LOWER BOW RIVER

FISH POPULATION STATUS ASSESSMENT

- August 2000 -

LOWER BOW RIVER

FISH POPULATION STATUS ASSESSMENT

August 2000

Prepared for

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

Natural Resources Service Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division Bow Region Strathmore, Alberta

by

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

17312 - 106 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5S 1H9

Phone: (780)483-3499 Fax: (780)483-1574 edmonton@rll.ca

March 2001

Prinled on Recycled Paper

Cover Photo:

A member ot' Alberta Environment colleets a scale sample tor ageing purposes from a Bow River brown trout.

Suggested Citation:

RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. 2001. Low'er Bow River fish population status assessment - August 2000. Prepared for Alberta Environment. RL&L Report No. 855F: 30 p. + 3 app.

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. would like to thank Mr. Trevor Rhodes and Mr. Cam Wallman of Alberta Environment for initiating the project and for providing information and guidance during the study. We would also like to thank the staff of Alberta Environment for their contributions to the data collection. Funding was provided by the Alberta Conservation Association.

The following employees of RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. contributed to the collection of data and/or preparation of this report:

Jim Campbell Scott Morrison

Corey Stefura Jack Patalas

- Project Biologist, Author

- Report Editor

- Fisheries Biologist

- Fisheries Technician

Charlene Williamson - Fisheries Technician

Chantal Pattenden

- Fisheries Technician

Mike Braeuer

- Fisheries Technician

Rob Stack

- Fisheries Technician

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page i

Ri .&!. KN\ IKONMKN I \l. SKK\ ICKS 1 1 1).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page P

ACKNOVVLEDCEMENTS i

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES i\

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 METHODS 2

2.1 STUDY ARHA AND SAMPLE PERIOD 2

2.2 RIVER CONDITIONS 2

2.3 FISH CAPTURE AND ASSESSMENT 2

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS 4

2.4.1 Size-Classes 4

2.4.2 Catch Data 5

2.4.3 Life History 5

2.4.4 Population Estimates 5

3.0 RIVER CONDITIONS 7

4.0 SPECIES COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE S

4.1 SPECIES COMPOSITION K

4.2 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE S

5.0 LIFE HISTORY DATA 13

5.1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION 13

5.2 FORK LENGTH - TOTAL LENGTH RELATIONSHIPS 13

5.3 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS 16

5.4 AGE AND GROWTH 16

5.5 FISH INJURY INDICES IS

6.0 POPULATION ESTIMATES 20

6.1 BROWN TROUT 21

6.2 RAINBOW TROUT 24

6.3 MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH 24

6.4 FISH MOVEMENTS 27

7.0 LITERATURE CITED 30

APPENDIX A Raw Data for Captured Fish APPENDIX B CPUE and Life History Data APPENDIX C Population Estimate Data

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - August 2000

Page ii

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

LIST OF TABLES

Page #

Table 2.1 Fin marking procedures for identifying capture date and location during the Bow River fish

population assessment, August 2000 4

Table 3.1 Water temperature, conductivity, and mean daily discharge of the Bow River during the fish

population assessment, August 2000 7

Table 4. 1 Sportfish species captured in the Bow River, August 2000 8

Table 4.2 Mean catch per unit effort (CPUE expressed as fish/1 000s) and standard deviation (SD) for

sportfish captured in the Bow River in August 2000 compared to similar data from 1990- 1992 (Courtney 1993) and 1999 (RL&L 2000) 10

Table 5.1 Number of injured fish and causes recorded during fish population assessment in the Bow

River, August 2000 18

Table 6. 1 Number of fish marked and recaptured during fish population assessment in the Bow River,

August 2000 20

Table 6.2 Brown trout population estimates for the Bow River, August 2000 21

Table 6.3 Rainbow trout population estimates for the Bow River, August 2000 24

Table 6.4 Mountain whitefish population estimates for the Bow River, August 2000 27

Table 6.5 Summary of fish movements out of the Bow River study area during fish population

assessments, August 2000 29

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page iii

R1 &1 KNMRONMKM Al. SKR\ 1C KS I I 1).

LIST OF FIGURES

Page P

Figure 2.1 Bow River Study Area, August 20()() 3

Figure 4.1 Relative abundance, expressed as catch-per-unit-eft'ort (C'PUF), of brown trout, rainbou

trout, and mountain whitefish captured in the liow River. August 2()()() 9

Figure 4.2 Comparison of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish catch-per-unii-cffon (CPUE) indices recorded in the lk)w River during 1 990- 1 992 (Courtney 1 993 ). 1 999 ( Rl.iicL 2000) and during the present study (August 2000) 1 1

Figure 5. 1 Length frequency distribution of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish captured

by boat eleetrofishing in the Bow River, August 2000 14

Figure 5.2 Fork length-weight regressions and fork length-total length relationships for brown trout,

rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish in the Bow River, Augu.st 2000 15

Figure 5.3 Age-length relationships for brown trout and rainbow trout captured in the Bow River.

August 2000 17

Figure 6.1 Comparison of brown trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated

using the Darroeh method, 1982 to 2000 22

Figure 6.2 Comparison of brown trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated

using the Null method, 1990 to 2000 23

Figure 6.3 Comparison of rainbow trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intern als) calculated

using the Darroeh method, 1982 to 2000 25

Figure 6.4 Comparison of rainbow trout population estimates (± 95% confidence inter\ als) calculated

using the Null method, 1990 to 2000 26

Figure 6.5 Distance moved by individual brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish between

release and recapture locations in the Bow River, August 2000 28

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - .August 2000

Page iv

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Lower Bow River near Calgary (downstream of Bearspaw Dam) provides an excellent sport fishery for rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout {Salmo trutta), and mountain whitefish {Prosopium williamsoni). Fisheries studies conducted during the early 1980's assessed the status of brown trout and rainbow trout populations immediately downstream of Calgary (Sosiak and Griffiths 1983; Sosiak 1984). Based on these studies, new fishing regulations requiring anglers to release all trout greater than 40 cm in length were implemented in the section of river between Highway 22X bridge and the Carseland Weir in 1983. This regulation change was designed to increase the number of large trout in the system. Monitoring studies were conducted between 1984 and 1992 (Sosiak et al. 1988; Fernet et al. 1988; Courtney and Fernet 1989, Courtney and Fernet 1990, Courtney and Fernet 1991; Helwig and Courtney 1993; Courtney 1993) to assess the effectiveness of these regulations.

In August 1999, Alberta Environment and RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. (RL&L) conducted a fisheries study to update the status of the sportfish populations in the Lower Bow River. The results of this study were compared with the previous data of the 1980's and early 1990's in RL&L (2000). Recognizing that the continuation of the monitoring program is necessary to assess the impact of fishing regulations and increasing recreational use on the Lower Bow River sportfish populations, Alberta Environment contracted RL&L to assist in a follow-up survey in August 2000. Similar to the objectives outlined in RL&L (2000), the main requirements of the present study were to:

• derive population estimates (with confidence limits) for different size-classes of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish;

• calculate catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) indices for these size-classes and species;

• determine life history data (length frequencies, length- weight regressions, condition factors, fork length to total length conversion factors, age-length relationships, injury indices, etc.) for the target species;

• identify possible changes in fish populations over time by comparing the current data to corresponding data from previous years; and,

• assess statistical assumptions inherent in mark/recapture methods (e.g., fish movement).

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page

Rl .iI. KN\ IRONMKM \l. SKK\ IC KS I II).

2.0 METHODS

2.1 STUDYAREA AND SAMPLE PERIOD

The study area was loeated on the Bow River in the City ofC'algary (between Kms 49.5 and 53.5 do\^nstreanl ol the Bearspaw Dam) and eorresponded to the same 4-km river section as.sessed in 1 999 ( Figure 2. 1 ). There are no major named tributaries to the Bow River within this river section. This section was further divided into four 1-km sub- sections to assess fish movements within the study area. The upstream and downstream boundaries of each section were geo-referenced (UTM - NAD27) using a Garmin 45 GPS unit. The mean width (m) and area (ha) of the study sections were measured from air photos ( 1 :20 000 scale) taken on 1 7 July 1 998. As reported in RL&L (2000). the total sampled area was approximately 36 ha within the 4-km study section. The study site was accessed using the boat launch at Fish Creek Provincial Park, located upstream of the Highway 22X bridge. The field sampling was conducted between 2 1 and 24 August 2000.

2.2 RIVER CONDITIONS

Water temperature (digital thermometer, ±0. 1 °C) and conductivity (Oakton TDSTestr3, ±2%FS) were measured in the Bow River within the study area each day during the study period. Discharge information for the Bow River at Calgary (Water Survey of Canada Station 05BH004) was obtained from the Forecasting Section of the Alberta Environment Water Sciences Branch.

2.3 FISH CAPTURE AND ASSESSMENT

Similar to the methods employed in 1999 (RLE 2000), fish sampling was conducted by members of RL&L and Alberta Environment, using two three-person crews and two jet-drive electrofishing boats. The boats used were a Smith-Root SRI 8 and a Roughneck Tunnelhull; each boat was equipped with a GPP 5.0 clectrofishcr unit and two fixed-boom anode arrays. The clectrofishcr units were set at a frequency of 30 Hz and a pulse width of 3.5 ms. yielding a total power output ranging from 3.5 to 5.0 A. These settings were determined to be the most efficient for

capturing large fish without inducing injuries. Pulse widths of 60 Hz were not used as they may have resulted in a

higher incidence of injury (Snyder 1995).

Sampling within each section was conducted along both banks of the river. To ensure optimum coverage, the boat operators manoeuvred the boats in a downstream direction. In areas where islands were encountered (Sections 2 and 3), sampling was conducted in the channel where sufficient depth and better fish habitat existed. Each section of the study area was sampled twice daily.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 2

Kl AL HNN IRONMKM \1. SKK\ 1C KS I I 1).

The captured fish were retained in an on-board aerated holding tank prior to processing. Once sampling of' a sub- section was completed, the fish were transferred into aerated tanks for processing by two crexss on tuo additional boats.

All life history data (Appendix A, Table A 1 ) were collected by Alberta hin ironmcni personnel, fork length and total length of the captured fish were measured in millimetres (±1 mm); weights were measured in grams (*5 g). using a Pelouzc Model PEIOCN digital read-out scale. Life history information was collected from all fish, including recaptures. Most trout and mountain whitefish greater than 200 mm in fork length were lagged at the ba.se of the dorsal fin with orange ‘T-bar’ anchor tags (FloyCR; Model FD-94). Smaller trout and mountain whitefish were marked by clipping the pectoral or pelvic fins. Different fins were clipped on each .sampling day to identify the date of original capture (Table 2. 1 ). In addition to the “date” clip, each small fish was marked on the caudal or adipose fm with a hole punch; the position of the punched hole indicated capture location (Table 2.1 ).

Table 2.1 Fin marking procedures for identifying capture date and location during the Bow

River fish population assessment, August 2000.

Code

Capture Date

Fin Clip

Code

Capture Location

Fin Punch

A

21 August

Left pectoral fm

1

Section 1

Upper lobe of caudal

B

22 August

Right pectoral fin

2

Section 2

Middle of caudal

C

23 August

Left pelvic fin

3

Section 3

Lower lobe of caudal

D

24 August

Right pelvic fin

4

Section 4

Adipose clip

Scale samples were collected from representative individuals of each species. Otoliths (and associated scales) were also collected by Alberta Environment personnel on a subsequent inventory program, and were used to validate scale ageing. Otoliths were not taken during the population study to prevent biases in the marked cohort. Each fish was examined for evidence of external damage and injuries (c.g., hook damage from angling activities) prior to release. The severity of each injury was categorized as low, medium or high. All fish were released near shore at the mid- point of the corresponding capture sub-section in order to reduce possible biases associated with fish movements between sections.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Size-Classes

The size-classes were based on the criteria developed by Courtney (1993) and those reported in RL&L (2000). The “large” size-classes corresponded to the size limits established by the current Alberta Fishing Regulations (i.c., maximum 40 cm total length for trout species and minimum 30 cm total length for mountain whitefish). The “medium” size-classes were consistent with those reported in Courtney ( 1 993) and RL&L (2000). Ba.scd on the total length versus fork length regression equations (Couilney 1993), the “large” size-classes included brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish that were greater than 388, 380, and 280 mm in fork length, respectively. The difference in fork length between brown trout and rainbow trout is attributed to the deeper fork of the caudal fm in rainbow trout.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 4

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

2.4.2 Catch Data

All CPUE calculations were based on brown trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish greater than 1 50 mm in fork length. Separate CPUE values for each species were calculated for each study section and for each size-class of fish. The CPUE indices were presented in this report as fish/km and fish/ 1000 s to allow comparisons with previous years data. Recaptured marked fish were included in the database used to generate CPUE values.

2.4.3 Life History

Fork length data were presented as length frequency histograms based on 10 mm size intervals. The relationship between fork length and total length was calculated using least squares regressions to allow conversions between the two measurement criteria. Relationships between length and weight were presented as length-weight regressions (log fork length vs log weight) and as Fulton’s condition factor calculated according to Ricker (1975). The length and weight calculations included all fish captured for the first time; marked recaptures were excluded from the calculations as they would have biassed the size characteristics of the populations.

Approximately 1 00 fish of each target species were aged. Fish were aged according to protocols outlined in Mackay et al. ( 1 990). All ageing structures were read by a minimum of two qualified personnel. Magnified scale images were produced to facilitate the ageing process.

2.4.4 Population Estimates

The population estimates were calculated using the MARK software (White and Burnham 1999). This software is available at www.cnr.colostate.edu/%7egwhite/mark/mark.htm and contains the CAPTURE program used to calculate population estimates in 1990-1992. The fish data were summarized into mark-recapture events and fish encounter history files were generated according to procedures described in White and Burnham ( 1 999). The encounter history files were subsequently grouped by species and size-classes. The population size analyses were based on eight sampling events. The output of the MARK software included an estimate of population size, standard error, coefficient of variation, upper and lower 95% confidence intervals, and capture probabilities for each tested group.

During the 1 982-1 988 period, population estimates of the Bow River fish were generated using the Darroch estimator (White et al. 1982). During the more recent studies (1990-1992 and 1999), population estimates were derived using the Null method (Otis et al. 1978) in addition to the Darroch estimator. Similarly, the present study utilized both the Darroch and Null methods to enable comparisons with previous data and to allow for a more complete assessment of population size changes over the past two decades.

Population estimates were generated separately for three size-classes of brown trout (150-250, 251-388, and >388 mm in fork length) and rainbow trout (150-250, 251-380, and >380 mm in fork length) to be consistent with the size-classes used in the 1990-1992 and 1999 population studies. Mountain whitefish population size in the study area was estimated for the first time in 1999; these estimates were generated for two size-classes (200-280 and

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 5

Ki.&i KN\ IRONMKM \1 SKR\ ICKS I II).

>280 mm in fork length). During the present study, mountain whitefish population estimates were caleulated for three size-classes ( 150-199, 200-280, and >280 mm in fork length) to allow for more accurate determination of the si/e of the youngest cohorts.

In addition to generating estimates for separate size-classes, the recapture data were pooled for each species to estimate the population size of all size-classes combined. All population estimates are expressed as the number of fish/km and fish/ha to allow comparisons to previous studies.

Recaptured fish were assessed to determine the distances travelled between the original capture and recapture locations during subsequent sampling runs (infrequent recaptures of fish that were marked during the same sampling run were ignored). These calculations were used to assess movements of fish out of the .study area. This determined the potential bias in the population estimates caused by a violation of the closure assumption inherent in mark- recapture methodologies. The movement data were summarized for all size-classes of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish; they were not calculated for individual size-classes bccau.se of limited sample sizes of recaptured fish. Movements offish recaptured twice were considered as two separate events.

The encounter histories of fish that were fm clipped (i.c., not marked with a unique tag number) were generated by matching the clip code information and fish size data upon recapture to the original capture information.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 6

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD,

3.0 RIVER CONDITIONS

Mean daily discharge of the Bow River in Calgary during the fish capture events in 2000 decreased from 89.2 m^/s on 21 August to 77.2 mVs on 24 August (Alberta Environment, Water Sciences Branch). The flows in 2000 were lower compared to the long-term average flows during 21-24 August over a twenty-year period between 1975 and 1994 (Environment Canada 1996), and considerably lower than the conditions in 1999. Water temperatures in the Bow River during the study period (21 to 24 August 2000) ranged between 14.4 and 18.7°C, whereas water conductivity varied between 271 and 305 pS (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Water temperature, conductivity, and mean daily discharge of the Bow River during the fish population assessment, August 2000.

Date

Water Temperature

ec)

Conductivity ( S)

Mean Daily Discharge (m^/s)

2000*

1975 - 1994

21 August

14.8-17.9

275 - 296

89.3

107

22 August

14.4- 18.6

273 - 293

84.8

105

23 August

15.7-18.7

271 -291

79.7

106

24 August

16.5 - 18.0

291 -305

77.2

103

^ preliminary data from Alberta Environment - Water Science Branch.

*’ long-term (20-yr) average calculated from mean daily discharges (Environment Canada 1 996).

During the 1975-1 994 period, mean monthly flows of the Bow River in Calgary were highest in June ( 1 74 mVs) and considerable lower in August (113 mVs). Comparison of mean monthly flows in August during the years when previous population estimates in the Bow River were carried out indicated that higher than “normal” flows occurred in 1990, 1991 and 1999 (August means of 135, 158 mVs and 177 mVs, respectively), whereas lower than “normal” flows occurred in 1982-1985, 1988, 1992, and 2000 (August means ranged from 88 to 106 mVs).

Daily flows during the present study were approximately 2 1 % lower than the ‘normal ’ flows during the corresponding dates between 1975 and 1994 (Table 3.1). This may have increased the sampling efficiency of the electrofishing operations by concentrating the fish in deeper holding areas. As a result of the reduced flows in 2000, water temperature and aquatic macrophyte abundance were higher than in 1999.

The mean width (m) and area (ha) of the study sections were measured from air photos (1:20 000 scale) taken on 17 July 1998. As reported in RL&L (2000), the total sampled area was approximately 36 ha within the 4-km study section.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 7

Kl &i KNN IKONNUM Al. SKK\ 1C KS III).

4.0 SPECIES COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE

4.1 SPECIES COMPOSITION

In total, 1381 sportfish were captured during the August 2()()() population study of the Bow River (Table 4.1). Mountain whitcfish (/?=654) w'as the predominant species in the catch, contributing almost half (47.4"o) to the total catch. Rainbow' trout (/?=44 1 ) and brown trout (/?=278) contributed 3 1 .9% and 20. 1 %, respectively, to the total catch. Other sportfish species in the catch included burbot (/?=4) and bull trout (/;=4). Non-sportfish species (longnose sucker and white sucker) were frequently observed in the study area but were not enumerated during the study.

Table 4.1 Sportfish species captured in the Bow River, .August 2000.

Species

Number Captured *

Percent

Composition

Mountain vvhilefish

Prosopium williamsoni (Girard)

654

47.4

Brown trout

Salma trutta Linnaeus

278

20.1

Rainbow trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum)

441

31.9

Bull trout

Sahelinus confliientus (Suckley)

4

0.3

Burbot

Lota lota (Linnaeus)

4

0.3

rOlAL

1381

100.0

“ Includes recaptured fish.

4.2 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE

Relative abundance data for each size-class of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitcfish in the study area arc summarized as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) indices for each sampling day and study section (Appendix B, Figures B 1 to B3). The overall CPUE values for all size-classes combined arc presented in Figure 4. 1 . The sampling effort remained relatively constant during each sampling run (ranged from 446 1 to 5848 seconds per 4-km run along both banks); therefore, CPUE indices are presented as number of fish captured per 1 -km section sampled ( both banks included). CPUE indices expressed as number of fish per 1000 seconds of electrofishing time are included in Appendix B, Tables B1 to B4.

In general, catch rates for each species did not vary greatly between study sections and between days. Catch rates for brown trout ranged between 3.5 and 14.5 fish/km (mean of 8.7 fish/km), regardless of sampling day or study section (Appendix B, Table B2). Catch rates for brown trout were highest in Section 1 during the first three days, but highest in Section 4 on the fourth day. Lower catch rates were frequently obscr\ cd in Section 2. The catch rates in Section 1 decreased steadily over the four day period.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 8

CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km)

Brown trout

n=54

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Rainbow trout

>149 mm FL

Mountain whitefish

n=111

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Sec.tion 4

Day 1

Day 2

n=105

40

30 -

20 -

10 -

0 -

n=201

Day 3

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=102

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=440

Day 4

All

Days

Combined

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Figure 4.1 Relative abundance, expressed as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish captured in the Bow River, August 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

R1 &l KN\ IKONMKM \l. SKK\ K KS 1 11).

Catch rates of rainbow trout were higher and less variable in 2()()() (7.0 to 19.0 fish km; mean of 13.S fish km; Appendix B, Table B3) than in 1999 ( 1.5 to 12.5 tish km; mean of 5.9 fish/km; kL&L 2000). The catch rates uere similar between days. Catches in Section 4 were always highest and in Section 2 were frequently the lowest.

Mountain whitefish catch rates varied from 10.5 to 3S.0 fish;km (mean of 20.4 fish,/km). Mountain whiiefish catch rates were generally highest in Section 3 and lowest in Section 2 (Appendix B, Table ii4). Section 3 contains a rapid deep-run habitat complex, which may have provided more suitable mountain whitefish habitat than the other sections under the low flow conditions.

The overall mean catch rates in 2000 (all study sections and sampling days combined) are compared to the previous data from 1990 to 1999 in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2. To be consistent with the units presented in Courtney ( 1993). the mean CPUE indices are presented as the number offish captured per 1000 seconds of electrofishing effort. Standard deviations of the means are presented to describe daily variability in the catch rates.

