Abundance and Distribution of Arctic Grayling in the Upper Little , , 2007

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

Abundance and Distribution of Arctic Grayling in the Upper River, Alberta, 2007

Kevin Fitzsimmons Alberta Conservation Association Box 1420, Cochrane, Alberta, T4C 1B4

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

†Current Address: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 111 ‐ 54 Street, Edson, Alberta, Canada, T7E 1T2

Report Editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7

Conservation Report Series Type Data

ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐8460‐5 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐8461‐2 Publication No.: I/347

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: Fitzsimmons, K., and M. Blackburn. 2009. Abundance and distribution of Arctic grayling in the upper Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007. Data Report, D‐2009‐ 004, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless

Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During summer 2007, we used sample angling to assess the Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) population in an upper section of the Little Smoky River (235 km in length), the majority of which is a catch‐and‐release angling area. We angled 27 stream sites and captured a total of 1,734 individual Arctic grayling. Five percent of the total catch was of legal harvest size fish (350 mm total length). Catch rates were highly variable among sites ranging from 0 to 7.1 fish/h and from 0 to 96 fish/km. At seven study sites, we applied capture‐mark‐recapture techniques to estimate sample angling capture efficiency (q) for Arctic grayling. Overall, capture efficiencies were dependent on fish size. Capture efficiency of large fish (> 250 mm fork length; FL) was 2.4 times greater than that for small fish (150 ‐ 249 mm FL; q = 0.143). We incorporated these effects when modeling abundance of Arctic grayling for the entire length of the 235 km study area. Small fish were nearly twice as abundant as large fish (17,294 fish versus 9,326 fish). Estimated abundance of legal‐sized Arctic grayling was only 3% of the total estimate (i.e., 812 fish; 90% CI = 481 – 1,366). Arctic grayling were unevenly distributed in the study area. Mainstem sections located at the upper end of the Little Smoky River supported high numbers of legal‐sized Arctic grayling (i.e., > 17 fish/2 km). Total fish abundance peaked at approximately 55 km upstream of the boundary of the two‐fish bag limit (i.e., Pass Creek rail bridge). Downstream of the Tony Creek confluence the river supported low numbers of Arctic grayling. This information will assist resource managers in the development of management plans for the Little Smoky River watershed.

Key words: Arctic grayling, sample angling, capture efficiency, modeling, abundance, spatial distribution, Little Smoky River, population size structure.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Alberta Conservation Association employees Lyndon Rempel, Josh Bouchard and Jay Wieliczko for assistance with data collection. We also thank Janet Boyd, Kris Maier and Frank Wood for additional help in the field. Thanks to George Sterling (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development) and Mike Rodtka (Alberta Conservation Association) for assistance with study design. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development kindly allowed us use of the forestry bunkhouse in Fox Creek. Helpful reviews on earlier versions of this document were provided by Jason Blackburn, Paul Hvenegaard, Cam Stevens and Mike Rodtka. The Forest Resource Improvement Agency of Alberta and Alberta Conservation Association provided funding for this project.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES...... v LIST OF TABLES...... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ...... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 1.2. Study objectives ...... 2 2.0 STUDY AREA...... 2 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 3 3.1. Inventory data...... 3 3.2. Population modeling...... 5 3.3. Stream temperature and flow monitoring ...... 6 4.0 RESULTS ...... 7 4.1. Capture efficiencies ...... 8 4.2. Population modeling...... 10 4.3. Size structure...... 12 4.4. Summary...... 13 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 14 6.0 APPENDICES...... 17

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of inventory, population estimate and temperature monitoring sites in the upper Little Smoky River study area...... 4 Figure 2. Abundance and spatial distribution of (A) small and large Arctic grayling and (B) legal‐sized Arctic grayling in the 235‐km Little Smoky River study area, 2007 ...... 11 Figure 3. Fork length histogram of Arctic grayling captured by angling in the Little Smoky River, 2007 ...... 12

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Arctic grayling captures, angling effort, site length and catch rates for the Little Smoky River in 2007...... 8 Table 2. Angling capture efficiency and Akaike’s information criterion parameters for size‐structured Arctic grayling catch at capture‐mark‐recapture sites on the Little Smoky River in 2007...... 9

vi LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Date, location and channel information for sites on the Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007...... 17 Appendix 2. Fork length‐total length relationship for Arctic grayling from the Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007...... 19 Appendix 3. Maximum, minimum and seasonal mean water temperature at nine locations in the Little Smoky River study area, 2007...... 20 Appendix 4. Historical and 2007 water discharge measured at Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station No. 07GG002 on the Little Smoky River at the Town of Little Smoky...... 21 Appendix 5. Size‐structured capture‐mark‐recapture data for population estimates conducted in the Little Smoky River study area, 2007...... 22

vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

The Little Smoky River contains one of Alberta’s southern Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) populations and provides angling opportunities for large Arctic grayling (> 40 cm total length; TL). Historically, access to the mid‐to‐upper reaches of the Little Smoky River was limited, but improved greatly when the Amoco‐Bigstone road was constructed in 1976. Recognizing the potential for over‐exploitation of the fishery, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) conducted Arctic grayling surveys in the Little Smoky River in 1987 and 1988 (Sterling and Hunt 1989). Based on results of these surveys, a catch‐and‐release angling regulation was implemented in 1989 for Arctic grayling in the 187 km of river upstream of the road bridge near Grizzly (an abandoned rail siding; Figure 1). Additional regulation changes included an open angling season of 16 June ‐ 31 August, a bag limit of two Arctic grayling greater than 30 cm TL downstream of the bridge near Grizzly, and a bait ban upstream of the confluence with Tony Creek. In 1993 ‐ 1994, radio telemetry (Stanislawski 1997) indicated that Arctic grayling were migrating downstream of Grizzly bridge to overwinter. Thus, the catch‐and‐release angling area was extended an additional 30 km downstream to the Pass Creek rail bridge. To further conserve Arctic grayling stocks in the Little Smoky River, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development recently proposed that the catch‐and‐release boundary be moved downstream an additional 23.5 km to the confluence of Tony Creek (George Sterling, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, pers. comm.).

Currently, Arctic grayling in Alberta are listed as “Sensitive” (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005). This designation implies that populations are sensitive to human and natural disturbances and require management to prevent them from becoming at risk of extirpation. Of the Arctic grayling populations in Alberta, those near the southern extent of their range have experienced the greatest population declines (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005). Habitat fragmentation (through road and culvert construction), increased water temperature (from both land use and climate change), and angling pressure may be contributing to declines. To date, however, no comprehensive Arctic grayling status assessment has been conducted in the Little Smoky River. Alberta Conservation Association began a study in the

1 summer of 2007 to estimate abundance of Arctic grayling in the upper Little Smoky River in order to provide resource managers with current data that will aid in the development of management plans for the Little Smoky watershed.

1.2. Study objectives

Our study addressed the following objectives:

i. Using sample angling, calculate catch rates of Arctic grayling (≥ 150 mm fork length; FL) and legal‐sized Arctic grayling (> 350 mm TL) at 29 locations distributed along a 235‐km section of the upper Little Smoky River;

ii. At a subset of locations (n = 7), estimate angling capture efficiency of Arctic grayling using capture‐mark‐recapture (CMR) techniques; we defined efficiency as the proportion (or percentage) of fish in a given area that were captured during sampling;

iii. Model abundance and spatial distribution of Arctic grayling, including legal‐sized Arctic grayling, for the entire study area in the Little Smoky River mainstem; and

iv. Determine the size structure of the Arctic grayling population in the Little Smoky River study area.

2.0 STUDY AREA

The Little Smoky River is located in west‐central Alberta and flows approximately 550 km from its headwaters in the East Slopes of Alberta to its confluence with the Smoky River. The upper third of the river is characterized by moderate gradient, abundant aquatic vegetation and clear but slightly stained water (Sterling and Hunt 1989). Sport fish species in the upper Little Smoky River include Arctic grayling, mountain

2 whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and northern pike (Esox lucius) (Sterling and Hunt 1989). The lower two‐thirds of the river is characterized by reduced gradient and turbid water, with walleye (Sander vitreus) and northern pike as the primary sport fish (Sterling and Hunt 1989). Based on Arctic grayling movement studies (Stanislawski 1997), we defined our study area as the 235 km of the Little Smoky River upstream of the road bridge crossing located 42 km downstream of the mouth of Tony Creek (Figure 1).

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Inventory data

We collected Arctic grayling abundance data by sample angling (Gresswell el al. 1997) at 27 of 29 sampling sites along the 235‐km study area (Figure 1). We excluded sites 27 and 28 from the study as we captured no Arctic grayling at sites immediately upstream and downstream of these locations (i.e., sites 26 and 29). Initially, we planned to use electrofishing as our primary method of fish capture. However, based on very low observed electrofishing capture efficiencies and poor site access, we chose angling methods over electrofishing to maximize capture efficiency and the number of inventory sites that could be sampled in the study area. We sampled sites in random order when river conditions permitted. We georeferenced the start and end of each site in the field using a hand‐held Global Positioning System (NAD 83, Zone 11U). We calculated site length with hydrographic layers and the site start and end waypoints in a geographic information system (GIS). Site length ranged from 1,340 to 2,550 m (average 2,123 m) and was dictated by the amount of stream that angling crews could survey during the course of one day. Crews of two or three angled in an upstream direction using fly fishing and spinning gear to capture fish. Fishing effort was evenly distributed across all available habitats. We collected data on stream wetted‐ and rooted‐widths (m), measured with a rangefinder at a right angle to river flow every 500 m along a site. We also recorded angling hours (0.25 h accuracy) and FL (mm) of all fish captured. Site location, length, and rooted‐width and wetted‐width data are provided in Appendix 1. We measured fish TL for a subsample of captured Arctic grayling. We developed a linear regression relationship between FL and TL that was used to estimate TL where only FL data were collected (Appendix 2).

3 Legend > Temperature monitoring site

T43 r

" e

Inventory site v

i

R

Inventory and population y k ¬ X

estimate site o Fox m

S

e Creek Edmonton l

Paved road t t

i !< L Downstream limit Gravel road > of study area " Calgary Rail line 29 > Fox Creek Tony 26 " Creek 25>""

"24 Grizzly " 23 ! XX >"" """ 21 " 19 " >" Pass Creek 11 12 20 9 " 14 XXX X 17 18 22 " >" XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX > 16 rail bridge 8 10 15 " 13 1 2 7 " " 3 >XXX6 " " " 4 5

Upstream limit 010205 of study area Kilometers

Figure 1. Location of inventory, population estimate and temperature monitoring sites in the upper Little Smoky River study area. Inset is map of Alberta indicating the location of the study area within the province.

4 3.2. Population modeling

We used the Lincoln‐Peterson CMR model at seven of the angling locations (Figure 1) to estimate Arctic grayling angling capture efficiency (Morrison et al. 2001). We separated marking and recapture events by 24 h and did not use block nets to control for fish emigration and immigration. Estimates were timed to correspond with summer feeding, thereby avoiding mobile periods during spring and autumn migrations (Stanislawski 1997; Stanislawski and Brown 1997). Fluvial Arctic grayling typically do not move during the summer feeding period (Fleming et al. 1992; Ridder et al. 1993; Roach 1995). Thus, our assumption of a closed population model may be valid because of the timing of the sampling and the short period between capture and recapture events.

We used program MARK to estimate angling efficiency of Arctic grayling and to determine if angling efficiency varied by fish size (Cooch and White 2008). We divided fish into two size classes (small fish 150 ‐ 249 mm FL and large fish ≥ 250 mm FL) based on visual examination of FL histograms of fish captured in 2007. Fleming and McSweeny (2001) used similar categories in calculating capture efficiencies. In addition, we chose 150 mm FL as a lower size limit for Arctic grayling, as angling capture efficiency for fish < 150 mm FL is typically below 20% and declines rapidly with diminishing fish size (Paul et al. 2003; Van Poorten and Post 2005). At each CMR site, we constructed two models of capture efficiency; with and without size effects. At each site, we selected the model with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to be the best supported given our data. We considered competing models with ∆AIC value < 2 to also have significant support (Burnham and Anderson 2002). If support for size‐ specific capture efficiencies was found, we incorporated these effects into our abundance and distribution models.

Following Paul and Dormer (2005), we incorporated two levels of uncertainty in our models of Arctic grayling abundance and distribution. First, using our multiple estimates of fish capture efficiency, we projected a beta distribution of capture efficiencies. We chose the beta distribution to model capture efficiency as it ranges in value from 0 to 1, which lends itself to describing proportions, and its two shape

5 parameters (α and β) are defined by the mean and the variance of the multiple capture efficiency estimates.

⎛ ⎞ With − xx )1( α = x ⎜ − 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ v ⎠ and

⎛ − xx )1( ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ β ()1 −= x ⎜ − 1 ⎟ ⎜ v ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ where x¯ and υ are the mean and variance, respectively, of the capture efficiency estimates.

Next, we addressed uncertainty in fish captures at each of the 27 sampling locations while fishing with constant capture efficiency. In this step, we generated a negative binomial distribution of possible fish missed at each site with a capture efficiency drawn at random from the beta distribution and the number of fish captured at each site as parameters. Fish abundance at each location was then expressed as the number of fish observed at the site, plus a random value from the negative binomial distribution of possible fish missed at the site. Spatial distribution and abundance of fish were then predicted with a generalized additive model (GAM) in consecutive 2‐km increments along the study area. We repeated this 10,000 times to calculate 90% confidence limits around means. We used the R software program (R Development Core Team 2008) for calculating beta and negative binomial distributions and for developing GAM.

3.3. Stream temperature and flow monitoring

From 1 June to 14 September 2007, we collected stream temperature (ºC) data at nine sites evenly spaced along the length of the river within our study area (Figure 1). Data points were collected every 1.5 h and stored on Onset Computer Corporation HOBO Temp data loggers. We also summarized stream discharge (m3/s) data (1967 ‐ 2007) from the Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station No. 07GG002 on the Little

6 Smoky River at the Town of Little Smoky. We present these data, which may be used for comparison to future studies, in Appendix 3 and 4, respectively.

4.0 RESULTS

Excluding fish recaptured at population estimate sites, we captured 1,734 individual Arctic grayling; 20 of these fish were not measured for length and were subsequently excluded from further data analysis. Eighty‐six fish (5.0% of total catch) were of legal size (> 350 mm TL). At inventory sites, we angled a total of 378.25 h with a mean (± SE) of 14.0 ± 0.7 h/site (Table 1). Arctic grayling catch rates at inventory sites ranged from 0 to 7.09 fish/h with a mean catch rate of 3.41 ± 0.41 fish/h (Table 1). Observed densities of Arctic grayling ranged from 0 to 96.38 fish/km with a mean of 24.62 ± 3.80 fish/km. Densities appeared to be highly variable throughout the study area with site 14 having the highest catch rate (7.09 fish/h) and the highest density of fish (96 fish/km). In general, Arctic grayling abundance tended to decrease downstream of site 20 (Table 1). We only captured four Arctic grayling downstream of the Tony Creek confluence.

7 Table 1. Arctic grayling captures, angling effort, site length and catch rates for the Little Smoky River in 2007. Data do not include recapture events at capture‐mark‐recapture population estimate sites.

Number of Hours Site length Site Arctic grayling angled Fish/h (km) Fish/km 1 73 16.75 4.36 2.53 28.9 2 76 11.00 6.91 2.29 33.2 3 40 12.00 3.33 2.50 16.0 4 49 12.50 3.92 2.32 21.1 5 14 13.50 1.04 1.88 7.4 6 98 20.25 4.84 2.18 45.0 7 22 7.00 3.14 1.77 12.4 8 55 9.00 6.11 1.95 28.2 9 52 15.75 3.30 1.34 38.8 10 28 17.25 1.62 2.22 12.6 11 34 14.00 2.43 1.80 18.9 12 99 18.00 5.50 2.43 40.7 13 78 15.75 4.95 1.84 42.4 14 133 18.75 7.09 1.38 96.4 15 48 16.50 2.91 1.66 28.9 16 66 11.00 6.00 2.48 26.6 17 44 11.75 3.74 1.65 26.7 18 56 15.75 3.56 2.52 22.2 19 84 18.00 4.67 2.50 33.6 20 93 15.75 5.90 2.31 40.3 21 34 15.00 2.27 2.07 16.4 22 26 17.25 1.51 2.09 12.4 23 27 12.00 2.25 2.22 12.2 24 4 17.25 0.23 2.55 1.60 25 4 8.00 0.50 2.07 1.90 26 0 10.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 29 0 8.50 0.00 2.29 0.00

4.1. Capture efficiencies

Based on Akaike’s information criterion, models incorporating size effects into estimates of Arctic grayling capture efficiency (q) were supported at all population estimate sites (Table 2). We estimated the probability of capturing large fish was 1.78 to 3.4 times greater than the probability of capturing small fish. Overall, mean capture

8 efficiency of large fish was 2.4 times greater than that of small fish (Table 2). The lowest recorded capture efficiency was 0.077 for small fish at site 13 and the highest recorded capture efficiency was 0.469 for large fish at site 14. A summary of size‐structured CMR data for population estimate sites is presented in Appendix 5.

Table 2. Angling capture efficiency and Akaike’s information criterion parameters for size‐structured Arctic grayling catch at capture‐mark‐recapture sites on the Little Smoky River in 2007.

Model Capture efficiency (q) Capture efficiency (q) Site effects AICc ∆AICc1 fish 150 ‐ 249 mm fish ≥ 250 mm 6 Size ‐530.77 0 0.215 0.468 6 None ‐526.36 4.41 ‐ ‐

8 Size ‐300.22 0 0.120 0.339 8 None ‐298.69 1.53 ‐ ‐

12 Size ‐798.55 0 0.084 0.266 12 None ‐795.21 3.34 ‐ ‐

13 Size ‐592.42 0 0.077 0.209 13 None ‐591.99 0.43 ‐ ‐

14 Size ‐973.09 0 0.263 0.469 14 None ‐968.5 4.59 ‐ ‐

15 Size ‐244.94 0.22 0.153 0.323 15 None ‐245.16 0 ‐ ‐

19 Size ‐599.21 0 0.091 0.310 19 None ‐596.13 3.08 ‐ ‐

Mean q = 0.143 0.341

1AICc ‐ AICcmin

9 4.2. Population modeling

We estimated total abundance of Arctic grayling (>150 mm FL) in the study area to be 27,250 fish (90% CI = 14,545 ‐ 51,209). We estimated the abundance of legal‐sized harvestable Arctic grayling (> 350 mm TL) to be 812 (90% CI = 481 ‐ 1,366), or 3.0% of the estimated total population abundance. Estimates for small and large fish were 17,924 (90% CI = 6,698 ‐ 40,965) and 9,326 (90% CI = 5,713 ‐ 15,307), respectively. Thus, small fish were 1.9 times more abundant than large fish. Abundance of both small and large Arctic grayling increased from the downstream limit of the study area (km 0) until approximately 135 km upstream (Figure 2). After this point, abundance of small fish decreased, whereas abundance of large fish remained relatively constant. The abundance of legal‐sized fish increased with distance upstream, with zero fish at the downstream end of the study area to approximately 17 fish/2 km at the upstream end of the study area (Figure 2). Below the Pass Creek rail bridge (two‐fish harvest limit boundary), we estimated small, large and legal‐sized Arctic grayling abundance to be 1,652 (90% CI = 549 ‐ 3,893), 883 (90% CI = 519 ‐ 1,485), and 37 (90% CI = 14 ‐ 78), respectively.

10 800 Small fish (150-249 mm fork length) Two fish limit Catch-and-release 700 Large fish ( ≥ 250 mm fork length) 600 (A)

500

400

300

200 Fish abundanceFish per 2 km 100

0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 30

25 (B) 20

15 Two fish limit Catch-and-release

10

Fish abundanceFish per km 2 5

0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Distance upstream (km)

Figure 2. Abundance and spatial distribution of (A) small and large Arctic grayling and (B) legal‐sized Arctic grayling in the 235‐km Little Smoky River study area, 2007. Shown is the mean of all estimates and the 90% confidence intervals.

11 4.3. Size structure

The size distribution of the 1,714 Arctic grayling captured during the course of the study shows a continuous distribution of fish with no evidence of missing size classes (Figure 3). Fish > 320 mm FL (i.e., legal‐sized at 350 TL) were not abundant (4.8% of the total catch, as previously described).

200

175

150

125

100

Fish abundance 75

50

25

0 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 Fork length (mm)

Figure 3. Fork length histogram of Arctic grayling captured by angling in the Little Smoky River, 2007.

12 4.4. Summary

Legal‐sized fish in the Little Smoky River study area comprised 5% of the total catch and < 3% of the modeled population abundance. Angling capture efficiency of large fish was, on average, 2.4 times greater than that of small fish. We estimated abundance of small fish to be almost twice that of large fish in the study area. Arctic grayling were unevenly distributed in the study area. Total fish abundance peaked at approximately 55 km from the regulatory boundary of the two‐fish bag limit and catch‐and‐release area. The upper mainstem sections were characterized by relatively high densities of legal‐sized Arctic grayling, approximately 17 fish/2 km.

13 5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005. Status of the Arctic grayling (Thymallas arcticus) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 57, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 41 pp.

Burnham, K.P., and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information‐theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer‐Verlag, New York. 488 pp.

Cooch, E., and G. White. 2008. Program MARK: a gentle introduction. 797 pp. Available in .pfd format for free download at: http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book

Fleming, D.F., R.A. Clark, and W.P. Ridder. 1992. Stock assessment of Arctic grayling in the Salcha, Chatanika, Goodpaster, and Delta Clearwater rivers during 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 92‐17, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 108 pp.

Fleming, D.F., and I. McSweeny. 2001. Stock assessment of Arctic grayling in Beaver and Nome creeks. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries Data Series No. 01‐28, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 38 pp.

Gresswell, E.E., W.J. Liss, G.A. Lomnicky, E.K. Deimling, R.L. Hoffman, and T. Tyler. 1997. Using mark‐recapture methods to estimate fish abundance in small mountain lakes. Northwest Science 71: 39‐44.

Morrison, M.L., W.M. Block, M.D. Strickland, and W.L. Kendall. 2001. Wildlife study design. Springer‐Verlag, New York. 211 pp.

Paul, A.J., and C.G. Dormer. 2005. Effect of a severe flood on the cutthroat trout population of Silvester Creek, Alberta. G8 Legacy Chair in Wildlife Ecology,

14 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 49 pp.

Paul, A.J, J.R. Post, and J.D. Stelfox. 2003. Can anglers influence the abundance of native and nonnative salmonids in a stream from the Canadian rocky mountains. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 109‐119.

R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R‐project.org.

Ridder, W.P., T.R. McKinley, and R.A. Clark. 1993. Stock assessment of Arctic grayling in the Salcha, Chatanika, and Goodpaster rivers during 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 93‐11, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 117 pp.

Roach, S.M. 1995. Stock assessment of Arctic grayling in the Salcha, Chatanika, and Goodpaster rivers during 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 95‐9, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 116 pp.

Stanislawski, S.S. 1997. Fall and winter movements of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the Little Smoky River, Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 91 pp.

Stanislawski, S.S., and R.S. Brown. 1997. Spring movements of and spawning habitat selection by Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus (Pallas)) in the Little Smoky River drainage, Alberta. Produced by FRM Environmental Consulting Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 116 pp.

Sterling, G., and C. Hunt. 1989. Preliminary survey: Arctic grayling movements and age and growth in the Little Smoky River, Alberta, 1987 and 1988. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division, East Slopes Region, Alberta, Canada. 53 pp.

15 Van Poorten, B.T., and J.R. Post. 2005. Seasonal fishery dynamics of a previously unexploited rainbow trout population with contrasts to established fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 329‐345.

16 6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Date, location (North American Datum 1983, Zone 11U) and channel information for sites on the Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007.

Mean Start Start End End Site length wetted‐width Standard error Site Date Easting Northing Easting Northing (km) Wetted‐width (m) (m) wetted‐width 1 17‐Jul‐07 5996064 5996015 432567 431287 2.530 22, 26, 24, 22, 7, 22 20 6.8 2 16‐Aug‐07 5996455 5996294 436091 435061 2.290 22, 20, 14, 30, 24, 36 24 7.7 3 14‐Aug‐07 5994411 5995152 438547 437680 2.500 22, 28, 24, 18, 26, 28 24 3.9 4 15‐Aug‐07 5993459 5993168 441778 441031 2.320 28, 24, 22, 24, 30, 22 25 3.3 5 19‐Jun‐07 5994654 5994154 445892 445183 1.880 30, 28, 28, 26, 24, 28 27 2.1 6 29‐Jul‐07 5996758 5995719 443845 444642 2.180 30, 20, 34, 26, 34, 34 30 5.7 7 24‐Jul‐07 6000450 5999738 447281 447234 1.770 28, 22, 28, 38, 26, 26 28 5.4 8 29‐Jul‐07 6004302 6003975 450430 449804 1.950 28, 30, 26, 28, 26, 24 27 2.1 9 20‐Jun‐07 6005228 6004967 453889 453444 1.340 28 28 NA 10 24‐Jul‐07 6005388 6006492 457765 457423 2.220 34, 42, 42, 30, 38, 34 37 4.8 11 22‐Jun‐07 6006236 6006377 460428 459205 1.800 24, 36, 24, 24, 32, 40 30 7 12 27‐Aug‐07 6006255 6007020 465302 464256 2.430 36, 46, 28, 29, 46, 24 35 9.5 13 25‐Jul‐07 6004234 6004971 467415 466920 1.840 46, 36, 38, 30, 40, 30 37 6.2 14 6‐Jul‐07 6005560 6005529 471148 470268 1.380 32, 36, 36, 22, 20, 40 31 8.2 15 25‐Jul‐07 6006759 6005824 474977 473951 1.660 22, 18, 26, 40, 34 28 8.9 16 30‐Jul‐07 6006886 6006638 479040 477801 2.480 38, 24, 22, 20, 44, 30 30 9.6 17 5‐Jul‐07 6009234 6009560 484377 483509 1.650 30, 22, 24, 24, 42, 22 27 7.8 18 28‐Aug‐07 6010554 6010913 487649 486354 2.520 40, 36, 24, 38, 30, 26 32 6.6 19 7‐Aug‐07 6012019 6012079 492333 490464 2.500 46, 46, 32, 36, 42, 36 40 5.9 20 10‐Jul‐07 6011192 6012053 496708 495521 2.310 24, 38, 64, 38, 18, 46 38 16.3 21 8‐Aug‐07 6009660 6009808 501278 499798 2.070 21, 30, 17, 32, 32, 22 26 6.5

17 Appendix 1. Continued.

Mean Start Start End End Site length wetted‐width Standard error Site Date Easting Northing Easting Northing (km) Wetted‐width (m) (m) wetted‐width 22 26‐Jul‐07 6011655 6010574 503795 503271 2.090 38, 24, 48, 40, 42, 42, 26 37 8.9 23 8‐Jul‐07 6017316 6016288 502522 503487 2.220 36, 20, 14, 42, 42, 22 29 12.2 24 26‐Jul‐07 6019959 6019060 499991 501599 2.550 22, 30, 46, 30, 38 33 9.1 25 5‐Sep‐07 6025510 6024041 497105 497494 2.070 68, 40, 22, 22, 36, 40 38 16.9 26 28‐Jul‐07 6028361 6027740 500723 499145 2.500 42, 42, 28, 30, 60, 34 39 11.7 29 28‐Jul‐07 6038364 6036608 498908 498609 2.290 54, 50, 42, 28, 48, 54 46 9.9

18 Appendix 2. Fork length‐total length relationship for Arctic grayling from the Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007.

350

330 TL=FL(1.078)+4.897 F= 28450; DF=1,133 310 p < 0.001,Adjusted R-squared: 0.9953 290

270

250

230 Total Length (mm) Length Total 210

190 Where FL= fork length, and TL = total length (both in mm). 170

150 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 Fork Length (mm)

19 Appendix 3. Maximum, minimum and seasonal mean (horizontal line) water temperature at nine locations in the Little Smoky River study area, 2007.

30 25 20 15 10 Downstream limit of study area Site 28 Site 25 5 30 C ° 25 20 15 10 Site 22 Site 18 Site 14 Temperature 5 30 25 20 15 10 Site 10 Site 6 5 Upstream limit of study area Jul01 Jul15 Jul01 Jul15 Jul01 Jul15 Jun01 Jun15 Jun01 Jun15 Jun01 Jun15 Sep01 Sep15 Sep01 Sep15 Sep01 Sep15 Aug01 Aug15 Aug01 Aug15 Aug01 Aug15 Date

20 Appendix 4. Historical and 2007 water discharge measured at Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station No. 07GG002 on the Little Smoky River at the Town of Little Smoky.

400

300 2007 Historical quartiles (1967-2006) ) s 3 m (

200 Discharge

100

0 Mar01 Apr01 May01 Jun01 Jul01 Aug01 Sep01 Oct01 Nov01 Date

21

Appendix 5. Size‐structured capture‐mark‐recapture data for population estimates conducted in the Little Smoky River study area, 2007.

Size class Number marked Number captured Number re‐captured Site (fork length, mm) at time 1 at time 2 at time 2 150 ‐ 249 31 36 7 6 ≥ 250 43 44 20 150 ‐ 249 28 24 3 8 ≥ 250 27 16 7 150 ‐ 249 39 34 3 12 ≥ 250 58 49 14 150 ‐ 249 29 25 2 13 ≥ 250 16 42 9 150 ‐ 249 65 51 15 14 ≥ 250 57 64 28 150 ‐ 249 24 17 3 15 ≥ 250 17 28 7 150 ‐ 249 19 27 2 19 ≥ 250 58 47 16

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