Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “waterbody”

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.

50 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Gambusia holbrooki Survive Shear Stress, Pressurization and Avoid Blade Strike in a Simulated Pumped Hydroelectric Scheme

Pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES) projects are being considered worldwide as a means of achieving political renewable energy targets in a way that stabilises baseload energy supply from often intermittent renewable energy sources. Unlike a conventional hydroelectric system that only pass water in a downstream direction, a feature of PHES is that it relies on the bi-directional flow of water. In some cases this flow can be across different waterbodies or catchments, posing a risk of inadvertently expanding the range of aquatic animals like fish. The risk of this happening depends on the likelihood of survival of individuals, which remains poorly understood for turbines that are pumping rather than generating. This study quantified the survival of a globally widespread and invasive poeciliid fish, Eastern gambusia (Gambusia holbrooki) when exposed hydraulic stresses characteristic of what would be experienced through a PHES during the pumping phase. A shear flume and hyperbaric chamber were used to expose fish to different strain rates and rapid and sustained pressurisation. A blade strike model was also used to predict survival of fish passing through a Francis dual turbine / pump. The ranges simulated were based on design and operational conditions provided for a PHES scheme being proposed in south-eastern Australia. All gambusia tested survived extremely high (up to 7600 kPa gauge pressure) pressurisation, high levels of shear stress (up to 1853 s -1 ), and the majority (> 93 %) were unlikely to be struck by a turbine blade. Given their tolerance to these extreme simulated stresses, we conclude that gambusia will likely survive passage through a PHES scheme. Therefore, where a new PHES poses the risk of inadvertently expanding the range of gambusia or similar poeciliid species, measures to minimise their spread or mitigate their ecosystem impacts should be considered.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
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 OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m 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 NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary 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 USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

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 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary 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 USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD 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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Public water supply infrastructure extensification and diversification in surface waters is insufficient to meet future demands in Texas

The data were developed to evaluate the capacity of existing and potential new surface water supply infrastructure to meet projected public water demands across districts in Texas under multiple future socioeconomic and climate scenarios. The database integrates hydrologic, water quality, infrastructure, energy, cost, demographic, and demand-projection information for candidate surface water supply locations. Candidate sites include stream reaches, waterbodies, reservoir surplus locations, and potential new reservoir sites. Water availability is characterized using historical and projected flow conditions, while site suitability is evaluated using five indicators: Water Availability Index (WAI), Water Quality Index (WQI), Energy Requirement Index (ERI), Water Treatment Cost (WTC), and Water Infrastructure Cost (WIC). The datasets include statewide candidate-site information, district-level demand projections under Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), runoff-based allocation constraints, climate-stress metrics, and optimization outputs evaluating alternative infrastructure planning strategies. Optimization results compare Business-as-Usual (BAU) and All Surface Water (AllSW) demand-management approaches under both scaled and fixed cost-cap strategies. Associated validation datasets provide district-level feasibility assessments, infrastructure selection outcomes, cost-cap utilization, demand satisfaction metrics, and constraint diagnostics. Additional datasets quantify projected changes in storage and flow conditions as well as water availability stress for both existing and newly selected intake locations under the SSP5 scenario for mid-century and late-century climate conditions. Together, these datasets support assessment of the extent to which surface-water infrastructure expansion and diversification strategies can satisfy future public water demands while accounting for hydrologic, economic, and planning constraints across Texas. Dataset(s) Description Dataset_preoptimization.xlsx Comprehensive pre-optimization dataset containing candidate water-supply sites and associated hydrologic, water-quality, infrastructure, climate, demographic, runoff, and demand-projection variables used as inputs to the optimization analyses. Includes variable descriptions and the full statewide candidate-site database. District_level_site_selection.zip - Compressed archive containing all SSP-specific district-level optimization result files MESIO_ssp1_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP1 (MESIO). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. MESID_ssp2_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP2 (MESID). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. LCMRD_ssp3_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP3 (LCMRD). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. IRDev-Low_ssp4l_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP4-Low (IRDev-Low). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. IRDev-High_ssp4h_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP4-High (IRDev-High). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. RSIM_ssp5_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP5 (RSIM). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. tx_hydrological_stress.xlsx Hydrological stress dataset for existing and newly selected intake locations. Includes projected mid-century and late-century changes, gain/loss classifications, planning strategy information, and accompanying variable descriptions. Also includes water-stress metrics derived from historical and projected low-flow conditions.

Okoye, Perpetua I. (ORCID:0000000215545033)↗
NASA NTRS1978

Growth of fungi in NaCl-MgSO4 brines

Previous investigations have shown that common fungi of the Penicillium-Aspergillus group can be grown in a variety of brines or on moist salt crystals. This simulates salt flats as well as sizeable waterbodies stabilized as saturated brines such as Don Juan Pond (Antarctica), the Great Salt Lake of Utah, and the Dead Sea in the Jordan Valley. In general, salt media rich in KCl are favored over other alkali halides; the media become more selective as the salt concentration rises and nutrient requirements become more complex. In the present paper, it is shown that media which resemble the Dead Sea salt mix can, in fact, support the growth of selected fungal strains, even in the absence of reduced organic nutrients other than glucose. Such media may serve as models for localized microhabitats on Mars.

Siegel, S. M.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Inland and Near-Shore Water Profiles Derived from the High-Altitude Multiple Altimeter Beam Experimental Lidar (MABEL)

The Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS) on the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2) mission is a six beam, low energy, high repetition rate, 532-nanometer laser transmitter with photon counting detectors. Although designed primarily for detecting height changes in ice caps, sea ice, and vegetation, the polar-orbiting satellite will observe global surface water during its designed three-year life span, including inland waterbodies, coasts, and open oceans. In preparation for the mission, an ICESat-2 prototype, the Multiple Altimeter Beam Experimental Lidar (MABEL), was built and flown on high-altitude aircraft experiments over a range of inland and near-shore targets. The purpose was to test the ATLAS concept and to provide a database for developing an algorithm that detects along track surface water height and light penetration under a range of atmospheric and water conditions. The current analysis examines the data sets of three MABEL transects observed from 20 kilometers above ground of coastal and inland waters conducted in 2012 and 2013. Transects ranged from about 2 to 12 kilometers in length and included the middle Chesapeake Bay, the near-shore Atlantic coast at Virginia Beach, and Lake Mead. Results indicate MABEL's high capability for retrieving surface water height statistics with a mean height precision ofapproximately 5-7 centimeters per 100-meter segment length. Profiles of attenuated subsurface backscatter, characterized using a Signal to Background Ratio written in Log10 base, or LSBR (sub 0), were observed over a range of 1.3 to 9.3 meters, depending on water clarity and atmospheric background. Results indicate that observable penetration depth, although primarily dependent on water properties, was greatest when the solar background rate was low. Near-shore bottom reflectance was detected only at the Lake Mead site down to a maximum of 10 meters under a clear night sky and low turbidity of approximately 1.6 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The overall results suggest that the feasibility of retrieving operational surface water height statistics from space-based photon counting systems such as ATLAS is very high for resolutions down to about 100 meters, even in partly cloudy conditions. The capability to observe subsurface backscatterprofiles is achievable but requires much longer transects of several hundreds of meters.

inland↗
NASA NTRS2021

Satellites for long-term monitoring of inland U.S. lakes: The MERIS time series and application for chlorophyll-a

Lakes and other surface fresh waterbodies provide drinking water, recreational and economic opportunities, food, and other critical support for humans, aquatic life, and ecosystem health. Lakes are also productive ecosystems that provide habitats and influence global cycles. Chlorophyll concentration provides a common metric of water quality, and is frequently used as a proxy for lake trophic state. Here, we document the generation and distribution of the complete MEdium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS; Appendix A provides a complete list of abbreviations) radiometric time series for over 2300 satellite resolvable inland bodies of water across the contiguous United States (CONUS) and more than 5,000 in Alaska. This contribution greatly increases the ease of use of satellite remote sensing data for inland water quality monitoring, as well as highlights new horizons in inland water remote sensing algorithm development. We evaluate the performance of satellite remote sensing Cyanobacteria Index (CI)-based chlorophyll algorithms, the retrievals for which provide surrogate estimates of phytoplankton concentrations in cyanobacteria dominated lakes. Our analysis quantifies the algorithms' abilities to assess lake trophic state across the CONUS. As a case study, we apply a bootstrapping approach to derive a new CI-to-chlorophyll relationship, ChlBS, which performs relatively well with a multiplicative bias of 1.11 (11%) and mean absolute error of 1.60 (60%). While the primary contribution of this work is the distribution of the MERIS radiometric timeseries, we provide this case study as a roadmap for future stakeholders' algorithm development activities, as well as a tool to assess the strengths and weaknesses of applying a single algorithm across CONUS.

MERIS timeseries↗
NASA NTRS2022

Enhancement of a global lake and reservoir database to aid climate studies and resource monitoring utilizing satellite radar altimetry

Here, we describe the expansion and enhancement of a large (surface area ≥100 sq. km) lake and reservoir database (1.GREALD). These efforts have also resulted in the spin-off of two additional databases, one containing lakes and reservoirs (2.GREALD, area 10–99 sq. km), and the other containing ephemeral lakes (3.GELD, area ≥100 sq. km). These databases are unique sources for projects that utilize satellite radar altimeter data to monitor surface water levels. While 1.GREALD aims to be a complete catalog, 2.GREALD focuses on reservoirs in response to applied sciences programs that monitor water and energy resources. The creation of 3.GELD has climate change objectives as well as water resources and ecosystem conservation applications. The recording of information pertaining to the potential overpasses (waterbody crossings) of the current and archive satellite altimeters is a primary objective as is the need to highlight any form of controlled water level variation. The permanent water databases now contain 6282 entries, half experience some form of anthropogenic influence and ∼430 have been identified as potential climatically sensitive terminal lakes. The revised integral surface area distribution is a power law with exponent −1.016. Statistics reveal that with altimetric repeat visit times of 10-day to monthly, at least 80% of the permanent water bodies (≥10 sq. km) have been overflown at some period since the 1990s. Current information on water use and reservoir formation date show that the primary use of the reservoir class is hydroelectric power, and that China, Brazil, India, Turkey, and Vietnam dominate the dam building in recent decades.

Charon M. Birkett↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adaptative Site Management for a 115 Acre Chlorinated Solvent Plume with Two Separate Source Areas at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Background/Objectives. During Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) activities, Geosyntec delineated a chlorinated volatile organic compound (CVOC) plume at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) area located at KSC, Florida. The RFI activities identified an approximate 115-acre dissolved plume (primarily vinyl chloride) and a trichloroethene (TCE) source area in an active aerospace complex that is surrounded by sensitive wetland/waterbodies. Due to the size of the impacted area, the Corrective Measure Design included a multi-component strategy: (i) address the source area via bioremediation; (ii) protect sensitive wetlands from impacted groundwater discharge via biosparging; and (iii) Long Term Monitoring (LTM) of the remaining dissolved plume. After the Corrective Measures implementation (CMI), NASA and Geosyntec worked with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to implement an adaptive site management for the complex, 115-acre site outside of the traditional RCRA process. The adaptive site management approach relied on performing supplemental assessments and implementing Interim Measures (IMs) to further assess and implement remedies over time while working within site and budget constraints, with an overall goal of achieving enough mass reduction to transition the entire site to LTM and eventually achieve site closure. Approach/Activities. After the biosparge barrier was operational and bioremediation within the source area (referred to as Hot Spot 1) achieved the Corrective Action Objective (CAO), supplemental assessment of the area between Hot Spot 1 and the biosparge barrier was performed. The conceptual site model was updated using the supplemental assessment results and an air sparge system IM was designed to treat an approximate 1.2 acre area (referred to as Hot Spot 2). After installation of the air sparge system, supplemental assessment within the remainder of the 115-acre dissolved plume was performed and a second TCE source area was identified. The TCE source area and associated areas with elevated CVOC concentrations (referred to as Hot Spot 3) were delineated and a bioremediation IM was implemented. Also, the downgradient impacts from Hot Spot 3 were adjacent to a sensitive waterbody, and negotiations with the FDEP allowed the area to be monitored using LTM. Results/Lessons Learned. The performance of supplemental assessment activities and implementation of remedial alternatives as IMs allowed NASA to successfully address groundwater impacts over time, while working within the FDEP regulatory framework. The implementation of the CMI and multiple IMs has achieved the following goals: (i) the biosparge barrier has mitigated the potential discharge of impacted groundwater to an adjacent wetland; (ii) enhanced bioremediation within Hot Spot 1 achieved the CAO within 2 years and transitioned the area into LTM; (iii) operation of an air sparge system within Hot Spot 2 removed TCE as a constituent of concern and contributed to a reduction (approximately 43%) in the impacted groundwater area outside the air sparge treatment area (plume collapse); and (iv) bioremediation within Hot Spot 3 removed approximately 80% of the CVOC mass and contributed to a reduction (approximately 47%) in the impacted groundwater area outside the bioremediation IM treatment area. Overall, the adaptive approach is protecting the sensitive water bodies surrounding the complex site and reducing the area of impacted groundwater, which is moving the entire site towards LTM.

Rebecca C Daprato↗
NASA NTRS2023

Youngstown and Warren Disasters: Mapping Flood Susceptibility, Vulnerability, and Risk and Tree Canopy Coverage in Northern Ohio to Inform Stormwater Management and Flood Mitigation Efforts

Both pluvial and fluvial flooding events pose direct challenges on urban infrastructure and communities across the United States. Heavy rainfall events oversaturate the ground, overflow waterbodies, and overwhelm stormwater infrastructure. Vulnerable areas receive heavy damage from flooding events due to physical factors like increased impervious surfaces, poor stormwater systems, and limited greenspaces. These vulnerable neighborhoods are comprised of aging populations, minority communities, and lower income levels. Lack of data in these communities have made it difficult to implement policymaking and flood mitigation strategies. Using the Urban Flood Risk Mitigation model (InVEST) and the PlanetScope satellite constellation, the team visualized historical flooding and tree canopy coverage as a measure of flood susceptibility. The team also used the Arc-Malstrom model to provide further insight into where flooding accumulates via surface elevation depressions in the study area. To validate these models, the team explored the spatial variation of rainfall events using NASA’s Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM IMERG). The resulting maps highlight areas surrounding the cities of Youngstown and Warren as being the most flood susceptible and socially vulnerable, while the city centers contain the lowest tree canopy coverage. The DEVELOP team collaborated with the Environmental Collaborative of Ohio (ECO) to create products for end users within the City of Warren’s Water Pollution Control Department, the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments and the Healthy Community Partnership of Mahoning Valley. These products help identify target areas for preventative flood mitigation measures as well as areas ideal for green infrastructure intervention.

InVEST Urban Flood Risk Mitigation Model↗
NASA NTRS2023

A Tuned Ocean Color Algorithm for the Arctic Ocean: A Solution for Waters With High CDM Content

The Arctic Ocean (AO) is the most river-influenced ocean. Located at the land-sea interface wherein phytoplankton blooms are common, Arctic coastal waterbodies are among the most affected regions by climate change. Given phytoplankton are critical for energy transfer supporting marine food webs, accurate estimation of chlorophyll a concentration (Chl), which is frequently used as a proxy of phytoplankton biomass, is critical for improving our knowledge of the Arctic marine ecosystem and its response to the ongoing climate change. Due to the unique and complex bio-optical properties of the AO, efforts are still needed to obtain more accurate Chl estimates, especially for coastal waters with high colored detrital material (CDM) content. In this study, we optimized the the Garver-Siegel-Maritorena (GSM) algorithm, using an Arctic bio-optical dataset comprised of seven wavelengths (the original GSM wavelengths plus 625 nm). Results suggested that our tuned algorithm, denoted GSMA, outperformed an alternative AO GSM algorithm denoted AO.GSM, but the accuracy of Chl estimates was only improved by 8%. In addition, GSMA showed appreciable robustness when assessed using a satellite image and two non-Arctic coastal datasets.

Arctic↗