Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Colorado River”

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 OSTI2025

Electrical Resistivity Tomography data from 2016 to 2018 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains time-lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) data along a transect located on the northeast-facing hillslope at the lower montane site (Pumphouse site) in the upper East River Watershed. The monitoring dataset covers the period from November 2, 2016, to August 6, 2018. In addition, the archive also contains a baseline dataset from October 9, 2016. The ERT transect consisted of 128 electrodes with an electrode spacing of 1.25 m. The acquisition system was located in the middle of the transect, about 50 m on one side, and included an MPT (Multi-Phase Technologies) ERT system, a mini computer, and batteries with solar panels. Acquisition occurred daily under normal circumstances. The first 16 electrodes (from the upper end of the transect) could not be used after the cable was damaged during the 2017–2018 winter. Also, due to multiple failures in the power system, the temporal resolution of the data is much lower in 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017. The data have been processed and used in Dafflon et al., 2023, and the baseline dataset was used in Falco et al., 2019 (see reference list). This archive contains the measurements (ER.zip containing csv files) for each of the 326 acquisition times and a filtered version where only electrodes 17 to 128 are included (ERT_sm.zip containing csv files). The archive also contains the baseline dataset and two acquisitions with full reciprocals (ERT_RB.zip containing csv files), as well as all the raw MPT files (ERT_raw_MTP.zip). The geometry (electrode position and elevation) is provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 13N Geoid2012AB in the file named ERT_Location.csv. The archive contains 1 *.csv data files, four *.zip files, and three metadata *.csv 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil thickness map at two hillslopes near the pumphouse in the east river watershed, Colorado

The soil thickness maps were created by using a hybrid model-data approach. Field sampling and remote sensing data of the spatial distribution of two hillslopes in the Pump House area in the East River Watershed in the CO., the U.S. The data package includes the geospatial data of the soil thickness maps at two hillslopes near the pumphouse, and the associated remote sensing data, including lidar DEM and a shape file of the boundary of the study area. The data can be viewed in GIS software such as QGIS or ArcGIS desktop. The geospatial data can also be viewed in Python or Matlab. The data were generated for the purpose of modeling surface hydrology and near-surface chemistry. This work shows how to combine sampling data and a process-based model to predict one of the highest uncertainty in the land surface process, the soil thickness.

2D Geospatial Maps↗
DOE OSTI2020

Conifer water use patterns in the East River Watershed, Colorado US, based on stable water isotopes and cellulose isotopes

This data package contains a series of datasets aimed at understanding the seasonal origins of water used by the dominant conifer species, Abies lasiocarpa and Picea engelmannii, in the East River Watershed. There is a distinct difference in the stable isotopic ratio of summer rain and snowpack and thus by tracking the isotopic ratio of the xylem water in trees, it is possible to separate when a tree is using snow vs. summer rain. Following typical protocols, we sampled and extracted water from soils in the "Research Meadow" near Gothic, CO within the East River Watershed through the 2016 growing season. The stable isotopic ratio of these waters were then measured. Using values of the isotopic ratio of precipitation and snowpack from that season, we develop a mixing model to show how the trees transitioned from use of snowpack to summer in late July. We extended the information on the seasonal origins of water from 2016 back until 1980 by using measurements of the isotopic ratio of cellulose from trees in the Research Meadow. The isotopic ratio of tree ring cellulose records a signal both of the Vapor Pressure Deficit at the leaf-atmosphere boundary and also the source water for the trees. We concluded from this extended analysis that the trees underwent transitions between periods where snow was the dominant water source and summer rain was the dominant water source. More details on this analysis can be found in the publication: Persistence and Plasticity in Conifer Water Use Strategies. JGR Biogeoscience. DOI 10.1029/2018JG004845. The dataset specifically includes stable isotope measurements of xylem and soil water for Spruce and Fir trees at the Rocky Mountain Biological Lab's Research Meadow as well as snowpack and precipitation stable isotopes from nearby National Atmospheric Deposition Program sites. Associated meteorological data is included, which is needed to understand the source water for the trees based on the cellulose measurements.This dataset was updated in June 2021 also include intra-ring measurements of the d18O and d13C of cellulose these same species of trees at the Ziegler Reservoir site in Snowmass, CO. These are listed as files: "Interglaciald18OCellulose.csv", "Interglaciald13OCellulose.csv" and "Modernd13CCellulose.csv". The intent of these measurements was to assess whether common conifers (abies and picea) had undergone ecophysiological or ecohydrological changes during the last period in Earth's history was warmer than today, i.e. the last Interglacial (116,000 to 130,000 years ago). This site was chosen because it is a location where subfossil wood from this critical warm period was discovered. We measured the d18O and d13C of the subfossil trees following the same protocol as the modern samples which included chemical extraction of cellulose and isotope ratio mass spectrometry. We found that the trees showed little difference in water use efficiency but utilized more summer rain during the interglacial period. This analysis and detailed methods are provided in the following manuscript: Wetter summers mitigated temperature stress on Rocky Mountain forests during the last interglacial warm period which is in revision at GRL but is available as a preprint here: 10.1002/essoar.10506740.2

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 OSTI2025

2D reactive transport model of shale chemical weathering and biogeochemical fluxes along a mountainous hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado: Input files and simulation results

This data package contains input files and simulation results for a two-dimensional (2D) reactive transport model used to quantitatively analyze the coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes governing shale weathering and associated biogeochemical fluxes under realistic environmental conditions in the high-elevation East River Watershed. These data support the conclusions presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review), "Model-based interpretation of solute exports and carbon partitioning during shale weathering in a mountainous hillslope". The model simulates atmospheric-subsurface gas exchange, subsurface water flow, and shale weathering processes under dynamic, year-scale conditions along a shale-underlain hillslope located in the East River watershed. The simulations were performed using the PFLOTRAN flow and reactive transport code and executed on the Perlmutter supercomputer to leverage its large-scale parallel computing capabilities. The data package contains two zipped folders, "model_input_files" and "simulation_results", and one readme.txt file. "model_input_files" contains the necessary input files to run the calibrated base-base model presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review). "simulation_results" contains a single hdf5 file ("Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5") which includes the results of simulation performed using the base-case model. This file can be opened with HDFView 3.1.4, Python, or MATLAB. "readme.txt" contains relevant information about the base-case model and provides guidelines on how to run the associated input files provided in the folder "model_input_files". Furthermore, readme.txt provides information regarding the model results provided in "Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5" such as matrix dimensionality and output units. Field datasets used to evaluate model performance were collected at three monitoring wells located along a hillslope transect (PLM1, PLM2, and PLM3). Dissolved ion concentration data were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 for Ca, Mg, DIC, Na, K, SO4 (Dong et al., 2025 - dic_npoc_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1660459; Williams et al., 2025 - anion_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668054; Dong et al., 2025 - cation_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668055). Note that we used the files named er_PLM1_xx_yy, er_PLM2_xx_yy, and er_PLM3_xx_yy where xx stands for the name of the aqueous species and yy stands for the depth where the measurements were performed. Soil water content ([0 - 1] m) and water table depth were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 (Wan et al., 2024 - Dynamic_water_table__depthsFig2b.csv and Soil_water_content_Fig4e.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567). Gaseous CO2 concentration were collected from October 2020 to December 2021(Wan et al., 2024 - Soil_CO2_concentrations_Fig4h.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567) Gaseous CO2 flux from the subsurface to the atmosphere were collected in the vicinity of PLM2 from October 2019 to May 2022 (Wu et al., 2025). Soil microbial biomass concentration was measured from August 2016 to June 2017 (Sorensen et al., 2019 - 2017_East_River_Pumphouse_Microbial_Biomass__1_.csv - DOI:10.15485/1577267) All field data are published as CSV files compatible with Microsoft Excel, MATLAB, and Python, or as text files. The coordinates of the monitoring wells and the CO2(g) flux sensor in the coordinate system WGS84 are: -PLM1: [38.9197710 ; -106.9492750] -PLM2: [38.9201580 ; -106.9487170] -PLM3: [38.9207843 ; -106.9483668] -PLM4: 38.9210060 ; -106.9479528] -CO2(g) flux sensor: [38.9199180 ; -106.9489906] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a Department of Energy User Facility using NERSC award BER-ERCAP 23980, BER-ERCAP 28550, and BER-ERCAP 33789.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Montane Conifer, Aspen, Meadow, and Sagebrush Metagenome Resolved Genomes and Traits in East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

Climate change is driving vegetation shifts in mountain watersheds, with unknown impacts on biogeochemical cycles. We hypothesize that these shifts will reshape soil microbiomes and associated biogeochemical processes. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed microbiome and microbial functional trait differences between soils under conifer, aspen, forby meadows, and sagebrush across the East River Watershed, CO, controlling for elevation and aspect.Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from soils 0-20cm in depth across three locations in the watershed—Headwaters, Upper Reaches, and Lower Reaches from August 3-11th 2016. Each location was further subdivided into two blocks, with one block on a west facing aspect, and two on the east aspect of the valley. Within blocks, two samples per vegetation type were taken (one at each depth). This resulted in 66 samples, which were sequenced at JGI and can be found under the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project Gs0118068. Metagenomes were assembled through an inhouse pipeline (see methods), binned using four autobinners (concoct, maxbin2, metabat2, and vamb) and consolidated using dastool. The consolidated bins from all metagenomes were pooled, filtered by completeness (>75%) and contamination (<25%), and dereplicated at 95% ANI using drep. The dataset includes a zip file of 687 genomes (Vegtype_MAGS.zip), the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes, a csv file with MAG quality metrics and taxonomy from Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) taxonomic representative genome proteins (EastRiver_Vegtype_drep_genome_info.csv), and a file containing MAG quality metrics and taxonomy (gtdb_drep_bin_taxonomy.csv). The dataset additionally includes a sample metadata file (EastRiver_Vegtype_sample_metadata.csv), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a Google KML file for the sampled locations (sample_collection_sites.kml), a location metadata file (locations.csv), a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv), and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file.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

Surface Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (SQUIRE) of Snow Water Equivalent from the Surface Atmospheric Integrated Field Laboratory

The upper Colorado River basin is the primary source of water for 40 million people. With declining snowpack in the basin, forecasting hydrological budgets in the Southwest United States is more important than ever. However, due in part, to a lack of reliable observations of precipitation in complex terrain, hydrological models struggle to assess and forecast snowpack snow water equivalent (SWE) in the upper Colorado River basin (UCRB). Therefore, the need for more reliable SWE forecasts in the UCRB motivated the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Facility’s Surface Atmospheric Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) that occurred from June 2021 to June 2023. During SAIL, the X-band precipitation radar from Colorado State University conducted volume scans sampling the precipitation properties over the UCRB. The ARM facility developed a gridded Surface Quantitative Precipitation Estimates (SQUIRE) product from the radar observations. To do this, various daily SWE estimates from radar using the radar reflectivity factor Z e and specific differential phase K dp were compared against ground-based precipitation gauges. SWE in precipitation calculated from Wolfe and Snider’s S–Z e estimator was in best agreement with the rain gauges for the days when SWE < 12 mm. For days with SWE > 12 mm, the WSR-88D Intermountain West relationship had the best agreement with the precipitation gauges. Airborne snow depth observations show that SQUIRE captures regions of orographic enhancement in the mountains to the west and northwest of the SAIL study area, indicating that the scientific community should focus on understanding and ultimately simulating orographic atmospheric precipitation processes to improve UCRB snowpack SWE assessment and forecasting.

Hydrology↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impact of Glen Canyon Generation Loss

Colorado River Basin hydropower generation has faced challenges due to droughts and ecological and social water requirements. Specifically, Glen Canyon hydropower generation fluctuates substantially with recent extreme weather trends. Further, the western grid evolves with higher wind and solar share, and Glen Canyon hydropower's contribution to grid flexibility services is essential. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets and schedules electricity production at GCD, and the loss of this power could have significant financial consequences for the WAPA Colorado River Storage Project's (CRSP) Office because it may need to purchase relatively large amounts of energy to serve its firm electrical obligations. In addition, GCD provides grid reliability services for the WAPA Colorado-Missouri (WACM) balancing authority (BA). Both WAPA and DOE's Water & Power Technology Office (WPTO) are interested in researching how these drier hydrological conditions will impact federal electrical energy production, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) power grid, and the value of hydropower in the face of lower production. We study multiple hydrologic and power grid scenarios to understand the grid impacts of the loss of Glen Canyon generation. The study uses a production cost model, water resources planning models, water-centric grid models, and various data analytic techniques. The study progress presentation discusses the selection of probable CRSP' hydropower scenarios and power grid scenarios to understand the impacts of Glen Canyon generation, which includes technologies that compensate the Glen Canyon energy and ancillary services contributions, transmission availability, and energy local marginal prices at interested grid locations of WAPA operation.

droughts↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Groundwater Response and Uncertainty in Beaver‐Influenced Mountainous Floodplains Using Machine Learning‐Based Model Calibration

Abstract Beavers ( Castor canadensis ) alter river corridor hydrology by creating ponds and inundating floodplains, and thereby improving surface water storage. However, the impact of inundation on groundwater, particularly in mountainous alluvial floodplains with permeable gravel/cobble layers overlain by a soil layer, remains uncertain. Numerical modeling across various floodplain structures considers topographic and sediment complexity and multidirectional flow, linking inundation to groundwater response. This study develops a model‐data integration workflow to address uncertainty in groundwater response to beaver‐induced inundations in a mountainous alluvial floodplain in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Uncertain factors include seasonal hydrologic dynamics, hydraulic conductivities, floodplain structures, and meteorological forcings. We employed an ensemble of groundwater models, based on geophysical and hydrologic data, with machine learning‐based calibration using a neural density estimator. This allowed us to quantify the vertical flux from the soil layer to the permeable gravel bed, the down‐valley underflow within the gravel bed, and their ratios. Results show a significant increase in the vertical flux relative to down‐valley underflow, from 2 during dry pond periods to 20 during wet periods, serving as an analogy for conditions without and with beaver ponds. The study highlights the influence of floodplain structure on groundwater storage, water balance, and water quality impacted by beaver ponds. A thick gravel bed layer, with a large down‐valley underflow, minimizes the effect of beaver‐induced inundation on water quality. We emphasize the need for field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure and improved characterization of evapotranspiration changes to reduce uncertainty in groundwater response. Plain Language Summary Beavers change the flow of water in river corridors by creating ponds, expanding wetlands, and flooding floodplains. This increases surface water area, promotes plant growth, and enhances biodiversity. However, the impact of this flooding on groundwater flow is not well understood, especially in mountainous areas with gravel layers where water moves easily beneath soil. In this study, we used numerical modeling to investigate how beaver ponds influence groundwater in a mountainous floodplain of the Upper Colorado River Basin. We adapted a machine learning method to validate our numerical models using multiple field data sets. Our findings show that beaver ponds significantly increase vertical water flow from the soil to the gravel during wet periods, compared to when the ponds are fully drained. The study also highlights the importance of floodplain structure in controlling both water flow in gravel layers along the river direction and vertical flow from the soil to the gravel with the presence of beavers. To reduce uncertainty in groundwater response, we emphasize the need for more field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure, hydraulic properties, and evapotranspiration changes. Key Points Floodplain structures and hydraulic conductivities are important for groundwater response with beaver ponds in mountainous floodplains Large down‐valley underflow in permeability‐stratified floodplains reduces beaver‐induced impacts on groundwater storage and water quality Machine learning‐based model calibration methods are effective for estimating posterior distributions of groundwater model parameters

Wang, Lijing↗
DOE OSTI2022

Lead isotopic compositions of airborne particulates collected from snow and from dry deposition in the East River Watershed, Colorado and at the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory, California

The data set consists of lead (Pb) isotopic ratios (206Pb/207Pb and 208Pb/207Pb, as well as 206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb) for particulate samples collected from snow and dry deposition. This was part of a study (O’Day et al. 2020) that was looking at the speciation of phosphorous in splits of these samples to evaluate the flux and bio-availability of phosphorous to the mountain sites in the study. The Pb isotopic data allow sourcing of long-range transported Pb, specifically the fraction of Pb sourced in Asia, and so a comparison of the relative distances of PM sources between the high and low elevation sites. Samples were collected at the East River Watershed, CO (dry deposition collected over Sept.-Oct. 2016, show sampling winter 2017) and at the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (dry deposition collected over Sept-Nov 2016, July-Sept 2017, June-July 2017). The data includes Pb concentration data, as well as calculated fraction of the Pb sourced in Asia. This data set was published in part in O’Day et al. (2020) Phosphorus Speciation in Atmospherically Deposited Particulate Matter and Implications for Terrestrial Ecosystem Productivity. ES&T, https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06150

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

End-of-Century Changes in Orographic Precipitation with the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model over the Western United States

Abstract Downscaled precipitation projections were created using the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research (ICAR) model over the western United States to increase the physical realism in orographic precipitation changes. End-of-century simulations from eight models in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) were downscaled with ICAR and compared to the widely utilized statistically downscaled dataset, localized constructed analogs (LOCAs), to understand where and why projections of cool-season (September–May) precipitation differed. ICAR and LOCA precipitation projections were similar, but their sign differed in hydrologically relevant regions likely due to ICAR’s simulation of microphysics and mesoscale dynamics with high-resolution topography (6 km). In the Pacific Northwest, cool-season precipitation projections from ICAR showed an increase on the windward side of the Cascades and no significant change within the lee. This difference between the windward and leeward side was attributed to reduced zonal wind speeds, allowing more time for microphysical processes within ICAR. This contrast is enhanced by rain’s faster fall speed compared to snow, limiting transport into the lee. Meanwhile, LOCA projected an increase in precipitation across the Cascades. In the Upper Colorado River basin, LOCA projected an increase in precipitation in high elevation regions (>3000 m), but ICAR projected no significant change or a decrease in precipitation. High elevation differences were most evident in the spring and fall and were also attributed to a snow-to-rain transition and dynamical processes that impacted orographic enhancement within ICAR. Idealized, controlled studies are needed to better isolate individual processes, but these results underscore the importance of including microphysics and mesoscale dynamics within regional-scale precipitation projections. Significance Statement A set of global climate model simulations was downscaled using an atmospheric model that contains key physical equations, referred to as Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research (ICAR). ICAR was used to examine projected changes in end-of-century cool-season precipitation over mountains in the western United States. Precipitation projections from ICAR were similar to projections that used statistical relationships to downscale climate projections. However, projections differed between ICAR and statistically downscaled datasets in whether they increased, decreased, or stayed the same in specific, hydrologically relevant regions such as the eastern Cascades and high elevation areas of the Upper Colorado River basin. These differences were attributed to the simulation of physical processes in ICAR. The results highlight the importance of kilometer-scale atmospheric processes in regional climate projections.

Currier, William Ryan [NOAA/Physical Sciences Labo↗
DOE OSTI2024

Desert-Urban SysTem IntegratEd AtmospherIc Monsoon (DUSTIEAIM) in the Southwestern United States

Phoenix, Arizona, is the fifth-largest city in the United States with about 1.6 million residents. It is also considered to be the hottest major city in the country, having set a record of 31 consecutive days with temperatures above 110 F (43 C) in summer 2023. Phoenix depends on the Colorado River for over a third of its water supply, but there are questions about how much water will eventually be available to serve the rapidly growing metropolitan area, especially in such extreme heat. Current earth system models struggle to accurately capture precipitation in the Southwestern United States, especially in relation to the summertime North American Monsoon.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Financial Analysis of the High Flow Experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2023

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specified criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases. This report examines the financial implications of the high flow experiment (HFE) conducted at GCD during the spring of Water Year (WY) 2023 as required by the LTEMP HFE Protocol. This report is part of a series of reports that describe the financial costs of LTEMP experimental releases since the 2016 ROD was adopted in January 2017. Previous reports analyzed the impact of several past HFEs and Bug Flow Experiments. This report focuses on the HFE conducted in April 2023. For this experimental release, financial costs of approximately $1.33 million were incurred because the HFE required sustained water releases exceeding the power plant’s maximum turbine flow rate. In addition, during the experiment, operators were not allowed to shape GCD power production, either to follow Firm Electric Service (FES) customer day-ahead energy deliveries or to respond to market prices. This study identifies the main factors contributing to the HFE costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) financial impacts by simulating GCD under two types of cases; namely, (1) a “With Experiment” case that mimics the operations that actually occurred and (2) a “Without Experiment” case that simulates operations under the assumption that the HFE did not occur. The “With Experiment” case mimics operations during the HFE and the entire month the HFE occurred. It complies with LTEMP hourly and daily operating criteria. The “Without Experiment” case assumes that the HFE did not occur. The monthly water release volume is assumed to be identical under both cases. The Colorado River Storage Project Python-based model (CRiSPPy) model was the main modeling tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. In the modeling process, the research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and WAPA’s power purchases and sales prices. In addition to estimating the financial impact of the HFE, the team used the CRiSPPy model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the HFE, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bedrock weathering rates, reactive nitrogen influxes and effluxes, and nitrous oxide emissions rates from the Pumphouse Hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado

Atmospheric nitrous oxide contributes directly to global warming, yet models of the nitrogen cycle do not account for bedrock, the largest pool of terrestrial nitrogen, as a source of nitrous oxide. Although it is known that release rates of nitrogen from bedrock are large, there is an incomplete understanding of the connection between bedrock-hosted nitrogen and atmospheric nitrous oxide. Here, we quantify nitrogen fluxes and mass balances at a hillslope underlain by marine shale. We found that at this site bedrock weathering contributes 78% of the subsurface reactive nitrogen, while atmospheric sources (commonly regarded as the sole sources of reactive nitrogen in pristine environments) account for only the remaining 22%. About 56% of the total subsurface reactive nitrogen denitrifies, including 14% emitted as nitrous oxide. The remaining reactive nitrogen discharges in porewaters to a floodplain where additional denitrification likely occurs. We also found that the release of bedrock nitrogen occurs primarily within the zone of the seasonally fluctuating water table and suggest that the accumulation of nitrate in the vadoes zone, often attributed to fertilization and soil leaching, may also include contributions from weathered nitrogen-rich bedrock. Our hillslope study suggests that under oxygenated and moisture-rich conditions, weathering of deep, nitrogen-rich bedrock makes an important contribution to the nitrogen cycle. The data files are in Excel, which can be accessed using Microsoft Office, and consist of many data sets from the Pumphouse Hillslope PLM (Pumphouse Lower Montane) 1, 2, 3, and 4. They include soil to rock (0-10 meters) solid phase minerals and elements compositions; time- and depth-resolved pore-water chemistry and pore-gas compositions; time- and depth-resolved water table depths and water fluxes; subsurface weathering rates; nitrogen influxes and effluxes and mass balance. The attached paper is in a Word document, which can be accessed using Microsoft Office, and in pdf format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Water chemistry in flume channel and hyporheic zone (i.e., porewater) associated with: “Rethinking Aerobic Respiration in the Hyporheic Zone Under Variation in Carbon and Nitrogen Stoichiometry”

Dissolved oxygen (DO), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), molecular data for organic matter, and biochemical reactions for surface water and porewater (i.e., hyporheic zone) collected from a water recirculating flume located at the University of Texas, Austin. The flume contained real river water from Lower Colorado River(Austin, TX) and clean sand. Hyporheic exchange in the flume was induced through The study aims to understand relationships between aerobic metabolism of organic matter and molecular characteristics of organic matter, such as thermodynamic signature and nitrogen content, through the extent of the hyporheic zone at 10 cm- resolution, and through time. During the experiment, organic matter (dry leaves) was added to the flume and removed after 24 hours. The water samples were collected before the addition of leaves, at the time of removal of leaves, and at hour 72. The water samples were analyzed using ultrahigh resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) and total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) analysis. Dissolved oxygen content throughout the surface water and the hyporheic zone of the flume was measured with a large planar optode. This data package is associated with the publication ’ Rethinking Aerobic Respiration in the Hyporheic Zone Under Variation in Carbon and Nitrogen Stoichiometry’ published in Environmental Science and Technology (Turețcaia et al., 2023 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04765). The dataset is comprised of five folders (1) Diss_O2_pic, (2) input_files (3) output_files; (4) python_code; and (5) R_code . Diss_O2_pic contains siximages of dissolved oxygen distribution in a bedform at hours 0, 24, and 72 of the experiment conducted in a large recirculation flume. Images are in separate R and G channels (i.e., RGB). The input_files contains (1) a csv file with FTICR peaks identified within each sample, (2) a csv file with molecular information pertinent to FTICR data with Gibbs free energy calculations adjusted for environmental temperature, (3) a csv file containing concentrations of non-purgeable organic carbon measured throughout the experiment , (4) a csv file containing concentrations of total nitrogen measured throughout the experiment, (5) a csv file containing total biochemical reactions (i.e., transformations) identified in the dataset, (6) a csv containing transformation profiles, and (7) a csv file containing transformations with formulas, and (8) a jpg file with schematic representation of locations for sample collection. The output_files contains (1) and xlsx file containing percent biochemical reactions containing nitrogen identified across all 39 sample, (2) a csv file of merged FTICR data and molecular information files, (3) a csv files containing average Gibbs free energy within sampling domains and at each sampling location, (4) a csv file with average concentrations of dissolved oxygen across sampling locations at hour 0, (5) a csv file with average concentrations of dissolved oxygen across sampling locations at hour 24, (6) a csv file with average concentrations of dissolved oxygen across sampling locations at hour 72, (7) a csv file with percent chemical classes identified across sampling locations at hour 0, (8) a csv file with percent chemical classes identified across sampling locations at hour 24, (9) a csv file with percent chemical classes identified across sampling locations at hour 72, and (10) a csv file containing percent nitrogen containing biochemical reactions identified across sampling locations at hours 0, 24, and 72. The python_code contains seven ipynb files which are Jupyter Notebooks used for data analysis and figures generation. The R_code contains 3 R files with R code used for data analysis and figures generation. This data package contains the processed data used in the associated manuscript. This data has not been previously published.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2023

SAIL Aerosol Vertical Profiles (SAIL-AVP) Field Campaign Report

Aerosols are central to understanding the water cycle within mountainous regions, but a complete understanding of this role cannot be provided without vertically resolved observations, particularly for aerosol-cloud interactions, since we simultaneously need to know aerosol information and meteorology near cloud bases. The goal of SAIL Aerosol Vertical Profiles (SAIL-AVP) was to perform tethered balloon system (TBS) measurements during different seasons to elucidate process-level understanding of the aerosols and associated meteorological conditions within complex mountainous terrain. Measurements were conducted during the deployment of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s second Mobile Facility (AMF2) as part of the Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) campaign in the East River Watershed of the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) in southwestern Colorado. In mid-latitude continental interior mountain ranges, and especially at SAIL, aerosol vertical profiles and their relationships with meteorology are, almost without exception, inferred from a combination of ground-based and remote-sensing data. These flights provided many more dimensions to aerosol-cloud interactions that are unavailable to those inferential approaches: the TBS collected in situ information in the vertical, optical, chemical, and biological dimensions for aerosol-cloud interactions. Furthermore, the collocation of these flights with longstanding collaborative resources in the region, including the ongoing surface and subsurface hydrologic observations from the DOE’s Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), produced a unique set of atmospheric observations that are complemented by existing land-surface and subsurface (e.g., groundwater) observations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