WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 47, W00H03, doi:10.

1029/2010WR010066, 2011

Rethinking hyporheic flow and transient storage to advance

understanding of streamcatchment connections
Kenneth E. Bencala,1 Michael N. Gooseff,2 and Briant A. Kimball3
Received 30 September 2010; revised 12 January 2011; accepted 29 January 2011; published 26 March 2011.
[1] Although surface water and groundwater are increasingly referred to as one resource,
there remain environmental and ecosystem needs to study the 10 m to 1 km reach scale
as one hydrologic system. Streams gain and lose water over a range of spatial and temporal
scales. Large spatial scales (kilometers) have traditionally been recognized and studied as
riveraquifer connections. Over the last 25 years hyporheic exchange flows (110 m) have
been studied extensively. Often a transient storage model has been used to quantify the
physical solute transport setting in which biogeochemical processes occur. At the longer
10 m to 1 km scale of stream reaches it is now clear that streams which gain water overall can
coincidentally lose water to the subsurface. At this scale, the amounts of water transferred
are not necessarily significant but the exchanges can, however, influence solute transport.
The interpretation of seemingly straightforward questions about water, contaminant, and
nutrient fluxes into and along a stream can be confounded by flow losses which are too small
to be apparent in stream gauging and along flow paths too long to be detected in tracer
experiments. We suggest basic hydrologic approaches, e.g., measurement of flow along
the channel, surface and subsurface solute sampling, and routine measurements of the
water table that, in our opinion, can be used to extend simple exchange concepts from
the hyporheic exchange scale to a scale of streamcatchment connection.
Citation: Bencala, K. E., M. N. Gooseff, and B. A. Kimball (2011), Rethinking hyporheic flow and transient storage to advance
understanding of streamcatchment connections, Water Resour. Res., 47, W00H03, doi:10.1029/2010WR010066.

1. Introduction may be useful in interpreting solute transport influenced by

streamcatchment connections.
1.1. The Stream Is Not a Pipe
[2] Generally, surface water and subsurface water systems 1.2. Hyporheic Flows: A StreamCatchment Continuum
are understood to be connected in a manner in which a stream
[4] Hyporheic exchange flow is stream water exchanging in
receives water and solutes from the subsurface; the water
the shallow subsurface. With these flows an apparent loss of
and solute continue to be transported without return to the water from the streams returns as a gain downstream (or,
subsurface (Figure 1a). However, the stream is not a pipe. In
conversely, an apparent gain of water in the stream is the return
some hydrologic systems there can be continuing exchange
of an upstream loss). The volumes of water involved in the
between the stream and the connecting subsurface systems
exchanges are typically insignificant as a fraction of the stream
(Figure 1b). The volume of water in this continuing exchange
flow. The significance of hyporheic exchange is in the move-
is not necessarily significant; rather, it is the exchange that
ment of solutes from the stream into the subsurface (Figure 2).
can further have influence on solute transport and aquatic
(See current, extensive reviews of hyporheic processes and
ecosystems.
significance from the viewpoints of hydrogeomorphology,
[3] The purpose of this article is to present a set of chal-
ecology, and nutrient dynamics in Poole [2010], Boulton
lenges in working to understand the connections of streams
et al. [2010], and Mulholland and Webster [2010], respec-
to their catchment at scales longer (in time and space) than tively. In the subsurface, solutes from the stream may be in
hyporheic exchange and shorter than that of regional river
an environment of different pH and dissolved oxygen and
aquifer interactions. To build the context, we introduce
in which contact with solid (abiotic or biotic) surfaces is
an understanding of hyporheic exchange and the now com-
enhanced. The stream water, temporarily in the subsurface,
mon transient storage interpretation of solute transport. We
may undergo reactions altering the biogeochemical signature
close with our opinions on basic hydrologic approaches that
of that water as it goes back into the stream. With hyporheic
flow the stream and the catchment ecosystem can be viewed
and studied as a continuum in which each is a boundary con-
1
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA. dition of the other rather than separate components of a system.
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
3
Utah Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, West Valley 1.3. Transient Storage: Simple Conceptual View
City, Utah, USA. of Hyporheic Flows
[5] The transient storage model (TSM) is a simple con-
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. ceptual model of the streamcatchment continuum that builds
00431397/11/2010WR010066

W00H03 1 of 9
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION W00H03

Figure 1. (a) The streams function in its catchment is viewed simply as that of a pipe. (b) A contrasting
view of the streams function places the stream as an integral part of the catchment system [from Bencala,
1993].

upon the fundamental 1D model of solute advection and solute, delaying downstream transport for time scales longer
dispersion by providing a transient storage zone connected to than advection and dispersion (see Figure 3).
the channel. This transient storage zone is conceptually a [6] The TSM has several variations in representing solute
wellmixed reservoir of finite size that temporarily holds exchange between the main channel and the transient storage

Figure 2. Idealized representation of hyporheic exchange in (a) plan view (lateral exchange) and (b) ver-
tical cross section (vertical exchange) (reprinted from Hester and Gooseff [2010] with permission from
Environmental Science and Technology. Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society).
2 of 9
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION W00H03

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram representing conservative solute transport in the OTIS transient storage
model (redrawn from Runkel [1998]). Conservative solutes are transported in the main channel via
advection and dispersion, and they exchange with a finite transient storage zone. Lateral inflows and out-
flows of water can be simulated to influence mass of solute represented in the stream finite difference control
volume. Transient storage of solutes occurs as a function of hyporheic exchange and exchange with surface
transient storage zones (eddies, backwaters, etc.).

locations, though the most common is a singlerate mass
transfer approach, as is implemented in the onedimensional
transport with inflow and storage (OTIS) model [Runkel,
1998]:
 
@C Q @C 1 @ @C
 AD CS  C qL CL  C
@t A @x A @x @x
1 these processes without discrimination. Thus, in character-
dCS A exchange processes. In addition to these challenges, the
 C  CS ; 2
dt AS
where C is the main channel conservative solute concentra-
tion (M L3), CS is the storage zone conservative solute
concentration (M L3), A is the crosssectional area of stream
(L2), AS is the crosssectional area of storage zone (L2), a is
the storage zone exchange coefficient (T 1), qL is the lateral
inflow rate (L3 T 1 L1 of stream length), CL is the lateral
inflow concentration of conservative solute (M L3), D is the
dispersion coefficient (L2 T 1), x is the distance downstream
(L), t is time (T), and Q is streamflow rate (L3 T 1).
1.4. Limitations of the Transient Storage Concept
[7] The simple conceptual basis of the TSM is both its
greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The transient
storage zones in the conceptual and numerical models are
lumped representations of a diverse array of realworld
locations of temporary solute storage, such as eddies behind
boulders, channel margins, pool margins, and hyporheic
exchange. Whereas this is a great advantage from the per-
spective of simplifying the representation of the real world,
not all storage zones have the same spatial and temporal
scales nor provide the same biogeochemical function. Surface
storage zones (e.g., eddies) host very different conditions than
subsurface storage zones (hyporheic flow paths). Some
storage zones may be nested within others; for example,
water may have to pass through a surface transient storage
zone to enter a subsurface transient storage zone. The phys-
ical processes that move mass and energy between the main
channel and surface versus subsurface storage zones are
likely to be very different. Further, the heterogeneity within a
single storage zone type (e.g., all pool margins) may be great
enough that the residence times and biogeochemical efficacy
of each zone is substantially different. The TSM, as typically
implemented, applies reachrepresentative characteristics to
izing the representative storage zone influence on storage,
the singlestorage zone TSM lumps many zone types and
most commonly used TSM (as implemented in OTIS) uses a
finite difference solution scheme so that all mass that leaves
the channel to move into transient storage must return in the
same part of the channel. Hence, there is no solute transfer
or communication from upstream to downstream along
subsurface flow paths, as they are not explicitly represented
in the solute transport model.
[8] Alternative to the TSM, several mathematical models
have been produced with similar conceptual models, but
different mathematical exchange characterizations. Several
of these have focused on exchange that is not of the single
rate mass transfertype characterized in the TSM by an
exponential storage residence time distribution. For example,
Wrman et al. [2002] developed a transient storage model
with lognormal residence time distribution, and Haggerty
et al. [2002] and Gooseff et al. [2003] have applied models
with power law residence time distributions in their storage
zones. A twostorage zone version of the TSM with differ-
ing storage zone parameters has been evaluated theoretically
[Choi et al., 2000] and implemented practically [Harvey
et al., 2005; Marion et al., 2008; Briggs et al., 2009, 2010]
to separate surface transient storage from subsurface transient
storage. Whereas all of these approaches yield excellent
simulated fits to observed stream tracer data, each of these
conceptual and numerical models has different interpretations
of the influence of transient storage on solute transport. For
example, mean storage residence times would be calculated
differently, and therefore, implications for storage zone bio-

3 of 9
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION
Figure 4. Conceptual, schematic profile of stream channel
exchange with an underlying nested subsurface flow net-
work. The dashed box represents the region influenced by
an individual reachscale tracer test. Thick arrows represent
flow paths in the stream channel and in the underlying sub-
strate. The thick dashed arrow (tail end of flow path C) repre-
sents a subsurface flow path with residence time longer than
the duration of tracer concentration measurement. Flow paths
A, B, and C (tail end) are unlabeled with tracer and dilute the
measurable tracer concentrations in the channel. These flow
paths are considered gross hydrologic gain in the context of
the tracer test. Flow paths C (head end), D, and E remove
tracer mass during the tracer test and reduce the amount of
tracer mass recovered. These flow paths are considered gross
hydrologic loss in the context of the tracer test. Flow paths
labeled F return tracer to the stream in measurable concentra-
tions after a temporary period of storage relative to channel
flow. These flow paths are considered transient storage dur-
ing the tracer test and do not influence the stream water bal-
ance [from Payn et al., 2009].
geochemical cycling would be interpreted differently as well
[Gooseff et al., 2003].
[9] Stream solute transport studies (and therefore subse-
quent TSM modeling and/or mass balance analyses) are
inherently limited by practical issues. To characterize return
flows (i.e., hyporheic flows), the detection limit of the solute
tracer is perhaps the most important restriction. Small fluxes
of highly concentrated hyporheic water returning to the
stream channel after much of the stream tracer has passed may
not provide enough signal to be observed when concentration
detection limits are high. Furthermore, without additional
information (such as the discharge at the upstream and
downstream ends of a reach of interest [see Payn et al., 2009],
the stream tracer approach is generally insensitive to
streamflow losses. When tracerlabeled water leaves the
channel (as illustrated in Figure 4), it does not change the
concentration of the remaining water in the channel. Dilution
of the tracer by lateral inflowing water is, however, readily
observed. The result of both gains and losses occurring along
a stream reach may confound both the estimates of lateral
inflows and therefore the quantification of streamcatchment
connections. The transient storage concept and the associated
implicit interpretation of tracer transport have been highly
useful in developing an understanding of hyporheic pro-
cesses. The limitations of the concept and its interpretation,
however, call for caution as we seek to understand the con-
4 of 9
W00H03
nection of streams to their catchment at larger 10 m to 1 km
scales.
2. StreamCatchment Connections
[10] In discussing streamcatchment connections, we refer
to a loosely specified portion of the continuum of surface
water to groundwater interactions. These connections have
one or more of the following characteristics.
[11] 1. Flows are dispersed in the sense that an individual,
welldelineated flow is insignificant.
[12] 2. There may be exchange between the surface and
subsurface occurring in both directions.
[13] 3. The primary importance of the connection is on
the flux of solutes, while over the longitudinal distance of the
stream the dispersed exchanges may or may not change the
stream discharge.
[14] 4. The exchanges occur over larger (10 m to 1 km)
spatial scales than typically associated with hyporheic flows
(110 m).
[15] These interactions of surface water and groundwater
are, again loosely, distinguished from the dominantly uni-
directional flows at the 110 km scale of discharge of an
alluvial aquifer feeding a river network or, conversely, a
mountain range drainage system recharging a semiarid area.
[16] The distinction from the spatial scale of hyporheic
flow is significant in that at the hyporheic scale flow (carrying
solutes along) leaving the stream returns to the stream over a
distance on the order of 10 m. At the larger spatial scale, water
leaving the stream has flowed back into the catchment sub-
surface, seemingly a loss from the stream. If this water returns
to the stream far down valley seemingly as now yet again a
gain to the stream, it likely will have mixed extensively with
other waters en route. At the scale of hyporheic flow, the
exchange of solutes between the surface and the subsurface is
commonly referred to as transient storage; at larger scales
this terminology is not descriptive of the longterm storage
that may occur. In this longterm storage, water and solute
that leave the channel may return over time and space scales
longer than can be quantified in the typical tracer study.
[17] We believe it is reasonable to assert that stream eco-
systems with hyporheic exchange are now routinely under-
stood and studied as a fully integrated ecosystem with surface
and subsurface zones. Also at the larger riveraquifer scale,
water is viewed as a single hydrologic resource [e.g., see
Winter et al., 1998]. For the intermediate scale of stream
catchment connections we are proposing that studies need to
be designed to recognize a complex hydrologic system with
fundamentally disparate scales of surface and subsurface
transport processes [e.g., Woessner, 2000]. This hydrologic
system is distinct both from an integrated ecosystem in which
detailed coupled processes can be identified and from a
single resource in which the readily defined components of
the system are linked. Streamcatchment connections at the
intermediate 10 m to 1 km spatial scale have influences on
public policy issues such as environmental flow management
for aquatic ecosystem health and land use management, such
as restoration of streams affected by mine drainage. A time
frame in which these connections influence the system is
most clearly the time of transport of water and solute along
the stream. The spatially cumulative influence of hyporheic
exchange flows acts in this time frame. The connections are
also evident in a steady, or static, time frame of a study to
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION
identify the location and quantity of nutrient or contaminant
load from the catchment. Alternatively, on an annual time
scale, the summation of apparent catchment solute inputs to
the stream may be different than the stream solute exports
from the catchment, the differences being caused by losses
and then apparent gains in the streamcatchment connections.
[18] Streamcatchment connections are the locations where
the stream water column is in hydraulic contact with adjacent
water tables. These connections may drive exchanges of
water between the aquifer and the channel, where potential
for exchange is a function of the spatiotemporal head distri-
bution and flux is a function of both head gradients and
hydraulic conductivity. That these are dynamic in both time
and space is a general statement that most hydrologists can
agree upon. However, the true temporal and spatial hetero-
geneity of connections between streams and aquifers is rarely
quantified well and incorporated into conceptual and
numerical models. As such, our understanding of exchange
dynamics between streams and aquifers remains incomplete.
[19] Streamflow gains generally are easier to identify than
losses of stream water. Some are obvious to the naked eye,
such as streamside seeps and springs. Stream tracer experi-
ments will also generally identify locations of lateral inflows
between tracer sampling sites as tracer concentrations at
downstream locations are diluted (however, amounts of lat-
eral inflows can be difficult to determine if streamflow losses
have occurred upstream of the gain; see more detail about this
in section 3.1). Inflows to channels may be hyporheic return
flows (a mix of stream water and groundwater) or they may be
contributions of pure groundwater from the larger aquifer.
Streamflow losses are more difficult to identify because they
are not visible and they do not influence stream tracer con-
centrations. Losses of water from streams to aquifers have
one of two fates: they either mix with groundwater and
reenter the channel at a downstream location or they follow
deeper, more distal flow paths that mesh into a larger valley
bottom aquifer. From the scales of grains to watersheds, the
geologic structure of the stream and catchment is a primary
control on the fate of streamflow gains and losses. Whereas
we can generally identify short (spatially and temporally)
exchanges or flow paths, our ability to observe and document
temporally and spatially long exchange flow paths is poor.
We often rely on models because direct observations of tracer
signatures, etc., do not provide the resolution necessary to
support evidence of streamgroundwater exchanges in long
temporal or spatial contexts.
[20] In section 3 we set out three basic challenges to
understanding the flow and solute transport pathways that
may be significant in connection of streams and their catch-
ment at scales longer than that of hyporheic exchanges.
While describing these challenges, we offer suggestions of
basic hydrologic approaches to address these challenges
with field measurements.
3. Basic Hydrological Measurements Needed
for Understanding at the Scale of StreamCatchment
Connections
3.1. Challenge 1: Measurement of InChannel Flow
[21] During the past 2 decades, many massloading studies
have been done in streams affected by acid mine drainage
[Kimball et al., 2004, 2007]. The majority of these streams
5 of 9
W00H03
have been in upland catchments that can be considered
gaining reaches, resulting in tracer dilution profiles that are
straightforward and provide the data needed to calculate
spatially detailed estimates of stream discharge and stream-
flow gain. And yet, in some catchments, a seemingly normal
tracer dilution profile has resulted in a substantial overesti-
mate of stream discharge at the end of the study reach. For
example, in Red Butte Creek, a research catchment near Salt
Lake City, Utah, a dilution profile for a bromide tracer is
illustrated in Figure 5. This bromide profile resembles many
that come from upland catchments, with clear gaining seg-
ments indicated by dilution of the tracer. Using the mass
injection rate and injectate concentration, a tracer dilution
discharge was calculated (see equations in the work by
Kimball et al. [2002]) and is illustrated along with the bro-
mide concentration. Stream discharge increased at the tribu-
tary inflows but also along parts of the reach where no visible
inflows were observed, suggesting dispersed inflow of water
along the study reach from the subsurface. Areavelocity
discharge measurements also were obtained in the stream the
day of the synoptic sampling. Although not all of these were
rated as good measurements because of the difficulties of
measuring discharge in mountain streams by this method
[Jarrett, 1992], taken together they clearly indicate a lower
stream discharge for most of the study reach. If both the tracer
dilution discharge and the areavelocity discharge represent
sound data, then the simplest explanation for the discrepancy
would be that this stream gains substantial quantities of water
(Figure 4, flow paths A and B) but subsequently loses much
of that water to flow paths on scales longer than hyporheic
flows (Figure 4, flow paths C, D, and E).
[22] Faced with this dilemma in Red Butte Creek, various
means were used to estimate an accurate discharge profile.
For example, using areavelocity measurements that were
rated good (five of the measurements at different locations
along the stream), the bromide tracer data were used to esti-
mate discharge by dilution both upstream and downstream
from each of these points, generating a whole series of pos-
sible discharge profiles (Figure 6). Each of these results in a
much smaller discharge than the tracer dilution discharge, but
it is not clear which should be selected.
[23] This one example in Red Butte Creek illustrates the
need for (1) recognizing the utility of measuring stream dis-
charge not only at the catchment outlet but also along the
stream reach and (2) increasing appreciation that tracer and
physical measurements of discharge may be measuring dif-
ferent aspects of flow. A number of flow measurements by
complementary methods, spread out along the stream, may
be needed to fully understand the dynamics of exchange
between the stream and its catchment. Differences between
tracer and physical measurements of discharge have been
previously noted [e.g., Zellweger et al., 1989] and ascribed to
the observation that tracer methods will measure some por-
tion of flow within the subsurface in addition to the flow
strictly in the surface channel.
3.2. Challenge 2: Estimating the Distribution
of StreamCatchment Exchange Flux
[24] The issues of discharge measurement in a given stream
reach having subsurface flow translate into challenges for
calculating an accurate catchment mass loading of solutes to
the stream. In extending studies to multiple, successive
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION W00H03

Figure 5. Variation of bromide concentration and estimated tracer dilution discharge with distance along
the study reach, Red Butte Creek, Utah. Independent areavelocity discharge measurements are indicated
that show the difference between the estimated tracer dilution discharge and instream discharge. The
two sections of stream that are discussed in the text with Figure 7 are shaded and are labeled A and B here.

stream reaches, judgments are needed to interpret the influ-
ence on mass load of inflows individually too small to be
measured and of subsurface flow paths longer than the scale
of hyporheic exchange observed in the standard tracer
experiment. The longitudinal profile of sulfate concentrations
along Red Butte Creek (Figure 7) indicates areas of the stream
where the concentration increases from less than 80 mg/L to
almost 160 mg/L. Dilution of sulfate concentration also is
indicated where Parleys Fork enters the stream. The zone of
greatest increase from 1902 to 2953 m included only a few
visible inflows, suggesting that the increases in sulfate had to
result from dispersed subsurface inflow of water with higher

Figure 6. Variation of discharge estimates with distance along the study reach. The tracer dilution dis-
charge is repeated for comparison to estimated discharge profiles. Each of the profiles starts with an
areavelocity measurement at the indicated distance along the study reach, and then the amount of dilution
of the bromide tracer upstream and downstream from that point was used to indicate changes.
6 of 9
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION W00H03

Figure 7. Variation of sulfate concentration and load with distance along the study reach, Red Butte
Creek, Utah. Note the break in concentration scale in showing the range of inflow sulfate concentrations.
Loads include cumulative instream load and cumulative inflow loads (see Kimball et al. [2002] for
equations). Two discharge profiles were used to calculate these loads, the tracer dilution discharge and the
lowest discharge profile from the lowest estimated profile using the areavelocity discharge at 4600 m as a
basis (see Figure 5). The two sections that are discussed in the text are shaded and are labeled A and B.

sulfate concentration than the stream concentration. To cal-
culate load from this sulfate concentration profile requires
the choice of just one of the possible discharge profiles
(Figure 6). Two possible versions of sulfate mass load are
indicated in Figure 7, representing the maximum and mini-
mum discharge profiles in Figure 6. The first uses the tracer
dilution discharge and the second uses the minimum
adjusteddischarge profile based on the areavelocity mea-
surement at 4600 m. Comparing the cumulative instream
loads (Figure 7, solid squares and triangles), the tracer dilu-
tion discharge results in almost 5 times greater load for tracer
dilution load than the adjusteddischarge load (Figure 7). By
summing the load from each of the sampled inflows (see
Kimball et al. [2002] for equations), a cumulative inflow load
is calculated. Comparing the cumulative instream and inflow
loads using the tracer dilution discharge (Figure 7, solid and
open squares), the cumulative instream load is almost
5 times greater than the inflow load at the end of the study
reach. For the adjusteddischarge loads (Figure 7, solid and
open triangles), the instream load is over 3 times the inflow
load. The difference between cumulative instream and
inflow loads has often been considered unsampled load in
mass loading studies [Kimball et al., 2006]. However, some
of this difference also could be a result of water returning
to the stream from the catchment after traveling along flow
paths on the scale of 10 m to 1 km. This circumstance could
result in water and solute load being double counted. A
closer examination of two sections of the discharge and
sulfateloading profiles (Figures 5 and 7) can illustrate these
possibilities.
[25] Focusing on three stream segments from 2183 to
2369 m (shaded area A in Figures 5 and 7), we see no dilution
of bromide in the first segment and then two slight decreases
in bromide concentration in the next two segments. However,
7 of 9
because the sulfate concentration increases in that first seg-
ment, a small increase in load is indicated. This could imply
the inflow of an amount of sulfaterich water too small to be
observed by tracer dilution. Larger increases in sulfate load
over the next two segments result from higher sulfate con-
centration and water inflow indicated by tracer dilution.
Using the change in mass load of sulfate and the change in
discharge, it is possible to calculate an effective inflow con-
centration, which is the concentration that would be necessary
to cause the measured change in load for a given stream
segment [Kimball et al., 2002]. The calculated inflow con-
centrations for the second and third segments, using either of
the instream loading curves, compare very well with the
range of the sampled inflows downstream at the left bank
springs. Thus, despite the great difference between cumu-
lative instream and inflow loads through these segments, the
calculated increases result from plausible sources given the
range of sulfate concentration among the sampled inflows.
[26] In contrast to this, looking at two segments down-
stream from Parleys Fork, from 4133 to 4804 m (shaded
area B), the discharge increases in both segments but the
sulfate concentration remains constant in the stream. Calcu-
lating the effective sulfate concentration as above results in a
value of approximately 139 mg/L for both segments, which is
very similar to the instream concentration of 142 mg/L along
this reach. This could be a condition indicating that the
increase in discharge represents inflow of water that has
traveled a flow path on the scale of more than 10 m and then
reentered the stream (similar to flow path C illustrated in
Figure 4). The loading would be double counted. On this
same scale, if part of the solute mass in a stream segment were
lost to a longer flow path so that it was not accounted for at the
end of the study reach, it may be a lost or overcounted
source (similar to flow path D illustrated in Figure 4). This is
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION
Figure 8. Water level elevations along a lateral transect of
wells in watershed 1, H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest,
Oregon, United States, during a 3 day storm event. Note the
dynamic temporal pattern of gradients among the three wells
in comparison to the stream.
significant because, in terms of loading profiles, that loss
would have the same effect on a loading profile as would the
removal of load through biogeochemical processes, com-
plicating the interpretation of mass transfer processes. These
two possibilities point to the need for an understanding of
basic hydrology to quantify solute loading at this scale.
[27] Sampling of stream and subsurface chemistry has been
widely used in identifying the temporal variation in the flow
components of runoff at the catchment scale to streams. Here
we are suggesting that sampling in the subsurface along 10 m
to 1 km reaches of stream can be combined with spatially
discrete stream discharge measurements to enhance our inter-
pretation of the significance of local flow losses in a stream
that is gaining water overall, as in this discussion.
3.3. Challenge 3: Observing the Distribution of Where
and When the Stream Is Connected to the Catchment
[28] Perhaps the most significant challenge to character-
izing streamcatchment connections arising from the use of
stream solute transport approaches is the simplicity of the
conceptual model that oversimplifies a finite zone with which
streams directly interact. The connections between streams
and catchments are extensive in both space and time, with
exchanges occurring along a continuum of flow path lengths,
transport times, and flow capacities. Hence, assessing stream
catchment connections from the stream perspective alone will
always be of limited utility.
[29] Several different types of streamcatchment connec-
tions exist and occur over different temporal and spatial
scales. Each likely has a different influence on stream water
conditions. One example is a temporally dynamic connection
between the stream and adjacent riparian aquifers. Figure 8
presents a 10 day time series of stream and water table ele-
vations from three wells adjacent to the stream, each 23 m
apart, arranged normal to the stream. During a 3 day storm
event, the water table elevations and local gradients shift
substantially, particularly in relation to the far riparian well.
These data suggest that flow direction in the riparian aquifer
8 of 9
W00H03
and connection to the channel change throughout this storm
event. Likely, there is a coincident downvalley change in
water table gradients that is not expressed here. At the
scale of a 23 km2 mountain catchment, Jencso et al. [2009]
have documented the temporal dynamics of hillslope
riparianstream hydraulic connections (i.e., when the hill-
slope is contributing water to the riparianstream system) as
a function of lateral contributing area. They found that larger
lateral contributing areas had a more consistent aquifer
stream connection.
[30] We propose that a stream is a dynamic expression of
local groundwater conditions, where exchanges of water
between the catchment and the channel are consistently
changing in response to heterogeneous temporal and spatial
water table dynamics. These dynamic changes to boundary
conditions of the channel occur at several spatial and tem-
poral scales. Whereas we can generally acknowledge that
streambeds are made of porous media, our development of
understanding hydraulic process is largely confined to the
boundaries of the channel. To improve our understanding
of how streams are dynamically connected to catchments,
we must at least (1) develop our conceptual and numerical
models of streams in their catchment settings and (2) develop
and apply improved techniques to detect the water table
dynamics at space and time scales that influence stream
catchment hydrologic connections.
[31] One severe limitation in our approach to characteriz-
ing streamcatchment connections is that we have relied
heavily upon observations of solute transport in the stream
alone. The transport of solute downstream is affected by a
host of processes that we ultimately attempt to interpret from
solute breakthrough curves observed downstream, including
advection, dispersion, and exchange between fast and slow
water (and also reaction in the case of nonconservative tra-
cers). Whereas our physical and mathematical understanding
of advection and dispersion is quite mature, our conceptual
and numerical models of exchange continue to evolve in an
effort to better fit a simulation of transport to an observed
solute breakthrough curve. The solution to this challenge is
not extensive collection of solute concentrations from the
subsurface, as demonstrated by Harvey and Bencala [1993]
and Wondzell [2006]. However, emerging new techniques,
such as using electrical resistivity during stream tracer
experiments to image solute distribution in the subsurface
in two and three dimensions [Ward et al., 2010a], are
developing with promise of advancing our conceptual and
numerical models of solute transport [e.g., Ward et al.,
2010b] and streamcatchment connections.
4. Opinion Summary
[32] The 10 m to 1 km scale of streamcatchment con-
nections we have discussed is inherently messy. The
physical process characteristics are heterogeneous through-
out the catchment. This will make detailed process modeling
unreliable; while treating the catchment as a box and the
stream as a pipe will not account for the transitions and
transformations we know occur. We propose here that
through the previous 25 years of detailed study of smaller
spatial scale hyporheic exchange flow we now have consid-
erable understanding of the degree to which streams are
continuously connected to their catchment. Flow and solute
exchange with a stream and the connectivity of a stream to its
W00H03 BENCALA ET AL.: OPINION
catchment are seemingly straightforward characteristics of a
stream. Basic hydrologic measurements at the stream scale
done over the catchment scale are no doubt time and labor
intensive to collect. However, such approaches, as we suggest
(measurement of flow along the channel, surface and sub-
surface solute sampling, and routine measurements of the
water table) are needed to establish and quantify the extent to
which streamcatchment connections are determining solute
transport and transformation.
References
Bencala, K. E. (1993), A perspective on streamcatchment connections,
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 12, 4447, doi:10.2307/1467684.
Boulton, A. J., T. Datry, T. Kasahara, M. Mutz, and J. A. Stanford (2010),
Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: Streamgroundwater
interactions of running waters and their floodplains, J. N. Am. Benthol.
Soc., 29, 2640.
Briggs, M. A., M. N. Gooseff, C. D. Arp, and M. A. Baker (2009), A
method for estimating surface transient storage parameters for streams
with concurrent hyporheic storage, Water Resour. Res., 45, W00D27,
doi:10.1029/2008WR006959.
Briggs, M. A., M. N. Gooseff, B. J. Peterson, K. Morkeski, W. M.
Wollheim, and C. S. Hopkinson (2010), Surface and hyporheic transient
storage dynamics throughout a coastal stream network, Water Resour.
Res., 46, W06516, doi:10.1029/2009WR008222.
Choi, J., J. W. Harvey, and M. H. Conklin (2000), Characterizing multiple
timescales of stream and storage zone interaction that affect solute fate
and transport in streams, Water Resour. Res., 36(6), 15111518,
doi:10.1029/2000WR900051.
Gooseff, M. N., S. M. Wondzell, R. Hagerty, and J. Anderson (2003),
Comparing transient storage modeling and residence time distribution
(RTD) analysis in gemorphologically varied reaches in the Lookout
Creek basin, Oregon, USA, Adv. Water Resour., 26(9), 925937,
doi:10.1016/S0309-1708(03)00105-2.
Haggerty, R., S. M. Wondzell, and M. A. Johnson (2002), Power law res-
idence time distribution in the hyporheic zone of a 2nd order mountain
stream, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(13), 1640, doi:10.1029/2002GL014743.
Harvey, J. W., and K. E. Bencala (1993), The effect of streambed topogra-
phy on surfacesubsurface water exchange in mountain catchments,
Water Resour. Res., 29(1), 8998, doi:10.1029/92WR01960.
Harvey, J. W., J. E. Saiers, and J. T. Newlin (2005), Solute transport and
storage mechanisms in wetlands of the Everglades, south Florida, Water
Resour. Res., 41, W05009, doi:10.1029/2004WR003507.
Hester, E. T., and M. N. Gooseff (2010), Moving beyond the banks:
Hyporheic restoration is fundamental to restoring ecological services
and functions of streams, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44(5), 15211525,
doi:10.1021/es902988n.
Jarrett, R. D. (1992), Hydraulics of mountain rivers, in Channel Flow
ResistanceCentennial of Mannings Formula, edited by B. C. Yen,
pp. 287298, Water Resour. Publ., Littleton, Colo.
Jencso, K. G., B. L. McGlynn, M. N. Gooseff, S. M. Wondzell, K. E.
Bencala, and L. A. Marshall (2009), Hydrologic connectivity between
landscapes and streams: Transferring reach and plotscale under-
standing to the catchment scale, Water Resour. Res., 45, W04428,
doi:10.1029/2008WR007225.
Kimball, B. A., R. L. Runkel, K. WaltonDay, and K. E. Bencala (2002),
Assessment of metal loads in watersheds affected by acid mine drainage
by using tracer injection and synoptic sampling: Cement Creek, Colorado,
USA, Appl. Geochem., 17, 11831207, doi:10.1016/S0883-2927(02)
00017-3.
Kimball, B. A., R. L. Runkel, T. E. Cleasby, and D. A. Nimick (2004),
Quantification of metal loading by tracer injection and synoptic sam-
9 of 9
W00H03
pling, 19971998, in Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects
of Historical Mining in the Basin and Boulder Mining Districts, Boulder
River Watershed, Jefferson County, Montana, edited by D. A. Nimick,
S. E. Church, and S. E. Finger, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1652,
Chap. D6, 191262.
Kimball, B. A., D. K. Nordstrom, R. L. Runkel, K. R. Vincent, and P. L.
Verplanck (2006) Questa baseline and premining groundwater quality
investigation. 23. Quantification of mass loading from mined and
unmined areas along the Red River, New Mexico, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Sci. Invest. Rep., 20065004, 36 pp.
Kimball, B. A., K. WaltonDay, and R. L. Runkel (2007), Quantification of
metal loading by tracer injection and synoptic sampling, 19962000, in
Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining
in the Animas River Watershed, San Juan County, Colorado, edited
by S. E. Church, P. von Guerard, and S. E. Finger, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof.
Pap., 1651, Chap. E9, vol. 1, 417495.
Marion, A., M. Zaramella, and A. BottacinBusolin (2008), Solute trans-
port in rivers with multiple storage zones: The STIR model, Water
Resour. Res., 44, W10406, doi:10.1029/2008WR007037.
Mulholland, P. J., and J. R. Webster (2010), Nutrient dynamics in streams
and the role of JNABS, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 29, 100117.
Payn, R. A., M. N. Gooseff, B. L. McGlynn, K. E. Bencala, and S. M.
Wondzell (2009), Channel water balance and exchange with subsurface
flow along a mountain headwater stream in Montana, United States,
Water Resour. Res., 45, W11427, doi:10.1029/2008WR007644.
Poole, G. C. (2010), Stream hydrogeomorphology as a physical science
basis for advances in stream ecology, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 29, 1225.
Runkel, R. L. (1998), OneDimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage
(OTIS): A solute transport model for streams and rivers, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Water Resour. Invest. Rep., 984018, 73 pp. (Available at http://water.
usgs.gov/software/OTIS)
Ward, A. S., M. N. Gooseff, and K. Singha (2010a), Imaging hyporheic
zone solute transport using electrical resistivity, Hydrol. Processes,
24(7), 948953, doi:10.1002/hyp.7672.
Ward, A. S., M. N. Gooseff, and K. Singha (2010b) Characterizing hypor-
heic transport processesInterpretation of electrical geophysical data
in coupled streamhyporheic zone systems during solute tracer studies,
Adv. Water Resour., 33(11), 13201330, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.
05.008.
Winter, T. C., J. W. Harvey, O. L. Franke, and W. M. Alley (1998), Ground
water and surface water; a single resource, U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ., 1139,
79 pp.
Woessner, W. W. (2000), Stream and fluvial plain ground water inter-
actions: Rescaling hydrogeologic thought, Ground Water, 38(3),
423429, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00228.x.
Wondzell, S. M. (2006), Effect of morphology and discharge on hyporheic
exchange flows in two small streams in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon,
USA, Hydrol. Processes, 20(2), 267287, doi:10.1002/hyp.5902.
Wrman, A., A. I. Packman, H. Johansson, and K. Jonsson (2002), Effect
of flowinduced exchange in hyporheic zones on longitudinal transport
of solutes in streams and rivers, Water Resour. Res., 38(1), 1001,
doi:10.1029/2001WR000769.
Zellweger, G. W., R. J. Avanzino, and K. E. Bencala (1989), Comparison
of tracerdilution and currentmeter discharge measurements in a small
gravelbed stream, Little Lost Man Creek, California, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Water Resour. Invest. Rep., 894150.
K. E. Bencala, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 466, 345 Middlefield Rd.,
Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA. (kbencala@usgs.gov)
M. N. Gooseff, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
B. A. Kimball, Utah Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey,
2329 West Orton Cir., West Valley City, UT 841192047, USA.