Devils Hole 

Pahute Mesa

Oasis Valley

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Frenchman

Flat

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Pahra nagat Range

Spotted Range

Death Valley

Tikaboo 

Valley

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Pahrump

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5103

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service; Nevada 

Division of Wildlife; Nye County, Nevada; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Simulated Effects of Pumping in the Death Valley Regional 

Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California—

Selected Management Scenarios Projected to 2120
Cover. Map of study area showing Alkali Flat–Furnace Creek Ranch, Ash Meadows, 

Bullfrog Hills, Pahrump to Death Valley South, and Pahute Mesa–Oasis Valley 

groundwater basins; and Nevada National Security Site boundary and internal 

operations area, in the Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
Simulated Effects of Pumping in the 

Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow 

System, Nevada and California—Selected 

Management Scenarios Projected to 2120

By Nora C. Nelson and Tracie R. Jackson

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management; National Park 

Service; Nevada Division of Wildlife; Nye County, Nevada; and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5103

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit 

https://store.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Government.

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

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

Suggested citation:

Nelson, N.C., and Jackson, T.R., 2020, Simulated effects of pumping in the Death Valley Regional Groundwater 

Flow System, Nevada and California—Selected management scenarios projected to 2120: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5103, 30 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ sir20205103.

Associated data for this publication: 

Nelson, N.C., and Jackson, T.R., 2020, MODFLOW-2005 models used to simulate effects of pumping in the Death 

Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California—Selected management scenarios projected to 

2120: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9OBUPXU.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviewers of this report for their helpful comments: Kyle 

W. Davis (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]), Joseph M. Fenelon (USGS), Philip M. Gardner (USGS), 

Nina Hemphill (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]), John Klenke (Nuclear Waste Repository 

Project Office, Nye County, Nevada), Tim Mayer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Boris Poff 

(BLM), and Russel Scofield (BLM).

v

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................5

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................5

Death Valley Version 3 Predictive Model ..........................................................................................6

Pumping Scenarios...............................................................................................................................6

Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping ..............................................................................12

Regional Drawdown ...........................................................................................................................12

Base Case ...................................................................................................................................12

Scenario A...................................................................................................................................18

Scenario B...................................................................................................................................18

Scenario C ...................................................................................................................................23

Water Levels in Devils Hole ..............................................................................................................23

Capture of Natural Discharge ...........................................................................................................27

Amargosa Wild and Scenic River ...........................................................................................27

Ash Meadows Discharge Area ...............................................................................................28

Furnace Creek Area ..................................................................................................................28

Stump Spring ..............................................................................................................................28

Summary........................................................................................................................................................28

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................29

Figures

1. Map showing study area with groundwater basins and hydraulic barriers, 

Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California...................................................3

2. Map showing study area including discharge areas, Death Valley regional flow 

system, Nevada and California ...................................................................................................4

3. Graph showing total annual pumping and return flow for the base case 

scenario and additional annual pumpage in scenarios A, B, and C, Death Valley 

regional flow system, Nevada and California ..........................................................................7

4. Map showing location of pumping wells simulated in the base case scenario, 

Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California...................................................8

5. Map showing location of additional pumping wells in scenario A that were 

simulated together with the base case pumping wells, Death Valley regional 

flow system, Nevada and California ..........................................................................................9

6. Map showing location of additional pumping wells in scenario B that were 

simulated together with the base case pumping wells, Death Valley regional 

flow system, Nevada and California ........................................................................................10

7. Map showing location of additional pumping wells in scenario C that were 

simulated together with the base case pumping wells, Death Valley regional 

flow system, Nevada and California ........................................................................................11

8. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case 

scenario in 2020, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California .................13
vi

9. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case 

scenario in 2040, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California .................14

10. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case 

scenario in 2070, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California .................15

11. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case 

scenario in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California .................16

12. Map showing difference in water-level drawdown between the base case 

scenario in 2020 and 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and 

California ......................................................................................................................................17

13. Graph showing groundwater withdrawals by water use in the Pahrump to 

Death Valley South groundwater basin from 1913 to 2020 (modified from Halford 

and Jackson, 2020) .....................................................................................................................18

14. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario A in 

2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.......................................19

15. Map showing difference in water-level drawdown between the base case 

scenario and scenario A in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California ..............................................................................................................................20

16. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario B in 

2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.......................................21

17. Map showing difference in water-level drawdown between the base case 

scenario and scenario B in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California ..............................................................................................................................22

18. Map showing water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario C in 

2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.......................................24

19. Map showing difference in water-level drawdown between the base case 

scenario and scenario C in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California ..............................................................................................................................25

20. Hydrographs showing water levels in Devils Hole, southern Nevada ..............................26

Tables

1. Summary of pumping scenarios.................................................................................................7

2. Simulated effects from four scenarios of groundwater pumping on natural 

discharge at select discharge areas, Death Valley regional flow system, 

Nevada and California ...............................................................................................................27
vii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

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

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 0.001233 cubic hectometer per year (hm3/yr)

Transmissivity

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

Datums

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

(NAVD 88).

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

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

Abbreviations

AFFCR Alkali Flat–Furnace Creek Ranch

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DV3-PRED Death Valley version 3 predictive model

NNSS Nevada National Security Site

PDVS Pahrump to Death Valley South

PMOV Pahute Mesa–Oasis Valley

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Simulated Effects of Pumping in the Death Valley Regional 

Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California—

Selected Management Scenarios Projected to 2120

By Nora C. Nelson and Tracie R. Jackson

Abstract

Declining water levels and reduced natural discharge at 

springs, seeps, and phreatophyte areas primarily are the result 

of decades of groundwater development in the Death Valley 

regional flow system, in Nevada and California. A calibrated 

groundwater-flow model was used to simulate potential future 

effects of groundwater pumping on water levels and natural 

groundwater discharge in the study area. Effects of climate 

change on future groundwater pumping were not considered 

and were beyond the scope of the study. Four groundwaterpumping scenarios were developed by stakeholders to predict 

and compare (1) the extent of regional water-level declines; 

(2) drawdown at Devils Hole; and (3) reductions in natural 

discharge at select discharge areas, including the Amargosa 

Wild and Scenic River, the Ash Meadows discharge area, the 

Furnace Creek area, and Stump Spring. Scenarios were simulated from 1913 to 2120, with historical pumping occurring 

from 1913 to 2010, historical 2010 pumping rates projected 

from 2010 to 2020, and scenario pumping beginning in 2020. 

Pumping scenarios included a base case and scenarios A, B, 

and C. The base case projected 2010 pumping rates from 2010 

to 2120, and scenarios A, B, and C projected base case pumping plus additional pumping at various locations from 2020 to 

2120. By 2020, historical (1913–2020) pumping resulted in 

the propagation of simulated drawdown of 1 foot (ft) or more 

westward from Pahrump Valley to areas north of Shoshone 

in the Pahrump to Death Valley South (PDVS) groundwater 

basin and the merging of simulated 1-ft drawdown contours 

between the Alkali Flat–Furnace Creek Ranch (AFFCR) and 

Ash Meadows groundwater basins. In the base case scenario, 

extent and magnitude of simulated drawdown continued to 

increase in the Ash Meadows and AFFCR groundwater basins 

from 2020 to 2120. In the base case, the magnitude of simulated drawdown continued to increase in western Pahrump 

