WUQWATR Wascana Riparian Health Assessment Project

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