Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “River 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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Composite Analysis Vadose Zone Transport of Selected Hanford Site Composite Analysis: Vadose Zone Transport of Selected Radionuclides Released from DOE O 435.1 Waste Sites

The main objectives of the composite analysis (CA) compliance case vadose zone (VZ) facet are to simulate transport of radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table, and to provide radionuclide transfer rates to groundwater for inclusion into the Plateau-to-River (P2R) saturated zone (SZ) model (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). The parallel exascale version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP) simulator is used to simulate flow and transport for the CA VZ models. The CA compliance case approach to address the scale and distribution of contaminant sources in the VZ facet is to subdivide the Hanford Site Central Plateau into 26 models that contain contaminant sources and liquid discharges likely to commingle during migration through the VZ to the water table.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparative Study of Hydrology and Icemelt in Three Nepal River Basins Using the Glacio-Hydrological Degree-Day Model (GDM) and Observations From the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT)

An assessment of the water supply and its seasonal and annual changes over the century in the High Mountain Asia (HMA) region is of increasing interest due to its potential impact on one-sixth of the global population. In order to understand the changing hydrology and snow and ice melt, we used remotely sensed Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) observations of glacier melt (GM) and a distributed and gridded Glacio-hydrological Degree-day Model (GDM) in three river basins: Tamor, Trishuli and Marsyangdi. The GDM-estimated contribution of snowmelt, icemelt, rainfall and baseflow in river flows is found to be most accurate in the Trishuli River basin, with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) between the estimated and observed discharges of 0.81 and volume differences of -0.5%, and reasonably accurate in the Tamor River basin, with NSE of 0.69 and volume difference of -7.51%. Similarly, NSE of 0.81 and volume difference of 4.64% in Marsyangdi River basin. We find strong similarities in the timing of glacier melting using the GDM and from observations from the ASCAT GM, determining the seasonal start of glacier melting to within 6 days on average. In all basins ASCAT GM observes melting at higher elevations relative to GDM, average of 5,328 m a.s.l. Systematic differences in glacier melting area determined by modeling and satellite observations indicate ASCAT may have suboptimal resolution, view geometry and/or polarimetry for delineating glacier melting at the process-scale in complex topography, especially in the ablation zone. This is the first step in examining the remote sensing products that could potentially be incorporated into hydrologic models to increase the accuracy of the hydrologic flow as well as the ability to estimate river discharge in other basins with limited data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

On the Representation of Hyporheic Exchange in Models for Reactive Transport in Stream and River Corridors

Efforts to include more detailed representations of biogeochemical processes in basin-scale water quality simulation tools face the challenge of how to tractably represent mass exchange between the flowing channels of streams and rivers and biogeochemical hotspots in the hyporheic zones. Multiscale models that use relatively coarse representations of the channel network with subgrid models for mass exchange and reactions in the hyporheic zone have started to emerge to address that challenge. Two such multiscale models are considered here, one based on a stochastic Lagrangian travel time representation of advective pumping and one on multirate diffusive exchange. The two models are formally equivalent to well-established integrodifferential representations for transport of non-reacting tracers in steady stream flow, which have been very successful in reproducing stream tracer tests. Despite that equivalence, the two models are based on very different model structures and produce significantly different results in reactive transport. In a simple denitrification example, denitrification is two to three times greater for the advection-based model because the multirate diffusive model has direct connections between the stream channel and transient storage zones and an assumption of mixing in the transient storage zones that prevent oxygen levels from dropping to the point where denitrification can progress uninhibited. By contrast, the advection-based model produces distinct redox zonation, allowing for denitrification to proceed uninhibited on part of the hyporheic flowpaths. These results demonstrate that conservative tracer tests alone are inadequate for constraining representation of mass transfer in models for reactive transport in streams and rivers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Predictive Flow Simulation with the P2R Model for the 200-IA-1 Preliminary Remediation Goal Saturated Zone Abstraction

In order to develop and evaluate alternatives for remediation of waste sites constituting the 200-IA-1 Operable Unit (OU), a focused feasibility study (FFS) is currently underway. The 200-IA-1 OU FFS requires preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) protective of groundwater be evaluated which includes estimates of fate and transport of contaminants in the groundwater from multiple sources within the Central Plateau Inner Area. This document details the application of the Plateau-to-River (P2R) Model version 8.3 to predict the flow of groundwater on the Central Plateau for the 10,000-year simulation to support the 200-IA-1 OU PRG calculation. The simulated flow field will support the simulation of fate and transport of contaminants for use in estimating peak unit-length concentration as part of the 200-IA-1 OU PRG calculation presented in a separate environmental calculation file (ECF) (ECF-200IA1-20-0108, Determination of Preliminary Remediation Goals for 200-IA-1 Source Operable Unit).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Collaborative Research: Advancing Arctic Climate Projection Capability at Seasonal to Decadal Scales (Final Technical Report)

The Regional Arctic System Model (RASM) at process resolving configurations has been used to (i) advance understanding of physical processes and feedbacks involved in Arctic amplification and (ii) understand and potentially reduce uncertainty in prediction of arctic climate change at seasonal to decadal scales. RASM consists the atmosphere (Weather and Research Forecasting model, WRF), ocean (Parallel Ocean Program, POP), sea ice (CICE), land hydrology (Variable Infiltration Capacity model, VIC), river routing scheme (RVIC), marine biogeochemistry components and the coupling framework (CPL7). Its domain is pan-Arctic, with the atmosphere and land components configured on a 50-km or 25-km grid and four configurations of the ocean and sea ice components: 1/12°(~9.3km) or 1/48°(~2.4km) and 45 or 60 vertical layers. These RASM configurations have been motivated by the emerging exascale capability for high performance computing to improve model fidelity. The dynamical downscaling of reanalysis allows comparison of RASM results with observations in place and time to: (i) advance system level understanding of physical processes and coupling involved in an event, (ii) optimize model parameter space, (iii) diagnose and reduce model biases and (iv) produce realistic and consistent across all the components initial conditions for predictions and predictability studies, which are all unique capabilities not available in global Earth System Models (ESMs). An evaluation of RASM 1.0 (Cassano et al. 2017) revealed that it had a cold bias over the oceans and a warm bias over land areas due largely to cloud and radiation biases in the model, with too little cloud cover simulated over land and too much cloud cover simulated over sub-polar oceans. This study has motivated an upgrade to WRF version 3.7.1 in RASM and allowed for the inclusion of the radiative impact of convective clouds. A variety of atmospheric physics parameterizations were evaluated against observations (e.g. data from the Arctic Clouds in Summer Experiment (ACSE); Sedlar et al. 2020) to identify an optimal suite of WRF physics options in RASM. The RASM with the optimized WRF physics were used to study the impact of strong mesoscale winds over the ocean around the southern tip of Greenland (DuVivier and Cassano 2016) and their impact on oceanic convection (DuVivier et al. 2017a). Data from the PolarWinds field campaign were used to evaluate WRF boundary layer physics and resolution impacts on the simulation of a Greenland barrier wind event (DuVivier et al. 2017b). The RVIC streamflow routing model has been implemented in RASM to realistically represent high-resolution streamflow processes (Hamman et al. 2017) and to couple the land buoyancy fluxes to the ocean. The RASM-RVIC high-resolution data set of all coastal freshwater fluxes for the Arctic drainage basin and surrounding areas for 1979-2014 was published as a separate product (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.293037). The fidelity of atmospheric momentum transfer to and the response of polar marine Ekman layer in RASM and Community Earth System Model (CESM) was investigated by Roberts et al. (2015). The increased frequency of oceanic flux exchange in CESM, following the RASM guidance, caused a considerable increase in the median inertial ice speed across the Southern Ocean and parts of the Arctic. A comprehensive evaluation of the RASM1.0 atmosphere-ocean-sea ice-land interface was completed by Brunke et al. (2018). RASM was also demonstrated for its capability to simulate extreme events in agreement with observations in space and time (Lee et al. submitted). In particular, the development of three open water events, known as polynyas, have been simulated north of Greenland in February of 2011, 2017 and 2018, in agreement with satellite observations for the past four decades. The optimized RASM sea ice results have been favorably evaluated against satellite observations and a subset of eleven CMIP6 models (Watts et al. submitted). In a complementary project, Jin et al. (2018) have shown that RASM with higher-resolution and new sea-ice processes contributed to lower model errors in sea-ice conditions, concentrations of nutrients and ice algae, in comparison to results from the coarse-resolution (1°) CESM. In two other complementary studies, RASM results were used (i) to explain areas of concentrated use by bowhead whales, the seasonal progression in the use, and the physical environment within those areas (Citta et al. 2015) and (ii) for a synthesis of fall bowhead whales distribution and migration in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) Sea to investigate whale movements and feeding to the local ocean hydrography and currents (Citta et al. 2018). However, the multi-decadal output from the CESM Large Ensemble yielded unrealistic forcing. Instead, the shorter NCEP CFSv2 9-month forecasts were successfully tested and afforded an increased ensemble size (~30) to demonstrate gains of dynamical downscaling at sub-seasonal to intra-annual time scales. The improved model physics and coupling among RASM model components have yielded more realistic representation of the sea ice cover and consistent across all model components initial conditions. Consequently, RASM demonstrates significant gains compared to simulation of sea ice in the NCEP reanalysis. In addition, RASM 6-month ensemble forecasts yield very realistic sea ice distribution, which demonstrates both significant gains of dynamical downscaling and the continued impact of the initial conditions on forecasts out to 6 months (https://nps.edu/web/rasm/predictions). A follow up study using RASM for dynamical downscaling of the more realistic CESM initialized Decadal Prediction Large Ensemble output is currently ongoing as part of the DOE RGMA HiLAT-RASM project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Simulation of Compound Flooding Using River‐Ocean Two‐Way Coupled E3SM Ensemble on Variable‐Resolution Meshes

Abstract Coastal zone compound flooding (CF) can be caused by the interactive fluvial and oceanic processes, particularly when coastal backwater propagates upstream and interacts with high river discharge. The modeling of CF is limited in existing Earth System Models (ESMs) due to coarse mesh resolutions and one‐way coupled river‐ocean components. In this study, we present a novel multi‐scale coupling framework within the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), integrating global atmosphere and land with interactively coupled river and ocean models using different meshes with refined resolutions near the coastline. To evaluate this framework, we conducted ensemble simulations of a CF event (Hurricane Irene in 2011) in a Mid‐Atlantic estuary. The results demonstrate that the novel E3SM configuration can reasonably reproduce river discharge and sea surface height variations. The two‐way river‐ocean coupling improves the representation of coastal backwater effects at the terrestrial‐aquatic interface that are caused by the combined actions of tide and storm surge during the CF event, thus providing a valuable modeling tool for better understanding the river‐estuary‐ocean dynamics in extreme events under climate change. Notably, our results show that the most significant CF impacts occur when the highest storm surge generated by a tropical cyclone meets with a moderate river discharge. This study highlights the state‐of‐the‐art advancements developed within E3SM for simulating multi‐scale coastal processes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Initial Uncertainty Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Contamination and Remediation in the Ringold A and Lower Mud Units at the Central Plateau

The long-term effectiveness of groundwater cleanup at the Hanford Site Central Plateau depends on predictive models that can capture key uncertainties in contaminant fate and transport. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4 ), a persistent and toxic compound, presents particular challenges due to variability in degradation rates, uncertainty in initial plume distribution, and subsurface heterogeneity. These uncertainties directly influence plume persistence, migration pathways, and remedy performance, and thus must be systematically evaluated to support long-term remediation planning. To address these gaps, a large-scale Monte Carlo analysis was conducted using the Plateau to River (P2R) model framework. The modeling approach parameterized three primary uncertainty factors: (1) degradation rate, (2) initial plume distribution, and (3) hydraulic conductivity. Degradation was represented as a first-order process, with half-lives ranging from 70 to 700 years. Initial plume distributions were created using a geostatistical simulation method (sgsim), which generates many equally plausible versions of how contaminants might be distributed underground. From this, 100 different scenarios were mapped onto the P2R grid. Variability in hydraulic conductivity was represented in a similar way, with 100 scenarios each for the Ringold Lower Mud and Ringold A units (layers 6 and 7), based on fitted exponential variograms and conditioned to well data. In total, more than 1000 realizations were simulated to assess plume behavior under uncertainty. Results demonstrate that degradation kinetics exert the strongest control over plume persistence: Shorter half-lives produced rapid mass reduction, while longer half-lives yielded persistent plumes with limited attenuation. A nonlinear response was observed, with steep mass reductions at half-lives greater than 200 years and near-linear declines beyond this threshold, reflecting interactions between degradation and pumping. The initial plume distribution strongly influenced early transport patterns, with broader sources generating larger plume footprints, although pump-and-treat operations constrained plume migration to managed areas. By comparison, hydraulic conductivity variability in the Ringold units had only a secondary influence, modifying spreading behavior without altering the dominant migration pathways governed by source configuration and hydraulic controls. Overall, the analysis highlights that uncertainty in degradation rate and initial plume configuration are the primary drivers of variability in plume predictions, while conductivity heterogeneity plays a limited role. These findings underscore the need for improved site-specific data on degradation processes and source characterization to enhance the reliability of long-term performance assessments and to better inform remedial decision-making at the Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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 OSTI2019

Multiscale Feature-feature Interactions Control Patterns of Hyporheic Exchange in a Simulated Headwater Mountain Stream

Recent predictions of hyporheic exchange at the basin-scale assume individual features control exchange independently of each other, which has been demonstrated in relatively uniform, low-gradient rivers. However, this assumption may not hold in steep catchments where both the type and size of individual features may vary over short distances, leading to irregular patterns of feature dominance on hyporheic exchange flows. Also, steep longitudinal gradients support substantial downvalley flows in the subsurface, which may create feedbacks between adjacent features. In this study, we test the extent to which features interact with one another and whether they can be aggregated to make reach-scale predictions in a headwater mountain stream. Using systematic manipulations of a 2-D stream centerline model and spectral analyses, we test for the presence of both feature-feature and multiscale interactions. Our results show that changing the height of individual step-pool features can alter hyporheic flow fields in neighboring, and sometimes distant, features. Spectral analyses revealed two scales of streambed topography—a local scale of single features and an intermediate scale that spanned multiple local-scale features. All features produced hyporheic exchange, but turnover of deeper hyporheic water only occurred at a few key locations where local- and intermediate-scale features amplified each other. Further, shallow bedrock increases the ratio of local- and intermediate-scale flowpaths to regional-scale flowpaths. Conceptual models portraying hyporheic exchange as a series of nested flowpaths should include the interactions among streambed topographic features in mountain streams. These results have implications for upscaling, field experiments, and stream restoration in steep catchments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

The Water‐Year Water Balance of the Colorado River Basin

Abstract Model‐estimated monthly water balance components (i.e., potential evapotranspiration, actual evapotranspiration, and runoff ( R )) for 146 United States (U.S.) Geological Survey 8‐digit hydrologic units located in the Colorado River Basin (CRB) are used to examine the temporal and spatial variability of the CRB water balance for water years 1901 through 2014 (a water year is the period from October 1 of one year through September 30 of the following year). Results indicate that the CRB can be divided into six subregions with similar temporal variability in monthly R . The water balance analyses indicated that approximately 75% of total water‐year R is generated by just one CRB subregion and that most of the R in the basin is derived from surplus ( S ) water generated during the months of October through April. Furthermore, the analyses show that temporal variability in S is largely controlled by the occurrence of negative atmospheric pressure anomalies over the northwestern conterminous U.S. (CONUS) and positive atmospheric pressure anomalies over the southeastern CONUS. This combination of atmospheric pressure anomalies results in an anomalous flow of moist air from the North Pacific Ocean into the CRB, particularly the Upper CRB. Additionally, the occurrence of extreme dry and wet periods in the CRB appears to be related to variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

McCabe, Gregory J.↗
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 OSTI2025

Assessing the Role of Hydrodynamics in Enhancing Height-Above-the-Nearest-Drainage Derived Synthetic Rating Curves: A Comparative Study in the Wu River Basin, Taiwan

The conventional approach to generating synthetic rating curves (SRC) using the Height-Above-the-Nearest-Drainage (HAND) method typically relies on the assumption of uniform flow, such as Manning's equation, to establish stage-discharge ratings. The zero-physics application of the uniform flow equation is insufficient for capturing detailed hydraulic features (e.g., backwater effect) and neglects the hydraulic effects from adjacent channels. This lack of hydrodynamic computation can impact the accuracy and effectiveness of riverine flood risk estimation and management. To reduce this foreseeable error, we introduce the HAND-hd workflow, which integrates sophisticated hydrodynamic computations in the production of HAND-based SRC with hydrodynamic features (SRC hd ). The results indicate that SRC hd demonstrates consistent agreement with both gauge observations and benchmark solutions. Additionally, the comparative analysis suggests that SRC hd provides notable improvements in stage-discharge ratings over conventional HAND-based SRCs, particularly in channels with mild bed gradients, where it reduces water stage prediction errors and percent biases. In steeper channel segments, SRC hd maintains comparable accuracy to conventional methods. The comprehensive evaluation in this study emphasizes the potential discrepancies and inaccuracies associated with the adoption of the uniform flow assumption in the conventional HAND-SRCs and addresses the necessity of including hydrodynamic physics in the application of HAND-based SRC (e.g., inundation map) in channels with mild gradients.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Numerical Modeling Experiments of Combined Effects of Ice and Permafrost on Delta Morphodynamics

This dataset contains output from numerical model experiments to test the combined effects of ice thickness and permafrost erodibility on delta dynamics. All experiments were conducted using DeltaRCM, a reduced complexity cellular model. Details of the model setup and experiments are described in full in Piliouras et al., (in revision). This dataset contains results from a total of 48 experiments, representing 16 different experimental conditions, each of which was run in triplicate. There is a control run (3 total experiments) with no ice and no permafrost. We used permafrost erodibilities (here described as erodibility relative to that of non-permafrost, and therefore < 1) of 0.65, 0.8, and 0.95, where 0.95 represents permafrost being only 5% less erodible than non-permafrost. We used ice thicknesses of 0.5 m, 3 m, and 4.5 m in a 5 m deep basin. We conducted experiments for each possible combination of permafrost erodibility and ice thickness (9 conditions, 27 experiments). We also provide results for experiments with only ice or permafrost (6 conditions, 18 experiments). The excel table (csv file) provides the ice and permafrost conditions for each run ID. Zip files contain model outputs and other variables generated during analysis (see ReadMe file) as numpy arrays (.npy files), which can be accessed using python.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pan-Arctic daily streamflow at 0.5-degree resolution

Data was derived using daily runoff from models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, version 6 (CMIP6) that have been routed through the Model for Scale Adaptive River Transport (MOSART) routing model to represent streamflow at individual streamflow gage locations. Data from 750 streamflow gage locations are represented, which are indexed by gage id according to the metadata.csv file. Streamflow gage location sites were based on gage records downloaded from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Water Data (HYDAT) Archive from Canada, and the State Hydrological Institute of Russia. Data are available from 11 Earth System Models (ESMs) in total at a daily timestep with a duration of 1920-2099 (1850-2014 for E3SM only). The spatial domain of the modeled data is 0.5 degree resolution. Earth System Models and Units of mean daily streamflow are presented in cubic meters per second (cms). Data files consist of 11 Earth System Model mean daily streamflow output per gage location in .csv format, 1 metadata file in .csv format and 1 Readme file in .docx format (13 files in total). These data were used to benchmark CMIP6 modeled representations of streamflow against gage records.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

WHONDRS Surface Water and Sediment Geochemistry and Organic Matter Characterization Data from Streams across HJ Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon (v2)

This dataset supports a broader study developing conceptual models for river corridor critical zone processes across spatial scales and was generated in collaboration with the HJ Andrews River Corridor Critical Zone Workshop in 2025. The dataset provides surface water geochemistry (dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen) from 48 sites across the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon (https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu). Some of the sites have been impacted by the Holiday Farm Fire and the Lookout Fire in 2020 and 2023, respectively. Related data were collected as part of the workshop and will be published separately in collaboration with other workshop attendees and available at http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/b274c4a234bf4b12b7cb8a54a696c629. Related genomic data can be found on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) under BioProject PRJNA1503030 (see critical details section below for more information). Additional related data collected in 2016 from a similar effort can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3377027 and http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/ea6c0832885a46c3939e7bb22e48e754 and are described within https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1-2019 (Ward et al., 2019). This data package was originally published in March 2026. It was updated in August 2026 (v2; new and 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. 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 is comprised of (1) a folder of field photos, (2) a folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data, (3) a data checks report, (4) a folder of sample data, (5) file-level metadata, (6) data dictionary, (7) field metadata, (8) readme, (9) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (10) field protocol. The sample data subfolder contains surface water and sediment (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages, (2) total dissolved nitrogen data and averages, (3) methods codes, (4) FTICR-MS methods; and (5) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the CoreMS processed data and seven subfolders, thee containing .xml files for each sample type (sediment, surface water and blank samples), three containing the sediment CoreMS output files for each sample type (sediment, surface water and blank samples), and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, or .jpeg.

Biogeochemistry↗