1143 2006 Fish Habitat Report Final - River Landing · riverfront/riveredge development in Saskatoon. The goal of the project, similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront, is to create a connection

CanNorth Canada North Environmental Services

Limited Partnership

A First Nations Partnership In Environmental Services www.cannorth.com

#4 – 130 Robin Crescent, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 6M7 Telephone: (306) 652-4432 Facsimile: (306) 652-4431

PHASE 2 RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

AQUATIC RESOURCE REVIEW FOR THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER

AT SASKATOON

Final Report

Prepared by:

Canada North Environmental Services Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Prepared for:

The City of Saskatoon Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

and

Crosby Hanna & Associates Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Project No. 1143

March 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 11.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Details ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Schedule and Construction Methods ................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Shoreline Protection Plan ........................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Bridge Promenade ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2.3 Methods to Minimize Impacts .................................................................................... 4

3.0 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 6

3.1.1 River Bathymetry........................................................................................................ 63.1.2 Limnological Measurements ...................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Fish Sampling ............................................................................................................. 63.1.4 Fish Habitat Assessment............................................................................................. 7 3.1.5 Habitat Loss Assessment .......................................................................................... 11

3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 River Bathymetry...................................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Limnological Measurements .................................................................................... 12 3.2.3 Fishing Effort and Catch Data .................................................................................. 13 3.2.4 Existing Fish Habitat Conditions.............................................................................. 13

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Background Information ................................................................................................. 18

4.1.1 Protection of Fish Habitat......................................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Fish Resources of the South Saskatchewan River.................................................... 18

4.2 Existing Fish Habitat Potentially Impacted..................................................................... 19 4.3 New Fish Habitat Created ............................................................................................... 20

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 21

6.0 LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX A. CONTRACT 1 SHORELINE PROTECTION

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development i CanNorth

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX B. DETAILED FISH CATCH DATA

APPENDIX C. PHOTOGRAPHS

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development ii CanNorth

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Limnological measurements taken in the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 2005.

Table 2. Summary electrofishing effort and catch data for the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 16th and 19th, 2005.

Table 3a. Detailed descriptions of habitat units identified in the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 2005.

Table 3b. Habitat legend for streams.

Table 4. List of fish species known to occur in the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan.

Table 5. Details of habitat unit type changes due to the proposed project.

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development iii CanNorth

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Study area.

Figure 2. Development Plan.

Figure 3. Site Sections.

Figure 4. Shoreline protection plan.

Figure 5. Bathymetric map of the South Saskatchewan River study area.

Figure 6. Location of electrofishing areas, September 2005.

Figure 7. Location of habitat units identified in the study area, October 2004.

Figure 8. Location of habitat units identified in the study area, September 2005.

Figure 9. Location of marginal, important, and critical aquatic habitat types, pre-construction.

Figure 10. Changes to habitat units resulting from the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development.

Figure 11. Location of marginal, important, and critical aquatic habitat types, post-construction.

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development iv CanNorth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroduction

In March 2005, the City of Saskatoon retained Crosby Hanna & Associates, in association with other consulting firms, to prepare a Development Plan for site improvements at the River Landing Phase 2 Riverfront. While this site is generally underdeveloped and neglected, there is the potential for it to be an important riverfront/riveredge development in Saskatoon. The goal of the project, similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront, is to create a connection between backshore lands and the river by enhancing access to the riverbank and establishing a focal point for riverbank activities.

The portion of the river that will be directly impacted by the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development includes the northwest side of the South Saskatchewan River and adjacent riparian areas bounded by the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge and Avenue C in Saskatoon. Impacts from the proposed development will result from the development of a “Bridge Promenade,” “Riverwalk,” and “Viewpoints.”

The objective of this report is to provide Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding the potential loss of fish habitat. In addition, this report provides information for Saskatchewan Environment to permit various reviews, including requirements under the Environmental Management Protection Act.

Methods

Fish habitat assessments were conducted in the study area in September 2005. The assessment included mapping, photographing, and evaluating existing fish habitat, as well as measuring limnological parameters and bathymetric mapping. Boat electrofishing was also conducted in September 2005 in order to determine fish species use of the study area. The project was evaluated with respect to its potential to impact habitat for large-bodied fish species known to be present in the study area.

Results

Limnological parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, and Secchi disk depth) measured were all within their expected ranges for the South Saskatchewan River near the study area. Bathymetric transects showed the river channel was generally

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development v CanNorth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

deeper along the northwest bank. The maximum depth was 4.5 m (assuming a water elevation of 473.5 asl) and was measured in two locations: (1) just upstream of the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge within 100 m of the northwest bank and (2) just outside the “core” development area near the “Major Viewpoint” development.

The aquatic study area along the northwest bank of the South Saskatchewan River was divided into 12 habitat units, 11 of which represented habitat within 5 m of the northwest bank. The remaining habitat unit identified the area 5 to 40 m from the northwest bank, portions of which will likely be affected by the proposed development. Areas of silt and sand dominated the study area, and comprised 87% of the available habitat. Gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate represented 2% of the available habitat and rip rap represented 0.7%. The remaining 10.3% of the study area contained a mix of mostly sand and silt with some boulders and/or cobble and gravel. The coarse substrate identified in three of the habitat units provided marginal to moderate spawning habitat for walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker species. One habitat unit located near the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge contained a pool area that may provide marginal spawning habitat for goldeye. Northern pike and yellow perch prefer to spawn in areas with aquatic or terrestrial vegetation cover, which was not identified in the study area.

A total of 189 minutes of electrofishing resulted in the capture of 43 fish from six species, including white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), northern pike (Esox lucius), cisco (Coregonus artedii), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus). Most fish captured were white suckers (n = 30), however, spottail shiner are likely more abundant than observed, but were difficult to capture as a result of the high flow and low transparency of the river at the time of the survey. Previous investigations of the South Saskatchewan River indicate that sucker, walleye, and northern pike dominate the area.

Assessment of Potential Impacts

The shoreline protection plan for the project area includes the use of both rip rap and Armorflex (articulated concrete mat) to armour the shoreline. A total of 1635 m2 of marginal (sand and silt), 628 m2 of important (cobble and boulder), and 190 m2 of important to critical habitat (rip rap that does not extend very far from shoreline) will be altered as a result of the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development. Sand and silt habitat is the most abundant habitat type present in this portion of the South Saskatchewan

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development vi CanNorth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

River, and therefore, is not limiting. The Phase 2 Riverfront development will result in the creation of 2454 m2 of critical rip rap habitat which is currently limiting in the study area. This critical habitat type will provide coarse substrate for spawning as well as increase the available nursery and rearing habitat.

The following mitigation measures will be implemented to protect fish habitat during construction:

� avoid construction during the spring and fall spawning periods; � scheduling in-stream work during periods of low flows whenever possible; � employ erosion control procedures as applicable, including silt fences, and

geotextile fabrics; � minimize the use of equipment in the river during construction; and, � prepare and implement a spill prevention plan to prevent introduction of

potentially toxic substances into the river.

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development vii CanNorth

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

In March 2005, the City of Saskatoon retained Crosby Hanna & Associates, in association with other consulting firms, to prepare a plan for site improvements at the River Landing Phase 2 Riverfront. While this site is generally underdeveloped and neglected, there is the potential for it to be an important riverfront/riveredge development in Saskatoon. The goal of the project, similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront development (Cosby Hanna 2003), is to create a connection between backshore lands and the river by enhancing access to the riverbank and establishing a focal point for riverbank activities.

As part of the planning study, Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth) was retained by the City of Saskatoon as a subcontractor to Crosby Hanna & Associates to provide the necessary information to assist in obtaining regulatory approval for the part of the proposed development directly affecting the South Saskatchewan River. An interim report describing the existing fish habitat in the study area was completed in May 2005 (CanNorth 2005). An additional habitat assessment was conducted in September 2005 due to habitat changes that occurred from the 2005 summer flood events on the South Saskatchewan River.

1.2 Objectives

The objective of this report is to provide Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding the potential loss of fish habitat. In addition, this report provides information for Saskatchewan Environment to permit various reviews, including requirements under the Environmental Management Protection Act.