Valley from 2020 to 2120, whereas simulated water levels 

rose in eastern Pahrump Valley from 2020 to 2070 and then 

stabilized from 2070 to 2120. Scenarios A and B primarily affected the PDVS and AFFCR groundwater basins by 

increasing the magnitude of drawdown in 2120, compared to 

the base case. In scenario C, drawdown propagated throughout a high-transmissivity part of the carbonate aquifer known 

as the megachannel, greatly affecting water levels in the Ash 

Meadows discharge area. Scenario C resulted in an additional 

10–100 ft of drawdown (compared to the base case) throughout the southeastern part of the Ash Meadows groundwater 

basin by 2120. Simulated drawdowns in Devils Hole in 2120 

were 3.2, 3.4, 3.8, and 25.4 ft for the base case and scenarios 

A, B, and C, respectively. The federally mandated minimum 

water level for Devils Hole is 2.7 ft below a reference point. In 

2020, the simulated water level in Devils Hole was above the 

minimum water level, at 1.7 ft below the reference. Simulated 

water levels in Devils Hole fell below the federally mandated 

water level by 2078, 2073, 2058, and 2025 for the base case 

and scenarios A, B, and C, respectively, assuming a hypothetical recharge scenario of constant natural recharge. Simulated 

reductions in predevelopment (natural) discharge at select 

discharge areas ranged from 3 to 38 percent by 2120 for all 

scenarios. Amargosa Wild and Scenic River was the least 

affected discharge area with simulated capture rates ranging 

from 3 to 4 percent of predevelopment discharge by 2120. Ash 

Meadows discharge area was greatly affected by groundwater 

pumping in scenario C with a simulated capture rate of 38 

percent, compared to simulated capture rates of 8, 8, and 9 

percent for the base case, scenario A, and scenario B, respectively, in 2120. Simulated capture rates in the Furnace Creek 

area ranged from 10 to 11 percent for all scenarios in 2120. 

Simulated capture rates at Stump Spring ranged from 32 to 36 

percent for all scenarios in 2120.

Introduction

Declining water levels and reduced natural discharge at 

springs, seeps, and phreatophyte areas primarily are the result 

of decades of groundwater development in the Death Valley 

regional flow system, in Nevada and California (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020). A calibrated groundwater-flow model (Halford 

and Jackson, 2020; Jackson and Halford, 2020) was used to 

simulate potential future effects of groundwater pumping on 

water levels and natural groundwater discharge in the study 

area for four pumping scenarios developed by stakeholders. 

Effects of climate change on future groundwater pumping 

were not considered and were beyond the scope of the study.
2 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

The study area includes four groundwater basins within 

the Death Valley regional flow system (Harrill and others, 

1988) in southwestern Nevada and southeastern California 

(fig. 1). The four groundwater basins include Pahute Mesa–

Oasis Valley (PMOV), Alkali Flat–Furnace Creek Ranch 

(AFFCR), Ash Meadows, and Pahrump to Death Valley South 

(PDVS; fig. 1). Declining water levels and reduced natural discharge at some springs, seeps, and evapotranspiration areas are 

the result of decades of groundwater development in this dry 

region (Halford and Jackson, 2020). This report was prompted 

by concern from local and Federal managers of the potential 

future effects of groundwater pumping on water levels and 

natural groundwater discharge, with special regard to several 

federally protected groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the 

study area.

Pahrump Valley and central Amargosa Desert historically are the two primary pumping centers in the study area. 

Pahrump Valley and central Amargosa Desert have had 

measured drawdowns of as much as 80 and 50 ft, respectively 

(Halford and Jackson, 2020). Halford and Jackson (2020) also 

reported that groundwater pumping from central Amargosa 

Desert and Pahrump Valley affected areas of 300 and 600 

mi2, respectively, based on the delineation of areas where 

measured water levels declined at a rate greater than 0.1 ft per 

decade. Continued groundwater pumping at current (estimated 

from 2010) rates in Pahrump Valley, the central Amargosa 

Desert, and other nearby pumping centers likely will increase 

the magnitude and extent of regional drawdown. Effects of 

groundwater pumping can include water-level declines; land 

subsidence; and capture from springs, streams, and phreatophytic vegetation, which can adversely affect species that use 

these groundwater-dependent ecosystems. These effects are of 

concern to a variety of land-, water-, and wildlife-management 

agencies.

A high-profile concern within the study area is the effect 

of pumping on the water level in Devils Hole in the Ash 

Meadows discharge area (fig. 2). Devils Hole is the exclusive 

habitat of an endangered species, Cyprinodon diabolis (Devils 

Hole pupfish). During the 1970s, groundwater development 

in the Ash Meadows discharge area by Cappaert Enterprises, 

formerly Spring Meadows, Inc., caused a 2.3-ft water-level 

decline in Devils Hole, which temporarily reduced the spawning habitat of the Devils Hole pupfish (Dudley and Larson, 

1976). The correlation of nearby pumping to water-level 

declines in Devils Hole was sufficient evidence for the U.S. 

Supreme Court, in the 1976 court case Cappaert v. United 

States (426 U.S. 128), to limit pumping of groundwater so 

that a minimum pool elevation is maintained in Devils Hole 

(Williams and others, 1996). The mandated minimum pool 

elevation is 2.7 ft below a reference point in Devils Hole and 

was established without differentiating between water-level 

changes that are due solely to pumping or to a combination of 

pumping and climate (Williams and others, 1996). Therefore, 

water-level changes in Devils Hole from natural stresses 

should be considered in addition to changes from pumping.

Groundwater pumping has caused declines in natural 

groundwater discharge within the study area (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020). Natural groundwater discharge occurs either 

by diffuse upward flow into shallow alluvium, where water 

is either evaporated or transpired by phreatophytes; or from 

springs and seeps, some of which support perennial reaches of 

the Amargosa River. The groundwater-discharge areas investigated for this report are the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River, 

the Ash Meadows discharge area, the Furnace Creek area, and 

Stump Spring (fig. 2). Natural discharge in the Amargosa Wild 

and Scenic River includes all discharge from springs and phreatophytes along a 33-mi perennial reach between Shoshone 

and Dumont Dunes in California (fig. 2). The Ash Meadows 

discharge area includes Amargosa Flat, more than 30 springs 

and seeps at Ash Meadows, and evapotranspiration areas 

extending downgradient from springs (fig. 2). Furnace Creek 

area groundwater discharge includes discharge from Texas, 

Nevares, and Travertine Springs; evapotranspiration from 

phreatophytes on the alluvial fan; and water diverted from 

Furnace Creek Wash that would have discharged as evapotranspiration on the alluvial fan before groundwater development (fig. 2; see Halford and Jackson [2020] for details). The 

four groundwater-discharge areas investigated in this report 

are federally protected:

1. The Ash Meadows discharge area, which contains 

Devils Hole, is within a detached unit of Death Valley 

National Park;

2. The Amargosa River between Shoshone and Dumont 

Dunes in California is a designated National Wild and 

Scenic River (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council, 2018);

3. The Furnace Creek area is within Death Valley National 

Park; and

4. Stump Spring is a designated Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (Bureau of Land 

Management, 1998).
Introduction 3

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

Devils Hole 

(Subunit of 

Death Valley

National Park)

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

DEATH

VALLEY

NATIONAL

PARK

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Pahra nagat Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Oasis Valley

Timber

Mountain

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Pahrump

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Las Vegas

Study

area

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Hydraulic barrier—Area 

of low-permeability 

rock at the water table 

(Halford and Jackson, 

2020)

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

DV3-PRED model domain 

(Jackson and Halford, 

2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Figure 1. Study area with groundwater basins and hydraulic barriers, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and 

California.
4 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

Devils Hole 

(Subunit of 

Death Valley

National Park)

Stump

Spring

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Pahrump

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Diversion

Spring or spring complex

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Observation site

Devils Hole

Nevares

Springs

Texas Springs

Travertine

Springs

Furnace Creek Wash

Furnace Creek area Ash Meadows discharge area Amargosa Wild and 

Scenic River (AWSR)

Furnace

Creek

Shoshone

Tecopa

Dumont 

Dunes

Amargosa

Flat

Beginning of

AWSR

End of

AWSR

Figure 2. Study area including discharge areas, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.
Introduction 5

