Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “USG”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Continental Scale Hydrostratigraphy: Comparing Geologically Informed Data Products to Analytical Solutions

Abstract This study synthesizes two different methods for estimating hydraulic conductivity (K) at large scales. We derive analytical approaches that estimate K and apply them to the contiguous United States. We then compare these analytical approaches to three‐dimensional, national gridded K data products and three transmissivity (T) data products developed from publicly available sources. We evaluate these data products using multiple approaches: comparing their statistics qualitatively and quantitatively and with hydrologic model simulations. Some of these datasets were used as inputs for an integrated hydrologic model of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the comparison of the results with observations was used to further evaluate the K data products. Simulated average daily streamflow was compared to daily flow data from 10 USGS stream gages in the domain, and annually averaged simulated groundwater depths are compared to observations from nearly 2000 monitoring wells. We find streamflow predictions from analytically informed simulations to be similar in relative bias and Spearman's rho to the geologically informed simulations. R ‐squared values for groundwater depth predictions are close between the best performing analytically and geologically informed simulations at 0.68 and 0.70 respectively, with RMSE values under 10 m. We also show that the analytical approach derived by this study produces estimates of K that are similar in spatial distribution, standard deviation, mean value, and modeling performance to geologically‐informed estimates. The results of this work are used to inform a follow‐on study that tests additional data‐driven approaches in multiple basins within the contiguous United States.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Turbidity and suspended sediment data for Gwynns Falls, Baisman Run, and Pond Branch, Baltimore County and Baltimore City, MD, USA

This resource includes turbidity and suspended sediment data collected at two sampling stations located on Gwynns Falls in Baltimore County, MD, USA. In addition, two forested reference sites, Baisman Run and Pond Branch at Oregon Ridge, and two urban sites, Dead Run and Maiden's Choice Run (tributaries to Gwynns Falls), were sampled in Baltimore County and Baltimore City, MD, USA. Turbidity sensor data were collected at a 5-minute frequency using YSI EXO2 sondes. Suspended sediment was collected using ISCO samplers for the purpose of establishing correlations between turbidity and suspended sediment concentration. The six sites are co-located with USGS stream gages. This resource is part of the Baltimore Social-Environmental Collaborative Urban Integrated Field Laboratory supported by Department of Energy as well as the Critical Zone Collaborative Network supported by National Science Foundation. This resource includes a technical report summarizing the findings.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel-Segmentation [SWR-21-18]

Panel-Segmentation contains the scripts for automated metadata extraction of solar PV installations, using satellite imagery coupled with computer vision techniques. In this package, the user can perform the following actions: *Automatically generate a satellite image using a set of lat-long coordinates, and a Google Maps API key. Users would need to set up a Google Cloud account and get a Maps Static API key. Please refer to Setting Up Google Maps Static API Key section for this process. *Perform image segmentation on the satellite image, to locate the solar array(s) in the image on a pixel-by-pixel basis, using an image segmentation model (panel_detection_model.pth). Get classification of the installation (rooftop, ground mounted fixed-tilt or tracking, carport, etc). *Perform azimuth estimation on each solar array cluster in the masked image. *Detect solar panels and get its latitude, longitude, and address within a geographic bounding box through the SOL-Searcher Pipeline. *Detect and calculate hurricane damage on solar installations given pre-hurricane and post-hurricane satellite imagery through the Hurricane Detection Pipeline. *Detect and calculate hail damage on solar installations given satellite imagery through the Hail Detection pipeline. *Convert NOAA MESH (Maximum Estimated Size of Hail) grib2 files into kml or geojson files. *Estimate tilt and azimuth of a solar array by processing USGS LiDAR data for the array’s location.

Edun, Ayobami↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hydrogenerate: Open Source Python Tool To Estimate Hydropower Generation Time-series

Hydropower is one of the most mature forms of renewable energy generation. The United States (US) has almost 103 GW of installed, with 80 GW of conventional generation and 23 GW of pumped hydropower [1]. Moreover, the potential for future development on Non-Powered Dams is up to 10 GW. With the US setting its goals to become carbon neutral [2], more renewable energy in the form of hydropower needs to be integrated with the grid. Currently, there are no publicly available tool that can estimate the hydropower potential for existing hydropower dams or other non-powered dams. The HydroGenerate is an open-source python library that has the capability of estimating hydropower generation based on flow rate either provided by the user or received from United States Geological Survey (USGS) water data services. The tool calculates the efficiency as a function of flow based on the turbine type either selected by the user or estimated based on the “head” provided by the user.

Mitra, Bhaskar↗
DOE OSTI2025

Seismic Contingency Auto Generator

This code takes in premade earthquake scenario XML files from USGS, power grid data, and converts them into a contingency file (.con file) that can be used by power grid solvers. Within the .con file are a number (Specified by the user) of contingencies that have randomly failed power transformers based on their likelihood of failure and peak ground acceleration (PGA) value around the transformer. The transformers' likelihood of failure was calculated based on a variety of finite element modeling on various transformer designed for specific transformer voltage classes. Parameters from these FEM were used to create generic fragility curves for transformers within a specific voltage class, which correspond with earthquake PGA values to produced a probability of failure for a given earthquake scenario. More refined versions of this process, such as specifying specific transformer design categories within a voltage class, could also be applied in future iterations of the software.

Vaagensmith, Bjorn [Idaho National Laboratory (INL↗
DOE OSTI2021

Scale-Dependent Value of QPF for Real-Time Streamflow Forecasting

Incorporating rainfall forecasts into a real-time streamflow forecasting system extends the forecast lead time. Since quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) are subject to substantial uncertainties, questions arise on the trade-off between the time horizon of the QPF and the accuracy of the streamflow forecasts. This study explores the problem systematically, exploring the uncertainties associated with QPFs and their hydrologic predictability. The focus is on scale dependence of the trade-off between the QPF time horizon, basin-scale, space-time scale of the QPF, and streamflow forecasting accuracy. To address this question, the study first performs a comprehensive independent evaluation of the QPFs at 140 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitored basins with a wide range of spatial scales (~10 – 40,000 km 2 ) over the state of Iowa in the Midwestern United States. The study uses High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) and Global Forecasting System (GFS) QPFs for short and medium-range forecasts, respectively. Using Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) as a reference, the results show that the rainfall-to-rainfall QPF errors are scale-dependent. The results from the hydrologic forecasting experiment show that both QPFs illustrate clear value for real-time streamflow forecasting at longer lead times in the short- to medium-range relative to the no-rain streamflow forecast. The value of QPFs for streamflow forecasting is particularly apparent for basin sizes below 1,000 km 2 . The space-time scale, or reference time t r ) (ratio of forecast lead time to basin travel time) ~ 1 depicts the largest streamflow forecasting skill with a systematic decrease in forecasting accuracy for t r > 1.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hydrothermal mineral alterations in the Brady and Desert Peak geothermal fields

Results of the analysis of HyMap's spectra against know hydrothermally altered minerals in the Brady-Desert Peak Geothermal Areas. The analysis was performed using ENVI's Target Detection process against USGS library spectra for Chalcedony, Kaolinite, Gypsum, Hematite and Epsomite. Each compressed file includes three raster images created after fusing the target detection results for all minerals: _fusion_all - Contains the 8 layers resulting from target detection and fusion of the 5 minerals _fusion_all_normal - Contains each layer as above, after Winsorization (99% percentile on the positive side only due to skewness of results), and normalization of each layer to achieve a range between [0-1] _fusion_final - Contains a fused raster by sub-setting the normalized layers, with the results of MTMF, MTTCIMF, OSP and SAM. Both CEM and MF were discarded as being less accurate than MTMF, and TCIMF is less accurate than MTTCIMF, ACE results were discarded because they were notably different from the rest of the analyses. The base_names are: brady - Brady geothermal area only desert - Desert Peak geothermal area only hymap - Full image analysis comprising both the Brady and Desert Peak geothermal areas

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Subsurface Characterization and Machine Learning Predictions at Brady Hot Springs Results

Geothermal power plants typically show decreasing heat and power production rates over time. Mitigation strategies include optimizing the management of existing wells - increasing or decreasing the fluid flow rates across the wells - and drilling new wells at appropriate locations. The latter is expensive, time-consuming, and subject to many engineering constraints, but the former is a viable mechanism for periodic adjustment of the available fluid allocations. Data and supporting literature from a study describing a new approach combining reservoir modeling and machine learning to produce models that enable strategies for the mitigation of decreased heat and power production rates over time for geothermal power plants. The computational approach used enables translation of sets of potential flow rates for the active wells into reservoir-wide estimates of produced energy and discovery of optimal flow allocations among the studied sets. In our computational experiments, we utilize collections of simulations for a specific reservoir (which capture subsurface characterization and realize history matching) along with machine learning models that predict temperature and pressure timeseries for production wells. We evaluate this approach using an "open-source" reservoir we have constructed that captures many of the characteristics of Brady Hot Springs, a commercially operational geothermal field in Nevada, USA. Selected results from a reservoir model of Brady Hot Springs itself are presented to show successful application to an existing system. In both cases, energy predictions prove to be highly accurate: all observed prediction errors do not exceed 3.68% for temperatures and 4.75% for pressures. In a cumulative energy estimation, we observe prediction errors that are less than 4.04%. A typical reservoir simulation for Brady Hot Springs completes in approximately 4 hours, whereas our machine learning models yield accurate 20-year predictions for temperatures, pressures, and produced energy in 0.9 seconds. This paper aims to demonstrate how the models and techniques from our study can be applied to achieve rapid exploration of controlled parameters and optimization of other geothermal reservoirs. Includes a synthetic, yet realistic, model of a geothermal reservoir, referred to as open-source reservoir (OSR). OSR is a 10-well (4 injection wells and 6 production wells) system that resembles Brady Hot Springs (a commercially operational geothermal field in Nevada, USA) at a high level but has a number of sufficiently modified characteristics (which renders any possible similarity between specific characteristics like temperatures and pressures as purely random). We study OSR through CMG simulations with a wide range of flow allocation scenarios. Includes a dataset with 101 simulated scenarios that cover the period of time between 2020 and 2040 and a link to the published paper about this project, where we focus on the Machine Learning work for predicting OSR's energy production based on the simulation data, as well as a link to the GitHub repository where we have published the code we have developed (please refer to the repository's readme file to see instructions on how to run the code). Additional links are included to associated work led by the USGS to identify geologic factors associated with well productivity in geothermal fields. Below are the high-level steps for applying the same modeling + ML process to other geothermal reservoirs: 1. Develop a geologic model of the geothermal field. The location of faults, upflow zones, aquifers, etc. need to be accounted for as accurately as possible 2. The geologic model needs to be converted to a reservoir model that can be used in a reservoir simulator, such as, for instance, CMG STARS, TETRAD, or FALCON 3. Using native state modeling, the initial temperature and pressure distributions are evaluated, and they become the initial conditions for dynamic reservoir simulations 4....

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

GBCGE Subsurface Database Explorer and APIs

This submission defines a DOI for the Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy's (GBCGE) Subsurface Database Explorer web application and underlying data services, and acknowledges the INGENIOUS project as a major source of funding for data compilation and quality assurance. The GBCGE Subsurface Database Explorer is an interactive web mapping application that provides public access to the GBCGE Subsurface Database, and its collection of datasets pertinent to geothermal exploration, oil and gas exploration, critical mineral exploration, and other subsurface characterization for the Great Basin Region, western US. This is a living database, and will be continuously updated with new data and datasets as funding and motivations allow. The underlying database views that populate the web application are on an automated refresh schedule. Data sources and acknowledgements: We thank our partners with the Nevada Division of Minerals (NDOM), the Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Great Basin State Geological Surveys for their active efforts in data curation, schema design, and quality assurance. We also thank contributors among the USGS, Oregon Institute of Technology, State Divisions of Water Resources, State Divisions of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, and State Geological Surveys for open data availability and direct contributions made under the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Coso Geothermal Spectral Library for Rocks and Minerals

An integrated open mineral spectral library designed to enhance the utility and precision of mineral spectral data for geothermal exploration, developed from a reliable and comprehensive digital dataset for seamless sharing by integrating field data, the USGS spectral library, and pertinent information obtained from Coso geothermal field (Coso) in California. The ASD FieldSpec portable spectrometer was utilized for collecting spectral data, which was subsequently analyzed using the THOR Material Identification tool in ENVI, The Spectral Geologist (TSG) software by CSIRO, and the Fully Constrained Linear Spectral Unmixing algorithm (FCLSU) in MATLAB. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with a mineralogy-analyzing function was employed to assess the mineral composition of samples, ensuring precise mineralogical analysis. A portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometer was also utilized to gather information on elemental enrichment. A framework for developing spectra data and establishing spectral libraries for various geological cases was proposed within this study. The characteristic spectra of six alteration minerals - alunite, chalcedony, epidote, hematite, kaolinite, and opal - were acquired from Coso samples. The spectral library for the Coso alteration minerals was introduced for further application in academic study or industrial exploration. To browse the Coso Geothermal Spectral data and related figures from spreadsheets: #1 Unzip and store the following items in the same folder. 'Contact Probe Data.zip', 'Sample Photos.zip', and 'Coso spectra of higher-certainity minerals.xlsx'. #2 Open 'Coso spectra of higher-certainity minerals.xlsx'. The hyperlinks in the spreadsheet lead to the folders or figures of: spectra .asd file, spectra ASC II file, spectra plots, and sample photos. The spectra data is raw data without splice correction. Spectra .asd files require particular software to open. (These cannot be opened in GIS software such as ArcGIS.) Spectra ASC II files can be opened in a text editor or spread sheet program.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Renewable Energy Potential Model: Geothermal Supply Curves

The Renewable Energy Potential (reV) model is a geospatial platform for estimating technical potential and developing renewable energy supply curves, initially developed for wind and solar technologies. The model evaluates deployment constraints, considering land use, environmental, and cultural factors, and estimates the distance to existing grid features to connect future plants (Maclaurin et al., 2021). A pressing deficiency in the reV model, however, is representation of geothermal electricity generation technologies. To address this gap, we developed a novel geothermal generation module for reV that allows for representation and analysis at the same level of detail as other renewable technologies. The included paper describes our process for evaluating data sources for the modeling, and presents five preliminary reV geothermal results. More specifically, we present two sets of resource data that represent upper and lower bounds for geothermal potential. We then present several sensitivity runs using the upper bound resource data; the results are encouraging that levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) can be reduced by optimizing the location and estimated capacity of the spatially diverse geothermal resource while considering the distance to existing grid infrastructure. Our preliminary supply curves and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) results provided here should be considered with care due to the high uncertainty in geothermal resource potential data. We present median LCOE values for the conterminous U.S. for three scenarios: two hydrothermal (3.5km depth, USGS heat flow & SMU temperatures respectively) and one EGS (4.5km depth, SMU temperatures). The capital and operating costs for each respective technology are modeled. We also compare results using two different resource data sources.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. 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. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2021

The LAKE model input dataset for three Arctic lakes

This dataset contains meteorological data collected for three Arctic lakes and compiled to satisfy input requirements of the LAKE 2.0 model. The dataset was generated to act as a benchmarking dataset for future model-data inter-comparisons. The LAKE 2.0 model simulates temperatures within the water later and the sedimentary layer of a lake. The LAKE2.0. is an open-source code and available to download via this weblike http://tesla.parallel.ru/Viktor/LAKE/-/wikis/LAKE-model (last visit July 14, 2021). The meteorological data are required to simulate the surface energy balance at the surface of a lake. This dataset includes a compilation of the meteorological data pulled from multiple data streams, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate data, Circumarctic Lakes Observation Network (CALON) data, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) data. The data were compiled for three Arctic lakes: FoxDen (66.55877, -164.45670), Atqasuk (70.452497, -156.951984), and Toolik (68.63150, -149.60740). Each meteorological data is in comma-delimited format (file extension ‘.dat’) and includes eight columns: Temperature [K], Pressure [Pa], longwave downward radiation [W/m2], shortwave downward radiation [W/m2], “U” wind speed [m/s], ”V” wind speed [m/s], humidity [kg/kg], precipitation [m/s]. In addition to the meteorological data file, we included setup and driver files. The Toolik lake is the deepest out of three lakes and has inflowing and outflowing groundwater data. InflowOutflowREADME.txt has more information about inflow and outflow flies. The other two lakes are much shallower and modeled as a closed system (i.e. no water inflow or outflow).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Storm and Annual Time Scale Hydrological Data for the Russian River Watershed 1996-2022

These files contains observed and simulated hydrological data (discharge, precipitation) that have been aggregated to the storm-event scale and to the annual time scale for the Russian River Watershed (RRW), California. Observed data are obtained from 12 different USGS hydrological stations located throughout the watershed, and discharge is simulated using the GR5H hourly hydrological model. Precipitation data are obtained from the NASA NLDAS NOAH Community Land Surface Model. All simulated and observed discharge are aggregated to the storm and annual time scales. We investigated changes in watershed hydrological conditions in the Russian River Watershed, a Mediterranean, drought prone, wildfire-adapted ecosystem, following eleven wildfires that occurred from 2017-2020. We ask two research questions: 1) How do interacting wildfire events, drought, and atmospheric rivers impact hydrological conditions of the watershed and in particular streamflow?, and 2) What percentage of new and/or cumulative wildfire disturbance is required to initiate hydrological change? We hypothesize that sub-watersheds of the RRW Mediterranean ecoregion have not burned beyond an intrinsic, and still unknown, threshold required to initiate change. Using a series of paired burned/unburned catchments nested within the larger watershed, we examined temporal and spatial patterns of pre-and-post wildfire water hydrology using a rainfall runoff hydrological model compared with data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Recent streamflow trends across permafrost basins of North America: Datasets

Climate change impacts, including changing temperatures, precipitation, and vegetation, are widely anticipated to cause major shifts to the permafrost with resulting impacts to hydro-ecosystems across the high latitudes of the globe. However, it is challenging to examine streamflow shifts in these regions owing to a paucity of data, discontinuity of records, and other issues related to data consistency and accuracy. We looked at recent changes in streamflow over 1976-2021 in watersheds affected by varying degrees of permafrost coverage to characterize trends and drivers for a range of watersheds across North America. Data sets are described in detail in the paper associated with this data set, Bennett et al. 2023, Front. Water - Water and Critical Zone, DOI: 10.3389/frwa.2023.1099660.These data contain CSV files of the streamflow, climate, and land surface characteristics for several sites located across the high latitude regions of North America. Both observed and reanalysis data products are provided. These files can be opened using Excel or a text editor, or they can be read, and analyzed in software tools such as Python or R. A brief description of the files is below, and more details can be found in the Methods section.rabpro_stats_north_select_74_55m.csv - This file describes the observed gages used in the analysis.GF31_23_metadat.csv - This file describes the 23 permafrost systems. Columns are as described in rabpro_stats_north_select_74_55m.csv above, with rabpro_id, the id used for the timeseries file mapping in GF31_23_time_series.csv.GF31_23_time_series.csv - This file contains the time series data for the stations described in GF31_23_metadat.csv.GF31_random_reaches_1583.csv - This file describes the 1583 randomly selected permafrost-dominant sites for machine learning analysis.era5_GF31_monthly_vars_random_reaches_1583.csv - This file contains the monthly ERA5 land data for the 1583 randomly selected permafrost-dominant sites.observed.zip: USGS and Hydat station data for the 74 gages analyzed in this study. Monthly, seasonal, and annual streamflow observations for minimum streamflow, mean streamflow, and maximum streamflow. Units are m3/sec. 1975-2022.streamflow_daily_GF31_infilled_1979_2022.csv - infilled daily streamflow data (infilled using GloFAS v 3.1) for 55 gages. Units are m3/sec. 1979-2022.glofas_23.zip - Glofas v3.1 file for the 23 permafrost-dominant gages in the study. Monthly, seasonal, and annual streamflow observations for minimum streamflow, mean streamflow, and maximum streamflow. Units are m3/sec. 1979-2021.glofas_1583.zip - Glofas v3.1 file for the 1583 randomly selected permafrost-dominant gages in the study. Monthly, seasonal, and annual streamflow observations for minimum streamflow, mean streamflow, and maximum streamflow. Units are m3/sec. 1979-2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model files for the East River, Colorado

The data package contains model input files and executables for the East River, Colorado (750 km2) located in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The code applied is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model. The model contains a 100-m grid resolution to represent topographic complexity and a daily timestep accounts for energy and water partitioning between the snowpack, vegetation, soil zone and bedrock. The land surface model is dynamically linked to a three-dimensional groundwater flow model that allows for streamflow gaining and losing conditions. The groundwater model accounts for nine stratigraphic units and extends 400 m below land surface. Using this modeling framework we explore historical water budgets (water year 1987-2022) and the influence of seasonal warming and associated mechanisms driving groundwater declines and streamflow loss. A Readme_062424.txt file provides instructions on how to download all files. Input and output files are provided for the historical simulation representative of water years 1987 to 2022 (i.e. baseline) and the all-year +4C warming scenario. Instructions are provided to run the seasonal warming scenarios with warming applied only to the autumn, winter, spring or summer months. Modeled output used in figures for Carroll et al., 2024 are also provided with metadata describing where these data were obtained. This dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Updated on 06-24-2024: The dataset was updated to include model outputs (updated base.zip and 4C.zip files), figure source files (Figure_Source_Files.zip), an updated Readme file (Readme_062424.txt), climate input files (climate_input_files.zip), and the adoption of ESS-DIVE File Level Metadata and CSV reporting formats (inclusion of flmd.csv and dd.csv files).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Timeseries Unlabeled and Labeled Photos, Modeled Stream Elevation, and (Meta)Data of Variably Inundated Streams Across The Yakima River Basin, Washington, United States (v2)

This dataset is associated with the “River Monitoring Photos” (RMP) study and subsequent manuscript (Bao et al. 2025. Monitoring river flow status using low-cost wildlife camera and image segmentation artificial intelligence doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2025.106715). Game camera timeseries photos were collected to evaluate stream variable inundation via changes in width. A subset of photos was labeled for training the YOLOv8 and Mask2Former models and used to segment water surface fractions from all the game camera photos.This data package was originally published in March 2024. It was updated in October 2025 (v2) to add additional photos and files associated with the manuscript (i.e., processed data, labeled photos, and trained models). 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 two file-level metadata (FLMD) files that describes each file and two data dictionaries (DD) that describe all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; and (5) folders containing game camera photos and manuscript-associated files. Each Yakima River Basin site has a folder that contains subfolders for each month photos were collected. There is also a folder for files associated with the manuscript which has subfolders for labeled data, trained models, Yakima River Basin site water surface fractions, and USGS site water surface fractions. All files are .csv, .json, .txt, .yaml, .pth, .pt, or .pdf. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Modeling the Effects of Artificial Drainage on Agriculture-dominated Watersheds using a Fully Distributed Integrated Hydrology Model: Datasets, scripts, model files

This model-data archive supports the research paper that demonstrates the integration of agricultural drainage features—specifically, narrow engineered ditches and tile drains—into a fully distributed, basin-scale integrated surface-subsurface hydrology model (ISSHM), Amanzi-ATS. The model employs innovative computational meshes aligned with agricultural ditches and incorporates the physically based Hooghoudt's drainage equation to simulate tile drainage, offering a novel strategy that enhances the accuracy of hydrological simulations.The archived dataset includes input parameters, model configurations, and select simulation outputs for the Amanzi-ATS model that successfully captured the streamflow patterns in the Portage River Watershed as validated by USGS gauge readings. Jupyter notebook for the preparation of model inputs and post-processing of outputs are also included. The model's predictive performance achieved a normalized Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) of 0.81, surpassing SWAT without the necessity for site-specific calibration.The Amanzi-ATS model presented in this modeL-data archive allows for numerical experiments to explore the shifts in the flow structure under different drainage scenarios. As a tool for advancing the understanding of distributed hydrological responses and nutrient cycling, this archived model provides valuable insights for researchers, modelers, and decision-makers involved in watershed management and environmental modeling.The Watershed Workflow package is implemented in Python3. The Jupyter notebooks can be executed through multiple open-source tools, for example, Anaconda Jupyter Lab, VS Studio Code, etc. Other data files include CSV and HDF5 files, which can be read through Python scripts. The input files for the ATS model, open-source integrated hydrology, and transport model, are in XML format and can be edited in any commonly used text editors.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