North Saskatchewan River Drainage, Fish Sustainability Index Data Gaps Project, 2016

Home , Brazeau Reservoir, Elk River (Alberta)

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

North Saskatchewan River Drainage, Fish Sustainability Index Data Gaps Project, 2016

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

Report Editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cr. NW 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd. Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7

Conservation Report Series Type Data

ISBN: 978-0-9949118-6-5

Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by 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: Judd, C., M. Rodtka, and A. Clough. 2017. North Saskatchewan River Drainage, Fish Sustainability Index Data Gaps Project, 2016. Data Report, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, Canada. 20 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 abundance, species distribution and fish habitat. This information is a key component of responsible land-use planning. Alberta Environment and Park’s Fish Sustainability Index (FSI), a standardized process of assessment, provides the framework within which future fishery inventories must occur for greatest relevance to government managers and planners. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are particularly sensitive to habitat change and classed as Threatened in Alberta (Saskatchewan – Nelson rivers populations). Our objective was to describe bull trout, mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) and burbot (Lota lota) distribution and abundance in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed to address FSI data deficiencies. Focal areas for inventory in 2016 were identified in consultation with project partners and included Elk River, Rifle Creek and Crow Creek.

From June 15 to August 17, we visited 41 sites randomly distributed throughout the five hierarchical unit code (HUC 10) watersheds identified as priority areas. We sampled 40 sites using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear. We captured 38 bull trout, 27 mountain whitefish and 56 burbot. Bull trout were detected at 10 sites in both the Upper Elk River HUC and Middle Elk River HUC. Immature bull trout were predominantly found at one site on a tributary to the Elk River, indicating the importance of this stream as spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout. Mountain whitefish and burbot were the only other sport fish caught in these HUC 10s. White sucker (Catostomus commersonii) dominated our catch (n = 1,296), was detected in every HUC, and was the most widely distributed species overall (detected at 30 sites). We monitored stream temperature (every hour) at eight stations in these HUC 10s to assess thermal suitability for bull trout. Stream temperature monitoring of the Elk River area indicated the headwaters provided suitable thermal habitat for bull trout in the summer of 2016. Our study provides current information on stream habitats and on the abundance and distribution of FSI priority species within the Elk River and surrounding tributaries. This information is useful to land managers when attempting to balance the diverse values of the land base upon which they operate and critical for the conservation of native fish species particularly sensitive to habitat degradation, such as bull trout.

Key words: Alberta, North Saskatchewan River watershed, Fish Sustainability Index, FSI, bull trout, mountain whitefish, burbot, distribution, abundance.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Jessica Reilly, Jason Cooper, Steve Herman, Rocky Konynenbelt and John Tchir of Alberta Environment and Parks for their assistance with project design and development. Alberta Conservation Association employee Zachary Spence assisted with collecting and summarizing data. We greatly appreciate the financial support of Hinton Wood Products, a division of West Fraser Mills Ltd., as well as employee Laura Trout’s assistance with funding and study design considerations.

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 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 2 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 ...... 8 4.1 Fish distribution and abundance ...... 8 4.2 Stream habitat measurement ...... 14 5.0 SUMMARY ...... 17 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 19 7.0 APPENDICES ...... 21

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed and 2016 fisheries inventory watersheds...... 3 Figure 2. Location of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing sites within each hierarchical unit code ...... 4 Figure 3. Location of stream temperature monitoring stations in the Crow, Rifle and Elk River hierarchical unit codes...... 7 Figure 4. Distribution of bull trout in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 9 Figure 5. Distribution of mountain whitefish in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 10 Figure 6. Distribution of burbot in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 11

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Site detections per hierarchical unit code and total catch of fish species captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 12 Table 2. Relative abundance of fish species detected in each hierarchical unit code using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 13 Table 3. Size distribution of fish measured in each hierarchical unit code captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 15 Table 4. Summary of stream habitat by hierarchical unit code collected while backpack and tote-barge electrofish sampling, June 15 to August 17, 2016...... 16 Table 5. Summary of stream temperature recorded at eight stations in the Elk River and Rifle Creek hierarchical unit codes and Crow Creek, June 15 to August 31, 2016...... 17

vi LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of habitat measurements at backpack and tote-barge electrofishing sites in the Crow, Rifle, Upper Elk, Middle Elk and Lower Elk hierarchical unit codes in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016 ...... 21 Appendix 2. Summary of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing site locations and fish capture by species in the Crow, Rifle, Upper Elk, Middle Elk and Lower Elk hierarchical unit codes of the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016. .... 23 Appendix 3. Bootstrapped mean relative abundance of bull trout, mountain whitefish and burbot in each hierarchical unit code captured by backpack and tote-barge electrofishing in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016...... 25 Appendix 4. Stream flow hydrographs in the Brazeau and Nordegg rivers generated by Alberta Environment and Parks stream gauging stations, 2016...... 26 Appendix 5. Length frequency histograms of bull trout, mountain whitefish and burbot captured backpack and tote-barge electrofishing in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016...... 27 Appendix 6. Two-day moving average water temperature at eight temperature monitoring stations in the Crow, Rifle and Elk River hierarchical unit codes over the summer of 2016...... 29

vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Fishery inventories provide resource managers with information on fish abundance, species distribution and fish habitat. This information is a key component of responsible land-use planning and management. Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) has been performing fishery inventories across the province since its inception in 1997. Much of this inventory effort occurred through the ACA’s Cooperative Fisheries Inventory Program (CFIP), which was a collaboration between private industry, land managers, ACA and other conservationists that was most active in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this time, over 4,000 sites were inventoried representing some $4,000,000 worth of work (Dillon Consulting 2004). However, much of the inventory data collected through the CFIP is outdated, and inventory methods have improved substantially, partly as a result of the lessons learned during the CFIP.

One such development is the creation of Alberta Environment and Park’s (AEP) Fish Sustainability Index (FSI). The FSI is a standardized process of assessment that provides a landscape-level overview of fish sustainability within the province and enables broad-scale evaluation of management actions and land-use planning (MacPherson et al. 2014). This development is significant because it provides the framework within which future fishery inventories must occur for greatest relevance to government managers and planners. Inconsistency in inventory activities across the province, partly resulting from the lack of such a framework, was a common criticism of the CFIP (Dillon Consulting 2004). Collection of data to support FSI development for imperiled native sport species is a high-priority activity for ACA. The FSI evaluates species on four groups of metrics: population integrity, population productivity, threats and data reliability (MacPherson et al. 2014). Fisheries inventory data are particularly suited to evaluation of the population integrity (adult and immature density) and productive potential (geographic extent) metrics. Watersheds are scaled using a hierarchical unit code (HUC), appropriate for the focal fish species, with a two-digit code (i.e., HUC 2) being the largest and a ten-digit code (i.e., HUC 10) the smallest. Most species currently assessed using the FSI have been assessed at the HUC 8 or HUC 10 scale.

Priority species for FSI assessment known to occur in our study area include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), burbot (Lota lota) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) (MacPherson et al. 2014). Both burbot and mountain whitefish are classed as Secure in Alberta (Government of

Alberta 2012) whereas bull trout are Threatened (Saskatchewan – Nelson rivers populations) (COSEWIC 2012). Bull trout are particularly sensitive to habitat change and are thought to reflect general ecosystem health (COSEWIC 2012). This sensitivity, coupled with their relatively wide distribution, make bull trout an attractive species for monitoring sustainability in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed.

1.2 Objectives

Our objectives for this study were to • describe bull trout, burbot and mountain whitefish distribution and abundance to address FSI data deficiencies in the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed; and • describe fish inventory and stream habitat in priority HUC 10s identified by project partners.

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 drainage above the Brazeau Reservoir. Land-use activities in the headwaters outside of the national parks include forestry, oil and gas exploration, and recreation. Land use within national parks is restricted and primarily recreational (North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance 2005). Priority areas for sampling were identified in consultation with project partners, with highest priority given to sampling areas in the bull trout range where current inventory data are absent or dated. Our 2016 study area consisted of the Elk River and Brazeau watersheds (HUC 8s) upstream of the Brazeau dam and included the following (HUC 10s): Crow Creek, Rifle Creek, Upper Elk River, Middle Elk River and Lower Elk River (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River watershed and 2016 fisheries inventory watersheds.

Figure 2. Location of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing sites within each hierarchical unit code (HUC).

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Fish distribution and abundance

From June 15 to August 17, we visited 41 randomly distributed sites to describe bull trout and other fish species distribution and relative abundance in priority HUCs (Figure 2). We distributed prospective sample sites at 1,200 m intervals in an upstream progression along the length of third- (>400 m) to fifth-order streams (1:20,000 scale) (Strahler 1952) within each HUC using a geographical information system (GIS) (ArcGIS version 10.1) and the Government of Alberta Resource Management Information Branch hydro-line data layer. Sites were randomly selected without replacement using a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (Stevens and Olsen 2004). We identified a conservative target of eight sample sites per HUC based on past evaluations of our power to detect immature bull trout (summarized in Rodtka and Judd 2015; Rodtka et al. 2015). To accommodate non-response sites, we drew a total sample of 11 sites per sample frame (except Crow Creek, which only had 10 prospective sites). Sites were assessed in the order in which they were drawn. A single site (Rifle 8) was too deep to safely sample, and an alternative site (Rifle 9) was sampled instead. The GRTS sampling design allowed us to dynamically adjust our sample size to accommodate these non-response sites while maintaining a spatially balanced sample (Stevens and Olsen 2004).

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). Two sites were 200 m due to unsuitable electrofishing conditions (mean site length ± SD; 293 ± 25 m). Sites were sampled using a Smith-Root LR-20B backpack electrofisher with pulsed DC (voltage 250 – 350 V, frequency 30 – 35 Hz and duration 4.3 – 5 ms).

The Elk River in the Middle and Lower Elk River HUCs was typically >10 m wide (see Appendix 1 for site habitat measurements) requiring use of a Smith-Root SR-6 tote-barge electrofisher with a 2.5 generator powered pulsator (GPP; typical settings were 60 Hz at 40% – 50% of high range). We sampled moving downstream from the start of the site with a three- or four-person crew consisting of one tote-barge operator, one anode pole operator, and one or two netters. Tote-barge sites were 500 m long (measured with a range finder).

Electrofishing effort (seconds) was recorded at 50 m and 100 m intervals for backpack and tote-barge sites respectively. Fish were identified to species, enumerated and measured (fork length [FL], mm); only the first 100 fish were measured when >100 individuals of a species were captured at a site. Bull trout were visually inspected upon capture for morphological features of hybridization with brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) based on criteria in Popowich et al. (2011). Immature bull trout and mountain whitefish were defined as ≤150 mm FL (ASRD and ACA 2009) and <230 mm FL (Jason Cooper, AEP Fisheries Biologist, personal communication), respectively, when reporting abundances. Standard definitions of mature bull trout and immature/mature burbot for purposes of the FSI are still under review.

3.2 Stream habitat measurement

At all sites, we measured water temperature (1°C) and specific conductivity corrected to 25°C (1 μS/cm) before electrofishing. Ambient stream conductivity has been demonstrated to significantly impact detection of immature bull trout using electrofishing gear (Rodtka et al.

2015), so we report ambient conductivity using the conversion equation: ECt = EC25 [1 + a(t − 25)], where ECt is the conductivity at temperature t, EC25 is the measured conductivity, and a is a temperature compensation factor (set at 0.02) (Hayashi 2004). We measured stream depth (0.01 m), wetted width (0.1 m) and rooted width (0.1 m) at transects spaced every 50 m (100 m for tote-barge sites). Habitat type and dominant substrate type were assessed between transects. We visually estimated the percentage of pool (reduced current velocity, little surface turbulence and water deeper than surrounding areas), riffle (water flows swiftly over bed materials producing surface turbulence) and run (uniform but swift flow without surface waves) habitat types (nearest 5%). Substrate categories were scored based on a modified Wentworth (1922) scale and included fines (<2 mm; score 0), small gravel (2 – 16 mm; 1), large gravel (17 – 64 mm; 2), cobble (65 – 256 mm; 3), boulder (>256 mm; 4) and bedrock (5).

Stream temperature plays an important role in aquatic community processes and has been correlated to specific fish species distribution and abundance (Isaac et al 2012; Riemen et al 2007). We monitored summer (June 15 – August 31) stream temperature (1°C) every hour at stations in Crow Creek as well as the Rifle Creek (n = 2) and Elk River (n = 5) HUC 10s to describe the thermal habitats available in our study area (Figure 3). All fish and habitat information acquired in the field was submitted to AEP for inclusion in its Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System database.

Figure 3. Location of stream temperature monitoring stations in the Crow, Rifle and Elk River hierarchical unit codes (HUCs).

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Fish distribution and abundance

We sampled 40 sites (8 sites per HUC 10) with backpack electrofishing (n = 30) and tote-barge electofishing (n = 10) gear, resulting in over 78,000 seconds of effort over 13.8 km of stream. In addition to bull trout, our catch included mountain whitefish, burbot, brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), finescale dace (Chrosomus neogaeus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), pearl dace (Margariscus margarita), spoonhead sculpin (Cottus ricei), trout perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Bull trout were detected in the Upper and Middle Elk River HUCs (Figure 4), mountain whitefish were found in every HUC except Crow (Figure 5), and burbot were found in every HUC (Figure 6). None of the bull trout captured showed evidence of hybridization, and no other char species were observed in the study area. White sucker was the most abundant and widely distributed fish detected (Table 1). Site specific catch information is provided in Appendix 2.

