Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Water Data”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Data Report: Pore Water Geochemistry at Green Canyon 955, deepwater Gulf of Mexico

Two holes were drilled in Green Canyon Block 955 (GC 955) in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico: Hole GC 955 H002 (H002) and Hole GC 955 H005 (H005). Here we present the solute concentrations and oxygen and hydrogen isotope ratios of pore water extracted from sediment whole-round samples collected from these holes. The analytical methods, degree of sample contamination, and the method for contamination correction are discussed as are the general trends in the geochemical data.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Temporal Study 2021-2022: Sensor-Based Time Series of Surface Water Temperature, Specific Conductance, Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA (v2)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides periodic (weekly or biweekly) in situ hydrological and water chemistry sensor data, handheld sensor water chemistry data, general environmental context photos, and field metadata collected at six sites within multiple rivers in the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. In addition to the sensor data, there are plots of continuous in situ sensor data and R scripts used to generate the plots. Related sample-based water chemistry data are published separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898912.The data package was originally published in September 2022. It was updated in June 2025 (v2; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing two sensor-specific subfolders, and one photographs folder. The main data folder includes file-level metadata (flmd), data dictionary (dd), installation methods, field metadata, handheld sensor data, field data collection protocols, international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file, and a readme file. Each sensor subfolder (BarotrollAtm and MantaRiverData) contains a subfolder containing sensor timeseries data and plots. The BarotrollAtm Data subfolder contains In Situ Rugged BaroTROLL sensor pressure and air temperature data. The MantaRiverData subfolder contains Eureka Manta+ 35B multisonde temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity. The FieldPhotos folder contains environmental context photographs and videos. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .jpg, .jpeg, .heic, .mov, or .mp4.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reservoir Storage Capacity Change (ResCap)

Overview Storage capacity is an essential reservoir metric that is directly linked to various water management and energy objectives. Accurate reporting and tracking of change in storage over time is crucial for the safe and reliable operation of the associated dam. While storage information is available for many reservoirs through the National Inventory of Dams, additional details, e.g. water elevation levels as well as changes over time are not included. This dataset contains reservoir storage capacities based on conducted surveys in CONUS. To represent changes in a reservoir’s storage over time, the storage capacity as determined by the first and last conducted survey is listed. The level of detail of surveys can vary greatly and improved with technological advancements. Therefore, the type of survey and year when it was conducted is noted. To ensure a fair comparison of storage capacities, the water elevation level along with the corresponding operation of the dam is reported. Structural changes, e.g. heightening of a dam will have an influence on the storage capacity and are therefore also mentioned. A total of 739 different reservoir storage capacity comparisons are listed, with some reservoirs represented more than once (storage capacity comparison at different water elevation levels). Methodology Data were acquired from USBR reservoir survey reports, TWDB lake survey reports and elevation-area-capacity tables, the RSI Web Portal and the NID (USACE, 2024). Initial storage capacity along with year and type of survey record is compared to the most recent reported storage capacity, survey type and year. Comparison elevation in feet as well as comparison elevation type were either extracted from survey reports (USBR, TWDB) or the Web Portal (RSI) and in some cases cross-referenced with data from other sources (Water Management Data, USACE, Water Data for Texas, TWDB).

Chu, Antonia [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000510540427)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

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 near Trail Creek. 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 TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores 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 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 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↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for "Depth of nutrient uptake by deep-rooted plants is regulated by water availability"

The data set consists of strontium (Sr) isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), water isotopes, soil cation concentrations, soil water potential sensor data, and results of 87Sr/86Sr mixing model. The plant canopy size files include the dataset of canopy dimension of sagebrush, lupine, and sunflower. The soil and plant ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) data file includes both of 87Sr/86Sr, and cation concentration dataset from soil exchangeable pool, apatite pool, silicate extract, atmospheric rain deposition, and plant leaf and stem tissues. The plant dendrochronology file includes the dendrochronogical ring width of several sagebrush, and dendrochemical sample data includes the 87Sr/86Sr for each separated growth ring. The modeling result gives the proportion of nutrient sources of each plants (based on their 87Sr/86Sr in leaf tissues and growth rings) from atmospheric deposition and mineral weathering. Soil water potential data includes continuous collection of soil water potential dataset at 2 depths (30 cm and 60 cm, from Nov 24 - Jun 25) of the sampling site. All the samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign June and July 2023, and rain water is a separate sampling from Aug - Sept 2023, at north-facing hillslope near pumphouse site. The data showed that the depth of cation nutrient acquisition is thus tightly coupled with, and likely determined by, water availability in soil, saprolite and bedrock. The enhanced uptake of cations and water from regions of mineral weathering could confer plant and ecosystem resilience during low water years and may impact the rate of bedrock weathering and watershed chemistry during drought. This dataset includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; a location metadata file (locations.csv); and a samples metadata file (samples.csv). All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) files (.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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using Atmospheric Inverse Modelling of Methane Budgets with Copernicus Land Water and Wetness Data to Detect Land Use-Related Emissions

Climate change mitigation requires countries to report their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sinks, including those from land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF). In Finland, the LULUCF sector plays a crucial role in achieving net-zero GHG emissions, as the sector is expected to be a net sink. However, accurate estimates of LULUCF-related GHG emissions, such as methane (CH 4 ), remain challenging. We estimated LULUCF-related CH 4 emissions in Finland in 2013–2020 by combining national land cover and remote-sensed surface wetness data with CH 4 emissions estimated by an inversion model. According to our inversion model, most of Finland’s CH 4 emissions were attributed to natural sources such as open pristine peatlands. However, our research indicated that forests with thin tree cover surrounding open peatlands may also be a significant source of CH 4 . Unlike open pristine peatlands and pristine peatlands with thin tree cover, surrounding transient forests are included in the Finnish GHG inventory if they meet the criteria used for forest land. The current Finnish national GHG inventory may therefore underestimate CH 4 emissions from forested organic soils surrounding open peatlands, although more precise methods and data are needed to verify this. Given the potential impact on net GHG emissions, CH 4 emissions from transitional forests on organic soils should be further investigated. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the potential of combining atmospheric inversion modelling of GHGs with diverse data sources and highlight the need for methods to more easily combine atmospheric inversions with national GHG inventories.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

FTICR-MS and Biochemical Transformation Data from Global Inland River Water and Sediment Associated with: "Organic Matter Transformations are Disconnected Between Surface Water and the Hyporheic Zone"

This data package is associated with the publication "Organic Matter Transformations are Disconnected Between Surface Water and the Hyporheic Zone" submitted to Biogeosciences (Stegen et al., 2022). The study aims to understand how the diversity of OM transformations varies across surface and subsurface components of river corridors using inland surface water and sediments collected along river corridors across the contiguous United States. Sediment extracts and water samples were analyzed using ultrahigh resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS). This dataset is comprised of one folder (WHONDR_S19S) which contains (1) a subfolder with R scripts used to process the data and to calculate biochemical transformations, (2) processed FTICR-MS data as csv files, sample collection metadata and climate data as csv files, (3) biochemical transformations profile, classifications and database as csv files, and (4) a readme file with more information regarding WHONDRS raw FTICR-MS data and processing scripts. Outside of the main folders there is a csv containing file-level metadata and a csv data dictionary defining column headers for all csv files contained in the data package. The samples were part of a WHONDRS (https://whondrs.pnnl.gov) study. The raw, unprocessed FTICR-MS data with additional data can be found at doi:10.15485/1729719 for sediments and doi:10.15485/1603775 for water. This data package contains the processed data used in the associated manuscript.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data for Grogan et al. "Bringing Hydrologic Realism to Water Markets"

This data set provides model output and post-processing files required to reproduce the results, tables, and figures in the paper "Bringing Hydrologic Realism to Water Markets" by Grogan et al. (in review). Other input data used in this study includes: Lisk, M., Grogan, D., Zuidema, S., Caccese, R., Peklak, D., Zheng, J., Fisher-Vanden, K., Lammers, R., Olmstead, S., & Fowler, L. (2023). Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR) (Version v1) [Data set]. MSD-LIVE Data Repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2205619 Two models were used in this study: (1) The University of New Hampshire Water Balance Model WBM, and (2) a Water Market Model. Market model code and model output post-processing code that make use of these data can be found here Model output files are: 1. WBM output files: scenario[x]_wbm_output.zip Where [x] is one of 1, 2, 2a, 3, and 3a Each zipped directory contains 7 gridded NetCDF files, each reporting the 10-year annual average value of a given variable, in units of average mm/day: File Name: wbm_indUseGross_yc.nc; Description: Water withdrawals by industry (part of the urban sector) File Name: wbm_domUseGross_yc.nc; Description: Water withdrawals by the domestic sector (part of the urban sector) File Name: wbm_irrigationGross_yc.nc; Description: Water withdrawals for agriculture File Name: wbm_irrigationExtra_yc.nc; Description: Water withdrawals from unsustainable groundwater for agriculture File Name: wbm_indUseEvap_yc.nc; Description: Consumptive water use by industry File Name: wbm_domUseEvap_yc.nc; Description: Consumptive water use by the domestic sector File Name: wbm_irrigationNet_yc.nc; Description: Consumptive water use by agriculture The file full_cell_area.nc gives the area of each grid cell in km2, which is used for converting water depth to water volume. 2. Water market model output & post processing output Folder: marketTrdSummaries/ Description: Files in this folder are used as input to code 1_WelfareCalculation_actual_trades.R. They summarize historical water right trade transactions in each state. File Name: welfare_gain_by_state_sector.csv; Description: Welfare gains by state and sector, as shown in Figure 3F. Used in code Figure3.R and produced (as a .xlsx file) by code 2_DemandCurves_simulated_trades.R File Name: welfare_data_actual.rdata; Description: welfare gains by WMA from actual historical trades, as shown in Figure 3A. This data is the output of code 1_WelfareCalculation_actual_trades.R File Name: welfare_summary_simulated.xlsx; Description: Welfare gains by state as simulated by the market model in Scenario 1. Produced by code 2_DemandCurves_simulated_trades.R, and used in code 4_WelfareCalculation.R. File Name: welfare_summary_cutoffs.xlsx; Description: Welfare gains by state as simulated by the market model in Scenario 2. Produced by code 3_DemandCurves_simulated_trades_cutoffs.R, and used in code 4_WelfareCalculation.R. File Name: welfare_summary_cutoffs_SGMS.xlsx; Description: Welfare gains by state as simulated by the market model in Scenario 2a. Produced by code 3_DemandCurves_simulated_trades_cutoffs.R, and used in code 4_WelfareCalculation.R. File Name: welfare_data_actual.rdata; Description: Spatial data, actual historical welfare gains by WMA as shown in Figure 3A. Produced by code 4_WelfareCalculation.R and used by code Figure3.R. File Name: welfare_data_simulated.rdata; Description: Spatial data, simulated Scenario 1 welfare gains by WMA as shown in Figure 3B. Produced by code 4_WelfareCalculation.R and used by code Figure3.R. File Name: welfare_data_simulated_cutoffs.rdata; Description: Spatial data, simulated Scenario 2 welfare gains by WMA. Produced by code 4_WelfareCalculation.R and used by code Figure3.R. File Name: welfare_data_simulated_cutoffs_SGMA.rdata; Description: Spatial data, simulated Scenario 2a welfare gains by WMA. Produced by code 4_WelfareCalculation.R and used by code Figure3.R. Additional files are provided for efficient reproduction of tables and figures. These include: File Name: wma_thresold_dates_Scenario2(a).csv; Description: Wet vs. paper right threshold dates for each WMA. Shown in Figure 2A,B. Produced and used by code calculate_thresolds_Figure2.R File Name: WWRTradeBounds (directory); Description: Trade boundary shapefile required to reproduce Figure 3A-D. Used in code Figure3.R File Name: welfare_region_totals.csv; Description: Welfare gains for the entire study region, as shown in Figure 3E. Used in code Figure3.R File Name: Welfare_gain_by_state_sector.csv; Description: Welfare gains by state and sector, as shown in Figure 3F. Used in code Figure3.R and produced (as a .xlsx file) by code 2_DemandCurves_simulated_trades.R File Name: WECC_MERIT_5min_v3b_mask.nc; Description: Gridded file that identified which land grid cells are in the WBM model domain, used for processing in code Figure4.py File Name: Table_1.csv; Description: All data in Table 1, reproducible from WBM output files using code table_1.R

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2026

Daily, 30 m Resolution NDSI Data for the East River Watershed, CO for 2000-2020

This dataset contains daily Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) values at 30 m spatial resolution for the East River watershed in Colorado, USA. The temporal range of these data includes water years 2001-2020. These data were created using the Spatial and Temporal Adaptive Reflectance Fusion Model (STARFM). This model fuses low spatial and high temporal resolution data from MODIS (500 m, daily) with high spatial and low temporal resolution data from Landsat (30 m, 16 days) to create a 30m synthetic daily snow product. This product allows for the analysis of historical snow covered area trends in the East River Watershed at fine spatiotemporal resolutions where it was not available previously. This research was performed as a part of the Department of Energy’s Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Program with the primary intent of better understanding the timing and spatial patterns of water delivery to the Critical Zone in mountain watersheds. Each .zip file contains one "water year" of data (October 1 - September 30; i.e., water year 2010 starts October 1, 2010 and ends September 30, 2011). Each zip file contains the following: STARFM daily Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) fusion data files in GeoTiff format with one layer for each day between Landsat data acquisition dates (i.e., for dates of Landsat acquisition, the Landsat image is included for that date). The study area is located in an area of Landsat path overlap, so Landsat dates acquisitions are every 7-9 days. Landsat NDSI files containing the high spatial (30m), low temporal (7-9 days due to Landsat path overlap) resolution data used as input to STARFM in GeoTiff format with one layer for each day. Dates for which no Landsat data were obtained are included as NoData layers. MODIS NDSI files containing the high temporal (daily), low spatial (500m) resolution data used as input to STARFM in GeoTiff format with one layer for each day. Please note the MODIS data were resampled to 30m pixels for input into the STARFM model. The data have a scale factor of 10,000 and a no data value of -32767. The projection of all datasets is WGS 84 (EPSG: 4326), which has a latitude/longitude based degree resolution of 0.0002694946 X 0.0002694946, and approximates to the 30 m spatial resolution mentioned above. The Layer Index files in .csv format. They contain information for each layer in the above GeoTiff files regarding the corresponding date for each layer, the fraction of pixels in the image that contain valid data (missing data is due to either cloud cover or poor data quality; these values are not percent snow cover). Dates of Landsat overpass are indicated in these files. If no Landsat data were able to be obtained due to cloud cover or lack of Landsat Tier 1 data available on Google Earth Engine, this is also noted.

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > SNOW/ICE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Stem psychrometer and flux data from US-CdM

Cleaned midday and predawn water potential data from 14 stem psychrometers installed within the footprint of the US-CdM flux tower, from May-October 2021. These data were collected in order to link environmental drivers, vegetation responses to seasonal water stress, and ecosystem fluxes of carbon and water at a pinyon-juniper woodland in southeastern Utah.Data include a comma separated values file containing all water potential data used in the published paper. Data were first published in Kannenberg et al. 2023 Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109269). Flux data are publicly available from the AmeriFlux portal (doi: 10.17190/AMF/1865477). This data file and the AmeriFlux data are all that is necessary to replicate the analyses in Kannenberg et al. 2023 Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Real-Time, Simultaneous Soil Water Content and Meteorological Data Measurement to Support TRACER over Harris County, Texas (Field Campaign Report: Part I)

The main purpose of this project was to provide ground-truth and satellite-based soil water content data in the Houston, Texas, area to support the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s 2022 field campaign, the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER). This involved installing four soil monitoring stations at different locations in the Houston area, two of which were part of the ARM facility and two were ancillary. The two stations associated directly with ARM were installed alongside other facilities managed and maintained by the TRACER research team during the intensive operational period (IOP), one located at the La Porte, Texas airport and the other near Guy, Texas. Data from these stations were assimilated with similar data collected by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to improve the spatial coverage of the real-time monitoring network. The ground-truth data were compared to the satellite-based (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]’s Soil Moisture Active Passive [SMAP] mission) data in the TRACER area of interest, and analyzed further to nowcast gridded data over the Houston area. The nowcasted, gridded data product was made available to TRACER researchers for use in climate and land-atmosphere interaction modeling that can help understand formation and persistence of convective storms in dense urban areas, and predict possible environmental events such as floods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Real-Time, Simultaneous Soil Water Content and Meteorological Data Measurement to Support TRACER over Harris County, Texas Field Campaign Report: Part II

The main purpose of this project was to provide ground-truth and satellite-based soil water content data in the Houston, Texas, area to support the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s 2022 field campaign, the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER). This involved installing four soil monitoring stations at different locations in the Houston area, two of which were part of the ARM facility and two were ancillary. The two stations associated directly with ARM were installed alongside other facilities managed and maintained by the TRACER research team during the intensive operational period (IOP), one located at the La Porte, Texas airport and the other located near Guy, Texas. Data from these stations were assimilated with similar data collected by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to improve the spatial coverage of the real-time monitoring network. The ground-truth data were compared to the satellite-based (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]’s Soil Moisture Active Passive [SMAP] mission) data in the TRACER area of interest, and analyzed further to nowcast gridded data over the Houston area. The nowcasted, gridded data product was made available to TRACER researchers for use in climate and land-atmosphere interaction modeling that can help understand formation and persistence of convective storms in dense urban areas, and predict possible environmental events such as floods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal Study 2022-2024: Sensor-Based Time Series of Surface Water Temperature, Specific Conductance, Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity, Chlorophyll A, and Dissolved Oxygen from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides periodic (bi-weekly or monthly) in situ hydrological and water chemistry sensor data, handheld sensor water chemistry data, general environmental context photos, and field metadata collected at six sites across the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Sample and sensor data from previous years (2021-2022) can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898912 and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1892054, respectively. Related sample data from 2022-2024 are available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2562910. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions This dataset contains a folder of environmental context photographs and videos and (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; (5) field protocols; (6) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (7) handheld sensor data; and (8) two sensor subfolders. Each sensor subfolder (BarotrollAtm and MantaRiverData) contains a subfolder containing sensor time series data and plots. The BarotrollAtm Data subfolder contains In Situ Rugged BaroTROLL sensor pressure and air temperature data. The MantaRiverData subfolder contains Eureka Manta+ 35B multisonde temperature, specific conductance, and chlorophyll A. All files are .csv, .pdf, .jpg, .jpeg, .mp4, .png, or .mov.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Identifying schools at high-risk for elevated lead in drinking water using only publicly available data

Estimating the risk of lead contamination of schools' drinking water at the State level is a complex, important, and unexplored challenge. Variable water quality among water systems and changes in water chemistry during distribution affect lead dissolution rates from pipes and fittings. In addition, the locations of lead-bearing plumbing materials are uncertain. We tested the capability of six machine learning models to predict the likelihood of lead contamination of drinking water at the schools' taps using only publicly available datasets. The predictive features used in the models correspond to those with a proven correlation to the dominant, but commonly unavailable, factors that govern lead leaching: the presence of lead-bearing plumbing materials and water quality conducive to lead corrosion. By combining water chemistry data from public reports, socioeconomic information from the US census, and spatial features using Geographic Information Systems, we trained and tested models to estimate the likelihood of lead contaminated tap water in over 8,000 schools across California and Massachusetts. Our best-performing model was a Random Forest, with a 10-fold cross validation score of 0.88 for Massachusetts and 0.78 for California using the average Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC AUC) metric. The model was then used to assign a lead leaching risk category to half of the schools across California (the other half was used for training). There was good agreement between the modeled risk categories and the actual lead leaching outcomes for every school; however, the model overestimated the lead leaching risk in up to 17% of the schools. This model is the first of its kind to offer a tool to predict the risk of lead leaching in schools at the State level. Further use of this model can help deploy limited resources more effectively to prevent childhood lead exposure from school drinking water.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Water Withdrawal and Consumption Data from McManamay et al. 2020

This dataset contains estimations of water withdrawal and consumption (for electricity production only) at the county resolution on an annual time step from 1950 to 2016. Water withdrawal and consumption for electricity production are also provided at the electric generating unit resolution. Additionally, water use for irrigation was calculated at a daily time step. Data are associated with McManamay et al. 2020 in WRR.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