Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2019 the County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2019 The County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Prepared for:

County of Northern Lights 600-7th Avenue NW Box 10 Manning, Alberta T0H 2M0

and

North Peace Applied Research Association 116-4th Avenue SW Manning, Alberta T0H 2M0

December 2019

Prepared by: Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. #204, 7205 Roper Road NW Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6B 3J4

NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2019 PAGE 1

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2019 The County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Signature Page

Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:

Bhupesh Khadka, M. Sc. P. Biol. Joshua Haag, B.Sc., P.Biol.

Biologist Biologist

Contents

Table of Contents

Contents ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 3 List of Tables ...... 4 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Methods ...... 5 2.1 Sampling Sites ...... 5 2.2 Water Quality Parameters ...... 7 2.3 River Water Quality Index Calculations ...... 7 2.4 Climate Information ...... 8 3 Results ...... 9 3.1 Routine Water Quality...... 9 3.1.1 pH ...... 10 3.1.2 Routine Ions ...... 11 3.1.3 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...... 12 3.2 Nutrients ...... 13 3.2.1 Total Nitrogen (TN) ...... 14 3.2.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) ...... 15 3.3 Metals ...... 16 3.4 Bacteria ...... 18 3.5 Herbicides and Pesticides ...... 20 3.6 River Water Quality Index ...... 22 4 Discussion ...... 24 4.1 Routine Parameters ...... 24 4.2 Nutrients ...... 24 4.3 Metals ...... 25 4.4 Bacteria ...... 25 4.5 Pesticides ...... 25 4.6 Overall Water Quality ...... 26 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 26 7 Bibliography ...... 28 Appendix A - Detailed Water Quality Parameter Lists...... 31 Routine Water Quality Parameters ...... 31 Nutrient Water Quality Parameters ...... 31 Bacteria Water Quality Parameters ...... 31 Pesticides Water Quality Parameters ...... 32 Metals Water Quality Parameters ...... 33 Appendix B - River Water Quality Index Calculations ...... 34 Overview ...... 34 Objectives Used in the Water Quality Index ...... 35

List of Figures Figure 1. Water quality monitoring program sample sites, including 2019 and historical locations...... 6 Figure 2. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 10 Figure 3. Summary of routine ions at all sites. Values are stacked, as individual components contribute to overall measures of hardness, salinity, alkalinity, and conductivity...... 11 Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations have historically shown high values during spring runoff and lower values in the fall, but with substantial variation from year to year (Figure 4). TSS at Site 1 was higher in the fall than in the spring in contrast to this pattern, but due to lower-than-average concentrations in the spring rather than elevated concentrations in the fall. Across all sites, 2019 values were below historical averages. The extreme values observed in 2014 appear to have been the result of higher than normal precipitation preceding the summer sampling period, with over 250% of the normal monthly rainfall falling in April just as snowmelt was occurring, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation issues. 12 Figure 5. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Areas are stacked to indicate overall total nitrogen concentrations, comprising the contributions of dissolved (upper area on each figure) and particulate forms (lower are on each figure)...... 14 Figure 6. Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Areas are stacked to indicate overall total nitrogen concentrations, comprising the contributions of dissolved (upper area on each figure) and particulate forms (lower are on each figure) ...... 15 Figure 7. Number of guideline exceedances for measured metals, by site and season...... 16 Figure 8. Summary of Total Coliforms at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values; points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 18 Figure 9. Summary of E. coli at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values; points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 19 Figure 10. Overall Water Quality Index Scores from all sites, 2011 – 2019. Dashed lines indicate overall linear trend, though the statistical significance of these trends was not determined due to the limited number of years of data available from some sites...... 22 Figure 11. Contributions of sub-indices to Water Quality Index for each site, 2011 – 2019...... 23

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample sites in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, 2019...... 5 Table 2. Average air temperature and total precipitation conditions for interpolated to the Notikewin (TWP 091 RGE 23 W5) and Keg (TWP 101 RGE23 W5) sampling areas. Values are highlighted blue to indicate cooler or wetter conditions and red/gold to indicate warmer or drier conditions. Data from Agriculture and Forestry (2019)...... 8 Table 3. Metals concentrations (in mg/L) for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2019. Only metals with at least one historical exceedance are included. All values are for total forms of metals except aluminum and iron, which are for dissolved forms. Highlighted values indicate a guideline exceedance. bdl = below detection limits ...... 17 Table 4. Pesticide detections in the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2019 during the spring and fall sampling periods at sites still included in the study. bdl = below detection limits; ns = not sampled...... 21

1 Introduction The County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association have maintained an ongoing water quality monitoring program in the Notikewin and Keg Rivers since 2011. The study was designed and implemented by Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.

The purpose of the study was to gather baseline water quality information for a complete suite of parameters, for future planning of land use and environmental management activities on the two rivers, and to determine water quality for use as a drinking and agricultural water source.

Sampling locations and the numbers of samples collected per year have varied over the course of the study in response to results and in order to accommodate program budgets. In 2019, sampling was conducted at two sites on the Notikewin River and two sites on the Keg River, in the Spring and the Fall.

2 Methods The surface water quality sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers were sampled on 15 April and 04 September 2019. Samples were collected by the County/NPARA staff following methods provided by Aquality, adhering to Alberta Environment’s 2006 “Aquatic Ecosystems Field Sampling Protocols” and laboratory-recommended sample-handling practices. Samples were preserved based on the sampling protocols, immediately stored on ice, and transported to the Exova laboratory in Edmonton. Sample condition, including temperature and sample bottle integrity, were verified by Exova staff upon receipt.

2.1 Sampling Sites

Sampling was conducted at sites previously established in the Notikewin (Sites 1 and 4) and Keg (Sites 5 and 6) rivers (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1. Sample sites in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, 2019. Site Description Site Location Years Sampled Latitude Longitude Upstream of the Town of Manning 56.896° N -117.706° W 2011 – 2019 1 just east of the White/Green Area boundary Approximately 0.5 km upstream of 57.277° N -117.136° W 2011 – 2019 4 the confluence of the Notikewin and Peace Rivers Keg River near Keg River 57.746° N -117.620° W 2013 – 2019 5 (unincorporated area) Keg River near end of Township 57.795° N -117.887° W 2015 – 2019 6 Road 104A

Figure 1. Water quality monitoring program sample sites, including 2019 and historical locations.

2.2 Water Quality Parameters

Surface water were sampled at two sites on the Notikewin River and two sites on the Keg River. The collected waters were analyzed for the following:

• Routine Water Chemistry • Nutrients • Bacteria • Pesticides • Total and Dissolved Metals

For a detailed list of parameters included in each suite, please see Appendix A - Detailed Water Quality Parameter Lists. All parameters were measured at every collection event in 2019.

The water quality parameters included in the monitoring program were used to provide the County and NPARA with an assessment of current water quality conditions on the Notikewin and Keg rivers. Selected parameters were compared to Federal and Provincial environmental quality guidelines to identify water quality risks. Guidelines used for comparison in this study include the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life (CEQG-FAL) or Protection of Agricultural Water Uses (CEQG-AWU) (CCME 2013), and the Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (EQGASW) (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014). The EQGASW includes site-specific objectives, which in some instances have not been determined for these basins (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus); the Alberta Surface Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life (ASWQG-FAL) (Alberta Environment, 1999) were included to provide a guideline for these parameters. Additionally, water quality was assessed using a modified version of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s River Water Quality Index (see Section 2.3: River Water Quality Index Calculations), to facilitate easy visualization of patterns in water quality over time and between sites.

2.3 River Water Quality Index Calculations

A modified version of the Alberta River Water Quality Index was applied to the 2019 results. This index, first applied to the results of this program in 2013, is used to quantify overall health of major rivers in Alberta based on a suite of core indicators (see Appendix B - River Water Quality Index Calculations). These indicators reflect watershed health and allow for consistent reporting and enables stakeholders and authorities to effectively compare and incorporate the overall findings of other watershed assessments (ESRD 2012). The indicators also simplify the large suite of measured parameters down to four simple sub- indices of water quality for an overall index score, creating easily interpretable summaries of an otherwise unwieldy number of water quality parameters. Higher scores for the overall index and sub-indices indicate higher water quality and fewer potential impairments to aquatic health.

The guidelines for some parameters were updated with the release of the Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014), so the model has been updated to reflect the new guidelines in calculating exceedances, with results for previous years recalculated using the new model to make direct comparisons possible.

2.4 Climate Information

The nearest climate monitoring station with complete records required for determining climatic norms (at least 30-year continuous data collection for temperature and precipitation variables) is at Peace River, approximately 80 km south of the Town of Manning (Table 2). Due to the distance from the sampling location, interpolated data from ACIS was used.

Generally, 2019 experienced warmer and drier than historical conditions in the spring and fall, and cooler and wetter conditions during the summer. The deviation from normal precipitation during the summer was more extreme in the vicinity of the Notikewin River, while the deviation from normal temperatures during the spring and summer was generally more extreme in the vicinity of the Keg River.

Table 2. Average air temperature and total precipitation conditions for interpolated to the Notikewin (TWP 091 RGE 23 W5) and Keg (TWP 101 RGE23 W5) sampling areas. Values are highlighted blue to indicate cooler or wetter conditions and red/gold to indicate warmer or drier conditions. Data from Agriculture and Forestry (2019). Notikewin (TWP 091 RGE 23 W5) Keg (TWP 101 RGE23 W5) Temp., Temp., Temp, Precip., Temp., Temp., Temp., Precip., monthly monthly monthly min. monthly total monthly max. monthly monthly min. monthly total max.(°C) average (°C) (°C) (mm) (°C) average (°C) (°C) (mm) Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Hist. 2019 Jan -10.4 -7.9 -16.1 -12.5 -21.7 -17.1 29.7 14.1 -11.5 -10.3 -17.3 -15.7 -23.1 -21.1 23.8 22.2 Feb -6.8 -16.2 -13.2 -22.5 -19.6 -28.7 20.5 9.3 -7.2 -14.0 -14.1 -22.0 -20.9 -30.1 18.0 12.6 Mar -0.3 3.8 -6.9 -3.5 -13.6 -10.8 20.9 0.4 -0.1 6.2 -7.4 -3.3 -14.7 -12.8 18.5 0.1 Apr 9.6 8.9 3.1 3.0 -3.4 -3.0 18.0 10.1 9.3 9.5 2.6 2.8 -4.0 -3.8 21.3 12.7 May 16.8 17.5 9.7 10.5 2.6 3.5 34.9 2.5 16.1 18.7 9.4 10.2 2.6 1.7 34.2 1.9 Jun 20.6 19.8 14.1 13.5 7.6 7.3 64.6 47.4 20.1 21.3 13.8 14.2 7.5 7.1 64.8 57.1 Jul 22.6 21.6 16.1 15.5 9.6 9.4 71.5 169.6 21.9 23.2 15.8 15.8 9.8 8.4 84.6 99.8 Aug 21.3 19.7 14.6 13.7 7.8 7.8 47.9 70.3 20.4 19.8 14.2 13.0 8.0 6.2 53.8 32.0 Sep 16.1 15.6 9.4 9.9 2.6 4.1 38.0 66.2 15.4 16.5 9.0 9.7 2.6 3.0 37.2 48.4 Oct 8.1 7.0 2.4 2.4 -3.3 -2.2 22.8 25.3 7.4 7.6 1.9 2.4 -3.5 -2.7 26.4 9.6 Nov -3.7 -2.6 -8.7 -7.0 -13.7 -11.3 30.1 22.6 -4.8 -3.7 -9.8 -9.0 -14.8 -14.3 24.6 20.8 Dec -9.2 -7.4 -14.6 -12.4 -20.0 -17.5 24.1 12.6 -10.4 -9.6 -16.0 -15.3 -21.7 -21.0 22.1 14.9 Annual 7.1 6.7 0.8 0.9 -5.4 -4.9 422.8 450.3 6.4 7.1 0.2 0.2 -6.0 -6.6 429.2 332.1

3 Results

3.1 Routine Water Quality

Routine water quality parameters provide a general overview of the ionic compounds that dominate water chemistry. They include compounds that contribute most strongly to salinity, conductivity, water hardness, and changes in these parameters can be indicative of the impacts of land-use change (such as increased linear disturbances, road salting and dust control, irrigation with groundwater, or increased erosion). Routine parameters can often influence the severity of the impacts of other parameters, such as pH influencing the toxicity of ammonia and certain metals, and water hardness influencing the toxicity of a number of metals and also buffering against changes in pH due to acidic precipitation. Some metals, such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, are considered as routine water quality parameters due to their close association with water hardness, alkalinity, and salinity. Routine water quality also includes parameters related to suspended particles and the turbidity of surface water, which can impact light penetration, aquatic plant growth, and siltation of fish spawning habitats.

3.1.1 pH pH values did not differ substantially between sites in 2019, and the values fell within the EQGASW guideline range of 6.5 to 9.0 for all sites and seasons (Figure 2, Top). Values exhibited a minor seasonal fluctuation, and generally showed a decrease from spring to fall (except for Site 1), which contrasts with the historical pattern. pH levels have shown a fairly consistent decreasing trend over the course of the monitoring program but remain well within guidelines at the present time (Figure 2, bottom).

Figure 2. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

3.1.2 Routine Ions Routine ions such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, iron and calcium contribute to water hardness, total dissolved solids, salinity, and conductivity.

Mostly concentrations of these ions as well as their individual components were generally at the low end of their historical range in 2019 at all sites (Figure 3). In contrast to previous years, concentrations of routine ions were lower in the Fall compared to Spring in all sites except Site 1. This could be due to high precipitation events (almost 50% of the annual precipitation) during July and August, causing a dilution effect.

Calcium and to a lesser extent sodium continue to dominate the concentrations of routine ions overall.

Data on conductivity, water hardness, and salinity are not presented, but generally showed an extremely strong correlation (r2 > 0.95) with concentrations of routine ions.

Figure 3. Summary of routine ions at all sites. Values are stacked, as individual components contribute to overall measures of hardness, salinity, alkalinity, and conductivity.

3.1.3 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations have historically shown high values during spring runoff and lower values in the fall, but with substantial variation from year to year (Figure 4). TSS at Site 1 was higher in the fall than in the spring in contrast to this pattern, but due to lower-than-average concentrations in the spring rather than elevated concentrations in the fall. Across all sites, 2019 values were below historical averages. The extreme values observed in 2014 appear to have been the result of higher than normal precipitation preceding the summer sampling period, with over 250% of the normal monthly rainfall falling in April just as snowmelt was occurring, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation issues.

Figure 4. Summary of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values; error bars indicate standard deviation throughout the study period. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

3.2 Nutrients

The analysis of nutrients focused on various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, as these are generally the most impacting nutrient pollutants in aquatic systems. Both nitrogen and phosphorus can contribute to eutrophication, where elevated nutrient levels result in elevated plant and algal growth. Eutrophication in aquatic systems has several negative impacts on the ecosystem including reduced visibility underwater (which can affect the ability of predators to capture prey and the ability of light to penetrate deeper water regions) (US EPA 2011) and diminished oxygen levels causing fish death (FAO 1996). Phosphorus is usually considered to be the limiting nutrient in aquatic ecosystems that is the primary driver of eutrophication (FAO 1996; Sharpley et al. 2003; Schindler 2006).

3.2.1 Total Nitrogen (TN) Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations were generally comparable to recent historical values in 2019 across all sites (Figure 5). Concentrations were below the guideline value of 1 mg/L for all samples with the exception of Site 4 in the fall. In 2019, TN showed a reversal of the expected seasonal pattern at Sites 1, 4, and 6, with higher concentrations in the Fall than in the Spring.

Dissolved forms of nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite) continue to make up a minor fraction of total nitrogen, indicating that most sources of nitrogen entering into the system are either bound to soil particles or contained within suspended organic particulate matter.

Figure 5. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Areas are stacked to indicate overall total nitrogen concentrations, comprising the contributions of dissolved (upper area on each figure) and particulate forms (lower are on each figure).

3.2.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) In 2019, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were above the guideline (0.05 mg/L) at all sites except for Site 1 in the Spring (Figure 6). In 2019, the seasonal pattern of concentrations was in line with historical trends, with concentrations higher in the spring than in the fall except at Site 4. The concentration of total phosphorus in 2019 was lower than the previous year at all sites.

As with nitrogen, Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations made up a minor component of total phosphorus, indicating that most nutrients are bound in particulates with limited concentrations of bio-available forms.

Figure 6. Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Areas are stacked to indicate overall total nitrogen concentrations, comprising the contributions of dissolved (upper area on each figure) and particulate forms (lower are on each figure)

3.3 Metals

Dissolved and particulate metals can have a wide range of effects on aquatic life, ranging from essential micronutrients that are required in low concentrations (but may become toxic at higher concentrations), to those which are non-nutritive (and may be harmful at extremely low concentrations).

The overall number of metal exceedances decreased substantially from that seen in 2019 (40 compared to 64 in the previous year), primarily due to reductions in the number of exceedances in the spring at the Notikewin River sites (Figure 7). Historically, exceedances of metals are generally much more common in the spring in all sites than the fall, though this pattern has occasionally reversed (e.g. Keg River sites in 2018 and the Notikewin River sites in 2019).

Of the 34 different metals that were tested, 13 metals exceeded their respective guidelines on at least one occasion (Table 3), with exceedances for Iron, Cadmium, and Chromium being the most common. Historically, Cadmium, Chromium, Iron, Lead, Mercury and Nickel have been the metals with the most frequent exceedances across sites

Concentrations of metals were generally dominated by particulate forms, with only minor contributions of dissolved forms of each metal. Higher rates of exceedances for metals have historically occurred in the Spring, and may be explained by the higher than normal concentrations of suspended solids observed at that time, as soil and other particles are the sources of particulate metals. The reversal of this pattern in 2019 correlates with the low precipitation in the spring and high precipitation in the summer.

Figure 7. Number of guideline exceedances for measured metals, by site and season.

Table 3. Metals concentrations (in mg/L) for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2019. Only metals with at least one historical exceedance are included. All values are for total forms of metals except aluminum and iron, which are for dissolved forms. Highlighted values indicate a guideline exceedance. bdl = below detection limits Year Season SITE Aluminum Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc GUIDELINE 0.05 0.005 0.00004 0.001 0.0025 0.007 0.3 0.001 0.000005 0.004 0.001 0.0001 0.03 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.029 0.0015 0.00004 0.0013 0.0006 0.003 1.19 0.0006 0 0.0042 0 0.00001 0.007 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.025 0.0026 0.00006 0.002 0.0012 0.004 1.58 0.0012 0.000008 0.0074 0.0003 0.00002 0.011 Fall SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.016 0.0025 0.00007 0.0017 0.0011 0.005 4.15 0.0014 0.00001 0.0079 0.0004 0.00002 0.011 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.022 0.0017 0.00008 0.001 0.0007 0.003 4.06 0.0007 0.000006 0.0064 0.0003 0.00001 0.006 2019 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.066 0.001 0.00003 0 0.0005 0.002 0.4 0 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.178 0.0015 0.00006 0.0012 0.001 0.003 0.35 0 Spring SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.712 0.005 0.00014 0.0071 0.0031 0.011 0.53 0.000026 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.357 0.0023 0.00009 0.0014 0.0016 0.004 0.58 0.000009 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.002 0.0007 0.00001 0 0.0001 0.002 0.03 0.0001 0 0.0025 0 0 0.001 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.003 0.0007 0.00002 0 0.0004 0.002 0.03 0.0001 0 0.0043 0.0002 0 0.003 Fall SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.017 0.0063 0.00028 0.0096 0.0064 0.02 0.39 0.0076 0.00004 0.0235 0.0006 0.00012 0.06 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.036 0.0062 0.00031 0.008 0.0057 0.014 0.48 0.0055 0.00003 0.0208 0.0006 0.0001 0.049 2018 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.032 0.0136 0.00055 0.0177 0.0125 0.032 0.31 0.0145 0.000045 0.0366 0.0008 0.00021 0.113 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.022 0.0109 0.00051 0.014 0.0109 0.03 0.27 0.0126 0.000037 0.0327 0.0008 0.00018 0.1 Spring SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.014 0.0067 0.00031 0.0096 0.0062 0.018 0.25 0.0078 0.00004 0.0217 0.0006 0.00013 0.061 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.026 0.0051 0.00028 0.0058 0.0046 0.013 0.44 0.0053 0.000034 0.0162 0.0005 0.00009 0.042 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.0006 0 0 0.0001 0.001 0.02 0.0001 0 0.0021 0 0 0.001 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.002 0.0005 0 0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0 0 0.0024 0 0 0.001 Fall SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.003 0.0013 0.00004 0.0006 0.0003 0.003 0.05 0.0006 0 0.0051 0.0002 0.00002 0.011 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0 0.001 0.00004 0 0.0003 0.002 0.02 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.00002 0.005 2017 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.009 0.0038 0.00014 0.0046 0.0028 0.008 0.35 0.0033 0.00001 0.0094 0.0003 0.00006 0.028 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.007 0.0024 0.00008 0.0047 0.0016 0.014 0.22 0.002 0 0.0071 0.0003 0.00004 0.016 Spring SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.006 0.0036 0.00015 0.0047 0.0025 0.009 0.12 0.0035 0.000013 0.0115 0.0004 0.00006 0.029 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.011 0.0031 0.00012 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.3 0.0024 0.000015 0.0088 0.0004 0.00004 0.019 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.051 0.0011 0.00003 0.0007 0.0003 0.001 0.47 0.0003 0 0.0036 0 0 0.003 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.197 0.0011 0.00002 0.0006 0.0003 0.002 0.54 0.0003 0 0.0039 0 0 0.004 Fall SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.013 0.0019 0.00005 0.0008 0.0006 0.003 0.45 0.0009 0.000008 0.0071 0.0003 0 0.007 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.017 0.0015 0.00006 0.0006 0.0005 0.002 0.61 0.0005 0.000006 0.0067 0.0003 0 0.006 2016 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.02 0.0014 0.00003 0.001 0.0006 0.003 0.43 0.0009 0.000005 0.0041 0 0.00001 0.006 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.007 0.0018 0.00006 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.41 0.0008 0 0.0045 0 0.00095 0.006 Spring SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.008 0.0015 0.00006 0.001 0.0012 0.004 0.2 0.0007 0 0.0069 0.0003 0.00002 0.01 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.011 0.0015 0.00007 0.0006 0.0014 0.002 0.07 0.0005 0 0.0058 0.0003 0 0.006 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0141 0.00088 0.0000109 0.00028 0.00011 0.00134 0.406 0.000178 0.0000056 0.00226 0.000159 0 0 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0049 0.0008 0.0000138 0.00022 0.00013 0.0013 0.158 0.000154 0 0.00237 0.000174 0 0 Fall SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0305 0.00171 0.0000431 0.00078 0.00051 0.00329 0.411 0.00089 0 0.00572 0.000272 0.000012 0.0063 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0262 0.00132 0.0000394 0.00057 0.0004 0.00212 0.804 0.000444 0.0000075 0.00505 0.00023 0 0.0051 2015 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0772 0.0045 0.000185 0.00548 0.00367 0.00993 0.485 0.00422 0.0000271 0.0119 0.000334 0.000064 0.0581 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0741 0.00533 0.000212 0.00595 0.00444 0.0118 0.483 0.00494 0.0000333 0.0143 0.000379 0.000078 0.0474 Spring SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0422 0.00357 0.00016 0.004 0.0028 0.00875 0.352 0.00391 0.0000269 0.0112 0.000401 0.000059 0.0273 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0389 0.00328 0.000172 0.00348 0.00265 0.00782 0.491 0.0031 0.0000247 0.0107 0.000364 0.000047 0.0255 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.00088 0.000014 0 0 0.0019 0.013 0.0002 0.0000058 0.0028 0 0 0 Fall SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0 0.00069 0 0 0 0.0016 0 0 0 0.0029 0 0 0 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0105 0.00206 0.000042 0.0013 0 0.0039 0.058 0.00126 0.0000107 0.0073 0 0 0.0088 2014 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.154 0.0298 0.00144 0.038 0.0292 0.068 0.581 0.0343 0.0000617 0.0783 0.00212 0.000496 0.256 Spring SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.287 0.0344 0.00187 0.0415 0.0344 0.0825 0.857 0.0372 0.0000511 0.0925 0.00263 0.000611 0.307 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.307 0.0201 0.00103 0.0255 0.0199 0.0473 0.94 0.0231 0.0000906 0.0582 0.00161 0.0004 0.178 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0064 0.00077 0.000016 0 0 0.0014 0.141 0.00013 0 0.0024 0 0 0 Fall SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0063 0.00068 0.000012 0 0 0.0016 0.062 0 0 0.0027 0 0 0 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0335 0.00156 0.000045 0 0 0.0028 0.728 0.00062 0 0.005 0 0 0.0091 2013 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0983 0.00597 0.000289 0.0071 0.0057 0.0158 0.308 0.0062 0 0.0189 0.00049 0.000091 0.0607 Spring SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.307 0.0173 0.00102 0.0243 0.0201 0.051 0.533 0.0218 0.000043 0.0617 0.00146 0.000395 0.214 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.00049 0.000124 0 0 0.0026 0 0.0012 0 0.0039 0 0.00011 0.111 Fall SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 2012 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.035 0.00652 0.000248 0.0095 0.0056 0.0141 0.589 0.00618 0 0.0168 0.00049 0 0.0492 Spring SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.057 0.00947 0.000392 0.014 0.0086 0.0216 0.621 0.00919 0 0.0255 0.00068 0.00014 0.0748 SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.0014 0.19 0.00019 0 0.0031 0 0 0 2011 Fall SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0 0.00104 0 0 0 0.0013 0.42 0.00019 0 0.0026 0 0 0

3.4 Bacteria

Bacteria are naturally abundant in aquatic systems. Coliform bacteria are a general class of bacteria that may be associated with soil or decaying organic matter, whereas E. coli is almost always associated with fecal matter from warm-blooded organisms that has entered the aquatic ecosystem. E. coli can be naturally occurring as a result of wildlife, but high concentrations are generally indicative of contamination from anthropogenic sources such as raw sewage release, livestock, or pets.

Overall, the concentration of total coliforms does not exhibit any trend over the study period, but have generally fallen below the guideline value of 1000 MPN/100 mL. There was no seasonal trend in 2019, and no pattern between sites in terms of which site had the highest concentrations in which season (Figure 8). Figure 8. Summary of Total Coliforms at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values; points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

In 2019, E. coli concentrations were below the guideline of 100 MPN/100 mL (for the protection of agricultural water used for irrigation) at all sites in both the seasons except Site 4 in the Fall (Figure 9). Concentrations in most of the sites were higher during Fall compared to Spring except for at Site 6. Historically, E. coli levels have been low, with the exceedances only having occurred on four occasions, all within the past three years (Figure 9). Exceedances have been identified at sites 4, 5, and 6, but without a consistent temporal or spatial pattern.

Figure 9. Summary of E. coli at all sites. Top: bars represent 2019 values; points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Bottom: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

3.5 Herbicides and Pesticides

Herbicides and pesticides are anthropogenic in origin, and their presence in aquatic systems is usually linked to indirect application, such as runoff from crop residues or wind-borne drift during spraying. Known impacts can range from mild to severe, and due to the number of different types of pesticides and their varied modes of application, they can impact nearly all aspects of aquatic life. Many of the pesticides and herbicides sampled do not have a guideline, but those with guidelines have never been exceeded.

Water samples were analyzed for 107 herbicides and pesticides in 2019, with only four having been detected across all years of sampling across all sites (Table 4). No detections of any pesticides were observed in 2019, with the last detection having occurred in 2017.

Table 4. Pesticide detections in the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2019 during the spring and fall sampling periods at sites still included in the study. bdl = below detection limits; ns = not sampled. Year Season Site 2,4-DB µg/L Glyphosate µg/L Malathion mg/L Methidathion mg/L EQGASW 25 65 0.1 0.5 2019 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl 2018 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl 2017 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 0.4 bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 0.4 bdl bdl bdl Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl 2016 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl 10 bdl bdl 2015 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl ns Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl ns 2014 Fall SITE 1 bdl 0.51 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 0.52 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 0.52 bdl ns Spring SITE 1 bdl 1.3 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 1.44 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 1.33 bdl ns 2013 Fall SITE 1 bdl 0.72 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 0.94 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 0.78 bdl ns Spring SITE 1 bdl ns ns ns SITE 5 bdl ns ns ns 2012 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl ns Spring SITE 1 bdl bdl 0.00013 bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl 0.00017 bdl 2011 Fall SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl

3.6 River Water Quality Index

The Water Quality Index (WQI) was calculated for each site and season to identify spatial and temporal trends in overall water quality. Results were calculated for four sub-indices of related groups of parameters (Nutrients and Related Compounds, Bacteria, Metals, and Pesticides), as well as a combined overall score.

WQI scores have historically been higher in the spring than the fall, but as found with some of the individual parameters, this pattern did not hold at the Notikewin River sites in 2019 (Figure 10). Overall values at the Notikewin River sites have trended slightly upward over the historical period, while values at the Keg River sites have been flat or slightly down, though the period of record has been too short to determine if these patterns hold real or statistical significance (Figure 10). The overall average score for both the Notikewin and Keg River sites falls into the “Good” category (85% and 81% overall average score respectively).

Impediments to water quality continue to be driven largely by exceedances for Metals and for Nutrients & Related variables, with only sporadic issues with Pesticides or Bacteria (Figure 11); these sub-index scores closely track the findings of the individual parameter groups discussed previously in this report.

Figure 10. Overall Water Quality Index Scores from all sites, 2011 – 2019. Dashed lines indicate overall linear trend, though the statistical significance of these trends was not determined due to the limited number of years of data available from some sites.

Figure 11. Contributions of sub-indices to Water Quality Index for each site, 2011 – 2019.

4 Discussion

4.1 Routine Parameters

Generally, the waters of both the Notikewin and Keg rivers were fresh, hard, and slightly alkaline. Most routine parameters have shown a high degree of variability between seasons and years. There has been no discernable trend in routine ion concentrations, but the slight downward trend in pH identified in the previous year continues to hold, indicating that water in the rivers are becoming slightly more acidic. pH values are still within the guideline range of 6.5-9.0 with a 2019 average value of 7.74. However, should the downward trend continue, pH may start becoming an impediment to aquatic health in these systems. Elevated acidity can directly influence aquatic organism health especially in early life stages, but can also influence the solubility and toxicity of certain metals such as aluminum, which is abundant but not particularly toxic in particulate form, but extremely detrimental to aquatic life when its solubility is increased at lower pH values (higher acidity). Acidification of natural systems through anthropogenic impacts is a familiar occurrence through acid rain, which has been documented to a certain extent as a result of industrial activities elsewhere in the province and further east. Total suspended solids (TSS) continue to be highest during spring runoff and lower in the fall with substantial variation from year to year. The highest concentrations of TSS appear to be associated with abnormal precipitation or runoff events, such as the extreme values observed in 2014 due to high precipitation occurring just as snowmelt was occurring, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation issues. TSS continues to drive patterns observed with other parameter groups such as nutrients and metals, and appears to be a major driver of impaired water quality within these systems.

4.2 Nutrients

Over the course of the study, exceedances for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were mainly limited to the spring sampling period and appear to be influenced by the influx of particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (either bound to soil particles or in particulate organic matter) from runoff. Concentrations in 2019 were generally within the range of results seen over the historical period, with no overall historical trend discernible; however, there was a reversal of the historical pattern of seasonality, with higher values in the fall than in the spring. The extreme value identified for total nitrogen at Site in 2018 did not recur, suggesting a one-time issue rather than an ongoing problem.

Nutrient concentrations appear to represent one of the primary impediments to surface water quality in both the Notikewin and Keg rivers. The contribution of nutrients is likely due to the influx of soil, sediments, and mineral particulates into the rivers occurring during high runoff events (generally during the spring), given the strong seasonal pattern of nutrient concentrations and exceedances from this sample period.

4.3 Metals

All thirteen metals that have had exceedances over the course of the entire monitoring program exceeded their respective guidelines at least once in 2019. There have been 301 total exceedances of all the metals in all sites throughout the study period. In addition, total exceedances from all sites were the highest in the spring (219) compared to the Fall (82) throughout the study period. In contrast to the historical pattern, higher metal exceedances were observed in the Fall (21) compared to Spring (19) in 2019. This could be due to high precipitation events on July and August. Moreover, Keg River sites had slightly higher (152) metal exceedances than Notikewin River sites (149) over the study period, despite fewer samples having been collected from the Keg River sites over the course of the study.

As concluded in previous years, elevated metal concentrations appear to be driven by sediment loadings into the rivers, and may more broadly reflect issues with erosion (both natural and anthropogenically- induced) and sedimentation rather than metals contamination per se. Metals are also a primary impediment to water quality in these river systems, alongside nutrients.

4.4 Bacteria

Concentrations of total coliforms have generally been low for all sites over the course of the monitoring program but occasional exceedances for E. coli have been observed. For example, both sites in Keg river had higher E. coli concentration during the Fall in 2018 and Site 4 had above guideline in Fall 2019. Concentrations of bacteria at all sites in the spring were generally comparable to historically observed values.

Although bacteria have generally not been a serious concern over the course of the study, the increase in exceedances over the past three years of sampling suggests a potential growing problem. Because of the sporadic nature of bacteria concentrations, there is still a lack of a statistically significant trend in bacterial concentrations, but observations of bacteria should continue to determine if these observations will become a consistent trend in the future. Bacteria are not currently a primary impediment to water quality in these rivers.

4.5 Pesticides

The general category of pesticides includes herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Pesticide use in Alberta is widespread and they are frequently encountered in surface waters due to the high intensity of agricultural activities. Pesticides are frequently of concern in water quality monitoring studies because of the high density of water bodies in the province, their method of application, and the ease with which they may enter surface water bodies.

No detections for any sampled pesticides occurred during 2019. Only four pesticides had been detected over the course of the monitoring program: Malathion and Methidathion in 2012; Glyphosate in 2013, 2014, and 2016; and 2,4-DB in 2017. Although any pesticide detections in watercourses are potentially

©2020 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2019 PAGE 26 concerning, most pesticides have either been below detection limits, and when detected, the magnitude of pesticide exceedances has generally been low. Results from monitoring program indicate that pesticides have little impact on the overall water quality within either the Notikewin or the Keg River systems.

4.6 Overall Water Quality

Water Quality index scores were slightly higher at the Notikewin River sites than the Keg River sites in 2019. Overall Water Quality Index scores were better in 2019 than in 2018, but the historical trend has been for relatively consistent values over the years once high seasonal variability is accounted for. The general seasonal pattern of water quality (lower scores in the spring, higher scores in the fall) was reversed at some sites in 2019. This increase in water quality at the Keg River sites appeared to result from the lower-than-normal precipitation in the month preceding each sampling event as well as over the course of the entire year, while the reversal of the seasonal pattern at the Notikewin River sites in resulted from lower than normal precipitation in the spring and higher than normal precipitation throughout the summer. This supports that the greatest impediments to water quality in these systems are driven by erosion and suspension of soil, sediment, and particulate organic matter that occur during periods of high flows and runoff (typically during the spring). Overall, Water Quality Index scores at the Notikewin River sites have shown a flat- to slightly increasing trend over the course of the study, while at the Keg River have shown a flat- to slightly decreasing trend. Results from the Water Quality Index, both overall and for the individual sub-indices, generally support that these two systems have relatively good water quality. The greatest sources of impairment come from high concentrations of nutrients and metals associated with influxes of sediment.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations Water quality in the Notikewin and Keg rivers have historically displayed strong seasonal patterns, though there were deviations from this pattern in 2019. The general historical trend has been for the poorest water quality to occur in the spring, with improvement and stabilization by fall. Evidence to date from the study suggests that this trend is largely driven by soil and sediment laden runoff, which is generally highest in the spring. Further support for this hypothesis was provided by the overall results from 2019, where high sediment concentrations in the fall drove water quality down in the Notikewin River.

The downward trend in pH has been consistent across sites regardless of the number of years that the site has been included in the study, and may result in impediments to aquatic health in the future through increased metals toxicity or poorer recruitment of aquatic organisms.

Sampling at the four sites is expected to continue in through at least 2021. As observed in the previous year, based on the relatively weak upstream-to-downstream patterns observed for nutrient and metals exceedances, it is unclear whether the primary impediments to water quality are natural, anthropogenic, or a combination of both. If opportunities arise for additional sampling locations to be included in the

©2020 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2019 PAGE 27 study, an expansion of sampling sites upstream beyond the majority of agricultural and human developments in the two rivers would provide additional data to determine the balance between natural and anthropogenic impediments to water quality. This would help to determine whether the sources of these exceedances could be reasonably mitigated through conservation and restoration activities or development of new best management practices, or if they represent a natural condition for the rivers.

Any measures taken to improve water quality within these two basins should focus on controlling sources of sediment into the rivers, especially in areas where human activities have increased the potential for erosion. Sites with bare ground or artificially increased slopes would be prime candidates for investigation, as would the identification of official or unofficial crossings or trail approaches to the rivers. Elevated concentrations of sediments and associated parameters are natural and expected even in the absence of human activities, but these may be exacerbated when there are disturbances around watercourses. Mitigation of anthropogenic impacts should focus of the restoration and maintenance of riparian areas, especially at the margins of fields and linear disturbances where soils are exposed during the spring prior to the onset of the growing season.

7 Bibliography Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2019. Interpolated Weather Data Since for Alberta Townships. Alberta Climate Information Service, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). 2010. ABMI Human Footprint Map (2010 Version 1.1) Vector Digital Data. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). 2015. ABMI Wall-to-wall Land Cover Map 2012 Version 1.0 Vector Digital Data. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment. 1999. Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment. 2005. Overview of Pesticide Data in Alberta Surface Waters Since 1995. Prepared by Anne-Marie Anderson, Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Branch. Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Guide to Reporting on Common Indicators Used in State of the Watershed Reports. October 2012.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014. Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1987. Water quality criteria for Copper: overview report. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2001. Water quality criteria for Aluminum: overview report. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2007. Hardness in Groundwater, Water Stewardship Information Series. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008. Ambient water quality guidelines for Iron. Prepared by B. Phippen, C. Horvath, R. Nordin and N. Nagpal for the Science and Information Branch, Water Stewardship Division, British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2013. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines Summary Tables. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Accessed online at http://st-ts.ccme.ca/.

Depew DC, Burgess NM, Anderson R, Baker RB, Bhavsar SP, Bodaly RA, Eckley CS, Evans MS, Gantner N, Graydon JA, Jacobs K, LeBlanc JE, St. Louis VL, Campbell LM. 2013. An Overview of Mercury Concentrations in Freshwater Fish Species: A National Fish Mercury Dataset for Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70: 1-616.

Environment Canada. 2017a. Real-Time Hydrometric Data for Notikewin River at Manning (07HC001). Water Survey of Canada, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Québec.

Environment Canada. 2017b. Real-Time Hydrometric Data for Keg River at Highway No. 35 (07HF002). Water Survey of Canada, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Québec.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1996. Control of water pollution from agriculture, FAO irrigation and drainage paper 55. Prepared by Edwin D. Ongley, GEMS/Water Collaborating Centre, Canada Centre for Inland Waters for the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of the FAO. Rome, Italy.

Gensemera RW and Playleb RC. 1999. The Bioavailability and Toxicity of Aluminum in Aquatic Environments. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 29(4): 315-450.

Gervais JA, Luukinen B, Buhl K, and Stone D. 2009. Malathion Technical Fact Sheet; National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extension Services. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/malatech.html.

Haynes WM, ed. 2013. "Properties of the Elements and Inorganic Compounds," in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 94th Edition (Internet Version 2014), W. M. Haynes, ed., CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.

Health Canada. 2006a. Total coliforms. Health Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Health Canada. 2006b. E. coli. Health Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Health Canada. 2009. Mercury and Human Health. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Henderson AM, Gervais JA, Luukinen B, Buhl K, Stone D. 2010. Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet; National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extension Services. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf.

IPCS (1998) Copper. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 200).

Monsanto International sarl and Monsanto Eurioe sa. 2010. The agronomic benefits of glyphosate in Europe – Benefits of glyphosate per market use – REVIEW. 82 pp. Monsanto International sarl and Monsanto Eurioe sa.

UMA Engineering. 2007. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control in Irrigation Canals Report. Report prepared for Alberta Agriculture and Food. Lethbridge, Alberta.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2002. Methidathion Facts. EPA 738-F-01-007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution. Accessed online at http://water.epa.gov/.

Schindler DW. 2006. Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography 51(1.2):356–363.

Sharpley AN, Daniel T, Sims T, Lemunyon J, Stevens R, and Parry R. 2003. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication, Second Edition. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Pennsylvania.

Tu M, Hurd C, and Randall JM. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook. The Nature Conservancy. Online at http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html.

Vance DB. 1994. Iron - the environmental impact of a universal element. National Environmental Journal 4(3):24-25.

Appendix A - Detailed Water Quality Parameter Lists

Routine Water Quality Parameters

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) • Turbidity • Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) • Alkalinity, Partial (as CaCO3) - • Bicarbonate (HCO3 ) 2- • Carbonate (CO3 ) • Chloride (Cl-) • Conductivity (EC) • Hardness (as CaCO3) • Hydroxide (OH-) • Ion Balance • pH - • Sulfate (SO4 )

Nutrient Water Quality Parameters

• Ammonia (NH3 as N) - • Nitrate (NO3 as N) - • Nitrite (NO2 as N) - - • Nitrate and Nitrite (NO3 - NO2 as N) • Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) • Total Nitrogen (TN) • Phosphorus (P)-Total Dissolved (TDP) • Phosphorus (P)-Total (TP)

Bacteria Water Quality Parameters

• E. coli • Total Coliforms

Pesticides Water Quality Parameters

• 2,4,5-T • DDE-p,p' • Malaoxon • Terbufos • 2,4,5-TP • DDT-o,p' • Malathion • Terbuthylazine • 2,4-D • DDT-p,p' • MCPA • Terbutryn • 2,4-DB • Deethylatrazine • MCPB • Tetrachlorvinphos • 3-Hydroxycarbofuran • Deisopropylatrazine • Mecoprop • Tetradifon • Alachlor • Demeton • Metalaxyl • Tolyfluanid • Aldicarb • Diallate • Methidathion • Triadimefon • Aldicarb sulfone • Diazinon • Methiocarb • Triallate • Aldicarb sulfoxide • Dicamba • Methomyl • Triclopyr • Aldrin • Dichlobenil • Methoxychlor • Trifluralin • Aspon • Dichlofenthion • Methyl Parathion • Vinclozolin • Atrazine • Dichlofluanid • Metolachlor • Azinphos methyl • Dichlorprop • Metoxuron • Azinphos-ethyl • Diclofop-methyl • Metribuzin • Bendiocarb • Dieldrin • Mevinphos • Benfluralin • Dimethoate • Mirex • BHC (alpha isomer) • Dinoseb • Monolinuron • BHC (beta isomer) • Diphenylamine • Nitrofen • BHC (delta isomer) • Disulfoton • Oxamyl • BPMC • Diuron • Parathion • Bromacil • Endosulfan I • Permethrin-cis • Bromophos • Endosulfan II • Permethrin-trans • Bromophos-ethyl • Endosulfan sulfate • Phorate • Bromoxynil • Endrin • Phosalone • Butylate • Eptam (EPTC) • Phosmet • Captan • Ethalfluralin • Phosphamidon • Carbaryl • Ethion • Picloram • Carbofuran • Fenchlorphos • Pirimicarb • Carbophenothion • Fenitrothion • Pirimiphos-ethyl • Chlorbenside • Fenoxaprop-ethyl • Pirimiphos-methyl • Chlordane-cis • Fenthion • Profenofos • Chlordane-trans • Fenuron • Profluralin • Chlorfenson • Fluazifop-p-butyl • Promecarb • Chlorfenvinphos • Folpet • Prometryn • Chlormephos • Fonofos • Propachlor • Chlorothalonil • Glyphosate • Propazine • Chlorotoluron • Heptachlor • Propiconazole • Chlorpropham • Heptachlor Epoxide • Propoxur • Chlorpyrifos • Hexachlorobenzene • Propyzamide • Chlorpyrifos-methyl • Hexazinone • Pyrazophos • Chlorthal-dimethyl • Imazamox • Quinalophos • Chlorthiophos • Imazapyr • Quintozene • Clopyralid • Imazethapyr • Quizalofop-ethyl • Cyanazine • Imidacloprid • Simazine • Cyanophos • Isofenphos • Simetryn • DDD-o,p' • Isoproturon • Sulfotep • DDD-p,p' • Lindane • Tebuthiuron • DDE-o,p' • Linuron • Tecnazene

Metals Water Quality Parameters

Both total and dissolved forms were analyzed for all metals.

• Aluminum (Al) • Antimony (Sb) • Arsenic (As) • Barium (Ba) • Beryllium (Be) • Bismuth Dissolved (mg/L) • Boron (B) • Cadmium (Cd) • Calcium (Ca) • Chromium (Cr) • Cobalt (Co) • Copper (Cu) • Iron (Fe) • Lead (Pb) • Lithium (Li) • Magnesium (Mg) • Manganese (Mn) • Mercury (Hg) • Molybdenum (Mo) • Nickel (Ni) • Potassium (K) • Selenium (Se) • Silicon Dissolved (mg/L) • Silver (Ag) • Sodium (Na) • Strontium Dissolved (mg/L) • Sulfur Dissolved (mg/L) • Thallium (Tl) • Tin (Sn) • Titanium (Ti) • Uranium (U) • Vanadium (V) • Zinc (Zn) • Zirconium (Zr)

Appendix B - River Water Quality Index Calculations

Overview

Water quality sampling programs frequently provide a large number of measurements of a wide range of parameters. While investigation of individual parameters can prove useful in some circumstances, it is frequently desirable to get an overall picture of water quality across all variables, or across several related subsets of variables.

The Province of Alberta calculates the Alberta River Water Quality Index (AESRD, 2012) annually for its Long-Term River Network monitoring stations, providing an overall index of water quality, as well as sub- indices of water quality for Bacteria, Nutrients and Related Parameters, Metals and Ions, and Pesticides. Their methodology includes measures of:

• The number of variables that exceed guidelines (F1, breadth or generality of exceedances), • The number of individual tests that exceed guidelines (F2, frequency of exceedances), and • A measure of the overall deviations from guidelines (F3, magnitude of exceedances)

The Index provides a score out of 100 points, where higher numbers indicated better water quality.

Aquality has extended the Province’s methods to yield a more general index of water quality that can potentially include a greater number of parameters, customization of guideline definitions (since many have changed since the last time the ARWQI was updated), and customization of parameter groups/sub- indices.

Because it aggregates information from a wide range of measurements, the Water Quality Index loses detail compared to a presentation of raw results. However, it also simplifies presentation, and can be used to indicate broad groupings of parameters for which significant problems exist (when the individual sub- index values are examined), or to indicate particular sampling locations or seasons where significant problems exist.

Our calculations follow the same structure as those of the ARWQI, which are briefly summarized below (Alberta Environment, 2008).

The overall index is calculated as:

퐹2 + 퐹2 + 퐹2 Index Score = 100 − (√ 1 2 3 ) 3

Which is equivalent to 100%, less the geometric mean of the 3 measures of exceedance.

F1 measures the proportion of variables that exceed objectives at least once, within a given sampling period and at a given location: 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푓푎푖푙푒푑 푣푎푟푖푎푏푙푒푠 퐹 = ( ) × 100 1 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푣푎푟푖푎푏푙푒푠

F2 measures the proportion of individual measurements that exceed objectives, within a given sampling period and at a given location: 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푓푎푖푙푒푑 푚푒푎푠푢푟푒푚푒푛푡푠 퐹 = ( ) × 100 2 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푚푒푎푠푢푟푒푚푒푛푡푠

F3 measures the overall amount by which measurements exceed objectives: 푛푠푒 퐹 = ( ) × 100 3 푛푠푒 + 1 Where nse is equal to the sum of departures from guidelines, divided by the total number of measurements: 푠푢푚 표푓 푑푒푝푎푟푡푢푟푒푠 푛푠푒 = 푡표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푚푒푎푠푢푟푒푚푒푛푡푠

In this case, departures are measured as the number of times by which a given measurement exceeds the objective.

Objectives Used in the Water Quality Index

Objectives used in the index calculations to determine departures or deviations are generally based upon the most stringent of all available water quality guidelines from the Alberta Environmental Quality Guidelines for Surface Water (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2014) and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME CEQG FAL; CCME 2013). The Alberta Surface Water Quality Guidelines (Alberta Environment 1999) were used for nutrient parameters due to a lack of updated site-specific water quality objectives for the basin.

In some instances, especially for many pesticides, no guideline exists. The approach adopted in the current method, modified from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s methodology (AESRD 2012), is to use the detection limit for a given parameter as the objective. This is a conservative approach, essentially stating that without a rigorously developed guideline, any detectable concentration of a given compound is taken to be a failed condition. This approach was largely used for pesticide parameters; in the current study, where the only detected pesticides had defined guidelines, this approach made no difference to the overall results.