SIMULATING WATER DYNAMICS IN AGRICULTURAL

STORMWATER IMPOUNDMENTS FOR

IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY
F. H. Jaber, S. Shukla

ABSTRACT. The hydrology of an impoundment in an agricultural grove in southern Florida was studied to assess its potential
use as a water supply source. The MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 integrated hydrologic model was used to simulate the various hydro-
logic processes and their interactions. The model was calibrated and validated for water levels inside the impoundment and
in a ditch outside the impoundment. Model evaluation results showed that the model could be used for assessing water reten-
tion alternatives with root mean square error (RMSE) values ranging from 0.03 to 0.25 m. Several structural and managerial
alternatives were identified and evaluated to increase water retention volume and time. The alternatives include lining the
impoundment, lining only the embankment and the inner distribution canal with 15 and 30 cm liner thicknesses, and pumping
water regularly from the surrounding ditch to the impoundment. All alternatives were compared to the present condition. Lin-
ing the entire impoundment with clay provided ten weeks of additional irrigation from September to May. Lining the embank-
ment and the inner canal of the impoundment provided up to four weeks of additional irrigation. Extending the regular
pumping for a month after the wet season resulted in the reservoir being filled to full capacity during that month. The modeling
study shows that claylining impoundments could provide an additional source of irrigation.
Keywords. Agricultural drainage, Integrated hydrologic modeling, Irrigation, MIKE 11, MIKE SHE, Model evaluation,
Stormwater detention/retention.

T
he Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project
(CERP), one of the most expensive environmental
projects (total cost $7.8 billion) in the world, pro-
vides a framework and guide to restore, protect, and
preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida,
including the Everglades. The goal of CERP is to deliver the
right amount of water, of the right quality, to the right places,
and at the right time (CERP, 2002). It is estimated that an av-
erage 6.4 million cubic meters (1.7 billion gallons) of water
that once flowed daily through the ecosystem are now di-
verted and discharged into the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic
Ocean. Southwest Florida is an important part of the Ever-
glades ecosystem since it contains the Caloosahatchee River
that connects Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf. The Caloosa-
hatchee River watershed is one of the two major basins in
southwest Florida. The river is the major source of water for
agricultural users within its basin. It also provides habitat for
wildlife such as wading birds and migratory fowl. Excess
Article was submitted for review in October 2003; approved for
publication by the Soil & Water Division of ASAE in June 2004. Presented
at the 2003 ASAE Annual Meeting as Paper No. 032326.
This research was supported by the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station and approved for publication as Journal Series No R10038.
The authors are Fouad H. Jaber, ASAE Member Engineer,
PostDoctoral Research Associate, and Sanjay Shukla, ASAE Member
Engineer, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center,
University of Florida. Corresponding author: Sanjay Shukla, Department
of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Southwest Florida Research
and Education Center, University of Florida, 2686 State Road 29 N,
Immokalee, FL 34142; phone: 2396583400; fax: 2396583469; evaporation, and evapotranspiration (Boman et al., 2002).
email: sshukla@ifas.ufl.edu.
runoff in the Caloosahatchee watershed results in high dis-
charges to the Caloosahatchee estuary, which can potentially
harm the estuarine ecosystem.
Southwest Florida is also increasingly facing water
shortages. Increased urban water supply demands due to the
high population growth rate in the coastal areas combined
with the large agricultural and environmental water needs are
expected to exceed the available water resources by 25% by
the year 2020 (SFWMD, 2000a). Additional storage of
rainfall is needed within the region to meet part of the
increased water supply demand. Estimates for needed
additional storage capacity range from 55.5 to 197.4 million
cubic m (45,000 to 160,000 acft) (USACOE, 1998; Flaig,
2002).
To meet the increased demand and reduce the excess
runoff into the river, the Caloosahatchee Water Management
Plan (CWMP) suggested building 8000 ha (20,000 ac) of
reservoirs with 2.4 m (8 ft) of maximum water depth
(SFWMD, 2000b). The CWMP provides two possible
solutions: (1) one large reservoir, or (2) one large reservoir in
combination with several small reservoirs. If stored, the
excess runoff in the Caloosahatchee River watershed can be
used to partly supply the water needs in the basin. Another
possible solution can be to utilize the existing stormwater
detention facilities in agricultural areas for storing water for
later use in irrigation.
Sixtyfive hundred ha (16,000 ac) of agricultural im-
poundments exist in the Caloosahatchee watershed. These
impoundments store stormwater runoff before it is dis-
charged to surface waters or removed by infiltration,
With an estimated average water depth of 0.6 m (2 ft), these

Transactions of the ASAE

Vol. 47(5): E 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 00012351 1
impoundments could provide a lowercost local alternative
source of water for agricultural supply in the Caloosahatchee
basin. While these impoundments are mostly used for
stormwater retention and detention, they have the potential
to be stormwater harvesting units during the dry season
(October to May). The nature of southern Floridas weather
is such that 67% of the total annual rainfall (1.4 m) occurs
from May to September (Fernald and Purdum, 1998).
The potential use of impoundments for water supply
cannot be assessed before the hydrology of these impound-
ments has been studied. A hydrologic monitoring project and
a modeling project were initiated to address the hydrology of
the agricultural impoundments (Flaig, 2002; Shukla and
Jaber, 2002). The objective of the monitoring phase was to
collect field data to understand the hydrology of the
impoundments and develop a hydrologic model to evaluate
different scenarios for improving water storage. The data for
a monitored impoundment indicated considerable seepage
losses from the impoundment. Thus, the current design
would not be suitable for water storage during the dry season.
The second phase of the project was to develop a simulation
model to evaluate different alternatives for improving water
storage in these detention areas. The results of the second
phase of the project are discussed here.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to use an integrated modeling
approach to simulate the water dynamics of agricultural
impoundments for assessing the use of these impoundments
for water supply. Specific objectives include:
S Selection and construction of an integrated model to
evaluate the agricultural drainage storage within the
impoundments for irrigation purposes.
S Calibration and evaluation of the model for an im-
poundment in the Caloosahatchee basin.
S Evaluation of water management alternatives for stor-
ing runoff in the impoundment for irrigation use.
Figure 1. Location of the impoundment within the Caloosahatchee River watershed.
2 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
METHODOLOGY
Given the highly interactive surface water and groundwa-
ter systems in southwest Florida, the selected model should
be able to represent the interactions with acceptable accura-
cy. One such model is the Systeme Hydrologique Europen
(SHE) (Abbott et al., 1986). The model later evolved to what
is now known as the MIKE SHE model (DHI, 1993;
Refsgaard, 1997). The MIKE SHE model (Refsgaard and
Storm, 1995), which was selected for this study, is one of the
few models that has integrated the unsaturated and saturated
zone with overland and channel flow into a complete
dynamic hydrologic system.
STUDY AREA
The impoundment selected for this study is located in the
southern part of the Caloosahatchee River basin (fig. 1). The
Big Cypress basin borders the area to the east and south. The
impoundment is one of the several impoundments within a
commercial citrus grove. The impoundment under study is
located in the center of lowelevation groves that require
almost constant drainage during the wet season. Although the
site consists primarily of a wetland with emerging grasses,
sawgrass, and willows, it does not appear to hold water for
long periods of time.
The model domain for this study included the impound-
ment, the surrounding grove plots that drain into it, and an
area north of the impoundment. The impoundment is
surrounded by a borrow ditch. The name borrow is derived
from the fact that the material from excavation of this ditch
was borrowed to create the impoundment dikes (fig. 2). The
function of the borrow ditch is to collect the grove drainage.
Although the additional area to the north does not drain to the
impoundment, it was included to simulate the subsurface
interactions between the impoundment and the northern part
of the borrow ditch. To avoid flooding of the grove and meet
historical flow levels set up by the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD), water from the inflow bor-
row ditch is pumped into the impoundment. A throwout
pump, a term used in Florida to describe drainage pumps, is
Study Site
Basin Boundary
Water
Tributaries
 North drainage ditch
Borrow ditch
Point B
Point C
Throwout
pump
Figure 2. Aerial photo of study area with location of monitoring structures.
located in the ditch to pump water from the ditch into the im-
poundment (fig. 2). With continued pumping into the im-
poundment, the water in the impoundment exceeds the
outflow weir elevation and discharges into an outflow ditch,
which conveys water outside the grove and eventually to the
Caloosahatchee River (fig. 2). A return flow weir is also
installed at the east side of the impoundment. The return flow
weir is an emergency water outlet that releases water in case
water is not flowing fast enough from the outflow weir and
the water level is high enough to endanger the stability of the
embankments. During the study period, the water level did
not reach the return flow elevation at any time.
The citrus grove under study has an area of 265.5 ha
(656.1 ac). The impoundment area is 43.9 ha (108.6 ac), and
the cultivated field area is 221.6 ha (547.5 ac). The mean
ground elevations in the cultivated field area and impound-
ment are 9.37 m (30.74 ft) and 8.79 m (28.84 ft) National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), respectively. The outflow
weir elevation is 9.00 m (29.53 ft) NGVD, allowing for a
maximum water depth of 0.21 m (0.69 ft).
MONITORING DATA
Groundwater table and surface water levels were mea-
sured at several locations within the study area from
September 1999 to January 2001 (Flaig, 2002). Water levels
at three locations within the impoundment and one location
in the surrounding ditch were used to calibrate the groundwa-
ter and surface water components of the MIKE SHE model
(fig. 2). These points were located at the outflow point
northeast of the impoundment (Point A), near the return flow
outlet east of the impoundment (Point B), and at a point west
Vol. 47(5):
60 m N
Inner ditch
Outflow ditch
Point A
Inflow ditch
Point D
Monitoring Location
Pump
of the impoundment (Point C). Ditch levels were monitored
at one location in the borrow ditch near the return flow outlet
(Point D). Inflow to the impoundment from the borrow ditch
through the throwout pump was represented in the model by
using the pumped volume data estimated from the measured
pump revolutions data (Flaig, 2002). Daily data (rainfall,
wind speed, solar radiation, relative humidity, and tempera-
ture) from a weather station installed near the impoundment
were used to calculate reference evapotranspiration (ET0)
from the impoundment using the PenmanMonteith equation
(Penman, 1948; Monteith, 1981).
Several discontinuities existed in the monitoring data
collected from October 1999 to January 2001. Groundwater
data from the middle Hawthorn aquifer (deep groundwater
monitoring site) were collected only for the September 2000
to January 2001 period. Irrigation in the grove (data obtained
from grove management) started on October 23, 2000. For
the first two weeks, the weekly irrigation volume used was
10,705 m3 (8.7 acft). For the period from November 12,
2000, to May 28, 2001, the total weekly irrigation volume
increased by 25% to 13,381 m3 (10.8 acft).
MODEL DESCRIPTION
MIKE SHE is comprised of finite difference representa-
tions of mass and energy balances, in addition to some widely
used empirical relations to simulate unsaturated and satu-
rated zone hydrology and overland flow. For this study, the
following processes were included: infiltration, subsurface
flow in the saturated and the unsaturated zones, ET, and
overland and channel flows. Channel flow was modeled
using the MIKE 11 model in combination with the MIKE
3
SHE model. MIKE 11 is a onedimensional model that
simulates openchannel and river flows and a wide range of
hydraulic structures such as pumps, weirs, gates, and
culverts. A full dynamic coupling of surface and subsurface
flow processes is achieved between MIKE 11 and MIKE SHE
(MIKE SHE, 1999).
MODEL CALIBRATION
Calibration is the process in which uncertain model
parameters are systematically varied to obtain agreement
between simulated and observed data sets (Chapra, 1997).
The short duration of the deep groundwater data collection
phase imposed the use of short periods for calibration and
evaluation, since the deep aquifer data are needed for setting
initial and boundary conditions. Therefore, the calibration
period was chosen to be from October 23, 2000, to January
4, 2001. The evaluation period was from September 9, 2000,
to October 22, 2000. Despite the short durations of the
calibration and evaluation period, the different processes
occurring in the two periods provide a valuable insight
regarding the performance of the model. The calibration
period represents the dry period, while the evaluation period
is representative of the wet season.
PARAMETER ASSESSMENT
Parameters were classified into three groups: (1) parame-
ters whose values are predicted with some certainty from
literature or previous studies in the area, (2) parameters
estimated through measurements, and (3) parameters whose
values are determined through calibration. Following is a
description of the parameters considered in this study for
each subroutine in the model.
Evapotranspiration
For computing the actual evapotranspiration (ETc) from
the ET0, MIKE SHE uses the Kristensen and Jensen (1975)
model, which requires leaf area index, vertical root distribu-
tion characteristics, and interception parameters, all of which
are crop/vegetation dependent. Management records indi-
cated that citrus was the only crop grown in the grove. The
wetland vegetation consisted of marsh and forest areas,
depending on the elevation. The crop and vegetation
parameters were obtained from the Caloosahatchee Basin
Integrated Surface WaterGroundwater Model study (DHI,
1999).
Saturated Zone
The groundwater component in MIKE SHE requires a
threedimensional geological model describing the extent,
thickness, and hydrogeological parameters of the aquifers.
Two of the three groundwater layers in the region were
represented in the model: the surficial and upper Hawthorn
aquifers. The third, a deeper Floridan aquifer, was not
considered because of its limited effect on the surface
hydrological processes in the area. The thickness and extent
of these aquifers were obtained from a U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) groundwater study of the area (Bower et al.,
1990). The hydrogeological parameters needed for the model
are horizontal (Kh) and vertical (Kv) hydraulic conductivities
and confined and unconfined aquifer storage coefficients.
The storage coefficients were extracted from a previous study
(DHI, 1999). These values were determined from a pumping
test for wells in the surrounding area. The hydraulic conduc-
4 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
tivities were determined through the calibration process due
to unavailability of measured data. Initial and boundary con-
ditions for the groundwater levels were determined using
data from three wells located in the study area. When avail-
able, the groundwater well data (middle Hawthorn and surfi-
cial) were used to generate a timevarying boundary
condition. For periods when groundwater level data were not
available due to the malfunction of the well level recording
instruments, a constant head boundary condition equal to the
last recorded value was used.
Unsaturated Zone
The unsaturated zone module in MIKE SHE requires
detailed properties for the soil profile. A soil moisture
characteristic curve and a hydraulic conductivity function are
required for each horizon. The soils map for the study area
was adapted from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) SSURGO soil coverage maps. Four main
soil groups are found in the study area: Flatwoods (Immoka-
lee series), Slough (Pineda series), Depression (Winder
series), and Marsh (Sanibel series), which are sandy soils
with fine sand and loam textures. Soil moisture characteristic
curves and hydraulic conductivity curves were taken from a
soils database developed at the University of Florida
Southwest Florida Research and Education Center at Immo-
kalee, Florida (T. Obreza, unpublished data, 2002).
Overland and Ditch Flows
The overland flow module in MIKE SHE is based on the
twodimensional full Saint Venant hydrodynamic equations.
These equations require a digital elevation model (DEM), a
map of Mannings roughness coefficients, a detention storage
value (dc ), and a leakage coefficient (lc ). Mannings rough-
ness coefficient (n) describes the surface resistance to flow.
A value of 0.1 s/m1/3 was used for the grove, while values of
0.14 and 0.2 s/m1/3 were used inside the impoundment
depending on the vegetation density. These values were
adapted from Shen and Julien (1993) for floodplains with
dense willow and brush. The detention storage (dc ) value is
a threshold that indicates the depth at which overland flow is
initiated. This value was determined by calibration. When
the soil is completely saturated, as often happens in the rainy
season (May to September) in southern Florida, the unsatu-
rated zone module is bypassed and a leakage coefficient (lc )
is specified to describe the interaction between surface and
groundwater. The value for lc (L/s) was obtained by calibra
tion.
The water level in the borrow ditch surrounding the
impoundment was simulated using MIKE 11 in conjunction
with MIKE SHE. Exploratory model runs indicated that the
water level could be adjusted by calibrating four parameters:
the vertical and the horizontal hydraulic conductivities, the
leakage coefficient (lc ) inside the ditch, and the detention
storage coefficient (dc ). The lc , which represents the flow of
water through the soil when the soil is completely saturated,
and the vertical and the horizontal hydraulic conductivities
were important parameters controlling the base flow in the
drainage ditch. Peak flows were adjusted using dc , which
represents the depth at which overland flow starts.
CALIBRATION STATISTICS
Calibration was carried out against the measured ground-
water level at three locations inside the impoundment: at the
outflow weir (Point A), at the return flow outlet (Point B), and
on the west side (Point C), as shown in figure 2. The water
level data for the surrounding borrow ditch next to the return
flow outlet were also included in the calibration. No outflow
occurred from the impoundment during the calibration
period (October 23, 2000, to January 4, 2001).
Many criteria for calibration have been proposed and
discussed (Green and Stephenson, 1986; Martinec and
Rango, 1989; Loague and Green, 1991; ASCE Task Commit-
tee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed
Models, 1993; Refsgaard, 1997; Weglarczyk, 1998; Legates
and McCabe, 1999). James and Burges (1982) suggested that
the following graphical calibration aids be used when
assessing the performance of hydrological methods:
S Time series comparison of simulated and observed wa-
ter levels.
S Scattergrams of observed levels against simulated wa-
ter levels.
The most commonly used criteria in the literature are the
root mean square error (RMSE), the correlation coefficient
(R2), the NashSutcliffe coefficient (EF), and the index of
agreement (d). Weglarczyk (1998) and Legates and McCabe
