Rat River

Seine Rat River Conservation District
Rat River Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey
SEINE RAT RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RAT RIVER JOUBERT CREEK AQUATIC HABITAT AND RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT SURVEY
A Report Prepared For Seine Rat River Conservation District
By
P.G. Graveline, W.J. Western, and D.S. MacDonell
2005
Final Report March 2006
Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted to provide baseline information on the aquatic habitat and riparian areas of the Rat River and Joubert Creek that could be used to facilitate selection of locations for rehabilitation efforts. Existing physical, hydrological, water quality, and fisheries information was compiled and summarized for the Rat River and Joubert Creek. The field component of this project involved the collection of aerial video of the Rat River and Joubert Creek for subsequent land use/land cover classification and to assist in the development of rehabilitation efforts. Additional field work involved: spring and summer fish utilization surveys, collection of hydrology and basic water quality parameters, and groundtruthing aerial video interpretations. Historical water quality information for the Rat River and Joubert Creek indicates that pH and nitrate values were always in compliance with Manitoba Water Quality Guidelines while dissolved oxygen concentrations often were not. Ammonia, nitrate, and total phosphorus concentrations on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek generally increased with distance downstream, indicating cumulative effects. The more noticeably higher total phosphorus concentrations in Joubert Creek suggest that this stream may be a significant source of phosphorus to the lower reaches of the rat River. Historic fisheries investigations of the Rat River and Joubert Creek suggest that twelve families of fish, representing 31 species, could inhabit these waters. Two of these species, silver chub and chestnut lamprey, are listed under COSEWIC as special concern. Neither of the two species listed as special concern were captured during spring and summer fishing surveys. However, 13 species of fish were captured at various locations throughout the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Approximately 262 km of the Rat River and Joubert Creek were classified according to general land use/land cover. Fifty-three percent of the land use/cover in this area was considered natural (i.e., forest land, water, wetland) while 47% was considered to be anthropogenic (i.e., urban or built-up land, agricultural land, rangeland, barren land). Approximately 183 km of the Rat River was classified according to land use/land cover, with agricultural land (32%) comprising the greatest portion. Of the 79 km of Joubert Creek classified, forest (43%) comprised the greatest percentage of land use/land cover followed by agricultural land (31%). Qualitative classifications of bank stability, channel morphology, barriers to fish movement, and intactness of the riparian zone were rated along 183 km of the Rat River and 79 km of Joubert Creek. Based on these ratings, one of four aquatic habitat quality ratings (Class A minimally impacted; Class B moderately impacted; Class C highly impacted; Class D severely impacted) was assigned to each stream reach where attributes were similar. Over one-half (55%) of the Rat River was categorized as Class A: followed by Class C (26%); Class B (11%); and Class D (8%). Along Joubert Creek, i
Class A (42%) reaches comprised the majority of creek classified, followed by Class C (34%), Class B (16%), and Class D (8%) reaches. Overall, an assessment of the Rat River and Joubert Creek illustrates an area that is moderately to highly impacted by anthropogenic forces. A total of 56 sites have been identified within the study area that warrant potential rehabilitation. Five of these sites, all severely impacted, were selected and discussed within this document. The sites were chosen based on the type and variety of impacts associated with them, potential of the site to be viewed by the public, and landowner cooperation. The rehabilitation measures described within the five sites can be used by SRRCD for development of future rehabilitation efforts towards watershed restoration.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Wade Biggin of Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch (Winnipeg) is thanked for conducting a search of the Fisheries Inventory and Habitat Classification System. Dr. Ken Stewarts (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) fisheries investigations throughout the Rat River watershed provided excellent information on distribution of fish species. Residents of the Rat River Joubert Creek watershed are thanked for allowing access to property and providing valuable knowledge of the study area. Where possible, the information was included in this report. Fieldwork described within this report was conducted under Manitoba Water Stewardship, Fisheries Branch Scientific Collection Permit # 12-05.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 METHODS.............................................................................................................................2 2.1 Historical Review..........................................................................................................2 2.1.1 Physical and Hydrological Information .......................................................... 2 2.1.2 Water Quality.................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Fish Species Utilization .................................................................................. 2 Field Surveys ................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Aerial Videography......................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Groundtruthing................................................................................................ 3 2.2.3 Physical and Hydrological Information .......................................................... 3 2.2.4 Water Quality.................................................................................................. 3 2.2.5 Fish Species Utilization .................................................................................. 4 Watershed Classification ..............................................................................................5 2.3.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions ............................................................................ 6 2.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality .................................................................................. 9
2.2
2.3
3.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................................11 3.1 Historical Review........................................................................................................11 3.1.1 Physical and Hydrological Information ........................................................ 11 3.1.2 Water Quality................................................................................................ 12 3.1.3 Fish Species Utilization ................................................................................ 13 3.1.4 Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 15 Field Surveys ..............................................................................................................15 3.2.1 Physical and Hydrological Information ........................................................ 15 3.2.2 Water Quality................................................................................................ 16 3.2.3 Fish Species Utilization ................................................................................ 16 Watershed Classification ............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions .......................................................................... 18 3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Rating .................................................................... 18
3.2
3.3
4.0
POTENTIAL REHABILITATION SITES ..........................................................................19 4.1 4.2 SITE 17: ERODING DRAIN/BARREN MEANDER ..............................................21 SITE 21: INSTREAM BARRIER/ BANK EROSION/DENUDED RIPARIAN..................................................................................................................24
iv
Page
4.3 4.4 4.5 5.0 SITE 51: CLOSE CULTIVATION/SLUMPING/ DENUDED RIPARIAN ZONE..........................................................................................................................26 SITE 14: CATTLE ACCESS/ DENUDED RIPARIAN/FORD CROSSING ...........28 SITE 39: CATTLE/SHORELINE EROSION/ DENUDED RIPARIAN ..................32
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................36
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Presence of fish species within the Rat River, based on the results of an FIHCS search conducted by Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch, 2005. Common names of fish species and abbreviations used throughout this document also provided. ........................ 40 Compilation of fisheries investigations, including location captured, conducted within the Rat River and Joubert Creek by Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) between 1966 and 2004. ............................................................................................... 41 Summary of fisheries investigations conducted, by reach, on the Rat River by Milani and Milani (1995).......................................................... 43 Calculated discharges and velocities from the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ................................................................................................... 44 Water quality data collected in situ (i.e., in the field) from the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 45 Spring fish utilization results, by location and date, along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 46 Summer fish utilization results, by location and date, along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 47 Total number of reaches (by land use), length of water course classified, and percentage of reach by land use cover along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 48 Total number of reaches (by habitat quality rating), length of water course classified, and percentage of reach by rating along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 49
Table 2.
Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8.
Table 9.
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Rat River Joubert Creek aquatic resource inventory study area, 2005. ....... 51 Figure 2. Mean monthly discharges in the Rat River (Station # 050E001) from 1912 to 2004 ................................................................................................... 52 Figure 3. Median, upper and lower daily quartile flows for the Rat River (Station # 050E001) for the period 1912 to 2004......................................................... 52 Figure 4. Mean monthly discharges in Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) from 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). .......................................................................................................... 53 Figure 5. Median, upper and lower daily quartile flows for Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) for the period 1966 to 2004 ........................................... 53 Figure 6. Identification points used to generate a longitudinal stream bed profile along the Rat River. ........................................................................................ 54 Figure 7. Longitudinal stream bed profile of the Rat River. .......................................... 54 Figure 8 Identification points used to generate a longitudinal stream bed profile along Joubert Creek. ....................................................................................... 55
Figure 9. Longitudinal stream bed profile of Joubert Creek. ......................................... 55 Figure 10. Reaches of the Rat River, as defined by Dr. Ken Stewart and locations of historical water quality stations. ................................................................. 56 Figure 11. Hydrologic, in situ, and photographic sampling locations along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005........................................................................ 57 Figure 12. Location of spring and summer fishing locations, Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2004. ....................................................................................... 58 Figure 13. General land use/land cover along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 14. Aquatic habitat quality ratings along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 15. Potential rehabilitation sites identified along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. .................................................................................................... 61
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix 1.1 Monthly mean discharges (m /sec) on the Rat River (Station # 050E001) for the period 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). ..................................................... 63 Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for the Rat River (Station # 050E001) from 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). ................................................................... 65 Monthly mean discharges (m3/sec) on Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) for the period 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). ..................................................... 70 Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) from 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). ................................................................... 71 Results of the MWSFB FIHCS search for Rat River, 2005................ 76 Provincial (MWSFB) stocking records for the Rat River and St. Malo Lake, 1955 to 1997. ................................................................... 87 Physical information collected from the Rat River, during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ....................................................................................... 88 Physical information collected along Joubert Creek, during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ....................................................................................... 90 Hydrological information collected from the Rat River during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. .................................................................... 91 Hydrological information collected from Joubert Creek during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. .................................................................... 93 Biological information for fish captured during the spring fish utilization component of the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ........................................... 94 Index of rehabilitation sites, including descriptions, and aerial video chronology for the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ........................................... 97
3
Appendix 1.2
Appendix 1.3
Appendix 1.4
Appendix 2.1 Appendix 3.1 Appendix 4.1
Appendix 4.2
Appendix 5.1
Appendix 5.2
Appendix 6.1
Appendix 7.1
vii
viii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Seine-Rat River Conservation District (SRRCD) invited North/South Consultants to conduct the Rat River Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey. The primary objective of this survey was to provide the SRRCD board and partner municipalities with a comprehensive overview of riparian and land use conditions affecting the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Specific objectives of the assessment included:
Compiling and summarizing historical information on hydrology, water quality, and fisheries resources; Determining fish use of the Rat River and Joubert Creek by conducting spring and summer surveys; Determining land use practices along stream corridors; Documenting riparian conditions; Identifying and prioritizing sites in the watershed that are contributing to degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat; and Providing input with regard to mitigative works at five specific sites.
This report provides baseline aquatic habitat and riparian conditions pertaining to the Rat River and Joubert Creek, as well as areas that may be stressors on this watershed. It can act as a resource tool for continued watershed management and water quality improvements.
2.0
METHODS
2.1
HISTORICAL REVIEW
2.1.1 Physical and Hydrological Information Historical hydrological data for the Rat River and Joubert Creek was obtained from Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada (ECWSC 2005: www.msc.ec.gc.ca/wsc). Three stations are located along the Rat River: Station # 050E00: 1912-2003 (near Otterburne), Station # 050E002: 1959-1994 (near St. Malo), and Station # 050E004: 1960-2003 (near Sundown). On Joubert Creek data are available from Station # 050E007 (1966-2003; near St. Pierre-Jolys) and Station # 050E015 (2002-2004; near Pansy). Using a USGS digital elevation model (DEM), longitudinal streambed profiles were generated for the Rat River and Joubert Creek. The profiles were generated by intersecting points along the Rat River and Joubert Creek polylines with 90 metre Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) USGS DEM, using Spatial Analyst extension in ESRI ArcGIS v.9. 2.1.2 Water Quality Historical water quality information (1973 2001) was obtained from the Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Water Stewardship (WQMS 2004). The data were sorted and tabularized to assist in the recognition of water quality trends. Recent (2001-04) water quality data from the Rat River and Joubert Creek were obtained from Southeast Soil Conservation Organization (SESCO) (2004). 2.1.3 Fish Species Utilization The Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch (MWSFB) office in Winnipeg was queried with regard to historical fish utilization in the Rat River watershed. The MWSFB Fisheries Inventory Habitat Classification System (FIHCS) was also searched. Where possible, interviews were conducted with local landowners and tenants who live within the watershed. Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) was also approached for information regarding this watershed.
2.2
FIELD SURVEYS
2.2.1 Aerial Videography Aerial videography was collected from a Cessna 172 on May 11, 2005. Videography equipment included: a laptop loaded with ESRI ArcGIS, ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) software, a handheld Garmin Etrex Global Positioning System unit (GPS), and a Canon Mini-DV digital video recorder. The video was collected at an average airspeed of 170 kph and an average altitude of 580 m ASL. The Rat River was flown from its confluence with the Red River, upstream to Hwy. 12 (Figure 1). The flight path along Joubert Creek started at Hwy. 12/Joubert Creek extension, and headed downstream to the confluence with the Rat River (Figure 1). 2.2.2 Groundtruthing Classification of physical characteristics via aerial video is often difficult due to a number of factors including, but not limited to, elevation, atmospheric conditions, and ground cover. Therefore, wherever possible, areas of the Rat River and/or Joubert Creek were groundtruthed to ensure classification accuracy. Groundtruthing also allowed for collection of ground-based photographs. Groundtruthing sites were selected during analysis of the aerial video and visited during the fisheries surveys. 2.2.3 Physical and Hydrological Information To provide a general understanding of stream morphology and substrates in the various branches of the watershed, a number of random locations were selected during the field investigations for measurement of cross-sectional profiles and water velocities, and characterization of substrates. Substrate types were assessed based on a modified Wentworth classification, as outlined in Bain and Stevenson (1999). Water velocity was measured with a Model 1210, Price Type AA current meter. 2.2.4 Water Quality In conjunction with groundtruthing and fish utilization surveys, some basic water quality parameters were measured in situ (i.e., in the field) with a Horiba U-10 water quality meter. The parameters measured included: dissolved oxygen; conductivity (measured as specific conductance); temperature; pH; and turbidity. In some locations, water temperature was measured with a hand held alcohol filled pocket thermometer.
