OLDMAN RIVER DAM PROJECT FISHERIES EVALUATION PROGRAM - 1989 ANNUAL REPORT - Prepared for ALBERTA PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLY AND SERVICES by R.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 17312- 106 Avenue EDMONTON, Alberta T5S1H9 Phone: (403) 483-3499 October 1991 OLDMAN RIVER DAM PROJECT FISHERIES EVALUATION PROGRAM - 1989 ANNUAL REPORT - Prepared for ALBERTA PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLY AND SERVICES by R.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. 17312 - 106 Avenue EDMONTON, Alberta T5S 1H9 Phone: (403) 483-3499 October 1991 K.L. & JL. V 1 AL StHV ILLS L I LI. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2.0 STUDY LOCATION 1 SECTION 3.0 METHODOLOGY 6 SECTION 4.0 POST-ENHANCEMENT RESULTS 7 4.1 RESULTS OF 1989 SAMPLING PROGRAM - POST-ENHANCEMENT 7 4.1.1 Location and Description of Post-Enhancement and Control Population Sites . . 7 4.2 NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF CATCH 8 4.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CATCH 9 4.3.1 Rainbow Trout 9 4.3.2 Mountain Whitefish 14 4.4 POPULATION ESTIMATES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS) 14 4.4.1 Rainbow Trout . 14 4.4.2 Mountain Whitefish 30 SECTION 5.0 RESULTS OF 1989 SAMPLING PROGRAM - PRE-ENHANCEMENT ... 41 5.1 SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION 41 5.2 NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF CATCH 41 5.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CATCH 42 5.3.1 Rainbow Trout 42 5.3.2 Mountain Whitefish 42 5.4 POPULATION ESTIMATES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS) 50 5.4.1 Rainbow Trout 50 5.4.2 Mountain Whitefish 56 SECTION 6.0 LITERATURE CITED . . 58 APPENDICES 59 i Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page i R.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services, in cooperation with the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, is presently implementing a large-scale habitat enhancement program on the Crowsnest River. The intent is to offset fisheries losses due to the Oldman River Dam currently under construction near Pincher Creek, Alberta. Under the guidance of the Fisheries Mitigation Working Group (FMWG), R.L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. was asked in 1987 to obtain detailed estimates of population density and biomass for sportfish species at sites selected for habitat improvement. Sampling during the 1989 field season represents the third year of detailed sampling on the Crowsnest River, upstream of reservoir full supply level (FSL). One phase of the 1989 program involved sampling at sites previously investigated in late summer 1988 to determine fish population response to enhancement structures constructed in fall 1988. The second 1989 study component involved pre- construction sampling of sites potentially targetted for enhancement in 1990 (or later). Several control sites also were sampled in order to assess natural population fluctuations in natural high and low quality habitats. SECTION 2.0 STUDY LOCATION In total, 20 sites were investigated in 1989. The work was conducted during the period 9-30 September. Of the 20 population estimates derived, one was in the Lundbreck area (Figure 2.1), five were near Burmis (Figure 2.2), three were situated near Hillcrest (Figure 2.3), and five were adjacent to the Frank Industrial Park (Figure 2.3). The remaining six sites were within and upstream of Coleman (Figure 2.4). The sites at Lundbreck and Burmis provided baseline data for possible future enhancement activities in these reaches. The Coleman sites were sampled to provide pre- enhancement data prior to construction in the fall of 1989. The sites at Frank and Hillcrest were post- enhancement in nature (i.e., sampled to provide comparison between pre-construction data generated in 1988 and post-construction conditions in the current year). Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 1 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Alberta Libraries https://archive.org/details/oldmanriverdampr1989oldm OLDMAN RIVER DAM PROJECT SECTION 3.0 METHODOLOGY Fish population survey sites were established at 20 locations on the Crowsnest River (Figures 2.1 to 2.4). These locations included post-enhancement sites (habitat enhancement structures constructed in 1988) and pre-enhancement sites (locations selected for enhancement in ihe fall of 1989 or subsequent years). At each population survey site, block nets consisting of 1.5 cm stretched measure mesh were positioned at the upstream and downstream ends. The nets were placed across the channel to produce a total barrier to fish movement. A weighted nylon skirt, attached to the bottom of the net, prevented fish movement under the net. Once the block nets were in place, a multi-pass removal-depletion capture strategy was utilized to obtain an estimate of sportfish populations within the enclosed area. Fish were captured using a Smith-Root type VI-A electrofishing system powered by a 4000 W generator. The electrofishing system was mounted in an inflatable boat to facilitate movement within the survey area. In shallow sections (i.e,, <1 m depth), the electrofisher operator (using a hand-held anode and a towed cathode apparatus), waded in the channel accompanied by one or more netters. One removal run generally consisted of an upstream and a downstream pass through the enclosed area. The relative degree of sampling effort (i.e., seconds shocked), sampling pattern, and area sampled were maintained as constant as possible during each run. A minimum of three runs were required to capture sufficient numbers of sportfish to obtain the necessary level of precision for the population estimate. Additional runs were required at some sites. Captured fish were removed to a holding tank which was placed near shore at the downstream end of the enclosed section. Fish were identified, enumerated and measured prior to their release downstream of the lower block net. Life history data collected included length (fork length to nearest mm) and weight. Only a representative subsample of smaller fish were weighed if large numbers (i.e., > 100 per run) were present. Fish were weighed with digital electronic balances (accurate to ± 1 g). Prior to detailed analyses (i.e., population and biomass estimates) the data for rainbow trout and mountain whitefish where separated into distinct size-classes based on fish length. These were young-of-the-year (y-o-y), juveniles, and legal or adult size-classes. To accomplish this, the length- frequency distribution for each species were assessed at a particular site. From this information the length classes for y-o-y and juvenile fish were established. Legal or adult fish were ^254 mm in length. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 6 Fish population density estimates were derived using the removal-depletion method according to Zippin (1958) and through application of the maximum-likelihood estimator as recommended by Van Deventer and Platts (1983). The computer software package MICROFISH V2.3 (Van Deventer and Platts 1987) was utilized to complete the calculations. To facilitate comparisons, the estimates were standardized to number of fish/100 m units. Standing stock biomass was estimated for specific size-classes of fish by using the population estimate and the mean weight of fish in a specific size-class. Based on the weighed subsample of fish, a length-weight regression was calculated, and this relationship was used to estimate the weight of fish for which only a length was obtained. The mean weight of a fish in a given size-class was then calculated from the complete data set, and this value was used to estimate biomass. Confidence intervals (95% level) were estimated using the formulae presented in Armour et al. (1983). The biomass estimates were standardized to kg/ha units by dividing the biomass estimate by the wetted area of the stream section sampled. Physical habitat characteristics were recorded at each site. Depth, velocity (0.6 d), and substrate data were obtained at pre-designated transects. In addition, the distribution and area of the various habitat types within each site were estimated. A field diagram was prepared illustrating major habitat features, transect locations and the habitat type/distribution within cells between transects. Habitat and substrate terminology are described in Appendix A of the 1988 evaluation report (RL&L 1989). SECTION 4.0 POST-ENHANCEMENT RESULTS 4.1 RESULTS OF 1989 SAMPLING PROGRAM - POST-ENHANCEMENT 4.1.1 Location and Description of Post-Enhancement and Control Population Sites Eight post-enhancement population estimates were derived in 1989, including estimates at six sites enhanced in the previous year (i.e., fall 1988) and two natural control sites (Table 4.1). Three of the sites were situated in the vicinity of Hillcrest and five were located adjacent to the Frank Industrial Park (Figure 2.3). Each of the sites was sampled in 1988 prior to instream enhancement activities; two of the sites (i.e., 87-3 and 87-K) were high quality natural habitats which were selected as CONTROL sites for the respective enhancement areas. The majority of the sites upgraded were shallow run (R3) type habitats considered to have low adult feeding/holding capability. Site 88-2 was a natural R2 habitat that was upgraded through addition of large boulders. A variety of habitat Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program • 1989 Annual Report Page 7 enhancement structure types were evaluated in the 1989 program including groynes, boulder placement, V-weirs, bank overhang, and a log wall. Table 4.1 Location and description of post-enhancement and control population sites, 1989. Enhancement Area Habitat Type/Description Site Designation Pre-Construction (1988) Post-Construction (1989) Hillcrest 88-1 Natural R3 Groyne Run/boulder garden 88-2 Natural R2 (R3, RF/BG) R2/Boulder garden 88-3 (Control) Natural R2(R3) Natural R2(R3) Frank 88-7 Natural R3 V-weir 88-9 Natural R3 V-weir 88-10 Natural R3(R2) Bank overhang/boulder garden 88-11 Natural R3 Log wail/bank overhang/ boulder garden 87-K (Control) Natural R1/P1 Natural R1/P1 Streamflows during the 1989 sampling program ranged from 3.3 m3 s l at the Hillcrest sites during the survey period (16-19 September) to 2.5 m^s*1 at the Frank sites during the period 26-30 September. Flows of this magnitude were similar to the long term average for the month of September (i.e., 2.96 mS-s*1; 1910-1988 period of record, Water Survey of Canada). This is in contrast to the flows experienced during the 1988 field season. During 1988, sampling occurred during the period 15- 25 August at flows of 1.6m3-s_1. Flows of this magnitude are substantially below the long-term average for the month of August (i.e., 3.87 m3^-1) and approximately 40-50% lower than experienced in 1989. 4.2 NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF CATCH Table 4.2 summarizes the catch from the eight sites during 1988 (prior to enhancement) and 1989 (one year following enhancement). In 1988, 3053 Fish were enumerated, of which 1789 (59% of the total) were rainbow trout. Mountain whitefish also were numerous at the various sites (i.e., 1167 captured, 38% of total). Brook trout made a minor contribution to the 1988 catch. Three non-sport species also were represented which included longnose sucker, mountain sucker, and longnose dace. The species composition in 1989 was similar to that recorded in 1988 with the exception of rainbow/cutthroat hybrids which were only encountered in the current year. It is possible that this species was present in 1988 but was not detected. Rainbow trout remained the dominant species in Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program • 1989 Annual Report Page 8 1989 (2478 individuals, 52% of the total catch). Mountain whitefish also were strongly represented in the catch (2140 individuals, 45% of total catch). Numbers of several species appeared to decline (i.e. , suckers, longnose dace, brook trout); this was probably due to the alteration of the habitat from shallow riffle/run types to deeper faster habitats. Table 4.2 Number and percentage composition of fish captured at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). Species No. Captured % Composition 1988 (pre) 1989 (post) 1988 (pre) 1989 (post) Rainbow trout 1789 2478 59 52 Brook trout 14 3 <1 <1 Cutthroat trouta 0 16 <1 <1 Mountain whitefish 1167 2140 38 45 Longnose sucker 9 2 1 <1 Mountain sucker 30 67 <1 1 Longnose dace 44 73 1 2 3053 4779 100 100 a Ram bow/cutthroat hybrids. 4.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CATCH 4.3.1 Rainbow Trout The size distribution of rainbow trout encountered at the eight population sites during the 1988 pre-enhancement and 1989 post-enhancement sampling programs is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The raw data for the length-frequency analyses is provided in Appendix B, Table Bl. Site 88-1 (Natural R3 to Groyne Run-Boulder Garden) Site 88-1 was upgraded from a shallow run (R3) to a groyne-run boulder garden. The length- frequency distribution does not show any major shifts, although there was an apparent decrease in the relative contribution of y-o-y. This event could have been due to year-class variability or flow differences between years. Site 88-2 (Natural R2 (R3, RF-BG) to R2-Boulder Garden) Site 88-2 was upgraded through the addition of large boulders. No striking differences between years are evident. Further evaluation will be required to determine the long-term effectiveness of the enhancement action. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 9 I s 1 1 1989 (Post) Groyne Run - Boulder Garden Fork Length (mm) 1989 (Post) R2 - Boulder Garden 88-2 n= 859 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Figure 4.1 Length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout from enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction) . I I 1 I I s I 1 % ETA 1989 (Post) f DU 88-7 r 40 V Weir e q 30 n - 75 u e 20 — n c 10 — m 1 y 1 1 1 0 1 " V 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Figure 4.1 Continued. I I ! ! % F r e q u e n c y Fork Length (mm) % F r e q u e n c y 30 20 1989 (Post) Bank Overhang - Boulder Garden 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 88-10 n = 274 450 Fork Length (mm) Figure 4.1 Continued. II 1 I II I I ! I 1989 (Post) Natural R2 (R3) 150 200 250 300 Fork Length (mm) 1989 (Post) Natural R1- PI 87- K Control n= 360 I 250 Fork Length (mm) t 300 350 I 400 450 Figure 4.1 Concluded. I I ! I K.L.. A. 1.. 11 -> \ IIIU.N.VIL.^ 1 .iL3f.UV U..L3 1-1 1 J. Sites 88-7. and 88-9 (Natural R3 to V-weir) Sites 88-7 and 88-9 were upgraded from shallow run habitat (i.e. , R3) to deep-pool/run habitat (i.e., Rl/Pl) through the construction of V-weirs. At year-1 , no increase in the legal-size component of rainbow trout has occurred. This may be due to the fact that the habitat created is new and unstable. Alternatively, it may be due to the higher flows experienced in 1989 (i.e., less reliance on deeper, higher quality holding areas). Sites 88-10 and 88-11 (Natural R3 to bank overhang/log wall) Sites 88-10 and 88-11 were upgraded from shallow run habitat (R3) to excavated bank runs (R2) with associated overhang and boulder cover. As was the case with the previous sites, after year-1 no increase in the target legal-size component of rainbow trout has occurred. Again this may have resulted from the new (biologically speaking) and unstable nature and instability of the habitat. Sites 88-3 and 87- K Sites 88-3 and 87-K are long-term control habitats and as such were not modified. At site 88-3 (R2(R3) habitat) the length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout did not change appreciably between 1988 and 1989. In contrast, at site 87-K (Rl/Pl habitat) a marked reduction of the larger size classes occurred from 1988 to 1989. This may have been due to the differences in flows between years (i.e., low flows in 1988 resulted in concentration of larger fish in high quality holding areas). It may also have been due to the recent addition of new habitats created in the area by the mitigation program. 4.3.2 Mountain Whitefish The size distribution of mountain whitefish encountered at the eight population sites during the 1988 pre-enhancement and 1989 post-enhancement sampling program is illustrated in Figure 4.2. The raw data for the length-frequency distribution analyses is provided in Appendix B, Table B2. 4.4 POPULATION ESTIMATES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS) 4.4.1 Rainbow Trout Population estimates, using a multi-pass removal-depletion method were developed at eight sites. Sites ranged from 49 to 143 m in length. Population density values (standardized to number fish/ 100 m) were generated for young-of-the-year, juveniles, and legal-sized rainbow trout (Table 4.3). Estimates for biomass (reported In kg/ha) are presented in Table 4.4. Population estimates developed for pre-enhanced (1988) and post-enhanced (1989) conditions are compared in Table 4.5 and Old man River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 14 1988 (Pre) Natural R3 88-1 n = 158 i i i 1 r i — ~i 1 r 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) 15 F 1989 (Post) 88 2 r R2 - Boulder Garden e 10 q 1 n ~ 349 u : ^ 1 1 ibiipLjl M c — H It y n 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Figure 4.2 Length-frequency distribution of mountain whitefish from enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction) . I I m Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Figure 4.2 Continued. J I 60 40 20 1989 (Post) 88-10 Bank Overhang - Boulder Garden n= 73 t r r r i 1 — i r~ 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) 1989 (Post) 88-11 — g[ Logwall ■ Bank Overhang - Boulder Garden 1L. QJEB n= 39 50 100 150 200 250 300 Fork Length (mm) I 350 400 450 Figure 4.2 Continued. I I I I ! i l l i I I I % Figure 4.2 Concluded. U.L. A L. t.N \ iliU.N ML N 1 AL SLKViCLls 1. 1 U. Figures 4.3-4. 10. Non-standardized population estimates (density for actual section sampled) and raw data for individual removal-depletion runs are provided in Appendix B, Tables B2 and B3. Table 4.3 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989, (post-construction). Enhancement Area Site Section Length (m) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the- year (<80 mm) Juveniles (80-253 mm) Legal (>254 mm) All Size-Classes No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. Near Hillcrest 88-1 71 44 35-63 399 368-421 6b N.A.a 446 408-472 88-2 63 106 105-111 > 1 221b N.C.C 38 38-40 3229 1363-4308 88-3* 52 194 175-218 381 365-397 46 46-48 619 587-644 Near Frank 88-7 57 102 82-133 46 42-56 7 7-12 158 132-192 | 88-9 49 108 92-136 241 208-277 7b N.A. 361 314-403 88-10 103 80 55-117 210 205-216 6 6-7 280 266-291 88-11 143 57 50-67 67 60-76 0 125 110-138 87-K* 65.5 72 69-80 499 463-524 18 18-20 591 550-617 aNot Applicable; confidence interval (C l ) same as population estimate. bValue given is actual catch; population estimate would be greater than catch (population estimate not calculable due to ascending or irregular catch progression). cNot calculated •Control site. Site 88-1 (Natural R3 to groyne run/boulder garden) The density of y-o-y rainbow trout was noticeably lower under post-enhancement conditions in 1989 as compared to 1988 (i.e., 96 vs 44 fish/100 m, respectively). The numbers of y-o-y at the nearby control site (88-3) also was slightly lower suggesting the change at 88-1 may not entirely be related to the enhancement. In contrast, juveniles at site 88-1 were present in much larger numbers in 1989, compared to 1988 densities. This may be partly a response to the habitat upgrading, particularly since the numbers of juveniles was down slightly at the control site (88-3). The density of legal-sized Fish remained unchanged, suggesting that the instream works have not appreciably increased its value as adult feeding/holding habitat, at least not by year-1. Numbers of legal-size rainbow trout showed a marked increase at site 88-3, the associated control site (i.e., 19 to 46 fish/100 m). Site 88-2 (Natural R2 (R3, RF/BG) to R2/boulder garden) At site 88-2, the numbers of y-o-y rainbow trout remained unchanged between 1988 and 1989. However, juveniles showed a large increase (i.e., 200 to 1221 fish/lOOm). This increase may have resulted from the habitat upgrading, but also may reflect the presence of a strong year-class moving Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 19 Table 4.4 Estimates of rainbow trout standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989, (post-construction). Site Sampled Area (ha) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-year ( < 80 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. Juveniles (80-253 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. Legal ( > 254 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. All Sizes kg/ha ± 95% C.l. 88-1 0.120 0.5 ±0.4 134.7 ± 15.1 8.0 ±0.9 1 43.3 ± 15.2 88-2 0.093 1.4 ±0.1 510.5 ±21.6 82.0 ± 12.8 593.9 ±25.1 88-3* 0.087 1.7 ±0.3 230.3 ± 16.3 76.1 ± 13.0 308.1 ±20.9 j 88-7 0.081 0.9 ±0.3 11.1 ±4.9 14.3 ± 10.4 26.3 ±11.4 88-9 0.072 1.0 ±0.3 63.5 ± 14.9 32.7 ± 11.9 97.3 ± 19.2 88-10 0.158 0.8 ±0.4 37.5 ±4.3 13.3 ±4.8 51.7 ± 6.4 88-11 0.169 0.7 ± 0.1 13.8 ±3.8 0 14.4 ±2.8 87-K* 0.082 0.9 ±0.2 1 18.2 ± 13.6 41. 9 ±6.5 161.1 ± 15.1 •Control site. into the juvenile size range. Sampling in subsequent years will determine whether or not the density of legal trout shows an equivalent increase. The numbers of legal rainbow trout was down from 46 to 38 fish/100 m in 1989. The reason for this decrease is unknown at this time. Site 88-3 (Control, natural R2 (R3)) Overall the rainbow trout population density at Site 88-3 was lower in 1989 than in 1988, although biomass increased for the same period. This was probably due to the higher numbers of legal trout encountered in 1989 which would have caused a subsequent increase in the biomass at the site. The higher flows experienced in 1989 increased the depth and cover quality of the site, factors that may have influenced the use of the area by larger fish. Site 88-7 (natural R3, to V-weir) Site 88-7 was upgraded from a R3 habitat to a deeper, high quality habitat through use of a V- weir structure. The year-1 data indicate a drop in density and biomass of juveniles and legal-size trout. Numbers of y-o-y fish remained essentially unchanged. This was somewhat surprising since the newly created habitat appeared well suited for use by legal-size rainbow trout. It may be that the habitat at year-1 is still relatively unstable (on a microhabitat level). It may well take several years for enhanced habitats in the upper Crowsnest River to reach the desired carrying capacity. The Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program 1989 Annual Report Page 20 Table 4.5 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction). 00 in o 3 m 00 IN in s 3 CJ> O ON m « — o «3 1 SO *“ <3- rsi «— SO Q. ao vO in sj VO 6 6 © 00 m vO in 22 in «— m JN <— in SO at CO O in «J u <3 «3 rsi rsi so un SO m 00 rsi rsi at in 01 m i/j Co O S IN r^ 00 Ot rsi m m in m rsi rsj ao CD — * va X. © oo S o < 3 rsi < ic IN o> SJ C 00 o» SO SO <3 Ch rsi ST o o IN UJ z '£ 4» m in m on rsi IN <3 o > IN m In CO Os' O SO 3 Ot rsi so CO 00 00 sT h- 00 in rsi in rn IN IN *7 SO sO GO iA rv m 6 00 SO rv «— rv 00 r— vo o 00 «- 3 m IN rsi SO 3 ai o o o ns CL as o cn 00 00 I^N IN o rsi rsi , at us m in O in IN 00 rsi iA in o in VO 4* £ ? E 00 a> sj vO O 3 as rsi O CO o O OO in rsi o . _ o 00 O o VO in m 6» \/ 'a? 00 CO o «— in rsi c 3 w OL m cn 6 6 m SO SO rN rn O 00 © *— SO o o rn in > ao co *— «— «“ — ^ *“ OI SO on m in vO vo at m rsi o o in m 00 IN c a* -p 01 IQ ■O o> c C a* -p ITJ cn a; ■o .2 (0 ns "O "io 3 ■*-> O) C ITJ m JZ ot "io 3 c 10 j C > 10 ** 3 at Z a) O Z £ 01 a) o > o ~a o c >» 2 c i 0) $ s o 3 o c o 2 $ c flj ot o c O «c 3 00 u u. > > 00 u a> 00 rsi 00 ns ao IN OO ort oo o - IN CO CO 00 00 00 s CO aValue given is actual catch; population estimate would be greater than catch (population estimate not calculatable due to ascending or irregular catch progression) bNot calculated. cNot Applicable; confidence interval (C.l.) same as population estimate. Population Density Biomass No. 200 _ Young-of - the-year kg/ha 2 per 100 ’ rags awns 100 m — I ! 0 E I ■ n A — 1988 1989 Young-of- the- year 1988 1989 No. per 100 m 600 400 200 0 juveniles 1988 1989 — 200 Juveniles __ - moMi k9/ha 100 IKi i 1 1 c gggggjggg L— • o ■ 1988 1989 No. per 100 m 20 10 Legal 1988 1989 kg/ha All size-classes All size-classes kg/ha H Post-construction (Groyne run/boulder garden) Figure 4.3 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-1 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). Population Density Biomass 200 Young-of-the-year 2 Young-of-the-year No. 1 _U kg/ha — „ w Per 100 1 ■ 100 m 0 lJL — 0 1988 1989 1988 1989 NO. per 100 m No. per 100 m No. per 100 m 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R2 (R3, RF/8G)) kg/ha All size-classes 800 600 k9/ha 400 200 0 1988 1989 Post-construction (R2/boulder garden) Figure 4.4 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-2 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). Population Density Biomass 300 N° 200 per 100 m 100 0 Young-of- the-year ■ n 1988 1989 kg/ha kg/ha No. per 100 m 1 000 800 600 No. per 400 — 100 m — 200 0 All size-classes 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R2/R3) Post-construction (Natural R2/R3) Figure 4.5 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-3 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). Population Density Biomass Ho. per 100 m 150 100 50 0 Young-of- the- year kg/ha 1988 1989 Juveniles No. per 100 m 600 400 200 0 kg/ha 1988 1989 30 No. per 20 100 m 10 Legal 1988 1989 k3/hd /in = Legal 1988 1989 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R3) 800 <— All Si ize-dasses 600 200 No. 400 _ ..... ! Hi h : kg/ha per 100 100 m 200 0 - 0 All size-classes 1988 1989 Post-construction (V Weir) Figure 4.6 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-7 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). Population Density Biomass kg/ha No. per 100 m kg/ha No. per 100 m All size- classes 500 All size-classes 400 - NO. 300 — | ll 200 llil i l l 100 m nm ||;||| 100 0 - ■ 1 kg/ha 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R3) m Post-construction (V Weir) Figure 4.7 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-9 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post- construction). I \ Population Density Biomass kg/ha 300 No. 200 per 100 m 100 Juveniles 1988 1989 kg/ha No. per 100 m 400 300 No. 200 per 100 m 100 All size-classes 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R3 (R 2)) 100 kg/ha 50 All size-classes 1988 1989 Post-construction (Bank overhang/boulder garden) Figure 4.8 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-10 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction). I I 1 I Population Density Biomass No. 100 — per 100 m 50 “ ■ 0 1988 Young- of- the-year kg/ha 300 No. 200 per 100 m 100 Juveniles 1988 1989 kg/ha — 20 Juveniles 1988 1989 30 No. per 20 100 m EE 10 EE— 0 — Legal 1988 1989 kg/ha 100 50 Legal 1988 1989 300 200 No. per 100 m 100 I All size- classes All size-classes 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R3) Post-construction (Log wall/overhang/boulder garden) Figure 4.9 Estimates of rainbow trout population density {standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 88-11 on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction). Population Density Biomass No. per 100 m 300 Young-of-the-year 200 100 0 1988 1989 kg/ha No. per 100 m 300 1988 1989 1988 1989 Pre-construction (Natural R1/P1 ) 1988 1989 Post-construction (Natural R1/P1 ) Figure 4.10 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) and biomass (kg/ha) at Site 87-K on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction). I I J K.L.&L. E.W IKON MENTAL SERVICES LTD. number oflegal trout at nearby site 87-K, a natural high quality control ( i.e. , Rl/Pl habitat) decreased dramatically between 1988 and 1989. Site 88-9 (Natural R3 to V-weir) At site 88-9, situated just upstream of Site 88-7, rainbow trout y-o-y and juvenile densities remained similar in 1989 compared to 1988. The density and biomass of legal-size rainbow trout, however, exhibited a slight increase between years. In 1989, both V-weir sites (88-7 and 88-9) had similar densities of legal-size trout (i.e., 7 fish/100 m). This is in comparison to 18 legal-size trout/100 m recorded at the natural Rl/Pl control site (87-K) in 1989. Apparently the use of enhanced sites by legal-size trout after year-1 is still considerably lower than use of natural high quality habitats. Site 88-10 (Natural R3 to bank overhang/boulder garden) No major changes in population density or biomass of all size-classes of rainbow trout occurred at this site between 1988 and 1989. The density of legal trout remained fairly low (i.e., 6 fish/100 m) in comparison to the natural high quality control (18 fish/100 m) at Site 87-K. Site 88-11 (Natural R3 to log wall/overhang/boulder garden) The population response at this site after one year was disappointing. While y-o-y rainbow trout densities increased slightly from 1988 to 1989, both juveniles and legal trout densities decreased substantially. One possible explanation is that the habitat is still relatively unstable and will require several years to reach the desired carrying capacity. Further monitoring will be required to determine the ultimate success of this and other structures. Site 87-K (Control. Natural Rl/Pl) At this site, the density and biomass of all size-classes of rainbow trout declined from 1988 to 1989. As previously suggested, one possible reason for the reduced density and biomass of legal-size trout may be due to the difference in flows between years. Low flows in 1988 may have resulted in a concentration of adults in deeper, higher quality habitats. 4.4.2 Mountain Whitefish Population estimates (standardized density and biomass values) for mountain whitefish are presented in Tables 4. 6-4.8 and Figures 4.1 1-4.18. Non-standardized estimates (density for actual section sampled) and raw data for individual removal-depletion runs is provided in Appendix E, Tables E2 and E3. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 30 I I 1 I I I I I K.L. & L. ENVIRON MENTAL SERVICES 1.1 I). Table 4.6 Estimates of mountain whitefish population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989, (post-construction). Enhancement Area Site Section Length (m) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the- year (<120 mm) Juveniles (120-253 mm) Adult ( >254 mm) All Size-Classes No. per 100 m 95% C.L No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. Near Hillcrest 88-1 71 204 41-1356 0 - 8 8-11 254 51-1508 88-2 63 50 50-51 1429 286-4453 267 217-311 884 554-1095 88-3* 52 60 52-78 85 85-88 73 73-75 221 215-231 Near Frank 88-7 57 7 7-10 88 18-943 219 44-1513 342 68-1952 88-9 49 316 63-2091 24 24-26 20 20-22 541 108-271 1 88-10 103 98 N A.a 0 - 0 - 100 N.A. 88-11 143 36 24-59 1 1-11 1 1-11 43 27-74 87-K* 65.5 66 61-76 72 72-74 104 104-106 240 237-246 aNot Applicable; confidence interval (C.l.) same as population estimate. •Control site. Table 4.7 Estimates of mountain whitefish standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). Site Sampled Area (ha) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-year (<80 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. Juveniles (80-253 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. Adult (> 254 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.l. All Sizes kg/ha ± 95% C.l. 88-1 0.120 1.6±0.1 0.8 ± n.a.a 15.6 ±5.5 18.0 ±5.5 88-2 0.093 2.8 ±0.3 197.4 ± 14.1 565.5 ±98.9 765.7 ±99.9 88-3* 0.087 2.3 ±0.8 80.3 ± 7.0 1 39.8 ± 14.5 222.4 ± 1 6.1 88-7 0.081 0.2 ±0.1 9.9 ±0.6 86.2 ±8.3 96.5 ±8.3 88-9 0.072 1.7 ±0.2 21.0 ± 3.9 33.1 ±7.1 55.9 ±8.1 88-10 0.158 2.4 ±0.3 0 14.1 ±12.8 16.5 ±12.8 88-11 0.169 1.2 ±0.8 1.7 ± 1.9 3.3 ±3.5 6.3 ±4.1 87-K* 0.082 2.2 ±0.4 69.5 ±7.1 271.0 ± 19.3 342.7 ±20.6 aNot applicable; confidence interval (C.l.) same as population estimate •Control site. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 31 I 1 J I I I I I Table 4.8 Estimates of mountain whitefish population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1988 and 1989, (pre and post-construction). ( CO LO 04 *“ VO IA o> (A VA TO 1989 (Post O ■ in in m o m m ao GO m 04 in o^ 04 04 in a* ah UD 04 m N 04 00 o in ( V N)00l 43(27-74) 04 04 o 04 u o s © s m o m So LA m o rj m VO S 5 h m PM 04 ? < O' oh m © 04 CO « CO Ot VD m 00 2 m m Oi 04 2 cr* 5*" cn S © f* m 04 VO m cn 5 04 fM 04 AS «— > P m © 01 o p m In o* © 04 P © c © CO hi fNJ on o- 4 *o- 6 Ci • 4- © V c E CO vo to o. cn 0 01 *“ © sr © os 04 PM gn m 1 1 1 i/i b~ < © a. •O’ •sf SO 00 CO CTi S' 04 P S o. s h- ca o m D a. 00 © P © rsi P © CO © m id m P © UD cn O a. UO A- © a. m m © o S' A. pm o on O 04 on < z s © © rA <0 © 2- ©, © 2 fM © ?! as © 5r o fM © IA © © vO m CO © m © © 5 S © © 0 Jl ? V 1 > *3“ is a. CO as © 334(242-425) u z xf © © fM A A. nn © ce rn co fM 630(572-688) 290(165-448) 57(42-88) U Z © A- A 92(92-95) c ■v 254 mm) rainbow trout, Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 41 H.L. & L. EN V IKON MEN 1 AL SEK V ICES L fL>. particularly in 87-H, the natural Rl/Pl control. The distribution of non-sport and incidental species is provided in Table 5.4. Table 5.2 Number and percentage composition of fish captured at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Species No. Captured % Common Name Scientific Name Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Richardson)3 2861 61 Cutthroat trout6 Salmo dark i Richardson 1 <1 Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill) 12 <1 Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni (Girard) 1253 26 White sucker Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede) 5 <1 Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus (Cope) 97 2 Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae (Valenciennes) 511 11 Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Rafinesque 2 <1 Brook stickleback Culaea inconstant (Kirtland) 1 <1 Total 4743 100% formerly Salmo gairdneri. ^Ra in bow/cutthroat hybrid. 5.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CATCH 5.3.1 Rainbow Trout The size distribution of rainbow trout captured at the population sites is presented graphically in Figure 5.1; the raw data is provided in Appendix D, Table Dl. The length-frequency data illustrate that the shallow-water habitats were not utilized by adult or legal-sized cohorts for feeding/holding purposes (i.e., at that particular time of year and flow regime). In fact, very few trout larger than 254cm were encountered in these areas (e.g., 89-1, 89-5, 89-7, 89-8). This does not reduce the importance of these habitats to young-of the-year and juveniles for rearing or to adult fish during higher flows. Of interest is the presence of greater numbers of legal-sized trout in habitats with a moderate to high quality run (R2) component (e.g., 89-2, 89-4). Site 87-H (control) which constitutes a high quality adult feeding/holding area (i.e., Rl/Pl) had the highest numbers of larger fish and the most diverse size-class composition. 5.3.2 Mountain White fish The size distribution of mountain whitefish captured at the various population sites is illustrated in Figure 5.2; the raw data is provided in Appendix E, Table E2. Only four of the 12 sites Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 42 R.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. Table 5 3 Summary of numbers and percentage composition of various size-classes of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989 Rainbow Trout Mountain Whitefish Legal Adult Y 0 Ya Juvenileb (2254 mm) Total YOY' Juveniled (>254 mm) Total Enhancement Area Site N % N % N % N N % N % N % N Near Lundbreck 89-1 80 99 i i 0 81 0 Near Bur mis 89-2 23 11 132 61 60 28 215 4 1 40 13 275 86 319 89-3 224 84 34 13 3 3 266 18 46 0 21 54 39 89-4 282 75 37 10 56 15 375 59 21 13 5 201 74 273 87-G 147 60 66 27 32 13 245 5 2 56 27 149 71 210 87 H 19 15 62 50 44 35 125 13 8 16 11 121 81 150 Near Coleman 89-5 109 20 429 79 3 1 541 3 2 155 96 3 2 161 89-6 170 48 183 52 0 353 1 7 13 93 0 14 89-7 96 66 50 34 0 146 0 3 100 0 3 89-8 96 78 27 22 0 123 0 25 93 2 7 27 89-9 157 86 25 14 0 182 1 100 0 0 1 89-10 174 84 34 16 0 ? 208 7 58 5 42 0 12 aAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of y-o-y is <100 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is <70 mm. ^At sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-6, H; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 70-253 mm. cAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is <120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is <100 mm. ^At sites 89-1 , 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm. Table 5.4 Catch summary for incidental fish species captured at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Enhancement Area Site Cutthroat trout3 Brook trout White sucker Mountain Sucker Longnose Dace Fathead minnow Brook stickleback Near Lundbreck 89-1 204 Near Burmis 89-2 3 89-3 1 19 89-4 17 1 87-G 5 87-H 1 1 Near Coleman 89-5 10 42 117 2 89-6 2 3 83 89-7 4 42 89-8 5 47 19 89-9 89-10 1 ‘Rainbow trout/cutthroat trout hybrid. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 43 % 40 F _ Natural R3 - BG (RF - BG) 89-1 r 30 — e q — n= 81 u 20 e n 10 c y n 1 u I i — — r 1 1 1 — 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) 20 Natural R3 (R2) 89-2 n= 215 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) — Natural R3 (R3 - BG) 89-3 — d n= 266 — Jjjj 100 150 200 250 300 Fork Length (mm) 1 I I 350 400 450 Natural R2 - P2 (R3) 89-4 n= 375 ^g1 1T5-— -I — —r~ 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Figure 5.1 Length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout from pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. I Natural R3-RF 89-6 n = 353 i i 1 "i r 1” 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Figure 5.1 Continued Fork Length (mm) Natural R3 (R2) 300 *T~ 350 CONTROL 87-G 146 400 I 450 Fork Length (mm) % F r e q u e n € y 20 10 0 Natural R1- PI CONTROL 87- H 125 Fork Length (mm) Figure 5.1 Concluded. Natural R3 (R3 - BG) 89-3 n = 39 50 100 150 200 250 300 Fork Length (mm) — T T” 350 400 450 Natural R2 - P2 (R3) 89-4 n= 273 50 100 150 200 250 300 Fork Length (mm) 350 400 450 Figure 5.2 Length-frequency distribution of mountain whitefish from pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Fork Length (mm) 89-6 n= 14 ~l — I — 400 450 Fork Length (mm) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Figure 5.2 Continued. Natural R3-RF 89-10 n= 12 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm) Figure 5.2 Concluded R.E. &. L. EN V I RON MENTAL SERVICES LTD. harbored high numbers of larger mountain whitefish; these were 89-2 (R3/R2), 89-4 (R2/P2), 87G (R3/R2), and 87-H (Rl/Pl). The remaining shallow habitat sites were occupied primarily by young-of- the-year and juveniles for rearing purposes. The size distribution at several of the sites was very sporadic; for example, sites 89-1, 89-3, 89-6, and 89-7. 5.4 POPULATION ESTIMATES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS) 5.4.1 Rainbow Trout Population estimates using the multi-pass removal-depletion method were obtained for 12 sites; sampled length ranged at these sites from 32 to 70 m. Values for population density (standardized to number fish/100 m) were generated for young-of-the-year, juveniles, and legal-sized rainbow trout (Table 5.5). The individual density values and their comparative relationships are illustrated in Figure 5.3. The relative density of the various cohorts (y-o-y, juvenile, legal) appear to be directly related to the depth and cover characteristics of the site. For example, shallow habitats (dominated by RF and R3 cover types) were heavily utilized by y-o-y (and to a lesser extent juveniles) for rearing purposes. These habitats received only limited use by legal-size trout. The inverse appears to be true for high quality holding areas (e.g., 87-H). Population densities of rainbow trout y-o-y ranged between 37 and 536 individuals per 100 m of stream section, with better rearing sites containing between 300-500 fish per 100 m. Juvenile densities ranged between 2-337 fish/100 m, with preferred habitats containing between 100- 700 fish/100 m. Densities of legal-size trout ranged from 0-129 fish/ 100 m. Sites with densities of legal-sized trout greater than lOOfish/lOOm can be considered preferred adult feeding/holding habitats. It is interesting to note that sites 89-2 and 89-4 held high numbers of larger trout despite their relatively shallow depth and lack of R1 or PI habitat. This may have been partially due to the higher flows experienced in fall 1989 (at least in comparison to 1988). Biomass values for the various sites are provided in Table 5.6 and Figure 5.4. These data show a similar trend to that observed for rainbow trout densities (i.e., higher values at sites with deeper water and better cover types). Biomass values for legal trout ranged between 0-278.0 kg/ha recorded. Sites with high quality habitats (i.e., 89-2, 89-4, 87-H) contained biomass values in the order of 200 kg/ha or higher. Non-standardized population estimates (density for actual section sampled) and raw data for individual removal-depletion runs are provided in Appendix D, Tables D2 and D3. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 50 Table 5.5 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Enhancement Area Site Section Length (m) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-yeara Juveniles13 Legal (>254 mm) All Size-Classes No. per 100 m 95% C.I. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.I. Near Lundbreck 89-1 65 134 123-149 > 1C n c d 0 135 125-150 Near Burmis 89-2 49 78 47-163 337 274-400 129 122-140 527 439-591 89-3 50 536 473-599 68 68-72 >8 n.c. 594 526-640 89-4 69 448 421-475 64 54-83 81 81-83 586 543-844 87-G 55 385 273-498 127 120-140 58 58-59 520 445-571 87-H 51 37 37-39 135 122-156 100 86-123 271 245-296 Near Coleman 89-5 64 192 170-216 711 686-736 5 5-6 908 845-940 89-6 70 267 246-289 264 261-270 0 - 524 504-540 89-7 43 232 223-247 121 116-131 0 - 356 340-374 89-8 32 312 300-332 84 84-85 0 - 394 384-409 89-9 40 400 392-412 65 62-75 0 - 465 455-479 89-10 34 518 512-528 100 100-106 0 - 621 612-634 aAt sites 89-1 , 2, 3. 4; 87-G, H; length of y-o-y is <100 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is <70 mm bAt sites 89-1 . 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 70-253 mm cValue given as actual catch; estimate would be greater than catch (population estimate not calculable due to ascending or irregular catch progression). dNot calculated Table 56 Estimates of rainbow trout standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989 Site Sampled Area (ha) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-year* kg/ha ± 95% Cl. Juveniles6 kg/ha ±95% C.I. Legal (>254 mm) kg/ha ± 95% CL All Sizes kg/ha ± 95% C.l. 89-1 0.166 1.5 ± 0.3 0.3 ± n.a.c 0 1.8 ±0.3 89-2 0.097 1.2 ±1.4 209.2 ±42.3 259.3 ±38.5 469.8 ±57.3 89-3 0.109 5.8 ± 0.9 1 2.5d ± n.c.e 26.1 ±9.2 44.5 ±9.6 89-4 0.122 7.5 ±0.7 39.2 ± 14.4 198.8 ±25.7 245.5 ±29.4 87-G 0.088 4.9 ±1.6 86.0 ±11.9 154.4 ±25.8 245.3 ±28.5 87-H 0.078 0.7 ±0.2 75.9 ±18.5 278.0 ±73.2 354.7 ±75.5 I 89-5 0.065 2.4 ±0.4 198.1 ±19.0 16.9 ±7.1 2 17.4 ±20.3 89-6 0.089 2.1 ±0.2 41.5 ± 8.1 0 43.5 ±8.1 89-7 0.057 1.9 ±0.2 17.7 ±6.6 0 19.6 ±6.6 89-8 0.045 2.7 ±0.5 6.8 ±1.3 0 9.4 ± 1.3 89-9 0.047 4.5 ±0.5 10.2 ±3.5 0 14.7 ±3.5 89-10 0.040 4.6 ±0.4 12.4 ±2.9 0 16.9 ±2.9 aAt sites 89-1 , 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of y-o-y is < 100 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, length of y-o-y is <70 mm. bAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm; atsites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 70-253 mm S\lot applicable; confidence interval same as estimate aActual catch value used to produce biomass estimate (population estimate not used for biomass estimate due to irregular or ascending catch progression). eNot calculated Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 51 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H 1 000 800 ■ No 600 per — 1 00 m 400 200 — 0 Juveniles 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89- 89-10 87-G 87-H 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H No. per 100 m All Size- Classes 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H Figure 5.3 Estimates of rainbow trout population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. No. per 100 m Figure 5.4 Estimates of rainbow trout standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H 800 600 No. per 400 — — 100 m 200 — — 0 All Size- Cl asses 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 Figure 5.5 Estimates of mountain whitefish population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. I kg/ha kg/ha kg/ha 1 600 1 200 800 400 All Sizes ii l I I I I I I I I 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H Figure 5.6 Estimates of mountain whitefish standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. < / 1 , I R.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. Table 5.7 Estimates of mountain whitefish population density (standardized to number per 100 m) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Enhancement Area Site Section Length (m) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-yeara Juveniles5 Adult (>254 mm) All Size-Classes No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.I. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. Near Lundbreck 89-1 65 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Near Burmis 89-2 49 8 8-9 98 82-128 563 561-569 659 651-669 89-3 50 > 18c n.c.d 0 >21 n.c. 82 78-93 89-4 69 126 86-189 19 19-21 291 291-293 401 396-409 87-G 55 >5 n.c. 102 102-105 271 271-272 382 382-384 87-H 51 >57c n.c. 47 31-98 261 233-289 539 408-670 Near Coleman 89-5 64 5 5-6 242 242-244 >3 n.c 252 252-254 89-6 70 >1 n.c. 19 19-20 0 - 20 20-21 89-7 43 0 - 7 7-10 0 - 7 7-10 89-8 32 0 - 78 78-79 >2 n.c. 84 84-85 89-9 40 >1 n.c. 0 0 - >1 n.c 89-10 34 >7 n.c. 18 15-45 0 - >12 n.c 1 dAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is < 120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is < 100 m. bAt sites 89-1 , 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm cValue given as actual catch; population estimate would be greater than catch (population estimate not calculable due to ascending or irregular catch progression). dNot calculated. 5.4.2 Mountain Whitefish Population estimates (standardized density values and biomass values) are presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 and Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Non-standardized population estimates (density for actual section sampled) and raw data for individual removal-depletion runs is provided in Appendix E, Tables E2 and E3. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 56 j I I I I I I K.L. & L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES L I U. Table 5.8 Estimates of mountain whitefish standing stock biomass (kg/ha) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Site Sampled Area (ha) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the-yeara kg/ha ± 95% C.I. Juveniles6 kg/ha t 95% C.i. Adult (>254 mm) kg/ha ± 95% C.I. All Sizes kg/ha ± 95% C.I. 89-1 0.166 0 0 0 0 89-2 0.097 0.310.1 70.9123.5 1149.9134.7 1221.1 141.9 89-3 0.109 1 ,4d ± n.c.e 0 83.1 1 n.c. 84.515.9 89-4 0.122 6.313.2 14.213.8 676.1 125.8 696.6126.2 87-G 0.088 0.610.1 84.219.1 680.5129.2 765.3 130.6 87-H 0.078 5.8 1 n.c. 42.4144.5 666.9178.3 710.7190.1 i 89-5 0.065 0.310.1 68.9110.0 9.5 1 n.c. 78.7110.1 89-6 0.089 0.1 1 n.a.c 4.513.5 0 4.6 1 3.5 89-7 0.057 0 3.911.6 0 3.911.6 89-8 0.045 0 35.317.7 9.41 n.c. 44.817.8 89-9 0.047 0.1 1 n.a. 0 0 0.1 1 n.a. 89-10 0.040 0.7 1 n.c. 1.912.3 0 2.6 1 n.c. aAt sites 89-1 , 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is < 120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is < 100 mm bAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm, at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm cNot applicable; confidence interval same as estimate. dActual catch value used to produce biomass estimate (population estimate not used for biomass estimate due to irregular or ascending catch progression). eNot calculated. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program - 1989 Annual Report Page 57 I R.L.& L. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. SECTION 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Armour, C.L., K.P. Burham, and W.S. Platts. 1983. Field methods and statistical analyses for monitoring small salmonid streams. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS-83/33. 200 p. R.L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. 1989. Oldman River Project. Fish population enhancement evaluation, Crowsnest River, 1988. Data report prep, for Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services. Van Deventer, J.S., and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating Fish populations from streams. Trans, of the N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 48: 349-354. . 1987. Users guide for MICROFISH 2.3, a software package for processing electrofishing data obtained by the removal method. For. Sci. Lab., Boise, Idaho. Unpubl. Mimeo. 6 p. Zippin, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. J. Wildl. Manage. 22(1): 89-90. Oldman River Dam Project Fisheries Evaluation Program • 1989 Annual Report Page 58 APPENDIX A HABITAT CLASSIFICATION AND RATING SYSTEM (R.L. & L.) I APPENDIX A HABITAT CLASSIFICATION AND HATING SYSTEM A) Piffle - Portion of channel with increased velocity relative to Run and Pool habitat types; broken water surface due to effects of submerged or exposed bed materials; relatively shallow (less than 25 cm) during moderate to low flow periods. Riffle (RF) - Typical riffle habitat type; limited submerged or overhead cover for juveniles and adult life stages; coarse substrate Riffle- Boulder garden (RF/BG) - Riffle habitat type with significant occurrence of large boulders; availability of significant instream cover for juveniles (to lesser extent adults) at moderate to high How events. B) Rapids (RA) - Portion of channel with highest velocity relative to other habitat types. Deeper than Riffle (ranging from 25-50 cm); often formed by channel constriction. Substrate extremely coarse; dominated by large, cobble and boulder material. Instream cover provided in pocket eddies (P3) and associated with cobble/boulder substrate. C) Run - Portion of channel characterized by moderate to high current velocity relative to Pool and Flat habitat; wafer surface largely unbroken. Deeper than Riffle habitat type. Can be differentiated into four types; deep-slow, deep-fast, shallow-slow, and shallow-fast. Run (Class 1 ) (Rl) - Highest quality Run habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.5 m; average depth 1.0 m. High instream cover at all flow conditions (submerged boulders/bedrock fractures, depth). Generally of deep-slow type (to lesser extent deep-fast) and situated proximal to upstream food production area (i.e., RF, R3). Run (Class 21 (R2) - Moderate quality Run habitat type. Maximum depth reaching or exceeding 1 .0 m, generally exceeding 0.75 m. High instream cover during all but low flow events (base flow). Generally of either deep- fast type or moderately deep-slow type. Run (Class 2)/Boulder garden (R2/BG) - Moderate quality Run habitat type; presence of large boulders in channel; high instream cover (boulder, bedrock fractures, turbulence) at ail but low-flow events (baseflow). Depth characteristics similar to R2; however, required maximum depth lower due to cover afforded by boulders. Run (Class 3) (R3) - Lowest qualify Run habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, but averaging <0.50 m. Low instream cover at all but high flow events. Generally of shallow- fast or shallow-slow types. Run (Class 3)/Boulder garden (R3/BG) - Similar to R3 in depth and velocity characteristics; presence of large boulders in channel offers improved instream cover during moderate and high flow events. Flat (FL) - Area of channel characterized by low current velocities (relative to RF and Run cover types); near laminar ( i e. , non turbulent) flow character. Depositional area featuring predominantly sand/silt substrate. Differentiated from Pool habitat type on basis of high channel uniformity and lack of direct riffle/run association. More depositional in nature than R3 habitat (sand/silt substrate, lower food production, low cover, etc ). Flat (Class 1) (FI) High quality Flat habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.5 m; average depth l.Omor greater. Flat (Class 2) (F2) Moderate quality Flat habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.0 m; generally exceeding 0.75 m. Flat (Class 3) (F3) Low quality Flat habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, averaging less than < 0.50 m. Pool - Discrete portion of channel featuring increased depth and reduced velocity (downstream oriented) relative to Riffle and Run habitat types. Pool (Class 1 ) (PI) - Highest quality Pool habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.5 m; average depth 1.0 m or greater, high instream cover at all flow-conditions (submerged boulder, bedrock fractures, depth, bank irregularities). Generally featuring high Riffle and/or Run association (i.e. , food input). Often intergrades with deep-slow type of Rl. Pool (Class 2) (P2) - Moderate quality Pool habitat type. Maximum depth reaching or exceeding 1.0 m, generally exceeding 0.75 m. High instream cover at all but low flow events (baseflow). Pool Class 3) (P3) - Low quality pool habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, averaging <0.50 m. Low instream cover at all but high flow events. Includes small pocket eddy type of habitat. Features - Includes the following instream features: Chutes (CH) - Area of channel constriction; generally resulting in channel deepening and increased velocity. Associated habitat types are Rl , Rl , R2. Ledges (LG) - Areas of bedrock intrusion into the channel; often creates Chutes and Pool habitat. Other - Miscellaneous features (fallen tree, large boulder, etc ) APPENDIX B LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION ESTIMATE DATA FOR RAINBOW TROUT (POST-ENHANCEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL SITES) Appendix B, Table B1 Length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). Length 88" 1 88-2 88-3 88-7 88-9 88=10 Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 7 2.3 30-39 1 0.4 14 4.6 7 9.3 3 1.9 5 1.8 40-49 10 3.5 17 2.0 33 10.8 28 37.3 28 18.2 26 9.5 50-59 11 3.9 41 4.8 26 8.5 12 16.0 13 8.4 24 8.8 60-69 3 1.1 8 0.9 11 3.6 1 0.6 2 0.7 70-79 80-89 1 0.4 1 0.6 8 2.9 90-99 3 1.1 3 0.3 1 0.3 1 1.3 9 5.8 22 8.0 100-109 6 2.1 11 1.3 1 0.3 1 1.3 22 14.3 43 15.7 110-119 | 15 5.3 25 2.9 2 0.7 11 14.7 13 8.4 47 17.2 120-129 24 8.4 57 6.6 2 0.7 1 1.3 20 13.0 23 8.4 130-139 24 8.4 63 7.3 1 0.3 4 5.3 3 1.9 18 6.6 140-149 39 13.7 100 11.6 3 1.0 2 2.7 5 3.2 13 4.7 150-159 21 7.4 108 12.6 4 1.3 1 1.3 5 3.2 1 1 4.0 160-169 | 24 8.4 86 10.0 8 2.6 5 3.2 8 2.9 170-179 25 8.8 79 9.2 16 5.2 1 1.3 3 1.9 7 2.6 180-189 23 8:1 65 7.6 17 5.6 2 1.3 4 1.5 190-199 16 5.6 49 5.7 26 8.5 3 1.9 2 0.7 | 200-209 17 6.0 34 4.0 34 1 1.1 1 1.3 2 1.3 4 1.5 210-219 5 1.8 28 3.3 30 9.8 2 1.3 220-229 8 2.8 23 2.7 19 6.2 6 3.9 230-239 3 1.1 24 2.8 15 4.9 1 0.6 240-249 2 0.7 13 1.5 10 3.3 1 1.3 1 0.4 250-259 4 0.5 5 1.6 1 0.4 260-269 1 0.4 3 0.3 4 1.3 2 2.7 2 1.3 270-279 1 0.4 4 0.5 4 1.3 1 1.3 1 0.4 280-289 2 0.7 4 0.5 3 1.0 2 1.3 290-299 4 1.3 300-309 1 0.6 310-319 2 0.2 3 1.0 1 0.6 1 0.4 320-329 1 0.1 1 0.3 2 0.7 330-339 2 0.2 340-349 2 0.2 350-359 3 0.3 360-369 j 370-379 1 1.3 1 0.6 380-389 1 0.3 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 1 0.4 430-439 440-449 450-459 Continued . . . Appendix B, Table B1 Continued. Length Interval 88-1 1 87-K (mm) # % # % 10-19 i 0.6 20-29 1 0.6 30-39 9 5 7 5 1.4 40-49 42 26 6 18 5 0 50-59 16 10.1 16 44 60-69 2 1.3 5 1.4 70-79 1 0 6 1 0 3 80-89 1 0 6 15 4 2 90-99 13 8.2 23 6 4 100-109 20 12.7 61 16.9 1 10-119 19 12.0 59 16 4 120-129 9 5.7 38 10 6 130-139 7 4.4 23 64 140-149 4 2.5 21 5 8 150-159 3 1.9 15 4.2 160-169 4 2.5 19 5 3 170-179 4 2.5 6 1.7 180-189 1 0 6 5 1.4 190-199 7 1.9 200-209 1 0 6 2 0 6 210-219 3 0 8 220-229 4 1.1 230-239 1 0.3 240-249 1 0 3 250-259 260-269 2 0 6 270-279 2 0 6 280-289 3 08 290-299 300-309 1 0 3 310-319 1 0 3 320-329 1 0 3 330-339 1 0 3 340-349 350-359 360-369 370-379 380-389 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 430-439 440-449 450-459 1 0 3 Appendix B, Table B2 Non-standardized estimates of rainbow trout population density (actual estimates for sampled sections) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the- year (<80 mm) Juveniles (80-253 mm) u Legal 254 mm) All Size-Classes Enhancement Area Site Sample Date Section Length (m) No. per 100 m 95% C.I. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.I. Near Bellevue 88-1 16 Sep 71 31 25-45 283 267-299 4 n.a a 317 299-335 88-2 17 Sep 63 67 66-70 2851 879-4823 24 24-26 2034 1354-2714 88-3* 19 Sep 52 101 91-113 198 190-206 24 24-25 322 309-335 Near Frank 88-7 26 Sep 57 58 47-76 26 24-32 4 4-7 90 75-109 88-9 27 Sep 49 53 45-67 118 102-136 0 - 177 157-197 88-10 28 Sep 103 82 57-121 216 211-222 6 6-7 288 277-299 88-11 29 Sep 143 82 72-95 96 86-108 0 179 160-198 87-K* 30 Sep 65 5 47 45-52 327 311-343 12 12-13 387 370-404 aNot applicable; confidence interval (C.l ) same as population estimate •Control site. Appendix B, Table B3 Removal-depletion data for rainbow trout population at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). APPENDIX C LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION ESTIMATE DATA FOR MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH (POST-ENHANCEMENT AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL SITES) Appendix C, Table Cl Length-frequency distribution of mountain whitefish at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). Length 88-1 88 2 88-3 88-7 88-9 88-10 Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 2 1.8 12 22.6 31 42.5 70-79 7 6.4 2 5.1 16 30.2 34 46.6 80-89 5 13.9 3 0.9 8 7.3 2 5.1 3 5.7 5 6.8 90-99 21 58.3 24 6.9 7 6.4 100-109 3 8.3 4 1.1 3 2.8 110-119 120-129 1 0.3 1 1.4 130-139 1 0.3 140-149 150-159 2 0.6 160-169 17 4.9 ; 170-179 31 8.9 1 0.9 180-189 35 10.0 3 2.8 190-199 25 7.2 3 5.7 200-209 1 2.8 7 2.0 1 2.6 2 3.8 210-219 4 1.1 2 1.8 2 5.1 2 3.8 220-229 12 3.4 9 8.3 4 10.3 2 3.8 230-239 21 6.0 10 9.2 2 5.1 240-249 19 5.4 11 10.1 1 2.6 2 3.8 250-259 22 6.3 12 11.0 2 5.1 3 5.7 : 260-269 21 6.0 7 6.4 3 7.7 3 5.7 270-279 1 2.8 16 4.6 5 4.6 4 10.3 1 1.9 280-289 1 2.8 20 5.7 2 1.8 3 7.7 1 1.9 1 1.4 290-299 13 3.7 2 1.8 2 5.1 300-309 2 5.6 22 6.3 3 2.8 1 2.6 1 1.9 310-319 1 2.8 9 2.6 5 4.6 6 15.4 1 1.9 320-329 12 3.4 4 3.7 2 5.1 330-339 1 2.8 3 0.9 1 0.9 2 5.1 1 1.9 340-349 3 0.9 4 3.7 350-359 360-369 1 0.3 1 0.9 1 1.4 370-379 | 380-389 i 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 430-439 440-449 450-459 1 0.3 Continued . . . Appendix C, Table Cl Continued. Length Interval (mm) 88-11 87-K # % # % 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 j 12 30.8 7 4.5 70-79 20 51.3 25 16.1 80-89 2 5.1 8 5.2 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 1 2.6 1 0.6 130-139 140-149 150-159 160-169 1 0.6 170-179 180-189 3 1.9 190-199 1 0.6 200-209 7 4.5 210-219 12 7.7 220-229 6 3.9 230-239 7 4.5 240-249 2 5.1 4 2.6 250-259 6 3.9 260-269 3 1.9 270-279 6 3.9 280-289 6 3.9 290-299 11 7.1 300-309 1 2.6 11 7.1 310-319 1 2.6 10 6.5 320-329 12 7.7 330-339 4 2.6 340-349 3 1.9 350-359 1 0.6 360-369 370-379 380-389 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 430-439 440-449 450-459 Appendix C, Table C2 Non-standardized estimates of mountain whitefish population density (actual estimates for sampled sections) at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post-construction). SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the- year (<120 mm) Juveniles (120-253 mm) Adult (>254 mm) All Size-Classes Enhancement Area Site Sample Date Section Length (m) No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. Near Bellevue 88-1 16 Sep 71 145 29-962 1 n.a a 6 6-8 180 36-1071 88-2 17 Sep 63 1031 1014-1048 900 180-2806 168 140-196 1426 1389-1462 88-3* 19 Sep. 52 425 85-1797 44 44-46 38 38-39 230 176-284 Near Frank 88-7 26 Sep 57 4 4-6 50 10-538 125 25-863 195 39-1113 88-9 27 Sep 49 155 31-1025 12 12-13 10 10-11 265 53-1328 88-10 28 Sep 103 379 370-388 0 - 0 - 379 370-388 88-11 29 Sep 143 51 35-84 2 2-15 2 2-15 61 39-105 87-K* 30 Sep 65.5 43 40-50 47 47-48 68 68-69 157 155-161 aNot applicable; confidence interval (C.l.) same as population estimate •Control site. Appendix C, Table C3 Removal-depletion data for mountain whitefish at enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River during 1989 (post- construction). APPENDIX D LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION ESTIMATE DATA FOR RAINBOW TROUT (PRE-ENHANCED AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL SITES) Appendix D, Table D1 Length-frequency distribution of rainbow trout at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Length 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 6 2.3 1 0.3 9 2.5 30-39 7 8.6 25 9.4 7 1.9 21 3.9 66 18.7 40-49 12 14.8 7 3.3 56 21.1 40 10.7 60 11.1 74 21.0 50-59 28 34.6 5 2.3 77 28.9 123 32.8 23 4.3 20 5.7 60-69 22 27.2 7 3.3 48 18.0 69 18.4 5 0.9 1 0.3 70-79 9 11.1 2 0.9 8 3.0 35 9.3 13 2.4 16 4.5 80-89 2 2.5 2 0.9 4 1.1 34 6.3 41 11.6 90-99 4 1.5 3 0.8 71 13.1 40 11.3 100-109 1 0.4 59 10.9 24 6.8 110-119 1 0.5 8 3.0 2 0.5 53 9.8 15 4.2 120-129 1 0.5 3 1.1 6 1.6 34 6.3 13 3.7 130-139 1 0.5 4 1.5 2 0.5 28 5.2 6 1.7 140-149 1 1.2 2 0.9 4 1.5 3 0.8 35 6.5 5 1.4 150-159 2 0.9 6 2.3 34 6.3 10 2.8 160-169 5 2.3 4 1.5 21 3.9 2 0.6 170-179 13 6.0 1 0.4 18 3.3 4 1.1 180-189 12 5.6 1 0.4 1 0.3 10 1.8 1 0.3 190-199 17 7.9 2 0.8 5 0.9 2 0.6 200-209 14 6.5 3 0.8 4 0.7 210-219 17 7.9 9 2.4 4 0.7 1 0.3 220-229 16 7.4 5 1.3 2 0.4 1 0.3 230-239 14 6.5 1 0.3 2 0.4 1 0.3 240-249 13 6.0 3 0.8 2 0.4 1 0.3 250-259 7 3.3 2 0.8 7 1.9 260-269 14 6.5 1 0.4 9 2.4 270-279 8 3.7 3 0.8 280-289 1 0.5 1 0.4 1 0.3 1 0.2 290-299 5 2.3 8 2.1 300-309 3 1.4 4 1.1 j 310-319 3 1.4 1 0.4 1 0.3 1 0.2 320-329 | 3 1.4 1 0.4 3 0.8 330-339 2 0.9 1 0.4 2 0.5 340-349 4 1.9 1 0.3 350-359 2 0.9 2 0.5 1 0.2 360-369 2 0.9 7 1.9 370-379 3 1.4 1 0.3 380-389 1 0.3 390-399 1 0.5 1 0.4 3 0.8 400-409 2 0.9 ; 410-419 4 1.9 1 0.3 420-429 2 0.5 430-439 440-449 1 0.3 450-459 1 0.3 Continued Appendix D, Table D1 Continued. Length 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 4 2.7 2 1.6 7 00 cn 9 4.3 i 0.4 30-39 25 17.1 30 24.4 41 22.5 54 26.0 9 3.7 40-49 52 35.6 47 38.2 62 34.1 86 41.3 59 24.1 2 1.6 50-59 15 10.3 13 10.6 34 18.7 24 11.5 45 18.4 8 6.4 60-69 4 3.3 13 7.1 1 0.5 24 9.8 7 5.6 70-79 4 2.7 2 1.1 1 0.5 9 3.7 1 0.8 80-89 9 6.2 6 4.9 2 1.1 8 3.8 1 0.8 90-99 11 7.5 11 8.9 7 3.8 5 2.4 100-109 12 8.2 4 3.3 2 1.1 8 3.8 1 0.8 110-119 5 3.4 4 3.3 6 3.3 4 1.9 6 4.8 120-129 1 0.7 2 1.6 2 1.1 3 1.4 7 5.6 130-139 2 1.4 1 0.5 4 1.9 7 5.6 140-149 1 0.7 2 1.1 3 2.4 150-159 1 0.7 1 0.4 6 4.8 160-169 1 0.5 7 2.9 3 2.4 170-179 10 4.1 180-189 1 0.7 1 0.5 6 2.4 3 2.4 190-199 2 1.4 13 5.3 5 4.0 200-209 1 0.7 13 5.3 4 3.2 210-219 5 2.0 4 3.2 220-229 7 2.9 1 0.8 230-239 1 0.4 2 1.6 240-249 1 0.4 9 7.2 250-259 4 1.6 4 3.2 260-269 4 1.6 1 0.8 270-279 2 0.8 4 3.2 280-289 4 1.6 2 1.6 290-299 2 0.8 3 2.4 300-309 4 1.6 1 0.8 310-319 1 0.4 7 5.6 | 320-329 1 0.4 7 5.6 330-339 2 0.8 3 2.4 340-349 1 0.4 3 2.4 350-359 2 0.8 1 0.8 360-369 3 2.4 370-379 1 0.4 1 0.8 380-389 2 0.8 390-399 1 0.4 1 0.8 400-409 2 1.6 410-419 1 0.8 420-429 2 0.8 430-439 1 0.8 440-449 1 0.4 450-459 Appendix D, Table D2 Non-standardized estimates of rainbow trout population density (actual estimates for sampled sections), at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Enhancement Area Site Sample Date Section Length (m) SIZE-CLASS Young-of-the- yeara Juveniles6 Legal ( ?. 2 54 mm) All Size-Classes No. 95% C.i. No. 95% Cl. No. 95% CL No. 95% C.I. Near Lundbreck 89-1 24 Sep. 65.0 87 80-97 >1c n.c.d - - 87 80-97 Near Bur mis 89-2 20 Sep. 49.0 38 23-80 165 134-196 63 60-68 258 215-289 89-3 22 Sep 50.0 268 236-300 34 34-36 >8 n.c. 297 263-320 89-4 23 Sep. 69.0 309 290-328 44 37-57 56 56-57 404 375-582 87-G 21 Sep 55.0 212 150-274 70 66-77 32 32-33 138 125-151 87-H 25 Sep. 51.0 19 19-20 69 62-79 51 44-63 286 245-314 Near Coleman 89-5 12 Sep. 64.0 123 109-138 455 439-471 3 3-4 581 541-602 89-6 10 Sep. 70.0 187 172-202 185 183-189 - - 367 353-378 89-7 9 Sep. 43.0 100 96-106 52 50-56 - - 153 146-161 89 8 14 Sep. 32.0 100 96-106 27 n.a.6 - - 126 123-131 89-9 15 Sep 40.0 160 157-165 26 25-30 - - 186 182-192 89-10 11 Sep 34.0 176 174-180 34 34-36 211 208-215 a At sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of y-o-y is <100 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 10; length of y-o-y is <70 mm. bAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, H; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 70-253 mm cVa!ue given as actual estimate; population estimate would be greater than catch (population estimate not calculable due to ascending or irregular catch progression). dNot calculated. Appendix D, Table D3 Removal-deplection population data for rainbow trout at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989 at o CN In o ao 0 CO 3 0 0 LU u an «? 5 7 7 0 CO 7 7 CN Q. 5? 6 ao 0 3 CN CN S 2 CN 0 o JN CL ao S at o 3 ao ao s 0 co 2 0 CN 0 0 7 0> 0 u i- ao £ m 0 0 is CN s co 146 CN 0 0 O N WO c c un ac ce w a m R3 ao CO 0 0 & <0 ce *"* co CO CO *” u 6 z R2 0 ao 67 74 ut co 58 25 35 at O CN at CO CN 0 in o* at CN ce in CN Cv 0 *" 0 at vO 0 2 2 c o o> q q o o q q O o o q o q a c a> J, 0 0 at o 0 at si 2 3 o 2 2 o ty IS -J « CN CO 7 O X un 0 0 at o in 2 2 ao at ao 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 3 0 aAt sites 89-1 , 2,3,4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is < 120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, length of y-o-y is < 100 mm. bAt sites 89-1. 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm. cValue given as actual catch; population estimate would be greater than actual catch (population estimate not calculated due to ascending or irregular catch progression).. dNot calculated. APPENDIX E LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION ESTIMATE DATA FOR MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH (PRE-ENHANCED AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL SITES) Appendix E, Table El Length-frequency distribution of mountain whitefish at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. Length 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 89-5 89-6 Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 i 0.3 i 0.6 80-89 i 0.3 3 7.7 6 2.2 1 0.6 90-99 2 0.6 14 35.9 38 13.9 i 0.6 i 7.1 100-109 1 2.6 13 4.8 5 3.1 2 14.3 110-119 2 0.7 29 18.0 4 28.6 120-129 62 38.5 3 21.4 130-139 22 13.7 2 14.3 140-149 6 3.7 150-159 1 0.3 4 2.5 160-169 1 0.4 4 2.5 1 7.1 170-179 1 0.4 4 2.5 180-189 2 0.6 2 0.7 4 2.5 190-199 9 2.8 3 1.1 3 1.9 200-209 9 2.8 5 3.1 210-219 4 1.3 1 0.4 4 2.5 | 220-229 1 0.3 3 1.9 230-239 5 1.6 1 0.4 1 7.1 240-249 5 1.6 3 1.1 250-259 10 3.1 11 4.0 2 1.2 260-269 26 8.2 14 5.1 270-279 9 2.8 10 3.7 280-289 9 2.8 1 2.6 6 2.2 1 0.6 290-299 19 6.0 2 5.1 8 2.9 300-309 29 9.1 2 5.1 24 8.8 310-319 56 17.6 ! 5 12.8 38 13.9 320-329 33 10.3 4 10.3 35 12.8 330-339 37 11.6 3 7.7 19 7.0 340-349 23 7.2 3 7.7 19 7.0 350-359 14 4.4 1 2.6 13 4.8 360-369 8 2.5 2 0.7 370-379 4 1.3 1 0.4 380-389 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 430-439 440-449 450-459 2 0.6 2 0.7 Continued Appendix E, Table El Continued. Length 89-7 89-8 89-9 89-10 87-G 87-H Interval (mm) # % # % # % # % # % # % 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 4 33.3 80-89 1 100.0 3 25.0 90-99 4 1.9 6 4.0 100-109 1 8.3 7 4.7 110-119 2 7.4 2 16.7 1 0.5 120-129 1 3.7 1 8.3 130-139 1 3.7 1 8.3 140-149 3 11.1 150-159 4 14.8 160-169 2 7.4 1 0.5 170-179 1 33.3 180-189 3 11.1 6 2.9 2 1.3 190-199 1 33.3 4 14.8 16 7.6 3 2.0 200-209 2 7.4 13 6.2 4 2.7 210-219 3 11.1 3 1.4 220-229 1 33.3 1 0.7 230-239 3 1.4 2 1.3 240-249 5 2.4 3 2.0 250-259 1 3.7 18 8.6 1 0.7 260-269 1 3.7 13 6.2 6 4.0 270-279 7 3.3 11 7.3 280-289 8 3.8 9 6.0 290-299 16 7.6 14 9.3 300-309 16 7.6 13 8.7 310-319 22 10.5 18 12.0 320-329 26 12.4 16 10.7 330-339 12 5.7 23 15.3 ! 340-349 6 2.9 5 3.3 350-359 6 2.9 1 0.7 360-369 5 2.4 4 2.7 370-379 1 0.5 380-389 2 1.0 1 0.7 390-399 400-409 410-419 420-429 430-439 440-449 450-459 Appendix E, Table E2 Non-standardized estimates of mountain whitefish population density (actual estimates for sampled sections) at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989. SIZE-CLASS Section Length (m) Young-of-the- yeara Juveniles6 Adult (> 254 mm) All Size-Classes Enhancement Area Site Sample Date No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% Cl. No. per 100 m 95% C.l. Near Lundbreck 89-1 24 Sep. 65.0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Near Burmis 89-2 20 Sep. 49.0 4 4-6 48 40-63 276 275-278 323 319-326 89-3 22 Sep. 50.0 > 18c n.c.d 0 >21 n.c. 41 39-46 89-4 23 Sep. 69.0 87 59-130 13 13-14 201 201-202 277 273-282 87-G 21 Sep. 55.0 >5 n.c. 56 56-57 149 149-150 210 210-211 87-H 25 Sep. 51.0 >57 n.c. 24 16-50 133 1 19-147 275 208-342 Near Coleman 89-5 12 Sep. 64.0 3 3-4 155 155-156 >3 n.c. 161 161-162 89-6 10 Sep. 70.0 >1 n.c. 13 13-14 0 14 14-15 89-7 9 Sep. 43.0 0 - 3 3-4 0 - 3 3-4 89-8 14 Sep. 32.0 0 - 25 n.a.e >2 n.c. 27 n.a. 89-9 15 Sep. 40.0 >1 n.c. o - 0 - >1 n.c. 89-10 1 1 Sep. 34.0 >7 n.c. 6 5-15 0 - >12 n.c. aAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is < 120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is < 100 mm. bAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm. cValue given as actual catch; population estimate would be greater than catch. dNot calculated. eNot applicable; confidence interval (C.I.) same as population estimate. Appendix E, Table E3 Removal-depletion population data for mountain whitefish at pre-enhanced and control sites on the Crowsnest River, 1989 £ u CL o5 o Lrt a. & Z U a i* ts rj a * O wj a, o* a * O IA a. ot c r- C7» cn *- o* 0 0^.0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O *■ aAt sites 89-1, 2, 3, 4; 87-G, K; length of y-o-y is < 120 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of y-o-y is < 100 mm. bAt sites 89-1, 2, 3,4; 87-G, K; length of juveniles is 120-253 mm; at sites 89-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; length of juveniles is 100-253 mm. cValue given as actual catch; population estimate would be greater than actual catch. dNot calculated. eNot applicable; confidence interval same as estimate.