Sausal Creek, Watershed Assessment Oakland, CA

Dimond Canyon ReachMay 2005

Shoshana Risman, Rich McNelis

GEOG 642

Background

• 2656 acre drainage• perennial flow

• start:

~ 1,300 ft elev in open space park

East Bay Regional Park Dist. • Middle:

culverts, golf courses, Hwys, Med-High Dense Urban

• End:Sea level in Oakland Estuary

Geology

• Tertiary Strata: Mesozoic Coast Range ophiolite complex and Franciscan complex; gabbro, basalts, chert, metamorphosed graywacke (not seen in field)

• Novato Quarry Terrane: massive folded and fractured sandstone (many visible outcrops)

Historic Watershed Management Impacts

Impacts:

biodiversity

hillside erosion

stream sedimentation

flooding

declining water quality

Historic Watershed Land Management

Historic Exploitation:• Logging • Water Diversion• Damming• Reservoirs• Intense Urbanization• Channelization• Culverting

Dimond Canyon

• Highly impacted

• Drains Palo Seco and Sheperds Canyon Creeks

• Accessible for Community-Based Education, Monitoring, Restoration and Advocacy

Current Watershed Management Efforts

January 2000 -

Sausal Creek Watershed Action Plan (SCWAP) 25 yr program by Friends of Sausal Creek

November 2001 -

Restoration Dimond Canyon

Erosion Control: Hillside and Bankside

Our Study Reach

El Centro Bridge Benchmark Site

Approximate starting point andlocation of downstream cross-section

South of turnaround

Turnaround: East and West Facing

North of turnaround

Stream at restoration equipment turnaround

Constructed step pools, Cross section 1

Turbidity and Water Quality:

Sediment observed; ammonia, total

coliforms and e. coli recorded by Sarah Ash, UC Berkeley

Dimond Reach Survey Goals

• Characterize stream morphology • Practice and critique our application

of Field techniques. • Compare sets of morphological data

to assess restoration success

Harrelson Field Methods

Map Site - trail map, GIS Watershed map, field sketch corrected with compass/clinometer

Channel X-Sections - 2 using Harrelson technique at representative site at each meander

Longitudinal Profile-

Harrelson

Stream Flow - Orange Peel Velocity Method for Discharge calculation

Measure Bed Material-Pebble count - standard, 2, at X-sections

Wading, Whining, and Measuring the long profile

Longitudinal profile (3-20-05, 3-25-05)(all measurements in feet)

y = 0.0182x + 192.78

y = 0.0172x + 193.09

y = 0.0174x + 192.2

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Bankfull (estimated from x-sections)

Thalweg Elevation3-25-05 Water surface elevation3-20-05 Water surface elevationLinear (3-20-05 Water surface elevation)Linear (3-25-05 Water surface elevation)Linear (Thalweg Elevation)

Location of x-section 1 and upstream pool

Location of x-section 2

Location of stop/start point for

two-day measurement

(noticeable change in discharge)

Dense vegetation cover affected choice of cross-section locations

X-section 1 (all measurements in feet)

192

196

200

204

208

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

South North

Ground surface elevation

Water surface elevation 3-20-05

Pool upstream of x-section 1

192.6

192.8

193

193.2

193.4

193.6

193.8

194

194.2

194.4

194.6

21 22.3 27.3 28.3 29.3 30.3 31.3 32.1 32.4

South North

Pool bed elevation

Pool water surfaceelevation

Badger-infested (?) vegetation, Cross Section 1

X-section 2 (3-25-05)(all meaurements in feet)

196

200

204

208

212

216

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

South North

Ground surface elevation

Water surface elevation (3-25-05)

North bank vegetation and Slope, Cross Section 2

Results

• Long-profile slope: .0172 - .0182• Median grain size: 20 mm• Deeply-incised stream Channel• Discharge 4.29 cfs or 0.12 cms• Calculated N- 0.0154

– Represents VERY SMOOTH BED (cement pipe-culvert)

Restoration effect on Morphology still in progress, bankful and floodplain in flux.

Mannings N estimate from USGS Water Supply paper 1849

Rosgen Classification

X-section 2 (3-25-05)(all meaurements in feet)

196

200

204

208

212

216

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

South North

Ground surface elevation

Water surface elevation (3-25-05)

Questions:

• 1) Can we compare pre-restoration slope with immediate post-resto slope with current slope?

• 2) Are rainfall patterns since restoration significant enough to make any "bankfull" determinations valid or meaningful?

• 3) Improve characterization and restoration-success assessment by further studies.

ReferencesBarnes, Harry Jr.. 1967. “Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels,” USGS Water Supply Paper-

1849. US Govt Printing Office, Wash. DC.Graymer, R.W. ?. Geologic map and database of the Oakland Metroploitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa,

and San Francisco Counties. USGS; MF-2342Jackson, et al 2004 “Sausul Creek Watershed Assessment.” San Francisco State University, Geography

642. http://bss.sfsu.edu/jdavis/geo_642/WshedProjects.htm (last viewed on-line 5/18/05). Ash, S.L. ?. Monitoring the Water Quality of Sausel Creek. Environmental Sciences, University of

California, Berkeley.Owens-Viani, Lisa. 1998. Sausal Creek Watershed: A Cultural and Natural History. Richmond: Aquatic

Outreach Institute. FOSC (Friends of Sausal Creek). 2004. Promoting Watershed Awareness http://www.sausalcreek.org

(last viewed on-line 5/18/05). Chanse, Vikki. 2003. Along Sausal Creek: an assessment of vegetation, habitat and morphology of an

adopted urban creek. Berkeley, CA: Water Resources Archive http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=wrca (last viewed on-line 5/18/04).

OPW (Oakland Public Works). 2001. Sausal Creek Restoration Project. http://www.oaklandpw.com/creeks/sausal_complete.htm (last viewed on-line 5/18/04).

OPW (Oakland Public Works. Date unknown (likely 2000). Initial Environmental Review Sausal Creek Restoration in Dimond Canyon. Courtesy of Ali Schwarz, OPW.