Appendix 18a.1. Fish Species Habitat Suitability Index Models for the Alberta Oil Sands Region

Transcription

1 Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application Supplemental Information Request, Round 3 ESRD and CEAA Responses Appendix 18a.1: Fish Species Habitat Suitability Index Models for the Alberta Oil Sands Region Appendix 18a.1 Fish Species Habitat Suitability Index Models for the Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2014

2 FISH SPECIES HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS FOR THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS REGION Version 2.0 October 2008 Prepared by: Golder Associates Ltd.

3 Fish HSI Models - i - Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF HSI MODELS Background Application of Published Models Development of New Models Selection of Habitat Variables Development and Application of SI and HSI Categories HSI Model Revisions HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS FAMILY CYPRINIDAE Lake Chub, Couesius plumbeus Brassy Minnow, Hybognathus hankinsoni Pearl Dace, Margariscus margarita Emerald Shiner, Notropis atherinoides Spottail Shiner, Notropis hudsonius Northern Redbelly Dace, Phoxinus eos Finescale Dace, Phoxinus neogaeus Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas Flathead Chub, Platygobio gracilis Longnose Dace, Rhinichthys cataractae FAMILY CATOSTOMIDAE Longnose Sucker, Catostomus catostomus White Sucker, Catostomus commersoni FAMILY ESOCIDAE Northern Pike, Esox lucius FAMILY SALMONIDAE Lake Whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis Mountain Whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni Arctic Grayling, Thymallus arcticus FAMILY PERCOPSIDAE Trout-Perch, Percopsis omiscomaycus FAMILY GADIDAE Burbot, Lota lota FAMILY GASTEROSTEIDAE Brook Stickleback, Culaea inconstans FAMILY COTTIDAE Slimy Sculpin, Cottus cognatus Spoonhead Sculpin, Cottus ricei FAMILY PERCIDAE Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens Golder Associates

4 3.9.2 Walleye, Sander vitreum REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Fish Species Common and Scientific Names... 4 Table 2 SI and HSI Ordinal Ranking System Used in HSI Models... 9 Table 3 Lake Chub Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 4 Lake Chub Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 5 Brassy Minnow Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 6 Brassy Minnow Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 7 Pearl Dace Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 8 Pearl Dace Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 9 Emerald Shiner Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 10 Emerald Shiner Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 11 Spottail Shiner Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 12 Spottail Shiner Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 13 Northern Redbelly Dace Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 14 Northern Redbelly Dace Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 15 Finescale Dace Riverine Habitat Suitability Model (a) Table 16 Finescale Dace Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 17 Fathead Minnow Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 18 Fathead Minnow Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 19 Flathead Chub Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 20 Longnose Dace Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 21 Lake Whitefish Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 22 Mountain Whitefish Riverine Habitat Suitability Model - Rearing Table 23 Mountain Whitefish Riverine Habitat Suitability Model - Feeding Table 24 Mountain Whitefish Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Spawning/Incubation Table 25 Arctic Grayling Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 26 Trout-Perch Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 27 Trout-Perch Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 28 Burbot Riverine Habitat Suitability Model - Rearing Table 29 Burbot Riverine Habitat Suitability Model - Feeding Table 30 Burbot Riverine Habitat Suitability Model - Spawning Table 31 Burbot Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model - Rearing Table 32 Burbot Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model - Feeding Table 33 Burbot Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model - Spawning Table 34 Brook Stickleback Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 35 Brook Stickleback Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 36 Slimy Sculpin Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 37 Slimy Sculpin Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Table 38 Spoonhead Sculpin Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Table 39 Spoonhead Sculpin Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model... 74

5 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The development of this technical document describing fish habitat suitability index models for application in the Alberta Oil Sands Region has involved the participation of many people, as workshop attendees, as contributors not participating directly in workshops, and as authors or reviewers of the document. The funding of these efforts has been provided by several companies active in the oils sands region, including Shell Canada Limited, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, Total E&P Canada Ltd., Synenco Energy Inc. and Suncor Energy Inc. Workshop sessions were organized and facilitated by Golder Associates Ltd. Experts in the biology and habitat requirements of fish occurring in the Alberta Oil Sands Region who participated in workshop sessions included the following: Bill Tonn (University of Alberta) Brian Makowecki (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Marek Janowicz (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Larry Rhude (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development) William Franzin (Laughing Water Arts & Science, Inc.) Rick Courtney (Shell Canada Limited) Jim O Neil (Golder Associated Ltd.) Maureen Forster (Golder Associates Ltd.) Scott McKenzie (Golder Associates Ltd.) Gordon Walder (Golder Associates Ltd.) Other fish and fish habitat biologists who contributed suggestions for some of the models but did not participate in workshop sessions included Tom Boag (Applied Aquatic Research Ltd.) and Scott Stoklosar (Palliser Environmental Services Ltd.). Authors who contributed to writing this document included Maureen Forster, Gina Hoar, Alison Smith and Gordon Walder (all of Golder Associates Ltd.). Reviewers of draft versions of this document, who contributed both editorial and technical suggestions, included Scott McKenzie, Ian Mackenzie, John Golder Associates

6 Gulley and Wayne Speller (all of Golder Associates Ltd.) as well as Brian Makowecki and Marek Janowicz (both of Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

7 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October INTRODUCTION This document outlines the process used and presents the results on the development and application of habitat suitability index (HSI) models for fish occurring in the Alberta Oil Sands Region. These models were developed during a series of workshops between 2004 and 2008 by experts from the University of Alberta, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and Golder Associates (Golder) and were based on available scientific literature and the experts experience. Models developed during workshop sessions in 2004, and guidelines for their application, were described in an earlier document (Golder 2005). This document includes all of the models described in Golder (2005) plus additional models developed during workshop sessions held in 2007 and A Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) type of approach (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980, 1981) was used to develop the models on fish habitat quality. Habitat quality was defined by Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI), which rank the importance of available habitat for particular species and life stages of fish. Under HEP-type analysis procedures, an HSI value (between 0 and 1) is determined for each species by evaluating the suitability of various characteristics of specific types of habitat for that species. This value is sometimes further broken down by life stages, (e.g., spawning, embryo, fry, juvenile, adult). Habitat suitability index models were developed for 23 fish species, including lake chub, brassy minnow, pearl dace, emerald shiner, spottail shiner, northern redbelly dace, finescale dace, fathead minnow, flathead chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, white sucker, northern pike, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish, Arctic grayling, trout-perch, burbot, brook stickleback, slimy sculpin, spoonhead sculpin, yellow perch and walleye. Table 1 provides the common and scientific names for these fish. When available for the species of interest, previously published HSI models were used as a basis for determining HSI values. Some modifications to these models were made to address issues related to regional habitat characteristics and data availability. In cases where previously developed HSI models did not exist, suitability index (SI) ratings for evaluation of various habitat components were developed to construct HEP-type HSI models for the species of interest. These HSI models and the criteria for assigning SI values for each variable in the models were developed using information from published literature, fisheries survey data, comparisons to habitat requirements of sympatric fish species from published HSI models, and the professional knowledge and experience of fisheries scientists and Golder Associates

8 technicians. It is anticipated that the models presented in this document may be modified or refined from time to time as new information becomes available through ongoing fish and fish habitat monitoring and HSI model validation efforts in the Alberta Oil Sands Region for oil sands developments. Table 1 Fish Species Common and Scientific Names Family Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Cyprinidae lake chub Couesius plumbeus brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni pearl dace Margariscus margarita emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus fathead minnow Pimephales promelas flathead chub Platygobio gracilis longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae Catostomidae longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus white sucker Catostomus commersoni Esocidae northern pike Esox lucius Salmonidae lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Percopsidae trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus Gadidae burbot Lota lota Gasterosteidae brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Cottidae slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei Percidae yellow perch Perca flavescens walleye Sander vitreum

9 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF HSI MODELS Background The HSI models were developed, as noted in Section 1, based on a HEP type of approach (U.S. FWS 1980, 1981). The premise of the HEP approach is that an area of aquatic habitat can be composed of a variety of habitat types (e.g., deep pools, shallow riffles) and that these habitat types will have differing levels of suitability for species that may occur in that habitat area. The HSI models were constructed to quantify the habitat suitability by determining what measurable biological, chemical or physical characteristics of habitat are required by the species of interest throughout its life cycle (i.e., the life requisites for the species). The life requisites for fish are the biological, chemical or physical characteristics of the habitat that provide suitable food, cover, water quality and reproduction. The HEP manuals published by the U.S. FWS in 1980 and 1981 provide guidelines and parameters for the development of HSI models for use in HEP analysis. Recommended steps to perform a HEP analysis include definition of the study area, delineation of cover types, selection of evaluation species, calculation of total area of available habitat, and the calculation of a habitat suitability index for available habitat. It is important to determine the potential distribution of a species within a watershed before applying HSI models. The models quantify habitat suitability, based on habitat variables included in the model, but do not address potential effects of other factors, not included in the models, on the distribution of particular species. For example, headwater areas may appear to have suitable habitat for a particular species, based on application of the HSI model, but the species may not be found there due to other factors (e.g., barriers to movement, proximity to overwintering habitat). The HSI models presented in this document are intended to be applied in the Alberta Oil Sands Region for the purpose of planning habitat compensation to achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitats. Application of the HSI models is used to quantify habitat losses that result from habitat disturbances and to quantify habitat gains from development of compensation projects. A HEP type of approach (U.S. FWS 1980) is used as an accounting system to document habitat quality and quantity. Golder Associates

10 Habitat quality is defined by the HSI values, as determined by application of the HSI models, which rank the importance of available habitat on a scale from 0 to 1. Habitat quantity is represented by surface areas, determined from stream channel length and width measurements or from area measurements for lakes and waterbodies. Multiplication of the habitat quality (as represented by the HSI) by the habitat quantity (surface area expressed in units of m 2 ) results in the derivation of Habitat Units (HUs). The HU represents the overall value of the habitat for fish species that are present or that could reasonably be expected to be present. Comparison of the HUs lost as a result of habitat disturbance with the HUs gained through development of compensation habitats allows assessment of the degree to which the no net loss principle is achieved. Further information on the development of the HSI models is provided in the following sections of this report. Application of Published Models Published HSI models were available for seven of the 21 species under study: Arctic grayling (Hubert et al. 1985); longnose dace (Edwards et al. 1983); longnose sucker (Edwards 1983); northern pike (Inskip 1982); walleye (McMahon et al. 1984); white sucker (Twomey et al. 1984); and yellow perch (Krieger et al. 1983). These models were reviewed during the experts workshops for their applicability to the habitat conditions within the Oil Sands Region (see Section 2.4, HSI Model Revisions) and modifications were made as deemed necessary by workshop attendees. Details of modifications made to the published models are described in Section 3 of this report. Development of New Models There were no published HSI models for 14 of the 21 fish species under consideration, (i.e., brassy minnow, brook stickleback, burbot, fathead minnow, finescale dace, flathead chub, lake chub, lake whitefish, northern redbelly dace, pearl dace, slimy sculpin, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner and troutperch). The HSI models developed for these species were designed based on the approach, methods and criteria provided in the U.S. FWS HEP documents published in 1980 and The HSI models were developed using the following sources of information:

11 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 a literature review of published data for information on the distribution and abundance of the fish species of interest; a literature review of published data for information on the habitat requirements, preferences and tolerances of the fish species of interest; a review of fisheries survey data for information on the distribution and abundance of the fish species of interest; a review of fisheries survey data for information on the habitat characteristics of areas where the fish species of interest were captured or observed; consideration of habitat requirements, preferences and tolerances for the same species in other areas of its distribution; comparisons to habitat requirements, preferences and tolerances of sympatric fish species from published HSI models and other data sources; and where data gaps were identified, discussions with Golder fisheries technicians and scientists, and workshop participants having first-hand knowledge and experience with the fish species of interest and their habitat requirements to determine appropriate habitat suitability criteria and ratings. Selection of Habitat Variables The selection of habitat variables for inclusion in models developed for this analysis was driven by three factors: knowledge and availability of information on the riverine and lacustrine habitat characteristics that affect and determine fish species assemblages in aquatic environments; the availability of published data on the habitat requirements, preferences and tolerances for each of the fish species of interest; and the information available from habitat survey data collected within the Oil Sands Region. The typical habitat characteristics used in the HSI models include depth, substrate for cover and feeding, substrate for spawning, velocity (riverine models), temperature, percent cover, type of channel unit (riverine models) and dissolved oxygen levels. These characteristics were selected based on professional knowledge of habitat characteristics typically associated with habitat used by the species of interest, and a thorough review of literature on these aquatic habitat characteristics (e.g., Gormann and Karr 1978; Wetzel 1983; Matthews 1987; Newbury and Gaboury 1993; Hauer and Lamberti 1996; Stauffer and Goldstein 1997; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998; Lammert and Allan 1999). Golder Associates

12 A literature review was conducted to obtain published information on the use and suitability of habitat variables that were identified as important to the fish species of interest. Due to the limited amount of published information available for most of the fish species, additional information for the HSI models was obtained from fisheries survey data in the Oil Sands Region, comparisons to habitat requirements of sympatric fish species from published HSI models and other data sources, and the professional knowledge and experience of fisheries scientists and technicians. To complete development of the HSI models, the quantitative values or qualitative descriptors obtained for each of the selected habitat variables were compiled and ranked using the ordinal ranking system described in Section The HSI models developed for brassy minnow, brook stickleback, burbot, fathead minnow, finescale dace, flathead chub, lake chub, lake whitefish, northern redbelly dace, pearl dace, slimy sculpin, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner and trout-perch were developed in a tabular format based on the ordinal ranking system. Development and Application of SI and HSI Categories The published HSI models provided Suitability Index (SI) curves, for each variable, that rate the relative suitability of the habitat, in a range from 0 to 1.0, with 1.0 being the optimal habitat characteristic for the variable. The SI values for the newly developed HSI models were also ranked from 0 to 1.0; however, due to the limited amount of data available for many of the species, SI curves could not be readily developed. Therefore, an ordinal ranking system was used to qualify the SI values and provide habitat descriptors. The ordinal ranking system assigned a rank of excellent, above average, average, below average or none to describe the quality of the habitat for different values or qualitative descriptions for each variable included in a model. These rank categories correspond with SI values of 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0, respectively. To assist in development of new models for some species, information was reviewed from published models for other, sympatric fish species that were considered to have similar habitat requirements. In those cases, the SI curves from the published HSI models were also divided into comparable ranges of values that corresponded to each of the ordinal ranks for the developed models, to enable better comparison of published SI curves to the ordinal ranking system created for the developed models. Table 2 shows the correspondence between values from published SI curves and the ordinal ranking system used to provide the SI and HSI values for the models presented in Section 3 of this report.

13 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 Table 2 SI and HSI Ordinal Ranking System Used in HSI Models SI/HSI Value Rank Used for Developed Models Range of SI/HSI Values From Published Models 1.0 >0.9 to 1.0 Excellent Variable/ Habitat Descriptor 0.75 >0.6 to 0.9 Above average 0.5 >0.3 to >0 to 0.3 Below average 0 0 None Based on this system, SI values >0.9 from the published SI curves would be assigned a SI rank value of 1.0 and categorized as excellent, SI values from >0.6 to 0.9 in the published SI curves would be assigned a rank value of 0.75 and categorized as above average, SI values from >0.3 to 0.6 in the published SI curves would be assigned a rank value of 0.5 and categorized as average, SI values from >0 to 0.3 in the published SI curves would be assigned a rank value of 0.25 and categorized as below average, and SI values of 0 in the published SI curves would be assigned a rank value of 0 and categorized as none. In cases where available information enabled a clear definition of habitat suitability, all five HSI ranking categories were developed. However, for certain habitat variables, fish species and life stages, there was insufficient information for a detailed categorization of the relative suitability of habitat among the ranking categories. Consequently, some of the HSI values presented in this document have fewer categories (e.g., three categories consisting of above average [HSI = 0.75], average [0.5] and below average [0.25]). HSI Model Revisions A series of expert workshops were held to review the HSI models for fish species included in the Oil Sands Region, including both published models and newly developed models, and reach consensus among workshop attendees on the variables to be included in the models, criteria for assigning SI values for each variable, and procedures to be used in the application of the models. The workshops were typically attended by representatives from DFO, ASRD, Golder and the University of Alberta. Golder Associates

14 For each HSI model, the model variables, the criteria for assigning SI values for each variable and procedures for application of the model were reviewed and revised as deemed necessary by workshop attendees, using the following process: Review of model and model variables. Round table discussion on applicability of each model variable to the fish species within the study area (i.e., within the Athabasca River watershed in the northern Alberta boreal region). Introduction of any additional published data sources (e.g., published data from Roberge et al and Evans et al. 2002). Introduction of additional experience and knowledge from the workshop attendees on the habitat requirements of the fish species within the study area. Introduction of additional professional judgment from the workshop attendees on the assessment of relative suitability of habitat characteristics and criteria for assigning SI values for each habitat variable within the study area. Round table discussion on variables to be included, added or deleted from the model. Round table discussion on the criteria for assigning SI values for each of the variables to be included in the model. Round table discussion on procedures for application of the model within the Oil Sands Region. Agreement among workshop attendees on variables to be included, criteria for assigning SI values for each variable, and procedures for application of the model in the Oil Sands Region. This process was used to reach consensus on HSI model structure and application for each of the fish species HSI models and to finalize the models for application in determining habitat losses and compensation habitat gains for developments in the Oil Sands Region. There are very few published data sources available that provide information on life history requirements and habitat suitability specific to many of the fish species under assessment within the Athabasca River watershed. Therefore, consensus on the model variables, criteria for assigning SI values for each variable and procedures for applying the models within the Oil Sands Region relied heavily on a series of reviews specific to the life history characteristics of Canadian fish species (e.g., Bradbury et al. 1999; Lane et al. 1996; Langhorne et al. 2001; Portt et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 2001) and the professional experience, knowledge and judgment of the workshop attendees.

15 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 Where there were insufficient field data, SI values were assumed to be either non-limiting in cases where there was an absence of data and therefore assigned a value of 1.0, or at least partially limiting in cases where the available data was insufficient to assign an SI=0. In the latter case, the SI was assigned a value of 0.5. This approach was applied as a measure of conservatism in light of instances where data was absent or insufficient and to account for variability in the habitat requirements of fish species at different life stages. For example, many of the models specify a particular substrate composition as a spawning habitat requirement. In the absence of the correct size and ratio of substrate types, the habitat would be assigned as having no value (i.e., SI=0). To offset this effect, the habitat was assigned an SI value that would account for potential use by fish for other life history requirements (i.e., SI=0.5). Golder Associates

16 3. HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS The following sections provide descriptions of the riverine and lacustrine HSI models for species present in the Oil Sands Region, as well as explanations of the rationale used in the development of suitability criteria for some variables in the models and notes on application of the models within this area. The order of presentation of the models is taxonomically, by family, and alphabetically, by genus and species names, within each family group. FAMILY CYPRINIDAE Lake Chub, Couesius plumbeus Riverine A published riverine HEP model is not available for lake chub. The model described in Table 3 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Matuszek et al. 1990; Gibbons et al. 1996; Lane et al. 1996; Bradbury et al. 1999, Portt et al. 1999; Langhorne et al. 2001; Richardson et al ), comparisons to habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for lake chub in Alberta, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. In assigning SI values for some variables, when the available data consists of proportions of a stream reach that are in more than one category of the variable, a weighted mean approach is used. For example, the SI for channel unit is the weighted average of the SI values for the five SI categories (i.e., the values 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.0), with each SI value weighted by the percent of the stream reach area in each of in the corresponding channel unit categories. More specifically, if SI of 1 represented 50% of the stream area, SI of 0.75 represented 20%, SI of 0.5 represented 20%, SI of 0.25 represented 10% and SI of 0 was 0%, then the weighted average of SI values for channel unit would be The same approach is used for other variables when the same type of data is available (e.g., substrate).

17 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 Table 3 Lake Chub Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Variable Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) None (SI = 0.0) V 1 substrate (a) Bo, C, R, G -- S, CS, Bd V 2 instream cover R, C, Bo, vegetation, woody debris, submergent and emergent plants V 3 channel unit runs, flats, pools -- riffles -- rapids V 4 % instream cover >20 to 50 >10 to 20; >50 to 65 >5 to10; >65 to 75 0 to 5; >75 to V 5 late winter dissolved (b) 1 <1 oxygen (mg/l) V 6 ph 6 to to <6 <5.5 or >9 (a) (b) Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumptions that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentrations. Lacustrine A published lacustrine HEP model is not available for lake chub. The model described in Table 4 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Ahsan 1966; Brown 1969; McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Matuszek et al. 1990; Spangler and Collins 1992; Reebs et al. 1995; Scott and Crossman 1998), comparisons to habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for lake chub in Alberta, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. In assessing habitats for lakes, where warranted and where appropriate data can be obtained, the SI value for a given variable should be based on a weighted average calculation using the proportions of the lake size within each suitability category as weighting factors. An example of a weighted average for proportionate depth data is: if the depth category with SI of 1 represented 50% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.75 represented 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.5 represented Golder Associates

18 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.25 represented 10% of the lake area, and the depth category with SI of 0 was 0% of the lake area, then the weighted average SI value for depth would be Similar weighted average SI values should be computed for any model variable for which similar proportionate distribution information can be provided (i.e., depth, substrate, temperature, dissolved oxygen). For these variables, computation of weighted average SI values will require information on lake bathymetry, proportions of substrate size classes, and profiles for temperature and dissolved oxygen. In some cases (e.g., cover, spawning material), the relevant percent values will be percent of littoral zone rather than percent of the entire lake. Table 4 Lake Chub Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model (a) (b) Variable Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) V 1 substrate (a) Bo, C, R, G -- S, CS, Bd V 2 cover R, C, Bo, vegetation, woody debris, submergent and emergent plants V 3 depth (m) 2 >2 to 5 -- >5 -- V 4 % littoral zone cover >20 to 50 V 5 >10 to 20; >50 to 65 >5 to 10; >65 to 75 0 to 5; >75 to 100 late winter dissolved (b) >2 1 to <1 oxygen (mg/l) None (SI = 0.0) V 6 ph 6 to to <6 <5.5 or >9 Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumptions that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentrations. -- In computing weighted average SI values for dissolved oxygen variables, a depth-integrated value can be used to represent the dissolved oxygen in a particular lake surface area for which the vertical dissolved oxygen profile data is applicable. In situations where dissolved oxygen concentration is very low or zero near the bottom, but more suitable in other parts of the water column, some adjustment to the SI value may be appropriate, depending on the water depth at that point (e.g., deep areas may be considered more suitable than shallow areas in this case). For winter dissolved oxygen under ice cover, areas with depths

19 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 during the open-water period that are less than or equal to the typical ice thickness would not provide suitable winter habitat. Brassy Minnow, Hybognathus hankinsoni Riverine A published riverine HEP model is not available for brassy minnow. The model described in Table 5 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Matthews 1985; Scott and Crossman 1998; Langhorne et al. 2001; Ripley 2001), comparison to similar, syntopic small-bodied fishes and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. In assigning SI values for some variables, when the available data consists of proportions of a stream reach that are in more than one category of the variable, a weighted mean approach is used. For example, the SI for channel unit is the weighted average of the SI values for the five SI categories (i.e., the values 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.0), with each SI value weighted by the percent of the stream reach area in each of the corresponding channel unit categories. More specifically, if SI of 1 represented 50% of the stream area, SI of 0.75 represented 20%, SI of 0.5 represented 20%, SI of 0.25 represented 10% and SI of 0 was 0%, then the weighted average of SI values for channel unit would be The same approach is used for other variables when the same type of data is available (e.g., substrate). Lacustrine A published lacustrine HEP model is not available for brassy minnow. The model described in Table 6 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Matthews 1985; Scott and Crossman 1998; Langhorne et al. 2001; Ripley 2001), comparison to similar, syntopic small-bodied fishes and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. Golder Associates

20 Variable Table 5 Brassy Minnow Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) V 1 substrate (a) G, S and CS C and R Bd, Bo V 2 V 3 V 4 V 5 V 6 instream cover spawning channel unit % instream cover submergent and emergent plants quiet, shallow, well vegetated areas pools, backwater areas, flats woody debris, rock runs riffles >50 >30 to 50 >20 to 30 >0 to 20 0 late winter dissolved oxygen 2 <2 (mg/l) (b) None (SI = 0.0) no suitable material rapids, chutes, falls V 7 ph 6 to to < 6 <5.5 or >9 (a) (b) Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumption that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of the year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentration. In assessing habitats for lakes, where warranted and where appropriate data can be obtained, the SI value for a given variable should be based on a weighted average calculation using the proportions of the lake size within each suitability category as weighting factors. An example of a weighted average for proportionate depth data is: if the depth category with SI of 1 represented 50% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.75 represented 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.5 represented 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.25 represented 10% of the lake area, and the depth category with SI of 0 was 0% of the lake area, then the weighted average SI value for depth would be Similar weighted average SI values should be computed for any model variable for which similar proportionate distribution information can be provided (i.e., depth, substrate, temperature, dissolved oxygen). For these variables, computation of weighted average SI values will require information on lake bathymetry, proportions of substrate size classes, and profiles for temperature and dissolved oxygen. In some cases (e.g., cover, spawning material), the relevant percent values will be percent of littoral zone rather than percent of the entire lake.

21 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 Table 6 Brassy Minnow Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Variable Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) None (SI = 0.0) V 1 substrate (a) G, S and CS C and R Bd, Bo V 2 cover submergent and emergent plants woody debris, rock V 3 spawning quiet, shallow, well vegetated areas no suitable material V 4 depth (m) 10 >10 V 5 % littoral zone cover >50 >30 to 50 >20-30 > V 6 late winter dissolved oxygen 2 <2 (mg/l) (b) V 7 ph 6 to to <6 <5.5 or >9 (a) (b) Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumption that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of the year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentration. In computing weighted average SI values for dissolved oxygen variables, a depth-integrated value can be used to represent the dissolved oxygen in a particular lake surface area for which the vertical dissolved oxygen profile data is applicable. In situations where dissolved oxygen concentration is very low or zero near the bottom, but more suitable in other parts of the water column, some adjustment to the SI value may be appropriate, depending on the water depth at that point (e.g., deep areas may be considered more suitable than shallow areas in this case). For winter dissolved oxygen under ice cover, areas with depths during the open-water period that are less than or equal to the typical ice thickness would not provide suitable winter habitat. Golder Associates

22 Pearl Dace, Margariscus margarita Riverine A published riverine HEP model is not available for pearl dace. The model described in Table 7 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Nelson and Paetz 1992; Ford et al. 1995; Lane et al. 1996; Scott and Crossman 1998; Bradbury et al. 1999; Portt et al. 1999; Langhorne et al. 2001; Richardson et al 2001), comparisons to habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for pearl dace in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. In assigning SI values for some variables, when the available data consists of proportions of a stream reach that are in more than one category of the variable, a weighted mean approach is used. For example, the SI for channel unit is the weighted average of the SI values for the five SI categories (i.e., the values 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.0), with each SI value weighted by the percent of the stream reach area in each of the corresponding channel unit categories. More specifically, if SI of 1 represented 50% of the stream area, SI of 0.75 represented 20%, SI of 0.5 represented 20%, SI of 0.25 represented 10% and SI of 0 was 0%, then the weighted average of SI values for channel unit would be The same approach is used for other variables when the same type of data is available (e.g., substrate). Lacustrine A published lacustrine HEP model is not available for pearl dace. The model described in Table 8 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (Nelson and Paetz 1992; Ford et al. 1995; Lane et al. 1996; Scott and Crossman 1998; Bradbury et al. 1999; Portt et al. 1999; Langhorne et al. 2001; Richardson et al. 2001), comparisons to habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for pearl dace in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model.

23 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 Table 7 Pearl Dace Riverine Habitat Suitability Model Variable Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) None (SI = 0.0) V 1 substrate (a) G, S, CS -- R, C Bo, Bd -- V 2 instream cover vegetation, woody debris, submergent and emergent plants -- R, C Bo, Bd -- V 3 channel unit pools,runs, flats -- riffles -- rapids V 4 % instream cover >20 to 50 >10 to 20; >50 to 65 >5 to 10; >65 to 75 0 to 5; >75 to V 5 late winter dissolved (b) 1 - < oxygen (mg/l) V 6 ph 6 to to <6 <5.5 or >9 (a) (b) Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumptions that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentrations. In assessing habitats for lakes, where warranted and where appropriate data can be obtained, the SI value for a given variable should be based on a weighted average calculation using the proportions of the lake size within each suitability category as weighting factors. An example of a weighted average for proportionate depth data is: if the depth category with SI of 1 represented 50% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.75 represented 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.5 represented 20% of the lake area, the depth category with SI of 0.25 represented 10% of the lake area, and the depth category with SI of 0 was 0% of the lake area, then the weighted average SI value for depth would be Similar weighted average SI values should be computed for any model variable for which similar proportionate distribution information can be provided (i.e., depth, substrate, temperature, dissolved oxygen). For these variables, computation of weighted average SI values will require information on lake bathymetry, proportions of substrate size classes, and profiles for temperature and dissolved oxygen. In some cases (e.g., cover, spawning material), the relevant percent values will be percent of littoral zone rather than percent of the entire lake. Golder Associates

24 Table 8 Pearl Dace Lacustrine Habitat Suitability Model Variable Excellent (SI = 1.0) Above (SI = 0.75) (SI = 0.5) Below (SI = 0.25) None (SI = 0.0) V 1 substrate (a) G, S, CS -- R, C Bo, Bd -- V 2 Cover submergent and emergent vegetation -- R, C Bo, Bd -- V 3 depth (m) 2 m -- >2 to 5 m >5 m -- V 4 % littoral cover >20 to 50 >10 to 20; >50 to 65 >5 to 10; >65 to 75 0 to 5; >75 to V 5 late winter dissolved (b) 1 <1 oxygen (mg/l) V 6 ph 6 to to <6 <5.5 or >9 (a) (b) Bd = bedrock, Bo = boulder (> 256 mm), C = cobble (> 64 to 256 mm, rounded), R = rubble (> 64 to 256 mm, angular), G = gravel (> 2 to 64 mm), S = sand (> 0.06 to 2.0 mm) and CS = clay/silt ( 0.06 mm) includes detritus (Bradbury et al. 1999). The distinction between cobble and rubble is that cobble material has a smooth rounded shape while rubble is material in the same size range, but with sharp angular corners. Late winter dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria are based on the assumptions that if measured late winter DO is greater than the indicated concentration, DO is not limiting at any time of year, and if measured late winter DO is less than the indicated concentration, DO may be limiting in winter but not during the open-water period. In addition, since DO is not measured in all areas within a watercourse or waterbody, there may exist some local areas where late winter DO is greater than the measured concentrations. In computing weighted average SI values for dissolved oxygen variables, a depth-integrated value can be used to represent the dissolved oxygen in a particular lake surface area for which the vertical dissolved oxygen profile data is applicable. In situations where dissolved oxygen concentration is very low or zero near the bottom, but more suitable in other parts of the water column, some adjustment to the SI value may be appropriate, depending on the water depth at that point (e.g., deep areas may be considered more suitable than shallow areas in this case). For winter dissolved oxygen under ice cover, areas with depths during the open-water period that are less than or equal to the typical ice thickness would not provide suitable winter habitat. Emerald Shiner, Notropis atherinoides Riverine A published riverine HEP model is not available for emerald shiner. The model described in Table 9 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Lee et al. 1980; Jude and Pappas 1992; Nelson and Paetz 1992; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Mayo et al. 1998; Scott and Crossman 1998; Bradbury et al. 1999; Portt et al. 1999; Langhorne et al. 2001; Richardson et al. 2001; Franzin et al. 2003), comparisons to

25 Fish HSI Models Version 2.0 Alberta Oil Sands Region October 2008 habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for emerald shiner in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. In assigning SI values for some variables, when the available data consists of proportions of a stream reach that are in more than one category of the variable, a weighted mean approach is used. For example, the SI for channel unit is the weighted average of the SI values for the five SI categories (i.e., the values 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.0), with each SI value weighted by the percent of the stream reach area in each of the corresponding channel unit categories. More specifically, if SI of 1 represented 50% of the stream area, SI of 0.75 represented 20%, SI of 0.5 represented 20%, SI of 0.25 represented 10% and SI of 0 was 0%, then the weighted average of SI values for channel unit would be The same approach is used for other variables when the same type of data is available (e.g., substrate). Lacustrine A published lacustrine HEP model is not available for emerald shiner. The model described in Table 10 is a HEP-type model developed on the basis of information on habitat requirements obtained by a review of the literature (McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Lee et al. 1980; Jude and Pappas 1992; Nelson and Paetz 1992; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Mayo et al. 1998; Scott and Crossman 1998; Bradbury et al. 1999; Portt et al. 1999; Langhorne et al. 2001; Richardson et al. 2001; Franzin et al. 2003), comparisons to habitat requirements of other small-bodied fish species from published HSI models, capture data for spottail shiner in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the professional knowledge and experience of attendees at the expert workshops. The HSI is set equal to the lowest of the SI values for the variables included in the model. Golder Associates