Rat River

7/27/2019 Rat River

1/110

SSee iinnee RRaa tt RR iivvee rr CC oonnssee rrvvaa tt iioonn DD iiss tt rr ii cc tt

RR aa tt RR iivvee rr JJoouubbee rr tt CC rreeeekk AAqquuaa tt iicc HHaabb ii ttaa tt aanndd RR iippaa rr iiaann

AA sssseessssmmeenn tt SSuu rrvvee yy

7/27/2019 Rat River

2/110

7/27/2019 Rat River

3/110

SEINE RAT RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

RAT RIVER JOUBERT CREEK

AQUATIC HABITAT AND RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT SURVEY

A Report PreparedFor

Seine Rat River Conservation District

By

P.G. Graveline, W.J. Western,and

D.S. MacDonell

2005

7/27/2019 Rat River

4/110

Final Report Rat River/Joubert Creek

March 2006 Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey

2

7/27/2019 Rat River

5/110

Rat River Joubert Creek Final Report

Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey March 2006

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was conducted to provide baseline information on the aquatic habitat andriparian 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 compiledand summarized for the Rat River and Joubert Creek. The field component of this projectinvolved the collection of aerial video of the Rat River and Joubert Creek for subsequentland use/land cover classification and to assist in the development of rehabilitationefforts. Additional field work involved: spring and summer fish utilization surveys,collection of hydrology and basic water quality parameters, and groundtruthing aerialvideo 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 Guidelineswhile dissolved oxygen concentrations often were not. Ammonia, nitrate, and totalphosphorus concentrations on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek generally increasedwith distance downstream, indicating cumulative effects. The more noticeably highertotal phosphorus concentrations in Joubert Creek suggest that this stream may be asignificant source of phosphorus to the lower reaches of the rat River.

Historic fisheries investigations of the Rat River and Joubert Creek suggest that twelvefamilies of fish, representing 31 species, could inhabit these waters. Two of thesespecies, 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 andsummer fishing surveys. However, 13 species of fish were captured at various locationsthroughout the Rat River and Joubert Creek.

Approximately 262 km of the Rat River and Joubert Creek were classified according togeneral land use/land cover. Fifty-three percent of the land use/cover in this area wasconsidered natural (i.e., forest land, water, wetland) while 47% was considered to beanthropogenic (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 JoubertCreek classified, forest (43%) comprised the greatest percentage of land use/land coverfollowed by agricultural land (31%).

Qualitative classifications of bank stability, channel morphology, barriers to fishmovement, and intactness of the riparian zone were rated along 183 km of the Rat Riverand 79 km of Joubert Creek. Based on these ratings, one of four aquatic habitat qualityratings (Class A minimally impacted; Class B moderately impacted; Class C highlyimpacted; Class D severely impacted) was assigned to each stream reach whereattributes were similar. Over one-half (55%) of the Rat River was categorized as ClassA: followed by Class C (26%); Class B (11%); and Class D (8%). Along Joubert Creek,

7/27/2019 Rat River

6/110



ii

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 beenidentified within the study area that warrant potential rehabilitation. Five of these sites,all severely impacted, were selected and discussed within this document. The sites werechosen based on the type and variety of impacts associated with them, potential of the siteto be viewed by the public, and landowner cooperation. The rehabilitation measuresdescribed within the five sites can be used by SRRCD for development of futurerehabilitation efforts towards watershed restoration.

7/27/2019 Rat River

7/110



iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Wade Biggin of Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch (Winnipeg) is thanked forconducting a search of the Fisheries Inventory and Habitat Classification System.

Dr. Ken Stewarts (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) fisheries investigationsthroughout the Rat River watershed provided excellent information on distribution of fishspecies.

Residents of the Rat River Joubert Creek watershed are thanked for allowing access toproperty and providing valuable knowledge of the study area. Where possible, theinformation was included in this report.

Fieldwork described within this report was conducted under Manitoba WaterStewardship, Fisheries Branch Scientific Collection Permit # 12-05.

7/27/2019 Rat River

8/110



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

2.0 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

2.2 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

2.3 Watershed Classification ..............................................................................................5

2.3.1 Land Use......................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions ............................................................................ 6

2.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality.................................................................................. 9

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................................11

3.1 Historical Review........................................................................................................113.1.1 Physical and Hydrological Information........................................................ 11

3.1.2 Water Quality................................................................................................ 12

3.1.3 Fish Species Utilization ................................................................................ 13

3.1.4 Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Field Surveys ..............................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Physical and Hydrological Information........................................................ 15

3.2.2 Water Quality................................................................................................ 16

3.2.3 Fish Species Utilization ................................................................................ 16

3.3 Watershed Classification ............................................................................................17

3.3.1 Land Use....................................................................................................... 173.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions .......................................................................... 18

3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Rating .................................................................... 18

4.0 POTENTIAL REHABILITATION SITES ..........................................................................19

4.1 SITE 17: ERODING DRAIN/BARREN MEANDER ..............................................21

4.2 SITE 21: INSTREAM BARRIER/ BANK EROSION/DENUDEDRIPARIAN..................................................................................................................24

7/27/2019 Rat River

9/110



v

Page

4.3 SITE 51: CLOSE CULTIVATION/SLUMPING/ DENUDED RIPARIANZONE..........................................................................................................................26

4.4 SITE 14: CATTLE ACCESS/ DENUDED RIPARIAN/FORD CROSSING...........28

4.5 SITE 39: CATTLE/SHORELINE EROSION/ DENUDED RIPARIAN..................32

5.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Presence of fish species within the Rat River, based on the resultsof an FIHCS search conducted by Manitoba Water StewardshipFisheries Branch, 2005. Common names of fish species andabbreviations used throughout this document also provided. ........................ 40

Table 2. Compilation of fisheries investigations, including locationcaptured, conducted within the Rat River and Joubert Creek by Dr.Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) between1966 and 2004. ............................................................................................... 41

Table 3. Summary of fisheries investigations conducted, by reach, on theRat River by Milani and Milani (1995).......................................................... 43

Table 4. Calculated discharges and velocities from the Rat River and JoubertCreek, 2005. ................................................................................................... 44

Table 5. Water quality data collectedin situ (i.e., in the field) from the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 45

Table 6. Spring fish utilization results, by location and date, along the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 46

Table 7. Summer fish utilization results, by location and date, along the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 47

Table 8. Total number of reaches (by land use), length of water courseclassified, and percentage of reach by land use cover along the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 48

Table 9. Total number of reaches (by habitat quality rating), length of watercourse classified, and percentage of reach by rating along the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005. ...................................................................... 49

7/27/2019 Rat River

10/110



vi

LIST OF FIGURESPage

Figure 1. Rat River Joubert Creek aquatic resource inventory study area, 2005. ....... 51

Figure 2. Mean monthly discharges in the Rat River (Station # 050E001) from1912 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) from1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada, Water Survey ofCanada). .......................................................................................................... 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 profilealong 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 profilealong 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 locationsof historical water quality stations. ................................................................. 56

Figure 11. Hydrologic, in situ, and photographic sampling locations along the RatRiver and Joubert Creek, 2005........................................................................ 57

Figure 12. Location of spring and summer fishing locations, Rat River andJoubert 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 JoubertCreek, 2005. .................................................................................................... 61

7/27/2019 Rat River

11/110



vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

PageAppendix 1.1 Monthly mean discharges (m3/sec) on the Rat River (Station #

050E001) for the period 1912 to 2004 (Source: EnvironmentCanada, Water Survey of Canada). ..................................................... 63

Appendix 1.2 Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for the Rat River (Station #

050E001) from 1912 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada,Water Survey of Canada). ................................................................... 65

Appendix 1.3 Monthly mean discharges (m3/sec) on Joubert Creek (Station #050E007) for the period 1966 to 2004 (Source: EnvironmentCanada, Water Survey of Canada). ..................................................... 70

Appendix 1.4 Daily discharge statistics (m3/sec) for Joubert Creek (Station #

050E007) from 1966 to 2004 (Source: Environment Canada,

Water Survey of Canada). ................................................................... 71Appendix 2.1 Results of the MWSFB FIHCS search for Rat River, 2005................ 76

Appendix 3.1 Provincial (MWSFB) stocking records for the Rat River and St.Malo Lake, 1955 to 1997. ................................................................... 87

Appendix 4.1 Physical information collected from the Rat River, during theRat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessmentsurvey, 2005. ....................................................................................... 88

Appendix 4.2 Physical information collected along Joubert Creek, during theRat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparian assessmentsurvey, 2005. ....................................................................................... 90

Appendix 5.1 Hydrological information collected from the Rat River duringthe Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparianassessment survey, 2005. .................................................................... 91

Appendix 5.2 Hydrological information collected from Joubert Creek duringthe Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatic habitat riparianassessment survey, 2005. .................................................................... 93

Appendix 6.1 Biological information for fish captured during the spring fishutilization component of the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatichabitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ........................................... 94

Appendix 7.1 Index of rehabilitation sites, including descriptions, and aerial

video chronology for the Rat River Joubert Creek, aquatichabitat riparian assessment survey, 2005. ........................................... 97

7/27/2019 Rat River

12/110



viii

7/27/2019 Rat River

13/110



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Seine-Rat River Conservation District (SRRCD) invited North/South Consultants toconduct the Rat River Joubert Creek Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Assessment Survey.The primary objective of this survey was to provide the SRRCD board and partnermunicipalities with a comprehensive overview of riparian and land use conditionsaffecting the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Specific objectives of the assessmentincluded:

Compiling and summarizing historical information on hydrology, waterquality, and fisheries resources;

Determining fish use of the Rat River and Joubert Creek by conductingspring and summer surveys;

Determining land use practices along stream corridors;

Documenting riparian conditions;

Identifying and prioritizing sites in the watershed that are contributing todegradation 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 RatRiver and Joubert Creek, as well as areas that may be stressors on this watershed. It canact as a resource tool for continued watershed management and water qualityimprovements.

7/27/2019 Rat River

14/110



2

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 fromEnvironment 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 (nearOtterburne), 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 weregenerated for the Rat River and Joubert Creek. The profiles were generated byintersecting points along the Rat River and Joubert Creek polylines with 90 metre ShuttleRadar Topography Mission (SRTM) USGS DEM, using Spatial Analyst extension inESRI ArcGIS v.9.

2.1.2 Water Quali ty

Historical water quality information (1973 2001) was obtained from the Water QualityManagement Section, Manitoba Water Stewardship (WQMS 2004). The data weresorted 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 obtainedfrom Southeast Soil Conservation Organization (SESCO) (2004).

2.1.3 Fish Species Util ization

The Manitoba Water Stewardship Fisheries Branch (MWSFB) office in Winnipeg wasqueried with regard to historical fish utilization in the Rat River watershed. The MWSFBFisheries Inventory Habitat Classification System (FIHCS) was also searched. Wherepossible, interviews were conducted with local landowners and tenants who live within

the watershed. Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba) was alsoapproached for information regarding this watershed.

7/27/2019 Rat River

15/110



3

2.2 FIELD SURVEYS

2.2.1 Aerial Videography

Aerial videography was collected from a Cessna 172 on May 11, 2005. Videographyequipment included: a laptop loaded with ESRI ArcGIS, ArcView Geographic

Information System (GIS) software, a handheld Garmin Etrex Global PositioningSystem unit (GPS), and a Canon Mini-DV digital video recorder. The video wascollected 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 Creekextension, 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 numberof factors including, but not limited to, elevation, atmospheric conditions, and groundcover. Therefore, wherever possible, areas of the Rat River and/or Joubert Creek weregroundtruthed to ensure classification accuracy. Groundtruthing also allowed forcollection of ground-based photographs. Groundtruthing sites were selected duringanalysis of the aerial video and visited during the fisheries surveys.


To provide a general understanding of stream morphology and substrates in the variousbranches of the watershed, a number of random locations were selected during the fieldinvestigations for measurement of cross-sectional profiles and water velocities, andcharacterization of substrates. Substrate types were assessed based on a modifiedWentworth classification, as outlined in Bain and Stevenson (1999). Water velocity wasmeasured with a Model 1210, Price Type AA current meter.


In conjunction with groundtruthing and fish utilization surveys, some basic water qualityparameters were measured in situ (i.e., in the field) with a Horiba U-10 water qualitymeter. The parameters measured included: dissolved oxygen; conductivity (measured asspecific conductance); temperature; pH; and turbidity. In some locations, watertemperature was measured with a hand held alcohol filled pocket thermometer.

7/27/2019 Rat River

16/110



4


2.2.5.1 Spring

Spring fish utilization of the Rat Riverand Joubert Creek was assessed duringa three day hoop net survey. Thesurvey was timed to coincide withanticipated peak upstream movementsof northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye(Sander vitreus), and white sucker(Catostomus commersoni), asdetermined by water temperature.Hoop nets were set in the Rat Riverand Joubert Creek to capture fish

moving in an upstream direction. Eachhoop net was 1.2 m in diameter, constructed of 6.45 cm2 nylon mesh, and had 10.0 mlong wings which were extended to each shore where possible. All fish captured wereidentified to species, measured for fork length ( 1 mm) and weight ( 25 g), classifiedby sex and state of maturity, and released.

Visual inspections for fish presence were also conducted along some additional streamreaches.

2.2.5.2 Summer

Fish use of the Rat River and JoubertCreek was assessed during summer overa three day survey period (August 18, 22and 23). Sampling in St. Malo Lake wasalso conducted on October 17. Methodsincluded back-pack electrofishing(Smith-Root Model 15-C), beachseining, dip netting, and visual surveys.Sampling was conducted at sitesthroughout the watershed, where access

was available, and where spring hoopnets were deployed. All fish collectedwere identified to species and released.Some of the larger bodied fish were measured for fork length ( 1 mm) and classified bysex 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 ConsultantsInc. laboratory in Winnipeg.

7/27/2019 Rat River

17/110



5

2.3 WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION

The aerial video and groundtruthing data were used to classify predominant land usepractices and aquatic habitat quality along reaches of the Rat River watershed. In eachcase, reaches were bounded by obvious changes in classification attributes. Potential

barriers to fish movement were identified and classified. The following provides adescription of the classification processes and methods.

2.3.1 Land Use

Land use in the watershed was classified based on visual interpretation of the aerialvideography. 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 landuse categories. Land use along the Rat River and Joubert Creek was delineated intoseven general categories as outlined below. The categories focus on reaches of thestream and the predominant land use adjacent to the stream. Although reaches classifiedoften incorporated more than one land use type, classification of the reach was based onthe most intensive land use within the area.

Urban or Built-up Land: The majority of the land under this category is covered bystructures. 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 representagricultural 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 naturalvegetation is comprised of grasses, grass like plants, or shrubs. The natural growth inthese areas has been affected by the grazing of domestic animals or has been reseeded tointroduce domestic plant species. These areas may be predominantly in brush, as theytransform back to forest land.

Barren Land: Anderson et al. (1976) define barren land as an area with the limitedability to support life systems attributable to inadequate soil and vegetative cover.Examples of this classification would be drainage ditches adjacent to gravel roads, gravelpits, or bare exposed rock.

Forest Land: Areas dominated by forest land (e.g., mixed deciduous or evergreen) tendto be more natural and have few linear or man-made patterns. Forest land wascharacterized by a smooth texture and a randomly undulating cellular pattern, resulting

7/27/2019 Rat River

18/110



6

from the tree crowns. Because the videography was flown prior to leaf flushing, theseareas 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 aregreater 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 landsurface 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 aswetland. These areas tended to have varying amounts of water associated with them,which was characterized by a black/tannic colour. Randomly occurring pockets ofemergent vegetation also characterized these areas. Emergent vegetation tended to havecoarser textures and a cellular/globular pattern characterized by yellow and dark redcolour tones.

Urban or built-up land, agricultural land, rangeland, and barren land are considered to beanthropogenic in origin. Forest land, water, and wetland are assumed to be in a naturalstate or areas not necessarily impacted by anthropogenic means.

Categories were delineated as accurately as possible. However, there are basiclimitations given the temporal scale and resolution of the aerial video. Therefore, wherepossible, groundtruthing was utilized to confirm the initial classification based on aerialfootage.

2.3.2 Aquatic Habitat Conditions

The aerial video and information collected by groundtruthing were used to classifyaquatic habitat conditions within the Rat River watershed. Stream reaches wereclassified based on a visual qualitative assessment of conditions in and adjacent to thestream. Stream condition assessments were based on the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA 1998) Stream Visual Assessment Protocol.

The classification system was based on identifying potential impacts as a True or Falseattribute (i.e., 1 or 0 within the geodatabase) within four criteria for each reach. Forexample: 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 abarrier was observed, this reach would receive an additional value of true, and so on.The four criteria selected were: bank stability, channel morphology (hydrologicalterations and channelization), barriers to fish movements and intactness of the riparianzone. These criteria were chosen based on their relative importance to stream healthdescribed within the USDA Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (1998) and the ability tointerpret these criteria using the quality of the videography.

7/27/2019 Rat River

19/110



7

The following sections describe the stream conditions assessed in determining aquatichabitat 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 andits function (USDA 1998). High flows can redistribute larger sediments and debris toform pool/riffle habitats and increase the habitat diversity of a watershed. Alteredchannel morphology can limit the scouring effect of high flows, allowing siltation ofimportant 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 andbanks.

False condition(s):

Channel appears to be natural with no structures or dykes. No dams, waterwithdrawal, 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 (Bainand Stevenson (1999). Eroding banks can reduce instream fish cover, reduce watertransparency, smother fish eggs and benthic invertebrates with silt, and infill shallowwater habitats (Bain and Stevenson 1999). Although some bank erosion is normal in ahealthy 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 theupper 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 andrated. Due to the scale and resolution of the aerial video, bank stability was at timesdifficult to visually assess. Ratings were based on the application of groundtruthing datato 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 (USDA1998).

True Condition(s):

7/27/2019 Rat River

20/110



8

Bank(s) unstable and typically high. There may be overhanging vegetation at topof 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 intothe stream and there may be some slope failures apparent.

Bank(s) moderately stable and low. A lower amount of eroding surface onoutside 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 outsidebends 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 transitionzone 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 wellbeing of an entire stream ecosystem (USDA 1998). A healthy riparian zone can: bufferthe introduction of pollutants and/or organic matter to a stream; regulate instream algalproduction via shading; decrease erosion by stabilizing stream banks and dissipatingenergy during flood events; provide a source of cover, food, and microclimate control forfish and invertebrates; and act as a travel corridor for terrestrial animals/birds (Williamset 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 watercourses and fertilizer and pesticide applications (Donat 1995). It has been found that dewformation, precipitation, and soil moisture increases in the vicinity of a well-establishedriparian zone (Donat 1995). The quality of the riparian zone increases as both the widthand 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 filteringfunction 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 thefiltering function of the riparian zone does not appear to be compromised.

7/27/2019 Rat River

21/110



9

2.3.2.4 Potential Barriers to Fish Movement

Barriers to fish movement can be defined as any structure or habitat conditions that createa potential obstacle to fish movements (Bain and Stevenson 1999). These barriers can beanthropogenic in origin (e.g., concrete structure, earthen dam, dike, perched culvert) or

natural (e.g., beaver dam, debris dam, rapids). Besides limiting/stopping the movementof fishes, barriers can affect the health of a stream via disruption of stream flow, sedimenttransport, and thermal regimes (Bain and Stevenson 1999).

Potential barriers to fish movement were identified from the aerial video, and wherepossible, groundtruthed to verify the nature and extent of the blockage. Barriers wereclassified as follows:

1) Beaver dams2) 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 withgroundtruthing, 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 aquatichabitat quality was assigned to stream reaches based on an overall assessment of thestream conditions assessed above. The rating system, developed by North/SouthConsultants, incorporated four classes as outlined below.

Class D: Stream reaches within this category are severely impacted and generallycharacterized by altered channels and a heavily altered hydrologic regime. Thereis a lack of vegetation regeneration within the riparian zone. Because of this, thefiltering function of the riparian zone is severely compromised. Bank stability isgenerally unstable within this class.

Class C: Stream reaches within this category are highly impacted and generallyhave altered hydraulic regimes (e.g., channelization, barriers). Bank stability inthis class tends to be moderately stable. Reaches with marginal riparianvegetation may have a moderate filtering capacity.

Class B: Stream reaches in this category are moderately impacted, and typicallyhave a more natural channel morphology and hydrologic regime than Class Creaches. Bank stability in this class tends to be moderately stable. Commonly, amargin of natural vegetation may remain increasing bank stability and bufferingcapacity. Some stream reaches in this category have more natural conditions onone bank and a greater amount of impact on the opposite bank.

7/27/2019 Rat River

22/110



10

Class A: Stream reaches within this category are minimally impacted and tend tohave natural channel morphology. The riparian vegetation, which is typicallypresent on both stream banks, provides a high level of buffering capacity, fishhabitat and bank stability.

7/27/2019 Rat River

23/110



11

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 thedesignated watershed drain maps.

3.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW


The Rat River (excluding the Sand River and Marsh River Drainage) was calculated tohave a gross drainage area of 817.5 km

2(PFRA 2004). Joubert Creek has a gross

effective drainage of 348.8 km

2

(PFRA 2004; ECWSC 2005).

Monthly mean flows for April and August, and the median, upper and lower quartiles forthe Rat River (Station #050E001) are presented on figures 2 and 3. Monthly mean flowsfor 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 from0.81 to 49.9 m3/s. In August, discharges ranged from 0.0 to 19.6 m3/s, averaging 1.3m

3/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 m

3/s, averaging 0.15 m

3/s. In Joubert

Creek, peak discharges occur during April, taper off until August, and increase slightly inthe fall months.

Streambed identification points and longitudinal streambed profiles for the Rat River andJoubert Creek are presented in figures 6 to 9. Average elevations of the Rat River andJoubert Creek were calculated to be 270 and 268 masl. Rises in elevation are mostobvious in the eastern portion of this watershed, where a 50 km rise in elevation occursover a 20 km distance (AAFC-PFRA 2004).

Dr. Ken Stewart (Professor Emeritus, U of M) described the Rat River as having fourmain reaches as follows (Figure 10):

Reach 1: Extending from the mouth of the Rat River to just east of Hwy. 246. Thisreach is characterised as an embayment of the Red River and is dominated by RedRiver fish species;

7/27/2019 Rat River

24/110



12

Reach 2: Extending from Hwy, 246 to just west of Hwy. 59 at St. Malo. This area canbe described as a lowland/Red River floodplain of the Rat River. Physically, this portionof the river is characterised by a low gradient, fine sediment substrates and banks, turbidwaters, and a meandering course;Reach 3

: Extends from just west of Hwy. 59 to the east of Hwy. 12. This area has acoarser (silt to cobble) substrate, steeper gradient, a well marked incised valley, and clearbrown-stained water. Additionally, a significant portion of the lower portion of this reachis flooded by the St. Malo reservoir; andReach 4: Extending from the east of Hwy. 12 to the headwaters of the Rat River. Thisreach is characteristically boggy, has a meandering watercourse, low gradient, andbrown-stained water. The substrate is mostly comprised of fine sediment, however, sometill outcrops and coarser substrate can occur.

Detailed hydrologic and physical surveys were conducted along five reaches of the RatRiver 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 andare 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-MarshRiver. This report documents climate and ecology, water resources, land cover, soilresources, agricultural activities, and additional watershed considerations. According toAAFC-PFRA (2004) over 25% of the soils in the Rat-Marsh River watershed, occurringin 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 implementedto increase surface runoff and reduce spring ponding.


The location of historical water quality sites on the Rat River and Joubert Creek areillustrated on Figure 10. Historical data from both streams have been tabularized andpresented 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 (CCME1999). Historical pH values in both the Rat River and Joubert Creek were always incompliance with the Manitoba Water Quality Guidelines for aquatic life (6.5 9.0) andrecreation (5.0 9.0) (Williamson 2002). Dissolved oxygen concentrations often did notcomply with the Manitoba Water Quality Objectives for the protection of aquatic life.During the open-water season dissolved oxygen concentrations generally appear todecrease with distance downstream on the Rat River.

7/27/2019 Rat River

25/110



13

With the exception of the high concentration recorded at WQ0131.00 near Otterburne inFebruary 1975, historical ammonia concentrations at all sites on the Rat River andJoubert Creek have been in compliance with the Tier II - Manitoba Water QualityObjectives for the protection of aquatic life. Historically ice-cover season ammoniaconcentrations 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, nitrategenerally appeared to increase with distance downstream on both the Rat River andJoubert Creek during the ice-cover season. All historical nitrate concentrations were incompliance with Manitoba Water Quality objectives for the protection of drinking waterand the CCME (1999) guideline for the protection of aquatic life.

Similar to ammonia concentrations, total phosphorus concentrations increase withdistance downstream on both the Rat River and Joubert Creek. However, unlike ammoniaconcentration which appeared to only increase with distance downstream during the ice-cover season, phosphorus concentrations increased with distance downstream in both the

ice-cover and open-water season. Phosphorus concentrations often did not comply withthe Tier III Manitoba Water Quality Guideline of 0.050 mg/L and the frequency of non-compliance increased with distance downstream to the point where all concentrationsrecorded at WQ0132.00 on the Rat River and WQ0395.00 on Joubert Creek were in non-compliance. As for ammonia, this increase in phosphorus concentration with distancedownstream is indicative of cumulative effects.

Water quality data collected by SESCO (2004) from 2001-2004 show similar trends innutrient concentrations in the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Although recent waterquality monitoring revealed that nutrient concentrations are within the range of those thathave occurred historically, a report by Jones and Armstrong (2001) found that while totalnitrogen concentrations remained stable in the Rat River near Otterburne (WQ0131.00)from 1973 to 1999, total phosphorus concentrations increased significantly. Thisincrease 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., agriculturalactivities, 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 asignificant source of phosphorus to the lower reaches of the Rat River. However, furtherstudies would be required to identify whether or not Joubert Creek is responsible for thesignificant increases in total phosphorus concentrations that have occurred between 1973and 1999.


Thirty one species of fish, representing twelve families could inhabit the Rat River (Table1, Appendix 2). The majority of these species are common to the Rat River watershedwith the exception of the three trout species (i.e., rainbow, brown, and brook trout) andthe largemouth bass. Although there was no existing information available for Joubert

7/27/2019 Rat River

26/110



14

Creek, it can be expected that as a tributary to the Rat River it may also support the samespecies 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 conservationproject along the Rat River with the final goal of developing/enhancing brook trouthabitat as a fly fishing recreational resource. This project, referred to as The LonesandsProject 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 areain 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. fromR. 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 offathead minnow, central mudminnow, brook stickleback, northern redbelly dace, whitesucker, 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 utilizationwithin the Rat River and Joubert Creek from 1966 to 2004. This data set showed thepresence of 10 families of fish, representing 31 species, from a number of reaches of theRat 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 listedunder COSEWIC as special concern. However, Stewart and Watkinson (2004) indicatedthat sampling gear is ineffective at catching lamprey and the species is most likely morecommon and widespread than data suggest. Case (1970b in Stewart and Watkinson2004), 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 preferslarge sandy or silty rivers and, in Manitoba, restricts itself to the lowermost reaches oftributaries to the Red and lower Assiniboine Rivers (Scott and Crossman 1979; Stewartand Watkinson 2004). Although it is one of the three most abundant fish species in theRed River above St. Andrews Dam, the silver chub population of the Red River is one ofthe few apparently healthy and abundant populations for this species (Keleher andKooyman 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).

7/27/2019 Rat River

27/110



15

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 sampledmacroinvertebrates in the Rat River using artificial substrate samplers (Crowe 1972).Study locations, physical properties at the time of sampling, and test results are providedin Crowe (1972).

In 1995, Manitoba Conservation initiated a program to assess the assemblages ofmacroinvertebrates using rapid bioassessment techniques (Hughes 2001). Samplingconducted between 1995 to 1998 consistently indicated non-impairment. Hughes

(2001) defined non-impaired as an ecoregion with a balanced trophic structure, and acommunity structure that is optimum for stream size and habitat quality.

3.2 FIELD SURVEYS


All still photographs (in digital format) taken during the groundtruthing component arepresented on Disc 2. This disc contains the following: folders of still photographs takenduring the early spring, spring sampling session, summer sampling session, and fallgroundtruthing 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 waterevents of 2005. Work conducted on the ground consisted of fisheries surveys, verifyingaerial classifications, collecting still photographs of physical properties within the studyarea, and visiting potential rehabilitation sites.

Physical and hydrological data collected along the Rat River and Joubert Creek arepresented 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 precludedmeasurement of any physical attributes. Discharges were measured at the same locationson 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. Thesedischarges fall within the recorded monthly means for the months of April (0.81 49.9m

3/s) and August (0.0 19.6 m

3/s) (Figure 2). Discharges measured in April were below

the upper quartile, but above the median (Figure 3).

7/27/2019 Rat River

28/110



16

Discharges were measured at one location on Joubert Creek on April 15 (10.22 m3/s) andAugust 23 (0.34 m

3/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 fromthe 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 (Table4).


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.


3.2.3.1 Spring

A total of 69 fish, representing four species, were captured in three hoop nets set withinthe 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 alreadyspawned 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 inJoubert Creek from April 13 to 15 (Table 6, Figure 12). All fish captured were eitherpreparing 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 13species, were captured in the Rat River between August 17 and October 17 (Table 7).Brook stickleback comprised the greatest catch (n = 140), followed by centralmudminnow (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 limitedto 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

7/27/2019 Rat River

29/110



17

by the end of the first summer (Scott and Crossman 1979). Although captured fromWillow Creek one month earlier, Graveline et al. (2005) captured young of the yearnorthern pike with an average length of 88 mm. Data suggests that young of the yearnorthern 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 76mm. Four of the white suckers appeared to be young of the year and one appeared to be aone 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 sticklebackwere also captured but were not enumerated due to their abundance. In the two locationsthat this species occurred more than 1000 individuals were estimated to have beenpresent.

Lengths of the 25 white suckers captured in Joubert Creek ranged from 33 to 165 mm andaveraged 56 mm. The lengths are indicative of young of the year and yearling classwhite suckers. The presence of young of the year suckers suggests that white suckerssuccessful spawned in this stretch (i.e., JH2) of the Joubert Creek extension duringspring, 2005 (Figure 12). The presence of yearling suckers also suggests that whitesuckers 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 classifiedas barren land, but was insignificant (< 1.0 km). The primary classification of land eastof 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 thereservoir 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 inlength, 213 m in width, 3.7 m in depth, and has a total shoreline length of approximately7, 483 m or 7.4 km. (Parks Branch 1975).

7/27/2019 Rat River

30/110



18

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 theremainder.

Classification of aerial video captured from a fixed wing has limitations. One of the maindisadvantages of this application, due to reduced manoeuvrability, is the limited coverageobtainable along complex shorelines (e.g., steep banks, meanders, crown cover)(http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs). Wherever possible, groundtruthing was conductedto 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 fishmovement and intactness of the riparian zone (as per Section 2.3.2) are provided for eachpoint 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 ofthe watershed, the classifications were considered collectively to develop a qualitativeaquatic habitat rating for each reach along the Rat River and Joubert Creek. Theseratings 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) comprisedthe largest segment (51%), followed by: highly impacted (Class C, 28%); moderatelyimpacted (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 minimallyimpacted. 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 Binterspersed (Figure 14). This is attributable to the predominance of wetland throughoutthis 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 betweenHighways 216 and 403 (Figure 14).

7/27/2019 Rat River

31/110



19

Within this document, the aquatic habitat quality rating is intended to provide a generaloverview of the condition of stream reaches along the Rat River and Joubert Creek andshould be used to focus rehabilitation efforts. However, it should be noted that the ratingis 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 tooltowards watershed restoration. Williams et al. (1997) view watershed restoration as theprocess of reversing the decline of ecosystem health, thus returning a degraded ecosystemtoward its historic function. The development of a watershed restoration program is adifficult process to initiate and should begin with an understanding of watershed structureand 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 ismoderately to highly impacted by anthropogenic forces. Overall, these sources accountfor 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 externalsources, including: agricultural practices; industry; recreation (over use/abuse); orresidential practice (AAFC-PFRA 2004; McIver 2004). For example, an industry withinthe watershed may include logging. The logging industry can affect water quality byreducing or eliminating the riparian areas of the watershed. Additionally, although drainsmay move water more quickly from the fields they can also have a detrimental impact onoverall 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-PFRA2004). Furthermore, the riparian condition along most drains is limited to non-existent.Thus, the potential for deleterious substances (e.g., sediments, nutrients) entering thewatershed is increased.

Strategies for mitigating or reversing impacts to a watershed generally fall into thefollowing 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 riparianconditions not only helps to eliminate non-point sources of habitat degradation but alsoenhances instream aquatic habitat.

In contrast to the direct positive effects of mitigation activities, indirect negative effectsmay occur following rehabilitation efforts. For example, dam removal, which is oftenviewed as an obvious solution for stream rehabilitation, can have short-term negative

7/27/2019 Rat River

32/110



20

effects on the hydraulic regime, sediment loads, and bank stability. Factors to beconsidered when decommissioning a barrier include: age, construction, purpose, andcondition of the structure; and impacts of reservoir drawdown, including change inhydraulic regime, sediment transport, bank destabilization, water quality, and re-

vegetation of riparian areas (Stanley and Doyle 2003). There may also be concernsraised by local stakeholders and/or property owners. Mitigative works should be selectedcarefully, taking full consideration of the effects on stream processes and landowners.

The Rat River watershed has been the subject of rehabilitation and/or streamenhancement 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 toestablish 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 wasrehabilitated 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 andnatural brood stock.

Although not discussed as a rehabilitation site, the St. Malo Dam was identified as abarrier to fish passage. The mitigation and/or development of this area to allow fishpassage from downstream reaches would require its own, comprehensive study (e.g.,population dynamics upstream and downstream of the dam, species specific habitatsuitability, water quality, flow regimes, etc.).

When taking a progressive approach to watershed restoration, the stream reach wheremitigation 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 isconsidered a top priority, initial efforts should focus on the lower reaches of thewatershed. There is little to be gained in the short term by providing fish passagebetween habitats that fish cannot reach. In contrast, if priority is given to reversing theeffects of water quality degradation, work in upper reaches of the watershed may be justas, or more, effective than work in lower reaches.

A total of 56 sites along the Rat River and Joubert Creek have been documented aspotential rehabilitation sites (Figure 15, Appendix 7). Four from the Rat River and onefrom Joubert Creek have been chosen as potential priority sites. These sites were chosenbased on the type and variety of impacts associated with them, potential of the site to beviewed by the public, and landowner cooperation. All of the sites selected are situated inreaches that are classified as severely impacted (Class D). Impacts at the five selectedsites include potential barriers to fish movement, denuded riparian zones, direct cattleaccess to the water body, and bank instability. Some of the additional sites outlinedwithin this document also deserve consideration for rehabilitation efforts based onSRRCD watershed management priorities. The rehabilitation measures described withinthe five sites (presented in the next section in random order) can be used by the SRRCDfor development of future rehabilitation efforts towards watershed restoration.

7/27/2019 Rat River

33/110



21

4.1 SITE17: ERODINGDRAIN/BARRENMEANDER

Issue(s):

Drain outlet on roadside is eroding both thechannel and embankment.

Runoff, primarily during spring andprecipitation events, is down cutting thedrain channel at the outlet and eroding theroadside embankment.

The cultivated meander occasionally floodsduring the spring and likely contributes toincreased sediment loads in the Rat River.

There is currently no vegetation on themeander.

Concern(s):

Erosion is compromising the integrityof the road bed. If unchecked, thiscould result in increased erosion ofthe meander and subsequent sedimentloading into the Rat River. Increasedsediment loads to a watercourseincrease both turbidity and sedimentdeposits. Increased turbidity canharm fish by affecting gill membranes

and impairing feeding and foodsupplies (e.g., aquatic invertebrates),sediment deposits potentially destroy egg incubation sites (e.g., clog gravelbeds), 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 erosionand nutrient loading to the Rat River.

Potential Mitigative Work(s):

The outlet drain, embankment, and fieldwill require armouring using both hard

(e.g., gabion baskets, riprap, etc.) andsoft (grassed waterway, buffer strips,etc.) engineering techniques. A re-slopingof the embankment should also beconsidered prior to armouring. A dropstructure (e.g., rock chute spillway, droppipe, etc.) may be required at this sitegiven the steep gradient and erosive nature

7/27/2019 Rat River

34/110



22

of the soil.

The drain outlet, as it flows onto the meander, would require a soft engineeringtechnique. The creation of a grassed waterway to the meander may work best tohelp 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 thisarea: 1) if the area is continuallytoo wet for production, then itcould be returned to a morenatural state by establishing awetland in the low areas, and anatural riparian zone in upperareas; or 2) the meander could

continually be used foragricultural production byestablishing perennial forage thatcan withstand wet periods and becut for hay during dry periods. This could be done by seeding the area with nativewarm season perennial grasses. Water tolerant perennial native forage in this areawould provide temporary habitat for wildlife like waterfowl during the spring, andcould be cut for hay during summer/fall.

Establishing perennial vegetation in the meander would also aid in dissipatingenergy 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 migratingupstream may have access to the wetland. As the waters recede, these fish, andpossible spawn, could become stranded and perish.

This meander may water and dewater on an annual basis. If this is the case, itmay be difficult to establish a perennial forage crop.

A grassed waterway may be susceptible to erosion (e.g., continued erosion) giventhe steep gradient of the drain.

Recommendation(s):

The drain outlet will need to be repaired or it will continue to erode. It isrecommended that the site be assessed by an engineer to determine culvertsuitability, elevation for drain outlet and proper slope of embankment. A dropchute 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 beestablished for continued energy dissipation, following an engineers report ongradient and discharge of the drain. Grassed waterways can be used to preventgully erosion if crop residues do not provide adequate protection

7/27/2019 Rat River

35/110



23

(www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/soil/soilc02a. 2005). Water exiting the drop chute spillwaycan 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 orgrasses. 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 includebromegrass (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 theRat River. However, the land owner will need to be contacted to evaluate thepotential of the area for the establishment of a perennial forage crop. TheSRRCD and the current landowner will need to come to an agreement on how theland 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 outsideparty (e.g., engineering firm).

The second component of this site is dependent on an agreement between thelandowner and the SRRCD. A valuation at this time would be dependent on seedcost and/or the number of acres planted. Costs for this component are estimatedto be less than $2000.00.

7/27/2019 Rat River

36/110



24

4.2 SITE21: INSTREAMBARRIER/BANKEROSION/DENUDEDRIPARIAN

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 beaffecting fish movement. In spring,

it can be a complete barrier with lowwater levels or act as a velocitybarrier with higher flows.Downstream fall migrations mayalso be impaired at some waterlevels.

Shoreline erosion on both sides of

the river has been increased due tothe instream barrier. The acceleratederosion is increasing water turbidityand sediment deposits downstream.

The effect of each includes, but isnot limited to, a degradation of fishhabitat and potential loss of foodsupplies.

The absence of shoreline vegetationupstream of the barrier may result inthe direct input of potentially

deleterious substances to fish habitat(e.g. sediments, fecal matter,herbicides, etc), the loss of fishhabitat (e.g., crown cover), and the

destabilization of banks.


Removal of the concrete/rubblebarrier from the river channel.

Reinforcing the river banks wherethe barrier is causing erosion.

Revegetate the riparian areas that are denuded.

7/27/2019 Rat River

37/110



25

Potential Issues With Mitigative Work(s):

Direct access to the barrier with the required equipment (e.g. back hoe) may beproblematic. Although sparse, some larger trees on the right bank may hinder useof larger equipment.

Removal of the barrier wouldcause a short term release ofsediment into the Rat River.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that theconcrete/rubble barrier be removedfrom the river channel. Theconcrete/rubble could be placedalong 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 toavoid spring and summer spawningfish and subsequent egg incubation.It is also assumed that lower waterlevels would occur at this time.

Once the barrier is removed andthe concrete/rubble is put in place,riparian restoration would berequired. 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, isrecommended at this site. The planting of willow or dogwood species (e.g., fastgrowing) is recommended close to the river. Deep rooted tree species that canwithstand flooding and ice scouring (i.e. Manitoba maple, trembling aspen, and/orcottonwoods) are also recommended for planting within the riparian zone(www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds 2005). All of the mentioned species will assistin ground stability and act as a buffer within the riparian zone. Additionally, theregrowth will provide habitat and improve water quality along this stretch of theRat River.

As with any instream works, DFO and the regional fisheries manager will need to

be approached prior to commencing with this project.


The total cost to complete this project is estimated to be less than $15, 000.00.

7/27/2019 Rat River

38/110



26

4.3 SITE 51: CLOSE CULTIVATION/SLUMPING/ DENUDED RIPARIANZONE

Issue(s): Cultivation in close proximity to

rivers edge.

A reduced riparian zone and/orbuffer strip along this section ofriver.

Concern(s):

Cultivation close to a water coursesedge (i.e., heavy equipment) can

destabilize the bank and causefailure, 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 mayalso have direct access to the watercourse. Lack of riparian area may also meanminimal cover for aquatic species, decreased food source, or increased watertemperatures.


Cultivation or seeding can be set back from the rivers edge, allowing for theestablishment of a buffer strip between the crop and the riparian zone/banks edge.

Currently, this site does show signsof bank slumping. However, giventhat his area is an outside bend andthe high water event of 2005, someslumping is to be expected. Ratherthan take a hard rehabilitationapproach (e.g., gabion baskets,retaining walls) a soft approach atthis site is more suitable. Theshoreline should be stabilized byplanting deep rooted native

vegetation like willow, alder ordogwood (www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/shorelds 2005).

A re-vegetation/stabilization program with deep rooted trees should beincorporated as well. Tree plantings should be conducted away from theshoreline within the riparian zone.


7/27/2019 Rat River

39/110



27

A reduction in land used for agriculture (for establishment of a buffer strip) couldresult in lost crop yields.

Recommendation(s):

Cultivation should be set back from the rivers edge. A buffer of at least 10 mfrom the top of the bank is recommended, but 30 metres would be best (Kipp andCallaway 2003; www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/land/stream/streamf1 2005). The size of thearea formerly cultivated is potentially regained, to some extent, by an assumedreduction in long term bank failure.

The re-establishment of perennial native vegetation (i.e. buffer strips) on top ofthe 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 bankcan withstand and that crop production is increased via water retention and areduction 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 theplanting 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 inthe reduction of bank erosion.

Signage could be put in place indicating the cooperation between the SRRCD andthe landowner. A reduction in cultivated area adjacent to the rivers edge can alsobe used as an educational tool for similar projects.


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.

7/27/2019 Rat River

40/110



28

4.4 SITE14: CATTLEACCESS/DENUDEDRIPARIAN/FORDCROSSING

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 shorelinesand reduced the riparian vegetation. The bankshere are composed of highly erosive soil and can berelatively steep in some locations. Unrestrictedcattle access along these sections coupled with highwater events (i.e., 2005) will increasingly erode thebanks resulting in increased turbidity and direct lossof property. Cattle access is also resulting in a

direct introduction of fecal matter at both the fordand on the shoreline.

A denuded riparian zone offers little bufferingcapacity against sediments or nutrients directlyentering the stream. Currently, the vegetation alongthe 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 erosivesoil. During periods of heavy precipitation and/or livestock traffic this area is

7/27/2019 Rat River

41/110



29

susceptible to erosion, resulting in the direct input of sediments and fecal matterto 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 andan undermining of the bank stability.


The ideal solution would be to prevent cattle access to Joubert Creek, eliminatethe ford crossing, and re-establish vegetation in the riparian and buffer zone. Thiscould be accomplished by installing fencing. Alternatively, fencing should beused to restrict cattle access to the stream, but gated to allow cattle to cross in aspecific area at designated times.

The wintering/staging area at the top of the hill could be reinforced withaggregate to reduce erosion.

The riparian zone adjacent to the staging area should be allowed to naturallyrevegetate. The planting of fast growing, deep rooted tree species should also be

incorporated to stabilize banks. Given the relatively steep slope and erosivenature of the bank, consideration should be given to regrading and stabilizing thearea (e.g., hard engineering) prior to establishing a vegetated area.

The well outlet could be protected with fencing and reinforced with aggregate ordirected through a culvert or drop pipe structure. Alternatively, the well outlet orits source could be capped/tapped to prevent the flow from reaching the creekbank.


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 topasture on the south side of the creek.

Running standard fencing across the creek channel to restrict cattle to a singleford is not possible because of potentially high creek flows.

Any aggregate placed in or along the creek bank may redirect energy and causeeither additional erosion or new erosion channels.

Bank stabilization at the staging area and creek bank may be difficult to achievegiven the erosive nature of the bank and the relatively steep gradient. Reslopingthe bank (i.e., 4:1 slope) would encroach on the staging area and affect thenumber of cattle the area could hold. A compaction of the staging area may alsoprovide a more direct path for runoff and deleterious substances to reach the

creek. A system to redirect runoff to ensure that contaminated water is channelledaway from the creek may need to be developed.

7/27/2019 Rat River

42/110



30

Recommendation(s):

Cattle access along and throughJoubert Creek should be restricted (viaa fenced ford) and eliminated (via

fencing the shorelines). Fencing should be put in place to a)

eliminate cattle access to and along thebank of Joubert Creek and b) torestrict cattle access, as best aspossible, to the immediate location of

the ford. Fencing along Joubert Creek could be two strand electrical wire with a65 space between posts. However, the landowner indicated that a more suitablefencing along the staging area would be a post and bea

Rat River

Documents

Transcript of Rat River