2005 Salt Lake City Annual Meeting (October 16–19, 2005)

Paper No. 2
Presentation Time: 8:20 AM


DONOVAN, David J.1, KISTINGER, Gavin M.1 and ACHEAMPONG, Stephen Y.2, (1)Resources Department, Southern Nevada Water Authority, 1900 E. Flamingo, Suite 180, Las Vegas, NV 89119, (2)Resources Department, Southern Nevada Water Authority, 1900 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 180, Las Vegas, NV 89119, david.donovan@snwa.com

Multiple classification systems for springs exist in the literature. Most of these systems are based on a single variable (e.g. flow volume). Each classification is useful for a particular discipline. Terminology between different systems may be similar even if the criteria are different.

The most common terms used to classify springs, in current usage, in eastern Nevada are “local” and “regional”. Because of the local hydrogeology, “carbonate” is often used as a synonym for “regional”, even though the two terms have very different hydrogeologic and hydrogeochemical connotations. These general classification systems create uncertainty in spring characterization.

One classification system was proposed and utilized to evaluate 60 springs. This system incorporates flow volume, variability of discharge, temperature of spring water, ambient air temperature, response to precipitation variability, catchment recharge volume, major ion geochemistry, minor ions, stable and radioisotope, and hydrogeologic and geomorphic setting. The individual parameters are scored using a weighted average, incorporating the multidisciplinary nature of hydrology.