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to simulate four 

groundwater-pumping scenarios to forecast (1) the extent of 

regional drawdowns; (2) drawdown in Devils Hole; and (3) 

pumping-induced reductions in natural discharge from the Ash 

Meadows discharge area, the Furnace Creek area, Amargosa 

Wild and Scenic River, and Stump Spring. A “base case” 

pumping scenario simulates historical development from 1913 

to 2010 and assumes that pumping continues at current (2010) 

rates, with 2010 pumping rates projected through 2120. Three 

additional groundwater-pumping scenarios (scenarios A, B, 

and C) were provided by the Bureau of Land Management; 

National Park Service; Nevada Division of Wildlife; Nye 

County, Nevada; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pumping 

rates (magnitudes) and locations in scenarios A, B, and C were 

selected by cooperators to determine potential future effects 

of additional pumping through 2120 on federally protected, 

groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The pumping rates and 

locations provided are hypothetical and do not necessarily 

represent the water usage plans or forecasts of any of the listed 

agencies or of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Groundwater-pumping scenarios were simulated using 

a previously developed numerical groundwater-flow model, 

referred to as the Death Valley version 3 predictive model 

(DV3-PRED; Halford and Jackson, 2020). The four scenarios 

simulate historical pumping from 1913 to 2010 in the PMOV, 

AFFCR, Ash Meadows, and PDVS groundwater basins. The 

base case scenario projects 2010 pumping rates through 2120; 

the other three scenarios (A, B, and C) simulate the base case 

pumping plus additional pumping through 2120 from two or 

more of the following areas: the Amargosa Desert, Pahrump 

Valley, Indian Springs area, and north of Ash Meadows discharge area.

Description of Study Area

The 6,720,000-acre study area consists of four groundwater basins: PMOV, AFFCR, Ash Meadows, and PDVS (fig. 1). 

Altitudes in the study area range from 11,916 ft in the Spring 

Mountains to −282 ft in Death Valley (Halford and Jackson, 

2020). Recharge occurs primarily in high-altitude areas (above 

6,000 ft) because high-altitude areas receive higher rates of 

precipitation than lower-altitude areas. Recharge principally 

occurs after winters with greater-than-average precipitation, 

when spring snowmelt replenishes the soil reservoir beyond 

its storage capacity, allowing downward percolation below the 

root zone and into the groundwater system (Smith and others, 

2017). Primary recharge locations for the study area include 

Pahute Mesa; the Spring Mountains; Timber Mountain; and 

the Belted, Groom, Pahranagat, and Sheep Ranges. Natural 

discharge occurs primarily along the Amargosa Wild and 

Scenic River and in Ash Meadows discharge area, Furnace 

Creek area, Oasis Valley, and Pahrump Valley. Recharge generally occurs in the northern and eastern parts of the study area 

and discharge occurs in the southern and western parts of the 

study area (fig. 1; Halford and Jackson, 2020).

The PDVS groundwater basin is hydraulically isolated, 

whereas the AFFCR and Ash Meadows groundwater basins 

are hydraulically connected (Halford and Jackson, 2020). 

Low-permeability siliciclastic rocks in the northern part 

of the Spring Mountains and Resting Spring Range form 

a hydraulic barrier between Pahrump Valley and the Ash 

Meadows discharge area (fig. 1). Low-permeability rocks 

in the Resting Spring Range, Greenwater Range, and Black 

Mountains impede the propagation of drawdown from the 

PDVS groundwater basin toward the central Amargosa Desert. 

Instead, drawdowns from pumping in Pahrump Valley extend 

westward and southwestward toward discharge areas along the 

Amargosa Wild and Scenic River.

The Ash Meadows and AFFCR groundwater basins are 

hydraulically connected by a 2–5 mi wide corridor near well 

AD-4, referred to as the well AD-4 corridor (fig. 1; Halford 

and Jackson, 2020). The well AD-4 corridor is an area of 

groundwater upwelling, as indicated by a potentiometric 

high in water-level contours around well AD-4 that decreases 

radially into the central Amargosa Desert (Walker and Eakin, 

1963, plate 3; Claassen, 1985). The hydraulic connection 

through the well AD-4 corridor allows groundwater from 

the Ash Meadows groundwater basin to move upward from 

carbonate rocks into basin fill in the central Amargosa Desert. 

Drawdowns from pumping basin fill in the central Amargosa 

Desert have propagated through the well AD-4 corridor into 

carbonate rocks within the Ash Meadows groundwater basin 

by 2018 (Halford and Jackson, 2020).

In the Ash Meadows groundwater basin, drawdowns 

propagate quickly and recover slowly in a hydrologic feature 

known as the megachannel (Halford and Jackson, 2020). The 

megachannel is an areally extensive, highly transmissive feature in carbonate rocks (fig. 1), where transmissivity exceeds 

20,000 ft2/d. As delineated by Halford and Jackson (2020), 

the megachannel extends from the Ash Meadows discharge 

area to the northern extent of Yucca Flat. The megachannel 

was delineated from interpretations of hydrochemical data at 

Ash Meadows springs and aquifer-test results in Yucca Flat 

(Winograd and Pearson, 1976; Jackson, 2017; Jackson and 

Halford, 2020).
6 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Death Valley Version 3 Predictive Model

The DV3-PRED model (Halford and Jackson, 

2020; Jackson and Halford, 2020) is a three-dimensional, 

finite-difference, numerical groundwater-flow model 

(MODFLOW–2005; Harbaugh, 2005). The DV3-PRED 

model simulates the effect of historical and future potential 

groundwater development in the Ash Meadows, AFFCR, 

PMOV, and PDVS groundwater basins (fig. 1). The model 

domain is the areal extent of the four combined groundwater 

basins. Historical groundwater development (1913–2010) 

was simulated with the MODFLOW Well package using 

groundwater-withdrawal data compiled by Elliott and Moreo 

(2018). Historical annual groundwater withdrawals were simulated from 1913 to 2010, and current (2010) pumping rates 

were projected from 2010 to 2020. Capture-limited boundary 

conditions (Halford and Plume, 2011) were used to simulate 

discharges from springs and evapotranspiration areas. Capture 

is the decrease in discharge from springs and evapotranspiration areas that is the result of pumping. Capture-limited 

boundary conditions ensured that the total amount of discharge 

captured from springs and evapotranspiration areas cannot 

exceed predevelopment discharges.

Hydraulic properties in the DV3-PRED model were 

distributed using a simplified hydrogeologic framework of carbonate rocks, volcanic rocks, basin fill, volcanic-sedimentary 

rocks, and low-permeability granitic and siliciclastic rocks. 

For each of these geologic units, heterogeneous hydraulicconductivity, specific-yield, and specific-storage distributions 

were estimated from calibration of the model to predevelopment (steady-state) and groundwater-development (transient) 

conditions. Measured water-level altitudes in wells, spring 

pools, and evapotranspiration areas; transmissivity estimates 

from aquifer tests and specific capacity; drawdowns in wells 

from pumping; and spring capture were compared to simulated 

equivalents during model calibration (Halford and Jackson, 

2020; Jackson and Halford, 2020). See Halford and Jackson 

(2020) for detailed descriptions of model development and 

calibration.

Pumping Scenarios

Four groundwater-pumping scenarios were developed to 

examine potential effects of future pumping on water levels 

and groundwater discharges in the study area. Each scenario 

simulates historical pumping at annual rates from 1913 to 

2010 (Elliott and Moreo, 2018), and 2010 pumping rates are 

projected through 2020; therefore, pumping rates from 1913 

to 2020 are the same for all four scenarios. Future pumping 

scenarios begin in 2020 and are projected for 100 years to 

2120. The base case scenario simulates future groundwater 

withdrawals by assuming that all pumping continues at current 

(2010) rates through 2120. The other three scenarios (A, B, 

and C) simulate the same historical pumping rates through 

2120 as the base case plus increased groundwater pumping 

from 2020 to 2120 within the AFFCR, Ash Meadows, and 

(or) PDVS groundwater basins. The four pumping scenarios 

are summarized in table 1 and figure 3. Locations and rates of 

base case pumping wells are shown in figure 4. Locations and 

rates of additional pumping wells used in scenarios A–C are 

shown in figures 5–7 and are provided in the model archive 

(Nelson and Jackson, 2020).

The base case scenario simulates the effect of continued pumping at current (2010) rates through 2120. A total of 

970 wells were used to simulate annual pumping volumes of 

37,873 acre-ft from 2010 to 2120 (table 1). The maximum 

pumping rate from an individual well during the simulation period from 2010 to 2120 is 1,127 acre-ft/yr, which was 

pumped from a well open to basin fill in the central Amargosa 

Desert (fig. 4). The main pumping areas are in Pahrump 

Valley and the central Amargosa Desert. Notable pumping 

also occurs near Indian Springs, Emigrant Valley, Furnace 

Creek, and Beatty and on the Nevada National Security Site 

(NNSS; fig. 4).

Scenario A adds 222 wells to base case pumping, increasing total (gross) pumping by 13 percent from 37,873 acre-ft/

yr (in the base case) to 42,609 acre-ft/yr (table 1). Domestic 

and municipal wells were added in Pahrump Valley, including 

three municipal wells pumping 667 acre-ft/yr and 216 domestic wells pumping 3.4 acre-ft/yr (fig. 5). The Nevada State 

Engineer limits net consumptive use from domestic wells to 

0.5 acre-ft/yr (Geter, 2015, p. 2); however, domestic pumping rates greater than 0.5 acre-ft/yr likely were provided by 

cooperators to simulate multiple domestic wells in the same 

model cell. Three pumping wells were added in the Amargosa 

Desert with pumping rates ranging from 500 to 1,000 acre-ft/

yr (fig. 5).

Scenario B adds 226 wells to base case pumping, increasing total pumping by 6 percent from 37,873 to 39,963 acre-ft/

yr, compared to the base case (table 1). Scenario B includes 

the same locations of domestic and municipal wells in 

Pahrump Valley as scenario A (figs. 5–6), except that pumping rates are decreased by a factor of two for domestic (1.7 

acre-ft/yr) and municipal (333 acre-ft/yr) wells. Compared to 

scenario A, scenario B increases the number of wells in the 

Amargosa Desert from 3 to 5 but decreases the total pumping 

in the Amargosa Desert from 2,000 to about 710 acre-ft/yr, 

with individual pumping rates in the Amargosa Desert ranging 

from 7.5 to 500 acre-ft/yr (fig. 6). Unlike scenario A, scenario 

B has two new wells open to carbonate rock about 14 and 20 

mi northeast of Devils Hole, respectively. The carbonate well 

closer to Devils Hole occurs within the megachannel, whereas 

the farther well is about 2 mi east of the megachannel. These 

two carbonate wells have pumping rates of 5 acre-ft/yr (fig. 6).
Introduction 7

Table 1. Summary of pumping scenarios.

[—, not applicable]

Pumping scenario Total number of pumping wells 

from 2020 to 2120

Total pumpage from 2020 to 2120 

(acre-feet per year)

Increase from base case pumping (percent)

Base case 970 37,873 —

A 1,192 42,609 13

B 1,196 39,963 6

C 1,203 73,587 94

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 2120

0

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

−20,000 Groundwater withdrawals, in acre-feet per year

Base case

Scenario B

Scenario A

Scenario C

Return flow

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Total annual pumping and return flow for the base case scenario and additional annual pumpage in scenarios A, B, and C, 

Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.
8 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Pahra nagat Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils Hole 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Base case simulated 

pumping well, in 

acre-feet per year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

Figure 4. Location of pumping wells simulated in the base case scenario, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and 

California.
Introduction 9

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

Amargosa River

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Pahra nagat Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Amargosa Desert

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils Hole 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Scenario A pumping well 

simulated in additon to 

base case pumping 

wells, in acre-feet per 

year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

Base case simulated 

pumping well, in 

acre-feet per year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

Figure 5. Location of additional pumping wells in scenario A that were simulated together with the base case pumping 

wells, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.
10 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

Amargosa River

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Pahra nagat Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Amargosa Desert

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! Pahrump

Devils Hole 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Scenario B pumping well 

simulated in addition to 

base case pumping 

wells, in acre-feet per 

year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

Base case simulated 

pumping well, in 

acre-feet per year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

Figure 6. Location of additional pumping wells in scenario B that were simulated together with the base case pumping 

wells, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 11

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

Amargosa River

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Amargosa Desert

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils Hole 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Scenario C pumping well 

simulated in addition to 

base case pumping 

wells, in acre-feet per 

year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to <5,000

5,000 or more

Base case simulated 

pumping well, in 

acre-feet per year

5 to <50

50 to <500

0 to <5

500 to 5,000 or more

Figure 7. Location of additional pumping wells in scenario C that were simulated together with the base case pumping 

wells, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California.
12 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Scenario C adds 233 wells to base case pumping, increasing total pumping to 73,587 acre-ft/yr, which is an increase 

of 94 percent compared to the base case scenario (table 1). 

Scenario C has the same locations and pumping rates for 

domestic and municipal wells in Pahrump Valley as scenario 

A. Scenario C includes only three new wells in the central 

Amargosa Desert, each pumping at rates of 500 acre-ft/

yr. Scenario C has the same locations as scenario B for two 

carbonate wells about 14 and 20 mi northeast of Devils Hole, 

respectively; however, pumping rates are increased to 500 

acre-ft/yr. Unlike the other scenarios, scenario C adds nine 

new wells in the carbonate aquifer in the Indian Springs area. 

These nine wells account for most of the increased pumping in 

scenario C. At Indian Springs, seven high-capacity wells each 

pump 2,286 acre-ft/year; two wells pump at 7,239 acre-ft/yr, 

one just east of Indian Springs and the other to the northeast in 

Three Lakes Valley (fig. 7).

Simulated Effects of Future 

Groundwater Pumping

The following sections discuss DV3-PRED model 

results for each pumping scenario: simulated regional drawdown, simulated water levels in Devils Hole, and simulated 

capture of natural discharge. Magnitude and extent of simulated regional drawdown are presented for the base case as 

water-level drawdown from predevelopment in 2020, 2040, 

2070, and 2120, and drawdown difference from 2020 in 2120. 

Magnitude and extent of simulated regional drawdown are 

presented for scenarios A, B, and C as water-level drawdown 

from predevelopment in 2120 and drawdown difference from 

the base case in 2120 for each respective scenario in 2120. 

Water levels in Devils Hole are presented using two hydrographs: (1) simulated drawdown only, and (2) combined 

water-level changes from natural stresses and pumping in each 

pumping scenario. Simulated capture of natural discharge is 

presented for the following discharge areas: Amargosa Wild 

and Scenic River, Ash Meadows discharge area, Furnace 

Creek area, and Stump Spring.

Regional Drawdown

The magnitude and extent of simulated drawdown is 

presented in the following sections. All drawdowns were 

calculated using simulated hydraulic heads from model layer 

2 (layer 1 is 1 ft thick and was created for the purpose of 

estimating specific yield and simulating groundwater/surfacewater interaction [Halford and Jackson, 2020]). Simulated 

drawdown maps are presented in two formats: drawdown 

from predevelopment conditions and drawdown differences. 

For example, a map of drawdown in 2120 from predevelopment conditions is the simulated drawdown in year 2120 from 

all historical and future pumping that occurred from 1913 to 

2120. Drawdown maps from predevelopment conditions have 

1-ft drawdown thresholds; therefore, simulated drawdowns of 

less than 1 ft are not shown.