1.3 Study Area

The “core” development area for the aquatic environmental investigations includes the northwest side of the South Saskatchewan River and adjacent riparian areas bounded by the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge and Avenue C in Saskatoon (Figure 1). The total shoreline length of this reach is approximately 387 m. In order to adequately address potential impacts and assess common habitat types in this section of the South Saskatchewan River, the study area was expanded an additional 583 m upstream of the

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development 1 CanNorth

INTRODUCTION

“core” development area (Figure 1). The downstream section has previously been assessed in relation to the Phase 1 Riverfront development (CanNorth 2004a).


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Details

The detailed Development Plan is presented in Figure 2 and provides an overview of the current plans for the Phase 2 Riverfront project area. Figure 3 details the pedestrian bridge plans. Development of the “Bridge Promenade,” “Riverwalk,” and “Viewpoints” are central to the development goals including:

� to create a connection along the river and between backshore lands and the river by enhancing access to the riverbank and establishing a focal point for riverbank activities in Saskatoon and the Riversdale community; and

� to integrate with and provide identity complementary to Phase 1, which firmly establishes a sense of place along the River Landing Riverfront (Crosby Hanna 2006).

The development of these components of the plan will result in alterations to the natural aquatic habitat present in this section of the South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon.

2.2 Schedule and Construction Methods

The current plan is to complete Phase 2 Riverfront development in three to four separate contracts. Contract 1 includes all the instream and shoreline construction. This will take place between June 1st and September 1st, 2007. The execution of the shoreline protection and bridge portion of the construction is provided below, and is detailed in Contract 1. Detailed information relating to other aspects of Contract 1 are available upon request.

2.2.1 Shoreline Protection Plan

The shoreline protection plan is presented in Figure 4 and includes the use of both rip rap and Armorflex (articulated concrete mats) to protect the shoreline. Detailed information relating to the material and methods of installation outlined in Contract 1 are provided in Appendix A.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.2.2 Bridge Promenade

The Bridge Promenade development plan is presented in Figure 3. Two bridge piers are proposed. The methods of construction must be discussed with the contractor once awarded the project, therefore, only a speculative description of installation methods can be provided. These include:

1) Contractor will erect steel casing at pier location. 2) Pier foundation will be drilled through casing. 3) Casing will be pushed down hole as it is drilled. 4) Drill tailings will be brought up inside of casing. There is a good chance some

of this will be lost over top of casing. The contractor may choose to build access road completely around piers once casing is in place.

5) Bell will be drilled at base of casing. 6) Concrete will be poured inside casing displacing water. Non-segregating

concrete additive in concrete. 7) Casing will be left and precast concrete will be added around casing to protect it

from deterioration.

2.2.3 Methods to Minimize Impacts

Appropriate mitigation measures will be employed during construction. These mitigation measures involve: timing of construction, sedimentation control, and preventing the introduction of any toxic materials into the river. The mitigation measures are summarized as follows (based on DFO and SERM 1995).

1) In-stream construction activities will be avoided during sensitive spring and fall spawning or migration periods for fish species that could potentially, or are known, to occur in the river’s study area. Critical dates for spring-spawning species (e.g., northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and sucker species) are from April 15 to June 1, and for fall-spawning species (e.g., lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and cisco (Coregonus artedii)) are from September 15 to November 1. All of the aforementioned fish species may occur in the study area.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2) Where possible, any in-stream work will be scheduled during a low flow period to minimize erosion, providing there is no conflict with fish spawning and migration periods.

3) A number of erosion control procedures will be utilized to minimize the input of sediments into the stream during the construction activities. In erosion prone areas, mulching or erosion control (geotextile) blankets will be used to minimize the loss of soils from these areas. In addition, silt fences will be used to trap suspended sediments before they reach the river.

4) The use of equipment in the river during construction will be kept to a minimum. This will help limit the mobilization of stream sediments, and changes (i.e., compaction) to the bank and stream substrate.

5) The introduction of possible toxic materials (i.e., gasoline, oil, etc.) will be prevented by washing equipment and checking for leaks prior to entering the river. Washing of equipment will be done away from the river to ensure that the wash water does not reach the river. Spills into the water will be prevented by refuelling on dry land, a safe distance away from the river.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

3.0 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT 3.1 Methods 3.1.1 River Bathymetry

A bathymetric survey was conducted on the South Saskatchewan River between the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge and Victoria Park Boathouse using a Lowrance Eagle Cuda 128 depth sounder. In total, 25 intersecting transects were completed in the study area. The transects were conducted at a constant speed with depth sounding recorded at regular intervals. A bathymetric map was produced for the project area using the computer applications AutoCAD 2006 and Surfer ver. 5.0.

3.1.2 Limnological Measurements

Surface dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, pH, and Secchi disk depth were measured in the South Saskatchewan River in the vicinity of the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development project area on September 19th, 2005. Digital YSI Model 55 and YSI Model 30 meters were used for measuring dissolved oxygen and conductivity, respectively. Both meters also measure water temperature. The conductivity measurements in microSiemens per centimetre (μS/cm) were taken at field water temperature and were subsequently converted to a standard 25°C, referred to as specific conductance. The pH was determined with an Oakton Waterproof PHTestr 30. Secchi depth was measured using a standard 20 cm diameter black and white Secchi disk.

3.1.3 Fish Sampling

In order to determine fish species use in the study area, boat electrofishing was conducted on September 16th and 19th, 2005. A total of 11 electrofishing passes were conducted in the study area. A Smith Root model GPP 2.5 electrofisher was used. The settings were: DC mode, high voltage range (50-1000 volts), 120 pulses/sec, and 2.0 amps output. All large-bodied fish specimens captured were identified to species, measured to the nearest 0.1 cm (fork length), weighed to the nearest gram, and examined externally for physical condition. All small-bodied fish specimens captured were identified to species, measured to the nearest 0.1 cm, and examined externally for physical condition. All fish captured were released. A Special Collection Permit was obtained from Saskatchewan Environment prior to initiating the fieldwork.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

3.1.4 Fish Habitat Assessment 3.1.4.1 Assessment Procedures

A detailed assessment of the suitability of river habitat as critical fish habitat, particularly spawning habitat1, was completed for the study area. An initial fish habitat assessment was completed on October 27th, 2004. However, due to the flood events that occurred in the summer of 2005, an additional fish habitat assessment was completed on September 16th, 2005 to assess changes that may have occurred to the aquatic habitat. The documentation of potential critical fish habitat was modified after the classification system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979; Busch and Sly 1992) and others (e.g., DFO and BC Ministry of the Environment and Parks 1987; Orth 1989; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1989; Plafkin et al. 1989). These were accomplished in the following manner:

I. Delineate Habitat Units

The river was divided into a series of habitat units (HUs) based on physical characteristics. Each habitat unit includes the waterline at the time of the survey to approximately 5 m offshore.

II. Description of Habitat Units

Each habitat unit includes a description of the following:

Riparian Zone

vegetation categoryclassifications include: forest to bank, transition, and wetland;

vegetation typeclassifications include: tree, shrub, and grass/sedge (Carex);

bank slopecharacterized as a gentle, moderate, or steep slope;

1 Where possible, assessments are also made for other critical fish habitats, such as nursery, rearing, and overwintering.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

bank stability characterized as a stable, slightly unstable, moderately unstable, and highly unstable; and,

crown closurepercent crown closure.

Channel Habitat Features

cover classifications include: large woody debris, boulder, aquatic vegetation, terrestrial vegetation, undercut, and surface turbulence - characterized as a sparse, moderate, or dense distribution;

substrate composition classifications include: silt/clay (<0.0063 cm), sand (0.0063 - 0.2 cm), gravel (0.2 - 6.4 cm), cobble (6.4 - 25.6 cm), boulder (>25.6 cm), bedrock, organic, and large woody debris - characterized as a percentage;

aquatic/wetland vegetation presence of submergent, floating, or emergent macrophytes, and algal growth and moss - characterized as a sparse, moderate, or dense distribution;

bottom slopebottom gradient - measured approximately 5 m from shore; and,

obstructions to fish movement classifications include: beaver dam, waterfall, chute, culvert, logjam, and subsurface flow.

3.1.4.2 Spawning Habitat Suitability Index

Each habitat unit was rated for its suitability as spawning habitat for each of the species investigated. This value is based on known spawning habitat characteristics. The description of the following habitat suitability indices may not always apply to streams. Other factors, based on known stream spawning habitat preference for the species evaluated, were incorporated in arriving at the spawning habitat suitability assessment.

Included in the spawning habitat assessments are selected large-bodied fish species of commercial and recreational importance such as northern pike, walleye, sauger (Stizostedion canadense), yellow perch, lake whitefish, goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), and


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), but also non-commercial species such as white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum). Selection of fish species for which spawning habitat was evaluated depended if a particular species was known to occur and could potentially spawn in this portion of the South Saskatchewan River.

The index ratings range from not suitable (0) to most or highly suitable (3). The assessment of spawning habitat was predominantly based on the following characteristics, although some departure may occur due to site specific circumstances.

Northern Pike2

Not Suitable (0) an area that does not support aquatic plant growth and predominantly consists of a rock or sand substrate;

Marginal (1) an area supporting a sparse growth of aquatic plants, usually Carex;

Moderate (2) an area that supports moderate to dense aquatic plant growth; and

Most Suitable (3) an area similar to 2 but the substrate is found in water <0.5 m in depth with little or no current and is covered with aquatic plant material, particularly “feather” moss but also senesced aquatic plants.

Walleye and Sauger3

Not Suitable (0) an area with an organic or silt substrate, particularly with aquatic plant debris;

Marginal (1) an area with a sand and/or silt substrate but free of aquatic plant debris;

Moderate (2) an area with a clean gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, in <1.5 m of water, particularly with spaces or crevices between the rock; and

Most Suitable (3) an area similar to 2 but found in a shoal or reef area of a lake or riffle of a stream with good water circulation or movement from wave action or current.

2 Sources: Krochak and Crosby 1975; Inskip 1982; Casselman and Lewis 1996; Minns et al. 1996; Scott and Crossman 1998. 3 Sources: Johnson 1961; Busch et al. 1975; Chavelier 1977; Chen 1980; Scott and Crossman 1998.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

Yellow Perch4

Not Suitable (0) an area that does not support aquatic plant growth and consists of a cobble or boulder substrate, especially with a moderate or strong current;

Marginal (1) a relatively shallow area that does not support aquatic plant growth and consists of a sand or gravel substrate with little or no current;

Moderate (2) an inshore area that supports sparse rooted aquatic plant growth, particularly with some submerged brush and/or fallen trees and little or no current; and

Most Suitable (3) an inshore area that supports moderate to dense rooted aquatic plant growth, particularly with significant amounts of submerged brush and/or fallen trees and little or no current.

Lake Whitefish/Cisco5

Not Suitable (0) an area with an organic or silt substrate, particularly with aquatic plant debris;

Marginal (1) an area with sand and/or silt substrate but free of aquatic plant debris;

Moderate (2) an area with a clean cobble and boulder substrate, in <3 m of water, particularly with spaces or crevices between the rock; and

Most Suitable (3) an area similar to (2) but found in a shoal, reef, or stream, particularly if the area has the potential for some water movement during the over-winter incubation of spawned eggs.

Goldeye6

Not Suitable (0) areas of moderate to strong current, particularly with unconsolidated substrate and/or dense aquatic plant growth;

Marginal (1) a quiet pool or backwater in a river over unconsolidated substrate with some aquatic vegetation;

Moderate (2) a quiet pool or backwater over firm substrate lacking aquatic vegetation in a relatively clear river; and

4 Sources: Kreiger et al. 1983; Scott and Crossman 1998. 5 Sources: Qadri 1955, 1968; IES 1985, 1986a, 1986b; TAEM 1989a, 1989b, 1993; Scott and Crossman 1998; CanNorth 2004b. 6 Sources: TAEM 1990; Scott and Crossman 1998.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

Most Suitable (3) a quiet pool or backwater over firm substrate lacking aquatic vegetation in a turbid river.

Lake Sturgeon7

Not Suitable (0) an area with an organic or silt bottom substrate, particularly with aquatic plant debris and little or no current;

Marginal (1) areas with sand and/or silt bottom substrate but free of aquatic plant debris, particularly with some current;

Moderate (2) areas with a clean gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, in >0.6 m of water, especially with spaces or crevices between the rock and some current; and

Most Suitable (3) areas similar to “moderately suitable” but found in riffles with a moderate to strong current.

White Sucker, Longnose Sucker, and Shorthead Redhorse8

Not Suitable (0) an area with an organic, silt, or sand substrate, particularly with aquatic plant debris;

Marginal (1) an area with a predominantly sand and/or silt substrate with some gravel and/or cobble but free of aquatic plant debris;

Moderate (2) an area with a clean gravel and/or cobble substrate, in <0.5 m of water with some water movement; and

Most Suitable (3) an area, particularly in a stream, with a clean gravel substrate, in <0.3 m of water with good water movement due to currents.

3.1.5 Habitat Loss Assessment

Habitat units expected to be directly affected by the proposed project were evaluated to determine their significance to fish species known to inhabit the study area. The types of the proposed construction activities were taken into consideration in assessing its impacts. The amount of habitat(s) (in square metres) expected to be affected was then determined using AutoCAD, based on the proposed contract 1 construction plans in Figure 4 and considered in context of the available fish habitat in the study area. All calculations were based on water elevations of 473.5 asl, similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront

7 Sources: TAEM 1990; Scott and Crossman 1998. 8 Sources: Harris 1962; Geen et al. 1966; Edwards 1983; Twomey et al. 1984; Scott and Crossman 1998.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

development assessment (CanNorth 2004a). The types and areas of fish habitat expected to be present after completion of the proposed project was then considered to determine the overall (net) effect of the project on the fish habitat productivity in the area as per DFO’s Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines (DFO 1998).

3.2 Results 3.2.1 River Bathymetry

A bathymetric map of the study area is provided in Figure 5. Within the study area, the river’s width ranges from approximately 159 m to 237 m. The river encompasses approximately 14.81 ha within the study area. The deepest points were approximately 4.5 m, located a short distance upstream of the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge and along a small section of the northwest river bank just outside the “core” development area. Most of the water immediately adjacent to the shoreline along the southeast bank was less than 2.0 m deep. Within the “core” development area, most of the river’s deeper water (i.e., > 3.5 m deep) is located within 100 m of the northwest bank. No islands were present in this section of the river. The preceding observations are based on a river stage of 473.5 m asl.

3.2.2 Limnological Measurements

Table 1 presents the results of the limnology measurements taken at the surface of the South Saskatchewan River in the vicinity of the proposed development on September 19th, 2005. Measurements taken during the survey were during a time of relatively high flow, with a water level of approximately 474.6 m asl and a discharge of 610 m3/s (Dr. Jim Kells pers. comm.).

The river was well oxygenated (9.53 mg/L), exceeding the level recommended by the Saskatchewan Surface Water Quality Objectives (SSWQO) for the protection of early (9.0 mg/L) and other life stages (6.5 mg/L) of cold water biota (SERM 1997). The alkaline pH (8.5) and moderate specific conductance (349 μS/cm) are typical for this river system (Reed 1962; CanNorth 2004c). The Secchi disk depth measured 0.9 m, indicating the water column was moderately transparent to sunlight. This is not unexpected as the river flow was quite high during the field survey and this typically increases the amount of suspended material in the water column, thereby reducing transparency.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

3.2.3 Fishing Effort and Catch Data

Of the 11 electrofishing passes conducted, six were along the west bank (three upstream and three downstream) (Figure 6). For comparison, three passes were along the east bank (two upstream and one downstream) and two were near the centre of the river (one upstream and one downstream). These results are summarized in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix B, Table 1.

A total of 43 fish of six species were captured in 189 minutes of electrofishing. Most of the fish captured were white suckers (n = 30), although spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) are likely abundant but were difficult to capture as a result of the high flow and low transparency of the river at the time of the survey. Other fish species captured included longnose sucker, northern pike, cisco, and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus). In terms of effort, 0.19 fish/min were captured along the west bank compared to 0.51 fish/min along the east bank. External observations of the fish indicated that most fish did not have any apparent health problems, although, one fish, a white sucker, did have tumours (Appendix B, Table 1).

3.2.4 Existing Fish Habitat Conditions

Although only four species of large-bodied fish were captured during electrofishing (i.e., northern pike, cisco, white sucker, and longnose sucker), several other important fish species are known to inhabit this section of the South Saskatchewan River (Table 4) (Reed 1962; Atton and Merkowsky 1983; Miles and Sawchyn 1988; SPRR 1991). Information on the fish species distribution of this river is discussed in Section 4.1.2 “Fish Resources of the South Saskatchewan River." Based on known fish species distribution, habitat assessments were conducted focussing on potential spawning habitat for northern pike, yellow perch, goldeye, walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, lake sturgeon, white sucker, longnose sucker, and shorthead redhorse.

Spawning Habitat and General Description

The fish habitat assessment is presented for the west side of the river only since that is the area that will be directly affected by the proposed development. The west bank of the study area was divided into 11 discrete habitat units (HUs) during the 2004 survey and 12 units during the 2005 survey (Figure 7 and 8, respectively). However, only the 2005


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

survey results will be presented due to the changes that occurred in the aquatic habitat as a result of the high flow events that occurred during the summer of 20059. Table 3a provides detailed information for all HUs identified during the 2005 surveys. Photos of the HUs are presented in Appendix C. It should also be noted that during the time of the survey, flows and water level (474.6 m asl) were high. This is reflected in the habitat assessment (e.g., submerged terrestrial vegetation and some cobble/boulder areas are not available to fish at lower water levels).

Similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront development study area (CanNorth 2004b), silt and sand dominated the substrate in the river throughout the Phase 2 Riverfront development study area. The only areas where coarse substrate, such as cobble and boulders, were found were within a few metres of the shoreline10. Classifications of HUs 1 to 11 were therefore assessed based on the habitat present within 5 m of the northwest bank. The substrate in the remainder (offshore) of the river channel was dominated by silt and sand and has been identified as HU 12 in Table 3a and Figure 8.

HU 1 extended 48.3 m upstream of the upstream side of the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge. The riparian zone had gentle, stable slopes and, similar to most of the other HUs, contained trees, shrubs, and grasses. This section of the river comprised of rip rap substrate and relatively fast flow that provides moderately suitable habitat for walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker species. Highly suitable spawning habitat was not identified, as the rip rap size was very large and unvaried and did not extend very far into the river channel.

HU 2 encompassed 170.9 m of shoreline habitat that consisted predominantly of sand substrate with sparse emergent aquatic and submerged terrestrial vegetation that provided some cover for fish. The flow was moderate with some pool areas that may provide marginal spawning habitat for goldeye.

HU 3 extended 14.9 m upstream and included a storm sewer outlet. The substrate was predominantly sand with some boulder. The flow slowed and changed to 100% glide. Similar to HU 2, vegetation cover was sparse. In addition, the lack of any pool areas limits the spawning suitability of this HU for goldeye. The limited amount of rocky

9 A detailed description of the habitat assessment conducted in October of 2004 is presented in CanNorth 2005. 10 However, most areas along the shoreline did not contain cobble and boulder substrate.


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

substrate (5%) precludes the presence of any lake whitefish, cisco, sucker, walleye, or sauger habitat.

HU 4 extended 135.2 m upstream from HU 3 and consisted of gravel and cobble substrate with some boulder. The riparian bank slopes became steep and slightly unstable in this habitat unit. The flow was slow, consisting of mostly glide. The presence of gravel and cobble substrate, but slow flow, provides marginal walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, and cisco spawning habitat.

HU 5 encompassed 139.6 m of shoreline habitat. Silt and sand dominated the substrate with sparse emergent aquatic vegetation and submerged terrestrial vegetation. The flow increased from slow to moderate in this section of the river. The increased flow, absence of aquatic vegetation cover or gravel and cobble substrate limits the spawning habitat potential in this section of the South Saskatchewan River.

HU 6 was a small, 14.2 m section of shoreline habitat that consisted of gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate and fast flow (mostly run). Similar to HU 3, HU 6 included a storm sewer outlet. This HU provides marginally suitable spawning habitat for walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker species.

HU 7 extended 156.7 m upstream from HU 6 and consisted mostly of silt and sand, although there was some cobble and boulder present. The flow was slow, consisting extensively of glide. Sparse emergent aquatic vegetation and submerged terrestrial vegetation occurred in this section of the river, however, they did not provide very much cover (5%). No suitable spawning habitat was identified in this HU.

HU 8 was 79.5 m long and consisted of a predominantly boulder substrate with considerable amounts of silt (40%). Sparse emergent aquatic vegetation and submerged terrestrial vegetation provided marginal fish cover. The flow was moderate in this section of the river, consisting of 60% run and 40% glide. Due to the significant amount of silt embedding the rocky substrate in this habitat unit, no suitable walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, or sucker spawning habitat was identified.

HU 9 extended 95.5 m along the shoreline. The riparian zone slope became gentle and stable as a result of the Victoria Park development (including the Victoria Park Boathouse dock). The river flow was moderate, consisting of 60% run and 40% glide,


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

and the substrate was dominated by sand. No aquatic vegetation was present in this HU, although some submerged terrestrial vegetation provided marginal (5%) fish cover. No suitable spawning habitat was identified in this section of the river.

HUs 10 and 11 had similar riparian and upland zones, with gentle upland slopes and steep, slightly unstable riparian zone slopes. The HUs encompassed 39.9 and 76.3 m of shoreline habitat, respectively. The flow in both HUs was slow, consisting of 30% pool and 70% glide. Sparse emergent aquatic and flooded terrestrial vegetation provided marginal fish cover in both sections of the river. Substrate composition differed slightly between the two HUs. HU 10 consisted predominantly of boulder, with some cobble, sand, and silt substrate. HU 11 consisted of more sand and silt than HU 10, although boulder and cobble were still present. Due to the significant amount of silt and sand embedding the rocky substrate, both HUs were identified as unsuitable spawning habitat. HU 12 encompasses the section of the river channel 5 to 40 m from the northwest shoreline (area = 31,247.2 m2). The substrate composition was dominated by sand and silt and the flow was fast during the field survey. Bottom gradient information is shown in the bathymetric map of the study area (Figure 5). No suitable spawning habitat was identified in this HU.

New habitat types created as part of the Phase 2 Riverfront development will be subsequently discussed in Section 4.3.

Feeding, Nursery, Rearing, and Overwintering Habitats

The presence of small-bodied fish within the study area provides feeding habitat for predatory fish species. Nursery and rearing habitat tends to be similar to spawning habitat, particularly for northern pike and yellow perch. The absence of suitable northern pike and yellow perch spawning habitat precludes the presence of suitable nursery and rearing habitat. Nursery and rearing habitat for walleye can be similar to its preferred spawning habitat, therefore HUs 1, 4, and 6 are likely suitable. Lake whitefish need areas with adequate water circulation that do not freeze over winter for nursery areas. Marginal nursery and rearing habitats are likely present in HU 1. Other fish species found in the South Saskatchewan River (e.g., sucker species) prefer quiet backwater areas for nursery and rearing. The pool habitat identified in HU 2 may provide the slower flow that these species prefer. The presence of deep water, especially near the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge, provides potential overwintering habitat in the area. The deeper


AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

sections of the study area will not be directly impacted by the proposed development as they occur outside the “core” development area.

Aquatic/Wetland Macrophytes

Sparse patches of sedge (Carex sp.) and bulrush (Scirpus sp.) were identified during the habitat assessment, however, no significant quantities of macrophytes were observed within the study area.

Water Level Changes

Water levels in the South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon are very much dependant on discharge levels from the Gardiner (hydroelectric) dam at Lake Diefenbaker. The present operating regime at the reservoir holds back spring runoff flows so the water can be released later throughout the year as required for electricity and/or irrigation. This situation generally results in low flows in the river at Saskatoon during the spring spawning period and higher than normal flows throughout the winter months when the river flows would normally be low (if no reservoir existed).

This altered flow regime can make it difficult for spring spawning species (that have evolved to depend on a high spring runoff level) to find a suitable location to spawn. As water levels in the river fluctuate, varying amounts of shoreline are exposed. As previously mentioned, at the time of the survey, the only suitable coarse substrates were available in HUs 1, 4, and 6 and were located near the high water mark. The substrate present ~ 5 m offshore from the high water mark is dominated by silt and sand. At low flows, substantial amounts of the cobble and boulders along the shoreline are not fully submerged and therefore may be inaccessible to larger fish during spring spawning season.


POTENTIAL IMPACTS

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 4.1 Background Information 4.1.1 Protection of Fish Habitat

The value that is attributed to impacted fish habitat affects the level of protection that will be required by DFO. There are three basic levels of protection: high, moderate, and minimum. High levels of protection are required for fish habitats that are assessed as being critical which include areas that:

• are important for sustaining subsistence, commercial, or recreational fisheries; • have a high productive capacity; or • support sensitive life history stages of fish.

Moderate levels of protection are required for habitats that are utilized by fish for feeding, growth, and migration. Areas in this category often contain large amounts of similar habitat that is readily available to the local fish populations.

Minimal protection is required for habitats that are low in productive capacity and according to available studies contribute marginally to fish production (DFO 1998).

The overall habitat quality currently present in the study area is shown in Figure 9. HU 1 was identified as important to critical fish habitat, HUs 2, 4, and 6 were identified as important, and HUs 8 and 10 were identified as marginal to important due to the presence of some more varied substrate. The remaining HUs were identified as marginal fish habitat.

4.1.2 Fish Resources of the South Saskatchewan River

A total of 30 fish species have been recorded in the South Saskatchewan River (Atton and Merkowsky 1983; Miles and Sawchyn 1988; SPRR 1991) (Table 4). In 1988, 27 of the 30 species known to occur in the South Saskatchewan River were captured downstream of the Gardner Dam, which is located on the South Saskatchewan River approximately 100 km south of Saskatoon (Miles and Sawchyn 1988). Prior to the completion of the Gardiner Dam, Reed (1962) noted the occurrence of three additional species (pearl dace (Semotilus margarita), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), and silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)) (Table 4). Test netting near Saskatoon


POTENTIAL IMPACTS

(Yorath Island and Clarkboro Ferry) indicated that catches were dominated by various sucker species, followed by walleye and northern pike. Sauger and goldeye appeared to be scarce and lake whitefish, yellow perch, and lake sturgeon were not collected near the Saskatoon area at that time (Miles and Sawchyn 1988). Recent information has indicated the presence of lake sturgeon below the weir (Star Phoenix 2003). Electrofishing conducted in the South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon for the Phase 1 Riverfront development resulted in the capture of four fish species, including white sucker, northern pike, trout-perch, and spottail shiner (CanNorth 2004b).

4.2 Existing Fish Habitat Potentially Impacted

Table 5 and Figure 10 outline the changes to the aquatic habitat within the study area that will likely occur as a result of the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development. HUs 6 to 11 are situated upstream of the proposed development and, at this time, these areas are not expected to be affected by the proposed project. HUs 1 to 4 and parts of HUs 5 and 12 are located within the “core” development area, therefore, they have the potential to be directly impacted by the proposed development. Note that due to the nature of the proposed changes, HUs were further subdivided where required (Figure 10).

If plans proceed as described in Figure 4, several habitat changes will occur. Rip rap and Armorflex will armour the majority of the shoreline between HUs 1 and 5. Armorflex will silt in overtime, creating habitat similar to what currently exists in the majority of the study area, while rip rap provides critical habitat that is limited in the study area. The addition of rip rap and Armorflex to HU 1 will result in the subdivision of the area into three HUs, HU 1a will be unchanged, HU 1b will contain more rip rap, and HU 1c will contain Armorflex. HU 2 will generally remain unchanged, with Armorflex added all along HU 2. Changes to HU 3 will result in the subdivision of the HU into 3a, a small rip rap area, and 3b a sand/silt area. HU 4 will also be subdivided into two HUs, 4a will consist of a small sand/silt area as a result of Armorflex, while 4b will consist of rip rap habitat. Similarly, rip rap will extend into HU 5 resulting in HU 5a (rip rap) and HU 5b (unchanged).

HU 12 encompasses the section of the river located 5 to 40 m from the shoreline. The majority of this habitat will remain unchanged (HU 12a). However, two rip rap areas will be created (HUs 12b and 12c). In addition, a very minor loss of sand/silt habitat is expected due to the construction of a proposed “bridge promenade.” This loss is


POTENTIAL IMPACTS

considered insignificant, as it will be considerably less than 1% of the total development area.

It is noted that the existing habitat types that will be altered in the “core” development area are not unique to the river system. Assessments upstream and downstream of the development area identified similar habitat types (CanNorth 2003, 2004a).

4.3 New Fish Habitat Created

Figure 11 and Table 5 outline the overall habitat quality after the proposed development, including marginal, important, and critical habitat quality.

While the Phase 2 Riverfront development plans will result in the loss of some marginal and important fish habitat, critical fish habitat will also be created. Rip rap habitat is potentially important spawning substrate for several fish species, including walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker. The existing habitat only provides 255.8 m2 of important to critical spawning habitat for these species. After construction 2543.7 m2 of critical spawning substrate will be created (Figure 11).

A variety of flow regimes will occur along these rip rap areas. This variation in flow should provide opportunity for fish species to seek their optimal spawning locations in terms of flow velocity, depth, and substrate along the length of the rip rap areas. In addition, the variety of flow as well as the increase in rock cover will likely provide nursery and rearing habitat, which is currently limiting in the study area.

Further to providing potential critical fish habitat, the rip rap areas will be adding diversity to the substrate in this section of the river. The coarse substrate will likely promote the growth of additional taxa from lower trophic levels, including benthic invertebrates, which form an important part of the food web.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Northern pike and suckers were the most abundant large-bodied fish species captured during the 2005 survey. Sauger, goldeye, yellow perch, lake whitefish, cisco, and lake sturgeon appear to be less common in the Saskatoon reach of the South Saskatchewan River11, although this conclusion is based on limited sampling effort. Northern pike, yellow perch, and lake sturgeon spawning habitats were not identified in the study area, however, marginal goldeye and marginal to moderate walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker spawning habitat was identified in the area immediately affected by the proposed project (HUs 1, 2, and 4).

Nursery and rearing habitats are limited in this section of the South Saskatchewan River. It is likely that the proposed development will increase the availability of habitat types suitable to nursery, rearing, and feeding, by improving the diversity of habitat types available as well as increasing productive capacity of the area. Overwintering habitat is present in the deep water located near the Senator Sid Buckwold Bridge and just upstream of the “core” development area. Both deep water areas are within 100 m of the northwest bank. The proposed development is not expected to directly affect these portions of the river.

The following table summarizes the changes to fish habitat resulting from the proposed development:

Habitat Quality Before (m2)* %

After Construction

(m2)* % Net Gain/

Loss (m2)*

marginal 33643.3 93.4% 32008.3 88.9% -1635.0 marginal to important 598.8 1.7% 598.8 1.7% 0

important 1517.4 4.2% 889.3 2.5% -628.2 important to critical 255.8 0.7% 65.3 0.2% -190.4

critical 0.0 0.0% 2453.7 6.8% 2453.7 Total 36015.4 100.0% 36015.4 100.0% 0

*Areas based on 473.5 m asl.

While the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development will result in the loss of marginal, important, and important to critical habitat, critical habitat types that are limited in this

11 One cisco was captured electrofishing during the 2005 survey.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

section of the South Saskatchewan River will be created. The development of rip rap areas will create 2454 m2 of critical spawning habitat for walleye, sauger, lake whitefish, cisco, and sucker species, thereby potentially increasing the utilization of this section of the South Saskatchewan River by these species. Overall, there will be no reduction in fish habitat area. However, a gain in the quality of fish habitat will be realized.


LITERATURE CITED

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Atton, F.M. and J.J. Merkowsky. 1983. Atlas of Saskatchewan fish. Sask. Dept. Parks Renew. Resources, Fish. Tech. Rep. 83-2. 281 p.

Busch, W.D., R.L. Scholl, and W.L. Hartman. 1975. Environmental factors affecting the strength of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) year-classes in western Lake Erie, 1960-70. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 1733-1743.

Busch W.D. and P.G. Sly. 1992. The development of an aquatic habitat classification system for lakes. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 225pp.

Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth). 2003. Spadina landfill expansion – A fish habitat assessment on the South Saskatchewan River. Prepared for UMA Engineering Ltd. and the City of Saskatoon, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth). 2004a. Aquatic resource project review information for the proposed south downtown riverfront development near the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatoon. Prepared for Meewasin Valley Authority, The City of Saskatoon, and Crosby Hanna & Associates, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth). 2004b. The Cigar Lake mine access road project environmental monitoring report for crossing 6. Phase 1 construction September – November 2004. Prepared for Cameco Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth). 2004c. CanNorth environmental database, maintained in Microsoft Access.

Canada North Environmental Services (CanNorth). 2005. River Landing Phase 2 Riverfront project fish habitat assessment on the South Saskatchewan River. Prepared for the City of Saskatoon and Crosby Hanna & Associates, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Casselman J.M. and C.A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement l): 161-174.

Chavelier, J.R. 1977. Change in walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) population in Rainy Lake and factors in abundance, 1924-75. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 1696-1702.

Chen. M.Y. 1980. Walleye stocks in Lac la Ronge. Sask. Dept. Tour. Renew. Resources, Fish. Tech. Rep. 80-4. 107 p.


LITERATURE CITED

Crosby Hanna & Associates (Crosby Hanna). 2003. South Downtown Riverfront design report. Submitted by Crosby Hanna & Associates and Gordon Forsyth & Associates, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Crosby Hanna & Associates (Crosby Hanna). 2006. River landing phase 2 riverfront pre-design report. Submitted by Crosby Hanna & Associates in association with CanNorth, Catterall & Wright, Cochran Engineering, Johnson & Weichel, Jim Kells, Kindrachuk Agrey Architecture, P. Machibroda Engineering Ltd., and Robb Kullman Engineering. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Cowardin, L.M, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and British Columbia Ministry of the Environment and Parks. 1987. Fish habitat inventory and information program: stream survey field guide.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 1998. Habitat conservation and protection guidelines. Second Edition. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 19 pp.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Saskatchewan Environment and Resources Management (DFO and SERM). 1995. Fish habitat protection guidelines - road construction and stream crossings. Prepared by Sentar Consultants. 27 p.

Edwards, E.A. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: longnose sucker. FWS/OBS 82/10.35. 21 pp.

Geen, G.H., T.G. Northcote, G.F. Hartman, and C.C. Lindsey. 1966. Life histories of two species of catastomid fishes in Sixteenmile Lake, British Columbia, with particular reference to inlet spawning. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23: 1761-1788.

Harris, R.D.H. 1962. Growth and reproduction of the longnose sucker, Catostomus catostomus (Forster), in Great Slave Lake. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 19: 113-126.

Inskip, P.D. 1982. Habitat suitability index model: Northern pike. Western Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Biological Report FWS/OBS82/10.17.

Integrated Environmental Sciences Inc. (IES). 1985. Star Lake spring spawning - 1985. Prepared for Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


LITERATURE CITED

Integrated Environmental Sciences Inc. (IES). 1986a. Baseline fisheries investigations of Mallard and Yew lakes, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Mahogany Minerals Resources Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Integrated Environmental Sciences Inc. (IES). 1986b. Preliminary impact assessment of Alberta water management alternatives on fish resources in the Beaver-Waterhen River system in Saskatchewan. Prepared for Saskatchewan Water Corporation, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

Kells, Jim (pers. comm.). 2006. Consulting hydrotechnical engineer. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Johnson, F.H. 1961. Walleye egg survival during incubation on several types of bottom in Lake Winnibagoshish, Minnesota, and connecting waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90: 312-322.

Kreiger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information: Yellow perch. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-83/10.55.

Krochak, D.K. and J. Crosby. 1975. A second assessment of the Sundance cooling pond on the pike of Wabamun Lake, Alberta. A Beak Associates Consulting Ltd. report prepared for Calgary Power Ltd.

Miles, B.L. and W.W. Sawchyn. 1988. Fishery survey of the South Saskatchewan River and its tributaries in Saskatchewan. Sask. Parks Rec. Culture, Fish Tech. Rep. 886. 173 p.

Minns, C.K., R.G. Randall, J.E. Moore, and V.W. Cairns. 1996. A model simulating the impact of habitat supply limits on northern pike, Esox lucius, in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement l): 20-34

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1989. Manual of instructions. Aquatic habitat inventory surveys. MNR, Toronto, Ontario.

Orth, D.J. 1989. Aquatic habitat measurements. In Neilson, L.A. and D.L. Johnson (eds.) Fisheries Techniques. Am. Fish. Soc. Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 61-84.

Plafkin, J.L, M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Huges. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001.

Qadri, S.U. 1955. The whitefish population of Lac la Ronge. M.A. Thesis. University of Saskatchewan. 136 p.


LITERATURE CITED

Qadri, S.U. 1968. Growth and reproduction of lake whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis, in Lac la Ronge, Saskatchewan. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25:2091-2100.

Reed, E.B. 1962. Limnology and fisheries of the Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan. Sask. Dept. Natur. Resources, Fish Tech. Rep. 6.

Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM). 1997. Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives. Environmental Protection Branch, Regina, Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources (SPRR). 1991. Fish distribution in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Fisheries Branch Technical Report 91-7.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fifth printing, Oakville, Ontario, Galt House Publications Ltd.

Star Phoenix. 2003. Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper article, issue dated August 14, 2003, page A-3.

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. (TAEM). 1989a. Aquatic biological resources of the McClean and Jeb Project Areas, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Minatco Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. (TAEM). 1989b. Fish spawning investigations of Seru Bay, Aline Lake and Aline Creek in northern Saskatchewan. Prepared for Cigar Lake Mining Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. (TAEM). 1990. Rosetown to Regina natural gas pipeline. Project proposal. A report prepared for TransGas Limited, Regina, Saskatchewan.

Terrestrial & Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. (TAEM). 1993. Aquatic biological resources of the McArthur River Uranium Project, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Cameco Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Twomey, K.A., K.L. Williamson, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: white sucker. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS 82/10.64. 56 pp.


TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Limnological measurements taken in the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 2005.

Table 2. Summary electrofishing effort and catch data for the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 16th and 19th, 2005.

Table 3a. Detailed descriptions of habitat units identified in the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 2005.

Table 3b. Habitat legend for streams.

Table 4. List of fish species known to occur in the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan.

Table 5. Details of habitat unit type changes due to the proposed project.

City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development CanNorth

TABLE 1 Limnological measurements taken in the South Saskatchewan River

study area, September 2005.

Parameter Units 19-Sep-05 pH pH units 8.55 Conductivity @ Field Temperature µS/cm 282 Specific Conductance @ 25°C µS/cm 349 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 9.53 Water Temperature °C 14.1 Secchi disk m 0.9

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2

Summary electrofishing effort and catch data for the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 16th and 19th, 2005.

Pass Numbers Location Effort (seconds) Species Number

White sucker 14

1, 2 west bank 2846 Longnose sucker 2 Northern pike 1 Spottail shiner 1 White sucker 2

3, 4 west bank 2795 Northern pike 1 Cisco 1

5, 6 west bank 2443 White sucker 2 Spottail shiner 1

7, 8 mid-channel 1146 No Fish White sucker 12

9, 10 east bank 1411 Northern pike 1 Spottail shiner 2

Trout-perch 3 11 east bank 712 No Fish

White sucker 30 Longnose sucker 2

Totals 11353 Northern pike 3 Cisco 1

Spottail shiner 4 Trout-perch 3

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 3a Detailed descriptions of habitat units identified in the South Saskatchewan River study area, September 2005.

Hab

itat U

nit

Upland Zone Riparian Zone Channel Habitat Features

Spawning Suitability IndexCover (%) Substrate Aquatic/Wetland Vegetation

Bottom Slope Channel Characteristics

Lan

d U

se

Slop

e

Con

ditio

n of

For

est

Can

opy

Veg

etat

ion

Typ

e

Ban

k Sl

ope

Ban

k St

abili

ty

Lar

ge W

oody

Deb

ris

Bou

lder

Aqu

atic

Veg

etat

ion

Ter

rest

rial

Veg

etat

ion

Und

ercu

t

Surf

ace

Tur

bule

nce

Silt/

Cla

y

Sand

Gra

vel

Cob

ble

Bou

lder

Bed

rock

Org

anic

Lar

ge W

oody

Deb

ris

Em

erge

nt

Subm

erge

nt

Floa

ting

Mos

s/A

lgae

Bot

tom

Gra

dien

t

Dep

th 5

m fr

om sh

ore

Flow

Pool

s (%

)

Glid

es (%

)

Run

s (%

)

Riff

les (

%)

Stan

ding

(%)

Nor

ther

n Pi

ke

Wal

leye

and

Sau

ger

Lak

e W

hite

fish/

Cis

co

Yel

low

Per

ch

Suck

ers

Gol

deye

Stur

geon

1 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH G S - 25 - 5 - - - - - - 100 - - - A A A A M 1.2 F - - 100 - - 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH G S - - - 5 - - 10 90 - - - - - - S A A A M 0.9 M 60 40 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH G S - - - 5 - - 10 85 - - 5 - - - S A A A M 0.9 S - 100 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - 5 5 5 - - - - 30 60 10 - - - S A A A M 1.4 S 10 80 10 - - 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - - 5 5 - - 40 55 - - 5 - - - S A A A M 1 M - 60 40 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - 5 - - - - - - 30 50 20 - - - A A A A M 1.2 F - 40 60 - - 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - - - 5 - - 40 50 - 5 5 - - - S A A A M 1.1 S - 100 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 UR S N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - - 5 5 - - 40 10 - 10 40 - - - S A A A M 1.2 M - 40 60 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 UR G N/A N/A T/G/S/SH G S - - - 5 - - 20 70 - - 10 - - - A A A A M 1.3 M - 40 60 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 UR G N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - 5 - 5 - - 10 20 - 20 50 - - - S A A A M 1.2 S 30 70 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 UR G N/A N/A T/G/S/SH S SU - - - 5 - - 20 45 20 10 5 - - - S A A A M 1.2 S 30 70 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - - - - - - 40 60 - - - - - - A A A A N/A N/A F - - 100 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Includes the Victoria Park boathouse dock.

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 3b

Habitat legend for streams.

Category Symbol Explanation

Upland Zone Land Use

Forest FOR -Agriculture AG -Natural Grass NG -Industrial IND -Residential RES -Wetland WL -

Slope Steep S Slope is greater than 45o

Moderate M Slope is between 15 to 45o

Gentle G Slope is less than 15o

Riparian Zone Vegetation Type

Tree T -Shrub S -Grass/Sedge G/S -

Bank Slope Steep S Slope is greater than 45o

Moderate M Slope is between 15 to 45o

Gentle G Slope is less than 15o

Bank Stability Stable S -Slightly Unstable SU >50% of banks in unit are stableModerately Unstable MU <50% of banks in unit are stableHighly Unstable HU Massive bank slumping

Channel Habitat Features Cover

Large Woody Debris % Indicates relative abundance of each cover type Boulder Aquatic vegetation Terrestrial vegetation (e.g., overhanging) Undercut Surface Turbulence

Substrate Composition Silt/Clay (<0.0063 cm) % Indicates relative abundance of each substrate categorySand (0.0063 - 0.2 cm)Gravel (0.2 - 6.4 cm)Cobble (6.4 - 25.6 cm)Boulder (>25.6 cm)BedrockOrganicLarge Woody Debris

Page 1 of 2

TABLE 3b

Habitat legend for streams.

Category Symbol Explanation

Aquatic/Wetland Vegetation Emergent D, M, S, A Indicates relative abundance of each vegetation typeSubmergent D = Dense >60%Floating M = Moderate >30% - ≤60% Algal Growth S = Sparse ≤30%Moss A = Absent

Bottom Slope Bottom Gradient Measured approximately 5 m from shore - Steep S Slope is greater than 45o

- Moderate M Slope is between 15 to 45o

- Gentle G Slope is less than 15o

Obstructions Potential obstructions to fish migration Beaver Dam BD Water Fall WF Chute CH Culvert CUL Logjam LJ Subsurface Flow SF

Spawning Suitability Index 0 - 3 Indicates suitability of area for spawning of each species Northern Pike Walleye and Sauger 0 - Not SuitableYellow Perch 1 - Marginally SuitableLake Whitefish/Cisco 2 - Moderately SuitableSucker 3 - Most/Highly SuitableGoldeye Lake Sturgeon

Page 2 of 2

TABLE 4 List of fish species known to occur in the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan.

Family Scientific Name Common Name Source Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon * Salmonidae Salmo gairdneri

Salvelinus fontinalis Coregonus artedii Coregonus clupeaformis

Rainbow trout Brook trout Cisco Lake whitefish

* * * *

Hiodontidae Hoidon alosoides Hiodon tergisus

Goldeye Mooneye

* *

Esocidae Esox lucius Northern pike * Cyprinidae Couesius plumbeus

Notropis atherinoides Notropis blennius Notropis hudsonius Pimephales promelas Hybopsis gracilis Rhinichthys cataractae Semotilus margarita

Lake chub Emerald shiner River shiner Spottail shiner Fathead minnow Flathead chub Longnose dace Pearl dace

* * * * * * * †

Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Catostomus catostomus Catostomus commersoni Catostomus platyrhynchus Moxostoma anisurum Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Quillback Longnose sucker White sucker Mountain sucker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse

* * * † † *

Gadidae Lota lota Burbot * Gasterosteidae Culaea inconstans Brook stickleback * Percopsidae Percopsis omiscomaycus Trout-perch * Percidae Perca flavescens

Stizostedion canadense Stizostedion vitreum Etheostoma exile Cottus ricei

Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Iowa darter Spoonhead sculpin

* * * * *

* Miles and Sawchyn 1988 † Reed 1962

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 5 Details of habitat unit type changes due to the proposed project.

Habitat Unit

Existing Post-construction

Habitat Type Length (m)

Area (m2)1 Overall Habitat Quality

Level of Protection Required

Habitat Type Length (m)

Overall Habitat Quality

Level of Protection RequiredMarginal Marginal to

Important Importan

t Important to Critical Critical Marginal Marginal to

Important Important Important to Critical Critical

1a Rip rap fast flow, does not extend very far from shore 8.0 65.3 important to

critical moderate to

high No change 8.0 65.3 important to critical

moderate to high

1b Rip rap fast flow, does not extend very far from shore 32.5 146.1 important to


high Addition of Rip

rap 32.5 146.1 critical high

1c Rip rap fast flow, does not extend very far from shore 8.0 44.4 important to


high

Armorflex, will become like

HU22 8.0 44.4 important moderate

2 Sand and silt, with some pool habitat 170.9 784.9 important moderate

Armorflex - No Change3 170.9 784.9 important moderate

3a Sand and silt with a few boulders 13.8 12.9 marginal minimal Rip rap 13.8 12.9 critical high

3b Sand and silt with a few boulders 1.1 51.2 marginal minimal Armorflex 1.1 51.2 marginal minimal

4a Gravel, cobble, and boulder 26.7 141.6 important moderate Armorflex 26.7 141.6 marginal minimal 4b Gravel, cobble, and boulder 108.5 531.0 important moderate Rip rap 108.5 531.0 critical high

5a Sand and silt with a few boulders 18.5 94.6 marginal minimal Rip rap 18.5 94.6 critical high

5b Sand and silt with a few boulders 121.2 598.2 marginal minimal No change 121.2 598.2 marginal minimal

6 Gravel, cobble, and boulder 14.2 60.0 important moderate No change 14.2 60.0 important moderate

7 Sand and silt with a few boulders 156.7 781.4 marginal minimal No change 156.7 781.4 marginal minimal

8 Boulders and silt 79.5 398.9 marginal to important

minimal to moderate No change 79.5 398.9 marginal to

important minimal to moderate

9 Sand and silt with a few boulders 95.5 473.6 marginal minimal No change 95.5 473.6 marginal minimal

10 Boulder with some sand and silt 39.9 199.9 marginal to

important minimal to moderate No change 39.9 199.9 marginal to

important minimal to moderate

11 Mix of mostly sand with silt, gravel, cobble, and boulder 76.3 384.2 marginal minimal No change 76.3 384.2 marginal minimal

12a Sand and Silt4 n/a 1484.5 marginal minimal Rip rap n/a 1484.5 critical high 12b Sand and Silt4 n/a 29578.0 marginal minimal No change n/a 29578.0 marginal minimal 12c Sand and Silt4 n/a 184.7 marginal minimal Rip rap n/a 184.7 critical high

Totals 971.1 33643.3 598.8 1517.4 255.8 0.0 971.1 32008.3 598.8 889.3 65.3 2453.7 1Areas based on 473.5 m asl.2This part of HU 1 is adjacent to HU 2, after the development of the area it will likely silt in and become much like what currently exists in HU 2.3Armorflex will silt in, leaving habitat much the same as what is presently there.4Habitat type present at a distance greater than 5 m from the shore (a very small amount of this will be lost as a result of the bridge promenade described in the Development Plan).

Page 1 of 1

FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Study area.

Figure 2. Development Plan.

Figure 3. Site Sections.

Figure 4. Shoreline protection plan.

Figure 5. Bathymetric map of the South Saskatchewan River study area.

Figure 6. Location of electrofishing areas, September 2005.

Figure 7. Location of habitat units identified in the study area, October 2004.

Figure 8. Location of habitat units identified in the study area, September 2005.

Figure 9. Location of marginal, important, and critical aquatic habitat types, pre-construction.

Figure 10. Changes to habitat units resulting from the proposed Phase 2 Riverfront development.

Figure 11. Location of marginal, important, and critical aquatic habitat types, post-construction.


APPENDICES

LIST OF APPENDICES

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. CONTRACT 1 SHORELINE PROTECTION

APPENDIX B. DETAILED FISH CATCH DATA



APPENDIX A

CONTRACT 1 SHORELINE PROTECTION

COS 1787 / CHA 06015 02390 RIVER LANDING PH 2 RIVERFRONT - Contract 1 SHORELINE PROTECTION March 2007 Page 1 of 2

1 GENERAL

1.1 WORK INCLUDED .1 Shoreline protection including the supply and installation of rip rap and concrete articulating mat

system.

1.2 RELATED WORK .1 General Requirements Section 01100 .2 Environmental Protection Section 01560 .3 OH&S/Decontamination Procedures Section 02020 .4 Dangerous Goods Transportation Section 02030 .5 Excavation of Contaminated Material Section 02220

1.3 SITE CONDITIONS .1 Geotechnical Report: a comprehensive report is available for examination at the offices of Crosby

Hanna & Associates.

1.4 LAYING OUT WORK .1 Lay out work and be responsible for accuracy. Provide the necessary personnel to assist the

Consultant in checking the work. .2 Verify locations and depth of bury for all underground services and lines, whether or not shown on

the plans.

1.5 PROTECTION .1 Protect from damage all fencing, trees, landscaping, natural features, bench marks, existing

structures, surface and underground utilities and lines which are to remain. Make good any damage.

2 PRODUCTS

2.1 MATERIALS .1 Free draining granular: composed of durable rock fragments free of undesirable quantities of

deleterious materials to meet the following gradation.

Sieve Size % Passing by Dry Mass 25.0 mm 100 9.5 mm 60 - 100 4.75 mm 44 - 90 2.0 mm 20 - 80 0.850 mm 0 - 53 0.425 mm 0 - 32 0.150 mm 0 - 10 0.075 mm 0 - 3

.2 Rip Rap: hard, durable stone havng a density of not less than 2650 kg/m3. Stone shall be substantially free of overburden, spoil, shale and organic material.. Stone shape shall be generally cubical and in no case shall the width be less than 1/3 of the stone length.

Stone shall conform to the following gradation:

Percent Finer Than Size (mm) Mass (kg)100 675-765 425-61985 540-603 218-34650 450-518 126-19215 180-270 8-27

CATTERALL & WRIGHT

02390 COS 1787 / CHA 06015 RIVER LANDING PH 2 RIVERFRONT - Contract 1 SHORELINE PROTECTION March 2007 Page 2 of 2

.3 Geotextile: - Under rip rap - Nilex 4510 non-woven geotextile. - Under articulated concrete mats - Mirafi Filterweave FW 500 woven geotextile.

.5 Concrete Articulated Mats: Armorflex articulating concrete block system, Class 40 open cell concrete blocks as manufactured by Armortec. Minimum length of mats: 6.0 metres.

3 EXECUTION

3.1 RIP RAP .1 Minimum riprap thickness 1000mm where placed above water level and minimum 1500mm

thickness when placed below the water surface .2 Above water; place stone on geotextile and a minimum 50mm thickness of free draining granular

material . .3 Below the water surface place stone on geotextile. Seams in the geotextile under water shall be

sewn. Place and anchor geotextile under water in a manner acceptable to the Engineer. .4 Key west end of rip rap into existing bank, blend rip-rap to match existing grades. .5 Place stone in such a manor to avoid segregation of the specified gradation mixture and breakage

of the stone. .5 Riprap should form a dense stone matrix with the finished surface relatively smooth surface in

which no stone protrude significantly higher than a neighboring stone. .6 Maximum riprap slope 2H:1V .7 Place riprap stone at the toe of the slope as shown on the drawings. .8 Overlap rip rap a minimum 4 metres over the articulated concrete mats. .9 Provide scale tickets for all rip rap delivered to the site to the Engineer on a daily basis.

3.2 CONCRETE ARTICULATING MATS .1 Provide manufacture’s representative to oversee the initial installation of the mats. .2 Place mats in strict accordance with the manufactures recommendations. .3 Visually inspect all mats prior to installation. Block with chipped sections greater than 10% of the

block weight of having cracks exceeding 6mm in width or 25mmin depth shall be repaired prior to installation.

.4 Securely fasten geotextile to the mats prior to placement.

.5 Construct anchor trench as detailed. Do not install more than 150 metres of mats prior to backfilling the anchor trench.

.6 Attach mats to a spreader bar or other approved device to aid in lifting and placing the mats. The equipment shall be of adequate capacity to place the mats without bumping, dragging, tearing or otherwise damaging the filter fabric. Place so the mats abut each other. Gaps in matt seams to not exceed 50mm.

3.1 ROCK IN-FILL .1 Fill behind grade beam at boat dock with rock fill the underside of the engineered backfill for the

MSE retaining wall. Place coarse granular fill between the voids in the rocks for the top 450mm. .2 Place non-woven geotextile on rock fill prior to placing the engineered backfill.

END OF SECTION 02390

CATTERALL & WRIGHT

APPENDIX B

DETAILED FISH CATCH DATA

APPENDIX B, TABLE 1

Detailed fish capture statistics from the Phase 2 Riverfront development study area in the South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon, September 2005.

Area Method Station Pass Effort (min) Species Number Length

(cm) Weight

(g) Release Comments

West Bank EF 1 1 21.75 WS 1 44.0 1280 √LNS 2 36.5 680 √WS 3 43.3 1220 √WS 4 42.2 1180 √WS 5 47.9 1590 √WS 6 43.8 1120 √ Tumours on both sides WS 7 - - √ Escaped WS 8 - - √ Escaped NP 9 45.4 680 √

2 42.35 WS 1 44.9 1470 √WS 2 37.2 760 √WS 3 41.1 1180 √WS 4 44.7 1470 √WS 5 46.0 1480 √LNS 6 12.0 - √WS 7 8.5 - √WS 8 5.2 - - Kept for ID SS 9 2.2 - - Kept for ID

3 15.42 NP 1 42.9 600 √CS 2 32.1 340 - Dead

4 31.17 WS 1 44.4 1048 √WS 2 35.9 690 √

5 15.27 No fish captured 6 25.45 WS 1 36.2 720 √

WS 2 49.5 1800 √SS 3 7.1 - √

Centre of Channel EF 2 1 6.73 No fish captured 2 12.37 No fish captured

East Bank EF 3 1 12.38 WS 1 44.9 1520 √WS 2 37.4 840 √WS 3 29.5 360 √NP 4 21.8 - √WS 5 15.7 - √TP 6 3.5 - - Kept for ID WS 7 4.5 - √WS 8 5.8 - √TP 9 3.8 - - Kept for ID SS 10 6.8 - √WS 11 5.0 - √WS 12 5.5 - √WS 13 4.8 - √TP 14 3.4 - - Kept for ID WS 15 - - √WS 16 - - √WS 17 - - √SS 18 6.0 - √

2 11.13 No fish captured 3 11.87 No fish captured

EF = Electrofishing; WS = White Sucker; LNS = Longnose Sucker; NP = Northern Pike; SS = Spottail Shinner; CS = Cisco; TP = Trout Perch

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS


LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1. Habitat unit 1, September 2005.












APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS



City of Saskatoon/Crosby Hanna – March 2007 Aquatic Resource Review – Phase 2 Riverfront Development C-1 CanNorth




















Documents

1143 2006 Fish Habitat Report Final - River Landing · riverfront/riveredge development in Saskatoon. The goal of the project, similar to the Phase 1 Riverfront, is to create a connection