Comparative Review Integrated Models


Published on

AquaResource was contracted by the Province of Ontario to review Integrated Groundwater/Surface Water Models and provide recommendations on their applicability in the Province.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comparative Review Integrated Models

  1. 1. Comparative Review of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models<br />June 21, 2011<br />
  2. 2. Acknowledgements<br /><ul><li>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
  3. 3. Mike Garraway
  4. 4. Lynne Milford
  5. 5. DHI Water and Environment
  6. 6. Patrick Delaney
  7. 7. Ying Qiao
  8. 8. Doug Graham
  9. 9. Alberta Innovates
  10. 10. Dr. Jon Paul Jones
  11. 11. S.S. Papadopulos and Associates
  12. 12. Chris Neville
  13. 13. AquaResource Inc.
  14. 14. David Van Vliet
  15. 15. Steven Murray
  16. 16. Christian Gabriel</li></li></ul><li>Comparative Review of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models<br />Prepared by: <br />AquaResource Inc.<br />DHI Water and Environment<br />Alberta Innovates<br />S.S. Papadopulos and Associates<br />Prepared for: <br />The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources<br />Summary of Report<br /><ul><li>Compare available codes based on theory, numerical methods, and user experience
  17. 17. GSFLOW*
  18. 18. HydroGeoSphere*
  19. 19. MikeSHE**
  20. 20. ModHMS
  21. 21. Parflow
  22. 22. Ontario case studies. </li></ul>* Subwatershed 19 (Credit River)<br />** Mill Creek Subwatershed (Grand River) <br /><ul><li>Recommended modelling methods and procedures
  23. 23. Release Summer 2011</li></li></ul><li>Conjunctive Modelling – Why?<br />Conventional surface water or groundwater models don’t always reflect natural systems <br />Simplifying assumptions made for either groundwater or surface water portions of model.<br />Interpretation and quantification of interaction between surface water and groundwater system difficult. <br />The value of conventional models is reflected by the hydrological processes represented by those models<br />Traditional methods are not well suited to cumulative impact assessment. Unless physical processes are not well represented, marginal and incremental change prediction is uncertain<br />
  24. 24. Conjunctive Models Considered<br />
  25. 25. Model Evaluation GSFLOW (USGS)<br />Based on well established and accepted modelling codes <br />(PRMS + MODFLOW)<br />Supported by USGS<br />Open source, free<br />No dynamic stream routing, no overland flow routing<br />Soil water balance and runoff calculations highly empirical<br />Daily timesteps<br />
  26. 26. Model Evaluation – HydroGeoSphere (HGS) (University of Waterloo)<br />Variable finite element mesh resolution, excellent mass balance<br />Sophisticated subsurface model:<br />3D Richards representation of unsaturated zone. <br />Variable saturated groundwater flow as well as <br />Limited hydrologic processes (snowmelt, soil water balance, interflow)<br />long run times<br />
  27. 27. Model Evaluation – MIKE SHE (DHI Water and Environment)<br />Highly flexible, full GUI interface<br />Empirical and physical representations of hydrologic processes<br />Sophisticated post processing<br />Reasonable run times<br />DHI support<br />Uniform finite difference mesh<br />
  28. 28. Examples of Model Comparison Criteria<br />
  29. 29. Subwatershed 19<br />Credit River Watershed<br />Mill Creek<br />Grand River Watershed<br />Case Studies<br />Objectives<br />Compare models<br />Explore and demonstrate benefits of integrated models over traditional approaches<br />Develop recommended practices and methods<br />
  30. 30. Case Study: Credit Valley Subcatchment 19<br />
  31. 31. Case Study: Credit Valley Subcatchment 19<br />Headwaters of the Credit River - Approximately 60 km2<br />Land use: urban, agriculture, wetlands, aggregate.<br />Issues:<br />Municipal drinking water supply (groundwater)<br />Wastewater assimilation<br />Streamflow quality and quantity<br />Existing studies:<br />Subwatershed Study (CVC)<br />Tier Three Water Quantity Risk Assessment (MNR, municipalities)<br />Island Lake Water Budget Study<br />Existing Models<br />HSPF, GAWSER (Surface Water)<br />MODFLOW, FEFLOW (Groundwater)<br />
  32. 32. Integrated Models Provide Realistic ET Predictions<br />
  33. 33. Groundwater Recharge Predictions Influenced by Soils, Vegetation, Topography, Discharge<br />
  34. 34. Groundwater Discharge Into Wetlands Simulated Without Boundary Conditions<br />
  35. 35. Streamflow Impact Assessment<br />
  36. 36. Mill Creek Subwatershed<br />
  37. 37. Description of the Subwatershed<br />Covers an area of roughly 100 km2 and is situated between the Galt-Paris moraines. <br />The headwaters of Mill Creek are located southeast of Guelph, where Mill Creek flows southwest, joining the Grand River in downtown Cambridge (Galt). <br />Land cover within Mill Creek is predominantly agriculture, with forests and wetlands comprising the majority of the remaining land area. <br />Mill Creek supports cold-water fisheries, rich wetlands, and also has extensive aggregate production facilities within the watershed. <br />
  38. 38. Mill Creek Subwatershed Land Cover<br />
  39. 39. Calibration – Mike SHE Represents Low Flows Very Well. GW/SW Interactions Critical<br />
  40. 40. Variable ET Across Watershed, Influenced by Landuse, Wetlands, Aggregate Extraction<br />
  41. 41. Groundwater Discharge Critical Along Streams, Wetlands and Hillslopes<br />
  42. 42. Simulated Soil Moisture Reflects Delineated Wetlands<br />
  43. 43. Seasonal Soil Moisture Variability in Wetlands<br />
  44. 44. Conclusions<br />Benefits of Integrated Models over Traditional Models<br />Integrating groundwater and surface water models removes traditional assumptions (recharge, boundary conditions)<br />Realistic water budgets (ET, Influence of Topography)<br />Groundwater / surface water interactions (Wetlands, Hillslopes, Hummocky Areas) better handled<br />Physically-based continuous low flow predictions – needed for ecological flow assessments<br />Data requirements are similar to traditional approaches<br />Limitations<br />Computational Time – It can be manageable<br />Calibration Time – Reduced with experience<br />Urban Systems – Manage technical expectations<br />Learning Curve – Training requirements are significant<br />Success requires both surface water and groundwater modelling expertise<br />Costs are marginally extra than traditional methods but the results are much more meaningful<br />