Ghost River Watershed Riparian Health Inventory 2011 Highlights - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
ghost river watershed riparian health inventory 2011
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Ghost River Watershed Riparian Health Inventory 2011 Highlights - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 08, 2024 332 likes •819 views

Ghost River Watershed Riparian Health Inventory 2011 Highlights March 10, 2012 Benchlands, AB Ghost River Watershed 2011 Ri par i an those green zones of water-loving vegetation along rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Ghost River Watershed Riparian Health Inventory 2011 Highlights

March 10, 2012 Benchlands, AB

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Ghost River Watershed 2011

slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Ri·par·i·an

those “green zones” of water-loving vegetation along rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands

slide-6
SLIDE 6

River vs. Stream vs. Wetland

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Influences

  • n Riparian

Health

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Recreational Activities

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Natural Resource Extraction

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Addition/Removal of Water

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Grazing Animals

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Beavers

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Riparian Health Inventories

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Stratified Site Selection

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Ghost River South Ghost River Baymar Creek Jamieson Creek Tributary to Jamieson Creek Lesueur Creek Tributaries to Lesueur Creek Wetlands near Lesueur Creek Wetland near Ghost River

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Determining Riparian Width & Length

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Ghost River Watershed: Overall Health (29 sites)

86% 10% 3%

Percent

Healthy (25 sites) Healthy but with Problems (3 sites) Unhealthy (1 site)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Ghost River

Evaluation of River Health Parameters (12 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Floodplain Accessibility Human Alterations to the Site Human Alterations to the Riverbanks Control of Flood Peak by Dam(s) Addition/Removal of Water Human-Cased Bare Ground Root Mass Protection Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasive Species Cover Total Cover by Woody Species Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Woody Utilisation Dead & Decadent Material Preferred Shrub Regeneration Other Tree Regeneration Cottonwood Regeneration Not Collected Not Collected

slide-19
SLIDE 19

88% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 226 plant species identified,

including 5 invasive weeds and 20 disturbance-caused plants

  • 66% covered by trees and shrubs
  • 7% of the riverbank physical

altered, 88% due to construction

  • 2% exposed soil, 16% due to

human-causes such as recreation

slide-20
SLIDE 20 Alec McCay, Alberta Invasive Plants Council factsheet

Yellow clematis Canada thistle Perennial sow-thistle Ox-eye daisy Yellow toadflax

A Few Patches Plus Several Sporadically Occurring Plants

66-88% of the Riverbank with Deep Binding Roots

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Plant community differs immediately downstream of the diversion

<5% tree cover immediately downstream of the diversion

Typical white spruce and willow community is missing Increased sedimentation bare ground upstream of the Ghost River Dam

slide-22
SLIDE 22

South Ghost River

Evaluation of River Health Parameters (2 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Floodplain Accessibility Human Alterations to the Site Human Alterations to the Riverbanks Control of Flood Peak by Dam(s) Addition/Removal of Water Human-Cased Bare Ground Root Mass Protection Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasive Species Cover Total Cover by Woody Species Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Woody Utilisation Dead & Decadent Material Preferred Shrub Regeneration Other Tree Regeneration Cottonwood Regeneration

slide-23
SLIDE 23

99.5% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 86 plant species identified,

including only 4 disturbance- caused plants

  • 80% covered by trees and shrubs
  • One site with >5% of the woody

community dead and/or decadent

  • No human-caused alterations

were observed

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Baymar Creek

Evaluation of Stream Health Parameters (3 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Channel Incisement Human Alterations to the Site Human Alterations to the Streambanks Human-Cased Bare Ground Root Mass Protection Dead & Decadent Material Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Tree & Shrub Utilisation Preferred Tree & Shrub Regeneration Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasvie Species Cover Vegetative Cover

slide-25
SLIDE 25

86% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 116 plant species identified,

including 2 invasive species and 11 disturbance-caused plants

  • 52% covered by trees and shrubs
  • 2% of the streambank physically

altered due to livestock trampling

  • Only a trace amount (<1%) of

bare ground observed on one site

slide-26
SLIDE 26

3% covered by invasive speices: Canada thistle & Perennial sow-thistle

Scattered Individual Plants & Several Well Spaced Patches

Disturbance-caused plants cover 8% of the riparian area Browsing of preferred woody species is light overall

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Jamieson Creek & Tributary to Jamieson Creek

Evaluation of Stream Health Parameters (3 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Channel Incisement Human Alterations to the Site Human Alterations to the Streambanks Human-Cased Bare Ground Root Mass Protection Dead & Decadent Material Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Tree & Shrub Utilisation Preferred Tree & Shrub Regeneration Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasvie Species Cover Vegetative Cover

slide-28
SLIDE 28

87% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 101 plant species identified,

including 2 invasive species and 13 disturbance-caused plants

  • 61% covered by trees and shrubs
  • 12% of the riparian area is

physically altered by human activities

  • Only a trace amount of bare

ground was observed

slide-29
SLIDE 29

<1% covered by Canada thistle & Perennial sow-thistle Invasive species found in a few patches as well as several scattered individuals

Disturbance-caused plants cover 27% of the riparian area

Browsing of preferred woody species is light overall

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Lesueur Creek & Tributaries to Lesueur Creek

Evaluation of Stream Health Parameters (6 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Channel Incisement Human Alterations to the Site Human Alterations to the Streambanks Human-Cased Bare Ground Root Mass Protection Dead & Decadent Material Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Tree & Shrub Utilisation Preferred Tree & Shrub Regeneration Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasvie Species Cover Vegetative Cover

slide-31
SLIDE 31

85% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 169 plant species identified,

including 2 invasive species and 14 disturbance-caused plants

  • 53% covered by trees and shrubs
  • 6% of the riparian area is

physically altered due to recreation

  • 2% of the riparian area is bare

ground

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Canada thistle was found in a few patches as well as several scattered individuals

Browsing of preferred woody species is light overall Recreational activities and human-caused bare ground are apparent within the Lesueur Creek watershed

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Unnamed Wetlands near Lesueur Creek

Evaluation of Wetland Health Parameters (2 Sites)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Artificial Change in Water Level Human-Caused Bare Ground Severity of Physical Alterations Human Alteration to the Physical Site Human Alteration to the Vegetation Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Tree & Shrub Utilisation Preferred Tree & Shrub Regeneration Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasvie Species Cover Vegetative Cover

slide-34
SLIDE 34

95% Proper Functioning Condition (Healthy)

  • 39 plant species identified on
  • ne wetland and 79 identified on

the other

  • only 1 invasive and 6

disturbance-caused species

  • 82% covered by trees and shrubs
  • alteration to the vegetation was
  • bserved on only one site
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Canada thistle was found on one wetland in a single patch as well as a few scattered individuals Browsing of preferred woody species is light overall Few physical alterations were

  • bserved on either site and

severity was only slight

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Unnamed Wetland near Ghost River

Evaluation of Wetland Health Parameters (1 Site)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Artificial Change in Water Level Human-Caused Bare Ground Severity of Physical Alterations Human Alteration to the Physical Site Human Alteration to the Vegetation Woody Removal Other than Browse Preferred Tree & Shrub Utilisation Preferred Tree & Shrub Regeneration Disturbance-Caused Species Invasive Species Density/Distribution Invasvie Species Cover Vegetative Cover

slide-37
SLIDE 37

63% Functional at Risk (Healthy, but with Problems)

  • 79 plant species identified,

including 3 invasive and 12 disturbance-caused species

  • 40% covered by tree and shrubs
  • 10% of the vegetative

community altered by human activities

  • 10% of the site physical altered

as well

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Garden bluebell, Canada thistle, and Perennial sow-thistle cover >3% of the riparian area A few patches and several sporadically occurring individuals

40% covered by disturbance- caused species

Physical alterations are moderately severe Water level has increased due to the berm

slide-39
SLIDE 39

So How Do I Look?

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Healthy

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Healthy, but with Problems

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Unhealthy

slide-43
SLIDE 43
slide-44
SLIDE 44 Alec McCay, Alberta Invasive Plants Council factsheet Andy Fyon, www.ontariowildflowers.com Flickr: manypetals Michael Shephard, www.ab-conservation.ca Doug Waylett
slide-45
SLIDE 45
slide-46
SLIDE 46

Your Cows & Fish friends that took part in this project…

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Thank You!