Upper Oldman River Drainage Angler Survey, 2004

Upper Oldman River Drainage
Angler Survey, 2004
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative
Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
25% Post Consumer Fibre
When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable
Upper Oldman River Drainage Angler Survey, 2004 Crystal Speigl1 and Brad. J. Hurkett2 Alberta Conservation Association P.O. Box 1139 Provincial Building 12501 – 20 Ave, Blairmore, Alberta T0K 0E0 1
Alberta Conservation Association Bag 3014 YPM Place 530‐8 Street S Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 2J8 2
Report Series Co‐editors PETER AKU KELLEY J. KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Crescent NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data, Technical ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐7703‐4 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐7704‐1 Publication No.: T/193 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested citation: Spiegl, C., and B.J. Hurkett. 2005. Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey, 2004. Data report, D‐2005‐036, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Blairmore and Lethbridge, Alberta. 23 pp. + App. Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A roving angler survey was conducted from 16 June to 6 September 2004 in the Upper Oldman River (UOM) drainage on Dutch Creek, Racehorse Creek, Upper Oldman River and the Livingstone River. The survey was initiated to assess angling pressure, angling effort, catch rate and angler satisfaction. These data were compared with data collected from previous angling surveys in the UOM drainage between 1988 and 1992 to assist resource managers in monitoring the status of the cutthroat trout fishery. A total of 2,941 anglers fished a total of 8,468 h in the UOM drainage and reported a combined catch of 9,560 cutthroat trout, 93 rainbow trout, 84 bull trout and 60 mountain whitefish. Of the 9,560 cutthroat, 2,531 (26%) were legal‐size (i.e., total length ≥ 30 cm), two‐thirds of these were captured in the Livingstone River. The catch‐per‐
unit‐effort (CPUE) for cutthroat trout across the entire study area averaged 1.13 fish/h. There was no clear temporal pattern in CPUE. However, CPUE on the Livingstone River was higher in 2004 than in 1992, but the reverse pattern occurred on Dutch Creek over the same period. In 2004, angling pressure was lowest on Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek and highest on the Livingstone River. Overall, angling pressure was higher in 2004 than in previous surveys in 1988 and 1992. In addition, angling pressure shifted from the Upper Oldman River during the 1988 to 1992 surveys to the Livingstone River in 2004. The shift in popularity toward the Livingstone River was likely due to the increased size and number of cutthroat trout in this system, presumably related to the implementation of a catch‐and‐release regulation on the Livingstone River in 1995. In contrast to the Livingstone River, catch rates decreased on the Upper Oldman River and Dutch Creek from 1992 to 2004, and anglers captured fewer and smaller cutthroat trout in these rivers compared to the Livingstone River. Despite the overall increase in fishing pressure, the majority of anglers felt that the size and number of cutthroat trout caught in the drainage did not change between 1992 and 2004. Of the 2,941 anglers interviewed during the study, the majority (95%) were residents of Alberta, 3% were from out of province and 2% were from the United States. Fly‐fishing was the most common angling method and provided the greatest overall CPUE. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of individuals and organizations contributed to the angler survey. We thank Nathan Shaw, angler survey technician, for assisting with the angler survey and Mike Jokinen, Trevor Council and Daryl Wig for assisting with survey preparations. Alberta Public Lands and Forest Division, Gap Base, allowed us to establish a field camp at the fire base and also provided access to facilities. Devon Canada Corporation funded a portion of the angler survey. Trevor Council, Peter Aku and Daryl Wig edited earlier versions of this report. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. vii
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Background information ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Study rationale ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Study objectives ........................................................................................................... 3
2.0
STUDY AREA................................................................................................................... 3
3.0
METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 General sampling methods ........................................................................................ 5
4.0
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.1
Catch summary ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2
Angler effort ............................................................................................................... 10
4.3
Catch‐per‐unit‐effort ................................................................................................. 13
4.4
Angler success............................................................................................................ 16
4.5
Recreational harvest .................................................................................................. 18
4.6
Angling method......................................................................................................... 18
4.7
Angler residency........................................................................................................ 18
4.8
Angler opinion questionnaire .................................................................................. 20
4.9
Summary..................................................................................................................... 20
5.0
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 23
6.0
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 24
iv
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.
Location of the Upper Oldman River drainage in southern Alberta.. ............4
Figure 2.
Estimated number of anglers in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys................................................................................12
Figure 3.
Estimated angling‐hours in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys. .....................................................................................13
Figure 4.
Catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) of cutthroat trout in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys. .................................................15
Figure 5.
Distribution of fish catch among anglers in Dutch and Racehorse creeks, Livingstone River, and Upper Oldman River, 2004. .......................................17
Figure 6.
Area of residence for anglers interviewed on Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek. .....................................................................................................................19
Figure 7.
Area of residence for anglers interviewed on the Livingstone River. ..........19
Figure 8.
Area of residence for anglers interviewed on the Upper Oldman River. ....20
v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
Number of legal‐size sport fish captured during the Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey, 2004. ...............................................................................9
Table 2.
Estimated total catch of sport fish in the Upper Oldman River drainage, 2004...........................................................................................................................9
Table 3.
Observed and estimated angler effort in the Upper Oldman River drainage from 16 June to 6 September 2004. .....................................................................11
Table 4.
Catch‐per‐unit‐effort of fish species caught in the Upper Oldman River drainage study area, 2004....................................................................................14
Table 5.
Catch‐per‐unit‐effort of fish species caught in Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek during the Upper Oldman River drainage angler study, 2004...........14
vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1.
Upper Oldman River drainage fish species scientific names and species abbreviations. ................................................................................24
Appendix 2.
Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey vehicle tally form, 2004.
.......................................................................................................................25
Appendix 3.
Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey form, 2004....................26
Appendix 4.
Upper Oldman River drainage daily summary form, 2004. ................27
Appendix 5.
Estimated Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey data across survey years ................................................................................................28
vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background information The Upper Oldman River (UOM) drainage is located in the southern region of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and is recognized for its trout fishery by anglers throughout North America (Byrne 1993). Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) are the predominant fish species and the most sought after sport fish inhabiting streams within the UOM drainage (Byrne 1993). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) are two other native sport fish species occupying the UOM drainage and are also targeted by anglers, but less sought after than cutthroat trout. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), also targeted by anglers, is the only non‐
native sport fish species within the UOM drainage and is known to hybridize with and outcompete cutthroat trout (Nelson and Paetz 1992; D. Wig, pers. comm. 2004) (Appendix 1). The UOM drainage has become increasingly accessible to anglers due to industrial and recreational development. High density road and trail networks have become established throughout majority of the UOM drainage, primarily from timber harvesting and oil and gas development. The increase in road development coincidentally promotes public access to recreationists, including anglers, and therefore heightens the pressure on the land base and drainage. Provincial recreational campgrounds and random access campsites are also common throughout the UOM drainage and have become established adjacent to major tributaries and mainstem rivers increasing their accessibility to anglers. Increased angling pressure associated with increased access has the potential to impact the trout fishery. Fisheries managers practice adaptive fisheries management to account for increases in angling pressure. Stream regulations are routinely adjusted to facilitate a sustainable fishery. For example, in 1987, fishing regulations for all fish species, was changed from alternate‐year‐stream‐closures to an imposition of size limits (Clements 1989; Byrne 1992, 1993). In 1995, a catch‐and‐release regulation for all fish species was implemented on the Livingstone River and a province‐wide catch‐and‐release regulation for bull trout was enforced (D. Wig, pers. comm. 2004). In 1998, the legal 1
harvestable size restriction for cutthroat trout and rainbow trout was increased from ≥ 25 cm to ≥ 30 cm in the Upper Oldman River and its tributaries, but not in the Livingstone River (Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations 1998). Current angling regulations permit a two trout (cutthroat and/or rainbow) ≥ 30 cm harvest limit and five mountain whitefish ≥ 30 cm harvest limit throughout the entire UOM drainage between 16 June and 31 August, excluding the Livingstone River and the Racehorse Creek confluence to the GAP falls (Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations 2004). Catch‐and‐release regulations apply to all drainages in the UOM drainage between 1 September to 31 October. Angler surveys within the UOM drainage have been routinely conducted (i.e., in 1988, 1990 and 1992) to monitor current fish populations and detect any changes within the fishery (D. Wig, pers. comm. 2004). As part of this monitoring process, a roving angler survey was conducted in 2004 on four major trout streams, Dutch Creek, Racehorse Creek, Upper Oldman River and the Livingstone River; there has been no previous angler data collected for Racehorse Creek (D. Wig, pers. comm. 2004). This (2004) angler survey is a component of the UOM Drainage Sport Fish Assessment, which also included population estimates within the Upper Oldman River, Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek (Jokinen and Council 2004). The 2004 survey was also designed to address angler concerns about the smaller sizes and reduced numbers of fish in water of the UOM drainage. Results from this survey (2004) will be compared to those of previous surveys to identify trends in angler pressure, catch rates and angler satisfaction. 1.2 Study rationale Recently anglers have expressed concern regarding the size and number of cutthroat trout being captured in parts of the UOM drainage. The current survey was conducted to address angler concerns by assessing angler pressure, success rates and angler satisfaction. 2
1.3 Study objectives The primary objectives of this study were: i. To compare angling pressure, angler effort, and catch rates in 2004 with those of previous surveys; ii. To evaluate angler concerns of reduced numbers and sizes of trout being captured; and iii. To assess the need for a change in sport fish management practices within the UOM drainage. 2.0 STUDY AREA The UOM drainage is located in the southwestern region of Alberta along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, approximately 40 km north of Coleman. The entire UOM watershed drains the flowing waters upstream from the Gap falls on the Oldman River. The drainage is located in the forest reserve that occupies montane, subalpine and alpine forests. Streams and rivers within the UOM drainage are coldwater streams, creeks and rivers inhabited by cutthroat trout, bull trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish (Clements 1989; Byrne 1992, 1993). The 2004 survey was conducted on four primary drainages within the UOM watershed: Livingstone River, Upper Oldman River, Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek (Figure 1). 3
Figure 1. Location of the Upper Oldman River drainage in southern Alberta. The four main drainages (three study reaches) are indicated on the map. 4
3.0 METHODS 3.1 General sampling methods The angling survey occurred between 16 June and 6 September 2004. The survey design followed Malvestuto’s (1996) multi‐stage stratified roving angler survey and was replicated from previous UOM angler surveys by integrating a non‐uniform probability random sampling technique (Clements 1989; Byrne 1992, 1993). The survey was stratified according to day type and study reach. Day types were classified as weekdays and weekend days/holidays. Angler sampling was conducted between 1400 to 2200 h which was the general time frame when anglers had completed their day. Later in the season this sampling time shifted to compensate for shorter days. The Livingstone River and Oldman River were considered as separate study reaches, and Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek were combined together as a single study reach due to their adjacency to one another and their short survey reaches. The Livingstone River was sampled from the confluence of South Twin Creek downstream to the Livingstone River / Oldman River confluence. The Upper Oldman River was sampled from the Livingstone River / Oldman River confluence upstream to the confluence of Pasque Creek. Racehorse Creek was surveyed from the Vicary Creek confluence, adjacent to Racehorse Creek provincial campground, downstream to the Oldman River confluence, and Dutch Creek was sampled downstream from the Dome Creek confluence to the Oldman River confluence. A single study reach was surveyed daily. Each study reach was divided into three subsections to allow surveyors to randomly select subsections relative to the day type. One to two subsections were surveyed during weekdays and two to three subsections were surveyed during weekends and holidays when angling pressure was expected to be higher. Access points from previous UOM angling surveys were adopted by technicians in the 2004 UOM angling survey (Byrne 1993). Additional access points to the Livingstone River, Upper Oldman River and Dutch Creek, plus new sites along Racehorse Creek, were selected by analyzing National Topographical Series (NTS) 1:50,000 maps; these 5
points were ground‐truthed prior to the survey season. Common angling access points discovered during the survey were also routinely surveyed. A count run was integrated into the 2004 survey to provide additional data to accurately estimate angling pressure. Each day, prior to angling surveys, access points were visited to record the number of vehicles in the survey section. All vehicles were recorded on a tally form where suspected anglers’ vehicles and other vehicles were enumerated into separate categories (Appendix 2); vehicles that were suspected to be owned by anglers were only included for analysis. Count runs were conducted over a short time period to improve the accuracy of the estimate of angling pressure (Malvestuto 1996). Daily surveys were initiated by randomly choosing an access point at a random time within the survey time period (Malvestuto 1996). Anglers were approached by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) fisheries technicians and asked to participate in the angling survey. Questions in the survey included age class, angler residency, angling method, catch success, total number of angling hours, species and approximate fish size (Appendix 3). Angler residency was classified as local (> 100 km), rural (< 100 km), Calgary, Lethbridge, out of province, out of country (USA) or out of country (other than USA). Angling method was classified as artificial flies, artificial lures, combination, other or test angling. Anglers who had fished in the drainage previously were asked additional questions regarding their opinion of i) whether or not a change had been observed in the size and number of fish within the study reach, and ii) the status of the fishery as increasing, decreasing or remaining the same. Following the interview, anglers were associated with their vehicles enumerated earlier in the count run and noted as a contacted vehicle. Suspected vehicles that remained anonymous were classified as not contacted (Genereux and Bryski 2003). The ratio between the total counted vehicles to the total contacted vehicles was determined as the daily adjustment factor. The daily adjustment factor is a correction factor that accounts for all anglers who were angling that day and were not interviewed, and therefore were not enumerated (Genereux and Bryski 2003). 6
Upon the completion of a survey day, fisheries technicians recorded and summarized all data collected during the day on a daily summary form (Appendix 4). Angler data was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for data storage and data analysis. Angling information was submitted to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) for storage in their Fisheries Management Information System (FMIS) database. 3.2 Data analysis Observed angling effort was calculated by summing the recorded number of anglers and angling‐hours during the survey. Observed angling effort was adjusted for missing anglers by multiplying the daily adjustment factor by the number of anglers and angling‐hours (Genereux and Bryski 2003). The observed angling effort was further adjusted by multiplying the number of incomplete angling‐hours, per incomplete angling trip, by the ratio of complete trip hours to incomplete trip hours. Total estimated angler effort, per study reach and day type, was calculated by summing the adjusted number of anglers for each month. Pollock et al.’s (1994) variance estimation utilizing proportional allocation with finite correction was used to calculate the total estimated angler effort variance (95% confidence interval, CI) for each stratum (day type and study reach section). Proportional allocation of variance = (Nh2 / N2 * Sh2 / nh) Variance with finite correction = (Nh2 / N2 * Sh2 / nh * (Nh ‐ nh / Nh)) where, N = Total number of anglers; Nh = Number of possible anglers; nh = Number of actual anglers; and Sh2 = variance. 7
Total angling effort calculations were determined by multiplying the average daily effort, per day type and study reach, by the number of each day type throughout the entire survey period. Total angling effort variance was calculated for each value (95% CI) (Genereux and Bryski 2003). Catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) was calculated as the total number of fish, for each species, divided by the total number of angling‐hours. Harvest rate calculations were determined by simply dividing the observed number of fish harvested by the observed total number of fish captured. Harvest rates were calculated for each fish species and study reach. Anglers were considered successful if at least one fish was caught per angling trip and was evaluated by comparing the number of successful angling trips to the number of unsuccessful angling trips (Genereux and Bryski 2003). Comparisons of angler success were made between each study reach section by interpreting Lorenz curves and evaluating calculated Gini coefficients (Baccante 1995). The closer the Gini coefficient value was to zero, the lower the deviation and hence more even the angler success distribution would be; inversely, the greater the coefficient value, the higher the deviation and therefore the more uneven the angler success distribution would be. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Catch summary All four sport fish species were caught in all study reaches. A total of 9,797 fish were captured and recorded during the duration of the angler survey. Cutthroat trout was the primary fish species caught during the angler survey, comprising 97.6% (n = 9,560) of the overall catch. Of the remaining catch, 0.9% (n = 93) was rainbow trout, 0.9% (n = 84) bull trout and 0.6% (n = 60) mountain whitefish. Fish catches, excluding bull trout, were considerably higher in the Livingstone River (n = 3,567) and the Upper Oldman River (n = 2,731) than in Racehorse Creek (n = 1,781) and Dutch Creek (n = 1,634) (Table 1). 8
Estimated total catch during the entire survey period showed similar trends as the observed catch, where cutthroat trout was the primary fish species captured throughout the entire study area. The total estimated catch of all fish species in the study area over the entire survey period was 22,838 fish (Table 2). Table 1. Number of legal‐size (≥ 300 mm) sport fish captured during the Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey, 2004. River section Cutthroat trout # % Size class Rainbow trout # % Mountain whitefish
# % (< 300 mm) (≥ 300 mm) Total (< 300 mm) (≥ 300 mm) Total (< 300 mm) (≥ 300 mm) Total 1,344 250 1,594 1,349 392 1,741 1,912 1,607 3,519 84.3 15.7 100 77.5 22.5 100 54.3 45.7 100 22 4 26 22 9 31 15 4 19 84.6 15.4 100 71.0 29.0 100 79.0 21.0 100 7 7 14 4 5 9 9 20 29 50.0 50.0 100 44.4 55.6 100 31 69 100 Oldman River (< 300 mm) (≥ 300 mm) Total 2,416 290 2,706 89.3 10.7 100 14 3 17 82.4 17.6 100 2 6 8 25 75 100 All (< 300 mm) (≥ 300 mm) Total 7,021 2,539 9,560 73.4 26.6 100 73 20 93 79.2 20.8 100 22 38 60 37.6 62.4 100 Dutch Creek Racehorse Creek Livingstone River Table 2. Estimated total catch of sport fish in the Upper Oldman River drainage, 2004. River section Dutch Creek Racehorse Creek Livingstone River Oldman River Total Cutthroat Trout Rainbow trout Mountain whitefish Bull trout 3,227 3,250 8,840 6,991 22,308 53 58 48 44 203 28 17 73 21 139 45 39 45 59 188 9
Total estimated catch of cutthroat trout was higher in the 2004 survey compared to the 1992 angler survey. Livingstone River demonstrated the most dramatic change, with catch of cutthroat increasing from 1,686 fish in 1992 (Byrne 1993) to 8,840 in 2004. Catch of cutthroat on Dutch Creek increased from 2,485 fish in 1992 (Byrne 1993) to 3,227 in 2004, while on Upper Oldman River increased from 5,927 in 1992 (Byrne 1993) to 6,991 in 2004. An estimated 5,934 cutthroat trout ≥ 300 mm were caught in the entire UOM drainage during the 2004 survey period. Approximately 67% of these legal‐sized cutthroat trout were caught in the Livingstone River, 12% were caught in both Racehorse Creek and Upper Oldman River and the remaining 9% were caught in Dutch Creek. The remainder of the 16,374 cutthroat trout caught in the UOM drainage were < 300 mm. 4.2 Angler effort Angler sampling was conducted during 116 of a possible 249 sampling periods. Approximately 40% (67 of 168) of weekdays and 67% (54 of 81) of weekend days and holidays were sampled during the 2004 survey period. During this period, 2,941 contacted anglers reported they had fished 8,453 angling‐h at a rate of 2.87 h/angler. As a result, an estimated 7,185 anglers fished an estimated 20,197 angling‐h in the UOM drainage during the 2004 survey period. Overall, angling pressure was greatest on the Livingstone River compared to the other study reaches. Each month, the Livingstone River had the highest number of observed anglers and angling‐hours, followed by the Upper Oldman River. Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek had the lowest angling pressure in the UOM drainage in 2004 (Table 3). The trend in estimated number of anglers across all study reaches was similar across survey years, with the exception of Racehorse Creek where incomplete data precluded an evaluation of trends in angler numbers (Appendix 5). The number of anglers in all study reaches was greatest during the 1988 survey, excluding the Livingstone River where the estimated number of anglers was greatest in 2004. Compared to the 1988 survey, the 1990 angler survey revealed a substantial decrease in anglers on Dutch Creek and Livingstone River, whereas there was only a slight decrease in anglers on 10
the Upper Oldman River. The 1992 survey revealed a drastic decline (from 1990) in the estimated number of anglers on the Upper Oldman River, whereas the Livingstone River exhibited a smaller decline and angler numbers on Dutch Creek remained the same. Compared to 1992, angler numbers were higher in 2004, especially on the Livingstone River where the number of anglers increased by approximately 1,800 (Figure 2). Table 3. Observed and estimated (95% confidence interval) angler effort in the Upper Oldman River drainage from 16 June to 6 September 2004. River Reach Anglers interviewed Observed
angling‐h Estimated anglers Estimated angling‐h Dutch Creek 73 161.5 187 (± 38.71) 324.1 (± 70.97) Racehorse Creek 58 161.5 97 (± 32.41) 264 (± 89.50) Livingstone River 140 484.5 317(± 51.99) 1,092 (± 214.03) Oldman River 81 229.5 195 (± 59.67) 536.4 (± 207.59) Dutch Creek 246 588 660 (± 90.42) 966.8 (± 172.09) Racehorse Creek 230 604.5 413 (± 83.43) 1,249.8 (± 291.20) Month June July Livingstone River 467 1524 1,265 (± 173.31) 4,430.3 (± 762.01) Oldman River 383 1,027.50 927 (± 167.79) 2,503.4 (± 505.69) 201 562.5 476 (± 81.87) 1,319.7 (± 166.28) Dutch Creek Aug Sept Total Racehorse Creek 184 516 429 (± 87.95) 1,175.4 (± 248.01) Livingstone River 342 1,085.50 904 (± 152.78) 2,704.0 (± 700.34) Oldman River 230 551.5 628 (± 242.41) 1,481.6 (± 628.20) Dutch Creek 26 76 ‐‐ ‐‐ Racehorse Creek 67 191 ‐‐ ‐‐ Livingstone River 139 488 ‐‐ ‐‐ Oldman River 74 201 ‐‐ ‐‐ Dutch Creek 546 1,388 1,380 (± 168.36) 2,793.9 (± 363.21) Racehorse Creek 539 1,473 1,110 (± 172.05) 3,213.6 (± 492.09) 1,088 3,582 2,697 (± 320.94) 8,998.1 (± 1313.72) Livingstone River Oldman River Grand Total 768 2,009.50 1,998 (± 319.68) 5,192.0 (± 789.18) 2,941 8,452.50 7,185 (± 998.72) 20,197.6 (± 3070.04) ‐‐ Insufficient data 11
3000
Estimated Anglers (#)
2500
2000
Dutch Creek
Racehorse Creek
1500
Livingstone River
Oldman River
1000
500
0
1988
1990
1992
2004
Year
Figure 2. Estimated number of anglers in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys. In 2004, the trend in angler‐hours across study reaches was similar to the trend in angler numbers across study reaches observed that year. In 2004, the estimated number of angling‐hours on the Livingstone River increased by approximately 7,000 h compared to the 1992 angler survey. Notably, angling effort on the Livingstone River went from the lowest recorded effort in 1992 to the highest recorded effort throughout the entire UOM drainage in 2004. In comparison, angling pressure was greatest in the Upper Oldman River in 1988 and 1990, before declining drastically by approximately 2,600 h in 1992 and then increasing by approximately 1,800 h in 2004, approximately 800 h less than the recorded all time highest angling effort. Angling effort was highest on Dutch Creek in 1988 before declining in 1990 and 1992 and then increasing moderately during 2004 (Figure 3). 12
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
Estimated angling hours (h)
7000
6500
6000
5500
DutchCreek
5000
Racehorse Creek
4500
Livingstone River
Oldman River
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1988
1990
1992
2004
Year
Figure 3. Estimated angling‐hours in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys. 4.3 Catch‐per‐unit‐effort CPUE was greatest for cutthroat trout (1.250 fish/h) in the UOM river study area. In comparison, CPUE of rainbow trout, bull trout and mountain whitefish were 0.013, 0.012 and 0.007 fish/h, respectively. In 2004, cutthroat trout CPUE was slightly higher in the Upper Oldman River and Livingstone River than in Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek. However, CPUE for rainbow trout and bull trout were highest in Dutch and Racehorse creeks (Table 4). CPUE of all species was similar for Dutch and Racehorse creeks (Table 5). 13
Table 4. Catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) of fish species caught in the Upper Oldman River drainage study area, 2004. Species Cutthroat Trout Rainbow Trout Mountain Whitefish Bull Trout Study reach CPUE (kept) (fish/h) CPUE (released) (fish/h) Total CPUE (fish/h) Dutch/Racehorse Livingstone River Oldman River Dutch/Racehorse Livingstone River Oldman River Dutch/Racehorse Livingstone River Oldman River Dutch/Racehorse Livingstone River Oldman River 0.013 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.147 1.333 1.333 0.019 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.004 0.015 0.005 0.011 1.159 1.334 1.347 0.020 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.004 0.015 0.005 0.011 Table 5. Catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) of fish species caught in Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek during the Upper Oldman River drainage angler study, 2004. Species River CPUE (kept) (fish/h) CPUE (released) (fish/h) Total CPUE (fish/h) Cutthroat Trout Dutch Racehorse Dutch Racehorse Dutch Racehorse Dutch Racehorse 0.004 0.021 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.151 1.143 0.019 0.020 0.009 0.005 0.016 0.014 1.155 1.163 0.019 0.021 0.010 0.007 0.016 0.014 Rainbow Trout Mountain whitefish Bull Trout 14
4.3.1 Cutthroat trout CPUE The highest recorded catch rate for cutthroat trout was on the Upper Oldman River during the 1992 survey (Figure 4); increasing from approximately 1.0 cutthroat trout/h in 1988 to approximately 1.75 cutthroat trout/h in 1992. However, cutthroat CPUE declined in 2004 to approximately 1.33 cutthroat trout/h. The Livingstone River had the lowest cutthroat CPUE during all previous surveys, except during the 2004 survey. Following the decline in CPUE on the Livingstone River in 1990 (CPUE = 0.4 cutthroat trout/h), CPUE steadily increased in each subsequent survey period to approximately 1.33 cutthroat trout/h in 2004. This result is likely related to the implementation of the catch‐and‐release regulation on the Livingstone River in 1995. In 1988, Dutch Creek had the highest cutthroat trout CPUE; however, CPUE decreased substantially in 1990 from approximately 1.4 cutthroat trout/h to approximately 0.75 cutthroat trout/h. In 1992, cutthroat CPUE on Dutch Creek increased to approximately 1.2 cutthroat trout/h and remained relatively the same in 2004 (1.16 cutthroat trout/h, Figure 4). 2.00
1.80
1.60
CPUE
(cutthroat trout/h)
1.40
1.20
Dutch Creek
Racehorse Creek
1.00
Livingstone River
Oldman River
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1988
1990
1992
2004
Year
Figure 4. Catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) of cutthroat trout in the Upper Oldman River drainage during the past four angler surveys. 15
4.4 Angler success Examination of Lorenz curves revealed little difference in angler success among all fish species for all study sections surveyed in 2004. These curves produced higher Gini coefficient values indicating high deviations in angler success and therefore uneven distributions among successful anglers. Gini coefficients for cutthroat trout ranged from 0.67 to 0.73. Both the Upper Oldman River and the Livingstone River had coefficient values of 0.73, whereas Dutch Creek / Racehorse Creek had a value of 0.67. This comparison indicates that cutthroat trout angler success was slightly better in the Dutch Creek / Racehorse Creek study section. Angler success for all fish species had Gini coefficients that ranged from 0.66 to 0.76. Upper Oldman River had a Gini coefficient of 0.76, whereas the Livingstone River and Dutch and Racehorse creeks had coefficients of 0.67 and 0.66, respectively. These results indicate that angler success for all fish species is greatest on Dutch and Racehorse creeks and the Livingstone River study reaches, and lowest on the Upper Oldman River (Figure 5). In 2004, anglers captured fewer (16%) legal‐sized cutthroat on Dutch Creek than in 1990 (30%) and 1992 (25%) (Byrne 1992, 1993). The percent of legal cutthroat trout captured on the Upper Oldman River was lower in 2004 (11%) than in 1988, 1990 or 1992 (Clements 1989; Byrne 1992, 1993). The percent of the total legal‐sized cutthroat trout captured by anglers has decreased on all study reach sections with the exception of the Livingstone River. This decrease may be a result of the change in harvestable size regulations from > 25 cm to > 30 cm that occurred during the 1998 season. The percent of > 30 cm cutthroat trout captured on the Livingstone River increased steadily from 30% in 1988 (Clements 1989), 33% in 1990 (Byrne 1992), 40% in 1992 (Byrne 1993) to approximately 46% in 2004. The considerable increase between 1992 and 2004 may be due to the catch‐and‐release regulation implemented on the Livingstone River in 1995. 16
100
100
Dutch & Racehorse Creek
Cutthroat Trout
Gini Coef.= 0.67
90
80
Cumulative Percent of All Fish
Cumulative Percent of CTTR
80
70
60
50
40
30
60
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
Cumulative Percent of Anglers
100
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
70
80
90
100
Cum ulative Per cent of Anglers
100
Livingstone River
Cutthroat Trout
Gini Coef. = 0.73
90
Livingstone River
All Fish
Gini Coef . = 0.67
90
80
80
Cummulative Percent of All Fish
Cumulative Percent of CTTR
70
20
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cum ulative Percent of Anglers
Cum ulative Percent of Anglers
100
100
Oldman River
Cutthroat Trout
90 Gini Coef.= 0.73
90
Oldman River
All Fish
Gini Coef. = 0.76
80
Cumulative Percent of All Fish
80
Cumulative Percent of CTTR
Dutch & Racehorse Creek
All Fish
Gini Coef.= 0.66
90
70
60
50
40
30
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cum ulative Per cent of Anglers
Cum ulative Percent of Anglers
Figure 5. Distribution of fish catch among anglers in Dutch and Racehorse creeks, Livingstone River, and Upper Oldman River, 2004. 17
4.5 Recreational harvest Fish harvested during 2004 comprised 0.7% (72 of 9,797) of the overall fish catch. This low harvest rate suggests that the UOM drainage is primarily a catch‐and‐release fishery. Harvest rate was highest in Dutch and Racehorse creeks at 1.2% (40 harvested of 3,458 fish). When assessed individually, the harvest rate on Dutch Creek was 1.8% (33 harvested of 1,802 fish) and on Racehorse Creek was 0.4% (7 harvested of 1,656). The Upper Oldman River had a harvest rate of 1.0% (28 harvested of 2,754 fish). Fish were reportedly harvested from the Livingstone River, despite it being regulated as a catch‐and‐release fishery. Anglers reported that four of 3,585 fish were illegally harvested on the Livingstone River (harvest rate = 0.1%). No bull trout were reportedly harvested during the 2004 survey, but all other fish species were harvested. Across the entire study area, mountain whitefish had the greatest harvest rate at 5.0% (3 harvested of 60 fish), rainbow trout had a harvest rate of 2.2% (2 harvested of 93 fish) and cutthroat trout had the lowest harvest rate at 0.7% (67 harvested of 9,560 fish). 4.6 Angling method Fly‐fishing was the most common angling method used in the study area in 2004 and was used by 73% of all interviewed anglers. Lures were used by 24% of anglers. Only 3% of anglers used a combination of flies and lures, or other angling methods. Angling preference has shifted since 1992 when anglers used flies and lures equally (Byrne 1993). 4.7 Angler residency Of the 2,941 anglers interviewed, the majority of anglers (50.2%) reported Calgary as their location of residence. Anglers from Lethbridge represented 9.9% of anglers fishing in the UOM drainage and only 3.5% of anglers were local residents. Anglers from rural Alberta comprised 22.7% of the study sample, while 6.2% consisted of urban Albertans (> 200 km). The remaining 7.5% of anglers interviewed were from either out of province or out of country. Since the 1988 angler survey, there has been a 18
progressive increase in anglers from Calgary in the UOM drainage and a reduction in local anglers (Crowsnest Pass residents) (Figures 6, 7 and 8). 50%
45%
40%
Percentage of Anglers
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Local (<100km)
Rural Alberta
(>100km)
Calgary
Lethbridge
Urban Alberta
(>200km)
Out of Province Out of Country
(USA)
Out of Country
(other)
Angler Residence
Figure 6. Area of residence for anglers interviewed on Dutch Creek and Racehorse Creek. 65%
60%
55%
50%
Percentage of Anglers
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Local (<100km)
Rural Alberta
(>100km)
Calgary
Lethbridge
Urban Alberta
(>200km)
Out of Province Out of Country
(USA)
Out of Country
(other)
Angler Residence
Figure 7. Area of residence for anglers interviewed on the Livingstone River. 19
50%
45%
40%
Percentage of Anglers
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Local (<100km)
Rural Alberta
(>100km)
Calgary
Lethbridge
Urban Alberta Out of Province Out of Country
(>200km)
(USA)
Out of Country
(other)
Angler Residence
Figure 8. Area of residence for anglers interviewed on the Upper Oldman River. 4.8 Angler opinion questionnaire A total of 1,706 of 2,941 (58%) anglers interviewed in the 2004 reported they had fished within the UOM drainage in previous years. These returning anglers were asked whether catch rates in the UOM drainage have changed. Of those interviewed, 60% (1,024 anglers) reported catch rates to be relatively stable. Of the remaining 682 anglers, 25% felt catch rates had decreased and 15% felt catch rates had increased. Similarly, of the 1,698 anglers who were asked about the size of fish caught, 60% of anglers reported no change in fish size, while 25% of anglers observed an increase in fish size and 15% felt there was a decrease in fish size. 4.9 Summary Data obtained from the 2004 angler survey suggest that catch rates of cutthroat trout were the highest ever recorded in the UOM drainage. Across study reaches, catch rates for all fish species have shifted slightly since the 1988 survey. Catch rates for Dutch 20
Creek and the Upper Oldman River were highest during the 1992 and 1988 survey, respectively. Since that time, catch rates for Dutch Creek have remained constant, while catch rates for the Upper Oldman River have decreased during the angler surveys. Catch rates on the Livingstone River have increased significantly from previous survey years, as this reach has provided the highest catch rates in the UOM drainage. Since the 1992 angler survey, angling pressure has increased in all study reaches, likely due to the increase in human population and development in southern Alberta. The greatest increase in angling pressure has occurred on the Livingstone River, where anglers had greater catch rates and captured a higher abundance of cutthroat trout ≥ 300 mm. During previous angler surveys, the Upper Oldman River had the highest angling pressure in the UOM drainage, but since the increase in popularity of Livingstone River, angling pressure has decreased. The 2004 angler survey revealed that there are fewer and smaller cutthroat trout in the Upper Oldman River, and fewer anglers and less angling pressure than the Livingstone River. Dutch Creek has experienced minor shifts in angling pressure across study years. In 2004, angling pressure increased slightly from previous years, but to a lesser extent than for the Livingstone River. Angler success was highest on Dutch and Racehorse creeks than on the other surveyed streams in the UOM drainage. In general, angling pressure in the UOM drainage has increased since the 1992 angler survey. The effect of regulation changes within the drainage since 1995 has improved the quality of fishing, primarily on the Livingstone River, and as a result has increased the number of anglers using the fishery. In 1995, catch‐and‐release regulations were implemented on the Livingstone River for cutthroat trout and a zero harvest limit on bull trout was implemented province‐wide. Shortly thereafter, legal‐sized fish length was increased from ≥ 25 cm to ≥ 30 cm in 1998. The majority of anglers indicated that there has been no change in catch rates (i.e., catch rates have remained stable). Similarly, 60% of anglers indicated that there had been no change in the number and size of fish. 21
Harvest rates are relatively low throughout the entire UOM drainage, suggesting that the majority of anglers practice catch‐and‐release angling. A few anglers illegally harvested cutthroat trout from the Livingstone River. No bull trout were harvested in the UOM drainage. Harvest rates were likely higher than anglers indicated, but rates are likely still quite low. Fly fishing was the preferred angling method in the UOM drainage. Approximately three‐quarters of anglers used artificial flies, whereas the rest used lures or a combination of both. 22
5.0 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. 1998. Sports Scene Publications Inc. Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. 2004. Sports Scene Publications Inc. Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta. Baccante, D. 1995. Assessing catch inequality in walleye angling fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 661‐665. Byrne, R. 1992. Livingstone drainage creel survey 1990. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Environment Protection, Lethbridge, Alberta. 94 pp. Byrne, R. 1993. Livingstone drainage creel survey 1992. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Environment Protection, Lethbridge, Alberta. 70 pp. Clements, G. 1989. Livingstone drainage creel survey 1988. Report produced by Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Environment Protection, Lethbridge, Alberta. 78 pp. Genereux, D.G., and M.S. Bryski. 2003. A creel survey of the Crowsnest River June – September, 2001. Report produced by Alberta Environment, Lethbridge, Alberta. 38 pp. Jokinen, M., and T. Council. 2004. Upper Oldman drainage population estimate. Data Report, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Blairmore, Alberta, Canada. 15 pp. Malvestuto, S.P. 1996. Sampling the recreational creel. Chapter 20. In: B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis (editors). Fisheries techniques. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. 732 pp. Nelson, J.S., and M.J. Paetz. 1992. The fishes of Alberta. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta. Pollock, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 25, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. 371 pp. 23
6.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Upper Oldman River drainage fish species scientific names and species abbreviations. Common name Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout Mountain whitefish Bull trout Scientific name Oncorhynchus clarki Oncorhynchus mykiss Prosopium williamsoni Salvelinus confluentus 24
Species abbreviation CTTR RNTR MNWH BLTR Appendix 2. Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey vehicle tally form, 2004. Upper Oldman Drainage angler survey vehicle tally form (2004).
Date:
Stream:
Day:
(circle one)
Start Time:
Dutch/Racehorse
UOM
Livingstone
End Time:
of
Page:
Interviewer:
#
Access
Site #
Vehicle
Description
Vehicle
Licence #
Remarks
(anglers, non-anglers, nobody around etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
25
Contact
yes =
no =
Appendix 3. Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey form, 2004. Date:
Day:
Stream
(Circle one)
Dutch/Racehorse
UOM
Livingstone
Page:
of
Age
Species
Residence
1‐artificial flies 2‐ artificial lures 3‐combination 4‐other 5‐test angling 1‐ 16 and younger 2‐ 17 – 64 3‐ 65 and older 1‐CTTR 2‐RNTR 3‐MNWH 4‐BLTR 1‐Local (<100 km) 2‐Rural Alberta (>100 km) 3‐Calgary 4‐Lethbridge 5‐ Urban Alberta (>200 km) 26
6‐ Out of Province 7‐Out of country (USA) 8‐Out of country (other) Feelings about the size of fish
Method
Feelings about the # of fish
>30 cm
<30 cm
>30 cm
<30 cm
>30 cm
<30 cm
>30 cm
<30 Cm
>30 cm
<30 cm
>30 cm
<30 cm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Previously interviewed
R
Residence
K
Access Site
R
Age
K
Method
R
Species Code
K
Other Species
R
Number MNWH
Number RNTR
Number CTTR
Completed Trip (Y or N)
Hours Angled (nearest ½ hr)
Time Interviewed (nearest 24 hrs)
Group Number
Angler Number
K
Appendix 4. Upper Oldman River drainage daily summary form, 2004. Day: Date: Air Temp (@ 1500)
Wind (km/h)
Wind Direction
Day Type: (circle one) WD WE HOL Stream: (circle one) Dutch/Racehorse UOM Livingstone Cloud cover %
Precipitation (mm)
Angler vehicles counted (V1)
Angler vehicles contacted (V2)
Adjustment Factor (V1/V2)
Total # of Anglers
Total # of Angler Hours
Species Captured Total # Kept
< 30 cm
> 30 cm
27
Total # Released
< 30 cm
> 30 cm
Appendix 5. Estimated Upper Oldman River drainage angler survey data across survey years (95% confidence interval). Angler Effort River Section Estimated number of anglers Dutch Creek Racehorse Creek Livingstone River Oldman River Dutch Creek Racehorse Creek Livingstone River Oldman River Dutch Creek Racehorse Creek Livingstone River Oldman River Estimated number of angling‐h CPUE of CTTR (fish/h) 1988 1990 1992 2004 1,521 ± 636 1,017 ± 447 1,017 ± 209 ND ND ND 1,798 ± 1,110 966 ± 474 888 ± 226 2,452 ± 723 2,297 ± 1,146 1,506 ± 307 3,676 ± 2,121 2,263 ± 1,208 2,076 ± 485 ND ND ND 1,380 ± 168 1,110 ± 172 2,697 ± 321 1,998 ± 160 2794 ± 362 3,214 ± 492 8,998 ± 1,314 5,192 ± 102 1.16 1.16 0.98 1.35 3,808 ± 2,233 2,058 ± 1,071 1,963 ± 570 5,951 ± 2,239 6,042 ± 3,221 3,363 ± 841 1.39 0.75 1.2 ND ND ND 0.71 0.4 0.86 0.99 1.46 1.76 Abbreviations: ND = No data; CPUE = catch‐per‐unit‐effort; CTTR =cutthroat trout. 28
CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES
The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges
the following partner for their generous support of
this project
The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges
the following partner for their generous support of
this project