Elk River Creel Survey 2002 Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program)

Transcription

1 Elk River Creel Survey 2002 Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program) Prepared by: K.D. Heidt British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Environmental Stewardship Division, Fish and Wildlife, Science and Allocation, Kootenay Region 205 Industrial Road G, Cranbrook, B.C. V1C 7G5 This project was funded in part by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund was created by an act of the legislature to preserve, restore and enhance key areas of habitat for fish and wildlife throughout British Columbia. Hunters, anglers, trappers and guides contribute to the i Trust Fund enhancement projects through license surcharges. Tax deductible donations to assist in the work of the Trust Fund are welcome.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A creel survey was conducted on the upper Elk River (Elko to Sparwood) from July 1 to October 31, 2002 to estimate angling effort and catch success. This census consisted of two main components; a roving creel survey and an aerial survey. The roving survey collected information about recreational and guided anglers including: hours fished, fish caught and released by species, trip length, angling methods, place of residence, license details, river access and quality of angling experience. The aerial survey collected information including: number of drift boats and boat anglers, numbers of shore anglers, total anglers and anglers per zone. This information was critical in determining percentage of anglers missed by the roving creel survey, and in extrapolating data for total angler effort. The creel census technician interviewed 818 anglers. Of those, 794 were interviewed for the first time and 24 were repeat interviews. Of the 794 non-repeat interviews, 390 (49%) were from the United States, 219 (28%) were from Alberta, 163 (20%) were British Columbia residents, 14 (2%) were other Canadian residents and 8 (1%) were from other countries. Of the 794 interviews, fly anglers were far more common than gear anglers (87% and 12% respectively), and only 1% of anglers interviewed used both fly and gear. There were 18 aerial counts carried out over the entire study period (July 1 to October 31, 2002). A total of 901 anglers were counted, with a high count of 91 anglers occurring on September 28 and a low count of 1 angler on October 9. Of the 901 total anglers counted, 260 were fishing in Zone 1, 221 in Zone 2, 242 in Zone 3 and 178 in Zone 4. There were 597 boat anglers (219 drift boats and 31 pontoon boats) and 304 shore anglers counted in all zones during the aerial flights The total effort estimate for the entire study period was 10,719 angler days (7,372 boat angler days and 3,347 shore angler days) and 66,025 angler hours. Guided effort was estimated at 16,999 hours (16,735 boat hours and 264 shore hours), while non-guided effort was estimated at 49,026 hours (41,197 boat hours and 7,829 shore hours). The total catch was estimated at 98,031 fish for a catch per unit of effort of 1.48 fish per rod hour. The catch was comprised of 94.5% cutthroat trout, 4% bull trout and 1.5% whitefish. Estimated catch for guided anglers was 32,221 fish (31,372 by boat and 849 by shore), while the catch estimate for non-guided anglers was 65,810 fish (55,694 by boat and 10,116 by shore). The release rate for all anglers was 99.8%. ii

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge Bill Westover (Regional Fisheries Biologist, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection) for planning this project, operational support and revision of this report. The author also wishes to acknowledge Herb Tepper (Fisheries Biologist, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection) for his invaluable assistance with data analysis, technical and operational support. Special thanks should be given to 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. iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... III TABLE OF CONTENTS... IV LIST OF TABLES...V LIST OF FIGURES... VI LIST OF APPENDICES...VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA BACKGROUND METHODS EXTRAPOLATED RESULTS GUIDED VS. NON-GUIDED ANGLERS ANGLER ACCESS TRIP LENGTH NON-EXTRAPOLATED RESULTS ANGLER RESIDENCY ANGLING METHODS LICENSE CLASS OTHER STREAMS ANGLED IN THE REGION QUALITY OF ANGLING EXPERIENCE DISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE FISHERY DISCUSSION REFERENCES iv

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total estimated angler effort and catch success on the upper Elk River... 9 Table 2. Total estimated angler effort in hours for guided and non-guided anglers Table 3. Total guided vs. non-guided angler days by time period Table 4. Overall catch per angler hour for guided vs. non-guided anglers Table 5. Number of guided anglers by residence on the upper Elk River Table 6. Estimated boat vs. shore angler days by time period Table 7. Overall catch per angler hour for boat vs. shore fishermen Table 8. Estimated average hours fished per trip by various angler classes Table 9. Place of residence for anglers fishing the upper Elk River Table 10. Fishing methods by place of residence Table 11. Fishing methods by angler class Table 12. Class of angling licence purchased by anglers fishing the upper Elk River.. 15 Table 13. Other streams fished in the region by anglers on the upper Elk River Table 14. Quality of angling experience by residence Table 15. Distribution of effort by time period Table 16. Distribution of effort by zone Table 17. Estimated expenditures by anglers fishing the upper Elk River in v

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Overview map of the Elk River watershed..3 Figure 2: Map of study area showing the four zones used in creel survey.8 vi

7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Upper Elk River creel survey form Appendix II: Upper Elk River creel survey aerial count form Appendix III: Flow chart and calculations used in extrapolating total effort on the upper Elk River during time period 2 (July 17 to Sept. 28, 2002) Appendix IV: Place of residence for anglers fishing the upper Elk River from July 1 to October 31, vii

8 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Elk River is located in south eastern British Columbia in Fish and Wildlife Management Region 4. Historically considered one of the best stream fisheries in the East Kootenays, over the past several years the Elk River 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), Eastern 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 suckers (species undetermined), which were gill netted in Lower Elk Lake in 1990 by Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) fisheries staff. There are two distinct fisheries on the Elk River: A trout/char fishery during the summer and fall, and a whitefish fishery, mainly during February and March (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 1,812 angler days in 2001/02 (2,137% increase in 7 years) (Westover, W.T. WLAP, pers communication). Increasing angler effort and concerns from both angling guides and local resident anglers necessitated a creel survey be conducted to collect data on the current status of the fishery. A creel survey was conducted from July 1 to October 31, 2002 on a section of the upper Elk River (Elk River Forest Service Road bridge in Elko to the Sparwood CPR bridge north of Sparwood). The goal of this survey was to determine angler effort and catch success as well as other data (harvest rates, angler residence, guided vs. non-guided effort, boat vs. shore access, fly vs. spinning gear, etc) that may be relevant to better managing the fishery. 1

9 2.0 STUDY AREA The Elk River has been described by Martin (1983) as originating from the glacier-fed waters of Elk Lakes in the Rocky Mountains. From its headwaters in Elk Lakes Provincial Park, the Elk River flows 85 km southeast to Sparwood. The river then flows 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 (Figure 1). 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 km 2 with a mean annual discharge of 77 m 3 /sec.(water Survey of Canada). With a summer TDS of mg/l, the river is moderately productive. Gradients in the main stem are low, ranging from % overall (Martin, 1983). The Elk River contains ideal water for sport fishing, composed of numerous pools, runs and riffle areas. Coupled with excellent habitat, the river is also easily accessible to fishermen. Highway #3 parallels the Elk River from Elko to Sparwood. From Sparwood a paved secondary road parallels the river to Elkford, and a gravel forest service road parallels the river from Elkford close to its headwaters in Elk Lakes Provincial Park. The Elk Rivers close proximity to Alberta and Montana make the fishery attractive and readily accessible to both Albertan and American anglers. In recent years numbers of non-resident and non-resident alien anglers have dramatically increased, reflecting both the popularity of sport fishing, particularly fly-fishing, and the recent recreational based growth in the Elk Valley. Several tributaries of the Elk River (Michel Creek, Alexander Creek, Wigwam River) and other East Kootenay streams (St Mary River, Bull River, Skookumchuck Creek) are also gaining popularity with anglers, further increasing the attractiveness of the East Kootenays as a destination for trout/char fishing. 2

10 # Figure 1. Overview map of the Elk River watershed. K O # # # PARK ASSIN IBOINE O T E N A Y N # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## ## # ### # # # # R W E S (at ma p ce ntre ) Duncan IN V ER M E RE Lak e ELKF OR D ON KASLO K ootenay K IM B ER LY R I V E R SPARW OOD K E L FERN IE CR ANBR OOK NE LS ON Lake R R Lake M O Y I E Kooc anusa 1:1,200, Kilometers Ministry of Land, Water a nd Air P rote ction "Kootenay Region" February 13, 2003 Area of Interest 3

11 3.0 BACKGROUND Prior to 1980, most rivers and lakes in the Kootenay Region were managed in the same way. The daily catch quota was 8 and the possession limit was 24. There were no size limits, bait bans, gear restrictions and/or closures to protect over wintering and spawning populations of sport fish. Anglers could fish most of the rivers in the region all year, and in all likelihood, most of the fish caught were killed (Westover, 1994). 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 BC Hydro Dam at Elko) from April 1, 1982 to February 28, 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 were 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 in order 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. 4

12 The following fishing regulations were put in place on the Elk River and its tributaries during the 1992/93 fishing season and remained constant until the 1995/1996 angling 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, and the resulting bed load movement, heavy siltation and high flows likely reduced egg to fry survival and juvenile/adult survival. In response to this event, the Elk River and its tributaries were regulated catch and release for 3 years (until 1998/1999) so remaining cutthroat 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. The catch and release zones on the Elk River include the following areas: Lower Elk Lake to Forsyth Creek. Line Creek bridge to the CPR bridge at Sparwood. 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. 5

13 4.0 METHODS Creel survey data was collected by a roving census technician, who travelled the length of the study area by truck and interviewed anglers. 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 I). Aerial counts were also conducted by fisheries staff during the creel survey to determine the percentage of boat and shore anglers missed by the roving census technician, and were used in extrapolating total angler numbers. There were 18 aerial flights carried out by helicopter over the study period. Average length per flight was one hour, with approximately 30 minutes ferrying time and 30 minutes for the actual river count. Aerial counts were conducted during am/pm checks on both weekends and weekdays to correspond with roving creel data (Appendix II). Flight times were at 1100 hours for am checks and 1500 hours for pm checks, with two additional flights occurring at 1900 hours during the course of the survey. Although the Elk River opened on June 15, the creel survey did not start until July 1, Few (if any) anglers fished the Elk River during the last two weeks of June because the river was high, dirty and un-fishable. The survey was carried out on 81 days during a four month time period (July 1 to October 31, 2002). Creel days were stratified by day type (weekend vs. weekday) and by pm and am checks. Initially, am checks ran from 0900 to 1500 hours and pm checks from 1500 to 2100 hours. Shifts for the am and pm checks varied slightly in start and finish times through the course of the study (times were altered as days grew shorter later in the study period). The start time of the am shift was moved ahead one hour starting on October 15 to the end of the study. The start time for the pm shift was moved back one hour starting on September 6 until the end of the study, and the finish time of the am and pm shifts were moved back one hour from September 6 to October 15 and again (for pm) from October 16 to the end of the study. The study area in the upper Elk River included all of the area between the Elk River Forest Service Road bridge at Elko, north to the Sparwood CPR bridge, just northwest of Sparwood (approximately 67 kilometers in length). The area was then further divided 6

14 into four zones (Figure2) (two catch and release zones and two harvest zones where anglers could harvest 1 trout/char over 30 cm), as laid out in Elk River fisheries regulations (BC Synopsis 2002/2003). Zone 1- from the Sparwood CPR bridge to the Highway #3 bridge at Hosmer (Harvest Zone). Zone 2 - from the Highway #3 bridge at Hosmer to the North Fernie Highway #3 bridge (Catch and Release Zone). Zone 3 - from the North Fernie Highway #3 bridge to the Morrissey bridge (Harvest Zone). Zone 4 - from the Morrissey bridge to the Elk River Forest Service Road bridge at Elko (Catch and Release Zone) The creel survey data was interpreted by dividing the total survey period (July 1 October 31) into three time periods. The three time periods were divided based on aerial and roving survey data which clearly showed variances in angler numbers, changing river flows and water turbidity levels. The period of July 1-16 had few anglers, high flow as a result of a delayed spring run off and high turbidity levels (turbidity based on secchi readings). The second period of July 17-September 28 saw a substantial increase in angler numbers, resulting from a drop in river levels, improved water clarity and warmer temperatures of the summer and early fall. The final period ran from September 29- October 31 and saw a significant drop in angler numbers. This trend is typical of the trout/char fishery in the region, as fishing slows in late fall and temperatures drop significantly. During the late period of this creel survey, temperatures were very cold and there were several days with rain and snow storms in the Elk Valley. The three time periods were also used in extrapolating data. Aerial counts were conducted in all three time periods and all four check types (weekend am/pm and weekday am/pm). Numbers observed in the individual aerial counts were compared to the number of anglers interviewed in the roving survey during the same days and times. Anglers who were interviewed on the day of the aerial counts, and who were fishing at the time of the counts, were then used in extrapolating total effort for all three time 7

15 Figure 2: Map of study area showing the four zones used in creel survey. 8

16 periods. A series of calculations were used to determine the total extrapolated angler days on the upper Elk River from July 1 to October 31, 2002 (Appendix III). A discrepancy occurred between the roving creel angler counts and the aerial counts which needed to be accounted for in determining total angler days. If the aerial counts saw three people in a boat which was obviously carrying anglers, all three were counted as anglers. In such a case, it was unrealistic to expect the aerial counts to differentiate between who was angling and who was not. By using this count information, guides were always included in the number of anglers, when in fact, guides seldom fished. The roving creel technician determined through interviews and observation that guides seldom fished, and guided boats with three people actually averaged two anglers per boat. This discrepancy in angler numbers was not accounted for in the initial extrapolation process for angler days. To more accurately determine angler days, the total number of guided boat angler days was determined, and then reduced by a third to account for the discrepancy between aerial and roving survey counts per guided boat. The total extrapolated angler days and angler hours were then adjusted to account for these numbers. 5.0 EXTRAPOLATED RESULTS An estimated total of 10,719 anglers fished 66,025 hours on the upper Elk River between July 1 and October 31, 2002, and caught 92,635 westslope cutthroat trout, 1,383 bull trout and 4,013 mountain whitefish for an overall success rate of 1.48 fish per rod hour (Table 1). Approximately 99.8% of all fish caught were released. Table 1. Total estimated angler effort and catch success on the upper Elk River. Time Period Angler Days Hours Fished Cutthroat Trout Bull Trout Whitefish Fish/Rod Hour July 1 July ,000 1, July 17 Sept 28 10,144 64,148 89,937 1,352 3, Sept 29 Oct , Total 10,719 66,025 92,635 1,383 4, Hours fished varied between guided and non-guided anglers and boat and shore anglers. Guided anglers fished an estimated 16,999 hours, while non-guided anglers fished for 9

17 49,026 hours. Anglers fished from a boat for an estimated 57,932 hours over the course of the creel study, while shore anglers fished for 8,093 hours (Table 2). Variances in hours between shore and boat anglers result from higher boat angler numbers and much longer trip lengths by boat anglers in comparison to shore anglers. Table 2. Total estimated angler effort in hours for guided and non-guided anglers. Time Period Guided Angler Hours Non-Guided Angler Hours Total Angler Hours Boat Shore Boat Shore July 1 - July ,000 July 17 - Sept 28 16, ,413 7,157 64,148 Sept 29 - Oct Total 16, ,197 7,829 66, Guided vs. non-guided Anglers Of an estimated 10,719 anglers who fished the upper Elk River, 2,022 anglers were guided (19%), and 8,697 were non-guided anglers (81%). Guides and their assistant guides were not included in the estimated guided angler numbers (Table 3). Table 3. Total guided vs. non-guided angler days by time period. Time Period Guided Angler Days Non-Guided Angler Days Total Angler Days Boat Shore Boat Shore July 1 - July July 17 - Sept 28 1, ,224 2,954 10,144 Sept 29 - Oct Total 1, ,381 3,316 10,719 Despite guided anglers only comprising 19% of the total estimated angler days, guided angler hours accounted for 26% of the estimated total hours fished. Guided anglers fished for 16,999 hours of an estimated 66,025 total hours fished, while non-guided anglers fished for 49,026 hours of an estimated 66,025 total hours fished (26% and 74% respectively). Guided anglers also accounted for 33% of the estimated total fish caught. Guided anglers caught an estimated 32,221 of the 98,031 total fish caught, while non- 10

18 guided anglers caught an estimated 65,810 of the 98,031 total fish caught (33% and 67% respectively) (Table 4). Table 4. Overall catch per angler hour for guided vs. non-guided anglers. Status Angler Days Angler Hours Total Fish Caught Catch/Rod Hour Guided 2,022 16,999 32, Non-Guided 8,697 49,026 65, Totals 10,719 66,025 98, The majority of guided anglers were Americans, with an estimated 1,868 guided anglers, while only an estimated 66 B.C. resident anglers and 66 Alberta anglers were guided. Only 22 Canadians from outside B.C and Alberta were guided, and no anglers from countries other than the U.S. and Canada were guided (Table 5). Table 5. Number of guided anglers by residence on the upper Elk River. Place of Residence Total Number of Angler Days Number of Guided Angler Days Percent Guided United States 5,265 1,868 35% Alberta 2, % British Columbia 2, % Other Canadians % Other Countries % Total 10,719 2,022 19% 5.2 Angler Access An estimated 3,347 anglers accessed the river by foot and 7,372 anglers accessed the river by boat (31% and 69% respectively). Time period 1 had an estimated 165 boat anglers and 155 shore anglers (2% and 1% overall), time period 2 had 7,159 boat anglers and 2,985 shore anglers (67% and 28% overall), and time period 3 had 48 boat anglers and 207 shore anglers (<1% and 2% overall) (Table 6). River access for guided anglers was primarily by boat at 98%, while for non-guided anglers boat access accounted for 62% and shore access accounted for 38% (Tables 2 & 3). 11

19 Table 6. Estimated boat vs. shore angler days by time period. Time Period Boat Angler Days Shore Angler Days Total Angler Days July 1 - July July 17 - Sept 28 7,159 2,985 10,144 Sept 29 - Oct Total 7,372 3,347 10,719 Boat angler days comprised an estimated 69% of the 10,719 total angler days from July 1 to October 31, Boat angler hours accounted for 57,932 of the estimated 66,025 total angler hours, while shore anglers comprised only 8,093 of the 66,025 total angler hours (88% and 12% respectively). More effective river access and longer hours fished by drift fishermen increase the percentage of fish caught over shore anglers. From July 1 to October 31, 2002, boat anglers caught an estimated 87,066 of the 98,031 total fish caught, while shore anglers accounted for only 10,965 of the estimated 98,031 total fish caught (89% and 11% respectively) (Table 7). Table 7. Overall catch per angler hour for boat vs. shore fishermen. Status Angler Days Angler Hours Total Fish Caught Catch/Rod Hour Boat Anglers 7,372 57,932 87, Shore Anglers 3,347 8,093 10, Totals 10,719 66,025 98, Trip Length Overall, anglers on the upper Elk River spent an average of 6.2 hours fishing per day through the period of July 1 to October 31, Boat anglers spent an average of 7.9 hours fishing per day, while foot anglers averaged 2.4 hours per day. Guided foot anglers fished for an average of 8.5 hours per day while non-guided foot anglers averaged 2.4 hours. Guided boat anglers fished for 8.4 hours per day, while non-guided boat anglers averaged 7.7 hours per day. On average, B.C. and Canadian residents fished for fewer hours per day (2.0 hours) than Non-Canadians (4.1 hours) (Table 8). 12

20 Table 8. Estimated average hours fished per trip by various angler classes. All Anglers Boat Anglers Shore Anglers Guided Anglers Non-Guided Anglers Canadian Anglers Non-Canadian Anglers Boat Shore Boat Shore NON-EXTRAPOLATED RESULTS 6.1 Angler Residency A total of 794 anglers (not including repeat checks) were interviewed on the upper Elk River during the 2002 creel survey. Of these anglers, 49% were from the United States, 28% were from Alberta, 20% were residents of British Columbia, 2% were from other Canadian Provinces and 1% were from countries other than Canada and the United States (Table 9 and Appendix IV). Table 9. Place of residence for anglers fishing the upper Elk River. Place of Residence Number of Anglers Percent United States % Alberta % British Columbia % Other Canadians 14 2% Other Countries 8 1% 6.2 Angling Methods Angling method data gathered in the creel interviews shows that there were substantially more fly anglers than gear anglers. Of the 794 anglers interviewed for the first time, 689 used fly gear, 98 used spinning gear and 7 used both fly and spinning gear (87%, 12% and 1% respectively). Angling method percentages differed slightly between anglers based on residence (Table 10). 13

21 Table 10. Fishing methods by place of residence. Place of Residence Fly Gear Both United States 378 (97%) 12 (3%) 0 (0%) Alberta 186 (85%) 28 (13%) 5 (2%) British Columbia 108 (66%) 53 (33%) 2 (1%) Other Canadians 11 (79%) 3 (21%) 0 (0%) Other Countries 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) Total 689 (87%) 98 (12%) 7 (1%) Of all the guided angler interviews, 100% were fly anglers. Of all non-guided interviews, 85% were fly anglers, 14% were gear anglers, and only 1% used both fly and gear. Overall, there were a higher percentage of boat anglers fly-fishing (98%) than shore anglers (82%) (Table 11). Table 11. Fishing methods by angler class. Angler Type Fly Gear Both Guided Angler 100% 0% 0% Non-Guided Angler 85% 14% 1% Boat Angler 98% 2% 0% Shore Angler 82% 17% 1% 6.3 License Class All 794 anglers interviewed in the creel were required to produce a British Columbia freshwater angling licence. Of these anglers, 789 produced valid licences, while 5 did not possess a licence (1% of total anglers interviewed). Of the total anglers interviewed, 403 anglers had purchased an 8 day licence, 361 anglers purchased an annual licence, 18 anglers purchased a 1 day licence and 7 anglers were under 16 years of age and did not require a licence (51%, 45%, 2% and 1% respectively). The type of licence purchased varied by residence. British Columbia resident anglers purchased 153 annual licences (94% of all BC resident anglers interviewed), while anglers from Alberta purchased 94 annual licences (43% of all Albertan anglers interviewed). Other Canadian residents purchased 5 annual licences (36% of other Canadians interviewed), while American anglers purchased 107 annual licences (27% of Americans interviewed). Anglers from 14

22 other countries purchased 2 annual licences (25% of anglers interviewed from other countries). (Table 12). Table 12. Class of angling licence purchased by anglers fishing the upper Elk River. Place of Residence Annual Licence 8 Day Licence 1 Day Licence Under Age No Licence Total U.S Alberta B.C CDN Other Total Other Streams Angled in the Region The 2002 creel survey also gathered information regarding other streams in the region. All 794 anglers interviewed (not including repeat checks) were asked to list the top two or three streams that they have fished in the region besides the Elk River. This list varied based on factors such as angler residence, knowledge of the area and fishing experience in the region. The data was taken from all three time periods (July 1 to October 31, 2002), and a list was compiled to show the streams within the region most frequently targeted by anglers (Table 13). Michel Creek was the most heavily frequented stream at 36%, with the Wigwam River and Bull River rounding out the top three streams at 28% and 11% respectively. Many regional streams besides the Elk River are becoming recognized as very productive, quality fisheries, further increasing the attractiveness of the upper Elk River fishing experience. 15

23 Table 13. Other streams fished in the region by anglers on the upper Elk River. System Number of Anglers Percent Michel Creek % Wigwam River % Bull River % Lodgepole Creek 64 7% St. Mary River 64 7% Flathead River 51 5% Fording River 27 3% Line Creek 13 1% 6.5 Quality of Angling Experience All anglers who were interviewed during the creel survey were asked to rate the quality of their angling experience. A scale of 1 to 5 was used with 1 being very poor, 2 being poor, 3 being fair, 4 being good and 5 excellent. Of the 794 anglers who were asked to rate their experience, 793 of them responded. A total of 599 anglers rated their experience as good and 107 anglers as excellent, while 86 anglers rated the experience as fair and one angler said it was poor (75%, 13%, 11% and 1% respectively). Angler response varied somewhat based on residence (Table 14). Table 14. Quality of angling experience by residence. Place of Residence Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent U.S (12%) 273 (70%) 70 (18%) Alberta (5.5%) 193 (88%) 14 (6.5%) B.C. 0 1 (1%) 25 (15%) 116 (71%) 21 (13%) CDN (21%) 10 (72%) 1 (7%) Other (88%) 1 (12%) Total 0 1 (1%) 86 (11%) 599 (75%) 107 (13%) 6.6 Distribution of Effort Distribution of angler effort on the upper Elk River was determined by using information gathered during the aerial counts. The number of shore anglers, boat anglers, drift boats 16

24 and pontoon boats were noted and this data was then interpreted to establish distribution of effort for all zones and within each of the three time periods. Angler effort varied substantially between time periods, with Time Period 2 accounting for 94% of all drift boats, 100% of all pontoon boats, 94% of boat anglers, 89% of shore anglers and 92% of all anglers (Table 15). Table 15. Distribution of effort by time period. Time Period Drift Boats Pontoon Boats Boat Anglers Shore Anglers Total Anglers July 1 July (2%) July 17 - Sept (92%) Sept 29 Oct (6%) Total Angler numbers and drift boat numbers were distributed fairly evenly through all zones. Zone 1 had 29% of all anglers and 30% of all drift boats noted by the aerial flights. Zone 2 had 24% of all anglers and 28% of all drift boats. Zone 3 had 27% of all anglers and 23% of all drift boats, and Zone 4 had the least number of anglers and drift boats noted by the aerial flights with 20% and 19% respectively (Table 16). Table 16. Distribution of effort by zone. Zone Drift Boats Pontoon Boats Boat Anglers Shore Anglers Total Anglers 1 a (29%) 2 b (24%) 3 c (27%) 4 d (20%) Total a b c Sparwood CPR bridge to the Highway #3 bridge at Hosmer Highway #3 bridge at Hosmer to the North Fernie Highway #3 bridge North Fernie Highway #3 bridge to the Morrissey bridge d Morrissey bridge to the Elk River Forest Service Road bridge at Elko 17

25 7.0 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE FISHERY The recent increase in angler numbers on the Elk River fishery also contributes substantial economic benefits. Average expenditures per angling day were calculated based on determined values for angler days and total estimated number of days fished. Results from the 1995 National Survey of Sport Fishing determined angler day values (direct and indirect costs) as follows: $86.11 for BC residents, $97.11 for Canadian residents and $ for non-canadian residents. At the time of this report, these numbers were the most recent pertaining to angler day values for varying angler classes, and are therefore used in the 2002 calculations for upper Elk River expenditures. No information specific to the value of guided angler days could be found, so guided angler days are included in the regular angler day values. Because there were 2,022 guided angler days, the actual economic value of the upper Elk River fishery would be higher if values of guided angler days could be calculated. Angler numbers were determined for the entire upper Elk River trout/char fishery (July 1 to October 31, 2002), and separated by residence. The angler days for each residence category were multiplied by the corresponding angler day values (1995 National Survey of Sport Fishing). Total expenditures by anglers fishing the upper Elk River during this period were then estimated at $1,404, in Canadian dollars (1995 values)(table 17). Table 17. Estimated expenditures by anglers fishing the upper Elk River in Place of Residence Angler Days Average Expenditures per Angling Day Total Expenditures British Columbia 2,201 $86.11 (1995 value) $189, Canadian 3,145 $97.11 (1995 value) $305, Non-Canadian 5,373 $ (1995 value) $909, Total 10,719 $1,404, DISCUSSION Previous creel surveys which covered the trout/char fishery in similar sections of the upper Elk River (Sparwood to Elko) were carried out in 1982/1983 by Martin (1983) and in 1991 by Westover (1993). Most of the results from these two studies cannot be directly compared to the 2002 creel because the time frame covered by the surveys are different; however, several general comparisons can be made which shed valuable light 18

26 on the evolving status of the river. Results from the 1982/83 survey were reported separately for the summer and winter fisheries. The summer fishery in Area 1 had similar boundaries to the 1991 summer creel and the 2002 creel (Sparwood to Elko). Only the summer/fall trout/char information from the 1982/83 creel is examined in comparing results. Total estimated angler effort for Area 1(Sparwood to Elko) in the 1982/83 study was 6,493 angler days and 6,686 hours. The 1991 creel estimated total angler effort at 2,704 angler days, but this estimate was calculated over a much shorter period of time (1.3 months) covering only part of the trout/char fishery. The 2002 creel estimated total effort at 10,719 angler days and 66,025 hours over a 4 month period and covered most of the trout/char fishery. The majority of angler effort in the 2002 creel occurred during the period of time covered in the 1991 study, indicating a substantial increase in angler effort on the upper Elk River over the past 11 years. The 1982/83 creel estimated the number of fish caught from Sparwood to Elko during the trout/char fishery at 2,824. The 1991 creel for the same section of river over only 1.3 months estimated the number of fish caught at 4,100. The 2002 creel over 4 months estimated total fish caught at 98,031. In 1982/83, the catch per unit effort was 0.37 fish per angler hour, while in 1991 the CPUE increased to 0.46 fish per angler hour. In the 2002 creel study CPUE was estimated to be 1.48 fish per angler hour, a dramatic increase over the previous statistics. Along with the increase in estimated fish caught, there has also been a substantial decrease in fish harvested. In the 1991 creel results, 2,144 of an estimated 2,595 cutthroat caught were released, 263 of an estimated 356 bull trout caught were released, and 94 of an estimated 1,149 whitefish caught were released (release rate of 82.6%, 73.9% and 8.2% respectively). In the 2002 creel results, 92,446 of an estimated 92,635 cutthroat caught were released, 1,368 of an estimated 1,383 bull trout caught were released and 4,005 of an estimated 4,013 whitefish caught were released (release rate of 99.7%, 98.9% and 99.8% respectively). There is no indication that any fish were released in the 1982/83 survey. The percentage of various species in the catch is also changing on the upper Elk River. In the 1982/83 creel, estimated species composition for the trout/char fishery (Sparwood to Elko) was 54.2% for cutthroat, 40.4% for bull trout and 5.4% for whitefish. In the 19

27 1991 creel, estimated species composition was 63% for cutthroat, 6% for bull trout and 28% for whitefish. The 2002 creel showed estimated species composition for cutthroat at 95%, only 1% for bull trout and 4% for whitefish. The bait ban implemented in 1984/85, and a dramatic increase in fly anglers specifically targeting cutthroat are significant factors in this change. The creel also showed that boat angling has increased in recent years. Boat anglers accounted for 57,932 of the estimated 66,025 total hours fished. Continuing expansion in the regions guiding industry and a dramatic increase in non-guided boat angler activity accounts for these numbers. Non-resident anglers spent more time angling per trip than B.C. residents. Guided and non-guided boat anglers spent substantially more time on the river that shore anglers. These statistics conclude that anglers are fishing more frequently in all sections of the river, they are angling for longer hours per trip, they are catching more fish and are releasing a much higher percentage of fish. The regulation changes initiated in 1984/1985 and additional regulations in 1990/1991, 1996/1997, 1998/1999 and most recently 1999/2000 have been documented. Among other major regulations, catch and release zones, reduced harvest quotas, single barbless hook restrictions and bait bans appear to be having a positive effect on the status of the fishery. Further studies are required to accurately estimate fish populations in this system, in order for fisheries managers to determine whether current catch rates are sustainable. 20

28 9.0 REFERENCES British Columbia Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis, synopsis. Duval, Wayne, Elko Generating Station Fisheries Assessment and Planning Study, August, Freshwater Sport Fishing in British Columbia, Results of the 1995 National Survey of Sport Fishing. Martin, A.D Fisheries Management Implications of Creel Surveys Conducted at the Elk River in Kootenay Region Fisheries Management Report No. 78 (1983). Personal Communication. Westover, W.T. Regional Fisheries Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Branch, B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Water Survey of Canada, Elk River (Phillips Bridge) Hydrometric Station Data. Westover, W.T. Summer 1991 Creel Survey on the Elk River from Lladner Creek to Elko, Fisheries Project Report KO 49 (1993). Westover, W.T. Winter 1992 Creel Survey of the Elk River from Elko to the East Fernie Bridge, Fisheries Project Report KO 50 (1994). 21

29 Appendix I: Upper Elk River Creel Survey Form 2002 Interviewer Check Type AM PM Date (mm/dd) Time (24 hr. clock) Day Type WEND WDAY Location (1. Sparwood Hosmer 2. Hosmer Fernie 3. Fernie Morrissey 4. Morrissey Elko) 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 Did you use a fly or gear today? Fly Gear Both How did you access the river today? Boat Foot When did you start fishing today? (If roving) When do you expect to finish fishing today? When did you 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 year? How many more days do you plan to fish on the Elk River this year? Have you fished any other rivers in this area? (Y Yes N No) (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, and what were the key factors that influenced your answer? (circle one list top 3 factors) (Don t Read) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Not Sure 22

30 ** Please describe any additional comments the angler had on the back of this form ** Appendix II: Upper Elk River Creel Survey Aerial Count Form 2002 Personnel Date Check Type AM PM Day Type WEND WDAY Weather Sun Partial Cloud 100% Overcast Rain Snow Time Location Shore Anglers Leave Base Drift Boats Ponton Boats Boat Anglers Total Anglers Elko to Morrissey Morrissey to Fernie Fernie to Hosmer Hosmer to Sparwood Return to Base Total 23

31 Appendix III: Flow chart and calculations used in extrapolating total effort on the upper Elk River during Time Period 2 (July 17 to Sept. 28, 2002) 24

32 Appendix IV: Place of residence for anglers fishing the upper Elk River from July 1 to October 31, Place of Residence Number of Anglers Alberta 219 British Columbia 163 Montana 136 Washington 79 California 34 Texas 27 Arizona 24 Idaho 23 Oregon 13 Colorado 9 Vermont 7 New Mexico 6 New York 6 Saskatchewan 5 Georgia 4 Manitoba 4 Wisconsin 4 Arkansas 3 Michigan 3 Oklahoma 3 Ontario 3 Conneticut 2 England 2 France 2 Germany 2 New Hampshire 2 Newfoundland 2 Alaska 1 Delaware 1 Holland 1 Minnisota 1 Nevada 1 North Carolina 1 Switzerland 1 Total