20220301 17285900 1.0 FALSE Humboldt_ETg_median_1985_2015 002 355485.000000 682575.000000 4307175.000000 4625565.000000 1 Projected GCS_WGS_1984 Linear Unit: Meter (1.000000) WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_11N <ProjectedCoordinateSystem xsi:type='typens:ProjectedCoordinateSystem' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema' xmlns:typens='http://www.esri.com/schemas/ArcGIS/2.8.0'><WKT>PROJCS[&quot;WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_11N&quot;,GEOGCS[&quot;GCS_WGS_1984&quot;,DATUM[&quot;D_WGS_1984&quot;,SPHEROID[&quot;WGS_1984&quot;,6378137.0,298.257223563]],PRIMEM[&quot;Greenwich&quot;,0.0],UNIT[&quot;Degree&quot;,0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION[&quot;Transverse_Mercator&quot;],PARAMETER[&quot;False_Easting&quot;,500000.0],PARAMETER[&quot;False_Northing&quot;,0.0],PARAMETER[&quot;Central_Meridian&quot;,-117.0],PARAMETER[&quot;Scale_Factor&quot;,0.9996],PARAMETER[&quot;Latitude_Of_Origin&quot;,0.0],UNIT[&quot;Meter&quot;,1.0],AUTHORITY[&quot;EPSG&quot;,32611]]</WKT><XOrigin>-5120900</XOrigin><YOrigin>-9998100</YOrigin><XYScale>450445547.3910538</XYScale><ZOrigin>-100000</ZOrigin><ZScale>10000</ZScale><MOrigin>-100000</MOrigin><MScale>10000</MScale><XYTolerance>0.001</XYTolerance><ZTolerance>0.00020000000000000001</ZTolerance><MTolerance>0.00020000000000000001</MTolerance><HighPrecision>true</HighPrecision><WKID>32611</WKID><LatestWKID>32611</LatestWKID></ProjectedCoordinateSystem> 20220301 17285900 20220301 17424400 500000 5000 ItemDescription Esri ArcGIS 12.8.0.29751 Humboldt_ETg_median_1985_2015 1 -118.738668 -114.803720 41.781933 38.894493 Median ET for 1985 to 2015 provided by the Desert Research Institute <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Groundwater evapotranspiration (ETg) from phreatophyte vegetation is the primary component of natural groundwater discharge within the Humboldt River Basin. This report summarizes previous study estimates of ETg, and details methods and results of updated groundwater discharge areas, ETg rates, and ETg volume estimates developed in this study. Estimates derived in this study are summarized for the period of 1985-2015 and were based on a consistent place-based approach that relies on Geographic Information System and groundwater level data and a least-squares regression model that relates Landsat vegetation indices with evaporative demand, precipitation, and in-situ estimates of phreatophyte ET. Median annual ETg rates and volumes reported in this study are representative of pre-development conditions. Where irrigated areas were identified, ETg rates were adjusted to reflect the phreatophyte vegetation that likely occupied irrigated areas prior to cultivation. Results from this study were used to inform groundwater modeling studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Desert Research Institute, in cooperation with Nevada Division of Water Resources, to support conjunctive water management.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Results and datasets are summarized and documented in the form of maps, graphs, tables, geodatabases, and metadata following Federal Geographic Data Committee standards and are available at www.dri.edu/humboldt-etg. Estimated pre-development total annual ETg volumes for the upper, middle, and lower Humboldt River basin are 158,500, 361,600, 55,900 ac-ft/yr, and 85,700, 248,400, and 46,100 ac-ft/yr when riparian lands are excluded, respectively. Discharge areas and median annual ETg rates and volumes were compared to previous estimates for respective ET Units and Hydrographic Areas. Results reported for the upper Humboldt River Basin indicate that potential areas of groundwater discharge are generally lower, and ETg rates and volumes are generally less than one half of the ETg rates and volumes reported by Plume and Smith (2013). Results reported for the middle Humboldt River Basin indicate that ETg volumes are higher in six, and lower in seven HAs when compared to previous estimates reported in Water Resource Bulletin and Reconnaissance Series reports. ETg rates and volumes in the middle Humboldt River Basin are also generally less than one half when compared to those reported by Berger (2000). Differences in ETg volumes are primarily due to differences in ETg rates and differences in groundwater discharge areas.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>This study used place-based satellite remote sensing, climate and GIS datasets, groundwater levels, and in-situ based phreatophyte ET empirical regression models to estimate potential areas of groundwater discharge, and ETg rates and volumes within the Humboldt River Basin. Future study estimates of ETg within the Humboldt River Basin could be improved by refining delineation of groundwater discharge areas, variability in ETg with respect to climate and land use change, and collection of in-situ ET estimates in areas where large uncertainty exists.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report – Groundwater Discharge from Phreatophyte Vegetation, Humboldt River Basin, Nevada</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Dataset download from https://www.dri.edu/project/humboldt-etg/ on March 1, 2022.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV> Desert Research Institute dri Humboldt desert research institute median et evapotranspiration Nevada Enterprise Geodatabase Raster Dataset dataset EPSG 9.8.8(3.0.1) Pixel 10613 10903 30.000000 30.000000 32 1 Upper Left FALSE LZ77 1 pixel codes SDR TRUE row and column 30.000000 30.000000 20220301