Crowsnest River Drainage Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010

Transcription

Crowsnest River Drainage
Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative
Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.
25% Post Consumer Fibre
When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable
Crowsnest River Drainage Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010
Jason Blackburn
Alberta Conservation Association
#1609, 3 Avenue South
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
T1J 0L1
Report Editors
PETER AKU
#101, 9 Chippewa Rd
Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7
GLENDA SAMUELSON
R.R. #2
Craven SK S0G 0W0
Conservation Report Series Type
Technical
ISBN printed: 978-0-7785-9390-4
ISBN online: 978-0-7785-9391-1
Publication No.: T/243
Disclaimer:
This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation
Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and
statements made within this report.
Reproduction and Availability:
This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this
title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements
are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project.
Suggested Citation:
Blackburn, J. 2011. Crowsnest River drainage sport fish population assessment, 2010.
Technical Report, T-2011-001, produced by the Alberta Conservation
Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 27 pp + App.
Cover photo credit: David Fairless
Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from:
#101, 9 Chippewa Rd
Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7
Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091
Tel: (780) 410-1998
Fax: (780) 464-0990
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ab-conservation.com
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Crowsnest River is one of the most popular trout fisheries in Alberta. However,
increased angling pressure, habitat degradation from recreational and industrial
activities, and the invasion of less popular introduced species threaten the fishery. This
study monitors populations of rainbow trout and native mountain whitefish, the two
primary species in the sport fishery, using electrofishing and mark-recapture
techniques.
Of 3,979 salmonid fish captured in the Crowsnest River, 65% were rainbow trout and
30% were mountain whitefish. The proportion of the mountain whitefish catch that
was legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and above the slot size was 44%, 25% and 6%,
respectively; greater than the proportion of the rainbow trout catch in these size
categories at 11%, 7%, and 2%, respectively. The total tributary catch was 1,085 fish,
and was dominated by Westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids
(Oncorhynchus species) at 84% combined, and respectively at 42%, 27%, and 14% of the
catch. Estimated abundance of rainbow trout in the main-stem of the Crowsnest River
was 80,131 fish of which 8,501 were legal-harvest-sized, 5,290 were quality-sized, and
1,445 were above the slot size. Estimated mountain whitefish abundance was 16,517
fish, with 7,340 legal-harvest-sized, 3,816 quality-sized, and 1,743 above the slot size.
While the total estimated main-stem abundance was nearly five times greater for
rainbow trout, the proportion of legal-harvest-sized fish, quality-sized fish, and fish
above the slot size was greater for mountain whitefish.
Total estimated tributary
populations of Oncorhynchus trout species was 60,637 individuals, of which 34% resided
in Blairmore Creek.
Both the highest main-stem fish densities and the highest incidence of hooking damage
occured between the Highway 507 and the East Hillcrest bridge crossings. Incidence of
hooking damage for all rainbow trout, those of legal-harvest-size, quality-size, and
above the slot size averaged 3%, 16%, 9%, and 9%, respectively; whereas mountain
whitefish hooking damage averaged 3%, 3%, 3%, and 4%, respectively.
Invasive brook trout and brown trout were most abundant in the upper reaches of the
main-stem river, upstream of the town of Frank, and in the tributaries of Drum Creek,
ii
Gold Creek, and Allison Creek. Bull trout were captured only in the main-stem river,
downstream of Lundbreck Falls.
Westslope cutthroat trout populations were most intact in the tributaries of Island,
Giardi, Star, upper Blairmore, upper Gold and upper Rock Creeks.
Upstream of
Lundbreck Falls, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish were the dominant species,
whereas downstream of Lundbreck Falls sucker species were dominant. Small sized
fish were most strongly represented in the main-stem population of rainbow trout,
whereas the mountain whitefish population structure showed no trend in capture
frequency by size, with a relatively homogenous representation of fish across the full
range of sizes.
Key words:
Crowsnest River, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, cutthroat trout,
abundance.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this study was provided by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) and
Devon Canada Corporation. Many thanks to the ACA fisheries crew: Brad Hurkett,
Andrew Clough and Clint Goodman. Thanks to additional ACA staff who helped in
data collection including Peter Aku, Trevor Council, Mike Jokinen, Tyler Johns, Jason
Letham, Marcel Macullo, Mike Marquardson, Matthew Szumilak and Mike Uchikura.
Many thanks to Kevin Fitzsimmons for generating abundance distribution figures,
Mike Rodtka and Paul Hvenegaard for project feedback, and Mandy Couve for report
review. This project would not have been possible without the guidance of Trevor
Council.
Thanks to our government partners at Alberta Sustainable Resource Development,
including Matthew Coombs for assistance with field sampling and Daryl Wig for
consultation about the study area and provision of additional field equipment. I extend
my thanks to Bryan Sundberg (Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation) for
accommodations at Beauvais Lake. Special thanks to the Oldman Chapter of Trout
Unlimited Canada (TUC) for granting access to TUC property, and to the sampling
volunteers, Geordie Paton and Kevin Watson.
iv
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ ix
1.0
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0
STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 2
3.0
MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 4
3.1
Sampling intensity ..................................................................................................... 4
3.2
Sample reach length and site placement ................................................................ 5
3.3
Data collection ............................................................................................................ 6
3.4
Population density and abundance ........................................................................ 7
3.5
Capture probability (q).............................................................................................. 8
3.6
Density and abundance calculations ...................................................................... 8
3.7
Abundance distribution ............................................................................................ 9
4.0
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.1
Fish capture summary .............................................................................................. 9
4.2
Population abundance and density ...................................................................... 10
4.3
Trends in main-stem river species distributions ................................................. 13
4.4
Distribution of main-stem river fish abundance ................................................. 15
4.5
Tributary species distribution ................................................................................ 17
4.6
Population structure and size distribution .......................................................... 19
4.7
Incidence of main-stem river hooking damage ................................................... 23
4.8
Summary ................................................................................................................... 24
5.0
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 25
6.0
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 28
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Crowsnest River drainage study area and sampling locations in 2010. ......... 3
Figure 2.
Trends in main-stem species distributions from lower reaches at the mouth
of Todd Creek to upper reaches at the outlet of Crowsnest Lake, based on
tote-barge capture data. ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.
Comparison of species composition of electrofishing catch from the
Crowsnest River in 2010, a) upstream of Lundbreck Falls, and b)
downstream of Lundbreck falls.......................................................................... 14
Figure 4.
Estimated rainbow trout and mountain whitefish abundance per 250 m in
the Crowsnest River as measured from the mouth of Todd Creek............... 16
Figure 5. Species composition of electrofishing catch by tributary watershed in the
Crowsnest River drainage in 2010...................................................................... 18
Figure 6.
Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River in
2010. ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 7.
Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River
tributaries in 2010. ................................................................................................ 22
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Number of fish, by size range, captured during totebarge and backpack
electrofishing in the Crowsnest River and its tributaries in 2010. ................. 10
Table 2.
Estimated abundance and density, by size range, of rainbow trout and
mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River in 2010 ....................................... 11
Table 3.
Estimated abundance of sport fish in major tributary watersheds of the
Crowsnest River drainage in 2010...................................................................... 12
Table 4.
Size distribution of fish electrofished in the Crowsnest River in 2010. ........ 19
Table 5.
Size distribution of fish electrofished in tributaries to the Crowsnest River
drainage in 2010. ................................................................................................... 21
Table 6.
Proportion (%) of the first pass catches of rainbow trout and mountain
whitefish with evidence of hooking damage.................................................... 23
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
Capture summary from Crowsnest River preliminary tote-barge
eletrofishing in 2009 ........................................................................................ 28
Appendix 2.
Summary of cooperative fisheries inventory program data used in the
Crowsnest River tributaries study design ................................................... 29
Appendix 3.
Crowsnest River sample site locations in 2010 ........................................... 32
Appendix 4.
Crowsnest River tributary sample site locations in 2010 ........................... 33
Appendix 5.
Crowsnest River measurement data in 2010 .............................................. 35
Appendix 6.
Crowsnest tributary stream measurement data in 2010............................ 36
Appendix 7.
Fish catch at 2010 sampling sites used to estimate abundance by size
class ................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 8.
Sport fish catch at 2010 tributary sample sites used to determine
corrected abundance per site ......................................................................... 39
Appendix 9.
Summary of Peterson capture-mark-recapture (CMR) capture
probabilities (q) used to correct 2010 single-pass backpack electrofishing
catch. ................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix 10. Summary of Jolly-Seber capture-mark-recapture probabilities used to
correct 2010 main-stem Crowsnest River single-pass tote-barge
electrofishing catches...................................................................................... 42
Appendix 11. Electrofishing catch at 2010 sampling sites used to describe species
distributions in the Crowsnest River ........................................................... 43
Appendix 12. Proportion (%) of the 2010 first pass electrofishing catch of rainbow trout
and mountain whitefish, by sampling site and size range (mm), with
evidence of hooking damage......................................................................... 44
ix
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Crowsnest River has a long standing reputation as a quality fishery for large
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),
drawing anglers to the Crowsnest Pass from considerable distances.
Numerous
outfitters and guides make a living from the sport fishery, as well as, local fly shops and
businesses that benefit from visiting anglers. The Crowsnest River is considered one of
the most popular trout fisheries in Alberta. An angler survey conducted in 2001,
indicated that 12,000 anglers fished a total of 32,000 hours on the portion of the
Crowsnest River between Crowsnest Lake and the Oldman Reservoir, during the
summer of 2001 (June–September) targeting mainly rainbow trout and mountain
whitefish (Genereux and Bryski 2002).
The sport fishery in the Crowsnest River drainage has undergone considerable change
as a result of landscape disturbance and past fisheries management decisions. The
historical sport fish assemblage in the Crowsnest River main-stem included mountain
whitefish,
bull
trout
(Salvelinus
confluentus),
and
Westslope
cutthroat
trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi). Through several plantings in the 1930s and 1940s, rainbow
trout became established, displacing native cutthroat trout and restricting them to select
tributaries
(Alberta
Sustainable
Resource
Development
(ASRD)
and Alberta
Conservation Association (ACA) 2006; Taylor and Gow 2007). Bull trout, which once
occurred in tributaries above and below Lundbreck Falls (Fitch 1997), have been
restricted to the main-stem river below the falls (ASRD and ACA 2009) as a result of
over harvest and habitat loss.
Currently at risk are the remnant populations of
cutthroat trout, as well as the highly popular mountain whitefish and exotic rainbow
trout fishery in the main-stem river. Continued habitat degradation from recreational,
industrial and municipal development activities, as well as competition from less
desirable exotic species threaten the sport fishery. Species introduced into the drainage
since the 1960s include lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). In an effort to maintain the Crowsnest River as a
quality sport fishery monitoring of sport fish populations is a high priority. Thus, the
main objectives of this study were to:
1
•
Estimate the abundance and density of sport fish populations in the Crowsnest
River.
•
Estimate the abundance and density of native trout species in the Crowsnest
River drainage tributaries.
•
Measure and document the extent of hooking damage to rainbow trout and
mountain whitefish from the Crowsnest River where angling pressure is
considered high.
2.0
STUDY AREA
The Crowsnest River originates from Crowsnest Lake in the Rocky Mountains of
southern Alberta, near the continental divide on the Alberta/British Columbia border.
The Crowsnest River flows eastward for approximately 57 km before converging in the
Oldman Reservoir with the Castle River to the south, and the Oldman River to the
north. The Crowsnest River flows through several local municipalities including
Coleman, Blaimore, Frank, Belleve and the hamlet of Hillcrest, which together comprise
the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. Our study area included the entire Crowsnest
River west of its confluence with Todd Creek, and all known fish-bearing tributaries
west of Highway 22 (Figure 1). Major tributary watersheds originating to the west of
the mountain front include Star and Allison Creeks near Crowsnest Lake, McGillvray
Creek, York Creek, Lyons Creek, Blairmore Creek, and Gold Creek. To the east of the
mountain front, major tributary watersheds include Todd Creek, Cow Creek, Connelly
Creek, and Rock Creek.
While primarily a volunteer catch-and-release fishery (Genereux and Bryski 2002),
harvest of fish is permitted in the Crowsnest River drainage under current sport fishing
regulations. A daily possession limit of two trout is permitted on all sections of the
Crowsnest River between 16 June and 31 October (except for bull trout which is catchand-release only in Alberta), and for all its tributaries between 16 June and 16 August
(except Gold Creek see below). Size restrictions apply only for rainbow trout and
cutthroat trout. In the upper reaches of the Crowsnest River, harvested fish must be
greater than 30 cm, and the use of some baits are permitted after 15 August. In the
middle and lower reaches of the river no bait is permitted and there is a slot size
2
Figure 1. Crowsnest River drainage study area and sampling locations in 2010.
3
restriction where only one harvested fish may be greater than 45 cm and the remainder
must be less than 30 cm. A daily possession limit of five mountain whitefish greater
than 30 cm is permitted throughout the Crowsnest River for the duration of the legal
angling season, however only until 31 August in all its tributaries (ASRD 2010). The
exception is Gold Creek, where only brook trout may be harvested and the possession
limit is two fish per day for the duration of the angling season.
3.0
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and sampling effort was determined through power analysis methods
using archived data from the Cooperative Fisheries Inventory Program (CFIP) (Fisher
2000; Jokinen 2002; Faulter 2003), and the Alberta Government Fisheries and Wildlife
Management Information System (FWMIS) database. When delineating the study area,
I excluded the river downstream of Todd Creek because fluctuating levels of the
Oldman Reservoir continually flood this reach. I used highway 22 as a geographic and
topographic boundary between mountain/foothill and prairie stream types. Based on
FWMIS capture data, fish community types were typically dominated by salmonid
sport species west of the highway and minnow/sucker non-sport species to the east of
the highway.
I excluded first-order and second-order streams because they are
typically ephemeral or dry and fishless within the study area (Fisher 2000; Jokinen 2002;
Faulter 2003), as well as stream reaches known to be fishless from past repeated
inventory sampling. Forty-five tributary reaches and 10 main-stem river reaches were
visited during a reconnaissance survey to verify stream flow and collect stream width
data to help delineate study area boundaries.
3.1
Sampling intensity
I queried archival FWMIS data and summarized species distributions and relative
abundances to identify data gaps and prioritize preliminary sampling. The Crowsnest
River main-stem was data deficient so preliminary electrofishing was conducted at five
reaches along the Crowsnest River in 2009 (Appendix 1), two located in the upper
reaches, two in the middle reaches, and one below Lundbreck Falls. Using preliminary
electrofishing abundance results, I conducted power analysis to determine sampling
4
intensity for the summer of 2010. I considered the minimum functional degree of
precision for abundance estimates to be within 50% of the population mean, or a
“sample survey” level of precision (Schwartz 2005) while endeavoring to attain as close
to “management precision” levels (within 25% of the population mean) as possible.
Use of power analysis on a preliminary main-stem Oncorhynchus abundance mean
(±SD) of 21,412 ± 10,023, indicated 14 sample reaches were required to achieve a
management level of precision. Considering main-stem abundance data was limited, I
also estimated the maximum number of sample reaches possible while maintaining
sampling independence between reaches (one sample reach length between sites).
Based on 34 potential sample reaches on the main-stem (reach lengths estimated using
reconnaissance width measurements), in conjunction with anticipated logistic and
seasonal time constraints, I decided on 22 main-stem river sample reaches comprising
approximately 30% of the total river length.
From 67 inventory sites (Appendix 2), I calculated a tributary Oncorhynchus population
mean (±SD) of 37,905 ± 45,314. Using power analysis, approximately 88 sample reaches
were required to achieve a management level of precision. Consequently, I decided on
a survey level of precision, requiring a more feasible 42 sample reaches on the
tributaries with a predicted relative standard error (RSE) of 37%.
3.2
Sample reach length and site placement
In the absence of quantitative riffle and pool data, which directly relate to species
abundance patterns (Taylor 2000), I used stream size as a surrogate measure of fish
habitat. On the Crowsnest River, sample reach lengths were based on 40 times the
mean wetted width (minimum of 35 times mean wetted width; Lyons 1992), to a
maximum of 800 m total length (in order to maintain sample reach independence).
Sample reaches were spaced systematically along the length of the main-stem river
(Appendix 3) using GIS software. Sample reaches that landed on lakes or hazards (e.g.
Lundbreck Falls), were repositioned elsewhere on the main-stem, while maintaining
sample reach independence.
On the tributaries, sample sites were determined from a systematically distributed pool
5
of 42 points. Non-response sites (e.g. dry channels and beaver ponds) and redundant
sites (e.g. sites clustered in dense headwater tributaries) were repositioned.
positioning of sites ensured:
Final
minimization of gaps between sites, preferential
representation of wider, lower reaches, and representation below, between and above
partial fish passage barriers (Appendix 4 and Figure 1). Consideration of barriers was
intended to account for the incremental impact barriers have on the presence of pure
Westslope cutthroat trout (Robinson 2007), as well as the effects of offspring reduction
caused by hybridization (Muhlfeld et al 2009), and the subsequent effect on site-level
cutthroat trout densities.
Tributary sample reach lengths were 40 times the mean wetted width, with a minimum
length of 150 m (Reynolds et al. 2003).
On inventory and reconnaissance
measurements, all tributary sample reach lengths were estimated at approximately 300
m or less. Consequently, all tributary sample reach lengths were standardized to 300
m.
3.3
Data collection
Fish were collected using electrofishing gear. Smith-Root backpack electrofishers, types
15 and 12B, were used for tributary sample reaches and a Smith-Root LR-6 tote-barge
electrofisher was used on the main-stem river sample reaches.
We backpack
electrofished in crews of two in an upstream progression, with one dipnetter and one
electrofisher operator. We tote-barge electrofished using a four-member crew in a
downstream progression, with one tote-barge operator, one anode pole operator and
two dipnetters.
All captured fish were retained in live-wells, measured, and returned to the stream a
short distance in the opposite direction of sampling. Biological data collected included
species, fork length (FL, mm), total length (TL, mm), weight (g), and evidence of
hooking damage, such as maxillary tears and scarring to the premaxilla and mouth
corners. We also collected adipose and caudal fin clips from suspected pure and hybrid
cutthroat trout in support of the provincial Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan
(ASRD 2009).
Tissue samples were stored in labeled 2-mL Cryo-vials in 100%
anhydrous-ethyl-alcohol for DNA analysis.
6
Electrofishing transects were spaced at 50 m intervals for tributary reaches and 100 m
intervals for main-stem reaches.
Habitat data collected along transects included;
wetted width, rooted width, thalweg depth and the percent of the transect comprised
by pools, riffles and runs (Appendix 5 and 6). Electrofishing effort in seconds(s) was
also recorded.
Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids were distinguished using external
morphological characteristics as per Robinson (2007).
3.4
Population density and abundance
I estimated total abundance and density (fish/m and fish/km) for the length of the
Crowsnest River for mountain whitefish and rainbow trout by size range. Estimates
with 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using single pass capture data
(Appendix 7). Size ranges included: 1) all fish susceptible to our electrofishing gear
(>74 mm TL for rainbow trout and >77 mm TL for mountain whitefish; ACA file data),
2) legal-harvest-sized fish (>300 mm TL; ARSD 2010), 3) quality-sized fish (i.e. rainbow
trout >400 mm TL; Gabelhouse 1984), and 4) fish above the slot size restriction (>450
mm TL, possession limit of one). Main-stem river catches of cutthroat trout, rainbow
trout, and their hybrids were combined for abundance calculations because of the
limited number of cutthroat trout and hybrid captures and their presumed similar
capture probabilities. Other sport species with unknown capture probabilities and
catch rates too low to generate reliable estimates were excluded from main-stem
abundance calculations.
I estimated tributary abundance and density for prominent watersheds containing
native trout species, as well as all tributaries combined, using single pass capture data
(Appendix 8).
All abundance estimate calculations for both the main-stem Crowsnest River, and its
tributaries were performed using stream lengths derived from the Alberta base data
single line hydrology network.
7
3.5
Capture probability (q)
To determine capture probability (q), I performed capture-mark-recapture (CMR)
surveys and calculated site abundances using the Ecological Methodology program
from Krebs (1999).
Three closed-model abundance estimates were carried out on
tributaries with a single mark run and a single recapture run, conducted on consecutive
days. Tributary sections were isolated using blocking nets for the duration of the CMR
surveys and backpack electrofishing was used to collect the fish. Peterson estimates
were calculated for the tributary abundance sites with 95% confidence intervals.
Capture probability was the proportion of the abundance estimate represented by the
first pass catch (i.e. first pass ÷ Peterson estimate). I supplemented Crowsnest River
tributary capture probabilities with those calculated for other backpack electrofished
CMR on like-sized streams (orders 3 – 5) in the upper Oldman and Castle River
drainages (Blackburn 2010), in order to correct single-pass catch rates (Appendix 9).
On the Crowsnest River we conducted open model (Jolly-Seber) estimates, performing
three passes of tote-barge electrofishing per abundance estimate. Five main-stem river
CMR ranged from 4 to 21 days between the first and last sample periods (2 estimates
spanned 4 days, 2 spanned 10 days and 1 spanned 21 days). Jolly-Seber abundance
estimates were calculated for the Crowsnest River and capture probability was
represented as the first alpha value generated (i.e. the proportion marked) between
pass 1 and pass 2 using Ecological Methodology (Krebs 1999) (Appendix 10). Five
capture probabilities were used to generate a beta distribution to calculate rainbow
trout abundance. Three were used to generate mountain whitefish capture probability
distributions, because of the assumption violation of equal catchability, caused by
observed migratory fish behavior between sampling periods.
3.6
Density and abundance calculations
I generated separate randomly sequenced beta-distributions of 10,000 capture
probabilities for backpack and tote-barge CMR capture probabilities, in the program R©
(R Development Core Team 2009).
To determine site density by stream length, I
bootstrapped (10,000 runs) site capture density totals (fish captured per meter per site;
C/m) by species and by size range, to generate distributions of randomly-sequenced
8
capture density means.
I divided the capture density distribution by the capture
probability distribution to generate a distribution of estimated fish density per site
(total fish per meter per site; N/m). The mean density (N/m) distribution was sorted
and the 500th and 9,500th means were selected as 90% confidence intervals. Total fish
abundance was calculated by multiplying the density distribution by total stream
length, and selecting 90% confidence intervals.
3.7
Abundance distribution
Using the R© software program (R Development Core Team 2009), I predicted the
spatial distribution of abundance of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish along the
Crowsnest River, in consecutive 250 m increments, using a generalized additive model
as per Fitzsimmons and Blackburn (2009).
4.0
RESULTS
4.1
Fish capture summary
At 22 main-stem sample reaches, covering approximately 30% (16 km) of the length of
the Crowsnest River, we captured a total of 3,979 salmonid sport fish (Table 1). The
catch was dominated by rainbow trout (65%) and mountain whitefish (30%) (n = 2,645
and 1,201, respectively). Six trout species accounted for the remaining 5%, with native
bull trout and cutthroat trout each representing less than 1% of the catch. The catch of
legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and fish above the slot size was dominated by
mountain whitefish at 63%, 62%, and 57%, respectively, followed by rainbow trout at
33%, 37%, and 41% of the catch, respectively. The proportion of the mountain whitefish
catch that was legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and above the slot size was 44%, 25%
and 6%, respectively; greater in all size categories than the proportion of the rainbow
trout catch in these categories at 11%, 7%, and 2%, respectively. In the tributaries, the
total catch was 1,085, and was dominated by Westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout,
and their hybrids (Oncorhynchus species) at 84% combined, and respectively 42%, 27%,
and 14% of the catch (Table 1). The remainder of the tributary catch was brook trout
(15%), and mountain whitefish (2%).
Legal-harvest-sized fish captured in the
tributaries were less than 1% of the total catch.
9
Table 1.
Number of fish, by size range, captured during totebarge and backpack
electrofishing in the Crowsnest River and its tributaries in 2010.
Main-stem river
Speciesa
RNTR
MNWH
BLTR
CTTR
CRTR
BNTR
BKTR
LKTR
TOTAL
All
fish
2,645
1,201
14
6
31
62
17
3
3,979
> 300 mm
(TL)
279
528
7
3
7
6
1
2
833
> 400 mm
(TL)
185
304
2
0
0
3
0
0
494
Tributaries
> 450 mm
(TL)
51
70
1
0
0
1
0
0
123
All
fish
291
16
0
460
155
0
163
0
1,085
> 300 mm
(TL)
0
2
0
6
1
0
0
0
9
RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BLTR = bull trout, CTTR =
cutthroat trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid, BNTR = brown trout
BKTR = brook trout, LKTR = lake trout
a
4.2
Population abundance and density
Estimated main-stem river rainbow trout abundance was 80,131, nearly five-times
greater than the mountain whitefish population at 16,517 (Table 2). Similarly,
abundance of legal-harvest-size and quality-sized was higher for rainbow trout (8,510
and 5,290, respectively) than for mountain whitefish (7,340 and 3,816, respectively).
Conversely, abundance of mountain whitefish above the slot size (1,743) was greater
than that of rainbow trout (1,445).
10
Table 2.
Estimated abundance and density, by size range, of rainbow trout and
mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River in 2010. CI = confidence
intervals from bootstrapped distributions, RSE = relative standard error.
Speciesa
RNTR
MNWH
a
Size class
(TL, mm)
>74
>300
>400
>450
>77
>300
>400
>450
Total abundance (90%CI)
Fish/km (90%CI)
80,131
8,501
5,290
1,445
(42,371-141,127)
(4,377-15,217)
(2,530-9,725)
(642-2,707)
147
16
10
3
(78-260)
(8-28)
(5-18)
(1-5)
RSE
(%)
41
43
45
48
16,517
7,340
3,816
1,743
(7,658-33,023)
(3,307-14,616)
(1,441-8,156)
(513-3,648)
30
13
7
3
(14-60)
(6-27)
(3-15)
(1-7)
56
57
64
57
RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish
Blairmore Creek had the highest and most dense tributary population of Oncorhynchus
fish comprising 34% of the total tributary abundance at 19,839 (90% CI = 10,966 –
35,713), and a density of 736 fish/km (Table 3). Tributaries with the greatest native trout
(cutthroat) abundances were Blairmore Creek at 65% of the Oncorhynchus abundance
(12,895 of 19,839 fish) and Gold Creek at 85% of the Oncorhynchus abundance (5,422 of
6,379 fish).
11
Table 3.
Estimated abundance of sport fish in major tributary watersheds of the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010.
Tributary
watershed
Total fish abundance (90% CI)
Total density (90% CI)
(fish/km)
Species proportion
%CTTRa %CRTRb %RNTRc
Blairmore
19,839 (10,966-35,713)
736 (407-1,325)
65
23
12
Gold
6,379 (1,739-13,195)
173 (47-357)
85
12
3
Rock
3,776 (646-8,052)
152 (26-323)
58
7
35
Todd
6,155 (2,301-12,255)
123 (46-245)
54
19
27
62 (7-138)
26
7
67
Allison
1,381 (159-3,080)
Connelly
1,340 (335-2,837)
56 (14-119)
25
54
21
All Tributaries 60,637 (29,595-112,490)
197 (96-366)
50
18
32
aCTTR = cutthroat trout, bCRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid, cRNTR=rainbow trout
12
4.3
Trends in main-stem river species distributions
We captured rainbow trout and mountain whitefish throughout the main-stem of the
Crowsnest River. Brook trout were captured only in the upper reaches of the river,
upstream of the town of Frank (Figure 2). We captured brown trout primarily in the
upper reaches, as well as in small numbers in the middle and lower reaches (Appendix
11).
Cutthroat trout and their hybrids were captured sporadically throughout the
main-stem river, and lake trout were captured at only two locations, in the upper and
middle reaches.
Bull trout and burbot were captured only in lower reaches,
downstream of Lundbreck falls. We observed a sharp change in catch composition at
Lundbreck Falls, from one dominated by rainbow trout and mountain whitefish
upstream of the falls, to one dominated by sucker species downstream of the falls
(Figure 3).
Figure 2.
Trends in main-stem species distributions from lower reaches at the mouth
of Todd Creek to upper reaches at the outlet of Crowsnest Lake, based on
tote-barge capture data.
13
Figure 3.
Comparison of species composition of electrofishing catch from the
Crowsnest River in 2010, a) upstream of Lundbreck Falls, and b)
downstream of Lundbreck falls. RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH =
mountain whitefish, BNTR = brown trout, LNSC = longnose sucker, CRTR =
cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid, BKTR = brook trout, CTTR = cutthroat
trout, LKTR = lake trout, WHSC = white sucker, BURB = burbot.
14
4.4
Distribution of main-stem river fish abundance
The combined estimate of mountain whitefish (Figure 4a) contrasts sharply with that of
rainbow trout, highlighting the relative scarcity of mountain whitefish less than 300
mm in the catch. The highest abundance of combined rainbow trout sizes occurred
around kilometer 25, upstream of East Hillcrest Bridge, whereas the highest abundance
of all combined mountain whitefish sizes occurred near kilometer 35, near Frank.
Spatial distribution of abundance for all other size categories of rainbow trout and
mountain whitefish follow similar trends reaching maximum abundances at similar
points along the Crowsnest River (Figure 4). Rainbow trout density for all combined
size classes, as well as fish >300 mm TL, was highest at kilometer 24, near East Hillcrest
Bridge; mountain whitefish densities for fish >300 mm TL, and fish >400 mm TL,
peaked near kilometer 23, also near East Hillcrest Bridge. The density of rainbow trout
>400 mm TL and >450 mm TL was highest at kilometers 19 and 18, respectively, near
the Highway 507 crossing. Similarly, the density for mountain whitefish >450 mm TL
was highest at kilometer 20, also near the Highway 507 crossing (Figure 4).
15
Rainbow trout
6000
a
5000
Mountain whitefish
B
A
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
800
bC
700
D
Abundance per 250 m
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
800
700
c
F
E
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
800
dG
700
H
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
Distance upstream (km)
Figure 4.
Estimated rainbow trout and mountain whitefish abundance per 250 m in
the Crowsnest River as measured from the mouth of Todd Creek for; a) all
fish, b) fish >300 mm TL, c) fish >400 mm TL, d) fish >450 mm TL.
Abundance estimated from single-pass electrofishing capture data at 22
inventory sites and corrected using capture-mark-recapture derived capture
efficiencies. Mean abundance (10,000 model runs) and 90% confidence
intervals (dotted lines) are shown.
16
4.5
Tributary species distribution
Westslope cutthroat trout were captured in the majority of tributaries sampled,
however most reaches were compromised of nonnative rainbow trout and hybrids.
Pure populations of Westslope cutthroat trout remain restricted to a few select
tributaries upstream of fish passage barriers. Tributaries with relatively homogenous
cutthroat trout catches include: Island Creek, Giardi Creek, Star Creek, upper Blairmore
Creek, upper Gold Creek, and upper Rock Creek (Figure 5 and Appendix 11). The
remainder of tributaries sampled had various mixtures of invasive and native species.
The Lyons Creek catch was dominated by rainbow trout, and Drum Creek was
dominated by brook trout. Allison Creek was heavily impacted by brook trout, as well
as lower Gold Creek. Mountain whitefish were captured only in the lower Allison
Creek and Todd Creek watersheds. No bull trout were captured in any tributaries of
the Crowsnest River drainage.
17
Figure 5. Species composition of electrofishing catch by tributary watershed in the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010.
18
4.6
Population structure and size distribution
Rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River ranged widely in size
(Table 4 and Figure 6); however the length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout was
bimodal with a strong representation of small fish (80 mm to 180 mm). The mountain
whitefish catch showed no definite trend in catch frequency by size, and a relatively
homogenous representation across the full range of sizes (Figure 6). The difference in
population structures potentially explains the discrepancy in total estimated
abundances between the two species, if sampling bias toward small rainbow trout
occurred.
The majority of the brown trout and brook trout catch was represented by small fish in
the 100 to 150 mm range, and 100 to 170 mm range, respectively. In the tributaries,
cutthroat trout and hybrids attained the greatest size (Table 5), and length frequencies
were similar between trout species, with the majority of the catch typically less than 260
mm (Figure 7).
Table 4.
Speciesa
RNTR
MNWH
BNTR
CRTR
BKTR
BLTR
LKTR
BURBa
Size distribution of fish electrofished in the Crowsnest River in 2010.
Fork length (mm)
Mean
SD
Range
158
87
41-538
255
110
39-471
154
80
63-470
246
86
83-393
143
40
72-230
320
109
183-552
274
45
225-332
337
73
182-461
n
3,418
1,552
99
47
28
26
4
44
Mean
107
336
73
251
45
569
237
217
Weight (g)
SD
Range
226
1-1,727
345
1-1,280
170
3-1,183
198
9-637
44
9-160
666
68-2,400
91
153-334
119
32-487
n
2,761
1,338
89
38
27
20
3
36
RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BNTR = brown trout, CRTR =
cutthroat trout and cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid combined, BKTR = brook trout, BLTR =
bull trout, LKTR = lake trout, BURB = burbot
a
19
25
Rainbow trout; n = 3,418
Cutthroat trout and hybrids; n = 47
20
15
10
5
Relative abundance (%)
0
25
Mountain whitefish; n = 1,547
Brook trout; n = 28
Brown trout, n = 99
Bull trout, n = 26
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
440
480
520
560
600
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
440
480
520
560
600
0
Fork length (mm)
Figure 6.
Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River in 2010.
20
Table 5.
Size distribution of fish electrofished in tributaries to the Crowsnest River
drainage in 2010.
Fork length (mm)
Species
CTTR
RNTR
CRTR
BKTR
Weight (g)
Mean
SD
Range
n
Mean
SD
Range
n
138
139
141
148
51
40
42
50
42-325
53-258
63-325
74-281
513
309
191
169
45
42
39
48
54
36
45
43
1-390
1-222
2-426
4-241
401
297
174
123
CTTR = cutthroat trout, RNTR = rainbow trout, CRTR = cutthroat x rainbow trout
hybrid, BKTR = brook trout
a
21
20
Cutthroat trout; n = 513
Cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrids; n = 191
Rainbow trout; n = 309
Brook trout; n = 169
15
Relative abundance (%)
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
Fork length (mm)
Figure 7.
Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River tributaries in 2010.
22
330
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
330
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
0
4.7
Incidence of main-stem river hooking damage
We observed evidence of hooking damage or angling related fish injury to rainbow
trout at 17 of 22 reaches and at 8 of 21 reaches for mountain whitefish, in the main-stem
river. The proportion of captured fish with evidence of hooking damage was higher for
rainbow trout than for mountain whitefish (Table 6 and Appendix 12). At sample
reaches where hooking damage to rainbow trout occurred, the proportion of hookdamaged fish tended to increase with fish size (Appendix 14). The proportion of
rainbow trout and mountain whitefish with hooking damage was highest from sample
reach 11, near East Hillcrest Bridge, to sample reach 14, near the Highway 507 crossing
and coincided with reaches of high fish density.
Table 6.
Proportion (%) of the first pass catches of rainbow trout and mountain
whitefish with evidence of hooking damage.
Size range
All fish
> 300 mm TL
> 400 mm TL
> 450 mm TL
Proportion hook-damaged
rainbow trout (%)
Mean
SD
Range
3
2
0-7
16
13
0-40
9
14
0-40
9
15
0-43
23
Proportion of hook-damaged
mountain whitefish (%)
Mean
SD
Range
3
4
0-13
3
4
0-13
3
5
0-15
4
6
0-20
4.8
Summary
For the Crowsnest River, main-stem catches of rainbow trout far exceeded mountain
whitefish catches, as did the resulting abundance estimates. The larger size classes of
fish were very comparable in abundance, whereas only smaller (<300 mm) mountain
whitefish were scarce. Fewer juvenile mountain whitefish may be a result of: 1) life
history differences between the species, 2) sampling bias toward juvenile rainbow trout
habitat, 3) interspecific competition, or 4) fewer juvenile mountain whitefish inhabited
the main-stem river during the sampling period, perhaps seeking refuge in tributaries
during the unusually high 2010 summer flows.
Cutthroat trout populations in the tributaries were highest in Blairmore and Gold
Creeks, with considerable portions of the two watersheds isolated from invasive
rainbow trout. However, total tributary abundance estimates were a composite of all
Oncorhynchids captured in the watersheds. Tributary populations of invasive brook
trout were present, however a lack of capture efficiencies for brook trout precluded
their abundance estimation. With such a high degree of species interspersion across the
Crowsnest River watershed, accurate tributary abundance estimates by species would
require much higher sampling intensities on a watershed by watershed basis.
Fish densities were highest between the town of Bellevue and the Highway 507 bridge,
coinciding with the areas of highest observed hooking damage, suggesting anglers and
guides are aware of where fish densities are highest.
The catch composition changed dramatically downstream of Lundbreck Falls from one
dominated by rainbow trout and mountain whitefish, to a sucker dominated catch. It
has long been suspected that the Oldman Reservoir provides excellent habitat for
sucker species and few other species. Our catch results corroborate this theory, with
Lundbreck Falls serving as an upstream migration barrier to large pods of longnose
and white suckers.
24
5.0
LITERATURE CITED
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. 2010 Alberta guide to sportfishing
regulations.
Produced by the Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. 112 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009. Alberta Westslope cutthroat trout
recovery team update. Produced by the Government of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Available at:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/RecoveryPro
gram/RecoveryPlans.aspx.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association.
2009. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development Wildlife Status Report No. 39, Update 2009, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. 48 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association.
2006. The status of Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) in
Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Wildlife Status Report No.
61, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 34 pp.
Blackburn, J. 2010. Abundance and distribution of Westslope cutthroat trout in the
Castle River drainage, Alberta 2008 - 2009.
Technical Report, T-2010-002,
produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta,
Canada. 39 pp + App.
Faulter, R. 2003. Cooperative fisheries inventory program: 2003 survey site reference
catalogue, Blairmore area. Produced by the Alberta Conservation Association,
Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 68 pp.
Fisher, J. 2000. Cooperative fisheries inventory program, Atlas Lumber Timber Quota:
2000 catalogue of sampling sites. Produced by Atlas Lumber Ltd., Blairmore,
Alberta, Canada. 99 pp.
25
Fitch, L. 1997. Bull trout in southwestern Alberta: notes on historical and current
distribution.
Pages 147-160.
Proceedings.
Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services,
In:
Friends of the Bull Trout Conference
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
Fitzsimmons, K., and M. Blackburn.
2009.
Abundance and distribution of Arctic
grayling in the upper Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007.
Data Report,
D-2009-004, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Cochrane,
Alberta, Canada. 16 pp + App.
Gabelhouse Jr., D. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 273-285.
Genereux, D.B., and M.B. Bryski. 2002. A creel survey of the Crowsnest River, June –
September, 2001.
Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural
Resources Service, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 32 pp + App.
Jokinen, M. 2002. Cooperative fisheries inventory program: 2002 survey site reference
catalogue, Blairmore.
Produced by the Alberta Conservation Association,
Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 97 pp.
Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology, 2nd edition. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo
Park, California, U.S.A. 620 pp.
Lyons, J. 1992. The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when
fish species richness is estimated.
North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 12: 198-203.
Muhlfeld C., S. Kalinowski, T. McMahon, M. Taper, S. Painter, R. Leary, and F.
Allendorf. 2009. Hybridization rapidly reduces fitness of a native trout in the
wild. Biology Letters 5: 328-331. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0033.
R Development Core Team. 2009.
computing.
R: A language and environment for statistical
Produced by R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org.
26
Reynolds, L., A.T. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, S.V. Gregory, and R.M. Hughes. 2003.
Electrofishing effort requirements for assessing species richness and biotic
integrity in western Oregon streams.
North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 23: 450-461.
Robinson, M. 2007.
The ecological consequences of hybridization between native
Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and introduced rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in south western Alberta. MSc thesis. University of
Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 152 pp.
Schwartz, C.
2005.
Statistics for resource managers: subset from STAT 403/650.
Produced by the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 834 pp.
Taylor, C. 2000. A large-scale comparative analysis of riffle and pool fish communities
in an upland stream system. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58: 89–95.
Taylor, E., and J. Gow. 2007. An analysis of hybridization between native Westslope
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia lewisi) and introduced Yellowstone
cutthroat trout, (O.c. bouvieri) and rainbow rrout (O. mykiss) in Canada’s
mountain parks and adjacent watersheds in Alberta.
Prepared for Parks
Canada and Alberta Fish and Wildlife by the Native Fishes Research Group,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 46 pp.
27
6.0
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Capture summary from Crowsnest River preliminary tote-barge eletrofishing in 2009. UTM coordinates NAD 83
Zone 11.
2010
Sample
Mean
UTM
UTM
Total Oncorhynchus
Location
distance
wetted
Easting Northing
catch
ID
(m)
width (m)
Lundbreck Falls Campsite
Lower
NA
380a
30.0
702280
5496420
54
Burmis Road
Middle
13
900
20.6
695315
5492275
193
East Hillcrest Bridge
Middle
11
700
16.7
691890
5492041
208
Blairmore Highway 3 crossing
Upper
6
820
17.4
686057
5498037
87
U/S Coleman at McGillvray
Upper
2
600
16.5
678567
5500700
66
a Preliminary sampling near Lundbreck Falls was aborted because of unsafe river conditions. Although used in power analysis to
estimate sampling intensity, it was not compiled with 2010 sample reaches to calculate main-stem abundance estimates.
Preliminary
sample reaches 2009
River
reach
28
Appendix 2. Summary of cooperative fisheries inventory program data used in the Crowsnest River tributaries study design.
CTTR = cutthroat trout, RNTR = rainbow trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid. UTM coordinates
NAD 83 Zone 11.
Stream
order
Waterbody
Year
UTM
Easting
UTM
Northing
Sample
distance
(m)
Mean
wetted
(m)
Electrofishing
effort (s)
CTTR
RNTR
CRTR
Total
Oncorhynchus
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Island Creek
McGillvray Creek
Rock Creek
Star Creek
Unnamed
Blairmore Creek
Blairmore Creek
Byron Creek
Drum Creek
Green Creek
Island Creek
Lyons Creek
Todd Creek
Unnamed
Unnamed
Allison Creek
Byron Creek
Byron Creek
Byron Creek
Byron Creek
Connelly Creek
Connelly Creek
Connelly Creek
Cow Creek
2002
1983
2002
2003
2002
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2007
2002
2002
2002
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2005
2005
665620
676643
695235
677781
695187
682916
682916
688466
690892
688982
666192
683989
693786
693594
690829
673600
691872
688640
691842
691868
695446
699390
695268
550858
5497668
5512036
5503305
5498885
5500871
5509937
5509929
5488723
5493157
5501258
5498419
5493855
5517492
5493099
5493029
5504300
5491997
5488881
5491972
5491993
5505161
5501473
5505261
5504093
300
100
300
300
300
100
300
200
300
300
300
300
200
300
300
300
185
300
300
200
300
300
200
700
1.9
na
1
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.7
3.3
1.9
2.8
3.8
2.6
1.8
2.8
3.7
4.9
3.7
4.9
4.9
1.6
2.4
1.6
1.3
597
na
193
581
746
120
699
549
718
423
614
732
400
634
636
450
na
729
884
na
610
759
974
na
12
12
0
30
25
40
59
0
0
0
3
0
15
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
17
11
1
na
10
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
13
0
0
10
0
14
2
0
25
0
24
30
0
0
0
na
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
22
12
0
31
25
40
60
0
13
0
3
10
15
14
2
14
30
0
24
30
17
11
3
1
29
Appendix 2. Continued
Stream
order
Waterbody
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Lyons Creek
Lyons Creek
Lyons Creek
Lyons Creek
Lyons Creek
Lyons Creek
Morin Creek
South Todd Creek
South Todd Creek
Star Creek
Star Creek
Star Creek
Star Creek
Star Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Unnamed
York Creek
York Creek
York Creek
York Creek
York Creek
Year
UTM
Easting
UTM
Northing
Sample
distance
(m)
Mean
wetted
(m)
Electrofishing
effort (s)
CTTR
RNTR
CRTR
Total
Oncorhynchus
2002
2002
2002
2003
2004
2006
2002
2000
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2000
2000
2000
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
684212
684214
684953
684027
684210
684216
688051
695411
695348
677498
677755
677759
677708
677781
694404
694898
695671
695185
695658
673016
681305
683113
683117
681400
683109
5494123
5494111
5497598
5493920
5494109
5494099
5502999
5515936
5515899
5500357
5499722
5499759
5500006
5499231
5518542
5517912
5516413
5517078
5516457
5499006
5497942
5498222
5498237
5497991
5498449
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
123
300
150
300
250
200
300
150
100
155
150
300
300
100
100
100
300
300
5.4
5.4
6.8
3.8
5.4
5.4
2.7
2.2
2.2
3.4
4.2
4.2
5.7
4
2.5
2.6
3.3
4.4
3.3
1.9
5.3
6
6.2
5.3
7.3
979
1443
1391
3147
1764
931
538
1000
840
560
696
763
544
441
288
277
1500
658
755
596
314
221
244
1035
981
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
62
69
5
20
1
1
0
21
24
103
46
16
30
4
0
2
2
3
43
86
31
29
95
56
0
0
2
4
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
3
16
0
0
2
4
6
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
86
31
29
95
56
16
62
71
9
20
4
3
0
21
24
110
49
35
30
4
2
6
8
37
30
Appendix 2. Continued
Stream
order
Waterbody
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Allison Creek
Allison Creek
Blairmore Creek
Cow Creek
Cow Creek
Crowsnest Creek
Crowsnest Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Rock Creek
Rock Creek
South Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Year
UTM
Easting
UTM
Northing
Sample
distance
(m)
Mean
wetted
(m)
Electrofishing
effort (s)
CTTR
RNTR
CRTR
Total
Oncorhynchus
1997
2000
2002
2005
2005
2003
2008
2000
2002
2002
2006
2006
2002
2007
2006
2000
2002
2007
674335
673822
683662
554498
552475
668245
669171
688807
687808
688157
687493
688621
695691
693812
695554
705555
707073
696884
5499838
5503812
5501943
5503409
5503813
5499381
5499936
5501542
5505931
5502565
5496613
5498644
5501050
5501035
5516108
5509059
5505880
5516341
450
275
300
300
700
200
200
400
600
300
850
1000
na
na
400
200
300
100
4.6
3.7-4.5
4.5
<3
<3
>5
>5
>5.8
5.4
5.8
7.6
7.6
2.7
na
2.2
4.8
4.1
3.3
1338
450
633
na
na
1038
1061
960
2218
457
na
na
578
2294
673
710
704
350
2
4
20
0
0
1
0
30
140
13
4
28
18
16
0
1
0
1
16
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
4
16
12
2
0
0
0
0
0
17
2
0
0
49
0
0
0
18
8
42
12
2
2
0
30
140
13
30
30
18
16
49
64
0
1
31
Appendix 3. Crowsnest River sample site locations in 2010. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.
Location
ID
Start
Easting
Start
Northing
End
Easting
End
Northing
Sample
date
Km upstream
of
Todd Creek
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
19
672501
674413
677171
678567
681039
683515
686057
687081
688840
689859
691066
691890
693964
695315
696540
698320
699342
699224
701201
703505
705569
706669
5500660
5499725
5500622
5500700
5500615
5498780
5498037
5497179
5495752
5495018
5492899
5492041
5492141
5492275
5492572
5493494
5493562
5495342
5495452
5497346
5497359
5497552
673021
675003
677821
678972
681492
683920
686793
687469
689332
690375
691337
692195
694575
695749
697201
698537
699331
699873
701698
704758
706031
706822
5500649
5499730
5500721
5500618
5500359
5498717
5498006
5496620
5495422
5494860
5492514
5491953
5491981
5492282
5492789
5493738
5493944
5495350
5495831
5497287
5497463
5497904
11-Jun-10
5-Aug-10
17-Aug-10
9-Aug-10
10-Aug-10
16-Aug-10
5-Aug-10
3-Aug-10
4-Aug-10
28-Jul-09
11-Aug-10
30-Jul-09
28-Jul-10
28-Jul-10
22-Jul-10
17-Jul-10
22-Jul-09
20-Jul-10
20-Jul-10
12-Jul-10
14-Jul-10
22-Jul-09
54.0
51.1
46.8
45.5
42.7
39.5
36.3
34.3
31.9
30.6
27.9
26.3
22.1
19.9
18.1
15.5
13.8
11.1
8.7
4.7
2.8
1.7
32
Lundbreck Falls
Appendix 4. Crowsnest River tributary sample site locations in 2010. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.
Location
ID
1
2
3
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Waterbody name
Unnamed tributary to Lyons Creek
Unnamed tributary to Lyons Creek
Drum Creek
Todd Creek
Unnamed tributary to Todd Creek
South Todd Creek
Todd Creek
Cow Creek
Cow Creek
Gold Creek
Caudron Creek
Unnamed tributary to Blairmore Creek
Blairmore Creek
Gold Creek
McGillivray Creek
McGillivray Creek
Star Creek
York Creek
Allison Creek
Allison Creek
Unnamed tributary to Allison Creek
Gold Creek
Rock Creek
Rock Creek
Todd Creek
Start
Easting
683582
684879
689194
695704
693456
694939
703499
698945
695338
687772
688240
683757
684495
689091
677479
677450
677645
682951
673999
672517
672501
687803
694135
699794
693129
33
Start
Northing
5492002
5496072
5493922
5516438
5516187
5514512
5513715
5508877
5509254
5505674
5506701
5506604
5507448
5500053
5506536
5509225
5499181
5498071
5502567
5507041
5505427
5497602
5501133
5496348
5519569
End
Easting
683596
684991
689049
695567
693230
694842
703347
698746
695095
687795
688473
683765
684467
701698
677532
677372
677387
682930
673933
672508
672335
687914
693921
699739
692930
End
Northing
5491831
5495858
5493771
5516587
5516188
5514318
5513941
5508985
5509194
5505977
5506816
5506857
5507743
5495831
5506752
5509479
5499101
5497821
5502741
5507235
5505636
5497844
5501075
5496308
5519795
Sample date
30-Jun-10
24-Jun-10
6-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
28-Jun-10
28-Jun-10
7-Jul-10
7-Jul-10
2-Sep-10
6-Jul-10
29-Jul-10
5-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
6-Jul-10
6-Jul-10
22-Jun-10
22-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
18-Aug-10
13-Jul-10
Appendix 4. Continued.
Location
ID
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
49
52
59
60
Waterbody name
Allison Creek
Blairmore Creek
Nez Pierce Creek
Connelly Creek
Connelly Creek
Connelly Creek
Connelly Creek
Blairmore Creek
Island Creek
McGillivray Creek
Rock Creek
Island Creek
Todd Creek
Unnamed Creek (Fools Creek)
Giardi Creek
Unnamed tributary to Rock Creek
Byron Creek
Start
Easting
672227
683564
679698
693751
695694
696233
700374
683490
665326
678645
697338
666117
699766
676428
672659
695691
690317
34
Start
Northing
5512100
5508993
5504643
5506627
5504609
5504182
5500400
5501435
5498100
5503126
5498528
5498952
5515503
5501232
5499866
5499737
5489915
End
Easting
672194
683361
679700
693508
695532
696053
700172
683596
665129
678389
697137
666128
699656
676330
672728
695445
690041
End
Northing
5512381
5509166
5504873
5506713
5504436
5504211
5500408
5501672
5498238
5503126
5498658
5498717
5515673
5501496
5499615
5499707
5489829
Sample date
22-Jun-10
5-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
1-Sep-10
1-Sep-10
26-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
23-Jun-10
13-Jul-10
24-Jun-10
22-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
18-Aug-10
Appendix 5. Crowsnest River measurement data in 2010. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, SD = standard deviation, s =
seconds.
Location
ID
Mean WW
(m)
SD
WW
Mean RW
(m)
SD
RW
Mean
thalweg
depth (m)
SD
thalweg
depth
%
Pool
%
Riffle
%
Run
Electrofishing
effort (s)
Distance
fished (m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
15.5
16.0
16.5
13.0
10.2
17.4
18.5
20.0
15.7
23.6
16.7
18.4
20.6
21.3
19.8
23.3
22.4
25.9
20.8
23.8
22.0
15.1
2.3
1.7
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.9
1.7
4.5
4.8
3.6
1.8
3.4
2.4
3.5
4.2
5.4
2.8
2.5
3.9
3.8
3.4
17.1
18.0
22.2
17.2
12.4
18.4
23.0
22.7
17.3
26.5
25.4
26.4
23.4
25.4
24.6
37.4
30.9
31.1
29.6
26.4
26.1
16.4
1.6
1.4
4.0
4.5
1.5
2.1
3.3
2.5
4.7
6.6
10.5
4.4
4.8
2.2
2.8
16.8
10.2
4.1
6.2
2.6
6.2
3.7
0.79
1.07
0.73
0.58
1.06
1.19
1.04
0.67
1.45
1.11
0.94
1.29
0.86
0.56
0.68
1.31
0.89
1.13
1.25
0.56
1.14
0.99
0.18
0.73
0.41
0.16
0.17
0.26
0.51
0.15
0.93
0.48
0.56
0.66
0.42
0.18
0.31
1.15
0.42
0.50
0.61
0.29
0.40
0.24
31
8
34
4
0
19
18
4
38
21
20
28
7
19
32
31
16
16
30
10
25
14
24
67
3
32
100
33
18
81
38
37
54
40
32
42
36
40
53
61
41
52
43
25
45
25
63
64
0
49
64
14
23
42
26
33
61
39
32
29
31
23
29
38
33
61
2243
2758
2951
1625
1698
4194
4228
2486
2742
2238
3045
6545
3653
4887
3489
3440
4114
3192
3767
4098
3888
2511
700
700
600
500
500
820
750
700
600
800
700
800
900
800
800
800
800
700
800
800
800
700
35
Appendix 6. Crowsnest tributary stream measurement data in 2010. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, SD = standard
deviation, s = seconds.
Location
ID
Mean WW
(m)
SD
WW
Mean RW
(m)
SD
RW
Mean
thalweg
depth (m)
SD
thalweg
depth
%
Pool
%
Riffle
%
Run
Electrofishing
effort (s)
Distance
fished (m)
1
2
3
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3.4
1.6
na
2.6
1.3
2.1
5.1
3.5
1.9
5.9
3.3
1.5
4.6
7.0
4.0
4.9
4.8
5.4
4.8
3.6
2.0
5.2
0.7
0.4
na
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.5
0.9
1.0
2.7
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.1
5.0
2.8
na
6.9
2.5
3.2
8.9
4.6
2.4
7.5
4.6
3.2
6.4
8.8
5.7
6.8
6.2
7.1
5.9
12.8
3.5
7.4
0.7
1.0
na
4.4
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.3
1.4
2.7
0.8
1.1
19.7
1.3
1.6
0.30
0.24
na
0.41
0.16
0.40
0.47
0.46
0.74
0.45
0.45
0.13
0.32
0.47
0.32
0.59
0.50
0.52
0.33
0.38
0.15
0.44
0.11
0.06
na
0.30
0.06
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.24
0.04
0.09
0.54
0.22
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.06
18
22
0
23
18
2
20
18
1
0
5
25
7
7
40
3
8
22
8
7
19
2
49
53
80
45
35
19
42
52
0
100
95
17
72
80
52
97
68
42
87
78
73
92
33
25
20
32
47
79
38
30
99
0
0
58
22
13
8
1
23
37
5
15
8
7
1716
666
1218
1175
1264
1326
1285
1412
1489
2035
764
1596
1482
1372
1569
935
1877
2223
1852
1577
1001
1239
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
250
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
36
Location
ID
Mean WW
(m)
SD
WW
Mean RW
(m)
SD
RW
Mean
thalweg
depth (m)
SD
thalweg
depth
%
Pool
%
Riffle
%
Run
Electrofishing
effort (s)
Distance
fished (m)
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
49
52
59
2.5
3.9
2.5
1.2
3.4
3.6
1.1
1.3
1.4
2.9
4.8
2.1
4.9
3.5
3.0
4.5
2.4
2.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.7
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.2
3.0
5.1
3.1
2.0
5.4
5.2
2.0
2.3
1.5
4.0
7.6
2.6
7.8
5.4
3.9
8.8
2.5
3.4
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.4
1.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.8
0.5
1.0
1.7
0.7
1.8
1.3
0.9
5.2
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.26
0.22
0.28
0.12
0.31
0.33
0.20
0.30
0.31
0.23
0.21
0.26
0.31
0.21
0.32
0.67
0.30
0.56
0.15
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.09
0.65
0.07
0.71
0.04
32
29
3
22
15
5
15
17
0
24
5
23
23
15
16
2
2
13
5
68
43
5
73
67
91
65
14
1
26
77
65
68
44
83
21
8
82
60
0
28
92
5
18
4
20
69
99
50
18
13
9
41
1
78
91
6
35
1509
968
996
646
1663
895
676
1328
1212
1651
2093
874
962
1388
957
1321
761
1478
894
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
250
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
37
Appendix 7. Fish catch at 2010 sampling sites used to estimate abundance by size class. TL = total length, RNTR = rainbow trout,
MNWH = mountain whitefish. Bold script denotes sampling conducted in 2009.
All fish
Location
Id
RNTR MNWH
RNTR
MNWH
RNTR
MNWH
RNTR
MNWH
Distance
from Todd
Creek (m)
24
47
79
178
207
85
196
167
192
335
208
222
147
132
81
79
60
40
66
20
30
50
4
16
16
11
8
17
24
33
33
27
32
19
11
4
7
7
1
4
3
0
5
8
2
4
25
0
19
33
41
30
59
91
39
24
29
7
47
36
9
12
14
10
17
0
0
6
7
9
6
14
21
26
28
21
13
14
5
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
7
0
1
0
0
17
32
36
26
50
75
22
17
16
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
5
7
7
8
6
6
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
10
9
10
14
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,664
2,847
4,677
8,732
11,115
13,762
15,461
18,107
19,877
22,140
26,329
27,897
30,570
31,863
34,296
36,307
39,482
42,686
45,480
46,836
51,139
54,006
19
21
20
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
22
30
24
82
34
27
36
45
38
90
102
43
29
35
18
116
196
32
60
62
46
56
0
>300 mm TL
>400 mm TL
38
>450 mm TL
Appendix 8. Sport fish catch at 2010 tributary sample sites used to determine
corrected abundance per site. CTTR = cutthroat trout, CRTR = rainbow
trout x cutthroat trout hybrid, RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH =
mountain whitefish, BKTR = brook trout.
Location ID
1
2
3
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
30-Jun-10
24-Jun-10
6-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
13-Jul-10
28-Jun-10
28-Jun-10
7-Jul-10
7-Jul-10
2-Sep-10
6-Jul-10
29-Jul-10
5-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
6-Jul-10
6-Jul-10
22-Jun-10
22-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
18-Aug-10
13-Jul-10
22-Jun-10
5-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
1-Sep-10
1-Sep-10
26-Jul-10
23-Jun-10
8-Jul-10
18-Aug-10
CTTR
0
CRTR RNTR MNWH
120
0
0
0
no fish captured
0
0
0
0
2
6
4
34
10
0
13
0
0
0
0
6
1
29
1
72
71
29
13
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
37
5
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
no fish captured
no fish captured
0
0
0
10
16
0
19
11
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
no fish captured
no fish captured
2
0
0
no fish captured
no fish captured
2
0
0
3
0
0
8
5
0
74
39
0
no fish captured
1
0
0
4
23
0
28
1
0
7
0
6
34
3
70
0
6
0
5
1
1
39
BKTR
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
30
0
38
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
Location ID
43
45
49
52
59
60
Date
23-Jun-10
13-Jul-10
24-Jun-10
22-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
18-Aug-10
Total
CTTR
9
0
CRTR RNTR MNWH
1
0
0
10
1
0
no fish captured
0
0
0
no fish captured
no fish captured
36
460
155
40
290
16
BKTR
0
0
0
116
Appendix 9. Summary of Peterson capture-mark-recapture (CMR) capture
probabilities (q) used to correct 2010 single-pass backpack electrofishing
catch.
502
138
118
93
357
104
572
176
55
Lower
95% CI
379
107
88
69
285
84
376
133
46
Upper
95% CI
747
200
186
151
484
140
1111
270
77
0.2888
0.4348
0.4153
0.4409
0.3782
0.5385
0.1556
0.4150
0.6364
166
241
105
121
201
65
277
310
271
0.4036
0.4772
0.2762
Waterbody
M
C
R
E
Daisy 2007
Daisy 2007
Dutch 2007
Racehorse 2007
Station 2007
Tributary to Racehorse 2007
Lynx 2009
Carbondale 2010
Lost 2010
145
60
49
41
135
56
89
73
35
96
61
47
40
102
60
89
52
42
27
26
19
17
38
32
13
21
26
Upper Blairmore 2010
67
41
Lower Blairmore 2010
Upper Gold 2010
115
29
102
28
16
48
7
41
q
Appendix 10. Summary of Jolly-Seber capture-mark-recapture probabilities used to correct 2010 main-stem Crowsnest River
single-pass tote-barge electrofishing catches.
Pass
1
Pass
2
Pass
3
Pass
1
Pass
2
Pass
3
2nd pass
recaps
from
1st pass
21
85
197
84
51
18
97
185
87
41
18
68
145
141
27
21
81
193
78
49
18
95
175
81
39
18
58
139
141
27
2
11
18
5
6
3
2
8
5
2
1
7
4
12
4
0
0
2
1
1
193 (48-1,931)
286 (136-1,234)
2,638 (1,213-8,826)
589 (265-2,178)
156 (70-675)
0.1580
0.1220
0.1020
0.0680
0.1670
0.2630
0.1450
0.1160
0.1410
0.3210
Mountain Whitefish
2
46
7
116
15
43
20
81
22
0
22
88
27
76
4
34
131
11
94
4
44
114
41
55
0
22
88
27
55
4
34
126
11
90
4
8
14
8
2
na
3
23
0
3
na
2
19
2
2
na
0
0
0
0
na
79 (35-371)
690 (417- 1,520)
25 (25-221)
na
na
0.3910
0.1690
0.3210
na
na
0.1710
0.3260
0.2500
na
na
Total captures
Location Id
Rainbow Trout
2
7
15
20
22
Less deaths
3rd pass
recaps
from
1st pass
3rd pass
recaps
from
nd
2 pass
Captured 3
consecutive
passes
Abundance
estimate
(95% CI)
Alpha
1
Alpha
2
42
Appendix 11. Electrofishing catch at 2010 sampling sites used to describe species distributions in the Crowsnest River. Bolded
rows denote 2009 preliminary sampling.
Location
ID
Upstream
from Todd
Creek (km)
All fisha
RNTR
MNWH
BKTR
BLTR
BNTR
CRTR
CTTR
LKTR
BURB
LNSC
WHSC
19
21
20
1.7
2.8
4.7
24
47
79
30
24
82
0
0
0
2
4
8
1
4
1
0
9
4
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
6
20
33
66
77
22
84
18
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
22
8.7
11.1
13.8
15.5
18.1
19.9
22.1
26.3
27.9
30.1
31.9
34.3
36.3
39.5
42.7
45.8
46.8
51.1
54.0
Total
115
244
291
178
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
207
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
85
36
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
123
196
45
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
242
167
38
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
206
192
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
282
335
102
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
439
208
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
222
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
147
35
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
184
132
18
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
156
81
116
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
206
79
196
1
0
3
5
0
1
0
1
0
286
60
32
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
97
40
60
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
1
107
66
62
4
0
28
0
0
0
0
3
1
164
20
46
2
0
10
0
1
0
0
3
0
82
30
56
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
96
50
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
63
Total
2,645
1,201
17
14
61
31
6
3
28
199
126
4,331
aRNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BKTR = brook trout, BLTR = bull trout, BNTR = brown trout, CRTR = cutthroat x
rainbow trout hybrid, CTTR = cutthroat trout, LKTR = lake trout, BURB = burbot, LNSC = longnose sucker, WHSC = white sucker
43
Falls
Appendix 12. Proportion (%) of the 2010 first pass electrofishing catch of rainbow trout
and mountain whitefish, by sampling site and size range (mm), with
evidence of hooking damage.
rainbow trout (%)
mountain whitefish (%)
Location
ID
1
All
>300
>400
>450
All
>300
>400
>450
fish
TL
TL
TL
fish
TL
TL
TL
7
40
0
na
2
no hooking damage
no hooking damage
no hooking damage
3
5
33
na
na
no hooking damage
4
3
25
na
na
no hooking damage
5
no hooking damage
no hooking damage
6
1
14
0
0
7
1
14
0
0
no hooking damage
8
1
25
0
na
no hooking damage
9
2
18
40
0
10
1
5
7
0
11
6
31
40
0
7
8
9
na
12
1
7
10
22
4
4
3
8
13
3
9
10
13
4
7
6
7
14
7
24
24
43
13
13
15
0
11
12
14
10
9
9
9
20
15
16
no hooking damage
4
17
18
14
29
2
3
9
3
na
0
0
no hooking damage
no hooking damage
no hooking damage
18
3
36
33
40
no hooking damage
19
4
33
na
na
no hooking damage
20
5
19
0
na
no hooking damage
21
5
0
0
0
no hooking damage
22
na
no hooking damage
na
44
na
na
na
The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges
the following partner for their generous support of
this project

Crowsnest River Drainage Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010

Transcription

Similar documents