Drainage Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010

The Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

25% Post Consumer Fibre When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

Crowsnest River Drainage Sport Fish Population Assessment, 2010

Jason Blackburn Alberta Conservation Association #1609, 3 Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 0L1

Report Editors PETER AKU 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 Technical

ISBN printed: 978-0-7785-9390-4 ISBN online: 978-0-7785-9391-1 Publication No.: T/243

Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report.

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

Suggested Citation: Blackburn, J. 2011. Crowsnest River drainage sport fish population assessment, 2010. Technical Report, T-2011-001, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 27 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless

Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: 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

The Crowsnest River is one of the most popular trout fisheries in Alberta. However, increased angling pressure, habitat degradation from recreational and industrial activities, and the invasion of less popular introduced species threaten the fishery. This study monitors populations of and native mountain whitefish, the two primary species in the sport fishery, using electrofishing and mark-recapture techniques.

Of 3,979 salmonid fish captured in the Crowsnest River, 65% were rainbow trout and 30% were mountain whitefish. The proportion of the mountain whitefish catch that was legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and above the slot size was 44%, 25% and 6%, respectively; greater than the proportion of the rainbow trout catch in these size categories at 11%, 7%, and 2%, respectively. The total tributary catch was 1,085 fish, and was dominated by Westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids (Oncorhynchus species) at 84% combined, and respectively at 42%, 27%, and 14% of the catch. Estimated abundance of rainbow trout in the main-stem of the Crowsnest River was 80,131 fish of which 8,501 were legal-harvest-sized, 5,290 were quality-sized, and 1,445 were above the slot size. Estimated mountain whitefish abundance was 16,517 fish, with 7,340 legal-harvest-sized, 3,816 quality-sized, and 1,743 above the slot size. While the total estimated main-stem abundance was nearly five times greater for rainbow trout, the proportion of legal-harvest-sized fish, quality-sized fish, and fish above the slot size was greater for mountain whitefish. Total estimated tributary populations of Oncorhynchus trout species was 60,637 individuals, of which 34% resided in Blairmore Creek.

Both the highest main-stem fish densities and the highest incidence of hooking damage occured between the Highway 507 and the East Hillcrest bridge crossings. Incidence of hooking damage for all rainbow trout, those of legal-harvest-size, quality-size, and above the slot size averaged 3%, 16%, 9%, and 9%, respectively; whereas mountain whitefish hooking damage averaged 3%, 3%, 3%, and 4%, respectively.

Invasive brook trout and brown trout were most abundant in the upper reaches of the main-stem river, upstream of the town of Frank, and in the tributaries of Drum Creek,

ii Gold Creek, and Allison Creek. Bull trout were captured only in the main-stem river, downstream of Falls.

Westslope cutthroat trout populations were most intact in the tributaries of Island, Giardi, Star, upper Blairmore, upper Gold and upper Rock Creeks. Upstream of , rainbow trout and mountain whitefish were the dominant species, whereas downstream of Lundbreck Falls sucker species were dominant. Small sized fish were most strongly represented in the main-stem population of rainbow trout, whereas the mountain whitefish population structure showed no trend in capture frequency by size, with a relatively homogenous representation of fish across the full range of sizes.

Key words: Crowsnest River, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, cutthroat trout, abundance.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this study was provided by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) and Devon Canada Corporation. Many thanks to the ACA fisheries crew: Brad Hurkett, Andrew Clough and Clint Goodman. Thanks to additional ACA staff who helped in data collection including Peter Aku, Trevor Council, Mike Jokinen, Tyler Johns, Jason Letham, Marcel Macullo, Mike Marquardson, Matthew Szumilak and Mike Uchikura. Many thanks to Kevin Fitzsimmons for generating abundance distribution figures, Mike Rodtka and Paul Hvenegaard for project feedback, and Mandy Couve for report review. This project would not have been possible without the guidance of Trevor Council.

Thanks to our government partners at Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, including Matthew Coombs for assistance with field sampling and Daryl Wig for consultation about the study area and provision of additional field equipment. I extend my thanks to Bryan Sundberg (Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation) for accommodations at Beauvais Lake. Special thanks to the Oldman Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC) for granting access to TUC property, and to the sampling volunteers, Geordie Paton and Kevin Watson.

iv v TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 STUDY AREA ...... 2

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 4 3.1 Sampling intensity ...... 4 3.2 Sample reach length and site placement ...... 5 3.3 Data collection ...... 6 3.4 Population density and abundance ...... 7 3.5 Capture probability ( q) ...... 8 3.6 Density and abundance calculations ...... 8 3.7 Abundance distribution ...... 9

4.0 RESULTS ...... 9 4.1 Fish capture summary ...... 9 4.2 Population abundance and density ...... 10 4.3 Trends in main-stem river species distributions ...... 13 4.4 Distribution of main-stem river fish abundance ...... 15 4.5 Tributary species distribution ...... 17 4.6 Population structure and size distribution ...... 19 4.7 Incidence of main-stem river hooking damage ...... 23 4.8 Summary ...... 24

5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 25

6.0 APPENDICES ...... 28

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Crowsnest River drainage study area and sampling locations in 2010...... 3 Figure 2. Trends in main-stem species distributions from lower reaches at the mouth of Todd Creek to upper reaches at the outlet of , based on tote-barge capture data...... 13 Figure 3. Comparison of species composition of electrofishing catch from the Crowsnest River in 2010, a) upstream of Lundbreck Falls, and b) downstream of Lundbreck falls ...... 14 Figure 4. Estimated rainbow trout and mountain whitefish abundance per 250 m in the Crowsnest River as measured from the mouth of Todd Creek ...... 16 Figure 5. Species composition of electrofishing catch by tributary watershed in the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010...... 18 Figure 6. Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River in 2010...... 20 Figure 7. Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River tributaries in 2010...... 22

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of fish, by size range, captured during totebarge and backpack electrofishing in the Crowsnest River and its tributaries in 2010...... 10 Table 2. Estimated abundance and density, by size range, of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River in 2010 ...... 11 Table 3. Estimated abundance of sport fish in major tributary watersheds of the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010...... 12 Table 4. Size distribution of fish electrofished in the Crowsnest River in 2010...... 19 Table 5. Size distribution of fish electrofished in tributaries to the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010...... 21 Table 6. Proportion (%) of the first pass catches of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish with evidence of hooking damage...... 23

viii LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Capture summary from Crowsnest River preliminary tote-barge eletrofishing in 2009 ...... 28 Appendix 2. Summary of cooperative fisheries inventory program data used in the Crowsnest River tributaries study design ...... 29 Appendix 3. Crowsnest River sample site locations in 2010 ...... 32 Appendix 4. Crowsnest River tributary sample site locations in 2010 ...... 33 Appendix 5. Crowsnest River measurement data in 2010 ...... 35 Appendix 6. Crowsnest tributary stream measurement data in 2010 ...... 36 Appendix 7. Fish catch at 2010 sampling sites used to estimate abundance by size class ...... 38 Appendix 8. Sport fish catch at 2010 tributary sample sites used to determine corrected abundance per site ...... 39 Appendix 9. Summary of Peterson capture-mark-recapture (CMR) capture probabilities ( q) used to correct 2010 single-pass backpack electrofishing catch...... 41 Appendix 10. Summary of Jolly-Seber capture-mark-recapture probabilities used to correct 2010 main-stem Crowsnest River single-pass tote-barge electrofishing catches...... 42 Appendix 11. Electrofishing catch at 2010 sampling sites used to describe species distributions in the Crowsnest River ...... 43 Appendix 12. Proportion (%) of the 2010 first pass electrofishing catch of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish, by sampling site and size range (mm), with evidence of hooking damage...... 44

ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Crowsnest River has a long standing reputation as a quality fishery for large rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni ), drawing anglers to the from considerable distances. Numerous outfitters and guides make a living from the sport fishery, as well as, local fly shops and businesses that benefit from visiting anglers. The Crowsnest River is considered one of the most popular trout fisheries in Alberta. An angler survey conducted in 2001, indicated that 12,000 anglers fished a total of 32,000 hours on the portion of the Crowsnest River between Crowsnest Lake and the Oldman Reservoir, during the summer of 2001 (June–September) targeting mainly rainbow trout and mountain whitefish (Genereux and Bryski 2002).

The sport fishery in the Crowsnest River drainage has undergone considerable change as a result of landscape disturbance and past fisheries management decisions. The historical sport fish assemblage in the Crowsnest River main-stem included mountain whitefish, bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus ), and Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi ). Through several plantings in the 1930s and 1940s, rainbow trout became established, displacing native cutthroat trout and restricting them to select tributaries (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) 2006; Taylor and Gow 2007). Bull trout, which once occurred in tributaries above and below Lundbreck Falls (Fitch 1997), have been restricted to the main-stem river below the falls (ASRD and ACA 2009) as a result of over harvest and habitat loss. Currently at risk are the remnant populations of cutthroat trout, as well as the highly popular mountain whitefish and exotic rainbow trout fishery in the main-stem river. Continued habitat degradation from recreational, industrial and municipal development activities, as well as competition from less desirable exotic species threaten the sport fishery. Species introduced into the drainage since the 1960s include lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush), brown trout ( Salmo trutta) and brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis). In an effort to maintain the Crowsnest River as a quality sport fishery monitoring of sport fish populations is a high priority. Thus, the main objectives of this study were to:

1 • Estimate the abundance and density of sport fish populations in the Crowsnest River. • Estimate the abundance and density of native trout species in the Crowsnest River drainage tributaries. • Measure and document the extent of hooking damage to rainbow trout and mountain whitefish from the Crowsnest River where angling pressure is considered high.

2.0 STUDY AREA

The Crowsnest River originates from Crowsnest Lake in the Rocky Mountains of , near the continental divide on the Alberta/British Columbia border. The Crowsnest River flows eastward for approximately 57 km before converging in the Oldman Reservoir with the Castle River to the south, and the to the north. The Crowsnest River flows through several local municipalities including Coleman, Blaimore, Frank, Belleve and the hamlet of Hillcrest, which together comprise the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. Our study area included the entire Crowsnest River west of its confluence with Todd Creek, and all known fish-bearing tributaries west of Highway 22 (Figure 1). Major tributary watersheds originating to the west of the mountain front include Star and Allison Creeks near Crowsnest Lake, McGillvray Creek, York Creek, Lyons Creek, Blairmore Creek, and Gold Creek. To the east of the mountain front, major tributary watersheds include Todd Creek, Cow Creek, Connelly Creek, and Rock Creek.

While primarily a volunteer catch-and-release fishery (Genereux and Bryski 2002), harvest of fish is permitted in the Crowsnest River drainage under current sport fishing regulations. A daily possession limit of two trout is permitted on all sections of the Crowsnest River between 16 June and 31 October (except for bull trout which is catch- and-release only in Alberta), and for all its tributaries between 16 June and 16 August (except Gold Creek see below). Size restrictions apply only for rainbow trout and cutthroat trout. In the upper reaches of the Crowsnest River, harvested fish must be greater than 30 cm, and the use of some baits are permitted after 15 August. In the middle and lower reaches of the river no bait is permitted and there is a slot size

2

Figure 1. Crowsnest River drainage study area and sampling locations in 2010.

3 restriction where only one harvested fish may be greater than 45 cm and the remainder must be less than 30 cm. A daily possession limit of five mountain whitefish greater than 30 cm is permitted throughout the Crowsnest River for the duration of the legal angling season, however only until 31 August in all its tributaries (ASRD 2010). The exception is Gold Creek, where only brook trout may be harvested and the possession limit is two fish per day for the duration of the angling season.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design and sampling effort was determined through power analysis methods using archived data from the Cooperative Fisheries Inventory Program (CFIP) (Fisher 2000; Jokinen 2002; Faulter 2003), and the Alberta Government Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) database. When delineating the study area, I excluded the river downstream of Todd Creek because fluctuating levels of the Oldman Reservoir continually flood this reach. I used highway 22 as a geographic and topographic boundary between mountain/foothill and prairie stream types. Based on FWMIS capture data, fish community types were typically dominated by salmonid sport species west of the highway and minnow/sucker non-sport species to the east of the highway. I excluded first-order and second-order streams because they are typically ephemeral or dry and fishless within the study area (Fisher 2000; Jokinen 2002; Faulter 2003), as well as stream reaches known to be fishless from past repeated inventory sampling. Forty-five tributary reaches and 10 main-stem river reaches were visited during a reconnaissance survey to verify stream flow and collect stream width data to help delineate study area boundaries.

3.1 Sampling intensity

I queried archival FWMIS data and summarized species distributions and relative abundances to identify data gaps and prioritize preliminary sampling. The Crowsnest River main-stem was data deficient so preliminary electrofishing was conducted at five reaches along the Crowsnest River in 2009 (Appendix 1), two located in the upper reaches, two in the middle reaches, and one below Lundbreck Falls. Using preliminary electrofishing abundance results, I conducted power analysis to determine sampling

4 intensity for the summer of 2010. I considered the minimum functional degree of precision for abundance estimates to be within 50% of the population mean, or a “sample survey” level of precision (Schwartz 2005) while endeavoring to attain as close to “management precision” levels (within 25% of the population mean) as possible.

Use of power analysis on a preliminary main-stem Oncorhynchus abundance mean (±SD) of 21,412 ± 10,023, indicated 14 sample reaches were required to achieve a management level of precision. Considering main-stem abundance data was limited, I also estimated the maximum number of sample reaches possible while maintaining sampling independence between reaches (one sample reach length between sites). Based on 34 potential sample reaches on the main-stem (reach lengths estimated using reconnaissance width measurements), in conjunction with anticipated logistic and seasonal time constraints, I decided on 22 main-stem river sample reaches comprising approximately 30% of the total river length.

From 67 inventory sites (Appendix 2), I calculated a tributary Oncorhynchus population mean (±SD) of 37,905 ± 45,314. Using power analysis, approximately 88 sample reaches were required to achieve a management level of precision. Consequently, I decided on a survey level of precision, requiring a more feasible 42 sample reaches on the tributaries with a predicted relative standard error (RSE) of 37%.

3.2 Sample reach length and site placement

In the absence of quantitative riffle and pool data, which directly relate to species abundance patterns (Taylor 2000), I used stream size as a surrogate measure of fish habitat. On the Crowsnest River, sample reach lengths were based on 40 times the mean wetted width (minimum of 35 times mean wetted width; Lyons 1992), to a maximum of 800 m total length (in order to maintain sample reach independence). Sample reaches were spaced systematically along the length of the main-stem river (Appendix 3) using GIS software. Sample reaches that landed on lakes or hazards (e.g. Lundbreck Falls), were repositioned elsewhere on the main-stem, while maintaining sample reach independence.

On the tributaries, sample sites were determined from a systematically distributed pool

5 of 42 points. Non-response sites (e.g. dry channels and beaver ponds) and redundant sites (e.g. sites clustered in dense headwater tributaries) were repositioned. Final positioning of sites ensured: minimization of gaps between sites, preferential representation of wider, lower reaches, and representation below, between and above partial fish passage barriers (Appendix 4 and Figure 1). Consideration of barriers was intended to account for the incremental impact barriers have on the presence of pure Westslope cutthroat trout (Robinson 2007), as well as the effects of offspring reduction caused by hybridization (Muhlfeld et al 2009), and the subsequent effect on site-level cutthroat trout densities.

Tributary sample reach lengths were 40 times the mean wetted width, with a minimum length of 150 m (Reynolds et al. 2003). On inventory and reconnaissance measurements, all tributary sample reach lengths were estimated at approximately 300 m or less. Consequently, all tributary sample reach lengths were standardized to 300 m.

3.3 Data collection

Fish were collected using electrofishing gear. Smith-Root backpack electrofishers, types 15 and 12B, were used for tributary sample reaches and a Smith-Root LR-6 tote-barge electrofisher was used on the main-stem river sample reaches. We backpack electrofished in crews of two in an upstream progression, with one dipnetter and one electrofisher operator. We tote-barge electrofished using a four-member crew in a downstream progression, with one tote-barge operator, one anode pole operator and two dipnetters.

All captured fish were retained in live-wells, measured, and returned to the stream a short distance in the opposite direction of sampling. Biological data collected included species, fork length (FL, mm), total length (TL, mm), weight (g), and evidence of hooking damage, such as maxillary tears and scarring to the premaxilla and mouth corners. We also collected adipose and caudal fin clips from suspected pure and hybrid cutthroat trout in support of the provincial Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (ASRD 2009). Tissue samples were stored in labeled 2-mL Cryo-vials in 100% anhydrous-ethyl-alcohol for DNA analysis.

6

Electrofishing transects were spaced at 50 m intervals for tributary reaches and 100 m intervals for main-stem reaches. Habitat data collected along transects included; wetted width, rooted width, thalweg depth and the percent of the transect comprised by pools, riffles and runs (Appendix 5 and 6). Electrofishing effort in seconds(s) was also recorded.

Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids were distinguished using external morphological characteristics as per Robinson (2007).

3.4 Population density and abundance

I estimated total abundance and density (fish/m and fish/km) for the length of the Crowsnest River for mountain whitefish and rainbow trout by size range. Estimates with 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using single pass capture data (Appendix 7). Size ranges included: 1) all fish susceptible to our electrofishing gear (>74 mm TL for rainbow trout and >77 mm TL for mountain whitefish; ACA file data), 2) legal-harvest-sized fish (>300 mm TL; ARSD 2010), 3) quality-sized fish (i.e. rainbow trout >400 mm TL; Gabelhouse 1984), and 4) fish above the slot size restriction (>450 mm TL, possession limit of one). Main-stem river catches of cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids were combined for abundance calculations because of the limited number of cutthroat trout and hybrid captures and their presumed similar capture probabilities. Other sport species with unknown capture probabilities and catch rates too low to generate reliable estimates were excluded from main-stem abundance calculations.

I estimated tributary abundance and density for prominent watersheds containing native trout species, as well as all tributaries combined, using single pass capture data (Appendix 8).

All abundance estimate calculations for both the main-stem Crowsnest River, and its tributaries were performed using stream lengths derived from the Alberta base data single line hydrology network.

7 3.5 Capture probability (q)

To determine capture probability ( q), I performed capture-mark-recapture (CMR) surveys and calculated site abundances using the Ecological Methodology program from Krebs (1999). Three closed-model abundance estimates were carried out on tributaries with a single mark run and a single recapture run, conducted on consecutive days. Tributary sections were isolated using blocking nets for the duration of the CMR surveys and backpack electrofishing was used to collect the fish. Peterson estimates were calculated for the tributary abundance sites with 95% confidence intervals. Capture probability was the proportion of the abundance estimate represented by the first pass catch (i.e. first pass ÷ Peterson estimate). I supplemented Crowsnest River tributary capture probabilities with those calculated for other backpack electrofished CMR on like-sized streams (orders 3 – 5) in the upper Oldman and Castle River drainages (Blackburn 2010), in order to correct single-pass catch rates (Appendix 9).

On the Crowsnest River we conducted open model (Jolly-Seber) estimates, performing three passes of tote-barge electrofishing per abundance estimate. Five main-stem river CMR ranged from 4 to 21 days between the first and last sample periods (2 estimates spanned 4 days, 2 spanned 10 days and 1 spanned 21 days). Jolly-Seber abundance estimates were calculated for the Crowsnest River and capture probability was represented as the first alpha value generated (i.e. the proportion marked) between pass 1 and pass 2 using Ecological Methodology (Krebs 1999) (Appendix 10). Five capture probabilities were used to generate a beta distribution to calculate rainbow trout abundance. Three were used to generate mountain whitefish capture probability distributions, because of the assumption violation of equal catchability, caused by observed migratory fish behavior between sampling periods.

3.6 Density and abundance calculations

I generated separate randomly sequenced beta-distributions of 10,000 capture probabilities for backpack and tote-barge CMR capture probabilities, in the program R © (R Development Core Team 2009). To determine site density by stream length, I bootstrapped (10,000 runs) site capture density totals (fish captured per meter per site; C/m) by species and by size range, to generate distributions of randomly-sequenced

8 capture density means. I divided the capture density distribution by the capture probability distribution to generate a distribution of estimated fish density per site (total fish per meter per site; N/m). The mean density (N/m) distribution was sorted and the 500 th and 9,500 th means were selected as 90% confidence intervals. Total fish abundance was calculated by multiplying the density distribution by total stream length, and selecting 90% confidence intervals.

3.7 Abundance distribution

Using the R © software program (R Development Core Team 2009), I predicted the spatial distribution of abundance of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish along the Crowsnest River, in consecutive 250 m increments, using a generalized additive model as per Fitzsimmons and Blackburn (2009).

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Fish capture summary

At 22 main-stem sample reaches, covering approximately 30% (16 km) of the length of the Crowsnest River, we captured a total of 3,979 salmonid sport fish (Table 1). The catch was dominated by rainbow trout (65%) and mountain whitefish (30%) (n = 2,645 and 1,201, respectively). Six trout species accounted for the remaining 5%, with native bull trout and cutthroat trout each representing less than 1% of the catch. The catch of legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and fish above the slot size was dominated by mountain whitefish at 63%, 62%, and 57%, respectively, followed by rainbow trout at 33%, 37%, and 41% of the catch, respectively. The proportion of the mountain whitefish catch that was legal-harvest-sized, quality-sized, and above the slot size was 44%, 25% and 6%, respectively; greater in all size categories than the proportion of the rainbow trout catch in these categories at 11%, 7%, and 2%, respectively. In the tributaries, the total catch was 1,085, and was dominated by Westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids ( Oncorhynchus species) at 84% combined, and respectively 42%, 27%, and 14% of the catch (Table 1). The remainder of the tributary catch was brook trout (15%), and mountain whitefish (2%). Legal-harvest-sized fish captured in the tributaries were less than 1% of the total catch.

9 Table 1. Number of fish, by size range, captured during totebarge and backpack electrofishing in the Crowsnest River and its tributaries in 2010.

Main -stem river Tributaries Species a All > 300 mm > 400 mm > 450 mm All > 300 mm fish (TL) (TL) (TL) fish (TL) RNTR 2,6 45 279 185 51 291 0 MNWH 1,2 01 528 304 70 16 2 BLT R 14 7 2 1 0 0 CTTR 6 3 0 0 460 6 CRTR 31 7 0 0 155 1 BNTR 62 6 3 1 0 0 BKTR 17 1 0 0 163 0 LKTR 3 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 3,979 833 494 123 1,085 9 a RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BLTR = bull trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid, BNTR = brown trout BKTR = brook trout, LKTR = lake trout

4.2 Population abundance and density

Estimated main-stem river rainbow trout abundance was 80,131, nearly five-times greater than the mountain whitefish population at 16,517 (Table 2). Similarly, abundance of legal-harvest-size and quality-sized was higher for rainbow trout (8,510 and 5,290, respectively) than for mountain whitefish (7,340 and 3,816, respectively). Conversely, abundance of mountain whitefish above the slot size (1,743) was greater than that of rainbow trout (1,445).

10 Table 2. Estimated abundance and density, by size range, of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River in 2010. CI = confidence intervals from bootstrapped distributions, RSE = relative standard error.

Size class RSE Species a Total abundance (90%CI) Fish/km (90%CI) (TL, mm) (%) RNTR >74 80,131 (42,371 -141,127) 147 (78 -260) 41 >300 8,501 (4,377 -15,217) 16 (8 -28) 43 >400 5,290 (2,530 -9,725) 10 (5 -18) 45 >450 1,445 (642 -2,707) 3 (1 -5) 48

MNWH >77 16,517 (7,658 -33,023) 30 (14 -60) 56 >300 7,340 (3,307 -14,616) 13 (6 -27) 57 >400 3,816 (1,441 -8,156) 7 (3 -15) 64 >450 1,743 (513 -3,648) 3 (1 -7) 57 aRNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish

Blairmore Creek had the highest and most dense tributary population of Oncorhynchus fish comprising 34% of the total tributary abundance at 19,839 (90% CI = 10,966 – 35,713), and a density of 736 fish/km (Table 3). Tributaries with the greatest native trout (cutthroat) abundances were Blairmore Creek at 65% of the Oncorhynchus abundance (12,895 of 19,839 fish) and Gold Creek at 85% of the Oncorhynchus abundance (5,422 of 6,379 fish).

11 Table 3. Estimated abundance of sport fish in major tributary watersheds of the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010.