Figure 4. Distribution of bull trout (BLTR) in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016.

Figure 5. Distribution of mountain whitefish (MNWH) in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016.

Figure 6. Distribution of burbot (BURB) in the Elk River, Rifle and Crow hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016.

Table 1. Site detections per hierarchical unit code (HUC) and total catch of fish species captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BRST = brook stickleback, BURB = burbot, FNDC = finescale dace, LNDC = longnose dace, LNSC = longnose sucker, MNSC = mountain sucker, MNWH = mountain whitefish, PRDC = pearl dace, SPSC = spoonhead sculpin, TRPR = trout perch, WHSC = white sucker.

Site detections (n) per HUC Total catch Species Crow Rifle Upper Elk Middle Elk Lower Elk (%) BLTR 0 0 6 4 0 38 (1) BRST 2 4 0 0 3 343 (9) BURB 2 1 2 5 6 56 (1) FNDC 0 0 0 0 1 3 (<1) LNDC 3 2 1 6 7 961 (25) LNSC 4 3 0 6 6 119 (3) MNSC 1 0 0 2 5 100 (3) MNWH 0 1 3 5 5 27 (1) PRDC 6 7 0 6 7 381 (10) SPSC 7 0 3 7 5 111 3) TRPR 0 2 0 4 3 358 (9) WHSC 8 7 1 6 8 1,296 (34)

The highest relative abundance (mean catch per 100s) for bull trout and burbot were observed in the Upper Elk River and Lower Elk River, respectively. Relative abundance of mountain whitefish ranged from 0.01 to 0.06 throughout all the HUCs (Table 2). See Appendix 3 for bootstrapped mean relative abundance (10,000 replicates) with 95% CI for each HUC.

Table 2. Relative abundance of fish species detected in each hierarchical unit code (HUC) using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BURB = burbot, MNWH = mountain whitefish.

Mean ± SE catch in each HUC Crow Rifle Upper Elk Middle Elk Lower Elk Species Maturity per per per per per per per per per per 100 m 100 s 100 m 100 s 100 m 100 s 100 m 100 s 100 m 100 s

Immature – – – – 0.83±0.74 0.19±0.18 – – – – BLTR Non-immature – – – – 0.50±0.13 0.10±0.03 0.22±0.12 0.04±0.02 – –

Immature – – 0.04±0.04 0.01±0.01 0.17±0.09 0.03±0.02 0.08±0.05 0.01±0.01 0.33±0.12 0.06±0.02 MNWH Adult – – – – – – 0.16±0.06 0.03±0.01 0.03±0.03 0.01±0.01

BURB All fish 0.13±0.09 0.02±0.01 0.06±0.06 0.01±0.01 0.13±0.09 0.02±0.01 0.37±0.18 0.06±0.03 0.85±0.29 0.16±0.06

Immature bull trout were detected at only two sites (UE1 and UE6) in the Upper Elk HUC. A total of 20 immature bull trout were detected, with 18 of those detections from site UE1. Immature mountain whitefish were detected at 11 sites and in every HUC except Crow (Table 3). Adult mountain whitefish were captured at five sites in the Middle and Lower Elk HUCs (ME1, n = 2; ME2, n = 1; ME4, n = 1; ME8, n = 1; and LE5, n = 1). Length frequency histograms of bull trout, mountain whitefish and burbot are provided in Appendix 4.

4.2 Stream habitat measurement

Similar to 2015, spring and early summer were notably dry and resulted in low flows for much of the sampling period (Appendix 5). The Upper Elk River and Middle Elk River HUCs were the only HUCs not dominated by fines substrate (Table 4) and contained the highest percentage of riffle habitat (27% and 28%, respectively). See Appendix 1 for site specific habitat measurements.

Highly suitable thermal habitat for bull trout (i.e., mean summer water temperature ≤10°C, maximum summer temperature ≤16°C; Issak et al. 2009 and references therein) in the study area appeared to be limited to the headwaters of the Upper Elk HUC (Table 5). A two-day moving average of stream temperatures recorded in each HUC is shown in Appendix 6.

Table 3. Size distribution of fish measured in each hierarchical unit code (HUC) captured using backpack and tote-barge electrofishing gear, June 15 to August 17, 2016. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BRST = brook stickleback, BURB = burbot, FNDC = finescale dace, LNDC = longnose dace, LNSC = longnose sucker, MNSC = mountain sucker, MNWH = mountain whitefish, PRDC = pearl dace, SPSC = spoonhead sculpin, TRPR = trout perch, WHSC = white sucker.

Fork length (mm) in each HUC Species Crow Rifle Upper Elk Middle Elk Lower Elk n Mean±SD Range n Mean±SD Range n Mean±SD Range n Mean±SD Range n Mean±SD Range

BLTR 0 – – 0 – – 32 149±80 78–345 6 251±90 176–415 0 – –

BRST 30 54±10 31–71 219 46±9 25–71 0 – – 0 – – 20 48±8 28–63

BURB 3 152±38 117–193 1 285 – 3 239±69 175–313 14 222±47 158–312 35 223±34 168–322

FNDC 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 3 52±6 46–58

LNDC 9 69±12 47–84 101 50±12 25–107 3 54±5 49–59 347 54±14 31–111 501 55±13 32–106

LNSC 38 72±10 59–102 8 94±31 49–153 0 – – 10 106±35 68–152 63 125±33 63–181

MNSC 1 85 – 0 – – 0 – – 9 88±20 64–115 90 74±6 62–102

MNWH 0 – – 1 113 – 4 140±34 113–184 8 195±88 68–292 14 130±72 80–304

PRDC 154 55±16 27–114 84 66±13 35–125 0 – – 52 57±23 23–140 91 64±18 23–128

SPSC 21 53±12 40–88 0 – – 35 63±16 39–111 40 72±16 46–109 15 79±10 61–102

TRPR 0 – – 15 51±15 35–91 0 – – 135 53±8 34–75 208 56±10 25–85

WHSC 388 64±12 43–195 100 91±43 35–217 2 118±11 110–126 197 89±58 41–332 372 84±34 36–369

Table 4. Summary of stream habitat by hierarchical unit code (HUC) collected while backpack and tote-barge electrofish sampling, June 15 to August 17, 2016.

HUC Measurement Crow Rifle Upper Elk Middle Elk Lower Elk Water temperature (°C) Mean ± SD 12 ± 2 15 ± 2 10 ± 2 13 ± 2 15 ± 1 Range 10 – 15 13 – 17 7 – 11 10 – 16 14 – 17

Ambient conductivity (μS/cm) Mean ± SD 213 ± 13 199 ± 22 171 ± 35 197 ± 16 220 ± 15 Range 200 – 233 170 – 241 117 – 228 171 – 217 196 – 237

Mean wetted width (m) Mean ± SD 4.0 ± 1.0 4.7 ± 3.1 3.8 ± 1.7 7.9 ± 4.6 12.5 ± 7.3 Range 2.0 – 6.3 1.5 – 15.0 0.7 – 7.6 1.2 – 18.2 1.3 – 26.6

Mean rooted width (m) Mean ± SD 6.3 ± 1.3 7.8 ± 4.5 5.5 ± 2.2 10.8 ± 6.5 17.5 ± 9.1 Range 2.6 – 9.3 2.8 – 26.2 1.8 – 13.0 3.3 – 27.1 2.1 – 35.2

Mean maximum depth (m) Mean ± SD 0.36 ± 0.19 0.45 ± 0.25 0.40 ± 0.22 0.54 ± 0.27 0.65 ± 0.28 Range 0.11 – 1.03 0.08 – 1.09 0.05 – 0.96 0.13 – 1.42 0.19 – 1.55

Modal stream stage Low/Moderate Low Low Low Low

Modal substrate Primary Fines Fines Cobble Large gravel Fines Secondary Large gravel Small gravel Fines Small gravel Large gravel

Table 5. Summary of stream temperature recorded at eight stations in the Elk River and Rifle Creek hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) and Crow Creek, June 15 to August 31, 2016.

UTM Location NAD 83 Zone 11 Mean ± SD Temperature Station Easting Northing temperature (°C) range (°C) Crow 1 582750 5874836 13 ± 1 9 – 16 Rifle 1 580822 5857501 15 ± 2 10 – 21 Rifle 2 570526 5860141 13 ± 2 9 – 17 Elk 1 584590 5868963 16 ± 3 10 – 23 Elk 2 568228 5871684 14 ± 2 9 – 21 Elk 3 548897 5867054 11 ± 2 6 – 15 Elk 4 551020 5864114 9 ± 2 3 – 14 Elk 5 560199 5866736 14 ± 2 7 – 20

5.0 SUMMARY

We sampled 40 sites in the Elk River and Brazeau River HUC 10s. Bull trout were detected in the Upper and Middle Elk River HUCs, with site UE1 containing almost all the immature bull trout captured, which indicates that this Elk River tributary is an important spawning and rearing stream. Mountain whitefish were observed in all but one HUC, with immature mountain whitefish detected in 11 of the 14 sites where mountain whitefish were found. Burbot were captured in every HUC and were most abundant in the Lower Elk HUC. White sucker was the most abundant species captured and was found in every HUC.

Stream temperature monitoring in the HUCs indicate that summer temperatures were suitable for bull trout in the upper Elk River. Water temperatures were warmer downstream in the Elk River, with the highest mean summer temperature and the highest observed temperature recorded near the mouth of the Elk River. The Upper and Middle Elk River HUCs contained the lowest proportion of fine sediment, a habitat characteristic selected by bull trout (ASRD and ACA 2009).

Our study provides current information on stream habitats and the abundance and distribution of FSI priority species within the Elk River and surrounding tributaries. This information is useful to land managers when attempting to balance the diverse values of the land base upon which

17 they operate and critical for the conservation of native fish species particularly sensitive to habitat degradation, such as bull trout.

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

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

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

Dillon Consulting. 2004. Review and assessment of the Alberta Conservation Association’s fishery inventory activities in Alberta. Dillon Consulting Limited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 84 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2012. Alberta wild species general status listing – 2010. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 242 pp.

Hayashi, M. 2004. Temperature-electrical conductivity relation of water for environmental monitoring and geophysical data inversion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 96: 119–128.

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

Isaak, D.J., 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.

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. 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.

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: 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.

7.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of habitat measurements at backpack and tote-barge electrofishing sites in the Crow (C), Rifle (R), Upper Elk (UE), Middle Elk (ME) and Lower Elk (LE) hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016. Substrate codes: B = boulder, C = cobble, F = fines, LG = large gravel, SG = small gravel.

Appendix 1. Continued.

Ambient Mean wetted Mean rooted Mean depth Site Temp. Dominant/secondary Percentage pool Percentage riffle Percentage run cond. width ± SD width ± SD ± SD ID (OC) substrate (mean(min–max)) (mean(min–max)) (mean(min–max)) (μS/cm) (m) (m) (m) UE1 9 228 3.9 ± 0.8 4.6 ± 0.9 0.36 ± 0.20 LG/F, LG 11 (0 – 20) 38 (25 – 75) 51 (25 – 65) UE2 8 183 4.7 ± 1.3 5.4 ± 1.1 0.58 ± 0.32 LG/C 8 (0 – 15) 22 (10 – 35) 71 (60 – 90) UE3 11 178 4.9 ± 1.0 8.9 ± 2.1 0.44 ± 0.16 LG/LG 5 (0 – 20) 34 (20 – 50) 61 (50 – 75) UE4 11 126 5.1 ± 1.3 7.1 ± 1.1 0.5 ± 0.13 LG, C/F, SG, C 7 (0 – 15) 29 (15 – 45) 64 (45 – 80) UE5 8 170 2.3 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.7 0.28 ± 0.12 F, LG/SG 4 (0 – 10) 16 (5 – 30) 80 (75 – 90) UE6 7 177 2.8 ± 0.9 4.5 ± 1.9 0.47 ± 0.14 C/SG 8 (0 – 15) 23 (0 – 40) 69 (55 – 100) UE7 11 191 5.2 ± 1.2 7.1 ± 1.4 0.43 ± 0.22 C/LG 8 (0 – 20) 21 (5 – 30) 71 (55 – 95) UE8 11 117 1.4 ± 0.5 3.3 ± 0.8 0.11 ± 0.05 F/SG 12 (5 – 15) 33 (20 – 40) 56 (45 – 70) ME1 14 171 10.5 ± 2.5 16.3 ± 3.8 0.75 ± 0.36 C/LG 11 (0 – 20) 47 (35 – 55) 42 (30 – 55) ME2 14 186 4.9 ± 0.8 6.5 ± 1.3 0.5 ± 0.15 F/SG 8 (5 – 15) 19 (10 – 30) 73 (55 – 85) ME3 10 182 4.5 ± 0.7 5.8 ± 1.2 0.52 ± 0.24 F/F, SG, LG 21 (10 – 50) 39 (10 – 70) 42 (5 – 55) ME4 16 204 15.6 ± 2.2 18.6 ± 3.6 0.55 ± 0.23 LG, C/C 2 (0 – 5) 17 (5 – 40) 81 (55 – 100) ME5 14 196 12.1 ± 2.6 16.2 ± 1.8 0.64 ± 0.21 F, LG/F, C 0 (0 – 0) 30 (5 – 80) 70 (20 – 100) ME6 11 213 2.7 ± 0.7 4.0 ± 0.6 0.33 ± 0.15 C/SG 5 (0 – 10) 33 (15 – 40) 62 (55 – 70) ME7 15 206 10.8 ± 1.8 17.5 ± 5.0 0.77 ± 0.29 C/F, C 9 (0 – 20) 18 (0 – 25) 73 (60 – 90) ME8 14 217 3.9 ± 1.0 5.2 ± 0.9 0.38 ± 0.22 SG/F 13 (5 – 30) 23 (15 – 30) 63 (40 – 75) LE1 14 196 18.2 ± 4.8 24.2 ± 4.4 0.67 ± 0.13 LG/LG, C 2 (0 – 10) 42 (20 – 85) 56 (15 – 80) LE2 16 210 14.2 ± 3.5 21.4 ± 5.0 0.72 ± 0.31 C/B 3 (0 – 10) 45 (0 – 90) 52 (10 – 90) LE3 16 237 15.8 ± 2.7 20.2 ± 2.4 0.74 ± 0.09 F/C 0 (0 – 0) 17 (0 – 50) 83 (50 – 100) LE4 16 209 18.6 ± 4.6 21.8 ± 4.0 0.86 ± 0.32 C/LG 2 (0 – 10) 32 (0 – 60) 66 (40 – 100) LE5 17 217 14.2 ± 2.0 23.7 ± 5.8 0.83 ± 0.39 SG/LG 7 (0 – 25) 17 (0 – 35) 76 (40 – 100) LE6 14 237 2.1 ± 0.6 3.4 ± 1.0 0.33 ± 0.10 F/F, SG 8 (0 – 15) 31 (5 – 45) 61 (45 – 90) LE7 15 222 17.7 ± 4.5 23.8 ± 5.9 0.66 ± 0.31 C/LG 2 (0 – 10) 20 (10 – 40) 78 (50 – 90) LE8 14 234 2.6 ± 0.4 5.6 ± 1.8 0.47 ± 0.10 F/SG 1 (0 – 5) 0 (0 – 0) 99 (95 – 100)

Appendix 2. Summary of backpack and tote-barge electrofishing site locations (NAD 83, Zone 11) and fish capture by species in the Crow (C), Rifle (R), Upper Elk (UE), Middle Elk (ME) and Lower Elk (LE) hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) of the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, BRST = brook stickleback, BURB = burbot, FNDC = finescale dace, LNDC = longnose dace, LNSC = longnose sucker, MNSC = mountain sucker, MNWH = mountain whitefish, PRDC = pearl dace, SPSC = spoonhead sculpin, TRPR = trout perch, WHSC = white sucker. Other codes: E = Easting, N = Northing, Dist = distance.

UTM Species Site Date Dist Effort ID (m/d/y) (m) (s) E N BLTR BKST BURB FNDC LNDC LNSC MNSC MNWH PRDC SPSC TRPR WHSC

C1 06/16/16 587185 5873977 300 2,096 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 33 C2 06/21/16 584276 5874332 300 2,119 0 0 0 0 4 31 0 0 1 4 0 130 C3 06/16/16 586171 5873969 300 2,214 0 0 2 0 4 4 1 0 2 3 0 153 C4 06/15/16 580783 5875508 300 1,407 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 4 C5 06/15/16 583296 5874569 300 1,410 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 245 C6 06/22/16 579213 5874934 300 2,451 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 3 0 34 C7 06/15/16 582544 5874787 300 1,410 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 C8 06/21/16 581547 5875127 300 1,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 0 3 R1 06/22/16 567298 5861828 300 1,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 R2 06/24/16 582562 5858460 300 2,714 0 3 0 0 73 4 0 1 3 0 12 11 R3 06/24/16 579414 5857200 300 1,944 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 11 R4 06/25/16 573607 5855976 300 1,881 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 20 R5 06/25/16 574626 5859031 200 1,255 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 R6 06/26/16 569227 5860908 300 1,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 R7 06/23/16 584453 5859082 200 1,801 0 0 1 0 28 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 R9 06/26/16 568729 5855995 300 2,118 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 30

Appendix 2. Continued.

UTM Species Site Date Dist Effort

ID (d/m/y) E N (m) (s) BLTR BKST BURB FNDC LNDC LNSC MNSC MNWH PRDC SPSC TRPR WHSC

UE1 07/05/16 551620 5863664 300 1,274 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UE2 07/06/16 547161 5866581 300 1,368 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 UE3 07/07/16 550265 5868262 300 1,997 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 UE4 07/19/16 557797 5864437 300 2,050 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 UE5 06/27/16 550952 5869768 300 973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UE6 07/05/16 543669 5866332 300 1,528 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 UE7 07/06/16 548869 5867039 300 1,649 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 2 UE8 06/27/16 549096 5870419 300 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ME1 08/03/16 566334 5871292 500 2,596 1 0 1 0 105 1 4 4 4 5 25 31 ME2 07/09/16 565419 5871653 300 1,968 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ME3 07/10/16 562360 5872213 300 1,435 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ME4 07/27/16 562199 5867217 500 2,505 1 0 4 0 49 4 0 1 14 7 3 46 ME5 07/28/16 563951 5868811 500 3,356 0 0 7 0 72 2 0 1 18 9 60 79 ME6 07/08/16 559315 5870921 300 1,531 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ME7 07/26/16 567716 5871714 500 2,988 0 0 1 0 91 1 5 0 12 10 47 35 ME8 07/09/16 564489 5871997 300 1,763 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 1 3 4 0 5 LE1 08/04/16 570928 5871057 500 2,521 0 1 1 0 120 10 31 2 4 4 10 17 LE2 08/06/16 576437 5870255 500 2,571 0 0 10 0 53 15 10 4 15 3 57 48 LE3 08/17/16 581090 5869815 500 2,538 0 0 2 3 72 9 1 0 8 1 31 143 LE4 08/15/16 581993 5868624 500 2,633 0 0 5 0 61 8 0 2 7 0 12 60 LE5 08/06/16 576807 5870800 500 2,059 0 0 9 0 46 11 18 2 6 2 29 22 LE6 07/11/16 580354 5864806 300 1,642 0 2 0 0 33 0 0 0 17 0 0 5 LE7 08/16/16 574435 5870060 500 4,216 0 0 8 0 118 8 29 4 34 5 69 92 LE8 07/11/16 578767 5865000 300 1,072 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Appendix 3. Bootstrapped mean relative abundance (10,000 replicates) of bull trout, mountain whitefish and burbot in each hierarchical unit code (HUC) captured by backpack and tote-barge electrofishing in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016. Species codes: BLTR = bull trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, BURB = burbot.

Mean (95% CI) catch in HUC

Species Maturity Crow Rifle Upper Elk Middle Elk Lower Elk per 100 m per 100 s per 100 m per 100 s per 100 m per 100 s per 100 m per 100 s per 100 m per 100 s 0.83 0.35 Immature1 – – – – – – – – (0–2.33) (0–0.55) BLTR 0.42 0.09 0.27 0.03 Non-immature – – – – – – (0.25–0.71) (0.05–0.14) (0.04–0.47) (0.01–0.09)

0.04 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.30 0.07 Immature2 – – (0–0.13) (0–0.01) (0.04–0.33) (0.01–0.07) (0–0.18) (0–0.03) (0.13–0.55) (0.02–0.09) MNWH 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.01 Adult – – – – – – (0.04–0.28) (0.01–0.05) (0–0.08) (0–0.02)

0.17 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.35 0.07 0.83 0.15 BURB All fish (0–0.29) (0–0.04) (0–0.19) (0–0.02) (0–0.29) (0–0.05) (0.01–0.72) (0.02–0.12) (0.35–1.38) (0.06–0.28)

1 ≤150 mm FL 2 <230 mm FL

Appendix 4. Stream flow hydrographs in the Brazeau and Nordegg rivers generated by Alberta Environment and Parks stream gauging stations, 2016.

Appendix 5. Length frequency histograms of bull trout, mountain whitefish and burbot captured backpack and tote-barge electrofishing in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, 2016. a) Bull trout

8 BLTR n = 38 7

4 Number of fish of Number 3

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

Fork length (mm)

b) Mountain whitefish

10 9 8 MNWH n = 27 7 6 5 4

Number of fish of Number 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

Fork length (mm)

Appendix 5. Continued. c) Burbot

10 9 8 7 BURB n = 56 6 5 4

Number of fish of Number 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Fork length (mm)

Appendix 6. Two-day moving average water temperature at eight temperature monitoring stations in the Crow, Rifle and Elk River hierarchical unit codes (HUCs) over the summer of 2016. a) Crow

b) Rifle

Rifle 1 Rifle 2

Appendix 6. Continued. c) Elk River

25 Elk 1 Elk 2 Elk 3 Elk 4 Elk 5

Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partners for their generous support of this project: