1 INDEX OF NATIVE FISH INTEGRITY (INFI)
1.1 SEWG INFI Response Curves
The Delphi workshop participants for the SEWG fish indicator development identified the following key land-use drivers that influence fish communities and populations
(SEWG 2006):
 linear density (km/km 2 ) (related to access and fishing pressure but also a measure of landscape disturbance and potential aquatic habitat impacts such as sedimentation),
 human population density (#/ha) (a measure of fishing pressure and pollution),
 mainstem water use (decimal fraction),
 watershed discontinuity (%), and
 nutrient and sediment input
The workshop participants documented their understanding of the current state of fish communities and anthropogenic stressors and developed response curves of the relationship between each of the key land-use parameters and the INFI, based on their expert opinion. Response curves were developed for human population density, regional water use, and watershed discontinuity/fragmentation (due to hanging culverts).
A response curve for nutrient input and sediment input versus INFI was not developed by
SEWG since the participants believed that nutrient levels were correlated with linear density and would likely be captured by this relationship (SEWG 2006). As well, preliminary modelling did not show any discernable changes in nutrient and sediment levels (B. Stelfox, Forem Technologies, pers. comm. 2009). However, unlike the SEWG study area (Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo) the LARP study area includes agricultural activity in the southern portion, which may contribute to higher levels of sediment and nutrient run-off. Hence, Water Quality Index (nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment) is a fish habitat variable (see Section 7). As well, if preliminary modelling predicts increases in sediment and nutrient loading under baseline, disturbance or potential management scenarios, then ASRD will consider developing a response curve for sediment and nutrients versus INFI.
INFI ranges from 1 (undisturbed fish community and populations) down to 0 (highly disturbed fish community and populations) (See Section 2.7 and Tables 1 and 2 for more information). Note that each response curve was developed during the workshop through a consensus of the workshop participants and drawn on graph paper. For modelling, the relative influence of each parameter to the resulting INFI was assumed to be equal and additive (i.e. each of the four parameters contributes one-quarter to the resulting INFI).
In addition to developing response graphs for each parameter, workshop participants generated response graphs for access management, one of the key management strategies that were evaluated by SEWG in the development of the Terrestrial Ecosystem
Management Framework. Access management, as defined by SEWG, included reductions in or prevention of human motorized access of up to 50%, complete blockage of some access roads and reclamation of certain seismic lines (Wilson et al. 2008). If the
LARP uses a different definition or different management strategies associated with

access management in its planning process then these predicted response curves would need to be updated.
Linear Density (km/km2)
Linear density includes the total length (km) of all types of linear disturbances per area
(km 2 ). This includes major roads, minor roads, inblock roads (roads in cut blocks), rail lines, pipelines, transmission lines and seismic lines.
Workshop participants described a negative linear relationship between linear density and
INFI (Figure 1). For example, a linear density of 0.8 km/km 2 results in an INFI of 0.91, a linear density of 2.4 km/km 2 would lower the INFI to 0.56 and a linear density of 4.0 km/km 2 would result in an INFI of 0.2. When expressed as an equation the relationship is as follows:
INFI = 1.0477 + -0.2066(linear density)
INFI
Linear Density (km/km 2 )
Figure 1. INFI Delphi-derived response curve for linear density with no access management
The response curve for linear density versus INFI with access management in place is quite different from the response curve without access management (Figure 2). The consensus amongst workshop participants was that access management could, to a large extent, mitigate the effects of linear density on INFI. For example, with access management in place a linear density of 0.8 km/km 2 results in an INFI of 0.96, 2.4 km/km 2 results in an INFI of 0.88 and 4.0 would result in an INFI of 0.8 (Figure 2); this represents a substantial improvement compared to lack of any access management.
When expressed as an equation this linear relationship is as follows:
INFI = 0.999 + -0.0497 (linear density)

INFI
Linear Density (km/km 2 )
Figure 2. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to linear density with access management
Human Density (# people/km2)
Human density can be used as an indicator of fishing pressure, and to a lesser extent nutrient input (nitrogen, phosphorous) (SEWG 2006). The INFI response curve to human density is initially steep and eventually flattens out as fishing success decreases and urbanization increase (Figure 3). It is an exponential relationship; expressed in equation form it is:
INFI = 0.67e
-0.2292(human density)
The current population density in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo is about
1.18 people/km 2 (about 60,000 permanent residents in the region, plus a shadow population of up to 15,000 living in camps), which the workshop participants identified as resulting in an INFI of approximately 0.5.

