field methodologies - eWater

Estimation and prediction of the exchange of groundwater and surface water: field methodologies Jeffrey V. Turner

eWater Cooperative Research Centre eWater Limited ABN 47 115 422 903 Building 15, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia Phone +61 2 6201 5168 Fax +61 2 6201 5038 www.ewatercrc.com.au

1

eWater Technical Report

Estimation and prediction of the exchange of groundwater and surface water: field methodologies

Jeffrey V. Turner

CSIRO Land and Water

CSIRO is a partner in eWater CRC

November 2009 eWater Cooperative Research Centre Technical Report

eWater CRC is a cooperative joint venture between 47 partner organisations engaged in water management and water research. The CRC’s work supports the ecologically and economically sustainable use of Australia’s water and river systems. eWater CRC teams are building the next generation of forecasting and decision tools for the water-management industry, driven by partner requirements and based on best available science. The CRC is part of the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. Please cite this report as: Turner J.V. 2009. Estimation and prediction of the exchange of groundwater and surface water: field methodologies. eWater Technical Report. eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra. http://ewatercrc.com.au/reports/Turner-2009-Field_Methodologies.pdf This report has been independently reviewed. This work was done from 2006 to 2008 under eWater project 1.D.103 (the D3 project on groundwater). Contact information: Jeffrey Turner. CSIRO Land and Water, Wembley, Western Australia http://www.clw.csiro.au/staff/TurnerJ/

© eWater Cooperative Research Centre 2009 This report is copyright. It may be reproduced without permission for purposes of research, scientific advancement, academic discussion, record-keeping, free distribution, educational use or other public benefit, provided that any such reproduction acknowledges eWater CRC and the title and authors of the report. All commercial rights are reserved. Published November 2009 ISBN 978-1-921543-23-4 eWater CRC Innovation Centre University of Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Phone Fax Email Web

(02) 6201 5168 (02) 6201 5038 [email protected] www.ewatercrc.com.au

Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 3 Context...................................................................................................................................... 6 Workshop on the measurement of groundwater–surface water exchange fluxes ................... 10 Identification of the key issues............................................................................................ 10 Identification of available techniques.................................................................................. 10 Compilation and review of groundwater–surface water interaction estimation methodologies 12 Baseflow analysis estimation techniques and hydrograph separation by physical analysis.................................................................................................................... 12 Physical methods (point) .................................................................................................... 12 Temperature profiling of various types.......................................................................... 12 Hydraulic potential methods.......................................................................................... 12 Seepage meters............................................................................................................ 12 Station-to-station river flow measurement ..................................................................... 12 Modelling methods – field oriented ............................................................................... 13 Tracer methods .................................................................................................................. 13 In-stream hydrogeochemical analysis and tracer-based hydrograph separation methods.............................................................................................................. 13 Geophysical methods.................................................................................................... 14 Nesting methods ........................................................................................................... 14 Distributed physical and hydrological (hydrographical) methods ....................................... 14 Typological approaches ................................................................................................ 14 Hydrogeomorphology and hydrogeomorphic analysis .................................................. 14 Analysis of river channel geometry – river meander physical structure ........................ 15 Evaluation of assessment methods ......................................................................................... 17 Australian aquifer systems ................................................................................................. 17 Ranking of suitability........................................................................................................... 18 Evaluation of technique attributes ...................................................................................... 19 Applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies to water resource double accounting.................................................................................................... 21 Application of methodologies for validation of a Level 1 model: 2Csalt .........,,.................. 22 New approaches ...................................................................................................................... 23 Default data techniques over large stretches of river ......................................................... 24 Spectral analysis approaches ....................................................................................... 24 DEM/typology................................................................................................................ 25 Terrain analysis based techniques: high resolution GIS/DEM and frequency analysis .............................................................................................................. 25 Practical approach ........................................................................................................ 26 Synoptic coupled water-balance approach ................................................................... 28 Integration of techniques at different scales ....................................................................... 30 Discussion of knowledge needs ......................................................................................... 30 Field sites................................................................................................................................. 31 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 32 Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 32 References............................................................................................................................... 33

Summary This report presents the outcomes of a review and analysis of field methods and methodological approaches for estimating and predicting the exchange flux between groundwater and surface water in river systems. It is one of a series of three reports, the other two being ‘Catalogue of Conceptual Models for Groundwater–Stream Interaction’ (Reid et al. 2009) and ‘Review of Groundwater–Surface water Interaction Modelling’ (Rassam and Werner 2008) prepared by eWater CRC’s groundwater team. The aim of the work was twofold: first, to estimate exchange fluxes between groundwater and surface water for lowland rivers, and second, to predict how these might change under existing or different management of groundwater and surface water. This text therefore addresses a major recognised deficiency in the management of stressed or threatened Australian catchments: it sets out to account for groundwater–stream interaction within the water budget. In this report, 12 field methods or classes of field method are reviewed in the context of their applicability to aquifer system and landscape settings. (These methods were identified in the earlier ‘Catalogue of Conceptual Models for Groundwater–Stream Interaction’.) The methods are ranked here according to their suitability and mapped across the aquifer system and landscape setting by assigning a ‘suitability of application’ ranking. They are also ranked in relation to spatial and temporal scales, reliability, cost of implementation, type of system and capability for flux quantification. The issue of groundwater resource double accounting (DA), in which groundwater that could have contributed to river flow is intercepted by pumping, is addressed by identifying the most applicable field methods.1 We identify several emerging technologies that embody scientific issues, in particular technologies that provide methods for up-scaling groundwater– surface water interaction. These methods include: approaches based on high resolution digital elevation model (DEM) / geographical information systems (GIS); frequency analysis of topographical and other attributes that could be applied to up-scaling; techniques of Fourier analysis; typological methods; and approaches based on synoptic, nested water-solute, and isotope massbalance. While these topics are more or less in the research and development 1

The outcomes of this process might provide the basis of a workplan for developing, testing and delivering appropriate field methods. These could be applied within a Catchment Modelling Toolkit framework. Possible purposes might include: (i) consideration of methods relevant for addressing key groundwater–surface water interaction issues; (ii) validation of software analysis tools at a range of scales; (iii) identification of field methods (perhaps applied at several proposed field sites) as a support to model analysis and validation of groundwater–surface water flux assessments; (iv) development of new field and analysis techniques that build upon and supplement other procedures (e.g. Brodie et al. 2007); (v) development of practical methodologies for quantifying double accounting of water resources in river systems; and (vi) development and delivery of educational materials for water users to explain the nature and extent of groundwater–surface water connections and the implications for extractive use of either water resource. 2CSalt was recommended in the Project Workplan as a model for further development. Accordingly, in this report we recommend improvements in validation of the model that can be done in parallel with further model development. Also we identify groundwater–surface water interaction techniques that are applicable to the validation of a Level 1 model (such as 2CSalt) and which may be incorporated into any proposed field program.

eWater CRC

Exchange of groundwater and surface water: field methodologies

1

domain, we recommend them for consideration as new technologies that could strengthen the scientific basis of groundwater–surface water interaction studies; further, their up-scaling to scales relevant to water resources managers would be highly beneficial.

eWater CRC


2

Introduction This project aimed to estimate exchange fluxes between groundwater and surface water and to determine how these may change with groundwater and surface water management. Techniques for both estimation and prediction are well-developed for small areas, for example at the 10%) impact on catchment water yield and management targets over the medium term (1–5 years). A connectivity index is proposed which is an empirical function of the depth to water table, stream bed sediments, aquifer material and geomorphology. The index was evaluated in a GIS environment, and this approach has merit in its capacity to provide an objective method for assigning connectedness characteristics over extended landscapes. Some similar approaches have been made by, for example, REM (2006, Figure 1), which presents a bimodal groundwater connectedness index for distinguishing whether a groundwater– surface water system is either connected or disconnected. These approaches are a step in the right direction for developing default data sets for use in modelling. Numerical and analytical modelling approaches are described in Brodie et al. (2007), including fully developed and integrated surface water and groundwater hydrological models such as MIKE-SHE (and the use and expansion of MODFLOW and included packages) which simulate interactions with surface water. An example of estimation of double accounting is presented based on transient MODFLOW simulations of idealised groundwater–surface water interaction geometries for one system. The results of such simulations are of interest; however, at this stage, this type of generalised result is not calibrated or validated to the behaviour of actual systems, or generalised to other areas. Of particular relevance to our methodology report, Brodie et al. (2007) present a listing of 11 field methods which are identified and then described. In developing our report, a similar compilation of field methodologies was made at eWater CRC


8

a project workshop, and the result is presented in the following section. Here, similarities to Brodie et al. (2007) are indicated, although the methods are not mapped to system types and there is limited quantification or guidance on how to obtain quantitative estimates of flux.

eWater CRC


9

Workshop on the measurement of groundwater–surface water exchange fluxes A workshop was held in July 2006 with the objective of identifying and recommending approaches that could be adopted for measuring groundwater– surface water interaction. The approach was outlined through discussion of the key issues and the available techniques.

Identification of the key issues The compilation of issues from the ‘Catalogue of Conceptual Models for Groundwater–Stream Interaction’ report (Reid et al. 2009) provides a guideline for types of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies. The priority issues were set out as: • Double accounting of groundwater–surface water, i.e. the so-called DA problem. • Impacts of stream depletion and changing fluxes. • Surface water requirements for downstream users. • Water requirements for environmental purposes, e.g. floodplain/stream/wetland ecosystems. • Operational issues regarding groundwater requirements, which could be in terms of the resource (quantity and quality), the health of groundwaterdependent ecosystems (GDEs), or the general health of the total connected system. • Conjunctive resource management strategy development; water allocation regime – the double accounting problem. • Salinity impacts on water quality, salt loads, and ecosystem health. • Management for climate variation/change and its impacts on connected systems. • Water management boundary delineation. • Transboundary or interstate groundwater–surface water impacts.

Identification of available techniques The workshop identified 12 groundwater–surface water interaction estimation techniques or groupings of techniques, which included: • Baseflow recession analysis. • Flownet analysis, e.g. the river meander flownet analysis shown later. • Point physical methods, e.g. temperature profiling, seepage flux measurement by various designs of flux meters, and mini piezometers for documentation of hydraulic relations. • Along-river station-to-station water and salt balances. eWater CRC


10

• Introduced in-stream tracers. • Baseflow separation tracers for hydrograph analysis. • Pumping responses – hydraulic and potentiometric. • Tracer pumping – detecting dynamics of tracers for river water in pumped groundwater. • In-stream and streambed geophysics. • Ground geophysics. • Remote sensing. • Ecological field surveys. An important outcome of the workshop was the recognition that measurements need to be integrated into a modelling framework to provide estimates over appropriate time scales and spatial scales, as well as providing predictive capability under changed management. Another important outcome was the recognition that, in many present field situations, the issue is not so much one of estimating the absolute magnitude of groundwater–surface water exchange fluxes, but more one of detecting change in groundwater or river flow conditions in response to a change in management practice or a shift in water allocation. Thus in many situations the question being asked of resource managers is the extent to which, for example, river flows change in response to change in groundwater pumping and allocation. It is therefore important to view application of the above groundwater–surface water estimation methodologies in terms of their capability of detecting a change after an alteration in management practice. In practical terms, changedetection is often technically more easily addressed by the above techniques because experimental field design can be arranged so that the point of interest is set up for monitoring. Double accounting is a good example of an issue in which judicious field methodology design and monitoring can give quantitative change-detection results.

eWater CRC


11

Compilation and review of groundwater–surface water interaction estimation methodologies Following the July 2006 workshop, an in-depth compilation of available methodologies for estimating groundwater–surface water interaction was undertaken and is presented below.

Baseflow analysis estimation techniques and hydrograph separation by physical analysis Included here are hydrograph recession and baseflow analysis (estimation) for assessment of baseflow volume using numerical filtering, and analysis methods such as the recursive digital filtering approaches of Lyne and Hollick (1979) and Nathan & McMahon (1990). Also included in this category are hydrometric methods (Brodie et al. 2007) which are the application of simple hydrogeological analyses of groundwater flow using D’Arcy’s law approaches.

Physical methods (point) Temperature profiling of various types Temperature measurements along 2-D vertical sections orthogonal to the river section, and river bed thermal profiling (Loheide and Gorelick 2006). The issue is discussed in more detail in Brodie et al. (2007).

Hydraulic potential methods Hydraulic gradient measurements using (mini) piezometers within bed sediments, and on-bank piezometers (especially nested piezometers) in 2-D vertical sections orthogonal to the river section. Also includes: river and bore hydrograph responses to hydraulic drivers, tidal forcing in estuaries, and determination of aquifer hydraulic parameters from amplitude and lag response to hydraulic forcing (Smith 1999).

Seepage meters Direct bidirectional flux measurement via: physical water collection, heat pulse detection, and ultrasonic detection (ANCID 2003, Taniguchi et al. 2002, Brodie et al. 2007).

Station-to-station river flow measurement River flux measurement to estimate gaining or losing with respect to groundwater along a given reach as a water budgeting approach (ANCID 2003). See also Brodie et al. (2007).

eWater CRC


12

Modelling methods – field oriented Quantitative numerical approaches, such as MODFLOW (Harbaugh 2005) or FEFLOW (Diersch 1996) packages, that are configured for specific coupling of rivers to groundwater–surface water interactions. Outputs from such modelling allow particle tracking, pumping-well scenario analysis and quantitative flux estimations. Small-scale modelled sections of a few kilometres of river reach can be extrapolated to the regional scale via the typology/GIS/DEM methodologies outlined below. Idealised and conceptual frameworks (e.g. Thru-flow, Nield et al. 1994), groundwater–surface water interaction conceptualisations and adaptations for visualisation of flow paths, and streamlines under both steady and periodic conditions (Smith 1999) are also available. See also Brodie (2007). Tools such as the recently developed R-WSIBal (which is a synoptic simultaneous flow, solute and stable isotope river-water mass balance method) in which groundwater–surface water interactions are included implicitly (Barr & Turner 2006) have application to groundwater–surface water interaction in large river systems. Analytical solutions presented in the form of nomographs could be developed as practical tools for guiding managers on the impact of a given well on reducing baseflow. The nomographs could contain groupings of aquifer physical parameters such as transmissivity, recharge rate and pump rate, pump timing in relation to periodic water table elevation, radial distance from river, well (screen) depth, and river depth penetration into its bounding aquifer. The objective would be to develop defensible guidelines for siting pumping bores relative to rivers based on factors such as river flow, distance to bore, depth of bore, pump rate, aquifer transmissivity, hydraulic gradient, recharge and pump capture zone geometry.

Tracer methods In-stream hydrogeochemical analysis and tracer-based hydrograph separation methods Synoptic (single time at multiple locations in a stream flow) or time series measurements of hydrogeochemical tracers such as Cl, silica (SiO2), Ca, Na, EC or pH or CFC, NO3, PO4, and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) are applicable to estimating groundwater contributions to river flow. Selection and application of single or concurrent multiple tracers need to be made on a caseby-case basis. Isotopic (synoptic or time series) analysis of δ 2H, δ 18O, 222Rn, 22n Ra (where n = 3, 4, 6, or 8), 87Sr/ 86Sr, 14C, and 36Cl are also applicable, but again the selection of the appropriate tracer needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. SF6 introduced as an artificial tracer into stream flow can be used as a means of estimating 222Rn evasion rates. Time series of hydrogeochemical and/or isotopic tracers from the discharge of pumping wells for detection of river water ingress into pumped water (tracer pumping, Table 3) can also be used, e.g. Hunt et al. (2005). eWater CRC


13

More detail on these methods can be found in Brodie et al. (2007).

Geophysical methods In-stream geophysical investigations (gravity, seismic, electromagnetics) for determination of streambed and sub-streambed morphology and hydraulic characteristics, e.g. Barrett et al. (2005), Munday et al. (2005). See also Brodie et al. (2007).

Nesting methods By combining point-scale measurement methods, which are usually highprecision flux measurements, with reach-scale methods (e.g. Level 2 or 3 modelling), a nesting approach enables up-scaling of point-scale measurements and this allows intercalibration of measurement methods across scales. A further example of nesting is given by potential applications of RWSIBal (Barr & Turner 2006). Thus, while R-WSIBal can be applied over large scale river systems, a particular section of river reach of interest could be nested with small-scale modules within a much larger section of the system.

Distributed physical and hydrological (hydrographical) methods Typological approaches Typological analysis is a method in which landscape or system attributes (e.g. topography, landscape gradient, geology, or physical river characteristics such as bed gradient, slope, and meander structure) are characterised and assigned to a system of attribute indices; in this way large-scale analysis and up-scaling of a process such as groundwater–surface water interaction can be attempted. The typological methodology has been pioneered by the LOICZ program (Land–Ocean Interface in the Coastal Zone) in to the context of estimating submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) at a global scale (Crossland et al. 2005; LOICZ Typology Data Set Documentation at http://www.loicz.org). SGD is a process similar to terrain-based groundwater flux and exchange with surface waters, and thus the approaches adopted by LOICZ are, in principle, adaptable to the problem of developing default data sets for groundwater– surface water interaction studies. Further discussion on this topic is given in the ‘New approaches’ section below.

Hydrogeomorphology and hydrogeomorphic analysis The basis for this analysis would involve the HARSD (hydrogeomorphic analysis of regional spatial data) approach of Salama et al. (1996) to develop of conceptual models for up-scaling or mapping groundwater–surface water interaction. Based on high resolution GIS/DEM mapping, groundwater management units (GMUs) are selected and the frequency distributions of geometric and geomorphic attributes – such as the river axial gradient (i.e. river bed slope in the direction of flow), topographic gradient orthogonal to river axis, distance to catchment boundary, and watertable gradient (derived from the HARSD approach) – are determined and analysed. Frequency distribution diagrams of hydrogeomorphic attributes (showing the occurrence of known eWater CRC


14

groundwater–surface water interaction relations, such as flux rates, at known parts of the hydrogeomorphic domain) would be developed. The frequency distribution plots are then used to map groundwater–surface water interaction characteristics back to the source DEM. This methodology is used as a means of up-scaling known groundwater–surface water interactions to the full domain of interest. Further discussion on this topic is given in the ‘New approaches’ section below.

Analysis of river channel geometry – river meander physical structure Idealised groundwater–surface water interaction resulting from given river meander structures is governed by four parameters: S , ω/λ , L/λ, and RL/ST, where S is the river gradient in the direction of flow, ω is the amplitude of the meander, λ is the wavelength of the meander, L is the distance from the river to the hydrogeologic no-flow boundary, R is the recharge, and T is the aquifer transmissivity. Figure 1a depicts the idealised geometry of a river meander and its connected groundwater flow system. Figure 1b shows the groundwater potentiometric surface imposed when groundwater enters boundary AD and can discharge through the meandering river boundary AB and groundwater flow boundary BC. Figure 1b shows the particle tracks for groundwater entering AD, illustrating the focusing of groundwater discharge at the outside of the meander and a corresponding deflection of groundwater flux at the inside of the boundary. In fact, the figure shows river throughflow at the inside of the meander. Figure 1c illustrates the effect of changing parameter sets on the flownet of groundwater flow; the main point to notice is that as the meander amplitude increases, groundwater discharge becomes more tightly focused at the apex of the outside of the meander. In general, the analysis shows that groundwater discharge fluxes are focused toward the outside of meander structures and are also defocused from the corresponding inside of the meander.

eWater CRC


15

(a)

y A x

B

slope S in direction of flow

L

region of interest

D

C λ

(c)

Figure 1. Idealisation of groundwater flow adjacent to a river meander structure (from Townley & Dawkins, unpublished report). (a) The four parameters (S , ω/λ , L/λ , RL/ST, defined in the text) which govern groundwater flow. (b) The groundwater potentiometric surface and particle tracks resulting from groundwater encountering boundary AD. (c) Examples of potentiometric surfaces for various parameter sets. See text and also Cherkauer & McKereghan (1991), Linderfelt & Turner (2001).

eWater CRC


16

Evaluation of assessment methods Evaluation of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies was undertaken systematically, and the outcomes are summarised in Tables 2–4. The specific applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies to water resource double accounting is summarised in Table 5. The applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction techniques to validation of a Level 1 Model (2CSalt) is summarised in Table 6.

Australian aquifer systems The first step was the identification of Australian aquifer systems, as listed in Table 2, in relation to their groundwater–surface water interaction. This compilation was an outcome from the 2006 workshop on cataloguing conceptual models of groundwater–surface water interaction, and lists eight aquifer system characteristics with examples of the different aquifer types and settings across Australia. The shading gives a subjective indication of the availability of data for the specific regions mentioned. The eight types identified in Table 2, were, for simplicity, reduced to four major groupings for consideration of methodology assessments (Table 3). These four aquifer type groupings (fractured rock systems, layered systems, contained alluvial valleys, and large basin systems) correspond to the most likely field study type areas discussed below.

eWater CRC


17

Table 2. Examples of Australian aquifer systems in relation to groundwater–surface water interaction (outcome from workshop). The highlighted examples are considered to have good data access 1. Fractured 2. Deeply 3. Contained rocks weathered alluvial rocks valleys

