Ali Dadkhah | Geology Reports

USGS2026

A roadmap for identifying and interpreting physical processes and national water model prediction bias associated with baseflow index regimes across the contiguous United States

Understanding how groundwater–surface water interactions shape streamflow variability is critical for diagnosing low flow behavior and prediction bias in continental scale hydrologic models. We present a process informed framework that links observed baseflow (BF) dynamics, watershed attributes, and National Water Model (NWM) performance across the contiguous United States. Using daily observed streamflow from 797 reference quality streamgages, we developed monthly baseflow index (BFI) signatures using a streamgage specific, calibrated digital filter. Hierarchical clustering of these signatures identified seven distinct BFI regimes capturing regional and seasonal variability. We evaluated NWM v3.0 retrospective streamflow performance within each regime using multiple hydrograph and flow duration curve-based metrics. Model skill varied systematically across regimes: mixed flow systems were simulated most accurately, while predominantly BF dominated and quickflow dominated regimes exhibited substantially poorer performance. Across nearly all regimes, the NWM underestimated observed BFI magnitude and frequently failed to reproduce seasonal BF patterns, indicating systematic biases in simulated low flow contributions. To relate these regimes to potential process controls, we trained a Random Forest classifier using static watershed attributes and applied Shapley Additive Explanations to identify features most strongly associated with each regime. Results highlight regionally varying influences, including the dominant role of snow fraction and seasonal runoff timing in snow dominated basins and the importance of evapotranspiration and aridity in quickflow dominated systems. Collectively, these findings demonstrate how hydrologic signatures combined with interpretable machine learning can diagnose regime specific model biases and generate process-based hypotheses about limitations in large scale hydrologic prediction systems.

contiguous United States↗

USGS2025

A spatiotemporal interrogation of hydrologic drought model performance for machine learning model interpretability

The predictive accuracy of regional hydrologic models often varies across both time and space. Interpreting relationships between watershed characteristics, hydrologic regimes, and model performance can reveal potential areas for model improvement. In this study, we use machine learning to assess model performance of a regional hydrologic model to forecast the occurrence of streamflow drought. We demonstrate our methodology using a regional long short-term memory (LSTM) deep learning model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and data from 384 streamgages across the Colorado River Basin region. Performance was assessed by clustering catchments using: (a) physical and climatological catchment attributes, and (b) streamflow drought signatures time series. We examined the association of USGS LSTM model error measures with clusters generated by both approaches to interpret meaningful spatial and temporal information about LSTM model performance. Clustering static catchment attributes identified elevation, degree of streamflow regulation, baseflow contribution, catchment aridity, and drainage area as the most influential attributes to model performance. Clustering gages by their drought signatures revealed that catchments with significant seasonal peak runoff between January and June generally exhibited better model performance. Additionally, a Random Forest classifier was trained to successfully predict LSTM model performance (F1 score of 0.72) based on physical and climatological catchment attributes. Low degree of flow regulation was identified as a key indicator of better LSTM model performance. These findings point to the opportunities for improving the USGS LSTM model performance in future hydrologic drought prediction efforts across regional and CONUS scales.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