<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-22-6383-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Hydrogeochemical controls on brook trout spawning<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> habitats in a coastal stream</article-title><alt-title>Hydrogeochemical controls on brook trout spawning</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Hydrogeochemical controls on brook trout spawning}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M.~A. Briggs et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Briggs</surname><given-names>Martin A.</given-names></name>
          <email>mbriggs@usgs.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3206-4132</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Harvey</surname><given-names>Judson W.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Hurley</surname><given-names>Stephen T.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Rosenberry</surname><given-names>Donald O.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0681-5641</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>McCobb</surname><given-names>Timothy</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Werkema</surname><given-names>Dale</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lane Jr.</surname><given-names>John W.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrogeophysics Branch, 11 Sherman Place, Unit 5015, Storrs, CT 06269, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>U.S. Geological Survey, Water Cycle Branch, M.S. 430, Reston, VA 20192, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, 195 Bournedale Road, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, M.S. 406, Bldg. 25, DFC, Lakewood, CO 80225, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>U.S. Geological Survey, 10 Bearfoot Road, Northborough, MA 01532, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Exposure
Methods &amp; Measurement Division, Environmental Chemistry Branch, Las Vegas, NV 89119 USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Martin A. Briggs (mbriggs@usgs.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>10</day><month>December</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>6383</fpage><lpage>6398</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>November</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>18</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>16</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>24</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e171">Brook trout (<italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic>) spawn in fall and
overwintering egg development can benefit from stable, relatively warm
temperatures in groundwater-seepage zones. However, eggs are also sensitive
to dissolved oxygen concentration, which may be reduced in discharging
groundwater (i.e., seepage). We investigated a 2 km reach of the coastal
Quashnet River in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA, to relate preferred fish
spawning habitats to geology, geomorphology, and discharging groundwater
geochemistry. Thermal reconnaissance methods were used to locate zones of
rapid groundwater discharge, which were predominantly found along the central
channel of a wider stream valley section. Pore-water chemistry and temporal
vertical groundwater flux were measured at a subset of these zones during
field campaigns over several seasons. Seepage zones in open-valley
sub-reaches generally showed suboxic conditions and higher dissolved solutes
compared to the underlying glacial outwash aquifer. These discharge zones
were cross-referenced with preferred brook trout redds and evaluated during
10 years of observation, all of which were associated with discrete alcove
features in steep cutbanks, where stream meander bends intersect the glacial
valley walls. Seepage in these repeat spawning zones was generally stronger
and more variable than in open-valley sites, with higher dissolved oxygen and
reduced solute concentrations. The combined evidence indicates that regional
groundwater discharge along the broader valley bottom is predominantly
suboxic due to the influence of near-stream organic deposits; trout show no
obvious preference for these zones when spawning. However, the meander bends
that cut into sandy deposits near the valley walls generate strong oxic
seepage zones that are utilized routinely for redd construction and the
overwintering of trout eggs. Stable water isotopic data support the
conclusion that repeat spawning zones are located directly on preferential
discharges of more localized groundwater. In similar coastal systems with
extensive valley peat deposits, the specific use of groundwater-discharge points
by brook trout may be limited to morphologies such as cutbanks, where
groundwater flow paths do not encounter substantial buried organic material
and remain oxygen-rich.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e184">The heat tracing of water can be used to map a distribution of
spatially focused, or “preferential”, groundwater-discharge zones
throughout surface water systems at times of contrast between the surface and
groundwater temperature. The measurement of the water temperature from the reach
to watershed scale is now possible using thermal infrared and fiber-optic
distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS) methodology (Dugdale, 2016; Hare et
al., 2015; Steel et al., 2017).<?pagebreak page6384?> Remote infrared data collection throughout
the river corridor has been enabled by handheld cameras, piloted aircraft,
and the rapidly evolving capabilities of unmanned aerial systems. Researchers
are capitalizing on the ongoing refinement of these technologies to identify
zones of focused groundwater seepage to streams in order to map potential discrete
preferential cold-water fish habitats such as summer thermal refugia (Dugdale
et al., 2015). However, surface thermal surveys alone do not indicate
groundwater flow path dynamics or the suitability of an interface aquatic habitat
(Briggs et al., 2018a).</p>
      <p id="d1e187">For example, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration must be sufficiently high
for cold groundwater seepage to provide support for fish life processes at
the direct point of discharge to surface water (Ebersole et al., 2003), which
is not apparent from thermal analysis alone. During warm summer periods in
systems with suboxic groundwater, cold-water fish species such as salmonids
can face a tradeoff between occupying discrete zones of preferred water
temperatures with near-lethal DO levels and stream sections that are too warm
for long-term survival (Matthews and Berg, 1997). The use of groundwater
upwelling zones as thermal refugia is further complicated by competition with
aggressive invasive species (to the northeastern USA) such as brown trout,
which compete with native trout for resources (Hitt et al., 2017). Streams at
higher elevations may support the persistence of reach-scale cold-water
habitats where point-scale thermal refugia are not needed under current
climatic conditions, serving as vital “climate refugia” against rising air
temperatures (Isaak et al., 2015). In systems with reliably cold channel
water in summer, which can also exist at low elevations when heavily
influenced by discharging groundwater, salmonid fish may directly use
groundwater-seepage zones for spawning rather than thermal refuge.</p>
      <p id="d1e190">Brook trout (<italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic>) are a species of char that are
native to eastern North America, from Georgia to Québec (MacCrimmon and
Campbell, 1969). Populations have been stressed by warming temperatures and
reduced water quality, particularly in low-elevation areas (Hudy et
al., 2008). Stream network-scale tracking of fish has indicated that the brook trout
directly utilize stream confluence mixing zones and preferential groundwater
discharge to survive warm summer periods (Baird and Krueger, 2003; Petty et
al., 2012; Snook et al., 2016). Additionally, brook trout spawn in the fall,
and eggs deposited in redds develop over the winter before hatching in spring
(Cunjak and Power, 1986). Oxygen use by the shallow buried embryos increases
over the period of development (Crisp, 1981); therefore, DO concentration
is a critical parameter of the pore water in which the eggs are bathed.
Several studies have demonstrated the importance of hyporheic downwelling in
increasing shallow oxygen concentrations, including for salmonid redds, where
deeper stream-bed pore water is generally reduced in DO (e.g., Buffington and
Tonina 2009; Cardenas et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2013). Fine
sediments can reduce the efficacy of hyporheic DO exchange in spawn zones
(Obruca and Hauer, 2016) and are actively cleared by trout during the
spawning process (Montgomery et al., 1996).</p>
      <p id="d1e196">The importance of hyporheic exchange to salmonid spawning may be limited in
the lowland streams that are expected to harbor native cold-water species in
the 21st century, namely those with strong groundwater influence. Groundwater
upwelling reduces the penetration of the hyporheic flow from surface water
(Cardenas and Wilson, 2006) and may shut down hyporheic flushing in redds
(Cardenas et al., 2016). While hyporheic exchange introduces oxygenated
channel water into the shallow stream bed, the downward advection of heat
associated with near-freezing surface water in winter will also cool
stream-bed sediments (Geist et al., 2002), potentially impairing egg
development. Coaster brook trout, a life-history variant of native brook
trout exhibiting potadromous migrations within the Great Lakes, have been
shown to specifically prefer groundwater-discharge zones for building redds
(Van Grinsven et al., 2012). The development of trout in winter has been
found to positively correlate with warmer stream water temperatures as
influenced by groundwater seepage (French et al., 2017). Therefore,
spatially discrete groundwater-discharge zones with adequate DO may form
preferred brook trout spawning habitats (Curry et al., 1995).</p>
      <p id="d1e200">Multiscale physical and biogeochemical factors influence temperature and DO
concentrations along groundwater flow paths. In river valleys, discharge to
the surface water of locally recharged groundwater is expected to emanate
from more shallow, lateral flow paths controlled by the local topography
(Modica, 1999; Winter et al., 1998). Shallow groundwater flow paths,
particularly those within approximately 5 m of the land surface, will be
more sensitive to annual air temperature patterns and long-term warming
trends due to strong vertical conductive heat exchanges (Kurylyk et
al., 2015b). The distance of seeps from upgradient groundwater recharge zones
will also affect seepage temperature dynamics and associated aquatic
ecosystems due to future changes in surface and recharge temperatures (Burns
et al., 2017). Therefore, characterizing the hydrogeochemical attributes of
discharging groundwater flow paths is critical in understanding the thermal
stability of current and future point-scale preferential brook trout habitats
(Briggs et al., 2018a). The complimentary methodology of geophysical remote
sensing, geochemical sampling, and vertical bed temperature time series can
indicate the physical and chemical properties of groundwater flow paths that
source preferential discharge zones utilized routinely by fish for spawning.</p>
      <p id="d1e203">Coarse-grained mineral-dominated aquifers with little fine particulate
organic matter and low dissolved organic carbon supplies tend to result in
generally oxic groundwater conditions (Back et al., 1993). The sandy
surficial aquifer of Cape Cod, where our investigation took place, is a
classic example of a mineral soil-dominated flow system (Frimpter and Gay,
1979). The flow of groundwater through near-stream<?pagebreak page6385?> organic deposits, however, can
result in inverted redox gradients toward the upwelling interface, such that
groundwater discharged to surface water is reduced in DO (Seitzinger et
al., 2006). In sandy glacial terrain with superimposed peatland deposits, the
specific flow patterns of groundwater to surface water in relation to buried
peat will influence the groundwater-discharge biogeochemistry. Krause et
al. (2013) found that stream-bed groundwater seepage was strongly reduced in
DO in zones with peat deposits, likely due to an increase in both near-stream
residence time and localized sources of dissolved organic carbon.</p>
      <p id="d1e206">Interdisciplinary collaborations between physical and biological scientists
are useful to better understand how cold-water species utilize the stream
habitat influenced by groundwater discharge and the larger landscape-scale
controls on discharge characteristics. While previous hydrogeological
research in the coastal stream used for this study had focused on locating
and quantifying discrete groundwater discharge (e.g., “cold anomalies”,
Hare et al., 2015; Rosenberry et al., 2016), here we endeavor to understand
the hydraulic and biogeochemical controls on seepage zone distribution
utilized directly by native brook trout. In this groundwater-dominated stream
(e.g., likely climate refugia), brook trout do not need to occupy discrete
inflows for summer thermal refugia but do favor certain upwelling zones for
fall spawning. We compare over a decade of visual survey and electronic fish
passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tag dropout data regarding repeat brook
trout spawning locations to a comprehensive physical and chemical
characterization of groundwater-seepage zones across 2 km of stream in order
to do the following:
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>1.</label>
      <p id="d1e211">identify repeat brook trout spawning locations and determine if they are
directly associated with the preferential discharge of groundwater through
interface sediments, and</p></list-item><list-item><label>2.</label>
      <p id="d1e215">develop a hydrogeochemical characterization of trout-preferred
