River Guardian Compliance Monitoring and Angler Survey on the Elk River Winter 2006 Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program)

River Guardian Compliance Monitoring and Angler Survey on the Elk River Winter 2006 Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program) K. D. Heidt and B. Stalker British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship Division, Fish and Wildlife Section, Kootenay Region 205 Industrial Road G, Cranbrook, B.C. V1C 7G5 This project was funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and the Ministry of Environment, Mountain Pine Beetle Response. JANUARY 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A compliance monitoring project and angler survey were conducted during the winter fishery on the Elk River, in the East Kootenay Region of B.C., from January 13 to March 31, 2006. The survey collected detailed information from anglers including: hours fished, fish caught and released by species, trip length, angling methods, residency, license class details, river access, and quality of angling experience. A total of 197 anglers were interviewed during this survey. Anglers fished for a total of 305 hours, spending an average of 1.6 hrs fishing per day. Anglers interviewed fished exclusively from shore (100%) and primarily used spinning gear (84%). A majority of anglers also used bait (84%). All anglers interviewed were non-guided. Anglers caught 601 fish over the survey, including 443 mountain whitefish (MW), 138 westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) and 20 bull trout (BT), for a catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 1.97 fish per hour. The winter fishery primarily targeted mountain whitefish (74% of total catch) for consumption (86% harvest rate among whitefish caught). Anglers were interviewed in 4 zones on the Elk River (Elko to Sparwood, B.C.) during this survey. The majority of winter anglers (47%) were observed in Zone 4 from Hosmer to Sparwood, while the fewest number of anglers (3%) were observed in Zone 3 (N. Fernie bridge to Hosmer). Of the 197 anglers, 193 (98%) were B.C. resident anglers, 187 (97%) of which were from the East Kootenay Region. Three anglers (1.5%) were from other Canadian provinces and 1 angler (0.5%) was from the United States. Of the 197 anglers, 32 (16%) were under the age of 16. All of these 32 anglers were East Kootenay residents. Anglers possessed various classes of BC freshwater fishing licences. Of the 197 anglers, 158 anglers had purchased annual licences, 1 purchased an 8 day licence, 1 purchased a 1 day licence, 32 anglers were under 16 years of age and didn t require a licence, 1 angler ii

was first nations and 4 anglers did not have a valid licence (80%,.5%,.5%, 16% and 3%, respectively). Similar statistics were found for BC classified waters licences (Class II). 156 anglers had purchased annual classified licences, 2 had purchased multiday classified licences, 32 anglers were under 16 years of age and didn t require a licence, 1 angler was first nations and 6 had not purchased a classified waters licence (79%, 1%, 16%,.5% and 3%, respectively). Anglers considered the quality of their fishing experience a positive one overall. Of 184 anglers responding to the question pertaining to quality of angling experience, 142 rated their experience as excellent (77%) and 25 as good (13%). iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Rob Williams for collecting the field data and to Herb Tepper (Regional Fisheries Biologist, MOE, East Kootenay Region), for planning the project and contribution to data analysis. Thanks should also be given to the B.C. Conservation Officer Service (Elk Valley District) for support and cooperation in the field. This project was funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF) and the Ministry of Environment, Mountain Pine Beetle Response. The HCTF was created by an act of legislature to preserve, protect, restore and enhance key areas of habitat for fish and wildlife throughout British Columbia. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... IV TABLE OF CONTENTS...V LIST OF TABLES...V LIST OF FIGURES... VI LIST OF APPENDICES... VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND...2 3.0 STUDY AREA... 4 4.0 METHODS... 8 5.0 RESULTS... 10 5.1 Effort... 10 5.2 Catch... 10 5.3 Guided vs. non-guided anglers... 12 5.4 Trip length... 12 5.5 Angler distribution... 12 5.6 Angling methods... 12 5.7 Angler residency... 13 5.8 Licence class...14 5.8.1 Freshwater angling licence... 14 5.8.2 Classified waters licence... 14 5.9 Angling experience... 14 6.0 DISCUSSION... 15 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS... 20 8.0 REFERENCES... 22 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. TOTAL ANGLER EFFORT AND CATCH SUCCESS ON THE ELK RIVER (WINTER 2006)... 10 TABLE 2. TOTAL NUMBER OF FISH RELEASED AND HARVESTED BY SPECIES.... 10 TABLE 3. EXPECTED TRIP LENGTH ON THE ELK RIVER DURING THE WINTER FISHERY... 12 TABLE 4. TRIP LENGTH USING COMPLETE TRIP DATA ONLY... 12 TABLE 5. DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLER EFFORT OVER THE 4 ZONES COVERED IN THIS SURVEY... 12 TABLE 6. FISHING METHODS FOR ANGLERS INTERVIEWED DURING THIS SURVEY.... 12 TABLE 7. TYPE OF BAIT USED BY GEAR ANGLERS INTERVIEWED DURING THIS SURVEY.... 13 TABLE 8. PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR ALL ANGLERS INTERVIEWED ON THE ELK DURING THIS SURVEY... 13 TABLE 9. PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR B.C. ANGLERS INTERVIEWED ON THE ELK DURING THIS SURVEY... 13 TABLE 10. CLASS OF ANGLING LICENCE PURCHASED BY ANGLERS FISHING THE ELK RIVER.... 14 TABLE 11. CLASSIFIED LICENCES PURCHASED BY ANGLERS FISHING THE ELK RIVER.... 14 TABLE 12. QUALITY OF ANGLING EXPERIENCE FOR ANGLERS INTERVIEWED ON THE ELK RIVER.... 14 v

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. OVERVIEW MAP OF THE ELK RIVER WATERSHED... 6 FIGURE 2. MAP OF THE ELK RIVER WINTER STUDY AREA (ZONES 1-4)... 7 FIGURE 3. CATCH COMPOSITION % FOR THE 2006 ELK RIVER WINTER FISHERY... 11 FIGURE 4. LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH HARVESTED DURING THE 2006 WINTER FISHERY ON THE ELK RIVER.... 11 FIGURE 5. COMPARISON OF CATCH COMPOSITION (%) FOR THE ELK RIVER WINTER FISHERY OVER 4 STUDY PERIODS.... 15 FIGURE 6. COMPARISON OF MEAN LENGTH (MM) FOR MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH HARVESTED DURING THE ELK RIVER WINTER FISHERY OVER 4 STUDY PERIODS.... 16 FIGURE 7. COMPARATIVE LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH HARVESTED DURING THE 2005 AND 2006 WINTER FISHERIES ON THE ELK RIVER (2005 SD=33, 2006 SD=44).... 17 FIGURE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLER EFFORT COMPARISON BY ZONE DURING THE WINTER FISHERY.... 18 FIGURE 9. % OF ANGLERS UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE FROM SURVEYS DURING 2005 & 2006 ELK RIVER WINTER FISHERY AND 2005 & 2006 SUMMER/FALL FISHERIES ON 7 E.K. CLASS II STREAMS... 19 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I. Elk River Winter Angler Survey Form 2006 24 APPENDIX II. Elk River Creel Survey Fish Data Form 2006...25 vi

1.0 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). Nonsport 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 (Martin 1983, Westover 1994). Over the past several years angling effort during the trout/char fishery has dramatically increased (Heidt 2005). 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 approximately 2,022 angler days in 2002 (Heidt 2002). During an angler survey in the summer/fall of 2002, it was estimated that anglers caught and released an estimated 92,635 westslope cutthroat trout from July 1 to October 31, 2002 (Heidt 2002). Angler surveys on the Elk River winter fishery in 1992 and 2005, demonstrate angler use is limited primarily to a harvest fishery for mountain whitefish; however, there is some incidental catch of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout by anglers targeting mountain whitefish, as well as a small percentage of anglers targeting these species for catch and release (Westover 1994, Prince 2006). This report summarizes the results of the winter creel conducted from January 13 to March 31, 2006, on four zones of the Elk River (Elk River FSR bridge in Elko to the Sparwood CPR bridge north of Sparwood). The objectives of this project were to provide a river guardian presence on the system for compliance monitoring and reporting in cooperation with the CO service, and to collect angler survey data, determine catch 1

success (CPUE) and gather data from harvested mountain whitefish pertaining to fish life history. 2.0 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 (Martin 1983). The objectives of the 1982/83 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 2

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 50 year flood (Water Survey of Canada). 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 (Westover, pers comm.). Thus, the Elk River and its tributaries were regulated catch and release for 3 years (until 1998/1999) so remaining stocks could rebuild (BC Regulations Synopsis 1996/97-1998/99). 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. Finally, in 1999/2000 the single hook restriction on the Elk River was changed to single, barbless hook (BC Regulations Synopsis 1999/2000). Additionally, in 2003 an anglingguide moratorium was implemented as a temporary measure to suspend new anglingguide licences for regional streams, until a viable plan could be put in place to effectively deal with increasing demands. The Elk River became a Class II Classified River as of April 1, 2005 along with six other East Kootenay streams (BC Regulations Synopsis 2005/06 - present). Classification requires intensified management of use and quotas on angler class numbers and on the number of guided anglers on the river. It also requires special licencing for both residents and non-residents. As there are no seasonal restrictions to Class II designations, this designation remains in effect during the winter fishery on the Elk River, requiring anglers to possess appropriate Class II licences. 3

3.0 STUDY AREA The Elk River originates from the glacier-fed waters of Elk Lakes within the Front and Elk Ranges of the Southern Rocky Mountains. From its headwaters in Elk Lakes Provincial Park, the Elk River flows approximately 115 km south/southeast to Sparwood. The river then flows in a south/southwest direction for approximately 70 km through a broad valley. Just north of Elko, this valley narrows as it enters the Rocky Mountain Trench, confining much of the lower Elk River (approximately 28 km) 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 lower Elk and Kootenay River systems (Heidt 2005). The Elk River has a drainage area of 4,450 km 2 with a mean annual discharge of 77 m 3 /s (Water Survey of Canada). There are several significant tributaries to the Elk River: Cadorna Creek, Forsyth Creek, Michel Creek and the Fording River flow into the Elk River above Sparwood. Coal Creek, Lizard Creek and Morrissey Creek flow into the Elk between Sparwood and Elko, and the Wigwam River enters the lower Elk River several kilometers downstream of the Elko Dam. The Elk River is divided into three sections (lower, middle and upper river) which are broken out primarily by differences in targeted species, effort and access. The river is then further divided into eight zones, which correspond with catch and release zones established in the freshwater fishing regulations for Region 4 (BC Regulations Synopsis 1998/99 - present). The portion of the Elk River included in this survey includes 4 zones and is approximately 70 kms in length, extending from the Elk River Forest Service Road (FSR) Bridge just above the BC Hydro Dam at Elko, to the Sparwood CPR Bridge, approximately 1 km above the Michel Creek Confluence at Sparwood. For the purpose of this study, these zones are numbered 1 4, running numerically from Elko to Sparwood, respectively (Figure 2). 4

The river is very accessible to anglers. Highway #3 parallels the Elk River from Elko to Sparwood. From Sparwood, a paved secondary road parallels sections of 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 River FSR parallels the east side of the Elk River from just below Morrissey to the Elko Dam. Access to the lower Elk (below the dam) is limited mainly to hike-in access points until Highway 93 crosses it just above its confluence with Lake Koocanusa. 5

# # ## # 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 map centre) Duncan INVERMERE Lak e ELKF ORD ON KASLO Kootenay KIMBERLY R I V E R SPARW OOD K E L FERNIE CRANBROOK NELSON Lak e R R Lak e M O Y I E Koocanusa 1:1,200,000 10 0 10 Kilometers Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection "Kootenay Region" February 13, 2003 Area of Interest 6

Figure 2. Map of the Elk River winter study area (Zones 1-4) Elk River Study Area Zone 1- Elko Bridge to Morrissey Bridge Zone 4 Zone 2 - Morrissey Bridge to N. Fernie Bridge Zone 3 - N. Fernie Bridge to Hosmer Bridge Zone 4 - Hosmer Bridge to CN Bridge at Sparwood Zone 3 Zone 2 0 3.75 7.5 Kilometres Ministry of Environment (2007) Key Map of B.C. Zone 1 7

4.0 METHODS The survey was conducted over a 78 day period from January 13 to March 31, 2006. There were a total of 34 days sampled on the Elk River during this period. Creel days were stratified by day type (weekday vs. weekend) and scheduled with an approximate 80/20 sampling percentage, respectively. Because the survey was not designed to account for extrapolated effort and catch, sampling was weighted only to include a representative portion of anglers over weekday/weekend periods. The winter fishery differs significantly from the summer fishery in trip length statistics. Due to the different composition of the fishery, including angler residence, targeted species, harvest vs. catch and release, river access, limited fishable water and weather factors, average time fished is relatively low. Average time fished is summarized in this report two ways. Analysis of complete trip data only (n=18), and analysis of all angler trips. It is important to note that for the second category, time of finish for the angler is estimated by their response to the question: when do you expect to finish fishing today (Appendix I). As such, including non-complete trip data in results is beneficial only for comparative purposes and should be interpreted with caution. The winter fishery on the Elk River sees effort focused almost exclusively from Elko to Sparwood B.C., and the winter survey only included the 4 zones within this area. The River Guardian travelled this study area by truck and foot and interviewed anglers. Anglers encountered by the River Guardian were required to produce both a valid BC freshwater angling licence and classified waters licence upon request. These licences were inspected and then documented in the angler survey form specific to that angler interview (Appendix I). The River Guardian also inspected angling gear and confirmed that angler harvest was within the designated parameters for both species and limits. Additional data collected by the river guardian included: hours fished, fish caught and released by species, place of residence, angling methods (i.e. fly/gear), guided vs. nonguided angler statistics, access methods (i.e. boat/shore) and quality of angling 8

experience. Angling experience was rated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very poor, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good and 5 excellent (Appendix I). In addition, fish lengths from harvested mountain whitefish were also recorded on a fish data form (Appendix II). Survey data were entered into a database created using Microsoft Access 2002 and several queries were subsequently generated to produce the survey results presented in this report. 9

5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Effort A total of 197 anglers were interviewed while angling on the Elk River. They angled a total of 305 hours and caught a total of 601 fish: 20 bull trout (BT), 443 mountain whitefish (MW) and 138 westslope cutthroat trout (WCT), for an overall catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 1.97 fish per rod hour (Table 1). Table 1. Total angler effort and catch success on the Elk River (Winter 2006). Angler Days Hours Fished BT MW WCT CPUE 197 305 20 443 138 1.97 5.2 Catch Of the 601 fish caught on the Elk River during this survey, 331 fish were harvested (55%) (Table 2). Table 2. Total number of fish released and harvested by species. Species Total Catch % of Catch Catch & Release Harvest % Harvest BT 20 3.3% 20 0 0% MW 443 73.7% 115 328 74% WCT 138 23% 135 3* 2%* Total 601 n/a 270 331 55% *Harvested illegally Mountain whitefish composed 74% of the catch in the winter fishery, with westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout comprising 23% and 3%, respectively (Figure 3). 10

Figure 3. Catch composition % for the 2006 Elk River winter fishery. 80% 74% 70% % of catch composition 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 23% BT WCT MW 10% 3% 0% 2006 Lengths from harvested mountain whitefish (n=198) were taken in the field during the survey. Whitefish harvested during the 2006 winter fishery ranged in length from 203mm to 448mm with a mean length of 300mm (±6 95% CI) (Figure 4). Figure 4. Length frequency distributions of mountain whitefish harvested during the 2006 winter fishery on the Elk River. 16% 14% 12% Frequency (%) 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2006 (n=198) 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 Fork Length (mm) 11

5.3 Guided vs. non-guided anglers All anglers interviewed during the period of this survey were non-guided. 5.4 Trip length Based on complete trip data only (n=18), anglers fished for an average of 1.8 hours per trip during the winter fishery. Using expected fishing trip length, anglers fished for an average of 1.6 hours per trip (n=197) (Tables 3&4). Table 3. Expected trip length on the Elk River during the winter fishery. All Anglers Total Hours Fished Average Length of Trip (hours) 197 305 1.55 Table 4. Trip length using complete trip data only. Anglers Total Hours Fished Average Length of Trip (hours) 18 34 1.81 5.5 Angler distribution Anglers fished for 43 hours in Zone 1, 104 hrs in Zone 2, 5 hrs in Zone 3 and 153 hrs in Zone 4 (Table 5). Table 5. Distribution of angler effort over the 4 Zones covered in this survey. Location Number of Anglers Hours Fished % Distribution Zone 1 23 43 12% Zone 2 75 104 38% Zone 3 6 5 3% Zone 4 93 153 47% 5.6 Angling methods Of the 197 total angler interviews, 165 used gear and 32 were fly anglers (84% and 16%, respectively) (Table 6). Table 6. Fishing methods for anglers interviewed during this survey. Total Anglers Gear Anglers % of Anglers Fly Anglers % of Anglers 197 165 84% 32 16% All of the 165 anglers interviewed using gear also used bait (100%). Type of bait used varied, but stone fly nymphs (scratchers) were the most common type (55%) (Table 7). 12

Table 7. Type of bait used by gear anglers interviewed during this survey. # Anglers Bait Type % of Bait Used 109 Stone fly nymph (scatchers) 55% 48 Maggots 24% 2 Fish eggs (roe) 1% 6 Other 4% 5.7 Angler residency Of the 197 anglers interviewed, 193 were from British Columbia, 3 were from other Canadian provinces and 1 was from the United States (98%, 1.5% and.5%, respectively). Of the 193 B.C. anglers interviewed, 191 were from the East Kootenay region, comprising 99% of the resident angler interviews and 97% of the angler interviews overall (Table 8). Of the East Kootenay anglers, 107 anglers were from Fernie and 71 anglers were from Sparwood (54% and 36% of EK anglers, respectively) (Table 9). Table 8. Place of residence for all anglers interviewed on the Elk during this survey. Place of Residence # of Anglers % of Anglers British Columbia* 193 98% Other Canadian 3 1.5% United States 1.5% *East Kootenay Region 191 97% Table 9. Place of residence for B.C. anglers interviewed on the Elk during this survey. B.C. Place of Residence EK Region (y/n) # of Anglers % of all Anglers Fernie y 107 54% Sparwood y 71 36% Kimberley y 4 2% Elkford y 4 2% Grassmere y 2 1% Grandforks n 2 1% Cranbrook y 2 1% Baynes Lake y 1.5% Total 193 98% 13

5.8 Licence class 5.8.1 Freshwater angling licence Of the 197 anglers, 158 had purchased an annual licence, 1 had purchased an 8 day licence, 1 purchased a 1 day licence, 32 anglers were under the age of 16, 1 angler was first nations and 4 anglers did not have licences (80%,.5%,.5%, 16% and 3%, respectively) (Table 10). Table 10. Class of angling licence purchased by anglers fishing the Elk River. Annual 8 Day 1 Day Under 16 First No Total Licence Licence Licence Years Nations Licence 158 1 1 32 1 4 197 5.8.2 Classified waters licence Of the 197 anglers, 156 had purchased annual classified licences, 2 had purchased multiday classified licences, 32 anglers were under the age of 16, 1 angler was first nations and 6 had not purchased a classified waters licence (79%, 1%, 16%, 1% and 3%, respectively) (Table 11). Table 11. Classified licences purchased by anglers fishing the Elk River. Annual Multiday Under 16 Years First Nations No Licence 156 2 32 1 6 5.9 Angling experience A total of 184 anglers responded to the quality of angling experience question. 142 anglers rated their experience as excellent, 25 as good, 14 as fair and 3 as poor (77%, 13%, 8% and 2%, respectively) (Table 12). Table 12. Quality of angling experience for anglers interviewed on the Elk River. Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent No Response 0 3 14 25 142 13 14

6.0 DISCUSSION It is important to note that there is a catch and release restriction on all trout/char species on the Elk during the winter fishery (Nov 1 Mar 31). The winter fishery on the Elk River has historically been and still remains a popular mountain whitefish harvest fishery for resident anglers in the region. Catch statistics in 2006 show mountain whitefish at 74% of the overall catch and harvest rates during this fishery at 55% overall. However, based on analysis from 4 angler surveys over the past 23 years, a shift in species catch composition has occurred on the Elk River winter fishery. The percentage of mountain whitefish caught during this fishery has declined from 98% of the total catch in 1983 to 74% in 2006. In contrast to this decline, the percentage of westslope cutthroat trout composition in this fishery has increased from 1% in 1983 to 23% in 2006 (Figure 5). Figure 5. Comparison of catch composition (%) for the Elk River winter fishery over 4 study periods. 120% % of catch composition 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 98% 90% 81% 74% 23% 17% 9% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1983 1992 2005 2006 MW WCT BT These statistics are likely related to two major factors: the increase in the westslope cutthroat trout population in the Elk River from 1983 to present (Westover 1994, Heidt 2003) and the significantly higher percentages of fly anglers on the system during the winter fishery, particularly in March. The latter is an evolving catch and release fishery specifically targeting westslope cutthroat trout. Data were not collected in the 1983 and 1992 winter surveys pertaining to type of angling method used (i.e. fly vs. gear), likely 15

due to the fact that fly angling in the winter fishery occurred very minimally, if at all (Westover, pers. comm.). Results from the 2005 and 2006 surveys indicate that this is changing. Fly anglers composed 23.4% of all anglers interviewed in 2005 and 16% of all anglers interviewed in 2006. There is also evidence of limited angling guide activity during the winter fishery, which primarily targets westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout for catch and release, but at this time it is an insignificant component of angler effort (Angling Guide Reports 2004- present). No guided anglers were interviewed or observed during this survey; however, anglers reported observing guided boat anglers on two occasions in March. Comparison of mean length over the 4 survey periods from 1983 to present shows a moderate size increase from the 1983/1992 surveys to the 2005/2006 surveys; however, changes to the mean are not statistically significant (Figures 6&7). Figure 6. Comparison of mean length (mm) for mountain whitefish harvested during the Elk River winter fishery over 4 study periods. 400 mean length (mm) 350 300 250 200 150 100 284 270 337 300 MW 50 0 1983 (n=1764) 1992 (n=337) 2005 (n=280) 2006 (n=198) 16

Figure 7. Comparative length frequency distributions of mountain whitefish harvested during 2005 and 2006 winter fisheries on the Elk River (±4, ±6 95% CI, respectively). 16% 14% 12% Frequency (%) 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2005 (n=280) 2006 (n=198) 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 Fork Length (mm) Results from the 2006 survey show that the Elk River winter fishery is almost exclusively a local resident fishery, which is consistent with historical trends during this fishery (Westover pers comm.). Specific residency statistics were not gathered in the 1983 and 1992 angler surveys, but both the 2005 and 2006 surveys show East Kootenay resident anglers at 90% and 97%, respectively of all anglers interviewed. Angler distribution varied significantly by zone during the winter fishery. There were 23 anglers interviewed in Zone 1, 75 in Zone 2, 6 anglers in Zone 3 and 93 in Zone 4 (12%, 38%, 3% and 47%, respectively). Comparative distribution data for these zones does not exist from the 1983 and 1992 surveys, but 2005 survey results show similar percentages for angler distribution (Figure 8). 17

Figure 8. Distribution of angler effort comparison by zone during the winter fishery. 50% 45% 40% Angler Effort (%) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 2005 Winter (n=359) 2006 Winter (n=197) 0% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Management Zone The only significant anomaly between the two years is shown in zone 3, but is likely due to the different methods of obtaining angler distribution between the two survey years. In 2005, angler distribution was obtained using instantaneous counts via helicopter flights over the 4 zones (Prince 2005), while in 2006, distribution statistics were obtained by analysing the interview forms for each angler to determine location. Most angler locations in zone 3 identified during 2005 flights were a significant distance from any road, without any particular parking location or trailhead. The chances of a River Guardian identifying angler use in this zone was subsequently more difficult than in the other 3 zones, where angler locations were more easily identifiable and use was more consistent. A particularly interesting statistic during the winter Elk River fishery pertains to angler age demographics. There were 32 anglers under the age of 16 interviewed during this survey, representing 16% of the angler interviews. These anglers were all from the East Kootenay Region. This is significant in light of recent concerns pertaining to angling recruitment among young people and decreasing angling licence revenue in B.C. This statistic contrasts with recent surveys during the summer/fall seasons on East Kootenay classified rivers, including the Elk. In 2005 and 2006 the percentage of anglers under the 18

age of 16 interviewed from July 1 to October 31 on the 7 classified waters in the Region was 4% and 5% respectively (Figure 9). Figure 9. Percent of anglers under 16 years of age from surveys during 2005 & 2006 Elk River winter fishery and 2005 & 2006 summer/fall fisheries on 7 E.K. Class II streams. 18% 16% 16% Anglers Under 16 yrs (%) 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 8% 4% 5% Winter Summer/Fall 2% 0% 2005 2006 Survey Year 19

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS There is some concern pertaining to the protection of overwintering westslope cutthroat trout populations in the Elk River during the winter fishery. Westslope cutthroat trout are heavily fished in the Elk watershed during the summer/fall fishery, targeted by anglers from all over the world (Heidt 2005). In the winter, these fish move into overwintering habitats in the mainstem Elk, primarily deep pool habitats found throughout the study area, and remain there until just prior to freshet (Westslope Fisheries Ltd. 2003). Due to factors such as stress caused on this population in the summer/fall fishery (post hooking damage, etc.), and the vulnerability of these fish in overwintering habitats, fisheries managers should monitor this population carefully to ensure that any threats to population health are sufficiently mitigated. Future actions may require protecting this population from any targeted catch and release fishery during the winter/spring season. Catch statistics, including mean length and CPUE comparisons over 4 surveys conducted on the Elk River winter fishery since 1983 appear to demonstrate a healthy mountain whitefish population currently exists in the watershed. Results from the 2006 survey do not raise issues of particular concern as to the sustainability of this mountain whitefish population or the harvest fishery. However, in light of the continuation of this historical fishery and the increases in westslope cutthroat trout catch, both incidental and intentional, it is recommended that fisheries management in the region undertake population assessment swims on this system. These assessments should be conducted in certain indicator overwintering habitats to determine numbers of mountain whitefish, westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. It is further recommended that these assessments should be carried out bi-annually. The presence of a River Guardian on the Elk River during the winter fishery has proven an effective means of providing a fisheries presence, both for compliance monitoring and as a public relations liaison between the fisheries section and anglers. Secondarily, this presence in the field has also enabled the collection of vital data to enable fisheries managers to better monitor and understand this unique fishery. The winter fishery occurs on a classified East Kootenay river and involves susceptible overwintering populations of 20

sport fish from throughout the Elk River watershed. As such, this fishery requires the continued presence of River Guardians to monitor and protect this fishery. 21

8.0 REFERENCES Angling Guide Report Forms. BC Ministry of Environment, East Kootenay Fisheries Section, 2004-Present. British Columbia Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis: 1996/1997, 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2005/2006 to present. Duval, Wayne. Elko Generating Station Fisheries Assessment and Planning Study. Report Prepared for BC Hydro Kootenay Generation Area, Kootenay Environment, Castlegar, BC. 1999. Golder Associates Ltd. Selenium Status Report 2004 Elk River Valley, BC. Report Prepared for the Elk Valley Mines Environmental Management Committee. 2004. Heidt, K.D. Elk River Creel Survey 2002, Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program). 2002. Heidt, K.D. Survey on 7 East Kootenay Streams 2005, Quality Waters Strategy (River Guardian Program). 2006. Martin, A.D. Fisheries Management Implications of Creel Surveys Conducted at the Elk River in Kootenay Region, 1982-1983. Fisheries Management Report No. 78. 1983. Minnow Environmental. Selenium Study of Lentic Areas in the Elk Valley. Report Prepared for the Elk Valley Mines Environmental Management Committee. 2003. Prince, Angela. Elk River Winter Creel 2005. Report Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment, East Kootenay Region. 2006. Water Survey of Canada, Hydrometric Station Data from the Elk River (1925-1995). Westover, W.T. Winter (January 27-March 31, 1992) Creel Survey of the Elk River from Elko to the East Fernie Bridge. Fisheries Project Report KO 50. 1994. Westover, W. T. Personal Communication. BC Ministry of Environment, Regional Fisheries Biologist, East Kootenay Region (retired). 2007. Westslope Fisheries Ltd. Elk River Westslope Cutthroat Trout Radio Telemetry Study, 2005-2002. March, 2003. 22

Appendix I. Elk River Winter Angler Survey Form 2006 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 Under 16 First Nations No Licence Classified License Annual Multiple Days Number Under 16 First Nations No Licence 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? (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 In terms of the quality of the angling experience (1 being very poor and 5 being excellent), how would you rate this System, and what were the key factors that influenced your answer? (circle one list top 3 factors see back of form for potential angling environment/setting features) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Don t Read) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Not Sure 1. 2. 3. About how many other anglers do you remember seeing on your fishing trip? (circle one #) 1. 0-2 Anglers 2. 3-5 Anglers 3. 6-12 Anglers 4. More than 12 Anglers 5. Not Sure/Can t Recall Thinking about the total number of other anglers you encountered today, on a scale of 1 to 9 how crowded did you feel? (Circle One number on the scale) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Crowded Slightly Crowded Moderately Crowded Extremely Crowded 23

Appendix II. Elk River Creel Survey Fish Data Form 2006 Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Location (1. Sparwood Hosmer 2. Hosmer Fernie 3. Fernie Morrissey 4. Morrissey Elko) Species Fork Length (mm) Sex Scale Sample No. Age Comments 24