Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “East River, Colorado”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

Groundwater and river water elevations and temperature from 2017 to 2022 across Meander Z in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater and river water elevations and temperature data collected in the East River watershed located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the coupling between hydrology and biogeochemical processes in the floodplain. Data was collected at ten groundwater locations in Meander Z (MZ), located just upstream of the confluence with Brush Creek and two river locations directly adjacent to Meander Z from 2017-2019. From 2019-2022, data was collected at five groundwater locations in Meander Z. Note that location names, not location identifiers (IDs), are used in the related publication Dewey et al. (2022). Both location IDs and names are included in data files. Files in this dataset include the main data files for each location zipped into a single folder (waterlevel_data.zip), an installation methods file describing sensor installation (InstallationMethods.csv), a file containing field metadata including GPS (Global Positioning System) coordinates and ground surface elevations (transducers_locations.csv). This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. This dataset conforms to the ESS-DIVE hydrological reporting format. 2026-04-27 Update: The river water elevation data files (ER-MZR1.csv and ER-MZR2.csv) were corrected. The data for these two locations were inadvertently swapped in the original published data. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Gap-filled meteorological data (2011-2020) and modeled potential evapotranspiration data from the KCOMTCRE2 WeatherUnderground weather station, from the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset is a gap-filled meteorological dataset (years 2011-2020) that includes modeled potential evapotranspiration from a station near the pumphouse on the East River (KCOMTCRE2 WeatherUnderground ) near the top of the ridge at the Pumphouse PLM wells. These datasets are useful as model inputs. The KOMTCRE2 station is located on Mt. Crested Butte in Colorado. More information can be found at: https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KCOMTCRE2/table/2020-12-7/2020-12-7/daily. The purpose of this dataset is to use as input to hydrological and flow-reactive transport models as meteorological forcing. One attached file includes metadata files with definitions for all variables and units. Subsequent files include the same time series dataset, but aggregated and gap-filled at different time-stamp intervals. These include 5 minute time-series, 15 minute time-series, 30 minute time-series, 1 hour time-series, daily time-series, and hourly and daily modeled evapotranspiration.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Raw soil carbon dioxide, moisture, temperature and micrometeorological data in the East River Watershed, Colorado June 2021-June 2024. (DE-SC0021139)

This dataset contains raw data from four tripod stations along an elevation gradient on Snodgrass Mountain in the East River Watershed, CO, USA. Each station contains a datalogger connected to 3 soil Carbon Dioxide CO2 gas probes, 3 soil temperature/moisture sensors and a micrometeorological station. Sensors are scanned every minute, and the 30 minute average is reported. The file snodgrass_soil_ESS.csv contains raw data, a row of column descriptors, and units of measurements. some data processing and QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. CO2 sensors that went bad were replaced with new sensors as soon as possible. This research was performed to investigate the ecohydrological linkages of belowground carbon processes in the East River watershed forested communities to better understand how these ecosystems will respond to a changing cold-season moisture input. This is the second version of this data set and was modified on 10/01/2024. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the fall of 2022 to June of 2024. In addition, minor QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. THe filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. This is now the third version of the data set, and was modified 03/25/2026. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the June of 2024 to December 2025. Further r QA/QC was done with the new data to filter out bad data from faulty sensors and extreme outliers. The filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. ##This additional data was funded under DE-SC0024218( Responses of Plant and Microbial Respiration Sources to Changing Cold Season Climate Drivers in the East River Watershed)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hyporheic zone, river, and groundwater metagenome resolved genomes and rpS3 genes in East River Watershed, Colorado USA Summer 2020, 2021

Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from water filter collected across 8 locations along the East River Watershed, CO, and 1 nearby groundwater well. The purpose was to look for connectivity and similarities across the network and to see the impact of the groundwater. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed community composition and strain similarities between the sites and we also compared it to previous metagenomic studies within the watershed looking at floodplain (Matheus Carnevali et al. 2021) and hillslope (Lavy et al. 2019) microbiomes. Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from filters across 8 locations during August 2020 and July 2021. This resulted in 32 samples. The groundwater sample was sequenced at UC Berkley's QB3. The other 31 samples were sequenced at University of Maryland. Metagenomes were assembled using four autobinners and the best bins were selected using dasTool. The genomes were dereplicated at 95% with dRep and the subset of winning genomes were manually curated based on visual inspection of taxonomic profile, GC content, coverage, and a set of 51 bacterial single copy genes (BSCG), and 38 archaeal signal copy genes (ASCG). The dataset includes a zip file of 311 genomes (HZ_River_SW_MAGS_Dereplicated_95.zip). The dataset additionally includes a zipped file of ribosomal protein small subunit 3 (rpS3) proteins from the hyporheic zone and river data (rpS3_Proteins_HZ_River.zip), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a location metadata file (locations.csv). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

DNA↗

Time-domain reflectometer survey across the East River Watershed, Colorado

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) collected near-surface point-measurements of soil temperature (file variable TDR_T(C)), volumetric water content (file variable TDR_SM(VWC%)), and soil electrical conductivity (file variable TDR_EC(mS/m)) using a time-domain reflectometer (TDR) at a depth of 25 cm. The survey aimed to characterize the spatial heterogeneity of near-surface hydrological properties at the hillslope scale considering sites with different aspects and elevation within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. These data were collected in early July 2019 over four hillslope sites: Pumphouse (north-east facing slope), Bradley (west and east-facing slopes), and Snodgrass (east-facing slope) within the East River watershed. Part of this survey was used to investigate soil-plant interactions at the hillslope scale in Jashvina et al. 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Electrical Resistivity Tomography data from 2016 to 2018 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains time-lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) data along a transect located on the northeast-facing hillslope at the lower montane site (Pumphouse site) in the upper East River Watershed. The monitoring dataset covers the period from November 2, 2016, to August 6, 2018. In addition, the archive also contains a baseline dataset from October 9, 2016. The ERT transect consisted of 128 electrodes with an electrode spacing of 1.25 m. The acquisition system was located in the middle of the transect, about 50 m on one side, and included an MPT (Multi-Phase Technologies) ERT system, a mini computer, and batteries with solar panels. Acquisition occurred daily under normal circumstances. The first 16 electrodes (from the upper end of the transect) could not be used after the cable was damaged during the 2017–2018 winter. Also, due to multiple failures in the power system, the temporal resolution of the data is much lower in 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017. The data have been processed and used in Dafflon et al., 2023, and the baseline dataset was used in Falco et al., 2019 (see reference list). This archive contains the measurements (ER.zip containing csv files) for each of the 326 acquisition times and a filtered version where only electrodes 17 to 128 are included (ERT_sm.zip containing csv files). The archive also contains the baseline dataset and two acquisitions with full reciprocals (ERT_RB.zip containing csv files), as well as all the raw MPT files (ERT_raw_MTP.zip). The geometry (electrode position and elevation) is provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 13N Geoid2012AB in the file named ERT_Location.csv. The archive contains 1 *.csv data files, four *.zip files, and three metadata *.csv files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Soil thickness map at two hillslopes near the pumphouse in the east river watershed, Colorado

The soil thickness maps were created by using a hybrid model-data approach. Field sampling and remote sensing data of the spatial distribution of two hillslopes in the Pump House area in the East River Watershed in the CO., the U.S. The data package includes the geospatial data of the soil thickness maps at two hillslopes near the pumphouse, and the associated remote sensing data, including lidar DEM and a shape file of the boundary of the study area. The data can be viewed in GIS software such as QGIS or ArcGIS desktop. The geospatial data can also be viewed in Python or Matlab. The data were generated for the purpose of modeling surface hydrology and near-surface chemistry. This work shows how to combine sampling data and a process-based model to predict one of the highest uncertainty in the land surface process, the soil thickness.

2D Geospatial Maps↗

Natural abundance nitrate isotopes from Rifle and the East River Watershed, Colorado

This data package provides data on the natural abundance isotopes of nitrate from various sources, including porewater, stream, and precipitation. The overall purpose of this data package is to complement additional data streams for nitrogen cycling metrics (e.g., riverine inorganic and organic nitrogen measurements) with specific data gleaned from the interpretation of terrestrial and riverine isotope measurements and collectively understand on how nitrogen is cycled around this system. The Rifle and East River are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. Collection locations include: Pumphouse (multiple sampling dates), River (upstream/ downstream meander C), Shallow soil lysimeters (hillslope, toeslope, floodplain), Hillslope-floodplain borehole wells (i.e., Pumphouse Lower Montane (PLM) wells), and Potassium chloride(KCL)-extracted soil samples. Copper Creek sampling includes 8x river sample points and two tributaries sampled on Sept. Oct. 2017, July 2018. East River below the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory sampling includes 1 access point sampled on July, Sept. Oct. 2017. Rifle floodplain sampling includes well TT03 across multiple collection times over 2014. Data is provided in 5 individual files by location in csv format, or all compiled in Excel format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Conifer water use patterns in the East River Watershed, Colorado US, based on stable water isotopes and cellulose isotopes

This data package contains a series of datasets aimed at understanding the seasonal origins of water used by the dominant conifer species, Abies lasiocarpa and Picea engelmannii, in the East River Watershed. There is a distinct difference in the stable isotopic ratio of summer rain and snowpack and thus by tracking the isotopic ratio of the xylem water in trees, it is possible to separate when a tree is using snow vs. summer rain. Following typical protocols, we sampled and extracted water from soils in the "Research Meadow" near Gothic, CO within the East River Watershed through the 2016 growing season. The stable isotopic ratio of these waters were then measured. Using values of the isotopic ratio of precipitation and snowpack from that season, we develop a mixing model to show how the trees transitioned from use of snowpack to summer in late July. We extended the information on the seasonal origins of water from 2016 back until 1980 by using measurements of the isotopic ratio of cellulose from trees in the Research Meadow. The isotopic ratio of tree ring cellulose records a signal both of the Vapor Pressure Deficit at the leaf-atmosphere boundary and also the source water for the trees. We concluded from this extended analysis that the trees underwent transitions between periods where snow was the dominant water source and summer rain was the dominant water source. More details on this analysis can be found in the publication: Persistence and Plasticity in Conifer Water Use Strategies. JGR Biogeoscience. DOI 10.1029/2018JG004845. The dataset specifically includes stable isotope measurements of xylem and soil water for Spruce and Fir trees at the Rocky Mountain Biological Lab's Research Meadow as well as snowpack and precipitation stable isotopes from nearby National Atmospheric Deposition Program sites. Associated meteorological data is included, which is needed to understand the source water for the trees based on the cellulose measurements.This dataset was updated in June 2021 also include intra-ring measurements of the d18O and d13C of cellulose these same species of trees at the Ziegler Reservoir site in Snowmass, CO. These are listed as files: "Interglaciald18OCellulose.csv", "Interglaciald13OCellulose.csv" and "Modernd13CCellulose.csv". The intent of these measurements was to assess whether common conifers (abies and picea) had undergone ecophysiological or ecohydrological changes during the last period in Earth's history was warmer than today, i.e. the last Interglacial (116,000 to 130,000 years ago). This site was chosen because it is a location where subfossil wood from this critical warm period was discovered. We measured the d18O and d13C of the subfossil trees following the same protocol as the modern samples which included chemical extraction of cellulose and isotope ratio mass spectrometry. We found that the trees showed little difference in water use efficiency but utilized more summer rain during the interglacial period. This analysis and detailed methods are provided in the following manuscript: Wetter summers mitigated temperature stress on Rocky Mountain forests during the last interglacial warm period which is in revision at GRL but is available as a preprint here: 10.1002/essoar.10506740.2

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

2D reactive transport model of shale chemical weathering and biogeochemical fluxes along a mountainous hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado: Input files and simulation results

This data package contains input files and simulation results for a two-dimensional (2D) reactive transport model used to quantitatively analyze the coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes governing shale weathering and associated biogeochemical fluxes under realistic environmental conditions in the high-elevation East River Watershed. These data support the conclusions presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review), "Model-based interpretation of solute exports and carbon partitioning during shale weathering in a mountainous hillslope". The model simulates atmospheric-subsurface gas exchange, subsurface water flow, and shale weathering processes under dynamic, year-scale conditions along a shale-underlain hillslope located in the East River watershed. The simulations were performed using the PFLOTRAN flow and reactive transport code and executed on the Perlmutter supercomputer to leverage its large-scale parallel computing capabilities. The data package contains two zipped folders, "model_input_files" and "simulation_results", and one readme.txt file. "model_input_files" contains the necessary input files to run the calibrated base-base model presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review). "simulation_results" contains a single hdf5 file ("Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5") which includes the results of simulation performed using the base-case model. This file can be opened with HDFView 3.1.4, Python, or MATLAB. "readme.txt" contains relevant information about the base-case model and provides guidelines on how to run the associated input files provided in the folder "model_input_files". Furthermore, readme.txt provides information regarding the model results provided in "Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5" such as matrix dimensionality and output units. Field datasets used to evaluate model performance were collected at three monitoring wells located along a hillslope transect (PLM1, PLM2, and PLM3). Dissolved ion concentration data were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 for Ca, Mg, DIC, Na, K, SO4 (Dong et al., 2025 - dic_npoc_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1660459; Williams et al., 2025 - anion_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668054; Dong et al., 2025 - cation_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668055). Note that we used the files named er_PLM1_xx_yy, er_PLM2_xx_yy, and er_PLM3_xx_yy where xx stands for the name of the aqueous species and yy stands for the depth where the measurements were performed. Soil water content ([0 - 1] m) and water table depth were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 (Wan et al., 2024 - Dynamic_water_table__depthsFig2b.csv and Soil_water_content_Fig4e.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567). Gaseous CO2 concentration were collected from October 2020 to December 2021(Wan et al., 2024 - Soil_CO2_concentrations_Fig4h.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567) Gaseous CO2 flux from the subsurface to the atmosphere were collected in the vicinity of PLM2 from October 2019 to May 2022 (Wu et al., 2025). Soil microbial biomass concentration was measured from August 2016 to June 2017 (Sorensen et al., 2019 - 2017_East_River_Pumphouse_Microbial_Biomass__1_.csv - DOI:10.15485/1577267) All field data are published as CSV files compatible with Microsoft Excel, MATLAB, and Python, or as text files. The coordinates of the monitoring wells and the CO2(g) flux sensor in the coordinate system WGS84 are: -PLM1: [38.9197710 ; -106.9492750] -PLM2: [38.9201580 ; -106.9487170] -PLM3: [38.9207843 ; -106.9483668] -PLM4: 38.9210060 ; -106.9479528] -CO2(g) flux sensor: [38.9199180 ; -106.9489906] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a Department of Energy User Facility using NERSC award BER-ERCAP 23980, BER-ERCAP 28550, and BER-ERCAP 33789.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Montane Conifer, Aspen, Meadow, and Sagebrush Metagenome Resolved Genomes and Traits in East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

Climate change is driving vegetation shifts in mountain watersheds, with unknown impacts on biogeochemical cycles. We hypothesize that these shifts will reshape soil microbiomes and associated biogeochemical processes. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed microbiome and microbial functional trait differences between soils under conifer, aspen, forby meadows, and sagebrush across the East River Watershed, CO, controlling for elevation and aspect.Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from soils 0-20cm in depth across three locations in the watershed—Headwaters, Upper Reaches, and Lower Reaches from August 3-11th 2016. Each location was further subdivided into two blocks, with one block on a west facing aspect, and two on the east aspect of the valley. Within blocks, two samples per vegetation type were taken (one at each depth). This resulted in 66 samples, which were sequenced at JGI and can be found under the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project Gs0118068. Metagenomes were assembled through an inhouse pipeline (see methods), binned using four autobinners (concoct, maxbin2, metabat2, and vamb) and consolidated using dastool. The consolidated bins from all metagenomes were pooled, filtered by completeness (>75%) and contamination (<25%), and dereplicated at 95% ANI using drep. The dataset includes a zip file of 687 genomes (Vegtype_MAGS.zip), the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes, a csv file with MAG quality metrics and taxonomy from Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) taxonomic representative genome proteins (EastRiver_Vegtype_drep_genome_info.csv), and a file containing MAG quality metrics and taxonomy (gtdb_drep_bin_taxonomy.csv). The dataset additionally includes a sample metadata file (EastRiver_Vegtype_sample_metadata.csv), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a Google KML file for the sampled locations (sample_collection_sites.kml), a location metadata file (locations.csv), a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv), and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file.This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Lead isotopic compositions of airborne particulates collected from snow and from dry deposition in the East River Watershed, Colorado and at the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory, California

The data set consists of lead (Pb) isotopic ratios (206Pb/207Pb and 208Pb/207Pb, as well as 206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb) for particulate samples collected from snow and dry deposition. This was part of a study (O’Day et al. 2020) that was looking at the speciation of phosphorous in splits of these samples to evaluate the flux and bio-availability of phosphorous to the mountain sites in the study. The Pb isotopic data allow sourcing of long-range transported Pb, specifically the fraction of Pb sourced in Asia, and so a comparison of the relative distances of PM sources between the high and low elevation sites. Samples were collected at the East River Watershed, CO (dry deposition collected over Sept.-Oct. 2016, show sampling winter 2017) and at the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (dry deposition collected over Sept-Nov 2016, July-Sept 2017, June-July 2017). The data includes Pb concentration data, as well as calculated fraction of the Pb sourced in Asia. This data set was published in part in O’Day et al. (2020) Phosphorus Speciation in Atmospherically Deposited Particulate Matter and Implications for Terrestrial Ecosystem Productivity. ES&T, https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06150

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Bedrock weathering rates, reactive nitrogen influxes and effluxes, and nitrous oxide emissions rates from the Pumphouse Hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado

Atmospheric nitrous oxide contributes directly to global warming, yet models of the nitrogen cycle do not account for bedrock, the largest pool of terrestrial nitrogen, as a source of nitrous oxide. Although it is known that release rates of nitrogen from bedrock are large, there is an incomplete understanding of the connection between bedrock-hosted nitrogen and atmospheric nitrous oxide. Here, we quantify nitrogen fluxes and mass balances at a hillslope underlain by marine shale. We found that at this site bedrock weathering contributes 78% of the subsurface reactive nitrogen, while atmospheric sources (commonly regarded as the sole sources of reactive nitrogen in pristine environments) account for only the remaining 22%. About 56% of the total subsurface reactive nitrogen denitrifies, including 14% emitted as nitrous oxide. The remaining reactive nitrogen discharges in porewaters to a floodplain where additional denitrification likely occurs. We also found that the release of bedrock nitrogen occurs primarily within the zone of the seasonally fluctuating water table and suggest that the accumulation of nitrate in the vadoes zone, often attributed to fertilization and soil leaching, may also include contributions from weathered nitrogen-rich bedrock. Our hillslope study suggests that under oxygenated and moisture-rich conditions, weathering of deep, nitrogen-rich bedrock makes an important contribution to the nitrogen cycle. The data files are in Excel, which can be accessed using Microsoft Office, and consist of many data sets from the Pumphouse Hillslope PLM (Pumphouse Lower Montane) 1, 2, 3, and 4. They include soil to rock (0-10 meters) solid phase minerals and elements compositions; time- and depth-resolved pore-water chemistry and pore-gas compositions; time- and depth-resolved water table depths and water fluxes; subsurface weathering rates; nitrogen influxes and effluxes and mass balance. The attached paper is in a Word document, which can be accessed using Microsoft Office, and in pdf format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2018 Meander C floodplain groundwater chemistry from the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater geochemistry data from floodplain piezometers collected as a part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the role of hyporheic exchange and other river corridor processes on riverine export of solutes. Floodplain piezometers installed along two transects across Meander C in the Pumphouse vicinity (MCP and MCB wells) were sampled on daily to weekly time scales during summer-fall 2018. Some river water grab samples are also included. Data includes in-field measurements (pH, electrical conductivity [EC], oxidation reduction potential [ORP], dissolved oxygen [DO], Fe(II), and groundwater level) along with laboratory measurements (dissolved inorganic carbon [DIC], dissolved organic carbon [DOC], metals and major cations, anions [chloride, sulfate, nitrate], and dissolved ammonium). Five files are included in this dataset, including: sample locations and depths in both a kmz file which can be opened in Google Earth and a csv file, sampling protocol as a pdf document, aqueous geochemistry data in a csv file, and analytical detection limits in a csv file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2018 Meander Y and Meander Z floodplain groundwater chemistry from the East River watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater geochemistry data from floodplain piezometers collected as a part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the role of hyporheic exchange and other river corridor processes on riverine export of solutes. Floodplain piezometers installed in Meander Z (MZA, MZB wells) and Meander Y (MYP wells) just upstream of the confluence with Brush Creek were sampled on daily to weekly time scales during summer-fall 2018. Some river water grab samples are also included. Data includes in-field measurements (pH, electrical conductivity [EC], oxidation reduction potential [ORP], and groundwater level) along with laboratory measurements (dissolved inorganic carbon [DIC], dissolved organic carbon [DOC], metals and major cations, anions [chloride, sulfate, nitrate], and dissolved ammonium). Five files are included in this dataset, including: sample locations and depths in both a kmz file which can be opened in Google Earth and a csv file, sampling protocol as a pdf document, aqueous geochemistry data in a csv file, and analytical detection limits in a csv file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2016 Floodplain Geochemistry from the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater geochemistry data from floodplain piezometers collected as a part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the role of hyporheic exchange and other river corridor processes on riverine export of solutes. Floodplain piezometers installed in several meanders (Meander C, Meander D, and Meander O) in the vicinity of the Pumphouse were sampled at several dates in 2016. Data includes in-field measurements (pH, electrical conductivity, oxidation reduction potential, dissolved oxygen, dissolved Fe(II), dissolved sulfide, and groundwater level) along with laboratory measurements (dissolved inorganic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, metals and major cations). Five files are included in this dataset, including: sample locations and depths in a csv file (metadata.csv), aqueous geochemistry data in a csv file, analytical detection limits in a csv file, a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file, and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file. Data that was below the detection limit is reported as one half of the detection limit and missing data is listed as "-9999".

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