ELECTROFISHING SURVEY OF
THE HIGHWOOD RIVER, 1993

V. G. Buchwald

ALBERT A ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE
FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
RED DEER, ALBERTA

NOVEMBER 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Highwood River originates in the mountains southwest of Calgary, flowing
eastward through the mountains, foothills and prairie. The Highwood River and its tributaries
provide most of the spawning areas for rainbow trout {Oncorhynchiis mykiss) in the Bow River
downstream of the Bearspaw Dam. The Highwood River itself provides an important regional
fishery for mountain whitefish {Prosopium williamsoni) and rainbow trout. Bull trout
{Salvelinus confluentus) and cutthroat trout {Oncorhynchus clarki) are the other sport fish
present.

This electrofishing survey collected information on species abundance, distribution and
size information in the Highwood River between the Davisburg Bridge (Secondary Highway
552) and the Town of Longview.

This study found that the Highwood River downstream of the Town of Longview
contains large numbers of rainbow trout and mountain whitefish; however, their abundance was
low in the section of river between the town of High River and Highway 2. Bull trout were
present in low numbers in the Highwood River between Longview and the Town of High
River, with no bull trout caught downstream of the Town of High River. A few cutthroat trout
were present in the area downstream of Longview, but they were very uncommon in the area
sampled.

Fisheries Management Objectives (FMOs) have been established for the Highwood
River and an Instream Flow Needs (IFN) study for fish has been completed. Due to concerns
expressed about the appropriateness of using some of the species and life-stages in some
reaches of the IFN study, the current study reviews it findings in relation to the FMOs and the
IFN study.

The results of this study indicate that the Highwood River EFN study was correct in
including juvenile and adult lifestages for both rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in
analysis for all five IFN reaches. However, bull trout juvenile and adult lifestages could have
been considered in the IFN analysis for reaches 1 and 2.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Methods 2

3.0 Results 4

3.1 Electrofishing Survey 4

3.1.1 Rainbow Trout 4

3.1.2 Cutthroat Trout 7

3.1.3 Bull Trout 7

3.1.4 Mountain Whitefish 8

3.2 IFN Study Reaches 10

3.2.1 Rainbow Trout 10

3.2.2 Cutthroat Trout 12

3.2.3 Bull Trout 12

3.2.4 Mountain Whitefish 12

4.0 Discussion 13

4.1 Electrofishing Survey 13

4.1.1 Rainbow Trout 13

4.1.2 Cutthroat Trout 13

4.1.3 Bull Trout 14

4.1.4 Mountain Whitefish 14

4.2 IFN Study Reaches 15

4.2.1 Rainbow Trout 15

4.2.2 Cutthroat Trout 15

4.2.3 Bull Trout 15

4.2.4 Mountain Whitefish 15

5.0 Summary 16

Literature Cited 17

Appendix I 18

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of fish captured by electrofishing in the Highwood River, August and

September, 1993 5

Table 2. Summary of length and weight data for sport fish caught in the Highwood River,

August and September, 1993 6

Table 3. Number of fish caught or observed while electrofishing in the Highwood River

according to IFN Reach, August and September, 1993 10

Table 4. Summary of rainbow trout length and weight data according to IFN reach for

the Highwood River, August and September, 1993 IT

Table 5. Summary of mountain whitefish length data according to EFN reaches for the

Highwood River, August and September, 1993 12

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sampling locations on the Highwood River, 1993 3

Figure 2. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in

the Highwood River, August and September, 1993 6

Figure 3. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in

the Highwood River according to kilometre, August and September, 1993 6

Figure 4. Length frequency distribution of bull trout caught by electrofishing in the

Highwood River, August and September, 1993 7

Figure 5. Number of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing in the Highwood

River according to kilometre sampled, August and September, 1993 8

Figure 6. Length frequency distribution of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing

in the Highwood River, August and September, 1993 9

Figure 7. Length frequency distribution of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing

according to kilometre, August and September, 1993 9

Figure 8. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in the
Highwood River according to IFN Reach, August and September, 1993. (in
this graph, IFN Reach 0 is the Highwood River above Pekisko Creek) 1 1

V

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2015

https://archive.org/details/electrofishingsuOObuch

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Highwood River originates in the mountains southwest of Calgary, flowing
eastward through the mountains, foothills and prairie. It flows into the Bow River 10 km
downstream of Calgary. The Highwood River and its tributaries provide most of the spawning
areas for rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Bow River downstream of the Bearspaw
Dam (McDonald 1975; Wiebe 1979). This section of the Bow River is one of the best fisheries
in the province and considered by many anglers to be a world-class fishery. The Highwood
River itself provides an important regional fishery for mountain whitefish {Prosopium
williamsoni) and rainbow trout. Bull trout {Salveliniis confluentus) and cutthroat trout
{Oncorhynchus clarki) are the other sport fish present.

This electrofishing survey collected information on species abundance, distribution and
size information in the Highwood River between the Davisburg Bridge (Secondary Highway
552) and the Town of Longview. The information and experience gained from this survey was
used in the development of a three-year study of the trout populations in the Highwood River
and its tributaries.

An Instream Flow Needs (IFN) study for fish in the Highwood River has been
completed (Locke 1989). Due to concerns expressed about the appropriateness of using some
of the species and life-stages in some reaches of the IFN study, this report summarizes the
sampling data collected both by the sampling locations (kilometres) used by this survey and by
the IFN reaches used by Locke (1994).

1

2.0 METHODS

The Highwood River kilometre-sampling locations were determined by measuring 1.0
km stream segments on 1:50,000 NTS mapsheets using a mapwheel. The starting location for
numbering the stream segments was the confluence with the Bow River, which was numbered
km 0.0. Every second kilometre between kilometre 12 and 28, kilometre 34 and 56, and
kilometre 64 and 78 were sampled by boat electrofishing during August and September, 1993.
No sampling was conducted between kilometre 0.0 and 12, kilometre 29 and 34, and kilometre
57 and 64.

The electrofishing configuration used was a 4.5 metre flat-bottom boat equipped with an
"egg beater" style throwing anode, a Coffelt electrofisher (model VVP-15) and a 8000 watt
generator. Continuous (smooth) DC current with an output amperage of 8 to 10 amps at
approximately 300 volts was used to capture the fish.

Captured bull trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish (maximum of
10 mountain whitefish per kilometre) were anaesthetised using MS222, and were measured for
fork length (FL) to the nearest millimetre and weighed to the nearest gram.

2

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Electrofishing Survey

Mountain whitefish were the most numerous sport fish (n>\626) captured or observed
in the Highwood River during the survey and made up at least 78% of the sport fish population
(Table 1). The most abundant trout species was rainbow trout («=428), followed by bull trout
(«=15) and cutthroat trout (n=4). Sport fish were only absent in one of the kilometres sampled
(km 34) (Table 1).

3.1.1 Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout were caught in 26 of the 29 kilometres sampled (Table 1). They were
most abundant in km 48 (n=56), km 16 (n=44) and km 52 (n=40). The only sites where no
rainbow trout were caught were km 34, km 36 and km 38.

The mean fork length of the rainbow trout sampled was 172.9 mm with a range from 95
to 380 mm (Table 2). The peak of the fork length distribution for rainbow trout was from 150
to 170 mm, with very few fish caught either below 100 mm or above 250 mm (Figure 2). All
kilometres sampled containing rainbow trout had fish between 100 and 200 mm FL (Figure 3).
With the exception of km 22, all of the fish larger than 250 mm FL were caught at km 42 or
upstream (Figure 3). Mean fork length in most sampling kilometres was between 150 and 200
mm, and there did not appear to be a trend between mean FL and the kilometre sampled (Figure
3).

4

Table 1 . Number of fish caught or observed while electrofishing in the Highwood River,
August and September, 1993.

f — =

Km

Number of fish caught

Rainbow trout

Bull trout

Cutthroat trout

Mountain whitefish

12

12

0

0

50

1 A

14

21

0

0

82

10

44

0

0

53

lo

23

0

0

25

20

12

0

0

33

ZZ

21

0

0

24

O/l

10

0

0

55

ZD

4

0

0

23

Zo

5

0

0

17

0/1

0

0

0

0

io

0

0

0

6

3o

0

0

0

18

/in

40

6

0

0

50

/10

4Z

18

0

0

>100

A A

44

22

0

1

>100

40

7

2

0

24

4o

56

3

0

>100

12

2

0

>100

DZ

40

2

0

>100

C/1

j4

8

1

0

82

JO

22

1

1

>100

fiA

o4

14

1

0

69

00

14

0

0

10

Oo

7

u

u

yj

70

7

0

1

>100

72

17

1

0

12

74

5

0

0

38

76

7

0

1

48

78

14

2

0

52

Grand Total

428

15

4

>1626

5

Table 2. Summary of length and weight data for sport fish caught in the Highwood River,
August and September, 1993.

Species

n

Fork length

mm)

Weight i

g)

Mean

S.D.

Range

IVIean

S.D.

Range {

Rainbow trout

428

172.9

42.3

95-380

71.2

64.9

5-60oi

Bull trout

15

301.9

85.2

164-490

372.7

344.2

45-1340

Cutthroat trout

4

254.0

31.7

221-293

205.0

83.2

115-310

Mountain whitefish

256

246.0

98.5

76-457

307.9

327.9

5-1395

1 6
1 4
«> 1 2

n = 428

™l,

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Fork le n g th (mm)

Figure 2. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in the
Highwood River, August and September, 1993.

400

350

?

300

E,

250

.c

•4-'

D)
C

200

0)

150

0

u.

100

50

0

♦ FL mm

——mean

n = 428

20

40
km

60

80

Figure 3. Fork length distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in the Highwood
River according to kilometre, August and September, 1993.

6

3.1.2 Cutthroat Trout

Four cutthroat trout were caught in four of the 29 kilometres sampled during the study
(Table 1). The cutthroat trout were all caught upstream of km 44.

The cutthroat trout sampled had a mean fork length of 254.0 mm, with a range of 221 to
293 mm (Table 2).

3.1.3 Bull Trout

Bull trout were caught in nine of the 29 kilometres sampled (Table 1). They were most
abundant in km 48 («=3) followed by km 46, 50, 52, and 78 {n=2). No bull trout were caught
below km 46. Bull trout were caught in seven consecutive sections sampled between km 46
and km 64.

The bull trout sampled had a mean fork length of 301.9 mm, with a range from 164 to
490 mm (Table 2). Most bull trout were in the 270 to 290 mm FL range (Figure 4).

n = 15

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Fork length (mm)

Figure 4. Fork length distribution of bull trout caught by electrofishing in the Highwood River,
August and September, 1993.

7

3.1.4 Mountain Whitefish

Mountain whitefish were caught in 28 of the 29 kilometres sampled (Table 1). In seven
of the kilometres (km 42, 44, 48, 50, 52, 56 and 70) sampled, there were more than 100
mountain whitefish present (Table 1). From km 42 upstream, mountain whitefish abundance
was high in most of the sampling sections (Figure 5). Downstream of km 42, mountain
whitefish numbers decreased and were low in relative terms from km 26 to 38, and their
numbers increased to a moderate level in the remaining kilometres (Figure 5).

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

km

Figure 5. Number of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing in the Highwood River
according to kilometre sampled, August and September, 1993.

The mean fork length of the mountain whitefish sampled was 246.0 mm, with a range
from 76 to 457 mm (Table 2). The length frequency distribution showed a wide range of fish
sizes present, with a large peak in the distribution from 140 to 160 mm FL (Figure 6).

Most kilometres sampled contained mountain whitefish between 100 and 400 mm FL
(Figure 7). Also, most of the mountain whitefish less than 100 mm FL were caught in km 26 or
below (Figure 7). Large (>250 mm FL) mountain whitefish dominated most sections above km

8

40 (Figure 7). The mean fork length of the mountain whitefish sampled from km 12 to 28
tended to be at less than from km 40 to 78 (Figure 7).

Fork length (m m )

Figure 6. Length frequency distribution of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing in the
Highwood River, August and September, 1993.

• F L m m Mean n = 256

500 -

45 0 -

40 0 -

35 0 -

30 0 -

O)

c

25 0 -

JO)

20 0 -

0

Li.

150 -

10 0 -

50 -

0 -

*

♦

* — i^^nr*

♦ ♦ •

±

— • —

ft^^A^

*t,izttf^ —

z *

!•!♦,♦ ♦

•

1 0

20

30

40
k m

50

60

70

80

Figure 7. Fork length distribution of mountain whitefish caught by electrofishing according to
kilometre, August and September, 1993.

9

3.2 IFN Study Reaches

3.2.1 Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout abundance was highest in reaches 2 (23.3 fish/km) and 4 (21.8 fish/km)
and lowest in Reach 3 (2.5 fish/km) (Table 3).

Table 3. Number of fish caught by electrofishing in the Highwood River according to IFN
Reach, August and September, 1993.

IFN Reach
Number
(km locations)

Number
of km
sampled

Number of fish (fish/km)

Rainbow trout

Cutthroat trout

Bull trout

Mountain whitefish^

above Pekisko
Creek (68-78)

6

9.5 (57)

0.3 (2)

0.5 (3)

67.5 (409)

1 (55-67)

3

16.7 (50)

0.3 (1)

0.7 (2)

>59.7(>179)

2 (41-54)

7

23.3 (163)

0.1(1)

1.4(10)

>96.6 (>606)

3 (26-40)

6

2.5(15)

0

0

19.0(114)

4 (13-25)

6

21.8(131)

0

0

45.3 (272)

5 (0-12)

1

12.0(12)

0

0

50.0 (50)

Total

29

14.8 (428)

0.1(4)

0.5(15)

>56.1 (>1626)

^ Due to the large numbers of mountain whitefish encountered in some kilometres, they were
counted and recorded as > 100.

The mean fork length of the rainbow trout sampled in reaches 1 and 2 (174.7 and 176.4
mm) were somewhat higher than in reaches 3, 4 and 5 (165.4, 164.9 and 165.8 mm) (Table 4).
The mean length of the rainbow trout sampled upstream of the IFN study area was larger than
in the IFN study reaches (Table 4). All of the reaches had a range of fish sizes present, with
reaches 1 and 2 having a more larger (>250 mm FL) individuals than reaches 3, 4 and 5 (Figure

10

Table 4. Summary of rainbow trout length and weight data according to IFN reach for the
Highwood River, August and September, 1993.

IFN
Reach

n

Fork length (mm)

Weight (g)

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

0

57

182.0

61.3

95-380

95.0

101.5

5-600

1

5U

1 n A n
1 /4. /

A A 1

44. i

1 no ic\n

/j.o

Oi.5

L

1

176.4

43.2

107-341

74.9

66.9

10-450

3

9

165.4

35.7

124-234

60.6

39.6

15-145

4

131

164.9

28.1

116-287

56.0

36.2

20-275

5

12

165.8

37.6

112-240

60.0

38.6

10-140

Combined

428

172.9

42.3

95-380

71.2

64.9

5-600

' n = 428

♦

►

♦

♦

♦

—A

1 1

1

i

♦ 1

♦

1 ;

IFN Reach

Figure 8. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout caught by electrofishing in the
Highwood River according to IFN Reach, August and September, 1993. (in this
graph IFN Reach 0 is the Highwood River above Pekisko Creek.)

11

3.2.2 Cutthroat Trout

Only one cutthroat trout was caught in each of the two uppermost IFN reaches (1 and 2)
(Table 3).

3.2.3 Bull Trout

Bull trout were only caught upstream of IFN Reach 3 (Table 3). Bull trout were twice
as abundant in Reach 2 (1.4 fish/km) as in Reach 1 (0.7 fish/km). Bull trout were more
abundant in reaches 1 and 2 than they were in the kilometres sampled upstream of these reaches
(0.5 fish/km).

3.2.4 Mountain Whitefish

Mountain whitefish were most abundant in reaches 1 (>96.6 fish/km) and 2 (>59.7
fish/km), and least abundant in Reach 3 (19.0 fish/km) (Table 3).

The mean fork length of the mountain whitefish sampled was highest in reaches 1
(280.9 mm) and 2 (290.0 mm) and lowest in reaches 3 (197.4 mm) and 4 (193.9 mm) (Table 5).

Table 5. Summary of mountain whitefish length data according to IFN reaches for the
Highwood River, August and September, 1993.

IFN
Reach

n

Fork length (mm)

Weight (g)

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

0

60

242.1

80.9

142-392

257.3

246.1

35-875

1

30

280.9

75.8

147-416

366.5

280.3

35-980

2

78

290.0

97.8

86-457

454.1

366.4

5-1350

3

28

197.4

79.1

86-404

153.6

230.7

5-835

4

51

193.9

100.1

76-442

198.5

332.8

5-1395

5

9

220.2

120.1

84-403

283.3

361.9

5-1020

Combined

256

246.0

98.5

76-457

307.9

327.9

5-1395

12

4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Electrofishing Survey

4.1.1 Rainbow Trout

There was a lot of variability in rainbow trout abundance in the individual sampling
kilometres. Rainbow trout abundance was highest in the Highwood River between Pekisko
Creek (km 67) and the Town of High River (km 42), and between Highway 2 (km 28) and the
Davisburg Bridge (km 6) (Figure 1). Rainbow trout were absent or caught in low numbers
downstream from the Town of High River to Highway 2; this section of river has a low
gradient, few riffles and contains a large amount of fines in the sediment compared to the river
both upstream and downstream of this section.

The Highwood River and its tributaries are the main spawning area for the large
rainbow trout population in the Bow River (McDonald 1975; Wiebe 1979). The length
fi"equency distribution of rainbow trout has a sharp peak of small fish fi"om 150 to 170 mm and
very few fish larger than 250 mm, suggesting that few large Bow River spawners remain in the
Highwood River during the summer or that the mortality of large fish from anglers is high.
Larger rainbow trout (>250 mm FL) were captured more fi-equently upstream of High River
(km 42-44) than downstream (Figure 3), suggesting that the river upstream of High River has
better habitat for large fish or it is less accessible to anglers.

4.1.2 Cutthroat Trout

Cutthroat trout were very uncommon during this survey, accounting for less than one
percent of the trout caught (Table 1). The four cutthroat trout caught were all captured between
Longview and High River (Table 1), suggesting that High River is the downstream distribution
limit for them.

13

4.1.3 Bull Trout

Bull trout numbers were low in comparison to rainbow trout and mountain whitefish,
but were captured in most of the sampling kilometres between Longview (km 78) and High
River (km 44) (Table 1). No bull trout caught were captured downstream of High River during
this study (Table 1), suggesting that High River is the downstream distribution limit for them.

The broad range of size classes caught in a sample of only 1 5 fish (Figure 4) suggests
that the habitat between Longview and High River is suitable for all life-stages of bull trout
with the exception of young-of-the-year (Table 2). No bull trout less than 164 mm FL were
caught (Table 2).

4. 1 .4 Mountain Whitefish

Since mountain whitefish comprised at least 78% of the sport fish captured or observed
(Table 1), they were clearly the most abundant species throughout the portion of the Highwood
River sampled. Mountain whitefish also had the most widespread distribution, being absent in
only one of the kilometres sampled. Their abundance was highest between Longview (km 78)
and High River (km 42) and then between Highway 2 (km 28) and the Davisburg Bridge (km 6)
(Figure 1 and Table 1). They were absent or caught in low numbers downstream from High
River to Highway 2. This section of river has low gradient, few riffles and a large amount of
fines in the sediment compared to the river both upstream and downstream of this section.

The length frequency distribution (Figure 6) showed that a wide range of sizes and life
stages were present in the portion of the Highwood River sampled. However, many of the fish
were between 140 and 160 mm FL, indicating either a large year-class or heavy exploitation of
the larger fish.

14

4.2 IFN Study Reaches

4.2.1 Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout were found in all of the IFN reaches; however, their abundance was low
in Reach 3, moderate in reaches 1 and 5, and high in reaches 2 and 4 (Table 3). All of the
reaches had a range of fish sizes present, with reaches 1 and 2 having more large (>250 mm)
individuals than reaches 3, 4 and 5 (Figure 8). The wide range of sizes present indicates that
the Highwood River Fisheries Management Objectives (FMOs) stated by Lowe (June 22, 1990
memo; Appendix I) were valid and Locke (1994) was correct in including juvenile and adult
lifestages for all five IFN reaches.

4.2.2 Cutthroat Trout

Since only two cutthroat trout were found within the IFN Study Area, in the uppermost
reaches they were justifiably excluded from the FMOs and the IFN study.

4.2.3 Bull Trout

Low numbers of bull trout were caught in reaches 1 and 2, and none were caught in
reaches 3, 4 and 5. Bull trout were not included in the IFN study, but the data collected
suggests that bull trout juvenile and adult lifestages could be considered for reaches 1 and 2 and
the FMOs should be changed to reflect this.

4.2.4 Mountain Whitefish

The high numbers of mountain whitefish in all reaches and the presence of a wide range
of sizes indicates that the Fisheries Management Objectives for the Highwood River (Appendix
I) were valid and Locke (1994) was correct in including juvenile and adult lifestages for all five
IFN reaches.

15

5.0 SUMMARY

The Highwood River downstream of the Town of Longview contains large numbers of
rainbow trout and mountain whitefish; however, their abundance was low in the section of river
between the town of High River and Highway 2. Bull trout are present in low numbers in the
Highwood River between Longview and the Town of High River, with the downstream limit of
bull trout distribution appearing to be the Town of High River. A few cutthroat trout were
present in the area downstream of Longview, but they were very uncommon in the area
sampled.

This study indicates that the Highwood River Fisheries Management Objectives
(Appendix I) were valid and Locke (1994) was correct in including juvenile and adult lifestages
for both rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in analysis for all five IFN reaches. However,
bull trout juvenile and adult lifestages could have been considered in the IFN analysis for
reaches 1 and 2 and the FMOs should be changed to reflect this.

16

LITERATURE CITED

Locke, A.G.H. 1994. The Highwood River: instream flow needs for fish and flow scenario
evaluations. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services. 170p.

McDonald, D.G. 1975. Rainbow trout and Canada goose reproduction relative to existing and
predicted post-impoundment conditions in the Bow River Basin, Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 255p.

Wiebe, A.P. 1979. Kananaskis Country spring spawning survey. Alberta Energy and Natural
Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division. 25p.

17

*=^endix I.

/dlbcrla MEMORANDUM

FORESTRY, LANDS AND WILDLIFE

D. Lowe, Head,
FROM Fisheries Management
Central Region

Allan Locke
TO Habitat Biologist ^.
Habitat Branch ^^^^
Edmonton

OUR FILE REFERENCE
YOUR FILE REFERENCE

June 22, 1990

TELEPHONE 151-5142

SUBJECT

HIGHWOOD RIVER - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

-^Hi'ghwood- River has important fisheries resources. It provides (1)
recruitment of rainbow trout to the Bow River and it has a (2) resident
trout and mountain whitefish population.

(1) The Bow River is an internationally renown trout fishery. It is a
high quality recreational fishery for trophy sized rainbow and brown
trout. These stocks of fish are maintained through natural
reproduction. The main stem Bow River does not provide suitable
habitat for the early life history stages for rainbow trout. The
spawning and early rearing is accomplished in tributary streams. The
relationship between the Bow River and the headwater tributaries is
complex and critical to the maintenance of the fish populations.

The Highwood River and its tributaries is the most important system
for the Bow River fishery. Its habitat and fish production are an
integral part of the recruitment strategy for the Bow River.

The first Fisheries Management Objective for the Highwood River is to
maintain (or increase) quality and quantity habitat for spawning and
rearing of rainbow trout and to guarantee access to the habitat.

The Highwood River provides migration capabilities to some of its
head water tributaries where spawning, hatching and emergence of
rainbow trout fry occurs. These fry redistribute throughout the
Highwood System where they feed and grow. This system also provides
habitat for overwintering prior to being recruited to the Bow River
fishery. It can not be emphasized enough that this system is
critical to the Bow River Management program.

(2) The Highwood River also provides habitat for a resident population of
rainbow trout and rocky mountain whitefish. These two species live
year round in the system. They spawn hatch and feed in the river.
These fish provide an important recreational fishery.

cont'd. /2

18

- 2 -

The second Fisheries Management Objective is to maintain (or
increase) quality and quantity of habitat for year round production
of all life history stages of rainbow trout and rocky mountain
whitef ish.

The recreational fishery on the Highwood River system is used
extensively by local anglers and is an important destination area for
Calgary fishermen.

The Highwood-Bow River System is complex. However, over the past two
decades many studies have documented its importance to fish. The
data collected over the past years has been summarized in a report
"An Overview of the Bow River Fishery in the Calgary Region" (Fernet
1990).

Doug Lowe, Head
Fisheries Management

DL/mc

cc: Ken Zelt
E. Vuori

19

National Library of Canada
Bibliotlieque nationale du Canada

3 3286 51966603 2