INFI
Population Density
(#/km 2 )
Figure 3. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to human density (#/km2) with no access management
The response curve for human density versus INFI with access management in place is shown in Figure 4. Similar to linear density, the consensus of the Delphi workshop participants was that access management could to a large extent mitigate the effects of linear density on INFI and would result in a linear relationship:
INFI = + 0.999 + -0.0199(human density)
INFI
Population Density
(#/km 2 )
Figure 4. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to Human Density (#/km 2 ) with
Access Management

Water Use (decimal fraction of regional water use)
The response curve developed by workshop participants for water use versus INFI is shown in Figure 5 and expressed as an equation is:
INFI = 0.9409 + -1.6018(water withdrawal)
As regional water-use approaches 50% the INFI declines to about 0.2. Note that AENV developed a similar response curve for the Water Quantity Indicator (AENV 2009).
Note that this is a general relationship between fish and regional water use. ALCES determines baseline regional hydrological conditions using a water-balance model. It then calculates regional water withdrawals for all anthropogenic uses (e.g. oil sands, exploration, agricultural, municipal water use) based on assumptions of the water used for each type of activity (e.g. assumes X barrels of water used for X barrels of oil production) (B.Stelfox, Forem Technologies, pers comm.).
Therefore, modelling results for water use on a regional scale need to be interpreted carefully and an indication of no or minimal effects at the regional-scale does not mean that there are no impacts on fish at sub-regional scales. Fish population and community response to water withdrawal is dependant on a number of watercourse-specific factors including, but not limited to, fish species life-stage and habitat preference, existing water quality, season, ice cover, flow characteristics, riparian areas, and amount, timing and location of water withdrawals. As discussed in Section 2.10, while water withdrawals should be considered at the regional scale, waterbody-specific water withdrawal limits and management strategies need to be developed for specific waterbodies in the region
(e.g. Athabasca River and Cold Lake Water Management Plans, winter withdrawals from small and medium sized tributaries).
INFI
Anthropogenic water use (%)
Figure 5. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to water use with no access management
The response curve between water use and INFI with access management in place is shown in Figure 6. Water withdrawal may make the fish community more sensitive to

other stressors, such as angling. So, if a main stressor such as angling is removed, one would expect less stress on the fish community and a less steep decline in the response curve. However, this would only be up to a certain percentage of water withdrawal; at a certain point there would not be enough water available for fish to survive. With access management in place and subsequent decreases in angling, the workshop participants agreed that there would likely be a small change in the water withdrawal response curve; amounting to a less steep decline in INFI with water use (Figure 6).
INFI
Anthropogenic water use (%)
Figure 6. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to Water Use with Access
Management
Watershed Fragmentation due to Hanging Culverts (%)
Watershed fragmentation 1 , mainly due to hanging culverts, is a well-documented stressor on fish populations and distribution in boreal systems and is negatively related to habitat availability and consequently, fish community and population structure (Tchir et. al.
2004, Park et al. 2008, see Section 4.2 for more information and for model coefficients for determining watershed discontinuity). The response curve for the relationship between INFI and watershed discontinuity is shown in Figure 7; the equation for this relationship is:
INFI = 1.1214 + 0.7308(watershed fragmentation) 2 - 1.8726 (fragmentation)
Watershed fragmentation is not directly affected by access management as defined by
SEWG, although it would be if the access management involved limits on the number of roads with culvert-crossings being built, or different regulations regarding the installation, monitoring and maintenance of culverts. Based on the SEWG-defined access management, the INFI response to watershed fragmentation is the same with access management as with no access management (Figure 7).
1 SEWG used the term Watershed Discontinuity. Upon discussion with ASRD and AENV we have changed the name of this parameter to Watershed Fragmentation (due to hanging culverts), which is a clearer description of the parameter.

INFI
Watershed fragmentation due to hanging culverts
Figure 7. INFI Delphi-derived response curve to watershed fragmentation (due to hanging culverts)
Natural Range of Variability of the INFI
The natural range of variability (NRV) of the INFI is assumed to vary between 0.81 and
0.99. The NRV was calculated by SEWG from 50 stochastic ALCES runs using a backcasted data set (Wilson and Stelfox 2008). Field studies would be needed to verify the
NRV.

2 REFERENCES
Alberta Environment, in partnership with Lakeland Industry and Community Association and the Cold Lake – Beaver River Basin Advisory Committee. 2006. Cold Lake Beaver
River Basin Water Management Plan (2006).
Alberta Environment (AENV) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. February 2007.
Athabasca River: Water Management Framework: Instream Flow Needs and Water
Management System for the Lower Athabasca River.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2008. 2008 Alberta Guide to
Sportfishing Regulations. Fish and Wildlife Division.
Antoniak, T. and Ainslie, B., Salmo Consulting Inc. January 2003. Cumulative Effects
Assessment and Management for Northeast British Columbia. Volume 2: Cumulative
Effects Indicators, Thresholds and Case Studies. Appendix 1 Cumulative Effects:
Sources, Indicators and Thresholds.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. Status of the Arctic grayling
( Thymallus articus ) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resources Development, Fish and
Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). Alberta Wildlife Status
Report No. 57, Edmonton, AB 41 pp.
BCF (British Columbia Forest Service) and BCE (British Columbia Environment). 1995. vi+82 p. (Forest Practices Code of British Columbia).
BCF (British Columbia Ministry of Forests) and MELP (British Columbia Ministry of
Environment Lands and Parks). 1999. Managing Identified Wildlife: Procedures and
Measures Volume 1 Management Strategy.
Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology.
55:3-23.
Bothe, Ron, Surface Water Working Group participant, pers. comm. May 2008.
Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2001. Kullbach-Liebler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies. Wildlife Research, 2001, 28, 111-119,
Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo (Fisheries Research Institute, University of
Washington). 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In. Proceedings of the conference on salmon spawning gravel: A renewable resource in the Pacific
Northwest. Pullman, Washington: State of Washington Water Research Centre Report:
38-74.
Caroline Bampfylde, AENV, pers. comm. March 18, 2009

Chatwin, S. 2001. Overview of the development of IWAP from point scores to freeform analysis. In: Toews, D.A.A. and S. Chatwin, eds. Watershed Assessment in the Southern
Interior of British Columbia: Workshop Proceedings; Penticton, B.C. Victoria, B.C.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 17-25.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat.
Presented to Parliament by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans October 7, 1986).
Environmental and Reclamation Research Group (ERRG). 2007. 2006 Annual Update.
Submitted to Albian Sands Energy Inc., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Imperial
Oil Resources, Petro-Canada, Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd., Total E&P
Canada Ltd.
Fish and Wildlife Division. 2008. Alberta species at Risk Program and Projects 2004-
2008. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta
Species at Risk Report No. 120, Edmonton, AB. 66 pp.
Fisher, J., B. Eaton, D. Kirk, T. Powell and S. Boutin. 2008. Indicator Selection for the
Endangered Species Element Northeast Alberta Plan. Prepared for Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Overview of Fish Contaminant Monitoring Programs in
Jurisdiction and Summary of Alberta Studies. Prepared for Alberta Environment and
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2008. Draft Report. Fish-based Index of Biological Integrity for the Battle River, AB. Prepared for Alberta Conservation Assocation, Lethbridge Alberta.
Hardy, T and Richards, C. 2006. CEMA Instream Flow Needs Habitat Suitability Curve
(HSC) Development Workshop – Athabasca River. Fish Habitat Suitability Criteria
(HSC) Curves. Prepared for the Surface Water Working Group, CEMA.
Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.
Environmental Management 5: 44-68.
Karr, J. R. 1997. Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape management. in R. E. Bilby and R. J. Naiman, editors. Ecology and management of streams and rivers in the Northwest Coast ecoregion. Springer-Verlag. New
York.
Kirk. D.A. January 2009. Potential Wildlife Indicators for the Lower Athabasca Regional
Plan of Alberta: Coefficients for Simulations. Prepared for the Government of Alberta
Land Use Secretariat.
Korth, R. and Sullivan, M. June 2005. A Qualitative Survey of the Status of Fishes in the
Boreal Forest of Northwestern Canada. Prepared for the Alberta Cooperative
Conservation Research Unit, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta.
Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta Pub. No.
T/852.

Park, D., M. Sullivan, E. Bayne, and G. Scrimgeour. 2008. Landscape-level Stream
Fragmentation Cause by Hanging Culverts along Roads in Alberta’s Boreal Forest. Can.
J. For. Res. 38: 566-575 (2008). Copywrite NRC Canada.
Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S., Lester, N., Walters, C., Parkinson, E.A., Paul, A.J.,
Jackson, L. and B. Shuter. 2002. Canada’s Recreational Fisheries: The Invisible
Collapse. Fisheries Management Feature. Fisheries. www.fisheries.org. Vol 27 no 1.
RAMP Implementation Team (Hatfield Consultants, Stantec Consulting Ltd., Klohn-
Crippen Berger Ltd, and Western Resource Solutions). 2006. Regional Aquatics
Monitoring Program. 2005 Technical Report. Prepared for RAMP Steering Committee.
Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R. F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17(4): 1111-1125.
Ripley, T., G. Scrimgeour, and M.S. Boyce. Bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus ) occurrence and abundance influenced by cumulative industrial developments in a
Canadian boreal forest watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
62: 2431-2442 (2005).
Quigley, T.M.; R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham. Technical editors. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, OR. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. viii+197 pages.
J. Schieck, Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI), pers. comm. December
2008
Schieck, J., D.A. Kirk, B. Eaton, J.T. Fisher, M. Lagimodiere, B. Eaton and T.Powell.
August 2008a. Indicator Selection for the Critter Crew Elements (Biodiversity, Wildlife,
Endangered Species, and Fish) Lower Athabasca Region Plan. Element Northeast Alberta
Regional Plan.
Schieck, J., D.A., Kirk, J.T. Fisher, M. Lagimodiere, B.Eaton, T. Powell, and S. Boutin.
September 2008b. Current Status Analysis for the Critter Crew Elements (Biodiversity,
Wildlife, Endangered Species and Fish) Lower Athabasca Regional Plan. Prepared for
Alberta Sustainable Resources Development.
Schieck, J. January 2009. Potential Biodiversity Indicators for the Lower Athabasca
Region of Alberta: Coefficients for Simulations. Prepared for Land Use Secretariat.
Scrimgeour, G.J., P.J. Hvengaard, J. Tchir, S. Kendall, A. Wildeman. 2003. Stream Fish
Management: Cumulative Effects of Watershed Disturbances on Stream Fish
Communities in the Kakwa and Simonette River Basins, Alberta. Report produced by the
Alberta Conservation Association (Peace River) and the Alberta Research Council
(Vegrevill) for the Northern Watershed Project Stakeholder Committee. Northern
Watershed Project Final Report. No. 3. 126 pp.

Scrimgeour, G.J., P.J. Hvengaard, and J. Tchir. 2008. Cumulative Industrial Activity
Alters Lotic Fish Assemblages in Two Boreal Forest Watersheds in Alberta, Canada.
Environmental Management (2008) 42: 957-970.
Species at Risk Modelling Team. January 2009. Species-at-Risk Indicator Habitat
Models. Lower Athabasca Regiona Plan. Interim First Draft. Prepared for the
Government of Alberta Land Use Secretariat.
Stelfox, B, Forem, Technologies, pers comm. March 2009.
Stevens, C., G. Scrimeor, W. Tonn, C. Paszkowski, M. Sullivan, S. Millar. 2006.
Development and testing of a fish-based index of biological integrity to quantify the health of grassland streams in Alberta. Technical Report (T-2006-001) produced by
Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 50 pp + App.
Stevens, Cameron. Personal communication. Alberta Conservation Association (ACA).
December 17, 2008.
Steinhilber, M. 2002. Status of the Shortjaw Cisco ( Coregonus zenithicus ) in Alberta.
Alberta Sustainable Resources Development, Fish and Wildlife Division and Alberta
Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 41. Edmonton, AB. 23 pp.
Sullivan, M. 2003. Active Management of Walleye Fisheries in Alberta: Dilemma of
Managing Recovering Fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:
1343-1358, 2003.
Sullivan, M. 2006a. Introduction to the Concept of Index of Native Fish Integrity.
Sullivan, M. 2006b. CEMA INFI Indicator Criteria. Presentation to CEMA SEWG.
Sullivan, Mike, ASRD. pers. comm. May 7, 2008 and March 2009.
Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group (SEWG). 2006. Fish Indicator Workshop
Summary Notes, May 12, 2006.
SEWG. March 2008. Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework for the Regional
Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Prepared by the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association.
Tchir, J.P., Hvenegaar, P.J. and Scrimegeour G.J. 2004. Stream crossing inventories in the Swan and Notikewing river basins of northwest Alberta: resolution at the watershed scale. In Proceedings of the Forest-Land-Fish Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration, 26-28 April 2004, Edmont Alta. Edited by G.J. Scrimgeour, G.
Eisler, B. McCullouch, U. Silins, and M. Monita. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian
Forest Service, Model Forest Network, Ottawa, Ont.
Wilson, B. and Stelfox, B. 2008. Indicator Synthesis: Selection Rationale, Modelling
Results and monitoring Considerations for Key Indicators of the Terrestrial Ecosystem
Management Framework. Prepared for Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group of the
Cumulative Environmental Management Association.

Wilson, B., with contributions from J. Brad Stelfox and Mike Patriquin of the Silvatech
Team. 2008. SEWG Workplan and Modelling Facilitation Project: Data Inputs and
Assumptions.