North Saskatchewan River Drainage, Fish Sustainability Index Data Gaps Project, 2018

Chad Judd, Mike Rodtka, and Zachary Spence Alberta Conservation Association 101 – 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8A 6J7

Report Editors

PETER AKU GLENDA SAMUELSON Alberta Conservation Association R.R. #2 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd. Craven, SK S0G 0W0 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7

Conservation Report Series Type Data

ISBN: 978-1-989448-03-8

Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project.

Suggested Citation: Judd, C., M. Rodtka, and Z. Spence. 2019. North Saskatchewan River drainage, fish sustainability index data gaps project, 2018. Data Report, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. 17 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless

Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd. Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ab-conservation.com

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fishery inventories provide resource managers with information on fish species abundance, distribution, and habitat. This information is a key component of responsible land use planning. Alberta Environment and Park’s (AEP) Fish Sustainability Index (FSI), is a standardized process of assessment that provides the framework within which fishery inventories must occur for greatest relevance to government managers and planners. Our objective was to describe bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) distribution and abundance in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed to address data deficiencies for this FSI priority species. Bull trout are particularly sensitive to habitat change and are classed as Threatened in Alberta (Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers populations).

Priority areas for fishery inventories in 2018 were identified in consultation with project partners and included the Cardinal River and its tributaries. From July 17 to August 17, we sampled 30 sites randomly distributed throughout three watersheds classed as hydrologic unit code (HUC) 10, Ruby Creek, Upper Cardinal River, and Lower Cardinal River. Sites were sampled using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear. We captured 98 bull trout, ranging in size from 31 to 273 mm fork length (FL). Bull trout were detected at seven sites in the Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed and at six sites in the Upper Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed. Bull trout were not detected at any sites in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed and overall thirteen of the 30 sites had zero fish captures. The Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed had the highest median relative abundance of bull trout at 0.96 (CI = 0.00 – 4.33) bull trout per 100 m. We also sampled 6.5 kilometers of the Cardinal River mainstem using float electrofishing and angling gear and captured two bull trout and eleven cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki). We measured stream temperature (hourly) at four stations in the HUC 10 watersheds and results indicated that highly suitable thermal habitat for bull trout existed in each of the watersheds in the summer months of 2018. Cobble substrate was dominant throughout the watersheds, a habitat quality preferred by bull trout. Our study provides current information on stream habitats, and the abundance and distribution of FSI priority species within the Cardinal River and its tributaries. This information is useful to land managers when attempting to balance the diverse values of the landbase upon which they operate and critical for the conservation of native fish species particularly sensitive to habitat degradation including bull trout.

Key words: Alberta, Cardinal River watershed, Ruby Creek watershed, FSI, bull trout, distribution, abundance.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Jessica Reilly and Mike Blackburn of Alberta Environment and Parks for their assistance with project design and development. Alberta Conservation Association employees Andrew Clough, John Hallett, Dave Jackson, and Nikita Lebedynski assisted with data collection and summary.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ...... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ...... 2 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 5 3.1 Fish distribution and abundance ...... 5 3.2 Stream habitat measurement ...... 6 4.0 RESULTS ...... 9 4.1 Fish distribution and abundance ...... 9 4.2 Stream habitat measurement ...... 13 5.0 SUMMARY ...... 15 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 16 7.0 APPENDICES ...... 18

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed and the fishery inventory watersheds, 2018. Inset map shows the location of the study area within the province of Alberta...... 3 Figure 2. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the location of electrofishing sites ...... 4 Figure 3. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the location of stream temperature stations in each watershed, 2018...... 8 Figure 4. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the distribution of fish species captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018. .. 10

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of sites where fish were detected in each HUC 10 watershed and total catch of fish species using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018...... 11 Table 2. Size distribution of fish species captured in each HUC 10 watershed using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018...... 11 Table 3. Bootstrapped median relative abundance (10,000 replicates) of bull trout and cutthroat trout in each HUC 10 watershed using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018...... 12 Table 4. Summary of stream habitat measurements in each HUC 10 watershed collected while backpack and tote-barge electrofish sampling, July 17 to August 17, 2018. 14 Table 5. Summary of stream temperature measurements from four stations in the Cardinal River watershed, July 1 to August 31, 2018...... 15

vi LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Location (NAD 83, Zone 11) of waterfalls identified during field reconnaissance in the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed, 2018...... 18 Appendix 2. Summary of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing site locations (NAD 83, Zone 11) and fish capture by species in the Ruby Creek (R), Upper Cardinal River (UC), and Lower Cardinal River (LC) HUC 10 watersheds, 2018...... 19 Appendix 3. Length frequency histograms of bull trout, brown trout, and cutthroat trout, captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear in the Ruby Creek, Upper Cardinal River, and Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watersheds, 2018...... 20 Appendix 4. Length frequency histograms of bull trout and cutthroat trout captured using float electrofishing and angling gear in the Cardinal River, 2018...... 21 Appendix 5. Summary of habitat measurements at electrofishing sites in Ruby Creek (R), Upper Cardinal River (UC), Lower Cardinal River (LC) HUC 10 watersheds and the Cardinal River (CR), 2018...... 22 Appendix 6. Two-day moving average stream temperature at four stations in the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed, 2018...... 24

vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The FSI evaluates fish species on four groups of metrics: population integrity, population productivity, threats, and data reliability (MacPherson et al. 2014). Fishery inventory data are particularly suited to evaluation of the population integrity (adult and immature density) and productive potential (geographic extent) metrics. When conducting fishery inventories in Alberta, watersheds are scaled using a hydrological unit code (HUC), appropriate for the focal fish species, with HUC 2 being the coarsest level and HUC 10 being the finest level.

Priority species, as identified by AEP, for FSI assessment that are known to occur in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) (MacPherson et al. 2014). Mountain whitefish are classed as Secure in Alberta (Government of Alberta 2017) whereas bull trout are classed as Threatened (Saskatchewan – Nelson rivers populations) (COSEWIC 2012). Bull trout have specific habitat requirements, are sensitive to habitat changes and are thought to reflect general ecosystem health (COSEWIC 2012). This sensitivity, coupled with their relatively wide distribution, make bull trout an ideal species for monitoring sustainability in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed. Bull trout populations are being assessed at a HUC 10 scale.

Our objectives for this study were to:

1. Describe bull trout distribution and abundance to address FSI data deficiencies in the Ruby Creek and Cardinal River watersheds.

2. Describe fish inventory and stream habitat in priority HUC 10 watersheds as identified by project partners.

1 2.0 STUDY AREA

The North Saskatchewan River originates in Banff National Park. Major headwater tributaries include the Ram, Clearwater, and Brazeau rivers (Figure 1). Cold water habitat suitable for bull trout and other salmonids is located mainly upstream of the confluence of the Clearwater and North Saskatchewan rivers, and in the Brazeau watershed above the Brazeau Reservoir. Land use activities outside of the national parks include forestry, oil and gas exploration, and recreation. Land use within the national parks is restricted and primarily recreational (North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance 2005). Priority areas for sampling HUC 10 watersheds were identified in consultation with project partners with highest priority given to areas in the bull trout range where current fishery inventory data are absent or dated. Our 2018 study area consists of the Cardinal River watershed (HUC 8) and includes the following HUC 10 watersheds: Ruby Creek (R), Upper Cardinal River (UC), and Lower Cardinal River (LC) (Figure 2). The previous watershed scale fish inventory was conducted in 1996 – 1997 (Johnson and Spencer 1998).

Figure 1. Map of the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed and the fishery inventory watersheds, 2018. Inset map shows the location of the study area within the province of Alberta.

Figure 2. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the location of electrofishing sites, 2018.

4 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Fish distribution and abundance

From July 17 to August 17, 2018, we sampled 30 randomly distributed sites to describe bull trout and other fish species distribution and relative abundance in three HUC 10 watersheds (Figure 2). We distributed prospective sample sites at 800 m intervals in an upstream progression along the length of third- to fifth-order streams (> 400 m; 1:20,000 scale) (Strahler 1952) within each HUC 10 watershed using a geographical information system (GIS) (ArcGIS version 10.4) and the Government of Alberta Resource Management Information Branch hydro line data layer. Streams above Ruby Falls (a natural fish barrier) were excluded from the sample frame. Sample sites were randomly selected without replacement using a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (Stevens and Olsen 2004). We used a conservative target of ten sample sites per HUC 10 watershed based on past evaluations of our power to detect immature bull trout (Rodtka and Judd 2015, Rodtka et al. 2015). Sites were assessed in the order in which they were drawn. To accommodate non-response sites, we drew a total of 13 sites per sample frame. In total, three sites were considered non-response (inaccessible) and alternates were chosen. The GRTS sampling design allowed us to adjust our sample size to accommodate these nonresponse sites while maintaining a spatially balanced sample (Stevens and Olsen 2004). One additional site in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed (LC11) was sampled to compliment ongoing stream crossing assessments in the area.

A handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to locate sample sites. All site sampling commenced at the head of riffle habitat. Our sample protocol for backpack electrofishing required sample sites be 300 m long (measured with a hip chain). Sites were sampled using a Smith-Root LR-20B backpack electrofisher with pulsed DC (voltage 300 – 350 V, frequency 30 Hz, and duration 10 ms). Due to the width of the Cardinal River upstream of the confluence with Nomad Creek, one site (UC2) was sampled using a Smith-Root SR-6 tote-barge electrofisher with a 2.5 GPP (typical settings were 60 Hz at 40 – 50% of high range). We sampled this site moving downstream from the start of the site with a four-person crew consisting of one tote-barge operator, one anode pole operator, and two netters. The tote-barge site was 500 m long (measured with a range finder).

The mainstem of the Cardinal River (sixth-order stream) downstream of the confluence with Ruby Creek was considered to be non-wadeable and would require sampling to be completed

5 by float electrofishing. Therefore, this section of the Cardinal River was not included in our initial draw of sample sites in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed. We divided this section of the river into 2 km reaches starting at the mouth of Ruby Creek downstream to the confluence of the Brazeau River. Our original intent was to sample every second site using float electrofishing gear. During field reconnaissance, this was deemed impractical due to the numerous sweepers, waterfalls, and limited access points (see Appendix 1 for a list of observed waterfalls in the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed). We identified two sections of the river that we could safely sample using float electrofishing gear with a 2.5 GPP (typical settings were 30 Hz at 50% – 60% of high range). We sampled both sites moving downstream from the start of the site with a three-person crew consisting of one oarsman, one anode pole operator, and one netter. A support raft followed the electrofishing crew carrying sampling gear. The float sites CR1 and CR2 were 3,500 m and 3,000 m long (measured with a GPS), respectively (Figure 2).

Electrofishing effort (seconds) was recorded at 50 m and 100 m intervals for backpack and tote- barge sites, respectively and 500 m intervals for float sites. Fish were identified to species, enumerated, and measured (fork length, FL, mm). Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) have been stocked in the watersheds, therefore bull trout were visually inspected upon capture for morphological features of hybridization with brook trout based on criteria in Popowich et al. (2011). Immature bull trout were defined as ≤ 150 mm FL (ASRD and ACA 2009) when reporting abundances.

We angled the Cardinal River while scouting sample site access locations and water conditions prior to float electrofishing. Angling was conducted in teams of two using jigs and spinners on unbaited hooks. Angling effort was measured by the individual angler using a stopwatch. We returned our angling catch to the river at the point of capture after sampling.

3.2 Stream habitat measurement

At all sample sites, we measured stream temperature (1°C) and ambient stream conductivity (1 μS/cm) prior to electrofishing. Ambient stream conductivity has been demonstrated to significantly impact detection of immature bull trout using electrofishing gear (Rodtka et al. 2015). We measured stream depth (0.01 m), wetted width (0.1 m), and rooted width (0.1 m) at transects spaced at 50 m and 100 m intervals for backpack and tote-barge sites, respectively. Habitat type and dominant substrate type were assessed between transects. We visually estimated the percentage (nearest 5%) of pool habitat (reduced current velocity, little surface

6 turbulence, water deeper than surrounding areas), riffle habitat (swift flow of water over bed materials producing surface turbulence), and run habitat (uniform but swift flow of water without surface waves). Dominant substrate type was scored based on a modified Wentworth (1922) scale and included: fines (< 2 mm; score 0), small gravel (2 – 16 mm; score 1), large gravel (17 – 64 mm; score 2), cobble (65 – 256 mm; score 3), boulder (>256 mm; score 4), and bedrock (score 5).

Stream temperature plays an important role in aquatic community processes and has been correlated to specific fish species distribution and abundance (Isaak et al. 2012, Rieman et al. 2007). We measured summer (July 1 – August 31, 2018) stream temperature (1°C) every hour at six stations located throughout the three HUC 10 watersheds to describe the thermal habitats available (Figure 3). Two of the six stations were excluded from analysis. The CardinalData1 temperature logger was not recoverable at the end of the season and the CardinalData2 temperature logger was found floating near the surface of the water. All fish and habitat information acquired in the field was submitted for inclusion into the AEP Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) database.

Figure 3. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the location of stream temperature stations in each watershed, 2018.

8 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Fish distribution and abundance

4.1.1 Electrofishing

We sampled 29 sites with backpack electrofishing gear and one site with tote-barge electofishing gear resulting in a total effort of more than 32,000 seconds over 9.2 km of stream. In addition to bull trout, our catch included: brown trout (Salmo trutta), cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki), and pearl dace (Margariscus margarita). Bull trout were captured at six sites in the Upper Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed and at seven sites in the Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed. Bull trout were not detected at any sites in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed and overall thirteen of the 30 sites had zero fish captures (Figure 4). None of the bull trout captured showed evidence of hybridization with brook trout. Brown trout were captured in the Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed and cutthroat trout were captured in the Upper Cardinal River and Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watersheds (Table 1). Site specific catch information is provided in Appendix 2.

Figure 4. Map of the HUC 10 watersheds showing the distribution of fish species captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018. Species codes: BNTR = brown trout, BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, PRDC = pearl dace.

10 Table 1. Number of sites where fish were detected in each HUC 10 watershed and total catch of fish species using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018. Species codes: BNTR = brown trout, BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, PRDC = pearl dace.

Number of sites where fish were detected (n) Total catch (n) Upper Cardinal Lower Cardinal Ruby Creek (%) Species River River BNTR 0 0 1 10 (5) BLTR 6 0 7 98 (45) CTTR 2 3 0 21 (10) PRDC 0 2 0 88 (40)

Our bull trout catch ranged in size from 31 to 273 mm FL and mainly consisted of immature fish (n = 73). The size range of brown trout and cutthroat trout was 55 to 176 mm FL and 47 to 300 mm FL, respectively (Table 2). Length frequency histograms of our brown trout, bull trout, and cutthroat trout catch are contained in Appendix 3.

Table 2. Size distribution of fish species captured in each HUC 10 watershed using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018. Species codes: BNTR = brown trout, BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, PRDC = pearl dace.

Fork length Fish species HUC 10 Watershed (mm) BNTR BLTR CTTR PRDC Upper Cardinal River n 0 25 10 0 Mean ± SD - 152 ± 56 114 ± 68 - Range - 69 – 273 71 – 287 - Lower Cardinal River n 0 0 11 88 Mean ± SD - - 146 ± 69 83 ± 14 Range - - 47 – 300 38 – 117 Ruby Creek n 10 73 0 0 Mean ± SD 119 ± 45 114 ± 42 - - Range 55 – 176 31 – 253 - -

11 The median relative abundance (catch per 100 m) of bull trout was highest in the Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed. Bootstrapped median relative abundance (10,000 replicates) of bull trout and cutthroat trout for each HUC 10 watershed is provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Bootstrapped median relative abundance (10,000 replicates) of bull trout and cutthroat trout in each HUC 10 watershed using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, July 17 to August 17, 2018. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout.

Median catch/ 100 m (95% CI) Species Upper Cardinal River Lower Cardinal River Ruby Creek All BLTR 0.46 (0.00 – 1.67) 0 0.96 (0.00 – 4.33) BLTR ≤ 150 mm FL 0.28 (0.00 – 0.67) 0 0.31 (0.00 – 4.00) BLTR > 150 mm FL 0.11 (0.00 – 0.67) 0 0.31 (0.00 – 0.67) CTTR 0.01 (0.00 – 0.10) 0.06 (0.00 – 0.33) 0

12 4.1.2 Cardinal River mainstem

We sampled 6.5 km of the Cardinal River mainstem using float electrofishing and angling gear. Our electrofishing and angling effort at CR1 was 1,823 seconds and two hours, respectively and our electrofishing and angling effort at CR2 was 1,388 seconds and two hours, respectively. Our angling catch consisted of two cutthroat trout and one bull trout. Our electrofishing catch consisted of four cutthroat trout and one bull trout at CR1 and five cutthroat trout and one bull trout (a recapture from our angling event) at CR2. We also observed three fish in CR1 and seven fish in CR2 during our electrofishing sampling.

