The modelling in has a very specific objective: to probabilistically evaluate potential and changes in – groundwater flux relevant to the surface water modelling in the (CRDP) relative to the at specified locations in the landscape.
The modelling is focused on the change in hydrogeological stress and the hydraulic properties, rather than on reproducing historical conditions or predicting future-state variables of the system, such as groundwater levels of fluxes. The main rationale for this approach is that in confined , and to an extent in unconfined systems, the response in groundwater level or flux is linear with respect to the change in stress – that is, a doubling of the pumping rate will result in a doubling of drawdown . If a system behaves linearly, it means the changes are additive, which is known as the principle of superposition . The biggest implication of this is that the change to the system due to a change in stress is largely independent of current or initial conditions. The most well-known example is the interpretation of a pumping test; the drawdown is only a function of the hydraulic properties of the , not of the initial conditions.
While the validity of the principle of superposition will be evaluated, it does enable the modelling to focus on the change in hydrogeological stress and on the hydraulic properties, rather than on reproducing historical conditions or predicting future-state variables of the system, such as groundwater levels or fluxes.
The probabilistic aspect of the analysis implies that modelling does not provide a single best estimate of the change, but rather an ensemble of estimates based on user-defined of input parameters. This ensemble enables statements such as:
- ‘In 95% of the simulations, the change at location x,y does not exceed z.’
- ‘The probability of exceeding a drawdown of 5 m at location x,y is p%.’
To generate these ensembles of predictions, a large number of model parameter sets will be evaluated for the surface water and groundwater models. The range of parameters reflects both the natural variability of the system and the in the understanding of the system as of March 2016. During the uncertainty analysis, these parameter combinations are filtered in such a way that only those that are consistent with the available observations and the understanding of the system are used to generate the ensemble of predictions. When no relevant observations are available, the prior parameter combinations are not constrained. The details are documented in companion submethodology M09 (as listed in Table 1) for propagating uncertainty through models .
It is not possible to capture all uncertainty in the understanding of the system in the parameterisation of the numerical models. It is, therefore, inevitable that there will be a number of assumptions and model choices necessary to create the models. This is often referred to as structural or uncertainty. These assumptions are introduced and briefly discussed in Section 126.96.36.199 about model development. The qualitative uncertainty analysis in Section 188.8.131.52.1 further provides a systematic and comprehensive discussion of these assumptions. This discussion focuses on the rationale behind the assumptions and the effect on the predictions.
A precautionary approach is adopted in making modelling choices and assumptions to reduce the of under estimating the hydrological changes due to coal resource development. However, an overly conservative estimate of is not desirable either. If there are sound reasons to believe that predicted hydrological changes are unrealistically high (e.g. in comparison to earlier modelling efforts in the bioregion) the assumptions may need to be revisited.
The effect on predictions is crucial in justifying assumptions. In a conservative numerical modelling analysis the precautionary principle is adopted: impacts are over estimated rather than under estimated. Wherever possible, this precautionary principle is adopted and if it can be shown that an assumption over estimates – not under estimates – impacts, the assumption is considered appropriate for the specific purpose of this modelling. This approach is also adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency .
The stochastic approach to modelling uncertainty also enables a comprehensive analysis to identify the model parameters or aspects of the system that are most influential on the predictions – and others that have little or no effect on the predictions. This information can guide future data collection and model development or inform the regulatory process.
In the reporting of the groundwater modelling a choice is made only to present the predictions of the model, the drawdown caused by coal resource development. Only for these predictions is it ensured that all the model assumptions are valid and conservative. In addition to that, the parameter distributions are tailored to these predictions. This means that this product will not present simulated historical groundwater levels or potentiometric surfaces.
In traditional groundwater modelling (i.e. deterministic simulation of current and future aquifer states over the entire model domain), this information, together with calibration results, are used to build confidence in the model predictions. This is based on the premise that a model that can accurately reproduce historical states, such as groundwater levels, will be able to make accurate predictions. The work by, among others, , Doherty and Welter (2010), and have shown that this premise is not universally valid and very dependent on the type and nature of the observations and the type and nature of the predictions. In extremis, matching historical observations can lead to an increase in predictive uncertainty. In order to safeguard the analysis from these pitfalls, while still ensuring the model is consistent with available relevant observations, the sensitivity analysis is focused on identifying the parameters the predictions are sensitive to and, should observations be available, identifying which parameters can be constrained by observations. In the uncertainty analysis a set of rules or objective functions are defined, if relevant observations are available, that need to be satisfied before a particular parameter combination is considered suitable to make predictions. An example of such a rule is that the mismatch between simulated and observed groundwater levels is less than a predefined threshold or that the surface water – groundwater flux is within a specified range.
This approach to modelling is a departure from the traditional approach focused on deterministic aquifer simulation reflected in the Australian groundwater modelling guidelines . The report structure therefore does not adhere fully to the reporting structure recommended in the guidelines. This product starts with an overview of the groundwater modelling methods as applied to the Clarence-Moreton bioregion (Section 184.108.40.206.2), in which a high-level overview is provided of the conceptualisation, modelling approach, interaction with the surface water model and uncertainty analysis in relation to the other companion documents for this region and the submethodologies. The methods section is followed with a review of the existing groundwater models (Section 220.127.116.11). Section 18.104.22.168 to Section 22.214.171.124 describe the development of the model, boundary conditions, implementation of the coal resource development pathway () and the parameterisation of the model. In these sections, model choices and assumptions are briefly discussed. The available observations, as well as the type and location of the predictions, are presented in Section 126.96.36.199 . This section also includes the sensitivity analysis of the model parameters to observations and predictions. The probabilistic estimates of drawdown are presented in Section 188.8.131.52 . This section also provides an in-depth formal discussion of the justification of assumptions and their effect on predictions. The final section, 184.108.40.206, does not only contain the conclusions of the model, but also the limitations and opportunities to reduce predictive uncertainty.
Product Finalisation date
- 220.127.116.11 Methods
- 18.104.22.168 Review of existing models
- 22.214.171.124 Model development
- 126.96.36.199 Boundary and initial conditions
- 188.8.131.52 Implementation of the coal resource development pathway
- 184.108.40.206 Parameterisation
- 220.127.116.11 Observations and predictions
- 18.104.22.168 Uncertainty analysis
- 22.214.171.124 Limitations and conclusions
- Contributors to the Technical Programme
- About this technical product