U.S. Geological Survey 2014 digital data Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?sir2013-5079_Groundwater_Depletion Konikow, Leonard F. 2013 pdf document U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigative Report 5079 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079/ A natural consequence of groundwater withdrawals is the removal of water from subsurface storage, but the overall rates and magnitude of groundwater depletion in the United States are not well characterized. This study evaluates long-term cumulative depletion volumes in 40 separate aquifers or areas and one land use category in the United States, bringing together information from the literature and from new analyses. Depletion is directly calculated using calibrated groundwater models, analytical approaches, or volumetric budget analyses for multiple aquifer systems. Estimated groundwater depletion in the United States during 1900–2008 totals approximately 1,000 cubic kilometers (km3). Furthermore, the rate of groundwater depletion has increased markedly since about 1950, with maximum rates occurring during the most recent period (2000–2008) when the depletion rate averaged almost 25 km3 per year (compared to 9.2 km3 per year averaged over the 1900–2008 timeframe). The purpose of these data assessments are to estimate the cumulative long-term change in the volume of groundwater stored in the subsurface. It is not intended to capture changes related to seasonal variations and (or) short-term climatic fluctuations. The purposes of this report are (1) to document the magnitude and trends in long-term groundwater depletion in the United States, and (2) to provide additional background information and details that support the methods and calculations used to estimate groundwater depletion for the 40 areas and 1 land use category of depletion in the United States—information that underlies the assessments in Konikow (2011). Because no substantial volumetric groundwater depletion is evident in Alaska. One or more methods were applied to specific aquifer systems, subareas, or categories to estimate the net long-term depletion in each system. These methods (numbered for cross referencing in Table 1 in Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5079, Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900–2008) online at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20135079 ) included below: 1. Water-level change and storativity: Integrate measurements of changes in groundwater levels over time and area, combined with estimates of storativity (specific yield for unconfined aquifers or storage coefficient for confined systems), to estimate the change in the volume of water stored in the pore spaces of the aquifer (for example, McGuire and others, 2003). 2. Gravity: Estimate large-scale water loss from gravity changes over time as measured by GRACE satellite data (for example, Famiglietti and others, 2011). 3. Flow model: Use calculations of changes in volume of stored water made using a deterministic groundwater-flow model calibrated to long-term observations of heads and parameter estimates for the system (for example, Faunt and others, 2009b). 4. Confining unit: Apply the method of Konikow and Neuzil (2007), which requires estimates of specific storage and thickness of the confining unit, as well as head changes in the adjacent aquifer, to estimate the depletion from confining units. For confined aquifer systems, leakage out of adjacent low-permeability confining units may be the principal source of water and the largest element of depletion (Konikow and Neuzil, 2007). 5. Water budget: Use pumpage data in conjunction with a water budget analysis for an aquifer system to estimate depletion (for example, Kjelstrom, 1995). This approach is limited to systems for which there are reasonable estimates of other fluxes in and out of the system; the approach is applied most often in arid to semiarid areas where natural recharge is small or negligible. 6. Pumpage fraction: Use pumpage data in conjunction with an assumption that the fraction of pumpage derived from storage can be correlated with the fraction during a control period or for a control area (for example, Anderson and others, 1992). 7. Extrapolation: In cases where data do not extend through 2008, extrapolate rates of depletion through the end of the study period using the observed rates calculated for the most recent multi-year period. Adjust rates for extrapolation accordingly if recent observed water-level changes do not support a linear extrapolation. In cases where sufficient data exist, the annual rate of depletion is estimated through correlation with the observed rates of water-level change and (or) annual rates of pumpage. 8. Subsidence: Calculate a volume of subsidence in areas where land subsidence is caused by groundwater withdrawals; the depletion volume must equal or exceed the subsidence volume, so this serves as a cross-check and constraint on calculated depletion volumes (Kasmarek and Strom, 2002; Kasmarek and Robinson, 2004). The first three methods above (water-level change, gravity, and modeling) are the most reliable, and estimated storage changes are probably accurate to within ±20 percent in most cases. Famiglietti and others (2011) reported that the estimated changes in groundwater storage using GRACE satellite data for a 7-year period were within ±19 percent of the estimated value. The water balance computed by a well-calibrated simulation model typically has an error of less than 0.1 percent. However, this reflects numerical accuracy and precision, and not the overall reliability of the model or accuracy of computed water budget elements, which are more difficult to assess (Hill and Tiedeman, 2007). The confining unit and water budget methods are less reliable, but probably yield values within ±30 percent (see Kjelstrom, 1995; Konikow and Neuzil, 2007). The pumping fraction method is a coarser estimation method, based on assumed correlations with withdrawals that are only reliable to ±25 percent; because of additional uncertainty in related factors, this estimate is probably only reliable within ±40 percent. The accuracy of the extrapolation method decreases with extrapolation time, but in most cases is probably accurate to within ±30 percent. The subsidence method can estimate subsidence volume within ±20 percent or less, but is only used to provide a minimum bound on the estimate of total groundwater depletion. Where possible, cross-checks were done between alternative approaches. For example, in the large depletion area of the Central Valley, California, the time period for depletion estimates made using a calibrated transient model (Faunt and others, 2009b) overlapped with the GRACE gravity-based estimates (Famiglietti and others, 2011) for a few years; the values computed using the two methods varied from their mean value by only ±16 percent. In the Gulf Coastal Plain near Houston, Texas, the volume of land subsidence was estimated using geographic information system (GIS) tools to analyze a map of historical subsidence (1906–2000) available from the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District (http://www.hgsubsidence.org/about/subsidence/land-surface-subsidence.html). The calculated cumulative subsidence volume was 10.5 km3. The cumulative water budget from a simulation model calibrated for 1891–2000 indicates that a total volume of 10.8 km3 of groundwater was removed from storage in the unconsolidated clay units as the clays compacted and subsidence progressed—essentially all of it during the 20th century (Kasmarek and Robinson, 2004). The difference of less than 3 percent provides good support for the quality of the model calibration and its reliability. Relevant data to apply these methods are widely available in the United States. In this analysis, comprehensive assessments of groundwater depletion during the 20th century were completed for most of the highly developed aquifer systems in the United States, and descriptions of 41 separate aquifer systems, subareas, and categories are described below. In addition, several large aquifer systems were assessed and found to have negligible long-term volumetric depletion, even though there may have been other signs of overdevelopment (for example, the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in Texas and the Floridan aquifer system in central and southern Florida). In other areas (for example, the Roswell Basin, New Mexico), groundwater depletion is known to exist, but sufficient data to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the magnitude and temporal history of the depletion are not readily available. In coastal aquifers, fresh groundwater typically occurs in a wedge or lens overlying salty groundwater. Groundwater withdrawals in such areas usually cause both a decline in the water table and a rise in the position of the underlying interface between fresh and salty groundwater. Both contribute to a depletion of fresh groundwater. As an interface rises, the freshwater is replaced with saltwater, and the net volumetric change of water in storage associated with a rising base of a freshwater lens is negligible. Because the goal of this assessment was to assess changes in the total volume of groundwater in storage—not just in the volume of usable fresh groundwater—storage changes related to the position of a subsurface freshwater-saltwater interface are not evaluated. Because of a paucity of data, assessments were not made of increased groundwater storage due to seepage losses from reservoirs, decreased storage caused by mineral extraction activities (such as dewatering, but which eventually is mostly recoverable), or depletion from numerous low-capacity domestic wells outside of the explicitly assessed areas. In areas explicitly evaluated, these factors would inherently be counted. These factors should be evaluated more carefully in the future. 1900 2008 1900-2008 Complete None planned -165.165084 -69.314610 50.270824 9.892838 USGS Thesaurus inlandWaters aquifer Atlantic Coastal Plain groundwater water water level groundwater depletion groundwater withdrawal wells regionnal flow system environment ISO 19115 Topic Category inlandWaters agriculture and farming groundwater cultural, society, and demographic geological and geophysical imagery and base maps locations and geodetic networks oceans and estuaries hydrology environment USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:2bd9f19f-fc34-464d-b340-03a28037fa11 Geographic Names Information System United Staes Georgia Maryland Delaware northeast Florida Utah Colorado Nevada Long Island, New York New Jersey North Carolina South Carolina Virginia Oahu, Hawaii Idaho Kansas Nebraska New Mexico Oklahoma South Dakota Texas Wyoming Atlantic Coastal Plain Gulf Coast Plain High Plains Aquifer Central Valley California Western Alluvial Basins Coastal Lowlands Texas Gulf Coast Mississippi Embayment Antelope Valley California Death Valley Western Volcanic Aquifer System Snake River plateau Mississippi Embayment Midwest Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer High Plains (Ogallala) Aquifer Alluvial basins Arizona Antelope Valley California Coachella Valley California Death Valley region California and Nevada Escalante Valley Utah Estancia Basin New Mexico Hueco Bolson New Mexico and Texas Las Vegas Valley Nevada Los Angeles Basin California Mesilla Basin New Mexico Middle Rio Grande Basin New Mexico Milford area Utah Mimbres Basin New Mexico Mojave River Basin California Pahvant Valley Utah Paradise Valley Nevada Pecos River Basin Texas San Luis Valley Colorado Tularosa Basin Western Alluvial Basins Western Volcanic Aquifer Systems Columbia Plateau aquifer system Snake River Plain Western Volcanic Systems Deep Confined Bedrock Aquifers Black Mesa area, Arizona Midwest Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system Dakota aquifer northern Great Plains Denver Basin Deep Confined Aquifers None Acknowledgment of the U.S. Geological Survey would be appreciated in products derived from these data. U.S. Geological Survey Water Webserver Team mailing address

445 National Center

Reston VA 20192 USA 1-888-275-8747 h2oteam@usgs.gov Please use email. https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/browse/sir2013-5079_groundwater_depletion.jpg Graphic representation of the data jpg E.A. Achey, S.M. Feeney, D.P. McGinnis, and J.J. Donovan assisted with analyses and calculations for some of the aquifer systems. U.S. Geological Survey colleagues G.N. Delin, D.L. Galloway, E.L. Kuniansky, and R.A. Sheets provided helpful review comments. D.J. Ackerman, E.R. Banta, J.R. Bartolino, L.M. Bexfield, J.B. Blainey, B.G. Campbell, A.H. Chowdhury, B.R. Clark, J.S. Clarke, J.B. Czarnecki, R.B. Dinicola, J.R. Eggleston, C.C. Faunt, R.T. Hanson, R.E. Heimlich, C.E. Heywood, G.F. Huff, S.K. Izuka, L.E. Jones, S.C. Kahle, M.C. Kasmarek, Eloise Kendy, A.D. Konieczki, A.L. Kontis, S.A. Leake, Angel Martin, Jr., J.L. Mason, D.P. McAda, E.R. McFarland, V.L. McGuire, Jack Monti, Jr., D.S. Oki, S.S. Paschke, G.A. Pavelis, D.F. Payne, M.D. Petkewich, J.P. Pope, C.L. Stamos-Pfeiffer, G.P. Stanton, S.A. Thiros, F.D. Tillman, B.E. Thomas, and J.J. Vaccaro kindly provided information about computer simulations, model results, depletion analyses, and (or) review comments for specific areas. S.A. Hoffman provided valuable assistance with Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and map preparation. This work was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Office of Groundwater and the Groundwater Resources Program. None Unclassified Security classification is unclassified. Microsoft Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7600) ; Esri ArcGIS 10.2.0.3348 U.S. Geological Survey 1989-99 map Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA 730 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ Arc feature attribute values were inspected and found to be consistently coded as described in the Entity and Attribute section. Source data was checked using standard USGS review procedures. Attributes were checked by plotting the coverage and reselecting for the different values. A variety of methods were used to estimate long-term depletion in this study. The most reliable depend on direct measurements of water-level changes in the aquifer systems. In a few cases, independent methods were available to facilitate cross-checking of the accuracy of the estimates. These generally supported the reliability of the estimates. Polygon and chain=node topology present. Every polygon has a label. This was checked using the labelerror command and the idedit command. This data set is complete for the time period stated from 1900-2008. All of the quantitative calculations underlying the estimates of groundwater depletion are based on limited observed data and assumptions and parameter values that contain uncertainties. Hence, all estimates should be revised and updated if new information becomes available. Furthermore, some areas may have experienced notable depletion that has not been included in this study, and if these depletions are recognized and quantified, they should be added to the total. Horizontal accuracy was not assessed. A formal accuracy assessment of the vertical positional information in the dataset has either not been conducted, or is not applicable. Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W. 1946 digital data Reston, Va U.S. Geological Survey https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?physio online 1946 publication date physiographic divisions Physical Divisions of the United States, which is based on eight major 1946 divisions, 25 provinces, and 86 sections representing distinctive areas having common topography, rock types and structure, and geologic and geomorphic history. U.S. Geological Survey 2001 digital data Reston, Va U.S. Geological Survey http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/countyp.html online 2001 publication date county boundaries A county is the primary, or first-order, subdivision of a State. U.S. Geological Survey 2005 digital data Reston, Va U.S. Geological Survey http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/statesp.html online 2005 publication date state boundaries A State is the primary legal subdivision of the United States, and State boundaries translate this concept into a geographic framework for our Nation. The compliation of existing aquifer boundaries in the United States (excluding Alaska) were referenced with index numbers and joined to predicted groundwater depletion values from 1900 through 2008. The cumulative annual depletion was estimated for each of the 108 years of the study period for the 40 assessed aquifer systems or subareas. These annual statistices, along with tables and spreadsheets are provided in the download. The field “aquif_id” is used to merge statistical data from Excel spreadsheets. 2013 Antelope Valley, CA (AntelopeValley.shp) Scanned WRIR 03-4016, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wrir034016/wrir034016.book.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. AntelopeValley 20111221 Alluvial Basins, AZ (AZ_alluvial.shp) Scanned Professional Paper 1406-B, Figure 2, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1406d/report.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. Southern boundary of study area clipped to US/Mexico border using US State Boundaries. AZ_alluvial 20111221 Beryl-Enterprise, UT (BerylEnterprise.shp) Scanned Water-Data Report UT-02-1, Figure 5, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDRUT02/PDF/ADRUT02.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. BerylEnterprise 20120103 Black Mesa, AZ (BlackMesa.shp) Scanned WRIR 02-4211, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/2002/4211/report.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters BlackMesa 20120103 Central part Gulf Coast Aquifer System, TX (GAM_txcen.shp) Used Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Availability Model (GAM), modified Figure 1, (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/models/gam/glfc_c/glfc_c.asp) as a guide with basemap of US County Boundaries. On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. GAM_txcen 20120103 Coachella Valley, CA (CoachellaValley.shp) Scanned WRIR 02-4239, Figure 2, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024239/wrir024239.book.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. CoachellaValley 20120103 Coastal Lowlands of AL, FL, LA, MS (CLAS.shp) Scanned modified map of Williamson and Grubb, Figure 1, (no source on-line) with interpolation from LK. Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. CLAS 20120103 Death Valley Region, CA-NV (Deathvalley.shp) Scanned SIR 2004-5205, Chapter A, Figure A-1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5205/pdf/Chapter_A.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. DeathValley 20120103 Estancia Basin, NM (EstanciaBasin.shp) Scanned SAND2004-1796, Figure 1, (http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2004/041796.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get a general shape of study-area polygon. EstanciaBasin 20120103 Georgia and northeast Florida (GeorgiaCP.shp) Digitized from SIR 2005-5089, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5089/) as a guide and combined with US County boundary dataset where necessary. GeorgiaCP 20120103 HighPlains.shp (Note: State derivatives created by clipping HighPlains.shp with state outline taken from US State Boundaries) HighPlains 20120103 Houston Area & Northern part of TX Gulf Coast, TX (GAM_txcen.shp) Used Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Availability Model (GAM), modified Figure 1, (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/models/gam/glfc_n/glfc_n.asp) as a guide with basemap of US County Boundaries with on-screen digitizing to generate a general shape of the study-area polygon. GAM_txcen 20120103 Hueco Bolson, NM-TX (HuecoBolson.shp) Scanned Texas Water Development Board publication R356, Figure 1-3, (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/numbered_reports/doc/R356/Intro_Chapter1.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. HuecoBolson 20120103 Las Vegas Valley, NV (LasVegas.shp) Scanned Water Supply paper 2320-A, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2320a/report.pdf), that had the study area delineated by Lenny Konikow. Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing used to collect LK interpretation. LasVegas 20120103 Los Angeles Basin, CA (LA_Basin.shp) Scanned WRIR 03-4065, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wrir034065/wrir034065.html). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. LA_Basin 20120103 Mesilla Basin, NM (MesillaBasin.shp) Scanned L. R. Bothern Masters Thesis, Figure 2, (http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/techrpt/tr330/CD/appendix-b/Bothern-thesis/bothern-thesis.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. MesillaBasin 20120103 Middle Rio Grande, NM (MidRioGrande.shp) Scanned WRIR 02-4200, Figure 2, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri02-4200/). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. MidRioGrande 20120103 Milford Area, UT (Milford.shp) Scanned Water-Data Report UT-02-1, Figure 5, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDRUT02/PDF/ADRUT02.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. Milford 20120103 Mimbres Basin, NM (MimbresBasin.shp) Scanned WRIR 02-4007, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri02-4007/pdf/wrir02-4007.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. MimbresBasin 20120103 Mississippi Embayment (MERAS.shp) Used SIR 2009-5172, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5172/pdf/SIR2009-5172.pdf) as a guide with basemap of US County Boundaries for on-screen digitizing to generate a general shape of the study-area polygon. MERAS 20120103 Mohave River Basin, CA (MojaveRiver.shp) Scanned WRIR 03-4069, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034069/wrir034069.book.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. MojaveRiver 20120103 Pahvant Valley, UT (PahvantValley.shp) Scanned Water-Data Report UT-02-1, Figure 5, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDRUT02/PDF/ADRUT02.pdf). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. PahvantValley 20120103 Paradise Valley, NV (ParadiseValley.shp) Scanned Professional Paper 1409-F, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1409f/report.pdf). Geo-referenced to US State Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. ParadiseValley 20120103 San Luis Valley, CO (SanLuis.shp) Scanned iahs_128_0297, Figure 1, (http://ks360352.kimsufi.com/redbooks/a128/iahs_128_0297.pdf). Geo-referenced using mapped coordinates on figure with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. SanLuis 20120103 Tularosa Basin, NM (TularosaBasin.shp) Scanned SIR 2004-5197, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5197/). Geo-referenced to US County Boundaries with RMSE less than 31.8 meters (1:62,500 NMAS). On-screen digitizing to get general shape of the study-area polygon. TularosaBasin 20120103 Winter Garden, TX (WinterGarden.shp) Used Texas Water Development Board publication R335, Figure 1, (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/numbered_reports/doc/R335/Report335.asp) . Inset map and US Counties as a guide to digitize the general shape of the study-area polygon. WinterGarden 20120103 Delaware and Maryland (NACP_DEMD.shp) Combination with lines from US Physiographic Provinces and 1:2m States NACP_DEMD 20120103 Long Island (NACP_LI.shp) Extracted from US State Boundaries NACP_LI 20120103 North Carolina (NACP_NC.shp) Combination with lines from US Physiographic Provinces and 1:2m States NACP_NC 20120103 New Jersey (NACP_NJ.shp) Digitized with guidance from SIR 2007-5134, Figure 1, combination with lines from US Physiographic Provinces and 1:2m States NACP_NJ 20120103 South Carolina (NACP_SC.shp) Combination with lines from US Physiographic Provinces and 1:2m States NACP_SC 20120103 Virginia (NACP_VA.shp) Used SIR 2009-5039, Figure 1, (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5039/) as source. Digitized a generalized Fall Line from this Figure and combined the digitized line with the US County Boundary dataset to form a general shape of the study area. NACP_VA 20120103 Base_aquifer_org.shp and base_aquifers.shp, merged polygon datasets for cartographic purposes in ArcMap. The field “aquif_id” is used to merge statistical data from Excel spreadsheets. base_aquifers 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States PecosRiver 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States SnakeRiver 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States CamOrd 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States CentralOahu 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States CentralValley 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States ColuPlat 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States Dakota 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States DenverBasin 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States GAM_txnorth 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_CO 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_KS 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_NE 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_OK 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_SD 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_TX 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlains_WY 20120103 Dataset extent of Aquifer was provided from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States HighPlainsST 20120103 Excel spreadsheet of average rate of groundwater depletion from 1961-1970, in cubic km per year depletion_avgrate(1961-1970).xls 2012 Excel spreadsheet of average rated of groundwater depletion from 2001-2008, in cubic km per year depletion_avgrate(2001-2008).xls 2012 Excel spreadsheet of groundwater depletion volume in cubic km per year from 1900-2000 depletion_vol(1900-2000).xls 2012 Excel spreadsheet of groundwater depletion volume in cubic km per year from 1900-2008 depletion_vol(1900-2008).xls 2012 Excel spreadsheet of groundwater depletion volume in cubic km per year HighPlains_sah.xls 2012 Identifies name, size and location of each aquifer area with associated data. MapData-US.xls 2012 Vector String 128 Albers_Equal_Area_Conic_USGS_CONUS_NAD83 29.50000000 45.50000000 -96.00000000 23.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 coordinate pair 0.002 0.002 meters North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137.000000 298.257222 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 25 feet Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates base_aquifers Feature Class Automatically created FID Internal feature number FID Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Polygon Feature Geometry Coordinates defining the features. aquif_id aquif_id String 15 map_id map_id Small Integer 4 4 0 STATE STATE text 20 0 0 Attirbutes are associated with each aquifer data set. none U.S. Geological Survey Michael Ierardi IT Specialist mailing and physical

445 National Center

Reston Virginia 20192 USA 1-888-275-8747 (1-888-ASK-USGS) mierardi@usgs.gov Data provided upon request. Although these data have been used by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, no warranty expressed or implied is made by the U.S. Geological Survey as to the accuracy of the data. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the use of these data, software, or related materials. The use of firm, trade, or brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. The names mentioned in this document may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective trademark owners. Shapefile 0.217 https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/sir2013-5079_Groundwater_Depletion_Study_Files.zip None 20201117 U.S. Geological Survey Michael Ierardi IT Specialist mailing and physical address

445 National Center

Reston VA 20192 -888-275-8747 (1-888-ASK-USGS) mierardi@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time