1 / 35

California Trout

California Trout. Hat Creek Restoration Project 2014. Overview. California Trout Hat Creek background Project overview. The mission of California Trout is to protect and restore Wild Trout , Steelhead and Salmon and their waters throughout California. Mission.

maximus-zenas
Download Presentation

California Trout

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. California Trout Hat Creek Restoration Project 2014

  2. Overview • California Trout • Hat Creek background • Project overview

  3. The mission of California Trout is to protectand restore Wild Trout,Steelhead and Salmonand their waters throughoutCalifornia.

  4. Mission • Protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, and salmon, and their waters throughout California • Six strategically located regional offices • Accomplish our work through advocacy, law, and on-the-ground restoration projects • Current projects: Klamath, McCloud, Pit, Upper Sacramento, Hat, Fall, Shasta River

  5. Background: Hydrology Hat Creek originates from groundwater captured by Lassen Peak Highlands • Big Springs is largest input in upper Hat Creek: 125 cfs • Rising River contributes most of discharge in lower Hat Creek: 275-300 cfs • Summer base flows in WTA: 400-650 cfs

  6. Background: Wild Trout Area • 1972: CalTrout works with DFG to designate Hat Creek as the state’s first protected “Wild Trout Area” • Project transforms fisheries management in California by underscoring importance of managing for “wildtrout” populations • Regulations changed, fish barrier installed, chemical treatment, stocked with disease resistant Pit River strain • 1979 to 1988: Hat Creek angler satisfaction peaks

  7. Background: Timeline

  8. Background: Sediment

  9. Carbon Flat: June 1991

  10. Sediment Hypothesis • Sediment 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 WTA • Wave has mostly passed through upper half of project area, now located around Wood Duck Island (Cook 2000)

  11. Problem

  12. Restoration Project Overview • In-stream habitat • Riparian restoration • Recreation plan

  13. In-stream Habitat Restoration • Restore 1.5 miles of in-stream habitat with 4 structures of large woody debris • Increase in-stream habitat diversity and complexity • Provide stable substrates for aquatic plant recruitment and colonization • Replicate existing geomorphic and ecosystem processes that provide current habitat

  14. Geomorphology and Hydrology

  15. Riparian Restoration • Restore 1.5 miles of stream banks with over 5,000 native plants, trees, shrubs, and grasses • Stabilize stream banks from decades of unrestricted grazing and muskrat invasion • Restore the ecological function of the Wild Trout Area riparian corridor

  16. Recreation Improvements

  17. 5 Year Conservation Objectives • Wild trout populations: increase from 2,000 to 5,000 fish per mile with 30% > 12 inches • In-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

  18. Common Misconceptions • Hat Creek needs to be dredged in order to fix sediment problem? • Actually not enough sediment (deep enough deposits) to make suction dredging an option • Rough sculpin (Fully Protected Species law) legally prevents dredging from being an option • Sediment has largely moved through WTA reach (although deposits still reside in certain areas), veg beginning to grow again

  19. Common Misconceptions • Flume road washout caused slug? • Flume road not the source of the slug, only produced an estimated 300 cubic yards • Sediment 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)

  20. Common Misconceptions • PG&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 system • What comes into the PG&E project area flows through • Agricultural diversions upstream of hydro project are not within PG&E control

  21. Common Misconceptions • Stream was deeper in the good old days? • Generally true, however, not for the reasons people think: sediment has not filled up the river • Healthy aquatic vegetation used to slow down flows and increase water depths • Aquatic 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

  22. Common Misconceptions • Hat 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

More Related