Upper Kootenay River Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program: 2000-2005 Summary

Prepared by: R.S. Cope Westslope Fisheries Ltd., 800 Summit Drive, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 5J5

Prepared for: Herb Tepper B. C. Ministry of Environment Fisheries Branch, 205 Industrial Road G, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 6H3

Funded by: Monitor and Protect Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir BPA Project Number 2000-004-00, Bonneville Power Administration, Fish and Wildlife Program P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208

Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Executive Summary

This report compiles and summarizes the data contained in nine separate juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring projects that make up the, “Upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and fish habitat-monitoring program (2000 – 2005)”. This project is a co-operative initiative of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and comprises one component of the larger umbrella project, “To monitor and protect upper Kootenay River bull trout” (BPA Project Number 2000-04-00).

The three study watersheds (Wigwam River, Skookumchuck Creek, White River) are considered the three most important bull trout spawning streams in the upper Kootenay River. Estimates of juvenile fish density (number of fish/100 m2) were determined using closed, maximum-likelihood removal estimates for 13 index sites (e.g. reaches). Density estimates were completed for between 2 and 4 years at each site for a total of 42 density estimates over an 8- year time span (1997, 2000 – 2005).

In total, 2,411 bull trout fry and juveniles were captured over a total sample area of 20,724 m2. Bull trout captures represented 84.3% of the catch. Site densities for bull trout fry and juveniles ranged from 0.4 to 45.5 fish/ 100 m2. The Wigwam River had the highest mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (range 12.2 – 21.5), followed by the White River (range 11.0 – 16.6), and the Skookumchuck River (range 6.1 – 7.3).

In total, 307 Westslope cutthroat trout were captured representing 10.7% of the catch. Westslope cutthroat trout were not the target species, but represent incidental captures, and as a result, densities were highly variable but typically low (range 0 – 13.88 fish/100 m2). Skookumchuck Creek had the highest mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout densities (range 0 – 9.2), followed by the Wigwam River (range 0.2 – 1.7), and the White River (Range 0 – 0.2).

The Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) is a purposive field survey of current habitat conditions for the target species in select reaches. Regional criteria for habitat conditions do not exist and current diagnostic criteria to evaluate habitat condition are exclusive of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout data. This report provides watershed and site summaries of key FHAP habitat diagnostics data for the thirteen index sites. This data provides diagnostic criteria that can be utilized for standards to detect habitats that may be degraded or at risk within the Kootenay Region. While the data summarized are from watersheds that are far from being “undisturbed” watersheds, habitat data were derived from reaches of these watersheds that have been identified as regionally significant spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for bull

March 2007 • i Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

trout, and to a lesser extent, Westslope cutthroat trout. Habitat data derived from these reaches identified preferred habitat features such as high habitat diversity, high large woody debris frequency, high value spawning and rearing substrate and groundwater sources.

As a general rule, the generalized FHAP diagnostic ratings do a good job of classifying the index sites as high value bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout habitat. However, they only rate as poor to fair in pool habitat and cover features using the generic diagnostics provided by Johnston and Slaney (1996). It would appear that this is due to several factors including; 1) the underlying character of the study streams that were much larger sized rivers compared to the diagnostics criteria, and 2) species and life-stage specific habitat preferences (e.g. small scour pools, cobble-boulder interstices).

Juvenile bull trout in these watersheds prefer slightly higher gradient reaches (i.e. 0.5 - 2%), that are slightly confined, have fewer pools (e.g. large, low velocity classically defined pools as opposed to boulder step-pools or small scour pools), and large substrate (i.e. cobble-boulder, dominant-sub-dominant) with a low percentage of sand and fines (i.e. clear interstices). These same habitat features (i.e. gradient, pool area, abundance of large woody debris (LWD) etc.) were not good predictors of fry densities.

Westslope cutthroat trout densities and habitat diagnostic features were limited by the low abundance of cutthroat trout in the catch. Despite these limitations, Westslope cutthroat trout density was significantly related to pool area. Pool area and LWD frequency were correlated and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout captures were typically associated with LWD.

Stream classification of index sites was completed using the “Rosgen Method” (Rosgen 1996). This report provides tabular summaries of channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the reference reach data summary form, and the stream channel classification form. These quick reference summaries have been developed as a “reference reach” resource specific to the upper Kootenay watershed to assist in stream classification, assessment of impacts on stream potential and to develop restoration or compensation designs that match or accommodate the functioning of a streams natural stable tendencies.

Eleven of the thirteen index sites were classified as Rosgen C3 and C4 streams. These stream reaches have gradients of 0 – 2 %, clean gravel and cobble substrate with very little sand or fines, high LWD abundance, wide floodplains with some off-channel habitat or side-channels and appear to be the dominant stream type for spawning, incubation and juvenile rearing bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout. Channel bed morphology is riffle-pool, with regularly spaced

March 2007 • ii Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

pools every 3 to 7 bankfull widths. Stream banks are dependent on riparian vegetation for stability.

B3 channel types, with gradients of 2 - 4 % and very coarse substrate dominated by cobble and boulder material with very little sand or fines appear to be ideal habitat for bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout juveniles. Channel bed morphology is dominated by a series of rapids and scour pools. Stream banks are composed of cobble and boulder and are very stable.

Acknowledgements

The upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout and fish habitat-monitoring program is a trans-boundary initiative implemented by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE), in cooperation with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Funding was provided by BPA under the umbrella project "Monitor and Protect Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir", BPA project Number 2000- 004-00. The contribution and assistance provided by Herb Tepper, Kevin Heidt and Bill Westover of the BCMOE are acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

Suggested citation for this report:

Cope, R.S. 2007. Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program: 2000-2005 Summary. Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 46 pp + 2 app.

Cover Photo – Middlefork White River, Site 2.

March 2007 • iii Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... III TABLE OF CONTENTS...... IV LIST OF TABLES ...... V LIST OF FIGURES...... VI 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1

1.1 Background...... 1

1.2 Project History...... 3

1.3 Objective...... 9

1.4 Study Area...... 11 2 METHODS ...... 11

2.1 Juvenile Enumeration ...... 11

2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 12 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... 15

3.1 Juvenile Fish Sampling ...... 17 3.1.1 Bull Trout ...... 18 3.1.1.1 Capture and Life-History...... 18 3.1.1.2 Fry and Juvenile Densities...... 21

3.2 Westslope Cutthroat Trout...... 23 3.2.1 Capture and Life-History...... 23 3.2.1.1 Densities ...... 26

3.3 Non-Target Species...... 28

3.4 Fish habitat Assessment...... 28 3.4.1 Fish Habitat Survey ...... 28 3.4.1.1 Bull Trout Density and Habitat Features...... 32 3.4.1.2 Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Habitat Features ...... 35 3.4.2 Substrate Pebble Counts...... 36 3.4.3 Rosgen Channel Surveys...... 39 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 41 5 REFERENCES...... 44

Appendix A Fish Density Summaries

Appendix B FHAP Level 1 Form 4 Summary Data

March 2007 • iv Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of bull trout populations of the upper Kootenay River as summarized from data collected at enumeration fences. Note: Wigwam River data from Baxter and Westover (2000), Skookumchuck River data from Baxter and Baxter (2002), Gold Creek data from Cope and Morris (2005), White River data from Prince and Cope (2006) and Cope (2007)...... 7 Table 2. Schedule of program components for the upper Kootenay bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program, 2000-2005...... 15 Table 3. Quick reference quide to permanent index site locations...... 16 Table 4. Total effort and catch for the upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout sample programs...... 17 Table 5. Summary of mean fork length for three upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout populations...... 20 Table 6. Summary of the mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100m2), by watershed...... 21 Table 7. Summary of the mean fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100 m2) by site classification...... 23 Table 8. Summary of mean fork length for incidental captures of Westslope cutthroat trout in three upper Kootenay bull trout streams...... 25 Table 9. Summary of the mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout juvenile density estimates (fish/100 m2) by watershed...... 27 Table 10. Summary of the Westslope cutthroat trout density estimates (fish/100 m2) by site classification...... 27 Table 11. Diagnostics of habitat condition at the reach level for the three most important bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries to the upper Kootenay River (Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers) using the diagnostic ratings of Table 5 in Johnston and Slaney (1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA,B...... 30 Table 12. Proposed interim regional diagnostics criteria for habitat condition at the reach level for bull trout streams in the upper Kootenay using the diagnostic ratings of Table 5 in Johnston and Slaney (1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA,B...... 31 Table 13. Covariance values for select quantitative habitat diagnostic variables of habitat condition...... 34 Table 14. Summary of substrate pebble count data for the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck River index sites, 2000-2005...... 37 Table 15. Quick reference summary of Rosgen (1996) channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the stream channel classification form...... 40 Table 16. Quick reference summary of a sub-set of the Rosgen (1996) channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the reference reach data summary form...... 40

March 2007 • v Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

List of Figures

Figure 1. Kootenay basin study area...... 2 Figure 2. Summary of annual bull trout redd surveys conducted on the three most important upper Kootenay River spawning tributaries identified using radio- telemetry...... 4 Figure 3. Upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning streams...... 6 Figure 4. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for juvenile bull trout populations. Note for presentation purposes scale interval changes from 5 mm to 10 mm at 70 mm...... 19 Figure 5. Length-weight regression for fry and juvenile bull trout captured in the Skookumchuck, White and Wigwam Rivers, 1997 and 2000-2005...... 20 Figure 6. Mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100 m2; +/- 95% Confidence Interval) for index sites within the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries...... 22 Figure 7. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for incidental Westslope cutthroat trout captures...... 24 Figure 8. Length-weight regression for incidental Westslope cutthroat trout captured in the Skookumchuck, White and Wigwam Rivers, 1997 and 2000-2005...... 26 Figure 9. Mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout density estimates (fish/100 m2; +/- 95% Confidence Interval) for index sites within the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries...... 27 Figure 10. Regression of bull trout fry density versus pool frequency (mean pool spacing per bankfull channel width, Wb)...... 32 Figure 11. Relationship between channel gradient and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers...... 33 Figure 12. Relationship between pool frequency and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers...... 33 Figure 13. Relationship between channel width and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers...... 34 Figure 14. Relationship between pool area (%) and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers...... 36

Figure 15. Regression of bull trout fry versus the mean D84 particle size...... 37

Figure 16. Regression of bull trout juveniles versus the mean D16 particle size...... 38

March 2007 • vi Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

1 Introduction

This report summarizes the results of the upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and fish habitat monitoring projects completed in the Wigwam (2000-2003), Skookumchuck (2002 – 2004), and White Rivers (2003-2005; Figure 1). These basins were selected as the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries, identified in an upper Kootenay River basin-wide radio telemetry project (Westover and Heidt 2004).

The Wigwam, Skookumchuck, and White Rivers are three of the seven major streams and their tributaries, in the East Kootenay Region, that were designated as Class II Classified Waters in 2005. These streams support a regionally and internationally significant sport fishery with healthy populations of both bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). The classified waters of B.C. represent 42 highly productive trout streams. The classified waters licensing system was created to preserve the unique fishing opportunities provided by these waters, which contribute significantly to the province’s reputation as a world class fishing destination.

With funding from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the B.C. Ministry of Environment (BCMOE) has implemented a variety of projects designed to assess and monitor the status of wild, native stocks of bull trout in tributaries to Lake Koocanusa (Libby Reservoir) and the upper Kootenay River. The juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring projects summarized in this report represent one component within the larger umbrella project, “To monitor and protect upper Kootenay River Bull trout” (BPA Project Number 2000-04-00).

1.1 Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the Libby Dam on the Kootenay River, approximately 27 km upstream from Libby, Montana. The purpose of the dam was to provide hydroelectric power and flood control for the Kootenay and Columbia River basins. Construction began in 1969, impoundment was first achieved in March 1972, and the Libby Reservoir (known also as Lake Koocanusa) is 145 km long and spans the Canada-USA border between Montana and British Columbia. Lake Koocanusa reached full pool for the first time in July 1974. Average annual draw down on Lake Koocanusa

March 2007 • 1 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Figure 1. Kootenay basin study area.

March 2007 • 2 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

exceeds 30 m and has ranged as deep as 52.4 m (Chisholm et. al. 1989). More recently, Lake Koocanusa water levels have also been manipulated for downstream Kootenay River sturgeon and salmon in the lower Columbia River, both of which are listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Lake Koocanusa and the upper Kootenay River headwaters support a regionally and internationally significant meta-population of adfluvial bull trout.

Bull trout populations have declined in many areas of their range within the Pacific Northwest including British Columbia. Bull trout were blue listed as vulnerable in British Columbia by the B.C. Conservation Data Center (Cannings 1993), and although there are many healthy populations of bull trout in the East Kootenay they remain a species of special concern. Bull trout in the United States portion of the Columbia River were listed as threatened in 1998 under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The upper Kootenay River watershed (above Libby Dam) is within the Kootenay sub- basin of the Mountain Columbia Province, one of eleven eco-provinces that make up the Columbia River basin and has become a primary focus of research for bull trout in both Canada and the United States. Under the U.S. recovery plan for bull trout, Lake Koocanusa (and the Kootenay River watershed above Libby Dam) was considered a core area (USFWS 2002). Using this core area approach, recovery criteria require that at least 5 local populations with 100 or more individuals exist, and that the area should contain 1,000 or more adult bull trout. To achieve this requirement, population monitoring was required within this core area.

In response to these concerns, the BCMOE applied for and received funding from BPA to assess and monitor the status of wild, native stocks of bull trout in tributaries to Lake Koocanusa and the upper Kootenay River (BPA Project Number 2000-04-00).

1.2 Project History Initially, emphasis was placed on determining abundance through downstream kelt fences and redd counts. The BCMOE in co-operation with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP), operated a fish fence and trap on the Wigwam River between 1996 and 1999 to enumerate and tag bull trout spawners (Baxter and Westover 2000). During this time, 3,287 bull trout were captured, many of which were repeat and alternate-year spawners. Over the four years, approximately 2,100 bull trout spawners

March 2007 • 3 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

were floy and PIT tagged, 26 were radio tagged and another 10 sonic tagged. Radio telemetry studies have shown that these fish are part of an international population of bull trout that spend the winter in Lake Koocanusa in Montana and spawn in the Wigwam River in British Columbia. Bull trout redd counts have been conducted annually for the past 13 years in co-operation with MDFWP. These results indicated a significantly increasing population trend (Figure 2).

2500

Wigwam 2000 Skookumchuck White (Middle Fork) White (Blackfoot) 1500

1000 Number of Redds

500

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Figure 2. Summary of annual bull trout redd surveys conducted on the three most important upper Kootenay River spawning tributaries identified using radio- telemetry.

During the first five years of this project, eight additional tasks were undertaken to complement and expand on the Wigwam River bull trout studies. These were:

1) Skookumchuck Creek adult enumeration fence; 2) White River adult enumeration fence; 3) Gold Creek adult enumeration fence; 4) Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring; 5) Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring; 6) White River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring;

March 2007 • 4 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

7) Upper Kootenay River bull trout radio telemetry; and 8) Five years (1998 - 2002) of temperature data and substrate coring in known bull trout spawning areas has been collected (Tepper 2003).

A total of 71 bull trout were surgically implanted with radio transmitters in the upper Kootenay River between April 1, 2000 and September 25, 2001 (Westover and Heidt 2004). These fish were tracked on a regular basis by both fix wing and helicopter for 2.5 years with the last flight occurring on September 16, 2002. The Wigwam River, a tributary to the upper Kootenay River in British Columbia, supports the majority of spawning bull trout from Lake Koocanusa.

The upper Kootenay River spawning tributaries (e.g. upper Kootenay, Skookumchuck, White, Lussier, Bull, Palliser Rivers) demonstrated, to a lesser extent, similar overwintering migrations to Lake Koocanusa (Westover and Heidt 2004). Radio tagged bull trout were tracked into the Bull, Lussier, White, Skookumchuck and Verdant drainages. Approximately 35% of the radio tagged bull trout over-wintered below the full pool elevation of Lake Koocanusa, while the remaining 65% of the radio tagged bull trout over-wintered in the upper Kootenay River. As a direct result of the radio telemetry project three previously unknown bull trout spawning areas have been identified in the Middlefork White River, Blackfoot Creek, a tributary to the White River, and Verdant Creek (Figure 3). Although no radio tagged bull trout were tracked into the St. Mary River, snorkel observations by BCMOE staff have observed spawning bull trout and redds in Redding Creek, a tributary to the St. Mary River.

BCMOE Fisheries staff confirmed another bull trout spawning area on Skookumchuck Creek, a tributary to the upper Kootenay River approximately 50 km north of Lake Koocanusa (Figure 3). A fence and trap were operated on Skookumchuck Creek for three years (2000 - 2002) to capture out-migrating post spawning bull trout (Baxter and Baxter 2002). The use of the enumeration fence in the upper Kootenay River tributaries, over the past 10 years, has served as a valuable index of population size within the time frame of operation. This project has also provided an extensive database on the biological characteristics for four sub-populations within the upper Kootenay River core area (Table 1).

March 2007 • 5 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

V e Ve rmi r da li n N o t C n r R ee iv k e r r e iv

R Simpson

K o o te n

a y r

R e v iv i

e R

r

e

t

i

h

W

k

r

o

F

W e

h l i d

te d

R i i M ve r

B la c k f o o t

C r e e k

ck chu River Lussier okum Sko k C ree

r e v K i o R l o l te u n a B y R iv e r E lk R iv e r

K L o a o k c e a W n i u g s w a a m R iv e r

30 0 30 60 Kilometers

Figure 3. Upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning streams

March 2007 • 6 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 1. Characteristics of bull trout populations of the upper Kootenay River as summarized from data collected at enumeration fences. Note: Wigwam River data from Baxter and Westover (2000), Skookumchuck River data from Baxter and Baxter (2002), Gold Creek data from Cope and Morris (2005), White River data from Prince and Cope (2006) and Cope (2007).

Wigwam (731 km2) Skookumchuck (641 km2) Gold Cr. White (987 km2) N. White (816 km2) (223 km2) Variable 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2003 2005 2006 Total Bull Trout 862 616 821 978 252 273 309 61 776 652b 119 (fence) Bull Trout count n/a n/a n/a n/a 67 19 41 n/a 123 n/a n/a (snorkel) Females : Males 1.9:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 2.2:1 3.0:1 2.8:1 1.6:1 1:1 1.6:1 2.9:1 2.2:1 Total Redds 512 598 679 849 197 143 149 n/a 239 243 Enumerated Bull Trout/Redd (est.) 2.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 n/a 3.8a 2.7a n/a Total Length (cm) Mean 67 65 66 67 69 64 68 54 66 68 62 Range 43-86 38-87 34-91 37-91 40-92 40-92 42-90 22-74 22-90 25-92 39-85 Male Length (cm) Mean 71 71 72 72 79 74 75 53 66 70 64 Range 52-86 38-87 34-91 44-91 51-92 52-92 60-90 34-74 40-89 49-92 42-85 Female Length (cm) Mean 65 63 63 65 66 65 65 62 66 67 61 Range 43-86 46-85 42-85 37-85 40-86 50-88 42-86 41-73 43-90 49-90 42-84 Timing Through Fence Peak Sept 30 Oct 1 Sept 24 Sept20 Sept 20 Sept 19 Sept 26 Sept 20 Sept 24 Sept 23 Sept 16 Start Sept 11 Sept 13 Sept 9 Sept 9 Sept 7 Sept 6 Sept 7 Sept 15 Sept 9 Sept 7 Sept 1 End Oct 14 Oct 14 Oct 14 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 10 Oct 18 Oct 9 Oct 1b 27 Sept a – note that the number of bull trout per redd was based on redds in index sites only and is known to be high for this system. Index Sites for the White River encompass a much lower proportion of the known spawning habitat as compared to the Wigwam and Skookumchuck. b – note that a rain on snow event removed the fence prematurely and fish were still emigrating.

March 2007 • 7 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

A total of 834 bull trout were passed through the Skookumchuck fence during the three years of operation and another 127 bull trout were holding in a pool immediately above the fence when it was removed during mid-October (Table 1). The 2002 out-migrants totalled 309 bull trout and were comprised of 28 (9.1%) repeat spawners from 2001, 25 (8.1%) alternate year spawners from 2000 and 6 (1.9%) double repeat spawners from 2000 and 2001. Pelvic fin rays were collected from a size range of 41 bull trout for ageing with ages ranging from 5 to 14 years old. Seven bull trout had floy tags present from sampling in the lower Bull River between 1997 and 2001 (Baxter and Baxter 2002).

A fence and trap were operated on the White River, near its’ confluence with the Kootenay River, for two years (2003 and 2005), to capture out-migrating bull trout (Prince and Cope 2006). A total of 1,428 bull trout were passed through the fence during the two years of operation (Table 1). In addition, another 123 bull trout were holding in the pools immediately above the fence when it was removed during mid October. In 2005, out- migrants totalled 652 before the fence was breached; of these 137 or 21% also spawned in 2003. There were thirteen recaptures from previous bull trout tagging programs within the upper Kootenay watershed. Five bull trout were previously tagged in the Bull River, seven were tagged in the Kootenay River and one was tagged in the White River. Nine of these recaptures were originally tagged in 2000 for the upper Kootenay River radio telemetry project.

In 2004, a fence and trap were operated on Gold Creek, a smaller tributary stream to Lake Koocanusa, immediately north of the Canada-United States border. Gold Creek was a system with known bull trout use, but the extent of use was only anecdotal. A total of 61 bull trout kelts were captured, of which there were no previously tagged bull trout (Cope and Morris 2005; Table 1).

In 2006, the fence and trap were operated on the North White River, one of three forks that represent the upper White River (Cope 2007). The North White River was another tributary with known bull trout use, but the extent of use was only anecdotal. A total of 119 downstream kelts were passed through the fence.

Juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring was undertaken at six permanent index sites in the Wigwam River and Bighorn Creek (2000 – 2002), four permanent reference sites in Skookumchuck and Sandown Creeks (2002 – 2004), and three permanent reference sites in the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek (2003 – 2005).

March 2007 • 8 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

At each permanent index site (n=13), over three consecutive years, juvenile bull trout and where possible, Westslope cutthroat trout densities, stream habitat conditions (Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) approved Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures (FHAP), Level 1, Form 4; Johnston and Slaney (1996)), and detailed geomorphic surveys (Rosgen 1996) were documented over two stream meander wavelengths. The objective of this project was to develop a better understanding of inter-annual variation in juvenile bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout recruitment and the ongoing hydrologic and morphologic processes in their major spawning and early rearing streams in the upper Kootenay River, especially as they relate to spawning and rearing habitat quality.

1.3 Objective

This report summarizes the results of the nine upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring projects completed within the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White watersheds between 2000 and 2005, inclusive. This report compiles and summarizes the databases for fry and juvenile bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout density estimates and compares these to select salmonid habitat condition diagnostics for these same permanent index sites. The objective of this report was three-fold:

1. Compile the juvenile catch and density data and the fish habitat assessment data from the nine individual juvenile bull trout projects into single databases;

2. Compare and contrast the density data and fish habitat data to assist in the development of regional diagnostics of salmonid habitat specific to juvenile bull trout (i.e. Johnston and Slaney 1996).

3. Where possible, compare and contrast Westslope cutthroat trout densities and habitat conditions.

The following list outlines the nine individual juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring projects summarized in this report:

Cope, R.S. 2006. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2005 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 34 pp + 7 app.

March 2007 • 9 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Cope, R.S. and K.J. Morris. 2005. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 32 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2005. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 40 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2004. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2003 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 29 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2004. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2003 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 40 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2003. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 28 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2003. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 35 pp + 5 app.

Cope, R.S., K. Morris and J.E. Bisset. 2002. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2001 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 28 pp + 5 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2001. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2000 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 33 pp + 4 app.

In addition, the 2000 – 2003 Wigwam River project represented a sub-set of the index sites originally established in the preliminary Wigwam River project identified below. Catch and density data from this project were included in this data summary.

Cope, R.S. 1998. Wigwam River fish – forestry study: preliminary surveys (1997). Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Kootenay Region, Nelson, B.C. Prepared by Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 53 pp + 4 app.

March 2007 • 10 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

1.4 Study Area

The three upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries representing the upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program are illustrated in Figure 1. The Wigwam, Skookumchuck and upper White River are described in detail within each of the annual reports. These watersheds are considered the three most important bull trout spawning tributaries in the upper Kootenay River basin. Specific index sites are illustrated in geo-referenced 1:50,000 TRIM maps included within each report.

Typically, permanent index sites were selected to include contrast within each watershed. At a minimum, one “preferred” bull trout spawning reach, one “low density” bull trout spawning reach and one smaller spawning and rearing tributary were included within each watershed. Typically, the low-density sites were located in the lower reaches of the watersheds and the preferred spawning reaches and rearing tributaries were located in the upper reaches of the watersheds.

2 Methods

Index sites were a minimum of 20 channel widths in length or a distance equal to two stream meander wavelengths. At each site, the following reference points were permanently established, geo-referenced (UTM) and marked with a combination of metal tree tag, tree blaze, fluorescent tree paint, and flagging tape:

1) Upstream and downstream elevation benchmarks (benchmarks were a lag bolt embedded in the base of a large, stable, riparian tree).

2) Upstream and downstream limits of the longitudinal survey.

3) Riffle and pool cross-sectional benchmarks (lag bolt embedded in the base of a riparian tree) and re-bar bank “pins” representing the start and finish reference points.

4) Electrofishing habitat units.

2.1 Juvenile Enumeration

Estimates of juvenile fish density (number of fish/100 m2) were determined using closed, maximum-likelihood removal estimates (Riley and Fausch 1992). For each site, three habitat units (riffle, pool and glide) were individually sampled for fish densities over a combined total of approximately 400 to 500 m2. This methodology allows for habitat unit comparisons as well as reach comparisons through pooling of habitat units to obtain a

March 2007 • 11 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

mean. A Smith-Root Mark 12POW backpack electro-shocker was used for successive depletions within each closed sample unit. Although bull trout are the main focus of this project, densities of Westslope cutthroat trout are also reported.

Catch results from the three habitat units within each index site were summed, by pass. These results were then used to estimate the number of fry (0+ age class) and juveniles (1+ and 2+ age classes) within the composite enclosure area. Population estimates were calculated using the “Microfish” software package (Van Deventer and Platts 1990). Population estimates and their 95% confidence interval were then reported as a standard numerical density for each site (number fish/100 m2).

Capture, effort and life history data were input using the BCMOE Microsoft Access tool, “Fisheries Data Information Summary System (FDIS)”. Data from each of the nine annual projects were exported from FDIS into Microsoft Excel export files for each project. These nine files were then collated into the single Microsoft Excel File UKBT Density data.xls. This file contains all effort, catch, and density estimates by index site, site type, watershed and year. The corresponding life-history information for these fish was compiled into the Microsoft Excel File UKBT Individual fish data.xls.

2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment

Using the RIC approved FHAP, Level 1, Form 4 - Habitat Survey Data Form (Johnston and Slaney 1996), a standard suite of habitat parameters were collected for each habitat unit within the length of the index site (minimum of 20 channel widths in length or a distance equal to two stream meander wavelengths). The level 1 FHAP is a purposive field survey of current habitat conditions for the target species in select reaches. This form has been developed for interpretation of habitat sensitivity and capability for fish production and includes prominent physical features such as pool and riffle ratios, residual pool depths, channel stability, flood indicators, cover components, abundance of large woody debris (LWD) and riparian vegetation.

FHAP data for each project was input using the BCMOE Microsoft Access Tool “Watershed Restoration Program Data Summary System”. Each completed project was then exported and the nine datasets were compiled in the Microsoft Excel File UKBT Summarized FHAP Data.xls. As these surveys were replicated at each site for three consecutive years, the

March 2007 • 12 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

final year of each assessment was compiled and summarized in the Microsoft Excel file UKBT FHAP Table 5.xls.

Stream classification of index sites was completed using the “Rosgen Method” (Rosgen 1996). The following measurements of channel profile, pattern and dimension were completed to facilitate channel classification:

1) A longitudinal profile (minimum of 20 channel widths in length or a distance equal to two stream meander wavelengths) of the stream bed following the thalweg of the stream channel including measurement of water surface (slope) and bankfull elevations.

2) Stream cross-sections on both a riffle and pool segment (stream bed, water surface, thalweg and bankfull elevations).

3) Channel pattern (width flood prone area, sinuosity, belt width, meander length and radius of curvature).

4) Modified Wolman pebble count (reach and active channel at a riffle).

At a maximum of 10 m intervals, following the thalweg of the stream channel, the elevation of the streambed and the water surface was surveyed over the length of the study area. All stream and habitat unit gradients were calculated from differences in water surface elevation. Cross sectional profiles were surveyed at 1 m intervals and extended 5 m beyond the bankfull width. The elevation of the bankfull channel was also noted at each cross section location and periodically throughout the longitudinal survey. Geomorphic surveys were completed using an auto level (Topcon AT-G7 Auto Level) and standard differential hydrometric survey techniques (Anon. 1998). A differential loop was used to accurately determine benchmark elevations, express error terms and ensure quality control.

Characterization of channel bed material employed the modified Wolman method outlined in Rosgen (1996). Briefly, this procedure uses a stratified, systematic sampling method based on the frequency of riffle/pools and step/pools occurring within a channel reach that is approximately 20-30 bankfull channel widths in length (or two meander wavelengths). The modified method adjusts the material sampling locations so that various bed features are sampled on a proportional basis along a given stream reach. In total, 10 transects are

March 2007 • 13 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

established and 10 substrate particles are selected at systematic intervals across the bankfull channel width, for a total sample size of 100. To avoid potential bias, the actual particle was selected on the first blind touch, rather than visually selected. The intermediate axis of the particle was measured such that the particle size selected would be retained or pass a standard sieve of fixed opening. The composite particle distribution was used to represent the reach. A second modified Wolman pebble count was completed within the active channel (i.e. within the wetted width), at the representative riffle cross-section, to calculate D84. The D84 estimate was then used to estimate a roughness coefficient in velocity calculations.

Initially, in the Wigwam River, Rosgen channel survey data and channel classification data for each index site was input using Microsoft excel spreadsheets. Beginning with the Skookumchuck Project, Rosgen channel surveys were input using the Microsoft Excel tool, “The Reference Reach Spreadsheet, Version 2.4 L SI”, (River4m Ltd. and D. Mecklenburg 1999). This spreadsheet and summary system was developed and distributed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources as a stream channel assessment tool, forms, calculators and a format for data management. Summary data from this spreadsheet was then input into the Microsoft Excel Worksheet “Rosgen Level II Forms”, that contain a Reference Reach Data Summary, and a Stream Classification Form, for each index site. Summary reference reach data and classification data for each index site were then compiled in the Microsoft Excel file, UKBT Rosgen Reference Reach Data.xls. Pebble count summary data for mean size of sediment particles less than six percent categories ( D16, D35, D50, D65, D84,

D95) was compiled in the Microsoft Excel file, UKBT Pebble Count Summary.xls.

Stream discharge was estimated at each electrofishing location using a Price 1210AA velocity meter and wading rod calibrated bi-annually by the National Calibration Service of the National Water research Institute.

March 2007 • 14 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3 Results and Discussion

The sampling schedule for the juvenile bull trout fish habitat monitoring program is summarized in Table 2. To ensure consistency among watersheds and years, every effort was made to ensure the fish sampling was completed within the first two weeks of August. The first two weeks of August were considered the ideal timing for targeting bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout fry. The FHAP and channel surveys were not considered as critical in terms of timing. These surveys were completed opportunistically later in the fall.

Table 2. Schedule of program components for the upper Kootenay bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program, 2000-2005.

Program Watershed 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Component Juvenile Wigwam Aug Aug Aug Aug Fish 06- 12 09-14 03-09 06-11 Sampling Skookumchuck Aug Aug Aug 12-15 04-07 11-15

White Aug Aug Aug 08-10 16-18 14-16

FHAP and Wigwam Sep Sep Aug Channel 20-Oct 14-Oct 26- Surveys 04 05 Sep 19

Skookumchuck Sep Aug Sep 22- 12- 10-Oct Oct Sep 27 01 26 White Sep Sep Aug 18 – 27 – 17 – Oct 01 Oct 14 Sep 18

Table 3 provides a quick reference summary of the locations, co-ordinates (upstream limit of the two meanders) and site classifications for the 13 permanent index sites summarized in this report.

March 2007 • 15 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 3. Quick reference quide to permanent index site locations.

Watershed Sub-basin Site Sample Years Location Description UTM1 Site Classification No.2 (Zone.Easting.Northing)

Wigwam Wigwam 1 1997, 2000- Reach 5 immediately d/s 11.648335.5449685 Preferred BT Spawning 2002 Bighorn Creek Confluence Wigwam Wigwam 2 1997, 2000- Reach 6 immediately d/s of the 11.653886.5441349 Preferred BT Spawning 2002 Rocky Mountain Lodge Wigwam Wigwam 3 1997, 2000- Reach 7 immediately u/s of 11.655471.5438625 Preferred BT Spawning 2002 Brewery Creek Wigwam Wigwam 4 1997, 2000- Reach 9 immediately at the 11.661031.5432738 Low Density Spawning 2002 Rabbit Creek Confluence Wigwam Bighorn 5 1997, 2000- Reach 1 immediately u/s of the 11.649255.5449395 Tributary Spawning/Rearing 2002 bridge at Forest Rec. Site. Wigwam Wigwam 6 1997, 2002 Reach 2 immediately d/s of 11.646027.5458842 Low Density Spawning Lodgepole Creek Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2002-2004 Pulp Mill site immediately d/s of 11.588447.5530138 Low Density Spawning Skookumchuck River bridge. Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2002-2004 U/s Skookumchuck FSR3 km 11.575209.5536239 Preferred BT Spawning 38. Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2002-2004 Skookumchuck FSR km 42 11.572178.5535070 Preferred BT Spawning spur road. Skookumchuck Sandown 4 2003-2004 Sandown Creek upstream of 11.580437.5539883 Tributary Spawning/Rearing FSR Bridge

White Middlefork 1 2003-2005 Axel FSR km 61.0 11.627901.5572778 Preferred BT Spawning

White Middlefork 2 2003-2005 Middlefork FSR km 63.5 11.627143.5575721 Preferred BT Spawning

White Blackfoot 3 2003-2005 Blackfoot FSR km 48 11.618390.5546472 Tributary Spawning/Rearing

1 Note that the co-ordinates provided represent the upstream limit of the two meander lengths of the index site. Additional co-ordinates for the downstream limit, stream cross-sections, benchmarks and electrofishing sites can be found in the individual reports. 2 Refer to Table A1 (Appendix A) for reference to the 1997 site numbers that were used for trend analyses with the current program. 3 FSR = Forest Service Road.

March 2007 • 16 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.1 Juvenile Fish Sampling

A total of 2,859 fish were captured in the upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring project (Table 4). A total of 20,724 m2 or 2.07 ha of fish habitat was sampled within the three most important bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries to the upper Kootenay River (Table 4). Table 4 includes comparative data from the preliminary survey conducted in the Wigwam River in 1997. The 1997 data was included because of its applicability. The 2000-2003 Wigwam River sampling replicated a sub-set of the 1997 index sites using the same personnel and equipment, with no or only minor adjustments to the electrofishing sites.

Table 4. Total effort and catch for the upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout sample programs.

Watershed Year Electro- Sample No. of BT WCT Incide Total fishing Area Sites Catch Catch ntal Catch Effort (m2) Catch (sec.)

White 2003 24,654 1,325 3 181 0 1 182 2004 22,871 1,445 3 171 3 3 177 2005 21,471 1,625 3 168 0 2 170

Skookumchuck 2002 25,916 1,419 3 84 2 30 116 2003a 35,585 1,869 4 123 64 61 248 2004a 33,705 1,912 4 98 155 44 297

Wigwam 1997b,c 41,008 2,946 6 385 17 0 402 2000 41,454 2,599 5 387 32 0 419 2001 36,450 2,502 5 458 26 0 484 2002b 49,507 3,082 6 356 8 0 364 Total 332,621 20,724 42 2,411 307 141 2,859 a total includes additional site at Sandown Creek b total includes site in lower Wigwam (d/s of Lodgepole). C Appendix A contains a cross-reference index relating the 1997 index site numbers used in the comparison with the current program.

March 2007 • 17 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.1.1 Bull Trout

3.1.1.1 Capture and Life-History A total of 2,411 bull trout fry and juveniles were captured in this monitoring program (Table 4). Bull trout represent 84.3% of the catch within the study streams. Based on capture observations over the course of this program and a qualitative review of the length- frequency data, the upper fork length limit of fry during the sample period of early to mid August was assumed to be 70 mm. Based on this assumption, bull trout fry (n=2,164) represented 89.8% of the total bull trout catch.

This predominance of bull trout fry in the catch was expected. Bull trout fry were the target species and life stage and as such, the catch composition reflects bias associated with site selection for this capture target. In addition, all sample sites were derived from watersheds that have been characterized as the most important bull trout spawning streams in the Kootenay Region.

Fry and juvenile bull trout captures ranged in fork length from 24 mm to 208 mm (n=2,411). Figure 4 presents the length frequency data by watershed. The modal class, in 5 mm intervals was 45 - 50 mm (Skookumchuck and White) and 50 – 55 mm (Wigwam River). This size class represents the young-of-the-year cohort (fry, 0+). Mean fork lengths of each age class estimate are summarized for each watershed in Table 5.

The growth rate of fry and juvenile bull trout in the Skookumchuck, Wigwam and White Rivers for the period 1997 and 2000-2005 combined was described by the equation:

Log10 Weight = -4.87358 + 2.931202Log10 Length (Figure 5).

March 2007 • 18 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Wigwam 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0

20 30 40 50 60 70 90 110 130 150 170 190

More

Skookumchuck 120

100

80 60

Frequency 40

20 0

20 30 40 50 60 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 More

White 180 160 0+ 1+ 2+ 140 120

100

80 Frequency 60 40 20 0

20 30 40 50 60 70 90 110 130 150 170 190

More Length (mm)

Figure 4. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for juvenile bull trout populations. Note for presentation purposes scale interval changes from 5 mm to 10 mm at 70 mm.

March 2007 • 19 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 5. Summary of mean fork length for three upper Kootenay juvenile bull trout populations.

Age Wigwam Skookumchuck White YOY (20-70mm) Mean 51.67 48.07 50.02 SE 0.17 0.29 0.26 n 1444 276 444 Range 24-69 35-63 33-67

1+ (71-140mm) Mean 102.63 99.18 100.61 SE 1.13 1.93 1.96 n 135 28 72 Range 72-140 79-117 74-139

2+(141-210mm) Mean 165.43 171.00 161.25 SE 9.75 0.00 1.88 n71 4 Range 142-208 171.00 157-166

2.5

Log10 Weight = -4.87358 + 2.931202Log10 Length 2 2 r = 0.944 n = 2,271

1.5

1

0.5 Log Weight (g)

0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

-0.5

-1 Log Fork Length (mm)

Figure 5. Length-weight regression for fry and juvenile bull trout captured in the Skookumchuck, White and Wigwam Rivers, 1997 and 2000-2005.

March 2007 • 20 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.1.1.2 Fry and Juvenile Densities In total, 42 densities were estimated over an 8-year time span for 13 index sites (e.g. reaches). Table A2 (Appendix A) provides a summary of the 42 density estimates and their confidence limits for bull trout fry, bull trout juveniles, and fry and juveniles combined. Site densities for bull trout were characterized by variability and ranged from 0.4 to 45.5 fish/100 m2 (fry and juveniles combined; Table A2). The mean annual density estimates for each watershed, are presented in Figure 6.

The mean 2002 fry density in the Wigwam River was the lowest estimated density for the Wigwam enumeration program (Figure 6), even though enumeration of bull trout redds was the highest on record, to date (Figure 2). This 2002 decrease was hypothesized to be due to a drought-induced shift in spawning distribution, not a decrease in fry survival. A drought cycle in the hydrograph began in 2000, and became particularly significant in the fall of 2001 (Prince and Morris 2003). During the fall 2001 spawning season, water levels within the upper Wigwam River were extremely low and in fact, surficial flow was absent in much of reach 7 for most of August and September. This limited accessibility caused a distribution shift to increased spawning at lower river locations (reaches two and five in particular). Trends in fry abundance are related to proximity to spawning areas and the shift in redd distribution was subsequently reflected in 2002 juvenile density sampling. Therefore, total bull trout fry production may not have been impacted as the mean density might suggest as the decrease in densities at the upper index sites may have been more than compensated for by an increase in densities in the lower reaches.

The Wigwam River typically had the highest mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates, followed by the White, and Skookumchuck Rivers (Table 6). Watershed trends in fry and juvenile densities were similar to trends in the estimated size of the spawning population within these respective watersheds (Table 1).

Table 6. Summary of the mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100m2), by watershed.

Fry Juveniles Fry and Juv. Combined Watershed N Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Wigwam 22 14.6 11.2 – 20.4 1.2 0.2 – 2.6 15.8 12.2 – 21.5 White 9 11.6 9.5 – 14.0 1.9 1.8 – 2.4 13.6 11.0 – 16.6 Skookumchuck 11 6.2 5.4 – 6.9 0.5 0.3 – 0.8 6.7 6.1 – 7.3

March 2007 • 21 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Fry and Juvenile BT combined

Wigw am Skookumchuck White 25.00

20.00 ) 2

15.00

10.00

Density (fish/100m 5.00

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fry BT

Wigw am Skookumchuck White 25.00

20.00 ) 2

15.00

10.00

Density (fish/100m 5.00

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Juvenile BT

Wigw am Skookumchuck White 3.50

3.00 ) 2 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 Density (fish/100m 0.50

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 6. Mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100 m2; +/- 95% Confidence Interval) for index sites within the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries.

March 2007 • 22 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

As expected, the preferred spawning reaches within the upper watersheds supported the highest densities of bull trout fry, followed closely by tributary habitat (Table 7). Juvenile densities were lowest in the preferred spawning reaches and most consistent in tributary habitat; however, a few low density spawning sites had very high juvenile densities and the preferred juvenile habitat was slightly higher gradient stream channel with larger substrate and boulders (see Section 3.3 Fish Habitat Assessment).

Table 7. Summary of the mean fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (fish/100 m2) by site classification.

Fry Juveniles Watershed N Mean Range Mean Range Preferred 24 15.5 1.2 – 46.9 1.0 0.0 – 4.7 Tributary 9 12.5 1.0 – 36.4 1.9 0.8 – 6.9 Low Density 9 5.8 0.0 – 13.3 2.0 0.0 – 19.6

3.2 Westslope Cutthroat Trout

3.2.1 Capture and Life-History In total, 307 Westslope cutthroat trout between 21 mm and 310 mm were captured. This represents 10.7% of the total catch across all years (Table 4). Figure 7 presents the length frequency data for each watershed. Mean fork lengths of each age class estimate are summarized for each watershed in Table 8. Westslope cutthroat trout were not the target species and incidental captures represent all life stages; however, due to the nature of the habitat selected for sampling (fry and juvenile bull trout habitat) and the methods employed (backpack electrofishing using exclusion nets), the vast majority of captures were fry and juveniles.

The growth rate of Westslope cutthroat trout in the Skookumchuck, Wigwam and White Rivers for the period 1997 and 2000-2005 combined was described by the equation:

Log10 Weight = -4.74575 + 2.883371Log10 Length (Figure 8).

March 2007 • 23 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Wigwam 50 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 40

30

20

Frequency 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Length (mm)

Skookumchuck

100 80

60

40

Frequency 20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Length (mm)

White

3

2

Frequency 1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Length (mm) Figure 7. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for incidental Westslope cutthroat trout captures.

March 2007 • 24 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 8. Summary of mean fork length for incidental captures of Westslope cutthroat trout in three upper Kootenay bull trout streams.

Age Wigwam Skookumchuck White YOY (0-40mm) Mean 24.45 30.54 25.00 SE 0.35 0.34 n 40 157 1 Range 21-32 21-41

1+ (41-100mm) Mean 73.00 75.93 SE 2.32 1.62 n33450 Range 54-98 52-99

2+(101-170mm) Mean 133.00 131.21 SE 8.32 5.00 n6140 Range 105-167 106-165

3+(171-245mm) Mean 180.75 217.00 SE 1.49 5.49 n450 Range 177-184 205-235 4+(245-310mm) Mean 298.00 SE 12.00 n002 Range 286-310

March 2007 • 25 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3

Log10Weight = -4.74575 + 2.883371Log10Length 2.5 R2 = 0.914

2 n = 301

1.5

1

0.5 Log Weight (g) 0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 -0.5

-1

-1.5 Log Fork Length (mm)

Figure 8. Length-weight regression for incidental Westslope cutthroat trout captured in the Skookumchuck, White and Wigwam Rivers, 1997 and 2000-2005.

3.2.1.1 Densities Westslope cutthroat trout densities were highly variable but typically low. Although present in most index sites, captures were often not sufficient to generate density estimates due to either; 1) all fish were captured in the first pass, 2) a total of one fish was captured on all passes, 3) a non-descending removal pattern (i.e. one or two fish captured on the second pass only), and 4) zero catch.

Maximum likelihood estimation was not possible under these conditions and as a result only 16 of 42 site estimates were possible. The remaining 26 site estimates were “zero” or “present” (Appendix A, Table A3), and these sites were included as a zero for the purposes of calculating mean densities. Westslope cutthroat trout densities include all life stages, although they are predominately fry and juveniles.

The mean annual density estimates for Westslope cutthroat trout captures are presented for each watershed in Figure 9 and Table 9. Skookumchuck had the highest densities of cutthroat trout, as did the preferred bull trout reaches (upper watersheds) in general, followed very closely by tributary habitat (Table 10).

March 2007 • 26 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

WCT combined Wigwam Skookumchuck White 12.00

10.00 ) 2 8.00

6.00

4.00 Density (fish/100m 2.00

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 9. Mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout density estimates (fish/100 m2; +/- 95% Confidence Interval) for index sites within the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries.

Table 9. Summary of the mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout juvenile density estimates (fish/100 m2) by watershed.

Watershed N Mean Range Wigwam 22 0.9 0.3 – 1.7 Skookumchuck 9 4.3 0 – 9.2 White 11 0.1 0 – 0.2

Table 10. Summary of the Westslope cutthroat trout density estimates (fish/100 m2) by site classification.

Watershed N Mean Range Preferred 24 1.9 0 – 13.9 Tributary 9 1.7 0 – 11.0 Low Density 9 0.7 0 – 2.3

March 2007 • 27 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.3 Non-Target Species The remaining 141 or 4.9 % of the captures were incidental non-target species captures. Incidental species captured by watershed are summarized below:

• Middle Fork White River and Blackfoot Creek - slimy sculpin (n=4) and rocky mountain whitefish (n=2);

• Skookumchuck River - rocky mountain whitefish (n=9), longnose suckers (n=78) and torrent sculpins (n=48); and

• Wigwam River - catch was exclusively bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout.

3.4 Fish habitat Assessment

3.4.1 Fish Habitat Survey The Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) is a purposive field survey of current habitat conditions for the target species in select reaches (Johnston and Slaney 1996). While these methods, or similar variations on these methods, are widely utilized by fisheries professionals in environmental impact assessments, regional criteria for habitat conditions do not exist and current diagnostic criteria to evaluate habitat condition are exclusive of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout data. A primary objective of this program was to utilize trends in bull trout fry and juvenile densities and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout densities, in conjunction with diagnostic habitat data, to validate generic habitat quality ratings provided in Johnston and Slaney (1996).

Appendix B, (Table B1) provides watershed comparisons of key habitat diagnostics data for the three most important bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries in the upper Kootenay River. This data provides diagnostic criteria that can be utilized for standards to detect habitats that may be degraded or at risk within the East Kootenay region. While the standards presented are from watersheds that are far from being “undisturbed” watersheds, habitat data were derived from reaches of these watersheds that have been identified, using basin-wide radio-telemetry, as regionally significant spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for bull trout, and to a lesser extent, Westslope cutthroat trout. These reaches are protected through special restrictions and are recognized as containing high value habitat features. Habitat data derived from these reaches identified preferred habitat features such as high habitat diversity (e.g. cover components, side-channels, substrate

March 2007 • 28 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

composition, pool frequency), high LWD frequency, high value spawning and rearing substrate and groundwater sources.

Appendix B (Table B2) provides a summary of key habitat diagnostics data for the thirteen index sites by site classification (preferred bull trout spawning reach, tributary habitat, low density bull trout spawning habitat), in an effort to provide habitat condition diagnostics as generic standards. Table 11 provides a quick reference summary of the mean values for the key habitat diagnostics data, by site classification. This summary has been modeled after Table 5 in Johnston and Slaney (1996) and their generalized diagnostics ratings have been included for comparative purposes.

As a general rule, the generalized FHAP diagnostics ratings do a good job of classifying the index sites as high value bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout habitat. However, they only rate as poor to fair in pool habitat and cover features using the generic diagnostics provided by Johnston and Slaney (1996). It would appear that this is due to several factors including; 1) the underlying character of the study streams that were much larger sized rivers compared to the diagnostics criteria, and 2) species and life-stage specific habitat preferences (e.g. small scour pools, cobble-boulder interstices).

Table 12 provides a summary of the proposed ranges of values for key FHAP form 4 habitat condition diagnostics for bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout fry and juvenile stream rearing habitat for the upper Kootenay River tributaries.

March 2007 • 29 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 11. Diagnostics of habitat condition at the reach level for the three most important bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries to the upper Kootenay River (Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers) using the diagnostic ratings of Table 5 in Johnston and Slaney (1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA,B. Habitat Parameter Reach Gradient Pool Pool LWD % % % Substrate Off- Holding Spawning Spawning Redd Classification (%) % Freq. Pieces Wood Boulder Over- Rearing Channel Pools (> Gravel Gravel Scour (by (mean per Cover Cover in head Habitat Habitat 1 m Quantity Quality Potential area) spacing) Bankfull in Riffles Cover (interstitial (< 3% deep, Channel Pools rating) gradient) good Width cover) Preferred BT Abunda 39 3.8 7.7 14 4 3 Clear Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable Spawning nt 0.50 Reach P F G F P P G G G G G G

Tributary Some 33 3.4 9.6 30 8 5 Clear Some Some Frequent Suitable Spawning Scour 1.0 and Rearing P F G G P P G F F G G Reach F

Low Density High 17 8.5 2.4 0 <10 <10 Clear Some Some Limited Limited BT Spawning Scour 1.0 Reach P P F P P P G F F P P P

A Note: for comparative purposes, diagnostic ratings (G – good, F – fair, P – poor) are generalized ratings from Johnston and Slaney (1996) for streams with a gradient of less than 2%.

B Note: two representative meander lengths were surveyed, not the entire reach.

March 2007 • 30 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 12. Proposed interim regional diagnostics criteria for habitat condition at the reach level for bull trout streams in the upper Kootenay using the diagnostic ratings of Table 5 in Johnston and Slaney (1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA,B. Habitat Parameter Reach Gradient Pool % Pool LWD % % % Substrate Off- Holding Spawning Spawning Redd Classification (%) (by Freq. Pieces Wood Boulder Over- Rearing Channel Pools (> Gravel Gravel Scour area) (mean per Cover Cover in head Habitat Habitat 1 m Quantity Quality Potential spacing) Bankfull in Riffles Cover (interstitial (< 3% deep, Channel Pools rating) gradient) good Width cover) Frequent Interstices low <2 Juv. Frequent Sand Clear, energy Frequent Good >30 <4 >4 >20 >10 >10 Spawning never sub- Stable Sand off- pools/km <1 Fry Areas dominant Rare channel areas

Fair Some Interstices low 2- 4 Juv. Reduced, Some energy Sand sub- 10 - 30 4 – 8 2 – 4 10-20 5 – 10 5 – 10 Sand Some Some Scour off- dominant 1 – 2 fry Sub- Potential channel Dominant areas

Poor Interstices Few low Sand Evidence >4 Juv Filled, energy dominant Absent or of <10 >8 <2 <10 <5 <5 Sand off- Few or fines Little Extensive >2 Fry Sub- channel sub- Scour Dominant areas dominant

A Note: Diagnostic ratings (G – good, F – fair, P – poor) are generalized ratings from the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers for streams with a gradient of less than 2%.

B Note: two representative meander lengths were surveyed, not the entire reach.

March 2007 • 31 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.4.1.1 Bull Trout Density and Habitat Features Bull trout fry densities were regressed using simple linear regression techniques with key diagnostic features. Quantitative habitat diagnostic variables of habitat condition such as gradient (p=0.84), bankfull width (p=0.63), pool area (p=0.64), abundance of LWD (p=0.83) and pool frequency (p=0.79) were not good predictors of fry densities. The pool frequency category versus fry density is illustrated in Figure 10 as a representative example.

Fry Density VS Pool Frequency

30.0 p=0.79 r2=0.007 25.0 n=13 ) 2

20.0

15.0

10.0 Fry BT Density (fish/100m 5.0

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Pool Frequency (mean spacing/Wb)

Figure 10. Regression of bull trout fry density versus pool frequency (mean pool spacing per bankfull channel width, Wb).

Juvenile bull trout densities were regressed using simple linear regression techniques across the key diagnostic features of gradient (p=0.0001; Figure 11), pool frequency (p=0.03; Figure 12), pool area (p=0.08), LWD frequency (p=0.58), wood cover in pools (p=0.86), and channel width (p=0.13; Figure 13).

March 2007 • 32 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Juvenile Density VS Gradient

4.0 p=0.0001 3.5 ) 2 2 r =0.75 n=13 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Juvenile BT Density (fish/100m 0.5

0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Gradient

Figure 11. Relationship between channel gradient and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers.

Juvenile Density VS Pool Frequency

4.0 p=0.03 3.5 r2=0.35 3.0 n=13

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Juvenile BT Density (fish/100m2) Density Juvenile BT 0.5

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Pool Frequency (pool spacing/Wb)

Figure 12. Relationship between pool frequency and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers.

March 2007 • 33 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Juvenile Density VS Channel Width

4.0 p=0.13 3.5

) 2

2 r =0.20 3.0 n=13

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 Juvenile BT Density (fish/100m BT Density Juvenile 0.5

0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Bankfull Channel Width (m)

Figure 13. Relationship between channel width and bull trout juvenile density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers.

Examination of correlation coefficients clearly indicates these parameters are linked and a more complex model is necessary to adequately describe these inter-connected relationships (Table 13). Nevertheless, it was important to note that juvenile bull trout in these watersheds prefer slightly higher gradient reaches (i.e. 0.5 - 2%), that are slightly confined, have few pools (i.e. large, low velocity classically defined pools as opposed to abundant small, boulder step-pools, and margin scour pools), and large substrate (i.e. cobble-boulder, dominant-sub-dominant see 3.3.2. Substrate pebble counts).

Table 13. Covariance values for select quantitative habitat diagnostic variables of habitat condition.

Gradient Width (m) Pool(%) Pool Freq. LWD/Wb %wood cover Gradient 1 Width (m) -0.194559 1 Pool(%) -0.628445 0.061583 1 Pool Freq. 0.659787 -0.427593 -0.645181 1 LWD/Wb -0.237896 -0.377797 0.227826 -0.168474 1 %wood cover -0.029777 -0.146089 0.144405 -0.273836 0.570659 1

March 2007 • 34 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Further examination of the covariance among select variables reveals several relationships that are intuitative. For example, as channel gradient increases, channel width decreases, pool area decreases, pool frequency (spacing) increases, and LWD frequency decreases. Clearly, key habitat diagnostic variables of habitat condition have a complex multi-variate influence on fry and juvenile bull trout densities.

For example, although high LWD frequency was a dominant feature of high-density bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout reaches, one variant to this was observed in Blackfoot Creek (White R. Site 3) and reach nine of the Wigwam River (Site 4). These reaches maintained spawning habitat and high densities of rearing juveniles. This was attributed to two dominant features preferred by spawning and rearing bull trout. First, the high densities of juveniles were due to the very coarse “bony” substrate of large cobbles and small boulders. Bull trout juveniles are benthically orientated and the streambed at these sites provided abundant, high quality intersticial cover. Secondly, the narrow alluvial floodplain that was bounded by steep mountain slopes has contributed a predominance of sub- surface flow that reaches the stream as groundwater. The provision of suitably sized bed materials in a low gradient, low water velocity location with associated groundwater have been identified as repeating patterns of preferred bull trout spawning habitat (McPhail and Baxter 1996).

3.4.1.2 Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Habitat Features Regression analysis of Westslope cutthroat trout densities and habitat diagnostic features was limited by the low abundance of cutthroat trout in the catch. This was primarily due to site selection for bull trout fry. As a result, 38% (n=5) of the 13 index sites were not able to generate density estimates for cutthroat trout. Despite these limitations, Westslope cutthroat trout density was significantly related to pool area (p=0.05; Figure 14). Pool area and LWD frequency were correlated and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout captures were often associated with LWD.

March 2007 • 35 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Density vs Pool Area

9.0 8.0 p=0.05 2 7.0 r =0.30 n=13 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 WCT Density (fish/100m2) WCT Density 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Pool Area (%)

Figure 14. Relationship between pool area (%) and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout density in selected index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers.

3.4.2 Substrate Pebble Counts

Mean size of sediment particles less than six percent categories (D16, D35, D50, D65, D84,

D95) are provided for the 13 index sites in the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck Rivers (Table 14). Mean sediment particles in Table 14 represent the mean value for the index site (e.g. 2 meander lengths weighted by habitat type) across three consecutive years (n=3). As a result, each mean value represents 300 individual measurements of the B-axis of randomly selected sediment particles. The exceptions are Skookumchuck Site 4 (n=2 years) and Wigwam Site 6 (n=1 year).

Linear regression was then used for mean particle size as a predictor of mean bull trout fry density, or mean bull trout juvenile density for index sites (n=13). There was no statistically significant relationship (p<0.1) using any of the six mean size of sediment particles versus bull trout fry densities (0.69< p < 0.88). The D84, category versus fry density is illustrated in Figure 15 as a representative example. This result was not expected since capture observations and professional experience clearly support the hypothesis that bull trout fry prefer a certain substrate size range (e.g. large gravel to large cobble). Similar results (i.e. high variability) occurred with the McNiel core substrate sampling program (Tepper 2003).

March 2007 • 36 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 14. Summary of substrate pebble count data for the Wigwam, White and Skookumchuck River index sites, 2000-2005.

Site percent finer than (mm) Watershed Site Classification D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 White 1 Preferred 13.2 42.9 61.2 81.3 121.7 174.3 White 2 Preferred 2.4 9.9 15.8 25.0 39.3 52.0 White 3 Tributary 18.9 48.5 76.0 114.3 179.7 293.0 Skookumchuck 1 Low Density 30.8 75.7 104.8 153.3 234.0 380.0 Skookumchuck 2 Preferred 20.3 53.3 92.7 135.0 220.3 337.3 Skookumchuck 3 Preferred 8.6 52.7 93.1 128.3 212.7 336.7 Skookumchuck 4 Tributary 1.2 6.0 13.3 21.5 39.5 68.0 Wigwam 1 Preferred 22.4 51.9 81.3 120.0 200.7 313.7 Wigwam 2 Preferred 11.7 30.7 50.2 74.3 112.7 162.3 Wigwam 3 Preferred 24.0 57.0 82.5 117.7 192.3 320.3 Wigwam 4 Low Density 63.0 141.6 193.8 310.7 535.0 921.0 Wigwam 5 Tributary 3.9 25.4 38.3 52.3 85.0 139.7 Wigwam 6 Low Density 12.2 55.6 91.8 146.0 232.0 348.0

Mean D84 versus Fry Density

30.0 p=0.73

2 25.0 r =0.01 n=13 ) 2 20.0

15.0

10.0 Fry Density (fish/100m

5.0

0.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 Particle Size (mm)

Figure 15. Regression of bull trout fry versus the mean D84 particle size.

March 2007 • 37 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Substrate size does have an influence on juvenile bull trout abundance and distribution and this relationship was significant at the probability less than or equal to 10% level for the D16

(p=0.08; Figure 16) and D95 (p=0.10) size categories. Although there is significant variation, this relationship is well supported in the literature (Baxter and McPhail 1996). Juvenile bull trout are a benthic-orientated species that utilize the large interstices provided by clean, large cobble and boulder habitat, and avoid habitat with a high percentage of fines.

Mean D16 versus Juv Density

4.0 p=0.08 3.5 r2=0.26 ) 2 n=13 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 Juvenile Density (fish/100m 0.5

0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Particle Size (mm)

Figure 16. Regression of bull trout juveniles versus the mean D16 particle size.

March 2007 • 38 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

3.4.3 Rosgen Channel Surveys

Channel longitudinal and cross sectional profiles were completed for each of the index sites and geo-referenced permanent benchmarks and rebar stakes remain on-site for long-term monitoring. Detailed quantitative summaries are presented in the respective annual summary reports. Tables 15 and 16 provide a quick reference summary of Rosgen (1996) channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the reference reach data summary form, and the stream channel classification form. These summaries characterize stream channel attributes of high value bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout stream reaches within the East Kootenay region. These quick reference summaries have been developed as a “reference reach” resource to assist professional practitioners of stream assessment in the East Kootenay Region to assess past impacts on stream potential and to develop restoration or compensation designs that match or accommodate the functioning of a streams natural stable tendencies.

Ten of the 13 reference reaches ( index sites) were gravel (C4) or cobble (C3) dominated C stream types (Rosgen 1996). Rosgen describes the C3 or C4 stream as a slightly entrenched, meandering, riffle/pool cobble (or gravel) dominated channel with a well- developed floodplain. C channels have gentle gradients of less than 2% and display a high width/depth ratio. Stream banks are generally composed of unconsolidated, heterogeneous, non-cohesive, alluvial materials that are susceptible to accelerated bank erosion and rates of lateral adjustment are influenced by the presence and condition of riparian vegetation. The (1) designation refers to the presence of bedrock outcrops.

One reference reach (Sandown Creek) was classified as undergoing a successional evolution from an F4 stream type (entrenched) to a C4 stream type. Sandown Creek was undergoing a series of channel adjustments to accommodate changes or alterations to sediment supply resulting from the loss of the mature riparian ecosystem (historic wildfire and salvage logging).

The remaining two reference reaches were cobble dominated B stream types. The subscript “c” designation refers to the low gradient “C” channel characteristics. The B classification was a result of entrenchment increasing to just beyond the C range. B3 stream types are moderately entrenched systems with channel gradients of 2-4% and very coarse cobble and boulder substrate. Rapids and scour pools dominate channel morphology.

March 2007 • 39 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table 15. Quick reference summary of Rosgen (1996) channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the stream channel classification form.

Bankfull Riffle Width

Watershed Sub-basin Year Site Mean X-Section W/D Depth Flood prone Entrench. D50 Slope Sinuosity Stream 2 Width (m) Depth (m) Area (m ) ratio Max (m) Area (m) Ratio (mm) (%) Type White Middlefork White River 2005 1 43.0 0.61 26.2 70.6 0.90 190 4.42 55 0.42 1.53 C4(1) White Middlefork White River 2005 2 34.5 0.74 25.5 46.7 1.10 297 8.61 16 0.21 1.37 C4 White Blackfoot Creek 2005 3 14.2 0.44 6.2 32.5 0.90 147 10.37 84 1.51 1.19 C3 SkookumchucSkookumchuck Creek 2004 1 31.1 0.95 29.5 32.8 1.20 121 3.90 109 0.58 1.42 C3(1) SkookumchucSkookumchuck Creek 2004 2 33.0 0.83 27.5 39.6 1.20 123 3.73 83 0.36 1.69 C3 SkookumchucSkookumchuck Creek 2004 3 32.6 0.81 26.3 40.4 1.30 64 1.96 106 0.35 1.35 C3 SkookumchucSandown Creek 2004 4 9.2 0.35 3.2 26.5 0.50 11 1.20 11 0.63 1.31 F4 C4 Wigwam Wigwam River 2002 1 41.9 0.67 27.9 63.0 1.12 100 2.39 78 0.63 >1.2 C3 Wigwam Wigwam River 2002 2 86.0 0.43 37.1 199.4 0.98 200 2.33 46 0.67 >1.2 C4 Wigwam Wigwam River 2002 3 33.3 0.81 27 41.1 1.15 75 2.25 84 0.72 >1.2 C3 Wigwam Wigwam River 2002 4 14.5 0.97 14.1 14.9 1.96 30 2.07 189 1.79 1.2 B3 Wigwam Bighorn Creek 2002 5 30.3 0.32 9.6 95.6 0.87 75 2.48 43 0.90 >1.2 C4 Wigwam Wigwam River 2002 6 78.6 0.70 55 112.3 1.40 110 1.40 92 0.77 >1.2 B3c

Table 16. Quick reference summary of a sub-set of the Rosgen (1996) channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the reference reach data summary form.

Max. Wb Wb Wb Meander Belt Radius Pool Pool Wb Wb Wb Riffle Pool Run Sub-basin Year Site Pool Velocity Discharge Length Width Curvature Length Spacing Riffle Glide Run Surface Surface Surface 3 Depth (m) (m/s) (m /s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) Dpth (m) Dpth (m) Dpth(m) Slope(%) Slope(%) Slope(%) Middlefork White River 2005 1 1.91 1.38 36 235 120 75 31 127 1.02 1.13 1.16 0.52 0.06 0.70 Middlefork White River 2005 2 2.17 1.38 35 200 90 96 56 88 0.90 1.03 1.26 0.32 0.10 0.48 Blackfoot Creek 2005 3 1.25 1.58 10 200 90 65 16 67 0.81 0.86 0.95 1.77 0.16 3.60 Skookumchuck Creek 2004 1 1.79 1.83 70 320 157 69 63 238 1.16 1.32 1.38 0.79 0.12 0.94 Skookumchuck Creek 2004 2 2.12 1.26 53 229 128 67 59 150 1.14 1.21 1.33 0.65 0.05 0.87 Skookumchuck Creek 2004 3 1.69 1.21 51 390 329 148 89 169 1.19 1.17 1.40 0.66 0.10 0.70 Sandown Creek 2004 4 0.90 1.4 11 72.4 17 12.9 10 35 0.54 0.62 0.66 1.02 0.12 1.46

March 2007 • 40 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

4 Summary and Conclusions

Juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring was undertaken at six permanent index sites in the Wigwam River and Bighorn Creek (1997, 2000-2002), four permanent index sites in Skookumchuck and Sandown creeks (2002 – 2004), and three permanent index sites in the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek (2003 - 2005).

These watersheds were identified as the three most important bull trout spawning tributaries in the basin-wide upper Kootenay River radio telemetry project (Westover and Heidt 2004). In fact, when compared to other bull trout systems it can be argued that the Wigwam River may be the most prolific bull trout population in the species range.

The Wigwam, Skookumchuck, and White Rivers are three of the seven major streams and their tributaries, in the East Kootenay Region, that were designated as Class II Classified Waters in 2005. These streams support a regionally and internationally significant sport fishery with healthy populations of both bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout. The classified waters of B.C. represent 42 highly productive trout streams. The classified waters licensing system was created to preserve the unique fishing opportunities provided by these waters, which contribute significantly to the province’s reputation as a world class fishing destination. Although the distribution and abundance of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout have drastically declined from their historic range during the last 100 years, the abundance and size of the study populations may be attributed to the combination of special regulations designed to limit harvest and high quality available habitat.

In total, 2,411 bull trout fry and juveniles and 307 Westslope cutthroat trout were captured representing 84.3% and 10.7% of the catch, respectively. Site densities for bull trout fry and juveniles ranged from 0.4 to 45.5 fish/ 100 m2. The Wigwam River had the highest mean annual fry and juvenile bull trout density estimates (range 12.2 – 21.5), followed by the White River (range 11.0 – 16.6), and the Skookumchuck River (range 6.1 – 7.3).

Westslope cutthroat trout were not the target species, but represent incidental captures, and as a result, densities were highly variable but typically low (range 0 – 13.88 fish/100 m2). Skookumchuck Creek had the highest mean annual Westslope cutthroat trout densities (range 0 – 9.2) followed by the Wigwam River (range 0.2 – 1.7) and the White River (Range 0 – 0.2).

March 2007 • 41 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

As a general rule, the generalized FHAP diagnostics ratings do a good job of classifying the index sites as high value bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout habitat. The Level 1 FHAP Form 4 was completed for each index site and this report provides watershed and site summaries of key habitat diagnostics data that can be utilized for standards specific to bull trout fry and juvenile rearing habitat, and to some degree, this data also applies to Westslope cutthroat trout. While the data presented are from watersheds that are far from being “undisturbed” watersheds, habitat data were derived from reaches of these watersheds that have been identified as regionally significant spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for bull trout, and to a lesser extent, Westslope cutthroat trout. Habitat data derived from these reaches identified preferred habitat features such as high habitat diversity (cover components, side-channels, substrate composition, pool frequency), high LWD frequency, high value spawning and rearing substrate and groundwater sources.

Juvenile bull trout in these watersheds preferred slightly higher gradient reaches (0.5 - 2%), that are slightly confined, have few pools (i.e. large, low velocity, classically defined pools as opposed to boulder step-pools and small scour pools), and large substrate (i.e. cobble- boulder, dominant-sub-dominant), with a low percentage of sand and fines (clear interstices). These same habitat features (gradient, pool area, abundance of LWD etc.) were not good predictors of fry densities. The highest catch rates of bull trout fry were, without exception, associated with channel margin habitat. Typical rearing habitat was characterized by shallow water depths (<20 cm), low to moderate water velocities (0.05 to 0.4 m/s), and coarse clean cobble substrate.

Regression analyses of Westslope cutthroat trout densities and habitat diagnostic features were limited by the low abundance of cutthroat trout in the catch. Despite these limitations, Westslope cutthroat trout density was significantly related to pool area. Pool area and LWD frequency were correlated and juvenile Westslope cutthroat trout captures were typically associated with LWD.

Stream classification of index sites was completed using the “Rosgen Method” (Rosgen 1996). This report provides tabular summaries of channel dimension, pattern and profile data from the reference reach data summary form, and the stream channel classification form. These summaries characterize stream channel attributes of high value bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout stream reaches within the East Kootenay region. These quick reference summaries have been developed as a “reference reach” resource to assist professional practitioners of stream assessment in the East Kootenay Region to assess

March 2007 • 42 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

past impacts on stream potential and to develop restoration or compensation designs that match or accommodate the functioning of a streams natural stable tendencies.

B3 channel types, with gradients of two to four percent, and very coarse substrate dominated by cobble and boulder material with very little sand or fines in the streambed surface (see Tepper 2003, e.g. much higher sand and fine content in McNeil Core samples), appear to be ideal habitat for bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout juveniles. Channel bed morphology is dominated by a series of rapids with an abundance of scour pools. Stream banks are composed of cobble and boulder and are very stable.

C3 and C4 streams, with gradients of zero to two percent, and clean gravel and cobble substrate with very little sand or fines in the streambed surface (see Tepper 2003, e.g. much higher sand and fine content in McNeil Core samples), appear to be the dominant stream type for spawning, incubation and rearing bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout fry and juveniles. Channel bed morphology is riffle-pool, with regularly spaced pools every 3 to 7 bankfull widths. Stream banks are dependent on riparian vegetation for stability.

In addition to high quality habitat features, these streams have excellent water quality and groundwater features. Water quality and quantity monitoring in the Wigwam River (1999 – 2004; Prince 2005) have identified groundwater temperature signatures in the index reaches and have demonstrated this stream meets the provincial guidelines for optimum temperature ranges for bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout spawning, incubation, and rearing. The Wigwam River also meets provincial guidelines for ambient water quality parameters of suspended sediment and turbidity (Prince 2005).

March 2007 • 43 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

5 References Anon. 1998. Manual of standard operating procedures for hydrometric surveys in British Columbia. Resource Inventory Branch, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. 168 p + app.

Baxter, J.S. and J.T.A. Baxter. 2002. Summary of the Skookumchuck Creek bull trout enumeration project (2000-2002). Report prepared for Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Report prepared by Baxter Environmental, Nelson, B.C.

Baxter, J.S. and W.T. Westover. 2000. An overview of the Wigwam River bull trout program (1995-1999): Habitat Conservation Trust Fund final report. Fisheries Project Report KO 58, vi+23p.

Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1996. Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat requirements: summary of the literature. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Fort St. John, British Columbia. 108 p.

Cannings, S.G. 1993. Rare freshwater fish of British Columbia. Conservation Data Centre, Report #1. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. Victoria, B.C.

Chisholm, I., M.E. Hensler, B.Hansen and D. Skaar. 1989. Quantification of Libby Reservoir levels needed to maintain or enhance reservoir fisheries, summary report 1983- 1987. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 136 pp. + 9 app.

Cope, R.S. 2007. Summary of the North White River bull trout enumeration project (2006). Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 18 pp.

Cope, R.S. 2006. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2005 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 34 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2004. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2003 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 29 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2004. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2003 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 40 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2003. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 28 pp + 7 app.

March 2007 • 44 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Cope, R.S. 2003. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 35 pp + 5 app.

Cope, R.S. 1998. Wigwam River fish - forestry study: preliminary surveys (1997). Report Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C. Prepared by Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. 52 p. + 4 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2005. Summary of the Gold Creek bull trout enumeration project (2004). Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 16 pp

Cope, R.S. and K.J. Morris. 2005. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 32 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2005. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 40 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S., K. Morris and J.E. Bisset. 2002. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2001 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 28 pp + 5 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2001. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2000 data report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 33 pp + 4 app.

Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish habitat assessment procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection and Ministry of Forests. Vancouver, British Columbia. 67 p. + app.

McPhail, J.D. and J. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. B.C. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. 58 p.

Prince, A. and R.S. Cope. 2006. Summary of the White River bull trout enumeration project (2005). Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 19 pp.

Prince, A. 2005. Wigwam River water quality and quantity monitoring program 2004 data report. Report prepared for Tembec Industries Inc., Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 49 pp. + 4 app.

March 2007 • 45 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Prince, A., and K. Morris. 2003. Upper Wigwam River water quality and quantity monitoring program 2002 data report (Activity No. 01-RIP-FRBC-502). Report prepared for Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 61 pp. + 3 app.

Riley, S.C. and K.D. Fausch. 1992. Under estimation of trout population size by maximum- likelihood removal estimates in small streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 12: 768-776.

River4m Ltd. and D. Mecklenburg. 1999. The reference reach spreadsheet – a stream channel assessment tool, forms, calculators and a format for data management (Version 2.4 L SI). Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 343 p. + app.

Tepper, H. 2003. Wigwam River McNeil Substrate Sampling Program: 1998 – 2002 Summary Report. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Lands and Air Protection. 14 p. + 2 app.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Bull trout draft recovery plan. Portland OR. 137 pp.

Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1990. Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electrofishing data, users guide for Microfish 3.0. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-254. Ogden UT.

Westover, W.T. and K.D. Heidt. 2004. Upper Kootenay River bull trout radio telemetry project (2000-2003). British Columbia Ministry of Water, land and Air Protection, Environmental Stewardship Division, Fish and Wildlife, Kootenay Region, Cranbrook, B.C. 35 p.

March 2007 • 46 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Appendix A

Fish Density Summaries

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table A1. Cross-reference guide to the site location and fish capture data used for trend data comparisons between the 1997 preliminary project and the 2000 – 2002 monitoring project. Watershed Reach 1997 Site No. 2000 – 2002 Site No. Wigwam 5 2 1 Wigwam 6 5 2 Wigwam 7 6 and 7 3 Wigwam 9 10 4 Bighorn 1 13 5 Wigwam 2 1 6

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table A2. Mean density estimates (number of Fish/100 m2) for bull trout fry and juveniles at index sites within wigwam, Skookumchuck and White Rivers (1997, 2000 - 2005).

Total Species = Bull Trout Bull Life-Stage = Fry Life-Stage = Juvenile Life-Stage = Fry + Juvenile Combined Site Trout Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) 3 1 Watershed Sub-basin Site Year Classification Catch Mean95% C.I. Mean95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I. Wigwam Wigwam 1 1997 Preferred 81 15.6 12.7 18.6 3.8 2.9 4.7 19.6 16.5 22.8 Wigwam Wigwam 2 1997 Preferred 55 7.6 7.1 8.2 0.9 0.5 1.3 8.7 8.0 9.4 Wigwam Wigwam 3 1997 Preferred 117 16.2 14.2 18.2 0.3 0.0 1.1 16.4 14.4 18.5 Wigwam Wigwam 4 1997 Low Density 83 11.1 8.8 13.3 10.5 1.4 19.6 21.0 15.2 26.7 Wigwam Bighorn 5 1997 Tributary 41 5.9 3.5 8.3 2.5 2.1 3.0 8.5 6.4 10.8 Wigwam Wigwam 6 1997 Low Density 8 p2 1.0 0 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.8 All 1997 Mean 385 10.0 9.6 10.5 2.6 2.2 3.1 12.7 12.0 13.3 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2000 Preferred 89 17.1 14.3 19.9 p 17.4 14.5 20.3 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2000 Preferred 122 26.9 23.3 30.4 0.6 0 1.2 27.7 23.9 31.4 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2000 Preferred 81 16.6 15.8 17.5 0 16.6 15.8 17.5 Wigwam Wigwam 4 2000 Low Density 43 9.2 7.9 10.5 0 9.2 7.9 10.5 Wigwam Bighorn 5 2000 Tributary 52 15.6 7.2 24.1 0 15.6 7.2 24.1 All 2000 Mean 387 16.8 15.7 18.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 17.0 15.8 18.2 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2001 Preferred 86 17.6 15.5 19.8 0 17.6 15.5 19.8 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2001 Preferred 121 25.9 22.2 29.6 p 26.1 22.4 29.8 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2001 Preferred 78 18.6 13.9 23.4 1.9 1.5 2.2 20.8 16.4 25.3 Wigwam Wigwam 4 2001 Low Density 43 7.4 4.5 10.2 2.3 1.8 2.8 10.1 7.1 13.1 Wigwam Bighorn 5 2001 Tributary 130 32.5 28.6 36.4 0 32.5 28.6 36.4 All 2001 Mean 458 20.4 18.9 22.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 21.5 19.9 23.0 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2002 Preferred 115 21.3 20.2 22.5 p 22.1 21.0 23.2 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2002 Preferred 49 10.0 8.7 11.3 p 10.4 8.9 11.8 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2002 Preferred 58 12.2 10.2 14.2 1.0 0.4 1.7 13.4 11.2 15.7 Wigwam Wigwam 4 2002 Low Density 11 p 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.4 Wigwam Bighorn 5 2002 Tributary 78 14.1 13.5 15.1 1.3 0.9 1.7 15.6 14.4 16.8 Wigwam Wigwam 6 2002 Low Density 45 8.7 8.5 9.0 0.4 0 1.4 9.2 8.9 9.4 All 2002 Mean 356 11.2 10.8 11.6 0.9 0.8 1.1 12.2 11.7 12.6

Continued next page. 1 Site classification refers to preferred bull trout spawning reaches in upper watershed, low density spawning reach (typically lower watershed) or small tributary spawning and/or rearing habitat. 2 Present in catch but insufficient catch to generate estimate. 3 See Table A1 for cross-reference list of site numbers for 1997 Wigwam Project.

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table A2 Concluded.

Total Species = Bull Trout Bull Life-Stage = Fry Life-Stage = Juvenile Life-Stage = Fry + Juvenile Combined Site Trout Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) 3 1 Watershed Sub-basin Site Year Classification Catch Mean95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I. Mean 95% C.I. Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2002 Low Density 4 0.8 0.0 1.7 0 0.8 0.0 1.7 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2002 Preferred 42 8.9 7.7 10.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 9.7 8.6 10.9 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2002 Preferred 38 8.8 7.4 10.3 0 8.8 7.4 10.3 All 2002 Mean 84 6.2 5.4 7.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 6.6 5.7 7.4 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2003 Low Density 7 1.3 1.1 1.5 p 1.5 1.4 1.7 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2003 Preferred 46 10.0 9.1 10.8 p 10.4 9.6 11.2 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2003 Preferred 59 16.4 10.6 22.1 p 16.4 11.0 21.7 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 2003 Tributary 11 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.3 2.2 2.0 2.5 All 2003 Mean 123 6.9 6.0 7.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.3 6.5 8.0 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2004 Low Density 12 2.4 2.3 2.6 0 2.4 2.3 2.6 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2004 Preferred 31 9.1 3.1 15.1 p 10.2 2.9 17.6 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2004 Preferred 44 10.9 7.9 13.9 p 11.1 8.8 13.4 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 2004 Tributary 11 p 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.6 All 2004 Mean 98 5.4 4.3 6.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 6.1 5.1 7.0 White Middlefork 1 2003 Preferred 106 35.3 23.6 46.9 1.8 1.4 2.1 36.3 26.1 46.5 White Middlefork 2 2003 Preferred 6 1.5 1.2 1.7 0 1.5 1.2 1.7 White Blackfoot 3 2003 Tributary 69 9.7 8.7 10.6 4.8 2.7 6.9 14.7 12.7 16.6 All 2003 Mean 181 14.0 11.9 16.2 2.4 1.7 3.1 16.6 14.3 19.0 White Middlefork 1 2004 Preferred 110 29.3 25.1 33.4 1.0 0.5 1.4 30.2 26.2 34.3 White Middlefork 2 2004 Preferred 2 p 0.4 White Blackfoot 3 2004 Tributary 59 7.5 6.6 8.4 3.9 3.5 4.4 11.6 10.5 12.7 All 2004 Mean 171 11.3 10.2 12.4 1.8 1.5 2.1 13.2 12.0 14.3 White Middlefork 1 2005 Preferred 81 18.6 16.4 20.7 2.4 2.1 2.8 21.0 18.9 23.0 White Middlefork 2 2005 Preferred 20 2.1 2.0 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 2.7 2.5 2.8 White Blackfoot 3 2005 Tributary 67 13.3 12.0 14.6 2.0 1.7 2.2 15.3 14.0 16.6 All 2005 Mean 168 9.5 8.9 10.2 1.4 1.3 1.5 11.0 10.3 11.6

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table A3. Mean density estimates (number of Fish/100 m2) for Westslope cutthroat trout at index sites within wigwam, Skookumchuck and White Rivers (1997, 2000 - 2005). Species = Westslope Cutthroat trout WCT Life-Stage = Fry+Juveniles Combined Site Total Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) 3 1 Watershed Sub-basin Site Year Classification Catch Mean 95% C.I. Wigwam Wigwam 1 1997 Preferred 3 0.63 0.39 0.88 Wigwam Wigwam 2 1997 Preferred 1 p2 Wigwam Wigwam 3 1997 Preferred 2 p Wigwam Wigwam 4 1997 Low Density 9 2.33 0.00 5.03 Wigwam Bighorn 5 1997 Tributary 1 p Wigwam Wigwam 6 1997 Low Density 1 p All 1997 Mean 17 0.50 0.38 0.62 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2000 Preferred 14 3.35 0.00 6.86 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2000 Preferred 10 1.96 1.68 2.24 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2000 Preferred 0 0.00 Wigwam Wigwam 4 2000 Low Density 3 0.60 0.00 1.21 Wigwam Bighorn 5 2000 Tributary 5 p All 2000 Mean 32 1.73 0.68 2.79 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2001 Preferred 22 4.83 2.90 6.75 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2001 Preferred 0 0.00 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2001 Preferred 1 p Wigwam Wigwam 4 2001 Low Density 2 0.39 0.00 1.33 Wigwam Bighorn 5 2001 Tributary 1 p All 2001 Mean 26 1.24 0.77 1.71 Wigwam Wigwam 1 2002 Preferred 3 0.56 0.00 1.12 Wigwam Wigwam 2 2002 Preferred 0 0.00 Wigwam Wigwam 3 2002 Preferred 0 0.00 Wigwam Wigwam 4 2002 Low Density 1 p Wigwam Bighorn 5 2002 Tributary 0 0.00 Wigwam Wigwam 6 2002 Low Density 4 0.81 0.46 1.17 All 2002 Mean 8 0.26 0.20 0.32 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2002 Low Density 0 0.00 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2002 Preferred 1 p Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2002 Preferred 1 p All 2002 Mean 2 p Continued next page. 1 Site classification refers to preferred bull trout spawning reaches in upper watershed, low density spawning reach (typically lower

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table A3. Concluded.

Species = Westslope Cutthroat trout WCT Life-Stage = Fry+Juveniles Combined Site Total Density Estimate (Fish/100 m2) 3 1 Watershed Sub-basin Site Year Classification Catch Mean 95% C.I. Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2003 Low Density 2 p Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2003 Preferred 14 5.53 0.00 15.20 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2003 Preferred 25 5.59 4.72 6.46 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 2003 Tributary 23 4.62 4.29 4.94 All 2003 Mean 64 3.75 3.26 4.23 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 1 2004 Low Density 8 2.01 0.00 4.16 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 2 2004 Preferred 38 9.35 7.53 11.17 Skookumchuck Skookumchuck 3 2004 Preferred 57 13.88 11.29 16.46 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 2004 Tributary 52 11.04 9.85 12.23 All 2004 Mean 155 9.15 8.22 10.09 White Middlefork 1 2003 Preferred 0 0.00 White Middlefork 2 2003 Preferred 0 0.00 White Blackfoot 3 2003 Tributary 0 0.00 All 2003 Mean 0 0.00 White Middlefork 1 2004 Preferred 0 0.00 White Middlefork 2 2004 Preferred 1 p White Blackfoot 3 2004 Tributary 2 p All 2004 Mean 3 0.21 0.13 0.29 White Middlefork 1 2005 Preferred 0 0.00 White Middlefork 2 2005 Preferred 0 0.00 White Blackfoot 3 2005 Tributary 0 0.00 All 2005 Mean 0 0.00

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Appendix B

FHAP Level 1 Form 4 Summary Data

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table B1. Watershed comparison of select habitat condition diagonstics from the Level 1 FHAP habitat Survey Form 4. Mean Mean Percent Pool Freq. LWD Pieces/ % Wood % Boulder Over- Site Gradient Bankfull Pool (mean pool Bankfull Cover in Cover in head Year Watershed Sub-basin Site Classification (%) Width (m) (by area) spacing/Wb) Channel Width Pools Riffles Cover (%) 2005 White Middlefork 1 Preferred BT Spawning 0.42 24.0 21.3 5.3 19.5 17.0 2.5 2.9 2005 White Middlefork 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.21 25.3 53.3 4.0 19.2 37.0 0.0 0.0 2005 White Blackfoot 3 Tributary 1.50 21.3 22.0 3.9 11.3 26.0 2.5 3.6 All Average 0.71 23.5 32.2 4.4 16.7 26.7 1.7 2.2 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 1 Low Density BT Spawning 0.58 31.1 24.0 5.4 2.7 0.0 10.0 2.0 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.36 33.0 41.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 3 Preferred BT Spawning 0.35 32.6 45.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 2004 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 Tributary 0.63 9.2 52.0 2.4 13.0 20.0 2.0 6.0 All Average 0.48 26.5 40.5 3.5 4.9 5.5 4.8 4.3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 1 Preferred BT Spawning 0.63 43.0 55.0 3.1 2.4 2.5 <10 <10 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.67 69.0 44.3 1.3 6.0 25.6 10.7 <10 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 3 Preferred BT Spawning 0.72 34.0 10.5 6.3 2.6 16.8 <10 <10 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 4 Low Density BT Spawning 1.79 14.0 5.2 17.3 2.0 0.0 <10 <10 2002 Wigwam Bighorn 5 Tributary 0.90 33.5 25.9 3.8 4.4 43.0 20 <10 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 6 Low Density BT Spawning 0.77 79.0 21.4 2.7 2.4 0.0 <10 <10 All Average 0.91 45.4 27.1 5.8 3.3 14.7 15.35 <10 Table B1. Concluded. Substrate Off-Channel Holding PoolsSpawning Spawning Redd Rosgen Site Substrate Substrate Rearing Habitat habitat (> 1m deep Gravel Gravel Scour Stream Year Watershed Sub-basin Site Classification (D50) (D84) (Interstitial Rating) (<3% gradient) good cover) Quantity Quality Potential Type 2005 White Middlefork 1 Preferred BT Spawning 55.0 123 Clear Abundant Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable C4(1) 2005 White Middlefork 2 Preferred BT Spawning 16.2 43 Interstices Filled Abundant Abundant Frequent Sand sub-dom. Stable C4 2005 White Blackfoot 3 Tributary 83.7 197 Clear Limited Few Frequent Suitable Scour C3 All Average 51.6 121 Clear Abundant Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable C3 - C4 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 1 Low Density BT Spawning 109.2 230 Clear Few Few Limited Suitable High Scour C3(1) 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 2 Preferred BT Spawning 82.6 215 Clear Abundant Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C3 2004 Skookumchuck Skook. 3 Preferred BT Spawning 106.2 233 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C3 2004 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 Tributary 11.0 37 Reduced Few Few Frequent Suitable Some Scour F4 to C4 All Average 77.3 179 Clear Some Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable C3 - C4 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 1 Preferred BT Spawning 78.1 199 Clear Some Abundant Limited Suitable Stable C3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 2 Preferred BT Spawning 45.6 116 Clear Abundant Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C4 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 3 Preferred BT Spawning 84.1 195 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Some Scour C3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 4 Low Density BT Spawning 189.3 490 Clear Absent Few Absent Absent High Scour B3 2002 Wigwam Bighorn 5 Tributary 43.1 99 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Some Scour C4 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 6 Low Density BT Spawning 91.8 232 Reduced Abundant Abundant Limited High CompactioHigh Scour B3c All Average 88.7 222 Clear Some Abundant Present Suitable Some Scour B3, C3 - C4

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Table B2. Diagnostics of salmonid habitat condition at the reach level. Note that the final year of the 3 years of replicated surveys were used to represent each site. Mean Mean Percent Pool Freq. LWD % Wood % Boulder Over- Site Gradient Bankfull Pool (mean pool Pieces/ Cover in Cover in head Substrate 1 b Year Watershed Sub-basin Site Classification (%) Width (m) (by area) spacing/W ) Wb Pools Riffles Cover (%) (D50) 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 1 Low Density BT Spawning 0.58 31 24.0 5.4 2.7 0 10 2 109.2 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 4 Low Density BT Spawning 1.79 14 5.2 17.3 2.0 0 <10 <10 189.3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 6 Low Density BT Spawning 0.77 79 21.4 2.7 2.4 0 <10 <10 91.8 Mean 1.05 41 16.9 8.5 2.4 0 <10 <10 130.1 Min 0.58 14 5.2 2.7 2.0 0 91.8 Max 1.79 79 24.0 17.3 2.7 0 189.3

2005 White Middlefork 1 Preferred BT Spawning 0.42 24 21.3 5.3 19.5 17.0 2.5 2.9 55.0 2005 White Middlefork 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.21 25 53.3 4.0 19.2 37.0 0 0 16.2 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.36 33 41.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 5 2 82.6 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 3 Preferred BT Spawning 0.35 33 45.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 2 7 106.2 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 1 Preferred BT Spawning 0.63 43 55.0 3.1 2.4 2.5 <10 <10 78.1 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 2 Preferred BT Spawning 0.67 69 44.3 1.3 6.0 25.6 10.7 <10 45.6 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 3 Preferred BT Spawning 0.72 34 10.5 6.3 2.6 16.8 <10 <10 84.1 Mean 0.48 37 38.6 3.8 7.7 14.4 4.0 3.0 66.8 Min 0.21 24 10.5 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 Max 0.72 69 55.0 6.3 19.5 37.0 10.7 7.0 106.2

2005 White Blackfoot 3 Tributary 1.50 21 22.0 3.9 11.3 26.0 2.5 3.6 83.7 2004 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 Tributary 0.63 9 52.0 2.4 13.0 20.0 2 6 11.0 2002 Wigwam Bighorn 5 Tributary 0.90 34 25.9 3.8 4.4 43.0 20 <10 43.1 Mean 1.01 21 33.3 3.4 9.6 29.7 8.2 4.8 45.9 Min 0.63 9 22.0 2.4 4.4 20.0 2.0 3.6 11.0 Max 1.50 34 52.0 3.9 13.0 43.0 20.0 6.0 83.7

1 Site classification refers to preferred bull trout spawning reaches in upper watershed, low density spawning reach (typically lower watershed) or small tributary spawning and/or rearing habitat.

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

Tabel B2 Concluded. Substrate Off-Channel Holding Pools Spawning Spawning Redd Rosgen Site Substrate Rearing Ha habitat (> 1m deep Gravel Gravel Scour Stream 1 Year Watershed Sub-basin Site Classification (D84) (Interstitial R(<3% gradient) good cover) Quantity Quality Potential Type 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 1 Low Density BT Spawning 230 Clear Few Few Limited Suitable High Scour C3(1) 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 4 Low Density BT Spawning 490 Clear Absent Few Absent Absent High Scour B3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 6 Low Density BT Spawning 232 Reduced Abundant Abundant Limited High CompHigh Scour B3c Mean 317 Clear Few few Limited Limited High Scour Min 230 Max 490

2005 White Middlefork 1 Preferred BT Spawning 123 Clear Abundant Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable C4(1) 2005 White Middlefork 2 Preferred BT Spawning 43 Interstices FAbundant Abundant Frequent Sand sub-dStable C4 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 2 Preferred BT Spawning 215 Clear Abundant Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C3 2004 Skookumchuck Skookumchu 3 Preferred BT Spawning 233 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 1 Preferred BT Spawning 199 Clear Some Abundant Limited Suitable Stable C3 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 2 Preferred BT Spawning 116 Clear Abundant Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable C4 2002 Wigwam Wigwam 3 Preferred BT Spawning 195 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Some Scour C3 Mean 161 Clear Frequent Abundant Frequent Suitable Stable Min 43 Max 233

2005 White Blackfoot 3 Tributary 197 Clear Limited Few Frequent Suitable Scour C3 2004 Skookumchuck Sandown 4 Tributary 37 Reduced Few Few Frequent Suitable Some Scour F4 returning to C4 2002 Wigwam Bighorn 5 Tributary 99 Clear Some Abundant Frequent Suitable Some Scour C4 Mean 111 Clear Few Few Frequent Suitable Some Scour Min 37 Max 197

March 2007 Upper Kootenay Juvenile Bull Trout Summary (2000 – 2005)

March 2007