elk river winter creel 2005 final report1a100.gov.bc.ca › appsdata › acat › documents ›...

Elk River Winter Creel 2005

Report Prepared for:

B. C. Ministry of Environment

205 Industrial Road G, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 7G5

Report prepared by:

Angela Prince M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Westslope Fisheries Ltd.

800 Summit Drive Cranbrook, B.C.

This project was funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund.

MARCH 2006

Abstract

This report describes the winter whitefish fishery on the Elk River, B.C. A creel survey was conducted from 17 January to 31 March 2005 to estimate angling effort and catch success on the Elk River from Elko to Sparwood. The census consisted of two main components: a roving and aerial survey. The roving survey collected detailed information about anglers including: catch, trip length, angling method, residency, license class, river access, and quality of experience. The aerial survey collected information on the number of anglers, their access method (boat or shore) and distribution.

In total, 273 anglers were interviewed the majority of which were East Kootenay residents (90%) targeting whitefish (81% of total catch) for consumption (88% retention rate). Winter anglers tended to fish from shore (97%) and used spinning gear (79%) with stone fly nymphs as bait (60%). Overall, they expected to spend an average of 3.0 hrs fishing per day. All winter anglers were non-guided.

A total of 359 anglers were counted during 25 aerial surveys. The majority of winter anglers (41%) were observed in Zone 4 from Hosmer to Sparwood while the fewest number of anglers (12.5%) were observed in Zone 1 (Elko to Morrissey). In the summer of 2002, the same pattern was observed during the trout/char fishery with Zone 4 receiving the highest angling pressure.

An estimated 927 anglers fished the Elk River (Zones 1-4) during the study period and captured 6,079 whitefish, 1,068 cutthroat, and 92 bull trout. Catch rates have remained similar over the last 30 years (2.02 in 1983 and 2.19 in 1993 and 2.36 in 2005) and most anglers (65%) rated their winter fishery as excellent. Harvested whitefish have increased in mean size compared with previous winter creels, possibly as a result of decreased pressure with regulation changes. During the 1983 and 1994 Elk River winter creels

whitefish averaged 284 mm (n = 1764) and 270 mm (n = 337) in length, respectively. In contrast, whitefish harvested during the 2005 creel (n = 280) increased in mean size to 337 mm in length (SD = 33mm).

To improve estimation techniques in future creels, it is recommended that roving surveys coincide with all aerial flights.

Acknowledgements Thank you to Herb Tepper, Kevin Heidt, and Rob Williams (B.C. Ministry of Environment) for collecting and summarizing the data and for providing editorial reviews. We also wish to thank the B.C. Conservation Officer Service including, Frank Deboon and Pat Holder for support and cooperation in the field.

This project was funded in part by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund was created by an act of legislature to preserve, restore and enhance key areas of habitat for fish and wildlife throughout British Columbia.

Ministry of Environment Elk River Winter Creel 2005 ii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................III

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................... IV

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

1.1. Study area............................................................................................................1 1.2. Background.........................................................................................................1

2. METHODS....................................................................................................................5

2.1. Angler Characteristics.........................................................................................5 2.2. Angler Effort and Catch......................................................................................5

2.2.1. Catch Rate...................................................................................................5 2.3. Effort and Catch Estimates .................................................................................6

2.3.1. Effort Estimates...........................................................................................6 2.3.2. Catch Estimates ..........................................................................................6

3. RESULTS .....................................................................................................................7

3.1. Angler Characteristics.........................................................................................7 3.1.1. Angling Methods .........................................................................................8 3.1.2. Trip Length..................................................................................................8

3.2. Angler Catch .......................................................................................................9

3.2.1. Life History Data ........................................................................................9 3.2.2. Catch Rate...................................................................................................9

3.3. Angler Effort.....................................................................................................11

3.3.1. Temporal and Spatial Distribution ...........................................................11 3.3.2. Angling Method.........................................................................................11

3.4. Effort and Catch Estimates ...............................................................................11

4. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................11 5. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................13

Ministry of Environment Elk River Winter Creel 2005 iii

Ministry of Environment Elk River Winter Creel 2005 iv

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Quality of angling experience by residence.....................................................................7

Table 3.2 The percentage of Elk River winter anglers by residency and method. ..........................7

Table 3.3 Percentage (n) of anglers using bait.................................................................................8

Table 3.4 Mean angling day (hrs) for each day type and condition. ...............................................8

Table 3.5 Winter catch on the Elk River, B.C. ................................................................................9

Table 3.6. The numbers of fish landed, hours fished, and catch rate (fish/hr and fish/day) within each day type......................................................................................................10

Table 3.7 Total estimated angler effort (Jan-Mar 2005) and catch on the Elk River, B.C. (± 95% CI). ........................................................................................................................12

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Overview map of the Elk River watershed.....................................................................2

Figure 1.2 Elk River Study Area showing management zones. ......................................................4

Figure 3.1 Length-frequency distributions of Elk River Mountain Whitefish retained by anglers over the past three decades. ................................................................................9

Figure 3.2 Temporal distribution of angler effort. .........................................................................11

Figure 3.3 Distribution of Angler Effort by Management Zone....................................................11

List of Appendices

APPENDIX I ……………………………………………………...CATCH RATE DATA

APPENDIX II…………………………………………………………….CREEL FORMS

Ministry of Environment Elk River Winter Creel 2005 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Elk River is located in southeastern British Columbia (Fish and Wildlife Management Region 4) and has become internationally recognized as a world class fishery for westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). Other sport fish species found in the Elk River include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and rocky mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Non-sport fish species in the Elk River (upstream of the BC Hydro dam at Elko) include longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), (Duval 1999) and longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus) (Minnow Environmental 2003). Genetic determinations are currently underway to identify a species of sucker in the upper Elk that differs in size, spawning periodicity, and fecundity from other longnose populations (Golder 2005).

There are two distinct fisheries on the Elk River: A trout/char fishery during the summer and fall, and a winter whitefish fishery (Westover 1994). Over the past several years, angling effort during the trout/char fishery has dramatically increased. This increase has included both guided and non-guided anglers, many of which use boats to access the Elk River. Guided angler effort alone increased from 81 angler days in 1994/95 to 2022 angler days in 2002 (Heidt 2003). Increasing angler effort and concerns from both guides and anglers necessitated a creel survey be conducted to collect data on the current status of the fishery. During the summer creel, it was estimated that anglers caught and released an estimated 92,635 Westslope cutthroat trout form 01 July to 31 October 2002 (Heidt 2003).

This report summarizes the results of the winter creel conducted from 24 January to 31 March 2004 on the same section of the Elk River as the summer survey (i.e. from the Elk River Forest Service Road bridge in Elko to the Sparwood CPR bridge north of Sparwood). The goal was to determine angler effort and catch success. Secondary objectives included collecting information on harvest rates, angler

residence, and fish life history data to better manage the fishery.

1.1. STUDY AREA The Elk River is 213 km in length and originates from the glacier-fed waters of Elk Lakes in the Rocky Mountains (Figure 1.1). From its headwaters in Elk Lakes Provincial Park (elev. 1650 m), the Elk River flows southeast to Sparwood then in a southwest direction through a broad U-shaped valley. Just north of Elko, this valley narrows as it enters the Rocky Mountain Trench, confining much of the lower Elk River to steep canyons until its confluence with the Kootenay River at Lake Koocanusa (elev. 750m). At Elko, a BC Hydro dam (built on a natural barrier) isolates the upper Elk River from the Kootenay River system. The Elk River has a drainage area of 4,450 km2 with a mean annual discharge of 46.87 m3 /sec (Water Survey of Canada 1925-95 data). With a summer TDS of 174.5 mg/L, the river is moderately productive. Gradients in the main stem are low, ranging from 0.2-0.9% overall (Martin, 1983).

The Elk River is easily accessible to anglers as Highway #3 parallels the Elk River from Elko to Sparwood. In recent years numbers of non-resident anglers has dramatically increased, reflecting both the popularity of sport fishing and recreational growth in the area.

1.2. BACKGROUND Prior to 1980, most rivers and lakes in the Kootenay Region were subject to broad scope management policies: the daily catch quota was 8 and the possession limit was 24. There was no size limit, bait ban, gear restriction and/or closures to protect over wintering and spawning populations of sport fish.

During the 1980s, resident anglers began reporting declines in both the size and abundance of trout and char in the Elk River. In response to these concerns, a creel survey was conducted on the river upstream of the Elko Dam from April 01 1982 to February 28 1983.


Figure 1.1 Overview map of the Elk River watershed.

#

#######

##

######

####

#

#

######

#

###

# #

KO

OT

EN

AY

RI

VE

R

R

AP SA SIN IBOINE

RK

KASLOON

Duncan

Lake

INVERMERE

NELSON

ELKFORD

SPARWOOD

FERNIE

KIMBERLY

CRANBROOK

Kootenay

Lake

Lake

Koocanusa

R

MO

YI

E

EL

KR

N

EW

S(at map centre)

10 0 10 Kilometers1:1,200,000

Ministry of Land,Water and Air Protection

"Kootenay Region"February 13, 2003

Area of Interest

The objectives of the creel survey were to determine angler effort and catch success and to analyze age and size structure of westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, and rocky mountain whitefish (Martin 1983). This information was used to formulate regulations designed to improve the Elk River fishery. The following changes were proposed by Martin in 1983 and implemented in the 1984/85 fishing season:

• daily limit of 2 and a possession limit of 4 for trout and char (reduced from 4 and 8 respectively). The reduced limit was to ensure gains from restrictive regulations were not lost to over-harvesting.

• minimum size limit of 30 cm for trout and char. This delayed angler mortality on cutthroat trout until after their first spawning, thereby increasing natural recruitment to the system.

• bait ban from June 15 to October 31 to reduce post-hooking mortality on undersized fish.

• trout/char release fishery during the winter and spring months (Nov 1-June 14) to protect overwintering and spawning populations of trout from being harvested in the whitefish fishery.

In addition to those outlined above, the following fishing regulations were put in place on the Elk River and its’ tributaries during the 1992/93 fishing season:

• single hook restriction

• the winter trout/char release was shortened to November 1 to March 31 and replaced with a general no fishing in any stream regulation from April 1 to June 14.

During the first week of June 1995, the Elk Valley experienced severe flooding when a rain on snow event contributed to a 1 in 150+ year flood. The Elk River drainage was hit particularly hard with highways, railways, bridges and natural gas pipelines being washed away and/or dislodged. The flood peaked on June 7, 1995 during the spawning season for

westslope cutthroat trout. It was anticipated that the heavy bed load movement, siltation and high flows would likely reduce egg to fry survival and juvenile/adult survival. Thus, the Elk River and its’ tributaries were regulated catch and release for 3 years (until 1998/1999) so remaining stocks could rebuild.

The regulations that came into effect during the summer of 1998 included a series of catch and release zones (to provide a sanctuary for trout/char populations), and a reduced daily catch quota from 2 fish to 1 fish for all areas outside the catch and release zones (Figure 1.2). The catch and release zones on the Elk River include the following areas:

• Highway #3 bridge at Hosmer to the northern Highway #3 bridge at Fernie.

• Morrissey bridge to the Elko Dam.

Finally, in 1999/2000 the single hook restriction on the Elk River was changed to single barbless hook. In 2003 an angling-guide moratorium was implemented as a temporary measure to suspend new angling-guide licenses for regional streams, until a viable plan could be put in place to effectively deal with increasing demands. While the plan is ongoing, a general framework for classification of “special waters” in the region has been produced. This new legislation is proposed to apply to seven regional streams including the Elk River (Heidt 2004).


Figure 1.2 Elk River Study Area showing management zones.


2. METHODS

Creel survey data was collected using aerial counts and an on-site roving survey. Since the length of the whitefish fishery varies considerably with weather and river conditions (Westover 1994), creel days were stratified by day type (weekend vs. weekday) and condition factor (ice free = good vs. ice present = poor). Aerial angler counts were used exclusively to measure effort. Flights, of approximately 30 minutes in length, were randomly scheduled between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm to correspond with daylight and roving surveys.

i=1

n 2.1. ANGLER CHARACTERISTICS

n R =

For each angler interviewed the following information was collected: hours fished, fish caught and released by species, place of residence, angling methods (i.e. fly/gear), guided vs. non-guided angler statistics, access methods (i.e. boat/shore), license class, rating of the angling experience and information on other streams angled in the region (Appendix II). For calculations of angler characteristics, the individual angler was the unit of analysis not the angler interview.

Since the majority (85%) of trips were incomplete during interviews, angling hours were largely based on expected trip lengths. The expected angler day was summarized by day type/condition, and access method. Differences in trip length for interview (expected/completed) and access methods were compared with a Mann-Whitney U test while differences in day type were compared with a Kruskal-Wallis test. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all analysis (Zar 1984) and all non-parametric analysis was conducted with SYSTAT 5.02.

2.2. ANGLER EFFORT AND CATCH

2.2.1. Catch Rate

The observed catch rate and effort was calculated with data from the on-site interviews. The angler interview was the unit

of analysis and not the individual angler. Typically, anglers were not interviewed at the end of the angling day (trip) and therefore incomplete angler catch and effort data were collected. Thus, the mean of the ratios was used to estimate catch rates instead of the ratio of the means, which assumes catch probabilities are proportional to their trip length (Pollock et al. 1994). Short trips (< 0.5 hrs) were excluded to prevent the variance from being influenced by extreme catch rates (Pollock et al. 1994, Hoenig et al. 1997). Catch rate (R) was estimated by:

∑ ci / Li

Equation 1

Where R = catch rate of the sample, n = the number of sampling units (interviews), Li = the length of the fishing trip at the time of the interview and ci = the catch for the ith sampling unit (angler interview).

The catch rate (in hours and fish per rod day), fish caught and effort (hours) were summarized by species and day type. Fish per rod day was calculated by multiplying the catch rate by the rod day length in hours. The rod day length (hrs) used both expected and completed angling day length information from the interviews. The mean duration of an angling day was calculated for each day type and then multiplied by the catch rate for the analysis category to obtain fish per rod day.

The summary of fish caught includes all angler trips while the effort and catch summaries include only trips that were greater than or equal to 0.5 hr at the time of the interview. An overall rod day of 3.0 hrs used to calculate the fish per rod day for bull trout and cutthroat trout (Table 3.7).


2.3. EFFORT AND CATCH ESTIMATES

2.3.1. Effort Estimates Calculation of angler catch and effort during this survey follows methods outlined in K.L. Morten, 2000 and K.H. Pollock, 1994. Any angler observed during aerial flights was counted as one rod day of effort. For each stratum, daily effort estimates were used to calculate the mean daily effort. To estimate total effort within strata, we used the average daily angler count (ēn) and multiplied by the total number of days in the strata (N)(Equation 2).

Equation 2 Ên = Nnēn

The variance within each strata was calculated as:

Equation 3 Var(Ên)=N2*(s2/n)*fpc

N2 = total number of days in the strata

s2 = sample variance by strata (SD2)

n = number of observations of total daily effort within the strata

fpc= finite population correction factor or ((N – n)/N; Schubert 1988).

The approximate 95 percent confidence intervals (CI) for effort within each stratum were calculated using Equation 4.

Equation 4 95% CI =2*√Var (Ên)

The total effort Ê for the study period was the sum of the effort of all strata:

Equation 5 Ê = Ê1 + Ê2 +…+ Ên

The variance in total effort was the sum of the variance for each stratum

Equation 6 Var(Ê)=∑VarÊn((N2*(s2/n)*fpc

The approximate 95 percent confidence intervals for effort within each stratum were

calculated using Equation 7.

Equation 7 95% CI =2*√Var (Ê)

2.3.2. Catch Estimates The daily effort estimate (edaily in rod days) was multiplied by the mean (expected + completed trip information) angling day for that stratum (L expected; Table 3.4) to estimate the total daily effort in hours (Êdaily; Equation 8).

Equation 8 Êdaily = L expected * edaily

The total daily effort in hrs (Êdaily) was multiplied by the mean daily catch rate (Rdaily) to obtain the daily catch (Equation 9).

Equation 9 Rdaily * Êdaily

The mean catch was the average of daily catches within that stratum (Equation 10).

Equation 10 Cn = Cdaily

The total catch Ĉ was estimated by multiplying the mean catch by the number of days in the strata.

n

Equation 11 Ĉ = N * Cn

The variance within each strata was calculated as:

Equation 12 Var (Ĉ)=N2*(s2/n)*fpc

N2 = total number of days in the strata

s2 = sample variance by strata (SD2)

n = number of observations of total daily effort within the strata

fpc= finite population correction factor or ((N – n)/N; Schubert 1988).

The approximate 95 percent confidence intervals (CI) for catch within each stratum were calculated using Equation 13.

Equation 13 95% CI =2*√Var (Ĉ)


The total catch Ĉ for the study period was the sum of the effort of all strata:

Equation 14 Ĉtotal = Ĉ1 + Ĉ2 +…+ Ĉn

The variance in total catch was the sum of the variance for each stratum

Equation 15 Var(Ĉtotal) = ∑VarĈn

The approximate 95 percent confidence intervals (CI) for the total catch were calculated using Equation 16.

Equation 16 95% CI = 2*√Var (Ĉtotal)

3. RESULTS

3.1. ANGLER CHARACTERISTICS

A total of 275 interviews were conducted from 17 January to 31 March 2005. Two individuals were interviewed twice; thus, trip

data was collected from 273 individual anglers.

All anglers interviewed were non-guided. Of the 273 anglers asked to rate their experience, 252 responded (Table 3.1). The majority of anglers rated the Elk River winter fishery as good (20.5%) or excellent (64.8%). Only a few local anglers reported the fishery as poor or very poor (Table 3.1).

The majority (90%) of anglers were East Kootenay residents (Table 3.2). There was a relatively large proportion of young anglers (< 16 yrs) compared with summer creels. In the winter, 8.1 % of all anglers were < 16 yrs (Table 3.2) while in the summer, 4.2 % of Elk River anglers were under 16 yrs of age (Heidt, 2003). Only 3.7% (n=10) anglers fished other rivers in the winter compared with 94.0% in the summer (Heidt 2003). The other rivers fished were the Kootenay (n=7), Fording (n=2), and Bull (n=1).

Table 3.1 Quality of angling experience by residence. Percentage (n) of Anglers Residence Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Not Sure No Data East Kootenay 0.4 (1) 2.2 (6) 3.7 (10) 20.2 (55) 56.0 (153) 0.4 (1) 7.3 (20) BC 1.5 (4) Alberta 0.4 (1) 3.3 (9) 0.4 (1) Other Canadians 0.4 (1) 2.2 (6) United States 0.4 (1) England 1.1 (3) Australia 0.4 (1) Total 0.4 (1) 2.2 (6) 4.0 (11) 20.5 (56) 64.8 (177) 0.4 (1) 7.7 (21) Table 3.2 The percentage of Elk River winter anglers by residency and method. Percentage (n) of Anglers Residence Boat Shore Fly Gear Both Total East Kootenay 3.3 (9) 86.8 (237) 16.7 (46) 73.3 (200) 0.7 (2) 90.1 (246) BC 1.5 (4) 1.5 (4) 1.5 (4) Alberta 4.0 (11) 4.0 (11) 4.0 (11) Other Canadians 2.6 (7) 0.7 (2) 1.8 (5) 2.6 (7) United States 0.4 (1) 0.4 (1) 0.4 (1) England 1.1 (3) 1.1 (3) 1.1 (3) Australia 0.4 (1) 0.4 (1) 0.4 (1)

Total 3.3 (9) 96.7 (264) 23.4 (64) 76.6 (209) 0.7 (2) 100 (273)


3.1.1. Angling Methods There were substantially more gear anglers than fly anglers. Of the 273 anglers interviewed, 76.6% (n=209) used spinning gear and 23.4 % (n=64) used fly gear (note: 0.7% (n=2) used both gear types)(Table 3.2). Boat anglers tended to use fly gear (88.9%) while shore anglers used spinning gear (81.1%). Most winter anglers used bait (79%) with stone fly nymphs being preferred (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Percentage (n) of anglers using bait.

Bait Type Gear Type

Stone Fly Nymph Maggots None

Spinning 59.3 (162)

17.6 (48)

1.8 (5)

Fly 0.4 (1)

1.1 (3)

19.1 (52)

Both 0.7 (2)

Total 60.4 (165)

18.7 (51)

20.9 (57)

3.1.2. Trip Length Of the 273 individual anglers interviewed, three were anglers that did not fish due to poor conditions (i.e. expected trip length = 0 hrs). Since values of zero can greatly skew descriptive statistics, these anglers were omitted from analysis leaving a total of 270 individual anglers interviewed for information on trip length (Table 3.4). Complete angling trip information on catch was collected from 45 anglers while the remaining 225 anglers had incomplete trip catch information. There was no difference between complete and incomplete trip length information (Mann-Whitney U= 5622.0, P > 0.05), and data was pooled for all anglers (Table 3.4).

Overall, winter anglers expected to spend an average of 3.0 hours fishing per day (Table 3.4). The mean angling day was significantly longer (3.2 hrs) on a weekend with favorable conditions than on a weekday with poor conditions (2.0 hrs)(Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 16.3, df = 3, P ≤ 0.001). On average, boat anglers fished longer (4.4 hrs n=9) than shore anglers (3.0 hrs n=261)(Mann-Whitney U = 1858.0, P > 0.05).

Table 3.4 Mean angling day (hrs) for each day type and condition.

Weekday Weekend Trip Good Poor Good Poor Total

Completed Mean (n) 2.8 (22) 1.6 (4) 3.2 (17) 1.0 (2) 2.8 (45)

SD 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 1.3

Expected Mean (n) 3.2 (114) 2.1 (19) 3.2 (63) 3.1 (29) 3.1 (225)

SD 1.6 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.5

Combined Mean (n) 3.1 (136) 2.0 (23) 3.2 (80) 2.9 (31) 3.0 (270)

SD 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.5


3.2. ANGLER CATCH The observed catch was summarized with data from the on-site interviews. The angler interview (n = 275) was the unit of analysis and not the individual angler (n = 270). A total of 1281 fish were captured the majority of which (81%) were mountain whitefish (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Winter catch on the Elk River, B.C.

Species Released Harvested Catch %

MW 125 910 1035 81%

WCT 218 5 223 17%

BT 22 1 23 2%

Total 365 916 1281

3.2.1. Life History Data Harvested whitefish have increased in mean size compared with previous winter creels (Figure 3.1). In 1983, whitefish averaged 284 mm in fork length and 5.5 yrs in age (Martin 1983). A decade later, whitefish retained by anglers averaged a similar size (270 mm,

Westover 1994). In contrast, during the 2005 winter creel, harvested whitefish increased in size to a mean of 337 mm in length (SD=33mm).

3.2.2. Catch Rate While the summary of fish caught includes all angler trips, the effort and catch rate summaries include only trips that were greater than or equal to 0.5 hr at the time of the interview. Twenty-eight or 10.2% of the 275 interviews were eliminated because the angler was on the water less than 30 minutes. Estimates of total catch are usually calculated using the mean of individual angler catch rates for each day a flight is conducted (Morten 1999, Pollock et al. 1997). However, due to manpower restrictions, interviews were often not conducted during aerial surveys. With interview data collected on only 40% of the flight days (i.e. 10 out of 25 days), catch rates calculated from flight days were skewed (Appendix 1). Thus, summaries of total catch used the mean daily catch rates for all anglers interviewed with trips > 0.5 hrs in length. The catch rate for all angler interviews was 2.36 whitefish/hour or 7.08 whitefish/rod day (7.08 hr rod day)(Table 3.6).

05

101520253035404550

120

160

200

240

280

320

360

400

440

480

Fork Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

2005 (n=280)1994 (n=337)1983 (n=1764)

Figure 3.1 Length-frequency distributions of Elk River Mountain Whitefish retained by anglers over the past three decades.


Table 3.6. The numbers of fish landed, hours fished, and catch rate (fish/hr and fish/day) within each day type.

Mountain Whitefish Catch Rate Day type Catch Effort Fish/hr Fish/rod day2

(hrs) (SD) 1 WD Good 521 261.6 2.36 (1.93) 7.32 WD Poor 130 31.6 4.01 (2.90) 8.02 WE Good 234 152.8 1.70 (1.81) 4.80 WE Poor 111 55.6 2.24 (0.78) 6.50 Total 996 501.6 2.36 (2.04) 7.08 WCT Catch Rate Day type Catch Effort Fish/hr Fish/rod day3

(hrs) (SD) 1 WD Good 148 261.6 0.48 (0.47) 1.44 WD Poor 12 31.6 1.04 (1.53) 3.12 WE Good 49 152.8 0.21(0.27) 0.63 WE Poor 10 55.6 0.18 (0.16) 0.54 Total 219 501.6 0.46 (0.66) 1.38 Bull Trout Catch Rate Day type Catch Fish/hr Fish/hr Fish/rod day3

(hrs) (SD) 1 WD Good 23 261.6 0.06 (0.13) 0.18 WD Poor 0 31.6 0.00 0.00 WE Good 0 152.8 0.00 0.00 WE Poor 0 55.6 0.00 0.00 Total 23 501.6 0.04 (0.10) 0.12

1 The average of individual catch rates for each angler for each day, ignoring all trips less than 0.5 hrs 2 Whitefish per rod day was calculated using the mean expected angling day for each strata (Table 3.4) 3An overall rod day of 3.0 hrs was used to calculate fish/rod day for cutthroat and bull trout (Table 3.4).

Catch rates were highest on weekdays with poor conditions and lowest on weekends with good conditions. Westslope cutthroat trout were the second most captured species with 98% being released (n=223). The catch rate for cutthroat was 0.46 fish/hr or 1.38 fish/rod

day. Twenty-three bull trout were also captured and of those, 22 were released. The catch rate was 0.04 fish/hr or 0.12 bull trout/rod day (Table 3.6).


3.3. ANGLER EFFORT A total of 505.9 hours were spent fishing by Elk River anglers that averaged 1.84 hours fishing per angler at the time of the interview (n=275).

3.3.1. Temporal and Spatial Distribution

There were 359 anglers counted on the Elk River during 25 aerial flights. The highest count of 43 anglers occurred on 5 March 2005 while low counts of zero occurred on 16 February and 18 March. The majority of observed angler effort occurred from mid February to mid March (Figure 3.2).

0

10

20

30

40

50

28-J

an

4-Fe

b

11-F

eb

18-F

eb

25-F

eb

4-M

ar

11-M

ar

18-M

ar

25-M

ar

Date

Num

ber o

f Ang

lers

Figure 3.2 Temporal distribution of angler

effort.

Angler distribution varied according to zone. The majority of winter anglers (41%) were observed in Zone 4 from Hosmer to Sparwood, while the fewest number of anglers (12.5%) were observed in Zone 1 (Elko to Morrissey). In summer, a similar pattern was observed with Zone 4 receiving the highest angling pressure (Heidt 2003, Figure 3.3).

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4Management Zone

Ang

ler E

ffor

t (%

) Winter (n=359)Summer (n=901)

Figure 3.3 Distribution of Angler Effort by

Management Zone.

3.3.2. Angling Method As with interviewed anglers, more anglers were observed with a gear rod (91.4 %, n=328) than a fly rod (8.6%, n = 31) during flights. Though a few anglers made use of boats during ground surveys (n=9), boats were never observed during aerial surveys and therefore are not presented in calculations of total effort and catch.

3.4. EFFORT AND CATCH ESTIMATES

An estimated total of 927 (±96 95% CI) anglers fished the Elk River between 24 January and 31 March 2005. Winter anglers captured 6,079 (±2818 95% CI) mountain whitefish, 1,068 (±408 95% CI) Westslope cutthroat trout and 92 (±13 % CI) bull trout (Table 3.7)

4. SUMMARY

In the winter, the Elk River is used primarily by local anglers (90% are East Kootenay residents) targeting whitefish (81% of total catch) for consumption (88% retention rate). Winter anglers tended to fish from shore and used spinning gear with stone fly nymphs as bait. Catch rates have remained similar over the last 30 years (2.02 in 1983 and 2.19 in 1993 and 2.36 in 2005) and most anglers rated their winter fishery as excellent. Harvested whitefish have increased in mean size compared with previous winter creels (Figure 3), possibly as a result of decreased pressure with regulation changes.

The incidence of Westslope cutthroat trout winter catch has also increased since regulation changes were made in 1984. In 1983, cutthroat trout comprised only 1% of the catch from Elko to Sparwood, in 1993 that increased to 9% of the total catch and in 2005, cutthroat comprised 17% of the total catch. Similarly, the incidence of Bull trout catch in the winter fishery has doubled from 1% in 1983 and 1993 to 2% in 2005. These results suggest an increase in both growth and abundance of these species.


Table 3.7 Total estimated angler effort (Jan-Mar 2005) and catch on the Elk River, B.C. (± 95% CI).

Effort Catch

Day type (Rod days) 95 % CI Mountain Whitefish 95 % CI

Westslope cutthroat 95 % CI

Bull Trout 95 % CI

WD Good 493 59 3609 430 734 87 92 11

WD Poor 34 25 270 202 70 52 0 0

WE Good 373 70 2027 381 250 47 0 0

WE Poor 27 15 173 96 14 8 0 0

Total 927 96 6079 2818 1068 408 92 13


5. REFERENCES

Duval, Wayne. 1999. Elko generating station fisheries assessment and planning study. Report prepared for BC Hydro Kootenay Generation Area, Kootenay Environment, Castlegar, B.C.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2005. Selenium status

report 2004 Elk River Valley, BC. Report prepared for the Elk Valley Mines Environmental Management Committee.

Heidt, K.D. 2003. Elk River creel survey

2002 quality water strategy (river guardian program). Report prepared for Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Kootenay Region, Cranbrook, B.C.

Heidt, K.D. 2004. St. Mary River creel

survey 2003 quality water strategy (river guardian program). Report prepared for Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Kootenay Region, Cranbrook, B.C.

Hoenig, J.M., C.M. Jones, K.H. Pollock, D.S.

Robson and D.L. Wade 1997. Calculation of catch rate and total catch in roving surveys of anglers. Biometrics 53:372-382.

Martin, A.D. 1983. Fisheries Management

Implications of Creel surveys conducted at the Elk River in Kootenay Region 1982-83. Fisheries Management Report No. 78

Minnow Environmental. 2003. Selenium

study of lentic areas in the Elk Valley. Report prepared for the Elk Valley Mines Environmental Management Committee.

Morten, K.L. A survey of zymoetz (Copper)

river steelhead anglers in 1999. Skeena Fisheries Report SK – 129(2000).

Pollock, K.H. Angler survey methods and

their applications in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 25 (1994).

Schubert, N.D. 1988. An assessment of four

upper Fraser River chinook salmon sport fisheries, 1986. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 52 p.

Westover, W.T. 1994. Winter 1992 creel

survey of the Elk River from Elko to the East Fernie bridge. Ministry of Environment, B.C. Fisheries Project Report No. 50

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis.

Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.

Ministry of Environment Elk River Winter Creel 2005

Appendix 1 Catch Rate Data


Table A1 Mountain whitefish catch rate on flight days

Table A2 Mountain whitefish catch rate on all interview days

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Date Good Poor Good Poor Total Date Good Poor Good Poor Total 28-Jan-05 2.14 2.14 22-Jan-05 0 0.0 30-Jan-05 1.28 1.28 26-Jan-05 0 0.0 02-Feb-05 1.00 1.00 27-Jan-05 3.6 3.6 12-Feb-05 1.66 1.66 28-Jan-05 2.14 2.14 18-Feb-05 6.00 6.00 30-Jan-05 1.28 1.28 22-Feb-05 2.00 2.00 31-Jan-05 0.15 0.15 24-Feb-05 6.56 6.56 02-Feb-05 1.00 1.00 27-Feb-05 0.48 0.48 03-Feb-05 3.54 3.54 03-Mar-05 8.33 8.33 04-Feb-05 4.13 4.13 08-Mar-05 1.38 1.38 06-Feb-05 0.00 0.00 10-Mar-05 1.96 1.96 10-Feb-05 0.75 0.75 20-Mar-05 1.94 1.94 11-Feb-05 4.06 4.06 21-Mar-05 1.48 1.48 12-Feb-05 1.66 1.66 23-Mar-05 2.27 2.27 14-Feb-05 7.19 7.19 29-Mar-05 1.75 1.75 18-Feb-05 6.00 6.00 Mean 2.98 4.02 0.88 1.80 2.68 20-Feb-05 3.47 3.47 n 9 2 2 2 15 22-Feb-05 2.00 2.00 24-Feb-05 6.56 6.56 26-Feb-05 4.16 4.16 27-Feb-05 0.48 0.48 01-Mar-05 2.27 2.27 02-Mar-05 0.89 0.89 03-Mar-05 8.33 8.33 04-Mar-05 3.27 3.27 06-Mar-05 1.19 1.19 08-Mar-05 1.38 1.38 09-Mar-05 1.23 1.23 10-Mar-05 1.96 1.96 11-Mar-05 1.67 1.67 12-Mar-05 0.25 0.25 14-Mar-05 0.29 0.29 17-Mar-05 3.42 3.42 19-Mar-05 3.12 3.12 20-Mar-05 1.94 1.94 21-Mar-05 1.48 1.48 23-Mar-05 2.27 2.27 24-Mar-05 0.58 0.58 26-Mar-05 1.20 1.20 27-Mar-05 4.92 4.92 29-Mar-05 1.75 1.75 30-Mar-05 2.40 2.4 Mean 2.36 4.01 1.70 2.24 2.39 n 23 5 10 3 41


Appendix II Creel Forms


Elk River Creel Survey Form – 2005 Interviewer Day Type WEND WDAY

Date (mm/dd) Time (24 hr. clock)

Location (1. Elko – Morrissey 2. Morrissey - Fernie 3. Fernie - Hosmer 4. Hosmer - Sparwood )

Response (Y – Yes R – Refused NE – Does not speak enough english)

Have you already been interviewed today? (Y – Yes N – No) (If Yes move on to catch data)

Guided (Y – Yes N – No) If yes by WHOM? Name Co. Name

Residency BC City CDN Province US State Other Country

License Class 1 Day 8 Day Annual 16 & Under No License

Did you use a fly or gear today? Fly Gear Both Bait? Type(s)

How did you access the river today? Boat Foot

When did you start fishing today? When did you finish fishing today?

(If roving) When do you expect to finish fishing today?

(Repeat Check) How many hours have you fished since I last checked you?

What species of fish have you landed today? How many did you keep or release? Species # Released # Kept Comments

How many days have you fished on the Elk River this Winter? Last Summer? Nov 1 to Mar 31 June 15 to Oct 31, 2004

How many more days do you plan to fish on the Elk River this Winter?

Have you fished any other rivers in this area this Winter? (Y or N) (if YES list top 2 or 3)

In terms of the quality of the angling experience (1 being very poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate the Elk River’s Winter Fishery, and what were the key factors that influenced your answer? (circle one – list top 3 factors)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Not Sure

** Please describe any additional comments the angler had on the back of this form **

Elk River Creel Survey – Roving Survey Form – 2005

Personnel Date Day Type WEND WDAY

Time Start Time Stop

Weather Sun Partial Cloud 100% Overcast Rain Snow

Secchi Depth (Sparwood) Secchi Depth (Elko)

Area Time Entered

Area

Time Exited Area

Shore Anglers

Observed

Boat Anglers

Observed

Vehicles Observed

Boat Trailers

Observed

Anglers Interviewed

Elko to Morrissey

Morrissey to Fernie

Fernie to Hosmer

Hosmer to Sparwood

** Please describe any additional comments on the back of this form **

Elk River Creel Survey – Fish Data Form – 2005

Date (yyyy/mm/dd)

Location (1. Elko – Morrissey 2. Morrissey - Fernie 3. Fernie - Hosmer 4. Hosmer - Sparwood )

Species Fork Length (mm)

Weight (g) Comments

Elk River Creel Survey – Aerial Count Form – 2005

Personnel Date Day Type WEND WDAY

Weather Sun Partial Cloud 100% Overcast Rain Snow

Time Location Gear Shore Anglers

Flyfishing Shore Anglers

Boat Anglers

Total Anglers

Leave Base

Elko to Morrissey Morrissey to Fernie Fernie to Hosmer Hosmer to Sparwood Return to Base

Total

elk river winter creel 2005 final report1a100.gov.bc.ca › appsdata › acat › documents ›...

Documents