Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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). 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 (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 angling-
guide moratorium was implemented as a temporary measure to suspend new angling-
guide 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 km2 with a mean annual discharge of 77 m3/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
5
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.
Figure 1. Overview map of the Elk River watershed.
6
#
#######
##
######
###
#
#
## # ###
#
###
# #
KASLOON
Duncan
Lake
INVERMERE
KO
OT
EN
AY
RI
VE
R
R
NELSON
ELKFORD
SPARW OOD
FERNIE
KIMBERLY
CRANBROOK
Kootenay
Lake
Lake
Koocanusa
R
MO
YI
E
EL
KR
ASSIN IBOINE
PARK
Ministry of Land,Water a nd Air P rotection
"Kootenay Region"February 13, 2003
N
EW
S(at map centre )
10 0 10 Kilometers1:1,200,000
Area of Interest
Figure 2. Map of the Elk River winter study area (Zones 1-4)
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 4
Key Map of B.C.
Ministry of Environment(2007)
Elk River Study Area
Zone 1- Elko Bridgeto Morrissey Bridge
Zone 2 - Morrissey Bridgeto N. Fernie Bridge
Zone 3 - N. Fernie Bridgeto Hosmer Bridge
Zone 4 - Hosmer Bridgeto CN Bridge at Sparwood
0 7.53.75Kilometres
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. non-
guided 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.
3%
23%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2006
% o
f cat
ch c
ompo
sitio
n
BT
WCT
MW
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.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
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)
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
2006 (n=198)
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 Licence
8 Day Licence
1 Day Licence
Under 16 Years
First Nations
No Licence
Total
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.
1% 1% 3%
98%90%
81% 74%
23%17%
9%2%1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1983 1992 2005 2006
% o
f cat
ch c
ompo
sitio
n
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.
284 270
337
300
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1983 (n=1764) 1992 (n=337) 2005 (n=280) 2006 (n=198)
mea
n le
ngth
(mm
)
MW
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).
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
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)
Freq
uenc
y (%
)
2005 (n=280)
2006 (n=198)
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.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Management Zone
Ang
ler E
ffor
t (%
)
2005 Winter (n=359)
2006 Winter (n=197)
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.
8%
16%
4%5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2005 2006
Survey Year
Ang
lers
Und
er 1
6 yr
s (%
)
Winter
Summer/Fall
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
21
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.
22
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.
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? 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
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
