Search for: All records

Groundwater discharge though streambeds is often focused toward discrete zones, indicating that preliminary reconnaissance may be useful for capturing the full spectrum of groundwater discharge rates using point-scale quantitative methods. However, many direct-contact reconnaissance techniques can be time-consuming, and remote sensing (e.g., thermal infrared) typically does not penetrate the water column to locate submerged seepages. In this study, we tested whether dozens of groundwater discharge measurements made at “uninformed” (i.e., selected without knowledge on high-resolution temperature variations at the streambed) point locations along a reach would yield significantly different Darcy-based groundwater discharge rates when compared with “informed” measurements, focused at streambed thermal anomalies that were identified a priori using fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS). A non-parametric U-test showed a significant difference between median discharge rates for uninformed (0.05 m·day−1; n = 30) and informed (0.17 m·day−1; n = 20) measurement locations. Mean values followed a similar pattern (0.12 versus 0.27 m·day−1), and frequency distributions for uninformed and informed measurements were also significantly different based on a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Results suggest that even using a quick “snapshot-in-time” field analysis of FO-DTS data can be useful in streambeds with groundwater discharge rates <0.2 m·day−1, a lower threshold than proposed in a previous study. Collectively, study results highlight that FO-DTS is a powerful technique for identifying higher-discharge zones in streambeds, but the pros and cons of informed and uninformed sampling depend in part on groundwater/surface water exchange study goals. For example, studies focused on measuring representative groundwater and solute fluxes may be biased if high-discharge locations are preferentially sampled. However, identification of high-discharge locations may complement more randomized sampling plans and lead to improvements in interpolating streambed fluxes and upscaling point measurements to the stream reach scale. 

Abstract We describe a new automatic seepage meter for use in soft bottom streams and lakes. The meter utilizes a thin‐walled tube that is inserted into the streambed or lakebed. A hole in the side of the tube is fitted with an electric valve. Prior to the test, the valve is open and the water level inside the tube is the same as the water level outside the tube. The test starts with closure of the valve, and the water level inside the tube changes as it moves toward the equilibrium hydraulic head that exists at the bottom of the tube. The time rate of change of the water level immediately after the valve closes is a direct measure of the seepage rate (q). The meter utilizes a precision linear actuator and a conductance circuit to sense the water level to a precision of about ±0.1 mm. The meter can also provide an estimate of vertical hydraulic conductivity (K_v) if data are collected for a characteristic time. The detection limit forqdepends on the vertical hydraulic head gradient. ForK_v = 1 m/day,qof about 2 mm/day can be measured. Results from a laboratory sand tank show excellent agreement between measured and trueq, and results from a field site are similar to values from calculations based on independent measurements ofK_vand vertical head gradients. The meter can provide rapid (30 min)qmeasurements for both gaining and losing systems and complements other methods for quantifying surface water groundwater interactions. 

Abstract We utilized 251 measurements from a recently developed automated seepage meter (ASM) in streambeds in the Nebraska Sand Hills, USA to investigate the small‐scale spatial variability of groundwater seepage flux (q) and the ability of the ASM to estimate mean q at larger scales. Small‐scale spatial variability of q was analyzed in five dense arrays, each covering an area of 13.5–28.0 m²(169 total point measurements). Streambed vertical hydraulic conductivity (K) was also measured. Results provided: (a) high‐resolution contour plots of q and K, (b) anisotropic semi‐variograms demonstrating greater correlation scales of q and K along the stream length than across the stream width, and (c) the number of rows of points (perpendicular to streamflow) needed to represent the groundwater flux of areas up to 28.0 m². The findings suggest that representative streambed measurements are best conducted perpendicular to streamflow to accommodate larger seepage flux heterogeneity in this direction and minimize sampling redundancy. To investigate the ASM's ability to produce accurate mean q at larger scales, seepage meters were deployed in four stream reaches (170–890 m), arranged in three to six transects (three to eight points each) per reach across the channel. In each reach, the mean seepage flux from ASMs was compared to the seepage flux from bromide tracer dilution. Agreement between the two methods indicates the viability of a modest number of seepage meter measurements to determine the overall groundwater flux to the stream and can guide sampling for solutes and environmental tracers.