Aerated Lakes Angler Survey: Swan and Spring Lakes, Alberta, 2015
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta s Wildlife Act.
Aerated Lakes Angler Survey: Swan and Spring Lakes, Alberta, 2015 Nikita Lebedynski Alberta Conservation Association 101 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8A 6J7
Report Editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres. NW 101 9 Chippewa Rd. Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN: 978-0-9949118-0-3 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Lebedynski, N. 2016. Aerated lakes angler survey: Swan and Spring Lakes, Alberta, 2015. Data Report, D-2016-101, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 10 pp + App. Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101 9 Chippewa Rd. Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: info@ab-conservation.com Website: www.ab-conservation.com i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Alberta, stocking waterbodies that lack sport fish provides additional angling opportunities in a province with few fish-bearing lakes and high numbers of anglers. Alberta Environment and Parks and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) stock, aerate and maintain user facilities at many waterbodies throughout Alberta. To prevent winterkill of stocked trout, ACA uses various aeration techniques to enhance winter dissolved oxygen levels at 16 waterbodies across the province. The increased dissolved oxygen levels result in year-round survival of stocked fish and the creation of sport fisheries capable of producing large trout. In the summer of 2015, we conducted angler surveys to assess angling pressure, catch and harvest at two popular aerated lakes in northwest Alberta: Swan and Spring lakes. Both lakes are stocked annually, have a daily bag limit of five fish of any size and are open for angling year round. At Swan Lake, 341 anglers were interviewed, and fishing pressure was estimated to be 31.5 h/ha (95% CI = 28.3 35.1) during the survey period. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) was 0.159 rainbow trout per hour. Total yield of rainbow trout was 322.6 kg (95% CI = 289.7 358.8) or 1.98 kg/ha (95% CI = 1.78 2.21). Fish ranged in size from 205 to 585 mm total length (TL) (n = 38). At Spring Lake, 592 anglers were interviewed, and fishing pressure was estimated to be 224.4 h/ha (95% CI = 206.0 244.4) during the survey period. Total CPUE was 0.501 fish/h and was 0.47 fish/h and 0.03 fish/h for rainbow and brook trout, respectively. Total yield of rainbow trout was 650.2 kg (95% CI = 596.9 708.3) or 16.2 kg/ha (95% CI = 14.9 17.7). Total yield of brook trout was 54.7 kg (95% CI = 50.2 59.6) or 1.36 kg/ha (95% CI = 1.25 1.49). Rainbow trout ranged in size from 208 to 536 mm TL (n = 141). Brook trout ranged in size from 314 to 428 mm TL (n = 15). Key words: aeration, stocking, rainbow trout, brook trout, creel survey, Swan Lake, Spring Lake. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) and Canada Summer Jobs. Thank you to seasonal staff member Vanessa Ushenko for delivering creel surveys and representing ACA in a professional manner. Thank you to the Municipal District of Greenview No. 16 and Spring Lake Campground for their in-kind support. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS... iv LIST OF FIGURES... v LIST OF TABLES... vi LIST OF APPENDICES... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA... 1 2.1 Swan Lake... 1 2.2 Spring Lake... 3 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS... 4 3.1 Angler survey... 4 3.2 Camera-based parameter estimates... 5 3.3 Data management and analysis... 5 4.0 RESULTS... 6 4.1 Swan Lake... 6 4.2 Spring Lake... 7 5.0 LITERATURE CITED... 10 6.0 APPENDICES... 11 iv
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Swan Lake showing the location of the creel site.... 2 Figure 2. Map of Spring Lake showing the location of the creel site.... 3 Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout captured by anglers at Swan Lake, 2015... 7 Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout captured by anglers at Spring Lake, 2015... 8 Length frequency distribution of brook trout captured by anglers at Spring Lake, 2015.... 9 v
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Number of available survey units and number of units surveyed during the angler survey at Swan and Spring lakes, 2015... 4 vi
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Angler survey form, 2015... 11 Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4. Appendix 5. Appendix 6. Flow chart outlining the process used to calculate a whole lake estimate for single-access creel surveys at Swan and Spring lakes during the summer of 2015... 12 Summary of information collected during the angler survey at Swan Lake in the summer of 2015... 13 Biological information collected from sampled fish during the angler survey at Swan Lake in the summer of 2015.... 14 Summary of information collected during the angler survey at Spring Lake in the summer of 2015... 16 Biological information collected from sampled fish during the angler survey at Spring Lake in the summer of 2015... 18 vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION In Alberta, stocking waterbodies that lack sport fish provides additional angling opportunities in a province with few fish-bearing lakes and high numbers of anglers. Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) stock approximately 300 lakes across the province annually to supplement the roughly 800 lakes with natural sport fish populations (Zwickel 2012). To prevent winterkill of stocked trout, ACA uses various aeration techniques to enhance winter dissolved oxygen levels at 16 waterbodies across the province. The increased dissolved oxygen levels result in year-round survival of stocked fish and the creation of sport fisheries capable of producing large trout. In the summer of 2015, we conducted angler surveys to assess angling pressure, catch and harvest at two popular aerated stocked lakes in northwest Alberta: Swan and Spring lakes. Both lakes are stocked annually, have a daily bag limit of five fish of any size and are open for angling year round. 2.0 STUDY AREA 2.1 Swan Lake Swan Lake (55 3ʹN, 117 48ʹW) has a surface area of 162.7 ha, a maximum depth of 5.6 m and a mean depth of 3.2 m (Brian Lucko, AEP senior fisheries technician, personal communication). It is located in the Peace River drainage, approximately 65 km southeast of Grande Prairie, Alberta (Figure 1). Road access, located on the north side of the lake, is maintained by the Municipal District of Greenview No. 16 and includes a boat launch, two docks, day-use area and free-to-use camping area. Swan Lake is stocked with rainbow trout annually, with 30,000 fish stocked in 2015 (Government of Alberta 2015). 1
Figure 1. Map of Swan Lake showing the location of the creel site. Inset map shows the location of the lake within Alberta. 2
2.2 Spring Lake Spring Lake (55 30ʹN, 119 35ʹW) has a surface area of 40.1 ha, a maximum depth of 20.3 m and a mean depth of 8.6 m (Brian Lucko, AEP senior fisheries technician, personal communication). It is located in the Peace River drainage, approximately 60 km northwest of Grande Prairie, Alberta (Figure 2). Access to the lake, located on the southeast shore, includes a boat launch, one dock and day-use area. Spring Lake Campground is located nearby. Spring Lake is stocked with rainbow and brook trout in alternating years. In 2015, the lake was stocked with 6,400 rainbow trout, and in 2014, it was stocked with 4,000 brook trout (Government of Alberta 2015). Figure 2. Map of Spring Lake showing the location of the creel site. Inset map shows the location of the lake within Alberta. 3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Angler survey We conducted low-effort, single-access-point angler surveys at each lake following methods outlined in Pollock et al. (1994). The lakes were surveyed from May 16 to August 31, 2015. Both lakes were surveyed from the boat launch where docks for shore angling were also located. The survey was divided into four strata: weekday mornings (0800 1530), weekday evenings (1530 2300), weekend/holiday mornings (0800 1530) and weekend/holiday evenings (1530 2300). Sunday evenings were considered weekday evenings, and Friday evenings were considered weekend/holiday evenings. Of the 216 possible survey units, 27 (12.5%) and 33 (15.3%) were surveyed at Swan and Spring lakes, respectively (Table 1). Table 1. Number of available survey units and number of units surveyed during the angler survey at Swan and Spring lakes, 2015. Lake Strata Available Surveyed % Coverage Swan Weekday a.m. 73 6 8.2 Weekday p.m. 72 6 8.3 Weekend a.m. 35 8 22.9 Weekend p.m. 36 7 19.4 Spring Weekday a.m. 73 9 12.3 Weekday p.m. 72 10 13.9 Weekend a.m. 35 7 20.0 Weekend p.m. 36 7 19.4 Anglers were interviewed upon completion of their trip. They were asked a series of questions, including number of hours fished; number of fish caught, harvested and released; fishing method used; and travel time (Appendix 1). When permitted, creel staff sampled harvested fish and recorded fork length (FL, mm), total length (TL, mm) and weight (g). 4
3.2 Camera-based parameter estimates To increase sampling effort and reduce survey costs, we used trail cameras to estimate hourly angler count data from 0500 to 2200 hours daily. Two cameras were deployed at Swan Lake. One camera was located at the boat launch facing southeast and was positioned to include both docks. The second camera was located on the south side of the lake across from the boat launch facing northwest. At Spring Lake, we used one camera that was located near the boat launch facing north to capture the dock and as much of the lake as possible. Data were downloaded from cameras and battery life was assessed every two weeks. We used the Timelapse2 software (Greenburg 2015) to identify and count the number of anglers in each photograph, providing an instantaneous count of anglers on the lake, within the camera field of view (FOV) (Greenberg 2015). Photos that did not allow anglers to be counted (e.g., due to fog, glare or insufficient light) were excluded from the analysis. Camera counts were then bootstrapped to produce a distribution of mean counts, which when multiplied by the total number of hours in the survey period gave a distribution of mean effort (h) in the camera FOV during the survey period. Because each camera only captured a portion of the lake, the camera-based estimates were spatially corrected to account for the portion of the lake outside the FOV. To determine the spatial correction, creel staff performed instantaneous angler counts at the top of each hour during their shifts at each lake. During these counts, the number of anglers on the lake and the number of anglers inside the camera FOV were recorded. We used the ratio of the number of anglers within the camera FOV to the number of all anglers on the lake to extrapolate angler effort estimates for the whole lake. 3.3 Data management and analysis Before analysis, length-weight plots were used to identify and omit outliers if measurement or recording error was suspected. Angler survey data were submitted to the provincial Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System maintained by AEP. Bootstrapping was used to derive estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals for the number of anglers and for fish catch, harvest and release (Sullivan 2004). Yield was 5
calculated as a product of the average weight of sampled fish and the sum of estimated harvest and release mortality. Angler catch rates were calculated as total ratio estimators following Malvestuto (1983). We estimated release mortality by multiplying the estimated number of each species released by a mortality rate based on previous studies (Schill 1996; Schisler and Bergersen 1996). For rainbow and brook trout, we used release mortality rates of 3.9% for fish caught on a fly, 5.0% for fish caught using hardware without bait, and 32.1% for fish caught using passive bait fishing (Schill 1996; Schisler and Bergersen 1996). Flow charts describing the steps used to calculate estimates are provided in Appendix 2. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Swan Lake 4.1.1 Angler survey We interviewed a total of 341 anglers during the survey. These anglers fished for a total of 750.5 h, catching 119 rainbow trout and harvesting 41 fish (Appendix 3). Based on camera data and angler interviews, an estimated 2,149 anglers (95% CI = 1,882 2,442) fished for 5,130.7 h (95% CI = 4,607.1 5,707.3) between May 16 and August 31, 2015. Total estimated angling effort between these dates was 31.5 h/ha (95% CI = 28.3 35.1). 4.1.2 Rainbow trout harvest and yield Anglers harvested an estimated 280 rainbow trout (95% CI = 252 312) at a rate of 0.06 fish/h and released 533.2 rainbow trout (95% CI = 478.8 593.2) at a rate of 0.104 fish/h. Total catch rate was 0.159 fish/h. Of the released fish, 44.6 (95% CI = 39.8 49.3) perished as a result of hooking mortality. Total yield (harvest + release mortality) was 322.6 kg (95% CI = 289.7 358.8) or 1.98 kg/ha (95% CI = 1.78 2.21). Biological data collected from sampled fish are listed in Appendix 4. 6
4.1.3 Rainbow trout population structure Rainbow trout captured by anglers ranged in TL from 205 to 585 mm, with a mean TL of 393.1 ± 17.1 mm (n = 38) (Figure 3). Six (15.8%) of the sampled fish were longer than 50 cm. Figure 3. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout captured by anglers at Swan Lake, 2015 (n = 38). 4.2 Spring Lake 4.2.1 Angler survey We interviewed a total of 592 anglers during the survey. These anglers fished for a total of 1,258 h and caught 592 rainbow trout and 38 brook trout, of which 136 rainbow trout and 14 brook trout were harvested (Appendix 5). Based on camera data and angler interviews, an estimated 4,236 anglers (95% CI = 3,815 4,692) fished for 8,996.8 h (95% CI = 8,259.4 9,800.4) between May 16 and August 31, 2015. Total estimated angling effort between these dates was 224.4 h/ha (95% CI = 206.0 244.4). 7
4.2.2 Rainbow trout harvest and yield Anglers harvested an estimated 973 rainbow trout (95% CI = 893 1,060) at a rate of 0.11 fish/h and released 3,261 fish (95% CI = 2,994 3,553) at a rate of 0.36 fish/h. Total catch rate was 0.47 fish/h. Of the released fish, we estimated that 442.2 (95% CI = 405.9 481.7) likely perished as a result of hooking mortality. Total yield (harvest + release mortality) was 650.2 kg (95% CI = 596.9 708.3) or 16.2 kg/ha (95% CI = 14.9 17.7). Biological data collected from sampled fish are listed in Appendix 6. 4.2.3 Rainbow trout population structure Rainbow trout ranged in TL from 208 to 536 mm (n = 141), with a mean TL of 338.2 ± 6.7 mm (Figure 4). Four (2.8%) of the sampled fish were longer than 50 cm. Figure 4. Length frequency distribution of rainbow trout captured by anglers at Spring Lake, 2015 (n = 141). 4.2.4 Brook trout harvest and yield Anglers harvested an estimated 100.1 brook trout (95% CI = 91.9 109.1) at a rate of 0.011 fish/h and released 171.6 fish (95% CI = 157.6 187.0) at a rate of 0.019 fish/h. Total catch rate was 0.03 fish/h. Of the released fish, we estimated that 13.2 (95% CI = 12.1 14.4) likely perished as a result of hooking mortality. Total yield (harvest + release 8
mortality) was 54.7 kg (95% CI = 50.2 59.6) or 1.36 kg/ha (95% CI = 1.25 1.49). Biological data collected from sampled fish are listed in Appendix 6. 4.2.5 Brook trout population structure Brook trout ranged in TL from 314 to 428 mm (n = 15), with a mean TL of 346.7 ± 7.3 mm (Figure 5). Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Total Length (mm) Figure 5. Length frequency distribution of brook trout captured by anglers at Spring Lake, 2015 (n = 15). 9
