Distribution of Bull Trout in the Waterton River Watershed, Alberta, … · 2017-01-17 · Canada), Paul Harper, and Brian Meagher (Trout Unlimited Canada). Many thanks to Kevin Fitzsimmons

Distribution of Bull Trout in the Waterton River Watershed, Alberta, 2012 – 2013

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

25% Post Consumer Fibre When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

Distribution of Bull Trout in the Waterton River Watershed, Alberta,

2012 – 2013

Jason Blackburn, Brad Hurkett and Tyler Johns Alberta Conservation Association

101 – 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada

T8A 6J7

i

Report Editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres. NW 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN printed: 978-1-4601-2129-0 ISBN online: 978-1-4601-2130-6 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Blackburn, J., B. Hurkett, and T. Johns. 2014. Distribution of bull trout in the Waterton

River watershed, Alberta, 2012 – 2013. Data Report, D-2014-005, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. 33 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101 – 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ab-conservation.com

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent decades, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Waterton River watershed

have become restricted to the coldest headwater tributaries on which they rely to satisfy

narrow thermal requirements for successful spawning and rearing. Current threats to

their continued persistence include hybridization with brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

and habitat fragmentation, which have impacted genetic integrity and interrupted gene

flow across the watershed. Compounding these threats is the geography of the

watershed, which rests at the fringe between suitable and unsuitable thermal habitat,

and the sensitivity of fringe populations to environmental change. A current

description of bull trout distribution is essential to identify and prioritize remediation

efforts; however, data collection efforts to date have been uncoordinated.

We completed a comprehensive two-year inventory of the Waterton River watershed to

determine current distribution of bull trout populations relative to thermal habitat

quality, existing migration barriers, and the presence of non-native fish species. We

used an intensive systematic sampling pattern across the watershed to detect bull trout

and obtain a detailed description of the existing sport-fish community. We electrofished

approximately 63 km of stream in the watershed, including 71 reaches on tributaries,

the river reach between Upper and Middle Waterton Lakes (Dardanelles), the

main-stem Waterton River, and perimeter of Maskinonge Lake, using backpack,

tote-barge, raft and jet-boat electrofishing gear. We installed data loggers to monitor

in-stream temperature at 29 stations across the watershed to characterize thermal

habitat quality relative to juvenile bull trout tolerances (classified as high, medium or

low), detect temperature gradients across the watershed, and delineate populations

separated by thermal barriers.

Of 71 tributary sample reaches, 11 were upstream of waterfall barriers and yielded no

fish. In the remaining 60 reaches, we captured 283 bull trout, of which 94% (n = 265)

were captured in three short reaches where stream temperatures were coldest (high

quality). Catch-per-unit-effort of bull trout was highest in Spionkop Creek

(139 fish/km), upper Yarrow Creek (58 fish/km) and Blakiston Creek (32 fish/km).

Catch-per-unit-effort decreased exponentially with increasing temperature, and bull

trout were not captured in streams averaging >15°C in the summer. In streams where

iii

bull trout were detected, probability of capture exceeded 50% for juveniles (≤150 mm

fork length; FL) and for all bull trout where temperatures averaged <8.6°C and

<10.25°C, respectively. We identified six high-quality thermal habitat areas: North

Drywood, South Drywood, Spionkop, Yarrow, upper Galwey and Blakiston creeks.

Bull trout were not captured in two of the high-quality habitats of Galwey Brook and

North Drywood Creek, which were fragmented by seasonal and permanent migration

barriers. Summer stream temperature conditions in lower reaches of the watershed

were seasonally unsuitable for bull trout and appear to limit their distribution.

Waterton Reservoir provides a potential thermal refuge at depths >10 m, whereas

mid-summer surface temperatures generally exceeded those suitable for bull trout

survival.

The combined length frequency distribution of all bull trout captured in the watershed

exhibited a relatively broad range of size classes (44 – 668 mm FL); however, juvenile

and adult sizes represented in the overall frequency distribution were physically

separated from each other by permanent and temporary barriers, such as dams and

subsurface stream reaches. Based on size-class distributions, the tributary most likely to

support fluvial bull trout was Spionkop Creek, where 44% of fish >300 mm FL, 71% of

fish >400 mm FL, and 100% of fish >500 mm FL were captured.

The number of non-native sport species captured (n = 1,659) was roughly double that of

native sport species (n = 814). Brook trout was the most abundant sport species in the

study area, comprised 36% (n = 901) of the total catch, and exceeded the total catch of all

native sport species combined. Brook trout were captured in every sub-watershed and

in 78% of fish-yielding sample sites. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was the

second most abundant and widely distributed sport species, comprising 18% of the

total catch (n = 447). Rainbow trout were captured in 47% of tributary sample sites and

were the primary sport species present in the Drywood/Yarrow sub-watershed,

captured in 82% of sample sites. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) represented 12% of the total

catch (n = 296) and were dominant in the Waterton River and in the Cottonwood Creek

sub-watershed. Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) was the most abundant

native sport species, comprising 16% of the catch (n = 399), as well as the most

abundant species in the Waterton River. Bull trout accounted for 12% of the catch, and

the remaining 6% was comprised of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) (n = 44),

iv

cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrids (cutbow trout) (n = 35), burbot (Lota lota) (n = 34),

northern pike (Esox lucius) (n = 14), bull trout x brook trout hybrids (n = 11), and lake trout

(Salvelinus namaycush) (n = 1).

We observed contrasting fish community compositions above and below one seasonal,

one semi-permanent, and two permanent fish passage barriers on upper Yarrow creek,

Dungarvan Creek, and the Gulf and Shell dams, respectively. Natural barriers

appeared to isolate native species from non-native species, whereas human-made

barriers appeared to limit the upstream distributions of native bull trout and mountain

whitefish while benefitting non-native species like brook trout and rainbow trout above

the barriers.

Overall, the Waterton River watershed is dominated by non-native fish species. Brook

trout appear to be a significant threat to remaining bull trout populations as we

captured bull trout x brook trout hybrids in nearly every tributary where bull trout were

captured. Our findings will help fisheries managers decide how and where to best

conserve Alberta’s provincial fish while maintaining viable recreational fisheries for

Alberta anglers.

Key words: Waterton River, bull trout, Drywood, Yarrow, temperature, brook trout.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this study was provided by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) and

Shell Canada. Many thanks to members of the ACA field crew: Melissa Buskas, Eztiaan

Groenewald and Leah Neigum. Thanks to Barb Johnston (Parks Canada) for sampling

and access permits, assistance with sampling the Dardanelles and Maskinonge Lake,

and logistical support in Waterton Lakes National Park. Thanks to our government

partners at Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD),

Matthew Coombs and Kenton Neufeld, for assistance in sampling the upper Waterton

River and for logistical support. We thank University of Lethbridge researchers: Will

Warnock for assistance sampling tributaries, data-sharing, and the use of temperature

loggers and equipment, and Preston Lennox for additional temperature loggers and

equipment. Chelsea Jaeger from Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) and Jen Jenkins

from the Waterton Watershed Group assisted with landowner permission and site

access. Thanks to Mike Uchikura (ACA) for landowner and NCC contact liaison

information, Mike Verhage (ACA) for GIS support deriving elevation data, and Lorne

Fitch for inter-agency and landowner collaboration feedback. This project benefitted

from background and local area knowledge provided by Denis Madsen (Parks

Canada), Paul Harper, and Brian Meagher (Trout Unlimited Canada). Many thanks to

Kevin Fitzsimmons (ACA) for temperature data summaries and analysis, and Mike

Rodtka for project feedback, report review and edits. We thank Bryan Sundberg and

Fraser Smith (Alberta Culture and Tourism) for accommodations at Beauvais Lake and

Jeff Smith (ESRD Blairmore) for back-country permits and private road access.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 7

3.1 Sampling intensity and site placement ................................................................... 7

3.2 Fish data collection .................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Bull trout population structure and life histories ................................................. 9

3.4 Stream temperature monitoring .............................................................................. 9

3.5 Reservoir temperature monitoring ....................................................................... 10

3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 11

4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Bull trout distribution ............................................................................................. 11

4.2 Bull trout population size structure ...................................................................... 14

4.3 Fluvial bull trout ...................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Thermal habitat quality .......................................................................................... 16

4.5 Bull trout thermal habitat preference ................................................................... 20

4.6 Sport species capture summary and distribution ............................................... 24

4.7 Species isolation and habitat fragmentation ........................................................ 25

4.8 Summary ................................................................................................................... 29

5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 31

6.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 34

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Historical bull trout distribution in the Waterton River watershed and bull trout sampling locations since 1995 based on a query of the Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System ........................................................ 2

Figure 2. Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 ...................................... 5

Figure 3. Bull trout distribution in the Waterton River watershed study area based on electrofishing during the summers of 2012 and 2013 ...................................... 12

Figure 4. Length frequency distribution of all bull trout captured in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 ...................................................... 15

Figure 5. Box plot diagram of lengths of all bull trout captured in the Waterton River watershed study area in 2012 and 2013 ............................................................. 15

Figure 6. Bull trout capture sites and thermal habitat quality in the Waterton River watershed study area ........................................................................................... 17

Figure 7. Average summer stream temperature by elevation, comparing the temperature gradient determined from same-season data collected in the Drywood Creek watershed 2013 with the gradient determined from data collected from 2009 to 2013 for all stations combined ..................................... 18

Figure 8. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles at four stations on Waterton Reservoir ................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 9. Relationship between bull trout CPUE and a) average summer stream temperature and b) elevation in the Waterton River watershed ................... 21

Figure 10. Relationship between bull trout capture and average summer stream temperature for a) juvenile bull trout captured and b) all bull trout captured ................................................................................................................................. 23

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Size and catch-per-unit-effort of bull trout by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed during the summers of 2012 and 2013 ............... 13

Table 2. Summer stream temperatures by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2009 to 2013, where bull trout were captured, and North Drywood Creek, where favourable summer temperatures were recorded ................................................................................................................. 22

Table 3. Percentage composition of sport fish species by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed, 2012 and 2013 ........................................................ 26

Table 4. Catch-per-unit-effort for select salmonid species from waterbodies in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 .................................... 27

Table 5. Sport fish composition below and above fish passage barriers in the Waterton study area, 2012 and 2013 .................................................................. 28

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Waterton River watershed tributary sample site locations .................. 34

Appendix 2. Waterton River watershed tributary habitat measurement data, 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 3. Waterton River transect locations in 2012 .............................................. 43

Appendix 4. Temperature monitoring locations and summer mean and maximum temperatures from the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 ....................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 5. Tributary sport fish capture summary and catch-per-unit-effort by sample site, sub-watershed and year in the Wateron River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 ......................................................................... 47

Appendix 6. Waterton River float electrofishing catch-per-unit-effort by transect, 2012 ............................................................................................................... 51

Appendix 7. May to September temperature plots, with daily mean, minimum and maximum, and summer mean temperature values, from monitoring stations in the Wateron River watershed, 2012 ...................................... 53

Appendix 8. Distribution of sport fish in the catch, by species, in the Waterton River watershed, 2012 and 2013 ............................................................... 55

Appendix 9. Length frequency distribution of the major sport fish captured in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013 .......................... 59

Appendix 10. Size of select sport species captured in 2012 and 2013 electrofishing in the Waterton River watershed study area .............................................. 61

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The distribution and abundance of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) have declined

substantially across Alberta compared to historical records (Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development [ASRD] and Alberta Conservation Association [ACA] 2009).

Populations in the province are fragmented and pushed to the western periphery of

their historical range. Bull trout are currently designated Threatened in Alberta

(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2012), and according to a

recent assessment by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

(ESRD), they are at High Risk of extirpation in the Waterton River watershed

(ESRD 2012).

The historical decline of bull trout in the Waterton River watershed is well documented

by Fitch (1997). The watershed once supported bull trout in nearly every tributary

upstream of present-day Waterton Reservoir, and downstream approximately 60 river

kilometres to the confluence with the Belly River, connecting bull trout populations in

both watersheds (Figure 1). Since the 1940s, bull trout range in the Waterton River

watershed has declined by 76% of its historical extent, and the species is restricted to a

few high-quality mountain tributaries, including Upper Blakiston, Yarrow, Spionkop

and South Drywood creeks (Fitch 1997).

Habitat degradation and fragmentation, migration barriers, past population

management practices, and competition from non-native fish species are all threats to

the persistence of bull trout in the Waterton River watershed. These threats are

compounded by the narrow thermal requirements for successful bull trout spawning

and rearing (Dunham et al. 2003), and the geography of the watershed, which rests at

the fringe between suitable and unsuitable thermal habitat (Natural Regions

Committee 2006). Such fringe populations tend to be particularly sensitive to

environmental change (Isaak et al. 2009), and the fragmentation of quality headwater

habitats into even smaller patches only reduces their probability of persistence.

2

Figure 1. Historical bull trout distribution in the Waterton River watershed

(Fitch 1997) and bull trout sampling locations since 1995 based on a query (April 2011) of the Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System.

3

Remaining bull trout in the Waterton River watershed are likely resident fish

(Fitch 1997), typically <300 mm fork length (FL), that inhabit their natal tributaries for

life (ASRD and ACA 2009). Fluvial bull trout once occurred in Blakiston Creek, North

and South Drywood creeks, Yarrow Creek and the Waterton River (Fitch 1997);

however, it is uncertain whether any remain in the watershed. Fluvial fish are a

migratory life-history form that spawns in headwater tributaries and overwinters and

forages in main rivers (ASRD and ACA 2009). They are important to the genetic fitness

and continued persistence of the species through long-distance genetic exchange

(ASRD and ACA 2009). Habitat connectivity among populations is therefore

imperative, especially for declining populations (Bowerman 2013). Connectivity within

populations is also crucial for sub-adult migrants to return as spawning adults. Habitat

fragmentation as a result of dams, and competition and introgression with invasive

brook trout have severely impacted genetic exchange processes, particularly in the

Drywood Creek watershed, which was noted for its abundant and large fluvial bull

trout in the 1940s (Fitch 1997).

Current knowledge of the distribution of remaining bull trout and their life histories in

the Waterton River watershed is essential to identify and prioritize where remediation

efforts should begin for recovery of the species. Although bull trout declines in the

watershed are well known, comprehensive data collection has not been conducted to

date. Our primary goal was to intensively sample the watershed to determine the

current distribution of bull trout populations upstream of Waterton Reservoir relative

to thermal habitat quality, existing migration barriers, and the presence of non-native

fish species. Specific study objectives included:

• determine the distribution of bull trout in the Waterton River watershed relative

to thermal and physical barriers

• determine life-history forms and existing bull trout populations in the Waterton River watershed

• assess thermal habitat quality and gradient in the Waterton River watershed

• determine the distribution of introduced sport fish species, particularly invasive

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown trout (Salmo trutta), in the Waterton River.

4

2.0 STUDY AREA

2.1 Description The Waterton River originates in the southwest corner of Alberta in Waterton Lakes

National Park and is fed primarily by the chain of large, proglacial lakes that give the

park its name. The watershed extends northward from Upper Waterton Lake (which

spans the Montana border), through Middle Waterton Lake, down a short river reach

locally referred to as the Dardanelles, and then into Lower Waterton Lake (Figure 2).

The last and shallowest in the series of lakes is Maskinonge Lake, located near the

northeast extremity of the park, where the Waterton River begins. The river flows

32 km northeast into Waterton Reservoir and another 60 km downstream of the

reservoir to the confluence with the Belly River (Figure 1). The other major water source

in the watershed is Drywood Creek, which originates on the east slopes of the

continental divide and flows eastward via four major headwater tributaries, North

Drywood Creek, South Drywood Creek, Spionkop Creek and Yarrow Creek (Figure 2).

Dams have been constructed since the mid-1950s, fragmenting the watershed into

smaller reaches. In 1956, the first dam (locally known as the BA or Gulf dam) was

constructed on lower Drywood Creek by Gulf Oil to provide water to an adjacent gas

processing facility (Peterson and Meagher 2011). Another dam was built on North

Drywood Creek, approximately 2.6 km from its mouth, to serve the Shell Waterton

Complex gas processing facility that has operated since 1962. The final and largest dam

created Waterton Reservoir in 1964, a key reservoir for irrigation in southern Alberta.

This dam was constructed downstream of the confluence of Drywood Creek and the

Waterton River, which now flow into the east and south arms of the reservoir,

respectively. A fourth impoundment (Birdseye dam) is situated on upper Crooked

Creek near the Waterton Park boundary, named for its proximity to the Birdseye

Ranch. Our study area included all major tributaries upstream of Waterton Reservoir,

which represented the downstream boundary (Figure 2).

5

Figure 2. Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013.

6

Stream connectivity in the study area is most intact upstream of the south arm of

Waterton Reservoir, which includes the Waterton River and its tributaries. The largest

remaining tract of stream habitat with bi-directional fish migration potential extends

from the Blakiston Creek/Upper Waterton River headwater complex inside the park,

downstream along the Waterton River and its tributaries into Waterton Reservoir, and

upstream into Drywood Creek to the Gulf dam (Figure 2). The Drywood Creek

sub-watershed remains connected from the Gulf dam upstream into South Drywood

Creek, a short reach of North Drywood Creek, and all of Yarrow and Spionkop creeks.

Near the edge of the mountain front, several of the major tributaries flow subsurface for

considerable distances and varying durations of time, creating natural seasonal barriers

to fish movement. Yarrow, Spionkop, and North and South Drywood creeks all flow

subsurface on a semi-annual to annual basis, and according to area landowners, a reach

of Dungarvan Creek only periodically exhibits any sort of surface flows, potentially

remaining dry for periods of decades.

Salmonid species native to the watershed include bull trout, Westslope cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) in the

tributaries, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in the main lakes and upper river reaches,

lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in the main lakes, and pygmy whitefish

(Prosopium coulterii) in Upper Waterton Lake. Extensive stocking of hatchery fish,

including non-native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis), began no later than 1922 in the main lakes and continued for over 50 years

(Anderson et al. 1976). Introductions into the tributaries began no later than 1928;

rainbow trout stocking into Yarrow, Drywood and Cottonwood creeks started in 1932

(ESRD file data; Blairmore office). Brown trout were stocked in Yarrow Creek no later

than 1931 and brook trout in 1954. Stocking of brown trout in Cottonwood Creek began

in 1960, and in the Waterton River immediately upstream of Waterton Reservoir in

1987. By the late 1960s, few bull trout were being reported in Waterton River above the

reservoir (Fitch 1997). The river now supports a popular recreational brown trout

fishery, with natural spawning in Cottonwood Creek.

Geographically the study area changes rapidly from the cool Subalpine in headwater

sub-watersheds of Blakiston/Bauerman Creek, Galwey Brook, upper Dungarvan Creek,

Yarrow Creek, Spionkop Creek, and North and South Drywood creeks, to warmer

7

Foothills Fescue Grassland (Natural Regions Committee 2006) near Waterton Reservoir

in lower Drywood, Yarrow and Dungarvan creeks. In approximately 30 river

kilometres a steep stream temperature gradient occurs, resulting in disjunct cold-water

habitat reaches in the headwaters, separated by warmer more degraded conditions in

lower reaches.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS From July 4 to August 16, 2012, we sampled the watershed upstream of the south arm

of Waterton Reservoir. Headwater reaches included the Blakiston/Bauerman Creek

sub-watershed, Dungarvan Creek and Galwey Brook. We also sampled connected

streams that were data deficient, including Sofa Creek and Crooked Creek, as well as

those historically supporting bull trout, including Maskinonge Lake, the Dardanelles,

Cottonwood Creek, and the Waterton River to Waterton Reservoir (Figure 2).

From July 3 to July 31, 2013, we sampled the remainder of the Drywood Creek

sub-watershed (upstream of Gulf dam). We sampled headwater tributaries; North and

South Drywood creeks, Spionkop Creek, upper Yarrow Creek (i.e., upstream of the

Spionkop Creek confluence), and the lower watershed reaches; Yarrow Creek (i.e.,

downstream of Spionkop Creek confluence) and Drywood Creek (i.e., downstream of

North and South Drywood confluence) (Figure 2).

3.1 Sampling intensity and site placement

Sample site placement and sampling intensity was designed to achieve multiple

objectives. First, we required a sufficient number of sites to adequately describe bull

trout distribution and sport fish community composition across the watershed. Second,

we required sufficient sampling intensity to detect bull trout in low densities. Third, we

required the distribution of sites to span thermal, elevation and fish-community

gradients to assess thermal habitat quality and determine the distribution of introduced

sport fish species. Based on resource and time allocations from past watershed-level

assessments (Blackburn 2010), we assigned 75 sample sites at evenly spaced intervals

across the study area using ArcMap 10 (Appendix 1). Before field sampling, we

standardized sample reach lengths based on 40x average stream wetted width

(modified from Lyons 1992) using archival width data stored in the ESRD Fisheries and

8

Wildlife Management Information System. Sample reaches ranged from a minimum of

300 m to maximize data collection and the likelihood of capturing bull trout, to a

maximum of 750 m in length. We sampled tributaries above and below physical

barriers such as dams, waterfalls, subsurface reaches and high-gradient areas to help

delineate boundaries of isolated populations. We defined headwater sample reaches as

300 m stream segments where crews could physically ascend the site-length on foot,

despite suspected fish barriers (e.g., step pools, chutes or waterfall sequences)

encountered over the length of the sample reach. Sample reaches that were unsafe or

impassable by foot were adjusted either upstream or downstream upon arrival, to the

nearest complete 300 m site length.

We sampled the entire Waterton River (~32 km) from Maskinonge Lake to Waterton

Reservoir, and the entire reach of the Dardanelles and perimeter of Maskinonge Lake,

to maximize the likelihood of detecting bull trout.

3.2 Fish data collection

We collected fish using Smith-Root backpack-electrofisher types 15 and 12B for smaller

tributary streams (typically less than 12 m wide), and a Smith-Root LR-6 tote-barge

with 5.0 GPP electrofisher for wider tributary streams. For backpack-electrofishing

surveys, we worked in pairs with one dip-netter and one electrofisher operator in an

upstream progression. For tote-barge-electrofishing surveys, we used a four-member

crew in a downstream progression, with one tote-barge operator, one anode pole

operator and two dip-netters. For surveys on the Waterton River, we used a Smith-Root

5.0 GPP electrofisher and 14-foot raft with one oarsperson, one anode operator and one

dip-netter. We sampled the Dardanelles and Maskinonge Lake using a 16-foot

Smith-Root electrofishing jet-boat with a crew of four, including a boat operator, two

dip-netters and a fish processor.

All captured fish were retained in live-wells, measured, and returned to the stream a

short distance in the opposite direction of sampling. We collected biological data

including species, FL (mm), total length (TL, mm) and weight (g). Tissue samples

(caudal fin clip) were collected from all bull trout, as well as suspected pure and

hybridized cutthroat trout (i.e., all trout with visible orange throat slashes;

9

Robinson 2007), and were submitted to ESRD. We identified fish as bull trout x brook

trout hybrids when individuals displayed a combination of distinguishing features

from both species as per Popowich et al. (2011). This combination of features typically

included fish that appeared to be bull trout but had indefinite traces of black spotting

on the dorsal fin and/or traces of blue halos outlining light-coloured lateral spots.

Electrofishing transects were spaced at 50 m intervals for backpack reaches

(Appendix 2), 100 m intervals for tote-barge reaches, and 1,000 m intervals for raft

reaches (Appendix 3). Habitat data collected along transects included wetted

width (m), rooted width, and a visual assessment of percent pool, riffle and run habitats

by reach. We recorded total electrofishing effort in seconds (s). Jet-boat electrofishing

was conducted in one continuous pass.

3.3 Bull trout population structure and life histories We divided bull trout into life history categories based on size ranges and life history

forms potentially present in the watershed. Resident fish in Alberta range from 150 mm

to 300 mm FL at maturity (ASRD and ACA 2009); therefore, we considered all bull trout

measuring greater than 300 mm FL as fluvial. Fluvial migratory fish average

>400 mm FL at maturity; therefore, we further divided the catch into incrementally

larger size classes, assuming larger fish have a greater likelihood of being fluvial. Size

classes included >400 mm, >500 mm and >600 mm FL.

3.4 Stream temperature monitoring

We collected daily mean and maximum water temperatures to characterize thermal

habitat quality and detect temperature gradients across the watershed. In total, we

deployed temperature loggers at 29 systematically spaced locations throughout the

watershed (Appendix 4). In 2012, we monitored stream temperature at 25 locations. In

2013, we monitored temperature only in the Drywood Creek sub-watershed at six

locations, two of which were repeat locations from 2012. We collected water

temperature data from April through September using Vemco Minilog temperature

loggers and Hobo Pendant loggers at 0.25 h and 0.5 h intervals, respectively. We

combined temperature monitoring data with that collected by Warnock (2012), from

10

2009 to 2011, to comprehensively characterize watershed temperature gradient. We

compared the elevation temperature gradient derived from six loggers installed on

Drywood Creek in 2013 (same-year installation) with that derived from loggers

installed across variable years (2009 to 2013) and sub-watersheds to address the

potential bias associated with using inter-annual temperature data to characterize

watershed temperature gradient.

We interpreted the resulting temperature data in relation to juvenile bull trout tolerance

ranges as per Isaak et al. (2009) to delineate populations partially or completely

separated by thermal barriers. Thermal habitat quality was considered high if average

seasonal temperatures (June to August) were below 10°C, medium if between 10°C and

12°C, and low if above 12°C. Thermal habitat was considered unsuitable when

temperatures exceeded 21°C (upper incipient lethal temperature) as per

Selong et al. (2001).

3.5 Reservoir temperature monitoring

To investigate seasonal habitat suitability within the reservoir and determine if the

reservoir poses a thermal or oxygen barrier to migrating bull trout, we conducted

monthly dissolved oxygen (DO) and water temperature profiles from May to July on

Waterton Reservoir using a YSI multimeter. Because of equipment failure, we were

unable to collect profile data in August, the warmest month. Profiles were conducted at

four locations on the reservoir: 1) near the dam face where depth was the greatest, 2)

near the west and 3) south arms of the reservoir where Drywood Creek and the

Waterton River respectively enter, and 4) near the centre of the reservoir (Appendix 4).

We considered water temperatures ≤12°C favourable for bull trout, the same as the

maximum average summer temperature identified when classifying juvenile thermal

habitat quality. We determined DO suitability in Waterton Reservoir using criteria from

the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 1999) for protection of

aquatic life in both cold-water and warm-water ecosystems (all life stages). Thresholds

in cold-water ecosystems include DO concentrations ≥9.5 mg/L to support early life

stages and ≥6.5 mg/L for all other life stages. In warm-water ecosystems, concentrations

≥6.0 mg/L support all life stages.

11

3.6 Data analysis

We used regression analysis in Microsoft® Excel to investigate relationships between

bull trout catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and average summer stream temperatures in the

Waterton River watershed. We calculated average stream temperatures for June

through August. We assigned temperature averages from monitoring stations to the

nearest bull trout sample site and calculated site CPUE of bull trout in fish per km.

We used JMP® version 10 statistical software to perform simple logistic regression

analysis for streams from which bull trout were captured, which supported the use of

thermal habitat quality categories described in Isaak et al. (2009) to assess the Waterton

River watershed. Seasonal temperature plots were constructed using R version 2.15.2

statistical software (R Development Core Team 2012).

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Bull trout distribution Of 75 tributary sample reaches identified, 11 yielded no fish, three were dry, and one

was inaccessible. Of the 11 reaches yielding no fish, nine were upstream of waterfall

barriers (Figure 3). We captured a total of 283 bull trout, 282 of which came from 20

(33%) of the 60 tributary reaches where we found fish (Appendix 5); and one was

captured in the Dardanelles between Middle and Lower Waterton lakes. We did not

capture bull trout in the 32 km main-stem Waterton River or in Maskinonge Lake

(Appendix 6). Capture rates were highest in three of the seven headwater tributary

watersheds and lowest in the lower reaches. Average bull trout CPUE was highest in

Spionkop Creek (139 fish/km), followed by upper Yarrow Creek (58 fish/km) and

Blakiston Creek (32 fish/km) (Table 1), which together accounted for 94% (n = 265) of

the total bull trout catch in the study area. The remainder of the bull trout catch was

distributed sporadically in South Drywood Creek and along the lower reaches of

Yarrow and Drywood creeks (Figure 3). We did not capture bull trout upstream of the

Shell dam on North Drywood Creek or downstream of the Gulf dam on Drywood

Creek. Similarly, sampling in Sofa Creek, Crooked Creek, Galwey Brook, Cottonwood

Creek and Dungarvan Creek yielded no bull trout.

12

Figure 3. Bull trout distribution in the Waterton River watershed study area based on

electrofishing during the summers of 2012 and 2013.

13

Table 1. Size and catch-per-unit-effort of bull trout by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed during the summers of 2012 and 2013.

Sub-watershed Fork length (mm) Weight (g)

Fish captured

Mean (± SE) CPUE

(fish/km)

Sample sites Mean

(± SD) Range

Mean (± SD)

Range

Spionkop 145 ± 115 51 – 668 143 ± 431 3 – 3000 131 139 ± 32.4 3

Upper Yarrow 150 ± 103 44 – 481 118 ± 266 4 – 1450 52 58 ± 17.5 3

Blakiston/Bauerman 200 ± 72 77 – 450 129 ± 165 4 – 959 81 32 ± 18.8 6

South Drywood 242 ± 101 106 – 319 193 ± 192 15 – 366 5 4 ± 2.5 4

Lower Drywood/Yarrow 187 ± 50 125 – 296 80 ± 73 14 – 278 12 2 ± 0.8 11 CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort, SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error

14

4.2 Bull trout population size structure Overall, bull trout population structure in the Waterton River watershed appears to

have a balanced size-class distribution (Figure 4); however, sub-watersheds that make

up most of the population (Spionkop Creek, upper Yarrow Creek, Blakiston Creek,

South Drywood Creek) are physically separated and individually lacking in various

sizes. The widest size range, as well as the largest bull trout, was in Spionkop Creek

(Figure 5), followed by upper Yarrow Creek and the Blakiston Creek sub-watershed.

Spionkop Creek produced several small juveniles from 80 mm to 150 mm, and the most

adult-sized fish in the study area. Neighbouring upper Yarrow Creek had a similar size

structure to Spionkop Creek, with the exception of fewer large adults. Conversely, the

Blakiston Creek sub-watershed, which is isolated from Yarrow and Spionkop creeks,

had a continuous representation of sizes from small juveniles ~80 mm FL to adults

~350 mm FL, but it lacked the large adults captured in Spionkop and Yarrow creeks.

Catches in lower Drywood and South Drywood creeks were minimal with few sizes

represented.

4.3 Fluvial bull trout Most adult-sized resident, or potentially fluvial migratory-sized bull trout, were

captured in Spionkop Creek. Of 32 fish captured >300 mm FL, 44% (n = 14) were

captured in Spionkop Creek, 28% (n = 9) in the Blakiston Creek sub-watershed, 16%

(n = 5) in upper Yarrow Creek, 9% (n = 3) in South Drywood Creek, and 3% (n = 1) in

the Dardanelles. No bull trout >300 mm FL were captured in lower Drywood or Yarrow

creeks. We captured a total of 14 bull trout >400 mm FL, of which 10 were from

Spionkop Creek, two from the Blakiston Creek sub-watershed and two from upper

Yarrow Creek. We captured a total of three bull trout >500 mm FL and two bull trout

>600 mm, all of which were captured in Spionkop Creek. Based on capture results,

Spionkop Creek is the most likely tributary to support remaining fluvial bull trout life

forms, followed by the Blakiston Creek and upper Yarrow Creek sub-watersheds.

15

Figure 4. Length frequency distribution of all bull trout captured in the Waterton

River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013.

Figure 5. Box plot diagram of lengths of all bull trout captured in the Waterton River

watershed study area in 2012 and 2013, showing median (mid line), upper and lower quartiles (boxes), and minimum and maximum fork lengths (whiskers).

02468

1012141618

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Perc

ent f

requ

ency

Fork length (mm)

n = 283

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Baue

rman

Blak

isto

n

Upp

er Y

arro

w

Spio

nkop

Sout

h D

ryw

ood

Low

er Y

arro

w

Low

er D

ryw

ood

Dar

dane

lles

Fork

leng

th (m

m)

n = 283

16

4.4 Thermal habitat quality

Tributaries and Waterton River

We identified six tributary sub-watersheds with high-quality thermal habitat (i.e., with

water temperatures that averaged <10°C in the summer): North Drywood Creek, South

Drywood Creek, Spionkop Creek, upper Yarrow Creek, Galwey Brook and Blakiston

Creek (Figure 6). In contrast, we did not identify high-quality thermal habitat in the

main-stem Waterton River; thermal habitat quality declined rapidly downstream of the

Dardanelles from medium to low. Temperatures were ≤12°C in May and June at all

stations on the river (Appendix 7); however, by late July through August, temperatures

reached unsuitable levels (≥21°C) at all stations except in the Dardanelles inside

Waterton Lakes National Park.

Temperature gradient

Based on temperature data from all monitoring stations combined, from 2009 to 2013,

thermal habitat quality declined rapidly once beyond the mountain front and outside of

Waterton Lakes National Park (Figure 6), confirming a steep stream-temperature

gradient occurs in the watershed. Same-season monitoring in Drywood Creek in 2013,

from the headwaters to Waterton Reservoir, substantiates that a gradient exists

(Figure 7) which is not an artifact of inter-annual temperature data collection.

Reservoir

In Waterton Reservoir, May and June surface temperatures were within the bull trout

tolerance range, posing no thermal migration barrier during those months. In July,

surface temperatures were well above the juvenile bull trout tolerance range, exceeding

21°C (Figure 8), posing a potential thermal barrier to migration at the surface; however,

temperatures remained tolerable at depths of approximately 10 m to 12 m, providing a

potential thermal refuge. Dissolved oxygen concentrations remained favourable

(≥6.0 mg/L) according to CCME warm-water ecosystem criteria for all life stages,

throughout the water column and across all months surveyed. According to cold-water

ecosystem criteria, DO was suitable (≥6.5 mg/L) for all but early life-stages, throughout

the water column and across all months surveyed. In June, DO concentrations met the

cold-water criteria to support early life-stages throughout the water column; however,

levels were below the 9.5 mg/L DO criteria in May and July.

17

Figure 6. Bull trout capture sites and thermal habitat quality in the Waterton River

watershed study area. Circles represent temperature data collected by ACA in 2012 and 2013; squares represent temperature data collected by the University of Lethbridge from 2009 to 2011 (Warnock 2012).

18

Figure 7. Average summer (June to August) stream temperature by elevation,

comparing the temperature gradient determined from same-season data collected in the Drywood Creek watershed 2013 with the gradient determined from data collected from 2009 to 2013 for all stations combined.

Combined years & streams: y = -0.0181x + 35.729, R2=0.5438

Drywood Creek 2013: y = -0.0253x + 46.922, R² = 0.9588

02468

101214161820

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

Mea

n su

mm

er te

mpe

ratu

re (℃)

Elevation (m)

19

Figure 8. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles at four stations on Waterton Reservoir: May 17, June 14 and July 17, 2012. Depth axes vary by station.

20

4.5 Bull trout thermal habitat preference

Bull trout were primarily captured in the coldest, highest elevation tributaries and

decreased in abundance exponentially with increasing average summer water

temperature. No bull trout were captured where average temperature exceeded 15°C (Figure 9). Mean bull trout CPUE was extremely low in the lower Drywood

sub-watershed, where mean summer temperatures were warmest (Table 2). We did not

capture bull trout in two of the high-quality thermal habitats of Galwey Brook and

North Drywood Creek, which are fragmented by seasonal and permanent migration

barriers, respectively. A logistic model of average summer temperature in streams

where bull trout were captured (i.e., the combined sub-watersheds of Blakiston, South

Drywood, Spionkop, upper Yarrow, and lower Drywood and Yarrow creeks) predicted

the probability of capturing juvenile bull trout (≤150 mm FL) to exceed 50% where

summer tributary temperatures averaged <8.6°C and to reach a maximum probability

of 77% where average summer temperature was 6°C (Figure 10). The model predicted

the probability of capturing any bull trout to exceed 50% where summer tributary

temperatures averaged <10.25°C (Figure 10), consistent with the high-quality thermal

habitat category as outlined by Isaak et al. (2009). Our greatest probability (86%) of

capturing a bull trout occurred where average summer temperature was 6°C.

21

Figure 9. Relationship between bull trout CPUE and a) average summer (June to

August) stream temperature and b) elevation in the Waterton River watershed. Corresponding exponential regression equations are shown.

y = 642.04e-0.412x

R² = 0.5465

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

CPU

E (fi

sh/k

m)

Average summer temperature (℃) a)

y = 1E-06e0.0113x

R² = 0.4698

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

CPU

E (fi

sh/k

m)

Elevation (m)b)

22

Table 2. Summer stream temperatures (June to August) by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2009 to 2013, where bull trout were captured, and in North Drywood Creek, where favourable summer temperatures were recorded. Temperatures from 2009 to 2011 were collected by Warnock (2012).

Watershed Stream temp. (°C) Data logger

station ID Year

Mean ± SE CPUE

(fish/km) Mean Min Max

Headwaters

Spionkop 7.8 3.1 16.3 sp-1 2011 139 ± 32.4

Upper Yarrow 7.2 2.8 14.3 ya-5 2011 58 ± 17.5 8.7 3.8 13.9 ya-4 2010 8.9 3.7 17.3 ya-4 2011

Blakiston/Bauerman 5.9 2.4 11.6 bl-6 2010 32 ± 18.8 6.2 1.6 12 bl-6 2009 7.2 2.6 13.5 bl-5 2009 7.9 3.2 15.4 bl-3 2010

South Drywood 6.8 2.4 15.3 dr-6 2011 4 ± 2.5 7.5 3.4 12.1 dr-5 2011 8.3 3.9 11.3 DR-5 2013

North Drywood 7.1 2.5 14.4 DW-5 2013 N/A 9.1 3.7 15.5 DW-4 2013 Lower Drywood

Yarrow 11.7 4.0 22.6 ya-2 2010 2 ± 0.8 12.2 3.4 24 YW-26 2012 13.0 3.6 24 YW-27 2012

Drywood 12.2 4.5 21.8 DW-3 2013 0 12.4 3.6 23.2 DW-3 2012 12.9 3.2 23.7 dr-2 2009 13.9 5.1 22 DW-2 2013 14.8 4.0 25.5 DW-25 2012

CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort, SE = standard error, N/A = not applicable

F

Figure 10. Rtt

0

0.5

1

Prob

abili

ty o

f bul

l tro

ut c

aptu

re

a)

0

0.5

1

Prob

abili

ty o

f bul

l tro

ut c

aptu

re

b)

Relationshiptemperaturetrout capture

6 7

6 7

p betweene for a) juvened. Correspo

8 9 1Avera

8 9 1Avera

23

bull trout nile bull trouonding logis

10 11 12age summer

10 11 12age summer

capture anut captured stic regressio

2 13 14temperatur

2 13 14r temperatur

nd average (≤150 mm F

on equations

4 15 16e (℃)

4 15 16re (℃)

summer stFL) and b) als are shown

17 18

17 18

tream ll bull .

24

4.6 Sport species capture summary and distribution

Catch of non-native sport species (n = 1,659) was roughly double that of native sport

species (n = 814). Non-native brook trout was the most abundant sport species in the

study area (n = 901), exceeding the total catch of all native sport species combined and

comprising 36% of the total catch (Table 3). Brook trout was also the most widely

distributed sport species (Appendix 8) and was captured in every sub-watershed and

78% of fish-yielding sample sites (86% of sites in the Waterton sub-watershed and 77%

in the Drywood/Yarrow sub-watershed). Brook trout had the highest CPUE of

non-native species at 121 fish/km in North Drywood Creek (Table 4). Rainbow trout

was the next most abundant (n = 447) and widely distributed sport species, comprising

18% of the total catch, and was captured in every tributary sub-watershed except

Crooked and Cottonwood creeks, and in 47% of fish-yielding sample sites. Rainbow

trout was particularly widespread in the Drywood/Yarrow sub-watershed

(Appendix 8), was captured in 82% of fish-yielding sample sites, and was the primary

sport species present in lower reaches. Rainbow trout also had the widest size range of

non-native species in the Drywood/Yarrow sub-watershed (Appendices 9 and 10).

