Assessment of the Summer Sport Fishery for Walleye and Northern Pike at Iosegun Lake, Alberta, 2003

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

Assessment of the Summer Sport Fishery for Walleye and Northern Pike at Iosegun Lake, Alberta, 2003

Mike Blackburn Alberta Conservation Association #203, Provincial Building 111 – 54 Street Edson, Alberta, Canada T7E 1T2

Report Series Editor PETER AKU KELLEY J. KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 59 Hidden Green NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, AB T3A 5K6 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7

Conservation Report Series Type Data, Technical

ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐7007‐3 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐7008‐0 Publication No: T/176

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:

Blackburn, M. 2004. Assessment of the summer sport fishery for walleye and northern pike at Iosegun Lake, Alberta, 2003. Data Report, D‐2004‐024, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Edson, Alberta, Canada. 28 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To aid in the management and recovery of Alberta’s declining walleye and northern pike populations, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) developed new management strategies for walleye and northern pike in 1995 and 1999, respectively. Iosegun Lake, near Fox Creek, Alberta, was classified as having a stable walleye population from 1996 to 2000, which allowed sport anglers to harvest three walleye daily with a minimum size limit of 43 cm total length (TL). In 2000, ASRD adjusted the sport fishing regulations at Iosegun Lake to reduce harvest of walleye to two fish over 50 cm TL, because of high angling pressure and a potential conflict with walleye management at nearby Sturgeon Lake. From 1999 to 2003 the northern pike population was classified as a stable recreational fishery allowing sport anglers to harvest three pike with a minimum size of 63 cm TL.

In 2003, Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) and ASRD conducted a creel survey on Iosegun Lake to collect data to evaluate the status of walleye and northern pike populations and to review existing sport fish regulations on the lake. Using angler interview data it was estimated that 3,093 anglers fished Iosegun Lake in 2003 for 7866 h or 5.9 angler h/ha. These estimates were larger than those from a 1998 creel survey in which an estimated 2,195 anglers fished the lake for 6752 h or 5.1 angler‐h/ha.

In 2003, an estimated 48 walleye were harvested at Iosegun Lake with an estimated mean weight of 0.937 kg, corresponding to an estimated yield of 0.034 kg/ha. This yield was lower compared to the 1998 survey when the estimated yield was 0.650 kg/ha. In 2003, anglers reported a release rate of walleye of 2.12 fish/h, resulting in an estimated release of 17,208 walleye. The estimated total yield (harvest + incidental mortality) of walleye was 1,012 or 0.454 kg/ha.

An estimated 66 northern pike were harvested by sport anglers at Iosegun Lake in 2003 with an estimated mean weight of 1.603 kg, resulting in an estimated yield of 0.079 kg/ha. This result is lower compared to the 1998 survey when an estimated 255 northern pike were harvested and yield was estimated at 0.156 kg/ha. However, the estimated mean weight of pike was higher in 2003 (1.603 kg) than in 1998 (0.812 kg). Anglers reported a release rate of pike of 0.549 fish/h for a total released of 1,853 northern pike.

The estimated total yield (harvest + incidental mortality) of northern pike was 72 fish or 0.082 kg/ha.

In 2003, Iosegun Lake had high densities of small walleye (< 50 cm TL) with a stable age‐ class distribution, which was composed of slow‐growing fish that matured at a relatively young age. Based on the criteria in the Walleye Management and Recovery Plan, the walleye population at Iosegun Lake in 2003 was likely stable.

According to the Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan, six of the nine criteria use to classify northern pike populations, indicated Iosegun Lake as having a vulnerable northern pike population in 2003. The remaining three criteria indicated a collapsed pike population. The northern pike population at Iosegun Lake in 2003 could likely be classified as vulnerable.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). Additional funds were provided by Human Resources Development Canada through the Student Career Placement Program. In addition, the ACA received in‐kind support from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD), Fisheries Management Division in Edson and Stony Plain. Special thanks to Bill Patterson, Fisheries Biologist (ACA), for providing continuous support with regards to the data analysis and report organization. Thanks to Craig Johnson, Fisheries Biologist (ACA), Calvin McLeod, East Slopes Business Unit Leader (ACA), and George Sterling, Area Fisheries Biologist (ASRD), for providing critical review of this report.

An essential contribution to this project were the creel clerks, Corey Rasmussen, Ingrid Van Herk, Lyndon Rempel, and Susan Parsons, who surveyed Iosegun Lake. Thanks to all the volunteer test anglers for donating their time and personal expense to this project. Thanks also to the town of Fox Creek for providing the creel clerks and test fishery volunteers with the use of the Iosegun Lake campground free of charge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... vii LIST OF APPENDICES...... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 General introduction...... 1 1.2 Study rationale...... 2 2.0 STUDY AREA ...... 2 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS...... 4 3.1 Survey design...... 4 3.2 Angler interviews...... 4 3.3 Test angling ...... 4 3.4 Biological fish data ...... 5 3.5 Data management and analysis ...... 5 4.0 RESULTS...... 7 4.1 Angler survey ...... 7 4.2 Walleye harvest and yield...... 10 4.3 Northern pike harvest and yield...... 13 4.4 Walleye Sport Fishery Assessment...... 15 4.5 Northern pike sport fishery assessment...... 21 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 26 6.0 APPENDICES ...... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Iosegun Lake and the 2003 creel survey site...... 3 Figure 2. Flow chart outlining the process used for estimating parameters from the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake, Alberta in 2003...... 6 Figure 3. Standardized probability density functions of number of anglers at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 8 Figure 4. Standardized probability density functions of the total number of angler‐ hours at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 9 Figure 5. Standardized probability density functions of angling pressure (h/ha) at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 9 Figure 6. Standardized probability density function of the number of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 10 Figure 7. Standardized probability density functions of the weight of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 11 Figure 8 Standardized probability density functions of the yield (kg/ha) of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 11 Figure 9. Standardized probability density functions of the number of released walleye during the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 12 Figure 10. Standardized probability density functions of the number of northern pike harvested during the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 14 Figure 11. Standardized probability density functions of the weight of northern pike harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 14 Figure 12. Standardized probability density functions of the yield (kg/ha) of northern pike harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 15 Figure 13. Age‐class distribution of walleye captured during the Fall Walleye Index Netting survey at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 16 Figure 14. Length‐at‐age of sport harvested and FWIN harvested walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 17 Figure 15. Age‐at‐maturity of male walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 18 Figure 16. Age‐at‐maturity of female walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 18 Figure 17. Age‐class distribution of northern pike captured by sport anglers during the Iosegun Lake creel survey in 2003...... 22 Figure 18. Length‐at‐age of northern pike captured by sport anglers at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of observed, reported, and estimated catch rates of anglers from summer surveys conducted at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003...... 8 Table 2. The Alberta Walleye Management and Recovery Plan criteria used to evaluate the status of the walleye fishery in Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 20 Table 3. The Alberta Northern Pike Management Recovery Plan criteria used to evaluate the status of the northern pike fishery at Iosegun Lake in 2003. ... 25

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Schedule for the creel survey conducted on Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 29 Appendix 2. Creel survey field form used at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 31 Appendix 3. Fork length‐total length relationships for walleye and northern pike captured during the 2003 FWIN at Iosegun Lake...... 32 Appendix 4. Fork length‐weight relationship charts and equations for walleye and northern pike captured during the 2003 FWIN at Iosegun Lake...... 33 Appendix 5. Iosegun Lake 2003 angler survey daily summary data...... 34 Appendix 6. Summaries of additional interview questions asked of each angler during the summer creel survey at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 35 Appendix 7. Biological data collected from sport angler harvested fish at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 38 Appendix 8. Dates, species, and fork lengths of fish captured during test angling at Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 40 Appendix 9. Fall Walleye Index Netting data collected from Iosegun Lake in 2003...... 46

viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction

Alberta’s walleye (Sander vitreus) and northern pike (Esox lucius) populations receive considerable fishing pressure (Sullivan 2003a). This can be attributed to a growing angler population exploiting fishing opportunities at a limited number of lakes. High numbers of anglers per lake (312.5 anglers/ha in the mid‐1990s) combined with high fish harvests prior to 1995 resulted in the over‐harvest of many of Alberta’s fish populations (Sullivan 2003a). Consequently, management strategies were developed by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) in 1995 for walleye (Alberta’s Walleye Management Recovery Plan, WMRP; Berry 1995), and in 1999 for northern pike (Alberta’s Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan, NPMRP; Berry 1999), to aid in the recovery of these species. Using strategies identified in these management and recovery plans, each fish population was assessed and then assigned to one of four status categories: 1) collapsed, 2) vulnerable, 3) stable or 4) trophy.

In 1996, the WMRP was introduced and Iosegun Lake was classified as a stable walleye fishery (Alberta Government 1996). This classification was based on results from historic creel surveys from 1974 to 1994 (ASRD, Edson File Data). A stable walleye classification permitted sport anglers to harvest three walleye daily with a minimum size limit of 43 cm total length (TL) (Berry 1995). In 1998, a summer creel survey was conducted by the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) at Iosegun Lake to evaluate the status of walleye (Kowalchuk and Davis 2000). Based on criteria in the WMRP, the status of the walleye population was re‐affirmed as stable. In 2000, ASRD made adjustments to the sport fishing regulations at Iosegun Lake to limit harvest to two walleye greater than 50 cm TL (Alberta Government 2000). These regulations were imposed because of the small size of Iosegun Lake, high numbers of anglers, and the potential shift of angling pressure to Iosegun Lake because of new restrictive walleye management regulations at nearby Sturgeon Lake (Sterling, pers. comm.).

After implementation of the NPMRP in 1999, a province‐wide northern pike sport fishing regulation was implemented classifying the majority of pike populations, including Iosegun Lake, as stable‐recreational fisheries (Berry 1999). This classification enabled sport anglers a daily harvest of three northern pike with a minimum size limit

of 63 cm TL (Alberta Government 1999). In 1998, Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) conducted a summer creel survey at Iosegun Lake. The northern pike population was assessed using the NPMRP criteria and was classified as vulnerable but not at risk (Kowalchuk and Davis 2000). According to the NPMRP, northern pike populations managed as vulnerable should have a daily bag limit of one pike of minimum size of 63 cm TL. However, the regulations were not changed at Iosegun Lake after this assessment and the daily bag limit remained at three northern pike of minimum size 63 cm TL (Alberta Government 2000, 2003).

1.2 Study rationale

Management plans for walleye and northern pike in Alberta are designed to use data from access‐point creel surveys of individual lakes (Sullivan 2003a). Creel surveys can be used to reliably estimate fish harvest and angling pressure, are non‐intrusive, and do not increase fish mortality through sampling. ASRD fisheries managers suggest creel surveys should be conducted at walleye lakes every five years; thus Iosegun Lake was scheduled to be surveyed in 2003. In addition, ASRD received pressure from the public to relax size limits on walleye at Iosegun Lake, and allow a more liberal harvest. Consequently, ASRD and ACA conducted a creel survey on Iosegun Lake in 2003 to collect data needed to evaluate the status of walleye and northern pike populations and to review sport fish regulations on the lake.

2.0 STUDY AREA

Iosegun Lake is located approximately 11 km north of Fox Creek, Alberta (Figure 1) and has a surface area of 1326 ha (ASRD, Edson file data). This eutrophic lake has a shoreline perimeter of about 23.9 km and an extensively forested drainage basin of 248 km2 (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). Raspberry Lake and a number of unnamed creeks flow into Iosegun Lake from the south (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). The lake is drained at the north end of the lake via Outlet Creek, which flows into the Iosegun River, a major tributary of the Little Smoky River. Within Outlet Creek is a sheet‐pile weir that is used to stabilize water levels (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). At the weir a Denil II fishway provides fish passage to and from the lake (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). Development at the lake consists of a day‐use area and campground at the southeast end of the lake.

N Iosegun Ou tle Lake t C re ek # ## #

Edson Iosegun Lake Edmonton

I o s e g campground u n (survey site) R iv e r

/( Raspberry Lake

Fox Creek

4048Kilometers

Figure 1. Location of Iosegun Lake and the 2003 creel survey site.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Survey design

A reduced effort creel survey (Pollock et al. 1994) was conducted from a single access point at Iosegun Lake from 16 May to 13 August 2003 to collect data on angler effort and sport fishery harvest. Two creel clerks interviewed anglers as they returned from completed angling trips between 0800 and 2300 h on survey days. The creel survey was stratified into weekdays (Monday‐Friday) and weekend days (Saturday, Sunday, and statutory holidays). Surveys were conducted for five consecutive days during a 14‐day rotation, repeating this schedule seven times throughout the summer (Appendix 1).

3.2 Angler interviews

Upon returning to the survey access point, all angling parties were asked a series of questions regarding the number of hours fished, number of each species kept and released, the number of anglers, angling method, targeted species, use of electronics, age, use of barbless hooks and residence. Each angler was also asked to rate the quality of their overall fishing experience, with 1 = poor, 5 = average, and 10 = excellent. These data were recorded on a creel survey data form (Appendix 2). At the time of the interview, creel clerks made a subjective evaluation of each angler’s skill level, and recorded the angler’s gender. Children and anglers that lacked equipment and knowledge regarding fishing were classified as novice. However, anglers that demonstrated clear superiority in equipment and knowledge (usually displaying sponsor emblems on their clothes and boats) were classified as professionals. All other anglers were considered to have moderate skill.

3.3 Test angling

Test angling was conducted during the survey period to collect information on age distributions and release rates of walleye and pike populations. When restrictive size limits are in effect, creel clerks cannot collect biological data or record catch rates for fish smaller than the size limit. Test anglers included creel clerks, fisheries staff, and volunteers, all of varying skill levels, attempting to catch walleye and northern pike using lures, bait, and techniques that sport anglers would normally use. Test anglers recorded the number of hours fished and the fork length (FL, ± 1 mm) of all fish caught. 4

All fish caught during the test fishery were released. The ratio of legal‐length fish to protected‐length fish sampled during the test fishery was assumed to be equal to the corresponding ratio from the sport fishery (Sullivan 2003b). These ratios were compared to determine the angler exaggeration rate, and then used to estimate the total catch rates for walleye and northern pike. The mean weight of fish caught during the test fishery was applied to incidental mortality and total yield calculations. The catch rate calculated from the test fishery was not included in calculations regarding angler effort or pressure (anglers/ha).

3.4 Biological fish data

When permitted, creel clerks collected biological data from fish that were harvested by anglers. Data collected included fork length (± 1 mm), total weight (± 10 g), ageing structures, sex and state of maturity. Ageing structures collected included the left operculum and the first three rays of the left pelvic fin for walleye, the left cleithrum and the first three rays of the left pelvic fin for northern pike, and the left operculum and the anal fin for yellow perch. Ages were determined according to Mackay et al. (1990) by a minimum of two fisheries staff.

3.5 Data management and analysis

Field data were recorded on field data forms and then transcribed into Microsoft Excel by a professional data entry service using double entry verification. Prior to analysis, these data were verified by calculating frequency distributions of each creel survey parameter and using original data sheets and creel daily diaries to investigate and verify outliers. Biological data were also verified by plotting weight‐length and length‐age relationships to identify and verify any outliers. Outliers were omitted if a measurement or recording error was suspected. All data were stored in the provincial government Fisheries Management Information System (FMIS).

Standardized probability density functions of means generated using bootstrap methods (Haddon 2001) were used to estimate means and confidence intervals for the following parameters: angling effort, angling pressure, and the harvest and yield of walleye and northern pike. Protocols for deriving these estimates follow Sullivan (2004) and a flowchart outlining these steps is shown in Figure 2. Maximum likelihood estimates

(MLE) from this creel survey were compared to those calculated in 1998 (Kowalchuk and Davis 2000). Formal statistical tests were not performed to compare the bootstrapped distributions between years.

Wkdy Mean # Wkdy Wkdy Obs Wkdy Hours Hours x Not Surveyed + Sum = Estimate +

Wknd Mean # Wknd Wknd Obs Wknd Hours Hours x + Not surveyed Sum = Estimate = Constant Total Effort Estimate

Likelihood Profile

Figure 2. Flow chart outlining the process used for estimating parameters from the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake, Alberta in 2003. Circles represent parameters without variance (e.g., daily sums, counts, or totals), whereas rectangles or boxes represent values with probability density functions (e.g., a bootstrapped distribution of means for a parameter measured through the survey period like hours fished). Wknd Obs = weekend days observed; Wkdy Obs = weekdays observed. Bold outlined box represents the total estimate of a particular parameter (e.g. total effort, hours/hectare, total anglers, total harvest, or total yield) (modified from Patterson 2004).

Incidental (hooking) mortality was determined for walleye using a multivariate analysis technique developed for walleye in Minnesota (Reeves 2004). Variables used in the analysis include date of capture, water temperature, capture depth, and fishing method. Based on this analysis, incidental mortality rate for walleye was estimated at 5.6% (i.e., estimated number of walleye released X 5.6%). This estimate was combined with the angler harvest estimate to produce a total estimate of walleye harvest (walleye harvested + incidental mortality).

Gini coefficients and angler success rates were calculated to quantify catch inequality (catch variation) of northern pike according to Baccante (1995). The Gini coefficient varies between 0 and 1; 0 indicates all anglers caught an equal number of fish and 1 indicates that all fish were captured by one person.

Proportional stock density (PSD) and relative stock density (RSD) values were calculated for northern pike using total lengths and the size categories suggested by Gablehouse (1984). The PSD is the number of northern pike harvested ≥ 53 cm TL, as a proportion of those that are ≥ 35 cm TL. A high PSD value indicates a higher quality fishery. The RSD (stock‐quality) is the proportion of harvested northern pike between 35 and 52.9 cm TL relative to the number of pike ≥ 35 cm TL. Since northern pike < 63 cm TL were released by sport anglers (protected‐length), measurements of total length from pike captured during the test fishery were used for these calculations.

Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) data was collected during an FWIN survey at Iosegun Lake in 2003. FWIN is a standardized method used to collect biological, abundance, and size structure data of walleye fisheries (Morgan 2000). These data were used to calculate fork length‐total length (Appendix 3) and fork length‐weight (Appendix 4) relationships. These relationships were then applied to the fork lengths of walleye and northern pike captured during the 2003 Iosegun Lake test fishery to calculate total lengths and weights of fish captured in the test fishery.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Angler survey

In 2003, 1,305 anglers were interviewed at Iosegun Lake between 16 May and 13 August (Table 1). Summaries of angler interviews are provided in Appendices 5 and 6. An estimated 3,093 anglers (95% CI = 2,695 ‐ 3,482; Figure 3) fished Iosegun Lake in 2003, corresponding to an effort of 7,866 angler‐h (95% CI = 6,954 ‐ 8,812; Figure 4) or 5.9 h/ha (95% CI = 5.2 ‐ 6.7; Figure 5). These estimates for angling pressure were higher compared to 1998 when an estimated 2,195 anglers (95% CI = 1,947 ‐ 2,468; Figure 3) fished the lake, corresponding to an effort of 6,752 angler‐h (95% CI = 6,027 ‐ 7,578; Figure 4) or 5.1 h/ha (95% CI = 4.6 ‐ 5.7; Figure 5).

Table 1. Summary of observed, reported, and estimated catch rates of anglers from summer surveys conducted at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and 2003.

Creel Data 19981 2003 # days surveyed 31 35 # anglers interviewed 907 1305 # angling hours reported 2815.5 3374.75 Walleye Data Kept/angler‐h 0.164 0.007 Released/angler‐h 1.068 2.120 Observed total/angler‐h 1.232 2.127 Northern Pike Data Kept/angler‐h 0.042 0.009 Released/angler‐h 0.292 0.549 Observed total/ angler‐h 0.334 0.558 Yellow Perch Data Kept/ angler‐h (1998 n=2; 2003 n=1) 0.0007 0.0003 Released/angler‐h (1998 n=0; 2003 n=1) 0.0000 0.0003 1Data from Kowalchuk and Davis (2000)

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2

Density 1

0.8

0.6 Probability 0.4

0.2

0 Standardized 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Number of anglers

Figure 3. Standardized probability density functions of number of anglers at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 2,195 anglers, 95% CI = 1,947 ‐ 2,468) and 2003 (MLE = 3,093, 95% CI = 2,695 ‐ 3,482).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 Density 1 0.8 0.6 Probability

0.4 0.2 0

Standardized 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Total angler‐hours (hours)

Figure 4. Standardized probability density functions of the total number of angler‐ hours at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 6,752 angler‐h, 95% CI = 6,027 ‐ 7,578) and 2003 (MLE = 7,866, 95% CI = 6,954 ‐ 8,812).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 Density 1 0.8 0.6 Probability

0.4 0.2 0 Standardized 012345678910

Angling pressure (hours/hectare)

Figure 5. Standardized probability density functions of angling pressure (h/ha) at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (MLE = 5.1 h/ha, 95% CI = 4.6 ‐ 5.7) and 2003 (MLE = 5.9, 95% CI = 5.2 ‐ 6.7).

4.2 Walleye harvest and yield

An estimated 48 walleye (95% CI = 34 – 65; Figure 6) were harvested at Iosegun Lake during the 2003 survey. Biological data collected from harvested walleye are provided in Appendix 7. Harvested walleye had an estimated weight of 0.937 kg (95% CI = 0.888 – 0.989; Figure 7) therefore the estimated yield of walleye harvested by anglers was 0.034 kg/ha (95% CI = 0.025 ‐ 0.050; Figure 8). These estimates for harvest and yield are lower than in 1998 when an estimated 1,064 walleye (95% CI = 922 ‐ 1,220) were harvested and yield was estimated at 0.650 kg/ha (95% CI = 0.552 ‐ 0.753). However the mean weight of walleye was higher in 2003 than in 1998 (0.712 kg, 95% CI = 0.758 – 0.863 kg).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 Density 1 0.8 0.6 Probability 0.4 0.2 0 Standardized 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Number of walleye harvested

Figure 6. Standardized probability density functions of the number of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 1,064 walleye, 95% CI = 922 ‐ 1,220) and 2003 (MLE = 48 walleye, 95% CI = 34 ‐ 65).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 1.2 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 Density 1 0.8 0.6 Probability 0.4 0.2 0 Standardized 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Weight of harvested walleye (g)

Figure 7. Standardized probability density functions of the weight of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 0.712 kg, 95% CI = 0.758 – 0.863 kg) and 2003 (MLE = 0.938 kg, 95% CI = 0.888 – 0.989).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 1 Density

0.8 0.6

Probability 0.4 0.2

Standard 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Yield of walleye harvest (kg/ha)

Figure 8 Standardized probability density functions of the yield (kg/ha) of walleye harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 0.650 kg/ha, 95% CI = 0.552 ‐ 0.753) and 2003 (MLE = 0.034 kg/ha, 95% CI = 0.025 ‐ 0.050). 11

Anglers reported a high release rate of walleye of 2.12 fish/h, resulting in an estimated release of 17,208 protected‐length walleye (95% CI = 14,129 ‐ 20,402; Figure 9). According to Sullivan (2003b), angler exaggeration of walleye catch rates is negatively correlated with the release rate. Since the release rate reported by anglers during this survey is high, anglers likely did not exaggerate their catch. Sullivan (2003b) reported an exaggeration factor of < 1 at Iosegun Lake in 1998 and suggested that anglers may have actually underestimated their catches of walleye. The estimated release of walleye increased in 2003 compared to 1998 when an estimated 7,223 walleye (95% CI = 6,310 ‐ 8,227; Figure 9) were released. However, this increase can be partially attributed to the increased size limit implemented in 2000 (Alberta Government 2000), which required anglers to release walleye (less than 50 cm TL) that were harvestable in 1998.

Iosegun Lake Creel 2003 1.2 Iosegun Lake Creel 1998

Density 1

0.8

0.6 Probability 0.4

0.2

0 Standardized 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Number of walleye released

Figure 9. Standardized probability density functions of the number of released walleye during the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 7,223 fish, 95% CI = 6,310 ‐ 8,227) and 2003 (MLE = 17,208, 95% CI = 14,129 ‐ 20,402).

Combining the estimate of incidental mortality of 5.6% (i.e., estimated number of released walleye X 5.6%) with an estimated mean weight of 0.577 kg for released walleye (based on the test fishery), the estimated yield of walleye due to incidental mortality associated with the sport fishery was 964 walleye or 0.419 kg/ha Therefore, the total

sport yield of walleye (harvest plus incidental mortality) was estimated to be 1,012 walleye or 0.454 kg/ha.

4.3 Northern pike harvest and yield

During the 2003 survey, an estimated 66 northern pike (95% CI = 50 – 84; Figure 10) were harvested at Iosegun Lake. Biological data collected from harvested northern pike are presented in Appendix 7. The mean weight of harvested northern pike was 1.603 kg (95% CI = 1.444 ‐ 1.796; Figure 11), resulting in an estimated yield of 0.079 kg/ha (95% CI = 0.060 ‐ 0.103; Figure 12). Fewer northern pike were harvested in 2003 compared to the 1998 survey when an estimated 255 northern pike (95% CI = 191 – 338) were harvested; however the estimated weight was higher in 2003 than in 1998 (0.812 kg; 95% CI= 0.758 – 0.872). This resulted in a decrease in the estimated yield (kg/ha) of northern pike in 2003 compared to 1998 (0.156 kg/ha; 95% CI = 0.115 ‐ 0.209). These results are likely due to the implementation of a minimum size limit (63 cm TL) in 1999 (Alberta Government 1999), which required anglers to release all northern pike < 63 cm TL.

Anglers reported releasing 1,853 northern pike for a release rate of 0.549 fish/h. This release rate is likely exaggerated, because the northern pike total catch rate was very low (Sullivan 2003b). Applying the ratio of protected‐length to legal‐length northern pike sampled during the test fishery (Appendix 8), the estimated release rate was 0.036 fish/h resulting in an estimated 122 pike released. This result suggests that anglers exaggerated their release rate for northern pike by more than 15 times.

Assuming a conservative incidental mortality of 5%, an exaggeration rate of 15.2, and a mean weight (based on the test fishery) of 0.704 kg, the incidental mortality of northern pike by sport anglers was approximately six pike or 0.003 kg/ha. Therefore, the total sport yield of northern pike during the 2003 survey was estimated to be 72 pike or 0.082 kg/ha.

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 y Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 Densit 1

0.8 0.6 Probability

0.4 0.2

0 Standardized 0 100 200 300 400 500

Number of northern pike harvested

Figure 10. Standardized probability density functions of the number of northern pike harvested during the sport fishery at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 255 pike, 95% CI = 191 ‐ 338) and 2003 (MLE = 66 pike, 95% CI = 50 ‐ 84).

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 1.2 Density 1 0.8 0.6 Probability 0.4 0.2 0 Standardized 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Weight of northern pike (g)

Figure 11. Standardized probability density functions of the weight of northern pike harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE = 0.812 kg, 95% CI = 0.758 – 0.872) and 2003 (MLE = 1.603 kg; 95% CI = 1.444 ‐ 1.796). 14

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 1.2 Iosegun Lk. Creel 1998 Density 1

0.8 0.6 Probability 0.4

0.2 0 Standardized 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Yield of northern pike harvest (kg/ha)

Figure 12. Standardized probability density functions of the yield (kg/ha) of northern pike harvested at Iosegun Lake in 1998 (Maximum Likelihood Estimate, MLE= 0.156 kg/ha, 95% CI = 0.115 ‐ 0.209) and 2003 (MLE = 0.079 kg/ha, 95% CI = 0.060 ‐ 0.103).

4.4 Walleye sport fishery assessment

Since harvestable walleye only included walleye > 50 cm TL and because no age structures were collected during the test fishery, data collected during the 2003 Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) (Appendix 9) was used to assess walleye age‐class distribution, age‐class stability, length‐at‐age, and age‐at‐maturity, instead of biological data collected from sport anglers and test fishery data.

4.4.1 Age‐ class distribution and stability

In 2003, walleye displayed a wide age‐class distribution with 12 age‐classes being represented with a mean age of 5.7 y (Figure 13). There was no evidence of recruitment or year class failures in this population, and the fishery was supported by more than 1 to 3 age‐classes, therefore the age‐class stability was considered relatively stable. According to the WMRP, the age‐class distribution and stability of the population indicated a stable walleye population.

10 (walleye/net) rate 5 catch

Total 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Age (years)

Figure 13. Age‐class distribution of walleye captured during the Fall Walleye Index Netting survey at Iosegun Lake in 2003. Mean age = 5.7 y (n = 238).

4.4.2 Length‐at‐age

The growth rate of walleye was very slow. All walleye captured were < 50 cm FL. Walleye grew to 45 cm FL in 7 to 9 years (Figure 14). According to the WMRP this growth rate indicates a trophy walleye population.

4.4.3 Catch rate

The total walleye catch rate reported by sport anglers was 2.13 fish/h. The reported catch rate of 14 legal‐length walleye (harvested) was very low at 0.004 fish/h with a similar harvest rate of eight protected‐length walleye at 0.003 fish/h. In contrast, the reported release rates were high at 2.12 fish/h. According to the WRMP the total reported catch rate indicates a trophy fishery, but the reported catch rate of legal‐length walleye (> 50 cm TL) indicates a collapsed fishery. Based on age‐at‐maturity and the high productivity of small walleye, these catch rates are more indicative of a stable fishery (Berry 1995).

600

500

400

300

length (mm) 200 Iosegun Lk. FWIN 2003

Fork Iosegun Lk. creel 2003 100 Log. (Iosegun Lk. FWIN 2003) 0 0123456789101112131415

Age (years)

Figure 14. Length‐at‐age of sport harvested and FWIN harvested walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003. Logarithmic line‐of‐best‐fit: r2 = 0.85, n = 256.

4.4.4 Age‐at‐maturity

Walleye in Iosegun Lake appear to mature at an early age. Male walleye were fully mature by age‐5; however the earliest age when maturity was confirmed was age‐2 (Figure 15). The mean age of mature male walleye was 6 y. Female walleye were fully mature at age‐7 (Figure 16), with the youngest females mature by age‐5. Mean age of mature females was 6 y. According to the WMRP, both female and male walleye have a mean age of maturity that corresponds to a collapsed walleye fishery.

Mature males Immature males 7 6 5 4

(walleye/net) 3

rate 2 1 Catch 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Age (years)

Figure 15. Age‐at‐maturity of male walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003. Mean age = 6 y (n = 124).

Mature females Immature females 7 6 5 4

(walleye/net) 3

rate 2 1 Catch 0 0123456789101112131415

Age (years)

Figure 16. Age‐at‐maturity of female walleye from Iosegun Lake in 2003. Mean age = 6 y (n = 58).

4.4.5 Stock Classification

According to WMRP, there was some variation in the status of the walleye population at Iosegun Lake in 2003 (Table 2). Of the five criteria used to classify walleye populations, two (age‐class distribution, age‐class stability) indicated a stable population, one (length‐ at‐age) indicated a trophy population, one (age‐at‐maturity) indicated a collapsed population, and one (catch rate) indicated both a trophy and collapsed population. In general, Iosegun Lake had high densities of small walleye (< 50 cm TL) that had a stable age‐class distribution, which was composed of slow‐growing, moderately slow‐ maturing fish. Based on these criteria, the walleye population at Iosegun Lake in 2003 was likely stable.

Table 2. The Alberta Walleye Management and Recovery Plan criteria used to evaluate the status of the walleye fishery in Iosegun Lake in 2003. Grey areas indicate current status of each criterion. Bold type in grey areas are values from this study used to determine status. Fish measurements: fork length = FL and total length = TL. Catch rate total includes fish kept and released.

Metric Trophy Stable Vulnerable Collapsed 1Age‐class Wide Wide Narrow Narrow or wide distribution 8 or more age‐ 8 or more age 1‐3 age classes Mean age classes; mean classes mean mean age = 4 ‐ 6 = 6 – 10 age >9 age = 6 – 9 few old (>10 y) 12 age‐classes, fish mean age = 5.7 1Age‐class Very Stable Relatively Unstable Stable or stability 1‐2 age‐classes Stable 1‐3 age‐classes unstable out of smooth 2‐3 age‐classes support fishery recruitment catch curve out of smooth failures catch curve Stable 1Length‐at‐age Very slow Slow Moderate Fast 50 cm (FL) in 50 cm (FL) in 50 cm (FL) in 50 cm (FL) in 12 – 15 y 9 – 12 y 7 – 9 y 4 – 7 y 50 cm in 14‐15 y 2Catch rate Total = > 2/h Total = >1 / h Total= 0.5 ‐ 1/h Total = < 0.1 > 50 cm (TL max) > 50 cm (TL > 50 cm (TL max) > 50 cm (TL max) = > 1/h max) => 0.3/h = < 0.3/h = < 0.02/h Total = 2.13/h > 50 cm (TL max) = 0.004/h 1Age‐at‐maturity Female: 10 ‐ 20 Female: 8 ‐ 10 Female: 7 ‐ 8 Female: 4 – 7 Male: 10 ‐ 16 Male: 7 – 9 Male: 5 ‐ 7 Male: 3 – 6 Female mean = 6 Male mean = 6 1Data from Fall Walleye Index Netting 2Data from creel survey

4.5 Northern pike sport fishery assessment

The status of the northern pike sport fishery was evaluated using the stock classification listed in the NPMRP (Berry 1999) and criteria listed in Sullivan (1998).

4.5.1 Catch rate

The total reported catch rate of northern pike during the creel survey was 0.558 fish/h. The observed catch rate of legal‐length northern pike (≥ 63 cm TL) harvested was 0.009 fish/h with a reported release rate of 0.549 fish/h. According to the NPMRP, the catch rate of northern pike ≥ 63 cm TL corresponds to a collapsed pike fishery, whereas the total catch rate indicates a vulnerable pike fishery. After calculating the exaggeration rate (Sullivan 2003b), the estimated total catch rate for northern pike was 0.045 fish/h, which corresponds to a collapsed pike fishery.

4.5.2 Age‐class distribution

The age‐class distribution of northern pike harvested during the sport fishery ranged from 5 to 11 y (Figure 17). There was no evidence of age‐class or recruitment failures and there were two measurable age‐classes (catch rate > 0.002 pike/h). Based on criteria in the NPMRP, this age‐class distribution would indicate a vulnerable (low risk) pike population.

0.003 0.0025 0.002 0.0015

(northern pike/hour) 0.001 0.0005 0 Catch Rate 0123456789101112131415

Age (years)

Figure 17. Age‐class distribution of northern pike captured by sport anglers during the Iosegun Lake creel survey in 2003. Mean age = 7.3 y (n = 29).

4.5.3 Length‐at‐age

Northern pike were relatively fast‐growing with pike reaching 63 cm TL (59.3 mm FL) (Appendix 3) by age‐5 (Figure 18). In 1998, growth rate was much slower and northern pike were > 12 y of age before they reached 63 cm TL (Kowalchuk and Davis 2000). According to the NPMRP, the growth rate observed in 2003 indicates a vulnerable (low risk) population.

Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003 Log. (Iosegun Lk. Creel 2003) 1000 900 800 700 (mm) 600 500

Length 400

300

Fork 200 100 0 0123456789101112

Age (years)

Figure 18. Length‐at‐age of northern pike captured by sport anglers at Iosegun Lake in 2003. Logarithmic line‐of‐best‐fit: r2=0.57, n = 28.

4.5.4 Mean weight

The mean weight of northern pike ≥ 63 cm TL from the creel survey and test fishery was 1.6 kg (n = 24) and 1.7 kg (n = 3), respectively. According to the NPMRP, these values can indicate a collapsed or stable northern pike population; however since catch rates are very low and length‐at‐age is increasing it is likely that these values indicate a collapsed population (Berry 1999).

4.5.5 Proportional and relative stock density

Based on the NPMRP, the values for PSD and RSD (stock‐quality) indicate a vulnerable (low risk) northern pike population with only 25% of pike captured considered “quality” fish (Gablehouse 1984).

4.5.6 Angler success rate and Gini coefficient

Only 2% of anglers interviewed at Iosegun Lake in 2003 were successful in catching one or more pike ≥ 63 cm TL (legal‐length). The Gini coefficient was 0.72 indicating a high

level of inequality in the catch of northern pike (Baccante 1995). According to the NPMRP, the angler success rate indicates a collapsed northern pike population, whereas the Gini coefficient indicates a vulnerable population.

4.5.7 Stock classification

Estimates for six (CUE total, measurable age‐classes, length‐at‐age, PSD, RSD, Gini coefficient; Table 3) of the nine criteria in the NPMRP used to determine status of northern pike populations indicate that Iosegun Lake had a vulnerable northern pike population. The remaining three criteria (CUE kept, mean weight, % success), indicate a collapsed pike population. Generally, the northern pike population at Iosegun Lake in 2003 could be classified as vulnerable (Berry 1999).

Table 3. The Alberta Northern Pike Management Recovery Plan criteria used to evaluate the status of the northern pike fishery at Iosegun Lake in 2003. Grey areas indicate current status of each criterion based on data collected in 2003. Catch rate (CUE) total includes pike kept and release where CUE kept includes only pike > 63 total length (TL).

Vulnerable Vulnerable Metric Stable Collapsed (No Risk) (Low Risk) 1CUE kept > 0.8 > 0.3 > 0.1 < 0.1 (≥ 63 cm TL) 0.009 pike/h 1CUE total 1 – 2 0.5 – 1 0.2 ‐ 0.5 < 0.2 0.558 pike/h 1# Measurable age‐classes 7 ‐ 12 3 – 7 1 – 2 Almost none (> 0.002/h) 2 age‐classes 1,2Length‐at‐age Slow Increasing Increasing Fast Size limit at 5‐6 years 1Mean weight (kg) 1 – 2 < 1 0.5 – 1.5 0.5 – 3.5 (≥ 63 cm TL) 1.6 3PSD > 40 < 40 Variable Variable (% pike > 53 cm TL) (> 0.1 pike/h) (< 0.1 pike/h) 25% 3RSD < 50 > 50 Variable Variable (% pike 35 ‐ 52 cm TL max, (> 0.1/h) (< 0.1/h) stock–quality size) 72% 1% Success > 70 < 70 < 40 < 20 (% anglers catching ≥ 1 legal‐ 2% size pike) 1Gini 0.3 0.5 – 0.7 0.7 – 0.9 > 0.9 (total CUE, catch inequality) 0.72 1Creel survey data 2FWIN data 3Test angling data

5.0 REFERENCES

Alberta Government. 1996. 1996 guide to Alberta Sportfishing regulations. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services, Edmonton, Alberta. 63 pp.

Alberta Government. 1999. 1999 guide to Alberta Sportfishing regulations. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services, Edmonton, Alberta. 92 pp.

Alberta Government. 2000. 2000 guide to Alberta Sportfishing regulations. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services, Edmonton, Alberta. 92 pp.

Alberta Government. 2003. 2003 guide to Alberta Sportfishing regulations. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services, Edmonton, Alberta. 92 pp.

Baccante, D. 1995. Assessing catch inequality in walleye angling fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 661‐665.

Berry, D.K. 1995. Alberta’s walleye management and recovery plan. Alberta Environment Protection, Natural Resources Service, Number T/310, Edmonton, Alberta. 32 pp.

Berry, D.K. 1999. Alberta’s northern pike management and recovery plan. Alberta Environment Protection, Natural Resources Service, Number T/459, Edmonton, Alberta. 22 pp.

Gablehouse, D. 1984. A length‐categorization system to assess fish stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 273‐285.

Haddon, M. 2001. Modeling and quantitative methods in fisheries. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida. 406 pp.

Kowalchuk, S., and C. Davis. 2000. Assessment of the status of the sport fishery for walleye and northern pike, and statistics for yellow perch at Iosegun Lake, summer 1998. Produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Edson, Alberta, Canada. 30 pp.

Mackay, W.C., G.R. Ash, and H.J. Norris (eds.). 1990. Fish ageing methods for Alberta. R.L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. in association with Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 113 pp.

Mitchell, P. and Prepas. 1990. Atlas of Alberta lakes. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton. Alberta. 675 pp.

Morgan, G.E. 2000. Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) manual of instructions. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury, Ontario. 35 pp.

Patterson, B. 2004. Assessment of the summer sport fishery for walleye and northern pike at Pigeon Lake, 2003. Data report, Report code number D‐2004‐015, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 55 pp.

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. 371 pp.

Reeves, K.A. 2004. Hooking mortality of walleye caught by anglers on Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota in 2003. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Section of Fisheries. 16 pp.

Sterling, G.L. 2004. Area Fisheries Biologist. Fish and Wildlife Division Edson, Alberta. (pers. comm.)

Sullivan, M.G. 2004. Computer simulation of sport fishery parameters. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division Memorandum. 16 pp.

Sullivan, M.G. 2003a. Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: dilemmas of managing recovering fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1343‐1358.

Sullivan, M.G. 2003b. Exaggeration of walleye catches by Alberta anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 573‐580.

Sullivan, M.G. 1998. Northern management classification criteria for Alberta. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division Memorandum.

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Schedule for the creel survey conducted on Iosegun Lake in 2003. Grey areas indicate days when the lake was surveyed

May 2003

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk

June 2003

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

29 30 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

Appendix 1. Continued

July 2003

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk

27 28 29 30 31 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk

August 2003

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Days off Days off Days off Days off Iosegun Lk

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Iosegun Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk Smoke Lk

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Smoke Lk

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Appendix 2. Creel survey field form used at Iosegun Lake in 2003.

Appendix 3. Fork length‐total length relationships for walleye and northern pike captured during the 2003 FWIN at Iosegun Lake.

Walleye; FWIN 2003 Linear (Walleye; FWIN 2003) 700 600 500 400 300 Length (mm) 200 y = 1.0531x + 5.694

Total 100 R2 = 0.9978 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Fork Length (mm)

Northern pike; FWIN 2003 Linear (Northern pike; FWIN 2003) 1000

800

600

400 Length (mm) y = 1.0519x + 6.3497 200 2 Total R = 0.9959

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Fork Length (mm)

Appendix 4. Fork length‐weight relationship charts and equations for walleye and northern pike captured during the 2003 FWIN at Iosegun Lake.

Walleye; FWIN 2003 Power (Walleye; FWIN 2003) 1600 1400 1200 1000 (g) 800 600 Weight 400 y = 5E‐06x3.1493 200 R2 = 0.9846 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Fork Length (mm)

Northern pike; FWIN 2003 Power (Northern pike; FWIN 2003) 4000 3500 3000 2500 (g) 2000 1500 Weight 1000 y = 1E‐05x2.9127 500 R2 = 0.9735 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Fork Length (mm)

Appendix 5. Iosegun Lake 2003 angler survey daily summary data. Codes: WALL = walleye; NRPK = northern pike; K = kept; R = released.

WALL WALL NRPK NRPK YLPR YLPR Month Day Anglers Hours K R K R K R 5 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 19 45.5 0 13 0 10 0 0 5 18 26 51.25 0 1 0 10 0 0 5 19 24 81 0 9 1 23 0 0 5 20 6 9.5 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 31 51 165.5 0 127 3 79 0 0 6 1 45 123.5 0 126 3 93 0 0 6 2 2 6 0 3 0 2 0 0 6 3 1 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 27 74.5 1 162 0 39 0 0 6 14 64 187 0 306 1 113 0 0 6 15 49 156 1 301 1 97 0 0 6 16 37 77 0 180 0 48 0 0 6 17 44 109.75 0 370 0 74 0 0 6 27 37 73 0 147 0 27 0 0 6 28 100 286.5 2 842 3 128 0 0 6 29 128 293.5 0 699 3 187 0 0 6 30 64 158 0 418 2 65 0 0 7 1 38 87.5 1 210 0 114 0 0 7 11 24 43.5 0 45 0 21 0 0 7 12 55 198 5 457 3 80 0 0 7 13 33 76 0 277 1 26 0 0 7 14 21 68.5 1 121 1 38 0 0 7 15 29 70 1 239 2 56 1 0 7 25 38 80.5 0 175 1 67 0 0 7 26 94 207.25 6 261 1 141 0 0 7 27 56 157 1 504 0 57 0 0 7 28 44 101 2 327 0 38 0 1 7 29 43 109 1 343 0 42 0 0 7 30 42 104 0 301 2 32 0 0 8 9 8 28 0 50 0 3 0 0 8 10 10 22.75 0 24 0 9 0 0 8 11 16 42 0 48 1 94 0 0 8 12 14 34 0 20 0 29 0 0 8 13 14 45 0 44 0 6 0 0 TOTALS 1305 3374.75 22 7156 29 1853 1 1

Appendix 6. Summaries of additional interview questions asked of each angler during the summer creel survey at Iosegun Lake in 2003. Codes are: WALL = walleye; NRPK = northern pike; YLPR = yellow perch; K = kept; R = released. The rating codes anglers provided to describe the quality of the sport fishery ranged from poor (1) to average (5) to excellent (10).

Question WALL WALL NRPK NRPK YLPR YLPR Option Anglers Hours K R K R K R Artificial 730 1793.50 11 2586 18 1162 1 1 Commercial 366 1031.25 6 3373 9 547 0 0 Baitfish Angling Leeches 112 329.75 1 599 1 75 0 0 Method Dew Worms 51 102.25 2 397 0 25 0 0 Seined Baitfish 23 68.25 2 150 1 38 0 0 Misc. 23 49.75 0 51 0 6 0 0 Scent Baits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average 1089 2932.75 21 6547 28 1679 0 1 Skill Novice 214 435.5 1 609 1 172 1 0 Pro 2 6.5 0 0 0 2 0 0 WALL 1099 2934 21 6967 19 1364 1 1 Species Target NRPK 199 428.25 1 185 10 487 0 0 YLPR 7 12.5 0 4 0 2 0 0 NO 1013 2534 15 5297 22 1319 1 1 Barbless YES 292 840.75 7 1859 7 534 0 0 16‐64 yrs 980 2678.5 22 5766 24 1580 0 1 < 16 yrs 237 511.25 0 944 0 189 1 0 License Category > 64 yrs 53 132 0 384 3 59 0 0 Status 35 53 0 62 2 25 0 0 Aboriginal Male 1022 2693.75 17 5769 20 1587 0 1 Gender Female 283 681 5 1387 9 266 1 0 None 751 1777.25 11 3268 17 1038 0 1 Depth Sounder 486 1384 9 3349 11 766 1 0 Electronics Depth Sounder 68 213.5 2 539 1 49 0 0 & GPS 1 102 198.25 0 50 0 42 0 0 2 93 182.25 0 142 0 47 0 0 3 95 222.5 1 266 1 86 0 0 4 102 258 1 313 2 84 0 0 Rating of 5 170 463.5 1 761 3 239 0 0 sport fishery 6 143 394.25 4 693 4 181 0 0 7 209 616.75 3 1232 9 379 0 1 8 167 446.5 3 1354 2 286 0 0 9 84 228.25 7 1009 2 183 0 0 10 140 364.5 2 1336 6 326 1 0

Appendix 6. Continued

Question WALL WALL NRPK NRPK YLPR YLPR Option Anglers Hours K R K R K R Fox Creek 490 1220.3 8 2858 10 789 0 1 Edmonton 230 624 3 971 9 257 0 0 Whitecourt 132 381.75 5 474 2 166 0 0 Grande Prairie 54 126.25 1 174 1 83 0 0 Hinton 48 126.5 1 269 0 29 0 0 Drayton Valley 34 80.25 1 316 4 43 0 0 Stony Plain 26 55.25 0 106 0 29 0 0 Lacombe 21 50 0 255 0 15 0 0 Calgary 19 55.75 0 30 0 51 0 0 Cochrane 18 36.5 0 180 0 15 0 0 Peace River 17 48.75 0 103 0 23 0 0 Fallis 16 36.25 0 55 0 33 0 0 Camrose 12 30 0 14 0 3 0 0 Eckville 12 29 1 152 0 7 0 0 Millet 12 28 0 62 0 3 1 0 Onoway 12 25.5 0 21 0 10 0 0 Rocky Mtn.Hse. 12 36 0 69 0 7 0 0 Mayerthorpe 10 43 0 37 0 18 0 0 Edson 9 19.25 0 6 1 9 0 0 Germany 9 16.5 0 19 1 3 0 0 Red Deer 8 24 0 32 0 23 0 0

St. Albert 7 15.5 0 6 0 5 0 0 Barhead 6 21 0 130 0 24 0 0 Vancouver 6 11.75 0 33 0 2 0 0 Residence Beaverlodge 5 9 0 1 0 21 0 0 Devon 5 18 1 114 0 21 0 0 Valemont, BC 5 18 0 90 0 21 0 0 Wallace 5 16 0 210 0 15 0 0 Bon Accord 4 9.75 0 1 0 5 0 0 Dobolt 4 6 0 3 0 4 0 0 Sask. 4 13 0 30 0 17 0 0 Wabamum 4 10.5 0 57 0 8 0 0 Ft. St. John 3 8.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 Lloydminster 3 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marshall, SK 3 9.5 0 38 0 0 0 0 Sexsmith 3 10.75 0 34 0 4 0 0 S. Korea 3 5 0 3 0 6 0 0 Sylvan Lake 3 8 0 17 0 9 0 0 Green Court 3 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 Fairview 2 6 0 25 0 1 0 0 Ft. Assiniboine 2 14 0 43 0 9 0 0 Rimbey 2 5 0 27 0 6 0 0 Sangudo 2 4 0 2 0 3 0 0 Spirit River 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 Sturgeon Lake 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 36

Appendix. 6 Continued

Hour WALL WALL NRPK NRPK YLPR YLPR Question Option Anglers s K R K R K R Valley View 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alexander 1 0.25 0 0 0 1 0 0 BC 1 3.5 0 4 0 15 0 0 Entwhistle 1 3.5 0 0 0 7 0 0 Kamloops, BC 1 5.5 0 9 0 2 0 0 Kelowna 1 1.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 Manitoba 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 Manning 1 4.75 0 24 0 5 0 0 Merit, BC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 New Brunswick 1 3.5 0 6 0 0 0 0 Slave Lake 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Stetter 1 4.75 0 25 0 4 0 0 Thorhild 1 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 Wildwood 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Evensberg 1 2 1 7 0 2 0 0

Appendix 7. Biological data collected from sport angler harvested fish at Iosegun Lake in 2003.

Fork Length Total Length Weight Sample Species Date (mm) Max (mm) (g) Age Sex 1 WALL 13‐Jun 476 505 950 9 Female 2 WALL 15‐Jun 480 505 940 11 Female 3 WALL 28‐Jun 469 500 900 9 Female 4 WALL 28‐Jun 485 515 1080 11 Female 5 WALL 1‐Jul 470 500 915 10 Female 6 WALL 12‐Jul 479 512 1050 12 ‐‐‐ 7 WALL 12‐Jul 394 423 800 10 ‐‐‐ 8 WALL 14‐Jul 464 501 1000 10 Male 9 WALL 15‐Jul 492 522 1000 12 Female 10 WALL 26‐Jul 472 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 8 Female 11 WALL 26‐Jul 426 455 800 ‐‐‐ Male 12 WALL 26‐Jul 415 447 700 9 Female 13 WALL 26‐Jul 469 495 950 11 Female 14 WALL 26‐Jul 452 483 850 9 Female 15 WALL 26‐Jul 461 495 ‐‐‐ 12 Female 16 WALL 27‐Jul 441 471 900 9 Female 17 WALL 28‐Jul 450 480 950 8 Female 18 WALL 28‐Jul 492 522 1150 10 Female 19 WALL 29‐Jul 463 500 1000 9 Female 20 NRPK 31‐May 524 570 ‐‐‐ 5 Female 21 NRPK 31‐May 734 781 2500 8 Female 22 NRPK 31‐May 620 650 1100 6 Female 23 NRPK 1‐Jun 602 636 1350 6 ‐‐‐ 24 NRPK 1‐Jun 624 650 1750 7 ‐‐‐ 25 NRPK 1‐Jun 611 641 1250 ‐‐‐ Female 26 NRPK 14‐Jun 684 734 2900 10 Female 27 NRPK 15‐Jun 574 610 1075 7 Female 28 NRPK 28‐Jun 653 ‐‐‐ 1300 10 Female 29 NRPK 28‐Jun 662 692 1675 9 Female 30 NRPK 28‐Jun 622 650 1600 7 Female 31 NRPK 29‐Jun 693 ‐‐‐ 2000 8 Female 32 NRPK 29‐Jun 612 650 1285 7 Female 33 NRPK 29‐Jun 725 ‐‐‐ 2600 9 Female 34 NRPK 30‐Jun 702 ‐‐‐ 1900 11 Female 35 NRPK 30‐Jun 636 ‐‐‐ 1500 7 Female 36 NRPK 11‐Jul 611 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 6 ‐‐‐ 37 NRPK 11‐Jul ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 6 ‐‐‐ 38 NRPK 12‐Jul 612 650 1400 6 Female 39 NRPK 12‐Jul 584 623 ‐‐‐ 6 Male

Appendix 7. Continued

Fork Length Total Length Weight Sample Species Date (mm) Max (mm) (g) Age Sex 40 NRPK 12‐Jul 633 667 1500 6 Male 41 NRPK 13‐Jul 624 ‐‐‐ 1500 9 Female 42 NRPK 14‐Jul 594 632 1300 6 Female 43 NRPK 15‐Jul 599 635 1350 7 Female 44 NRPK 15‐Jul 591 623 1200 6 Female 45 NRPK 25‐Jul 702 742 1800 9 Male 46 NRPK 26‐Jul 662 685 1800 9 Male 47 NRPK 30‐Jul 604 638 1200 7 Female 48 NRPK 30‐Jul 620 655 1450 8 Female 49 NRPK 11‐Aug 603 632 1350 5 Female

Appendix 8. Dates, species, and fork lengths of fish captured during test angling at Iosegun Lake in 2003. Species codes: WALL = walleye; NRPK = northern pike.

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 7/21/2003 NRPK 411 7/21/2003 NRPK 453 7/21/2003 NRPK 464 7/21/2003 NRPK 332 7/22/2003 NRPK 405 7/22/2003 NRPK 483 7/22/2003 NRPK 377 7/22/2003 NRPK 476 7/22/2003 NRPK 454 7/22/2003 NRPK 463 7/22/2003 NRPK 364 7/22/2003 NRPK 571 7/22/2003 NRPK 680 7/22/2003 NRPK 445 7/22/2003 NRPK 562 7/22/2003 NRPK 430 7/22/2003 NRPK 475 6/19/2003 NRPK 496 6/19/2003 NRPK 597 6/19/2003 NRPK 523 6/19/2003 NRPK 714 6/19/2003 NRPK 554 6/19/2003 NRPK 427 6/19/2003 NRPK 468 6/19/2003 NRPK 447 6/19/2003 NRPK 414 6/19/2003 NRPK 448 6/19/2003 NRPK 588 6/19/2003 NRPK 453 6/19/2003 NRPK 364 6/19/2003 NRPK 485 6/19/2003 NRPK 535

Appendix 8. Continued

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 7/21/2003 WALL 265 7/21/2003 WALL 394 7/21/2003 WALL 333 7/21/2003 WALL 327 7/21/2003 WALL 354 7/21/2003 WALL 379 7/22/2003 WALL 327 7/22/2003 WALL 351 7/22/2003 WALL 341 7/22/2003 WALL 314 7/22/2003 WALL 338 7/22/2003 WALL 330 7/22/2003 WALL 349 7/22/2003 WALL 360 7/22/2003 WALL 375 7/22/2003 WALL 369 6/19/2003 WALL 403 6/19/2003 WALL 341 6/19/2003 WALL 445 6/19/2003 WALL 350 6/19/2003 WALL 428 6/19/2003 WALL 410 6/19/2003 WALL 410 6/19/2003 WALL 402 6/19/2003 WALL 310 6/19/2003 WALL 363 6/19/2003 WALL 361 6/19/2003 WALL 399 6/19/2003 WALL 365 6/19/2003 WALL 431 6/19/2003 WALL 432 6/19/2003 WALL 337 6/19/2003 WALL 274 6/19/2003 WALL 353

Appendix 8. Continued

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 6/19/2003 WALL 400 6/19/2003 WALL 338 6/19/2003 WALL 411 6/19/2003 WALL 363 6/19/2003 WALL 368 6/19/2003 WALL 314 6/19/2003 WALL 316 6/19/2003 WALL 334 6/19/2003 WALL 338 6/19/2003 WALL 336 6/19/2003 WALL 382 6/19/2003 WALL 305 6/19/2003 WALL 307 6/19/2003 WALL 340 6/19/2003 WALL 345 6/19/2003 WALL 435 6/19/2003 WALL 357 6/19/2003 WALL 309 6/19/2003 WALL 441 6/19/2003 WALL 402 6/19/2003 WALL 421 6/19/2003 WALL 328 6/19/2003 WALL 414 6/19/2003 WALL 339 6/19/2003 WALL 333 6/19/2003 WALL 385 6/19/2003 WALL 395 6/19/2003 WALL 376 6/19/2003 WALL 328 6/19/2003 WALL 324 6/19/2003 WALL 325 6/19/2003 WALL 378 6/19/2003 WALL 375 6/19/2003 WALL 398

Appendix 8. Continued

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 6/19/2003 WALL 333 6/19/2003 WALL 308 6/19/2003 WALL 349 6/19/2003 WALL 404 6/19/2003 WALL 324 6/19/2003 WALL 310 6/19/2003 WALL 323 6/19/2003 WALL 378 6/19/2003 WALL 328 6/19/2003 WALL 315 6/19/2003 WALL 320 6/19/2003 WALL 307 6/19/2003 WALL 298 6/19/2003 WALL 387 6/19/2003 WALL 332 6/19/2003 WALL 406 6/19/2003 WALL 317 6/19/2003 WALL 380 6/19/2003 WALL 368 6/19/2003 WALL 365 6/19/2003 WALL 427 6/19/2003 WALL 309 6/19/2003 WALL 310 6/19/2003 WALL 343 6/19/2003 WALL 317 6/19/2003 WALL 366 6/19/2003 WALL 307 6/19/2003 WALL 278 6/19/2003 WALL 304 6/19/2003 WALL 305 6/19/2003 WALL 409 6/19/2003 WALL 405 6/19/2003 WALL 359 6/19/2003 WALL 440

Appendix 8. Continued

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 6/19/2003 WALL 330 6/19/2003 WALL 357 6/19/2003 WALL 351 6/19/2003 WALL 410 6/19/2003 WALL 325 6/19/2003 WALL 485 6/19/2003 WALL 312 6/19/2003 WALL 402 6/19/2003 WALL 374 6/19/2003 WALL 350 6/19/2003 WALL 382 6/19/2003 WALL 334 6/19/2003 WALL 374 6/19/2003 WALL 349 6/19/2003 WALL 387 6/19/2003 WALL 352 6/19/2003 WALL 373 6/19/2003 WALL 316 6/19/2003 WALL 319 6/19/2003 WALL 309 6/19/2003 WALL 308 6/19/2003 WALL 382 6/19/2003 WALL 400 6/19/2003 WALL 389 6/19/2003 WALL 422 6/19/2003 WALL 339 6/19/2003 WALL 380 6/19/2003 WALL 411 6/19/2003 WALL 409 6/19/2003 WALL 392 6/19/2003 WALL 399 6/19/2003 WALL 323 6/19/2003 WALL 402 6/19/2003 WALL 292

Appendix 8. Continued

Date Species Fork Length (mm) 6/19/2003 WALL 412 6/19/2003 WALL 403 6/19/2003 WALL 376 6/19/2003 WALL 303 6/19/2003 WALL 375 6/19/2003 WALL 423 6/19/2003 WALL 346 6/19/2003 WALL 304 6/19/2003 WALL 356 6/19/2003 WALL 347 6/19/2003 WALL 358 6/19/2003 WALL 320 6/19/2003 WALL 310 6/19/2003 WALL 384 6/19/2003 WALL 315 6/19/2003 WALL 349 6/19/2003 WALL 334

Appendix 9. Fall Walleye Index Netting data collected from Iosegun Lake in 2003. Species codes are: walleye = WALL; northern pike = NRPK; yellow perch = YLPR; lake whitefish = LKWH; cisco = CISC. Sex codes follow Alberta Fish and Wildlife standard protocols: 1 = immature female, 2 = maturing female, 3 = mature female, 4 = ripe female, 5 = spent female, 6 = immature male, 7 = maturing male, 8 = mature male, 9 = ripe male, and 10 = spent male.

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 1 17‐Sep‐03 YLPR 11 99 103 2 17‐Sep‐03 YLPR 68 160 172 3 17‐Sep‐03 YLPR 100 188 197 4 18‐Sep‐03 YLPR 53 159 165 5 19‐Sep‐03 YLPR 320 275 286 6 19‐Sep‐03 YLPR 290 260 272 7 19‐Sep‐03 YLPR 170 219 230 8 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 600 381 408 8 7 9 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 620 375 400 3 5 10 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 790 405 434 8 6 11 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 460 340 365 8 5 12 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 730 411 439 8 7 13 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 472 390 429 3 1 14 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 840 418 449 3 5 15 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 770 400 428 8 7 16 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 570 371 400 8 7 17 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 990 447 482 3 7 18 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 970 443 473 3 7 19 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 680 386 412 3 6 20 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 670 375 402 3 5 21 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 470 349 373 8 5 22 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 720 387 414 3 5 23 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 840 410 439 8 5 24 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 940 436 466 8 9 25 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 860 418 448 3 7 26 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 840 433 463 3 6 27 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 850 409 437 8 8 28 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 1010 430 460 3 29 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 750 407 430 8 7

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 30 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 710 392 418 8 7 31 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 910 420 451 3 7 32 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 210 270 290 IMM 5 33 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 80 200 212 IMM 9 34 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 50 180 191 IMM 2 35 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 60 186 200 IMM 1 36 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 60 177 190 IMM 1 37 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 420 333 356 8 1 38 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 500 345 375 8 5 39 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 200 261 279 IMM 5 40 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 230 278 300 IMM 2 41 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 140 238 258 IMM 3 42 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 510 340 366 8 2 43 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 580 365 392 1 5 44 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 420 330 357 8 5 45 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 470 353 379 8 5 46 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 360 318 341 6 5 47 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 380 325 346 8 4 48 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 420 332 352 8 4 49 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 270 290 310 IMM 5 50 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 220 277 300 IMM 3 51 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 260 287 310 IMM 3 52 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 360 315 336 8 3 53 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 530 352 375 8 4 54 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 550 367 392 8 5 55 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 550 362 386 IMM 6 56 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 690 403 435 3 5 57 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 810 408 436 3 7 58 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 550 353 378 8 7 59 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 440 335 362 8 4 60 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 400 326 350 8 5 61 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 1250 480 510 3 4 62 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 650 400 425 8 10 63 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 630 380 408 8 6 64 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 560 350 375 8 5

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 65 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 710 405 435 8 5 66 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 400 343 365 8 6 67 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 500 341 365 8 5 68 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 690 388 415 3 6 69 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 860 406 436 8 70 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 850 399 424 8 7 71 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 970 435 465 8 7 72 17‐Sep‐03 WALL 810 411 439 8 5 73 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 51 177 189 IMM 1 74 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 143 241 256 IMM 2 75 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 60 182 195 IMM 1 76 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 65 189 200 IMM 1 77 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 241 283 302 IMM 3 78 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 205 268 287 IMM 3 79 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 440 331 356 8 5 80 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 523 354 377 8 4 81 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 448 330 356 8 5 82 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 479 350 375 1 83 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 869 424 454 3 6 84 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 623 386 411 3 5 85 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 240 265 287 IMM 3 86 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 236 279 302 IMM 3 87 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 545 560 581 8 88 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 1065 455 485 3 7 89 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 713 397 431 8 6 90 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 632 379 406 8 5 91 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 757 415 441 3 6 92 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 547 355 381 8 5 93 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 446 330 351 8 5 94 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 372 313 336 8 4 95 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 460 340 364 8 5 96 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 613 361 386 8 5 97 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 864 411 440 3 7 98 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 885 414 1440 8 1 99 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 57 175 189 IMM 1

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 100 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 63 185 195 IMM 5 101 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 628 378 404 8 5 102 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 474 343 365 IMM 5 103 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 633 365 390 3 5 104 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 659 385 415 8 5 105 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 452 342 368 1 9 106 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 909 435 461 8 5 107 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 548 362 387 IMM 4 108 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 367 325 350 IMM 6 109 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 525 350 378 3 4 110 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 602 380 409 IMM 5 111 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 386 320 344 8 3 112 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 247 291 312 IMM 7 113 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 808 405 432 8 5 114 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 627 378 402 3 5 115 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 452 338 359 IMM 5 116 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 444 353 374 IMM 8 117 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 820 421 448 8 8 118 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 749 419 441 8 5 119 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 702 388 410 3 5 120 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 452 338 362 8 5 121 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 574 371 399 8 5 122 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 468 350 376 IMM 5 123 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 415 324 347 8 5 124 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 545 358 385 3 5 125 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 401 334 361 IMM 5 126 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 601 374 400 3 4 127 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 398 322 343 8 5 128 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 475 339 361 IMM 5 129 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 460 341 365 IMM 5 130 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 478 342 364 8 5 131 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 496 352 371 8 5 132 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 579 380 403 3 5 133 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 574 370 396 3 5 134 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 868 419 445 3 5

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 135 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 627 376 404 8 5 136 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 581 370 398 IMM 5 137 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 533 359 381 IMM 7 138 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 647 383 412 8 5 139 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 528 352 373 3 5 140 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 542 342 366 8 5 141 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 535 355 381 3 5 142 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 464 341 363 8 4 143 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 391 325 351 8 5 144 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 571 370 392 IMM 5 145 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 479 351 371 8 5 146 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 497 346 363 8 4 147 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 491 355 382 8 6 148 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 466 350 371 IMM 8 149 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 677 393 419 8 9 150 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 776 411 439 8 7 151 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 916 419 449 8 7 152 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 837 413 442 8 7 153 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 943 447 476 3 5 154 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 1022 417 443 3 6 155 18‐Sep‐03 WALL 744 404 432 3 7 156 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 770 396 422 8 9 157 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 770 415 445 8 5 158 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 650 371 397 8 7 159 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 670 382 409 8 5 160 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 640 376 405 3 8 161 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 730 403 432 8 7 162 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 830 405 430 8 7 163 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 570 379 405 8 5 164 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 650 373 400 3 5 165 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 420 320 344 8 5 166 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 600 377 398 1 5 167 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 820 415 440 3 5 168 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 550 367 391 3 5 169 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 580 362 390 8 6

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 170 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 700 388 413 8 6 171 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 590 368 396 8 12 172 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 980 452 476 NM 7 173 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 800 408 437 3 11 174 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 910 425 453 8 8 175 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 840 420 447 8 6 176 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 750 395 421 8 5 177 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 800 401 426 3 9 178 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 980 427 459 8 5 179 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 450 342 368 8 5 180 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 840 403 431 3 7 181 19‐Sep‐03 WALL NM NM IMM 5 182 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 790 398 424 8 4 183 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 440 333 357 8 4 184 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 410 332 353 1 5 185 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 600 362 387 8 2 186 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 480 360 386 8 5 187 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 230 278 298 IMM 4 188 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 530 352 377 8 5 189 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 520 337 366 8 5 190 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 710 392 424 8 5 191 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 760 385 412 8 5 192 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 690 382 410 8 8 193 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 490 347 370 8 5 194 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 790 393 421 3 5 195 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 490 353 381 1 10 196 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 520 363 388 1 2 197 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 920 449 473 3 4 198 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 470 350 378 1 4 199 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 500 352 377 1 7 200 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 930 424 453 3 6 201 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 700 401 429 8 5 202 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 490 346 375 8 5 203 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 570 370 393 3 4 204 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 530 355 380 8 4

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 205 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 570 372 402 8 5 206 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 800 401 428 NM 5 207 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 470 352 377 1 6 208 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 520 368 395 8 5 209 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 570 362 387 8 6 210 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 520 362 389 1 7 211 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 780 418 447 8 5 212 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 690 396 424 3 4 213 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 510 345 369 8 9 214 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 910 430 460 8 5 215 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 900 434 460 3 9 216 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 976 447 472 8 8 217 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 828 415 438 8 8 218 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 754 395 423 8 6 219 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 822 421 440 3 7 220 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 775 414 437 8 8 221 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 842 412 435 8 5 222 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 728 382 410 3 8 223 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1172 474 505 3 8 224 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1056 430 466 3 10 225 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 970 443 470 8 10 226 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 836 405 430 3 8 227 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 938 426 452 8 10 228 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 918 421 445 8 10 229 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 868 418 444 8 10 230 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 707 387 411 8 8 231 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 858 422 451 3 8 232 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 971 421 449 8 8 233 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1114 463 496 3 9 234 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 955 433 459 3 9 235 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1192 469 496 3 236 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 837 425 449 8 9 237 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1285 481 510 3 238 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1212 475 510 3 9 239 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 797 404 432 3 9

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 240 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 508 345 365 8 7 241 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 617 388 416 1 5 242 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 1082 454 477 3 6 243 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 446 327 351 8 9 244 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 519 350 375 1 5 245 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 680 382 411 8 5 246 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 711 385 407 8 6 247 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 458 332 356 8 9 248 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 514 351 377 1 5 249 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 764 419 449 8 5 250 19‐Sep‐03 WALL 354 313 335 IMM 7 251 19‐Sep‐03 SPSH NM NM 252 17‐Sep‐03 SCWH 400 310 328 253 17‐Sep‐03 SCWH 670 353 380 254 17‐Sep‐03 SCWH 1200 425 455 255 17‐Sep‐03 SCWH 1220 432 466 256 17‐Sep‐03 SCWH 1500 460 496 257 18‐Sep‐03 SCWH 1078 420 NM 258 19‐Sep‐03 SCWH 440 298 319 259 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 271 340 363 8 260 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 577 428 455 3 261 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 637 428 455 8 262 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 700 460 494 8 263 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 264 328 349 8 264 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 335 356 380 8 265 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 590 435 464 8 266 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 370 367 395 3 267 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1080 533 568 3 268 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1420 587 625 8 269 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 970 507 542 8 270 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1010 565 598 3 271 17‐Sep‐03 NRPK 870 500 535 3 272 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 825 490 519 3 273 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 975 522 551 3 274 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1220 533 562 3

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 275 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1122 523 561 3 276 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 820 501 532 8 277 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 830 509 539 3 278 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 907 504 535 3 279 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 634 435 465 8 280 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 3704 785 830 3 281 18‐Sep‐03 NRPK 730 479 515 8 282 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 410 378 405 8 283 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1610 622 659 3 284 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 620 442 469 8 285 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 850 493 525 8 286 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 620 457 484 3 287 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 440 404 432 3 288 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 610 452 485 8 289 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1170 539 572 8 290 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 360 373 396 8 291 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 650 464 492 8 292 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1430 582 518 3 293 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 767 462 492 3 294 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 674 450 477 8 295 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1016 514 544 3 296 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 797 521 552 3 297 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 877 520 545 8 298 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 938 528 564 8 299 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 1286 571 606 3 300 19‐Sep‐03 NRPK 771 480 511 3 301 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1810 481 536 302 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1640 499 560 303 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2260 524 583 304 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1970 469 561 305 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1490 520 574 306 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1980 489 550 307 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2670 555 615 308 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1840 530 578

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 309 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1980 505 568 310 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1760 488 545 311 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2020 529 588 312 17‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2190 510 565 313 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 237 258 290 314 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 595 344 389 315 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2061 512 569 316 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1891 467 527 317 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1674 482 541 318 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1794 489 552 319 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1593 454 512 320 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1300 456 509 321 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1974 515 572 322 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1466 460 519 323 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1745 474 538 324 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1505 452 515 325 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1333 465 526 326 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1377 451 504 327 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1642 483 545 328 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1060 465 522 329 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1800 518 581 330 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1739 485 540 331 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2219 517 585 332 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1671 455 521 333 18‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1753 488 545 334 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1420 460 517 335 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1600 482 552 336 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1920 483 546 337 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2300 541 596 338 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1410 480 536 339 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2020 522 587 340 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1940 505 564

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 341 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1950 513 579 342 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1690 472 529 343 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1970 517 576 344 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1690 477 532 345 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1330 482 540 346 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1520 458 514 347 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1450 459 512 348 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1830 492 558 349 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2070 513 571 350 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2220 512 579 351 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1640 470 534 352 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2280 523 582 353 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1760 495 556 354 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1680 472 526 355 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1940 507 566 356 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1850 485 543 357 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1690 482 536 358 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1692 493 549 359 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1469 479 532 360 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1972 492 556 361 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1815 478 529 362 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2566 551 566 363 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1702 465 522 364 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1847 509 564 365 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1209 439 489 366 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1846 486 545 367 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2061 509 568 368 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 1726 491 541 369 19‐Sep‐03 LKWH 2102 532 599 370 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1140 410 452 371 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 640 339 377 372 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 330 279 307

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 373 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 330 278 315 374 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1150 388 433 375 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1190 419 457 376 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1540 436 480 377 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1280 405 446 378 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1240 420 462 379 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1280 418 460 380 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1330 427 474 381 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1360 439 482 382 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1260 412 464 383 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1220 422 464 384 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 970 403 445 385 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1330 422 469 386 17‐Sep‐03 CISC 1360 416 461 387 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1011 375 420 388 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 933 385 428 389 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1192 402 445 390 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1995 497 554 391 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 556 321 357 392 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1167 399 346 393 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 998 371 414 394 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1082 391 435 395 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1047 487 429 396 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1084 411 457 397 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 293 256 290 398 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 316 280 310 399 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 342 280 309 400 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 342 283 306 401 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1127 403 445 402 18‐Sep‐03 CISC 1294 423 466 403 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 370 276 313 404 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 380 292 319 405 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 350 272 305 406 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 390 285 321

Appendix 9. Continued

Fork Total Weight Length Length Age Sample Date Species (g) (mm) (mm) Sex (y) 407 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 120 198 224 408 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 680 344 380 409 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 370 285 320 410 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 370 282 313 411 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 330 279 309 412 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 270 263 290 413 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 360 280 315 414 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 320 274 306 415 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 1090 406 456 416 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 610 325 365 417 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 1230 413 463 418 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 1150 405 453 419 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 1110 445 455 420 19‐Sep‐03 CISC 1110 405 450

CCONSERVATIONONSERVATION RREPORTEPORT SSERIESERIES The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of this project