Search

We propose a dye tracer method to characterize fluid and solute fluxes across the sediment-water interface. Zones of groundwater discharge within the streambed are first identified, and small volume slugs of 0.5 to 1 mL fluorescein dye are released at known subsurface depths. Fluorescein dye allows for visual identification of interface breakthrough locations and times, and dye concentrations at the point of discharge are recorded over time by a fluorometer to generate high resolution breakthrough curves. Groundwater velocities and dispersivities at the demonstration site are estimated by numerically fitting dye breakthroughs to the classical advection-dispersion equation, although the methodology is not limited to a specific transport model. Breakthroughs across the stream-sediment interface at the demonstration site are nonlinear with tracer release depth, and velocity estimates from breakthrough analysis are significantly more reliable than visual dye (time to first dye expression) and Darcy methods which tend to overestimate and underestimate groundwater velocity, respectively. The use of permanent injection points within the streambed and demonstrated reproducibility of dye breakthroughs allow for study of fluid and solute fluxes under seasonally varying hydrologic conditions. The proposed approach also provides a framework for field study of nonconservative, reactive solutes and allows for the determination of characteristic residence times at various depths in the streambed to better understand chemical and nutrient transformations., (© 2020, National Ground Water Association.)

This study evaluates alternative groundwater models with different recharge and geologic components at the northern Yucca Flat area of the Death Valley Regional Flow System (DVRFS), USA. Recharge over the DVRFS has been estimated using five methods, and five geological interpretations are available at the northern Yucca Flat area. Combining the recharge and geological components together with additional modeling components that represent other hydrogeological conditions yields a total of 25 groundwater flow models. As all the models are plausible given available data and information, evaluating model uncertainty becomes inevitable. On the other hand, hydraulic parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) are uncertain in each model, giving rise to parametric uncertainty. Propagation of the uncertainty in the models and model parameters through groundwater modeling causes predictive uncertainty in model predictions (e.g., hydraulic head and flow). Parametric uncertainty within each model is assessed using Monte Carlo simulation, and model uncertainty is evaluated using the model averaging method. Two model-averaging techniques (on the basis of information criteria and GLUE) are discussed. This study shows that contribution of model uncertainty to predictive uncertainty is significantly larger than that of parametric uncertainty. For the recharge and geological components, uncertainty in the geological interpretations has more significant effect on model predictions than uncertainty in the recharge estimates. In addition, weighted residuals vary more for the different geological models than for different recharge models. Most of the calibrated observations are not important for discriminating between the alternative models, because their weighted residuals vary only slightly from one model to another.