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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Using Coupled Models to Study the Effects of River Discharge on Biogeochemical Cycling and Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico

We describe emerging capabilities to understand physical processes and biogeoehemical cycles in coastal waters through the use of satellites, numerical models, and ship observations. Emerging capabilities provide significantly improved ability to model ecological systems and the impact of environmental management actions on them. The complex interaction of physical and biogeoehemical processes responsible for hypoxic events requires an integrated approach to research, monitoring, and modeling in order to fully define the processes leading to hypoxia. Our efforts characterizes the carbon cycle associated with river plumes and the export of organic matter and nutrients form coastal Louisiana wetlands and embayments in a spatially and temporally intensive manner previously not possible. Riverine nutrients clearly affect ecosystems in the northern Gulf of Mexico as evidenced in the occurrence of regional hypoxia events. Less known and largely unqualified is the export of organic matter and nutrients from the large areas of disappearing coastal wetlands and large embayments adjacent to the Louisiana Continental Shelf. This project provides new methods to track the river plume along the shelf and to estimate the rate of export of suspended inorganic and organic paniculate matter and dissolved organic matter form coastal habitats of south Louisiana.

COUPLED MODEL↗
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↗
NASA NTRS1973

Studies in the Lake Ontario Basin using ERTS-1 and high altitude data

Studies in the Lake Ontario Basin are designed to provide input for models of river basin discharge and macro-scale features of lake circulation. Lake studies appear to require high altitude imagery to record the dynamic features of Lake Ontario so that ERTS-1 data may be interpreted. Land area studies require input of soil moisture, land use and soil-sediment-geomorphology measurements some of which appear to be available, on a regional scale from ERTS-1 products.

Falconer, A.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Application of remote sensing to study nearshore circulation

Immediate use of drogued buoy tracking was made when the Virginia State Highway Department requested assistance in selecting the best route for a new bridge-tunnel complex across the James River at Newport News. The result was that the Highway Department acted and chose a preferred route from several alternatives. It was also observed that the drogues did not follow the channel as predicted by the James River hydraulic model. This permitted telling the Navy why it is that part of their channel always silts up. The Hampton Roads Sanitation District asked help locate the best route and position of an ocean sewer outfall. Biological activities are focused primarily on delineating biological interaction between the marsh and continental shelf waters on Virginia's Eastern Shore. Information derived is helpful in categorizing the relative biological value of different marsh areas so that meaningful use and management decisions can be made concerning their eventual disposition.

Welch, C. S.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Program on State Agency Remote Sensing Data Management (SARSDM)

A planning study for developing a Missouri natural resources information system (NRIS) that combines satellite-derived data and other information to assist in carrying out key state tasks was conducted. Four focal applications -- dam safety, ground water supply monitoring, municipal water supply monitoring, and Missouri River basin modeling were identified. Major contributions of the study are: (1) a systematic choice and analysis of a high priority application (water resources) for a Missouri, LANDSAT-based information system; (2) a system design and implementation plan, based on Missouri, but useful for many other states; (3) an analysis of system costs, component and personnel requirements, and scheduling; and (4) an assessment of deterrents to successful technological innovation of this type in state government, and a system management plan, based on this assessment, for overcoming these obstacles in Missouri.

Eastwood, L. F., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Large-Scale and Global Hydrology

Powered by the sun, water moves continuously between and through Earths oceanic, atmospheric, and terrestrial reservoirs. It enables life, shapes Earths surface, and responds to and influences climate change. Scientists measure various features of the water cycle using a combination of ground, airborne, and space-based observations, and seek to characterize it at multiple scales with the aid of numerical models. Over time our understanding of the water cycle and ability to quantify it have improved, owing to advances in observational capabilities, the extension of the data record, and increases in computing power and storage. Here we present some of the most recent estimates of global and continental ocean basin scale water cycle stocks and fluxes and provide examples of modern numerical modeling systems and reanalyses.Further, we discuss prospects for predicting water cycle variability at seasonal and longer scales, which is complicated by a changing climate and direct human impacts related to water management and agriculture. Changes to the water cycle will be among the most obvious and important facets of climate change, thus it is crucial that we continue to invest in our ability to monitor it.

land hydrology↗