Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Watershed modeling”

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 OSTI2025

Hydrologic Model Data for the East Fork Poplar Creek Watershed Simulated with the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS): Streamflow and Network Expansion–Contraction Dynamics

This dataset supports hydrologic modeling and stream network expansion–contraction analysis for the East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC) Watershed in Tennessee. It includes a Jupyter notebook for model setup, model configuration files, simulation outputs, and derived products used to evaluate model performance and investigate stream dynamics under varying hydrologic conditions. The dataset was generated using the Watershed Workflow Python package and the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), enabling integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic simulations using a stream-aligned mesh. Outputs include high-resolution time series of streamflow, active network length, water table depth, and related hydrologic variables. Also included are spatially explicit stream persistency indices and classifications of reaches as perennial or non-perennial. These data facilitate reproducibility and support further research on stream intermittency and variability in network extent.The model data archive is organized in following directories:1) model_setup_inputsContains the Watershed Workflow Jupyter notebooks (accessed through any open source code editor), selected input datasets, and resulting ATS input files, including XML files (access through any open source code editor), computational mesh (.exo files can be viewed using Paraview), and meteorological forcing files (.h5 files can be accessed through h5py python package and HDFView open source software). 2) model_outputsIncludes ATS simulation outputs relevant to this study. Time series of spatially integrated or averaged variables (e.g., streamflow, water table depth) are provided as CSV files. Select spatial fields (e.g., ponded depth and water table depth) are saved as pickled Python objects to reduce file size, and can be accessed through pickle package in Python. Key geometry objects from Watershed Workflow—such as the surface mesh and river tree—are also included to support analysis of streamflow persistency and expansion–contraction dynamics. These files can also be accessed through Watershed Workflow Python package.3) model_evaluationProvides observed streamflow time series and field survey-based flow regime classifications used to evaluate model performance. Jupyter notebooks for processing ATS outputs and comparing model predictions with observations to build confidence in the model prior to scientific analysis are also included.4) Q_L_relationshipsContains workflows for generating time series of discharge, active network length, and related hydrologic variables used in the stream network expansion–contraction analysis. Includes routines for delineating baseflow-dominated periods. For each catchment, notebooks and processed data (as pickled DataFrames accessed through Pandas Python package) are provided. 5) figure_scriptsProvides the Jupyter notebooks used to generate the figures presented in the paper.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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

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 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 OSTI2021

Developing an Automated Uncertainty Quantification Tool to Improve Watershed-Scale Predictions of Water and Nutrient Cycling

Managing the flow of water, nutrients, and contaminants in watersheds is vital to addressing pressing issues related to water scarcity, access to clean drinking water, energy production, resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, and ecological restoration. Decisions about the management of watersheds critically depend on the accuracy with which the flow of water and chemicals through the watershed can be predicted by computer models. Prediction uncertainty can be reduced by matching the model to data, which are collected in the field at great expense. The contribution of watershed characterization data to reducing uncertainty of relevant model predictions can be evaluated in a so-called data-worth analysis, which provides transparent, quantitative metrics about a data set’s value for the support of relevant watershed management objectives. To achieve this goal, we developed a software package that implements the data-worth analysis approach for use with state-of-the-art watershed models. The purpose of the proposed data-worth analysis is to help decision-makers allocate resources for watershed characterization such that the uncertainty in model predictions can be significantly reduced, which leads to better, more effective management decisions. At the same time, watershed characterization costs can be reduced. The specific technical objectives of this SBIR/STTR Phase II project were to develop a framework and associated software toolsets that implement the uncertainty quantification and data-worth analysis approach for use with state-of-the-art watershed models. This goal was achieved by (A) developing a user-friendly, robust software package that is accessible to a wide audience, including watershed managers, policy-makers, and public stakeholders; (B) by demonstrating application of the prototype on several use cases that are representative of complex watershed management challenges spanning a range of scales and that consider different open-source, DOE-based codes and other modeling platforms; and (C) by gathering information about the needs and requirements from potential users to help guide future developments, ensuring that the final product will be commercially viable. The developed software consists of a graphical user interface that guides the user through a sequence of analysis steps, supported by toolsets that leverage state-of-the-art computational simulation-optimization capabilities. A prototype of the software runs on multiple platforms (PC, Mac, multi-processor Linux environment), is linked to diverse watershed simulators (e.g., ECOSYS, TOUGH2, TOUGHREACT, Amanzi-ATS), performs multiple analysis tasks (predictive simulations, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, automatic parameter estimation, and data-worth analysis, multicomponent geothermometry), and is readily extensible to include external simulators and analysis tools. The software is being commercialized and will be continually updated to address user needs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Assessing climate-change-induced flood risk in the Conasauga River watershed: an application of ensemble hydrodynamic inundation modeling

Abstract. This study evaluates the impact of potential future climate change on flood regimes, floodplain protection, and electricity infrastructures across the Conasauga River watershed in the southeastern United States through ensemble hydrodynamic inundation modeling. The ensemble streamflow scenarios were simulated by the Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM) driven by (1) 1981–2012 Daymet meteorological observations and (2) 11 sets of downscaled global climate models (GCMs) during the 1966–2005 historical and 2011–2050 future periods. Surface inundation was simulated using a GPU-accelerated Two-dimensional Runoff Inundation Toolkit for Operational Needs (TRITON) hydrodynamic model. A total of 9 out of the 11 GCMs exhibit an increase in the mean ensemble flood inundation areas. Moreover, at the 1 % annual exceedance probability level, the flood inundation frequency curves indicate a ∼ 16 km2 increase in floodplain area. The assessment also shows that even after flood-proofing, four of the substations could still be affected in the projected future period. The increase in floodplain area and substation vulnerability highlights the need to account for climate change in floodplain management. Overall, this study provides a proof-of-concept demonstration of how the computationally intensive hydrodynamic inundation modeling can be used to enhance flood frequency maps and vulnerability assessment under the changing climatic conditions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Mass Conservation Relaxed (MCR) LSTM Model for Streamflow Simulation Across CONUS

The recent development of the physics-aware Mass-Conserving Long Short-Term Memory network (MC-LSTM) provides an alternative to other data-driven Deep Learning (DL) models in hydrology. Mass-Conserving Long Short-Term Memory incorporates mass conservation directly into the LSTM architecture. Despite the theoretical advancements, studies have reported a surprisingly limited performance of the MC-LSTM in streamflow simulation. We hypothesize that such a limitation is due to the unrealistic mass conservation scheme in MC-LSTM, which overlooks unobserved incoming water fluxes beyond precipitation. As an attempt to verify this hypothesis, we propose a Mass Conservation Relaxed LSTM (MCR-LSTM), which incorporates a bi-directional mass relaxation (MR) component to account for potential incoming water fluxes beyond precipitation. We train and test the proposed MCR-LSTM model across 531 watersheds in the contiguous United States (CONUS) against three baseline models: the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting, LSTM, and MC-LSTM. Our results show that MCR-LSTM outperforms MC-LSTM despite its underperformance compared to LSTM. Specifically, MCR-LSTM's advantage over MC-LSTM is mainly seen in the Plains and Western U.S., where the newly incorporated MR component better simulates water loss and suggests the likely existence of additional incoming water fluxes beyond precipitation, respectively. The novelty and contribution of this study are twofold: firstly, it introduces an alternative physics-aware DL tool (i.e., MCR-LSTM) in hydrology with higher accuracy in specific regions compared to MC-LSTM. Secondly, it provides a diagnosis of regions where strict, precipitation-based mass conservation constraints may be unrealistic in streamflow simulation.

deep learning↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model Data Archive for Manuscript Titled "Evaluation of a Coupled Surface–Subsurface Hydrologic Model Using Dense Water‑Level Sensors in a Mixed Urban–Rural Watershed"

This archive provides scripts, input files, and datasets used for the implementation and evaluation of a fully coupled surface–subsurface hydrologic model in the Neches River Basin, southeast Texas. The study uses the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) to simulate coupled surface–subsurface hydrologic processes over a mixed urban–rural watershed and evaluates model performance using a dense network of 136 in situ water-level sensors, nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges, and SSEBop-derived evapotranspiration estimates during the period October 2014–June 2024. The workflow is implemented primarily in Python 3 using the Watershed Workflow package. The Jupyter notebooks can be executed using open-source software such as Anaconda JupyterLab or Visual Studio Code. Other data files include TXT, CSV, XML, SHP, TIF, NetCDF, HDF5, and ExodusII files, which can be processed using the provided Python scripts. ATS input files are provided in XML format and can be edited using any commonly used text editor. This archive contains: *Scripts and input files used to generate the ATS model setup, including watershed discretization, mesh generation, parameter mapping, and model configuration. *Jupyter notebooks used for preprocessing observational data, evaluating streamflow, water levels, and evapotranspiration, computing performance metrics, and generating the figures presented in the manuscript. *ATS simulation outputs and processed observational datasets, including OneRain and DD6 water-level sensors, USGS streamflow observations, GIS data, and supporting spatial datasets used throughout the study.

Dense water-level sensor network↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling geogenic and atmospheric nitrogen through the East River Watershed, Colorado Rocky Mountains

There is a growing understanding of the role that bedrock weathering can play as a source of nitrogen (N) to soils, groundwater and river systems. The significance is particularly apparent in mountainous environments where weathering fluxes can be large. However, our understanding of the relative contributions of rock-derived, or geogenic, N to the total N supply of mountainous watersheds remains poorly understood. In this study, we develop the High-Altitude Nitrogen Suite of Models (HAN-SoMo), a watershed-scale ensemble of process-based models to quantify the relative sources, transformations, and sinks of geogenic and atmospheric N through a mountain watershed. Our study is based in the East River Watershed (ERW) in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The East River is a near-pristine headwater watershed underlain primarily by an N-rich Mancos Shale bedrock, enabling the timing and magnitude of geogenic and atmospheric contributions to watershed scale dissolved N-exports to be quantified. Several calibration scenarios were developed to explore equifinality using >1600 N concentration measurements from streams, groundwater, and vadose zone samples collected over the course of four years across the watershed. When accounting for recycling of N through plant litter turnover, rock weathering accounts for approximately 12% of the annual dissolved N sources to the watershed in the most probable calibration scenario (0–31% in other scenarios), and 21% (0–44% in other scenarios) when considering only “new” N sources (i.e. geogenic and atmospheric). On an annual scale, instream dissolved N elimination, plant turnover (including cattle grazing) and atmospheric deposition are the most important controls on N cycling.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Permafrost Thaw, Uneven Subsidence and Projected Drying of Ice-wedge Polygon Tundra: Modeling Archive

This dataset is a model archive of the paper Permafrost Thaw, Uneven Subsidence and Projected Drying of Ice-wedge Polygon Tundra (in prep) to support a modeling study investigating how projected increases in Arctic temperature and precipitation will jointly influence hydrologic conditions in ice-rich tundra landscapes. With this dataset, this study is to address the research question: Will Arctic tundra landscapes become wetter or drier with increasing precipitation and temperature in the future when thaw-induced ground subsidence and associated microtopographic evolution are represented? The simulations focus on ice-wedge polygon tundra, a widespread form of ice-rich permafrost terrain that is highly sensitive to thaw-driven landscape change. This dataset contains model input and output data for four study watersheds in Alaska: Anaktuvuk, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), Brooks Foothills, and Prudhoe Bay. Simulations were performed using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS, v1.5), a physics-rich integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic model. For each watershed, ten modeling cases were performed representing two landscape evolution conditions (with subsidence and without subsidence) combined with five climate forcing scenarios derived from Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP5, SSP5 with precipitation trend, SSP2, SSP2 with precipitation trend, and SSP2 with double precipitation trend). Particularly, for each watershed under the forcing SSP2 with precipitation trend, there are two additional simulations considering spatially heterogeneous subsidence distributions: one assumes randomly distributed scaling and the other includes elevation dependent distribution scaling. These simulations span 1980–2099 and include spin-up runs (1980–2009) followed by transient projections (2010–2099). To facilitate reproducibility of simulations, all datasets are organized by watershed. For each study watershed, the dataset contains: (1) Pre-partitioned mesh files for 32-core modeling (.par.32.XX), located in EACH_WATERSHED/mesh/basin; and also a non-partitioned mesh file (.exo) located in EACH_WATERSHED/mesh; (2) Climate forcings corresponding to the five SSP scenarios (.h5), located in EACH_WATERSHED/data; (3) Final states (.h5) from column spin-up modeling used to initialize historical watershed-scale spin-up runs from 1980 to 2009, located in EACH_WATERSHED/PreSpinupHistorical; (4) Final states (.h5) of historical watershed-scale spin-up runs from 1980 to 2009 used to initialize projection runs, located in EACH_WATERSHED/Spinup_daymetERA5; (5) ATS modeling input files (.xml), located in EACH_WATERSHED/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/inputfiles; (6) ATS modeling output files (.dat), located in in EACH_WATERSHED/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/combined_obs; (7) For the Brooks Foothills watershed, additional spatial model outputs are provided (.h5) for selected years (2033 and 2093) used to generate spatial figures in this study, located in Brooksfoothills/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/results-WITH/WITHOUT_SUBSIDENCE-year2033/2093. All data files with suffix .h5 can be accessible through Python h5py, and all data files with suffix of .dat can be imported by Python pandas. Mesh file with .exo can be visualized through Paraview or read by Python netCDF. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > PRECIPITATION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Projecting spatiotemporally explicit effects of climate change on stream temperature: A model comparison and implications for coldwater fishes

Conservation planners and resource managers seek information about how the availability and locations of cold-water habitats will change in the future and how these predictions vary among models. In this work, we used a physical process-based model to demonstrate the implications of climate change for streamflow and water temperature in two watersheds with distinctive flow regimes: the Snoqualmie watershed (WA) and Siletz watershed (OR), USA. Our model incorporated a downscaled ensemble of global climate model outputs and was calibrated with in situ and remotely sensed water temperatures. Furthermore, we compared predictions from our processed-based model to those from a publicly available and widely used statistical model. The process-based model projected greater changes in summer maximum water temperatures for the mixed-rain-snow Snoqualmie watershed than for the rain-dominated Siletz watershed as a result of the near-complete loss of winter snowpack and significant reduction in summer flow in the Snoqualmie watershed expected by the 2080s. Both models projected generally similar future spatial patterns of maximum water temperature in the two rivers, with cool reaches distributed farther upstream and fewer in number. However, the process-based model projected higher spatial heterogeneity in water temperature due to our spatially explicit simulation of streamflow and because we calibrated the model with spatially continuous remotely sensed water temperature data. We used stream temperature projections to assess the vulnerability of Pacific salmon and trout to changes in the spatial distribution of cold-water habitats during August by the 2080s. Results suggest that salmonids may have fewer summertime cold-water habitats in both watersheds. Projected stream warming may further limit particular species and life stages, especially in the Snoqualmie watershed. Our comparison of models highlights the importance of considering what might be gained by using a process-based model for evaluating and prioritizing management actions that mitigate climate impacts on cold-water habitats for stream fishes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Data and scripts associated with the manuscript evaluating the hydrologic responses of the Pacific Northwest watersheds to wildfires (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Evaluating Post-fire Watershed Response to Varying Burn Severity and Precipitation Regimes Using Fully-distributed and Integrated Hydrologic Models” submitted to Journal of Hydrology (Li et al. 2025). In this study, we employed the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), an integrated watershed model that couples surface flow, subsurface flow, and canopy biophysical processes, to investigate post-fire hydrologic responses in a few selected watersheds with varying burn severity.The data package contains the required input data (meteorological forcing, Leaf Area Index, wildfire burn severities, etc.) to run the model, configuration files, the Jupyter notebooks in Python to pre-process and post-process data, the figures in the manuscript, and the modeling output files. The variables include watershed-averaged evapotranspiration, watershed-averaged surface/subsurface/canopy water content, and river discharge at watershed outlet.The data package contains a file-level metadata that lists and describes all the files contained in the data package (ATS_flmd.csv), a data dictionary file that defines columns headers across all csv files contained in the data package (ATS_dd.csv), a data package level readme file (the current file), and four zipped folders.The ‘data’ folder provides data needed to run the model in .h5, .i2s, .xyz, .shp, and .exo formats. The sub-folders are for each data types. The ‘model’ folder provides input files (.xml format) and essential model outputs. Each sub-folder provides the files from each simulated watershed. The ‘notebooks’ folder provides the Jupyter notebooks (.ipynb format) for pre- and post- processing model files, and for producing the figures in the manuscript. The ‘figures’ folder provides the figures associated with manuscript in .pdf and .png formats.The ‘model’ folder and the ‘data’ folder have been split into 5GB-large pieces using the Linux command ‘split -b 5120m model.zip model.zip.’ and ‘split -b 5120m data.zip data.zip.’, respectively. They can be merged back using the Linux command ‘cat model.zip.* > model.zip’ and ‘cat data.zip.* > data.zip’, respectively.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Can artificial intelligence and data-driven machine learning models match or even replace process-driven hydrologic models for streamflow simulation?: A case study of four watersheds with different hydro-climatic regions across the CONUS

With recent developments in computational techniques, Data-driven Machine Learning Models (DMLs) have shown great potential in simulating streamflow and capturing the rainfall-runoff relationship in given watersheds, which are traditionally fulfilled by Process-based Hydrologic Models (PHMs). There are debates on whether the DMLs can outperform and possibly replace the classical PHMs for streamflow simulation and river forecasting, but no clear conclusions have been made. This study aims to investigate whether the newer DMLs have any potential in further improving the simulation accuracy of classical PHMs, and vice versa. To do this, we compared a few popular PHMs and DMLs over four watersheds across the Continental US (CONUS) that are associated with different input, climate, and regional conditions. A total of five hydrologic models were chosen, including (1) two classical lumped models, i.e., the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC-SMA) and Xinanjiang (XAJ); (2) one modern distributed model, termed Coupled Routing and Excess Storage (CREST); (3) and two DMLs including an Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and a deep learning model, termed Long Short Term Memory (LSTM). Our results demonstrated that the DMLs still significantly biased when using the baseline input scenario with the PHMs. However, the DMLs fed with delayed input scenarios had great potential and can reach high simulation accuracy. The DMLs, especially the ANN, outperformed other employed models under the rainfall-runoff relationship in which rainfall dominantly drives. Furthermore, the DMLs also showed better performance in the high-flow regime, while the PHMs had a better performance for the low-flow regime, implying both PHMs and DMLs have their own merits and are worthy of joint development. In general, our study indicated a great potential of using DMLs to simulate streamflow, but further studies are still needed to verify the transferability and scalability of DMLs in large-scale experiments, such as the Distributed Model Intercomparison Projects 1&2 conducted by National Weather Services but to compare modern DMLs and PHMs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model data for infrastructure-aware simulation of compound flooding at Alligator Bayou Watershed, southeast Texas

This dataset supports infrastructure-aware hydrologic modeling and flood scenario analysis for the Alligator Bayou Watershed, a highly managed urban watershed in Southeast Texas. It includes Jupyter notebooks for figure reproduction, model configuration files, simulation outputs, and derived products used to quantify the influence of engineered stormwater infrastructure on flood behavior across multiple spatial scales. The dataset was generated using the Watershed Workflow Python package and the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), enabling integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic simulations on a channel-aligned mesh with explicit representations of pump stations, gate structures, detention basins, and impervious surfaces. Outputs include time series of gate and pump flows, stage observations, and water balance components, as well as spatially explicit fields of peak ponded depth and flood duration across multiple infrastructure scenarios spanning a single-location detention basin expansion, distributed drainage limitations, and compound coastal flooding. These data facilitate full reproducibility of the manuscript figures and support further research on urban flood dynamics and the role of stormwater infrastructure in shaping watershed-scale flood response.

EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dynamic coevolution of baseflow and multiscale groundwater flow system during prolonged droughts

Field and numerical studies suggest that baseflow is composed of waters from a spectrum of groundwater flow paths termed the Groundwater Flow System (GWFS) – from shallow hillslope contributions to watershed-scale deep circulation originating in headwaters and discharging into lowland rivers. Here, we explore the evolution of the GWFS under prolonged droughts to understand its dynamics and multiscale nature, and to elucidate its role in baseflow generation and recession at the watershed scale. In this work, we consider three drought scenarios of varying severity and simulate groundwater flow in a 2-D cross-section of an idealized watershed with deep permeable bedrock, tracking the evolution of flow paths, baseflow, and residence times during the recession process. We find that baseflow generation at different drainage stages, and within different subwatersheds, is influenced distinctly by flow paths of different scales, depending on the relative strength of the flow paths and the position of the subwatersheds relative to the recharge/discharge zones of the deeper watershed-scale groundwater circulation. Despite having the same local relief, geology, and climate, baseflow from each subwatershed has a distinct recession behavior and time-dependent residence time distribution. Also, the hydraulic and transport characteristics of baseflow generation co-evolve and are strongly affected by the connection state of the water table to subwatersheds. These findings suggest that asynchrony and dissimilarity of baseflow generation from hillslopes under the impact of the watershed-scale groundwater flow, and interactions with local-scale and intermediate-scale groundwater flow, must be taken into account when interpreting baseflow recession data and building conceptual baseflow models at the watershed scale.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluating the Water Cycle Over CONUS at the Watershed Scale for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model Version 1 (E3SMv1) Across Resolutions

Abstract The water cycle is an important component of the earth system and it plays a key role in many facets of society, including energy production, agriculture, and human health and safety. In this study, the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1 (E3SMv1) is run with low‐resolution (roughly 110 km) and high‐resolution (roughly 25 km) configurations—as established by the High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project protocol—to evaluate the atmospheric and terrestrial water budgets over the conterminous United States (CONUS) at the large watershed scale. The warm season water cycle slows down in the HR experiment relative to the LR, with decreasing fluxes of precipitation, evapotranspiration, atmospheric moisture convergence, and runoff. The reductions in these terms exacerbate biases for some watersheds, while reducing them in others. For example, precipitation biases are exacerbated at HR over the Eastern and Central CONUS watersheds, while precipitation biases are reduced at HR over the Western CONUS watersheds. The most pronounced changes with resolution to the water cycle come from reductions in precipitation and evapotranspiration. The reduction in evapotranspiration reduces the biases across nearly all of the CONUS. Additional exploratory metrics show improvements to water cycle extremes (both in precipitation and streamflow), fractional contributions of different storm types to total precipitation, and mountain snowpack.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Water use of co‐occurring loblolly ( Pinus taeda ) and shortleaf ( Pinus echinata ) in a loblolly pine plantation in the Piedmont

Abstract Measuring water use in co‐occurring loblolly pine (Pinus taedaL.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinataMill.) enhances our understanding of their competitive water use and aids in refining watershed water budget model parameters. This study was conducted in a 12‐ha forested headwater catchment in the Piedmont of North Carolina, southeastern U.S., from 2018 to 2019 (pre‐thinning) to 2020 (post‐thinning). Sap flux density (J s ), species‐level transpiration (T s ), and watershed‐level transpiration (T w ) were quantified. Water use efficiency (WUE) in loblolly and shortleaf pines was compared, alongside an investigation into how both species'J s andT s responded to atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Loblolly pine had 19%–36% higherJ s than shortleaf pine. DailyT s for loblolly pine ranged from 15.0 to 29.0 L/day whileT s in shortleaf pine ranged from 3.0 to 6.8 L/day. TheT s was significantly higher in loblolly pine when compared to shortleaf pine likely due to higher canopy position and higher growth rates of the former. WUE, defined by annual tree biomass growth per tree water use, was not significantly different between the two. DailyJ s andT s in both species responded nonlinearly to VPD, with loblolly pine being more sensitive and variable. Species‐specific water use should be considered when quantifyingT w and developing reliable models to predict the effects of forest management practices on water resources.

Engineering↗