2.2.5 Fish Species Utilization 2.2.5.1 Spring Spring fish utilization of the Rat River and Joubert Creek was assessed during a three day hoop net survey. The survey was timed to coincide with anticipated peak upstream movements of northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye (Sander vitreus), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), as determined by water temperature. Hoop nets were set in the Rat River and Joubert Creek to capture fish moving in an upstream direction. Each hoop net was 1.2 m in diameter, constructed of 6.45 cm2 nylon mesh, and had 10.0 m long wings which were extended to each shore where possible. All fish captured were identified to species, measured for fork length ( 1 mm) and weight ( 25 g), classified by sex and state of maturity, and released. Visual inspections for fish presence were also conducted along some additional stream reaches. 2.2.5.2 Summer Fish use of the Rat River and Joubert Creek was assessed during summer over a three day survey period (August 18, 22 and 23). Sampling in St. Malo Lake was also conducted on October 17. Methods included back-pack electrofishing (Smith-Root Model 15-C), beach seining, dip netting, and visual surveys. Sampling was conducted at sites throughout the watershed, where access was available, and where spring hoop nets were deployed. All fish collected were identified to species and released. Some of the larger bodied fish were measured for fork length ( 1 mm) and classified by sex and state of maturity. A number of the small-bodied fish were preserved in the field (10% formaldehyde solution) for subsequent identification at North/South Consultants Inc. laboratory in Winnipeg.
2.3
WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION
The aerial video and groundtruthing data were used to classify predominant land use practices and aquatic habitat quality along reaches of the Rat River watershed. In each case, reaches were bounded by obvious changes in classification attributes. Potential barriers to fish movement were identified and classified. The following provides a description of the classification processes and methods. 2.3.1 Land Use Land use in the watershed was classified based on visual interpretation of the aerial videography. Interpretations were based on the identification of patterns, textures, colours and contrasts visible on the landscape being viewed. Where possible, groundtruthing was used to assist in the interpretation of land use. A classification system developed by Anderson et al. (1976) was implemented for land use categories. Land use along the Rat River and Joubert Creek was delineated into seven general categories as outlined below. The categories focus on reaches of the stream and the predominant land use adjacent to the stream. Although reaches classified often incorporated more than one land use type, classification of the reach was based on the most intensive land use within the area. Urban or Built-up Land: The majority of the land under this category is covered by structures. These structures could include: towns, homes, industrial or commercial use, roads, golf courses, etc. Agricultural Land: This category may be defined as land used for the production of food (e.g. cattle, wheat crop, legumes, etc.) or for the production of forage crops (e.g. alfalfa, timothy, etc.). Within the geodatabase, comments have been included to represent agricultural uses observed on the aerial video (e.g., feedlots, farmsteads, cropland/hayland, pasture/grazing, etc.). Rangeland: Anderson et al. (1976) define rangeland as land where the potential natural vegetation is comprised of grasses, grass like plants, or shrubs. The natural growth in these areas has been affected by the grazing of domestic animals or has been reseeded to introduce domestic plant species. These areas may be predominantly in brush, as they transform back to forest land. Barren Land: Anderson et al. (1976) define barren land as an area with the limited ability to support life systems attributable to inadequate soil and vegetative cover. Examples of this classification would be drainage ditches adjacent to gravel roads, gravel pits, or bare exposed rock. Forest Land: Areas dominated by forest land (e.g., mixed deciduous or evergreen) tend to be more natural and have few linear or man-made patterns. Forest land was characterized by a smooth texture and a randomly undulating cellular pattern, resulting 5
from the tree crowns. Because the videography was flown prior to leaf flushing, these areas tended to have a dark brown colour tone. Water: This is defined as areas along the watercourse that are persistently covered with water. Areas under this classification include lakes and reservoirs, provided they are greater than 200 m wide and cover at least 40 acres (Anderson et al. 1976). Wetland: Wetlands are areas where the water table is at or above the adjoining land surface for the majority of most years (e.g., swamps and marshes) (Anderson et al. 1976). Areas of soft, wet, low-lying land, characterized by grassy vegetation were categorized as wetland. These areas tended to have varying amounts of water associated with them, which was characterized by a black/tannic colour. Randomly occurring pockets of emergent vegetation also characterized these areas. Emergent vegetation tended to have coarser textures and a cellular/globular pattern characterized by yellow and dark red colour tones. Urban or built-up land, agricultural land, rangeland, and barren land are considered to be anthropogenic in origin. Forest land, water, and wetland are assumed to be in a natural state or areas not necessarily impacted by anthropogenic means. Categories were delineated as accurately as possible. However, there are basic limitations given the temporal scale and resolution of the aerial video. Therefore, where possible, groundtruthing was utilized to confirm the initial classification based on aerial footage. 2.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions The aerial video and information collected by groundtruthing were used to classify aquatic habitat conditions within the Rat River watershed. Stream reaches were classified based on a visual qualitative assessment of conditions in and adjacent to the stream. Stream condition assessments were based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 1998) Stream Visual Assessment Protocol. The classification system was based on identifying potential impacts as a True or False attribute (i.e., 1 or 0 within the geodatabase) within four criteria for each reach. For example: if a reach of stream exhibited a denuded riparian zone on one or both banks, it would receive an attribute value true for the riparian zone criteria. If the presence of a barrier was observed, this reach would receive an additional value of true, and so on. The four criteria selected were: bank stability, channel morphology (hydrologic alterations and channelization), barriers to fish movements and intactness of the riparian zone. These criteria were chosen based on their relative importance to stream health described within the USDA Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (1998) and the ability to interpret these criteria using the quality of the videography.
The following sections describe the stream conditions assessed in determining aquatic habitat quality and the classification methods used. 2.3.2.1 Channel Morphology Bankfull flows and flooding are important in maintaining both the shape of a channel and its function (USDA 1998). High flows can redistribute larger sediments and debris to form pool/riffle habitats and increase the habitat diversity of a watershed. Altered channel morphology can limit the scouring effect of high flows, allowing siltation of important spawning areas and habitat zones (USDA 1998; Bain and Stevenson 1999). Channel morphology was rated with a true or false value based on the following criteria (USDA 1998): True Condition(s): Dykes or other man-made structures prevent natural flooding of the adjacent floodplain; Channel is altered, braided, or with man-made structures restricting floodplain width. Channel may be incised; or Evidence of past channel alteration, but with significant recovery of channel and banks. False condition(s): Channel appears to be natural with no structures or dykes. No dams, water withdrawal, dykes or other structures limiting streams access to floodplain. 2.3.2.2 Bank Stability Stream banks are important transition zones between aquatic and terrestrial systems (Bain and Stevenson (1999). Eroding banks can reduce instream fish cover, reduce water transparency, smother fish eggs and benthic invertebrates with silt, and infill shallow water habitats (Bain and Stevenson 1999). Although some bank erosion is normal in a healthy watershed system, excessive erosion can occur when riparian areas are degraded, hydrology is altered, or when sediment load is increased (USDA 1998). Assessments of bank stability were based on the potential for detachment of soil from the upper and lower stream banks and the subsequent deposition to the stream channel. Both the left bank (LB) and right bank (RB), when looking upstream, were classified and rated. Due to the scale and resolution of the aerial video, bank stability was at times difficult to visually assess. Ratings were based on the application of groundtruthing data to the aerial video and an overall visual assessment of the stream reach being classified. Bank stability was rated with a true or false value based on the following criteria (USDA 1998). True Condition(s): 7
Bank(s) unstable and typically high. There may be overhanging vegetation at top of a bare bank, trees falling into stream, or a number of slope failures apparent. Bank(s) moderately unstable and typically high. Some trees may be falling into the stream and there may be some slope failures apparent. Bank(s) moderately stable and low. A lower amount of eroding surface on outside bends is protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation.
False condition(s): Bank(s) are stable and low. A large amount of eroding surface area on outside bends is protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation.
2.3.2.3 Riparian Zone Function The riparian zone is defined as an area adjacent to a body of water or as the transition zone between aquatic and upland areas; it can also be referred to as riparian buffer zone, buffer strip, or vegetation retention zone (Williams et al. 1997; Bain and Stevenson 1999; Kipp and Callaway 2003). The health of the riparian zone is fundamental to the well being of an entire stream ecosystem (USDA 1998). A healthy riparian zone can: buffer the introduction of pollutants and/or organic matter to a stream; regulate instream algal production via shading; decrease erosion by stabilizing stream banks and dissipating energy during flood events; provide a source of cover, food, and microclimate control for fish and invertebrates; and act as a travel corridor for terrestrial animals/birds (Williams et al. 1997; USDA 1998; Bain and Stevenson 1999; Koning 1999; AAFC-PFRA 2004). From an agricultural standpoint, riparian vegetative cover helps regulate soil climate, stimulate soil activity (via biomass production) and acts as a buffer between water courses and fertilizer and pesticide applications (Donat 1995). It has been found that dew formation, precipitation, and soil moisture increases in the vicinity of a well-established riparian zone (Donat 1995). The quality of the riparian zone increases as both the width and complexity of woody vegetation within it increases (USDA 1998). Riparian zone function was rated with a true or false value based on the following criteria (USDA 1998). True Condition(s): Natural vegetation/regeneration of vegetation is lacking and the filtering function of the riparian zone is severely or moderately compromised. False condition(s): Natural vegetation extends at least two active channel widths on each side and the filtering function of the riparian zone does not appear to be compromised.
2.3.2.4 Potential Barriers to Fish Movement Barriers to fish movement can be defined as any structure or habitat conditions that create a potential obstacle to fish movements (Bain and Stevenson 1999). These barriers can be anthropogenic in origin (e.g., concrete structure, earthen dam, dike, perched culvert) or natural (e.g., beaver dam, debris dam, rapids). Besides limiting/stopping the movement of fishes, barriers can affect the health of a stream via disruption of stream flow, sediment transport, and thermal regimes (Bain and Stevenson 1999). Potential barriers to fish movement were identified from the aerial video, and where possible, groundtruthed to verify the nature and extent of the blockage. Barriers were classified as follows: 1) Beaver dams 2) Debris Accumulations of natural or man-made debris. 3) Anthropogenic dam/dykes, fords, dugouts or culverts. Given limitations of fixed wing aerial videography and logistics involved with groundtruthing, it is expected that some barriers were not identified. 2.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality To assist in the identification of sites for rehabilitation, a qualitative rating of aquatic habitat quality was assigned to stream reaches based on an overall assessment of the stream conditions assessed above. The rating system, developed by North/South Consultants, incorporated four classes as outlined below. Class D: Stream reaches within this category are severely impacted and generally characterized by altered channels and a heavily altered hydrologic regime. There is a lack of vegetation regeneration within the riparian zone. Because of this, the filtering function of the riparian zone is severely compromised. Bank stability is generally unstable within this class. Class C: Stream reaches within this category are highly impacted and generally have altered hydraulic regimes (e.g., channelization, barriers). Bank stability in this class tends to be moderately stable. Reaches with marginal riparian vegetation may have a moderate filtering capacity. Class B: Stream reaches in this category are moderately impacted, and typically have a more natural channel morphology and hydrologic regime than Class C reaches. Bank stability in this class tends to be moderately stable. Commonly, a margin of natural vegetation may remain increasing bank stability and buffering capacity. Some stream reaches in this category have more natural conditions on one bank and a greater amount of impact on the opposite bank.
Class A: Stream reaches within this category are minimally impacted and tend to have natural channel morphology. The riparian vegetation, which is typically present on both stream banks, provides a high level of buffering capacity, fish habitat and bank stability.
10
3.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All maps generated within this report use a combination of baseline data acquired from the Manitoba Conservation Land Initiative website. These data layers include: orthoimagery, toponymy (i.e., place names), road and railway networks, and the designated watershed drain maps. 3.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW
3.1.1 Physical and Hydrological Information The Rat River (excluding the Sand River and Marsh River Drainage) was calculated to have a gross drainage area of 817.5 km2 (PFRA 2004). Joubert Creek has a gross effective drainage of 348.8 km2 (PFRA 2004; ECWSC 2005). Monthly mean flows for April and August, and the median, upper and lower quartiles for the Rat River (Station #050E001) are presented on figures 2 and 3. Monthly mean flows for April and August, and the median, upper and lower quartiles for Joubert Creek (Station #050E007) are presented in figures 4 and 5 (ECWS 2005). For the month of April, in the Rat River, the mean discharge was 11.1 m3/s, ranging from 0.81 to 49.9 m3/s. In August, discharges ranged from 0.0 to 19.6 m3/s, averaging 1.3 m3/s. Overall, the mean discharge of the Rat River peaks during the month of April and then recedes steadily until August. Discharge begins to increase slightly in the fall months, most likely attributable to precipitation events. In Joubert Creek, mean discharge in April was 3.91 m3/s, ranging from 0.12 to 16.2 m3/s. In August, discharge ranged between 0.0 and 1.80 m3/s, averaging 0.15 m3/s. In Joubert Creek, peak discharges occur during April, taper off until August, and increase slightly in the fall months. Streambed identification points and longitudinal streambed profiles for the Rat River and Joubert Creek are presented in figures 6 to 9. Average elevations of the Rat River and Joubert Creek were calculated to be 270 and 268 masl. Rises in elevation are most obvious in the eastern portion of this watershed, where a 50 km rise in elevation occurs over a 20 km distance (AAFC-PFRA 2004). Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, U of M) described the Rat River as having four main reaches as follows (Figure 10): Reach 1: Extending from the mouth of the Rat River to just east of Hwy. 246. This reach is characterised as an embayment of the Red River and is dominated by Red River fish species;
11
Reach 2: Extending from Hwy, 246 to just west of Hwy. 59 at St. Malo. This area can be described as a lowland/Red River floodplain of the Rat River. Physically, this portion of the river is characterised by a low gradient, fine sediment substrates and banks, turbid waters, and a meandering course; Reach 3: Extends from just west of Hwy. 59 to the east of Hwy. 12. This area has a coarser (silt to cobble) substrate, steeper gradient, a well marked incised valley, and clear brown-stained water. Additionally, a significant portion of the lower portion of this reach is flooded by the St. Malo reservoir; and Reach 4: Extending from the east of Hwy. 12 to the headwaters of the Rat River. This reach is characteristically boggy, has a meandering watercourse, low gradient, and brown-stained water. The substrate is mostly comprised of fine sediment, however, some till outcrops and coarser substrate can occur. Detailed hydrologic and physical surveys were conducted along five reaches of the Rat River by Milani and Milani (1995). Two of these study reaches (1 and 2) were outside of the current study area, however reaches 3, 4, and 5 fell within the current study area and are located as follows: 2 km south of Zhoda; 3 km south of junction Hwy. 59 and Hwy. 218; and 100 m downstream of the CP crossing of the Rat River in Otterburne, respectively. An AAFC-PFRA (2004) study, summarized resources and land use within the Rat-Marsh River. This report documents climate and ecology, water resources, land cover, soil resources, agricultural activities, and additional watershed considerations. According to AAFC-PFRA (2004) over 25% of the soils in the Rat-Marsh River watershed, occurring in the east with wetlands and organic soils, are poor to very poorly drained. However, the AAFC-PFRA (2004) also indicates that 14% of the land in the east is defined as rapid to well-drained soils. This is most likely due to a network of surface drains implemented to increase surface runoff and reduce spring ponding. 3.1.2 Water Quality The location of historical water quality sites on the Rat River and Joubert Creek are illustrated on Figure 10. Historical data from both streams have been tabularized and presented on Disc 1 in Excel format . Water quality data were compared to Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines (Williamson 2002) and Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME 1999). Historical pH values in both the Rat River and Joubert Creek were always in compliance with the Manitoba Water Quality Guidelines for aquatic life (6.5 9.0) and recreation (5.0 9.0) (Williamson 2002). Dissolved oxygen concentrations often did not comply with the Manitoba Water Quality Objectives for the protection of aquatic life. During the open-water season dissolved oxygen concentrations generally appear to decrease with distance downstream on the Rat River.
12
With the exception of the high concentration recorded at WQ0131.00 near Otterburne in February 1975, historical ammonia concentrations at all sites on the Rat River and Joubert Creek have been in compliance with the Tier II - Manitoba Water Quality Objectives for the protection of aquatic life. Historically ice-cover season ammonia concentrations are much higher relative to the open-water season concentrations and generally increase with distance downstream on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek, indicating cumulative effects. As was the case for ammonia concentrations, nitrate generally appeared to increase with distance downstream on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek during the ice-cover season. All historical nitrate concentrations were in compliance with Manitoba Water Quality objectives for the protection of drinking water and the CCME (1999) guideline for the protection of aquatic life. Similar to ammonia concentrations, total phosphorus concentrations increase with distance downstream on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek. However, unlike ammonia concentration which appeared to only increase with distance downstream during the icecover season, phosphorus concentrations increased with distance downstream in both the ice-cover and open-water season. Phosphorus concentrations often did not comply with the Tier III Manitoba Water Quality Guideline of 0.050 mg/L and the frequency of noncompliance increased with distance downstream to the point where all concentrations recorded at WQ0132.00 on the Rat River and WQ0395.00 on Joubert Creek were in noncompliance. As for ammonia, this increase in phosphorus concentration with distance downstream is indicative of cumulative effects. Water quality data collected by SESCO (2004) from 2001-2004 show similar trends in nutrient concentrations in the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Although recent water quality monitoring revealed that nutrient concentrations are within the range of those that have occurred historically, a report by Jones and Armstrong (2001) found that while total nitrogen concentrations remained stable in the Rat River near Otterburne (WQ0131.00) from 1973 to 1999, total phosphorus concentrations increased significantly. This increase in phosphorus is likely the result of increased loading from point sources (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, municipal drains) and non-point sources (e.g., agricultural activities, urbanization) (AAFC-PFRA 2004). The noticeably higher total phosphorus concentrations in Joubert Creek based on historic (i.e., WQMS 2004) and recent data (i.e., SESCO 2004) suggest that this stream may be a significant source of phosphorus to the lower reaches of the Rat River. However, further studies would be required to identify whether or not Joubert Creek is responsible for the significant increases in total phosphorus concentrations that have occurred between 1973 and 1999. 3.1.3 Fish Species Utilization Thirty one species of fish, representing twelve families could inhabit the Rat River (Table 1, Appendix 2). The majority of these species are common to the Rat River watershed with the exception of the three trout species (i.e., rainbow, brown, and brook trout) and the largemouth bass. Although there was no existing information available for Joubert 13
Creek, it can be expected that as a tributary to the Rat River it may also support the same species of fish. In 1985, the Rat River stream conservation project was conducted by the University of Manitoba. The prime objective of the report was to identify a stream conservation project along the Rat River with the final goal of developing/enhancing brook trout habitat as a fly fishing recreational resource. This project, referred to as The Lonesands Project Area, resulted in the initial stocking of 200 yearling brook, 250 yearling rainbow, and 250 yearling brown trout in 1986 (Man. Dept. Nat. Res. Inter-Dept. Memo. from R. Janusz to Rat River file, 1987). Records indicate that trout were last stocked in this area in 1988 (Man. Dept. Nat. Res. Inter-Dept. Memo. from R. Janusz to Rat River file, 1989) (Appendix 3). A Rat River stocking assessment survey (Man. Dept. Nat. Res. Inter-Dept. Memo. from R. Janusz to Rat River file, 1989) reported the absence of any trout species and northern pike in the Lonesands Project area. The survey did, however, capture a number of fathead minnow, central mudminnow, brook stickleback, northern redbelly dace, white sucker, western blacknose dace, and pearl dace. Approximately 2.6 million walleye were stocked in St. Malo Lake from 1972 to 1997 (Appendix 3). Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, U of M) provided information on fish utilization within the Rat River and Joubert Creek from 1966 to 2004. This data set showed the presence of 10 families of fish, representing 31 species, from a number of reaches of the Rat River and Joubert Creek (Table 2). Although comparable to the FIHCS data, Dr. Stewarts data did not include salmonids (i.e., trout), but did include more ictalurids (i.e., brown bullhead, channel catfish). Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, U of M) captured chestnut lamprey, a species listed under COSEWIC as special concern. However, Stewart and Watkinson (2004) indicated that sampling gear is ineffective at catching lamprey and the species is most likely more common and widespread than data suggest. Case (1970b in Stewart and Watkinson 2004), describes the spawning behaviour of the chestnut lamprey in the Rat River near St. Malo. The silver chub is also listed under COSEWIC as special concern. This species prefers large sandy or silty rivers and, in Manitoba, restricts itself to the lowermost reaches of tributaries to the Red and lower Assiniboine Rivers (Scott and Crossman 1979; Stewart and Watkinson 2004). Although it is one of the three most abundant fish species in the Red River above St. Andrews Dam, the silver chub population of the Red River is one of the few apparently healthy and abundant populations for this species (Keleher and Kooyman 1957 in Scott and Crossman 1979; Stewart and Watkinson 2004). A fisheries investigation along five study reaches of the Rat River by Milani and Milani (1995) yielded 10 species of fish, representing six families (Table 3). 14
During the open water season of 2005, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) conducted fisheries investigations throughout the Rat River watershed. However, analysis and report preparation of this work has not yet been finalized (D. Milani, DFO, pers. comm. 2006). 3.1.4 Invertebrates In 1970, Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources sampled macroinvertebrates in the Rat River using artificial substrate samplers (Crowe 1972). Study locations, physical properties at the time of sampling, and test results are provided in Crowe (1972). In 1995, Manitoba Conservation initiated a program to assess the assemblages of macroinvertebrates using rapid bioassessment techniques (Hughes 2001). Sampling conducted between 1995 to 1998 consistently indicated non-impairment. Hughes (2001) defined non-impaired as an ecoregion with a balanced trophic structure, and a community structure that is optimum for stream size and habitat quality. 3.2 FIELD SURVEYS
3.2.1 Physical and Hydrological Information All still photographs (in digital format) taken during the groundtruthing component are presented on Disc 2. This disc contains the following: folders of still photographs taken during the early spring, spring sampling session, summer sampling session, and fall groundtruthing periods; a photographic index; and a site map with photo locations. Ground surveys and classification of physical attributes (e.g., substrate compaction, composition) of the Rat River and Joubert Creek were limited due to the high water events of 2005. Work conducted on the ground consisted of fisheries surveys, verifying aerial classifications, collecting still photographs of physical properties within the study area, and visiting potential rehabilitation sites. Physical and hydrological data collected along the Rat River and Joubert Creek are presented in Appendices 4 and 5. Sample locations are presented on Figure 11. On April 15, discharge along the Rat River was determined at Hwy. 216 (12.60 m3/s) and Hwy. 59 (15.55 m3/s), respectively (Table 4). The high discharges precluded measurement of any physical attributes. Discharges were measured at the same locations on August 23. At which time, physical attributes were also measured (Appendix 4). Discharge was measured at Hwy. 216 and at Hwy. 59 as 0.48 m3/s and 0.47 m3/s. These discharges fall within the recorded monthly means for the months of April (0.81 49.9 m3/s) and August (0.0 19.6 m3/s) (Figure 2). Discharges measured in April were below the upper quartile, but above the median (Figure 3).
15
Discharges were measured at one location on Joubert Creek on April 15 (10.22 m3/s) and August 23 (0.34 m3/s) (Table 4). These measurements fall within recorded monthly mean discharge ranges for the months of April (0.12 16.2 m3/s) and August (0.0 1.8 m3/s) (Figure 4). However, the discharge measurement taken on April 15 was above the upper quartile for this water body (Figure 5). On April 15, discharge was measured from the bridge, thus precluding collection of physical attributes. Physical attributes, however, were obtained on August 23 and are presented in Appendix 4. Culvert velocities measured at JCH2, on April 14, ranged from 1.03 to 1.34 m/sec (Table 4). 3.2.2 Water Quality Parameters measured in-situ (i.e., in the field) are presented in Table 5. Sampling sites are presented on Figure 11. All in situ values measured (i.e., DO, temperature, pH, turbidity, and conductivity) fell within historical ranges. 3.2.3 Fish Species Utilization
3.2.3.1 Spring A total of 69 fish, representing four species, were captured in three hoop nets set within the Rat River from April 13 to 15 (Table 6, Figure 12). The majority of fish captured, with the exception of the yellow perch, were either preparing to spawn or had already spawned in the current year (Appendix 6). The hoop net set furthest upstream (RRH1) captured 67% (n = 46) of the total catch. A total of eight fish, representing two species, were captured in two hoop nets set in Joubert Creek from April 13 to 15 (Table 6, Figure 12). All fish captured were either preparing to spawn or had already spawned in the current year (Appendix 6). 3.2.3.2 Summer Summer sampling sites are presented on Figure 12. A total of 327 fish, representing 13 species, were captured in the Rat River between August 17 and October 17 (Table 7). Brook stickleback comprised the greatest catch (n = 140), followed by central mudminnow (n = 58), johnny darter (n = 32), blackside darter (n = 25), fathead minnow (n = 18), and northern pike (n = 18). Catch of the remaining seven species were limited to ten or fewer individuals. Lengths of northern pike captured ranged from 156 to 233 mm and averaged 189 mm. Growth of the northern pike is rapid in the first few years of life and can reach 152 mm 16
by the end of the first summer (Scott and Crossman 1979). Although captured from Willow Creek one month earlier, Graveline et al. (2005) captured young of the year northern pike with an average length of 88 mm. Data suggests that young of the year northern pike, as well as yearlings, were captured in the Rat River. Lengths of the five white suckers captured ranged from 41 to 149 mm and averaged 76 mm. Four of the white suckers appeared to be young of the year and one appeared to be a one year old. From August 18 to 22, 64 fish representing five species were captured in Joubert Creek (Table 7, Figure 12). The catch included white sucker (n = 25), blackside darter (n = 14), johnny darter (n = 14), burbot (n = 9), and rock bass (n = 2). Numerous brook stickleback were also captured but were not enumerated due to their abundance. In the two locations that this species occurred more than 1000 individuals were estimated to have been present. Lengths of the 25 white suckers captured in Joubert Creek ranged from 33 to 165 mm and averaged 56 mm. The lengths are indicative of young of the year and yearling class white suckers. The presence of young of the year suckers suggests that white suckers successful spawned in this stretch (i.e., JH2) of the Joubert Creek extension during spring, 2005 (Figure 12). The presence of yearling suckers also suggests that white suckers may have over wintered somewhere in the Joubert Creek extension. 3.3 WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION
3.3.1 Land Use Land use classifications for the Rat River and Joubert Creek are presented on Figure 13. Total length of the reaches and percentages classified are presented in Table 8. Approximately 183 km of the Rat River were classified by land use (Table 8). Agricultural land (32%) was the most predominant land use followed by wetland (31%), forest (25%), urban or built-up land (11%), and water (1%). A small reach was classified as barren land, but was insignificant (< 1.0 km). The primary classification of land east of Hwy. 216 and the Rat River was wetland, with minimal agricultural and forest land. The majority of crop farming is concentrated in the western two-thirds of the watershed, while more animal production occurs in the eastern-sub watershed (AAFC-PFRA 2004). The only area falling under the water classification was St. Malo Lake (Figure 13). Completed in 1959 and filled by spring run off in 1960, the initial purpose of the reservoir was to provide a dependable water supply to downstream communities (i.e., St. Malo, St. Pierre, and Otterburne) and agricultural requirements (Parks Branch 1975). The surface area of St. Malo Lake is approximately 145 acres. It averages 2.4 km in length, 213 m in width, 3.7 m in depth, and has a total shoreline length of approximately 7, 483 m or 7.4 km. (Parks Branch 1975).
17
Approximately 79 km of Joubert Creek were classified according to land use with forest (43%) comprising the greatest percentage (Table 8, Figure 13). Agricultural land (31%), barren land (14%), urban or built-up land (8%), and rangeland (4%) accounted for the remainder. Classification of aerial video captured from a fixed wing has limitations. One of the main disadvantages of this application, due to reduced manoeuvrability, is the limited coverage obtainable along complex shorelines (e.g., steep banks, meanders, crown cover) (http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs). Wherever possible, groundtruthing was conducted to ensure that the classifications presented in this document are as accurate as possible. All classification information is presented within the geodatabase (Disc 3). 3.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions Qualitative classifications for bank stability, channel morphology, barriers to fish movement and intactness of the riparian zone (as per Section 2.3.2) are provided for each point on the watercourse within the geodatabase that accompanies this report (Disc 3). Because each of these stream attributes are interrelated in terms of the overall health of the watershed, the classifications were considered collectively to develop a qualitative aquatic habitat rating for each reach along the Rat River and Joubert Creek. These ratings are presented and discussed in the following section. 3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Rating Approximately 262 km of the Rat River and Joubert Creek were rated according to habitat quality (Table 9, Figure 14). Minimally impacted reaches (Class A) comprised the largest segment (51%), followed by: highly impacted (Class C, 28%); moderately impacted (Class B, 12%); and severely impacted (Class D, 8%) areas. Approximately 183 km of habitat along the Rat River were rated according to quality (Table 9). Over one-half (55%) of this area was categorized as Class A or minimally impacted. The remainder of the area was Class C (26%, highly impacted), Class B (11%, moderately impacted), and Class D (8%, severely impacted). Nearly all of the Rat River, east of Hwy. 216 falls under the Class A category, with smaller areas of Class C and B interspersed (Figure 14). This is attributable to the predominance of wetland throughout this region. Class D, C, and B areas are found from Hwy. 216, north west to Hwy. 305. This is attributable to increased urbanization (e.g., municipalities or road networks) and/or agricultural activities. Approximately 79 km of Joubert Creek were rated according to habitat quality (Table 9). Class A reaches were predominant (42%) followed by: Class C (34%); Class B (16%); and Class D (8%) reaches (Table 9). Class D reaches were primarily found between Highways 216 and 403 (Figure 14).
18
Within this document, the aquatic habitat quality rating is intended to provide a general overview of the condition of stream reaches along the Rat River and Joubert Creek and should be used to focus rehabilitation efforts. However, it should be noted that the rating is qualitative and may be used in a variety of ways to focus those efforts. 4.0 POTENTIAL REHABILITATION SITES
Rehabilitation, within this document, can be used to refer to local or site specific planning (Williams et al. 1997). The rehabilitation of site specific areas can be used as a tool towards watershed restoration. Williams et al. (1997) view watershed restoration as the process of reversing the decline of ecosystem health, thus returning a degraded ecosystem toward its historic function. The development of a watershed restoration program is a difficult process to initiate and should begin with an understanding of watershed structure and function and how human activities affect watershed health (Williams et al. 1997). An assessment of the Rat River and Joubert Creek illustrates a watershed that is moderately to highly impacted by anthropogenic forces. Overall, these sources account for 47% of the land use along the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Riparian areas and the health of a watershed can be impacted by a number of external sources, including: agricultural practices; industry; recreation (over use/abuse); or residential practice (AAFC-PFRA 2004; McIver 2004). For example, an industry within the watershed may include logging. The logging industry can affect water quality by reducing or eliminating the riparian areas of the watershed. Additionally, although drains may move water more quickly from the fields they can also have a detrimental impact on overall watershed health. Under high precipitation events, drains can place a river into a flood or near flood stage and increase the possibility of water erosion (AAFC-PFRA 2004). Furthermore, the riparian condition along most drains is limited to non-existent. Thus, the potential for deleterious substances (e.g., sediments, nutrients) entering the watershed is increased. Strategies for mitigating or reversing impacts to a watershed generally fall into the following categories: Removing barriers to fish movement to allow fish to access upstream habitat; Ensuring adequate stream flow to maintain aquatic habitat; Enhancing instream aquatic habitat; Enhancing riparian conditions; and Eliminating point and non-point sources of water quality degradation. Most of these strategies overlap to some degree. For example, enhancing riparian conditions not only helps to eliminate non-point sources of habitat degradation but also enhances instream aquatic habitat. In contrast to the direct positive effects of mitigation activities, indirect negative effects may occur following rehabilitation efforts. For example, dam removal, which is often viewed as an obvious solution for stream rehabilitation, can have short-term negative 19
effects on the hydraulic regime, sediment loads, and bank stability. Factors to be considered when decommissioning a barrier include: age, construction, purpose, and condition of the structure; and impacts of reservoir drawdown, including change in hydraulic regime, sediment transport, bank destabilization, water quality, and revegetation of riparian areas (Stanley and Doyle 2003). There may also be concerns raised by local stakeholders and/or property owners. Mitigative works should be selected carefully, taking full consideration of the effects on stream processes and landowners. The Rat River watershed has been the subject of rehabilitation and/or stream enhancement in the past. In 1975, the Parks Branch reviewed the potential for the St. Malo Reservoir to become a recreation site. Later, Manitoba Conservation attempted to establish a self sustaining trout population in the headwaters of the Rat River (i.e., Lonesands Project). As a result of the Lonesands Project, a machinery crossing was rehabilitated in 1986 to reduce impacts to the water quality of the Rat River (Man. Dept. Nat. Res. Memo. from R. Janusz to Rat River file, 1986). Fish species have also been stocked in the St. Malo reservoir in an attempt to increase recreational angler success and natural brood stock. Although not discussed as a rehabilitation site, the St. Malo Dam was identified as a barrier to fish passage. The mitigation and/or development of this area to allow fish passage from downstream reaches would require its own, comprehensive study (e.g., population dynamics upstream and downstream of the dam, species specific habitat suitability, water quality, flow regimes, etc.). When taking a progressive approach to watershed restoration, the stream reach where mitigation works should be given priority will depend on the project that is being considered. For example, if the removal of potential barriers to fish movement is considered a top priority, initial efforts should focus on the lower reaches of the watershed. There is little to be gained in the short term by providing fish passage between habitats that fish cannot reach. In contrast, if priority is given to reversing the effects of water quality degradation, work in upper reaches of the watershed may be just as, or more, effective than work in lower reaches. A total of 56 sites along the Rat River and Joubert Creek have been documented as potential rehabilitation sites (Figure 15, Appendix 7). Four from the Rat River and one from Joubert Creek have been chosen as potential priority sites. These sites were chosen based on the type and variety of impacts associated with them, potential of the site to be viewed by the public, and landowner cooperation. All of the sites selected are situated in reaches that are classified as severely impacted (Class D). Impacts at the five selected sites include potential barriers to fish movement, denuded riparian zones, direct cattle access to the water body, and bank instability. Some of the additional sites outlined within this document also deserve consideration for rehabilitation efforts based on SRRCD watershed management priorities. The rehabilitation measures described within the five sites (presented in the next section in random order) can be used by the SRRCD for development of future rehabilitation efforts towards watershed restoration.
20
4.1
SITE 17: ERODING DRAIN/BARREN MEANDER
Issue(s): Drain outlet on roadside is eroding both the channel and embankment. Runoff, primarily during spring and precipitation events, is down cutting the drain channel at the outlet and eroding the roadside embankment. The cultivated meander occasionally floods during the spring and likely contributes to increased sediment loads in the Rat River. There is currently no vegetation on the meander. Concern(s): Erosion is compromising the integrity of the road bed. If unchecked, this could result in increased erosion of the meander and subsequent sediment loading into the Rat River. Increased sediment loads to a watercourse increase both turbidity and sediment deposits. Increased turbidity can harm fish by affecting gill membranes and impairing feeding and food supplies (e.g., aquatic invertebrates), sediment deposits potentially destroy egg incubation sites (e.g., clog gravel beds), destroy the habitat of aquatic invertebrates used as food sources (e.g., crayfish), and reduce nursery areas of juvenile fish. As the meander is (currently) denuded of vegetation, it is susceptible to erosion and nutrient loading to the Rat River. Potential Mitigative Work(s): The outlet drain, embankment, and field will require armouring using both hard (e.g., gabion baskets, riprap, etc.) and soft (grassed waterway, buffer strips, etc.) engineering techniques. A re-sloping of the embankment should also be considered prior to armouring. A drop structure (e.g., rock chute spillway, drop pipe, etc.) may be required at this site given the steep gradient and erosive nature
21
of the soil. The drain outlet, as it flows onto the meander, would require a soft engineering technique. The creation of a grassed waterway to the meander may work best to help reduce erosion. Given the slope of the outlet, a forage crop could be planted to assist in erosion control and provide additional forage. The meander/floodplain area below the drain outlet was flooded during spring 2005 and the area was observed to not have been used for a successful crop. There may be two options for this area: 1) if the area is continually too wet for production, then it could be returned to a more natural state by establishing a wetland in the low areas, and a natural riparian zone in upper areas; or 2) the meander could continually be used for agricultural production by establishing perennial forage that can withstand wet periods and be cut for hay during dry periods. This could be done by seeding the area with native warm season perennial grasses. Water tolerant perennial native forage in this area would provide temporary habitat for wildlife like waterfowl during the spring, and could be cut for hay during summer/fall. Establishing perennial vegetation in the meander would also aid in dissipating energy from the drain outlet and reduce soil erosion from the area.
Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s): It is possible that this site is not directly suitable as a wetland, given its proximity to the Rat River. For example, during periods of high water fish migrating upstream may have access to the wetland. As the waters recede, these fish, and possible spawn, could become stranded and perish. This meander may water and dewater on an annual basis. If this is the case, it may be difficult to establish a perennial forage crop. A grassed waterway may be susceptible to erosion (e.g., continued erosion) given the steep gradient of the drain. Recommendation(s): The drain outlet will need to be repaired or it will continue to erode. It is recommended that the site be assessed by an engineer to determine culvert suitability, elevation for drain outlet and proper slope of embankment. A drop chute spillway could be incorporated to dissipate the energy of the flowing water. Beyond the outlet repair (i.e., drop chute spillway), a grassed waterway should be established for continued energy dissipation, following an engineers report on gradient and discharge of the drain. Grassed waterways can be used to prevent gully erosion if crop residues do not provide adequate protection
22
(www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/soil/soilc02a. 2005). Water exiting the drop chute spillway can flow over the grassed waterway until it is dispersed throughout the meander. The waterway can be seeded with a water tolerant forage crop such as alfalfa or grasses. However, grasses can tolerate fully saturated soils more than alfalfa (www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/topics 2005). A number of grass species can be selected depending on localized growing conditions and may include bromegrass (withstands over three weeks of saturation), fescue, meadow foxtail, or timothy (able to withstand six weeks or more of saturation). A constructed wetland is not recommended at this site given its proximity to the Rat River. However, the land owner will need to be contacted to evaluate the potential of the area for the establishment of a perennial forage crop. The SRRCD and the current landowner will need to come to an agreement on how the land use is best suited for both parties.
Approximate Project Cost(s): Enhancement at this site has two components: 1) drain outlet reparations; and 2) potential remediation of the meander. The first component would require input from an engineer and the use of heavy equipment. Cost assessment for this component will be required from an outside party (e.g., engineering firm). The second component of this site is dependent on an agreement between the landowner and the SRRCD. A valuation at this time would be dependent on seed cost and/or the number of acres planted. Costs for this component are estimated to be less than $2000.00.
23
4.2
SITE 21: INSTREAM BARRIER/ BANK EROSION/DENUDED RIPARIAN
Issue(s): Concrete/rubble barrier in river. The banks of the river, upstream to the new road crossing, are completely denuded of vegetation. Description of Barrier: Approximately 20 m long x 8.0 m wide x 2.0 m high. Composed of broken concrete and rebar, boulders, cobble, and mud. Concern(s): The instream barrier may be affecting fish movement. In spring, it can be a complete barrier with low water levels or act as a velocity barrier with higher flows. Downstream fall migrations may also be impaired at some water levels. Shoreline erosion on both sides of the river has been increased due to the instream barrier. The accelerated erosion is increasing water turbidity and sediment deposits downstream. The effect of each includes, but is not limited to, a degradation of fish habitat and potential loss of food supplies. The absence of shoreline vegetation upstream of the barrier may result in the direct input of potentially deleterious substances to fish habitat (e.g. sediments, fecal matter, herbicides, etc), the loss of fish habitat (e.g., crown cover), and the destabilization of banks. Potential Mitigative Work(s): Removal of the concrete/rubble barrier from the river channel. Reinforcing the river banks where the barrier is causing erosion. Revegetate the riparian areas that are denuded. 24
Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s): Direct access to the barrier with the required equipment (e.g. back hoe) may be problematic. Although sparse, some larger trees on the right bank may hinder use of larger equipment. Removal of the barrier would cause a short term release of sediment into the Rat River. Recommendation(s): It is recommended that the concrete/rubble barrier be removed from the river channel. The concrete/rubble could be placed along the edges of the river (adjacent to the barrier location) where erosion is the most severe. Barrier removal should be conducted in late fall/winter to avoid spring and summer spawning fish and subsequent egg incubation. It is also assumed that lower water levels would occur at this time. Once the barrier is removed and the concrete/rubble is put in place, riparian restoration would be required. It is assumed that natural grasses and shrubs would take hold in the area, but plantings of fast growing water tolerant species may also be necessary. An established riparian zone of 30 m, along both sides of the river, is recommended at this site. The planting of willow or dogwood species (e.g., fast growing) is recommended close to the river. Deep rooted tree species that can withstand flooding and ice scouring (i.e. Manitoba maple, trembling aspen, and/or cottonwoods) are also recommended for planting within the riparian zone (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds 2005). All of the mentioned species will assist in ground stability and act as a buffer within the riparian zone. Additionally, the regrowth will provide habitat and improve water quality along this stretch of the Rat River. As with any instream works, DFO and the regional fisheries manager will need to be approached prior to commencing with this project. Approximate Project Cost(s): The total cost to complete this project is estimated to be less than $15, 000.00.
25
4.3
SITE 51: ZONE
CLOSE CULTIVATION/SLUMPING/ DENUDED RIPARIAN
Issue(s): Cultivation in close proximity to rivers edge. A reduced riparian zone and/or buffer strip along this section of river.
Concern(s): Cultivation close to a water courses edge (i.e., heavy equipment) can destabilize the bank and cause failure, especially on an outside bend. With a non-existent riparian zone the banks are susceptible to erosion (i.e., cropland reduction). Along with sediment transport into the river, pesticides may also have direct access to the watercourse. Lack of riparian area may also mean minimal cover for aquatic species, decreased food source, or increased water temperatures. Potential Mitigative Work(s): Cultivation or seeding can be set back from the rivers edge, allowing for the establishment of a buffer strip between the crop and the riparian zone/banks edge. Currently, this site does show signs of bank slumping. However, given that his area is an outside bend and the high water event of 2005, some slumping is to be expected. Rather than take a hard rehabilitation approach (e.g., gabion baskets, retaining walls) a soft approach at this site is more suitable. The shoreline should be stabilized by planting deep rooted native vegetation like willow, alder or dogwood (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds 2005). A re-vegetation/stabilization program with deep rooted trees should be incorporated as well. Tree plantings should be conducted away from the shoreline within the riparian zone. Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s):
26
A reduction in land used for agriculture (for establishment of a buffer strip) could result in lost crop yields.
Recommendation(s): Cultivation should be set back from the rivers edge. A buffer of at least 10 m from the top of the bank is recommended, but 30 metres would be best (Kipp and Callaway 2003; www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/streamf1 2005). The size of the area formerly cultivated is potentially regained, to some extent, by an assumed reduction in long term bank failure. The re-establishment of perennial native vegetation (i.e. buffer strips) on top of the bank should be encouraged. Buffer strips are areas of permanent vegetation (grasses, shrubs and trees) between the riparian zone and the cultivated land. Vegetated banks can withstand up to three times more flow than a denuded bank can withstand and that crop production is increased via water retention and a reduction in wind/water erosion (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/shorelds 2005). The riparian zone (close to the top of the bank) can be re-established with the planting of deep rooted tree species that can withstand flooding and ice scouring (i.e., Manitoba maple, trembling aspen, and/or cottonwoods). Closer to the rivers edge, dogwood and willow species can be planted to assist in the reduction of bank erosion. Signage could be put in place indicating the cooperation between the SRRCD and the landowner. A reduction in cultivated area adjacent to the rivers edge can also be used as an educational tool for similar projects. Approximate Project Cost(s): The cost of plantings (e.g., Manitoba maple, willow sp.) and signage (design and deployment) will need to be factored into the overall cost. The total value of this project is estimated to be less than $5, 0000.
27
4.4
SITE 14: CATTLE ACCESS/ DENUDED RIPARIAN/FORD CROSSING
Issue(s): Livestock have unrestricted access to and through Joubert Creek. The wintering/staging area at the top of the hill is eroding. Runoff from a well flows through the side of the bank and into Joubert Creek.
Concern(s): Unrestricted cattle access has eroded the shorelines and reduced the riparian vegetation. The banks here are composed of highly erosive soil and can be relatively steep in some locations. Unrestricted cattle access along these sections coupled with high water events (i.e., 2005) will increasingly erode the banks resulting in increased turbidity and direct loss of property. Cattle access is also resulting in a direct introduction of fecal matter at both the ford and on the shoreline. A denuded riparian zone offers little buffering capacity against sediments or nutrients directly entering the stream. Currently, the vegetation along the bank at the staging area is comprised mostly of nuisance species. The wintering/staging area at the top of the hill is situated on a layer of erosive soil. During periods of heavy precipitation and/or livestock traffic this area is
28
susceptible to erosion, resulting in the direct input of sediments and fecal matter to Joubert Creek. The outlet of the well is unprotected as it trickles through erosive soils. As such, there could be direct input of sediments and fecal matter into Joubert Creek and an undermining of the bank stability.
Potential Mitigative Work(s): The ideal solution would be to prevent cattle access to Joubert Creek, eliminate the ford crossing, and re-establish vegetation in the riparian and buffer zone. This could be accomplished by installing fencing. Alternatively, fencing should be used to restrict cattle access to the stream, but gated to allow cattle to cross in a specific area at designated times. The wintering/staging area at the top of the hill could be reinforced with aggregate to reduce erosion. The riparian zone adjacent to the staging area should be allowed to naturally revegetate. The planting of fast growing, deep rooted tree species should also be incorporated to stabilize banks. Given the relatively steep slope and erosive nature of the bank, consideration should be given to regrading and stabilizing the area (e.g., hard engineering) prior to establishing a vegetated area. The well outlet could be protected with fencing and reinforced with aggregate or directed through a culvert or drop pipe structure. Alternatively, the well outlet or its source could be capped/tapped to prevent the flow from reaching the creek bank. Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s): It is recognised that if fencing were used to eliminate all cattle access to the creek the landowner has no viable alternative in the vicinity for transferring cattle to pasture on the south side of the creek. Running standard fencing across the creek channel to restrict cattle to a single ford is not possible because of potentially high creek flows. Any aggregate placed in or along the creek bank may redirect energy and cause either additional erosion or new erosion channels. Bank stabilization at the staging area and creek bank may be difficult to achieve given the erosive nature of the bank and the relatively steep gradient. Resloping the bank (i.e., 4:1 slope) would encroach on the staging area and affect the number of cattle the area could hold. A compaction of the staging area may also provide a more direct path for runoff and deleterious substances to reach the creek. A system to redirect runoff to ensure that contaminated water is channelled away from the creek may need to be developed.
29
Recommendation(s): Cattle access along and through Joubert Creek should be restricted (via a fenced ford) and eliminated (via fencing the shorelines). Fencing should be put in place to a) eliminate cattle access to and along the bank of Joubert Creek and b) to restrict cattle access, as best as possible, to the immediate location of
the ford. Fencing along Joubert Creek could be two strand electrical wire with a 65 space between posts. However, the landowner indicated that a more suitable fencing along the staging area would be a post and beam style fence. This fence could be constructed of 6x 6 posts and 2x 8 beams. The length of fence required along the staging area is estimated to be 200 m. Placement should be no less than 10 m from the top of the bank (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/streamf1 2005). The fence lines running towards Heese Road (from the ford) could be constructed of two strand electrical wire with a 65 space between posts, but 3-4 strand barbed wire may be more suitable. Fencing requirements has been estimated to be 100 m/side, for a total of 200 m of fencing. The use of hard engineering techniques will need to be applied to the staging area. The top layer of soil may need to be removed for the addition and compaction of an aggregate (e.g., 3/4 crushed limestone). Aggregate should not be placed directly adjacent to the new fence line. A buffer area for soft engineering should be allowed. This buffer strip will potentially absorb any contaminated runoff prior to reaching the creek. 30
The fence placed along the creek bank would allow for natural revegetation within the riparian zone. However, it is also recommended that additional vegetation be established. This may include the plantings of fast growing species on the side of the bank (i.e., willow and dogwood species) and deep rooted species on the top of the bank (i.e., Manitoba maple, cottonwoods, alders) (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds 2005). The trees will not only offer bank stability but additional shade for the cattle in the summer and a windbreak in the winter; The placement of aggregate within the creek bed and adjacent to the ford crossing is not recommended at this time. If the riparian area does not stabilize and cattle still enter the creek from this location the placement of aggregate should be reviewed. The outlet of the well should be contained within a section of fencing, previously applied to restrict cattle access. As water appears to only trickle from this outlet, the application of a culvert or drop pipe should not be required. However, an application of aggregate (e.g., cobble or course gravel) should be applied to reinforce the outlet and the bank in which the water trickles. Natural and planted vegetation (previously discussed) will also reduce the direct input of any deleterious substances from this site and solidify the bank. If it is found that these measures do not correct problems associated with the wells seepage then the other option (i.e., well capping/tapping) will need to be reviewed.
Approximate Project Cost(s): Fencing, aggregate, and plantings make up the majority of this project with costs estimated between $20,000 - $25,000.00.
31
4.5
SITE 39: CATTLE/SHORELINE EROSION/ DENUDED RIPARIAN
Issue(s): Cattle have direct access to the Rat River. Cattle are able to ford the Rat River. Cattle have unrestricted access to graze on both shorelines of the Rat River. Shoreline erosion is threatening to undermine the watering source for the cattle (i.e., dug concrete well). Erosion is undermining the cattle staging area where a shelter, currently, exists.
Previous development (`1970s) has left on old river meander(s) in the south west corner of the property.
Concern(s): Direct cattle access into the river and riparian zone degrades the habitat by increasing erosion and subsequent silt loading to the river system, allowing introduction of fecal matter, and destroying riparian vegetation. A denuded riparian zone offers little buffering capacity and/or cover for aquatic biota. The concrete well is in close proximity to the Rat River. If unchecked, erosion could undermine the well and cause direct contamination to the water source. Also, it is possible that during high water years this well is under water receiving direct runoff from the adjacent shoreline and cattle staging area. Erosion to the shoreline adjacent to the shelter is reducing the buffering capacity between the staging area and the river. Continued erosion may require movement of the shelter. 32
The water in the old river meander(s) is stagnant and aesthetically unpleasing to the landowner. This water is unsuitable as a watering source for livestock. During periods of high water, nutrients from the old meander may also be flushed into the Rat River reducing water quality.
Potential Mitigative Work(s): The ideal solution would be to prevent cattle access to the Rat River with a series of fences. The existing well could be reinforced or it can be capped with a new well installed further up the bank. Aggregate could be placed along the outside river bend to reduce erosion. The old river meander could be to fenced to prevent access by livestock. The meander(s) could also be excavated to produce a larger and subsequently deeper backwater for possible cattle watering or a small wetland. Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s): Although a fencing program would eliminate cattle access to the creek, it is recognized that the landowner has no viable alternative in the vicinity for transferring cattle to the pasture across the river. Fencing of the river will reduce the available pasture at these two locations. Reinforcing the well may only be a short-term solution. Erosion could still occur and undermine mitigative works. Excessive use of aggregate and its placement may limit the buffering capacity of the newly established riparian zone. The placement of aggregate in or along the river may also redirect energy and cause additional erosion. Fencing the old meander(s) would exclude this area as pasture from an already limited pasture base.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that a three strand electrical fence, with pressure treated posts, be installed along both sides of the Rat River (Pasture-A and B). The landowner indicated that the cattle could pasture across the river (Pasture B) on a limited
Pasture B
Pasture A
Pasture A
33
basis. To allow for this, gates should be installed along each fence opposite of each other, and where a ford crossing would cause the least amount of damage (i.e., shallow, hard bottom with non-erosive banks). The approximate length of fence line along Pasture-A would be 300 m and 400 m along Pasture-B. The landowner should also limit the use of Pasture-B to periods when the water is lowest and when fish are least likely to spawn (i.e., late summer/fall) or until a viable alternative is available.
Pasture B
Pasture A
Pasture B
Fencing should be placed at least 10 m from the high water mark or top of the bank to allow for bank stabilization and the riparian zone to re-establish (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/streamf1 2005). On Pasture-A, fill could be used to dyke around the new fence line to limit the potential of flooding and possible fence damage. It is understood that the existing well is dug to a depth of approximately 10 feet and it is assumed to draw water from the high water table and not an aquifer (a drilled well in this area could reach ~200 feet). Shallow wells can draw groundwater from near or on the land surface, therefore they are at a high risk of contamination (Kipp and Callaway 2003). Given the potential to contaminate the groundwater source at this site, the existing well should be capped and a new well put in place. A potential location for the well could be on the hill top beside the existing pump house. The eroding banks could be stabilized by the new fence line and establishment of a riparian zone. Fast growing tree species (i.e., willow and dogwood) could be placed in the highly eroded areas to help stabilize the banks. Deep rooted species 34
could also be placed on the top of the bank (i.e., Manitoba maple, cottonwoods, alders). The eroding areas should be monitored for signs of continued destabilization. If it is found that soft engineering has not reduced bank erosion hard engineering (i.e., riprap) may be required. It is recommended that fencing be established to prevent cattle access to the meanders. This would reduce the amount of nutrients into the watered areas and allow for the establishment of a healthy buffer strip in the area. The total length of fencing required at this site is estimated to be 150 m, consisting of three strand electrical wire, using 5-6 pressure treated posts.
Approximate Project Cost(s): Fencing, plantings, and capping and installing a new well make up the majority of this project with costs estimated to be around $10,000.00.
35
5.0
REFERENCES
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Prairies East Region (AAFC-PFRA). 2004. Summary of Resources and Land Use Issues Related to Riparian Areas in the Rat-Marsh Rivers Watershed Study Area. Agriculture and AgriFood Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Winnipeg. Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for use with Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey Professional Paper: 964. Bain, M.B., and N.J. Stevenson, editors. 1999. Aquatic Habitat Assessment: Common Methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. CCME. 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. CCME, Winnipeg. Crowe, J. M. E. 1972. The use of two types of artificial substrates to sample the macroinvertebrates of the Rat River, 1970. Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources. 72-4. Donat, M. 1995. Bioengineering Techniques for Streambank Restoration: A Review of Central European Practices. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and Ministry of Forests, British Columbia. Watershed Restoration Project Report No. 2. Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada (ECWSC). Accessed June 2005. 2005: www.msc.ec.gc.ca/wsc.
Graveline, P.G., W.J. Western, and D.S. MacDonell. 2005. Mid Assiniboine River Conservation District: Willow Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Inventory. A report prepared for Mid Assiniboine River Conservation District by North/South Consultants Inc. Hughes, C. E. 2001. Draft: Water and biological quality of twenty seven major streams, in south and central Manitoba, Canada, 1995 through 1998. Manitoba Conservation Report No, 2001-05. Jones, G., and N. Armstrong. 2001.Long-Term Trends in Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Manitoba Streams. Water Quality Management Section. Manitoba Conservation Report No. 2001-07. Kipp, S., and C. Callaway. 2003. On the Living Edge: Your Handbook for Waterfront Living. Saskatchewan/Manitoba Edition. www.livingbywater.ca
36
Koning, C.W. 1999. Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedures. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Watershed Restoration Program. University of British Columbia. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 6. McIver, S. 2004. Using Off-Stream Water sources as a Beneficial Management Practice in Riparian Areas A Literature Review. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Milani, R., and Milani R. 1995. A Fish Habitat Inventory of Selected Watersheds in the Red River Basin. A data report prepared for The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in cooperation with the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources. By Milani Environmental Consulting. Parks Branch. 1975. St. Malo Reservoir Recreation Potential Study. A document prepared jointly by Parks Branch, Water Resources Branch, Environmental Control Branch, and the Municipal Planning Branch. PFRA. 2004. Incremental Gross Drainage Areas of the PFRA Watershed Project. Scott, W.B., and E. J. Crossman. 1979. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin. 966 pp. SESCO. 2004. South East Soil Conservation Organization (SESCO) water quality information collected from 2001-2004 for Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiative. Stanley, E.H. and M.W. Doyle. 2003. Trading Off: The Ecological Effects of Dam Removal. Front Ecol Environ; 1(1): 15-22. Stewart, K.W. and D.A. Watkinson. 2004. The Freshwater Fishes of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol. National Water and Climate Center Technical Note: 99-1. University of Manitoba. 1985. Rat River Stream Conservation Project: Methodology and Guidelines for Development. Dept. of Landscape Architecture. 32 pp. Williams, J.E., C.A. Wood, and M.P. Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Williamson, D.A. 2002. Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Manitoba Conservation Report 2002-11. Final Draft: November 22, 2002. 76 pp. Water Quality Management Section (WQMS). 2004. Manitoba Water Stewardship. 123 Main Street, Suite 160. Winnipeg, MB, R3C 1A5.
37
www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds . 2005. Protecting Your Shorelands for Better Farming and Ranching, and Healthier Fish Habitat. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Published by Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Accessed June 2005. www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/soil/soilc02a. 2005. Manitoba Soil Conservation Resource Manual. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Accessed June 2005. www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/streamf1. 2005. Managing Livestock in the Riparian Zone. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Accessed June 2005. www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/topics. 2005. Managing Forage Stands Under Water. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. Accessed June 2005.
38
TABLES
39
Table 1.
Presence of fish species within the Rat River, based on the results of an FIHCS search conducted by Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch, 2005. Common names of fish species and abbreviations used throughout this document also provided.
COMMON NAME ABBREVIATION GENUS SPECIES PRESENCE COSEWIC LISTING
FAMILY
Catostomidae Catostomidae Centrarchidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Esocidae Gadidae Gasterosteidae Hiodontidae Ictaluridae Ictaluridae Ictaluridae Percidae Percidae Percidae Petromyzontidae Petromyzontidae Salmonidae Salmonidae Salmonidae Umbridae
White sucker Shorthead redhorse Rock bass Spotfin shiner Common shiner Silver chub Pearl dace Emerald shiner River shiner Sand shiner Finescale dace Northern redbelly dace Fathead minnow Longnose dace Western blacknose dace Northern pike Burbot Brook stickleback Goldeye Black bullhead Stonecat Tadpole madtom Johnny darter Blackside darter Walleye Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Rainbow trout Brown trout Brook trout Central mudminnow
WHSC SHRD RCBS SPSH CMSH SLCH PRDC EMSH RVSH SNSH FNDC NRDC FTMN LNDC WSBD NRPK BURB BRST GOLD BLBL STON TDMD JHDR BLDR WALL CHLM SLLM RNTR BNTR BRTR CNMD
Catostomus commersoni Moxostoma macrolepidotum Ambloplites rupestris Cyprinella spiloptera Luxilus cornutus Macrhybopsis storeriana Margariscus margarita Notropis atherinoides Notropis blennius Notropis stramineus Phoxinus neogaeus Phoxinus eos Pimephales promelas Rhinichthys cataractae Rhinichthys obtusus Esox lucius Lota lota Culaea inconstans Hiodon alosoides Ameiurus melas Noturus flavus Noturus gyrinus Etheostoma nigrum Percina maculata Sander vitreus Ichthyomyzon castaneus Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Oncorhynchus mykiss Salmo trutta Salvelinus fontinalis Umbra limi
Unknown Unknown Rare Common Unknown Uncommon Common Uncommon Common Rare Common Abundant Common Rare Uncommon Unknown Rare Abundant Unknown Uncommon Rare Rare Uncommon Uncommon Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Uncommon
Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Special concern Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Special concern Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed
Number of Families = 12 Number of Species = 31
40
Table 2.
Compilation of fisheries investigations, including location captured, conducted within the Rat River and Joubert Creek by Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) between 1966 and 2004.
COMMON NAME 1 2 3 4 LOCATION 5 6 7 8
FAMILY (Genus species) FAMILY Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon castanaeus Ichthyomyzon unicuspis FAMILY Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides FAMILY Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Luxilus cornutus Margariscus margarita Notropis stramineus Phoxinus eos Phoxinus neogaeus Pimephales promelas Rhinichthys cataractae Rhinichthys obtusus FAMILY Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Catostomus commersoni Moxostoma anisurum Moxostoma erythrurum Moxostoma macrolepidotum FAMILY Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Ameiurus nebulosus Ictalurus punctatus Noturus flavus Noturus gyrinus
Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Goldeye Common carp Common shiner Pearl dace Sand shiner Northern redbelly dace Finescale dace Fathead minnow Longnose dace Western blacknose dace Quillback White sucker Silver redhorse Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Stonecat Tadpole madtom X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
41
Table 2.
Continued.
COMMON NAME 1 2 3 4 LOCATION 5 6 7 8
FAMILY (Genus species) FAMILY Esocidae Esox lucius FAMILY Umbridae Umbra limi FAMILY Gasterosteidae Culaea inconstans FAMILY Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis macrochirus FAMILY Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Percina maculata Sander canadensis Sander vitreus TOTAL FAMILIES TOTAL SPECIES
Northern pike
Central mudminnow Brook stickleback Rock bass Bluegill Johnny darter Blackside darter Sauger Walleye 10 31 X X
X X X
X X
X X X X 10 3 8 X 13
X X
14
1 = Mouth of Rat River to Hwy. 206 2 = Joubert Creek at Hwy. 59 3 = Rat River at Hwy. 205 west of St. Pierre 4 = Rat River from Hwy. 59 to St. Malo Dam
5 = Rat River at Hwy. 12 6 = Tributary crossing Hwy. 203 north of Woodridge 7 = Tributary crossing Hwy. 216 north of Woodridge 8 = Hwy. 203 at Carrick
42
Table 3.
Summary of fisheries investigations conducted, by reach, on the Rat River by Milani and Milani (1995).
SPECIES REACH 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y REACH 2 REACH 3 Y REACH 4 REACH 5
Central mudminnow Western blacknose dace Pearl dace Spotfin shiner Fathead minnow White sucker Brook stickleback Rock bass Blackside darter Johnny darter
Approximate locations of reaches: Reach 1 - 190 km from mouth of Rat River, near Carrick. Reach 2 - 170 km from mouth of Rat River, upstream of the Sand River and Rat River confluence. Reach 3 - 115 km from mouth of Rat River, west of Zhoda. Reach 4 - 84 km from mouth of Rat River, south east of St. Malo. Reach 5 - 58 km from mouth of Rat River, near Otterburne.
43
Table 4.
DATE
Calculated discharges and velocities from the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
LOCATION CODE DISCHARGE (m /sec)
3
AVG. CULVERT VELOCITY (m/s)
15-Apr-05 23-Aug-05
Rat River Rat River
RR216 RR216
12.599 0.481
15-Apr-05 23-Aug-05
Rat River Rat River
RR59 RR59
15.546 0.473
15-Apr-05
Rat River
RRH11
0.921
15-Apr-05 23-Aug-05
Joubert Creek Joubert Creek
JCVEL JCVEL
10.221 0.337
15-Apr-05 23-Aug-05
Joubert Creek Joubert Creek
JCH2VEL2 JCH2VEL
0.134
1.136
1 2
A total of four culverts A total of three culverts
44
Table 5.
Water quality data collected in situ (i.e., in the field) from the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
LOCATION DO (mg/L) 7.17 10.53 11.01 11.31 9.96 10.88 12.36 11.66 Temperature (oC) 9.9 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.9 7.2 8.0 7.0 7.9 10.5 10.0 9.4 9.0 8.8 10.2 12.5 17.6 18.0 19.3 18.7 19.0 19.7 20.9 21.5 20.0 pH Turbidity (NTU) 26 40 19 12 24 8 12 11 Specific Conductance 0.262 0.384 0.357 0.304 0.284 0.272 0.282 0.235
DATE
13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
Rat River at Red River (St. Mary's) Joubert creek at Hwy. 59 Joubert Creek @ Grunthal Road ? Joubert Creek @ Hwy. 403 Joubert Creek extension and JCH2 Rat River @ Hwy. 302 Rat River @ H3 (Norbert Arpin) RRH2 Rat River @ Hwy. 12 and Sand R. JCH2 RRH2 RRH3 RRH2 RRH3 JCH2 Joubert Creek @ Pranteau St. bridge Joubert Creek at Hwy. 205 Joubert Creek at Hwy. 216 Joubert Creek at Hwy. 403 (b) Joubert Creek extension and JCH2 Rat River @ Hwy. 12 and Sand R. Rat River @ Hwy. 302 Rat River @ Hwy. 216 Rat River @ Hwy. 59 Joubert Creek @ Pranteau St. bridge
7.40 7.57 7.48 7.70 7.64 7.00 7.78 7.06
11.9 10.4 9.58 8.91 11.07 na na na na na na na na na
8.30 8.28 8.43 8.55 8.57 8.65 8.61 8.79 8.83 9.00 8.97 9.26 9.25 9.23
12 10 10 18 36 24 14 30 11 17 19 12 5 15
0.299 0.279 0.277 0.289 0.336 0.490 0.452 0.429 0.415 0.420 0.449 0.442 0.402 0.502
45
Table 6.
Spring fish utilization results, by location and date, along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
HOOP SET RRH1 RRH1 RRH2 RRH2 RRH3 RRH3 Rat River Rat River Rat River Rat River Rat River Rat River LOCATION NRPK 4 7 10 2 1 2 26 JCH1 JCH1 JCH2 JCH2 Joubert Creek Joubert Creek Joubert Creek Joubert Creek 1 1 3 29 1 CATCH WALL 1 4 5 0 5 WHSC 29 6 1 36 5 5 41 YLPR 1 1 2 0 2 TOTAL CATCH 33 13 10 4 2 7 69 1 5 1 1 8 77
DATE OF CHECK 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 TOTALS 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 TOTALS
COMBINED TOTALS
46
Table 7.
Summer fish utilization results, by location and date, along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
SPECIES
DATE
LOCATION
TECHNIQUE
CODE BLBL BLCR BLDR BURB BRST CNMD FTMN JHDR LNDC NRDC NRPK RCBS WHSC
18-Aug-05 Rat River - downstream of RRH3 18-Aug-05 Rat River - RRH2 site 23-Aug-05 Rat River - GT Site 15 17-Oct-05 St. Malo Lake beach 18-Aug-05 Rat River - RRH2 site 22-Aug-05 Riffle area below St. Malo spillway 22-Aug-05 Plunge pool (St. Malo spillway) 22-Aug-05 Plunge pool (St. Malo spillway) 22-Aug-05 Rat River - RR302b (upstream) 17-Oct-05 St. Malo Lake beach 18-Aug-05 Rat River - downstream of RRH3 18-Aug-05 Plunge pool (St. Malo spillway) 23-Aug-05 Rat River - Hwy. 59 TOTALS FOR RAT RIVER 22-Aug-05 Joubert Creek - JCVEL site 18-Aug-05 Joubert Creek - Site 14 22-Aug-05 Joubert Creek - JH2 site 22-Aug-05 Joubert Creek - JH1 site 22-Aug-05 Joubert Creek - JH2 site TOTALS FOR JOUBERT CREEK
Dip net Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Seine Haul Visual Visual Visual
DN1 E1 E11 E12 E2 E4 E5 E6 E7 SH2 V1 V2 V3
3 3 0
1 1 0
21 2 2 Y 25 5 2 7 14
4 6 10 6 3 9
78 17 16 29 140 200+ 600+ 800+
23 2 33 58 Few 0
18 18 0
2 1 6 6 3 14 32 5 4 5 14
8 8 0
2 1 3 0
11 1 4 2 Y Y Y 18 0
1 2 1 2 6 1 1 2
1 3 1 5 13 12 25
Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Seine Haul
E10 E3 E8 E9 SH1
47
Table 8.
Total number of reaches (by land use), length of water course classified, and percentage of reach by land use cover along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
# OF REACHES TOTAL LENGTH OF REACHES (km) PERCENT OF REACHES
LAND USE Rat River Urban or Built-up Land Agricultural Land Rangeland Barren Land Forest Land Water Wetland Total Along Rat River Joubert Creek Urban or Built-up Land Agricultural Land Rangeland Barren Land Forest Land Water Wetland Total Along Joubert Combined Urban or Built-up Land Agricultural Land Rangeland Barren Land Forest Land Water Wetland Total Combined
8 51 1 41 1 5 107
20 59 0 46 2 56 183
11 32 0 25 1 31 100
4 31 2 3 16 56
7 24 3 11 34 79
8 31 4 14 43 100
12 82 2 4 57 1 5 163
27 83 3 11 80 2 56 262
10 32 1 4 31 1 21 100
48
Table 9.
Total number of reaches (by habitat quality rating), length of water course classified, and percentage of reach by rating along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
# OF REACHES/ RATING
HABITAT QUALITY RATING
TOTAL LENGTH OF REACHES (km)
PERCENT OF RATING
Rat River Class A Class B Class C Class D Total Along Rat River Joubert Creek Class A Class B Class C Class D Total Along Joubert Combined Class A Class B Class C Class D Total Combined 59 33 49 22 163 133 33 74 22 262 51 13 28 8 100 15 12 19 10 56 33 13 26 7 79 42 16 34 8 100 44 21 30 12 107 100 20 48 15 183 55 11 26 8 100
49
FIGURES
50
Figure 1. 51
Rat River Joubert Creek aquatic resource inventory study area, 2005.
60
50
Mean Monthly Q (m3/s)
40
30
20
10
0 1912 1916 1920 1925 1929 1933 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Year
April August
Figure 2.
Mean monthly discharges in the Rat River (Station # 050E001) from 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Jan Feb March April May July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month
Upper Median Lower
Figure 3.
Median, upper and lower daily quartile flows for the Rat River (Station # 050E001) for the period 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). 52
18 16 14
Monthly Mean Q (m3/s)
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 2002 2004
Year
April August
Figure 4.
Mean monthly discharges in Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) from 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan Feb March April May July Aug Sept Oct Nov
Month
Upper Median Lower
Figure 5.
Median, upper and lower daily quartile flows for Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) for the period 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada). 53
Figure 6.
Identification points used to generate a longitudinal stream bed profile along the Rat River.
500 450 400 350
Elevation masl)
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Point Identification
Figure 7.
Longitudinal stream bed profile of the Rat River. 54
Figure 8
Identification points used to generate a longitudinal stream bed profile along Joubert Creek.
500 450 400 350
Elevation(masl)
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Point Identification
Figure 9.
Longitudinal stream bed profile of Joubert Creek.
55
Figure 10.
Reaches of the Rat River, as defined by Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, U of M) and locations of historical water quality stations (Manitoba Water Stewardship, Water Quality Branch). 56
Figure 11.
Hydrologic, in situ, and photographic sampling locations along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
57
Figure 12.
Location of spring and summer fishing locations, Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2004. 58
Figure 13.
General land use/land cover along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. 59
Figure 14.
Aquatic habitat quality ratings along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005.
60
Figure 15.
Potential rehabilitation sites identified along the Rat River and Joubert Creek, 2005. 61
Appendix
62
Appendix 1.1
Monthly mean discharges (m3/sec) on the Rat River (Station # 050E001) for the period 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
Feb 0.283 0.028 0 0.113 0.038 0 0.072 0.187 0.368 0.28 0.028 0.01 0.173 0.226 0.133 0.288 0.068 0.038 0.306 0.14 0.062 0.009 0.576 Mar 0.283 0.057 0.057 0.113 0.093 0.088 2.11 0.174 0.289 0.609 0.063 0.233 0.364 0.266 0.127 3.78 0.423 0.093 0.223 1.42 0.119 1.47 0.056 Apr 17 2.12 2.69 14.4 4.7 2.07 5.1 11.4 4.22 12 5 38.8 3.54 9.65 12.6 3.35 15.4 2.71 25.9 16.1 11.8 20.5 6.34 14.6 13.8 2.68 1.51 4.95 14.1 8.95 16.8 1.64 7.68 22.6 3.58 4.1 9.43 8.53 May 6.51 5.46 3.51 3.48 8.17 3.21 1.33 2.74 4.28 8.89 17.6 18.6 5.37 2.2 52.2 2.54 2.32 8.83 4.7 3.38 2.55 1.29 3.1 2.28 6.52 1.98 11.8 3.34 6.11 14.7 4.37 63.6 9.94 1.24 1.95 12.4 7.27 9.92 10.8 1.33 11.3 9.22 3.45 9.49 5.42 11.2 Jun 3.92 2.1 2.59 1.43 2.16 1.04 2.17 1.29 4.4 3.98 2.09 1.7 41.1 4.07 18.6 4.59 2.78 1.65 1.82 0.647 5.03 0.882 1.65 0.632 1.57 11.5 9.21 2.7 0.809 9.09 1.62 1.58 8.88 3.04 0.772 6.2 16 5.65 3.69 14.3 0.868 18.6 3.93 0.49 11.6 11.3 7.36 Month Jul 2.16 2.28 1.24 1.1 1.17 0.805 0.685 3.18 0.233 0.589 1.67 0.751 14.5 4.4 5.75 14.2 0.498 2.47 0.525 0.749 0.402 0.243 0.837 0.044 0.388 3.84 5.65 2.57 0.85 2.92 2.08 0.26 9.34 0.437 0.578 3.24 1.85 1.95 2.03 16.6 3.02 3.79 1.71 0.056 2.34 8.89 4.55 Aug 2.57 0.677 0.213 0.133 0.483 0.129 0.554 0.983 0.009 0.122 0.868 1.35 2.2 0.971 1.19 4.8 0.063 0.177 0.219 0.105 0.023 0.002 0.175 0 0.308 0.547 6.71 1.04 0.057 4.88 3.34 1.69 2.22 0.521 0.335 0.465 0.414 0.546 2.93 1.32 0.286 1.49 0.262 0.032 3.44 3.78 0.38 Sep 6.44 0.583 0.51 0.113 0.329 0.08 0.32 1.63 0.042 1.08 0.878 0.464 2.43 2.95 1.38 0.821 0.043 0.061 0.447 0.171 0.152 0.01 0.196 0.228 3.01 0.523 18.3 7.37 0.684 1.19 0.823 0.351 4.68 1.03 0.007 0.549 0.756 0.21 12.5 0.761 0.047 1.66 0.221 0.039 0.978 0.29 0.334 Oct 13.6 1.29 0.875 0.703 0.866 0.305 0.662 0.81 1.04 1.19 1.93 3.65 12.9 1.85 0.84 0.406 0.949 1.02 0.819 0.47 0.466 0.413 1.1 0.384 3.08 6.97 1.92 3.69 0.364 3.55 9.74 0.984 0.15 0.618 0.992 0.866 2.41 0.609 0.599 7.53 0.17 0.166 0.832 0.322 1.42 Nov 8.84 0.85 0.712 0.705 0.797 0.924 1.34 0.339 1.67 0.994 1.58 11.1 0.635 3.85 3.85 0.635 0.399 0.731 0.813 0.755 5.59 0.761 0.728 4.63 0.839 0.157 1.33 0.513 0.784 Dec 0.85 0.566 0.142 0.142 0.17 0.199 0.214 0.141 0.324 0.758 0.713 0.266 0.209 0.319 0.625 0.29 1.21 0.377 0.392 0.826 0.372 0.07 0.83 0.312 0.324 Mean 2.64 1 0.883 2.39 0.967 1.37 1.95 9.99 2.66 0.541 1.32 3.29 2.7 4.12 5.59 0.798 4.82 3.33 0.832 2.94 3.51 2.98
Year 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Jan 0.425 0.028 0 0.085 0.08 0.07 0.046 0.222 0.34 0.46 0.048 0.038 0.119 0.34 0.118 0.501 0.106 0.089 0.353 0.338 0.029 0.216 0.288
63
Appendix 1.1
Year 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean Max Min Jan 0.087 0.784 0.307 0.071 0.264 0.267 0.223 0.153 0.029 0.082 0.2 0.075 0 0.112 0.04 0.082 0.015 0.05 0.297 0.013 0.022 0.23 0.388 0.017 0 0 0 0.481 0.077 0.117 0.682 0.274 0.178 0.784 0.000* 0.139 0.78 0.000* Feb 0.113 0.78 0.225 0.07 0.225 0.167 0.104 0.037 0.02 0.219 0.095 0.083 0 0.055 0.014 0.065 0.141 0.029 0.202 0.003 0.003 0.261 0.246 0 0 0 0 0.338 0.069 0.096 0.371 0.213
Continued.
Mar 0.085 2.33 0.715 1.15 0.405 0.221 0.273 0.568 1.57 0.169 0.232 0.198 0.068 0.403 0.058 0.132 1.32 0.82 6.74 0.599 1.69 2.9 2.67 0.062 0 0.532 0.14 2.86 0.955 1.54 11.2 0.227 0.69 9.8 0.38 2.05 0.72 0.509 2.6 2.43 1.18 11.2 0 Apr 18.1 49.9 41.7 4.36 19.8 9.51 11 4.44 1.95 23.1 2.12 4.19 0.906 9.79 10.8 4.06 1.5 10.7 15.9 3.42 2.52 17.7 18.2 2.33 2.31 3.51 0.812 26.3 4.84 3.15 11.3 14.8 40.5 18.7 5.26 1.95 30.8 4.98 3.25 26.5 11.1 49.9 0.812 May 15.4 21.2 21 5.27 10.9 26.8 5.66 4.26 1.59 31.3 4.28 1.51 0.77 4.43 12.9 0.998 0.994 6.91 4.46 1.54 2.67 27.6 3.02 0.543 1.46 1.78 1.45 8.54 2.33 2.69 3.87 25.9 28.3 19.4 7.85 2.6 16.8 7.15 5.69 19.4 8.87 63.6 0.543 Jun 7.76 9.18 1.96 4.99 3.25 14.8 1.63 0.708 1.31 12.4 2.13 1.13 0.775 0.634 5.37 0.077 1.94 6.96 3.14 3.49 1.81 2.28 0.976 0.113 1.12 4.49 1.04 1.77 1.96 1.3 2.06 9.16 3.81 8.41 8.69 8.13 12.4 50.6 7.77 27.7 5.77 50.6 0.077 Month Jul Aug 4.4 10.5 0.464 6.58 1.79 1.48 0.48 0.042 1.03 0.43 2.83 0.321 0.251 0.359 0.316 0 0.993 5.36 2.35 3 0.973 1.87 0.385 0.001 0.67 2.8 9.9 1.05 4.23 2.19 0.831 2.09 5.93 2.05 5.54 19 5.31 8.39 2.62 3.66 3.01 19 0 0.637 3.36 0.102 5.43 0.904 0.106 0.21 0.108 0.697 0.138 0.006 0.004 0.093 0.029 0.044 0 0.422 2.5 0.161 0.248 0.892 0.571 0.125 0.049 0.034 0.052 0.713 0.235 6.56 0.59 0.323 0.638 0.379 0.152 0.61 10.1 19.6 1.26 0.281 2.99 1.34 19.6 0.000* Sep 2.19 4.66 0.044 6.91 0.376 0.463 0.036 0.348 0.454 0.186 0.008 0 0.499 0.007 0.121 0.088 0.912 0.604 0.089 0.009 1.86 0.569 0.004 0 0.024 0 0.016 0.101 2.24 1.67 0.247 0.31 0.143 0.031 0.023 7.14 1.5 1.54 1.02 7.24 1.39 18.3 0.000* Oct 3.43 1.26 0.121 2.94 1.66 0.699 0.538 0.891 2.71 0.305 0.101 0.194 1.26 0.041 0.053 0.756 2.71 4.02 0.235 0.153 1.93 1.86 0.142 0.015 0.002 0.001 0.459 0.106 0.988 2.64 0.453 0.643 6 0.673 0.175 2.14 0.679 0.629 1.63 10.5 1.78 13.6 0.001 Nov 3.57 1.17 0.159 2.23 1 1.89 0.794 0.875 1.33 0.378 0.357 0.02 0.725 0.212 0.289 0.749 2.31 1.63 0.55 0.382 1.2 0.942 0.104 0.006 0.006 0.006 1.27 0.235 0.727 3.96 0.419 0.944 1.43 11.1 0.006* 0.393 1.49 0.000* Dec 1.49 0.398 0.184 0.611 0.438 0.347 0.275 0.086 0.424 0.204 0.113 0 0.123 0.103 0.118 0.141 0.777 0.835 0.141 0.106 0.411 0.604 0.096 0 0.001 0 0.606 0.149 0.242 1.46 0.29 0.961 Mean 4.78 8.78 5.57 3.39 3.42 4.75 1.77 1.04 1.1 5.75 1.05 0.64 0.457 1.34 2.52 0.592 1.17 3.37 2.86 1.08 1.34 4.81 2.18 0.259 0.469 1.1 1.38 3.49 2.11 1.79 2.68 4.69 2.64 9.99 0.259
Source: Environment Canada (www.msc.ec.gc.ca/wsc)
64
Appendix 1.2
DAY STATISTIC 1 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 2 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 3 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 4 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 5 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 6 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 7 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART
Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for the Rat River (Station # 050E001) from 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY 12.5 0.651 65.6 2.78 6.17 16.6 83 11.9 0.665 68 2.78 6.03 16.6 83 11.3 0.644 75.3 2.6 5.96 16.8 83 11 0.559 79.6 2.63 5.66 16 83 11.1 0.516 114 2.52 5.28 15.2 83 11.6 0.471 166 2.4 5.1 15.2 83 11.3 0.441 151 2.3 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.233 0.146 0.506 6.43 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 1.03 0.739 19.2 47.3 0.06 0.028 0.028 0.361 0.153 0.071 0.105 1.56 0.37 0.258 0.256 9.16 55 55 60 75 0.224 0.143 0.488 6.73 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.994 0.739 17.4 44.7 0.063 0.028 0.028 0.409 0.142 0.075 0.108 2.28 0.356 0.26 0.255 8.73 55 55 60 75 0.216 0.14 0.474 7.02 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.971 0.739 15.9 63.7 0.057 0.028 0.034 0.612 0.135 0.079 0.112 2.25 0.342 0.248 0.257 9.87 55 55 60 75 0.214 0.138 0.458 7.48 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.94 0.75 14.8 83 0.056 0.024 0.042 0.575 0.139 0.085 0.124 2.6 0.338 0.248 0.255 10.6 55 55 60 75 0.207 0.138 0.451 7.95 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.898 0.75 13.3 86.1 0.054 0.019 0.057 0.638 0.142 0.085 0.139 2.97 0.321 0.227 0.258 11 55 55 60 75 0.202 0.137 0.495 8.35 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.886 0.759 13 83.3 0.04 0.015 0.057 0.67 0.129 0.079 0.142 2.99 0.306 0.217 0.283 12.1 55 55 60 75 0.198 0.134 0.662 8.89 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.864 0.759 14.1 81.3 0.038 0.014 0.057 0.73
6.04 4.03 1.96 1.05 1.29 0.337 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 40.2 32 32.4 11.1 13.9 1.7 0.765 0.17 0.039 0.088 3.46 1.64 0.573 0.225 0.577 5.95 4.47 1.53 0.878 1.37 84 84 84 84 83 5.88 3.93 1.88 1.17 1.31 0.314 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 37.9 29.4 34.1 15.2 13.9 1.64 0.745 0.187 0.035 0.132 3.47 1.74 0.538 0.228 0.623 6.06 4.42 1.56 0.912 1.39 84 84 84 84 83 5.72 4 1.73 1.16 1.36 0.281 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 36.2 28.9 33 15.7 13.9 1.59 0.753 0.156 0.035 0.157 3.38 2 0.487 0.248 0.651 6.91 4.85 1.6 1.1 1.62 84 84 84 84 83 5.54 4.09 1.62 1.25 1.41 0.233 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 33.1 28.6 31.4 20.3 15.3 1.48 0.708 0.142 0.032 0.122 3.17 2.17 0.453 0.266 0.595 7.42 5.49 1.56 1.1 1.48 84 84 84 84 83 5.7 4.22 1.53 1.33 1.39 0.181 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 37.9 37.7 29.8 24.9 13.9 1.38 0.733 0.153 0.031 0.13 3.23 2.17 0.408 0.269 0.651 7.42 5.27 1.32 1.1 1.58 84 84 84 84 83 5.65 4.1 1.47 1.51 1.42 0.194 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 41.9 31.1 27.9 37.4 13.9 1.24 0.765 0.142 0.028 0.148 3.04 2.01 0.432 0.364 0.672 7.45 5.42 1.18 1.01 1.54 84 84 84 84 83 5.49 4 1.43 1.52 1.44 0.213 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 38.2 26.3 26.5 37.9 13.9 1.29 0.736 0.113 0.029 0.15
1.87 0.622 0.004 0.000* 14.7 3.31 0.474 0.252 0.933 0.453 1.92 0.764 70 57 1.84 0.603 0.004 0.000* 14.3 2.8 0.48 0.214 0.926 0.43 2.14 0.808 70 57 1.79 0.595 0.005 0.000* 13.7 2.61 0.482 0.198 0.927 0.439 2.2 0.778 70 57 1.74 0.588 0.005 0.000* 13.5 2.35 0.504 0.2 0.869 0.425 2.1 0.736 70 57 1.75 0.568 0.005 0.000* 12.9 2.35 0.453 0.188 0.872 0.368 2.2 0.722 68 57 1.77 0.553 0.006 0.000* 12.7 2.14 0.434 0.182 0.864 0.374 2.15 0.68 68 57 1.81 0.515 0.006 0.000* 12.5 1.93 0.442 0.174
65
Appendix 1.2
DAY STATISTIC MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 8 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 9 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 10 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 11 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 12 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 13 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 14 MEAN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR APR 3.48 12.6 75 9.42 0.085 75.9 0.812 3.8 13.4 75 9.92 0.057 72.8 1.46 3.88 13.4 75 10.3 0.081 69.9 1.91 3.77 15.8 75 10.5 0.1 66.3 1.91 4.08 16.7 75 10.8 0.142 65.4 1.72 4.97 16.2 75 11 0.142 63.1 2.1 5.15 15.4 77 11.1 MAY 4.84 15.1 83 10.7 0.263 124 2.32 4.8 14.4 84 10.3 0.435 118 2.24 5.03 13.3 84 10.2 0.435 113 2.21 4.72 12.9 84 10.2 0.469 111 2.21 4.72 11.8 84 9.39 0.518 93.4 2.24 5.17 11.2 84 9.06 0.484 92.3 2.38 5.12 10.3 84 9.31 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.128 0.085 0.142 0.308 0.213 0.283 55 55 60 0.199 0.132 0.715 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.836 0.759 19.3 0.04 0.012 0.057 0.128 0.079 0.148 0.312 0.214 0.283 55 55 60 0.199 0.178 0.692 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.813 2.76 20.2 0.037 0.012 0.057 0.113 0.079 0.154 0.328 0.224 0.292 55 55 60 0.197 0.161 0.694 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.805 1.84 20 0.034 0.012 0.057 0.113 0.082 0.146 0.308 0.227 0.306 55 55 60 0.197 0.156 0.659 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.777 1.7 18.8 0.034 0.008 0.057 0.113 0.082 0.156 0.316 0.227 0.304 55 55 60 0.191 0.151 0.649 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.759 1.51 16 0.03 0.008 0.057 0.113 0.082 0.153 0.308 0.227 0.286 55 55 61 0.188 0.15 0.631 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.739 1.44 14.3 0.029 0.009 0.057 0.118 0.082 0.142 0.292 0.236 0.304 55 55 61 0.179 0.135 0.683
2.71 1.88 0.39 0.34 0.688 0.932 0.391 7.25 5.44 1.27 1.05 1.5 2.18 0.658 84 84 84 84 83 68 57 5.3 3.86 1.38 1.49 1.47 1.78 0.49 0.16 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.005 0.000* 32.6 24.2 26.4 37.4 13.9 12.3 1.83 1.28 0.68 0.119 0.028 0.195 0.448 0.162 2.68 1.8 0.424 0.345 0.68 0.85 0.34 6.97 4.97 1.3 1.02 1.67 2.25 0.63 84 84 84 84 83 67 57 5.29 3.65 1.34 1.49 1.53 1.82 0.462 0.108 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 0.000* 37.9 26.8 27.1 37.1 13.9 12.3 1.75 1.39 0.623 0.145 0.025 0.22 0.441 0.162 2.51 1.76 0.38 0.322 0.708 0.878 0.319 7.35 4.32 1.16 1.02 1.69 2.16 0.614 84 84 84 84 83 67 57 5.29 3.53 1.32 1.48 1.57 1.76 0.445 0.04 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002 0.000* 47.6 31.7 27.3 33.4 13.9 11 1.68 1.36 0.617 0.119 0.026 0.264 0.424 0.157 2.32 1.6 0.404 0.36 0.682 0.833 0.337 8.08 4.19 0.963 0.942 1.79 2.01 0.608 84 84 84 84 83 66 57 5.35 3.41 1.36 1.38 1.63 1.72 0.424 0.034 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002 0.000* 59.7 35.2 26.9 25.2 14.1 10.6 1.65 1.21 0.566 0.105 0.024 0.262 0.424 0.148 2.34 1.68 0.379 0.354 0.732 0.85 0.283 7.56 4.19 1.05 0.982 1.85 1.96 0.594 84 84 84 84 83 66 57 5.76 3.26 1.39 1.37 1.75 1.72 0.403 0.028 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002 0.000* 88.1 35 26.2 24.7 14.6 10.6 1.65 1.33 0.53 0.098 0.021 0.255 0.416 0.142 2.64 1.68 0.341 0.342 0.753 0.98 0.26 7.79 4.08 1.08 0.923 2.12 1.87 0.579 84 84 84 84 83 65 57 5.72 3.07 1.37 1.36 1.84 1.66 0.384 0.017 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.000* 68.2 32.3 25.3 23.5 16.1 11.2 1.65 1.2 0.521 0.085 0.04 0.255 0.494 0.136 2.61 1.68 0.363 0.316 0.779 0.878 0.255 7.19 4.13 0.963 0.951 2.1 1.8 0.556 84 84 84 84 83 65 57 5.44 2.96 1.37 1.38 1.87 1.61 0.365
66
Appendix 1.2
DAY STATISTIC MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 15 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 16 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 17 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 18 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 19 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 20 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY 0.455 130 2.24 4.76 10.4 84 8.49 0.422 88.3 2.18 4.7 10.3 84 8.29 0.431 71.1 2.18 4.44 11.2 84 8.28 0.404 62.3 2.24 4.27 10.7 84 8.1 0.398 60.4 2.3 4.23 10.4 84 7.84 0.306 53.8 2.26 4.02 9.94 84 7.57 0.224 46.4 2.18 3.92 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.739 0.759 12.5 62 0.028 0.01 0.06 2.62 0.113 0.08 0.153 5.38 0.292 0.24 0.316 14 55 55 61 77 0.17 0.122 0.714 11 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.728 0.759 11.1 60.6 0.028 0.012 0.057 2.61 0.093 0.076 0.17 7.15 0.292 0.208 0.373 14.5 55 55 61 78 0.164 0.123 0.697 11.3 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.728 0.759 12 57.5 0.028 0.012 0.066 2.79 0.085 0.062 0.186 7.48 0.284 0.206 0.41 15.7 55 55 62 79 0.161 0.125 0.729 11.3 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.719 0.77 12.3 53.2 0.02 0.009 0.082 3.06 0.085 0.067 0.205 7.25 0.27 0.198 0.384 15.6 55 55 62 79 0.162 0.124 0.785 11.5 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.719 0.782 13.4 48.7 0.018 0.01 0.085 3.54 0.085 0.072 0.228 7.19 0.256 0.198 0.446 15.8 55 55 62 79 0.165 0.146 0.853 12.2 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.719 1.25 14.3 44.5* 0.018 0.013 0.085 3.52 0.085 0.085 0.257 8.5 0.284 0.218 0.603 17.1 55 55 62 79 0.163 0.144 1.01 12.9 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.227 0.719 1.16 15.3 63.7 0.019 0.019 0.085 3.51 0.085 0.079 0.275 8.5
0.023 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 59.7 29.7 24.2 22.3 18.4 11.7 1.67 1.14 0.547 0.078 0.037 0.304 0.52 0.126 2.49 1.61 0.396 0.292 0.793 0.878 0.255 6.7 3.94 0.963 0.934 2 1.74 0.516 84 84 84 84 83 65 57 5.25 2.92 1.37 1.33 1.86 1.61 0.351 0.021 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 58 28.3 22.8 19.9 17.9 13.5 1.68 1.18 0.561 0.088 0.034 0.334 0.483 0.117 2.57 1.5 0.346 0.29 0.793 0.872 0.246 6.34 3.65 0.934 0.886 1.98 1.75 0.493 84 84 84 84 83 65 57 5.03 2.89 1.33 1.3 1.83 1.61 0.337 0.017 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 56.6 27 21.2 19.1 15.8 15.8 1.65 1.04 0.507 0.085 0.028 0.306 0.468 0.114 2.44 1.55 0.338 0.28 0.748 0.926 0.241 6.18 3.31 0.934 0.878 2.09 1.62 0.444 84 84 84 84 83 65 57 4.76 2.8 1.38 1.28 1.81 1.57 0.326 0.013 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 51.3 25.2 19.6 18.1 13.9 16.1 1.6 1.08 0.462 0.068 0.028 0.322 0.481 0.108 2.22 1.56 0.271 0.291 0.736 0.871 0.227 5.55 3.23 0.915 0.878 2.13 1.67 0.438 84 84 84 84 83 64 57 4.62 2.7 1.34 1.28 1.8 1.55 0.319 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 49.3 23 18.2 17.3 13.9 18 1.57 1 0.442 0.057 0.028 0.34 0.452 0.108 2.01 1.51 0.272 0.304 0.813 0.878 0.215 5.47 3.34 0.886 0.878 2.14 1.64 0.456 84 84 84 84 83 63 57 4.48 2.61 1.34 1.33 1.79 1.52 0.323 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 50.1 20.6 17.5 16.3 13.9 18.8 1.54 0.954 0.447 0.057 0.054 0.344 0.446 0.102 1.84 1.38 0.269 0.301 0.821 0.861 0.227 5.38 3.51 0.878 0.906 2.12 1.59 0.476 84 84 84 84 83 63 57 4.49 2.45 1.33 1.38 1.77 1.47 0.321 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 51.5 18.1 16.8 15.4 13.9 18.8 1.49 1.01 0.453 0.057 0.054 0.378 0.452 0.091 1.88 1.22 0.287 0.337 0.855 0.821 0.229
67
Appendix 1.2
DAY STATISTIC UPR QUART DAYS 21 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 22 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 23 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 24 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 25 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 26 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 27 MEAN MIN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR APR 17.3 79 13.9 0.227 110 3.32 8.13 16.8 81 14.8 0.227 173 3.26 7.82 16.8 81 14.7 0.819 152 3.52 8.03 18.5 82 14 0.767 139 3.42 8 18.2 82 13.3 0.755 109 3.35 7.74 17.3 82 13.7 0.661 95.7 3.2 7.69 18.4 82 13.6 0.596 MAY 8.81 84 7.3 0.577 43.3 2.1 3.91 8.58 84 7.09 0.531 46.2 2.16 3.96 8.16 84 6.9 0.496 56.1 2.06 3.78 7.56 84 6.7 0.434 49.8 2.03 3.78 7.31 84 6.83 0.367 52.7 1.97 3.77 6.58 84 6.9 0.346 53.8 1.95 3.87 6.23 84 6.93 0.363 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.278 0.226 0.696 55 55 62 0.159 0.14 1.21 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.719 0.847 16.6 0.017 0.02 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.26 0.276 0.213 0.94 55 55 62 0.157 0.142 1.44 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.719 0.813 17.7 0.02 0.02 0.106 0.085 0.085 0.269 0.276 0.241 1.38 55 55 63 0.154 0.139 1.88 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.719 0.813 21.9 0.024 0.018 0.126 0.085 0.085 0.274 0.267 0.259 1.57 55 55 62 0.154 0.136 2.19 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.719 0.813 25.3 0.024 0.016 0.122 0.085 0.082 0.368 0.263 0.254 1.81 55 55 62 0.153 0.131 2.39 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.728 0.813 25.4 0.026 0.022 0.143 0.085 0.085 0.424 0.266 0.242 2.13 55 55 62 0.151 0.137 2.68 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.728 0.833 26 0.028 0.027 0.165 0.085 0.085 0.512 0.27 0.252 2.79 55 55 62 0.15 0.135 2.92 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*
5.47 3.17 0.903 0.923 2.03 1.56 0.457 84 84 84 84 83 63 57 4.49 2.32 1.29 1.36 1.79 1.39 0.317 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.000* 0.000* 48.7 15.8 17.8 14.6 14.5 18.2 1.44 1.02 0.396 0.051 0.051 0.414 0.48 0.098 1.84 1.19 0.279 0.384 0.821 0.736 0.227 5.61 2.83 0.991 1.05 1.97 1.51 0.456 84 84 84 84 82 63 57 4.49 2.16 1.21 1.36 1.78 1.33 0.308 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.000* 0.000* 43.3 13.6 14.4 13.3 14.9 17.4 1.4 0.963 0.368 0.037 0.051 0.438 0.42 0.091 1.69 1.11 0.272 0.36 0.82 0.756 0.218 5.55 2.5 1.1 1.19 1.92 1.33 0.447 84 84 84 84 82 61 57 4.38 2.03 1.18 1.34 1.81 1.28 0.302 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0 0.000* 0.000* 37.9 13.7 13.2 13.7 15.3 16.4 1.37 0.922 0.34 0.031 0.044 0.444 0.386 0.098 1.66 1.01 0.245 0.349 0.829 0.708 0.212 5.07 2.36 1.08 1.19 1.89 1.34 0.426 84 84 84 84 82 61 57 4.24 1.97 1.16 1.32 1.82 1.22 0.295 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.000* 0.000* 37.9 15.5 13.1 14.8 15.4 16.3 1.34 0.95 0.311 0.037 0.043 0.439 0.368 0.088 1.66 0.908 0.221 0.334 0.866 0.671 0.21 4.67 2.73 1.12 1.16 1.9 1.19 0.406 84 84 84 84 82 61 57 4.08 2.03 1.08 1.3 1.82 1.17 0.292 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 36.2 18.3 13.1 15 15.7 16.1 1.33 0.934 0.269 0.044 0.048 0.432 0.352 0.086 1.54 0.854 0.214 0.37 0.921 0.68 0.215 4.84 3.01 1.18 1.13 1.84 1.06 0.416 84 84 84 84 82 61 57 3.98 2.11 1.07 1.28 1.81 1.12 0.285 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.003 0.000* 0.000* 35.4 20.7 12.7 15.2 15.9 15.5 1.27 0.906 0.275 0.045 0.048 0.438 0.364 0.085 1.5 0.785 0.206 0.396 0.915 0.68 0.21 5.15 2.75 1.02 1.1 1.8 1.02 0.432 84 84 84 84 82 61 57 4.03 2.1 1.05 1.26 1.8 1.08 0.287 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002 0.000* 0.000*
68
Appendix 1.2
DAY STATISTIC MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 28 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 29 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 30 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 31 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.728 0.855 27.5 92.9 0.028 0.027 0.167 3.11 0.085 0.088 0.526 7.28 0.252 0.25 2.68 17.3 55 55 62 82 0.151 0.134 3.35 13.4 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.49 0.728 0.864 32.6 86.9 0.028 0.024 0.19 2.96 0.085 0.091 0.65 7.08 0.262 0.252 2.98 16.1 55 55 62 82 0.151 0.096 4.11 12.8 0.000* 0 0.000* 0.212 0.728 0.322 50.7 77.6 0.028 0.023 0.194 3.03 0.085 0.068 0.78 6.76 0.254 0.162 3.2 16.4 55 14 62 82 0.151 --4.53 12.5 0.000* --0.000* 0.235 0.728 --47 69.4 0.028 --0.22 2.88 0.085 --0.841 6.44 0.259 --3.98 16.8 55 --62 82 0.15 --5.08 --0.000* --0.000* --0.728 --47.3 --0.028 --0.271 --0.079 --0.85 --0.252 --5.41 --55 --62 ---
62.9 34.5 22.1 11.7 15.2 1.93 0.895 0.255 0.035 0.057 3.78 1.53 0.708 0.22 0.399 6 4.73 2.69 0.991 1.16 84 84 84 84 84 6.82 4.08 2.07 1.04 1.26 0.476 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 60.3 33.4 22.8 11.4 15.2 1.95 0.821 0.266 0.031 0.097 3.7 1.7 0.611 0.224 0.44 6.03 4.47 2.59 0.951 1.22 84 84 84 84 84 6.6 4.11 2.02 0.998 1.27 0.453 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 55.5 32.6 22.5 12.7 15.1 1.95 0.793 0.249 0.033 0.094 3.54 1.65 0.566 0.19 0.485 6.12 4.45 2.38 0.963 1.25 84 84 84 84 84 6.41 4.09 1.97 0.983 1.28 0.371 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 52.1 32.3 21.2 12.6 14.3 1.9 0.765 0.227 0.037 0.068 3.52 1.62 0.574 0.165 0.504 6.48 4.53 2.06 0.929 1.34 84 84 84 84 84 6.25 --1.97 0.985 --0.373 --0.000* 0.000* --45.9 --27 11.5 --1.83 --0.212 0.049 --3.66 --0.59 0.146 --6.18 --1.81 0.951 --84 --84 84 ---
16.2 14.7 1.24 0.44 0.364 0.085 0.954 0.623 0.184 1.84 1.03 0.404 82 61 57 1.79 1.04 0.278 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 15.6 14.2 1.2 0.416 0.349 0.085 0.934 0.62 0.193 1.88 0.94 0.402 82 61 57 1.79 1 0.273 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 15.3 13.9 1.14 0.424 0.344 0.085 0.943 0.592 0.198 1.88 0.912 0.388 82 61 57 1.79 0.956 0.271 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 15 13.3 1.1 0.425 0.338 0.08 0.934 0.595 0.197 1.89 0.884 0.378 82 61 57 1.86 --0.268 0.003 --0.000* 14.8 --1.08 0.473 --0.081 0.934 --0.178 1.86 --0.382 82 --57
69
Appendix 1.3
Monthly mean discharges (m3/sec) on Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) for the period 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
Feb Mar 0.478 0.318 0.14 0.092 0.028 0 0.278 0.297 0 0.083 0.005 0.037 0.131 0.009 0.05 0.147 0.205 1.55 0.272 0.435 1.04 0.273 0.073 0 0.528 0.044 1.32 0.36 0.574 5.2 0.039 0.094 0.001 1.16 2.03 0.494 5.2 0.000* Apr 14.6 16.2 0.491 7.76 6.75 3.02 0.67 0.124 11.1 0.256 0.547 0.131 2.46 3.18 1.06 0.188 3.2 5.78 0.501 0.517 5.04 5.53 0.398 0.728 0.574 0.163 8.74 0.79 0.468 2.7 6.66 13.3 1.66 1.15 10.4 3.91 16.2 0.124 May 9.14 7.11 0.57 1.94 12.9 0.815 0.334 0.096 13.1 0.277 0.088 0.033 0.674 3.06 0.073 0.126 0.925 0.703 0.135 0.204 9.35 0.54 0.114 0.116 0.166 0.278 2.23 0.301 0.41 0.507 8.56 6.04 2.25 1.66 8.29 2.66 13.1 0.033 Jun 2.99 0.407 0.506 0.333 5.25 0.056 0.064 0.044 3.94 0.417 0.199 0.026 0.061 1.31 0.002 0.046 1.48 0.348 0.971 0.094 0.428 0.089 0.008 0.053 0.934 0.331 0.27 0.187 4.5 19 1.97 9.36 1.74 19 0.002 Month Jul Aug 3.85 0.077 0.932 0.176 0.239 0.03 0.01 0.019 0.193 1.02 0.01 0.006 0.026 0.163 0 0.027 1.67 0.362 0.394 0.058 0.181 0.081 0.003 0.006 0.141 2.93 0.185 0.932 0.49 3.85 0 0.535 0.034 0.665 0.064 0.042 0.016 0.019 0.002 0.038 0.017 0 0.003 0.001 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.371 0.009 0.023 0.236 0.086 0.015 0.055 0.001 0.001 0.106 0.048 1.8 0.151 1.8 0 Sep 3.02 0.006 1.07 0.048 0.055 0.003 0.007 0.02 0.016 0.007 0 0.007 0 0.019 0.002 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.004 0.069 0.022 0.004 0.002 0 0 0.02 0.035 0.259 0.169 3.02 0.000* 0.105 0.741 0.000* Oct 0.261 0.042 0.254 0.057 0.119 0.058 0.061 0.153 0.044 0.016 0 0.025 0 0.038 0.031 0.1 0.741 0.018 0.026 0.204 0.164 0.036 0.004 0.001 0 0.223 0.101 0.156 Nov Dec Mean -
Year 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean Max Min
Jan -
70
Appendix 1.4
DAY STATISTIC 1 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 2 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 3 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 4 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 5 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 6 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 7 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART
Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for Joubert Creek (Station # 050E007) from 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada).
JAN FEB MAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.022 2.21 0.000* 0.000* 0.149 11.8 0 0.1 0.003 0.427 0.036 3.04 32 32 0.022 2.23 0.000* 0 0.123 12.6 0 0.102 0.004 0.468 0.036 2.75 32 32 0.021 2.6 0.000* 0 0.097 20 0 0.102 0.006 0.611 0.036 2.6 32 32 0.022 2.86 0.000* 0 0.099 22.9 0 0.08 0.006 0.863 0.036 4.1 32 32 0.024 3.23 0.000* 0.006 0.15 27.3 0 0.09 0.006 1.01 0.036 4.78 32 32 0.034 3.34 0.000* 0.009 0.28 27.9 0 0.102 0.006 0.814 0.042 4.31 32 32 0.072 3.67 0.000* 0.009 1.42 28.3 0 0.102
3.68 1.8 0.604 0.304 0.194 0.048 0.004 --0.048 0.009 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 --16.7 12.9 8.38 3.07 3.6 0.498 0.004 --0.172 0.081 0.034 0 0 0 ----0.576 0.22 0.179 0.04 0.008 0.005 ----6.05 1.04 0.566 0.173 0.042 0.074 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --3.52 1.71 0.551 0.25 0.445 0.048 0.004 --0.042 0.007 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 --14.9 11.3 5.86 2.57 10.7 0.371 0.004 --0.167 0.062 0.024 0.004 0 0 ----0.538 0.229 0.167 0.03 0.013 0.008 ----5.47 1.22 0.544 0.09 0.042 0.072 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --3.42 1.57 0.761 0.217 0.568 0.052 0.005 --0.042 0.008 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.005 --17.5 9.63 8.27 2.21 14.2 0.323 0.005 --0.164 0.046 0.02 0.001 0 0 ----0.474 0.189 0.153 0.021 0.01 0.02 ----5.14 1.05 0.474 0.113 0.045 0.074 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --3.17 1.47 1.19 0.197 0.38 0.053 0.005 --0.042 0.018* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.005 --15.9 9.85 19.7 2.09 8.81 0.323 0.005 --0.154 0.042 0.017 0 0 0 ----0.614 0.166 0.158 0.021 0.006 0.02 ----4.72 0.827 0.49 0.113 0.058 0.082 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --3.16 1.37 1.02 0.173 0.363 0.05 0.004 --0.046 0.005 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 --18.6 9.34 14.7 1.81 7.39 0.323 0.004 --0.127 0.042 0.02 0.001 0 0 ----0.69 0.171 0.154 0.019 0.006 0.021 ----4.34 0.819 0.639 0.113 0.055 0.069 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --3.06 1.19 0.835 0.153 0.398 0.052 0.003 --0.044 0.004 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.003 --19.3 8.95 9.17 1.6 8.81 0.323 0.003 --0.142 0.034 0.022 0 0 0 ----0.784 0.181 0.152 0.014 0.007 0.022 ----4.22 0.816 0.464 0.085 0.048 0.069 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --2.95 1.15 0.754 0.144 0.203 0.057 0.004 --0.057 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 --18.1 8.55 6.63 1.53 3.79 0.323 0.004 --0.125 0.031 0.011 0 0 0 -----
71
Appendix 1.4
DAY STATISTIC MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 8 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 9 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 10 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 11 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 12 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 13 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 14 MEAN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.007 0.051 32 0.121 0.000* 2.83 0 0.008 0.051 32 0.164 0.000* 3.96 0 0.008 0.051 32 0.194 0.000* 4.5 0 0.008 0.055 32 0.194 0.000* 4.12 0 0.009 0.05 32 0.233 0.000* 3.68 0 0.016 0.068 32 0.251 0.000* 3.54 0 0.016 0.087 32 0.31 APR 0.845 4.69 32 3.84 0.009 20.3 0.157 0.856 4.76 32 4.13 0.009 23.3 0.176 0.8 5.13 32 4.23 0.009 23.4 0.178 0.724 6.23 32 4 0.009 21.6 0.142 0.61 6.51 32 3.9 0.009 19.8 0.165 0.644 6.82 32 3.8 0.009 18.9 0.269 0.91 5.1 32 3.7 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.69 0.184 0.168 0.013 0.007 0.022 ----5.23 0.99 0.4 0.122 0.042 0.066 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --2.77 1.12 0.686 0.139 0.172 0.073 0.004 --0.042 0.002 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 --16.9 8.5 4.64 1.54 3.17 0.7 0.004 --0.131 0.032 0.017 0 0 0.002 ----0.642 0.184 0.164 0.01 0.009 0.023 ----4.4 1.11 0.363 0.078 0.042 0.082 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --2.63 1.11 0.559 0.157 0.166 0.092 0.005 --0.043 0.001 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.005 --15.2 8.3 4.09 2.05 3.03 1.03 0.005 --0.13 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.005 ----0.498 0.274 0.147 0.006 0.008 0.036 ----4.04 0.988 0.376 0.096 0.033 0.096 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --2.48 1.03 0.481 0.188 0.136 0.075 0.006 --0.041 0.001* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.006 --13.5 7.62 3.74 2.99 2.34 0.775 0.006 --0.116 0.043 0.019 0 0 0.001 ----0.485 0.354 0.155 0.002 0.007 0.035 ----3.73 0.808 0.491 0.097 0.026 0.096 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 1 --2.2 0.962 0.431 0.165 0.119 0.083 ----0.033 0.001 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* ----12.2 6.94 3.47 2.72 2.14 0.933 ----0.119 0.043 0.026 0 0 0.001 ----0.442 0.312 0.162 0.004 0.007 0.037 ----3.45 0.854 0.413 0.094 0.051 0.105 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 ----2.1 1.06 0.366 0.153 0.109 0.113 ----0.031 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* ----11.7 6.37 3.35 2.69 1.95 1.55 ----0.116 0.055 0.022 0 0 0.001 ----0.412 0.328 0.164 0.005 0.01 0.045 ----3.57 1.46 0.31 0.057 0.051 0.108 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 ----2.03 0.926 0.323 0.163 0.095 0.132 ----0.031 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* ----11.3 5.97 3.28 2.81 1.76 1.72 ----0.113 0.065 0.012 0 0 0.005 ----0.41 0.281 0.133 0.014 0.005 0.051 ----3.67 1.3 0.264 0.06 0.037 0.142 ----32 29 28 28 28 28 ----1.94 0.855 0.289 0.185 0.098 0.142 -----
72
Appendix 1.4
DAY STATISTIC MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 15 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 16 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 17 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 18 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 19 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 20 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.000* 3.4 0 0.019 0.091 32 0.392 0.000* 5.53 0 0.029 0.1 32 0.414 0.000* 6.51 0 0.032 0.12 32 0.441 0.000* 8.14 0 0.032 0.12 32 0.406 0.000* 7.53 0 0.038 0.115 32 0.435 0.000* 8.58 0.002 0.037 0.17 32 0.48 0.000* 9.72 0.007 0.052 APR 0.084 19.4 0.26 0.905 5.86 32 3.7 0.096 18.9 0.305 1.2 5.75 32 4.04 0.11 18.4 0.3 1.92 5.54 32 4.13 0.093 17.3 0.254 1.91 5.42 32 4.17 0.093 16.9 0.282 1.82 5.41 32 4.11 0.091 16.4 0.345 1.68 8.8 32 4.32 0.072 15.7 0.273 1.7 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.025 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --10.9 5.55 3.25 2.63 1.88 1.58 --0.096 0.053 0.01 0 0 0.006 --0.415 0.238 0.094 0.013 0.005 0.048 --3.47 1.23 0.255 0.062 0.028 0.156 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.06 0.763 0.29 0.153 0.095 0.139 --0.028 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --12.3 5.13 3.49 2.58 1.93 1.41 --0.117 0.05 0.01 0 0 0.013 --0.626 0.21 0.077 0.02 0.005 0.052 --4.16 0.748 0.227 0.042 0.022 0.191 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.07 0.716 0.323 0.144 0.092 0.155 --0.019 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --16.9 4.73 3.59 2.41 1.86 1.24 --0.125 0.05 0.012 0 0 0.018 --0.612 0.178 0.072 0.019 0.006 0.054 --2.54 0.693 0.241 0.042 0.028 0.18 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.2 0.641 0.363 0.13 0.091 0.148 --0.017 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --19 3.99 3.5 2.14 1.81 1.1 --0.106 0.064 0.01 0 0 0.028 --0.462 0.198 0.061 0.016 0.005 0.058 --2.2 0.694 0.207 0.051 0.025 0.195 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.17 0.588 0.369 0.125 0.103 0.14 --0.014 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --17.1 3.77 3.96 1.93 1.68 0.931 --0.091 0.062 0.008 0 0.001 0.028 --0.419 0.173 0.063 0.014 0.005 0.058 --2.09 0.622 0.183 0.035 0.028 0.201 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.22 0.58 0.381 0.132 0.186 0.136 --0.01 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --16.4 4.04 4.13 1.79 3.17 0.867 --0.113 0.052 0.006 0 0.001 0.034 --0.426 0.158 0.074 0.015 0.005 0.058 --2.17 0.58 0.193 0.048 0.03 0.204 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.29 0.596 0.364 0.111 0.167 0.137 --0.011 0 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --14.7 5.04 3.88 1.63 2.89 0.815 --0.148 0.05 0.005 0 0 0.031 --0.429 0.147 0.066 0.009 0.003 0.06 ---
73
Appendix 1.4
DAY STATISTIC UPR QUART DAYS 21 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 22 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 23 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 24 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 25 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 26 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 27 MEAN MIN
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.198 32 0.562 0.000* 11.3 0.007 0.08 0.298 32 0.528 0.000* 9.56 0.007 0.08 0.42 32 0.569 0.000* 10.1 0.007 0.088 0.455 32 0.553 0.000* 9.52 0.007 0.09 0.34 32 0.578 0.000* 9.48 0.007 0.086 0.425 32 0.656 0.000* 9.85 0.014 0.092 0.689 32 0.721 0.000* APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.31 2.04 0.605 0.179 0.051 0.032 0.189 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.85 2.48 0.626 0.333 0.104 0.129 0.118 --0.066 0.009 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --25.2 22.9 6.61 3.28 1.48 1.89 0.778 --0.251 0.17 0.048 0.001 0 0 0.022 --1.52 0.344 0.149 0.062 0.012 0.003 0.06 --8.44 1.75 0.589 0.155 0.041 0.034 0.178 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.92 2.52 0.619 0.302 0.097 0.126 0.11 --0.088 0.014 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --31.1 29.7 6.89 3.03 1.24 1.7 0.722 --0.29 0.119 0.04 0.001 0 0 0.01 --1.58 0.336 0.141 0.065 0.012 0.007 0.065 --7.73 1.38 0.568 0.149 0.041 0.052 0.17 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.57 2.44 0.589 0.281 0.13 0.112 0.108 --0.085 0.011 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --34.5 29.4 6.2 2.78 1.17 1.53 0.709 --0.266 0.153 0.038 0.001 0 0.001 0.018 --1.37 0.315 0.164 0.056 0.019 0.004 0.058 --7.28 1.29 0.624 0.113 0.107 0.037 0.166 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.29 2.53 0.529 0.276 0.138 0.106 0.113 --0.065 0.015 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --30.6 26.4 4.7 2.61 1.28 1.53 0.706 --0.235 0.139 0.037 0 0 0 0.032 --1.29 0.349 0.159 0.05 0.016 0.005 0.072 --7.73 1.3 0.698 0.128 0.106 0.038 0.164 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.3 2.63 0.47 0.352 0.14 0.101 0.115 --0.065 0.01 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --28.1 23.5 3.56 2.44 1.21 1.61 0.736 --0.234 0.136 0.042 0 0 0 0.03 --1.06 0.363 0.127 0.042 0.016 0.005 0.07 --7.53 1.23 0.674 0.113 0.066 0.036 0.157 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.38 2.5 0.414 0.527 0.152 0.094 0.12 --0.059 0.009 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --24.7 20.9 2.68 4.74 1.42 1.23 0.747 --0.201 0.107 0.04 0 0 0 0.028 --0.852 0.318 0.125 0.033 0.01 0.009 0.068 --7.36 1.18 0.642 0.122 0.045 0.04 0.182 --32 32 29 28 28 28 28 --4.36 2.47 0.4 0.531 0.141 0.072 0.125 --0.047 0.011* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* ---
74
Appendix 1.4
DAY STATISTIC MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 28 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 29 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 30 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS 31 MEAN MIN MAX LWR QUART MEDIAN UPR QUART DAYS
Continued.
JAN FEB MAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -------------------------------------------------------------------
11.6 24.9 0.028 0.202 0.099 0.72 0.864 7.03 32 32 0.827 4.32 0.000* 0.059 10.5 26.4 0.033 0.218 0.1 0.646 0.973 6.58 32 32 1.02 4.01 0.000* 0.059 10.3 22.2 0.033 0.202 0.184 0.64 0.95 6.48 32 32 1.41 3.72 0.000* 0.057 9.9 17.8 0.06 0.179 0.473 0.505 1.77 5.83 32 32 1.99 --0.000* --9.29 --0.085 --0.473 --3 --32 ---
21.8 2.17 5.3 1.21 1.04 0.724 --0.125 0.045 0 0 0 0.031 --0.31 0.159 0.04 0.008 0.012 0.064 --1.16 0.591 0.113 0.045 0.045 0.19 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.45 0.42 0.479 0.12 0.068 0.124 --0.008 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --24.4 1.84 4.98 1.04 1.14 0.689 --0.116 0.036 0 0 0 0.028 --0.324 0.188 0.028 0.012 0.015 0.068 --1.18 0.639 0.113 0.044 0.054 0.17 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.26 0.394 0.428 0.098 0.041 0.132 --0.007 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --21.4 1.86 3.95 0.869 0.583 0.681 --0.102 0.034 0 0 0 0.002 --0.294 0.185 0.032 0.017 0.012 0.068 --1.13 0.596 0.113 0.042 0.042 0.18 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --2.09 0.539 0.376 0.082 0.036 0.133 --0.011 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* --17.6 5.78 3.51 0.769 0.498 0.84 --0.13 0.034 0.005 0 0 0.002 --0.27 0.176 0.037 0.01 0.008 0.065 --1.8 0.72 0.113 0.046 0.04 0.17 --32 29 28 28 28 28 --1.94 --0.35 0.077 --0.124 --0.009 --0.000* 0.000* --0.000* --14.1 --3.43 0.754 --0.67 --0.102 --0.005 0 --0.009 --0.242 --0.042 0.012 --0.065 --1.56 --0.108 0.047 --0.165 --32 --28 28 --28 ---
75
Appendix 2.1
Results of the MWSFB FIHCS search for Rat River, 2005.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Appendix 3.1
YEAR 1965 1966 1981 1982 1986 1988 1988 1986 1989 1964 1955 1956 1957 1961 1963 1964 1966 1967 1986 1972 1983 1985 1986 1987 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1994 1995 1997
Provincial (MWSFB) stocking records for the Rat River and St. Malo Lake, 1955 to 1997.
SPECIES Brook trout Brook trout Brook trout Brook trout Brook trout Brook trout Brook trout Brown trout Brown trout LOCATION St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake ? ? Lonesands Project Area Lonesands Project Area Lonesands Project Area Lonesands Project Area Lonesands Project Area (?) St. Malo Lake ? ? ? St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake Lonesands Project Area St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake St. Malo Lake NUMBER 12000 5000 6000 100 200 12 600 250 250 10000 10000 3000 10000 12000 20000 20000 14000 1000 250 ? 6161 1000000 100000 25000 1900 100000 50000 6000 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1+ 1+ ? Fry Fry Fry Fry Fingerling Fry Fry 1+ Fry Fry Fry Fry Fry Fry Fry Fry 1+ 2+ 1+ 5+ 1+ 1+ 2+ AGE
Largemouth bass Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye Walleye
Source: Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch
87
Appendix 4.1
DATE
Physical information collected from the Rat River, during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
SIDE DISTANCE FR. SHORE DEPTH (m) 2.0 + 0.75 0.75 1.00 2.25 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 0.75 0.60 0.00 Composition Unobtainable Gravel Gravel/Cobble SUBSTRATE Compaction Unobtainable Hard Hard Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Shape Steep bank Riffle area Uniform OTHER
LOCATION
13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
RRH1 RRH2 RRH3 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216
RB LB LB RB
at shore at shore at shore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LB
13 13.8
15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 18-Aug-05
RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 E1,E2 (RRH2) E4 E5, E6 E7 (RR302b)
LB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 at shore
1.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0
Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable
RB LB
0.30
Gravel/Cobble
Hard
22-Aug-05 22-Aug-05 22-Aug-05
Below spillway Spillway plunge pool Entire width
0.2 - 0.4
Gravel/Cobble
Hard Hard Soft
Uniform Green filamentous algae Uniform Uniform Abundant aquatic vegetation
0.5 - 0.6 Boulder/Gravel 0.25 - 0.5 Mud
88
Appendix 4.1
DATE LOCATION
Continued.
SIDE DISTANCE FR. SHORE DEPTH (m) .25 - .5 Composition Silt Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) Gravel (with silt) weeds weeds Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) Gravel/Cobble (with Silt) bank edge SUBSTRATE Compaction Soft Shape Uniform Woody debris along shore OTHER
23-Aug-05
E11 (GT 15)
RB
0.5
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216
LB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11.4
0.20 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.42 0.46
Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard)
Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform
RB
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59
RB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0.58 0.60 0.68 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.64
Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard) Medium (Hard)
Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform
LB
17-Oct-05 17-Oct-05 17-Oct-05
Site 21 E12 SH2
RB Beach Beach
mid-channel at shore at shore
0.40 .30 - .5 0 - .75
Silt Sand/Cobble Sand
Very soft Hard Medium
Uniform Irregular Uniform
Below barrier, mud bars evident Along shoreline Some aquatic vegetation
89
Appendix 4.2
DATE
Physical information collected along Joubert Creek, during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
SIDE DISTANCE DEPTH SUBSTRATE Composition Compaction Shape Steep bank Grassed Shore OTHER
LOCATION
13-Apr-05 13-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 18-Aug-05 22-Aug-05 22-Aug-05
JH1 JCH2 JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL E3 (Site 14) E8, SH1 E9 (JH1)
RB LB LB
at shore at shore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13.2
1.0 + 1.0 + 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.40 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.30
Silt/Sand Gravel/Silt
Soft Medium
Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Unobtainable Silt/gravel Medium/soft Gravel Silt/Sand Medium Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Silt/Sand Hard Soft Uniform Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Steep bank Minor undercuts with gravel bar formation Silt bars, woody debris, slumping banks Some woody debris and occasional boulder
RB
Entire width Entire width Entire width Entire width RB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8.2
0.25 0.25 - .35 0.5 - 1.0 Silt/Sand 0.36 0.44 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.54 0.52
22-Aug-05 E10 (JCVEL) 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL
LB LB
0.21 0.32 0.4 0.4 0.39 0.3 0.12 0.11
Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Gravel/Silt Grassed
Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform
RB
90
Appendix 5.1
DATE
Hydrological information collected from the Rat River during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
SIDE DISTANCE WIDTH DEPTH AREA REV. SEC. VELOCITY DISCHARGE (m3/sec) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.4 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.7
LOCATION
15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216
RB
LB
1.00 2.25 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 0.75 0.60 0.00
1.00 2.25 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 0.75 0.54 0.00 0 1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 0 0 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.42 0.46
12 22 43 51 45 47 46 42 43 36 30 34 27
45.2 43 41.5 42.6 41.6 41.6 41.7 41.9 41.2 41.4 41.1 41.2 41.3
0.185 0.349 0.699 0.806 0.729 0.761 0.744 0.676 0.704 0.588 0.495 0.558 0.444
0.185 0.786 1.223 1.613 1.459 1.332 1.301 1.184 1.232 0.882 0.742 0.419 0.240 12.599
15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59
LB
1.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0
24 53 55 66 71 77 67 59 52 43 27 23 10 4
40 40 40 41 40 45 40 40 40 40 40 40 42.7 49.6
0.408 0.891 0.925 1.081 1.191 1.149 1.125 0.991 0.875 0.725 0.458 0.392 0.165 0.062
RB
0.408 1.337 1.480 1.838 1.906 1.723 1.687 1.487 1.312 1.087 0.550 0.470 0.198 0.062 15.546
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216 RR216
LB
0.20 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.42 0.46 weeds
7 11 11 13 14 13 8 6 7 5 no flow
41.3 41.2 42.3 42.5 40.6 42.1 44.2 48.6 46.7 42.7
0.122 0.187 0.182 0.213 0.239 0.215 0.129 0.091 0.109 0.087
0.024 0.037 0.038 0.064 0.072 0.075 0.054 0.031 0.046 0.040
91
Appendix 5.1
DATE 23-Aug-05 LOCATION RR216
Continued.
SIDE DISTANCE WIDTH RB 11.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.2 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 DEPTH weeds AREA REV. no flow SEC. VELOCITY DISCHARGE (m3/sec) 0.481
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59 RR59
RB
LB
0.58 0.6 0.68 0.76 0.76 0.8 0.84 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.64 bank edge
0.58 0.6 0.68 0.76 0.76 0.8 0.84 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.64
3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 no flow
40.68 40.98 48.47 50.48 52.56 40 52.55 46.81 41.68 42.3 43.81
0.058 0.057 0.064 0.048 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.066 0.057 0.056 0.039
0.033 0.034 0.043 0.037 0.045 0.047 0.050 0.058 0.049 0.047 0.030 0.473
92
Appendix 5.2
DATE
Hydrological information collected from Joubert Creek during the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
SIDE DISTANCE WIDTH DEPTH AREA REV. SEC. VELOCITY DISCHARGE (m3/sec) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8.2 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.1
LOCATION
15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL
LB
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.40 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.30
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.40 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.18
26 63 71 71 72 51 23 22 44 37 33 13 19
41 40 40 40 44.5 42.2 41 48 41 41 41 41 43.6
0.431 1.058 1.191 1.191 1.087 0.814 0.382 0.314 0.724 0.610 0.545 0.220 0.299
RB
0.323 1.058 1.489 1.668 1.630 1.221 0.612 0.314 0.724 0.610 0.409 0.110 0.054 10.221
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL JCVEL
RB
0.36 0.44 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.54 0.52
0.36 0.44 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.54 0.52
4 5 6 7 7 2 5 4
47.68 45.92 45.05 40.98 39.84 40.61 47.84 46.92
0.064 0.081 0.097 0.122 0.126 0.041 0.078 0.065
LB
0.023 0.036 0.051 0.066 0.068 0.017 0.042 0.034 0.337
23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05 23-Aug-05
JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL JCH2VEL
LB
0.21 0.32 0.4 0.4 0.39 0.3 0.12 0.11
RB
0.21 0.32 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.30 0.12 0.07 0.00
5 5 4 4 3 3 2
43.7 43.9 49.9 52.2 41.8 47.3 76.2
0.085 0.084 0.062 0.060 0.056 0.051 0.026
0.018 0.027 0.025 0.024 0.022 0.015 0.003 0.134
93
Appendix 6.1
LOCATION DATE
Biological information for fish captured during the spring fish utilization component of the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
TIME FISH # SPECIES LENGTH (mm) 304 239 280 280 280 379 412 439 358 437 422 462 430 385 433 405 339 396 388 415 452 480 430 342 450 426 356 394 392 473 283 464 360 285 321 388 WEIGHT (g) 325 125 125 150 175 375 1075 1450 725 1300 1155 1475 1325 950 1275 1125 575 900 950 1025 1275 1650 1250 625 1550 1100 750 1000 975 1675 375 1475 625 300 475 425 M 7 F M M M M 7 7 7 7 F 3 F M 7 M M F M 7 7 7 M M M F 7 7 7 F SEX MATURITY
RRH3 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1
14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05
9:15 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35 11:35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
WALL NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC NRPK
M M
8 7
94
Appendix 6.
LOCATION DATE
Continued.
TIME FISH # SPECIES LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g) 375 375 250 1125 425 350 100 100 150 M M F M F 7 7 4 7 4 SEX MATURITY
RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 JCH2 RRH3 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 JCH1 JCH1 JCH1 JCH1 JCH1 JCH1 RRH3 RRH3 RRH3 RRH3 RRH3 RRH3 RRH3 RRH2 RRH2 RRH2 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1
14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 14-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
11:35 11:35 11:35 13:30 15:00 15:40 15:40 15:40 15:40 15:40 16:25 8:55 8:55 8:55 8:55 8:55 9:25 9:25 9:25 9:25 9:25 9:25 9:25 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC YLPR NRPK NRPK WALL WALL WALL WALL NRPK NRPK YLPR WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC WHSC NRPK NRPK NRPK
363 369 320 525 388 380 276 298 302 281 455 453 423 466 436 565 199 354 351 444 376 340 343 295 269 184 310 423 382 470 328 429 397 291 426 417
700 1500 1250 1975 1425 1450 50 300 325 950 600 500 400 175 100 50 375 1225 800 1600 525 1400 1000 150 575 450
M F M F F M
7 3 7 3
M M M M
7 7 7 7
M F M
95
Appendix 6.
LOCATION DATE
Continued.
TIME FISH # SPECIES LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g) 875 325 250 450 425 F F M F M 4 4 7 4 7 SEX MATURITY
RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 RRH1 JCH2
15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05 15-Apr-05
11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 12:00
73 74 75 76 77
NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK NRPK
474 351 324 384 391
F = Female F3 = Female ripe/running; ready to spawn F4 = Spent female M = Male M7 = Male maturing to spawn in the current year M8 = Male ripe/running; ready to spawn
96
Appendix 7.1
SITE # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32
Index of rehabilitation sites, including descriptions, and aerial video chronology for the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessment survey, 2005.
DVD TIME 8:31:32 AM 8:31:54 AM 8:32:21 AM 8:32:42 AM 8:33:17 AM 8:33:52 AM 8:33:58 AM 8:34:25 AM 8:34:36 AM 8:34:40 AM 8:34:57 AM 8:35:44 AM 8:35:47 AM 8:35:54 AM 8:36:07 AM 8:40:08 AM 8:43:57 AM 8:40:32 AM 8:44:08 AM 8:52:41 AM 8:45:19 AM 8:45:23 AM 8:45:36 AM 8:46:10 AM 8:47:23 AM 8:48:30 AM 8:56:41 AM 8:56:50 AM 8:57:59 AM 8:58:28 AM 8:58:59 AM CHANNEL RIPARIAN POTENTIAL BANK CONDITION ZONE BARRIER STABILITY 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
COMMENT Farmstead with 2 separate feedlots on potentially denuded Left Bank. Farmstead with feedlot on Left Bank. Some riparian vegetation, feedlot adequate distance(?). Farmstead with feedlots on Right Bank. Feedlot ~250m south of watercourse. Cattle may have access. Farmstead with feedlot and pasture on left bank. Hogbarn(?) Cattle on video. Cattle Ford crossing. Livestock operation w/ buildings and lagoon ~ 50 m from watercourse. Grazing on left bank. Farmstead with feedlot and pasture on right bank. Livestock in pasture area on video. Potential blockage at culvert. Flooding upstream of roadway. Farmstead with feedlot and pasture on left bank. Watercourse (w/ flooding) ~ 20m from feedlot. Potential blockage at culvert. Flooding upstream of roadway. Farmstead with feedlot and pasture on right bank. Some riparian vegetation buffer on right bank. Hog barns and feedlot south of watercourse. Potential drainage channel into watercourse. Feedlot, Hog barns and pasture on left bank. Livestock appear to have acccess to watercourse. Feedlot and pasture on left bank. Livestock appear to have access to watercourse. Farmstead with feedlot and livestock buildings on right bank. Some riparian vegetation buffer. Farmstead with small light pasture on left bank. Livestock may have stream access. Farmstead with small heavily used feedlot on right bank, ~ 25m from watercourse. Cropland on leftbank. Riparian vegetation is denuded, no buffering capacity. Commercial feedlot on right bank < 20m from watercourse. Cropland on rightbank. Riparian vegetation is denuded, no buffering capacity. Small feedlot and pasture on leftbank and d/s on right bank, 2 landowners, < 10m from watercourse. Many impacts: channelization, ford, feedlots, bank instability, etc. Ford crossing Large channelization Denuded vegetation on left bank. Bank instability. Feedlot, Pasture and large dugout on left bank. Denuded vegetation on left bank. Bank instability. Feedlot and pasture on left bank. Dugout apparent. Farmstead with feedlot on right bank, <20m from watercourse. Pasture with dugout on left bank, there may also be a ford crossing here. Channel diversion, with pasture on both sides of watercourse. Channel diversion right through a feedlot on left bank.
97
Appendix 7.
SITE # COMMENT
Continued.
DVD TIME 8:59:06 AM 8:59:20 AM 8:59:29 AM 8:59:57 AM 9:02:52 AM 9:03:15 AM 9:04:14 AM 9:04:37 AM 9:07:38 AM 9:11:25 AM 9:11:39 AM 9:12:05 AM 9:14:05 AM 9:15:21 AM 9:20:54 AM 8:37:53 AM 9:01:25 AM 8:42:10 AM 8:47:48 PM 9:08:12 AM 9:09:01 AM 9:15:58 AM 9:16:48 AM 9:18:45 AM ? CHANNEL RIPARIAN POTENTIAL BANK CONDITION ZONE BARRIER STABILITY 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ?
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Channelization with pasture on left bank, appears to be a stream crossing holding back flow. Farmstead with feedlot and pasture on right bank. Several channel diversions. Channel diversion and dugouts with adjacent pasture. Pasture on left bank. Pasture on both sides of watercourse. Fasrmstead with feedlot and pasture on right bank. Farmstead with pasture and feedlot. Cattle grazing in watercourse. Large feedlot, pasture and salvage yard. Riparian buffer may limit access to watercourse. Drainage channel joins Rat River, large area of marsh flooded. Farmstead with pasture adjacent to watercourse both sides. Cattle have access to watercourse. Farmstead with pasture adjacent to watercourse both sides. Cattle have access to watercourse. Pasture on right bank of watercourse. Pasture and dugout adjacent to watercourse on right bank. Feedlots and sizable Pasture adjacent to watercourse, both sides of roadway. Farmstead with small feedlot, but large pastureland surrounding watercourse, well worn banks. Potential ford crossing for crop transport. St. Malo reservoir spillway. Golf Course on Rat River. Various opportunities for rehabilitation. Cropland on leftbank. Riparian vegetation is denuded, no buffering capacity. Drainage channel joins Rat River. Drainage channel joins Rat River. Drainage channel joins Rat River. Drainage channel joins Rat River. Drainage channel joins Rat River. Potential instream barrier, Idd by residents*
* Not groundtruthed or observable on video; UTMs 647855, 5465833 Total number of sites = 56
98

Rat River

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rat River

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seine Rat River Conservation District

SEINE RAT RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

A Report Prepared For Seine Rat River Conservation District

P.G. Graveline, W.J. Western, and D.S. MacDonell

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Final Report March 2006

Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8.

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Appendix 2.1 Appendix 3.1 Appendix 4.1

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

SITE 17: ERODING DRAIN/BARREN MEANDER

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

SITE 21: INSTREAM BARRIER/ BANK EROSION/DENUDED RIPARIAN

Final Report March 2006

Final Report March 2006

Rat River/Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

SITE 51: ZONE