Lake Revelstoke Reservoir Creel and Visitor Use Survey 2000

by: K. Bray and M. Campbell

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Revelstoke, B.C. January 2001 Executive Summary

From May 5 to September 4, 2000, an access point creel survey was conducted on Lake Revelstoke. The principal objectives were to assess the sport fishery on Lake Revelstoke, collect biological data on fish species in the reservoir, and provide a baseline against which future change can be measured. A visitor use survey was conducted concurrently with the creel survey to gauge visitor opinions and perceptions about Lake Revelstoke and to determine how people were using the reservoir. The number of partners involved in this project presents a good example of both the challenges of managing a complex project and the success when many parties work together.

Random sampling was stratified by day type (weekend/holidays and weekdays), site location, and time of day. Seven major access point sites were identified and assigned selection probabilities based on previous surveys and current conditions. Aerial survey counts of boats and campers and ground counts of campers were conducted at informal sites to help estimate the proportion of effort missed.

536 angler interviews were conducted with anglers from B.C. comprising 91.6% of those surveyed and Albertans 6.9%. Residents of Revelstoke accounted for half (50.2%) of the interviews and Okanagan anglers for 30.4%. The average trip length was 2.81 ± 0.16 hours with an average of 2.29 anglers and 2.13 rods per boat. Most fishing on Lake Revelstoke was done from a boat (96%) with lures used during almost all recorded fishing trips. Most fishing effort was directed towards kokanee (1354 hours or 90%). Average catch (all species) was 0.82 fish/angler, and the mean hourly catch per unit effort (CPUE) was 0.292 ± 0.048 fish/hour.

Kokanee was the most frequently caught species, contributing 92.5% of the total catch, almost all of which were kept. The average catch was 0.76 kokanee/angler, the mean CPUE 0.270 ± 0.06 kokanee/hour. CPUE’s for other species caught were 0.012 ± 0.001 bull trout/hour, 0.007± 0.0004 rainbow trout/hour, and 0.003± 0.000 mountain whitefish/hour. Total directed effort towards kokanee was estimated at 23 720 ± 6 212 angling hours with an estimated 7 023 ± 3 593 kokanee caught. An additional 25-30% of fishing effort is estimated to occur from the many informal camping and access points along the reservoir. Lake Revelstoke is a particularly difficult waterbody to survey effectively with limited funds. Large standard errors on total effort and catch estimates are due to great variability in the data and are mostly due to the sheer size of the reservoir and number of access points.

The sport fish catch on Lake Revelstoke appears to have undergone little change since 1992 although catches of rainbow trout have declined. Local anglers from Revelstoke continue to make up about one half of the total angling population and the proportion of seniors fishing has increased. Fishing effort continues to be predominantly focused on kokanee.

Ninety-one visitor interviews were conducted in conjunction with the creel survey. Results indicate that most reservoir users are Revelstoke residents, followed closely by visitors from the Okanagan. In general people are quite happy with the range and upkeep of facilities along the reservoir and value the easy access and scenery. The strongest wishes expressed by those interviewed were to have the old Downie Park site opened as an informal site and to have a greater enforcement presence to ensure fishing regulations are followed.

i Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the anglers and visitors who kindly took the time to participate in these surveys.

This project would not have been possible without help from the following people and organisations: Sam Olynyk and the Revelstoke Rotary Club Jon Wilsgaard (MOF Golden) and Ministry of Forests Revelstoke Office Tom Tischik, Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce Debbie Wozniak, Enterprise Centre University of Victoria Biology Co-op Program Rachel Manson Heather Davis

Funding was provided by the Columbia Basin Trust Local Government Initiatives Program, BC Hydro Lake Revelstoke Recreation Fund, and Human Resources and Development Canada.

ii Table of Contents

Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………… i

Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………………. ii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………. iii List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………... iv List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………….... iv

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Study Area ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

PART I – Creel Survey

Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Survey Sites …………………………………………………………………………... 2 Angler Interviews …………………………………………………………………….. 2 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………… 2 Limitations and Biases ………………………………………………………………... 2 Administration ……………………………………………………………………….. 4

Results ………………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Angler Characteristics ………………………………………………………………… 4 Trip Characteristics ………………………………………………………………….... 5 Fishing Effort During Other Months ………………………………………………... 5 Directed Effort ……………………………………………………………………….. 7 Angler Success ………………………………………………………………………... 7 Estimation of Total Catch and Directed Effort for Kokanee …………………………. 9 Biological Data ……………………………………………………………………… 10 Comparisons with previous surveys …………………………………………………. 11

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………... 13

PART II – Visitor Use Survey

Results ………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

Summary of Results ………………………………………………………………………... 26

Literature Cited ……………………………………………………………………………... 27

iii Appendices

Appendix I – Creel Survey Sampling Schedule and Site/Shift Probabilities Appendix II – Creel and Visitor Use Survey Forms Appendix III – Effort Data Appendix IV – Fish Data

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Lake Revelstoke reservoir with creel survey and informal use site locations ... 3

Figure 2. Residence of anglers ………………………………………………………………... 6

Figure 3. Fork length frequency of kokanee measured during the 2000 creel survey ……….... 11

Figure 4. Residence of visitors interviewed ………………………………………………… 15

Figure 5. Primary and secondary activities of visitors to Lake Revelstoke ………………….. 16

Figure 6. Proportion of expenditures on various items made in Revelstoke ……………… ... 17

Figure 7. Average number of visits made to Lake Revelstoke in a year …………………….. 17

Figure 8. Proportion of use by season ……………………………………………………... 18

Figure 9. Type of sites used by visitors to Lake Revelstoke ……………………………..…... 19

Figure 10. Site preference indicated ……………………………………………………….. 19

Figure 11. Reasons given why different site types are preferred ……………………………. 21

List of Tables

Table 1. Age composition of anglers …………………………………………………………. 5

Table 2. Expected fishing effort for other months on Lake Revelstoke as indicated during angler interviews …………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Table 3. Directed fishing effort by species ……………………………………………………. 7

Table 4. Summary of catch, catch per angler, and mean CPUE for all angler interviews ……... 8

Table 5. Summary of catch, catch per angler, and CPUE for 5 May-30 Jun and 1 Jul -4 Sept for kokanee and all species ……………………………………………………………………….. 8

iv Table 6. Angler success on Lake Revelstoke …………………………………………………. 9

Table 7. Estimation of total catch and total directed effort for kokanee …………………….. 10

Table 8. Summary of comparative data from the 1992, 1993, and 2000 creel surveys ………. 12

v Introduction

In the summer of 2000 an access point creel survey was conducted on Lake Revelstoke. The principal objectives of the study were to assess the sport fishery on Lake Revelstoke, collect biological data on fish species in the reservoir, and provide a baseline against which future change can be measured. Trends may indicate underlying changes in the relative abundance of sport fish species in Lake Revelstoke and provide an indication of overall reservoir productivity.

The last creel surveys conducted on Lake Revelstoke took place in 1992 and 1993 and were directed at assessing the relative numbers of marked versus wild rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the sport fishery (R.L.&L. 1993; Gazey 1994). A voluntary creel card survey was also conducted in 1986 (Fleming and Smith 1988) shortly after creation of the reservoir. In the last few years it is believed that recreational use and sport fishing has increased with more visitors and anglers coming from beyond the local area. There have also been some concerns raised by local residents about the condition of informal use sites along the reservoir with respect to garbage and human waste.

A visitor use survey was conducted concurrently with the creel survey to gauge visitor opinions and perceptions about Lake Revelstoke and to determine how people were using the reservoir. The questionnaire was administered to interested visitors by the creel clerk when not conducting angler interviews.

Study Area

Lake Revelstoke is located on the Columbia River about 3 km north of the City of Revelstoke (Figure 1). Formed in 1984 with the completion of the Revelstoke Dam, Lake Revelstoke stretches 128 km upstream to Mica Dam, averaging 0.9 km in width. The reservoir has a mean depth of 46 m and a surface area of 10 125 ha. As a run-of-the-river reservoir, Lake Revelstoke is subject to an annual drawdown of approximately 1.5 m with daily fluctuations in the order of 0.15 m.

Lake Revelstoke is easily accessible by paved road (Hwy 23 North) and is a popular recreation area for local residents and tourists. It is the site of an active sport fishery and provides fishing opportunities for kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), rainbow trout, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), burbot (Lota lota), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). The stable water level and ease of access (both number of access points and variety of facilities) make the Lake Revelstoke reservoir a unique resource to the region. A more detailed review and discussion of recreational facilities and opportunities is contained in the Lake Revelstoke Reservoir Integrated Recreation Plan (Lake Revelstoke Reservoir Recreation Work Group 1996).

PART I – CREEL SURVEY

Methods

A stratified random sampling access point design was used for the Lake Revelstoke creel survey. Random sampling was stratified by day type (weekend/holidays and weekdays), site location, and time of day. Seven major access point sites were identified and assigned selection probabilities

1 based on previous creel surveys and knowledge of current conditions (RL&L 1993; Gazey 1994). The morning and afternoon/evening. shifts were each 6 hours long with the p.m. shift assigned the greater selection probability at p=0.67. Actual shift hours varied during the course of the study to track changes in day length and to ensure that the important evening fishing hours were sampled. The survey was carried out from May 5 to September 4, 2000. The creel survey schedule, site probalities, and shift hours are included as Appendix I.

In addition, aerial survey counts of boats and campers and ground counts of campers were conducted at informal sites along the reservoir from May to August. This was to help estimate total effort and the proportion of effort missed from the many informal access points. Aerial and ground counts were conducted using the same random sampling of day type as was used for the creel survey. Flights were subject to weather conditions and most flights occurred in July and August.

Survey Sites The seven access points surveyed during this study were: 5 Mile Creek, Martha Creek, Carnes Creek, Downie Loop (Sandy Point), Downie Gravel Pits, Downie R.V. Resort, and Bigmouth Creek. (Figure 1).

Angler Interviews Anglers were interviewed at the completion of their fishing trip, as they returned to the access point. A sample of the creel survey forms are included in Appendix II. When possible, all anglers returning to the access point during the sample period were interviewed. The time and duration of the fishing trip were recorded, as were the catch and harvest. Angler demographics, angling methods and biological data (length and weight) on fish kept were also recorded. Scale samples were taken from kokanee and tissue samples (tip of caudal fin) of bull trout were collected and preserved in 95% ethanol. Effort data are in Appendix III and biological data in Appendix IV.

The creel clerk also recorded anglers arriving/departing the site on an hourly basis and conducted boat counts on the hour at each site.

Data Analysis The catch per unit effort for each species was calculated as a ratio of means (Pollock et al. 1994), in order to allow direct comparison with previous creel surveys (R.L.&L. 1993). Overall angler effort and catch for kokanee during the entire survey period, using the methods described by Pollock et al. (1994) and ARA Consulting Group (1994).

Limitations and Biases Lake Revelstoke is a particularly difficult waterbody to survey effectively with limited funds. The sheer size of the reservoir makes a roving creel difficult and expensive. The bus route method results in high sampling variability and the lack of completed trip data which would provide little biological information on fish harvested and high bias in effort estimates. Access point creel surveys conducted on a large waterbody with many unsurveyed access points will yield unbiased estimates of catch and effort, but with large confidence intervals (ARA 1994). An access point- aerial count creel was chosen as the best method based on funding available and the ability to compare results to previous creel surveys.

2 118 30 W 118 00 W

N a g l e O L U M B I 7409 C A

TISA S N MTN C R I r E M e M e Mica A U k C C R S H o a 23 r T E d K s S WARSAW A B MTN N C k I r e e K Mica Creek

M i c 52 00 N a KINBASKET R

P C MTN T r E a C K C 23 ( S t r K o e l A e i u B k n m N V A N b b K I L L I r a S U s i C k a e R t e L a a c k h e e MT ) e L CHAPMAN

s i No Fishing u S o c L r i Northp of Bigmouth Cr C NEPTUNE C O r e PEAK to Mica Dame L k h r t k U u C o e M e g m r B i C K H o r y n e d I n i W ARGONAUT C r MTN GORDON HORNE Bigmouth Cr DOUBLETOP PEAK MTN

MT ONDERDONK k e r e C r ADAMANT C MTN r d Ca m p C o REMILLARD

d W PEAK l H o s C r k i n O s P a l m e r h n c a m r

n r C

e o

r N F t t MT i t r S GOLDSTREAM SIR SANDFORD C G O MTN L ADEL D CIT S R ly T Mober MTN L D l e R I G O l E V Pass K i r b y v i A M E R

SONTATA MTN CENTURION LAKE DOWNIE MTN PEAK CARIBOU BASIN r o r r l C r e e Downie R.V. ResorD t e h r c c o S o a w B r e n u C s s i 51 30 N F i e r Downie Gravel Pits

S KEYSTONE

e IC SORCERER y PEAK m Downie Loop M o MTN u r REVELST o u (Sandy Point) C n Tangier C r r t Pass a OKE e e k

STANDARD PEAK

A CARNES M PEAK N G CAR C r I FRENCHMAN E R CAP y d d E g C i B a Carnesr n Cr Forest Rec Site e D u r r a n s d F a n g e k G C r e l C C r r b y F r i s R

L a W F o o J r o O m l s e e R y

A I C C Location of Detail N E r L L C o p e l a I n d Martha Cr Prov ParCk MT r C r ST CYR Canyon MT Hot Springs KLOTZ A l b e r R t

I 1 CPR V

E 5 Mile Cr Boat Launch

MT R 23 REVELSTOKE ALBERT R A A I E T PEAK WA B L E M I L U REVELSTOKE E C L L R I L C P O Revelstoke C 1 51 00 N

REVELSTOKE R E

MT V

Clanwilliam I Figure 1. Location of creel survey points and informal use sites on Revelstoke Reservoir Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program -- January 11, 2001

Creel Survey Location 0 5 10 15 20 25 km Informal Site Scale: 1:600,000 Map Projection: UTM Zone 11 - Datum: NAD 83

3 Administration Multi-agency partnership projects come with their own brand of administrative processes and the success of this project has come because of the flexibility and willingness to cooperate of many organisations. It is worthwhile to describe this complex arrangement for the benefit of other organizations seeking to do similar projects and for funding agencies to appreciate the amount of work that goes into some partnership projects.

Funding for the project was directed to the Revelstoke Rotary Club from Columbia Basin Trust Local Government Initiatives Program, BC Hydro Lake Revelstoke Recreation Fund, and Human Resources Development Canada Summer Career Placements. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (CBFWCP) provided survey design, coordination, administration, supervision, and report preparation through the Revelstoke office. The vehicle used for the creel survey was leased from BC Hydro through the CBFWCP (at a rate much lower than a commercial rental) and the cost reimbursed to the Program at the end of the project. Also paid for by the Program up front and later reimbursed by the Rotary Club was the cost of the flights and salary costs for additional field survey work. All sampling equipment was provided by the CBFWCP.

A University of Victoria biology co-op student was hired to conduct the survey. The University and Rotary Club entered into an agreement whereby the University paid the student and covered all payroll expenses (WCB, EI CPP, etc.) for a small administrative fee. As the Rotary Club has no employees it would have meant much more paperwork to obtain a WCB number and hire an accountant to handle the payroll. The benefit of a co-op student is also that much of the data entry and analysis and some report writing was completed as part of the work term instead of having to be contracted out.

The Ministry of Forests (MOF) (Revelstoke) provided radio equipment and a radio call sign to the creel clerk for safety purposes. This was arranged for by Jon Wilsgaard at the MOF Golden office.

Results

Angler Characteristics During the survey, 536 angler interviews were conducted. A total of 381 different anglers were interviewed with 155 repeat contacts. Adult anglers between 18-65 years of age contributed 64.6% to the total anglers interviewed (Table 1). Seniors were the next largest age group at 23.1% of anglers.

4 Table 1. Age composition of anglers.

Age Group No. of Anglers Percent

Junior (< 18 yrs) 45 11.8

Adult (18-65 yrs) 248 64.6

Senior (> 65 yrs) 88 23.1

Total 381 100

Anglers from British Columbia contributed 91.6% of angler interviews. Alberta, the next ranking province, contributed 6.9% of the interviews. Residents of Revelstoke accounted for half (50.2%) of the interviews conducted and anglers from the Okanagan for 30.4% (Figure 2).

Trip Characteristics The average trip length was 2.8 ± 0.16 hours with an average of 2.29 anglers and 2.13 rods per boat. Most fishing on Lake Revelstoke was done from a boat (96%). Fishing from shore accounted for only 20 (4%) of the recorded trips. Lures were used during almost all recorded fishing trips, with only 1% of anglers using fly fishing tackle.

Fishing Effort During Other Months Thirty-four of the anglers interviewed indicated that they would fish on Lake Revelstoke between the months of October and April. Bull trout was the target species of 76.5% (Table 2) of this anticipated angling effort, with rainbow trout second at 26.5%. Most of this effort was planned for the months of October (29.5%) and April (29.5%), although some fishing effort was expected for all winter months.

Table 2. Expected fishing effort for other months on Lake Revelstoke as indicated during angler interviews.

# of times # of times indicated as a indicated as a Percent Month Percent Species fishing month target species October 26 29.5 Bull trout 26 76.5 November 13 14.8 Rainbow trout 9 26.5 December 5 5.7 Kokanee 3 8.8 January 4 4.5 Any 5 14.7 February 5 5.7 March 14 15.9 April 21 29.9

5 Place of Residence - Creel Survey

6.9% Revelstoke n=536 0.4% BC 4.5% 6.5% 0.7% Columbia Basin 0.4% Alberta Okanagan 4.7% Other CDN Pacific NW/US 13.4% 30.4% Europe 7.8% Salmon Arm Vernon 4.5% Armstrong/Enderby 50.2% Other Okanagan

Figure 2. Residence of anglers interviewed.

6 Directed Effort Much of the fishing effort on Lake Revelstoke during the creel survey was directed towards kokanee. Kokanee fishing effort totaled 1 354 hours (Table 3) and accounted for 90% of the total effort. Three percent of total effort was targeted towards bull trout, with rainbow trout receiving 1% of the total effort. A number of anglers did not indicate any selectivity between bull trout and rainbow trout. Their angling effort was recorded as “Any trout” and contributed 4% to the total fishing effort. No interviewed anglers indicated fishing effort directed towards mountain whitefish or burbot. The distribution of fishing effort amongst species appeared to vary little between the periods of May 5-June 30 and July 1-Sept 4.

Table 3. Directed fishing effort by species.

Total directed hours and percent of total Species May 5-June 30 July 1-Sept 4 Overall Hours 731 623 1 354 Kokanee % total 89 91 90 Hours 26.3 20.5 46.8 Bull trout % total 3 3 3 Hours 9 8.7 17.7 Rainbow trout % total 1 1 1 Hours 20.4 33.3 53.7 Any trout % total 3 5 4 Hours 31.4 1.5 32.8 Any species % total 4 0 2

Angler Success Over the 536 angling interviews, a total catch (all species combined) of 439 fish was recorded. The total effort recorded was 1 505 hours, with an average trip length ± 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.81 ± 0.16 hours. The average catch was 0.82 fish/angler, and the mean hourly catch per unit effort (CPUE) was 0.292 ± 0.048 fish/hour. Catch, catch per angler, and mean CPUE data are summarized for all species on Table 4. An index of angler success for all species is presented in Table 5.

7 Table 4. Summary of catch, catch per angler, and mean CPUE for all angler interviews.

Species Total catch Catch per Anglera Mean CPUEb ± 95% CI

Kokanee 406 0.76 0.27 ± 0.06

Bull Trout 18 0.03 0.012 ± 0.001

Rainbow Trout 10 0.02 0.007 ± 0.0004

Mountain Whitefish 5 0.01 0.003 ± 0.0000

All Species 439 0.82 0.29 ± 0.05 abased on completed trip data. btotal catch divided by total effort (hours)

Table 5. Summary of catch, catch per angler, and CPUE for 5 May-30 Jun and 1 Jul -4 Sept for kokanee and all species.

Species 5 May – 30 Jun 1 Jul – 4 Sept Kokanee Total catch 297 109 Catch per Anglera 1.1 0.41 Mean CPUEb ± 95% CI 0.36 ± 0.07 0.16 ± 0.05 All Species Total catch 314 125 Catch per Anglera 0.59 0.23 Mean CPUEb ± 95% CI 0.38 ± 0.09 0.18 ± 0.05

Kokanee Kokanee was the most frequently caught species during the creel survey, contributing 92.5% of the total catch. Anglers caught 406 kokanee. Of this catch, 99.9% of the fish were kept, with four fish being released. The average catch was 0.76 kokanee/angler, and the mean CPUE was 0.270 ± 0.06 kokanee/hour. Eight anglers (1.49%) caught their 10 fish limit, while 71.5% of anglers did not catch any kokanee. Kokanee catch rates varied throughout the summer, with 35% of the total kokanee catch recorded during four sampling days between June 2 and June 9.

Bull trout Bull trout were the next most frequently captured species. A total of 18 bull trout were taken during the survey period, comprising 4.1% of the total catch. The mean CPUE was 0.012 ± 0.001 bull trout/hour, with an average catch of 0.03 bull trout/angler. Anglers released 55.6% of captured bull trout, and kept 44.4 %. Only 3% of anglers caught any bull trout. Four of the bull trout captured were caught by anglers who were targeting kokanee.

8 Rainbow trout Rainbow trout contributed 2.3% to the total catch. Of the ten rainbow trout caught, 80% were kept. Anglers had an average catch of 0.02 rainbow trout/angler and the mean CPUE was 0.007± 0.0004 rainbow trout/hour. Less than 2% of the interviewed anglers caught any rainbow trout and five of the rainbow trout were caught by anglers fishing for kokanee.

Mountain whitefish Mountain whitefish were the least abundant species caught with 5 fish contributing 1.1% to the total catch. One mountain whitefish was kept and four were released. The mean CPUE was 0.003± 0.000 mountain whitefish/hour, and the overall average catch was 0.01 mountain whitefish/angler.

Burbot No catch of burbot was recorded during the summer creel survey. On four occasions the creel clerk spoke with groups of anglers preparing to fish for burbot from shore. Burbot fishing effort began at dusk and continued into the night. No completed trips were recorded before the end of the afternoon survey period. As a result, burbot effort and catch rates were not sampled.

Table 6. Angler success on Lake Revelstoke.

Index of Angler Success Kokanee Bull Trout Rainbow Trout (No. of fish caught per trip) No. % No. % No. %

0 383 71.5 520 97 526 98 1 68 12.7 14 2.6 8 1.5 2 36 6.72 2 0.4 1 0.2 3 16 2.99 0 0 0 0 4 8 1.49 0 0 0 0 5 10 1.87 0 0 0 0 6 1 0.19 0 0 0 0 7 2 0.37 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0.75 0 0 0 0 10 8 1.49 0 0 0 0

Estimation of Total Catch and Directed Effort for Kokanee The stratified data for kokanee catch rates and directed effort were extrapolated to provide estimates for the entire lake (Table 7). The sample mean fishing effort was more than twice as large for the weekend/holiday strata (326.7 hours/day) as it was for the weekday strata (126.8 hours/day). Similarly, the sample mean catch rate for the weekend/holiday strata (91.5 fish/day) more than doubled that of the weekday strata (40.0 fish/day). Weekends and holidays contributed 40 days to the 124 day total, while there were 84 week days. This meant that overall, weekend angling pressure was only slightly higher than that of weekday fishing. The combined strata gives an overall estimate of 23 720 ± 6 212 angling hours directed towards kokanee during the study period with an estimated 7 023 ± 3 593 kokanee caught.

9 Table 7. Estimation of total catch and total directed effort for kokanee.

n N E E h H Strata sample size Total days Sample Population Sample Population (days) in strata mean effort total effort mean catch total catch (hours/day) (hours) (fish/day) (Fish) Weekday 27 84 1 26.8 10 652 40.0 3 363 ±1 733 ±779 Weekend 38 40 3 26.7 13 069 91.5 3 660 ±4 478 ±2 814 Combined 65 124 n/a 23 720 n/a 7 023 ±6 212 ±3 593

Using aerial boat counts and mean number of rods per boat, an estimate of total reservoir effort was calculated for June 30-July 31 and Aug 1-Sept 4, 2000, using the calculations provided by ARA (1994). Too few flights in May and June made expansion of effort to the whole reservoir difficult. In July the total monthly effort was estimated at 7 266 hours and the total catch at 1381 fish. In August, the estimated total monthly effort was 5 285 hours and total catch of 846 fish. Adding the proportion of use from May and June, the total estimated effort for the period is 27 503 hours and 7 381 fish, very similar to the first estimates.

An additional 25-30% of fishing effort is estimated to occur from the many informal camping and access points along the reservoir.

Biological Data Where possible all fish harvested by anglers interviewed for the creel survey were measured (mm) and weighed (g) (Appendix III). Scale samples were taken from kokanee and rainbow trout and ages will be determined at a future date. Tissue samples from bull trout and all scale samples are archived at the CBFWCP office in Revelstoke.

Kokanee Length frequency of kokanee measured during the creel survey is plotted in Figure 3. Weights were taken where possible, but in many instances anglers had already cleaned the fish. Mean length was 309 mm (n=192) and mean weight of all kokanee was 357 g (n=152). The two peaks on the length frequency graph probably represent 2 and 3 year old fish.

Bull trout and rainbow trout So few bull trout and rainbow trout were harvested that the length frequency was not plotted. The mean length for 7 bull trout recorded was 384 mm and mean weight 616 g (n=5). The 4 rainbow trout harvested had a mean length of 330 mm and mean weight 480 g.

Length and weight data for Lake Revelstoke fish caught during the Mica fish derbies (1997- 2000) give some additional indication of sizes for bull trout and rainbow trout in the reservoir. Bull trout mean length for all years was 564 mm and mean weight 2 083 g (n=19). Of 12 rainbow trout measured in the 1997-2000 derbies, the mean length was 345 mm and mean weight 707 g.

10 18 n = 191 16

8 Frequency (%) Frequency 6

0 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 Fork Length (10 mm interval)

Figure 3. Fork length frequency of kokanee.

Comparisons with Previous Surveys Previous creel surveys conducted on Lake Revelstoke in 1992 (RL&L 1993) and 1993 (Gazey 1994) allow for some comparison with the 2000 results although, as the survey objectives and designs were slightly different, comparisons should be made with caution. In 1992 and 1993, the objectives were to evaluate the proportion of marked versus unmarked rainbow trout in the sport fishery and a non-random design was used in an attempt to interview as many anglers as possible. Table 8 provides a summary of some of the data.

11 Table 8. Summary of comparative data from the 1992, 1993, and 2000 creel surveys.

Parameter 1992 1993 2000 # of interviews 432* 942 536 # of interview days 63 63 65 Dates of Survey 15 May – 15 Sep 16 Apr – 6 Sep 5 May – 4 Sep Residence of anglers (%) Revelstoke 47.0 52.1 50.2 Other BC 35.9 34.5 41.4 Alberta 11.8 4.8 6.9 Age Groups (%) Junior (< 18) 10 n/a 12 Adult (18-65) 83 65 Senior (65+) 7 23 Boat Angling (%) 97 98 96 Shore Angling (%) 3 2 4 Average Trip Length (hours) 3.76 ± 0.2 3.85 2.81 ± 0.16 Average catch per angler 0.99 1.14 0.82 CPUE - All Species 0.27 ± 0.06 0.31 ± 0.04 0.29 ± 0.05 (fish/angler hour) CPUE Kokanee 0.21 ± 0.04 0.26 ± 0.04 0.27 ± 0.06 Rainbow trout 0.03 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.008 0.007 ± 0.0004 Bull trout 0.014 ± 0.006 0.013 ± 0.006 0.012 ±0.001 % of Total Catch Kokanee 78 85 93 Rainbow trout 11 10 2 Bull trout 5 4 4 Other 5 0 1 Angler success - kokanee (%) 0 caught 66 59 72 1 caught 19 14 13 10 caught (10 + for ’92 and 0.2 (0.7) 0.5 (2.8) 1.5 ‘93) % of catch kept Kokanee 97.9 97.8 99.9 Rainbow trout 77.5 76 80 Bull trout 69.6 55 44.4 *includes 55 surveys at Mica Derby

12 Discussion

The sport fishery on Lake Revelstoke appears to have undergone little change since the completion of the 1992 (R.L.& L.1993), with the exception of catch per angler and CPUE values for rainbow trout. The surveys were dissimilar in their survey periods and scale and any comparisons drawn between the two should be treated cautiously.

Local anglers from Revelstoke continue to make up about one half of the total angling population. Non-local anglers are presently more likely to be from B.C., while the percentage of anglers from Alberta has fallen from 11.8 to 6.9 percent.

The angling community may be aging. Adults (18-65 years) remain the dominant age class of anglers, but the proportion of seniors fishing has risen from 6.5 to 23.1 percent.

Fishing effort continues to be largely focused on kokanee. Although the overall catch per angler (all species) appears to have fallen slightly (from 0.99 fish/angler to 0.76 fish/angler), the overall mean CPUE (all species) remained similar (0.27 in 1993, 0.29 in 2000).

Mean CPUE and catch per angler values for kokanee and bull trout were very similar in the 1992 and 2000 creel surveys. Values for kokanee were 0.76 fish/angler and 0.27 fish/hour in 2000, compared with 0.78 fish/angler and 0.21 fish/hour in 1992. Bull trout values were 0.03 fish/angler and 0.012 fish/hour in 2000, compared with 0.05 fish/angler and 0.014 fish/hour in 1992.

CPUE and catch per angler values appear to have declined for rainbow trout. The 1992 values were 0.11 fish/angler and 0.03 fish/hour, while the present survey found 0.02 fish/angler and 0.007 fish per hour. A voluntary creel card program conducted in 1986 shortly after the reservoir was formed showed a very different catch composition with rainbow trout dominating (0.15 CPUE) and kokanee comprising very little of the total catch (< 0.01 CPUE) (Fleming and Smith 1988). A decline in rainbow trout numbers is not unexpected as the reservoir ages as the insectivorous form does not fare as well in reservoir conditions.

Estimates for total kokanee catch and total kokanee directed effort were not attempted in the 1992 or 1993 surveys. The values of 7 023 ± 3 593 kokanee and 23 720 ± 6 212 hours have significant standard errors and may be negatively biased.

The large standard errors are due to great variability in the data, which remained large despite stratification. Weather was one factor which contributed to this. High winds are not uncommon on Lake Revelstoke; the long fetch can quickly build waves which are hazardous to small fishing boats. As there are very few protected bays or inlets, this kind of weather can effectively shut down recreational fishing on the reservoir. This area is also subject to periods of very heavy rainfall, which dramatically curtail sports fishing activity.

Site selection probabilities also may have contributed to the high variability. Precision is optimized when sampling effort is allocated in proportion to fishing effort at the sites (Pollock et al. 1994). Probabilities for the 2000 survey were obtained from a review of the 1992 and 1993 data, but future surveys may be able to further refine the site selection probabilities using the

13 2000 data. Further reductions of variability will be challenging however, given the limitations of the access point system. Lake Revelstoke occupies a very large geographical area and has a great number of formal and informal access sites, making it very difficult to sample.

Ease of access to Lake Revelstoke may also have introduced bias into the estimates for total kokanee catch and total kokanee directed effort. In addition to the seven access points surveyed in the 2000 study, there are at least an additional 20 known access points distributed along the reservoir. A survey of informal site use was carried out concurrently with the 2000 creel survey, and showed that approximately 25%-30% of effort was missed by not surveying these sites.

A final difficulty which may have introduced bias into the total catch and total directed effort estimates has to do with the nature of the surveyed access point sites. Of the seven sites which were sampled, Five Mile Creek and Bigmouth Creek could be considered textbook access point sites, with day traffic making use of a single boat launch. The remaining sites are camping areas, and rather than resembling a single access point, they present a diffuse zone of lake access from campsites along the shore. The challenge for the creel clerk was to conduct angling interviews while simultaneously monitoring the entire site for other returning anglers. This ranged from the manageable (Carnes Creek on a moderately busy day) to the near impossible (a busy day on Downie R.V. site, which consists of several docks, beach areas, and a canal not all within sight of each other). Any missed interviews resulting from this difficulty would have resulted in a negative bias for the estimation of total catch and total effort. Combined with the informal site use, the estimation of total effort and total catch is, therefore, mostly likely an underestimate by more than 25 - 30%.

14 PART II – Visitor Use Survey

Results

The following is a summary of responses to the visitor use survey. Ninety-one visitor interviews were conducted over the summer period in conjunction with the creel survey. The questionnaire is in Appendix II. Interviews were conducted at six of the creel locations representing all types of access points: Forest Recreation Sites (31% of interviews), a Provincial Park (26%), a commercial resort (14%), and informal sites (29%).

Visitor Characteristics

Place of Residence

8% 4% 2% n=91 9% 2% Revelstoke BC Columbia Basin Alberta 11% 10% Okanagan 10% Other CDN 30% Pacific NW/US Europe Salmon Arm 3% Vernon 7% Armstrong/Enderby Other Okanagan

34%

Figure 4. Residence of visitors interviewed.

Residents of Revelstoke comprised 34% of the interviews, while visitors from the Okanagan accounted for 30%. Visitors from other BC locations made up 20 % of interviews and Albertans 8%. Other Canadians and international visitors accounted for another 8%.

Average party size was 3 people. Age groups were represented by Juniors (< 18 years) at 12%, adults (18-65 years) at 52%, and Seniors (65+ years) at 36%.

27% of those interviewed said it was their first visit to Lake Revelstoke and of those 71% said they would return. Those responding that they would not return were most likely to be international travellers who were travelling through the region.

15 73% of respondents indicated they had visited Lake Revelstoke before. Of those who responded to the question, 88% said that Lake Revelstoke was their destination, while 13% were travelling through.

Primary Activities

Other Hiking 5% 1% Boating 3% Camping 31%

Fishing 60%

Secondary Activities

Other 6% Hiking 2% Camping Boating 38% 28%

Fishing 26%

Figure 5. Primary and secondary activities of visitors to Lake Revelstoke.

16 The greatest number of responses indicated that fishing was the primary purpose for visiting Lake Revelstoke. However, as the visitor interviews were conducted by the creel clerk, anglers are most likely heavily represented.

Other activities indicated: living for the summer at the resort, hunting, sight-seeing, travelling, biking, water-skiing, and relaxing.

Expenditures in Revelstoke

Miscellaneous 13% Hotel Gas 1% 30%

Restaurant 26%

Groceries 30%

Figure 6. Proportion of expenditures on various items made in Revelstoke.

Question 1. How often do you visit Lake Revelstoke?

10+ Once a times/year year 13% 16%

5-10 2-3 times/year times/year 31% 28%

3-5 times/year 12%

Figure 7. Average number of visits made to Lake Revelstoke in a year.

17 Question 2. During what seasons do you usually visit Lake Revelstoke?

Winter 0% Fall Spring 11% 15%

Summer 74%

Figure 8. Proportion of use by season.

While no one responded that they would visit Lake Revelstoke during the winter months of December, January and February, anglers did indicate on the creel survey that some would fish during these months.

Question 3. Mostly day use/overnight/weekend/weekday? Average # nights?

Of those who responded to the question, most people stayed overnight although there was no clear preference for weekday or weekend stays. On average people expected their stay on Lake Revelstoke to be 4 nights.

18 Question 4a. Which type of site have you used?

Informal Forest Rec Sites Sites 29% 29%

Commercial Provincial Resort Park 13% 29%

Figure 9. Type of sites used by visitors to Lake Revelstoke.

Question 4b. Which type of site do you prefer?

Informal Sites 30% Forest Rec Sites 43%

Commercial Resort 12% Provincial Park 15%

Figure 10. Site preference indicated.

Of those who preferred Forest Rec Sites, 33 % were Revelstoke residents and 28% were from the Okanagan. Informal sites were also preferred mostly by people from these locations at 35% from Revelstoke and 42% from the Okanagan. The Provincial Park was preferred mostly by people from outside the area (such as Alberta, Golden, United States, and other parts of BC and Canada), although Revelstoke residents made up 31% of these respondents. 50% of the people who preferred the commercial resort were Okanagan residents, with others coming from the Columbia Basin region (including Revelstoke).

19 Question 4c. Reasons given for site preference (note the difference in % scales).

Why Forest Rec Sites are Preferred

Security

Low fees

Scenery

Good fishing spot

Fits lots of people

Not crowded

Boat Launch

Size of sites

Location

Facilities/Svs

No fees

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Why Provincial Park is Preferred

Security

Low fees

Scenery

Good fishing spot

Fits lots of people

Not crowded

Boat Launch

Size of sites

Location

Facilities/Svs

No fees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 20 Why Commercial Resort is Preferred

Security

Low fees

Scenery

Good fishing spot

Fits lots of people

Not crowded

Boat Launch

Size of sites

Location

Facilities/Svs

No fees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Why Informal Sites are Preferred

Security

Low fees

Scenery

Good fishing spot

Fits lots of people

Not crowded

Boat Launch

Size of sites

Location

Facilities/Svs

No fees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 11. Reasons given why different site types are preferred.

21 Question 5. Would you prefer sites that were dispersed or concentrated along the reservoir?

83% of respondents said they would prefer sites dispersed along the reservoir, 4% said they would prefer sites concentrated in one area, and 13% had no preference.

Question 6. How would you rate the facilities provided at this site? (eg. type, variety, adequacy)

5 Mile Creek Boat Launch (3.25)