The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCows & Fish Riparian Health Inventory Summary Report for Tsuut'ina NationTsuut’ina Nation Riparian Health Inventory Summary Report Fish (Wolf) Creek January 2023 Prepared for: Tsuut’ina Nation Prepared by: Cows and Fish Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society) 2nd Floor, Avail Building 530 – 8th Street South Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 2J8 www.cowsandfish.org Writers: Maddison Skinner and Kathryn Hull Contributors: Kathryn Romanchuk, Christy Sikina Gabe Wilson, Nicole Wensman Acknowledgements This riparian health monitoring and training initiative was funded by The Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund Grant provided as part of an accommodation measure from the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project by the Government of Canada and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). We respectfully acknowledge and thank the Tsuut’ina Nation for their assistance, guidance and involvement with this initiative. Special thanks to Tanis One Spot (Executive Director) and Alison Heavenfire (Director) (Tsuut’ina Nation Land and Environment Research Department) and Logan One Spot (Environmental Coordinator, Tsuut’ina Nation Aquatic Habitat Restoration) for their assistance with leading and coordinating riparian health workshops and fieldwork access permissions. We also sincerely thank all of the NÌSK'NÌSK’ÁGÍNÍSTÒ-HÍ Lands Administration Staff who participated in this project. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge and thank Melinda McLauchlin (MCA Environmental Management, Tsuut’ina Nation Technical Advisor, Aquatic Habitat Stewardship Coordinator) for her assistance with coordinating and facilitating this project. The Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund “is an accommodation measure that responds to concerns raised by Indigenous groups during consultations on the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project about the potential impacts of development on fish and fish habitat and the general state of fisheries resources based on cumulative effects from development projects. Through this initiative, the Government of Canada and eligible Indigenous groups are collaboratively developing an aquatic habitat restoration program to restore marine and freshwater aquatic ecosystems and contribute to the sustainability of fish and fish habitat.” The goal of this fund is to “increase the capacity of Indigenous groups to protect and restore aquatic habitats that may be impacted by the cumulative effects of development.” Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/trans- mountain/what-is-tmx/the-decision/backgrounder11/aquatic-habitat-restoration-fund.html About “Cows and Fish”, the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society (https://cowsandfish.org/) The Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society (known as “Cows and Fish”) is a non-profit, charitable society that strives to promote improved management and stewardship of riparian areas. As the transition zone between our uplands and waterways, protecting riparian corridors and improving riparian health provides numerous benefits including stormwater filtration, reduced erosion, flood mitigation, groundwater recharge, and fish and wildlife habitat. Cows and Fish has worked with landowners, land managers, livestock producers, and community groups across Alberta since 1992 on riparian awareness, stewardship, and monitoring projects. Cows and Fish Supporters and Members: Alberta Beef Producers, Trout Unlimited Canada, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the Alberta Government, Rural Municipalities of Alberta, the Association of Alberta Agriculture Fieldmen, producers, municipalities and community groups in Alberta. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Assessing Riparian Health .................................................................................................................................. 2 Fish Creek Riparian Health Inventories ........................................................................................................... 5 A) FIS11 Riparian Area Description ................................................................................................................... 5 FIS11 Riparian Health Score Discussion ............................................................................................................ 6 FIS11 Aerial Imagery and Benchmark Photography ........................................................................................ 10 B) FIS12 Riparian Area Description ................................................................................................................. 13 FIS12 Riparian Health Score Discussion .......................................................................................................... 14 FIS12 Aerial Imagery and Benchmark Photography ........................................................................................ 17 Riparian Management Considerations........................................................................................................... 20 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDICES Appendix A Riparian Plant Information – FIS11 (2022) .................................................................................. 27 Appendix B Riparian Plant Information – FIS12 (2022) .................................................................................. 32 Appendix C Invasive Weed Identification and Management Summary for Observed Species ......................... 36 Appendix D Riparian Health Score Sheet Categories For Streams and Small Rivers ........................................ 39 FIGURES Figure 1 Diagrammatic representation of a riparian area .................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Tsuut’ina Nation, Fish (Wolf) Creek Riparian Health Inventory Site Locations (2022) .................... 3 TABLES Table 1 FIS11 Riparian Health Score Sheet ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 FIS12 Riparian Health Score Sheet ................................................................................................. 13 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 1 Background A riparian health monitoring and training initiative with the Tsuut’ina Nation NÌSK'NÌSK’ÁGÍNÍSTÒ-HÍ Lands Administration Staff was initiated in 2022 with funding support from The Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). These federal funds were provided as part of an accommodation measure to respond to concerns raised by Indigenous groups during consultations on the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project about the potential impacts of development and cumulative effects on fish and fish habitat. “Through this initiative, the Government of Canada and eligible Indigenous groups are collaboratively developing an aquatic habitat restoration program to restore marine and freshwater aquatic ecosystems and contribute to the sustainability of fish and fish habitat.”1 The goal of this fund is to “increase the capacity of Indigenous groups to protect and restore aquatic habitats that may be impacted by the cumulative effects of development.”1 This project was coordinated by MCA Environmental Management (Melinda McLauchlin), Tsuut’ina Nation Technical Advisor, Aquatic Habitat Stewardship Coordinator. As part of this initiative, the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society (Cows and Fish) conducted an introductory riparian health workshop with members of the Tsuut’ina Nation’s NÌSK'NÌSK’ÁGÍNÍSTÒ-HÍ Lands Administration Staff on June 30, 2022. This included discussions of riparian and watershed issues of concern to the Nation, a riparian ecology introductory presentation, and an overview of riparian health assessment methods. The outdoor component of this workshop included: i) a plant identification session focused on key riparian plant species indicators, their ecological functions and relevance to riparian health metrics; and ii) practical field-based application of the riparian health assessment tool. A follow-up field-based training session on these topics was held on September 19, 2022. In addition, in consultation and collaboration with the Tsuut’ina Nation and MCA Environmental Management, Cows and Fish field staff conducted two baseline riparian health inventories along Fish Creek (locally known as “Wolf Creek”) within the Nation lands on July 14 and 15, 2022. The intent of these inventories is to document reference conditions in two stream reaches along a total of approximately 1.8 km of stream channel length. These inventories will serve as an important benchmark of current conditions, allowing for monitoring of riparian health trend over time. An inventory of plant species composition and characterization of the plant community is also helpful for informing riparian restoration targets. Riparian health inventories (RHIs) are a tool designed to help agencies, communities and individual landowners evaluate and understand the health of riparian areas in the watersheds within their landholdings. The health inventory establishes an important baseline to compare to in the future to determine whether riparian health is being maintained, improving or declining. This summary report provides information on the current health and function of the riparian areas inventoried and corresponding management suggestions. Of note, riparian health inventories do not address any in-stream, hydrological (i.e., issues associated with water flow regimes, water diversions, extractions, dam impacts) or water quality parameters. 1 https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/trans-mountain/what-is-tmx/the-decision/backgrounder11/aquatic-habitat-restoration- fund.html IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 2 The location of the two Fish (Wolf) Creek RHIs assessed in 2022 within the southeast extent of Tsuut’ina Nation are shown in Figure 2 (page 3). This area is within Alberta’s Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion2. Assessing Riparian Health Riparian areas are the portions of the landscape strongly influenced by water and are recognized by water-loving vegetation along rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds and seeps. Riparian areas can be described as the “green zones” around lakes and wetlands and bordering rivers and streams. Healthy riparian areas sustain fish and wildlife populations, provide good water quality and stable water supplies, and support livestock and people on the landscape. Important ecological functions performed by healthy riparian areas include trapping and storing sediment to maintain and build banks, recharging groundwater supplies, providing stable flows and flood protection, and improving water quality by filtering runoff and reducing the amount of contaminants and nutrients reaching the water. The Latin root of the word riparian is “ripa,” meaning bank or shore. Figure 1 Diagrammatic representation of a riparian area3 2 Natural Regions Committee 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852. 3 Source: Fitch, L. and N. Ambrose. 2003. Riparian Areas: A User’s Guide to Health. Lethbridge, Alberta: Cows and Fish Program. ISBN No. 0-7785-2305-5. Available from: https://cowsandfish.org/publications/ IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 3 Figure 2 Tsuut’ina Nation, Fish (Wolf) Creek Riparian Health Inventory Site Locations (2022) IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 4 To effectively understand the current status of riparian health, the inventory addresses a number of questions or parameters regarding riparian ecological functions (Is it healthy?). Healthy riparian areas have the following pieces intact and functioning properly: floodplains and banks with abundant plant growth, very few, if any, invasive weeds (i.e., regulated noxious or prohibited noxious weeds as per Alberta’s Weed Control Act4), not many disturbance-caused plant species (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass [Poa pratensis], common dandelion [Taraxacum officinale]), successful reproduction and establishment of seedling, sapling and mature trees and shrubs, banks with deep-rooted plant species (trees and shrubs), very little bare ground or human-altered banks or altered floodplain habitat, and ability of the stream/river to frequently (i.e., every few years) access a floodplain at least double the channel width. The inventory arrives at an overall health category for the riparian area, identified by a health score as follows: Health Category Score Ranges Description Healthy 80-100% little to no impairment to any riparian functions Healthy, but with problems 60-79% some impairment to riparian functions due to management or natural causes Unhealthy <60% severe impairment to riparian functions due to management or natural causes When riparian health degrades, one or more of the pieces are impacted by natural or human -caused disturbances. Riparian areas are healthy, but with problems when a few health parameters experience light to moderate impacts. As the rate and intensity of disturbance increases, the severity of health degradation can reach a point when the riparian area fails to perform its functions properly and becomes unhealthy. During a riparian health inventory, detailed information is collected about riparian plant communities, stand structure and age classes in addition to physical site information. A riparian heath score is derived from eleven key parameters, six of which relate to vegetation characteristics and five related to soil and hydrology conditions/alterations. A description of each of these parameters and how they are evaluated is given in Appendix D (page 39). By objectively examining each of these health parameters we can determine which pieces are adequately performing the necessary functions of a healthy riparian area, and which are not. This examination provides us with a better understanding of where to conce ntrate efforts if improvements in riparian management are needed, and what land use practices are currently maintaining riparian health. 4https://www.alberta.ca/weeds.aspx IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 5 Fish Creek Riparian Health Inventories A) FIS11 Riparian Area Description The “FIS11” site is located along Fish (Wolf) Creek close to the southern boundary of the Nation, east of Bullhead Road. This area of Fish Creek sees primarily cultural and recreational use. Access to the area is on foot or by off-highway vehicle (OHV). A small camping area with a shelter and outhouse is present on the north side of the creek, close to the downstream end of the site. However, the majority of the area has minimal human use and is in a natural condition with high integrity native plant communities. It currently rates healthy (90% riparian health score) (Table 1). As such it provides a broad suite of ecological functions, including filtration of runoff, aquifer recharge, buffering of flood impacts, and provision of fish and wildlife habitat. Sign of black bear, deer, moose, beaver, mink, possibly wolf and numerous songbirds were observed in the area. Table 1 FIS11 Riparian Health Score Sheet Healthy (80-100%) – Little or no impairment to riparian functions. Healthy but with Problems (60-79%) – Some impairment to riparian functions due to human or natural causes. Unhealthy (<60%) – Impairment to many riparian functions due to human or natural causes. Waterbody: Fish (“Wolf”) Creek Location: SW 6-23-2 W5M Site Code: FIS11 Upstream End: 691214 E, 5645004 N 11U Inventory Date: July 14, 2022 Downstream End: 691903 E, 5644947 N 11U RIPARIAN HEATH PARAMETER 2020 SCORE VEGETATION 1. Vegetative Cover of Floodplain and Streambanks 6 / 6 2a. Invasive Plant Species (Cover) 2 / 3 2b. Invasive Plant Species (Density Distribution) 0 / 3 3. Disturbance-Caused Undesirable Herbaceous Species 2 / 3 4. Preferred Tree and Shrub Establishment and Regeneration 6 / 6 5a. Browse Utilization of Preferred Trees and Shrubs 2 / 3 5b. Woody Vegetation Removal by Humans or Beaver 3 / 3 6. Decadent and Dead Woody Material 3 / 3 Vegetation Rating 24 / 30 (80%) SOIL/HYDROLOGY 7. Streambank Root Mass Protection 6 / 6 8. Human-Caused Bare Ground 6 / 6 9. Streambank Structurally Altered 6 / 6 10. Human Physical Alteration to Polygon (Floodplain) 3 / 3 11. Stream Channel Incisement 9 / 9 Soil/Hydrology Rating 30 / 30 (100%) OVERALL RATING 54 / 60 (90%) IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 6 The FIS11 riparian site extends from a natural gravel bar at the upstream end to an OHV trail crossing, encompasses about 1.2 kilometers of channel length and an area of approximately 5.3 hectares 13.1 acres) on both sides of Fish Creek. An airphoto showing the FIS11 site boundary is given on page 10. The majority of the floodplain extends to the north of the stream channel. A steep north-facing valley slope borders the south side of the stream. Of note, the FIS11 site represents only a small portion of riparian habitat along this reach of Fish Creek i.e., the north boundary is somewhat arbitrary). Due to time constraints, the full extent of the riparian floodplain could not be assessed. The riparian health assessment boundaries represent the current active’ flood prone zone, averaging about 25 m in flatter terrain on either side of the stream. Old oxbow wetlands within a wide floodplain extend up to 500 m north of the current stream channel, indicating the dynamic nature of this meandering stream. Oxbow wetlands are formed when large meander bends are cut off from the main channel as the stream follows a shorter path, pinching off the bend. Oxbow wetlands and old channel scars indicate the numerous historic flow paths of Fish Creek over the millennia. Oxbow wetlands within the wide floodplain are examples of valuable riparian ecosystems that provide unique and typically biodiverse wildlife habitat. As such, riparian management considerations for this area should encompass the entire floodplain extent (up to 500 m north of the Fish Creek channel) and should not be limited to the FIS11 site boundary. FIS11 Riparian Health Score Discussion 1. The riparian area is well vegetated. An extensive diversity of trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs broad leaf plants) provide more than 95% vegetative cover in the riparian area. During our assessment, we recorded a total of 150 vascular plant species based on an incidental count of commonly occurring species (i.e., not an exhaustive inventory). This included 3 tree, 24 shrub, 87 forb (broad-leaf wildflowers), and 36 grass/grass-like species (refer to the detailed plant species list in Appendix A, page 27). Of these species 122 (i.e., 81%) are native indigenous plants. The north facing valley slope bordering the south side of the stream has a dense white spruce (Picea glauca) plant community with a sparse understory comprised mainly of common horsetail Equisetum arvense), ground juniper (Juniperus communis), buckbrush (Symphoricarpos spp.) and twining honeysuckle (Lonicera dioica). Much of the riparian floodplain on the north side of the stream is comprised of a white spruce / red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) habitat type.5 In addition to white spruce (the dominant tree cover), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), a keystone riparian tree species, is also common in the floodplain and along gravel bars. Aspen (Populus tremuloides), is present but only sparsely in drier outer edges of the site. This densely wooded riparian site has more than 90% combined tree and shrub cover overall. In addition to red-osier dogwood (an important forage species for wildlife), other commonly occurring shrub species include silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata), water birch (Betula occidentalis), sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and yellow willow (Salix lutea). Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia), a culturally 5 Thompson, W. and P. Hansen. 2002. Classification and Management of Riparian and Wetland Sites of Alberta’s Grasslands Natural Region and Adjacent Subregions. Lethbridge, AB: Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. Prepared for the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Program-Cows and Fish. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 7 important berry producing shrub, is also common in the area. In addition to cultural and food- production values, these native trees and shrubs provide excellent soil and bank stabilization, runoff filtration, moisture infiltration and wildlife habitat functions. Commonly occurring herbaceous (non-woody) plants in the site include both native and non-native species such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), marsh reed grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Canada anemone (Anemone canadensis) and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) are among the more common forbs present. Many other plants with documented importance to the Tsuut’ina Nation are also present, including common cattail (Typha latifolia), common yarrow Achillea millefolium), prairie sagewort (Artemesia ludoviciana) and sweet grass (Anthoxanthum hirtum). Herbaceous plants provide ground cover, soil stabilization, nutrient filtration and pollinator food sources in addition to numerous cultural values. 2. Invasive weed species have established from regional source populations, but are sparse. For the purpose of a riparian health assessment, “invasive plants” include prohibited noxious and noxious weeds listed under Alberta’s Weed Control Act and other non-native species known to be problematic in riparian areas. Invasive species spread rapidly, often outcompete native plants, and are difficult to control. If left unchecked, these plants can disrupt natural plant communities, reduce availabl e preferred forage for wildlife, compete with native species for pollinators, and in some cases reduce bank stability. Aggressive invasive weeds often form single-species ‘monocultures’, detrimental to biodiversity, drought and flood resiliency, and harmful to the displacement of preferred culturally important species. Six noxious weed invasive species were observed in low amounts (less than 1% cover) during our assessment: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), perennial sow- thistle (Sonchus arvensis), scentless chamomile (Tripleurospermum inodorum), tall buttercup Ranunculus acris) and yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). Although not yet included on our ‘invasive’ plant list, two other problematic species present are caraway (Carum carvi) and cotoneaster Cotoneaster spp.). All of these species have invaded along this reach of Fish Creek from source populations in the greater watershed outside of the Tsuut’ina Nation boundary. Many species spread from wind, water, or wildlife dispersal. Species like yellow toadflax, perennial sow-thistle and scentless chamomile often disperse by water, colonizing gravel bars. Caraway and tall buttercup occur along fencelines, cutlines and disturbed truck trails. Cotoneaster fruit is dispersed by birds, self-seeding and propagating in forest understories. Except for localized occurrences of ox-eye daisy and scentless chamomile (see airphoto map on page 10), other invasive plants in this site occur as dispersed patches and scattered individuals; however, they are not yet extensive in cover (native plants form the predominant cover). 3. Disturbance-caused plant species are present. These plants are typically non-native grasses and forbs and/or pioneer (early successional) native herbaceous species that colonize areas with natural or human disturbance. Most problematic are non-native rhizomatous grasses (e.g. smooth brome) that form monocultures, interfering with natural succession processes. Also problematic are shallow-rooted, mat forming introduced species like Kentucky bluegrass that have limited value for bank binding, nutrient filtration, and erosion prevention. Disturbance species currently cover IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 8 approximately 20% of the FIS11 site. Intermixed stands of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, both introduced agronomic grasses, account for the majority of this cover. Once these non-native disturbance-caused plants have become established within the riparian area, it may not be realistic for the plant community to revert completely back to native species. However, their progression can be inhibited by minimizing further disturbance to the soil surface. It should be stressed that despite the presence of these species, this site still maintains a strong native plant component and healthy, functional plant communities. Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass are prevalent in the Calgary region. 4. Preferred woody plants (e.g. balsam poplar, willows) are plentiful and display signs of regeneration. ‘Preferred’ woody plants refer to native trees and shrubs that have excellent forage and habitat value for livestock and wildlife. These plants also stabilize banks with their extensive root systems. As discussed, many preferred native trees and shrubs are present in this site including white spruce, balsam poplar, red-osier dogwood, and seven species of willow, among others. These plants display excellent age class structure – young, middle-aged, and mature plants are all present. For example, many of the gravel bars along this reach of Fish Creek have been colonized by young stands of balsam poplar and willow. The presence of young plants is particularly important to ensure the longevity of woody communities since they are needed to replace older individuals as they die off. 5. a. Browse (utilization of preferred woody plants by wildlife) is light. While most shrubs show minimal to no browse by wildlife, a few of the more palatable species, such as red-osier dogwood and saskatoon, display signs of light utilization. Given its abundance, browse use of red-osier dogwood contributes to an overall ‘light’ browse utilization score for the site. However, this level of wildlife utilization is sustainable and all shrubs exhibit their normal growth form. Red-osier dogwood is typically the first shrub to disappear from a site with unsustainable (heavy, persistent) browse use. b. Woody removal by beavers and humans is minimal. Several beaver-cut stems, both historical and recently cut, and some human-cut stumps are present. Small clearings have also been made at the campground on the creek’s north side and along old cutlines and OHV trails. However, the overall amount of vegetation removal is negligible and is not negatively impacting the health of the riparian area, so the site scores healthy for this parameter. Continuing to maintain healthy and diverse tree and shrub communities benefits riparian health. Of note, beavers are considered a keystone’ riparian species, due to the ecosystem benefits of beaver-created dams and ponds. Beaver typically harvest willows and poplars, species that readily regenerate after being cut. Several beaver dams and an active beaver lodge were observed within the FIS11 reach. Most beaver use was concentrated near the ox-bow wetland on the north side. Beaver dams slow stream flows, reducing erosion and encouraging lateral moisture dispersion. Beaver ponds create rich habitat opportunities for numerous wildlife species such as amphibians, fish, herons and songbirds. 6. Minimal dead and decadent trees and shrubs are present. The presence of only a few dead or dying trees and shrubs is a good indicator that overuse, disease, moisture, or pests are not an issue. 7. Streambanks are well protected by plants with deep binding roots. Greater than 85% of the streambank length has sufficient deep binding root mass provided by dense native tree, shrub and graminoid vegetation. Woody plants are especially important for trapping soil and sediment, IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 9 preventing erosion, and maintaining stream channel integrity. While this does not affect the score for this parameter, a small amount of the bank length (between 6% and 25%) is naturally unstable. This has resulted in some lateral cutting of the banks in times of high water flow. Natural erosion occurs along larger streams and rivers especially during spring, when water levels are high and fast- flowing water undercuts the bank. Maintaining a dense buffer of deeply-rooted plants within the entire active floodplain is therefore especially important at this site. 8-9 Human-caused bare ground and structural alterations to the streambanks are minimal. Existing plant communities are providing excellent overall vegetative cover. Bare ground due to human use is present only in trace amounts (less than 1% cover), and though there are several off - highway vehicle (OHV) access points within the site, these remain mostly vegetated, indicating that soil compaction is minimal. Physical alterations to the natural streambank structure are equally limited; OHV crossing points impact less than 1% of the streambank length and these trails cross the stream in relatively low-impact, flatter areas. Keeping the amount of bare ground and alterations to a minimum is key to maintaining a healthy riparian area. Where possible, OHV use should be directed to designated trails away from streambanks to prevent harm to aquatic life and water quality. More heavily trafficked crossings such as the forded OHV trail at the downstream end could have bridges installed to curb in-stream damage. Former access points will likely naturally recover and revegetate, except where soil compaction is an issue. Monitoring of these access points and actively de- compacting the soil where appropriate will help promote natural recovery and restoration. 10. Structural alterations to the rest of the site (floodplain) are minimal. Structural alterations include physical changes to the soil structure, including soil compaction. Soil structure changes can affect the hydrology of the site; when soil is compacted water infiltration rates decrease , which leads to increased surface runoff. Less than 1% of the FIS11 site area is altered due to faint foot trails and OHV access trails, and a small campground area on the north bank. Most of these altered areas and trails are vegetated, except for a more heavily used vehicle crossing at the downstream end. Due to the low prevalence and severity of physical alterations in the portion of the floodplain assessed, the site scores healthy for this parameter. 11. The ability of the stream to access a wide floodplain during high flows is unrestricted by channel incisement. Channel incisement (or downcutting) refers to the downward erosion of the channel bottom. As streambanks become unstable due to the removal of deep-rooted vegetation or when impacts from the surrounding landscape result in very rapid or high flows, the channel may erode outward and downward. Downward erosion deepens the channel, reducing the ability of floodwater to spill over the banks. This accelerates erosion and prevents moisture dispersion within the floodplain. Periodic flooding is needed to enrich and rebuild soils and also to recharge groundwater. The degree of incisement observed within this section of the stream appears minimal and active downcutting does not appear to be occurring; natural stream processes are progressing unhindered. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 10 FIS11 Aerial Imagery and Benchmark Photography M. Skinn er R H I P 1 1FIS00 5 M. Skinn er RH IP1 1FIS00 2 FIS11U. Upstream end looking downstream. Young willows and poplars are establishing on a gravel bar on the opposite bank. There are few to no obvious human-caused alterations in this upstream portion of the site. FIS11L. Downstream end looking upstream. This gravel bar has been more recently deposited and the plant community is younger. Willows and poplars are beginning to establish here, beneficially contributing to riparian health. Note: Not all incidental invasive weed locations are displayed here. Invasive species locations displayed are generally for discrete patches or individual occurrences. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 11 M. S kin n er R H I P 1 1FIS00 6 M. S kin n er R H I P 1 1FIS021 FIS11 A. Poplar regeneration is plentiful on gravel bar features– an excellent sign of healthy regeneration. FIS11 B. Gravel bars like this one at the upstream end should be closely monitored for invasive weeds that spread from upstream source populations. Keeping invasive weeds in check will protect culturally important native plants. M. Skin ner R H IP1 1FIS01 4 M. Skin ner R H IP1 1FIS01 5 FIS11 C. This pooled water is an ‘oxbow’, formed when the river naturally carved out a new course and left standing water in its old path. Oxbows support rich plant and wildlife communities. FIS11 D. This side channel connects to the oxbow wetland, and once represented the main stream channel. This lush floodplain provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. M. Skinn e r RH IP 11 FIS 0 22 M. Skinn e r RH IP 11 FIS 0 18 FIS11 E. An active beaver dam is causing water to pool upstream. Beavers actively manage and sustainably harvest from the riparian area here, creating unique opportunities for other species. FIS11 F. The south side of the stream abuts a steep north-facing slope with dense white spruce cover. Willow staking could be done at the base of this slope to natural reinforce areas with adjacent roadways. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 12 M. Skin ner R H IP 1 1 F IS0 25 M. Skin ner R H IP 1 1 F IS0 19 FIS11 A. This riparian area is a rich cultural resource to be enjoyed by the local community. This campground area is well vegetated and has had minimal impact to riparian health. FIS11 B. Example of a former OHV trail near the campground on the north bank that could be restored. Soil decompaction with hand tools would encourage natural recovery of this trail. OHV use should be directed to designated trails away from streambanks to avoid harm to aquatic life and water quality. M. Sk in n er R H I P1 1 FIS01 7 FIS11 C. Most OHV trails in this site have minimal use except for this more heavily trafficked crossing/trail at the downstream end. A bridge could be installed here to prevent in-stream aquatic damage. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 13 B) FIS12 Riparian Area Description The “FIS12” site is located south of the Old Agency Road (south of Two Guns), within the southeast corner of the Tsuut’ina Nation. It encompasses 570 meters of channel length and an area of approximately 1.6 hectares (3.9 acres) on the north side of Fish Creek. The site varies in width from 7 to 85 meters, with an average width of about 30 meters. The FIS12 site boundary is shown on the aerial image on page 17. Due to its proximity to Two Guns and its easy access, this site sees frequent recreational use by both off- highway vehicles (OHVs) and trucks, as well as foot traffic. It is a popular stream access point and picnic site. This activity is mainly focused on a natural cobble/gravel bar that is fairly resistant to trampling impacts. A riparian health assessment was conducted here on the north bank of Fish Creek only, to provide a benchmark of current conditions. The site currently has a riparian health rating of 72% healthy, with problems) (Table 2). Table 2 FIS12 Riparian Health Score Sheet Healthy (80-100%) – Little or no impairment to riparian functions. Healthy but with Problems (60-79%) – Some impairment to riparian functions due to human or natural causes. Unhealthy (<60%) – Impairment to many riparian functions due to human or natural causes. Waterbody: Fish (“Wolf”) Creek Location: NW/SW 1-23-2 W5M Site Code: FIS12 Upstream End: 699777 E, 5645882 N 11U Inventory Date: July 15, 2022 Downstream End: 700106 E, 5645590 N 11U RIPARIAN HEATH PARAMETER 2020 SCORE VEGETATION 1. Vegetative Cover of Floodplain and Streambanks 2 / 6 2a. Invasive Plant Species (Cover) 1 / 3 2b. Invasive Plant Species (Density Distribution) 0 / 3 3. Disturbance-Caused Undesirable Herbaceous Species 0 / 3 4. Preferred Tree and Shrub Establishment and Regeneration 6 / 6 5a. Browse Utilization of Preferred Trees and Shrubs 3 / 3 5b. Woody Vegetation Removal by Humans or Beaver 3 / 3 6. Decadent and Dead Woody Material 3 / 3 Vegetation Rating 18 / 30 (60%) SOIL/HYDROLOGY 7. Streambank Root Mass Protection 6 / 6 8. Human-Caused Bare Ground 4 / 6 9. Streambank Structurally Altered 4 / 6 10. Human Physical Alteration to Polygon (Floodplain) 2 / 3 11. Stream Channel Incisement 9 / 9 Soil/Hydrology Rating 25 / 30 (83%) OVERALL RATING 43 / 60 (72%) IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 14 FIS12 Riparian Health Score Discussion 1. The riparian area is not fully vegetated due to a combination of natural and human factors. There is a substantial gravel bar at the downstream end of this site with extensive deposition of large cobbles and gravels remnant from the 2013 flood. This gravel bar has not yet fully revegetated likely due to soil compaction from truck trails. Truck trails and OHV use has also impacted a portion of a second gravel bar at the upstream end. As such, about 20% of the site is not vegetated mainly where there are compacted and/or recent areas of cobble and gravel deposition. However, the remainder of the site is comprised of diverse, mainly native plant communities. A balsam poplar/ red-osier dogwood community is dominant along the streambanks, where yellow willow and sandbar willow are most prevalent. A white spruce / red-osier dogwood natural habitat type is characteristic of floodplain areas further back from the bank, where saskatoon, silverberry and wild roses occur in the understory. Aspen intermixed with native shrubs occurs along the drier north edge of the site above a steep bank. Disturbed open meadows in the site are comprised of a buckbrush community with mainly non-native grass species (e.g., smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass) in the understory. During our assessment, we recorded a total of 109 vascular plant species in the FIS12 site based on an incidental count of commonly occurring species (i.e., not an exhaustive inventory). This included 5 tree, 22 shrub, 63 forb (broad-leaf wildflowers), and 19 grass/grass-like species (refer to the detailed plant species list in Appendix B, page 32). Of these species 83 (i.e., 76%) are native indigenous plants. Woody species (trees and shrubs) cover about 60% of the site, mainly a combination of balsam poplar, white spruce, aspen, silverberry, sandbar willow, yellow willow, buckbrush and wild rose. Two introduced tree species occur in trace amounts (crab apple [Malus spp] and European mountain-ash [Sorbus aucuparia]). Of the many forb species that together cover about a quarter of the site, the most common include Canada goldenrod, Canada anemone and yellow sweet- clover (Melilotus officinalis). Many other plant species are present that are noted by Tsuut'ina Nation as being culturally significant. Examples include pasture sagewort (Artemisia frigida), prairie sagewort, chokecherry, saskatoon, wild red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), northern gooseberry (Ribes oxycanthoides), and wild mint (Mentha arvensis). 2. Invasive plant species are present. Five provincially regulated ‘noxious’ weeds are present including: Canada thistle, common burdock (Arctium minus), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), perennial sow-thistle and scentless chamomile. All of these weeds are common in the Calgary region and spread readily by wind, water and wildlife dispersion. These weeds are mostly just rare, sparse occurrences in the FIS12 site, except for more widespread occurrence of leafy spurge patches within the downstream end gravel bar. Leafy spurge likely originated from source populations in the adjacent Fish Creek Provincial Park where it is prolific. This Eurasian origin species is a prolific spreader, capable of displacing preferred and culturally important native species over time if left unchecked. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 15 3. Historic land use disturbances have modified natural grasslands due to introduction of agricultural species. Due to long-term human disturbance in the region and proximity to agricultural and urban areas, non-native agronomic grasses are common in this riparian site. Smooth brome and quack grass (Elymus repens) are the dominant ground cover. These aggressive, fast spreading grasses were historically seeded by European settlers as forage for livestock and for reclaiming road ditches. Lush riparian floodplains are ideal for these grasses, where they displace native species due to their extensive creeping root systems. Once these grasses surpass 50% canopy cover, there is little potential for the plant community to revert back to native species. However, over time, shading by trees and shrubs can reduce their prominence. Since this site does have a strong native tree and shrub compliment, the abundance of brome and quack grass is less of a concern. 4. Preferred woody plants (e.g. willows) are plentiful and display signs of healthy regeneration. As mentioned, there are numerous preferred native trees and shrubs in this site. These plants display good age class structure – young, middle-aged, and mature plants are all present. Young poplars and willows, for example, are common along sandbars and gravel bar deposition areas. 5. a. Browse (utilization of preferred woody plants by livestock or wildlife) is minimal. Browse is evident only on mature red-osier dogwood, one of the most palatable shrubs, and this browse is only light. Browse on all other species is minimal, and all plants have a normal growth forms indicating that use by wildlife is at a sustainable level. b. Beaver and human woody plant removal is minimal. There is evidence of previous beaver use of the area in the form of scattered beaver-cut stems, but no active beaver harvesting was observed at the time of this assessment. Some human clearing of trees/shrubs has occurred along truck trails, but this is minor in extent and therefore the site still scores healthy for this parameter. Continuing to maintain healthy and diverse tree and shrub communities benefits riparian health. 6. There are few dead or dying trees and shrubs present. The presence of only a few dead or dying trees and shrubs is a good indicator of the health and ecological integrity of the riparian area and that overuse, disease, moisture, or pests are not an issue. 7. Streambanks are well protected by plants with deep binding roots. More than 85% of the streambank has sufficient deep binding root mass provided by species like sandbar and yellow willow, white spruce, balsam poplar, and silverberry. Streamside vegetation maintains the integrity and structure of the banks by dissipating energy, resisting erosion, and trapping sediment to build and restore banks. 8. Human-caused bare ground is present. Truck trails have contributed to creating areas of exposed, bare ground (with no vegetation) in portions of the site. However, overall there is less than 5% bare ground cover. Where truck trails traverse cobble and gravel bars, these naturally hardened areas are more resistant to these impacts. Gravel and cobble areas with compacted trails lack vegetation cover, but do not contribute to erosion or sediment inputs into Fish Creek. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 16 9. About 10% of the streambank length is structurally altered from vehicle trails and access points. This predominantly takes the form of compacted stretches along gravel bars that see regular human access. These streambank alterations are only slight in severity since gravel bars are generally low-impact areas to access a creek, being much less subject to compaction or erosion than fine- textured soils. Keeping the amount of bare ground and alterations to a minimum is key to maintaining a healthy riparian area. 10. Structural alterations to the rest of the site (floodplain) are present. About 10% of the floodplain within the FIS12 site is altered due to compacted vehicle access trails. Most of these vehicle trails are vegetated, indicating that compaction is not severe, though one trail along the eastern edge of the riparian area is bare in places. Creating designated access routes may be helpful for reducing the proliferation of trails in the area and reducing impacts to native plant communities. 11. The ability of the stream to access a wide floodplain during high flows is unrestricted by channel incisement. The degree of incisement (downward channel bed erosion) within this section of the stream appears minimal and active downcutting does not appear to be occurring; natural stream processes are progressing unhindered. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 17 FIS12 Aerial Imagery and Benchmark Photography N. W ensm an RHIP12F IS006 N. W ensm an RH IP12F IS 002 FIS12U. Upstream end looking downstream. Some erosion has occurred where people frequently access the river. FIS12L. Downstream end looking upstream. This gravel bar is a popular stream access and picnic site. Note: Not all incidental invasive weed locations are displayed here. Invasive species locations displayed are generally for discrete patches or individual occurrences. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 18 N. W e n sm an R HIP 1 2 FIS012 N. W e n sm an R HIP 1 2 FIS010 FIS12 A. The mid portion of this site has steep banks where there are depositional point bars on the south side of the stream. Maintaining native trees and shrubs is beneficial for bank stability. FIS12 B. A representative photo of the white spruce / red-osier dogwood forest, characteristic of this site. The forest supports a plant community with much structural diversity and many young tree. Some old beaver chewed stems are present. N. W en sm an RHIP 12 FIS008 N. W en sm an RHIP 12 FIS009 FIS12 C. A vehicle trail approaching the creek and gravel bar from the forest. Encouraging users to consolidate vehicle access into fewer areas would be beneficial. FIS12 D. This vehicle trail leading through forest is the most compacted of the site’s forested trails. Others remain fully vegetated, indicating they receive less use. N. W ensm an R HIP12F IS0 1 6 N. W ensm an R HIP12F IS0 1 9 FIS12 E. Dense shrub growth on either side of this access point highlights that growth is being inhibited by compaction from vehicle use. FIS12 F. This is an example of natural regeneration along a vehicle access trail that is no longer in use. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 19 N. W en sm an RHIP1 2 FIS015 N. W en sm an RHIP1 2 FIS007 FIS12 G. Frequent creek clean-up days involving the community will help protect this sensitive area. Gravel bars are naturally hardened, creating sustainable stream access points. But keeping the number of access points to a minimum is beneficial for riparian health. FIS12 H. This extensive gravel bar was likely created by the 2013 flood. This area is resilient to vehicle trails, reducing soil erosion. However, compaction from truck trails appears to be suppressing plant growth. N. W en sm an R H IP 12F IS001 7 N. W en sm an R H IP 12F IS020 FIS12 I. OHV trailing impacts at the upstream end of the site, causing rutting and bare ground. This area will recovery naturally if rested from use. FIS12 J. A forded OHV trail is present near the upstream end. Where possible, vehicles should be kept out of the water to reduce aquatic impacts. N. W ensm an RH IP12FIS 0 1 4 N. W ensm an RHIP12FIS 0 18 FIS12 K. Example of a dense poplar/red-osier dogwood plant community along the streambank, beneficial for fish and wildlife habitat, runoff filtration, bank stability and cultural values. FIS12 L. Example of poplar and willow regeneration along a point bar. Moist, fine textured soil is especially susceptible to soil compaction. Such areas should be protected from OHV use. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 20 Riparian Management Considerations The intent of this report is to provide a summary of baseline conditions along Fish (Wolf) Creek for the two stream reaches assessed. This information provides a picture of plant species diversity and other riparian health parameters which can then be tracked over time. However, since only two sites were assessed comprising a total length of approximately 1.8 km, this represents only a small portion (about 8.6%) of the full 22.4 km (approximate) length of Fish (Wolf) Creek within the Tsuut’ina Nation. Additional riparian health inventories along at least a third of the stream length would be needed to better represent the full range of conditions in the Nation. As mentioned, the FIS11 site at the west end was selected as a longer reach to provide a benchmark of relatively undisturbed habitat conditions whereas the FIS12 site at the east end encompasses a shorter length of stream. The FIS12 site was purposefully selected within a more heavily utilized portion of stream on the north bank only where management or restoration actions may be done. In general, based on airphoto analysis, the majority of Fish Creek within the Tsuut’ina Nation has large areas of intact forested riparian habitat with minimal obvious human land use footprint. Fish (Wolf) Creek has a highly meandering (sinuous) flow path within a wide floodplain (averaging at least 400 m wide) within the Nation. Retaining natural stream meanders and avoiding developments in this wide floodplain helps to retain the many ecological functions of this habitat while also preventing against potential flood related damage. The highly sinuous path of Fish Creek indicates natural channel movements over time in response to natural hydrological processes of erosion and deposition. Meandering, sinuous channels with multiple remnant ox-bow wetlands (formed by erosion processes over time where meander bends are ‘pinched’ off from the main channel) have inherent biodiversity and riparian habitat complexity. Slow flowing inner bends with gravel bars are ideally suited for willow and balsam poplar establishment and natural regeneration. Outer stream channel bends with natural lateral erosion offer exposed cutbanks that provide unique nesting habitat for species like bank swallows. Remnant ox-bow wetlands in the floodplain along the former flow path, provide valuable lentic (non-flowing) habitat ideal for numerous songbirds, waterfowl and amphibians. The following riparian management suggestions would be beneficial for maintaining and improving riparian health conditions along Fish (Wolf) Creek: Continue to maintain undisturbed natural riparian habitat along Fish (Wolf) Creek to protect culturally important native plant, fish and wildlife habitat, maintain water quality, and buffer flood and drought impacts. In an undisturbed condition, riparian habitat acts like a sponge, filtering and absorbing moisture, recharging ground water supplies and supporting productive, lush plant communities. Riparian areas support a broad diversity of native plants and animals, many of which are culturally significant. Retaining natural tree and shrub habitats within the Fish (Wolf) Creek valley helps to sustain these and many other riparian ecosystem services. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 21 Monitor and carefully manage disturbance from recreational use and off-highway vehicles. Where appropriate, install bridges along more heavily utilized truck trail or OHV stream crossings. Collaborative efforts are encouraged with local users and Nìsk'Nìsk’ágínístò-hí Lands Administration to continue to minimize impacts from motorized vehicles. Forded stream crossings and highly erodible trails are of particular concern to native fisheries and water quality. Wherever possible, ‘wheels out of water’ is a good approach to avoid in-stream habitat damage. Portions of the streambank with natural cobble or gravel substrates are less easily compressed or eroded, and thus can more readily sustain vehicle use. Installation of temporary or permanent bridge structures may be warranted for high use crossings. To protect fish and fish habitat, bridge construction and maintenance should follow the applicable Fisheries and Oceans Canada Code of Practice (https://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/codes/clear-span-bridges-ponts-portee-libre-eng.html). Conduct frequent community stream clean-up events within popular picnic or campsite areas. Collaborative riparian stewardship efforts are encouraged, led by the Nìsk'Nìsk’ágínístò- hí Lands Administration. This could include frequent creek clean up days with local community members and youth at popular streamside picnic or camping areas. Consider designing a dedicated public education interpretive loop within the FIS12 reach (at the southeast end of Fish [Wolf] Creek near Old Agency Road). To encourage public education about fish, fish habitat and riparian areas and their cultural values, an interpretive trail with custom signage could be created. This could involve local high school students in the creation and design of signs linked with traditional knowledge from elders and other sources. Continue to co-exist with beaver on the landscape. Beaver, a culturally significant species for the Tsuut’ina Nation, are also a keystone riparian ecosystem species. Beavers have historically and continue to play an important role in shaping riparian habitat diversity along Fish (Wolf) Creek. Over long periods of time, productive, fertile stream and river valleys evolve under beaver management. At a regional scale, having beavers on the landscape can help ensure a more stable water supply especially in low flow months or in drought periods. Beaver dams can benefit communities by storing water during periods of drought and by mitigating flood damage during flood events. Beaver dams naturally store and hold back water, creating a wildfire buffer and wildlife habitat refuge6. Beaver dams are inherently 'leaky' and contribute to groundwater recharge, benefitting stable water supplies. By trapping sediment, beaver 6 Fairfax, E., & Whittle, A. (2020). Smokey the Beaver: beaver dammed riparian corridors stay green during wildfire throughout the western United States. Ecological Applications, 30(8), e02225. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 22 dams help to enhance water quality downstream7. By raising the water table, beaver dams contribute cooler inputs of groundwater to maintain stream base flows, beneficially moderating stream temperatures for trout and other aquatic species. For more information about the benefits of beavers, refer to the: Pond of Gold Fact Sheet and our Beaver: Our Watershed Partner publication (available from: https://cowsandfish.org/publications/beaver-our-watershed-partner/). Conduct nature-based restoration where appropriate to promote recovery of compacted trails along the streambank. Soil compaction is often limiting to natural recovery of native riparian plants in areas with human-caused disturbance such as vehicle trails. In these instances, soil de-compaction is a necessary first step to promote plant regrowth. Depending on the severity of compaction, this may be accomplished by way of hand tools. Soil decompaction allows for improved water infiltration, root growth, soil aeration and nutrient accessibility. Riparian plants will naturally recover quickly after disturbance (e.g., mowing or livestock grazing) if given sufficient growing season rest. In some instances, native willow and balsam poplar cuttings can be planted to more quickly revegetate areas with human- caused disturbance (e.g. OHV trails). Riparian plants such as willows and balsam poplars are ideally suited for restoration projects since these plants will root and grow from stem cuttings. For techniques and tips on riparian plantings refer to the Growing Restoration Fact Sheet, available from https://cowsandfish.org/product-category/fact- sheets/#content. Another useful reference is this manual produced by the Agroforestry and Woodlot Extension Society: https://www.awes-ab.ca/publications/manual-for- riparian-forest-buffer-establishment-in-alberta/. Key riparian planting considerations are listed below: Collect willow and/or balsam poplar stem cuttings from within your local watershed. Most plant materials are best collected during the dormant period, which generally occurs when leaves are not present between September and March. When harvesting native plant material from undisturbed donor sites, limit harvest of an individual plant to less than one third of the total live stems emerging from one root system to ensure that this plant survives. Ensure you use clean, disinfected pruning shears to avoid disease transfer. Ensure stem cuttings are healthy and growing well (i.e., they should be green and soft if the bark is scraped away). Avoid dying or diseased wood. Live willow / poplar cuttings should be carefully harvested, handled and stored to prevent damage from desiccation and sun/heat exposure prior to planting. Live cuttings should be kept moist and protected from hot sun, drying winds and drying frosts. Wrap cuttings with wet burlap and soak with water every day or two. Only 7 Brazier, R., A. Puttock, H. Graham, R. Auster, K. Davies and C. Brown. 2020. Beaver: Nature’s ecosystem engineers. WIREs Water. 2021;8:e1494 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 23 cuttings of adequate length and diameter should be used. Cuttings should be trimmed so that the smallest part of the cutting is a minimum of 2 cm on the apical (top) end and at least 80 cm to more than 3 m long. Be sure to cut the tops of cuttings with a flat top and angle cut the bottom of cuttings so that plantings are installed the right way up. Having an angled base also helps with inserting cuttings into the ground. When installing cuttings, make sure that at least 80% of the cutting length is installed below the ground surface. Contact the Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park (Dylan Barnes - (403) 238-3841 ext.5; dylan@friendsoffishcreek.org; friendsoffishcreek.org) for assistance with planning and implementing riparian planting activities. Contact Cows and Fish for other local consultant references if you would like professional assistance with streambank bioengineering or riparian planting projects. Soil bioengineering is the use of living plant material to provide a structural engineering function. It is a useful nature-based solution to mitigating bank erosion in situations where adjacent infrastructure or culturally significant resources are present. Monitor and manage invasive plants. Invasive weeds can be introduced into even pristine sites by way of wind or water dispersal or from birds or dispersing wildlife. Being vigilant to new or emerging weed threats in your watershed and quickly removing small infestations of weeds is the best strategy to prevent unmanageable weed outbreaks. Individual weeds can usually be removed by hand, but once larger infestations establish, these weeds can otherwise be very difficult to control. Large weed infestations may have adverse impacts to native habitats, biodiversity and wildlife or livestock forage quality. A priority is to become familiar with and focus weed eradication efforts for those weeds listed as Prohibited Noxious in Alberta (https://abinvasives.ca/resources/). No prohibited noxious weeds were observed during our riparian assessments, but ongoing monitoring is recommended. Weeds in this category are not yet widely established in Alberta but are known to be emergent threats in adjacent municipalities. These weeds are typically especially invasive and thus pose high risk to native plant community integrity. For additional information on invasive plant management and identification refer to the Alberta Invasive Species Council website: www.abinvasives.ca. Many weed species such as Canada Thistle are shade intolerant. Thus retaining tree and shrub cover and promoting natural succession of forest plant communities is helpful for keeping these weeds in check. Invasive species typically establish readily in areas with natural or human-caused ground disturbance. For example, sand bar and gravel bar deposition areas along streams (such as at the upstream end of FIS11) are often a hotspot for weeds. OHV trails, livestock trails and camping or picnic spots are other potential hotspots for weeds to establish. These areas should be a priority for weed monitoring and removal efforts. Minimizing soil disturbance is important for reducing the potential for weeds to invade. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 24 Use an integrated weed management approach, with due care to native plants, breeding birds and water resources. A combination of management techniques is usually needed to tackle weed issues. This includes consideration of biological controls if available. Weed control has to be done repeatedly over several seasons for best success due to re- emergence of weeds from seed or from root stocks. Hand pulling is usually only effective for isolated weed occurrences in loose soils. If done consistently for several years, hand- pulling pre-bloom in soft-soils can be effective for small infestations, but must be done prior to seed-set. Gloves and long-sleeves are recommended since many weeds can cause skin irritations. If chemical herbicide controls are used, special care is needed to avoid herbicide drift that can be harmful to native, non-target species. Spot application or wick applicators may be helpful for minimizing herbicide drift. Use caution if applying herbicides to strictly follow manufacturer safety recommendations (personal protective equipment and environmental care instructions). Herbicides and pesticides should not be applied within 30 m of a water body like Fish (Wolf) Creek to protect water quality. For support with your weed management efforts, please contact the following individuals for additional recommendations and support: Megan Evans, Executive Director, Alberta Invasive Species Council, Email: execdirector@abinvasives.ca Jeff Porter, Manager of Agricultural Services, Foothills County, Phone: 403-603-5410; Email: jeff.porter@mdfoothills.com Emma Stroud, Citizen Science and Stewardship Coordinator, Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society, 403-238-3841, Email: emma@friendsoffishcreek.org. Properly dispose of any collected weed species in approved landfill facilities, especially those with seeds attached. Invasive weeds should be bagged and tied closed to prevent weed seeds from spreading. Invasive weeds should not be composted. Appendix C (page 36) provides photographs for most of the invasive weeds observed in the FIS11 and/or FIS12 riparian sites. Basic facts and management tips are listed in Appendix C for each species based on Fact Sheets available from the Alberta Invasive Species Council. Stay proactive, involved, and informed about your watershed. Consider partnering with local and regional watershed stewardship organizations on watershed monitoring and riparian health initiatives. Fish Creek flows through various jurisdictions and therefore is affected by the actions of many individuals and groups. Others who also live alongside and care about the health of Fish Creek are working together to raise awareness about developments that may impact the creek, and to better understand the watershed and how individuals can join forces to make improvements to the health of the watershed. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 25 Going forward it may be beneficial to conduct additional riparian health baseline inventories within the Tsuut’’ina Nation to document and better represent current conditions in the Nation as a whole. Linking riparian health monitoring with ongoing regional watershed efforts to monitor water quality and fish populations, helps to inform ongoing Integrated Watershed Management Planning and State of the Watershed reporting initiatives. Non-intrusive biological census techniques are now available using environmental DNA (or eDNA) technology8 whereby DNA (genetic information) is collected from water samples. This includes cellular DNA material shed by organisms (e.g. skin, excrement, etc.) into aquatic environments. Environmental DNA census techniques are now a powerful biodiversity and population monitoring tool for fish and other aquatic organisms. For more information on this technique and support with fish population monitoring, contact Trout Unlimited Canada: Elliot Lindsay, 403-221-8360, elindsay@tucanada.org, ww.tucanada.org. Below is a listing of contacts for local and regional watershed groups and key consultants actively engaged in watershed planning initiatives: Bow River Basin Council: Mike Murray (Executive Director), Tel: 403 268 4597 email: mmurray@brbc.ab.ca; https://brbc.ab.ca/ Elbow River Watershed Partnership: Flora Giesbrecht (Executive Director), email: coordinator@erwp.org; https://www.erwp.org/ Fish Creek Watershed Association (FCWA): David Swann (Executive Director), email: davidswann571@gmail.com FCWA State of the Watershed and Integrated Watershed Management Plan lead consultant: Sandi Riemersma (Palliser Environmental Services Ltd.) Tel: 403.921.5667; email: sandi@palliserenvironmental.com; https://palliserenvironmental.com/ Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society (https://friendsoffishcreek.org/) Emma Stroud, Citizen Science and Stewardship Coordinator, Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society, 403-238-3841, Email: emma@friendsoffishcreek.org. Dylan Barnes, Citizen Science and Stewardship Coordinator (Poplar Forest Stewardship), Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society, (403) 238-3841 ext.5, dylan@friendsoffishcreek.org 8 https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/environmental-dna-edna IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 26 Monitoring To assess riparian health trend, we recommend that health assessments be repeated every five years. The field workbook Riparian Health Assessment for Streams and Small Rivers is available from Cows and Fish. This workbook explains how to conduct a rapid survey to quickly check the health status of your riparian area. NEW: The workbook is now available in an App format. The Cows and Fish “Riparian Health Assessment App” is now available to download free of charge for use on your smart phone device. More detailed riparian health user manuals and forms, can be downloaded from our website: https://cowsandfish.org/health-assessment-and-inventory-forms/. Please contact Cows and Fish if you would like assistance in monitoring the long-term health of your riparian area. The Cows and Fish website (https://cowsandfish.org/) has additional information on riparian areas, riparian management, community tools for dealing with riparian issues, and community and producer riparian success stories. This report was prepared in part by the Cows and Fish Riparian Analyst team (Field Crew). For further information on any aspect of this summary, please contact: Kathryn Hull, P. Biol. Riparian Specialist, Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society – Cows and Fish Email: khull@cowsandfish.org IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 27 Appendix A Riparian Plant Information – FIS11 (2022) Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Trees aspen (Populus tremuloides) native 3.0 balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) native 20.0 white spruce (Picea glauca) native 40.0 Shrubs beaked willow (Salix bebbiana) native 0.5 buckbrush/snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis) native 3.0 Canada buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis) native 3.0 choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) native 0.5 common bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) native 0.5 cotoneaster (Cotoneaster spp.) introduced 0.5 dusky willow (Salix melanopsis) native 0.5 false mountain willow (Salix pseudomonticola) native 0.5 flat-leaved willow (Salix planifolia) native 0.5 ground juniper (Juniperus communis) native 0.5 northern gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides) native 0.5 prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) native 10.0 red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera acc. Cornus sericea) native 20.0 sandbar willow (Salix exigua) native 10.0 Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) native 10.0 shining willow (Salix lucida) native 0.5 shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa) native 0.5 silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata) native 20.0 snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) native 0.5 thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) native 0.5 twining honeysuckle (Lonicera dioica) native 0.5 water birch (Betula occidentalis) native 10.0 wild red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) native 0.5 yellow willow (Salix lutea) native 10.0 Grasses and grass-like species) alpine rush (Juncus alpinoarticulatus) native 0.5 beaked sedge (Carex utriculata) native 10.0 common tall manna grass (Glyceria grandis) native 0.5 creeping spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris) native 0.5 fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris) native 3.0 fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata) native 0.5 golden sedge (Carex aurea) native 0.5 great bulrush native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 28 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Grasses cont’d) Scirpus acutus acc. Schoenoplectus acutus) green needle grass (Stipa viridula acc. Nassella viridula) native 0.5 hairy wild rye Elymus innovatus acc. Leymus innovatus) native 0.5 June grass (Koeleria macrantha) native 0.5 Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) disturbance, introduced 10.0 knotted rush (Juncus nodosus) native 0.5 marsh reed grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) native 20.0 northern reed grass (Calamagrostis inexpansa) native 0.5 northern wheat grass Agropyron dasystachyum acc. Elymus lanceolatus) native 0.5 purple oat grass (Schizachne purpurascens) native 0.5 quack grass (Agropyron repens acc. Elymus repens) disturbance, introduced 0.5 red fescue (Festuca rubra) native or introduced 0.5 redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) introduced 3.0 reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) native 20.0 rough hair grass (Agrostis scabra) native 0.5 rush-like sedge (Carex scirpoidea) native 0.5 sedge (Carex spp.) unknown, not unique 0.5 short-awned sedge (Carex microglochin) native 0.5 slender wheat grass Agropyron trachycaulum var. unilaterale) native 0.5 slender wheat grass (Agropyron trachycaulum) native 0.5 small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) native 3.0 smooth brome (Bromus inermis) disturbance, introduced 20.0 sweet grass Hierochloe odorata acc. Anthoxanthum hirtum) native 0.5 timothy (Phleum pratense) disturbance, introduced 0.5 tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) native 0.5 water sedge (Carex aquatilis) native 0.5 white-grained mountain rice grass Oryzopsis asperifolia) native 0.5 wire rush (Juncus balticus) native 3.0 woolly sedge (Carex lanuginosa) native 0.5 Forbs broad- leaf plants) alpine bistort (Polygonum viviparum) native 0.5 alpine goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata) native 0.5 alpine hedysarum (Hedysarum alpinum) native 0.5 alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) disturbance, introduced 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 29 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Forbs cont’d) annual hawk's-beard (Crepis tectorum) disturbance, introduced 0.5 arum-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria cuneata) native 0.5 balsam groundsel (Senecio pauperculus) native 0.5 bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellata) native 0.5 black medick (Medicago lupulina) disturbance, introduced 0.5 blue columbine (Aquilegia brevistyla) native 0.5 Canada anemone (Anemone canadensis) native 10.0 Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) native 10.0 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) invasive, introduced 0.5 caraway (Carum carvi) introduced 0.5 common blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium montanum) native 0.5 common cattail (Typha latifolia) native 0.5 common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) disturbance, introduced 0.5 common goat's-beard (Tragopogon dubius) introduced 0.5 common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) native (poisonous) 3.0 common pepper-grass (Lepidium densiflorum) native 0.5 common pink wintergreen (Pyrola asarifolia) native 0.5 common plantain (Plantago major) disturbance, introduced 0.5 common scouring-rush (Equisetum hyemale) native 0.5 common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) native 0.5 cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) native 0.5 cream-colored vetchling (Lathyrus ochroleucus) native 0.5 cut-leaved anemone (Anemone multifida) native 0.5 dwarf Canadian primrose (Primula mistassinica) native 0.5 dwarf scouring-rush (Equisetum scirpoides) native 0.5 fairybells (Disporum trachycarpum) native 0.5 flat-topped goldenrod (Solidago graminifolia) native 0.5 flixweed; tansy mustard (Descurainia sophia) disturbance, introduced 0.5 fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata) native 0.5 gaillardia (Gaillardia aristata) native 0.5 golden bean (Thermopsis rhombifolia) native 0.5 harebell (Campanula rotundifolia) native 0.5 heal-all (Prunella vulgaris) native 0.5 heart-leaved Alexanders (Zizia aptera) native 0.5 late goldenrod (Solidago gigantea) native 0.5 Macoun's buttercup (Ranunculus macounii) native 0.5 marsh hedge-nettle (Stachys palustris) native 0.5 meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense) native 0.5 narrow-leaved hawkweed (Hieracium umbellatum) native 0.5 northern bedstraw (Galium boreale) native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 30 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 northern green bog orchid (Habenaria hyperborea) native 0.5 northern willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum) native 0.5 ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum acc. Leucanthemum vulgare) invasive, introduced 0.5 pale coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida) native 0.5 perennial sow-thistle (Sonchus arvensis) invasive, introduced 0.5 prairie sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana) native 0.5 red and white baneberry (Actaea rubra) native (poisonous) 0.5 red clover (Trifolium pratense) disturbance, introduced 0.5 reflexed locoweed (Oxytropis deflexa) native (poisonous) 0.5 rough cinquefoil (Potentilla norvegica) disturbance, native 0.5 scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata acc. Tripleurospermum inodorum) invasive, introduced 0.5 seneca snakeroot (Polygala senega) native 0.5 showy fleabane (Erigeron speciosus) native 0.5 showy locoweed (Oxytropis splendens) native (poisonous) 0.5 silverweed (Potentilla anserina) disturbance, native 0.5 smooth aster (Aster laevis) native 0.5 smooth scouring-rush (Equisetum laevigatum) native 0.5 star-flowered Solomon's-seal (Smilacina stellata) native 0.5 tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) invasive, introduced 0.5 tall lungwort (Mertensia paniculata) native 0.5 thistle (Cirsium spp.) unknown, not unique 0.5 three-flowered avens (Geum triflorum) native 0.5 unknown (Silene spp) unknown, not unique 0.5 veiny meadow rue (Thalictrum venulosum) native 0.5 velvety goldenrod (Solidago mollis) native 0.5 vine-leaved coltsfoot (Petasites vitifolius) native 0.5 violet (Viola spp.) unknown, not unique 0.5 water smartweed Polygonum amphibium acc. Persicaria amphibia) native 0.5 water-hemlock (Cicuta maculata) native (poisonous) 0.5 western bluebur (Lappula occidentalis) introduced 0.5 western Canada violet (Viola canadensis) native 0.5 western dock (Rumex occidentalis) native 0.5 western wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum) native 0.5 white camas (Zigadenus elegans) native (poisonous) 0.5 white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba) disturbance, introduced 3.0 wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) native 0.5 wild blue flax (Linum lewisii) native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 31 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 wild mint (Mentha arvensis) native 0.5 wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) disturbance, native 0.5 wild vetch (Vicia americana) native 0.5 yellow evening-primrose (Oenothera biennis) native 0.5 yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officinalis) disturbance, introduced 0.5 yellow toadflax/butter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris) invasive, introduced 0.5 1 Plant naming generally follows Vascular Flora of Alberta, 2020. 2 Invasive and disturbance plant status is designated by Cows and Fish in association with Alberta Public Lands and the Alberta Weed Control Act. 3 Based on visual estimates of the amount of ground the canopy of the plant covers. The percent cover values presented are the mid-values for the following ranges: 0.5=less than 1%; 3.0=1%-5%; 10.0=5%-15%; 20.0=15%-25%; 30.0=25%-35%; 40.0=35%-45%; 50.0=45%-55%; 60.0=55%-65%; 70.0=65%-75%; 80.0=75%-85%; 90.0=85%-95%; 97.5=greater than 95%. Note: This is an incidental observation list only. An exhaustive, repeatable transect survey was not conducted. All canopy cover percentages are ocular estimates only. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 32 Appendix B Riparian Plant Information – FIS12 (2022) Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Trees aspen (Populus tremuloides) native 10.0 balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) native 20.0 crabapple (Malus spp.) introduced 0.5 European mountain-ash (Sorbus aucuparia) introduced 0.5 white spruce (Picea glauca) native 10.0 Shrubs basket willow (Salix petiolaris) native 0.5 beaked willow (Salix bebbiana) native 0.5 buckbrush/snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) native 10.0 Canada buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis) native 3.0 choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) native 0.5 common bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) native 3.0 false mountain willow (Salix pseudomonticola) native 0.5 ground juniper (Juniperus communis) native 0.5 northern gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides) native 0.5 peking cotoneaster Cotoneaster acutifolius acc. Cotoneaster lucidus) introduced 0.5 prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) native 10.0 red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera acc. Cornus sericea) native 3.0 Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) native 0.5 sandbar willow (Salix exigua) native 10.0 Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) native 3.0 shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa) native 3.0 silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata) native 20.0 snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) native 0.5 twining honeysuckle (Lonicera dioica) native 0.5 water birch (Betula occidentalis) native 0.5 wild red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) native 0.5 yellow willow (Salix lutea) native 10.0 Grasses and grass- like species) alpine rush (Juncus alpinoarticulatus) native 0.5 beaked sedge (Carex utriculata) native 0.5 creeping spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris) native 3.0 fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris) native 3.0 foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) disturbance, native 0.5 green needle grass Stipa viridula acc. Nassella viridula) native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 33 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Grasses cont’d) hairy wild rye Elymus innovatus acc. Leymus innovatus) native 0.5 Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) disturbance, introduced 3.0 knotted rush (Juncus nodosus) native 0.5 quack grass (Agropyron repens acc. Elymus repens) disturbance, introduced 10.0 red fescue (Festuca rubra) native or introduced 0.5 redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) introduced 0.5 reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) native 0.5 small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) native 0.5 smooth brome (Bromus inermis) disturbance, introduced 50.0 timber oat grass (Danthonia intermedia) native 0.5 timothy (Phleum pratense) disturbance, introduced 0.5 western wheat grass Agropyron smithii acc. Pascopyrum smithii) native 0.5 wire rush (Juncus balticus) native 3.0 Forbs broad- leaf plants) absinthe wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) introduced 0.5 alpine goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata) native 0.5 alpine hedysarum (Hedysarum alpinum) native 0.5 alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) disturbance, introduced 0.5 annual hawk's-beard (Crepis tectorum) disturbance, introduced 0.5 balsam groundsel (Senecio pauperculus) native 0.5 bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellata) native 0.5 black medick (Medicago lupulina) disturbance, introduced 0.5 Canada anemone (Anemone canadensis) native 3.0 Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) native 3.0 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) invasive, introduced 0.5 common burdock/lesser burdock (Arctium minus) invasive, introduced 0.5 common cattail (Typha latifolia) native 0.5 common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) disturbance, introduced 0.5 common goat's-beard (Tragopogon dubius) introduced 0.5 common plantain (Plantago major) disturbance, introduced 0.5 common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) native 0.5 cream-colored vetchling (Lathyrus ochroleucus) native 0.5 creeping white prairie aster (Aster falcatus) native 0.5 curled dock (Rumex crispus) introduced 0.5 cut-leaved anemone (Anemone multifida) native 0.5 dwarf scouring-rush (Equisetum scirpoides) native 3.0 flat-topped goldenrod (Solidago graminifolia) native 0.5 gaillardia (Gaillardia aristata) native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 34 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 Forbs cont’d) golden bean (Thermopsis rhombifolia) native 0.5 graceful cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis) native 0.5 harebell (Campanula rotundifolia) native 0.5 heal-all (Prunella vulgaris) native 0.5 late yellow locoweed (Oxytropis monticola) native (poisonous) 0.5 leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) invasive, introduced, poisonous 0.5 long-fruited anemone (Anemone cylindrica) native 0.5 narrow-leaved hawkweed (Hieracium umbellatum) native 0.5 northern bedstraw (Galium boreale) native 0.5 pasture sagewort (Artemisia frigida) native 0.5 perennial sow-thistle (Sonchus arvensis) invasive, introduced 0.5 Philadelphia fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus) native 0.5 prairie sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana) native 0.5 puccoon; woolly gromwell (Lithospermum ruderale) native 0.5 red clover (Trifolium pratense) disturbance, introduced 0.5 reflexed locoweed (Oxytropis deflexa) native (poisonous) 0.5 scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata acc. Tripleurospermum inodorum) invasive, introduced 0.5 seaside buttercup (Ranunculus cymbalaria) native 0.5 showy locoweed (Oxytropis splendens) native (poisonous) 0.5 silverweed (Potentilla anserina) disturbance, native 0.5 small-leaved everlasting (Antennaria parvifolia) disturbance, native 0.5 smooth aster (Aster laevis) native 0.5 smooth scouring-rush (Equisetum laevigatum) native 0.5 snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica) native 0.5 star-flowered Solomon's-seal (Smilacina stellata) native 0.5 thistle (Cirsium spp.) unknown, not unique 0.5 three-flowered avens (Geum triflorum) native 0.5 velvety goldenrod (Solidago mollis) native 0.5 western bluebur (Lappula occidentalis) introduced 0.5 western Canada violet (Viola canadensis) native 0.5 white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba) disturbance, introduced 0.5 wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) native 0.5 wild blue flax (Linum lewisii) native 0.5 wild mint (Mentha arvensis) native 0.5 wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) disturbance, native 0.5 wild vetch (Vicia americana) native 0.5 woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca) disturbance, native 0.5 yellow evening-primrose (Oenothera biennis) native 0.5 IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 35 Category Species Common Name (Scientific Name)1 Plant Status2 Canopy Cover3 yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officinalis) disturbance, introduced 3.0 1 Plant naming generally follows Vascular Flora of Alberta, 2020. 2 Invasive and disturbance plant status is designated by Cows and Fish in association with Alberta Public Lands and the Alberta Weed Control Act. 3 Based on visual estimates of the amount of ground the canopy of the plant covers. The percent cover values presented are the mid-values for the following ranges: 0.5=less than 1%; 3.0=1%-5%; 10.0=5%-15%; 20.0=15%-25%; 30.0=25%-35%; 40.0=35%-45%; 50.0=45%-55%; 60.0=55%-65%; 70.0=65%-75%; 80.0=75%-85%; 90.0=85%-95%; 97.5=greater than 95%. Note: This is an incidental observation list only. An exhaustive, repeatable transect survey was not conducted. All canopy cover percentages are ocular estimates only. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 36 Appendix C – Invasive Weed Identification and Management Summary for Observed Species Weed Species Plant Biology Facts and Mechanical (Non-Chemical) Management Tips Caraway Alberta provincial status: Unregulated but locally up-listed to ‘noxious’ in several municipalities such as Foothills County and Rocky View County (bordering the Tsuut’ina Nation). Wild caraway has distinctive carrot-like leaves (very finely divided) and a white umbel compound flower. It is a biennial plant that produces a rosette of leaves in the first year ofgrowth and a flowering stalk in the second. It has a narrow, parsnip-like taproot. Caraway spice is used in rye breads andin some liquor. It is native to Eurasia. Caraway can be hand pulled in soft soils pre bloom (before flowering). Special care is needed if flowering plants are collected to avoid dispersing seeds. A plastic bag can be placed over flowering mature plants and closed tightly around the stem. Collected seed should be disposed ofin a sealed bag at a landfill facility or thoroughly burned. Mowing is not effective as plants will re -bloom below cutting height. Canada thistle Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Canada (or creeping) thistle is an aggressive perennial introduced from Europe that spreads by way of an extensive root system (primarily) and also by wind borne seeds. Hand pulling in loose soils can stress the root system but must be done repeatedly for several years. Repeated mowing can be effective for control if it is done at pre- bloom (early bud) stage toprevent seed production. Plants should be cut as short as possible, with repeated mowing as plants regrow. Mowing should not be done after seed set. Mowing can be disruptive to breeding birds, so care is needed to check for nests prior to mowing. Organic control options are available for Canada Thistle such as concentrated acetic acid (vinegar), citric acid and clove oil. However, these natural products have mixed success, except for small (less than 2 inch) plants and require repeated applications and typically high carrier volumes and high application rates . Common burdock Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed This introduced European biennial forms a rosette of large basal heart-shaped leaves in the first year and a stout flowering stalk in the second year. It has distinctive prickly seed heads that readily attach to passing animals (a dispersal mechanism). A mature plant can grow 1 m to 3 m tall and produce up to 16,000 seeds. Mowing or cutting should be done after the plant has bolted, but before flowering. Take care not to spread the Velcro-like seed heads that readily attach to clothing. Retaining native plant communities and avoiding soil disturbance are key to preventing spread by burdock. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 37 Weed Species Plant Biology Facts and Mechanical (Non-Chemical) Management Tips Hound’s tongue Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed This introduced Eurasian biennial forms arosette of hairy, long (up to 30 cm), deeply veined leaves inyear one, forming a flowering bolt in year two. It is a tap- rooted species that reproduces by seed only. Flowers are reddish-purple with 5 petals which hang in small clusters. Flowers form Velcro-like ‘barbed nutlets’ about 7 mm long. Hound’stongue contains toxic alkaloids that causes irreversible liver damage. It is named for having leaves that resemble the shape and roughness ofa dog’s tongue. Be sure not to confuse this plant with the native stickseed Lappula genus) which is similar in appearance but which has spines not hooked burs on the seeds. Mowing or cutting should be done after the plant has bolted, but before flowering to prevent seed production. Take care not to spread the Velcro-like seed heads that readily attach to clothing. Hand pulling is effective in soft, loose soils only. In harder soils, the root breaks offand re-sprouts. In harder packed soil, cut or sever the root below ground levelwith a knife or sharp shovel. Properly dispose of any seed in tightly tied garbage bags (bound for approved landfills) or by thorough burning seed material. Leafy spurge Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Leafy spurge, a long-lived perennial, spreads mainly by re-sprouting from its extensive, persistent, creeping root system and also by seed. It can form dense stands, choking out other desirable species. A large plant produces up to 130,000 seeds. This plant contains a milky sap (latex) that can be toxic to livestock and which causes skin irritations in people. A combination of control options are generally necessary to be effective. This can include strategic use of sheep or goats which readily graze leafy spurge. However, this does have a riskof seed being carried into un-infested areas. Hand pulling and mowing can be effective for small, young infestations. Gloves must be worn. Biological controls are also available by way of imported flea-beetles that feed exclusively on leafy spurge roots (flea-beetle larvae) and shoots/leaves (flea-beetle adults). Leafy spurge infestations are established in Fish Creek Provincial Park. Contact the Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society (Emma Stroud) for assistance with leafy spurge management options and implementation. Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Ox-eye daisy is an invasive ornamental with conspicuous white flowers. It is a perennial that spreads by seedand creeping, shallow roots (rhizomes). Although it has a similar flower to scentless chamomile it has broad rather than feather-like leaves. Leaves have ‘toothed’ margins and are alternately arranged on the upper stem. Dense stands of ox-eye daisy decrease plant diversity and preferred forage availability. Repeated mowing is not recommended as it can stimulate re-sprouting of stems. Hand pulling or digging before seed production can be effective, taking care to remove as much of the roots as possible and keeping ground disturbance to a minimum. Several years of effort will be necessary. Prevention strategies should include ensuring this species is not sold or planted as anornamental flower. Ox-eye daisy IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 38 Weed Species Plant Biology Facts and Mechanical (Non-Chemical) Management Tips Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Scentless chamomile, like ox-eye daisy, is an introduced European ornamental flower. It reproduces by seed only. Plants bloom continually, forming seeds that germinate throughout the growing season. Although it has similar conspicuous white flowers (similar to ox-eye daisy), it has distinctive, finely divided carrot-like leaves that are odorless when crushed. Scentless chamomile is considered unpalatable to grazers; its seeds can survive digestion (i.e., a means of dispersal). Hand pulling can be effective for small infestations. Pulled plants should be properly disposed of (i.e., bagged in tied bags and sent to an approved landfill or burned). Hand pulling should be done prior to seed set. Mowing can prevent seed production, but plants typically vigorously re- grow after mowing and can re-bloom below the cutting height. Biological control options (i.e. a seed-head feeding weevil and a species of gall midge) are available in Alberta, but typically would only be necessary for large, persistent infestations). Prevention strategies should include ensuring this species is not sold or planted as an ornamental flower. Scentless chamomile Tall buttercup Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Tall buttercup is a perennial introduced from Europe that spreads only by seed. It can be toxic to livestock and other grazers when fresh stems and leaves are consumed. It has a hollow stem, deeply divided lower stem leaves and smaller, hairy upper leaves. It is easily recognized by its bright yellow 5-petal flowers. Tall buttercup is best kept in check by maintaining the health and vigour of native vegetation communities. Limiting ground disturbance and maintaining dense native vegetation limits the potential for tall buttercup to invade ortake hold. Mowing prior to seed set can reduce infestations but it must be carefully timed to prevent further seed spread. Hand picking iseffective for individual plants or small infestations – gloves and long-sleeved shirts are recommended since the plant’s juices can otherwise cause blistering and irritation. Yellow toadflax Alberta provincial status: Noxious weed Yellow toad flax, otherwise known as ‘butter-and-eggs’ has distinctive bright yellow flowers arranged alternately in dense spikes at the terminal end of stems; each flower has a long spur extending from the base. Flowers are snapdragon-like with orange colouring on the throat. Leaves are linear and narrow, arranged alternately on the stem. Introduced from Europe over 100 years ago, this escaped ornamental plant is now widespread and problematic in Alberta. This perennial plant reproduces mainly by sprouting from its extensive, creeping root system rhizomes). This growth habit allows it to form large colonies, displacing and crowding out preferred native vegetation. Prior to flowering it may be confused with leafy spurge, but unlike leafy spurge, toadflax stems and leaves do not have a milky latex sap. Yellow toadflax often invades sandbars along streams as it prefers sandy-gravelly soils. Young toadflax seedlings (2-3 weeks old) can produce creeping roots. Early detection and removal is important as a prevention strategy. Once dense patches form, these can bevery difficult to control. Thorough hand-pulling can be effective in soft, loose soils where roots can be easily removed. However, repeated efforts are needed since it will re-sprout from root fragments and seeds. Table reference: https://abinvasives.ca/invasive-plants/ (Fact Sheets) Photograph image sources (if not listed, source is Cows and Fish) – caraway: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caraway; Common burdock: https://lcinvasives.org/invasives/other-invasives/common-burdock-arctium-minus-01/; Hound’s tongue: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hound%27s_tongue; http://identifythatplant.com/oxeye-daisy-leucanthemum-vulgare/; Scentless chamomile foliage: https://www.strathcona.ca/files/files/tas-biosecurity-guide-2018.pdf IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 39 Appendix D - Riparian Health Score Sheet Categories For Streams and Small Rivers For more details on how riparian health parameters are assessed, refer to the Streams & Small Rivers Health Assessment User Manual: https://cowsandfish.org/health-assessment-and-inventory-forms/. Each riparian health parameter is rated according to conditions observed on the site at the time of evaluation. Parameters are assessed using ocular estimates by trained practitioners. The parameter breakout groupings and point weightings were developed by a collaboration of riparian scientists, fisheries biologists, range professionals and land managers. 1. Vegetation Cover 6 = More than 95% of the polygon area is covered by plant growth. 4 = 85% to 95% of the polygon area is covered by plant growth. 2 = 75% to 85% of the polygon area is covered by plant growth. 0 = Less than 75% of the polygon area is covered by plant growth. 2a. Total Canopy Cover of Invasive Plant Species 3 = No invasive plants (weeds) on site. 2 = Invasive plants present with total canopy cover less than 1% of the polygon area. 1 = Invasive plants present with total canopy cover between 1 and 15% of the polygon area. 0 = Invasive plants present with total canopy cover more than 15% of the polygon area. 2b. Density/Distribution of Invasive Plant Species (Table D-1) 3 = No invasive plants (weeds) on site. 2 = Invasive plants present with density/distribution in categories 1, 2 or 3. 1 = Invasive plants present with density/distribution in categories 4, 5, 6 or 7. 0 = Invasive plants present with density distribution in categories 8 or higher. 3. Disturbance-Caused Undesirable Herbaceous Species 3 = Less than 5% of the site covered by disturbance-caused undesirable herbaceous species. 2 = 5% to 25% of the site covered by disturbance-caused undesirable herbaceous species. 1 = 25% to 50% of the site covered by disturbance-caused undesirable herbaceous species. 0 = More than 50% of the site covered by disturbance-caused undesirable herbaceous species. 4. Preferred Tree and Shrub Establishment and Regeneration 6 = More than 15% of the total canopy cover of preferred trees/shrubs is seedlings and saplings. 4 = 5% to 15% of the total canopy cover of preferred trees/shrubs is seedlings and saplings. 2 = Less than 5% of the total canopy cover of preferred trees/shrubs is seedlings and saplings. 0 = Preferred tree/shrub seedlings and saplings absent. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 40 CLASS DESCRIPTION OF ABUNDANCE DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 0 No invasive plants on the polygon 1 Rare occurrence 2 A few sporadically occurring individual plants 3 A single patch 4 A single patch plus a few sporadically occurring plants 5 Several sporadically occurring plants 6 A single patch plus several sporadically occurring plants 7 A few patches 8 A few patches plus several sporadically occurring plants 9 Several well-spaced patches 10 Continuous uniform occurrence of well-spaced plants 11 Continuous occurrence of plants with a few gaps in the distribution 12 Continuous dense occurrence of plants 13 Continuous occurrence of plants associated with a wetter or drier zone within the polygon Table D-1. Density/distribution of invasive plant species. 5a. Browse Utilization of Preferred Trees and Shrubs 3 = None (0% to 5% of available 2nd year and older leaders of preferred species are browsed). 2 = Light (5% to 25% of available 2nd year and older leaders of preferred species are browsed). 1 = Moderate (25% to 50% of available 2nd year and older leaders of preferred species are browsed). 0 = Heavy (More than 50% of available 2nd year and older leaders of preferred species are browsed). 5b. Live Woody Vegetation Removal by Beaver or Human Cutting / Clearing 3 = None (0% to 5% of live woody vegetation expected on the site is lacking due to cutting and/or removal by beaver). 2 = Light (5% to 25% of live woody vegetation expected on the site is lacking due to cutting and/or removal by beaver). 1 = Moderate (25% to 50% of live woody vegetation expected on the site is lacking due to cutting and/or removal by beaver). 0 = Heavy (More than 50% of live woody vegetation expected on the site is lacking due to cutting and/or removal by beaver). 6. Standing Decadent and Dead Woody Material 3 = Less than 5% of the total canopy of woody species is decadent or dead. 2 = 5% to 25% of the total canopy of woody species is decadent or dead. 1 = 25% to 45% of the total canopy cover of woody species is decadent or dead. 0 = More than 45% of the total canopy cover of woody species is decadent or dead. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 41 7. Streambank Root Mass Protection 6 = More than 85% of the river/stream bank has deep, binding root mass. 4 = 65% to 85% of the river/stream bank has deep, binding root mass. 2 = 35% to 65% of the river/stream bank has deep, binding root mass. 0 = Less than 35% of the river/stream bank has deep, binding root mass. 8. Human-Caused Bare Ground 6 = Less than 1% of the site is human-caused bare ground. 4 = 1% to 5% of the site is human-caused bare ground. 2 = 5% to 15% of the site is human-caused bare ground. 0 = More than 15% of the site is human-caused bare ground. 9. Streambank Structurally Altered by Human Activity 6 = Less than 5% of the bank is structurally altered by human activity. 4 = 5% to 15% of the bank is structurally altered by human activity. 2 = 15% to 35% of the bank is structurally altered by human activity. 0 = More than 35% of the bank is structurally altered by human activity. 10. Human Physical Alteration to the Rest of the Riparian Site (Polygon) 3 = Less than 5% of the polygon is altered by human causes. 2 = 5% to 15% of the polygon is altered by human causes. 1 = 15% to 25% of the polygon is altered by human causes. 0 = More than 25% of the polygon is altered by human causes. 11. Stream Channel Incisement (Vertical Stability) (Figure A-1) 9 = Not incised 6 = Slightly incised 3 = Moderately incised 0 = Severely incised IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 42 Channel Rosgen Incisement Development Types Severity Stage Included Description of Incisement Situation Not Incised A A, B, C, E Channel is vertically stable and not incised; 1-2 year high flows 9 points) can begin to access a floodplain appropriate to the stream type. Active downcutting is not evident. Any old incisement is characterized by a broad floodplain inside which perennial riparian plant communities are well established. This category includes a variety of stream types in all land forms and substrates. The floodplain may be narrow or wide, depending on the type of stream, but the key factor is vertical stability. The system may have once cut down, and later become healed and is now stable again, with a new floodplain appropriate to its stream type. In this case, the erosion of the old gully side walls will have ceased and stabilised. A mature, or nearly mature, vegetation community will occupy much of the new valley bottom. Slightly B/D C, F, G This category contains both degrading and healing stages. In 6 points) either case, the extent of incisement is minimal. In Stage B, the channel is just beginning to degrade, and a 2 year flood event may still access some floodplain, either partially or in spots. Downcutting is likely progressing. In Stage D, the system is healing. Downcutting should have ceased at this stage. A new floodplain should be well established with perennial vegetation, although it may not yet be as wide as the stream type needs. This is indicated by continuing lateral erosion of the high side walls of the original incisement, as the system continues to widen itself at its new grade level. Moderately B/D C, F, G This category also contains both degrading and healing 3 points) stages. In both cases, the extent of incisement is significant. In Stage B, the channel has downcut to a level that floods of the 1-5 year magnitude cannot reach a floodplain. Downcutting is likely still progressing, but the channel may already have the appearance of a gully. In Stage D, the system has only just begun to heal. A small floodplain along the new meanders within the gully is forming, and perennial vegetation is starting to colonize the new sediment features. The high side walls of the gully are being actively eroded as the system widens, and much of the fallen material is being incorporated along the bottom. Severely C F, G This is the worst case category, where the system has 0 points) no floodplain in the bottom of a deep entrenchment, and small -to- moderate floods cannot reach the original floodplain level. Downcutting may, or may not, still be in progress. High side wall banks may have begun to collapse and erode into the bottom, but high flows typically just wash this material directly through the system, with none of it being trapped to build a new floodplain. At this stage, the system has lost practically all of its riparian function and habitat value. IR 2954 2022 042 FIS11 12 RH Summary January 2023 43 Figure A-1. Guide for estimating channel incisement stage.