
of the nations first permanent repository for high-level nuclear
waste. About 25 km north of Yucca Mountain, Pahute Mesa was
the site of 85 underground nuclear tests from 1966 to 1991. Yucca
Mountain, Pahute Mesa, and adjacent areas of the Nevada Test

TABLE 12. RELATION OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TO LITHOLOGY IN THE YOUNGER TERTIARY TUFF AND
LAVA FLOWS HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
Lithology Number of Hydraulic conductivity, in meters per day
observations
Minimum Maximum 1 Standard Log mean +1 Standard
Deviation (50% ) Deviation
(16% ) (84% )
Silicic to intermediate lava flows 12 0.60 20 1.3 4.2 14
Nonwelded to densely welded ash-flow tuff 55 0.095 74 1.7 6.1 22
Bedded tuff and tuffaceous sedimentary 5 0.12 8.5 Insufficient data
rocks and ash-flow tuff
Tuff breccia and tuff 5 4.4 28 Insufficient data
Unaltered tuffaceous rocks 26 0.095 74 1.3 6.4 31
Zeolitized to argillized tuffaceous rocks 11 0.82 8.5 1.5 3.2 7.0
68
Site form most of the eastern third of the Southwest Nevada Vol-
canic Field. The hydrogeology of the Southwest Nevada Volcanic
Field is the focus of this report.
The Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field is situated in the Death
Valley region of the Great Basin, in southeastern Nevada and Cali-
fornia. The terrain consists of northerly and northwesterly trend-
ing mountain ranges surrounded by broad, sediment-filled basins.
More than 11,000 m of faulted Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Late to
Middle Proterozoic sedimentary rocks underlie Tertiary volcanic
rocks throughout much of the Death Valley region. The Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field comprises 17 extensive ash-flow tuff sheets
and associated lava flows that erupted from at least seven large,
overlapping caldera complexes from 15 million to 7 million years
ago. Pahute Mesa, at the center of the Silent Canyon and Timber
Mountain Caldera Complexes, is underlain by more than 4170 m
of rhyolite, rhyodacite, and trachyte lava flows intercalated with
tuff. Yucca Mountain, on the apron of these caldera complexes, is
underlain by variably welded and fractured ash-flow tuff, interca-
lated with bedded ash-fall and reworked tuff, volcaniclastic rocks,
tuff breccia, and minor dacite and andesite lava flows. Alteration
of tuff to zeolite and clay minerals is common at eruptive centers
north of Yucca Mountain, but it decreases in intensity toward the
southern part of Yucca Mountain.
Yucca Mountain and Pahute Mesa are located at the south-
ern terminus of a series of interconnected hydrographic basins
that comprise the Great Basin regional aquifer system. Yucca
Mountain is in the Alkali FlatFurnace Creek groundwater
basin, which is bordered on the north and west by the Pahute
MesaOasis Valley groundwater basin and on the east by the
100
CUMULATIVE PERCENT EQUAL OR LESS THAN
90
+1 STANDARD DEVIATION
80
LAVA FLOWS
70 ASH-FLOW TUFF
60 ZEOLITIZED AND
ARGILLIZED TUFF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, IN METERS PER DAY
A.L. Geldon
Ash Meadows groundwater basin. In deep structural basins,
such as the Amargosa Desert, groundwater flows profusely
through basin-fill sediments. Deep interbasin flow occurs pri-
marily through fractured Paleozoic carbonate rocks. At Yucca
Mountain and Pahute Mesa, rhyolitic to rhyodacitic lava flows,
ash-flow tuff, bedded tuff, and tuff breccia can be very trans-
missive. Groundwater recharged in highlands, such as Pahute
Mesa, Timber Mountain, and Shoshone Mountain, generally
flows southward and discharges at Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows,
Alkali Flat, and Death Valley.
Stratabound aquifers and aquitards have long been the
basis for discussions and numerical simulations of groundwater
flow in the Death Valley region. However, this categorization
fails to account for structurally and lithologically controlled
variations in hydraulic properties within geologic units and ver-
tical groundwater flow between geologic units of diverse lithol-
ogy, which limit regional persistence of aquifers and aquitards.
Eleven hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) were recognized in this
study for the purpose of discussing hydraulic properties. Mio-
cene and Pliocene volcanic rocks are designated herein as the
Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU. This HSU at Yucca
Mountain extends downward from the Rainier Mesa Tuff in the
Timber Mountain Group to the Lithic Ridge Tuff in the Tram
Ridge Group. This HSU at Pahute Mesa extends downward
from the Volcanics of Stonewall Mountain to the Comendite
of Split Ridge in the Belted Range Group. This HSU is nearly
as permeable as Paleozoic carbonate rocks and Quaternary-
Tertiary basin-fill sediments and more permeable than all other
HSUs in the study area.
GEOMETRIC MEAN
Figure 63. Relation of cross-hole-scale
hydraulic conductivity to lithology in
the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows
hydrostratigraphic unit.
-1 STANDARD DEVIATION
1 10 100
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 69

EXPLANATION
Quaternary deposits
Miocene volcanic rocks
Exploratory Studies Facility
5 Line of equal hydraulic conductivityInterval, 5 meters per day

Block-bounding fault
Strike-slip fault

Relay structure
Dominant intrablock fault
15 Borehole, with hydraulic conductivity, in meters per day

Figure 64. Hydraulic conductivity distribution at Yucca Mountain.

70 A.L. Geldon
Transmissive intervals in the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava
flows HSU are bound not by stratigraphic or lithologic contacts
but by terminations of vertically continuous fractures zones or,
less commonly, zones with relatively large matrix permeability.
Transmissive intervals typically have dual fracture and matrix
permeability. Within transmissive intervals, there is no correla-
tion between the intensity of fracturing or the degree to which
tuff layers are welded.
In cross-hole hydraulic tests, the effective aquifer is the total
thickness of transmissive intervals in the volume of rock between
the production and observation wells. The upper and lower limits
of the effective aquifer change depending on the interval that
is open in the production well. Diverse rock types and fracture
frequency, among other factors, impart layered heterogeneity to
the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU. HSU boundaries
are irrelevant for determining hydraulic conductivity, because
hydraulic tests can be conducted in multiple combinations of
variably transmissive intervals at any site within this HSU. For
example, six cross-hole pumping tests conducted from May
1984 to June 1998 at the C-holes complex, on the east flank of
Yucca Mountain, indicated a range in hydraulic conductivity of
0.1240 m/d and a range in storativity of 0.000010.003 for six
intervals within the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow Pass,
Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs.
The extent to which transmissive intervals can be traced
laterally largely depends on the length, spacing, and intercon-
nectivity of fractures. Tracer tests done at Pahute Mesa in June
1997 established that transmissive intervals in rhyolite lava flows
within the Calico Hills Formation locally are continuous laterally
for 89131 m. Tracer tests and cross-hole seismic tomography
Figure 65. Hydraulic conductivity
distribution at Pahute Mesa.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
done at Yucca Mountain between 1989 and 1997 established that
transmissive intervals in the Bullfrog and Tram Tuffs locally are
continuous laterally for 2985 m.
Regional groundwater flow between transmissive intervals
is maintained by downward or upward hydraulic gradients
enhanced by fracture networks related to regional structural fab-
rics. The principal structures affecting the Yucca Mountain area
are a series of high-angle, north-northeasterly striking faults,
including the Solitario Canyon, Bow Ridge, Midway Valley,
Paintbrush Canyon, and Fortymile Wash Faults. Most fractures
encountered in outcrops and boreholes at Yucca Mountain are
aligned with these faults. Of secondary importance are north-
westerly trending faults associated with the Walker Lane Belt,
including the Highway 95, Drillhole Wash, Pagany Wash, and
Sever Wash Faults, which have imposed an overprint on frac-
ture frequency in Yucca Mountain boreholes.
The coexistence of north-northeasterly and northwesterly
striking faults and related fractures in the Yucca Mountain area
imparts lateral (x-y) heterogeneity to the area. An example
of this heterogeneity in a 21 km2 area was demonstrated by a
pumping test in borehole UE-25 c#3 at Yucca Mountain, which
was conducted from May 22 to June 1, 1995. Four observa-
tion wells, 292245 m from UE-25 c#3, exhibited drawdown
of 0.0720.42 m that was distributed along north-northeasterly
and northwesterly trending axes. Drawdown in boreholes UE-
25 c#2, UE-25 ONC-1, and USW H-4 decreased as a function
of distance in a northwesterly direction. The Antler Wash Fault
Zone, in which boreholes UE-25 c#2, UE-25 ONC-1, and USW
H-4 are present, is believed to have influenced drawdown in these
observation wells. Drawdown in UE-25 c#1, north-northeast of,
and about three times farther from the pumping well than UE-25
c#2, exhibited drawdown that was 26% larger than that in UE-
25 c#2. UE-25 c#1 might have been far enough from the Antler
Wash Fault Zone that the Midway Valley Fault, which intersects
UE-25 c#1, was the principal influence on drawdown in this well.
Plotted as a function of time, drawdown in UE-25 c#2, UE-25
ONC-1, and USW H-4 indicated horizontal hydraulic conductiv-
ity of 14 m/d in a northwesterly direction, whereas recovery in
UE-25 c#1 indicated horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 7 m/d
in a north-northeasterly direction.
Faults can act as either conduits or barriers to regional
groundwater flow. A recharging fault conducts water between
transmissive intervals on either side that have been brought into
proximity by displacement of confining layers. The most promi-
nent fault conduit in the Yucca Mountain area is the Midway
Valley Fault, a high-angle, normal fault with down-to-the-west
displacement. A pumping test in UE-25 c#3 conducted from
October 30 to November 15, 1984, induced recharge from the
Midway Valley Fault to the Tram Tuff in UE-25 c#1. Another
pumping test in UE-25 c#3 conducted from May 8, 1996, to
November 12, 1997, produced quasisteady-state drawdown in
two observation wells ~2250 m from UE-25 c#3, USW H-4, and
UE-25 WT#14, after 72,000 min of pumping. An image-well
solution indicated that recharge from the Midway Valley Fault
71
2713 m northeast of UE-25 c#3 inhibited drawdown in USW H-
4 and UE-25 WT#14 during this test. Analyses of drawdown in
USW H-4 and UE-25 WT#14 prior to the appearance of bound-
ary effects indicated transmissivity of 560710 m2/d, hydraulic
conductivity of 4.25.0 m/d, and storativity of 0.002.
Faults act as barriers to regional groundwater flow where
transmissive intervals are offset against non-transmissive inter-
vals. Primarily, barrier-boundary faults segment the Alkali
FlatFurnace Creek and Ash Meadows groundwater basins into
separate hydrologic domains. The pumping test in UE-25 c#3
conducted from May 8, 1996, to November 12, 1997, involved
22 observation wells. This test progressed for 553 days, long
enough to establish that the non-responding wells are beyond
the boundaries of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain. Lines
demarcating responding and non-responding observation wells
coincided with the Solitario Canyon, Sever Wash, Pagany Wash,
Yucca Wash, and Fortymile Wash Faults, which appear to bound
the northern part of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain.
Geophysical data and steepened gradients in the potentiomet-
ric surface indicate that the Fortymile Wash, Highway 95, and
Southern Windy Wash Faults bound the southern part of the
Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain.
North of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain, north-
northeasterly trending, high-angle, extensional faults and the
structural walls of overlapping caldera complexes disturb
regional groundwater flow. The north-northeasterly trending,
high-angle faults can act as either barriers or conduits, depending
on how they offset transmissive and non-transmissive volcanic
rocks. Different sequences of lava flows and tuff emplaced within
individual calderas and faults associated with caldera walls
impede groundwater flow. The Ammonia Tanks and Rainier
Mesa calderas probably cause limited hydraulic connection
between Pahute Mesa and areas to the south.
Despite the complexity of the groundwater system in the
eastern Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field, extensive hydraulic
testing has been done there successfully for nearly 50 years.
Hydraulic testing in the area evolved over the years from
window-of-opportunity efforts during drilling of exploration,
monitoring, and emplacement boreholes for nuclear tests to
systematic, multidisciplinary approaches in boreholes dedi-
cated for hydrologic research. Planning of the later tests ben-
efited from the knowledge of what worked and what did not in
the earlier tests. In the early days, slug-injection and swabbing
recovery tests were considered more useful than pumping tests,
which tended to be short (12 days) and crudely designed. With
an understanding that the length of a test can influence the
shape of the drawdown curve and, hence, the determination of
hydraulic properties, 12 weeks commonly is allowed in mod-
ern pumping tests for full development of the drawdown curve.
Hydraulic-test data for the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows
HSU were obtained from 41 sites in the eastern Southwest
Nevada Volcanic Field for this study. This database includes 40
published hydraulic-test results and 46 revised or new analyses
of hydraulic tests.
72 A.L. Geldon
Analyzing hydraulic tests rarely is straightforward because
of complicating factors, which were considered wherever pos-
sible. Boreholes completed in volcanic rocks in the study area
typically are open in both transmissive and non-transmissive
intervals. Several types of borehole flow surveys were used to
identify the total thickness of transmissive rock in test intervals.
A variety of techniques was used in support of, or in lieu of flow
surveys to identify transmissive intervals. These techniques
included: (1) drilling production logs; (2) relative specific
capacity profiles determined from slug-injection and swabbing-
recovery tests; (3) temperature logs; (4) resistivity logs, used
with temperature, acoustic televiewer, television, and caliper
logs; and (5) lithologic logs, used together with other indica-
tors or alone. Specific methods used to identify transmissive
intervals in individual boreholes depended on the funding and
the understanding of the efficacy of different methods available
at the time that hydraulic tests were conducted in them. All
methods indicated that transmissive intervals typically repre-
sent a small proportion of the open length of a borehole.
Earth tides and atmospheric-pressure change superimpose
synchronous water-level changes in wells that are opposite in
sense and less than the full magnitude of the atmospheric-pres-
sure change. In a production well, these superimposed water-level
changes generally are much smaller than water-level changes
caused by the test and can be ignored. In observation wells near
the pumping well, it was found that removing the effects of Earth
tides and atmospheric-pressure change was advantageous but
not always necessary. In observation wells more than several
hundred meters from the production well, Earth tides and atmo-
spheric-pressure change inevitably obscured responses to pump-
ing and injection and were removed to detect these responses if a
barometer record was available.
An omnipresent feature of hydraulic tests at Yucca Moun-
tain, Pahute Mesa, and in adjacent areas is the tendency for most
of the drawdown and recovery to occur very rapidly, especially
in the pumping well. In many pumped wells, 80%90% of the
drawdown and recovery occurs within 10 minutes of starting or
stopping the pump. These rapid water-level changes generally are
attributable to draining of water stored in the well (commonly
termed borehole storage) and well losseshead lost from:
(1) water turbulently entering the well from the aquifer; (2) inef-
ficient placement of the pump, openings, and other well-design
features; and (3) drilling-caused damage to the aquifer near the
well. Forty-four to eighty-three percent of drawdown in the
pumping well in cross-hole tests was estimated in this study to be
attributable to well losses.
Because of the way that drawdown and recovery in pump-
ing tests conducted in the study area depart from the ideal, it was
found that some conventional analytical methods could not be used
or had to be used with caution. Estimates of transmissivity from
specific capacity typically are way too large, because the equation
used to estimate transmissivity from specific capacity (Lohman,
1979) assumes that drawdown is spread out over the length of the
test, instead of being concentrated within the initial part of the test.
In tests with rapid recovery, the Theis (1935) recovery method
also fails, because the analysis tends to be weighted toward very
small water-level changes near the end of the recovery period.
Because drawdown and recovery when plotted as a function of
log time tend to be multi-segmented, the analytical method of
Cooper and Jacob (1946), which requires fitting a straight line
to one segment, often results in arbitrary and incorrect choices.
The Theis (1935) recovery method and the method of Cooper and
Jacob (1946), both, tend to overestimate transmissivity.
Values of hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity are
dependent on the scale of the tests conducted to obtain these
properties. Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity values
obtained from drawdown in a pumped well are comparable
to hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity values obtained
from slug-injection, swabbing-recovery, and bailing-recovery
tests, but they are much smaller than hydraulic conductivity
and transmissivity values obtained from observation-well data.
Analyses of pumping well data are unreliable indicators of
hydraulic properties.
Because cross-hole pumping, airlift, and injection tests have
been conducted in the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU
at only five sites in the study area, one cannot make any reason-
able interpretations about hydraulic-conductivity distribution in
this HSU without finding a way to convert hydraulic conductiv-
ity values obtained from single-well tests throughout the study
area to cross-hole scale. A scaling equation was developed from
(1) seven paired analyses of pumping well and observation well
data from six pumping tests in four wells, and (2) three paired
analyses of data obtained from tests conducted at different scales
in three intervals of borehole UE-25 c#1. It is recognized that the
accumulation of more data from cross-hole tests in future years
might prove hydraulic conductivity values derived from this
equation to be inaccurate.
The determination of hydraulic properties from cross-hole,
constant-rate, pumping, and airlift tests conducted at Yucca Moun-
tain, Pahute Mesa, and Frenchman Flat was discussed to document
the best analyses for the study area. Summary results of all hydrau-
lic tests used to prepare this report are appended to the report.
A pumping test conducted at the C-holes complex from May
22 to June 1, 1995, indicated that the Calico Hills Formation and
the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs, together, at this site
have composite transmissivity of 18002100 m2/d, horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of 7.313 m/d, storativity of 0.0010.003,
and a specific yield of 0.010.2. Duplicating heterogeneity at
the scale of the Yucca Mountain hydrologic domain, hydraulic
conductivity and storativity at the C-holes complex are larger in a
northwesterly direction than in a north-northeasterly direction.
A pumping test conducted in the lower Bullfrog interval of
UE-25 c#3 from May 8, 1996 to November 12, 1997, caused
drawdown in 11 observation wells 296414 m from the pump-
ing well. Drawdown over the 81 km2 area affected by pumping
ranged from 0.14 to 0.47 m in observation wells after 553 days.
This drawdown was influenced mainly by the north-northeast-
erly trending Solitario Canyon, Bow Ridge, Midway Valley,
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 73