Drawdown difference maps are used to visually assess 

small changes in drawdown between the pumping scenarios 

and the base case. Drawdown difference maps have thresholds 

of 0.1 ft. For the base case scenario, the drawdown difference 

map was computed by subtracting drawdown in 2120 from 

drawdown in 2020. Scenarios A, B, and C are compared to 

the base case by subtracting simulated drawdowns in each 

scenario from drawdown in the base case. For example, the 

drawdown difference map for scenario A in 2120 is computed 

by subtracting scenario A drawdowns in 2120 from base case 

drawdowns in 2120.

Base Case

In the PDVS groundwater basin, the maximum extent 

of simulated drawdown (1 ft or greater) remained relatively 

unchanged in 2120 compared to 2020 because effects from 

historical pumping had propagated to all groundwaterdischarge areas in the PDVS basin by 2020 (figs. 8–12). 

Simulated effects of pumping in Pahrump Valley propagated downgradient into Chicago Valley and through the 

Resting Spring Range to discharge areas north of Shoshone, 

California, by 2020 (fig. 8). Pumping in Pahrump Valley 

peaked in 1968 because of irrigation and decreased from the 

1970s to 2010 (fig. 13) because of a transition from irrigation 

to use in domestic, industrial, municipal, and public supply. 

The changes in pumping resulted in declining water levels 

in western Pahrump Valley and rising water levels in eastern 

Pahrump Valley from 1980 to 2019 (Halford and Jackson, 

2020). Continued simulated pumping at 2010 rates for the 

base case scenario results in continued water-level declines 

in western and southern Pahrump Valley, whereas water 

levels rise from 2010 to 2070 and then stabilize from 2070 to 

2120 in eastern Pahrump Valley (figs. 9–11). From 2040 to 

2120, pumping in western Pahrump causes large drawdowns 

between 50 and 100 ft through northern Pahrump Valley (figs. 

9–11) as pumping propagates toward low-permeability rock in 

the Spring Mountains (fig. 1).

In the AFFCR and Ash Meadows groundwater basins, 

simulated drawdowns of less than 5 ft have merged between 

pumping centers in the central Amargosa Desert, the NNSS, 

Indian Springs, and the Ash Meadows discharge area by 2020 

(fig. 8). By 2120, drawdown from the pumping center south 

of Beatty coalesces with the other merged pumping centers in 

the Amargosa Desert, NNSS, and the Ash Meadows groundwater basin (fig. 11). Areas of drawdown from pumping in 

the PMOV groundwater basin and Emigrant Valley remain 

isolated from one another and from other areas of drawdown 

through 2120.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 13

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2020 from 

predevelopment, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 8. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case scenario in 2020, Death Valley regional flow system, 

Nevada and California.
14 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2040 from 

predevelopment, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 9. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case scenario in 2040, Death Valley regional flow system, 

Nevada and California.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 15

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2070 from 

predevelopment, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 10. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case scenario in 2070, Death Valley regional flow system, 

Nevada and California.
16 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2120 from 

predevelopment, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 11. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for base case scenario in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, 

Nevada and California.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 17

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Difference in simulated 

water-level drawdown 

for the base case 

scenario between 2120 

and 2020, in feet

0.1 to <1

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 or more

Figure 12. Difference in water-level drawdown between the base case scenario in 2020 and 2120, Death Valley regional 

flow system, Nevada and California.
18 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Simulated drawdown from the central Amargosa Desert 

extends into the Furnace Creek area, Jackass Flats, and the 

megachannel by 2020 (fig. 8). The maximum drawdown in the 

central Amargosa Desert increases from about 65 ft in 2020 

to about 120 ft in 2120. Continued pumping from the central Amargosa Desert causes drawdown to propagate farther 

westward and northward into the Furnace Creek area and 

Jackass Flats between 2020 and 2120 (figs. 8–11). Drawdowns 

from pumping in the central Amargosa Desert, NNSS, and 

Indian Springs propagate into the megachannel, and due to the 

hydraulic connection through this transmissive zone (Halford 

and Jackson, 2020), result in drawdown in the Ash Meadows 

discharge area. Drawdown in the megachannel increases from 

roughly 2 to 4 ft from 2020 to 2120. The extent of drawdown 

in the Ash Meadows groundwater basin from pumping in the 

central Amargosa Desert, NNSS, and Indian Springs increases 

to the north and east from 2020 to 2120, and drawdown 

extends 20 mi along the Sheep Range by 2120.

Scenario A

In the PDVS groundwater basin, the addition of 216 

domestic wells and 3 municipal wells in Pahrump Valley 

causes additional drawdown above simulated base case 

conditions but does not noticeably increase the maximum 

drawdown extent in the PDVS groundwater basin (figs. 14

and 15). Additional drawdown is the difference in drawdown 

between a model scenario (A, B, or C) in 2120 and the base 

case in 2120. Scenario A results in an additional drawdown of 

1–10 ft throughout most of Pahrump Valley by 2120 (fig. 15). 

Moreover, simulated drawdown near municipal wells in 

Pahrump Valley increases by about 35 ft by 2120 (fig. 15).

The addition of three wells in the Amargosa Desert 

increases simulated drawdowns above base case conditions 

throughout the Amargosa Desert and the Ash Meadows 

groundwater basin (fig. 15). A new well pumping at 1,000 

acre-ft/yr south of Beatty induces about 75 ft of additional 

drawdown (fig. 15). Two wells in the central Amargosa Desert, 

which each pump at rates of 500 acre-ft/yr, induce about 9 and 

less than 1 ft of additional drawdown in the Amargosa Desert 

and megachannel, respectively (fig. 15).

Scenario B

Pumping rates of the 219 new wells in Pahrump Valley 

were reduced by 50 percent in scenario B as compared to scenario A. Total drawdown from predevelopment exceeded 100 

ft in 2120 in western Pahrump (fig. 16). Although the extent 

of simulated additional drawdowns in the PDVS groundwater 

basin for scenarios A and B appears somewhat similar, reducing the pumping rates in scenario B resulted in a smaller areal 

extent of additional drawdowns exceeding 1 ft in the PDVS 

groundwater basin (fig. 17).

The areal extent of drawdown difference from the base 

case in the Amargosa Desert is smaller in scenario B (fig. 17), 

compared to scenario A (fig. 15). Scenario B simulates five 

new Amargosa Desert wells that pump a total of 710 acre-ft/yr 

and less than the three new Amargosa Desert wells that pump 

a total of 2,000 acre-ft/yr in scenario A. For the Ash Meadows 

groundwater basin, two hypothetical wells that are in or near 

the megachannel and a new hypothetical well near the well 

AD-4 corridor contribute to the maximum extent of simulated 

additional drawdown. Compared to scenario A, the maximum 

extent of simulated drawdown in scenario B propagated farther northward and eastward toward the Sheep Range.

1940 1950 1960

Year

1910 1920 1930 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Groundwater withdrawals, in thousands of 

acre-feet per year

0

10

20

30

40

50

Projected

Irrigation

Industrial, municipal, and public supply

Domestic

Return flow

EXPLANATION

Water use in the Pahrump 

to Death Valley South 

groundwater basin

Figure 13. Groundwater withdrawals by water use in the Pahrump to Death Valley South groundwater basin from 1913 to 2020 

(modified from Halford and Jackson, 2020).
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 19

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2120 from 

predevelopment for 

scenario A, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 14. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario A in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California.
20 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Difference in simulated 

water-level drawdown 

between scenario A 

and the base case in 

2120, in feet

0.1 to <1

1 to <10

10 to <100

Figure 15. Difference in water-level drawdown between the base case scenario and scenario A in 2120, Death Valley 

regional flow system, Nevada and California.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 21

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2120 from 

predevelopment for 

scenario B, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 16. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario B in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California.
22 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Difference in simulated 

water-level drawdown 

between scenario B 

and the base case in 

2120, in feet

0.1 to <1

1 to <10

10 to <100

Figure 17. Difference in water-level drawdown between the base case scenario and scenario B in 2120, Death Valley 

regional flow system, Nevada and California
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 23

Scenario C

Scenario C simulates three new central Amargosa Desert 

wells that each pump 500 acre-ft/yr. Total drawdown from 

predevelopment exceeds 100 ft in 2120 in parts of Pahrump 

Valley, the Amargosa Desert, central NNSS, and a large area in 

the Ash Meadows groundwater basin, extending through Three 

Lakes Valley (fig. 18). The magnitude and extent of additional 

drawdown in the central Amargosa Desert is similar between 

scenarios A (fig. 15) and C (fig. 19) because similar volumes 

of groundwater are withdrawn from wells.

Simulated additional drawdowns in the megachannel are 

substantially larger in scenario C (fig. 19) compared to scenarios A and B (figs. 15 and 17). In scenario C, two additional 

wells in or near the megachannel and nine new pumping wells 

in the Indian Springs area induce additional drawdowns that 

propagate throughout the megachannel. The additional pumping induces about 35 ft of additional drawdown in the megachannel compared to the base case.

Total drawdown and drawdown difference from the base 

case in 2120 for scenario C show merged drawdowns of less 

than 5 ft between the PDVS and Ash Meadows groundwater 

basins (figs. 18 and 19). A merged drawdown of less than 5 ft 

induced 30 acre/yr of simulated groundwater flow from PDVS 

to Ash Meadows, which is 0.2 percent of the predevelopment 

discharge in the Ash Meadows discharge area (18,500 acre-ft/

yr; Halford and Jackson, 2020). This result is speculative and 

uncertain because of a lack of water-level data in wells to 

constrain flow between Pahrump Valley and the Ash Meadows 

discharge area.

Water Levels in Devils Hole

For each model scenario, two Devils Hole hydrographs 

were constructed to show (1) the component of drawdown 

(water-level decline) resulting from historical and future 

pumping simulated using the DV3-PRED model (fig. 20A), 

and (2) the combined water-level changes from fluctuations in 

natural stresses and pumping (fig. 20B). The combined effect 

of natural stresses and pumping on water levels in Devils 

Hole is needed to accurately forecast the timing of simulated 

water-level declines below the U.S. Supreme Court-mandated 

minimal water level.

The DV3-PRED model simulates drawdown in Devils 

Hole only due to pumping, from 1940 to 2120, and does not 

simulate natural stresses such as recharge (fig. 20A). Pumpinginduced simulated drawdown in Devils Hole ranged from 3.2 

to 25.4 ft by 2120 (fig. 20A; simulated drawdown of 25.4 ft in 

2120 for scenario C not shown in fig. 20A). If pumping continues at 2010 rates (the base case), then the simulated drawdown 

in Devils Hole by 2120 will be about 3.2 ft. Scenario A 

includes three new wells in basin fill in the Amargosa Desert, 

which result in 3.4 ft of simulated drawdown (an additional 

0.2 ft compared to the base case) in Devils Hole by 2120 

(fig. 20A). In scenario B, simulated drawdown in 2120 was 

3.8 ft (0.6 ft more than for the base case; fig. 20A). Pumping 

wells in or near the megachannel and in the well AD-4 corridor likely are responsible for much of the additional drawdown in scenario B compared to the base case and scenario A. 

Pumping of about 30,500 acre-ft/yr from nine new wells in the 

Indian Springs area in scenario C substantially affected water 

levels in Devils Hole, resulting in a maximum simulated drawdown of 25.4 ft at Devils Hole by 2120 (maximum drawdown 

not shown in fig. 20A). Simulated groundwater pumping in the 

Indian Springs area causes water-level drawdown to propagate 

through the carbonate aquifer into the megachannel and downgradient to Devils Hole.

The DV3-PRED model simulates drawdown due to 

pumping and does not have the capacity to simulate natural 

stresses (fig 20A); however, natural stresses such as recharge 

and earthquakes have a substantial effect on water levels in 

Devils Hole (to as much as 0.8 ft from 1940 to 2018, fig. 20B). 

To accurately simulate the effect of natural stresses on water 

levels in Devils Hole, the DV3-PRED model was modified to 

include both natural and pumping-induced stresses. Previously 

simulated water-level fluctuations at Devils Hole due to natural stresses (Halford and others, 2012; Jackson and Halford, 

2020) were combined with pumping-induced simulated 

drawdowns using DV3-PRED to evaluate the effect of both 

stresses on water levels in Devils Hole. Simulated water-level 

fluctuations caused by natural stresses and pumping compare 

reasonably well to observed water levels from 1940 to 2018 

(fig. 20B) and provide an accurately simulated water-level 

depth in 2018 to initiate model forecast scenarios from 2019 

to 2120. However, forecasting future change in recharge 

effects on water levels from 2019 to 2120 is highly uncertain and beyond the scope of this study. From 2019 to 2120, 

a constant value was used to simulate year-to-year model 

recharge by assuming recharge to be equal to natural groundwater discharge (fig. 20B). A constant recharge approach, in 

essence, negates the effect of natural stresses and simulates 

only pumping-induced water-level change from 2019 to 2120. 

Although not necessarily a realistic forecast of future climate 

effects on water levels in Devils Hole, the approach does 

provide useful information on the general rate and timing of 

pumping-induced water-level change. The resulting simulated 

water levels for all model scenarios were compared to the 

U.S. Supreme Court-mandated minimum water level of 2.7 ft 

below an established reference point in Devils Hole.
24 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

Simulated water-level 

drawdown in 2120 from 

predevelopment for 

scenario C, in feet

1 to <5

5 to <10

10 to <50

50 to <100

100 or more

Figure 18. Water-level drawdown from predevelopment for scenario C in 2120, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada 

and California.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 25

Fortymile Wash

Amargosa River

Amargosa River

Chin a Ranch

Wash

95

95

93

15

373

190

127

318

375

582

LINCOLN CO.

CLARK CO.

NYE CO.

INYO CO. CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

SAN BERNADINO CO.

Pahute Mesa

Funeral Mountains

Black Mountains

Greenwater Range

Amargosa Desert

Spring Mountains

Groom

Range 

Sheep Range

Pintwater Range

Specter Range

Chicago Valley

Nopah Range

Yucca

Flat

Rainier

Mesa

Jackass

Flats

Yucca

Mountain

Indian

Springs

Valley

Three

Lakes

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Rest ni g Spring Range

ASH MEADOWS

PAHUTE MESA–

OASIS VALLEY

ALKALI FLAT–

FURNACE

CREEK

RANCH

BULLFROG

HILLS

PAHRUMP TO 

DEATH VALLEY

SOUTH

Belted Range

Kawich Range

Desert Range

Spotted Range

California Valley

Death Valley

Emigrant 

Valley

Amargosa Wild and Scen ci R vi er

Beatty

Amargosa

Valley

Shoshone

Tecopa

Furnace

Creek

Indian

Springs

Mercury

Las

Vegas

Pahrump

Devils

Hole 

Stump

Spring

0 20 MILES

0

10

20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 1-arc second 

National Elevation Data. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983.

117°

37°

36°

116°30' 116° 115°30' 115°

37°

30'

36°

30'

Dumont

Dunes

0 20 MILES

0

10

20 KILOMETERS

Observation site

Groundwater basin 

boundary (Halford and 

Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the megachannel (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Extent of the AD-4 

corridor (Halford and 

 Jackson, 2020)

Nevada National 

Security Site 

boundary and internal

operations area

EXPLANATION

Area of groundwater 

discharge by 

evapotranspiration

0.1 to <1

1 to <10

10 to <100

100 or more

Difference in simulated 

water-level drawdown 

between scenario C 

and the base case in 

2120, in feet

Figure 19. Difference in water-level drawdown between the base case scenario and scenario C in 2120, Death Valley 

regional flow system, Nevada and California
26 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

0

1

2

3

4

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

A

B

Simulated drawdown, in feet Water-level depth below reference point, in feet

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 2120

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Year

2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 2120

?

Future natural fluctuations from 

recharge are unknown but have 

a large effect on water levels

U.S. Supreme Court-mandated 

minimum water level

Measured

Base case

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Change in Devils Hole water level 

from natural causes—dashed 

where unknown

EXPLANATION

Simulated drawdown 

of 25.4 ft in 2120 for 

scenario C not shown

Figure 20. Water levels in Devils Hole, southern Nevada. A, Simulated drawdowns for four pumping scenarios from the 

predictive Death Valley version 3 model (DV3-PRED). B, Measured (1940–2017) water-level depth below reference point, estimated 

(1940–2018) and projected (2019–2120) changes in Devils Hole water level from natural stresses, and summation of simulated 

drawdowns and natural water-level changes for four pumping scenarios.
Simulated Effects of Future Groundwater Pumping 27

For all model scenarios simulated using a constant 

recharge value, water levels in Devils Hole declined below the 

mandated minimum water level by 2120 (fig. 20B). The base 

case and scenarios A, B, and C water levels decline below 

2.7 ft by 2078, 2073, 2058, and 2025, respectively. However, 

natural water-level fluctuations in the future (after 2019) may 

influence the timing of when water levels decline below the 

mandated minimum water level. For example, an extended dry 

period (less than average recharge) will accelerate the timing when water levels will drop below the mandated minimum water level, whereas an extended wet period (greater 

than average recharge) will prolong the timing. For scenario 

C, the relatively large simulated groundwater withdrawals 

have caused a steep decline of water levels in Devils Hole 

(fig. 20A), compared to other model simulations. Under the 

higher pumping stress of scenario C, natural fluctuations 

would likely have a minimal effect on the timing of when 

water levels decline below the mandated minimum water level 

of 2.7 ft. For the base case, scenario A, and scenario B, the 

timing of when water levels will decline below the mandated 

minimum water level is much more dependent on future natural water-level fluctuations.

Capture of Natural Discharge

Simulated discharges for the Amargosa Wild and Scenic 

River, the Ash Meadows discharge area, the Furnace Creek 

area, and Stump Spring were computed using ZONEBUDGET, a computer program for calculating subregional water 

budgets for MODFLOW groundwater-flow models (Harbaugh, 

1990). Simulated discharges and percentages of captured discharge for each of the four scenarios are presented in table 2.

Amargosa Wild and Scenic River

The Amargosa Wild and Scenic River is the least affected 

discharge area, by percentage of capture, examined for this 

report. The Amargosa Wild and Scenic River has a simulated 

predevelopment discharge of 6,700 acre-ft/yr (table 2; Halford 

and Jackson, 2020). The base case reduces simulated discharge 

by 3 percent, and scenarios A, B, and C reduce simulated 

discharge by 4 percent by 2120.

Table 2. Simulated effects from four scenarios of groundwater pumping on natural discharge at select discharge areas, Death Valley 

regional flow system, Nevada and California.

[Predevelopment discharge: Values are simulated values from Halford and Jackson (2020)]

Discharge area

Pre-development discharge

(acre-feet

per year)

Pumping 

scenario

Simulated discharge

(acre-feet per year)

Capture

(percent)

2020 2040 2070 2120 2020 2040 2070 2120

Amargosa Wild 

and Scenic 

River

6,700 Base case 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 3 3 3 3

A 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,400 3 3 3 4

B 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,400 3 3 3 4

C 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,400 3 3 3 4

Ash Meadows 

discharge area

18,500 Base case 17,900 17,800 17,500 17,100 3 4 5 8

A 17,900 17,800 17,500 17,000 3 4 5 8

B 17,900 17,600 17,400 16,900 3 5 6 9

C 17,900 16,200 14,000 11,500 3 12 24 38

Furnace Creek 

area

6,300 Base case 5,800 5,800 5,700 5,700 8 8 10 10

A 5,800 5,800 5,700 5,600 8 8 10 11

B 5,800 5,800 5,700 5,600 8 8 10 11

C 5,800 5,800 5,700 5,600 8 8 10 11

Stump Spring 250 Base case 180 180 180 170 28 28 28 32

A 180 180 170 160 28 28 32 36

B 180 180 170 160 28 28 32 36

C 180 180 170 160 28 28 32 36
28 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Ash Meadows Discharge Area

Simulated predevelopment discharge from Ash Meadows 

discharge area is 18,500 acre-ft/yr (table 2; Halford and 

Jackson, 2020). In the base case, simulated discharge is 

reduced by 8 percent to 17,100 acre-ft/yr by 2120. Scenarios 

A and B induce the capture of 8 and 9 percent of predevelopment discharge, respectively. In scenario C, simulated discharge is reduced by 38 percent to 11,500 acre-ft/yr by 2120. 

Scenario C has a large effect on simulated discharge at Ash 

Meadows discharge area. This is because, in scenario C, 

1–10 ft of drawdown were induced in the megachannel from 

the high withdrawal rates near Indian Springs (fig. 18), 

whereas additional pumping in scenarios A and B induced less 

than 1 ft of drawdown (figs. 14 and 16).

Furnace Creek Area

The Furnace Creek area has a simulated predevelopment 

discharge of 6,300 acre-ft/yr (table 2; Halford and Jackson, 

2020). The base case predicts a 10-percent reduction in predevelopment discharge at Furnace Creek area by 2120. Scenarios 

A, B, and C all predict an 11-percent reduction in predevelopment discharge by 2120.

Stump Spring

Simulated predevelopment discharge at Stump Spring 

is 250 acre-ft/yr (table 2; Halford and Jackson, 2020). In the 

base case, simulated discharge is reduced by 32 percent to 170 

acre-ft/yr by 2120. Scenarios A, B, and C all reduce simulated 

discharge by 36 percent to 160 acre-ft/yr.

Summary

Declining water levels and reduced natural discharge at 

springs, seeps, and phreatophyte areas primarily are the result 

of decades of groundwater development in the Death Valley 

regional flow system, in Nevada and California. The calibrated 

Death Valley version 3 predictive groundwater-flow model 

was used to simulate four future groundwater-pumping scenarios in the Death Valley regional flow system. The model was 

used to predict (1) the extent of regional water-level declines; 

(2) drawdown at Devils Hole; and (3) reductions in natural

discharge in the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River, the Ash

Meadows discharge area, the Furnace Creek area, and Stump

Spring. Each scenario simulates historical pumping at annual

rates from 1913 to 2010, and historical 2010 pumping is

projected from 2010 to 2120. Future pumping scenarios begin

in 2020 and are projected for 100 years to 2120. The base case

scenario simulated no additional groundwater development 

within the study area and simulated projected 2010 pumping 

rates through 2120. The other three scenarios (A, B, and C) 

simulated base case pumping rates plus additional groundwater pumping from 2020 to 2120 within the Alkali Flat–Furnace 

Creek Ranch (AFFCR), Ash Meadows, and (or) Pahrump to 

Death Valley South (PDVS) groundwater basins.

By 2020, historical (1913–2020) pumping resulted in 

the propagation of simulated drawdown of 1 foot (ft) or more 

westward from Pahrump Valley to areas north of Shoshone 

in the PDVS groundwater basin and the merging of simulated 1-ft drawdown contours between the AFFCR and Ash 

Meadows groundwater basins. In the base case scenario, the 

extent and magnitude of simulated drawdown continued to 

increase in the Ash Meadows and AFFCR groundwater basins 

from 2020 to 2120. In the base case, the magnitude of simulated drawdown continued to increase in western Pahrump 

Valley from 2020 to 2120, whereas simulated water levels 

rose in eastern Pahrump Valley from 2020 to 2070 and then 

stabilized from 2070 to 2120. Scenarios A and B primarily affected the PDVS and AFFCR groundwater basins by 

increasing the magnitude of drawdown in 2120, compared to 

the base case. In scenario C, drawdown propagated throughout a high-transmissivity part of the carbonate aquifer known 

as the megachannel, greatly affecting water levels in the Ash 

Meadows discharge area. Scenario C resulted in an additional 

10–100 ft of drawdown (compared to the base case) throughout the southeastern part of the Ash Meadows groundwater 

basin by 2120.

Simulated drawdown at Devils Hole in 2120 was 3.2, 3.4, 

3.8, and 25.4 ft for the base case and scenarios A, B, and C, 

respectively. Simulated water levels in Devils Hole fell below 

the federally mandated water level by 2078, 2073, 2058, and 

2025 for the base case and scenarios A, B, and C, respectively, 

assuming a hypothetical case of constant natural recharge for 

the period 2020—2120. In scenario A, pumping of about 2,000 

acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) from three new Amargosa Desert 

wells results in an additional 0.2 ft of water-level decline in 

Devils Hole compared to the base case by 2120. In scenario B, 

pumping of about 710 acre-ft/yr is more than the base case in 

the Amargosa Desert but less than the pumping from this area 

in scenario A. For the pumping level simulated in scenario 

B, simulated drawdown in Devils Hole is 0.2 ft greater than 

simulated drawdown in scenario A by 2120 because of the 

proximity of the pumping to the megachannel. Scenario C 

shows that high withdrawal rates (combined pumping of more 

than 30,000 acre-ft/yr) from the carbonate aquifer near Indian 

Springs result in rapid declines in Devils Hole water levels and 

capture of a large fraction of groundwater in the Ash Meadows 

discharge area.
References Cited 29

Reductions in natural discharge at select discharge areas 

ranged from 3 to 38 percent by 2120. The four pumping scenarios had a limited effect on discharge at the Amargosa Wild 

and Scenic River, where capture rates ranged from 3 to 4 percent for all scenarios. Capture rates in 2120 at Ash Meadows 

discharge area ranged from 8 to 9 percent for the base case, 

scenario A, and scenario B, and the simulated capture rate 

was 38 percent for scenario C. The four pumping scenarios 

had moderate effects on discharge at the Furnace Creek area, 

where capture rates ranged from 10 to 11 percent for all 

scenarios in 2120. The capture rate at Stump Spring was 32 

percent for the base case scenario and 36 percent for scenarios 

A, B, and C in 2120.

References Cited

Bureau of Land Management, 1998, Record of decision for 

the approved Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and 

final Environmental Impact Statement: Las Vegas, Nevada, 

Bureau of Land Management, 52 p., accessed November 19, 

2019, at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/

lup/78155/128947/156899/1998_LV_RMP_ROD.pdf.

Claassen, H.C., 1985, Sources and mechanisms of recharge 

for ground water in the west-central Amargosa Desert, 

Nevada; a geochemical interpretation: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 712-F, 31 p., https://doi.org/

10.3133/pp712F.

Dudley, W.W., Jr., and Larson, J.D., 1976, Effect of irrigation 

pumping on desert pupfish habitats in Ash Meadows, Nye 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

927, 52 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp927.]

Elliott, P.E., and Moreo, M.T., 2018, Update to the groundwater withdrawals database for the Death Valley regional 

groundwater flow system, Nevada and California, 

1913–2010: U.S. Geological Survey data release, accessed 

November 19, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.5066/F75H7FH3.

Geter, T., 2015, Amargosa Desert (hydrographic basin 

14–230) groundwater pumpage inventory water year 2015: 

Department of Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, 126 p.

Halford, K., Garcia, C.A., Fenelon, J., and Mirus, B., 2012, 

Advanced methods for modeling water-levels and estimating drawdowns with SeriesSEE, an Excel add-In (ver. 

1.1, July 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 4, chap. F4, 28 p., accessed November 19, 

2019, at https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/tm4F4.

Halford, K.J., and Jackson, T.R., 2020, Groundwater characterization and effects of pumping in the Death Valley 

regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and California, 

with special reference to Devils Hole: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1863, 178 p., accessed March 5, 

2020, at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1863.

Halford, K.J., and Plume, R.W., 2011, Potential effects of 

groundwater pumping on water levels, phreatophytes, and 

spring discharges in Spring and Snake Valleys, White Pine 

County, Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2011–5032, 52 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20115032.

Harbaugh, A.W., 1990, A computer program for calculating subregional water budgets using results from the U.S. 

Geological Survey Modular Three-Dimensional FiniteDifference Ground-Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 90–392, 46 p. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr90392.]

Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005—The U.S. 

Geological Survey modular ground-water model—The 

ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. A16 [variously 

paged], accessed November 19, 2019, at https://doi.org/

10.3133/tm6A16.

Harrill, J.R., Gates, J.S., and Thomas, J.M., 1988, Major 

ground-water flow systems in the Great Basin region 

of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Atlas 694–C, 2 plates. [Also 

available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ha694C.]

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, 

2018, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System—

Amargosa River, California: National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System web page, accessed January 2, 2018, at 

https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/amargosa.php.

Jackson, T.R., 2017, AQUIFER TEST PACKAGE—

Drawdown estimation and analysis of the ER-4-1 m1

multiple-well aquifer test of the lower carbonate aquifer, 

Yucca Flat, Nevada National Security Site: U.S. Geological 

Survey, aquifer test package, accessed June 1, 2017, at 

https://nevada.usgs.gov/aquifertests/studies/tests.html?test_

pg=ER-4-1m1.

Jackson, T.R., and Halford, K.J., 2020, MODFLOW-2005 

model and supplementary data used to characterize groundwater flow and effects of pumping in the Death Valley 

regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and California, 

with special reference to Devils Hole: U.S. Geological 

Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HIYVG2.
30 Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California

Nelson, N.C., and Jackson, T.R., 2020, MODFLOW-2005 

models used to simulate effects of pumping in the Death 

Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and 

California—Selected management scenarios projected to 

2120: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/

10.5066/P9OBUPXU.

Smith, D.W., Moreo, M.T., Garcia, C.A., Halford, K.J., and 

Fenelon, J.M., 2017, A process to estimate net infiltration using a site-scale water-budget approach, Rainier 

Mesa, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, 2002–05: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2017–5078, 22 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175078.

Walker, G.E., and Eakin, T.E., 1963, Geology and ground 

water of Amargosa Desert, Nevada-California: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 14, 45 p., 

http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/recon%20

reports/rpt14-Amargosa_valley.pdf.

Williams, O.R., Albright, J.S., Christensen, P.K., Hansen, 

W.R., Hughes, J.C., Johns, A.E., McGlothlin, D.J., Pettee, 

C.W., and Ponce, S.L., 1996, Water rights and Devil’s Hole 

pupfish at Death Valley National Monument, in Halvorson, 

W.L., and Davis, G.E., eds., Science and ecosystem 

management in the National Parks: Tucson, University of 

Arizona Press, p. 161–183.

Winograd, I.J., and Pearson, F.J., Jr., 1976, Major carbon-14 

anomaly in a regional carbonate aquifer—Possible evidence for megascale channeling, south-central Great Basin: 

Water Resources Research, v. 12, no. 6, p. 1125–1143, 

https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i006p01125.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Director, Nevada Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

2730 N. Deer Run Road

Carson City, Nevada 89701 

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nv-water
Nelson and Jackson—Simulated Effects of Pumping, Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California—SIR 2020-5103

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205103