Advertisement

Application of multi-method approach to assess groundwater–surface water interactions, for catchment management

  • T. Madlala
  • T. Kanyerere
  • P. Oberholster
  • Y. Xu
Original Paper
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Globally, the dependence of river systems to delayed discharge of subsurface water to augment flows during dry seasons is well documented. Discharge of fresh subsurface water can dilute concentrated river flow quality during reduced flow. Observed and reported results on the Berg River’s declining water quantity and quality are a concern to the regions socio-economic growth and environmental integrity. Understanding the role of subsurface water discharges on the quantity and quality of receiving surface water courses can improve their management during dry periods. A case study was designed and implemented in the upper Berg River catchment in the Western Cape Province of South Africa to assess the influence of groundwater–surface water interaction on water quantity and quality. This study aimed to quantify and characterize the quality of subsurface water available in the upper catchment to improve observed declining water quality downstream. Hydrograph separation provided estimates of water fluxes during 2012–2014 low and high flow periods, while hydrochemical analysis provided insights on impacts of major land use activity in this catchment on water resources. Hydrograph separation analysis indicated that the Berg River is 37.9% dependent on subsurface water discharges annually. Dominant Na–Cl-type water indicates the quality of water from the upper Berg River is largely affected by natural processes including short residence times of aquifer water, rock–water interactions and atmospheric deposition of NaCl ions. These results provide insights for suggesting management options to be implemented to protect subsurface water for continued dilution and water resources management in the lower catchments.

Keywords

Base flow Integrated water resources management River self-purification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Department of Water and Sanitation officials from the Bellville office, Western Cape, Researchers from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, and staff and fellow students at the Department of Earth Science at the University of the Western Cape, for helping with the groundwater and surface water sampling and drafting of this manuscript. The authors want to thank the African Union, the Applied Center for Climate and Earth Systems Science for provision of funding. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the unknown referees for their critical reviews of the manuscript and suggesting changes to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Adams KM (2011) The inorganic pollution of the Franschhoek River: Sources and Solutions, M.Sc. Thesis, University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  2. Albhaisi M, Brendonck L, Batelaan O (2013) Predicted impacts of land use change on groundwater recharge of the upper Berg River catchment, South Africa. Water SA 39(2):211–220Google Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating baseflow and groundwater recharge from streamflow records. J Am Water Res Assoc 35(2):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binley A, Ulla S, Heathwaite LA, Heppell C, Byrne P, Lansdown K, Zhang H (2013) Revealing the spatial variability of water fluxes at the groundwater-surface water interface. Water Resour Res 49:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaten R, Gates G (2001) Groundwater-surface water interaction in inland South New Wales: a scoping study. Water Sci Technol J 48:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodie RS, Hostetler S (2005) A review of techniques for analyzing baseflow from stream hydrographs. Managing Connected Water Resources Project, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns DA, McDonnell JJ, Hooper RP, Peters NE, Freer JE, Kendall C et al (2001) Quantifying contributions to storm runoff through end-member mixing analysis and hydrologic measurements at the Panola Mountain Research watershed (USA). Hydrol Processes 15:1903–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bugan R (2008) Hydrosalinity fluxes in a small catchment of the Berg River, Western Cape, M.Sc. Thesis. University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  10. Cao Y, Tang C, Song X, Lin L, Zhang Y (2012) Characteristic of nitrate in major rivers and aquifers of the Sanjiang Plain, China. J Environ Monit 14:2624–2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cey EE, Rudolph DL, Parkin GW, Aravena R (1998) Quantifying groundwater discharge to a small perennial stream in Southern Ontario, Canada. J Hydrol 210:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman TG (1991) Comment on the evaluation of automated stream flow recession and base flow separation, by RJ Nathon and TA McMahon. Water Resour Res 27(1):1783–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman TG (1999) A comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and baseflow separation. Hydrogeol Process 13(5):701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman TG, Maxwell AI (1996) Baseflow separation-a comparison of numerical methods with tracer experiments. 96/05539-545. In: Institute of engineers national conference, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark B, Ractliffe G (2007) Berg river baseline monitoring program, final report, volume 5. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  16. Conant B, Cherry JA, Gillham RW (2004) A PCE groundwater plume discharging to a river: Influence of the streambed and near-river zone on contaminant distributions. J Contam Hydrol 73(1–4):249–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2004.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig AL (2005) Evaluation of temporal and spatial variation of groundwater discharge to streams. MSc Thesis. The Graduate School of Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Crosbie R, McEwan IJ, Holland K, Lamontagne S (2007) Surface water—groundwater interactions in three River Murray floodplain wetlands: Results from field studies. CSIRO, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Department of Water (2009) Surface water sampling methods and analysis-Technical appendices. Government of Western Australia PerthGoogle Scholar
  20. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (1996) South African Water Quality Guidelines. volume 4: Agricultural use: irrigation. DWAFGoogle Scholar
  21. Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation (DWS) (2013) Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation Hydrological Services - Surface Water Home. Retrieved 07 15, 2013, from https://www.dwa.gov.za/hydrology/ DWS
  22. Dodds WK (2003) The role of periphyton in phosphorus retention in shallow freshwater aquatic systems. J Phycol 39:840–849.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.02081.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckhardt K (2005) How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrol Process 19(2):507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckhardt K (2012) Technical note: analytical sensitivity analysis of a two parameter recursive digital baseflow separation filter. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckhardt K, Arnold JG (2001) Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model. J Hydrol 251:103–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00429-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellis PA (2002) The impact of urban groundwater on surface water quality: Birmingham, River Thames Study, UK. PhD Thesis, The University of Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  27. Fetter CW (1994) Applied hydrogeology, 3rd edn. Macmillan Collage Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeze AR, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater, 1st edn. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleckenstein JH, Krause S, Hannah DM, Boano F (2010) Groundwater-surface water interactions: New methods and models to improve understanding of process dynamics. Adv Water Res 33:1291–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall I (2013) The South African coal roadmap. Fossil Fuel Foundation. p 52Google Scholar
  31. Hayashi M, Rosenberry D (2002) Effects of groundwater exchange on hydrology and ecology of surface water. J Groundw Hydrol 40(3):309–336.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02659.x/pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobbs P, Oelofse SH, Rascher J (2008) Management of environmental impacts from coal mining in the upper olifants river catchment as a function of age and scale. Int J Water Resour Dev 24(3):417–431.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620802127366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes D, Hannart P, Watkins D (2003) Continuous baseflow separation from time series of daily and monthly streamflow data. Water SA 29(1):43–48Google Scholar
  34. Jackson VA, Paulsen AN, Odendaal JP, Khan W (2013) Identification of point sources of metal pollution in the Berg River, Western Cape South Africa. J Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaandorp VP, Molina-Navarro E, Andersen HE, Bloomfield JP, Kuijper MJ, De Louw PG (2018) A conceptual model for the analysis of multi-stressors in linked groundwater–surface water systems. Sci Total Environ 627:880–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kakuchi CP, Ferre TP, Welker JM (2012) Spatially telescoping measurements for improved characterization of groundwater-surface water interactions. J Hydrol 446–447:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalbus E, Reinstorf F, Schirmer M (2006) Measuring methods for groundwater-surface water interactions: a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:873–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kotzee I (2010) The ecohydrology of the Franschhoek Trust Wetland: water, soils and vegetation, M.Sc. Thesis. University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  39. Ladouche B, Probst A, Viville D, Idir S, Baque D, Loubet M et al (2001) Hydrograph separation using isotopic, chemical and hydrological approaches (Stengbach catchment, France). J Hydrol 242:255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lasher C (2011) Application of Fluid Electrical Conductivity Logging for fractured rock aquifer characterization at the University of the Western Cape’s Franschhoek and Rawsonville Research Sites, M.Sc. Thesis. University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  41. Levy J, Xu Y (2011) Review: Groundwater management and groundwater/surface water interaction in the context of South African water policy. Hydrogeol J 20:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lyne V and Hollick M (1979) Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling. In: Institute of engineers national conference, Australia. pp 89–93Google Scholar
  43. Madlala TE (2016) Determination of groundwater-surface water interaction, upper Berg River catchment, South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis. University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  44. Mau DP, Winter TC (1997) Estimating groundwater recharge from streamflow hydrographs for a small mountain watershed in a temperate humid climate, New Hampshire, USA. Ground Water 35(2):291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer PS (2001) An explanation of the 1:500 000 hydrogeological map of Cape Town 3317. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  46. Mutoti M (2016) Estimating groundwater recharge using chloride mass balance in the upper Berg River catchment, South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis. University of the Western CapeGoogle Scholar
  47. Nathan RJ, Mcmahon TA (1990) Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow separation and recession analyses. Water Resour Res 26(7):1465–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nel J, Colvin C, La Maitre D, Smith J, Haines I (2013) South Africa’s strategic water sources areas. WWF South Africa, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  49. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2016) New Jersey department of environmental protection site remediation and waste management program characterization of contaminated ground water discharge to surface water technical guidance. http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/gw_discharge_to_sw_tech_guidance.pdf
  50. Oberholster PJ, Genthe B, Hobbs P, Cheng PH, De Klerk AR, Botha AM (2013) An ecotoxicological screening tool to priorities acid mine drainage impacted streams for future restoration. Environ Pollut 176:244–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oberholster PJ, Oberholster PF, Trutter C, Botha A (2015) Assessing river self-purification capacity downstream of WWTP’s in a lowland river sub catchment using a phosphorus sensitivity index. In: Justin AD (ed) Advances in environmental research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 159–182Google Scholar
  52. Opitz J, Timms W (2016) Mine water discharge quality – a review of classification frameworks. In: Drebenstedt C, Paul M (eds) Proceedings of the international mine water association, IMWA 2016. Freiberg/Germany: MWA 2016 – Mining meets water – Conflicts and solutions, pp 17–26. https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2016/IMWA2016_Opitz_58.pdf
  53. Panno SV, Hackley KC, Greenberg S (2002) Source identification of sodium and chloride in natural waters: Preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual research conference of the Illinois groundwater consortium. Research on agrichemicals in Illinois, groundwater status and future directions XII, Carbondale, Illinois. http://www.water-research.net/Waterlibrary/privatewell/nacl.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2016
  54. Parsons R (2003) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Program, Final Report, Volume 6. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  55. Parsons R (2004) Surface water- groundwater interaction in a South African context. Water Research Commission, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  56. Petelet-Giraud E, Negrel P, Gourcy L, Schmidt C, Schirmer M (2007) Geochemical and isotopic constraints on groundwater-surface water interactions in a highly anthropized site, The Wolfen/Bitterfeld megasite (Mulde sub-catchment, Germany). Environ Pollut J 148:707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ractliffe G (2007) Berg River baseline monitoring program, final report, Volume 1: Introduction to the Berg River Catchment, groundwater and hydrology. Department of Water Affairs, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  58. Smakhtin VU (2001) Estimating continuous monthly baseflow time series and their possible applications in the context of ecological reserve. Water SA 27(2):213–217Google Scholar
  59. Smakhtin VY, Watkins DA (1997) Low flow estimation in South Africa. Water Research Commission Report No. 494/1/97Google Scholar
  60. Tallaksen LM (1995) A review of baseflow recession analysis. J Hydrol 165(94):349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toth J (1963) A theory of groundwater motion in small drainage basins in Central Alberta, Canada. J Geophys Res 67(11):4375–4388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Triplett LD, Burford P, Sielaff B, Clark RC (2006) Sampling procedures for groundwater monitoring wells. minnesota pollution control agency, State of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  63. UMVOTO (2002) Water Source Development and Management Plan for the Greater Hermanus Area, Overstrand Municipality – Interim Report on Drilling and Pump testing of Exploration BoreholesGoogle Scholar
  64. Unland NP, Cartwright I, Daly E, Gilfedder BS, Atkinson AP (2015) Dynamic river – groundwater exchange in the presence of a saline, semi-confined aquifer. Hydrol Process 4829(June):4817–4829.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Villiers De (2007) The deteriorating nutrient status of the Berg River, South Africa. Water SA 33(5):659–664Google Scholar
  66. Water Research Commission (WRC) (2003) Ecological and environmental impacts of large volume groundwater abstraction in the Table Mountain Group (TMG) aquifer system: Discussion Document for Scoping Phase. WRC Project K5/1327. Published by CSIR-Environmentek, Southern Waters and Umvoto Africa. CSIR Report Number: ENV-S-C 2003-076, StellenboschGoogle Scholar
  67. Weight WD (2008) Hydrogeology field manual, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Welderufael WA, Woyessa YE (2010) Stream flow analysis and comparison of base flow separation methods: case study of the Modder River Basin in central South Africa. Eur Water 31:3–12Google Scholar
  69. Whitehead PG, Lack T (1982) Dispersion and self-purification of pollutants in surface water systems: a contribution to the International hydrological programme : a report by IHP working group 6.1. Bernan Assoc. (Technical papers in hydrological). https://books.google.co.za/books?id=rHwiAQAAIAAJ
  70. Winter TC, Harvey JW, Franke OL, Alley WM (1998) Ground water and surface water: a single resources. U.S. Geological survey circular 1139. USGS, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  71. Xu Y, Titus R, Holness SD, Zhang J, Van Tonder GJ, Xu Y (2002) A hydrogeomorphological approach to quantification of groundwater discharge to streams in South Africa. Water SA 28(4):375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang L, Song X, Zhang Y, Han D, Zhang B, Long D (2012) Characterizing interactions between surface water and groundwater in the Jailu River basin using major ion chemistry and stable isotopes. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4265–4277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang Z, Zhou Y, Wenninger J, Ulenbrook S (2014) A multi-method approach to quantify groundwater-surface water interactions in the semi-arid Hailiutu River Base in, northwest China. Hydrogeol J 22:527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Younger PL (2007) Groundwater in the environment: an introduction, 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing, NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhou Y, Wenninger J, Yang Z, Yin L, Haung J, Hou L et al (2013) Groundwater-surface water interactions, vegetation dependencies and implications for water resources management in the semi-arid Hailiutu River, China- a synthesis. Hydrology Earth Systems Sciences 17:2435–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Madlala
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Kanyerere
    • 2
  • P. Oberholster
    • 1
    • 2
  • Y. Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIR Natural Resources and the EnvironmentStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of the Western CapeBellvilleSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations