Sausal Creek, Watershed Assessment
Oakland, CA
Dimond Canyon Reach
May 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 and
location 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 ProfileHarrelson
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)
Location of xsection 2
202
Location of
stop/start point for
two-day
measurement
(noticeable change
in discharge)
200
Location of
xsection 1 and
upstream pool
198
ll
nkfu
i
(est
mat
-sec
mx
o
r
f
ed
)
s
tion
Ba
y = 0.0172x + 193.09
y = 0.0174x + 192.2
196
y = 0.0182x + 192.78
Thalweg Elevation
3-25-05 Water surface elevation
3-20-05 Water surface elevation
Linear (3-20-05 Water surface elevation)
Linear (3-25-05 Water surface elevation)
Linear (Thalweg Elevation)
194
192
190
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Dense vegetation cover affected choice of crosssection locations
X-section 1
(all measurements in feet)
South
North
208
Ground surface elevation
Water surface elevation 3-20-05
204
200
SouthPool upstream
Northof x-section 1
194.6
194.4
194.2
194
193.8
196
193.6
193.4
Pool bed elevation
193.2
193
Pool water surface
elevation
192.8
192.6
21
22.3 27.3 28.3 29.3 30.3 31.3 32.1 32.4
192
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Badger-infested (?) vegetation,
Cross Section 1
X-section 2 (3-25-05)
(all meaurements in feet)
South
North
216
Ground surface elevation
Water surface elevation (3-25-05)
212
208
204
200
196
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
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)
South
North
216
Ground surface elevation
Water surface elevation (3-25-05)
212
208
204
200
196
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
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 restorationsuccess assessment by further studies.
References
Barnes, Harry Jr.. 1967. “Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels,” USGS Water Supply Paper1849. 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-2342
Jackson, 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.