Table 4.2 Mean catch per unit effort (CPUE expressed as fish/lOOOs) and standard deviation (SI)) for

sportfish captured in the Bow River in August 2000 compared to similar data from 1990-1992 (Courtney 1993) and 1999 (RL&L 20()0).

Study

Year

Parameter

Brown T rout Size-Class (mm FL)

Rainbow Trout Size-Class (mm FL)

.Mountain Whitefish Size-Class (mm FL)

150-250

251-388

>388

150-250

251-380

>380

150-199

200-280

>280

2000

Mean

3.03

1.20

2.75

4.60

1.19

5.23

1.52

7.01

7.72

SD

1. 18

0.29

0.80

0.95

0.34

0.47

0. 78

2.01

2.05

1999

Mean

3.36

1.11

5.41

0.34

0.40

4.79

-

10.26

4.80

SD

0.14

0.45

1.03

0.23

0.20

0.62

-

1.84

2.60

1992

Mean

8.11

5.00

1.46

4.72

3.08

5.09

-

-

-

SD

4.15

2.03

0.87

2.14

0.17

0.57

-

■

-

1991

Mean

9.33

1.92

0.48

0.43

2.10

2.82

-

-

■

1990

Mean

4.60

0.30

1.20

5.00

0.90

3.90

-

-

■

Catch rates of brown trout in the two smaller size-classes were comparable to those reported in 1999; however, the catch rates of the adult size-class (>388 mm size-class) were two times lower in 2000 than in 1 999. CPUE values for the juvenile size-class ( 1 50-250 mm) remained considerably lower in 1 999 and 2000 than those reported by Courtney (1993) in the early 1990's. Catch rates of the intermediate size class fell within the range of values presented by Courtney (1993) and RL&L (2000). The variability in rates may be related to changes in spawning success of individual cohorts or other environmental factors, such as flow regime.

Catch rates of juvenile rainbow trout ( 1 50-250 mm) were approximately thirteen times higher in 2000 than in 1999. A similar dramatic increase was observed in the catch rates between 1 99 1 and 1 992. The catch rate of rainbow trout in the intermediate size class (251-380 mm) also increased in 2000 compared to 1999. These differences may be

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - .August 2000

Page 10

CPUE (fish/1 000s) CPUE (fish/1 000s) CPUE (fish/1 000s)

Brown trout

150-250 mm FL

Year

251-388 mm FL

Year

>388 mm FL

Rainbow trout

150-250 mm FL

Year

251-380 mm FL

Year

>380 mm FL

Mountain whitefish

150-199 mm FL

V.

1990 1991 1992 1999 2000

Year

200-280 mm FL

>280 mm FL

Year

Figure 4.2 Comparison of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) indices recorded in the Bow River during 1990-1992 (Courtney 1993), 1999 (RL&L 2000), and during the present study. The histogram bars indicate mean CPUE values; the "T's" above the bars represent standard deviations of the means (note changes in y-axis scales).

RI AL LNN IKON.MKM Ai SKR\ K KS I I I).

attributed to changes in discharge levels in the Bow River during the sampling periods, as higher than normal tlows experienced in 1999 may have resulted in lower capture efficiency for the smaller size-classes. The increase in catch rates of juvenile rainbow trout in 200() may also be attributed to increa.sed recruitment in 1999. Adult rainbow trout (>380 mm) were captured at approximately the same rate in 20()0 as during the previous .studies.

Mountain whitcfish capture rates were lower in the intermediate size-cla.ss (200-280 mm) in 2000 compared to 1999; however, the opposite trend was noted for the large size-class (>280 mm). This suggested that the numerous 200-280 mm size class from 1999 contributed to the higher adult catches in 2000.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 12

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

5.0 LIFE HISTORY DATA

5.1 SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Brown trout captured in the study area («=265 excluding recaptured fish) ranged from 1 78 to 624 mm in fork length (Appendix B, Table B5). Similar to the catch in 1999, the length-frequency distribution exhibited two distinct size- classes (Figure 5.1). More than one-third (38.9%) of the catch was comprised of fish larger than 388 mm in fork length (i.e., fish protected by the current angling regulations). Juvenile fish between 178 and 279 mm in fork length were also well represented and contributed 54.8% to the total catch (Appendix B, Table B6). In contrast, fish between 280 and 388 mm were captured infrequently (6.4% of total catch). The length-frequency distribution in 2000 indicated more juvenile fish and fewer adults than in 1999; low numbers of fish in the intermediate size-class were observed during both years.

Rainbow trout («=41 1) ranged from 158 to 590 mm in fork length (Appendix B, Table B5). The length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout indicated a bimodal distribution (Figure 5.1). Fish greater than 380 mm in fork length contributed much less to the total catch in 2000 (46.2%) than in 1999 (84.3%). These fish represented the size-class protected by the current regulations. The portion of the population in the 1 50 to 250 mm size-class was much higher in 2000 than in 1999 (42.8% and 6.5%, respectively). The rainbow trout size distribution in 2000 exhibited a high contribution of small fish (likely due to a strong 1999 cohort) and a minor contribution of fish in the 25 1 to 380 mm size class. A similar length-frequency distribution was recorded in 1990 (Courtney 1993).

Mountain whitefish («=613) ranged between 155 and 465 mm in fork length (Appendix B, Table B5). The length- frequency distribution exhibited three distinct modes, which likely corresponded to age-classes (Figure 5.1). The most abundant size-class (155-239 mm) was dominated by yearling fish and contributed 43.3% to the total catch. Mountain whitefish larger than 280 mm in total length (i.e., fish legal for harvest under current regulations) contributed 47.3% to the total catch.

5.2 FORK LENGTH - TOTAL LENGTH RELATIONSHIPS

Relationships between fork length (FL) and total length (TL) were plotted for each of the target species to allow conversions between these two measurements methods (Figure 5.2). The regression equations were as follows:

Brown trout

TL =

1.006 FL + 7.672

r^= 0.999

«=263

Rainbow trout

TL =

1.034 FL + 3.431

r^ = 0.999

«=407

Mountain whitefish

TL =

1.061 FL + 3.112

r^ = 0.998

«=613

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 13

Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

15 -1

Brown trout

Fork Length (mm)

Figure 5.1 Length-frequency distribution of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish captured by boat electrofishing in the Bow River, August 2000.

Weight (g) Weight (g) Weight (g)

500

300

200 300 400 500

Fork Length (mm)

Figure 5.2

Fork length-weight regressions and fork length-total length relationships for brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish in the Bow River, August 2000.

R1 &l. KNN IKONMKM Al. SKK\ K KS i I i).

5.3 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS

The relationships between fork length (FL) and weight ( W) for brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whilefish are illustrated in Figure 5.2. The ealeulated regression lines for eaeh speeies were as follous:

Brown trout log W = 2.952 log FL - 4.779 r = 0.993 //=205

Rainbow trout log W = 2.7S2 log FL - 4.355 r = 0.9S4 405

Mountain whitefish log W = 3.5 1 2 log FL - 6.056 r = 0.9S7 /i=-605

Similar length-weight relationships for the trout speeies were reeorded during the previous studies of the lk)u Ki\er (Courtney 1993; RL&L 2000).

The mean condition factors for the three target species are presented in (Appendix 13. Table 135). The mean condition factors for brown trout and mountain whitefish in the Bow River in 2()()0 were similar as in 1999. In contrast, adult rainbow trout (>380 mm fork length) were heavier at a given length in 2()()0 than in 1999 ( mean condition factors of 1.17 and 1.12, respectively); this difference was statistically significant (t-test p>0.05). As in 1999, condition factors were lower in the larger size-classes than the smaller size-classes for both brown trout and rainbow trout, whereas an opposite trend was recorded for mountain whitefish.

5.4 AGE AND GROWTH

A subsamplc of analysed ageing structures collected from sportfish in the Bow River during August 2000 consisted of otoliths and/or scales from brown trout (/?=97), rainbow trout (/?=96), and mountain whitefish (;7=1 02). Age data for individual fish arc included in Appendix B, Table B7. Age-length relationships for each species are summarized in Appendix B, Table B8 and plotted in Figure 5.3

Brown trout in the aged sample ranged from 1 to 8 years in age. Age 1 fish exhibited fast gro\Mh rates, attaining a mean length of 209 mm near the end of their second year of growth (i.e., late summer 2000). The small mode of the length-frequency distribution of the catch (Figure 5. 1) was likely comprised of both Age 1 and Age 2 fish. Based on the aged sample, brown trout protected by the current angling regulations (i.e., fish larger than 388 mm in fork length) include fish of age 3 and older.

Rainbow trout in the aged sample ranged from 1 to 6 years in age (Figure 5.3). Wide variations in the size of Age 2 fish suggested the presence of distinct sub-populations (c.g., some of these fish may spend part of their life cycle in the lower reaches of the Highwood and Sheep rivers). Similar to brown trout, rainbow trout protected by the current angling regulations (i.e., fish larger than 380 mm in fork length) were mostly represented by fish of Age 3 and older.

Mountain whitefish ages ranged from 1 to 13 years in age (Figure 5.3). Growth rates were rapid until Age 2 and slower to Age 5. After Age 5, little growth occurred. Mountain whitefish protected by the current angling regulations (i.e., fish smaller than 280 mm in fork length) were mostly represented by fish of Age 2 and younger.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 16

Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

700

600 -

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 -

0 - 0

J I I \ I I L L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Age (years)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Age (years)

Figure 5.3

Age-length relationships for brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish captured in the Bow River, August 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

R1 KN\ IKONMKM AI. StK\ IC tS 1. 1 1).

5.5 FISH INJURY INDICES

Data on the incidence of injuries in fish sampled in the liow River were collected in 2()00 to assess the etTects of angling on fish health, and to compare with previous studies (C ourtney Rl.iiiL 2000). Injurv rates for all species in the small size-class were low (<10%; Appendi.x li. Table liO); however, they were higher than those reponed m 1999 (<5%, both species). In the medium size-class, one-third of the rainbow trout were injured, but rates were low in brown trout and mountain whitefish (<7%). The majority of recorded injuries were associated with the larger size-classes of brown trout (21%), rainbow trout (45%), and mountain whitefish ( 10“o) that were most \ulncrable to angling pressure.

Hooking related injuries (_jaw, gill, head, or eye; Table 5. 1 , Appendix B, Table B9) in 2000 accounted for more than 91% of all injuries recorded in large brown trout, rainbow trout, and 47% of large mountain w hitefish injuries. The incidence of hook related injuries in the large rainbow- trout was approximately double of those recorded in pre\ ions studies (1990-92, 1999 data). The second most common injury type in mountain whitefish and rainbow trout during the present study was attributed the electrical current applied during sampling. The severity indices recorded of injuries arc summarized in Table 5.1 and in Appendix B, Table B9. Injuries due to hooking were frequently categorized as more severe than injuries caused by disease, predation and electrofishing.

Table 5.1 Number of injured fish and causes recorded during fish population assessment in the Bow River,

August 2000.

Brown Trout

Rainbow Trout

Mountain Whitefish

150-250

251-388

>388

Total

150-250

251-380

>380

Total

150-199

200-280

>280

I otal

Fish Examined

1 16

46

103

265

176

45

190

41 1

55

268

290

613

Fish Injured

9

3

22

34

16

15

86

1 17

0

4

28

32

hijury Rate (%)

7.8

6.5

21.4

12.8

9.1

33.3

45.3

28.5

0.0

1.5

9.7

5.2

Total !S/o. Injuries

ir

3

23

37

18

17

99

134

0

4

28

32

Cause/Severity

Disease

L

1.0

0.8

M

1.0

0.8

Total

2.0

1.5

Electro-

L

16.6

5.1

6.0

75.0

17.9

25.0

fishing

M

7.1

6.3

H

7.1

6 3

Total

16.6

5.1

6.0

’.5.0

32. 1

3 “.5

Hooking

L

63.6

66.7

52.2

56.8

38.9

35.3

37.4

37.3

25.0

17.9

18.8

M

18.2

33.3

26.1

24.3

22.2

17.7

16.2

17.2

21.4

18.8

H

18.2

13.0

13.5

47.1

38.4

37.3

10.7

9,4

Total

lOO.O^

lOO.O

91.3

94.6

83.3

lOlU)

91.9

91.8

25.0

50.0

46.9

Predation

L

4.3

2.7

1.0

0.7

14.3

12.5

H

4.3

2.7

3.6

3.1

Total

8.7

5.4

l.fl

o.~

r.9

15.6

•’ Fish with multiple injuries are reported .separately for each injury cause. *’ L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High.

Percentage of total number of injuries.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 18

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE, LTD.

The overall incidence of injuries in 2000 was highest in rainbow trout (28.5%) and considerably lower in brown trout and mountain whitefish (12.8 and 5.2%, respectively). These injury rates were higher than those recorded in 1999 (23.0%, 6.2%, and 3.0% for rainbow trout, brown trout, and mountain whitefish, respectively; RL&L 2000). The increase in injury rates may be attributed to more intensive recording procedures during the present sampling program and/or increased angling pressure in the lower section of the Bow River.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 19

Kl il KN\ IKONMKM AI. SKR\ 1C KS I II).

6.0 POPULATION ESTIMATES

Brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitcfish population estimates tor the lower liow Ki\er were ealeulaied using both the Darroeh estimator and the Null method (see Section 2.4.3). This allowed comparisons to the studies in 1982-1992 (Darroeh estimator) and 1990-1992 (Null method). Both estimates were based on the same mark and recapture data (summarized in Table 6.1); they were calculated .separately tor each size-class and species. The detailed encounter hi.stories generated from the.se data and used as input tiles tor the MARK sot'tuare are presented in Appendix C, Table C 1 .

Table 6.1 Number of fish marked and recaptured during fish population assessment in the Bow River, .August 2000.

Species

Size-Class

Number of Fish

Number of

Recapture

(mm FL)

Marked

Recaptures

Rate (%)

Brown trout

150-250

1 16

4

3 4

251 -.188

46

2

4.3

>388

102

6

5.9

Total

264

12

4.5

Rainbow trout

150-250

173

7

4.0

251-380

44

-)

4.5

>380

189

20

10.6

Total

406

29

7.1

Mountain whitefish

150-199

55

3.6

200-280

268

14

5.2

>280

276

21

7.6

Total

599

37

5.4

In total, 264 brown trout, 406 rainbow trout, and 599 mountain whitcfish were marked during the study. Recapture rates were similar between species and size-classes and ranged from 3.4% (brown trout 150-250 mm sizc-cla.ss) to 10.6% (rainbow trout >380 mm). Using all size-classes combined, the recapture rate was highest for rainbow trout (7.1%ofmarked fish), intermediate for mountain whitefish (5.4%), and lowest for brown trout (4.5%). The recapture rates for rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in 2000 were similar to those reported in 1999; however, the brown trout recapture rate in 2000 was approximately three times lower than in 1999 (12.1%; RL&L 2000). The rea.sons for this decrease in the brown trout recapture rate are unknown, but may be related to low flows and or fish movements to other sections. The population estimates derived from the mark-recapture statistics are presented separately for each species in the following subsections.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 20

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

6.1 BROWN TROUT

The population estimates for all size-classes of brown trout within the 4-km study section in the Bow River derived using both the Darroch and Null methods were very similar (2638 and 2696 fish, respectively; Table 6.2). The low recapture rate of 4.5% (Table 6. 1 ) resulted in higher coefficients of variation (i.e., standard error as a percentage of the estimate) and wider 95% confidence intervals around the estimate than in previous studies. As in 1 999, the brown trout population within the study section was primarily composed of juveniles between 150 and 250 mm and adults larger than 388 mm in fork length, with the intermediate size-class (25 1 -388 mm) poorly represented. This bimodal distribution of the brown trout size-classes was also suggested by the length-frequency histogram (Figure 5.1).

Table 6.2 Brown trout population estimates for the Bow River, August 2000.

.Method

Size-Class

Population

Standard

95% Conf- Int.

Capture

Coefficient

Kish/km

Fish/ha

(mm H.)

Estimate

Error

Lower

Lpper

Probability

of Variation

Darroch

150-250

1471

706

636

3655

-

48.0

368

40.3

251-388

474

315

165

1598

-

66.5

119

13.0

>388

807

310

412

1708

-

38.4

202

22.1

All

S>'2638®K

, 724

1588

4522

-V -

27.4

660

72.3 .

Null

150-250

1528

738

656

3816

0.0098

48.3

382

41.9

251-388

480

323

165

1641

0.0125

67.3

120

13.1

>388

814

315

414

1731

0.0166

38.7

204

22.3

All

2696

747

1615

4646

0.0128

27.7

674

- 73.9

The 2000 brown trout population estimates are compared to the 1982-1992 and 1999 estimates (calculated by the Darroch method) in Figure 6.1 and to the 1990-1992 and 1999 estimates (calculated by the Null method) in Figure 6.2; the data used to generate these figures are summarized in Appendix C, Tables C2 and C3. Adult brown trout (>388 mm in fork length) appeared to have increased in abundance through the early 1980s and then decreased in the early 1990s. The current population estimate (202 fish/km) suggests that this size-class is nearly twice as abundant as the maximum estimate from previous years (117 fish/km in 1 999; RL&L 2000). This increase was likely an artifact caused by lower recapture rates in 2000 relative to 1999 (5.9% and 14.8%, respectively). Contrary to the results of the population estimates, the CPUE values (Section 4.2) indicated a decrease in adult brown trout catch rates between 1999 and 2000. These differences may be related to a decrease in available holding habitat between 1999 and 2000 (i.e., due to reduced flows, large brown trout were moving out of the study area in search of suitable habitat).

The population estimates for the small and intermediate size-classes of brown trout (150-250 mm and 251-388 mm) indicated an increase in abundance in 2000 relative to 1 999 by approximately three and four times, respectively. Although the magnitude of these increases in population size may be exaggerated due to lower recapture rates in 2000 compared to 1999, corresponding increases in CPUE values also suggest that juvenile brown trout did increase in abundance.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 21

o

o

o

CS4

O)

05

to

05

05

in

05

05

CO

05

05

00

05

(T3

0)

>-

LU>i/MS!d

uj>i/MS!d

Figure 6.1 Comparison of brown trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated using the Darroch method. 1982 to 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

Fish/km Fish/km Fish/km

Brown Trout

Year

Figure 6.2 Comparison of brown trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated using the Null method, 1990 to 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

Rl &l KNN IKONMKM \l SKR\ 1C KS I I 1).

6.2 RAINBOW TROUT

The 2000 population estimates for all size-elasses of rainbow trout within the 4-km study section in the Bonn Kiser derived using both the Darroeh and Null methods were very similar (2724 and 2735 fish, respectisely; Table 6.3). Both estimates were considerably higher than those reported in 1099 (S95 and 903, respectisely; Kl.«i.:l. 2000). This increase was attributed mostly to the increased abundance of the small and intermediate size cla.s.ses ( 1 50-3K0 mm), which were poorly represented in the catch in 1 999. The current estimates indicate that the ramboss trout smaller than 380 mm in fork length contributed over 72% to the population svithin the study area; the corresponding proportion in 1999 was approximately 7%.

Table 6,3 Rainbosv trout population estimates for the Bow River, .August 2()00.

Metliod

Size-Class (mm FL)

Population

Estimate

Standard

Error

95% Conf. Int.

Capture

Probabilits

(oefflcient

of

X'ariation

Fish km

Hsh ha

Lower

Upper

Darroeh

150-250

1903

673

1002

3782

-

35.4

476

52 1

251-380

426

281

150

1429

-

66.0

107

1 1 7

>380

893

182

618

1347

-

20.4

223

24 5

All

2724

475

1965

3855

-

17.4

681

74.6

Null

150-250

1967

716

1018

3985

0.01 14

36.4

492

53 9

251-380

440

296

152

1 503

0.0131

67.3

1 10

12 1

>380

897

183

620

1355

0.0291

20.4

224

24 6

All

2735

478

1972

3872

0.0199

17.5

684

74.9

The 2000 rainbow trout population estimates arc compared to the 1982-1992 and 1999 estimates (calculated by the Darroeh method) in Figure 6.3 and to the 1990-1992 and 1999 estimates (calculated by the Null method) in Figure 6.4; the data used to generate these figures arc summarized in Appendix C, Tables C2 and C3. The population estimates of rainbow trout in the small and intermediate size-classes were substantially higher in 2000 than in 1999. In contrast, the population estimate for adults was only slightly higher in 2000 than in 1999. The increa.se in population levels of the small and intermediate size-classes may be due to successful recruitment in 1999 and or increased capture efficiency for small fish due to reduced flows encountered during the present study (see Section 3.0). The increase in the number of rainbow trout for each size-class between 1999 and 2000 is also supponed by the corresponding increase in CPUE values (Section 4.2). The population estimate for all size-classes (684 fish km), was within the range of population estimates recorded between 1990 and 1999 (298 to 1357 fish km).

6.3 MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH

The population estimates for all size-classes of mountain whitcfish within the 4-km study section in the Bow River derived using both the Darroeh and Null methods were very similar (1143 and 1 154 fish, respectively; Table 6.4). The 9 5% confidence interv'als around the estimate were relatively wide due to the low recapture rate of 5.4% (Table 6.1). The current population estimates indicated that fish in the intermediate size-class (200-280 mm) were more abundant than fish larger than 280 mm.

Lower Bow River Fisli Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 24

UJ>|/L|S!d

Figure 6.3 Comparison of rainbow trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated using the Darroch method, 1982 to 2000.

Fish/km Fish/km Fish/km

Rainbow Trout

150-250 mm FL

251-380 mm FL

700 600 500 400 300 200 100

0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

>380 mm FL

Year

Figure 6.4 Comparison of rainbow trout population estimates (± 95% confidence intervals) calculated using the Null method, 1990 to 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

Table 6.4 Mountain whitefish population estimates for the Bow River, August 2000.

Method

Size-Class

Population

Standard

95% Conf. Int.

Capture

Coefficient

Fish/km

Fish/ha

(mm FL)

Estimate

Error

Lower

Upper

Probability

of Variation

Darroch

150-199

660

441

224

2227

-

66.8

165

18.1

200-280

2361

600

1476

3899

-

25.4

590

64.7

>280

1729

352

1187

2595

-

20.4

432

47.4

All

4572

712

3404

6228

-

15.6

1143

125.2

Null

150-199

682

463

228

2337

0.0104

67.9

171

18.7

200-280

2404

614

1499

3978

0.0147

25.5

601

65.9

>280

1755

359

1203

2639

0.0211

20.5

439

48.1

All

4617

720

3436

6293

0.0172

15.6

1154

126.5

The 2000 mountain whitefish population estimates calculated using the Darroch estimator and the Null method are compared to those from 1 999 (Appendix C, T ables C2 and C3). Mountain whitefish population estimates for the large size-class (>280 mm in fork length) were higher in 2000 than in 1999, but were lower for the intermediate size-class (200-280 mm in fork length). The small size-class (150-199 mm in fork length) was not evaluated in 1999. The increase in the large size-class abundance between 1999 and 2000 was likely due to the passage of a strong 1998 cohort. This cohort likely contributed to the high abundance of intermediate size-class identified in 1999 and the large size-class in 2000.

6.4 FISH MOVEMENTS

One of the assumptions of population estimates derived through the mark-recapture methodologies is closure. This is defined as absence of fish movements out of the study area during the study period (White et al. 1 982). The closure assumption was violated during the present study because the upstream and downstream boundaries of the study area were open to fish movement (i.e., they could not be physically blocked due to the large size of the river). To determine the potential effects of this violation on population estimates, movement of individual fish out of the study area was assessed on the basis of distance travelled between each marking and recapture event for all recaptured fish (identified through tag numbers or fm clips that corresponded to capture locations).

The majority of brown trout (9 1 .7%), rainbow trout (72.4%), and mountain whitefish (59.5%) were recaptured within the same section where they were originally marked and released (Figure 6.5). One of 12 recaptured brown trout (8.3%) moved 2 km upstream of its release location. Eight of 29 rainbow trout were recaptured one to three kilometres away from the release locations; the direction of these movements appeared random (five upstream and three downstream). In contrast mountain whitefish movements showed a downstream trend with 35% of recaptures occurring one to three kilometres downstream of the original capture locations. Of note was one mountain whitefish originally tagged in the Carseland Canal on 1 1 October 1999 (Orange Floy Tag No. 1081). This fish was recaptured in the canal during the Trout Unlimited fish rescue operations and released in the Bow River on 20 October 1999, and subsequently recaptured in the present study area on 22 August 2000.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 27

Number of Fish Number of Fish Number of Fish

Upstream

Distance Moved (km)

Downstream

Upstream Downstream

Distance Moved (km)

Upstream Downstream

Distance Moved (km)

Figure 6.5 Distance moved by individual brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish between release and recapture locations in the Bow River, August 2000.

RL&L ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.

The above movement results were obtained from fish that moved but remained within the study area (i.e., fish that moved out of the study area were not included in the calculations); therefore, they should be treated as indices of movement rather than direct estimates of movement. By assuming that the number of fish that leave the study area is proportional to the calculated movement indices of fish that remain within the study area, it was possible to estimate the number of fish that left the area during the study period (Table 6.5). In each study section, the number of fish that left the study area was based on the total number of fish marked in this section and the percent of fish that would have left as determined by the movement indices and the location of the section relative to the study area boundaries. For example, 8.3% of brown trout moved 2 km upstream from their release locations; therefore, this proportion was applied to the total number of fish marked in Sections 1 and 2 to calculate fish “escapes” through the upstream boundary (6 and 4 fish, respectively), but was not applied to fish marked in Section 3 because the upstream migrants could potentially be recaptured in Section 1 (still within the study area).

Table 6.5 Summary of fish movements out of the Bow River study area during fish population assessments,

August 2000.

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Mountain whiteflsh

Section

Total

%

Number

Total

%

Number

Total

Number

Marked

Moved ;

Moved

Marked

Moved

Moved

Marked

Moved

Moved

1

75

8.3

6

92

17.2

16

136

5.4

7

2

53

8.3

4

70

6.9

5

101

8.1

8

3

57

0.0

0

107

6.9

7

232

16.2

38

4

79

0.0

0

137

10.3

14

130

35.1

46

Total

264

11

406

42

599

99

Mean % Moved

4.0

10.4

16.5

Based on the above rationale, it was estimated that 4.0% of brown trout, 10.4% of rainbow trout, and 16.5% of mountain whitefish left the study area during the population assessment period. This out-migration would bias the population estimates upwards relative to the estimates that would have been obtained with total closure. However, because the previous studies reported similar indices of trout movement out of the study area during 1990-1999 (2 to 8% for brown trout, 6 to 13% for rainbow trout, 17% for mountain whitefish), the biases caused by out- migration were relatively constant. As such, they would have little effect on the overall trends in population estimates recorded during the past decade.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status Assessment - August 2000

Page 29

Rl JLi KN\ IKONMKN I Al St K\ K t S I I 1).

7.0 LITERATURE CITED

Courtney, R.F., and I). A. Fernet. IdXd. liow River trout population studies, fall WSK. Unpublished Fish and Wildlife Report. Alberta Energy and Natural Resourees.

Courtney, R.F., and D.A. Fernet. 19d(). A eritieal analysis of the How River trout population studies H>S0-14SS. Memo Report Prepared tor Fish and Wildlife Division.

Courtney, R.F., and D.A. Fernet. 1991. Bow River trout population studies, 1990. Unpublished Report for Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 26 p.

Courtney, R.F. 1993. Bow River trout population studies, 1992. Alberta Forestry. Lands and W ildlife. Fish and Wildlife Division.

Environment Canada. 1996. HYDAT version 4.94 - Hydrology data base to 1995. CD-ROM developed by Climate and Water Produets Division, Downsview, Ontario.

Fernet, D.A., R.F. Courtney, and A.J. Sosiak. 1988. Bow' River trout population studies, fall 1985. Unpublished Fish and Wildlife Report Alberta Energy and Natural Resourees.

Flelwig, J.J., and R.F. Courtney. 1993. Bow River trout population studies, 1991. Unpublished Repon for Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 38 p.

Otis, D.L., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, and D.R. Anderson. 1978 Statistieal inferenee from eapture data on elosed populations. Wildlife Monograph 62. 135 p.

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 191. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. 382 p.

RL<S:L Environmental Services Ltd. 2000. Lower Bow River fish population status assessment - August 1999. Prepared for Alberta Environment. RL&L Report No. 769: 33 p. + 3 app.

Snyder, D.E. 1995. Impacts of electrofishing on fish. Fisheries 20( 1 ): 26-27.

Sosiak, A.J., and W.E. Griffiths. 1983. Bow River trout population studies, fall 1980-1982. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources.

Sosiak, A.J. 1984. Bow River trout population studies, fall 1983. Unpublished Fish and Wildlife Report .Mberta Energy and Natural Resources.

Sosiak, A.J., D.A. Fernet, and R.F. Courtney. 1988. Bow River trout population studies, fall 1984. Unpublished Fish and Wildlife Report. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources.

White, G.C., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham and D.L. Otis. 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Publication LA-8787-NERP. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los .Alamos. New Mexico. 235 pp.

White, G.C. and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: Sur\ival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement, 120-138.

Lower Bow River Fish Population Status .Assessment - .August 2000

Page 30

APPENDIX A

Raw Data for Captured Fish

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment. 21 to 24 August 2000.

£ g E

< =•

o o

3i £

I J!

SI s 31 Si ai

oooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

O O — “ “

o o

o o

o o o o o o

o o o o o o

_ _ . o o o o o o

ooooooooo ooooooooo

o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o ^ o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o

2 2

ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOo^^^^^^^^^^^»-^»-^ —

^«.-^5-^T-T-^^t-^^00000000000000000

o o o m

o o o in S S CN in 00 in 3 S

T- ^ CNJ ^ 5?

O O o o o o

CNJ CN ^ CD (D (D ^ o o ^ CO in

r^oocor^o^cocsim

CDOcnoO>CNCDn<NOOO

coc>j’^Trr)CMCMro<nr>CM

CMCNJCgCNCNfNJCM(MCMf>4(N

CM CM

o o in o

^ CO TT TT

oooininiiioooinoinininooin^inmoo

0000oCDSS<^<*^f^^'^*^^C>0)CD<MSor>o‘

^ - u

CMinCMTrOTtOOCMCMCO

COr^CDCM^inCDO’^CD

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMininCM

o CM CD o in cn CO

CO ^ ^ 00 GO CM O

^ ^ CM ^ ^ in Tj-

oinN.oir>o00T-r^f-0

CMinr>-incoincoooco^o>oo

cMCMCMcocMTrmincMCMCMcn

CO in o 5T

O' O' O' in

CMino-r^ o CO CO CO CO CMCMCMCMCMCMCNCM

CM CM CM CM CM

OOoOCMCMr^OOoO'oOOCJ>CD

cj)incDinT-coo-incj>CMinoCMco

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMO-inCMOO-CM

O' O' in CO

CMOmCMCMOCMoCOOCO

oO'CDO'CMCOols.CMO'OO

CMCMCMCOCMO-minCMCMCM

cMincoo'coo>or^coGOor^inof^O)o^cooinm

OOCMor^OCMCMCMCMCOCOO’OOmOCMOOO

O'O'O'inoCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOOCNCNCMCMCM

o:Q:a:cx:crcrcx:(rQ:Q:Q:(r(r(rQ^(r(rcra:c£.(r(rctQ:crQ:(rQ:Q:Q:c^a:Q:Q:(toccra:o^xxx(roc(r(rQca:xo^QC

CDZZCnZC0C0a)CD(DZZZCD(0C0C02C0CDCD(DZZZZC0(DC0(0C0C0C0C0ZZZZZZZZZZZZ<0<DC0C0(0

CM o

CM o CM o -r-

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOO'O'OO'O’O’O'O'O'O'O'O'

o^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

— — c

>c c c

E Pi = Z' S 2 S S ? ? ^ I 1 E S S - - - - c S !£ 5 £ 5 : i ^ 5 £ 2

Page 1 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

.O)

O O

a> o o

(C CD (C

o u o

CO CO CO

CM LO CD CO

O Q) 0) CD (1) <D

CD (D CD CD CD CD CD

U O O U O O C->

(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/) CO

X X I X X

oooooooo oooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo — — - — — - — — - — — — — “00000000000000000000000000“

o o o

o o o o o o

ooooooooooooooooo

b ^

CMCDCOCO^ h-C3)CDOOLO'«^'^

LOCDIDCDCD tOLOLOinLnLD'^

cj)OCDCJ)CJ)

CMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCM

OOT-h-T-CMCO^COCM

oo<xoor^r^r^cDCDCD

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

^COCJ)T-CDCOinN.OOOLnCMOOLDC35CMOinCDC3>0)Or^LDC30T-OCD

'^'^C0^C0C7)CJ>CMr^00CD00C0r^CDf^L0'^C0C0C0OC7><3^000^U000

oooooc3>c3^or^r^ooooooooN-r^r^cor^t^h-r^cMi^

COCOCOCOCOCMCMCOCMCMCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

ooLo^SgooinuoinoSLnoHJJGinoLoooLOLOLnLooLOLoK^^ ocDco2f^Scr)Troocor-T-§^i^^gcMcoocMr^*«-^coo^^co[2

— — — CMCMCOCr)T-T-CMCMCMCMi2^^

LoKSSinininoootoioLoSoLDiootoiDooPJGc-t

COO^^COSSSjLr)‘^l^f^O>T-CMCOCM5cM^COCNin'^CMT-^2g

C^CMOCD LO'^I^LDCM^CD't-LOCMOCOOO-^CMCDCO^COOCDLnO'^COCOr^^OCDLO^ON-OCJ^OC^OO'^’^CDT-T-CO

t-CMC;)t- CMCOCO’^CDCDLOOCOOOT-COCDN.T-'i-con''«^LnCDCJ>T-^0>COr^'^LOLOCDr^h-CMO^‘^COCOTl-'^COCOJ^COT-

CMCMCMCMCMCMLOCMCMLOLOCMCMCMCM'^^CMCMCMCMCMCMLDLOLOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^inCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^CDCM

!|l

OlOOr^N-OLO'?J-LOCMOOLn'«^00'^C3>0’«-CMOC300’^OO^CMOCDr^Cf)'^CMOCJ)^LOOOOOCOOOCOh^OOOOOO'^CO

OOOCOT-CMCOCOLOLD’^(3>COOOC3^0CM'^CDOT-CMCO’^’^LOOOO^-^COCMCDCO'^mmCDCOCM(7>OCM’r-’«-CMCOinLOCDCMO

TfinLOCMCMCMCMCMCMlD'»“CM'^'^CMCMCMCM^'^CMCMCMCMCMCM'^iniDCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM’^CDCM

QiQ::Q:(rcr:Q::Q:Q:Q:trQ:Q:Q:Q:iXQ:QiQ:Q:Q^Q:Q::Q::Q:crQ::Q:irQ:QiD::(XQ:Q:[rQ:Q::Q:iXQ^Q:Q:Q::(i:Dici:[i:Q::Q:Q::Q:cc:ct:

CDCOCOCOCOCOZXZZZZZCOCOCOCDZZZZZZCDCDCDCDCOCOCOCOCOZZCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDZZZZZZZZZZCD

^t-’t-t-^t-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCO

cocococococococo^^^*^^

^

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMt-

li

«5 25^/i

VO

O' Q

Page 2 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

& c

<1> 0) <D 0) <D

s s s s s

<D<D(D<D<U<1>(D<D

SiSSSSSSSS

cocowcowcocow

3 3 S

(A (/) W

5 I

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 000000000000000000000000000'--000000000000 _ _ _ _ _ _ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT-T-'^T-'^^^-t-'.-'t-'.-»-»-»-»-T-«-»-^

r--^T-r-T-r-y-T--^T-T--^r-T-y--^-^T--^T--^-^<Doooooooc:>oc><Dc:>oooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

§§§

ooror^cor^oimo>^<org<D^h-ON.a>

mTrmif)^ooo)OOOh*-r^r^r^;ocN

cooooooooo^^co^^^oooooooooo^

CNJCNICNJCNJCNCOCOCOCOCOCOCNJCMCNCMCNirO

fO co fo ro fo CO fO

00 h-

in o

S CO O CM CN CO ^ ^

uoininoPoinininin2ininoJ2PiriOininininom2P2moQ

CM CM ^ ^ ^ CM CO CO ^

<o ^ m

a>cDcDr^rr’r-coioh^cDcocDCDO>ooTj-miDr^h^inini^o>ooTrN.incomin oooo'^cDcoooO'«-050>cM^incocooco’^cDa>^CMO>ocM’^omfOinooo) * “ * ■ rrriniOincgCM’^CMCMCMCMO'in-t-CMCMCM'^’^CMCMCOCO

CM CM m CO

CM TT O 0> O COtTCDCDN- in CM CM CM TT

o m o CM o) o

^ ^ ^ CM ^ 0> CM CM CM CM CM CM

ocD^mrocM-^^ CM^a>a)o*“CMco n ^ ID

CM CM CM

oooh-^ooin'«-r^OTrinoocoh-o>h-ooh-cO'»“CMCMcor^ooot-o^TrfMor«-^^coooTrinincMO>CM<05yinoOf^inr^

oo’^incoooa)OoooocMcocococoo^CMcoincocooc7)0'«-coo>incMinr^ooo>^coincD<nr^ooo^<ooooor^oooo^CM

r-^lDCMCMCM

T- CM CM in CO CO

inminCMCMCOCMCMCMCM

CMCMCMCO^CMCMCOCOCOinCMCMCM

CM CM CM CM CM CM

Q^Q^crQ^QrQrcrcrcrQrarcrcrcrcrcrQ^arcrcrcrcrcrcrQrcrcrcrcccrcrtrtrtrcrcrcrQrQrcrtrcrcrcrcrcrQCcccrartrtra:

c/)Zcn(nzcn</)(/)cncnc/)cocozzz(ocnc/)c/)c/)c/)2ZZZZZc/)c/)cocncocozzzzzc/)co(/)c/)c/)c/)(/>(/)</)(/)(/)ZZZ

CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'^Tr’^'^Tj“5TTr'*:r’^’<-'»-^'*-‘»-'»-^’-

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCNCMCOrOrO

s ?

^^CMCMCNCMCMCNCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMrMCNJCMCMCMCMCMCM(NCMrMCM

r- « c

Page 3 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

If:

CVJ CO LD CD CSJ

(DCOCDCOCDCOCOCDTOCOCOCOCDCOCOCOCDC^CD

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCJ

CDCOCDCDCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCDCDCDaDCDCOCOCO

CNi CO 00 m CD

o

CO COCDCOCOCUCOCOCO

o oooooooo

CO cocococococococo

O 0

8 S S

(J) O) iO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO'T-

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

o o o o o o

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o o o

o o o o o

•«- o o o o o

ooooooooooo

ooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooo _ ooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo

^“^““^“OOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooo

00 CO to (XD CO T- -r- o T-

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCVJCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

“

f:-

LnifiSininLnmouoLninoooo^ cocoST-cNjcNint^inLOt^ocoT-T-rip^^T- O5^T-T--I-T--<-->-T-T-CNC\J0Oa>$2E2°^--

inoir3oooiniDSPi2PoLnir)!GI;2oLDO

— — cdoot-cocdcd^!^ !^'^'^ —

5?^oLno=sinoir>ool5SS2Sc3C>C3l2

ooo'^cooocNjoinooT-oocMincoLnt^mcDoocoooLno'^oocN'^h-

oonocMCNcocoincooo>^cor^T-cNooo)OT-cNj'<^'^incO'^CT)cr>cMooT-inin":j-

CM'^inCNJCVJCMCNCNJCNCNCNCMCNJ'^'^'^'^CNCNCgCSJCMCMCNCNrO'^finLnLnCNCN'^

i-ooLnifiT-oLninT-t^cM-^comocNimT-cD

rOLOrOLOCM^coi^oocDinotnoot^-^O)'^'^

i't

OOLnLnoOLOOinCNOOOOC7)OCNOC\JO'^LOCSjTrinCDN.’^OCDOOCOCDLOLDCOOO'^CD'T-T^CDLOT-CSJOCNja>CDa>TtlOCSJO CNCNiCJ>T-T-CSiCO'7rCNCMCOLOLDOT-OOOOOOT-COCO’^’<“COCOOOT-r^O'^'^COOOCNJ'^CS|’^r'«“COLOCDh-C3)'^OCOf^'^COOOOCN '^'^CNCNJCNICNCMCMCNJCNJCO’^mininCNCg^’^tOCNJCgCsJLOCNCNJCNCNCO'^’^LO'^^CNJCO'^’^

CV4*^Tj-CNJCsJCslCMCNCNCMCNCvJCM*^

Qi(rQ::a:a:Q:Q::Q::Q:Q^ci:circrQ:(rQ^QiQ:Qifra:[rQ:(rQ:Q:Q::Q:Q:(i:D^[rQ:Q:Q:Q:a:irQ::Q:Q:Q:Q:ci:[rQ:Q::QiD::Qicca:Q:

COCOCDZZZZZCDCOCDCDCDCOCOCOCDZZZZ2ZCOCDCOCDCOC02COCOCDCOCOZCDCOZCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCDZCOCOCDCDCO

^ ^

CMCNCNJCNJCNICSJCViCNJCvJCMCNCNJCMCNCNCSJCSJ

’«-T-T-T-CNCM(NCNJCMCNCOCOCO'^rl-^^«^rJ-'^

CN CN CSJ CN CSJ CNJ

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

Sic

SL

n 04 r> N.

