Improving a Regional Model Using Reduced Complexity and Parameter Estimation

The availability of powerful desktop computers and graphical user interfaces for ground water flow models makes possible the construction of ever more complex models. A proposed copper-zinc sulfide mine in northern Wisconsin offers a unique case in which the same hydrologic system has been modeled using a variety of techniques covering a wide range of sophistication and complexity. Early in the permitting process, simple numerical models were used to evaluate the necessary amount of water to be pumped from the mine, reductions in streamflow, and the drawdowns in the regional aquifer. More complex models have subsequently been used in an attempt to refine the predictions. Even after so much modeling effort, questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of the predictions remain. We have performed a new analysis of the proposed mine using the two-dimensional analytic element code GFLOW coupled with the nonlinear parameter estimation code UCODE. The new model is parsimonious, containing fewer than 10 parameters, and covers a region several times larger in areal extent than any of the previous models. The model demonstrates the suitability of analytic element codes for use with parameter estimation codes. The simplified model results are similar to the more complex models; predicted mine inflows and UCODE-derived 95% confidence intervals are consistent with the previous predictions. More important, the large areal extent of the model allowed us to examine hydrological features not included in the previous models, resulting in new insights about the effects that far-field boundary conditions can have on near-field model calibration and parameterization. In this case, the addition of surface water runoff into a lake in the headwaters of a stream while holding recharge constant moved a regional ground watershed divide and resulted in some of the added water being captured by the adjoining basin. Finally, a simple analytical solution was used to clarify the GFLOW model's prediction that, for a model that is properly calibrated for heads, regional drawdowns are relatively unaffected by the choice of aquifer properties, but that mine inflows are strongly affected. Paradoxically, by reducing model complexity, we have increased the understanding gained from the modeling effort.

[1]  Mary P. Anderson,et al.  Improving a Complex Finite‐Difference Ground Water Flow Model Through the Use of an Analytic Element Screening Model , 1998 .

[2]  S. S. Hughes,et al.  Evaluation of a groundwater corrective action at the Chem-Dyne Hazardous Waste Site using a telescopic mesh refinement modeling approach , 1987 .

[3]  M. Anderson,et al.  Simulating the influence of lake position on groundwater fluxes , 1994 .

[4]  J. Krohelski,et al.  Hydrology and water quality of the Forest County Potawatomi Indian Reservation, Wisconsin , 1993 .

[5]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  Methods and Guidelines for Effective Model Calibration , 2000 .

[6]  Randal J. Barnes,et al.  Model Calibration Techniques for Use with the Analytic Element Method , 1993 .

[7]  M. C. Hill,et al.  Five computer programs for testing weighted residuals and calculating linear confidence and prediction intervals on results from the ground-water parameter-estimation computer program MODFLOWP , 1994 .

[8]  M. Hill A computer program (MODFLOWP) for estimating parameters of a transient, three-dimensional ground-water flow model using nonlinear regression , 1992 .

[9]  Richard L. Cooley,et al.  Regression modeling of ground-water flow , 1990 .

[10]  Randall J. Hunt,et al.  Debating complexity in modeling , 1999 .

[11]  R. Hunt,et al.  Simulation of the recharge area for Frederick Springs, Dane County, Wisconsin , 2000 .

[12]  E. Poeter,et al.  Inverse Models: A Necessary Next Step in Ground‐Water Modeling , 1997 .

[13]  David E. Prudic,et al.  Documentation of a computer program to simulate stream-aquifer relations using a modular, finite-difference, ground-water flow model , 1989 .

[14]  Sherry Mitchell-Bruker,et al.  Modeling Steady State Conjunctive Groundwater and Surface Water Flow with Analytic Elements , 1996 .

[15]  K. Halford Effects of Steady‐State Assumption on Hydraulic Conductivity and Recharge Estimates in a Surficial Aquifer System , 1999 .

[16]  David L. Freyberg AN EXERCISE IN GROUND‐WATER MODEL CALIBRATION AND PREDICTION , 1988 .