5.0 LITERATURE CITED Government of Alberta. 2015. Alberta Environment and Parks fish stocking list 2015. Available online at http://mywildalberta.com/fishing/stockingreports/ documents/albertafishstockingreport-oct-23-2015.pdf [Accessed January 28, 2016]. Greenberg, S. 2015. Timelapse2: An image analyser for camera traps. Includes software and manuals. Available online at http://saul.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/timelapse/ [Accessed October 15, 2015]. Malvestuto, S.P. 1983. Sampling the recreational fishery. Pages 397 419. In: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 468 pp. Pollock, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 25. 371 pp. Schill, D.J. 1996. Hooking mortality of bait-caught rainbow trout in an Idaho trout stream and a hatchery: Implications for special-regulation management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 348 356. Schisler, G.J., and E.P. Bergersen. 1996. Post release hooking mortality of rainbow trout caught on scented artificial baits. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 570 578. Sullivan, M.G. 2014. Computer simulation of sport fishery parameters. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Unpublished Memorandum, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp. Zwickel, H. 2012. Sport fishing in Alberta 2010: Summary report from the eighth survey of recreational fishing in Canada. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 46 pp. 10
6.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Angler survey form, 2015. 11
Appendix 2. Flow chart outlining the process used to calculate a whole lake estimate for single-access creel surveys at Swan and Spring lakes during the summer of 2015. Solid lines represent values with no variance, and dashed lines represent data with variance. 12
Appendix 3. Summary of information collected during the angler survey at Swan Lake in the summer of 2015. RNTR = rainbow trout. Date (d/m/y) Number of anglers Fishing effort (h) RNTR harvested RNTR released 16/05/2015 22 43.5 2 1 17/05/2015 27 76.25 5 4 18/05/2015 32 73.25 1 1 19/05/2015 16 41 0 5 03/06/2015 13 30.75 4 2 04/06/2015 6 18.5 1 7 05/06/2015 12 34.5 0 7 06/06/2015 5 16.75 1 3 13/06/2015 19 51.25 3 2 14/06/2015 24 40 1 10 15/06/2015 7 28.5 3 1 16/06/2015 12 57 6 4 01/07/2015 9 21.75 0 1 02/07/2015 0 0 0 0 03/07/2015 14 25.75 2 11 04/07/2015 19 30.25 3 7 11/07/2015 19 44.25 0 1 12/07/2015 13 29.25 2 0 13/07/2015 4 9.75 0 0 14/07/2015 2 3.5 0 0 29/07/2015 4 6 0 0 30/07/2015 4 4.5 0 0 31/07/2015 0 0 0 0 01/08/2015 4 6.25 0 4 08/08/2015 12 32.5 2 2 09/08/2015 9 11.75 4 4 10/08/2015 2 4 0 0 11/08/2015 4 9.75 1 1 13
Appendix 4. Biological information collected from sampled fish during the angler survey at Swan Lake in the summer of 2015. RNTR = rainbow trout; test-angled fish denoted by an asterisk (*). Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 348 368 720 RNTR 357 374 760 RNTR 442 459 1,240 RNTR 345 366 640 RNTR 357 380 780 RNTR 454 486 1,510 RNTR 475 492 1,600 RNTR 488 510 2,005 RNTR 466 481 1,900 RNTR 499 530 1,910 RNTR 541 573 2,600 RNTR 451 476 1,900 RNTR* 199 205 160 RNTR 411 431 980 RNTR 410 433 1,100 RNTR 393 414 820 RNTR* 496 530 2,100 RNTR 369 386 785 RNTR 391 410 1,095 RNTR 348 371 680 RNTR 394 416 980 RNTR 394 416 995 RNTR 386 406 870 RNTR 404 425 860 RNTR 495 513 1,950 RNTR 244 254 200 RNTR 239 249 180 RNTR 238 245 170 RNTR 248 260 230 14
Appendix 4. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 229 240 165 RNTR* 241 252 185 RNTR 265 273 220 RNTR 251 260 185 RNTR 553 585 2,565 RNTR 253 262 200 RNTR 420 446 1,055 RNTR 266 278 230 RNTR 458 482 1,245 15
Appendix 5. Summary of information collected during the angler survey at Spring Lake in the summer of 2015. BKTR = brook trout; RNTR = rainbow trout. Date (d/m/y) Number of anglers Fishing effort (h) BKTR harvested BKTR released RNTR harvested RNTR released 20/05/2015 9 17.75 0 0 1 1 21/05/2015 6 10.5 0 1 2 11 22/05/2015 9 28.75 1 1 6 12 23/05/2015 22 56.5 1 0 4 0 30/05/2015 76 154.5 1 0 14 45 31/05/2015 24 49 2 0 3 2 01/06/2015 1 2.75 1 0 0 0 02/06/2015 1 4 0 0 0 5 17/06/2015 12 31 0 1 2 10 18/06/2015 7 21 1 0 0 55 19/06/2015 4 4 1 0 1 0 20/06/2015 10 19 0 0 1 2 27/06/2015 66 153.75 0 1 11 59 28/06/2015 38 64 2 1 5 36 29/06/2015 18 33.5 1 0 0 11 30/06/2015 2 3.5 0 0 0 5 15/07/2015 12 30.5 0 0 5 1 16/07/2015 10 30 0 1 1 47 17/07/2015 17 38 0 1 2 16 18/07/2015 33 70 0 0 14 41 25/07/2015 62 120.5 1 1 11 16 26/07/2015 29 63 0 0 6 33 27/07/2015 3 15.75 0 0 0 6 28/07/2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/08/2015 18 24.25 0 0 2 1 13/08/2015 7 31.25 0 0 14 3 14/08/2015 8 13.75 0 0 5 12 15/08/2015 31 61 0 0 10 12 16
Appendix 5. Continued. Date (d/m/y) Number of anglers Fishing effort (h) BKTR harvested BKTR released RNTR harvested RNTR released 22/08/2015 38 72 3 1 16 14 23/08/2015 13 15 0 0 0 0 24/08/2015 4 11 0 0 0 0 25/08/2015 2 8.5 0 0 0 0 17
Appendix 6. Biological information collected from sampled fish during the angler survey at Spring Lake in the summer of 2015. BKTR = brook trout; RNTR = rainbow trout; test-angled fish denoted by an asterisk (*). Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 348 366 560 RNTR 371 393 720 RNTR 356 382 610 RNTR* 434 460 1,065 RNTR 372 393 640 RNTR 349 368 560 RNTR 379 401 645 RNTR 362 383 640 RNTR 372 397 665 RNTR 370 393 640 RNTR 350 369 480 RNTR 399 429 700 RNTR 365 391 580 RNTR 232 238 140 RNTR 352 372 505 RNTR 356 376 560 RNTR 419 477 880 RNTR 352 374 580 RNTR 384 409 720 RNTR 350 368 480 RNTR 226 234 120 RNTR 229 239 125 RNTR 197 208 80 RNTR 229 237 140 RNTR 204 214 100 RNTR 346 364 600 RNTR 346 364 600 RNTR 375 394 700 RNTR 446 474 1,120 18
Appendix 6. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 365 384 580 RNTR 410 433 820 RNTR* 356 376 590 RNTR* 454 479 1,040 RNTR 234 242 155 RNTR 229 237 160 RNTR 248 257 180 RNTR 402 425 760 RNTR 236 249 180 RNTR 212 224 145 RNTR 279 290 225 RNTR 270 279 200 RNTR 205 257 266 RNTR 205 269 271 RNTR 250 261 180 RNTR 241 252 170 RNTR 243 253 195 RNTR 238 246 170 RNTR 274 282 225 RNTR 260 271 175 RNTR 235 245 165 RNTR 247 254 170 RNTR 236 246 155 RNTR 397 415 705 RNTR 387 410 665 RNTR 260 273 210 RNTR 284 294 295 RNTR 254 262 215 RNTR 242 253 170 RNTR 227 237 150 RNTR 275 284 220 19
Appendix 6. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 253 268 230 RNTR* 266 278 225 RNTR 253 263 190 RNTR 265 273 230 RNTR 244 254 185 RNTR 237 250 170 RNTR 282 294 240 RNTR 389 411 665 RNTR 374 395 640 RNTR 367 393 625 RNTR 269 282 225 RNTR 270 281 215 RNTR 267 279 215 RNTR 267 279 215 RNTR 277 291 255 RNTR 220 230 165 RNTR 290 301 255 RNTR 279 290 245 RNTR 238 252 160 RNTR 296 307 295 RNTR 239 253 170 RNTR 461 491 1,065 RNTR 376 395 615 RNTR 255 269 190 RNTR 271 284 210 RNTR 262 275 235 RNTR 403 427 720 RNTR 385 410 680 RNTR 390 414 710 RNTR 368 390 540 RNTR 498 536 1,610 20
Appendix 6. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR* 413 434 900 RNTR* 284 305 305 RNTR 278 289 305 RNTR 275 288 270 RNTR 462 487 1,205 RNTR 281 296 270 RNTR 421 445 865 RNTR 380 408 675 RNTR 431 454 890 RNTR 380 405 690 RNTR 284 295 255 RNTR 451 477 1,050 RNTR 258 271 210 RNTR 387 409 705 RNTR 423 452 820 RNTR 383 413 720 RNTR 297 311 290 RNTR 404 428 805 RNTR 480 501 1,275 RNTR 366 384 635 RNTR 277 292 285 RNTR 262 273 225 RNTR 397 421 740 RNTR 389 410 710 RNTR 301 315 305 RNTR 418 438 745 RNTR 481 513 1,270 RNTR 305 318 285 RNTR 297 310 265 RNTR 305 318 315 RNTR 397 422 675 21
Appendix 6. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) RNTR 501 535 1,275 RNTR 398 422 685 RNTR 291 303 270 RNTR 390 413 720 RNTR 414 437 795 RNTR 284 295 270 RNTR 293 307 295 RNTR 281 295 270 RNTR 289 304 285 RNTR 279 294 255 RNTR 275 293 235 RNTR 291 301 315 RNTR 253 264 200 RNTR 282 305 290 RNTR 317 326 365 RNTR 280 295 260 RNTR 274 288 235 RNTR 400 423 745 RNTR 285 300 285 RNTR 277 291 265 BKTR 309 323 380 BKTR 319 333 360 BKTR 339 355 500 BKTR 301 314 340 BKTR 316 331 480 BKTR 330 344 440 BKTR 335 349 465 BKTR 316 332 420 BKTR 316 335 400 BKTR 326 343 395 BKTR 409 428 1,025 22
Appendix 6. Continued. Species Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Weight (g) BKTR 306 319 485 BKTR 365 377 550 BKTR 348 365 510 BKTR 339 354 490 23
Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partners for their generous support of this project: