Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “geospatial,”

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 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

LandScan Global 2023: Silver Edition

For a quarter of a century, the LandScan Global (LSG) project has annually released a global, high-resolution gridded population dataset representing the ambient or unwarned population at a 30 arcsecond resolution. LSG supports a range of applications such as emergency management, disaster response, and human health and security for understanding populations at risk. The 2023 release of LSG, the LandScan Silver Edition, represents a major methodological leap forward while also leveraging previous knowledge—the previous year was the baseline for the current annual update carrying forward valuable knowledge of the built environment for the past quarter century—to train the machine learning models. Compared with annual releases over the past 24years, multiple advancements were made to different aspects of the methodology to achieve reproducibility, transparency, and consistent global propagation of solutions to modeling or population distribution issues identified during the review process. These novel changes include incorporation of the latest available geospatial inputs across the globe, machine learning models instead of manual modifications, population feature importance analysis, open-source solutions vs. proprietary software, generation of multiple global versions, analytic validations, and human-in-the-loop revisions to produce the final version. Additionally, algorithms—such as anomaly detection—were introduced to quickly identify areas of focus to develop a new and robust systematic review. Significant changes in modeled population distributions were observed between the 2022 and 2023 releases, largely attributable to improvements in data and methods and discussed thoroughly within this report. In summation, the LandScan Silver Edition leverages the best of the past quarter century of LSG legacy knowledge and continues a tradition of applying cutting-edge enhancements to serve as a new benchmark for accurate, actionable gridded population data

Lebakula, Viswadeep↗
DOE OSTI2024

Observational benchmarks inform representation of soil organic carbon dynamics in land surface models

Abstract. Representing soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics in Earth system models (ESMs) is a key source of uncertainty in predicting carbon–climate feedbacks. Machine learning models can help identify dominant environmental controllers and establish their functional relationships with SOC stocks. The resulting knowledge can be integrated into ESMs to reduce uncertainty and improve predictions of SOC dynamics over space and time. In this study, we used a large number of SOC field observations (n=54 000), geospatial datasets of environmental factors (n=46), and two machine learning approaches (namely random forest, RF, and generalized additive modeling, GAM) to (1) identify dominant environmental controllers of global and biome-specific SOC stocks, (2) derive functional relationships between environmental controllers and SOC stocks, and (3) compare the identified environmental controllers and predictive relationships with those in models used in Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Our results showed that the diurnal temperature, drought index, cation exchange capacity, and precipitation were important observed environmental predictors of global SOC stocks. While the RF model identified 14 environmental factors that describe climatic, vegetation, and edaphic conditions as important predictors of global SOC stocks (R2=0.61, RMSE = 0.46 kg m−2), current ESMs oversimplify the relationships between environmental factors and SOC, with precipitation, temperature, and net primary productivity explaining > 96 % of the variability in ESM-modeled SOC stocks. Further, our study revealed notable disparities among the functional relationships between environmental factors and SOC stocks simulated by ESMs compared with observed relationships. To improve SOC representations in ESMs, it is imperative to incorporate additional environmental controls, such as the cation exchange capacity, and refine the functional relationships to align more closely with observations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Discrete global grid system-based flow routing datasets in the Amazon and Yukon basins

Abstract. Discrete global grid systems (DGGS) are emerging spatial data structures widely used to organize geospatial datasets across scales. While DGGS have found applications in various scientific disciplines, including atmospheric science and ecology, their integration into physically based hydrological models and Earth system models (ESMs) has been hindered by the lack of flow routing datasets based on DGGS. In response to this gap, this study pioneers the development of new flow routing datasets using icosahedral Snyder equal-area (ISEA) DGGS and a novel mesh-independent flow direction model. We present flow routing datasets for two large basins, the tropical Amazon River basin and the Arctic Yukon River basin. These datasets (1) facilitate the adoption of DGGS for hydrological models and (2) provide flow routing inputs for evaluation of DGGS-based flow routing in the Amazon and Yukon river basins. The data are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8377765 (Liao, 2023).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Fast and accurate learned multiresolution dynamical downscaling for precipitation

Abstract. This study develops a neural-network-based approach for emulating high-resolution modeled precipitation data with comparable statistical properties but at greatly reduced computational cost. The key idea is to use combination of low- and high-resolution simulations (that differ not only in spatial resolution but also in geospatial patterns) to train a neural network to map from the former to the latter. Specifically, we define two types of CNNs, one that stacks variables directly and one that encodes each variable before stacking, and we train each CNN type both with a conventional loss function, such as mean square error (MSE), and with a conditional generative adversarial network (CGAN), for a total of four CNN variants. We compare the four new CNN-derived high-resolution precipitation results with precipitation generated from original high-resolution simulations, a bilinear interpolater and the state-of-the-art CNN-based super-resolution (SR) technique. Results show that the SR technique produces results similar to those of the bilinear interpolator with smoother spatial and temporal distributions and smaller data variabilities and extremes than the original high-resolution simulations. While the new CNNs trained by MSE generate better results over some regions than the interpolator and SR technique do, their predictions are still biased from the original high-resolution simulations. The CNNs trained by CGAN generate more realistic and physically reasonable results, better capturing not only data variability in time and space but also extremes such as intense and long-lasting storms. The new proposed CNN-based downscaling approach can downscale precipitation from 50 to 12 km in 14 min for 30 years once the network is trained (training takes 4 h using 1 GPU), while the conventional dynamical downscaling would take 1 month using 600 CPU cores to generate simulations at the resolution of 12 km over the contiguous United States.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A network approach for multiscale catchment classification using traits

Abstract. The classification of river catchments into groups with similar biophysical characteristics is useful to understand and predict their hydrological behavior. The increasing availability of remote sensing and other large-scale geospatial datasets has enabled the use of advanced data-driven approaches to classify catchments using traits such as topography, geology, climate, land cover, land use, and human influence. Unsupervised clustering algorithms based on the Euclidean distance are commonly used for trait-based classification but are not suitable for highly dimensional data. In this study we present a new network-based method for multi-scale catchment classification, which can be applied to large datasets and used to determine the traits associated with different catchment groups. In this framework, two networks are analyzed in parallel: the first being where the nodes are traits and the second being where the nodes are catchments. In both cases, edges represent pairwise similarity, and a network cluster detection algorithm is used for the classification. The trait network is used to investigate redundancy in the trait data and to condense this information into a small number of interpretable categories. The catchments network is used to classify the catchments into clusters and to identify representative catchments for the different groups using the degree centrality metric. We apply this method to classify 9067 river catchments across the contiguous United States at both regional and continental scales using 274 non-categorical traits. At the continental scale, we identify 25 interpretable trait categories and 34 catchment clusters of sizes greater than 50. We find that catchments with similar trait categories are typically located in the same region, with different spatial patterns emerging among clusters dominated by natural and anthropogenic traits. We also find that the catchment clusters exhibit distinct hydrological behavior based on an analysis of streamflow indices. This network approach provides several advantages over traditional means of classification, including better separation of clusters, the use of alternate similarity metrics that are more suitable for highly dimensional data, and reducing redundancy in the trait information. The paired catchment–trait networks enable analysis of hydrological behavior using the dominant trait categories for each catchment cluster. The approach can be used at multiple spatial scales since the network topologies adjust automatically to reflect the trait patterns at the scale of investigation. Finally, the representative catchments identified as hub nodes in the network can be used to guide transferable observational and modeling strategies. The method is broadly applicable beyond hydrology for classification of other complex systems that utilize different types of trait datasets.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Radar-derived precipitation climatology for wind turbine blade leading edge erosion

Wind turbine blade leading edge erosion (LEE) is a potentially significant source of revenue loss for wind farm operators. Thus, it is important to advance understanding of the underlying causes, to generate geospatial estimates of erosion potential to provide guidance in pre-deployment planning, and ultimately to advance methods to mitigate this effect and extend blade lifetimes. This study focuses on the second issue and presents a novel approach to characterizing the erosion potential across the contiguous USA based solely on publicly available data products from the National Weather Service dual-polarization radar. The approach is described in detail and illustrated using six locations distributed across parts of the USA that have substantial wind turbine deployments. Results from these locations demonstrate the high spatial variability in precipitation-induced erosion potential, illustrate the importance of low-probability high-impact events to cumulative annual total kinetic energy transfer and emphasize the importance of hail as a damage vector.

Letson, Frederick (ORCID:0000000192750359)↗
DOE OSTI2020

Janus: A Python Package for Agent-Based Modeling of Land Use and Land Cover Change

Janus is an open source Python package for agent-based modeling (ABM) of land use and land cover change (LULCC). Many ABMs of LULCC have been created across platforms, some of which are not ideal for large scale, high resolution scenarios. This model provides a simple object-oriented framework for creating ABMs specific to LULCC. The organizational philosophy of the modeling framework is to create software objects (agents) that are associated with specific and contextual attributes which are isolated from where those agents exist in the spatial setting of the model, yet provide clear linkages between the agent, their environment, and other agents in the simulation. In this way, the framework allows for assembly of LULCC ABMs with low (programmatic) overhead, making the models extensible and providing clear mechanisms for integrating them with process-oriented biophysical models. Provided with Janus is a suite of geospatial data preprocessing tools that can use arbitrary land cover products as an input. Crop choice decisions are based on potential crop prices, these can be created synthetically, or drawn from integrated human-Earth systems models such as the GCAM. Janus is publicly accessible through GitHub and provides an example dataset for testing.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hyperspectral remote sensing-based plant community map for region around NGEE-Arctic intensive research watersheds at Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2017-2019

Using airborne hyperspectral remote sensing data from NASA Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer- Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) platforms in a region near NGEE-Arctic intensive watersheds at Seward peninsula of Alaska, high resolution (5m) maps of plant community distribution were developed and included in this data collected. AVIRIS-NG data collected over 2017-2019 period were used to develop deep neural networks, trained using vegetation plot observations collected at NGEE-Arctic watersheds at Kougarok, Council and Teller. A hierarchical vegetation classification scheme consisting of six classes at Level I, and 16 classes at Level II contained in two .txt files were used to developed the plant community maps for the region. Two geospatial raster data files (.tif) at both thematic levels are shared in this data collection. Data files in this collection use Alaska Albers Equal Area projection. Readme files available in three formats (*.html, *.md, *.pdf) and one *.png visualization map.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).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

UAS remote sensing (DJI Phantom 4 RTK platform): RGB orthomosaic, digital surface and canopy height models, plant functional type map, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Airborne remote sensing data collected using a DJI Phantom 4 RTK unoccupied aerial system (UAS) ? operated by the University of Maine Wheatland Geospatial Lab (https://wheatlandlab.org/). This package includes data from 17 flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic Council, Kougarok, Kougarok Mile80, Teller, and Teller Mile32 sites in July 2019. The Phantom 4 RTK is a drone platform that collects very high spatial resolution optical red/green/blue (RGB) imagery. Derived image products include point cloud, ortho-mosaiced RGB, a digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, and a canopy height model (CHM). Unprocessed and processed data products (1,000+ files) are included in this package (processing levels 0-3). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *hdr,), ENVI image file (*.dat), point cloud (*.laz) and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats. 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).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2024

Urban morphology and urban water demand evolution in the Los Angeles region

Detailed description of the dataset sources used in this study, the experimental workflow, and plotting for the paper figures provided at the associated GitHub Meta Repo: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/Ferencz_et_al_2024_ERL The future water demand projections from this study are hypothetical future water demands that reflect the population and urban land cover changes represented by the scenarios considered. The intent and emphasis of this work is investigating the interactions between population change, evolution of urban morphology, and water demand. These projections are not meant to be likely future demands for specific water providers or the LA region and should not be interpreted as such. The folders contain input and output data for each step of the "Recreate my Experiment" workflow described in the associated GitHub meta-repository as well as data used for plotting Figures for the paper that this dataset supports. Description of each folder's contents and use: Step_1a: All necessary inputs to the associated python script provided on the GitHub repo. Step_1b: All necessary inputs (downscaled population rasters) used by the associated python script provided on the GitHub repo. Original 1-km squared rasters that were downscaled also provided. Step_1c: Urban growth projection rasters corresponding to SSP3 and SSP5 population scenarios are provided in separate subfolders as well as the water provider boundaries used for analysis. Outputs of data processing also provided. Associated python script provided on GitHub. Step_1d: Description of Inputs used by the QGIS Model Builder GUI that automates geospatial processing and clipping the of the high resolution land cover data for each urban land class footprint within a defined polygon boundary. The Model Builder is provided on the GitHub repo and can be used by QGIS. The outputs of this step are in "Clipped Provider Hi Res Landcover". If the user wants to use The Model Builder for different regions of LA or two test our outputs, they will need to download the hi resolution landcover raster listed in the Readme and in Ref [2] of the GitHub Page. Step_1e: All necessary inputs to generate average monthly demand for each water provider. Associated python script on GitHub. Step 2: Output data about land cover metrics (areas and fractions) for each urban land class for each water provider. Associated python script on GitHub. Uses outputs from Step 1d "Clipped Provider Hi Res Landcover" Step 3: Inputs for and Outputs from the urban projection raster analysis Python script on GitHub. The outputs are rasters of urban pixels that were converted to a higher land class and the number of land class units that changed (Values of 1, 2, or 3). For example, a value of 2 could be LC 21 -> 23 or LC 22 -> 24. These maps are label "intensification." The other outputs are "urban growth" rasters showing the conversion of non urban to urban land, which are indicated by pixel values of 1. Step 4: Output projections of indoor and outdoor annual and monthly demands for each water provider. These are used for Figures 4 - 7 of the paper. Figures: This folder has data used for plotting Figures 1 through 5. Data for Figures 6 and 7 are sourced directly from folders associated with the Processing and Analysis Steps 1 - 4 and the plotting scripts for Figures 6 and 7 are commented with what folder paths are needed to generate the figures. The GitHub page provides descriptions of how each figure was made and the associated plotting scripts used.

Los Angeles↗
DOE OSTI2024

Synthetic Streamflow Datasets to Support Emulation of Water Allocations via LSTM

This archive is the data companion to the bonney_et-al_2026_erc metarepo which generates synthetic data, trains an LSTM model, and generates performance metrics on the trained model. While the generation of the synthetic data is fully reprodicible, it is a computationally expensive process. This data archive contains the synthetic datasets needed for training and testing an LSTM model and reproduction of figures and tables. In addition, supplemenatary data products generating and visualizing results is also included, such as geospatial data for the basin. Contents There are two high level directories: `WRAP_archive/` and `repo_data/`. The `WRAP_archive` directory contains compressed intermediate dataproducts from the dataset generation workflow (marked as "I_Dataset_Generation" in the metarepo). These data products are not required by any scripts in the metarepo, but they are archived as they are expensive to generate and may have useful information for other analyses. The `repo_data` directory contains the necessary data for reproducing the workflow in the metarepo and should be decompressed and moved into the top level of the metarepo. Additional details are provided in README.md.

drought↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Corn Heat Stress: Mean and SD of Degree Days Above 29°C based on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Climate Projections

Description This global dataset provides the estimated mean and standard deviation (SD) of corn heat stress (degree days above 29°C) for a set of climate models in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 at 0.25-degree resolution. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model (GCM) runs conducted under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The current dataset includes: Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 The mean and SD are calculated over 1985-2014 for the historical period and over 2035-2064 for future projections. A full description of methods, including growing season, daily temperature distribution, and statistical coefficients, can be found in Haqiqi (2024). The source climate data are obtained from https://ds.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds2/catalog/catalog.html and are described in Thrasher et al (2022). The codes used to create this dataset are available at https://github.com/ihaqiqi/dd29c_nex_cmip6. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics under Cooperative Agreement DE-SC0022141. The data processing, computation, and storage were completed on Purdue Anvil supercomputer and cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation HDR award # 2118329: "NSF Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE)". References Haqiqi. I. (2024). Trade can buffer climate-induced risks and volatilities in crop supply. Environmental Research: Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad7d12 Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., & Nemani, R. (2022). NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Scientific Data, 9(1), 262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Climate Change↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2024

Urban morphology and urban water demand evolution in the Los Angeles region

Detailed description of the dataset sources used in this study, the experimental workflow, and plotting for the paper figures provided at the associated GitHub Meta Repo: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/Ferencz_et_al_2024_ERL The future water demand projections from this study are hypothetical future water demands that reflect the population and urban land cover changes represented by the scenarios considered. The intent and emphasis of this work is investigating the interactions between population change, evolution of urban morphology, and water demand. These projections are not meant to be likely future demands for specific water providers or the LA region and should not be interpreted as such. The folders contain input and output data for each step of the "Recreate my Experiment" workflow described in the associated GitHub meta-repository as well as data used for plotting Figures for the paper that this dataset supports. Description of each folder's contents and use: Step_1a: Inputs to the associated python script provided on the GitHub repo. Step_1b: Inputs (downscaled population rasters) used by the associated python script provided on the GitHub repo. Original 1-km squared rasters that were downscaled also provided. Step_1c: Urban growth projection rasters corresponding to SSP3 and SSP5 population scenarios are provided in separate subfolders as well as the water provider boundaries used for analysis. Outputs of data processing also provided. Associated python script provided on GitHub. Step_1d: Description of Inputs used by the QGIS Model Builder GUI that automates geospatial processing and clipping the of the high-resolution 60 cm land cover data for each urban land class footprint within a defined polygon boundary. The Model Builder is provided on the GitHub repo and can be used by QGIS. The outputs of this step are in "Clipped Provider Hi Res Landcover". If the user wants to use The Model Builder for different regions of LA or to test our outputs, they will need to download the hi resolution landcover raster listed in the Readme and in Ref [2] of the GitHub Page. Step_1e: All necessary inputs to generate average monthly demand over the 2017-2021 period and the minimum and maximum demands over the 2014-2021 for each water provider. Associated python scripts are on GitHub. Step 2: Output data about land cover metrics (areas and fractions) for each urban land class for each water provider. Associated python script on GitHub. Uses outputs from Step 1d "Clipped Provider Hi Res Landcover" Step 3: Both the Inputs for and Outputs from the urban projection raster analysis Python script on GitHub. The inputs are urban land class rasters for specific SSP and zoning scenarios (low, medium, high) from Step 1c. The outputs are rasters of urban pixels that were converted to a higher land class and the number of land class units that changed (Values of 1, 2, or 3). For example, a value of 2 could be LC 21 -> 23 or LC 22 -> 24. These maps are label "intensification." The other outputs are "urban growth" rasters showing the conversion of non urban to urban land, which are indicated by pixel values of 1. These are used for the urban growth change maps in Figure 3. Step 4: Output projections of indoor and outdoor annual and monthly demands for each water provider for the average, minimum, and maximum monthly demand scenarios for each of the four urban growth scenarios (SSP3 med, SSP5 low, SSP5 med, and SSP5 high). The outputs also include metrics on each water provider used for the demand sensitivity analysis presented in Figure 8. Outputs from Step 4 are used for Figures 4 - 8 of the paper. Figures: This folder has data used for plotting Figures 1 through 5, and 8. Data for Figures 6 and 7 are sourced directly from folders associated with the Processing and Analysis Steps 1 - 4. The GitHub meta repository provides descriptions of how each figure was made and the associated plotting scripts used.

Los Angeles↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) Model: High-Resolution Power Plant Siting

Abstract This presentation gives an overview of the geospatial power plant siting model CERF. CERF (Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility) is an open source Python package developed under the Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modeling (IM3) Project at PNNL. This presentation covers an overview of how the CERF model works, walks through various power plant siting analyses, and discusses future research opportunities for the model. The CERF model can be accessed at https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf. PNNL Information Release Number: PNNL-SA-207336 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.

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2025

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. 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 OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 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 This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License 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↗