(1999) showed that R2 is insensitive to the bias, which is the
difference between the means of the observed and simulated
values. The ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria
for Evaluation of Watershed Models (1993) indicated that the
EF has a shortcoming for lowflow periods similar to the
conditions in this study. Since under lowflow conditions
most simulated values are close to the mean value, EF tends
to change from positive to negative for minor model
mispredictions. Refsgaard (1997), when calibrating a site
specific MIKE SHE model, used EF for rainfallrunoff
results but only used graphical comparison to calibrate
groundwater levels. Legates and McCabe (1999) stated that
d represents a decided improvement over R2. The index of
agreement (d) is a dimensionless term that varies from 0 to
1, with 1 representing a perfect agreement between the model
and the observed data. Legates and McCabe (1999) advo-
cated an error term such as RMSE in addition to a
dimensionless measure. The RMSE and d were used in this
study in addition to the mean, the standard deviation of the
water levels, and the abovementioned graphical aids.
RMSE and d are expressed as follows:
RMSE =
1 n
(
(Oi Si ) 2
n i =1
) (1)
n
(Oi Si )
2 week.
d = 1 1
(2)
( Si O + Oi O )
n 2
1 alternatives were evaluated by comparing the calibrated
where O and S are the observed and simulated values, respec-
tively; O is the mean observed value; and n is the total num-
ber of observations.
MODEL EVALUATION
The term evaluation is used in this study to avoid
misleading the reader on the limits of this testing to the
Vol. 47(5):
specific site of this study (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1992).
To evaluate the calibrated MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model, the
evaluation period needed to include different hydrologic pro-
cesses than occurred during calibration. The evaluation peri-
od included the wet season with heavy rains, no irrigation,
and high pumping rates into the impoundment (September 6
to October 22, 2000). In contrast, the calibration period (Oc-
tober 23, 2000, to January 4, 2001) included the dry season
with no pumping, a regular irrigation schedule, and only two
major rain events on November 20, 2000 (2.3 cm, 0.9 in.) and
December 28, 2000 (3.6 cm, 1.4 in.).
PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS
Increasing the water retention capacity of the citrus grove
impoundments has the potential to provide an alternative
source of water for irrigation during the dry period.
Increasing the retention capacity will also help reduce
groundwater use, alter the timing of the release of water into
the Caloosahatchee River, and thus help reduce the peak
flows and make higher volumes of water available to the
Everglades ecosystem. Water stored during December and
January could also be an alternative source of water needed
for freeze protection for citrus. Based on the available
topographic maps and the elevation of outflow structure, the
estimated total capacity of the impoundment is 67,993 m3
(18 M gal). The average depth of water in the impoundment
at full capacity is 0.21 m (0.69 ft). A minimum storage depth
of 0.1 m (0.33 ft) to be maintained in the deepest half of the
impoundment was arbitrarily assigned due to lack of data, to
preserve the ecosystem, to reduce the sediment in the usable
water, and to account for ET losses from the reservoir. When
the water level recedes below the arbitrary minimum storage
depth, the water will not be pumped out.
A stagestorage curve for the impoundment was devel-
oped from a topographic map. Using this curve with the
abovementioned criteria (minimum stage of 0.1 m) results
in a total maximum available volume of 49,120 m3 (13 M gal)
from the impoundment. The amount available for irrigation
is not as simple as dividing the maximum volume stored by
the weekly irrigation rate because the time of maximum
irrigation requirement during the week might not coincide
with the time of peak storage in the impoundment. In
addition, it is difficult to predict the volume retained in the
impoundment if irrigation water is being withdrawn (chang-
ing head conditions). In the following discussion, the
additional irrigation made possible by the increased volume
retention in the impoundment is calculated based on the
volume of water available for irrigation at the end of each
To assess the potential for existing or planned impound-
ments in the Caloosahatchee watershed to retain water for its
reuse in agriculture, three alternatives were evaluated. The
model results with present conditions. The following alterna-
tives were considered:
S Lining the entire impoundment with 15 cm thick clay
liner.
S Lining the inner ditch inside the impoundment and the
embankment.
S Regular pumping or water recycling.
5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CALIBRATION RESULTS
The MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 parameters calibrated in this
study were the vertical and horizontal conductivities, the
leakage coefficients (lc ) of the floodplain and the ditches, and
the detention coefficient (dc ). Values of the saturated vertical
hydraulic conductivities (Kvsat) ranged from 6 106 to
8.1 104 m/s (0.071 to 9.57 ft/h), with the higher values
being in the grove and the lower values inside the impound-
ment. The values of the horizontal hydraulic conductivities
(Khsat) ranged from 4 106 to 9 104 m/s (0.047 to
10.62 ft/h). These values fall within the range of silt to silt
sand found in the study area (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The
lc in the floodplain was found to be 1 104 L/s (1.6 103
gpm), while the lc value for the ditches was equal to 1 103
L/s (1.6 102 gpm). The dc was found to be 0.029 m
(0.095 ft). The latter two parameters are MIKE SHE specific,
and their value could not be verified due to the lack of studies
at this scale in this type of soil.
Calibration results at Points A, B, C, and D (fig. 2) are
shown in figures 3 through 6. While the model predicted the
groundwater level at Point A (fig. 3) well, the simulated
levels at Points B and C (figs. 4 and 5) experienced a drop at
the beginning of the simulation before following the same
Evaluation
9.5
trend as the observed data. The simulated surrounding inflow
ditch levels at Point D matched with the observed data well
(fig. 6). Figures 4 and 5 show that a water level dip occurs at
the beginning of the dry period (OctoberNovember) for
Points B and C. This dip occurs when the water level has re-
ceded below the ground surface. The recession of the water
level below the ground surface explains why the dip occurs
at different times for the two locations (figs. 4 and 5) since the
two points have different ground elevations. Figure 4 shows
that for Point B, the model results improve after 15 days, and
simulated levels match well with the observed values for the
rest of the simulation period. Although a similar phenomenon
occurs at Point C after 15 days, the model continues to under-
estimate the observed levels for the remainder of the simula-
tion period (fig. 5). The most probable reason for the
discrepancy is the use of a well located near Point A for gen-
erating boundary conditions data for the whole reservoir. The
water level dip that occurs at Point A is also seen in the ob-
served data. The further the points are from Point A, the less
prominent the dip becomes in the observed data. Conversely,
the model keeps simulating this dip in all locations inside the
impoundment due to the use of the well data near Point A. As
the groundwater level variations become smaller (after 15
days), the model predicts the groundwater level more accu-
rately at the three locations.
Calibration

Outflow weir
9
Water Level (m)

Impoundment ground level

8.5

7.5
5Sep00 30Sep00 25Oct00 19Nov00 14Dec00 8Jan01
Date

Observed Simulated

Figure 3. Simulated and observed groundwater levels inside the impoundment near the outflow weir (Point A) from September 6, 2000, to January 4,
2001.
Evaluation Calibration
9.5

9
Water Level (m)

Impoundment ground level

8.5

7.5
5Sep00 30Sep00 25Oct00 19Nov00 14Dec00 8Jan01
Date

Observed Simulated

Figure 4. Simulated and observed groundwater levels inside the impoundment near the return flow outlet (Point B) from September 6, 2000, to Janu-
ary 4, 2001.

6 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

 Evaluation Calibration
9.5

Impoundment ground level

9

Water Level (m)

8.5

7.5
5Sep00 30Sep00 25Oct00 19Nov00 14Dec00 8Jan01
Date

Observed Simulated

Figure 5. Simulated and observed groundwater levels inside the impoundment on the west side (Point C) from September 6, 2000, to January 4, 2001.

Evaluation Calibration
9.5

9
Water Level (m)

8.5

7.5
5Sep00 30Sep00 25Oct00 19Nov00 14Dec00 8Jan01
Date

Observed Simulated

Figure 6. Simulated and observed ditch water levels outside the impoundment near the return flow discharge (Point D) from September 6, 2000, to
January 4, 2001.

Several reasons can be offered for differences between the
simulated and observed data. Even though MIKE SHE is a
comprehensive model, some uncertainty in accurately simu-
lating field hydrological processes will always exist. The
lack of accurate unsaturated and saturated zone information
can result in mass balance errors during the solution of the full
Richards equation describing the unsaturated zone flow.
These errors occur because the unsaturated and the saturated
modules are run in parallel and are coupled by a mass balance
calculation at each time step (MIKE SHE, 1999). More
extensive monitoring to cover boundary conditions, addi-
tional groundwater levels in the field and in the impound-
ment, water depth in the impoundment, and longer periods of
data collection should result in improved simulations.
Previous studies modeling groundwater levels using
MIKE SHE relied mostly on graphical comparison of
simulated and observed time series (Refsgaard, 1997;
Jayatilaka et al., 1998; Demetriou and Punthakey, 1999). No
clear criteria have been established to judge the success of
groundwater level modeling. Demetriou and Punthakey
(1999) stated that calibration with an overall average error of
less than 1.0 m could be considered as good, which is an error
of 33% with respect to the maximum range of the observed
values. Jayatilaka et al. (1998) presented only a correlation
coefficient (R2), which ranged from 0.8 to 0.92. RMSE and
d values (table 1) indicate that the model matched well the
observed data at Points A and D. The model was less accurate
at Point B, and performed poorly at Point C. The discrepancy
at Points B and C is mainly attributed to the error in the
boundary conditions due to the scarcity of data.
MODEL EVALUATION RESULTS
The next step was to evaluate the calibrated model. Time
series plots of simulated and observed levels for the
monitoring locations at Points A, B, C, and D are shown in
figures 3 to 6, respectively. At the three locations inside the
impoundment, the model overestimated the peaks of the
water levels during the pumping period (September 6, 2000,
to October 14, 2000). For the rest of the evaluation period
(October 14, 2000, to October 22, 2000) and during the
calibration period (October 23, 2000, to January 23, 2001),
the model performed better because there were no pumping
events. This peak flow overestimation was probably due to
the flooding module in MIKE SHE/MIKE 11. When the
water level rises above the inner canals banks, MIKE
SHE/MIKE 11 automatically imposes the water depth above
the channel banks on all of a designated flooding area in the
reservoir. This results in overestimating the peak flows, since

Vol. 47(5): 7
 Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, RMSE, and index of agreement (d) for the water
level at the four monitoring locations for the calibration and evaluation periods.
Mean (m) Standard Deviation (m)
Calibration Evaluation Calibration Evaluation RMSE (m) d
Point Obs.[a] Sim.[b] Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Calib. Eval. Calib. Eval.
A (outflow weir) 8.33 8.29 8.60 8.59 0.19 0.17 0.36 0.35 0.09 0.09 0.94 0.98
B (return weir) 8.52 8.35 8.72 8.67 0.20 0.16 0.29 0.34 0.25 0.14 0.66 0.95
C (west side) 8.61 8.32 8.77 8.60 0.18 0.17 0.25 0.36 0.32 0.25 0.59 0.84
D (borrow ditch) 8.39 8.42 8.34 8.31 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.73 0.92
[a] Observed.
[b] Simulated.

the canal fills in much faster than the reservoir. If the flooding
were represented by a 2D wave equation that represented
the physical processes occurring, the water level might have
been better predicted. Uncertainties in model predictions
may also result from errors in estimating pumped volume us-
ing pump speed data. In addition, a deep cut at the pump in-
flow location caused by the impact of high velocity occurred
in the reservoir. This deep cut was not represented in the mod-
el due to lack of data, resulting in further error. Furthermore,
it is possible that the deep cut facilitates rapid exchange of
water between the two sides of the embankment.
RMSE and d values (table 1) show that the model
performed better at all locations during the evaluation period
as compared to the calibration period. This is probably
because during the wet season, the water table is high and less
spatially varied. As a result, the boundary values used seem
to be more accurate than the ones used during the calibration
period.
For a better evaluation of model performance, scatter-
grams (fig. 7) were generated for the four locations for the
entire model running period (September 9, 2000, to January
4, 2001). Scattergrams for Points B, C, and D are not shown
for brevity. R2 values and the slopes (a) of regression lines
(y = ax) were calculated for Points A, B, C, and D. The closer
these two parameters are to one, the better the simulation. R2
values were found to be 0.94, 0.86, 0.76, and 0.76,
respectively. The slopes values were found to be 1.00, 1.00,
1.02, and 1.00, respectively. At Point A, the scattergram
showed that, on average, the model showed a high correlation
with the observed values, indicating a good match (fig. 7). At
Point B, the scattergram showed that the model slightly
underestimated low values and slightly overestimated high
values (data not presented). The scattergram at Point C
water that can be stored in the impoundment. The discussion
is divided into two parts: for the period in which the model
was calibrated (October 23, 2000, to January 4, 2001) and an
extended period that covers the entire dry season (October
23, 2000, to May 28, 2001). The results for both time periods,
along with the rainfall series, are shown in figures 8, 9, 10,
and 11.
The dry period in southern Florida extends from Septem-
ber to May, with 34% of the total annual rainfall falling
during this period. In order to assess the performance of the
impoundment during this period, MIKE SHE was run for
selected alternatives. Alternative 1 (15 cm of clay lining in
the entire impoundment) and Alternative 2 (lining the inner
ditch inside the impoundment and the embankment) will be
discussed in this section. For most of the dry period in 2001,
southern Florida was in extreme to exceptional drought
conditions (Drought Monitor, 1999). This period was,
therefore, selected to test the alternatives in extreme
conditions. No weather data were collected at the site after
January 31, 2001. The data from the UFIFAS Immokalee
Weather Station, 10 km from the study area, were used. The
dry season runs were made from October 23, 2000, to May
28, 2001. From October 23, 2000, to January 30, 2001, the
weather data used were from the onsite weather station
(figs. 8 through 11). The pattern of irrigation scheduling
(amount and timing) during the calibration period was used
to estimate the irrigation data for 2001.
9.6
y = 1.00x
R 2 = 0.94
9.1
Observed

showed a similar trend of underestimating low values and

overestimating high values, but the model predictions were
less correlated with the observed values than at Point A (data
8.6
not presented). Errors in R2 occurred because one groundwa-
ter well was used to assign boundary values to the entire
boundary. The increase in error is evident in monitoring
locations that are farther from the groundwater well location, 8.1
such as Point C as compared to Point A, which is very close 8.1 8.6 9.1 9.6
to the groundwater well. This is further corroborated by the
Simulated
RMSE and d values (table 1). At Point D, the scattergram
showed an underestimation of low values, but the model 1:1 Line Regression Line
converged at higher values (data not presented).
Figure 7. Scattergram of observed against simulated groundwater levels
PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS RESULTS at Point A from September 6, 2000, to January 4, 2001.
The following discussion on the alternatives for increas-
ing storage concentrates on the duration and the volume of

8 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

 Calibrated period Extended dry period
100 0

Volume (m 3 x1000)
80
minimum storage volume

Rainfall (cm)
10
60
15
40
20
20 25

0 30
23Oct00 12Dec00 31Jan01 22Mar01 11May01
Date
Alternative 1 Present conditions

Figure 8. Weekly times series of water volume in the impoundment for Alternative 1 compared to the present conditions from October 23, 2000, to
May 28, 2001.

Calibrated period Extended dry period

100 0
Volume (m 3 x1000)

80 5

Rainfall (cm)
minimum storage volume 10
60
15
40
20
20 25
0 30
23Oct00 12Dec00 31Jan01 22Mar01 11May01
Date

Alternative 2 (15 cm) Present conditions

Figure 9. Weekly times series of water volume in the impoundment for Alternative 2 (15 cm) compared to the present conditions from October 23, 2000,
to May 28, 2001.

Calibrated period Extended dry period

100 0
Volume (m 3 x1000)

80 5
Rainfall (cm)

minimum storage volume 10

60
15
40
20
20 25
0 30
23Oct00 12Dec00 31Jan01 22Mar01 11May01
Date

Alternative 2 (30 cm) Present conditions

Figure 10. Weekly times series of water volume in the impoundment for Alternative 2 (30 cm) compared to the present conditions from October 23,
2000, to May 28, 2001.

PRESENT CONDITIONS
Calibration Period
An assessment of the present conditions, specifically the
volume of water retained in the impoundment without any
management or structural changes, based on the calibrated
and evaluated model results, was made for comparison with
alternatives. A weekly time series of the water storage in the
impoundment is presented for all the alternatives with a line
showing the volume beyond which water cannot be used
(average depth of 0.1 m for half of the impoundment) (figs. 8
through 11). For the present conditions, the volume in the
impoundment falls below the minimum volume of use in the
impoundment within the first week of the dry season. In
addition, the two rainfall events that occur during this period
(November 20, 2000: 2.3 cm, 0.9 in.; December 28, 2000:
3.6 cm, 1.4 in.) failed to increase the volume in the
impoundment to an extent that would produce any usable
water. The main reason for low retention of the rainfall is the

Vol. 47(5): 9
 Calibrated period
100
Volume (m 3 x1000)
80
60
40
20
0 30
23Oct00
Figure 11. Weekly times series of water volume in the impoundment for Alternative 3 compared to the present conditions from October 23, 2000, to
May 28, 2001.
high seepage rate from inside the impoundment to the water
table or the surrounding ditch.
Dry Period
For the present conditions, the water retention in the
impoundment is minimal and has practically no response to
the rainfall events that occur during the dry period (figs. 8
through 11).
ALTERNATIVE 1: LINING IN THE ENTIRE IMPOUNDMENT
Calibration Period
Clay liners are commonly used to reduce seepage losses.
To simulate the effect of clay lining, changes were made to
both saturated and unsaturated zone modules. The use of
bentonite, a commonly used clay liner used for lining
landfills, was simulated. For the saturated zone module, Kvsat
and Khsat and a specific yield value were changed to represent
the clay liner. A value of 1 109 m/s for both Kvsat and Khsat
and a specific yield of 0.02 were used (EPA, 1984). For the
unsaturated zone, a soil moisture characteristic curve and an
exponent for the Brooks and Corey hydraulic conductivity
function obtained from the published data were used (EPA,
1984). A value of 12 for the hydraulic conductivity function
exponent was used from the published data of Rawls et al.
(1993). This alternative is suitable for impoundments where
lining will not result in disturbance of protected wetland
areas. For this alternative, a thickness of 15 cm (6 in.) of
compacted bentonite clay liner was tested. The clay liner is
installed in the impoundment bottom and along the embank-
ments. Simulation results for Alternative 1 during the
calibration period are shown in figure 8. Using a 15 cm (6 in.)
thick liner provides increased volume retention when
compared to the present conditions. Slower infiltration
results in a higher detention time. The sustained water
retention after the November 20, 2000, rainfall event (fig. 8)
allowed sufficient water to be stored to irrigate for three
weeks. In total, five weeks of irrigation are provided during
the calibration period.
Dry Period
Alternative 1 (15 cm of clay liner added in the entire
impoundment) resulted in water volume retained in excess of
the minimum storage volume level for approximately
2 months from midDecember to midFebruary and could
provide water for irrigation for approximately eight weeks.
Overall, approximately 13 weeks of irrigation water could be
10
Extended dry period
0
5
Rainfall (cm)
minimum storage volume 10
15
20
25
12Dec00 31Jan01 22Mar01 11May01
Date
Alternative 3 Present conditions
provided from the impoundment with this alternative (fig. 8).
The additional water could also be used for freeze protection
purposes.
ALTERNATIVE 2: LINING THE INNER DITCH INSIDE THE
IMPOUNDMENT AND THE EMBANKMENT
Calibration Period
The purpose of Alternative 2 is to explore whether
reducing the seepage losses through the embankments and
from the conveyance canal inside the impoundment will
result in improved storage capacity. This alternative is also
useful when the impoundment is a protected wetland, but the
embankments can be modified. Clay liners with thicknesses
of 15 and 30 cm (6 and 12 in.) were tested for this alternative.
The evaluation results for the 15 cm (6 in.) thick liner (fig. 9)
show that the quantity and duration of water retention are
increased compared to present conditions, but are less than
Alternative 1. It provides enough water to irrigate the grove
for one week at the beginning of the calibration period and for
one week after each major rainfall event (fig. 9). In total,
three weeks of irrigation water is provided in Alternative 2
(15 cm, 6 in.). This alternative shows that impoundments
designated as protected wetland might be modified to support
the ecological functions and serve as an alternative water
supply source. These results show that significant seepage
losses occur through the embankment and the conveyance
ditch inside the impoundment.
For the 30 cm (12 in.) thick clay liner, evaluation results
(fig. 10) show a higher volume and retention time than with
the 15 cm (6 in.) clay liner. The choice between these two
options will require a cost benefit analysis and effects on the
wetland hydroperiod if the impoundment is a protected area.
An additional week of irrigation after a rainfall event during
the dry period, e.g., December (fig. 10), can help in
sustaining a good citrus crop under water shortage condi-
tions.
Dry Period
Figures 9 and 10 also show the results from Alternative 2
(lining embankment and conveyance ditch with 15 cm liner
and 30 cm liner) for the dry period. Using the 15 cm (6 in.)
thick clay liner, the volume retained after early January 2001
never exceeds the minimum storage volume level in
quantities that would provide irrigation water. In total,
Alternative 2 (15 cm) provided two weeks of irrigation
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
mainly after rainfall events in November and December (fig.
9). Using the 30 cm (12 in.) thick clay liner, four weeks of
irrigation are provided in total from October 23, 2000, to May
28, 2001 (fig. 10).
ALTERNATIVE 3: REGULAR PUMPING OR WATER
RECYCLING
Alternative 3 is solely a managerial change and not a
structural one. It was shown in the results of previous
alternatives that the lateral seepage losses are highest through
the embankment and the distribution ditch. Whenever the
impoundment is full, the water seeps out of the impoundment
and is captured in the surrounding borrow ditch. It can be
argued that if water is pumped back inside the impoundment
on a regular basis from the borrow ditch, it may result in
increased water retention within the grove. Continuous
recycling may drastically reduce the water being lost to
groundwater, part of which may flow outside the grove and
eventually to the river. In order to avoid drying of the ditch,
a flow of 0.66 m3/s (8700 gpm) was pumped into the
impoundment for 12 h once every three days. This flow is
lower than the average amount pumped during the wet
season. In the model, the pumping period was extended for
one month (i.e., until November 14, 2000). During the entire
pumping time, the water volume inside the impoundment
was maintained at full capacity (fig. 11). This will provide
enough irrigation water for the entire period of pumping up
to November 14, 2000. Once the pumping is stopped, the
volume recedes at rates similar to the present conditions.
Results for this alternative are encouraging and call for
further investigation with regards to its cost and its effects on
the water table in the surrounding groves. Also worth
investigating is the effect of pumping, for a short period of
time, after each major rainfall event during the dry season.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 integrated hydrologic model
was selected to simulate the different hydrologic processes
and their interactions in an impoundment in a citrus grove in
southern Florida to assess the potential use of such impound-
ments as sources of water supply. The model was calibrated
for water levels inside the impoundment and ditch levels
outside the impoundment. Calibration statistics and graphi-
cal analysis were considered adequate at most locations.
Evaluation of the results for a longer period of time that
included wet and dry season periods was also performed.
Model evaluation results showed that the model could be
used for evaluating several structural and managerial alterna-
tives to increase water retention volume and time. The
alternatives included adding a clay liner to the impoundment,
lining only the embankment and the inner distribution canal
with different thicknesses (15 and 30 cm), and pumping water
regularly from the surrounding ditch to inside the impound-
ment. The simulations were extended to include all of the dry
season.
The results showed that clay lining all or parts of the
reservoir could increase stored volume and retention time,
especially during rainfall events in the dry season. Overall,
the use of agricultural impoundments as water supply sources
has good potential to ameliorate the water shortage in
southwest Florida. Since these impoundments are already
Vol. 47(5):
built, use of these impoundments for water supply will reduce
the additional land area required for building new distributed
impoundments. Such use of impoundments should also result
in improved downstream water quality due to increased
retention of nutrients through plant uptake and increased
nutrient assimilation in the impoundment. The MIKE
SHE/MIKE 11 simulations were found to be very effective in
modeling the complex surface/groundwater interactions in
addition to the different hydraulic structures and pumps that
exist in a high groundwater table setting.
A study evaluating the combined effects of several
impoundments distributed within a large subwatershed of the
Caloosahatchee River basin would provide greater insight
into the basinwide effect (e.g., effect on the river peak flow
and estuarine ecosystem) of the modeled measures. The
upscaling of this study into a watershed scale can involve:
S Surveying most of the impoundments in the area, clas-
sifying them into high, medium, and low seepage im-
poundments.
S Performing a modeling study, similar to this one on me-
dium and low seepage reservoirs.
S Translating the results of this study in terms of input
and output for the different parts of the watershed into
the Caloosahatchee River.
S Running the model at the basinwide scale.
S Comparing the results with the present conditions.
Promising results from the upscaled study would be a
major contribution to the CERP goals for efficient water use
in southern Florida.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the SFWMD for funding
this research. Special thanks are due to Mr. Akin Owasino and
Drs. Eric Flaig and Ken Konya of the SFWMD. The authors
would also like to thank the citrus growers in the area for their
cooperation and AMS Consulting and Mr. Dale Hardin,
UFIFAS, for their assistance with providing survey data.
This study would not have been possible without the
assistance of Mr. Roger Copp and DHI, Inc.
REFERENCES
Abbott, M. B., J. C. Bathurst, J. A. Cunge, P. E. OConnell, and J.
Rasmusen. 1986. An introduction to the European hydrological
system Systme Hydrologique Europen, SHE, 2: Structure of
a physically based, distributed modeling system. J. Hydrol.
87(12): 6177.
ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of
Watershed Models. 1993. Criteria for evaluation of watershed
models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., ASCE 119(3): 429441.
Boman, B., C. Wilson, M. Jennings, and S. Shukla. 2002.
Detention/retention for citrus stormwater management.
Document No. AE216. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service.
Bower, R. F., K. M. Adams, and J. I. Restrepo. 1990. A
threedimensional finite difference groundwater flow model of
Lee County, Florida. Technical Publication 9001. West Palm
Beach, Fla.: Hydrogeology Division, Department of Research
and Evaluation, SFWMD.
Chapra, S. C. 1997. Surface WaterQuality Modeling. New York,
N.Y.: McGrawHill.
CERP. 2002. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project.
Available at: www.evergladesplan.org. Accessed 1 Nov. 2002.
11
Demetriou, C., and J. F. Punthakey. 1999. Evaluating sustainable
groundwater management options using the MIKE SHE
integrated hydrogeological modelling package. Environ.
Modelling and Software 14(23): 129140.
DHI. 1993. Validation of hydrological models: Phase II. Hrsholm,
Denmark: Danish Hydrologic Institute.
DHI. 1999. Caloosahatchee basin integrated surface
watergroundwater model (ISGM). Hrsholm, Denmark:
Danish Hydrologic Institute.
Drought Monitor. 1999. Available at:
www.drought.unl.edu/dm/index.html. Accessed: 18 Nov. 2002.
EPA. 1984. Procedures for modeling flow through clay liners to
determine required liner thickness. EPA/530SW4001.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, eds. 1998. Water Resources Atlas
of Florida. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University, Institute of
Science and Public Affairs.
Flaig, E. 2002. Evaluation of reservoirs for water storage in the
Caloosahatchee watershed: Data report. Immokalee, Fla.:
SWFREC, IFAS, University of Florida.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall.
Green, R. A., and D. Stephenson. 1986. Criteria of singleevent
models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 31(3): 395409.
James, L. D., and S. J. Burges. 1982. Selection, calibration, and
testing of hydrologic models. In Hydrologic Modeling of Small
Watersheds, 437472. C. T. Haan, H. P. Johnson, and D. L.
Brakensieek, eds. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Jayatilaka, C. J., B. Storm, and L. B. Mudgway. 1998. Simulation
of water in irrigation bay scale with MIKESHE. J. Hydrol.
208(12): 108130.
Kristensen, K. J., and S. E. Jensen. 1975. A model for estimating
actual evapotranspiration. Nordic Hydrol. 6(3): 170188.
Konikow, L. F., and J. D. Bredehoeft. 1992. Groundwater models
cannot be validated. Adv. Water Res. 15(1): 7583.
Legates, D. R., and G. J. McCabe Jr. 1999. Evaluating the use of
goodnessoffit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic
model validation. Water Resour. Res. 35(1): 233241.
Loague, K., and R. E. Green. 1991. Statistical and graphical
methods for evaluating solute transport models: Overview and
application. J. Contam. Hydrol. 7(1/2): 5173.
12
Martinec, J., and A. Rango. 1989. Merits of statistical criteria for the
performance of hydrological models. Water Res. Bull. 25(2):
421432.
MIKE SHE. 1999. MIKE SHE Water Movement User Manual:
Edition 1.2. Hrsholm, Denmark: DHI.
Monteith, J. L. 1981. Evaporation and surface temperature.
Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 107(451): 127.
Penman, H. L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare
soils, and grass. Proc. Royal Society of London A193: 120145.
Rawls, W. J., R. A. Lapjat, D. L. Brakensiek, and A.
Shirmohammadi. 1993. Infiltration and soil water movement. In
Handbook of Hydrology, 5.15.51. D. R. Maidment, ed. New
York, N.Y.: McGrawHill.
Refsgaard, J. C. 1997. Parameterisation, calibration, and validation
of distributed hydrologic models. J. Hydrol. 198: 6997.
Refsgaard, J. C., and B. Storm. 1995. MIKE SHE. In Computer
Models of Watershed Hydrology, 809846. V. Singh, ed.
Highland Ranch, Colo.: Water Resources Publication.
Shen, H. W., and P. Y. Julien. 1993. Erosion and sediment transport.
In Handbook of Hydrology, 12.11261. D. R. Maidment, ed.
New York, N.Y.: McGrawHill.
Shukla, S., and F. H. Jaber 2002. Evaluation of reservoirs for water
storage in the Caloosahatchee watershed: Final modeling report.
Immokalee, Fla.: SWFREC, IFAS, University of Florida.
SFWMD. 2000a. Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan: Planning
Document, Volume 1. West Palm Beach, Fla.: South Florida
Water Management District, Water Supply Planning and
Development Department.
SFWMD. 2000b. Caloosahatchee Water Management Plan. West
Palm Beach, Fla.: South Florida Water Management District.
USACOE. 1998. Central and southern Florida project
comprehensive study: Final integrated feasibility report and
programmatic environmental impact statement. Jacksonville,
Fla.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Weglarczyk, S. 1998. The interdependence and applicability of
some statistical quality measures of hydrological models. J.
Hydrol. 206(12): 98103.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE