Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “government library”

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.

60 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Virtual Engineering Software Framework for Integrated Biomass Conversion Modeling

This presentation covers the design and implementation of a software tool to systematically connect computational models of unit operations to simulate an integrated process of low-temperature conversion of biomass to fuel. This virtual engineering (VE) software was designed with the overarching goal of connecting unit models written in various programming languages and requiring different computational resources within a single, flexible framework. The models and features currently considered for the VE library include mechanistic models for pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and aerobic bioreaction; high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for enzymatic hydrolysis and aerobic bioreaction; and the capability to perform techno-economic analyses (TEA) using Aspen Plus, a commercial software package. The CFD models require access to high-performance computing (HPC) resources, so in addition to handling multiple programming languages and interfaces, the VE software must also be capable of interacting with an HPC scheduler to submit, run, and post-process jobs. Using the Python programming language, a new VE software package has been developed that contains functionality to manage the input-output communication between various unit models, schedule simulations to run on NREL's HPC and analyze those results, and interface with existing TEA software workflows. A Jupyter-notebook GUI was also created to solicit user input and provide documentation. In cases where multiple models for a particular unit-operation exist, selection between models is accomplished through a simple checkbox, with the appropriate inputs and outputs being parsed and converted seamlessly in the background. Each operation makes use of a different programming language, but the flow of information from pretreatment to enzymatic hydrolysis to bioreaction is managed with an intuitive, centralized file-communication strategy. In this talk, the programming approach and implementation details of the notebook are presented for multiple possibilities of the conversion process, including a demonstration of the ability to manage HPC resources. Additionally, an example of a sensitivity study of treatment parameters governing the overall conversion outcome is shown which highlights the ease of defining new problems using the VE Notebook workflow and leads into a discussion of ongoing work to enable outer-loop optimization studies.

biofuel↗
DOE OSTI2022

kynema-fmb [SWR-23-07]

Kynema-FMB (FKA: Kynema) is an open-source performance portable flexible multibody (FMB) dynamics solver designed for time-domain simulations. While originally tailored for wind turbine structural dynamics, the formulation and implementation are those of a general flexible-multidbody dynamics solver that can readily be applied to a wide range of systems. Kynema was designed with a narrow focus, namely to provide a lightweight, fast, accurate FMD solver for coupling to computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) codes, especially the CFD codes in the Kynema suite, for fluid-structure-interaction (FSI) simulations. Kynema-FMB is equipped to model systems that can be represented as a collection of beams and rigid bodies that are connected through constraints. Degrees of freedom are defined in the inertial/global frame of reference and include displacements and rotations (formally as rotation matrices, but stored as quaternions). The underlying formulation is built on a Lie-group time integrator designed for index-3 differential-algebraic equations, which is second-order accurate in time (Bruls et al., 2012). Beam models are based on geometrically exact beam theory and are discretized as high-order spectral finite elements similar to those in BeamDyn (Wang et al., 2017). The governing equations for a FMD system like a wind turbine constitute a highly nonlinear system of constrained partial-differential equations. Kynema-FMB uses analytical Jacobians in the nonlinear-system solves in each time step. Linear systems use sparse storage and several third-party sparse-linear-system solvers are enabled. Ill conditioning of linear systems is mitigated with preconditioning described in Bottasso et al, 2008. Kynema-FMB is integrated with a simple open-source controller (ROSCO). There is an application programming interface (API) for coupling to geometry-resolved CFD (like that in Sharma et al., 2023) and actuator-force CFD (like that in Kuhn et al., 2025). In the latter, for actuator-line models, Kynema-FMB includes an internal blade-element solver that depends on user-provided lookup tables for coefficients of lift and drag, i.e., aerodynamic polars. Kynema-FMB is written in C++ and leverages Kokkos and Kokkos-Kernels (KokkosEcosystem) as its performance portability layer enabling simulations on both CPU and GPU systems. The repository is equipped with extensive automated testing at the unit and regression/system levels. The following describes the high-level development objectives conceived for Kynema: *Kynema will follow modern software development best practices, including test-driven development (TDD), version control, hierarchical automated testing, and continuous integration (CI) for a robust development environment. *The core data structures are memory efficient and enable vectorization and parallelization at multiple levels. *Data structures are data-oriented to exploit methods for accelerated computing including high utilization of chip resources (e.g., single instruction multiple data (SIMD) instruction sets) and parallelization using GP-GPUs. *The computational algorithms incorporate robust open-source libraries for mathematical operations, resource allocation, and data management. *The API design considers multiple stakeholder needs and ensure integration with existing and future ecosystems for data science, machine learning, and AI. *Kynema-FMB is written in modern C++ and leverages Kokkos as its performance-portability library with inspiration from the kynema stack.

Sprague, MichaelA.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Precursor Analysis Report: Cyber Attack on Thyssenkrupp Blast Furnace 2014

The Cyber Attack on Thyssenkrupp Blast Furnace 2014 Precursor Analysis Report leverages publicly available information about the Thyssenkrupp Steel Mill cyber attack and catalogs anomalous observables for each technique employed in the attack. This analysis is based upon the methodology of the Cybersecurity for the Operational Technology Environment (CyOTE) program. In December 2014, the German Government’s Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) released a report detailing a cyber attack on a German steel mill that occurred earlier that year, though exact dates and details of the attack were not revealed. While the report did not specify the name of the company, multiple sources identified the victim as one of Europe’s largest steel manufacturers, Thyssenkrupp AG. Further, Thyssenkrupp announced on 16 May of that year that Europe’s largest blast furnace, “Schwelgern 2,” located at its facility in Duisburg, Germany, would be offline for several weeks for repairs and upgrades, suggesting Schwelgern 2 was likely the target of the attack. The attack began in early 2014, when adversaries infiltrated the victim steel mill’s Information Technology (IT) network via a spearphishing campaign, then worked their way into the Operational Technology (OT) environment, where they executed software that caused denial of service, denial of control, and eventually a loss of control. This led to the blast furnace shutting down without proper safety procedures, resulting in catastrophic physical damage. No lives were lost in the incident, but ThyssenKrupp suffered $4 million in damage to the blast furnace and an additional $6 million in lost revenue. The adversaries required specialized knowledge and expertise in steel production, which enabled them to compromise a variety of internal systems and components across both IT and OT networks. The attack also demonstrated detailed knowledge of the industrial control systems (ICS) and production processes being used. This combination resulted in one of the earliest known publicly reported cybersecurity incidents resulting in physical damage to ICS equipment. Researchers and analysts identified 19 unique techniques (used in a sequence of 20 steps) utilized during the attack with a total of 454 observables using MITRE ATT&CK® for Industrial Control Systems. The CyOTE program assesses observables accompanying techniques used prior to the triggering event to identify opportunities to detect malicious activity. If observables accompanying the attack techniques are perceived and investigated prior to the triggering event, earlier comprehension of malicious activity can take place. Fifteen of the identified techniques used during the Thyssenkrupp cyber attack were precursors to the triggering event. Analysis identified 369 observables associated with these precursor techniques, 316 of which were assessed to have an increased likelihood of being perceived in the 120 days preceding the triggering event. The response and comprehension time could have been reduced if the observables had been identified earlier. The information gathered in this report contributes to a library of observables tied to a repository of artifacts, data sources, and technique detection references for practitioners and developers to support the comprehension of indicators of attack. Asset owners and operators can use these products if they experience similar observables or to prepare for comparable scenarios.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2025

Systems Analysis of Biomass and Coal Co-firing Power Plants with Deep Carbon Capture Toward Net-zero Emissions

Achieving a net-zero emission economy in the United States requires integrating diverse low-carbon and negative-emission technologies into the existing fossil fuel-dominant power fleet. Potential technologies from the low-carbon portfolio include renewable power, fossil power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Renewable power is a clean energy source but has to pair with costly battery storage to provide dispatchable electricity. Fossil power with CCS offers dispatchable electricity yet still relies on DAC to offset residual emissions, even when deploying deep CCS with more than 90% CO2 capture. Coal-biomass co-firing with CCS, a subset of BECCS, is a reliable energy production technology that can be retrofitted from existing electricity generation units (EGUs). Power plant retrofit maximizes the use of the current U.S. coal power fleet without the need for large-scale deployment of new renewable power, battery storage, or DAC. Retrofitting coal-biomass co-firing with deep CCS in EGUs is a promising option, but not a universal solution. Biomass co-firing at a power plant introduces economic challenges and indirectly poses pressure on land and water resources. Meanwhile, retrofitting deep CCS affects plant efficiency and raises electricity generation costs. Overall, the technical feasibility and economic viability of plant retrofits vary across EGUs, as they are contingent upon the regional availability of biomass, unit-specific characteristics, site-specific fuel supply costs, and adjacent CO2 storage potential. Government incentives like 45Q can improve the retrofit viability, though the impact requires further quantification. A comprehensive analysis at the unit level is essential to address the question regarding the fate of the U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet toward the net-zero emission goal. This study conducts a systematic techno-economic-environmental assessment of EGUs to identify the viability of biomass co-firing and deep CCS retrofits in the U.S. coal-fired power fleet. Specifically, it characterizes the techno-economic performance of deep carbon capture, estimates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and conducts a fleet-level assessment on retrofit viability. The key objectives are (1) to estimate the unit-specific performance and retrofitted cost under various biomass co-firing levels and CO2 capture rates; (2) to determine the possibility of reaching net-zero emission at the fleet level; (3) to quantify the cumulative capacities that are suitable for plant retrofits under current and future biomass supply scenarios; and (4) to improve the understanding of policy impacts on such retrofits to help the power sector’s transition to a net-zero economy. Techno-economic Model of Deep Carbon Capture. This study develops the performance and economic models for Monoethanolamine-based post-combustion CO2 capture at 95–99% capture rates. The process is simulated in Aspen Plus, analyzing the performance of carbon capture technology by varying the plant sizes, solvent lean loading, CO2 concentrations, and flue gas inlet temperature. Based on the key inputs and output parameters of CO2 capture, a reduced-order performance model of deep carbon capture is formulated. In addition, an engineering-economic model integrating the performance metrics is developed to estimate the capital as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost estimations follow the framework of the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) and incorporate data regressions from three technical reports by IECM, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The O&M cost estimation utilizes the actual inventory consumption rate and labor requirements. Both performance and cost models are embedded into IECM v13.0-beta, a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants. This study estimates the GHG emissions of power plants through life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA scope includes fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. The fuel-based life cycle module is designed following the framework of the NETL Unit Process Library and CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit. The module is then incorporated into IECM v13.0-beta. The process-based LCA is applied to estimate the GHG emissions of coal and biomass supply, coal- and coal-biomass co-firing power plant operation, as well as CO2 pipeline transport and geographical sequestration. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to quantify the variability and uncertainty associated with the LCA using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method. Fleet-level Assessment. This study evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of selected coal-fired EGUs, examines the role of tax credits in retrofit viability, and assesses the competitiveness of retrofitted units against other low-carbon options. Unit screening identifies EGUs for the study, focusing on new, efficient baseload units with air pollution controls. The power plant databases are then established to organize unit-specific information on performance and operating conditions from the relevant public databases. Biomass for co-firing retrofits is selected based on home and neighboring county availability, ensuring sustained operation with at least a 5% co-firing level. The CO2 storage site is determined by state-level storage potential, with ArcGIS Pro and NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model used to identify the optimal balance between the nearest transport distances and affordable storage costs. The latest IECM v13.0-beta is then employed to configure and evaluate the eligible EGUs with or without the deployment of deep CCS and biomass co-firing. A supply curve is established to illustrate the cumulative installed capacity suitable for retrofits at different cost levels. A sensitivity analysis on tax credits for carbon sequestration is performed. Finally, a unit-level cost comparison is conducted among retrofitted plants, renewable power with battery storage, and abated fossil fuels with DAC. Expected Results. This study evaluates the technical, economic, and environmental metrics of each EGU across an array of CO2 capture rates and biomass co-firing level scenarios. Unit-level comparisons will identify critical factors influencing technical performance. The supply curves with and without tax incentives will provide insights into the impact of tax credits on biomass co-firing and CCS deployment. The cost comparisons with renewables and DAC-retrofit will assess the competitiveness of the retrofitted units. Life cycle emissions from each unit will be assessed to identify the scenarios under which net-zero emissions can be achieved. These analyses are expected to determine the total coal-fired capacity suitable for serving as a low-carbon energy source with or without tax incentives. The study results are novel in identifying optimal unit-specific strategies for producing carbon-neutral power, whether through retrofitting EGUs with deep CCS, biomass co-firing, DAC, or installing renewable power with battery. The findings will provide insight into nationwide efforts to ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon electricity. It also will inform investment decisions and policies in the deployment of deep carbon capture and negative emission technologies for a net-zero energy future.

Biomass Co-firing↗
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 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↗