4. Broad alluvial or aeolian plains

5. Large basin systems with deep flow

6. Layered systems (incl. volcanics)

Clare Valley, Eastern SA goldfields and wheat belt, WA

Ti Tree Basin, NT

Yarragadee– Blackwood River, WA

Upper Cudgegong Pioneer Nepean River, NSW Valley, Qld River, NSW

Yass River, NSW

Hunter River, NSW

Various NT Lower Marne examples River, SA

Lower Mur- Otway Basin, rumbidgee Vic and SA River, NSW

Upper Loddon River, Vic

7. Karst

8. Coastal

Howard Burdekin Springs, NT River, Qld

Onkaparinga –Scott Creek, SA

Peel River, NSW

Gascoyne River, WA

Murray Basin, Toowoomba NSW, Vic and Basalts, Qld SA

Swan River superficial formation, WA

Central Highlands mineral springs, Vic

Upper Ovens River, Vic

LaTrobe Valley, Vic

Great Artesian Kulnara Basin intake Sandstone, beds, NSW, NSW Qld, NT

Western Port Basin, Vic

Piccadilly Valley, SA

Tookyerta– Lower Finniss Rivers, Ovens SA River, Vic

Kinglake WSPA, Vic

Upper Lachlan Loddon Plains, Vic River, NSW

Barossa Valley, SA

Todd River, NT

Mallee region, Vic, SA, NSW

MacIntyre– Dumaresq Rivers, NSW/Qld

Daly River, NT

Belubula River, NSW

Upper Darling River, NSW

Gippsland Basin, Vic

Atherton Tableland, Qld Tasmanian dolerites, Tas

Ranking of suitability Table 3 is a matrix showing the four aquifer type systems and their landscape settings against the 12 groupings of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies or groups of methodologies. Each combination of aquifer system and methodology is ranked in the table in terms of its suitability for application. A simple ranking system identifying the technique’s suitability as very low, low, moderate, or high is presented. The bottom row of the table summarises those techniques suitable for each of the four aquifer system types. Table 3 aims to be a look-up reference for the suitability of particular groundwater–surface water interaction techniques.

eWater CRC


18

Don River, Qld

Table 3. Ranking of the suitability of groundwater–surface water interaction techniques. Suitability is indicated as i–, very low; i, low; ii, moderate; iii, high

Layered systems*

Contained alluvial valley**

Large basin systems with deep flow***

Usefulness for modelling

Expertise required

Fractured rock systems

Aquifer system (landscape setting)

1. Baseflow recession

iii

iii

ii

i

ii

i

2. Flownet analysis

i–

i–

ii

iii

i

ii

3. Temp (a), seepage i (b), Mini piezometers (c)

ii

iii

iii

i

iii

Very important to get the correct spatial scale

4. Station-to-station water/salt balance

ii

ii

ii

iii

iii

ii

Subject to number of stations

5. In-stream tracers

ii

ii

ii

ii

iii

ii

Subject to end-member discrimination

6. Baseflow separation (tracers)

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

iii

7. Pumping responses

i

i

iii

iii

iii

ii

8. Tracer pumping

ii

ii

ii

ii

iii

i

Subject to end-member discrimination, e.g. see Maloszewski et al. (1990) and Hunt et al. (2005)

ii

ii

ii

ii

Regulated rivers only Scale needs to be considered

Technique

9. In-stream geophysics

Comments

10. Ground geophysics ii

ii

ii

ii

i

ii

11. Remote sensing

iii

iii

iii

iii

i

ii

12. Ecological field survey

?

?

?

?

?

?

Suitable techniques

1, 4–6, 1, 3– 1–11 8,10,11 6, 8, 10, 11

A widely used approach; its limitation is the skill of the user

Need to know variability/reliability of the ecologist’s techniques

2–11

* Including volcanics ** Including paleochannels *** Including broad alluvial/aeolian plains and coastal

Evaluation of technique attributes Table 4 is a second matrix, with the 12 groupings of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies mapped against their applicability at different spatial and temporal scales, reliability of the technique, and cost effectiveness. It provides a look-up reference for the attributes of particular groundwater– surface water interaction techniques. An assessment is given of the applicability to gaining or losing river systems, whether they are regulated or unregulated, and whether the method allows fluxes to be quantified.

eWater CRC


19


B

D

2, 3 $/km

G

U (R?)

Comments

yes

2. Flownet analysis A, B, C F

2

$/km, $/site

3a. Temperature

A

D

1, 2

$$$/km, G, L U, (R?) $/site

yes

3b. Seepage

A

D

2

$$$/km, G, L U, (R?) $/site

yes

3c. Mini piezometers

A

D

2

$$$/km, G, L U, (R?) $/site

no

4. Station-to-station B, C water/salt balance

E

2, 3

$/km

G, L U, R

yes

5. In-stream tracers B, C

D

3

$$/km

G

U, R

yes Longitudinal (i.e. synoptic) in-stream tracer applications were considered as D in spatial scale

6. Baseflow A, B separation (tracers)

D, E

2, 3

$$$/site G

U, R

yes


D, E

1, 2, $/site 3

L

U, R

yes? Much greater cost if a pump test has to be conducted as opposed to using existing infrastructure and pump

8. Tracer pumping A

D

1, 2, $/site 3

L

U, R

no


B, C

D

$$– $$$/km

G, L U, R

no

10. Ground geophysics

A

D

$$$/site G, L U, R

no

11. Remote sensing

B, C

E, F

$/km

G, L U, R

no

12. Ecological field B, C survey

E, F

$$$/km

G

no

A, B

G, L U, R

Fluxes can be quantified

Regulated/ unregulated

Gaining/ losing system

Cost per km or per site

Reliability of the technique

Technique

Temporal scale

Spatial scale

Table 4. Evaluation of groundwater–surface water interaction technique attributes. All techniques were considered to be applicable under stressed or unstressed aquifer conditions. A = local/point (1 km); B = river reach (10 km); C = whole of river (100 km). D = days–weeks; E = months–years; F = decades–centuries. 1 = unreliable; 2 = moderately reliable; 3 = reliable. $ = low cost; $$ = moderate cost; $$$ = high cost. G = gaining; L = losing. R = regulated; U = unregulated

U, R

yes

Used together, Tables 2–4 provide an overview of the applicability of different groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies in a range of aquifer/landscape settings and a review of the techniques against several applicability criteria.

eWater CRC


20

Applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies to water resource double accounting Brodie et al. (2007) state that whereas, in connected systems, there are uncertainties in estimating the proportion of groundwater extraction that should be counted as surface water, streamflow depletion is projected to be 330 GL/yr for the Murray–Darling Basin in 20 years. The issue of groundwater resource double accounting (DA) is addressed here by identifying the most applicable field methods for its assessment. DA occurs when groundwater that would have contributed to river flow is intercepted by pumping and thus prevented from contributing to the river flow water account. Developing methodologies to assess and manage DA is identified as a top priority. Accordingly, in future work the concept needs to be addressed in quantifiable terms so it is possible to (i) analyse and identify methodologies that can be used to quantitatively assess this problem; (ii) ensure that the methodologies developed directly address this issue; and (iii) ensure that when quantitative estimates or comparisons are made, they are done following a consistent methodology that delivers valid comparisons. To date, policy issues and broad assumptions on the extent of this problem have been put forward, but quantitative methodological approaches that provide a technical and defensible basis for policy decisions on, for example, water allocation, have not appeared. Table 5 makes an assessment of the applicability of the 12 groupings of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies. In this table they are mapped against their applicability to assess DA-affected river reaches. Three categories – highly applicable, applicable, or not applicable – are assigned to the techniques. Thus Table 5 provides a look-up reference for the applicability of particular groundwater–surface water interaction techniques to the DA issue. Table 5. Applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction techniques to double

Technique

Applicability to DA

accounting (DA). A = highly applicable; B = applicable; C = not applicable


A

Particularly via comparison of baseflow recession characteristics in DA-affected and non-affected river reaches

2. Flownet analysis

A

Simulation of near-river pumping effects on groundwater capture

3a. Temperature

B

As a tracer at the pump detecting river water temperatures (in contrast to groundwater temperatures)

3b. Seepage

B


A

Near-river hydraulic responses to pumping

4. Station-to-station water/salt balance

A

Particularly water-balance comparison upstream and downstream of pumping influence


C

6. Baseflow separation (tracers)

A, B

eWater CRC

Comments


21

Technique

Applicability to DA


A

Much greater cost if a pump test has to be conducted (as opposed to using existing infrastructure and pump)

8. Tracer pumping

A

Monitoring a tracer in the pump stream to detect breakthrough of river water characteristic tracer in the pumped water


C


C

11. Remote sensing

C


C

Comments

Of use in hydrogeological characterisation for technique 2

In the following sections, field site areas are identified and proposed as suitable for further study. Ideally, we recommend that at each field site a controlled test of a DA scenario is carried out that is (i) appropriately experimentally designed and implemented in the field; (ii) modelled at Level 3; (iii) monitored to validate the Level 3 model; (iv) such that the results can be generalised and mapped to other comparable sites (using, for example the GIS/DEM/typology approaches described below).

Application of methodologies for validating a Level 1 model: 2CSalt In this section we identify the groundwater–surface water interaction techniques that are applicable to the validation of a Level 1 model (Table 1) such as 2CSalt. The 2CSalt model quantifies surface and subsurface contributions to salt and water exports and predicts the impacts of land use change on them at the catchment scale. It was designed to allow state agencies within Australia to model upland unregulated catchments in a consistent manner across large areas. 2CSalt has been shown to be capable of representing the major salt and flow processes adequately in relatively large scale catchments (Stenson et al. 2005). Calibration of the model predictions has been made against observed continuous streamflow and salt-load discharges from the upland catchment areas (Stenson et al. 2005) or against representations of streamflow and salt loads generated by the REALM model (Beverly et al. 2006). The mostly uncalibrated, unvalidated nature of the model gives confidence in its predictive capabilities when running land use change scenarios (Stenson et al. 2005). However, exporting parameter sets to other catchments has led to some gross underestimation of baseflow, baseflow responses and time to baseflow cessation, and in some cases salt-load export (Beverly et al. 2006). While it appears several aspects of 2CSalt model implementation require further research development and evaluation, Stenson et al. (2005) point out that

eWater CRC


22

predictions from 2CSalt, while not perfect, are capable of representing the major salt and flow processes adequately. Independent validation of 2CSalt output is recommended to improve its predictive capability and transferability to ungauged catchments. In terms of the groundwater–surface water interaction techniques identified in this report, Table 6 shows how groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies would map to validation of 2CSalt outputs. Field work and monitoring would be required to improve model validation. Table 6. Applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction techniques to validation of a Level 1 Model – 2CSalt. A = highly applicable; B = applicable; C = not

Technique

Applicability to L1 Model

applicable

Comments


A

Particularly via comparison of baseflow recession characteristics in DA-affected and non-affected river reaches

2. Flownet analysis

C

Simulation of near-river pumping effects on groundwater capture

3a. Temperature

C

As a tracer at the pump detecting river water temperatures (in contrast to groundwater temperatures)

3b. Seepage

C


C

Near-river hydraulic responses to pumping

4. Station-to-station

B

Particularly water-balance comparison upstream and

water/salt balance

downstream of pumping influence


A

6. Baseflow separation

A, B

(tracers) 7. Pumping responses

C

8. Tracer pumping

C


C


C

11. Remote sensing

C


C

New approaches The previous sections presented more-or-less established groundwater– surface water interaction techniques mapped across areas of particular interest for future research. In this section we consider methodologies so far not considered, including those additional to the BRS framework of Brodie et al. (2007). eWater CRC


23

Techniques that are missing include (i) those that contribute quantitative assessment to address up-scaling across the Level 1 to Level 3 data type boundaries and their corresponding application to Level 1–3 modelling; (ii) quantitative methodologies for estimating DA, but furthermore methodologies for up-scaling such methodologies across the landscape; and (iii) methods for intensive validation and testing of flow–duration curves, salt flow distributions and solute hydrographs.

Default data techniques over large stretches of river The basis for any modelling activity to address groundwater–surface water interaction involves the compilation of default data sets that are used to check model performance and crosscheck against another model’s performance. Default data sets typically comprise parameter values for land uses, river reach characteristics, permeabilities, digital elevation maps, soils and soil properties, climatic zones, groundwater flow systems, etc. In this section we present new approaches for consideration in generating such default data sets and, importantly, techniques whereby they can be up-scaled and mapped objectively over large regions of the landscape at scales relevant to water resources management.

Spectral analysis approaches New spectral approaches to groundwater–surface water interactions have recently been reported (Worman et al. 2006). Here, the well-known result that surface topography has a strong control on both groundwater flow patterns at the regional to continental scale (and on smaller scales such as in the hyporheic zone of streams) is analysed in terms of Fourier series spectra. Surface topography can be separated out in a Fourier series spectrum that provides an exact solution of the underlying three-dimensional groundwater flows. The new spectral solution offers a practical tool for quickly calculating subsurface flows in different hydrological applications, and it provides a theoretical platform for advancing conceptual understanding of the effect of landscape topography on subsurface flows. The fact that the Fourier spectral analysis approach of Worman et al. (2006) can be applied at the regional scale (50 × 50 km2), as well as at the reach scale of a hyporheic zone of interest (50 m), indicates the flexibility of the approach. The default topographic data sets needed for such applications are accessed from DEMs, and the high topographic resolution available from LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) data is a distinct advantage. Worman et al. (2006) state that the spectral method independently resolves the effect on flow of each topographical scale in the spectrum. The method opens new possibilities for analysis of groundwater–surface water interactions, even the effects of land surface topography on groundwater flows from the local aquifer scale to the scale of entire continents. Such a new analysis tool appears to be worthy of consideration in this context.

eWater CRC


24

DEM/typology Typological approaches for the development of large-scale landscape attributes have recently received attention in relation to the management of coastal water resources, in particular to continental-scale estimation of submarine groundwater discharge. Typology is a method where system attributes (topography, landscape gradient, geology, physical river characteristics, etc.) are characterised and assigned to a system of attribute indices that allow large-scale analysis and up-scaling of groundwater–surface water interaction. The typological methodology has been pioneered by the LOICZ program (Land–Ocean Interface in the Coastal Zone Project of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme, see http://www.loicz.org) as a means of up-scaling estimates of submarine groundwater discharge made at one coastal length scale (typically 1° latitude or longitude or ~110 km) to a regional coastal scale and beyond. The LOICZ website also details the LOICZ Typology Data Set Documentation. The typology approach (Crossland et al. 2005) characterises, in a consistent and systematic manner, functional data (essentially the geomorphological and hydrogeological characteristics of groundwater–surface water interaction) and information on site characteristics so that classification and up-scaling of the functional information can be achieved. In this way, information from an array of small, site-specific groundwater–surface water interaction investigation sites, collected ‘globally’ on a distributed basis, can be aggregated and, through the developed typologies, used as proxies to ascribe groundwater–surface water interaction characteristics to low- or no-data coastal systems. Such approaches deserve consideration and development in the context of estimating groundwater–surface water interaction because methods need to be developed whereby regions of well known or strongly inferred groundwater– surface water interaction can be mapped across regions of similar type. When applied, the typological approach is a method where system attributes (topography, landscape gradient, geology, physical river characteristics, etc.) are characterised and assigned to a system of attribute indices that allow largescale analysis and up-scaling of groundwater–surface water interaction.

Terrain analysis based techniques: high-resolution GIS/DEM and frequency analysis This approach is based on GIS/DEM modelling and terrain analysis methodologies. It is proposed as an advance on the Stream–Aquifer Connectedness Index as reported, for example, by REM (2006). The connectivity map is based on information provided by jurisdictions and is classified bimodally as ‘connected’ where the watertable is above the base of the river or creek; and ‘disconnected’ where the base of the river or creek is separated from the watertable by an unsaturated zone. The connectivity mapped by REM (2006, Figure 1) was developed to aid in a basin-scale analysis of the impacts of pumping on streamflow. The approach proposed below provides an objective method for achieving a mapping of groundwater– surface water interaction characteristics across large-scale landscapes. Hydrogeomorphic analysis presents an additional terrain-based approach to regional scale mapping of groundwater–surface water interaction. The concept eWater CRC


25

is based on the HARSD (hydrogeomorphic analysis of regional spatial data) approach (Salama et al. 1996) which provides a method for preparing hydraulic head surfaces from topographic data. The approach is based on highresolution GIS/DEM mapping and as such would combine the high resolution DEM data with the Multi-resolution Valley Bottom Flatness index (MrVBF; Gallant & Dowling 2003) to provide the basic data sets. Emerging highresolution LIDAR-based technologies would probably be necessary to generate sufficiently high-resolution DEMs for this purpose. From this, groundwater management units (GMUs) would be selected and an analysis of the frequency distributions of geometric and geomorphic attributes – such as river axial gradient (i.e. river-bed slope), topographic gradient orthogonal to the river axis, distance to catchment boundary, and watertable gradient (derived from HARSD approach or the Fourier spectral analysis approach) – would be carried out. Frequency diagrams would be constructed comprising attributes showing occurrence of known groundwater–surface water interaction, e.g. as derived from point measurements of groundwater–surface water interaction at Level 3. The frequency distribution plots would be used to map groundwater–surface water interaction characteristics back to the high-resolution DEM. Thus this methodology can be used as a means of up-scaling known groundwater– surface water interaction to the full domain of interest.

Practical approach The following five steps illustrated in Figure 2 (a–e) outline schematically how the approach could be adopted. Firstly, the catchment/basin area and the GMU of interest are selected (Figure 2a) and a DEM of the region, as accurate as possible, is obtained of either the full basin or a GMU (or both). The DEM is analysed for four geometric gradient parameters: the river axial gradient; the catchment gradient orthogonal to the river axis; distance to catchment boundary; and watertable gradient (this could be determined following analysis of hydrogeomorphic attributes following the HARSD methods of Salama et al. (1996) or the Fourier analysis approach of Worman et al. (2005)). The DEM data is then disaggregated and analysed to produce frequency distributions of the occurrence of groups of terrain or watertable gradient. Figure 2b–e shows an idealised representation of how these frequency distributions might look.

eWater CRC


26

(a)

Regional-scale basin

Observational bandwidth for Conceptual Model 2

Observational bandwidth for Conceptual Model 1

10 –7

Frequency of occurrence

Cutoff beyond which GW–SW is disconnected 95% of time

10 –6

10 –5 10 –4 10 –3 River axial gradient

10 –2

Cutoff beyond which GW–SW is disconnected 95% of time

10 –6

10 –5 10 –4 10 –3 Water table gradient

10 –2

10 –1

(c) Cutoff beyond which GW–SW is disconnected 95% of time

10 –7 10 –6 10 –5 10 –4 10 –3 10 –2 10 –1 River orthogonal topographic gradient

10 –1

(d)

10 –7


(b)



GMU (sub-basin)

(e) Cutoff beyond which GW–SW is disconnected 95% of time

1

10 100 Distance to catchment boundary (km)

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of how high resolution GIS/DEM and frequency analysis could be used to scale-up groundwater–surface water interaction mapping. (a) Schematic of a basin (solid outline) within which is a subbasin (GMU, dashed outline), after Pauwels (2004). (b)–(e) Distributions of various model parameters.

The conceptual model types of groundwater–surface water interaction (as identified for example in the ‘Catalogue of Conceptual Models for Groundwater–Stream Interaction’ report (Reid et al. 2009)) may then be mapped onto the gradient frequency diagrams in terms of their characteristic bandwidths of topographic gradient (e.g. Figure 2b). This provides a capability to then undertake the inverse process of mapping conceptual model types back to the DEM and thus to the landscape. This provides a rational and objective method for mapping groundwater–surface water interaction. The frequency analysis curve could be used to define a ‘cutoff’ showing where the connected/disconnected groundwater–surface water interaction occurs (Figures 2b–e). Again, this provides an objective decision-making methodology that could allow connectedness/disconnectedness to be mapped back across

eWater CRC


27

the DEM. Further, some transition zone fuzziness could be mapped as the nature of groundwater–surface water interaction is not simply bimodal. The methodology could be used to objectively map high-confidence Level 3 data type scenarios where there are intensive high precision measurements at the subreach or point scales across the broader landscape. Analysis tools and GIS algorithms need to be developed to obtain the default data sets necessary to this attain this capacity. The methodologies, once developed, can be delivered as a package to water resource managers.

Synoptic coupled water-balance approach R-WSIBal is an extension of an existing model WSIBal (Figure 3) (Barr et al. 2000). WSIBal uses a lumped mass-balance approach to simulate the water, solute and stable isotope balances for lakes and other well-mixed open water bodies. R-WSIBal links an expandable series of WSIBal modules each representing individual river reaches, forming a ‘string of lakes’ model. Flow between each ‘lake’ module is achieved using a Manning equation approach. This methodology enables quantitative analysis of the groundwater–surface water interaction and atmospheric forcing terms (evaporation, direct on-river rainfall) for large river systems. Preliminary model functionality has been demonstrated by simulation of the flow, solute concentration and stable isotope composition of the River Murray by comparison with synoptic river data (Barr & Turner 2006). Data requirements for this type of approach fall into the Level 1 data category.

P

E Qout

Qin

Water table

Qout

Qin

Figure 3. Basic conceptualisation of inputs, storages and outputs for the transient surface water–balance model WSIBal (Barr et al. 2000). Q represents the surface water and groundwater fluxes; P and E represent precipitation and evaporation respectively.

Figure 4 (top) shows a schematic of R-WSIBal, which consists of linked WSIBal input, storage and output modules. The lower part of Figure 4 shows a similar ‘string of lakes’ conceptual model described in Gat and Bowser (1991).

eWater CRC


28

... h′′′, δa′′′

h′′, δa′′

h′, δa′

h, δa

δe′′

δe′′

δe′′

1

X1

2

X2

3

X3

Figure 4. Linking of models. (top row) The linking of WSIBal modules in R-WSIBal. (underneath) Model D2 from Gat & Bowser (1991): a ‘string of lakes’ conceptual model with countercurrent atmospheric flow. Surface water modules 1, 2, 3 ... with inter-module flux transfers X1 , X2 , X3 are in contact with atmospheric flows with parameters h = relative humidity, δ e = isotopic composition of evaporate and δ a = isotopic composition of atmospheric water vapour.

For illustration, Figures 5 and 6 show results from the application of R-WSIBal to the Murray determined by simultaneously matching mass-balance model results to river flow (Figure 5) and stable isotope and chloride concentrations along the river. Figure 6 indicates the corresponding groundwater flux magnitudes. As discussed above under ‘nesting methods’, R-WSIBal can be applied over large-scale river systems: a particular section of river reach of interest could be nested so that small-scale modules are embedded within a larger section of the system.

18.0

Simulated

16.0

Simpson & Herczeg (1991)

Flux (m3/day) x 106

14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

0

500

1000 1500 Distance to river mouth (km)

2000

2500

Figure 5. R-WSIBal simulation of synoptic surface water flux along the River Murray (diamonds) as a function of distance to the river mouth. For comparison is the surface water flux data (squares) from Simpson & Herczeg (1991). (Barr & Turner 2006).

eWater CRC


29

Flux

200

25

Concentration

Concentration

20

Flux

150

15

100

10

50

5

0 0

500 1000 1500 2000 Distance to river mouth (km)

Chloride Concentration (g/L)

Groundwater Flux (m3/day)

250

0 2500

Figure 6. R-WSIBal simulated groundwater flux for each reach with the specified groundwater chloride concentration (Barr & Turner 2006).

Integration of techniques at different scales The previous two sections bring together the available groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies and the attributes and scales at which they are applicable. The latter section of the two highlights some of the methods for establishing default data sets and, importantly, identifies several methodologies for integrating and up-scaling data and model simulation at Level 3 up to Level 1. The up-scaling methodologies are probably the most important as they provide a process for assessment of groundwater–surface water interaction and up-scaling to a scale that is of relevance to water resources management, i.e. from catchment up to regional scales. Likely combinations of techniques to be used within each of the Level 1 (length of river) datasets, Level 2 (river reach) datasets, and Level 3 (subreach) datasets will need to be judged based on the aquifer characteristics and particular field conditions. By considering the categories described above, and the different landscape elements and their scales, a framework emerges against which particularly suitable approaches (e.g. R-WSIBal nesting) can be designed.

Discussion of knowledge needs Identifying knowledge needs depends on the resources available for data collection. This report identifies two areas in particular where knowledge deficiencies are limiting progress in water resources management. The first is in using existing methodologies to validate Level 1 type models such as 2CSalt and R-WSIBal. The second is in making practical inroads into addressing the issue of DA. We consider these to be the top two priorities, and it is clear that several scientifically challenging opportunities for future research and development are possible. These are the methodologies discussed in the ‘new approaches’ section.

eWater CRC


30

Field sites The following field site areas have been identified and proposed as locations for initial detailed field work for assessment of groundwater–surface water interaction. Further sites may be needed to address all possible concerns. • Upper Nepean (NSW). • Chowilla (SA). • Hodgson Creek (Toowoomba Basalts) (Qld). • Pioneer Valley (Qld). • Headwaters – Murrumbidgee (NSW). These sites were selected on the basis of a number of criteria, including (i) that they are representative of Australian aquifer types as identified in Table 1 and (ii) that significant default data sets and models are available as they are important reference catchments. In terms of the process of integrating prospective field sites with other projects, the Upper Nepean (NSW) and Chowilla (SA) are identified as locations/catchments recommended for further work. The other three sites, Hodgson Creek (Qld), Pioneer Valley (Qld), and Headwaters – Murrumbidgee (NSW) are locations/catchments recommended for less intensive study. From the field methodologies perspective, we see that multiple representative field monitoring sites are necessary to address and quantify the double accounting (DA) issue. Two options are available. Option 1 is to set up a field study at each of the field sites with monitoring sites established on the basis of the length and time scales of influence of each pumping well (as it may affect baseflow on a particular river reach). Monitoring networks (groundwater level, river flow, tracer monitoring, pumping volumes) would be set up to monitor and validate the magnitude of DA, starting from the conceptual model of DA (as described in the section on the ‘Applicability of groundwater–surface water interaction methodologies to water resource double accounting’) through to the setting up and monitoring of an actual field-pumping trial and its response on baseflow. Option 2 is to set up a single ‘flagship’ site for monitoring and assessment of DA at one of the field site areas above. The second option would entail more detailed spatial and temporal monitoring of a pumping site–river reach system, including the installation of multilevel observation bore networks, continuous logging of hydraulic conditions, tracer monitoring, and upstream and downstream river hydraulic and hydrogeochemical/tracer responses to pumping. Under Option 2, the flagship site would be the subject of Level 3 modelling (Table 1, Calibrated MODFLOW). Given the present allocation of resources and the high prominence of the DA issue in the Upper Nepean, if Option 2 is adopted it is logical that a DA flagship field site might be located in the Upper Nepean catchment.

eWater CRC


31

Recommendations (1) The ‘Review of Groundwater–Surface Water Interaction Modelling’ report (Rassam & Werner 2008) has recommended further development of the 2CSalt model be undertaken. It is recommended that a field program be designed and implemented to improve the validation of the model. Suggestions on the type or group of methodologies that should be applied are presented. (2) A field program is recommended at four sites: Upper Nepean NSW, Chowilla SA, Pioneer Valley Qld, Headwaters – Murrumbidgee, and, in particular, field validation of double accounting (DA) at trial sites where groundwater pumping is expected to (or already does) impact on streamflow. A suitable flagship DA site for short- to medium-term temporal and spatial monitoring could be established in the Upper Nepean. (3) Several emerging technologies are identified that address scientific issues, in particular technologies that provide methods for up-scaling groundwater– surface water interaction characteristics from Level 1 through to Level 3. There are methods within the BRS adaptive management framework that have scope for further development (such as temperature monitoring and heat flux modelling) but there are others outside the framework that deserve investigation. (4) Development of educational materials for water users to explain the nature and extent of groundwater–surface water connections (and the implications for extractive use of either form of the resource for use, by individual jurisdictions) as appropriate. A suitable course could possibly be developed.

Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the contributions made by participants in meetings and discussions which facilitated the compilation of this report. These include: Baskaran Sundaram (BRS), Gavin Mudd (Monash University), Mike Williams (NSW Department of Water and Energy), Rick Evans (SKM), Andrew Love and Eddie Banks (SA Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation) and Peter Cook and Glen Walker (CSIRO Land and Water). Richard Cresswell and Ian Jolly (CSIRO Land and Water) and Ross Brodie (BRS) are thanked for their helpful comments in review.

eWater CRC


32

References ANCID. 2003. Open channel seepage & control Vol 1.4: Best practice guidelines for channel seepage identification and measurement. Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage. http://www.irrigation.org.au/seepage/downloads/Identify_Measure_Jan2003.pdf Barr A.D., Turner J.V. and Townley L.R. 2000. WSIBal: a coupled water, conservative solute and environmental isotope mass balance model for lakes and other surface water bodies. In: Dassargues, A. (ed). Tracers and modelling in hydrogeology. Proceedings of TraM 2000 Conference, Liege, Belgium, May 2000. IAHS Publication No. 262: 539–544. http://www.cig.ensmp.fr/~iahs/redbooks/a262/26277.htm Barr A.D. and Turner J.V. 2006. R-WSIBal: a tool for investigation of large-scale river water– groundwater interaction using steady, coupled water, solutes and stable isotope balances. 10th MDBC Groundwater Conference, Canberra, Australia, September 2006. Barrett B., Heinson G., Hatch M. and Telfer A. 2005. River sediment salt-load detection using a water-borne transient electromagnetic system. Journal of Applied Geophysics 58: 29–44. doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.03.002 Beverly C., Christy, B. and Weeks A. 2006. Application of the 2CSalt model to the Bet Bet, Wild Duck, Gardiner and Sugarloaf Catchments in Victoria. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. 184 pp. Brodie R., Sundaram B., Tottenham R., Hostetler S. and Ransley T. 2007. An adaptive management framework for connected groundwater–surface water resources in Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australian Government, Canberra. 179 pp. http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/publications Cherkauer D.S. and McKereghan P.F. 1991. Groundwater discharge into lakes: focusing into embayments. Ground Water 29: 72–80. Crossland C.J., Kremer H.H., Lindeboom H.J., Marshall Crossland J.I. and Le Tissier M.D.A. (eds). 2005. Coastal fluxes in the Anthropocene: the land–ocean interactions in the Coastal Zones Project of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme. Springer. 232 pp. Diersch H.G. 1996. Interactive, graphics-based finite element simulation system FEFLOW for modeling groundwater flow, contaminant mass and heat transport. WASY Institute for Water Resource Planning and System Research, Berlin. Gallant J.C. and Dowling T.I. 2003. A multiresolution index of valley bottom flatness for mapping depositional areas. Water Resources Research 39: 1347. doi:10.1029/2002WR001426 Gat J.R. and Bowser C. 1991. The heavy isotope enrichment of water in coupled evaporative systems. In: Taylor H.P., O’Neil J.R. and Kaplan I.R. (eds). Stable isotope geochemistry: a tribute to Samuel Epstein. Special Publication No. 3. The Geochemical Society, St Louis. pp. 159–168. Greswell, R.B., 2005. High-resolution in situ monitoring of flow between aquifers and surface waters. Science Report SC030155/SR4. UK Environment Agency. Harbaugh A.W. 2005. MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model: The Ground-water flow process. USGS Techniques and Methods 6-A16. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/tm6A16/ Hunt R.J., Coplen T.B., Haas N.L., Saad D.A. and Borchardt M.A. 2005. Investigating surface water–well interaction using stable isotope ratios of water. Journal of Hydrology 302: 154–172. http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/Publications/hunt.coplen.etal.pdf Kalbus E., Reinstorf F. & Schirmer M., 2006. Measuring methods for groundwater, surface water and their interactions: a review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3, 1809–1850. Linderfelt W.R. and Turner J.V. 2001. Interaction between shallow groundwater, saline surface water and nutrient discharge in a seasonal estuary: the Swan–Canning River and estuary system, Western Australia. Hydrological Processes 15: 2631–2653. (Special issue, Hamilton D.P. and Turner J.V. (eds). Integrating research and management for an eWater CRC


33

urban estuarine system: the Swan–Canning estuary, Western Australia.) doi:10.1002/hyp.302 Loheide S.P. and Gorelick S.M. 2006. Quantifying stream–aquifer interactions through analysis of remotely sensed thermographic profiles and in-situ temperature records, Environmental Science and Technology 40: 3336–3341. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=16749702 Lyne V.D. and Hollick M. 1979. Stochastic time-variable rainfall–runoff modelling. National Conference Publication, Institution of Engineers Australia 79/10: 89–93. (ISSN 03136922) Maloszewski P., Moser H., Stichler W., Bertleff B. and Hedin K. 1990. Modelling of groundwater pollution by river bank infiltration using oxygen-18 data. In: Jones G.P. (ed). Groundwater monitoring and management. Proceedings of a symposium held at Dresden, March 1987. IAHS Publication Number 173. pp. 153–161. http://www.cig.ensmp.fr/~iahs/redbooks/a173/iahs_173_0153.pdf Munday T.J., Doble R., Berens V. and Fitzpatrick A. 2005. The application of air, ground and ‘in river’ electromagnetics in the definition of spatial patterns of groundwater induced salt accumulation in a salinising floodplain, lower River Murray, South Australia. Proceedings of the 19th Annual SAGEEP Symposium, 2006, Seattle, USA. Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver. Nathan R.J. and McMahon T.A. 1990. Evaluation of automated techniques for baseflow and recession analyses. Water Resources Research 26: 1465–1473. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1990/WR026i007p01465.shtml Nield S.P., Townley L.R and Barr A.D. 1994. A framework for quantitative analysis of surface water–groundwater interaction: flow geometry in a vertical section. Water Resources Research 30: 2461–2475. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/94WR00796.shtml Pauwels V. 2004. CEOP hydrology reference sites: Zwalm River, Belgium. http://hydrology.princeton.edu/~luo/ceop/zwalm_river.php Rassam D.W. and Werner A.D. 2008. Review of groundwater–surface water interaction modelling approaches and their suitability for Australian conditions. eWater Technical Report. eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra. http://ewatercrc.com.au/reports/Rassam_Werner-2008-Groundwater_Review.pdf Reid M.A., Cheng X., Banks E.W., Jankowski J., Jolly I., Kumar P., Lovell D.M., Mitchell M., Mudd G.M., Richardson S., Silburn M. and Werner A.D. 2009. Catalogue of conceptual models for groundwater–stream interaction. eWater Technical Report. eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra. http://ewatercrc.com.au/reports/Reid_et_al2009-Model_Catalogue.pdf REM (Resource and Environmental Management). 2006. Evaluation of the connectivity between surface water and groundwater in the Murray–Darling Basin. Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1506/Connectivity_Report_for_web.pdf Salama R.B., Ye L. and Broun J. 1996. Comparative study of methods of preparing hydraulic-head surfaces and the introduction of automated hydrogeological–GIS techniques. Journal of Hydrology 185: 115–136. Simpson H.J. and Herczeg A.L. 1991. Salinity and evaporation in the River Murray Basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 124: 1–27.

Smith, A.J. 1999. Application of a tidal method for estimating aquifer diffusivity: Swan River, Western Australia. Australia: CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 13/99. Stenson M., Littleboy M. and Gilfedder M. 2005. Modelling water and salt export from unregulated upland catchments: the 2CSalt Model. Proceedings NZHS-IAH-NZSSS conference, 28 Nov – 3 Dec 2005, Auckland. CD-ROM. New Zealand Hydrological Society, Wellington. Taniguchi M., Burnett W.C., Cable J.E. and Turner J.V. 2002. Investigations of submarine groundwater discharge. Hydrological Processes 16: 2115–2129. doi:10.1002/hyp.1145 Townley L.R. and Dawkins, A.P. (unpub) CSIRO Land and Water, Wembley, W.A. Winter T.C. 1983. The interaction of lakes with variably saturated porous media. Water Resources Research 19: 1203–1218. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1983/WR019i005p01203.shtml

eWater CRC


34

Winter T.C., Harvey J.W., Franke O.L. and Alley W.M. 1998. Ground water and surface water – a single resource, US Geological Survey Circular 1139. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1139/ Worman A. Packman A.I. Marklund L., Harvey J.W. and Stone S.H. 2006. Exact threedimensional spectral solution to surface–groundwater interactions with arbitrary surface topography. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L0742. doi:10.1029/2006GL025747

eWater CRC


35

field methodologies - eWater

field methodologies - eWater

Suggest Documents

eWater Cooperative Research Centre

Proposal for a - eWater

CRC Reports - eWater

Narran Ecosystem Project - eWater

Water sensitive urban design - eWater

IHACRES User Guide - eWater Toolkit

Improving stream flow forecasting - eWater

Eco Evidence Analysis - eWater Toolkit

Milestone Report for R2004 - eWater

CRC 03_14 Version 4 - eWater

CRC 04_1 [6] Main - eWater

CRC_03_5 Ver 4.indd - eWater

Decision-making processes evaluation using two methodologies: field

A field examination of system life cycle techniques and methodologies

Does flow modification cause geomorphological and ... - eWater

Victorian environmental flows monitoring and assessment - eWater

05-5 cover for mockup - eWater

Victorian environmental flows monitoring and assessment - eWater

PDF File - GUIDELINES FOR STABILISING STREAMBANKS ... - eWater

monitoring and evaluating an education / participation ... - eWater

Victorian environmental flows monitoring and assessment ... - eWater

Technical 03/1 ver 1.0 - eWater

Yarra River Focus Catchment Summary Report - eWater

Planned Methodologies vs. Agile Methodologies under ... - CiteSeerX