Hat Creek Restoration Project

California TroutHat Creek Restoration Project 2014

OverviewCalifornia TroutHat Creek backgroundProject overview

The mission of California Trout is to protect and restore Wild Trout ,Steelhead and Salmon and their waters throughout California.3MissionProtect and restore wild trout, steelhead, and salmon, and their waters throughout California

Six strategically located regional officesAccomplish our work through advocacy, law, and on-the-ground restoration projectsCurrent projects: Klamath, McCloud, Pit, Upper Sacramento, Hat, Fall, Shasta River44Background: HydrologyHat Creek originates from groundwater captured by Lassen Peak Highlands

Big Springs is largest input in upper Hat Creek: 125 cfsRising River contributes most of discharge in lower Hat Creek: 275-300 cfsSummer base flows in WTA: 400-650 cfs

5Background: Wild Trout Area1972: CalTrout works with DFG to designate Hat Creek as the states first protected Wild Trout Area

Project transforms fisheries management in California by underscoring importance of managing for wild trout populationsRegulations changed, fish barrier installed, chemical treatment, stocked with disease resistant Pit River strain 1979 to 1988: Hat Creek angler satisfaction peaks6Background: Timeline1900sHat Creek is blue ribbon destination wild trout fishery1915Lassen Peak eruption1920Hydro construction begins1925Construction of Lake Britton introduces non-game fish1960Heavy angling pressure, non-game fish, unrestricted cattle, invasive muskrats degrade fishery1968DFG and CalTrout lead restoration effort1972DFG designates Hat Creek CAs first Wild Trout Area1973DFG fish surveys over 6,800 fish per mile (e-fishing)1979Aerial photography shows first evidence of sedimentBackground: Sediment1979Aerial photography shows first evidence of sediment influx1985Aerial photography shows more sediment accumulation1990Sediment slug visible in Hat 2 riffle, begins covering aquatic veg1991Estimated 60,000 cubic yards of sediment in Wild Trout Area, or aggradation average of 1.5 feet (Kondolf, 1994)1992Sediment slug visible at Carbon Bridge1993Stream bed at Carbon 1-2 feet higher than in 19991998Only 5-7% of sources of sediment identified (Cook)2000Sediment slug visible at Teal Island, influx begins to stabilize2012Vegetation begins to regrow, tail end of slug identified

Carbon Flat: June 1991

Sediment HypothesisSediment likely came from aquifer between Baum Lake and the Hat 2 Bypass Reach

Hydrologic connectivity between sinkholes near the Baum Lake Dam and the upper Hat 2 Bypass Reach Sinkholes/lava tubes likely collapsed forcing sediment into WTAWave has mostly passed through upper half of project area, now located around Wood Duck Island (Cook 2000)12Problem Restoration Project OverviewIn-stream habitatRiparian restorationRecreation plan

In-stream Habitat RestorationRestore 1.5 miles of in-stream habitat with 4 structures of large woody debris

Increase in-stream habitat diversity and complexityProvide stable substrates for aquatic plant recruitment and colonizationReplicate existing geomorphic and ecosystem processes that provide current habitat

Geomorphology and Hydrology

Riparian RestorationRestore 1.5 miles of stream banks with over 5,000 native plants, trees, shrubs, and grassesStabilize stream banks from decades of unrestricted grazing and muskrat invasionRestore the ecological function of the Wild Trout Area riparian corridor

Guilds contain 39 plants per guildThree different spacing regimes: low, med, high density25

Recreation Improvements

5 Year Conservation ObjectivesWild trout populations: increase from 2,000 to 5,000 fish per mile with 30% > 12 inchesIn-stream habitat: restore 1 mile with 4 units of large wood structures (4 logs per structure)Riparian habitat: 85% coverage over 1.5 miles of Wild Trout Area, over 5,000 native plants with 75% survival over 5 years

Common MisconceptionsHat Creek needs to be dredged in order to fix sediment problem?

Actually not enough sediment (deep enough deposits) to make suction dredging an optionRough sculpin (Fully Protected Species law) legally prevents dredging from being an optionSediment has largely moved through WTA reach (although deposits still reside in certain areas), veg beginning to grow again

31Common MisconceptionsFlume road washout caused slug?

Flume road not the source of the slug, only produced an estimated 300 cubic yardsSediment from this event was actually unnoticeable (less than 1% of total input)Total sediment in system is 50,000 to 84,000 tons (40,000 to 60,000 cubic yards)

32Common MisconceptionsPG&E flow diversions are responsible for major erosion problems?

PG&E does not actually have tight control of stream discharge: no storage or peaking in systemWhat comes into the PG&E project area flows throughAgricultural diversions upstream of hydro project are not within PG&E control

33Common MisconceptionsStream was deeper in the good old days?

Generally true, however, not for the reasons people think: sediment has not filled up the riverHealthy aquatic vegetation used to slow down flows and increase water depthsAquatic vegetation has declined (likely due to mobile bedload sediment). Reduction in rooted vegetation causes water to move faster (decreased transit time), so water depth decreased 34Common MisconceptionsHat Creek is a spring creek with low gradient and therefore has low sediment transport capacity?

Hat Creek sediment transport rates are actually higher than most think due to a constant high volume of water (year round rather than primarily during bankfull events) Hat Creek watershed produces low-density, sandy volcanic sediment that is easily transported

35