IS IS

CO CO

IS IS

CO CO

IS IS

CO CO

lllll III!

o o T- •»- o

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

o o o o

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

Q Q Q Q Q Q

z

u

Z Z Z Z Z 2

z z z z z z

CO CO 0> CD CNJ

CD <D CO CO

CNl CM CNi CO O

CO CO CO CO CM

CMOCDN-CD-^N-mCM

COCON-h^h^COOOO)

CMCMCNCMCMCMCMCMCM

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

o o

CD CD CM CNJ

CMCMCMCMCMCMCSICMCMCO

^ ^ Q fO 0>

ir> in CD o>

CM CM CM CM CM

m o o tn m lo

O* 0> CO ^ CD

T- >«- CM CD h-

Lomooooommmmmmm

CM CD ^ CD N. in

O) o 'T- o> c* c- ^

^050 — in<D*S

fl

^CM<j>TrmincDCMin*»-

cDCMin*«-’«-coincO'^N-

■^CMCMinin^CMCMCMCM

o ^ CO o rr T- N. o m Tf

in CM m

coco-«-cocMCNO)inTj-moocM^-»-inrs.o>c-o^-ocM^cooinincooinin’^CM<o ~ cMaf>mocMCMcococorrTTinincpf>^pcococoj^inooooo>ooin

TTCOCMinmCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMTrCMCM

CM CM CM CO CO

O) in CD CM CM CO CD

CMCMinmo-CMCMCMCMCOCO

mT--f-’f-ocM ooT-cMO^o>^'«-incoocMO'^

— ‘ “inoco CMCDCO'»-00>'«-00’^a)CM'«-CMCM

CM^rm CMTT'«-O*CMCO^C0CM^inCM(MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC0CMCM'^ininCMCMrM(O<O^in

aitrororcrcrtrQ^QrctrctcritrirctcrcrcrcrtrcrcrQrQrcrarcraicrtrcrcrcrctcrcrcccrcrarcrcrcrcrQrtrcctrQrcrrrirQ:

cncocococoz(ncncncocococ/)co<ococococozzcoco(OZZ(ncncncococ/)<oco(/)(0(/)aDcoa)cnzco<nco<ncn<na)cn(02co

t-CMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'^tJ-’^

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

CM CO CO CO CO CO CO

’^^^’•-▼“CMCMCMCMCMCMfO

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

I I

— ^

9C sC K

- r- §

Z B Z ^ S:

c c c s

Page 5 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

ft

#l:i

si:

E E

:-’^^'^*»“'*-^00’*-’^T-r-'r-T-'^T-'»-00000000000000000000000000000'^0000

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt-OOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO't-OOOOOOO ’O T— T— t-t—csicn corocococococococococococococoroco

D <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

’^c\j’«-oo^comcD

COCOCOCOCOCOCOlO

CMCSJCsICVJCMCNCVJCM

in "t- N- O) CO

CN Csi T- T- CSJ 0)0^0 0 0) CVJ CM CSJ CNJ CvJ

pnOinininininioinooSSM^Svio rf5r^'^ininf?'<-t^cNoi^ooooT-oo2^S522t^co

f-,2 oLnininoooo.or^r->‘Oinir)ooinmo

roincoT-ooocMt^inincDi^ooco

O'^CMint^T-'jj-T^j-iDincDoorocsiLO

^i-iocNjcvjcviTrcMCsjCNCNCMroininio

CM ro T- CM CO

ID'l-T-CJlCOOOOinOCMC'JinoOCOOiT-OCOCMCMOCM.

•^cDCMcoaio-«-cMcocoLOu:>inoor^c:>0)OCMco';rT-cM'>a-'^

/v\ — — /s.i/^1 /-VI /VI rMrvirvjrsj^-^^CSjCMCMCMCOCOCOCO

^ V.N UJ Hi Hi UU

CMCMCNJCMCNJCMCMCMCM

£ S:

CM CM O CO m CM CM

oomcM'^ocMincj)r^oor^ooincDooco

OOC7>CO'<“'^CD^COCO'^'^inr^CMCM^'^COCO

COCOLOCMCMCM’^CMCMCMCMCMCOLOininCOmtO

■^oomotncj>ooLOLOincO’^0)co’^^o>0’^cor^

•»-cMococj)T-r^o>inr^ooooT--r-cocO’^cDcoh-

LnCMCO'»-'t-COT-CO'«-T-T-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMT"T-

'^'^^’^-OOOCM

OO-^CMOOCMCM

^CMCMCMCMCOCOCO

ccorcrcrQrircrcrtrQrQrQrQrctcttroQoDcD

l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-Kh-h-KKHKI-QrCKrtr

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ33^

qqcqcdcqcdcqcqcqcdcqcdcqcdcdqqcqoqcdcd

mc:)XXXXXIIXIIIXIIXXXXIXXXXXIIXXX

3ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

COCOCO(OCOCOZZ(OCOCOC/)COC/)COCOCOCOCOCOCOZCOCOZZ(OCOZCOCOZZZZZZZZZZZCOCOCOaDCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

cocococococo^^

CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMt-t-t-t-t-

^

s s

— VO O

Page 6 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment. 21 to 24 August 2000.

5i C

S

W (/)

»- »- cN csi m oj

^ ^ ^

!S !S IS

(/)(/)(/)

IS 2 3 S S S 3

(/)</)(/) (/5 </) </5 <75

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o <*-

oooooooooooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooo___ __

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

“ “ o o

ooooooooo

o o o o

O O O “

o o

o o

§8 . _ o O Q O

-*--,-^00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2

fO CO

< < < < <

(S'

J!

oincoco-^-

TT CO CO CM CO CM CM CM CM CM

OOCMOTTOCDin CJiCNh-

lor^mmcDinm —

O O O O O 0> C7>

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

OOCDlOI^OOCO^OCMinTTO^rO , , lC)Tt^^OOf^OOOOOCOCOh->COCOOO

h»-N-N-r*-«*h^h-N.0>OOOO>OOO>OOO CMCMCMCMCMCMCNCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

g!5ir)!£ooooooinoS

/— k \ CD CT)

OoSSSScMI^N-lT)

if)00in^Sm0in00ir5000ir>0p-,p,f,P,

000>00h-^S^jTTtD00<N'^T-oir)CM00l«2SPS

.3 S

c\i05ir>inr^ror^oomcDr^cDr^if)ocMif)CN-<-OT-oi^iO'-r'<-if)T-oo)'«-oif)^<om'<Tf^a)^oom cO'<fo^mom^^cMfOTrT-rocoo>'>-CMfOTrcNOir)«30'<-cNCN<DoocMT-o'»rTrir)0)T-fMmfooba>t^ _ . _ _

^^■'-■^c\ic\iCMCMCNCNjc\icoTri-'»-CNCMC\iCMcn'rTr'^CMromromrO'ir^<NCMfvj(\icMrorocO{»)mfn»-»-«-{Mrgrv(M<\i

i? g E -1 —

oo'*-coir)ino^'^omoinfNja>cMCDcsicvj<Dmt'-coa>ir)Oh~oO'^Tror^ir)CT)omif)^oif)TTt^r^floomoofMO

roo>CNjO)0'*-(Noooo)i^aDa)0'<-CN<J>i^^<Na)a>oo'-T{DCDa>'»-CMr)r)t^ooo»-'<-ir)r^<Dr^r^ooo>fM(Mmo>orv

■^■i-CN^CNC\l<MCMfOnT-T-T-CMCMCMCMrO^^'<-CNJCOrOrOrOfOfnCNfMCMCS)tNCMrOfOfOrOf»)»-^^»-»-CMfMtNfMfNrV

IIXIIIXIXIIIIIIIIIXIXIIIIIIXIXXIIIIIIIIIIIXIIIIIIIIIX

ZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZ2Z2ZZZ2Z2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

WCOZZWU)ZZZZ2ZZWWWCrtCOa)WcncO</)ZZZZZZZ2W(rty)W(/)WCOW«WWZZZ2Z2ZZ2tOOT

CO CO TT tT

i-CMCNJCMCMCNJCNJCMCMCSJCMCMCMCNJCMCNCMCMrvCMC-OCOPOrOCOOCOrOPOOPO

■--•--■--■•-•--•--CN<NCMCMCMCMCMrVCv40JCMCVC\ICMCNCMCSI(NCM(NC\ICM<NCM(N{NCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCSICM(NCMCM{NrMrMrs(fMrM<N(M

CNjcvjCNiCNCNCNicvjc\icN(\icvcsicN(NCNC\i<NCNirvcgc^c^cvcvc\ic\icsjcgc^c^cNf^rv?jfvc^c^c^r^^rN^r^^c^c^^cvi^^^^^

a.

E I

■f. z

C — r- c oc O'

- I' — O' C m

.c T .e r- 0-.

O' V r- at c o

Page 7 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

Comments

Mortality

§

i II

1 II

II

CDt- COCNI'^t^CDCD CO

Scale

1 III llllllllll II

1

1

!■

1

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

01000000

00000000

01000000

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

li

i

■<

< < < CD CD CD

ft

CO Z Z Z

1-

< z z z

^ 1 1

3038

3037

3035

2999 3031 3033 2994

3000

2997

2998 3026 2996

2716

3078 3077

3079 3076 3067 3071

3073 3049

3074 3064

3062 3061

3063 3066

3047

3048 2735

2793

2794 2799 2790 2783 2782 2787

3097

3092

3091

3090

3087 3086

3088 2815

.2810

2813

rl:^

XX X

75

60

75

115

110

100

120

145

140

145

180

180

150

310

605

425

655

1110

1585

150

130

160

205

290

515

510

1440

110

130

145

450

460

600

1405

1605

1410

100

320

300

Fork

Length

225

241

290

310

315

344

354

360

388

416

432

441

465

430

193

170

195

202

204

204

214

218

225

225

229

230 265 270

314 323 339 395 440 219 223 227 240 263 313

315 415 199 211 221 297 303 326 411 427 435 213 275 275

HMNIAI

HAANIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

HMNIAI

S

S

S

S

S

S

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

N

N

N

N

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

N

N

N

'cocofocococococococorococo

J CMCSICMCMOJCMCMCNOgCMCMCMCN

CNCMOJCSJCNCNJCSJCNJCSJCNJCNCNCMOJCMCNJCNJCMCNiCM'^-'^-'^-'^-'^-'^-T-T-T-'r-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-

" i

Nn»iher

"f'

506

576

644

694

719

761

771

777

814

885

921

932

941

Page 8 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

& c

S S SS

05 (/)(/) C/) C/5 CO V)

>>

c 0)

O X

CN4 CM CO ;d

<1> (I> (D 0) <D (U

<D(1> <D <13 <D 0) q) qj 0)

SS SSS33S<5

coco cococococococo

•- *- iD <£><£) <0

SS3S3 3533

(/5</)c/)(/5</) (/)</)</)</)

OOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOt-OOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0000000000000000--0000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ' “

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooqqoooooqqqqoq

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoo

CO CO CO CO CO

TT TT

O CD 03 CD CD

z z z z z

z z z z z

CSih-CO’^COT-CNim

■^-ooooooo o>oo

CSJCNCMCNCNCNCNICNi CO-t-

in CO CM TT CO

CsJ CM CM OJ

m o o cn

O) O CM CO CM CM CM CM

O O O IT) O lO O O ^ CM O lO CM

m cx> m o

O iO lO o o

irtOioi04o2PP£tr>oir>o

OOCOOOCOCMUOC7)mOCM

OCMCOCDCMCMCOCO-^-O^

COCOCOCO^^Tf'^CMCOCO

^CMCOCMCMlOmCJ)OCDOmcX)lf)’^Cf)0>U^CMCMO>^OCD^Tj‘Or^^O’^’^’^

OT--»-CMCMCMCOm^CMC3iO>OOCOCOCOCOTrr^OOCOt-OOO^CMCMCOCO*^CM^

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCO’^T^^'t-CMCOCO'^'^T^'^'^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMTr^

CDinOCOOIOC3>Oh-OCM

OO^N-OOO^OOO

CMCOCOCOCOCOCO'^'t-CMCM

cocMooooo’«-ocooTrir)'»-ooocMmco^Oh*-’^ooocj>o^cj>co®^oa)®om^®a>ocMfo COOOO^^CMCOC3>Or^OOCD’«-’«“OO^TT'^CMCr>00®a)00^'^CSICOa)^CO^OOO»- — CM ■*-CMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOTr^^CMCOCOTrTrTr^TrCM’«-^^^CMCMCMCMCMCMCO’^’^^CMCMCMCMCMCM

IXIIXIIXXIX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIX

§§§§§§§§§§§

ZZZZZZZZ22Z ZZZZZZ2ZZ2ZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZ22ZZZZZZZ222ZZ

zzzzzzzzcococo zzzzzzzzzzcocococococococococozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcocococococo

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

forococOfOforofOcofOPOromrofOfOfOfororOTr^VTTTrTrTr'n'«T'»T

*0. ,c 6 I J: z

§ 2

3 T

3 3

C r**- *ri sC

rn c O

I I I I I ^ I S-

3 5 2

s s 2 r.

Page 9 of 27

' 1 I e 5

II

II

1

1

1

tP

1

f

1

2

1

If!

Iff.

1

t

i

i

I*

li

I

eg CNj <o

III III

siisi

iii

§§

iiiiiili

S2SS!£3tg5&ecSS SS5S sss sssssss

coc5c5SSSo3

ife§K||§|g||||Sg|§eSSS|S?SgRggg|||goffig|SgS?S8|ggggg2||

g3SSgE;SgS5S2§^SSgSS5S!5Sg2f5tgSg§SS3SSSSSS52gggSSSagS?

C\ICMnrO®'^CMRicM^§-;J-'i3-ScMCMRicMSSc3S««rOCNRicOMCO^^'^CNT-SRiMT-SScNCMCM^CMCMCNJCNC\ICMrO-^

XXIXXXXXIIXIXIIXXXIIXXXIIXXXXXXXIIXXXXXXXXXIXXXIIXIX

cocowcocozxzzzzzxcncococococncowcococowxzzzzxzzcococowcozzzzxzzzzzzxzxz

T-T-T-T-T-T-CNCVJCMCMCMOJCNCMCvJCMCMCMCNICOrOCOCDnrOCOCOrOCOCOrOCOCOCO

T-T-T-T-CNJC\ICS|CSICSIC\l(>J(NCSICSJC\l<NC\ICNiC\ICSI(N(NCSICvIC\lCNJCvJ(>JCNJC\IC\ICN)C\ICSI<>JCNCS|C\ICNIC\IC\|CViCNCvJ(N(N(NC\l(NCNICNJC\l

SISlRiagiSIRIRISI?3SiSiSiSiRi?3SI?^S!SiRIRISIRiSiRlR!SIRISiSISISiSISISiSIRI?JRIRISISIRIRIS!SISJSISiSIS!Ri

sS=gs£5l®igl5ss3l5£§slE§ssSSgSSSS5SSIsS»RS33ilSSSsSSI

Page 10 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

b c

E 2 M ? < JS

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - - - - 000000-«-000000000000“ “ “ ‘ OOOOOO-t-OOOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooo

^ s.

o (3

§ s

w i

~ c.

-!

(X) Q>

3i S M Si Si

CO CO CO ro ro

z z z z z

z z z z z

Tt TJ- Tt TT

Q3 QO CD CD CD

z z z z z

z z z z z

CO CO CO CO CO

muoinminioioiomm

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCNCNCOCO

X X X X X

looomoommooomooo

OOCNCDCO^OCNCNJOr^O’^COTf

T-T-t“^CNcocMcocoTrrr’<r'^mco

o o o tn o IT)

o o o uo in

CO CO CO CO CO

^ U/ VM ^ \’f ^>1

0)coo^TrcN4in'«T^T*^-^OTrcoo5^cDCDmcNincN

h--f-T-CM’^incoa)0)ocNjcgcocvj'^TroO'»-CNcoLO

'r-CNCNCNCNiCNCNICNCNCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOTj-^TrTf

in CO m m CO m ^ 00 ^ ^ O) o>

CO CM CO CN ^

CMCMCMCMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

^ o> o> ^ ^

<o (n CO CO CO

2

CO

CO»-CMCMCMCMO^OCNCM

*c

t Si E £ S E

inoTroinooinoooinc:>oh-c7>T-<MOTr’»-inooO’»-’*“h^inoooin’»-oflOCMOCMOO>ooina>oco(Ma>ino<D'«Tm^

CDOO’^CMCOCDCOh-OOCJ>OOOCMCMCDOOOOCMinin'»-CJ)(£>CMOOOOOO^CMCOOO^^CMCMCMinoOOOOOCOO^<DOOinOO

rO-O-O-O-CMCMCMCOCM^^CMCMCMCMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^-f

't-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCO

CM CM CM CO

IXXIXIIIIXXIIXXXIIIXXXIXIIIXIIIIIXIIIIIXXXIXIIIIXIIII

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

cocncnc/)(/5(/)wwco(0(/3c/3cncot/)c/3</)wy)c/)w)cn(/)zzzzzzzzzzzz</)(oc/)c/)(/5«)(/)zz(/)(/)(/)(/)</)iocozz

corommrorococococorocococoromoorocororororOTr^TrTTTT

TT TT

rMCNCM<MCNICNCNJCN<M(MCMtNCMCMC\ICNJ(N(MCMCNiCNJCMr\l<N(NCMCNICM(NI(NI(N(Ni(NI<Nrsi(N<N(Nr>J(MCMrM

— C vC O'

5 ;g

O' — OC —

ac*0CO‘OO‘*TC<^.

C —

Page 11 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

n

vt <£> m (D

0<U(D<D<1^(DQ,)(D<D

S8SSSSSS8

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC/)

0 _0) ^

CD TO CO CO

o o o o CO CO c/5 CO

CO TO O O CO CO

OOOOO-r-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

r-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-O'T-r-'^^T-T-T-T-T-T-'^-T-T-T-

ooooooooo

o o o o o o

oooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o

o o o o o o o oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

rocococococococooo

ooooooooo

zzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzz

CJ>r^OOCO'^LOOCVJCOC\J’«-C3^0CVJOO

COCOCOCOCOCO'«^COCOr-x-OT-00

•t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-OOCNCSICsICNJCM

COCOCOrOCOCOCOCOCOCNCOCOCOCOCO

cococococococococo

CO CO CO CO CO

OOOr-COCsJinCO^CJ)'^

CNiCNCMCSJCNJCNJCNCVjT-T-

CMCNCMCNJCgCMCNJCVJCSJCNJ

cocococococococococo

inininoSSLntCSiniDoooinLfjSinoooinooininiDooiSSSmS

^mOLnooinoooLnooLf)Lnif3iDoin

^gt2'<-OT--!-'5j-LncDCDCDa)h-CDO'^ifit^co

§ s :

n3

mincOa)COOOr^LOOOOCNOCSJCNiOOCNJCDCDCNC5>00’«-T-(NOOOCSJlOLOCDCO*»-Lr)CSIOLOCNJCNCOCDOCN40CS|<NCOOOCsJ'^OmC30

CO’^OCO(J)OT-COLOCMCO*^'^a^CVJ^LO'^m'^mCDOOOCO’^CDC:>OT-COCOOT-T-CVJCNJCNJCN'^^LOLOLOCOOOOCO’^’^CO

CNJCNCNCOCO'«;f^’^'^COC\ICNJC\J(NCOCO'^CSICNCN(MC\JCOCOCOCOCOCOCO^'^'^'^'^CNiC\ICNCsJCSJCN(NCNJCMCSI<NCViCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

;J|I

o>j'^'^0'^OLnooooco(NCNcocor^'^OLOCDO<Na>0)T-inooooocMiOT--<3-OLnco^-a5CNir)oinincMi^oocNOOO'»-

coi^T-i^coo50CMCnT-csini^O'i-CNrororO'^-^t^i^oO'«-c\j'^t^cxDO)oocoa5000oocNicNrooocO'^r^h-ooT-cMC\ico

CSIC\lrOCOCOrO'^'^CN4CS)CNICSICSICOrO'^CVJCNCNCSIC\l<N(N<NrOCOOOCOCOCO'^-^'^T-C\ICMCvJCNJ(NCMCNICNCMCMCSICNCMCMrOCOCOrO

XXXXXIXXXXXXIXXXXXXIXXXXXIXXXXXXXXXXXXIIXXXXXXXXIXXXX

XZZZ2XXZZZZZ2X22ZXZZXX2ZZZZXZX2:ZXXZZZZZXX2ZZZ2ZZZZ2ZZ

zzzzzzzzzcoc/)cecococococozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcocococoy)cocr)(/)cowcoa)wcoc4)ccccww

<NCNCNcg^^IC^iCNC^I<^iCNC^lc^JC^lC^JC^JC^lc^l(r)cocococ»)cr5^ococococo^ocoooco^ocococococo^o^ocococr)^o^oco^ococo^oco^oco

fi

•r, o —

o

o rn 'd-

g 5; §

VO \o \c -o r-

Page 12 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

1

<0 E » n « m

I? S’lll J

^ ^ h- C ^ ^ X

a c

if ?

!S S

CO CO

s s

CO CO

o o

o o

ooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo-«-oooooo

ooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o

oooooooog

_ oooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

8888888888

o o o o o o o

ooooooooooo

t

s-t

^<3

-zzzzzzzzzz

ozzzzzzzzzz

m 00 <o o ■*-

CO CO CO CO

Oh^COr^CMOmCD

cocococococococo

o o o> o o> o> o

CO CO T— CO ^ ^ CO

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

oiou^inooooininoo

^JCoinino^oininoinmo r^KcocDO)cy)j:^cg(Ncoc>40t-o,, ^

SS»noir>_mooin»n»nir)

mooCT)oooc\ivncDir>m'a-cj>i^cD'^cNCDooc\ioo'^cDCNCNCMCMN.oocNjoo<D'»TO>fMmir>t*)0)

cocT>'^co«D'>-<NrorOTrir)if)r^oorooooooooM-ir)CMTriocs(cr)CNmr^O''-ir)i^cj)0'>-rOTTTT

cooo'S-^TrcNCNCMC\ic\ic\irviCNjc\irorofDrOTr'^''j-CNCsiCMm'«TCMCvcMmmcomo'«T'^'V'^^

intD'«T»-tD<00000'Tr«'(M

^^CMCVCNCNOJCNCNfMCNCMCN

•2 ti 5 £ S E

cocO'^oo^rooo)mtoo'a-oor^otv.cMmcMmoooir)ir>oif)Oir)0)'«j-cocDCMr^ooo>r)oo <Di^CMOvicoo50'»-T-r\4roTf<Dco-«-ir)CDtDr~'<-<MT-romooocNifti^cT>coTrN.t^oO’-'<-CNj '’)'>i-'^'q-'^CNcgrgcMCMCNCNCNmcocororO'«T-<j'CMCMCNrOTrfMCNCNrv<MmfOrocOfOTrTT'<T

rr’^'^’-rvrvcNCMfMCMrgfMCN

IIXXXIXIIIXIIIXIIIIIXIIXXIIIIIIIIIIIIXX

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

$$§§§$$$$$§§$

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

crtcocncocozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcocococnzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzcflcncococococncrtcococo

rocoronrOTj-TTTtTj-Tj-Tj-'^

T-T-f-r-i-(N<N<N«NCNCMCMCSICMCNCMCMrvCM

(N(NI(Nl{M<M(NrM(NrM<NI<M<N(NJ

s

O' —

^ * c

— — -j V o — o

*r. .io-C — <ac— — —

? ^ c? 2 S z £

Page 13 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

> Q)

Q. "O

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o

o o

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

rococococococococo

ooooooooo

zzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzz

OOCNJOOh- CVJCOt-OOLOCDCON.