Paintbrush Canyon, and Fortymile Wash Faults, but the north- At a cross-hole scale, it appears that ash-flow tuff might be
westerly trending Drill Hole Wash, Sever Wash, and Pagany slightly more permeable than silicic to intermediate lava flows,
Wash Faults influenced drawdown in the northern part of the and that zeolitic to argillic alteration decreases the permeability
area affected by the test. This test showed that: (1) water-level of tuffaceous rocks. In 55 analyses, the hydraulic conductiv-
disturbances from periodic tracer tests and unplanned pump ity of nonwelded to densely welded ash-flow tuff ranged from
shutoffs were ephemeral with respect to long-term trends in 0.095 to 74 m/d and had a geometric mean value of 6.1 m/d,
drawdown and could be ignored in analyzing the long-term whereas in 11 analyses, the hydraulic conductivity of silicic to
drawdown; (2) the spreading cone of depression encompassed intermediate lava flows ranged from 0.60 to 20 m/d and had a
less transmissive rock as the test progressed; (3) formations geometric mean value of 4.2 m/d. In 26 analyses, the hydraulic
above and below the test interval in different structural blocks conductivity of unaltered tuffaceous rocks ranged from 0.095
were brought into the cone of depression after thousands of to 74 m/d and had a geometric mean value of 6.4 m/d, whereas
minutes of pumping; (4) hydraulic conductivity in the lower in 11 analyses, the hydraulic conductivity of zeolitized to argil-
Bullfrog Tuff at the C-holes complex was 40 m/d in a west- lized tuffaceous rocks ranged from 0.82 to 8.5 m/d and had a
northwesterly direction, parallel to the Antler Wash Fault zone, geometric mean value of 3.2 m/d.
and 20 m/d in a north-northeasterly direction, parallel to the At Yucca Mountain, cross-hole-scale hydraulic conductiv-
Midway Valley Fault; and (5) the Younger Tertiary tuff and ity ranges from 1.4 to 32 m/d and appears to be independent of
lava flows HSU in the northern part of the Yucca Mountain stratigraphy in the saturated zone. Increased hydraulic conductiv-
hydrologic domain possessed area-averaged transmissivity of ity appears to be related to the Midway Valley, Bow Ridge, and
22002400 m2/d, hydraulic conductivity of 2224 m/d, and Ghost Dance Faults, and to the area where the Midway Valley,
storativity of 0.00060.002. Bow Ridge, Dune Wash, and East Ridge Faults terminate in
A cross-hole pumping test conducted February 2225, 1990, close proximity. Decreased hydraulic conductivity appears to
in Frenchman Flat duplicated area-averaged hydraulic proper- be related to the Solitario Canyon, Pagany Wash, Sever Wash,
ties of the Younger Tertiary tuff and lava flows HSU at Yucca Paintbrush Canyon, and Fortymile Wash Faults.
Mountain. Pumping water well 4 in this test produced 0.50 m of At Pahute Mesa, cross-hole-scale hydraulic conductivity
drawdown in water well 4a, 371 m to the southwest. Analysis of ranges from 0.62 to 20 m/d. It appears to be somewhat dependent
this drawdown indicated transmissivity of 2100 m2/d, hydraulic on the distribution of tuff and lava flows in the saturated zone and
conductivity of 20 m/d, fracture storativity of 0.0002, and matrix independent of numerous northerly striking faults that transect
storativity of 0.002. the mesa. Hydraulic conductivity clearly increases toward the
Three other cross-hole hydraulic tests discussed in this topographic margins of the Silent Canyon Caldera Complex,
report, that were conducted in diverse hydrogeologic settings, possibly as a result of increased fracturing in collapse blocks at
produced values of hydraulic properties which were comparable caldera margins.
to each other but smaller than those indicated by tests at the
C-holes complex. Pumping borehole UE-25 b#1 in Drill Hole APPENDIX A
Wash at Yucca Mountain from August 29 to September 1, 1981,
CONVERSION FACTORS, ABBREVIATIONS,
produced 0.64 m of drawdown in borehole UE-25 a#1, 106.8 m AND VERTICAL DATUM
to the south-southwest. Analysis of this drawdown indicated that
Multiply: By: To obtain:
faulted Calico Hills Formation, Prow Pass Tuff, and Bullfrog Tuff
cubic meter per day (m3/d) 35.313 cubic foot per day
in the area of the test have composite transmissivity of 350 m2/d, centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 7.8 m/d, vertical hydraulic kilometer (km) 0.62136 mile
conductivity of 0.8 m/d, storativity of 0.0009, and a specific yield kilopascal (kPa) 0.14503 pound per square inch
of 0.07. Airlifting water from borehole U-20d on Pahute Mesa liter (L) 0.26417 gallon
in July and August 1966 produced 1.361.44 m of drawdown liter per second m (L/s) 15.852 gallon per minute
meter (m) 3.2808 foot
in borehole UE-20d, 25.9 m to the south. Analysis of this draw-
meter per day (m/d) 3.2808 foot per day
down indicated that moderately to densely welded Tiva Canyon meter cubed per day (m3/d) 0.1834 gallon per minute
Tuff at the Knickerbocker nuclear test site has transmissivity of meter squared per day (m2/d) 10.7636 foot squared per day
110140 m2/d, horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 2.43.0 m/d, meter squared per day (m2/d) 0.05591 gallon per minute per foot
fracture storativity of 0.001, and matrix storativity of 0.01. Pump- meter squared per day (m2/d) 80.51 gallon per day per foot
ing water from borehole ER-20-6#3 on Pahute Mesa from June square meter (m2) 10.7636 square foot
square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile
2 to August 28, 1997, produced 1.44 m of drawdown in borehole
ER-20-6#1, 131.4 m to the northeast. Analysis of this drawdown Note: To convert C to F, use the following equation: F = (1.8 C)
+ 32. Sea level: Altitudes in this report are referenced to the National
indicated that rhyolite lava flows in the Calico Hills Formation Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929), a geodetic datum
at the Bullion nuclear test site have transmissivity of 200 m2/d, derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 3.2 m/d, fracture storativity United States and Canada, which is called mean sea level in this
of 0.0007, and matrix storativity of 0.006. report. AMSL in this report is above mean sea level.
74 A.L. Geldon

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY DATA FROM HYDRAULIC TESTS IN THE DEATH VALLEY REGION, INCLUDING SOME
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA FROM GEOLOGICALLY SIMILAR AREAS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES
Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

QUATERNARY-TERTIARY FAN, FLOODPLAIN, AND STREAM ALLUVIUM

NC-EWDP-19D 549,237.96 4,058,259.96 818.9 438.4 124.5 242.3 106.0 0.19 Channel and floodplain alluvium Silty, gravelly sand and sandy gravel

NC-EWDP-19IM2 549,237.96 4,058,259.96 819.3 294.3 116.6 242.5 ND 20.6 Channel and floodplain alluvium Silty, gravelly sand and sandy gravel
Franklin Lake #14 555,362.30 4,013,299.42 610.3 17.7 1.4 17.7 1.4 0.11 Channel and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey gravel and sand

Doing well 553,288.05 4,055,086.07 807.7 146.3 108.2 146.3 106.7 495.5 Fan and floodplain alluvium Bouldery gravel and gravelly sand

Washburn # 4089 549,746.28 4,053,647.01 783.9 151.8 77.8 151.8 77.8 0.25 Fan and floodplain alluvium Bouldery gravel and gravelly sand

Watertown 3 WW 603,380.32 4,124,241.08 1,355.1 113.1 32.6 111.6 32.6 0.15 Channel and floodplain alluvium Fine to coarse sand and gravel

HTH-2 568,502.28 4,275,546.72 1,836.4 304.8 172.3 304.8 172.3 153.8 Fan and floodplain alluvium Gravelly, clayey sand with cobbles

HC-SO-1 568,520.40 4,259,559.18 1,714.8 146.3 68.9 140.2 77.7 152.4 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey gravel and sand
HC-S-O-2 558,517.10 4,244,932.51 1,678.8 138.7 92.5 132.0 92.5 152.4 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey gravel and sand
RE-VF-O1 558,226.05 4,218,510.43 1,630.7 214.0 97.9 123.4 96.6 152.4 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sand, gravel, and boulders
RE-VF-O1 558,226.05 4,218,510.43 1,630.7 214.0 201.2 214.0 96.6 152.4 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sand, gravel, and boulders
BG-VF-T1 584,748.47 4,264,219.66 1,771.2 174.6 142.6 174.6 142.6 0.13 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sand, gravel, and boulders

CL-VF-O-1 645,385.88 4,186,435.58 1,562.1 442.6 348.1 442.6 262.7 167.6 Channel and floodplain alluvium Sand, gravel, and boulders
DM-OW-2 688,497.72 4,146,078.06 1,435.6 299.0 264.4 296.0 264.4 152.4 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders

DL-OW-2 697,594.47 4,175,155.68 1,415.8 397.8 233.2 239.3 116.7 144.8 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
DL-OW-2 697,594.47 4,175,155.68 1,415.8 397.8 387.1 393.2 116.7 144.8 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
MS-VFO-1 689,561.72 4,231,891.30 1,688.6 381.9 326.4 345.6 80.5 100.6 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
GN-IO-2 626,196.63 4,209,480.67 1,701.7 335.0 249.9 308.2 132.4 152.4 Fan alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
HM-SO-1 744,326.39 4,265,517.85 1,778.2 159.1 97.5 128.0 53.0 152.4 Fan alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
RR-S-O-1 580,197.90 4,222,836.37 1,526.4 150.9 99.1 150.9 71.0 125.3 Fan alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
RR-S-O-2 632,441.07 4,287,520.91 1,563.0 182.9 85.3 176.2 85.3 146.3 Fan alluvium Silty to clayey sand and gravel with boulders
AIP-1 663,679.50 4,135,529.56 1,079.9 239.0 37.1 88.4 ND 0.16 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sandy gravel with fine sand and clay layers

RNM-1 592,131.76 4,075,692.84 956.0 358.6 253.1 274.3 240.2 91.0 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sand and gravelly sand with thin clay layers
UE-5c WW 590,978.01 4,077,005.63 980.2 817.5 245.2 383.1 245.2 0.22 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sand and gravelly sand with thin clay layers
Water Well 5a 592,982.61 4,070,370.54 942.7 277.4 212.4 277.4 212.1 0.14 Fan and floodplain alluvium Gravelly sand, sand, and silty sand
Water Well 5b 591,986.26 4,073,102.55 942.5 274.3 209.4 274.3 208.5 0.14 Fan and floodplain alluvium Gravelly sand, sand, and silty sand
Water Well 5c 592,471.81 4,071,751.81 939.1 362.4 270.4 362.4 211.1 0.16 Fan and floodplain alluvium Sandy cobble-gravel with thin silt layers
Test Well A 585,724.75 4,099,201.82 1,221.3 570.0 489.2 570.0 489.2 0.16 Fan and floodplain alluvium Silty to clayey gravel and sand

ODL-O-U 412,628.98 4,044,394.62 1,093.3 181.4 45.7 85.3 -12.2 103.6 Channel and floodplain alluvium Sand with thin clay and silt layers
QUATERNARY-TERTIARY PLAYA AND SPRING DEPOSITS
Franklin Lake #5 556,386.71 4,010,272.59 609.6 10.4 1.9 10.4 1.9 0.11 Playa deposits Clay with silt and fine sand layers

Franklin Lake #7 556,611.79 4,010,207.50 609.7 5.5 2.8 5.5 3.5 0.079 Playa deposits Clay with silt and fine sand layers

Franklin Lake #10 556,189.59 4,010,182.58 609.0 11.5 1.6 11.5 2.3 0.13 Playa deposits Clay with silt and fine sand layers

Franklin Lake GS-4 557,867.32 4,011,174.95 611.4 5.7 5.4 5.7 1.0 0.026 Playa deposits Clay with silt and fine sand layers

CV-I-O-1 685,754.69 4,259,838.94 1,831.6 139.6 70.5 80.2 70.5 152.4 Playa deposits Clay and silt with sand and gravel layers
Spring Meadows #1 565,962.40 4,028,520.78 707.4 120.4 47.2 120.4 3.0 411.9 Playa and spring deposits Clay, marl, and limestone with gravel

Spring Meadows #2 565,632.46 4,028,274.23 703.5 91.4 18.3 91.4 2.4 411.9 Playa and spring deposits Clay, marl, and limestone with gravel

Spring Meadows #4 565,012.12 4,028,480.31 702.3 152.4 30.5 152.4 3.4 1,096 Playa and spring deposits Clay, marl, and limestone with gravel

18S/51-07db2 565,390.17 4,028,294.58 702.6 86.0 12.2 86.0 3.0 243.1 Playa and spring deposits Clay, marl, and limestone

Spring Meadows #3 565,965.44 4,028,121.46 703.5 237.7 3.0 237.7 flowing 399.3 Playa and spring deposits Clay, limestone, and sandstone

Spring Meadows #13 564,838.00 4,028,978.18 711.3 142.6 40.2 142.6 8.2 813.4 Playa and spring deposits Limestone, marl, clay, gypsum, sand, and
gravel
TERTIARY SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
HTH-1 568,543.15 4,275,398.56 1,832.1 1,126.2 804.9 826.2 169.2 0.16 Tuffaceous rocks of Slanted Buttes Conglomerate and gravelly sandstone with
siltstone and tuff
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 75

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
QUATERNARY-TERTIARY FAN, FLOODPLAIN, AND STREAM ALLUVIUM
07/07/00 07/14/00 10,080 Pumping Same 9.41 Drawdown 0.27 ND 21 ND ND Hantush (1961)* USGS files

01/29/02 02/04/02 8,250 Pumping NC-EWDP-19D 6.89 Drawdown 3.8 ND 320 0.0008 ND Theis (1935)* USGS files
ND ND 91 Pumping Same 1.0 Residual 2.7 ND 44 ND ND Theis (1935) Czarnecki (1997)
drawdown
06/10/99 06/12/99 2,867 Pumping Airport well 83.9 Drawdown 6.4 ND 200 0.0003 ND Hantush and Questa Engineering
Jacob (1955) Corp. (2000a)
07/12/62 07/12/62 180 Pumping Same 0.53 Drawdown 13 ND 300 ND ND Theis (1935) Thordarson and Rush
(unpublished)
11/23/59 11/23/59 1,297 Pumping Same 10.4 Residual 8.8 ND 340 ND ND Theis (1935) Schoff (1962)
drawdown
08/18/67 08/25/67 10,008 Pumping HTH-1 7.7 Drawdown 0.92 0.66 98 0.003 0.20 Neuman (1975)* Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
Sept-80 Sept-80 5,820 Pumping HC-ST-1 14.8 Drawdown 25 ND 1,800 0.001 0.020 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Sept-80 Sept-80 7,200 Pumping HC-S-T-2 23.7 Drawdown 3.8 ND 150 0.0001 0.004 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Apr-81 Apr-81 10,200 Pumping RE-VF-T1 34.7 Drawdown 18 ND 460 0.0001 0.012 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Apr-81 Apr-81 10,200 Pumping RE-VF-T1 34.7 Drawdown 73 ND 930 0.0002 0.002 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
May-81 May-81 14,400 Pumping Same 27.4 Drawdown 7.6 ND 240 ND ND Cooper and Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Jacob (1946)
Jun-81 Jun-81 240 Pumping CL-VF-T-1A 28.4 Drawdown 3.6 ND 340 0.0004 0.001 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
May-80 May-80 3,780 Pumping DM-TW-2 5.36 Drawdown 3.2 ND 100 ND ND Cooper and Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Jacob (1946)
Apr-80 Apr-80 14,340 Pumping DL-TW-2 18.9 Drawdown 52 ND 320 0.0005 0.013 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Apr-80 Apr-80 14,340 Pumping DL-TW-2 18.9 Drawdown 56 ND 340 0.004 0.051 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Jul-81 Jul-81 8,640 Pumping MS-VFT-1 1.89 Drawdown 0.62 ND 3.6 0.0001 0.0004 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Nov-80 Nov-80 43,200 Pumping GN-IT-2 32.2 Drawdown 19 ND 1,100 0.0006 0.003 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Sept-80 Sept-80 7,200 Pumping HM-ST-1 6.94 Drawdown 7.6 ND 230 0.0002 0.010 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Sept-80 Sept-80 12,960 Pumping RR-S-T-1 46.2 Drawdown 20 ND 1,000 0.0002 0.060 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
Oct-80 Nov-80 40,560 Pumping RR-S-T-2 44.5 Drawdown 8.1 ND 730 0.0003 0.001 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
08/21/99 08/22/99 1,440 Pumping Same 25.9 Drawdown 6.3 ND 320 ND ND Neuman (1975) Consulting Engineering
Services (1999)
10/11/75 10/13/75 2,699 Pumping RNM-2S 18.4 Recovery 46 0.99 970 0.005 0.08 Neuman (1975)* Bryant (1992); USGS files
10/11/64 10/11/64 420 Pumping Same 21.1 Drawdown 0.1 ND 13 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Gillespie et al. (1996)
10/07/59 10/08/59 1,485 Pumping Same 6.32 Drawdown 0.6 ND 30 ND ND Theis (1935) Hood (1961)
08/27/59 08/29/59 2,886 Pumping Same 10.2 Drawdown 1.4 ND 90 ND ND Theis (1935) Hood (1961)
09/09/59 09/11/59 2,703 Pumping Same 8.29 Drawdown 0.34 ND 31 ND ND Theis (1935) Hood (1961)
09/20/60 09/21/60 2,290 Pumping Same 3.78 Drawdown 0.17 ND 14 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Price and Thordarson
(1961)
01/23/91 05/16/91 162,720 Pumping ODL-T-U 103 Drawdown 16 ND 640 0.0003 ND Theis (1935)* Jacobson et al. (1992)
QUATERNARY-TERTIARY PLAYA AND SPRING DEPOSITS
ND ND 110 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.045 ND 0.38 ND ND Cooper et al. Czarnecki (1997)
(1967)
ND ND 27 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 1.2 ND 3.2 ND ND Cooper et al. Czarnecki (1997)
(1967)
ND ND 1,440 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0034 ND 0.034 ND ND Cooper et al. Czarnecki (1997)
(1967)
ND ND 67 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 1.4 ND 0.42 ND ND Cooper et al. Czarnecki (1997)
(1967)
10/25/80 10/25/80 160 Pumping CV-I-T-1 14.2 Drawdown 23 ND 220 0.00009 0.013 Neuman (1975) Bunch and Harrill (1984)
04/05/71 04/06/71 1,200 Pumping Spring Meadows #2 75.7 Drawdown 10 ND 420 0.003 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
03/08/71 03/09/71 1,440 Pumping Spring Meadows #1 104.1 Drawdown 50 ND 1,300 0.04 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
03/22/71 03/22/71 540 Pumping Spring Meadows #5 113.6 Drawdown 19 ND 1,800 0.03 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
04/05/71 04/06/71 1,200 Pumping Spring Meadows #2 75.7 Drawdown 27 ND 1,200 0.03 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
03/08/71 03/09/71 1,440 Pumping Spring Meadows #1 104.1 Drawdown 29 ND 810 0.001 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
03/22/71 03/22/71 540 Pumping Spring Meadows #5 113.6 Drawdown 24 ND 1,700 0.002 ND Boulton (1963) Dudley and Larson
(1976)
TERTIARY SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
08/01/67 08/01/67 70 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.056 ND 1.2 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)
76 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

HTH-1 568,543.15 4,275,398.56 1,832.1 1,126.2 899.4 917.7 170.1 0.16 Tuffaceous rocks of Slanted Buttes Conglomerate and gravelly sandstone with
siltstone and tuff
HTH-1 568,543.15 4,275,398.56 1,832.1 1,126.2 1,094.5 1,117.4 168 0.16 Tuffaceous rocks of Slanted Buttes Tuffaceous sandstone and siltstone with
conglomerate and clay
HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 1,358.1 1,416.0 147.8 0.12 Tuffaceous rocks of Slanted Buttes Gravelly sandstone, sandstone, siltstone,
limestone, and tuff
UCe-17 568,049.79 4,281,240.26 1,995.4 2,431.7 1,868.9 1,929.9 ND 0.13 Needles area lacustrine sediments Siltstone and limestone with tuff

Water well 3 583,827.33 4,094,553.48 1,209.8 548.6 479.1 548.6 479.1 0.10 Pavits Spring Formation Sandstone, conglomerate, and tuff
Klondike #2 477,523.32 4,191,556.32 1,507.8 125.0 76.2 125.0 58.9 0.33 Older basin fill of Plume (1996) Gravelly sandstone with claystone

Klondike #1 478,427.61 4,191,614.91 1,514.3 125.6 76.2 125.6 59.0 0.30 Older basin fill of Plume (1996) Gravelly sandstone with claystone

Duckwater Creek 622,682.41 4,279,783.43 1,460.0 2,106.2 1,437.7 1,505.7 ND 0.089 Muddy Creek Formation (?) Mudstone, calcareous shale, sandstone and
8-12 conglomerate
Duckwater Federal 624,422.39 4,307,560.26 1,713.3 2,168.7 1,842.8 1,869.9 ND 0.089 Sheep Pass Formation Calcareous shale and shaly limestone
9-1
Currant #1 627,831.99 4,284,304.25 1,491.1 2,377.4 2,202.5 2,210.1 ND 0.089 Sheep Pass Formation Calcareous shale and shaly limestone

Adobe Federal 19-1 650,521.49 4,208,938.44 1,527.7 2,348.8 813.8 827.8 ND 0.089 Muddy Creek Formation (?) Mudstone, calcareous shale, sandstone and
conglomerate
White River Valley #6 664,823.01 4,261,208.53 1,595.9 1,921.8 667.5 678.2 ND 0.089 Muddy Creek Formation (?) Mudstone, calcareous shale, sandstone and
conglomerate
Sunnyside #1 670,376.40 4,247,352.16 1,621.8 1,996.4 439.5 478.8 ND 0.089 Sheep Pass Formation Calcareous shale and shaly limestone

YOUNGER TERTIARY TUFF AND LAVA FLOWS

UE-2aw 582,754.70 4,109,804.66 1,302.1 709.6 559.0 614.2 554.5 0.16 Rainier Mesa Tuff NW-DW ash-flow tuff and vitrophyre

Water Well 4a 586,641.92 4,084,387.53 1,099.0 457.8 324.9 457.8 254.8 371.1 Rainier Mesa and Topopah Spring Fractured, NW-DW ash-flow tuff
Tuffs
UE-18r 549,320.55 4,109,758.46 1,688.0 1,525.2 496.5 1,184.4 418.2 0.13 Ammonia Tanks Tuff PW-DW ash-flow tuff with rhyolite lava

UE-18r 549,320.55 4,109,758.46 1,688.0 1,525.2 1,184.4 1,525.2 418.4 0.13 Rainier Mesa Tuff Heterolithic megabreccia (debris flow)

UE-19c 560,338.52 4,124,701.04 2,143.7 2,587.4 737.9 1,377.7 714.9 0.13 Dead Horse Flat Formation Comendite lava flow

UE-19e 559,087.72 4,127,818.57 2,108.9 1,830.3 754.4 831.8 676.1 0.13 Bullfrog Tuff Rhyolite lava flow

UE-19e 559,087.72 4,127,818.57 2,108.9 1,830.3 894.0 1,670.9 676.1 0.13 Dead Horse Flat Formation Comendite lava flow

UE-19e 559,087.72 4,127,818.57 2,108.9 1,830.3 1,670.9 1,769.1 676.1 0.13 Trachyte of Muenster Trachyte lava flow

UE-19e 559,087.72 4,127,818.57 2,108.9 1,830.3 1,769.1 1,830.3 676.1 0.13 Grouse Canyon Tuff DW ash-flow tuff

UE-19fs 556,112.99 4,119,785.62 2,052.9 2,118.4 781.8 1,456.6 702.9 0.15 Rhyolite of Inlet Rhyolite lava flows

UE-19gs 556,297.15 4,129,062.88 2,048.0 2,286.0 807.7 1,374.0 622.7 0.13 Dead Horse Flat Formation Comendite lava flows and NW-PW ash-flow
tuff
UE-19i 557,917.29 4,122,602.24 2,084.5 2,438.4 882.7 2,438.4 688.2 0.14 Bullfrog Tuff Rhyolite lava flows with PW ash-flow tuff

U-20a-2 WW 551,344.54 4,121,758.22 1,972.7 1,371.6 629.7 1,371.6 629.7 0.13 Calico Hills Formation Rhyolite lava flows

UE-20d 546,093.66 4,122,282.46 1,905.9 1,369.2 745.5 919.3 632.3 25.9 Tiva Canyon Tuff MW-DW ash-flow tuff

UE-20d 546,093.66 4,122,282.46 1,905.9 1,369.2 745.5 1,184.0 632.3 25.9 Tiva Canyon Tuff MW-DW ash-flow tuff

UE-20e-1 548,119.03 4,129,967.24 1,919.3 1,949.2 556.2 1,949.2 556.2 0.13 Calico Hills Formation Pumiceous rhyolite lava flows and flow
breccia
UE-20f 545,389.67 4,124,898.04 1,864.3 4,171.5 1,358.2 1,704.8 541.5 0.11 Rhyolite of Inlet Partly brecciated rhyolite lava flow

UE-20f 545,389.67 4,124,898.04 1,864.3 4,171.5 2,521.6 2,974.2 541.5 0.11 Dead Horse Flat Formation Partly brecciated comendite lava flows

UE-20f 545,389.67 4,124,898.04 1,864.3 4,171.5 2,974.2 3,011.1 541.5 0.11 Grouse Canyon Tuff Silicified, NW ash-flow tuff

ER-20-6#1 551,362.79 4,123,691.98 1,973.5 898.2 764.1 898.2 618.1 131.4 Calico Hills Formation Rhyolite lava flows

ER-20-6#2 551,328.04 4,123,661.93 1,973.6 897.6 764.4 897.6 618.4 89.1 Calico Hills Formation Rhyolite lava flows
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 77

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
07/31/67 07/31/67 60 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.27 ND 4.9 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)
07/30/67 07/31/67 245 Swabbing- Same 0.32 Residual 0.00035 ND 0.0081 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
recovery drawdown recovery *
08/27/68 08/27/68 200 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.10 ND 6.0 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1967)* (1971)
06/23/67 06/23/67 30 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.000043 ND 0.0026 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)
10/02/59 10/04/59 2,881 Pumping Same 2.54 Drawdown 0.64 ND 16 ND ND Theis (1935) Hood (1961)
10/30/92 11/01/92 2,850 Pumping Same 18.9 Drawdown 2.7 ND 50 ND ND Hantush (1961)* City of Goldfield
(unpublished data)
07/24/81 07/24/81 600 Pumping Same 41.0 Drawdown 4.2 ND 170 ND ND Hantush (1961)* City of Goldfield
(unpublished data)
Jul-79 Jul-79 140 Drill-stem Same 0.33 Recovery 0.00026 ND 0.018 ND ND Earlougher McKay and Kepper
(1977)* (1988)
Dec-84 Dec-84 180 Drill-stem Same 0.38 Recovery 0.000096 ND 0.0026 ND ND Earlougher McKay and Kepper
(1977)* (1988)
Oct-78 Oct-78 120 Drill-stem Same 0.19 Recovery 0.0073 ND 0.055 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Oct-79 Oct-79 120 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00093 ND 0.013 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
1981 1981 120 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00049 ND 0.0053 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Aug-86 Aug-86 110 Drill-stem Same 0.28 Recovery 0.011 ND 0.42 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
YOUNGER TERTIARY TUFF AND LAVA FLOWS
01/31/74 02/02/74 80 - 780 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.086 ND 4.8 ND ND Cooper et al. Quinlivan et al. (1977);
(1967)* USGS files
02/22/90 02/25/90 4,320 Pumping Water Well 4 36.3 Drawdown 20 ND 2,100 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Gillespie et al. (1996);
(1978)* USGS files
01/28/68 01/29/68 2,820 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 7.3 ND 260 ND ND Cooper and Blankennagel and Weir
Jacob (1946)* (1973)
01/28/68 01/29/68 2,820 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 0.37 ND 21 ND ND Cooper and Blankennagel and Weir
Jacob (1946)* (1973)
05/07/64 05/08/64 2,045 Pumping Same 3.72 Drawdown 0.45 ND 39 ND ND Theis (1935)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
04/21/65 04/22/65 1,440 Pumping Same 3.53 Drawdown 0.083 ND 1.7 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
04/21/65 04/22/65 1,440 Pumping Same 3.53 Drawdown 0.041 ND 4.1 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
04/21/65 04/22/65 1,440 Pumping Same 3.53 Drawdown 0.0067 ND 0.66 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
04/21/65 04/22/65 1,440 Pumping Same 3.53 Drawdown 0.020 ND 0.49 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
08/17/65 08/18/65 1,440 Pumping Same 8.20 Drawdown 0.76 ND 80 ND ND Cooper and Blankennagel and Weir
Jacob (1946) (1973)
03/26/65 03/27/65 1,440 Pumping Same 11.7 Drawdown 0.21 ND 24 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1965)
09/02/65 09/03/65 1,000 Pumping Same 8.83 Drawdown 0.022 ND 3.9 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Blankennagel and Weir
(1966)
02/10/65 02/11/65 1,740 Pumping Same 11.7 Drawdown 0.70 ND 220 ND ND Cooper and Blankennagel and Weir
Jacob (1946) (1973)
07/26/66 07/26/66 178 Airlift U-20d 9.46 Recovery 2.4 ND 110 0.01 ND Streltsova-Adams Blankennagel et al.
(1978)* (1964); USGS files
08/11/66 08/11/66 459 Airlift U-20d 8.71 Residual 3.0 ND 140 ND ND Theis (1935) Blankennagel et al.
drawdown recovery * (1964); USGS files
06/04/64 06/06/64 2,393 Pumping Same 5.93 Residual 0.56 ND 97 ND ND Theis (1935) Blankennagel and Weir
drawdown recovery * (1965)
08/09/64 08/11/64 2,800 Pumping Same 6.92 Drawdown 0.0041 ND 0.24 ND ND Hantush (1961)* Blankennagel et al.
(1964); Blankennagel
and Weir (1965)
08/09/64 08/11/64 2,800 Pumping Same 6.92 Drawdown 0.0017 ND 0.73 ND ND Hantush (1961)* Blankennagel et al.
(1964); Blankennagel
and Weir (1965)
08/09/64 08/11/64 2,800 Pumping Same 6.92 Drawdown 0.0013 ND 0.048 ND ND Hantush (1961)* Blankennagel et al.
(1964); Blankennagel
and Weir (1965)
06/02/97 08/28/97 125,280 Pumping ER-20-6#3 7.32 Drawdown 3.2 ND 200 0.007 ND Streltsova-Adams IT Corporation (1998a,
(1978)* 1998b)
06/02/97 06/02/97 360 Pumping ER-20-6#3 7.32 Drawdown 2.4 ND 150 0.0003 ND Theis (1935) IT Corporation (1998a,
1998b)
78 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

PM-3 539,002.93 4,121,291.22 1,774.8 920.2 444.8 533.4 444.8 0.14 Rhyolite of Fluorspar Canyon Fractured, zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff and
bedded reworked tuff
PM-3 539,002.93 4,121,291.22 1,774.8 920.2 574.6 652.3 444.8 0.14 Tiva Canyon Tuff Fractured, MW ash-flow tuff and tuff breccia
USW VH-1 539,986.16 4,071,717.53 963.2 762.3 277.5 762.3 183.4 0.080 Topopah Spring and Bullfrog Tuffs Variably fractured, NW-DW ash-flow tuff

J-13 554,016.88 4,073,517.23 1,011.5 1,031.8 282.9 1,009.5 282.9 0.13 Topopah Spring Tuff Very fractured, MW-DW ash-flow tuff
J-13 554,016.88 4,073,517.23 1,011.5 1,063.1 282.9 422.4 282.5 0.21 Topopah Spring Tuff Very fractured, MW-DW ash-flow tuff and
vitrophyre
J-13 554,016.88 4,073,517.23 1,011.5 1,063.1 471.2 502.0 282.5 0.11 Calico Hills Formation Zeolitized, bedded, reworked tuff, ash-fall tuff,
and sandstone
J-13 554,016.88 4,073,517.23 1,011.5 1,063.1 668.7 699.2 282.4 0.10 Bullfrog Tuff Fractured, PW-MW ash-flow tuff

J-13 554,016.88 4,073,517.23 1,011.5 1,063.1 772.7 919.0 283.4 0.10 Tram Tuff Fractured, NW-PW ash-flow tuff

USW WT-1 549,150.83 4,074,974.93 1,201.1 514.8 470.8 514.8 470.8 1,992 Calico Hills Fm and Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, fractured, partly zeolitized, MW-DW
ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
UE-25 WT #3 552,097.72 4,072,564.11 1,030.1 348.1 300.4 348.1 300.4 3,526 Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, partly zeolitized,
NW-MW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 WT#4 550,445.91 4,079,419.56 1,169.2 481.6 438.4 481.6 438.4 3,573 Calico Hills Fm to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, fractured, rhyolite lava flow and
partly zeolitized, NW-DW ash-flow tuff and
bedded tuff
USW WT-11 547,532.63 4,070,438.07 1,094.1 440.7 363.5 440.7 363.5 6,414 Topopah Spring to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, partly zeolitized,
NW-DW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
UE-25 WT#12 550,162.90 4,070,646.98 1,074.7 398.7 345.4 398.7 345.4 0.11 Topopah Spring Tuff DW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 WT #14 552,637.97 4,077,336.62 1,076.1 399.3 346.4 399.3 346.4 2,249 Topopah Spring to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, partly zeolitized,
NW-MW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
UE-25 a#1 549,934.40 4,078,316.74 1,199.2 762.2 468.5 762.2 468.5 107 Calico Hills Fm to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, zeolitized, and
argillized, NW-MW ash-flow tuff and bedded
tuff
UE-25 b#1 549,954.45 4,078,421.63 1,200.7 1,219.8 470.1 1,199 470.1 2,722 Calico Hills Fm to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, zeolitized, and
argillized, NW-MW ash-flow tuff and bedded
tuff
UE-25 b#1 549,954.45 4,078,421.63 1,200.7 1,219.8 477 544 470.6 0.18 Calico Hills Formation Zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 b#1 549,954.45 4,078,421.63 1,200.7 1,219.8 581 661 470.6 0.17 Prow Pass Tuff Faulted, fractured, partly zeolitized, NW-MW
ash-flow tuff
UE-25 b#1 549,954.45 4,078,421.63 1,200.7 1,219.8 743 860 470.6 0.15 Bullfrog Tuff Partly zeolitized, NW-MW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 417.9 897.6 400.3 82.6 Calico Hills Fm to Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
DW ash-flow tuff, bedded tuff, and tuff breccia
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 902.8 417.9 486.2 400.3 78.0 Calico Hills Formation Variably fractured, NW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 902.8 489.2 512.1 400.3 78.9 Calico Hills Formation Zeolitized, bedded, ash-fall tuff and sandstone
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 549.2 605.3 400.3 82.6 Prow Pass Tuff Fractured, partly argillized to zeolitized, NW-
MW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 549.3 605.3 400.4 81.1 Prow Pass Tuff Fractured, partly argillized to zeolitized, NW-
MW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 607.2 698.3 400.5 83.2 (upper) Bullfrog Tuff Variably fractured, argillized, and zeolitized,
NW-PW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 700.1 797.1 400.7 85.6 (lower) Bullfrog Tuff Variably fractured, argillized, and zeolitized,
NW-DW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 897.6 798.9 869.9 400.6 86.9 (upper) Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
PW ash-flow tuff, tuff breccia, and bedded tuff
UE-25 c#1 550,957.87 4,075,942.70 1,130.6 902.8 793.4 902.8 400.3 85.3 Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
PW ash-flow tuff, tuff breccia, and bedded tuff
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 416.0 910.1 402.1 29.0 Calico Hills Fm to Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
DW ash-flow tuff, bedded tuff, and tuff breccia
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 911.4 416.1 911.4 401.8 29.0 Calico Hills Fm to Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
DW ash-flow tuff, bedded tuff, and tuff breccia
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 416.0 531.3 402.1 29.0 Calico Hills Formation Variably fractured, NW ash-flow tuff and
bedded tuff
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 533.1 605.6 402.1 28.6 Prow Pass Tuff Fractured, partly argillized to zeolitized, NW-
MW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 607.5 696.5 401.4 28.6 (upper) Bullfrog Tuff Variably fractured, argillized, and zeolitized,
NW-PW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 698.3 791.9 402.6 29.3 (lower) Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, argillized, and
zeolitized, NW-DW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 c#2 550,943.92 4,075,867.37 1,132.2 910.1 793.7 869.6 402.5 29.9 (upper) Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
PW ash-flow tuff, tuff breccia, and bedded tuff
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 79

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
09/26/88 09/27/88 1,860 Pumping Same 10.7 Drawdown 0.17 ND 3.1 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Kilroy and Savard (1996)

09/26/88 09/27/88 1,860 Pumping Same 10.7 Drawdown 0.055 ND 3.4 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Kilroy and Savard (1996)
02/10/81 02/11/81 1,140 Pumping Same 15.0 Drawdown 3.5 ND 540 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Thordarson and Howells
(1978)* (1987)
02/18/64 02/22/64 5,765 Pumping Same 44.0 Drawdown 1.2 ND 140 ND ND Stallman (1965) Thordarson (1983)
12/30/62 01/01/63 3,155 Pumping Same 27.1 Drawdown 1.0 ND 120 ND ND Stallman (1965) Thordarson (1983)

ND ND 20 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.15 ND 4.5 ND ND Cooper et al. Thordarson (1983)

(1967)
ND ND 200 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.016 ND 0.48 ND ND Cooper et al. Thordarson (1983)
(1967)
ND ND 62-180 Swabbing- Same NA Recovery 0.0056 ND 0.82 ND ND Theis (1935) Thordarson (1983)
recovery recovery ; Cooper
et al. (1967)*
05/08/96 08/07/97 656,829 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.29 Drawdown 9.7 ND 630 0.01 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)
05/08/96 09/16/97 714,387 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.27 Drawdown 15 ND 800 0.01 ND Streltsova-Adams Geldon et al. (2002)
(1978)*
05/08/96 07/15/97 623,649 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.31 Drawdown 8.8 ND 960 0.002 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)

05/08/96 07/16/97 625,203 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.31 Drawdown 9.0 ND 980 0.002 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)
09/05/95 09/11/95 9,105 Pumping Same 1.27 Drawdown 1.6 ND 5.8 ND ND Cooper and OBrien (1997)
Jacob (1946)
05/08/96 12/02/96 300,000 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.59 Drawdown 4.2 ND 710 0.002 ND Walton (1970)* Geldon et al. (2002)

08/29/81 09/01/81 3,680 Pumping UE-25 b#1 35.7 Drawdown 7.8 0.81 850 0.0009 0.07 Neuman (1975)* Moench (1984)

05/08/96 08/06/97 655,416 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.29 Drawdown 9.0 ND 980 0.004 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)

05/11/81 08/13/81 27 - 120 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.15 ND 10 ND ND Cooper et al. Lahoud et al. (1984)
(1967)
08/13/81 08/13/81 3.0 - 59 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.49 ND 39 ND ND Cooper et al. Lahoud et al. (1984)
(1967)
08/11/81 08/12/81 3.3 - 50 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.45 ND 53 ND ND Cooper et al. Lahoud et al. (1984)
(1967)
06/01/95 06/09/95 11,400 Pumping UE-25 c#3 17.9 Recovery 7.3 0.27 1,800 0.001 0.01 Neuman (1975) Geldon et al. (1998)

05/04/84 05/14/84 13,625 Pumping UE-25 c#3 26.4 Drawdown 0.095 0.19 5.3 ND 0.001 Neuman (1975) Geldon (1996)
05/14/84 06/12/84 40,010 Pumping UE-25 c#3 26.4 Recovery 0.82 ND 4.0 ND 0.002 Neuman (1975) Geldon (1996)
06/02/98 06/11/98 12,500 Pumping UE-25 c#2 0.33 Drawdown 3.4 ND 65 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Geldon et al. (1999)

06/12/95 06/16/95 5,803 Pumping UE-25 c#3 22.5 Drawdown 3.2 ND 60 0.0003 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

06/16/95 06/21/95 5,708 Pumping UE-25 c#3 22.5 Recovery 2.0 ND 90 0.00006 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

05/08/96 03/26/97 464,100 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.53 Drawdown 20 ND 1,300 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Geldon et al. (2002)
(1978)
02/08/96 02/13/96 6,984 Pumping UE-25 c#3 8.49 Drawdown 13 ND 700 0.0001 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

10/30/84 11/15/84 22,786 Pumping UE-25 c#3 26.8 Drawdown 12 ND 730 0.003 ND Cooper (1963) Geldon (1996)

05/22/95 06/01/95 14,403 Pumping UE-25 c#3 17.9 Drawdown 13 1.7 2,100 0.003 0.2 Neuman (1975) Geldon et al. (1998)

05/09/84 05/14/84 6,942 Pumping UE-25 c#3 26.1 Drawdown 13 1.7 2,200 0.004 0.07 Neuman (1975) Geldon (1996)

06/12/95 06/16/95 5,803 Pumping UE-25 c#3 22.5 Drawdown 0.12 0.003 5.5 0.0002 0.02 Neuman (1975) Geldon et al. (2002)

06/12/95 06/16/95 5,803 Pumping UE-25 c#3 22.5 Drawdown 1.7 ND 40 0.0004 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

06/12/95 06/16/95 5,803 Pumping UE-25 c#3 22.5 Drawdown 4.2 ND 100 0.00003 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

05/08/96 03/26/97 464,100 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.53 Drawdown 40 ND 1,300 0.02 ND Streltsova-Adams Geldon et al. (2002)
(1978)
02/08/96 02/13/96 6,984 Pumping UE-25 c#3 8.49 Drawdown 28 ND 600 0.0008 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)
80 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

UE-25 c#3 550,919.81 4,075,885.91 1,132.4 907.1 542.2 609.9 401.9 28.7 Prow Pass Tuff Fractured, partly argillized to zeolitized, NW-
MW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 ONC #1 550,471.81 4,076,599.63 1,162.8 469.4 451.7 469.4 433.2 851.3 Prow Pass Tuff Vitric, NW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 ONC #1 550,471.81 4,076,599.63 1,162.8 469.4 453.2 469.4 433.2 842.8 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs Faulted, variably fractured, argillized, and
zeolitized, NW-DW ash-flow tuff
UE-25 ONC #1 550,471.81 4,076,599.63 1,162.8 469.4 453.2 469.4 433.3 842.8 Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs Faulted, variably fractured, argillized, and
zeolitized, NW-DW ash-flow tuff and bedded
tuff
UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.3 469 500 382 0.18 Prow Pass Tuff Partly zeolitized, PW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.3 564 616 382 0.16 Bullfrog Tuff NW-MW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.3 764 834 383 0.15 Tram Tuff PW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.3 904 1,067 382 0.15 Lithic Ridge Tuff Zeolitized, NW-PW ash-flow tuff and bedded
tuff
USW G-2 548,138.53 4,082,553.89 1,533.9 1,830.6 534.0 792.0 534.0 0.13 Calico Hills Formation Faulted, fractured, zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff
with thin bedded tuff intervals
USW G-4 548,937.85 4,078,590.13 1,269.6 914.7 616 655 541.5 0.12 Prow Pass Tuff Faulted(?), zeolitized, NW-PW ash-flow tuff

USW G-4 548,937.85 4,078,590.13 1,269.6 914.7 698 826 541.7 0.13 Bullfrog Tuff Fractured, zeolitized to argillized, NW-DW
ash-flow tuff
USW G-4 548,937.85 4,078,590.13 1,269.6 914.7 541.1 914.7 541.1 0.13 Tram Tuff Fractured, NW-MW ash-fow tuff

USW H-1 548,721.75 4,079,944.54 1,303.1 1,828.8 572 765 572.2 4,625 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs Faulted, fractured, partly zeolitized, NW-PW
ash-flow tuff
USW H-1 548,721.75 4,079,944.54 1,303.0 1,828.8 572.3 687.9 572.3 0.13 Prow Pass Tuff Faulted, fractured, PW ash-flow tuff
USW H-1 548,721.75 4,079,944.54 1,303.0 1,828.8 687.3 707 572.5 0.11 Prow Pass Tuff Fractured, zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff
USW H-1 548,721.75 4,079,944.54 1,303.0 1,828.8 707 832 572.7 0.11 Bullfrog Tuff Fractured, partly zeolitized, NW-PW ash-flow
tuff
USW H-3 547,536.88 4,075,762.03 1,483.2 1,219.2 809 1,108.3 750.8 0.12 Tram Tuff Locally fractured, partly zeolitized, PW-MW
ash-flow tuff and fractured, zeolitized, bedded
tuff
USW H-3 547,536.88 4,075,762.03 1,483.2 1,219.2 1,108.3 1,219.2 750.6 0.12 Lithic Ridge Tuff Zeolitized, argillized, PW ash-flow tuff
USW H-4 549,195.04 4,077,322.35 1,248.7 1,219.2 560.5 1,181.1 518.4 2,245 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs Faulted, variably fractured, partly zeolitized,
NW-DW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
USW H-4 549,195.04 4,077,322.35 1,248.7 1,219.2 518.4 1,181.1 518.4 2,245 Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs Faulted, variably fractured, partly zeolitized,
NW-DW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
USW H-5 547,665.33 4,078,837.70 1,478.9 1,219.2 704.4 835.8 704.6 0.16 Bullfrog Tuff NW-DW ash-flow tuff

USW H-5 547,665.33 4,078,837.70 1,478.9 1,219.2 835.8 1,043.0 704.8 0.11 Tram Tuff Zeolitized, PW, ash-flow tuff

USW H-6 546,196.05 4,077,816.27 1,302.1 1,219.9 547.1 687.3 526.0 0.11 Bullfrog Tuff Fractured, PW-MW ash-flow tuff
USW H-6 546,196.05 4,077,816.27 1,302.1 1,219.9 687.3 877.2 526.5 0.11 Tram Tuff Fractured, PW ash-flow tuff
USW H-6 546,196.05 4,077,816.27 1,302.1 1,219.9 753 834 526.5 0.11 Tram Tuff Fractured, PW ash-flow tuff
NC-EWDP-3D 541,273.79 4,059,456.99 798.3 762.0 121.0 762.0 78.9 0.11 Tram and Lithic Ridge Tuffs NW ash-flow tuff

UE-25 c#2, USW-H- Variable Variable Variable Variable Vari- Vari- Variable 29-2,245 Calico Hills Formation to Tram Tuff Faulted, variably fractured and altered, NW-
4, UE-25 ONC#1 able able DW ash-flow tuff, tuff breccia, and bedded tuff
UE-25 c#1, UE-25 Variable Variable Variable Variable Vari- Vari- Variable 29-3,526 Topopah Spring Tuff to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, zeolitized, and
c#2, UE-25 WT#3, able able argillized NW-DW ash-flow tuff, tuff breccia,
UE-25 WT#14, UE- and bedded tuff
25 ONC#1, USW H-4
UE-25 c#1, c#2, Variable Variable Variable Variable Vari- Vari- Variable 29-6,414 Topopah Spring Tuff to Bullfrog Tuff Faulted, variably fractured, zeolitized, and
b#1, WT#3, WT#4, able able argillized NW-DW ash-flow tuff, bedded tuff,
WT#14, ONC#1; and rhyolite lava
USW H-1, H-4, WT-1,
WT-11
UE-25 c#1, UE-25 Variable Variable Variable Variable Vari- Vari- Variable 29-3,526 Prow Pass and Bullfrog Tuffs Faulted, variably fractured, zeolitized, and
c#2, UE-25 ONC#1, able able argillized NW-DW ash-flow tuff and bedded
UE-25 WT#3 tuff
OLDER TERTIARY TUFF AND LAVA FLOWS
UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.3 1,067 1,114 382 0.14 Unit A of USW G-1 and Rhyolite of Argillized, NW-PW ash-flow tuff
Picture Rock
Test Well 8 563,111.75 4,113,271.15 1,735.7 1,673.4 325.1 619.0 325.1 0.15 Comendite of Quartet Dome Comendite lava flows and partly zeolitized,
NW-MW ash-flow tuff
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 81

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
06/02/98 06/11/98 12,500 Pumping UE-25 c#2 0.33 Drawdown 0.55 ND 17 0.00005 ND Cooper (1963)* Geldon et al. (1999)

06/11/98 09/01/98 118,159 Injection UE-25 c#3 0.095 Head rise 1.6 ND 30 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Geldon et al. (1999)
(1978)
05/08/96 11/12/97 796,663 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.21 Drawdown 11 ND 970 0.01 ND Streltsova-Adams Geldon et al. (2002)
(1978)
05/22/95 06/01/95 14,403 Pumping UE-25 c#3 17.9 Drawdown 16 ND 2,900 0.003 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

02/07/83 02/09/83 3,150 Pumping Same 22.1 Drawdown 0.55 ND 17 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Craig and Robison
(1978)* (1984)
02/07/83 02/09/83 3,150 Pumping Same 22.1 Drawdown 0.022 ND 0.84 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Craig and Robison
(1978)* (1984)
Feb-83 Feb-83 170 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0083 ND 0.58 ND ND Cooper et al. Craig and Robison
(1967) (1984)
02/07/83 02/09/83 3,150 Pumping Same 22.1 Drawdown 0.015 ND 2.0 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Craig and Robison
(1978)* (1984)
04/08/96 04/25/96 24,480 Pumping Same 3.60 Drawdown 0.044 ND 11 ND ND Theis (1935)* OBrien (1998)

01/07/83 01/07/83 60 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.029 ND 1.2 ND ND Cooper et al. Lobmeyer (1986)
(1967)
01/08/83 01/11/83 60-200 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.021 ND 2.7 ND ND Cooper et al. Lobmeyer (1986)
(1967)
12/05/82 12/09/82 5,740 Pumping Same 15.7 Drawdown 1.7 ND 110 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Bentley (1984);
Lobmeyer (1986)
05/08/96 08/06/97 655,242 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.29 Drawdown 6.3 ND 650 0.001 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)
10/19/80 10/20/80 2,880 Pumping Same 3.48 Drawdown 1.9 ND 150 ND ND Theis (1935) Rush et al. (1983, 1984)
12/06/80 12/08/80 3,383 Pumping Same 2.26 Drawdown 0.020 ND 0.14 ND ND Theis (1935) Rush et al. (1983, 1984)
12/06/80 12/08/80 3,383 Pumping Same 2.26 Drawdown 0.038 ND 0.84 ND ND Theis (1935) Rush et al. (1983, 1984)

Jan-84 Jan-84 20,520 Pumping Same 0.16 Drawdown 0.0074 ND 0.92 ND ND Theis (1935) Thordarson et al. (1985)

Jan-84 Jan-84 20,520 Pumping Same 0.16 Drawdown 0.015 ND 0.084 ND ND Theis (1935) Thordarson et al. (1985)
05/08/96 12/02/96 300,000 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.59 Drawdown 5.0 ND 560 0.002 ND Walton (1970)* Whitfield et al. (1985);
Geldon et al. (2002)
05/22/95 06/01/95 14,403 Pumping UE-25 c#3 17.9 Drawdown 17 ND 3,200 0.002 ND Theis (1935) Whitfield et al. (1985);
Geldon et al. (1998)
07/25/82 07/26/82 1,756 Pumping Same 7.6 Drawdown 0.39 ND 35 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Bentley et al. (1983);
Robison and Craig
(1991)
07/25/82 07/26/82 1,756 Pumping Same 7.6 Drawdown 0.12 ND 3.5 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Bentley et al. (1983);
Robison and Craig
(1991)
10/10/82 10/13/82 4,184 Pumping Same 28.4 Drawdown 0.25 ND 12 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Craig and Reed (1991)
10/10/82 10/13/82 4,184 Pumping Same 28.4 Drawdown 0.52 ND 5.7 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Craig and Reed (1991)
Jun-84 Jun-84 15,540 Pumping Same 13.4 Drawdown 0.30 ND 3.3 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Craig and Reed (1991)
02/18/99 02/20/99 3,030 Pumping Same 10.7 Drawdown 0.49 ND 82 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Questa Engineering
(1978)* Corp. (1999)
05/22/95 06/01/95 14,000 Pumping UE-25 c#3 17.9 Drawdown 14 ND 2,500 0.002 ND Neuman (1975)* Geldon et al. (1998)

05/08/96 05/29/96 30,000 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.72 Drawdown 26 ND 2,600 0.0005 ND Cooper and Geldon et al. (2002)
Jacob (1946)

05/08/96 06/26/96 70,000 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.72 Drawdown 24 ND 2,400 0.0006 ND Cooper and Graves (1998, 2000);
Jacob (1946)* Geldon (1999, 2000)

05/08/96 03/26/97 464,100 Pumping UE-25 c#3 9.53 Drawdown 22 ND 2,200 0.002 ND Theis (1935) Geldon et al. (2002)

02/07/83 02/09/83 120 - 3,150 Pumping Same Variable Drawdown 0.023 ND 1.1 ND ND Streltsova-Adams Craig and Robison
(1978)* (1984)
01/10/63 01/11/63 2,100 Pumping Same 25.2 Drawdown 1.9 ND 410 ND ND Neuman (1975)* West and Thordarson
(1963); Winograd
(1965)
82 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

Test Well 8 563,111.75 4,113,271.15 1,735.7 1,673.4 619.0 1,673.4 325.1 0.097 Tuff of Yucca Flat to Tuff of Twin Peaks PW-DW ash-flow tuff and zeolitized bedded
tuff

UE-20f 545,389.67 4,124,898.04 1,864.3 4,171.5 3,011.1 3,378.7 541.5 0.11 Rhyolite of Handley Rhyolite flow breccia

UE-20f 545,389.67 4,124,898.04 1,864.3 4,171.5 3,707.6 3,879.2 541.5 0.11 Dacite of Mt. Helen (?) Rhyodacite lava flow

UE-20j 541,285.59 4,128,081.76 1,799.2 1,734.3 1,107.6 1,168.0 387.2 0.13 Rhyolite of Handley Rhyolite flow breccia

Test Well E 589,358.97 4,101,335.13 1,271.6 600.5 523.2 600.5 523.2 0.15 Tunnel Fm, Tunnel bed 2, and Tuff of Zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff
Yucca Flat
Test Well E 589,358.97 4,101,335.13 1,271.6 600.5 546.2 600.5 523.2 0.15 Tuff of Yucca Flat Zeolitized, NW ash-flow tuff

U-3cn 5 586,921.42 4,101,713.19 1,222.9 923.5 559.9 603.5 508.7 0.16 Tuff of Yucca Flat Fractured, PW ash-flow tuff

U-3cn 5 586,921.42 4,101,713.19 1,222.9 923.5 603.5 654.7 508.1 0.13 Tuff of Yucca Flat to Redrock Valley Very fractured, partly zeolitized, NW-MW ash-
Tuff flow tuff and bedded tuff
U-3cn 5 586,921.42 4,101,713.19 1,222.9 923.5 670.6 726.9 502.9 0.13 Redrock Valley Tuff and Tuff of Twin Partly zeolitized, NW-MW ash-flow tuff
Peaks
Test Well 2 581,016.62 4,113,486.03 1,362.5 623.3 587.5 623.3 587.5 0.14 Tuff of Yucca Flat to Redrock Valley Zeolitized and argillized, NW ash-flow tuff
Tuff
Test Well 2 581,016.62 4,113,486.03 1,362.5 723.3 646.5 723.3 ND 0.14 Redrock Valley Tuff and Tuff of Twin Zeolitized and argillized, NW ash-flow tuff
Peaks
Watertown 1 WW 605,595.53 4,122,450.17 1,353.6 204.2 171.0 204.2 150.0 0.10 Volcanic rocks of the Groom Range DW ash-flow tuff and zeolitized bedded tuff
and Jumbled Hills
HTH-1 568,543.15 4,275,398.56 1,832.1 1,126.2 731.7 750.0 166.8 0.12 Monotony Tuff DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-3 576,919.94 4,267,658.04 1,802.7 1,831.5 1,056.1 1,171.0 169.8 0.12 Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak Argillized, PW-DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-3 576,919.94 4,267,658.04 1,802.7 1,831.5 1,431.6 1,831.5 172.6 0.11 Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak Argillized, PW-DW ash-flow tuff and
volcaniclastic rocks
HTH-4 584,897.68 4,265,713.88 1,776.3 1,839.7 265.2 271.3 151.1 0.17 Tuff of Palisade Mesa (?) DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-4 584,897.68 4,265,713.88 1,776.3 1,839.7 615.7 1,792.2 159.5 0.070 Tuffs of Halligan Mesa and Williams NW-DW ash-flow tuff
Ridge and Morey Peak
HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 694.6 706.5 151.6 0.12 Tuff of Lunar Cuesta NW-PW ash-flow tuff

HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 709.5 749.2 151.6 0.12 Shingle Pass Tuff NW-DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 1,109.4 1,167.3 152.4 0.12 Monotony Tuff DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 1,534.6 1,592.5 151.6 0.12 Oligocene felsic lava flows Rhyolite to rhyodacite lava flows

HTH-21-1 580,377.29 4,271,115.80 1,786.8 1,981.1 1,737.4 1,828.8 152.4 0.12 Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak PW-DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-23 585,203.09 4,262,246.59 1,766.3 2,285.9 1,377.7 1,891.3 144.0 0.086 Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak PW-DW ash-flow tuff

HTH-23 585,203.09 4,262,246.59 1,766.3 2,285.9 1,911.0 1,943.9 136.6 0.086 Tuff of Williams Ridge and Morey Peak PW-DW ash-flow tuff

UCe-2 536,397.50 4,239,403.72 1,889.8 505.7 247.5 369.4 ND 0.078 Tuff of Kiln Canyon Fractured, argillized, PW-DW ash-flow tuff

UCe-2 536,397.50 4,239,403.72 1,889.8 505.7 396.3 505.7 ND 0.078 Tuff of Big Ten Peak Fractured, argillized, PW ash-flow tuff

UCe-3 531,589.22 4,313,188.33 2,164.1 609.6 72.2 121.9 72.2 0.081 Shingle Pass Tuff Argillized, PW-DW ash-flow tuff

UCe-3 531,589.22 4,313,188.33 2,164.1 609.6 399.3 453.5 72.2 0.088 Oligocene mafic lava flows Variably argillized andesite lava flows

UCe-3 531,589.22 4,313,188.33 2,164.1 609.6 454.8 609.6 72.6 0.085 Oligocene mafic lava flows Variably argillized andesite lava flows with
gravelly sandstone
UCe-16 523,254.09 4,302,423.31 2,095.5 1,326.8 1,022.9 1,138.1 15.8 0.15 Oligocene felsic lava flows Argillized rhyolite lava flows

UCe-17 568,049.79 4,281,240.26 1,995.4 2,431.7 957.0 1,018.0 269 0.15 Tuff of Moores Station Buttes and Bedded tuff and DW ash-flow tuff
unnamed tuff
UCe-17 568,049.79 4,281,240.26 1,995.4 2,431.7 1,367.7 1,469.5 272 0.13 Tuffaceous rocks of the Needles area DW ash-flow tuff
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 83

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
01/04/63 01/05/63 1,855 Pumping Same 4.86 Drawdown 0.068 ND 4.5 ND ND Theis (1935) West and Thordarson
(1963); IT Corporation
(1996)
08/09/64 08/11/64 2,800 Pumping Same 6.92 Drawdown 0.014 ND 0.096 ND ND Hantush (1961)* Blankennagel et al.
(1964); Blankennagel
and Weir (1965)
08/09/64 08/11/64 2,800 Pumping Same 6.92 Drawdown 0.0012 ND 0.036 ND ND Hantush (1961)* Blankennagel et al.
(1964); Blankennagel
and Weir (1965)
Oct-64 Oct-64 10 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.054 ND 3.3 ND ND Cooper et al. Blankennagel and Weir
(1967) (1966)
08/02/60 08/07/60 6,460 Bailing- Same 0.74 Residual 0.00052 ND 0.040 ND ND Theis (1935) West and Thordarson
recovery drawdown recovery* (1965)
10/02/60 10/03/60 1,208 Bailing- Same 0.45 Residual 0.0013 ND 0.070 ND ND Theis (1935) West and Thordarson
recovery drawdown recovery * (1965)
01/03/66 01/05/66 2,990 Swabbing- Same NA Recovery 0.0084 ND 0.37 ND ND Theis (1935) Garber and Johnston
recovery recovery * (1967)
01/01/66 01/03/66 3,090 Swabbing- Same NA Recovery 0.016 ND 0.83 ND ND Theis (1935) Garber and Johnston
recovery recovery * (1967)
12/19/65 12/22/65 4,080 Swabbing- Same NA Recovery 0.0017 ND 0.095 ND ND Theis (1935) Garber and Johnston
recovery recovery * (1967)
03/24/61 03/25/61 1,107 Bailing- Same 1.32 Residual 0.0036 ND 0.13 ND ND Theis (1935) Moore et al. (1963)
recovery drawdown recovery *
05/30/61 05/30/61 217 Bailing- Same 0.31 Residual 0.0043 ND 0.10 ND ND Theis (1935) Moore et al. (1963)
recovery drawdown recovery *
06/24/55 06/24/55 720 Pumping Same 1.4 Drawdown 0.080 ND 2.7 ND ND Cooper (1963) IT Corporation (1996)

08/01/67 08/01/67 100 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.018 ND 0.33 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)
08/27/68 08/30/68 80-380 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.10 ND 12 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1970b)
(1967)
10/26/68 10/28/68 2,584 Pumping Same 1.58 Drawdown 0.0019 ND 0.18 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Dinwiddie (1970b)

01/21/69 01/21/69 325 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.12 ND 0.73 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1970c)
(1967)
02/04/69 02/04/69 445 Injection Same 3.15 Residual 0.40 ND 18 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie (1970c)
head rise
08/21/68 08/22/68 1,700 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 6.5 ND 78 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
08/21/68 08/22/68 1,700 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 0.59 ND 23 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
08/21/68 08/22/68 1,700 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 0.72 ND 42 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
08/21/68 08/22/68 1,700 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 0.58 ND 33 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
08/21/68 08/22/68 1,700 Pumping Same 15.1 Drawdown 0.051 ND 4.5 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie (1970d);
Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
11/22/68 11/22/68 912 Pumping Same 1.01 Drawdown 0.0049 ND 1.1 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Dinwiddie (1970e);
Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
12/16/68 12/16/68 150 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.15 ND 4.8 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1970e);
(1967) Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1971)
01/16/67 01/16/67 4.5-150 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.067 ND 7.9 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1970f)
(1967)*
01/21/67 01/21/67 26-90 Slug-injection; Same Variable Recovery; 0.57 ND 63 ND ND Theis (1935); Dinwiddie (1970f)
swabbing- residual Cooper et al.
recovery drawdown (1967)*
02/19/67 02/19/67 180 Swabbing- Same 0.16 Residual 0.0064 ND 0.32 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie (1970g)
recovery drawdown recovery *
02/15/67 02/15/67 200 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0094 ND 0.51 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1970g)
(1967)*
02/11/67 02/12/67 1,980 Swabbing- Same 0.48 Residual 0.0027 ND 0.23 ND ND Theis (1935)* Dinwiddie (1970g)
recovery drawdown
03/27/67 03/27/67 1,010 Swabbing- Same 0.091 Residual 0.000013 ND 0.0015 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie and Schroder
recovery drawdown recovery * (1971)
06/25/67 06/25/67 30 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0029 ND 0.18 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)*
06/24/67 06/25/67 45-60 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.087 ND 8.9 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)*
84 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

UCe-17 568,049.79 4,281,240.26 1,995.4 2,431.7 1,960.4 2,273.5 ND 0.12 Tuff of Hot Creek Canyon (?) PW-DW ash-flow tuff

UCe-18 570,423.78 4,270,952.61 1,756.6 1,985.5 123.7 1,865.4 56.0 0.12 Oligocene felsic lava flows Fractured, argillized rhyolite lava flows and
flow breccias
Uce-20 568,069.77 4,271,868.87 1,755.3 1,829.3 1,481.4 1,617.7 ND 0.14 Tuff of Moores Station Buttes Slightly fractured to brecciated, PW-DW
ash-flow tuff
Uce-20 568,069.77 4,271,868.87 1,755.3 1,829.3 1,652.4 1,670.7 65.5 0.12 Tuff of Moores Station Buttes Bedded tuff

Uce-20 568,069.77 4,271,868.87 1,755.3 1,829.3 1,680.0 1,829.3 82.9 0.13 Tuffaceous rocks of the Needles area NW-DW ash-flow tuff

Adobe Federal 16-1 601,489.88 4,238,938.44 1,447.5 1,202.4 380.4 409.0 ND 0.089 Garrett Ranch Group Lava flows, NW-DW ash-flow tuff, ash-fall tuff,
and sandstone
TERTIARY AND MESOZOIC GRANITIC ROCKS
U-15-32 583,748.77 4,120,261.94 1,547.2 276.4 129.1 276.4 129.1 0.11 Climax Stock Fractured quartz monzonite porphyry and
granodiorite
U-15-GZ-2 583,917.75 4,120,387.47 1,549.9 548.6 132.4 548.6 132.4 0.078 Climax Stock Fractured quartz monzonite porphyry and
granodiorite
U-15-35 583,561.96 4,119,745.99 1,518.2 246.0 27.7 246.0 27.7 0.076 Climax Stock Fractured quartz monzonite porphyry and
granodiorite
U-15a-31 583,441.23 4,120,197.49 1,558.1 365.8 310.9 319.1 310.9 0.044 Climax Stock Fractured, argillized, and chloritized
granodiorite
UCe-1 507,521.34 4,270,166.68 2,148.8 609.6 121.9 182.3 64.5 0.12 Belmont Stock Fractured, partly argillized granite,
granodiorite, and quartz monzonite
UCe-1 507,521.34 4,270,166.68 2,148.8 609.6 459.6 520.0 65.1 0.12 Belmont Stock Fractured, partly argillized granite,
granodiorite, and quartz monzonite
UCe-1 507,521.34 4,270,166.68 2,148.8 609.6 521.2 609.6 65.1 0.12 Belmont Stock Fractured, partly argillized granite,
granodiorite, and quartz monzonite
17S/2E-6F11 517335.89 3,620,537.35 498.4 13.9 11.9 24.1 11.0 10.0 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

17S/2E-6F12 ND ND 499.7 17.1 11.9 24.1 9.4 19.2 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

17S/2E-7C6 ND ND 460.7 7.2 3.0 12.2 3.0 7.4 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

17S/2E-5N7 ND ND 505.9 100.0 23.5 33.5 23.1 8.9 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

17S/2E-6R3 ND ND 502.9 48.5 11.6 24.4 11.5 9.4 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

16S/2E-31N6 ND ND 527.5 94.8 14.0 27.4 13.0 9.4 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured, weathered granodiorite

17S/2E-6R3 ND ND 502.9 48.5 24.4 61.0 11.5 9.4 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured granodiorite

17S/2E-6F14 ND ND 498.9 57.6 24.7 60.4 7.2 29.4 Peninsular Ranges batholith Fractured granodiorite

MESOZOIC AND PERMIAN SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Spring Mt. Ranch well 639,459.71 3,992,498.52 1,152.1 21.3 2.4 21.3 2.4 0.15 Chinle Formation Gravelly sandstone and conglomerate

Virgin River USA 1-A 726,738.60 4,279,652.11 580.6 5,962.5 3,585.7 3,600.9 ND 0.049 Toroweap Formation Limestone, sandstone, anhydrite
Upper Valley Unit #11 433,230.91 4,167,664.42 2,289.0 2,171.7 2,114.1 2,127.5 ND 0.049 Kaibab Formation Cherty dolomite
Lyons Federal #1 446,879.08 4,152,310.18 2,045.2 2,526.8 2,224.4 2,234.2 ND 0.049 Kaibab Formation Cherty dolomite
Federal #28-13 496,434.20 4,137,594.88 1,429.8 942.4 835.5 840.3 ND 0.049 Kaibab Formation Sandy dolomite
Tibbet Canyon #1 435,443.92 4,130,694.19 1,874.8 2,845.6 2,473.5 2,481.7 ND 0.049 Kaibab Formation Cherty dolomite
A J Button #1 447,080.12 4,176,131.78 1,758.1 1,671.2 1,519.4 1,528.6 ND 0.049 Toroweap Formation Sandstone and dolomite
Woolsey #1 449,538.43 4,169,736.78 1,766.9 1,780.0 1,614.5 1,621.5 ND 0.049 Toroweap Formation Sandstone, dolomite, and anhydrite
Richter Federal #1 487,947.97 4,135,631.11 1,461.5 ND 955.2 967.1 ND 0.049 Toroweap Formation Sandstone and dolomite
Kanab Creek Unit #1 ND ND 1,879.1 2,779.5 1,399.0 1,403.3 ND 0.049 Toroweap Formation Sandstone and dolomite
Taylor Canyon #1 ND ND 1,219.2 152.4 113.7 152.4 ND ND White Rim Sandstone Quartz sandstone

Taylor Canyon #3 591,738.93 4,258,805.40 1,271.0 178.3 128.0 178.3 ND ND White Rim Sandstone Quartz sandstone

Taylor Canyon #2 594,331.52 4,258,835.43 1,292.4 178.3 140.5 178.3 ND ND White Rim Sandstone Quartz sandstone

Blue Mesa #1 512,408.36 4,238,560.67 1,472.2 2,491.4 1,555.1 1,572.5 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Quartz sandstone
Johns Valley ND ND 2,466.7 3,407.7 2,791.4 2,801.4 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Quartzitic sandstone
Federal #1
Bryce #1 ND ND 2,352.4 3,420.2 3,390.0 3,420.2 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Sandstone, siltstone, and anhydrite
Upper Valley 435,102.43 4,162,656.69 2,208.6 3,033.1 2,392.7 2,427.4 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Calcareous sandstone
Unit #21
Rees Canyon #1 465,141.59 4,134,338.64 1,900.1 ND 1,986.1 1,993.4 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Dolomitic sandstone
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 85

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
06/21/67 06/23/67 105-430 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.00038 ND 0.093 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie (1968, 1970a)
(1967)
06/14/67 06/14/67 721 Pumping Same 10.6 Residual 0.11 ND 26 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie and Schroder
drawdown recovery * (1971)
12/19/67 12/20/67 100 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.00099 ND 0.14 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1967) (1971)
01/05/68 01/05/68 2.5 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 1.1 ND 20 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1967)* (1971)
01/03/68 01/03/68 6 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.13 ND 13 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie and Schroder
(1967)* (1971)
Oct-82 Oct-82 90 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.0082 ND 0.24 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
TERTIARY AND MESOZOIC GRANITIC ROCKS
12/16/60 12/16/60 90 Slug- Same NA Residual 0.18 ND 26 ND ND Cooper et al. Walker (1962)
withdrawal drawdown (1967)*
02/06/61 02/06/61 140 Slug- Same NA Residual 0.018 ND 7.4 ND ND Skibitzke (1963)* Walker (1962)
withdrawal drawdown
08/26/60 08/26/60 97 Injection Same 3.8 Residual 0.0033 ND 0.71 ND ND Theis (1935) Walker (1962)
head rise recovery *
04/29/59 04/29/59 165 Slug-injection Same NA Residual 0.051 ND 0.42 ND ND Cooper et al. Price (1960); Houser
head rise (1967)* and Poole (1959)
02/12/67 02/13/67 1,020 Swabbing- Same 0.25 Residual 0.017 ND 1.1 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie (1970h)
recovery drawdown recovery *
02/01/67 02/02/67 450 Swabbing- Same 0.29 Residual 0.00056 ND 0.034 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie (1970h)
recovery drawdown recovery *
02/01/67 02/01/67 255 Swabbing- Same 0.65 Residual 0.00077 ND 0.068 ND ND Theis (1935) Dinwiddie (1970h)
recovery drawdown recovery *
01/10/88 01/11/88 1,200 Pumping 17S/2E-6F9 0.15 Drawdown 0.067 0.018 0.82 0.00007 ND Kaehler and Kaehler and Hsieh
Hsieh (1994) (1994)
01/10/88 01/11/88 1,200 Pumping 17S/2E-6F9 0.15 Drawdown 0.067 0.011 0.82 0.00004 ND Kaehler and Kaehler and Hsieh
Hsieh (1994) (1994)
12/08/87 12/08/87 400 Pumping 17S/2E-7C1 0.13 Drawdown 0.73 0.020 6.7 0.0002 ND Neuman (1972, Kaehler and Hsieh
1973, 1974) (1994)
12/13/87 12/13/87 420 Pumping 17S/2E-5N5 0.12 Drawdown 0.49 0.52 4.7 0.001 0.002 Neuman (1972, Kaehler and Hsieh
1973, 1974) (1994)
01/24/88 01/24/88 240 Pumping 17S/2E-6R2 0.082 Drawdown 1.3 0.26 17 0.002 ND Kaehler and Kaehler and Hsieh
Hsieh (1994) (1994)
01/20/88 01/20/88 460 Pumping 16S/2E-31N4 0.043 Drawdown 0.34 5.2 4.6 0.00004 0.006 Neuman (1972, Kaehler and Hsieh
1973, 1974) (1994)
01/24/88 01/24/88 240 Pumping 17S/2E-6R2 0.082 Drawdown 0.026 0.079 0.93 0.00001 ND Kaehler and Kaehler and Hsieh
Hsieh (1994) (1994)
01/15/88 01/15/88 390 Pumping 17S/2E-6F9 0.25 Drawdown 0.0052 0.26 0.18 0.00004 ND Kaehler and Kaehler and Hsieh
Hsieh (1994) (1994)
MESOZOIC AND PERMIAN SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
08/27/74 08/27/74 540 Pumping Same 4.08 Drawdown 11 ND 200 ND ND Cooper and Westphal et al. (1975)
Jacob (1946)*
May-80 May-80 120 Drill-stem Same 0.40 Recovery 0.00043 ND 0.0065 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper (1988)
1968 1968 180 Drill-stem Same 0.24 Recovery 0.0070 ND 0.094 ND ND Geldon (1989) Geldon (1989)
1970 1970 120 Drill-stem Same 0.12 Recovery 0.00019 ND 0.0019 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1972 1972 30 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.034 ND 0.16 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1969 1969 180 Drill-stem Same 0.44 Recovery 0.0024 ND 0.020 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1963 1963 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00076 ND 0.0070 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1973 1973 60 Drill-stem Same 0.56 Recovery 0.00058 ND 0.0041 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1969 1969 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.0018 ND 0.022 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1962 1962 60 Drill-stem Same 0.11 Recovery 0.0014 ND 0.0060 ND ND Geldon (1989) Geldon (1989)
09/15/66 09/15/66 2,880 Pumping Same 2.8 Specific 0.43 ND 17 ND ND Driscoll (1986) Geldon (1989)
capacity
03/03/69 03/03/69 2,880 Pumping Same 6.4 Specific 0.13 ND 6.4 ND ND Driscoll (1986) Geldon (1989)
capacity
02/20/69 02/20/69 2,880 Pumping Same 2.5 Specific 0.055 ND 2.1 ND ND Driscoll (1986) Geldon (1989)
capacity
1958 1958 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.28 ND 4.9 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1970 1970 120 Drill-stem Same 0.11 Recovery 0.00012 ND 0.0012 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)

1957 1957 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00046 ND 0.014 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
1970 1970 90 Drill-stem Same 1.4 Recovery 0.0015 ND 0.052 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)

1953 1953 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.0019 ND 0.014 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)
86 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

Rock Creek 482,257.95 4,120,140.35 1,267.1 1,209.8 969.3 983.0 ND 0.049 White Rim Sandstone Gypsiferous sandstone
Federal #1
Needles #4 605,886.26 4,222,171.66 1,548.4 23.5 7.3 23.5 ND ND Cedar Mesa Sandstone Quartz sandstone

Carter Federal #2 565,349.55 4,252,597.26 1,681.3 1,686.8 981.2 991.5 ND 0.049 Cutler Group Sandstone, siltstone, and shale

Carter Federal #2 565,349.55 4,252,597.26 1,681.3 1,686.8 1,077.2 1,093.3 ND 0.049 Cutler Group Limestone, dolomite, and sandstone

Hans Flat well 571,892.17 4,234,532.03 2,002.5 838.2 777.2 838.2 ND 0.11 Cutler Group Sandstone, shale, and limestone

Government #1 545,553.42 4,224,044.04 1,672.1 1,920.5 1,102.8 1,111.9 ND 0.049 Cutler Group Limestone and sandstone

Poison Springs USA 535,177.22 4,220,663.82 1,490.8 1,633.1 1,208.8 1,212.8 ND 0.049 Cutler Group Siltstone and shale
#A-2
(D36-18) 31cb-1 ND ND ND ND 178.3 404.5 ND ND Cutler Group Sandstone and shale
Elk Ridge #1 ND ND 2,029.5 1,057.4 127.1 494.1 ND 0.050 Cutler Group Sandstone, shale, and limestone

PALEOZOIC CARBONATE ROCKS

EH-4 703,978.00 4,064,562.00 589.2 86.9 35.1 86.9 35.1 4,083 Bird Spring Formation Karstic, fractured dolomite and limestone

MX-CE-DT-4 688,084.81 4,074,032.58 662.2 203.9 107.4 203.9 107.4 96.6 Monte Cristo Limestone Karstic, fractured limestone and cherty
limestone
MX-CE-DT-4 688,084.81 4,074,032.58 662.2 203.9 107.5 203.9 107.5 0.13 Monte Cristo Limestone Karstic, fractured limestone and cherty
limestone
MX-CE-DT-6 697,525.01 4,071,193.18 693.3 285.6 139.4 285.6 139.4 0.13 Monte Cristo Limestone Faulted, fractured limestone

DOC Federal 5-18 601,489.88 4,238,854.06 1,467.0 1,771.8 1,728.5 1,745.0 ND 0.089 Joana Limestone Cherty limestone

Adobe Federal 19-1 650,521.49 4,208,938.44 1,527.7 2,348.8 2,286.0 2,348.8 ND 0.089 Joana Limestone Cherty limestone

Grant Canyon #5 623,881.20 4,256,955.56 1,442.9 1,462.4 1,386.2 1,416.7 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

Grant Canyon #4 624,551.78 4,257,490.06 1,443.8 1,286.3 1,229.6 1,237.8 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

Grant Canyon #3 624,157.79 4,257,884.77 1,443.8 1,311.2 1,199.1 1,207.3 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

Bacon Flat #1 622,749.24 4,258,048.12 1,440.5 1,661.2 1,620.0 1,629.5 ND 0.070 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

Adobe Federal 16-1 601,489.88 4,238,938.44 1,447.5 1,202.4 1,153.7 1,197.9 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

Lone Tree 1-14-43 619,157.87 4,248,467.47 1,449.0 1,386.8 1,332.6 1,350.3 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Limestone and dolomite

U-3cn 5 586,909.64 4,101,710.24 1,222.9 923.5 863.2 923.5 494.8 0.074 Guilmette Formation Faulted, brecciated dolomite, dolomitic
limestone, and quartzite
Dobbin Creek Fed 533,461.88 4,315,961.48 2,140.0 1,426.2 1,112.5 1,229.6 ND 0.089 Guilmette Formation Dolomite
A-1-6
Dobbin Creek Fed 533,461.88 4,315,961.48 2,140.0 1,426.2 1,097.3 1,115.6 ND 0.089 Simonson Dolomite Dolomite
A-1-6
Dobbin Creek Fed 533,461.88 4,315,961.48 2,140.0 1,426.2 975.4 1,060.1 ND 0.089 Sevy and Laketown Dolomites Dolomite
A-1-6
Grant Canyon #1 624,170.17 4,257,083.35 1,443.2 1,367.6 1,322.8 1,353.6 ND 0.089 Simonson Dolomite Vuggy, brecciated dolomite

ER-12-1 572,411.44 4,115,492.80 1,773.5 1,093.6 516.0 555.0 470 0.21 Simonson Dolomite Thrust-faulted, brecciated dolomite

NCAP-DR-1 642,194.31 4,046,912.86 1,090.9 292.6 262.1 292.6 248.6 0.12 Simonson Dolomite Sparsely fractured dolomite

ER-6-1 589,617.88 4,093,417.75 1,200.9 977.2 554.6 649.1 476.8 0.16 Sevy Dolomite Dolomite

UE-25 p#1 551,508.58 4,075,662.87 1,114.2 1,805.0 1,297.2 1,805.3 360.9 0.098 Simonson and Laketown Dolomites Faulted, fractured, and vuggy dolomite

Test Well 2 581,016.62 4,113,486.03 1,362.5 882.7 823.9 882.7 626.8 0.10 Pogonip Group Dolomite

Test Well 2 581,016.62 4,113,486.03 1,362.5 1,043.0 896.1 1,043.0 631.1 0.10 Pogonip Group Fractured dolomite, shaly limestone, and
argillite
UE-7ns 588,641.95 4,106,104.55 1,331.9 672.1 600.7 672.1 600.7 0.14 Pogonip Group Faulted, very fractured, locally vuggy
limestone
Test Well 3 601,938.92 4,074,016.96 1,063.5 564.8 363.3 564.8 336.2 0.089 Pogonip Group Faulted, brecciated dolomite, fractured
limestone, and shale
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 87

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
1970 1970 180 Drill-stem Same 0.30 Recovery 0.021 ND 0.28 ND ND Geldon (1989) Geldon (1989)

05/20/65 05/20/65 ND Pumping Same 0.82 Specific 0.76 ND 12 ND ND Driscoll (1986) Geldon (1989)
capacity
1956 1956 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00049 ND 0.0051 ND ND Earlougher Geldon (1989)
(1977)
1956 1956 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00049 ND 0.0079 ND ND Earlougher Geldon (1989)
(1977)
11/05/73 11/05/73 480 Pumping Same 0.32 Specific 0.0058 ND 0.35 ND ND Lohman (1979) Geldon (1989)
capacity
1957 1957 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00076 ND 0.0070 ND ND Earlougher Geldon (1989)
(1977)
1959 1959 ND Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00037 ND 0.0014 ND ND Horner (1951) Geldon (1989)

ND ND ND Pumping Same ND ND 0.0082 ND 1.9 ND ND ND Geldon (1989)

Mar-82 Mar-82 416 Pumping Same 0.30 Drawdown 0.00091 ND 0.29 ND ND Cooper and Geldon (1989)
Jacob (1946)
PALEOZOIC CARBONATE ROCKS
12/09/93 04/09/94 174,240 Pumping Arrow Canyon 183.0 Drawdown 660 ND 34,000 ND ND Cooper and Buqo (1994)
Jacob (1946)
08/28/81 09/27/81 29,021 Pumping MX-CE-DT-5 214.5 Drawdown 520 100 50,000 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Berger et al. (1988)

12/20/80 12/23/80 4,620 Pumping Same 34.0 Drawdown 190 ND 19,000 ND ND Cooper and Berger et al. (1988)
Jacob (1946)
12/09/86 12/12/86 3,963 Pumping Same 29.8 Drawdown 5.1 ND 740 ND ND Cooper and Berger et al. (1988)
Jacob (1946)
Nov-86 Nov-86 120 Drill-stem Same 3.88 Recovery 0.47 ND 7.8 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Oct-79 Oct-79 120 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 1.2 ND 76 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Aug-84 Aug-84 60 Drill-stem Same 2.14 Recovery 0.14 ND 4.3 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Jun-84 Jun-84 62 Drill-stem Same 5.2 Recovery 5.8 ND 46 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Aug-84 Aug-84 60 Drill-stem Same 1.42 Recovery 2.6 ND 21 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Jul-81 Jul-81 ND Drill-stem Same 0.25 Recovery 0.040 ND 0.39 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Oct-82 Oct-82 60 Drill-stem Same 1.59 Recovery 0.74 ND 33 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Feb-87 Feb-87 120 Drill-stem Same 11.8 Recovery 0.033 ND 0.58 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
03/06/67 04/06/67 43,288 Pumping Same 4.99 Drawdown 0.11 ND 3.4 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Garber and Johnston
(1967)
Jan-85 Jan-85 3,768 Drill-stem Same 1.0 Recovery 0.012 ND 1.1 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Jan-85 Jan-85 93 Drill-stem Same 0.12 Recovery 0.0061 ND 0.049 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Jan-85 Jan-85 1,245 Drill-stem Same 1.57 Recovery 0.034 ND 0.76 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Sep-83 Sep-83 60 Drill-stem Same 0.85 Recovery 0.026 ND 0.79 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
01/04/93 01/05/93 1,683 Pumping Same 3.15 Drawdown 1.7 ND 38 ND ND Hydrogeochem, Russell et al. (1996)
Inc. (1988)
02/03/89 02/04/89 1,638 Pumping Same 0.91 Drawdown 1.4 ND 42 ND ND Cooper and Dettinger et al. (1995)
Jacob (1946)
Nov-92 Nov-92 ND Pumping Same ND Drawdown 14 ND 1,300 ND ND Theis (1935) IT Corporation (1996)
(?) (?)
05/08/83 05/12/83 6,080 Pumping Same 31.5 Drawdown 0.46 ND 110 ND ND Cooper and Craig and Robison
Jacob (1946) (1984); Carr et al. (1986)
01/15/62 01/15/62 177 Swabbing- Same 0.79 Residual 0.044 ND 2.6 ND ND Theis (1935) Moore et al. (1963)
recovery drawdown recovery*
03/16/62 03/20/62 5,130 Pumping Same 3.78 Drawdown 0.065 ND 4.9 ND ND Cooper and Moore et al. (1963)
Jacob (1946)
04/02/84 04/25/84 33,415 Pumping Same 0.091 Drawdown 0.012 ND 0.89 ND ND Theis (1935) Winograd and Rush
(unpublished report)
05/09/62 05/10/62 1,000 Pumping Same 1.89 Drawdown 0.032 ND 2.2 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Meyer and Young
(1962); Winograd
(1965)
88 A.L. Geldon

Observation well UTM east UTM north Altitude Well depth Top Bottom SWL Radius or Geologic Unit Lithologic description
coordinate coordinate (m AMSL) (m) (m) (m) (m below interwell
(m) (m) LSD) distance
(m)

Test Well E 589,358.97 4,101,335.13 1,271.6 798.6 765.0 798.6 561.7 0.078 Pogonip Group Cherty dolomite

UE-2ce WW 576,799.00 4,110,765.30 1,452.2 502.9 434.6 502.9 434.6 0.16 Pogonip Group and Nopah Fm Fractured dolomite
Test Well 4 607,599.05 4,049,554.31 1,060.4 454.2 224.2 454.2 224.2 0.10 Nopah Formation Faulted, fractured dolomite and limestone

UE-1q 583,722.70 4,101,770.53 1,244.1 792.5 749.5 792.5 504.6 0.091 Nopah Formation Fractured, shaly limestone and dolomite
Test Well 10 602,673.84 4,049,894.72 1,087.8 396.5 297.2 396.5 255.2 0.21 Bonanza King Formation Faulted, very fractured cherty limestone,
dolomitic limestone, and dolomite
UE-10j 581,538.31 4,115,648.40 1,394.1 796.4 670.1 795.7 658.7 0.16 Bonanza King Formation Fractured dolomite and limestone

Army #1 WW 586,119.84 4,049,799.54 961.3 593.1 239.8 593.1 239.8 0.13 Bonanza King Formation Faulted, fractured dolomite and limestone

ATS TH-1 569,251.85 4,043,609.54 733.1 253.0 188.5 253.0 13.7 122.8 Bonanza King and Carrara Fms Thrust-faulted, brecciated, vuggy dolomite
and limestone
ATS TH-3 569,185.54 4,043,594.14 732.0 246.0 185.9 246.0 12.6 69.2 Bonanza King and Carrara Fms Thrust-faulted, brecciated, vuggy dolomite
and limestone
ATS SH-1 569,208.93 4,043,614.03 733.0 202.4 185.9 202.4 13.5 97.5 Bonanza King and Carrara Fms Thrust-faulted, brecciated, vuggy dolomite
and limestone
ATS TH-1, TH-3, Variable Variable Variable Variable Vari- Vari- 12.6-13.7 69.2- Bonanza King and Carrara Fms Thrust-faulted, brecciated, vuggy dolomite
SH-1 able able 122.8 and limestone
PALEOZOIC AND PROTEROZOIC CLASTIC ROCKS
White River Valley #6 664,823.01 4,261,208.53 1,595.9 1,921.8 1,368.6 1,395.4 ND 0.089 Ely Limestone Cherty limestone

White River Valley #6 664,823.01 4,261,208.53 1,595.9 1,921.8 1,639.2 1,656.6 ND 0.089 Ely Limestone Cherty limestone

Bacon Flat #5 623,352.30 4,258,242.34 1,440.5 2,225.0 1,705.4 1,766.3 ND 0.089 Ely Limestone Cherty limestone

Bacon Flat #5 623,352.30 4,258,242.34 1,440.5 2,225.0 1,898.3 1,912.9 ND 0.089 Chainman Shale Calcareous shale and sandstone

Sunnyside #1 670,376.40 4,247,352.16 1,621.8 1,996.4 1,121.7 1,153.7 ND 0.089 Chainman Shale Calcareous shale and sandstone

MX-SV-DT-2 686,967.28 4,310,179.93 2,243.3 745.8 152.4 289.6 126.3 0.076 Ely Limestone and Chainman Shale Limestone, shale, siltstone, and sandstone

NCAP-CSV-2 703,268.86 4,072,746.49 666.3 145.7 119.1 145.7 119.1 0.11 Bird Spring Formation Shaly limestone

MX-CE-VF-2 684,598.38 4,082,713.11 751.9 372.2 259.1 372.2 186.1 0.13 Bird Spring Formation Dolomitic limestone and calcareous shale

UE-16d 574,003.47 4,102,761.09 1,427.7 914.4 230.5 637.0 230.5 0.11 Bird Spring Formation Limestone, sandstone, and siltstone

UE-16d 574,003.47 4,102,761.09 1,427.7 914.4 453.0 637.0 230.5 0.11 Chainman Shale Quartzite and argillite

UE-16f 575,003.83 4,098,976.70 1,417.8 431.0 394.1 431.0 192.1 0.11 Chainman Shale Argillite, quartzite, quartzitic sandstone, and
siltstone
UE-17a 574,127.11 4,103,160.17 1,431.5 370.0 227.1 370.0 162.9 0.079 Chainman Shale Calcareous quartzite and argillite with
limestone and sandstone
UE-1L 576,572.42 4,100,377.55 1,357.7 1,627.3 218.2 388.6 ND 0.16 Chainman Shale Argillite with quartzite and siltstone

UE-1M 577,749.56 4,096,852.56 1,364.9 156.7 86.0 114.0 86.0 0.051 Eleana Fm and Chainman Shale Thrust-faulted, siliceous argillite

ER-12-1 572,411.44 4,115,492.80 1,773.1 1,093.6 764.7 790.6 407.2 0.16 Eleana Formation Argillite with siltstone and cherty sandstone

Soda Springs #1 626,384.83 4,267,442.86 1,443.5 2,454.2 2,346.7 2,376.2 ND 0.089 Sidehill Spring Formation Quartzite
BGMW #13 519,382.47 4,059,841.33 1,002.8 339.9 272.8 341.4 250.2 0.10 Stirling Quartzite Fractured quartzite

Test Well D 582,225.55 4,103,327.57 1,265.5 594.4 540.1 573.6 527.9 0.15 Dunderberg Shale Member of Nopah Dolomite, limestone, argillite, and siltstone
Formation
UE-15d 585,061.42 4,118,300.77 1,397.8 1,829.1 543.8 1,829.1 203.9 0.080 Stirling Quartzite to Noonday Dolomite Fractured quartzite, argillite, siltstone, and
dolomite
Notes: Krhorizontal hydraulic conductivity; Kzvertical hydraulic conductivity; Ttransmissivity; NWnonwelded; PWpartially welded; MWmoderately welded; DWdensely welded; AMSLabove mean sea
level; SWLstatic water level; LSDland surface datum; NAnot applicable; NDno data
*new or revised analysis
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 89

Test Test end Test length Test type Production Discharge Analyzed Kr Kz T Stora- Specific Analyical method Sources of hydraulic-
start (min) well or Data (m/d) (m/d) (m2/d) tivity yield property data, test
injection analyses, and supporting
rate information
(L/s)
04/20/62 04/20/62 160 Slug- Same NA Residual 0.032 ND 1.1 ND ND Cooper et al. West and Thordarson
withdrawal drawdown (1967)* (1965)
05/25/77 05/26/77 1,440 Pumping Same 1.64 Drawdown 0.090 ND 6.2 ND ND Neuman (1975)* IT Corporation (1996)
09/11/62 09/13/62 2,160 Pumping Same 9.72 Drawdown 0.32 ND 30 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Smith and Doyle (1962);
Winograd (1965)
ND ND ND Pumping Same ND Drawdown 16 ND 670 ND ND Theis (1935) IT Corporation (1996)
02/24/63 02/26/63 3,060 Pumping Same 25.2 Drawdown 0.84 ND 21 ND ND Cooper (1963)* Winograd (1965)

Mar-93 Mar-93 ND Pumping Same ND Drawdown 26 ND 2,300 ND ND Theis (1935) IT Corporation (1996)
(?) (?)
09/11/62 09/13/62 2,880 Pumping Same 28.6 Drawdown 0.13 ND 30 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Meyer and Smith
(1964); Winograd
(1965)
10/06/67 10/07/67 1,140 Pumping ATS TH-2 59.9 Drawdown 270 ND 4,800 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Johnston (1968); USGS
(1978)* files
11/16/67 11/18/67 3,050 Pumping ATS TH-2 59.9 Drawdown 220 ND 5,700 0.003 ND Streltsova-Adams Johnston (1968); USGS
(1978)* files
11/16/67 11/18/67 3,050 Pumping ATS TH-2 59.9 Drawdown 180 ND 4,600 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Johnston (1968); USGS
(1978)* files
01/18/75 01/21/75 4,423 Pumping ATS TH-2 58.3 Drawdown 290 ND 6,900 0.002 ND Streltsova-Adams Johnston (1968); USGS
(1978)* files
PALEOZOIC AND PROTEROZOIC CLASTIC ROCKS
1981 1981 120 Drill-stem Same 0.28 Recovery 0.0027 ND 0.072 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
1981 1981 120 Drill-stem Same 0.19 Recovery 0.00049 ND 0.0086 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Oct-81 Oct-81 120 Drill-stem Same 0.28 Recovery 0.000094 ND 0.0058 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Oct-81 Oct-81 180 Drill-stem Same ND Recovery 0.00026 ND 0.0038 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper
(1988)
Aug-86 Aug-86 120 Drill-stem Same 1.3 Recovery 0.0059 ND 0.19 ND ND Earlougher McKay and Kepper
(1977)* (1988)
01/18/81 01/21/81 ND Pumping Same 6.31 Drawdown 0.088 ND 12 ND ND Cooper and Dettinger et al. (1995)
Jacob (1946)
06/07/86 06/08/86 1,290 Pumping Same 6.34 Drawdown 5.4 ND 140 ND ND Cooper and Dettinger et al. (1995)
Jacob (1946)
02/06/86 02/06/86 830 Pumping Same 4.85 Drawdown 5.8 ND 270 ND ND Cooper and IT Corporation (1996)
Jacob (1946)
06/13/77 06/14/77 1,440 Pumping Same 35.9 Drawdown 0.76 ND 110 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Dinwiddie and Weir
(1979)
06/13/77 06/14/77 1,440 Pumping Same 35.9 Drawdown 0.11 ND 8.4 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Dinwiddie and Weir
(1979)
09/24/77 09/24/77 290 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0023 ND 0.086 ND ND Cooper et al. Dinwiddie and Weir
(1967) (1979)
09/23/76 09/23/76 240 Pumping Same 1.26 Residual 0.0045 ND 0.11 ND ND Theis (1935) Weir and Hodson (1979)
drawdown recovery
04/30/72 05/01/72 570 Slug-injection Same NA Recovery 0.0023 ND 0.38 ND ND Cooper et al. Sweeney (1986); USGS
(1967)* files
03/23/76 03/24/76 1,148 Injection Same 0.86 Residual 0.046 ND 1.3 ND ND Theis (1935) Cole et al. (1997); USGS
head rise recovery* files
09/28/92 09/28/92 212 Slug- Same NA Residual 0.025 ND 0.65 ND ND Cooper et al. Russell et al. (1996)
withdrawal drawdown (1967)
Sep-84 Sep-84 120 Drill-stem Same 0.41 Recovery 0.0023 ND 0.067 ND ND Horner (1951) McKay and Kepper (1988)
07/17/99 07/19/99 3,165 Pumping Same 7.0 Drawdown 0.14 ND 10 ND ND Neuman (1975)* Questa Engineering
Corp. (2000b)
01/07/61 01/07/61 209 Bailing- Same 1.39 Residual 0.056 ND 0.65 ND ND Theis (1935) Thordarson et al. (1962)
recovery drawdown recovery*
03/26/62 03/27/62 2,160 Pumping Same 4.9 Drawdown 0.012 ND 8.0 ND ND Cooper and Norvitch (1962);
Jacob (1946)* Williams et al. (1963)
90 A.L. Geldon
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, L.A., 1981, Rock property analysis of core samples from the Yucca
Mountain UE-25a-1 borehole, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 81-1338, 36 p.
Anderson, L.A., 1991, Results of rock property measurements made on core
samples from Yucca Mountain boreholes, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Part
1, Boreholes UE-25 a-4, a-5, a-6, and a-7, Part 2, Borehole UE-25 p#1:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-474, 43 p.
Anderson, L.A., 1994, Water permeability and related rock properties measured
on core samples from the Yucca Mountain USW GU-3/G-3 and USW G-4
boreholes, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 92-201, 36 p.
Barker, J.A., and Black, J.H., 1983, Slug tests in fissured aquifers: American Geo-
physical Union, Water Resources Research, v. 19, no. 6, p. 15581564.
Bartley, J.M., and Gleason, G., 1990, Tertiary normal faults superimposed
on Mesozoic Thrusts, Quinn Canyon and Grant Ranges, Nye County,
Nevada, in Wernicke, B.P., ed., Basin and Range extensional tectonics
near the latitude of Las Vegas Nevada: Boulder, Colorado, Geological
Society of America Memoir 176, p. 195212.
Belcher, W.R., Elliott, P.E., and Geldon, A.L., 2001, Hydraulic-property esti-
mates for use with a transient ground-water flow model of the Death Val-
ley regional ground- water flow system, Nevada and California: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4120, 28 p.
Bentley, C.B., 1984, Geohydrologic data for test well USW G-4, Yucca Moun-
tain area, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
84-063, 48 p.
Bentley, C.B., Robison, J.H., and Spengler, R.W., 1983, Geohydrologic data
for test well USW H-5, Yucca Mountain area, Nye County, Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-853, 34 p.
Berger, D.L., Kilroy, K.C., and Schaefer, D.H., 1988, Geophysical logs and
hydrologic data for eight wells in the Coyote Spring Valley area, Clark
and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
87-679, 59 p.
Blakely, R.J., Jachens, R.C., Calza, J.P., and Langenheim, V.E., 1999, Cenozoic
basins of the Death Valley extended terrane as reflected in regional-scale
gravity anomalies in Wright, L.A., and Troxel, B.W., eds., Cenozoic
basins of the Death Valley region: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society
of America Special Paper 333, p. 116.
Blankennagel, R.K., 1967, Hydraulic testing techniques of deep drill holes
at Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report: Interagency Special Studies Report v. I-1, 50 p.
Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., 1965, Water production and pumping test
data for exploratory holes, Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Technical Letter Special Studies I-40, 27 p.
Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., 1966, Summary of ground-water data
pertinent to water-supply development, Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site:
U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter Special Studies I-27, Supple-
ment 2, 25 p.
Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., 1973, Geohydrology of the Eastern part of
Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 712-B, 35 p.
Blankennagel, R.K., Young, R.A., Cooper, J.B., and Whitcomb, H.A., 1964,
Summary of ground water data pertinent to underground construction and
to water-supply development, Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Technical Letter Special Studies I-27, 39 p.
Boulton, N.S., 1963, Analysis of data from nonequilibrium pumping tests
allowing for delayed yield from storage: London, England: Institute of
Civil Engineers Proceedings, v. 26, p. 469482.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos, S.S., 1980, A method for determining the
hydraulic properties of tight formations: American Geophysical Union,
Water Resources Research, v. 16, no. 1, p. 233238.
Bryant, E.A., 1992, The Cambric migration experiment: a summary report:
Los Alamos, New Mexico, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-
12335-MS, 37 p.
Bunch, R.L., and Harrill, J.R., 1984, Compilation of selected hydrologic data
from the MX missile-siting investigation, east-central Nevada and west-
ern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-702, 123 p.
Buqo, T.S., 1994, Results of long-term testing of the Arrow Canyon well: Blue
Diamond, Nevada, Thomas S. Buqo, Consulting Hydrogeologist, Report
to Moapa Valley Water District, 22 p.
Carr, W.J., 1988, Volcano-tectonic setting of Yucca Mountain and Crater Flat,
southwestern Nevada, in Carr, M.D., and Yount, J.C., eds., Geologic
and hydrologic investigations of A potential nuclear waste disposal site
at Yucca Mountain, southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin
1790, p. 3549.
Carr, M.D., Waddell, S.J., Vick, G.S., Stock, J.M., Monsen, S.A., Harris, A.G.,
Cork, B.W., and Byers, F.M., Jr., 1986, Geology of drill hole UE-25p#1:
A test hole into pre-Tertiary rocks near Yucca Mountain, southern Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-175, 87 p.
Carr, W.J., Byers, F.M., Jr., and Jenkins, E.C., 1981, Geology of drill hole
UE18r, Timber Mountain Caldera, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological
Survey Report USGS-474-313, 23 p.
Carr, W.J., and Parrish, L.D., 1985, Geology of drill hole USW VH-2, and
structure of Crater Flat, southwestern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 85-475, 41 p.
Claasen, H.C., 1985, Sources and mechanisms of recharge for ground water in
the west-central Amargosa Desert, NevadaA geochemical interpreta-
tion: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-F, 31 p.
Cole, J.C., and Cashman, P.H., 1999, Structural relationships of pre-Tertiary
rocks in the Nevada Test Site region, southern Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1607, 39 p.
Cole, J.C., Harris, A.G., and Wahl, R.R., 1997, Sub-crop geologic map of the
pre- Tertiary rocks in the Yucca Flat and northern Frenchman Flat areas,
Nevada Test Site, southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 97-678, 24 p.
Consulting Engineering Services, Inc., 1999, Alamo Industrial Park Well no. 1
construction and testing: Reno, Nev., Project no. 99011.34 report to the
Nevada Test Site Development Corporation and to Lincoln County, 30 p.
Cooper, H.H., Jr, 1963, Type curves for nonsteady radial flow in an infinite
leaky artesian aquifer, in Bentall, Ray, compiler, Shortcuts and special
problems in aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1545-C, p. 4855.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos, S.S., 1967, Response of
a finite diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water: American Geo-
physical Union, Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 1, p. 263269.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized graphical method
for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well-field history:
American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 27, no. 4, p. 526534.
Craig, R.W., and Reed, R.L., 1991, Geohydrology of rocks penetrated by test
well USW H-6, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4025, 40 p.
Craig, R.W., and Robison, J.H., 1984, Geohydrology of rocks penetrated by test
well UE25p #1 Yucca Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 84-4248, 62 p.
Czarnecki, J.B., 1997, Geohydrology and evapotranspiration at Franklin Lake
Playa, Inyo County, California, with a section on Estimating evapotrans-
piration using the energy-budget eddy-correlation technique, by David. I.
Stannard: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2377, 75 p.
DAgnese, F.A., and Faunt, C.C., 1999, The Death Valley regional ground-
water flow system (DVRFS) ModelCalibration versus hydrogeologic
conceptual model testing, in Slate, J.L., ed., Proceedings of conference
on status of geologic research and mapping, Death Valley National Park:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-153, p. 5254.
DAgnese, F.A., Faunt, C.C., Turner, K.A., and Hill, M.C., 1997, Hydrogeo-
logic evaluation and numerical simulation of the Death Valley regional
ground-water flow system, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4300, p. 124.
Dagan, G., 1986, Statistical theory of groundwater flow and transport: Pore to
laboratory, laboratory to formation, and formation to regional scale: Water
Resources Research, v. 22, no. 9, p. 120S135S.
Dawson, K.J., and Istok, J.D., 1991, Aquifer testing: design and analysis of
pumping and slug tests: Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, Inc., 344 p.
Day, W.C., Dickerson, R.P., and Potter, C.J., Sweetkind, D.S., San Juan, C.A.,
Drake, R.M., II, and Fridrich, C.J., 1998, Bedrock geologic map of the
Yucca Mountain area, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Geo-
logic Investigations Series I-2677, scale 1:24,000.
Dettinger, M.D., Harrill, J.R., Schmidt, D.L., and Hess, J.W., 1995, Distribution
of carbonate- rock aquifers and the potential for their development, south-
ern Nevada and adjacent parts of California, Arizona, and Utah: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 35 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1968, Analysis of hydraulic tests in Hot Creek Valley, Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter Central Nevada 23, 63 p.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970a, Hydraulic testing of wells in central Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Report USGS-474-80, 110 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970b, Hydraulic testing of well HTH-3 in central Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-34, 23 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970c, Hydraulic testing of well HTH-4 in central Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-31, 20 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970d, Hydraulic testing of well HTH-211 in central
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-81, p. 33.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970e, Hydraulic testing of well HTH-23 in central Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-23, 33 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970f, Hydraulic testing and sampling of hole UE-2 in central
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-78, 23 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970g, Hydraulic testing and sampling of hole UE-3 in cen-
tral Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-79, 21 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., 1970h, Hydraulic testing and sampling of hole UE-1 in cen-
tral Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-77, 25 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., and Schroder, L.J., 1971, Summary of hydraulic testing in,
and chemical analyses of water samples from deep exploratory holes in
Little Fish Lake, Monitor, Hot Creek, and Little Smoky Valleys, Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-90, 70 p.
Dinwiddie, G.A., and Weir, J.E., Jr., 1979, Summary of hydraulic tests and
hydraulic data for holes UE16d and UE16f, Syncline Ridge area, Nevada
Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-1543-3, 25 p.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and wells: St. Paul, Minnesota, Johnson
Division, 1098 p.
Dudley, W.W., Jr., and Larson, J.D., 1976, Effect of irrigation pumping on des-
ert pupfish habitats in Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Professional Paper 927, 52 p.
Earlougher, R.C., Jr., 1977, Advances in well-test analysis: Dallas, Texas:
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,
Monograph 5, 264 p.
Ekren, E.B., Hinrichs, E.N., Quinlivan, W.D., and Hoover, D.L., 1973, Geo-
logic map of the Moores Station quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-756,
scale 1:48,000.
Fahy, M.F., 1997, Dual-porosity analysis of conservative tracer testing in
saturated volcanic Rocks at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, v. 34,
no. 3/4, Paper 074.
Faunt, C.C., 1997, Effect of faulting on ground-water movement in the Death
Valley region, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 95-4132, 42 p.
Fleck, R.J., Turrin, B.D., Sawyer, D.A., Warren, R.G., Champion, D.E., Hud-
son, M.R., and Minor, S.A., 1996, Age and character of basaltic rocks
of the Yucca Mountain region, southern Nevada: Washington, D.C.,
American Geophysical Union: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 101,
p. 82058227, doi: 10.1029/95JB03123.
Fridrich, C.J., 1999, Tectonic evolution of the Crater Flat basin, Yucca Moun-
tain region, Nevada, in Wright, L.A., and Troxel, B.W., 1999, Cenozoic
basins of the Death Valley region: Geological Society of America Special
Paper 333, p. 169195.
Fridrich, C.J., Dudley, W.W., Jr., and Stuckless, J.S., 1994, Hydrogeologic anal-
ysis of the saturated-zone ground-water system, under Yucca Mountain,
Nevada: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Science B.V., Journal of
Hydrology, v. 154, p. 133168, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90215-1.
Frizzell, V.A., Jr., and Shulters, J., 1990, Geologic map of the Nevada Test Site,
southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations
Series Map I-2046, scale 1:100,000.
Galloway, D., and Rojstaczer, S., 1988, Analysis of the frequency response of
water- level altitudes in wells to Earth tides and atmospheric loading, in
Hitchon, B., and Bachu, S., eds., Proceedings, fourth Canadian/American
conference on hydrogeology, fluid flow, heat transfer, and mass trans-
port in fractured rocks: Dublin, Ohio, National Water Well Association,
p. 100113.
Garber, M.S., and Johnston, R.H., 1967, A summary of lithologic data, aquifer
tests, and construction of hydraulic test well U3cn-5, Nevada Test Site:
U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-200.
Geldon, A.L., 1989, Hydrologic data for Paleozoic rocks in the Upper Colorado
River Basin, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 89-59, 219 p.
Geldon, A.L., 1993, Preliminary hydrogeologic assessment of boreholes
UE-25c #1, UE-25c #2, and UE-25c #3, Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
91
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report
92-4016, 85 p.
Geldon, A.L., 1996, Results and interpretation of preliminary aquifer tests in
boreholes UE-25c #1, UE-25c #2, and UE-25c #3, Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 94-4177, 119 p.
Geldon, A.L., 1999, An 18-month pumping test in Miocene tuffaceous rocks at
Yucca Mountain, NevadaMethods and results [abs.]: Geological Soci-
ety of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-148.
Geldon, A.L., 2000, Characterization of ground-water flow through Miocene
volcanic rocks in the Yucca Mountain area [abs.]: Washington, D.C.,
American Geophysical Union, 2000 Spring Meeting, Washington, D.C.,
May 30June 3, Integrative geoscience solutions: A start for the new mil-
lennium, p. S262.
Geldon, A.L., Umari, A.M.A., and Earle, J.D., 1997, Determination of baro-
metric efficiency and effective porosity, boreholes UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2,
and UE-25 c#3, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4098, 17 p.
Geldon, A.L., Umari, A.M.A., Earle, J.D., Fahy, M.F., Gemmell, J.M., and
Darnell, J., 1998, Analysis of a multiple-well interference test in Miocene
tuffaceous rocks at the C-hole complex, MayJune 1995, Yucca Moun-
tain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 97-4166, 33 p.
Geldon, A.L., Umari, A.M.A., and Gemmell, J.M., 1999, Appendix A
Hydraulic tests in the Prow Pass Tuff, May to September, 1998, Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, in Reimus, P.W., et al., eds., Results and
interpretation of hydraulic and tracer testing in the Prow Pass Tuff at the
C-holes: Los Alamos National Laboratory Yucca Mountain Project Mile-
stone Report SP32E7M4, various paging.
Geldon, A.L., Umari, A.M.A., Earle, J.D., Fahy, M.F., Gemmell, J.M., and Dar-
nell, J., 2002, Results of hydraulic tests in Miocene tuffaceous rocks at the
C-hole complex, 1995 to 1997, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4141, 58 p.
Gillespie, D., Donithan, D., and Seaber, P., 1996, Nevada Test Site water- sup-
ply wells: Las Vegas, Nevada, Water Resources Center, Desert Research
Institute Publication no. 45138, 68 p.
Graves, R.P., 1998, Water levels in the Yucca Mountain area, Nevada, 1996:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-169, 81 p.
Graves, R.P., 2000, Water levels in the Yucca Mountain area, Nevada, 199798:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-186, 81 p.
Hantush, M.S., 1961, Tables of the function
ey
H ( , ) =
y
erfc dy:
y( y )
Socorro, New Mexico: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Professional Paper 103, 14 p.
Hantush, M.S., and Jacob, C.E., 1955, Non-steady radial flow in an infinite
leaky aquifer: Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 36, no. 1,
p. 95100.
Hess, A.E., 1990, Thermal-pulse flowmeter for measuring slow velocities in
boreholes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-121, 70 p.
Hood, J.W., 1961, Water wells in Frenchman and Yucca Valleys, Nevada Test
Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
TEI-788, 60 p.
Hoover, D.L., and Magner, J.E., 1990, Geology of the Rainier MesaAqueduct
Mesa tunnel areasU12n tunnel: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 90-623, 51 p.
Horner, D.R., 1951, Pressure build-up in wells, in Proceedings 3rd World Petro-
leum Congress, section II: Leiden, The Netherlands, E.J. Brill, p. 503521.
Houser, F.N., and Poole, F.G., 1959, Granite exploration hole, Area 15,
Nevada Test Site, Nye County, NevadaInterim report, Part A, Struc-
tural, petrographic, and chemical data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report TEM-836, 58 p.
Hunt, C.B., and Mabey, D.R., 1966, Stratigraphy and structure Death Valley,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 494-A, 162 p.
IT Corporation, 1996, Underground test area subproject, Phase I: data analysis
task, Volume IV: Hydrologic parameter data documentation package: Las
Vegas, Nevada, Report ITLV/10972-181, 78 p.
IT Corporation, 1997a, Regional groundwater flow and tritium transport mod-
eling and risk assessment of the underground test area, Nevada Test Site,
Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE, v. NV-477, 396 p.
92 A.L. Geldon
IT Corporation, 1997b, Bullion forced-gradient experiment implementation
plan: Las Vegas, Nev., Report ITLV/10972195, Parts 1 and 2, various
paging.
IT Corporation, 1998a, Completion report for well cluster ER-20-6: U.S.
Department of Energy Report DOE/NV-467, various paging.
IT Corporation, 1998b, Report and analysis of the Bullion forced-gradient
experiment: U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE/NV/13052042,
various paging.
IT Corporation, 1998c, Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat data analy-
sis task, Volume I: hydrostratigraphic model documentation package:
U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE/NV/13052044.
Jacobson, E.A., Cochran, G.F., Lyles, B.F., and Mihevc, T.M., 1992, River site
upper aquifer, Owens Dry Lake: Analysis of long-term aquifer test and
pumping effects: Las Vegas, Nevada, Water Resources Center, Desert
Research Institute Publication no. 41135, 37 p.
Jayko, A.S., 1990, Shallow crustal deformation in the Pahranagat area, southern
Nevada, in Wernicke, B.P., ed., Basin and Range extensional tectonics
near the latitude of Las Vegas Nevada: Boulder, Colorado, The Geological
Society of America Memoir 176, p. 213236.
Johnston, R.H., 1968, U.S. Geological Survey tracer study, Amargosa Desert,
Nye County, Nevada: Part 1: Exploratory drilling, tracer well construction
and testing, and preliminary findings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report USGS-474-98, 64 p.
Kaehler, C.A., and Hsieh, P.A., 1994, Hydraulic properties of a fractured-rock
aquifer, Lee Valley, San Diego County, California: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Water-Supply Paper 2394, 64 p.
Keys, W.S., 1988, Borehole geophysics applied to ground-water investigations:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-539, 305 p.
Kilroy, K.C., and Savard, C.S., 1996, Geohydrology of Pahute Mesa-3 test well,
Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 95-4239, 44 p.
Kleinhampl, F.J., and Ziony, J.I., 1985, Geology of northern Nye County,
Nevada: Reno, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin,
v. 99A, 172 p.
Kruseman, G.P., and de Ridder, N.A., 1983, Analysis and evaluation of pump-
ing test data: The Netherlands, International Institute for Land Reclama-
tion and Improvement, 200 p.
Laczniak, R.J., Cole, J.C., Sawyer, D.A., and Trudeau, D.A., 1996, Summary of
hydrogeologic controls on ground-water flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 96-4109, 59 p.
Lahoud, R.R., Lobmeyer, D.H., and Whitfield, M.S., Jr., 1984, Geohydrology
of volcanic tuff penetrated by test well UE-25b #1, Yucca Mountain,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
84-4253, 48 p.
Lobmeyer, D.H., 1986, Geohydrology of rocks penetrated by USW G-4, Yucca
Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 86-4015, 42 p.
Lobmeyer, D.H., Whitfield, M.S., Jr., Lahoud, R.G., and Bruckheimer, L.,
1983 geohydrologic data for test well UE-25b #1, Nevada Test Site, Nye
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-855, 48 p.
Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 708, 70 p.
Luckey, R.R., Tucci, P., Faunt, C.C., Ervin, E.M., Steinkampf, W.C., DAgnese,
F.A., and Patterson, G.L., 1996, Status of understanding of the saturated-
zone ground-water flow system at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4077, 71 p.
McKay, W.A., and Kepper, J., 1988, Estimating hydraulic parameters using
wildcat oil and gas data: A feasibility study in east-central Nevada: Las
Vegas, Nevada, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, Pub-
lication no. 41117, 48 p.
Meyer, G.L., and Smith, R.E., 1964, Summary of hydraulic data, quality of
water, and lithologic log for Army Well 1, Mercury Valley, Nye County,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-71.
Meyer, G.L., and Young, R.A., 1962, Summary of hydraulic data and abridged
log for ground- water test well 3, Frenchman Flat, Nevada Test Site,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-30, 7 p.
Minor, S.A., Sawyer, D.A., Wahl, R.R., Frizzell, V.A., Jr., Schilling, S.P., War-
ren, R.G., Orkild, P.P., Coe, J.A., Hudson, M.R., Fleck, R.J., Lanphere,
M.A., Swadley, W.C., and Cole, J.C., 1993, Preliminary geologic map of
the Pahute Mesa 30 60 quadrangle, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 93-299, 39 p., and 1:100,000-scale map.
Moench, A.F., 1984, Double-porosity models for a fissured groundwater res-
ervoir with fracture skin: American Geophysical Union Water Resources
Research, v. 20, no. 7, p. 831846.
Moore, J.E., Doyle, A.C., Walker, G.E., and Young, R.A., 1963, Ground water
test Well 2, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, with a section on
Geophysical Logs, by R.D. Carroll: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report TEI-836, 73 p.
Nelson, P.H., and Muller, D.C., Schimschal, Ulrich, and Kibler, J.E., 1991,
Geophysical logs and core measurements from forty boreholes at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations
Map GP-1001.
Neuman, S.P., 1972, Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering
delayed response of the water table: American Geophysical Union, Water
Resources Research, v. 8, no. 4, p. 10311045.
Neuman, S.P., 1973, Supplementary comments on theory of flow in unconfined
aquifers considering delayed response of the water table: American Geo-
physical Union, Water Resources Research, v. 9, no. 4, p. 11021103.
Neuman, S.P., 1974, Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers
considering delayed response of the water table: American Geophysical
Union, Water Resources Research, v. 10, no. 2, p. 303312.
Neuman, S.P., 1975, Analysis of pumping test data from anisotropic unconfined
aquifers considering delayed gravity response: American Geophysical
Union, Water Resources Research, v. 11, no. 2, p. 329342.
Neuman, S.P., 1990, Universal scaling of hydraulic conductivities and disper-
sivities in geologic media: American Geophysical Union, Water Resources
Research, v. 26, no. 8, p. 17491758, doi: 10.1029/90WR00596.
Norvitch, R.F., 1962, Hydraulic tests of strata penetrated in drill hole UE15d,
Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter Yucca-1,
Supplement 4, 18 p.
Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, 1995, Borehole UE-25
ONC #1 and USW NRG-4 drilling and instrumentation report, Yucca
Mountain, Nevada: Pahrump, Nevada, various paging.
OBrien, G.M., 1997, Analysis of aquifer tests conducted in boreholes USW
WT-10, UE-25 WT#12, and USW SD-7, 199596, Yucca Mountain,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
96-4293, 36 p.
OBrien, G.M., 1998, Analysis of aquifer tests conducted in borehole USW
G-2, Yucca Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 98-4063, 22 p.
Orkild, P.P., and Jenkins, E.C., 1978, Report of exploration progress, Pahute
Mesa, October 1, 1969, to December 31, 1976: U.S. Geological Survey
Report USGS-474-239, 98 p.
Plume, R.W., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the Great Basin region of
Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1409-B, 64 p.
Plume, R.W., and La Camera, R.J., 1996, Hydrogeology of rocks penetrated
by test Well JF-3, Jackass Flats, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4245, 21 p.
Ponce, D.A., and Oliver, H.W., 1995, Chapter 2: Gravity investigations, in
Oliver, H.W., Ponce, D.A., and Hunter, W.C., Major results of geophysi-
cal investigations at Yucca Mountain and vicinity, southern Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-74, p. 3353.
Price, C.E., 1960, Granite exploration hole, Area 15, Nevada Test Site, Nye
County, Nevadainterim report, Part B, Hydrologic data: U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Open-File Report TEM-836-B, 20 p.
Price, C.E., and Thordarson, W., 1961, Ground water test Well A, Nevada Test
Site, Nye County, Nevada: A summary of lithologic data, aquifer tests, and
construction: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-800, 59 p.
Prudic, D.E., Harrill, J.R., and Burbey, T.J., 1993, Conceptual evaluation of
regional ground-water flow in the carbonate-rock province of the Great
Basin, Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 93-170, 103 p.
Questa Engineering Corporation, 1999, Analysis of pre-completion pressure
testing in borehole NC-EWDP 3-D, Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Golden,
Colorado, 17 p.
Questa Engineering Corp, 2000a, Analysis of Aeropark interference test, Amar-
gosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada: Golden, Colorado, 26 p.
Questa Engineering Corp, 2000b, Analysis of Bond Gold interference test,
Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada: Golden, Colorado, 10 p.
Quinlivan, W.D., Ohl, J.P., and Blackmon, P.D., 1977, Lithologic logs of
selected exploratory and emplacement drill holes in Areas 2 and 8,
Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-227, 76 p.
 Implications for groundwater flow in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field
Robison, J.H., and Craig, R.W., 1991, Geohydrology of rocks penetrated by test
well USW H-5, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report, v. 884168, 44 p.
Robledo, A.R., Ryder, P.L., Fenelon, J.M., and Paillet, F.L., 1997, Geohydrol-
ogy of monitoring wells drilled in Oasis Valley near Beatty, Nye County,
Nevada, 1997: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 98-4184, 40 p.
Rush, F.E., Thordarson, W., and Bruckheimer, L., 1983, Geohydrologic and
drill- hole data for test well USW H-1, adjacent to Nevada Test Site, Nye
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-141, 38 p.
Rush, F.E., Thordarson, W., and Pyles, D.G., 1984, Geohydrology of test well
USW H-1, Yucca Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 84-4032, 62 p.
Russell, C.E., Gillespie, D., Cole, J.C., Drellack, S.L., Prothro, L.B., Thomp-
son, P.H., McCall, R.L., Pawloski, G.A., and Carlson, R., 1996, ER-12-1
completion report: Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy Report
DOE/NV/10845-36, 158 p.
Sass, J.H., Lachenbruch, A.H., Dudley, W.W., Jr., Priest, S.S., and Munroe, R.J.,
1988, Temperature, thermal conductivity, and heat flow near Yucca Moun-
tain, Nevada: Some tectonic and hydrologic implications: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 87-649, 118 p.
Schoff, S.L., 1962, Pumping test and other data on well Watertown 3, Lincoln
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-33.
Scott, R.B., 1990, Tectonic setting of Yucca Mountain, southwest Nevada,
in Wernicke, B.P., ed., Basin and Range extensional tectonics near the
latitude of Las Vegas, Nevada: Geological Society of America Memoir
176, p. 251282.
Simonds, F.W., Whitney, J.W., Fox, K.F., Ramelli, A.R., Yount, J.C., Carr, M.D.,
Menges, C.M., Dickerson, R.P., and Scott, R.B., 1995, Map showing fault
activity in the Yucca Mountain area, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2520, scale 1:24,000.
Skibitzke, H.E., 1963, Determination of the coefficient of transmissibility from
measurements of residual drawdown in a bailed well, in Bentall, Ray,
compiler, Methods of determining permeability, transmissibility, and draw-
down: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-I, p. 293298.
Smith, R.E., and Doyle, A.C., 1962, Summary of hydraulic data and abridged
log for ground- water test well 4, Indian Springs Valley, Clark County,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter, v. NTS-36, 9 p.
Spengler, R.W., Muller, D.C., and Livermore, R.B., 1979, Preliminary report on
the geology and geophysics of drill hole UE25a-1, Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 791244, 43 p.
Spengler, R.W., and Rosenbaum, J.G., 1980, Preliminary interpretation of geologic
results obtained from boreholes UE25a-4, -5, -6, and -7, Yucca Mountain,
Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-929, 33 p.
Stallman, R.W., 1965, Effects of water-table conditions on water-level changes
near pumping wells: American Geophysical Union, Water Resources
Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 295312.
Streeter, V.L., and Wylie, E.B., 1975, Fluid mechanics, sixth ed.: New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 752 p.
Streltsova-Adams, T.D., 1978, Well testing in heterogeneous aquifer forma-
tions, in Chow, V.T., ed., Advances in hydroscience: New York, New York,
Academic Press, v. 11, p. 357423.
Sweeney, J.J., 1986, Site characterization report: UE1L (Yacht hole): Liver-
more, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report
UCID-20836, 57 p.
Taylor, W.J., 1990, Spatial and temporal relations of Cenozoic volcanism and exten-
sion in the North Pahroc and Seaman Ranges, eastern Nevada, in Wernicke,
B.P., ed., Basin and Range extensional tectonics near the latitude of Las Vegas
Nevada: Geological Society of America Memoir 176, p. 181193.
Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface
and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water stor-
age: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 16, p. 519524.
Thordarson, W., 1983, Geohydrologic data and test results from well J-13,
Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 83-4171, 63 p.
93
Thordarson, W., and Howells, L., 1987, Hydraulic tests and chemical quality
of water at well USW VH-1, Crater Flat, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4359, 20 p.
Thordarson, W., Garber, M.S., and Walker, G.E., 1962, Ground water test Well
D, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report TEI-803, 58 p.
Thordarson, W., Young, R.A., and Winograd, I.J., 1967, Records of wells and
test holes in the Nevada Test Site and vicinity (through December 1966):
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-872, 26 p.
Thordarson, W., Rush, F.E., and Waddell, S.J., 1985, Geohydrology of test well
USW H-3, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4272, 38 p.
Townsend, Y.E., and Grossman, R.F., eds., 2001, Nevada Test Site annual site
environmental report for calendar year 2000: Las Vegas, Nev., Bechtel
Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE/NV/11718605, 273 p.
Tucci, P., and Burkhardt, D.J., 1995, Potentiometric-surface map, 1993, Yucca
Mountain and vicinity, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 954149, 15 p.
Walker, G.E., 1962, Ground water in the Climax stock, Nevada Test Site, Nye
County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-813, p. 48.
Walton, W.C., 1970, Groundwater resource evaluation: New York, New York,
McGraw-Hill, 664 p.
Warren, R.G., Sawyer, D.A., Byers, F.M., Jr., and Cole, J.C., 1998, A
petrographic/geochemical database and stratigraphic and structural
framework for the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field: U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Geophysical Data Center, accessed 19992001 at URL http:
//queeg.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geochem/swnvf.
Weir, J.E., Jr., and Hodson, J.N., 1979, Geohydrology of hole UE-17a, Syncline
Ridge area, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-
1543-4, 14 p.
West, L.R., and Thordarson, W., 1963, Summary of hydraulic data, water chem-
istry, and abridged lithologic log of ground-water test well 8, Nye County,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-47, 17 p.
West, L.R., and Thordarson, W., 1965, Summary of lithologic data, aquifer tests,
and well construction for ground water test Well E, Yucca Flat, Nye County,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-131, 32 p.
Westphal, J.A., Bateman, R.L., and Cooper, E.N., Hainline, James, Hess, J.W.,
Mahoney, J.L., III, and Patt, R.O., 1975, Reconnaissance study of water and
botanical resources of Spring Mountain Ranch and Pine Creek site of Red
Rock Recreational Area, Clark County, Nevada: Las Vegas, Nevada, Water
Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, Project Report no. 35, 214 p.
Whitfield, M.S., Eshom, E.P., Thordarson, W., and Schaefer, D.H., 1985, Geohy-
drology of rocks penetrated by USW H-4, Yucca Mountain, Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4030, 37 p.
Williams, W.P., Emerick, W.L., Davis, R.E., and Snyder, R.P., 1963, U.S.
Geological Survey investigations in Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site: The
underground test media of Yucca Flat: U.S. Geological Survey Technical
Letter NTS-45, no. Part C, 251 p..
Winograd, I.J., 1965, Pumping test data for selected wells, Nevada Test Site and
vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-116, 28 p.
Winograd, I.J., and Thordarson, W., 1975, Hydrogeologic and hydrochemical
framework, south-central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with special
reference to the Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 712-C, 126 p.
Wood, D.B., and Reiner, S.R., 1996, Ground-water data for 199091 and ground-
water withdrawals for 195191, Nevada Test Site and vicinity, Nye County,
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-475, 78 p.
Workman, J.B., Menges, C.M., Page, W.R., Taylor, E.M., Ekren, E.B., Rowley,
P.D., Dixon, G.L., Thompson, R.A., and Wright, L.A., 2002, Geologic
map of the Death Valley ground-water model area, Nevada and California:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2381-A,
scale 1:250,000.
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY APRIL 29, 2004
Printed in the USA
 CONTENTS

Introduction
Location of Study Area
Regional Geology
Regional Groundwater Hydrology
Hydrostratigraphic Units
Groundwater in the Younger Tertiary Tuff and Lava Flows
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Hydraulic Tests
Well Completion and Instrumentation
Flow Distribution in Boreholes
Earth Tides and Barometric Effects
Analytical Methods
Constant-Rate Pumping, Injection, and Airlift Tests
Slug-Injection and Swabbing Recovery Tests
Analytical Uncertainty
Effects atTest Scale on Determination of Hydraul ic Properties
Hydraulic Properties
The C-holes Complex
Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 22 to June 1, 1995
Miscellaneous Hydraulic Tests at the C-holes Complex, 1984-1998
Pumping Test in UE-25 c#3, May 8, 1996, to Novembe r 12, 1997
Drill Hole Wash
Frenchman Flat
Well Cluster ER-20-6, Weste rn Pahute Mesa
Knickerbocker Site, Western Pahute Mesa
Distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity
Relation of Lithology to Hydrau lic Conductivity
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Yucca Mounta in
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution at Pahute Mesa
Summary and Conclusions
Appendix A
Appendix B
References Cited

. . THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

. OF AMERICA

ISBN 0-8137-2381 -7

3300 Penrose Place PO Box 9140

Boulder, CO 80301 -9140, USA