an investigation of the potential to restore native trout
TRANSCRIPT
University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
2000
An investigation of the potential to restore native
trout populations: Goat Creek, Banff national park,
Alberta
Tough, Elizabeth
Tough, E. (2000). An investigation of the potential to restore native trout populations: Goat
Creek, Banff national park, Alberta (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary,
AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/15482
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/39554
master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
An Investigation of the Potential to Restore Native Trout Populations: Goat Creek, Banff National Park, Alberta
Elizabeth Tough Masters Degm Project
Faculty of Environmental Design University of Calgary
National Library 1+1 of Canada Bibliothique nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wedlington OttawaON K l A W OttawaON K I A W Canada CaMda
Y w r fib vatm mwmlx#
Our W UIre r O H r m a
The author has granted a non- exclusive Licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive pennettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prster, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/tilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique .
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celIe-ci ne doivent Stre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
Thanks to the EVOS faculty, particularly Dr. Grant Ross, my supen/isor, who provided just the right mix of support, critique and advice on this MDP. Dr. Ken Sato provided thoughtfbl comment on the document, and came all the way from Ottawa for the defense. Dr. Stephen Henero started me on the trail of this fascinating and fun project. And Dr- Rich Revel did what I knew he would do and threw down the gauntlet - I'm glad you had fun.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of TransAlta Utilities Corp. and Parks Canada. Charlie Pacas from Parks Canada and Roger Drury from TransAlta not only arranged the financial support for the project, but lent their time, expertise, and insight. Thank you both.
Faculty of other departments at University of Calgary provided much appreciated support. Helen Butler from the Department of Geography lent her own field equipment. Jon Greggs of Geological Sciences granted use of laboratory facilities, and Dr. Leland Jackson from the Department of Biological Sciences lent his time. expertise, equipment and laboratory, and solved the mystery of the sediment filters that didn't filter.
The help of many professionals who answered my innumerable questions and sent weighty packages of information on up-to-the-minute developments in stream restoration is gratefully acknowiedged. Daryl Fields of BCHydro. Jeff Lutch and Mark Buktenica from the United States Park Service, and Bill Horton and Ned Homer of Idaho Fish and Game all provided great information.
Peter Eaton carried half the load of the big job of fieldwork and most of the load of field equipment. Karen Oldershaw and Glen DePaoli took a huge load off my mind by providing absolutely reliable fieldwork (and dealing admirably with the only grizzly to make an appearance). Paul Godman from TransAlta and Elaine O'Neil from Parks Canada lent their time, expertise and senses of humour to the fieldwork. Thank you all.
Thanks to Christine, who not only provided expert knowledge on benthic invertebrates, but made devastatingly good cocktails to go with very late night problem-solving sessions. And to Karen Sharp, who gives great advice and gave me a welcoming home in the West.
Carol: thanks for distracting me.
Thanks to Todd for teaching me how to sleep and saying it's okay to take a day off. 1'11 remember that.
And always, thanks to my parents, for your continued support, friendship and love. Couldn't have done it without you.
ABSTRACT
This project investigated the potential to restore native fish populations and their associated habitat in Goat Creek, Banff National Park. The laws. policies and management plan for Banff National Park established the scope and goal of the research and management recommendations, which were to restore natural Row patterns in the impounded stream and to re-establish a native fish population. Changes to the fish community and habitat resulting from impoundment for hydroelectric power generation and introduction of non-native fish were determined from comparison between historical information and data gathered in the field. Field data were analyzed using preference curves for cutthroat trout and bull trout to determine the suitability of the habitat for these native fish. The analysis showed that the limiting habitat elements were poor pool and cover habitat, high summer water temperatures, and the presence of non-native brook trout. Changes to the hydrology of Goat Creek from impoundment reduced watershed area by 41.6% and reduced largest recorded annual flood by 78.8%. Extreme flow events from dam failures and stable annual flows created the existing instream habitat. Restoration of a native fish population in Goat Creek would require removing brook trout and constructing bamen to prevent their recolonization, and improving instream habitat to address limiting fadon. Increased water releases from power generation structures during the months of May, June, July, and August would mimic natural flow patterns and address the Banff National Park goal of restoring more natural Rows. As well as physical management of water flows, fish populations, and instream habitat, restoration of Goat Crsek would involve collaboration with the Alberta provincial government and creation of a public information program.
Key words: watershed planning. stream restoration, National Parks, stream impoundment, non-native fish, cutthroat trout, bull trout
.......................................................................... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.................................................................. CHAPTER 1 : INTROOUCTION
PURPOSE ................................................................................... ............................................................................... OBJECTIVES
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... Phase 1 ............................................................................. Phase 2 ............................................................................. Phase 3 ............................................................................. Phase 4 ............................................................................. Phase 5 .............................................................................
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT ................................................................
TARGET SPECIES ........................................................................ Cutthroat trout ..................................................................... Bull trout ............................................................................
.................... EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT ON SALMONID HABITAT Flow modification ............................................................... Sediment ........................................................................... Temperature. ...................................................................... Riparian areas ..................................................................... Benthic community ............. ... ............................................. Fish community ...................................................................
INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE FISH POPULATIONS ..................... Hybridization ....................................................................... Corn pe tition ........................................................................ Predation ...........................................................................
......................................................... CHAPTER 3: RESTORATION
INSTREAM FLOWS ....................................................................... ...... ......................... BCHydro and the Alouette River. 8C .......
............................................................. I NSTREAM STRUCTURES Projects using instream techniques ..........................................
RIPARIAN VEGETATION ............................................................... REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES .............................................
Elemfishing ...................................................................... Chemical Piscicides .............. ,... ..... .................................... Angling ..............................................................................
........................................................... CHAPTER 4: GOAT CREEK 32
........................................................................... INTRODUCTION ................................................ LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
............................................................................. Federal Fisheries Act ............................................................. Fisheries Act Regulations ............................................ National Parks Act .....................................................
............................................................. Parks Policy ........................... Banff National Park Management Plan
Provincial ........................................................................... Water Act .................................................................
......................................... Bull h u t management plan . TransAlta Ubl~ties ................................................................. .............................................................................. STUDY AREA
....................................................................... Area Climate HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................
Watershed ......................................................................... ................................................................................ Flows
Fish and habitat .................................................................. ..................................................................... CURRENT HABITAT
Representative reaches ........................................................ .................................................................... Data collection
................................................................ Discharge Temperature .............................................................
..................................................................... Survey ................................................................. Substrate
.......................................................... Fish population Instream cover .......................................................... Riparian vegetation .................................................... Wafer characteflstics ..................................................
.................................................. Benthic invertebrates HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TARGET SPECIES ................................
..................................................................... Cutthroat trout ............................................................................ Bull trout
Limiting Factors ...................................................................
GOAT CREEK RESTORATION POTENTIAL ...................................... Removal of non-native species ............................................... Flow Modification ................................................................. lnstrearn techniques ............................................................. Riparian Areas ....................................................................
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................
.................................................................................. SUM MARY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................
Organizational Recommendations ........................................... Specific Recommendations ...................................................
REFERENCES .............................................................................
APPENDIX I: Determination Of Historical Flows In Goat Creek ............... APPENDIX II: Historical Flow Data .................................................... APPENDIX Ill: Habitat Suitability Curves ............................................
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 1 3
Cutthroat trout life stages and habitat needs Bull trout life stages and habitat needs lnstream habitat restoration techniques Changes in hydrological regime in Goat Creek Substrate size categories Results of electrofishing activities Goat Creek suitability for cutthroat trout Habitat suitability results for cutthroat trout Habitat suitability results for bull trout Costs for scenario one Costs for scenario two Limiting factors and instream restoration techniques Summary of issues, effects and restoration techniques
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5
Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14
Figure 15 figure 16 figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19
Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23
Goat Creek Watershed Climate at Town of Banff Timeline of management activities on Goat Creek TransAlta's Spray River system generation system Changes to drainage in the Spray River watershed from impoundment Changes to Goat Creek hydrograph following regulation Representative reach 1 Representative reach 2 Representative reach 3 Goat Creek hydrograph summer 1998 Goat Creek summer hydrograph 1999 Reach 1 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1 999 Reach 2 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1 999 Reach 3 maximum and minimum temperatures with comparison to Healy Creek Goat Creek Reach 1 Goat Creek Reach 2 Goat Creek Reach 3 Goat Creek percent substrate composition by reach Percent composition by fork length of Goat Creek brook trout population Percent instream cover by reach Shrub species for Goat Creek Herb species for Goat Creek Hydrographs for scenarios one and two
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indigenous salmonid populations in Alberta have declined over the last century,
Among these populations, cutthroat trout and bull trout have disappeared from
much of their original habitat in the province as they have elsewhere in western
Canada and the United States. Studies base this decline on habitat degradation
from human manipulations and on the introduction and subsequent dominance of
non-native fish species. The purpose of this project is to identify, assess, and
recommend stream habitat management activities that address effects of
impoundment and non-native species stocking for salmonids native to Alberta.
Goat Creek. in Banff National Park. provides a case study on which to focus
investigations. The laws, policies and management plan for Banff National Park
established the scope and goal of the research and management
recommendations, which were to restore natural flow patterns in the impounded
stream and to re-establish a native fish population. Parks Canada's definition of
ecological integrity determined the context for this project.
Restoration of degraded habitat and fish populations needs to focus broadly, on
activities affecting watershed processes rather than narrowly on a single stream
channel. To restore impounded streams populated with non-native fish. several
techniques are available. Flow augmentation. either overall or to mimic natural
hydrographs, will increase useable habitat area and redistribute substrate to
create more diverse instream habitat. Successful methods to remove non-native
fish include electrofishing and use of poisons. Placement of instream structures
or woody debris creates habitat both directly, in providing fish cover, and
indirectly, in affecting scouring and deposition of sediments.
Goat Creek is part of the TransAlta Utilities Corporation (TAU) power generation
system on the Spray River watershed, adjacent to Banff National Park (BNP).
Current habitat and fish populations in Goat Creek are the result of changes over
the last 47 years since impaundment and stocking of non-native trout. Historical
analysis of Goat Creek indicates that impoundment structures reduced
watershed area, annual floods, minimum discharges. and mean annual
discharge to varying degrees. The most important flow change, from the
perspective of the Banff National Park Management Plan, is the change from a
natural hydrograph, with peak flows from May to August, to a steady discharge
over the year. Brook trout stocked into Goat Pond by Alberta fisheries managers
displaced native cutthroat trout and other native fish species and now dominate
the fish community in Goat Creek
Habitat data gathered from representative reaches on Goat Creek and analyzed
using Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) indicate that current habitat for cutthroat
and bull trout is limited by lack of good quality pools. Other habitat elements rate
high on the HSI scales for both species and all life stages.
To meet Parks Canada's goal of restoring ecological integrity to Goat Creek,
non-native fish would have to be removed, a native cutthroat trout population
stocked, and flows would have to be augmented in the historic high flow season
from May to August to mimic the natural hydrograph. To successfully eradicate
non-native trout species, barriers to fish movement would have to be constructed
on flow outlets on TAU facilities.
Because Goat Creek originates on provincially managed lands, management of
Goat Creek falls not only to BNP, but also to the Province of Alberta, and to
TransAlta Utilities. All three organizations have commitments in policy and law to
managing environmental impacts on aquatic environments and to working with
neighbouring jurisdictions.
Recommendations for restoring Goat Creek:
The recommendations provide a framework for planning if Parks Canada
chooses restoration of Goat Creek as an element of its goal to restore ecological
integrity.
Organizational
1. It is recommended that any restoration plans for Goat Creek focus on
restoring ecological integrity by restoring natural structure and functions.
2. It is recommended that Parks Canada create a public information program
and public consultation program to educate the public on its plans to restore
aquatic ecosystems and to encourage support for such programs.
3. It is recommended that restoration potential for Goat Creek be reviewed in
context with other projects investigating restoration potential on streams in
BNP.
4. It is recommended that Parks Canada collaborate with provincial fisheries
managers on any restoration plan for Goat Creek.
Specific
5. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TAU use the information in this
report on historic conditions in Goat Creek in defining restoration goals.
6. It is recommended that Parks Canada work with TAU to determine feasibility
of building structures to block fish passage through flow outlets.
7. It is recommended that Parks Canada investigate the possibility of using
piscicides in BNP.
8. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TransAlta Utilities work together to
define a water budget and determine desired flow amounts.
9. It is recommended that Parks Canada include use of large woody debris in
the stream to work in concert with increased flows and accelerate habitat
formation.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Indigenous salmonid populations in Alberta have declined over the last century.
Among these populations, cutthroat trout and bull trout have disappeared from
much of their original habitat in the province as they have elsewhere in western
Canada and the United States. Investigations of such populations concluded
that habitat loss and degradation are primary concerns (Mclntyre and Rieman
1995). Others (Behnke in Mclntyre and Rieman 1995) concluded that 'brown
trout. brook trout, and rainbow trout, along with changes in flow and water quality
were responsible for the demise of the westslope cutthroat trout in [drainages it
originally inhabited]".
PURPOSE
The purpose of this project is to identify and assess stream habitat management
and enhancement activities that address effects of impoundment and non-native
species stocking on native salmonids in Banff National Park and to recommend
management actions for restoring fish habitat and an indigenous fish population.
The National Parks Act, Parks Policy, and the Banff National Park Management
Plan all identify ecological integrity as a goal in Park management. Parks
Canada defines ecological integrity as:
"the condition of an ecosystem where 1 ) the structure and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity, and 2) the ecosystem's biological diversity and supporting processes are likely to persistn
This project examines restoration potential for Goat Creek within the context of
this definition of ecological integrity. The structure (the fish community and its
associated habitat) of the Goat Creek ecosystem has been affected by stocking
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
of non-native species and regulation of water flow. The effects of flow
impoundment have altered the functions associated with natural discharge
patterns and sediment supply (including instream habitat creation and inputs
from riparian areas).
OBJECTIVES
The study objectives are:
To investigate the potential to improve fish habitat so that indigenous fish
populations can be restored and maintained;
to identify the effects on salrnonid habitat and native salmonids of stream
impoundment and introduction of non-native fish species;
to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of various restoration strategies,
including direct habitat redamation techniques and flow alteration; and
to use this assessment to make recommendations on management actions
for restoration of fish habitat and an indigenous fish population.
METHODOLOGY
Phase 1
Phase 1 was a literature review of native salrnonids in Alberta and their habitat
needs; of effects of stream impoundment on salmonid habitat; and of effects of
introducing non-native fish species on indigenous salmonids. These reviews
provided a context and guide on which to base further investigation.
Phase 2
In phase 2 1 broadened the literature review to identify restoration strategies for
stream habitats. I focussed on those strategies and activities that specifically
address the effects of flow alteration and presence of introduced species
identified in phase one. Restoration strategies focussed on modifications to flow.
physical changes to stream channels. and re-introduction of native salmonids.
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
Phase 3
To illustrate effects of human uses on fish habitat I completed a case study of
Goat Creek in Banff National Park (BNP). Both impoundment and introduction of
non-native species have affected the fish community and habitat in this stream.
Field data collection provided the basis for describing the current state of Goat
Creek; historical records identified forces that created that state. This case study
put the results of the literature review in context and sewed as a concrete
example of human stresses and biological responses in stream habitat needed to
ground restoration work in reality. Historical information on past biological
capacity guided in defining targets for restoration (Rabeni and Sowa 1996;
Ebersole. Liss, and Frissell 1996).
Phase 4
Phase 4 involved investigating the feasibility of successfully implementing the
various restoration strategies. In the United States and in western Canada.
where native trout are in decline. numerous projects have begun processes for
restoration (Young 1995; Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 1 996).
Research into these programs. and discussions with specialists in the field
pointed to successful and unsuccessful measures. This research focussed on
projects addressing the effects of impoundment and of competition with
introduced species. However. the research also investigated feasibility of
restoration strategies in the political, economic, and social context by identifying
resistance to or non-participation in such restoration projects by those with a
stake in the outcome. Ways in which any such resistance has been mediated
through discussion or education were also identified.
Phase 5
To prepare recommendations for restoring fish habitat. I assessed potential
restoration strategies according to likelihood of success in addressing the effects
identified in previous phases. The assessment was based on my interpretation
of the results of the discussion with specialists, the literature, from the
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
examination of similar projects, and from information about Goat Creek. It
included aspects of habitat ecology. hydroelectric power generation and
engineering, and economics. The assessment indicated which potential
restoration strategies are the most practical to pursue in different situations as
well as those specifically aimed at restoring Goat Creek. The recommendations
are based on this assessment. Also. I included in the recommendations. ways in
which deficiencies identified in methods could be addressed.
CHAPTER 2
CONTEXT
TARGET SPECIES
To focus this study I selected cutthroat trout and bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) as the target species for habitat restoration, since both are native to
Alberta and are in decline.
'Explorers and surveyors of the late 1800s wrote that trout 'of two kinds'
abounded 'in all the streams from the Bow River to h e Boundary Line' [Montana
border] in Alberta. The fish are recognizable in written descriptions from that
time as bull trout and cutthroat troutn (Mayhood 1998).
Westslope cutthroat (0. clarki lewisi), the subspecies native to Banff National
Park (BNP), and bull trout coevolved, resulting in some unique characteristics in
the cutthroat trout. The westslope subspecies differs from the other subspecies
by being less piscivorous (Trotter 1987). possibly as a result of coevolving with
the highly piscivomus bull trout. Studies (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; McPhail
and Baxter 1996) have shown that sympatric populations of bull and cutthroat
trout populations segregate regarding use of habitat and prey meaning the two
can coexist in the same stream. Both bull and cutthroat trout are vulnerable to
displacement through competition by non-native trout species. Brook trout and
other introduced species have displaced native trout in many areas of Canada
and the United States (Behnke 1992; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Banff-Bow
Valley Study 1996; McPhail and Baxter 1997; Meyer 1998; Buktenica 1998).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
Cutthroat Trout
The species cutthroat trout consists of 1 3 recognized subspecies, all
geographically distinct and with genetic variations (Hickman and Raleigh 1982;
Trotter 1987; Behnke 1992). The subspecies native to Alberta is the westslope
cutthroat trout (0. clarki lewisi), who's native range covers western Montana.
northern Idaho and southern Alberta (Trotter 1987). The Bow River drainage is
the northern limit of the westslope cutthroat trout range (Mayhood 1998). The
westslope subspecies is less piscivorous than other cutthroat trout (Trotter 1987;
Behnke 1992), with a diet of aquatic invertebrates. Behnke (1992) states that the
westslope cutthroat trout is not piscivorous because it coevolved with the highly
piscivorous bull trout.
Across the historic range the subspecies is in decline, as are most of the other 12
subspecies (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Behnke 1992; Banff-Bow Valley Study
1 992). Habitat degradation and fragmentation. introduction of non-native
species, and angling pressure account for the decline of all subspecies of
cutthroat trout everywhere in its range (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Schindler
and Pacas 1996; Thompson and Rahel1996). Road and rail development and
hydroelectric impoundment cause habitat degradation and fragmentation in Banff
National Park (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). These developments affect
instream flows, alter the natural pattern of floods, and change instream habitat
and water quality. The introduction and subsequent dominance of non-native
fish species alters the composition of the native fish population through
hybridization, competition and predation. The Banff-Bow Valley Study (1 996)
found that development impacts and the effects of over fishing reduced the
populations of cutthroat trout in 8NP. Cutthroat trout, once abundant in the Bow
Valley are now virtually absent from the Bow River below Lake Louise (Banff-
Bow Valley Study 1996).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). which monitors
World Heritage Sites, considers westslope cutthroat trout a Species of Special
Concern (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996). Westslope cutthroat trout are under
consideration for designation as threatened species under the United States
Endangered Species Act. Cutthroat trout habitat requirements are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1 : Cutthroat trout life stages and habitat needs (Information summarized from Mudry and Green 1976; Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Trotter 1987; Borek and Rahel1991; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Herger et al. 1996; and Young 1996)
Life Stage All
Adult Cutthroat trout begin to mature at age 3 but usually spawn first at age 4 or 5. They spawn From March to July when water temperatures reach 10°C Juvenile
Fry Fry emerge roughly two weeks after hatching when they are 20mm long. They rapidly disperse to nearby resting areas with good cover Embryo Embryos hatch after 28- 49 days.
Dodrabla habitat features Streamside vegetation for canopy shade, allochthonous input, and bank stabilization Dissdved oxygen levels between 7 and 9mg/L pH range of 7-9, with 7.5-8.5 as optimal A base flow of 50% of average annual daily flow Cdd water with a temperature range of 7-1 6°C with an optimal r a m of 9-1 2°C Water velocities of 0.14.3m/s and depth greater than 1 5cm Cover for hiding. resting and feeding in the form of overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, deep water, and surface turbulence Substrate suitable for aquatic insects composed mostly of rubble with tow percentage of fines Poo1:riffle ratio of 1:1 to provide both resting areas and food production areas Water velocities of 0.25-O.Sm/s and depths of 45-75cm Prefer instream rather than streamside cover in the form of main channel pools. substrate cover, and log jams Low substrate embeddedness to allow fish to enter substrate for winter cover Lower velocities and shallower water than other life stages, with velocities <O.O8m/s Cover along stream margins, low velocity areas, backwaters, and side channels Rubble 1040cm along stream margin for winter cover
Velocities of 0.3-0.4ds at depth of 17-20cm Gravel substrate with low embeddedness low percentage of fines Substrate size of 2-7 5rnm depending on size of spawners Incubation temperature around 10°C
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
Bull Trout
Original range of bull trout covered most of Oregon. Washington. Idaho.
Montana, and British Columbia, extending into western Alberta and southern
Yukon and Northwest Territories. Now. however. its range has contracted in the
south and populations are in decline over its remaining range (McPhail and
Baxter 1996). Bull trout are a member of the char species along with brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis), and like all char it is a fall spawner (US Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS) 1998).
Bull trout are listed as threatened species under the United States Endangered
Species Act (US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) 1999). United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) considers bull trout an indicator species whose
condition reflects the state of the ecosystem (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1 996). Bull
trout are Alberta's Provincial fish and are listed as a Species of Special Concern
in Alberta (Alberta Environment n.d.). The Fish and Wildlife Management
Division of Alberta Environment prepared a Bull Trout Species Management and
Recovery Plan in 1995 to address population declines in bull trout. A zero limit
on bull trout and an information and education program, as well as plans to
protect and restore bull trout habitat are all designed to increase bull trout
populations.
Bull trout in Banff National Park are subjected to the same stresses of habitat
degradation as cutthroat trout. Like cutthroat trout. bull trout spawn in tributaries
that are now modified by hydroelectric dams and road and rail construction. Bull
trout are vulnerable to displacement by brook trout. In stream for which data
exists, brook trout now occupy 100% of bull trout habitat (Banff-Bow Valley Study
1996). Brook trout reproduce much younger than bull trout and populations of
brook trout grow quickly (Colorado DNR 1998; Buktenica 1998). Brook trout
hybridize with bull trout to produce sterile offspring, further limiting the numbers
of bull trout (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; Buktenica 1998; Meyer 1998).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
Table 2: Bull Trout life stages and habitat needs (Information summarized from Pratt 1985; Shepard 1985; Carl 1985; McPhail and Baxter 1 996; and Fernet and Bjomson 1997) I ~ i f e stage I Desirable Habitat features I
Populations exist at low densities. l Temperature < 15°C Base flows high percentage of average annual daily flow for winter cover habitat
Adult and redd cover Deep pools for cover and winter cover
Stream resident populations rarely grow larger than 300mm and average 200mm. Highly piscivorous. favouring mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamson~ or other bull trout
Juvenile 1 Age 1 +, 2+, and 3+ As they grow, juveniles change their feeding habits from aquatic insects to small fish once they reach -1 1 Omm. They grow rapidly, often reaching 60-70mm by the end of the first summer.
FV Eggs hatch after 51 days(at 10°C) to 126 (at 2OC) days, with better survival rates at lower temperatures Fry emerge from gravels 223 days after deposition Newly emerged fry measure 17.0 to 26.3 mm Embryo Bull trout redds are relatively large - up to 1.5 X 2m. Redd are associated with bank cover and spring or groundwater input Spawning takes place in fall and could be triggered by temperature (around 9°C) or other factors such as daylight levels
Cold temperatures Presence of prey population optimal . Depths greater man O.Sm Velocities between 0.1 and 0.4 rn/s Pools for early summer cover with velocities 0.1 -0.25rn/s and depths 0.1 to 1 .Om Pools associated with submerged cover Temperature 42OC . Coarse substrate Cover - large woody debris dams that allow flow through, undercut banks Large loose gravel for interstitial cover along banks Shallow water 0.1 to 0.4m deep and low velocity (<I 6cm/s) Instream cover (unembedded rocks, woody debris) Substrate suitable for aquatic insects Spawning sites characterized by low gradient High percentage of small gravel (20mm) Low velocities from 0.25 to 0.5rnls Proximity to cover Depths of 1 Ocm - 1 .Om
Optimal development temperatures of 2 - d o c
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT ON SALMONID HABITAT
Dams are one of the main causes of stream habitat degradation and elimination
of lotic habitat in North America (Holden 1980; Petts 1989; Mclntyre and Rieman
1995; Bain and Trawnichek 1996). Damming results in a direct loss of free
flowing river habitat and creates barriers to upstream spawning areas (Petts
1984; Prowse and Conly 1996)). Reservoirs created in place of streams change
the habitat from a lotic to a lentic environment. Dam effects on fish and fish
habitat are both immediate and delayed (Holden 1980; Prowse and Conly 1996).
Immediate, or first order impacts block upstream and downstream migration
either to headwater streams and lakes or to downstream rivers and lakes.
Second order impacts follow, with low flows affecting habitat structure. This
study focuses on the downstream effects of dams, specifically hydroelectric
structures. The downstream effects of dams and associated structures include
Row and temperature changes, disruption of the sediment regime, and the
resulting effects on habitat structure and the organisms it supports. These
effects are described in the following sections.
Flow Modification
Dams alter water flow into downstream river reaches by reducing flows,
dewatering, or flooding stream reaches. If water flows are generated through
turbines, flows can fluctuate hourly, daily, monthly, and annually. Large daily
fluctuations can preclude the development of off channel refuges or deep, slow
pools required by stream fish (Holden 1 980). With short-term flow fluctuations,
the rate of flow increase or decrease is a most important factor in determining
impacts on downstream environments (Petts 1984). Rapid increases in flow can
increase streambank erosion and lead to loss of riparian habitat (Federal
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) 1998). lnstream flow
fluctuations favour adaptable species, often reducing species diversity and
biomass (Schindler and Pacas 1996).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
Lower flows reduce the area of useable habitat, as water depth and stream width
decrease (Petts 1984). Also, at lower flows, the length of the deepest part of the
stream (the thalweg) decreases because the thalweg meanders less at lower
flows (Herger et al. 1996). Lower flows combined with altered sediment regimes
change channel structure. Depending on the stream environment, the channel
may become shallower or deeper based on flow rates and availability of
sediment (Petts 1984; FISRWG 1998).
Sediment
Flow regulation reduces flood magnitudes and lowen the ability of flows to move
sediment, resulting in accumulation of fine material in the substrate (Petts 1984;
FISRWG 1998). Channels aggrade when there is a source of sediments and the
reduced flows are not sufficient enough to carry them away (Bovee 1982; Petts
1984). Impoundments isdate sediment sources coming from upstream areas
(Ward and Stanford 1985; Prowse and Conly 1996). Sediments previously
available from upstream sources used in shaping the stream are reduced as they
collect behind the dam (Holden 1980; Petts 1984). If flows remain great enough
to transport sediment, the channel will degrade since no new sediment is
available to replenish supply (Bovee 1 982; Prowse and Conly 1 996; Fl SRWG
1998). The release of clear, sediment-free water from reservoirs into channels
with transportable bed materials can lead to erosion. Such channel degradation
and scour only occur, though, if regulated flows are sufficient to move substrate.
Both channel degradation and aggradation occur under natural conditions.
However, under natural conditions, inputs of new sediment are ongoing. In an
impounded stream, when sediment is removed and not replaced, the channel
becomes armoured (Armitage 1984). If the channel aggrades under modified
flows, sediment collects in interstitial spaces in the sediment and reduces
spawning area and habitat for benthic invertebrates (Armitage 1984;Ward and
Stanford 1985). The reduction in sediments that create stream structure reduces
habitat variability below dams, especially the slower, fine-bottomed pool areas
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
required by young fish as resting areas (HoMen 1980; Petts 1989; Swales 1989).
Without new sources of sediment, the natural riffle:nm pattern that provides the
balance of habitat for fish and benthic invertebrates can be lost (Swales 1989;
FISRWG 1998).
The effects of lowered sediment input from upstream sources diminish further
downstream of the dam as other sources of sediment from tributary streams and
channel-bank erosion enter the stream (Petts 1984; Prowse and Conly 1996).
Temperature
Depending on the use of the dam and the water flows different effects will be
observed (Holden 1980). If the reservoir outlet releases epilimnion-level water
receiving bodies will experience higher temperatures than normal. If the outlet is
in the hypolimnion levels of the reservoir, cooler water will flow through and
depress the temperature in the downstream river (Holden 1980; Prowse and
Conly 1 996; Schindler and Pacas 1996; FISRWG 1998). Also, dams that create
relatively constant flows can result in constant temperatures. Unnaturally low
flows allow water to warm up and hold less dissolved oxygen (Armitage 1984;
Ward and Stanford 1985; FISRWG 1998). a limiting factor for salmonid
populations (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Schindler and Pacas 1996). Colder
waters from hypolimnion-level discharge are often oxygen poor.
Changes in the temperature regime can favour one species over another,
interfere with seasonal triggers to migration and spawning. alter the productivity
of the stream, and change the availability of invertebrate organisms (Petts 1984;
Prowse and Conly 1996; Schindler and Pacas 1996).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
Riparian Areas
The "energy supplied by riparian vegetation drives the stream community and, in
part. determines its structure" (Risser and Hanis 1989). Up to 95% of the energy
available to small streams comes from riparian vegetation (Risser and Ham's
1989). The interaction of flooding, sedimentation and flow changes alters the
characteristics of the riparian community (Petts 1984; Schindler and Pacas 1996;
FISRWG 1998). Channel changes below dams affect the rate of recolonization
and development of riparian and floodplain vegetation (Petts 1984). Under
natural conditions, floods erode fine sediments from the channel and deposit
them on the bank, replenishing the soil layer and providing soil and nutrients to
the riparian plant community. Established riparian vegetation traps sediments
from overland flow and reduce bank erosion and channel change (Petts 1984).
"River impoundment can alter [riparian areas because] .. . the depletion of fine
suspended solids would reduce the rate of over-bank accretion, so that new
floodplains would take longer and longer to mature, and the soils would remain
infertile" (Petts 1 984: 127). Thus recolonization of historic floodplains by riparian
vegetation is slowed due to lack of soil and nutrient deposition.
Benthic Community
Flow and temperature are the most important factors controlling the benthic
invertebrate community (Arrnitage 1984). Flow regulation affects the benthic
invertebrate community through interactions between flows and temperatures
(Petts 1984; Schindler and Pacas 1996). Reduced flows result in lower velocity
which allows water temperatures to rise. and reduced wetted width which directly
reduces amount of instream habitat (Ward and Stanford 1985; Arrnitage 1989).
Sedimentation in interstitial spaces in the substrate also reduces the total amount
of habitat available to benthic invertebrates (Arrnitage 1989). In comparison
studies between natural and dammed streams, impounded streams exhibited
reduced diversity of benthos. alterations of the mmmunlty composition, and
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
higher standing crops (Petts 1984; Henricson and Sjoberg 1984). Increased
standing crops are associated with stabilized discharges and higher water
temperatures (Mudry and Green 1976; Ward and Stanford 1985). Species
adapted to naturally fluctuating temperatures will suffer in habitat with more
stable temperatures (Armitage 1984). Unnatural flow fluctuations, low summer
water temperatures and low DO levels result in decreased standing crops (Petts
1984). Cornmunlty composition changes as habitat conditions change and
favour one species over another. Discharge levels affect the availability of food,
resulting in changes in the dominance of different functional feeding groups
(Henricson and Sjoberg 1984). Grazers will increase if instream algae growUl is
favoured by higher temperatures. while numbers of shredders will decrease with
lower amount of large woody debris (LWD) avaifable from riparian areas
(Henricson and Sjoberg 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985). Allochthonous input is
important in the productivity in stream and thus to the benthos (Petts 1984).
Reduction in stream width from much lower discharges will leave bank areas
unvegetated. perhaps for decades, limiting inputs from the riparian ecosystem.
Fish Community
"River flow is one of the primary environmental characteristics inff uencing riverine
fish populations . . . major changes to the natural flow regime can have severe
effects on fish stocks: (Swales 1989: 189). Although dams can have positive
effects on fish habitat by lowering levels of suspended sediment, regulating
temperature, and regulating large floods and preventing drought. flow
modification and associated effects often cause changes in fish populations
(Holden 1980; Petts 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985; Petts 1989; Swales 1989;
FISRWG 1998). Discharge directly affects width, depth, velocity. and variations
and timing of flows. Reduced discharge means less useable habitat. Changes
to timing and amounts of flow and to temperature result in changes in fish
community structure (Ward and Stanford 1985). The standing crop can either
increase or decrease depending on habitat conditions and species present (Ward
CHAE'TER 3 RESTORATION
and Stanford 1985; Prowse and Conly 1996). 'Exotic fish . . . find suitable
conditions below dams where indigenous species have been reduced or
eliminated by the altered thermal, sediment and flow conditions (Ward and
Stanford 1 985).
Dams are one of the main causes of stream habitat degradation and removal in
North America (Holden 1980; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Bain and Trawnichek
1996). Damming results in a direct loss of free flowing river habitat and creates
barriers to upstream spawning areas (Petts 1984). Reservoirs created in place
of streams change the habitat from a lotic to a lentic environment. Dam effects
on fish and fish habitat are both immediate and delayed (Holden 1980).
Immediate, or first order impacts, block upstream and downstream migration
either to headwater streams and lakes or to downstream rivers and lakes.
Second order impacts follow, with low flows affecting habitat structure. This
study focuses on the downstream effects of dams, specifically hydroelectric
structures. These effects indude flow and temperature changes, disruption of
the sediment regime, and the resulting effects on habitat structure and the
organisms it supports.
INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE FISH POPULATIONS
Non-native trout species have been stocked in water in western North America
for decades, usually to improve angling potential (Wooding 1994). Historically
fisheries managers in Canada, the United States, and as far off as Chile and
Argentina. responded to angler wishes by stocking more preferred species such
as brook trout (Wooding 1994; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Schindler and Pacas
1996). Wooding (1 994: 102) spells out the attitude, saying, 'brook trout. because
of their unblemished reputation, endearing characteristics and adaptability to
foreign waters, are among our most successful piscatorial goodwill
ambassadorsn. Historically, records of fish stocking in provincial waters in
Alberta are not well documented (Stelfox pers. camm.), but widespread
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
introduction of eastern brook trout into lakes and rivers in the southwestern part
of the province is noted in fisheries records. Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were also introduced in the decades up to
1987 (Stelfox pers. comm.). Similar, better documented, introductions occurred
in BNP (Thompson and Wiebe 1974; Pams pers. comm.). As a result of these
introductions, many lakes and rivers in BNP now support populations dominated
by non-native species (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996).
Three types of effects can occur when non-native species are introduced into
waters with native fish populations: hybridization, competition. and predation.
Hybridization
The main factor differentiating trout (cutthroat tmut) from char (bull trout) is
spawning time, with char spawning in the fall and trout in the spring and summer
(Wooding 1994). Spawning timing determines which species will be most at risk
from hybridization with which non-native fish. Non-native fish historically
introduced into Alberta include lake and brook tmut, both chars, and rainbow
trout, a trout. Rainbow and cutthroat tmut will hybridize, as will brook and bull
trout. Hybridization with non-native species alters genetic strains of native fish.
This has happened with the various subspecies of cutthroat trout and bull trout
across their historic ranges (Mclntyre and Rieman 1995; Buktenica 1998). Brook
trout and bull trout readily hybridize to produce sterile offspring. reducing the
reproductive success of bull trout (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996; BuMenica 1998;
Meyer 1998; Temple et al. 1998).
Competition
The principal competitors of salmonids are other salmonids because of overlaps
in requirements for space and food (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980).
Introducing species into waters where they did not evolve means that the new
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
mixed populations have not been subjected to natural selection that would have
produced differences in resource use and thus lessened the effects of
competition (Fausch 1988). Therefore combinations of fish species, such as
westslope cutthroat and brook trout, compete strongly for limited resources. The
cutthroat trout does not persist for long after introduction of brook trout in most
areas (Fausch 1988; Mclntyre and Rieman 1995). Brook trout also dominate bull
trout in most of the bull trout's original habitat (Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996;
U S M S 1998). Brook trout begin reproducing as young as 18 months so
populations can quickly grow and take over available habitat. This factor
combined with the potential for reducing bull trout productivity through
hybridization favours growth of brook trout populations and they supplant bull
trout populations (USFWS n.d.; Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996)
"Competition among streamdwelling salmonids usually involves aggressive
interactions among individuals in an attempt to secure optimal sites for feeding
and predator avoidance" (DeStaso and Rahel 1994). Therefore the more
dominant fish succeed. Brook trout often displace cutthroat trout and their
dominance is influenced by several factors. Since brook trout spawn in fall, their
young emerge in the spring. Cutthroat trout spawn in the spring and their young
emerge in the fall. This gives young of the year brook trout a size advantage
over cutthroat trout of the same age, with differences of up to 20 mm (DeStaso
and Rahel 1994). This greater size gives brook trout young of the year a
competitive advantage and young of the year cutthroat trout may experience
increased mortality over natural levels because they are unable to compete
(DeStaso and Rahel 1994; FISRWG 1998). Since natural mortality rates are
roughly 99%. any increase could quickly decimate a population (Hunter 1991 ).
Also, brook trout mature one to two years earlier than cutthroat trout and thus
produce more offspring (DeStaso and Rahel 1 994; Wooding 1994).
Habitat features also play a role in competition between native and introduced
species.
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
"In general, species alterations may be associated with three impacts: the establishment of lethal conditions for one, or more, life-history stage or stages; the alteration of environmental conditions in favour of a competitor, prey or predator; or the introduction of exotics either intentionally or accidentally" (Petts 1 984236).
The interaction of flow regulation effects and the presence of non-native species
can have great impacts on native populations. Since native populations evolve in
a stream habitat with naturally fluctuating flows and specific conditions, changing
those conditions stresses the population (FISRWG 1998).
"The introduction of exotic species has induced the local extinction of many native species which, although reduced in population, might otherwise have maintained a reproductive stock under the regulated flow regime" (Petts 1984).
"As the habitat becomes marginal for the [native] species. it becomes more preferred for the exotic competition. At that point, the [native] species becomes more detrimentally impacted by the exotic species than by the habitat change" (Holden 1980).
Griffith (1972) and De Staso and Rahel (1994) found that water temperature and
velocity affected interactions between native and introduced salmonids. DeStaso
and Rahel(1994) found that at 10°C cutthroat trout used much higher stream
velocities than brook trout, but at 20°C they used similar stream velocities. Thus
there is less overlap of habitat use at lower temperatures and DeStaso and
Rahel noted that the species appear to be equal competitors at lower
temperatures. Griffiths' 1972 study showed differences in habitat use related to
velocity. Cutthroat trout used areas of low velocity when brook trout were not
present, but not when brook trout were present. Therefore in streams with lower
velocities, with brook trout present, cutthroat trout will have less habitat available
than at higher velocities. Both studies note that brook trout tend to dominate in
streams with low gradient and low velocity, often at low elevations. De Staso and
Rahel (1 994) also note that in some streams brook trout do not displace cutthroat
trout. They attribute this to low winter flows dewatering redds and freezing of
eggs due to anchor ice. Cutthroat trout redds are not vulnerable during winter,
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
and those fish are better adapted to fast current and lower temperatures in high
elevation streams (Griffth 1972; De Staso and Rahel 1994).
Predation
Some introduced species. including brook trout and lake trout, are piscivorous
(Wooding 1 994). Westslope cutthroat trout, having evolved with piscivorous bull
trout, feeds on aquatic invertebrates (Trotter 1987; Behnke 1992). This trait may
make them more vulnerable to domination by mare piscivorous introduced
species. Bull trout population levels have declined since the introduction of non-
native species because anglers saw the piscivorous bull trout as a threat to the
introduced species that were their favoured targets (Alberta Environment n.d.).
Large scale removal of bull trout by anglers to protect non-native stocks led to
rapid population declines.
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
"All restorations are exercises in approximation and in reconstruction of naturalistic rather than natural assemblages of plants and animals with their physical environmentsn (National Research Council 1992: 18)
In the 1930s, an emphasis on conservation and preservation of wet lands
emerged in the United States. In 1934, the United States Bureau of Sport
Fisheries began a nationwide program of stream suweys and habitat
improvement projects (Hunter 1991 ). Even at that time, though, some wonied
that enthusiasm for instream works would not address limiting factors (Hunter
1991 ). Limiting facton on fish populations were not identified and thus little
benefit resulted from the works. In 1952, the United States Forest Sewice
produced a fish stream improvement handbook that incorporated lessons learned
from past mistakes (Hunter 1991 ). They recognized that fewer, better designed
works placed after an evaluation of impacts on the stream, would be more
successful. In 1967, the Guidelines for the Manaaement of Trout Stream Habitat
in Wisconsin, by Ray R. White and O.M. Brynildson took the process further
(Hunter 1991). The guidelines emphasized pre-project planning and focused on
bank stability, recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of stream improvement
(Hunter 1991).
Fisheries managers now stress a holistic approach that involves project planning,
defining clear objectives, correctly identifying limiting factors on stream habitat,
and post-project monitoring (Bmokes et al. 1996; FISRWG 1998; British
Columbia Ministry of Environment 1994; Bozek and Rahel 1991 ). Habitat
restoration focuses less on building instream habitat structures and more on a
land use planning approach. The National Research Council (1 992) states that
restoration should begin with improved land management practices that allow
natural restoration to occur, such as erosion control, grazing management and
flow management.
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
In defining restoration objectives, decisions must be made about the desired
future condition: whether it should be pristine, naturalistic, or aesthetically
pleasing (Brookes and Sear 1996). Historical analysis of watershed
characteristics, instrearn habitat. and fish populations points to causes of
degradation and can help in defining future scenarios and setting realistic and
appropriate goals (Kondolf and Downs 1996; Ebersole et al. 1997).
To restore streams. managers must have an understanding of fish habitat needs
and identify the factors that liml fish populations. Once identified, limiting factors
can be specifically addressed (Bozek and Rahel 1991 ; FISRWG 1 998). When
limiting factors are not correctly identified, restoration may not be successful if
limiting attributes are not addressed (Bustard 1984; Stream Enhancement Guide
1980).
To restore streams affected by flow regulation, non-native species presence. and
degraded habitat several restoration techniques can be used. An assessment of
instream flow needs and capabilities addresses overall watershed issues, as well
as instream habitat; instream habitat structures improve habitat directly; and
methods to eradicate or reduce nonnative species may be necessary for
reestablishment of native fish populations.
INSTREAM FLOWS
Flows below dams are reduced from historic levels causing changes in instream
and riparian habitat (Petts 1984; FISRWG 1998). As part of a restoration effort.
capabilities and needs for increased flow need to be addressed. Bain and
Trawnichek (1996) confirmed that enhancing river flows resulted in a predicted
faunal restoration. A multi-agency effort (FISRWG 1998) in the United States
concludes that
"The modification of operation approaches, where possible, in combination with the application of properly designed and applied best management practices. can
2 1
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
reduce the impacts caused by dams on downstream riparian and floodplain habitats".
Methods to determine instream flow needs developed in the 1970s to address
conflicts between water user values. including recreational, aesthetic, fisheries,
and industrial users (Petts 1984; Stalnaker et al. 1995; Cardwell et al. 1996).
Older methods of assessment often resulted in recommendations for minimum
flows in streams. Newer methods assess the instream effects of alternative
development scenarios and determine minimum and optimum flows considering
carrying capacity for fish populations.
Ways to determine instream flows range from the simple, involving no field data
gathering, to detailed, requiring large amounts of field data, fish habitat
requirements. and sophisticated computer programs. Incremental methodologies
for balancing instream flow needs with recreational users and industry needs
allow for flexibility and are used for bargaining in highly controversial situations.
The method can be expensive and time-consuming, but is based on fish needs
and habitat variables (Bovee 1982; Stalnaker et al. 1995). In situations where
there is little controversy, standard-setting measures based on historical water
flows can and have been applied (Stalnaker et al. 1995; FISRWG 1998).
In standard setting techniques, hydrological records are analysed to determine
flows. For a minimum flow, one method selects the median flow for the lowest
flow month as adequate throughout the year. another uses median monthly flows
to mimic an natural flow pattern (Stalnaker et al. 1995; FISRWG 1998).
The lnstream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) is a procedure for
determining instream flows when multiple users with varying needs and values
are included in the process. l FIM uses two types of tools to display effects on
habitat for different flow levels. One tool uses statistical analysis relating
standing crop of fish to environmental features in the stream. The other links
hydraulics with fish behaviour (Bovee 1982; Stalnaker et al. 1995). calculating
C-R 3 RESTORATION
amounts of different quality habitat at various flows by using suitability criteria.
Several suitability cunres have been developed for various species (Stalna ker
1980; Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Fernet and Bjomson 1997). These look at
each habitat element separately and assign values between zero and one, one
being optimum, to levels of, or presence of each habitat element as they relate to
each species (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; FISRWG 1998; Stalnaker et al. 1995).
Both tools require large amounts of data and produce stream-specific results.
Water budgets are another method to manage flows for multiple users,
developed in the United States (Stalnaker et al. 1995). Water budgets allot a
portion of water stored in a reservoir for fisheries benefit uses that could be
released when most needed. This concept is now considered during evaluation
of water storage projects in the United States (Stalnaker et al. 1995) and in
British Columbia (BCHydm 1 998).
BCHydro and the Alouette River, British Columbia
BCHydro operates a hydroelectric facility on the Alouette River in southern British
Columbia. Impoundment structures built in the 1 920s greatly lowered flows in
the river from historic levels; however, flows are stable, since generating facilities
release water from turbines into another river. In 1995, in response to
community concerns about the state of the habitat and fish population in the
Alouette River, BCHydro agreed to increase base flows from 0.566 m3/s (20 cfs)
to 1.981 m3/s (70 cfs) until the development of a formal Water Use Plan. To
develop the Water Use Plan, the Alouette Stakeholder Committee was struck,
which included members from BCHydro, community groups, and all levels of
government. This committee reached agreement on all major aspects of the
Water Use Plan based on five objectives that addressed economic, recreational,
ecological, and scientific issues. To measure water use and ecological effects
they considered the amount of high quality fish habitat and the similarity of the
hydrograph to a natural hydrograph. Also, recognizing levels of uncertainty in
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
existing knowledge of fish habitat in the river, the committee proposed a flexible
and adaptive management plan. To allow such flexibility the committee
proposed a water budget that would allow modifications to agreed upon flows,
providing for flood protection, normal fish water releases, flushing flows, and
monitoring. The annual budget is set at $440,000 and within that budget, over a
four year cycle, the Alouette Management Committee can manage flows for
greatest effect. Studies to assess fish habitat and population health and to
monitor effects of flow increases are ongoing (BCHydro 1996).
INSTREAM STRUCTURES
Some fisheries managers have criticized the use of instream structures since the
1930s, saying that such structures do not address the causes of degradation,
and provide only a band-aid solution (Hunter 1991 ; Beschta et al. 1994).
Beschta at al. (1994) believe the emphasis on using instream structures stems
from various reasons ranging from political pressures that limit solutions, funding
limitations and management styles that focus on quantifiable results, a
reductionist perspective, and limited understanding of ecological processes.
They conclude that abusive land practices cannot be addressed by structural
additions to stream channels and that restoration should focus on the larger
scale of land use management.
However, instream structures can be used to improve habitat quality in streams
degraded by low flows due to regulation, along with a wider management
approach (Petts 1989; Swales 1989). Recovery of degraded streams with trout
populations at risk can be accelerated using instream habitat restoration
techniques that are based on an understanding of hydrology, channel
characteristics, fish habitat requirements, and limiting factors (House 1996).
lnstrearn structures can reproduce key characteristics of productive trout
streams, including habitat diversity and cover (BC MELP/MoF 1994; Bmokes et
al. 1996).
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
lnstream structures can create pools. provide hiding cover. improve substrate for
spawning and benthic habitat, encourage riparian vegetation growth, and help
regulate water temperature. Identification of limiting factors of fish populations is
critical in success of restoration efforts using instream structures. Efforts to
improve pool habitat for adult fish. for example, will not help the population if
juvenile habitat limits success (Flosi and Reynolds 1991 ; Hunter 1991 ; FISRWG
1998).
Success also depends on selection of and siting of materials (Stream
Enhancement Guide 1980; Wesche 1985; Flosi and Reynolds 1991 ; BC
MELPlMoF 1994). Emphasis in current restoration projects is on using naturally
available materials. Such materials are inexpensive. especially if available near
the site, and, if flood flows move structures downstream, aesthetics are not
adversely affects as they would be with use of cement and wire constructions
(BC MELPIMoF 1994). Structures must also be placed so that they do not cause
negative effects on instream or riparian habitat. The methods must suit hydraulic
and geomorphic conditions or will result in erosion or filling pools with sediment
(Flosi and Reynolds 1991; BC MELPlMoF 1994; Stream Enhancement Guide
1980).
According to Wesche (1985) the most commonly used in-channel treatments to
improve fish habitat are current deflectors, overpour structures such as dams and
weirs, bank covers, and boulder placements. These structures can be used
alone or together and have been used successfully in the past to improve habitat
(Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Wesche 1985; Swales 1989; Brookes et al.
1996; House 1996;Hiderbrand et al. 1997). In Table 3 the variety of structures
used, their function, and the environments for which they are best suited are
summarized.
Table 3: Instream habitat restoration techniques (Summarized from Nelson et al, 1978; Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Bustard 1984; Wesche 1985; Tripp 1986; Flosi and Reynolds . . i 991 ; Brookes et al. 1996; Erickson 1996; Hiderbrand et al. 1997) Type I Function I Suitability ~eflectors
Narrow channel by at least 3O0/0 Spaced 5-7 channel width apart Easy to construct with rocks or logs Lou possibility of destruction by
I high flows Limited disturbance to bed and bank
1 Build below riffle to preserve riffle
I but also build pool
Direct flow and eliminate accumulated sediment Narrow the channel to increase velocity Scour pools Enhance pool-riffle ratios Help keep water temperatures cool Encourage development of riparian vegetation by means of silt bar formation Protect stream banks from erosion Remove silt from spawning gravels
Wide, shallow, low gradient streams lacking pools Not usually successful In gradient > 3% Reaches with low sediment loads Opposite bank must be stable to prevent erosion
Weirs and check dams Low cost if built from natural materials Can create pools up to 70% larger than natural Spaced 5-7 channel widths apart low enough to allow fish passage
Substrate placement
Impound flow above weir to create pool Increase velocity downstream and create a scour pool Aerate water
Improve spawning and benthic habitat
Smaller streams (< 9m) with slopes of ) 0.5 - 20% without high flood flows Ftows < 2.83m3/s (100cfs) Straight reaches with few pools Stable bed and banks Low sediment load
Stream width <14rn, slope < 0.3 % I 1 Provlde cover I Stable nows, I
Boulders (60-100 cm diarneter)randomly placed in cluster of four to eight
Provide rearing habitat Restore meanders and pools.
Dense spawning populations Boulders have greatest effect in stream with <20% pools
Cover structures
Large woody debris An alternative to fixed structures in deficient channels because pieces are free to shift and adjust
Provide overhead cover
8
Creates complex habitat Increases number of sites where scouring and deposition occur
6 Material used for cover chosen based on d u
target fish species Potential for debris accumulation
~
Best in stable low order streams
E
2
CHAPTER 3: RESTORATION
Projects using instream techniques
Although artificial instream structures have been used for a century (Hunter
1991; Beschta et al. 1994). many instrearn restoration undertakings were not
monitored so there are limited records of successes and failures (Beschta et al.
1994; House 1996; Koning 1998). Those records that exist showcase failures
and successes, although reasons for outcomes are not often given. For this
reason, examples of failures, though there are many (Beschta et al. 1995). are
not included here. It is sufficient to note that, in the records of stream
restorations using instream techniques, failures out number successes.
House (1 996) reports on a restoration project that placed wood and boulder
structures in a stream to increase habitat for salmonids in a section of a stream.
After restoration, the treated section of the stream. representing 2% of habitat,
supported 24% of the population of the target species. This study also examined
the durability and success of instream works including boulders and wood. All
such structures remained in place over the twelve year span of study. Structures
that did not span the width of the stream maintained pool depth, while those
structures that spanned the channel trapped gravel bed load and created pool
habitat (House 1996). House concludes that instream structures are interim
methods for stream restoration, only used until activities that caused the initial
degradation are modified or eliminated.
Another study (Tripp 1986) tested the effect of large woody debris (LWD)
placement on pool habitat creation. Only pieces of LWD smaller than what might
be moved by major flood were anchored (Tripp 1986). Some LWD was laid on
the streambed to deflect flows downward and scour a pool, and some were
imbedded to make plunge pools. Winter storm flows filled all pools, but over the
next season, new ones were scoured. The thalweg profile was more variable
after LWD and the number of pools increased from four to 12. After the winter
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
storm event obliterated pools, subsequent scouring created 21 new pools. In the
control section where no LWD was added, little channel change occurred.
Placement of large woody debris (LWD) into the stream channel has produced
other successes in improving habitat (Hiderbrand et al. 1997; Young 1996).
Hiderbrand et al. (1997) showed that 70% of the pools in one channel were
created by LWD. Young (1996) found that cutthroat trout use of pools created by
LWD was proportionately high compared to pools created by meanders. This
study also found that the siting of LWD for stream habitat enhancement based on
planning and expertise led to better results that random placement.
RIPARIAN REVEGETATION
Riparian vegetation plays a part in the structure and function of the stream
ecosystem (Ohmart and Anderson 1 986). It helps control temperature, sta bikes
banks, provides food sources to stream organisms, and is a source of LWD
(Ohmart and Anderson 1986; FISRWG 1998). Along streams with reduced
flows, the riparian community can be affected by a lower water table. and may be
isolated from the channel if lower flows result in a narrower channel. Without
periodic flood flows that deposit fine material on the banks, revegetation will be
hampered by lack of soil. Even if vegetation begins reestablishing on newly
exposed banks immediately, it takes decades to grow to a size useful in LWD
(Erickson 1996).
Native plants should be used in any revegetation effort. so an understanding of
natural plant communities at the site is necessary (FISRWG 1998). Planting and
transplanting vegetation is an established method for long-term restoration of the
watershed (Flosi and Reynolds 1991). Willow sprigging, which uses willow
cuttings is inexpensive and effective. (Stream Enhancement Guide 1980; Nelson
et al. 1978; Flosi and Reynolds 1991 ; FISRWG 1 998). Willows grow quickly and
cuttings can be easily gathered from vegetation on the site. Once shrubs are
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
established they will intercept fine material from overland runoff and begin
establishing a soil cover that will support other species (FISRWG 1998). Sedges
and grasses are also used to stabilize stream banks and can be direct seeded if
soil exists (Nelson et al. 1978).
REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES
Generally, three methods are available for removing unwanted fish from streams:
eledrofishing, chemical pisdcides. and selective angling. Wih any method.
barriers to reentry of non-native fish are necessary (Stream Enhancement Guide
1980).
Also, with any method. there may be strong public opposition to removing non-
native species. Brook tmut and other non-native species in Alberta, are
favourites of anglers (Wooding 1994). Many current projects focusing on non-
native species removal, in United States National Parks and in Alberta, have met
with resistance from anglers (Lutch pers. comm.; Paul pers. comm.).
Electrofishing
Electrofishing involves generating either a DC or an AC electric current (either
with a gasoline-powered generator or batteries) through various styles of
electrodes into the water to create an electric field. The electric field stuns fish
within an effective zone of roughly one meter radius, then fish are collected with
a net. It is an effective fisheries management tool used for making population
surveys, but labour time involved and inefficiencies in removal limit the method
for removing entire populations from a stream (Thompson and Rahel 1996).
One study assessed depletion-removal electrofishing on three small streams as
an alternative to piscicides (Thompson and Rahef 1996). Thompson and Rahel
conducted three-pass electrofishing on an enclosed reach, taking 206 hours for a
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
section 1.6 m wide and 4 km long. In these three passes. they estimate they
removed 73-1 00% of age 0 b m k trout and 59-1 00% of older fish. but note that
these are higher efficiencies than other studies. They were not able to
completely eradicate brook trout, and neither did any other study. Very low
numbers of brook trout can quickly multiply and dominate a community of
cutthroat trout within five years (Behnke 1992) so complete removal of brook
trout would be necessary to restore cutthroat trout.
Idaho Fish and Game Department is also trying to remove non-native brook trout
using backpack eledrofishing, with varying degrees of success (Homer pers.
comm.). They found that success in removing brook trout was related to the type
of habitat. Streams with dense riparian vegetation of alder and willow reduced
success rates. but in streams with little riparian vegetation removal rates were
higher. Ineffective removal of young of the year lessened the effects here as in
other projects (Homer pers. comrn., Paul pers. comm.). Since brook trout mature
at one or two years of age, any removal that misses young of the year will not be
successful.
Chemical Piscicides
Piscicides, while they remove non-native fish, also kill non-target fish and food
organisms in the stream. They also have the potential to affect waters
downstream. outside the target area (Thompson and Rahel 1996). Rotenone, a
common piscicide, has been used by biologists for decades to remove non-
native fish populations before restocking with native fish (Colorado DNR 1998).
Its effects are neutralized by potassium perrnanganate. Even with relatively high
removal rates, mufti year treatments are often necessary to remove all fish
(Colorado DNR1998).
In Crater Lake National Park in Oregon, fisheries managers are working to
reestablish bull trout populations in Sun Creek that were diminished by
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION
competition and hybridization wlh non-native brook trout (Buktenica 1998). The
Sun Creek project began in 1991 and centers around the removal of non-native
brook trout using chemical poisoning with Antimycin, which is not available for
use in Canada. The brook trout population has been dramatically reduced in an
attempt to stabilize and increase the numbers of bull trout.
In 1998, Colorado Department of Natural Resources treated eleven miles of
Beaver Creek with rotenone to remove populations of brook, rainbow, and brown
trout as part of an effort to reestablish a native cutthroat trout population
(Colorado DNR 1998). The project took 25 workers three days to complete.
Biologists set up ten sites for drip stations to apply rotenone. and some workers
walked the length of the stream spraying rotenone into remote areas. DNR
constructed a barrier to prevent fish movement up from downstream waters and
applied potassium permanganate at the barrier. The Beaver Creek project
follows a successful project in West Beaver Creek, in which non-native fish were
removed by rotenone and native cutthroat trout were stocked. Four years after
the first stocking and two years after the second, a population of cutthroat trout
are now established.
Angling
Experienced anglers. who can correctly identify trout species have been used to
remove non-native species. This however, has not been found to be a
successful method to eradicate fish, particularly with brook trout (Paul pers.
comm.). In a study on Quirk Creek in Alberta, anglers have been removing all
brook trout caught for two years in an effort to reduce the population (Paul pers
comm.). Even though they have caught large numbers of brook trout, the
population remains constant. This may be because, unlike native trout, brook
trout begin to reproduce before they reach a size that is vulnerable to angling.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK, ALBERTA
INTRODUCTION
In 1952 TransAlta Utilities (TAU) completed construction of facilities on the Spray
River system to hold water for power generation modifying flows in Goat Creek
(Johns pers. wrnm.). The modifications to instrearn flows have changed fish
habitat and may have been a factor in changes in fish populations. Information
about the historic and current Ash community in Goat Creek indicates the
comrnunlty has changed over the last 25 years from one of native to one of
introduced species (Courtney et al. 1992). Both Parks Canada and Alberta
fisheries managers stocked non-native species into Banff National Park and
adjacent waters from the 1930s to the 1980s. Indigenous fish populations in
Goat Creek, in BNP have thus been subjected to both types of stresses
examined in the foregoing chapters: competition from introduced species and
effects of flow regulation.
In 1974 Thompson and Wiebe found that Goat Creek's fish population consisted
of 94 percent cutthroat trout, and found spawning beds in the lower reaches of
Goat Creek that they believed were used by cutthroat trout from both Goat Creek
and the Spray River. In 1992, when Environmental Management Associates
(EMA) electrofished seven sites in Goat Creek and in the Spray River
downstream of Goat Creek, they found only brook trout (Courtney et al. 1992).
Changes to fish habitat from lower water levels may also have been a factor in
this population change from a native species to an introduced exotic that is more
able to adapt.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Goat Creek runs for roughly six km from its beginning on provincial land before
crossing into 8NP. Because the stream crosses jurisdictions and is managed by
TAU, laws and policies affecting federal and provincial governments. as well as
corporate policies for TAU are reviewed here.
The National Parks Act, Parks Policy, and the Banff National Park Management
Plan all identlfy ecological integrity as a goal in Park management. Parks
Canada defines ecological integnfy as:
'Yhe condition of an ecosystem where 1) the structure and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human adivlty, and 2) the ecosystem's biological diversity and supporting processes are likely to persist"
This project examines restoration potential for Goat Creek within the context of
this definition of ecological integrity.
Federal
Fisheries Act
The Fisheries Act, administered by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
controls all activities that could have an effect on fish or fish habitat. Some
sections apply directly to environments like Goat Creek's in addressing flows
below dams in Section 22:
(3) The owner or occupier of any obstruction shall permit the escape into
the river-bed below the obstruction of such quantity of water. at all times,
as will, in the opinion of the Minister, be sufficient for the safety of fish and
for the flooding of the spawning grounds to such depth as will. in the
opinion of the Minister, be necessary for the safety of the ova deposited
thereon.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
The Act also covers devices to prevent escape of fish where the Minister deems
necessary, in Section 26:
(3) The Minister may authorize the placing and maintaining of barriers,
screens or other obstructions in streams to prevent the escape of fish held
for fish breeding purposes or any other purpose that the Minister deems in
the public interest, and no person shall injure any such barrier, screen or
other obstruction.
And Section 30:
(1 ) Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or
adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for
irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes
shall, if the Minister deems it necessary in the public interest. be provided
at its entrance or intake with a fish guard or a screen, covering or netting
so fixed as to prevent the passage of fish from any Canadian fisheries
waters into the water intake, ditch, channel or canal.
Even providing specifications on the structure of fish guards
(2) The fish guard, screen, covering or netting referred to in subsection (1 )
shall
(a) have meshes or holes of such dimensions as the Minister may
prescribe; and
(b) be built and maintained by the owner or occupier of the water intake,
ditch, channel or canal referred to in subsection (l), subject to the
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
approval of the Minister or of such officer as the Minister may appoint to
examine it-
Duty of owner to keep in repair
(3) The owner or occupier of the water intake, ditch, channel or canal
referred to in subsection (1) shall maintain the fish guard. screen, covering
or netting referred to in that subsection in a good and efficient state of
repair and shall not perrnl its removal except for renewal or repair.
The Fisheries Act also addresses destruction of fish in Section 32:
No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as
authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in
Council under this Act.
The Act's most allencompassing Section (35) states that:
(1 ) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
Unless authorized by the Minister, or under regulations under the Act.
Fisheries Act Regulations
Fish Toxicant Regulations
Section 6 of the regulations allows use of fish toxicants when
(a) the Minister or the chief fishery officer is satisfied that the eradication of
any fish that is a pest by the use of fish toxicants in any waters set out in
section 4 and the subsequent restocking of those waters will enhance
fishing in those waters
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
When and if (Section 7)
the deposit does not adversely affect fish in the waters adjacent to the
waters where the deposit is made.
Also, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for the Management of Fish
Habitat states as its long-term policy obiective, an overall net gain in the
productive capacity of fish habitat.
National Parks Acf
The Ministry of Canadian Heritage administers the National Parks Act, which
mandates maintaining ecological integrity and including public participation in
management activities. The mandate for ecological integrity forms the basis for
this project in investigating the potential for native species reintroduction. Public
participation will be needed to ensure success in any attempt to restore fish
populations.
5. (1.2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of
natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning
and visitor use in a management plan.
5. (1 -4) The Minister shall, as appropriate, provide opportunities for public
participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development
of parks policy, management plans and such other matters as the Minister
deems relevant.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Parks Policy
Several sections of the Parks Policy apply to the issues around Goat Creek. It
states that (S. 3.2) Ecosystem-Based Management will form the framework for
undertakings in the Parks. The subsections that apply directly are:
3.2.3
National park ecosystems will be managed with minimal interference to
natural processes. However, active management may be allowed when
the structure or function of an ecosystem has been seriously altered and
manipulation is the only possible alternative available to restore ecological
integrity.
3.2.5
Where manipulation is necessary it will be based on scientific research,
use techniques that duplicate natural processes as closely as possible.
and be carefully monitored.
3.2.10
A species of plant or animal, which was native to but is no longer present
in the park, may be reintroduced after scientific research has shown that
reintroduction is likely to succeed and that there will be no significant
negative effects on the park and neighbouring lands. Parks Canada will
seek the cooperation of adjacent land owners and land management
agencies to ensure success of reintroduction programs.
3.2.1 1
All practical efforts will be made to prevent the introduction of exotic plants
and animals into national parks, and to eliminate or contain them where
they already exist.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
3.2.1 2
Fish stocking will be discontinued except where necessary to restore
indigenous fish populations that have been adversely affected by habitat
modification.
Banff National Park Management Plan
Based on the National Parks Act and on Parks Canada's policies, the
management plan for BNP focuses on reducing stress on the environment and
restoring natural processes wherever possible. It recognizes the need to work
cooperatively with other land managers in neighbouring jurisdictions on issues
such as land use, and habitat security. As well as initiating programs to help
people understand the effect of their actions on the ecosystem.
For aquatics specifically, BNP management plan notes that over the past
century, activities such as the construction of dams and the introduction of non-
native fish have affected the aquatic resources. To address this, the
management plan seeks to maintain and, if possible, restore natural water flow,
water levels, and the biodiversity of the park's aquatic ecosystems. To do his
BNP will work with TAU to restore more natural water flow in the Cascade and
Spray systems.
Provincial
Since Goat Pond and part of Goat Creek fall under provincial jurisdiction, Alberta
laws will apply. Alberta Environmental Protection's Natural Resource Service is
responsible for management of water resources within the province and of water
matters held in common with other provinces and the federal government. They
also oversee conservation of Alberta's fish and wildlife resources.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Water Act
The Water Act's aquatic environment protection strategy (Section 8). stresses
biodiversity as:
the variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes of
which they are a part, and includes diversity within and between species
and ecosystems.
And states that
(2) The Minister must establish a strategy for the protection of the aquatic
environment as part of the framework for water management planning for
the Province.
Bull Trouf Management Plan
Alberta Environment's Natural Resource Service considers bull trout a
threatened wildlife species and had developed a management and recovery plan
for the fish. The plan protects existing stock from losses and plans to reestablish
bull trout and its associated habitat where feasible.
TransAlta Utilities
TransAlta is organized into five business segments, each with a clearly defined
strategic mandate: Generation, Transmission 8 Distribution, Independent Power
Projects, New Zealand and Energy Marketing. Generation department oversees
the facilities on the Spray River watershed. There is also a department of
Sustainable Development that oversees environmental policy and addresses
environmental issues such as green house emissions.
In TAU'S generating capabilities, coal is the major fuel source, with a potential of
3.676 MW. Hydro is second at 800 MW of generating capability, followed by gas
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
and other at 798 MW capacity (TransAlta). The thirteen hydroelectric plants
mainly provide electricity during periods of peak demand.
TAU'S corporate environment policy states that TransAlta Corporation will:
meet or surpass all environmental legislation, regulations, and other
applicable requirements and continuously improve the company's
environmental performance consistent with defined goals.
fully integrate environmental and economic considerations into the company's
processes of planning, constructing. operating and decommissioning.
ensure that the environmental impacts and risks of company activities are
identified, assessed and managed.
proactively advocate socially responsible laws and regulations and, where
appropriate, market-based and voluntary approaches for achieving
environmental objectives.
inform and encourage meaningful consultation and collaboration with
employees, customers, contractors and the public related to the company's
operations and its impact on the environment.
be an environmentally responsible neighbour in the communities in which the
company operates.
identify and develop new business practices and business opportunities
which represent solutions to environmental problems and create value for
shareholders.
use a performance assurance process to assess compliance with this policy
and the company's environmental management system; performance
assurance results will be reported periodically to the board of directors.
All the laws, regulations, and policies outlined here form the legislative framework
for the management of Goat Creek. Any plan for restoration should be based on
and work within this ftamework.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
STUDY AREA
Goat Creek is a second order stream that begins immediately below Goat Pond
outside Banff National Park (BNP) and runs for roughly six km before entering
BNP Park in a valley between Mount Rundle and the Goat Range. It then flows
into the Spray River roughly ten km upstream of the town of Banff. Figure 1 on
the following page locates Goat Creek within its larger context.
The study area for this project focuses on Goat Creek from Goat Pond to its
confluence with the Spray River. The Creek has always formed part of the Spray
River watershed, and thus a part of the Bow River watershed. The stream
channel now is similar to the pre-developrnent channel. However, before
impoundment Goat Pond, which feeds Goat Creek, was separated fmrn the
headwaters of the Spray River by a sub-watershed boundary. Goat Creek began
at Goat Pond and flowed roughly 15km to the Spray River, which then flowed ten
km further downstream into the Bow River at the Town of Banff. The Creek still
runs this course, but hydroelectric facilities now move water from the Spray
Lakes Reservoir over the historic watershed boundary and into Goat Pond.
Water flows from there through generation facilities into the Bow River at
Canmore, creating an artificial system different from the historic natural loop of
flows in the Spray River watershed.
Watershed Boundary Current - Historic - -
Banff National Park . . . . . Boundary
Goat Creek Trail -*'* -*-• - [ - - a I 0
i lkm
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Area Climate
Environmental Canada (1 998) climate data for the area recorded at the town of
Banff, illustrates temperature and precipitation patterns (Figure 2). Snowmelt
feeds most streams in the Bow River system, causing discharge peaks in June,
July, and August. augmented by rainfall and glacial meltwater (Schindfer and
Pacas 1996).
Precipitat ion
,." c@ & 99' *& ,** \a +9 &Q g iQJ ',&
M o n t h
Tern perature
J U l Aug Jun - r
Mav n I S ~ P - daily m ('C 1 daily m ('C daily m
aximum temp
inimum temp
ean ('C)
I Month I I I Figure 2: Climate at tho Town of Banff (Environmant Canada 1998)
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Goat Creek watershed sits in the Montane Cordillera Ecozone (Lands Directorate
1986) and within this ecozone. in the Eastern Continental Ranges Ecoregion.
Within the emregion. Goat Creek watershed is a subalpine valley ecosystem,
characterized by warm. dry summers and mild, snowy winters (Lands Directorate
1986). Forests are dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus cuntuda). Engelmann
spruce (Picea Engelmannio and alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Alpine vegetation.
found in cooler sites (adjacent to streams) in the subalpine region are
characterized by mountain avens (Dryas d m o n d i i ) . Colluvial, morainal and
fluvioglacial deposits are typical of the surficial deposits, covered by Regosolic
and Eutric Brunisolic soils (Ecological Stratification Working Group).
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT
As part of the Spray River system, Goat Creek came under investigation for
hydroelectric development in 191 1 (Figure 3). Calgary Power Ltd. (now
TransAlta Utilities Corp.) became interested in 1921 when it realized the potential
of a system so close to the Bow Valley with a potential reservoir 341 m (1 120)
feet above the Bow River (Calgary Power Ltd. circa 1950). Then, and until 1930
when new park boundaries were negotiated. Goat Creek and the Spray Lakes
were entirely within BNP and no development permits were issued (Schindler
and Pacas 1996). The new boundaries excised land and it passed from federal
to provincial government control under the Alberta Natural Resources Act.
Around that time. Calgary Power Ltd. began an expansion program and again
sought permission to develop the Spray River system's power potential (Calgary
Power Ltd. c. 1950). In 1947 the province granted approval to Calgary Power for
the development. The project. completed in 1952, dammed the Spray River at
Spray Canyon and diverted it first into Goat Creek Valley, then over Whiteman's
Pass, dropping into the Bow River at Canmore. The power plants associated
with the development produce 66.1 MW (88,600 hp) and, according to a circa
1950 Calgary Power brochure. are 'picturesquely located in a rugged setting
typical of the mountain country south of Canrnore and Banff.
5,OO ~,i'/s (200cfs) flos in Spriiy River Bi,aIT rcq~lircd for ..figl,tilrg forcs~ lircs, . . . i~nd rctc~l~ioli of ~ I C S I I I C I ~ C pro~rt ics i n Spra!, V;~llc!,".
Flow a~~g~ncnt;llion ~hrough Goal Creck to Spray River slopped,
Lcltcr of coni~rriltric~~t frolit TrilnsAlta Utilities to Banm Niitiot~iil Piirk slipl~lalcs nrininrutir flow of 10 cfs past p~iilpi~rg sli~tion.
Ncw Pdrk Policy focllscs on ccologicirl in~cgrilp.
Banff Bow Vallcy Study finds ccological intcgrity compro~niscd in BanfT Nulional Park.
Banff Mani~gcmcnl Plan idcntifics rcmo\ral of non-riirlivc spccics i111d flow augnicnlation for oil mainmining aquatics ccologici~l intcgrity .
I ~ \ \ c l t;LllLldllUll 511 IILIIIIC'S COIIIJJICICU. UOiII k fL'cK \\ i l lCrSIICU
rcduccd J l.6'% illld flo\vs rcg111;11cd.
I:lo\r.s rcq~~ircd lo IIICCI 5.00 111'1s (200) cfs ill JIIIIC. JII~!. ;11rd Augasl in Spri~y River rclciiscd j~ciirly ~l~rougli GO~II Crcck.
Albcrl Fislr i111d Wildlifc stocks brook (rout into Goilt Pond.
Goat Vallcy Dyke fails: pcik flows rcilch I H 11~31s in Goal Crcck. rcsulling in hid~cst flows on rccord for Sprii!. River it1 Banff.
Tho~~ipso~i and Wcibc study cffccls of dykc fnilurc on Goal Crcck ond find i1 pop~lalion of cullhroal lrotll in a SIrcillli Ilrlbitat \\lill\ fc~v pools.
Mudn aud Grccll find tllilt 11si11g Goill Crcck ;IS ;I spilltvi~y lo allgnlcllt flows ill (hc Spray River I~as dil~liagcd fish llirbiti~t i n Goat Crcck.
Court~lcy cl al. find only brook {rout in il surI1cy of tllc fish community in Goirl Crcck.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Development of the Spray system required that Calgary Power and Parks
Canada negotiate an agreement regarding affected flows within the Park. This
agreement required that Calgary Power provide enough flow into the Spray River
to ensure 5.7 m3/s (200 cfs) at the town of Banff during June, July, and August.
This flow was necessary for Yighting forest fires, proper removal of sewage from
Banff Springs Hotel area. and retention of aesthetic properties in Spray Valleyn
(Mudry and Green 1976). Examination of potential effects on fish populations
focused on maintaining angling potential. From mid-July through to September
the flows in the lower Spray River needed augmentation to flow at 5.7 m3!s (200
cfs) but a valve built into Canyon Dam was not used to provide this l ow from the
reservoir. Instead, flows were augmented through Goat Creek since Wle source
of water for flow augmentation was not stipulated by the Order in Council
allowing dam constructionn (Mudry and Green 1976). Mudry and Green (1976)
also concluded that using Goat Creek 'as a spillway" had resulted in
considerable damage to fish habitat. 'Artificially fluctuating water levels and
occasional dike failures" had also affected habitat (Mudry and Green). Mudry
and Green recommended that flows into the lower Spray River not be augmented
by flows through Goat Creek. and, in 1976, the practice stopped (Golder
Associates Ltd. 1996). Dyke failures during construction in the 1950s and in the
1970s resulted in extremely high flows in Goat Creek. In one instance, peak
flows reached 181 m3/s into the Creek (Golder Associates Ltd. 1996), resulting in
the highest flows on record in the Spray River at Banff (Environment Canada
1990a). Such high flows would likely have had an effect on instream habitat,
filling existing pools and washing woody debris downstream.
The power system begins with Canyon dam at the head of the lower Spray River.
the Three Sisters plant at the mouth of the Spray Reservoir. the smallest in the
system, with a generating capacity of 3MW (Figure 4). From there the Three
Sisters Tailrace carries flow into Goat Pond and a dike at the mouth of Goat
Pond guides the flow into Goat Valley canal. Water then flows through the canal
into Whitman's Pond and down through a pressure tunnel to the Spray Power
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Plant, the largest on the system, with a generating capacity of 108MW. The
head of 274 meters at this plant is the highest of all TAU'S plants. From there
water flows down the Rundle canal to the Rundle Power plant (capacity 50 MW)
and into the Bow River at Canmore.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
Watershed
Information on historical conditions in Goat Creek was drawn from aerial
photographs, Parks Canada and Alberta provincial stocking records, previous
studies, maps, and Environmental Canada flow records. Two topographic maps
(Department of the Interior 1926; Canada Department of Mines 1923) covering
the Spray Lakes area show historical watershed divisions between the
headwaters of Goat Creek and the Spray River (Figure 5). Using these maps,
the Goat Creek historical watershed was outlined on current topographic maps
(Natural Resources Canada 1996). The area of the historic watershed was
calculated by counting one km2 map grid squares. The historic Goat Creek
watershed was approximately 70 km2. Environment Canada (1 990a) now
measures the watershed as 40.9 km2.
Many small tributaries flowing off the slopes of the Three Sisters and Mount
Lawrence De Grassi into Goat Creek are visible on aerial photographs taken in
1948. Goat Creek no longer receives water input from these tributaries, because
the Goat Valley canal now diverts the flow into the power generation system.
These photographs also show a small pond, roughly the size of the current Goat
Pond, at the headwaters of the stream, the outline of which is visible on recent
(1988) air photos lying immediately west of the current Goat Pond (Figure 5).
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
While the stream is still partially fed by waters from the new pond, through
seepage or water release through pipes, the Goat Valley Dyke has fragmented
the aquatic habitat, making the new pond inaccessible to fish from the creek.
The shape of the stream channel has changed little in the 47 years since flows
were reduced but it is apparent from comparison between pre- and post-dam air
photos that flows were greater and filled more of the channel. On the 1948
photos, areas of exposed gravel in the riparian areas are minimal and vegetated
areas are adjacent to the stream. Recent photos show that gravel and cobble
banks are now common and vegetation is sparse on exposed areas. While this
difference may be due to the time of year in which the photographs were taken
(which is unknown for the 1948 set and September 13 for the 1988 set) flows
have been reduced since regulation and have likely played a part in the changes
to the riparian areas.
Flows
In 1980, TAU provided a letter of commitment to BNP indicating that they would
allow a minimum flow of 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) past the lower pump. Also, under
normal operations they would not allow flows greater than 30 cfs (0.849 m3/s).
Flows greater than 0.849 m3/s (30 cfs) could result from either natura! flow events
caused by high inflow from storm or snowmelt, or from management actions
requiring flow releases from the Spray Reservoir, Goat Pond, or the Goat Valley
Canal, or a planned or forced outage of the lower pump.
Environment Canada has no discharge information for Goat Creek prior to power
development. Since the impoundment, TAU has provided discharge data to
Environment Canada (1 990a). measured at their lower pumping station roughly
halfway down the stream (Figure 1). To estimate historical discharges for Goat
Creek. Golder Associates (1996) extrapolated from data for the Spray River
watershed. Environment Canada records for the Spray River begin in 191 5 and
are available for three locations: at the town of Banff, at Spray Canyon and on
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Spray Creek. From these records, Golder Associates graphed minimum daily
discharge, and smallest and largest recorded annual floods against watershed
size from the three! sites (Appendix I: Determination of historical flows in Goat
Creek). From this graph they extrapolated flow information for Goat Creek.
However, they based their estimate of Goat Creek flows using a watershed of
40.9km2 for Goat Creek: its present size, post-dam. Before impoundment Goat
Creek's watershed covered roughly 70km2. Using this historical watershed size
and Golder's graph, the discharges associated with the largest and smallest
annual floods are nearly double Golder's estimate. with flows of 19m3/s and
3rn3/s respectively. Minimum daily discharge would have been 0.4m3/s. Post-
dam, from 1976 to 1990, the minimum daily discharge was 0.031 m3/s, although
this value is much lower than for all other years, with the next lowest at 0.1 7rn3/s.
The largest and smallest annual floods postdam were 4.03m3/s and 1 .32m3/s
respectively (Environment Canada 1990, data in Appendix ll: Historical flow
data). The changes are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Changes in hydrological regime in Goat Creek I Predam I Post-dam I Degree of
(km2) Largest recorded annual flood ( m h ) Smallest recorded annual flood (m31s) Minimum daily discharge (m31s) Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Watershed area change (96) 41 -6
As Table 4 illustrates, changes in flow have been greater than changes in the
watershed size, with the greatest degree of change in the largest recorded
annual flood at 78.8 %. The other changes have been more related to the
degree of change in watershed size. ( Because the flow of 0.031 m3/s is so
much less than all other minimum daily discharges and likely influenced by ice
(estimated) 70 40.9
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
conditions (Environment Canada 1990a) I included the values for the next
smallest minimum daily discharge).
