Accounting for surface-groundwater interactions and their uncertainty in river and groundwater models: A case study in the Namoi River, Australia

Surface-groundwater (SW-GW) interactions constitute a critical proportion of the surface and groundwater balance especially during dry conditions. Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater requires an explicit account of the exchange flux between surface and groundwater when modelling the two systems. This paper presents a case study in the predominantly gaining Boggabri-Narrabri reach of the Namoi River located in eastern Australia. The first component of the study uses the Upper Namoi numerical groundwater model to demonstrate the importance of incorporating SW-GW interactions into river management models. The second component demonstrates the advantages of incorporating groundwater processes in the Namoi River model. Results of the numerical groundwater modelling component highlighted the contrasting groundwater dynamics close to, and away from the Namoi River where lower declines were noted in a near-field well due to water replenishment sourced from river depletion. The contribution of pumping activities to river depletion was highlighted in the results of the uncertainty analysis, which showed that the SW-GW exchange flux is the most sensitive to pumping rate during dry conditions. The uncertainty analysis also showed that after a drought period, the 95% prediction interval becomes larger than the simulated flux, which implies an increasing probability of losing river conditions. The future prospect of a gaining Boggabri-Narrabri reach turning into losing was confirmed with a hypothetical extended drought scenario during which persistent expansion of groundwater pumping was assumed. The river modelling component showed that accounting for SW-GW interactions improved the predictions of low flows, and resulted in a more realistic calibration of the Namoi River model. Incorporating SW-GW interactions into river models allows explicit representation of groundwater processes that provides a mechanism to account for the impacts of additional aquifer stresses that may be introduced beyond the calibration period of the river model. Conventional river models that neglect the effects of such future stresses suffer from the phenomenon of non-stationarity and hence have inferior low flow predictions past the calibration period of the river model. The collective knowledge acquired from the two modelling exercises conducted in this study leads to a better understanding of SW-GW interactions in the Namoi River thus leading to improved water management especially during low flow conditions.

[1]  John Knight,et al.  Groundwater head responses due to random stream stage fluctuations using basis splines , 2007 .

[2]  David W. Rassam,et al.  Conceptualisation and application of models for groundwater-surface water interactions and nitrate attenuation potential in riparian zones , 2008, Environ. Model. Softw..

[3]  John Doherty,et al.  Two statistics for evaluating parameter identifiability and error reduction , 2009 .

[4]  M. Andersen,et al.  Stream-aquifer interactions in the Maules Creek catchment, Namoi Valley, New South Wales, Australia , 2009 .

[5]  K. Ivkovic,et al.  A top–down approach to characterise aquifer–river interaction processes , 2009 .

[6]  C. Daamen,et al.  Mid-Murrumbidgee groundwater model calibration report : A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project , 2008 .

[7]  Harihar Rajaram,et al.  Incorporating groundwater-surface water interaction into river management models. , 2010, Ground water.

[8]  John Doherty,et al.  Approaches to Highly Parameterized Inversion: A Guide to Using PEST for Model-Parameter and Predictive-Uncertainty Analysis , 2014 .

[9]  C. Tiedeman,et al.  Effective Groundwater Model Calibration , 2007 .

[10]  R. Therrien,et al.  Modeling Surface Water‐Groundwater Interaction with MODFLOW: Some Considerations , 2010, Ground water.

[11]  M. L. Kavvas,et al.  Modeling surface water , 1989 .

[12]  A. Bronstert,et al.  Groundwater-surface water interactions in a North German lowland floodplain : Implications for the river discharge dynamics and riparian water balance , 2007 .

[13]  Edward R. Banta,et al.  A new streamflow-routing (SFR1) package to simulate stream-aquifer interaction with MODFLOW-2000 , 2004 .

[14]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  UCODE_2005 and six other computer codes for universal sensitivity analysis, calibration, and uncertainty evaluation constructed using the JUPITER API , 2006 .

[15]  Barry Croke,et al.  Use of a simple surface–groundwater interaction model to inform water management , 2009 .

[16]  Marios Sophocleous,et al.  Review: groundwater management practices, challenges, and innovations in the High Plains aquifer, USA—lessons and recommended actions , 2010 .

[17]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model; user guide to the observation, sensitivity, and parameter-estimation processes and three post-processing programs , 2000 .

[18]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[19]  John L. Nieber,et al.  Regionalized drought flow hydrographs from a mature glaciated plateau , 1977 .

[20]  Richard M. Shane,et al.  RIVERWARE: A GENERALIZED TOOL FOR COMPLEX RESERVOIR SYSTEM MODELING 1 , 2001 .

[21]  J. Doherty,et al.  Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error , 2005 .

[22]  D. E. Prudic,et al.  GSFLOW - Coupled Ground-Water and Surface-Water Flow Model Based on the Integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005) , 2008 .

[23]  Marios Sophocleous,et al.  Retracted: On Understanding and Predicting Groundwater Response Time , 2012, Ground water.

[24]  F. Malard,et al.  Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions , 2003 .

[25]  Joseph H. A. Guillaume,et al.  Characterising performance of environmental models , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[26]  Romuald Szymkiewicz,et al.  Simplified Equations of the Unsteady Flow in Open Channel , 2010 .

[27]  Richard G. Niswonger,et al.  Documentation of the Streamflow-Routing (SFR2) Package to Include Unsaturated Flow Beneath Streams - A Modification to SFR1 , 2005 .

[28]  R. Hunt,et al.  The importance of diverse data types to calibrate a watershed model of the Trout Lake Basin, Northern Wisconsin, USA , 2006 .

[29]  Marc Leblanc,et al.  Groundwater–surface water interaction and the impact of a multi-year drought on lakes conditions in South-East Australia , 2009 .

[30]  David W. Rassam,et al.  Incorporating land-use changes and surface-groundwater interactions in a simple catchment water yield model , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[31]  Jin Teng,et al.  An integrated modelling framework for regulated river systems , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[32]  W. Schmid,et al.  The Farm Process Version 2 (FMP2) for Modflow-2005-Modifications and Upgrades to FMP1 , 2014 .

[33]  F. H. Dawson,et al.  Groundwater dominated rivers , 1999 .

[34]  T. C. Winter,et al.  Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource , 1999 .

[35]  Edward A. Gardner,et al.  1. Field and Laboratory Studies of Acid Sulfate Soils , 2002 .

[36]  Z. Paydar,et al.  Uncertainty in river modelling across the Murray-Darling Basin , 2008 .

[37]  Thomas C. Winter,et al.  Ground water and surface water a single resource: U , 1998 .

[38]  David W. Rassam,et al.  A conceptual framework for incorporating surface-groundwater interactions into a river operation-planning model , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[39]  Ali Fares,et al.  Influence of groundwater pumping and rainfall spatio-temporal variation on streamflow. , 2010 .