GROUNDWATER STORAGE IN A MOUNTAIN MEADOW
NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Geology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Geology
by
Kamala Abigail Brown
SUMMER
2013
GROUNDWATER STORAGE IN A MOUNTAIN MEADOW
NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
A Thesis
by
Kamala Abigail Brown
Approved by:
__________________________, Committee Chair
Kevin C. Cornwell, Ph.D.
__________________________, Second Reader
Timothy C. Horner, Ph.D.
____________________
Date
ii
Student: Kamala Abigail Brown
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_____________________________, Graduate Coordinator _______________________
Kevin C. Cornwell, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Geology
iii
Abstract
of
GROUNDWATER STORAGE IN A MOUNTAIN MEADOW
NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
by
Kamala Abigail Brown
This study measures the groundwater storage volume of a meadow located along Clarks
Creek in the Feather River watershed in the northern Sierra Nevada of California and
compares the volume in the restored half of the meadow with the volume in the nonrestored half of the meadow. Hydrologic function has been restored to the northern half
of the meadow using the “pond and plug” technique while the southern half of the
meadow is still in an ecologically degraded state where the stream is disconnected from
it’s floodplain. Previous work has not specifically measured groundwater volume
capacity, nor the amount of groundwater present in a partially restored meadow. The
groundwater volume was calculated for the years 2008 and 2009. This was done by
measuring the depth of the meadow sediment using a seismic refraction technique and
then calculating sediment volume. Porosity was measured and the average porosity value
was used to calculate pore space volume of the meadow. Piezometers were installed and
groundwater data was collected and then used along with the depth and porosity values to
calculate actual water volume for the wettest and driest times of 2008 and 2009. Results
iv
from this study show that a section of meadow that has been successfully restored has a
higher water table, stores more water during the wet and dry seasons and has less
fluctuation in storage between the wet and dry seasons than a non-restored section of the
same meadow.
_______________________________, Committee Chair
Kevin C. Cornwell, Ph.D.
________________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my husband, Scott Brown who has been unfailingly
patient and supportive past all reasonable expectations throughout this process. Thank
you for never giving up on me. Thank you also to my parents, Paul Butler and Carol
Butler who lent their support financially and emotionally while I was in school. I
couldn’t have done it without your love and support.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following people for their support, help, mentorship and
outstanding teaching abilities throughout my attendance in the geology department at
CSUS and throughout the process of researching and writing this thesis:
o Dr. Kevin Cornwell, CSUS
o Dr. Tim Horner, CSUS
o Dr. Diane Carlson, CSUS
o Dr. David Evans, CSUS
o Dr. Carrie Monohan, Natural Heritage Institute
o Jim Wilcox, Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group
o Leslie Mink, Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group
o David Fairman, CSUS
o Kelly Janes, Natural Heritage Institute
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................3
2. DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION HISTORY OF CLARKS CREEK
AND MEADOW ............................................................................................................6
3. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA .............................................................................11
3.1 Geology of Study Area ....................................................................................12
3.2 Climate .............................................................................................................14
4. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................19
4.1 Meadow Depth .................................................................................................19
4.2 Meadow Volume ..............................................................................................21
4.3 Porosity of Meadow Sediments .......................................................................22
4.4 Piezometers ......................................................................................................24
5. RESULTS .....................................................................................................................35
5.1 Meadow Depth .................................................................................................35
viii
5.2. Groundwater and Water Storage .....................................................................36
5.2a Water Table ........................................................................................36
5.2b Water Storage.....................................................................................37
6. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................48
Appendix A. Seismic Reduction Worksheets ....................................................................51
Appendix B. Sediment and Groundwater Volume Calculations .......................................69
Appendix C. Groundwater Data ........................................................................................84
References ..........................................................................................................................88
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Values used to calculate volume of meadow sediment for surface rectangle
#13 (R13) ......................................................................................................................25
2. Volume of sediment in restored section of meadow ......................................................26
3. Volume of sediment in non-restored section of meadow ..............................................27
4. Porosity values for Clarks Meadow ...............................................................................28
5. Total sediment and pore space volumes at the wettest and driest times of 2008
and 2009 ........................................................................................................................40
6. Total pore space available for saturation with water in the restored vs.
non-restored sections of meadow and total water for each given date in
the restored vs. non-restored meadow sections.............................................................41
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Location and outline of Clarks Meadow ........................................................................5
2. Clarks Creek and Meadow before restoration ...............................................................9
3. Clarks Creek and meadow after restoration .................................................................10
4. The Feather River Watershed (outlined in tan), showing the Clarks Creek
Watershed, Clarks Meadow and the locations of the three weather stations
used for this study: Kettle Rock (KTL), Antelope Lake (ANT) and Doyle
Crossing (DOY) ...........................................................................................................16
5. Total precipitation (cm) for each year between 2003-2012 .........................................17
6. Precipitation for 2008 and 2009 compared with the 10-year average between
2003-2012 ....................................................................................................................18
7. Location of seismic surveys in Clarks Meadow ..........................................................29
8. Seismic Plot of Survey S1B. ........................................................................................30
9. Depth contour map of meadow subsurface ..................................................................31
10. Depth contour map of Clarks Meadow with rectangles covering the meadow
surface ..........................................................................................................................32
11. Locations of hand auger holes in Clarks Meadow .......................................................33
12. Locations of piezometers in Clarks Meadow...............................................................34
13. Groundwater elevations in meters above mean sea level ............................................42
14. Depth of the water table below the ground surface in meters......................................43
xi
15. Water table depth, 2008 ...............................................................................................44
16. Water table depth, 2009 ...............................................................................................45
17. The total water volume contained in the restored and non-restored sections of
meadow for the given dates .........................................................................................46
18. Water volume as a percentage of total possible water volume for the wet season
and dry season of 2008 and 2009 .................................................................................47
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Mountain meadows in the Sierra Nevada play an important role in the ecology
and the hydrologic function of watersheds. Meadows can be simply defined as areas
where the water table is shallow, usually less than 2 feet below the land surface at
midsummer and the surficial material is fine-grained and highly organic (Wood, 1975).
The high water table present in mountain meadows supports unique hydric, mesic and dry
herbland plant communities that are biologically diverse. The plant communities in turn
support diverse wildlife as well as provide forage for livestock (Ratliff, 1985). Meadows
in the Sierra Nevada cover only about 10 percent of the land area (Ratliff, 1985) but are
integrally important to biologic communities as well as human enjoyment and use.
California gets much of its water from rivers that drain the Sierra Nevada.
Because many of the tributaries to these rivers originate in and travel through mountain
meadows, they are intricately linked to the supply, storage and quality of Sierra Nevada
water.
As water flows into a meadow during the winter and spring, either through
overtopping of the stream channel, direct infiltration from the land surface, seepage from
springs or from overland flow, the water table rises, creating storage as ground water. As
ground water recharge dwindles during the summer, the water that had been stored in the
meadow slowly is released into the stream. There are a number of conditions that
promote a high water table in mountain meadows:
1. There must be sufficient water in the watershed.
2
2. The meadow stream must be shallow and only slightly channelized to allow it
to overflow its banks often and keep the water table shallow.
3. The stream must have a shallow gradient coupled with vegetated banks that
allow the water in the channel to flow slowly.
During the last century, meadows throughout the Sierras have been degraded due
to increased human use such as grazing, logging, mining and recreation (Ratliff, 1985).
The degradation has mainly come in the form of erosion of stream channels. Some sort
of ditch digging, either for irrigation or channelization purposes has often triggered the
incision and gully formation in stream channels (Hagburg, 1995). When incision occurs,
intensive overgrazing of the meadow by livestock usually compounds it. Overgrazing
damages the meadow sod allowing cattle trails to initiate stream incision (Wood, 1975).
When a stream channel that runs through a meadow becomes incised and widened, it
cannot overflow it’s banks as often and recharge the meadow aquifer. The stream
becomes disconnected from the floodplain and the meadow is dewatered.
Dewatered meadows are problematic for a number of reasons. When the water
table is lowered in a meadow, the plant composition of the meadow changes from wet
meadow plants to dry, grassland plants such as sagebrush. These plants provide less
defense against erosion and the stream becomes more and more incised (FRCRM Group
website, FAQ Page). Stream bank erosion also contributes to decreased water quality. In
the Feather River Watershed, 55% of sediment in streams is from stream bank erosion
and much of this sediment often ends up behind dams, shortening the lifespan of the dam
3
(Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2004). Flood
attenuation normally provided by meadows is also reduced (Oehrli, 2005).
1.1 Purpose of Study
This study will attempt to quantify how much groundwater was stored in Clarks
Meadow, a mountain meadow located in the Last Chance Basin of the Feather River
Basin in the northern Sierra Nevada, California (Figure 1) during the 2008 and 2009
water years. This study seeks to answer this question by investigating the subsurface
conditions of the meadow including identifying the types of material that make up the
meadow aquifer, the porosity of the subsurface material, the depth of the water table
(spatially and temporally) and the depth to bedrock of the surficial material.
Presumably a non-degraded or restored meadow or section of meadow will store
more groundwater longer into the dry season than a degraded or non-restored section of
meadow (Hagberg, 1995). This would be important to the vegetation and in turn wildlife
dependent on the meadow. A higher water table supports native mesic vegetation and
creates unsuitable conditions for xeric vegetation, thereby creating pre-degraded meadow
conditions (Hammersmark, et al., 2010).
The upper section of Clarks Meadow was successfully restored in 2001 and the
vegetation there has transitioned from xeric to mesic (Feather River Coordinated
Resource Management Group, 2001). The question that this paper will try to answer is
what does that mean in terms of the volume of water now stored in the upper meadow
4
compared to the lower, non-restored meadow and how does that volume change
throughout the dry and wet seasons?
5
Figure 1. Location and outline (in red) of Clarks Meadow
6
Chapter 2
DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION HISTORY OF CLARKS CREEK
AND MEADOW
It was determined through two years of data collection and analysis by Plumas
Corporation and the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management group that Clarks
Creek, a small basin in the Last Chance Basin of the Feather River Basin (Figure 1) was
disconnected from its historic functional floodplain by incision and degradation of the
channel. This likely occurred because of overgrazing around 1900 due to capturing of
the stream by a cattle trail (Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group,
2001). Figure 2 shows Clarks Creek before the most recent (and successful) round of
restoration work began. It can be seen in Figure 2 that the channel is incised and the
surrounding vegetation is dry because of the lowered water table.
Restoration work in the Feather River Watershed has a number of goals according
to the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy Report:
“1. Improve retention (storage) of water for augmented
base flow in streams;
2. Improve water quality (reduced sedimentation), and
streambank protection;
3. Improve upland vegetation management; and
4. Improve groundwater retention/storage in major
aquifers.”
(Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2004, p. 3)
Before initiation of the Clarks Creek restoration project, restoration efforts had
been ongoing on Clarks Creek starting in 1990. These efforts showed some success but
were hampered by frequent moderate to major floods (1986,‘93,’95,’97) and their
associated sediment loads. The deeply entrenched channel had the effect of dewatering
7
the meadow. This caused the meadow vegetation to convert from perennial moist
meadow grasses and forbs to less desirable dry site annuals and forbs (Bogener, 2004).
Construction of the Clarks Creek project began in late July of 2001 and was
completed in August of that year. It’s purpose was to reconnect the historic floodplain to
the channel in the upper part of the meadow. The project was successful in meeting this
stated purpose. Figure 3 was taken from the same location as Figure 2, but after
restoration was completed (Feather River Coordinated Resource Management group
website, Clarks Creek Project page). It can be seen in Figure 3 that the channel is no
longer incised and that the vegetation is now green and mesic in nature.
The “pond and plug” technique (Lindquist & Wilcox, 2000) was used to eliminate
the gully in the upper meadow and redirect the stream to an ancestral, non-incised
channel. The “pond and plug” restoration technique entails excavating ponds within an
incised stream channel and using the excavated material to essentially “plug” or dam up
the adjacent gully upstream of where the pond was dug.
In order to fill in the old channel, 10 small ponds and 10 small plugs were
constructed by excavating 23,000 cubic yards of material out of the “ponds” and using
that material to create the “plugs”. The existing channel was filled back to its original
grade using the pond and plug method, and the 3,500 foot long gully was filled in and the
stream was returned to remnant channels on the meadow surface. By doing this, the
stream was reconnected with 50 acres of natural floodplain. In September, 2001, a
pasture fence was completed on part but not all of the project area in order to test the
effects of grazing on recovery in the project area (Feather River Coordinated Resource
8
Management Group, 2001). The restoration work has had the effect of re-watering the
upper section of the meadow. (Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group,
2001).
Before the gully was inundated or buried, several hundred mature willow plants
and meadow sod mats were transplanted to sensitive areas within the restoration area.
The transplanting effort was nearly 100% successful (Feather River Coordinated
Resource Management Group, 2001).
The restoration at Clarks Creek was a well studied project. Pre and post-project
fish, wildlife and groundwater monitoring was done by the FRCRM group and The
Plumas Nation Forest. Groundwater monitoring by FRCRM is still ongoing. The project
was funded by Plumas County’s Proposition 204 Indian Creek Watershed Project grant,
and cost $90,000. Major partners were Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, DWR,
permittee Doug Robbins, the California State Water Resources Control Board, and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (FRCRM Group website, Clarks Creek Project
page).
9
Figure 2. Clarks Creek and Meadow before restoration. This photo was taken in July
2001, and shows Clarks Creek and the meadow adjacent to it before the most recent
round of restoration began. The channel is incised and the vegetation is xeric (dry) with
sagebrush encroaching. It was taken from the same location as Figure 3. Photo credit:
Feather River Coordinated Management group
10
Figure 3. Clarks Creek and meadow after restoration. This photo was taken in July 2006
from the same location as Figure 2 and shows the success of the restoration project. The
channel is no longer incised and the vegetation is mesic (wet) meadow vegetation. Photo
credit: Feather River Coordinated Management group
11
Chapter 3
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Clarks Creek (UTM zone 10T 712675m east, 4445068m north), a tributary to Last
Chance Creek in the Feather River watershed is located in the Northern Sierra Nevada
Mountains within the boundaries of the Plumas National Forest. Just above where Clarks
Creek meets Last Chance Creek, the creek runs through a small meadow, which is the
location for this study (Figure 1 and Figure 4).
Clarks Meadow is a small meadow with an approximate area of 0.5 km2. The
long axis of the meadow runs generally north to south and is approximately 2.6 km in
length. The meadow is approximately 0.46 km wide at its widest and 0.3 km wide at its
most narrow. The elevation of the meadow lies between approximately 1707 m at its
northern end and 1682 m at its southern end.
Clarks Creek was chosen for this study for a number of reasons. Clarks meadow
is relatively small, easily definable and is a mid elevation, montane meadow. Clarks
Creek is a snowmelt and groundwater fed ephemeral stream and like many meadows in
the Northern Sierras, Clarks Meadow was highly degraded. A large gully had formed
through the meadow and dewatered the meadow sediments. The water table was lowered
and sagebrush was encroaching on the meadow, which is indicative of a transition to dry
meadow conditions (Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group, 2001).
12
3.1 Geology of Study Area
The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range runs generally north/south and extends from
Southern to Northern California, straddling the state line between California and Nevada
for a portion of their length. The Sierra are highest in the south, getting progressively
lower towards the north. From their crest, the mountains incline gradually to the west
where they eventually meet California’s Great Valley. They are much steeper on their
eastern side where they are bounded by various north/south trending faults.
There is not complete agreement among geologists on the timing or mechanism of
uplift of the Sierra Nevada. Current thought is that the most recent episode of uplift
started around 5 million years ago and continues today (Wakabayashi, 2001). The
mechanism for uplift is unclear but may be related to foundering of an eclogitic root
beneath the range (Wakabayashi, 2001).
Many of the larger meadows in the northern Sierra, including Martis Valley,
Sierra Valley, Mohawk Valley, the Almanor Basin, Little Last Chance Valley (now
Frenchman Lake), Grizzly Valley (now Lake Davis), Clover Valley and Mountain
Meadows were once lakebeds. It is likely that many of these depressions that gathered
water and turned into lakes were caused by down-dropped, fault-bounded blocks (Durell,
1987). The lacustrine deposits that later became the site of mountain meadows are
Quaternary in age (Durell, 1987 and Grose, 2000). It is possible that Clarks Meadow was
at one time a lake, but we have found no evidence of lacustrine deposits in Clarks
Meadow.
13
Much of the modern landscape of the northern Sierra Nevada was carved by
geologically recent glaciers. There have been numerous glaciations in the Sierra, all
shaping the landscape into its current form. The most recent glaciation in the northern
Sierra was the Tioga Glaciation, which was during the Wisconsin Glaciation and lasted
from 20,000 to 8,000 years B.P. (Durell, 1987). Many of the peaks in the area were
capped by glaciers. These glaciers extended down from the peaks into some of the
valleys such as Coldwater Creek (Durell, 1987). Because of its elevation, it is likely that
Clarks Meadow was covered by a glacier during at least one point in its history. Field
evidence that the meadow was at one time covered by a glacier is not readily visible.
The material making up Clarks Meadow is Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium
that has been deposited along the modern drainage of Clarks Creek (Saucedo & Wagner,
1990). The ridge forming the eastern boundary of the meadow consists of Miocene age
andesitic pyroclastic deposits of the Diamond Mountains (Saucedo & Wagner, 1990).
Just above the andesitic pyroclastic deposits of the Diamond Mountains lies the Miocene
age Lovejoy Basalt (Wagner & Saucedo, 1990).
The area west, north and south of the meadow is composed of Cretaceous age
hornblende-biotite granodiorite (Saucedo & Wagner, 1990). This unit outcrops in
various places throughout the meadow and can be seen at the bottom of stream incision
sites. Granodiorite most likely underlies the Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium that
comprises the meadow sediment. This is likely the high velocity layer seen in the seismic
survey data discussed later in this paper.
14
3.2 Climate
The small, 48.4 km2 watershed (Feather River Coordinated Resource
Management Group, 2001) that feeds Clarks Creek gets an average of 88.9 cm of
precipitation annually (Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group, 2001).
In order to get a more precise picture of the very localized precipitation conditions for the
Clarks Creek watershed and an idea of how the 2008 and 2009 water years compare to
the average, the precipitation for three weather stations was looked at for a 10-year period
from 2003-2012. The three weather stations chosen were the closest stations to Clarks
Meadow run by the State of California with accessible data online (Figure 4). The closest
station is Doyle Crossing (DOY) and is only 1.5 km from Clarks Meadow and has an
elevation of 1728.2 m, very similar to the elevation of Clarks Meadow. Antelope Lake
(ANT) is 9.4 km away with an elevation of 1511.8 m. and Kettle Rock (KTL) is 17.3 km
from Clarks Meadow and has an elevation of 2225.0 m.
Figure 5 shows total precipitation for each year between 2003-2012 for each
weather station. The Doyle Crossing station, which is closest to Clarks Meadow in both
distance and elevation has the lowest precipitation for each of the 10 years. The Kettle
Rock station has the highest precipitation for each of the 10 years. As seen in Figure 5,
2008 and 2009 were low water years for all three stations compared to the other eight
years shown with the exception of 2007, which was also quite low. 2012 was also a
significantly low water year, particularly for the Doyle Crossing station and the Antelope
Lake Station. 2006 was the highest water year for the three stations, followed by 2011.
15
Figure 6 shows the average (arithmetic mean) for each weather station of the 10
years of precipitation data between 2003 and 2012. Figure 6 also shows the total
precipitation for each station for 2008 and 2009 (the years of this study) and compares
2008 and 2009 to the 10-year average. Precipitation during the years 2008 and 2009
(especially 2008) was significantly lower than the 10-year average for all three stations.
In 2008 the Kettle Rock Station had 17% less precipitation than the 10-year average.
Also in 2008, the Doyle Crossing Station had 30% less precipitation than the 10-year
average and the Antelope Lake Station had 42% less precipitation than the 10-year
average. For this reason, the calculations of water storage in Clarks Meadow during 2008
and 2009 water years will be low compared to an average water year.
16
Figure 4. The Feather River Watershed (outlined in tan). The Clarks Creek Watershed is
outlined in black. Clarks Meadow is outlined in red and the locations of the three
weather stations used for this study are shown: Kettle Rock (KTL), Antelope Lake (ANT)
and Doyle Crossing (DOY). Feather River Watershed map courtesy of the State of
California Sierra Nevada Conservancy website (http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/ourregion/map-gallery/Feather%20River%20HU.png/view). The Feather River watershed
map is overlaid on a Google Earth map on which the Clarks Creek watershed and
weather stations were plotted.
17
Total Annual Precipitation
Precipitation (cm)
140
120
100
80
KTL
60
DOY
40
ANT
20
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Water Year
Figure 5. Total precipitation (cm) for each year from 2003-2012. Total annual
precipitation is shown for each of the three closest weather stations to the study site.
Precipitation data was gathered from California Department of Water Resources
California Data Exchange Center website (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/index.html).
18
Precipitation: Average vs. 2008
and 2009
Precipitation (cm)
100
80
60
Average
40
2008
20
2009
0
KTL
DOY
Station
ANT
Figure 6. Precipitation for 2008 and 2009 compared with the 10-year average between
2003-2012. The 10-year average is the mean precipitation calculated from the total
annual precipitation for each year from 2003-2012 and was calculated for each of the
three closest weather stations to the study area. Precipitation data was gathered from
California Department of Water Resources California Data Exchange Center website
(http://cdec.water.ca.gov/index.html).
19
Chapter 4
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Meadow Depth
Meadows are formed from depressions in the bedrock over which alluvial and
lucustrine sediments have been deposited. In order to make calculations about how much
sediment underlies the meadow and additionally how much water is stored within that
sediment, it is necessary to know the thickness of the sediment above the bedrock. There
are no reported efforts to measure the thickness of meadow sediments in the Feather
River Basin. An average depth of around 4 meters has been generally assumed for
meadows in the Feather River watershed, specifically in Clarks Meadow based on actual
excavation of meadow sediment during restoration of the meadow (Wilcox, J., Personal
Communication).
Seismic surveys were conducted to get a good picture of the thickness of the
meadow sediments. The thickness of the meadow sediments was calculated from the
seismic data. Locations for seismic surveys were chosen by visually attempting to evenly
space out each survey site so that the entirety of the meadow was evenly covered (Figure
7). The surveys for the upper meadow were conducted in the summer of 2007 and the
surveys for the lower meadow were conducted in the summer of 2008.
A multi-channel, signal-enhanced engineering seismograph (EG&G model 1225)
owned by the CSUS Geology Department was used for conducting the surveys. The
geophones along the seismic lines were manually pushed into the ground and an attempt
was made to connect the phone with the actual mineral soil instead of just connecting
20
with the meadow sod. Each phone was spaced ten feet apart with the exception of the
first phone (the phone closest to the seismic source). The first phone was placed five feet
away from the second phone. The seismic source was placed five feet on the other side
of the first geophone. There were twelve geophones in total so the total length of the
seismic line from the seismic source to the twelfth geophone was 110 feet. A ten-pound
sledgehammer was hit against a metal plate as the seismic source.
Two surveys were done at each location in opposite directions from each other.
For the surveys to be considered accurate, the arrival times of the seismic waves at the
most distant geophones had to be within 10% of each other. If they were not, that
particular seismic survey was repeated.
First arrival times were chosen when good profiles were obtained on the
seismograph. These values were then plotted against distance to get a distance vs. time
graph. The inverse slope of this graph gives the velocity of the material (Figure 8). Two
distinct velocities are seen on the graphs. As shown in Figure 8, the slower velocity and
steeper slope on the graph (0-24 milli-seconds and 0-29 feet) is the unconsolidated
sedimentary material that makes up the meadow. The faster velocity and shallower slope
(24-35 milli-seconds and 29-115 feet) represents the underlying granitic bedrock.
A distance versus time graph was made for each seismic line. Appendix A show
the seismic reduction worksheets. Both surveys at each location were first plotted on one
graph but in order to read the needed values off of the graphs, each survey was plotted on
it’s own graph. “A” and “B” and “E” and “W” correspond to the two surveys at each
location. Minimum thickness of the sediment was calculated with these plots using the
21
1 V  V 
2
1
Mooney technique (Mooney, 1984). This technique uses the formula D  X c 

2
V

V

2
1 
D is the minimum thickness of the surface layer. Xc is the impact distance at which the
 first line segment. V2 is
two lines on the plot intersect. V1 is the reciprocal slope of the
the reciprocal slope of the second line segment (Figure 8) (Appendix A).
After thickness values were calculated, the location of each thickness was plotted
on a Google Earth map of the meadow using UTM coordinates (Figure 7). Using these
thickness points, a depth contour map was constructed connecting lines of equal depth or
thickness below the surface of the meadow (Figure 7). The contour lines show intervals
of 1 meter below the meadows surface.
4.2 Meadow Volume
The volume of sediment present in Clarks Meadow was determined using the
depth contour map and the outline of the meadow surface. The outline of the meadow
surface was obtained by tracing the meadow on a Google Earth map. The meadow
outline was cut into 18 small rectangles that approximate the shape of the meadow
surface (Figure 10). Using the surface rectangles, the dimensions of geometric shapes
(triangular and rectangular prisms) that approximate the shape of the meadows
subsurface were determined.
As an example, R13 (surface rectangle #13) was divided into two triangular
prisms on the sides of the meadow and a rectangular prism in the center of the meadow
(Figure 8). The dimensions of the prisms were measured on Google Earth and
22
determined from the depth contours and then volumes were calculated, yielding a total
volume for the section of the meadow delineated by that rectangle (Table 1). This
process was repeated for each rectangle covering the meadow surface (Appendix B).
The restored section of meadow and the non-restored section of meadow were
totaled separately to give a total volume for restored (Table 2) vs. non-restored (Table 3)
sections of meadow. The volume of each section was then added to calculate a total
volume of meadow sediment (Appendix B). The calculations showed the meadow to
contain approximately 912,000 cubic meters of sediment.
4.3 Porosity of Meadow Sediments
The porosity of the meadow sediments was estimated to determine how much
groundwater Clarks Meadow can store. Porosity was experimentally determined from
relatively undisturbed core samples obtained from hand auger holes drilled in the
meadow (Figure 11). The hand-augering was all done in the upper, restored section of
the meadow. The black line in Figure 11 shows the restoration boundary. Relatively
undisturbed core samples were taken from the auger holes. Attempts were made to
collect a relatively undisturbed sample at every foot. This proved impossible at certain
depths because some material was so coarse grained and saturated that it did not stay in
the tube.
When the hole was at the desired depth, the auger tip was removed and replaced
with a thin-wall tube sampler. This was then advanced to the desired depth and then
23
removed. The sample was then labeled and transported back to the lab for porosity
measurements.
The following equation was used to determine porosity:
Porosity  n 100 

(Fetter, 2001). This equation yields effective porosity
VolumeofVoids
TotalVolume
“because it excludes pores that are not large enough to contain water molecules and those

that are not interconnected” (Fetter, 2001 and Peyton et al., 1986). To measure this, the
volume of the void spaces was estimated. Since 1 gram of water equals 1 milliliter of
water, the volume of the voids was essentially the mass of the water that had been stored
in the voids when the sample was fully saturated. This was completed by weighing fully
saturated samples, drying them and then weighing them again to determine the volume of
the water held in the pore spaces. The total volume of the sample was then measured
using calipers, and porosity was calculated using the porosity formula. Table 4 shows the
porosity values for all samples.
Samples 2 and 5 (the highest and the lowest porosity values) were not included in
the average sediment value for the meadow material. The porosity of the meadow
sediment ranges from 26% to 41%, which are reasonable values for sediments that
contain sand, gravel, silt and clay (Fetter, 2001). During observations of the meadow
surface as well as hand auguring, these were all observed sediment sizes and so the
porosity values seem reasonable. Organic material was also observed in the meadow
sediment which would raise porosity. The average porosity value for the meadow is
34%. This is the number that will be used for the rest of the calculations in this paper.
24
4.4 Piezometers
Nine piezometers were installed throughout the meadow (Figure 12). The
piezometers were constructed of 1/2” galvanized pipe capped on the bottom and the top.
Numerous holes were drilled along the length of the pipe to allow water to flow in and
out. The piezometers were driven into the ground using a fence pole driver. Driving of
the piezometer was halted either when it could not be advanced any farther or it was
significantly below the water table during a relatively dry time of year. Water levels
were read manually as often as possible between the Fall of 2007 and the Fall of 2009
with an electric Solinst Water Level Meter (Appendix C). Levels were not read during
the Winter as snow in the meadow limited access.
The thick black line in Figure 12 shows where the restoration ended. The
restoration work occurred north of the black line. Piezometers P1, P2, P4, P5 and P6 are
all within the restoration area. Piezometers P3, P7, P8 and P9 were located below the
restoration area.
The piezometer locations were surveyed using a total surveying station in order to
obtain their relative elevations. A known location and elevation (a point where the 5600’
contour line meets the dirt road on the east side of the meadow on the USGS Antelope
Lake 7.5 minute quadrangle) was also surveyed so that actual ground surface elevation
could be obtained for each location.
25
R13
Base (m)
Height (m)
Length (m)
Volume (m3)
Triangular
Prism A
Triangular
Prism B
69
4
255
35190
119
4
255
60690
Rectangular
Prism
51
4
255
52020
Total
Volume
(m3)
147900
Table 1. Values used to calculate volume of meadow sediment for surface rectangle #13
(R13). Triangular prisms A and B and the rectangular prism correspond to Figure 10.
The volume of each geometric shape was calculated and then totaled to yield the volume
of sediment for that area of the meadow. This was done for each rectangle on the
meadow surface shown in Figure 10.
26
RESTORED SEDIMENT VOLUME
Sediment Volume of
Rectangle
Rectangle (m3)
R1
57240
R2
19320
R3
52772.5
R4
35631
R5
51510
R6
29900
R7
38690
R8
13297.5
R9
19251
R10
6930
R11
97750
R12
2772
R13
9880
R14
8983.5
R15
26136
TOTAL:
470063.5
Table 2. Volume of sediment in restored section of meadow. The volume of sediment
underlying each surface rectangle shown in Figure 10 was calculated and then added
together to yield the total sediment volume in the restored section of the meadow.
27
NON-RESTORED
SEDIMENT VOLUME
Sediment
Rectangle
Volume of
Rectangle (m3)
R16
65230
R17
147900
R18
107280
R19
121940
Total:
442350
Table 3. Volume of sediment in non-restored section of meadow. The volume of
sediment underlying each surface rectangle shown in Figure 10 was calculated and then
added together to yield the total sediment volume in the non-restored section of the
meadow.
28
Porosity = n = (volume of voids/total volume)*100
Sample #
Hole #
Depth(ft)
Porosity
1
2
2.1-2.5
41
2
2
4-4.5
77
3
3
2.9-3.4
37
5
4
0-0.5
4
6
4
0.5-1.0
27
7
4
1.0-1.5
40
8
4
1.5-2.0
29
9
4
2.0-2.5
33
10
4
2.5-3.0
29
Table 4. Porosity values for Clarks Meadow
29
Chapter 5
Figure 7. Location of seismic surveys in Clarks Meadow (outlined in red). Clarks Creek and Last
Chance Creek are shown. Depths to bedrock (in meters below ground surface) of each seismic
survey are also shown.
30
Figure 8. Seismic Plot of Survey S1B.
31
Figure 9. Depth contour map of meadow subsurface. Contour interval is 1 meter. This map was
hand drawn on Google Earth using the meadow depth points obtained from the seismic surveys.
32
Figure 10. Depth contour map of Clarks Meadow with rectangles covering the meadow surface.
The black line is the restoration boundary. Restoration was completed north of the black line.
The three dimensional figure to the right shows the process whereby sediment volume was
calculated. The volume of sediment underneath each surface rectangle was calculated by
dividing each volume into simple three-dimensional geometric shapes, including rectangular and
triangular prisms. The dimensions of these shapes were measured using Google Earth and then
volumes were calculated and totaled for the restored and non-restored sections of meadow.
33
Figure 11. Locations of hand auger holes in Clarks Meadow. Restoration occurred north
of the black line.
34
Figure 12. Locations of piezometers in Clarks Meadow. Restoration occurred north of the
black line. Piezometers 1, 6, 4, 5, and 2 are in the restored section. Piezometers 3, 7, 8
and 9 are in the non-restored section.
35
Chapter 4
RESULTS
5.1 Meadow Depth
According to the depth contour map, the maximum thickness of sediment in the
upper restored meadow is 5.4 meters (Figure 9). This maximum thickness is near the
very northern end of the upper meadow area and only a small portion of the meadow is 5
meters or thicker. The majority of the upper meadow area is between 2 and 4 meters
deep. The sediment gets gradually thicker from the sides of the meadow and is thickest
at the center.
The thickness of the sediment in the lower, non-restored meadow area is
significantly thinner than the upper meadow. The maximum depth of the lower meadow
area, below the road is 2.8 meters. The majority of the sediment in the lower meadow
area is between 2 and 2.8 meters in thickness. The sediment in the lower meadow area is
also thickest down the center and has less steep sides than the upper meadow area.
It is reasonable that the lower section of meadow is shallower than the upper
meadow given that it’s width is significantly less. The depth contour map (Figure 9)
shows that the shape of the depression of the underlying bedrock is a U-shaped valley in
places and a V-shaped valley in other places. The lower meadow is a U-shaped valley.
The bottom is relatively flat and the sides are relatively steep. In much of the upper
meadow, the valley is V-shaped valley.
36
5.2 Groundwater and Water Storage
5.2a Water Table
Figure 13 shows water level elevation for each piezometer reading. Piezometers
1, 6, 5, 4 and 2 are from the restored, upper meadow. Piezometers 3, 7, 8, and 9 are from
the non-restored, lower meadow. There are only two readings for P8, as P8 was found to
be missing after the winter of 2008. It was most likely knocked over by cows as the cows
definitely used the piezometers as scratching posts.
There is a clear elevation difference (Figure 13) for the piezometers within the
restoration area (P1, P6, P5, P4, P2) versus the piezometers below where the restoration
ended (P3, P7, P8, P9). This is caused by two factors: the lower piezometers are
downstream and therefore the ground surface in that area is lower in elevation.
Additionally, the water levels in the piezometers in the non-restored section of meadow
are further below the ground surface than in the restored section as can be seen in Figure
14.
Figure 14 shows groundwater level data normalized to depth below the surface.
Wells within the restored section of meadow have a generally higher water table than the
wells within the non-restored section. The only exception is P9 (non-restored), which has
a higher water table during the wet seasons than P1 and P5 (restored) and has a generally
higher water table through the study time than P2 (restored). This may be because P9 is
close to both Clarks Creek and Last Chance Creek and groundwater in that area is
influenced by both streams.
37
Figures 15 and 16 both show that for the wettest and driest times of 2008 and
2009, the piezometers located within the restored section of meadow had a higher water
table relative to the ground surface than the piezometers located within the non-restored
section. The two wells that do not strictly follow this pattern are P2 and P9. In 2009, P2
had a lower water table then P9. Even though P2 is located in between two restoration
areas, the channel is quite deep, wide and eroded in that area which may account for the
lower water table. Additionally, P9 is located very close to both Clarks Creek and Last
Chance Creek and so the water table seems to be higher in that area in the Spring. This is
most likely because Last Chance Creek, a larger stream than Clarks Creek is contributing
to the high water table in that area.
The restored meadow section showed more variation in the water table depth
between Spring and Fall than the non-restored section (Figures 15 and 16). This is most
likely because the overall water table is higher in the restored section making the water
available for plants which in turn allows more evapotranspiration to occur causing the
water table depth to change more dramatically.
5.2b Water Storage
In order to calculate water storage capacity of Clarks Meadow, the total sediment
volume present in the meadow (912,000 m3) was multiplied by the porosity (.34) to
obtain the total possible water that the meadow can hold (310,000 m3). This would be the
amount of water present in the meadow if the water table were at the land surface
throughout the entire meadow, a condition not observed or measured during this study.
38
Using the highest (Spring) and lowest (Fall) water table values from 2008 and
2009 as the top surface for the rectangular and triangular prisms described earlier in the
paper (Figure 10), the total saturated volume of sediment in the entire meadow was
determined for Spring and Fall, 2008 and 2009 (Table 5). In order to do this, the surface
rectangles were re-drawn using the depth contour map and the water table depths for each
date. The volumes of the prisms were then re-calculated (Appendix B), yielding Table 5.
The last column in Table 5 shows the percent of water present at a given time
compared to the total potential water storage of the entire meadow. The meadow as a
whole does not fluctuate very extremely in how much water is stored between the wettest
observed conditions (Spring, 2008) and the driest observed conditions (Fall, 2009). In
Spring of 2008, the meadow held 63.8% of it’s capacity. In Fall of 2009, it held 46.9%
of it’s capacity. There is only a 16.9% difference between the wettest observed
conditions and the driest.
Storage was also compared between the restored and non-restored meadow areas.
This was done using the rectangles and three-dimensional geometric shapes (prisms)
described earlier in this paper. All of the rectangles north of the restoration boundary
were totaled to determine the highest water storage capacity of the restored meadow area
(Table 6). The rectangles south of the restoration boundary were totaled to determine the
highest water storage capacity of the non-restored meadow area (Table 6). The restored
meadow area is capable of holding 9423.3 m3 (or 6.3%) more water than the non-restored
meadow.
39
Actual storage was estimated for Spring and Fall of 2008 and 2009 and results
were compared between the restored and non-restored areas. The surface rectangles were
redrawn to account for the water table depths (Appendix B). The volumes of the prisms
were then recalculated for the restored and non-restored sections of meadow in order to
obtain the total water present for each date shown in Table 6.
The restored section of the meadow has significantly more water volume than the
non-restored section both during the dry season and the wet season (Table 6 and Figure
17). It is also apparent by looking at Figure 17 that the non-restored section of meadow
holds significantly less water than it is capable of holding when compared with the
restored section. The non-restored section also fluctuates less dramatically between the
wet and dry season in how much water it holds than the restored section.
Figure 18 shows how the restored and non-restored sections of meadow deviated
during 2008 and 2009 from fully saturated conditions (the meadow water table being at
the ground surface). It is evident that the restored section of meadow not only held a
greater volume of water during the wet and dry seasons but also held more water as a
percentage of what it was capable of holding than did the non-restored section. The
percentage of water stored in the restored meadow section ranged from 60% in the dry
seasons to 81% in the wet seasons. This is compared to the non-restored section, which
ranged between 33% saturated in the dry seasons to 45% saturated in the wet seasons.
Variability was also lowered within the restored section with less fluctuation between the
wet and dry season.
40
Total
Sediment
Volume
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Total Saturated
Volume of
Meadow (m3)
Total Saturated Volume of Meadow
(m3) * Average Porosity (0.34) =
Volume of water present in the
meadow (m3)
% of Total
Possible
Water
912410
310220
100
582540
446070
532010
427500
198060
151660
180880
145350
64
49
58
47
Table 5. Total sediment and pore space volumes at the wettest (Spring) and driest (Fall)
times of 2008 and 2009.
41
Total
Potential
Groundwater
Volume
Restored (m3)
Non-restored (m3)
159820
150400
(4/27/08)
Actual
Groundwater
Volume
Fall
2008
(8/26/08)
(Avg of 5/12/09
& 6/3/09)
(Avg of 8/10/09
& 10/10/09)
129870
68190
96240
55420
119480
61410
98500
48950
Actual
Groundwater
Volume
Spring 2008
Actual
Groundwater
Volume
Spring 2009
Actual
Groundwater
Volume
Fall 2009
Table 6. Total pore space available for saturation with water in the restored vs. nonrestored sections of meadow and total water for each given date in the restored vs. nonrestored meadow sections.
42
Groundwater Elevations
1706
1705
P1
Elevation (meters)
1704
P6
1703
P5
1702
P4
1701
P2
1700
P3
1699
P7
1698
P8
P9
1697
6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04 8/1/04 11/9/04 2/17/05 5/28/05 9/5/05 12/14/05
Date
Figure 13. Groundwater elevations in meters above mean sea level for the piezometers
installed at Clarks Meadow. Piezometers were installed in the fall of 2007 (P1, P2, P3,
P4 and P6) and the spring of 2008 (P5, P7, P8 and P9). P1, P2, P4, P5 and P6 are located
in the restored section of Clarks Meadow. P3, P7, P8 and P9 are located in the nonrestored section of Clarks Meadow.
43
Figure 14. Depth of the water table below the ground surface in meters. The piezometers
in the restored section of the meadow show a higher water table both in the spring (wet
season) and the fall (dry season) with the exception of P9. This may be because P9 is
close to Last Chance Creek and the water table there is influenced by the larger stream.
44
Figure 15. Water table depth, 2008. Spring is clearly the wet season and the water table
for all piezometers is higher than in the summer (the dry season). P1, P6, P5, P4 and P2
are located in the restored section of the meadow while P3, P7, P8 and P9 are located in
the non-restored section of meadow. The piezometers in the restored section show a
higher water table overall than the piezometers in the non-restored section. The
exceptions to this are P2 and P9.
45
Figure 16. Water table depth, 2009. The water table for all piezometers is higher in the
spring (wet season) than in the summer (dry season). P1, P6, P5, P4 and P2 are located in
the restored section of the meadow while P3, P7, P8 and P9 are located in the nonrestored section of meadow. The piezometers in the restored section show a higher water
table overall than the piezometers in the non-restored section. The exceptions to this are
P2 and P9. The last reading that was obtained for P4 was on 6/24/09 because it was no
longer there in Fall of 2009. It was most likely taken out by cows. That is why there is
no data for Fall, 2009 for P4.
46
Volume (cubic meters)
Total Water Volume: Restored Vs. NonRestored
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Restored
Non-restored
Total
4/27/08
8/26/08
Avg of
Avg of
5/12/09 & 8/10/09 &
6/3/09 10/10/09
Date
Figure 17. The total water volume contained in the restored and non-restored sections of
meadow for the given dates. The “total” column is the maximum amount of water that
each section of meadow could store if the water table were at the ground surface.
47
Water Volume as a Percentage of
Total Possible Water Volume
Water Volume as a Percentage of Total Possible
Water Volume for the Wettest and Driest Times of
2008 & 2009
90
80
81.3
74.8
70
60
50
40
61.6
60.2
45.3
40.8
36.9
30
32.5
20
Restored
Non-restored
10
0
4/27/08
8/26/08
Avg of 5/12/09 Avg of 8/10/09
& 6/3/09
& 10/10/09
Date
Figure 18. Water volume as a percentage of total possible water volume for the wet
season and dry season of 2008 and 2009.
48
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS
According to results from the seismic surveys and the hand auger borings
conducted, sediment in Clarks Meadow has a maximum thickness of 5.4 meters and a
minimum thickness of 1.6 meters with an average thickness of 3.1 meters. This is
somewhat thinner than the assumed average depth of 4 meters used by the FRCRM
Group in their work (Wilcox, J., Personal Communication).
The calculated volumes of water presented in this paper hinge on the determined
porosity value of 34%. While this is a reasonable value for the observed materials
making up the meadow, the porosity was only calculated from samples taken from three
hand-auger holes, which were all in the upper part of the meadow. This was a limitation
in physical ability, as hand-augering is very physically difficult and time consuming. If it
was possible to use a drill rig in future studies to drill more holes and get more samples, a
more precise value for porosity could be determined.
The results of this paper support the idea that a restored meadow does have a
higher water table throughout the year and therefore does store more water than an
incised, non-restored meadow, as is the stated purpose of most meadow restoration work
(e.g. Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2004).
Although these results fit with what would be expected for a restored section of
meadow vs. a non-restored section of meadow, as a higher water table and more water
storage is a stated purpose of most meadow restoration work, it is unclear whether these
types of results would hold for other meadows under similar conditions. Each meadow
49
system is distinct and until further research is done, it is not clear that Clarks Meadow is
representative of meadow systems in the Sierra Nevada or even in the Feather River
Watershed. For example, is the shape and depth of the subsurface of other meadows
similar to Clarks Meadow? Are other meadows made up of similar material? Would
these results hold for larger and smaller meadows or for other meadows that had multiple
stream channels or that received more or less water?
The above questions point to further work that could be done in this area. In
order to answer many of these questions, some of the work that I would recommend be
done includes similar studies in other meadows that would be selected based on them
being representative of various types of meadows in the Sierra Nevada. I would also
study them over a longer time period that would include more average water years as
2008 and 2009 were low water years. Any future study should also include more
piezometers placed at precise distances in the meadow. For example, it would make
sense to place piezometers in the restored and non-restored sections at the same distances
from the stream channel(s). Also, the piezometers should be outfitted with continuously
recording sensors so that water levels could be taken continuously.
Current GIS software would likely be a better tool to calculate the volumes of
water for the two sections of meadow. Current GIS software would be able to more
easily and most likely more accurately map the meadow subsurface and calculate the
volumes of sediment present in the meadow.
Overall, this study supports the generally held idea that if restoration is successful,
as clearly was the case on Clarks Creek, an area of a meadow that has been restored will
50
have a higher water table that will fluctuate more between the dry and wet seasons. A
restored section of meadow will also store more water during the dry and wet seasons
than a non-restored section of the same meadow in spite of the fact that the restored
section is topographically higher than the non-restored section.
These overall findings support the impetus to conduct restoration work on
meadows in the Sierra Nevada given the current changing climate conditions. If the
Sierra Nevada are to experience less snow and more rain with future climate change,
storing water in restored meadows will become increasingly important to downstream
water supply.
51
Appendix A: Seismic Reduction Worksheets
Seismic Reduction Graphs:
S1B(10')E
Time (Milliseconds)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S1B(10…
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
110
120
130
52
53
Time (Milliseconds)
S3B(10')E
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S3B(10…
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
90
100
110
54
S5B(10')E
Time (Milliseconds)
30
25
20
S5B(10…
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
55
S7B(10')E
Time (Milliseconds)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S7B(10…
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
90
100
56
57
S9B(10')E
Time (Milliseconds)
25
20
15
S9B(10')E
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
Time (Milliseconds)
S10B(10')E
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S10B(10…
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
58
Time (Milliseconds)
S11B(10')E
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S11B(10…
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
59
60
Time (Milliseconds)
S15A
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Series1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
61
Time (Milliseconds)
S15B
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Series1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
S16A
30
25
Time (Milliseconds)
20
15
Series1
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
S16B
30
25
Time (Milliseconds)
20
Serie…
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
110
120
130
62
S17A
30
25
Time (Milliseconds)
20
15
S17A
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
110
120
130
S17B
30
25
Time (Milliseconds)
20
Serie…
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Distance from Seismic Source (feet)
110
120
130
LMS1E
Time (Milliseconds)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Distance from Seismic Source (ft.)
100
110
120
130
63
LMS1W
Time (Milliseconds)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Distance from Seismic Source (ft.)
LMS2E
Time (Milliseconds)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Distance from Source (ft.)
90
100
110
120
130
130
64
LMS3E
25
Time (s)
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Distance from Seismic Source (ft.)
LMS4W
30
Time (s)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130
Distance from Seismic Source (ft.)
120
130
65
LMS4E
30
25
20
15
Series1
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130
Seismic Reduction Calculations:
S1A2
Xc
V1
V2
D
31.3
1.2
8
13.45472682
S1B
Xc
V1
V2
S2A
Xc
V1
V2
D
21.1
1.055
8.78
9.350062665
S2B
Xc
V1
V2
D
24
1.6
7.2
9.572688423
S3A
Xc
V1
V2
D
29.2
1.13
10.4
13.09115814
S3B
Xc
V1
V2
D
31.2
1.155
9.52
13.80936247
S4A
Xc
V1
V2
D
17.5
1.2
7.6
7.462025072
Xc
V1
V2
D
S5A
Xc
V1
V2
D
25.8
1.6
7.4
10.35577134
Xc
V1
V2
D
28
1.233333333
8
11.98494844
S4B
14.5
1.02
6.46
6.182820774
S5B
20
1.45
6.4
7.940864238
66
S6A
Xc
V1
V2
D
16
1.24
6.56
6.606911688
Xc
V1
V2
D
23
1.2
10.5
10.25289202
S7A
Xc
V1
V2
D
29
1.266666667
5.5
11.46890205
S7B
Xc
V1
V2
D
37.5
1.35
5.4
14.52368755
S8A
Xc
V1
V2
D
33
1.1
10.8
14.89691469
S8B
Xc
V1
V2
D
25.6
1.866666667
5.6
9.050966799
S9A
Xc
V1
V2
D
41
2.066666667
13.8
17.62875802
S9B
Xc
V1
V2
D
11
1.04
6.8
4.714285714
S10A
Xc
V1
V2
D
35
1.533333333
9.2
14.79019946
S10B
Xc
V1
V2
D
31
1.3
11.4
13.82262495
61
2.5
8.4
22.43947006
S11B
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.4
6.6
8.465370636
S12A
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.4
6.8
8.520778048
S12B
Xc
V1
V2
D
20
1.6
5.7
7.494290064
S13A
Xc
V1
V2
D
25
1.266666667
6.4
10.2283706
S13B
Xc
V1
V2
D
36
1.25
11.2
16.09160523
S14A
Xc
28
S14B
Xc
34
S11A
Xc
V1
V2
D
S6B
?
67
V1
V2
D
1.1
9.2
12.4151489
V1
V2
D
1.3
11.8
15.21976417
S15A
Xc
V1
V2
D
26
1.4
5.8
10.16256748
S15B
Xc
V1
V2
D
25
1.3
6
10.02992099
S16A
Xc
V1
V2
D
15
1.2
7.6
6.396021491
S16B
Xc
V1
V2
D
15
1.2
8
6.447952152
S17A
Xc
V1
V2
D
13
1.1
6.2
5.432966343
S17B
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.4
6.8
8.520778048
LMS1E
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.2
7
8.830725186
LMS1W
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.2
8
9.027133013
LMS2E
Xc
V1
V2
D
12
1.2
9.8
5.305228981
LMS2W
Xc
V1
V2
D
19
1.3
11.4
8.471931424
LMS3E
Xc
V1
V2
D
20
1.4
11.4
8.838834765
LMS3W
Xc
V1
V2
D
21
1.5
9.4
8.939013553
68
LMS4E
Xc
V1
V2
D
18
1.2
7.8
7.707139547
Conversion: Feet to meters
S1A2
13.45472682 4.101000736
S1B
11.98494844 3.653012285
S2A
9.350062665
2.8498991
S2B
9.572688423 2.917755431
S3A
13.09115814 3.990185002
S3B
13.80936247 4.209093681
S4A
7.462025072 2.274425242
S4B
6.182820774 1.884523772
S5A
10.35577134 3.156439104
S5B
7.940864238
2.42037542
S6A
6.606911688 2.013786682
S6B
10.25289202 3.125081489
S7A
11.46890205 3.495721346
S7B
14.52368755 4.426819965
S8A
14.89691469 4.540579597
S8B
9.050966799
2.75873468
S9A
17.62875802 5.373245444
S9B
4.714285714 1.436914286
S10A
14.79019946 4.508052795
S10B
13.82262495 4.213136086
S11A
22.43947006 6.839550474
S11B
8.465370636
2.58024497
S12A
8.520778048 2.597133149
S12B
7.494290064 2.284259611
S13A
10.2283706
3.11760736
S13B
16.09160523 4.904721276
S14A
12.4151489 3.784137386
S14B
15.21976417 4.638984119
S15A
10.16256748 3.097550568
S15B
10.02992099 3.057119918
S16A
6.396021491
1.94950735
S16B
6.447952152 1.965335816
S17A
5.432966343 1.655968141
S17B
8.520778048 2.597133149
LMS1E 8.830725186 2.691605037
LMS1W 9.027133013 2.751470142
LMS2E 5.305228981 1.617033794
LMS2W 8.471931424 2.582244698
LMS3E 8.838834765 2.694076836
LMS3W 8.939013553 2.724611331
LMS4E 7.707139547 2.349136134
LMS4W 8.287019898 2.525883665
LMS4W
Xc
V1
V2
D
20
1.3
7
8.287019898
69
Appendix B: Sediment and Groundwater Volume Calculations
Total Sediment Volume of the Meadow
Restored Section: R1-R15
Triangle
a
R1
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R2
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R3
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R4
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R5
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R6
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R7
Triangle
b
Rectangular
prism
58
4
270
48
4
270
31320
25920
72
5
48
89
5
48
8640
10680
56
5
101
87
5
101
33
5
101
14140
21967.5
16665
Total
Volume
(m3)
57240
19320
216
4
74
99
0.5
74
31968
3663
50
5
101
102
5
101
26
5
101
12625
25755
13130
104
5
29
104
5
43
7540
22360
52772.5
35631
51510
29900
70
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
49
5
146
57
5
146
Volume (m3)
17885
20805
38690
R8
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
12
3
197
3546
33
3
197
9751.5
13297.5
R9
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
42
3
138
8694
51
3
138
10557
19251
R10
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
19
3
140
3990
14
3
140
2940
6930
R11
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
60
4
391
46920
65
4
391
50830
97750
R12
base
height
length
Volume (m3)
22
3
84
2772
2772
R13
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
76
4
65
9880
9880
R14
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
53
3
113
8983.5
8983.5
71
R15
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
43
4
121
10406
65
4
121
15730
26136
Non-Restored Section: R16-R19
Triangle
a
R16
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R17
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R18
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R19
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
Triangle
b
Rectangular
prism
43
4
302
65
4
302
25972
39260
69
4
255
119
4
255
51
4
255
35190
60690
52020
67
2
341
64
2
341
68
2.7
341
22847
21824
62607.6
81
2
259
73
2
259
132
2.4
259
20979
18907
82051.2
Total
Volume (m3)
65232
147900
107278.6
121937.2
72
Saturated Sediment Volume on 4/27/08
Restored Section: R1-R15
Triangle a
R1
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
58
3.5
270
48
3.5
270
27405
22680
72
4.5
48
89
4.5
48
Volume (m3)
7776
9612
R3
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
56
4.75
101
87
4.75
101
33
4.75
101
13433
20869.125
15831.75
Volume (m3)
R2
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R4
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R5
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R6
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R7
base (m)
height (m)
Total
Volume (m3)
50085
17388
50133.875
257
3.65
74
34707.85
34707.85
50
4.65
101
102
4.65
101
26
4.65
101
11741.25
23952.15
12210.9
104
4.66
29
104
4.66
43
7027.28
20839.52
49
4.65
57
4.65
47904.3
27866.8
73
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
R8
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R9
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R10
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R11
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R12
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R13
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R14
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
146
146
16633.05
19348.65
12
2.2
197
33
2.2
197
2600.4
7151.1
42
2.2
138
51
2.2
138
6375.6
7741.8
19
2
140
14
2
140
2660
1960
44
3
391
56
3
391
25806
32844
35981.7
9751.5
14117.4
4620
58650
22
2.4
84
2217.6
2217.6
76
3
65
7410
7410
53
2
113
5989
5989
74
R15
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
43
2.32
121
65
2.32
121
6035.48
9123.4
15158.88
Non-Restored Section: R16-19
Triangle a
R16
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R17
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
Triangle b
43
65
2.32
302
2.32
302
15063.76
22770.8
38
79
51
2.32
255
2.32
255
2.32
255
11240.4
23368.2
30171.6
R18
base (m)
37834.56
64780.2
0.67
341
Volume (m3)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
Total
Volume (m3)
78
height (m)
length (m)
R19
base (m)
Rectangular
prism
17820.66
60
55
138
1.3
259
1.3
259
1.7
259
10101
9259.25
60761.4
17820.66
80121.65
75
Saturated Sediment Volume on 8/26/08
Restored Section: R1-R15
Triangle a
R1
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
52
2.8
270
44
2.8
270
19656
16632
58
4
48
66
4
48
5568
6336
49
4
101
60
4
101
34
4
101
Volume (m3)
9898
12120
13736
R4
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
208
3.25
74
Volume (m3)
R2
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R3
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R5
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R6
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R7
base (m)
height (m)
36288
11904
25012
35754
25012
38
3.7
101
72
3.7
101
29
3.7
101
7100.3
13453.2
10837.3
104
3.7
29
104
3.7
43
5579.6
16546.4
37
3.7
Total
Volume (m3)
40
3.7
31390.8
22126
76
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
R8
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R9
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
R10
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
R11
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
R12
base (m)
height (m)
146
146
9993.7
10804
12
2
197
33
2
197
2364
6501
42
2
51
2
138
138
5796
7038
19
1.5
14
1.5
140
140
1995
1470
41
2.5
58
2.5
391
391
20038.75
28347.5
20797.7
8865
12834
3465
48386.25
22
2
length (m)
84
Volume (m )
3
R13
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
1848
1848
76
2.5
65
6175
R14
base (m)
height (m)
53
1.5
length (m)
113
6175
77
Volume (m3)
R15
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m )
3
4491.75
4491.75
43
2.1
65
2.1
121
121
5463.15
8258.25
13721.4
Non-Restored Section: R16-19
Triangle a
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
Total
Volume (m3)
R16
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R17
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R18
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R19
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
43
2.1
302
65
2.1
302
13635.3
20611.5
38
1.74
255
72
1.74
255
51
1.74
255
8430.3
15973.2
22628.7
32
0.7
341
16
0.7
341
71
0.7
341
3819.2
1909.6
16947.7
34246.8
47032.2
22676.5
190
1.2
259
59052
59052
78
Saturated Sediment Volume on average of 5/12/09 and 6/3/09
Restored Section: R1-R15
Triangle a
R1
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R2
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R3
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R4
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
58
3
270
48
3
270
23490
19440
72
4.5
48
89
4.5
48
7776
9612
56
4.7
101
87
4.7
101
33
4.7
101
13291.6
20649.45
15665.1
42930
17388
216
3.86
74
99
0.29
74
30849.12
2124.54
R5
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
42
4.31
101
77
4.86
101
26
4.93
101
9141.51
18898.11
12946.18
R6
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
104
4.31
29
104
4.62
43
6499.48
20660.64
Volume
Total Volume
(m3)
49606.15
32973.66
40985.8
27160.12
79
(m3)
R7
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R8
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R9
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R10
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R11
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R12
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R13
base (m)
49
4.44
146
57
4.44
146
15881.88
18474.84
12
2
197
33
2
197
2364
6501
42
2
138
51
2
138
5796
7038
19
1.72
140
14
1.72
140
2287.6
1685.6
44
2.72
391
56
2.72
391
23397.44
29778.56
34356.72
8865
12834
3973.2
53176
22
2
84
1848
76
1848
80
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R14
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R15
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
2.5
65
6175
6175
53
1.5
113
4491.75
4491.75
43
2.24
121
65
2.24
121
5827.36
8808.8
14636.16
Non-Restored Section: R16-19
Triangle a
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
Total
Volume (m3)
R16
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
R17
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume
(m3)
43
2.24
302
65
2.24
302
14544.32
21985.6
38
2.24
255
79
2.24
255
51
2.24
255
10852.8
22562.4
29131.2
R18
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
62546.4
78
0.49
341
Volume (m3)
R19
base (m)
height (m)
36529.92
13033.02
60
1
55
1
138
1.5
13033.02
81
length (m)
259
259
259
Volume
(m3)
7770
7122.5
53613
68505.5
Saturated Sediment Volume on average of 8/10/09 and
10/10/09
Restored Section: R1-R15
Triangle a
R1
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R2
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R3
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R4
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R5
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R6
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R7
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
52
3.2
270
44
3.2
270
22464
19008
58
4.2
48
66
4.2
48
5846.4
6652.8
49
4
101
60
4
101
34
4
101
9898
12120
13736
Total Volume
(m3)
41472
12499.2
35754
208
3
74
23088
23088
38
3.9
101
72
3.9
101
29
3.9
101
7484.1
14180.4
11423.1
104
3.8
29
104
3.8
43
5730.4
16993.6
33087.6
22724
82
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R8
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R9
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R10
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R11
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R12
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R13
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R14
base (m)
height (m)
37
3.81
146
40
3.81
146
10290.81
11125.2
12
2
197
33
2
197
2364
6501
42
2
138
51
2
138
5796
7038
19
1.6
140
14
1.6
140
2128
1568
41
2.6
391
58
2.6
391
20840.3
29481.4
21416.01
8865
12834
3696
50321.7
22
2
84
1848
1848
76
2.5
65
6175
53
1.5
6175
83
length (m)
113
Volume (m )
3
R15
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
4491.75
4491.75
43
1.75
121
65
1.75
121
4552.625
6881.875
11434.5
Non-Restored Section: R16-19
Triangle a
Triangle b
Rectangular
prism
Total
Volume (m3)
R16
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R17
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
Volume (m3)
R18
base (m)
height (m)
length (m)
43
1.75
302
65
1.75
302
11362.75
17176.25
38
1.75
255
72
1.75
255
51
1.75
255
8478.75
16065
22758.75
28539
47302.5
71
0.7
341
Volume (m3)
R19
base (m)
height (m)
16947.7
16947.7
190
1.04
length (m)
259
Volume (m )
3
51178.4
51178.4
84
Appendix C: Groundwater Data
Piezometer
# (North
to South)
Date
water
level was
read
P1
10/21/07
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
11/14/08
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
P6
1704.20690
4
1704.80431
2
1704.74944
8
1704.07888
8
1704.48122
4
1704.60009
6
1704.77688
1704.69153
6
1704.69458
4
1704.57571
2
1704.25872
6/24/09
8/10/09
1703.93563
2
1704.69763
2
1704.62448
1703.92953
6
1704.51170
4
1704.67934
4
1704.66410
4
1703.7558
4/27/08
1703.93258
10/21/07
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/14/08
6/3/09
P5
Water
elevation
(m)
Depth of
water table
below
meadow
surface (ft.)
Depth of
water
table
below
meadow
surface
(m)
3.37
1.027176
1.41
0.429768
1.59
0.484632
3.79
1.155192
2.47
0.752856
2.08
0.633984
1.5
0.4572
1.78
0.542544
1.77
0.539496
2.16
3.2
0.658368
0.97536
2.66
0.810768
0.16
0.4
0.048768
0.12192
2.68
0.816864
0.77
0.234696
0.22
0.067056
0.27
3.25
0.082296
0.9906
2.07
0.630936
Averages
(Spring
or Fall)
0.4572
0.49987
2
0.81686
4
0.08534
4
0.69951
85
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
11/14/08
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
P4
10/21/07
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
11/14/08
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
P2
4
1703.79542
4
1703.23459
2
1703.29555
2
1703.02732
8
1703.82590
4
1703.92648
8
1703.80152
1703.44795
2
1703.30774
4
1702.78958
4
1704.10327
2
1704.15508
8
1704.06669
6
1703.99049
6
1704.26481
6
1704.54828
1704.54218
4
1704.56656
8
11/14/08
1702.74386
4
1702.32628
8
1701.80812
8
1701.546
1701.51856
8
5/12/09
1702.35372
10/21/07
4/27/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
6
2.52
0.768096
4.36
1.328928
4.16
1.267968
5.04
1.536192
2.42
0.737616
2.09
2.5
0.637032
0.762
3.66
1.115568
4.12
1.255776
6.42
1.956816
2.11
0.643128
1.94
0.591312
2.23
0.679704
2.48
0.755904
1.58
0.481584
0.65
0.19812
0.67
0.204216
0.59
0.179832
1.77
0.539496
3.14
0.957072
4.84
5.7
1.475232
1.73736
5.79
1.764792
3.05
0.92964
0.68732
4
1.18567
2
0.61722
0.20116
8
1.28320
8
86
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
P3
10/21/07
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
11/14/08
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
P7
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/7/08
11/14/08
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
P8
4/27/08
8/26/08
1701.64658
4
1702.30495
2
1702.09464
1701.68316
5.37
1.636776
3.21
3.9
5.25
0.978408
1.18872
1.6002
1698.36084
1699.26
1699.1076
1698.68088
1698.69612
1698.65649
6
8.45
5.5
6
7.4
7.35
2.57556
1.6764
1.8288
2.25552
2.24028
7.48
2.279904
1699.27524
1699.08626
4
1698.9552
1698.74488
8
1698.63516
5.45
1.66116
6.07
6.5
1.850136
1.9812
7.19
7.55
2.191512
2.30124
6.66
2.029968
5.03
1.533144
6.82
6.8
2.078736
2.07264
6.82
2.078736
4.7
1.43256
5.21
1.588008
5.51
1.679448
6.64
2.023872
6.84
2.084832
3.17
0.966216
5.32
1.621536
1698.20539
2
1698.70221
6
1698.15662
4
1698.16272
1698.15662
4
1698.8028
1698.64735
2
1698.55591
2
1698.21148
8
1698.15052
8
1698.81194
4
1698.15662
4
1.39446
1.7526
1.75564
8
2.24637
6
1.78155
6
1.51028
4
2.05435
2
87
P9
4/27/08
5/20/08
8/26/08
11/14/08
4/18/09
5/12/09
6/3/09
6/24/09
8/10/09
10/10/09
1699.15636
8
1698.88509
6
1698.02860
8
1698.20234
4
1699.23561
6
1699.12284
1699.01920
8
1698.92472
1698.30597
6
1698.16881
6
1.44
0.438912
2.33
0.710184
5.14
1.566672
4.57
1.392936
1.18
0.359664
1.55
0.47244
1.89
2.2
0.576072
0.67056
4.23
1.289304
4.68
1.426464
0.57454
8
0.52425
6
1.35788
4
88
References
Bogener, D.J., 2004, Clarks Creek stream/meadow restoration project fish and wildlife
monitoring report; State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of
Water Resources, Northern District Report.
Durrell, C., 1987, Geologic History of the Feather River Country, California: Berkeley
and Los Angeles, CA, University of California Press, 337 p.
Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group, 2001, Proposition 204 Final
Report, Summer 2001, 4 p.
Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group Website, Frequently Asked
Questions Page:
http://www.feather-river-crm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=102&Itemid=105
(Accessed July, 2013)
Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group Website, Clarks Creek Project
Page:
http://www.feather-river-crm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=15&Itemid=14
(Accessed July, 2013)
Fetter, C.W., 2001, Applied Hydrogeology: Fourth Edition: New Jersey, Prentice Hall,
598 p.
Grose, T.L.T., 2000, Geologic Map of The Portola 15-Minute Quadrangle, Plumas
County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File
Report 2000-22, Scale 1:62,500, 1 Sheet.
Hagberg, T.D., 1995, Relationships between hydrology, vegetation and gullies in
montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada; Humboldt State University Masters
Thesis.
Hammersmark, C.T., Dobrowski, S.Z., Rains, M.C., and Mount, J.F., 2010, Simulated
Effects of Stream Restoration on the Distribution of Wet-Meadow Vegetation.
Restoration Ecology, 18: 882-893.
Lindquist, D.S., Wilcox, J., 2000, New concepts for meadow restoration in the Northern
Sierra Nevada, Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group
Publication.
89
Mooney, Harold M., 1984, Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, Volume 1: Seismic:
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bison Instruments, Inc.
Oehrli, C.W., 2005, Influences of headwater meadows on peak flows in the Lake Tahoe
Basin; Humboldt State University Masters Thesis.
Peyton, G.R., et al., 1986, Effective Porosity of Geologic Materials. Proceedings of the
Twelfth Annual Research Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/600/9-86:21-8.
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2004,
Feather River Watershed Management Strategy For Implementing The Monterey
Settlement Agreement, May 2004: 32 p.
Ratliff, R.D., 1985, Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: State of Knowledge;
U.S. Forest Service General technical report PSW ; 84.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994, A classification of natural rivers: Catena, v. 22, p. 169-199.
Saucedo, G.L., and Wagner, D.L., 1990, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of Part of The
Kettle Rock 15-Minute Quadrangle, Plumas and Lassen Counties, California:
California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 90-7, Scale
1:62,500, 1 Sheet.
Wagner, D.L., and Saucedo, G.J., 1990, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of The Milford
15-Minute Quadrangle, Lassen and Plumas Counties, California: California
Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 90-8, Scale 1:62,500, 1
Sheet.
Wakabayashi, J., and Sawyer, T.L., 2001, Stream Incision, Uplift, and Evolution of
Topography of the Sierra Nevada, California: The Journal of Geology, v. 109, p.
539-562.
Wilcox, J., 2007, Personal Communication, July, 2007.
Wood, S.H., 1975, Holocene Stratigraphy and Chronology of Mountain Meadows, Sierra
Nevada, California; California Institute of Technology Ph.D Thesis.