Two maps, compiled at 1:1,000,000 scale, depict mean annual runoff, precipitation, and evapotranspiration in the part of the United States east of Cleveland, Ohio and north of the southern limit of glaciation. The maps are mutually consistent in that runoff equals precipitation minus evapotranspiration everywhere. The runoff map is based on records of streamflow from 503 watersheds in the United States and southernmost Canada, adjusted to represent 1951-80 and supplemented by records of precipitation at 459 stations. Precipitation at each station was partitioned into point estimates of runoff and evapotranspiration, which were constrained such that the evapotranspiration estimates varied smoothly across the region and decreased with increasing latitude and altitude, and the runoff estimates were consistent with measured runoff from nearby watersheds. A point estimate of runoff was allowed to equal mean runoff in a nearby watershed, or to be somewhat higher (or lower) if a compensating departure from mean watershed runoff could be inferred in distant parts of the watershed on the basis of altitude or regional trends. Then, precipitation contours were drawn to parallel runoff contours but differ from them by the magnitude of nearby estimates of evapotranspiration. These maps may slightly underrepresent mean precipitation and evapotranspiration in areas of high relief because most precipitation stations in such areas are in valleys. These 3 coverages were used to produce Open-File Report 96-395. Additional information about methodology can be found in this report

Two maps, compiled at 1:1,000,000 scale, depict mean annual runoff, precipitation, and evapotranspiration in the part of the United States east of Cleveland, Ohio and north of the southern limit of glaciation. The maps are mutually consistent in that runoff equals precipitation minus evapotranspiration everywhere. The runoff map is based on records of streamflow from 503 watersheds in the United States and southernmost Canada, adjusted to represent 1951-80 and supplemented by records of precipitation at 459 stations. Precipitation at each station was partitioned into point estimates of runoff and evapotranspiration, which were constrained such that the evapotranspiration estimates varied smoothly across the region and decreased with increasing latitude and altitude, and the runoff estimates were consistent with measured runoff from nearby watersheds. A point estimate of runoff was allowed to equal mean runoff in a nearby watershed, or to be somewhat higher (or lower) if a compensating departure from mean watershed runoff could be inferred in distant parts of the watershed on the basis of altitude or regional trends. Then, precipitation contours were drawn to parallel runoff contours but differ from them by the magnitude of nearby estimates of evapotranspiration. These maps may slightly underrepresent mean precipitation and evapotranspiration in areas of high relief because most precipitation stations in such areas are in valleys. These 3 coverages were used to produce Open-File Report 96-395. Additional information about methodology can be found in this report

Two maps, compiled at 1:1,000,000 scale, depict mean annual runoff, precipitation, and evapotranspiration in the part of the United States east of Cleveland, Ohio and north of the southern limit of glaciation. The maps are mutually consistent in that runoff equals precipitation minus evapotranspiration everywhere. The runoff map is based on records of streamflow from 503 watersheds in the United States and southernmost Canada, adjusted to represent 1951-80 and supplemented by records of precipitation at 459 stations. Precipitation at each station was partitioned into point estimates of runoff and evapotranspiration, which were constrained such that the evapotranspiration estimates varied smoothly across the region and decreased with increasing latitude and altitude, and the runoff estimates were consistent with measured runoff from nearby watersheds. A point estimate of runoff was allowed to equal mean runoff in a nearby watershed, or to be somewhat higher (or lower) if a compensating departure from mean watershed runoff could be inferred in distant parts of the watershed on the basis of altitude or regional trends. Then, precipitation contours were drawn to parallel runoff contours but differ from them by the magnitude of nearby estimates of evapotranspiration. These maps may slightly underrepresent mean precipitation and evapotranspiration in areas of high relief because most precipitation stations in such areas are in valleys. These 3 coverages were used to produce Open-File Report 96-395. Additional information about methodology can be found in this report

This dataset includes 1km resolution monthly timescale estimates of the contributions to the quick-flow runoff component of the water budget over the time period from 1895-2017. These estimates were developed with a regression for surface runoff data generated from a USGS-developed hydrograph separation program (PART) run on streamflow data from 1301 gaged watersheds as a function of surficial geology type (USGS), precipitation (PRISM), slope (NHD), and soil hydraulic conductivity (STATSGO). The quantities for quick-flow runoff do not include inter-pixel transfers, so do not capture within-watershed variations due to such transfers such as downstream runoff accumulation, but rather represent the portion of the precipitation entering each cell that ultimately contributes to the quick-flow runoff component. Methods are fully described in an article in the Journal of Hydrology; this dataset will be updated with the complete article citation when available.

This data release contains daily time series estimates of natural streamflow at 5,439 GAGES-II non-reference streamgages in 19 study regions across the conterminous United States from October 1, 1980 through September 30, 2017, using five statistical techniques: nearest-neighbor drainage area ratio (NNDAR), map-correlation drainage area ratio (MCDAR), nearest-neighbor nonlinear spatial interpolation using flow duration curves (NNQPPQ), map-correlation nonlinear spatial interpolation using flow duration curves (MCQPPQ), and ordinary kriging of the logarithms of discharge per unit area (OKDAR). NNDAR, MCDAR, NNQPPQ, and MCQPPQ estimates were computed following methods described in Farmer and others (2014), with updates to the flow-duration curve modeling which is described in Over and others (2018). OKDAR estimates were computed using pooled variograms for each study region following methods described in Farmer (2016). Daily streamflow estimation was conducted by study region (hydrologic unit code level-2 regions as defined in Falcone, 2011) by building statistical models using 1,385 GAGES-II reference streamgages from mostly undisturbed watersheds as index gages (Russell and others, 2020). Estimates were then made at GAGES-II non-reference streamgages. Location information and basin characteristics for study gages were obtained from the GAGES-II dataset (Falcone, 2011). Observed daily streamflow data were retrieved from the National Water Information System (USGS, 2019). This data release contains 19 separate zip files; one for each study region. Each zip file contains an individual tab-delimited text file for each non-reference streamgage in the study region. A text file summarizing period of record information for each non-reference streamgage is provided (non-reference_gages_summary.csv). This data release also contains a text file (Model_info.csv) of regional regression equations for 27 flow quantiles that were developed in each study region in order to implement the QPPQ methods and a text file (BC_transformations.csv) describing transformations made to the GAGES-II derived basin characteristics prior to use in the regression equations. The five sets of streamflow estimates represent expected natural streamflow conditions with minimal disturbance by human activities, in other words, without the effects of regulation, diversion, land development, or other anthropogenic activities. The observed streamflow records at the non-reference streamgages were compared to the five simulated streamflow records. These performance metrics are provided at each gage for all five statistical methods (NonRef_PMs_byStation.csv) and as summaries by region (NonRef_PM_summaries_byRegion.csv). References cited: Falcone, J.A., 2011, GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow [digital spatial dataset]: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources NSDI Node web page, https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?gagesII_Sept2011. Farmer, W.H., Archfield, S.A., Over, T.M., Hay, L.E., LaFontaine, J.H., and Kiang, J.E., 2014, A comparison of methods to predict historical daily streamflow time series in the southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5231, 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145231. Farmer, W. H., 2016, Ordinary kriging as a tool to estimate historical daily streamflow records, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 2721-2735, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2721-2016. Over, T.M., Farmer, W.H., and Russell, A.M., 2018, Refinement of a regression-based method for prediction of flow-duration curves of daily streamflow in the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5072, 34 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185072. Russell, A.M., Over, T.M., and Farmer, W.H., 2020, Cross-validation results for five statistical methods of daily streamflow estimation at 1,385 reference streamgages in the conterminous United States, Water Years

This metadata record describes the observed and estimated hydrologic metrics for the 1980 to 2019 period for U.S. Geological Survey streamgage locations across the Conterminous United States. The datasets are arranged in four files: (1) CONUS_Observed_Estimated_HMs_Annual_Monthly.csv, (2) CONUS_Bootstrap_Validations_for_Models.csv, (3) CONUS_Streamflow_Gages_for_Models.csv, and (4) Data_Dictionary_Flow_Metrics.csv. The CONUS_Observed_Estimated_HMs_Annual_Monthly.csv file contains the following six attributes: (1) the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage identification number, (2) calendar year, (3) observed hydrologic metric, (4) estimated hydrologic metric, (5) hydrologic metric abbreviation, and (6) aggregated level 2 ecoregion. The observed hydrologic metrics were calculated using collected streamflow daily values from U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gaging stations (U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System, http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN), and the estimated hydrologic metrics were estimated by cross-sectional time series random forest modeling methods by Miller, M.P., Carlisle, D.M., Wolock, D.M., and Wieczorek, M., 2018, A database of natural monthly streamflow estimates from 1950 to 2015 for the conterminous United States: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 54(6), 1258-1269 [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12685]. Forty-seven hydrologic metrics representing magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing were calculated. The hydrologic metric abbreviations, definitions, units, and citations are detailed in the Data_Dictionary_Flow_Metrics.csv file. The low- and high-flow magnitudes were calculated from the 10th and 90th percentile non-exceedence streamflows divided by the drainage area, respectively. The low- and high-flow frequencies were calculated as the number of pulses below the 10th and above the 90th percentile values, respectively. The low- and high-flow durations were calculated from the length of time (in days) that the streamflow was below the 10th percentile or above the 90th percentile, respectively. The low- and high-flow seasonality values were calculated based on frequency of occurrence in different seasons (for more details, please see Eng, K., Carlisle, D.M., Grantham, T.E., Wolock, D.M., and Eng, R.L., 2019, Severity and extent of alterations to natural streamflow regimes based on hydrologic metrics in the conterminous United States, 1980-2014: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2019-5001, 25 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195001]. The CONUS_Streamflow_Gages_for_Models.csv file contains the U.S. Geological Survey list of streamflow gaging stations used in cross-sectional time series random forest models. The CONUS_Bootstrap_Validations_for_Models.csv file lists the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gaging stations used in the bootstrapped validation data sets used to assess model performance. In addition, bootstrap validation also assesses model robustness by testing various calibration configurations. These bootstrap validation data sets may contain random amounts of observations that are outside the range of the observations used in the calibration, and/or observations that are not independent from one another. There are no missing values in any of the files. The three data files are in a comma separated value text format.

This data set represents the average monthly precipitation in millimeters multiplied by 100 for 2002 compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data were the Near-Real-Time Monthly High-Resolution Precipitation Climate Data Set for the Conterminous United States (2002) raster dataset produced by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service at Oregon State University. The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

This data release provides a monthly irrigation water use reanalysis for the period 2000-20 for all U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset of Subwatersheds (Hydrologic Unit Code 12 [HUC12]) in the conterminous United States (CONUS). Results include reference evapotranspiration (ETo), actual evapotranspiration (ETa), irrigated areas, consumptive use, and effective precipitation for each HUC12. ETo and ETa were estimated using the operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEBop, Senay and others, 2013; Senay and others, 2020) model executed in the OpenET (Melton and others, 2021) web-based application implemented in Google Earth Engine. Results provided by OpenET/SSEBop were summarized to hydrologic response units (HRUs) in the National Hydrologic Model (NHM; Regan and others, 2019) to estimate consumptive use and effective precipitation on irrigated lands. Irrigated lands for the CONUS were provided by the Landsat-based Irrigation Dataset (LANID; Xie and others, 2019) for each year of the reanalysis period. Consumptive use estimates provided by the NHM were disaggregated to HUC12s using area weighted intersections with HRUs and the relative proportion of irrigated lands in each intersected area. These datasets are generated during the irrigation reanalysis workflow (irrigation_reanalysis.7zip). The files actet_openet.cbh, potet_openet.cbh, and dyn_ag_frac.param are created in step one of the workflow, which involves converting daily OpenET/SSEBop results into inputs for the NHM. All other files are produced by the NHM and are utilized for calculating irrigation consumptive use and effective precipitation.