Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable

Piezometers, and Seepage Meters

to Quantify Flow Between Surface
Water and Ground Water

By Donald O. Rosenberry, James W. LaBaugh, and Randall J. Hunt

Chapter 2 of
Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between
Surface Water and Ground Water
Edited by Donald O. Rosenberry and James W. LaBaugh

Techniques and Methods Chapter 4–D2

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................43
Water-Level Measurements and Flow-Net Analysis .............................................................................43
Segmented Approach ........................................................................................................................43
Flow-Net Analysis ...............................................................................................................................45
Sources of Error ..................................................................................................................................47
Inadequate Physical Characterization ...................................................................................47
Measurement Error ...................................................................................................................48
Improperly Constructed Wells .................................................................................................48
Improperly Maintained Wells ..................................................................................................48
Unstable Wells and Staff Gages..............................................................................................49
Violation of Underlying Assumptions.............................................................................49
Hydraulic Potentiomanometer ...................................................................................................................49
Sources of Error ..................................................................................................................................51
Measurement Error ...................................................................................................................51
Improper Leveling of the Manometer .....................................................................................51
Unstable Hydraulic Head ..........................................................................................................51
Improper Seal Between Outer Pipe and the Sediments .....................................................51
Large Bubbles Entrained in Tubing .........................................................................................52
Leaks or Clogging.......................................................................................................................52
Waves, Standing Waves, and Seiches ..................................................................................52
Other Similar Devices.........................................................................................................................53
Cautions and Suggestions Related to Use of the Hydraulic Potentiomanometer ...................54
Seepage Meters...........................................................................................................................................54
Sources of Error ..................................................................................................................................60
Incomplete Seal, Unstable Cylinder .......................................................................................60
Insufficient Equilibration Time .................................................................................................60
Improper Bag-Attachment Procedures, Bag Resistance, and Moving Water................60
Leaks ...........................................................................................................................................63
Measurement Error ...................................................................................................................63
Flexible Seepage-Meter Chamber ..........................................................................................63
Insufficient or Excessive Bag-Attachment Time ..................................................................63
Accumulation of Trapped Gas ................................................................................................63
Use of Improper Correction Coefficient .................................................................................64
Insufficient Characterization of Spatial Heterogeneity in Seepage
Through Sediments ...............................................................................................................64
Best-Measurement Practices for Manual Seepage Meters ....................................65
Automated Seepage Devices ...........................................................................................................66
Methods Selection..............................................................................................................................66
References ....................................................................................................................................................67
Figures
1. A hypothetical lake segmented based on positioning of near-shore water-
table wells ....................................................................................................................................44
2. Typical hydraulic conditions in the vicinity of the shoreline of a surface-
water body ...................................................................................................................................44
3. A flow net generated to indicate flow of water to and from a hypothetical lake ............46
4. Conceptualization of flow based on flow-net analysis and segmented
Darcy fluxes .................................................................................................................................47
5. Hydraulic potentiomanometer showing drive probe inserted into lakebed
and manometer indicating a very small vertical hydraulic-head gradient .......................49
6. Diagram of components of the hydraulic potentiomanometer system .............................50
7. Hydraulic potentiomanometer designed to place the manometer tubes connected
to the drive probe and to the surface-water body close together to minimize out-
of-level errors ..............................................................................................................................52
8. Hydraulic potentiomanometer probe with drive hammer shown driven about
2 meters beneath the lakebed ..................................................................................................53
9. Photograph showing hydraulic potentiomanometer ............................................................54
10. Photograph showing portable well probe consisting of a commercially available
retractable soil-gas vapor probe connected to threaded pipe with tubing inside
the pipe connected to the vapor probe...................................................................................55
11. Diagram showing well probe constructed from a commercially available root
feeder with the coiled tubing substituting for a manometer ...............................................55
12. MHE PP27 probe used to indicate difference in head..........................................................56
13. A, Half-barrel seepage meter, B, standard half-barrel seepage meter in place
in the field, and C, electromagnetic seepage meter installed next to a half-barrel
seepage meter ............................................................................................................................57
14. Seepage meter modified for use in large lakes .....................................................................58
15. Ground-water seepage meter modified for use in deep water ..........................................59
16. Plastic bag attached to a garden-hose shut-off valve .........................................................62
17. Resistance to flow related to tubing diameter and rate of seepage..................................64
18. Seepage flux measured at two seepage meters located 1 meter apart ...........................65

Tables
1. Data for calculating flows to and from the lake shown in figure 1, and total
flow per segment (Q), using the segmented Darcy approach ............................................45
2. Duration between emplacement of seepage meter and first installation of
seepage-meter bag (equilibration time) from selected studies..........................................61
3. Seepage flux with distance from shore and distance along shore on an
8-meter by 8-meter grid (2-meter seepage-meter spacing) ...............................................66
4. Conditions for which methods for quantifying flow between ground water
and surface water are well- or ill-suited ................................................................................67
Chapter 2
Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and
Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow Between Surface
Water and Ground Water
By Donald O. Rosenberry, James W. LaBaugh, and Randall J. Hunt

Introduction of hydraulic conductivity appropriate to a lake or watershed

scale). Spatial resolution of hydraulic-head gradients and flow
between ground water and surface water is directly related
This chapter describes three of the most commonly used
to geologic heterogeneity; the greater the heterogeneity of
methods to either calculate or directly measure flow of water
an aquifer, the larger the number of data points (wells) that
between surface-water bodies and the ground-water domain.
will be needed to accurately determine hydraulic conditions.
The first method involves measurement of water levels in a
Heterogeneity often is difficult to determine in practice, and in
network of wells in combination with measurement of the
many instances, ranges of reasonable values for K are used to
stage of the surface-water body to calculate gradients and then
estimate the range of flows.
water flow. The second method involves the use of portable
piezometers (wells) or hydraulic potentiomanometers to mea-
sure gradients. In the third method, seepage meters are used Segmented Approach
to measure directly flow across the sediment-water interface
at the bottom of the surface-water body. Factors that affect In this approach, the shoreline of a surface-water body
measurement scale, accuracy, sources of error in using each of is divided into segments, with the number of segments
the methods, common problems and mistakes in applying the depending on the location and number of nearby monitor-
methods, and conditions under which each method is well- or ing wells (fig. 1). For each shoreline segment and associated
ill-suited also are described. well, hydraulic conductivity and the gradient between the well
and the surface-water body are applied to the entire segment.
The length of the shoreline segment, m, is multiplied by the
Water-Level Measurements effective thickness of the aquifer, b, to determine the area, A,
of a vertical plane at the shoreline through which water passes
and Flow-Net Analysis to either enter or leave the surface-water body (fig. 2). The
Darcy equation commonly is used to calculate the flow of
The flow-net analysis method, often called the “Darcy water that passes through the vertical plane associated with
approach,” is probably the most frequently used method for each segment:
quantifying flow between ground water and surface water,
especially on a whole-lake or watershed scale. In this method, (h1 h2 ) , (1)
Q  KA
a combination of measurements of water levels in near-shore L
water-table wells and measurements of water stage of adjacent where
surface-water bodies are used to calculate water-table gradients Q is flow through a vertical plane that extends
between the wells and the surface-water body. Two approaches beneath the shoreline of a surface-water
commonly are used. One approach segments the shoreline of the body (L3/T);
surface-water body, depending on the number and location of K is horizontal hydraulic conductivity (L/T);
nearby wells. The second approach generates equipotential lines A is the area of the plane through which all
based on hydraulic-head and surface-water stage data, and uses water must pass to either enter or leave
flow-net analysis to calculate flows to and from the surface-water the surface-water body, depending on the
body. Both methods are described in the following section. direction of flow [shoreline length (m) ×
Values of hydraulic conductivity (K), which also are effective thickness of the aquifer (b)] (L2);
needed to quantify flow, commonly are determined from h1 is hydraulic head in the well of interest (L);
single-well slug tests conducted in the same wells in which h2 is surface-water stage (L);
water levels are measured to calculate hydraulic gradients
and
(although a multiple-well aquifer test that encompasses a
large volume of aquifer often provides a better indication L is distance from the well to the shoreline (L).
44 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Flows to or from the surface-water body are summed

to calculate net flow for the entire surface-water body. This
method assumes that:
1. All water that exchanges with a surface-water body
Water-table
passes horizontally through a vertical plane positioned well

n t
me
at the shoreline that extends to a finite depth (b) beneath

eg
Surface-water

es
body
the surface of the surface-water body. At depths greater

lin
ore
than b, ground water flows beneath the surface-water

Sh
m
body and does not exchange with the surface-water body; Break in
slope A
2. The direction of water flow is perpendicular to the shore-
line as flow enters or leaves the surface-water body; Groun
d-wate
r flow
lines
3. The gradient (water-table slope) between the well and
b
the surface-water body is uniform; and
4. The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic within L
the segment. Flow pa
ss es beneath la omain
ke and is outside of local-flow d
Although the Darcy equation is most commonly used in
calculating flows between ground water and surface water, its
assumption of a constant aquifer thickness is violated where Figure 2. Typical hydraulic conditions in the vicinity of the shoreline
the water table slopes in the vicinity of a surface-water body. of a surface-water body. (Artwork by Donald O. Rosenberry.)

In these near-shore, unconfined aquifer settings, the use of the

Dupuit equation may be more appropriate because it allows
the sloping ground-water table to be the upper boundary of the
A 80
Well ground-water domain. The Dupuit equation can be written as:
B
97 42
200

5 72
650 C (h12 h22 ) ,
225

50
0
550 Q  Km (2)
2L
Lake where
430

350
G 61
h1 = aquifer thickness at the well,
850

75 0 D
78 400 80 and
27
5
= aquifer thickness at the edge of the surface-
h2
E water body.
600 70
F
The Dupuit equation assumptions are:
300

1. The sediments are homogeneous and isotropic;

70 2. Flow in the aquifer is parallel to the slope of the water
table; and
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 METERS 3. For small water-table gradients, ground-water flow lines
(also called streamlines) are horizontal.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET
These assumptions require that equipotential lines (lines
EXPLANATION of equal hydraulic head) are perpendicular to the ground-water
Well location and ground-water level
flow lines and are vertical.
97 As indicated in figure 2, near the shoreline, where
Watershed segment boundary
water-table gradients typically steepen, these assumptions are
A Watershed segment designation violated to some degree. If flow is parallel to the water table,
42
5 Distance from well to shoreline, in meters and the water-table gradient is sufficiently steep, then flow
in the ground-water system obviously cannot be horizontal.
50
0 Shoreline length per watershed segment,
in meters Errors that result from violating these assumptions typically
are minor relative to the uncertainty in determining K.
Figure 1. A hypothetical lake segmented based on positioning Another source of uncertainty in applying the Dupuit
of near-shore water-table wells. Values are hydraulic head and equation is the determination of h1 and h2. As with use of the
surface-water stage. Darcy equation, h1 and h2 should include only ground-water
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 45

flow lines that intersect the surface-water body and exclude or with computer software. The method assumes that steady-
those flow lines that pass beneath the surface-water body, state flow is two-dimensional (either in plan view, as applied
in which case h2 = b as shown in figure 2. This is especially here, or along a cross section), the aquifer is homogeneous
important in cases where a lake, stream, or wetland occupies and isotropic, and that b (the effective thickness of the aqui-
only the shallow, surficial part of a thick aquifer. As discussed fer) is known. Rules regarding construction of flow nets are
later, h2 or b often is one of the more difficult parameters described in Fetter (2000) and in other hydrogeology texts (for
to determine. example, Davis and DeWiest, 1991). A detailed analysis of the
Although the use of the Dupuit equation is more appro- method is provided in Cedergren (1997). In brief, the flow net
priate for unconfined aquifer settings, the error that results consists of equipotential lines (lines of equal hydraulic head)
from using the Darcy equation instead of the Dupuit equation and flow lines (also called streamlines). Equipotential lines are
commonly is small relative to the uncertainty in determining drawn on the basis of hydraulic head in the wells and the stage
K. For a small water-table gradient, the errors are very small,
of the surface-water body. They intersect no-flow boundaries
and errors are small even for a relatively large water-table
at right angles. Assuming the porous medium is homogeneous
gradient. For example, assuming a large water-table gradient
of 0.1 and the following values for a 1-meter shoreline reach and isotropic, flow lines are drawn perpendicular to the equi-
(h1 = 60 meters, h2 = 50 meters, L = 100 meters, K = 10 meters potential lines. A sufficient number of flow lines are drawn so
per day), the Dupuit flow (Q) = 55 cubic meters per day, and that the resulting rectilinear shapes form approximate squares.
the Darcy flow (Q ) = 50 cubic meters per day. The areas between the flow lines are called streamtubes.
An example of the use of the Darcy approach to calculate The intervals between equipotential lines are termed “head
flows to and from a surface-water body using values obtained drops.” Once the flow net is constructed, a form of the Darcy
from figure 1 is shown in table 1. The example assumes that K equation is used to approximate flow to or from the surface-
is 30 meters per day and is uniform throughout the watershed, water body:
and that b is 20 meters. The method assumes that the hinge
lines, the locations where flow direction changes from flow MKbH , (3)
Q
into the lake to flow out of the lake, occur at the ends of the n
adjacent shoreline segments where a change in flow direction where
is indicated. Considering the uncertainty associated with posi- M = the number of streamtubes across a
tioning of the hinge lines, the difference between total flow
flow net,
into the lake and total flow out of the lake is remarkably small
in this example. H = total head drop across the area of
interest (L),
n = number of equipotential head drops over
Flow-Net Analysis the area of interest, and Q, K, and b are
The flow-net analysis is a graphical method for solving as defined previously.
steady-state two-dimensional ground-water flow. The analysis An example of the flow-net approach is shown in
uses the Darcy equation to solve for flow, the distribution of figure 3. The flow net is created using the same hypothetical
which is dependent on the flow net that is generated manually setting shown in figure 1. The flow domain has been rotated

Table 1. Data for calculating flows to and from the lake shown in figure 1, and total flow per segment (Q), using the segmented
Darcy approach.
[m/d, meters per day; m, meter; m3/d, cubic meters per day]

Hydraulic head Distance from

Horizontal hydraulic Effective thickness Length of shoreline
Watershed in well—surface- the well to the Water flow (Q)
conductivity (K) of the aquifer (b) segment (m)
segment water stage (h1–h2) shoreline (L) (m3/d)
(m/d) (m) (m)
(m) (m)
A 30 20 22 425 500 15,529
B 30 20 5 200 650 9,750
C 30 20 –3 225 550 –4,400
D 30 20 –14 350 430 –10,320
E 30 20 –5 275 800 –8,727
F 30 20 –5 300 600 –6,000
G 30 20 3 400 850 3,825
Total flow into lake = 29,104 cubic meters per day.
Total flow out of lake = 29,447 cubic meters per day.
46 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

so that equipotential lines are approximately perpendicu- this is a poor assumption. Also, incorrect placement of the
lar to the no-flow boundaries on the top and bottom of the hinge-line location can result in shoreline segments drawn
figure, and streamlines are approximately perpendicular to adjacent to the hinge line that poorly represent the actual local
constant-head boundaries to the left and right of the figure. flow into and out of the surface-water feature. Figure 4 shows
The equipotential lines represent hydraulic-head intervals of the flow lines drawn in figure 3 in addition to the shoreline
10 meters. The total flow of water that exchanges with the lake segments indicated in figure 1. Positioning of hinge lines in
is apportioned into seven streamtubes. Using the same values figure 4 is based on the flow-net analysis. If the segmented
for K, b, hydraulic head, and lake stage as for the segmented Darcy method was used to place hinge lines, they would be
Darcy method, and values of 7, 35, and 3.5 for M, H, and n, located at the boundaries between segments B and C, and
respectively, the total Q into the lake is 42,000 cubic meters between segments F and G. Fortunately, a misplacement of
per day. Total Q out of the lake, based on the same values the hinge line commonly does not result in substantial error
as for the segmented Darcy method of 7, 15, and 1.5 for M, because flow across the sediment-water interface commonly
H, and n, respectively, also is 42,000 cubic meters per day. is small where ground-water flow is primarily parallel to
These values are substantially larger (44 percent) than total the shoreline.
flows into and out of the lake calculated by the segmented The flow-net analysis method provides a simple, initial
Darcy method. estimate of the exchange of water between a surface-water
A comparison of results from the two methods indicates body and ground water. The accuracy of the method depends
the relative accuracy of these methods. Substantial errors on the degree to which the simplifying assumptions are met
can result with the segmented Darcy method if conditions
in the setting being analyzed and on how well the mesh
along each shoreline segments are not uniform. For example,
is drawn. Errors can be minimized by ensuring that areas
determination of flow across the curving segment on the
contained by the streamtubes and equipotential lines form
northwest side of the lake assumes that an arc of hydraulic
approximate squares. Cedergren (1997) provides additional
head 22 meters higher than the lake surface exists a distance
information for minimizing mesh-related errors. Uncertain-
of 425 meters from shore along the entire shoreline segment.
ties associated with accurate representation of K commonly
Common sense and the flow-net analysis (fig. 3) indicate that
are significantly larger than errors associated with improperly
constructed flow-net meshes. With a larger number of wells,
equipotential lines can be placed more precisely and a finer
72 grid then can be generated. Accuracy also depends on how
7 the flow net is interpreted. For example, in the setting shown
110

7 80 in figure 3, streamtubes that partly intersect the lake were

100

6
90

6 61
ignored. Those streamtubes might instead have been consid-
80

5 75
3
5
ered as half streamtubes, in which case the total flow into and
2 1
4 0.5 Lake out of the lake would have been larger. Alternately, stream-
97 tubes 1 and 7 could have been drawn so as to bypass the lake,
3 0.5 1 4
Hinge line 70 in which case only five streamtubes would intersect the lake. If
2
the number of streamtubes was five instead of seven, the flow-
3
net-derived fluxes to and from the lake (30,000 cubic meters
ll
1 We 78 per day) would be nearly identical to the segmented Darcy-
2
70

generated fluxes.
60

70 The domain shown in figure 3, although rotated to be

1
aligned with flow lines and equipotential lines, was drawn
with the same dimensions as the domain shown in figure 1.
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 METERS
One could argue, however, that the domain should have been
made larger because many of the flow lines and equipotential
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET lines do not intersect the boundaries at right angles.
EXPLANATION
70 Equipotential line Figure 3. A flow net generated to indicate flow of water to and
Flow line from a hypothetical lake. Ground-water flow direction is indicated
97 Well location and ground-water level by flow lines (blue lines), and lines of equal hydraulic head
1 Streamtube number (equipotential lines) are shown with dashed lines. Values shown
0.5 Equipotential head drop are hydraulic head in the wells and surface-water stage.
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 47

Figure 4. Conceptualization of flow based on flow-net analysis

and segmented Darcy fluxes. The position of the hinge line
changes depending on the method of analysis used.

80
Well A slug test can be expected to provide only an approxi-
97 72
mate estimate of the actual K that controls flow between
A B ground water and surface water. First, slug tests measure
Lake C horizontal K, but aquifers commonly are anisotropic; vertical
75 K typically is smaller, sometimes orders of magnitude smaller,
D
61
G Hinge line than horizontal K. Second, measurements of K are to some
78 E extent scale dependent and single-well slug tests may provide
values that are too small to be representative of the larger scale
70
flow in the aquifer. Rovey and Cherkauer (1995) found that
F
K of a carbonate aquifer in Wisconsin increases linearly with
the scale of the measurement up to a radius of influence of
70 between 20 and 220 meters, after which point K was constant
with increasing radius. Schulze-Makuch and others (1999)
indicated that scale dependence of K depends on the hydrau-
lic properties of an aquifer. They reported that K is relatively
insensitive to scale for homogeneous aquifers but increases
Sources of Error by half an order of magnitude for every order of magnitude
increase in spatial scale of heterogeneous aquifers. Unless the
Sources of error in applying the segmented-shore or flow- well is installed in the lake, the approaches outlined herein do
net-analysis approach to the determination of the exchanges not attempt to quantify exchange between ground water and
between a surface-water body and ground water, in addition to surface water at the surface-water feature itself. Rather, they
errors in interpretation presented above, include: estimate the flow into and out of the ground-water system
near the surface-water feature, at the locations of the moni-
1. Inadequate physical characterization of conditions or toring wells and assume that water that crosses the vertical
properties that affect flow, plane at the shoreline must either originate from or flow into
2. Measurement error, the lake.
3. Improperly constructed wells, Determination of the effective thickness of the aquifer
(b) through which water flows to interact with a surface-
4. Improperly maintained wells,
water body also can be difficult. Investigators may resort to
5. Unstable wells and stage gage, and hypothetical flow modeling or to tracers to address this issue.
6. Violation of underlying assumptions. Siegel and Winter (1980) and Krabbenhoft and Anderson
Each item is discussed in detail below. (1986) used finite-difference ground-water flow models to
estimate the part of an unconfined aquifer that interacts with
a lake. Taniguchi (2001) used a one-dimensional advection-
Inadequate Physical Characterization dispersion model calibrated to chloride data to determine that
b for Lake Biwa, Japan, was 150 meters. Lee and Swancar
In the examples given above, horizontal hydraulic
(1997) used vertical ground-water flow divides to determine
conductivity (K) was assumed to be uniform across the entire
b for their flow-net analysis for a lake in Florida. Perhaps the
watershed. This is a poor assumption because erosional and
most thorough investigation to date is a study of flow between
depositional conditions near the shoreline commonly are dif- two lakes in northern Wisconsin. Flow-net, isotopic and geo-
ferent than for the larger watershed. Where lower-K sediments chemical, and numerical modeling approaches have been used
line lakes or wetlands, K within a meter of the sediment-water to determine the relative volumes of water that flow from the
interface can be the dominant control on flow (Rosenberry, upgradient lake to the downgradient lake and water that flows
2000). This is especially well documented in fluvial settings from the upgradient lake, beneath, and ultimately beyond the
(for example, Brunke, 1999; Hiscock and Grischek, 2002; downgradient lake (for example, Kim and others, 1999).
Schubert, 2002; Sheets and others, 2002; Fleckenstein and Conceptual models of hypothetical settings can be useful
others, 2006). It usually is beneficial to install additional wells in constraining estimates of exchange between ground water
near the shoreline of the surface-water body to gain a better and surface water when sufficient field data are not available.
understanding of the distribution of hydraulic head and of the Simply knowing the size, shape, and depth of a lake relative to
spatial variability in K. its watershed can aid in determining the degree of interaction
48 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

between the lake and its watershed. Two-dimensional and is used during well construction, for example, the well must
three-dimensional numerical and analytical tools can visu- be sufficiently developed following completion of the drilling
ally present the types and relative scales of flow paths asso- to ensure that the well is in good hydraulic connection with
ciated with exchange between ground water and surface the aquifer. For wells that are driven or pounded to the desired
water (Townley and Davidson, 1988; Nield and others, 1994; depth, a common installation method near the shoreline where
Townley and Trefry, 2000). Recent updates of ground-water the depth to water is shallow, care also needs to be given
flow models allow more realistic simulation of exchanges to proper development of the well. Well screens often are
between ground water and surface water than was previ- smeared with fine-grained sediment during the driving process
ously possible. Hunt and others (2003) provide an overview and can be completely clogged if they are not flushed follow-
of the usefulness of these improvements associated with the ing installation. Hand-augered wells commonly are installed
U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW model (Leake, 1997; with the bottom of the well screen a short distance below the
Harbaugh and others, 2000; Harbaugh, 2005). water table. It is difficult to auger through sand much beyond
Compared to errors associated with conceptualizing 1 meter below the water table because the sand collapses into
flow paths and determining aquifer properties, the remaining the part of the hole below the water table. The consequence of
sources of error listed here usually are relatively minor. They the water table dropping below the bottom of the well screen is
are included, however, for completeness, and because in some a dry well. A word of caution is in order for water-level mea-
situations they can represent a significant part of the total error surements in wells constructed so the screen does not extend
associated with quantifying flow between ground water and all the way to the well bottom (that is, when an impervious
surface water. cap or drive point extends beyond the bottom of the screen);
a small amount of water can be trapped inside the cap or
drive point and remain in the well even if the water table has
Measurement Error dropped below the bottom of the well. In such instances, the
Errors in making water-level measurements in wells and observer can still make a water-level measurement in the well
in observing surface-water stage generally are not significant and may not realize that the actual water table is below the
relative to errors in determining K or A. Errors associated with bottom of the well.
determining the elevation of the top of the well casing rela- The well screen also needs to be selected with a slot size
tive to surface-water stage also typically are small. Increasing (width of the openings in the screen) that is appropriate for
accuracy and availability of global positioning systems are the geologic material in which the screen is installed. If the
reducing errors associated with determining well location. slot size is too small, water levels in the well will lag behind
These errors can be significant, however, if the well is within a changes in hydraulic head in the aquifer (Hvorslev, 1951).
few meters of the surface-water body or if hydraulic gradients If the slot size is too large, particles will pass through the
are very small. In this instance, greater care and more accurate screen and may fill the well bore. Improper slot size may not
methods should be used in determining the position of the well be important when monitoring water levels on a weekly or
and the elevation of the top of the well casing relative to the less frequent interval, but can be very important if water-level
surface-water stage. change is recorded as part of a slug test or aquifer test.

Improperly Constructed Wells Improperly Maintained Wells

Water-table wells in which water levels will be measured Water-table monitoring wells can become clogged with
to calculate fluxes between ground water and surface water sediments or bacterial growth, in part because so little water
should be constructed so the water level in the well repre- typically flows through a monitoring-well screen. Chemical
sents the phreatic surface of the aquifer (the water table). The precipitates (scale) also can clog the openings of a well screen.
screened interval of the well should be placed so it intersects
These processes decrease the connectivity of the well with the
the water table over the expected range of water-table fluctua-
aquifer, creating a delayed response between the water level
tions. Typical well-screen lengths for water-table monitoring
in the well and the hydraulic head in the aquifer. In extreme
wells range from 0.3 to 3 meters. Wells with long screens will
integrate hydraulic head over the length of the well screen, and instances, the water level in the well becomes unresponsive to
wells with short screens that are placed substantially below the temporal changes in aquifer hydraulic head. Monitoring wells
water table will provide hydraulic head at depth in the aquifer should be flushed occasionally to test and maintain connectiv-
that may be considerably different from the water-table head, ity with the aquifer.
especially within two to three aquifer thicknesses from the The top of the well casing is vulnerable to accidental
lake (Hunt and others, 2003). damage or vandalism. Protective devices for wells should be
Improper well construction also can alter hydrologic maintained and records kept in order to document any changes
representation, particularly if the completion method results in in the elevation of the top of the well casing to which water
the well screen being isolated from the aquifer. If drilling mud levels in the well typically are referenced.
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 49

Unstable Wells and Staff Gages Hydraulic Potentiomanometer

Water-table monitoring wells located near surface-water The hydraulic potentiomanometer, sometimes referred to
bodies commonly are quite shallow because the depth to the as a mini-piezometer, is a portable drive probe connected to
water table is shallow. Shallow well casings can move verti- a manometer (fig. 5). The manometer provides a comparison
cally in response to pumping for water-sample collection, between the stage of a surface-water body and the hydraulic
frost, and settling of well cuttings placed in the annular space head beneath the surface-water body at the depth to which the
between the well casing and undisturbed sediments. This is screen at the end of the probe is driven (Winter and others,
particularly common for wells installed in wetland sediments. 1988). The difference in head divided by the distance between
Shallow wells constructed with plastic casing can break from the screen and the sediment-water interface is a measurement
ice expansion during subfreezing temperatures. Wells and of the vertical hydraulic-head gradient. By driving the probe
surface-water staff gages located near a downwind shoreline to different depths beneath the sediment-water interface, the
also can be tilted, moved horizontally, or broken if surface ice probe can provide information about variability in vertical
is pushed onto the shoreline during fall freeze or spring thaw. hydraulic-head gradient with depth. The device does not give
For longer term studies, it may be cost effective to install a a direct indication of seepage flux, but when used in combina-
sturdy surface-water monitoring station so that sources of tion with a seepage meter, which does measure water flux, the
two devices can yield information about the hydraulic con-
environmental damage are minimized (Buchanan and Somers,
ductivity of the sediments (for example, Kelly and Murdoch,
1982). A less expensive means for obtaining greater stability
2003; Zamora, 2006). Because this device provides a quick
in a surface-water stage record is the installation of a siphon
characterization of the direction and magnitude of the verti-
gage that allows measurement of surface-water stage in a
cal hydraulic gradient, it is useful as a reconnaissance tool in
protected environment (McCobb and others, 1999). Annual lakes, wetlands, and streams. It also is useful in areas where
leveling surveys are necessary for surface-water staff gages, as near-shore water-table wells or piezometers do not exist, are
well as many near-shore wells, in order to document changes sparsely distributed, or are impractical to install and maintain.
in the elevation of the staff gage or the top of the well cas- The original hydraulic potentiomanometer design
ing. Multiple survey benchmarks can aid in maintaining (fig. 6) consists of two nested stainless-steel pipes separated
long-term elevational accuracy for staff gages and shallow, by O-rings that rest in grooves machined into the inner pipe.
near-shore wells. A screen with a machined point is threaded onto the inner
pipe. The outer pipe acts as a shield for the screen; it covers
Violation of Underlying Assumptions
The previously discussed assumptions of homogene-
ity and isotropy, inherent in most calculations of exchange
between ground water and surface water, are rarely met or
appropriate for near-shore settings and can result in large
errors in quantifying exchange between ground water and
surface water. Assumptions of two-dimensional areal flow
also typically are violated in near-shore regions (two to three
aquifer thicknesses from the surface-water feature) where
convergences and divergences of flow lines are common. The
Darcy approach also assumes that the system is in a steady-
state condition. Although the natural world is rarely if ever
at true steady state, the system often will have periods when
water levels are not changing appreciably over time, during
which representative estimations of average flows can be
made. It often is instructive to construct a simple computer
model of the physical hydrologic setting, even if the entire
hydrogeologic framework is not adequately known. Such a
tool facilitates testing of the significance of one or more of
these assumptions. In addition, a preliminary model can be Figure 5. Hydraulic potentiomanometer showing drive probe inserted
used to help identify sensitive parameters and locate areas into lakebed and manometer indicating a very small vertical hydraulic-
in the watershed where additional data collection would be head gradient (blue arrows indicate water levels on manometer).
most beneficial. (Photograph by Donald Rosenberry, U.S. Geological Survey.)
50 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

the screen and prevents damage to the screen and smearing the difficulty of driving the probe past the rocks and also
of fine-grained sediments during insertion of the probe. A because it is difficult to obtain a good seal between the outer
manometer is connected to the probe to allow measurement of pipe of the probe and the sediments. Rocks and cobbles near
the difference between head at the exposed well screen and the the shoreline often are only a surficial veneer; however, a
stage of the surface-water body. measurement usually is possible if the probe can penetrate
Once the probe is pushed to a desired depth beneath the the surface layer.
sediment-water interface, the outer pipe is retracted to expose Variability in the direction and magnitude of horizon-
the screen. At this point, one could simply measure from the tal hydraulic-head gradient with distance from shore can be
top of the well pipe to the water level inside the probe and determined by making measurements along transects oriented
to the surface-water level outside of the probe. The differ- perpendicular to the shoreline. The probe should be inserted to
ence between these measurements is the head difference. For the same depth beneath the sediment-water interface at each
convenience, and to better resolve small head differences, a measurement location. Otherwise, it is impossible to distin-
manometer is attached to the probe. A vacuum is applied at the guish spatial variability in horizontal gradients from spatial
top of the manometer, pulling water through tubing connected variability in vertical gradients. One end of each transect typi-
to the probe and the surface water. Greater resistance of flow cally extends to the shoreline, but measurements also can be
through the well screen may require that the surface-water made onshore in places where the probe can be driven deeply
tube be clamped to allow development of sufficient suction to enough to reach the water table. For onshore measurements,
the hydraulic potentiomanometer probe provides data equiva-
pull water through the well screen and tubing. When all of the
lent to that of a shallow, near-shore monitoring well, while
tubing is full of water and free of bubbles, air is bled into the
the tubing in the lake serves as a surface-water gage. Where
top of the manometer until the menisci are visible in the tub-
the near-shore land-surface slope is small, the probe can be
ing on both sides of the manometer (fig. 5). The difference in
inserted a considerable distance from the shoreline, although
height of the menisci equals the difference between head at the
the tubing needs to be long enough to extend from the well
screen in the sediment and the stage of the surface-water body.
probe to the surface-water body. The vertical distribution of
The hydraulic potentiomanometer works well in fine
vertical hydraulic-head gradients can be determined by driving
sands and coarser materials. It becomes difficult to pull the probe to multiple depths beneath the sediment-water inter-
water through the screen if the sediments contain significant face at each measurement location. This provides information
amounts of silt, clay, or organic deposits. The probe is about geologic heterogeneity with depth beneath the sediment-
difficult to insert in rocky or cobbly sediments because of water interface, which can have a large influence on depth-
integrated hydraulic-head gradients. In rivers, it is common
for sediments to be composed of alternating layers of organic
Valve
Tube C Pump and inorganic sediments or fine-grained and coarse-grained
sediments. Measurements often cannot be made in the organic
or fine-grained layers, in which case measurements should be
attempted in the more permeable layers. Differences in head
To optional between the transmissive layers often are large because the
sample bottle
intervening low-permeability layers limit the equalization of
Tube A
pressure between the transmissive layers. Biogenic gas, which
Manometer is common in many riverine sediments, can make obtaining
board
bubble-free measurements difficult.
Differences in hydraulic head, although dependent on the
Probe Valve or
clamp depth to which the probe is inserted, typically range from 0 to
Water 10 centimeters, but head differences as much as 30 centimeters
surface are not uncommon. In some settings, the head difference can
Tube
be very large, primarily because of local-scale geologic hetero-
B Filter
geneity. In rare instances, head differences are greater than the
Lake bed length of the manometer, in which case the manometer can be
raised, allowing the lower-head meniscus to be situated in the
clear flexible tubing connected to the base of the manometer.
For example, a head difference of approximately 2.4 meters
was reported at a site where water was flowing from a lake to
ground water (Rosenberry, 2000). The extreme gradient was
Figure 6. Components of the hydraulic potentiomanometer present because a nearby lake had a water level 14 meters
system. (Modified from Winter and others, 1988; copyright 1988 by lower than the upper lake. Coarse sand was present between
the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc., used the two lakes, and much of the head difference between the
with permission.) two lakes was distributed across a 20-centimeter-thick layer
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 51

of organic-rich, sandy sediment at the sediment-water interface ¥ R Roil ´

of the upper lake. Although still quite permeable compared to dh  dhoil ¦ w , (4)
§ Rw µ¶
other lake sediments in the area, the permeability of the top
20 centimeters of sandy lake sediment was one to two orders where
of magnitude lower than that of the underlying coarse sand. dh is difference in hydraulic head over the
The manometer had to be raised well above the lake surface distance between the sediment-water
in order to measure the large head difference. interface and the piezometer screen (L),
Early versions of the hydraulic potentiomanometer used dhoil is difference in elevation between the
a vacuum bottle for collection of the water because hand-held oil-water interface on the piezometer side of
pumps did not work well if they became wet (fig. 6). However, the manometer and oil-water interface on the
hand-cranked or motorized peristaltic pumps work well for surface-water side of the manometer (L),
pulling water through the manometer system. A cordless Rw is density of water (M V–1),
drill attached to a peristaltic pump head also can be used as a and
portable pump (J. Lundy, Minnesota Department of Health,
Roil is density of oil (M V–1).
oral commun., 2005). For a small-volume well and manometer
system, a large syringe can serve as a pump (D.R. LeBlanc, Kelly and Murdoch (2003) used vegetable oil with a
U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). density of 0.9 gram per cubic centimeter, which increased the
Water samples can be collected with the hydraulic head difference tenfold.
Another source of measurement error is the determina-
potentiomanometer. Many investigators choose to bypass the
tion of the depth to which the screened interval of the probe is
manometer when collecting samples to minimize the potential
inserted. An easy solution for determining this depth is to use
for sample contamination from the tubing.
an engraving tool to mark the outer pipe with depth incre-
ments. This distance should be recorded before the outer pipe
Sources of Error is retracted to expose the screen. Distance typically is relative
to the center of the screened interval of the probe.
Several sources of error attend the use of a hydraulic
potentiomanometer:
Improper Leveling of the Manometer
1. Measurement error,
2. Improper leveling of the manometer, This common problem becomes important when the
two sides of the manometer are separated by a considerable
3. Unstable hydraulic head, distance (as is the case with the manometer shown in fig. 5), or
4. Improper seal between outer pipe and the sediments, when the difference in head is small. Out-of-level error can be
5. Large bubbles entrained in tubing, minimized by installing a bubble level on the manometer and
6. Leaks or clogging, and by constructing the manometer so the two parallel tubes are
positioned close to each other (fig. 7).
7. Waves, standing waves, and seiches.
Each item listed above is discussed in detail below.
Unstable Hydraulic Head
Measurement Error Most measurements of difference in head stabilize in a
matter of seconds to minutes. In low-permeability sediments,
Errors in measurement can result from improperly read- it can take from tens of minutes to hours for head at the probe
ing the menisci on the manometer. For very small differences screen to stabilize. In such cases, observations of difference in
in head, a common occurrence in highly permeable sediments, head are repeated until the difference in head stops changing,
this error can result in a misinterpretation of the direction of indicating stabilization. Stabilization time also can provide a
flow of water across the sediment-water interface. Capillar- relative indication of the permeability of the sediments at the
ity typically is not an issue unless very small diameter plastic location of the probe screen.
tubing is used or the tubing diameters on the manometer are
different. Hydrophobicity, however, may become significant if
Improper Seal Between Outer Pipe
small-diameter plastic tubing is used, in which case the water
menisci in the tubing may resist movement in response to and the Sediments
small changes in hydraulic-head gradient. If the hydraulic potentiomanometer is inserted in rocky
Head differences can be amplified by use of a light oil or gravelly sediments, or if the probe is not inserted cleanly
in place of air at the top of the manometer (Kelly and Murdoch, into the sediments (that is, if the probe is rocked back and
2003). The degree of amplification depends on the density of forth during insertion), or if the probe is inserted a very short
the light oil relative to the density of water: distance into the sediments, water can flow vertically along the
52 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Figure 7. Hydraulic potentiomanometer designed to place

the manometer tubes connected to the drive probe and to the
surface-water body close together to minimize out-of-level errors.
(Photograph by Jim Lundy, Minnesota Department of Health.)

Larger scale areas of unsaturated sediments also have been

identified, in which case the tubing from the probe is filled
primarily with air and very little water. Although it is not pos-
sible to measure a hydraulic-head difference in these instances,
the hydraulic potentiomanometer remains useful in that it can
identify these sometimes unexpected hydrologic conditions.
Rosenberry (2000) reported a large, apparently permanent
wedge of unsaturated sediments beneath the edge of a lake
that was identified on the basis of measurements made with
the hydraulic potentiomanometer. This unsaturated sediment
was in direct connection with the adjacent unsaturated zone
onshore and extended up to 20 meters beyond the shoreline
of the lake. The hydraulic potentiomanometer also was used
at a small pond to determine the vertical and areal extent of
Water pockets of gas beneath the pond that were several meters in
level
diameter. The gas likely was trapped when the pond stage rose
and the shoreline rapidly moved laterally to cover formerly
Water unsaturated near-shore sediments (Rosenberry, 2000).
level

Leaks or Clogging
Leaks can form (1) at the O-rings that separate the inner
and outer pipes, (2) between the inner rod and the tubing to
outer surface of the probe, with the result that the difference which it is connected, and (3) between the tubing and the
in head between the screen and the surface water is less than manometer. Leaks also can occur within the manometer
the actual difference. This “short circuiting” of head can be plumbing. Leaks can cause formation of bubbles in the water
prevented by driving the probe straight into the sediments, or contained within the probe and tubing, which can cause the
by driving the probe farther into the sediments. manometer to indicate an erroneous difference in head. O-ring
leaks can be prevented by liberal use of O-ring grease. Other
leaks can be eliminated by using clamps, sealant or tape.
Large Bubbles Entrained in Tubing The entire system can be clogged if the well screen is torn or
absent and sediments are pulled through the tubing. Clogging
At many sites, biogenic gas is pulled through the probe also is likely if the end of the surface-water tubing settles into
and is visible in the tubing connecting the probe to the the bed sediments. A screen can be placed over the end of the
manometer. Gas bubbles inside the tubing can change volume surface-water tube to prevent sediments from entering the tub-
with a change in temperature and thereby corrupt the differ- ing. Also, a weight often is applied to the surface-water tube to
ence in head displayed by the manometer. Care should be keep the tube from floating to the surface and allowing air to
taken to ensure that large bubbles (large enough to extend be pulled through the tubing.
across the entire cross section of the tubing) are removed prior
to bleeding air back into the top of the manometer to take a
reading. Very small bubbles also may appear when a strong Waves, Standing Waves, and Seiches
vacuum is applied to pull water through the well screen. These
bubbles are the result of the water degassing in response to Difference in head between the surface-water body and
the suction pressure. Typically, they do not present a problem the screened interval of the hydraulic potentiomanometer can
because they occupy a very small volume, but over time they vary with short-term changes in surface-water stage caused by
may grow as the water warms. The problem can become sig- waves, seiches, or even standing waves in fast-moving streams
nificant with increased equilibration time. or rivers. Waves make it difficult to make a measurement if
Occasionally, small lenses or zones of sediments beneath the head difference is small. The surface-water tube can be
surface-water bodies are unsaturated, commonly because of placed inside a small stilling well (even something as simple
discrete pockets of gas generated from organic decomposition. as a coffee can) with holes drilled in the side to dampen stage
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 53

fluctuations from waves. Seiches (internal waves) are common Members of the Cullen Lakes Association in northern
on large lakes and rivers and can be dealt with by making mea- Minnesota modified a well probe to eliminate the manom-
surements at the same location multiple times over a period eter. They used a “mini dipper” small-diameter electric tape
that is appropriate for the periodicity of the seiche. to make measurements of depth to water inside and outside
the probe. The measurement outside of the probe was made
through a length of semirigid tubing; the top of the tubing was
Other Similar Devices flush with the top of the probe, and the bottom extended to the
surface water (fig. 10) (Ted P. Soteroplos and William (Bill) J.
Numerous other devices have been constructed to
Maucker, Cullen Lakes Association, written commun., 1995).
measure difference in head between surface-water bodies and
A commercially available, retractable, stainless-steel soil-gas
the underlying ground water, involving a modification of the
vapor probe was used to avoid having to manufacture a retract-
probe, the method for measuring head difference, or both.
able well screen.
Squillace and others (1993) modified the hydraulic potentio-
Several other small-diameter devices also have been
manometer by making the probe longer and adding a drive
developed to measure vertical-head gradients beneath surface-
hammer in order to place the screened interval at depths as water features. Lee and Cherry (1978) describe the use of a
great as 3 meters below the sediment-water interface. This flexible plastic tube with a screen attached to the end. The
device was used by Rosenberry (2000) to determine the hori- tube is driven to depth inside a larger diameter rigid steel pipe
zontal and vertical extent of unsaturated sediments beneath a that is removed once the insertion depth is reached, allowing
lake (fig. 8). Another drive-hammer device has the manometer the sediment to collapse around and seal the tube in place in
connected to the drive probe to minimize components that the sediment. With the tubing extended above the surface, the
need to be carried in the field (fig. 9). Mitchell and others water level inside the tube is compared to the surface-water
(1988) clamped the well and lake tubing to a metric ruler to stage. More recently, a root-watering device, commonly avail-
create a simple manometer for making measurements of dif- able at hardware stores, has been used to measure vertical
ference in head. hydraulic-head gradients beneath surface-water bodies (Wanty
and Winter, 2000). A coil of tubing is connected to the top of
the probe, and when positioned properly with respect to the
water surface, is used to indicate difference in head between
that in the probe and that of the surface-water body (fig. 11). A
commercially available probe (MHE PP27) is used to collect
water samples and to make measurements of difference in
head beneath the sediment-water interface in much the same
method (Henry, 2000). This device also makes use of clear
tubing placed at the water surface to measure difference in
head (fig. 12).
Several investigators have developed methods for
determining head gradients at multiple depths beneath the
sediment-water interface. Duff and others (1998) designed
a device for collecting water samples from multiple depths
beneath a streambed. If clear tubing is used, hydraulic heads
also can be related to stream stage. Lundy and Ferrey (2004)
used a combination of drive points and multilevel samplers
that could be left in place for the duration of the study. Their
study design allowed repeat measurement of head gradients
and collection of water samples so the investigators could
determine the extent and growth of a contaminant plume
that intersected a stream. Both devices allowed rapid mea-
surements and convenient collection of water samples from
multiple depths.

Figure 8. Hydraulic potentiomanometer probe with drive hammer

shown driven about 2 meters beneath the lakebed. Manometer
and hand-crank peristaltic pump are visible in background.
(Photograph by Donald Rosenberry, U.S. Geological Survey.)
54 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Figure 9. Hydraulic potentiomanometer (created by Joe Magner,

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) with manometer connected
to drive probe. Note the proximity of the lake and drive-point tubes
to minimize out-of-level errors. Note also the in-line water bottle
to keep the vacuum pump dry. (Photograph by Donald Rosenberry,
U.S. Geological Survey.)

Manometer
If a considerable amount of trapped gas is encountered,
thus making it difficult to get a bubble-free measurement, it is
sometimes possible to pull water rapidly through the screen,
evacuating much of the gas from the sediments near the probe
screen. After waiting a few minutes, water then can be pulled
slowly through the screen without pulling additional gas
Valve bubbles into the tubing.
The screened interval commonly will break when using
a drive hammer to position a hydraulic potentiomanometer
probe, especially if many blows are required and the probe is
made from stainless steel. Stainless steel is relatively brittle,
and the many holes drilled in the screened interval weaken
Drive the metal tube, which may lead to failure from the shock of
hammer
Hand the drive hammer. It is advisable to build the device with
pump the screen as a separate part that is threaded onto the inte-
rior rod of the probe, so damaged or broken screens can be
Sample removed and replaced. It also is advisable to tighten the screen
bottle frequently because the shock of driving the probe often loos-
ens the threads connecting the screen to the rest of the probe.
The screen should be retracted inside the outer sheath
Tube to
Drive surface before removing the probe after a measurement has been com-
probe water pleted. This prevents the screen from being damaged during
removal of the probe and also traps the sediment that sur-
rounds the screen while making the measurement. This allows
a qualitative description of the sediments at the depth at which
the measurement is made.

Calm surface-water conditions are required for all of

these designs that make use of a length of clear tubing inserted
into the surface-water body. A manometer could be used Seepage Meters
with any of these devices, although most of these alternative
approaches were developed to avoid use of a manometer in The seepage meter is one of the most commonly used
order to simplify the measurement system. devices for making a direct measurement of the flux of water
across the sediment-water interface. Early versions were
developed to measure water losses from irrigation canals
Cautions and Suggestions Related to (Israelson and Reeve, 1944; Warnick, 1951; Robinson and
Use of the Hydraulic Potentiomanometer Rohwer, 1952; Rasmussen and Lauritzen, 1953). Many of
these devices were expensive and unwieldy and were little
Buried debris, such as logs, rocks, and even old tires, often used beyond the application to canals. Carr and Winter (1980)
is encountered when driving the hydraulic potentiomanometer provide an annotated bibliography of the early literature on
probe. In most instances, it is possible to reinsert the probe seepage meters, including drawings of some of the devices.
0.5 meter away and drive the probe to the desired depth. Lee (1977) developed an inexpensive and simple meter that
The observer should not stand within 1 meter of the probe has changed little during the decades since its inception. Lee’s
when making a measurement. The weight of the observer can meter consists of the cut-off end of a 208-liter (55-gallon) stor-
compact sediments and cause a several-centimeter change age drum, to which is attached a plastic bag that is partially
in the measured head difference. This artifact is especially filled with a known volume of water (fig. 13). The drum, or
notable in soft sediments. chamber, is submerged in the surface-water body and placed
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 55

Figure 10. Portable well probe consisting of a commercially

available retractable soil-gas vapor probe connected to threaded
pipe with tubing inside the pipe connected to the vapor probe.
A separate tube taped to the outside of the pipe extends to
the lake-water surface. (Photograph by Donald Rosenberry,
U.S. Geological Survey.)

that values less than 0.01 centimeter per day (Lee and Cherry,
1978), 0.04 centimeter per day (Harvey and others, 2004), or
0.08 centimeter per day (Cable and others, 1997a) are too small
to be measured accurately. A recently developed meter designed
for use in benthic ocean settings is capable of measuring excep-
tionally slow seepage rates as small as 3×10–5 centimeters per
day (Tryon and others, 2001). Several values of 100 centime-
ters per day or greater have been reported (100 centimeters per
day—Asbury, 1990; 130 centimeters per day—Belanger and
Walker, 1990; 240 centimeters per day—Rosenberry, 2000;
275 centimeters per day—Paulsen and others, 2001). Duff and
others (1999) measured a flux of nearly 5,200 centimeters per
day from a 2- to 3-centimeter-diameter, boiling-sand spring in a
small stream in northern Minnesota.
The half-barrel seepage meter is relatively easy to use
and conceptually simple to operate. The cylindrical seepage
chamber (with bag detached) first is placed on the submerged
sediment and slowly inserted into the bed with a twisting,
sediment-cutting action. Care must be taken to ensure a good
seal between the chamber and the sediment. Buried rocks

in the sediment to contain the seepage that crosses that part

Potentiometric head
of the sediment-water interface. The bag then is attached to of ground water
the chamber for a measured amount of time, after which the
bag is removed and the volume of water contained in the bag Potentiometric head
is remeasured. The change in volume during the time the bag of surface water

was attached to the chamber is the volumetric rate of flow

through the part of the bed covered by the chamber (volume/
time). The volumetric rate of flow then can be divided by the
approximately 0.25-square-meter area covered by the cham-
ber to express seepage as a flux velocity (distance/time). Flux
velocity is useful because it normalizes the area covered by Sediment surface
the seepage meter and allows comparisons of results with
other studies (and other sizes of seepage meters). Seepage flux
velocity typically is multiplied by a coefficient that com-
pensates for inefficiencies in flow within the meter, restric-
tions to flow through the connector between the bag and the Screened interval,
approximately
chamber, and any resistance to movement of the bag as it fills 3 centimeters
or empties.
The range of seepage rates that have been reported from
coastal and fresh-water settings is approximately five orders
of magnitude. Values as small as 0.01 centimeter per day have Figure 11. Well probe constructed from a commercially
been reported (for example, Cherkauer and McBride, 1988; available root feeder with the coiled tubing substituting for a
Yelverton and Hackney, 1986), although some studies indicate manometer. (Modified from Wanty and Winter, 2000.)
56 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Figure 12. MHE PP27 probe used to indicate difference in head

(modified from Henry, 2000). (Photograph by Mark Henry, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality.)

Lee (1977) originally used the cut-off end of a 208-liter

(55-gallon) drum, but many other types and sizes of cham-
bers also have been used, including coffee cans (Asbury,
1990), inverted plastic trash cans (S.E. Hagerthey and
D.O. Rosenberry, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun.,
1998), lids from desiccation chambers (Duff and others,
1999), fiberglass domes cemented to a limestone bed (Shinn
and others, 2002), and even galvanized stock tanks (Landon
PP27 used as a piezometer/manometer
and others, 2001; Rosenberry and Morin, 2004). The size of
to determine the elevation of ground the chamber should be selected for convenience and for the
water relative to surface water
expected rate of seepage across the sediment-water inter-
face. A large-diameter meter can measure more accurately
an extremely small flow across the sediment-water interface,
Water level if positive and it also better integrates small-scale spatial variability
hydrostatic head in seepage flux. A large meter, however, can be unwieldy
Water surface and it also is more difficult to ensure a good seal in uneven,
Sampler rocky, or debris-laden settings. Alternately, flow from several
handle
Water level if negative normal-sized chambers can be routed to one seepage bag to
hydrostatic head increase the surface area and integrate spatial heterogeneity
Surface water
(Rosenberry, 2005). Large-diameter seepage meters often are
difficult to remove from the sediments following their use, as
Sediment surface
are smaller-sized chambers inserted into silty or clayey sedi-
Sediment
ment. A simple solution is to insert a length of tubing inside of
Pore fluids enter
here or are
the chamber and blow air into the chamber until the buoyancy
injected here force lifts the chamber out of the sediments. Some users have
installed additional openings in the top of the chamber that
are opened prior to removal of the chamber in order for water
or woody debris can prevent the edges of the chamber from to flow into the chamber as it is pulled from the sediments.
extending into the sediment and may allow short-circuiting of Additional openings also reduce the chance for “blowouts”
water beneath the edge of the chamber. Some investigators have or sediment compression during chamber installation.
packed sediments around the outside of the chamber to create Much has been written regarding the type and size of
a good seal (Cable and others, 1997a). Occasionally, in sandy the bag attached to the chamber (for example, Erickson,
or gravelly settings, it is necessary to stand on the chamber 1981; Shaw and Prepas, 1989; Cable and others, 1997a;
and gently rock it back and forth to force it into the sediment. Isiorho and Meyer, 1999). Bags as small as condoms (Fellows
Sometimes this action is necessary in weedy settings where the and Brezonik, 1980; Duff and others, 1999; Isiorho and Meyer,
meter needs to cut through a part of the weed bed in order to 1999; Schincariol and McNeil, 2002) to as large as 15-liter
trash bags (Erickson, 1981) have been used, with 4-liter
achieve a good seal. Harvey and others (2000) made circular
sandwich bags among the most common choices. Most plas-
vertical slits in the fibrous peat in order to install seepage meters
tic bags have a “memory effect” caused by the manufacturing
in wetlands in the Florida Everglades. Standing on the chamber
process that results in a slight pressure created by the bag as
should be a last resort, however, because rapid emplacement
it moves to a more relaxed position. This can result in errors
can cause “blowouts” of the sediment adjacent to the chamber in measurement that become substantial in low-flux settings.
(Lee, 1977), or compress sediments beneath the chamber, and Shaw and Prepas (1989) reported an anomalous influx of
disturb the natural rate of water flow through the sediments. water during the first 30 minutes following bag installation
The chamber should be emplaced with a slight tilt so that the that they were able to eliminate by prefilling the bags with
opening to which the bag is attached is near the uppermost 1,000 milliliters of water. Cable and others (1997a) reported
edge of the meter, which facilitates the release of gas from the similar results. Shaw and Prepas (1989) suggested using a
sediment. Sediments often are compressed beneath the seepage- 4-liter-sized bag and adding a known volume of water (1 liter
meter chamber during meter insertion, and flow is temporarily or more), even in settings where flow of water was from ground
disrupted. The sediments and flow need to equilibrate before a water to surface water, because these procedures tended to
bag is attached. Substantial error can result if measurements are minimize the memory effect. Shaw and Prepas also suggested
made too soon following meter installation. prewetting the bags prior to installation on the chamber to
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 57

A B
Water surface

Bag

Seepage cylinder

Water
Sediment

Water surface

Bag
Water

Sediment

C
Figure 13. A, Half-barrel seepage meter (modified from Lee and
Cherry, 1978, used by permission of the Journal of Geoscience
Education). The top panel shows typical installation with bag
connected to a tube inserted through a rubber stopper. The
bottom panel shows installation in shallow water with vent tube
to allow trapped gas to escape. B, Standard half-barrel seepage
meter in place in the field. (Photograph by Donald Rosenberry,
U.S. Geological Survey.) C, Electromagnetic seepage meter
(foreground) installed next to a half-barrel seepage meter. Cable
extending from seepage cylinder connects to signal conditioner
and power supply located on nearby anchored raft. (Photograph
by Donald Rosenberry, U.S. Geological Survey.)

avoid bias related to the loss of water from adhesion of water Several studies have reported a preference for thin-walled
to the inside of the bag. Blanchfield and Ridgway (1996) plastic bags to minimize resistance to flow to or from the
indicated that seepage rates were inflated by as much as one bag. Others have reported problems with fish chewing holes
order of magnitude if unfilled bags were used instead of bags in the bags and switched to thicker walled bags (Erickson,
prefilled with 1,000 milliliters of water. Asbury (1990), report- 1981). One solution to the fish problem is to place one bag
ing results from seepage measurements made where water was inside another. If this is done, however, it is important to
rapidly flowing from a lake to ground water, indicated that the place small holes in the corners of the outside bag to allow
water between the bags to drain prior to measurement and to
sides of the bag came into contact when the volume of water
allow air to escape from between the bags prior to bag inser-
was 500 milliliters or less, which caused a reduction of flow
tion. Another solution is to place the bag in a shelter, which
out of the bag. Murdoch and Kelly (2003) indicated that the
also serves the purpose of minimizing the effects of waves
hydraulic head necessary to fill a 3,500-milliliter seepage bag and currents, described later. Thick-walled bags also have
was smallest when the bag was initially empty, increased to a been used; intravenous-drip bags or urine-collection bags are
relatively constant value once the bag contained about 100 to especially convenient because the tubing that extends from the
200 milliliters of water, and then increased rapidly when the bag already is attached. Recent studies, however, which are
bag was within 500 to 800 milliliters of being full. They also discussed in the following section on sources of error, indicate
determined that the resistance to filling the bag depended on that bag resistance induces substantial error to seepage mea-
the bag thickness. surements, so the use of thick-walled bags should be avoided.
58 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

In addition, cautions have been issued regarding collect- housing. Dorrance allowed the bag shelter to float on the
ing water-quality samples from a seepage meter (Brock and surface, whereas Boyle suspended the bag housing a short dis-
others, 1982; Belanger and Mikutel, 1985). Because the resi- tance beneath the surface. Both designs allowed servicing of
dence time of water contained inside the seepage chamber or the bag without the aid of a diver (fig. 15). Hedblom and oth-
bag may allow the chemistry of the water to change, samples ers (2003) modified a meter to measure gas flux and water flux
may not be representative of the chemistry of water discharg- from shallow, contaminated sediments. The device contained a
ing across the sediment-water interface. mylar bag for collecting gas released from the sediments, and
Seepage meters have been modified for use in extreme it also contained long rods that were driven into the sediment
environments. Cherkauer and McBride (1988) created a seep- to hold the seepage chamber and prevent it from gradually
age meter that included a concrete collar for measurement of sinking into the soft sediments. Shallow-water seepage meters
seepage in Lake Michigan, where energy from large waves also have been used to measure flows near the shoreline where
would dislodge unmodified devices (fig. 14). Dorrance (1989) seepage rates often are large (Lee and Cherry, 1978) (fig. 13,
and Boyle (1994) each designed seepage meters for use in lower panel). Lee and Cherry simply attached the bag to the
deep water. Both designs consisted of a seepage chamber con- side of the seepage chamber rather than to the top. A bag also
nected via tubing to a seepage bag installed inside a separate could be attached to the side of a seepage cylinder that extends

A. EXTERIOR OF THE
FULL METER

C. LAYOUT OF THE SEEPAGE

COLLECTION SYSTEM

Collection
bag

Lifting Webbing to
Electrical cable support bag
wire

6-inch PVC
housing

Outlet 1
(air release
with ball valve) Fuel
Electical wire solenoid
PVC
housing

Cut-off
55-gallon drum Flexible tubing
from outlet 2

Outlet 2a to D. FLOW PATTERN

Outlet 1 open water THROUGH THE
(power on) SOLENOID
Outlet 2
(water Outlet 2b to
B. CROSS SECTION OF release)
THE DRUM PORTION collection bag
(power off)

4 inches
Concrete
8
16 inches
inches Water Flow Flexible tubing
direction from water

Sediment
22 inches

Figure 14. Seepage meter modified for use in large lakes (from Cherkauer and McBride, 1988. Reprinted from Ground Water with
permission from the National Ground Water Association, copyright 1988).
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 59

above the water surface and contains a free water surface. either reduce or pinch off flow to or from the bag. Currents
Water then would flow into or out of the bag in order to main- also may generate a pressure gradient across the bag mem-
tain the same water level inside and outside of the seepage brane that could lead to erroneous measurements (described
chamber. This procedure could allow measurement of seepage more completely in the next section on sources of error). Bags
in the very shallow water closest to the shoreline where seep- have been installed inside shelters to protect the bag from
age rates often are the largest. Waves, however, could create these currents. Designs have included shelters mounted to
potentially large flows through the submerged opening in the the top of the seepage cylinder (for example, Schneider and
side of the chamber, leading to large measurement errors. others, 2005) or shelters that rest on the sediment bed and are
Rosenberry and Morin (2004) reported instantaneous flow attached to the seepage cylinder via a short length of tubing
rates into and out of a near-shore seepage cylinder of more or hose (for example, Landon and others, 2001). Bag shelters
than 300 milliliters per second. also protect the bag from wave action that may cause errone-
Seepage meters also have been modified for use in flow- ously large seepage rates (Sebestyen and Schneider, 2001),
ing water. In many streams and rivers, currents are sufficient to and they maintain the bag in the proper orientation so it cannot
cause the bag to be deflected in a downstream direction, which swing with the current, which could pinch off the opening
may fold the bag across its connection to the chamber and at the bag-connection point. David Lee (Atomic Energy of

Depth sonar

–2.0 meters

Waterproof sealing
compound (RTV)

Cross section of sample bag Hinged lid

Float 5-liter plastic bag

Float
White epoxy paint 10-liter
clip
background on bag pail
10-centimeter corrugated
Initial water-
plastic tubing
level mark
Dyed water
Sampling Plastic tube
station insert
depth line Post Two-way
Hinge screws valve
clamp Female
reducer

Pail float
Aluminum
“sonar” pie plate
Retainer ring
Air vent

Aluminum foil

Smooth 77-liter plastic pail

62 centimeters
Surface area
=0.164 square meter

Weighted collar

Ground-water flow
Not to scale

Figure 15. Ground-water seepage meter modified for use in deep water. (Modified from Boyle, 1994. Copyright 1994 by
the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc., used with permission.)
60 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Canada Limited, oral commun., 2006) suggested drilling small Incomplete Seal, Unstable Cylinder
holes in the part of the tubing that extends inside of the bag to
further prevent errors should the bag move to pinch off the end Care should be taken to ensure that an effective seal
of the tube. exists between the seepage chamber and the sediments. After
If a seepage meter is used in combination with the pushing the chamber into the sediments, one can feel around
the base of the chamber to ensure that the bottom edge of the
hydraulic potentiomanometer, local-scale values for vertical
chamber cannot be felt. If the bed is rocky and a good seal is
hydraulic conductivity can be obtained. A modification of
impossible, it may be possible to place a mud or bentonite seal
particular interest is the “piezoseep” by Kelly and Murdoch
against the edge of the meter to create a temporary seal. This
(2003) that combines a seepage-meter chamber with a piezom- practice, however, may introduce additional errors because
eter inserted through the center of the chamber. The authors the seepage immediately beyond the edge of the meter will
replaced the seepage bag with a pump that pulls water at be altered.
known rates from the area covered by the chamber. By accu- Meters installed in soft sediments also may be subject
rately measuring the head difference between the piezometer to a sealing problem of a different type. If sediments are not
point and the surface water in response to various pumping sufficiently competent to support the weight of the meter, the
rates, they were able to calculate in-situ hydraulic conductiv- seepage chamber may slowly sink into the sediment following
ity. The relation between head gradient and seepage flux was emplacement. This will displace water from inside the cham-
determined for each meter, which allowed seepage rates to be ber that will flow into a seepage bag connected to the chamber.
monitored by simply measuring head differences at a desired A solution to this problem is to use taller seepage chambers
time interval (Murdoch and Kelly, 2003). set deeper into the sediments (Fellows and Brezonik, 1980). If,
Although numerous sources of error exist, especially for example, a 208-liter storage drum is used, it can be cut in
half to make a seepage chamber with sidewalls that are about
associated with the seepage bag, the seepage meter
45 centimeters tall. Another solution is to anchor the meter
is an attractive choice for quantifying flow across the
to rods driven deep into the sediments (Hedblom and others,
sediment-water interface because of its simplicity and low 2003). Menheer (2004) designed a chamber with fins that rest
cost. Perhaps as a result, care and training in the use and on the bed surface so that the chamber is installed at a consis-
operation of seepage meters commensurate with their cost tent depth in the sediments for every placement.
may have led to collection of poor-quality data for some stud-
ies. With proper understanding of the operating principles,
knowledge of sources of error, and care in measurement, accu- Insufficient Equilibration Time
rate determinations of flux across the sediment-water interface
This may be the most common source of error for
are possible, as has been demonstrated in many of the papers
scientists inexperienced in the use of seepage meters. It is
cited herein. tempting to install the seepage chamber and immediately begin
making measurements. Sediments first need to be allowed to
Sources of Error equilibrate following their compression during insertion of
the seepage chamber. Time between chamber installation and
Sources of error when using seepage meters include: first measurement typically is 1 day or more, but a few studies
1. Incomplete seal between seepage-meter chamber and have reported waiting shorter times when working in sandy or
sediments, unstable cylinders; gravelly sediments (table 2). Some investigations indicate that
an equilibration time as little as 10 to 15 minutes is adequate
2. Insufficient time between meter installation and first
(Lock and John, 1978; Lewis, 1987; Landon and others, 2001).
measurement; Rosenberry and Morin (2004) used an automated seepage meter
3. Improper bag-attachment procedures, bag resistance, to demonstrate that most of the recovery to predisturbance seep-
and moving water; age rates was achieved within 30 minutes after installation of
4. Leaks; the seepage chamber in a sandy lakebed.
5. Measurement error;
6. Flexible seepage-meter chamber; Improper Bag-Attachment Procedures,
7. Insufficient or excessive bag-attachment time; Bag Resistance, and Moving Water
8. Accumulation of trapped gas;
The procedure for attaching the bag to the seepage
9. Incorrect coefficient to relate measured flux to actual
chamber depends on the attachment mechanism. With early
flux across the sediment-water interface; and
designs, the bag was attached to a small-diameter tube that
10. Insufficient characterization of spatial heterogeneity in extended through a rubber stopper inserted into the chamber.
seepage through sediments. It is important to not apply any pressure to the bag while
Each item listed above is discussed in detail below. pushing the rubber stopper into the chamber during bag
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 61

Table 2. Duration between emplacement of seepage meter and first installation of seepage-meter bag (equilibration time) from
selected studies.

Reference Site Equilibration time

Lock and John, 1978 Lake Taupo, New Zealand 5–10 minutes
Landon and others, 2001 Platte River, Nebraska 10–15 minutes
Lewis, 1987 Coral reefs on Barbados 15 minutes
Rosenberry and Morin, 2004 Mirror Lake, New Hampshire 30–60 minutes
Libelo and MacIntyre, 1994 York River, Virginia 1 hour
Rosenberry, 2000 Lake Belle Taine, Minnesota 1–3 hours
Cable and others, 1997a Gulf Coast, Turkey Point, Florida At least 24 hours
Belanger and Kirkner, 1994 Mountain Lake, Florida 1 day
Erickson, 1981 Williams Lake, Minnesota 2 days
Shaw and Prepas, 1989 Narrow Lake, Alberta 2–3 days
Lee, 1977 Lake Sallie, Minnesota Several days
Belanger and Montgomery, 1992 Laboratory tank tests Several days
Shaw and Prepas, 1990a Narrow Lake, Alberta 2–5 days
Boyle, 1994 Alexander Lake, Ontario A few weeks

attachment. Significant volumes of water can be forced into or, recommended because they present a temporally variable bag
more commonly, out of the bag during attachment. The same resistance that is particularly difficult to account for during
caution applies to removal of the bag from the chamber. A calibration for (Schincariol and McNeil, 2002).
recent improvement in bag-connection design involves using Bags should be free of air bubbles prior to bag attach-
a shutoff valve (Cable and others, 1997a) (fig. 16). A bag is ment. Bubbles exert a buoyant force on the bag, which can
attached to the shutoff valve and a fitting that connects to the place a strain on the bag and either cause an artificial gain or
threads of the shutoff valve is installed in the seepage cham- loss of water in the bag as it deforms in response to the buoy-
ber. Once the bag is properly filled and emptied of air, the ant force, or prevent the bag from readily inflating or deflating
valve can be closed for transport until the bag is threaded onto to accommodate seepage gains or losses. Harvey and others
the meter, at which time the valve is opened and the measure- (2000) indicated that excessive gas collected in a seepage
ment period begins. Upon measurement completion, the valve bag led to artificially large fluxes of water into the bag. They
is closed and the bag removed for final volume measurement. designed their seepage meters so that the top of the bag rested
This minimizes the possibility of the investigator inadver- on the water surface, which eliminated buoyant forces. A
tently causing flow into or out of the bag during insertion and simple way to remove air from inside the bag is to pull the bag
removal. Other connectors that do not require threads also can beneath the surface of the water body (or beneath the water
be used, but the user should test the connector to make sure surface in a bucket), with the opening of the bag pointing away
that it does not leak under near-zero pressure conditions. from the water surface. As the bag is pulled beneath the water,
As mentioned previously, use of thin-walled bags has air escapes through the opening. The bag can be pulled almost
been recommended in numerous seepage studies. Thick- completely beneath the water surface until the opening of the
walled bags generate a greater resistance to inflation or defla- bag is about to be submerged, at which point the opening is
tion, and a larger head gradient is required to effect a change closed and the inside of the bag is virtually free of air.
Errors also can be introduced when the observer wades
in volume inside the bag. Because some bags are constructed
out to the seepage meter to attach the bag. In soft sediments,
with a tube already in place (for example, intravenous bags,
the weight of the observer standing next to the seepage meter
urine-collection bags, solar-shower bags), several studies have
may cause displacement of water from the sediments. This can
reported use of these bags in seepage-meter studies. Unless a
be a problem even in sandy sediments. Rosenberry and Morin
calibration coefficient is determined for measurements made (2004) reported that seepage increased by more than one order
with these bags, however, it is likely that the measured seep- of magnitude for several seconds when an observer walked
age rates will substantially underestimate fluxes across the within 1 meter of a seepage chamber installed in a sandy
sediment-water interface. Murdoch and Kelly (2003) reported lakebed, but the seepage rate changed only slightly when aver-
that thicker bags required a much larger correction multiplier aged over a minute-long period. This source of error is most
(1.88) compared to thin-walled bags (1.25); they also reported substantial for small rates of seepage and can be avoided if the
the measurement variance for thick-walled bags was greater observer floats in the water while attaching and detaching the
than for thin-walled bags. Rosenberry and Menheer (2006) bag. Servicing the meter from a small boat or raft (Harvey and
reported similar values, ranging from a correction multiplier of others, 2000) works well if the meter can be reached from the
0.95 for thin-walled bags to 1.89 for a solar-shower bag. Based water surface. Using a short piece of hose or tubing to locate
on these observations, use of thick-walled bags is not recom- the bag 1 to 2 meters away from the seepage chamber also
mended. Use of condoms as seepage-meter bags also is not minimizes this source of error.
62 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Figure 16. Plastic bag attached to a garden-hose shut-off valve.

Bag is filled with a known volume of water and then purged of air.
Valve is closed. Bag is threaded onto male threads on seepage
meter, and valve then is opened to begin seepage measurement.
(Photograph by Donald Rosenberry, U.S. Geological Survey.)

flow is from surface water to ground water, the velocity-head

effect will reduce the loss of water from the seepage bag.
Libelo and MacIntyre (1994) indicated that water flowing at
a velocity of 0.2 meter per second or faster past an uncovered
bag resulted in larger rates of seepage than for a bag placed
inside a protective cover, and that the velocity-head effect
could more than double the measured seepage flux. They
indicated this type of error also could result from near-shore
waves or currents. Murdoch and Kelly (2003) quantified the
velocity-head effect and indicated it becomes substantial when
the velocity of the moving water is 0.1 meter per second or
greater. Both studies indicated that the velocity-head effect
is proportional to the square of the surface-water velocity,
consistent with equation 5. Landon and others (2001) used
bag shelters for their seepage measurements in the Platte
River in Nebraska. Sebestyen and Schnieder (2001) used a
plastic shield to protect their seepage-meter bags in a lake in
New York. Asbury (1990) noted that bags exposed to small
currents could be pulled to the side by the current, folding the
bag over the opening and closing off the tubing to which the
bag was attached. This was an especially important problem
for flow out of the bag and when the bag was nearly empty of
water. Conversely, Cable and others (1997a) indicated that cur-
rents were not a problem for exposed seepage bags attached
to meters installed in near-shore regions of the Florida Gulf
coast, as long as windspeed was less than 15 knots.
A seepage chamber installed in moving water also may
If currents are present, seepage-meter measurements affect actual seepage rates in the vicinity of the meter. Shinn
can be erroneously large or small, depending on the seepage and others (2002) reported that measured seepage was always
direction. This is the result of velocity head associated with from ground water to surface water at their study sites near
moving water, the Florida Keys, even during intervals when piezometer nests
v2 indicated reversals in the hydraulic-head gradient in response
hv  , (5) to tidal influences. They attributed this phenomenon to the
2g
effect of the seepage chamber extending into the flow field
where where ocean currents were relatively strong, which would
v is velocity of water flowing past the seepage cause water to be advected through the sediment beneath
bag (L T–1), the seepage chamber and into the seepage bag. Huettel and
and others (1996) indicated that this process also occurs naturally
g is acceleration due to gravity (L T–2). where an uneven sediment bed (ripples, dunes) projects into a
Velocity head is one component of the total hydraulic moving-water flow field. On the upstream side of the obstruc-
head in a stream, which is the sum of velocity head, pressure tion to flow (a dune or, in this instance, a seepage chamber),
head, and elevation head. Velocity head inside a seepage bag water velocity and, therefore, velocity head decreases, pres-
is zero because water is not moving appreciably inside the sure head increases, and the pressure gradient drives flow into
bag. Because the flexible plastic bag can easily respond to any the sediments, beneath the rim of the chamber, and into the
pressure gradients across the bag surface, the pressure inside chamber. The same process occurs at the downstream side of
the bag is the same as outside of the bag. Therefore, the total the obstruction where an eddy forms to decrease velocity head
hydraulic head inside the bag is equal to the hydraulic head and increase pressure head. Others who have made seepage
outside of the bag minus the velocity-head component. If flow measurements in marine settings indicated that the seepage
is from ground water to surface water, the velocity-head effect cylinder is little affected by waves and currents (Corbett and
will induce additional water to flow into the seepage bag. If Cable, 2003). Regardless of the net effect, the local flow field
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 63

is undoubtedly altered by the presence of a seepage chamber Flexible Seepage-Meter Chamber

positioned in a stream or river. Landon and others (2001) and
Zamora (2006) reported scouring of the bed at several seep- Occasionally the flat, circular end of a half-barrel seepage
age-meter installations in a sand-bed river. meter can flex downward or upward (sometimes with a sudden,
audible pop) in response to temperature changes or to pressure
applied to the metal surface. Standing on the center of the meter
Leaks during emplacement, for example, can cause such flexing. If the
metal later returns to a more relaxed position while the bag is
A hole in the seepage meter bag is one of the most com- attached, an erroneous measurement will result. Allowing time
mon types of leaks. This can be prevented by careful handling for equilibration between installation and first measurement
and frequent testing of the bag, and by “double bagging” the minimizes the likelihood of this occurring during subsequent
bag where fish or crustaceans may make holes in the bag. measurements. Other types of chambers also may have insuf-
As mentioned previously, if bags are “double bagged,” small ficient rigidity. Plastic trash cans can flex if the walls of the plas-
holes should be placed in the corners of the outer bag to allow tic are too thin. Shinn and others (2002) constructed a seepage
the evacuation of air trapped between the bags. Bag shelters meter with a flexible top with the intent that the meter would
also can minimize the potential for bag damage. The attach- flex with the passage of waves; associated pressure perturba-
ment between the bag and the device that connects the bag tions exerted on the ocean bed also would be exerted on the part
to the chamber is another potential location for leaks. The of the bed covered by the meter. This was done to reduce water
attachment method may involve electrical tape, rubber bands, artificially advected into the meter; the experiment met with
or plastic cable ties, and care should be used to ensure a good little success.
connection to the tubing or other mechanical connector. One
solution to this potential problem is to use a bag manufactured
with an integral plastic tube or sleeve. As previously men- Insufficient or Excessive Bag-Attachment Time
tioned, however, many of these bags typically are much thicker
than food-storage bags and likely resist movement in response Bags need to be attached to a seepage meter long enough
to changing fluid volume inside the bag. One bag that shows for a measurable change in volume in the bag to occur, but not
promise is designed for use as shipping-protection material. so long that the bag is either full or empty. Bag-attachment
The bag is designed to be inflated through a plastic neck that times can range from seconds to weeks, depending on the
is manufactured as part of the bag. A tube is inserted through size of the bag, the diameter of the seepage chamber, and the
the neck and sealed with adhesive or electrical tape. The bag rate of seepage. Problems related to insufficient or excessive
material is quite thin (25 micrometers), and tests conducted attachment time are obvious when the bag is full or empty
by Murdoch and Kelly (2003) and Rosenberry and Menheer upon removal of the bag. A bag that is nearly full or nearly
(2006) indicate that it presents little resistance to filling. empty when being removed also may indicate an erroneous
Leaks also can occur in the seepage chamber because of flux rate. As mentioned earlier, Murdoch and Kelly (2003)
rust, improper welds, or improper sealing where the tubing determined that the head required to move water into a bag
passes through the rubber stopper (if that is the mechanism used) increases markedly when the bag is within a few hundred mil-
or between the rubber stopper and the chamber. If the seepage liliters of being full. Such a condition also is likely when the
chamber contains a bung, then a loose bung or a weathered or bag is losing water and approaches being empty. Conversely,
cracked bung gasket also can lead to leaks. the bag may contain nearly the same volume of water follow-
ing removal as it contained during attachment, indicating that
the bag-attachment time was too short. The solution to both
Measurement Error problems is an iterative one. Subsequent measurement periods
can be adjusted based on previous incorrect attachment times.
The change in the volume of water in the seepage-meter
bag commonly is measured by use of a graduated cylinder.
Sources for error include misreading the meniscus on the Accumulation of Trapped Gas
graduated cylinder, not holding the graduated cylinder level
Release of gas from sediments is common where organic
when making a reading, not removing all of the water from decomposition produces methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen
inside the bag, spilling water during filling or emptying of sulfide, or other gases. If gas accumulates within the seepage
the bag, and misrecording time of attachment and time of chamber, it can displace water from inside the chamber that
removal. A funnel is useful for eliminating spills during filling then is forced into the bag. There are at least two solutions
and emptying the bag. Another method of measuring volume to this problem. A vent tube may be installed at the highest
change involves weighing the bag with an accurate, portable point of the meter that extends above the water surface to the
electronic scale before bag attachment and again follow- atmosphere (fig. 13A, lower panel). This allows gas released
ing bag removal. Additionally, to reduce the uncertainty of from the sediments covered by the chamber to be released to
volume- measurement error, many investigators commonly the atmosphere instead of accumulating within the chamber.
make three or more measurements at each site and average Alternatively, gas may be allowed to escape to the bag. Boyle
the values. (1994) designed a meter that automatically allowed gas to
64 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

escape from the meter without being transmitted to the bag. SEEPAGE FLUX THROUGH STANDARD HALF-BARREL METER,
Hedblom and others (2003) described a system designed to IN CENTIMETERS PER DAY
collect both gas and water released from contaminated sedi- 6
0 56 113 169 226 282 339 395
ments; they analyzed both gas and water to determine the 0.3 cm ID

RESISTANCE TO FLOW, IN CENTIMETERS OF WATER

0.1 cm ID
0.21 cm ID 0.5 cm ID
rates of release of various chemicals.
5

Use of Improper Correction Coefficient 4

Numerous tests have been conducted to compare

flow through seepage meters with the rate of seepage in a 3
controlled-flow test tank (Lee, 1977; Erickson, 1981; Asbury,
1990; Cherkauer and McBride, 1988; Dorrance, 1989;
Belanger and Montgomery, 1992; Murdoch and Kelly, 2003; 2

Rosenberry, 2005; Rosenberry and Menheer, 2006). Results

of these tests indicate that seepage meters undermeasure the One observation
1
Two observations
flux of water across the sediment-water interface because
of frictional flow loss within the meter, restrictions to flow
0
through the connector between the bag and the chamber, and 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
any resistance to movement of the bag. Coefficients typically FLOW, IN MILLILITERS PER MINUTE
are applied to the indicated flux to correct for this problem.
Erickson (1981) determined that the coefficient was different Figure 17. Resistance to flow related to tubing diameter and
depending on the direction of flow. His studies indicated a rate of seepage. Seepage flux assumes a 0.25-square-meter-
multiplier of 1.43 was required for flow from ground water to area seepage meter. (Modified from Fellows and Brezonik, 1980;
surface water and a multiplier of 1.74 for flow from surface copyright 1980 by the American Water Resources Association,
water to ground water. Belanger and Montgomery (1992) indi- used with permission.)
cated a multiplier of 1.30 was required to correct for measure-
ments of flow from ground water to surface water. Cherkauer through 4-millimeter-diameter tubing, but the pressure change
and McBride (1988) used a correction factor of 1.6 for flow was only 4 millimeters of water head when flow was routed
from ground water to surface water, and Dorrance (1989) through 7.9-millimeter-diameter tubing. Harvey and others
indicated that a multiplier of 1.61 was required for his seepage (2000) used a large-diameter (19-millimeter) connection system
meter designed for quantifying loss of water from a reservoir. to eliminate any concern regarding tubing resistance in a study
Asbury (1990) used a multiplier for flow either into or out of a of seepage from wetlands in the Florida Everglades. Rosenberry
surface-water body of 1.11; he attributed his lower multiplier and Menheer (2006) describe a seepage-meter calibration tank
to his using a larger diameter connector (19 millimeters) than for determining the efficiency of various seepage-meter designs.
other investigators. Murdoch and Kelly (2003) determined
measurement inefficiency by using highly accurate manom-
eters to measure head loss, and reported correction factors of Insufficient Characterization of Spatial
1.25 to 1.82, depending on the type of bag used. Rosenberry Heterogeneity in Seepage Through Sediments
(2005) used large diameter (9.5-millimeter minimum inside
diameter) connection materials and a thin-walled 4-liter Successful extrapolation of point measurements of seep-
bag with a Lee-type seepage chamber to obtain a correction age to whole-lake systems requires that the seepage measure-
factor of 1.05. ments adequately characterize the larger scale integrated
Fellows and Brezonik (1980) related seepage-meter exchange between ground water and surface water. This
efficiency to the diameter of the connector between the meter extrapolation can be difficult because small-scale spatial
and the bag and to seepage velocity. Their results indicated variability in flux across the sediment-water interface is com-
that head loss increased with decreasing tubing diameter and mon. Measurements at several locations may be required to
with increasing seepage velocity (fig. 17); they suggested that a adequately characterize seepage on a meaningful spatial scale.
tubing diameter larger than 5 millimeters would not cause loss Shaw and Prepas (1990a) determined that seepage rates could
of efficiency for most fluxes commonly measured with seep- vary by more than a factor of 2 when meters were installed
age meters. On the basis of their experiments, however, they only 1 meter apart (fig. 18). They found that seepage flux in a
altered their seepage-meter design to use a 9-millimeter opening 2-square-meter area was lognormally distributed, and the vari-
instead of a 5-millimeter opening between the bag and the ance in seepage increased with seepage velocity. They attrib-
meter. Rosenberry and Morin (2004) found a similar response uted seepage variability to variability in hydraulic conductivity
by positioning a pressure transducer inside a seepage meter of the lakebed. Shaw and Prepas (1990b) recommended
and recording pressure changes in response to routing seep- making seepage measurements at additional transects in a lake
age through a range of tubing diameters. Pressure changed by rather than making replicate measurements at a single transect
21 millimeters of water head when seepage was forced to flow to best characterize spatial variability in lakebed seepage.
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 65

Asbury (1990) addressed the question of seepage-meter entire surface-water body or shoreline reach. In this instance,
precision related to lakebed heterogeneity by installing resources may be better spent characterizing seepage along a
25 seepage meters on an 8-meter by 8-meter grid. His results number of transects positioned throughout the area of interest,
(table 3) showed a large decrease in seepage with distance which characterizes spatial variability on a scale appropriate
from shore and then a reversal in seepage direction farther for the interests of the study (for example, Michael and others,
from shore as was expected based on previous results. The 2003). Rosenberry (2005) addressed the heterogeneity issue by
five measurements made at each distance from shore showed routing flow from several seepage chambers to one collection
remarkable consistency near the shoreline where seepage rates bag. With such a system, spatial variability in seepage is aver-
were largest, but seepage variability increased with distance aged in one measurement, which also reduces bag-collection
from shore out to 6 meters from shore. Beyond that distance, time and labor costs. Head loss did not substantially reduce the
seepage direction reversed and the variance decreased slightly. efficiency of the ganged seepage measurement when 3-meter
Belanger and Walker (1990) tested small-scale spatial lengths of garden hose (14-millimeter diameter) were used to
variability in seepage by placing two to three seepage meters connect the seepage chambers.
5 meters apart at seven different sites. They found very good
reproducibility at five of the sites where seepage rates were
Best-Measurement Practices for Manual
relatively small. At the other two sites, where seepage rates
were much larger, they attributed the greater spatial variability
Seepage Meters
in seepage to the presence of springs in the area. The following recommendations are presented for
Michael and others (2003) used 40 seepage meters to minimizing errors associated with making seepage-meter
measure seepage variability in four transects perpendicular from measurements:
shore on a 50-meter spacing in a saltwater bay near Cape Cod,
1. Use a rigid seepage chamber. A diameter of approxi-
Massachusetts. They detected bands of seepage with distance
from shore that were parallel to the shoreline and determined mately 0.5 meter seems to be a useful compromise
that as long as meters are arranged in transects, errors associ- between maximizing areal coverage and maximizing
ated with reducing the number of transects are not unacceptably convenience of use. Make certain that the entire rim of the
large. Departures from flux estimated with all four transects seepage chamber is seated at least a few centimeters into
were 9, 4, and 3 percent when data from one, two, or three the sediment-water interface. For sandy sediments, 1 hour
transects were used. They also placed seepage meters in clusters is probably a sufficient time to wait between installation
with 1-meter spacing and found spatial variability in seepage of and first bag measurements. For softer sediments, it may
the same magnitude as with the 50-meter spacing. be prudent to wait 1 day to begin measurements.
Approaches to characterizing seepage variability include 2. Use several meters to characterize spatial heterogeneity
either making numerous measurements in each area of inter- at a scale that is appropriate for the interests of the study.
est, in a manner similar to the approach of Asbury (1990) or Seepage chambers can be ganged to integrate seepage
Michael and others (2003), or using larger seepage cham- heterogeneity over a larger area and also to minimize the
bers that cover larger areas of the sediment-water interface
number of required bag measurements.
and better integrate the heterogeneity in seepage. Typically,
the scale of interest is a characterization of seepage for an 3. Use a shelter to protect the bag from waves and currents
and to ensure that the bag orientation is maintained in a
position that will not close or restrict the opening between
7
the bag and the bag-connection system.
IN METERS PER SECOND x 10–8

6 4. Use a large-diameter bag-connection system, especially

when fast seepage rates are expected. A diameter 9 mil-
5
SEEPAGE FLUX,

limeters or larger is suggested.

4 5. Use thin-walled bags to minimize bag resistance. A bag
size of 4 liters is convenient for most seepage rates.
3
6. Prefill the bag with 500 to 1,000 milliliters of water
2 prior to bag attachment. If seepage from surface water to
ground water is expected, a larger initial volume of water
1 may be warranted. Do not fill the bag to more than about
9 10 11 12 13 14 75 percent of its capacity.
AUGUST 1984
7. Seepage-meter correction coefficients have been decreas-
Figure 18. Seepage flux measured at two seepage meters ing over time as seepage-meter designs become more
located 1 meter apart. Flux values are in meters per second. efficient. If the suggestions listed above are followed, a
(Modified from Shaw and Prepas, 1990a; copyright 1990, reprinted coefficient from 1 to 1.1 will provide a good estimate of
from Journal of Hydrology, used with permission from Elsevier.) true seepage rates for most meter designs.
66 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Table 3. Seepage flux with distance from shore and distance along shore on an 8-meter by 8-meter grid (2-meter seepage-meter
spacing) (from Asbury, 1990).

Distance Seepage flux (centimeters per day)

from shore Distance along shore ( meters)
Average Variance
(meters) 0 2 4 6 8
2 –11.3 –11.2 –11.4 –12.1 –11.8 –11.56 0.143
4 –8.4 –9.3 –10.4 –10.5 –6.5 –9.02 2.727
6 –3.5 –6.7 –6.4 –0.8 –4.5 –4.38 5.767
8 0.9 2.4 3.8 3.1 4.9 3.02 2.257
10 3.7 0.3 2.3 0.2 1.2 1.54 2.173

Automated Seepage Devices A device developed for use in deep-ocean environments

uses a chemical tracer that is injected into an outlet tube of
Temporal variability in flux across the interface between the seepage meter (Tyron and others 2001). A pair of sample-
ground water and surface water has been investigated on a sea- collection coils on either side of the injection point provides a
sonal scale (for example, Schneider and others, 2005; Michael record of the tracer based on dilution of the injectate relative
and others, 2005), but temporal variability on a weekly or to the seepage rate. Water in the coils is sampled upon retrieval
shorter time scale has not been extensively investigated. of the meter and analyzed to provide time-series data of the
Several investigators have made numerous measurements over seepage rate. This device can measure seepage rates ranging
time to measure the temporal variability (Lee, 1977; Cable from 3×10–5 to 4 centimeters per day.
and others, 1997b; Sebestyen and Schneider, 2001), but this Dye-dilution seepage meters make use of dye-dilution
is a labor-intensive endeavor. Recently developed automated chambers, the size of which can be adjusted to accommodate a
devices allow measurement of seepage responses to tem- wide range of seepage rates (Sholkovitz and others, 2003). The
poral events such as seiches (Taniguchi and Fukuo, 1996), combination of chambers used with the meter developed by
Sholkovitz and others can measure seepage rates ranging from
tides (Paulsen and others, 2001, 2004; Taniguchi, 2002), and
less than 0.1 to more than 300 centimeters per day. The authors
recharge events (Rosenberry and Morin, 2004).
point out that smaller chambers could be used to measure
Several of these automated devices use heat-pulse tech-
smaller seepage rates at deep-ocean installations.
nology to measure flow. One such meter uses sensors origi-
The Taniguchi and Krupa automated seepage meters
nally developed for measuring sap flow in plants (Taniguchi
have been in use for 10 to 15 years, but as of 2007, the other
and Fukuo, 1993, 1996) and records the data with a digital
meters are in the early stages of use. These automated devices
datalogger enclosed in the submerged seepage meter. Another are not subject to the previously mentioned problems associ-
design uses the same heat-pulse technology but also includes ated with the use of seepage bags. Although all of the auto-
sensors for collection of water-quality data (Krupa and mated devices are fitted to a seepage chamber and are subject
others, 1998). This device is tethered to a raft that is anchored to the chamber- and connection-related errors discussed
above the submerged seepage meter. Taniguchi has recently above, those errors should be relatively small compared to
improved the heat-pulse method with a continuous heat-source bag-related errors.
seepage meter (Taniguchi and others, 2003).
Paulsen and others (2001) developed an automated
seepage meter that makes use of acoustic-velocity technol- Methods Selection
ogy more commonly used to measure surface-water flow.
Selection of the appropriate methods of calculation and
Their sensor can measure flux velocity values ranging from
(or) measurement is one of the most important decisions to be
about 1 to at least 275 centimeters per day over an exchange
made when quantifying exchange between ground water and
area of 0.21 square meter. Menheer (2004) also used an
surface water. Of the three methods presented in this chapter,
acoustic-velocity sensor to measure seepage in a benthic-flux each has advantages and disadvantages that may or may not
chamber that was designed to quantify flow of mercury from be relevant to the study area of interest. Although it is not
ground water to surface water. Another automated seepage possible to anticipate all situations, table 4 provides a general
meter replaces the plastic bag with an electromagnetic flow guideline to conditions or situations in which each method
meter typically used to measure flow velocity in boreholes is particularly well- or ill-suited. As indicated in Chapter 1,
(Rosenberry and Morin, 2004). With the flow meter attached the use of more than one method to quantify the exchange
to a 1.1-meter-diameter chamber, a modified version of between ground water and surface water can be informative
their sensor can measure flux velocities ranging from 4 to and valuable to increasing the confidence in the flux values
4,000 centimeters per day. estimated or calculated.
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 67

Table 4. Conditions for which methods for quantifying flow between ground water and surface water are well- or ill-suited.

Method Well-suited for: Ill-suited for:

Calculations from water levels in s Basin-scale quantification s Determining flux of some chemicals that enter or leave
network of wells and surface- s Distinguishing areas of inflow from areas a surface-water body
water stage of outflow s Steep and (or) rocky shorelines where installation of
s Determining large-scale aquifer characteristics wells is difficult or impossible
s Relatively homogeneous aquifers s Low-lying terrain where shoreline migration is large
and evapotranspiration is a significant factor
s Areas with complex geology or vertical flow regimes
where effective depth of aquifer is nearly impossible
to determine
Hydraulic potentiomanometer s Fine sand to medium gravel sediments s Fine-grained sediments
and well-probe measurements s Quick reconnaissance for qualitative determi- s Rocky shorelines or bedrock
nation of direction of flow s Surface-water body with any appreciable wave action
s Determining variability of vertical hydraulic s Fast-flowing water
gradient with depth s Organic, gas-rich sediments
s Collection of water-quality samples
Seepage-meter measurements s Direct measurement of seepage flux s Surface-water body with any appreciable wave action
s Areal distribution of seepage flux s Areas with strong currents or fast-flowing water
s Sediments ranging from clayey-silt to fine- s Very soft, low-density sediments
medium gravel s Rocky sediment beds
s Calm-water settings s Bed areas with dense vegetation
s Shallow-water settings

References Brock, T.D., Lee, D.R., Janes, D., and Winek, D., 1982,
Groundwater seepage as a nutrient source to a drainage
lake; Lake Mendota, Wisconsin: Water Resources, v. 16,
Asbury, C.E., 1990, The role of groundwater seepage in sedi- p. 1255–1263.
ment chemistry and nutrient budgets in Mirror Lake, New
Hampshire: Cornell University, Ph.D., 275 p. Brunke, M., 1999, Colmation and depth filtration within
streambeds—Retention of particles in hyporheic inter-
Belanger, T.V., and Kirkner, R.A., 1994, Ground-water/ stices: International Review of Hydrobiology, v. 84, no. 2,
surface-water interaction in a Florida augmentation lake: p. 99–117.
Lake and Reservoir Management, v. 8, no. 2, p. 165–174.
Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1982, Stage measurement
Belanger, T.V., and Mikutel, D.F., 1985, On the use of at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
seepage meters to estimate groundwater nutrient loading Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A7, 28 p.
to lakes: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 21, no. 2, p. 265–272.
Cable, J.E., Burnett, W.C., Chanton, J.P., Corbett, D.R., and
Belanger, T.V., and Montgomery, M.T., 1992, Seepage Cable, P.H., 1997a, Field evaluation of seepage meters in
meter errors: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 37, no. 8, the coastal marine environment: Estuarine, Coastal and
p. 1787–1795. Shelf Science, v. 45, p. 367–375.
Belanger, T.V., and Walker, R.B., 1990, Ground water seep- Cable, J.E., Burnett, W.C., and Chanton, J.P., 1997b, Magni-
age in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: American Water tude and variations of groundwater seepage along a Florida
Resources Association Technical Publication Series TPS, marine shoreline: Biogeochemistry, v. 38, p. 189–205.
v. 90–2, p. 367–375.
Carr, M.R., and Winter, T.C., 1980, An annotated bibliography
Blanchfield, P.J., and Ridgway, M.S., 1996, Use of seepage of devices developed for direct measurement of seepage:
meters to measure groundwater flow at brook trout redds: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80–344, 38 p.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 125,
p. 813–818. Cedergren, H.R., 1997, Seepage, drainage, and flow nets
(3d ed.): New York, John Wiley and Sons, 465 p.
Boyle, D.R., 1994, Design and seepage meter for mea-
suring groundwater fluxes in the nonlittoral zones of Cherkauer, D.A., and McBride, J.M., 1988, A remotely oper-
lakes—Evaluation in a boreal forest lake: Limnology and ated seepage meter for use in large lakes and rivers: Ground
Oceanography, v. 39, no. 3, p. 670–681. Water, v. 26, no. 2, p. 165–171.
68 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Corbett, D.R., and Cable, J.E., 2003, Seepage meters and Harvey, J.W., Krupa, S.L., and Krest, J.M., 2004, Ground
advective transport in coastal environments—Comments on water recharge and discharge in the Central Everglades:
“Seepage Meters and Bernoulli’s Revenge” by E.A. Shinn, Ground Water, v. 42, no. 7, p. 1090–1102.
C.D. Reich, and T.D. Hickey, 2002, Estuaries 25:126–132:
Estuaries, v. 26, no. 5, p. 1383–1389. Hedblom, E., Costello, M., and Huls, H., 2003, Integrated field
sampling for design of a remedial cap: Cincinnati, Ohio,
Davis, S.N., and DeWiest, R.J.M., 1991, Hydrogeology, Mala- Proceedings of the In-Situ Contaminated Sediment Capping
bar, Florida: Krieger Publishing, 463 p. Workshop, May 12–14, 2003, p. 19.
Dorrance, D.W., 1989, Streaming potential and seepage meter Henry, M.A., 2000, Appendix D: MHE push-point sampling
studies at Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona: Tucson, tools, in Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water
University of Arizona, Masters thesis, 182 p. Interactions Workshop, July 2000: U.S. Environmental Pro-
Duff, J.H., Murphy, F., Fuller, C.C., Triska, F.J., Harvey, J.W., tection Agency, EPA/542/R–00/007, p. 199–200.
and Jackman, A.P., 1998, A mini drivepoint sampler for Hiscock, K.M., and Grischek, T., 2002, Attenuation of ground-
measuring pore water solute concentrations in the hyporheic water pollution by bank filtration: Journal of Hydrology,
zone of sand-bottom streams: Limnology and Oceanogra-
v. 266, p. 139–144.
phy, v. 43, no. 6, p. 1378–1383.
Huettel, M., Ziebis, W., and Forster, S., 1996, Flow-induced
Duff, J.H., Toner, B., Jackman, A.P., Avanzino, R.J., and
uptake of particulate matter in permeable sediments:
Triska, F.J., 1999, Determination of groundwater discharge
Limnology and Oceanography, v. 41, no. 2, p. 309–322.
into a sand and gravel bottom river—A comparison of chlo-
ride dilution and seepage meter techniques: Verh. Internat. Hunt, R.J., Haitjema, H.M., Krohelski, J.T., and Feinstein,
Verein. Limnol., v. 27, p. 406–411. D.T., 2003, Simulating ground water—Lake interac-
tions; approaches and insights: Ground Water, v. 41, no. 2,
Erickson, D.R., 1981, A study of littoral groundwater seep-
age at Williams Lake, Minnesota, using seepage meters p. 227–237.
and wells: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, Master’s Hvorslev, M.J., 1951, Time lag and soil permeability in ground
thesis, 135 p. water observations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water-
Fellows, C.R., and Brezonik, P.L., 1980, Seepage flow into ways Experimental Station Bulletin no. 36, 50 p.
Florida lakes: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 16, no. 4, Isiorho, S.A., and Meyer, J.H., 1999, The effects of bag type
p. 635–641.
and meter size on seepage meter measurements: Ground
Fetter, C.W., 2000, Applied hydrogeology (4th ed.): Engle- Water, v. 37, no. 3, p. 411–413.
wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 691 p.
Israelson, O.W., and Reeve, R.C., 1944, Canal lining experi-
Fleckenstein, J.H., Niswonger, R.G., and Fogg, G.E., 2006, ments in the Delta Area, Utah: Utah Agricultural Experi-
River-aquifer interactions, geologic heterogeneity, and low- mental Station, Bulletin 313, p. 15–35.
flow management: Ground Water, v. 44, no. 6, p. 837–852.
Kelly, S.E., and Murdoch, L.C., 2003, Measuring the hydrau-
Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geologi- lic conductivity of shallow submerged sediments: Ground
cal Survey modular ground-water model—The ground- Water, v. 41, no. 4, p. 431–439.
water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods 6–A16, 237 p. Kim, K., Anderson, M.P., and Bowser, C.J., 1999, Model cali-
bration with multiple targets—A case study: Ground Water,
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, v. 37, no. 3, p. 345–351.
M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey
modular ground-water model—User guide to modulariza- Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Anderson, M.P., 1986, Use of a
tion concepts and the ground-water flow process: U.S. Geo- numerical ground-water flow model for hypothesis testing:
logical Survey Open-File Report 2000–92, 121 p. Ground Water, v. 24, p. 49–55.

Harvey, J.W., Krupa, S.L., Gefvert, C.J., Choi, J., Mooney, Krupa, S.L., Belanger, T.V., Heck, H.H., Brock, J.T., and
R.H., and Giddings, J.B., 2000, Interaction between ground Jones, B.J., 1998, Krupaseep—The next generation seep-
water and surface water in the northern Everglades and age meter, in International Coastal Symposium (ICS
relation to water budgets and mercury cycling—Study 98), Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue no. 26:
methods and appendixes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Coastal Education Research Founda-
Report 2000–168, 395 p. tion, p. 210–213.
 Use of Monitoring Wells, Portable Piezometers, and Seepage Meters to Quantify Flow 69

Landon, M.K., Rus, D.L., and Harvey, F.E., 2001, Compari- Michael, H.A., Mulligan, A.E., and Harvey, C.F., 2005, Sea-
son of instream methods for measuring hydraulic conduc- sonal oscillations in water exchange between aquifers and
tivity in sandy streambeds: Ground Water, v. 39, no. 6, the coastal ocean: Nature, v. 436, p. 1145–1148.
p. 870–885.
Mitchell, D.F., Wagner, K.J., and Asbury, C., 1988, Direct
Leake, Stanley A., 1997, Modeling ground-water flow with measurement of groundwater flow and quality as a lake
MODFLOW and related programs: U.S. Geological Survey management tool: Lake and Reservoir Management, v. 4,
Fact Sheet FS–121–97, 4 p. no. 1, p. 169–178.

Lee, D.R., 1977, A device for measuring seepage flux in lakes Murdoch, L.C., and Kelly, S.E., 2003, Factors affect-
and estuaries: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 22, no. 1, ing the performance of conventional seepage meters:
p. 140–147. Water Resources Research, v. 39, no. 6, p. SWC 2–1.
[doi:10.1029/2002WR001347]
Lee, D.R., and Cherry, J.A., 1978, A field exercise on ground-
water flow using seepage meters and mini-piezometers: Nield, S.P., Townley, L.R., and Barr, A.D., 1994, A frame-
Journal of Geological Education, v. 27, p. 6–20. work for quantitative analysis of surface water-groundwater
interaction—Flow geometry in a vertical section: Water
Lee, T.M., and Swancar, A., 1997, Influence of evaporation, Resources Research, v. 30, no. 8, p. 2461–2475.
ground water, and uncertainty in the hydrologic budget
Paulsen, R.J., Smith, C.F., O’Rourke, D., and Wong, T., 2001,
of Lake Lucerne, a seepage lake in Polk County, Florida:
Development and evaluation of an ultrasonic ground water
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2439, 61 p.
seepage meter: Ground Water, v. 39, no. 6, p. 904–911.
Lewis, J.B., 1987, Measurements of groundwater seepage flux
Paulsen, R.J., O’Rourke, D., Smith, C.F., and Wong, T.-F.,
onto a coral reef—Spatial and temporal variations: Limnol-
2004, Tidal load and salt water influences on submarine
ogy and Oceanography, v. 32, no. 5, p. 1165–1169.
ground water discharge: Ground Water, v. 42, no. 7,
Libelo, E.L., and MacIntyre, W.G., 1994, Effects of surface- p. 990–999.
water movement on seepage-meter measurements of flow Rasmussen, W., and Lauritzen, C.W., 1953, Measuring seep-
through the sediment-water interface: Applied Hydrogeol- age from irrigation canals: Agricultural Engineering, v. 34,
ogy, v. 2, no. 4, p. 49–54. p. 326–330.
Lock, M.A., and John, P.J., 1978, The measurement of Robinson, A.R., and Rohwer, C., 1952, Study of seepage
groundwater discharge into a lake by direct method: Inter- losses from irrigation channels: U.S. Department of Agri-
nationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, v. 63, no. 2, culture, Soil Conservation Service, Progress Report, 42 p.
p. 271–275.
Rosenberry, D.O., 2000, Unsaturated-zone wedge beneath a
Lundy, J.R., and Ferrey, Mark, 2004, Direct measurement of large, natural lake: Water Resources Research, v. 36, no. 12,
ground water contaminant discharge to surface water, in p. 3401–3409.
Proceedings of National Water Quality Monitoring Council
2004 National Monitoring Conference, May 17–20, 2004: Rosenberry, D.O., 2005, Integrating seepage heterogeneity
Chattanooga, Tenn., 10 p. with the use of ganged seepage meters: Limnology and
Oceanography, Methods, v. 3, p. 131–142.
McCobb, T.D., LeBlanc, D.R., and Socolow, R.S., 1999, A
siphon gage for monitoring surface-water levels: Journal Rosenberry, D.O., and Menheer, M.A., 2006, A system for
of the American Water Resources Association, v. 35, no. 5, calibrating seepage meters used to measure flow between
p. 1141–1146. ground water and surface water: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5053, 21 p.
Menheer, M.A., 2004, Development of a benthic-flux cham-
Rosenberry, D.O., and Morin, R.G., 2004, Use of an electro-
ber for measurement of ground-water seepage and water
magnetic seepage meter to investigate temporal variability
sampling for mercury analysis at the sediment-water
in lake seepage: Ground Water, v. 42, no. 1, p. 68–77.
interface: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2004–5298, 14 p. Rovey, C.W., II, and Cherkauer, D.S., 1995, Scale dependency
of hydraulic conductivity measurements: Ground Water,
Michael, H.A., Lubetsky, J.S., and Harvey, C.F., 2003,
v. 33, no. 5, p. 769–780.
Characterizing submarine groundwater discharge—A
seepage meter study in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts: Schincariol, R.A., and McNeil, J.D., 2002, Errors with small
Geophysical Research Letters, v. 30, no. 6, p. 1297. volume elastic seepage meter bags: Ground Water, v. 40,
[doi:10.1029/2002GL016000] no. 6, p. 649–651.
70 Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water

Schneider, R.L., Negley, T.L., and Wafer, C., 2005, Factors Taniguchi, M., Burnett, W.C., Smith, C.F., Paulsen, R.J.,
influencing groundwater seepage in a large, mesotrophic O'Rourke, D., Krupa, S.L., and Christoff, J.L., 2003, Spatial
lake in New York: Journal of Hydrology, v. 310, p. 1–16. and temporal distributions of submarine groundwater dis-
charge rates obtained from various types of seepage meters
Schubert, J., 2002, Hydraulic aspects of riverbank filtration—
at a site in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Biogeochemis-
Field studies: Journal of Hydrology, v. 266, p. 145–161.
try, v. 66, p. 35–53.
Schulze-Makuch, D., Carlson, D.A., Cherkauer, D.S., and
Malik, P., 1999, Scale dependency of hydraulic conductiv- Taniguchi, M., and Fukuo, Y., 1993, Continuous measure-
ity in heterogeneous media: Ground Water, v. 37, no. 6, ments of ground-water seepage using an automatic seepage
p. 904–919. meter: Ground Water, v. 31, no. 4, p. 675–679.

Sebestyen, S.D., and Schneider, R.L., 2001, Dynamic tem- Taniguchi, M., and Fukuo, Y., 1996, An effect of seiche on
poral patterns of nearshore seepage flux in a headwater groundwater seepage rate into Lake Biwa, Japan: Water
Adirondack lake: Journal of Hydrology, v. 247, p. 137–150. Resources Research, v. 32, no. 2, p. 333–338.
Shaw, R.D., and Prepas, E.E., 1989, Anomalous, short-term
Townley, L.R., and Davidson, M.R., 1988, Definition of a cap-
influx of water into seepage meters: Limnology and Ocean-
ture zone for shallow water table lakes: Journal of Hydrol-
ography, v. 34, no. 7, p. 1343–1351.
ogy, v. 104, p. 53–76.
Shaw, R.D., and Prepas, E.E., 1990a, Groundwater-lake inter-
actions, I—Accuracy of seepage meter estimates of lake Townley, L.R., and Trefry, M.G., 2000, Surface water-
seepage: Journal of Hydrology, v. 119, p. 105–120. groundwater interaction near shallow circular lakes—Flow
geometry in three dimensions: Water Resources Research,
Shaw, R.D., and Prepas, E.E., 1990b, Groundwater-lake inter- v. 36, no. 4, p. 935–949.
actions, II—Nearshore seepage patterns and the contribu-
tion of groundwater to lakes in central Alberta: Journal of Tyron, M., Brown, K., Dorman, L., and Sauter, A., 2001,
Hydrology, v. 119, p. 121–136. A new benthic aqueous flux meter for very low to mod-
Sheets, R.A., Darner, R.A., and Whitteberry, B.L., 2002, Lag erate discharge rates: Deep-Sea Research, v. 48, pt. I,
times of bank filtration at a well field, Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 2121–2146.
USA: Journal of Hydrology, v. 266, p. 162–174.
Wanty, R.B., and Winter, T.C., 2000, A simple device for mea-
Shinn, E.A., Reich, C.D., and Hickey, T.D., 2002, Seepage suring differences in hydraulic head between surface water
meters and Bernoulli's Revenge: Estuaries, v. 25, no. 1, and shallow ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Fact
p. 126–132. Sheet FS–077–00, 2 p.
Sholkovitz, E., Herbold, C., and Charette, M., 2003, An auto- Warnick, C.C., 1951, Methods of measuring seepage loss in
mated dye-dilution based seepage meter for the time-series irrigation canals: University of Idaho, Engineering Experi-
measurement of submarine groundwater discharge: Limnol- ment Station, Bulletin no. 8, 42 p.
ogy and Oceanography—Methods, v. 1, p. 16–28.

Siegel, D.I., and Winter, T.C., 1980, Hydrologic setting of Winter, T.C., LaBaugh, J.W., and Rosenberry, D.O., 1988, The
Williams Lake, Hubbard County, Minnesota: U.S. Geologi- design and use of a hydraulic potentiomanometer for direct
cal Survey Open-File Report 80–403, 56 p. measurement of differences in hydraulic head between ground-
water and surface water: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 33,
Squillace, P.J., Liszewski, M.J., and Thurman, E.M., 1993, no. 5, p. 1209–1214.
Agricultural chemical interchange between ground
water and surface water, Cedar River basin, Iowa and Yelverton, G.F., and Hackney, C.T., 1986, Flux of dissolved
Minnesota—A study description: U.S. Geological Survey organic carbon and pore water through the substrate of a
Open-File Report 92–0085, 26 p. Spartina alteriflora marsh in North Carolina: Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 22, p. 255–267.
Taniguchi, M., 2001, Evaluation of the groundwater capture
zone for modelling of nutrient discharge: Hydrological
Zamora, C., 2006, Estimates of vertical flux across the
Processes, v. 15, p. 1939–1949.
sediment—Water interface by direct measurement and using
Taniguchi, M., 2002, Tidal effects on submarine groundwater temperature as a tracer in the Merced River, California:
discharge into the ocean: Geophysical Research Letters, Sacramento, California State University Sacramento, Master’s
v. 29, no. 12, p. 2–1. [doi:10.1029/2002GL014987] thesis, 90 p.