SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UiB University of Illinois Miscanthus. Site Description - Diammonium phosphate, potash & lime fertilizer applied before planting in 2008. Prowl & 2,4-D herbicide used. 2,4-D & accent herbicide applied in 2009. No fertilizer applied. Bicep herbicide applied in 2010 & 2011. 56 kg/ha nitrogen applied in 2014, 2015 & 2016. 45 kg/ha nitrogen applied in 2017.
Airborne remote sensing data collected from Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (LANL) heavy-lift unoccupied aerial system (UAS) hexacopter platform operated by NGEE Arctic scientists from the EES-14 group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These data were collected in July 2018 at a field site near mile marker 47 along the Teller Road between Nome, Alaska and Teller, Alaska. A DJI Matrice 600 Pro Airframe and Routescene UAV LiDAR System was used to collect LiDAR data. The LiDAR data has undergone basic post-processing using Routescene LidarViewer Pro software to create point cloud data (.laz files). This data package contains point clouds (.laz), processing metadata files (json.lvp), and post-processed kinematic files (.csv). Ancillary aircraft data, flight mission parameters, weather conditions, and lidar data and imagery can be found in NGA281 (https://doi.org/10.5440/1671794).The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).
Airborne remote sensing data collected from Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) heavy-lift unoccupied aerial system (UAS) hexacopter platform operated by NGEE Arctic scientists from the EES-14 group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These data were collected in July 2018 at a field site near mile marker 64 along the Kougarok road (Nome-Taylor Highway) between Nome, Alaska and Taylor, Alaska. A DJI Matrice 600 Pro Airframe and Routescene UAV LiDARSystem was used to collect LiDAR data. The LiDAR data has undergone basic post-processing using Routescene LidarViewer Pro software to create point cloud data (.laz files). This data package contains point clouds (.laz), processing metadata files (json.lvp), and post-processed kinematic files (.csv). Ancillary aircraft data, flight mission parameters, weather conditions, raw LiDAR data, and RGB imagery can be found in NGA298.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).
Four days (June 14-17, 2021) of ARIS acoustic camera data from the main research barge of the Tanana River Test Site operated by UAF. Data are collected sidelooking with the turbine in part of the field of view. This data was collected as part of a fish collision risk study. An acoustic camera was used rather than a traditional underwater camera due to the high levels of suspended sediments at the Tanana River Test Site.
The Air Quality Transmitter (AQT) (Vaisala AQT530) instrument provides observations on meteorological conditions, including particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), gas species concentrations (Nitric Oxide (NO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3)), and environment temperature and moisture. These measurements are critical for understanding air quality. These measurements are useful for understanding changes in aerosol properties, air quality research, and comparing to model experiments especially in urban environments.This dataset is from the Department of Energy Office of Science funded project, Community Research on Urban and Climate Science (CROCUS) (https://crocus-urban.org/). Datasets are stored in the netCDF data format, and we we encourage users to make use the associated toolkits available from Unidata (https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/), Project Pythia (https://foundations.projectpythia.org/core/data-formats/netcdf-cf.html), and our “Instrument Cookbooks” (https://crocus-urban.github.io/instrument-cookbooks) for more information on how to process the metadata-rich datasets.
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-VT1 Vermillion Tributary Paired Cropland – Site 1 (Corn/Soy; No Cover Crops). Site Description - US-VT1 is located on flat, actively managed farmland operated by working farmers, following a conventional no-till corn–soybean rotation in the U.S. Midwest. US-VT1 is one of two paired working farm sites on the same property; both are managed using similar conventional practices, with the key difference being that the paired site (US-VT2) incorporates cover crops into its rotation. This paired design enables direct site-to-site comparisons to assess the impacts of cover cropping on carbon, water, and energy fluxes.
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-SD1 Shatto Ditch Paired Cropland - Site 1 (Corn/Soy; No Cover Crops). Site Description - US-SD1, located on mostly flat terrain with some gentle hills, is an actively managed farmland operated by working farmers following a conventional no-till corn–soybean rotation in the U.S. Midwest. US-SD1 is one of two paired working farm sites which are relatively close by; both are managed using similar conventional practices with the key difference being that the paired site (US-SD2) incorporates cover crops into its rotation, along with minor differentiating terrain and soil type, where US-SD2 is located on a gently sloped site with more sandy soils. This paired design enables direct site-to-site comparisons to assess the impacts of cover cropping on carbon, water, and energy fluxes.
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) biological subject matter experts in the Environmental Protection and Compliance Division initiated a multi-year program in 2013 to monitor avifauna (birds) at two open detonation sites and one open burn site on LANL property. Additional monitoring began in 2017 at a third firing site, the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) Facility. In this annual report, we compare monitoring results from these efforts among years to identify and evaluate firing and open burn site impacts on the local bird community. The objectives of this study are • to determine whether LANL operations impact bird abundance, species richness, or diversity; • to examine occupancy and nest success of secondary-cavity nesting birds that use nest boxes; and • to examine chemical concentrations (such as radionuclides, inorganic elements, and/or organic compounds) in nonviable eggs and deceased nestlings that are collected opportunistically with the upper-level bounds of background concentrations, when available. During May through July 2024, LANL biologists completed multiple avian point count surveys at each of the following treatment sites: • Technical Area (TA) 36 Minie Site, • TA-39 Point 6, • TA-16 Burn Ground, and • DARHT. We recorded a total of 1,088 birds that represented 65 species at the four treatment sites and compared these results with data from their associated control sites. In 2024, abundance and species richness at treatment and control sites continued to trend similarly from year to year, with minor random deviations expected from bird communities. Species richness at firing sites differed little from the previous year’s values. Two new bird species were observed at the firing sites—cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) and pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus). Shannon diversity values at TA-36 Minie Site, TA-39, and DARHT were statistically higher than one or more of their associated controls. Annual species diversity at treatment sites was high in 2024 across all firing sites relative to similar habitat control sites. We also monitored avian nest boxes to compare occupancy and nest success data from nest boxes at treatment sites with the overall avian nest box monitoring network and against a subset of relevant control sites. Nest box success has decreased at both treatment and control sites since monitoring began, suggesting that overlapping climatic factors are responsible for patterns of declining nest success. In 2024, nonviable avian eggs and one nestling were opportunistically collected at Bandelier National Monument, TA-16 Burn Ground, TA-36 Minie, TA-39 Point 6, and DARHT. All egg samples and the one nestling sample were evaluated for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which were detected from all locations, including the control site at Bandelier National Monument. Overall results from 2024 continue to suggest that operations at the four treatment sites are not negatively impacting bird populations. This long-term project will continue to monitor for any changes over time.
Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to challenges frequently encountered with traditional approaches. With this understanding, it is critically important to understand and document the current state of practice for hydropower geotechnical foundations, identify key challenges, and define opportunities for innovative solutions. To this end, this report documents the current state of practice across the three main phases of geotechnical foundation development: (1) geotechnical site assessment, (2) design, and (3) construction for hydropower systems. It also describes the major challenges with conventional approaches and identifies opportunities for innovation to reduce hydropower foundations costs, timelines, and risks. Key takeaways from this report include the following: Approximately 80% of available low-head sites are expected to have foundations on soil beds rather than rock beds, suggesting that rockfill and earthfill dams may be the most cost-effective conventional dam type for new projects.; Geotechnical and geologic investigation activities are time-consuming and expensive but are essential to define the parameters and criteria needed for foundation design.; Certain riverbed soil and bedrock types present significant technical challenges or require expensive foundation construction, which can prove financially prohibitive for low-head project development.; Modular hydropower design and prefabricated modular foundations represent a promising but unproven paradigm for new hydropower development. Design and construction approaches using optimized and highly repeatable, reliable components would benefit project cost, time, and risk but require additional research and development.; Temporary construction features for foundations, including cofferdams, water diversion, and water control systems, can prove costly and have inherent construction risk.; For economically viable development, hydropower geotechnical foundations should be limited to 4 to 15% of the project’s total initial capital costs. Many proposed projects have experienced cost overruns attributable to foundation difficulties or surprises during construction. These overruns may have been due to inadequate investigations, lack of adequate engineering effort to tailor the structures to site geology and topography, and/or contractual terms, among other considerations.; Challenges for hydropower foundations and opportunities for innovative technology solutions are identified in the following areas (consistent with the three main phases of foundation development): Geotechnical site assessment, Foundation design and materials, Construction methods and technology. Ultimately, this report aims to provide information about geotechnical foundations for low-head hydropower and to motivate transformative technologies to support hydropower growth.
This data set contains measurements of leaf-area index (LAI) at the Missouri Ozark (MOFLUX) site during growing seasons from 2007-2022. The MOFLUX site is located in the University of Missouri Baskett Forest, a second growth oak-hickory forest situated in the Ozark Border Region of central Missouri, USA. MOFLUX is part of the AmeriFlux network (site ID: US-MOz) and an eddy covariance tower marks the middle of the site (Figure 1). During 2003, 24 circular vegetation plots (each 0.08 hectares) were established within a ~250 meter (m) radius around the tower. The plots were situated 50 m apart along 5 linear transects radiating out from the flux tower base in southeast, south, southwest, west, and northwest directions. There were 5 plots per transect except for the northwest one, which had only 4 due to the presence of a small pond at the terminus. At weekly intervals during the growing season, leaf-area index measurements were taken within each vegetation plot on the 5 transects running from the central flux tower. A plant canopy analyzer (model LAI-2000 Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln NE) was used to make the LAI measurements. We collected samples to enable measurement of the mean LAI of each transect. LAI observations are useful for understanding vegetation phenology, and to aid in the interpretation of ecosystem gas exchange. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.
This dataset contains the event log table that provides 10-minute wind statistics from the scanning lidars at AWAKEN's sites A1, A2, and H. This is a good dataset to start from for people unfamiliar with the AWAKEN project.
As countries around the world transition towards renewable energy, there is increasing interest in using photovoltaic (PV) technologies to help decarbonize remote northern communities due to their scalability and affordability. However, a major barrier towards large-scale adoption of PV in cold climates is performance uncertainty under extreme environmental conditions including snowfall, freeze-thaw cycles, and high wind loads. Existing literature on PV degradation rates in the North is relatively limited, with published degradation rates varying between -0.2%/year (Sweden) to -1.3%/year (Scotland). At this workshop, we will present preliminary results on the long-term performance of two diverse photovoltaic sites located in Fairbanks, Alaska at 64.8 degrees N: a monofacial Al-BSF double-axis tracking site maintained by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC), and a bifacial PERC/SHJ E-W vertical and south-facing fixed-tilt site maintained by the Alaska Center Energy and Power (ACEP). CCHRC data has been collected over a period of 15 years, while ACEP site data has been collected over 4 years. Using the degradation analysis tool, RdTools, we will present annual system degradation rates, seasonal performance ratio, and identify potential cold climate failure mechanisms for commercially available PV technologies. This analysis will add to existing literature by directly comparing the performance of multiple PV configurations in Alaska.
SECARB-USA Deliverable 4.2.1 utilizes the outputs from the Needs Assessment (Subtask 2.1) to develop a data quality methodology. Many types of data are needed to evaluate a site for technical and financial viability. Several inventories of data types have been produced (for example NETL, 2010). The objective here is to organize the data types so that the needs met are specified. From this cross index (Table 1 in the Appendix), it will be possible in future tasks to (1) determine, on a site-specific basis, how much of each data type is required at each stage of a project to meet the need, and conversely (2) to further specify and define the data collection methods applied such that the data are tailored to fit that need. Derivative tables can then be developed to semi-quantitively evaluate the extent to which need is critical for early go/no decision points, or if it is more important than average, requiring faster or larger capitalization and spend to meet the need. In an additional step, the current availability of data for a site can be semi-quantitively assessed. From the table of data criticality and the table of data availability, site-specific cost for meeting the data needs can be determined, and allow a pre-permit spend estimated for a portfolio of projects. All of the data needs to evaluate a site are somewhat interconnected. We used criterion (2) above to determine if the data collection design would have to be modified to meet the need; if this was commonly true a linkage was shown. The application of this cross index to sites in the subsequent tasks will demonstrate that the demand for data types varies site-to-site and project-to-project. Examples of factors to be considered are the complexity of the geology, the injection goals such as rate and duration of the injection, and the types of risk and risk tolerance of key stakeholders. In future tasks the team will compare the demand for data with existing data availability. This will, in turn, determine when data needs to be acquired to support project development. For example, in a project area with complex structure, 3-D seismic data may be needed earlier and more urgently than in an area with simple rock body geometries. In some locations, a 3-D seismic survey has already been collected and can be purchased. In other locations the project developer will need to collect these data. For another example, a project near an urban area or near to a park may generate earlier and more substantive public concern than a site that is developed in mined lands. A calculation using the derivative from table 1 will show the different investment needs. Project cost will vary corresponding to data criticality and data availability.
Soil moisture, temperature, and electrical conductivity have been monitored at multiple depths (between 10 and 50 cm) at 4 locations along a northeast-facing slope and 3 locations on the opposite southwest-facing slope at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado, from Oct 2019 to Oct 2024. The purpose of this data is to inform hydro-biogeochemical analyses for the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA). Two locations on the northeast-facing slope were reinstalled in 2020 due to damage from wildlife, and thus data for these sites are provided in two distinct files. Overall, the data are reported in 9 CSV files containing the measurements, and the locations are provided in the Sensor_Location.csv file. There is a total of 10 *.csv data files and 3 *.csv metadata files. Older datasets associated with the northeast-facing slope are provided in another archive (see reference). These data products are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area collection effort to further scientific understanding of biogeochemical dynamics from genome to watershed scales. Feel free to contact the author with any questions or collaboration interests.
This dataset provides geospatial information, metadata, and maps for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) River Corridor Science Focus Area (RC-SFA; https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/river-corridor) sites. The RC-SFA works to transform understanding of spatial and temporal dynamics in river corridor hydrobiogeochemical functions from molecular reaction to watershed and basin scales. The knowledge we gain is used to formulate and test hypotheses and to improve mechanistic representation of river corridor processes and their response to disturbances in multiscale models of integrated hydrobiogeochemical function. The data provided includes Site ID, latitude, longitude, stream name, and common ID (COMID) for sites used across the RC-SFA. The COMID can be used to find and download data from NHDPlus (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/nhdplus-national-hydrography-dataset-plus) and other platforms. The sites included are non-exhaustive. Sites (including past sites) will be added to this data package in the future. Data generated from the RC SFA can be accessed at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA. This data package was originally published in April 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; modified files), December 2023 (v3; modified files), January 2025 (v4; modified files), and December 2025 (v5; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder. The data folder consists of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) methods codes; (5) geospatial information for all RC SFA sites including International Generic Sample Number (IGSN); (6) maps of all sites and sites in Washington State, USA; and (7) a subfolder with the shapefile of all sites. All files are .csv, .pdf, .shp, .cpg, .dbf, .prj, .qmd, or .shx. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where some data were collected in Washington state. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.
This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.
Injection of CO 2 for storage in a geologic formation increases pore pressure and alters in situ stresses. Depending on the orientation of any existing fault and fracture planes, such as critically stressed planes, this stress alteration will modify normal stresses acting on planes and could result in frictional sliding and release stored energy in the form of seismicity. Brine extraction (BE) is a technique that can be applied prior to, or during, CO 2 injection to reduce pore pressure for increasing storage capacity and, potentially, for reducing the likelihood of frictional sliding. Here a workflow is described to assess the efficacy of BE for mitigating frictional sliding (i.e., seismicity) during injection and entails: site characterization, stress calculations and failure assessment, static and dynamic modeling, and BE operational planning. Site characterization describes the stress field used to calculate the Coulomb Failure Function (CFF) that constrains allowable pore pressure changes and injection rates in the numerical simulation of CO 2 injection scenarios. The inclusion of BE in the workflow allows for determination of the potential need for pressure reduction, and evaluation of the effectiveness of this operation. Example application of the workflow using an injection field dataset near Decatur, IL, provides insight on fracture planes and stresses at the site, formation properties and the impact of variable CO 2 injection-rate targets on whether BE plans are required. The study workflow indicates that BE could enhance CO 2 injection rate by 39% and correspondingly reduce the potential for injection-induced seismicity as indicated by a reduction in CFF.
Not Available