In addition to changes in the amount of water flowing down the stream, the
hydrograph is modified under managed flow conditions. To estimate the
historical hydrograph for Goat Creek the mean monthly discharges for the Spray
River at Banff for the years 191 1 to 1929 were calculated. These values were
then divided by 10.7 because the Spray River watershed, at 749 km2
(Environment Canada 1990a). is 10.7 times that of Goat Creek's historic
watershed (70 km2). This method for determining historic flows in the absence of
discharge records is generally accepted (Flosi and Reynolds 1991 ; FISRWG
1998). The calculation may not result in exact discharge amounts, but it does
provide a clear picture of changes to the timing and relative magnitude of flows.
The result is shown in Figure 6 below. The shape of the hydrograph has
changed radically since flow regulation and peak flows that once occurred in
June now occur in August.
Figure 6: Changes to Goat Creek hydrograph following flow regulation
5
4.5
4
3.5 35 € 3 Q)
P 2.5 c6 r 0 2 m
1.5
- - - Current Coat Creek mean monthly flows (1 976-1 990)
- Estimated historical mean monthly flows for Goat Creek
1
0e5 0 e
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Fish and Habitat
Parks Canada stocked large numbers (up to 20,000 a year) of cutthroat trout and
rainbow trout into Goat Creek from 1931 to 1 947, every year except 1 938 and
1943 (Pacas, pers. comm.). In June of 1969 Alberta Fish and Wildlife stocked
14,000 brook trout fry into Goat Pond. Then, from 1973 to 1976, they stocked
85.000 rainbow trout (Oncohynchus mykiss). another non-native species. also
into Goat Pond. Before construction of the power generation structures, in 1944.
Alberta Fish and Wildlife stocked rainbow bout into the Spray Lakes. Beginning
in 1953 and continuing until 1987, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were
stocked into the Spray Lakes Reservoir (Stelfox, pers. comm.).
Thompson and Weibe (1974) surveyed the fish community in Goat Creek in the
early 1970s and found a fish population of 94% artthroat trout. They also
describe the low numbers of pools in the stream, adding that the number of pools
decreases dramatically going down the stream, with few inside Banff National
Park boundaries. Miller and MacDonald (in Mudry and Green 1976) studied the
Spray River in 1945 and they also describe a cutthroat population in lower Goat
Creek and the lower Spray River typical of stream resident fish. They were small
and grew slowly. never reaching lengths greater than 250mm. Miller and
MacDonald state that this was a separate population from the one found in the
Spray River upstream of the 16 mile cabin, which was an extension of the fast
growing lake population. By 1992. the fish community had changed. All fish
caught in Goat Creek during a 1992 study by Courtney et al. were brook trout. a
result of provincial stocking in 1969 (Stetfox pers. comm.).
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
CURRENT HABITAT
The assessment of the current state of habitat in Goat Creek is based upon data
collected in the field in 1998 and 1999.
Representative Reaches
Data for this study was collected from stream reaches that represented broader
characteristics of Goat Creek. since 'classification of reach types and channel
geomorphic units enables investigators to extrapolate results to other areas with
similar featuresn (Bisson 8 Montgomery. 1996). Initial selection of the reaches
was done using topographic maps and air photos to break the stream into
sections based on channel gradient and degree of valley confinement (Newbury
and Gaboury 1993; Bisson and Montgomery 1996). Using this method three
sections were idenbified. Field visits confirmed preliminary divisions and
representative reaches chosen for every section measuring 12 times bankfbll
width were placed to include all habitat features (suggested in Newbury and
Gaboury 1 993).
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Vegetation plot
Figure 7: Reach 1
Boulder vegetated ':-
Reach 1 (Figure 7) is 200m downstream of TAU'S upper pumphouse and
upstream of the lower pumphouse. outside of BNP. The slope of the 5.5 km long
stream segment represented in this reach is 0.8%. The slope of the reach, from
the thalweg survey, is 0.7%. This is the furthest upstream reach and would likely
provide much of the spawning habitat to stream resident fish. Inflow to this
section comes from seasonal tributaries flowing off the Goat Range and from
seepage through the Goat Valley Dyke and Goat Valley Canal. Two 1OOm
Hobo location
Rifflehapid -
4
Lw/ IOM 0 I 0-
Flow direct ion
Drawn from measurements taken 07/22/98
o - * d
Goat Creek Reach 1
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
reaches in this section are channelized with boulder riprap: one at the gravel pit.
the other at the upper pumping station. Historically this section was highly
sinuous. with mostly shrubby riparian vegetation (likely Betula pumila and Salix
spp-) and some patches of dense forest. The relic-ed pond at the headwaters
appeared shallow and the stream immediately below the pond shows evidence of
seasonal flooding. The stream, when it began at the pond, would have been
roughly 1.2km longer. Now, in much of this stream segment. areas of bare or
minimally vegetated cobble separate riparian vegetation from the channel. Some
remnant forest remains on the west side in the upper third of the section.
Shrubby vegetation also remains in a marshy area in the lower quarter of the
section, just above the lower pump house. This area is represented as a marsh
on a 1926 map (Department of the Interior).
The second representative reach (Figure 8) lies just inside the boundary of BNP,
downstream of the pump house. This 1OOm long reach represents a stream
segment of approximately 3.5 km characterized by a slope of 0.5% and wide,
marshy flood plains with sedges and tall coniferous snags. The slope of the
thalweg in this reach is 0.4%. The section represented begins just upstream of
the lower pump house and extends for 3 km into BNP. A channelized section
and a small impoundment created by a weir, both at the pump house, have
altered the original channel. At this pump house. Trans Alta pumps water from
Goat Creek into the Goat Valley Canal to compensate for losses to seepage. As
a result, flows in this section are often slightly lower than in the section upstream.
A tributary stream noted on a 1926 map (Department of the Interior) that flowed
off the end of Mount Rundle is now dammed at the lower pump house.
The pond created by that dam now supports brook trout. Once inside BNP. the
stream channel and vegetation remain similar to historic conditions, except that.
as in the first section, bare, cobbled areas now separate historic riparian
vegetation from the stream channel.
CHAPTER 3 GOAT CREEK
Figure 8: Reach 2
1 1 Vegetation Hobo Log) Flow / 1 Goat Creek Reach 2 1
The third representative reech (Figure 9) lies 5 km down the Goat Creek trail
from the trailhead parking lot. This section of the stream is within BNP and runs
approximately 6 km to Goat Creek's influence on the Spray River. The stream
segment has a slope of 2.6% and the lOOm long representative reach has an
overall slope of 3.8%, reflecting two small chutes. Without these chutes the
thalweg slope is 2.5%. Steep valley walls of either alluvial deposits or bedrock
I plot
1 Non- :. -.. I vegetated :.'. I 07/29/98
I I I
location
slope
/ Boulder D
direction
Rifflelrapid A
IOW - b I On\ ~rawnfiorn measurements taken
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
confine much of the stream valley. although in some places the flood plain is
200m to 300m wide. This section remains closest to its historic state, with no
structures affecting the channel directly. Both before and after impoundment,
parts of this section have bare cobble banks. up to 4m wide, flanking the stream.
About 1 km upstream of the influence with the Spray River, Goat Creek Trail
crosses the Creek at a bridge. Immediately upstream of the bridge is a waterfall
in a confined bedrock area with a height of roughly five metres.
Figure 9: Reach 3
\ -- Vegetation i Hobo x i Log plot j location ; -
Flow / I / Goat Creek Reach 3 direction 1 4
! I Non- . '. .:: . i Slope 1 Boulder i Riffletrapid I 1Qn~ (2 ICr.1
Drawn from
vegetated -' :; , measurements taken ! 1 07/22/98 I
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Data Collection
Data collected in the 1998 and 1999 field seasons describes:
Water velocity and discharge
Water temperature
Substrate
Riparian vegetation
Fish population
Conductivity
pH
Suspended sediment
Water velocity, discharge and temperature were also measured on Healy Creek
for comparison to an unregulated stream. Healy Creek flows into Brewster Creek
three kilometers south of the Trans Canada Highway, eight km west of the town
of Banff. Brewster Creek then flows into the Bow River four km further east.
Healy Creek watershed. at 56km2 is slightly larger than Goat Creek. it is a
second order stream and has the same orientation and channel size, with a width
of 5m. The two drainages are only about 20km apart. Healy Creek was chosen
as a comparison based on its orientation, similar size and proximw to Goat
Creek. Also, Environment Canada has historical streamffow data for Brewster
Creek, which was used as the comparison stream for the Spray River in the
companion study to this one. The road to Sunshine Village provides easy access
to both Healy and Brewster Creeks.
In each reach on Goat Creek, three transects were placed to represent the
variety of pools. riffles, or other habitat characteristics, as well as where the best
evidence existed for bankfull width (Newbury & Gaboury, 1993). In all reaches,
and on Healy Creek, one transed crosses a straight section in which the l o w
appears uniform and parallel to stream banks so that discharge measurements
will be representative (Gore, 1 996).
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Discharge
Methods
Stream discharge was calculated from measurement of flow velocity and area.
Velocity, depth and wetted width were measured on each transect in each reach.
Wetted width was measured using surveyors tape stretched across the stream
perpendicular to flow. Each transect was divided into at least five cells, only
creating more than five cells if. at five cells, each cell would exceed 3 metres (m)
in width (Newbury 8 Gaboury 1993; Gore 1996).
Depth and velocity measurements were made at the centre of each cell using a
guriey meter provided by TAU and calibrated by Environment Canada.
Measurements of velocity were taken at 0.4 of the depth (Harrelson et al., 1994;
Gore, 1996) and took 30 seconds each. Results were recorded in the field then
entered into Microsoft Excel for calculation and presentation. To calculate
discharge measurements taken at the straight section of the channel were used.
Discharge was calculated for each cell by multiplying the depth at midpoint by the
width of the cell by the veloclty in metes per second (mls). Total discharge is
the sum of the discharge of each cell.
Results
Figures 10 and I 1 illustrate the summer hydrographs for Goat Creek and Healy
Creek in 1999 and 1998. Environment Canada (1 990a) discharge data for Goat
Creek suggest that the overall decline in discharge over the summer of 1998 is
not usual (see Figure 6). The mean monthly discharge from 1976 to 1990,
measured just upstream of the BNP boundary. shows the discharge increasing to
a peak in August. Work on the power canal in September 1998 caused the
increase at sites 2 and 3, both downstream of the pumping station used to
redirect water from Goat Valley Canal into Goat Creek. Except for that instance,
discharge in reach 2 was lower than in reach 1 due to pumping activity between
reaches at the lower pumphouse.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Discharge peaks occurred later in the season in 1999 (late July and early
August) than in 1998 (June). Cooler spring and summer temperatures in 1999
delayed snowmelt in 1999, leaving the mountain snow pack above average for
June (Alberta Environment 1999a). Flow amounts in reaches 1 and 2 are similar
in 1 999 and 1 998, with peak discharges of 1 .I m31s and 1 -2 m3/s. respectively.
In both seasons, flows in reaches 2 and 3 in the late summer were lower than in
reach 1 , due to TAU pumping activities.
Figure 10: Goat Creek hydrograph, summer 1998 1
Reach Reach Reach Healy
Date
Figure 1 1 : Goat Creek hydrograph, summer 1999
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Temperature
Methods
Therrnister dataloggers (Hobo) were installed in each reach to record daily and
seasonal variations in water temperature. The dataloggers were located at the
upstream end of each reach to prevent any disturbance from data collection
activities. To the extent possible, they were placed in the stream so that direct
warming from the sun did not influence temperature readings. Before installing
them in the stream, the dataloggers were wrapped in 0.5 cm foam and slipped
into solid plastic tubing. open on both ends to allow flow through. Wires were
attached to the plastic tube and to solid bank vegetation. Boulders were placed
over and around the tubes to prevent movement during high flows. The boulders
also provided shade. The dataloggers were set to record water temperature
every 72 minutes. Data was down loaded in October of 1998, when the batteries
were replaced. and were reset to record throughout the winter. Winter data from
reaches 1 and 2 was downloaded in July 1999, providing one hrll year of
temperature data for those two sites. The datalogger from reach 3 and from
Healy Creek were lost over the winter or in high spring fiows.
Results
In all reaches the normal range for maximum summer temperatures is between
10°C and 16°C (Figures 12-1 4). In reach 3 water temperatures rose above 16OC
for six days in the summer of 1998. The maximum temperature in reach 1 was
approximately 1 1 OC and in reach 2 it was 13OC. Temperatures in reach 1 were
lower overall, possibly resulting from a cold spring inflow. Also overhanging
banks and riparian vegetation shaded the Hobo at this site for much of the day.
Summer (June to September) minimum daily temperatures fall between 8°C and
2°C in reach 2 and between 10°C and 2°C in reach 1. Healy Creek daily summer
temperatures are more constant than Goat Creek with maximums and minimums
mostly between 5°C and 8°C. Riparian vegetation provides constant shade to
much of the stream throughout the day resulting in the small daily differences in
maximum and minimum temperatures.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Reach1
14
- 12
E 10
5 8 c.
fi 6
2 4
2
0 a O a o a o a o a o a o o , b , o , o , m Q ) ~
o , m Q ) Q ) $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o , m a o P F F P
\ \ T F F F
4 - ~ z e a S S ~ ~ ~ s r e k F F F ~ - T r T F F
r r
Date
Figure 12: Reach 1 maximum and minimum temperatures 1 998-1 999
Reach 2 98/99
Date b
Figure 13: Reach 2 maximum and minimum temperatures 1998-1 999
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
I J u l y 1 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 8
Figure 14: Reach 3 maximum and minimum temperatures with comparison to Healy Creek
Winter temperature data is only available far reaches 1 and 2. Differences
between daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the winter months
(October to March) were less than in summer. Temperatures fell to -0.2OC in
reach 2 and to 1 OC in reach 1. During winter field visits in January open water
was observed at reach 1. Deep snowdrifts covered much of the channel at reach
2, including the hobo site. Temperatures of 8°C to 10°C that cutthroat trout need
for spawn and embryo incubation (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Trotter 1987;
Mclntyre and Rieman 1995) and had occurred by July (when dataloggers were
installed) in 1 998 and in May (reach 2) and June (reach I ) in 1 999. Alberta
Environment (1 999a) records indicate that temperatures were below average in
May of 1999, resulting in delayed snow melt.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Survey
Methods
With the help of Paul Godman of TAU and equipment provided by TAU, each
reach was surveyed to provide cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles. All
transects and upper and lower boundaries of the reaches were surveyed, noting
the water surface level, bankfull stage, and terrace elevations (Hanelson et al.,
1994). Data were analyzed using Hec-Ras software (U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers).
Results
As survey data was only collected on five transects per reach, additional
transects were interpolated by Hec-Ras. For this reason scenarios represented
here are general and only serve to graphically illustrate the form of the reaches
and the relative changes in wetted width with various discharges (Figures 15-1 7).
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
The graduated shaded areas represent water levels at different discharges
(defined in the legend), however, they do not necessarily denote the stream
channel. The shaded areas show water level. which may be lower than ground
level. Channel locations and water levels are indicated in heavy black lines. In
all drawings water flows from bottom to top with a vertical exaggeration of ten.
Water level profiles:
0.66 m3/s
1.1 9 m3/s
3.0 m3/s
rn H
water surface /\r
Figure 15: Goat Creek reach 1
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Figure 16: Goat Creek reach 2
Water level profiles:
0.61 7 m3/s
1.19 m3/s
3.0 m3/s
Water surface
H (L,
Flow direction
Figure 17: Goat Creek reach 3
Water levei profiles:
1.22 m3/s
3.0 m3/s
5.0 m3/s lIlsl Water surface &
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Substrate
Methods
Streambed material composition was characterized using the Wolrnan Pebble
Count method on all transects in each reach (as described in Harrelson et al.,
1994). For each transect 100 randomly grabbed partides were measured on
each axis (x-y-2). These measurements were averaged for each particle.
Results
Table 5 Substrate size categories (Culpin 1986)
Reaches 1 and 2 have higher percentages of finer particles (c76mm) than reach
3 (Figure 18). This change from finer to more coarse substrate is to be expected
(Brookes and Sear 1996). The e2mm category generally describes the substrate
in pools which ranges from silt to sand, depending on water velocity (Table 5).
The fine gravel (2-25mm) category describes the size of spawning gravels for
trout in the stream. Fine and coarse gravels (25-75mm) are the dominant
substrate in all reaches, however, in reach 3, these particles are dispersed
throughout the substrate and do not afford good spawning areas. Small rubble
(77-1 52mm) and larger particles (1 53-305mm) could provide hiding wver and
resting areas for juveniles and adults. Partides of this size class are rare to
absent in Reaches 1 and 2.
Particle size < 2mm 2 - 25mm 26-76 rnrn 77-1 52 mm 153-305 mm > 305 mm
Category Sand. silt
- -
Fine gravel Coarse gravel Small rubble Large rubble Boulder .
CKAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Figure 1 8: Goat Creek percent substrate compositii by reach
Fish population
Methods
With the assistance of Charlie Pacas and Elaine O'Neil from Parks Canada, and
use of Smith-Root backpack electrofishing equipment from Parks Canada each
reach was electrofished to determine species presence and size classes. All fish
were identified, weighed and fork length measured (Table 6).
Results
Table 6: Results of elecbofishing activities
Total fish (#)
I Average fork length (mm) Effort
Reach 1 38
62.5
( s ) Catch per unit
2076
Reach 2 38
79.4
0.018 I I effort (#/s)
2376
I
Reach 3 21
94 -9
0.016
Total 97
78.9
1605 6057
0.013 0.016
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
With the exception of one Rocky Mountain whitefish (Pmsopium williamson~
130mm long found in reach 3, all fish captured were brook trout and perhaps
Lake trout (Pacas pers. comm.). Field identification did not differentiate between
brook and lake trout, however neither is native to the Creek. Sizes of fish caught
are represented in Figure 19. The dominant size class. comprising roughly half
the fish caught, was < 55mm in reaches 7 and 2. Medium sized fish (55-90 and
90-1 20mm) found in all reaches was the next largest group, with only one or two
large fish (120-250mm) found in reaches 1 and 3.
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Figure 19: Percent composition by size category (fork length) of Goat Creek brook trout population
lnstream Cover
Methods
Along each transect in an area of 2 m long by the width of the stream. with the
transect bisecting the area, percent cover of both instream and ex-stream cover
types were recorded. lnstream cover included instream vegetation. boulders,
large woody debris (LWD). and small woody debris (SWD). Ex-stream cover
included bank overhang and riparian vegetation.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Results
I Undercut Banks lnstream Vegetation
25 0
20 0 L Q) > 0 U u C 150 Q 0, a9 Q
g 100
I 4) r
5 0
0 0 1 2 3
Roach
Figure 20: Percent instream cover by reach
Figure 20 illustrates that, with the exception of boulders in reach 3, there is very
little instream cover in Goat Creek. Other types of instream cover provide less
than 5% cover as for fish.
Riparian Vegetation
Methods
The riparian vegetation community of each reach was characterized by
identifying all species present in each level (herbs, shrubs, tall shrubs, and
trees). Ten estimates were made of: percent cover of each species, total canopy
cover, and soil moisture and drainage. Alberta Vegetation Index (AVI) and Banff
National Park ecological land classification maps and information provided
preliminary community type identification. Detailed surveys of the riparian
vegetation community were conducted on both sides of the stream at all
transects. The size of the detailed study areas depended on the size of the
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
vegetation community: 10 m by 10 m for forested areas, and 1 m by 2 m for
shrub and forb communities.
Results
Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the shrub and herb species present. Tree results are
not illustrated since the two species found (Engelman spruce and lodgepole pine)
occurred only in two sites.
R ipar ian s h r u b s
Ye l low m ounta in -avens
T w i n f l o w e r
W illow
E n g e I m a n s p r u c e
B uffaloberry
Prickly r o s e
B a l s a m p o p l a r
S h r u b b y c inquefoi l
B e a r b e r r y
Corn m o n J u n i p e r
D w a r f birch
Trembl ing a s p e n
L o d g e p o l e p i n e
R e d raspberry
r -
- I 1 -
B 1 -
- e 1 I - I I 1 A v e . %
T - I
r e s e n c e
I f -
1 i - I
1 i i .(
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 1 2 0
P e r c e n t
Figure 21 : Shrub species on Goat Creek
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
S e d g e
F i r e w e e d
C o m m o n h o r s e t a i l
T h o m p s o n ' s p a i n t b r u s h
S t r e a m b a n k b u t t e r w e e d
P ink w i n t e r g r e e n
G r e e n - f l o w e r e d b o g - o r c h i d
D w a r f scouring r u s h
L e a f y a s t e r
Y a r r o w
C o m m o n d a n d e l i o n
Ye l low H e d y s a r u m
E l e p h a n t ' s h e a d l o u s e w o r t
E v e r g r e e n s a x i f r a g e
F r i n g e d G r a s s o f P a r n a s s u s
N o r t h e r n g o l d e n r o d
8 r o a d - l e a v e d wi l lowherb
0 I 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0
p e r c e n t
I
Figure 22: Forb species on Goat Creek
The east side of Goat creek (west-facing slope of Mount Rundle) is classified as
Pine/Buffaloberry, while SprucelFir forests cover the east slope of Goat Range.
However. forest stands only make up riparian vegetation in a few areas. In 19
vegetation plots on Goat Creek only two were forested. Shrubs, usually willow
(Salix spp.) or small spruce (Picea englemannii), sedges (Carex spp.). or bare
cobbly areas with some mountain avens make up most of the riparian
environment. In most cases riparian vegetation provides little or no shade or
streamside cover.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Water characteristics
Methods
Water conductivity and pH were measured in the lab using samples collected
from the stream.
Results
Conductivity in Goat Creek ranges h m 0.262msIs to ,290msIs at room
temperature (21 OC). with most measurements tending toward the higher end of
the range. Healy Creek averages 0.254mds. pH values ranged from 7.78 to
8.34, with an average of 8.0. Healy Creek average is slightly lower at 7.93.
Benthic Invertebrates
Methods
To obtain a stratified random sample, five samples of benthic invertebrates were
collected along the transect representing riffle habitat in each reach. Using a
Surber sampler, samples were collected across the stream by disturbing the
substrate and rubbing large cobbles and boulders for one minute. The current
swept the invertebrates into a jar attached to the open, downstream end of the
Surber net. Invertebrates were then killed by addition of formaldehyde.
Results
Results of a comparison between benthic invertebrates collected in studies in
1973 and 1992 found that the benthic invertebrate population has remained
relatively stable, with similar numbers and species collected with similar methods
in two studies (Courtney et al. 1992). Samples cdlected in 1999 have not been
identified. These samples could provide base line information on the benthic
invertebrate communQ. If a restoration plan for Goat Creek involves using
chemical piscicides, the benthic invertebrate populations may be harmed.
Information on the current community composition could provide information for
reintroduction of benthic invertebrates.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TARGET SPECIES
Cutthroat Trout
To assess the suitability of Goat Creek for the cutthroat trout I used the Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) developed by Hickman and Raleigh (1982). This method
is widely used in the United States (Hunter 1991) and uses preference curves
developed for habitat features that affect suitability for the target species (see
Appendix 111: Habitat suitability curves). These habitat variables are presented in
Table 7, along with the data and corresponding indices for each study reach of
Goat Creek. The suitability indices are unitless numbers between 0 and 1. Data
collected in the field seasons provided a base for an assessment of the habitat in
Goat Creek.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
The HSi then requires calculation to determine habitat suitability for each life
stage: adult, juvenile, fry, embryo, and other. Each life stage calculation requires
,
only some of the variables.
based on the size of substrate suitable for spawning.
I
Table 7: Goat Variable
V1
V2
V3 V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13 V14
V15 V16
No spawning
Creek Habitat Suitability Values Description
Ave. max. water temp - summer Ave max water temp - embryo Ave min DO Ave thalweg depth - low water period Ave velocity (cmfs) over spawning areas % cover - low water period Ave substrate size 0.3- 8cm in spawning areas % substrate size 10-40cm for winter and escape cover Dominant substrate in riffle run areas % pools in late growing season Ave % vegetation along bank for allochthonous input Ave % rooted veg and stable rocky cover on bank Ave pH Ave annual base flow as % of ave annual daily flow Pool class rating % fines in riffle run areas
was obselved in Goat
for cutthroat trout , Reach
10°C
9.2OC
- 50 cm
0.5
5 %
8
1.3 an
A
10 %
48 %
30 %
8 - C 4 % Creek.
1 HSI 0.98
1
- 1
1
0.5
1
0.1
1
0.3
0.8
0.9
1 1
0.3 1 The HSI
I
13°C
12.3" C - 3 4 m
0.5
10%
t
0
A
25%
110 %
70 %
8 63%
C 1%
values
Reach 2 HSI 1
1
- 1
1
0.7
1
0
t
0.4
0.8
0.9
1 1
0.3 1 assigned
I
13.2" C 13.4" C - 33 cm
-
10 %
t
25cm
B
10 %
97 %
50 %
8 -
C 10%
are
Reach 3 HSI 1
1
- 1
1
0.7
- 1
0.6
0.3
0.8
0.9
1 1
0.3 0.9
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Adult (CA)
The calculation for this component uses variables V4, V6, V10, and V15
(average thalweg depth, percent cover during low water period, percent pools in
late growing season, and pool class rating). To calculate the component score
for the adult life stage the following equation is used:
This equation is only used if V4 and 0110 x V1 5)IR are greater than 0.4. If this
test for use of the equation is not passed, the score for the adult component is
the value of the lowest variable in the equation for CA. None of the reaches in
Goat Creek pass the test for use of the equation so all reaches have a value of
0.3, the value for V15 (pool dass rating). This requirement that certain or all
variables exceed a defined threshold occurs in the calculation for each
component, based on the assumption that good quality habitat features can
compensate for some poor ones, but not when too many features are poor, or
one feature is very poor. The limiting element for adult trout is pools: the percent
of pool cover and the quality of the pools are both low.
Juvenile (CJ)
The juvenile component uses variables V6, V1 0, and V15 (percent cover during
low water period, percent pods in late growing season, and pool class rating).
Here the calculation instructions state that if any variable is less than or equal to
0.4, then the component value is the lowest variable score. Therefore the
juvenile component score is the same as the adult score and for the same
reason: poor pool habitat.
Fly (CF) Variables V8, V10. and V16 (percent of substrate size 1040 cm for winter and
escape cover, percent pools in late growing season, and percent fines in riffle run
areas) are used to calculate values for fry. Once again the values are for the
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
lowest variable, which in this case varies among the reaches. Reaches 1 and 2
have very low values of 0.1 and 0, respectively. based on the value for V8 (%
substrate 1040cm for winter cover). Reach 3 has a value of 0.3 based on the
low value for V10 (% pools).
Embryo (CE)
No spawning was observed in Goat creek during the field seasons. Values for
velocity and substrate size in spawning areas are assigned based on data
collected for sites in which trout of the size found in Goat Creek could spawn.
The calculation for this life stage indudes a rating of dissolved oxygen 013).
Data collected in the 1999 field season found DO levels of 13 mg/L. which
returns a value of 1 for this element. All other variables (V2, V5, '17. and V16:
average maximum water temperature during embryo development, average
velocity over spawning areas. average substrate size in spawning areas. and
percent fines in riffle run areas) used in the calculation for this component have a
value of one for reaches 1 and 2. Reach 3 has no potential spawning sites ('an
area > 0.5 m2 of gravel 0.3-8.0 cm in size covered by flowing water 15cm deep"
(Hickman and Raleigh 1982)) so it receives a value of 0.
Other (CO)
This component returns a value for water quality and food supply which affect all
life stages. The water quality subcomponent includes maximum temperature
(V1 ), DO 013). pH (V13). and base flow (V14). The food subcomponent covers
substrate size (V9). percent vegetation for allochthonous input (V1 1 ), and
percent fines in riffle run areas 0116). Those relating to substrate are included
because abundance of benthic invertebrates is correlated with substrate type.
Variables for percent streamside vegetation (V12) and the relationship of
average daily flow to average annual base flow are also included as important
habitat maintenance features. The equation for this component is:
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Component = [[0/9 x ~ 1 6 ) ' ~ + V I I]'~] x [(Vl x V3 x V12 x V13 x V14 x 1IN 112
V16) I
Where N = the number of variables within the parentheses
The values for the overall habitat component are 0.89 for reaches 1 and 2. and
0.76 for reach 3.
An overall value for the stream can be calculated for each life stage separately.
or using any combination of life stages. This value is calculated using the
equation:
HSI = (CAx CJ x CFxCE X C O ) ' ~
But if any value is < or = 0.4, then the result is the lowest value. Therefore the
overall HSI for each reach matches the values for each life stage. Table 8
presents the results for habitat suitability for cutthroat trout.
Table 8: Habitat suitability results for cutthroat trout IReach IReach IReach 1
Adult Component Juvenile Component Fry Component Embryo Component Other Component
" Since cutthroat trout and bull trout would spawn in the upper reaches of Goat Creek. where suitable substrate exists, the value of 0 for the embryo stage is removed from the assessment of over habitat suitability for reach 3.
1 0.3 0.3
Overall HSI
0.1 1
0.89
2 13
0.3
0.3 ' 0.3
0 7
0.89
0.3 0.3
0.3 0'
0.76
0.3 0.3
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Bull Trout
To assess habitat for bull trout in Goat Creek I used preference curves
developed by Femet and Bjomson (1 997). This method does not include a full
suitability index, and provides values for a smaller number of habitat features, but
it provides a general picture of the suitability for bull trout. The preference curves
are presented in Appendix Ill (Habitat Suitability Curves). Data collected in the
field seasons are used in the assessment of bull trout habitat.
Table 9: Habitat suitability results for bull trout
Because of the range of velocities and depths along and across the stream, all
reaches provide some habitat for each life stage. except Reach 3, which has no
potential spawning sites for small fish due to many boulders. Cover values are
difficult to judge because the preference curves point to which type of cover bull
trout associate with, but not how much is required of each type. Goat Creek has
limited cover of all types in each reach so I assigned low to median values for
cover.
Variable
Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) Substrate for spawning (mm) Cover Fry Juvenile Adult Cover at Spawning sites
LIMITING FACTORS
Rating each habitat feature allows identification of those features that limit habitat
suitability; those with low value scores (less than or equal to 0.4). Many habitat
features in Goat Creek rate as good to excellent and thus are not identified as
0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2
Reach 1
0.1-1.0 O.f-0.6 26-76
0.8 0.5 0.6 0.2
Index 1 1 1
Reach 2
- 0.5 0.6 -
0.1-1.0 0.1-0.7 26-7
Reach 3 Index 1 1 1
0.1-1.0 0.1-1.2 26-7
Index 1 1 -
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
limiting suitability. Temperature, thalweg depth, water velocity, % cover,
substrate in riffle run areas for food production, bank vegetation, and pH all are
suitable for cutthroat trout. The rating for base flows is also high since flows are
relatively constant throughout the year. Those elements that l iml suitability for
cutthroat trout are: substrate 104Ocm for winter escape cover and pools, percent
pool cover and pool class rating. The ideal percentage of pools for cutthroat trout
habitat is 50%. None of the study reaches in Goat Creek approach that amount.
lnstream cover in the form of pools, especially those created by large woody
debris (LWD), and undercut banks may be a limiting factor for both bull trout and
cutthroat trout. Also, since no spawning was observed, cover for spawning sites
is based on an assessment of potential spawning sites based on substrate size.
Temperature is not included in the preference data for bull trout, but other
sources (Pratt 1985; Shepard 1985; McPhail and Baxter 1996; USFWS 1998)
point to temperatures under 12OC as favoured, and find that bull trout may avoid
water with suitable habitat but warmer waters. Summer daytime maximum
temperatures in Goat Creek often exceed this threshold, limiting habitat suitability
for bull trout.
It is important to note, however, that the suitability values for Goat Creek do not
mean that cutthroat trout cannot be suppolted by available habitat. When Mudry
and Green (1974) conducted their study of Goat Creek in the 19709, the dam
had been in place for twenty years. Changes to habitat and flows would have
already altered the stream from its original state. Therefore, it is likely that when
Mudry and Green found a population of cutthroat trout, the habitat was very close
to what exists today. So, while habitat is not optimum it can support a cutthroat
trout community, but will limit numbers and size of fish.
The methods of habitat assessment used for both species only take into account
physical habitat. They can not be used to predict standing crop of fish since
other factors may also affect the success of a stream population. In Goat Creek,
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
the major limiting factor on reestablishing populations of bull and cutthroat trout is
the presence
GOAT CREEK RESTORATION POTENTIAL
Restoration of Goat Creek focuses on the length of stream from Goat Pond to
just above the bridge on Goat Creek Trail. The waterfall there limits upstream
movement of brook trout from the Spray River and the Bow River. The last
kilometer of Goat Creek, from the bridge to the Spray River is excluded from the
restoration to take advantage of the natural barrier to fish movement. If this
lower section were included, a bamer at the Spray River would be required,
unless non-native species in that River were also extirpated.
Removal of non-native species
Since BNP did not stock brwk trout into Goat Creek (Pacas pen. comm.), the
population of brook trout originated from the stocks introduced into Goat Pond in
1969 by provincial fisheries managen (Stelfox pen. comm.), or migrated through
spillway channels from the Spray lakes Resewoir. Restoration of a population of
native fish would involve removal of non-native fish and creation of barriers to
access from up and downstream sources of non-native fish.
Goat Creek presents a possibilw for native species reintroduction because it
could be made into a closed system. Investigation of the potential to restore a
native fish population in Goat Creek focuses on the length of stream from Goat
Pond to just above the bridge on Goat Creek Trail. The waterfall at the bridge
limits upstream movement of brook trout from the Spray River and the Bow River
(Courtney et al. 1992). The last kilometer of Goat Creek, from the bridge to the
Spray River could be excluded from the stream restoration to tske advantage of
the natural bamer to fish movement provided by the waterfall. If this lower
section were included, a barrier at the Spray River would be required, unless
non-native species in that River were also extirpated. Studies to determine the
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
effectiveness of the waterfall as a barrier to upstream movement would be
necessary. Higher flows and water velocity and lower summer water
temperatures as a result of moddying water flow releases in Goat Creek could
favour cutthroat trout over brook trout (Griffiths 1972; Behnke 1992; De Staso
and Rahel 1994). However, a population of only two brook trout can reproduce
quickly enough to replace a flourishing population of cutthroat trout in five years
(Behnke 1992).
For this reason, access to the Creek from upstream sources, in Goat Pond and
the small impoundment at the lower pumping station must also be blocked. In
the summer of 1998, anglers identified b m k trout in the small impoundment
pond. Coarse screens block trash and debris between the Spray Reservoir and
the Three Sisters power plant, but do not impede fish passage. The are no
screens or barriers to fish passage from Goat Pond through the culverts (Drury
pers. comm.).
A native cutthroat trout population exists in Marvel Lake and could be used for
stocking (Earle 1995).
Flow Modification
Restoring Goat Creek and environs would involve not only the fish community, it
would require recreating natural or naturalistic conditions in the habitat and
watershed to meet the goals of the BNP Management Plan. The main factor
affecting the stream habitat is the stabilization of flows from impoundment.
Recreating a more natural hydrograph would mean higher flows than currently
during the historic high flow period, from May to August.
Effects of higher flows on the instream habitat were examined in 1992, when
TAU diverted flows through Goat Creek to perform work on Whiteman's Dam
(Courtney et al. 1992). Flows increased fivefold above normals for the period,
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
from 0.5 m3/s to almost 3.0 m3/s. Depth increased, but not linearly with
discharge. The wide channel means that increases in discharge will result in
small increases in depth. The study found that the five-fold increase in discharge
resulted in only a 7 cm increase in depth in a study site immediately above the
lower pumping station, and an increase of 20 cm in a more confined channel
between reach 2 and reach 3. The site (Courtney et al. 1992) above the lower
pumping station was similar to reach 1. The stream channel is wide and shallow
with gently sloping banks so increases in flow create little change in depth.
During the study, Courtney et al. (1992) observed the movement of pea-sized
gravel and coarse sand at flows of approximately 2.83 m3/s. These particles
accumulated on the downstream side of instream velocity baniers such as log
and boulders. The study suggested that, since cobbles make up much of the
substrate in the stream, deposits of the smaller particles could provide suitable
spawning substrate. As higher flows raised the water surface elevation, fine
sediments from the shoreline were eroded and turbidity appeared higher,
resulting in milky waters. However, tests for suspended sediment showed no
change in levels of TSS between high and low flow periods. Another study
(Golder Associates 1 996) found that higher discharges (up to 5.42 m3/s) had not
resulted in deleteriously high levels of TSS. Even at the highest flows tested,
TSS levels were under h e 25mgR limit set by DFO. Both studies found that
sedimentation would not affect habitat in the stream because high gradient and
low numbers of pools allow few opportunities for water to slow and allow
sediment to settle out. Both studies concluded that there were no adverse
effects on fish from the increased water flows.
lnstream temperatures at higher flows would be lower for two reasons. First, the
hypolimnion water released from the reservoir would be cool. When Mudry and
Green (1 974) conducted their investigation on the fish in the Spray River, they
found that temperatures in the lower Spray River were depressed by cooler water
flowing in from Goat Creek. At that time oat Creek was used as a spillway for
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
augmenting flows in the lower Spray River, thus the water was cooler, at least in
part, due to its source in the reservoir. Secondly, higher Rows would also result
in faster moving, deeper water that would remain cooler than slower moving
water exposed to more solar radiation (Armitage 1984; Ward and Stanford 1985).
Goat Creek is now essentially removed from the River and Reservoir system
used in hydroelectric generation. Aside from occasional flow releases from Goat
Pond or Goat Valley Canal to allow repairs to various structures, the effects of
impoundment on Goat Creek result in stable flow; the daily and seasonal flow
fluctuations associated with run of the river power generation do not exist.
Comparing estimated historic flows to current fbws suggests that current low
flow discharges. from late August through to late April (eight months) are close to
historic flows (Figure 18). From November to April current flows are greater than
estimated historic flows. Therefore they would not need to be modified to restore
a more natural hydrograph. Current flows from May through August (four
months), the historic season of high flows, are substantially lower since
impoundment. Augmenting flows during these months would mimic the natural
hyd rograph.
To determine flow amounts and associated costs for recreating a natural
hydrograph in Goat Creek, two possible flow management scenarios were
examined. The first (scenario one) creates a hydrograph with peak flows from
May to August (the historic high flow period). The peak flow amount is within the
limits of what power generation structures allow, without modification. Capacrty
at the outlets from Goat Pond is 21 8 cfs (6.1 7 m3/s). Limits to flow increases
occur at the weir at the lower pump, where flows greater than 100 cfs (2.83 m3/s)
can subject the pump to flooding (Drury pers. comm.). Scenario one uses 2.83
m3/s (1 00cfs) as the peak flow for June and July.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Estimated historic peak flows occurred in June and July at approximately 4.5
m3/s (1 58.8 cfs). Scenario one involves no structural changes to the weir or flow
outlet capabilities at Goat Pond so lost revenue from diverted flows represents all
monetary cost to TAU.
0.0283 m3/s (1 cfs) of water flowing for one full day through the Spray and
Rundle power plants produces 2 megawatthoun (MWh) of energy (Drury pers.
comm.).
Costs (lost opportunity) are calculated using values of 1 cfs-day = 2MWh and
$40.00 per MWh, in the equation:
Cost = flow (cfs) x number of days x 2MWhIcfsday x $40.00 per MWh
Since TAU is required to release a 0.283 m3/s (10 cfs) baseflow, these ffows are
subtracted from the target flows before calarlation of revenue lost. Flow levels
and costs are shown in Table 10. Figure 23 shows the hydrographs from each
scenario.
In scenario two. flows during high flow season (May to August) are augmented to
their historic levels. To achieve these flows structural changes to the weir at the
lower pump house would be required. Costs for modifying the weir are not
included in the cost summary in Table 11. The hydragraphs for both scenarios
are represented in Figure 23.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
Table 10 Cost for scenario one (no structural changes) Month
May June July August Totals
Table 11 Cost for scenario two (involving structural changes to weir) Month
May
June
July
August
Average flows 19761990 in m31s (cfs) 0.739 (26.1 ) 1 -02 (36) 1 . I4 (40.2) 1.34 (47.3) 4.23 (149.61
1.14 (40.2)
Totals
Figure 23: Hydrographs for scenarios one and two with comparison to current flows
Target flows in m31s (a) 1.42 (50) 2.83(100) 2.83 (1 00) 1.42 (50) 300 18.49)
Difference in m31s (cfs)
0.68 (23.9) 1.81 (64) 1.69 (59.8) 0.08 (2.7) 4.26 11 50.4)
Average flows 1976- 1990 in m31s (&)
0.739 (26.1)
1.02 (36)
1.34 (47.3)
5 h
m 2 4 € 3 a 2' 2 tu c 2 - 0 1
0 a 0 '3 4 co -.
A
This examination of restoration potential for Goat Creek does not consider
removal of the power generation system so the Goat creek watershed will remain
at 41 -6% of its historic size. Therefore, restoring flows to their historic levels may
not be appropriate. Flow releases possible within the existing structural
constraints (scenario one) allow peak flows of 60% of estimated historic peak
Cost in lost revenue($)
59.272 I 53,600 148,304 6,696 367.872
Target flows in m31s (a) 1 -66 (58.63) 4.43
Difference in m31s (cfs)
0.92 (32.53)
3.41 (1 56.48) 3.52
4.23 (149.6)
- - - -Scenario one flows
- - Historical mean monthly flows approxim ated by scenario two Current Goat Creek mean monthly flows
Cost in lost revenue())
80,674.40
289,152
(1 24.40) 1 -99
(1 20.48) 2.33 (84.2)
(70.46) 11 -60 (409.97)
208,816
1.99 (23.1 6) 57,436.80
7.37 (260.37)
636,079-20
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
flows. Because of the relationship between watershed size and discharge (Flosi
and Reynolds 1991 ; FISRWG 1998), flows amounts reflecting the new, reduced
watershed size may be appropriate.
The target flows in Tables 9 and 10 are averages for the months and could be
designed to be flexible. as in the concept of a water budget, as used by BCHydro
(BCHydro 1996). A water budget would allow BNP and TAU flexibility to modify
agreed-to flows for adaptive management. An annual amount could be set at
total amount of discharge for the year or four month high flow period (May to
August) or at an agreed-to monetary amount so that average annual cost to TAU
remains constant. For example, in scenario one, if an annual flow increase of
4.26 m3ls (1 50.4 d s ) over four months was agreed upon over a four year cycle,
fisheries managers could design peak releases to respond to yearly precipitation
variations (Wieringa and Morton 1996). In a year with high snowmelt and rainfall
amounts, full flow releases could be combined with higher natural inputs to
create flushing flows. Alternatively, a yearly cost to TAU, set at $367,872 (the
cost for increasing flows in scenario one), would allow similar flexibility, but flow
changes would be assessed on the value at the time the flows are released and
would allow more certainty for TAU. In either case, BNP could 'purchase' flows
by reducing flow requirements in low flow periods.
Removal of non-native fish would be aided by lower flows, so during the years in
which removal occurs, the agreement for the 0.283 m3/s (1 0 cfs) that TAU now
allows past the lower pumping station could be waived. If so, in one year TAU
would gain $292.000 by benefiting from the power generated by the 0.283 m3/s
(1 0 cfs) over 365 days.
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
lnstream Techniques
lnstream structures. used in combination with flow management would
accelerate channel change and create more diverse instream habitat with
increased pools and cover. The high flows released into Goat Creek during
failures of the Goat Valley Dyke likely caused changes in instream habitat,
washing LWD downstream and filling pools with sediment. These high flow
events could have acderated changes or caused changes in instream habitat
that would not otherwise have occurred.
l nstream restoration techniques for Goat Creek should be aimed at mitigating
limiting factors identified in the assessment of habitat suitability. These limiting
factors are: lack of and poor quality of pools. high maximum temperatures in the
summer for bull trout, little instream or streamside cover, and limited suitable
substrate for juvenile winter cover. High summer temperatures could be
addressed through high water floes in summer months. The instream techniques
reviewed in Table 3 are suitable for Goat Creek. Those techniques that address
limiting factors in Goat Creek are outlined in Table 12. All instream techniques
work in concert with flows to create and diversify instream habitat.
Physically. Goat Creek is a suitable candidate for instream structures to improve
habitat. Flows are managed. the overall stream gradient is within the ranges for
instream structures, and sediment sources are limited. While riparian sources of
LWD would need years to decades to naturally affect instream habitat. sources
for LWD exists all along the length of Goat Creek for use in a managed
Table 12: Limiting factors and restoration techniques Limiting factor High summer temperatures Low number and poor quality of pools Little instream or streamside cover
Little substrate for juvenile winter cover
Potential restoration tools Riparian planting Increase instream objects, large woody debris (LWD) and boulders Increase instream objects, large woody debris (LWD) and boulders Boulder placement
CHAPTER 4 GOAT CREEK
introduction of LWD. Because of the low amount of LWD in Goat Creek, high
discharges could simply scour and remove sediments and amour the channel,
rather than create more diverse habitat. lnstream structures would address this
factor.
Riparian areas
In the 50 years since flow regulation on Goat Creek, little riparian vegetation has
emerged. Many streamside areas are unvegetated cobble. some have growths
of mountain avens (Dryas dmmondii), and willow (Salix spp.) shrubs cover
other areas. In a few places there has been limited regrowth of spruce (Picea
englemannii), that. over decades, will develop into well-forested riparian areas.
The large areas of bare cobbly deposits, having remained unvegetated since
1950, show little sign of revegetation since no soil deposition takes, as it would
with periodic flooding with high flows. Flows suggested in the two scenarios
would not flood the banks and there is little sediment available for deposition.
Plantings of native willow species, or dwarf birch (Betula pumila) native to the
area could hurry reestablishment of the riparian community. Since BNP has a
large community of volunteers interested in working in the Park, a revegetation
program could be done relatively inexpensively..
CHAPTER 5
SU'MMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Cutthroat and bull trout were selected as target species for this investigation of
restoration potential because they are native to Alberta and their populations are
in decline there as well as over much of their historic ranges. They are also
vulnerable to human-induced habitat changes and competition from introduced
fish species. Restoration efforts in Canada and the United States are focussed
on re-establishing viable populations of these native species by managing two
types of effects: flow regulation and the presence of non-native species.
The two native trout have similar h a b i t needs. requiring cool. dear. flowing
water. in habitat that provides hiding cover, food, and opportunities for
reproduction. Flow regulation directly affects this habitat by creating barriers to
movement, by changing the nature of the aquatic habitat from flowing to still, and
by reducing flows and thereby reducing area of available habitat. Indirect effects
from lowered flows and lowered sediment levels lead to changes to instream
habitat, reducing habitat diversity. Lowered flows also affect water temperature.
which can make habitat unsuitable for some species and can interfere with
reproduction stimuli and food availability. Absence of flooding flows leads to
degradation of riparian habitats. as replenishing soils and nutrients are no longer
seasonally deposited on the stream banks.
Lower flows also affect interactions between native and non-native species.
Non-native trout species introduced into western North American waters over the
last century have decimated native populations in many cases. Non-native fish
compete with native species for temtory and resources. often more successfully
in an altered environment to which they are better adapted. They can also
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
hybridize with native populations, reducing those species abillty to reproduce and
altering native genetic strains.
Stream restoration projects now adopt a broader-scale perspective than in the
past. Historically, restoration projects that focused solely on instream habitat
were unsuccessful. Projects now focus on watershed structure and functions
and address causes of habitat degradation rather than simply the effects. In
cases where streams are affected by flow regulation this means including fish
habitat needs as well as power generation requirements in flow management
decisions. Flow management for fish habitat can be either in the form of
minimum flows or as mimicking a natural hydrograph. Water budgets. in which
flow releases are set for a year, but timing of releases may be varied according
to habitat management needs, have been used with success in cases where
uncertainty of results would otherwise limit decision-making. Water budgets
allow for flexibility in habitat management while providing economic certainty for
the power generator.
Methods to remove unwanted fish species include poison, electmfishing, and
angling, all in use now in North America with varying success rates. Poisons
work well at removing fish populations, but affect all instream organisms and thus
require restocking of benthic invertebrates after treatment. Electrofishing does
not kill native fish or benthic invertebrates, but has limited potential to remove all
non-native fish. as does angling. Brook trout are especially difficult to remove by
any method other than poison, since it is difficult to remove all young of the year,
yet those fish will mature and reproduce in the next year.
Projects using instream structures for habitat restoration have low success rates,
unless used in combination with watershed management. Such structures can
be used with flow management, to accelerate habitat creation in degraded
streams. They should only be used, though, when an analysis of limiting factors
indicates that such structures would address habitat shortcomings.
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Both flow regulation and introduction of non-native fish species have affected
Goat Creek, in Banff National Park. The fish community changed after
introduction of brook trout. from one composed of native species to one
dominated by non-native fish. Impoundment structures and extreme flow events
changed instream habitat. reducing habitat area and instream diversity, and
thereby limiting its suitability for native fish.
Parks Canada's legal mandate to maintain ecological integrity in the National
Parks supports restoration of the fish community and habitat in Goat Creek.
Management of Goat Creek, however, falls not only to BNP, but to the Province
of Alberta, and to TransAlta Utilities. Each organization's management activities
have affected the fish communw and habitat in Goat Creek over the last 47
years.
Restoration of Goat Creek would involve removing non-native fish species,
stocking native cutthroat trout, managing flows for fish habitat, and creating
instream habitat. Structural constraints associated with power generation
facilities allow for augmentation opportunities to mimic natural flow patterns and
create water velocities high enough to move substrate and create instrearn
habitat. Current flow outlets, though. also allow fish passage from upstream
areas that support non-native fish populations. Successful eradication of non-
native species depends on such access point being closed. Upstream fish
movement from the Spray River and the Bow River is blocked by natural
structures. Goat Creek is a suitable candidate for instream structures for habitat
creation. The size, topography, and flow levels would not limit the choice of
types of structures. In table 1 3 the issues and restoration opportunities for Goat
Creek are summarized.
Table 13: Summary of issues, effects and restoration techniques
Issue
Impoundment
Dam failures
Stocking of non-native species
Effects on Goat Creek Reduced discharge
Stable annual discharge
Homogenous instream habitat
Fish community changed from a diverse native population to a population of brook trout
Potential Restoration Methods Increase minimum flow requirements lncrease flows in natural high flow season Increase flows in natural high flow season
Increase instream woody debris and increase flows in natural high flow season
Chemical poisoning
Electrofishing
' Bkdting re-entry of non- native fish
Restock native fish
Comments
Does not address BNP Management Plan objective to create more natural flows in the Spray River system. Within current structural framework, flows can be increased to 2.83 m3/s, or 60% of historic flows. Watershed area is reduced from historic size by 41 % so correspondingly reduced peak flows may be appropriate. A water budgets with a set annual amount for flow releases allows flexibility in flow management when effects of increased flows are not known. High flows released during dam failure likely washed instream debris downstream and filled pools in the 1970s. Materials for placement in stream are available along stream.
6 Increasing flows may not create diverse instream habitat, since little debris exists in the stream. Good record of success in eradicating non-native fish species. May kill benthic invertebrates, requiring reintroduction of aquatic insects. Currently not permitted for use in National Parks, but altowed by the Federal Fisheries Act.
Poor record of eradication of brook trout,
Potential natural barrier at waterfall one km upstream of Spray River. Fish can c u ~ t l y access Goat Creek from the Spray Lakes Reservoir and Goat Pond. Saesns to block access through culvert at Goat Pond would be needed for a successful restoration. Stocks of native cutthroat and bull trout exist in the Bow River watershed.
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Management recommendations were developed to meet the goal of maintaining
and enhancing the structural and functional integrity of the Goat Creek
ecosystem, as determined by the laws, policies and management plan for Banff
national Park. If Parks Canada decides to restore Goat Creek as a means to
achieving its mandate for ecological integrity, the management recommendations
would provide a framework within which to guide restoration planning.
The recommendations are divided into two types: organizational and specific.
Organization recommendations refer to broad scale management activities that,
if not addressed, will limit the success of any restoration activities for Goat Creek.
These recommendations are based on an understanding of the current legal and
management framework governing this area, and on information derived from a
review of literature addressing stream restoration. Organizational
recommendations create the management framework within which specific
restoration activities take place. Specific recommendations focus on Goat Creek
and are drawn from analysis of current and past habitat conditions, from an
understanding of engineering opportunities and constraints associated with TAU
dam structures, and from analysis of research into restoration methods. These
recommendations propose actions needed to restore ecological integrity in Goat
Creek.
Organizational Recommendations
The first two organizational recommendations arise from a review of literature
and from discussions with fish habitat managers. The review of stream
restoration literature pointed to failures in restoration projects with narrow scopes
that emphasized habitat creation rather than watershed-scale planning. Current
wisdom suggests managing from a broader perspective that addresses causes of
degradation. The National Parks Act, Parks Policies, and the Banff National Park
Management Plan all support managing for ecological integrity.
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AM) RECOMMENDATIONS
Using the Parks Canada definition of ecological integrity would mean focussing
on restoring structures and functions that allow habitat and the communities it
supports to be self-sustaining. Therefore:
1. It is recommended that any restoration plans for Goat Creek focus on
restoring natural structure and functions by addressing the effects of
flow impoundment and the presence of non-native species-
Removal of fish from streams has met with resistance in other areas, no matter
what the method. but using piscicides to accomplish the task would generate
additional controversy. Goat Creek is not currently a destination for anglers. so
resistance to projects focussing on that stream may not be controversial, but if
plans for restoring streams in BNP are not made clear, resistance may arise from
misunderstanding of future plans. Other jurisdictions have successfully
communicated with the public and have won support from groups originally
opposed to restoration of native fish populations. Therefore:
2. It is recommended that Psrks Canada create a public infomation
program inform and include the publk in any plans to restore aquatic
ecosystems and to encourage support for such programs-
The third and fourth organizational recommendations are drawn from my
understanding of the current organizational and jurisdictional setting within which
Goat Creek sits. Past projects on Cascade Creek (McCleary 1996; Godman
1999) and a current project on the Spray River (Eaton in prep.) investigate the
restoration potential for those streams. Parks Canada has developed preliminary
restoration plans for Cascade Creek. A restoration of Cascade Creek provides
an excellent opportunity for public education, since Lake Minnewanka and the
creek are easily accessible to Park visitors and are already a destination for a
large percentage of Park visitors. Restoration potential for the Spray River is not
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
yet known. Goat Creek, although less accessible to the public than Cascade
Creek, is physically a good candidate for restoration and presents some
opportunities for interpretive programs at the Goat Creek Trailhead and at the
bridge on Goat Creek Trail. Therefore:
3. It is recommended that. in determining restoration pn'on'ty Goat Creek, it
be reviewed in context with other pmjects investigating restoration
potential on the Spray River and on Cascade Creek.
Since Goat Creek originates and runs almost half its length through the Province
of Alberta, actions by provincial fisheries managers and by public visitors to
provincial lands have the potential to affect any restoration plan for Goat Creek.
Past actions by provincial fisheries managers resulted in the current community
of brook trout in Goat Creek. Current provincial projects involving removal of
non-native species from provincial waters could help in any efforts by BNP. Also.
the Spray Lakes Reservoir, Goat Pond. Goat Creek Trailhead, and the most
accessible section of Goat Creek are on provincial land and provide interpretive
opportunities to inform the public of both restoration efforts and collaborative
projects. Therefore:
4. It is recommended that Parks Canada collaborate with provincial
fisheries managers on any restoration plan fbr Goat C m k .
Specific Recommendations
The following recommendations apply to Goat Creek and would be a guide to
restoring Goat Creek, if it were selected as a potential site for restoration.
The historical analysis of Goat Creek shows that, in its natural state, Goat Creek
supported a population of native cutthroat trout in a stream regulated by
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
snowmelt and rainfall. Analysis of historic flows illustrates that Goat Creek flows
peaked from May to August, like the majority of unregulated streams in BNP.
The information on its past state can guide the goal setting process for restoring
Goat Creek. My review of literature suggests that an understanding of past
biological capacity and historic habitat conditions provides a realistic framework
within which to plan restoration efforts. Therefore:
5. It is recommended that Parks Canada use the infbnnation in this report
on historic conditions in Goat Creek as a guidb in defining restontion
goals.
Based on knowledge of historical and present conditions of the habitat and the
fish community in Goat Creek, restoring natural structure and function would
require:
a) Reestablishing a population of native fish
Closing fish access through culverts at Goat Pond and lower pumping
station, and from pond above lower pumping station (l access exists)
Removing brooknake trout from Goat Creek
Stocking Goat Creek with cutthroat trout from stocks in Marvel Lake
b) Recreating a natural hydrograph
Increase flows in historic high flow season, from May to August
c) Encouraging instream habitat creation
Fish populations
Discussions with provincial fisheries managers indicated that the current
population of brook and lake trout in Goat Creek originated in the Spray Lakes
and Goat Pond, so fish in those water bodies have access to Goat Creek.
Populations of non-native fish still exist in Goat Pond and the Spray Lakes, so
success of restoration of native species in Goat Creek requires blocking that
access.
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To prevent recolonization of brook and lake trout, structures to block fish
passage from Goat Pond would be needed prior to any removal process.
Therefore:
6. !f is recommended that Parks Canada work with liansAIta Utilities to
defermine feasibility of building stmctures to block fish passage-
Analysis of information from a literature review and from fisheries managers
revealed that, of the methods available to remove fish from streams, piscicide
appears the only choice to successfully eliminate fish in a stream such as Goat
Creek. Therefore:
7. It is recommended that Parks Canada investigate the possibility of
using piscicides in Banff Naffonal Park. This includes detetmining
potential effects on adjacent wafers and fish popula0ions-
FIo ws
Scenarios for flow alteration developed fmm an understanding of historical flow
patterns in Goat Creek combined with information on the costs and constraints
on flow augmentation from a hydroelectric generation view. show the costs and
results (in terms of recreating a natural hydrograph) for TransAlta and Goat
Creek. It is possible, under current structural constraints, to increase peak flows
to ten times the amount currently released as a minimum flow by TransAlta.
From a literature review of projects in other jurisdictions working on managing
Rows for fish habitat and power generation, uncertainty regarding results has
lead to use of water budgets that allow for adaptive management. Since the
effects of flow increases are not completely understood for Goat Creek. a water
budget would be a valuable tool for managing flow releases.
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Water budgets provide both flexibility for Parks Canada fisheries managers and
certainty to TransAlta regarding costs. Therefore:
8. It is recommended that Parks Canada and TransAIta Utilities work
together to define a water budget and detemine desired flow amounts.
Under current structural constraints. it is possible to increase flows in Goat Creek
to approximately 60% of historic peak flow levels. Since the Goat Creek
watershed would remain at its present reduced size (41 % of historic size), and
because of the relationship between watershed size and discharge, discharges
lower than historic levels may be appropriate.
lnstream habitat management
Analysis of current instream habitat conditions and the forces that created them
illustrated that instream habitat diversity in Goat Creek is low. likely as a result of
extreme flow events that filled pools and removed woody debris. Assessment of
habitat suitability for native trout in Goat Creek pointed out that the low number
and poor quality of pools is a main limiting factor for habitat quality. Information
gained from the literature review tells that instream structures are best used in
concert with broad-scale watershed management that addresses causes of
ha bitat degradation. Such structures can accelerate instream ha bitat formation.
Taking this information in the context of the Goat Creek environment, this means
combining instream structures with flow management. In a natural state, Goat
Creek would have large woody debris from fallen riparian vegetation shaping and
creating instream habitat. Riparian areas now are either bare gravel or beginning
to regenerate with willow and small spruce. These plants will require decades to
mature and fall and play a rde in habitat creation. Mature vegetation does exist.
though, close enough to the stream all along the length, as a potential source for
managed placement. Flow augmentation will move substrate. but velocity
shadows are required for sediment to settle out of the current. and areas of
higher velocity are needed for scouring effects. Instream objects that would
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RJXOMMENDATIONS
direct flow and accomplish these tasks are limited to non-existent in Goat Creek.
Therefore:
9. It is recommended that Parks Canada include use of large woody debris
in the stream to work in concert with increased flows to accelerate
habitat formation.
REFERENCES
Alberta Department of Environment, 1998. Water S u ~ d v Outlook for Alberta - A~r i l 1998.
. 1999a. Water SUDD~V Outlook for Alberta - July 1999.
. 1999b. The Framework for Water Management Planning: A Discussion Draft.
. no date. Alberta's Threatened Wildlife: Bull Trout. Natural Resource Service.
Alberta Research Council. 1998. Criteria and Indicators for Monitorina Biodiversitv in Alberta's Forests. Part I: Review ofC&islation. Policies. External Aareements and Proqrams. a Prowess Comnletion Rewrt. Alberta Environmental Protection.
Armitage, Patrick D. 1984. Environmental changes induced by stream regulation and their effect on lotic macroinvertebrate communities. Reaulated Rivers, Albert Lillehammer and Svein Jakob Sattveit (eds.) New York: Columbia University Press.
Bain, Mark 6, and Vincent H. Trawnichek. 1996. Assessing impacts and predidng restoration benefits of flow alterations in rivers developed for hydroelectric power production. Proceedinas of the Second IAHR Svrnmsium on Habitat Hvdraulics, Ecohvdraulics 2000, M. Lederc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. a t 6 (eds.). Institute National de la Recherche Scientifique - Eau, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.
Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996. Banff-Bow Vallev: At the Crossroads. Technical Remrt of the Banff-Bow Vallev Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley. J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey E. Green, and J. R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. For the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario.
BCHydro. 1996. Allouette Generatina Station Water Use Plan.
Behn ke, Robert J. 1 992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph, Bethesda, Maryland.
Beschta, R.L, 1996. Suspended sediment and bedload. Methods in stream ecoloov, F.R. Hauer 8 G.A. Lambert, (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Beschta, Robert L, William S. Platts, J. Boone Kauffman, and Mark T. Hill. 1995. Artificial stream restoration: money well spent or and expensive failure? m,, October 1995.
Bisson, P.A. 8 Montgomery, D.R. 1996. Valley segments, stream reaches, and channel units. Methods in stream ecolggy, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Larnbert (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bovee, Ken D. 1982. A Guide to Stream Analvsis Usina the lnstream Flow Incremental Methodoloav: lnstream Flow Information Pamr No. 1 2. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bozek, Michael A- and Frank J. Rahel. 1 991. Assessing habitat requirements of young Colorado River cutthroat trout by use of macrohabitat and microhabitat analyses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Societv 120: 571 -581.
REFERENCES
British Columbia Ministry of Environmental Land and Parks and Ministry of Fisheries (BC MELPI MoF). 1994. Fish Habitat Assessment: Interim Methods. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8.
Brookes, Andrew, Scott S. Knight, and F, Douglas Shields Jr. 1996. Habitat enhancement, River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princioles for Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Brookes, Andrew and David A. Sear. 1996. Geornorphological Principles for restoring river channels. River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princi~les for Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Buktenica, Mark. 1998. Savina Bull Trout in Sun Creek. United States National Park Service.
Burgess, Stephen A. 1985. Some effects of stream habitat improvement on the aquatic and riparian community of a small mountain stream. The Restoration of Rivers and Stream: Theories and Exoen'ence, James A- Gore ed. Boston: Butterworth Publishers.
Bustard, D. R. 1984. Queen Charlotte Islands Stream Rehabilitation Studies: A Review of Potential Techniaues- British Columbia Ministry of Fisheries.
Calgary Power Ltd. No Date, circa 1950. Power for Progress: Thermal and Hvdro Plants O~erated bv Caloary Power Ltd.
Calgary Power Ltd. No Date, c. 1950. Sorav Proied: Calaaw Power Ltd. Alberta.
Cardwell, Hal, Henriette I. Jager, and Michael J. Sale. 1996. Designing instream flows to satisfy fish and human water needs. Journal of Water Resources Plannina and Manaaement. 122(5):356-363.
Carl, Leon. 1985. Management plan for bull trout in Alberta. Proceedinus of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Poaulation Dvnamics Modelina Information Exchan~e, D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch.
Coleman, William G. 1 996. Biodiversity and industry ecosystem management. Environmental Management 20(6):8 15-825.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR). f 998. Beaver Creek Cutthroat Trout Restoration Proiect. Division of Wildlife
Courtney, R., D. Femet, and Z. Kovats. 1992. Final Remrt on Effects of Increasing Flows on Goat Creek and the Lower S~rav River. Calgary: Environmental Management Associates.
Culpin, Paul. 1089. Streams. lnventorv and Monitorina of Wildlife Habitat, Allen Y. Cooperrider, Raymond J. Boyd, and Hanson R. Stuart (eds.) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986. Policv for the Manaaement of Fish Habitat.
REFERENCES
De Staso, James and Frank J. Rahel. 1994- Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:289-297-
Earle, Jenny. 1995. A Po~ulation Studv of Westslow Cutthroat Trout (Oncortrvnchus clarki lewisi) in Marvel Lake. Banff National Park. With lm~lications for Manaaement. Masters Degree Project, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.
Ebersole, J.L., Liss, W.J., & Frissell, C.A. 1997. Restoration of stream habitat in the western United States: Restoration as a reexpression of habitat capacity. Environmental Manaaement, 21.1, pp.-14.
Environment Canada. 1998. Canadian Climate Normals 1961 -1 990.
. 1990a. Historical Streamflow Surnmaw - Alberta. Ottawa: Water Resources Branch, Water Survey Branch, Water Survey of Canada.
Ericson, Peter M. 1996. Salmonid Habiiat Restoration in Coastal Second-arm Watersheds in British Columbia: A Com~rison of Available and Potential Rehabilitation Techniaues. Unpublished Thesis, University of British Columbia Forestry Department.
Fausch, Kurt D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams: what have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences 45: 223892246.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream nd Practices. Restoration: Princi~les. Processes. a
Femet, D.A. and C.P. Bjomson. 1997. A Delphi analysis of bull trout habitat preference criteria with comparison to information collected from Smith-Domen Creek. Atberta. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedinas. 435-442.
Flosi, Gary and Forrest L. Reynolds. 1991. California Stream Restoration Manual. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.
Godman, P.G. 1999. Fisherv Habitat Modelina of Cascade Creek. Banff National Park, An Abandoned Mountain Channel. MSc. Thesis, University of Calgary.
Golder Associates. 1996. Effects of Increased Levels of Turbiditv and Susmnded Sediments in Goat Creek Assodated with a S ~ i l l Event from Goat Pond durina the summer of 1995. Calgary, Alberta: TmnsAlta Utilities Corporation.
Gore, James A., Franklin L. Bryant, and Dina J. Crawford. 1995. River and stream restoration. Rehabilitatina Damaaed - Ecosvstems, John Cairns, Jr. ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Gore, J.A. 1996. Discharge measurements and streamflow analysis. Methods in Stream Ecolwv, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Lambed (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
REFERENCES
Griff~th, J.S., Jr. 1972- Comparative behavior and habitat utilization of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cutthroat trout (Salmo cIarkr] in small streams in northern Idaho. Journal of the Fisheries Resources Board Canada 29: 265-273.
Hamelson, C.C-, Rawlins, C.L., & Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniaue. General Technical Report RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Hauer, F.R. & Resh, V.H. 1996. Benthic macroinvertebrates. Methods in stream ecolosv, F.R. Hauer 8 G.A. lambert (eds.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Henricson, Jan and Goran Sjoberg. 1984. Reaulated - Rivers, Albert Lillehammer and Svein Jakob Saltveit (eds.) New York: Columbia University Press.
Herger, Lillian G., Wayne A. Hubert and Michael K. Young. 1996. Comparison of habitat composition and cutthroat trout abundance at two flows in small mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 1 6: 294-301.
Hickman, Terry and Robert F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitabilihc Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. Washington. D.C.: US Department of the Interior, Western Energy and land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hiderbrand, Robert H., A. Dennis Lemly, C. Andrew Dolloff. and Kelly L. Harpster. 1997. Effects of large wood debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvetebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences 54:931-939.
Holden, Paul B. 1980. Ecology of riverine fishes in regulated stream systems with emphasis on the Colorado River. The Ecoloav of Reaulated Streams, James V. Ward and Jack A. Stanford (eds.) New York: Plenium Press.
House, Robert. 1996. An evaluation of stream restoration structures in a coastal Oregon stream, 1981 -1993. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 16: 272- 281.
Hunter, Christopher J. 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Manaaement. Montana Land Reliance. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Kondolf, G. Mathias and Peter W. Downs. 1996. Catchment approach to planning channel restoration. River Channel Restoration: Guidina Princi~les for Sustainable Proiects, Andrew Brookes and F. Douglas Shields Jr. (eds.) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Koning, C. Wendell and Pat A. Slaney. 1996. Techniques to assess and restore fish habitat in stream impacted by logging activities. Proceedinas of the Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRAI Conference. Watercourses. Gettina on Stream with Current Thinkina. October 22-25. Vancouver. B.C., pp. 181 -1 87.
Li, H.W. & Li, J.L. 1996. Fish community composition. Methods in stream ecolocay, F.R. Hauer & G.A. Lambert (4s.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
REFERENCES
Mayhood, Dave. 1998. Following Silver City: westslope cutthroat trout in Canada. the Wild Side: Journal of American Wildlands, Spring 1998.
McCleary, R. 1996. lm~acts Of Water Diversion on Floodplain Structure. Hvdrolw~, and Rioarian Veaetation. - and Possible Mitiaation. Cascade River. Banff National Park. MSc Thesis, University of Montana.
Mclntyre, John D. and Bruce E, Rieman. 1995. Westslope cutthroat trout. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout, Michael K. Young ed. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-Gm-256.
McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1 996. A Review of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Life Historv and Habitat Use in Relation to Comwnsation and Im~rovement O~oortunities. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Management Report No. 104.
Meyer, Kevin. 1998. Native Salrnonids Assessment Summaw. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Ministry of Canadian Heritage. 1994. Parks Canada Guidina Princides and Omrational Policies.
Mudry, Dwight R. and Roderick B. Green. 1976. Fisheries lnvestiaations on the Smay River. Banff National Park. 1 975-1 976.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aauatic Ecosvstems: Saence, Technoloav. and Public Policy. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nelson, Wayne R., Gerald C. Horak and James E. Olson. 1978. Western Reservoir and Stream ~abitat lmorovernents Handbook: Guide to the Performance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Po~ulation Im~rovement Measures A~~Om~anuina Water Resource Deveio~ment. United States Department of the Interior.
Newbury, R.N. 8 Gaboury, M.N. 1993. Stream Analvsis and Fish Habitat Desian: a Field Manual. Winnipeg: Newbury Hydraulics Ltd., The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, Manitoba Fisheries Branch
Ohmart, Robert D. and Bertin W, Anderson. 1986. Riparian Habitat. Inventory and Monitorina of Wildlife Habitat, Allen Y. Coopemder, Raymond J. Boyd, and Hanson R. Stuart (eds.) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management.
Petts, Geoffrey E. 1984. Immunded Rivers: Persoectives for Ecoloaical Manaaernent. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
. 1989. Perspectives for Ecological Management of Regulated Rivers. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement, James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Pratt, Karen. 1985. Habitat preferences of juvenile bull trout in the Flathead River basin. Proceedinas of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Pooulation
REFERENCES
Dvnamics Modelina Information Exchanae, D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch.
Prowse, T. D. and M. Conly. 1996. Im~acts of Flow Reaulation on the Aauatic Ecosvstem of the Peace and Slave Rivers: Northern River Basins Studv Svnthesis Report No. 1. Edmonton, Alberta: Northern River Basins Study.
Rabeni, C.F. 8 Sowa, S.P. 1996. Integrating biological realism in habitat restoration and consewation strategies for small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Sciences, 53 (Suppl. 1 ). pp. 252-259.
Risser, Roland J. and Richard R. Hams. 1989. Mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation on western montane streams. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement, James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Schindler, D.W. and C. Pams. 1996. Cumulative Effects of Human Activity on Aquatic Ecosystems in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park. Ecoloclical Outlooks Proied. A Cumulative Effects Assessment and Futures Outlook of the Banff-Bow Valley. Green, J., C. Pacas, S. Bayley and L. Cornwell (eds.) Prepared far the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario.
Scouras, J.G., Jackson, J.L., and Hennebury, P. (no date). Restorina a Salmon Stream: A Balance of Habitat Diversitv. Flood Control. and Camrnunitv Needs. British Columbia Hydro.
Shepard, Brad. 1985. Habitat variables related to bull trout spawning site selection and thermal preference exhibited in a thermal gradient. emceedinas of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Bioloav and Po~ufation Dynamics Modelina Information Exchanae, D. D. MacDonald ed. British Columbia Ministry of Envirofirnent, Fisheries Branch.
Stalnaker, Clair 6. 1980. The use of habitat structure preferenda for establishing flow regimes necessary for the maintenance of fish habitat. The Ecoloav of Reaulated Streams, James V. Ward and Jack A. Stanford (eds.) New York: Plenium Press.
Stalnaker, Clair, Berton L. Lamb, Jim Henriksen, Ken Bovee, and John Barthdow. 1 995. The lnstream Flow Incremental Methodoloav: A Primsr for IFIM. Washington, D .C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.
Stream Enhancement Guide. 1980. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Swales, Stephen. 1989. The use of instream habitat improvement methodology in mitigating the adverse effects of river regulation on fisheries. Alternatives in Reaulated River Manaaement, - James Arbor and Geoffrey E. Petts (eds.) 8oca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Temple, Ray, Kin Daily, Terry Shrader, and Bob Hooton. 1998. Fisheries Action Plan: Draft. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. -
REFERENCES
Thompson. G.E. and A. P. Weibe. 1974. Irnmct of the S~rav Canal Failure on Goat Creek. Alberta. Unpublished report, Fisheries Section, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Calgary.
Thompson, Paul 0. and Frank J. Rahel. 1996. Evaluation of depletion-removal electrofishing of brook trout in small rocky mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaaement 16: 332-229.
Tripp, 0- 1986. Usina Lame Qraanic Debris to Restore Fish Habitat in Debris-torrented Stream. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands.
Trotter, Patrick C. 1987. Cutthroat Native Trout of the West- Colorado Associated University Press
USFWS (Fish and Wildlife Senrice). 1998. &rll Trout.
. 1999. Bull Trout and the Endancered Soeaes Act.
. No date. Bull Trout Facts-
United States National Park Service. National Park Service Park Manaaement Policies.
Ward, James V. and Jack A Stanford. 1985. The ecology of regulated streams: past accomplishments and directions for future research. Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology, John F. Craig and J. Bryan Kemper (eds.) New York: Pleniurn Press.
Wesche, Thomas A. 1985. Stream channel modifications and redarnation structures to enhance fish habitat. The Restoration of Rivers and Stream: Theories and Exwrience, James A. Gore (ed.) Boston: Butterworth Publishers.
Wieringa, Mark J. and Anthony G Morton. 1996. Hydropower, adaptive management, and biodiversity. Environmental Mananment 2 0 0 : 83 1-840.
Wooding, Frederick H. 1 994. Lake, River and Sea-run Fishes of Canada. British Columbia: Harbour Publishing.
Yeo, Bill. 1 996. Spray Lakes Power Development Professional and Technical Services Letter Report to Joanne Cairns, Banff National Park.
Young, M.K., tech. Ed. 1 995. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. General Technical Report RM-256. Fort Collins, Colorado: US Depaftment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Young, Michael K. 1996. Summer movements and Habitat use by Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncortrynchus clarkipleuriticus) in small, montane streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aauatic Science 53: 1403-1408.
REFERENCES
Personal communications
Drury, Roger Water Management Planner TransAlta Utilities 1 1 0-1 zrn Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta
Homer, Ned Fisheries Biologist Idaho Fish and Game, 5750 Kathleen Ave., Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Lutch, Jeff Aquatic biologist PO Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
Pacas. Charlie Aquatics Specialist, Banff Warden Service, PO Box 900, Banff National Park, Alberta
Paul, Andrew Ph.0. candidate Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta
Stelfox, Jim Alberta Environment 2938 1 1" St NE, Calgary, Alberta.
Maps
Canada Department of Mines. 1923. Palliser - Kananaskis Area: British Columbia and Alberta. Geological Survey 82J N.W. 1 :126.720, 1' = 2 miles. contour interval 200'.
Canada Department of the Interior. 1926. Banff and vicinity. Topographical Survey 82 014. 1 :63,360, 1" = 1 mile, contour interval 100'.
Natural Resources Canada. 1996. Canmore Alberta. 82 0/4. 1 :50,000 contour interval 40 metres.
Aerial Photographs
820, Line 24B 381 0- 3, September 13, 1988, 1 :40,000 820, Line 24A 381 9-283, September 13, 1988, 1 :40,000
Determination of historical flows in Goat Creek based on historical data (1 91 5-1 929) for the Spray River watershed
Based on graph From Golder Associates 1996.
The dotted line represents an estimation of historic flows in Goat Creek based on its current watershed size (40.9 km2). The thick black line represents the estimation based on the size of the historic watershed (70km2).
Drainage areas (krn')
APPENDIX 11: HISTOIUCAL FLOW DATA
SORAY AT BWIPT - SPAR- IO. 05BC001
ANNUAL mM DIscmRcEs m CUBIC Prn SEaJllD 21311 m E'mIaD cf Rxmm APR I U Y JlRl JUL AUG S&? OCT m3V DEC HW(
GPPENDLX 11: WSTORICAL n o w DATA
From Historical Streamflow Summary - Alberta. 1990. Environment Canada Water Resources Branch, Water Survey Branch. Water Survey of Canada.
COAT QCePE AT BAWFF PARK H X W D M Y - SPATfCH NO. OSBCOO8
.?lOITITCf AND lWMlAL GXSCHARQS M CUBIC HZTRES PER SECOCID FDR T I E ZERXW Q RECURD
YEAR JAN FEB MhR APR UAY JVPI 3UL AUG SEP CCT HOV DEC .SAN
GOAT LtS[ AT BANFF P A ! - STmCN K). 358C008
ANKJAL OF DiSSARGE AND ANMTAL DISCBARGZ iT)R TAE PEitTCC OF =CORD
lEAR nAXU.IVn I N 7 U . S DISQPlRTr .WHfM;)( DAnfY 3ISCEAl'GE Z m A L DISCBARGE - Wf )Dxs-- (m3 5) (ma s) (bJ) 3.26 OH AUG 22 3.96 ON AUC 07 1.50 ON AUG 20 3.34 ON sn 09
--- -- 1.59 OR JUN 19 --- 1.96 ON OCl' 29
3.82 CW A f f i 22 1.53 a W S E P 2 3 . 4.03 ON SEP 19 ' 2.04 AT 14:OO MST Q( APR 16 1.38 OW APR fi
--- 2.14 CN JLM 01 0.1688 QI 14
9 - ICE -I'XOCCS ' - EIflZIPe REa)I(DED FOR ZBE PERIOD OF
APPENDIX 111: HABITAT SUITABJLITY CURVES
Cutthroat Trout Habitat Preference Curves for Habitat Suitability Index Source: Hickman and Raleigh 1982
(V1 ) Avg. max water temp. - summer 012) Avg. max temp during embryo development
(V3) Avg- minumum DO (V4) Avg. thalweg depth in low flow
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Otuolved Oxygen (mgll)
(V5) Avg. velocrty over spawning areas
(V7) Avg. substrate size 0.3-8cm in spawning areas
(V6) % cover in late growing season
(V8) % substrate 1040 cm for winter cover
(V9) Dominant substrate in riffle run areas
A: Rubble or small boulders dominant B: Rubble, gravel and fines in equal amounts C: Fines, bedrockor large boulders dominant
(V11) Avg. %vegetation for allochtonous output
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 25 50 h 1 0 0 1 2 5 150
Streanbank wqdatkm cover (Y
(V13) Avg. pH
(V16) % fines in riffle run and spawning areas
(VlO) %pools in late growing season
(V12) Avg. % rooted vegetation for erosion controi
Stmanbank vcqctatkn cover Cn)
(V14) Base flow as percent of average annual daily flow
Base k a v g annual daily tow Cn)
(V15) Pool class ratjng
A: > 30% large, deep pools 6: 10-30% large, deep pools. >SO%Medium C: 10% large deep pools, 4 0 % moderate
APPENDIX 111: HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES
Bull Trout Habitat Prebrence Curves Source: Fernet and Bjomson 1997
Cover Cover code definitions: 1 : No cover 2: l nstream object for velocity sheiter (Substrate. boulders, debris) 3: Instream/offstream visual isolation (undercut bank, log lams, overhanging canopy -
---- Adult Spawning Sites
0 1 2 3
Cover code
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1 2
Cover cock
Substrate suitability for spawning bull trout
Substrate suitability for spawning
: I 1
0 10 2033 40 50 80 7 0 8 0 90100110120130
Substrate particle size (mm)