Baseline Inventory of Sport Fish in the

Edson River, Alberta, 2011

The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

25% Post Consumer Fibre

When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

Baseline Inventory of Sport Fish in the Edson River, Alberta, 2011

Jason Blackburn, Brad Hurkett, Troy Furukawa, and Mike Rodtka Alberta Conservation Association

#1609, 3 Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

T1J 0L1

i

Report Editors PETER AKU GLENDA SAMUELSON Alberta Conservation Association R.R. #2 #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Craven SK S0G 0W0 Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN printed: 978-1-4601-0743-0 ISBN online: 978-1-4601-0744-7 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Blackburn, J., B. Hurkett, T. Furukawa, and M. Rodtka. 2012. Baseline inventory of sport

fish in the Edson River, Alberta, 2011. Data Report, D-2012-009, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 26 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: info@ab-conservation.com Website: www.ab-conservation.com

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We collected baseline data on the distribution and abundance of sport fish in the Edson River. The objectives are to enable future assessment of the fish community following

restoration activities planned in the study area, with the ultimate goal of facilitating recovery of Arctic grayling and Athabasca rainbow trout. We stratified the Edson River

based on riparian health scores reported in a 2010 aerial videography assessment and then electrofished 28 reaches (~27 km) using a cataraft electrofisher.

The most abundant and widely distributed sport fish was mountain whitefish

(Prosopium williamsoni) (n=237), followed by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (n=30)

and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) (n=27). Non-sport species, white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), dominated the

catch in terms of biomass at 44%, followed by mountain whitefish at 28%, Arctic

grayling at 9% and rainbow trout at 8%. Total biomass of sport fish species and non-sport fish species was nearly identical.

Total fish biomass decreased with decreasing riparian health and sport fish biomass was

generally higher at sites associated with healthy riparian areas (good and fair–good),

than at sites with unhealthy riparian areas (fair, poor–fair and poor). In contrast, biomass of non-sport fish showed little difference between good, fair–good, fair and

poor–fair ranked sites, only decreasing at sites ranked as poor.

Using Spearman rank correlation analysis we explored relationships between riparian health, fish habitat, stream profile, and fish abundance metrics to determine their utility

for future monitoring. Total fish cover calculated from littoral area plots along the

stream margins had little correlation to fish relative abundance, biomass or species richness. Conversely, bank stability was correlated to fish relative abundance species

richness, and riparian health, thereby serving as a potential useful indicator of both riparian and fish community health.

Width-to-depth ratio was correlated to fish biomass, relative abundance, and species richness variables, and also strongly correlated to bank stability. This suggests greatest

species richness and fish abundance occurred at wide, shallow reaches, with stable banks.

iii

Total fish biomass and sport fish biomass tended to increase with dominant substrate

size, whereas non-sport fish biomass varied little among coarser substrate types, declining only where substrates were finest.

Substrate type at healthy riparian areas (>50% of the riparian area was ranked good),

was dominated by cobbles and boulders. The substrate of unhealthy riparian areas

(<50% of the riparian area was ranked good) was dominated by fines and sand.

Key words: Edson River, Arctic grayling, Athabasca rainbow trout, mountain whitefish,

electrofishing, riparian, bank stability

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided in part by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Many thanks to members of the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) fisheries crew,

including Patricia Halinowski, Bill Patterson, and Brendan Ganton, who also

contributed contact information and historic literature regarding the Edson River. Many thanks to Clint Goodman (ACA) for compiling the habitat and photo summary, and

calculating Gini coefficients, to Ariane Cantin (ACA) for assisting with correlation analysis, and to Tyler Johns (ACA) for summarizing data.

Thanks to our government partners at Alberta Sustainable Resource Development,

including Mike Blackburn for assistance with cataraft eleoctrofisher design, equipment

storage and area logistics. Thanks to George Sterling for sharing historical fisheries information and local fisheries knowledge. I extend my appreciation to Edson area

residents and landowners for their cooperation and assistance during this project. Thanks to Peter Aku (ACA) for editorial review of this report.

v

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

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

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

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

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 4 3.1 Sampling sites ................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fish data collection ........................................................................................... 5 3.3 Stream profile measurements ......................................................................... 6 3.4 Habitat measurements ..................................................................................... 7 3.5 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 8

4.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 11 4.1 Fish distribution and abundance ................................................................. 11 4.2 Riparian health ................................................................................................ 14 4.3 Bank stability ................................................................................................... 16 4.4 Total fish cover ................................................................................................ 18 4.5 Stream profile .................................................................................................. 20 4.6 Substrate composition.................................................................................... 22 4.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 24

5.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 25

6.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 27

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the 2011 study reach in relation to past fisheries inventory sites

in the Edson River watershed. ................................................................................ 3

Figure 2. Study area and sampling locations in the Green and White zones, Edson River, 2011. ................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Mean (±SE) fish biomass by riparian health category. ....................................... 16

Figure 4. Mean (±SE) fish biomass and total fish cover when median bank stability was grouped into categories of stable (>50% vegetated) and unstable (<50% vegetated). ................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 5. Relationship between total fish cover and sport fish biomass by sample site…. ........................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 6. Mean (±SE) fish biomass and total fish cover by dominant substrate type .... 23

Figure 7. Comparison of dominant substrate composition between a) healthy sites (>50% of the riparian area ranked good), and b) unhealthy sites (<50% of the riparian area ranked good). ................................................................................... 23

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Dimensions of littoral fish cover plot by sample site and wetted width range.. ......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Variables used in correlation analyses to examine associations between riparian health, fish, habitat and stream profile variables, Edson River, 2011…. ........................................................................................................................ 9

Table 3. Total catch, length, weight, and biomass of fish captured using electrofishing, Edson River, 2011. ......................................................................... 12

Table 4. Comparison of fish species occurrence at sites with healthy (>50% of riparian area ranked good) and unhealthy (<50% ranked good) riparian areas. .......... 13

Table 5. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between riparian health, and habitat and stream profile variables. .................................................................... 14

Table 6. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between riparian health and fish variables. .................................................................................................................. 15

Table 7. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between median bank stability, and fish and stream profile variables........................................................................... 17

Table 8. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between total fish cover, and fish and stream profile variables. ................................................................................. 19

Table 9. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between fish variables and stream profile variables. ...................................................................................................... 21

Table 10. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between stream profile variables and habitat variables. ............................................................................................. 22

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of stream wetted width data used to determine sample site lengths on the Edson River, 2011. ................................................................... 27

Appendix 2. Edson River 2011 sample site locations and strata.. ..................................... 28

Appendix 3. Field data form for cross sectional profile and bank measurements, Edson River, 2011. ......................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 4. Fish cover plot data form, Edson River, 2011. ............................................... 31

Appendix 5. Profile measurements at date of sampling, Edson River, 2011. .................. 32

Appendix 6. Profile measurements converted to bankfull levels, Edson River, 2011 .... 33

Appendix 7. Baseline inventory of sport fish in the Edson River, 2011: habitat and photo summary. ................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 8. Length-weight relationships used to determine fish biomass from fish captured in the Edson River, 2011. ................................................................. 35

Appendix 9. Summary of sport fish species capture, and CUE (fish/100m) using cataraft, and totebarge (sites 3 and 5) electrofishing methods, Edson River, 2011.. ........................................................................................................ 36

Appendix 10. Summary of non-sport fish capture, and CUE (fish/100m) using cataraft, and totebarge (sites 3 and 5) electrofishing methods, Edson River, 2011…… .............................................................................................................. 37

Appendix 11. Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling boxplot size distribution by capture location, Edson River, 2011. ............................................................................. 38

Appendix 12. Length-frequency distributions for fish captures, Edson River, 2011. ........ 39

Appendix 13. McLeod River discharge near Edson during sampling on the Edson River, 2011. ..................................................................................................................... 41

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the Edson River watershed, habitat fragmentation and degradation resulting from industrial activities, agricultural operations, residential expansion, and fish barriers due

to road crossings and culverts, pose considerable threat to the fish community. Athabasca rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus)

were once considered abundant throughout the Edson River watershed. Arctic grayling

fishing   was   considered   “good”   to   “very   good”   until   the   mid-1990s (Bryski 1999), however the river no longer supports a significant recreational fishery, and Arctic

grayling are nearing extirpation (G. Sterling, Alberta Environment and Sustainable

Resource Development (ASRD), personal communication). Similarly, the distribution of

Athabasca rainbow trout has contracted toward headwater areas.

Province-wide, indigenous Arctic grayling and Athabasca rainbow trout are listed as

Sensitive, and Threatened, respectively, by   Alberta’s   Endangered   Species   Conservation  Committee (ASRD 2005; ASRD and ACA 2009), as a result of threats similar to those

found in the Edson River watershed. As fish populations grow increasingly disjunct, strategic remediation is required at the subpopulation level to halt overall declines in

distribution and re-establish population connectivity. A crucial first step in facilitating

restoration is a baseline assessment of sport fish communities and surrounding habitat in priority watersheds where subpopulations are declining.

Qualitative studies by Cooke (1981) and Kowalchuk and Campbell (2001) have

identified cattle grazing as a threat to bank stability on the Edson River. Cattle grazing is

commonly thought to result in bank failure and a channel-width increase (Lucas et al. 2008), particularly in streams with noncohesive sand and gravel banks (Myers and

Swanson 1992).

In 2010, Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) initiated a riparian conservation project using aerial videography to conduct a lotic riparian health and integrity

assessment of the Edson River watershed. ACA is currently working with landowners

and stakeholder groups to protect and restore riparian areas within the watershed, with the ultimate goal of recovering the sport fish community. As well, a stream crossing

remediation program is currently underway in the Green Zone of the Edson River watershed, led by the Foothills Research Institute in conjunction with ASRD. These

2

combined inter-agency efforts have created a unique opportunity to re-establish stream

continuity, expand and restore habitat for Athabasca rainbow trout, and potentially restore Arctic grayling to the Edson River watershed. The primary goal of this study was

to collect baseline data on the distribution and abundance of sport fish in the Edson River for comparison following future restoration activities. The main objectives of the

study were to:

Determine relative abundance and distribution of native sport fish species in the

Edson River. Document baseline littoral fish habitat information.

Investigate linkages between aerial riparian health scores, littoral fish habitat, stream profile information, and fish community demographics.

Collect DNA samples from Arctic grayling and Athabasca rainbow trout in the

Edson River.

2.0 STUDY AREA

The Edson River originates in the Upper Foothills Subregion (ASRD 2005) of west-

central Alberta, immediately north of the town of Edson (Figure 1). From the headwaters it flows eastward for approximately 95 km to the confluence with the McLeod River,

located approximately 10 km northeast of Edson. The majority of the watershed lies in

the Lower Foothills Subregion and the Green Zone, where the dominant land-use activities are timber harvest and oil and gas extraction. However, a considerable portion

of the main-stem river flows through the White Zone, dominated by private settled land where use for cultivation, livestock production, and residential development is most

prevalent. Past fisheries inventories in the watershed were restricted mainly to tributary

reaches within the Green Zone (Figure 1), leaving the lower mainstem portion of the

river data deficient. This relatively low-gradient reach represents approximately 63

stream-kilometres of the Edson River, much of which is characterized by a deep, confined stream channel and high sinuosity. Considerable residential development has

occurred along the lower reaches of the river. In addition, the river is crossed three times by Secondary Highway 748 and can be accessed via numerous private residences and

stream crossings.

3

Figure 1. Location of the 2011 study reach in relation to past fisheries inventory sites

in the Edson River watershed.

4

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Sampling sites We standardized sampling sites (reaches) by using 85 times the average stream width,

following Hughes et al. (2002). Based on archival stream width data (Cooke 1981, Appendix 1), sampling sites were 700 m long in the upper river (sites 1–18) and 1,300 m

long in the lower river (sites 20–31) (Figure 2, Appendix 2). Site 19 was 900 m long, due

to a transition in the drainage from the narrow, deep confined channel of the upper river to the wide, shallow channel in the lower river.

To distribute sampling sites throughout the full range of riparian disturbance along the

river, we used riparian health scores from an aerial videography assessment conducted in 2010 (ACA 2010), where both left and right river banks were assigned a riparian

condition of poor, fair, or good. Based on the combined left and right bank scores we

stratified the Edson River into five qualitative categories (strata): 1) Poor, 2) Poor-fair, 3) Fair, 4) Fair-good, and 5) Good. Twenty eight sampling sites were delineated by these

strata and were separated by a minimum of one sample site length to maintain sample independence. Although ACA riparian conservation activities are focused in the White

Zone, our study extended into the Green Zone to enable comparison of fish

demographics in areas with and without residential development, as well as to fill existing data gaps on the sport fish community of the mainstem.

5

Figure 2. Study area and sampling locations in the Green and White zones, Edson

River, 2011. 3.2 Fish data collection

Fish were captured using a custom-designed cataraft electrofisher (26 sampling sites) or a Smith-Root LR-6 tote-barge electrofisher (2 sampling sites); both were operated using

the same telescopic/throwing anode, in a downstream progression, with a crew of three to four people.

All captured fish were retained in a live-well, measured, and returned to the river a short distance upstream to avoid resampling. Biological data collected included species,

fork length (FL, mm), total length (TL, mm), weight (g) and general condition (i.e., deformities, parasites or injuries). We collected caudal fin clips from rainbow trout and

Arctic grayling for DNA analysis to facilitate genetic classification of the populations.

6

DNA samples were stored in 2-mL Cryo-vials in 100% anhydrous-ethyl-alcohol and

submitted to government agencies for analysis.

We calculated relative abundance (fish/100m), biomass (g/m) and species richness metrics, to characterize the sport fish community assemblage and to examine potential

impacts of riparian habitat degradation. Statistical analyses were done for all species

combined, for sport fish species, for non-sport fish species, and by individual species, to assess the potential for differential changes to fish community demographics over time

with habitat conservation efforts (e.g., with increasing habitat quality sport species may increase in biomass whereas non-sport species may remain constant or decrease).

3.3 Stream profile measurements We determined stream characteristics along four transects in 700 m reaches (upper

river), and seven transects in 1,300 m reaches (lower river). Transect intervals were 200

m, except for the last interval which was 100 m. Intervals were measured using a laser rangefinder and flagged by a crew member on a single-person pontoon boat.

We collected baseline cross-sectional data to document current stream channel

morphology and to allow comparison over time. At each transect we collected seven

equally spaced cross-sectional depth measurements and determined the dominant substrate composition using a graduated prod-pole following procedures in Kaufmann

(2000) (Appendix 3). Wetted and bankfull width measurements were taken with a laser rangefinder. Bankfull height was measured as the vertical distance from the water

surface to the bankfull mark (i.e., high water mark or rooted width location) as per

Harding et al. (2009), which standardized stream channel profiles and eliminated the effects of seasonal water fluctuations on profile areas. Bank stability was categorically

ranked from 1–4 (most unstable to most stable) modified from criteria in Johnson et al.

(1998), and bank angle was categorically ranked as flat (F), gentle (G), steep (S) or

vertical (V), based on criteria in Kaufmann (2000) (Appendix 4).

To describe stream channel shape we calculated cross-sectional area (stream width X

average cross sectional water depth), width-to-depth ratio (cross-sectional area/stream width), and Gini coefficients (G) (the arithmetic average of the differences between all

pairs of depths across a transect) for all transects, and their respective averages by

7

sample site (Appendices 5 and 6). High width-to-depth ratios indicate wide, shallow

channels and low width-to-depth ratios indicate narrow, deep channels. Wide, shallow channels tend to have a low G value (minimum of 0; all depths are equal), while narrow,

deep channels have a greater distribution of depths and higher G value (maximum of 1).

Profile calculations were made for both the bankfull channel depth, to facilitate

comparisons over time, and at the actual channel depth, to accurately describe channel shape in terms of fish habitat at the time of sampling.

3.4 Habitat measurements

We used littoral fish cover plots to assess potential refuge habitat for fish. Plots were located on the right and left downstream banks of the river at each transect. Total fish

cover was the percent area of habitat features within a littoral plot where fish could take

refuge. Cover plot dimensions were modified from Wilhelm et al. (2005) and varied with stream wetted width to ensure they remained proportionate to stream size (Table 1). We

established a working guideline to assess a minimum of one-half of the total transect width (i.e., one quarter of the transect width per plot). In narrower reaches (sites 1–22)

plots were 10 m long and extended 3 m into the channel. In wider reaches (sites 23–31),

plots extended further (4–5 m) into the channel to account for presumably larger littoral areas (Table 1). Each transect was marked with a GPS, and fish cover plots were

photographed and documented in a photo report (Appendix 7). Along the reaches in between transects (200m and 100m lengths) we categorically assessed the terrestrial

canopy cover and dominant riparian vegetation type using categories as per Johnson et

al. (1998). Percent of riffle, pool and run habitats were also estimated at this scale.

Table 1. Dimensions of littoral fish cover plot by sample site and wetted width range.

Sites Mean wetted

width (m) Mean wetted

width range(m)

Plot dimensions

(m)

Mean % of transect

width assessed 1–22, 28 10.2 7.6–14.8 10 x 3 61

23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31 15.7 14.5–16.6 10 x 5 64

25, 30a 18.3 18.3–18.4 10 x 4 44 aPlot areas for sites 25 and 30 were modified due to deep near-shore drop offs.

8

3.5 Data analysis

We   used   Spearman’s   rank   multivariate   correlation   analysis   (for   data   with   unequal  variances) to explore relationships between a suite of riparian health, fish, stream

profile, and habitat variables (Table 2). Correlations were used to highlight associations between variables that reflect underlying ecological processes, and to identify

redundancies in the data, for refinement of future assessment protocols on the river. The

Spearman’s  rho  (𝒓𝒔) reaches a maximum correlation value of 1 or -1 depending on the direction of correlation. Metrics are considered moderately correlated when -0.6 > r >

0.6, and strongly correlated when -0.75 > r > 0.75 (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). Correlation

analyses were conducted using JMP statistical software.

Fish data was converted into biomass data using length-weight relationship curves in

Microsoft Excel (Appendix 8).

9

Table 2. Variables used in correlation analyses to examine associations between riparian health, fish, habitat and stream profile variables, Edson River, 2011.

Variables Mean Range Fish Biomass (g/100m) Total fish biomass 2.19 0.24–5.51

Non-sport fish biomass 1.03 0–3.75 Sport fish biomass 1.17 0–2.89 Species richness Total species richness 6.07 1–10.00 Non-sport species richness 3.89 0–6.00 Sport fish species richness 2.18 0–5.00

Relative abundance (fish/100m) All fish species 7.90 0.90-21.00 Non-sport fish species 4.10 0–16.60 Sport fish species 0.01 0–0.04 Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 0.14 0–1.00 Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) 0.11 0–0.46 Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) 0.83 0–2.90 Northern pike (Esox lucius) 0.01 0–0.23 Burbot (Lota lota) 0.06 0–1.00 White sucker (Catostomus commersoni) 0.43 0–2.00 Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) 0.99 0–4.71 Lake chub (Cousesius plumbeus) 1.44 0–7.00 Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) 0.38 0–2.00 Trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) 0.74 0–5.29 Spoonhead sculpin (Cottus ricei) 0.08 0-1.00 Brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) 0.03 0–0.29

Habitat Total fish cover (%) 20.4 6.1–53.7 Overhanging vegetation (m2/transect) 4.3 0–24.6 Aquatic vegetative cover (m2/transect) 3.8 0–20.4 Average undercut bank proportion (%) 34.9 1.3–66.3 Coarse woody material class (1–4) 1* 0–3 Bank stability class (1–4) 3* 1–4 Stream profile Average cross-sectional area (m2) 24.8 5.8-62.5

Width-depth ratio 8.3 3.5-13.1 Gini coefficient 0.099 0.007-0.139

*Denotes median value

10

3.5.1 Total fish cover

Fluctuating streamflow conditions, high turbidity levels, and the character of the stream

channel made it difficult to measure littoral areas consistently and completely. Consequently, only habitat measures visible or practically deduced from above the

water surface were considered reliable for inclusion in total fish cover correlation

analysis; these included percent boulder cover, percent overhanging vegetation, percent emergent and submergent vegetation, and percent filamentous algae. Undercut bank

measurements and coarse woody material measurements were not used in determining total fish cover, and parameters within the fish cover metric were not analyzed

individually as they were biased by flow conditions.

3.5.2 Grouped bank stability and riparian health

Riparian health and bank stability variables were analyzed in grouped categories to evaluate disturbance effects at a broader scale. We ranked sampling sites into 2 broader

categories  of  “healthy”  where  greater  than  50%  of  the riparian area was ranked as good (i.e., fair–good and good sampling sites) versus “unhealthy” where less than 50% of the

riparian area was ranked as good (i.e., fair, poor–fair and poor sampling sites). Similarly,

we ranked bank stability into 2 categories of “stable“ where greater than 50% of the bank was vegetated (ranks 3-4), and “unstable” where less than 50% of the bank was

vegetated (ranks 1-2).

11

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Fish distribution and abundance At 28 sites and 27 km of sampling, we captured 314 sport fish of which 75% were

mountain whitefish, 10% rainbow trout, 9% Arctic grayling, 5% burbot, and 1% northern pike (Table 3). Overall, fish biomass was dominated by sucker species (44%) and

mountain whitefish (28%), followed by Arctic grayling and rainbow trout (9% and 8%,

respectively). Total sport fish and non-sport fish biomass was nearly equal (Table 3).

Mountain whitefish was the most widespread species in the study area, followed by

white sucker and longnose sucker (Appendices 9 and 10). We captured rainbow trout and Arctic grayling periodically throughout the study area. Burbot were captured only

in the upper reaches and near the mouth of the river, and northern pike was captured only near the mouth. Lake chub and longnose dace were captured mainly where the

riparian area was ranked as fair or better (Appendix 10). Rainbow trout tended to be

larger in downstream reaches, whereas the size of Arctic grayling remained relatively uniform throughout the study area (Appendices 11 and 12).

Individual sport fish species richness was consistently higher at healthy sites (>50% of

the riparian area ranked good or fair-good) than at unhealthy sites (<50% ranked good

or fair-good) (Table 4). The occurrence of mountain whitefish, and Arctic grayling varied little between healthy and unhealthy sites. However, rainbow trout and burbot occurred

more frequently at healthy sites. Overall sport fish species richness was also greater at healthy sites than at unhealthy sites;   ≥3 sport species occurred at 73% of healthy sites

compared to only 24% of unhealthy sites (Table 4). Similarly, ≥4   sport   fish species

occurred at 27% of healthy sites and at 0% of unhealthy sites. The absence of the main historic sport species (rainbow trout and Arctic grayling), was more common at

unhealthy sites, at 41% (Table 4).

12

Table 3. Total catch, length, weight, and biomass of fish captured using electrofishing, Edson River, 2011.

Species Number

captured

Mean fish

captured/km

Fork length (mm)

Weight (g) Total

biomass (g) Mean SD Range Mean SD Range

Sport fish

Mountain whitefish 237 8.3 178 53 55–360 93 108 2-881 18,837

Arctic grayling 27 1.1 248 36 165–363 225 102 45-621 5,695

Rainbow trout 30 1.4 207 87 89–399 204 203 12-734 5,216

Burbot 16 0.6 302 68 195–412 160 90 43-334 2,593

Northern pike 4 0.1 308 34 275–355 223 64 152-308 891

Total 314 33,232

Non-sport fish

White sucker 132 4.3 207 61 46–456 154 176 1-1,396 18,628

Longnose sucker 282 9.9 137 40 48–296 39 37 1-306 10,969

Lake chub 449 14.4 77 12 36–114 6 3 1-18 2,436

Trout-perch 205 7.3 62 12 32–89 4 2 1-9 764

Longnose dace 135 3.8 69 14 36–125 5 3 1-26 531

Spoonhead sculpin 16 0.8 108 17 58–109 6 4 1-14 90

Brook stickleback 6 0.3 47 5 43–54 1 1 1-1 <10

Total 1,225 33,426

13

Table 4. Comparison of fish species occurrence at sites with healthy (>50% of riparian area ranked good) and unhealthy (<50% ranked good) riparian areas.

Proportion of sites with species occurrence (%)

Healthy (n=11) Unhealthy (n=17) Sport species

Mountain whitefish 100 88

Rainbow trout 82 35 Arctic grayling 55 47

Burbot 45 6

Northern pike 18 0

Non-sport species

White sucker 91 88

Longnose sucker 91 65 Lake chub 91 53

Trout perch 91 71 Longnose dace 64 24

Spoonhead sculpin 36 12

Brook stickleback 0 29

3 or more sport species 73 24 4 or more sport species 27 0

Neither Arctic grayling

nor rainbow trout 18 41

14

4.2 Riparian health

Bank stability and grouped bank stability were highly correlated to riparian health rank (𝑟 = 0.84 and 0.90, respectively) (Table 5). Conversely, total fish cover had no appreciable

correlation to riparian health (𝑟 = 0.39). Width-to-depth ratio was the only stream profile variable correlated to riparian health (𝑟𝑠 = 0.82), suggesting that the healthiest riparian

areas are where stream channel shape is wide and shallow (Table 5).

Table 5. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between riparian health, and

habitat and stream profile variables.

Variable 1 Variable 2 𝒓𝒔 𝒑

Riparian health Habitat variables Total fish cover 0.39 0.0429 Median bank stability 0.84 <0.0001 Grouped bank stability 0.90 <0.0001

Stream profile variables

Average cross-sectional area -0.45 0.0162

Width-depth ratio 0.82 <0.0001

Gini coefficient 0.31 0.1048

Sport fish species biomass and total species richness were moderately correlated to riparian health (𝑟 = 0.64 and 0.61, respectively) (Table 6). Relative abundance of all fish

species, and all non-sport fish species were highly correlated to riparian health (𝑟 = 0.77

and 0.79, respectively). In terms of relative abundance by individual species, longnose sucker and lake chub (the two species with the highest catch per 100m (CUE) of

sampling) were moderately correlated to riparian health (𝑟 = 0.69 and 0.72, respectively).

Relative abundance of rainbow trout and Arctic grayling had no appreciable correlation

to riparian health (Table 6).

15

Table 6. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between riparian health and fish variables.

Variable 1 Variable 2 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 Riparian health Fish variables Biomass (g/100m)

All fish species 0.57 0.0015

Sport fish species 0.61 0.0006 Non-sport fish species 0.55 0.0022 Species richness

All fish species 0.64 0.0003 Sport fish species 0.41 0.0302

Non-sport fish species 0.51 0.0053 Relative abundance (fish/100m)

All fish species 0.77 <0.0001

Sport fish species 0.51 0.0058

Non-sport fish species 0.79 <0.0001 Rainbow trout 0.35 0.0645 Arctic grayling -0.19 0.3292

Mountain whitefish 0.47 0.0118

Northern pike 0.29 0.1385

Burbot 0.41 0.0311

White sucker 0.14 0.4661

Longnose sucker 0.69 <0.0001

Lake chub 0.72 <0.0001

Longnose dace 0.55 0.0025

Trout-perch 0.52 0.0044

Spoonhead sculpin 0.30 0.1232

Brook stickleback -0.27 0.1595

16

Total fish biomass tended to decrease with decreasing riparian health (Figure 3). Sport

fish species biomass was higher at sites with good and fair–good riparian health than at sites with fair, poor–fair or poor riparian health. Biomass of non-sport species fish

tended to remain constant between sites with good, fair–good, fair, fair-poor riparian health, and declined only at sites with poor riparian health (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Mean (±SE) fish biomass by riparian health category. 4.3 Bank stability

Median bank stability was moderately correlated to total species richness, relative abundance of all fish species, non-sport fish species, longnose suckers, and lake chub

(Table 7). When the sites were grouped into two categories of stable and unstable banks, there was moderate correlation to sport fish biomass, total species richness, relative

abundance of all fish species, non-sport fish species, and longnose sucker. Banks tended

to be most stable where the stream was wide and shallow, as evidenced by the strong negative correlation between bank stability and width-to-depth ratio (𝑟 = -0.83) (Table

7). On average, locations with stable banks had higher fish biomass and total fish cover than locations with unstable banks (Figure 4).

17

Table 7. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between median bank stability, and fish and stream profile variables.

Variable 1 Variable 2 Median bank stability Fish variables 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 Biomass (g/100m) All fish 0.43 0.0217 Sport fish 0.52 0.0044 Non-sport fish 0.52 0.0042 Species richness All species 0.61 0.0005 Sport fish 0.42 0.0258 Non-sport fish 0.49 0.0076 Relative abundance (fish/100m) All fish 0.65 0.0002 Sport fish 0.45 0.0168 Non-sport fish 0.65 0.0002 Rainbow trout 0.23 0.2428 Arctic grayling -0.01 0.9523 Mountain whitefish 0.39 0.0397 Northern pike 0.24 0.2255 Burbot 0.40 0.0372 White sucker 0.09 0.6348 Longnose sucker 0.61 0.0005 Lake chub 0.62 0.0005 Longnose dace 0.58 0.0011 Trout-perch 0.43 0.0218 Spoonhead sculpin 0.32 0.0985 Brook stickleback 0.35 0.0697 Stream profile variables Average cross-sectional area -0.49 0.0085 Width-depth ratio -0.83 <0.0001 Average Gini coefficient 0.27 0.1730

18

Figure 4. Mean (±SE) fish biomass and total fish cover when median bank stability

was grouped into categories of stable (>50% vegetated) and unstable (<50% vegetated).

4.4 Total fish cover Total fish cover was not significantly correlated to any fish or stream profile variable.

Field measurements of littoral fish cover were confounded by riparian condition, stream channel confinement and fluctuating flows, and it appears to be a poor quantitative

metric for future monitoring (Table 8). There was also no clear relationship between total

fish cover and sport fish biomass (Figure 5).

19

Table 8. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between total fish cover, and fish and stream profile variables.

Variable 1 Variable 2 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 Total fish cover Fish variables

Biomass (g/100m) All fish 0.21 0.2966 Sport fish 0.38 0.0436 Non-sport fish -0.02 0.9229 Species Richness All species 0.24 0.2144 Sport species 0.49 0.0075

Non-sport species -0.11 0.5955

Relative abundance (fish/100m)

All fish 0.27 0.1681

Sport fish 0.30 0.1157

Non-sport fish 0.18 0.3521

Rainbow trout 0.28 0.1521 Arctic grayling 0.23 0.2501

Mountain whitefish 0.20 0.2981

Northern pike 0.14 0.4841

Burbot 0.27 0.1666

White sucker -0.13 0.5034

Longnose sucker 0.17 0.3790

Lake chub 0.14 0.4942

Longnose dace 0.01 0.9712

Trout-perch 0.13 0.5225

Spoonhead sculpin 0.13 0.5234

Brook stickleback -0.43 0.0218

Stream profile variables Average cross-sectional area -0.10 0.6252

Width-depth ratio 0.18 0.3723

Gini coefficient 0.23 0.2361

20

Figure 5. Relationship between total fish cover and sport fish biomass by sample site.

Sites 2, 6, and 7 were not sampled. 4.5 Stream profile

Sites assigned fair-good and good riparian health scores tended to occur where width-to-depth ratios were high (i.e., wide and shallow channel), averaging 20.7 (± 9.1),

compared to an average width-to-depth ratio of 8.2 (± 5.1), at sites assigned fair, poor-

fair, and poor health scores.

Fish tended to be captured more readily in wide, shallow habitat than deep confined habitat; however capture success may have been confounded by varying electrofishing

efficiency with channel shape and water clarity. Width-to-depth ratio had strong

correlations to relative abundance of all fish species and non-sport fish species, with an 𝑟 value of 0.81 for both (Table 9). Width-to-depth ratios were moderately correlated to

biomass with 𝑟 values of 0.64, 0.65 and 0.72 respectively for all fish, sport fish, and non-sport fish biomass. Similarly relative abundances by species (with highest CUEs) had

moderate to strong correlations to width-to-depth ratio with 𝑟 values of 0.74, 0.73 and 0.78 for longnose sucker, lake chub, and longnose dace, respectively. Total species

richness was strongly correlated to width-to-depth ratio with 𝑟 of 0.77, suggesting a

more diverse fish assemblage was captured at reaches that were wide and shallow than at sites that were deep and confined. There was also a strong correlation between width-

to-depth ratio and median bank stability (𝑟 of 0.83), suggesting banks were most stable at wide, shallow sites (Table 10).

21

Table 9. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between fish variables and stream profile variables.

Stream profile variables

Average cross sectional area

Width-to-depth ratio

Gini coefficient

Fish variables 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 Biomass (g/100m) All fish -0.53 0.0037 0.64 0.0003 -0.05 0.7860 Sport fish -0.43 0.0226 0.65 0.0002 -0.08 0.6882 Non-sport fish -0.29 0.1318 0.72 <0.0001 -0.03 0.8679 Species richness All fish -0.52 0.0051 0.77 <0.0001 -0.02 0.9381 Sport fish -0.20 0.3121 0.36 0.0601 -0.08 0.6985 Non-sport fish -0.56 0.002 0.73 <0.0001 0.06 0.7770

Relative abundance (fish/100m)

All fish -0.71 <0.0001 0.81 <0.0001 0.24 0.2166 Sport fish -0.50 0.0063 0.53 0.004 0.06 0.7769 Non-sport fish -0.60 0.0006 0.81 <.0001 0.18 0.3686 Rainbow trout -0.28 0.1452 0.16 0.4152 0.13 0.5214 Arctic grayling 0.14 0.4656 -0.09 0.6537 -0.33 0.0876 Mountain whitefish -0.48 0.0103 0.52 0.0048 0.06 0.7685 Northern pike -0.23 0.2505 0.45 0.0174 0.05 0.8101 Burbot -0.42 0.0262 0.45 0.0154 0.20 0.3032 White sucker 0.05 0.8123 0.21 0.2747 -0.05 0.8144 Longnose sucker -0.60 0.0007 0.74 <0.0001 0.36 0.0594 Lake chub -0.49 0.0075 0.73 <0.0001 0.06 0.7478 Longnose dace -0.45 0.0162 0.78 <0.0001 0.13 0.5191 Trout-perch -0.30 0.116 0.45 0.0159 -0.02 0.9373 Spoonhead sculpin -0.62 0.0004 0.36 0.0639 0.36 0.0585 Brook stickleback -0.18 0.3615 -0.14 0.4744 -0.27 0.1682

22

Table 10. Results of Spearman correlation analysis between stream profile variables and habitat variables.

Habitat variables

Median bank stability Total fish cover

Stream profile variables 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 𝒓𝒔 𝒑 Average cross-sectional area -0.49 0.0085 -0.10 0.6252 Width-to-depth ratio 0.83 <0.0001 0.18 0.3723 Average Gini coefficient 0.27 0.173 0.23 0.2361

4.6 Substrate composition Three categories resulted when compiling the dominant substrate composition: bedrock-cobble, which when combined exceeded 50% of the substrate composition, cobble, which

exceeded 50% of the substrate composition, and sand/fines which when combined exceeded 50% of the substrate composition. No other substrate combinations exceeded

50% of the total composition and gravels were never dominant. Fish biomass was highest at sites where the combined dominant substrate was the coarsest (Figure 6).

Total fish biomass and sport fish biomass tended to increase with increasing substrate

size. Non-sport fish biomass was similar between bedrock-cobble and cobble sites, and decreased only at sites with fine substrates (sand/fines). Similarly sites with healthy

riparian areas tended to have coarser substrates than sites with unhealthy riparian areas (Figure 7).

23

Figure 6. Mean (±SE) fish biomass and total fish cover by dominant substrate type. Dominate substrate categories are those combinations that exceeded 50% of the total substrate composition.

Figure 7. Comparison of dominant substrate composition between a) healthy sites

(>50% of the riparian area ranked good), and b) unhealthy sites (<50% of the riparian area ranked good).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

Bedrock-cobble Cobble Sand/Fines

Perc

ent f

ish

cove

r

Fish

bio

mas

s (g/

m)

Dominant substrate (>50% of total)

All species Sport speciesNon-sport species % Fish Cover

24

4.7 Summary During 2011 electrofishing on the Edson River, the biomass of sport fish species and

non-sport fish species was nearly identical. Mountain whitefish was the most widely distributed species in the study area, followed by white sucker and longnose sucker.

Arctic grayling and rainbow trout were captured periodically throughout the study area, the latter tending to increase in average size in a downstream progression. Total fish

biomass decreased with decreasing riparian health. Sport fish biomass was generally

higher at healthy riparian sites than at unhealthy sites. In contrast, biomass of non-sport fish showed little difference between good, fair-good, fair and poor-fair ranked sites,

only decreasing at sites ranked poor. Relative abundance, biomass and species richness of fish were positively correlated to riparian health.

Total fish cover was a poor quantitative measure of fish habitat with little correlation to

any variable of fish abundance. Conversely, bank stability was moderately correlated to

fish abundance and species richness variables and strongly correlated to riparian health scores, proving a useful measure of both riparian and fish community health.

Width-to-depth ratio was the stream profile variable with the strongest correlation to

both fish abundance and bank stability, suggesting greatest fish species richness and

abundance occurred at wide, shallow reaches with stable banks.

Total fish biomass and sport fish biomass tended to increase with substrate size. Non-sport fish biomass was similar between sites with coarse substrates (cobble, boulder,

bedrock), only decreasing at sites dominated by fine substrates (sand/fines). Substrate

type at sites with healthy riparian areas (>50% of riparian area ranked good), was dominated by cobbles and boulders compared to unhealthy riparian areas (<50% of

riparian area ranked good) which were dominated by fines and sand.

Future work on the Edson River should examine the effects of stream channel shape on electrofishing efficiencies by comparing fish catchabilities at narrow, deep channels

versus shallow, wide channels via capture-mark-recapture methods.

25

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). 2010. Edson river system aerial riparian management area assessment. DVD. Filmed and prepared by Walker

Environmental, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. Status of the Arctic grayling

(Thymallus arcticus). Wildlife Status Report No. 57, produced by ASRD and ACA, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 41 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2009.

Status of the Athabasca rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Alberta, 2009. Wildlife Status Report No. 66, produced by ASRD and ACA, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada. 32 pp.

Bryski, M.S. 1999. Arctic grayling historical review, grayling fisheries of the Mcleod

River sub-basin in Fisheries Management Area 4. Produced by Trout Unlimited Canada for Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service,

Fisheries Management Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 43 pp + app.

Cooke, C. 1981. Edson River stream bank evaluation report. Produced by Alberta

Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 91 pp + app.

Harding, J.S., J.E. Clapcott, J.M. Quinn, J.W. Hayes, M.K. Joy, R.G. Storey, H.S. Greig,

J.H. Hay, T.J. James, M.A. Beech, R.O. Ozane, A.S. Meredith, and I.K. Boothroyd. 2009. Stream habitat assessment protocols for wadeable rivers and streams of

New Zealand. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 133 pp.

Hughes, R.M., P.R. Kaufmann, A.T. Herlihy, S.S. Intelmann, S.C. Corbett, M.C. Arbogast, and R.C. Hjort. 2002. Electrofishing distance needed to estimate fish

species richness in raftable Oregon rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 22:1229–1240.

26

Johnson, C.F., P. Jones, and S. Spencer. 1998. A guide to classifying selected fish habitat

parameters in lotic systems of West Central Alberta. Produced by Foothills Model Forest and Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada. 15 pp.

Kaufmann, P.R. 2000. Physical habitat characterization, non-wadeable rivers. Pages 6.1-

6.29. In Lazorchak, J.M., B.H. Hill, D.K. Averill, D.V. Peck, and D.J. Klemm, editors. Environmental monitoring and assessment program, field operations

and methods for measuring the ecological condition of non-wadeable rivers and streams. Produced by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,

U.S.A.

Kowalchuk, S., and D. Campbell. 2001. Edson River riparian health assessment report.

Produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 92 pp.

Lucas, W., T. Baker, M. Wood, C. Allison, and D. VanLeeuwen. 2008. Response of stream

banks to different intensities and seasons of cattle grazing in two montane

riparian areas in Western New Mexico. WRRI Miscellaneous Report No. 29, produced by New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, New Mexico State

University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S.A. 20 pp.

Myers, T., and S. Swanson. 1992. Variation of stream stability with stream type and

livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 28(4): 743-754.

Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in

biological research. 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York,

U.S.A. 859 pp.

Wilhelm, J., J. Allan, R. Merritt, and K. Cummins. 2005. Habitat assessment of non-

wadeable rivers in Michigan. Environmental Management 36(4):592-609.

27

6.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Summary of stream wetted width data used to determine sample site

lengths on the Edson River, 2011.

Upper river Lower river

Number of width measurements 37 56 Average wetted width (± SE) (m) 8.4 (± 2.3) 14.0 (± 3.0) Wetted width coefficient of variation (%) 27.8 21.0 Wetted width x 85 (m) 715 1,193 Standard site lengths (m) 700 1,300 2011 sampling sites sites 1–19 sites 20–31

28

Appendix 2. Edson River 2011 sample site locations and strata. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11. Site ID

Strata

Sample date

Start UTM Easting

Start UTM Northing

End UTM Easting

End UTM Northing

Effort (s)

Distance sampled (m)

1 Sage 06/07/2011 524540 5953064 525104 5952993 2149 700 2 Sage Not sampled 525461 5952943 - - - - 3 Green 21/08/2011 526084 5952396 526096 5952067 2105 700 4 Red 07/07/2011 567067 5951728 527300 5951628 1436 700 5 Green 22/08/2011 527987 5951547 528278 5957202 1898 700 6 Orange Not sampled 528644 5950802 - - - - 7 Sage Not sampled 530375 5950226 - - - - 8 Red 20/07/2011 531418 5949874 531738 5949673 1564 700 9 Red 20/07/2011 531849 5949550 532236 5949583 1757 700 10 Red 22/07/2011 532457 5949600 532450 5949855 1194 700 11 Red 19/07/2011 532869 5949740 533284 5949636 1535 700 12 Red 19/07/2011 533305 5949417 533625 5949275 1349 700 13 Red 21/07/2011 533967 5949269 534262 5949369 1410 700 14 Sage 21/07/2011 534857 5949363 534857 5949363 1804 700 15 Orange 23/07/2011 535579 5949595 535769 5949846 1365 700 16 Red 23/07/2011 536067 5949796 536363 5949638 1680 700 17 Red 20/08/2011 536133 5949345 536076 5949099 1171 700 18 Red 24/07/2011 536017 5948338 535916 5947961 1306 700 19 Red 24/07/2011 535680 5947788 535720 5947290 1797 900 20 Red 25/07/2011 535890 5947077 543555 5942041 2375 1300 21 Yellow 03/08/2011 536265 5946467 536267 5945838 3297 1300 22 Sage 04/08/2011 536690 5945670 537505 5945409 3537 1300 23 Green 05/08/2011 537958 5945036 538553 5944984 2832 1300 24 Yellow 06/08/2011 538787 5945383 538951 5945355 2534 1300 25 Green 07/08/2011 539587 5944776 540266 5944519 3612 1300 26 Green 08/08/2011 541902 5944431 541810 5944340 5036 1300 27 Green 09/08/2011 542251 5944194 543260 5943743 3326 1300 28 Yellow 16/08/2011 544044 5943583 544493 5943838 2509 1300

29

Appendix 2. Continued.

Site ID

Strata

Sample Date

Start UTM Easting

Start UTM Northing

End UTM Easting

End UTM Northing

Effort (s)

Distance Sampled (m)

29 Yellow 17/08/2011 545063 5944658 545309 5945444 2257 1300 30 Green 18/08/2011 545754 5945463 546044 5945747 2869 1300 31 Sage 19/08/2011 546416 5946123 547260 5945867 3705 1300

30

Appendix 3. Field data form for cross sectional profile and bank measurements, Edson River, 2011.

31

Appendix 4. Fish cover plot data form, Edson River, 2011.

32

Appendix 5. Profile measurements at date of sampling, Edson River, 2011. (SD = standard deviation) Site ID Riparian

health rank Mean wetted

width (m) SD Mean cross-

sectional area (m2) SD Mean width/

depth ratio SD Mean Gini

coefficient SD

1 Sage 12.5 3.2 6.3 2.8 27.1 7.3 0.13 0.30 3 Sage 10.6 2.1 4.8 2.0 26.6 12.2 0.10 0.01 4 Red 10.2 0.4 5.1 1.7 22.1 6.2 0.11 0.04 5 Green 10.6 1.7 3.5 1.5 39.9 25.2 0.14 0.03 8 Red 8.6 1.9 8.5 2.6 9.2 3.0 0.08 0.02 9 Red 9.0 3.4 9.9 1.7 8.5 5.3 0.08 0.05 10 Red 8.6 2.2 10.3 4.0 7.5 2.4 0.10 0.06 11 Red 7.6 1.9 10.1 2.5 5.8 2.2 0.10 0.03 12 Red 9.4 2.6 9.1 1.9 9.8 3.6 0.10 0.04 13 Red 8.4 1.9 9.5 3.2 7.6 1.5 0.10 0.05 14 Sage 11.0 3.1 10.0 2.3 12.3 4.6 0.12 0.03 15 Orange 9.2 1.3 8.7 1.0 9.8 2.1 0.10 0.02 16 Red 9.2 1.9 8.9 3.1 9.7 1.8 0.10 0.02 17 Red 10.4 0.9 5.8 1.9 19.6 4.0 0.09 0.03 18 Red 8.4 1.1 9.6 1.4 7.4 1.5 0.09 0.03 19 Red 11.0 2.1 13.1 2.3 9.8 4.6 0.11 0.03 20 Red 11.3 1.4 12.4 3.2 10.7 3.0 0.07 0.04 21 Yellow 10.3 1.8 12.3 3.4 9.2 3.9 0.08 0.04 22 Sage 14.9 2.4 9.7 3.0 25.2 9.4 0.07 0.03 23 Green 16.3 1.2 6.6 5.1 49.7 16.0 0.12 0.05 24 Yellow 15.6 2.7 8.2 3.5 36.7 18.9 0.08 0.03 25 Green 18.4 3.4 10.0 5.3 38.6 13.2 0.10 0.02 26 Green 16.3 6.8 6.2 2.9 44.9 23.1 0.10 0.03 27 Green 16.6 3.3 6.0 1.7 53.4 28.1 0.12 0.02 28 Yellow 13.4 1.5 6.7 2.3 32.0 19.6 0.09 0.03 29 Yellow 15.0 1.7 7.0 3.5 39.0 17.8 0.10 0.03 30 Green 18.3 2.7 8.5 4.1 56.4 44.4 0.08 0.04 31 Sage 14.5 3.5 4.2 1.1 62.5 23.3 0.14 0.05

33

Appendix 6. Profile measurements converted to bankfull levels, Edson River, 2011. (SD = standard deviation) Site ID Riparian

health rank Mean bankfull

width (m) SD Mean cross-

sectional area (m2) SD Mean width/

depth ratio SD Mean Gini

coefficient SD

1 Sage 13.5 3.3 16.6 5.4 11.8 4.3 0.06 0.03 3 Sage 11.6 2.3 9.6 3.1 16.0 8.6 0.06 0.02 4 Red 11.0 0.7 14.4 2.9 8.7 1.9 0.04 0.02 5 Green 11.4 0.9 8.7 1.8 15.6 4.1 0.06 0.02 8 Red 10.0 1.9 20.1 3.9 5.2 1.7 0.04 0.01 9 Red 11.0 3.5 22.2 4.4 5.5 2.5 0.05 0.03 10 Red 10.2 2.2 23.7 8.5 4.5 0.5 0.05 0.02 11 Red 9.6 2.6 22.0 6.7 4.3 1.4 0.06 0.02 12 Red 11.0 0.7 22.6 4.0 5.4 0.7 0.05 0.02 13 Red 10.4 2.5 20.9 4.6 5.2 1.4 0.05 0.03 14 Sage 12.6 3.2 24.5 3.2 6.8 3.6 0.06 0.02 15 Orange 10.8 1.3 33.8 30.9 5.1 2.5 0.05 0.02 16 Red 10.8 2.3 18.9 5.4 6.2 1.3 0.05 0.01 17 Red 11.8 1.9 13.2 5.0 11.2 2.0 0.05 0.01 18 Red 10.0 1.2 18.3 1.5 5.5 1.0 0.06 0.02 19 Red 12.3 2.3 22.3 3.0 7.0 2.3 0.07 0.02 20 Red 12.6 1.2 25.0 4.1 6.5 1.3 0.04 0.02 21 Yellow 10.4 1.8 18.7 4.2 5.9 1.8 0.05 0.03 22 Sage 15.8 2.3 19.9 4.8 13.3 4.6 0.03 0.02 23 Green 16.9 1.5 14.7 5.3 21.3 7.0 0.05 0.02 24 Yellow 16.4 2.6 16.3 3.5 17.5 6.1 0.04 0.01 25 Green 20.1 4.6 18.4 6.6 23.1 5.6 0.06 0.02 26 Green 19.8 2.1 13.7 2.4 29.3 7.1 0.05 0.01 27 Green 17.8 3.7 10.8 5.8 38.7 27.7 0.08 0.03 28 Yellow 14.0 1.9 13.2 2.8 16.2 8.3 0.05 0.02 29 Yellow 15.7 1.5 13.0 4.3 20.8 6.8 0.05 0.02 30 Green 19.1 2.9 17.1 4.5 24.4 13.3 0.04 0.02 31 Sage 15.1 3.4 10.7 3.9 27.8 12.4 0.06 0.03

34

Appendix 7. Baseline inventory of sport fish in the Edson River, 2011: habitat and photo summary.

For electronic versions of this report see attached PDF file to view Appendix 7. For printed versions of this report see attached CD to view Appendix 7.

35

Appendix 8. Length-weight relationships used to determine fish biomass from fish captured in the Edson River, 2011.

Species n Length-weight power function

R²

Arctic grayling 27 y = 8E-06x3.0872 0.9405

Mountain whitefish 237 y = 4E-06x3.1887 0.9833

Rainbow trout 30 y = 7E-06x3.1061 0.9953

Lake chub 449 y = 9E-06x3.0504 0.7926

Longnose dace 135 y = 4E-06x3.2268 0.8415

Longnose sucker 282 y = 8E-06x3.0800 0.9787

Trout-perch 205 y = 3E-05x2.8224 0.5787

White sucker 132 y = 4E-06x3.2069 0.9920

Burbot 16 All weights were measured Northern pike 4 All weights were measured Spoonhead sculpin 16 All weights were measured Brook Stickleback 6 All weights were measured

36

Appendix 9. Summary of sport fish species capture, and CUE (fish/100m) using cataraft, and totebarge (sites 3 and 5) electrofishing methods, Edson River, 2011. ARGR = Arctic grayling, BURB = burbot, MNWH = mountain whitefish, RNTR = rainbow trout, NRPK = northern pike.

Site ID ARGR BURB MNWH RNTR NRPK

n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE 1 1 0.14 1 0.14 16 2.29 7 1.00 0 0 3 0 0 7 1.00 6 0.86 6 0.86 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.14 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 0.57 3 0.43 0 0 8 2 0.29 0 0 7 1.00 3 0.43 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 4 0.57 1 0.14 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 3 0.43 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0.29 0 0 0 0 12 2 0.29 0 0 1 0.14 0 0 0 0 13 1 0.14 0 0 4 0.57 1 0.14 0 0 14 2 0.29 0 0 3 0.43 1 0.14 0 0 15 2 0.29 0 0 3 0.43 0 0 0 0 16 1 0.14 0 0 3 0.43 0 0 0 0 17 2 0.29 0 0 13 1.86 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 6 0.86 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 6 0.46 0 0 10 0.77 1 0.08 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 2 0.15 0 0 0 0 22 2 0.15 0 0 3 0.23 1 0.08 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 14 1.08 0 0 0 0 24 2 0.15 0 0 12 0.92 0 0 0 0 25 1 0.08 0 0 19 1.46 1 0.08 0 0 26 2 0.15 0 0 13 1.00 2 0.15 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 12 0.92 1 0.08 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 11 0.85 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 1 0.08 5 0.38 0 0 0 0 30 1 0.08 3 0.23 23 1.77 1 0.08 3 0.23 31 0 0 4 0.31 38 2.92 0 0 1 0.08 Total 27 - 16 - 237 - 30 - 4 -

37

Appendix 10. Summary of non-sport fish capture, and CUE (fish/100m) using cataraft, and totebarge (sites 3 and 5) electrofishing methods, Edson River, 2011. BRST = brook stickleback, LKCH = lake chub, LNDC = longnose dace, LNSC = longnose sucker, SPSC = spoonhead sculpin, TRPR = trout-perch, WHSC = white sucker.

Site ID BRST LKCH LNDC LNSC SPSC TRPR WHSC

n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE n CUE 1 0 0 1 0.14 0 0 14 2.00 1 0.14 0 0 3 0.43 3 0 0 27 3.86 0 0 33 4.71 7 1.00 10 1.43 0 0 4 1 0.14 3 0.43 2 0.29 11 1.57 0 0 3 0.43 1 0.14 5 0 0 49 7.00 0 0 25 3.57 4 0.57 37 5.29 1 0.14 8 2 0.29 1 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.43 1 0.14 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.29 0 0 0 0 4 0.57 10 0 0 1 0.14 0 0 3 0.43 0 0 1 0.14 6 0.86 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.29 0 0 1 0.14 2 0.29 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.57 1 0.14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.43 2 0.29 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.14 0 0 3 0.43 3 0.43 17 1 0.14 6 0.86 0 0 0 0 2 0.29 8 1.14 2 0.29 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.29 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.22 0 0 0 0 3 0.33 20 0 0 41 3.15 0 0 1 0.08 0 0 6 0.46 3 0.23 21 1 0.08 13 1.00 0 0 1 0.08 0 0 15 1.15 9 0.69 22 0 0 13 1.00 2 0.15 5 0.38 0 0 27 2.08 11 0.85 23 0 0 37 2.85 6 0.46 5 0.38 0 0 21 1.62 8 0.62 24 0 0 13 1.00 2 0.15 6 0.46 0 0 5 0.38 4 0.31 25 0 0 41 3.15 2 0.15 19 1.46 0 0 15 1.15 4 0.31 26 0 0 91 7.00 23 1.77 39 3.00 0 0 4 0.31 7 0.54 27 0 0 58 4.46 17 1.31 21 1.62 0 0 9 0.69 4 0.31 28 1 0.08 19 1.46 16 1.23 9 0.69 0 0 10 0.77 26 2.00 29 0 0 6 0.46 26 2.00 14 1.08 1 0.08 10 0.77 10 0.77 30 0 0 8 0.62 15 1.15 28 2.15 0 0 5 0.38 2 0.15 31 0 0 21 1.62 24 1.85 41 3.15 1 0.08 5 0.38 13 1.00 Total 6 - 449 - 135 - 282 - 16 - 205 - 132 -

38

Appendix 11. Rainbow trout and Arctic grayling boxplot size distribution by capture location, Edson River, 2011. Site 1 is approximately 65 km upstream of the confluence, and site 30 is approximately 4 km upstream of the confluence.

39

Appendix 12. Length-frequency distributions for fish captures, Edson River, 2011.

Rel

ati

ve

ab

un

dan

ce (

%)

Fork length (mm)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

5

10

15

20

25

White sucker; n = 132

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

5

10

15

20

25

Longnose sucker; n = 281

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rainbow trout; n = 30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

5

10

15

20

25Arctic grayling; n = 27

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mountain whitefish; n = 237

40

Appendix 12. Continued.

Rel

ati

ve

ab

un

da

nce

(%

)

Fork length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Longnose dace; n = 135

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Trout perch; n = 205

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lake chub; n = 448

41

Appendix 13. McLeod River discharge near Edson during sampling on the Edson River, 2011.

Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the

following partner for their generous support of this project: