University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Legacy Theses

2000 An investigation of the potential to restore native trout populations: Goat Creek, Banff national park, Alberta

Tough, Elizabeth

Tough, E. (2000). An investigation of the potential to restore native trout populations: Goat Creek, Banff national park, Alberta (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/15482 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/39554 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI

An Investigation of the Potential to Restore Native Trout Populations: Goat Creek, Banff National Park, Alberta Elizabeth Tough Masters Degm Project Faculty of Environmental Design University of Calgary National Library Bibliothique nationale 1+1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wedlington OttawaON KlAW OttawaON KIAW Canada CaMda Ywr fib vatm mwmlx#

Our W UIre rOHrma

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prster, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/tilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celIe-ci ne doivent Stre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Thanks to the EVOS faculty, particularly Dr. Grant Ross, my supen/isor, who provided just the right mix of support, critique and advice on this MDP. Dr. Ken Sato provided thoughtfbl comment on the document, and came all the way from Ottawa for the defense. Dr. Stephen Henero started me on the trail of this fascinating and fun project. And Dr- Rich Revel did what I knew he would do and threw down the gauntlet - I'm glad you had fun.

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of TransAlta Utilities Corp. and Parks Canada. Charlie Pacas from Parks Canada and Roger Drury from TransAlta not only arranged the financial support for the project, but lent their time, expertise, and insight. Thank you both.

Faculty of other departments at University of Calgary provided much appreciated support. Helen Butler from the Department of Geography lent her own field equipment. Jon Greggs of Geological Sciences granted use of laboratory facilities, and Dr. Leland Jackson from the Department of Biological Sciences lent his time. expertise, equipment and laboratory, and solved the mystery of the sediment filters that didn't filter.

The help of many professionals who answered my innumerable questions and sent weighty packages of information on up-to-the-minute developments in stream restoration is gratefully acknowiedged. Daryl Fields of BCHydro. Jeff Lutch and Mark Buktenica from the United States Park Service, and Bill Horton and Ned Homer of Idaho Fish and Game all provided great information.

Peter Eaton carried half the load of the big job of fieldwork and most of the load of field equipment. Karen Oldershaw and Glen DePaoli took a huge load off my mind by providing absolutely reliable fieldwork (and dealing admirably with the only grizzly to make an appearance). Paul Godman from TransAlta and Elaine O'Neil from Parks Canada lent their time, expertise and senses of humour to the fieldwork. Thank you all.

Thanks to Christine, who not only provided expert knowledge on benthic invertebrates, but made devastatingly good cocktails to go with very late night problem-solving sessions. And to Karen Sharp, who gives great advice and gave me a welcoming home in the West.

Carol: thanks for distracting me.

Thanks to Todd for teaching me how to sleep and saying it's okay to take a day off. 1'11 remember that.

And always, thanks to my parents, for your continued support, friendship and love. Couldn't have done it without you. ABSTRACT

This project investigated the potential to restore native fish populations and their associated habitat in Goat Creek, Banff National Park. The laws. policies and management plan for Banff National Park established the scope and goal of the research and management recommendations, which were to restore natural Row patterns in the impounded stream and to re-establish a native fish population. Changes to the fish community and habitat resulting from impoundment for hydroelectric power generation and introduction of non-native fish were determined from comparison between historical information and data gathered in the field. Field data were analyzed using preference curves for cutthroat trout and bull trout to determine the suitability of the habitat for these native fish. The analysis showed that the limiting habitat elements were poor pool and cover habitat, high summer water temperatures, and the presence of non-native brook trout. Changes to the hydrology of Goat Creek from impoundment reduced watershed area by 41.6% and reduced largest recorded annual flood by 78.8%. Extreme flow events from dam failures and stable annual flows created the existing instream habitat. Restoration of a native fish population in Goat Creek would require removing brook trout and constructing bamen to prevent their recolonization, and improving instream habitat to address limiting fadon. Increased water releases from power generation structures during the months of May, June, July, and August would mimic natural flow patterns and address the Banff National Park goal of restoring more natural Rows. As well as physical management of water flows, fish populations, and instream habitat, restoration of Goat Crsek would involve collaboration with the Alberta provincial government and creation of a public information program.

Key words: watershed planning. stream restoration, National Parks, stream impoundment, non-native fish, cutthroat trout, bull trout EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......

CHAPTER 1: INTROOUCTION......

PURPOSE ...... OBJECTIVES ...... METHODOLOGY...... Phase 1 ...... Phase 2...... Phase 3 ...... Phase 4 ...... Phase 5 ......

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT ......

TARGET SPECIES...... Cutthroat trout ...... Bull trout ...... EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT ON SALMONID HABITAT...... Flow modification...... Sediment ...... Temperature...... Riparian areas ...... Benthic community ...... Fish community ...... INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE FISH POPULATIONS...... Hybridization...... Corn petition ...... Predation ......

CHAPTER 3: RESTORATION ......

INSTREAM FLOWS...... BCHydro and the Alouette River. 8C ...... INSTREAM STRUCTURES ...... Projects using instream techniques...... RIPARIAN VEGETATION ...... REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES ...... Elemfishing ...... Chemical Piscicides...... ,...... Angling ...... CHAPTER 4: GOAT CREEK ...... 32

INTRODUCTION...... LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK...... Federal ...... Fisheries Act ...... Fisheries Act Regulations...... National Parks Act ...... Parks Policy ...... Banff National Park Management Plan ...... Provincial...... Water Act ...... Bull hut. management plan ...... TransAlta Ubl~ties...... STUDY AREA ...... Area Climate ...... HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT...... HISTORICAL CONDITIONS...... Watershed ...... Flows...... Fish and habitat ...... CURRENT HABITAT...... Representative reaches...... Data collection ...... Discharge ...... Temperature...... Survey ...... Substrate ...... Fish population ...... Instream cover ...... Riparian vegetation...... Wafer characteflstics...... Benthic invertebrates...... HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TARGET SPECIES ...... Cutthroat trout ...... Bull trout ...... Limiting Factors...... GOAT CREEK RESTORATION POTENTIAL...... Removal of non-native species ...... Flow Modification...... lnstrearn techniques ...... Riparian Areas ......

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS......

SUM MARY...... RECOMMENDATIONS...... Organizational Recommendations...... Specific Recommendations...... REFERENCES ......

APPENDIX I: Determination Of Historical Flows In Goat Creek ...... APPENDIX II: Historical Flow Data ...... APPENDIX Ill: Habitat Suitability Curves ...... Table 1 Cutthroat trout life stages and habitat needs Table 2 Bull trout life stages and habitat needs Table 3 lnstream habitat restoration techniques Table 4 Changes in hydrological regime in Goat Creek Table 5 Substrate size categories Table 6 Results of electrofishing activities Table 7 Goat Creek suitability for cutthroat trout Table 8 Habitat suitability results for cutthroat trout Table 9 Habitat suitability results for bull trout Table 10 Costs for scenario one Table 11 Costs for scenario two Table 12 Limiting factors and instream restoration techniques Table 13 Summary of issues, effects and restoration techniques

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Goat Creek Watershed Figure 2 Climate at Town of Banff Figure 3 Timeline of management activities on Goat Creek Figure 4 TransAlta's Spray River system generation system Figure 5 Changes to drainage in the Spray River watershed from impoundment Figure 6 Changes to Goat Creek hydrograph following regulation Figure 7 Representative reach 1 Figure 8 Representative reach 2 Figure 9 Representative reach 3 Figure 10 Goat Creek hydrograph summer 1998 Figure 11 Goat Creek summer hydrograph 1999 Figure 12 Reach 1 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1 999 Figure 13 Reach 2 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1999 Figure 14 Reach 3 maximum and minimum temperatures with comparison to Healy Creek Figure 15 Goat Creek Reach 1 figure 16 Goat Creek Reach 2 figure 17 Goat Creek Reach 3 Figure 18 Goat Creek percent substrate composition by reach Figure 19 Percent composition by fork length of Goat Creek brook trout population Figure 20 Percent instream cover by reach Figure 21 Shrub species for Goat Creek Figure 22 Herb species for Goat Creek Figure 23 Hydrographs for scenarios one and two EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Indigenous salmonid populations in Alberta have declined over the last century, Among these populations, cutthroat trout and bull trout have disappeared from much of their original habitat in the province as they have elsewhere in western Canada and the United States. Studies base this decline on habitat degradation from human manipulations and on the introduction and subsequent dominance of non-native fish species. The purpose of this project is to identify, assess, and recommend stream habitat management activities that address effects of impoundment and non-native species stocking for salmonids native to Alberta. Goat Creek. in Banff National Park. provides a case study on which to focus investigations. The laws, policies and management plan for Banff National Park established the scope and goal of the research and management recommendations, which were to restore natural flow patterns in the impounded stream and to re-establish a native fish population. Parks Canada's definition of ecological integrity determined the context for this project.

Restoration of degraded habitat and fish populations needs to focus broadly, on activities affecting watershed processes rather than narrowly on a single stream channel. To restore impounded streams populated with non-native fish. several techniques are available. Flow augmentation. either overall or to mimic natural hydrographs, will increase useable habitat area and redistribute substrate to create more diverse instream habitat. Successful methods to remove non-native fish include electrofishing and use of poisons. Placement of instream structures or woody debris creates habitat both directly, in providing fish cover, and indirectly, in affecting scouring and deposition of sediments.

Goat Creek is part of the TransAlta Utilities Corporation (TAU) power generation system on the Spray River watershed, adjacent to Banff National Park (BNP). Current habitat and fish populations in Goat Creek are the result of changes over the last 47 years since impaundment and stocking of non-native trout. Historical analysis of Goat Creek indicates that impoundment structures reduced watershed area, annual floods, minimum discharges. and mean annual discharge to varying degrees. The most important flow change, from the perspective of the Banff National Park Management Plan, is the change from a natural hydrograph, with peak flows from May to August, to a steady discharge over the year. Brook trout stocked into Goat Pond by Alberta fisheries managers displaced native cutthroat trout and other native fish species and now dominate the fish community in Goat Creek

Habitat data gathered from representative reaches on Goat Creek and analyzed using Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) indicate that current habitat for cutthroat and bull trout is limited by lack of good quality pools. Other habitat elements rate high on the HSI scales for both species and all life stages.

To meet Parks Canada's goal of restoring ecological integrity to Goat Creek, non-native fish would have to be removed, a native cutthroat trout population stocked, and flows would have to be augmented in the historic high flow season from May to August to mimic the natural hydrograph. To successfully eradicate non-native trout species, barriers to fish movement would have to be constructed on flow outlets on TAU facilities.

Because Goat Creek originates on provincially managed lands, management of Goat Creek falls not only to BNP, but also to the Province of Alberta, and to TransAlta Utilities. All three organizations have commitments in policy and law to managing environmental impacts on aquatic environments and to working with neighbouring jurisdictions.

Recommendations for restoring Goat Creek: The recommendations provide a framework for planning if Parks Canada chooses restoration of Goat Creek as an element of its goal to restore ecological integrity. Organizational 1. It is recommended that any restoration plans for Goat Creek focus on restoring ecological integrity by restoring natural structure and functions. 2. It is recommended that Parks Canada create a public information program and public consultation program to educate the public on its plans to restore aquatic ecosystems and to encourage support for such programs. 3. It is recommended that restoration potential for Goat Creek be reviewed in context with other projects investigating restoration potential on streams in BNP. 4. It is recommended that Parks Canada collaborate with provincial fisheries managers on any restoration plan for Goat Creek.

Specific 5. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TAU use the information in this report on historic conditions in Goat Creek in defining restoration goals. 6. It is recommended that Parks Canada work with TAU to determine feasibility of building structures to block fish passage through flow outlets. 7. It is recommended that Parks Canada investigate the possibility of using piscicides in BNP. 8. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TransAlta Utilities work together to define a water budget and determine desired flow amounts. 9. It is recommended that Parks Canada include use of large woody debris in the stream to work in concert with increased flows and accelerate habitat formation. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Indigenous salmonid populations in Alberta have declined over the last century. Among these populations, cutthroat trout and bull trout have disappeared from much of their original habitat in the province as they have elsewhere in western Canada and the United States. Investigations of such populations concluded that habitat loss and degradation are primary concerns (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995). Others (Behnke in Mclntyre and Rieman 1995) concluded that 'brown trout. brook trout, and rainbow trout, along with changes in flow and water quality were responsible for the demise of the westslope cutthroat trout in [drainages it originally inhabited]".

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project is to identify and assess stream habitat management and enhancement activities that address effects of impoundment and non-native species stocking on native salmonids in Banff National Park and to recommend management actions for restoring fish habitat and an indigenous fish population.

The National Parks Act, Parks Policy, and the Banff National Park Management Plan all identify ecological integrity as a goal in Park management. Parks Canada defines ecological integrity as:

"the condition of an ecosystem where 1) the structure and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity, and 2) the ecosystem's biological diversity and supporting processes are likely to persistn

This project examines restoration potential for Goat Creek within the context of this definition of ecological integrity. The structure (the fish community and its associated habitat) of the Goat Creek ecosystem has been affected by stocking CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

of non-native species and regulation of water flow. The effects of flow impoundment have altered the functions associated with natural discharge patterns and sediment supply (including instream habitat creation and inputs from riparian areas).

OBJECTIVES

The study objectives are: To investigate the potential to improve fish habitat so that indigenous fish populations can be restored and maintained; to identify the effects on salrnonid habitat and native salmonids of stream impoundment and introduction of non-native fish species; to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of various restoration strategies, including direct habitat redamation techniques and flow alteration; and to use this assessment to make recommendations on management actions for restoration of fish habitat and an indigenous fish population.

METHODOLOGY

Phase 1 Phase 1 was a literature review of native salrnonids in Alberta and their habitat needs; of effects of stream impoundment on salmonid habitat; and of effects of introducing non-native fish species on indigenous salmonids. These reviews provided a context and guide on which to base further investigation.

Phase 2 In phase 2 1 broadened the literature review to identify restoration strategies for stream habitats. I focussed on those strategies and activities that specifically address the effects of flow alteration and presence of introduced species identified in phase one. Restoration strategies focussed on modifications to flow. physical changes to stream channels. and re-introduction of native salmonids. CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION

Phase 3 To illustrate effects of human uses on fish habitat I completed a case study of Goat Creek in Banff National Park (BNP). Both impoundment and introduction of non-native species have affected the fish community and habitat in this stream. Field data collection provided the basis for describing the current state of Goat Creek; historical records identified forces that created that state. This case study put the results of the literature review in context and sewed as a concrete example of human stresses and biological responses in stream habitat needed to ground restoration work in reality. Historical information on past biological capacity guided in defining targets for restoration (Rabeni and Sowa 1996; Ebersole. Liss, and Frissell 1996).

Phase 4 Phase 4 involved investigating the feasibility of successfully implementing the various restoration strategies. In the United States and in western Canada. where native trout are in decline. numerous projects have begun processes for restoration (Young 1995; Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 1996). Research into these programs. and discussions with specialists in the field pointed to successful and unsuccessful measures. This research focussed on projects addressing the effects of impoundment and of competition with introduced species. However. the research also investigated feasibility of restoration strategies in the political, economic, and social context by identifying resistance to or non-participation in such restoration projects by those with a stake in the outcome. Ways in which any such resistance has been mediated through discussion or education were also identified.

Phase 5 To prepare recommendations for restoring fish habitat. I assessed potential restoration strategies according to likelihood of success in addressing the effects identified in previous phases. The assessment was based on my interpretation of the results of the discussion with specialists, the literature, from the CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION examination of similar projects, and from information about Goat Creek. It included aspects of habitat ecology. hydroelectric power generation and engineering, and economics. The assessment indicated which potential restoration strategies are the most practical to pursue in different situations as well as those specifically aimed at restoring Goat Creek. The recommendations are based on this assessment. Also. I included in the recommendations. ways in which deficiencies identified in methods could be addressed. CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT

TARGET SPECIES

To focus this study I selected cutthroat trout and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as the target species for habitat restoration, since both are native to Alberta and are in decline.

'Explorers and surveyors of the late 1800s wrote that trout 'of two kinds' abounded 'in all the streams from the Bow River to heBoundary Line' [Montana border] in Alberta. The fish are recognizable in written descriptions from that time as bull trout and cutthroat troutn (Mayhood 1998).

Westslope cutthroat (0. clarki lewisi), the subspecies native to Banff National Park (BNP), and bull trout coevolved, resulting in some unique characteristics in the cutthroat trout. The westslope subspecies differs from the other subspecies by being less piscivorous (Trotter 1987). possibly as a result of coevolving with the highly piscivomus bull trout. Studies (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; McPhail and Baxter 1996) have shown that sympatric populations of bull and cutthroat trout populations segregate regarding use of habitat and prey meaning the two can coexist in the same stream. Both bull and cutthroat trout are vulnerable to displacement through competition by non-native trout species. Brook trout and other introduced species have displaced native trout in many areas of Canada and the United States (Behnke 1992; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; McPhail and Baxter 1997; Meyer 1998; Buktenica 1998). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

Cutthroat Trout

The species cutthroat trout consists of 13 recognized subspecies, all geographically distinct and with genetic variations (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Trotter 1987; Behnke 1992). The subspecies native to Alberta is the westslope cutthroat trout (0.clarki lewisi), who's native range covers western Montana. northern Idaho and southern Alberta (Trotter 1987). The Bow River drainage is the northern limit of the westslope cutthroat trout range (Mayhood 1998). The westslope subspecies is less piscivorous than other cutthroat trout (Trotter 1987; Behnke 1992), with a diet of aquatic invertebrates. Behnke (1992) states that the westslope cutthroat trout is not piscivorous because it coevolved with the highly piscivorous bull trout.

Across the historic range the subspecies is in decline, as are most of the other 12 subspecies (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Behnke 1992; Banff-Bow Valley Study 1992). Habitat degradation and fragmentation. introduction of non-native species, and angling pressure account for the decline of all subspecies of cutthroat trout everywhere in its range (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Schindler and Pacas 1996; Thompson and Rahel1996). Road and rail development and hydroelectric impoundment cause habitat degradation and fragmentation in Banff National Park (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). These developments affect instream flows, alter the natural pattern of floods, and change instream habitat and water quality. The introduction and subsequent dominance of non-native fish species alters the composition of the native fish population through hybridization, competition and predation. The Banff-Bow Valley Study (1996) found that development impacts and the effects of over fishing reduced the populations of cutthroat trout in 8NP. Cutthroat trout, once abundant in the Bow Valley are now virtually absent from the Bow River below Lake Louise (Banff- Bow Valley Study 1996). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). which monitors World Heritage Sites, considers westslope cutthroat trout a Species of Special Concern (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). Westslope cutthroat trout are under consideration for designation as threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. Cutthroat trout habitat requirements are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Cutthroat trout life stages and habitat needs (Information summarized from Mudry and Green 1976; Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Trotter 1987; Borek and Rahel1991; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Herger et al. 1996; and Young 1996)

Life Stage Dodrabla habitat features All Streamside vegetation for canopy shade, allochthonous input, and bank stabilization Dissdved oxygen levels between 7 and 9mg/L pH range of 7-9, with 7.5-8.5 as optimal A base flow of 50% of average annual daily flow Cdd water with a temperature range of 7-16°C with an optimal ramof 9-12°C Adult Water velocities of 0.14.3m/s and depth greater than 15cm Cutthroat trout begin to Cover for hiding. resting and feeding in the form of overhanging mature at age 3 but vegetation, undercut banks, deep water, and surface turbulence usually spawn first at age Substrate suitable for aquatic insects composed mostly of rubble 4 or 5. They spawn From with tow percentage of fines March to July when water Poo1:riffle ratio of 1:1 to provide both resting areas and food temperatures reach 10°C production areas Juvenile Water velocities of 0.25-O.Sm/s and depths of 45-75cm Prefer instream rather than streamside cover in the form of main channel pools. substrate cover, and log jams Low substrate embeddedness to allow fish to enter substrate for winter cover Fry Lower velocities and shallower water than other life stages, with Fry emerge roughly two velocities

Bull Trout

Original range of bull trout covered most of Oregon. Washington. Idaho. Montana, and British Columbia, extending into western Alberta and southern Yukon and Northwest Territories. Now. however. its range has contracted in the south and populations are in decline over its remaining range (McPhail and Baxter 1996). Bull trout are a member of the char species along with brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and like all char it is a fall spawner (US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) 1998).

Bull trout are listed as threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act (US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) 1999). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) considers bull trout an indicator species whose condition reflects the state of the ecosystem (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). Bull trout are Alberta's Provincial fish and are listed as a Species of Special Concern in Alberta (Alberta Environment n.d.). The Fish and Wildlife Management Division of Alberta Environment prepared a Bull Trout Species Management and Recovery Plan in 1995 to address population declines in bull trout. A zero limit on bull trout and an information and education program, as well as plans to protect and restore bull trout habitat are all designed to increase bull trout populations.

Bull trout in Banff National Park are subjected to the same stresses of habitat degradation as cutthroat trout. Like cutthroat trout. bull trout spawn in tributaries that are now modified by hydroelectric dams and road and rail construction. Bull trout are vulnerable to displacement by brook trout. In stream for which data exists, brook trout now occupy 100% of bull trout habitat (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). Brook trout reproduce much younger than bull trout and populations of brook trout grow quickly (Colorado DNR 1998; Buktenica 1998). Brook trout hybridize with bull trout to produce sterile offspring, further limiting the numbers of bull trout (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; Buktenica 1998; Meyer 1998). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

Table 2: Bull Trout life stages and habitat needs (Information summarized from Pratt 1985; Shepard 1985; Carl 1985; McPhail and Baxter 1996; and Fernet and Bjomson 1997) I ~ifestage I Desirable Habitat features I Temperature < 15°C Populations exist at low densities. Base flows high percentage of average l annual daily flow for winter cover habitat and redd cover Adult Deep pools for cover and winter cover Stream resident populations rarely grow larger Cold temperatures than 300mm and average 200mm. Presence of prey population optimal Highly piscivorous. favouring mountain whitefish . Depths greater man O.Sm (Prosopium williamson~or other bull trout Velocities between 0.1 and 0.4 rn/s Juvenile Pools for early summer cover with 1 Age 1+, 2+,and 3+ velocities 0.1 -0.25rn/s and depths 0.1 to As they grow, juveniles change their feeding 1.Om habits from aquatic insects to small fish once they Pools associated with submerged cover reach -1 1Omm. Temperature 42OC They grow rapidly, often reaching 60-70mm by the . Coarse substrate end of the first summer. Cover - large woody debris dams that allow flow through, undercut banks FV Large loose gravel for interstitial cover Eggs hatch after 51 days(at 10°C) to 126 (at 2OC) along banks days, with better survival rates at lower Shallow water 0.1 to 0.4m deep and low temperatures velocity (

EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT ON SALMONID HABITAT

Dams are one of the main causes of stream habitat degradation and elimination of lotic habitat in North America (Holden 1980; Petts 1989; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Bain and Trawnichek 1996). Damming results in a direct loss of free flowing river habitat and creates barriers to upstream spawning areas (Petts 1984; Prowse and Conly 1996)). Reservoirs created in place of streams change the habitat from a lotic to a lentic environment. Dam effects on fish and fish habitat are both immediate and delayed (Holden 1980; Prowse and Conly 1996). Immediate, or first order impacts block upstream and downstream migration either to headwater streams and lakes or to downstream rivers and lakes. Second order impacts follow, with low flows affecting habitat structure. This study focuses on the downstream effects of dams, specifically hydroelectric structures. The downstream effects of dams and associated structures include Row and temperature changes, disruption of the sediment regime, and the resulting effects on habitat structure and the organisms it supports. These effects are described in the following sections.

Flow Modification

Dams alter water flow into downstream river reaches by reducing flows, dewatering, or flooding stream reaches. If water flows are generated through turbines, flows can fluctuate hourly, daily, monthly, and annually. Large daily fluctuations can preclude the development of off channel refuges or deep, slow pools required by stream fish (Holden 1980). With short-term flow fluctuations, the rate of flow increase or decrease is a most important factor in determining impacts on downstream environments (Petts 1984). Rapid increases in flow can increase streambank erosion and lead to loss of riparian habitat (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) 1998). lnstream flow fluctuations favour adaptable species, often reducing species diversity and biomass (Schindler and Pacas 1996). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

Lower flows reduce the area of useable habitat, as water depth and stream width decrease (Petts 1984). Also, at lower flows, the length of the deepest part of the stream (the thalweg) decreases because the thalweg meanders less at lower flows (Herger et al. 1996). Lower flows combined with altered sediment regimes change channel structure. Depending on the stream environment, the channel may become shallower or deeper based on flow rates and availability of sediment (Petts 1984; FISRWG 1998).

Sediment

Flow regulation reduces flood magnitudes and lowen the ability of flows to move sediment, resulting in accumulation of fine material in the substrate (Petts 1984; FISRWG 1998). Channels aggrade when there is a source of sediments and the reduced flows are not sufficient enough to carry them away (Bovee 1982; Petts 1984). Impoundments isdate sediment sources coming from upstream areas (Ward and Stanford 1985; Prowse and Conly 1996). Sediments previously available from upstream sources used in shaping the stream are reduced as they collect behind the dam (Holden 1980; Petts 1984). If flows remain great enough to transport sediment, the channel will degrade since no new sediment is available to replenish supply (Bovee 1982; Prowse and Conly 1996; FlSRWG 1998). The release of clear, sediment-free water from reservoirs into channels with transportable bed materials can lead to erosion. Such channel degradation and scour only occur, though, if regulated flows are sufficient to move substrate. Both channel degradation and aggradation occur under natural conditions. However, under natural conditions, inputs of new sediment are ongoing. In an impounded stream, when sediment is removed and not replaced, the channel becomes armoured (Armitage 1984). If the channel aggrades under modified flows, sediment collects in interstitial spaces in the sediment and reduces spawning area and habitat for benthic invertebrates (Armitage 1984;Ward and Stanford 1985). The reduction in sediments that create stream structure reduces habitat variability below dams, especially the slower, fine-bottomed pool areas CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

required by young fish as resting areas (HoMen 1980; Petts 1989; Swales 1989). Without new sources of sediment, the natural riffle:nm pattern that provides the balance of habitat for fish and benthic invertebrates can be lost (Swales 1989; FISRWG 1998).

The effects of lowered sediment input from upstream sources diminish further downstream of the dam as other sources of sediment from tributary streams and channel-bank erosion enter the stream (Petts 1984; Prowse and Conly 1996).

Temperature

Depending on the use of the dam and the water flows different effects will be observed (Holden 1980). If the reservoir outlet releases epilimnion-level water receiving bodies will experience higher temperatures than normal. If the outlet is in the hypolimnion levels of the reservoir, cooler water will flow through and depress the temperature in the downstream river (Holden 1980; Prowse and Conly 1996; Schindler and Pacas 1996; FISRWG 1998). Also, dams that create relatively constant flows can result in constant temperatures. Unnaturally low flows allow water to warm up and hold less dissolved oxygen (Armitage 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985; FISRWG 1998). a limiting factor for salmonid populations (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Schindler and Pacas 1996). Colder waters from hypolimnion-level discharge are often oxygen poor.

Changes in the temperature regime can favour one species over another, interfere with seasonal triggers to migration and spawning. alter the productivity of the stream, and change the availability of invertebrate organisms (Petts 1984; Prowse and Conly 1996; Schindler and Pacas 1996). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

Riparian Areas

The "energy supplied by riparian vegetation drives the stream community and, in part. determines its structure" (Risser and Hanis 1989). Up to 95% of the energy available to small streams comes from riparian vegetation (Risser and Ham's 1989). The interaction of flooding, sedimentation and flow changes alters the characteristics of the riparian community (Petts 1984; Schindler and Pacas 1996; FISRWG 1998). Channel changes below dams affect the rate of recolonization and development of riparian and floodplain vegetation (Petts 1984). Under natural conditions, floods erode fine sediments from the channel and deposit them on the bank, replenishing the soil layer and providing soil and nutrients to the riparian plant community. Established riparian vegetation traps sediments from overland flow and reduce bank erosion and channel change (Petts 1984). "River impoundment can alter [riparian areas because] .. . the depletion of fine suspended solids would reduce the rate of over-bank accretion, so that new floodplains would take longer and longer to mature, and the soils would remain infertile" (Petts 1984: 127). Thus recolonization of historic floodplains by riparian vegetation is slowed due to lack of soil and nutrient deposition.

Benthic Community

Flow and temperature are the most important factors controlling the benthic invertebrate community (Arrnitage 1984). Flow regulation affects the benthic invertebrate community through interactions between flows and temperatures (Petts 1984; Schindler and Pacas 1996). Reduced flows result in lower velocity which allows water temperatures to rise. and reduced wetted width which directly reduces amount of instream habitat (Ward and Stanford 1985; Arrnitage 1989). Sedimentation in interstitial spaces in the substrate also reduces the total amount of habitat available to benthic invertebrates (Arrnitage 1989). In comparison studies between natural and dammed streams, impounded streams exhibited reduced diversity of benthos. alterations of the mmmunlty composition, and CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION higher standing crops (Petts 1984; Henricson and Sjoberg 1984). Increased standing crops are associated with stabilized discharges and higher water temperatures (Mudry and Green 1976; Ward and Stanford 1985). Species adapted to naturally fluctuating temperatures will suffer in habitat with more stable temperatures (Armitage 1984). Unnatural flow fluctuations, low summer water temperatures and low DO levels result in decreased standing crops (Petts 1984). Cornmunlty composition changes as habitat conditions change and favour one species over another. Discharge levels affect the availability of food, resulting in changes in the dominance of different functional feeding groups (Henricson and Sjoberg 1984). Grazers will increase if instream algae growUl is favoured by higher temperatures. while numbers of shredders will decrease with lower amount of large woody debris (LWD) avaifable from riparian areas (Henricson and Sjoberg 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985). Allochthonous input is important in the productivity in stream and thus to the benthos (Petts 1984). Reduction in stream width from much lower discharges will leave bank areas unvegetated. perhaps for decades, limiting inputs from the riparian ecosystem.

Fish Community

"River flow is one of the primary environmental characteristics inff uencing riverine fish populations .. . major changes to the natural flow regime can have severe effects on fish stocks: (Swales 1989: 189). Although dams can have positive effects on fish habitat by lowering levels of suspended sediment, regulating temperature, and regulating large floods and preventing drought. flow modification and associated effects often cause changes in fish populations (Holden 1980; Petts 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985; Petts 1989; Swales 1989; FISRWG 1998). Discharge directly affects width, depth, velocity. and variations and timing of flows. Reduced discharge means less useable habitat. Changes to timing and amounts of flow and to temperature result in changes in fish community structure (Ward and Stanford 1985). The standing crop can either increase or decrease depending on habitat conditions and species present (Ward CHAE'TER 3 RESTORATION

and Stanford 1985; Prowse and Conly 1996). 'Exotic fish .. . find suitable conditions below dams where indigenous species have been reduced or eliminated by the altered thermal, sediment and flow conditions (Ward and Stanford 1985).

Dams are one of the main causes of stream habitat degradation and removal in North America (Holden 1980; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Bain and Trawnichek 1996). Damming results in a direct loss of free flowing river habitat and creates barriers to upstream spawning areas (Petts 1984). Reservoirs created in place of streams change the habitat from a lotic to a lentic environment. Dam effects on fish and fish habitat are both immediate and delayed (Holden 1980). Immediate, or first order impacts, block upstream and downstream migration either to headwater streams and lakes or to downstream rivers and lakes. Second order impacts follow, with low flows affecting habitat structure. This study focuses on the downstream effects of dams, specifically hydroelectric structures. These effects indude flow and temperature changes, disruption of the sediment regime, and the resulting effects on habitat structure and the organisms it supports.

INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE FISH POPULATIONS

Non-native trout species have been stocked in water in western North America for decades, usually to improve angling potential (Wooding 1994). Historically fisheries managers in Canada, the United States, and as far off as Chile and Argentina. responded to angler wishes by stocking more preferred species such as brook trout (Wooding 1994; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Schindler and Pacas 1996). Wooding (1994: 102) spells out the attitude, saying, 'brook trout. because of their unblemished reputation, endearing characteristics and adaptability to foreign waters, are among our most successful piscatorial goodwill ambassadorsn. Historically, records of fish stocking in provincial waters in Alberta are not well documented (Stelfox pers. camm.), but widespread CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION introduction of eastern brook trout into lakes and rivers in the southwestern part of the province is noted in fisheries records. Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were also introduced in the decades up to 1987 (Stelfox pers. comm.). Similar, better documented, introductions occurred in BNP (Thompson and Wiebe 1974; Pams pers. comm.). As a result of these introductions, many lakes and rivers in BNP now support populations dominated by non-native species (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996).

Three types of effects can occur when non-native species are introduced into waters with native fish populations: hybridization, competition. and predation.

Hybridization

The main factor differentiating trout (cutthroat tmut) from char (bull trout) is spawning time, with char spawning in the fall and trout in the spring and summer (Wooding 1994). Spawning timing determines which species will be most at risk from hybridization with which non-native fish. Non-native fish historically introduced into Alberta include lake and brook tmut, both chars, and rainbow trout, a trout. Rainbow and cutthroat tmut will hybridize, as will brook and bull trout. Hybridization with non-native species alters genetic strains of native fish. This has happened with the various subspecies of cutthroat trout and bull trout across their historic ranges (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Buktenica 1998). Brook trout and bull trout readily hybridize to produce sterile offspring. reducing the reproductive success of bull trout (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; BuMenica 1998; Meyer 1998; Temple et al. 1998).

Competition

The principal competitors of salmonids are other salmonids because of overlaps in requirements for space and food (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980). Introducing species into waters where they did not evolve means that the new CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION mixed populations have not been subjected to natural selection that would have produced differences in resource use and thus lessened the effects of competition (Fausch 1988). Therefore combinations of fish species, such as westslope cutthroat and brook trout, compete strongly for limited resources. The cutthroat trout does not persist for long after introduction of brook trout in most areas (Fausch 1988; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995). Brook trout also dominate bull trout in most of the bull trout's original habitat (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; USMS 1998). Brook trout begin reproducing as young as 18 months so populations can quickly grow and take over available habitat. This factor combined with the potential for reducing bull trout productivity through hybridization favours growth of brook trout populations and they supplant bull trout populations (USFWS n.d.; Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996)

"Competition among streamdwelling salmonids usually involves aggressive interactions among individuals in an attempt to secure optimal sites for feeding and predator avoidance" (DeStaso and Rahel 1994). Therefore the more dominant fish succeed. Brook trout often displace cutthroat trout and their dominance is influenced by several factors. Since brook trout spawn in fall, their young emerge in the spring. Cutthroat trout spawn in the spring and their young emerge in the fall. This gives young of the year brook trout a size advantage over cutthroat trout of the same age, with differences of up to 20 mm (DeStaso and Rahel 1994). This greater size gives brook trout young of the year a competitive advantage and young of the year cutthroat trout may experience increased mortality over natural levels because they are unable to compete (DeStaso and Rahel 1994; FISRWG 1998). Since natural mortality rates are roughly 99%. any increase could quickly decimate a population (Hunter 1991). Also, brook trout mature one to two years earlier than cutthroat trout and thus produce more offspring (DeStaso and Rahel 1994; Wooding 1994).

Habitat features also play a role in competition between native and introduced species. CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

"In general, species alterations may be associated with three impacts: the establishment of lethal conditions for one, or more, life-history stage or stages; the alteration of environmental conditions in favour of a competitor, prey or predator; or the introduction of exotics either intentionally or accidentally" (Petts 1984236).

The interaction of flow regulation effects and the presence of non-native species can have great impacts on native populations. Since native populations evolve in a stream habitat with naturally fluctuating flows and specific conditions, changing those conditions stresses the population (FISRWG 1998).

"The introduction of exotic species has induced the local extinction of many native species which, although reduced in population, might otherwise have maintained a reproductive stock under the regulated flow regime" (Petts 1984).

"As the habitat becomes marginal for the [native] species. it becomes more preferred for the exotic competition. At that point, the [native] species becomes more detrimentally impacted by the exotic species than by the habitat change" (Holden 1980).

Griffith (1972) and De Staso and Rahel (1994) found that water temperature and velocity affected interactions between native and introduced salmonids. DeStaso and Rahel(1994) found that at 10°C cutthroat trout used much higher stream velocities than brook trout, but at 20°C they used similar stream velocities. Thus there is less overlap of habitat use at lower temperatures and DeStaso and Rahel noted that the species appear to be equal competitors at lower temperatures. Griffiths' 1972 study showed differences in habitat use related to velocity. Cutthroat trout used areas of low velocity when brook trout were not present, but not when brook trout were present. Therefore in streams with lower velocities, with brook trout present, cutthroat trout will have less habitat available than at higher velocities. Both studies note that brook trout tend to dominate in streams with low gradient and low velocity, often at low elevations. De Staso and Rahel (1994) also note that in some streams brook trout do not displace cutthroat trout. They attribute this to low winter flows dewatering redds and freezing of eggs due to anchor ice. Cutthroat trout redds are not vulnerable during winter, CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION and those fish are better adapted to fast current and lower temperatures in high elevation streams (Griffth 1972; De Staso and Rahel 1994).

Predation Some introduced species. including brook trout and lake trout, are piscivorous (Wooding 1994). Westslope cutthroat trout, having evolved with piscivorous bull trout, feeds on aquatic invertebrates (Trotter 1987; Behnke 1992). This trait may make them more vulnerable to domination by mare piscivorous introduced species. Bull trout population levels have declined since the introduction of non- native species because anglers saw the piscivorous bull trout as a threat to the introduced species that were their favoured targets (Alberta Environment n.d.). Large scale removal of bull trout by anglers to protect non-native stocks led to rapid population declines. CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

"All restorations are exercises in approximation and in reconstruction of naturalistic rather than natural assemblages of plants and animals with their physical environmentsn(National Research Council 1992: 18)

In the 1930s, an emphasis on conservation and preservation of wet lands emerged in the United States. In 1934, the United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries began a nationwide program of stream suweys and habitat improvement projects (Hunter 1991). Even at that time, though, some wonied that enthusiasm for instream works would not address limiting factors (Hunter 1991). Limiting facton on fish populations were not identified and thus little benefit resulted from the works. In 1952, the United States Forest Sewice produced a fish stream improvement handbook that incorporated lessons learned from past mistakes (Hunter 1991). They recognized that fewer, better designed works placed after an evaluation of impacts on the stream, would be more successful. In 1967, the Guidelines for the Manaaement of Trout Stream Habitat in Wisconsin, by Ray R. White and O.M. Brynildson took the process further (Hunter 1991). The guidelines emphasized pre-project planning and focused on bank stability, recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of stream improvement (Hunter 1991).

Fisheries managers now stress a holistic approach that involves project planning, defining clear objectives, correctly identifying limiting factors on stream habitat, and post-project monitoring (Bmokes et al. 1996; FISRWG 1998; British Columbia Ministry of Environment 1994; Bozek and Rahel 1991). Habitat restoration focuses less on building instream habitat structures and more on a land use planning approach. The National Research Council (1992) states that restoration should begin with improved land management practices that allow natural restoration to occur, such as erosion control, grazing management and flow management. CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

In defining restoration objectives, decisions must be made about the desired future condition: whether it should be pristine, naturalistic, or aesthetically pleasing (Brookes and Sear 1996). Historical analysis of watershed characteristics, instrearn habitat. and fish populations points to causes of degradation and can help in defining future scenarios and setting realistic and appropriate goals (Kondolf and Downs 1996; Ebersole et al. 1997).

To restore streams. managers must have an understanding of fish habitat needs and identify the factors that liml fish populations. Once identified, limiting factors can be specifically addressed (Bozek and Rahel 1991; FISRWG 1998). When limiting factors are not correctly identified, restoration may not be successful if limiting attributes are not addressed (Bustard 1984; Stream Enhancement Guide 1980).

To restore streams affected by flow regulation, non-native species presence. and degraded habitat several restoration techniques can be used. An assessment of instream flow needs and capabilities addresses overall watershed issues, as well as instream habitat; instream habitat structures improve habitat directly; and methods to eradicate or reduce nonnative species may be necessary for reestablishment of native fish populations.

INSTREAM FLOWS

Flows below dams are reduced from historic levels causing changes in instream and riparian habitat (Petts 1984; FISRWG 1998). As part of a restoration effort. capabilities and needs for increased flow need to be addressed. Bain and Trawnichek (1996) confirmed that enhancing river flows resulted in a predicted faunal restoration. A multi-agency effort (FISRWG 1998) in the United States concludes that

"The modification of operation approaches, where possible, in combination with the application of properly designed and applied best management practices. can

2 1 CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

reduce the impacts caused by dams on downstream riparian and floodplain habitats".

Methods to determine instream flow needs developed in the 1970s to address conflicts between water user values. including recreational, aesthetic, fisheries, and industrial users (Petts 1984; Stalnaker et al. 1995; Cardwell et al. 1996). Older methods of assessment often resulted in recommendations for minimum flows in streams. Newer methods assess the instream effects of alternative development scenarios and determine minimum and optimum flows considering carrying capacity for fish populations.

Ways to determine instream flows range from the simple, involving no field data gathering, to detailed, requiring large amounts of field data, fish habitat requirements. and sophisticated computer programs. Incremental methodologies for balancing instream flow needs with recreational users and industry needs allow for flexibility and are used for bargaining in highly controversial situations. The method can be expensive and time-consuming, but is based on fish needs and habitat variables (Bovee 1982; Stalnaker et al. 1995). In situations where there is little controversy, standard-setting measures based on historical water flows can and have been applied (Stalnaker et al. 1995; FISRWG 1998).

In standard setting techniques, hydrological records are analysed to determine flows. For a minimum flow, one method selects the median flow for the lowest flow month as adequate throughout the year. another uses median monthly flows to mimic an natural flow pattern (Stalnaker et al. 1995; FISRWG 1998).

The lnstream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) is a procedure for determining instream flows when multiple users with varying needs and values are included in the process. lFIM uses two types of tools to display effects on habitat for different flow levels. One tool uses statistical analysis relating standing crop of fish to environmental features in the stream. The other links hydraulics with fish behaviour (Bovee 1982; Stalnaker et al. 1995). calculating C-R 3 RESTORATION

amounts of different quality habitat at various flows by using suitability criteria. Several suitability cunres have been developed for various species (Stalna ker 1980; Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Fernet and Bjomson 1997). These look at each habitat element separately and assign values between zero and one, one being optimum, to levels of, or presence of each habitat element as they relate to each species (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; FISRWG 1998; Stalnaker et al. 1995). Both tools require large amounts of data and produce stream-specific results.

Water budgets are another method to manage flows for multiple users, developed in the United States (Stalnaker et al. 1995). Water budgets allot a portion of water stored in a reservoir for fisheries benefit uses that could be released when most needed. This concept is now considered during evaluation of water storage projects in the United States (Stalnaker et al. 1995) and in British Columbia (BCHydm 1998).

BCHydro and the Alouette River, British Columbia

BCHydro operates a hydroelectric facility on the Alouette River in southern British Columbia. Impoundment structures built in the 1920s greatly lowered flows in the river from historic levels; however, flows are stable, since generating facilities release water from turbines into another river. In 1995, in response to community concerns about the state of the habitat and fish population in the Alouette River, BCHydro agreed to increase base flows from 0.566 m3/s (20 cfs) to 1.981 m3/s (70 cfs) until the development of a formal Water Use Plan. To develop the Water Use Plan, the Alouette Stakeholder Committee was struck, which included members from BCHydro, community groups, and all levels of government. This committee reached agreement on all major aspects of the Water Use Plan based on five objectives that addressed economic, recreational, ecological, and scientific issues. To measure water use and ecological effects they considered the amount of high quality fish habitat and the similarity of the hydrograph to a natural hydrograph. Also, recognizing levels of uncertainty in CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

existing knowledge of fish habitat in the river, the committee proposed a flexible and adaptive management plan. To allow such flexibility the committee proposed a water budget that would allow modifications to agreed upon flows, providing for flood protection, normal fish water releases, flushing flows, and monitoring. The annual budget is set at $440,000 and within that budget, over a four year cycle, the Alouette Management Committee can manage flows for greatest effect. Studies to assess fish habitat and population health and to monitor effects of flow increases are ongoing (BCHydro 1996).

INSTREAM STRUCTURES

Some fisheries managers have criticized the use of instream structures since the 1930s, saying that such structures do not address the causes of degradation, and provide only a band-aid solution (Hunter 1991; Beschta et al. 1994). Beschta at al. (1994) believe the emphasis on using instream structures stems from various reasons ranging from political pressures that limit solutions, funding limitations and management styles that focus on quantifiable results, a reductionist perspective, and limited understanding of ecological processes. They conclude that abusive land practices cannot be addressed by structural additions to stream channels and that restoration should focus on the larger scale of land use management.

However, instream structures can be used to improve habitat quality in streams degraded by low flows due to regulation, along with a wider management approach (Petts 1989; Swales 1989). Recovery of degraded streams with trout populations at risk can be accelerated using instream habitat restoration techniques that are based on an understanding of hydrology, channel characteristics, fish habitat requirements, and limiting factors (House 1996). lnstrearn structures can reproduce key characteristics of productive trout streams, including habitat diversity and cover (BC MELP/MoF 1994; Bmokes et al. 1996). CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION lnstream structures can create pools. provide hiding cover. improve substrate for spawning and benthic habitat, encourage riparian vegetation growth, and help regulate water temperature. Identification of limiting factors of fish populations is critical in success of restoration efforts using instream structures. Efforts to improve pool habitat for adult fish. for example, will not help the population if juvenile habitat limits success (Flosi and Reynolds 1991; Hunter 1991; FISRWG 1998).

Success also depends on selection of and siting of materials (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Wesche 1985; Flosi and Reynolds 1991; BC MELPlMoF 1994). Emphasis in current restoration projects is on using naturally available materials. Such materials are inexpensive. especially if available near the site, and, if flood flows move structures downstream, aesthetics are not adversely affects as they would be with use of cement and wire constructions (BC MELPIMoF 1994). Structures must also be placed so that they do not cause negative effects on instream or riparian habitat. The methods must suit hydraulic and geomorphic conditions or will result in erosion or filling pools with sediment (Flosi and Reynolds 1991; BC MELPlMoF 1994; Stream Enhancement Guide 1980).

According to Wesche (1985) the most commonly used in-channel treatments to improve fish habitat are current deflectors, overpour structures such as dams and weirs, bank covers, and boulder placements. These structures can be used alone or together and have been used successfully in the past to improve habitat (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Wesche 1985; Swales 1989; Brookes et al. 1996; House 1996;Hiderbrand et al. 1997). In Table 3 the variety of structures used, their function, and the environments for which they are best suited are summarized. Table 3: Instream habitat restoration techniques

(Summarized from Nelson et al, 1978; Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Bustard 1984; Wesche 1985; Tripp. . 1986; Flosi and Reynolds i991 ; Brookes et al. 1996; Erickson 1996; Hiderbrand et al. 1997) Type I Function I Suitability ~eflectors Direct flow and eliminate accumulated sediment Wide, shallow, low gradient streams lacking Narrow channel by at least 3O0/0 Narrow the channel to increase velocity pools Spaced 5-7 channel width apart Scour pools Not usually successful In gradient > 3% Easy to construct with rocks or Enhance pool-riffle ratios Reaches with low sediment loads logs Help keep water temperatures cool Opposite bank must be stable to prevent Lou possibility of destruction by Encourage development of riparian vegetation by erosion I high flows means of silt bar formation Limited disturbance to bed and Protect stream banks from erosion bank Remove silt from spawning gravels 1 Build below riffle to preserve riffle I but also build pool Weirs and check dams Impound flow above weir to create pool Smaller streams (< 9m) with slopes of ) 0.5 Low cost if built from natural Increase velocity downstream and create a scour - 20% without high flood flows materials pool Ftows < 2.83m3/s (100cfs) Can create pools up to 70% Aerate water Straight reaches with few pools larger than natural Stable bed and banks Spaced 5-7 channel widths apart Low sediment load low enough to allow fish passage Substrate placement Improve spawning and benthic habitat Stream width <14rn, slope < 0.3 % I 1 Provlde cover I Stable nows, I Boulders (60-100 cm Provide rearing habitat Dense spawning populations diarneter)randomly placed in Restore meanders and pools. Boulders have greatest effect in stream with cluster of four to eight <20% pools

Cover structures Provide overhead cover 6 Material used for cover chosen based on ud target fish species ~ Large woody debris Creates complex habitat Potential for debris accumulation E An alternative to fixed structures Increases number of sites where scouring and Best in stable low order streams in deficient channels because deposition occur pieces are free to shift and adjust 2 8 CHAPTER 3: RESTORATION

Projects using instream techniques

Although artificial instream structures have been used for a century (Hunter 1991; Beschta et al. 1994). many instrearn restoration undertakings were not monitored so there are limited records of successes and failures (Beschta et al. 1994; House 1996; Koning 1998). Those records that exist showcase failures and successes, although reasons for outcomes are not often given. For this reason, examples of failures, though there are many (Beschta et al. 1995). are not included here. It is sufficient to note that, in the records of stream restorations using instream techniques, failures out number successes.

House (1996) reports on a restoration project that placed wood and boulder structures in a stream to increase habitat for salmonids in a section of a stream. After restoration, the treated section of the stream. representing 2% of habitat, supported 24% of the population of the target species. This study also examined the durability and success of instream works including boulders and wood. All such structures remained in place over the twelve year span of study. Structures that did not span the width of the stream maintained pool depth, while those structures that spanned the channel trapped gravel bed load and created pool habitat (House 1996). House concludes that instream structures are interim methods for stream restoration, only used until activities that caused the initial degradation are modified or eliminated.

Another study (Tripp 1986) tested the effect of large woody debris (LWD) placement on pool habitat creation. Only pieces of LWD smaller than what might be moved by major flood were anchored (Tripp 1986). Some LWD was laid on the streambed to deflect flows downward and scour a pool, and some were imbedded to make plunge pools. Winter storm flows filled all pools, but over the next season, new ones were scoured. The thalweg profile was more variable after LWD and the number of pools increased from four to 12. After the winter CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION storm event obliterated pools, subsequent scouring created 21 new pools. In the control section where no LWD was added, little channel change occurred.

Placement of large woody debris (LWD) into the stream channel has produced other successes in improving habitat (Hiderbrand et al. 1997; Young 1996). Hiderbrand et al. (1997) showed that 70% of the pools in one channel were created by LWD. Young (1996) found that cutthroat trout use of pools created by LWD was proportionately high compared to pools created by meanders. This study also found that the siting of LWD for stream habitat enhancement based on planning and expertise led to better results that random placement.

RIPARIAN REVEGETATION

Riparian vegetation plays a part in the structure and function of the stream ecosystem (Ohmart and Anderson 1986). It helps control temperature, sta bikes banks, provides food sources to stream organisms, and is a source of LWD (Ohmart and Anderson 1986; FISRWG 1998). Along streams with reduced flows, the riparian community can be affected by a lower water table. and may be isolated from the channel if lower flows result in a narrower channel. Without periodic flood flows that deposit fine material on the banks, revegetation will be hampered by lack of soil. Even if vegetation begins reestablishing on newly exposed banks immediately, it takes decades to grow to a size useful in LWD (Erickson 1996).

Native plants should be used in any revegetation effort. so an understanding of natural plant communities at the site is necessary (FISRWG 1998). Planting and transplanting vegetation is an established method for long-term restoration of the watershed (Flosi and Reynolds 1991). Willow sprigging, which uses willow cuttings is inexpensive and effective. (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Nelson et al. 1978; Flosi and Reynolds 1991; FISRWG 1998). Willows grow quickly and cuttings can be easily gathered from vegetation on the site. Once shrubs are CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION established they will intercept fine material from overland runoff and begin establishing a soil cover that will support other species (FISRWG 1998). Sedges and grasses are also used to stabilize stream banks and can be direct seeded if soil exists (Nelson et al. 1978).

REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES

Generally, three methods are available for removing unwanted fish from streams: eledrofishing, chemical pisdcides. and selective angling. Wih any method. barriers to reentry of non-native fish are necessary (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980).

Also, with any method. there may be strong public opposition to removing non- native species. Brook tmut and other non-native species in Alberta, are favourites of anglers (Wooding 1994). Many current projects focusing on non- native species removal, in United States National Parks and in Alberta, have met with resistance from anglers (Lutch pers. comm.; Paul pers. comm.).

Electrofishing

Electrofishing involves generating either a DC or an AC electric current (either with a gasoline-powered generator or batteries) through various styles of electrodes into the water to create an electric field. The electric field stuns fish within an effective zone of roughly one meter radius, then fish are collected with a net. It is an effective fisheries management tool used for making population surveys, but labour time involved and inefficiencies in removal limit the method for removing entire populations from a stream (Thompson and Rahel 1996).

One study assessed depletion-removal electrofishing on three small streams as an alternative to piscicides (Thompson and Rahef 1996). Thompson and Rahel conducted three-pass electrofishing on an enclosed reach, taking 206 hours for a CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION

section 1.6 m wide and 4 km long. In these three passes. they estimate they removed 73-1 00% of age 0 bmktrout and 59-1 00% of older fish. but note that these are higher efficiencies than other studies. They were not able to completely eradicate brook trout, and neither did any other study. Very low numbers of brook trout can quickly multiply and dominate a community of cutthroat trout within five years (Behnke 1992) so complete removal of brook trout would be necessary to restore cutthroat trout.

Idaho Fish and Game Department is also trying to remove non-native brook trout using backpack eledrofishing, with varying degrees of success (Homer pers. comm.). They found that success in removing brook trout was related to the type of habitat. Streams with dense riparian vegetation of alder and willow reduced success rates. but in streams with little riparian vegetation removal rates were higher. Ineffective removal of young of the year lessened the effects here as in other projects (Homer pers. comrn., Paul pers. comm.). Since brook trout mature at one or two years of age, any removal that misses young of the year will not be successful.

Chemical Piscicides

Piscicides, while they remove non-native fish, also kill non-target fish and food organisms in the stream. They also have the potential to affect waters downstream. outside the target area (Thompson and Rahel 1996). Rotenone, a common piscicide, has been used by biologists for decades to remove non- native fish populations before restocking with native fish (Colorado DNR 1998). Its effects are neutralized by potassium perrnanganate. Even with relatively high removal rates, mufti year treatments are often necessary to remove all fish (Colorado DNR1998).

In Crater Lake National Park in Oregon, fisheries managers are working to reestablish bull trout populations in Sun Creek that were diminished by CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION competition and hybridization wlh non-native brook trout (Buktenica 1998). The Sun Creek project began in 1991 and centers around the removal of non-native brook trout using chemical poisoning with Antimycin, which is not available for use in Canada. The brook trout population has been dramatically reduced in an attempt to stabilize and increase the numbers of bull trout.

In 1998, Colorado Department of Natural Resources treated eleven miles of Beaver Creek with rotenone to remove populations of brook, rainbow, and brown trout as part of an effort to reestablish a native cutthroat trout population (Colorado DNR 1998). The project took 25 workers three days to complete. Biologists set up ten sites for drip stations to apply rotenone. and some workers walked the length of the stream spraying rotenone into remote areas. DNR constructed a barrier to prevent fish movement up from downstream waters and applied potassium permanganate at the barrier. The Beaver Creek project follows a successful project in West Beaver Creek, in which non-native fish were removed by rotenone and native cutthroat trout were stocked. Four years after the first stocking and two years after the second, a population of cutthroat trout are now established.

Angling

Experienced anglers. who can correctly identify trout species have been used to remove non-native species. This however, has not been found to be a successful method to eradicate fish, particularly with brook trout (Paul pers. comm.). In a study on Quirk Creek in Alberta, anglers have been removing all brook trout caught for two years in an effort to reduce the population (Paul pers comm.). Even though they have caught large numbers of brook trout, the population remains constant. This may be because, unlike native trout, brook trout begin to reproduce before they reach a size that is vulnerable to angling. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK, ALBERTA

INTRODUCTION

In 1952 TransAlta Utilities (TAU) completed construction of facilities on the Spray River system to hold water for power generation modifying flows in Goat Creek (Johns pers. wrnm.). The modifications to instrearn flows have changed fish habitat and may have been a factor in changes in fish populations. Information about the historic and current Ash community in Goat Creek indicates the comrnunlty has changed over the last 25 years from one of native to one of introduced species (Courtney et al. 1992). Both Parks Canada and Alberta fisheries managers stocked non-native species into Banff National Park and adjacent waters from the 1930s to the 1980s. Indigenous fish populations in Goat Creek, in BNP have thus been subjected to both types of stresses examined in the foregoing chapters: competition from introduced species and effects of flow regulation.

In 1974 Thompson and Wiebe found that Goat Creek's fish population consisted of 94 percent cutthroat trout, and found spawning beds in the lower reaches of Goat Creek that they believed were used by cutthroat trout from both Goat Creek and the Spray River. In 1992, when Environmental Management Associates (EMA) electrofished seven sites in Goat Creek and in the Spray River downstream of Goat Creek, they found only brook trout (Courtney et al. 1992). Changes to fish habitat from lower water levels may also have been a factor in this population change from a native species to an introduced exotic that is more able to adapt. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Goat Creek runs for roughly six km from its beginning on provincial land before crossing into 8NP. Because the stream crosses jurisdictions and is managed by TAU, laws and policies affecting federal and provincial governments. as well as corporate policies for TAU are reviewed here.

The National Parks Act, Parks Policy, and the Banff National Park Management Plan all identlfy ecological integrity as a goal in Park management. Parks Canada defines ecological integnfy as:

'Yhe condition of an ecosystem where 1) the structure and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human adivlty, and 2) the ecosystem's biological diversity and supporting processes are likely to persist"

This project examines restoration potential for Goat Creek within the context of this definition of ecological integrity.

Federal

Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act, administered by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). controls all activities that could have an effect on fish or fish habitat. Some sections apply directly to environments like Goat Creek's in addressing flows below dams in Section 22:

(3) The owner or occupier of any obstruction shall permit the escape into the river-bed below the obstruction of such quantity of water. at all times, as will, in the opinion of the Minister, be sufficient for the safety of fish and for the flooding of the spawning grounds to such depth as will. in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary for the safety of the ova deposited thereon. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

The Act also covers devices to prevent escape of fish where the Minister deems necessary, in Section 26:

(3) The Minister may authorize the placing and maintaining of barriers, screens or other obstructions in streams to prevent the escape of fish held for fish breeding purposes or any other purpose that the Minister deems in the public interest, and no person shall injure any such barrier, screen or other obstruction.

And Section 30:

(1 ) Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes shall, if the Minister deems it necessary in the public interest. be provided at its entrance or intake with a fish guard or a screen, covering or netting so fixed as to prevent the passage of fish from any Canadian fisheries waters into the water intake, ditch, channel or canal.

Even providing specifications on the structure of fish guards

(2) The fish guard, screen, covering or netting referred to in subsection (1 ) shall

(a) have meshes or holes of such dimensions as the Minister may prescribe; and

(b) be built and maintained by the owner or occupier of the water intake, ditch, channel or canal referred to in subsection (l),subject to the CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

approval of the Minister or of such officer as the Minister may appoint to examine it-

Duty of owner to keep in repair

(3) The owner or occupier of the water intake, ditch, channel or canal referred to in subsection (1) shall maintain the fish guard. screen, covering or netting referred to in that subsection in a good and efficient state of repair and shall not perrnl its removal except for renewal or repair.

The Fisheries Act also addresses destruction of fish in Section 32:

No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act.

The Act's most allencompassing Section (35) states that: (1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Unless authorized by the Minister, or under regulations under the Act.

Fisheries Act Regulations Fish Toxicant Regulations Section 6 of the regulations allows use of fish toxicants when

(a) the Minister or the chief fishery officer is satisfied that the eradication of any fish that is a pest by the use of fish toxicants in any waters set out in section 4 and the subsequent restocking of those waters will enhance fishing in those waters CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

When and if (Section 7)

the deposit does not adversely affect fish in the waters adjacent to the waters where the deposit is made.

Also, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat states as its long-term policy obiective, an overall net gain in the productive capacity of fish habitat.

National Parks Acf

The Ministry of Canadian Heritage administers the National Parks Act, which mandates maintaining ecological integrity and including public participation in management activities. The mandate for ecological integrity forms the basis for this project in investigating the potential for native species reintroduction. Public participation will be needed to ensure success in any attempt to restore fish populations.

5. (1.2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.

5. (1-4) The Minister shall, as appropriate, provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development of parks policy, management plans and such other matters as the Minister deems relevant. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Parks Policy Several sections of the Parks Policy apply to the issues around Goat Creek. It states that (S. 3.2) Ecosystem-Based Management will form the framework for undertakings in the Parks. The subsections that apply directly are:

3.2.3 National park ecosystems will be managed with minimal interference to natural processes. However, active management may be allowed when the structure or function of an ecosystem has been seriously altered and manipulation is the only possible alternative available to restore ecological integrity.

3.2.5 Where manipulation is necessary it will be based on scientific research, use techniques that duplicate natural processes as closely as possible. and be carefully monitored.

3.2.10 A species of plant or animal, which was native to but is no longer present in the park, may be reintroduced after scientific research has shown that reintroduction is likely to succeed and that there will be no significant negative effects on the park and neighbouring lands. Parks Canada will seek the cooperation of adjacent land owners and land management agencies to ensure success of reintroduction programs.

3.2.1 1 All practical efforts will be made to prevent the introduction of exotic plants and animals into national parks, and to eliminate or contain them where they already exist. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

3.2.1 2 Fish stocking will be discontinued except where necessary to restore indigenous fish populations that have been adversely affected by habitat modification.

Banff National Park Management Plan Based on the National Parks Act and on Parks Canada's policies, the management plan for BNP focuses on reducing stress on the environment and restoring natural processes wherever possible. It recognizes the need to work cooperatively with other land managers in neighbouring jurisdictions on issues such as land use, and habitat security. As well as initiating programs to help people understand the effect of their actions on the ecosystem.

For aquatics specifically, BNP management plan notes that over the past century, activities such as the construction of dams and the introduction of non- native fish have affected the aquatic resources. To address this, the management plan seeks to maintain and, if possible, restore natural water flow, water levels, and the biodiversity of the park's aquatic ecosystems. To do his BNP will work with TAU to restore more natural water flow in the Cascade and Spray systems.

Provincial

Since Goat Pond and part of Goat Creek fall under provincial jurisdiction, Alberta laws will apply. Alberta Environmental Protection's Natural Resource Service is responsible for management of water resources within the province and of water matters held in common with other provinces and the federal government. They also oversee conservation of Alberta's fish and wildlife resources. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Water Act The Water Act's aquatic environment protection strategy (Section 8). stresses biodiversity as:

the variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are a part, and includes diversity within and between species and ecosystems.

And states that

(2) The Minister must establish a strategy for the protection of the aquatic environment as part of the framework for water management planning for the Province.

Bull Trouf Management Plan Alberta Environment's Natural Resource Service considers bull trout a threatened wildlife species and had developed a management and recovery plan for the fish. The plan protects existing stock from losses and plans to reestablish bull trout and its associated habitat where feasible.

TransAlta Utilities

TransAlta is organized into five business segments, each with a clearly defined strategic mandate: Generation, Transmission 8 Distribution, Independent Power Projects, New Zealand and Energy Marketing. Generation department oversees the facilities on the Spray River watershed. There is also a department of Sustainable Development that oversees environmental policy and addresses environmental issues such as green house emissions.

In TAU'S generating capabilities, coal is the major fuel source, with a potential of 3.676 MW. Hydro is second at 800 MW of generating capability, followed by gas CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK and other at 798 MW capacity (TransAlta). The thirteen hydroelectric plants mainly provide electricity during periods of peak demand.

TAU'Scorporate environment policy states that TransAlta Corporation will:

meet or surpass all environmental legislation, regulations, and other applicable requirements and continuously improve the company's environmental performance consistent with defined goals. fully integrate environmental and economic considerations into the company's processes of planning, constructing. operating and decommissioning. ensure that the environmental impacts and risks of company activities are identified, assessed and managed. proactively advocate socially responsible laws and regulations and, where appropriate, market-based and voluntary approaches for achieving environmental objectives. inform and encourage meaningful consultation and collaboration with employees, customers, contractors and the public related to the company's operations and its impact on the environment. be an environmentally responsible neighbour in the communities in which the company operates. identify and develop new business practices and business opportunities which represent solutions to environmental problems and create value for shareholders. use a performance assurance process to assess compliance with this policy and the company's environmental management system; performance assurance results will be reported periodically to the board of directors.

All the laws, regulations, and policies outlined here form the legislative framework for the management of Goat Creek. Any plan for restoration should be based on and work within this ftamework. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

STUDY AREA

Goat Creek is a second order stream that begins immediately below Goat Pond outside Banff National Park (BNP) and runs for roughly six km before entering BNP Park in a valley between Mount Rundle and the Goat Range. It then flows into the Spray River roughly ten km upstream of the town of Banff. Figure 1 on the following page locates Goat Creek within its larger context.

The study area for this project focuses on Goat Creek from Goat Pond to its confluence with the Spray River. The Creek has always formed part of the Spray River watershed, and thus a part of the Bow River watershed. The stream channel now is similar to the pre-developrnent channel. However, before impoundment Goat Pond, which feeds Goat Creek, was separated fmrn the headwaters of the Spray River by a sub-watershed boundary. Goat Creek began at Goat Pond and flowed roughly 15km to the Spray River, which then flowed ten km further downstream into the Bow River at the Town of Banff. The Creek still runs this course, but hydroelectric facilities now move water from the Spray Lakes Reservoir over the historic watershed boundary and into Goat Pond. Water flows from there through generation facilities into the Bow River at Canmore, creating an artificial system different from the historic natural loop of flows in the Spray River watershed. Alberta

n - Enlarged map area 1-- I Park Boundary c-- -.- Taw" m Waterbody

w-- i 3 0 5m

Watershed Boundary Current Historic --- Banff National Park .. . .. Boundary

Goat Creek Trail -*'* -*-• -

[--a i I 0 lkm

CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Area Climate Environmental Canada (1 998) climate data for the area recorded at the town of Banff, illustrates temperature and precipitation patterns (Figure 2). Snowmelt feeds most streams in the Bow River system, causing discharge peaks in June, July, and August. augmented by rainfall and glacial meltwater (Schindfer and Pacas 1996).

Precipitation

,."c@ & 99' *& ,** \a +9 &Q g iQJ ',& Month

Tern perature

JUl Aug Jun - r Mav n I S~P- daily m aximum temp ('C 1 daily m inimum temp ('C daily m ean ('C)

Month I I Figure 2: Climate at tho Town of Banff (Environmant Canada 1998) CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Goat Creek watershed sits in the Montane Cordillera Ecozone (Lands Directorate 1986) and within this ecozone. in the Eastern Continental Ranges Ecoregion. Within the emregion. Goat Creek watershed is a subalpine valley ecosystem, characterized by warm. dry summers and mild, snowy winters (Lands Directorate 1986). Forests are dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus cuntuda). Engelmann spruce (Picea Engelmannio and alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Alpine vegetation. found in cooler sites (adjacent to streams) in the subalpine region are characterized by mountain avens (Dryas dmondii). Colluvial, morainal and fluvioglacial deposits are typical of the surficial deposits, covered by Regosolic and Eutric Brunisolic soils (Ecological Stratification Working Group).

HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT

As part of the Spray River system, Goat Creek came under investigation for hydroelectric development in 1911 (Figure 3). Calgary Power Ltd. (now TransAlta Utilities Corp.) became interested in 1921 when it realized the potential of a system so close to the Bow Valley with a potential reservoir 341 m (1120) feet above the Bow River (Calgary Power Ltd. circa 1950). Then, and until 1930 when new park boundaries were negotiated. Goat Creek and the Spray Lakes were entirely within BNP and no development permits were issued (Schindler and Pacas 1996). The new boundaries excised land and it passed from federal to provincial government control under the Alberta Natural Resources Act. Around that time. Calgary Power Ltd. began an expansion program and again sought permission to develop the Spray River system's power potential (Calgary Power Ltd. c. 1950). In 1947 the province granted approval to Calgary Power for the development. The project. completed in 1952, dammed the Spray River at Spray Canyon and diverted it first into Goat Creek Valley, then over Whiteman's Pass, dropping into the Bow River at Canmore. The power plants associated with the development produce 66.1 MW (88,600 hp) and, according to a circa 1950 Calgary Power brochure. are 'picturesquely located in a rugged setting typical of the mountain country south of Canrnore and Banff.

I ~\\clt;LllLldllUll 511 IILIIIIC'S COIIIJJICICU. UOiII k fL'cK \\illCrSIICU rcduccd J l.6'%illld flo\vs rcg111;11cd.

5,OO ~,i'/s(200cfs) flos in Spriiy River Bi,aIT rcq~lircdfor ..figl,tilrg forcs~lircs, . . . i~ndrctc~l~ioli of ~ICSIIICI~Cpro~rtics in Spra!, V;~llc!,".

I:lo\r.s rcq~~ircdlo IIICCI 5.00 111'1s(200) cfs ill JIIIIC.JII~!. ;11rd Augasl in Spri~yRiver rclciiscd j~ciirly~l~rougli GO~II Crcck.

Albcrl Fislr i111d Wildlifc stocks brook (rout into Goilt Pond.

Goat Vallcy Dyke fails: pcik flows rcilch I H 11~31sin Goal Crcck. rcsulling in hid~cstflows on rccord for Sprii!. River it1 Banff.

Tho~~ipso~iand Wcibc study cffccls of dykc fnilurc on Goal Crcck ond find i1 pop~lalionof cullhroal lrotll in a SIrcillli Ilrlbitat \\lill\ fc~vpools.

Mudn aud Grccll find tllilt 11si11gGoill Crcck ;IS ;I spilltvi~ylo allgnlcllt flows ill (hc Spray River I~asdil~liagcd fish llirbiti~tin Goat Crcck.

Flow a~~g~ncnt;llion~hrough Goal Creck to Spray River slopped,

Lcltcr of coni~rriltric~~tfrolit TrilnsAlta Utilities to Banm Niitiot~iilPiirk slipl~lalcsnrininrutir flow of 10 cfs past p~iilpi~rgsli~tion.

Court~lcycl al. find only brook {rout in il surI1cyof tllc fish community in Goirl Crcck.

Ncw Pdrk Policy focllscs on ccologicirl in~cgrilp.

Banff Bow Vallcy Study finds ccological intcgrity compro~niscdin BanfT Nulional Park.

Banff Mani~gcmcnlPlan idcntifics rcmo\ral of non-riirlivc spccics i111d flow augnicnlation for oil mainmining aquatics ccologici~lintcgrity .

CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Development of the Spray system required that Calgary Power and Parks Canada negotiate an agreement regarding affected flows within the Park. This agreement required that Calgary Power provide enough flow into the Spray River to ensure 5.7 m3/s (200 cfs) at the town of Banff during June, July, and August. This flow was necessary for Yighting forest fires, proper removal of sewage from Banff Springs Hotel area. and retention of aesthetic properties in Spray Valleyn (Mudry and Green 1976). Examination of potential effects on fish populations focused on maintaining angling potential. From mid-July through to September the flows in the lower Spray River needed augmentation to flow at 5.7 m3!s (200 cfs) but a valve built into Canyon Dam was not used to provide this low from the reservoir. Instead, flows were augmented through Goat Creek since Wle source of water for flow augmentation was not stipulated by the Order in Council allowing dam constructionn (Mudry and Green 1976). Mudry and Green (1976) also concluded that using Goat Creek 'as a spillway" had resulted in considerable damage to fish habitat. 'Artificially fluctuating water levels and occasional dike failures" had also affected habitat (Mudry and Green). Mudry and Green recommended that flows into the lower Spray River not be augmented by flows through Goat Creek. and, in 1976, the practice stopped (Golder Associates Ltd. 1996). Dyke failures during construction in the 1950s and in the 1970s resulted in extremely high flows in Goat Creek. In one instance, peak flows reached 181 m3/s into the Creek (Golder Associates Ltd. 1996), resulting in the highest flows on record in the Spray River at Banff (Environment Canada 1990a). Such high flows would likely have had an effect on instream habitat, filling existing pools and washing woody debris downstream.

The power system begins with Canyon dam at the head of the lower Spray River. the Three Sisters plant at the mouth of the Spray Reservoir. the smallest in the system, with a generating capacity of 3MW (Figure 4). From there the Three Sisters Tailrace carries flow into Goat Pond and a dike at the mouth of Goat Pond guides the flow into Goat Valley canal. Water then flows through the canal into Whitman's Pond and down through a pressure tunnel to the Spray Power CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Plant, the largest on the system, with a generating capacity of 108MW. The head of 274 meters at this plant is the highest of all TAU'S plants. From there water flows down the Rundle canal to the Rundle Power plant (capacity 50 MW) and into the Bow River at Canmore. Figure 4: Trans Alta's Spray River power generation system From Calgary Power Ltd. circa 1950 P m CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

HISTORICAL CONDITIONS

Watershed

Information on historical conditions in Goat Creek was drawn from aerial photographs, Parks Canada and Alberta provincial stocking records, previous studies, maps, and Environmental Canada flow records. Two topographic maps (Department of the Interior 1926; Canada Department of Mines 1923) covering the Spray Lakes area show historical watershed divisions between the headwaters of Goat Creek and the Spray River (Figure 5). Using these maps, the Goat Creek historical watershed was outlined on current topographic maps (Natural Resources Canada 1996). The area of the historic watershed was calculated by counting one km2 map grid squares. The historic Goat Creek watershed was approximately 70 km2. Environment Canada (1990a) now measures the watershed as 40.9 km2.

Many small tributaries flowing off the slopes of the Three Sisters and Mount Lawrence De Grassi into Goat Creek are visible on aerial photographs taken in 1948. Goat Creek no longer receives water input from these tributaries, because the Goat Valley canal now diverts the flow into the power generation system. These photographs also show a small pond, roughly the size of the current Goat Pond, at the headwaters of the stream, the outline of which is visible on recent (1988) air photos lying immediately west of the current Goat Pond (Figure 5). CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

While the stream is still partially fed by waters from the new pond, through seepage or water release through pipes, the Goat Valley Dyke has fragmented the aquatic habitat, making the new pond inaccessible to fish from the creek. The shape of the stream channel has changed little in the 47 years since flows were reduced but it is apparent from comparison between pre- and post-dam air photos that flows were greater and filled more of the channel. On the 1948 photos, areas of exposed gravel in the riparian areas are minimal and vegetated areas are adjacent to the stream. Recent photos show that gravel and cobble banks are now common and vegetation is sparse on exposed areas. While this difference may be due to the time of year in which the photographs were taken (which is unknown for the 1948 set and September 13 for the 1988 set) flows have been reduced since regulation and have likely played a part in the changes to the riparian areas.

Flows

In 1980, TAU provided a letter of commitment to BNP indicating that they would allow a minimum flow of 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) past the lower pump. Also, under normal operations they would not allow flows greater than 30 cfs (0.849 m3/s). Flows greater than 0.849 m3/s (30 cfs) could result from either natura! flow events caused by high inflow from storm or snowmelt, or from management actions requiring flow releases from the Spray Reservoir, Goat Pond, or the Goat Valley Canal, or a planned or forced outage of the lower pump.

Environment Canada has no discharge information for Goat Creek prior to power development. Since the impoundment, TAU has provided discharge data to Environment Canada (1990a). measured at their lower pumping station roughly halfway down the stream (Figure 1). To estimate historical discharges for Goat Creek. Golder Associates (1996) extrapolated from data for the Spray River watershed. Environment Canada records for the Spray River begin in 1915 and are available for three locations: at the town of Banff, at Spray Canyon and on CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Spray Creek. From these records, Golder Associates graphed minimum daily discharge, and smallest and largest recorded annual floods against watershed size from the three! sites (Appendix I: Determination of historical flows in Goat Creek). From this graph they extrapolated flow information for Goat Creek. However, they based their estimate of Goat Creek flows using a watershed of 40.9km2 for Goat Creek: its present size, post-dam. Before impoundment Goat Creek's watershed covered roughly 70km2. Using this historical watershed size and Golder's graph, the discharges associated with the largest and smallest annual floods are nearly double Golder's estimate. with flows of 19m3/sand 3rn3/s respectively. Minimum daily discharge would have been 0.4m3/s. Post- dam, from 1976 to 1990, the minimum daily discharge was 0.031 m3/s, although this value is much lower than for all other years, with the next lowest at 0.1 7rn3/s. The largest and smallest annual floods postdam were 4.03m3/s and 1.32m3/s respectively (Environment Canada 1990, data in Appendix ll: Historical flow data). The changes are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Changes in hydrological regime in Goat Creek I Predam I Post-dam I Degree of (estimated) change (96) Watershed area 70 40.9 41 -6 (km2) Largest recorded annual flood (mh) Smallest recorded annual flood (m31s) Minimum daily discharge (m31s) Mean annual discharge (m3/s)

As Table 4 illustrates, changes in flow have been greater than changes in the watershed size, with the greatest degree of change in the largest recorded annual flood at 78.8 %. The other changes have been more related to the degree of change in watershed size. ( Because the flow of 0.031 m3/s is so much less than all other minimum daily discharges and likely influenced by ice CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

conditions (Environment Canada 1990a) I included the values for the next smallest minimum daily discharge).

In addition to changes in the amount of water flowing down the stream, the hydrograph is modified under managed flow conditions. To estimate the historical hydrograph for Goat Creek the mean monthly discharges for the Spray River at Banff for the years 1911 to 1929 were calculated. These values were then divided by 10.7 because the Spray River watershed, at 749 km2 (Environment Canada 1990a). is 10.7 times that of Goat Creek's historic watershed (70 km2). This method for determining historic flows in the absence of discharge records is generally accepted (Flosi and Reynolds 1991; FISRWG 1998). The calculation may not result in exact discharge amounts, but it does provide a clear picture of changes to the timing and relative magnitude of flows. The result is shown in Figure 6 below. The shape of the hydrograph has changed radically since flow regulation and peak flows that once occurred in June now occur in August.

5 4.5 4 3.5 35 € 3 Current Coat Creek Q) - - - P 2.5 mean monthly flows rc6 (1 976-1 990) 02m -Estimated historical 1.5 mean monthly flows for Goat Creek 1

0e50 e

Figure 6: Changes to Goat Creek hydrograph following flow regulation CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Fish and Habitat

Parks Canada stocked large numbers (up to 20,000 a year) of cutthroat trout and rainbow trout into Goat Creek from 1931 to 1947, every year except 1938 and 1943 (Pacas, pers. comm.). In June of 1969 Alberta Fish and Wildlife stocked 14,000 brook trout fry into Goat Pond. Then, from 1973 to 1976, they stocked 85.000 rainbow trout (Oncohynchus mykiss). another non-native species. also into Goat Pond. Before construction of the power generation structures, in 1944. Alberta Fish and Wildlife stocked rainbow bout into the Spray Lakes. Beginning in 1953 and continuing until 1987, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were stocked into the Spray Lakes Reservoir (Stelfox, pers. comm.).

Thompson and Weibe (1974) surveyed the fish community in Goat Creek in the early 1970s and found a fish population of 94% artthroat trout. They also describe the low numbers of pools in the stream, adding that the number of pools decreases dramatically going down the stream, with few inside Banff National Park boundaries. Miller and MacDonald (in Mudry and Green 1976) studied the Spray River in 1945 and they also describe a cutthroat population in lower Goat Creek and the lower Spray River typical of stream resident fish. They were small and grew slowly. never reaching lengths greater than 250mm. Miller and MacDonald state that this was a separate population from the one found in the Spray River upstream of the 16 mile cabin, which was an extension of the fast growing lake population. By 1992. the fish community had changed. All fish caught in Goat Creek during a 1992 study by Courtney et al. were brook trout. a result of provincial stocking in 1969 (Stetfox pers. comm.). CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

CURRENT HABITAT

The assessment of the current state of habitat in Goat Creek is based upon data collected in the field in 1998 and 1999.

Representative Reaches

Data for this study was collected from stream reaches that represented broader characteristics of Goat Creek. since 'classification of reach types and channel geomorphic units enables investigators to extrapolate results to other areas with similar featuresn (Bisson 8 Montgomery. 1996). Initial selection of the reaches was done using topographic maps and air photos to break the stream into sections based on channel gradient and degree of valley confinement (Newbury and Gaboury 1993; Bisson and Montgomery 1996). Using this method three sections were idenbified. Field visits confirmed preliminary divisions and representative reaches chosen for every section measuring 12 times bankfbll width were placed to include all habitat features (suggested in Newbury and Gaboury 1993). CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Vegetation Hobo Flow Goat Creek Reach 1 plot location Lw/ direction o -* d - IOM 0 I 0- Drawn from Boulder Rifflehapid vegetated ':- measurements taken 4 07/22/98

Figure 7: Reach 1

Reach 1 (Figure 7) is 200m downstream of TAU'Supper pumphouse and upstream of the lower pumphouse. outside of BNP. The slope of the 5.5 km long stream segment represented in this reach is 0.8%. The slope of the reach, from the thalweg survey, is 0.7%. This is the furthest upstream reach and would likely provide much of the spawning habitat to stream resident fish. Inflow to this section comes from seasonal tributaries flowing off the Goat Range and from seepage through the Goat Valley Dyke and Goat Valley Canal. Two 1OOm CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK reaches in this section are channelized with boulder riprap: one at the gravel pit. the other at the upper pumping station. Historically this section was highly sinuous. with mostly shrubby riparian vegetation (likely Betula pumila and Salix spp-) and some patches of dense forest. The relic-ed pond at the headwaters appeared shallow and the stream immediately below the pond shows evidence of seasonal flooding. The stream, when it began at the pond, would have been roughly 1.2km longer. Now, in much of this stream segment. areas of bare or minimally vegetated cobble separate riparian vegetation from the channel. Some remnant forest remains on the west side in the upper third of the section. Shrubby vegetation also remains in a marshy area in the lower quarter of the section, just above the lower pump house. This area is represented as a marsh on a 1926 map (Department of the Interior).

The second representative reach (Figure 8) lies just inside the boundary of BNP, downstream of the pump house. This 1OOm long reach represents a stream segment of approximately 3.5 km characterized by a slope of 0.5% and wide, marshy flood plains with sedges and tall coniferous snags. The slope of the thalweg in this reach is 0.4%. The section represented begins just upstream of the lower pump house and extends for 3 km into BNP. A channelized section and a small impoundment created by a weir, both at the pump house, have altered the original channel. At this pump house. Trans Alta pumps water from Goat Creek into the Goat Valley Canal to compensate for losses to seepage. As a result, flows in this section are often slightly lower than in the section upstream. A tributary stream noted on a 1926 map (Department of the Interior) that flowed off the end of Mount Rundle is now dammed at the lower pump house.

The pond created by that dam now supports brook trout. Once inside BNP. the stream channel and vegetation remain similar to historic conditions, except that. as in the first section, bare, cobbled areas now separate historic riparian vegetation from the stream channel. CHAPTER 3 GOAT CREEK

1 1 Vegetation Hobo Log) Flow / 1 Goat Creek Reach 2 1 I plot location direction I 1 Non- :. -.. slope Boulder Rifflelrapid IOW b I On\ ~rawnfiorn taken I I vegetated :.'. D A - measurements I / 07/29/98 I Figure 8: Reach 2

The third representative reech (Figure 9) lies 5 km down the Goat Creek trail from the trailhead parking lot. This section of the stream is within BNP and runs approximately 6 km to Goat Creek's influence on the Spray River. The stream segment has a slope of 2.6% and the lOOm long representative reach has an overall slope of 3.8%, reflecting two small chutes. Without these chutes the thalweg slope is 2.5%. Steep valley walls of either alluvial deposits or bedrock CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

confine much of the stream valley. although in some places the flood plain is 200m to 300m wide. This section remains closest to its historic state, with no structures affecting the channel directly. Both before and after impoundment, parts of this section have bare cobble banks. up to 4m wide, flanking the stream. About 1km upstream of the influence with the Spray River, Goat Creek Trail crosses the Creek at a bridge. Immediately upstream of the bridge is a waterfall in a confined bedrock area with a height of roughly five metres.

-- \ Vegetation i Hobo x i Log Flow / I / Goat Creek Reach 3 4 plot j location ; direction 1 - ! I Drawn from Non- . '. .:: . i Slope 1 Boulder i Riffletrapid I 1Qn~ (2 ICr.1 , measurements taken vegetated -':; ! 1 07/22/98 I Figure 9: Reach 3 CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Data Collection Data collected in the 1998 and 1999 field seasons describes: Water velocity and discharge Water temperature Substrate Riparian vegetation Fish population Conductivity pH Suspended sediment

Water velocity, discharge and temperature were also measured on Healy Creek for comparison to an unregulated stream. Healy Creek flows into Brewster Creek three kilometers south of the Trans Canada Highway, eight km west of the town of Banff. Brewster Creek then flows into the Bow River four km further east. Healy Creek watershed. at 56km2 is slightly larger than Goat Creek. it is a second order stream and has the same orientation and channel size, with a width of 5m. The two drainages are only about 20km apart. Healy Creek was chosen as a comparison based on its orientation, similar size and proximw to Goat Creek. Also, Environment Canada has historical streamffow data for Brewster Creek, which was used as the comparison stream for the Spray River in the companion study to this one. The road to Sunshine Village provides easy access to both Healy and Brewster Creeks.

In each reach on Goat Creek, three transects were placed to represent the variety of pools. riffles, or other habitat characteristics, as well as where the best evidence existed for bankfull width (Newbury & Gaboury, 1993). In all reaches, and on Healy Creek, one transed crosses a straight section in which the low appears uniform and parallel to stream banks so that discharge measurements will be representative (Gore, 1996). CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Discharge Methods Stream discharge was calculated from measurement of flow velocity and area. Velocity, depth and wetted width were measured on each transect in each reach. Wetted width was measured using surveyors tape stretched across the stream perpendicular to flow. Each transect was divided into at least five cells, only creating more than five cells if. at five cells, each cell would exceed 3 metres (m) in width (Newbury 8 Gaboury 1993; Gore 1996).

Depth and velocity measurements were made at the centre of each cell using a guriey meter provided by TAU and calibrated by Environment Canada. Measurements of velocity were taken at 0.4 of the depth (Harrelson et al., 1994; Gore, 1996) and took 30 seconds each. Results were recorded in the field then entered into Microsoft Excel for calculation and presentation. To calculate discharge measurements taken at the straight section of the channel were used. Discharge was calculated for each cell by multiplying the depth at midpoint by the width of the cell by the veloclty in metes per second (mls). Total discharge is the sum of the discharge of each cell.

Results Figures 10 and I1illustrate the summer hydrographs for Goat Creek and Healy Creek in 1999 and 1998. Environment Canada (1990a) discharge data for Goat Creek suggest that the overall decline in discharge over the summer of 1998 is not usual (see Figure 6). The mean monthly discharge from 1976 to 1990, measured just upstream of the BNP boundary. shows the discharge increasing to a peak in August. Work on the power canal in September 1998 caused the increase at sites 2 and 3, both downstream of the pumping station used to redirect water from Goat Valley Canal into Goat Creek. Except for that instance, discharge in reach 2 was lower than in reach 1 due to pumping activity between reaches at the lower pumphouse. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Discharge peaks occurred later in the season in 1999 (late July and early August) than in 1998 (June). Cooler spring and summer temperatures in 1999 delayed snowmelt in 1999, leaving the mountain snow pack above average for June (Alberta Environment 1999a). Flow amounts in reaches 1 and 2 are similar in 1999 and 1998, with peak discharges of 1.I m31s and 1-2 m3/s. respectively. In both seasons, flows in reaches 2 and 3 in the late summer were lower than in reach 1, due to TAU pumping activities.

Figure 10: Goat Creek hydrograph, summer 1998 1

Reach Reach Reach Healy

Date

Figure 1 1 : Goat Creek hydrograph, summer 1999 CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Temperature Methods Therrnister dataloggers (Hobo) were installed in each reach to record daily and seasonal variations in water temperature. The dataloggers were located at the upstream end of each reach to prevent any disturbance from data collection activities. To the extent possible, they were placed in the stream so that direct warming from the sun did not influence temperature readings. Before installing them in the stream, the dataloggers were wrapped in 0.5 cm foam and slipped into solid plastic tubing. open on both ends to allow flow through. Wires were attached to the plastic tube and to solid bank vegetation. Boulders were placed over and around the tubes to prevent movement during high flows. The boulders also provided shade. The dataloggers were set to record water temperature every 72 minutes. Data was down loaded in October of 1998, when the batteries were replaced. and were reset to record throughout the winter. Winter data from reaches 1 and 2 was downloaded in July 1999, providing one hrll year of temperature data for those two sites. The datalogger from reach 3 and from Healy Creek were lost over the winter or in high spring fiows.

Results In all reaches the normal range for maximum summer temperatures is between 10°C and 16°C (Figures 12-14). In reach 3 water temperatures rose above 16OC for six days in the summer of 1998. The maximum temperature in reach 1 was approximately 11 OC and in reach 2 it was 13OC. Temperatures in reach 1 were lower overall, possibly resulting from a cold spring inflow. Also overhanging banks and riparian vegetation shaded the Hobo at this site for much of the day. Summer (June to September) minimum daily temperatures fall between 8°C and 2°C in reach 2 and between 10°C and 2°C in reach 1. Healy Creek daily summer temperatures are more constant than Goat Creek with maximums and minimums mostly between 5°C and 8°C. Riparian vegetation provides constant shade to much of the stream throughout the day resulting in the small daily differences in maximum and minimum temperatures. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Reach1

14 - 12 E 10

c.5 8 fi 6 2 4 2 0 aOaoaoaoaoaoo,b,o,o,mQ)~ o,mQ)Q) $88888888o,maoPFFP TFFF ~zeaSS~~~srek\ \ 4- FFF~-TrTFF rr Date

Figure 12: Reach 1 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1 999 Reach 2 98/99

Date b Figure 13: Reach 2 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1999 CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

I July 1 to Septem ber 30, 1998 Figure 14: Reach 3 maximum and minimum temperatures with comparison to Healy Creek

Winter temperature data is only available far reaches 1 and 2. Differences between daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the winter months (October to March) were less than in summer. Temperatures fell to -0.2OC in reach 2 and to 1OC in reach 1. During winter field visits in January open water was observed at reach 1. Deep snowdrifts covered much of the channel at reach 2, including the hobo site. Temperatures of 8°C to 10°C that cutthroat trout need for spawn and embryo incubation (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Trotter 1987; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995) and had occurred by July (when dataloggers were installed) in 1998 and in May (reach 2) and June (reach I) in 1999. Alberta Environment (1999a) records indicate that temperatures were below average in May of 1999, resulting in delayed snow melt. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Survey Methods With the help of Paul Godman of TAU and equipment provided by TAU, each reach was surveyed to provide cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles. All transects and upper and lower boundaries of the reaches were surveyed, noting the water surface level, bankfull stage, and terrace elevations (Hanelson et al., 1994). Data were analyzed using Hec-Ras software (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers).

Results As survey data was only collected on five transects per reach, additional transects were interpolated by Hec-Ras. For this reason scenarios represented here are general and only serve to graphically illustrate the form of the reaches and the relative changes in wetted width with various discharges (Figures 15-17). CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

The graduated shaded areas represent water levels at different discharges (defined in the legend), however, they do not necessarily denote the stream channel. The shaded areas show water level. which may be lower than ground level. Channel locations and water levels are indicated in heavy black lines. In all drawings water flows from bottom to top with a vertical exaggeration of ten.

Water level profiles:

0.66 m3/s

1.1 9 m3/s rn 3.0 m3/s H water surface /\r

Figure 15: Goat Creek reach 1 CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Water level profiles:

0.617 m3/s

1.19 m3/s 3.0 m3/s H Water surface (L,

Figure 16: Goat Creek reach 2

Water levei profiles:

1.22 m3/s

3.0 m3/s

5.0 m3/s lIlsl Water surface &

Flow direction

Figure 17: Goat Creek reach 3 CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Substrate Methods Streambed material composition was characterized using the Wolrnan Pebble Count method on all transects in each reach (as described in Harrelson et al., 1994). For each transect 100 randomly grabbed partides were measured on each axis (x-y-2). These measurements were averaged for each particle.

Results

Table 5 Substrate size categories (Culpin 1986) Particle size Category < 2mm Sand. silt - - 2 - 25mm Fine gravel 26-76 rnrn Coarse gravel 77-1 52 mm Small rubble 153-305 mm Large rubble > 305 mm Boulder .

Reaches 1 and 2 have higher percentages of finer particles (c76mm) than reach 3 (Figure 18). This change from finer to more coarse substrate is to be expected (Brookes and Sear 1996). The e2mm category generally describes the substrate in pools which ranges from silt to sand, depending on water velocity (Table 5). The fine gravel (2-25mm) category describes the size of spawning gravels for trout in the stream. Fine and coarse gravels (25-75mm) are the dominant substrate in all reaches, however, in reach 3, these particles are dispersed throughout the substrate and do not afford good spawning areas. Small rubble (77-1 52mm) and larger particles (153-305mm) could provide hiding wver and resting areas for juveniles and adults. Partides of this size class are rare to absent in Reaches 1 and 2. CKAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3

Figure 18: Goat Creek percent substrate compositii by reach

Fish population Methods With the assistance of Charlie Pacas and Elaine O'Neil from Parks Canada, and use of Smith-Root backpack electrofishing equipment from Parks Canada each reach was electrofished to determine species presence and size classes. All fish were identified, weighed and fork length measured (Table 6).

Results Table 6: Results of elecbofishing activities Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Total Total fish 38 38 21 97 (#) I Average fork 62.5 79.4 94 -9 78.9 length (mm) Effort 2076 2376 1605 6057 (s ) Catch per unit 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.016 I effort (#/s) I I CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

With the exception of one Rocky Mountain whitefish (Pmsopium williamson~ 130mm long found in reach 3, all fish captured were brook trout and perhaps Lake trout (Pacas pers. comm.). Field identification did not differentiate between brook and lake trout, however neither is native to the Creek. Sizes of fish caught are represented in Figure 19. The dominant size class. comprising roughly half the fish caught, was < 55mm in reaches 7 and 2. Medium sized fish (55-90 and 90-1 20mm) found in all reaches was the next largest group, with only one or two large fish (120-250mm) found in reaches 1 and 3.

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3

Figure 19: Percent composition by size category (fork length) of Goat Creek brook trout population lnstream Cover Methods Along each transect in an area of 2 m long by the width of the stream. with the transect bisecting the area, percent cover of both instream and ex-stream cover types were recorded. lnstream cover included instream vegetation. boulders, large woody debris (LWD). and small woody debris (SWD). Ex-stream cover included bank overhang and riparian vegetation. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Results

25 0

20 0 L >Q) 0 U u C 150 IUndercut Banks Q 0, lnstream Vegetation a9 Q g 100 I r4) 5 0

0 0 1 2 3 Roach

Figure 20: Percent instream cover by reach

Figure 20 illustrates that, with the exception of boulders in reach 3, there is very little instream cover in Goat Creek. Other types of instream cover provide less than 5% cover as for fish.

Riparian Vegetation Methods The riparian vegetation community of each reach was characterized by identifying all species present in each level (herbs, shrubs, tall shrubs, and trees). Ten estimates were made of: percent cover of each species, total canopy cover, and soil moisture and drainage. Alberta Vegetation Index (AVI) and Banff National Park ecological land classification maps and information provided preliminary community type identification. Detailed surveys of the riparian vegetation community were conducted on both sides of the stream at all transects. The size of the detailed study areas depended on the size of the CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

vegetation community: 10 m by 10 m for forested areas, and 1 m by 2 m for shrub and forb communities.

Results Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the shrub and herb species present. Tree results are not illustrated since the two species found (Engelman spruce and lodgepole pine) occurred only in two sites.

Riparian shrubs

r Yellow m ountain-avens - Twinflower W illow - I EngeIm an spruce - 1 B B uffaloberry - 1 Prickly rose

Balsam poplar - Shrubby cinquefoil e I - 1 I 1 Bearberry I Ave.% Corn mon Juniper T - resence Dwarf birch I I f Trembling aspen - 1 Lodgepole pine - i Red raspberry I 1 i i .( 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Percent

Figure 21 : Shrub species on Goat Creek CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Sedge

Fireweed

Common horsetail

Thompson's paintbrush

Streambank butterweed

Pink wintergreen

G reen-flowered bog-orchid

Dwarf scouring rush

Leafy aster

Yarrow

Common dandelion

Yellow Hedysarum

Elephant's head lousewort

Evergreen saxifrage

Fringed Grass of Parnassus

Northern goldenrod

8 road-leaved willowherb

0 I0 20 3 0 40 50 60 70 percent

I Figure 22: Forb species on Goat Creek

The east side of Goat creek (west-facing slope of Mount Rundle) is classified as Pine/Buffaloberry, while SprucelFir forests cover the east slope of Goat Range. However. forest stands only make up riparian vegetation in a few areas. In 19 vegetation plots on Goat Creek only two were forested. Shrubs, usually willow (Salix spp.) or small spruce (Picea englemannii), sedges (Carex spp.). or bare cobbly areas with some mountain avens make up most of the riparian environment. In most cases riparian vegetation provides little or no shade or streamside cover. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Water characteristics Methods Water conductivity and pH were measured in the lab using samples collected from the stream.

Results Conductivity in Goat Creek ranges hm0.262msIs to ,290msIs at room temperature (21OC). with most measurements tending toward the higher end of the range. Healy Creek averages 0.254mds. pH values ranged from 7.78 to 8.34, with an average of 8.0. Healy Creek average is slightly lower at 7.93.

Benthic Invertebrates Methods To obtain a stratified random sample, five samples of benthic invertebrates were collected along the transect representing riffle habitat in each reach. Using a Surber sampler, samples were collected across the stream by disturbing the substrate and rubbing large cobbles and boulders for one minute. The current swept the invertebrates into a jar attached to the open, downstream end of the Surber net. Invertebrates were then killed by addition of formaldehyde.

Results Results of a comparison between benthic invertebrates collected in studies in 1973 and 1992 found that the benthic invertebrate population has remained relatively stable, with similar numbers and species collected with similar methods in two studies (Courtney et al. 1992). Samples cdlected in 1999 have not been identified. These samples could provide base line information on the benthic invertebrate communQ. If a restoration plan for Goat Creek involves using chemical piscicides, the benthic invertebrate populations may be harmed. Information on the current community composition could provide information for reintroduction of benthic invertebrates. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TARGET SPECIES

Cutthroat Trout

To assess the suitability of Goat Creek for the cutthroat trout I used the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) developed by Hickman and Raleigh (1982). This method is widely used in the United States (Hunter 1991) and uses preference curves developed for habitat features that affect suitability for the target species (see Appendix 111: Habitat suitability curves). These habitat variables are presented in Table 7, along with the data and corresponding indices for each study reach of Goat Creek. The suitability indices are unitless numbers between 0 and 1. Data collected in the field seasons provided a base for an assessment of the habitat in Goat Creek. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Table 7:Goat Creek Habitat Suitability Values for cutthroat trout I Variable Description , Reach 1 I Reach 2 I Reach 3 HSI HSI HSI V1 Ave. max. water temp - 10°C 0.98 13°C 1 13.2" 1 summer C V2 Ave max water temp - 9.2OC 1 12.3" 1 13.4" 1 embryo C C V3 Ave min DO ------V4 Ave thalweg depth - low 50 cm 1 34m 1 33 cm 1 water period V5 Ave velocity (cmfs) over 0.5 1 0.5 1 - 1 spawning areas V6 % cover - low water 5 % 0.5 10% 0.7 10 % 0.7 period V7 Ave substrate size 0.3- 8 1 t 1 t - 8cm in spawning areas V8 % substrate size 10-40cm 1.3 0.1 0 0 25cm 1 for winter and escape an cover V9 Dominant substrate in A 1 A t B 0.6 riffle run areas V10 % pools in late growing 10 % 0.3 25% 0.4 10 % 0.3 season V11 Ave % vegetation along 48 % 0.8 110 0.8 97 % 0.8 bank for allochthonous % input V12 Ave % rooted veg and 30 % 0.9 70 % 0.9 50 % 0.9 stable rocky cover on bank

, V13 Ave pH 8 1 8 1 8 1 V14 Ave annual base flow as - 1 63% 1 - 1 % of ave annual daily flow V15 Pool class rating C 0.3 C 0.3 C 0.3 V16 % fines in riffle run areas 4 % 1 1% 1 10% 0.9 No spawning was obselved in Goat Creek. The HSI values assigned are based on the size of substrate suitable for spawning.

The HSi then requires calculation to determine habitat suitability for each life stage: adult, juvenile, fry, embryo, and other. Each life stage calculation requires only some of the variables. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Adult (CA) The calculation for this component uses variables V4, V6, V10, and V15 (average thalweg depth, percent cover during low water period, percent pools in late growing season, and pool class rating). To calculate the component score for the adult life stage the following equation is used:

This equation is only used if V4 and 0110 x V1 5)IR are greater than 0.4. If this test for use of the equation is not passed, the score for the adult component is the value of the lowest variable in the equation for CA. None of the reaches in Goat Creek pass the test for use of the equation so all reaches have a value of 0.3, the value for V15 (pool dass rating). This requirement that certain or all variables exceed a defined threshold occurs in the calculation for each component, based on the assumption that good quality habitat features can compensate for some poor ones, but not when too many features are poor, or one feature is very poor. The limiting element for adult trout is pools: the percent of pool cover and the quality of the pools are both low.

Juvenile (CJ) The juvenile component uses variables V6, V10, and V15 (percent cover during low water period, percent pods in late growing season, and pool class rating). Here the calculation instructions state that if any variable is less than or equal to 0.4, then the component value is the lowest variable score. Therefore the juvenile component score is the same as the adult score and for the same reason: poor pool habitat.

Fly (CF) Variables V8, V10. and V16 (percent of substrate size 1040 cm for winter and escape cover, percent pools in late growing season, and percent fines in riffle run areas) are used to calculate values for fry. Once again the values are for the CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK lowest variable, which in this case varies among the reaches. Reaches 1 and 2 have very low values of 0.1 and 0, respectively. based on the value for V8 (% substrate 1040cm for winter cover). Reach 3 has a value of 0.3 based on the low value for V10 (% pools).

Embryo (CE) No spawning was observed in Goat creek during the field seasons. Values for velocity and substrate size in spawning areas are assigned based on data collected for sites in which trout of the size found in Goat Creek could spawn.

The calculation for this life stage indudes a rating of dissolved oxygen 013). Data collected in the 1999 field season found DO levels of 13 mg/L. which returns a value of 1 for this element. All other variables (V2, V5, '17. and V16: average maximum water temperature during embryo development, average velocity over spawning areas. average substrate size in spawning areas. and percent fines in riffle run areas) used in the calculation for this component have a value of one for reaches 1 and 2. Reach 3 has no potential spawning sites ('an area > 0.5 m2 of gravel 0.3-8.0 cm in size covered by flowing water 15cm deep" (Hickman and Raleigh 1982)) so it receives a value of 0.

Other (CO) This component returns a value for water quality and food supply which affect all life stages. The water quality subcomponent includes maximum temperature (V1), DO 013). pH (V13). and base flow (V14). The food subcomponent covers substrate size (V9). percent vegetation for allochthonous input (V1 1), and percent fines in riffle run areas 0116). Those relating to substrate are included because abundance of benthic invertebrates is correlated with substrate type. Variables for percent streamside vegetation (V12) and the relationship of average daily flow to average annual base flow are also included as important habitat maintenance features. The equation for this component is: CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Component = [[0/9 x ~16)'~+ VII]'~] x [(Vl x V3 x V12 x V13 x V14 x 1IN 112 V16) I

Where N = the number of variables within the parentheses

The values for the overall habitat component are 0.89 for reaches 1 and 2. and 0.76 for reach 3.

An overall value for the stream can be calculated for each life stage separately. or using any combination of life stages. This value is calculated using the equation:

HSI = (CAx CJ x CFxCE XCO)'~

But if any value is < or = 0.4, then the result is the lowest value. Therefore the overall HSI for each reach matches the values for each life stage. Table 8 presents the results for habitat suitability for cutthroat trout.

Table 8: Habitat suitability results for cutthroat trout IReach IReach IReach 1 1 2 13 Adult Component 0.3 0.3 ' 0.3 Juvenile 0.3 0.3 0.3 Component Fry Component 0.1 0 0.3 Embryo 1 7 0' Component Other Component 0.89 0.89 0.76

Overall HSI 0.3 0.3 0.3

" Since cutthroat trout and bull trout would spawn in the upper reaches of Goat Creek. where suitable substrate exists, the value of 0 for the embryo stage is removed from the assessment of over habitat suitability for reach 3. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Bull Trout

To assess habitat for bull trout in Goat Creek I used preference curves developed by Femet and Bjomson (1997). This method does not include a full suitability index, and provides values for a smaller number of habitat features, but it provides a general picture of the suitability for bull trout. The preference curves are presented in Appendix Ill (Habitat Suitability Curves). Data collected in the field seasons are used in the assessment of bull trout habitat.

Table 9: Habitat suitability results for bull trout Variable Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Index Index Index Depth (m) 0.1-1.0 1 0.1-1.0 1 0.1-1.0 1 Velocity (m/s) O.f-0.6 1 0.1-0.7 1 0.1-1.2 1 Substrate for 26-76 1 26-7 1 26-7 - spawning (mm) Cover Fry 0.6 0.8 - Juvenile 0.8 0.5 0.5 Adult 0.5 0.6 0.6 Cover at Spawning 0.2 0.2 - sites

Because of the range of velocities and depths along and across the stream, all reaches provide some habitat for each life stage. except Reach 3, which has no potential spawning sites for small fish due to many boulders. Cover values are difficult to judge because the preference curves point to which type of cover bull trout associate with, but not how much is required of each type. Goat Creek has limited cover of all types in each reach so I assigned low to median values for cover.

LIMITING FACTORS

Rating each habitat feature allows identification of those features that limit habitat suitability; those with low value scores (less than or equal to 0.4). Many habitat features in Goat Creek rate as good to excellent and thus are not identified as CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

limiting suitability. Temperature, thalweg depth, water velocity, % cover, substrate in riffle run areas for food production, bank vegetation, and pH all are suitable for cutthroat trout. The rating for base flows is also high since flows are relatively constant throughout the year. Those elements that liml suitability for cutthroat trout are: substrate 104Ocm for winter escape cover and pools, percent pool cover and pool class rating. The ideal percentage of pools for cutthroat trout habitat is 50%. None of the study reaches in Goat Creek approach that amount. lnstream cover in the form of pools, especially those created by large woody debris (LWD), and undercut banks may be a limiting factor for both bull trout and cutthroat trout. Also, since no spawning was observed, cover for spawning sites is based on an assessment of potential spawning sites based on substrate size. Temperature is not included in the preference data for bull trout, but other sources (Pratt 1985; Shepard 1985; McPhail and Baxter 1996; USFWS 1998) point to temperatures under 12OC as favoured, and find that bull trout may avoid water with suitable habitat but warmer waters. Summer daytime maximum temperatures in Goat Creek often exceed this threshold, limiting habitat suitability for bull trout.

It is important to note, however, that the suitability values for Goat Creek do not mean that cutthroat trout cannot be suppolted by available habitat. When Mudry and Green (1974) conducted their study of Goat Creek in the 19709, the dam had been in place for twenty years. Changes to habitat and flows would have already altered the stream from its original state. Therefore, it is likely that when Mudry and Green found a population of cutthroat trout, the habitat was very close to what exists today. So, while habitat is not optimum it can support a cutthroat trout community, but will limit numbers and size of fish.

The methods of habitat assessment used for both species only take into account physical habitat. They can not be used to predict standing crop of fish since other factors may also affect the success of a stream population. In Goat Creek, CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK the major limiting factor on reestablishing populations of bull and cutthroat trout is the presence

GOAT CREEK RESTORATION POTENTIAL

Restoration of Goat Creek focuses on the length of stream from Goat Pond to just above the bridge on Goat Creek Trail. The waterfall there limits upstream movement of brook trout from the Spray River and the Bow River. The last kilometer of Goat Creek, from the bridge to the Spray River is excluded from the restoration to take advantage of the natural barrier to fish movement. If this lower section were included, a bamer at the Spray River would be required, unless non-native species in that River were also extirpated.

Removal of non-native species

Since BNP did not stock brwk trout into Goat Creek (Pacas pen. comm.), the population of brook trout originated from the stocks introduced into Goat Pond in 1969 by provincial fisheries managen (Stelfox pen. comm.), or migrated through spillway channels from the Spray lakes Resewoir. Restoration of a population of native fish would involve removal of non-native fish and creation of barriers to access from up and downstream sources of non-native fish.

Goat Creek presents a possibilw for native species reintroduction because it could be made into a closed system. Investigation of the potential to restore a native fish population in Goat Creek focuses on the length of stream from Goat Pond to just above the bridge on Goat Creek Trail. The waterfall at the bridge limits upstream movement of brook trout from the Spray River and the Bow River (Courtney et al. 1992). The last kilometer of Goat Creek, from the bridge to the Spray River could be excluded from the stream restoration to tske advantage of the natural bamer to fish movement provided by the waterfall. If this lower section were included, a barrier at the Spray River would be required, unless non-native species in that River were also extirpated. Studies to determine the CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK effectiveness of the waterfall as a barrier to upstream movement would be necessary. Higher flows and water velocity and lower summer water temperatures as a result of moddying water flow releases in Goat Creek could favour cutthroat trout over brook trout (Griffiths 1972; Behnke 1992; De Staso and Rahel 1994). However, a population of only two brook trout can reproduce quickly enough to replace a flourishing population of cutthroat trout in five years (Behnke 1992).

For this reason, access to the Creek from upstream sources, in Goat Pond and the small impoundment at the lower pumping station must also be blocked. In the summer of 1998, anglers identified bmktrout in the small impoundment pond. Coarse screens block trash and debris between the Spray Reservoir and the Three Sisters power plant, but do not impede fish passage. The are no screens or barriers to fish passage from Goat Pond through the culverts (Drury pers. comm.).

A native cutthroat trout population exists in Marvel Lake and could be used for stocking (Earle 1995).

Flow Modification

Restoring Goat Creek and environs would involve not only the fish community, it would require recreating natural or naturalistic conditions in the habitat and watershed to meet the goals of the BNP Management Plan. The main factor affecting the stream habitat is the stabilization of flows from impoundment. Recreating a more natural hydrograph would mean higher flows than currently during the historic high flow period, from May to August.

Effects of higher flows on the instream habitat were examined in 1992, when TAU diverted flows through Goat Creek to perform work on Whiteman's Dam (Courtney et al. 1992). Flows increased fivefold above normals for the period, CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK from 0.5 m3/sto almost 3.0 m3/s. Depth increased, but not linearly with discharge. The wide channel means that increases in discharge will result in small increases in depth. The study found that the five-fold increase in discharge resulted in only a 7 cm increase in depth in a study site immediately above the lower pumping station, and an increase of 20 cm in a more confined channel between reach 2 and reach 3. The site (Courtney et al. 1992) above the lower pumping station was similar to reach 1. The stream channel is wide and shallow with gently sloping banks so increases in flow create little change in depth.

During the study, Courtney et al. (1992) observed the movement of pea-sized gravel and coarse sand at flows of approximately 2.83 m3/s. These particles accumulated on the downstream side of instream velocity baniers such as log and boulders. The study suggested that, since cobbles make up much of the substrate in the stream, deposits of the smaller particles could provide suitable spawning substrate. As higher flows raised the water surface elevation, fine sediments from the shoreline were eroded and turbidity appeared higher, resulting in milky waters. However, tests for suspended sediment showed no change in levels of TSS between high and low flow periods. Another study (Golder Associates 1996) found that higher discharges (up to 5.42 m3/s)had not resulted in deleteriously high levels of TSS. Even at the highest flows tested, TSS levels were under he25mgR limit set by DFO. Both studies found that sedimentation would not affect habitat in the stream because high gradient and low numbers of pools allow few opportunities for water to slow and allow sediment to settle out. Both studies concluded that there were no adverse effects on fish from the increased water flows. lnstream temperatures at higher flows would be lower for two reasons. First, the hypolimnion water released from the reservoir would be cool. When Mudry and Green (1974) conducted their investigation on the fish in the Spray River, they found that temperatures in the lower Spray River were depressed by cooler water flowing in from Goat Creek. At that time oat Creek was used as a spillway for CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK augmenting flows in the lower Spray River, thus the water was cooler, at least in part, due to its source in the reservoir. Secondly, higher Rows would also result in faster moving, deeper water that would remain cooler than slower moving water exposed to more solar radiation (Armitage 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985).

Goat Creek is now essentially removed from the River and Reservoir system used in hydroelectric generation. Aside from occasional flow releases from Goat Pond or Goat Valley Canal to allow repairs to various structures, the effects of impoundment on Goat Creek result in stable flow; the daily and seasonal flow fluctuations associated with run of the river power generation do not exist.

Comparing estimated historic flows to current fbws suggests that current low flow discharges. from late August through to late April (eight months) are close to historic flows (Figure 18). From November to April current flows are greater than estimated historic flows. Therefore they would not need to be modified to restore a more natural hydrograph. Current flows from May through August (four months), the historic season of high flows, are substantially lower since impoundment. Augmenting flows during these months would mimic the natural hyd rograph.

To determine flow amounts and associated costs for recreating a natural hydrograph in Goat Creek, two possible flow management scenarios were examined. The first (scenario one) creates a hydrograph with peak flows from May to August (the historic high flow period). The peak flow amount is within the limits of what power generation structures allow, without modification. Capacrty at the outlets from Goat Pond is 218 cfs (6.1 7 m3/s). Limits to flow increases occur at the weir at the lower pump, where flows greater than 100 cfs (2.83 m3/s) can subject the pump to flooding (Drury pers. comm.). Scenario one uses 2.83 m3/s (100cfs) as the peak flow for June and July. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Estimated historic peak flows occurred in June and July at approximately 4.5 m3/s (158.8 cfs). Scenario one involves no structural changes to the weir or flow outlet capabilities at Goat Pond so lost revenue from diverted flows represents all monetary cost to TAU.

0.0283 m3/s (1 cfs) of water flowing for one full day through the Spray and Rundle power plants produces 2 megawatthoun (MWh) of energy (Drury pers. comm.).

Costs (lost opportunity) are calculated using values of 1 cfs-day = 2MWh and $40.00 per MWh, in the equation:

Cost = flow (cfs) x number of days x 2MWhIcfsday x $40.00 per MWh

Since TAU is required to release a 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) baseflow, these ffows are subtracted from the target flows before calarlation of revenue lost. Flow levels and costs are shown in Table 10. Figure 23 shows the hydrographs from each scenario.

In scenario two. flows during high flow season (May to August) are augmented to their historic levels. To achieve these flows structural changes to the weir at the lower pump house would be required. Costs for modifying the weir are not included in the cost summary in Table 11. The hydragraphs for both scenarios are represented in Figure 23. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

Table 10 Cost for scenario one (no structural changes) Month Average flows Target Difference Cost in lost 19761990 in m31s flows in in m31s (cfs) revenue($) (cfs) m31s (a) May 0.739 (26.1) 1.42 (50) 0.68 (23.9) 59.272 June 1-02 (36) 2.83(100) 1.81 (64) I53,600 July 1.I4 (40.2) 2.83 (100) 1.69 (59.8) 148,304 August 1.34 (47.3) 1.42 (50) 0.08 (2.7) 6,696 Totals 4.23 (149.61 300 18.49) 4.26 11 50.4) 367.872

Table 11 Cost for scenario two (involving structural changes to weir) Month Average flows 1976- Target Difference Cost in lost 1990 in m31s (&) flows in in m31s (cfs) revenue()) m31s (a) May 0.739 (26.1) 1-66 0.92 (32.53) 80,674.40 (58.63) June 1.02 (36) 4.43 3.41 289,152 (1 56.48) (1 20.48) July 1.14 (40.2) 3.52 2.33 (84.2) 208,816 (124.40) August 1.34 (47.3) 1-99 1.99 (23.16) 57,436.80 (70.46) Totals 4.23 (149.6) 11-60 7.37 636,079-20 (409.97) (260.37)

- - - -Scenario one 5 flows hm 2 4 € 3a - - Historical mean monthly flows tu2' c 2 approxim ated by -2 scenario two 01 Current Goat 0 Creek mean a 0 '3 4 co -. A monthly flows

Figure 23: Hydrographs for scenarios one and two with comparison to current flows

This examination of restoration potential for Goat Creek does not consider removal of the power generation system so the Goat creek watershed will remain at 41 -6% of its historic size. Therefore, restoring flows to their historic levels may not be appropriate. Flow releases possible within the existing structural constraints (scenario one) allow peak flows of 60% of estimated historic peak CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK flows. Because of the relationship between watershed size and discharge (Flosi and Reynolds 1991; FISRWG 1998), flows amounts reflecting the new, reduced watershed size may be appropriate.

The target flows in Tables 9 and 10 are averages for the months and could be designed to be flexible. as in the concept of a water budget, as used by BCHydro (BCHydro 1996). A water budget would allow BNP and TAU flexibility to modify agreed-to flows for adaptive management. An annual amount could be set at total amount of discharge for the year or four month high flow period (May to August) or at an agreed-to monetary amount so that average annual cost to TAU remains constant. For example, in scenario one, if an annual flow increase of 4.26 m3ls (150.4 ds)over four months was agreed upon over a four year cycle, fisheries managers could design peak releases to respond to yearly precipitation variations (Wieringa and Morton 1996). In a year with high snowmelt and rainfall amounts, full flow releases could be combined with higher natural inputs to create flushing flows. Alternatively, a yearly cost to TAU, set at $367,872 (the cost for increasing flows in scenario one), would allow similar flexibility, but flow changes would be assessed on the value at the time the flows are released and would allow more certainty for TAU. In either case, BNP could 'purchase' flows by reducing flow requirements in low flow periods.

Removal of non-native fish would be aided by lower flows, so during the years in which removal occurs, the agreement for the 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) that TAU now allows past the lower pumping station could be waived. If so, in one year TAU would gain $292.000 by benefiting from the power generated by the 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) over 365 days. CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK

lnstream Techniques

lnstream structures. used in combination with flow management would accelerate channel change and create more diverse instream habitat with increased pools and cover. The high flows released into Goat Creek during failures of the Goat Valley Dyke likely caused changes in instream habitat, washing LWD downstream and filling pools with sediment. These high flow events could have acderated changes or caused changes in instream habitat that would not otherwise have occurred. lnstream restoration techniques for Goat Creek should be aimed at mitigating limiting factors identified in the assessment of habitat suitability. These limiting factors are: lack of and poor quality of pools. high maximum temperatures in the summer for bull trout, little instream or streamside cover, and limited suitable substrate for juvenile winter cover. High summer temperatures could be addressed through high water floes in summer months. The instream techniques reviewed in Table 3 are suitable for Goat Creek. Those techniques that address limiting factors in Goat Creek are outlined in Table 12. All instream techniques work in concert with flows to create and diversify instream habitat.

Table 12: Limiting factors and restoration techniques Limiting factor Potential restoration tools High summer temperatures Riparian planting Low number and poor quality of Increase instream objects, large woody pools debris (LWD) and boulders Little instream or streamside cover Increase instream objects, large woody debris (LWD) and boulders Little substrate for juvenile winter Boulder placement cover

Physically. Goat Creek is a suitable candidate for instream structures to improve habitat. Flows are managed. the overall stream gradient is within the ranges for instream structures, and sediment sources are limited. While riparian sources of LWD would need years to decades to naturally affect instream habitat. sources for LWD exists all along the length of Goat Creek for use in a managed CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK introduction of LWD. Because of the low amount of LWD in Goat Creek, high discharges could simply scour and remove sediments and amour the channel, rather than create more diverse habitat. lnstream structures would address this factor.

Riparian areas

In the 50 years since flow regulation on Goat Creek, little riparian vegetation has emerged. Many streamside areas are unvegetated cobble. some have growths of mountain avens (Dryas dmmondii), and willow (Salix spp.) shrubs cover other areas. In a few places there has been limited regrowth of spruce (Picea englemannii), that. over decades, will develop into well-forested riparian areas. The large areas of bare cobbly deposits, having remained unvegetated since 1950, show little sign of revegetation since no soil deposition takes, as it would with periodic flooding with high flows. Flows suggested in the two scenarios would not flood the banks and there is little sediment available for deposition. Plantings of native willow species, or dwarf birch (Betula pumila) native to the area could hurry reestablishment of the riparian community. Since BNP has a large community of volunteers interested in working in the Park, a revegetation program could be done relatively inexpensively.. CHAPTER 5 SU'MMARYAND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Cutthroat and bull trout were selected as target species for this investigation of restoration potential because they are native to Alberta and their populations are in decline there as well as over much of their historic ranges. They are also vulnerable to human-induced habitat changes and competition from introduced fish species. Restoration efforts in Canada and the United States are focussed on re-establishing viable populations of these native species by managing two types of effects: flow regulation and the presence of non-native species.

The two native trout have similar habit needs. requiring cool. dear. flowing water. in habitat that provides hiding cover, food, and opportunities for reproduction. Flow regulation directly affects this habitat by creating barriers to movement, by changing the nature of the aquatic habitat from flowing to still, and by reducing flows and thereby reducing area of available habitat. Indirect effects from lowered flows and lowered sediment levels lead to changes to instream habitat, reducing habitat diversity. Lowered flows also affect water temperature. which can make habitat unsuitable for some species and can interfere with reproduction stimuli and food availability. Absence of flooding flows leads to degradation of riparian habitats. as replenishing soils and nutrients are no longer seasonally deposited on the stream banks.

Lower flows also affect interactions between native and non-native species. Non-native trout species introduced into western North American waters over the last century have decimated native populations in many cases. Non-native fish compete with native species for temtory and resources. often more successfully in an altered environment to which they are better adapted. They can also CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS hybridize with native populations, reducing those species abillty to reproduce and altering native genetic strains.

Stream restoration projects now adopt a broader-scale perspective than in the past. Historically, restoration projects that focused solely on instream habitat were unsuccessful. Projects now focus on watershed structure and functions and address causes of habitat degradation rather than simply the effects. In cases where streams are affected by flow regulation this means including fish habitat needs as well as power generation requirements in flow management decisions. Flow management for fish habitat can be either in the form of minimum flows or as mimicking a natural hydrograph. Water budgets. in which flow releases are set for a year, but timing of releases may be varied according to habitat management needs, have been used with success in cases where uncertainty of results would otherwise limit decision-making. Water budgets allow for flexibility in habitat management while providing economic certainty for the power generator.

Methods to remove unwanted fish species include poison, electmfishing, and angling, all in use now in North America with varying success rates. Poisons work well at removing fish populations, but affect all instream organisms and thus require restocking of benthic invertebrates after treatment. Electrofishing does not kill native fish or benthic invertebrates, but has limited potential to remove all non-native fish. as does angling. Brook trout are especially difficult to remove by any method other than poison, since it is difficult to remove all young of the year, yet those fish will mature and reproduce in the next year.

Projects using instream structures for habitat restoration have low success rates, unless used in combination with watershed management. Such structures can be used with flow management, to accelerate habitat creation in degraded streams. They should only be used, though, when an analysis of limiting factors indicates that such structures would address habitat shortcomings. CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Both flow regulation and introduction of non-native fish species have affected Goat Creek, in Banff National Park. The fish community changed after introduction of brook trout. from one composed of native species to one dominated by non-native fish. Impoundment structures and extreme flow events changed instream habitat. reducing habitat area and instream diversity, and thereby limiting its suitability for native fish.

Parks Canada's legal mandate to maintain ecological integrity in the National Parks supports restoration of the fish community and habitat in Goat Creek. Management of Goat Creek, however, falls not only to BNP, but to the Province of Alberta, and to TransAlta Utilities. Each organization's management activities have affected the fish communw and habitat in Goat Creek over the last 47 years.

Restoration of Goat Creek would involve removing non-native fish species, stocking native cutthroat trout, managing flows for fish habitat, and creating instream habitat. Structural constraints associated with power generation facilities allow for augmentation opportunities to mimic natural flow patterns and create water velocities high enough to move substrate and create instrearn habitat. Current flow outlets, though. also allow fish passage from upstream areas that support non-native fish populations. Successful eradication of non- native species depends on such access point being closed. Upstream fish movement from the Spray River and the Bow River is blocked by natural structures. Goat Creek is a suitable candidate for instream structures for habitat creation. The size, topography, and flow levels would not limit the choice of types of structures. In table 13 the issues and restoration opportunities for Goat Creek are summarized. Issue Effects on Potential Restoration Comments Goat Creek Methods Impoundment Reduced Increase minimum flow Does not address BNP Management Plan objective to create more discharge requirements natural flows in the Spray River system. lncrease flows in natural Within current structural framework, flows can be increased to 2.83 high flow season m3/s, or 60% of historic flows. Stable Increase flows in natural Watershed area is reduced from historic size by 41 % so annual high flow season correspondingly reduced peak flows may be appropriate. discharge A water budgets with a set annual amount for flow releases allows flexibility in flow management when effects of increased flows are not known. Dam failures Homogenous Increase instream woody High flows released during dam failure likely washed instream debris instream debris and increase flows downstream and filled pools in the 1970s. habitat in natural high flow Materials for placement in stream are available along stream. season 6 Increasing flows may not create diverse instream habitat, since little debris exists in the stream. Stocking of Fish Chemical poisoning Good record of success in eradicating non-native fish species. non-native community May kill benthic invertebrates, requiring reintroduction of aquatic species changed insects. from a Currently not permitted for use in National Parks, but altowed by the diverse Federal Fisheries Act. native Electrofishing Poor record of eradication of brook trout, population to a population ' Bkdting re-entry of non- Potential natural barrier at waterfall one km upstream of Spray River. of brook trout native fish Fish can cu~tlyaccess Goat Creek from the Spray Lakes Reservoir and Goat Pond. Saesns to block access through culvert at Goat Pond would be needed for a successful restoration. Restock native fish Stocks of native cutthroat and bull trout exist in the Bow River watershed.

Table 13: Summary of issues, effects and restoration techniques CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS Management recommendations were developed to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing the structural and functional integrity of the Goat Creek ecosystem, as determined by the laws, policies and management plan for Banff national Park. If Parks Canada decides to restore Goat Creek as a means to achieving its mandate for ecological integrity, the management recommendations would provide a framework within which to guide restoration planning.

The recommendations are divided into two types: organizational and specific. Organization recommendations refer to broad scale management activities that, if not addressed, will limit the success of any restoration activities for Goat Creek. These recommendations are based on an understanding of the current legal and management framework governing this area, and on information derived from a review of literature addressing stream restoration. Organizational recommendations create the management framework within which specific restoration activities take place. Specific recommendations focus on Goat Creek and are drawn from analysis of current and past habitat conditions, from an understanding of engineering opportunities and constraints associated with TAU dam structures, and from analysis of research into restoration methods. These recommendations propose actions needed to restore ecological integrity in Goat Creek.

Organizational Recommendations

The first two organizational recommendations arise from a review of literature and from discussions with fish habitat managers. The review of stream restoration literature pointed to failures in restoration projects with narrow scopes that emphasized habitat creation rather than watershed-scale planning. Current wisdom suggests managing from a broader perspective that addresses causes of degradation. The National Parks Act, Parks Policies, and the Banff National Park Management Plan all support managing for ecological integrity. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AM) RECOMMENDATIONS

Using the Parks Canada definition of ecological integrity would mean focussing on restoring structures and functions that allow habitat and the communities it supports to be self-sustaining. Therefore:

1. It is recommended that any restoration plans for Goat Creek focus on restoring natural structure and functions by addressing the effects of flow impoundment and the presence of non-native species-

Removal of fish from streams has met with resistance in other areas, no matter what the method. but using piscicides to accomplish the task would generate additional controversy. Goat Creek is not currently a destination for anglers. so resistance to projects focussing on that stream may not be controversial, but if plans for restoring streams in BNP are not made clear, resistance may arise from misunderstanding of future plans. Other jurisdictions have successfully communicated with the public and have won support from groups originally opposed to restoration of native fish populations. Therefore:

2. It is recommended that Psrks Canada create a public infomation program inform and include the publk in any plans to restore aquatic ecosystems and to encourage support for such programs-

The third and fourth organizational recommendations are drawn from my understanding of the current organizational and jurisdictional setting within which Goat Creek sits. Past projects on Cascade Creek (McCleary 1996; Godman 1999) and a current project on the Spray River (Eaton in prep.) investigate the restoration potential for those streams. Parks Canada has developed preliminary restoration plans for Cascade Creek. A restoration of Cascade Creek provides an excellent opportunity for public education, since Lake Minnewanka and the creek are easily accessible to Park visitors and are already a destination for a large percentage of Park visitors. Restoration potential for the Spray River is not CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS yet known. Goat Creek, although less accessible to the public than Cascade Creek, is physically a good candidate for restoration and presents some opportunities for interpretive programs at the Goat Creek Trailhead and at the bridge on Goat Creek Trail. Therefore:

3. It is recommended that. in determining restoration pn'on'ty Goat Creek, it be reviewed in context with other pmjects investigating restoration potential on the Spray River and on Cascade Creek.

Since Goat Creek originates and runs almost half its length through the Province of Alberta, actions by provincial fisheries managers and by public visitors to provincial lands have the potential to affect any restoration plan for Goat Creek. Past actions by provincial fisheries managers resulted in the current community of brook trout in Goat Creek. Current provincial projects involving removal of non-native species from provincial waters could help in any efforts by BNP. Also. the Spray Lakes Reservoir, Goat Pond. Goat Creek Trailhead, and the most accessible section of Goat Creek are on provincial land and provide interpretive opportunities to inform the public of both restoration efforts and collaborative projects. Therefore:

4. It is recommended that Parks Canada collaborate with provincial fisheries managers on any restoration plan fbr Goat Cmk.

Specific Recommendations

The following recommendations apply to Goat Creek and would be a guide to restoring Goat Creek, if it were selected as a potential site for restoration.

The historical analysis of Goat Creek shows that, in its natural state, Goat Creek supported a population of native cutthroat trout in a stream regulated by CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS snowmelt and rainfall. Analysis of historic flows illustrates that Goat Creek flows peaked from May to August, like the majority of unregulated streams in BNP. The information on its past state can guide the goal setting process for restoring Goat Creek. My review of literature suggests that an understanding of past biological capacity and historic habitat conditions provides a realistic framework within which to plan restoration efforts. Therefore:

5. It is recommended that Parks Canada use the infbnnation in this report on historic conditions in Goat Creek as a guidb in defining restontion goals.

Based on knowledge of historical and present conditions of the habitat and the fish community in Goat Creek, restoring natural structure and function would require: a) Reestablishing a population of native fish Closing fish access through culverts at Goat Pond and lower pumping station, and from pond above lower pumping station (laccess exists) Removing brooknake trout from Goat Creek Stocking Goat Creek with cutthroat trout from stocks in Marvel Lake b) Recreating a natural hydrograph Increase flows in historic high flow season, from May to August c) Encouraging instream habitat creation

Fish populations Discussions with provincial fisheries managers indicated that the current population of brook and lake trout in Goat Creek originated in the Spray Lakes and Goat Pond, so fish in those water bodies have access to Goat Creek. Populations of non-native fish still exist in Goat Pond and the Spray Lakes, so success of restoration of native species in Goat Creek requires blocking that access. CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To prevent recolonization of brook and lake trout, structures to block fish passage from Goat Pond would be needed prior to any removal process. Therefore:

6. !f is recommended that Parks Canada work with liansAIta Utilities to defermine feasibility of building stmctures to block fish passage-

Analysis of information from a literature review and from fisheries managers revealed that, of the methods available to remove fish from streams, piscicide appears the only choice to successfully eliminate fish in a stream such as Goat Creek. Therefore:

7. It is recommended that Parks Canada investigate the possibility of using piscicides in Banff Naffonal Park. This includes detetmining potential effects on adjacent wafers and fish popula0ions-

FIows Scenarios for flow alteration developed fmm an understanding of historical flow patterns in Goat Creek combined with information on the costs and constraints on flow augmentation from a hydroelectric generation view. show the costs and results (in terms of recreating a natural hydrograph) for TransAlta and Goat Creek. It is possible, under current structural constraints, to increase peak flows to ten times the amount currently released as a minimum flow by TransAlta. From a literature review of projects in other jurisdictions working on managing Rows for fish habitat and power generation, uncertainty regarding results has lead to use of water budgets that allow for adaptive management. Since the effects of flow increases are not completely understood for Goat Creek. a water budget would be a valuable tool for managing flow releases. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Water budgets provide both flexibility for Parks Canada fisheries managers and certainty to TransAlta regarding costs. Therefore:

8. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TransAIta Utilities work together to define a water budget and detemine desired flow amounts.

Under current structural constraints. it is possible to increase flows in Goat Creek to approximately 60% of historic peak flow levels. Since the Goat Creek watershed would remain at its present reduced size (41% of historic size), and because of the relationship between watershed size and discharge, discharges lower than historic levels may be appropriate. lnstream habitat management Analysis of current instream habitat conditions and the forces that created them illustrated that instream habitat diversity in Goat Creek is low. likely as a result of extreme flow events that filled pools and removed woody debris. Assessment of habitat suitability for native trout in Goat Creek pointed out that the low number and poor quality of pools is a main limiting factor for habitat quality. Information gained from the literature review tells that instream structures are best used in concert with broad-scale watershed management that addresses causes of ha bitat degradation. Such structures can accelerate instream habitat formation. Taking this information in the context of the Goat Creek environment, this means combining instream structures with flow management. In a natural state, Goat Creek would have large woody debris from fallen riparian vegetation shaping and creating instream habitat. Riparian areas now are either bare gravel or beginning to regenerate with willow and small spruce. These plants will require decades to mature and fall and play a rde in habitat creation. Mature vegetation does exist. though, close enough to the stream all along the length, as a potential source for managed placement. Flow augmentation will move substrate. but velocity shadows are required for sediment to settle out of the current. and areas of higher velocity are needed for scouring effects. Instream objects that would CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RJXOMMENDATIONS direct flow and accomplish these tasks are limited to non-existent in Goat Creek. Therefore:

9. It is recommended that Parks Canada include use of large woody debris in the stream to work in concert with increased flows to accelerate habitat formation. REFERENCES REFERENCES

Alberta Department of Environment, 1998. Water Su~dvOutlook for Alberta - A~ril 1998.

. 1999a. Water SUDD~VOutlook for Alberta - July 1999.

. 1999b. The Framework for Water Management Planning: A Discussion Draft.

. no date. Alberta's Threatened Wildlife: Bull Trout. Natural Resource Service.

Alberta Research Council. 1998. Criteria and Indicators for Monitorina Biodiversitv in Alberta's Forests. Part I: Review ofC&islation. Policies. External Aareements and Proqrams. a Prowess Comnletion Rewrt. Alberta Environmental Protection.

Armitage, Patrick D. 1984. Environmental changes induced by stream regulation and their effect on lotic macroinvertebrate communities. Reaulated Rivers, Albert Lillehammer and Svein Jakob Sattveit (eds.) New York: Columbia University Press.

Bain, Mark 6, and Vincent H. Trawnichek. 1996. Assessing impacts and predidng restoration benefits of flow alterations in rivers developed for hydroelectric power production. Proceedinas of the Second IAHR Svrnmsium on Habitat Hvdraulics, Ecohvdraulics 2000, M. Lederc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. at6 (eds.). Institute National de la Recherche Scientifique - Eau, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996. Banff-Bow Vallev: At the Crossroads. Technical Remrt of the Banff-Bow Vallev Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley. J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey E. Green, and J. R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. For the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario.

BCHydro. 1996. Allouette Generatina Station Water Use Plan.

Behnke, Robert J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph, Bethesda, Maryland.

Beschta, R.L, 1996. Suspended sediment and bedload. Methods in stream ecoloov, F.R. Hauer 8 G.A. Lambert, (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beschta, Robert L, William S. Platts, J. Boone Kauffman, and Mark T. Hill. 1995. Artificial stream restoration: money well spent or and expensive failure? m,, October 1995.

Bisson, P.A. 8 Montgomery, D.R. 1996. Valley segments, stream reaches, and channel units. Methods in stream ecolggy, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Larnbert (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bovee, Ken D. 1982. A Guide to Stream Analvsis Usina the lnstream Flow Incremental Methodoloav: lnstream Flow Information Pamr No. 12. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bozek, Michael A- and Frank J. Rahel. 1991. Assessing habitat requirements of young Colorado River cutthroat trout by use of macrohabitat and microhabitat analyses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Societv 120: 571-581. REFERENCES

British Columbia Ministry of Environmental Land and Parks and Ministry of Fisheries (BC MELPI MoF). 1994. Fish Habitat Assessment: Interim Methods. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8.

Brookes, Andrew, Scott S. Knight, and F, Douglas Shields Jr. 1996. Habitat enhancement, River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princioles for Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Brookes, Andrew and David A. Sear. 1996. Geornorphological Principles for restoring river channels. River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princi~lesfor Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Buktenica, Mark. 1998. Savina Bull Trout in Sun Creek. United States National Park Service.

Burgess, Stephen A. 1985. Some effects of stream habitat improvement on the aquatic and riparian community of a small mountain stream. The Restoration of Rivers and Stream: Theories and Exoen'ence, James A- Gore ed. Boston: Butterworth Publishers.

Bustard, D. R. 1984. Queen Charlotte Islands Stream Rehabilitation Studies: A Review of Potential Techniaues- British Columbia Ministry of Fisheries.

Calgary Power Ltd. No Date, circa 1950. Power for Progress: Thermal and Hvdro Plants O~eratedbv Caloary Power Ltd.

Calgary Power Ltd. No Date, c. 1950. Sorav Proied: Calaaw Power Ltd. Alberta.

Cardwell, Hal, Henriette I. Jager, and Michael J. Sale. 1996. Designing instream flows to satisfy fish and human water needs. Journal of Water Resources Plannina and Manaaement. 122(5):356-363.

Carl, Leon. 1985. Management plan for bull trout in Alberta. Proceedinus of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Poaulation Dvnamics Modelina Information Exchan~e,D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch.

Coleman, William G. 1 996. Biodiversity and industry ecosystem management. Environmental Management 20(6):8 15-825.

Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR). f 998. Beaver Creek Cutthroat Trout Restoration Proiect. Division of Wildlife

Courtney, R., D. Femet, and Z. Kovats. 1992. Final Remrt on Effects of Increasing Flows on Goat Creek and the Lower S~ravRiver. Calgary: Environmental Management Associates.

Culpin, Paul. 1089. Streams. lnventorv and Monitorina of Wildlife Habitat, Allen Y. Cooperrider, Raymond J. Boyd, and Hanson R. Stuart (eds.) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986. Policv for the Manaaement of Fish Habitat. REFERENCES

De Staso, James and Frank J. Rahel. 1994- Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:289-297-

Earle, Jenny. 1995. A Po~ulationStudv of Westslow Cutthroat Trout (Oncortrvnchus clarki lewisi) in Marvel Lake. Banff National Park. With lm~licationsfor Manaaement. Masters Degree Project, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.

Ebersole, J.L., Liss, W.J., & Frissell, C.A. 1997. Restoration of stream habitat in the western United States: Restoration as a reexpression of habitat capacity. Environmental Manaaement, 21.1,pp.-14.

Environment Canada. 1998. Canadian Climate Normals 1961-1 990. . 1990a. Historical Streamflow Surnmaw - Alberta. Ottawa: Water Resources Branch, Water Survey Branch, Water Survey of Canada.

Ericson, Peter M. 1996. Salmonid Habiiat Restoration in Coastal Second-arm Watersheds in British Columbia: A Com~risonof Available and Potential Rehabilitation Techniaues. Unpublished Thesis, University of British Columbia Forestry Department.

Fausch, Kurt D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams: what have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences 45: 223892246.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream Restoration: Princi~les.Processes. a nd Practices.

Femet, D.A. and C.P. Bjomson. 1997. A Delphi analysis of bull trout habitat preference criteria with comparison to information collected from Smith-Domen Creek. Atberta. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedinas. 435-442.

Flosi, Gary and Forrest L. Reynolds. 1991. California Stream Restoration Manual. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.

Godman, P.G. 1999. Fisherv Habitat Modelina of Cascade Creek. Banff National Park, An Abandoned Mountain Channel. MSc. Thesis, University of Calgary.

Golder Associates. 1996. Effects of Increased Levels of Turbiditv and Susmnded Sediments in Goat Creek Assodated with a S~illEvent from Goat Pond durina the summer of 1995. Calgary, Alberta: TmnsAlta Utilities Corporation.

Gore, James A., Franklin L. Bryant, and Dina J. Crawford. 1995. River and stream restoration. Rehabilitatina Damaaed- Ecosvstems, John Cairns, Jr. ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Gore, J.A. 1996. Discharge measurements and streamflow analysis. Methods in Stream Ecolwv, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Lambed (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press. REFERENCES

Griff~th,J.S., Jr. 1972- Comparative behavior and habitat utilization of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cutthroat trout (Salmo cIarkr] in small streams in northern Idaho. Journal of the Fisheries Resources Board Canada 29: 265-273.

Hamelson, C.C-, Rawlins, C.L., & Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniaue. General Technical Report RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Hauer, F.R. & Resh, V.H. 1996. Benthic macroinvertebrates. Methods in stream ecolosv, F.R. Hauer 8 G.A. lambert (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Henricson, Jan and Goran Sjoberg. 1984. Reaulated- Rivers, Albert Lillehammer and Svein Jakob Saltveit (eds.) New York: Columbia University Press.

Herger, Lillian G., Wayne A. Hubert and Michael K. Young. 1996. Comparison of habitat composition and cutthroat trout abundance at two flows in small mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 16: 294-301.

Hickman, Terry and Robert F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitabilihc Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. Washington. D.C.: US Department of the Interior, Western Energy and land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hiderbrand, Robert H., A. Dennis Lemly, C. Andrew Dolloff. and Kelly L. Harpster. 1997. Effects of large wood debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvetebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences 54:931-939.

Holden, Paul B. 1980. Ecology of riverine fishes in regulated stream systems with emphasis on the Colorado River. The Ecoloav of Reaulated Streams, James V. Ward and Jack A. Stanford (eds.) New York: Plenium Press.

House, Robert. 1996. An evaluation of stream restoration structures in a coastal Oregon stream, 1981-1993. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 16: 272- 281.

Hunter, Christopher J. 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Manaaement. Montana Land Reliance. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Kondolf, G. Mathias and Peter W. Downs. 1996. Catchment approach to planning channel restoration. River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princi~lesfor Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Koning, C. Wendell and Pat A. Slaney. 1996. Techniques to assess and restore fish habitat in stream impacted by logging activities. Proceedinas of the Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRAI Conference. Watercourses. Gettina on Stream with Current Thinkina. October 22-25. Vancouver. B.C., pp. 181-1 87.

Li, H.W. & Li, J.L. 1996. Fish community composition. Methods in stream ecolocay, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Lambert (4s.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press. REFERENCES

Mayhood, Dave. 1998. Following Silver City: westslope cutthroat trout in Canada. the Wild Side: Journal of American Wildlands, Spring 1998.

McCleary, R. 1996. lm~actsOf Water Diversion on Floodplain Structure. Hvdrolw~, and Rioarian Veaetation.- and Possible Mitiaation. Cascade River. Banff National Park. MSc Thesis, University of Montana.

Mclntyre, John D. and Bruce E, Rieman. 1995. Westslope cutthroat trout. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout, Michael K. Young ed. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-Gm-256.

McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A Review of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Life Historv and Habitat Use in Relation to Comwnsation and Im~rovement O~oortunities.British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Management Report No. 104.

Meyer, Kevin. 1998. Native Salrnonids Assessment Summaw. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Ministry of Canadian Heritage. 1994. Parks Canada Guidina Princides and Omrational Policies.

Mudry, Dwight R. and Roderick B. Green. 1976. Fisheries lnvestiaations on the Smay River. Banff National Park. 1975-1 976.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aauatic Ecosvstems: Saence, Technoloav. and Public Policy. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nelson, Wayne R., Gerald C. Horak and James E. Olson. 1978. Western Reservoir and Stream ~abitatlmorovernents Handbook: Guide to the Performance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Po~ulationIm~rovement Measures A~~Om~anuinaWater Resource Deveio~ment.United States Department of the Interior.

Newbury, R.N. 8 Gaboury, M.N. 1993. Stream Analvsis and Fish Habitat Desian: a Field Manual. Winnipeg: Newbury Hydraulics Ltd., The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, Manitoba Fisheries Branch

Ohmart, Robert D. and Bertin W, Anderson. 1986. Riparian Habitat. Inventory and Monitorina of Wildlife Habitat, Allen Y. Coopemder, Raymond J. Boyd, and Hanson R. Stuart (eds.) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management.

Petts, Geoffrey E. 1984. Immunded Rivers: Persoectives for Ecoloaical Manaaernent. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

. 1989. Perspectives for Ecological Management of Regulated Rivers. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement, James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Pratt, Karen. 1985. Habitat preferences of juvenile bull trout in the Flathead River basin. Proceedinas of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Pooulation REFERENCES

Dvnamics Modelina Information Exchanae, D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch.

Prowse, T. D. and M. Conly. 1996. Im~actsof Flow Reaulation on the Aauatic Ecosvstem of the Peace and Slave Rivers: Northern River Basins Studv Svnthesis Report No. 1. Edmonton, Alberta: Northern River Basins Study.

Rabeni, C.F. 8 Sowa, S.P. 1996. Integrating biological realism in habitat restoration and consewation strategies for small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences, 53 (Suppl. 1). pp. 252-259.

Risser, Roland J. and Richard R. Hams. 1989. Mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation on western montane streams. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement, James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Schindler, D.W. and C. Pams. 1996. Cumulative Effects of Human Activity on Aquatic Ecosystems in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park. Ecoloclical Outlooks Proied. A Cumulative Effects Assessment and Futures Outlook of the Banff-Bow Valley. Green, J., C. Pacas, S. Bayley and L. Cornwell (eds.) Prepared far the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario.

Scouras, J.G., Jackson, J.L., and Hennebury, P. (no date). Restorina a Salmon Stream: A Balance of Habitat Diversitv. Flood Control. and Camrnunitv Needs. British Columbia Hydro.

Shepard, Brad. 1985. Habitat variables related to bull trout spawning site selection and thermal preference exhibited in a thermal gradient. emceedinas of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Po~ufationDynamics Modelina Information Exchanae, D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Envirofirnent, Fisheries Branch.

Stalnaker, Clair 6. 1980. The use of habitat structure preferenda for establishing flow regimes necessary for the maintenance of fish habitat. The Ecoloav of Reaulated Streams, James V. Ward and Jack A. Stanford (eds.) New York: Plenium Press.

Stalnaker, Clair, Berton L. Lamb, Jim Henriksen, Ken Bovee, and John Barthdow. 1995. The lnstream Flow Incremental Methodoloav: A Primsr for IFIM. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.

Stream Enhancement Guide. 1980. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

Swales, Stephen. 1989. The use of instream habitat improvement methodology in mitigating the adverse effects of river regulation on fisheries. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement,- James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) 8oca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Temple, Ray, Kin Daily, Terry Shrader, and Bob Hooton. 1998. Fisheries Action Plan: -Draft. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. REFERENCES

Thompson. G.E. and A. P. Weibe. 1974. Irnmct of the S~ravCanal Failure on Goat Creek. Alberta. Unpublished report, Fisheries Section, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Calgary.

Thompson, Paul 0. and Frank J. Rahel. 1996. Evaluation of depletion-removal electrofishing of brook trout in small rocky mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 16: 332-229.

Tripp, 0-1986. Usina Lame Qraanic Debris to Restore Fish Habitat in Debris-torrented Stream. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands.

Trotter, Patrick C. 1987. Cutthroat Native Trout of the West- Colorado Associated University Press

USFWS (Fish and Wildlife Senrice). 1998. &rll Trout.

. 1999. Bull Trout and the Endancered Soeaes Act.

. No date. Bull Trout Facts-

United States National Park Service. National Park Service Park Manaaement Policies.

Ward, James V. and Jack A Stanford. 1985. The ecology of regulated streams: past accomplishments and directions for future research. Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology, John F. Craig and J. Bryan Kemper (eds.) New York: Pleniurn Press.

Wesche, Thomas A. 1985. Stream channel modifications and redarnation structures to enhance fish habitat. The Restoration of Rivers and Stream: Theories and Exwrience, James A. Gore (ed.) Boston: Butterworth Publishers.

Wieringa, Mark J. and Anthony G Morton. 1996. Hydropower, adaptive management, and biodiversity. Environmental Mananment 200: 83 1-840.

Wooding, Frederick H. 1994. Lake, River and Sea-run Fishes of Canada. British Columbia: Harbour Publishing.

Yeo, Bill. 1996. Spray Lakes Power Development Professional and Technical Services Letter Report to Joanne Cairns, Banff National Park.

Young, M.K., tech. Ed. 1995. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. General Technical Report RM-256. Fort Collins, Colorado: US Depaftment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Young, Michael K. 1996. Summer movements and Habitat use by Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncortrynchus clarkipleuriticus) in small, montane streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Science 53: 1403-1408. REFERENCES

Personal communications

Drury, Roger Water Management Planner TransAlta Utilities 11 0-1 zrnAve SW, Calgary, Alberta

Homer, Ned Fisheries Biologist Idaho Fish and Game, 5750 Kathleen Ave., Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

Lutch, Jeff Aquatic biologist PO Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Pacas. Charlie Aquatics Specialist, Banff Warden Service, PO Box 900, Banff National Park, Alberta

Paul, Andrew Ph.0. candidate Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta

Stelfox, Jim Alberta Environment 2938 11" St NE, Calgary, Alberta.

Maps

Canada Department of Mines. 1923. Palliser - Kananaskis Area: British Columbia and Alberta. Geological Survey 82J N.W. 1:126.720, 1' = 2 miles. contour interval 200'.

Canada Department of the Interior. 1926. Banff and vicinity. Topographical Survey 82 014. 1:63,360, 1" = 1 mile, contour interval 100'.

Natural Resources Canada. 1996. Canmore Alberta. 82 0/4. 1:50,000 contour interval 40 metres.

Aerial Photographs

820, Line 24B 3810- 3, September 13, 1988, 1:40,000 820, Line 24A 3819-283, September 13, 1988, 1:40,000 APPENDICES Determination of historical flows in Goat Creek based on historical data (191 5-1 929) for the Spray River watershed

Based on graph From Golder Associates 1996.

The dotted line represents an estimation of historic flows in Goat Creek based on its current watershed size (40.9 km2). The thick black line represents the estimation based on the size of the historic watershed (70km2).

Drainage areas (krn') APPENDIX 11: HISTOIUCAL FLOW DATA

SORAY AT BWIPT - SPAR- IO. 05BC001 ANNUAL mM DIscmRcEs m CUBIC Prn SEaJllD 21311 m E'mIaD cf Rxmm APR IUY JlRl JUL AUG S&? OCT m3V DEC HW( GPPENDLX 11: WSTORICAL now DATA

From Historical Streamflow Summary - Alberta. 1990. Environment Canada Water Resources Branch, Water Survey Branch. Water Survey of Canada.

COAT QCePE AT BAWFF PARK HXWDMY - SPATfCH NO. OSBCOO8 .?lOITITCf AND lWMlAL GXSCHARQS M CUBIC HZTRES PER SECOCID FDR TIE ZERXW Q RECURD YEAR JAN FEB MhR APR UAY JVPI 3UL AUG SEP CCT HOV DEC .SAN

GOAT LtS[ AT BANFF PA! - STmCN K). 358C008 ANKJAL OF DiSSARGE AND ANMTAL DISCBARGZ iT)R TAE PEitTCC OF =CORD lEAR nAXU.IVn IN7U.SDISQPlRTr .WHfM;)( DAnfY 3ISCEAl'GE ZmAL DISCBARGE 5) Wf)Dxs-- (m3 - (ma s) (bJ) 3.26 OH AUG 22 3.96 ON AUC 07 1.50 ON AUG 20 3.34 ON sn 09 --- 1.59 OR JUN 19 -- 1.96 ON OCl' 29 --- 3.82 CW Affi 22 1.53 aWSEP23. 4.03 ON SEP 19 ' 2.04 AT 14:OO MST Q( APR 16 1.38 OW APR fi

--- 2.14 CN JLM 01 0.1688 QI 14 9 - ICE -I'XOCCS ' - EIflZIPe REa)I(DED FOR ZBE PERIOD OF APPENDIX 111: HABITAT SUITABJLITY CURVES Cutthroat Trout Habitat Preference Curves for Habitat Suitability Index Source: Hickman and Raleigh 1982

(V1) Avg. max water temp. - summer 012) Avg. max temp during embryo development

(V3) Avg- minumum DO (V4) Avg. thalweg depth in low flow

3456789 Otuolved Oxygen (mgll)

(V5) Avg. velocrty over spawning (V6) % cover in late growing season areas

(V7) Avg. substrate size 0.3-8cm in (V8) % substrate 1040 cm for winter spawning areas cover (V9) Dominant substrate in riffle run (VlO) %pools in late growing season areas

A: Rubble or small boulders dominant B: Rubble, gravel and fines in equal amounts (V12) Avg. % rooted vegetation for erosion controi C: Fines, bedrockor large boulders dominant

(V11) Avg. %vegetation for allochtonous output

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Stmanbank vcqctatkn cover Cn) 0.2 0 0 25 50 h 100 125 150 Streanbank wqdatkm cover (Y (V14) Base flow as percent of average annual daily flow

(V13) Avg. pH

Base kavgannual daily tow Cn)

(V15) Pool class ratjng

(V16) % fines in riffle run and spawning areas

A: > 30% large, deep pools 6: 10-30% large, deep pools. >SO%Medium C: 10% large deep pools, 40% moderate APPENDIX 111: HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES Bull Trout Habitat Prebrence Curves Source: Fernet and Bjomson 1997

Cover Cover code definitions: 1 : No cover 2: l nstream object for velocity sheiter (Substrate. boulders, debris) 3: Instream/offstream visual isolation (undercut bank, log lams, overhanging canopy -

---- Adult Spawning Sites

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0 0.2 1 2 3 0 Cover code 1 2 Cover cock

Substrate suitability for spawning bull trout

Substrate suitability for spawning

: I 1

0 10 2033 40 50 80 7080 90100110120130 Substrate particle size (mm) APPENDIX UI: HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES

8ull trout preference curves Source: Golder Associates - 1997

Bull 1rout depth preference curves

.------

- -- -. -- Bull Trout velocity preference curves

1 -1 -