CSJCNICNCNCvJ COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

cococococo COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

h- in CD o

CD CD CD CD CM in

CNJ CN CNJ Csl CO 00

CO CO CO CO CO CNJ

coT-cDOcoo^oou^r^

cococNcoocgcsjcg’^

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

in in in o o in

CNJ CO in in

in in o o in ^ Tt in CNJ

in2oooinoininoininino2tG

cogcMococO'^cDco^CNiLncoinSS

inininininooomin

m GO CD CN CO CM CNJ CM CO CO

cMoino)^^OT-o>(j>in ocoino^CMCNjinmin —

CM CO CO CO CO

o>inco'^cDa^’^N.<Dr^o>r^^cMoO’^*^inr^cDco.

’«-CMCOCOC3^T“COT-CO’T-T-CMCOCO’^ini^<J)T-CMOOCMCD

CMCMCMCOCO'^’^CO'^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCO'^Tr

•^ocMCMT-«*-r^ininin’^r^

■^oo^cococMcoco'^r^h-CJ>

^"^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

inocDO‘^oino’^m'^T-ooT-ocoN.cMi^o<xo)'^cDinoco^o^cDC^O’«-a)'^CMCMT“CMin

cocDh«‘T-'«-cococy)ooocor^cy)OCMCMCMOOCMO<Da)00)T-oooT-T-coco'^r^(j)OCDOco

CMCMCMCOCO’^-^-«-CMCOCOCOCO^rt^TrCMCMCMCOCOCO'«^CM^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOr3-'^

’^T-oininino^oO’^cDOi

oino'^T-T-'^-cMCMinmN.

^^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

IXXIIZIXXXXXXXXXXXXXIXXXIXIXIXXXXXXXXXXX

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

xxxxxxxxxxxx

zzzzzzzzzzzz

ii'

*1

COCOCnWWWCOZZZZZZZZZZCOCOWWODCOW^ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZW COWCOWWWCOCOCOCOCOCO

■<-T--<-T-T-T-'<-c\ic\iCNJCNj(NCM(MCMCNJCNCvjCMCMCMCN(NCNicococororooocomoooorooocococr)ro cocorocorocororococococo

CMC\ICM(M(MO\ICMCNICNC\ICMCMCMCMCSICNCMCNCNCNJCN|C\ICNCM(MCMCM(NOJC>JCM(MCMC\)CMCNCMCMCMCSI CMCMCMCSICMCMCVJCNCMCMCVJCN

ON o\ o r-

Page 14 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

^ -f- -r- O O

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

“ — “OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o o o

^ TT ^

o o o o u o o

Q Q O Q Q Q

u

z z z z z z z

z z z z z z

z z z z z z z

z z z z z z

i^Trm<£>orocNooo>’«“CNi

cocococococococococooo

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCN

S S o <N eg CO

IT) 0> fO O TT O fO <o rg CO eg

CM eg eg CM CM CM CM

CO TJ- IT) lO

\r>ir>Oir>inom^)siinin\r>

CM CM m

Tr^TTregT-cgegegegcocococococo

egegegegcMCMCMCMco

CM CM CM CM CM

jp f**- ^

in $ n

CO <o

S ?

^ o>in<Miniooo>oo

0>0’^0)Ot-CMCOI^

CMCOCOCOO-Tr^CMT-

00O’«-T-a)O'r--»-^^

^egegcMCMcococococo

inooooir)OCMinine-floo^’^^inina><noocMcoincor^coo*-mr^ ^0)0’«-'»-^coco^^a>egGO^ooo^^incocMco^cD**5»-co5 CM’»-CMCMegegegegco^coegegcococOTr^»-egrgcMCMcoco^cO(o

XIIXXXXXIIXXXIIIIXXXXXXXXIXXIIXIXIIIXXXXXIXXXXIZIXIXI

ZZZZ2ZZ22ZZ22ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ22Z2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

CO(OCOa>(OWCOZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZ2COCOtOCOCOCOW(OCOC02222222(0(0<Otn<Oy)W)(0<rtZ2ZZ

rorocotocoorO'»TTrTj-Tr'^Tj-

TT TJ- TJ- ^ TJ- TT

CM <M (N (Nl

CMCN(NIC\ICMCMCM<NJCMCN4CNirVC\ICMCNJCNCMfMCVJC\ICNjrVCNCNJ<NCM(MrVCMrM{NCSirV

'a. £ E c

ac O' ^c c

3

? i

3

i g

Page 15 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

CO CD CD 00 CO

E E

£ c 1 ^

II "d

^ ;§

I ^

i 0^

CO c'

=-•.§ ro o (D "O 0) TO c ^

^ ^ 5 ~ CD ^ g D

^ ri rr

S' oj -c o Si? •5> ^ a: (T w

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'^-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

_ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o o

■1^ T“ T- O

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

OOO'T-T-T-

T- o o o o o o o o o o fo o o o o o ■ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

cocococo cocococo

CO CO CO CO CO CO

QQQQ QQQQ

Q Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q Q

z z z z z z

ts

z z z z z z

O) ^ T- CO CM CM CO CO

OCOCMinOCON-CO’^

T-inLOT-cM*^T-T->T-

COCOCOCOCOCOCDCDCO

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

ooomr^co'^T-cocMocM

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCO

in If) LO

CD CO CO CM CM CM

oomLOoomouoLOLOLninio cMcotnooomr^oocMOOcoh-’^ CMt-CMCMCM'^'^’^^COC^

inoLOOLOLO^o^ or^cMcx>oo*^ST-g

o o 2 o

S ^ °

if!:

^ GO CO cn CO CM CO CO

cor^coocooLOoocMCOLOOcocM-^incomomcM'^'^cococor^O'^tnuoocMCM oO’^'^’^tr)Lor^cj)CJ)T-cMCM’^’^cO’^T“cocoinmcMcO’^c3^ocococococDO*"

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCO^CMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCO^^'^^'^Tf’^

in CO CO

o> rr ^ CO CO

T- CM CM CM CM

I g

oooocNiLnoLOCNCNiDCNjincDor^uoO'^oooooocNiCNinocMoroot^ocNcocor^cDCDCM

CMlDT-t^CDCDCDOCMCMCOrOint^l^CDOOT-cvjCOCDOT-CMCO'^OCMCMh-t^OOOOCSJI^'NrO

cocNooroT-T-T-csiCMCNjc\iCMCvj(NCMCsicororococococsJCsjCMCvjcsjrorocococO'^'<a-'^'^'^co'a-CM

o m o o eg o CN o CM eg CO <N

IXIXXXIXIXXXXXIIXIIIXXXIXXIIZXXIIXIIIXXX

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

cocozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzcococococococococococococococozzz

CMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO^^^

X X X X X

§ § § § g z z z z z s ^ s ^

Z Z Z Z CO

X X X X X X

§ § 5 § § 5 z z z z z z ^ ^ ^ 2 ^

CO CO z z z z

is

I *

I

^ OO O

^ VT S

O

t-^CMCMCMCM

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

CN CN CM <N

CM CM CM CM CM CM

fO <o

Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q O Q Q

o o o o o o o

z z z z z

z z z z z z

z z z z z

z z z z z z

O CM 05

m If) m o> ^ ^

CM CM CM CM ro r>

omomioooo

'«“CMrO’^»^lf)CDCM

cMcoif>ir)inN.t^oo

in o CM in

CO CD O)

^ininoinininoSoinooQOOommin gCMCMCDN.OOCMCDj^’^Tj^OCOOCM'^T rr ifi fD

5 E

CMCMCOCOCOCOCOCnCO

CMCMCMCMCOCOCnTTTt^^^

inmiooo'*— cDcocMGOcDCMinoincM'^cMfnocMCMO»“0^m*-0) ’1-^CM'^^CMCnCMOO-^^^^^Oj^CM^^^^^O^^ TTin^

CM CM CM fO cn CO

CM CM CM CM CM

^CMCMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMrO

S E

oocMinoaDT-t-f-cnoTT-^inmcoom^oor^co -«-T-CO<^ininN.CO’^OOC3)OCOCOOO’»~CDCOO)^ -^CMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOTT

CMCMCOCOrOCOCOCOCO

o in o

TT O) O

TTCOCMCMCMCOrOcncO^CMCMCMCMCMCOCncnCMCM

oino)CMoooco^coin<DOCMinoointo^cMinmr>a> f9QP^cncDppCM^^pCMp)fM®j5^^p^^^^ro^

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

XXXXXXXXXIIXXXXXIXIIXIIIXXIXIIXIXXIIXIXIIXXIXXIIIIXII

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZ2ZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

zzzzzzzzzzzcococowcocococotococommcozzzzzzzcocococowcototococnzzzzzzzzzzz

CNJCNCNCNICNJCNrslC\irgCNf\ICNJCvJCVCNJC>JC\ICNI<\ICNCSICg<NCNJC\l{NI<N<\l<NIC\ICvlCNIC\l(\ICNIC\l<\l<NC\)CNICNirsirsirg(N<NCNCNf\l(Nf\lfNI<N

Q. X

E E

•TV'^C3C3er‘4»^*^-r*rv c

Pa9e 17 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

ii

CO £

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ __

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCD

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo — — ------c:^c^(^c:i(^c:)c:ic::,c::,c^cDO<Doc:>c:>c:>(Doc:>o<DO(Doooc:>o<DCDCD-

o o o

oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo — — oooo

ooooooooooooo

cocococococococo

Q Q Q Q Q D Q

COZZZZZZZ

<zzzzzzz

CO CNJ CO CO CO CO CNJ CM <N

Tfio’^ocsiocoh-oo^r-

CNJCOCNJCNCM-^CNJt-t-t-'^-

in-^mmLOLDLOLOLOCN’^

CSJCNCMCNCNCNJCNJCNJCNJCOCO

o o <J) o

CNJ CN

LO O LO LO CO ^ CO LO LO LO

lOOOLO

C0O*T-C0C006lO06 00Cb'r-^JS2^ '»-’«-CV4CNJCNJCNJCOCO-^IOC012^2![^

OLOOIOOOIOIOOLOOIOLO

LO LO O lO

O LO to

W V y I- VM VM I- ^ ^ ^

CNCOCOCD<OCOa>S^22

OOOLOLOOOLOOOOLOtO OCOCOCOO^COCOC7)lO

lif

LOOCNJOOCNJCOh-OOlOCO

6jco^r^*^^coco^LOLOcocboSococo^

COCOCOCO’^^CNJCNJCNJCNJCNCNJCNCNJCNJCOCOCOCO

OLOlOCNJCOOOOLOT-h^LOh-COCNT-COCOCOlOCOCNJCOLOLOOCOCVJ-»-h-CNJOT-CNr^O’^^^CO

COOOCOCO'^CN'^COCOCOOOCvJLO’^OCOTt-^COCO’^'«^r^OO’«"LOCOOOCJ>OCNJLOOOCOO)^0

CNJCNJCOCOCOCO^'^'^^COCOCNICNJCVJCO'^’^'^CNCNCNJCNJCNJCNJCSJCOCOCOCOCO^rj-’^-^CSJ'f-CNJLO

■i|I;

ooooocoo'^-oocDooooocDoooO'^CT)coinoir)05inLntnoo<Nooa50roooooOT-cMCT)ooooOT-oooLnir)oooo'^

o-<-cNiDC\icvj<NC\JC'jrO'^'>d-cDr^ooO'^'<-0'<-rorOLnooooorocMooO'<-0'<-CNicNcsiiot^ooc\j'^Lr)CDr-a^rM'^CNii^cooo

<r5(T)COr0^fCNCNrsJ<NC\ICS|<NC\ICSjr\ICOCOCO'^'^'^'^COC\|T-CSICNCOCO'^'<^CNr>aCNCSIC\ICNC\ICNcr)rOCOCOCOCO'^';J-CSI'r-C\l'^

XXXXXXIXXXXXXIXIXIXIXXXXIXXXXXXXXXXXIXXXIXXIIXXrroiirQ;

Z2Z2X2ZZZZZZZZZZXXXZZZXX2ZZZZZZZZXZX2Z2Z2XZZZ2ZZZ2Z

zzzzzcococococecocowwwcocococ/jcnc/^cnzzzzzzzzzwcocecocococococococowwcncocozwwco

rocooocorororororonpocooorocococooocorococo

'ij-

■<a- ^

y

CSJCNJCNJCNCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNCNJCNJCNJCVJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNjCNCNJCNCNJCNCNCNJCNICNCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNJCNCNJCNiT-

PI 5 S

O (N ro

o OO \0

s S S O ^ s

Ir: I-

Page 18 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

li li i I

in in

o I

I

Q. ^ n

b c

S S

^ ^ ^

3 S 3

in in in

® 0)

3 3

W O)

II I II III I

0000 0000 O O T- o 0000 0000

00000000000000000000000000000^0 ooooooooooooooooooooot-000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000^000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000“““““““““““^““^ ooot-000000000000

000000000

CO CO CO CO

< < < <

“• a

u

z z z z

z z z z

O O 00 h- CD

CO CN CM CN CN

O) O O O) O) O

CO CM O CO

OO'^h'-OCDinoOCO Tj-^coforofofococo

0000>00)0>0>0) r-r«*r^r^p»..r*^r*-

CsICsICsICMCMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCM

GO ^ «o CO CO CM CM CM CM

® o cn ^

® ® N.

000 Oi

CM CM CM CM

iotoi^EjS22x?CMto

h- s- ro

co--o^2SSPeocnTTOooi^

■^rooo^^^JG^T-^inTTincNi

mtfloSSSPtrtmoinQomS

ocDh-cD»nr^oocMOTroT“'«-r^ocMmo ocM*<Tinir>N-®mcDr^r^CMCMiDcooir)a>^cMr^® ‘ “ -’^t-^’f-CMCMCM'^minmcM'^TrTr

^ CM CM CO

■f-CMint-CMCD’r-CMCO

CM^OCMCOCOCOr^®

lf>CMCMCMCMCMTr'«3“^

^ o rv. ^ CM CM

m m m

CO CM CM CO

f-h-.CM®Tj'or^oin®coooooT-cMif)’r-ir)®o>cocMmcooin’^

cDr^comcDN.O’«-'^’«-®coh^coomir>tr>cooc3>a)^CMCMcoif)CD®

Tr-«-^’t-^’^-CMCMCM'^rrmmcMTr’^Tr’^^^^'»-CMCM(MTr^’^TT

oooommocnmQDcDOcocMCM

CMCMcoa>o*-’^a)OOcoco^n*“

CMCMCM^lOintn^CMCMCMCMCMn®

ortrtrirtrtririrQrtrtrirtrcrcrircrtrtrcrcrcKtrcrtrcccctrtrtrircrcrcrcctrcrtrtrcrtrtrtrircrircrircrKirirQ:

zinininininzzininininininininininzzz2izz.zininininininininininininz.zzzzzzzinininininininin

cgcMcgcNCMCNjrofocorocncocoroponcofOTrTTTr^Tr^

TT-^rTTT'<T-<T'^'<I->T

< S'

fMtMfN<M<N<MCNCMCs(<MrvrvrVCy<fXC<<

CV|CN|CVJ<NICs|(\IC\l<NCVJC\(CNICNICNCNJ(NCNCSICNJCgCNC>ir>JCNICgCNrsl(\l<NJ<NIC\l(NfSICNI(Nf\IC\irV<NC\irslCNI<\l(NfNI(NrvCNICNI(N(NCNir«ICN(

Page 19 of 27

1 5

m

cNi CO CO rr

CO LO in

II

^ is m

S S S S S S S S S m

X XX

X LU X

ooooooooooo

oooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

II

c\j CN csi csj eg CNj

CO CO CO CO CO

< < < < < <

< < < < <

ilf

Z Z X z z

!

z z z z z

is

Is

Sfe SgllSsI

CN eg eg CM eg CSI CNj

CNCNCNCNCg

gsSffi|sSSsSS|||sS2|||||ssgggKSgffi||SSSg|||SgSS|||||S|||

llli

ill

SiillSi=§lis§?Sllls§l?SSiS§lll5H lfiiiiisisss§§553§s

'4:

zzzzzc/3cococococococflcozzzzzzza3coa5co(/)coa)wcocococococozzzzzwcowc/)c/3coa3wcoc/)coa>c/3

|i

egegcNCMCMegegegegegegegcMegcococococococococoo^cococococococococococo

j

CNJCMrgCNCSICSIC\JCMCSICSICMCM<MCNJCNI(NC\JCM(NOg<NC\IOsJCgCSICMCSICNCVJCN(NCNCSI(NO>4CNCSjrgrgCSICMCMCM<MCMCSICM(MCNICMCMCSJCM

ii

C^CNCNCNC^^C^C^CNC^CMC^^CN^C^C^C^^C^^CNC^C^C^CNCNCNC^^CM^C^CNCNC^CNC^CNCNCNCMC^^C^C^C^CNCSIC^

L_

s|?“Ss:|iis5£HSgs252sss'Ssiisg5S5slSsiSSI5ssi3S£g|||S§|

Page 20 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

CN CM fO m

(1)<1>0)(1)0<D Q)(Da}<D(D<D(D(D<DQ>(D(D^(D<D^<^^(D

SSSSSS SSSSSSSS8SSSIS3SSSS3

(OCOCOCOC/JCO C/)</)(/)(/)C/3(/)CO</5CO(/)(/)(/)</)t/)CO(/)C/)C/)(/)

SI Si £ s Si 31

2 s

5 I

ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooo-*-ooooo _ ooo-^-oooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo

OOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

o o o o

SSS§8

88888

588

88888888888

CM CO CO

> Q.

-<3

COCDOM-moOCMo^tcOlOrfincO

lOOOOOOOO)0>OOa>00)CDOOCO

ON-o>r^N-r^r^c5)oooooo

COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCO

CM CM CM CM CM CM

CMr^ocoooocMincoo

mcOCOCOCDf^CDOCOCD

fOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOfOCO

Sin Q CO

9 $ 9

% f % / <0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

O CM

O ® p.

ooomPinooininoin

Tro-N-op:roococ:>0’^cMO'

oT-r^002C3>C0oCMC00000

m o m m o

CO CO o o o ^

CO o m o

o 00 00

ininin£2inoinSSr-»04f>o»nQinm

r^O)cn!l£^o^^£^^CMooooc^ooo

CD (J) _

CM CO o m CM CM CO O-

cooincMcocoi^o

CM CM CM CO o*

CM CO CM CM CM CM

o m ^ CO CO CO o ^

£ g 6

O- CM CM CO *?r

rr CO CM CM CO TJ-

CM CM CM CO

^’*-CMCO'»“CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOO’5TTTiO^CO^min*-CMCM^'^^n^

Q:a:a:(rQ^(r(r(ra:Q:cx:crQ:Q:(ra:a:o:a:(ra:a:a:a:a:x(rcx:(r(rQ^cx:xx(r(r(r(r(txcr(rxo^(rxxcrxxQ:QCQC

H-l— H*!— HI— h— I— J— h-HI— Hf— I— h-h-H-h-HJ— J— ►“f—l—h— f—

22ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

o:Q:cc(rcrcca:Q::Q:a:Q:Q:cr(rQ::Q:a:a:Q:Q:a:Q:crQ:a:a:Q:a:Q:Q:crQ:a:(ra:Q:irQ:crcrQ:Q:Q:Q:crcr(rcrQ:Q:a:a:Q:

C0zzzzzz(0(0c0c0c0c0c0zzzzzzz(0c0zzzzc0cn(0(/)a)c0a)(0c0<0(0c0(0zzzzz(/)a)</)c/)<nt0c/)c0

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOfOCOCOCOCOCOCOfOCOCOCOfOCOO^

CM "f- ^

Sf

_5

*0. X

1 i

5 1

X O' r- c —

^ c »

= 5ElEs=i£lifl5§£*5£

P»ge 21 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

Comments

Recap within day

Missing mandible,

Blind left eye, torn mandible

Tag #3401 -destroyed Blind in left eye

Blind in right eye Blind in left eye

H

rococo -^T-cvicoLn cocoiC'^r

■4

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale

1

i

-ixs^ X -ixx XXX

j

^-JQQUJUJ muj-j— J UJ —i—3—> -3—3—3

1

XXLUXX LUXX X XXX XXX

!

|§§§§§§§§§§§§§§S§§§§8§§§§§§§§§§§|§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§8§§§

ooofooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

g|

1

OiCMcg coco cocococo

1

CDCQCQ GOCQ GQGQGDGO CD

II

1

z z z z z z z

1

z z z z z z z

i

" ! 1 !