The two bull trout captured measured 289 mm FL and 302 mm FL. The eleven cutthroat trout ranged in size from 197 to 465 mm FL, with a mean ± SD of 321 ± 77 mm FL. Length frequency histograms of our bull trout, and cutthroat trout catch are contained in Appendix 4.

4.2 Stream habitat measurement

Stream temperature measurements and substrate composition were similar in each of the three HUC 10 watersheds with cobble substrate being dominant throughout the watersheds (Table 4). Wetted widths were smallest in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed, while the Upper Cardinal and Ruby Creek HUC 10 watersheds had wide flood plains and occasional braided sections of stream. Ambient stream conductivity was lowest in the Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watershed with four sites having conductivities below 150 µS/cm. See Appendix 5 for site specific habitat measurements.

13 Table 4. Summary of stream habitat measurements in each HUC 10 watershed collected while backpack and tote-barge electrofish sampling, July 17 to August 17, 2018. Substrate codes: B = boulder, C = cobble, F = fines, LG = large gravel, SG = small gravel.

HUC 10 watershed Lower Upper Ruby Creek Measurement Cardinal River Cardinal River Stream temperature (˚C)

Mean ± SD 9 ± 3 8 ± 4 9 ± 2 Range 5 – 14 5 – 14 5 – 11 Ambient conductivity (µS/cm)

Mean ± SD 160 ± 32 241 ± 21 227 ± 24 Range 102 – 207 217 – 277 171 – 257 Wetted width (m)

Mean ± SD 3.0 ± 2.0 6.8 ± 3.7 7.1 ± 4.9 Range 0.5 – 7.8 1.7 – 19.3 1.4 – 25.6 Rooted width (m)

Mean ± SD 4.1 ± 3.3 11.4 ± 6.6 21.8 ± 24.9 Range 0.5 – 16.0 2.8 – 35.0 2.1 – 151.0 Maximum depth (m)

Mean ± SD 0.43 ± 0.18 0.37 ± 0.13 0.34 ± 0.12 Range 0.18 – 1.10 0.18 – 1.00 0.16 – 0.81 Modal stream stage Moderate Moderate Moderate Modal substrate

Primary C C C Secondary LG LG LG

Highly suitable thermal habitat for bull trout (i.e., mean summer stream temperature ≤ 10°C, Isaak et al. 2009) was present throughout the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed (Table 5). A two- day moving average of stream temperatures recorded at each station is presented in Appendix 6.

14 Table 5. Summary of stream temperature measurements from four stations in the Cardinal River watershed, July 1 to August 31, 2018.

UTM Location NAD 83 Zone 11 Mean ± SD Temperature Station Easting Northing temperature (°C) range (°C) CardinalData3 506888 5858739 9 ± 2 5 – 17 CardinalData4 493338 5860863 9 ± 2 4 – 13 CardinalData5 503810 5857241 10 ± 3 5 – 17 CardinalData6 500658 5856931 9 ± 3 4 – 16

5.0 SUMMARY

We sampled 30 sites located throughout three priority HUC 10 watersheds within the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear. Bull trout were detected in the Ruby Creek and Upper Cardinal River HUC 10 watersheds with the Ruby Creek watershed having the highest relative abundance of bull trout. Brown trout were captured at one site in Ruby Creek; it is likely that the historic stocking of Ruby Lake has resulted is a small self-sustaining brown trout population in the Ruby Creek HUC 10 watershed.

Stream temperature measurements indicate that summer temperatures were highly suitable for bull trout in each of the HUC 10 watersheds. Cobble substrate was dominant throughout the watershed, a habitat quality preferred by bull trout (ASRD and ACA 2009). The Upper Cardinal River and Ruby Creek HUC 10 watersheds consisted of mainly higher velocity riffle reaches.

Our study provides current information on stream habitats, and the abundance and distribution of bull trout, a FSI priority species, within the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed. This information is useful to land managers when attempting to balance the diverse values of the landbase upon which they operate and critical for the conservation of native fish species particularly sensitive to habitat degradation including bull trout.

15 6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2009. Status of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta: Update 2009. Wildlife Status Report No. 39 produced by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 48 pp.

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Canada. Report produced by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 103 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2017. Alberta wild species general status listing – 2015. Report produced by the Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 24 pp.

Isaak, D., B.E. Rieman, and D. Horan. 2009. A watershed-scale monitoring protocol for bull trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-224 produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. 25 pp.

Isaak, D., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler. 2012. Climate change effects on stream and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980 – 2009 and implications for salmonid fishes. Climatic Change 113: 499–524.

Johnson, C., and S. Spencer. 1998. Summary of fish inventory data analysis; Foothills Model Forest, 1995-1997. Report produced by Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta, Canada. 31 pp.

MacPherson, L., M. Coombs, J. Reilly, M.G. Sullivan, and D.J. Park. 2014. A generic rule set for applying the Alberta fish sustainability index, second edition. Report produced by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 51 pp.

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance. 2005. State of the North Saskatchewan watershed report 2005 – a foundation for collaborative watershed management. Produced by the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 202 pp.

16 Popowich, R.C., P.A. Venturelli, J.D. Stelfox, and E.B. Taylor. 2011. Validation of morphological characteristics used for field identification of bull trout × brook trout hybrids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31: 548–553.

Rieman, B.E., D.J. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1552– 1565.

Rodtka, M., and C. Judd. 2015. Abundance and distribution of bull trout in the Muskeg River watershed, 2014. Data Report, D-2015-002, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. 18 pp + App.

Rodtka, M.C., C.S. Judd, P.K.M. Aku, and K.M. Fitzsimmons. 2015. Estimating occupancy and detection probability of juvenile bull trout using backpack electrofishing gear in a west- central Alberta watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 742– 750.

Stevens Jr, D.L., and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99 (465): 262–278.

Strahler, A.N. 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63: 1117–1142.

Wentworth, C.K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of Geology 30: 377–392.

17 7.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Location (NAD 83, Zone 11) of waterfalls identified during field reconnaissance in the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed, 2018.

Easting Northing Location comments 512464 5857844 Downstream of the mouth of Muskiki Creek 507129 5858842 Downstream of the Cardinal River road crossing 487226 5856498 Lower falls on Toma Creek 486665 5855524 Middle falls on Toma Creek 486249 5854273 Upper falls on Toma Creek 490228 5847482 Ruby Falls 480839 5857115 Crystal Falls 474559 5860934 Cardinal Falls

18 Appendix 2. Summary of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing site locations (NAD 83, Zone 11) and fish capture by species in the Ruby Creek (R), Upper Cardinal River (UC), and Lower Cardinal River (LC) HUC 10 watersheds, 2018. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BNTR = brown trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, PRDC = pearl dace.

Date UTM Distance Effort Species Site ID (dd/mm/yyyy) Easting Northing (m) (s) BLTR BNTR CTTR PRDC R1 17/07/2018 490508 5848209 300 1,242 0 0 0 0 R2 27/07/2018 496288 5849391 300 638 0 0 0 0 R3 19/07/2018 500683 5852753 300 1,036 1 0 0 0 R4 19/07/2018 502449 5853440 300 1,190 3 0 0 0 R5 17/07/2018 492072 5849589 300 1,570 23 0 0 0 R6 18/07/2018 497308 5851893 300 1,840 3 0 0 0 R7 14/08/2018 502823 5854225 300 794 0 0 0 0 R8 18/07/2018 493821 5851108 300 1,927 36 10 0 0 R9 14/08/2018 497038 5851076 300 730 3 0 0 0 R10 14/08/2018 503614 5854558 300 1,480 4 0 0 0 UC1 25/07/2018 496657 5855507 300 1,112 1 0 0 0 UC2 15/08/2018 499977 5857554 500 1,774 4 0 1 0 UC3 24/07/2018 481921 5856946 300 1,592 6 0 0 0 UC4 25/07/2018 492940 5859843 300 919 8 0 0 0 UC5 24/07/2018 479319 5857637 300 806 0 0 0 0 UC8 25/07/2018 500229 5857004 300 1,241 5 0 9 0 UC9 24/07/2018 485280 5859367 300 1,127 0 0 0 0 UC10 27/07/2018 493232 5854188 300 916 0 0 0 0 UC12 16/08/2018 491698 5861470 300 873 1 0 0 0 UC13 16/08/2018 488928 5859379 300 957 0 0 0 0 LC1 26/07/2018 515855 5860274 300 566 0 0 0 0 LC2 28/07/2018 508370 5857215 300 1,495 0 0 9 87 LC3 26/07/2018 501986 5862276 300 983 0 0 1 0 LC4 26/07/2018 504554 5860413 300 853 0 0 0 0 LC5 27/07/2018 511102 5857445 300 636 0 0 0 1 LC6 26/07/2018 503168 5860337 300 600 0 0 0 0 LC7 26/07/2018 504116 5860761 300 883 0 0 0 0 LC8 27/07/2018 516076 5859585 300 653 0 0 0 0 LC9 26/07/2018 503483 5861448 300 860 0 0 1 0 LC10 28/07/2018 506578 5859252 300 1,103 0 0 0 0 LC11* 15/08/2018 509699 5857554 300 908 0 0 1 3 *Added as part of a stream crossing project.

19 Appendix 3. Length frequency histograms of bull trout, brown trout, and cutthroat trout, captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear in the Ruby Creek, Upper Cardinal River, and Lower Cardinal River HUC 10 watersheds, 2018. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BNTR = brown trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout.

BLTR n = 98 12

6 Numberof fish

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Fork length (mm)

6 BNTR n = 10 CTTR n = 21 5

Numberof fish 2

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Fork length (mm)

20 Appendix 4. Length frequency histograms of bull trout and cutthroat trout captured using float electrofishing and angling gear in the Cardinal River, 2018. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout.

3 BLTR n = 2 CTTR n = 11

2 Numberof fish 1

0 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 Fork length (mm)

21 Appendix 5. Summary of habitat measurements at electrofishing sites in Ruby Creek (R), Upper Cardinal River (UC), Lower Cardinal River (LC) HUC 10 watersheds and the Cardinal River (CR), 2018. Substrate codes: B = boulder, C = cobble, F = fines, LG = large gravel, SG = small gravel.

Ambient Mean wetted Mean rooted Dominant/ Temp Mean depth Mean % pool Mean % riffle Mean % run Site ID cond. width width secondary (°C) ± SD (m) (min-max) (min-max) (min-max) (µS/cm) ± SD (m) ± SD (m) substrate R1 8 171 7.9 ± 2.0 17.8 ± 7.2 0.28 ± 0.06 C/LG 1(0-5) 99(95-100) 0(0-0) R2 5 218 1.8 ± 0.4 3.3 ± 0.9 0.21 ± 0.04 C/LG 0(0-0) 100(100-100) 0(0-0) R3 9 247 3.2 ± 1.4 3.9 ± 1.3 0.32 ± 0.22 C/LG 7(0-15) 74(50-90) 19(10-40) R4 10 257 2.7 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.7 0.31 ± 0.09 LG/C 1(0-5) 56(35-70) 43(30-60) R5 10 211 8.0 ± 2.6 23.2 ± 7.2 0.36 ± 0.05 C/LG 2(0-5) 98(95-100) 0(0-0) R6 11 227 8.9 ± 1.3 26.1 ± 5.3 0.43 ± 0.06 C/LG 0(0-0) 100(100-100) 0(0-0) R7 9 241 9.4 ± 2.2 28.1 ± 15.1 0.43 ± 0.07 C/LG 0(0-0) 100(100-100) 0(0-0) R8 11 232 11.8 ± 3.7 25.5 ± 10.9 0.37 ± 0.08 C/LG 2(0-5) 93(85-100) 6(0-10) R9 6 232 2.6 ± 0.5 8.2 ± 2.2 0.30 ± 0.03 C/LG 8(5-10) 89(80-95) 3(0-10) R10 8 234 14.6 ± 6.3 78.9 ± 36.5 0.39 ± 0.16 C, LG/LG 0(0-0) 53(25-90) 48(10-75) UC1 14 272 6.1 ± 2.0 7.8 ± 1.7 0.31 ± 0.04 C/LG 0(0-0) 100(100-100) 0(0-0) UC2 6 241 13.7 ± 3.3 21.4 ± 5.5 0.57 ± 0.21 C/LG 4(0-20) 85(70-100) 11(0-30) UC3 6 221 9.6 ± 3.2 13.5 ± 4.0 0.45 ± 0.09 C/LG 0(0-0) 96(85-100) 4(0-15) UC4 5 233 4.5 ± 1.1 7.5 ± 2.2 0.37 ± 0.08 C/LG 2(0-5) 81(60-100) 18(0-40) UC5 5 220 8.1 ± 2.1 10.5 ± 2.2 0.36 ± 0.07 LG/C 1(0-5) 96(85-100) 3(0-10) UC8 9 240 6.0 ± 0.7 8.0 ± 1.9 0.38 ± 0.01 C/LG 4(0-10) 95(90-100) 1(0-5) UC9 8 232 9.4 ± 3.4 14.9 ± 5.8 0.44 ± 0.09 LG/C 2(0-5) 89(85-90) 9(5-10) UC10 6 217 3.9 ± 1.9 8.0 ± 2.8 0.25 ± 0.07 LG/SG 0(0-0) 94(80-100) 6(0-20) UC12 12 277 2.7 ± 0.8 3.8 ± 1.2 0.33 ± 0.20 LG/C 13(5-25) 25(15-50) 63(45-70) UC13 13 259 5.0 ± 1.1 19.7 ± 8.1 0.25 ± 0.05 C/LG 3(0-10) 93(85-100) 4(0-10)

Appendix 5. Cont. Ambient Mean wetted Mean rooted Dominant/ Temp Mean depth Mean % pool Mean % riffle Mean % run Site ID cond. width width secondary (°C) ± SD (m) (min-max) (min-max) (min-max) (µS/cm) ± SD (m) ± SD (m) substrate LC1 8 102 0.8 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.7 0.36 ± 0.08 SG/F 0(0-0) 4(0-10) 96(90-100) LC2 14 204 2.3 ± 1.8 4.3 ± 5.2 0.40 ± 0.19 LG/C, LG, 0(0-0) 38(0-70) 62(30-100) SG LC3 5 188 3.0 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 2.0 0.31 ± 0.07 LG/C 2(0-5) 48(30-60) 51(40-70) LC4 12 158 5.2 ± 1.3 7.3 ± 1.9 0.40 ± 0.13 C/LG 3(0-10) 73(55-90) 25(10-40) LC5 14 207 1.4 ± 0.3 2.1 ± 0.7 0.56 ± 0.11 F/SG 0(0-0) 12(0-30) 88(70-100) LC6 6 150 1.0 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.4 0.43 ± 0.18 F/LG 3(0-5) 56(30-100) 42(0-70) LC7 10 148 4.0 ± 1.2 4.5 ± 1.0 0.42 ± 0.18 C/LG 1(0-5) 56(35-90) 43(10-60) LC8 11 138 1.8 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 0.7 0.32 ± 0.12 C/LG 2(0-5) 87(70-95) 12(5-30) LC9 8 139 3.4 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 1.2 0.43 ± 0.16 LG/C, SG 1(0-5) 25(10-70) 74(30-90) LC10 7 164 6.8 ± 1.0 10.3 ± 1.2 0.65 ± 0.25 C/LG 6(0-15) 71(25-90) 23(0-60) LC11* 14 211 1.7 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.2 0.27 ± 0.08 SG/LG 3(0-10) 18(10-25) 78(70-90) CR1 7 249 19.6 ± 5.7 43.4 ± 17.7 - C/LG 3(0-5) 89(85-95) 8(0-15) CR2 10 346 19 ± 6.9 31.9 ± 6.2 - C/LG 5(0-10) 63(60-70) 32(25-40) *Added as part of a stream crossing project.

23 Appendix 6. Two-day moving average stream temperature at four stations in the Cardinal River HUC 8 watershed, 2018.

CardinalData3 CardinalData4 CardinalData5 CardinalData6

10 C) ° 8

6 Temperature ( 4

Date

Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for its generous support of this project: