Abundance and Distribution of Arctic Grayling in the Upper Little ...

Abundance and Distribution of Arctic
Grayling in the Upper Little Smoky
River, Alberta, 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 Little Smoky River, Alberta, 2007
Kevin Fitzsimmons
Alberta Conservation Association
Box 1420, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
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. Funding for this project was provided by
the Alberta Conservation Association, The Forest Resource Improvement Agency of
Alberta, and Devon Canada Corporation, Leland Operations.
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.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Location of inventory, population estimate and temperature monitoring
sites in the upper Little Smoky River study area............................................... 4
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
Fork length histogram of Arctic grayling captured by angling in the Little
Smoky River, 2007 ................................................................................................ 12
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Arctic grayling captures, angling effort, site length and catch rates for the
Little Smoky River in 2007....................................................................................... 8
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.
Appendix 2.
Appendix 3.
Appendix 4.
Appendix 5.
Date, location and channel information for sites on the Little Smoky
River, Alberta, 2007.................................................................................... 17
Fork length‐total length relationship for Arctic grayling from the Little
Smoky River, Alberta, 2007....................................................................... 19
Maximum, minimum and seasonal mean water temperature at nine
locations in the Little Smoky River study area, 2007. ........................... 20
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
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
>
"
X
Temperature monitoring site
Inventory site
Inventory and population
estimate site
Paved road
Gravel road
Rail line
Tony Creek
T 43
Little Smoky River
!<
>
25
29
">
"
26
¬
>
"
Downstream limit
of study area
Fox Creek
Fox
Creek
Edmonton
Calgary
!< >
1
"
2
"
3
" "
4
>
X6
"
5
"
Upstream limit
of study area
X
8
7
9
"
11
"
"
>
10
12 14
X X
X X
X >
15 16
13
Grizzly
!
X
> "
"
17 18
19
"
20
0 5 10 20
Kilometers
"
24
"
21
23
" >
"
22
Pass Creek
rail bridge
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 sizespecific
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
⎛ x ( 1 − x )
α = x
⎜
⎜
− 1
⎝
v
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎠
and
⎛ x ( 1 − x )
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 (m 3 /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.
Site
Number of
Arctic grayling
Hours
angled
Fish/h
Site length
(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.
Site
Model
effects AICc ∆AICc 1
Capture efficiency (q)
fish 150 ‐ 249 mm
Capture efficiency (q)
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 ‐ ‐
1
AICc ‐ AICcmin
Mean q = 0.143 0.341
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

Fish abundance per 2 km
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
(A)
Two fish limit Catch-and-release
Small fish (150-249 mm fork length)
Large fish ( ≥ 250 mm fork length)
0
30
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Fish abundance per 2 km
25
20
15
10
5
(B)
Two fish limit Catch-and-release
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
Fish abundance
125
100
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. 2 nd 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.
Site
Date
Start
Easting
Start
Northing
End
Easting
End
Northing
Site length
(km)
Wetted‐width (m)
Mean
wetted‐width
(m)
Standard error
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.
Site
Date
Start
Easting
Start
Northing
End
Easting
End
Northing
Site length
(km)
Wetted‐width (m)
Mean
wetted‐width
(m)
Standard error
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
310
290
TL=FL(1.078)+4.897
F= 28450; DF=1,133
p < 0.001,Adjusted R-squared: 0.9953
Total Length (mm)
270
250
230
210
190
170
Where FL= fork length, and TL = total length (both in mm).
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
5
Downstream limit of study area Site 28 Site 25
25
20
15
10
5
Temperature °C30
Site 22 Site 18 Site 14
30
25
20
15
10
5
Site 10
Site 6
Upstream limit of study area
Jun01
Jun15
Jul01
Jul15
Aug01
Aug15
Sep01
Sep15
Jun01
Jun15
Jul01
Jul15
Aug01
Date
Aug15
Sep01
Sep15
Jun01
Jun15
Jul01
Jul15
Aug01
Aug15
Sep01
Sep15
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)
Discharge (m 3 s)
200
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.
Site
6
8
12
13
14
15
19
Size class
(fork length, mm)
Number marked
at time 1
Number captured
at time 2
Number re‐captured
at time 2
150 ‐ 249 31 36 7
≥ 250 43 44 20
150 ‐ 249 28 24 3
≥ 250 27 16 7
150 ‐ 249 39 34 3
≥ 250 58 49 14
150 ‐ 249 29 25 2
≥ 250 16 42 9
150 ‐ 249 65 51 15
≥ 250 57 64 28
150 ‐ 249 24 17 3
≥ 250 17 28 7
150 ‐ 249 19 27 2
≥ 250 58 47 16
22

CONSERVATION
REPORT
SERIES

The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges
the following partners for their generous support of
this project