HydroGeoSphere Modelling for Innovative Watershed Planning and Management

Owen Steele | Ducks Unlimited Canada Mason Marchildon | Oak Ridges Moraine Program Latornell 2017 Our Roots

• Canada’s largest conservation organization, founded in 1938 • 6.4 million wetland acres conserved nationally with 947,785 secured provincially. • Over 3,600 wetland conservation projects provincially, providing wetland and waterfowl habitat. Our Growth

• Waterfowl • Biodiversity • Species at risk • Natural Green Infrastructure o surface water quality o flood attenuation o groundwater recharge o carbon sequestration Our Direction

• Increased policy support for both protecting and restoring wetlands • Incorporating wetlands and wetland restoration planning into land use planning • Designated infrastructure funding for wetland restoration • Engaging in more science to inform restoration investment and effort Wetland modelling

Water quality

Wetland Residence “hydrologic function” time Water quantity

Flow Hydroperiod attenuation

Today’s presentation will focus specifically on watershed hydrology, and modelling wetlands and the role they play in peak flow attenuation.

“Does the presence of wetlands help mitigate floods?” Characteristics of a “Wetland”

1. Predominance of water near or above ground surface 2. Hydric soil conditions that differ from adjacent non-wetland areas 3. Vegetation specifically adapted to wet conditions

Maltby and Acreman (2011) Groundwater-wetland interaction

Discharge regime Recharge regime (water gained from the GW system) (water lost to the GW system)

Hayashi and Rosenberg (2002) Why is groundwater important?

Discharge regime: reduced storage capacity

upwelling Why is groundwater important?

Recharge (dry) regime: increased absorptivity

recharge A dynamic interaction

• Groundwater-wetland interaction is “bi-directional” • In time: Rosenberry and Winter (1997) observed “flow reversals” • In space: discharge and recharge can occur simultaneously at different locations within the same wetland (Roulet, 1990)

Many others have acknowledged/recognized the dynamic nature of groundwater-wetland relationships, flow reversals, bi-directionality, etc:

Hammer and Kadlec, 1986; Gilvear et.al., 1993; Restrepo et.al., 1998; McKillop et.al., 1999; Metcalfe and Buttle, 1999; Brassard et.al., 2000; Mansell et.al., 2000; Price and Waddington, 2000; Vining, 2002; Crowe et.al., 2004; Thompson et.al., 2004; Krause and Bronstert, 2005; Sun et.al., 2006; Acreman and Miller, 2007; Dietrich et.al., 2007; Kazezyilmaz-Alhan et.al., 2007; Jolly et.al., 2008; Hattermann et.al., 2008; Kazezyelmaz-Alhan and Medina Jr., 2008; Gasca and Ross, 2009; Thompson et.al., 2009; Maltby and Acreman, 2011; McLaughlin and Cohen, 2013; Golden et.al., 2014; Charbonneau and Bradford, 2016; Rahman et.al., 2016. Context

WETLAND-centric

Gauged outlet

WATERSHED-centric Past modelling efforts: traditional models

• Most wetland modelling employed existing codes: • SWAT (Wang et.al., 2008; Feng et.al., 2013; Evenson et.al., 2015; Rahman et.al., 2016; Rahman et.al., 2016) • PRMS (Vining, 2002) • SWMM (Charbonneau and Bradford, 2016) • SWIM (Hattermann et.al., 2008) • Others have created their own model codes: (Hammer and Kadlec, 1986; Ogawa and Male, 1986; Wynn and Liehr, 2001; Mansell et.al., 2000; Sun et.al., 1998) Past modelling efforts: traditional models

• All these models are “hydrological” in the sense that they fail to incorporate a dynamic groundwater-wetland interaction. • Many of the models require modification to incorporate wetland function, otherwise, • Modellers have to apply a “creative use of the model outputs” (Francesconi et.al., 2016) Past modelling efforts: traditional models

• These models historically used for flood forecasting • Meant for predicting flow at a gauge ( ) • Does not matter how water got to the gauge, only that it matches the observed

Gauged outlet Past modelling efforts: traditional models

• These models historically used for flood forecasting • Meant for predicting flow at a gauge ( ) • Does not matter how water got to the gauge, only that it matches the observed • All wetlands are aggregated into one super wetland

Gauged outlet Past modelling efforts: common assumptions

• Wetlands are “de-spatialized,” neglecting the importance of location and proximity (Rosenberry and Winter, 1997; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Golden et.al., 2014) • Unidirectional exchange, perched conditions/no vertical seepage (Hammer and Kadlec, 1986; Mansell et.al., 2000; Wynn and Liehr, 2001; Wang et.al., 2008; Kazezyelmaz-Alhan and Medina Jr., 2008; Feng et.al., 2013; Evenson et.al., 2015; Rahman et.al., 2016) • Wetlands are treated conceptually similar to impervious areas (Wang et.al., 2008 – HEW) • Wetlands modelled as flow diversions/partitioned into “open” and “closed” portions (Wang et.al., 2008 – HEW) Past modelling efforts: common assumptions

• Wetlands represented as system drains, from the perspective (Restrepo et.al., 1998) • Wetland function assumed to be identical and linearly additive. • Average/steady-state groundwater table (Hattermann et.al., 2008; Ameli and Creed, 2017) • Prescribed groundwater discharge assumes an infinite aquifer source (as noted by Acreman and Miller, 2007) • Negligible net groundwater influence (Mansell et.al., 2000) Past modelling efforts: common assumptions

• Groundwater system can be represented as a single-layer/2D unconfined system, with an impervious bottom (Sun et.al., 1998; Charbonneau and Bradford, 2016; Rahman et.al., 2016; Ameli and Creed, 2017) • Pre-defined, constant contributing area (Evenson et.al., 2015) • Wetlands represented as ponds with a constant surface area (Evenson et.al., 2015) • No lateral seepage (Evenson et.al., 2015) Wetland modelling: is there an alternative?

discretization

“distributed” model Wetland modelling: comparison

Traditional Distributed, Integrated vs.

• Requires extra parameterization • NONE – wetlands are emergent!! • Contributing area • Can disregard all those assumptions • Stage-storage-discharge relationships • Storage capacity • Transfer functions • Require code modification • Models can be used out-of-the-box • Aggregation of wetlands and their • Wetlands modelled independently function • Pre-defined seepage rate or • Explicit representation of the groundwater discharge rates that groundwater system must remain constant

Calibration has little-to-no value

(with respect to modelling aggregate wetland function at the watershed scale)

“Satisfactory calibration of a model, such as closure of the water balance, does not guarantee that the conceptual understanding is correct; rather it confirms that the conceptual understanding is plausible.” (Acreman and Miller, 2007)

“…differences in model performance as measured by standard performance criteria metrics should not be applied to evaluate the absolute utility of model revisions. Performance criteria metrics … are intended to evaluate a model’s capacity to predict streamflow values – not the model’s capacity to accurately represent hydrologic processes within a system…” (Evenson et.al., 2015)

Why the resistance?

Acreman and Miller, 2007 blames large effort on the seldom use of integrated, process-based distributed models, for example:

1. Surface water/groundwater interaction too hard to model (Price and Waddington, 2000) 2. Require high expertise (Golden et.al., 2014; Ameli and Creed, 2017) 3. High computation requirements (Ameli and Creed, 2017) 4. Difficult to represent individual wetlands at the watershed scale (Rahman et.al., 2016) 5. Heavy data requirements (Golden et.al., 2014) Wetland modelling of the Credit River Watershed

• 950 km² watershed • 4,063 identified wetlands, covering 79 km² • 1,370 km mapped drainage features • 30% agriculture, 29% developed Wetland modelling of the Credit River Watershed • Built using HydroGeoSphere • Fully integrated, process- based, distributed • 164,781 elements x 17 layers • All wetlands (>4,000) and all stream reaches represented independently • adapted from existing Source Water Protection model Wetland modelling of the Credit River Watershed Wetland modelling of the Credit River Watershed Experiment: dynamic wetlands?

The model can be run year round to capture seasonal saturation levels. Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

As saturation decreases, the number of wetlands originally discharging decreases, as the function reverts to a recharging regime.

Wetland function is dependent on seasonality. Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

Spring freshet Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

Winter or early summer Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

Mid summer or fall Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

Mid summer Experiment: flow reversal is apparent

Late summer Conclusions

We need to move forward and learn from the past

• Traditional modelling attempts have been upfront in their limitations. • Wetlands in southern Ontario are dynamic groundwater dependent ecosystems, and thus must be treated so. • Wetland attenuation depends on antecedent conditions which depend on the groundwater system. • Proper tools that alleviate the issues are available today. • With these tools, wetlands become an emergent property, not pre-defined by the modeller. • Tendency to require heavy data requirements… Conclusions

• ORMGP model custodianship program • Funded by the regions of York, Peel, Durham, and Toronto • 58 models with peer-reviewed hydrostratigraphy • From the Credit River through Lower Trent • All available upon request Thank you

Owen Steele Head of Conservation Programs - Ontario Ducks Unlimited Canada 740 Huronia Rd., Unit 1 Barrie, ON, L4N 6C6

Mason Marchildon P.Eng., M.A.Sc. Hydrologist Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program 101 Exchange Ave. Vaughan Ontario, L4K 5R6 [email protected]

Full model development report can be found at ResearchGate: www.researchgate.net/publication/319723719_Wetlands_and_Flood_Mitigation_in_Ontario_Natural_adaptation_to_extreme_ rainfall_pre-release Acreman, MC., F. Miller, 2007. Hydrological impact assessment of wetlands. In: Ragone S, Hernández-Mora N, de la Hera A, Bergkamp G, McKay, J. (eds.) The global importance Ameli, AA., IF. Creed, 2017. Quantifying hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to surface water systems. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 21: 1791-1808. Brassard, P., JM. Waddington, AR. Hill, NT. Roulet, 2000. Modelling groundwater-surface water mixing in a headwater wetland: implications for hydrograph separation. Hydrolog Charbonneau, C., A. Bradford, 2016. Wetland Modeling in PCSWMM: Exploring Options to Define Wetland Features and Incorporate Groundwater Exchanges. Journal of Water Costanza, R., FH. Sklar, 1985. Articulation, accuracy and effectiveness of mathematical models: A review of freshwater wetland applications. Ecological Modelling 27: 45-68. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et.al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-2 Costanza, R., R. De Groot, P. Sutton, S. Van Der Ploeg, SJ. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, et.al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environment Crowe, AS., SG. Shikaze, CJ. Ptacek, 2004. Numerical modelling of groundwater flow and contaminant transport to Point Pelee marsh. Hydrological Processes 18: 293-314. Dall'O', M., W. Kluge, F. Bartels, 2001. FEUWAnet: A multi-box water level and lateral exchange model for riparian wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 250: 40-62. Dietrich, O., M. Redetzky, K. Schwärzel, 2007. Wetlands with controlled drainage and sub-irrigation systems—modelling of the water balance. Hydrological Processes 21: 1814-1 Evenson, GR., HE. Golden, CR. Lane, E. D'Amico, 2015. Geographically isolated wetlands and watershed hydrology: A modified model analysis. Journal of Hydrology 529: 240-256 Feng, XQ., GX. Zhang, Y. Jun Xu, 2013. Simulation of hydrological processes in the Zhalong wetland within a river basin, Northeast China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17 Francesconi, W., R. Srinivasan, E. Pérez-Miñana, SP. Willcock, M. Quintero, 2016. Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: A systematic re Gasca, D., D. Ross, 2009. The use of wetland water balances to link hydrogeological processes to ecological effects. Hydrogeology Journal 17: 115-133. Gilvear, DJ., R. Andrews, TH. Tellam, JW. Lloyd, DN. Lerner, 1993. Quantification of the water balance and hydrogeological processes in the vicinity of a small groundwater-fed w Golden, HE., CR. Lane, DM. Amatya, KW. Bandilla, HR. Kiperwas, CD. Knightes, H. Ssegane, 2014. Hydrologic connectivity between geographically isolated wetlands and surface w Hammer, DE., RH. Kadlec, 1986. A Model for Wetland Surface Water Dynamics. Water Resources Research 22 (3): 1951-1958. Hattermann, FF., V. Krysanova, C. Hesse, 2008. Modelling wetland processes in regional applications. Hydrological Sciences 53 (5): 1001-1012. Hayashi, M., DO. Rosenberry, 2002. Effects of groundwater exchange on the hydrology and ecology of surface water (review paper). Ground Water 40: 309-317. Jolly, ID., KL. McEwan, KL. Holland, 2008. A review of groundwater–surface water interactions in arid/semi-arid wetlands and the consequences of salinity for wetland ecology. E Kazezyelmaz-Alhan, CM., MA. Medina Jr., 2008. The effect of surface/ground water interactions on wetland sites with different characteristics. Desalination 226: 298-305. Kazezyilmaz-Alhan, CM., MA. Medina Jr., CJ. Richardson, 2007. A wetland hydrology and water quality model incorporating surface water/groundwater interactions. Water Reso Krause, S., A. Bronstert, 2005. An advanced approach for catchment delineation and water balance modelling within wetlands and floodplains. Advances in Geosciences 5: 1-5. Maltby, E., MC. Acreman, 2011. Ecosystem services of wetlands: Pathfinder for a new paradigm. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56 (8): 1341-1359. Mansell, RS., SA. Bloom, G. Sun, 2000. A Model For Wetland Hydrology: Description And Validation. Soil Science 165 (5): 384-397. Marchildon, M., PJ. Thompson, S. Cuddy, EJ. Wexler, K. Howson, JDC. Kassenaar, 2016. A methodology for identifying ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas. Canad McKillop, R., N. Kouwen, ED. Soulis, 1999. Modeling the rainfall-runoff response of a headwater wetland. Water Resources Research 35 (4): 1165-1177. McLaughlin, DL., MJ. Cohen, 2013. Realizing ecosystem services: wetland hydrologic function along a gradient of ecosystem condition. Ecological Applications 23 (7): 1619-1631. Metcalfe, RA., JM. Buttle, 1999. Semi-distributed water balance dynamics in a small boreal forest basin. Journal of Hydrology 226: 66-87. Mitsch, WJ., JG. Gosselink, 2000. The value of wetlands: Importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35: 25-33. Ogawa, H., JW. Male, 1986. Simulating the flood mitigation role of wetlands. ASCE Journal of Water Resourses and Planning Management 112: 114-127. Price, JS., JM. Waddington, 2000. Advances in Canadian wetland hydrology and biogeochemistry. Hydrological Processes 14: 1579-1589. Rahman, M., JR. Thompson, RJ. Flower, 2016. An enhanced SWAT wetland module to quantify hydraulic interactions between riparian depressional wetlands, rivers and aquifers Restrepo, JI., AM. Montoya, J. Obeysekera, 1998. A Wetland Simulation Module for the MODFLOW Ground Water Model. Ground Water 36 (5): 764-770. Rosenberry, DO., TC. Winter, 1997. Dynamics of water-table fluctuations in an upland between two prairie-pothole wetlands in North Dakota. Journal of Hydrology 191: 266-289 Roulet, NT., 1990. Hydrology of a headwater basin wetland: groundwater discharge and wetland maintenance. Hydrological Processes 4: 387-400. Sun, G., H. Riekerk, NB. Comerford, 1998. Modeling the forest hydrology of wetland-upland ecosystems in Florida. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34 (4): 8 Sun, G., TJ. Callahan, JE. Pyzoha, CC. Trettin, 2006. Modeling the climatic and subsurface stratigraphy controls on the hydrology of a Carolina Bay wetland in South Carolina, USA Thompson, JR., H. Refstrup Sørenson, H. Gavin, A. Refsgaard, 2004. Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modelling system to a lowland wet grassland in southeast Eng Thompson, JR., H. Gavin, A. Refsgaard, H. Refstrup Sørenson, DJ. Growing, 2009. Modelling the hydrological impacts of climate change on UK lowland wet grassland. Wetlands E Toner, M., P. Keddy, 1997. River Hydrology and riparian wetlands: a predictive model for ecological assembly. Ecological Applications 7 (1): 236-246. Vining, KC., 2002. Simulation of streamflow and wetland storage, Starkweather Coulee subbasin, North Dakota, water years 1981-98. Water Resources Investigations Report 02- Wang, X., W. Yang, AM. Melesse, 2008. Using Hydrologic Equivalent Wetland Concept Within SWAT to Estimate Streamflow in Watersheds with Numerous Wetlands. Transactio Wynn, TM., SK. Liehr, 2001. Development of a constructed subsurface-flow wetland simulation model. Ecological Engineering 16: 519-536.