Advertisement

Using shallow groundwater modeling to frame the restoration of a wet prairie in the Oak Openings Region, Ohio, USA: GSSHA model implementation

  • Dayal Buddika Wijayarathne
  • Enrique GomezdelcampoEmail author
Original Article
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

The hydrologic characteristics of the Oak Openings Region in northwest Ohio, USA, a globally rare ecosystem are not well understood. Currently, the Oak Openings supports globally rare oak savanna and wet prairie habitats. The wet prairies in the region have been drained by ditches and encroached by invasive plants, which have altered the natural flow making it an unusually variable and artificial system. A shallow groundwater model was implemented using the Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) software to simulate continuous, long-term groundwater and surface water interaction in a small subwatershed in the Oak Openings Region. The implemented GSSHA model simulates physical processes such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, snowmelt, overland flow, and interaction of groundwater with ditches. The model was calibrated using a time series of water table elevations collected in the field. Although the model tends to slightly underestimate water table elevations (mean and standard deviation percent differences of less than 1%), statistical analysis indicate a good fit between observed and simulated water table elevations (Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency Index of 0.78). The model would be a useful tool for the preservation of natural areas such as wet prairies.

Keywords

GSSHA Hydrologic modeling Wet prairie Shallow groundwater 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work for this manuscript was performed while the first author, Dayal Buddika Wijayarathne, was a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. Funding from The Nature Conservancy for another project (OHFO-GLRI-BGSU-10/10 − 02) allowed for the collection of field data used in the calibration and testing of the GSSHA model in this study.

References

  1. Abella SR, Jaeger JF, Gehring DH, Jacksy RG, Menard KS, High K (2001) Restoring historic plant communities in the Oak Openings region of northwest Ohio. Ecol Restor 19:155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajami H, Evans JP, McCabe MF, Stisen S (2014) Reducing the spin-up time of integrated surface water–groundwater models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:5169–5179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56. Crop evapotranspiration. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MP, Woessner WW (1992) The role of the postaudit in model validation. Adv Water Resour 15:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aquaveo LLC (2016) WMS, The Watershed Modeling System (2016), version 10.0.13, Provo, UT. http://www.aquaveo.com/WMS
  6. Bachmat Y (1978) Utilization of numerical groundwater models for water resource management (vol 78, no. 12). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker RH, Zmijewski KA, Crail T (2013) Seeing the forest for the invasives: mapping buckthorn in the Oak openings. Biol Invasions 15:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulton AJ, Findlay S, Marmonier P et al (1998) The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:59–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer LG, Vankat JL (2004) Description of vegetation of the oak openings of northwestern Ohio at the time of Euro-American settlement. Ohio J Sci 104:76–85Google Scholar
  10. Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen JE (1986) Population forecasts and confidence intervals for Sweden: a comparison of model-based and empirical approaches. Demography 23:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Angelo DJ, Webster JR, Gregory SV, Meyer JL (1993) Transient storage in Appalachian and Cascade mountain streams as related to hydraulic characteristics. J North Am Benthol Soc 12:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dent JB, Blackie MJ (1979) Model-Evaluation. Systems simulation in agriculture. Springer, London, pp 94–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downer CW, Ogden FL (2004) GSSHA: model to simulate diverse stream flow producing processes. J Hydrol Eng 9:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downer CW, James WF, Byrd A, Eggers GW (2002a) Gridded surface subsurface hydrologic analysis (GSSHA) model simulation of hydrologic conditions and restoration scenarios for the Judicial Ditch 31 Watershed, Minnesota. DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  16. Downer CW, Ogden FL, Martin WD, Harmon RS (2002b) Theory, development, and applicability of the surface water hydrologic model CASC2D. Hydrol Process 16:255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downer CW, Pradhan NR, Skahill BE et al (2014) Simulating the effects of drainage and agriculture on hydrology and sediment in the Minnesota River Basin. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, pp 1166Google Scholar
  18. Elderhorst WIM (1984) The role of modelling in the development of African groundwater resources. IAHS-AISH Publ, pp 185–191Google Scholar
  19. Eyster T (2013) Stream restoration on the Princeton University campus. Undergraduate Senior Thesis, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Findlay S (1995) Importance of surface-subsurface exchange in stream ecosystems: the hyporheic zone. Limnol Oceanogr 40:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Follum ML, Downer CW (2013) Snow water equivalent modeling capabilities of the GSSHA watershed model (No. ERDC/CHL-TR-13-4). Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory, VicksburgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forsyth JL (1970) A geologist looks at the natural vegetation map of Ohio. Ohio J Sci 70:180–191Google Scholar
  23. Gardner R, Haase G (2004) Plant communities of the Oak Openings. In: Grigore MT (ed) Living in the Oak openings: a homeowner’s guide to one of the world’s last great places. The nature conservancy. Homewood Press, Toledo, pp 11–15Google Scholar
  24. Gomezdelcampo E, Coode K (2013) Hydrologic Monitoring of a wet prairie restoration in the Oak Openings Region, Ohio, USA. In AGU Meeting of the Americas Abstracts, pp 71Google Scholar
  25. Gowdish LC (2007) An improved Green-Ampt soil infiltration and redistribution method and its application to 1-dimensional and quasi 3-dimensional (point source) flow domains. Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  26. Grigore MT (2004) Geology and its role in plant communities of the Oak Openings Region. In: Grigore MT (ed) Living in the Oak Openings: a homeowner’s guide to one of the world’s last great places. The Nature Conservancy. Homewood Press, Toledo, pp 5–9Google Scholar
  27. Harvey JW, Bencala KE (1993) The effect of streambed topography on surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments. Water Resour Res 29:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heneghan L, Fatemi F, Umek L et al (2006) The invasive shrub European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, L.) alters soil properties in Midwestern US woodlands. Appl Soil Ecol 32:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hu L-T, Wang Z-J, Tian W, Zhao J-S (2009) Coupled surface water–groundwater model and its application in the Arid Shiyang River basin, China. Hydrol Process 23:2033–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jain SK, Sudheer KP (2008) Fitting of hydrologic models: a close look at the Nash–Sutcliffe index. J Hydrol Eng 13:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins RN (2006) The uses of GSSHA to model groundwater-surface water interaction. Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. Jobson HE, Harbaugh AW (1999) Modifications to the diffusion analogy surface-water flow model (DAFLOW) for coupling to the modular finite-difference ground-water flow model (MODFLOW). US Geological Survey Open-File Report, pp 99–217Google Scholar
  33. Julien PY, Saghafian B, Ogden FL (1995) Raster-based hydrologic modeling of spatially varied surface runoff. J Am Water Res Assoc 31:523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larson E. Wu J, McCool D (2004) Continuous Frozen Ground Index (CFGI) as an indicator for high erosion frozen soil events: Washington State University. Center for Multiphase Environmental Research Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  36. Lautz LK, Siegel DI (2006) Modeling surface and ground water mixing in the hyporheic zone using MODFLOW and MT3D. Adv Water Resour 29:1618–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lautz LK, Siegel DI, Bauer RL (2006) Impact of debris dams on hyporheic interaction along a semi-arid stream. Hydrol Process 20:183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsik M, Waylen P (2006) An application of the distributed hydrologic model CASC2D to a tropical montane watershed. J Hydrol 330:481–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer DG, Butler DG (1993) Statistical validation. Ecol Model 68:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayfield H (1969) Changes in the natural history of the Toledo region since the coming of the white man. Toledo Area Aborig Res Club Bull 1:11–31Google Scholar
  42. McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1984) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, pp 83–875Google Scholar
  43. McElwee CD, Yukler MA (1978) Sensitivity of groundwater models with respect to variations in transmissivity and storage. Water Resour Res 14:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Molnau M, Bissell VC (1983) A continuous frozen ground index for flood forecasting. In: Proceedings 51st Annual Meeting Western Snow Conference. Canadian Water Resources Assoc. Cambridge, Ont, pp 109–119Google Scholar
  45. Morrice JA, Valett HM, Dahm CN, Campana ME (1997) Alluvial characteristics, groundwater–surface water exchange and hydrological retention in headwater streams. Hydrol Process 11:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moseley EL (1928) Flora of the Oak Openings. In: Proc. Ohio Academy of Sciences Special Paper, No. 20, vol 8, pp 81–134Google Scholar
  47. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nemeth MS, Wilcox WM, Solo-Gabriele HM (2000) Evaluation of the use of reach transmissivity to quantify leakage beneath Levee 31N, Miami-Dade County, Florida. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4066Google Scholar
  49. Ogden FL, Byrd AR, Downer CW, Johnson BE (2008) TMDL watershed analysis with the physics-based hydrologic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport model GSSHA. In: ASCE World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1061/40976(316)450
  50. Palmer WC (1965) Meteorological drought. US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau Res. Paper, pp 45Google Scholar
  51. Picard RR, Cook RD (1984) Cross-validation of regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 79:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Restrepo JI, Montoya AM, Obeysekera J (1998) A wetland simulation module for the MODFLOW ground water model. Ground Water 36:764–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schetter TA, Root KV (2011) Assessing an imperiled oak savanna landscape in northwestern Ohio using Landsat data. Nat Areas J 31:118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sears PB (1926) The natural vegetation of Ohio II. The prairies. Ohio J Sci 26:128–146Google Scholar
  55. Shade JW, Valkenberg N (1975) Comparison of base flow and groundwater chemistry, Oak openings sand, Lucas County, Ohio. Ohio J Sci 75:138–146Google Scholar
  56. Shaeffer DL (1980) A model evaluation methodology applicable to environmental assessment models. Ecol Model 8:275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Siegel JS (1972) Development and accuracy of projections of population and households in the United States. Demography 9:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith SK (1987) Tests of forecast accuracy and bias for county population projections. J Am Stat Assoc 82:991–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith RE, Corradini C, Melone F (1993) Modeling infiltration for multistorm runoff events. Water Resour Res 29:133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swain ED (1994) Implementation and use of direct-flow connections in a coupled ground-water and surface-water model. Ground Water 32:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swain ED, Wexler EJ (1996) A coupled surface-water and ground-water flow model (MODBRANCH) for simulation of stream-aquifer interaction. US Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Report 06-A6Google Scholar
  62. Tryon CA, Easterly NW (1975) Plant communities of the Irwin Prairie and adjacent wooded areas. Castanea 201–213Google Scholar
  63. USDA SCS (1980) US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Lucas County, Ohio. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. USGS NLCD (2011) US Geological Survey National Land Cover Database http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php. Accessed 21 Oct 2014
  65. Weston DM, Skahill BE, Downer CW et al (2015) Gridded surface subsurface hydrologic analysis modeling for analysis of flood design features at the Picayune Strand restoration project. In: ASCE World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015. pp 1500–1511Google Scholar
  66. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willmott CJ (1984) On the evaluation of model performance in physical geography. In: Gaile GL, Willmott CJ (eds) Spatial statistics and models. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willmott CJ, Ackleson SG, Davis RE, Feddema JJ, Klink KM, Legates DR, O’Donnell J, Rowe CM (1985) Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models. J Geophys Res Oceans 90:8995–9005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wroblicky GJ, Campana ME, Valett HM, Dahm CN (1998) Seasonal variation in surface-subsurface water exchange and lateral hyporheic area of two stream-aquifer systems. Water Resour Res 34:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhai J, Su B, Krysanova V, Vetter T, GAO C, Jiang T (2010) Spatial variation and trends in PDSI and SPI indices and their relation to streamflow in 10 large regions of China. J Clim 23:649–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography and Earth SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.School of Earth, Environment and SocietyBowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations