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.
Top Related