33ry

3381

2721

2784

2854 2851 2850 2844 2842 2841

2855

2856

3411

3412 3408 3400 3403

2878

2879 2872 2871 2863 2869

3434

3435 3437

3436 3422

3102

2884

2893

2899

2887

2890

3105

2896

3460

3439

3111

3112

3113

3114 2938

1

XX X

I 1

|g|CSKSSS|||g|g||||||||sS|SS8S|||Sggg|SS|£SgSS|oSS|||

|||:

49»

515

499

395

226

238

244

374

429

462

480

490

220

223

257

367

510

215

244 460 462 470 555 197

225

226 230 242

245 262 436 205 204 215 214

214 225 241 316 445 552 208 203 210

215 262 492 180 423 450 483 535 530

ill'

cncrtzzzzzzzzzzcnwcococozzzzzzcococewcococowzzzzzzzzzzcewwcococnzzzzzco

j

^■<3--<-'^-<-T--r-T-T-T-i-T-'<-T-T-T-T-oMCNCvjCNjCNCMCsjC'j(NCNCMCMCvjCMnrocococorocororoconcorocoforo'^'^'a-'^-^'^

"i

T-r-CNJC\IC'J<>)C\)CNCV4CSJCSJCN<NC\ICSICNC\JCSICN(>J(NCNICSJCSIC\JC>JCSIC\I(NCNCNCNJCNICvJCNJCNCNC\l(NC\IC\IC\IOvlCNC\ICsJC\IC\ICSI(N<NCNJC\l

t

3SI?isgsSsss5i3sai|RSgS|i|K||ss^|lilS|ssss|||s^sgi2g3

Page 22 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

n

CNI fO fO IT)

Q)Q)<D<D

SSSS 33SS3

cncococo (ocococow)

S S ^

3 3 3

(A (/) (A

5 I

2 I I I I

UJ X LU UJ LU

I I I I I X

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

00000t-000000000t-'^t-t-t-..-^^,-^00^’- i-'.-T-^T-T-^f-r-'.-^T-i-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o -- o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o

u

CMOh~moO^CNCD'^lf)lOCOh-^ i^r^cDcotococo;o(0<ooooocNcvj o ^

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

COCOCOCOCOCNCOCOCOCOCO

Loa^h*.ir)^cDCDcoiO'^

0>OOOOOOOOOCNirr^'«9’

COCOCOCOCOCNJCNCOCOCO

CO TT CO a>

o CO CO CO CO

CM ^ ^ GO

CO CM CO ro CM

m in in lo o o o

^inmomS^^i^inSSioi^i^oininOoinOiningQOininino

Pr^o^^cj)i;co?;i;o^SSJ*:cMTroococoooSJProoocMgi7>coa>coin5

oincocMC3^<ocMCMoo^‘«-r^^oinoincMcO’»-^^ococoinooooinr^’»-inococoincoinh«.oor^ryr^oo oocOf-cocoTrintnoo“cocoooooo^o>incMT-co'^coo)cooocMO)r^’^in(oc3>a>cMTrinincocMooa>^inco

CM'*-T-CMCMCMCMCMCMO-O’O-O-O-O‘O-O-0‘inCMCMCMO--»-CMC0’^TrO-O-l0CMrTTr^CMCMCMCMTro-^^CMCMCM'^<Mf0

incOTfincocj^cDCM’^'f-cMr^r^’^inoooinoooco

inr^r^ocMCMco'^TrcocM’^ro'incor^r^cooocMCM

CM-t-T-CMCMCMCMCMCMCOTrO-Tr^^TrTT’^inCMCMCM

O'O'inCMO-^’^CMCMCMCMO-^^

CM CO CO n ^ n

a:(ra:Q:a:(r(r(rQ:Q:Q:Q:(rQ:(ra:(rQ:(r(ra:Q^(tir(ra:a:cx:(r(rcx:ira:a:o:a:Q:o:xocxxQ:xxxxxxocxQC(r

cocncocnc/)cnc/)cococnco</)c/)coc/)(/)(nzzzzzzc/)cococ/)coc/)2ZZZZ(/)coc/)ZZZco(/)(/)c/)(/)c/)</)ZZZZZZ

O' O’ O'

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

-f-T--»-^-T-^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCO<0

£ £

S S S = =

C — 0“ O'

xi£§ = ?§z = xE5EExEl£l = l5 = 5ll = = £‘£

? ^ ? 2 z

Page 23 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

It

M:.

J

c i

m

E E

0) O

2 X ^ 2

X X X X X

X X LU X

oooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt-t-t-t-'«--^-0 r-T-T-T-T-0t-r-^*f--»-r-^T-0000000

oooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

o o

oooooooooo

oooooooooo

oooooooooo

oooooooooo

ooooooooooo

eg eg CNj CM

o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

CO CO CO CO

o o o o

COCOfOCOCOCOCOCO

eg^co^coocor^'^eg

^^C0t-t-^OOt-O>

egegegcooococococot^

cococococococococoeg

LO IT) ID CD LC

egegegegegcNjegegco

cococococococococo

^in^LOh-r-egcNeg

r^r^cococor^'«-'^T-

egegcococooocnoeg

cococococoegegcoco

^fc^f^mLOLDi^oinooiDOLOOLOXStCi:::^

LO O LO ID LD

o o o o o o

oocoTff^N.LOeg*»-^N-cDON.OLncoLnLOcDif>Lnoegm’^ooLO'*?rooh-'T-ocoocDO)’^egocDN-egegooeg

LDCD'^O’T-egococococo^LOoo'^tncDcs^N-ooor^egegcD'^cD^cor^egcomeg'T-'^egcDeg'^iDcoN.cO'^

•^'^iDinLnLO’^egegegegegcNeg^egegco^^^’^egegegcoco^*«^rj-inio^egegegeg’^LD’^'^LO'^egcNi

o eg CD 00 ID ID o eg eg o Tt eg eg eg eg

coegegegcNegogcM^egegco

iDegcj)r^iD'^r^^T-tDcj)0)OLDegLDoiDooiDcO'^-o LDegLD-r-LDLDO'^cooo'^*^^CT>egcooiDegcoLD ■ ‘ ‘ tlDLD -

eg eg eg CO CO

eg eg eg CM

LD 'St CM CM

'St CM CD CM O

CO O ^ ^ CO o

CM CM CM CO

o:Q:ci:(ra:Q:ccvtiQ:Q:Q:QiocQ:a:cco:a:Q:xc^cc(r(r(rct:o^:Q:c^:Q:Q:a:(rtr(x:Q:(rQi^rQ:ci:ircrcx:Q:Q: oririrxarcr

ZZZZZZC/)COC/)COCDCDCDC/}COZZZZ2ZC/)CDC/5COCDC/5C/)C/}CD(/)C/)ZC/)(/)COCOCOC/DZ2ZCOC/}CDCO COCOCDCOCOCO

■'t 'St

’r-T-egCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCO cocococococo

CMCMegcMegegcMegcMCMCMCMCMegegcMCMCMegegegegcMCMegcMCMCMCMCMCM

CM CM CM CM CM eg

<2^

!!: o o

o o o —

— r4 VO

o o o o

o o ^

Page 24 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

fc c

E E

c o

V) Z

IS

nj o 5 ^

li

CC CO

LU OQ

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOQOOOOO

■^t-Ot-00'^'<-'>--<--<-'^'^'^-^t-'^000000000000000000000000000000

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQQ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

'T

oooooooo

s-s.

zzzzzzzz

•<T z z z z

zzzzzzzz

< z z z z

CD fO TT CM CN CN

CM

o o

CD CO

CM O CM •<- 0 O f- ■<-

CD 00 CM m ^ n

O O O CM CM CM CM

TJ tr CD CD CD CD

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CD •>- CO ^ ^ CM OO CD

■V o n

CM CM CO CO

CO CM CM CM CM

If) O cf> If) ID

CM CM CM CM CM

oolOooooomioiDooooo

~ 'Dlf)000-i-CMOi-Oi-CMir)CDCOO- DI^t-t-^i-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCD

CD in ^ CD

Ji?ininini?oo22u->ooSlDSoOri(-.oooininoininQ

oi^cooincMi-incMCDocMCDinincMincoooinininmiTcoinTrinoooTj-iTCMco^inooino»-Qior>~CMCM wcdcmc^cm

CMO-CMlO^CDOCOCOTTO-CDCDCDOOCOOOOOO’CDi-CMOi-CMCMCMO'CDr'OOCO’-O-CDOCMOOt^CMCD^OTOOCMin OiCMCO-VlO

^0-CMCMi-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM'3'0-T-U-irCMCMininCMinCMCMCMTTC0Trinin^CMCM'Crinin>«TCM»-CMCMCMCM CO o o o o

if g E

cDincDcocMO-cMi-ooi-ocDi-inmcDinino-Oh'ininoi-oocoinocDOCDCDcoin'-cDinoocMOoocoin^<o»-mf'.oo»^ ocoocoooocDCMCMcoo-o-inmr>-T-coK.CMi^cDi-oooi-Oi-^'0-mcDTj-0)i-oocD'*-ininonor^O)0>0'vr^c>'OfM<oco crO-CMCMi-T-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMO-O-’-O-O-'r-CMO-mCMinCMCMCMO-COTrTrinT-^-CMO'inin^CM’-i-'-CMCMCOCO'Tn'Tn

crartrirtrirtrtrtrtrarcccctrtrtratrccQrtrartrcrtrtrcrQcarQrtrcrarcrtrccctcrtrtrtrircrtrtrQrtrtrtrorcrtrQ:

cocnzzcoco(0(oco(otocococo(ococozzzco(ococozzco(ococozzzz(0(0to<0(oco(0tococot0(ococo(0io(ocoto

CO CO TJ- Tj- Tj- Tj-

O' O IT

■>-i-''-CMCMCMCMCMCMCO<OCOCOCO<OCOCOCO'^iIiTTrTrOTr'TrrOiT

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

- « B. Z E E

i I i g i I I E 5 5 5 5 = =

2^-2

£ # ? £

Paye 25 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

CO

0

c

CO

TO

*o

■D

0

■D

0

O)

CD

TO

C

1

1

" -■

: .

t

o

c

TO

C

CD

TJ

0

Q,

TO

s

°

w

00

•D

C

1—

O

LU

0

CD

0

H

CD

C

s

0'

0"

C

TO

E

C

0

>>

■D

o

a

0)

O

CO

LL

ID

c

0

0

0

s

0

lU

CD

0)

TO

LU

S

*o

c

cr

(D

—I

o

TO

CO

E

jD

C

0

X)

"O

0

TO

0

TO

TO

X

CO

X

CO

U)

lU

CD

“5

<D

X

CO

sz

0

TO

c

TO

X

TO

_2

■>< <5

CO ^

D)

-3

Jtr

■D

_C

£

CD

0

Q.

CL

LU

0)

%

n

00

0

CD

iC

0

0

1

cC

0

2

CD

be

— 1

-J

CQ

be

D

-J

_]

_l

tr

—1

—I

(12

U

it

I,:-'

t

X

X

X

X

—I

—I

—I

X

X

_J

_1

—I

X

^ X

1

J

-

—>

“3

LU

“5

“5

—>

—>

LU

—i

“5

->

-5

—i

—>

—>

9

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

T-

T-

T-

T“

o

T-

T—

0

•r-

T-

O

O

o

o

O

O

O

o

O

o

O

O

O

o

O

O

o

O

O

O

o

O

O

o

O

o

o

O

o

O

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

o

o

o

o

o

CD

CJ

o

o

o

o

CD

o

O

o

o

O

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

O

O

O

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CJ

CD

CD

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

o

o

o

C-)

o

CJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C.5

c:>

CD

o

o

CO

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

o

o

o

o

CD

o

CD

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

o

C_)

C_)

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CD

CD

C3

o

o

o

o

C.D

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

tim S

1:

-

-

-

-

-

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

3 1

■

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

D

Q

Q

Q

D

D

Q

® I

& IS

ill

z

z

z

z

z

Z

Z

z

Z

z

z

z

— 2*

■■■■•«■ •

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

itt

CD

CO

CD

00

CD

o

CD

LO

o

CD

00

CO

LO

CO

CM

CO

CM

CD

o

CD

CD

0

CO

00

CD

10

CD

CNJ

CNJ

CM

CO

CD

CD

O

O

CO

O

CO

CO

CD

r^

N.

CD

CO

CM

CO

CM

CO

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

C7)

CD

CD

CD

CM

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

CD

CD

CD

CD

LO

LO

CD

CD

CD

CD

0

LO

1

CN

CN

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

■f.

X

X

X

X

Weight (g)

1040

1520

1490

975

1330

1415

1010

LO

100

110

130

LO

OO

O

CD

235

305

375

LO

CD

o

CD

O

1175

1270

160

845

1055

LO

CO

CO

105

195

255

950

o

o>

99

LO

270

975

1150

2330

970

10

CM

LO

LO

160

160

LO

CO

0

CD

CO

935

LO

CO

00

1095

LO

CD

CO

LO

00

LO

975

■3 1

CSJ

CM

CO

00

CM

CD

CO

O

CM

CM

CO

CD

CO

o

00

CO

CD

CO

o

o

CO

CM

O

00

CM

o

CO

LO

CD

LO

LO

CD

CM

CO

0

CO

r^

CO

CM

CD

CD

0

CM

LO

3 S' S

00

O)

o

CJ)

CO

CM

LO

CD

00

<D

CM

CO

CD

CO

CD

N.

CD

CO

CO

CD

00

o

00

LO

LO

o

LO

CD

0

CM

CM

CO

00

0

CO

00

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

nt

■nf

CD

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

iiil"

00

CD

CD

O

CO

CD

CM

CM

CO

LO

CO

CO

o

O

CO

CD

CD

CO

00

CM

OO

O

<D

CD

CO

CO

CM

CO

LO

0

CO

CM

0

CM

CM

LO

CD

CD

0

CM

02

LO

S e

V’: ;eT^:

CD

r^

00

r^

CD

CO

00

O

CM

CO

LO

<D

CM

LO

LO

LO

LO

CD

CO

CM

CO

a>

CO

CD

CO

00

LO

CD

CM

CM

00

CM

CO

CD

02

CO

CO

iA

LO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

LO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

cc

cc

QC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1-

K

h-

1-

1-

1-

H

1-

H

1-

1-

1-

h-

I-

t-

h-

1-

1-

h-

1-

1-

h-

K

1-

1-

1-

1-

t-

1-

1—

h-

I-

1-

t-

h-

1-

1-

H

H

1-

H

H

1-

1-

1-

1-

H

1-

H

1-

1-

1

L-i'-'S::;:,'

z

z

z

z

z

z

Z

z

Z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

Z

Z

z

Z

Z

z

z

z

z

Z

z

Z

z

z

c

e/

Qc:

or

QC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bank"

CO

CO

CO

z

z

z

z

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

z

z

z

z

CO

CO

CO

CO

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

O)

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

z

z

z

: ' SeiiHhini. ■ :

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

TT

s

1

-

--

-

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

#

s

|:l

tT

rt

CVJ

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

Si

s

1206

o

o

O'

NO

O'.

a

f.-

o

955

§

o

§

§

§

s

ON

s

O'

971

o

5

FI

o

975

§

Fi

fN

s

0

0

0

0

0

C4

fN

Ft

0

<N

sc

Page 26 of 27

Table A1 Raw data for fish captured during the Bow River fisheries assessment, 21 to 24 August 2000.

i

Right Maxillae Gone

Right Eye Gone. Right Maxillae

Right Mandible Blind, Major Jaw

n

li

II -III

1 ^

-> LI) -> ->

- .

1

o

II II

!

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

00000001

1

55 1

»:

i-

f

2637

1

Weight (g)

1290

1310

1020

150

195

160

240

300

285

920

720

1055

815

1240

1295

Hi

Hi

1

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

RNTR

1

zzzcoc/)coc/)c/)cococ/)cnco(/)(/3

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

csicNicMCNicgcvjcNjcsjCMCsjcgcgcNjcgcNj

i‘

CMCN<NCMCgCMCSICNJCSICMC>4CNJCNJCNCNI

tl

I

I

i

!

I

!

I

I

Page 27 of 27

APPENDIX B

CPUE and Life History Data

Table B1. Summary of catch and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for the main sportfish species captured in Bow River, 21-24 August, 2000.

[ TOTAL 1

i

0

1

{)i e

12.68

16.62

35.47

29.71

I 23.99 I

41.76 43.61 46 84 36 40

Ok

Ol

1 attc 1

31.75 23.05 36 83 38 64

1 1

35 26

41 47 48 70

43 34

1 42 09 1

[znrn

«o 5 m CO cb m

lb CM CM « CM CO ^ CO

1 «« 1

37.93 26 82 44 63 36 57

o

CO

« S S 3

Ol CM O « ^ CM

K.

to

1

5 2 S S g S 5 S

1 ]

g

? § g s

^ k g

CM

E

1

c

14.00

17.00

41.00

35.00

I 92 9Z

56 00

44.00

60.00 4900

m

CM

oi

•o

g

42.00 26 00 4600

50.00

1 00 1^ 1

47.00 4300 6000 56 00

1 0919 1

1 9Z9P 1

33 00 33 00 5400 5000

1 09 Zt \

58 00 28 00

59 00 46 00

1 47 75 1

•o

tb

27 00 13 00 5000 38 00

1 32M 1

8 8 8 S J S 8 2

g

Ol

1 1

cs g C i? ; « g

08

c

14

17

41

35

h-

O

S 5 g ?

03

o

CM

(O

ro

42

26

46

50

i

47

43

60

56

to

o

CM

o

CO

33

33

54

50

O

58 28

59

46

<7>

to

CO

27

13

50

38

s

51

31

60

W I

s

R

r>

S g S ?

cn CM ^ cn

Mountain whiteftsh |

I

Q

V

3 62

2 93 20.76

3 40

00

n!

12 68 1883 18 74 14 86

K.

o

<o

^218 1

12 85 12 41 1601 20 09

1 1

15 00 12 54 30 84 14 71

o>

cb

1 16.89 1

6 85 18 91 32 31 15 49

1 9Z81 1

22 24 16 28 26 48 2067

CO

K.

CM

o

g

11 80 599 28 64 7 62

o

S 2 ^ ^

K. tn

m

CM

08

in

O ^ CM '

00 to c . cn CM M M

m

Q.

O

E

1

c

4 00 3.00 24 00 4 00

iO

rs.

00

17 00 1900 24 00 20 00

oooz

1 1

17 00 14 00 20 00 26 00

1 1

20 00 13 00 38 00 1900

g

CM

CM

1 20.88 1

9 00 1900 4100 20 00

«o

CM

CM

CM

34 00 17 00

35 00 26 00

S

CM

CO

lb

CM

1600 600 35 00 WOO

m

to

29 00 1700 33 00 25 00

8

S

1 9^ 1

R g S 5”

00 ^ ^ JO

g

c

TT CO S TJ-

in

tn

17

19 24

20

00

in

17

14

20

26

r-

h-

20

13

38

19

o

03

to

9

19 41

20

03

00

34 17

35 26

CM

o

CM

16

6

35

10

to

29

17

33

25

s

146

106

250

150

2

ID

1 Rainbow trout |

i

c

lU <c

3 62 6 84 10.38 16 13

n

o>

11.93 13.88 1639 14 12

o

V

1

9 83 7 98 1361 1159

oo

o

11.25 13 50 12.99 1780

03

CO

cb

1 12.34 1

9.14 7 96 7 88 16 27

to

Ci

11 12 6 70 11 35 11 92

CO

O

1 1

5 16 5 99 7 36 12 95

03

<

10 74 688 13 36

11 34

o

g

Oi

R 2 - S ® <» r g

8

1

E

if

C

4 00

7.00

12.00 19 00

I 10.50 1

16.00

14.00

21.00 19 00

o

to

K.*

\ 14.00 1

13.00

9.00 17 00

15.00

o

m

<o

15.00 14 00

16.00 23 00

§

r 15.25

12 00 8 00 10 00 21 00

1 1

17.00

7.00 15 00 15 00

1 09CI. j

1 cm 1

7 00 600 900 1700

m

N.

18 00 800 19 00 18 00

m

lb

m

CM

IC 2 S g

fsi a, 00

•0

c

4

7

12

19

Cs|

16

14

21

19

o

CM

13

9

17

15

15 14

16 23

oo

to

CM

CM

12

8

10

21

in

17

7

15

15

m

m

o

<£> <J> ^

03

n

18

8

19

18

cn

to

CM

O

102

73

119

147

1 Brown trout |

V

C

I

if

m (c

5 43

6 84 4.33 10 19

<M

K

to

17.15

10.90

1171

7.43

1 serr

9.07 2 66 7.21 6 96

to

to

9 00 15.43 4 87

10 84

CO

03

GO

9.14

5.97

2.36

697

to

to

4 58 3 83 6 81 3 97

in

CD

03

lb

2 95 1 00 4 91 8 38

o

m

2 39 5 16 5 63 8 19

o

m

in

08

V

g 5? 5 g

K. lO to Cv

cn

OI

lb

1

if

t£

00 Zl 00 9 00 i 00 9

O

23.00

11.00 15.00 1000

1 92PI.

cn

12.00

3.00

9.00 9.00

CM

CO

12.00 1600 6.00 14 00

12.00 1

1 croi \

12.00 6 00 3.00 9 00

o

to

7.00

4 00 900

5 00

m

CM

to

00

CO

tb

4 00 1 00 600 11 00

O

in

in

400 6 00 800 13 00

K

CD

s g 2 *

2 <o

08

to

•0

C

CD 1^ in

O

CO

23

11

15

10

O)

in

Oi

00

^ ^

CO

CO

12

16

6

14

oo

00

12

6

3

9

o

CO

TT O) m

CM

in

S- CO ^

CM

CM

to OO 2

n

cn

80

54

61

83

<o

1 Sampling I

(1

r

o

\^9

1104

1023

1156

1178

<o

1341

1009

1281

1346

o>

1 9438 1

1323

1128

1249

1294

03

Oi

1333

1037

1232

1292

4894 1

00

00

00

1313 1005 1269 , 1291

00

00

1529

1044

1322

1258

CO

in

in

10031 1

1356

1001

1222

1313

CM

03

OO

1676

1162

1422

1588

00

m

o

o

10975

8409

10153

10560

40097 1

S:

lU

1

1000

1000

1000

1000

o

o

o

o o o o o o o o o o o o

o

o

o

o

§

oo

0 o o o

1 1 § 8

o

o

o

o o o o 8 8 8 8

o

o

o

o

o

o

00

o o o o 8 8 8 8

o

o

o

"V

o o o o 8 8 8 8

o

o

o

o

S

OO

1000

1000

1000

1000

o

o

o

1000

1000

1000

1000

o

o

o

o

o

o

00

8000

8000

8000

8000

32000 1

Study

Section

CM fO TT

Run 1 Total 1

CM CO TT

|Run 2 Total I

•*“ CM CO TJ-

|Run 1 Total 1

^ CM CO TT

|Run2Total I

•*“ CM fO •O'

iRun 1 Total I

■r- CM cn

2

o

>-

CM

c

3

oc

CM CO n

|Run 1 Total I

^ CM cn

|Run2Total |

nlal (Days 1-1) □lal (Days 1-4) Dial (Days 1-4) Dial iD-iys 1-4)

Sampling

Run

-

CM

-

CM

-

CM

-

CM

NOTE Fish of nil si/os nro *idudo<J

Table B2. Catch and catch-per-u nit-effort (CPUE) for three size-classes of brown trout captured in the Bow River, 21-24 August 2000.

>149 mm Fork Length |

i

fish/IOOOs 1

11.86

8.86

8.21

8.72

1 9^3 1

9.04 8.78

6.05 8.89

o>

't~

od

6.69

4.88

4.63

5.10

1 5.38 1

2.64

3.24

5.30

8.27

iK

o»

7.29

6.42

6.01

7.77

1 6.91 \

6.98

2.18

1

14.50

9.00

10.00 11.00

12.00

9.50

7.50

11.50

1 10.13 1

9.50

5.00

6.00

6.50

M:

<o

4.00 3.50

7.00

12.00

(d

10.00

6.75

7.63

10.25

CO

CO

00

8.66

2.31

29

18

20

22

s

05 m CO CM T- T- CM

WM

CO

19

10

12

13

s

8

7

14

24

ss

80

54

61

82

5

>388 mm Fork Length |

i

1 nsh/IOOOs 1

4.50

3.94

2.46

3.57

s

2.64

3.23

4.03

2.71

Xh

2.81

2.93

1.16

3.14

«M

1.32

0.46

3.40

1.72

fc

2.73

2.62

2.76

2.75

1 1

080

9LZ

fish/km

5.50

4.00

3.00

4.50

lO

CM

3.50

3.50

5.00

3.50

00

<ci

4.00

3.00 1.50

4.00

2.00

0.50

4.50

2.50

1 2.38 1

3.75

2.75 3.50 3.63

CO

3.41

0.83

c

^ 00 CD 05

1^ h- °

00 CD CO CX5

in

CM

T- C35 ID

05

30

22

28

29

iB

mm

T—

1

WM

5

6

fIsh/IOOOs 1

0.41

1.48

2.05

2.38

1.51

1.85

0.40

1.16

1

0.70

0.00

1.16

1.57

1 0.90 1

0.00

1.85

0.76

2.07

1 IJl 1

0.64

1.31

1.08

1.80

1.20

0.29

fish/km 1

0.50

1.50

2.50 3.00

1.88 1

2.00

2.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

0.00

1.50

2.00

«o

00 £ 00 1. 00 Z 00 0

150 1

0.88

1.38

1.38

2.38

S

If-

1.50

0.31

c

T- CO CO CD

in

T-

(T)

CM O CO

iS

O CM CD

CM

150 - 250 mm Fork Length |

I

1 f/sh/IOOOs 1

6.95

3.44

3.69

2.71

4.89

3.70

1.61

5.03

1 1

3.17

1.95

2.32

0.39

1 1.99 1

1.32

0.92

1.13

4.48

5

3.92

2.50

2.17

3.22

CM

3.03

1.18

8.50

3.50

4.50

3.50

5.00 1

6.50

4.00

2.00 6.50

4.75 1

4.50

2.00

3.00

0.50

2.50 1

2.00

1.00

1.50

6.50

3.75 1

5.38

2.63

2.75

4.25

R

CO

3.75

1.31

c

h-

i. 40 ...J

C? 00 ^ ^

CO

CO

C35 CD 1-

■<d- CM CO ^

CM

CM

CO T- CM ■>;»■ ^ CM CM CO

o

llil!

Sampling

Effort

2445

2032

2437

2524

1 9438 1

2656

2165

2481

2586

00

oo

00

05

2842

2049

2591

2549

1 10031 1

3032

2163

2644

2901

1 10740 1

10975

8409

10153

10560

L 4009tJ

1

o o o o o o o o o o o o

CN CNJ CM CM

o

ms:

00

o o o o o o o o o o o o

CM CM CM CM

o

o

s

2000

2000

2000

2000

8000 1

2000

2000

2000

2000

8000 1

o o o o o o o o o o o o

C30 00 00 CX5

32000 1

Mean ^

Standard deviation ^

Study

Section

T- CM CO

1 Day 1 Total |

T- CM CO M-

1

■5- CM CO M-

1 Day 3 Total 1

T- CM CO M-

1 Day 4 Total 1

Section 1 Total (Days 1-4) Section 2 Total (Days 1-4) Section 3 Total (Days 1-4) Section 4 Total (Days 1-4)

1 Grand Total 1

Sampiing

21 -Aug-00

22-Aug-OO

Q

23-Aug-OO

O

O)

D

<

CM

CPUE

Means and standard deviations calculated using total CPUE values for each sampling day (n = 4).

Table B3. Catch and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for three size-classes of rainbow trout captured in the Bow River, 21-24 August 2000.

>149 mm Fork Length |

0.

o

o

o

o

s

■2

8.18

10.33

13.13

15.06

o

OO

10.54

10.62

13.30

14.69

N-

CO

oi

10.20

7.32

9.65

14.12

8.25

6.47

10.59

12.06

1 9-50 1

9.29

8.68

11.62

13.92

1 10.98 1

11.03

1.29

E

x:

10.00

10.50

16.00

19.00

CD

00

*o

14.00

11.50

16.50

19.00

«o

CN

«o

14.50

7.50

12.50 18.00

CO

cd

12.50

7.00

14.00

17.50

1 12.75

12.75 9.13

14.75 18.38

1 13.75

13.75

1.10

c

O T- CN OO CN tN CO fO

28

23

33

38

CN

CN

29

15

25

36

in

o

25

14

28

35

CN

O

102

73

118

147

o

5

>380 mm Fork Length |

s

0.

o

o

o

o

■2

2.86

3.94

6.16

9.51

lO

4.89 3.70 4.03 8 89

I I

5.28 3.42 4.63 5 10

o>

CO

4.29 2.77

5.30 7 24

CO

o

wS

4 37 3 45 5.02 7 67

1 i

5.23

0.47

E

42

3.50

4.00

7.50

12.00

•o

tv.

<d

6.50

4.00

5.00

11.50

Vi

rv

cd

7.50

3.50 6.00

6.50

I 5.88 I

6.50

3.00

7.00 10 50

»o

cd

6.00 3.63 6.38 10 13

CO

m

cd

6.53

0.44

c

^ ^ ^

^2 00 °^

in ^ CN CO

^ ^ ^

48

29

51

81

1 209 1

1 251 - 380 mm Fork Length |

Q.

O

O

o

o

§

V)

•c

0.00

0.98

0.41

1.58

s

d

1.88

1.39

2.02

0.77

I I

2.11 0.00 0.39 2. 75

I I

0.99

0.46

1.13

1.72

1

1.28

0.71

0.98

1.70

1.19

0.34

fish/km I

0.00

1.00

0.50

2.00

00

GO

d

2.50

1.50

2.50 1.00

1.88 1

3.00

0.00

0.50

3.50

Vi

K

1.50

0.50

1.50

2.50

o

IC>

1.75

0.75

1.25

2.25

c=>

m

1.50

0.44

c

O CN ^ Tj-

in CO ID CN

in

CD O

CO 1- CO in

CN

14

6

10

18

CO

1 150 * 250 mm Fork Length |

s

a.

o

I fish/WOOs I

5.32

5.41

6.57

3.96

1 5^2 1

3.77

5.54

7.26

5.03

1 5.36 1

2.81

3.90

4.63

6.28

o>

CO

2.97

3.24

4.16

3.10

3.35 1

3.64

4.52

5.61

4.55

1

4.60

0.95

I fish/km I

6.50

5.50 8.00 5.00

1 6.25 1

5.00

6.00 9.00 6.50

CO

CO

(d

4.00

4.00

6.00 8.00

I 5.50 I

4.50

3.50

5.50

4.50

o

m

5.00 4.75 7.13

6.00

CN

K

>n

5.72

0.94

c

CO T- CD O

1 50 1

O CN CO CO

CO

in

8

8

12

16

5

Oi Oi

CO

CO

40

38

57

48

r>

00

Sampling

Effort

2445

2032

2437

2524

9406 1

2656

2165

2481

2586

1 9888 1

2842

2049

2591

2549

10031 1

3032

2163

2644

2901

10740 1

10975

8409

10153

10560

40065 1

?

o o o o o o o o o o o o

CN CN CN CN

o

o

o

CO

2000

2000

2000

2000

o

o

o

OO

2000

2000

2000

2000

o

o

o

00

2000

2000

2000

2000

o

o

o

00

o o o o o o o o o o o o

00 CD (S CO

32000 1

Mean *

Standard deviation *

Study

Section

^ CN CO Tj-

■(5

o

T- CN CO Tj-

“re

O

J—

■<- CN CO O-

re

o

h-

1- CN CO O-

re

o

K

Section 1 Total (Days 1-4) Section 2 Total (Days 1-4) Section 3 Total (Days 1-4) Section 4 Total (Days 1-4)

1 Grand Total I

Sampling

Day

21 -Aug-00

>«

re

Q

22-Aug-OO

CN

>«

re

a

23-Aug-OO

CO

>>

re

a

24-Aug-OO

><

rei

O

CPUE

Table B4. Catch and catch-per-unit-effort (CPL/E) for three size-classes of mountain whitefish captured in the Bow River, 21-24 August 2000.

>149 mm Fork Length |

t

o

1

1

8.59

10.83

19.70

9.51

1218 1

13.93

12.47

23.38

17.40

16 89 1

15.13

17.57

29.33

18.05

s

14.84

10.63

25.72

12.06

15.92 1

13.30

12.84

24.62

14.20

iiS

ffli

16.26

3.23

i

10.50

11.00

24.00

12.00

1 14.38 1

18.50

13.50 29.00

22.50

21.50

18.00

38.00

23.00

1 25.13 1

22.50

11.50 34.00

17.50

1 21.38 1

18.25 13.50

31.25 18.75

III

5

20.44

4.46

21

22

48

24

lO

37

27

58

45

43

36

76

46

1 !

45

23

68

35

146

108

250

150

U

€

m

c

.-1

£

E

E

U

<M

A

1

s

2.86

7.38

7.39 2.77

o

7.15

7.85

10.88

4.25

1 1

6.69

11.22

13.89

7.85

1 1

8.91

6.01

12.86

6.55

«o

<o

00

6.56

8.09

11.33

5.40

CO

7.72

2.05

1

3.50

7.50 9.00

3.50

00

Id

9.50

8.50

13.50

5.50

m

9.50

11.50 18.00 10.00

filiiiiiil

13.50

6.50 17.00

9.50

11.63

9.00

8.50

14.38

7.13

1 Sl‘6

9.75

2.89

c

m

; 47

19

17

27

11

19 23 36

20

CO

27

13

34

19

m

<7>

72

68

115

57

\

1 200 - 280 mm Fork Length |

1

3.27

2.46

7.39

4.75

1 4.56

6.40

3.70

10.48

10.83

S

N.

6.69

5.86

15.05

8.63

1 9.17 1

4.62

4.16

11.72

4.83

n

<d

5.28

4.04

11.23

7.20

s

7.01

2.01

1 ujmm i

4.00 2.50

9.00

6.00

1 5.38 \

8.50

4.00

13.00

14.00

s

o>

9.50 6.00

19.50 11.00

1 11.50 1

7.00

4.50

15.50 7.00

S

00

7.25

4.25

14.25 9.50

I i$'8 1

8.81

2.60

c

oo in “ ^

$

17

8

26

28

CT> CM O) CM T- •<- CO CM

SI

? ?

1

58

34

114

76

i

S

§

2.45

0.98

4.92

1.98

s

CM

0.38

0.92

2.02

2.32

1.76

0.49

0.39

1.57

o

1.32

0.46

1.13

0.69

s

ci

1.46

0.71

2.07

1.61

s

1.52

0.78

1

•a

3.00

1.00 6.00 2.50

00

cd

0.50

1.00

2.50

3.00

}2

2.50

0.50

0.50

2.00

1 1

2.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

P

CM

2.00

0.75

2.63

2.13

1.88

0.86

c

6

2

12

5

1 sz 1

CM LO CO

|ii

lO 'l- T- TT

-

Tf T- CO CM

16

6

21

17

s

III .ti. "jWiijfii'

2445

2032

2437

2524

00

S

2656

2165

2481

2586

1 9888 1

2842

2049

2591

2549

1 10031 1

3032

2163

2644

2901

10740 1

10975

8409

10153

10560

1 40097 1

'1

2000

2000

2000

2000

8000 I

o o o o o o o o o o o o

CM CM CM CM

o

s

00

2000

2000

2000

2000

8000 1

o o o o o o o o o o o o

CM CM CM CM

o

:vO-

CO

8000

8000

8000

8000

32000 1

Mean ®

Standard deviation ^

study

T- CM CO Tj-

m

£

T- CM CO

1

V- CM CO TJ-

2

£

T- CM CO

To

.2

Section 1 Total (Days 1-4) Section 2 Total (Days 1-4) Section 3 Total (Days 1-4) Section 4 Total (Days 1-4)

1 Grand Total 1

Sampling

Day

21 -Aug-00

>,

s]

22-Aug-OO

CM

>,

10

a

23-Aug-OO

CO

a

24-Aug-OO

a

CPUE

Table B5. Size statistics for brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

IT)

CO

CO

CD

CM

CO

oo

CO

If)

Tf

m

CD

If)

in

CD

r--

CD

Tf

Tf

T-*

'1-

T-'

T-'

T-

CM

CM

c

•

'

■

•

•

'

'

'

•

«

o

CJ)

oo

CD

o

Tf

o

o

CD

CD

a:

o

CO

CD

00

00

CD

r-

00

00

CM

CD

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

w

o

o

CNJ

T-

o

CD

CD

Tf

o

■r-

r^

o

00

to

Q

▼“

CM

CM

CM

CM

u.

c

(/)

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

.2

c

o

C

o>

CD

Tf

f«.

oo

o

h-

CO

CM

CD

o

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CM

CM

Tf

00

in

S

T-

T—

T-

CO

CO

CO

IT)

If)

CO

in

CO

00

in

c

o

CO

CD

o

if)

CO

CD

o

CM

Tf

CM

CM

CO

0)

O)

c

■245

o

lO

-2520

2520

-220

-770

-2330

2330

■ 120

O

CM

Tf

- 1945

1945

to

cr

65-

150

660-

65-

40-

195

495-

40-

40-

75-

305

40-

-

CO

CO

00

42

CD

00

65

CO

CM

S

d

CO

o

CM

Tf

S

CD

CM

o

in

CM

CM

Tf

00

Tf

(0

X

O)

0)

$

c

Tf

in

1320

CM

CD

CO

79

Tf

CM

(U

s

m

in

n

CO

CD

CO

V

<o

CM

O)

CM

in

CO

CO

If)

lo

CO

m

CO

CD

If)

c

c:d

CO

N.

oo

o

if)

CO

CD

o

CM

Tf

CM

CM

CO

o

in

Tf

Tf

CD

o

o

o

CD

O

in

in

01

lO

CO

CM

CM

Tf

00

CD

CD

CD

00

CD

CD

O)

CM

CO

CD

CD

CM

CO

in

in

T—

CM

Tf

Tf

c

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

*

1

ra

CO

o

00

00

00

in

o

m

(T

If)

CD

If)

in

00

in

in

o

00

in

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

CM

?

£

CD

CO

CD

CD

CD

CD

120

CM

X

LJ

lO

If)

Csi

Tf

CO

T-

CM

lO

CO

O)

CO

c

0)

_J

1-

c

o

(0

h-

Tf

O)

CO

CM

00

in

in

CO

00

1 1

0)

CM

O)

CD

CO

T~

o

in

CO

oo

CM

CO

oo

s

CM

CM

Tf

CO

CM

CO

Tf

CO

T-

CM

CO

CM

CO

CO

If)

CO

jn

C3

55

CD

o

CO

c

o

CO

CD

CO

CD

CM

CM

CM

CO

tfi

tfi

3*

o

00

o

o

CD

O

to

m

oo

00

in

00

O

CD

OO

O

o

CM

CO

00

—

CM

CO

OO

rr

T—

CM

00

—

E

ci

CO

<

d

CO

<

d

d

CM

<

0)

2

iO

in

A

in

in

A

m

o

A

V)

CM

CM

CM

tf)

$

c

X

c

o

1 ■

ro

V)

'5

V

$

o

3

o

X

c

3

o

"c

3

l£=

O

Q.

m

TO

o

X

(0

cr

2

$

Table B6. Length-frequency (%) distribution of sport fish sampled in the Bow River, August 2000.

Fork Length

Brown

Rainbow

Mountain

Bull

interval (mm)

whitefish

trout

Burbot

70

-

79

80

-

89

90

-

99

100

-

109

110

-

119

120

-

129

130

-

139

140

-

149

150

-

159

0.2

0.3

160

-

169

0.7

1.0

170

-

179

0.4

2.9

1.5

180

-

189

0.8

2.9

3.1

190

-

199

0.8

5.6

3.1

230

-

209

4.5

5.1

8.8

210

-

219

5.7

7.3

8.5

220

-

229

9.8

7.5

10.6

230

-

239

10.6

6.3

6.4

240

-

249

9.4

4.1

2.1

250

-

259

9.4

2.4

1.3

33.3

260

-

269

3.0

1.2

2.4

33.3

270

-

279

0.4

1.0

3.4

280

-

289

1.5

0.7

2.0

290

-

299

0.2

3.1

33.3

300

-

309

0.5

4.9

310

-

319

5.5

320

-

329

1.0

3.1

330

-

339

0.5

1.1

340

-

349

0.4

1.6

350

-

359

1.0

1.1

360

-

369

0.4

0.5

2.1

370

-

379

1.1

1.5

2.6

380

-

389

3.0

1.0

1.6

390

-

399

4.5

2.4

3.4

400

-

409

4.2

1.9

3.6

410

-

419

2.6

3.6

3.9

420

-

429

2.3

3.9

3.8

430

-

439

1.1

5.1

2.0

440

-

449

0.4

4.1

1.3

450

-

459

0.8

6.3

0.5

25.0

460

-

469

•1.5

3.6

0.2

470

-

479

2.3

2.7

480

-

489

4.2

2.9

490

-

499

2.6

2.4

500

-

509

1.5

2.9

510

-

519

2.6

1.0

520

-

529

2.6

0.5

530

-

539

2.6

1.2

50.0

540

-

549

1.1

0.2

550

-

559

0.2

560

-

569

570

-

579

0.8

0.2

580

-

589

0.4

590

-

599

0.2

600

-

609

0.4

610

-

619

620

-

629

0.4

630

-

639

640

-

649

25.0

650

-

659

660

-

669

670

-

679

680

-

689

^ Sampie Size

- 265

411

613

- "tr"' 3

4 ' 'H' '

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Date

Aug-00

Section

Species

FL(mm)

WT(g)

Sample # *

Structure **

Age (yr»)

22

2

BNTR

180

70

SC

1

23

1

BNTR

204

115

3130

SC

1

22

3

BNTR

207

125

3104

SC

1

22

1

BNTR

212

115

2843

SC

1

21

1

BNTR

223

135

2973

SC

1

22

4

BNTR

230

145

2836

SC

1

21

2

BNTR

190

75

SC

2

23

1

BNTR

200

95

3122

SC

2

24

4

BNTR

212

110

2639

SC

2

22

3

BNTR

215

130

2891

SC

2

23

1

BNTR

215

110

3129

SC

2

23

1

BNTR

216

130

3496

SC

2

22

1

BNTR

218

120

2800

SC

2

24

1

BNTR

226

175

2503

SC

2

22

1

BNTR

227

155

2797

sc

2

21

1

BNTR

228

170

2741

sc

2

21

1

BNTR

230

155

2722

sc

2

23

1

BNTR

232

165

3126

sc

2

23

1

BNTR

234

180

3125

sc

2

22

2

BNTR

237

175

2876

sc

2

21

1

BNTR

240

210

2961

sc

2

29

1

BNTR

241

125

B2

so

2

21

3

BNTR

244

210

3039

sc

2

21

1

BNTR

245

180

2967

sc

2

23

2

BNTR

246

175

3205

sc

2

23

3

BNTR

248

180

3161

sc

2

24

1

BNTR

249

175

2667

sc

2

24

2

BNTR

252

210

2514

sc

2

22

2

BNTR

254

225

2874

sc

2

22

2

BNTR

257

205

3100

sc

2

22

1

BNTR

258

210

2791

sc

2

29

1

BNTR

260

185

B3

so

2

22

2

BNTR

261

250

2877

sc

2

23

4

BNTR

265

265

3233

sc

2

30

2

BNTR

268

270

B9

so

2

30

4

BNTR

281

320

B11

so

2

30

6

BNTR

281

300

B13

so

2

21

3

BNTR

284

285

3036

sc

2

23

4

BNTR

271

200

3245

sc

3

22

3

BNTR

380

740

3358

sc

3

24

3

BNTR

380

750

2432

sc

3

24

2

BNTR

382

660

2509

sc

3

23

1

BNTR

384

665

3486

sc

3

29

1

BNTR

384

680

B1

so

3

23

4

BNTR

392

720

3240

sc

3

24

3

BNTR

399

845

2621

sc

3

23

1

BNTR

402

900

3251

sc

3

21

1

BNTR

404

890

2966

sc

3

30

1

BNTR

406

895

B6

so

3

24

3

BNTR

414

900

2651

sc

3

24

1

BNTR

415

915

2501

sc

3

23

3

BNTR

427

1080

3336

sc

3

21

2

BNTR

429

1020

2706

sc

3

Page 1 of 6

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Aug*4)0

Section

Species

FL (mm)

WT(g)

Sample # ^

Structure **

Age (yrs)

23

2

BNTR

435

915

3203

SC

3

23

1

BNTR

385

700

3263

SC

4

22

4

BNTR

393

775

2828

sc

4

24

4

BNTR

397

795

2531

sc

4

30

4

BNTR

408

1090

B12

so

4

24

1

BNTR

410

825

2406

sc

4

23

1

BNTR

429

1015

3252

sc

4

30

• 3

BNTR

438

1360

BIO

so

4

23

4

BNTR

440

1245

3239

sc

4

24

1

BNTR

461

1315

2604

sc

4

30

1

BNTR

461

1245

B5

so

4

30

2

BNTR

462

1235

B7

so

4

24

3

BNTR

468

1190

2631

sc

4

23

3

BNTR

471

1510

3276

sc

4

23

1

BNTR

476

1210

3309

sc

4

22

1

BNTR

480

1305

3096

sc

4

23

1

BNTR

480

1225

3488

sc

4

30

2

BNTR

480

1540

B8

so

4

30

1

BNTR

480

1310

B4

so

4

23

2

BNTR

500

1670

3146

sc

4

24

3

BNTR

390

755

2431

sc

5

23

1

BNTR

470

1340

3253

sc

5

21

1

BNTR

480

1430

2963

sc

5

22

3

BNTR

481

1305

3356

sc

5

23

2

BNTR

485

1295

3207

sc

5

22

3

BNTR

487

1560

3355

sc

5

21

3

BNTR

492

1535

2993

sc

5

23

4

BNTR

492

1370

3234

sc

5

24

3

BNTR

493

1505

2420

sc

5

24

3

BNTR

520

1685

2422

sc

5

21

1

BNTR

505

1520

2964

sc

6

23

2

BNTR

507

1560

3273

sc

6

23

2

BNTR

510

1630

3269

sc

6

23

4

BNTR

511

1630

3192

sc

6

21

4

BNTR

512

1470

2711

sc

6

22

3

BNTR

520

1895

3357

sc

6

23

2

BNTR

523

1615

3201

sc

6

23

4

BNTR

539

1845

3235

sc

6

21

3

BNTR

540

2030

2995

sc

6

21

3

BNTR

586

2220

3027

sc

6

23

1

BNTR

516

1470

3491

sc

7

24

1

BNTR

525

1900

2502

sc

7

22

3

BNTR

534

1810

3354

sc

7

23

1

BNTR

570

2115

3490

sc

8

30

1

MNWH

118

35

M30

so

1

29

1

MNWH

150

45

M8

so

1

29

4

MNWH

150

40

M20

sc

1

29

4

MNWH

155

50

M21

so

1

23

1

MNWH

180

65

sc

1

21

1

MNWH

180

70

sc

1

22

3

MNWH

188

85

sc

1

21

1

MNWH

195

90

sc

1

22

1

MNWH

199

110

sc

1

22

4

MNWH

201

195

sc

1

Page 2 of 6

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Date

Aug-00

Section

Species

FL(mm)

WT(g)

Sample # *

Structure

Age (yrs)

23

2

MNWH

204

110

3141

SC

1

22

3

MNWH

208

120

SC

1

22

3

MNWH

210

105

2822

SC

1

21

2

MNWH

211

145

2987

SC

1

23

2

MNWH

217

135

3139

SC

1

22

3

MNWH

220

155

2825

SC

1

22

4

MNWH

224

105

2838

SC

1

29

4

MNWH

225

180

M19

SO

1

21

2

MNWH

230

185

2986

SC

1

23

2

MNWH

232

150

3210

SC

1

29

3

MNWH

240

195

M18

SO

2

30

1

MNWH

252

240

M24

SO

2

23

1

MNWH

266

260

3494

sc

2

23

2

MNWH

273

310

3202

sc

2

21

2

MNWH

275

310

2989

sc

2

23

3

MNWH

278

365

3222

sc

2

23

3

MNWH

279

350

3150

sc

2

23

1

MNWH

283

310

3121

sc

2

21

2

MNWH

289

415

2982

sc

2

22

3

MNWH

295

415

3101

sc

2

22

2

MNWH

296

430

2812

sc

2

22

1

MNWH

303

460

3091

sc

2

22

2

MNWH

305

475

2807

sc

2

23

2

MNWH

306

515

3208

sc

2

21

2

MNWH

315

550

2974

sc

2

22

2

MNWH

317

560

2864

sc

2

21

2

MNWH

319

540

sc

2

22

2

MNWH

325

585

2865

sc

2

22

3

MNWH

336

520

2819

sc

2

30

1

MNWH

255

315

M23

so

3

29

2

MNWH

272

335

M12

so

3

22

2

MNWH

275

320

2810

sc

3

29

1

MNWH

277

320

M7

so

3

29

1

MNWH

280

380

M6

so

3

30

1

MNWH

290

375

M22

so

3

30

1

MNWH

292

415

M28

so

3

22

1

MNWH

297

450

3092

sc

3

21

2

MNWH

300

500

2985

sc

3

29

2

MNWH

315

535

Mil

so

3

29

3

MNWH

340

705

M17

so

3

29

3

MNWH

342

770

M16

so

3

30

1

MNWH

345

810

M29

so

3

21

2

MNWH

354

785

2984

sc

3

21

3

MNWH

360

820

2994

sc

3

23

3

MNWH

361

835

3214

sc

3

22

2

MNWH

373

880

2804

sc

3

22

2

MNWH

290

350

3099

sc

4

23

3

MNWH

320

535

3149

sc

4

22

3

MNWH

323

620

2888

sc

4

22

1

MNWH

326

600

3090

sc

4

30

2

MNWH

330

590

M32

so

4

22

2

MNWH

340

700

2808

sc

4

23

3

MNWH

363

865

3213

sc

4

29

3

MNWH

366

860

M15

so

4

Page 3 of 6

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Date

. Aug4D0

Section

Species

FL(mm)

WT(g)

Structure **

Age (yrs)

23

2

MNWH

370

1085

3134

SC

4

21

2

MNWH

370

850

2983

SC

4

23

3

MNWH

373

965

3218

sc

4

22

4

MNWH

399

1260

2833

sc

5

22

3

MNWH

404

1280

2820

sc

5

23

2

MNWH

405

1475

3132

sc

5

29

1

MNWH

433

1590

M4

so

5

30

1

MNWH

368

995

M27

so

6

30

2

MNWH

378

925

M31

so

6

29

1

MNWH

378

1135

Ml

sc

6

24

2

MNWH

379

880

2671

sc

6

23

2

MNWH

384

1165

3135

sc

6

23

1

MNWH

384

950

3492

sc

6

22

2

MNWH

390

1295

2803

sc

6

30

1

MNWH

393

930

M26

so

6

22

2

MNWH

405

1110

2866

sc

6

29

2

MNWH

407

1275

M10

so

6

29

2

MNWH

410

1400

M9

so

6

22

1

MNWH

412

1425

2859

sc

6

22

1

MNWH

415

1440

2787

sc

6

29

3

MNWH

415

1270

M14

so

6

22

4

MNWH

418

1370

2826

sc

6

22

1

MNWH

427

1605

3086

sc

6

23

2

MNWH

428

1360

3133

sc

6

22

4

MNWH

430

1570

2835

sc

6

23

3

MNWH

434

1520

3217

sc

6

22

1

MNWH

435

1410

3088

sc

6

22

4

MNWH

445

1685

2830

sc

6

23

2

MNWH

390

985

3140

sc

7

29

1

MNWH

392

1090

M5

so

7

22

2

MNWH

408

1340

2862

sc

7

22

1

MNWH

411

1405

3087

sc

7

29

1

MNWH

420

1370

M2

so

7

30

1

MNWH

460

1855

M25

so

7

29

1

MNWH

395

970

M3

so

8

23

2

MNWH

424

1565

3499

sc

8

23

1

MNWH

455

1630

3493

sc

8

22

2

MNWH

410

1235

2805

sc

13

30

3

RNTR

155

50

R26

so

1

29

4

RNTR

173

85

R9

so

1

29

1

RNTR

176

75

R4

so

1

21

3

RNTR

177

60

sc

1

22

2

RNTR

183

80

sc

1

30

1

RNTR

187

90

R18

so

1

30

4

RNTR

190

105

R29

so

1

22

3

RNTR

204

125

3102

sc

1

22

2

RNTR

208

120

2878

sc

1

22

3

RNTR

214

135

2899

sc

1

23

1

RNTR

220

145

3124

sc

1

22

3

RNTR

230

190

2887

sc

1

21

1

RNTR

195

105

sc

2

30

1

RNTR

195

110

R19

so

2

30

3

RNTR

198

105

R25

so

2

30

3

RNTR

212

145

R24

so

2

Page 4 of 6

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Date

Aug-00

Section

Species

FL (mm)

WT(g)

Sample # *

Structure **

Age (yrs)

30

2

RNTR

226

165

R22

SO

2

30

4

RNTR

232

190

R28

SO

2

21

2

RNTR

235

170

2990

SC

2

21

1

RNTR

239

150

2970

SC

2

29

4

RNTR

240

210

RIO

SO

2

22

1

RNTR

244

205

3093

sc

2

30

1

RNTR

245

220

R17

so

2

23

3

RNTR

257

225

3231

sc

2

23

1

RNTR

289

295

3489

sc

2

30

4

RNTR

295

410

R27

so

2

22

3

RNTR

301

385

2890

sc

2

30

3

RNTR

307

450

R23

so

2

22

1

RNTR

324

345

3095

sc

2

29

3

RNTR

335

500

R7

so

2

22

1

RNTR

380

770

2784

sc

2

21

4

RNTR

400

775

2715

sc

2

30

2

RNTR

344

605

R21

so

3

22

1

RNTR

359

535

2844

sc

3

30

2

RNTR

360

645

R20

so

3

30

1

RNTR

374

590

R16

so

3

22

2

RNTR

379

705

2809

sc

3

30

5

RNTR

380

810

R30

so

3

21

3

RNTR

390

785

3034

sc

3

23

1

RNTR

391

840

3487

sc

3

21

2

RNTR

391

635

2981

sc

3

29

2

RNTR

402

830

R5

so

3

29

1

RNTR

402

860

R1

so

3

22

4

RNTR

405

925

3111

sc

3

23

2

RNTR

407

1000

3145

sc

3

22

1

RNTR

407

820

3084

sc

3

23

1

RNTR

410

895

3485

sc

3

23

1

RNTR

413

865

3123

sc

3

29

1

RNTR

413

815

R3

so

3

22

1

RNTR

416

795

2842

sc

3

21

2

RNTR

420

960

2979

sc

3

22

3

RNTR

429

925

3105

sc

3

21

4

RNTR

433

880

2779

sc

3

22

4

RNTR

435

955

3112

sc

3

22

1

RNTR

444

1245

2841

sc

3

21

4

RNTR

451

935

2714

sc

3

21

4

RNTR

452

1200

2713

sc

3

22

4

RNTR

405

495

2839

sc

4

29

4

RNTR

424

850

R13

so

4

29

4

RNTR

430

1015

R11

so

4

21

2

RNTR

433

900

2975

sc

4

21

3

RNTR

434

855

3029

sc

4

22

2

RNTR

440

1050

2872

sc

4

22

1

RNTR

444

815

2785

sc

4

29

1

RNTR

446

1010

R2

so

4

22

2

RNTR

450

1025

2871

sc

4

22

2

RNTR

453

1135

2811

sc

4

22

1

RNTR

454

1070

2798

sc

4

23

2

RNTR

469

1205

3144

sc

4

21

4

RNTR

495

1310

2718

sc

4

Page 5 of 6

Table B7. Raw data for aged fish captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

Y Date Aug-00

Species

FL (mm)

Sample#^

Structure ^

Age (yrs)

21

1

RNTR

496

1450

2721

SC

4

21

4

RNTR

508

1405

2781

SC

4

21

1

RNTR

518

1570

2724

sc

4

22

4

RNTR

520

2065

3114

sc

4

22

1

RNTR

423

845

3085

sc

5

21

3

RNTR

432

1040

2708

sc

5

29

3

RNTR

435

1640

R8

so

5

22

2

RNTR

445

890

2806

sc

5

30

1

RNTR

448

1045

R15

so

5

21

3

RNTR

455

940

3030

sc

5

22

2

RNTR

458

1060

2863

sc

5

22

1

RNTR

459

985

2792

sc

5

21

3

RNTR

459

1200

3032

sc

5

21

4

RNTR

461

1130

2709

sc

5

22

4

RNTR

465

1295

3113

sc

5

23

1

RNTR

465

1310

3484

sc

5

29

4

RNTR

465

1130

R12

so

5

29

4

RNTR

470

1225

R14

so

5

22

2

RNTR

483

1040

3098

sc

5

22

4

RNTR

502

1195

2827

sc

5

22

4

RNTR

505

1385

2837

sc

5

29

2

RNTR

511

1350

R6

so

5

21

4

RNTR

530

1675

2776

sc

5

22

3

RNTR

535

1620

2896

sc

5

22

3

RNTR

523

1630

3361

sc

6

22

2

RNTR

539

1910

2869

sc

6

® Indicate either Floy tag number or Alberta Environment identification tag (e.g., R12). Blanks indicate fish which were fin clipped during the Bow River population estimate study.

^ SC = scale; SO = scale and otolith

Page 6 of 6

Table B8. Age-specific fork lengths and weights of brown trout and rainbow trout captured in the Bow River, August 2000.

standard deviation

Table B9 Number of injured fish recorded during fish population assessment in the Bow River, August 2000.

S .9-

II 3

2 E

(Fish Examined-Fish with No lnjuries)/Fish Examined*100

CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km)

150-250 mm FL

n=120

Brown Trout

251-388 mm FL

> 388 mm FL

n=34

Day 1

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section ■

n=9

_J^

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=109

All

Days

Combined

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Figure B1 Relative abundance, expressed as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), of brown trout size-classes in the Bow River, August 2000.

CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km)

Rainbow Trout

150-250 mm FL

251-380 mm FL

> 380 mm FL

n=44

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=183

n-7

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=15

: n

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=14

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=12

I........... ...I fZZZl I. .....I

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=209

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

All

Days

Combine

Figure B2

Relative abundance, expressed as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), of rainbow trout size-classes in the Bow River, August 2000.

CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km) CPUE (fish / km)

Mountain Whitefish

150-199 mm FL 200-280 mm FL

> 280 mm FL

n-47

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

n=74

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

All

Days

Combined

Figure B3 Relative abundance, expressed as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), of mountain whitefish size-classes in the Bow River, August 2000 (note changes in y-axis scales).

APPENDIX C

Population Estimate Data

Table C1. Encounter history data used to calculate population estimates of sportfish size-classes in the Bow River, August 2000.

CO

CM

CO

00

CM

CO

00

CO

CM

T..

CO

o

»-

CM

CO

o

»-

CM

CJ>

CD

CO

C3)

N.

CO

rv

CO

Oi

CO

a>

ra

ro

o

o

o

o

o

Y-

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

11.

LiJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

▼—

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

CM

CM

00

CM

N.

T«.

CM

Y-

00

r~

T~

CO

CD

T~

»-

ip

■M-

00

00

CM

CO

CO

N.

CM

0)

o

CD

o

o

T-

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

ro

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

(O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

«

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

LU

o

o

o

o

o

o

C5

CO

o

o

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

JS

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Ui

o

CM

00

CO

CM

Y-

CO

T-

T-

00

CM

T~

CD

£1

CNI

CM

CM

<o

CM

o

«

CN

n .

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

CO

o

CO

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

$

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

lU

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

■M-

(O

CO

CD

CM

CO

Y-

>o

o

CO

S

o>

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

■

(/)

o

o

o

C)

C3

C )

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C3

C3

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

C-)

o

C5

o

o

CO

C.J

o

LU

C3

( )

o

o

o

o

o

o

T —

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CTi

Y^

CO

00

00

O)

CM

CM

CO

CO

m

00

M-

CO

M-

CO

00

o

Mr

o>

nl

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C )

CO

CO

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C J

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

LU

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CJ

CJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

C

oo

oo

CM

O)

00

00

T~

Y..

T..

CD

C3>

00

CM

CM

CO

A

w

p

O

o

o

c->

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0>

CO

o

o

o

C3

o

C5

o

C )

c >

o

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

<n

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

<0

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

iS

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

9

UJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

T-

T-

N

c

Oi

CM

CO

in

CO

r^

CO

(0

-M-

3

O

o

00

n

(0

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

r~

T“

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

>

lO

i X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

>

CM

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

LU

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

E

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

re

c

o>

CO

Oi

Mr

oo

1^

CM

CO

cn

Q_

00

CM

s

'

01

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

in

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

LU

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

CO

o

1^

CM

C3i

CO

CO

Y^

CM

CD

CM

Mr

CM

CM

CM

Mr

00

CO

CM

CO

CM

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

UJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

u.

c

CO

N.

O)

CM

CO

Mr

1^

Y^

CO

CM

£

o

E

00

T—

o

o

T—

o

o

o

T—

o

o

o

T—

o

(0

w

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

re

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

<0

A

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

w

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

re

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

lU

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

9

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

S

c

N.

CM

V-

Mr

Mr

CO

CO

CO

CO

(0

00

Mr

3

CO

CO

'%

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

g

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

fm.

to

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

CM

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

>

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

UJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

p

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

m

c

M-

M-

Mr

CM

cy>

CM

r-

CM

CO

\

X

CM

CM

o

\

<n

CM

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

w>

X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

u

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

c:

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

UJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Enc Hist = encounter history based on eight electrofishing runs; 0 indicates fish absence, whereas 1 indicates presence of the same fish e g,, 01001000 represents fish captured on the 2"'’ electrofishing run and recaptured on the 5*'’ run

The numbers in italics beside each encounter history configuration represent the number of fish that exhibited a given encounter history

Table C2.

Comparison of population estimates of brown trout and rainbow trout size-classes (1982-2000) and mountain whitefish size classes (1999-2000) in the Bow River calculated using the Darroch method.

Species

Year

>388/380^280 mm FL

Total

fish/km

95% Cl

fish/km

95% Cl

lower

upper

lower

upper

Brown trout

1982

30

16

44

352

246

410

1983

61

5

128

693

469

916

1984

65

28

98

339

253

426

1985

111

60

157

378

263

493

1988

115

61

160

583

454

686

1990

52

23

82

503

309

698

1991

40

17

64

571

487

655

1992

69

11

139

528

375

681

1999

117

84

175

267

199

370

2000

202

103

427

660

397

1131

Rainbow trout

1982

91

65

117

165

121

208

1983

151

101

201

486

357

616

1984

98

62

133

1010

827

1192

1985

189

139

239

576

486

667

1988

217

177

258

539

451

625

1990

86

67

105

359

287

432

1991

121

92

151

292

224

361

1992

368

220

518

966

741

1192

1999

176

108

307

224

139

382

2000

223

155

337

681

491

964

Mountain whitefish

1999

132

82

229

853

584

1273

2000

432

297

649

1143

851

1557

Table C3. Comparison of population estimates of brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish size-classes in the

Bow River calculated using the Null method, 1990-2000.

Total

95% Cl

upper

1

c

C

C

372

1162

c

C

c

386

968

1293

1573

lower

C

c

c

200

404

c

c

c

140

493

0)

in 00

fish/km

419

544

502

268

674

455

298

1357

226

684

<u

in

CD m oo

Large

95% Cl

upper

82

66

116

177

433

107

158

667

311

339

o

CD

lower

22

17

6

84

104

68

96

236

9

155

84

301

fish/km

52

41

60

118

204

87

122

451

178

224

136

439

intermediate

95% Cl

upper

_ b

94

375

92

410

51

163

460

_ b

376

1571

995

lower

_ b

52

100

16

41

12

83

122 _ b

38

519

375

fish/km

4

73

237

33

120

31

122

290

3

110

890

601

Small ^

95% Cl

upper

524

492

268

247

954

468

107

983

52

996

_d

584

lower

205

369

141

74

164

208

6

250

4

255

_cJ

57

fish/km

364

430

204

129

382

337

50

616

11

492

cJ

171

Year

1990

1991

1992

1999

2000

1990

1991

1992

1999

2000

1999

2000

Species

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Mountain whitefish

^ o

3 <=

Q. 2?

ro m O w

00 §

^ •• 0) g,

TO _J

1°

” 2 in ^ " " CD •Si

-B

Jl

i?3

o in in T-

JH

E

3

C

CXJ S

CNI o A *- II

CD —

o *

§ s

<N 03 C3 E

o

CNJ

II

00

TO

-o

c

TO

o

S

c

o

g

D

o

TO

B

O

CNJ

B

_c

CD

E

TO

D

Q.

O

Q.

C

$

o

>>

c

o

TO

e?

-

O

5

LL

II

3

O 2

C3 £

-b-

6 2? in 0) c

3

o E 0)

C/D CD

II

i ° el

QQ CO ™ 02

CO § 1 ^ ■i I

cz CO

2 ^ c

° z

o S

03 JO C73 CO

^ -E B -o

c CD

CD g CJ ^ c CO CD > "O <D l^

C O O C ^ CO vP CO ^

in 7T

03

CO

^ N

h- (n

LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA

3 3286 53472444 4