1. Development of a Prototype Framework to Facilitate Interoperable Freshwater Modelling in New Zealand Daniel Rutledge, Sandy Elliott, Val Snow, Gabi Turek, Alistair Ritchie, Simon Guest, Alexander Herzig, Trevor Knopp, Paul Smale NZ Hydrological Society Conference 27 November 2012

2. Project Need Freshwater resources modelling is a key tool supporting environmental policy, planning and resource management in New Zealand Increase in number of available freshwater models over the last decade Increase also in confusion and concern about how these various models relate to one another and could work together

3. Confusion & Concern Lack of knowledge about what models are available and what they do Concern that we have too many models Models tied to certain providers Large expense associated with connecting data &models Large investment required to modify existing models or to build new ones Uncertainty around how to use model results for decision-making Lack of re-use Lack of co-ordination among modelling efforts

4. Response: IFM Project Scientific Develop a prototype interoperable modelling framework to proof-of-concept stage – Interoperability – Adaptation and re-use – Freely available – Ease-of-use – Technologically nimble Policy, Planning & Resource Management Enable coordinated and efficient explorations of linkages, interactions and impacts among land use, land management, climate change, and water resources

5. Methods Inventories – Existing interoperable modelling frameworks – NZ Water Resources Models – Relevant data (e.g., climate, soils, water, etc.) Model visualisation tool (ModelVis) Framework assessment Prototype framework development pathway http://ifm.niwa.co.nz/launch.html

6. Project Plan

7. User Workshop Summary Framework Criteria – Open (including open source) – Scientifically credible – Easy to add new models and databases – Auditable – Identify uncertainty, assumptions made, and confidence bounds – Collaborative governance structure Expected Benefits – Efficiency – More robust model estimates – Transparency – Better and more timely policy and regulatory decisions – Decreased costs of model provisioning – Answer more complex questions

8. Stage 1 – Preliminary Screening Several existing reviews available* Consistent, unified method to categorise and characterise available frameworks is lacking Developed screening criteria based on peer- reviewed literature, web searches, discussions with framework developers, personal knowledge, results from workshop *Argent 2004, Hutchings et al. 2002, Jagers 2010

9. Screening Criteria Scope Development History Cost and IP Applications Technical Considerations User Information Other Information Links References https://teamwork.niwa.co.nz/display/IFM/Table+of+Frameworks

10. Stage 1 Screening Results 18 frameworks screened 12 frameworks not selected for full review Reasons for rejection – Aspatial – Uncertainty over longevity or no activity – Not flexible or adaptable – Targeted at another domain – Proprietary 6 selected for full review – CSDMS, OMS3, OpenMI, OpenPalm, TIME, Pegasus APSIMDelft-FEWSGME (Geospatial Modelling Environment)ICMS Bespoke Framework GeneratorESMFGME (Generic Modelling Environment)OASIS EnsymHydromodlerHydrologists WorkbenchSEAMLESS

11. Stage 2 – Full Review Developed 32 assessment criteria based on workshop criteria and findings from the screening Ranked the criteria (Key, High, Medium) Final selection based largely on 13 Key Criteria

12. Stage 2 – Full Review Results CriteriaCSDMSOMS3OpenMIOpenPalmTIMEPegasus Parameter Re-use Dynamic Models Static Models Add/subtract models Open source Available for use Open model interface Open data standards Scalable Spatial Models Geospatial Data Longevity GUI for set-up Criterion Met Criterion Partly Met Criterion Not Met Need More Info

13. Stage 2 – Full Review Results All frameworks have many benefits and some limitations CSDMS and OpenPalm: mainly for highly complex modelling on high-performance computers TIME: high risk due to concerns over longevity and lack of investment by main funding organisation (CSIRO) Pegasus: Good for large workflowss, but not necessarily interactive modelling Conclusions – Proceed with further testing of OMS3 – Hold OpenMI in reserve (issues with new version 2.0)

14. OMS3 Overview & Testing OMS = Open Modelling System Developers: USDA NRCS, Colorado State, USGS Attributes – Java-Based (Console for Model Development & Coupling) – Metadata Standards – Model components made discoverable via annotation (vs. wrapping in OpenMI) – Weak on data integration (does not follow open standards) Testing – Models: APSIM, Overseer, WATYIELD, Irrigation – Data: ClimDB (NIWA), SoilsDB (Landcare Research) via Web Services

15. Next Steps Complete OMS3 testing (Feb 2013) Project Workshop (June 2013) Final Report & Implementation Plan (End September 2013)

16. More information: IFM Project WIKI https://teamwork.niwa.co.nz/display/IFM/Framework+for+Interoperable+Freshwater+Models