2006 Philadelphia Annual Meeting (22–25 October 2006)

Paper No. 10
Presentation Time: 1:30 PM-5:30 PM

GOT DATA? SO WHAT! HYDROGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION BEYOND RESULTS


LEMKE, Lawrence D., Department of Geology, Wayne State University, 0224 Old Main, 4841 Cass, Detroit, MI 48202, CALLAHAN, Tim, Dept. of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424, CUSTER, Steve, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, 200 Traphagen Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, EASLEY, Dale, Dept. of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Dubuque, 2000 University Ave, Dubuque, IA 52001, EATON, Timothy, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, NY 11367, NICHOLS, Kyle, Geosciences Department, Skidmore College, 815 North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 and JOSEPH, Leah, Dept. of Environmental Studies, Ursinus College, PO Box 1000, Collegeville, PA 19426, ldlemke@wayne.edu

Hydrogeologic analyses often involve complex data sets and numerical calculations. Such data sets are commonly incorporated into computer models which are used to complete the numerical calculations and generate results in the form of graphical or map-based visual output. Alternatively, results of some hydrogeologic investigations may consist of simple calculations based on analytical solutions to idealized hydrogeologic situations. In yet other cases, geographical information systems may be used to analyze the spatial and temporal variations of hydrologic variables of interest. In every case, interpretations must be drawn and decisions implemented before societal benefits can be realized from the results of hydrogeologic investigations. Because it may take many years for students of hydrogeology to develop the experience and insight to effectively interpret the results of such studies, example problems that challenge students to develop their interpretational skills are an essential part of hydrogeologic education.

As an outcome of the 2005 Teaching Hydrogeology in the 21st Century workshop, our work group has developed and assembled examples (data sets, activities, case studies, etc.) that can help students move beyond rote answers to hydrogeological problems and into the realm of critical thinking. Collectively, these examples deal with uncertainty, utilize multiple working hypotheses, incorporate data sets with too little or too much data, require inference, and address risk and risk reduction. This poster will showcase examples that illustrate the need for interpretation or decision making after the ‘results' of a hydrogeologic analysis have been obtained. These examples include the (i) application of alternative conceptual hydrogeologic models; (ii) use of water table hydrographs to interpret ground water – surface water interaction; (iii) evaluation of water withdrawal for a county park; (iv) evaluation of watershed land-use changes and hydrologic impacts; (v) calculation of uncertainty for Old Faithful eruptions; (vi) interpretation of digitized time series aerial photographs; and (vii) engineering detention pond flow-through rates. These and other resources for teaching hydrogeology are available on the web at: http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/hydrogeo/index.html.