groundwater-discharge zones that can aid in their identification in other
less-studied systems and potential inclusion in stream habitat restoration
efforts.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Site description and previous hydrogeologic characterization</title>
      <p id="d1e224">Cape Cod is a peninsula in southeastern coastal Massachusetts, USA, composed
primarily of highly permeable unconsolidated glacial moraine and outwash
deposits. The largest of the Cape Cod sole-source aquifers occupies a western
(landward) section of the peninsula (LeBlanc et al., 1986) and is incised by
several linear valleys that drain groundwater south to the Atlantic Ocean via
baseflow-dominated streams. Strong groundwater discharge to one
such stream, the Quashnet River, supports a relatively stable flow regime
that has averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.49</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (SD) m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from 1986 to 2015
(Rosenberry et al., 2016). The lower Quashnet River emerges from a narrow
sand and gravel valley into a broader area with well-defined lateral
floodplains. Historical cranberry farming practices, abandoned in the 1950s,
have modified the stream corridor (Barlow and Hess, 1993). Primary
modifications included the straightening of the main channel (reducing natural
sinuosity), installation of flood-control structures, incision of shallow
groundwater drainage ditches in the lateral peatland floodplain, and
widespread application of sand to the floodplain surface. The current
bank-full width of the main channel averages approximately 4 m.</p>
      <p id="d1e260">The Quashnet River has long been recognized as a critical habitat for a
naturally reproducing population of native sea-run brook trout (Mullan, 1958)
with a genetically distinct population (Annett et al., 2012). Efforts to
restore trout habitats by the group Trout Unlimited and others have been
ongoing for over 40 years (Barlow and Hess, 1993). These efforts include the
removal of flood-control structures, the planting of trees along the main
channel, and the addition of wood structures to stabilize banks and provide
cover from airborne predators. Furthermore, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
purchased 12.5 ha in 1956 and an additional 146 ha along the lower Quashnet
River in 1987 and 1988 to protect the area from development. The
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has been monitoring trout
populations since 1988 and their movement since 2007.</p>
      <p id="d1e263">The groundwater influence on stream temperature is pronounced, particularly
over the 2 km reach above the U.S. Geological Survey gage no. 011058837,
below which the stream stage is tidally affected. Ambient regional
groundwater temperature is approximately 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Briggs et
al., 2014), and strong conductive and advective exchange with the proximal
aquifer maintains the surface water temperature well below the lethal
threshold for brook trout (maximum weekly average temperature <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, Wehrly et al., 2007). Therefore, point-scale thermal
refugia are not a current concern in this system, as the stream supports a
system-scale cold-water habitat that is likely to persist into the future and
serve as warming “climate refugia” (Briggs et al., 2018a). In winter,
seepage zones can be located as relatively warm anomalies, increasing and
buffering surface water temperatures from ambient atmospheric influence.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e296">Fiber-optic distributed temperature data collected along the stream
channel sediment–water interface over two days in July 2013 are summarized
here using mean temperature (color) and temperature standard deviation
normalized to known non-seepage locations (size). Locations of reduced mean
temperature and the standard deviation of temperature can indicate zones of
preferential groundwater upwelling. A subset of these apparent upwelling
zones (labeled “GW” followed by the distance from upper reach boundary in
meters) with varied thermal statistics was chosen for direct pore-water
sampling and quantitative seepage measurements. This figure was modified from
Rosenberry et al. (2016).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e308">Lidar elevation data show the linear valley terrain of the Quashnet
River study reach, as shown in panel <bold>(a)</bold> with Spawn (S1, S2, S3)
locations and major open-valley seepage zones identified. The enlarged view
of panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the more narrow upper valley zone where Spawn 1
and 2 are located at the base of a steep cutbank and the topographic
transecting point of Fig. 9 (A–A') is noted. Finally, panel <bold>(c)</bold>
displays the lower open-valley reach where Spawn 3 is located along a major
cutbank.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f02.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e326">Previous work has measured relatively large net gains in streamflow over the
lower Quashnet River (Barlow and Hess, 1993; Rosenberry et al., 2016), which
are attributed to groundwater discharge through direct stream-bed seepage and
the harvesting of groundwater from the floodplain platform via relic
agricultural drainage ditches. Deployments of fiber-optic temperature sensing
(FO-DTS) cables along the thalweg stream-bed interface indicate that the
greatest density of focused seepage zones occurs along the broader valley
area, approximately 1 km upstream of the U.S. Geological Survey gage
(Fig. 1). This zone coincides with the largest gains in net streamflow (Hare
et al., 2015). Based<?pagebreak page6386?> on the stream-bed interface temperature data presented
by Rosenberry et al. (2016), Fig. 1 shows how temperature-sensitive fiber
optic cables have been used to pinpoint possible groundwater-discharge zones
based on an anomalously cold mean temperature and/or reduced thermal
variance. A focused evaluation of FO-DTS anomalies with physical seepage
meters and vertical temperature profilers confirmed localized, meter-scale
seepage zonation along the streambed where discrete colder zones indicated
through heat tracing showed approximately 5 times the groundwater-discharge
rate of adjacent sandy bed locations only meters away (Rosenberry et
al., 2016). The active heating of wrapped FO-DTS cables deployed vertically
within an open-valley stream-bed seepage zone indicated the true vertical
flow to at least 0.6 m into the bed sediments (Briggs et al., 2016), an
expected characteristic of a more regional groundwater discharge (Winter et
al., 1998), rather than that of a flow driven by the valley topography local
to the river. Hyporheic exchange in the lower Quashnet River system is
superimposed on the general upward hydraulic gradient to the stream,
therefore being reduced to a thin, shallow hyporheic exchange zone (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m depth) along the thalweg by these competing pressures (Briggs et
al., 2014). Vertically compressed hyporheic zones such as these have been
simulated for similar stream systems (e.g., Cardenas and Wilson, 2006).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Methods</title>
      <p id="d1e345">A combination of fish tagging and visual spawning observations, heat tracing,
geophysical surveys, and focused pore-water sampling was used to investigate
the interplay between the locations of preferential brook trout spawning and
the local hydrogeology. For consistency between varied methods and years of
data collection, all sample locations are spatially referenced as downstream
channel distances from the fish ladder river crossing at the upper end of the
study reach (Fig. 2).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Observations regarding repeat spawning locations</title>
      <p id="d1e353">Observations of discrete repeat brook trout spawning locations were made
opportunistically as part of an ongoing PIT tagging study of the native
reproducing population of the Quashnet River. Large-scale trout movements are
continuously monitored in the lower Quashnet River at three stationary fish
counting sites (Fig. 2a). However, the spatial resolution of these counting
sites, separated by hundreds of meters, is not adequate in studying how brook
trout utilize specific decimeter- to meter-scale zones of groundwater
discharge. For this finer scale characterization, dropped fish tags have also
been located through roving surveys using a handheld portable PIT antenna
(Biomark, Inc.), which have been conducted in spring and fall since 2007. The
dropout of PIT tags from the fish body is a process that is more likely to
happen during spawning behavior in salmonids, so dropped tags were
electronically and spatially mapped to reveal discrete zones of repeat
spawning. Although these roving surveys do not yield the temporal continuity
of the instream counting gates, the clustering of dropped tags can be mapped
at the sub-meter scale, presumably directly at trout redds. In addition,
spawning brook trout were located visually during annual fall data collection
events by Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Staff, with redd development
behavior captured in one seepage feature by an underwater video in 2015 using
a GoPro Hero camera (San Mateo, CA). We refer to the three most prominent
sites of brook trout spawning within the study reach as Spawn 1 (113 m),
Spawn 2 (146 m), and Spawn 3 (2062 m), from upstream to downstream,
respectively (Fig. 2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Spatial mapping of preferential groundwater discharge</title>
      <p id="d1e362">To augment existing stream-bed interface thermal surveys for preferential
groundwater discharge (e.g., Rosenberry et al., 2016; Fig. 1) and to
investigate the bank dependence<?pagebreak page6387?> of the discharge location, ruggedized
fiber-optic cables suitable for stream use were deployed in the river along
the base of each bank from 1700 to 2160 m on 10 to 12 June 2016 (Fig. 2a).
Two separate cables weighted with stainless steel armoring were installed
directly along the foot of each bank on top of the stream-bed interface.
Single-ended measurements made at the 1.01 m linear spatial sampling scale
were integrated over 5 min intervals on each channel by an Oryx FO-DTS
control unit (Sensornet Ltd.). During the same period, data were also
collected along a high-resolution wrapped fiber-optic array for a dataset
described in Kurylyk et al. (2017) but not shown here; this experimental
setup resulted in measurements for each channel of four instrument channels,
which were recorded at 20 min intervals. The calibration for dynamic
instrument drift was performed automatically using approximately 30 m of
cable for each channel, submerged in a continuously mixed ice bath and
monitored with an independent Oryx T-100 thermistor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Quantification of vertical groundwater discharge rates</title>
      <p id="d1e371">Once preferential discharge locations are located along the stream bed with
FO-DTS, actual vertical discharge rates can be assessed using a variety of
methodologies (Kalbus et al., 2006). Temporal patterns in the
groundwater-discharge flux rate can indicate source flow path hydrodynamics
and can be derived from a bed-temperature time series using vertical
temperature signal transport characteristics, as reviewed by Rau et
al. (2013). Custom “1DTempProfilers” designed specifically for the
quantification of groundwater discharge (Briggs et al., 2014) were used to
monitor the stream-bed temperature over time along a shallow vertical
profile. Profilers were deployed within a subset of the thermal anomalies
previously identified with FO-DTS. The profiler deployment locations were
chosen to represent a range of preferential groundwater-discharge rates and
characteristics based on the on the observed FO-DTS temperature anomalies,
e.g., anomalies of the varied mean temperature and buffering effect (Fig. 1)
located at 330, 880, 1045, 1070, 1410, 1470, and 2060 m. These
groundwater-discharge locations are referred to with the prefix “GW”
followed by the meter mark for the remainder of the paper, such that the
major stream-bed seep 330 m downstream of the fish ladder is referred to as
“GW330”. Data were collected at various locations from 11 June to 13 July
2014, 21 August to 13 September 2015, and 5 June to 9 July 2016. These
deployments included the installation of 1DTempProfilers at the near-bank and
channel sides of observed repeat spawning zones.</p>
      <p id="d1e374">Individual thermal data loggers (iButton Thermochron DS1922L, Maxim
Integrated) were waterproofed with silicone caulk and inserted
horizontally into short slotted-steel pipes (0.025 m diameter). The shallow
thermal profilers were driven vertically into the stream bed so that sensors
were positioned at some combination of 0.01, 0.04, 0.07, and 0.11 m depths.
Data were collected at temporal intervals of 0.5 h in 2014, 0.5 h in 2015, and 1 h
in 2016. Rosenberry et al. (2016) found that when a subset of the 2014
stream-bed temperature data presented here were analyzed using the diurnal
signal amplitude attenuation models employed by VFLUX2 (Irvine et al., 2015),
a near <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relation was found in comparison to physical seepage meter
measurements of groundwater discharge ranging from 0.5 to 3 m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. A
similar diurnal signal-based stream-bed thermal parameter estimation
is used here.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6388?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Stream-bed groundwater discharge and spawning zone pore-water
characterization</title>
      <p id="d1e408">Subsurface water samples were collected for chemical analysis at seven major
open-valley seepage locations and three repeat spawn locations. Geochemical
data collection occurred in 2014 and 2016 along with the 1DTempProfiler
deployments, while stable water isotope data were collected in August 2017.
For geochemical sampling, 0.0095 m (nominal) stainless steel drive points
were inserted to depths of 0.3, 0.6, and/or 0.9 m and Masterflex Norprene
tubing was attached to the drive point. A peristaltic pump was used to
extract pore-water samples until they were free of obvious turbidity
(typically requiring 3 min of pumping), after which the pumping rate was
slowed and the groundwater samples were collected by pumping into 60 mL
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) syringe barrels. First an unfiltered sample
for specific conductivity was pushed from the syringe into a 30 mL HDPE
Nalgene sample bottle. Second, a filtered sample for anion analysis was
collected after attaching a 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pore size (25 mm diameter)
Pall polyethersulfone filter to the syringe. Lastly, the pumping rate was
slowed again and an overflow cup was attached to the Norprene sample tubing
and was held upright until it overflowed, at which point the DO was measured
by a field colorimetric test using the manufacturer's evacuated reagent vials
(Chemetrics V-2000). DO concentrations were read twice and the test was
repeated using an alternative vial kit if results were near the concentration
range limit or out of range. The collected samples were kept cool and out of
the light and analyzed for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> upon return to the laboratory using
standard ion chromatographic techniques.</p>
      <p id="d1e432">In addition to the drive point samples, pore-water samples were also
collected in June 2016 from shallow depths 0.015, 0.04, 0.08 and 0.15 m
below the stream-bed surface at locations GW1045 and Spawn 1, 2, 3 using
MINIPOINT samplers (e.g., Harvey and Fuller, 1998). Water was pumped
simultaneously from all depths using a multi-head pump that withdrew
small-volume samples (15 mL) at low flow rates (1.5 mL min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to
minimize the disturbance of natural subsurface fluxes and chemical gradients.
Pumped lines terminated at press-on luer fittings that were pushed onto
0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pore size (25 mm diameter) Pall polyethersulfone filters.
Samples for specific conductivity were collected, whereas filtered samples
were collected for anions in pre-labeled 20 mL LDPE plastic scintillation
vials with Polyseal<sup>™</sup> caps. Sample lines were
then attached to overflow cups and dissolved oxygen concentrations were
measured as described above.</p>
      <p id="d1e460">During a follow-up field effort in August 2017, stream-bed pore-water samples
were collected at the Spawn sites and at GW1045, GW1140 (approximately 70 m
downstream of GW1070), and GW1470. Additionally, two large hillslope springs
were identified along the edge of the riparian zone, upstream of Spawn 1,
using a handheld thermal infrared camera (FLIR T640, FLIR Systems, Inc.).
These exposed springs were sampled to identify a localized hillslope
groundwater signature that would not be impacted by valley-floor peat
deposits. Samples were drawn from push-point piezometers installed
0.2–0.44 m below the sediment interface, with deeper samples collected in
the hillslope springs to avoid surface organic material. Pore water was
evaluated for specific conductivity (SpC), DO, and stable water isotopes.
Isotope samples were analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey Stable Isotope
Laboratory using dual-inlet isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. A substantial
fraction of regional Cape Cod shallow groundwater exchanges with the numerous
groundwater flow-through lakes as it discharges to the coast (Walter and
Masterson, 2002). It is therefore assumed that the regional Cape Cod
groundwater isotopic signature is likely to indicate evaporative processes
(LeBlanc et al., 2008), offering a contrasting signal from locally recharged
hillslope groundwater (no substantial evaporation). The local deuterium
excess of contemporary water can indicate groundwater that has been
influenced by evaporation in lakes and is therefore in disequilibrium with
local meteoric water. Deuterium excess was determined here as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">xs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mi class="Radical" mathvariant="normal">⚫</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Dansgaard, 1964).</p>
      <p id="d1e499">As mentioned previously, historic cranberry farming practices extensively
modified the Quashnet River valley, including the incision of drainage
ditches into the floodplain. Some ditches extend from the valley wall to the
main channel, whereas others are shorter or cut at angles. In addition to
characterization of pore water, 34 major drainage ditches (observed flowing
water) and a stream thalweg profile were spot-checked for specific
conductivity on 16 June 2014 using the SmarTroll probe (YSI). At a subset of
these ditch locations, filtered grab samples were collected and analyzed in
the laboratory for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a similar manner as the mini and drive
point samples described above. In June 2016, the dataset was augmented for
five ditch confluence locations upstream of Spawn 1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Visualizing stream-bed sediment structure</title>
      <p id="d1e519">Ground penetrating radars (GPR) have been successfully applied to several
surface water and groundwater exchange studies to characterize underlying
peat and sandy deposits (e.g., Lowry et al., 2009; Comas et al., 2011) due to
strong expected differences in matrix porosity (water content), which can
exceed 70 % in peat (Rezanezhad et al., 2016). An upstream to downstream
GPR profile was collected on 7 July 2016 using a MALA HDR GX160 shielded
antenna (MALA GPR, Sweden), towed down the stream center channel by hand with
a small inflatable watercraft. The locations of major seep and spawning sites
were specifically marked on the digital GPR record during data collection.
The GPR data were processed using Reflexw software (Sandmeier, Germany) to
convert reflection time to interface depth.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e524">Several representative images of specific spawn zones and
groundwater-discharge zones were collected in February 2016. The cutbank
alcove at Spawn 1 is shown in <bold>(a)</bold>, while the open-valley seepage
zone GW1045 is shown in <bold>(b)</bold>, and fresh cutbank slumping and
visible seepage at Spawn 3 is shown in <bold>(c)</bold>. Underwater imagery
collected at the Spawn 1 zone in fall 2015 is displayed in <bold>(d)</bold>,
showing several fish clustered directly at the base of the cutbank where
pore-water samples were obtained.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f03.jpg"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6389?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e554">The hydrogeochemical characterization of observed repeat trout spawning
zones and other major stream-bed groundwater-discharge zones are contrasted
below.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Observations regarding repeat spawning locations</title>
      <p id="d1e562">Out of the dozens of preferential groundwater-discharge zones geolocated
along the Quashnet River in this and previous work (e.g., Fig. 1), brook
trout appear to consistently utilize only three discrete stream-bed locations
for repeat spawning activity. These locations coincide with steep cutbanks
where the river channel approaches the sand and gravel valley wall
(Fig. 2b, c). Specifically, trout were found to occupy small “scalloped”
alcove-bank features (Fig. 3a) that may be formed by groundwater sapping of
fines and the subsequent slumping of sandy bank materials. In winter 2016,
fresh slumping and direct seepage from the newly exposed sand wall was
observed at Spawn 3 (Fig. 3c); a larger slump event had filled approximately
one-third of the scalloped alcove at Spawn 2 by June 2016. Brook trout were
observed clustered along the inner bank area at the Spawn 1 location in fall
2015 (Fig. 3d), and this spawning behavior was captured using an underwater
video (Supplement).</p>
      <p id="d1e565">Dropout PIT tags have been found repeatedly in each of the three preferential
spawn zones. Seven dropout PIT tags were located in the Spawn 3 zone in March
2017, by far the most dropped tags found in any one location since the
tracking program began in 2007. The only other obvious scalloped bank
features along the 2 km study reach are located at GW1045 (Fig. 3b). Compared
to the trout spawning zone alcoves along the valley-wall cutbanks (e.g.,
Fig. 3a), this open-valley seepage alcove was overgrown with watercress and
thick (tens of centimeters), loose deposits of organic material.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e570">Fiber-optic-distributed temperature data collected from the
approximate channel distance of 1700 to 2160 m along <bold>(a)</bold> the
downstream right bank through the Spawn 3 meander bend area (see Fig. 2a for
location), and <bold>(b)</bold> the downstream left bank along the same stream
reach. The persistent vertical bands of relatively cool temperatures indicate
discrete groundwater discharge. Some larger zones display a thermal signature
on both bank cables, while smaller discharges may be specific to one bank.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f04.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Spatial mapping of preferential groundwater discharge</title>
      <p id="d1e591">As shown in Fig. 1, previously collected FO-DTS data were used to guide data
collection at a subset of representative preferential stream-bed groundwater
discharges. Additionally, paired FO-DTS cables were deployed at the base of
both stream banks through a lower reach section in 2016 (Fig. 2c), revealing
differing thermal anomaly patterns (Fig. 4; Briggs et al., 2018b). The cable
along the downstream-right bank captures a large, 8 m long cooler zone at
Spawn 3 (Fig. 4b), and this seepage signature is spatially reduced but
visible along the opposing bank (Fig. 4a). Other thermal anomalies observed
along one bank show little or no signature along the other. Air temperature
dropped noticeably over the final 1.5 days of deployment, and smaller cool
anomalies that appeared on warm days were no longer captured by the stream-bed
FO-DTS deployment, though the Spawn 3 signature is still visible along both
cables.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6390?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Quantification of vertical groundwater-discharge rates</title>
      <p id="d1e600">Ambient stream-bed temperature signal data can be used to measure stream-bed
thermal conduction parameters (Luce et al., 2013), which is particularly
important when applying heat-based methods to quantify upward vertical fluid
flux (Rosenberry et al., 2016), compared to downward fluid-flux models that
generally show less sensitivity to stream-bed thermal parameters. Diurnal
signal-based thermal diffusivity measurements derived from a pair of
1DTempProfilers inserted in sandy channel sediments for a month in 2014 have
the same geometric mean value of 0.11 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and this value is used here to model vertical groundwater
discharge for all locations and data collection periods (Briggs et
al., 2018b). Sub-daily groundwater-discharge fluxes evaluated over similar
spring and early summer time periods in 2014 and 2016 show relatively stable
patterns at open-valley seepage zones, generally <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6).
At Spawn 1 and 3 seepage is stronger (2 to 3.5 m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and more
variable than at open-valley zones. The Darcy-based horizontal seepage
estimate through the Spawn  3 bank, made using the bank piezometer, is
2.3 m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is similar to the temperature-based seepage rates at
the Spawn 3 interface (Fig. 6), and indicates lateral discharge through the
cutbank wall from a more localized groundwater flow path. The Spawn 2 zone
shows a reduced and more stable discharge rate during summer 2016, and is
likely impacted by a large bank slump into this zone that occurred during the
winter of 2016, partially filling the alcove. Seepage patterns collected at
Spawn 1 and 2 in late-summer 2015 show greater temporal stability, even
though the stream stage at the downstream U.S. Geological Survey gage showed substantial
variation. Discharge rates along the inner bank wall of the scalloped bank
spawn zones were consistently higher than at bed areas located just a few
meters away toward the channel.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Stream-bed groundwater discharge and spawning zone pore-water
characterization</title>
      <p id="d1e678">Based on previous characterization, the Cape Cod sand and gravel aquifer
generally has high DO concentrations (9–11 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), relatively dilute
specific conductance (SpC, 62 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and dilute chloride
concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 9.3 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) at depths ranging between 12
and 20 m (Savoie et al., 2012). The groundwater that discharges to the
Quashnet River, however, is often strongly variable in all three of these
parameters (Harvey et al., 2018). In June 2014, drive point data were
primarily collected in open-valley seepage zones identified with FO-DTS
(Fig. 1); these locations are suboxic to anoxic at 0.3 and 0.6 m stream-bed
depths (Table 1). The highest stream-bed seepage DO is found at GW330 in the
tighter upstream valley section (4.6 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at both depths) and
Spawn 3, where DO is 9.0 and 7.6 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 0.3 and 0.6 m depths,
respectively (Table 1). SpC is also variable, but lowest and similar to the
regional signal at GW330 and Spawn 3. Note that SpC and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are used here
to indicate aquifer flow path hydrogeochemical properties and not unsuitable
spawn habitats based on chemical concentration, as their range is well within
general brook trout tolerances.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e774">This table lists 2014 and 2016 drive point pore-water chemistry data
collected in major stream-bed groundwater-discharge zones located with
fiber-optic heat tracing and in zones of observed repeat trout spawning
directly along the bank and farther toward the stream center channel. The
italicized values indicate sample depths that differ from others in the same
column.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.99}[.99]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Open valley groundwater</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">0.3 m depth </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center">0.6 m depth </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">discharges</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SpC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">DO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SpC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW330</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">53.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW880</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">97.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">65.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1045</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">78.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">82.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1045 (bank)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">105.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">104.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1045 (channel)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">99.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">96.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1070</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">89.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1410</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">77.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">79.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1470</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">69.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">64.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW2060</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">75.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">79.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">84.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawning locations (channel)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">0.3 m depth </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center">0.9 m depth </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 1 channel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">143.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">143.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 2 channel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">139.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">n/a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 3 channel</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">82.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">79.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">121.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">111.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawning locations (bank)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">0.3 m depth </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center">0.9 m depth </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 1 bank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">70.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">55.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 2 bank</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">70.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">57.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 3 bank (2016)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">60.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">71.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 3 bank (2014)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">56.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.6 (<italic>0.6 m</italic>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">60.9 (<italic>0.6 m</italic>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">64.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.99}[.99]?><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e777"><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{2mm}}?>n/a: not
applicable.</p></table-wrap-foot><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1363">Drive point data collected at the 0.3 m depth in June 2016, primarily around
spawn zones, generally show high DO and relatively low SpC at the interior of
Spawn zones 1 and 3 near the cutbank (Table 1). Data collected a few meters
toward the main channel from these near-bank spawn locations are reduced in
DO with increased SpC. The Spawn 2 data were collected at the toe of the
recent large sediment slump that had partially filled the alcove, and DO data
are suboxic at 0.3 m (3.9 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) but more oxygen-rich at 0.9 m
depth (7.2 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), indicating the potential for shallow stream-bed
respiration that removes oxygen from discharging groundwater (assuming
vertical flow) in the slumped material. In contrast to the spawn zones, the major
open-valley seepage location GW1045 is nearly anoxic at all depths with SpC
similar to the 2014 stream water profile grab samples (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">101.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Little
difference was observed between near-bank and channel positions at GW1045
(both are suboxic) even though a large scalloped seepage bank feature was
observed (Fig. 3b).</p>
      <?pagebreak page6391?><p id="d1e1433">The drainage-ditch grab samples generally show <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
that are lower than the average 2014 channel grab samples (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">19</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), though the two most upstream ditches are similar to stream
water, and 2 open-valley ditches are appreciably higher in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 7a). Spawn zones 1, 2, and 3 approximate the lowest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations observed in drainage ditches, and Spawn 3 has a similar
concentration to the adjacent 2016 stream-bank piezometer in both the 2014 and
2016 data. An analogous pattern is shown in the more widespread SpC data,
with many drainage ditches and all spawn zones having concentrations around
60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, several ditches cluster around the stream
water average or higher, particularly in the open-valley area.</p>
      <p id="d1e1526">The shallow, shallow pore-water samples collected with the
MINIPOINT system in discrete intervals show that stream-bed SpC is appreciably lower than stream
water, even at the 0.02 m depth, at all near-bank spawn zones (Fig. 8a).
Conversely, the shallow channel sediments at Spawn 1 and open-valley seepage
at GW1045 approximate the stream water value for SpC. DO is high and stable
along the shallow profiles (to 0.14 m) at the interior of Spawn zones 1
and 3 but suboxic at the Spawn 1 channel sample and Spawn 2 zones and
essentially anoxic along the bank at GW1045. Center channel pore-water
samples at GW1045 show moderate oxygen enrichment at 0.02 m
(4.6 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which may result from hyporheic mixing, as deeper
intervals along the same profile are nearly anoxic.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1544">This table lists 2017 drive point pore-water chemistry and stable
water isotope data collected in a subset of major stream-bed groundwater-seepage zones, zones of observed repeat trout spawning, and from springs
located above the waterline along the same hillslope as the meander cutbanks
of Spawn 1 and Spawn 2.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.98}[.98]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Location</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sample depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SpC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">xs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(‰)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(‰)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mi class="Radical" mathvariant="normal">⚫</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hillslope 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">74.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">51.38</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.22</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hillslope 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">60.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.318</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">51.81</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">18.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">72.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.853</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">48.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">51.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.419</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">48.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spawn 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">42.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.054</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.32</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1045</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">109.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.043</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.93</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.41</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1140</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">103.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.043</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.84</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GW1470</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">97.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.72</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2040">The underwater video collected here in the fall of 2015 indicates Quashnet River
brook trout clustered tightly around an approximate 1 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> bed area in
Spawn 1 (Fig. 3d, Supplement), directly at the base of the sandy cutbank.
During the June 2016 collection of pore-water data, drive points were
installed precisely in this area. A chemical analysis of 0.3 m deep pore
water shows a strong gradient from the near-bank Spawn 1 zone to the outer
alcove area, with specific conductance rising dramatically (70.6 to
143.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and DO falling (7.28 to 4.41 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Table 1). Spawn 3 shows a similar pattern from the near-bank zone toward the main channel
(60.4 to 82.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SpC; 9.11 to 1.76 mg L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> DO). Spawn 2, although complicated by the large slump during the previous
winter, shows an increase in SpC from 70.6 to 139.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
from the inner to outer alcove. Conversely, pore water collected at 0.3, 0.6,
and 0.9 m depths in the open-valley seepage alcove at GW1045 (pictured in
Fig. 3b) are functionally anoxic with elevated SpC<?pagebreak page6392?> compared to inner spawn
zones and have little gradient from the bank to the channel.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e2136">These images show ground-penetrating radar profiles collected down
the center of the river channel to indicate peat, sand, and gravel layering in
the stream bed. Stronger apparent radar reflectors are highlighted in red and
likely indicate sediment layer boundaries (e.g., sand and gravel vs. peat).
Spawn-
and groundwater-discharge locations were directly marked in the radar data
stream during collection and are shown for each sub-reach panel.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=210.550394pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f05.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2145">Pore-water data collected in August 2017 indicate that all three Spawn sites
are similar to emergent hillslope springs, characterized by relatively high
DO and low SpC, compared to major open-valley stream-bed seepage zones that are
anoxic with higher SpC (Table 2). Additionally, the stable isotopic
signatures of the hillslope and Spawn zones are similar, but are contrasted by
the lower deuterium excess metric determined for the open-valley seepages.
This indicates that groundwater discharging through the stream bed away from
the hillslope shows the evaporative signature of groundwater flow-through
lakes and can therefore be considered regional discharge, compared to
locally recharged hillslope groundwater apparently favored by trout for
spawning.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2151">Summarizing box plots of sub-daily vertical groundwater-discharge rates
modeled for the open-valley groundwater discharge and Spawn 3 bank locations
for the 11 June to 13 July 2014 period are shown in panel <bold>(a)</bold>.
Additionally, panel <bold>(b)</bold> displays discharge rates collected in
Spawn and GW1045 locations directly against the cutbanks and farther out
towards the channel (indicated by “ch”) for the 21 August to 13 September
2015 and 5 June to 9 July 2016 periods.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <title>Visualizing stream-bed sediment structure</title>
      <p id="d1e2172">Radar data were collected over most of the study reach length depicted in
Fig. 2a, and although spatial reference data were not collected for each
sample point due to integrated global positioning system failure, Spawn and
groundwater-discharge zones of interest were precisely marked in the record
(Fig. 5). The GPR data collected along the thalweg adjacent to Spawn 1 and 2
indicate that a contiguous thin layer of material underlies the sandy stream bed
that may be peat deposited over deeper sands and gravels (Fig. 5a). The GPR
profile through open-valley groundwater-discharge locations GW1045 and GW1070
shows the strongest radar signal reflectors of anywhere along the open-valley
section (Fig. 5b). These discontinuous geologic structures are interpreted as
layered sand and gravel, interspersed with thicker peat deposits. Otherwise,
discontinuous reflections indicative of sediment-type interfaces of variable
depths are observed near the downstream open-valley seepage zones and strongly
attenuated GPR signals indicate thick lenses of buried peat with high water
content (Fig. 5b,c).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page6393?><sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2183">Heat tracing reconnaissance technologies, such as FO-DTS and thermal
infrared, offer an efficient means to comprehensively characterize
preferential groundwater-discharge points at the reach to watershed scale
(Briggs and Hare, 2018). Using the groundwater-fed Quashnet River as an
example, Rosenberry et al. (2016) showed that cold stream-bed interface
anomalies in summer indeed correspond to discrete zones of particularly high
groundwater discharge through stream-bed sediments. This spatial
characterization of discharge points alone is not sufficient to understand
the physical and chemical drivers of a niche habitat, but can efficiently
guide additional data collection, as was done here. Compared to more randomly
distributed stream-bed field parameter surveys and larger spatial scale
evaluations of net groundwater discharge made with differential gaging, the
comprehensive spatial mapping of groundwater discharge using heat is a great
advance in the context of understanding groundwater-dependent ecosystems.
However, in fast flowing streams, FO-DTS cable placement on the stream bed
will likely impact which specific groundwater-discharge zones are captured
with FO-DTS, as shown here by applying cables along opposite banks through
the Spawn 3 area (Fig. 4). The largest seepage zones may have a spatial
footprint that encompasses the stream-bed area from bank to bank (e.g., the
Spawn 3 cold anomaly), but a subset of more discrete seepage zones are bound
to be missed with a single linear cable deployment. We did not capture Spawn
zones 1 and 2 in early FO-DTS field efforts (Fig. 1), but fish tracking
indicated their importance in regards to trout spawning behavior. Therefore,
in studies of niche stream habitats as influenced by preferential groundwater
discharge, a combination of heat tracing and biological observation may be
needed to both identify major discharge points and discern which points are
directly used by the biota of interest (e.g., brook trout).</p>
      <p id="d1e2186">In a study of the regional Cape Cod aquifer condition, Frimpter and Gay
(1979) state that groundwater is typically near DO saturation, except in the
case of the downgradient of peat or river bottom sediments, where consumption
of DO allows the mobilization of natural iron and manganese. Visible
observations along the open-valley section, in addition to stream-bed
sediment coring (Briggs et al., 2014), revealed the widespread coating of
shallow stream-bed sediment grains with metal oxides, consistent with the
conceptual model of organic material influence on near-surface groundwater
(Fig. 9). Aquifer recharge passing through upgradient groundwater
flow-through kettle lakes (e.g., Stoliker et al., 2016) may also serve to
decrease the DO content of the regional flow paths that discharge vertically
through the bed of the Quashnet River, although we hypothesize that localized
peat deposits may be the primary control on both seepage zone distribution
and chemistry.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e2191">Drainage ditch chemistry throughout the lower Quashnet, showing
<bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> specific conductance that was
collected in June 2014, just above the confluence with the main channel. Data
are plotted as the distance from the upper flood control structure in the
narrow valley reach and are compared to groundwater-seepage data collected in
preferential spawning locations and a hillslope piezometer.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2217">Out of the dozens of preferential groundwater-discharge zones located along
the lower Quashnet with heat tracing, most were suboxic to anoxic (Table 1).
Brook trout consistently prefer three areas for fall spawning, all along
meander bend cutbanks into the sand and gravel valley wall. Zones of locally
enhanced seepage, likely controlled by subtle differences in sediment
hydraulic conductivity, can lead to the groundwater sapping of fines,
reduction in bank stability, and consequent slumping of bank material into
the river; this process was observed in real time at the Spawn 3 meander in
February 2016 (Fig. 3c). Slumping effectively forms <italic>seepage-driven</italic>
alcoves outside of the main flow and are more suitable for redd placement,
along with forming a more favorable coarse sand and gravel substrate
(Bowerman et al., 2014; Hausle and Coble, 1976; Raleigh, 1982).</p>
      <p id="d1e2224">In other systems, trout have been observed to occupy microhabitat around and
within groundwater-discharge zones, even being segregated by fish size and
desirable temperature range (e.g., Fig. 2.4.1.2 in Torgersen et al., 2012).
Here, real-time observation and visual imagery show trout clustering tightly
against the bank in Spawn 3 (Fig. 3d, Supplement) where pore water was found
to be more oxygen rich and lower in SpC. The month-long time series of
vertical<?pagebreak page6394?> groundwater-discharge rates are reduced considerably from the
near-bank to the near-channel areas at all spawning zones (Fig. 6),
indicating in part a reduction in stream-bed hydraulic conductivity as
influenced by peat deposits under the main channel and as observed in GPR
data (Fig. 5). The evidence of higher near-bank vertical groundwater flux
rates and DO combined with lower SpC indicates limited interaction between
the shallow groundwater flow paths and peat against the meander bend
cutbanks. As observed in other systems, it appears that even short travel
distances through organic deposits toward the center channel at Spawn 1 and 2
may be sufficient in increasing total dissolved solids, depleting DO (e.g.,
Levy et al., 2016), and rendering upwelling zones undesirable for redd
construction. Therefore, near-surface channel sediments may need to be
specifically characterized in preferential groundwater-discharge zones, as
net chemical reactivity over the last <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m of transport may dominate
net chemical change of the discharging groundwater.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2239">Minipoint pore-water chemistry data showing high spatial resolution
profiles of <bold>(a)</bold> specific conductance and <bold>(b)</bold> dissolved
oxygen, collected in June 2016 at the major seepage alcoves. Triangle symbols
indicate data collected farther toward the thalweg from the respective alcove
bank, and all profiles include a local stream water sample taken just above
the stream-bed interface.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2254">The alcove seepage features utilized by trout in this study are apparently similar to the numerous cold-water alcove
patches observed in another stream system by Ebersole et al. (2003). In that
study of preferential salmonid habitats, alcoves were often located where
streams converged on valley walls and were the most abundant type of discrete
cold-water habitat type identified. Conversely, valley-wall alcoves were the
least common type of seep morphology observed along the Quashnet River. It is
likely that the artificial reduction in channel sinuosity along the Quashnet
River by farming practices has reduced the number of natural higher-quality
spawning locations.</p>
      <p id="d1e2257">Other bank and alcove features with strong groundwater discharge found along the
open-valley section (Fig. 3b) were highly influenced by organic material
deposition and did not apparently support spawning habitats. Our research
indicates that in lowland systems with organic-rich floodplain sediments,
valley-wall alcoves alone create a favorable brook trout spawning habitat via
local mineral soil-dominated groundwater-discharge flow paths, as shown in
conceptual Fig. 9. This finding might help inform future ecologically based
stream restoration practices in using the natural landscape to predict
desirable preferential groundwater-discharge points, as was recently done by
Hare et al. (2017) to inform the engineering of a large-scale cranberry bog
restoration.</p>
      <p id="d1e2260">The pore-water SpC, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and DO data alone do not definitively show
that seepage at the cutbank spawn sites is derived from more localized
groundwater recharge, as opposed to regional groundwater that is
unadulterated by buried peat lenses. However, the hydrodynamic data derived
from long-term vertical temperature profiling in seepage zones does offer
additional insight. In general, groundwater-discharge rates are more variable
at cutbank spawn zones than in the open-valley stream-bed zones (Fig. 6), and
this variability may be tied to shorter-term changes in local river stage
and/or water table depth, impacting the local hydraulic gradient. The
relatively stable patterns of open-valley groundwater discharge may be
controlled by the regional gradient, where the flow path length term dominates
the Darcy relation and is therefore relatively insensitive to local changes
in river stage and water table fluctuations. Furthermore, the stable water
isotope data display evaporative signatures at the open-valley stream-bed
discharge sites, indicating regional groundwater that has passed through one
or more upgradient flow-through lakes (Table 2). In contrast, the Spawn sites
all show isotope signals that fall along the local meteoric waterline and
therefore likely represent recharge to the hillslopes more local to the
river. These localized groundwater flow systems would be expected to be
less influenced by regional groundwater contamination, which is widespread in
the regional Cape Cod aquifer (Walter and Masterson, 2002).</p>
      <p id="d1e2275">Groundwater drainage-ditch data collected along the river corridor indicate
that
low SpC/<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cl</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions
exist for the majority of ditches throughout the lower Quashnet River
riparian areas (Fig. 7). The hillslope piezometer in sand and gravel at the
down valley wall has a similar chemical signature along with high DO. This
similarity further indicates that low-SpC groundwater discharges even to
the lower<?pagebreak page6395?> portion of the river corridor but is chemically modified by travel through near-stream organics. The relic drainage ditches
allow the discharging groundwater to effectively short-circuit the valley floor
peat deposits and remain high in DO, similar to the natural valley-wall
springs and cutbank alcoves. Future restoration strategies that seek to
actively enhance groundwater discharge (e.g., Kurylyk et al., 2015a) may
consider capitalizing on this short circuit behavior, possibly by auguring
through buried stream-bed peat or through the movement of the stream channel toward the
valley wall to create more desirable brook trout aquatic habitat.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2295">The three repeatedly utilized discrete spawning zone locations
that have been identified for over a decade of observation have coupled
strongly discharging groundwater with high DO concentration. A conceptual
diagram of the hydrogeochemical setting of spawn zones vs. other
non-favorable stream-bed locations of groundwater discharge is shown in
Fig. 9. Spawn zones are located exclusively in side alcoves of the channel
created by bank slumps along meanders, where the river cuts into steep
hillslopes along the glacial sands and gravel valley wall. In the alcoves at
the base of the cutbanks, hillslope groundwater with high DO concentrations
is discharged through the stream bed without appreciable loss of oxygen. Just
a few meters away toward the main channel, however, groundwater consistently
discharges at lower rates, reduces in DO, and increases in SpC. The lowest
oxygen concentrations in groundwater are associated with water emerging from
the stream bed adjacent to the wide riparian areas that flank the Quashnet in
the open-valley section of the study reach, even though groundwater-discharge
rates were also relatively high. In the open valley, where the stream is not
near the valley walls, proximity to the stream bank does not seem to control
seepage chemistry, and GPR data indicated thick zones of discontinuous
stream-bed peat. In this and other groundwater-dominated streams that are
expected to serve as climate refugia for future native trout populations,
hyporheic exchange will be limited by a strong upward hydraulic gradient.
Therefore, preferential spawning habitat in such lowland valley systems may
be primarily supported by discrete zones of oxic groundwater upwelling at the
meter to sub-meter scale, as has been indicated by previous work (e.g., Curry
et al., 1995).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p id="d1e2300">This conceptual model shows how valley-wall cutbank discharge zones
are likely sourced by locally recharged hillslope groundwater that avoids
substantial interaction with valley-floor organic material. The discharging
groundwater remains oxygen-rich, therefore supporting trout spawning activity
along discrete stream-bed sections at the meter scale. The topographic
profile shown here (A–A') is derived from airborne lidar data and is
oriented perpendicular to the stream at the Spawn 1 zone, as geolocated in
Fig. 2b.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/6383/2018/hess-22-6383-2018-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2309">In systems where all groundwater discharge is universally anoxic,
preferential salmonid spawning zonation may be controlled by points of
downwelling hyporheic water where shallow sediments remain high in DO
(Buffington and Tonina, 2009; Cardenas et al., 2016). However, these
hyporheic areas will deliver cold surface water to shallow<?pagebreak page6396?> sediments during
winter, which may impair the overwintering of brook trout eggs (French et
al., 2017). Here and in many other coastal systems, groundwater temperature
is expected to range from approximately 10–12 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, which is an ideal
range for brook trout egg development (Raleigh, 1982). Points of oxic
groundwater upwelling devoid of near-stream buried organics, combined with a
recirculating side alcove and favorable sand and gravel sediments, may
provide an ideal and unique and preferential spawning habitat for native
trout.</p>
      <p id="d1e2321">Stream surface or stream-bed interface heat tracing of groundwater discharge
offers an efficient means to locate discrete seepage zones but offers only
limited insight into source groundwater flow path hydraulics and
geochemistry. A combined toolkit that also includes spatially informed (using
heat tracing) geochemical and isotope sampling and geophysical imaging can be
used to trace groundwater flow paths back into the source aquifer, and
develop a robust hydrogeochemical characterization. Additionally, as digital
elevation models become more refined and combined with infrared data derived
from unmanned aerial systems, the remote identification of relatively small
features such as the seepage alcoves described here should be possible. A
comprehensive and process-based characterization of a niche stream habitat
can be used to guide a stream ecological restoration design that directly
incorporates the local preferential groundwater-discharge template.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e2328">All data presented in this paper are publicly available as
indicated in the reference list.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e2331">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6383-2018-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6383-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e2340">All authors contributed to the analysis of field data and
the development of this paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e2346">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2352">Comments from anonymous reviewers and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reviews
by Nathaniel Hitt and Paul Barlow are gratefully acknowledged. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through its Office of
Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research
described here under agreement number DW-14-92381701 to the USGS. The USGS
authors were supported by the following USGS entities: the Office of
Groundwater, Water Availability and Use Science Program, National Water
Quality Program, and the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program. Field and
laboratory assistance from Allison Swartz, Jay Choi, Jenny Lewis, Yao Du,
Danielle Hare, Courtney Scruggs, Rayna Mitzman, David Rey, Geoff Delin, Eric
White, MassWildlife Southeast District Staff, Jennifer Salas, and volunteers
from Trout Unlimited is greatly appreciated. The paper has been
subjected to Agency review and approved for publication. The views expressed
in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the views or policies of the USEPA. Any use of trade, firm, or product names
is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
government.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Alberto Guadagnini <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: three anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Annett, B., Gerlach, G., King, T. L., and Whiteley, A. R.: Conservation
Genetics of Remnant Coastal Brook Trout Populations at the Southern Limit of
Their Distribution: Population Structure and Effects of Stocking, T. Am.
Fish. Soc., 141, 1399–1410, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.694831" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00028487.2012.694831</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Back, W., Baedecker, M. J., and Wood, W. W.: Scales in chemical hydrogeology:
a historical perspective, in: Regional Ground-Water Quality, edited by: Alley, W. M.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 111–128, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Baird, O. E. and Krueger, C. C.: Behavioral thermoregulation of brook and
rainbow trout: comparison of summer habitat use in an Adirondack River, New
York, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 132, 1194–1206, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Barlow, P. M. and Hess, K. M.: Simulated Hydrologic Responses of the Quashnet
River Stream-Aquifer System to Proposed Ground-Water Withdrawals, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 93-4064, 51 pp.,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bowerman, T., Neilson, B. T., and Budy, P.: Effects of fine sediment,
hyporheic flow, and spawning site characteristics on survival and development
of bull trout embryos, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 71, 1059–1071, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Briggs, M. A. and Hare, D. K.: Explicit consideration of preferential
groundwater discharges as surface water ecosystem control points, Hydrol.
Process., 2, 2435–2440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13178" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.13178</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Briggs, M. A., Lautz, L. K., Buckley, S. F., and Lane, J. W.: Practical
limitations on the use of diurnal temperature signals to quantify groundwater
upwelling, J. Hydrol., 519, 1739–1751, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.030" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.030</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Briggs, M. A., Buckley, S. F., Bagtzoglou, A. C., Werkema, D., and Lane, J.
W.: Actively heated high-resolution fiber-optic distributed temperature
sensing to quantify flow dynamics in zones of strong groundwater upwelling,
Water Resour. Res., 52, 5179–5194, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018219" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015WR018219</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Briggs, M. A., Johnson, Z. C., Snyder, C. D., Hitt, N. P., Kurylyk, B. L.,
Lautz, L., Irvine, D. J., Hurley, S. T., and Lane, J. W.: Inferring watershed
hydraulics and cold-water habitat persistence using multi-year air and stream
temperature signals, Sci. Total Environ., 636, 1117–1127,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.344" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.344</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Briggs, M. A., Scruggs, C. R., Hurley, S. T., and White, E. A.: Temperature
and geophysical data collected along the Quashnet<?pagebreak page6397?> River, Mashpee/Falmouth MA,
U.S. Geological Survey data release, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PN93QF" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5066/F7PN93QF</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Buffington, J. M. and Tonina, D.: A three-dimensional model for analyzing the
effects of salmon redds on hyporheic exchange and egg pocket habitat A
three-dimensional model for analyzing the effects of salmon redds on
hyporheic exchange and egg pocket habitat, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 66,
2157–2173, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-146" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/F09-146</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Burns, E. R., Zhu, Y., Zhan, H., Manga, M., Williams, C. F., Ingebritsen, S.
E., and Dunham, J.: Thermal effect of climate change on groundwater-fed
ecosystems, Water Resour. Res., 53, 3341–3351, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016WR020007</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cardenas, M. B. and Wilson, J. L.: The influence of ambient groundwater
discharge on exchange zones induced by current-bedform interactions,
J. Hydrol., 331, 103–109, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Cardenas, M. B., Ford, A. E., Kaufman, M. H., Kessler, A. J., and Cook, P. L.
M.: Hyporheic flow and dissolved oxygen distribution in fish nests: the
effects of open channel velocity, permeability patterns, and groundwater
upwelling, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci., 121, 3113–3130,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003381" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JG003381</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Comas, X., Slater, L., and Reeve, A. S.: Pool patterning in a northern
peatland: Geophysical evidence for the role of postglacial landforms, J.
Hydrol., 399, 173–184, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.031</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Crisp, D. T.: A desk study of the relationship between temperature and
hatching time for the eggs of five species of salmonid species, Freshwater
Biol., 11, 361–368, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1981.tb01267.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2427.1981.tb01267.x</ext-link>, 1981.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Cunjak, R. A. and Power, G.: Seasonal changes in the physiology of brook
trout, <italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic> (Mitchill), in a sub-Arctic river
system, J. Fish Biol., 29, 279–288, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Curry, R., Noakes, D. L. G., and Morgan, G. E.: Groundwater and the
incubation and emergence of brook trout (<italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic>),
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 52, 1741–1749, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Dansgaard, W.: Stable isotopes in precipitation, Tellus, 16, 436–468,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v16i4.8993" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusa.v16i4.8993</ext-link>, 1964.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Dugdale, S. J.: A practitioner's guide to thermal infrared remote sensing of
rivers and streams: recent advances, precautions and considerations, WIREs
Water, 3, 251–268, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1135" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wat2.1135</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Dugdale, S. J., Bergeron, N. E., and St-Hilaire, A.: Spatial distribution of
thermal refuges analysed in relation to riverscape hydromorphology using
airborne thermal infrared imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 160, 43–55,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.12.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2014.12.021</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ebersole, J. L., Liss, W. J., and Frissell, C. A.: Cold water patches in warm
streams: physicochemical characteristics and the influence of shading, J. Am.
Water Resour. As., 59860, 355–368, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>French, W. E., Vondracek, B., Ferrington, L. C., Finlay, J. C., and
Dieterman, D. J.: Brown trout (<italic>Salmo trutta</italic>) growth and condition
along a winter thermal gradient in temperate streams, Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci., 74, 56–64, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/cjfas-2016-0005</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Frimpter, M. H. and Gay, F. B.: Chemical quality of ground water on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-65, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Geist, D. R., Hanrahan, T. P., Arntzen, E. V, Mcmichael, G. A., Murray, C.
J., and Chien, Y.: Physicochemical Characteristics of the Hyporheic Zone
Affect Redd Site Selection by Chum Salmon and Fall Chinook Salmon in the
Columbia River, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 22, 1077–1085, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Hare, D. K., Briggs, M. A., Rosenberry, D. O., Boutt, D. F., and Lane, J. W.:
A comparison of thermal infrared to fiber-optic distributed temperature
sensing for evaluation of groundwater discharge to surface water, J. Hydrol.,
530, 153–166, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.059</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Hare, D. K., Boutt, D. F., Clement, W. P., Hatch, C. E., Davenport, G., and
Hackman, A.: Hydrogeological controls on spatial patterns of groundwater
discharge in peatlands, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6031–6048,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6031-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-6031-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Harvey, J. W. and Fuller, C. C.: Effect of enhanced manganese oxidation in
the hyporheic zone on basin-scale geochemical mass balance, Water Resour.
Res., 34, 623–636, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Harvey, J. W., Böhlke, J. K., Voytek, M. A., Scott, D., and Tobias, C.
R.: Hyporheic zone denitrification: Controls on effective reaction depth and
contribution to whole-stream mass balance, Water Resour. Res., 49,
6298–6316, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20492" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wrcr.20492</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Harvey, J. W., Briggs, M. A., Buskirk, B., Swartz, A., Lewis, J., and Du, Y.:
Surface water and groundwater water chemistry data collected along the
Quashnet River, Mashpee/Falmouth, MA, U.S. Geological Survey data release,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5066/F7M044MF" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5066/F7M044MF</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Hausle, D. A. and Coble, D. W.: Influence of sand in redds on survival and
emergence of brook trout (<italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic>), T. Am. Fish. Soc.,
105, 57–63, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Hitt, N. P., Snook, E. L., and Massie, D. L.: Brook trout use of thermal
refugia and foraging habitat influenced by brown trout, Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci., 74, 406–418, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0255" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/cjfas-2016-0255</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hudy, M., Thieling, T. M., Gillespie, N., and Smith, E. P.: Distribution,
status, and land use characteristics of subwatersheds within the native range
of brook trout in the Eastern United States, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 28,
1069–1085, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Irvine, D. J., Lautz, L. K., Briggs, M. A., Gordon, R. P., and Mckenzie, J.
M.: Experimental evaluation of the applicability of phase, amplitude, and
combined methods to determine water flux and thermal diffusivity from
temperature time series using VFLUX 2, J. Hydrol., 531, 728–737, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Isaak, D. J., Young, M. K., Nagel, D. E., Horan, D. L., and Groce, M. C.: The
cold-water climate shield: Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes
through the 21st century, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2540–2553,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12879" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12879</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Kalbus, E., Reinstorf, F., and Schirmer, M.: Measuring methods for
groundwater – surface water interactions: a review, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 10, 873–887, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-873-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-10-873-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Krause, S., Tecklenburg, C., Munz, M., and Naden, E.: Streambed nitrogen
cycling beyond the hyporheic zone: Flow controls on horizontal patterns and
depth distribution of nitrate and dissolved oxygen in the upwelling
groundwater of a lowland river, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci., 118, 54–67,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG002122" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JG002122</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Kurylyk, B. L., Macquarrie, K. T. B., Linnansaari, T., Cunjak, R. A., and
Curry, R. A.: Preserving, augmenting, and creating cold-water thermal refugia
in rivers: concepts derived from research<?pagebreak page6398?> on the Miramichi River, New
Brunswick (Canada), Ecohydrology, 8, 1095–1108, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1566" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/eco.1566</ext-link>,
2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Kurylyk, B. L., MacQuarrie, K. T. B., Caissie, D., and McKenzie, J. M.:
Shallow groundwater thermal sensitivity to climate change and land cover
disturbances: derivation of analytical expressions and implications for
stream temperature modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2469–2489,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2469-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-2469-2015</ext-link>, 2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Kurylyk, B. L., Irvine, D. J., Carrey, S., Briggs, M. A., Werkema, D., and
Bonham, M.: Heat as a hydrologic tracer in shallow and deep heterogeneous
media: analytical solution, spreadsheet tool, and field applications, Hydrol.
Process., 31, 2648–2661, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11216" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.11216</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
LeBlanc, B. D. R., Massey, A. J., Cochrane, J. J., King, J. H., Smith, K. P.,
and Survey, U. S. G.: Distribution and Migration of Ordnance-Related
Compounds and Oxygen and Hydrogen Stable Isotopes in Ground Water near Snake
Pond, Sandwich, Massachusetts, 2001–2006, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2008-5052, 19 pp., 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
LeBlanc, D. R., Guswa, J. H., Frimpter, M. H., and Londquist, C. J.:
Ground-water resources of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Atlas,
692, 4 sheets, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Levy, Z. F., Siegel, D. I., Glaser, P. H., Samson, S. D., and Dasgupta, S.
S.: Peat porewaters have contrasting geochemical fingerprints for groundwater
recharge and discharge due to matrix diffusion in a large, northern bog-fen
complex, J. Hydrol., 541, 941–951, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.001</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Lowry, C. S., Fratta, D., and Anderson, M. P.: Ground penetrating radar and
spring formation in a groundwater dominated peat wetland, J. Hydrol., 373,
68–79, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.023</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Luce, C. H., Tonina, D., Gariglio, F., and Applebee, R.: Solutions for the
diurnally forced advection-diffusion equation to estimate bulk fluid velocity
and diffusivity in streambeds from temperature time series, Water Resour.
Res., 49, 488–506, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012380" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012WR012380</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>MacCrimmon, H. R. and Campbell, S. C.: World Distribution of Brook Trout,
<italic>Salaelinus fontinalis</italic>, J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 26, 1699–1725,
1969.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Matthews, K. R. and Berg, N. H.: Rainbow trout responses to water temperature
and dissolved oxygen stress in two southern California stream pools, J. Fish
Biol., 59, 50–67, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Modica, E.: Source and age of ground-water seepage to streams, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact
Sheet Fact Sheet 063-99, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Montgomery, D. R., Buffington, J. M., Peterson, N. P., SchuettHames, D., and
Quinn, T. P.: Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of
salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival, Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci., 53, 1061–1070, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-53-5-1061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/cjfas-53-5-1061</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Mullan, J. W.: The sea run or “Salter” brook trout (<italic>Salvelinus fontinalis</italic>) fishery of the coastal streams of Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game, Bulletin No. 17, 1958.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Obruca, W. and Hauer, C.: Physical laboratory analyses of intergravel flow
through brown trout redds (<italic>Salmo trutta fario</italic>) in response to coarse
sand infiltration, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 42, 670–680,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.4009</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Petty, J. T., Hansbarger, J. L., Huntsman, B. M., and Mazik, P. M.:
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Brook Trout Movement in
Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex
Appalachian Riverscape Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow,
and Thermal Refugia within a Compl, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 141, 1060–1073,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.681102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00028487.2012.681102</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Raleigh, R. F.: Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS, 82/10.24, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Rau, G. C., Andersen, M. S., McCallum, A. M., Roshan, H., and Acworth, R. I.:
Heat as a tracer to quantify water flow in near-surface sediments, Earth-Sci.
Rev., 129, 40–58, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.10.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.10.015</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Rezanezhad, F., Price, J. S., Quinton, W. L., Lennartz, B., Milojevic, T.,
and Cappellen, P. Van: Structure of peat soils and implications for water
storage, flow and solute transport?: A review update for geochemists, Chem.
Geol., 429, 75–84, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.010</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Rosenberry, D. O., Briggs, M. A., Delin, G., and Hare, D. K.: Combined use of
thermal methods and seepage meters to efficiently locate, quantify, and
monitor focused groundwater discharge to a sand-bed stream, Water Resour.
Res., 52, 4486–4503, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018808" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016WR018808</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Seitzinger, S., Harrison, J. A., Böhlke, J. K., Bouwman, A. F., Lowrance,
R., Peterson, B., Tobias, C., and Van Drecht, G.: Denitrification across
landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis, Ecol. Appl., 16, 2064–2090,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:DALAWA]2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:DALAWA]2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Snook, E. L., Letcher, B. H., Dubreuil, T. L., Zydlewski, J., Donnell, M. J.
O., Whiteley, A. R., Hurley, S. T., and Danylchuk, A. J.: Movement patterns
of Brook Trout in a restored coastal stream system in southern Massachusetts,
Ecol. Freshw. Fish, 26, 360–375, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12216" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/eff.12216</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Steel, E. A., Beechie, T. J., Torgersen, C. E., and Fullerton, A. H.:
Envisioning, Quantifying, and Managing Thermal Regimes on River Networks,
BioScience, 67,  506–522, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix047" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/biosci/bix047</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Stoliker, D. L., Repert, D. A., Smith, R. L., Song, B., LeBlanc, D. R.,
Mccobb, T. D., Conaway, C. H., Hyun, S. P., Koh, D., Moon, H. S., and Kent,
D. B.: Hydrologic Controls on Nitrogen Cycling Processes and Functional Gene
Abundance in Sediments of a Groundwater Flow-Through Lake, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 50, 3649–3657, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06155" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.5b06155</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Van Grinsven, M., Mayer, A., and Huckins, C.: Estimation of Streambed
Groundwater Fluxes Associated with Coaster Brook Trout Spawning Habitat,
Groundwater, 50, 432–441, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00856.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00856.x</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Walter, B. D. A. and Masterson, J. P.: Simulated Pond-Aquifer Interactions
under Natural and Stressed Conditions near Snake Pond, Cape Cod, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4174, 34 pp.,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wehrly, K. E., Wang, L., and Mitro, M.: Field-based estimates of thermal
tolerance limits for trout: incorporating exposure time and temperature
fluctuation, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 136, 365–374, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., and Alley, W. M.: Ground water
and surface water; a single resource, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular, 1139, 79 pp., 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Hydrogeochemical controls on brook trout spawning habitats in a coastal stream</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Brook trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>) spawn in fall and
overwintering egg development can benefit from stable, relatively warm
temperatures in groundwater-seepage zones. However, eggs are also sensitive
to dissolved oxygen concentration, which may be reduced in discharging
groundwater (i.e., seepage). We investigated a 2&thinsp;km reach of the coastal
Quashnet River in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA, to relate preferred fish
spawning habitats to geology, geomorphology, and discharging groundwater
geochemistry. Thermal reconnaissance methods were used to locate zones of
rapid groundwater discharge, which were predominantly found along the central
channel of a wider stream valley section. Pore-water chemistry and temporal
vertical groundwater flux were measured at a subset of these zones during
field campaigns over several seasons. Seepage zones in open-valley
sub-reaches generally showed suboxic conditions and higher dissolved solutes
compared to the underlying glacial outwash aquifer. These discharge zones
were cross-referenced with preferred brook trout redds and evaluated during
10 years of observation, all of which were associated with discrete alcove
features in steep cutbanks, where stream meander bends intersect the glacial
valley walls. Seepage in these repeat spawning zones was generally stronger
and more variable than in open-valley sites, with higher dissolved oxygen and
reduced solute concentrations. The combined evidence indicates that regional
groundwater discharge along the broader valley bottom is predominantly
suboxic due to the influence of near-stream organic deposits; trout show no
obvious preference for these zones when spawning. However, the meander bends
that cut into sandy deposits near the valley walls generate strong oxic
seepage zones that are utilized routinely for redd construction and the
overwintering of trout eggs. Stable water isotopic data support the
conclusion that repeat spawning zones are located directly on preferential
discharges of more localized groundwater. In similar coastal systems with
extensive valley peat deposits, the specific use of groundwater-discharge points
by brook trout may be limited to morphologies such as cutbanks, where
groundwater flow paths do not encounter substantial buried organic material
and remain oxygen-rich.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Annett, B., Gerlach, G., King, T. L., and Whiteley, A. R.: Conservation
Genetics of Remnant Coastal Brook Trout Populations at the Southern Limit of
Their Distribution: Population Structure and Effects of Stocking, T. Am.
Fish. Soc., 141, 1399–1410, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.694831" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.694831</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Back, W., Baedecker, M. J., and Wood, W. W.: Scales in chemical hydrogeology:
a historical perspective, in: Regional Ground-Water Quality, edited by: Alley, W. M.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 111–128, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Baird, O. E. and Krueger, C. C.: Behavioral thermoregulation of brook and
rainbow trout: comparison of summer habitat use in an Adirondack River, New
York, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 132, 1194–1206, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Barlow, P. M. and Hess, K. M.: Simulated Hydrologic Responses of the Quashnet
River Stream-Aquifer System to Proposed Ground-Water Withdrawals, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 93-4064, 51 pp.,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bowerman, T., Neilson, B. T., and Budy, P.: Effects of fine sediment,
hyporheic flow, and spawning site characteristics on survival and development
of bull trout embryos, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 71, 1059–1071, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Briggs, M. A. and Hare, D. K.: Explicit consideration of preferential
groundwater discharges as surface water ecosystem control points, Hydrol.
Process., 2, 2435–2440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13178" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13178</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Briggs, M. A., Lautz, L. K., Buckley, S. F., and Lane, J. W.: Practical
limitations on the use of diurnal temperature signals to quantify groundwater
upwelling, J. Hydrol., 519, 1739–1751, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.030" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.030</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Briggs, M. A., Buckley, S. F., Bagtzoglou, A. C., Werkema, D., and Lane, J.
W.: Actively heated high-resolution fiber-optic distributed temperature
sensing to quantify flow dynamics in zones of strong groundwater upwelling,
Water Resour. Res., 52, 5179–5194, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018219" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018219</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Briggs, M. A., Johnson, Z. C., Snyder, C. D., Hitt, N. P., Kurylyk, B. L.,
Lautz, L., Irvine, D. J., Hurley, S. T., and Lane, J. W.: Inferring watershed
hydraulics and cold-water habitat persistence using multi-year air and stream
temperature signals, Sci. Total Environ., 636, 1117–1127,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.344" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.344</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Briggs, M. A., Scruggs, C. R., Hurley, S. T., and White, E. A.: Temperature
and geophysical data collected along the Quashnet River, Mashpee/Falmouth MA,
U.S. Geological Survey data release, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PN93QF" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PN93QF</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Buffington, J. M. and Tonina, D.: A three-dimensional model for analyzing the
effects of salmon redds on hyporheic exchange and egg pocket habitat A
three-dimensional model for analyzing the effects of salmon redds on
hyporheic exchange and egg pocket habitat, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 66,
2157–2173, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-146" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-146</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Burns, E. R., Zhu, Y., Zhan, H., Manga, M., Williams, C. F., Ingebritsen, S.
E., and Dunham, J.: Thermal effect of climate change on groundwater-fed
ecosystems, Water Resour. Res., 53, 3341–3351, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020007</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cardenas, M. B. and Wilson, J. L.: The influence of ambient groundwater
discharge on exchange zones induced by current-bedform interactions,
J. Hydrol., 331, 103–109, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Cardenas, M. B., Ford, A. E., Kaufman, M. H., Kessler, A. J., and Cook, P. L.
M.: Hyporheic flow and dissolved oxygen distribution in fish nests: the
effects of open channel velocity, permeability patterns, and groundwater
upwelling, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci., 121, 3113–3130,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003381" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003381</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Comas, X., Slater, L., and Reeve, A. S.: Pool patterning in a northern
peatland: Geophysical evidence for the role of postglacial landforms, J.
Hydrol., 399, 173–184, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.031" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.031</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Crisp, D. T.: A desk study of the relationship between temperature and
hatching time for the eggs of five species of salmonid species, Freshwater
Biol., 11, 361–368, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1981.tb01267.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1981.tb01267.x</a>, 1981.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Cunjak, R. A. and Power, G.: Seasonal changes in the physiology of brook
trout, <i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i> (Mitchill), in a sub-Arctic river
system, J. Fish Biol., 29, 279–288, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Curry, R., Noakes, D. L. G., and Morgan, G. E.: Groundwater and the
incubation and emergence of brook trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>),
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 52, 1741–1749, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dansgaard, W.: Stable isotopes in precipitation, Tellus, 16, 436–468,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v16i4.8993" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v16i4.8993</a>, 1964.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Dugdale, S. J.: A practitioner's guide to thermal infrared remote sensing of
rivers and streams: recent advances, precautions and considerations, WIREs
Water, 3, 251–268, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1135" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1135</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dugdale, S. J., Bergeron, N. E., and St-Hilaire, A.: Spatial distribution of
thermal refuges analysed in relation to riverscape hydromorphology using
airborne thermal infrared imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 160, 43–55,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.12.021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.12.021</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ebersole, J. L., Liss, W. J., and Frissell, C. A.: Cold water patches in warm
streams: physicochemical characteristics and the influence of shading, J. Am.
Water Resour. As., 59860, 355–368, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
French, W. E., Vondracek, B., Ferrington, L. C., Finlay, J. C., and
Dieterman, D. J.: Brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>) growth and condition
along a winter thermal gradient in temperate streams, Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci., 74, 56–64, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0005</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Frimpter, M. H. and Gay, F. B.: Chemical quality of ground water on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-65, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Geist, D. R., Hanrahan, T. P., Arntzen, E. V, Mcmichael, G. A., Murray, C.
J., and Chien, Y.: Physicochemical Characteristics of the Hyporheic Zone
Affect Redd Site Selection by Chum Salmon and Fall Chinook Salmon in the
Columbia River, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 22, 1077–1085, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Hare, D. K., Briggs, M. A., Rosenberry, D. O., Boutt, D. F., and Lane, J. W.:
A comparison of thermal infrared to fiber-optic distributed temperature
sensing for evaluation of groundwater discharge to surface water, J. Hydrol.,
530, 153–166, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.059" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.059</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Hare, D. K., Boutt, D. F., Clement, W. P., Hatch, C. E., Davenport, G., and
Hackman, A.: Hydrogeological controls on spatial patterns of groundwater
discharge in peatlands, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6031–6048,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6031-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6031-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Harvey, J. W. and Fuller, C. C.: Effect of enhanced manganese oxidation in
the hyporheic zone on basin-scale geochemical mass balance, Water Resour.
Res., 34, 623–636, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Harvey, J. W., Böhlke, J. K., Voytek, M. A., Scott, D., and Tobias, C.
R.: Hyporheic zone denitrification: Controls on effective reaction depth and
contribution to whole-stream mass balance, Water Resour. Res., 49,
6298–6316, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20492" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20492</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Harvey, J. W., Briggs, M. A., Buskirk, B., Swartz, A., Lewis, J., and Du, Y.:
Surface water and groundwater water chemistry data collected along the
Quashnet River, Mashpee/Falmouth, MA, U.S. Geological Survey data release,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5066/F7M044MF" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5066/F7M044MF</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Hausle, D. A. and Coble, D. W.: Influence of sand in redds on survival and
emergence of brook trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>), T. Am. Fish. Soc.,
105, 57–63, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Hitt, N. P., Snook, E. L., and Massie, D. L.: Brook trout use of thermal
refugia and foraging habitat influenced by brown trout, Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci., 74, 406–418, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0255" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0255</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hudy, M., Thieling, T. M., Gillespie, N., and Smith, E. P.: Distribution,
status, and land use characteristics of subwatersheds within the native range
of brook trout in the Eastern United States, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 28,
1069–1085, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Irvine, D. J., Lautz, L. K., Briggs, M. A., Gordon, R. P., and Mckenzie, J.
M.: Experimental evaluation of the applicability of phase, amplitude, and
combined methods to determine water flux and thermal diffusivity from
temperature time series using VFLUX 2, J. Hydrol., 531, 728–737, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Isaak, D. J., Young, M. K., Nagel, D. E., Horan, D. L., and Groce, M. C.: The
cold-water climate shield: Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes
through the 21st century, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2540–2553,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12879" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12879</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Kalbus, E., Reinstorf, F., and Schirmer, M.: Measuring methods for
groundwater – surface water interactions: a review, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 10, 873–887, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-873-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-873-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Krause, S., Tecklenburg, C., Munz, M., and Naden, E.: Streambed nitrogen
cycling beyond the hyporheic zone: Flow controls on horizontal patterns and
depth distribution of nitrate and dissolved oxygen in the upwelling
groundwater of a lowland river, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci., 118, 54–67,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG002122" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG002122</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Kurylyk, B. L., Macquarrie, K. T. B., Linnansaari, T., Cunjak, R. A., and
Curry, R. A.: Preserving, augmenting, and creating cold-water thermal refugia
in rivers: concepts derived from research on the Miramichi River, New
Brunswick (Canada), Ecohydrology, 8, 1095–1108, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1566" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1566</a>,
2015a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Kurylyk, B. L., MacQuarrie, K. T. B., Caissie, D., and McKenzie, J. M.:
Shallow groundwater thermal sensitivity to climate change and land cover
disturbances: derivation of analytical expressions and implications for
stream temperature modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2469–2489,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2469-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2469-2015</a>, 2015b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Kurylyk, B. L., Irvine, D. J., Carrey, S., Briggs, M. A., Werkema, D., and
Bonham, M.: Heat as a hydrologic tracer in shallow and deep heterogeneous
media: analytical solution, spreadsheet tool, and field applications, Hydrol.
Process., 31, 2648–2661, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11216" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11216</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
LeBlanc, B. D. R., Massey, A. J., Cochrane, J. J., King, J. H., Smith, K. P.,
and Survey, U. S. G.: Distribution and Migration of Ordnance-Related
Compounds and Oxygen and Hydrogen Stable Isotopes in Ground Water near Snake
Pond, Sandwich, Massachusetts, 2001–2006, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2008-5052, 19 pp., 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
LeBlanc, D. R., Guswa, J. H., Frimpter, M. H., and Londquist, C. J.:
Ground-water resources of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Atlas,
692, 4 sheets, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, Z. F., Siegel, D. I., Glaser, P. H., Samson, S. D., and Dasgupta, S.
S.: Peat porewaters have contrasting geochemical fingerprints for groundwater
recharge and discharge due to matrix diffusion in a large, northern bog-fen
complex, J. Hydrol., 541, 941–951, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.001</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Lowry, C. S., Fratta, D., and Anderson, M. P.: Ground penetrating radar and
spring formation in a groundwater dominated peat wetland, J. Hydrol., 373,
68–79, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.023</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Luce, C. H., Tonina, D., Gariglio, F., and Applebee, R.: Solutions for the
diurnally forced advection-diffusion equation to estimate bulk fluid velocity
and diffusivity in streambeds from temperature time series, Water Resour.
Res., 49, 488–506, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012380" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012380</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
MacCrimmon, H. R. and Campbell, S. C.: World Distribution of Brook Trout,
<i>Salaelinus fontinalis</i>, J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 26, 1699–1725,
1969.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Matthews, K. R. and Berg, N. H.: Rainbow trout responses to water temperature
and dissolved oxygen stress in two southern California stream pools, J. Fish
Biol., 59, 50–67, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Modica, E.: Source and age of ground-water seepage to streams, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact
Sheet Fact Sheet 063-99, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Montgomery, D. R., Buffington, J. M., Peterson, N. P., SchuettHames, D., and
Quinn, T. P.: Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of
salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival, Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci., 53, 1061–1070, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-53-5-1061" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-53-5-1061</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Mullan, J. W.: The sea run or “Salter” brook trout (<i>Salvelinus
fontinalis</i>) fishery of the coastal streams of Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game, Bulletin No. 17, 1958.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Obruca, W. and Hauer, C.: Physical laboratory analyses of intergravel flow
through brown trout redds (<i>Salmo trutta fario</i>) in response to coarse
sand infiltration, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 42, 670–680,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4009</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Petty, J. T., Hansbarger, J. L., Huntsman, B. M., and Mazik, P. M.:
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Brook Trout Movement in
Response to Temperature, Flow, and Thermal Refugia within a Complex
Appalachian Riverscape Brook Trout Movement in Response to Temperature, Flow,
and Thermal Refugia within a Compl, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 141, 1060–1073,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.681102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.681102</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Raleigh, R. F.: Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS, 82/10.24, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Rau, G. C., Andersen, M. S., McCallum, A. M., Roshan, H., and Acworth, R. I.:
Heat as a tracer to quantify water flow in near-surface sediments, Earth-Sci.
Rev., 129, 40–58, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.10.015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.10.015</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Rezanezhad, F., Price, J. S., Quinton, W. L., Lennartz, B., Milojevic, T.,
and Cappellen, P. Van: Structure of peat soils and implications for water
storage, flow and solute transport?: A review update for geochemists, Chem.
Geol., 429, 75–84, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.010</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenberry, D. O., Briggs, M. A., Delin, G., and Hare, D. K.: Combined use of
thermal methods and seepage meters to efficiently locate, quantify, and
monitor focused groundwater discharge to a sand-bed stream, Water Resour.
Res., 52, 4486–4503, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018808" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018808</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Seitzinger, S., Harrison, J. A., Böhlke, J. K., Bouwman, A. F., Lowrance,
R., Peterson, B., Tobias, C., and Van Drecht, G.: Denitrification across
landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis, Ecol. Appl., 16, 2064–2090,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:DALAWA]2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:DALAWA]2.0.CO;2</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Snook, E. L., Letcher, B. H., Dubreuil, T. L., Zydlewski, J., Donnell, M. J.
O., Whiteley, A. R., Hurley, S. T., and Danylchuk, A. J.: Movement patterns
of Brook Trout in a restored coastal stream system in southern Massachusetts,
Ecol. Freshw. Fish, 26, 360–375, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12216" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12216</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Steel, E. A., Beechie, T. J., Torgersen, C. E., and Fullerton, A. H.:
Envisioning, Quantifying, and Managing Thermal Regimes on River Networks,
BioScience, 67,  506–522, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix047" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix047</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Stoliker, D. L., Repert, D. A., Smith, R. L., Song, B., LeBlanc, D. R.,
Mccobb, T. D., Conaway, C. H., Hyun, S. P., Koh, D., Moon, H. S., and Kent,
D. B.: Hydrologic Controls on Nitrogen Cycling Processes and Functional Gene
Abundance in Sediments of a Groundwater Flow-Through Lake, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 50, 3649–3657, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06155" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06155</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Van Grinsven, M., Mayer, A., and Huckins, C.: Estimation of Streambed
Groundwater Fluxes Associated with Coaster Brook Trout Spawning Habitat,
Groundwater, 50, 432–441, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00856.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00856.x</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Walter, B. D. A. and Masterson, J. P.: Simulated Pond-Aquifer Interactions
under Natural and Stressed Conditions near Snake Pond, Cape Cod, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4174, 34 pp.,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wehrly, K. E., Wang, L., and Mitro, M.: Field-based estimates of thermal
tolerance limits for trout: incorporating exposure time and temperature
fluctuation, T. Am. Fish. Soc., 136, 365–374, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., and Alley, W. M.: Ground water
and surface water; a single resource, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular, 1139, 79 pp., 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