Brown trout represented 12% of the total catch (n = 296) and were distributed primarily

throughout the main-stem Waterton River and the Cottonwood Creek watershed.

Brown trout were also captured in Dungarvan Creek, Blakiston Creek, Sofa Creek, and

Drywood Creek below the Gulf dam. The highest CPUE for brown trout in the

tributaries was in Cottonwood Creek at 112 fish/km (Table 4). No brown trout were

captured in the Drywood Creek sub-watershed upstream of the Gulf dam.

The most abundant native sport species was mountain whitefish (n = 399), comprising

16% of the total catch; it was distributed primarily in the main-stem Waterton River,

Drywood Creek, Yarrow Creek and lower Blakiston Creek. Bull trout represented 11%

of the total catch, restricted mainly to select headwater tributaries. The remaining 6% of

the catch was comprised of cutthroat trout, cutbow trout, burbot (Lota lota), northern

pike (Esox lucius), bull trout x brook trout hybrids, and lake trout.

We captured bull trout x brook trout hybrids (n = 12) in lower Drywood Creek both

below and above the Gulf dam, in South Drywood Creek and Spionkop Creek both

below and above natural subsurface barriers, and in lower Blakiston Creek. The only

25

tributary where bull trout were captured and hybrids were not captured was Yarrow

Creek. Hybrids were also captured where bull trout were not captured, below the Gulf

dam.

4.7 Species isolation and habitat fragmentation

The effects of fish passage barriers on the current sport species assemblage are best

illustrated by species composition and distribution below and above natural and

artificial barriers. We observed contrasting species compositions above and below one

seasonal, one semi-permanent, and two permanent fish-passage barriers upstream of

Waterton Reservoir; these barriers included natural subsurface reaches on upper

Yarrow and Dungarvan creeks, and the Gulf and Shell dams, respectively (Table 5).

Natural barriers appeared to isolate bull trout and cutthroat trout from non-native

species, whereas human-made barriers appeared to limit the upstream distributions of

native bull trout and mountain whitefish, while conversely benefitting non-native

species like brook trout and rainbow trout above the barriers (Table 5). The Gulf dam,

however, limits the upstream distribution of non-native brown trout, excluding them

from upstream habitat on Drywood Creek and segregating them from native bull trout.

The most notable observation above the Shell dam on North Drywood Creek was the

absence of bull trout in our catch. Bull trout were also absent in our catch below the

dam but were present in Drywood Creek immediately below the North Drywood

Creek mouth.

26

Table 3. Percentage composition of sport fish species by sub-watershed in the Waterton River watershed, 2012 and 2013.

Sub-watershed

Fish- yielding

sites

Species composition (%) Sport

species catch (n) BLTR BKTR BLBK RNTR BNTR

CTTR/

CRTRa MNWH LKTR NRPK BURB

Blakiston 7 44 29 1 3 1 0 18 0 0 4 188

Upper Yarrow 3 57 32 0 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 91

Spionkop 3 73 9 2 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 179

South Drywood 4 6 73 4 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 82

North Drywood 5 0 83 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 219

Sofa Creek 2 0 35 0 1 1 52 1 0 0 10 85

Upper Dungarvan 1 0 26 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 43

Cottonwood/Galwey 6 0 23 0 0 76 1 0 0 0 0 220

Crooked 11 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 259

Lower Dungarvan 5 0 67 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 3 143

Lower Drywood/Yarrow 11 2 23 <1 66 0 <1 8 0 0 0 499

Below Gulf dam 2 0 2 2 16 6 0 61 0 0 13 121

Waterton River 35 <1 <1 0 0 29 0 70 <1 <1 <1 346 BLTR = bull trout, BKTR = brook trout, BLBK = bull trout x brook trout hybrid, RNTR = rainbow trout, BNTR = brown trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, CRTR = cutbow trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, LKTR = lake trout, BURB = burbot. a Italicized numbers represent cutbow trout.

27

Table 4. Catch-per-unit-effort for select salmonid species from waterbodies in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013. Italicized numbers represent cutbow trout.

Waterbody

Catch-per-unit-effort (fish/km)

Total sites

Bull trout

Brook trout

Bull x brook

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Cutthroat trout

Mountain whitefish

Waterton River tributaries

Blakiston/Bauerman Creek 7 33.5 ± 19.9 13.1 ± 8.7 0.5 ± 0.3 0.2 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.9 0 8.3 ± 5.8 Crooked Creek 11 0 76.7 ± 21.8 0 0 0 0 0 Dungarvan Creek 6 0 59.4 ± 42.6 0 13.3 ± 5.9 10.6 ± 7.4 17.8 ± 17.8 0 Sofa Creek 2 0 50 ± 36.7 0 1.7 ± 1.7 1.7 ± 1.7 73.3 ± 73.3 1.7 ± 1.7 Cottonwood/Galwey Creek 6 0 34 ± 10.1 0 112 ± 103.7 0 0.7 ± 0.7 0 Below Gulf dam 2 0 1.3 ± 0.0 1.3 ± 1.3 5.3 ± 1.3 12.7 ± 2.0 0 49.3 ± 4.0

Drywood/Yarrow tributaries Spionkop Creek 3 139.4 ± 32.4 18.3 ± 10.6 3.2 ± 0.1 0 28.7 ± 22.3 0 2.1 ± 1.1 Upper Yarrow Creek 3 57.8 ± 17.5 32.2 ± 32.2 0 0 7.8 ± 4.8 1.1 ± 1.1 2.2 ± 2.2 South Drywood Creek 4 4.2 ± 2.5 50 ± 30.4 2.5 ± 2.5 0 10.8 ± 7.9 0 0.8 ± 0.8 Lower Drywood/Yarrow Creek 11 2.1 ± 0.8 20.2 ± 5.7 0.4 ± 0.2 0 57.4 ± 12.2 0.2 ± 0.2 7.4 ± 2.1 North Drywood Creek 5 0 121.3 ± 20.8 0 0 19.3 ± 12.8 0 5.3 ± 5.3

28

Table 5. Sport fish composition below and above fish passage barriers in the Waterton study area, 2012 and 2013.

Waterbody Barrier type Species Composition (%)

Total catchBelow barrier Above barrier

Dungarvan Creek

Semi-permanent

subsurface reach

Cutthroat trout

Brook trout

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Burbot

0

67

17

13

3

74

26

0

0

0

32

107

24

19

4

Yarrow Creek Seasonal

subsurface reach

Bull trout

Brook trout

Rainbow trout

Mountain whitefish

Cutbow trout

18

72

5

5

0

88

0

10

0

2

52

29

7

2

1

Drywood Creek

Permanent

Gulf dam

Mountain whitefish

Rainbow and cutbow trout

Burbot

Brown trout

Brook trout and hybrids

Bull trout

61

16

13

7

3

0

8

69

0

0

22

1

116

347

16

8

120

12

North Drywood Creek Permanent

Shell dam

Brook trout

Rainbow trout

Mountain whitefish

54

32

14

94

6

0

182

29

8

29

4.8 Summary Remaining bull trout populations in the Waterton River watershed are severely isolated

from one other. Spionkop Creek, upper Yarrow Creek and Blakiston Creek were the

only tributaries where we captured considerable numbers of bull trout from a wide

range of size classes. The tributary most likely to support the fluvial life form is

Spionkop Creek, where 44% of fish >300 mm FL, 71% of fish >400 mm FL, and 100% of

fish >500 mm FL were captured. Population structure across the watershed appears to

include a broad range of size classes; however, the sub-watersheds where various

juvenile and adult size classes were represented in our catch are separated, to varying

degrees, by multiple barrier types. Permanent physical barriers such as dams,

temporary physical barriers such as subsurface stream reaches, and temperature

barriers such as unfavourable summer average and maximum stream temperatures,

and surface temperatures in Waterton Reservoir, all contribute toward separating bull

trout populations. An additional barrier to migration might include the potential

biological barrier of a brown trout–dominated Waterton River sport fish community,

which extends from upper reaches in Waterton Lakes National Park, down to Waterton

Reservoir.

We identified six tributary sub-watersheds with high-quality thermal habitat: North

Drywood Creek, South Drywood Creek, Spionkop Creek, upper Yarrow Creek, Galwey

Brook and Blakiston Creek. Thermal habitat quality in the Waterton River declined

rapidly beyond the mountain front and outside of Waterton Lakes National Park.

Broad-scale watershed-level temperature monitoring confirms the persistence of a steep

water temperature gradient for bull trout in the Waterton River watershed.

Bull trout were primarily captured in the coldest, highest elevation tributaries, and their

abundance (i.e., CPUE) decreased exponentially with increasing average summer water

temperature. No bull trout were captured where average temperature exceeded 15°C, or in two of the high-quality thermal habitats of Galwey Brook and North Drywood

Creek, which were both fragmented. The probability of capturing juvenile bull trout

exceeded 50% where summer water temperature averaged <8.6°C, and the probability

of capturing any bull trout exceeded 50% where summer temperature averaged

<10.25°C; capture of bull trout reached maximum probability (86%) where summer

30

temperature averaged 6°C.

Invasive brook trout was the most abundant and widely distributed sport species in the

study area and appears to be a legitimate threat to remaining bull trout populations in

the Waterton River watershed. We captured bull trout x brook trout hybrids in nearly

every tributary where bull trout were captured.

The main-stem Waterton River was dominated by mountain whitefish and brown trout.

Brown trout were also pervasive in tributaries to the Waterton River including

Drywood Creek below the Gulf dam, Dungarvan Creek and Cottonwood Creek. No

brown trout were captured upstream of the Gulf dam in the Drywood/Yarrow

sub-watershed, which was a rainbow trout–dominated sport fish community.

The major barriers impacting fish community composition appear to be natural

subsurface reaches on Dungarvan and upper Yarrow creeks, and the Gulf and Shell

dams on lower Drywood and North Drywood creeks, respectively. Natural barriers

appear to benefit native species such as bull trout and cutthroat trout by isolating them

from non-native species, whereas human-made barriers appear to limit the upstream

distributions of native bull trout and mountain whitefish, as well as non-native brown

trout.

The Waterton River watershed is dominated by non-native fish species. Our findings

will help fisheries managers decide how and where to best conserve Alberta’s

provincial fish while maintaining viable recreational fisheries for Alberta anglers.

31

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2012. Bull trout

conservation management plan 2012 – 17. Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development, Species at Risk Conservation Management Plan No. 8, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada. 90 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association

(ASRD and ACA). 2009. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Wildlife Status Report No. 39,

Update 2009, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 48 pp.

Anderson, R., R. Green, R.M. Dokulil, and D. Donald. 1976. A limnological survey of

Waterton Lakes National Park, Part 2. The Main Lakes. 149 pp.

Blackburn, J. 2010. Abundance and distribution of Westslope cutthroat trout in the

Castle River watershed, Alberta 2008 – 2009. Technical Report, T-2010-002,

produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

39 pp + App.

Bowerman, T. 2013. A multi-scale investigation of factors limiting bull trout viability.

PhD thesis. Utah State University. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Paper

1524. Available online at http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1524 [Accessed on

March 5, 2014].

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999. Canadian water

quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Dissolved oxygen

(freshwater). In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999. Canadian

Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2012.

COSEWIC assessment and status report on the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

iv. + 103 pp.

32

Dunham, J., B. Rieman, and G. Chandler. 2003. Influences of temperature and

environmental variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams of the

southern margin of its range. North American Journal of Fisheries Management

23: 894 – 904.

Fitch, L. 1997. Bull trout in southwestern Alberta: Notes on historical and current

distribution. Pages 147 – 160. In: Friends of the bull trout conference

proceedings. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Services,

Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

Isaak, D., B. Rieman, and D. Horan. 2009. A watershed scale monitoring protocol for

bull trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-224. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 25 pp.

Lyons, J. 1992. The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when

fish species richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 12: 198 – 203.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural regions and subregions of Alberta.

Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub.

No. T/852.

Peterson, L., and B. Meagher. 2011. Drywood and Yarrow creeks fisheries assessments,

2010. Trout Unlimited Canada Technical Report No. AB-023. 16 pp + App.

Popowich, R., P. Venturelli, J. Stelfox, and E. Taylor. 2011. Validation of morphological

characteristics used for field identification of bull trout × brook trout hybrids.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31: 548–553.

R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical

computing. Produced by R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,

Austria. Available online at: http://www.R-project.org.

33

Robinson, M. 2007. The ecological consequences of hybridization between native

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and introduced rainbow

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in south western Alberta. MSc thesis. University of

Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 152 pp.

Selong, J.H., T.E. McMahon, A.V. Zale, and F.T. Barrows. 2001. Effect of temperature on

growth and survival of bull trout, with application of an improved method for

determining thermal tolerance in fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 130: 1026–1037.

Warnock, W. 2012. Examining brook trout invasion into bull trout streams of the

Canadian Rockies. PhD thesis, University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

184 pp.

34

6.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Waterton River watershed tributary sample site locations. Locations labelled with “X” denote sampling assigned

as a result of barriers. Italics represent inaccessable locations and dry stream channels.

Sample site

Location ID

Waterbody UTM coordinates

NAD 83 zone

Elevation(m)

Survey date Start

easting Start

northing End

easting End

northing

1 2 Tributary to Dungarvan 301411 5463728 12U 16-Aug-2012

2 4 Dungarvan Creek 285519 5452261 285324 5452138 12U 1550 16-Aug-2012

3 5 Dungarvan Creek 284734 5451632 12U 9-Aug-2012






9 13 Galwey Brook 287086 5446190 286837 5446070 12U 1546 11-Jul-2012


11 15 Galwey Brook 292725 5446639 292608 5446516 12U 1301 9-Aug-2012


13 17 Tributary to Galwey 287724 5446554 12U 11-Jul-2012

14 19 Cottonwood Creek 290821 5452412 290723 5452326 12U 1406 26-Jul-2012


35

Appendix 1. Continued

Sample site

Location ID

Waterbody UTM coordinates

NAD 83zone

Elevation(m)

Survey date Start

easting Start

northing End

easting End

northing



18 24 Sofa Creek 294146 5439420 294346 5439354 12U 1358 14-Aug-2012

19 25 Sofa Creek 292011 5440678 292230 5440635 12U 1277 14-Aug-2012

20 26 Blakiston Creek 290285 5439720 290947 5439774 12U 1293 9-Jul-2012





25 31 Bauerman Creek 716656 5446136 717037 5445863 11U 1478 10-Jul-2012

26 32 Bauerman Creek 714549 5447885 714157 5448018 12U 1534 25-Jul-2012

27 34 Crooked Creek 298721 5438341 298557 5438261 12U 1528 4-Jul-2012








36


Sample site

Location ID Waterbody

UTM coordinates NAD 83

zone Elevation

(m) Survey

date Start easting

Start northing

End easting

End northing


36 43A Tributary to Crooked 296940 5446709 297023 5446765 12U 1303 19-Jul-2012

37 43B Tributary to Crooked 298189 5446832 298419 5446956 12U 1312 7-Aug-2012

38 44 Drywood Creek 298721 5463497 299340 5463437 11U 1217 24-Jul-2012









47 8 Yarrow Creek 293835 5463193 293469 5463373 12U 1276 22-Jul-2013




51 12 Yarrow Creek 284882 5459814 12U

52 13 North Drywood 282888 5464832 282706 5464922 12U 1436 11-Jul-2013


37


Sample site

Location ID Waterbody

UTM coordinates NAD 83

zone Elevation

(m) Survey

date Start easting

Start northing

End easting

End northing





58 19 South Drywood 283910 5463444 283840 5463224 12U 1439 17-Jul-2013




62 23 Spionkop Creek 282949 5459518 282750 5459638 12U 1452 17-Jul-2013








70 X17 South Drywood 712955 5458726 712761 5458554 11U 1664 29-Jul-2013


38


Sample site

Location ID

Waterbody UTM coordinates NAD 83

zone Elevation

(m) Survey

date Start easting

Start northing

End easting

End northing


73 X16 Spionkop Creek 717295 5458133 717124 5457911 11U 1537 30-Jul-2013


75 X10 Yarrow Creek 717133 5453132 716864 5453220 11U 1601 23-Jul-2013

39

Appendix 2. Waterton River watershed tributary habitat measurement data, 2012. Means are shown with standard deviations. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, s = seconds.

Location

ID Sample

year Mean

WW (m) Mean

RW (m) %

Pool %

Riffle %

Run Electrofishing

effort (s) Distance

fished (m)

4 2012 3.5 ± 1.2 7.2 ± 1.4 89 7 4 1442 300

7 2012 4.7 ± 2.2 10.1 ± 2.7 45 15 40 847 300

8 2012 5.6 ± 1.1 7.7 ± 1.2 45 13 42 1350 300

9 2012 4.9 ± 1.5 10.7 ± 3.7 82 8 10 1112 300

10 2012 6.7 ± 1.5 13.6 ± 2.9 75 8 17 1349 300

11 2012 8.8 ± 4.8 13.8 ± 4.2 75 7 18 1001 300

13 2012 3.3 ± 1.2 8.7 ± 2.7 62 3 35 714 300

14 2012 4.7 ± 1.4 10.2 ± 0.9 66 3 31 1009 300

15 2012 4.6 ± 1.6 13.2 ± 4.9 75 2 23 1258 300

16 2012 8.3 ± 3.1 11.9 ± 3.7 81 12 7 1841 300

19 2012 2.4 ± 0.3 4.4 ± 1.0 11 6 83 1135 300

20 2012 3.4 ± 1.0 5.6 ± 1.6 48 52 0 1211 300

21 2012 3.1 ± 0.7 3.7 ± 1.4 0 0 100 1464 300

22 2012 3.3 ± 1.3 5.8 ± 1.7 0 2 98 1339 300

24 2012 4.6 ± 0.7 9.6 ± 2.4 92 3 5 1586 300

25 2012 3.7 ± 1.4 6.9 ± 1.3 33 59 8 1353 300

26 2012 18.3 ± 8.0 73.3 ± 20.9 99 1 0 1227 600

27 2012 7.5 ± 2.0 9.3 ± 1.9 82 10 8 1762 500

28 2012 13.9 ± 2.4 32.4 ± 13.2 98 2 0 1264 600

40


Location ID

Sample year

Mean WW (m)

Mean RW (m)

% Pool

% Riffle

% Run

Electrofishing effort (s)

Distance fished (m)

29 2012 14.3 ± 3.7 28.1 ± 3.1 82 3 15 1780 600

30 2012 14.9 ± 8.0 34.6 ± 9.7 93 5 2 1772 600

31 2012 8.2 ± 2.3 11.8 ± 0.8 96 4 0 1500 500

32 2012 6.7 ± 1.7 9.6 ± 1.4 76 14 10 1588 500

34 2012 2.6 ± 0.7 4.6 ± 1.9 48 24 28 1726 300

35 2012 4.0 ± 0.7 5.7 ± 1.3 28 14 58 2002 300

36 2012 4.5 ± 1.1 5.9 ± 0.9 87 13 0 1085 300

37 2012 4.5 ± 1.4 6.6 ± 2.3 52 18 30 1324 300

38 2012 4.7 ± 1.0 7.9 ± 1.8 42 24 34 1304 300

39 2012 4.4 ± 0.7 6.0 ± 1.1 33 20 47 1295 300

40 2012 5.1 ± 0.6 7.1 ± 2.1 17 36 47 1341 300

41 2012 3.9 ± 1.2 5.7 ± 2.1 2 3 95 1021 300

42 2012 5.9 ± 1.0 7.4 ± 1.1 7 17 76 1377 300

43A 2012 2.1 ± 0.5 5.5 ± 1.7 1 16 83 1016 300

43B 2012 1.3 ± 0.9 5.5 ± 4.1 25 1 74 1055 300

44 2012 18.9 ± 5.0 29.8 ± 5.8 50 31 19 2610 750

46 2012 16.4 ± 6.0 28.9 ± 11.0 47 28 25 2949 750

41


Location ID

Sample year

Mean WW (m)

Mean RW (m)

% Pool

% Riffle

% Run


Distance fished (m)

1 2013 19.8 ± 4.8 50.3 ± 27.2 29 28 43 4004 750 2 2013 11.3 ± 2.7 17.5 ± 5.5 16 67 17 2266 500 3 2013 10.5 ± 1.9 17.2 ± 5.6 10 40 50 2096 550 4 2013 10.6 ± 1.6 14.7 ± 3.1 20 64 16 3178 500 5 2013 9.6 ± 3.7 17.1 ± 4.6 10 35 55 2936 500 6 2013 12.3 ± 3.1 19.8 ± 7.6 19 48 33 3108 500 7 2013 9.7 ± 2.1 17.5 ± 5.2 5 68 27 5226 500 8 2013 12.7 ± 5.0 24.8 ± 8.0 2 94 4 2691 500 9 2013 13.0 ± 4.7 20.3 ± 7.0 10 57 33 1931 500

10 2013 14.2 ± 3.7 43.8 ± 15.5 4 56 40 2583 500 11 2013 11.8 ± 3.7 19.2 ± 5.5 9 53 38 2055 500 13 2013 9.6 ± 2.4 15.3 ± 5.2 8 37 55 1730 300 14 2013 7.8 ± 4.2 17.2 ± 19.8 17 21 62 2221 300 15 2013 6.9 ± 1.3 8.5 ± 3.1 9 80 11 1504 300 16 2013 6.6 ± 2.1 8.4 ± 2.2 8 84 8 1669 300 17 2013 4.9 ± 1.5 8.1 ± 1.4 35 42 23 1023 300 18 2013 5.4 ± 1.2 7.0 ± 1.2 20 38 42 446 300 19 2013 6.6 ± 1.7 11.6 ± 2.9 4 88 8 1763 300 20 2013 7.9 ± 2.8 14.0 ± 3.5 5 83 12 2094 300 21 2013 5.5 ± 1.9 15.2 ± 5.7 2 87 11 1107 300 22 2013 4.4 ± 0.7 7.4 ± 1.8 13 68 19 557 300

42


Location ID

Sample year

Mean WW (m)

Mean RW(m)

% Pool

% Riffle

% Run


Distance fished (m)

23 2013 6.2 ± 1.6 12.9 ± 5.4 2 75 23 2099 300 24 2013 5.3 ± 1.8 13.4 ± 6.9 1 97 2 2261 330 25 2013 3.7 ± 0.8 10.6 ± 1.0 2 77 21 751 300 26 2013 7.0 ± 1.9 22.5 ± 7.5 5 63 32 1766 300 27 2013 5.4 ± 1.4 27.6 ± 10.3 8 52 40 1588 300 28 2013 4.7 ± 0.7 13.5 ± 3.4 20 69 11 1382 300 31 2013 3.8 ± 1.5 5.2 ± 2.4 21 47 32 478 300 33 2013 4.9 ± 1.7 6.7 ± 2.2 19 53 28 709 300 35 2013 2.7 ± 0.9 4.5 ± 1.8 35 55 10 403 300 36 2013 2.3 ± 0.4 2.9 ± 0.6 7 45 48 390 300 40 2013 5.7 ± 2.6 9.3 ± 2.6 26 65 9 1184 300

x10 2013 4.2 ± 1.3 12.5 ± 4.6 40 33 27 498 300 x16 2013 4.1 ± 0.7 9.7 ± 3.0 22 65 13 1327 300 x17 2013 3.9 ± 0.4 9.1 ± 5.9 7 80 13 476 300

43

Appendix 3. Waterton River transect locations in 2012. UTM coordinates NAD 83 Zone 12. WW = wetted width, RW = rooted width, s = seconds, na = not available.

River reach Start

easting Start

northing End

easting End

northing Transect

length (m) WW (m)

RW (m)


Survey date

Dardanelles 291498 5438969 291814 5440795 2600 na na 3851 16-Jul-2012L. Lake Outlet 291949 5442986 292599 5443538 1100 na na 573 17-Jul-2012

Maskinonge L 292599 5443538 291949 5442986 2400 na na 1062 17-Jul-2012

Transect 1 292677 5443920 292951 5444793 1000 61 80 829 30-Jul-2012

Transect 2 292951 5444793 293072 5445731 1000 51 68 744 30-Jul-2012

Transect 3 293072 5445731 293827 5446165 1000 41 58 469 30-Jul-2012

Transect 4 293827 5446165 294672 5446611 1000 50 61 450 30-Jul-2012

Transect 5 294672 5446611 295479 5447172 1000 60 68 647 30-Jul-2012

Transect 6 295479 5447172 295916 5447621 1000 47 55 334 30-Jul-2012

Transect 7 295916 5447621 296475 5448303 1000 42 50 676 31-Jul-2012

Transect 8 296475 5448303 296494 5449065 1000 32 62 612 31-Jul-2012

Transect 9 296494 5449065 296681 5449357 1000 50 53 645 31-Jul-2012

Transect 10 296681 5449357 297091 5450135 1000 55 64 580 31-Jul-2012

Transect 11 297091 5450135 297560 5450980 1000 55 56 660 31-Jul-2012

Transect 12 297560 5450980 298009 5451770 1000 43 51 493 31-Jul-2012

Transect 13 298009 5451770 298239 5452123 500 42 49 354 31-Jul-2012

Transect 14 298239 5452123 298236 5452986 1000 28 32 754 31-Jul-2012

Transect 15 298236 5452986 298577 5453056 1000 45 51 624 31-Jul-2012

Transect 16 298577 5453056 298372 5453841 1000 63 75 563 31-Jul-2012

44


River reach Start

easting Start

northing End

easting End

northing Transect

length (m) WW (m)

RW(m)

Electrofishing effort

Survey date

Transect 17 298577 5453056 298372 5453841 1000 30 92 546 31-Jul-2012

Transect 18 298372 5453841 298884 5454038 1000 70 85 546 31-Jul-2012

Transect 19 298884 5454038 298957 5454948 1000 55 78 552 31-Jul-2012

Transect 20 298957 5454948 299138 5455794 1000 34 53 524 31-Jul-2012

Transect 21 299138 5455794 298925 5456674 1000 32 37 521 1-Aug-2012

Transect 22 298925 5456674 298207 5456962 1000 41 56 557 1-Aug-2012

Transect 23 298207 5456962 298965 5457429 1000 40 45 457 1-Aug-2012

Transect 24 298965 5457429 299793 5456956 1000 29 44 643 1-Aug-2012

Transect 25 299793 5456956 299668 5457560 1000 35 51 551 1-Aug-2012

Transect 26 299668 5457560 300115 5458309 1000 52 71 513 1-Aug-2012

Transect 27 300115 5458309 300918 5458881 1000 23 58 537 1-Aug-2012

Transect 28 300918 5458881 301810 5458773 1000 29 43 617 1-Aug-2012

Transect 29 301810 5458773 302647 5459248 1000 44 53 372 1-Aug-2012

Transect 30 302647 5459248 303455 5459577 1000 24 50 517 1-Aug-2012

Transect 31 303455 5459577 305346 5460024 1300 45 63 411 1-Aug-2012

45

Appendix 4. Temperature monitoring locations and summer (June to August) mean and maximum temperatures from the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013. BLTR = bull trout, N/A = not applicable.

Logger ID Waterbody UTM easting

UTM northing

NAD 83zone

Year Summer mean (℃)

Summermax (℃) Temp

rank Elevation

(m) BLTR

captured

WR-5 Waterton River 291917 5440243 12 2012 11.6 18.7 med 1278 Yes

WR-4 Waterton River 296209 5447654 12 2012 13.4 21.8 low 1266 No




B-30 Blakiston Creek 290955 5439775 12 2012 10.9 20.0 med 1285 No

DC-23 Dungarvan Creek 286208 5452698 12 2012 10.6 15.9 med 1486 No

DC-22 Dungarvan Creek 290566 5454316 12 2012 13.4 21.5 low 1392 No

DC-20 Dungarvan Creek 297255 5456171 12 2012 15.4 21.5 low 1259 No

CC-15 Cottonwood Creek 288605 5451592 12 2012 12.2 21.9 low 1435 No




CC-14 Galwey Brook 291100 5446670 12 2012 9.5 17.1 high 1353 No

CK-6 Crooked Creek 299363 5438594 12 2012 11.1 17.8 med 1516 No

CK-8 Crooked Creek 297753 5441014 12 2012 15.4 23.4 low 1450 No




46


Logger ID Waterbody UTM easting

UTM northing

NAD 83Zone Year Summer

mean (℃) Summer max (℃)

Temp rank

Elevation(m)

BLTR captured

DW-19 Gulf dam pool 296894 5463964 12 2012 14.9 25.2 low 1235 No

DW-24 Drywood Creek 298627 5463390 12 2012, 2013 15.4, 15.0 24.1, 23.3 low 1225 No

DW-25 Drywood Creek 295875 5464319 12 2012 14.8 25.5 low 1247 Yes

DW-2 Drywood Creek 291067 5464951 12 2013 12.5 22.0 low 1318 Yes

DW-29 Drywood Creek 285161 5465111 12 2012, 2013 12.4, 12.2 23.2, 21.8 low 1401 Yes

YW-27 Yarrow Creek 290011 5461561 12 2012 13.0 24.0 low 1331 Yes

YW-26 Yarrow Creek 287171 5461725 12 2012 12.2 24.0 low 1367 No

DW-4 North Drywood 716700 5465333 11 2013 9.1 15.5 high 1482 No

DW-5 North Drywood 712298 5462003 11 2013 7.1 14.4 high 1590 No

DR-5 South Drywood 717734 5462713 11 2013 8.3 11.3 high 1485 No

P1 Waterton Reservoir

dam face

305584 5466664 12 2012 N/A N/A N/A 1184 N/A


Drywood arm

304035 5464280 12 2012 N/A N/A N/A 1184 N/A


Waterton arm

304524 5461914 12 2012 N/A N/A N/A 1184 N/A


central

305636 5465071 12 2012 N/A N/A N/A 1184 N/A

47

Appendix 5. Tributary sport fish capture summary and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish/km) by sample site, sub-watershed and year in the Wateron River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013. Summary data are presented in downstream sequence by sample year, from headwaters to lower reaches. Numbers in parentheses denote CPUE. Loc ID = Location ID, BKTR = brook trout, BLBK = bull x brook trout hybrid, BNTR = brown trout, CTTR = cutthroat trout, CRTR = cutthroat trout x rainbow trout hybrid, MNWH = mountain whitefish, RNTR = rainbow trout.

Waterbody (2012) Loc ID BKTR BLBK BLTR BNTR BURB CTTR/

CRTR MNWH RNTR Total

Bauerman Creek 32 0 0 3 (6) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (6)

31 0 0 21 (42) 0 0 0 0 0 21 (42)

Blakiston Creek 27 0 0 35 (140) 0 0 0 0 0 35 (140)

28 0 0 10 (16.7) 0 0 0 0 1 (1.7) 11 (18.3)

29 8 (13.3) 0 13 (21.7) 1 (1.7) 0 0 10 (16.7) 4 (6.7) 36 (60)

30 38 (63.3) 1 (1.7) 0 0 7 (11.7) 0 24 (40) 0 70 (116.7)

26 9 (15) 1 (1.7) 0 0 1 (1.7) 0 1 (1.7) 0 12 (20)

Sofa Creek 24 26 (86.7) 0 0 0 0 44 (146.7) 0 1 (3.3) 71 (236.7)

25 4 (13.3) 0 0 1 (3.3) 8 (26.7) 0 1 (3.3) 0 14 (46.7)

Galwey Brook 13 no fish captured

14 no fish captured

16 12 (40) 0 0 4 (13.3) 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 17 (56.7)

Cottonwood Creek 15 10 (33.3) 0 0 158 (526.7) 0 0 0 0 168 (560)

19 10 (33.3) 0 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 0 0 11 (36.7)

20 19 (63.3) 0 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 0 0 20 (66.7)

21 0 0 0 4 (13.3) 0 0 0 0 4 (13.3)

22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0)

48


Waterbody (2012) Loc ID BKTR BLBK BLTR BNTR BURB

CTTR/ CRTR MNWH RNTR Total

Crooked Creek 34 70 (233.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 (233.3)

35 29 (96.7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 (96.7)

36 31 (103.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 (103.3)

37 46 (153.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 (153.3)

38 4 (13.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (13.3)

39 8 (26.7) 0 0 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 0 9 (30)

40 11 (36.7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 (36.7)

41 1 (3.3) 0 0 0 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 3 (10)

42 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 3 (10) 0 0 0 5 (16.7)

Tribs to Crooked 431 16 (53.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 (53.3)

432 35 (116.7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 (116.7)

Dungarvan Creek

above barrier 4 11 (36.7) 0 0 0 0 32 (106.7) 0 0 43 (143.3)

Dungarvan Creek 9 81 (270) 0 0 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 14 (46.7) 97 (323.3)

below barrier 7 4 (13.3) 0 0 12 (40) 0 0 0 2 (6.7) 18 (60)

8 11 (36.7) 0 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 0 3 (10) 15 (50)

10 0 0 0 5 (16.7) 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 7 (23.3)

11 0 0 0 4 (13.3) 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 6 (20)

Drywood Creek 46 1 (1.3) 2 (2.7) 0 5 (6.7) 5 (6.7) 0 34 (45.3) 11 (14.7) 58 (77.3)

below Gulf dam 44 1 (1.3) 0 0 3 (4) 11 (14.7) 0 40 (53.3) 8 (10.7) 63 (84)

49




North Drywood Creek 31 no fish captured

above of Shell dam 18 no fish captured

17 38 (126.7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 (126.7)

16 42 (140) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 (140)

15 16 (53.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 (53.3)

14 54 (180) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 (33.3) 64 (213.3)

North Drywood Creek

below Shell dam 13 32 (106.7) 0 0 0 0 0 8 (26.7) 19 (63.3) 59 (196.7)

South Drywood Creek 36 no fish captured

35 no fish captured

33 no fish captured

x17 no fish captured

22 0 3 (10) 3 (10) 0 0 0 0 0 6 (20)

21 0 0 2 (6.7) 0 0 0 0 0 2 (6.7)

20 37 (123.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (10) 40 (133.3)

19 23 (76.7) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (3.3) 10 (33.3) 34 (113.3)

Spionkop Creek 25 no fish captured

x16 0 1 (3.3) 47 (156.7) 0 0 0 1 (3.3) 2 (6.7) 51 (170)

24 6 (18.2) 1 (3) 61 (184.8) 0 0 0 1 (3) 2 (6.1) 71 (215.2)

Below subsurface reach 23 11 (36.7) 1 (3.3) 23 (76.7) 0 0 0 0 22 (73.3) 57 (190)

50




Upper Yarrow Creek 40 no fish captured

x10 no fish captured

28 0 0 24 (80) 0 0 1 (3.3) 0 0 25 (83.3)

27 0 0 21 (70) 0 0 0 0 5 (16.7) 26 (86.7)

Below subsurface reach 26 29 (96.7) 0 7 (23.3) 0 0 0 2 (6.7) 2 (6.7) 40 (133.3)

Lower Drywood Creek 7 32 (64) 1 (2) 1 (2) 0 0 0 4 (8) 38 (76) 76 (152)

6 24 (48) 1 (2) 0 0 0 1 (2) 10 (20) 72 (144) 108 (216)

5 4 (8) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (6) 20 (40) 27 (54)

4 4 (8) 0 1 (2) 0 0 0 0 18 (36) 23 (46)

3 5 (9.1) 0 1 (1.8) 0 0 0 2 (3.6) 57 (103.6) 65 (118.2)

2 4 (8) 0 0 0 0 0 9 (18) 29 (58) 42 (84)

1 8 (10.7) 0 1 (1.3) 0 0 0 3 (4) 22 (29.3) 34 (45.3)

Lower Yarrow Creek 11 6 (12) 0 0 0 0 0 6 (12) 22 (44) 34 (68)

10 8 (16) 0 4 (8) 0 0 0 5 (10) 39 (78) 56 (186.7)

9 14 (28) 0 3 (6) 0 0 0 0 3 (6) 20 (40)

8 5 (10) 0 1 (2) 0 0 0 0 8 (16) 14 (28)

51

Appendix 6. Waterton River float electrofishing catch-per-unit-effort by transect, 2012. BKTR = brook trout, BLTR = bull trout, BNTR = brown trout, BURB = burbot, LKTR = lake trout, MNWH = mountain whitefish, NRPK = northern pike.

Location Catch-per-unit-effort (fish/km) BLTR thermal

habitat class Temp logger BKTR BLTR BNTR BURB LKTR MNWH NRPK

Dardanelles 0 0.39 0 0 0.39 8.46 0 Medium WR-5

Lower lake outlet 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0.91

Maskinonge Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.87

Transect 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

Transect 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

Transect 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Transect 4 0 0 2 0 0 10 0

Transect 5 0 0 2 0 0 8 0

Transect 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Medium WR-4

Transect 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 1

Transect 8 0 0 13 1 0 6 0

Transect 9 0 0 7 0 0 5 0

Transect 10 0 0 11 0 0 1 0

Transect 11 0 0 3 0 0 9 0

Transect 12 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 Low WR-3

Transect 13 0 0 4 0 0 8 0

Transect 14 0 0 3 0 0 11 0

52


Location Catch-per-unit-effort (fish/km) BLTR thermal

habitat class Temp logger BKTR BLTR BNTR BURB LKTR MNWH NRPK

Transect 15 0 0 2 0 0 9 0

Transect 16 0 0 1 0 0 4 0

Transect 17 0 0 2 0 0 10 0

Transect 18 0 0 2 0 0 4 0

Transect 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Transect 20 0 0 3 0 0 10 0

Transect 21 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 Low WR-1

Transect 22 0 0 3 0 0 7 0

Transect 23 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

Transect 24 0 0 7 0 0 3 0

Transect 25 0 0 1 0 0 10 0

Transect 26 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

Transect 27 0 0 2 0 0 9 0

Transect 28 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

Transect 29 0 0 3 0 0 4 0

Transect 30 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 Low WR-2

Transect 31 0.77 0 6.15 0 0 10.77 0

A

Appendix 7. May to Septemsummer mean2012. The blan

mber temperatun (June to Augunk area on the te

ure plots, with dust) temperatureemperature plo

53

daily mean (red e values, from mt for Blakiston C

lines), minimummonitoring statioCreek 30 indicat

m and maximumons in the Watetes a period of w

m (black lines),eron River waterwash-out.

and rshed,

A Appendix 7. Continued

54

55

Appendix 8. Distribution of sport fish in the catch, by species, in the Waterton River watershed, 2012 and 2013.

56


57


58


59

Appendix 9. Length frequency distribution of the major sport fish captured in the Waterton River watershed study area, 2012 and 2013.

60


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Rela

tive

abun

danc

e (%

)

Fork length (mm)

Brown trout, n = 274

61

Appendix 10. Size of select sport species captured in 2012 and 2013 electrofishing in the Waterton River watershed study area. For mean values, the standard deviation (SD) is presented.

Sample location Species

Fork length (mm) Weight (g) Mean ± SD Range n Mean ± SD Range n

Tributaries Bull trout 165 ± 102 44 – 668 280 132 ± 329 3 – 3000 273 Bull x brook trout hybrid 201 ± 94 108 – 417 12 172 ± 309 12 – 994 10 Brown trout 103 ± 93 38 – 510 184 49 ± 144 1 – 881 176 Brook trout 126 ± 60 34 – 366 890 39 ± 60 1 – 500 890 Cutthroat trout and hybrids 142 ± 58 78 – 329 78 57 ± 94 5 – 542 78 Mountain whitefish 179 ± 49 61 – 322 164 103 ± 101 1 – 500 93 Rainbow trout 134 ± 63 48 – 415 445 39 ± 60 1 – 870 420

Waterton River Brown trout 242 ± 122 46 – 554 90 356 1 – 1625 84 Mountain whitefish 193 ± 66 53 – 375 224 115 ± 119 3 – 636 217

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

Documents

Distribution of Bull Trout in the Waterton River Watershed, Alberta, … · 2017-01-17 · Canada), Paul Harper, and Brian Meagher (Trout Unlimited Canada). Many thanks to Kevin Fitzsimmons