Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “databases”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Topsoil bulk geochemical compositions - An updated harmonized global dataset

Mineral weathering is a key biogeochemical process because of the capacity of minerals to stabilize organic matter. However, predicting soil weathering status across large spatial areas still isn’t possible due to a lack of global data and theoretical frameworks. To address this knowledge gap, multiple global datasets of bulk topsoil geochemical compositions have been harmonized using R. These datasets document topsoil bulk geochemical compositions across five continents (n = ~16,000 observations). Source data for these observations include the EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS), the US Geological Survey National Geochemical Database (NASGLP), the Geochemical Atlas of Australia (GAA), the US Geological Survey Alaska Geochemical Database (AGD84), the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), the European Geochemical Mapping of Agricultural Soil (GEMAS), Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA), the New Zealand Geochemical Baseline Survey (NZ_GBS), and the African Soil Information Service (AFSIS). Major elements observed include Aluminum (Al), Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na), Titanium (Ti), Manganese (Mn), Phosphorus (P), Carbon (C), and Sulfur (S). This data package includes the harmonized dataset itself, and the R scripts necessary to harmonize these datasets, in addition to metadata that describes all columns, files, and databases used in this project. Methods & Sampling Step 1 – Databases of geochemical data identified This study aimed to leverage existing measurements of topsoil geochemical data. Databases were first identified and deemed appropriate for inclusion if they were measuring soils and performed these measurements on the <2mm soil fraction. Databases such as NCSS and AGD84 needed more post processing to include in the database and this was done using the NCSS_datamerge_031626 R file and Alaska_USGSmerge_031626 R file, respectively. Step 2 – Database harmonization Once appropriate databases were identified, they were harmonized for ease of analysis using the R script Database_Harmonization_031826. This included removing columns from original datasets that would not be used in analysis (removed columns are noted in the code). Then, data cleaning procedures specific to each dataset were undertaken. This includes standardizing columns to include units and adding metadata columns regarding procedures for analyzing specific elements. Functions for standardizing measurements and units are outline in R files: calculate element_mg_kg_031626, calculate_oxide_wt_perc_031626, change_oxide_caps_031626, and conv_2_numeric_031626. This also included adding a unique identifier for each sample to identify it with its respective database (see CD_ID in data dictionary). Geographic information: Data reflect a compilation of datasets collected globally. Geographic areas covered by each of the datasets include: - EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS) - European continent - North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes (NASGLP) - continental United States and limited parts of Canada (see database key for more details) - National Geochemical Survey of Australia (GAA) - Australia - Alaska geochemical database (AGDB4) - Alaska - National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) - Global measurements, but concentrated in the continental United States - Geochemical data for arable land and land under permanent grass cover in continental Europe (GEMAS) - continental Europe - Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA) - Geochemical data from the Amazon basin - Geochemical baseline data for New Zealand (NZGBS) - New Zealand - Geochemical data collected across continental Africa (AfSIS) - Measurements across Africa

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of New Additions to OLI Software in Predicting Mercuric and Mercurous Species in Liquid Waste Operations

Speciation of mercury during the pretreatment steps of tank waste processing is critical to successful mercury removal prior to vitrification during Liquid Waste Operations (LWO) at SRS. OLI software has been used to predict mercury speciation and activity throughout LWO. The OLI software operates based on a thermodynamic framework called the Mixed Solvent Electrolyte (MSE) framework. The MSE framework allows prediction in theoretically infinitely dilute to concentrated mixtures (e.g., purely solute solutions). Before modification to the MSE framework databanks, certain critical mercury species were missing in the MSE databank, and some thermodynamic data needed to be updated for the OLI software to accurately predict mercury chemical species in SRS waste tanks. To better reflect streams across LWO, new mercury species were integrated into the MSE database. To evaluate the changes to the OLI MSE framework per the Technical Task Request (TTR) and the Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP), waste stream compositions from Tanks 38, 43, and Tank 50 decontaminated salt solution (DSS) were used as model inputs. Models were developed and executed using both the old and new databases. Compositional analyses from caustic Tank 50 DSS and caustic Tanks 38 and 43 were used as the input streams. These streams represent the most comprehensive chemical data sets where both mercury and tank constituents were measured together. Results for Tank 50 DSS predict HgO as the predominant species in both databases. Both methyl and dimethyl Hg species are present when the new database is ‘on’ and are not predicted with the new database turned ‘off’. The new database predicts a greater amount of HgO and a greater fraction of it in the solid phase. Pourbaix diagrams (potential vs. pH) generated for each Tank 50 DSS were identical regardless of which database was used. Elemental Hg and HgO were predicted in the water stable region under basic conditions. Tanks 38 and 43 follow similar trends as the Tank 50 DSS models. Unlike Tanks 38 and 50 DSS, the Tank 43 Pourbaix plot shows a region of stability for an aqueous HgOHCO3 - species between approximately pH 7-11. In all streams, when MeHg+ is included in the inputs, the new database predicts aqueous MeHgOH as the dominant species. If elemental or dimethyl mercury is in the waste stream, the new database model predicts they are unchanged and remain in those states and quantities. Additionally, the total mercury values are reported for both the measured input data and the OLI output data for all considered tanks. The summary indicates that the percentage error between the measured and calculated values is less than 1% in all cases The reconciliations and generation of the Pourbaix diagrams for Tank 50 DSS took approximately ten times longer with the new database ‘on’. In addition, over the course of that time, models with the new database ‘on’ were more likely to crash or display an error. Some modest performance improvements were noted when modeling with an i7 processor versus an i5. An example error is found in Appendix A. Furthermore, Appendix B provides V&V for two chemical systems analyzed with the OLI software, results were satisfactory. It is recommended to utilize the new databases (i.e., HCO.ddb and SR-Hg.ddb) in future Savannah River Mission Completion applications of OLI to represent pseudo steady-state. Furthermore, the integration and utilization of the new databases (i.e., HCO.ddb and SR-Hg.ddb) in modeling applications (e.g., Aspen) is also recommended.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hydropower Capital and O&M Costs: An Exploration of the FERC Form 1 Data

This report explores the potential for using responses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) “Electric Utility Annual Report,” also known as FERC Form 1, as a cost database for conventional and pumped storage hydropower (PSH). The report outlines the process used to compile an easy-to-access database from the original FERC Form 1 data and discusses the historical cost/performance data. The steps for developing the database include downloading the annual FoxPro files from the FERC website (FERC, 2020), reading them into an Excel format, and reconciling naming issues across years, repeated entries, and shared assets, among others. The cleaned and compiled Form 1 database is available on Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) HydroSource website. For this report, the compiled Form 1 database was linked to two other hydropower databases, the National Inventory of Dams and the ORNL Existing Hydropower Assets, that provide additional information on the characteristics and other features of plants in the Form 1 data. Explorations of the plant characteristics, performance, capital costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost data in the combined database were presented separately for conventional hydropower and PSH projects. Form 1 has several advantages as a hydropower cost database. First, the cost data is reported directly by plant owners. Second, Form 1 provides cost breakdowns of capital and operating costs for large conventional and PSH plants enabling more detailed tracking of hydropower costs compared with typical total cost estimates. Third, although the Form 1 data is not reported by all operational hydropower plants in the United States, the available data represents a wide range of plant characteristics and a sizable proportion of the hydropower fleet (61% of PSH plants and 22% of conventional hydropower plants by capacity). The lower proportion of the conventional hydropower fleet is because Form 1 reporting requirements apply only to private utilities that meet given size thresholds, leaving out federally owned facilities and many smaller hydropower plants. Overall, the Form 1 cost database represents a unique, publicly available database on hydropower asset capital and O&M costs. This report leads to a compiled database for the reporting years 1994 to 2020 that helps resolve issues with accessibility and use of the FERC Form 1 data by hydropower plant owners, project developers, technology developers, and regulators.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Management and International Sorption Model Collaboration (M4SF-23LL010302062-NEA-TDB)

This progress report (Level 4 Milestone Number M4SF-23LL010302062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within the Crystalline International Collaborations Activity Number SF-23LL01030206. The activity is focused on our long-term commitment of engaging our partners in international nuclear waste repository research. This includes participation in the Nuclear Energy Agency Thermochemical Database (NEA-TDB) Project and development of methodologies for integrating US and international thermodynamic databases for use in SFWST Generic Disposal System Assessment (GDSA) efforts. A continuing focus for FY23 efforts has been to support the US participation in the NEA-TDB effort (Mavrik Zavarin replaced Cindy Atkins-Duffin on the NEA-TDB Management Board (MB) and Executive Group (EG)) and developing mechanisms for integration of NEA-TDB thermochemical data with LLNL’s SUPCRTNE thermodynamic database that supports the SFWST GDSA activities. This effort is coordinated with the Argillite work package SUPCRTNE database development efforts. The goal is to provide a downloadable database that will be hosted on a LLNL website which integrates NEA-TDB data into the LLNL SUPCRTNE database where appropriate. As part of our international activities, we continue our effort to integrate international sorption databases into L-SCIE (Zavarin et al., 2022b). We presented opportunities to include sorption in the next phase of NEA-TDB efforts at the April 2023 EG meeting in Paris. FY23 efforts focused on ensuring interoperable database development across multiple international database development activities. The overall goal is to produce an open source database that can be shared and integrated with multiple nuclear waste programs internationally and harness modern data science workflows and algorithms to incorporate these new approaches into reactive transport and performance assessment models. In collaboration with our Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden Rossendorf partners, we recently demonstrated the power of FAIR open source databases by fitting iron oxide (hydrous ferric oxide, goethite, hematite, and magnetite) protolysis constants to all available L-SCIE data. The results were submitted as a manuscript to J. Colloid Interface Science. This work will inform future metal sorption studies on a variety of iron oxides in order to discern the most appropriate acidity constants and surface complexation modeling constructs to account for pH-dependent mineral surface charge behavior. This work also explored automated surface complexation model development workflows in order to generate higher throughput model input files for a more facile incorporation into GDSA activities.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2021

INGENIOUS Thermal Conductivity Measurement Source Categorization

Thermal conductivity (TC) data taken for different wells at a specified drill depth. This is an abridged version of the complete SMU heat flow database, downloaded from the SMU node of the NGDS at the beginning of INGENIOUS (approximately April 2021), and filtered to the INGENIOUS study area. This National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) project aggregates geothermal data collected and curated by the SMU Geothermal Laboratory and its partner organizations. All columns in this database are the same as the SMU database, except for 2 additions associated with this project. Repeated columns are for data correlation purposes. Column descriptions and data types are the same as previous iterations of the SMU database. The new values that are the addition are two new columns developed as part of the INGENIOUS project: INGENIOUS TC Value | INGENIOUS notes INGENIOUS notes are individual notes that were written for specific data points during the analysis process. There are not always notes associated with each input value. INGENIOUS TC Value includes 4 values: 1. Assumed Measured These are values that are assumed to be measured thermal conductivity values, either within a specific well or within the same study region. Many of these have either a published reference, a reported standard deviation, or a unique thermal conductivity value. 2. Data release - assumed measured These are values in the SMU database that are from proprietary data that were added to the SMU database and are labeled as data release for their reference. These values were searched for in person at the SMU Geothermal Laboratory as well as virtual examination of data available on the NGDS. For many of these, there are reported thermal conductivity values associated with the heat flow data in the database, but no specific table or reference to measurements in the original data release files. 3. Known measured These are values that have a reported measurement, either as an original file in the SMU data files on the NGDS or a reported table in a publication. In the rare circumstances, Maria Richards or David Blackwell confirmed measurement. Confirmation of measurement would be written in the INGENIOUS notes column. 4. Unmeasured Unmeasured values are those that are known to be unmeasured, either estimated from another report or no information given. In the SMU database, there are wells that have a heat flow but no thermal conductivity. These are categorized as unmeasured. There are also heat flow values that are stated to have estimated or generalized average thermal conductivity values for the region and rock type. Because these are known to be unmeasured, they are categorized as such. 5. Blank Blank values are either A quality or X quality. These quality values are stated in the INGENIOUS notes. These values were not going to change associated with the heat flow analysis, so these were not examined.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

iBLAST: Incremental BLAST of new sequences via automated e-value correction

Search results from local alignment search tools use statistical scores that are sensitive to the size of the database to report the quality of the result. For example, NCBI BLAST reports the best matches using similarity scores and expect values (i.e., e-values) calculated against the database size. Given the astronomical growth in genomics data throughout a genomic research investigation, sequence databases grow as new sequences are continuously being added to these databases. As a consequence, the results (e.g., best hits) and associated statistics (e.g., e-values) for a specific set of queries may change over the course of a genomic investigation. Thus, to update the results of a previously conducted BLAST search to find the best matches on an updated database, scientists must currently rerun the BLAST search against the entire updated database, which translates into irrecoverable and, in turn, wasted execution time, money, and computational resources. To address this issue, we devise a novel and efficient method to redeem past BLAST searches by introducing iBLAST. iBLAST leverages previous BLAST search results to conduct the same query search but only on the incremental (i.e., newly added) part of the database, recomputes the associated critical statistics such as e-values, and combines these results to produce updated search results. Our experimental results and fidelity analyses show that iBLAST delivers search results that are identical to NCBI BLAST at a substantially reduced computational cost, i.e., iBLAST performs (1 + δ )/ δ times faster than NCBI BLAST, where δ represents the fraction of database growth. We then present three different use cases to demonstrate that iBLAST can enable efficient biological discovery at a much faster speed with a substantially reduced computational cost.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Specifications of Legacy U(Pu)Zr Metallography Data

The DOE Nuclear Energy Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Program has supported the creation of several databases with information describing the safety performance of fast reactors, components, and fuels. This growing collection of legacy experimental data, operating data, and analysis is available online to registered users. Metallography data is one of the most important types of PIE data being collected, organized and stored in several ART Fast Reactor Databases (https://frdb.ne.anl.gov), including the Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD), Out-of-Pile Transient Database (OPTD), and TREAT (the Transient Reactor Test Facility) Experimental Relational Database (TREXR). These databases contain three main sets of metallography data. The first set is the metallography data from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) and Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) irradiated fuel pins measured in the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF); the second set is the metallography data from EBR-II irradiated fuel pins measured in the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF); the third set is the metallography data from transient tested fuel pins (the transients tests include the out-of-pile tests and TREAT tests) measured in AGHCF. Since both the second and third sets of data were measured in AGHCF, they are governed by the same specification. The metallography data in the databases are digital images scanned from either positive or negative photos. The quality of the images, including their resolution and contrast, relies on the preserved quality of the pictures and the scanning conditions. To analyze the microstructure of a fuel pin, a series of preparatory steps must be undertaken. These include sectioning, epoxy mounting, mechanical grinding and polishing, and often etching. The resulting samples were then transferred to a secondary hot cell, or glovebox (depending the strength of radiation field) for microscopy examination. The specifications provided herein focus on the metallography examinations. The sample grinding, polishing and etching processes are also discussed. The procedures involving sectioning and epoxy mounting are out of the scope of the current specification; details can be found in the corresponding operation manuals. If more data are collected and added to the ART Fast Reactor Databases, this specification will be updated to accommodate the additional data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydropower Infrastructure - LAkes, Reservoirs, and RIvers (HILARRI), v4

HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2025) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2025) – Power plants that are listed in the 2025 U.S. Hydropower Development Pipeline Data or were listed in previous versions of the dataset These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) – EPA SuRGE sampling locations Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.

Hansen, Carly [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000193280838)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2022

Accelerating the discovery of battery electrode materials through data mining and deep learning models

The availability of crystalline materials databases allows for building accurate machine learning (ML) models that can accelerate the exploration of materials chemical space for energy storage applications. In this work, we screen all inorganic materials included in the Materials Project and AFLOW databases as potential metal-ion battery electrodes. We develop an efficient protocol to mine and screen raw data in current databases and provide a new database of electrode materials by considering pairs of charged and discharged electrodes. This effort leads to a new database with over 190,000 instances, in contrast to the original battery database which contains about 5000. The expanded battery data set is then used to build regression-based deep neural network models for predicting average voltages and percentage volume changes upon charging and discharging, which present improvements of at least 28% for target properties with respect to previous models, and are now able to predict anode electrodes (low voltage region) as well as electrodes that will not work in electrochemical cells (negative voltages), overcoming the challenges identified in previous ML models for battery electrodes. Additionally, a further screening of the expanded database itself allowed us to identify 35 novel electrode candidates with excellent battery performance metrics.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Path Forward: Materials Data Modernization for ASME Codes and Standards in the Artificial Intelligence Era

Development of the ASME Materials Properties Database was initiated in the early 2010s to support the ASME Codes and Standards. As information technologies advance at an accelerated pace with the artificial intelligence era on the horizon, the ASME Materials Properties Database must be further modernized from a database to a knowledgebase to ride the wave of digital information revolution and effectively support the ASME Codes and Standards in the new era. This paper is intended to provide an overview of the ASME Materials Properties Database and discuss a roadmap for its future development to facilitate understanding of and participation from different sectors of the Codes and Standards community. Further, it first reviews the basic concepts of data, information, knowledge, database, and database system as well as the pros and cons in different types of data management and then discusses the path forward for a desired evolution of the database into a self-explanatory and machine-readable knowledgebase that is consistent with human cognitive processes for the Codes and Standards development and, furthermore, provides resources for data processing and analysis to reach an eventual goal of streamlining the Codes and Standards development from the initial inquiry, throughout data submission, analysis, …, to Codes and Standards rule establishment for final publication.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fundamental Issues Identified for Thermodynamic Description of Molten Salt Systems

Thermodynamic modeling of the molten salt systems is critical in the design of advanced nuclear power plants, materials recycling, and many other important clean energy applications. As one of the most capable computational thermodynamic approaches, the CALPHAD (Calculation of Phase Diagrams) method has been widely used for multicomponent thermodynamic database development and further support more physics-based modeling. Although considerable CALPHAD modeling efforts for molten salt systems have been made, we found that no evaluation has been performed regarding the unary thermodynamic models for the molten salt systems despite the fact that more than one pure substance database is available for the CALPHAD modeling. Therefore, the thermodynamic descriptions of the pure salts should be critically evaluated to ensure a high-fidelity molten salt thermodynamic database. In this work, we comprehensively analyzed some selected molten salts using different available thermodynamic descriptions from two databases as an example. One is the SSUB database released by the SGTE (Scientific Group Thermodata Europe), and the other is the FactPS database from the FactSage. Finally, the significant discrepancies observed in the thermodynamic description between the existing CALPHAD pure substance databases and experiments call for an urgent effort to improve.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

A k-mer based approach for classifying viruses without taxonomy identifies viral associations in human autism and plant microbiomes

Viruses are an underrepresented taxa in the study and identification of microbiome constituents; however, they play an essential role in health, microbiome regulation, and transfer of genetic material. Only a few thousand viruses have been isolated, sequenced, and assigned a taxonomy, which limits the ability to identify and quantify viruses in the microbiome. Additionally, the vast diversity of viruses represents a challenge for classification, not only in constructing a viral taxonomy, but also in identifying similarities between a virus’ genotype and its phenotype. However, the diversity of viral sequences can be leveraged to classify their sequences in metagenomic and metatranscriptomic samples, even if they do not have a taxonomy. To identify and quantify viruses in transcriptomic and genomic samples, we developed a dynamic programming algorithm for creating a classification tree out of 715,672 metagenome viruses. To create the classification tree, we clustered proportional similarity scores generated from the k-mer profiles of each of the metagenome viruses to create a database of metagenomic viruses. The resulting Kraken2 database of the metagenomic viruses can be found here: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1615774 and is compatible with Kraken2. We then integrated the viral classification database with databases created with genomes from NCBI for use with ParaKraken (a parallelized version of Kraken provided in Supplemental Zip 1), a metagenomic/transcriptomic classifier. To illustrate the breadth of our utility for classifying metagenome viruses, we analyzed data from a plant metagenome study identifying genotypic and compartment specific differences between two Populus genotypes in three different compartments. We also identified a significant increase in abundance of eight viral sequences in post mortem brains in a human metatranscriptome study comparing Autism Spectrum Disorder patients and controls. We also show the potential accuracy for classifying viruses by utilizing both the JGI and NCBI viral databases to identify the uniqueness of viral sequences. Finally, we validate the accuracy of viral classification with NCBI databases containing viruses with taxonomy to identify pathogenic viruses in known COVID-19 and cassava brown streak virus infection samples. Our method represents the compulsory first step in better understanding the role of viruses in the microbiome by allowing for a more complete identification of sequences without taxonomy. Better classification of viruses will improve identifying associations between viruses and their hosts as well as viruses and other microbiome members. Despite the lack of taxonomy, this database of metagenomic viruses can be used with any tool that utilizes a taxonomy, such as Kraken, for accurate classification of viruses.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

M3SF-24LL010302062-NEA-TDB Management and International Collaborations in Sorption and Thermodynamic Modeling

This progress report (Level 3 Milestone Number M3SF-24LL010302062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within the Crystalline International Collaborations Work Package Number SF-24LL01030206. The activity is focused on our long-term commitment to engaging our partners in international nuclear waste repository research. This includes participation in the Nuclear Energy Agency Thermochemical Database (NEA-TDB) Project and development of methodologies for integrating US and international thermodynamic databases for use in SFWST Generic Disposal System Assessment (GDSA) efforts. A continuing focus for FY24 efforts is to support the US participation in the NEA-TDB effort. The focus of FY24 activities was the development of an agreement for a Phase 7 activity that will start in Q1 of 2025. Mavrik Zavarin is now the US representative on both the Management Board and the Executive group to the NEA-TDB. He is also the POC for the Cements State of the Art Report that is undergoing peer review in FY24. In FY24, we used our position on the NEA-TDB MB and EG to facilitate the integration of NEA-TDB thermochemical data with LLNL’s SUPCRTNE thermodynamic database that supports the SFWST GDSA activities. This effort is coordinated with the Argillite work package SUPCRTNE database development efforts (Wolery, 2024). The goal is to provide a downloadable database that will be hosted on LLNL’s thermodynamics website which incorporates NEA-TDB data into the LLNL database where appropriate. We also began engagement with the EURAD2 program that was initiated in FY24 by our European collaborators at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany. The primary focus of the engagement is with WP20: DITUSC Thermodynamic database evaluation program. A kickoff meeting for this activity is planned for early FY25. Finally, we have been selected to co-host (with Clemson University) the International Conference on Chemistry and Migration Behaviour of Actinides and Fission Products in the Geosphere in 2025 (Migration2025). The meeting will be held September 21-26, 2025, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and will focus on international efforts to understand the risks of radionuclide releases into the environment. This central focus of this conference is on international efforts to develop safe disposal options for nuclear wastes. As such, we are developing a theme focused on US underground nuclear waste repository science.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Determination of Scale Bar for AGHCF Metallography Data

The DOE Nuclear Energy Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Fast Reactor Program (FRP) has supported the development of several databases containing information on the safety performance of fast reactors, components, and fuels. This growing collection of legacy experimental data, operating data, and analysis is available online to registered users. Metallography data represents one of the most critical types of post-irradiation examination (PIE) data being collected, organized, and archived in several ART Fast Reactor Databases (https://frdb.ne.anl.gov), including the Metallic Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD), Out-of-Pile Transient Database (OPTD), and TREAT (the Transient Reactor Test Facility) Experimental Relational Database (TREXR). These databases contain three principal sets of metallography data. The first set comprises metallography data from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) and Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) irradiated fuel pins examined in the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF). The second set consists of metallography data from EBR-II irradiated fuel pins examined in the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF). The third set includes metallography data from transient-tested fuel pins (including both out-of-pile furnace tests and TREAT tests) examined in AGHCF. Since both the second and third sets were generated in AGHCF, they are governed by identical specifications. The metallography data in the databases consist of digital images scanned from either positive or negative photographic films. To analyze the microstructure of a fuel pin, a series of preparatory steps are required, including sectioning, epoxy mounting, mechanical grinding and polishing, and etching. Following sample preparation, specimens are transferred for metallographic examination. The AGHCF and HFEF metallography data were generated using optical microscopes manufactured by Leitz and Bausch and Lomb (B&L). Images were recorded on Polaroid film at preset magnifications. Magnification verification for the Leitz and B&L metallographs was conducted every two months prior to 1989 and at least every six months from 1989 through the conclusion of the IFR program. Magnifications determined from imaging of microslide standards were compared to the instrument settings for magnifications ranging from 50× to 500×. If the magnifications determined from standards deviated from the instrument settings, adjustments were made to the bellows extension until agreement was achieved. The specifications for AGHCF and HFEF legacy metallography data have been established based on available hard-copy and digital records, most of which have been incorporated into the data repositories associated with FIPD, OPTD, and TREXR. Detailed specifications including hard-copy records, digitized records, cutting diagrams and sectioning schemes, high-magnification photographs, photomosaics (composites), information tags, scale bars, and magnification verification procedures can be found in a separate report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