1 / 52

WUQWATR Wascana Riparian Health Assessment Project

WUQWATR Wascana Riparian Health Assessment Project. Phase 3 interim report August 2014. Who is WUQWATR?. Local non-profit source water protection agency Implementing “Getting to the Source”, with 82 recommendations Covers two watershed area, the Wascana and the Upper Qu’Appelle

jeri
Download Presentation

WUQWATR Wascana Riparian Health Assessment Project

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. WUQWATR Wascana Riparian Health Assessment Project Phase 3 interim report August 2014

  2. Who is WUQWATR? • Local non-profit source water protection agency • Implementing “Getting to the Source”, with 82 recommendations • Covers two watershed area, the Wascana and the Upper Qu’Appelle • Agriculture programming, invasive weed management and research • More info at www.wuqwatr.ca

  3. WUQWATR Watersheds

  4. Wascana Riparian Health Assessment • Lack of Riparian Health Assessment data in Wascana Watershed identified in 2008 • Funding received for project design from Saskatchewan Watershed Authority in 2009/10 • Field work was delayed by flood conditions in 2011

  5. Wascana Riparian Health Assessment • First field assessments in summer 2012 within City of Regina boundaries • Further design and field assessments took place in 2013 on Creek upstream of Regina • Third phase completed this summer downstream of Regina to the Qu’Appelle, and on portion of Cottonwood Creek

  6. Phase 3 study area

  7. Why Wascana Creek? • Smallest Saskatchewan watershed area, with highest population density • Highly modified environment. • Major urban impact, and intensive cropping • Saskatchewan State of the Watershed Report condition ranking is “Impacted” • Saskatchewan State of the Watershed Report stressor ranks “High Intensity” • Issues of flooding, invasives, nutrient loading, high streamflow downstream of Regina.

  8. Why Wascana Creek?

  9. What is the riparian area?

  10. Why Riparian Health Assessment ? • Riparian Health Assessment uses observational data to measure indicators of riparian health • Some indicators involve identification of plant species composition and plant cover, and condition of plant life • Other indicators classify the physical condition of the bank such as structural composition and integrity

  11. Why Riparian Health Assessment ? • Allows for a better understanding of the condition of key ecological functions on the landscape • Data collected can be used as a baseline to monitor condition over time • Results can compare different management zones along a waterway • Results can inform management decisions made by landowners and managers • Can be used to identify project sites

  12. Key Ecological Functions of Riparian Areas • Trap sediment • Build and maintain streambanks • Store flood water and energy • Recharge of aquifers • Filter and buffer water • Reduce and dissipate stream energy • Maintain biodiversity • Create primary productivity

  13. Measures of Riparian Function-Streambank Protection and Development • Balances erosion with bank restoration – reduces effects of erosion by adding bank elsewhere • Increases stability and resilience • Maintains or restores the profile of the channel – and extends the width of riparian area through higher water table

  14. Riparian Health Assessment -Method • Utilizes two categories – Lotic for rivers and streams, lentic for lakes, sloughs, wetlands • Utilizes set questions – 12 for lotic system, 9 for lentic system • Utilizes visual observation and assigns point scores based on data • Overall Health score of 80% or greater rates “healthy” • Overall Health score of 60%-79% rates “healthy with problems” • Overall Health score of less than 60% rates “unhealthy”

  15. Health Assessment Ratings – “Healthy” • Scores 80 or higher • All riparian functions are being performed • High level of riparian condition • Demonstrates resiliency and stability

  16. Healthy Riparian Score

  17. Health Assessment Ratings- Healthy with Problems • Scores range from 60-79 • Many riparian functions are being performed, but some clear signs of stress are apparent • The reach area many not be as capable of rebounding from floods and human activity

  18. “Healthy with Problems”

  19. Health Assessment Ratings- “Unhealthy” • Scores 0 -59 • Most riparian functions are severely impaired or have been lost • Reach has lost most of its resiliency, stability is compromised

  20. “Unhealthy score”

  21. Vegetative Cover – preferred species • Preferred species have deep binding root mass • Most preferred species are native plants • Good balance of trees –Willow, Manitoba Maple, Elm, Green Ash, Hawthorn • Shrubs Chokecherry, Saskatoon, Dogwood • Forbs and grasses - Cattails, rushes, reed grass, native grasses

  22. Vegetative cover – invasive and disturbance species • Invasive species out-compete preferred species • Often are exotic plants that lack local controls • Invasive plants impair riparian function • Brome grass is pervasive throughout watershed, replaces preferred grasses • Disturbance plants grow where preferred species have disappeared • Sow thistle, burdock, dandelion

  23. Top 4 invasive plants species

  24. Top 4 invasive plant species – smooth brome

  25. Top 4 invasive plant species – scentless chamomile

  26. Top 4 invasive species – Absinthe

  27. Health rating – Wascana Creek Downstream

  28. Results- Vegetative cover Average coverage score was 3 out of 6, which indicates significant areas of bare ground due to water Lots of areas where flooding had washed out large areas, especially on outside meanders Bare ground was more common further downstream

  29. Vegetative Cover

  30. Invasive species • Average score for Wascana Creek was .04 out of 6 • Prevalence of smooth brome • Also widespread scentless chamomile, thistle, Absinth and locations with leafy spurge

  31. Presence of preferred trees and shrubs • Overall average score on trees and shrubs is 8.8 out of 12 • Trees are present and regenerating themselves • Presence of beaver browsing lowers score • Where are the beaver dams?

  32. Deep rooted vegetation • Average Wascana score of 2 out of 6 • Indicates that overall only 35%-65% of the streambank is anchored with deep, binding root mass

  33. Human caused bare ground and alteration by human activity • Average scores are 4.5 out of 6 for human caused bare ground • Average score of 4.8 for human alteration • These are good indications about local management

  34. Active lateral cutting • Average Wascana score is .7 out of 6 • This indicates that at least 30% of the site reach shows active lateral cutting from stream flow

  35. Lateral cutting of banks

  36. Access to flood plain • Average Wascana score was 2.1 out of 9 • This means that the stream cannot access its flood plain • This continues the cycle of incisement and slumping, until bank stability is achieved by erosion

  37. Access to flood plain

  38. Cottonwood Creek results

  39. Interpretation of results – physical structure • Physical structure of streambank has been clearly compromised by high peak flows, and intense rainfall events over the year • Problems with high flows are compounded by 60 meter drop in elevation • Highly erodible glacial till soils further downstream • Clay, loam, gravel, sand

  40. Wascana Creek historical hydrograph

  41. Wascana Creek hydrograph 2014 –Qu’Appelle

  42. 2011 hydrograph –Wascana Creek at Qu’Appelle

  43. Wascana Creek water level -2014 April 1-Aug

  44. Seven Bridges Road RM#189

  45. WWTP - outlet

  46. Interpretation of results – Invasive species • Scores overall lowered due to invasive plant species • Some species like smooth brome are too pervasive to be controlled • Expansion of other species like leafy spurge can be controlled • Evidence of flood damage leading to spread of invasive and disturbance plants

  47. Phase 3 Downstream of Regina • Flow from WWTP has altered Creek hydrograph to flow year round • Impacts from recent high flows are pronounced • Potential impacts from stormwater flows from hard surface in Regina. High peak runoff events downstream

  48. Phase 3 downstream of Regina • Constant flows are likely impacting establishment of vegetation, increasing erosive force on gravelly glacial soils • Recent major slumping at sites like Sherwood Forest and Deer Valley • Seven Bridges Road in RM #189 has serious erosion issues • Cottonwood Creek is healthy but now the receiving waterbody for the GTH stormwater system

  49. Total results for 3 phases 150 sites

  50. Overall results • Healthiest sites are riparian park areas in Regina • Much engineering alteration in City and upstream, which may speed up water • Creek serves as natural pathway for invasives • Improvement will require cooperation and creativity

More Related