Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Data
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific data
  3. data descriptors
  4. article
A century long ensemble streamflow dataset in the Pacific Northwest to support water security assessments
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Data Descriptor
  • Open access
  • Published: 27 February 2026

A century long ensemble streamflow dataset in the Pacific Northwest to support water security assessments

  • Naoki Mizukami  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0893-58691,
  • Ethan D. Gutmann  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4077-34301,
  • Andrew W. Wood1,
  • Bart Nijssen  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-03222,
  • Jane M. Harrell3,
  • Christopher D. Frans4,
  • Michael D. Warner5 &
  • …
  • Chanel Mueller6 

Scientific Data , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 1631 Accesses

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Hydrology
  • Projection and prediction

Abstract

In the Pacific Northwest, ensemble projected streamflow datasets are valuable for assessing vulnerabilities and the resilience of reservoir systems across the region. These datasets are typically generated using a climate-hydrologic modeling chain that begins with coarse-resolution outputs from selected Earth System Model (ESMs) and socioeconomic scenarios, which are spatially downscaled, followed by hydrologic simulations driven by the downscaled meteorological forcing. In this work, a calibrated catchment-based hydrology and river model is forced by ESM outputs for several socioeconomic scenarios from the archives of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 5 and 6, which are downscaled using a computationally efficient weather model. The dataset comprises twenty-nine daily hydrologic traces from 1950 to 2099 for 18,000 river reaches. The dataset also includes a retrospective hydrologic simulation forced by an observation-based meteorological dataset used for hydrologic model calibration. Naturalized flows for 221sites are used to assess historical simulation fidelity. This dataset supports a variety of applications including reservoir modeling, ecological impact assessments, and hydrologic analyses under historical to projected climate conditions.

Similar content being viewed by others

The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America

Article Open access 24 January 2022

EStreams: An integrated dataset and catalogue of streamflow, hydro-climatic and landscape variables for Europe

Article Open access 13 August 2024

Naturalized and human-influenced streamflow of the Amur River for century-scale hydrological assessment

Article Open access 03 February 2026

Data availability

SUMMA and mizuRoute output data are available from the NSF NCAR Research Archive (https://doi.org/10.5065/8SAK-HM25)68. This archive includes an ancillary geospatial dataset including SUMMA HUC12 catchments, MERIT-basin river reaches and catchments, naturalized gauge points.

Code availability

All the model codes are available from the following GitHub repositories.

1. SUMMA v3.1.2: https://github.com/CH-Earth/summa/tree/v3.1.2

2. mizuRoute v1.2.3: https://github.com/ESCOMP/mizuRoute/tree/v1.2.3

3. MetSim v2.4.1: https://github.com/UW-Hydro/MetSim/tree/2.4.1

4. Bmorph v1.0.0: https://github.com/UW-Hydro/bmorph/tree/1.0.0

5. GMET v2.0: https://github.com/NCAR/GMET.

6. ICAR v2.1: https://github.com/NCAR/ICAR/tree/2.1

Examples of python notebooks are available at https://github.com/nmizukami/pnw_hydrology_analysis for majority of the technical validations used in this paper. These notebooks are compatible with the dataset downloaded from https://doi.org/10.5065/8SAK-HM25, and users are free to use and customize the codes as desired.

References

  1. Abatzoglou, J. T., Rupp, D. E. & Mote, P. W. Seasonal Climate Variability and Change in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. J. Clim. 27, 2125–2142, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00218.1 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mote, P. W., Hamlet, A. F., Clark, M. P. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Declining Mountain Snowpack in Western North America. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86, 39–49, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-39 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Casola, J. H. et al. Assessing the impacts of global warming on snowpack in the Washington Cascades. 22 2758–2772, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2612.1 (2009).

  4. Hidalgo, H. G. et al. Detection and Attribution of Streamflow Timing Changes to Climate Change in the Western United States. J. Clim. 22, 3838–3855, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli2470.1 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stoelinga, M. T., Albright, M. D. & Mass, C. F. A New Look at Snowpack Trends in the Cascade Mountains. J. Clim. 23, 2473–2491, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2911.1 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mote, P. W., Li, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., Xiao, M. & Engel, R. Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US. Npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci. 1, 2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Payne, J. T., Wood, A. W., Hamlet, A. F., Palmer, R. N. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Mitigating the Effects of Climate Change on the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin. Clim. Change 62, 233–256, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013694.18154.d6 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rupp, D. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hegewisch, K. C. & Mote, P. W. Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 118, 10, 810–884, 906 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50843 (2013).

  9. Elsner, M. et al. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim. Change 102, 225–260, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9855-0 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Werner, A. T., Schnorbus, M. A., Shrestha, R. R. & Eckstrand, H. D. Spatial and Temporal Change in the Hydro-Climatology of the Canadian Portion of the Columbia River Basin under Multiple Emissions Scenarios. Atmosphere-Ocean 51, 357–379, https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2013.821400 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schnorbus, M. A. & Cannon, A. J. Statistical emulation of streamflow projections from a distributed hydrological model: Application to CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate projections for British Columbia, Canada. Water Resour. Res. 50, 8907–8926, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015279 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chegwidden, O. S. et al. How do modeling decisions affect the spread among hydrologic climate change projections? Exploring a large ensemble of simulations across a diversity of hydroclimates. Earths Future 0, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001047 (2019).

  13. Bosshard, T. et al. Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1523–1536, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011533 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark, M. P. et al. Characterizing Uncertainty of the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2, 55–64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0034-x (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Model Outputs. Clim. Change 62, 189–216, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013685.99609.9e (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Maurer, E. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Dettinger, M. D. & Cayan, D. R. The utility of daily large-scale climate data in the assessment of climate change impacts on daily streamflow in California. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14, 1125–1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1125-2010 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abatzoglou, J. T. & Brown, T. J. A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. Int. J. Climatol. 32, 772–780, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2312 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R. & Thrasher, B. L. Statistical Downscaling Using Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA). J. Hydrometeorol. 15, 2558–2585, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-14-0082.1 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fowler, H., Blenkinsop, J. & Tebaldi, S. C. Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int. J. Climatol. 27, 1547–1578, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1556 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Li, H., Wang, Y., Huang, G., Tao, W. & Lin, P. Generative Downscaling and Bias Correction of Multivariable Earth System Model Simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 52, e2025GL117397, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL117397 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eum, H.-I., Gupta, A. & Dibike, Y. Effects of univariate and multivariate statistical downscaling methods on climatic and hydrologic indicators for Alberta, Canada. J. Hydrol. 588, 125065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125065 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gutmann, E. et al. An intercomparison of statistical downscaling methods used for water resource assessments in the United States. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7167–7186, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014wr015559 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mizukami, N. et al. Implications of the Methodological Choices for Hydrologic Portrayals of Climate Change over the Contiguous United States: Statistically Downscaled Forcing Data and Hydrologic Models. J. Hydrometeorol. 17, 73–98, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-14-0187.1 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wobus, C. et al. Modeled changes in 100 year Flood Risk and Asset Damages within Mapped Floodplains of the Contiguous United States. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2017-152 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gutmann, E., Barstad, I., Clark, M., Arnold, J. & Rasmussen, R. The Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model (ICAR). J. Hydrometeorol. 17, 957–973, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0155.1 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mendoza, P. A. et al. Effects of hydrologic model choice and calibration on the portrayal of climate change impacts. J. Hydrometeorol. 16, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0104.1 (2015).

  27. Hartke, S. H. et al. GARD-LENS: A downscaled large ensemble dataset for understanding future climate and its uncertainties. Sci. Data 11, 1374, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04205-z (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Feldman, D. R. & Risser, M. D. Future Increases in North American Extreme Precipitation in CMIP6 Downscaled with LOCA. J. Hydrometeorol. 24, 951–975, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-22-0194.1 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bennett, A., Stein, A., Cheng, Y., Nijssen, B. & McGuire, M. A Process-Conditioned and Spatially Consistent Method for Reducing Systematic Biases in Modeled Streamflow. J. Hydrometeorol. 23, 769–783, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-21-0174.1 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lybarger, N. D. et al. Improving Earth System Model Selection Methodologies for Projecting Hydroclimatic Change: Case Study in the Pacific Northwest. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 129, e2023JD039774, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039774 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Currier, W. R. et al. End-of-Century Changes in Orographic Precipitation with the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model over the Western United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 26, 577–595, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-24-0071.1 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Skamarock, W. C. & Klemp, J. B. A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. Predict. Weather Clim. Extreme Events 227, 3465–3485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Daly, C. et al. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Clim. 28, 2031–2064, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Thompson, G. & Eidhammer, T. A study of aerosol impacts on clouds and precipitation development in a large winter cyclone. J Atmos Sci 71, 3636–3658, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0305.1 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Niu, G.-Y. et al. The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 116, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139 (2011).

  36. Iacono, M. J. et al. Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res 113, D13103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Finch, J. W. & Best, M. J. The accuracy of downward short- and long-wave radiation at the Earth’s surface calculated using simple models. Meteor Appl 11, 33–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1350482703001154 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dee, D. P. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bennett, A., Hamman, J. & Nijssen, B. MetSim: A Python package for estimation and disaggregation of meteorological data. J. Open Source Softw. 5, 2042, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02042 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thornton, P. E. & Running, S. W. An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 93, 211–228 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00126-9 (1999).

  41. Clark, M. P. et al. A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017198 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Clark, M. P. et al. A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017200 (2015).

  43. Mizukami, N. et al. MizuRoute version 1: A river network routing tool for a continental domain water resources applications. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2223–2238, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2223-2016 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Broman, D. P. & Wood, A. W. Better Representation of Low Elevation Snowpack to Improve Operational Forecasts, Final Report No. ST-2019-178-01 to the Science and Technology Program. https://www.usbr.gov/research/projects/download_product.cfm?id=3099 (2021).

  45. Wood, A. W., Sturtevant, J., Barrett, J. L. & Llwewellyn, D. Improving the Robustness of Southwestern US Water Supply Forecasting, Final Report NO. ST-2018-8117-01 to the Science and Technology Program. https://www.usbr.gov/research/projects/download_product.cfm?id=3029, (2021).

  46. Sturtevant, J., Wood, A. W., Llewellyn, D. & Barrett, L. Benchmarking analog and ensemble-based reservoir system inflow prediction strategies for seasonal water management and planning. J Amer Wat Res Assoc, https://doi.org/10.31223/X5GB4Q (2025).

  47. Lin, P. et al. Global Reconstruction of Naturalized River Flows at 2.94 Million Reaches. Water Resour. Res. 55, 6499–6516, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025287 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E. & Berry, J. A. A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions. in In:Biggins, J. (eds) Progress in Photosynthesis Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0519-6_48 (Springer, Dordrecht, 1987).

  49. Mahat, V., Tarboton, D. G. & Molotch, N. P. Testing above- and below-canopy representations of turbulent fluxes in an energy balance snowmelt model. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1107–1122, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20073 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Raupach, M. R. Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length and zero-plane displacement as functions of canopy height and area index. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 71, 211–216, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00709229 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mahat, V. & Tarboton, D. G. Canopy radiation transmission for an energy balance snowmelt model. Water Resour. Res. 48, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010438 (2012).

  52. Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F. & Burges, S. J. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 14415–14428, https://doi.org/10.1029/94jd00483 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Celia, M. A., Bouloutas, E. T. & Zarba, R. L. A general mass-conservative numerical solution for the unsaturated flow equation. Water Resour. Res. 26, 1483–1496, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i007p01483 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jordan, R. A one-dimensional temperature model for a snow cover. Technical documentation for SNTHERM. 89, Special Report 16–91 (1991).

  55. Shangguan, W., Dai, Y., Duan, Q., Liu, B. & Yuan, H. A global soil data set for earth system modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 249–263, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013ms000293 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bennett, K. E., Werner, A. T. & Schnorbus, M. Uncertainties in Hydrologic and Climate Change Impact Analyses in Headwater Basins of British Columbia. J. Clim. 25, 5711–5730, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-11-00417.1 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Samaniego, L., Kumar, R. & Attinger, S. Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale. Water Resour. Res. 46, W05523, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007327 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mizukami, N. et al. Towards seamless large-domain parameter estimation for hydrologic models. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020401 (2017).

  59. Tolson, B. & Shoemaker, C. Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour. Res. 43, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004723 (2007).

  60. Matott, L. S. OSTRICH: an Optimization Software Tool, Documentation and User’s Guide. (2017).

  61. Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N. & Clark, M. P. The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-169 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kling, H., Fuchs, M. & Paulin, M. Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. J. Hydrol. 424–425, 264–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K. & Martinez, G. F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. 377, 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Bunn, P. T. W. et al. Improving Station-Based Ensemble Surface Meteorological Analyses Using Numerical Weather Prediction: A Case Study of the Oroville Dam Crisis Precipitation Event. J. Hydrometeorol. 23, 1155–1169, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-21-0193.1 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Newman, A. J. A. J. et al. Gridded Ensemble Precipitation and Temperature Estimates for the Contiguous United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 16, 2481–2500, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0026.1 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Clark, M. P. & Slater, A. G. Probabilistic Quantitative Precipitation Estimation in Complex Terrain. J. Hydrometeorol. 7, 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm474.1 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bonneville Power Administration. 2020 Level Modified Streamflow: 1928-2018. 1–278 https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/power/historical-streamflow-reports/2020-level-modified-streamflow.pdf (2020).

  68. Mizukami, N. et al. SUMMA Hydrology in the Pacific Northwest for Hydrologic System Vulnerability Assessments. Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory https://doi.org/10.5065/8SAK-HM25 (2025).

  69. Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V. & Wagener, T. A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model. Water Resour. Res. 44, W09417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006716 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pytlak, E. et al. Climate and Hydrology Datasets for RMJOC Long-Term Planning Studies: Second Edition (RMJOC-II) Part I: Hydroclimate Pro (p. 112). River Management Joint Operating Committee (RMJOC). 1–112 (2018).

  71. Zhou, X., Yamazaki, D., Revel, M., Zhao, G. & Modi, P. Benchmark Framework for Global River Models. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 17, e2024MS004379, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004379 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lema, F. et al. Technical note: What does the Standardized Streamflow Index actually reflect? Insights and implications for hydrological drought analysis. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 29, 1981–2002, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1981-2025 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Yang, X. et al. Comparison of the Calibrated Objective Functions for Low Flow Simulation in a Semi-Arid Catchment. Water 14, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172591 (2022).

  74. Staudinger, M., Stahl, K., Seibert, J., Clark, M. P. & Tallaksen, L. M. Comparison of hydrological model structures based on recession and low flow simulations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15, 3447–3459, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3447-2011 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Vano, J. et al. Comparing Downscaled LOCA and BCSD CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections - Release of Downscaled LOCA CMIP5 Hydrology. 96 (2020).

  76. Coxon, G. et al. CAMELS-GB: hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 671 catchments in Great Britain. Earth Syst Sci Data 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was primarily funded by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Grants (W26HM432051759, W26HM432051757, W26HM411547729 and HQUSACE17IIS/003) and was performed at the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is a research and development center of the U.S. National Science Foundation (under Cooperative Agreement No. 1852977). It leveraged modeling and development work underway with sponsorship from the US Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program, and high-performance computing support from the Derecho system (doi:10.5065/qx9a-pg09) provided by the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), sponsored by the National Science Foundation and CISL for providing computing support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

    Naoki Mizukami, Ethan D. Gutmann & Andrew W. Wood

  2. University of Washington, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seattle, WA, USA

    Bart Nijssen

  3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, USA

    Jane M. Harrell

  4. Bureau of Reclamation, Research and Development Office, Denver, CO, USA

    Christopher D. Frans

  5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, USA

    Michael D. Warner

  6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, Washington, DC, USA

    Chanel Mueller

Authors
  1. Naoki Mizukami
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ethan D. Gutmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew W. Wood
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bart Nijssen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jane M. Harrell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher D. Frans
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael D. Warner
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chanel Mueller
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.M. wrote the original draft; B.N., A.W., J.H., E.G. contributed text for sections of the manuscript; All the authors reviewed and edited the manuscript. E.G. contributed the generation of ICAR downscaled forcing. B.N. contributed the bmorph streamflow bias correction. A.W. contributed the baseline SUMMA-mizuRoute model implementation, the model calibration routines, and the GMET-based forcings and forcing preparation routines. N.M. further adapted the calibration routines, ran all model calibrations, adjusted the forcings, and performed all analyses, with input and review from the project team. J.H., M.W., C.F. and C.M. contributed the acquisition of the naturalized flow data. E.G., J.H., M.W., C.F. and C.M. also managed the projects. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Army, the Department of War, or the U.S. Government.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoki Mizukami.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mizukami, N., Gutmann, E.D., Wood, A.W. et al. A century long ensemble streamflow dataset in the Pacific Northwest to support water security assessments. Sci Data (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-06865-5

Download citation

  • Received: 29 September 2025

  • Accepted: 09 February 2026

  • Published: 27 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-06865-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Aims and scope
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Journal Metrics
  • Policies
  • Open Access Fees and Funding
  • Calls for Papers
  • Contact

Publish with us

  • Submission Guidelines
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Data (Sci Data)

ISSN 2052-4463 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing