ABSTRACT

LEAHY, SCOTT T. Spatial and Temporal Variability of Streambed Hydraulic Conductivity

in West Bear Creek, North Carolina. (Under the direction of David Paul Genereux).

Spatial and temporal variability of vertical hydraulic conductivity (KV) in a sandy

streambed were evaluated from 487 field permeameter KV measurements taken during a 1year study from December 2005 to December 2006. Bimonthly KV measurements were
made at 46 locations (38 in December 2005) in a 262.5 m reach (the "large reach") of West
Bear Creek in eastern North Carolina. More closely-spaced measurements were also made in
two smaller (62.5 m) reaches within the large reach (Small Reach 1, measured in July 2006,
and Small Reach 2, measured in August 2006). Vertical conductivity was calculated from
field permeameter tests with data analysis based on Hvorslev (1951, case E, page 44).
Results show significant spatial (transverse and longitudinal) and temporal variability
in KV. Calculated arithmetic mean KV values for the large reach ranged from 3.85 to 21.33
m/day and the mean of the 7 arithmetic mean values (one for each bimonthly run) averaged
15.44 m/day. Overall, the range of streambed KV was 0.01 to 66.21 m/day. Variance in lnKV
(2lnKv) ranged from 1.88 to 4.18 for the large reach measurement runs and 2lnKv values
measured from Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2 were 1.88 and 6.04, respectively. Smaller
2lnKv values were calculated in the center of the stream channel, compared to values of 2lnKv
for measurements taken from the left or right sides of the stream channel. The opposite is
true for average KV values, where the highest averages come from the center measurement
points. While measurement spacing in the small reach runs was about 4-5 times closer than
in the large reach runs, results from the two types of reaches had similar results with respect
to range of KV, 2lnKv, and distribution of KV in the stream channel. Correlation lengths

calculated from exponential model curves fit to the experimental lnKV semi-variograms were
1.4 and 8.2 for Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2, respectively. Correlation lengths from the
small reaches bracket those calculated from the large reaches. Temporal changes in K are
probably due to deposition and erosion of stream sediment, and possibly time-varying
behavior of biofilms and/or gas bubbles in sediment, but not to changes in temperature.
Contour maps of lnKV were created using three different interpolation techniques.
Two of the three interpolation methods (radial basis function and kriging with a linear semivariogram model) produced similar and fairly realistic looking maps. Large reach run maps
showed a decrease in lnKV from the right bank to the left bank in some areas. However,
overall the data show higher lnKV in the center of the channel. Small reach contour maps
show higher lnKV in the center.
Average uncertainty in KV is equal to about 16.2%. This was calculated by adding, in
root mean square fashion, the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge of the transformation
ratio m ( 5%) to each uncertainty value arising from propagation of uncertainty in the
measurands, and then averaging these 430 uncertainty values. Percent uncertainty in KV is
larger for smaller KV values since the slope of the linear regression needed to calculate KV is
less accurately constrained from the field measurements of head with time when KV is low.

ii

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF STREAMBED HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY IN WEST BEAR CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA

by
SCOTT THOMAS LEAHY

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science

MARINE, EARTH, AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

Raleigh, North Carolina
2007

APPROVED BY:

_________________________ __________________________
A. Amoozegar

J. Fountain

________________________
D. P. Genereux
Chair of Advisory Committee

BIOGRAPHY
The author is a native of North Carolina with two hometowns, one located in Elon College,
the other in Kittrell. He received his B.S. in geology from North Carolina State University in
2004. He has accepted a job in Houma Louisiana with an oilfield services company,
specializing in fluid flow.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife Kristin, for her amazing support
during this endeavor. Her sacrifices have helped to make this achievement possible. I would
also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Genereux for his guidance and constructive criticism. His
high standards of excellence challenged my scientific mind and encouraged me to be a more
thorough scientist. Finally, I would like to thank the USDA for making this project possible
and the members on my committee, Dr. Fountain and Dr. Amoozegar, for their guidance.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Background ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Variability of hydraulic conductivity............................................................................. 2
2.2. Field techniques used to measure K............................................................................... 6
3. Study Site .............................................................................................................................. 8
4. Methods............................................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Field permeameter tests ............................................................................................... 13
4.1.1. Execution of a field permeameter test in the field ................................................ 13
4.1.2. Data analysis to estimate KV ................................................................................. 19
4.1.3. Field measurement plan ...................................................................................... 25
4.2. Laboratory grain size analysis. .................................................................................... 32
5. Results and discussion ........................................................................................................ 33
5.1. Spatial variability of KV in the large reach (WBC 300-WBC 562.5) .......................... 33
5.2. Spatial variability of KV in two small reaches ............................................................. 61
5.3 Temporal variability of KV ........................................................................................... 76
5.4. Uncertainty in KV values ............................................................................................. 78
5.5. Grain size analysis ....................................................................................................... 82
6. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 93
References............................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 105

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1.

Examples of studies reporting spatial variability in K...... 4

Table 2.2.

Comparison of streambed K and variance values from four study sites...5

Table 2.3.

Median K values (m/day) calculated with different field permeameter

diameters... 8

Table 3.1.

Soil texture as a function of depth for a core sample collected approximately

500 m northwest from study site, 50 m north of West Bear Creek
(Figure 3.2)... 9

Table 4.1.

Locations of field permeameter tests.......... 29

Table 5.1.

Descriptive statistics for KV values (at ambient field temperature) from

each large reach measurement run.. 39

Table 5.2.

Results based on tests for the difference between two means and the
difference between two variances (Zar, 1999, p. 122-125, 136-139) 41

Table 5.3.

KV (m/day) results at each site in the large reach study. 51

Table 5.4.

Number of pairs of lnKV values on which each point in the experimental

semi-variograms is based.... 59

Table 5.5.

Sill (S) and correlation length () results from fitting exponential curves
to the large reach semi-variograms. 59

Table 5.6.

Maximum and minimum lnKV values with absolute mean residual (AMR)
values for the five different interpolation methods presented for December
2005, February 2006, and April 2006. 62

Table 5.7.

Descriptive statistics comparing the KV results (at ambient field

temperature) for the two small reach studies.. 69

Table 5.8.

Sill (S) and correlation length () results from fitting exponential curves
to the small-reach semi-variograms....... 73

Table 5.9.

Water depth and changes in sediment thickness at WBC 300, 425, and 437,

based on measurements along metal rods pounded into the streambed..79

Table 5.10. KV (m/day) values (at ambient field temperature) as a function of depth for
11 sites at which sediment cores were taken (see section 5.5)....... 80
Table 5.11. KV values (m/day) for replicate measurements done during the week of
February 20th 2006.......... 81
Table 5.12. Dry sieve data over 5 cm intervals for 11 cores from the study reach....84
Table 5.13. Dry sieve and hydrometer results for particle size distribution.. 87
Table 5.14. K results (m/day) for 3 measurement techniques... 90
Table 5.15. D10 and D50 statistics for sediment cores taken from the left, right, and
center of the stream channel... 93

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Land use in West Bear Creek Watershed... 10
Figure 3.2. Contributing area of the study reach with land use.10
Figure 3.3. 1998 aerial ortho photograph of the area surrounding the study reach
(from NC DOT)...... 12
Figure 4.1. Setup of a field permeameter test in streambed sediments for a
gaining stream. 14
Figure 4.2. Photograph of one of the 4 identical field permeameter pipes used for field
permeameter tests....15
Figure 4.3. Thermometer and probe used to measure sediment temperature16
Figure 4.4. Prediction scaled sensitivities as a function of time during a typical field
permeameter test (similar to Chen, 2004)....... 20
Figure 4.5. Example of a linear regression created using data taken at site WBC 300L
on February 3, 2006.... 21
Figure 4.6. Overestimation and underestimation of KV when m is assumed to be 1 or
infinity, respectively (see text), but actual m value is 2, 5, or 10... 23
Figure 4.7. Comparison of predicted viscosity values vs. viscosity values from
Fetter, 2001......... 24
Figure 4.8. Schematic sketch (not to scale) showing the design of the 46-point grid on
which most KV measurements were made in the bed of West Bear Creek.... 27
Figure 4.9. Distribution of 62 measurement points for the 12-13 and 31 July 2006
small reach study between WBC 300 and WBC 362.5 (left), and
distribution of 54 measurement points for the 15-16 August 2006 small
reach study between WBC 487.5 and WBC 550 (right).30
Figure 5.1. Samples of lnH vs. t plots for the field permeameter tests. 35
Figure 5.2. Frequency Histograms of KV and lnKV for the large reach

vii

(WBC300-WBC562.5)... 36
Figure 5.3

Bar graph showing the arithmetic mean KV values and the 2lnKv values for
all the measurements taken in the large reach, December 2005 through
December 2006. 42

Figure 5.4. Arithmetic mean KV values upstream and downstream of the beaver dam.... 42
Figure 5.5. KV vs. time for each individual site 44
Figure 5.6. Semi-variograms from each measurement run in the large reach...53
Figure 5.7. Contour maps of lnKV for the large reach... 63
Figure 5.8. Frequency Histograms of KV and lnKV for the small reaches 68
Figure 5.9

Bar graph showing the arithmetic mean KV values and the 2lnKv values for
Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2.. 69

Figure 5.10. Flow in m3/sec recorded during the period of 12/21/05 to 12/06/06.. 70
Figure 5.11. Semi-variograms for Small Reach 1... 71
Figure 5.12. Semi-variograms for Small Reach 2... 72
Figure 5.13. Contour maps of lnKV for Small Reach 1... 74
Figure 5.14. Contour maps of lnKV for Small Reach 2... 75
Figure 5.14. Arithmetic mean KV values for the large reach, at both ambient field
temperature and corrected to 20oC.. 77
Figure 5.15. Percent uncertainty for each KV value based on propagation of uncertainty
through Equation 4.4 measured from the large and small reaches..... 80
Figure 5.17. Example showing the cumulative percent of particle size diameter using
data from dry sieve analysis for core 303R at the depth interval of 0-6 cm... 88
Figure 5.18. Distribution of D10 and D50 with depth for 11 cores....... 89

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Values of horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity from published
literature.... 106
Appendix 2. Linear regression statistical results from plots of lnH vs. time for field
permeameter measurements in the large reach..... 108
Appendix 3. KV maps for the large reach based on kriging with the linear semivariogram model... 112
Appendix 4. Site specific temperature values (Co) and average temperature values for
the large reach... 113
Appendix 5. KV along with calculated uncertainty and linear regression statistical results
from plots of lnH vs. time for the small reach measurements. Site locations
are presented in Figure 1... 114
Appendix 6. Site names for the measurement locations in Small Reach 1 (left) measured
in July 2006 and Small Reach 2 (right) measured in August... 117

ix

1. Introduction
Streambed hydraulic conductivity (K) is an important variable controlling
groundwater exchange with streams. Streambed K measurements have been performed using
a variety of techniques including field permeameters, piezo-seepage meters, slug tests, and
constant-head injection tests (Chen, 2004, 2000; Cardenas and Zlotnik, 2003a, 2003b; Kelly
and Murdoch 2003; Landon et al., 2001; Springer et al., 1999; Cey et al., 1998; Duwelius,
1996). The papers mentioned above report 21 to 1312 streambed K measurements (most
report fewer than 100) with associated means and standard deviations. These papers show
significant spatial variability in streambed K, though they generally do not include detailed
spatial analysis (e.g., via semi-variograms or interpolated maps of streambed K). In a recent
review of 41 studies of streambed K, Calver (2001) showed a variation in K of over 5 orders
of magnitude, with K ranging from about 0.001 to 100 m/day.
One plausible explanation for heterogeneity in streambed K could be spatial
variation in stream velocity (e.g., across-channel). Stream velocity tends to be greater in the
center of the channel as well as towards the outsides of channel bends (Skinner and Porter,
1999; Bridge and Jarvis, 1982) resulting in somewhat coarser grain size on average
(Cardenas and Zlotnik, 2003b; Parker and Andrews, 1985) (and therefore higher K) in these
areas. Cardenas and Zlotnik (2003b) found higher K values where coarser grained deposits
were observed in their study stream (toward the outside of the channel bend) while Duwelius
(1996) reports higher K values from coarser grained sediments in the center of the river at his
site. Other factors influencing heterogeneity in streambed K are the sedimentary structures
that are found in streams such as step pools and reattachment bars (Springer et al., 1999).

This thesis is part of a larger USDA-funded project in which groundwater-based N

input is being quantified into a section of stream in an agricultural watershed in eastern North
Carolina. The measurements of streambed K reported here are being used to help achieve
this goal (through their use in Darcys equation to calculate groundwater seepage rate
through the streambed). In this project, the following questions were addressed:
1. What is the spatial distribution of streambed K in the study stream? How did K
vary along the reach, upstream and downstream of a beaver dam, and across the
channel (left vs. center vs. right)?
2. Given that K may vary with time (Springer et al., 1999; Kaleris, 1998), is there a
temporal variability in K during the year-long study period for our reach? If so, is
variation in temperature an important cause?
3. Are variations in sediment texture clearly related to measured differences in
streambed K? Does the location in the channel affect sediment distribution?
Forty six measurement points spaced over a 262.5 m reach were selected to access the
spatial and temporal variability of streambed K and were measured bi-monthly for one year.
Also, higher-density streambed K measurements were made in two 63-m reaches that are part
of the larger 262.5 m reach (62 measurements in one, 54 in the other). In all, 487 K
measurements were taken during the study period.

2. Background
2.1. Variability of hydraulic conductivity
Published studies on hydraulic conductivity (K) show large spatial variability in K,
even within formation and over small areas (Table 2.1). At the Columbus Air Force Base

located in Mississippi, Rehfeldt et al. (1992) report a variance in lnK (2lnK) of 4.5. Results
come from data on flowmeter measurements for 58 wells spread over an area of 62,500 m2.
Genereux et al. (2001) report 2lnK= 2.53 over two limestone formations within the Biscayne
aquifer in southeast FL. Flowmeter measurements came from 18 boreholes along a 30 m
transect. Sudicky (1986) reports 2lnK= 0.38 for the siliciclastic Bordan aquifer in Ontario,
Canada. In his study, 32 cores that were approximately 2 m in length were extracted for K
analysis along two core lines, with one core line along the direction of mean groundwater
flow and the other transverse to the mean groundwater flow. The cores were split into layers
0.05 m thick, which yielded a total of 1279 samples for measurement of K by permeameter
tests. Hess et al. report 2lnK= 0.24 for unconsolidated glacial outwash siliciclastics at the
Otis Air Force Base located in Massachusetts. Their data come from flowmeter
measurements in a group of 16 wells trending NNE spaced over 24 m (Table 2.1).
Previous studies have found a significant spatial variability in riverbed and streambed
sediments. Landon et al. (2001) report average values for lnK of -4.5 (K in cm/s) in
Birdwood Creed and -1.62 (K in cm/s) for locations within Wood River, both in Nebraska.
Measurement methods for K determination included in-situ permeameter tests (both constant
and falling head), seepage meters, grain size analysis, and slug tests. The exact number of
tests performed at each site is not listed. Birdwood Creek and Wood River are tributaries to
the Platte River separated by approximately 175 km and these measurements were taken near
the confluence of the tributaries to the Platte River in southern Nebraska. At a smaller study
site, Duwelius (1996) reports 2lnK= 7.19 along a 10.5 m transect across a section of the east
branch of the Grand Calumet River in Indiana. Five wells transect the river and falling
head/rising head slug tests were performed and analyzed with the Bouwer and Rice (1976)

Table 2.1. Examples of studies reporting spatial variability in hydraulic conductivity (K).
AM is the arithmetic mean, GM is the geometric mean, and NR stands for not reported.
Site

Reference

Medium

Columbus Air
Force Base, MS
Everglades
National Park,
FL
Canadian
Forces Base
Borden Ontario
Otis Air Force
Base, MA

Rehfeldt et al.
(1992)
Genereux et al.
(2001)

unconsolidated
siliciclastics
limestone

Sudicky
(1986)

unconsolidated
siliciclastics

Hess et al
(1992)

unconsolidated
siliciclastics

Proximity of
measurements
58 wells over
62,500 m2
18 wells over a
30 m transect
32 wells, 2
transects, 20m
amd 13 m.
16 wells
spaced over
24m

Mean K
(cm/s)
5.5x10-3
(GM)
Not
reported

2 lnK

-6.91 to 3.47

1.0x10-2
(AM)

0.38

-4.34 to 0.99

1.1x10-1
(GM)

0.24

Range in lnK
(K in cm/s)
-10.1 to 0.4
-13.76 to -5.76

4.5
2.53

method. Chen (2004) reports 2lnK= 0.22 from his measurements taken within sandy
sediments on the Republican River in Nebraska. In-situ field permeameters were arranged in
three transects across the Republican River and data analysis was based on an equation from
Hvorslev (1951). In a study, conducted on Twelve Mile Creek in South Carolina, Kelly and
Murdoch (2003) found that K values were fairly homogeneous compared to the other sites
mentioned. Measurements with their piezo-seepage meters at 5 locations (4 tests spanning a
distance of 6 m and the other test a distance of 2.5 km from the group of 4) had lnK values
ranging from -2.11 to -1.14 (K in cm/sec). The variance for these measurements was 0.12
(Table 2.2). Cardenas and Zlotnik (2003b) report 2lnK= 0.74 for an area 45 m x 20 m in size
on Prairie Creek (a tributary to the Platte river). Constant head injection tests, slug tests,
and grain size analysis were used to measure K along transects spaced 5 m apart with
measurement depths ranging from 1.2 m to 2.2 m.

Other studies point out that some spots

within a streambed can have lower K than the surrounding aquifer since silt, clay and organic

Table 2.2. Comparison of streambed K and variance values from four study sites. AM is the
arithmetic mean and NR stands for not reported.
Site

Reference

Platte River
tributaries, NE
Grand Calumet
River, IN
Republican River,
NE

Landon el al.
(2001)
Dewelius (1996)

12 Mile Creek

Kelly and
Murdoch (2003)

Prairie Creek

Cardenas and
Zlotnik (2003b)

Chen (2004)

Proximity of
measurements
Tributaries separated
by 175 km
Transect of 5 wells
spanning 10.5 m
3 transects spaced 25 m
and 42 m apart
5 points, 4 done within
6 m and the other
spaced 2.5 km away
Area measuring 45 m x
20 m.

Range in lnK
(K in cm/s)

ean K
(cm/s)

2lnK

-4.5 to -1.62

NR

NR

-10.73 to -2.81

NR

7.19
-2

-4.28 to -2.58

4.1x10
(AM)

0.22

-2.11 to -1.14

2.1x10-1
(AM)

0.12

-9.06 to -2.45

2.6x10-2
(AM)

0.74

materials are often deposited in streams (Landon et al., 2001; Conrad and Beljin, 1996;
Larkin and Sharp, 1992; Rosenshein, 1988).
Aside from spatial variability, K has been shown to vary temporally as well. Springer
et al. (1999) conducted a study on the Colorado River in northern Arizona and found that
values of lnK varied from -7.93 to -3.88 (K in cm/s) over the time period from March 1996 to
May 1997. The lnK values reported are the average of repeated measurements taken on
03/12/96, 04/05/96, 06/18/96, 10/24/96, and 05/18/97. The measurements were taken from a
shallow well located in a stream reattachment bar. Springer et al. (1999) attributed the
variation in K to sediment deposition caused by a flooding event that occurred during their
study. Springer et al. (1999) also reported that the changes in the K were due to two sources,
added stresses to the aquifer from sediment deposition and added stresses from changes in
river stage.
Temporal changes in K can also occur as sediment temperature varies from one
season to another. K is a function of temperature mainly through its dependence on the
density and viscosity of water ( and respectively) (e.g., Fetter, 2001, page 83).

K = ki

Equation 2.1

Where ki is the intrinsic permeability, a constant for a given porous medium.

The ki of a given sediment remains constant but the K measured within the sediment can
differ as changing temperatures influence the values of and .

2.2. Field techniques used to measure K

Many techniques have been developed and are used for measuring K in streambeds.
Landon et al. (2001) have examined many of the techniques for estimating K, including field
permeameters, seepage meters, slug tests, grain size analysis, and piezo-seepage meters.
Slug tests require an excavation of sediment in order to place a well point and casing,
or if the well is going to be installed at a shallow depth, the well point and casing can be
driven into the sediment. Either type of installation would result in a potential disturbance of
sediment that could lower the K (Landon et al., 2001). Slug test also require equipment such
as a pressure transducer and a data logger (Butler, 1998). In a slug test, K is measured at a
depth interval that should not extend to the top of the streambed in order for the slug test to
work correctly. This would be a potential short coming in the use of slug tests in our study
(the reason we didnt use them), as we sought to estimate K immediately below the sediment
surface.
A piezo-seep meter incorporates a shallow piezometer with a seepage meter to allow
estimation of K from K=Q/JA, where Q is the volumetric groundwater discharge, J is the
head gradient and A is the area of the meter (Murdoch and Kelly, 2003). Craig (2005)
showed that the piezo-seep meter could resolve groundwater discharge with an accuracy of

approximately 1 cm/sec, whereas the pan-and-bag meter exhibited measurement errors on the
order of 10 cm/sec. A downfall associated with piezo-seep meters is their inability to
measure K at depths needed for this project (~35 cm). Piezo-seep meters measure K of the
upper 10-15 cm of streambed sediments (Kelly and Murdoch, 2003)
Landon et al. (2001) found that field permeameter tests worked well when measuring
K at depths down to 30 cm. In their study area located in southern Nebraska, they found that
field permeameters were often hard to insert to depths greater than 30 cm. Also, it was noted
that when the permeameters were inserted to depths greater than 30 cm, retrieving the
permeameter was difficult.

Chen (2000) and Landon et al. (2001) note that the field

permeameter method has the advantage of causing little disturbance to the sediment. The
Hvorslev (1951, case E, page 44) approach for calculating K was preferred over Darcys
equation when analyzing data from the field permeameter test since Hvorslevs equation
incorporates a shape factor to consider piezometric pressure head losses outside the field
permeameter (Landon et al., 2001). K values calculated with Darcys equation might have
had errors associated with them, given that they unexpectedly decreased as the permeameter
pipe diameter increased (Table 2.3). The field permeameter, with data analysis based on
Hvorslev (1951), was the principal technique for K measurements in this study.
Some estimates of K from grain size were also made in this study (though our main
technique was the field permeameter test). This technique was not used on a large scale
since the test requires removal of sediment from the streambed (which could cause
significant disturbance of the study site if done repeatedly) and because it is generally less
accurate since the method does not take sediment structure into account.

CHP-D14

CHP- D28

CHP-D60

CHP-D90

CHP-H14

CHP-H28

CHP-H60

CHP-H90

FHP-D14

FHP- D28

FHP-D60

FHP-D90

FHP-H14

FHP-H28

FHP-H60

FHP-H90

Table 2.3. Median K values (m/day) calculated with different field permeameter diameters.
Values are reported for both constant head permeameters (CHP) and falling head
permeameters (FHP), followed by a letter indicating the Darcy solution (D) or Hvorslev
solution (H). Subscripts indicate the pipe diameter (inches). Data from Landon et al. (2001).

52

36

27

22

64

61

51

53

47

31

25

24

49

48

52

51

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the scope of this project was to quantify nutrient loading
into a section of West Bear Creek via groundwater seepage. This process required that K, the
head gradient, and nutrient concentrations be measured at the same locations and depth.
These measurements focused on the top 36 cm of the streambed. Previous studies show that
there are zones within the stream sediment where groundwater and surface water may mix
together. Thibodeaux and Boyle (1987), Cerling et al. (1990), and Elliott and Brooks (1997)
report mixing of surface water down into streambeds at depths of 25, 29, and 28 cm,
respectively. To avoid this mixed zone, groundwater samples for nutrient analysis were
collected (by another student) at 31-36 cm deep. To measure the overall K between this
depth and the surface of the streambed, the field permeameters were inserted 36 cm into the
streambed.

3. Study Site
West Bear Creek watershed (Figure 3.1) is located in eastern Wayne County, North
Carolina and has an area of 61 km2 upstream of the confluence of West Bear Creek with Bear
Creek (the latter is a major tributary of the Neuse River). Elevation ranges from

approximately 20 to 40 m, stream gradient along the study reach is about 9x10-4, average
annual precipitation is 49.8 in (State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2006), and average
monthly temperature ranges from 4.7C in January to 26.8C in July (State Climate Office of
North Carolina, 2006). Soils on West Bear Creek watershed are mostly Ultisols (81%) and
Inceptisols (13%) that overlie unconsolidated siliciclastics from Quaternary surficial
deposits, the Cretaceous Black Creek formation, and/or the Tertiary Yorktown formation
(NCGS 1985; N.C. Dept. of Transportation 2002) (Table 3.1).
The hydrogeology of the watershed along the study site is characterized by
approximately 18 m of the Quaternary Surficial aquifer, which is composed of sand, silt,
clay, and peat beds and underlain by the Cretaceous Black Creek aquitard and aquifer
(Winner and Coble 1996; Lautier 2001; N.C. Dept. of Transportation 2002,
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/Ground_Water_Databases/frameaccess.php).
Giese et al. (1997) and Winner and Coble (1996) estimate the K within the Surficial Aquifer
at slightly below 9 m/day based on lithologic and geophysical logs but provide no further
explanation on the technique used to estimate K. Land use in the watershed consists of
agriculture (50%), forests (25%), developed areas (20%), wetland (4%), and undeveloped
land (1%). Statewide, Wayne County ranks in the top ten for tobacco, cotton, soybean, corn,
wheat, oats, sweet potatoes, and number of swine and turkey (Sherrel, 2004).

Table 3.1. Soil texture as a function of depth for a core sample collected approximately 500
m northwest from study site, 50 m north of West Bear Creek (Figure 3.2). Data from N.C.
Dept. of Transportation (2002).
Depth interval (m)
0.30-0.45
1.22-1.67
4.05-4.50
7.10-7.55

Coarse sand (% by wt.)

7.4
12.5
33.1
41.0

Fine sand (% by wt.)

35.4
76.8
62.4
49.0

Silt (% by wt.)
29.1
3.7
1.5
5.9

Clay (% by wt.)
28
7.0
3.0
4.0

Figure 3.1 (left). Land use in West Bear Creek Watershed. The red dashed line denotes the
topographically defined contributing area of the study reach.
Figure 3.2 (right). Contributing area of the study reach with land use. Small dots indicate
PVC stakes spaced about 25 m apart on both banks of the stream. Stake positions were
determined using a Real Time Kinematic (RTK)GPS Surveyor. RTK GPS is a highly
accurate (within a millimeter) technique of determining geographic positions
(http://trl.trimble.com/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-4977/oper.pdf). The large dot marks
the location of the NCDOT soil texture measurements shown in Table 3.1.

The reach under investigation comprises 262.5 m of West Bear Creek, located
between 300 and 562.5 m upstream of SR 1719 bridge in LaGrange, North Carolina (Figure
3.2 and Figure 3.3). The principal reasons for studying this section of West Bear Creek are
(1) the ease with which we can walk and work in the reach (firm streambed, moderate depth
of stream), (2) the ability to make physical measurements in the streambed (i.e., penetrable

10

stream bed), (3) the high level of agricultural activity around the reach and elevated
concentrations of nitrogen in groundwater beneath the streambed (important for the larger
nitrogen transport project of which this thesis is one component), and (4) proximity to the
U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging station on Bear Creek at Mays Store (site number
0208925200), located about 5 km southeast of the study reach.
The study reach (and most of West Bear Creek) was dredged and straightened
sometime during the 1950s to 1960s to facilitate drainage of the surrounding agricultural
fields (A. Miller, Soil and Water Conservation of Wayne County, pers. comm., August
2006). The dredging has resulted in stream banks that are very steep (near vertical in some
places) and extend 2 to 3 m above the streambed on the left (north) side of the stream, the
side on which the dredge spoils seem to have been placed. There is one secondary drainage
ditch that discharges to the study reach (located a few meters upstream of WBC 475); it
flows intermittently for approximately 0.5 km from the southwest between agricultural fields
before reaching the study reach. The riparian zone on the south side of the reach is
approximately 5 to 10 m wide and consists mostly of trees along with some shrubs and
grasses (Figure 3.3). The riparian zone on the north side of the reach consists of a steep bank
a few meters wide with grass and shrubs, a 5-m wide unpaved maintenance road parallel to
the bank, and a 10-20 m wide row of dense vegetation that includes many large trees. Crops
of corn and cotton, as well as turkey farms (a row of turkey houses are present 500 m north
of the study site (Figure 3.3)), dominate the agricultural activities in the area surrounding the
study reach.

11

study site

Figure 3.3. 1998 aerial ortho photograph of the area surrounding the study reach (from NC
DOT).

Within the study reach, West Bear Creek ranges from 5 to 9 m in width, 10 to 30 cm
in depth at low flow, and 40 to 70 cm in depth at high flow. A beaver dam consisting of
small branches and debris was located in the center of the study reach, at an angle to the
streambanks, from the start of the study through at least April 10, 2006. The dam had mainly
collapsed and been washed downstream by June 12, 2006; some remnants and a small
backwater persisted through the end of the study period. The dam was about 10 m in length
across the channel and about 50-100 cm wide. Streambed sediments consist of a
heterogeneous mix mostly of sand along with some silt, clay, and organic matter.
12

4. Methods
4.1. Field permeameter tests
4.1.1. Execution of a field permeameter test in the field
A field permeameter approach (Chen, 2000, 2004) based on Hvorslev (1951) was
used to measure the hydraulic conductivity (K) of stream sediments in West Bear Creek. At
each measurement location (see section 4.1.3) the field permeameter (a calibrated pipe,
described below) was inserted into the sediment by hand to a depth of 36 cm (LV=36), except
for a few tests done at depths of LV= 29 and 43 cm. A level was used to keep the field
permeameter pipe vertical during insertion of the pipe into the stream sediment. Once
inserted, the initial water levels inside and outside the pipe were measured and then stream
water was added to the pipe using a bucket to initiate the test. The drop in water level inside
the pipe was measured as a function of time as water drained out of the bottom of the field
permeameter (Figure 4.1).
In these tests, 4 identical field permeameters (see Figure 4.2) were used to measure K.
The pipes were made of clear polycarbonate, with an inside diameter (D) of 7.0 cm, a total
length of 121.5 cm, and a small wall thickness of 3.2 mm that helped prevent compaction of
sediment as the pipe was inserted into the streambed. Each pipe was professionally scored
(at an N.C.S.U. machine shop) around its full circumference every 0.5 cm along its length, so
water levels could be read directly off the pipe, eliminating the need for a tape measure
during the test. There was also a beveled edge on the end of the pipe inserted into the
streambed, beveled such that any minor compaction of sediment as the field permeameter is
inserted into the streambed occurs mainly outside the pipe, rather than inside in the sediment
most important to the test. The bevel was approximately 30o sloping

13

Figure 4.1. Setup of a field permeameter test in streambed sediments for a gaining stream.
Ambient water level inside pipe should be greater than stream level since groundwater flow
is into the stream. D is the diameter of the pipe, LV is the length of sediment inside the pipe,
H0 is the head in the pipe at the start of the test (t = 0) and Ht is the head in the pipe at later
times (t > 0).

14

Figure 4.2. Photograph of one of the 4 identical field permeameter pipes used for field
permeameter tests. In performing a test, the portion of pipe below the white flange (36 cm
long) was inserted into the sediment, and the upper portion was filled with water. The upper
portion of the pipe is lightly scored around its full circumference, every 0.5 cm along the
pipes length; every fourth score mark (i.e., marks every 2 cm) was darkened with waterproof
ink.

15

Figure 4.3. Thermometer and probe used to measure sediment temperature. The probe (top)
was used for measurements performed from December 2005 to August 2006. The probe
consists of a 12 ft. cable, a 46 cm handle and a 36 cm stainless steel tip. The temperature
sensor is located at the tip of the probe. The thermometer (bottom) was used in October 2006
and December 2006. The thermometer has a three-foot stainless steel probe and an analog
temperature gauge marked in 1oC intervals. A 12-in. (30.5 cm.) ruler is shown for scale.

16

downward toward the inside of the pipe with the pipe held vertically.
We often found, after inserting a permeameter pipe into the streambed, that the initial
water level inside the pipe was below the stream water level, something not expected for a
gaining stream. We dont believe these water levels accurately indicated the true ambient
heads in the sediment. Rather than use these measurements, the initial water level inside the
pipe was calculated by estimating the surface water level outside pipe (generally to about
0.3 cm) and adding to it the difference between the groundwater and surface water head as
measured with a piezomanometer (Kennedy et al., 2007). The initial water level outside the
pipe was estimated by observing the water height on the downstream side of the permeameter
pipe and also, for some permeameter tests, by observing the water height inside a clear
vertical section of tubing attached to the outside of the field permeameter with one end open
to the atmosphere and the other open to the stream (the two approaches generally gave the
same surface water level). Each piezomanometer measurement was taken at the same spot
as a permeameter measurement 1-2 days prior to the permeameter measurement for the 12/05
and 2/06 runs; for all other data collection runs, each permeameter measurement was made
about 10 cm to the side (upstream, downstream, left, or right) of the spot where a
piezomanometer measurement was made within an hour of the piezomanometer
measurement.
Temperature measurements were made prior to the start of each test, generally after
the field permeameter was inserted into the streambed. Some temperature measurements
were made just before the field permeameter was inserted into the sediment. The
temperature of the sediment was recorded in order to estimate intrinsic permeability and

17

thereby correct all K values to 20oC; K results are presented both for 20oC and ambient field
temperatures.
After inserting the field permeameter and measuring the temperature, the field
permeameter pipe was filled with water from a bucket and a stopwatch was started when the
falling water level inside the pipe crossed one of the 0.5 cm score lines on the pipe. When
several water levels (generally about 10) had been recorded, the test was ended by pushing a
plunger inside the permeameter pipe to hold the sediment down while pulling the pipe out
(this helped minimize sediment disturbance when the pipes were removed from the
sediment).
The field permeameter test is somewhat sensitive to the horizontal component of
hydraulic conductivity (KH) since some horizontal water flow occurs as water exits the
bottom of the pipe. However, the test is much more sensitive to the vertical component of
hydraulic conductivity (KV) of sediment contained within the bottom of the pipe (Chen,
2004), so from here forward, I refer to the field permeameter test as a test of KV. Prediction
scaled sensitivities of H to KV and KH in Equation 4.4 (the equation showing the dependence
of H on KV and KH; see section 4.1.2), SKV and SKH, were calculated as described by Hill et
al. (1999) and Hill (1998).

S KH

DKV t KV

22 K H

KV t
KH
H K H 1

100 =
H o exp

H
K H 100 H
D K + L K
D

V
V
H
+ LV
11 K / K

11
H
V

18

Eqn. 4.1
2



11 DtKV KH

11 Dt KH KV

2 KV

KV t
KV
H KV 1

Eqn. 4.2
=

100 = Ho exp

2
KV 100 H
H

D
D KV +11LV KH

+ LV
11 K / K

H
V

SKV

Prediction scaled sensitivities equal the percent change in H produced by a one

percent change in KH or KV (e.g., rearranging the equation above,
S KV 100(KV / KV ) = 100(H / H ) , and S KV = 100(H / H ) if 100(KV / KV ) = 1 ). Results
show that H is exactly 34.4 times more sensitive to KV than to KH (SKV/SKH = 34.4) (Figure
4.4), supporting the idea that the field permeameter tests were essentially tests of KV.
The field permeameter test may also be sensitive to heterogeneity near the bottom of
the permeameter. In order to look for possible heterogeneity in KV with depth in the
sediment, tests were made at permeameter depths shallower and deeper than the 36 cm depth
used for most of the work (see section 4.1.3).

4.1.2. Data analysis to estimate KV

KV was calculated using Equation E in Hvorslev (1951, p. 44):

+ LV
H
KV = 11m
ln( 1 )
t2 t1
H2

Equation 4.3

where D is the diameter of the permeameter pipe, m is the square root of KH/KV, LV is the
length of sediment in the pipe, t is time and H is the level of water inside the pipe relative to
the ambient pre-test water level (Figure 4.1). Assumptions behind Hvorslevs equation
include that Darcys law is valid, the water and sediment are incompressible, the soil stratum

19

in which the point is placed is of infinite thickness and artesian conditions prevail, inflow of
water during the test is so small that it does not cause any appreciable change in the
groundwater pressure, and the velocity of flow is uniformly distributed over the length and
cross section of the sediment inside the permeameter. Prior studies using Hvorslevs equation
for streambed sediments include but are not limited to Chen (2004, 2000), Landon et al.
(2001), Cey et al. (1998), and Duwelius (1996).
Letting t1 in Equation 4.3 be the time of the start of the permeameter test (i.e., H1=H0
at t1=0) gives:

KV

KH scaled sensitivity (%)

11m

+ LV

t + ln H 0

Equation 4.4

KV sensitivity

0.000

KH sensitivity

-0.002

0.0
-0.1

-0.004
-0.006

-0.2

-0.008
-0.3

Kv scaled sensitivity (%)

ln H =

-0.010
-0.012
0.1

10

-0.4
100

Time since start of test (min)

Figure 4.4. Prediction scaled sensitivities as a function of time during a typical field
permeameter test (similar to Chen, 2004). The parameters used for the calculations, obtained
from location WBC 300R measured April 10, 2006, were H0 = 64.02 cm, Kv=14.21 m/day,
Lv=36 cm, D= 7 cm and m=1.

20

3.95

ln H = 9.8617 10 4 t + 3.92

ln H (H in cm)

3.90

r 2 = 0.9998

3.85
3.80
3.75
3.70
3.65
3.60
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (sec)
Figure 4.5. Example of a linear regression created using data taken at site WBC 300L on
February 3, 2006. The slope of the line was used in Equation 4.4 to calculate KV.
Equation 4.4 predicts a linear relationship between lnH and t, with a slope related to KV. For
each field permeameter test, linear regression was used to find the slope of the relationship
between lnH and t, and then calculated KV from the slope (Figure 4.5).
As Equation 4.4 shows, there were two unknowns (KV and m) in the slope of the
regression line. Field determination of KH/KV in streambed sediments is difficult and
uncertain (e.g., Kelly and Murdoch, 2003); the range in the literature is roughly 1 to 50
(Kelly and Murdoch, 2003; Duwelius, 1996; Hvorslev, 1951; Gould, 1949) (Appendix 1).
Values for the transformation ratio, m = K H / K V , were assumed in order to solve for KV.
These assumptions lead to maximum and minimum possible values of KV. The minimum
possible value for m, m=1 (an isotropic streambed), leads to the maximum possible value of
KV, and the maximum possible value for m, m= infinity, leads to the minimum possible value

21

for KV (Figure 4.6). The final KV value was taken as the average of the limiting estimates of
KV.
Figure 4.6 shows percentages of error when an assumed value for m differs from the
true value. The overestimation of KV that would result from assuming m=1 in sediments
with actual m values >1 was found by taking the difference between KV based
on m=1 and KV based on m= 2, 5, 10 (with LV, D and dH/dt being the same). The
underestimation of KV that would result from assuming m=infinity (and thereby causing
D/11m to go to zero) was found by taking the difference between KV based on m=infinity
and KV based on m=1, 2, 5 and 10 (with LV, D, and dH/dt being the same). Over and
underestimation of KV both get smaller as the LV/D ratio gets larger. In this study, the LV/D
ratio was 5.15, (when tests were carried out at 36 cm), therefore errors in KV arising from the
assumptions concerning m were no more than 5%. (Figure 4.6)
Uncertainty in KV, was estimated based on uncertainties in the three parameters used
to calculate KV (D, LV, and the slope of lnH vs. t plot). For each variable, the uncertainty
was calculated from the product of the standard error and the appropriate students t statistic
for 95% confidence (two-tailed) as outlined in Zar (1999). Standard error for the pipe
diameter is given as 0.0508 cm (McMaster-Carr product # 8585K21;
http://www.mcmaster.com). The standard error for LV was assumed to be 1.0 cm. The
limiting value of the t statistic for a large number of measurements (1.96) was used with the
standard errors of D and LV. The standard error for the slope of lnH vs. t was calculated
using standard methods outlined in Zar (1999, p.324-338). The uncertainties associated with
the three variables were propagated using standard methods (Peters et al., 1974; Meyer,

22

Percent Over/Under Estimation

40

20

m assumed
to be 1 when
it is actually:

2
5
10

m assumed to
be infinity when
it is actually:

2
5
10

-20

-40
0

10

15

20

25

LV/D
Figure 4.6. Overestimation and underestimation of KV when m is assumed to be 1 or
infinity, respectively (see text), but actual m value is 2, 5, or 10. The overestimation and
underestimation errors become smaller as the LV/D ratio for the pipe gets larger. The Lv/D
ratio for my test was 5.15, indicating that the maximum error of KV was approximately
5% when taking KV as the average of two KV values based on assuming m=1 and m=
infinity.

1975; Taylor, 1982; Kline, 1985; Genereux 1998) in order to estimate the uncertainty in each
value of KV.
Two forms of KV are presented in this report, KV at ambient temperature, and KV at
20oC. KV values were corrected to 20oC by calculating the intrinsic permeability (ki) of the
sediment using Equation 2.1. Water density values for calculating intrinsic permeability
were obtained from The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (53rd Edition). Water viscosity
values for calculating ki were obtained from Fetter (2001). The density values are reported at

23

every tenth of a degree centigrade while the viscosity values were reported for every degree
centigrade.
Regression lines were fit to the plot comparing viscosity and temperature in order to
find an equation that could be used to approximate viscosity at every tenth degree centigrade.
Criteria for selecting an appropriate regression equation included (1) finding an equation
which produced a low residual value of the predicted value vs. the given value and (2) the
equation couldnt produce patterns of overestimation or underestimation in a sequence of
predicted values. The Sigma Plot rational 3 parameter 1 equation, (Equation 4.5) fit the
above criteria best and is represented in Figure 4.7.
y=

a + bx
1 + cx

Equation 4.5

The constants a, b, and c in Equation 4.5 are calculated as 1.793x10-2, -9.075x10-5, and
3.013x10-2 from the curve of the regression line.

0.020
Predicted viscosity

Viscosity
(g/(s cm))

0.018

Viscosity (Fetter 2001)

0.016
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.008
0

10

15

20

25

30

Temperature Co

Figure 4.7. Comparison of predicted viscosity values vs. viscosity values from Fetter, 2001.

24

4.1.3. Field measurement plan

The field measurement plan addressed three aspects of the variation of KV in the field: the
overall spatial and temporal variability of KV in a large study reach (262.5 m), the small-scale
spatial variability of KV in a short study reach (63 m), and the reproducibility of KV
measurements in the field. Results also addressed the variability in KV both at 20oC and at
ambient field temperature, and the relationship of KV to sediment grain size.
Repeat measurements were made at 46 points over a 262.5 m reach of West Bear
Creek (from 300 to 562.5 m upstream of the upstream face of the state road 1719 bridge over
the creek) over the course of a year to assess the overall spatial and temporal variability of
KV. The sampling design consisted of 3-point transects roughly normal to the stream channel
(a measurement point in the center of the channel, one to the left, and another to the right of
the center point) and spaced approximately 25 m apart along the channel, with a single
measurement point in the center of the channel equidistant (~12.5 m) from each 2 adjacent
three-point transects (Figure 4.8). KV was measured seven times at the 46 measurement
points (December 2005, February 2006, April 2006, June 2006, August 2006, October 2006
and December 2006) except for eight points that were not measured in December 2005
(Table 4.1).
Prior to the start of the study, measurement transects were marked with PVC stakes
every 12.5 m upstream of the SR 1719 bridge over West Bear Creek starting at 300 m and
ending at 562.5 meters upstream of the bridge. Each of the 46 measurement points (either 1
or 3 per measurement cross-section) was fixed at the start of the study and was returned to
for measurements over the course of the study. To initially mark and subsequently return to
the same points at each measurement cross-section, a tape measure was extended from the

25

PVC pipe on the right side of the creek to the corresponding PVC pipe on the left side.
Measurement points were defined as distances in cm from the left side of the stake on the
right bank. For example, the 3 measurement points at WBC 300 were 151, 370, and 555 cm
from the right bank stake at WBC 300.
In the first two field runs (December 2005 and February 2006), measurements were
taken at the original measurement point but starting with the third run (April 2006), test were
carried out very near but not exactly at the original measurement point (the field
permeameter was inserted 10 cm upstream, downstream, left or right of the original
measurement spot) in an effort to minimize effects of KV from sediment disturbance
associated with repeated pipe insertions (Table 4.1).
Repeat measurements from the same 46 locations were used to assess temporal
variability. The purpose of this test was to quantify temporal changes in KV due to changes
in temperature and/or changes in sediment composition. KV vs. time for each of the 46
points presented here, for both KV values at 20oC, where changes in KV should only be from
changes in sediment, and KV values at ambient field temperature, where variation in KV
could arise from changes over time in both temperature and sediment.
Measurements at the 46 points discussed above did not capture spatial variations in
KV at smaller scales, on the order of a few meters. To account for small-scale variability, a
spatially intensive set of measurements was done over two smaller reaches, with 62 points
spread over a 62.5 m reach from WBC 300 to WBC 362.5 and the other with 54 points
spread over a 62.5 m reach from WBC 487.5 to WBC 550 (Figure 4.9).

26

Figure 4.8. Schematic sketch (not to scale) showing the design of the 46-point grid on which
most KV measurements were made in the bed of West Bear Creek. The notation WBC 300
indicates a West Bear Creek transect 300 m upstream of the upstream face of the State Road
1719 bridge over West Bear Creek. The dark line in the center of the reach marks the
location of a beaver dam.

27

Figure 4.8 (continued)

28

Table 4.1. Locations of field permeameter tests. The first column gives the location name: a
number giving the distance in meters from the upstream face of the State Road 1719 bridge
over West Bear Creek (WBC), followed by a letter indicating position on the left side (L),
right side (R), or center (C) of the channel. The columns next to the location names give the
distances in cm from the left side of the right bank stake to the measurement location,
measured along a straight line from the right bank stake to the left bank stake, for the
different measurement dates. Starting on 4/06, permeameter pipes were inserted x cm
upstream (Ux), downstream (Dx), left (Lx), or right (Rx) of these target locations. NM = not
measured.

Site (WBC)
300L
300C
300R
312.5L
325L
325C
325R
337.5C
350L
350C
350R
362.5C
375L
375C
375R
387.5C
400L
400C
400R
412.5C
425L
425C
425R
437.5L
437.5C
437.5R
450C
462.5L
462.5C
462.5R
475C
487.5L
487.5C
487.5R
500C
512.5L
512.5C
512.5R
525C
537.5L

12/05
555
370
151
448
510
348
240
443
550
382
191
440
593
365
183
299
682
444
237
NM
NM
NM
NM
697
451
225
336
481
349
168
421
590-D3
424
160-D5
377
540
349
145
376
668

2/06
555
370
151
448
510
348
240
443
550
382
191
440
593
365
183
299
682
444
237
400
500-D26
370
250
697
451
225
336
481
349
168
421
590-D3
424
160-D5
377
540
349
145
376
668

4/06
555-U10
370-U10
151-U10
448-U10
510
348-U10
240-U10
443-U10
550-U10
382-U10
191-U10
440-U10
593-U10
365-U10
183-U10
299-U10
682-U10
475-U10
190-U200
400-U10
612-U10
370-U10
250-U10
697-U10
451-U10
225-U10
336-U10
481-U10
349-U10
168-U10
421-U10
590-U7
424-U10
160-U5
377-U10
540-U10
349-U10
145-U10
376-U10
668-U10

6/06
555-D10
370-D10
151-D10
448-U10
510-D10
348-D10
250-D10
443-D10
550-D10
382-U10
191-D10
440-D10
593-D10
365-D10
183-D10
299-D10
682-D10
444-D10
237-D10
400-D10
612-D10
370-D10
250-D10
697-D10
451-D10
225-D10
336-D10
481-D10
349-D10
168-D10
421-D10
590-D13
424-D10
160-D15
377-D10
540-D10
349-D10
145-D10
376-D10
668-D10

29

8/06
555-R10
370-R10
151-R10
448-R10
510-R10
348-R10
240-R10
443-R10
550-R10
382-R10
191-R10
440-R10
593-R10
365-R10
183-D15
299-U10
682-R10
444-R10
237-R10
400-R10
612-R10
370-R10
250-R10
697-R10
451-R10
225-R10
336-R10
481-R10
349-R10
168-R10
421-U5
590-R10D3
424-R10
160-R10D5
377-R10
540-R10
349-R10
145-U10
376-R10
668-R10

10/06
555-L10
370-L10
151-L10
448-L10
510-L10
348-L10
240-L10
443-L10
550-L10
382-L10
191-L10
440-L10
593-L10
365-L10
183-L10D15
299-L10
682-U10
444-L10
237-L10
400-L10
500-L10
370-L10
250-L10
697-L10
451-L10
225-L10
336-L10
481-L10
349-L10
168-L10
421-U10
590-U7
424-L10
160-L10D5
377-L10
540-L10D5
349-L10
145-L10
376-L10
668-L10

12/06
555-D10
370-D10
151-D10
448-U10
510-D10
348-D10
240
443-D10
550-D10
382-U10
191-D10
440-D10
593-D10
365-U10
183-D10
299-D10
682-D10
444-D10
237-D10
400-D10
612-D10
370-D10
250-D10
697-D10
451-D10
225-D10
336-D10
512-D10
349-D10
168-D5
421-U5
590-D10
424-D10
160-D10
377-D10
519-D10
349-D10
145-D10
376-D10
668-D10

Table 4.1 (continued)

537.5C
537.5R
550C
562.5L
562.5C
562.5R

475
244
NM
NM
NM
NM

475
244
400
460
300
179

475-D10
244-U10
400-U10
460-U10
300-U10
179-U10

475-D10
244-D10
400-D10
460-D10
300-D10
179-U10

WBC 362.5

475-R10
244-R10
400-R10
460-R10
300-R10
179-L10

475-L10D20
244-L10
400-L10
460-L10
300-L10
179-L10

475-D25
244-D10
400-D10
460-D10
300-D10
179-D10

WBC 550

10

15

20

25

meters
WBC 487.5

WBC 300

Figure 4.9. Distribution of 62 measurement points for the 12-13 and 31 July 2006 small reach
study between WBC 300 and WBC 362.5. (left), and distribution of 54 measurement points
for the 15-16 August 2006 small reach study between WBC 487.5 and WBC 550 (right).

30

During test runs, there was not enough time to repeat each field permeameter test. To
help evaluate the reproducibility of the permeameter tests, multiple measurements of KV over
a period of 5 days were made in 4 pipes inserted in the sediment and left in place during this
time. The sites (WBC 387R, WBC 387C, WBC 550C, and WBC 560C), were chosen
because they have KV values ranging from the lowest to highest recorded values in the study
reach as determined by earlier work on the 46 measurement points. The test measuring KV
was carried out under the same procedure with the exception of using tap water to fill the
pipes. This was done to avoid introducing fine sediment into the permeameter pipe with the
test water (sediment that might have settled out between repeat tests over the 5 days and
influenced the results of later tests). Once each test was carried out, the water remaining in
the permeameter pipe was siphoned out and a cup was placed on top of the pipe to keep
debris out during the time between tests.
In order to look for possible heterogeneity in KV with depth in the sediment, tests
were made at permeameter depths shallower and deeper than the 36 cm depth used for most
of the work. The procedure for measuring KV at different depths was to insert a field
permeameter pipe 29 cm into the sediment and run the test for KV, then push the pipe into the
sediment to a depth of 36 cm and repeat the test, and finally push the pipe to a depth of 43 cm
and repeat the test a final time. Piezomanometer measurements were made 5 cm upstream of
the spot where the field permeameter measurements were done and were carried out up to an
hour prior to the field permeameter measurements. Eleven measurement points were chosen
for measuring KV at different depths. The points were measured approximately 3 m
upstream of the original measurement transects, with the exception of the transect

31

downstream of the beaver dam, and included the sites named 303R, 328C, 353L, 378R,
403C, 422L, 443C, 460L, 490R, 515C, and 540R.
When the KV measurement at the depth of 43 had been completed, the field
permeameter pipe was pushed an additional 2 cm to a depth of 45 cm. The field
permeameter along with the sediment inside it was carefully withdrawn from the streambed
by excavating the sediment around the field permeameter pipe with a shovel and then
covering the bottom of the field permeameter pipe with my hand to pull the pipe and
sediment core inside it out of the streambed. Each sediment core was forced out of the pipe
with a wooden plunger. As the core was removed from the field permeameter pipe, a
spackling knife was used to divide the core into 5 cm increments, which were placed directly
into plastic containers.

4.2. Laboratory grain size analysis.

Particle size analysis (PSA), the measurement of the size distribution of individual
particles in a soil sample (Gee and Or, 2002), was performed on the sediment cores taken
from the field. Two techniques for measuring PSA were used: dry sieving and gravitational
sedimentation. Dry sieving involves drying the sediment and passing it through a series of
sieves with decreasing mesh size. This was performed on all 94 sediment samples.
Gravitational settling is appropriate for measuring particle sizes less than 0.05 mm (silt and
clay) and was done for 20 out of the 94 samples.
Sample preparation for PSA by dry sieving required that all samples be air dried and
then heated in an oven for 24 hours at 65o C (L. Leithold, North Carolina State University,
pers. comm., 2006). Although most samples were unconsolidated, a mortar and pestle were

32

used on some to break apart clods on fine particles. Once preparation was completed, the
samples were passed through a series of sieves (2, 1, 0.50, 0.25, 0.10, and 0.05 mm) for 5
minutes and then the separated samples were weighed. Some sediments were finer than the
0.05 mm sieve and passed through to a dish. There were 20 samples where >1% by weight
passed through the 0.05 m sieve and those were further analyzed using the gravitational
sedimentation PSA method.
The PSA with the gravitational sedimentation method was carried out using the
procedure outlined in Gee and Or (2002) with modification. In this procedure, 40 g of
sediment from each sample was weighed and placed in a glass beaker. Five ml of 30% H2O2
was added to the sample and the beaker was then immersed in a 90o C bath for 30 minutes to
remove any organic matter. The sediment slurry was then transferred into a dispersing cup
and 50 ml of dispersing agent (10%(NaPO3)6) was added. The slurry was mixed with a milk
shake blender for 5 minutes, transferred to a 1000 ml cylinder, and finally distilled water was
added to bring the total volume to 1000 ml. The test was initiated by stirring the slurry with
a metal rod so that the density of the solution, which relates to sediment size, could be
measured. Solution density was measured with a hydrometer by inserting it into the cylinder
at the approximate time intervals of 0.5, 1, 3, 10, 30, 90, and 1440 minutes.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Spatial variability of KV in the large reach (WBC 300-WBC 562.5)

During the course of this study, 487 KV measurements were performed. Of these 487
measurements, 314 constituted the bimonthly measurement program covering the large

33

reach, with measurements on 12/21/05, 02/03/06, 04/10/06-04/11/06, 06/12/06-06/13/06,

08/10/06-08/11/06, 10/24/06-10/25/06, and 12/05/06-12/06/06.
As discussed in section 4.1.2, each KV value was obtained in part from the slope of a
linear regression line on a plot of lnH vs. t from a field permeameter test. Slopes on these
plots were very well defined in almost all cases (Figure 5.1), except for several sites of low
KV. The rate of change of H with time could be defined more accurately at sites of
intermediate and high KV, leading to lower uncertainties in KV at these sites (uncertainty in
KV is discussed in detail in section 5.4).
Frequency histograms of KV and lnKV for the large reach (Figure 5.2) indicate a large
range of KV with values ranging between 0.006 to 66.21 m/day. The natural log of KV
(lnKV) does not have a Gaussian distribution like that of Sudicky (1986) and Hess et al.
(1992) but rather a distribution that is skewed to the left as in Springer et al. (1999) and
Cardenas and Zlotnik (2003b). KV has a skewed right pattern, similar to that of Sudicky
(1986). KV values presented in Springer et al. (1999) and Cardenas and Zlotnik (2003b) are
for stream sediments, whereas Sudickys (1986) findings come from the Borden Aquifer,
composed of glaciofluvial sediments (Bolha, 1986). Hess et al. (1992) reported K values
from aquifers composed of glaciofluvial sediments as well.
Statistical data with mean KV values, ranges of KV, and variance of KV for the large
reach study are presented in Table 5.1. The mean of all the large reach KV measurements is
approximately 15.44 m/day, about 2/3 of the mean K value reported by Cardenas and Zlotnik
(2003b), 2/5 the mean K value reported by Chen (2004), and 1/10 the mean K value reported
by Kelly and Murdoch (2003) (refer to Table 2.2). For the seven large reach runs, the low
KV ranged from 0.006 to 0.34 m/day, and the high KV from 21.12 to 66.21 m/day. Other

34

4.00
3.95
3.90

4.2036

lnH (H in cm)

lnH (H in cm)

350R (October 24, 2006)

4.05

y = 9.144 10 4 x + 4.055

4.2032
4.2028

r = 0.9999
2

4.2024

50

100

150

462.5L (April 11, 2006)

y = 1.675107 x + 4.204
r 2 = 0.9146

200

2000

Time (sec)
4.290

512.5C (April 11, 2006)

4.20
4.15
4.10

y = 1.102103 x + 4.196
r = 0.9999

4.284
4.281
4.278

20

40

60

80

400R (February 3, 2006)

4.287

4.05

y = 8.698 10 6 x + 4.289
r 2 = 0.9801

100

300

y = 2.07110 3 x + 3.793

ln H (H in cm)

lnH (H in cm)

3.7
3.6

3.92

300L (August 10, 2006)

3.8

r = 0.9996

900

1200

437.5R (June 13, 2006)

3.88
3.84
3.80
3.76

3.5

600

Time (sec)

Time (sec)
3.9

6000

Time (sec)

lnH (H in cm)

lnH (H in cm)

4.25

4000

3.72

y = 1.674 10 4 x + 3.895
r 2 = 0.9998

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time (sec)

200 400 600 800 1000

Time (sec)

Figure 5.1. Samples of lnH vs. t plots for the field permeameter tests. Most graphs have 10
measurement points indicating higher K values (i.e., relatively rapid change of H with time
during data collection in the field) and some graphs have as few as 3 measurements
indicating very low K values. Appendix 2 contains statistical results for plots of lnH vs. time
for large run measurements.

35

Figure 5.2. Frequency Histograms of KV and lnKV for the large reach (WBC300-WBC562.5)

36

Figure 5.2 (Continued)

40

40

December 2005

30

Count

Count

30

February 2006

20
10

20
10

0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

KV (m/day)
40

KV (m/day)
40

April 2006

30

Count

Count

30

June 2006

20
10

20
10

0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

KV (m/day)
40

KV (m/day)
40

August 2006
Count

30

20
10

20
10

0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

40

December 2006

30

Count

Count

30

October 2006

20
10
0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

KV (m/day)

37

Figure 5.2 (continued)

25

25

December 2005

February 2006

20

Count

Count

20
15
10
5

15
10
5

0
-6

-4

-2

-6

lnKV (K in m/day)

25

April 2006

June 2006

20

Count

20
15
10
5

15
10
5

0
-6

-4

-2

-6

-4

lnKV (K in m/day)

-2

lnKV (K in m/day)

25

25

August 2006

October 2006

20

Count

20
15
10
5

15
10
5

0
-6

-4

-2

-6

-4

lnKV (K in m/day)

December 2006

20
15
10
5
0
-6

-2

lnKV (K in m/day)

25

Count

Count

-2

lnKV (K in m/day)

25

Count

-4

-4

-2

lnKV (K in m/day)

38

Table 5.1. Descriptive statistics for KV values (at ambient field temperature) from each large
reach measurement run. KV values are in m/day, 2KV in m2/day2. AM is the arithmetic
mean, GM is the geometric mean, ud/dd refers to upstream of the beaver dam and
downstream of the beaver dam, and L/C/R refers to the left side, center, and right side of the
channel respectively.

AM KV
GM KV
AM
(L/C/R)
GM
(L/C/R)
AM KV
ud/dd
Range
of KV
Range
of lnKV
2Kv
2Kv
(L/C/R)
2lnKv
2lnKv
(L/C/R)

Dec. 05

Feb. 06

Apr. 06

Jun. 06

Aug. 06

Oct. 06

Dec. 06

14.94
8.18
10.43/19.98
/10.26
3.67/14.60
/6.42

15.89
8.02
9.80/23.34
/8.18
3.74/16.96
/4.36

15.19
7.34
11.46/20.06
/10.01
3.27/11.62
/7.09

16.61
6.57
15.03/22.85
/10.97
2.00/14.36
/5.15

20.29
11.21
21.65/23.58
/15.11
6.41/17.43
/8.74

21.33
10.55
14.74/27.72
/20.55
2.99/20.52
/11.00

3.85
1.22
5.33/4.56
/1.88
1.07/1.94
/0.58

12.98/16.90

13.88/17.83

12.96/17.43

17.14/16.09

21.86/18.72

19.87/22.80

3.59/4.11

0.33 to
42.12
-1.09 to
3.74
157.18
176/158
/81
1.88
2.91/1.06
1.36

0.04 to
51.56
-3.34 to
3.94
193.14
115/209
/60
2.39
3.74/1.05
1.89

0.01 to
46.22
-5.16 to
3.83
169.14
129/220
/53
2.98
6.51/1.89
0.92

0.04 to
49.68
-3.17 to
3.91
237.45
226/243
/132
3.32
5.35/1.60
2.31

0.22 to
66.21
-1.50 to
4.19
260.47
467/184
/193
2.00
3.87/1.00
1.60

0.01 to
62.23
-4.61 to
4.13
271.44
217/206
/288
2.94
5.04/1.24
2.00

0.01 to
21.06
-4.33 to
3.05
22.82
28/29
/4
4.18
5.82/3.02
/4.44

studies have reported KV as low as 0.019 m/day and as high as 275 m/day (refer to Table
2.2). Values for the variance of lnKV (2lnKv) from this study are within the range defined by
prior work on clastic sediments (Table 2.1 and Table 2.2).
Averages and variances of lnKV seem to depend on the location of measurement
within the stream channel. Variance in lnKV is generally higher, and arithmetic mean KV is
generally lower, near the sides of the channel compared to the center of the channel (Tables
5.1 and 5.2, Figure 5.3). This was true for most of the 7 large-reach measurement runs, and
for the large reach data overall (all 7 runs treated together), based on tests (Zar, 1999, p. 122125, 136-139) for the significance of the difference between mean KV values (comparing the

39

center of the channel to the right side, and the center to the left side) and the difference
between 2lnKv values (again, center vs. right side and center vs. left side) (Table 5.2).
During the measurement run in February, vegetation on the left bank was clear cut
with a Bush Hog by Wayne County personnel; this is an annual to semi-annual practice to
help maintain a grass buffer for quail (K. Johnson, Agricultural Agent at Wayne County,
pers. comm., June 6, 2006). Variance of lnKV (2lnKv) values on the left side of the channel
increased after the clear-cutting in February 2006 and remained high for subsequent
measurements. This may be due in part to increased and spatially-variable erosion from the
steep left bank once mature vegetation was absent from the bank.
KV is lower upstream of the dam for 5 out of the 7 measurement runs (Figure 5.4 and
Table 5.1). Before the near-complete collapse of the beaver dam, between 4/06 and 6/06, KV
downstream of the dam was higher than upstream of the dam. After the collapse, KV
upstream and downstream of the dam was roughly the same, with a relatively large increase
in mean KV upstream of the dam from April to June. From April to June, 8 of 12 sites within
63 m upstream of the dam had an increase in KV, while 14 of 23 total sites upstream of the
dam showed increases in KV. Its possible that deposition of fine sediments and organic
matter in quieter waters upstream of the dam led to the initially-lower KV values there, and
that KV upstream of the dam site increased after collapse of the dam because fine sediments
and leaves were mobilized from that area once the dam was gone. KV data at individual
measurement sites (Figure 5.5, Table 5.3) show significant variability among sites, probably
associated with differences in sediment texture (grain size distribution) and significant
temporal variability not due to variation in temperature. The temperature corrected KV

40

Table 5.2. Results of tests (Zar, 1999, p. 122-125, 136-139) of the significance of the
difference between arithmetic mean KV values, and 2lnKv values, comparing between (1) the
center and left side of the channel, the center and right side, and the left and right sides, for
the data from the large and small reaches, and (2) upstream and downstream of the beaver
dam for the large reach. SD = significant difference at the 95% confidence level, NSD = no
significant difference at the 95% confidence level.

Center
& Left

Center
& Right

Left &
Right

Center
& Left

Center &
Right

Left &
Right

Dec. 05

NSD

SD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

Feb. 06

SD

SD

NSD

SD

SD

NSD

NSD

NSD

April 06

NSD

SD

NSD

SD

SD

SD

NSD

SD

June 06

SD

SD

NSD

SD

SD

NSD

NSD

NSD

Aug. 06

NSD

NSD

NSD

SD

SD

NSD

NSD

NSD

Oct. 06

SD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

SD

Dec. 06

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

All
points

Difference Between
Upstream and
Downstream

SD

SD

NSD

SD

NSD

SD

NSD

SD

Difference Between 2lnKv

Values

SD

SD

NSD

SD

SD

NSD

NA

Small Reach

Large Reach

Difference Between Mean KV

Values

NSD

NSD

NSD

SD

SD

NSD

NA

41

Mean KV

2lnKv

Figure 5.3. Bar graph showing the arithmetic mean KV values and the 2lnKv values for all
the measurements taken in the large reach, December 2005 through December 2006. The
arithmetic mean KV and the 2lnKv values are presented for all the points measured as well as
separately for those measured on the left side, center, and right side of the channel.

Figure 5.4. Arithmetic mean KV values upstream and downstream of the beaver dam.

42

(20oC) has approximately the same temporal variability as KV at ambient temperature, so

change in KV through time must be due mainly to other temporal changes in sediment
(deposition, erosion, biofilms in/on sediment, gas bubbles in pores, etc.).
Semi-variograms of lnKV for each run were produced using SURFER software
(version 8) (Figure 5.6). Only points based on 30 or more pairs of lnKV values are presented
in the semi-variograms (with the exception of December 2005 since the data set was 8 points
smaller) (Table 5.4); a limit like this is needed because points based on only a few data pairs
may have highly uncertain (semi-variogram) values. For comparison, other authors have
set this restriction at > 30 pairs (Genereux and Guardiario, 2001) and > 25 pairs (Hess et al.,
1992). An exponential model of the form = S[1-exp(-x/)] was fit to the experimental
semi-variogram (created using SURFER software), where is the semi-variogram statistic, S
is the sill (or plateau) value of , x is distance, and the spatial correlation length (a
parameter describing the spatial scale of autocorrelation among lnKV values). The
exponential model was chosen because it has been widely used in the hydrogeology literature
for semi-variograms of lnKV and has become almost a de facto standard for comparison
among different study sites (not because it is necessarily the best spatial model for the
experimental semi-variograms).
With each measurement run, four different semi-variograms were created using
different lag widths between 13 and 17 m (lag width is the distance interval or bin used to
select lnKV pairs in constructing the semi-variogram). For example, with a lag width of 13
m, the first point in the semi-variogram is based on all pairs of lnKV values measured at
locations within 13 m of each other, the second point is based on all pairs measured at
locations from 13 to 26 m apart, etc. The smallest lag width was slightly larger than the

43

Figure 5.5. KV vs. time for each individual site. KV is shown at both 20oC and at the
ambient field temperature. Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals estimated as
described in section 4.1.2.

44

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

300L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

300R

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

300C

312.5C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

325L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

325C

-05 -06 -06 06 06 06 06

21 2-3 4-10 6-12-8-10-0-24-12-5121

325R

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

337.5C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

45

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

350L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

350R

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

350C

362.5C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-6
2
1
1

375L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-6
2
1
1

375C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

375R

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

387.5C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

46

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

400L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

400R

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

400C

412.5C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

425L

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
2
1
1

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

425C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-25 12-5
2
1
1

425R

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-24 12-5
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-12 8-10 0-25 12-6
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

437.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

47

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

437.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

450C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

437.5R

462.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

462.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-10 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

462.5R

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

475C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

487.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

48

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

487.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

500C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

487.5R

512.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

512.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-24 12-6
2
1
1

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

512.5R

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

525C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

537.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
12
1

49

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

537.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Figure 5.5 (continued)

550C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-24 12-6
2
1
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ambient
20 C

537.5R

562.5L

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

562.5C

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

Ambient
20 C

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-24 12-6
12
1

KV (m/day)

KV (m/day)

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-24 12-6
12
1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

562.5R

-05 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06 -06

-21 2-3 4-11 6-13 8-11 0-25 12-6
2
1
1

50

350C
350R
362.5C
375L
375C
375R
387.5C
400L
400C
400R
412.5C
425L
425C

29.07
1.57
35.72
1.94
14.21
0.98
20.25
1.17
25.55
1.41
43.91
2.36
15.95
0.86
1.27
0.09
28.44
1.54
27.52
1.59
16.96
0.93
34.65
1.91
2.37
0.14
18.95
1.05
1.29
0.08
3.19
0.18
16.91
0.93
1.75
0.10
15.24
1.10
30.21
1.68
0.78
0.16
14.53
0.81

27.36
1.50
36.16
1.94
4.83
0.28
21.91
1.18
23.96
1.28
10.71
0.59
10.92
0.61
28.11
1.51
28.69
1.55
30.00
1.61
21.90
1.23
21.74
1.18
0.68
0.07
27.45
1.46
0.35
0.02
5.65
0.30
0.97
0.06
12.97
0.71
6.11
0.33
8.95
0.49
0.04
0.11
3.34
0.19

66.21
3.70
31.47
1.67
5.30
0.29
13.53
1.17
27.89
1.48
34.59
1.86
13.42
0.72
20.75
1.10
37.51
2.01
16.11
0.86
20.56
1.16
27.58
1.47
0.33
0.02
14.41
0.78
1.15
0.12
4.10
0.22
3.92
0.21
6.01
0.32
2.64
0.14
32.40
1.72
4.52
0.26
6.24
0.34

19.10
1.03
24.96
1.37
24.71
1.35
14.50
0.78
31.28
1.67
37.19
1.98
44.47
2.40
28.87
1.54
47.05
2.56
28.95
1.54
29.23
1.57
32.93
1.76
3.03
0.16
26.69
1.77
1.98
0.11
2.61
0.15
6.89
0.39
7.16
0.39
0.87
0.05
41.56
2.23
2.49
0.15
62.23
3.36

5.08
0.34
4.90
0.31
2.39
0.15
2.83
0.18
4.90
0.46
4.49
0.31
1.88
0.14
4.47
0.27
5.98
0.35
2.01
0.18
2.34
0.16
21.06
2.16
0.12
0.06
2.50
0.20
0.14
0.03
0.59
0.07
17.89
1.07
3.79
0.22
0.01
0.01
4.73
0.50
0.06
0.05
0.65
0.07

51

Geometric
mean

350L

31.52
1.72
39.29
2.30
22.12
1.21
20.48
1.13
11.10
0.62
37.10
2.31
13.05
0.83
22.10
1.21
27.28
1.48
27.40
1.77
20.55
1.67
18.18
0.99
2.35
0.14
18.06
1.09
1.53
0.18
14.48
0.78
1.13
0.09
4.03
0.22
0.28
0.06
25.63
1.42
0.04
0.18
51.56
4.71

Arithmetic
mean

337.5C

37.83
2.06
26.25
1.43
27.10
1.53
37.16
3.85
28.10
1.59
40.39
2.10
10.37
0.65
0.59
0.04
0.79
0.30
16.77
0.96
21.22
1.20
28.75
1.66
5.84
0.35
19.38
1.06
2.62
0.15
5.67
0.30
1.44
0.09
7.06
0.38
2.76
0.16
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

325R

Dec. 06

325C

Oct. 06

325L

Aug. 06

312.5C

Jun. 06

300R

Apr. 06

300C

KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W

Feb. 06

300L

Dec. 05

Table 5.3. KV (m/day) results at each site in the large reach study. W = uncertainty (95%
confidence) in the corresponding KV value.

0.64

30.88

24.99

0.53

28.39

24.38

0.92

14.38

10.37

0.66

18.66

15.20

0.47

21.83

18.76

0.77

29.77

23.59

0.88

15.72

11.49

2.61

15.16

7.42

2.14

25.11

15.18

0.94

21.25

16.65

0.73

18.97

15.63

0.06

26.41

25.76

1.96

2.10

1.14

0.68

18.21

15.05

1.10

1.30

0.92

0.96

5.19

3.69

1.54

7.02

3.86

0.40

6.11

5.22

5.50

3.99

1.12

0.74

23.91

18.80

4.81

1.32

0.30

3.00

23.09

9.27

Table 5.3 (continued)

425R
437.5L
437.5C
437.5R
450C
462.5L
462.5C
462.5R
475C
487.5L
487.5C
487.5R
500C
512.5L
512.5C
512.5R
525C
537.5L
537.5C
537.5R
550C
562.5L
562.5C
562.5R

KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W
KV
W

NM
NM
9.71
0.58
31.62
1.76
7.40
0.41
24.74
1.34
2.02
0.20
11.65
0.74
18.63
1.01
10.57
3.54
0.33
0.78
18.39
1.56
7.18
0.49
14.90
0.87
17.73
1.07
42.12
2.27
4.78
0.27
18.75
1.00
0.54
0.06
4.93
0.27
0.58
0.11
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

0.75
0.08
18.70
1.00
9.65
0.61
4.12
0.24
22.11
1.21
3.08
0.20
12.14
0.65
15.49
0.91
1.77
0.11
0.55
0.04
38.77
2.10
3.81
0.26
14.31
0.76
8.10
0.48
38.47
2.18
6.03
0.33
23.76
1.29
3.03
0.25
0.94
0.09
2.03
0.13
22.06
1.19
10.66
0.58
51.15
2.72
8.41
0.53

2.13
0.14
4.96
0.28
3.89
0.29
3.17
0.17
20.86
1.12
0.01
0.02
6.75
0.37
11.81
0.64
0.26
0.04
0.17
0.46
26.56
1.46
7.17
0.39
7.23
0.68
11.34
0.61
35.23
1.89
5.86
0.32
23.48
1.28
2.61
0.14
4.27
0.23
2.68
0.15
46.22
3.00
15.27
0.82
34.62
1.87
23.61
1.34

37.34
2.05
0.22
0.06
1.36
0.08
5.35
0.29
30.86
2.01
1.16
0.06
38.87
2.08
19.44
1.03
2.01
0.12
0.13
0.05
23.21
1.24
20.63
1.11
30.18
1.67
1.51
0.09
48.77
2.61
3.20
0.18
24.11
1.29
3.60
0.20
0.50
0.04
0.96
0.05
49.68
2.67
41.54
2.24
46.25
2.48
0.56
0.05

39.84
2.17
0.84
0.16
36.01
1.94
10.27
0.58
29.11
1.55
45.07
2.46
27.48
1.36
16.18
0.87
0.72
0.04
0.22
0.01
27.46
1.46
8.04
0.43
22.14
1.19
28.94
2.52
45.93
2.47
20.99
1.12
42.13
2.25
3.42
0.19
6.50
0.35
0.95
0.07
29.19
1.56
14.45
0.78
44.80
2.39
41.99
2.24

52

5.63
0.30
0.95
0.08
28.80
1.56
5.48
0.30
38.43
2.05
0.01
0.00
35.94
2.18
19.96
1.08
0.39
0.04
2.87
0.16
20.97
1.17
29.46
1.61
25.58
1.36
0.45
0.03
31.20
1.67
43.27
2.33
42.91
2.29
6.15
0.34
19.55
1.05
1.82
0.17
17.10
0.94
4.62
0.27
41.31
2.25
39.77
2.15

1.78
0.11
2.20
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.08
4.11
0.46
0.02
0.01
1.74
0.16
2.95
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.94
0.05
13.89
0.85
4.15
0.23
7.01
0.39
0.04
0.02
4.21
0.46
6.54
0.50
0.31
0.05
8.27
0.45
1.58
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.58
0.10
8.85
0.62
14.78
1.11
0.04
0.02

2.75

14.58

5.36

2.39

5.37

2.31

7.56

15.91

4.29

1.52

5.15

3.56

0.55

24.32

20.69

11.59

7.34

0.33

1.21

19.23

13.03

0.46

14.92

13.01

2.88

2.25

0.76

1.17

0.75

0.42

0.11

24.18

23.11

0.59

11.49

8.77

0.34

17.33

15.17

5.68

9.73

2.76

0.75

35.13

28.89

0.85

12.95

8.50

2.96

25.07

14.63

0.75

3.95

3.09

1.58

5.46

2.95

1.61

1.30

0.85

2.77

27.47

15.66

0.53

15.90

12.60

0.21

38.82

36.17

8.12

19.06

4.34

Figure 5.6. Semi-variograms from each measurement run in the large reach. The
experimental semi-variogram on each graph is shown by the solid black circles and the
smooth curve is the best-fit exponential curve of the form =S[1exp(-x/)] where is the
correlation length and S is the sill (usually an estimate of the variance of lnKV). The lag
width for the experimental variograms ranged from 13.08 m to 17.00 m.

53

Figure 5.6 (continued)

3.0

2.5

Lag width = 13.08 m

Lag width = 14.17 m

2.0

2.0

Gamma

Gamma

2.5

1.5
1.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.5

December 2005

December 2005

0.0

0.0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (meters)
3.0

Distance (meters)
2.5

Lag width = 15.45 m

Lag width = 17.00 m

2.0

2.0

Gamma

Gamma

2.5

1.5
1.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.5

December 2005

December 2005
0.0

0.0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Lag width = 13.08 m

Lag width = 14.17 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (meters)

Distance (meters)

2
1

3
2
1

February 2006

February 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 15.45 m

Lag width = 17.00 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2
1

3
2
1

February 2006

February 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

54

Figure 5.6 (continued)

Lag width = 13.08 m

Lag width = 14.17 m

Gamma

Gamma

2
1

3
2
1

April 2006

April 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 17.00 m

Gamma

Gamma

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 15.45 m

2
1

3
2
1

April 2006

April 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (meters)
5

Lag width = 13.08 m

Lag width = 14.17 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (meters)

4
3
2

3
2
1

June 2006

June 2006
0

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Distance (meters)
5

Lag width = 15.45 m

Lag width = 17.00 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

3
2
1

3
2
1

June 2006

June 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

55

Figure 5.6 (continued)

Gamma

Gamma

Lag width = 14.17 m

Lag width = 13.08 m

3
2
1

2
1

August 2006

August 2006
0

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Distance (meters)
Lag width = 15.45 m

Lag width = 17.00 m

3

Gamma

Gamma

3
2
1

2
1

August 2006

August 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 14.17 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 13.08 m

2
1

3
2
1

October 2006

October 2006
0

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Lag width = 15.45 m

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 17.00 m

Gamma

Gamma

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

2
1

3
2
1

October 2006

October 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

56

Figure 5.6 (continued)

6

Lag width = 13.08 m

Gamma

Gamma

3
2
1

Lag width = 14.17 m

3
2
1

December 2006

December 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

Distance (meters)

Lag width = 15.45 m

Gamma

Gamma

3
2
1

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Lag width = 17.00 m

3
2
1

December 2006

December 2006

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance (meters)

roughly 12.5 m longitudinal (along channel) spacing of measurement points in the field.
Four different lag widths were used to evaluate whether the appearance of the semivariogram, and the S and values determined from a best-fit exponential model, were
sensitive to the choice of lag width. Overall, the semi-variograms and exponential model
parameters were not sensitive to lag width, though a somewhat smaller value was found at
the smallest lag width in a few cases (Table 5.5).
With all large reach semi-variograms, the rising portion of the exponential model
curve is not well defined or constrained by the experimental semi-variogram points. This
behavior suggests that the points are not correlated at the sample spacing (Journel 1978;

57

http://www.goldensoftware.com/variogramTutorial.pdf) and that any spatial autocorrelation

of lnKV is at spatial scales shorter than the longitudinal measurement spacing in the large
reach sampling. The values do however cluster within a relatively small range of about 2
m to 7 m, within the same range reported in the literature for horizontal correlation lengths in
porous media (Cardenas and Zlotnik, 2003b; Genereux and Guardiario, 2001; Hess et al.,
1992; Rehfeldt et al., 1992). Semi-variograms based on more closely spaced KV
measurements for two shorter reaches within the large reach are presented in the next section.
The correlation lengths estimated for the small reaches bracket the values found for the
larger reach and also have a better-defined rising portion of the exponential model curve,
consistent with the large reach comprising sub-reaches with different degrees of spatial
autocorrelation in lnKV
Contour lnKV maps (Figure 5.7) were created to show distribution of KV within the
stream channel to give an overall visual impression of spatial variability on each
measurement run. For comparison purposes, 5 interpolation techniques were used to create
maps for the first three large-reach runs (12/05, 02/06, and 04/06), to evaluate the sensitivity
of map appearance to interpolation method. The five interpolation methods used were: (1)
radial basis function, (2) kriging with a linear semi-variogram model, and (3) kriging with an
exponential semi-variogram model, with the value of used in creating the map taken from
(a) the semi-variogram for Small Reach 1 (with = 1.41 m), (b) the semi-variogram for the
large reach (with depending on the month), or (c) the semi-variogram from Small Reach 2
(with = 8.22 m). Contour maps were made using SURFER software (version 8); cell
dimensions in the interpolation grid were 20 cm by 20 cm.

58

Table 5.4. Number of pairs of lnKV values on which each point in the experimental semivariograms is based. The first column refers to the points of the semi-variogram in order of
increasing distance. The second row gives the lag width values (m) used in constructing the
different semi-variograms in Figure 5.6. The numbers for February 06 - December 06 are
approximate ( 3 pairs) since point placement changed slightly from run to run.
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

February 06 December 06
13.08 m 14.17 m 15.45 m 17.00 m
89
105
105
105
111
104
104
104
76
67
67
146
90
90
116
76
65
65
115
81
76
81
63
120
63
86
63
61
62
86
79
69
61
56
82
68
48
60
36
49
59
30
49
30
49
49
-

13.08 m
69
78
54
64
43
50
41
36
39
24
49
24
39

December 05
14.17 m 15.45 m
78
78
78
78
45
45
64
74
43
83
51
41
50
36
62
44
26
62
50
30
24
39
39
-

17.00 m
78
78
98
54
51
76
39
35
62
39
-

Table 5.5. Sill (S) and correlation length () results from fitting exponential curves to the
large reach semi-variograms.

Dec.
2005

Feb.
2006

Apr.
2006
Jun.
2006

Lag width
(m)
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17

(m)

1.72
1.71
1.79
1.71
2.58
2.56
2.52
2.52
3.31
3.34
3.35
3.36
3.37
3.40

0.74
2.98
3.67
2.96
3.76
4.64
3.14
3.14
4.60
7.02
7.12
7.12
1.6x10-3
2.93

June
2006
Aug.
2006

Oct.
2006

Dec.
2006

59

Lag width
(m)
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00
13.08
14.17
15.45
17.00

(m)

3.37
3.37
2.05
2.08
2.05
2.09
3.24
3.25
3.28
3.23
4.30
4.28
4.32
4.35

2.68
2.66
4.10
5.06
4.84
5.09
3.90
4.82
5.00
4.72
0.37
2.93
3.13
3.24

The interpolation based on the exponential semi-variogram model was used because
it has been widely applied in previous studies of spatial variability in hydraulic conductivity.
Three different values were used in making these maps to try to bracket the range of
estimates from the available semi-variograms; the semi-variograms from the large reach had
values intermediate between the small value from Small Reach 1 and the large value from
Small Reach 2 (results from the more closely spaced measurements in the small reaches are
discussed in the next section). The interpolation based on a linear semi-variogram model
was used because it offers another interpolation based on kriging but independent of the
exponential semi-variogram model. The interpolation based on the radial basis function was
used because it is an interpolation method that is fairly widely used and is independent of
kriging and semi-variograms. As implemented in SURFER, the function contains a userspecified smoothing parameter that was set so that the average residual between measured
and estimated lnKV was equal to the estimated average uncertainty in the lnKV measurements
being contoured in the map. This approach avoids residuals that are too high (which produce
an excessively smoothed appearance that does not capture minima and maxima in the data)
or too low (e.g., there is no point in striving for 1% residuals when measurements themselves
have several percent uncertainty).
Results from 12/05, 2/06, and 4/06 show that the lnKV maps interpolated using the
radial basis function and kriging with linear semi-variogram looked very similar. However,
the radial basis function method (with the mean residual fixed as described above) did not
estimate maximum and minimum values as well as the linear semi-variogram method (Table
5.6). The radial basis function method predicted maximum and minimum lnKV better when
the smoothing parameter was changed to require a smaller residual (results for this are not

60

shown, though the maps looked nearly identical to the radial basis function maps in Figure
5.7). The maps based on an exponential semi-variogram had varying degrees of bulls-eye
effect, from large for the maps based on = 1.4 m to small for the maps based on = 8.2 m
(the latter maps still had slightly more of a bulls-eye appearance than the maps based on
the radial basis function or linear semi-variogram). Radial basis function and kriging with
the linear semi-variogram were the interpolation techniques used to produce the remainder of
the maps since map appearance seemed more realistic than those created with exponential
semi-variograms (i.e., lack of excessive bulls-eye effect) and both interpolation techniques
reproduced fairly well the measured maximum and minimum values in the data sets. Maps
of K for the 7 large reach runs created with kriging (using the linear semi-variogram) are
shown in Appendix 3

5.2. Spatial variability of KV in two small reaches

Two small reach studies were measured during the summer months with one study
involving 62 measurement points between WBC 300 and WBC 362.5 (Small Reach 1) and
the other involving 54 measurement points sampled between WBC 487.5 and WBC 550
(Small Reach 2). Measurements in Small Reach 1 were done during the 13th, 14th, and 31st of
July, 2006 and those in Small Reach 2 were done during the 15th and 16th of August, 2006
(Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of measurement points for the small reaches). The small
reach data, with 54 and 62 KV measurements over 62.5 m reaches, give a more detailed
picture of spatial variability in streambed KV than the large reach data (46 measurement
points distributed over a 262.5 m reach). Frequency histograms for the small reaches

61

Apr.

Feb.

Dec .

Table 5.6. Maximum and minimum lnKV values with absolute mean residual (AMR) values
for the five different interpolation methods presented for December 2005, February 2006,
and April 2006: (1) radial basis function (2) kriging with a linear semi-variogram model
(default in SURFER software), and (3) kriging with an exponential semi-variogram model,
with the value of used in creating the map drawn from (a) the semi-variogram for Small
Reach 1 (with = 1.41 m), (b) the semi-variogram for the large reach (with lag width =
15.45 m and depending on the month), or (c) the semi-variogram from Small Reach 2 (with
= 8.22 m). Maximum, minimum, and average uncertainty are also shown for the lnKV
data.
(1)
Average uncertainty of lnKV
Maximum
Minimum
AMR
Maximum
Minimum
AMR
Maximum
Minimum
AMR

lnKV data
3.74
-1.10
0.2031
3.94
-3.34
0.1491
3.83
-5.16
0.2181

1
3.63
-0.45
0.202
3.62
-2.59
0.149
3.75
-3.96
0.213

2
3.69
-1.04
0.021
3.81
-3.19
0.060
3.83
-4.72
0.073

3a
3.65
-0.76
0.090
3.76
-3.09
0.101
3.80
-4.25
0.148

3b
3.68
-0.88
0.058
3.80
-3.16
0.72
3.82
-4.65
0.079

3c
3.69
-0.91
0.050
3.80
-3.18
0.062
3.83
-4.67
0.078

(Figure 5.8) resemble the histograms shown for the large reaches (Figure 5.2) although KV
data from Small Reach 2 has a weak skewed appearance. Based on the histograms, it appears
that both the large and small reaches captured similar data suggesting roughly similar
distributions in streambed KV for the small and large reaches.
Summary statistics for the small reach runs vary considerably (Table 5.7). Geometric
mean values from the two small reaches bracket those from the large reach (except for the
low geometric mean for the large reach in December 2006). Range of KV for both Small
Reach 1 and Small Reach 2 are similar to those measured for the large reach but variance
from Small Reach 1 is much higher compared to Small Reach 2 or the large reach runs.
Arithmetic mean KV calculated from the data taken from Small Reach 1 is similar to the
values found from the large reach (Table 5.6) while the arithmetic mean from Small Reach 2
was twice as large. In Small Reach 1, mean KV was significantly higher in the center of the

62

Figure 5.7. Contour maps of lnKV for the large reach. Maps based on five different
interpolation methods are presented for December 2005, February 2006, and April 2006: (1)
radial basis function, (2) kriging with a linear semi-variogram model (default in SURFER
software), and (3) kriging with an exponential semi-variogram model, with the value of
used in creating the map drawn from (a) the semi-variogram for Small Reach 1 (with
= 1.41 m), (b) the semi-variogram for the large reach (with lag width = 15.45 m and
depending on the month), or (c) the semi-variogram from Small Reach 2 (with = 8.22 m).
The radial basis function and kriging with a linear semi-variogram model were used to create
maps for the large reach measurement runs in June, August, October, and December 2006.

63

Figure 5.7 (continued)

64

Figure 5.7 (continued)

65

Figure 5.7 (continued)

66

Figure 5.7 (continued)

67

40

20
10

20
10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

KV (m/day)
40

10 20 30 40 50 60
KV (m/day)

40

July 2006
Small Reach 1

August 2006
Small Reach 2

30

Count

30

Count

August 2006
Small Reach 2

30

Count

30

Count

40

July 2006
Small Reach 1

20
10

20
10

0
-4

-2

-4

lnKV (K in m/day)

-2

lnKV (K in m/day)

Figure 5.8. Frequency Histograms of KV and lnKV for the small reaches.
channel than on either the right or left sides of the channel, but this was not the case for
Small Reach 2 (Table 5.2), a result consistent with the different appearances of the contour
maps of lnKV for these two reaches (Figures. 5.13 and 5.14). When considering 2lnKv
measurement statistics for the left side, right side, and center of the channel, similar patterns
exist between the small reaches and the large reach (i.e., 2lnKv is smaller in the center of the
channel than on the left or right side) (Figure 5.9, Table 5.2). The large variance values from
Small Reach 1 could have been triggered from large rain events that occurred before the
measurement run. These large rain events increased the stage and flow of the creek (Figure
5.10) and could have been responsible for slumping of clayey soil material from the banks,
leading to more numerous streambed locations with low KV.

68

Table 5.7. Descriptive statistics comparing the KV results (at ambient field temperature) for
the two small reach studies. KV values are in m/day, 2KV in m2/day2. AM is the arithmetic
mean, GM is the geometric mean, and L/C/R refers to the left side, center, and right side of
the channel respectively.

AM KV
GM KV
AM (L/C/R)
GM (L/C/R)
Range of KV
Range of lnKV
2KV
2
KV (L/C/R)
2lnKv
2
lnKv(L/C/R)

Small Reach 1
WBC 300-362.5
16.54
4.63
7.71/28.30/12.51
0.66/ 25.92/ 4.05
0.01to 44.92
-4.77 to 3.80
200
154/100/135
6.04
7.88/ 0.23/ 4.82

Small Reach 2
WBC 487.5-550
30.10
17.25
31.69/32.42/25.38
18.92/ 22.46/ 11.05
0.07 to 63.52
-2.61 to 4.15
322
289/345/319
2.52
2.88/ 1.23/ 3.86

Figure 5.9. Bar graph showing the arithmetic mean KV values and the 2lnKv values for Small
Reach 1 and Small Reach 2. The arithmetic mean KV and the 2lnKV values are presented for
all the points in the stream channel as well as separately for those measured on the left side,
center, and right side of the channel.

Semi-variograms of lnKV for the two small reaches (Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12) are
presented with lag widths of at least 2.5 meters since this distance corresponded to the
shortest distance between measurement points in the field. Semi-variograms with
lagdistances from 2.5 m to 3.75 m were created so that sensitivity to this parameter could be
evaluated, however, the sill and correlation length were not found to be very sensitive to the

69

choice of lag width (except for the first semi-variogram in Figure 5.11) (Table 5.8).
Correlation lengths from Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2 seem to range between 1-9
meters. Correlation length values in Small Reach 2 are higher than the highest correlation
length value of 4.2 m reported in Hess et al. (1992) and just slightly higher than the highest
reported in Genereux and Guardiario (2001) of 7.3 m. Correlation length values near 1 m
from Small Reach 1 are low but are still larger than some reported in Hess et al. (1992). The
visual appearance of the semi-variograms suggests a fairly well defined correlation length in
Small Reach 2, but in Small reach 1 the correlation length is not as well defined.
Contour maps of lnKV for Small Reach1 and Small Reach 2 (Figure 5.13 and Figure
5.14) were created using three different interpolation methods: (1) the radial basis function
method, (2) kriging with a linear semi-variogram model (default in SURFER), and (3)
kriging with an exponential semi-variogram model. The exponential semi-variogram with a
lag width of 3.21 was used for both Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2. Radial basis function
maps were created with the average residual set equal to the average measurement

Flow (m^3/sec)

40

Bear Creek Flow at Mays Store

30

20

10

0
/
12/1

05

4/1/

06

8/1/

06

/06
12/1

Figure 5.10 Flow in m3/sec recorded during the period of 12/21/05 to 12/06/06. Data
obtained from the USGS station at Mays Store located on Bear Creek, approximately 5 km
downstream of the study site.
70

Lag width = 2.65 m

Gamma

Gamma

Lag width = 3.00 m

4
2

4
2

Small Reach 1

Small Reach 1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

10

Distance (meters)
8

Lag width = 3.13 m

Gamma

Gamma

40

50

Lag width = 3.21 m

4
2

4
2

Small Reach 1

Small Reach 1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

10

Distance (meters)

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)
8

Lag width = 3.46 m

Lag width = 3.75 m

Gamma

Gamma

30

Distance (meters)

20

4
2

4
2

Small Reach 1

Small Reach 1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)

Figure 5.11. Semi-variograms for Small Reach 1. The experimental variogram is shown by
the solid black circles; the smooth curve is the best-fit exponential curve.

71

Lag width = 2.50 m

Lag width = 2.65 m

Gamma

Gamma

4
3
2
1

3
2
1

Small Reach 2

Small Reach 2

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)
5

Lag width = 2.81 m

30

40

50

Lag width = 3.00 m

Gamma

3
2
1

3
2
1

Small Reach 2

Small Reach 2

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)
5

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)
5

Lag width = 3.21 m

Lag width = 3.43 m

Gamma

Gamma

20

Distance (meters)

Gamma

10

3
2

3
2
1

Small Reach 2

Small Reach 2
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (meters)

Figure 5.12. Semi-variograms for Small Reach 2. The experimental variogram is shown by
the solid black circles; the smooth curve is the best-fit exponential curve.

72

uncertainty (95% confidence) in lnKV (Kv in m/day) (0.431 for Small Reach 1, 0.056 for
Small Reach 2).
The different interpolation methods give very similar results for each small reach
indicating that the overall image of spatial pattern of lnKV is not sensitive to choice of
interpolation method. Map results show that the two reaches give some idea of the range of
spatial variability at the study site, from the large (~30 m) area of fairly high and uniform KV
in Small Reach 2 to the small scale variability (< 1 m) found throughout Small Reach 1.
Areas of low KV are focused near the sides of the channel (not in the center) especially with
Small Reach 1 as expected since geometric mean KV values were lower on the sides (Table
5.7).

Small Reach 2

Small Reach 1

Table 5.8. Sill (S) and correlation length () results from fitting exponential curves to the
small-reach semi-variograms.
Lag width (m)
2.65
3.00
3.13
3.21
3.46
3.75
2.5
2.65
2.81
3.00
3.21
3.43

S
5.99
6.02
6.12
6.04
6.05
6.04
3.56
3.56
3.58
3.52
3.54
3.44

73

(m)
6.92x10-7
1.04
1.39
1.41
1.56
1.45
8.41
8.67
8.84
8.05
8.22
7.37

Figure 5.13. Contour maps of lnKV for Small Reach 1. Maps based on three different
interpolation methods are presented: (1) radial basis function, (2) kriging with a linear semivariogram model (default in SURFER software), and (3) kriging with an exponential semivariogram model, with the value of 1.41 used in creating the map

74

Figure 5.14. Contour maps of lnKV for Small Reach 2. Maps based on three different
interpolation methods are presented: (1) radial basis function, (2) kriging with a linear semivariogram model (default in SURFER software), and (3) kriging with an exponential semivariogram model, with the value of 8.22 used in creating the map

75

5.3 Temporal variability of KV

KV measurements over the large reach were made bimonthly over a 1-year period
(seven measurement runs from 12/05 to 12/06) to assess temporal variation in KV.
Arithmetic mean KV values for the large reach were roughly constant from December 2005
to June 2006, higher for August 2006 and October 2006, and lower for December 2006
(Figure 5.14) while individual measurement sites showed a variety of complex behaviors
over time (Figure 5.5). KV at some sites near each other have similar temporal behavior (e.g.,
350C, 350R and 375C, or 400L, 400C, and 400R, or 537.5L, 537.5C, and 537.5R) while
other sites near to each other show different temporal behavior (e.g., 300L and 300C, or
425C and 425R, or 512C and 512R). Figures 5.3 and 5.13 suggest that variation in KV
through time is not solely dependent on changes in sediment temperature, because the
temporal variability in 20oC KV values is about as large as that in KV values at ambient field
temperature. (site-specific temperature values and mean temperature values are given in
Appendix 4). Ambient KV values are lower than the 20oC KV values for all but the summer
measurement period.
In general, erosion and deposition of sediment, and time-varying behavior of biofilms
and/or gas bubbles in sediment, could be causes of temporal variability in KV. One possible
cause of temporal variability was discussed in section 5.1: mobilization of fine sediments
after collapse of the beaver dam (between April and June). Prior to the measurement in
August, temperature adjusted KV remained roughly at the same value. In August,
temperature adjusted KV rose to a higher value than recorded to that date. This change in KV
could be in part a response to loss of fine sediment upstream of the dam site, but it is hard to
know for certain because the dam collapse was gradual, with most occurring between April

76

30

KV (m/day)

25

Arithmetic mean

20
15
10
5
0

Ambient
o
20 C

-05 -3-0610-0612-0610-0624-06 -5-06

1
2 2 4- 6- 8- 0- 12
1
12-

Figure 5.14. Arithmetic mean KV values for the large reach, at both ambient field temperature
and corrected to 20oC. Error bars indicate the average uncertainty (95% confidence).

and June, and less after June, and data on temporal variability is sediment grain size were not
collected (grain size data from a 1-day sampling effort are discussed in section 5.5).
As a simple means of assessing bimonthly changes in the position of the streambed
sediment surface at a few locations, metal rods inserted into the streambed near transects
WBC 300, 425, and 437 served as staff gauges for recording water depth as well as
streambed sediment variations. During most measurement runs, the distances from the top of
the rod to the water level and from the top of the rod to the sediment surface were measured
along the rods. Large changes in sediment thickness (approximately 20 cm) occurred at
WBC 425 and WBC 437, on either side of the beaver dam site (Table 5.9). These variations

77

in sediment most likely influenced the values of KV in these areas given that half or more of
the sediment for which KV was measured had changed (KV measurements were made on the
top 36 cm of sediment). The metal rod located near WBC 300 showed less sediment
variation with time than the rods near the dam. This locality may provide a better
representation of changes in sediment thickness in areas of the channel not strongly
influenced by the beaver dam. Sediment thickness at WBC 300 changed on the order of 5
cm, which could influence KV measurements, depending on the K of the sediments eroded
and deposited at the surface, and whether there is any vertical variation in KV with depth near
the bottom of the 36 cm KV measurement interval.

5.4. Uncertainty in KV values

As mentioned at the end of section 4.1.2, uncertainty in KV was estimated by

propagation of uncertainty in the three measurands used to calculate KV (permeameter
diameter, depth of permeameter penetration into the sediment, and the slope of the regression
line of lnH vs. time). The uncertainty thus estimated for all KV measurements from the large
and small reaches averaged 14.61% with a range of 4.94%-519.26% (Figure 5.15).
However, this calculated uncertainty includes only the mathematical propagation of error
through Equation 4.4. There are other aspects to overall uncertainty such as the calculation
of limiting estimates of KV based on upper and lower limits in m (see section 4.1.2), and the
question of how well Equation 4.4 is suited to the field conditions.
The approach for determining KV without knowing the m value in Equation 4.4
(section 4.1.2) introduces uncertainty of 5% in the calculated KV values. Adding this 5%
in root mean square fashion (Kline, 1985; Taylor, 1982; Meyer, 1975; Peters et al., 1974) to

78

Table 5.9. Water depth and changes in sediment thickness at WBC 300, 425, and 437, based
on measurements along metal rods pounded into the streambed. The top of the rod was used
for measurements down to water (DTW) and down to sediment surface (DTS), which were
used to calculate water depth and sediment thickness changes. The values listed for change
in sediment are calculated with respect to the first measurement date, December 2005 for
sites WBC 300 and 437, and February 2006 for site WBC 425 (e.g., for WBC 300, 150.8149.1 = 1.7 cm of stream sediment accumulated between December 2005 and February
2006) except that at WBC 300 the staff gauge was disturbed by a tree fall between April and
June and therefore values for change in sediment after June are referenced to the DTS
measured in June.
Site
WBC
300

WBC
425

WBC
437

Parameter (cm)
DTW
DTS
Water depth
Change in
Sediment
DTW
DTS
Water depth
Change in
Sediment
DTW
DTS
Water depth
Change in
Sediment

Dec. 05
91.6
149.1
57.5
_

Feb. 06
116
150.8
34.8

Apr. 06
131.9
151.5
19.6

June. 06
126.1
146.5
20.4
_

Aug. 06
115.5
142.9
27.4

Oct. 06
121
144.8
23.8

Dec. 06
80.5
151.1
70.6

1.7

2.4

-3.6

-1.7

4.6

NM
NM
NM
_

114.6
146.6
32

121
155.4
34.4

125.2
133.7
8.5

116.9
126.2
9.3

155.9
175.2
19.3

-8.8

12.9

20.4

-28.6

NM
NM
NM
_

80.1
146.1
66
_

96
130
34

113.3
135.2
21.9

108.4
142.1
33.7

106
139.6
33.6

108.7
142.3
33.6

75.4
131
55.6

16.1

10.9

6.5

3.8

15.1

the uncertainty based on propagation of error in measurands (Figure 5.15) would give total
uncertainties larger than those shown in Figure 5.15 by at most 2% for the values clustering
at the minimum error level of about 5% shown on the figure (e.g.,

0.05 2 + 0.05 2 = 0.07 ).

Average Uncertainty in KV (using the root mean square fashion procedure), from the 430
measurements taken from the large and small reaches (Figure 5.15) is equal to about 16.2%.
But even this estimate may understate error at some measurement locations because
Equation 4.4 was derived for homogeneous media. Measurements of KV as a function of
depth at 11 sites (Table 5.10) suggest that sediments at some sites had variations in K with

79

% uncertainty

1000

KV vs. % uncertainty

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

KV (m/day)
Figure 5.15. Percent uncertainty for each KV value based on propagation of uncertainty
through Equation 4.4 measured from the large and small reaches.

Measurement
depth (cm)

303R

328C

353L

378R

403C

421L

443C

460L

490R

515C

540R

Table 5.10. KV (m/day) values (at ambient field temperature) as a function of depth for 11
sites at which sediment cores were taken (see section 5.5).

0-29
0-36
0-43

46.8
0.016
0.427

42.8
45.4
39.5

23.9
40.3
21.6

0.594
0.819
1.17

3.98
3.64
1.27

1.53
0.965
0.902

60.8
42.4
41.1

4.86
11.5
10.7

34.3
35.5
34.4

49.6
44.7
45.7

7.63
7.22
7.60

depth. For example, KV clearly decreases significantly between 29 cm and 36 cm of depth at

site 303R (Table 5.10). In cases such as this, actual field behavior may have deviated
somewhat from that predicted by Equation 4.4, resulting in model error (i.e., the type of
uncertainty that arises because Equation 4.4 is an imperfect model for system response at a
site like 303R).

80

Model error is the most difficult type of uncertainty to quantify, as it does not occur
everywhere and with KV measurements done at one depth for most locations, theres no
unambiguous way to know the extent of heterogeneity at each individual location. Model
error is likely negligible or small at many sites (e.g., sites 328C, 490R, 515C, 540R, and
possibly others in Table 5.10). For sites such as this, the uncertainty in KV is probably well
estimated by propagation of uncertainty in the measurands (Figure 5.15), plus a small
additional increment associated with not knowing the value of m, as discussed above.
Considering all the factors (propagation of measurement error, lack of knowledge of m, and
model error), average uncertainty in KV estimates is probably about 10-20% for the study.
Also relevant is the observation that reproducibility is significantly better than the calculated
uncertainty, as it should be since precision should be better than accuracy. Coefficient of
variation values calculated from 6 replicate tests performed at each of 4 locations (field
permeameters left in place for four days) ranged from 2.8% to 5.4% (Table 5.11).

Table 5.11. KV values (m/day) for replicate measurements done during the week of February
20th 2006. Values for KV were corrected to 20oC. The coefficient of variation (CV) is shown
for each site.
Site
387C
387.5R
550C
560C

2/20/06
9.93
17.57
41.03
29.99

2/21/06
9.04
18.93
44.05
32.86

2/22/06
8.77
18.07
41.27
32.72

2/22/06
9.23
18.42
41.28
33.70

81

2/24/06
9.53
18.10
40.30
33.07

2/24/06
10.20
18.84
41.60
33.91

CV
5.39
2.82
3.10
4.42

5.5. Grain size analysis

On 9-26-06 sediment cores were taken and field permeameter tests were done
approximately 3 m upstream or downstream of each large reach three-point transect (with the
exception of WBC 562.5) for determination of grain size distribution. At each measurement
location, 3 separate KV measurements were made with the field permeameter pipe at
sediment depth intervals of 0 to 29 cm, 0 to 36 cm, and 0 to 43 cm, and then the sediment
within the field permeameter pipe after the last measurement (0-43) was removed from the
streambed and placed into plastic containers (see section 4.1.3). Generally, the core
sediments from the field permeameter pipe were separated into 5 cm intervals (e.g., plastic
containers held sediments in intervals from 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm, etc., below the
streambed).
The purpose for coring streambed sediment and performing grain size analysis was to
(1) make a preliminary evaluation of sediment heterogeneity with depth and with location
(along and across the stream channel) and (2) calculate K based on empirical grain-size
methods for comparison with K values from the field permeameter tests. Particle size
distribution was measured on all 94 samples from the 11 cores, by dry sieving. Twenty of
the 94 samples were also analyzed using the hydrometer (settling rate) method. The dry
sieve method used sieves with screen mesh openings of 2.0 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.25 mm,
0.1 mm, and 0.05 mm to separate the sediment. This sieve separation is recognized by the
USDA as the particle size limit classification for sand ranging from very fine sand (0.05 mm)
to very coarse sand (2.0 mm) (Gee and Or, 2002). Also, within the USDA particle size limit
classification, sediment particles greater than 2 mm are considered gravel, particles between

82

0.002 and 0.05 mm are considered silt, and particles less than 0.002 mm are considered clay
(Gee and Or, 2002).
Results from sieving data indicate that the sediment cored from the reach comprises
mostly medium to coarse sand (0.25 to 1.0 mm) (Table 5.12) with an average of 73%
medium to coarse sand on a mass basis (68 of the 94 samples had a medium to coarse sand
percentage within one standard deviation of this average, 61-85%). Medium and coarse sand
represent 35% to 94% of each sample (Table 5.12). Dry sieving results show that silt and
clay particles accounted for a very small percentage of sediment. Twenty samples had a >1%
silt and clay composition, 9 samples had 0.5% to < 1% silt and clay composition, and 65
samples had < 0.5% silt/clay composition (Table 5.12). However, percent silt and clay is
often underestimated by dry sieving (Gee and Or, 2002; Miller et. al., 1988). Therefore,
sediment analysis with the hydrometer method was performed on samples for which dry
sieving indicated >1% silt and clay composition. The hydrometer settling rate analysis gave
percentages of silt and clay that were higher than those from the dry sieving analysis (mean
difference between the two methods was 13.39%, standard deviation was 3.96%, range was
7.30-23.04%; Table 5.13). Gee and Or (2002) report that the discrepancy in silt and clay
percentage between dry sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis is often larger than 5%.
There is some heterogeneity of sediment grain size with depth, judging from variation
in D10 and D50 (the grain size diameters at which 10% and 50% of the particles by mass are
finer) with depth (Table 5.12, Figure 5.18). The D10 and D50 values were obtained from
graphs showing cumulative weight percent vs. grain size diameter (Figure 5.17). The
smallest values of D10 or D50 are generally not found at the top or even the upper halves of
the cores

83

Table 5.12. Dry sieve data over 5 cm intervals for 11 cores from the study reach. D10 and
D50 values correspond to grain sizes at which 10% and 50% of the sediment diameter is finer
and the x intercept is the value (in mm) at which a straight line through D10 and D50 intersects
the x-axis on a grain size distribution plot such as Figure 5.17.

84

Core depth
(cm)

> 2 mm
(% by wt.)

1.0 to < 2.0

mm
(% by wt.)

0.5 to < 1.0

mm
(% by wt.)

0.25 to <
0.5 mm
(% by wt.)

0.01 to <
0.25 mm
(% by wt.)

0.05 to <
0.01 mm
(% by wt.)

< 0.05 mm
(% by wt.)

D10/D50
(mm)

x intercept

403C

378R

353L

328C

303R

Site

Table 5.12 (continued)

0-6
6-11
11-16
16-21
21-26
26-31
31-36
36-38
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-42
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-43
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-41.5
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40

0.62
1.45
1.17
0.75
0.58
4.29
2.35
0.32
2.23
2.33
4.13
3.27
7.09
10.04
3.51
5.50
10.16
1.57
2.58
6.80
2.40
4.14
3.17
1.69
7.68
8.48
1.20
4.28
2.93
33.16
21.09
0.40
3.39
3.12
3.42
3.62
15.13
3.03
10.21
2.73
15.23
5.15
1.81

5.29
8.07
5.93
4.36
6.52
10.05
3.47
1.41
14.75
16.03
14.36
12.53
14.48
10.46
13.41
16.90
19.58
5.42
12.41
26.52
10.47
16.71
11.26
5.79
18.76
18.37
8.08
15.00
7.69
13.85
13.42
3.88
6.38
10.99
7.51
4.05
8.24
6.35
25.94
8.46
21.31
4.94
7.72

39.14
23.98
37.90
31.93
40.92
39.44
10.30
10.04
39.16
44.59
39.34
31.76
29.27
30.30
50.39
40.79
33.29
41.70
48.66
36.36
27.93
38.09
33.71
26.42
34.88
23.56
42.77
32.23
24.18
16.39
18.57
34.59
49.53
36.85
59.01
13.41
14.04
22.56
27.08
26.29
30.90
16.19
16.44

48.08
59.89
50.96
54.86
45.19
39.14
51.19
71.95
35.64
32.79
38.00
44.23
40.86
40.62
28.58
29.92
29.25
45.23
32.44
25.62
49.12
31.13
44.38
56.39
26.08
30.20
41.39
38.04
50.67
18.44
19.68
38.49
33.77
43.32
24.78
55.67
43.31
54.60
24.46
44.45
24.26
48.48
34.64

6.32
6.29
3.91
7.76
6.44
6.83
23.75
15.30
7.80
4.03
4.04
7.99
7.84
8.25
4.01
6.67
7.31
5.77
3.78
4.46
9.60
9.39
7.19
9.49
8.21
14.33
6.20
9.46
12.96
14.91
19.89
16.87
6.50
5.37
4.83
20.47
17.18
11.54
10.49
16.26
7.34
20.40
29.93

0.41
0.23
0.12
0.31
0.31
0.20
6.15
0.85
0.29
0.14
0.10
0.20
0.41
0.26
0.09
0.19
0.31
0.21
0.10
0.16
0.36
0.45
0.20
0.16
2.29
2.81
0.30
0.84
1.27
2.22
4.75
3.55
0.33
0.21
0.29
2.06
1.40
1.27
1.24
1.40
0.67
3.43
6.77

0.15
0.09
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
2.79
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.09
0.09
0.06
2.10
2.24
0.06
0.16
0.31
1.03
2.60
2.22
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.72
0.70
0.65
0.59
0.41
0.29
1.42
2.69

0.273/0.477
0.265/0.431
0.290/0.480
0.260/0.441
0.274/0.491
0.263/0.532
0.131/0.312
0.224/0.341
0.255/0.554
0.296/0.603
0.277/0.572
0.242/0.500
0.231/0.538
0.233/0.531
0.323/0.621
0.272/0.621
0.245/0.668
0.282/0.494
0.312/0.592
0.291/0.738
0.234/0.456
0.243/0.584
0.250/0.501
0.247/0.425
0.207/0.629
0.146/0.541
0.277/0.513
0.225/0.531
0.213/0.419
0.154/0.846
0.108/0.578
0.166/0.413
0.299/0.551
0.265/0.517
0.356/0.609
0.186/0.347
0.167/0.435
0.222/0.410
0.180/0.736
0.191/0.423
0.238/0.769
0.164/0.357
0.103/0.307

0.222
0.223
0.243
0.215
0.220
0.196
0.084
0.195
0.180
0.219
0.203
0.177
0.154
0.159
0.249
0.185
0.139
0.229
0.242
0.179
0.179
0.158
0.187
0.203
0.101
0.047
0.218
0.218
0.161
-0.02
-0.01
0.104
0.236
0.202
0.293
0.146
0.100
0.175
0.041
0.177
0.552
0.150
0.495

85

540R

515C

490R

460L

443C

421L

Table 5.12 (continued)

0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-41.5
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-43.5
0-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-38.5
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-39
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-44
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-44

0.88
0.73
0.46
1.45
1.95
0.34
0.55
0.35
0.15
4.93
5.70
4.23
4.94
7.26
8.97
7.67
6.30
3.18
2.55
2.26
5.67
13.54
1.77
1.30
2.02
0.26
1.43
2.54
4.62
1.81
1.30
0.51
2.10
0.94
0.40
1.20
0.82
0.84
1.03
1.37
0.54
4.60
26.03
10.53
10.85
5.48
18.15
6.62
5.58
0.81
2.65

4.46
5.10
1.96
6.74
8.08
3.01
3.70
2.69
3.06
19.85
25.64
17.95
21.63
21.93
20.40
15.51
14.75
15.41
16.74
18.05
47.73
15.49
15.78
25.94
9.89
2.09
8.41
8.63
13.50
12.31
13.52
5.89
5.36
10.72
8.19
9.63
4.83
7.11
8.90
7.12
3.08
12.47
8.83
6.66
19.02
16.54
13.94
16.16
16.50
7.19
10.57

25.45
26.12
30.06
53.62
21.02
16.63
13.47
12.76
32.54
38.97
41.89
35.07
34.07
30.93
28.52
30.23
31.94
34.07
44.29
42.42
22.61
30.97
59.09
49.85
49.75
28.76
36.46
34.69
32.37
43.95
50.84
39.05
29.32
49.03
42.65
39.90
27.46
29.40
26.61
30.27
45.97
31.85
22.51
19.79
33.09
37.02
30.00
34.97
36.99
46.95
49.96

58.73
61.89
58.64
35.20
45.87
54.13
50.89
68.51
55.93
30.62
22.50
36.57
33.87
32.23
34.26
38.10
38.15
39.00
31.78
32.48
19.91
29.23
19.41
18.99
19.90
64.97
47.72
46.85
39.91
36.51
30.87
49.95
52.28
34.41
43.37
43.03
61.46
54.75
53.00
51.72
45.37
44.56
31.19
43.90
27.99
26.77
19.04
28.55
26.76
37.20
30.43

86

9.85
5.85
8.35
2.78
17.15
20.09
24.61
11.16
6.81
4.83
3.54
5.91
5.02
7.05
6.74
7.49
8.09
7.21
4.33
4.64
3.88
8.00
3.57
3.45
11.82
3.85
5.82
7.03
9.06
5.20
3.08
4.12
10.11
4.63
4.94
5.74
5.23
7.66
9.64
9.05
4.80
5.23
10.14
14.64
6.67
8.52
10.15
7.05
8.51
6.49
5.02

0.46
0.22
0.43
0.17
3.99
3.66
4.43
2.76
0.86
0.46
0.41
0.18
0.28
0.33
0.69
0.53
0.46
0.52
0.22
0.10
0.13
1.54
0.24
0.31
4.10
0.07
0.15
0.25
0.47
0.21
0.34
0.36
0.74
0.18
0.26
0.40
0.13
0.19
0.51
0.35
0.17
0.79
0.73
2.40
1.20
2.75
4.95
3.81
2.72
0.64
0.78

0.16
0.10
0.10
0.05
1.95
2.15
2.35
1.76
0.66
0.34
0.33
0.10
0.18
0.27
0.42
0.47
0.32
0.61
0.09
0.05
0.07
1.22
0.15
0.15
2.52
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.12
0.08
0.09
0.19
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.32
0.11
0.05
0.50
0.58
2.08
1.20
2.93
3.77
2.84
2.94
0.71
0.58

0.244/0.413
0.272/0.233
0.257/0.424
0.334/0.560
0.161/0.383
0.169/0.339
0.149/0.317
0.219/0.357
0.261/0.438
0.274/0.640
0.320/0.743
0.255/0.584
0.258/0.631
0.238/0.643
0.226/0.630
0.228/0.562
0.232/0.549
0.239/0.539
0.294/0.610
0.287/0.610
0.343/0.972
0.209/0.643
0.381/0.677
0.364/0.736
0.130/0.610
0.295/0.435
0.269/0.486
0.258/0.483
0.231/0.522
0.284/0.558
0.323/0.604
0.288/0.481
0.239/0.434
0.305/0.566
0.284/0.509
0.270/0.510
0.278/0.434
0.257/0.443
0.237/0.435
0.246/0.445
0.304/0.498
0.248/0.512
0.176/0.700
0.173/0.422
0.230/0.669
0.197/0.587
0.190/0.679
0.190/0.584
0.197/0.588
0.281/0.526
0.302/0.584

0.202
0.233
0.215
0.277
0.101
0.127
0.107
0.185
0.217
0.182
0.214
0.173
0.165
0.137
0.125
0.145
0.153
0.164
0.215
0.206
0.186
0.100
0.307
0.271
0.010
0.260
0.215
0.202
0.158
0.216
0.253
0.240
0.190
0.240
0.228
0.210
0.239
0.210
0.188
0.196
0.255
0.182
0.045
0.111
0.120
0.099
0.068
0.091
0.099
0.220
0.232

Table 5.13. Dry sieve and hydrometer results for particle size distribution.

Site
303R 31-36
353L 35-40
353L 40-43
378R 15-20
378R 20-25
378R 25-30
403C 30-35
403C 35-40
421L 20-25
421L 25-30
421L 30-35
421L 35-40
460L 20-25
460L 35-38.5
540R 5-10

Method
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer
Dry Sieve
Hydrometer

Sand
97.14
81.36
97.72
82.44
97.55
87.47
98.45
84.96
96.71
83.69
97.77
88.98
98.51
89.98
97.26
89.96
98.01
74.97
97.84
81.4
97.63
81.42
98.23
84.95
98.59
86.44
97.43
86.46
97.68
81.36

87

Silt
N/A
6.72
N/A
5.68
N/A
5.25
N/A
2.73
N/A
3.98
N/A
3.74
N/A
2.74
N/A
4.24
N/A
8.43
N/A
4.2
N/A
6.7
N/A
5.72
N/A
4.22
N/A
6.24
N/A
6.74

Clay
N/A
11.92
N/A
11.88
N/A
7.28
N/A
12.31
N/A
12.33
N/A
7.28
N/A
7.28
N/A
5.8
N/A
16.6
N/A
14.4
N/A
11.88
N/A
9.33
N/A
9.34
N/A
7.3
N/A
11.9

Silt+Clay
2.86
18.84
2.28
17.56
2.45
12.53
1.55
15.04
3.29
16.31
2.23
11.02
1.49
10.02
2.74
10.04
1.99
25.03
2.16
18.6
2.37
18.58
1.77
15.05
1.41
13.56
2.57
13.54
2.32
18.64

Percent finer by
weight

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01

0.1

10

Particle size diameter (mm)

Figure 5.17. Example showing the cumulative percent of particle size diameter using data
from dry sieve analysis for core 303R at the depth interval of 0-6 cm. A regression curve
was fitted to the points and used to generate the estimates of D10 and D50 presented in Table
5.10.

88

Center of Stream

Center of Stream

10

0
328C
403C
443C
515C

Depth in streambed (cm)

Depth in streambed (cm)

20
30
40
0.1

0.2

0.3

328C
403C
443C
515C

10
20
30
40

0.4

0.0

0.2

D10 mm

Left Side of Stream

Depth in streambed (cm)

Depth in streambed (cm)

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

Left Side of Stream

353L
421L
460L

30
40
0.1

0.2

0.3

353L
421L
460L

10
20
30
40

0.4

0.0

0.2

D10 mm

0.4

0.6

D50 mm

Right Side of Stream

Right Side of Stream

0
303R
378R
490R
540R

Depth in streambed (cm)

Depth in streambed (cm)

0.8

20

10

0.6

D50 mm

0
10

0.4

20
30
40
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

303R
378R
490R
540R

10
20
30
40
0.0

D10 mm

0.2

0.4

0.6

D50 mm

Figure 5.18. Distribution of D10 and D50 with depth for 11 cores. Graphs are grouped
according to location in the stream channel (left, right, and center).

89

Table 5.14. K results (m/day) for 3 measurement techniques. The field permeameter K
conductivity results represent K values for measurements performed at increasing depth. K
values for Alymani and Sen and Hazen are harmonic mean values calculated from each 5 cm
depth interval. K values from Alymani and Sen and Hazen use depth intervals that vary
slightly from the depth interval column. For example a sediment core in 303R goes from a
depth of 26 cm to 31 cm and was included in the depth interval of 0 cm to 29 cm in the table
below. Also, the deepest sediment sample for each site is included in the K value at depth
interval 0 cm to 43 cm even if the core sample ranged from 36 cm to 38 cm, as is the case for
303R.
Site
303R

328C

353L

378R

403C

421L

443C

460L

490R

515C

540R

Depth
interval (cm)
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43
0-29
0-36
0-43

Field
permeameter
46.81
0.02
0.43
42.81
45.45
39.46
23.93
40.34
21.56
0.59
0.82
1.16
3.98
3.64
1.27
1.53
0.97
0.90
60.79
42.44
41.12
4.86
11.50
10.71
34.33
35.50
34.44
49.63
44.69
45.69
7.63
7.22
7.60

90

Alyamani &
Sen (1993)
65.16
37.03
37.57
47.95
48.05
46.61
51.29
40.34
25.30
0.02
0.02
0.02
14.77
15.97
18.13
30.17
31.53
32.12
35.82
35.53
35.74
43.78
47.68
6.11
60.13
62.16
60.55
62.12
64.48
62.25
10.70
11.96
12.95

Hazen
(1893)
62.88
43.28
43.27
58.08
58.72
58.34
58.88
54.78
48.11
26.15
28.15
28.92
32.05
30.38
23.53
34.79
35.48
35.99
54.75
53.53
53.14
70.15
74.22
54.04
63.66
64.65
62.62
60.64
62.49
61.48
31.43
33.69
35.54

(except for D10 at site 540R). The decrease in both D10 and D50 in core 303R in the depth
interval 31-36 cm probably explains the lower KV values for 0-36 and 0-43 cm, compared to
0-29 cm, at this site (Table 5.14). At site 378R, field permeameter KV values increased
slightly with depth as did grain size diameters for D10 and D50 at depths below 30 cm.
Changes in D10 or D50 with depth may not be large but fine particles play a significant role
with respect to K (Alymani and Sen, 1993).
Sites 425L, 425C, and 425R, just downstream of the beaver dam site, were part of the
large reach measurement program and had large fluctuations in KV with time (Figure 5.6,
Table 5.3). The sediment core taken at 421L had a large increase in fine sediment below 20
cm; this could be responsible for the large fluctuations in KV at this transect, given that a
large amount of sediment deposition and erosion occurred between measurement runs in this
area (Table 5.7). During times of higher sediment surface at the measurement rod in the
streambed (June and August 2006, Table 5.9), KV at the site nearest the rod (425R) had
relatively high KV (Figure 5.5, Table 5.3); KV at 425L was also relatively high, for the site, in
August 2006. This is consistent with the higher sediment surface preventing the field
permeameter (which penetrated 36 cm into the streambed) from penetrating as deeply (or
perhaps at all) into the finer deeper sediments (below 20 cm on the day of coring) in this
area. This is one example of how erosion and deposition of sediments could cause temporal
variation in KV of the upper 36 cm of sediment, if there is significant vertical variation in
grain size in the sediment. This mechanism might also operate in the area near 460L. The
core from this location exhibited a large increase in silt and clay sized particles in the depth
interval of 35-38.5 cm. A few cm of erosion and deposition at this location could put this
finer-grained sediment either within or beyond the 36 cm penetration, respectively, of the

91

permeameter. Changes of this magnitude in sediment surface elevation occurred in the study
stream (Table 5.9) and could be one cause of temporal variability in KV in this area (e.g., at
the 462.5L and 462.5C sites in the large reach, Figure 5.5)
Silt and clay percentages from the sieving data indicate that sediments are somewhat
finer on the sides of the channel than in the center. Of the center cores, only 1 of 4 sites
measured had at least one core interval of clay and silt particles > 1% on a mass basis while
all sites from the left side and 3 of 4 sites on the right side had at least one core interval of silt
and clay > 1% on a mass basis. However, graphs of D10 and D50 with depth do not clearly
indicate smaller particles sizes on the sides of the stream channel and statistical data for D10
and D50 are very similar on the left side, right side, and center of the channel (Table 5.15).
Empirical equations that estimate K based on grain size were used to compare the
field permeameter KV values to those calculated based on grain size. The Hazen (1893;
Equation 5.1) and Alymani and Sen (1993; Equation 5.2) empirical equations were used in
determining K based on grain size distributions from the dry sieve analyses. The Hazen
(1893) equation uses the D10 grain size diameter for calculation of K while the Alymani and
Sen (1993) equation uses D10, D50, and the x-intercept value (I0) of the straight line
connecting D10 and D50 on a plot such as Figure 5.17 for calculation of K. The empirical
coefficient (C) of 860 was used in the Hazen (1893) equation since this value has been cited
for use with sandy materials in the literature (Landon et al., 2001; Vukovic and Soro, 1992).
K = CD 210

Equation 5.1

K = 1300[ I 0 + 0.025( D50 D10 )] 2

Equation 5.2

Results from the grain size analysis indicate that K calculated with empirical
equations are not as sensitive to fine particle sizes when compared to K values calculated

92

using the field permeameter method (Table 5.14). Sites with finer particles, 303R, 378R, and
412L, have field permeameter K values lower than 1 m/day while the K calculated from
empirical equations are as high as 43 m/day. The Hazen (1893) equation predicts higher K
values than both the field permeameter and the Alymani and Sen (1993) equations but K
values calculated from Hazen (1893) are closer to that of Alymani and Sen (1993).

Table 5.15. D10 and D50 statistics for sediment cores taken from the left, right, and center of
the stream channel.
Left
Average value (mm)
Standard deviation
Maximum value (mm)
Minimum value (mm)

D10
0.251
0.068
0.381
0.130

D50
0.539
0.151
0.972
0.317

Site location
Center
D10
D50
0.244 0.539
0.046 0.111
0.323 0.769
0.103 0.307

Right
D10
D50
0.240 0.524
0.057 0.106
0.356 0.846
0.108 0.312

6. Summary and Conclusions

In this study, large differences in K were found that show spatial (transverse and
longitudinal) and temporal changes in K. Calculated arithmetic mean KV values for the large
(262.5 m) reach measurement runs ranged from 3.85 to 21.33 m/day and the mean of the 7
arithmetic mean values (one for each bimonthly run) was 15.44 m/day. Overall, the range of
streambed KV was 0.01 to 66.21 m/day, and these findings represent some of the lowest
average values reported in the literature. For example, 15.44 m/day is about 2/3 of the mean
K value reported by Cardenas and Zlotnik (2003b), 2/5 the mean K value reported by Chen
(2004), and 1/10 the mean K value reported by Kelly and Murdoch (2003) (refer to Table
2.2). The variance in lnKV (2lnKv) ranged from 1.88 to 4.18, which is within the range
defined by prior work on clastic sediments (Table 2.1 and Table 2.2). We found that KV had

93

higher averages and smaller 2lnKv (one as low as 0.92) in the center of the stream channel
when compared to values of KV and 2lnKv averaged from measurements taken from the left
or right portions of the stream channel. KV or lnKV histograms from each run do not appear
to be normally distributed in the stream channel, a result also found by some other authors
reporting streambed lnK (Springer et al., 1999; Cardenas and Zlotnik, 2003b).
Measurement spacing in the small reach runs was about 4-5 times closer than in the
large reach runs. Results from the more closely-spaced measurements in the two small (62.5
m) reaches that were part of the large reach were similar to those discussed above for the
large reach, with the exception of slightly higher and lower 2lnKv values. Range of KV was
between 0.01 and 44.92 m/day for Small Reach 1 and between 0.07 and 63.52 m/day for
Small Reach 2. 2lnKv was 6.04 for Small Reach 1 and 2.52 for Small Reach 2. The
distributions of KV and 2lnKv for the small reaches have distributions consistent with those
measured from the large reach runs.
Exponential model curves fit to the experimental lnKV semi-variograms from both
large and small reaches gave correlation length values of a few meters (1.4-8.2 m), within the
same range reported in the literature for horizontal correlation lengths in porous media
(Cardenas and Zlotnik, 2003b; Genereux and Guardiario, 2001; Hess et al., 1992; Rehfeldt et
al., 1992). The correlation lengths from the small reaches bracket the correlation lengths
found from the large reach. However, semi-variograms from the small reaches have a betterdefined rising portion for the exponential semi-variograms.
Contour maps of lnKV were created using 5 different interpolation techniques for the
first three large reach measurement runs. Two interpolation methods (radial basis function
and kriging with a linear semi-variogram model) produced similar and fairly realistic looking

94

maps. The other three maps produced using kriging with an exponential semi-variogram
model had varying degrees of bulls eyes effect, depending on the correlation length value
used to create the map. Contour maps of Small Reach 1 and Small Reach 2 had similar
results with respect to map appearances between the radial basis function and kriging with
the linear variogram. However, kriging with the exponential semi-variogram for Small
Reach 2 did not have a bulls eye appearance like the exponential semi-variograms created
for the large reaches or for Small Reach 1. The large reach maps show lower lnKV on the left
bank as noted in the data, but large reach maps from December 05, April 06, June 06, and
October 06 show a decrease in lnKV from the right bank to the left bank for areas between
WBC 375 to WBC 512.5. Inspection of the raw data shows that lnKV is highest in the center
and lower towards the banks. There are isolated high KV values from WBC 450 to WBC
462.5 and from WBC 500 to WBC 525 that appear in large reach lnKV maps from
throughout the study. The large reach maps also indicate the highest KV values across the
channel on the downstream end of the reach (WBC 300 to WBC 362.5), which is quite
different from the contouring results presented for same area in Small Reach 1 (the greater
measurement density in the small reach reveals a large variation in KV in this area). The
contour map appearance from Small Reach 2 is similar to the large reach contour map
appearance between WBC 487.5 to WBC 550.
Lower arithmetic mean KV values observed upstream of the beaver dam might be due
to deposition of finer sediments and organic matter in calmer, deeper waters backed up
behind the beaver dam. After the partial collapse of the beaver dam, the arithmetic mean KV
upstream increased by 50%, while the arithmetic mean KV downstream had a 10% decrease
for the next bimonthly measurement period immediately following the partial collapse of the

95

beaver dam. Silt and clay sediments observed on the sides of the stream channel are
consistent with lower arithmetic KV averages when compared to measurements taken from
the center of the stream channel.
Many of the measured sites had temporal variability. These variations might be due
to deposition and erosion of stream sediment, and time-varying behavior of biofilms and/or
gas bubbles in sediment, but not to changes in temperature. Large reach measurements
through time show a variety of complex behaviors. KV at some sites show similar temporal
behavior while other sites near each other show different temporal behavior. In a streambed
with layered heterogeneity, (as found at a few of the locations cored in this study), erosion
and deposition could alter the average KV of the upper part of the streambed (e.g., the top 36
cm as measured in this study) through deposition of sediment having KV different from KV of
the sediment already present, or through erosion and/or deposition altering the depths to layer
boundaries such that the layers and parts of layers (with their associated thicknesses and KV
values) falling in the upper 36 cm change over time.
In areas where KV varies with depth in the sediment, actual field behavior of a field
permeameter test may have deviated somewhat from that predicted by Equation 4.4, resulting
in model error, one source of uncertainty in KV and probably the most difficult to quantify.
Average uncertainty in KV is equal to about 16.2%; this was calculated by adding, in root
mean square fashion, the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge of the transformation ratio
m ( 5%) to each uncertainty value arising from propagation of uncertainty in the
measurands (Figure 5.15), and then averaging these 430 uncertainty values. Percent
uncertainty in KV is larger for smaller KV values since the slope of the linear regression

96

needed to calculate KV is less accurately constrained from the field measurements of head
with time when KV is low.
Future research should focus on assessing heterogeneity in K as a function of
streambed depth as a means to further understand the hydrologic connection between streams
and surrounding aquifers. Also, a focus on sediment deposition/erosion throughout the
stream channel could help provide further information regarding temporal changes in KV for
each site.

97

References

Alyamani, M. S. and Z. Sen. 1993. Determination of hydraulic conductivity from

complete grain-size distribution curves. Ground Water 31, no. 4: 551-555.
Bolha, J. Jr., 1986. A Sedimentological Investigation of a Proftradational Foreshore
Sequence; C.F.B. Borden. M.S., University of Waterloo, 207 pages.
Bouwer, H., and R. C. Rice.1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells:
Water Resources Research 12(3) 423-428.
Bridge, J. S., and J. Jarvis, T. 1982. The dynamics of a river bend: A study in flow and
sedimentary processes, Sedimentology (29), 499-541.
Butler, J. J. Jr. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. Boca Raton, FL.:
Lewis Publishers. 1998.
Calver, A., 2001. Riverbed permeabilities: Information from pooled data. Ground Water
39(4): 546-553.
Cardenas, M. B. and V. A. Zlotnik. 2003a. A simple constant-head injection test for
streambed hydraulic conductivity estimation. Groundwater 41(6), 867-871.
Cardenas, M. B. and V. A. Zlotnik. 2003b. Three-dimensional model of modern channel
bend deposits. Water Resources Research 39(6), 1141, doi:0.1029/2002WR001383, 2003.
Cerling, T.E., S.J. Morrison, and R.W. Sobocinski. 1990. Sediment-water interaction in a
small stream: Adsorption of 137Cs by bed loads sediments. Water Resources
Research 26(6): 1165-1176.
Cey, E.E., D.L. Rudolph, G.W. Parkin and R. Aravena. 1998. Quantifying groundwater

98

discharge to a small perennial stream in southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of

Hydrology 210: 21-37
Chen, X.H., 2000. Measurement of streambed hydraulic conductivity and its anisotropy.
Environmental Geology 39(12): 1317-1324.
Chen, X.H. 2004. Streambed hydraulic conductivity for rivers in south-central Nebraska.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(3): 561-573
Conrad, L. P., and M. S. Beljin. 1996. Evaluation of an induced infiltration model as applied
to glacial aquifer systems. Water Resources Bulletin 32, no. 6: 1209-1220.
Craig, A.L. 2005. Evaluation of spatial and temporal variation of groundwater discharge to
streams. M.S. thesis, Clemson University, 117 pages.
Duwelius, R. F., 1996. Hydraulic Conductivity of the Streambed, East Branch Grand
Calumet River, Northern Lake County, Indiana. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4218, 37 pp.
Elliott, A.E. and N.H. Brooks. 1997. Transfer of nonsorbing solutes to a streambed with bed
forms: Laboratory experiments. Water Resources Research 33(1): 137-151
Fetter, C.W., Applied Hydrogeology. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice- Hall. 2001.
Giese G.L., J.L. Eimers, and R.W. Coble 1997. Simulation of ground-water flow in the
coastal plain aquifer system of North Carolina U.S. Geological Survey professional
paper 1404-M. 142 p.
Gee, W. G., and D. Or. 2002. Particle-size analysis. In Method of Soil Analysis, Part 4
Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. pp. 255-293.
Genereux, D. P. 1998. Quantifying uncertainty in tracer-based hydrograph separations.
Water Resources Research 34 (4): 915-919.

99

Genereux, D. P., and J. Guardiario Jr. 2001. A borhole flowmeter investigation of small scale
Hydraulic conductivity variation in the Biscayne Aquifer, Florida. Water Resources
Research 37 (5): 1511-1517
Golden Software. 2006. Surfer 8 variogram tutorial. [Online] URL:
http://www.goldensoftware.com/variogramTutorial.pdf.
Gould, J. P., Analysis of Pore Pressure and Settlement Observations at Logan International
Airport. Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. 34, Department of Engineering, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass., December 1949.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 53rd Ed., Weast, R.C., (ed), Chemical Rubber Co.,
Cleveland OH, 1972. pp. F4.
Hazen, A. 1893. Some physical properties of sands and gravels. Massachusetts State Board
of Health, 24th annual report.
Hess, K. M., S. H. Wolf, and M. A. Celia, Large-scale natural gradient tracer test in sand and
gravel, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 3, Hydraulic conductivity variability and calculated
macrodispersivities, Water Resources Research, 28(8), 2011-2027, 1992.
Hill, M. C., Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigation Report, 98-4005, 90 pp., 1998.
Hill, M. C., F. A. DAgnese, and C. C. Faunt, Guidelines for model calibration and
application to simulation of flow in the Death Valley regional ground-water system,
in Proceedings of the 1999 ModelCARE Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September
1999, edited by F. Stauffer et al., IHAS Publication, 265, 195-204, 1999.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Groundwater Observations.
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, US Army Bulletin 36,

100

Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Johnson, K., Agricultural Agent at Wayne County, pers. comm., June 6, 2006
Journel, A.G., Mining Geostatistics. London; N.Y.: Academic Press. 1978
Kaleris, V., 1998. Quantifying the exchange rate between groundwater and small streams.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 36(6): 913-932
Kelly, S.E. and L.C. Murdoch. 2003. Measuring the Hydraulic Conductivity of Shallow
submerged Sediments. Ground Water 41(4): 431-439.
Kennedy, C.D., D.P. Genereux, D.R. Corbett, and H. Mitasova, 2007, The design of a lightoil piezomanometer for measurement of hydraulic head differences and collection
of groundwater samples. Water Resources Research, in review.
Kline, S. J., 1985. The purposes of uncertainty analysis, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 153160, 1985.
Landon, M.K., D.L. Rus, and F.E. Harvey. 2001. Comparison of instream methods for
measuring hydraulic conductivity in sandy streambeds. Ground Water 39(6): 870885.
Larkin, R. G., and J. M. Sharp. 1992. On the relationship between river-basin
geomorphology, aquifer hydraulics, and ground-water flow direction in alluvial
aquifers. Geological Society of America Bulletin 104, no. 12: 1608-1620.
Lautier J.C. 2001. Hydrogeologic Framework and Ground Water Conditions in the North
Carolina Central Coastal Plain. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 38 p.
Leithhold, L., North Carolina State University MEAS Associate Professor, pers. comm.,
November 2006.

101

McElwee, C.D., 1987. Sensitivity analysis of groundwater models. In: Proceedings of the
1985 NATO advanced study institute on fundamentals of transport phenomena in
porous media. J. Bear and M.Y. Corapcioglu (Editors). Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht,
pp. 751-817.
McMaster Carr. 2005. [Online] URL: http://www.mcmaster.com
Meyer, S. L., Data Analysis for Scientist and Engineers, John Wiley, New York, 1975.
Miller, A., Soil and Water Conservation of Wayne County, pers. comm., August 2006
Miller, W.P., D.E. Radcliff, and D. M. Miller. 1988. An historical perspective on the theory
and practice of soil mechanical analysis. J. Agron. Ed. 17: 24-28.
Murdoch, L.C. and S.E. Kelly. 2003. Factors affecting the performance of conventional
seepage meters. Water Resources Research 39(6): 1163.
NC DENR, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006.
Hydrogeology. [Online] URL:
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/Ground_Water_Databases/frameacc
ess.php
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2002. US70 (Goldsboro Bypass) From West of SR 1714
to East of SR 1323 in Lenoir County, Project: 8.T330802, R-2554C.
NC DOT, North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2005. GIS Distribution Center.
[Online] URL: http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/1998colIR/default.html
NCGS (N.C. Geological Survey). 1985. State Geologic Map of North Carolina. 1:500,000.
North Carolina Geological Survey.
Parker, G. and E. D. Andrews. 1985. Sorting of bed load sediment by flow in meander
bends. Water Resources Research 21 (9): 1361-1373.

102

Peters, D. G., J. M. Hayes, and G. M. Hieftje, Chemical Seperations and Measurements:

Theory and Practice of Analytical Chemistry, pp. 19-22, W. B. Saunders,
Philadelphia, Pa., 1974.
Rehfeldt, K. R., J. M. Boggs, and L. W. Gelhar. 1992. Field study of dispersion in a
heterogeneous aquifer, 3, Geostatistical analysis of hydraulic conductivity. Water
Resources Research, 28 (12): 3309-3324.
Rosenshein, J. S. 1988. Hydrology of North America, Region 12, Alluvial Valleys. In the
Geology of North America, ed, W. Back, J. S. Rosenshein, and P. R. Seaber, O-2,
165-176. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of North America.
SCO, North Carolina State Climate Office. 2006. Aspects of NC Climate. [Online]
URL: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/
Sherrell, E. M. (ed.). 2004. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics 2004. Publication No. 204.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Raleigh.
Skinner, B. J. and S. C. Porter. 4th ed. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1999.
Springer, A. E., W. D. Petroutson, and B. A. Semmens. 1999. Spatial and temporal
variability of hydraulic conductivity in active reattachment bars of the Colorado
River, Grand Canyon. Ground Water 37(3): 338-344.
Sudicky, E. A. 1986. A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer:
Spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in the dispersion process,
Water Resources Research, 22(13), 2069-2082, 1986.
Taylor, J. R., An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainty in Physical
Measurements, University Science Books, Mill Valley, California, 1982.
Thibodeaux, L.J. and J.D. Boyle. 1987. Bedform-generated convective transport in bottom

103

sediment. Nature 325(22): 341-343.

Vukovic, M., and A. Soro. 1992. Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous Media
from Grain-Size composition. Littleton, CO: Water Resources Puclications.
Winner M.D. Jr., R.W. Coble 1996. Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-I. 106 p.
Zar, J.H., Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1999.

104

APPENDICES

105

Appendix 1. Values of horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity from published

literature. The transformation ratio ( m = K H / K V ) is given as m.

Table 1. Values of K for sites along Twelve Mile Creek, South Carolina (Kelly and
Murdoch, 2003).
Site (Test #)
A1
A2
B1
C1
C2
D1

KH (cm/sec)
0.260
0.263
0.529
0.271
0.386
0.060

KV (cm/sec)
0.130
0.379
0.010
0.023
0.026
0.190

m
1.414
0.833
7.273
1.085
3.853
0.562

Table 2. KH values along a portion of the Grand Calumet River (Duwelius, 1996). F denotes
a falling head test and R denotes a rising head test.

Site

Type of test

AH3
AH3
BH3-1
BH3-1
CH3-3
DH3-1
DH3-1

F
R
F
R
F
F
R

KH calculated
with the Bower
and Rice
method (ft/day)
1.0x100
7.8x100
2.3x102
3.5x100
2.6x101
2.5x100
1.7x100

KH calculated
with the
Hvorslev
method (ft/day)
1.4x100
1.1x101
2.8x102
4.6x100
2.5x101
3.4x100
2.2x100

Average KH
(ft/day)

Screened
interval below
streambed (ft)

1.2x100
9.4x100
2.55x102
4.05x100
2.55x101
2.95x100
1.95x100

1.8-2.6
1.8-2.6
0.4-2.4
0.4-2.4
2.6-3.6
2.1-3.0
2.1-3.0

Table 3. KV values along a portion of the Grand Calumet River (Duwelius, 1996).
Site
AV2
BV2
CV2
DV2

Kv calculated from
falling head data (ft/day)
3.3x100
1.8x100
4.0x100
1.1x101

Kv calculated from
rising head data (ft/day)
2.6x100
2.2x101

106

Depth of well casing

below streambed (ft)
0.6
0.8
2.9
1.4

Table 4. m values calculated with data from Duwelius (1996).

Site
A
B
C
D

m calculated from falling KH

average and falling KV
0.60
11.9
2.52
0.52

m calculated from rising KH

average and rising KV
1.25
0.30

Table 5. K and m values for piezometer sites located at Logan International Airport (Gould,
1949). H denotes a K value presented in Hvorslevs (1951) report.
Piezometer
C
D

KH (cm/sec)
1310x10-9 (H)
940x10-9

107

KV (cm/sec)
31.5x10-9
28x10-9

m
6.45
5.79

375C

375L

362.5C

350R

350C

350L

337.5C

325R

325C

325L

312C

300R

300C

300L

Appendix 2. Linear regression statistical results from plots of lnH vs. time for field
permeameter measurements in the large reach measurements.

Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2

Dec. 05
-1.184x10-3
3.690
9
0.9998
-8.212x10-4
3.718
10
0.9998
-8.480x10-4
3.747
7
0.9997
-1.162x10-3
3.364
10
0.9895
-8.792x10-4
3.348
12
0.9992
-1.140x10-3
3.364
9
0.9995
-3.243x10-4
3.419
8
0.9989
-1.785x10-5
3.428
10
0.9964
-2.474x10-5
3.678
4
0.9861
-5.247x10-4
3.681
13
0.9990
-6.639x10-4
3.675
9
0.9996
-8.994x10-4
3.357
18
0.9982
-1.826x10-4
3.661
9
0.9991
-6.063x10-4
3.613
9
0.9998

Feb. 06
-9.862x10-4
3.918
10
0.9998
-1.229x10-3
3.981
12
0.9988
-6.919x10-4
3.985
11
0.9997
-6.404x10-4
3.429
9
0.9997
-3.476x10-4
4.629
9
0.9996
-1.161x10-3
3.965
10
0.9985
-4.084x10-4
3.810
9
0.9985
-6.914x10-4
3.861
10
0.9997
-8.536x10-4
3.999
10
0.9998
-8.576x10-4
3.969
10
0.9981
-6.428x10-4
3.887
9
0.9955
-5.690x10-4
3.673
10
0.9997
-7.367x10-5
3.951
9
0.9994
-5.652x10-4
3.873
9
0.9990

Apr. 06
-9.094x10-4
4.025
10
0.9999
-1.117x10-3
4.050
10
0.9998
-4.447x10-4
4.156
10
0.9972
-6.334x10-4
3.858
10
0.9992
-7.992x10-4
4.085
10
0.9996
-1.374x10-3
4.209
11
0.9999
-4.990x10-4
4.089
10
0.9998
-3.980x10-5
4.040
10
0.9974
-8.896x10-4
4.119
10
0.9998
-8.896x10-4
4.119
10
0.9998
-5.305x10-4
4.147
10
0.9997
-1.084x10-3
4.025
10
0.9997
-1.084x10-3
4.025
10
0.9997
-5.930x10-4
4.166
10
0.9997

108

Jun. 06
-8.559x10-4
4.140
10
0.9997
-1.131x10-3
4.144
10
0.9999
-1.512x10-4
4.152
10
0.9993
-6.855x10-4
3.812
10
0.9999
-7.494x10-4
3.917
10
0.9999
-3.352x10-4
4.191
10
0.9997
-3.352x10-4
4.191
10
0.9997
-8.792x10-4
4.124
10
0.9999
-8.975x10-4
4.202
10
0.9998
-9.384x10-4
4.192
10
0.9999
-6.852x10-4
4.149
10
0.9995
-6.780x10-4
4.121
10
0.9998
-2.123x10-5
4.116
10
0.9908
-8.588x10-4
4.112
10
0.9999

Aug. 06
-2.071x10-3
3.793
10
0.9996
-9.845x10-4
4.2199
10
0.99998
-1.656x10-4
4.244
10
0.9999
-4.230x10-4
4.153
10
0.9933
-8.723x10-4
4.143
10
0.99998
-1.082x10-3
4.186
10
0.9999
-4.197x10-4
4.380
10
0.9999
-6.490x10-4
4.125
10
0.99998
-1.174x10-3
4.180
10
0.9999
-1.174x10-3
4.180
10
0.9999
-6.433x10-4
4.208
10
0.9995
-8.630x10-4
4.246
10
0.99996
-1.023x10-5
4.266
5
0.9999
-4.508x10-4
4.078
10
0.9999

Oct. 06
-5.976x10-4
4.131
10
0.9998
-7.808x10-4
4.188
10
0.9997
-7.733x10-4
4.163
10
0.9998
-4.534x10-4
4.101
10
0.9999
-9.785x10-4
4.149
10
0.9999
-1.163x10-3
4.095
10
0.9999
-1.391x10-3
4.148
10
0.9998
-9.028x10-4
4.087
10
0.9999
-1.472x10-3
3.975
10
0.9998
-9.058x10-4
4.198
10
0.99995
-9.144x10-4
4.055
10
0.9999
-1.030x10-3
3.985
10
0.9999
-9.475x10-5
4.103
10
0.9998
-8.351x10-4
3.847
10
0.9977

Dec. 06
-1.587x10-4
4.795
10
0.9976
-1.532x10-4
4.795
10
0.9983
-7.467x10-5
4.799
10
0.9987
-8.867x10-5
4.799
9
0.9988
-1.532x10-4
4.796
10
0.9912
-1.403x10-4
4.787
10
0.9974
-5.883x10-5
4.799
7
0.9978
-1.397x10-4
4.799
10
0.9988
-1.871x10-4
4.799
10
0.9991
-6.283x10-5
4.798
8
0.9950
-7.329x10-5
4.799
10
0.9972
-6.586x10-4
4.2478
6
0.9963
-3.594x10-6
4.248
3
0.9982
-7.815x10-5
4.795
8
0.9965

462.5C

462.5L

450C

437.5R

437.5C

437.5L

425R

425C

425L

412C

400R

400C

400L

387.5C

375R

Appendix 2 (continued)
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2

-8.201x10-5
3.541
8
0.9996
-1.775x10-4
3.501
25
0.9998
-4.498x10-5
3.638
9
0.9988
-2.207x10-4
4.122
11
0.9997
-8.643x10-5
4.127
17
0.9983
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
-3.037x10-4
3.341
9
0.9992
-9.893x10-4
3.083
9
0.9997
-2.315x10-4
3.0896
8
0.9998
-7.740x10-4
3.088
10
0.9998
-6.314x10-5
3.616
7
0.9951
-3.645x10-4
3.792
8
0.9989

-4.791x10-5
3.854
10
0.9846
-4.530x10-4
3.742
10
0.9999
-3.531x10-5
3.625
12
0.9944
-1.260x10-4
4.295
9
0.9997
-8.704x10-6
4.289
6
0.9796
-8.017x10-4
3.607
10
0.9996
-1.115x10-6
3.394
3
0.8658
-1.613x10-3
3.791
11
0.9909
-2.339x10-5
4.009
9
0.9886
-5.849x10-4
3.692
10
0.9999
-3.020x10-4
3.675
9
0.9987
-1.288x10-4
3.735
11
0.9990
-6.919x10-4
3.378
9
0.9998
-9.630x10-5
3.906
9
0.9981
-3.799x10-4
4.056
11
0.9999

-4.039x10-5
4.123
10
0.9987
-9.980x10-5
3.958
10
0.9995
-5.292x10-4
4.029
10
0.9997
-5.481x10-5
4.350
9
0.9992
-4.767x10-4
4.333
10
0.9966
-9.451x10-4
3.972
10
0.9996
-2.450x10-5
3.771
7
0.9724
-4.544x10-4
4.051
10
0.9996
-6.677x10-5
4.225
10
0.9975
-1.552x10-4
3.977
10
0.9993
-1.216x10-4
4.0195
10
0.9962
-9.923x10-5
4.082
10
0.9998
-6.525x10-4
3.769
10
0.9999
-1.793x10-7
4.203
3
0.9146
-2.112x10-4
4.291
10
0.9996

109

-1.109x10-5
4.081
8
0.9989
-1.769x10-4
4.051
10
0.9999
-3.029x10-5
3.964
6
0.9995
-4.056x10-4
4.338
10
0.9998
-1.910x10-4
4.324
10
0.9999
-2.799x10-4
4.123
10
0.9997
-1.310x10-6
3.926
3
0.9581
-1.046x10-4
4.363
10
0.9993
-1.168x10-3
3.984
10
0.9997
-6.973x10-6
4.008
6
0.9719
-4.259x10-5
4.069
10
0.9994
-1.674x10-4
3.895
10
0.9998
-9.654x10-4
3.752
10
0.99798
-3.629x10-5
4.245
10
0.9995
-1.216x10-3
3.952
10
0.9999

-3.605x10-5
4.139
5
0.99797
-1.285x10-4
4.275
10
0.9998
-1.225x10-4
4.244
10
0.9998
-1.879x10-4
4.281
10
0.9999
-8.250x10-5
4.194
7
0.9999
-1.013x10-3
4.027
10
0.99997
-1.413x10-4
3.649
8
0.9996
-1.952x10-4
4.380
10
0.9998
-1.246x10-3
3.933
10
0.9998
-2.626x10-5
4.033
7
0.9763
-1.127x10-3
3.935
10
0.9999
-3.213x10-4
3.3897
10
0.9994
-9.109x10-4
3.8497
10
0.99997
-1.409x10-3
4.183
10
0.9997
-7.854x10-4
4.033
10
0.9999

-6.194x10-5
4.003
8
0.9998
-8.168x10-5
4.064
7
0.9996
-2.153x10-4
4.143
10
0.9994
-2.241x10-4
4.155
10
0.9999
-2.722x10-5
4.250
5
0.9998
-1.300x10-3
4.019
10
0.9999
-7.785x10-5
3.800
8
0.9994
-1.947x10-3
3.380
10
0.9998
-1.762x10-4
4.015
10
0.9999
-2.957x10-5
4.085
5
0.9990
-9.009x10-4
4.071
10
0.9998
-1.713x10-4
3.8299
10
0.9996
-1.202x10-3
3.842
10
0.9999
-2.998x10-7
4.031
3
0.9994
-1.125x10-3
4.059
10
0.99897

-4.319x10-6
4.795
5
0.9844
-1.836x10-5
4.795
6
0.9951
-5.598x10-4
4.786
10
0.9989
-1.186x10-4
4.799
9
0.9992
-4.011x10-7
4.7999
3
0.9970
-1.480x10-4
4.7991
6
0.9959
-1.735x10-6
4.248
3
0.9943
-2.048x10-5
4.799
6
0.9964
-5.574x10-5
4.247
6
0.9994
-6.871x10-5
4.795
10
0.9989
-5.153x10-7
4.796
3
0.9983
-7.787x10-6
4.797
5
0.9759
-1.286x10-4
4.799
6
0.9952
-7.642x10-7
4.249
3
0.9996
-5.444x10-5
4.7998
4
0.9994

562L

550C

537.5R

537.5C

537.5L

525C

512R

512C

512L

500C

487.5R

487.5C

487.5L

475C

462.5R

Appendix 2 (continued)
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2

-5.828x10-4
3.536
10
0.9998
-3.308x10-4
3.321
9
0.8855
-1.041x10-5
3.255
3
0.9686
-5.753x10-4
3.641
9
0.9948
-2.248x10-4
3.395
9
0.9978
-4.662x10-4
3.681
8
0.9994
-5.546x10-4
3.864
9
0.9990
-1.318x10-3
3.718
10
0.9999
-1.494x10-4
3.230
9
0.9997
-5.867x10-4
3.624
11
0.99995
-1.703x10-5
3.478
5
0.9976
-1.542x10-4
3.614
11
0.9996
-1.821x10-5
3.681
7
0.9769
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

-4.847x10-4
3.785
10
0.9991
-5.527x10-5
3.798
9
0.9991
-1.718x10-5
3.728
8
0.9982
-1.213x10-3
3.736
10
0.9998
-1.193x10-4
3.974
10
0.9974
-4.474x10-4
3.917
11
0.9999
-2.536x10-4
4.058
13
0.9984
-1.204x10-3
4.017
13
0.9992
-1.887x10-4
3.796
9
0.9998
-7.430x10-4
3.861
10
0.9998
-9.465x10-5
3.855
8
0.9963
-2.929x10-5
3.838
8
0.9934
-6.359x10-5
3.982
9
0.9987
-6.901x10-4
3.746
11
0.9999
-3.335x10-4
3.755
10
0.9999

-3.696x10-4
4.106
10
0.9998
-7.284x10-6
4.045
7
0.9871
-5.402x10-6
4.073
3
0.9600
-8.308x10-4
4.121
10
0.9997
-2.243x10-4
4.213
10
0.9997
-2.261x10-4
4.2499
10
0.9913
-3.546x10-4
4.307
10
0.9999
-1.102x10-3
4.1*6
10
0.9999
-1.832x10-4
4.216
10
0.9998
-7.346x10-4
4.132
10
0.9997
-8.168x10-5
4.274
10
0.9999
-1.334x10-4
3.977
10
0.9999
-8.390x10-5
4.183
10
0.9997
-1.446x10-3
4.172
10
0.9980
-4.777x10-4
4.152
10
0.9999

110

-6.081x10-4
4.053
10
0.99996
-6.276x10-5
4.0097
10
0.99896
-4.113x10-6
3.958
4
0.9870
-7.262x10-4
4.141
10
0.9999
-6.453x10-4
4.058
10
0.99988
-9.441x10-4
4.098
10
0.9996
-4.726x10-5
4.317
10
0.9993
-1.526x10-3
4.011
10
0.9999
-1.002x10-4
4.054
10
0.9994
-7.543x10-4
4.015
10
0.9999
-1.127x10-4
4.222
10
0.9998
-1.554x10-5
3.563
8
0.9966
-3.018x10-5
4.083
6
0.9998
-1.554x10-3
4.089
10
0.9999
-1.299x10-3
4.169
10
0.9999

-5.064x10-4
3.916
10
0.9999
-2.257x10-5
4.0899
10
0.9997
-6.950x10-6
3.994
5
0.9999
-8.591x10-4
4.195
10
0.99997
-2.515x10-4
4.051
10
0.9999
-6.925x10-4
4.117
10
0.9999
-9.052x10-4
4.227
6
0.9976
-1.437x10-3
3.874
10
0.9999
-6.568x10-4
3.969
10
0.9999
-1.318x10-3
3.959
10
0.9999
-1.069x10-4
4.116
10
0.9998
-2.034x10-4
3.713
10
0.9998
-2.961x10-5
3.967
4
0.9998
-9.128x10-4
3.832
10
0.9999
-4.520x10-4
3.914
10
0.9998

-6.243x10-4
4.050
10
0.9998
-1.220x10-5
4.044
6
0.9965
-8.985x10-5
4.095
8
0.9997
-6.560x10-4
4.193
10
0.9996
-9.213x10-4
4.113
10
0.9998
-8.002x10-4
4.142
10
0.9999
-1.414x10-5
4.022
4
0.9997
-9.759x10-4
4.092
10
0.9999
-1.354x10-3
4.320
10
0.9999
-1.343x10-3
4.088
10
0.9999
-1.922x10-4
4.252
10
0.9997
-6.115x10-4
4.024
10
0.9999
-5.689x10-5
3.954
5
0.9984
-5.350x10-4
4.195
7
0.9998
-1.446x10-4
4.023
7
0.9996

-9.220x10-5
4.799
10
0.9989
-1.655x10-6
4.7998
3
0.9961
-2.925x10-5
4.799
10
0.9993
-4.347x10-4
4.794
10
0.9987
-1.299x10-4
4.799
10
0.995
-2.190x10-4
4.799
10
0.9995
-1.189x10-6
4.248
3
0.9976
-1.315x10-4
4.797
10
0.9910
-2.044x10-4
4.793
10
0.9956
-9.848x10-6
4.799
5
0.9944
-2.588x10-4
4.796
10
0.9998
-4.928x10-5
4.799
10
0.9994
-1.966x10-6
4.796
4
0.9886
-1.825x10-5
4.798
4
0.9973
-2.766x10-4
4.790
10
0.9970

562R

562C

Appendix 2 (continued)
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2
Slope
Y int
# pts
r2

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

-1.600x10-3
3.833
11
0.99997
-2.631x10-4
3.815
13
0.9976

-1.083x10-3
4.275
10
0.9999
-7.384x10-4
4.195
10
0.9994

111

-1.447x10-3
4.121
10
0.9999
-1.758x10-5
3.932
6
0.9969

-1.401x10-3
3.964
10
0.99995
-1.313x10-3
3.926
10
0.99996

-1.292x10-3
4.045
10
0.9998
-1.244x10-3
4.099
10
0.9998

-4.622x10-4
4.793
10
0.9959
-1.148x10-6
4.796
3
0.9984

Appendix 3. KV maps for the large reach based on kriging with the linear semi-variogram
model. Labels 1-7 denote measurement runs December 2005, February 2006, April 2006,
June 2006, August 2006, October 2006, and December 2006, respectively.

112

Appendix 4. Site specific temperature values (Co) and average temperature values for the
large reach. (NM = no measurement)

Site
300L
300C
300R
312.5C
325L
325C
325R
337.5C
350L
350C
350R
362.5C
375L
375C
375R
387.5C
400L
400C
400R
412.5C
425L
425C
425R
437.5L
437.5C
437.5R
450C
462.5L
462.5C
462.5R
475C
487.5L
487.5C
487.5R
500C
512.5L
512.5C
512.5R
525C
537.5L
537.5C
537.5R
550C
562.5L
562.5C
562.5R
Avg. temp

Dec. 05
13.5
15.2
14.1
15.9
15.1
15.6
14.7
11.7
12.9
12.9
15.7
16.5
15.4
15.7
16.9
15.1
14.3
11.8
11.8
NM
NM
NM
NM
10.5
8.5
11.8
15.6
11.0
13.7
12.7
14.8
14.8
16.6
16.8
14.0
11.9
13.7
12.9
16.9
16.0
16.5
16.0
NM
NM
NM
NM
14.2

Feb. 06
14.3
15.2
14.5
15.0
14.8
15.0
14.1
13.4
13.8
13.8
15.0
16.5
14.7
15.5
15.6
15.1
15.2
13.8
13.6
13.8
15.1
14.5
13.9
13.3
12.7
13.4
15.1
13.1
14.4
13.7
15.2
14.9
16.9
15.1
15.0
14.2
15.5
14.5
17.2
15.9
16.6
15.9
16.6
15.1
15.4
14.4
14.8

Apr. 06
14.6
14.9
15.0
15.0
15.1
14.9
14.6
14.8
15.0
14.9
14.6
16.0
14.8
15.1
14.7
15.1
16.2
15.6
15.6
15.5
16.4
15.8
15.1
15.4
14.9
14.4
14.9
14.9
14.7
13.9
16.1
15.6
16.4
14.3
15.7
15.6
16.2
15.4
16.8
16.0
16.5
15.5
16.4
15.6
16.2
15.6
15.4

Jun. 06
18.4
17.4
17.7
17.4
18.0
18.6
18.0
19.8
19.9
18.9
17.1
16.9
17.0
17.4
17.3
17.8
18.2
19.8
19.5
20.0
17.3
20.1
19.0
19.3
20.4
19.7
16.8
20.5
17.6
19.0
19.1
17.5
17.0
16.8
18.0
19.8
18.3
19.3
17.2
18.0
17.0
17.9
17.6
18.4
18.2
19.1
18.3

113

Aug. 06
20.5
18.8
20.5
20.1
19.3
19.0
19.9
20.7
21.1
19.7
19.5
17.5
19.5
18.4
19.5
19.0
18.8
20.3
21.5
20.7
17.5
21.7
20.3
20.6
20.8
20.1
17.9
24.0
20.0
22.0
22.3
21.5
19.0
21.0
21.1
23.0
20.2
21.8
18.0
19.9
18.3
19.9
18.7
20.7
19.9
22.2
20.1

Oct. 06
15.5
16.0
16.3
16.8
16.2
15.9
16.4
14.4
14.4
15.0
16.5
15.1
15.8
16.2
15.9
15.5
15.3
14.3
14.2
14.5
15.3
14.0
14.0
15.1
14.5
14.8
15.2
14.0
14.9
14.3
15.5
15.6
15.9
16.5
15.1
13.8
13.9
14.1
15.1
13.8
15.2
14.2
14.5
14.4
14.2
14.0
15.0

Dec. 06
13.5
14.0
13.8
14.2
14.0
13.0
12.2
12.0
14.0
12.0
14.5
14.0
14.5
14.5
12.0
13.8
13.5
12.0
12.2
11.8
16.0
13.2
11.7
14.0
13.0
12.0
13.5
12.8
13.5
11.0
11.5
13.0
14.9
15.1
14.0
12.0
13.8
13.0
14.5
14.4
15.2
13.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
11.5
13.3

Appendix 5. KV along with calculated uncertainty and linear regression statistical results
from plots of lnH vs. time for the small reach measurements. Site locations are presented in
Appendix 6.

Site
July
3L
Aug.
July
3C
Aug.
July
3R
Aug.
July
2L
Aug.
July
2C
Aug.
July
5L
Aug.
July
5C
Aug.
July
5R
Aug.
July
12C
Aug.
July
12R
Aug.
July
15L
Aug.
July
15C
Aug.
July
15R
Aug.
July
14L
Aug.
July
14C
Aug.
July
17L
Aug.
July
17C
Aug.
July
17R
Aug.
July
24C
Aug.
July
24R
Aug.
July
27L
Aug.
July
27C
Aug.
July
27R
Aug.

KV (m/day)
0.03
0.07
32.03
36.60
36.53
0.96
15.78
33.34
30.29
31.51
0.17
1.15
22.97
50.10
0.04
39.86
32.29
5.52
23.11
39.84
0.09
19.54
26.14
50.87
5.71
39.95
0.12
40.23
23.27
42.62
0.83
50.90
31.32
46.40
10.24
34.23
6.04
63.52
11.74
28.48
28.64
42.70
44.92
49.82
25.50
34.26

W (m/day)
0.03
0.01
2.02
1.96
2.38
0.06
2.18
1.77
2.56
1.68
0.14
0.07
1.70
2.67
0.01
2.13
2.63
0.30
2.23
2.15
0.05
1.05
2.26
2.72
4.32
2.14
0.07
2.16
1.56
2.29
0.13
2.75
2.65
2.48
1.01
1.83
0.89
3.47
11.91
1.52
1.78
2.33
3.61
2.67
4.15
1.85

Slope
-1.048x10-6
-2.300x10-6
-1.002x10-3
-1.145x10-3
-1.143x10-3
-3.014x10-5
-4.937x10-4
-1.043x10-3
-9.473x10-4
-9.854x10-4
-5.282x10-6
-3.600x10-5
-7.187x10-4
-1.567x10-3
-1.199x10-6
-1.247x10-3
-1.010x10-3
-1.727x10-4
-7.228x10-4
-1.246x10-3
-2.968x10-6
-6.108x10-4
-8.176x10-4
-1.591x10-3
-1.787x10-4
-1.250x10-3
-3.780x10-6
-1.259x10-3
-7.279x10-4
-1.333x10-3
-2.587x10-5
-1.593x10-3
-9.798x10-4
-1.451x10-3
-3.203x10-4
-1.071x10-3
-1.888x10-4
-1.987x10-3
-3.651x10-4
-8.907x10-4
-8.958x10-4
-1.336x10-3
-1.405x10-3
-1.559x10-3
-7.978x10-4
-1.072x10-3

114

Y int.
3.653
4.040
3.627
4.202
3.749
4.136
3.503
4.081
3.668
4.189
3.472
4.038
3.626
4.148
3.780
4.189
3.798
4.185
3.785
4.146
3.639
4.106
3.710
4.129
3.926
4.156
3.838
4.185
3.693
4.136
3.842
4.276
3.822
4.071
3.599
3.956
3.646
3.965
3.707
3.913
3.619
4.300
3.762
3.917
3.642
4.093

# of points
4
4
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
3
8
10
9
3
10
10
10
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
10

2
0.9753
0.9982
0.99996
0.9999
0.99997
0.9997
0.9996
0.99997
0.9999
0.9999
0.9959
0.9991
0.9999
0.99996
0.9993
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9920
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9874
0.9999
0.9910
0.9999
0.99996
0.9999
0.9993
0.9998
0.9999
0.9999
0.9998
0.9999
0.9996
0.9998
0.9755
0.9999
0.99998
0.9998
0.9999
0.9999
0.9994
0.9999

Appendix 5 (continued)
26L
26C
29L
29C
29R
36C
36R
39L
39C
39R
38L
38C
41L
41C
41R
48C
48R
51L
51C
51R
50L
50C
53L
53C
53R

July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.

2.12
39.56
33.50
34.47
0.02
27.34
32.91
42.11
32.77
37.15
39.45
31.52
8.75
48.51
0.05
49.26
28.68
44.50
11.76
38.10
26.86
44.07
8.97
51.42
38.13
18.54
16.50
36.44
8.62
42.23
25.74
32.80
28.57
0.12
14.60
23.72
44.23
10.00
26.79
0.26
0.01
11.28
27.37
4.21
0.08
34.43
21.35
12.63
18.59
10.97

0.40
2.11
2.26
1.85
0.02
1.46
3.15
2.25
2.98
1.97
3.00
1.69
0.64
2.62
0.04
2.68
1.91
2.42
1.12
2.03
22.12
2.37
1.42
2.77
7.39
0.99
1.34
1.99
0.98
2.25
2.24
1.75
16.84
0.01
1.40
1.26
3.65
0.53
7.86
0.02
0.01
0.60
2.72
0.23
0.01
1.85
2.04
0.69
2.49
0.62

-5.994x10-5
-1.238x10-3
-1.048x10-3
-1.078x10-3
-7.738x10-7
-8.553x10-4
-1.029x10-3
-1.317x10-3
-1.025x10-3
-1.163x10-3
-1.234x10-3
-9.862x10-4
-2.738x10-4
-1.517x10-3
-1.590x10-6
-1.541x10-3
-8.973x10-4
-1.392x10-3
-3.679x10-4
-1.192x10-3
-8.402x10-4
-1.379x10-3
-2.807x10-4
-1.609x10-3
-1.193x10-3
-5.799x10-4
-5.163x10-4
-1.140x10-3
-2.697x10-4
-1.321x10-3
-8.051x10-4
-1.026x10-3
-8.942x10-4
-3.626x10-6
-4.567x10-4
-7.420x10-4
-1.384x10-3
-3.127x10-4
-8.382x10-4
-8.007x10-6
-2.575x10-7
-3.527x10-4
-8.563x10-4
-1.317x10-4
-2.363x10-6
-1.077x10-3
-6.679x10-4
-3.951x10-4
-5.815x10-4
-3.430x10-4

115

3.617
3.935
3.788
3.913
3.326
3.964
3.773
4.102
3.827
4.215
3.784
4.156
3.663
4.364
3.747
4.014
3.794
4.203
3.887
4.288
3.788
3.848
3.734
4.057
3.858
4.169
3.842
3.988
3.509
4.249
3.771
4.184
3.918
4.033
3.830
4.237
3.785
4.071
3.578
4.109
3.747
4.138
3.771
4.082
3.848
4.047
3.734
4.077
3.679
3.905

7
10
10
10
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
10
5
3
10
10
8
4
10
10
10
10
10

0.9991
0.9999
0.99996
0.9999
0.9951
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.99998
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
0.9998
0.997
0.9998
0.99996
0.9998
0.9999
0.99995
0.9852
0.9999
0.9995
0.9999
0.9992
0.99995
0.9999
0.9998
0.9998
0.99997
0.9999
0.99996
0.9924
0.9998
0.9999
0.99996
0.9999
0.99998
0.9981
0.9997
0.9972
0.9999
0.9998
0.9998
0.9992
0.9999
0.9999
0.9997
0.9997
0.9994

Appendix 5 (continued)
60C
60R
63L
63C
63R
64L
E1R
E2R
E3R
E4R
E5R
E6R
E7R
E8R

July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
Aug.

39.30
1.79
9.97
3.38
0.52
51.63
27.04
1.98
0.09
7.72
2.95
50.95
0.49
NM
1.12
NM
0.31
NM
0.04
NM
1.01
NM
21.21
NM
16.48
NM
0.85
NM

2.95
0.12
1.30
0.18
0.09
2.80
2.88
0.11
0.05
0.41
0.48
2.71
0.33
NM
0.10
NM
0.14
NM
0.03
NM
0.14
NM
2.80
NM
1.26
NM
0.18
NM

-1.230x10-3
-5.610x10-5
-3.120x10-4
-1.056x10-4
-1.610x10-5
-1.615x10-3
-8.460x10-4
-6.177x10-5
-2.710x10-6
-2.417x10-4
-9.215x10-5
-1.594x10-3
-1.525x10-5
NM
-3.513x10-5
NM
-9.753x10-6
NM
-1.162x10-6
NM
-3.146x10-5
NM
-6.637x10-4
NM
-5.156x10-4
NM
-2.647x10-5
NM

116

3.747
4.107
3.761
3.995
3.734
4.012
3.641
4.027
3.772
4.062
3.552
3.959
3.980
NM
4.094
NM
4.021
NM
3.820
NM
3.919
NM
3.948
NM
3.904
NM
3.979
NM

10
6
10
6
5
10
10
6
3
10
6
10
6
NM
6
NM
5
NM
3
NM
5
NM
11
NM
11
NM
4
NM

0.9999
0.9990
0.9997
0.9999
0.9991
0.9998
0.9998
0.9998
0.9979
0.9999
0.9993
0.99998
0.9862
NM
0.9998
NM
0.9941
NM
0.9962
NM
0.9995
NM
0.9997
NM
0.9999
NM
0.9989
NM

Appendix 6. Site names for the measurement locations in Small Reach 1 (left) measured in
July 2006 and Small Reach 2 (right) measured in August. The site names are centered on the
point locations.

117