Hydrology of the Delta Marsh Watershed: Water Balance Characterization and Analysis of Land Use Changes by Gregory John Schellenberg A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Gregory John Schellenberg Abstract A hydrological model was used to examine the water balance of the Delta Marsh Wa- tershed (DMW) currently and as impacted by land use changes. Understanding DMW hydrology can help to improve conditions in the Delta Marsh. MIKE SHE model results showed that the water balance is typical of prairie conditions with limited wintertime activity, significant spring melt runoff, and high summertime evapotranspiration and infiltration. Results showed that the DMW contributes approximately 40 million m3 of water to the Delta Marsh in an average year, or 710 m3/ha/yr. Portage Creek is the single greatest inflow from the watershed (31% of total) and the West Marsh area also receives large runoff volumes (combined 37% of total). Analysis of land use changes showed that urban expansion in the DMW would increase annual marsh inflows by over 50% under one urbanization scenario due to associated decreases in infiltration and transpiration. An agricultural shift towards row crop predominance would have minimal impact on the DMW water balance. Conversion of cropland to natural vegetation would decrease annual runoff by 12% to the marsh due to increased surface ponding, infiltration, and transpiration. i Acknowledgments I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the following people/organizations, with- out whom this thesis would not be possible: My co-advsiors, Dr. Shawn Clark and Dr. Trish Stadnyk for your guidance, support, feed- back, and patience throughout the course of the project. Thank you both for inspiring me to pursue a career in water resources engineering. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) for research funding through the Industrial Postgraduate Schol- arship. This scholarship afforded the invaluable opportunity to work together with many of DUC’s outstanding staff at both Oak Hammock and Delta Marshes. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Dale Wrubleski for your guidance, mentorship, and encourage- ment throughout the project - and for all the rides out to Oak Hammock! Thanks also to Dr. Pascal Badiou, Bob Emery, and Bryan Page for sharing your wealth of knowledge about the Delta Marsh and for providing field support without which this project would not be possible. Thank you to everyone at DUC for your patience in awaiting this thesis - I hope it was worth the wait! ii iii Everyone at Hatch for your encouragement and gentle nags of “is your thesis done yet?”. Your support and flexibility in helping me to complete this degree are truly appreciated. The staff and students I have had the privilege of working alongside. You all proved that great people and water resources engineering go hand-in-hand. In particular, our lab technologist and fearless fieldwork leader, Alexander Wall, for your countless contribu- tions to the project and your friendship. Parsa Aminian, for being with me every step of the way. My best memories of grad school will always be tied to you, and I could not be more grateful for that. I’m looking forward to many more years of putting work aside to joke around and enjoy each other’s com- pany. My family for your unwavering love and support through all these years of education. I cannot begin to thank you for everything you’ve done for me. Jackie Coleman, who has been my girlfriend, fiancée, and wife over the course of this program (proof that relationships can progress faster than graduate degrees!). More im- portantly, you have been a selfless cheerleader, my primary motivation, and my source of confidence. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for everything. Contents Abstract i Acknowledgments ii Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Motivation . 5 1.2 Objectives . 6 2 Literature Review 9 2.1 Canadian Prairie Hydrology . 10 2.1.1 Climate . 10 2.1.2 Evapotranspiration . 13 2.1.3 Infiltration . 17 2.1.4 Groundwater . 19 2.1.5 Overland flow . 22 2.2 Hydrological Modelling . 25 2.2.1 Model classifications . 26 2.3 Water Balance Characterization . 27 2.4 Land Use Changes . 31 2.5 The Delta Marsh . 35 3 Study Area and Data Collection 38 3.1 Location and General Background . 38 iv Contents v 3.2 Delta Marsh - Restoring the Tradition . 40 3.3 Field Data Collection . 42 3.3.1 Hydrometry . 43 3.4 Digital Data Collection . 47 3.4.1 Topography . 47 3.4.2 Land use . 51 3.4.3 Hydrography . 52 3.4.4 Meteorology . 53 3.4.5 Geology . 56 4 Project Methodology 58 4.1 Hydrological Model Selection . 59 4.2 Watershed Delineation . 63 4.2.1 DEM harmonization . 64 4.2.2 Wetland DEM Ponding Model . 66 4.2.3 Delineation and ground-truthing . 67 4.3 MIKE SHE Model Development . 71 4.3.1 Simulation specification . 73 4.3.2 Model domain and grid . 73 4.3.3 Topography . 76 4.3.4 Climate . 77 4.3.5 Land use . 82 4.3.6 River and lakes . 86 4.3.7 Overland flow . 91 4.3.8 Unsaturated zone . 95 4.3.9 Saturated zone . 100 4.4 Model Calibration . 102 4.4.1 Calibration data . 102 4.4.2 Calibration statistics . 106 4.4.3 Calibration procedure . 109 4.5 Model Validation . 111 4.5.1 Validation data . 112 4.6 Land Use Change Scenarios . 113 4.6.1 Urbanization . 113 4.6.2 Row crop . 116 4.6.3 Naturalization . 120 5 Results and Discussion 122 Contents vi 5.1 Calibration Results . 123 5.2 Validation Results . 131 5.3 Model Uncertainty . 137 5.4 Baseline Hydrologic Conditions . 139 5.4.1 Water balance . 140 5.4.2 Marsh inflows . 145 5.5 Land Use Change Results . 152 5.5.1 Urbanization . 153 5.5.2 Row crop . 155 5.5.3 Naturalization . 158 5.5.4 Relative marsh inflows . 160 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 164 6.1 Conclusions . 165 6.2 Limitations . 167 6.3 Significance of Findings . 169 6.4 Recommendations for Future Work . 170 Appendix A Supplementary Model Information 175 References 176 List of Tables 4.1 Breakdown and description of DMW land use classes . 84 4.2 Calibrated surface roughness parameters . 92 4.3 Definitions of UZ soil properties . 97 4.4 Calibrated UZ soil parameters . 98 4.5 Calibrated hydraulic conductivities and leakage coefficients . 99 4.6 Transition date ranges for surface-subsurface leakage coefficients . 100 4.7 Definitions of SZ hydrogeologic properties . 101 4.8 Calibrated SZ hydrogeologic parameters . 102 4.9 Primary model calibration parameters . 111 5.1 Incremental sensitivity analysis/calibration results by parameter set . 127 5.2 Calibration statistics for Portage Creek streamflow calibration . 130 5.3 Validation statistics for Portage Creek streamflow . 132 5.4 Total annual marsh inflow volumes . 147 5.5 Change in average annual marsh inflow volumes . 161 A.1 Land use classes by sub-basin . 175 vii List of Figures 2.1 Ecozones of Canada . 11 2.2 Climate normals of selected prairie cities . 14 3.1 Study area location plan . 39 3.2 Points of discharge measurement in the DMW . 45 3.3 Field measurement of point discharge . 46 3.4 Spatial coverage of DUC elevation contours . 49 3.5 Climate stations and data availability near the DMW . 54 4.1 WDPM output for a selected region . 68 4.2 Delineated DMW and sub-basin boundaries and DEM sources . 72 4.3 MIKE SHE model domain and grid layout/sizing . 76 4.4 Input precipitation and temperature timeseries . 80 4.5 Input reference evapotranspiration timeseries . ..