Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “watersheds”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE 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

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > SNOW/ICE↗
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-ICs Imnavait Creek Watershed Wet Sedge Tundra

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICs Imnavait Creek Watershed Wet Sedge Tundra. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICs Imnavait Creek Watershed Wet Sedge Tundra produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Imnavait Creek Watershed Wet Sedge Tundra (Fen Station) is located near Imnavait Creek in Alaska, north of the Brooks Range in the Kuparuk basin near Lake Toolik and the Toolik Field Station. The Kuparuk River has its headwaters in the Brooks Range and drains through northern Alaska into the Arctic Ocean. Within these headwaters lies the Imnavait basin at an average elevation of 930 m. Water tracks run down the hill in parallel zones with a spacing of approximately 10 m. The Fen Station was deployed at the end of Summer 2007.

Euskirchen, Eugenie↗
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-ICt Imnavait Creek Watershed Tussock Tundra

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICt Imnavait Creek Watershed Tussock Tundra. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICt Imnavait Creek Watershed Tussock Tundra produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Imnavait Creek Watershed Tussock Tundra (Biocomplexity Station) is located near Imnavait Creek in Alaska, north of the Brooks Range in the Kuparuk basin near Lake Toolik and the Toolik Field Station. The Kuparuk River has its headwaters in the Brooks Range and drains through northern Alaska into the Arctic Ocean. Within these headwaters lies the Imnavait basin at an average elevation of 930 m. Water tracks run down the hill in parallel zones with a spacing of approximately 10 m. The Biocomplexity Station was deployed in 2004, and it has been in operation during the melt seasons ever since.

Euskirchen, Eugenie↗
DOE OSTI2023

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-ICh Imnavait Creek Watershed Heath Tundra

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICh Imnavait Creek Watershed Heath Tundra. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-ICh Imnavait Creek Watershed Heath Tundra produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Imnavait Creek Watershed Heath Tundra (Ridge Station) is located near Imnavait Creek in Alaska, north of the Brooks Range in the Kuparuk basin near Lake Toolik and the Toolik Field Station. The Kuparuk River has its headwaters in the Brooks Range and drains through northern Alaska into the Arctic Ocean. Within these headwaters lies the Imnavait basin at an average elevation of 930 m. Water tracks run down the hill in parallel zones with a spacing of approximately 10 m. The Ridge Station was deployed at the end of Summer 2007.

Euskirchen, Eugenie↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Fire Community Observatory: Interdisciplinary, AI-informed Post-Fire Rapid Response for Improved Water Cycle Science at Watershed Scale

Wildfire is an ecological disturbance that disrupts the hydrological cycle. In the past few years, a record number of multiple-and-compounding fires have occurred across urban-wildland gradients in the Western United States. Changes to watershed hydrological partitioning in response to fires (infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration) presents unprecedented challenges to “Water-in-the-West” through negative impacts to water supply and its quality, and is a direct threat to downstream communities, groundwater, and drinking water supply infrastructure. While much work is being done to advance Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) use during fires for emergency response (i.e. predict fire movement, direct evacuations), significant potential exists to use AI/ML to address three scientific grand challenges that are rarely addressed in a convergent science context: 1) how to enhance the potential resiliency of a landscape before fire(s), 2) how to cost-effectively and optimally monitor watershed changes after fires, and 3) how to predict future hydrological and biogeochemical trajectories in fire-impacted watershed given climate change. This whitepaper addresses DOE Focal Area 1: Data acquisition and assimilation enabled by machine learning, AI, and advanced methods.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Restoration Hydro: A Watershed Approach to Standard Modular New Hydropower

The objectives of FOA DE- FOA-0001836- “Standard Modular Hydropower” included designing a standardized, modular, and environmentally compatible hydropower schematic for implementation in greenfield sites that generate up to 10 MW of capacity. Utilizing funds competitively awarded under DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office, the Natel Energy team developed a concept for modular new stream reach (NSR) hydropower that incorporates multi species upstream and downstream fish passage, improved river channel connectivity, and recreational modules. The in-stream design of the collective modules minimized site specific design and maximized the opportunities for modularity. Financial data was also presented using actual costs from regional suppliers, with figures provided in 2022 dollars. While the project team did not address potential permitting process improvements, the site selection criteria did consider established barriers to hydropower development such as tribal and preserved lands, interconnection proximity, and endangered species to exclude or deprioritize. The project’s design schematic met the objectives of the FOA, and presented a unique solution that targets alluvial pockets as natural features for sustainable development. Natel’s concept also incorporated the company's fish-safe Restoration Hydro Turbine for safe downstream passage, while featuring a rock arch that integrates fish passage, water, recreation, and grade control modules (including sediment). Alignment with the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) “Innovative Design Concepts for Standard Modular Hydropower and Pumped-Storage Hydropower” Program: According to the Hydropower Vision (DOE, 2016), approximately 16 GW of hydropower growth is possible with the development of technology solutions that balance efficiency, economics, and environmental sustainability. The desired outcome of the SMH program is transformational innovation specifically in the site identification, conceptual, and detailed design phases of technology development lifecycles (DOE, 2018). In developing the SMH design schematic, the team aimed to address the opportunities outlined in the Vision through an inverted design philosophy; rather than singularly prioritizing efficiency and power production, the team focused on integrating hydropower with restoration of degraded streams to optimal ecosystem function and provision of exceptional recreation value as design criteria. To achieve this, Restoration Hydro incorporates the principles of nature-based engineering (WWAP, 2018) and biomimicry (Biomimicry NL.) to strategically deploy complementary combinations of permanent, semi-permanent, and ephemeral low-head structures - such as natural and engineered log jams - that harness geomorphological and hydrological processes at the landscape-scale. Primary applications of Restoration Hydro include: 1) restoration of degraded watersheds’ natural ecological function and enhancement of hydrological connectivity; and 2) creation of associated co-benefits to hydro production, including increased groundwater recharge, improved sediment transport and management, improved water security and water quality. Restoration Hydro projects build upon proven watershed restoration engineering techniques by integrating hydropower turbines into low-head structures using innovative and evolving civil works concepts that facilitate fish and sediment passage, and in some cases create additional revenue-generating recreational opportunities. Powering low-head structures creates a directly monetizable layer of economic value in the form of flexible, reliable, renewable energy on top of the already high-value water, environmental and recreational benefits of watershed and river restoration. The approach aims to create a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle whereby Restoration Hydro projects support the scaling of ecosystem restoration activities, creating a water-energy-carbon multiplier effect that, through the principles of adaptive change management: 1) improves the resilience of landscapes and downstream population centers for changing hydrological cycles; 2) creates a reliable energy resource that facilitates the integration of intermittent renewable power sources into grids; and 3) supports climate change mitigation through grid decarbonization and enhanced ecosystem carbon capture and retention.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Simulator for Hydrologic Unstructured Domains (SHUD v1.0): numerical modeling of watershed hydrology with the finite volume method

Abstract. Hydrologic modeling is an essential strategy for understanding and predicting natural flows, particularly where observations are lacking in either space or time or where complex terrain leads to a disconnect in the characteristic time and space scales of overland and groundwater flow. However, significant difficulties remain for the development of efficient and extensible modeling systems that operate robustly across complex regions. This paper introduces the Simulator for Hydrologic Unstructured Domains (SHUD), an integrated, multiprocess, multiscale, flexible-time-step model, in which hydrologic processes are fully coupled using the finite volume method. SHUD integrates overland flow, snow accumulation/melt, evapotranspiration, subsurface flow, groundwater flow, and river routing, thus allowing physical processes in general watersheds to be realistically captured. SHUD incorporates one-dimensional unsaturated flow, two-dimensional groundwater flow, and a fully connected river channel network with hillslopes supporting overland flow and baseflow. The paper introduces the design of SHUD, from the conceptual and mathematical description of hydrologic processes in a watershed to the model's computational structures. To demonstrate and validate the model performance, we employ three hydrologic experiments: the V-catchment experiment, Vauclin's experiment, and a model study of the Cache Creek Watershed in northern California. Ongoing applications of the SHUD model include hydrologic analyses of hillslope to regional scales (1 m2 to 106 km2), water resource and stormwater management, and interdisciplinary research for questions in limnology, agriculture, geochemistry, geomorphology, water quality, ecology, climate and land-use change. The strength of SHUD is its flexibility as a scientific and resource evaluation tool where modeling and simulation are required.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1973

Investigation of use of space data in watershed hydrology

The author has identified the following significant results. Ground truth data have been compiled and 256 rainfall runoff events have been used to detemine coefficients for two storm runoff equations that apply to the 20 study watersheds. Two scenes have been processed using CCT data. Data pertinent to each of the study watersheds have been excerpted from the tapes. A computer program and display technique has been developed to retrieve the data from irregular shaped areas and store it in a format that allows future display of only the area desired. Means, standard deviations, and distributions have been determined for extreme dry and extreme wet conditions in the dormant season. Mean digital values show some variation between watersheds when dry, but no significant differences when wet. Standard deviations of digital values diminish drastically under wet dormant conditions. Thus the standard deviations may be a good indicator of influence of moisture. Distributions of seven bit values show that odd numbers are prevalent and irregular distribution may influence some classification schemes now in use.

Blanchard, B.↗
NASA NTRS1974

ERTS-1: Automated land-use mapping in lake watersheds

The author has identified the following significant results. ERTS-1 computer compatible tapes were used as a basis to generate land use maps in lake watersheds in southeastern Michigan. These maps, generated on a repetitive basis, provide information essential to governmental agencies concerned with planning and control of lake eutrophication. The ERTS mapping products included geometrically current land use map overlays at 1:250,000 and 1:48,000 scale and area measurement printouts. The printouts provide, within the watershed boundaries and by land use category, a quantitative measure of the amount of land, in square kilometers and acres. This quantitative measure of land use in watersheds is essential to the development and application of deterministic models, which compute nutrient flows into lakes and establish lake eutrophication rates.

Chase, P. E.↗
NASA NTRS1974

A study of remote sensing as applied to regional and small watersheds. Volume 1: Summary report

The accuracy of remotely sensed measurements to provide inputs to hydrologic models of watersheds is studied. A series of sensitivity analyses on continuous simulation models of three watersheds determined: (1)Optimal values and permissible tolerances of inputs to achieve accurate simulation of streamflow from the watersheds; (2) Which model inputs can be quantified from remote sensing, directly, indirectly or by inference; and (3) How accurate remotely sensed measurements (from spacecraft or aircraft) must be to provide a basis for quantifying model inputs within permissible tolerances.

Ambaruch, R.↗
NASA NTRS1974

A study of remote sensing as applied to regional and small watersheds. Volume 2: Supporting technical details

The Stanford Watershed Model, the Kentucky Watershed Model and OPSET program, and the NASA-IBM system for simulation and analysis of watersheds are described in terms of their applications to the study of remote sensing of water resources. Specific calibration processes and input and output parameters that are instrumental in the simulations are explained for the following kinds of data: (1) hourly precipitation data; (2) daily discharge data; (3) flood hydrographs; (4) temperature and evaporation data; and (5) snowmelt data arrays. The Sensitivity Analysis Task, which provides a method for evaluation of any of the separate simulation runs in the form of performance indices, is also reported. The method is defined and a summary of results is given which indicates the values obtained in the simulation runs performed for Town Creek, Alabama; Alamosa Creek, Colorado; and Pearl River, Louisiana. The results are shown in tabular and plot graph form. For Vol. 1, see N74-27813.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1975

Investigation of use of space data in watershed hydrology

The author has identified the following significant results. Digital data from the ERTS multispectral scanner were used to investigate the feasibility of identifying differences in watershed runoff capability with spaceborne sensors. Linear combinations of the two visible light bands and a combination of the four visible and near infrared bands were related to a coefficient used in the Soil Conservation Service storm runoff equation. Good relationships were found in two scenes, both with dry surface conditions, over the same watersheds. The relationships defined by both combinations of digital data were tested on a independent set of 10 watersheds and on an additional 22 subwatersheds. Coefficients predicted with the ERTS data proved better than coefficients developed with conventional methods.

Blanchard, B. J.↗
NASA NTRS1975

A sensitivity analysis of regional and small watershed hydrologic models

Continuous simulation models of the hydrologic behavior of watersheds are important tools in several practical applications such as hydroelectric power planning, navigation, and flood control. Several recent studies have addressed the feasibility of using remote earth observations as sources of input data for hydrologic models. The objective of the study reported here was to determine how accurately remotely sensed measurements must be to provide inputs to hydrologic models of watersheds, within the tolerances needed for acceptably accurate synthesis of streamflow by the models. The study objective was achieved by performing a series of sensitivity analyses using continuous simulation models of three watersheds. The sensitivity analysis showed quantitatively how variations in each of 46 model inputs and parameters affect simulation accuracy with respect to five different performance indices.

Ambaruch, R.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Remote sensing techniques for prediction of watershed runoff

Hydrologic parameters of watersheds for use in mathematical models and as design criteria for flood detention structures are sometimes difficult to quantify using conventional measuring systems. The advent of remote sensing devices developed in the past decade offers the possibility that watershed characteristics such as vegetative cover, soils, soil moisture, etc., may be quantified rapidly and economically. Experiments with visible and near infrared data from the LANDSAT-1 multispectral scanner indicate a simple technique for calibration of runoff equation coefficients is feasible. The technique was tested on 10 watersheds in the Chickasha area and test results show more accurate runoff coefficients were obtained than with conventional methods. The technique worked equally as well using a dry fall scene. The runoff equation coefficients were then predicted for 22 subwatersheds with flood detention structures. Predicted values were again more accurate than coefficients produced by conventional methods.

Blanchard, B. J.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Remote sensing requirements as suggested by watershed model sensitivity analyses

A continuous simulation watershed model has been used to perform sensitivity analyses that provide guidance in defining remote sensing requirements for the monitoring of watershed features and processes. The results show that out of 26 input parameters having meaningful effects on simulated runoff, 6 appear to be obtainable with existing remote sensing techniques. Of these six parameters, 3 require the measurement of the areal extent of surface features (impervious areas, water bodies, and the extent of forested area), two require the descrimination of land use that can be related to overland flow roughness coefficient or the density of vegetation so as to estimate the magnitude of precipitation interception, and one parameter requires the measurement of distance to get the length over which overland flow typically occurs. Observational goals are also suggested for monitoring such fundamental watershed processes as precipitation, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration. A case study on the Patuxent River in Maryland shows that runoff simulation is improved if recent satellite land use observations are used as model inputs as opposed to less timely topographic map information.

Salomonson, V. V.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Automated image processing of LANDSAT 2 digital data for watershed runoff prediction

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) model for watershed runoff prediction uses soil and land cover information as its major drivers. Kern County Water Agency is implementing the SCS model to predict runoff for 10,400 sq cm of mountainous watershed in Kern County, California. The Remote Sensing Unit, University of California, Santa Barbara, was commissioned by KCWA to conduct a 230 sq cm feasibility study in the Lake Isabella, California region to evaluate remote sensing methodologies which could be ultimately extrapolated to the entire 10,400 sq cm Kern County watershed. Digital results indicate that digital image processing of Landsat 2 data will provide usable land cover required by KCWA for input to the SCS runoff model.

Sasso, R. R.↗