Development and application of a groundwater/surface-water flow model using MODFLOW-NWT for the Upper Fox River Basin, southeastern Wisconsin

Feinstein, Daniel T.; Fienen, Michael N.; Kennedy, J.L.; Buchwald, Cheryl A.; Greenwood, M.M.

doi:10.3133/sir20125108

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Figure 1, the model domain of the test case is shown with the brown lines representing streams and lake boundaries that are represented by line‐sinks in the analytic element model. Although this is a hypothetical model, the stream network and aquifer properties are based on a model constructed by the USGS and the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (Feinstein et al 2005a, 2005b). However, instead of 18 model layers, we only used 2.…”

Section: Test Model Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Hybrid Finite‐Difference and Analytic Element Groundwater Model

Haitjema¹,

Feinstein²,

Hunt³

et al. 2010

Groundwater

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regional finite-difference models tend to have large cell sizes, often on the order of 1-2 km on a side. Although the regional flow patterns in deeper formations may be adequately represented by such a model, the intricate surface water and groundwater interactions in the shallower layers are not. Several stream reaches and nearby wells may occur in a single cell, precluding any meaningful modeling of the surface water and groundwater interactions between the individual features. We propose to replace the upper MODFLOW layer or layers, in which the surface water and groundwater interactions occur, by an analytic element model (GFLOW) that does not employ a model grid; instead, it represents wells and surface waters directly by the use of point-sinks and line-sinks. For many practical cases it suffices to provide GFLOW with the vertical leakage rates calculated in the original coarse MODFLOW model in order to obtain a good representation of surface water and groundwater interactions. However, when the combined transmissivities in the deeper (MODFLOW) layers dominate, the accuracy of the GFLOW solution diminishes. For those cases, an iterative coupling procedure, whereby the leakages between the GFLOW and MODFLOW model are updated, appreciably improves the overall solution, albeit at considerable computational cost. The coupled GFLOW-MODFLOW model is applicable to relatively large areas, in many cases to the entire model domain, thus forming an attractive alternative to local grid refinement or inset models.

show abstract

Section: Test Model Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Hybrid Finite‐Difference and Analytic Element Groundwater Model

Haitjema¹,

Feinstein²,

Hunt³

et al. 2010

Groundwater

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Fox River is a nearly 200‐mile (321‐km) long tributary to the Illinois River within the Mississippi River basin located in the States of the Wisconsin and Illinois (Feinstein et al . ). The Fox River basin is an integral part of the rapidly urbanizing southeastern Wisconsin region and western suburbs of the Chicago Metropolitan area.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

River Basin Organization development in southeastern Wisconsin

Slawski¹

2013

Lakes & Reservoirs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report summarizes the role and function of river organizations in the southeast region of the State of Wisconsin (USA) by comparing the history of lake and river organization formation within the State and aspects of successful public involvement/engagement as examples in protecting and enhancing water resources in the southeastern region of the State. Review of the history of lake organization vs. river organization formation from years 1895 to 2011 demonstrates that Wisconsin has a long and stable history of stakeholder participation in watershed‐based resource management activities. The changes over time also demonstrate that lake association formation became consistent on an annual basis by about the mid‐1930s, followed by lake districts (special purpose units of government) in the early 1970s and river organization formation by the mid 1980s. Hence, the emergence of stream‐based watershed groups as partners in stream‐based watershed protection and management is a relatively new phenomenon statewide, as well as in the southeastern region, especially in the period since the year 1990 when these organizations exhibited the greatest increase in their rate of formation. Comparison of lake organization vs. river organization formation over time also exhibited similarities amongst the timing of formation, rates of development and peaks of formation at the State level that seems to be associated with, or partially explained by, ongoing state programmes and funding. This recent timing of increase in river group popularity in the southeastern region is coupled with an increase in understanding and importance of expanding the focus of management issues, beyond the specific surface water lake or river itself, to the watershed scale. This has set‐up an interesting dilemma amongst river and lake organizations, particularly within the Fox (Illinois) River watershed, as they attempt to identify their respective roles and work together to meet stakeholder demands into the future.

show abstract

“… Sample output from MODFLOW‐NWT listing file ( Feinstein et al 2012 ) showing the reduced pumping rate sustained by the simulation along with saturated thickness information at several partly dewatered cells containing wells. In this case Φ was set to 0.2.…”

Section: Overview Of Features and Input Requiredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Water table solution along sample row of model using: (a) MODFLOW‐2005 with PCG2 solver; and (b) MODFLOW‐NWT with χ MD solver. ( Feinstein et al 2012 ). PCG2 yields a perverse water table solution due to the presence of an active cell over an inactive dry cell.…”

Section: Overview Of Features and Input Requiredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, modelers can focus on fitting the numerical model to the conceptual model and observed field data. For example, in a watershed setting similar to that found to be problematic by Juckem et al (2006) In another case that featured fine grid spacing and thin layers to properly simulate diversion of water from streams to riverbank wells (Feinstein et al 2012), initial model runs with the PCG2 solver did not achieve a stable solution due to thousands of locations where active wet cells in layer 1 overlay inactive dry cells in deeper layers (Figure 4a). The layer 1 cells would, in many cases, be isolated from surrounding cells (the intercell conductance having fallen to 0), and the recharge applied to the shallow active cells would accumulate, yielding unacceptably high water table elevations.…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation