U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Evaluation of Ground-Water/Surface-Water

Relations, Chapman Creek, West-Central Ohio,

by Means of Multiple Methods

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01 4202

In cooperation with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Evaluation of Ground-Water/Surface-Water 

Relations, Chapman Creek, West-Central Ohio, 

by Means of Multiple Methods

By Denise H. Dumouchelle

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4202

In cooperation with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior 

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for 

descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

6480 Doubletree Avenue

Columbus, OH 43229-1111

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225-0286

Or call: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Columbus, Ohio 

2001 
Contents III

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Description of the study area ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Streambed-piezometer method .................................................................................................................................... 3

Seepage-meter method................................................................................................................................................. 3

Temperature-monitor method ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Gain-loss study............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Ground-water/surface-water relations ................................................................................................................................... 5

Results from the individual methods ........................................................................................................................... 5

Interpretation of the results .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Summary and conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 13

References cited .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Maps showing location of study area......................................................................................................................... 2

2. Photographs showing temperature-monitoring equipment in Chapman Creek......................................................... 4

3. Plots of stream-water and streambed-temperature data, Chapman Creek ................................................................. 7

4. Photographs showing scour holes in Chapman Creek............................................................................................... 9

5. Photograph showing till and gravel layer along bank of Chapman Creek, near TS5................................................ 10

6. Geologic section A–A’............................................................................................................................................... 10

7. Schematic of flow in Chapman Creek ....................................................................................................................... 12

TABLES

1. Piezometer data for Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio........................................................................................... 5

2. Seepage-meter data for Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio ..................................................................................... 5

3. Conditions and average temperatures of temperature monitors in Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio................... 6

4. Streamflow data for gain-loss study on Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, October 25, 2000 .............................. 8

5. Relation between clay layers recorded in residential wells and those noted in Chapman Creek, 

west-central Ohio ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
IV Contents

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Temperature is given in degrees Celsius (oC), which can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit by use of the 

following equation: oF = 1.8 (oC) + 32

Sea Level: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929) - a 

geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and 

Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.)

Length

25.4 millimeter

 foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609

Area

kilometer

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

acre 0.4047

Volume

square hectometer

gallon (gal) 3.785

Flow Rate

liter

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second
Abstract 1

Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, 

Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple 

methods

By Denise H. Dumouchelle

Abstract

Chapman Creek, a tributary to the Mad River, passes 

within about 500 feet of a landfill near Tremont City, 

in Clark County, west-central Ohio. In autumn 2000, 

the ground-water/surface-water relation was investigated by use of piezometers, seepage meters, temperature monitors, and a gain-loss study. Four piezometers 

were installed in the streambed along about a 1-mile 

reach, inclusive of the landfill. Four seepage-meter 

tests were done at locations near two of the piezometers. Four temperature-monitoring stations were established along a reach of about 700 feet near the landfill. 

A fifth temperature station was located near a piezometer about 3,000 feet downstream from the landfill. A 

streamflow gain-loss study was done over a 3-mile 

reach that included the reaches studied with the other 

methods. The data from the piezometers, seepage 

meters, and temperature monitors indicated an apparent change from losing to gaining and back again several times over fairly short distances. The gain-loss 

data indicated that the creek was consistently a gaining 

stream over the 3-mile reach. Investigation of streambed conditions and local geology revealed that the 

streambed consists of sand and gravel overlying a finegrained till layer. The stream water readily moves in 

and out of the coarse streambed such that the piezometers, seepage meters, and temperature monitors measured the local flow in the streambed; therefore, these 

data did not reflect the true relation between the creek 

and ground water. On the other hand, the gain-loss 

study, less affected by the movement of water in the 

streambed, showed that Chapman Creek probably is a 

gaining stream throughout the 3-mile reach.

Introduction 

Chapman Creek, a tributary to the Mad River, drains a rural 

area of about 24 mi2

 in west-central Ohio (fig. 1). About 

1.8 mi upstream from the Mad River is the Tremont City 

landfill, a 58-acre site. The southern boundary of the landfill 

is within about 500 ft of Chapman Creek. Local residents 

have expressed concern regarding the potential effects of 

ground-water flow from the landfill on the quality of water 

in the creek (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). 

Initial investigations based on stream levels and water-level 

data from landfill monitoring wells indicated that Chapman 

Creek changed from a losing to a gaining stream at about 

the midpoint of the reach adjacent to the landfill (Eagon and 

Associates, 1992). To obtain a better understanding of the 

ground-water/surface-water relations of Chapman Creek, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, did a study in 

autumn 2000. 

Purpose and scope 

The purpose of this report is to present data on and describe 

the ground-water/surface-water relations along a reach of 

Chapman Creek. Findings are based on a multipart study in 

autumn 2000 during which four piezometers, two seepage 

meters, and five stream/streambed-temperature monitors 

were installed in the creek and a streamflow gain-loss study 

was done. 

Introduction
2 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

40

40 01 12

40 02 24

83 54 83 52 48 83 51 36 83 50 24 83 49 12

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 digital data

Coffin

Tremont City

Snyder-Domer Road

Thackery Rd.

Station Rd.

Terre Haute Rd.

Knollwood Rd.

Willow 

Dale 

Rd.

Snyder- Domer Rd.

Hominy Ridge Rd.

Chapman

Creek

Mad River

CL-308

CL-343

CL-338

CL-339

CL-350

CL-318

CL-332

CL-312 P3

P1

TS1

TS1

Temperature-station

 location and number

CL-312

Residential-well 

 location and number

A91-5D

A91-4D

A89-2

A89-1

M-3

91-Sinclair

A

A'

Chapman

Creek

private drive

Snyder-Domer Rd.

P2

TS2

TS3

P4 TS4

0 500 1000 FEET

0 125 250 METERS

Approximate line of geologic section (fig.6)

OHIO

Study Area

Approximate boundary 

 of landfill

P1

Piezometer location

 and number

A89-2 Landfill monitoring-

 well location and

 number (only wells

 used in geologic

 section are identified)

EXPLANATION

TS5

Figure 1. Location of study area in west-central Ohio.
Methods 3

Description of the study area

The study area is in Clark County, Ohio, about 1 mi west of 

Tremont City (fig. 1). The topography is characterized by 

nearly level till plains with minor relief due to erosion and 

glacial features. Buried bedrock valleys, filled with glacial 

sediments, are present in the area. The bedrock underlying 

the glacial sediments consists of limestone and dolomite of 

Silurian age. The glacial sediments consist of fine-grained 

tills and minor sand-and-gravel deposits. The glacial deposits and the carbonates are used for water supplies in the area 

(Norris and others, 1952). The reach of Chapman Creek 

from Coffin Station Road to Hominy Ridge Road was investigated, with emphasis on the reach near the landfill (fig. 1). 

In the study area, Chapman Creek generally is less than 2 ft 

deep and has a coarse streambed ranging from fine sand to 

large cobbles and boulders. In many places the creek is 

incised about 10 to 15 ft below the adjacent land.

Methods

The interaction of surface and ground water can be investigated by means of various methods. Four methods were 

used in this study: streambed piezometer, seepage meter, 

instream temperature monitor, and streamflow measurement 

(gain-loss study). Each method provides different data on 

the hydraulic relation between the stream and the ground 

water. Piezometers measure the vertical gradient through 

the streambed. Seepage meters can indicate vertical flow 

directions. Temperature monitors can indicate areas of 

inflow or outflow from the stream. Streamflow gain-loss 

studies can measure gains from or losses to the groundwater system.

Streambed-piezometer method

The vertical hydraulic gradient between the stream and 

ground water, an indication of flow directions, can be determined by comparing the water level in a streambed piezometer with the water level of the stream. Four piezometers 

were installed in the streambed of Chapman Creek (fig. 1). 

Each piezometer consisted of a 1.25-in.-diameter pipe with 

either a 12 in.- or 18-in.-long wire-wrapped stainless steel 

screen with a drive point at the bottom. Although the 

screens were relatively long (12–18 in.) the tops of these 

screens were set 2.5 to 3 ft below the streambed, a depth that 

should be adequate to provide data on vertical gradients. 

The piezometers were installed by pounding the pipe 

into the streambed. Three piezometers (P1–P3) were 

installed in early September 2000, and the fourth (P4) was 

installed about a month later. P1 was set just upstream from 

the Willow Dale Road bridge, P2 and P4 were across from 

the landfill, and P3 was just upstream from the Hominy 

Ridge Road bridge (fig. 1). The top of the screens of P1 and 

P3 were set about 3 ft below the streambed; P2 and P4 were 

about 2.5 ft below the streambed. P1, P2, and P3 were 

roughly in the center of the stream, whereas P4 was adjacent 

to the bank. Water levels were measured with an electric or 

chalked-steel tape and are considered accurate to + 0.02 ft. 

The piezometers were measured about once a week until 

early November.

Seepage-meter method

Seepage meters (Lee, 1977) can be used to determine streambed permeability and flow directions. A seepage meter 

measures flux between ground water and surface water by 

isolating an area of streambed and measuring the change in 

water volume over time. Each meter was constructed from 

the end section of a 55-gal drum. A rubber stopper was fitted into the bunghole of the drum, and the stopper was connected with flexible tubing to a sealed plastic bag. A 

temporary piezometer was installed next to the seepage 

meter to measure the difference in head between the stream 

and the water table. Trapped air was allowed to escape as 

the open end of the drum was driven into the streambed. 

Streambed conditions are an important consideration 

in the installation. Sand, silt, and/or soft clay with little or 

no gravel provide the best seal and are the easiest materials 

to drive the meter into, whereas gravel and cobbles provide 

a poor seal by interfering with the penetration of the meter. 

After installation, a collection bag with a known volume of 

water was connected to the meter. Later, the amount of 

water in the bag was measured. A decrease in volume indicated that the stream was losing water; an increase indicated 

that ground water was flowing to the stream. On October 

12, four seepage-meter tests were done at two locations. The 

first location was about 10 ft downstream from P2 and the 

second, about 50 ft upstream from P3 (fig. 1).

Temperature-monitor method

Continuous, simultaneous temperature measurements of 

stream water and water in the streambed can indicate the 

gain of ground water or the loss of surface water. A contrast 

between the stability of ground-water temperature and daily 

variability of stream-water temperatures can result in an 

indication of ground-water inflow to a stream. In a strongly 

gaining stream, the temperature of water in the streambed 

will be controlled largely by advection from the ground 

water and would be expected to be relatively constant for 

days. In a strongly losing stream, the temperature of water 

in the streambed will mimic the stream-water temperature, 

and the average temperature will be close to the average 

stream-water temperature. If there is no flow between the 

stream and ground water, the temperature of the water in the 

streambed will vary during the day like the stream water, but 

the average temperature will be between the stream-water 
4 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

temperature and that expected from subsurface geothermal 

gradient (Silliman and Booth, 1993). 

Five temperature stations (TS1–TS5) were established in Chapman Creek between piezometer stations P2 

and P3 (fig. 1). All were installed on October 20, 2000; four 

were removed in early November, and the fifth in early 

December. Each station consisted of a steel fencepost driven 

into the streambed and two temperature data loggers, each 

encased in a waterproof container. The data loggers used are 

rated from -20o

 to 70o C with a resolution of + 0.4oC and 

are accurate to + 0.7oC. At each station, one logger was 

secured to the fencepost so that the case was resting on or 

just above the streambed (fig. 2). The second logger was 

buried 6 to 8 in. into the streambed, secured to the fencepost 

by a length of cable. Streambed sediments ranged from sand 

to gravel and cobbles. Temperature was recorded hourly. 

Gain-loss study 

On October 25, 2000, a streamflow gain-loss study was 

done on Chapman Creek from Coffin Station Road to Hominy Ridge Road, a reach of about 3 mi (fig. 1). The study 

was done during a period of low flow—155 ft3

/s on the 

nearby Mad River, which is about 73 percent of the flowduration curve for the Mad River (Straub, 2001)—to minimize surface flows from runoff or precipitation. The study 

consisted of four streamflow measurements along Chapman 

Creek and six measurements on tributaries; all other tributaries were dry. Prior to the study, a reference point for measuring stream stage was established and the measurement 

sites were chosen to ensure that the channel was stable. 

Streamflow measurements were made according to the 

methods outlined by Rantz and others (1982), either the 

conventional current-meter (wading) method or the volumetric method. The gain or loss of water over the reach was 

determined by subtracting the difference between two mainstem measurements and then subtracting the tributary 

Figure 2. Temperature-monitoring equipment in Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio. Note the piezometer in the 

background (upstream) of A and the coarse streambed in B.
Ground-water/surface-water relations 5

inputs. If the result was negative, the reach was losing; if 

positive, the reach was gaining. 

Ground-water/surface-water relations

Results from the individual methods

Streambed piezometers. Data from the piezometers are 

listed in table 1. Although the differences in water levels 

measured in the piezometers and the creek were quite small, 

P2 and P3 consistently showed lower water levels than the 

stream, indicating streamflow loss. Measurements at P1 also 

indicate streamflow loss; however, given the accuracy of the 

measurements, the differences in some of water levels are 

small enough (0.03 ft) to cast doubt on whether the stream is 

really losing water. In three out of four measurements at P4, 

water levels in the piezometer were higher than the stream, 

indicating ground-water flow into the stream; the fourth 

measurement indicated a loss of streamflow.

The data from P1–P3 consistently indicated streamflow loss; however, the data from P4 indicates that gradients 

between the stream and ground water might be changing for 

at least a short reach in the vicinity of the landfill. A change 

from a losing to a gaining stream in this area is consistent 

with the earlier study (Eagon and Associates, 1992).

Seepage meters. Results of the seepage-meter tests 

are listed in table 2. The streambed at the P2 site consists of 

Table 1. Piezometer data for Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio

[P1, piezometer; ft, feet; bmp, below measuring point; ---, no data; negative differences in water levels indicates flow into the aquifer, postitive 

differences indicates flow into the stream]

P1 P2 P3 P4

Date

2000

Piezometer 

water 

level

(ft, bmp)

Stream 

level

(ft, 

bmp)

Waterlevel 

difference

Piezometer 

water 

level

(ft, bmp)

Stream 

level 

(ft, 

bmp)

Waterlevel 

difference

Piezometer 

water 

level

(ft, bmp)

Stream 

level 

(ft, 

bmp)

Waterlevel 

difference

Piezometer 

water 

level

(ft, bmp)

Stream 

level 

(ft, 

bmp)

Waterlevel 

difference

09-08 2.32 2.24 -0.08 --- ---- --- 2.35 2.27 -0.08 --- --- ---

09-13 --- --- --- 3.13 3.11 -0.02 2.33 2.23 -.1 --- --- ---

09-27 2.27 2.20 -.07 3.14 3.09 -.05 2.32 2.24 -.08 --- --- ---

10-4 2.28 2.23 -.05 3.15 3.11 -.04 2.34 2.24 -.1 --- --- ---

10-12 2.31 2.28 -.03 3.10 3.03 -.07 2.27 2.19 -.08 1.93 2.05 0.12

10-20 2.30 2.27 -.03 3.08 3.02 -.06 2.27 2.17 -.1 1.96 2.08 .12

10-25 2.31 2.28 -.03 3.08 3.00 -.08 2.29 2.22 -.07 1.96 1.90 -.06

11-2 2.31 2.26 -.05 3.05 3.02 -.03 2.31 2.22 -.09 1.92 2.08 .16

Table 2. Seepage-meter data for Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio

 [P2, piezometer; mL, milliliters; min, minutes]

Test

location

Initial 

volume 

(mL)

Ending 

volume 

(mL)

Change in 

volume

 (mL)

Time

(min)

Difference in 

temporary 

piezometer-stream 

levels (feet)

Near P2 200 121 -79 98 -0.04

Near P2 200 124 -76 102 -.04

Near P3 200 334 134 110 -.11

Near P3 200 406 206 90 -.02
6 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

fine sand with numerous cobbles. The cobbles made installation of the meter difficult and may have prevented a good 

seal. Because of difficulties installing the seepage meter, the 

two tests were done without removing and resetting the 

meter. A temporary piezometer was installed near the meter, 

the top of the piezometer screen being set to a depth of 

about 1 ft into the streambed. Both tests ran longer than 1.5 

hours, and in both tests the seepage meter lost water (table 

2), indicating a losing stream. Water levels in the temporary 

piezometer and P2 also indicated a losing stream (tables 1 

and 2).

The streambed at the site upstream from P3 consists 

of fine to coarse sand. A temporary piezometer was 

installed near the meter to a depth of about 1 ft into the streambed. Two tests were done; between tests the meter and 

temporary piezometer were removed and reset at an adjacent location about 10 ft apart. In both tests, the seepage 

meter gained water, indicating a gaining stream, but the 

temporary piezometer and P3 (downstream) indicated a losing stream. Although the stream could alter from gaining to 

losing in the distance from the test sites to P3 (about 50 ft), 

the temporary piezometer was set within 5 ft of the meter, 

and a change in stream conditions between that piezometer 

and the meter is improbable, particularly given that both 

were moved between tests. On the basis of the sandy streambed and consistent gain in volume in both tests, it 

appears unlikely that the seepage meter was improperly set; 

however, the time after installation may have been too short 

for the water level in the temporary piezometer to stabilize. 

Stream-water and streambed-temperature monitors. Channel conditions at the temperature stations and the 

average temperatures recorded are listed in table 3. The 

coarse streambed at stations TS3 and TS4 necessitated the 

addition of sand to help bury the streambed temperature 

monitor. At all stations, the streambed temperature mimicked the stream-water temperature. The changes in streambed temperatures were offset slightly from the streamwater temperatures, although the offset is barely noticeable 

at station 1, where the period of data collection was the 

longest (fig. 3). No substantial difference is apparent 

between the average streambed and stream-water temperatures or between stations; lower averages at station 1 are 

caused by the additional month of data. The similarity of the 

streambed and stream-water temperatures may indicate a 

strongly losing stream (Silliman and Booth, 1993).

Streamflow. Results of streamflow measurements at 

four locations on Chapman Creek from Coffin Station Road 

to Hominy Ridge Road and on six tributaries are listed in 

table 4. No flow was observed at 15 additional tributaries or 

culverts. After subtracting tributary inputs, the difference in 

flow between the main-stem measurements is positive, indicating that the stream is gaining ground water.

Interpretation of the results

The four methods used in this study measure conditions at 

different scales; the piezometers, seepage meters and temperature monitors measure conditions immediately around 

the equipment, at a scale of feet, whereas a gain-loss study 

measures regional conditions at a scale of miles. The data 

from the first three methods indicate that Chapman Creek 

may alternate between losing and gaining; however, there 

also are conflicting results from within and among these 

three methods. Water-level measurements in three of the

Table 3. Conditions and average temperatures of temperature monitors in Chapman Creek, westcentral Ohio

[in., inches; oC, degrees Celsius]

1 Depth is approximate, based on conditions of October 20, 2000.

2 Average temperature listed is the average for the entire period of record.

Station

Dates of 

collection

(2000)

Tree cover Streambed

composition

Stream

depth1 (in.)

Average temperature2 (oC)

Streambed Stream water

1 Oct. 20–Dec. 5 Mostly shaded Sand 6 8.0 7.9

2 Oct. 20–Nov. 2 Unshaded Fine sand, cobbles 24 12.9 12.5

3 Oct. 20–Nov. 2 Unshaded Cobbles, some gravel 6 13.2 13.1

4 Oct. 20–Nov. 2 Partially shaded Cobbles, gravel 9 12.9 12.8

5 Oct. 20–Nov. 2 Shaded Sand 9 13.1 12.9
Ground-water/surface-water relations 7

10/20 10/25 10/30 11/4 11/9 11/14 11/19 11/24 11/29 12/4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

BED

STREAM

TS 1

12/9

10/20 10/22 10/24 10/26 10/28 10/30 11/1

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

6

TS 2

11/3

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

10/20 10/22 10/24 10/26 10/28 10/30 11/1 11/3

10/20 10/22 10/24 10/26 10/28 10/30 11/1

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

TS 4

11/3

TS 5

10/20 10/22 10/24 10/26 10/28 10/30 11/1

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

DATE (2000)

TS 3

11/3

DATE (2000)

Figure 3. Plots of stream-water and streambed-temperature data, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio. (Location of

temperature stations (TS) shown in fig. 1.)
8 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

four piezometers indicated a losing stream, but the fourth 

(P4) showed a gaining stream near the landfill. The seepage 

meters indicate both losing and gaining reaches. Temperature data indicate a losing stream over the reach, which 

included piezometer P4 where water-level data indicated a 

gaining stream. Finally, the streamflow gain-loss study—the 

fourth method—indicated a steady gain of ground water for 

the entire reach.

Taking the data from the three local-scale methods 

together, one might judge that the creek generally is gaining 

but that it changes to losing around P1, P2, and P3 and then 

changes to gaining and back to losing between TS3 and TS4 

(fig. 1) and from losing to gaining to losing between T4 and 

P3. Although a creek may alternate from losing to gaining, 

the frequency and short distances between reversals implied 

by the data from Chapman Creek seem excessive. Further 

examination of the streambed characteristics reveals a possible explanation for the conflicting data. 

Various lines of evidence indicate that beneath 2–4 ft 

of coarse streambed materials is a layer of fine-grained till. 

While trying to install a piezometer just downstream from 

Willow Dale Road (downstream from P1, fig. 1), USGS personnel hit a very hard layer about 2 ft below the streambed. 

Installing the piezometer into this layer was nearly impossible. After 2 hours of pounding, the piezometer was about 

1.5 ft into the hard layer and it could not be removed—the 

piezometer broke off at the screen. A similar hard layer was 

found between 3.5 and 4 ft at P3, and the piezometer was 

pulled back when the layer was encountered. In addition, 

when walking along the streambed, USGS personnel noted 

many scour holes, and the floor of these holes consisted of a 

hard, gray, fine-grained sediment (fig. 4). Near TS5 was a 

cutbank that was relatively clear of vegetation. The bank 

consisted of fine-grained layer with an interbedded cobble 

layer (fig. 5). The darker sediment color beneath the cobbles 

was caused by moisture; leaf litter had been removed to 

expose the bank. The fine-grained sediment continued to the 

bottom of the bank and appeared to be continuous under the 

stream to a scour hole just beneath opposite bank. A geologic section between the landfill and the creek shows that 

fine-grained sediments generally are present at the approximate elevation of the streambed or only 5 to 10 ft beneath 

sand and gravel (fig. 6). Finally, drillers have identified clay 

on residential well logs in the area at or near the elevation of 

the streambed (fig. 1; table 5)

Table 4. Streamflow data for gain-loss study on Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, October 25, 2000

[trib., tributary; W, wading (current meter) streamflow measurement; V, volumetric streamflow measurement; F, fair (+/-8 percent); G, good (+/-5 percent); 

E, excellent, (+/-2 percent); ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; ----, not applicable]

Site name Method Quality 

rating

Streamflow

(ft3/s)

Change in 

main-stem flow 

(ft3/s)

Chapman Creek at Coffin Station Road W F 0.89 ---- 

Unnamed trib. at northwest intersection of 

 Terre Haute, Thackery, and Snyder-Domer Roads

V G .008 ---- 

Unnamed trib., right bank, between Coffin Station 

 and Terre Haute Roads

V F .007 ---- 

Chapman Creek at Snyder-Domer Road W F 1.55 0.65

Unnamed trib., left bank, upstream from Knollwood

 Road

V G .012 ---- 

Unnamed trib., right bank, downstream from 

 Knollwood Road

V E .004 ---- 

Unnamed trib., left bank, upstream from Willow Dale

 Road

V E .005 ---- 

Chapman Creek at Willow Dale Road W F 2.05 .48

Unnamed trib., left bank, upstream from Hominy

 Ridge Road

V F .007 ---- 

Chapman Creek at Hominy Ridge Road W G-F 2.46 .40
Ground-water/surface-water relations 9

Near Willow Dale Road Bridge, hole is 

about 5 feet in length.

Near TS5.

Scour hole downstream from P4 (upstream from TS4), about 

5.5 feet wide.

Figure 4.

Scour holes in Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio. (White lines indicate approximate edges of 
10 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

1,000

980

960

940

1,000

980

960

940

Vertical scale greatly exaggerated

Datum is sea level

0 250 500 FEET

0 50 100 METERS

A91-4D

A89-2

A89-1

M-3

91-Sinclair

A91-5D

A A'

Till, clay, silt, some sand and gravel 

Sand

Gravel

Approximate altitude of top of streambed

EXPLANATION

FEET FEET

Figure 5. Till and gravel layer (near TS5) along bank of 

Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio. The large boulder on 

the right of the photo is approximately 2 feet across.

Figure 6. Geologic section A–A’, west-central Ohio. (Line of section shown in fig. 1).
Ground-water/surface-water relations 11

Thus, it appears that the streambed consists of as 

much as 3 to 5 ft of coarse sediments resting on fine-grained 

sediments. Locally, water flow in these coarse sediments 

probably is dominated by stream hydraulics, with stream 

water moving in and out of the coarse sediments depending 

on permeability and location in streamflow (fig. 7). This 

interchange between a gravel bed and stream has been discussed in other studies (Vaux, 1968; White, 1993). The piezometers, seepage meters, and temperature monitors were 

all within a coarse streambed layer and measured only the 

local conditions near the equipment. 

In Chapman Creek, the piezometer, seepage-meter, 

and temperature data do not necessarily reflect the true relation between the creek and the ground water. By contrast, 

the gain-loss study reflects regional conditions, unaffected 

by flow between the stream and gravel bed. When all data 

are considered together, with observations of streambed 

conditions and geology, Chapman Creek appears to be a 

gaining stream throughout the reaches studied. 

The value of using multiple methods to assess relations between a stream and ground-water inputs is apparent 

from the results of this study. Piezometers and seepage 

meters are relatively easy to install and use, which makes 

them ideal for small projects. Temperature monitors also are 

easy to install and use, and they have the added advantage of 

providing continuous data. Use of all three types of methods, however, may provide misleading data (as shown at 

Chapman Creek). In this case, the larger scale of a gain-loss 

study provided more regional data unaffected by localized 

variations in stream conditions. Gain-loss studies may not 

be applicable to all situations; these studies may not provide 

useful data if the differences in streamflow measurements 

are smaller than the measurement errors, a common situation on streams with high flows. The investigation of Chapman Creek has shown that the best approach to understanding ground-water/surface-water relations is to use various methods combined with consideration to the streambed 

conditions and the local geology.

Table 5. Relation between clay layers recorded in residential wells and those 

noted in Chapman Creek, west-cental Ohio.

[Well locations shown on fig. 1; altitudes are in feet above sea level]

a

 At an altitude of 960 feet, well log shows gravel.

b

 At an altitude of 951 feet, well log shows sand and gravel.

Well 

number

Approximate altitude 

of clay

Approximate altitude of 

streambed

CL-308 1,043 - 1,023 1,037

CL-343 1,040 - 1,022 1,037

CL-338 1,030 - 1,005 1,018

CL-318 1,036 - 958 995

CL-339 1,056 - 983 995

CL-350 999 - 964 993

CL-332 997 - 991a 960

CL-312 959 - 951b 953
12 Evaluation of ground-water/surface-water relations, Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio, by means of multiple methods

Figure 7. Schematic of flow in Chapman Creek, west-central Ohio. (Arrows indicate direction 

of flow: Diagrams not to scale.)
Summary and conclusions 13

Summary and conclusions

Chapman Creek, a tributary to the Mad River, passes within 

about 500 ft of the Tremont City landfill in west-central 

Ohio. Earlier investigations indicated that the creek changed 

from losing to a gaining stream at about the midpoint of the 

reach adjacent to the landfill. The USGS did a study, in 

cooperation with the USEPA, in October 2000 using piezometers, seepage meters, temperature monitors, and a 

streamflow gain-loss study to further investigate the relation 

of the creek and the ground water. 

At the time of the initial site visit, the sand-andgravel streambed of the creek seemed ideal for the use of 

piezometers, seepage meters, and temperature monitors. 

Data from four piezometers, four seepage-meter tests, and 

five temperature monitors were collected. The data from 

these three methods appeared to indicate that the creek 

changed from losing to gaining and back again several times 

and over fairly short distances (tens of feet). The gain-loss 

data, however, indicated that the creek was consistently a 

gaining stream over a 3-mi reach.

Further investigation of the streambed and local geology revealed the that the sand-and-gravel streambed overlies a fine-grained till layer. Stream water readily moves in 

and out of the coarse streambed; thus, the piezometers, 

seepage meters, and temperature monitors were measuring 

the local flow in the coarse streambed. The data from these 

methods do not reflect the true relation between the creek 

and ground water. On the other hand, the gain-loss study 

measures more regional conditions over a distance of miles 

and is less affected by flow in the streambed. Final analysis 

of all the data shows that Chapman Creek probably is a 

gaining stream throughout the 3-mi reach studied.

References Cited

Eagon & Associates, Inc., 1992, Ground-water assessment 

Tremont Landfill Tremont City, Ohio: Prepared for the 

Tremont Landfill Company, 36 p.

Lee, D.R., 1977, A device for measuring seepage flux in 

lakes and estuaries: Limnology and Oceanography, 

v. 22, p. 140–147.

Norris, S.E., Cross, W.P., Goldthwait, R.P., and Sanderson, 

E.E., 1952, The water resources of Clark County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resouces, Division 

of Water Bulletin 22, 82 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow—Volume 1, measurement of stage 

and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, p. 79–183.

Silliman, S.E., and Booth, D.F., 1993, Analysis of timeseries measurements of sediment temperature for identification of gaining vs. losing portions of Juday Creek, 

Indiana: Journal of Hydrology, v. 146, p. 131–148.

Straub, D.E., 2001, Low-flow characterstics of Ohio 

Streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 01–4140, 421 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October, 2000, 

Community involvement plan, Tremont City Landfill, 

Tremont City, Ohio.

Vaux, W.G., 1968, Intragravel flow and interchange of water 

in a streambed: Fishery Bulletin, v. 66, no. 3, p. 479–

489.

White, D.S., 1993, Perspectives on defining and delineating 

hyporheic zones: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 12, no. 1, p. 61–69.