PROGRESS REPORT

26 March 2012

Owl River Riparian Restoration and

Enhancement Project

Tyler Johns and Ariane Cantin

Alberta Conservation Association

#101, 9 Chippewa Road

Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada

T8A 6J7

i

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 2006, the Government of Alberta has stocked Lac La Biche with nearly 200 million

walleye fry in order to restore populations, and many of these walleye are expected to

begin spawning within the next few years. The Owl River is identified as the primary

spawning habitat for Lac La Biche walleye. However, agricultural activities throughout

the area have reduced riparian vegetation and this could potentially increase nutrient

and sediment loading of the watercourse. The resulting reduction in water quality can

have a direct impact on walleye spawning habitat, thereby potentially limiting the

success of the Lac La Biche walleye restoration program.

We collected baseline data on riparian health, water quality, aquatic habitat, and the

distribution of walleye spawning habitat, to assess the effectiveness of a long-term

initiative to protect and restore riparian vegetation along the Owl River. Our study area

extended 40 km upstream from the mouth of the river at Lac La Biche and included a

portion of the Piche River. Aerial videography assessment indicated that 47% of the

riparian area was in good condition, with 39% and 14% in fair and poor conditions,

respectively.

We observed several fish, including walleye and white suckers, in the upstream 10-km

section of the study area, but very few fish in the downstream 30-km section.

Congregation of walleye in the upstream 10-km section confirms the identification of

this section of the river, by Alberta Sustainable Resources Development (ASRD), as

suitable walleye spawning grounds. The dominant substrate of sites in the upper

section consisted of boulders, cobble and gravel suitable for walleye spawning, while

sites in the lower section consisted mainly of fines and sands, not suitable for walleye

spawning. Overall, bank disturbance (erosion, exposed soil, human disturbance) along

the river was low with grasses, sedges and woody shrubs dominating the vegetation.

Dissolved oxygen was high (6.0-13.1 mg/L) throughout the river system from May to

August. Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were high (summer average: 92-140 µg/L)

throughout the system and were the highest at downstream sites. Based on TP values,

the Owl River may be considered as eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic. Total nitrogen

concentrations ranged from 0.93 to 1.3 mg/L and slightly exceeded the Alberta

ii

Environment (AENV) limit (1.0 mg/L) in most cases. Total coliform counts were low in

May, but exceeded the CCME limit for agriculture use (>1,000 mpn/100mL) at most sites

in the summer. We collected a total of 11,705 macroinvertebrates belonging to 54

families. Diversity ranged from 1.2 to 2.2 and richness ranged from 30 to 36; there were

no clear spatial distributional patterns. The most common family was Baetidae (Order:

Ephemeroptera).

We initiated communications with several landowners interested in working with

Alberta Conservation Association to restore and enhance riparian vegetation along the

Owl River. We reached a verbal agreement with a leaseholder, pending approval by

ASRD Public Lands, to protect approximately 9 km of riparian area along the river with

riparian fencing. We are currently working with ASRD to complete a survey of the new

lease boundaries and change the lease permanently

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Alberta Sustainable Resource Development staff Chris Davis, Alicia Morin

and Eric Hegerat for their help with project development, site access and field

assistance. Thanks to Michael Short for featuring the project on a “Let’s Go Outdoors”

television broadcast. We also thank the private landowners who kindly provided access

to their lands. Syncrude Canada Ltd. provided core funding for this project.

iv

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. III

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. V

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. ix

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

2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................... 4

3.1 Walleye spawning habitat ............................................................................ 4

3.2 Riparian health assessment .......................................................................... 4

3.3 Aquatic habitat assessment .......................................................................... 6

3.4 Water quality and macroinvertebrates ....................................................... 6

3.5 Land tenure negotiations .............................................................................. 7

4.0 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Walleye spawning habitat ............................................................................ 8

4.2 Riparian health assessment .......................................................................... 8

4.3 Aquatic habitat assessment ........................................................................ 10

4.4 Water quality and macroinvertebrates ..................................................... 12

4.5 Land tenure negotiations ............................................................................ 14

5.0 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................. 15

6.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 17

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Owl River system study area and survey site locations, Alberta, 2011. ............ 3

Figure 2. Aerial photo showing the zones of a riparian management area. ..................... 5

Figure 3. Summary of the Owl River system riparian health assessments by aerial

videography. .............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Map of the Owl River system riparian health assessments by aerial

videography. .............................................................................................................. 9

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Health ratings of sites with riparian inventories along the Owl River

system….. ................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2. Summary of habitat characteristics for the Owl River system. .......................... 11

Table 3. Summer averages (June and August, 2011) for key water quality variables at

the five water quality sites in the Owl River system. .......................................... 13

Table 4. Characteristics of the macro-invertebrate community collected at the five

water quality sites in the Owl River system, summer 2011 ................................ 14

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Example of aerial videography of a riparian area on the Owl River.......... 17

Appendix 2. Riparian inventory site OWL9. ........................................................................ 18

Appendix 3. Habitat characteristics on the Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. .......... 19

Appendix 4. Water quality at five sites on the Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. ..... 21

Appendix 5. Abundance of macroinvertebrates at the five water quality sites on the

Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. ............................................................... 24

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government of Alberta has expended substantial effort and resources at restoring

walleye (Sander vitreus) populations in Lac La Biche. A zero limit is currently in place

for the walleye sport fishery and commercial fishing activities have been reduced. A

walleye fry stocking program was established and nearly 200 million fry and fingerlings

have been stocked in the lake since 2006. Many of the stocked fish will reach sexual

maturity within the next few years (2012 – 2013) and it is expected that this will result in

a larger spawning run and greater natural recruitment of walleye in the lake.

The Owl River was identified as the primary spawning habitat for Lac La Biche walleye

by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) (Chris Davis, ASRD pers. com.).

The spawning habitat is located approximately 30 km upstream from Lac La Biche and

portions of this 30-km section of the river are in grazing leases, interspersed with

stretches of private land. Long-term grazing and other agricultural activities throughout

the area have reduced riparian vegetation and this could potentially increase nutrient

and sediment loading of the watercourse. The resulting reduction in water quality can

have a direct impact on walleye spawning habitat in the Owl River, as well as overall

water quality in Lac La Biche, thereby potentially limiting the success of the walleye

restoration program.

Increased nutrient loading promotes cultural eutrophication, characterized by excessive

growth of algae (including toxic algal blooms) and plants, and high oxygen depletion

rates (Carpenter et al. 1998). Increased sedimentation can reduce the availability of large

substrate and the associated interstitial space, as well as hydraulic conditions that

produce preferred walleye spawning velocity-substrate conditions (i.e., continuous

current and well-oxygenated sediments) (Bozek et al. 2011a, 2011b). In addition, the

resulting elevated turbidity from sediments and particulate organic matter can increase

larval mortality through reductions in respiratory efficiency and abrasion during out-

migration (Bozek et al. 2011a, 2011b; Barton and Barry 2011).

In this study, we collect baseline data on riparian health, water quality, aquatic habitat,

and the distribution of walleye spawning habitat, to assess the effectiveness of a long-

term initiative to protect and restore riparian vegetation along the Owl River. Follow-up

2

monitoring surveys are planned for 2014, and 2017. The primary objectives for the

current study were to:

1. Describe the overall health of riparian vegetation along a 46-km section of the

Owl River system using aerial videography.

2. Describe basic aquatic habitat characteristics including substrate, river bank and

water quality along a 40-km section of the Owl River.

3. Determine the location and characteristics of walleye spawning habitat.

4. Work with government agencies and landowners to protect and enhance riparian

areas along a 30-km section of the Owl River.

2.0 STUDY AREA

The Owl River is located 220 km northeast of the city Edmonton, in the Lac La Biche

sub-basin. It is the major inflow river to Lac La Biche and it drains an area of 3,364 km2

(Figure 1). The Piche River is a major tributary to the Owl River. Our study area starts at

the Piche River confluence and ends at the mouth of the river, a distance of

approximately 40 km. The study area is composed of two sections; the upstream 10-km

section includes the identified walleye spawning habitat and the downstream 30-km

section which runs through grazing leases, interspersed with stretches of private land,

all of which support livestock grazing. The videography study area continues an

additional 6 km further upstream on the Owl River and 7 km upstream on the Piche

River.

3

Figure 1. Owl River system study area and survey site locations, Alberta, 2011. Inset

map of Alberta shows the location of the study area within the province.

4

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Walleye spawning habitat

We completed night-time visual surveys during the peak of the spawning season to

determine the location and characteristics of the habitat used by spawning walleye. We

first conducted daytime reconnaissance surveys on the Owl River, from the Alpac K

Road crossing, downstream to Lac La Biche (Figure 1), to assess any potential safety

hazards. We then conducted four nights of surveys over approximately 40 km of the

river, from the confluence with the Piche River downstream to the lake. We actively

searched for walleye using hand-held spotlights, starting one hour after sunset and

continuing for 2 to 3 hours. A two-person crew conducted the survey from a boat and

from shore. We identified walleye from other species using two distinguishing

characteristics; reflective eyes and white colouration on the lower part of the caudal fin

(Dustin and Jacobson 2003). Locations of walleye were entered into a hand-held GPS

unit.

3.2 Riparian health assessment

We used aerial videography to assess the overall health of riparian vegetation

throughout the study area (Figure 1). We captured videos during a 1.5 h flight on 5 July

2011 using a helicopter (Bell 206 Jet Ranger) flown at a speed of 30-35 knots, 45-60 m

above ground; this allowed both river banks to be recorded at the same time with

appropriate resolution. The Owl River was flown in a downstream direction from the

Alpac K Road to Lac La Biche (approximately 46 km), and the Piche River was flown in

a downstream direction from Highway 881 to the confluence with the Owl River

(approximately 7 km). Video were captured with a hand-held SONY DCR-TRV 900

digital camera linked to a VMS200 video mapping unit developed by Red Hen Systems.

The Red Hen System records a GPS location at one second intervals that is synchronized

with the “universal time code” on the camera, thereby identifying recordings with a

time-stamp.

We processed videos using the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) Aerial

Videography Lotic Riparian Assessment Scorecard, adapted from Cows and Fish (Fitch

5

et al. 2001; Ambrose et al. 2004). The riparian zone was divided into polygons, according

to riparian management area categories (Teichreb and Walker 2008), that ranged from 40

m to 12 km in length. While viewing the video, a two-person team discussed and

answered a suite of questions related to the integrity and function of the riparian

management area (Figure 2), and a score was generated for each polygon. We assigned

scores to both the left and right river banks and converted them into colour-coded maps

that characterized riparian conditions as poor, fair and good. A score of 80% or greater

indicates the riparian area is in good condition. A score of 50 to 79% indicates fair

condition and a score less than 50% indicates poor condition.

Figure 2. Aerial photo showing the zones of a riparian management area.

Following the videography assessment, we conducted more detailed on-the-ground

riparian inventories at six sites using the Alberta Lotic Wetland Protocols (Cows and

Fish 2011). This protocol evaluates riparian health using vegetation, hydrology and soil

parameters. Scores are allocated to each parameter and an overall score for the site is

6

generated. A score of 80% or greater indicates a healthy and well-functioning riparian

area. A score of 60 to 79% indicates a site that is “healthy with problems”. A score less

than 60% indicates an “unhealthy” site and riparian functions are severely impaired.

3.3 Aquatic habitat assessment

We conducted a baseline aquatic habitat survey to characterize the type of spawning

habitat available for walleye in the Owl River. We collected data from cross-sectional

transects at 1-km intervals in the upstream 10-km study reach (Sites 1-9: encompassing

the identified walleye spawning area), and at 5-km intervals in the downstream 30-km

study reach (Sites 10-17) (Figure 1). Site 1-W is located on the mainstem Owl River and

Site 2-W on the Piche River, and both are approximately 200 m upstream of the

confluence. Data collected along each transect included, wetted and bankfull widths,

bank stability and angle, riparian width, vegetation cover and composition, soil

exposure, littoral substrate composition, bank erosion, and human-related disturbance

along the bank. Measurements of water depth and dominant substrate were taken at

seven points evenly distributed across the river channel. Bank erosion and human

disturbance were assessed by ranking the severity from low to high (low = 0, high = 10).

Composition of the riparian vegetation was assessed by estimating the percent cover of

different classes of trees and shrubs in a 20 m x 10 m riparian plot, oriented parallel to

the bank. A similar approach was used for estimating substrate composition from in-

stream littoral plots of equal size.

3.4 Water quality and macroinvertebrates

Water quality data was collected to serve as a benchmark for future monitoring. We

collected “grab” water samples, once a month from May to August, at five sampling

sites (these sites are identified with “W”), according to Alberta Environment protocols

(Alberta Environment 2006). Water samples were analyzed by Maxxam Analytical

Testing Laboratory for ions, nutrients and physical variables. Water temperature,

dissolved oxygen, conductivity and pH were measured in the field with a hand-held YSI

unit (Professional PlusHobo®). Data loggers were placed in-stream at each station to

record water temperature at two hour intervals from 1 May 2011 to 31 August 2011.

7

Where applicable, we interpreted water quality data using the Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CCME 2007)

for; a) Protection of Aquatic Life and, b) Protection of Agricultural Water Uses (CCME

1999), as well as the Alberta Environment (AENV) Surface Water Quality Guidelines for

use in Alberta (AENV 1999).

Due to difficulties with courier deliveries, water samples taken at Site 3-W in May, and

1-W and 3-W in July were not provided to the lab within specified time limits and

therefore were not analyzed. Hence, we calculated “summer averages” for each site, for

key water quality variables, using June and August data only.

In August, we conducted macroinvertebrate analyses at the five water quality sampling

sites, following the USEPA multi-habitat protocol (Barbour et al. 1999). Different habitats

types were sampled proportionately to their representation within a 100-m long sample

site. Sampling was done using a D-frame dip net and samples were preserved in a 75%

ethanol solution. Invertebrates were identified to family level. Indices for the

community (percentage of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera; %EPT),

dominance, diversity (Shannon-Wiener Diversity index; H), and richness (family level)

were calculated for each site.

3.5 Land tenure negotiations

We used riparian fencing as the primary tool for riparian conservation on the Owl River,

as it is the easiest and most cost-effective method to keep livestock away from the river

and allow vegetation to re-establish. On grazing leases we worked with Alberta Public

Lands and their lease holders to negotiate the establishment of fences, with long-term

fence maintenance assigned to the leasee. On private land, we negotiated with

landowners for the purchase or long-term lease (15+ years) of 50-m riparian buffers on

each side of the river, with fence maintenance assigned to the landowner.

8

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Walleye spawning habitat

We observed several fish, including walleye and white suckers, in the upstream 10-km

study section (in particular from Sites 5 to 9-W), and very few fish in the downstream

30-km section. While white suckers dominated the number of observed fish, spring-

time congregation of walleye in the upstream 10-km confirms ASRD’s identification of

this section of the river as suitable walleye spawning habitat.

4.2 Riparian health assessment

Results from aerial videography showed that 47% of the sampled riparian area along the

Owl River system was in good condition, with 39% and 14% in poor and fair conditions,

respectively (Figures 3 and 4). Riparian health scores were higher along upstream

reaches than in downstream reaches, where riparian vegetation has been cleared by

livestock grazing and haying. In the upstream section of the system, 94% of the riparian

area was in good condition, with 5% and 1% in fair and poor conditions, respectively.

Along some sections of the system, riparian areas were considerably different from left

to right bank; one bank had healthy, intact riparian vegetation but highly degraded

riparian vegetation on the other bank (Appendix 1.)

Figure 3. Summary of the Owl River system riparian health assessments by aerial

videography.

47% Good Condition

14% Fair Condition

39% Poor Condition

9

Figure 4. Map of the Owl River system riparian health assessments by aerial

videography.

10

Of the six sites with riparian inventories, three had an overall rating of Healthy and three

were rated as Healthy but with problems (Table 1). The problems identified at sites OWL6,

OWL9 and OWL12 included human-caused alteration to stream banks, human physical

alteration to site, and density and distribution of invasive plants (Appendix 2).

As the two methods of riparian health assessment use different criteria in scoring

riparian health, results from the aerial videography and the Cows and Fish riparian

inventories are not directly comparable, however, the general patterns were consistent

throughout the river system.

Table 1. Health ratings of sites with riparian inventories along the Owl River system.

Site name Legal land location Cows and Fish overall health rating

OWL1 SE18-69-13-W4M Healthy

OWL2 SE18, SW17-69-13-W4M Healthy

OWL6 NE,SE-16-69-13-W4M Healthy but with problems

OWL9 SW7-69-13-W4M Healthy but with problems

OWL10 NW7-69-13-W4M Healthy

OWL12 SE30-68-13-W4M Healthy but with problem

4.3 Aquatic habitat assessment

Overall, stream wetted widths ranged from 12.9 to 54.0 m in the upstream section, and

from 16.3 to 27.2 m in the downstream section (Table 2). Average water depth ranged

from 0.50 to 1.06 m in the upstream section, and from 1.03 to 1.77 m in the downstream

section. Dominant substrate in the upper sites consisted of boulder, cobble and gravel

suitable for walleye spawning, while sites in the lower section mainly consisted of fines

and sands, typically not suitable for walleye spawning habitat. In general, bank

disturbance (bank erosion, exposed soil, human disturbance) was low throughout the

study sites. A detailed list of habitat variables measured is presented in Appendix 2.

11

Table 2. Summary of habitat characteristics for the Owl River system. Values for bank erosion, human disturbance, exposed soil,

and vegetation cover are averaged for left and right banks. Site 1-W is the furthest upstream site and Site 17 is near the

mouth to Lac La Biche. “W” indicates water quality sampling sites.

1B = boulder, C = cobble, G = gravel, S = sand, F = fine 2Site located on Piche River, approximately 200 m upstream of confluence with Owl River

Site

Average

depth

(m)

Wetted

width

(m)

Dominant

substrate1

Bank

erosion

(0 -10)

Human

disturbance on

bank (0 – 10)

Exposed

soil

(%)

Deciduous/

coniferous tree

(%)

Woody

shrubs

(%)

Grass/

sedge

(%)

1-W 0.98 40.4 B/C 0 0 0 13 15 60

3 0.92 29.7 B 0 0 0 0 15 85

4 0.50 47.6 B/S 0 0 0 13 40 35

5 0.78 52.5 B/G 0 0 0 0 40 60

6 0.96 54.0 C/G 0 0 0 11 30 50

7 0.74 35.2 C/G 0 3 0 0 40 60

8 0.44 54.0 C/G 0 2 0 0 65 35

9-W 1.06 29.4 F 0 2 0 0 35 65

10 1.47 18.9 F 1 4 0 0 80 20

11 1.03 18.7 F 1 2 1 0 13 88

12-W 1.39 17.2 F 1 2 0 0 10 90

13 1.39 19.7 F 2 2 3 0 25 73

14 1.40 16.3 F 1 3 3 0 48 50

15 1.21 27.2 F 1 4 5 1 18 75

16-W 1.66 24.7 F 0 2 0 0 0 100

17 1.77 23.0 S/F 0 0 0 0 0 100

2-W2 0.80 12.9 C 0 0 0 0 45 55

12

4.4 Water quality and macroinvertebrates

Water temperature in the Owl River ranged from 7.7oC at Site 9-W (May) to 19.1oC at

Site 16-W (July) (Appendix 4). Dissolved oxygen (DO) was high throughout the system,

from May to August, and ranged from 6.0 to 13.1 mg/L. Water temperature and DO in

May were within optimal ranges for walleye spawning. Conductivity ranged from 160

to 290 µs/cm and pH ranged from 7.50 to 8.31.

For the Piche River (Site 2-W), temperature ranged from 10.6oC (May) to 17.2oC (July)

and DO ranged from 8.0 mg/L (August) to 10.8 mg/L (May). Conductivity ranged from

220 to 310 µs/cm and pH ranged from 7.93 to 8.33 (Appendix 4).

In general, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were high throughout the system,

ranging from 32 µg/L at Site 1-W (May) to 170 µg/L at Site W-12 (August) for the Owl

River and from 52 µg/L (July) to 71 µg/L (June) for the Piche River (Appendix 4). With

the exception of the low of 32 µg/L at Site 1-W, TP concentrations at all other sites

throughout the study period were >50µg/L. Based on these TP values, the Owl River

system (including the Piche River) may be considered as eutrophic (35 – 100 µg/L) to

hyper-eutrophic (>100 µg/L) (CCME 1999). Summer average (June and August) TP

concentrations ranged from 65.5 to 140 µg/L, with concentrations higher at the two

downstream sites (Table 3).

Total nitrogen concentrations were similar at all sites (both Owl and Piche rivers),

ranging from 0.93 to 1.3 mg/L (Table 3; Appendix 4), slightly exceeding the AENV limit

(1.0 mg/L) in most cases. In general, chlorophyll-a concentrations were much higher

(greater than double in most cases) in May-June than in July-August, ranging from a low

of 1.3 µg/L (August) to a high of 9.0 µg/L (May) (Appendix 4). However, there were no

clear patterns among sites and the summer average concentrations were similar among

sites (Table 3). Turbidity ranged from a high of 26 NTU at Site 12-W (May) to a low of

2.1 NTU at Site 2-W (August) (Appendix 4), with summer averages ranging from 6.0 to

10.0 NTU (Table 3). As expected, turbidity was higher in spring (May) than in summer,

and summer averages were higher at downstream sites.

In general, total coliform counts were low (≤300 mpn/100mL; Appendix 4) in May (no

data for Site 2-W), but summer averages exceeded the CCME limit for agriculture use

13

(>1,000 mpn/100mL) at all sites (including 2-W), with the exception of Site 1-W (Table 3).

In contrast, Escherichia coli counts were low throughout much of the study period,

exceeding CCME limits (≥100 mpn/100mL) at Sites 2-W (Piche River), 9-W, and 12-W in

June only (Appendix 4). A complete list of water quality variables analyzed is available

in Appendix 4.

Table 3. Summer averages (June and August, 2011) for key water quality variables at

the five water quality sites in the Owl River system. Temp = temperature;

DO = dissolved oxygen; TP = total phosphorus; TN = total nitrogen, Chla =

chlorophyll-a

1Site located on Piche River, approximately 200 m upstream of confluence with Owl River.

A total of 11,705 macro-invertebrates were collected and identified to the family level.

The total number of families identified was 54 and the average number of families per

site was 32.0 (Appendix 4). Overall, there were no clear spatial distributional patterns in

the characteristics of the macro-invertebrate community (Table 3). Richness (number of

families) ranged from 28 at Site 2-W, to 36 at Site 9-W. EPT ranged from a low of 31.5%

at Site 1-W to a high of 87.3% at Site 2-W. The most common family was Baetidae

(order: Ephemeroptera), and it was the dominant family at all of the sites, with the

exception of Site 1-W, where it was the second most abundant (Appendix 4).

Site

Temp

(°C)

DO

(mg/L)

TP

(µg/L)

TN

(mg/L)

Chla

(µg/L)

Turbidity

(NTU)

Total

coliform

(mpn/100)

1-W 15.7 7.6 92.0 1.0 5.4 6.0 605

9-W 16.2 8.6 92.5 1.1 5.2 6.0 1,070

12-W 17.1 7.3 140.0 1.2 5.3 10.0 2,420

16-W 16.9 7.1 125 1.1 4.4 10.0 1,635

2-W1 16.2 8.3 65.5 1.2 4.0 7.5 1,300

14

Table 4. Characteristics of the macro-invertebrate community collected at the five

water quality sites in the Owl River system, summer 2011

Site % EPT1 % Dominance2 Diversity3 Family richness Total

abundance

1-W 31.5 48.3 1.7 33 2226

9-W 42.4 38.6 1.7 36 4251

12-W 79.9 74.2 1.2 30 2094

16-W 43.7 36.8 2.2 34 1159

2-W4 87.3 84.5 0.8 28 2148

1Percentage of individuals belonging to the order Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera 2Percentage of individuals belonging to the most abundant taxon 3Shannon-Wiener Diversity index (H) 4Site located on Piche River, approximately 200 m upstream of confluence with Owl River

4.5 Land tenure negotiations

We met with six private landowners and leaseholders over the course of 2011 to discuss

options for riparian restoration and enhancement that could be incorporated into their

farming operations. A verbal agreement has been reached with a leaseholder to protect

approximately 9 km of riparian area along the Owl River with riparian fencing. We are

currently working with ASRD to complete a survey of the new lease boundaries and

change the lease permanently. Follow-up meetings with the other landowners and

leaseholders will be scheduled.

15

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

AENV. 1999. Surface water quality guidelines for use in Alberta. Produced by

Environmental Assurance Division, Science and Standards Branch, Alberta

Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 20 pp.

Ambrose, N., G. Ehlert, and K. Spicer-Rawe. 2004. Riparian health assessment for lakes,

sloughs, and wetlands; field workbook. Produced by Cows and Fish Program,

Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 90 pp.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic

macroinvertebrates and fish, Second Edition. Produced by United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA. 35 pp.

Barton, B.A., and T.P. Barry. 2011. Reproduction and environmental biology. Pages 199-

231. In: B.A. Barton. Biology, management, and culture of walleye and sauger.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Bozek, M.A., D.A. Baccante, and N.P. Lester. 2011a. Walleye and sauger life history.

Pages 133-197. In: B.A. Barton. Biology, management, and culture of walleye

and sauger. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Bozek, M.A., T.J. Haxton, and J.K. Raabe. 2011b. Walleye and sauger habitat. Pages 133-

197. In: B.A. Barton. Biology, management, and culture of walleye and sauger.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

CCME. 2007. Canadian environmental quality guidelines, v.10. Produced by Canadian

Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Cows and Fish. 2011. Alberta lotic wetland inventory user manual. Produced by Cows

and Fish Program, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 29 pp.

16

Dustin, D.L., and P.C. Jacobson. 2003. Evaluation of walleye spawning habitat

improvement projects in streams. Produced by Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Fisheries, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 19 pp.

Fitch, L., B.W. Adams, and G. Hale. 2001. Riparian health assessment for streams and

small rivers; field workbook. Produced by Cows and Fish Program, Lethbridge,

Alberta, Canada. 106 pp.

Teichreb, C., and G. Walker. 2008. Aerial videographic health and integrity assessment

of the riparian management area for selected reaches of the Battle River.

Produced by Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 23 pp.

17

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Example of aerial videography of a riparian area on the Owl River. In the

foreground (left arrow) the riparian vegetation has been cleared for a hay

field and in the background (right arrow) the vegetation is intact and

healthy. Arrows indicate riparian health; green = good, yellow = fair, red =

poor. (Photographer: Walker Environmental).

18

Appendix 2. Riparian inventory site OWL9. Lateral cutting on outside bend and

altered bank are visible. (Photographer: K. O’Shaughnessy)

19

Appendix 3. Habitat characteristics on the Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. Dec. = deciduous, Con. = coniferous, W = water

quality site. Site 1-W is the furthest upstream site on the Owl River, and Site 17 is near the mouth to Lac La Biche.

Site 2-W is on the Piche River.

Site

Average

depth

(m)

Wetted

width

(m)

Bankfull

width

(m)

Dominant

substrate

Left downstream bank

Bank

angle

(0)

Bank

erosion

(0 -10)

Exposed

soil

(%)

Dec. tree

DBH >0.3m

(%)

Con. tree

DBH >0.3m

(%)

Small

dec.

tree

(%)

Small

con.

tree

(%)

Woody

shrubs

(%)

Grass/

sedge

(%)

Human

disturbance

on bank

(0 – 10)

1-W 0.98 40.4 51.2 B/C 23.6 0 0 10 30 10 0 20 30 0

3 0.92 29.7 49.7 B 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 80 0

4 0.50 47.6 61.2 B/S 13.7 0 0 10 10 10 10 30 30 0

5 0.78 52.5 81.2 B/G 10.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0

6 0.96 54.0 58.1 C/G 10.0 0 0 5 5 5 5 20 60 0

7 0.74 35.2 71.0 C/G 9.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 4

8 0.44 54.0 70.0 C/G 12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 4

9-W 1.06 29.4 > 100 F 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 0

10 1.47 18.9 > 100 F 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 10 4

11 1.03 18.7 > 100 F 0.0 2 2 0 0 0 0 20 80 0

12-W 1.39 17.2 > 100 F 0.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 90 3

13 1.39 19.7 > 100 F 0.0 4 5 0 0 0 0 10 85 4

14 1.40 16.3 > 100 F 0.0 1 5 0 0 0 0 65 30 5

15 1.21 27.2 > 100 F 11.3 2 10 5 0 0 0 15 70 8

16-W 1.66 24.7 > 100 F 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4

17 1.77 23.0 > 100 S/F 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

2-W 0.80 12.9 39.2 C 17.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 0

20

Appendix 3. Continued

Site

Right downstream bank

Bank

angle

(0)

Bank

erosion

(0 – 10)

Exposed

soil

(%)

Dec. tree

DBH >0.3m

(%)

Con. tree

DBH >0.3m

(%)

Small

dec. tree

(%)

Small

con. tree

(%)

Woody

shrubs

(%)

Grass/sedge

(%)

Human

disturbance on

bank (0 – 10)

1-W 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 90 0

3 29.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 90 0

4 12.2 0 0 0 10 0 0 50 40 0

5 10.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 70 0

6 32.0 0 0 0 20 0 0 40 40 0

7 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 70 2

8 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 0

9-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 70 3

10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 3

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 95 3

12-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 90 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 0

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 70 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 80 0

16-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

2-W 25.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 70 0

21

Appendix 4. Water quality at five sites on the Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. Site 2-W is on the Piche River.

Site Date

Temperature

(oC)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L) pH

Conductivity

(μs/cm)

Dissolved

nitrite

(mg/L)

Dissolved

nitrate

(mg/L)

Nitrate plus

nitrite

(mg/L)

Total

Kjeldahl

nitrogen

(mg/L)

Dissolved

organic

carbon

(mg/L)

1-W May 11 9.5 11.1 7.74 160 0.003 0.037 0.040 0.93 16

Jun 16 15.5 8.1 8.14 260 0.003 0.020 0.023 0.94 15

Jul 6 16.7 6.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 4 15.9 7.1 7.53 200 <0.003 0.028 0.028 0.96 20

9-W May 11 7.7 13.1 N/A N/A 0.060 <0.010 N/A N/A

Jun 16 16.2 8.8 8.31 290 N/A N/A 0.013 0.96 15

Jul 6 16.9 7.2 N/A N/A <0.003 0.016 N/A N/A

Aug 4 16.1 8.3 7.72 220 N/A N/A 0.016 0.96 20

12-W May 12 11.2 9.5 7.75 190 <0.003 0.043 0.043 1.1 17

Jun 15 16.6 7.0 8.14 270 0.003 0.036 0.039 1.1 N/A

Jul 7 18.6 6.8 7.57 180 <0.003 0.010 0.010 1.2 22

Aug 3 17.6 7.5 N/A N/A <0.003 0.018 0.018 1.2 22

16-W May 11 11.6 9.7 7.81 170 <0.003 0.042 0.042 1.1 16

Jun 16 16.1 7.1 8.08 280 0.004 0.046 0.050 1.1 14

Jul 7 19.1 6.8 7.50 180 <0.003 0.013 0.013 1.2 22

Aug 3 17.6 7.0 N/A N/A <0.003 0.018 0.018 1.1 21

2-W May 11 10.6 10.8 8.00 220 <0.003 0.007 0.007 1.3 18

Jun 16 16.4 8.5 8.33 310 <0.003 0.020 0.020 1.1 17

Jul 6 17.2 8.1 8.05 260 <0.003 0.005 0.005 1.2 27

Aug 4 16.0 8.0 7.93 280 <0.003 0.010 0.010 1.2 26

22

Appendix 4. Continued

Site Date

Bicarbonate

(mg/L)

Carbonate

(mg/L)

Dissolved

chloride

(mg/L)

Dissolved

calcium

(mg/L)

Dissolved

iron

(mg/L)

Dissolved

magnesium

(mg/L)

Dissolved

manganese

(mg/L)

Dissolved

potassium

(mg/L)

Dissolved

sodium

(mg/L)

1-W May

11

91 0.5 1 18 0.7 6.6 0.02 1.7 4.4

Jun

16

160 0.5 2 32 0.4 10 0.13 1.4 10

Jul 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 4 130 0.5 1 27 1.0 8.4 0.03 0.6 6.1

9-W May

11

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jun

16

170 1.7 1 33 0.3 12 0.09 1.6 12

Jul 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 4 140 0.5 1 29 0.8 9.8 0.03 0.9 7.9

12-W May

12

110 0.5 1 21 0.5 8 0.06 2.1 6.8

Jun

15

170 0.5 2 32 0.3 11 0.11 1.6 13

Jul 7 110 0.5 1 23 0.5 8.2 0.04 0.8 5.9

Aug 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

16-W May

11

100 0.5 2 19 0.6 7.7 0.04 2.1 6.1

Jun

16

170 0.5 1 32 0.4 11 0.16 1.6 12

Jul 7 110 0.5 1 23 0.5 8.2 0.05 0.8 6.1

Aug 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2-W May

11

130 0.5 2 22 0.2 10 0.04 2.4 8.9

Jun

16

190 2.1 2 33 0.2 14 0.04 2.0 14

Jul 6 160 0.5 2 30 0.3 12 0.02 1.4 10

Aug 4 180 0.5 2 32 0.3 14 0.01 1.7 13

23

Appendix 4. Continued

Site Date

Total

phosphorus

(mg/L)

E.Coli

(mpn/100mL)

Total

coliforms

(mpn/100mL)

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/L)

Total

suspended

solids (mg/L)

Turbidity

(NTU)

Hardness

(mg/L) Chlorophyll a

(μg/L)

Alkalinity

(Total as

CaCO3)

(mg/L)

1-W May 11 0.032 4 270 92 25 17 73 5.5 75

Jun 16 0.074 52 870 170 6 7.4 120 8.0 140

Jul 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 4 0.110 19 340 110 4 4.7 100 2.7 110

9-W May 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jun 16 0.075 120 1800 140 8 7.2 130 7.7 140

Jul 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 4 0.110 19 340 120 4 4.7 110 2.7 120

12-W May 12 0.057 10 280 93 58 26 86 9.0 89

Jun 15 0.110 230 2420 150 22 14 130 8.3 140

Jul 7 0.110 15 1200 94 20 11 92 3.1 91

Aug 3 0.170 31 2420 N/A 10 5.9 N/A 2.3 N/A

16-W May 11 0.150 4 300 88 32 22 80 5.4 83

Jun 16 0.100 82 870 140 18 16 120 6.6 140

Jul 7 0.110 15 1200 94 20 11 92 3.1 89

Aug 3 0.150 21 2400 N/A 10 4 N/A 2.2 N/A

2-W May 11 0.068 N/A N/A 110 37 13 98 7.2 110

Jun 16 0.071 130 1500 160 16 13 140 6.6 160

Jul 6 0.052 23 2000 130 4 4 130 2.3 130

Aug 4 0.060 54 1100 150 2 2.1 140 1.3 140

24

Appendix 5. Abundance of macroinvertebrates at the five water quality sites on the

Owl and Piche rivers, summer 2011. Site 2-W is on the Piche River.

Order

Abundance

1-W 9-W 12-W 16-W 2-W

Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

Baetidae 563 1642 1554 426 1814

Baetiscidae 19

Caenidae 2 14 11 1

Ephemeridae 4 17

Heptageniidae 74 12 54 4 10

Leptophlebiidae 3

Plecoptera (stoneflies)

Perlodidae 15 3

Pteronarcyidae 1

Trichoptera (caddisflies)

Brachycentridae 22 9 24 22

Glossosomatidae 7

Helicopsychidae 1

Hydropsychidae 1

Hydroptilidae 11 1 7

Lepidostomatidae 3 16 6 4

Leptoceridae 2 4 26

Limnephilidae 3 1 2 4 8

Phryganeidae 1 4

Polycentropodidae 28 1

Rhyacophilidae 1

Araneae (water spiders) 1

Ostracoda (seed shrimp) 11 85 20 3

25

Appendix 5. Continued

Order

Abundance

1-W 9-W 12-W 16-W 2-W

Cladocera (water fleas)

Chydoridae 14 3 8

Daphniidae 31 1407 83 38

Coleoptera (beetles)

Chrysomelidae 1

Curculionidae 1

Elmidae 4 9 28 4

Gyrinidae 1 13 1 3

Haliplidae 7

Hydraenidae 7

Copepoda

Calanoida 1

Cyclopoida 3 21 6 8 1

Gastropoda (snails)

Physidae 24 80 14 107 25

Planorbidae 16 18 5 11 4

Valvatidae 4

Nematoda (roundworms) 1 1

Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms)

Tubificidae 47 6

Lumbriculidae 21 22

Pharyngobdellida

Erpobdellidae 5 1 4

26

Appendix 5. Continued

Order

Abundance

1-W 9-W 12-W 16-W 2-W

Odonata (damselflies dragonflies)

Aeshnidae 3 2 1 4

Gomphidae 2

Libellulidae 1

Diptera (true flies)

Ceratopogonidae 3 1 1 6

Chironomidae 105 396 40 60 20

Dixidae 1 3 1 1

Empididae 1 1

Simuliidae 152 74 81 9 65

Tipulidae 2 7 1

Hemiptera (true bugs)

Corixidae 1 70 21 20 8

Gerridae 2 1 1

Acari (mites)

Hydrachnidia 5 11 3 4 5

Amphipoda (scuds)

Gammaridae 27 67 22 142 90

Anthomedusae

Hydridae 5 26 4 1

Pelycopoda (clams)

Sphaeriidae 1076 115 23 148 23