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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11