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 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

OverviewThis Web Mapping Application provides the ability to print maps based on FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) dataset. This application should only be used for areas where digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data is available; for other areas it is recommended that users use printing tools available at the MSC.FEMA's National Flood Hazard LayerThe National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) dataset represents the current effective flood data for the country, where maps have been modernized. It is a compilation of effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases and Letters of Map Change (LOMCs). The NFHL is updated as studies go effective. For more information, visit FEMA's Map Service Center (MSC). Base Map ConsiderationsThe default base map is from a USGS service and conforms to FEMA's specification for horizontal accuracy. This base map from The National Map (TNM) consists of National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and high resolution orthoimagery (HRO) that combine the visual attributes of an aerial photograph with the spatial accuracy and reliability of a map. This map should be considered the best online resource to use for official National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) purposes when determining locations in relation to regulatory flood hazard information. If a different base map is used with the NFHL, the accuracy specification may not be met and the resulting map should be used for general reference only, and not official NFIP purposes.Users can download a simplified base map from the USGS service via: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/services/ For the specifics of FEMA’s policy on the use of digital flood hazard data for NFIP purposes see standards 605 and 606 in FEMA Policy: Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping available from Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping Activities Under the Risk MAP Program | FEMA.govFurther InformationFor more flood map data, tool, and viewing options, visit National Flood Hazard Layer | FEMA.gov

To document current marsh conditions, imagery was acquired at 350 feet using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for 6 separate study locations. Three Sites are healthy marsh and three sites are degraded marshes. For each study site, ground control markers were established and surveyed in using Real Time Kinematic (RTK) survey equipment. The imagery collected will be processed to produce a mosaics for each study site and analyzed to generate current land-water ratios. The land-water data will not only quantify how much marsh is being affected, but the data will also provide a spatial aspect as to where these degrading marsh fragmentations are occurring. The land-water data will be correlated with other data such as salinity, prescribed burns, flooding frequency and flooding duration data to better understand what events may be causing marsh deterioration.

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

Data Pre-Processing Notebook:**

• Notebook: Pre-Prep & Technical Indicators Bitcoin Market Data

Main Datasets:

• power_data.csv: ready to load, already pre-processed with all features, technical indicators.
• Shape: 1,997,210 rows, 27 columns
• Misc: 774MB
• Time Period: From 2020-01-01 00:01:00 to 2023-10-22 23:59:00
• Misc: If you want raw data files, please see version 3

Description:

This dataset provides a view of Bitcoin (BTC) market data by the minute, spanning from 2020 to the current date of October 24, 2023. It provided a wealth of valuable information (pure gold) for those interested in analyzing and understanding the minute-by-minute dynamics of the BTC market. Suitable for Algorithmic Trading, Neural Network, Reinforcement Learning, Machine Learning, Statistical Analysis and any kind of predictive analysis.

Key Features:

• OHLCV Data: The dataset includes Open, High, Low, Close, and Volume (OHLCV) information, which are essential components for charting and analyzing price movements in the BTC market.
• Trade Count: The number of trades that occurred within each minute, offering insights into trading activity and market participation.
• Date Data: day (object) & hour (int) features

Technical Indicators:

• Multiple EMAs (Exponential Moving Averages): These moving averages provide a dynamic view of the market by giving more weight to recent data points, making them particularly responsive to current price movements.
• WMA (Weighted Moving Average): A 14-period WMA offers a moving average that assigns varying weights to each data point in the series, thus providing a different perspective on price trends.
• MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence): MACD, Signal Line, and Histogram are included, offering a comprehensive view of this trend-following momentum indicator, which highlights the relationship between two moving averages.
• ATR (Average True Range): ATR measures market volatility by calculating the average range between high and low prices, making it a valuable tool for assessing price volatility.
• HMA (Hull Moving Average): This weighted moving average is designed to reduce lag and increase responsiveness to price changes, allowing for more timely analysis.
• KAMA (Kaufman's Adaptive Moving Average): KAMA is an adaptive moving average that adjusts its speed based on market conditions, providing a more dynamic view of price trends.
• CMO (Chande Momentum Oscillator): The Chande Momentum Oscillator measures price changes relative to the total range of prices over a specified period, facilitating insights into market momentum.
• Z-Score: The Z-Score measures how far a data point is from the mean in terms of standard deviations, helping to identify extreme deviations from the norm.
• QStick: QStick measures momentum based on the difference between the opening and closing prices, allowing for a deeper understanding of price movements within each minute.

Unvegetated to vegetated marsh ratio (UVVR) in the Assateague Island National Seashore and Chincoteague Bay is computed based on conceptual marsh units defined by Defne and Ganju (2018). UVVR was calculated based on U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 1-meter resolution imagery. Through scientific efforts initiated with the Hurricane Sandy Science Plan, the U.S. Geological Survey has been expanding national assessment of coastal change hazards and forecast products to coastal wetlands, including the Assateague Island National Seashore and Chincoteague Bay salt marshes, with the intent of providing Federal, State, and local managers with tools to estimate the vulnerability and ecosystem service potential of these wetlands. For this purpose, the response and resilience of coastal wetlands to physical factors need to be assessed in terms of the ensuing change to their vulnerability and ecosystem services.

Quantifying demography of wildlife is vital to population monitoring; however, studies using physical capture methods can prove challenging. Camera traps have gained popularity as a density estimator tool in recent decades due to noninvasive data collection, reduced labor, cost efficiency, and large-scale monitoring capabilities. Many wildlife populations are comprised of individuals with no unique natural markers for individual identification, resulting in the need for unmarked abundance models. The recently developed Space-to-Event (STE) model offers a method for density estimation of unmarked populations using timelapse photography. STE relates detections of animals to camera sampling area (i.e., viewshed), resulting in density estimates that can be extrapolated to abundance over large areas. Consequently, this makes STE sensitive to estimates of viewshed area as small changes in viewshed could significantly affect density estimation. Using STE, we estimated density and recruitment o..., We collected photo data over two years (2021 and 2022) from two study sites (the James Collins Wildlife Management Area and the Sans Bois Wildlife Management Area) in southeast Oklahoma. We deployed 100 cameras (50 per site) in June and retrieved them in December of each sampling year. We outfitted each camera with a 32-gigabyte SD card programmed to take timelapse images at 10-minute intervals as well as motion-triggered images in bursts of three with no time delay between triggers. Once deployed, cameras synchronously took timelapse images to create instantaneous sampling occasions at each 10-minute timestep (i.e., 09:00, 09:10, 09:20, etc.). We used random sampling in the form of generalized random tessellation stratified sampling (GRTS) to generate 50 camera deployments sites per study site. We calculated viewshed area per camera using the camera lens angle and measurements of maximum distance of detection. We used a viewshed board to divide the camera lens into 6 sectors and took a..., , # Accounting for viewshed area and animal availability when estimating density and recruitment of unmarked white-tailed deer

Our dataset is comprised of timelapse and motion-detection photo data collected from two study sites across two sampling seasons (June-December of 2021 and 2022). Our dataset is divided into four R Data Serialization (RDS) files. Files are named by site (JC for James Collins Wildlife Management Area or SB for Sans Bois Wildlife Management Area) and year collected.

Description of the data and file structure

We designed our study to comply with the assumptions of the Space-to-Event (STE) unmarked abundance model. Each row corresponds to a single image. Columns necessary to run STE include "cam", "count", "area", and "datetime". The column corresponding to the taxa of interest should be renamed to "count". File structure is identical for the four RDS files.

• datetime: Date and time of when the image was taken.
• comments: Location for any necessary comments r...

This data layer shows lands acquired, administered and/or managed by Minnesota DNR. These include lands in the following categories:

• Aquatic Management Area (AMA)


• Scientific and Natural Area (SNA)


• State Forest


• Other Forest Land


• State Park


• State Recreation Area


• State Wayside


• Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

Management Units are often composed of numerous tracts of land that are managed or administered as a single unit.

Some features in this layer are hyperlinked to websites or documents that provide descriptive information. Use ArcMap's Hyperlink Tool (yellow lightning bolt) to access deed documents. (To set up the hyperlink, open Layer Properties: Display tab, check the Hyperlinks box and choose the field [WEB_LINK1] or [WEB_LINK2].)

Abstract

The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme. This dataset was derived from multiple datasets. You can find a link to the parent datasets in the Lineage Field in this metadata statement. The History Field in this metadata statement describes how this dataset was derived.

The difference between NSW Office of Water GW licences - CLM v2 and v3 is that an additional column has been added, 'Asset Class' that aggregates the purpose of the licence into the set classes for the Asset Database. Also the 'Completed_Depth' has been added, which is the total depth of the groundwater bore. These columns were added for the purpose of the Asset Register.

The aim of this dataset was to be able to map each groundwater works with the volumetric entitlement without double counting the volume and to aggregate/ disaggregate the data depending on the final use.

This has not been clipped to the CLM PAE, therefore the number of economic assets/ relevant licences will drastically reduce once this occurs.

The Clarence Moreton groundwater licences includes an extract of all licences that fell within the data management acquisition area as provided by BA to NSW Office of Water.

Aim: To get a one to one ratio of licences numbers to bore IDs.

Important notes about data:

Data has not been clipped to the PAE.

No decision have been made in regards to what purpose of groundwater should be protected. Therefore the purpose currently includes groundwater bores that have been drilled for non-extractive purposes including experimental research, test, monitoring bore, teaching, mineral explore and groundwater explore

No volume has been included for domestic & stock as it is a basic right. Therefore an arbitrary volume could be applied to account for D&S use.

Licence Number - Each sheet in the Original Data has a licence number, this is assumed to be the actual licence number. Some are old because they have not been updated to the new WA. Some are new (From_Spreadsheet_WALs). This is the reason for the different codes.

WA/CA - This number is the 'works' number. It is assumed that the number indicates the bore permit or works approval. This is why there can be multiple works to licence and licences to works number. (For complete glossary see here http://registers.water.nsw.gov.au/wma/Glossary.jsp). Originally, the aim was to make sure that the when there was more than more than one licence to works number or mulitple works to licenes that the mulitple instances were compelte.

Clarence Moreton worksheet links the individual licence to a works and a volumetric entitlement. For most sites, this can be linked to a bore which can be found in the NGIS through the HydroID. (\wron\Project\BA\BA_all\Hydrogeology_National_Groundwater_Information_System_v1.1_Sept2013). This will allow analysis of depths, lithology and hydrostratigraphy where the data exists.

We can aggregate the data based on water source and water management zone as can be seen in the other worksheets.

Data available:

Original Data: Any data that was bought in from NSW Offcie of Water, includes

Spatial locations provided by NoW- This is a exported data from the submitted shape files. Includes the licence (LICENCE) numbers and the bore ID (WORK_NUO). (Refer to lineage NSW Office of Water Groundwater Entitlements Spatial Locations).

Spreadsheet_WAL - The spread sheet from the submitted data, WLS-EXTRACT_WALs_volume. (Refer to Lineage NSW Office of Water Groundwater Licence Extract CLM- Oct 2013)

WLS_extracts - The combined spread sheets from the submitted data, WLS-EXTRACT . (Refer to Lineage NSW Office of Water Groundwater Licence Extract CLM- Oct 2013)

Aggregated share component to water sharing plan, water source and water management zone

Dataset History

The difference between NSW Office of Water GW licences - CLM v2 and v3 is that an additional column has been added, 'Asset Class' that aggregates the purpose of the licence into the set classes for the Asset Database.

Where purpose = domestic; or domestic & stock; or stock then it was classed as 'basic water right'. Where it is listed as both a domestic/stock and a licensed use such as irrigation, it was classed as a 'water access right.' All other take and use were classed as a 'water access right'. Where purpose = drainage, waste disposal, groundwater remediation, experimental research, null, conveyancing, test bore - these were not given an asset class. Monitoring bores were classed as 'Water supply and monitoring infrastructure'

Depth has also been included which is the completed depth of the bore.

Instructions

Procedure: refer to Bioregional assessment data conversion script.docx

1) Original spread sheets have mulitple licence instances if there are more than one WA/CA number. This means that there are more than one works or permit to the licence. The aim is to only have one licence instance.

2) The individual licence numbers were combined into one column

3) Using the new column of licence numbers, several vlookups were created to bring in other data. Where the columns are identical in the original spreadsheets, they are combined. The only ones that don't are the Share/Entitlement/allocation, these mean different things.

4) A hydro ID column was created, this is a code that links this NSW to the NGIS, which is basically a ".1.1" at the end of the bore code.

5) All 'cancelled' licences were removed

6) A count of the number of works per licence and number of bores were included in the spreadsheet.

7) Where the ShareComponent = NA, the Entitlement = 0, Allocation = 0 and there was more than one instance of the same bore, this means that the original licence assigned to the bore has been replaced by a new licence with a share component. Where these criteria were met, the instances were removed

8) a volume per works ensures that the volume of the licence is not repeated for each works, but is divided by the number of works

Bioregional assessment data conversion script

Aim: The following document is the R-Studio script for the conversion and merging of the bioregional assessment data.

Requirements: The user will need R-Studio. It would be recommended that there is some basic knowledge of R. If there isn't, the only thing that would really need to be changed is the file location and name. The way that R reads files is different to windows and also the locations that R-Studio read is dependent on where R-Studio is originally installed to point. This would need to be completed properly before the script can be run.

Procedure: The information below the dashed line is the script. This can be copied and pasted directly into R-Studio. Any text with '#' will not be read as a script, so that can be added in and read as an instruction.

###########

# 18/2/2014

# Code by Brendan Dimech

#

# Script to merge extract files from submitted NSW bioregional

# assessment and convert data into required format. Also use a 'vlookup'

# process to get Bore and Location information from NGIS.

#

# There are 3 scripts, one for each of the individual regions.

#

############

# CLARENCE MORTON

# Opening of files. Location can be changed if needed.

# arc.file is the exported *.csv from the NGIS data which has bore data and Lat/long information.

# Lat/long weren't in the file natively so were added to the table using Arc Toolbox tools.

arc.folder = '/data/cdc_cwd_wra/awra/wra_share_01/GW_licencing_and_use_data/Rstudio/Data/Vlookup/Data'

arc.file = "Moreton.csv"

# Files from NSW came through in two types. WALS files, this included 'newer' licences that had a share component.

# The 'OTH' files were older licences that had just an allocation. Some data was similar and this was combined,

# and other information that wasn't similar from the datasets was removed.

# This section is locating and importing the WALS and OTH files.

WALS.folder = '/data/cdc_cwd_wra/awra/wra_share_01/GW_licencing_and_use_data/Rstudio/Data/Vlookup/Data'

WALS.file = "GW_Clarence_Moreton_WLS-EXTRACT_4_WALs_volume.xls"

OTH.file.1 = "GW_Clarence_Moreton_WLS-EXTRACT_1.xls"

OTH.file.2 = "GW_Clarence_Moreton_WLS-EXTRACT_2.xls"

OTH.file.3 = "GW_Clarence_Moreton_WLS-EXTRACT_3.xls"

OTH.file.4 = "GW_Clarence_Moreton_WLS-EXTRACT_4.xls"

newWALS.folder = '/data/cdc_cwd_wra/awra/wra_share_01/GW_licencing_and_use_data/Rstudio/Data/Vlookup/Products'

newWALS.file = "Clarence_Moreton.csv"

arc <- read.csv(paste(arc.folder, arc.file, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = ",")

WALS <- read.table(paste(WALS.folder, WALS.file, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = "\t")

# Merge any individual WALS and OTH files into a single WALS or OTH file if there were more than one.

OTH1 <- read.table(paste(WALS.folder, OTH.file.1, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = "\t")

OTH2 <- read.table(paste(WALS.folder, OTH.file.2, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = "\t")

OTH3 <- read.table(paste(WALS.folder, OTH.file.3, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = "\t")

OTH4 <- read.table(paste(WALS.folder, OTH.file.4, sep="/" ), header =TRUE, sep = "\t")

OTH <- merge(OTH1,OTH2, all.y = TRUE, all.x = TRUE)

OTH <- merge(OTH,OTH3, all.y = TRUE, all.x = TRUE)

OTH <- merge(OTH,OTH4, all.y = TRUE, all.x = TRUE)

# Add new columns to OTH for the BORE, LAT and LONG. Then use 'merge' as a vlookup to add the corresponding

# bore and location from the arc file. The WALS and OTH files are slightly different because the arc file has

# a different licence number added in.

OTH <- data.frame(OTH, BORE = "", LAT = "", LONG = "")

OTH$BORE <- arc$WORK_NO[match(OTH$LICENSE.APPROVAL, arc$LICENSE)]

OTH$LAT <- arc$POINT_X[match(OTH$LICENSE.APPROVAL, arc$LICENSE)]

OTH$LONG <-