Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2018 the County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2018 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

March 15, 2019

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

NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2018 PAGE 1

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2018 The County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Signature Page

Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:

Joshua Haag, B.Sc., P.Biol. Jay S. White, M.Sc., P.Biol. Biologist Senior Biologist and Principal

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 ...... 27 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 2018 and historical locations...... 6 Figure 2. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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...... 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 Figure 4. Summary of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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. ... 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. Summary of Total Coliforms at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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 8. Summary of E. coli at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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 9. Overall Water Quality Index Scores from all sites, 2011 – 2018. 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 10. Contributions of sub-indices to over Water Quality Index for each site, 2011 – 2018...... 23

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample sites in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, 2018...... 5 Table 2. Average air temperature and total precipitation conditions for Peace River (Climate ID 3075040) from 1983 to 2018 compared to 2018. Data from Environment Canada (2017)...... 8 Table 3. Metals concentrations (in mg/L) for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2018. 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 2018 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.

Sampling locations and the numbers of samples collected per year have varied over the course of the study to accommodate program budgets. In 2018, 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 02 May and 10 September, 2018. 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 1and 4) and Keg (Sites 5 and 6) rivers (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1. Sample sites in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, 2018. Site Description Site Location Years Sampled Latitude Longitude Upstream of the Town of Manning 1 just east of the White/Green Area 56.896° N -117.706° W 2011 – 2018 boundary Approximately 0.5 km upstream of 4 the confluence of the Notikewin 57.277° N -117.136° W 2011 – 2018 and Peace Rivers Keg River near Keg River 5 57.746° N -117.620° W 2013 – 2018 (unincorporated area) Keg River near end of Township 6 57.795° N -117.887° W 2015 – 2018 Road 104A

Figure 1. Water quality monitoring program sample sites, including 2018 and historical locations.

2.2 Water Quality Parameters

Surface water samples 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 Section 0: Appendix A - Detailed Water Quality Parameter Lists. All parameters were sampled at every collection event in 2017.

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 2018 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. 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) is at Peace River, approximately 80 km south of the Town of Manning (Table 2).

2018 was overall slightly cooler and had slightly less precipitation than the historical averages; however, March and July had higher precipitation than those periods in the historical record.

Table 2. Average air temperature and total precipitation conditions for Peace River (Climate ID 3075040) from 1983 to 2018 compared to 2018. Data from Environment Canada (2017). Average Average Minimum Average Maximum Total Precipitation Month Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) (mm) Historical 2018 Historical 2018 Historical 2018 Historical 2018 Jan -14.2 -14.4 -19.2 -19.3 -9.1 -9.6 21.6 15.0 Feb -11.6 -16.4 -17.0 -22.7 -6.1 -10.0 14.6 8.6 Mar -5.8 -9.1 -11.4 -14.9 -0.2 -3.2 16.2 25.8 Apr 3.8 -1.3 -2.3 -7.6 9.8 5.0 19.7 9.2 May 10.1 13.8 3.3 5.8 16.8 21.8 43.2 6.4 Jun 14.4 14.7 8.1 8.6 20.7 20.8 70.7 75.6 Jul 16.4 16.1 9.9 9.8 22.8 22.5 60.6 81.4 Aug 15.1 15.1 8.4 8.0 21.8 22.2 42.8 21.6 Sep 9.9 4.2 3.4 -1.6 16.3 10.1 40.4 24.0 Oct 2.8 2.1 -2.5 -4.1 8.1 8.2 24.6 5.2 Nov -7.8 -7.0 -12.3 -11.4 -3.3 -2.7 21.9 22.8 Dec -13.1 -11.7 -18.1 -16.6 -8.1 -6.7 18.1 24.0 Annual 1.7 0.6 -4.2 -5.4 7.5 6.6 394.4 319.6

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, 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 2018, and the values fell within the EQGASW guideline range of 6.5 to 9.0 for all sites and seasons (Figure 2; Table 3). Values exhibited a minor but statistically significant seasonal fluctuation, likely due to inputs of lower pH water during the springtime from snowmelt. pH levels have shown a decreasing trend over the course of the study, with levels having declined by approximately 0.05 per year across all sites.

Figure 2. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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.

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

Overall concentrations of these ions as well as their individual components were generally at or below historical averages in 2018. As in previous years, a seasonal trend was apparent, with higher concentrations in the fall than in the spring. This is generally believed to be a consequence of both high volumes of low concentration runoff during the spring, as well as evaporative concentration of solutes over the course of the summer and into the fall.

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 large variation from year to year. 2018 values were the second highest measured across all sites. Concentrations were higher in the spring at all sites except for Site 5. This seasonal pattern in TSS is the result of high runoff volumes occurring during the spring freshet.

Figure 4. Summary of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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.

3.2 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 historical values in 2018 across all sites (Figure 5). Concentrations of nitrogen were slightly above guidelines at all sites during the spring, and above guidelines at the Keg River sites in the fall, but below guidelines at the Notikewin River sites in the fall. ,. TN did not exhibit the seasonality generally shown in most previous years, as the general trend had been for concentrations to be highest in the spring and lowest in the fall.

Dissolved forms of nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite) generally made up an insignificant fraction of total nitrogen, indicating that most sources of nitrogen entering both systems are either bound to soil particles or contained within suspended organic particulate matter.

The spring sample for total nitrogen at Site 5 was excluded from the analysis as an extreme outlier due to potential contamination with the incorrect preservative, as it was nearly 10 times the largest value previously seen at any site (>40mg/L), and did not have any elevated concentrations of parameters generally correlated with high nitrogen (e.g. total phosphorus or suspended solids). 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 2018, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were above the guideline of 0.05 mg/L at all sites in the spring, and at both Keg River sites in the fall (Figure 6). The seasonal pattern of concentrations were in line with historical trends, with concentrations higher in the spring than in the fall.

Overall concentrations in 2018 were the highest or second highest observed over the course of the study, with only the anomalously high concentrations observed in 2014 surpassing the current year.

Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations made up a minor component of total phosphorus in most cases; TDP was only dominant in the fall at the Notikewin River sites, but overall concentrations at that time were well below guidelines.

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).

Water samples were analyzed for 34 different metals. 11 metals exceeded their respective guidelines on at least one occasion (Table 3), and included Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc. Exceedances for all of these except for iron, nickel, and silver occurred at all sites in the spring and at all sites on the Keg River but none on the Notikewin River in the fall.

The overall number of metal exceedances increased substantially from that seen in 2017 (58 compared to 18 in the previous year). Exceedances were more common overall in the spring, but this was largely due to the absence of exceedances in the Notikewin River in the fall; a greater number of exceedances occurred in the fall in the Keg River (20 compared to 18 in the spring), and the magnitude of exceedances did not vary between the spring and fall at the Keg River sites.

Concentrations were generally dominated by particulate forms, with only minor contributions of dissolved forms of each metal. The high rate of exceedances at the Keg River in the fall may be explained by the higher than normal concentrations of suspended solids observed at that time, as soil and other particles are high concentration sources of particulate metals.

Table 3. Metals concentrations (in mg/L) for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2018. 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 Thallium Uranium 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 0.0008 0.015 0.03 2018 Fall 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 0.0008 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 0.001 0.003 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 0.00016 0.0019 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 0.00015 0.002 0.049 Spring 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 0.00028 0.0023 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 0.00024 0.0021 0.1 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 0.00017 0.0014 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 0.00013 0.0012 0.042 2018 Fall SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.0006 0 0 0.0001 0.001 0.02 0.0001 0 0.0021 0 0 0 0.0011 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 0.0013 0.001 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 0.0026 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 0.0032 0.005 Spring 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 0.00008 0.0009 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 0.00006 0.0009 0.016 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 0.00007 0.0023 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 0.00006 0.0018 0.019 2016 Fall 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 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 0 0.004 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 0.0011 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 0.0014 0.006 Spring 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 0 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 0.0007 0.006 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 0.0009 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 0.0024 0.006 2015 Fall 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 0.000436 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 0.00066 0 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 0.000013 0.00215 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 0.000012 0.00153 0.0051 Spring 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 0.000083 0.000766 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 0.000094 0.000962 0.0474 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 0.000065 0.00145 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 0.00006 0.00143 0.0255 2014 Fall 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 0.00108 0 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0 0.00069 0 0 0 0.0016 0 0 0 0.0029 0 0 0 0.00104 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 0.00366 0.0088 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW Spring 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 0.00057 0.00477 0.256 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 0.0006 0.00587 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 0.00043 0.0032 0.178 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 2013 Fall 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 0.00084 0 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0063 0.00068 0.000012 0 0 0.0016 0.062 0 0 0.0027 0 0 0 0.00097 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 0.00242 0.0091 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW Spring 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 0.00013 0.00112 0.0607 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 0.00038 0.00362 0.214 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 2012 Fall SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.00049 0.000124 0 0 0.0026 0 0.0012 0 0.0039 0 0.00011 0 0.00143 0.111 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE SITE 5 - KEG RIVER SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW Spring 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 0.00014 0.0012 0.0492 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 0.00019 0.00176 0.0748 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 2011 Fall SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.0014 0.19 0.00019 0 0.0031 0 0 0 0.00089 0 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0 0.00104 0 0 0 0.0013 0.42 0.00019 0 0.0026 0 0 0 0.00087 0 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW

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.

Total coliforms exceeded the guidance limit (1000 MPN/100 mL) once at Site 5 during the fall, though the concentration at Site 6 was also elevated at that time (Figure 7). Concentrations at the two sites on the Notikewin River were below seasonal and historical averages during Figure 7. Summary of Total Coliforms at all sites. both the spring and the fall sampling periods. Top: bars represent 2018 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.

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 the spring and at both Notikewin River sites during the fall, but were above guidelines at both Keg River sites during the fall (Figure 8); concentrations were elevated above seasonal values at the Notikewin sites in the fall but still below guidelines. Historically, E. coli levels have been low, with the first exceedance occurring at Site 4 in 2017. (Figure 8).

There has not been a consistent seasonal or spatial trend for either total coliforms or E. coli, with similar ranges of concentrations in levels between seasons and years.

Figure 8. Summary of E. coli at all sites. Top: bars represent 2018 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 155 herbicides and pesticides in 2018, with only four having been detected across all years of sampling across all sites (Table 4). No detections of any pesticides were observed in 2018.

Table 4. Pesticide detections in the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2018 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 ug/L Glyphosate ug/L Malathion mg/L Methidathion mg/L EQGASW 25 65 0.1 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

Water quality index calculations were separately performed for sites and seasons to identify spatial and temporal trends in overall water quality. Results were calculated for four groups of parameters (Nutrients and Related Compounds, Bacteria, Metals, and Pesticides), as well as a combined overall score. Results are presented for overall scores only, as sub-index scores closely track the findings of the individual parameter groups discussed previously in this report.

Water Quality Index Scores in the spring of 2018 were the second poorest on record, with only 2014 values in the spring having been lower (Figure 9). Scores at the Notikewin River sites improved by the fall (with scores of 100%), but had actually declined at the Keg River sites. The only other time that fall WQI scores in the fall were lower than in the spring was in 2016 at Site 5 on the Keg River.

Over the entire monitoring program, WQI scores have shown a slight increasingly trend for the two Notikewin River sites; the trend has been flat or in a downward trend at the two Keg River sites, but the period of record has been too short to determine if these are real patterns (Figure 9). The overall average score for the two Notikewin River sites falls into the “Good” category (82% overall average score), while the overall scores for the Keg river fall into the “Fair” category (75% overall average score).

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 10).

Figure 9. Overall Water Quality Index Scores from all sites, 2011 – 2018. 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 10. Contributions of sub-indices to over Water Quality Index for each site, 2011 – 2018.

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 sufficient data are now available to suggest a declining trend in pH, 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 2018 average value of 7.63. 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.

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 2018 were generally within the range of results seen over the historical period, with no overall historical trend discernible, though at most sites both nitrogen and phosphorus were slightly above historical averages. One sample for total nitrogen (at Site 5 in the spring) was excluded from the analysis as an outlier due to an extremely high measured concentration, but data from that site will be carefully scrutinized in the future to determine if there is any evidence that it may have been a real result.

Because of the generally low concentrations of nutrients outside of the spring freshet period, and the dominance of non-biologically (particulate) forms of nutrients at those times, there currently appears to be limited risk of eutrophication of the Notikewin and Keg rivers. Data from Site 5 should be carefully scrutinized in future study years to determine if the outlier value for total nitrogen excluded from the 2018 analysis may have actually been a valid result; if it is determined to be valid by sustained high concentrations in future years, then determining the source of nitrogen entering upstream of that location should be a priority.

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

©2019 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2018 PAGE 25 the spring), given the strong seasonal pattern of nutrient concentrations and exceedances from this sample period.

4.3 Metals

Eleven metals exceeded their respective guidelines in 2018, out of a total of 13 metals that have had exceedances over the course of the entire monitoring program. Exceedances were highest in the spring at the Notikewin River sites, in agreement with the historical pattern, but were highest in the Fall at the Keg River sites. Concentrations of suspended solids were elevated at the Keg River sites in the fall, suggesting that high precipitation preceding the sampling event brought higher than normal volumes of sediment-laden water into the system at that time.

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- induce) and sedimentation rather than metals contamination per se. This is further supported by the elevated rates of exceedances in the Keg River in the fall, as concentrations are generally lower during the fall but were driven higher by increased sediments in runoff. Metals are also a primary impediment to water quality in these river systems, alongside nutrients.

4.4 Bacteria

Concentrations of total coliforms and E. coli have generally been low for all sites over the course of the monitoring program, and this pattern largely held during 2018. Concentrations at the all sites in the spring and at the Notikewin River sites in the fall were generally comparable to historically-observed values. However, concentrations at the Keg River sites were elevated in the fall, at the same time that elevated sediment and metals concentrations were observed.

Although bacteria have generally not been a serious concern over the course of the study, the increase in exceedances over the past two years of sampling suggests the potential that they are a growing problem. 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.

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. No detections for any

©2019 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2018 PAGE 26 sampled pesticides occurred during 2018. Although any pesticide detections in watercourses are potentially 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

Overall water quality in 2018 was somewhat more variable than in previous years. Water Quality index scores at the Notikewin River sites were the second-poorest observed over the study during the spring (68% average, “Fair”), but increased to completely unimpeded (100% average, “Excellent”) by the fall. On the other hand, while scores were also the second poorest observed the two Keg River sites in the spring (70% average, “Fair”), they had declined further by the fall (56% average, “Marginal”). Given how quickly the changes in quality occurred (relative to the expected seasonal pattern), it is believed that the observed results at the Keg River sites in the fall were the result of storm events that had occurred regionally in the several days preceding the sampling event. The reason for the differences between the Notikewin and Keg River sites at that time is unclear, but it may relate to the physiographic and land use conditions that have generally resulted in poorer water quality in the Keg River in the fall historically.

Overall, Water Quality Index scores at the Notikewin River sites have shown a slight increasing trend over the course of the study. Due to fewer years of data available, trends in scores at the Keg River sites are more difficult to draw conclusions about, though current trends indicate either a flat or 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 soil, sediment, and particulate organic matter that occur during the spring period.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations Water quality in the Notikewin and Keg rivers have historically displayed strong seasonal patterns, and this trend has largely continued in 2018 with some exceptions. 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 2018, where high sediment concentrations in the fall drove water quality down in the Keg River.

Several potential troubling patterns have emerged in the data, though it remains to be seen whether these will become consistent trends, or were the result of uncommon environmentally conditions. High concentrations of sediments in the fall in the Keg River were outside of the seasonal pattern normally observed, and were associated with elevated metal, nutrient, and bacteria exceedances. 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.

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 (e.g. sites with bare ground or artificially increased slopes ). 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.

Sampling at the four extant sites is expected to continue in 2019 – 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 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.

7 Bibliography 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.