Tributary Total density (90% CI) Species proportion Total fish abundance (90% CI) watershed (fish/km) %CT TR a %CR TR b %R NTRc Blairmore 19,839 (10,966 -35,713) 736 (407 -1,325) 65 23 12 Gold 6,379 (1,739 -13,195) 173 (47 -357) 85 12 3 Rock 3,776 (646 -8,052) 152 (26 -323) 58 7 35 Todd 6,155 (2,301 -12,255) 123 (46 -245) 54 19 27 Allison 1,381 (159 -3,080) 62 (7 -138) 26 7 67 Connelly 1,340 (335 -2,837) 56 (14 -119) 25 54 21 All Tributaries 60,637 (29,595 -112,490) 197 (96 -366) 50 18 32 aCTTR = cutthroat trout, bCRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid, cRNTR=rainbow trout

12 4.3 Trends in main-stem river species distributions

We captured rainbow trout and mountain whitefish throughout the main-stem of the Crowsnest River. Brook trout were captured only in the upper reaches of the river, upstream of the town of Frank (Figure 2). We captured brown trout primarily in the upper reaches, as well as in small numbers in the middle and lower reaches (Appendix 11). Cutthroat trout and their hybrids were captured sporadically throughout the main-stem river, and lake trout were captured at only two locations, in the upper and middle reaches. Bull trout and burbot were captured only in lower reaches, downstream of Lundbreck falls. We observed a sharp change in catch composition at Lundbreck Falls, from one dominated by rainbow trout and mountain whitefish upstream of the falls, to one dominated by sucker species downstream of the falls (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Trends in main-stem species distributions from lower reaches at the mouth of Todd Creek to upper reaches at the outlet of Crowsnest Lake, based on tote-barge capture data.

13

Figure 3. Comparison of species composition of electrofishing catch from the Crowsnest River in 2010, a) upstream of Lundbreck Falls, and b) downstream of Lundbreck falls. RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BNTR = brown trout, LNSC = longnose sucker, CRTR = cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid, BKTR = brook trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, LKTR = lake trout, WHSC = white sucker, BURB = burbot.

14 4.4 Distribution of main-stem river fish abundance

The combined estimate of mountain whitefish (Figure 4a) contrasts sharply with that of rainbow trout, highlighting the relative scarcity of mountain whitefish less than 300 mm in the catch. The highest abundance of combined rainbow trout sizes occurred around kilometer 25, upstream of East Hillcrest Bridge, whereas the highest abundance of all combined mountain whitefish sizes occurred near kilometer 35, near Frank. Spatial distribution of abundance for all other size categories of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish follow similar trends reaching maximum abundances at similar points along the Crowsnest River (Figure 4). Rainbow trout density for all combined size classes, as well as fish >300 mm TL, was highest at kilometer 24, near East Hillcrest Bridge; mountain whitefish densities for fish >300 mm TL, and fish >400 mm TL, peaked near kilometer 23, also near East Hillcrest Bridge. The density of rainbow trout >400 mm TL and >450 mm TL was highest at kilometers 19 and 18, respectively, near the Highway 507 crossing. Similarly, the density for mountain whitefish >450 mm TL was highest at kilometer 20, also near the Highway 507 crossing (Figure 4).

15 Rainbow trout Mountain whitefish 6000 a 5000 A B

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 800 700 b C D 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 800 700 c E F 600 Abundance Abundance m 250 per 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 800 700 d G H 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance upstream (km)

Figure 4. Estimated rainbow trout and mountain whitefish abundance per 250 m in the Crowsnest River as measured from the mouth of Todd Creek for; a) all fish, b) fish >300 mm TL, c) fish >400 mm TL, d) fish >450 mm TL. Abundance estimated from single-pass electrofishing capture data at 22 inventory sites and corrected using capture-mark-recapture derived capture efficiencies. Mean abundance (10,000 model runs) and 90% confidence intervals (dotted lines) are shown.

16 4.5 Tributary species distribution

Westslope cutthroat trout were captured in the majority of tributaries sampled, however most reaches were compromised of nonnative rainbow trout and hybrids. Pure populations of Westslope cutthroat trout remain restricted to a few select tributaries upstream of fish passage barriers. Tributaries with relatively homogenous cutthroat trout catches include: Island Creek, Giardi Creek, Star Creek, upper Blairmore Creek, upper Gold Creek, and upper Rock Creek (Figure 5 and Appendix 11). The remainder of tributaries sampled had various mixtures of invasive and native species. The Lyons Creek catch was dominated by rainbow trout, and Drum Creek was dominated by brook trout. Allison Creek was heavily impacted by brook trout, as well as lower Gold Creek. Mountain whitefish were captured only in the lower Allison Creek and Todd Creek watersheds. No bull trout were captured in any tributaries of the Crowsnest River drainage.

17

Figure 5. Species composition of electrofishing catch by tributary watershed in the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010.

18 4.6 Population structure and size distribution

Rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in the Crowsnest River ranged widely in size (Table 4 and Figure 6); however the length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout was bimodal with a strong representation of small fish (80 mm to 180 mm). The mountain whitefish catch showed no definite trend in catch frequency by size, and a relatively homogenous representation across the full range of sizes (Figure 6). The difference in population structures potentially explains the discrepancy in total estimated abundances between the two species, if sampling bias toward small rainbow trout occurred.

The majority of the brown trout and brook trout catch was represented by small fish in the 100 to 150 mm range, and 100 to 170 mm range, respectively. In the tributaries, cutthroat trout and hybrids attained the greatest size (Table 5), and length frequencies were similar between trout species, with the majority of the catch typically less than 260 mm (Figure 7).

Table 4. Size distribution of fish electrofished in the Crowsnest River in 2010.

Fork length (mm) Weight (g) Species a Mean SD Range n Mean SD Range n

RNTR 158 87 41-538 3,418 107 226 1-1,727 2,761

MNWH 255 110 39-471 1,552 336 345 1-1,280 1,338

BNTR 154 80 63-470 99 73 170 3-1,183 89

CRTR 246 86 83-393 47 251 198 9-637 38

BKTR 143 40 72-230 28 45 44 9-160 27

BLTR 320 109 183-552 26 569 666 68-2,400 20

LKTR 274 45 225-332 4 237 91 153-334 3

BURB a 337 73 182-461 44 217 119 32-487 36

aRNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BNTR = brown trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout and cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid combined, BKTR = brook trout, BLTR = bull trout, LKTR = lake trout, BURB = burbot

19 25 Rainbow trout; n = 3,418 Cutthroat trout and hybrids; n = 47 20 15 10 5 0 25 Mountain whitefish; n = 1,547 Brook trout; n = 28 20 15 10 5 0 Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 25 Brown trout, n = 99 Bull trout, n = 26 20 15 10 5 0 0 0 40 80 40 80 600 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560

Fork length (mm)

Figure 6. Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River in 2010.

20 Table 5. Size distribution of fish electrofished in tributaries to the Crowsnest River drainage in 2010.

Fork length (mm) Weight (g) Species Mean SD Range n Mean SD Range n CTTR 138 51 42-325 513 45 54 1-390 401 RNTR 139 40 53-258 309 42 36 1-222 297 CRTR 141 42 63-325 191 39 45 2-426 174 BKTR 148 50 74-281 169 48 43 4-241 123 aCTTR = cutthroat trout, RNTR = rainbow trout, CRTR = cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid, BKTR = brook trout

21

20 Cutthroat trout; n = 513 Cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrids; n = 191

15

10

5

0

20 Rainbow trout; n = 309 Brook trout; n = 169 15 Relative abundance abundance (%) Relative 10

5

0 0 0 30 60 90 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Fork length (mm)

Figure 7. Length-frequency distributions of fish captured in the Crowsnest River tributaries in 2010.

22 4.7 Incidence of main-stem river hooking damage

We observed evidence of hooking damage or angling related fish injury to rainbow trout at 17 of 22 reaches and at 8 of 21 reaches for mountain whitefish, in the main-stem river. The proportion of captured fish with evidence of hooking damage was higher for rainbow trout than for mountain whitefish (Table 6 and Appendix 12). At sample reaches where hooking damage to rainbow trout occurred, the proportion of hook- damaged fish tended to increase with fish size (Appendix 14). The proportion of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish with hooking damage was highest from sample reach 11, near East Hillcrest Bridge, to sample reach 14, near the Highway 507 crossing and coincided with reaches of high fish density.

Table 6. Proportion (%) of the first pass catches of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish with evidence of hooking damage.

Proportion hook -damaged Proportion of hook -damaged Size range rainbow trout (%) mountain whitefish (%) Mean SD Range Mean SD Range All fish 3 2 0-7 3 4 0-13 > 300 mm TL 16 13 0-40 3 4 0-13 > 400 mm TL 9 14 0-40 3 5 0-15 > 450 mm TL 9 15 0-43 4 6 0-20

23 4.8 Summary

For the Crowsnest River, main-stem catches of rainbow trout far exceeded mountain whitefish catches, as did the resulting abundance estimates. The larger size classes of fish were very comparable in abundance, whereas only smaller (<300 mm) mountain whitefish were scarce. Fewer juvenile mountain whitefish may be a result of: 1) life history differences between the species, 2) sampling bias toward juvenile rainbow trout habitat, 3) interspecific competition, or 4) fewer juvenile mountain whitefish inhabited the main-stem river during the sampling period, perhaps seeking refuge in tributaries during the unusually high 2010 summer flows.

Cutthroat trout populations in the tributaries were highest in Blairmore and Gold Creeks, with considerable portions of the two watersheds isolated from invasive rainbow trout. However, total tributary abundance estimates were a composite of all Oncorhynchids captured in the watersheds. Tributary populations of invasive brook trout were present, however a lack of capture efficiencies for brook trout precluded their abundance estimation. With such a high degree of species interspersion across the Crowsnest River watershed, accurate tributary abundance estimates by species would require much higher sampling intensities on a watershed by watershed basis.

Fish densities were highest between the town of Bellevue and the Highway 507 bridge, coinciding with the areas of highest observed hooking damage, suggesting anglers and guides are aware of where fish densities are highest.

The catch composition changed dramatically downstream of Lundbreck Falls from one dominated by rainbow trout and mountain whitefish, to a sucker dominated catch. It has long been suspected that the Oldman Reservoir provides excellent habitat for sucker species and few other species. Our catch results corroborate this theory, with Lundbreck Falls serving as an upstream migration barrier to large pods of longnose and white suckers.

24 5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. 2010 Alberta guide to sportfishing regulations. Produced by the Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 112 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009. Alberta Westslope cutthroat trout recovery team update. Produced by the Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/RecoveryPro gram/RecoveryPlans.aspx.

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

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2006. The status of Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Wildlife Status Report No. 61, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 34 pp.

Blackburn, J. 2010. Abundance and distribution of Westslope cutthroat trout in the Castle River drainage, Alberta 2008 - 2009. Technical Report, T-2010-002, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 39 pp + App.

Faulter, R. 2003. Cooperative fisheries inventory program: 2003 survey site reference catalogue, Blairmore area. Produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 68 pp.

Fisher, J. 2000. Cooperative fisheries inventory program, Atlas Lumber Timber Quota: 2000 catalogue of sampling sites. Produced by Atlas Lumber Ltd., Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 99 pp.

25 Fitch, L. 1997. Bull trout in southwestern Alberta: notes on historical and current distribution. Pages 147-160. In: Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

Fitzsimmons, K., and M. Blackburn. 2009. Abundance and distribution of Arctic grayling in the upper Little , Alberta, 2007. Data Report, D-2009-004, produced by the Alberta Conservation Asso ciation, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp + App.

Gabelhouse Jr., D. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 273-285.

Genereux, D.B., and M.B. Bryski. 2002. A creel survey of the Crowsnest River, June – September, 2001. Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 32 pp + App.

Jokinen, M. 2002. Cooperative fisheries inventory program: 2002 survey site reference catalogue, Blairmore. Produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 97 pp.

Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology , 2nd edition. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, California, U.S.A. 620 pp.

Lyons, J. 1992. The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when fish species richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 198-203.

Muhlfeld C., S. Kalinowski, T. McMahon, M. Taper, S. Painter, R. Leary, and F. Allendorf. 2009. Hybridization rapidly reduces fitness of a native trout in the wild. Biology Letters 5: 328-331. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0033.

R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Produced by R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org.

26 Reynolds, L., A.T. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, S.V. Gregory, and R.M. Hughes. 2003. Electrofishing effort requirements for assessing species richness and biotic integrity in western Oregon streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 450-461.

Robinson, M. 2007. The ecological consequences of hybridization between native Westslope cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi ) and introduced rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) in south western Alberta. MSc thesis. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 152 pp.

Schwartz, C. 2005. Statistics for resource managers: subset from STAT 403/650. Produced by the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 834 pp.

Taylor, C. 2000. A large-scale comparative analysis of riffle and pool fish communities in an upland stream system. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58: 89–95.

Taylor, E., and J. Gow. 2007. An analysis of hybridization between native Westslope cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkia lewisi ) and introduced Yellowstone cutthroat trout, (O.c. bouvieri ) and rainbow rrout ( O. mykiss ) in Canada’s mountain parks and adjacent watersheds in Alberta. Prepared for Parks Canada and Alberta Fish and Wildlife by the Native Fishes Research Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 46 pp.

27 6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Capture summary from Crowsnest River preliminary tote-barge eletrofishing in 2009. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.

2010 Sample Mean Preliminary River UTM UTM Total Oncorhynchus Location distance wetted sample reaches 2009 reach Easting Northing catch ID (m) width (m) Lundbreck Falls Campsite Lower NA 380 a 30.0 702280 5496420 54 Burmis Road Middle 13 900 20.6 695315 5492275 193 East Hillcrest Bridge Middle 11 700 16.7 691890 5492041 208 Blairmore H ighway 3 crossing Upper 6 820 17.4 686057 5498037 87 U/S Coleman at McGillvray Upper 2 600 16.5 678567 5500700 66 a Preliminary sampling near Lundbreck Falls was aborted because of unsafe river conditions. Although used in power analysis to estimate sampling intensity, it was not compiled with 2010 sample reaches to calculate main-stem abundance estimates.

28 Appendix 2. Summary of cooperative fisheries inventory program data used in the Crowsnest River tributaries study design. CTTR = cutthroat trout, RNTR = rainbow trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.

Sample Mean Stream UTM UTM Electrofishing Total Waterbody Year distance wetted CTTR RNTR CRTR order Easting Northing effort (s) Oncorhynchus (m) (m) 2 Island Creek 2002 665620 5497668 300 1.9 597 12 10 0 22 2 McGillvray Creek 1983 676643 5512036 100 na na 12 0 0 12 2 Rock Creek 2002 695235 5503305 300 1 193 0 0 0 0 2 Star Creek 2003 677781 5498885 300 2.8 581 30 1 0 31 2 Unnamed 2002 695187 5500871 300 2.7 746 25 0 0 25 3 Blairmore Creek 2000 682916 5509937 100 2.7 120 40 0 0 40 3 Blairmore Creek 2002 682916 5509929 300 2.7 699 59 1 0 60 3 Byron Creek 2002 688466 5488723 200 3.7 549 0 0 0 0 3 Drum Creek 2002 690892 5493157 300 3.3 718 0 13 0 13 3 Green Creek 2002 688982 5501258 300 1.9 423 0 0 0 0 3 Island Creek 2002 666192 5498419 300 2.8 614 3 0 0 3 3 Lyons Creek 2002 683989 5493855 300 3.8 732 0 10 0 10 3 Todd Creek 2007 693786 5517492 200 2.6 400 15 0 0 15 3 Unnamed 2002 693594 5493099 300 1.8 634 0 14 0 14 3 Unnamed 2002 690829 5493029 300 2.8 636 0 2 0 2 4 Allison Creek 2002 673600 5504300 300 3.7 450 14 0 0 14 4 Byron Creek 2000 691872 5491997 185 4.9 na 0 25 5 30 4 Byron Creek 2002 688640 5488881 300 3.7 729 0 0 0 0 4 Byron Creek 2002 691842 5491972 300 4.9 884 0 24 0 24 4 Byron Creek 2002 691868 5491993 200 4.9 na 0 30 0 30 4 Connelly Creek 2002 695446 5505161 300 1.6 610 17 0 0 17 4 Connelly Creek 2003 699390 5501473 300 2.4 759 11 0 0 11 4 Connelly Creek 2005 695268 5505261 200 1.6 974 1 0 2 3 4 Cow Creek 2005 550858 5504093 700 1.3 na na na 1 1

29 Appendix 2. Continued

Sample Mean Stream UTM UTM Electrofishing Total Waterbody Year distance wetted CTTR RNTR CRTR order Easting Northing effort (s) Oncorhynchus (m) (m) 4 Lyons Creek 2002 684212 5494123 300 5.4 979 0 43 0 43 4 Lyons Creek 2002 684214 5494111 300 5.4 1443 0 86 0 86 4 Lyons Creek 2002 684953 5497598 300 6.8 1391 0 31 0 31 4 Lyons Creek 2003 684027 5493920 300 3.8 3147 0 29 0 29 4 Lyons Creek 2004 684210 5494109 300 5.4 1764 0 95 0 95 4 Lyons Creek 2006 684216 5494099 300 5.4 931 0 56 0 56 4 Morin Creek 2002 688051 5502999 300 2.7 538 16 0 0 16 4 South Todd Creek 2000 695411 5515936 123 2.2 1000 62 0 0 62 4 South Todd Creek 2001 695348 5515899 300 2.2 840 69 2 0 71 4 Star Creek 2002 677498 5500357 150 3.4 560 5 4 0 9 4 Star Creek 2002 677755 5499722 300 4.2 696 20 0 0 20 4 Star Creek 2002 677759 5499759 250 4.2 763 1 3 0 4 4 Star Creek 2002 677708 5500006 200 5.7 544 1 2 0 3 4 Star Creek 2003 677781 5499231 300 4 441 0 0 0 0 4 Todd Creek 2000 694404 5518542 150 2.5 288 21 0 0 21 4 Todd Creek 2000 694898 5517912 100 2.6 277 24 0 0 24 4 Todd Creek 2000 695671 5516413 155 3.3 1500 103 0 7 110 4 Todd Creek 2000 695185 5517078 150 4.4 658 46 3 0 49 4 Todd Creek 2002 695658 5516457 300 3.3 755 16 16 3 35 4 Unnamed 2002 673016 5499006 300 1.9 596 30 0 0 30 4 York Creek 2002 681305 5497942 100 5.3 314 4 0 0 4 4 York Creek 2002 683113 5498222 100 6 221 0 2 0 2 4 York Creek 2002 683117 5498237 100 6.2 244 2 4 0 6 4 York Creek 2003 681400 5497991 300 5.3 1035 2 6 0 8 4 York Creek 2003 683109 5498449 300 7.3 981 3 34 0 37

30 Appendix 2. Continued

Sample Mean Stream UTM UTM Electrofishing Total Waterbody Year distance wetted CTTR RNTR CRTR order Easting Northing effort (s) Oncorhynchus (m) (m) 5 Allison Creek 1997 674335 5499838 450 4.6 1338 2 16 0 18 5 Allison Creek 2000 673822 5503812 275 3.7-4.5 450 4 0 4 8 5 Blairmore Creek 2002 683662 5501943 300 4.5 633 20 6 16 42 5 Cow Creek 2005 554498 5503409 300 <3 na 0 0 12 12 5 Cow Creek 2005 552475 5503813 700 <3 na 0 0 2 2 5 Crowsnest Creek 2003 668245 5499381 200 >5 1038 1 1 0 2 5 Crowsnest Creek 2008 669171 5499936 200 >5 1061 0 0 0 0 5 Gold Creek 2000 688807 5501542 400 >5.8 960 30 0 0 30 5 Gold Creek 2002 687808 5505931 600 5.4 2218 140 0 0 140 5 Gold Creek 2002 688157 5502565 300 5.8 457 13 0 0 13 5 Gold Creek 2006 687493 5496613 850 7.6 na 4 9 17 30 5 Gold Creek 2006 688621 5498644 1000 7.6 na 28 0 2 30 5 Rock Creek 2002 695691 5501050 na 2.7 578 18 0 0 18 5 Rock Creek 2007 693812 5501035 na na 2294 16 0 0 16 5 South Todd Creek 2006 695554 5516108 400 2.2 673 0 0 49 49 5 Todd Creek 2000 705555 5509059 200 4.8 710 1 63 0 64 5 Todd Creek 2002 707073 5505880 300 4.1 704 0 0 0 0 5 Todd Creek 2007 696884 5516341 100 3.3 350 1 0 0 1

31 Appendix 3. Crowsnest River sample site locations in 2010. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.

Km upstream Location Start Start End End Sample of ID Easting Northing Easting Northing date Todd Creek 22 672501 5500660 673021 5500649 11-Jun-10 54.0 1 674413 5499725 675003 5499730 5-Aug-10 51.1 2 677171 5500622 677821 5500721 17-Aug-10 46.8 3 678567 5500700 678972 5500618 9-Aug-10 45.5 4 681039 5500615 681492 5500359 10-Aug-10 42.7 5 683515 5498780 683920 5498717 16-Aug-10 39.5 6 686057 5498037 686793 5498006 5-Aug-10 36.3 7 687081 5497179 687469 5496620 3-Aug-10 34.3 8 688840 5495752 689332 5495422 4-Aug-10 31.9 9 689859 5495018 690375 5494860 28-Jul-09 30.6 10 691066 5492899 691337 5492514 11-Aug-10 27.9 11 691890 5492041 692195 5491953 30-Jul-09 26.3 12 693964 5492141 694575 5491981 28-Jul-10 22.1 13 695315 5492275 695749 5492282 28-Jul-10 19.9 14 696540 5492572 697201 5492789 22-Jul-10 18.1 15 698320 5493494 698537 5493738 17-Jul-10 15.5 16 699342 5493562 699331 5493944 22-Jul-09 13.8 17 699224 5495342 699873 5495350 20-Jul-10 11.1 18 701201 5495452 701698 5495831 20-Jul-10 8.7 Lundbreck Falls 20 703505 5497346 704758 5497287 12-Jul-10 4.7 21 705569 5497359 706031 5497463 14-Jul-10 2.8 19 706669 5497552 706822 5497904 22-Jul-09 1.7

32 Appendix 4. Crowsnest River tributary sample site locations in 2010. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 11.

Location Start Start End End Waterbody name Sample date ID Easting Northing Easting Northing 1 Unnamed tributary to Lyons Creek 683582 5492002 683596 5491831 30 -Jun -10 2 Unnamed tributary to Lyons Creek 684879 5496072 684991 5495858 24 -Jun -10 3 Drum Creek 689194 5493922 689049 5493771 6-Jul -10 6 Todd Creek 695704 5516438 695567 5516587 13 -Jul -10 8 Unnamed tributary to Todd Creek 693456 5516187 693230 5516188 13 -Jul -10 9 South Todd Creek 694939 5514512 694842 5514318 13 -Jul -10 10 Todd Creek 703499 5513715 703347 5513941 13 -Jul -10 11 Cow Creek 698945 5508877 698746 5508985 28 -Jun -10 12 Cow Creek 695338 5509254 695095 5509194 28 -Jun -10 13 Gold Creek 687772 5505674 687795 5505977 7-Jul -10 15 Caudron Creek 688240 5506701 688473 5506816 7-Jul -10 16 Unnamed tributary to Blairmore Creek 683757 5506604 683765 5506857 2-Sep -10 17 Blairmore Creek 684495 5507448 684467 5507743 6-Jul -10 18 Gold Creek 689091 5500053 701698 5495831 29 -Jul -10 19 McGillivray Creek 677479 5506536 677532 5506752 5-Jul -10 20 McGillivray Creek 677450 5509225 677372 5509479 23 -Jun -10 21 Star Creek 677645 54 99181 677387 5499101 8-Jul -10 22 York Creek 682951 5498071 682930 5497821 18 -Aug -10 23 Allison Creek 673999 5502567 673933 5502741 6-Jul -10 24 Allison Creek 672517 5507041 672508 5507235 6-Jul -10 25 Unnamed tributary to Allison Creek 672501 5505427 672 335 5505636 22 -Jun -10 26 Gold Creek 687803 5497602 687914 5497844 22 -Jul -10 27 Rock Creek 694135 5501133 693921 5501075 18 -Aug -10 28 Rock Creek 699794 5496348 699739 5496308 18 -Aug -10 29 Todd Creek 693129 5519569 692930 5519795 13 -Jul -10

33 Appendix 4. Continued.

Location Start Start End End Waterbody name Sample date ID Easting Northing Easting Northing 31 Allison Creek 672227 5512100 672194 5512381 22 -Jun -10 32 Blairmore Creek 683564 5508993 683361 5509166 5-Jul -10 33 Nez Pierce Creek 679698 550464 3 679700 5504873 23 -Jun -10 34 Connelly Creek 693751 5506627 693508 5506713 29 -Jun -10 35 Connelly Creek 695694 5504609 695532 5504436 29 -Jun -10 37 Connelly Creek 696233 5504182 696053 5504211 1-Sep -10 38 Connelly Creek 700374 5500400 700172 5500408 1-Se p-10 39 Blairmore Creek 683490 5501435 683596 5501672 26 -Jul -10 40 Island Creek 665326 5498100 665129 5498238 23 -Jun -10 41 McGillivray Creek 678645 5503126 678389 5503126 8-Jul -10 42 Rock Creek 697338 5498528 697137 5498658 18 -Aug -10 43 Island Creek 666117 5498952 666128 5498717 23 -Jun -10 45 Todd Creek 699766 5515503 699656 5515673 13 -Jul -10 49 Unnamed Creek (Fools Creek) 676428 5501232 676330 5501496 24 -Jun -10 52 Giardi Creek 672659 5499866 672728 5499615 22 -Jun -10 59 Unnamed tributary to Rock Cre ek 695691 5499737 695445 5499707 30 -Jun -10 60 Byron Creek 690317 5489915 690041 5489829 18 -Aug -10

34 Appendix 5. Crowsnest River measurement data in 2010. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, SD = standard deviation, s = seconds.

Mean SD Location Mean WW SD Mean RW SD % % % Electrofishing Distance thalweg thalweg ID (m) WW (m) RW Pool Riffle Run effort (s) fished (m) depth (m) depth 1 15.5 2.3 17.1 1.6 0.79 0.18 31 24 45 2243 700 2 16.0 1.7 18.0 1.4 1.07 0.73 8 67 25 2758 700 3 16.5 2.3 22.2 4.0 0.73 0.41 34 3 63 2951 600 4 13.0 1.7 17.2 4.5 0.58 0.16 4 32 64 1625 500 5 10.2 2.0 12.4 1.5 1.06 0.17 0 100 0 1698 500 6 17.4 2.0 18.4 2.1 1.19 0.26 19 33 49 4194 820 7 18.5 2.9 23.0 3.3 1.04 0.51 18 18 64 4228 750 8 20.0 1.7 22.7 2.5 0.67 0.15 4 81 14 2486 700 9 15.7 4.5 17.3 4.7 1.45 0.93 38 38 23 2742 600 10 23.6 4.8 26.5 6.6 1.11 0.48 21 37 42 2238 800 11 16.7 3.6 25.4 10.5 0.94 0.56 20 54 26 3045 700 12 18.4 1.8 26.4 4.4 1.29 0.66 28 40 33 6545 800 13 20.6 3.4 23.4 4.8 0.86 0.42 7 32 61 3653 900 14 21.3 2.4 25.4 2.2 0.56 0.18 19 42 39 4887 800 15 19.8 3.5 24.6 2.8 0.68 0.31 32 36 32 3489 800 16 23.3 4.2 37.4 16.8 1.31 1.15 31 40 29 3440 800 17 22.4 5.4 30.9 10.2 0.89 0.42 16 53 31 4114 800 18 25.9 2.8 31.1 4.1 1.13 0.50 16 61 23 3192 700 19 20.8 2.5 29.6 6.2 1.25 0.61 30 41 29 3767 800 20 23.8 3.9 26.4 2.6 0.56 0.29 10 52 38 4098 800 21 22.0 3.8 26.1 6.2 1.14 0.40 25 43 33 3888 800 22 15.1 3.4 16.4 3.7 0.99 0.24 14 25 61 2511 700

35 Appendix 6. Crowsnest tributary stream measurement data in 2010. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, SD = standard deviation, s = seconds.

Mean SD Location Mean WW SD Mean RW SD % % % Electrofishing Distance thalweg thalweg ID (m) WW (m) RW Pool Riffle Run effort (s) fished (m) depth (m) depth 1 3.4 0.7 5.0 0.7 0.30 0.11 18 49 33 1716 300 2 1.6 0.4 2.8 1.0 0.24 0.06 22 53 25 666 300 3 na na na na na na 0 80 20 1218 300 6 2.6 0.3 6.9 4.4 0.41 0.30 23 45 32 1175 300 8 1.3 0.3 2.5 0.9 0.16 0.06 18 35 47 1264 300 9 2.1 0.6 3.2 0.7 0.40 0.15 2 19 79 1326 300 10 5.1 0.8 8.9 0.8 0.47 0.13 20 42 38 1285 300 11 3.5 1.1 4.6 1.3 0.46 0.11 18 52 30 1412 300 12 1.9 0.5 2.4 1.1 0.74 0.17 1 0 99 1489 300 13 5.9 1.1 7.5 1.4 0.45 0.07 0 100 0 2035 300 15 3.3 0.7 4.6 1.0 0.45 0.04 5 95 0 764 300 16 1.5 0.3 3.2 1.0 0.13 0.04 25 17 58 1596 300 17 4.6 0.8 6.4 1.2 0.32 0.10 7 72 22 1482 300 18 7.0 1.5 8.8 1.6 0.47 0.24 7 80 13 1372 300 19 4.0 0.9 5.7 2.3 0.32 0.04 40 52 8 1569 250 20 4.9 1.0 6.8 1.4 0.59 0.09 3 97 1 935 300 21 4.8 2.7 6.2 2.7 0.50 0.54 8 68 23 1877 300 22 5.4 0.8 7.1 0.8 0.52 0.22 22 42 37 2223 300 23 4.8 0.7 5.9 1.1 0.33 0.08 8 87 5 1852 300 24 3.6 0.5 12.8 19.7 0.38 0.12 7 78 15 1577 300 25 2.0 0.5 3.5 1.3 0.15 0.04 19 73 8 1001 300 26 5.2 1.1 7.4 1.6 0.44 0.06 2 92 7 1239 300

36 Appendix 6. Continued.

Mean SD Location Mean WW SD Mean RW SD % % % Electrofishing Distance thalweg thalweg ID (m) WW (m) RW Pool Riffle Run effort (s) fished (m) depth (m) depth 27 2.5 1.0 3.0 0.9 0.26 0.06 32 68 0 1509 300 28 3.9 1.2 5.1 1.1 0.22 0.05 29 43 28 968 300 29 2.5 0.5 3.1 0.4 0.28 0.07 3 5 92 996 300 31 1.2 0.5 2.0 1.6 0.12 0.04 22 73 5 646 300 32 3.4 1.2 5.4 0.6 0.31 0.09 15 67 18 1663 300 33 3.6 0.5 5.2 0.7 0.33 0.05 5 91 4 895 300 34 1.1 0.5 2.0 0.9 0.20 0.08 15 65 20 676 300 35 1.3 0.3 2.3 1.8 0.30 0.09 17 14 69 1328 250 37 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.5 0.31 0.07 0 1 99 1212 300 38 2.9 1.2 4.0 1.0 0.23 0.14 24 26 50 1651 300 39 4.8 0.5 7.6 1.7 0.21 0.08 5 77 18 2093 300 40 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.7 0.26 0.06 23 65 13 874 300 41 4.9 0.5 7.8 1.8 0.31 0.06 23 68 9 962 300 42 3.5 1.0 5.4 1.3 0.21 0.05 15 44 41 1388 300 43 3.0 0.7 3.9 0.9 0.32 0.09 16 83 1 957 300 45 4.5 1.3 8.8 5.2 0.67 0.65 2 21 78 1321 300 49 2.4 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.30 0.07 2 8 91 761 300 52 2.8 1.0 3.4 1.0 0.56 0.71 13 82 6 1478 300 59 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.15 0.04 5 60 35 894 300

37 Appendix 7. Fish catch at 2010 sampling sites used to estimate abundance by size class. TL = total length, RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish. Bold script denotes sampling conducted in 2009.

All fish >300 mm TL >400 mm TL >450 mm TL Distance Location from Todd Id RNTR MNWH RNTR MNWH RNTR MNWH RNTR MNWH Creek (m) 19 24 30 4 2 0 0 0 0 1,664 21 47 24 16 4 6 1 1 0 2,847 20 79 82 16 25 7 0 0 0 4,677 18 178 34 11 0 9 0 5 0 8,732 17 207 27 8 19 6 17 5 6 11,115 16 85 36 17 33 14 32 7 10 13,762 15 196 45 24 41 21 36 7 9 15,461 14 167 38 33 30 26 26 8 10 18,107 13 192 90 33 59 28 50 6 14 19,877 12 335 102 27 91 21 75 6 11 22,140 11 208 43 32 39 13 22 1 0 26,329 10 222 29 19 24 14 17 2 0 27,897 9 147 35 11 29 5 16 0 2 30,570 8 132 18 4 7 2 0 0 0 31,863 7 81 116 7 47 2 3 1 0 34,296 6 79 196 7 36 2 0 0 0 36,307 5 60 32 1 9 0 0 0 0 39,482 4 40 60 4 12 0 1 0 0 42,686 3 66 62 3 14 0 2 0 0 45,480 2 20 46 0 10 0 0 0 0 46,836 1 30 56 5 17 2 0 0 0 51,139 22 50 0 8 0 7 0 2 0 54,006

38 Appendix 8. Sport fish catch at 2010 tributary sample sites used to determine corrected abundance per site. CTTR = cutthroat trout, CRTR = rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrid, RNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BKTR = brook trout.

Location ID Date CTTR CRTR RNTR MNWH BKTR 1 30 -Jun -10 0 0 120 0 0 2 24 -Jun -10 no fish captured 3 6-Jul -10 0 0 0 0 48 6 13 -Jul -10 0 2 6 4 0 8 13 -Jul -10 34 0 0 0 0 9 13 -Jul -10 10 13 0 0 0 10 13 -Jul -10 0 0 6 0 0 11 28 -Jun -10 6 13 37 0 0 12 28 -Jun -10 1 9 5 0 0 13 7-Jul -10 29 0 0 0 0 15 7-Jul -10 1 0 0 0 0 16 2-Sep -10 72 0 0 0 0 17 6-Jul -10 71 1 0 0 0 18 29 -Jul -10 29 9 0 0 29 19 5-Jul -10 no fish captured 20 23 -Jun -10 no fish captured 21 8-Jul -10 28 0 0 0 0 22 18 -Aug -10 1 10 16 0 0 23 6-Jul -10 0 0 19 11 30 24 6-Jul -10 7 2 0 0 0 25 22 -Jun -10 0 0 1 0 38 26 22 -Jul -10 6 0 3 0 3 27 18 -Aug -10 34 0 0 0 0 28 18 -Aug -10 3 1 0 0 0 29 13 -Jul -10 no fish captured 31 22 -Jun -10 no fish captured 32 5-Jul -10 70 2 0 0 0 33 23 -Jun -10 no fish captured 34 29 -Jun -10 no fish captured 35 29 -Jun -10 0 2 0 0 0 37 1-Sep -10 6 3 0 0 0 38 1-Sep -10 0 8 5 0 0 39 26 -Jul -10 5 74 39 0 16 40 23 -Jun -10 no fish captured 41 8-Jul -10 1 1 0 0 0 42 18 -Aug -10 1 4 23 0 0

39 Appendix 8. Continued.

Location ID Date CTTR CRTR RNTR MNWH BKTR 43 23 -Jun -10 9 1 0 0 0 45 13 -Jul -10 0 0 10 1 0 49 24 -Jun -10 no fish captured 52 22 -Jun -10 36 0 0 0 0 59 30 -Jun -10 no fish captured 60 18 -Aug -10 no fish captured

Total 460 155 290 16 116

40 Appendix 9. Summary of Peterson capture-mark-recapture (CMR) capture probabilities ( q) used to correct 2010 single-pass backpack electrofishing catch.

Lower Upper Waterbody M C R E q 95% CI 95% CI Daisy 2007 145 96 27 502 379 747 0.2888 Daisy 2007 60 61 26 138 107 200 0.4348 Dutch 2007 49 47 19 118 88 186 0.4153 Racehorse 2007 41 40 17 93 69 151 0.4409 Station 2007 135 102 38 357 285 484 0.3782 Tributary to Racehorse 2007 56 60 32 104 84 140 0.5385 Lynx 2009 89 89 13 572 376 1111 0.1556 Carbondale 2010 73 52 21 176 133 270 0.4150 Lost 2010 35 42 26 55 46 77 0.6364

Upper Blairmore 2010 67 41 16 166 121 277 0.4036 Lower Blairmore 2010 115 102 48 241 201 310 0.4772 Upper Gold 2010 29 28 7 105 65 271 0.2762

41 Appendix 10. Summary of Jolly-Seber capture-mark-recapture probabilities used to correct 2010 main-stem Crowsnest River single-pass tote-barge electrofishing catches.

2nd pass 3rd pass 3rd pass Total captures Less deaths Captured 3 Abundance recaps recaps recaps Alpha Alpha Location Id consecutive estimate Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass from from from 1 2 passes (95% CI) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1st pass 1st pass 2nd pass Rainbow Trout 2 21 18 18 21 18 18 2 3 1 0 193 (48-1,931) 0.1580 0.2630 7 85 97 68 81 95 58 11 2 7 0 286 (136-1,234) 0.1220 0.1450 15 197 185 145 193 175 139 18 8 4 2 2,638 (1,213-8,826) 0.1020 0.1160 20 84 87 141 78 81 141 5 5 12 1 589 (265-2,178) 0.0680 0.1410 22 51 41 27 49 39 27 6 2 4 1 156 (70-675) 0.1670 0.3210

Mountain Whitefish

2 46 22 34 44 22 34 8 3 2 0 79 (35-371) 0.3910 0.1710 7 116 88 131 114 88 126 14 23 19 0 690 (417- 1,520) 0.1690 0.3260 15 43 27 11 41 27 11 8 0 2 0 25 (25-221) 0.3210 0.2500 20 81 76 94 55 55 90 2 3 2 0 na na na 22 0 4 4 0 4 4 na na na na na na na

42 Appendix 11. Electrofishing catch at 2010 sampling sites used to describe species distributions in the Crowsnest River. Bolded rows denote 2009 preliminary sampling.

Upstream All fish a Location from Todd Total ID Creek (km) RNTR MNWH BKTR BLTR BNTR CRTR CTTR LKTR BURB LNSC WHSC 19 1.7 24 30 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 33 22 115 21 2.8 47 24 0 4 4 9 0 0 6 66 84 244 20 4.7 79 82 0 8 1 4 2 0 20 77 18 291 Falls 18 8.7 178 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 17 11.1 207 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 16 13.8 85 36 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 123 15 15.5 196 45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 242 14 18.1 167 38 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 13 19.9 192 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 12 22.1 335 102 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 439 11 26.3 208 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 10 27.9 222 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 9 30.1 147 35 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 184 8 31.9 132 18 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 156 7 34.3 81 116 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 206 6 36.3 79 196 1 0 3 5 0 1 0 1 0 286 5 39.5 60 32 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 97 4 42.7 40 60 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 107 3 45.8 66 62 4 0 28 0 0 0 0 3 1 164 2 46.8 20 46 2 0 10 0 1 0 0 3 0 82 1 51.1 30 56 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 96 22 54.0 50 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 63 Total 2,645 1,201 17 14 61 31 6 3 28 199 126 4,331 aRNTR = rainbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BKTR = brook trout, BLTR = bull trout, BNTR = brown trout, CRTR = cutthroat x rainbow trout hybrid, CTTR = cutthroat trout, LKTR = lake trout, BURB = burbot, LNSC = longnose sucker, WHSC = white sucker

43 Appendix 12. Proportion (%) of the 2010 first pass electrofishing catch of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish, by sampling site and size range (mm), with evidence of hooking damage.

Proportion hook -damaged Proportion hook -damaged Location rainbow trout (%) mountain whitefish (%) ID All >300 >400 >450 All >300 >400 >450 fish TL TL TL fish TL TL TL 1 7 40 0 na no hooking damage 2 no hooking damage no hooking damage 3 5 33 na na no hooking damage 4 3 25 na na no hooking damage 5 no hooking damage no hooking damage 6 1 14 0 0 2 9 na na 7 1 14 0 0 no hooking damage 8 1 25 0 na no hooking damage 9 2 18 40 0 3 3 0 0 10 1 5 7 0 no hooking damage 11 6 31 40 0 7 8 9 na 12 1 7 10 22 4 4 3 8 13 3 9 10 13 4 7 6 7 14 7 24 24 43 13 13 15 0 15 no hooking damage 11 12 14 10 16 4 18 14 29 9 9 9 20 17 no hooking damage no hooking damage 18 3 36 33 40 no hooking damage 19 4 33 na na no hooking damage 20 5 19 0 na no hooking damage 21 5 0 0 0 no hooking damage 22 no hooking damage na na na na

44

The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of

this project