Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2017 the County of Northern Lights and the North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA)

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2017 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 12, 2018

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

NOTIKEWIN AND KEG RIVERS WATER QUALITY 2017 PAGE 1

Notikewin and Keg Rivers Water Quality Monitoring Program 2017 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. Corey Stefura, B.Sc. P.Biol. Senior Biologist Senior Aquatic Biologist, Operations Manager

Contents

Table of Contents

Contents ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 3 List of Tables ...... 4 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Methods ...... 6 2.1 Sampling Sites ...... 6 2.2 Water Quality Parameters ...... 8 2.3 River Water Quality Index Calculations ...... 8 2.4 Background Climate and Flow Information ...... 9 2.4.1 Climate Information ...... 9 2.4.2 River Flow Information ...... 9 3 Results ...... 11 3.1 Routine Water Quality...... 11 3.1.1 pH ...... 11 3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...... 13 3.1.3 Hardness ...... 13 3.2 Nutrients ...... 14 3.2.1 Total Nitrogen (TN) ...... 14 3.2.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) ...... 15 3.3 Metals ...... 18 3.4 Bacteria ...... 20 3.5 Herbicides and Pesticides ...... 22 3.6 River Water Quality Index ...... 24 4 Discussion ...... 26 4.1 Routine ...... 26 4.2 Nutrients ...... 26 4.3 Metals ...... 27 4.4 Bacteria ...... 28 4.5 Pesticides ...... 28 4.6 Overall Water Quality ...... 29 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 31 6 References ...... 32 Appendix A - Detailed Water Quality Parameter Lists...... 35 Routine Water Quality Parameters ...... 35 Nutrient Water Quality Parameters ...... 35 Bacteria Water Quality Parameters ...... 35 Pesticides Water Quality Parameters ...... 36 Metals Water Quality Parameters ...... 37 Appendix B - River Water Quality Index Calculations ...... 38 Overview ...... 38 Objectives Used in the Water Quality Index ...... 39

List of Figures Figure 1. Water quality monitoring program sample sites, including 2017 and historical locations...... 7 Figure 2. Notikewin River levels in 2017. From Water Survey of Canada (Gauging Station 07HC001; Environment Canada, 2017a)...... 10 Figure 3. Keg River levels in 2017. From Water Survey of Canada (Gauging Station 07HF002; Environment Canada 2017b)...... 10 Figure 3. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 11 Figure 5. Summary of total suspended solids (mg/L). Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 13 Figure 4. Summary of surface water hardness (mg/L CaCO3). Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 14 Figure 6. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year...... 15 Figure 7. Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year...... 15 Figure 8. Total Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year...... 16 Figure 9. Total Coliforms in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year...... 20 Figure 10. E. coli in the surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year...... 21

List of Tables

Table 1. Sample sites in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, 2017...... 6 Table 2. Average air temperature and total precipitation conditions for Peace River (Climate ID 3075040) from 1983 to 2017 compared to 2017. Data from Environment Canada (2017)...... 9 Table 3. Summary of routine water quality parameters for sites on the Notikewin River and Keg River in samples taken in 2011 – 2017. ns = not sampled ...... 12 Table 4. Summary of nutrient parameters for sites on the Notikewin River and Keg River in samples taken in 2011 – 2017...... 17 Table 5. Metals concentrations for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2017. Only metals with at least one historical exceedance are included. Highlighted values indicate a guideline exceedance. bdl = below detection limits ...... 19 Table 6. Pesticide detections in the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2017. bdl = below detection limits; ns = not sampled...... 23 Table 7. River water quality ranking categories...... 24 Table 8. Water Quality Index and sub-index scores from all sites, 2011 to 2017. Grey shaded values were not analyzed due to exceedance of hold times for these parameters...... 25

1 Introduction In October 2011, the County of Northern Lights (“the County”) and the North Peace Applied Research Association (“NPARA”) retained Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. (“Aquality”) to design and carry out a pilot water quality study on the Notikewin River. 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 Notikewin River. The results of the study provided a basis for more comprehensive monitoring by identifying candidate sites and determining parameters of interest for future water quality monitoring.

In 2012, the study continued, and four sites were monitored during the Spring, Early Summer, Late Summer, and Fall, to determine if the results from 2011 were representative and to determine the seasonal patterns of various parameters. Sampling continued at the same sites in 2013, with the addition of a single site on the Keg River to provide a comparison between the two rivers. A reduced subset of sites and seasons was selected in 2014, to reduce the overall cost of the monitoring program. Based on seasonal and spatial trends observed from 2011 to 2014, only Site 1 (at the Green – White Area boundary) and Site 4 (at the confluence with the Peace River) on the Notikewin River and the Keg River site were selected. Sampling of the full suite of parameters was reduced to twice per year in the Spring and Fall, based on seasonal patterns observed in previous years. In 2015, a second sampling site was added on the Keg River, bringing the total number of sampling site to four. In 2016, sampling continued with the two sites on the Notikewin and two on the Keg, with samples collected during the Spring, Summer, and Fall. Summer sampling was conducted following regional summer storm events. Sampling in 2017 continued at the same sites and frequencies as in 2016 to continue monitoring for any significant issues or changes within the two river systems.

2 Methods The surface water quality sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers were sampled on 02 May, 26 July, and 30 October, 2017. 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, 2017. 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 – 2017 boundary Approximately 0.5 km upstream of 4 the confluence of the Notikewin 57.277° N -117.136° W 2011 – 2017 and Peace Rivers Keg River near Keg River 5 57.746° N -117.620° W 2013 – 2017 (unincorporated area) Keg River near end of Township 6 57.795° N -117.887° W 2015 – 2017 Road 104A

Figure 1. Water quality monitoring program sample sites, including 2017 and historical locations.

2.2 Water Quality Parameters

Surface water quality was sampled at two sites on the Notikewin River and two sites on the Keg River. The suite of analyses included:

• 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 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 modification version of the Alberta River Water Quality Index was applied to the 2017 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 Background Climate and Flow Information

2.4.1 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).

2017 was overall slightly warmer and had slightly less precipitation than the historical averages; however, April and May 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 2017 compared to 2017. Data from Environment Canada (2017). Average Average Minimum Average Maximum Total Precipitation Month Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) (mm) Historical 2017 Historical 2017 Historical 2017 Historical 2017 Jan -14.3 -10.2 -19.3 -15.1 -9.2 -5.3 22.0 10.1 Feb -11.6 -10.0 -17.0 -14.7 -6.1 -5.3 14.5 17.4 Mar -5.7 -8.1 -11.3 -13.8 -0.1 -1.9 16.5 6.0 Apr 3.8 2.6 -2.3 -2.6 9.9 7.7 19.5 26.0 May 10.0 11.9 3.2 4.9 16.7 18.8 42.5 66.6 Jun 14.4 15.0 8.1 7.9 20.6 22.0 71.4 47.4 Jul 16.4 16.5 10.0 9.4 22.8 23.7 61.6 28.0 Aug 15.1 16.2 8.3 8.6 21.7 23.7 43.1 31.8 Sep 9.8 11.0 3.4 3.4 16.3 18.5 41.0 20.0 Oct 2.8 3.1 -2.5 -2.7 8.1 8.7 24.4 28.7 Nov -7.7 -12.3 -12.2 -17.3 -3.2 -7.3 21.5 37.2 Dec -13.2 -10.2 -18.2 -15.0 -8.2 -5.3 18.6 2.0 Annual 1.6 2.3 -4.2 -3.9 7.4 8.3 396.5 321.2

2.4.2 River Flow Information Environment Canada’s Water Survey of Canada maintains one hydrometric station on the Notikewin River at the Town of Manning (Station number 07HC001) and one on the Keg River at Highway 35 (Station number 07HF002).

Levels on both the Notikewin and Keg Rivers peaked in mid-May following snow melt and higher than average precipitation in May (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Levels largely declined from that point onwards throughout the season, with the exception of a few storm events causing transient peaks. Based on comparisons to historical levels and flows from Alberta Environment and Parks (2017), flows in both rivers were below seasonal expectations throughout most of the summer and fall.

Figure 2. Notikewin River levels in 2017. From Water Survey of Canada (Gauging Station 07HC001; Environment Canada, 2017a).

Figure 3. Keg River levels in 2017. From Water Survey of Canada (Gauging Station 07HF002; Environment Canada 2017b).

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 can be indicative of certain land-use practices. 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 2017, and the values fell within the EQGASW guideline range of 6.5 to 9.0 for all sites and seasons (Figure 4; Table 3). Values exhibited a minor seasonal fluctuation, likely due to inputs of lower pH water during the springtime from snowmelt. Values remained consistent with previous year’s results and have not shown a consistent trend from year to year. Overall, pH values in 2017 were slightly below historical averages, likely driven by the abnormally low precipitation and water levels through the latter half of the year.

Figure 4. Summary of surface water pH at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

Table 3. Summary of routine water quality parameters for sites on the Notikewin River and Keg River in samples taken in 2011 – 2017. ns = not sampled Year Season Site pH Hardness (mg/L) Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Conductivity (µS/cm) Calcium -Total (mg/L) Iron -Total (mg/L) Magnesium -Total (mg/L) Sodium -Total (mg/L) Potassium -Total (mg/L) 2017 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.50 186 3 280 2.0 434 51.9 0.49 12.6 19.8 1.4 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.66 209 0 320 5.5 509 60.5 0.14 14.8 34.7 1.9 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.81 223 8 340 3.8 530 65.5 1.52 16.2 36.7 3.1 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.83 278 7 446 3.1 662 81.1 1.93 19.5 47.0 2.6 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.85 54 149 140 0.9 140 22.8 7.33 5.9 3.6 1.6 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.77 99 115 142 0.9 200 30.9 5.09 7.7 6.4 1.6 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.08 167 12 278 1.8 405 49.8 1.68 11.8 28.4 2.2 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.90 104 14 226 1.2 286 36.2 1.72 8.5 17.9 1.4 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.76 100 179 170 1.1 229 31.0 7.57 8.5 8.4 3.7 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.84 115 112 140 2.9 281 34.2 4.49 9.2 14.5 3.6 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.97 130 117 220 3.4 362 38.6 8.06 10.3 28.4 3.3 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.89 112 161 192 2.0 311 34.1 6.74 9.1 24.8 2.8 2016 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.23 110 0 160 1.1 205 29.0 1.27 7.0 5.8 0.8 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.32 87 0 178 1.5 234 31.8 1.20 7.7 10.1 1.0 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.60 120 27 180 1.6 280 33.7 2.31 8.0 20.4 1.4 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.71 144 0 232 1.5 333 41.0 2.19 9.7 22.4 1.5 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.53 130 0 200 0.9 277 36.6 1.19 9.5 9.4 1.1 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.28 100 0 220 1.7 302 38.8 0.69 9.3 12.8 1.2 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.27 240 12 370 3.3 543 70.8 3.00 17.2 28.4 2.7 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 8.14 293 14 440 1.9 641 86.6 2.98 20.9 31.6 2.7 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.20 70 20 104 1.0 161 20.8 2.35 4.9 5.6 1.4 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.69 96 17 160 1.0 221 29.6 2.92 7.7 10.0 2.3 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.50 100 18 170 3.6 273 29.3 2.04 7.0 14.3 9.3 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.95 157 7 280 1.9 493 43.0 2.55 11.9 52.3 3.8 2015 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.13 116 0 195 0.94 290 34.9 0.856 9.54 11.8 1.06 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.24 142 4.4 261 2.49 402 43.4 0.617 11.3 23.0 1.45 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.25 164 18.4 304 1.27 435 42.3 2.17 11.2 26.7 2.22 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 8.28 155 7.7 299 1.16 441 47.0 1.90 12.0 29.6 1.96 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.81 83.2 274 163 0 168 22.7 8.34 6.44 4.31 2.57 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.79 97 330 171 0.55 201 26.5 9.90 7.49 8.38 2.89 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.95 97.1 176 207 0.95 280 26.5 7.04 7.53 20.3 2.75 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 7.93 100 178 199 0.69 265 28.3 6.18 7.2 18.5 2.59 2014 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.32 180 17.6 285 1.22 412 53.9 0.489 14.2 17.5 1.64 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.34 185 0 320 5.1 472 56.3 0.09 14.5 30.6 1.97 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.44 227 31.9 387 5.61 573 65.1 2.43 18.8 39.8 3.17 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.28 91.3 3290 168 0 185 55.8 58.9 19.2 4.1 7.35 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.36 104 3990 192 0.78 213 57.8 71.6 20.5 9.1 8.62 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.23 72.7 1870 96 0.66 167 33.1 42.0 10.5 7.6 6.31 2013 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY ns 167 ns ns ns ns 49.6 0.469 12.5 16.3 1.22 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE ns 195 ns ns ns ns 54.6 0.346 13.7 21.4 1.47 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER ns 224 ns ns ns ns 56.6 2.09 14.0 27.2 1.83 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.02 156 0 263 0 327 45.8 1.01 11.2 9.6 1.07 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.07 158 0 286 1.65 365 47.1 0.782 11.8 16.3 1.27 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.12 206 8 333 0.93 464 60.3 2.18 14.0 21.6 1.71 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.04 131 ns ns 0 284 37.9 1.36 9.06 8.1 1.36 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.15 127 ns ns 1.22 300 38.4 0.958 8.97 13.1 1.43 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 8.21 187 ns ns 0.68 425 56.5 1.90 12.7 21.3 2.08 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.93 74.5 ns ns 0 157 27.1 11.5 7.47 3.5 2.35 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 7.73 74.6 ns ns 0 191 35.5 41.6 11.9 11.1 4.47 2012 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.06 196 0 347 3.58 538 64.3 0.224 16.5 38.2 2.13 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.04 145 0 236 0.7 378 41.2 0.067 10.2 10.9 1.29 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.44 168 0 303 5.43 459 47.7 0.051 12.5 24.8 1.93 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.27 129 0 212 1.02 306 32.8 0.388 8.15 12.8 1.05 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.32 154 13.5 269 1.82 389 42.8 0.78 11.4 20.0 1.84 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 7.91 75.5 464 182 0 185 28.0 13.9 8.59 13.4 4.48 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 7.93 78.5 688 184 1.08 204 29.7 19.7 9.58 8.6 5.21 TRIP BLANK 5.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 8.10 179 0 300 2.73 428 53.0 1.24 14.5 24.4 1.62 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 8.11 179 0 271 0.9 395 53.4 1.31 14.4 15.5 1.42

3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations were generally similar to previous years, excluding the extremely high concentrations exhibited in the spring of 2014. The TSS was generally higher in the spring due to runoff. Elevated concentrations were also seen in the summer (Figure 6), but the number of summer samples collected historically is low, so discriminating patterns from the available data is difficult.

Figure 5. Summary of total suspended solids (mg/L). Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

3.1.3 Hardness Water hardness in 2017 generally agreed with previously reported values, classified as ‘hard’ overall with an average of 127 mg/L in the Notikewin River and 169 mg/L in the Keg River. Spring concentrations were lower than fall concentrations for all sites in 2017, which follows the trend from previous years. In both spring and fall, the concentrations were slightly above their seasonal averages, possibly due to lower precipitation and higher temperatures in 2017, relative to other years, resulting in evaporative concentration within the rivers (Figure 6). Summer concentrations in 2017 were lower than the summer data for the period of record, but there is high variability in summer values due to the small historical sample size.

Figure 6. Summary of surface water hardness (mg/L CaCO3). Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

The patterns exhibited for most other routine water quality parameters (including calcium, magnesium, and sodium) tracked those of water hardness closely and continued to be characterized by reduced concentrations during the spring due to elevated runoff from low-concentrations snowmelt, and increased concentration in the fall due to lower precipitation inputs and evaporative concentration. Concentrations tended to be higher downstream than upstream in each river, though this was not universal across all parameters. The only significant deviation from this pattern was for potassium, which has generally showed higher concentrations in the spring and reduced concentrations in the fall across all years and sampling sites. Within a given sampling period, concentrations for the majority of routine ions tended to be higher in the Keg River than in the Notikewin River, a pattern which remained consistent throughout yearly monitoring (Table 3).

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 at or below seasonal values in 2017 across all sites, with no exceedances of the ASWQG-FAL for TN detected (Figure 7). 2017 concentrations of TN were below historical averages at all sites, largely driven by lower-than-normal concentrations during the spring sampling season.

Figure 7. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate standard deviation of measurements for each site within the given year.

Dissolved forms of nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite; Table 4) 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.

3.2.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) In 2017, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were above the guideline of 0.05 mg/L at all Notikewin and Keg rivers sites in the spring (Figure 8). Concentrations were also above the guidelines in the summer at Sites 1 and 4 in the Notikewin River. Concentrations in the Keg River were below guidelines in the summer and fall. The seasonal pattern of concentrations and the average overall concentrations in 2017 were in line with historical trends. However, 2014 remains an anomalous year with extremely high concentrations of total phosphorus.

Figure 8. Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year.

The dissolved fraction of total phosphorus was generally higher in 2017 than in previous years, dominated by high concentrations in the spring and summer (Figure 9). In the spring, dissolved phosphorus concentrations made up nearly half of the total phosphorus in the water in both river systems. This contrasts with previous years, where dissolved phosphorus was generally a minor component of total phosphorus.

Figure 9. Total Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L) in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages by site across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year.

Table 4. Summary of nutrient parameters for sites on the Notikewin River and Keg River in samples taken in 2011 – 2017. YEAR SEASON SITE Ammonia, Total (mg/L) Nitrate and Nitrite (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 2017 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl 0.04 0.30 0.005 0.005 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.38 bdl bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER bdl bdl 0.54 0.009 0.029 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl bdl 0.39 0.005 0.01 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.89 0.013 0.221 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.65 0.007 0.141 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER bdl 0.03 0.70 0.011 0.048 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl bdl 0.76 0.011 0.049 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.031 bdl 0.65 0.08 0.25 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl 0.03 0.65 0.09 0.17 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER bdl 0.07 0.65 0.09 0.24 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl 0.04 0.50 0.05 0.16 2016 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.71 bdl bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.64 bdl bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER bdl 0.01 0.77 bdl 0.10 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl 0.02 0.77 bdl 0.07 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.51 bdl bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.64 bdl bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER bdl bdl 0.86 bdl 0.08 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl bdl 0.74 bdl bdl 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.119 0.02 0.66 bdl 0.07 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.025 0.06 0.69 bdl 0.11 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.244 1.89 4.88 0.07 0.20 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW bdl 0.03 2.04 bdl 0.08 2015 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0165 bdl 0.411 0.0079 0.0144 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0165 bdl 0.372 0.0066 0.0139 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0209 bdl 0.581 0.0164 0.0565 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0215 bdl 0.604 0.0176 0.0416 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0253 0.032 1.162 0.0272 0.262 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.026 0.029 1.489 0.0192 0.300 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.137 0.054 0.87 0.0212 0.248 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0488 0.049 0.938 0.0217 0.186 2014 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0188 bdl 0.556 0.0036 0.0362 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0183 bdl 0.49 0.0023 0.0063 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0195 bdl 0.618 0.0077 0.0651 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.157 bdl 4.72 0.0295 1.82 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.158 bdl 5.57 0.0325 1.90 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.170 bdl 3.34 0.0379 1.41 2013 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0099 ns 0.626 0.0065 0.0139 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0131 ns 0.708 0.0062 0.0119 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0124 ns 0.803 0.0094 0.0447 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0184 bdl 0.691 0.0134 0.0216 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0313 bdl 0.701 0.0102 0.020 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0191 bdl 0.666 0.0115 0.0415 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0256 bdl 0.622 0.0076 0.0442 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0279 bdl 0.585 0.0078 0.0328 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0404 bdl 0.716 0.0115 0.0483 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0391 bdl 2.03 0.0057 0.372 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0895 bdl 4.00 0.0038 0.982 2012 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.46 bdl bdl 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.52 bdl bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.53 bdl bdl 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 0.40 bdl bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.48 bdl 0.028 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 1.25 0.026 0.409 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.051 bdl 1.77 0.036 0.584 2011 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY bdl bdl 2.78 bdl 0.046 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE bdl bdl 0.82 bdl 0.026

3.3 Metals

Metals includes a large number of parameters with 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. Seven metals exceeded their respective guidelines on at least one occasion (Table 5), and included cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead and mercury. Chromium and lead exceeded the guidelines with the greatest frequency in 2017 across all four sample sites. Iron values had reduced concentrations compared to the previous year, whereas mercury concentrations had increased. Exceedances were most frequent in the spring, and absent in the fall.

Guideline exceedances for aluminum and iron were determined against dissolved forms rather than the total forms which had been used in previous years due to the specification of the new guidelines, resulting in no exceedances for these parameters in 2017. Both aluminum and iron are both major natural constituents of clay and soil particles, and so are often abundant in particulate form, but tend not to exhibit high toxicity except when dissolved in the water at lower pH values than are generally observed in these systems.

Concentrations of total (particulate + dissolved) forms were generally much higher than dissolved fractions across all metals. The majority of exceedances across all sites and sampling seasons have historically occurred in the spring (68% of exceedances). Taken together, these two findings indicate that the majority of metal loadings into these systems are the result of sediment-laden runoff entering the systems during spring runoff conditions. The frequency of exceedances observed from 2016 to 2017 is much lower than the frequencies from 2011 to 2015, indicating that there has been improvement in water quality for metal parameters in recent years.

Table 5. Metals concentrations for sites on the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2017. Only metals with at least one historical exceedance are included. Highlighted values indicate a guideline exceedance. bdl = below detection limits Year Season Site Aluminum (Al)-Diss. Arsenic (As)-Total Cadmium (Cd)-Total Chromium (Cr)-Total Cobalt (Co)-Total Copper (Cu)-Total Iron (Fe)-Diss. Lead (Pb)-Total Mercury (Hg)-Total Nickel (Ni)-Total Selenium (Se)-Total Silver (Ag)-Total Zinc (Zn)-Total GUIDELINE 0.0500 0.00500 0.000040 0.0010 0.00250 0.00700 0.300 0.00100 0.000005 0.0040 0.001000 0.000100 0.0300 2017 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00060 Bdl Bdl 0.00010 0.00100 0.020 0.00010 bdl 0.0021 Bdl Bdl 0.0010 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0020 0.00050 Bdl Bdl 0.00010 0.00100 0.010 Bdl bdl 0.0024 Bdl Bdl 0.0010 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0030 0.00130 0.000040 0.0006 0.00030 0.00300 0.050 0.00060 bdl 0.0051 0.000200 0.000020 0.0110 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW Bdl 0.00100 0.000040 bdl 0.00030 0.00200 0.020 0.00030 bdl 0.0046 Bdl 0.000020 0.0050 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0270 0.00440 0.000120 0.0064 0.00300 0.01100 0.610 0.00340 0.000022 0.0120 0.000400 0.000060 0.0290 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0110 0.00320 0.000080 0.0033 0.00190 0.00600 0.140 0.00210 0.000014 0.0079 0.000300 0.000030 0.0170 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0030 0.00200 0.000040 0.0006 0.00050 0.00400 0.060 0.00080 0.000006 0.0056 0.000400 Bdl 0.0070 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0070 0.00170 0.000050 0.0006 0.00050 0.00300 0.260 0.00060 bdl 0.0053 0.000300 Bdl 0.0050 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0090 0.00380 0.000140 0.0046 0.00280 0.00800 0.350 0.00330 0.000010 0.0094 0.000300 0.000060 0.0280 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0070 0.00240 0.000080 0.0047 0.00160 0.01400 0.220 0.00200 Bdl 0.0071 0.000300 0.000040 0.0160 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0060 0.00360 0.000150 0.0047 0.00250 0.00900 0.120 0.00350 0.000013 0.0115 0.000400 0.000060 0.0290 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0110 0.00310 0.000120 0.0030 0.00200 0.00600 0.300 0.00240 0.000015 0.0088 0.000400 0.000040 0.0190 2016 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0510 0.00110 0.000030 0.0007 0.00030 0.00100 0.470 0.00030 Bdl 0.0036 Bdl Bdl 0.0030 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.1970 0.00110 0.000020 0.0006 0.00030 0.00200 0.540 0.00030 Bdl 0.0039 Bdl Bdl 0.0040 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0130 0.00190 0.000050 0.0008 0.00060 0.00300 0.450 0.00090 0.000008 0.0071 0.000300 Bdl 0.0070 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0170 0.00150 0.000060 0.0006 0.00050 0.00200 0.610 0.00050 0.000006 0.0067 0.000300 Bdl 0.0060 3. SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0080 0.00130 0.000030 Bdl 0.00030 0.00200 0.090 0.00040 0.000008 0.0032 0.000300 Bdl 0.0020 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0160 0.00110 0.000030 Bdl 0.00020 0.00200 0.060 0.00020 Bdl 0.0035 0.000300 Bdl 0.0020 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0040 0.00250 0.000050 0.00090 0.00090 0.00400 0.060 0.00110 Bdl 0.0080 0.000700 0.000010 0.0070 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0030 0.00230 0.000060 Bdl 0.00080 0.00300 0.040 0.00060 Bdl 0.0081 0.000500 Bdl 0.0050 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0200 0.00140 0.000030 0.0010 0.00060 0.00300 0.430 0.00090 0.000005 0.0041 Bdl 0.000010 0.0060 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0070 0.00180 0.000060 0.0010 0.00100 0.00200 0.410 0.00080 Bdl 0.0045 Bdl 0.000950 0.0060 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0080 0.00150 0.000060 0.0010 0.00120 0.00400 0.200 0.00070 Bdl 0.0069 0.000300 0.000020 0.0100 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0110 0.00150 0.000070 0.0006 0.00140 0.00200 0.070 0.00050 Bdl 0.0058 0.000300 Bdl 0.0060 2015 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0141 0.00088 0.000011 0.0003 0.00011 0.00134 0.406 0.00018 0.0000056 0.0023 0.000159 Bdl Bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0049 0.00080 0.000014 0.0002 0.00013 0.00130 0.158 0.00015 Bdl 0.0024 0.000174 Bdl Bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0305 0.00171 0.000043 0.0008 0.00051 0.00329 0.411 0.00089 Bdl 0.0057 0.000272 0.000012 0.0063 SITE 6 - KEG RIVER NEW 0.0262 0.00132 0.000039 0.0006 0.00040 0.00212 0.804 0.00044 0.0000075 0.0051 0.000230 Bdl 0.0051 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0772 0.00450 0.000185 0.0055 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 0.0060 0.00444 0.01180 0.483 0.00494 0.0000333 0.0143 0.000379 0.000078 0.0474 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0422 0.00357 0.000160 0.0040 0.00280 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 0.0035 0.00265 0.00782 0.491 0.00310 0.0000247 0.0107 0.000364 0.000047 0.0255 2014 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00088 0.000014 Bdl Bdl 0.00190 0.013 0.00020 0.0000058 0.0028 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE Bdl 0.00069 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.00160 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.0029 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0105 0.00206 0.000042 0.0013 Bdl 0.00390 0.058 0.00126 0.0000107 0.0073 Bdl Bdl 0.0088 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.1540 0.02980 0.001440 0.0380 0.02920 0.06800 0.581 0.03430 0.0000617 0.0783 0.002120 0.000496 0.2560 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.2870 0.03440 0.001870 0.0415 0.03440 0.08250 0.857 0.03720 0.0000511 0.0925 0.002630 0.000611 0.3070 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.3070 0.02010 0.001030 0.0255 0.01990 0.04730 0.940 0.02310 0.0000906 0.0582 0.001610 0.000400 0.1780 2013 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0064 0.00077 0.000016 Bdl Bdl 0.00140 0.141 0.00013 Bdl 0.0024 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0063 0.00068 0.000012 Bdl Bdl 0.00160 0.062 Bdl Bdl 0.0027 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0335 0.00156 0.000045 Bdl Bdl 0.00280 0.728 0.00062 Bdl 0.0050 Bdl Bdl 0.0091 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0169 0.00124 0.000021 Bdl Bdl 0.00210 0.529 0.00018 Bdl 0.0036 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0182 0.00116 0.000024 Bdl Bdl 0.00210 0.330 0.00020 Bdl 0.0038 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0151 0.00173 0.000046 Bdl Bdl 0.00340 0.411 0.00061 Bdl 0.0061 Bdl Bdl 0.0064 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0400 0.00129 0.000037 Bdl Bdl 0.00300 0.265 0.00071 Bdl 0.0040 Bdl Bdl 0.0053 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0275 0.00114 0.000025 Bdl Bdl 0.00260 0.253 0.00044 Bdl 0.0038 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.0150 0.00175 0.000049 Bdl Bdl 0.00350 0.268 0.00067 Bdl 0.0072 Bdl Bdl 0.0051 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0983 0.00597 0.000289 0.0071 0.00570 0.01580 0.308 0.00620 Bdl 0.0189 0.000490 0.000091 0.0607 SITE 5 - KEG RIVER 0.3070 0.01730 0.001020 0.0243 0.02010 0.05100 0.533 0.02180 0.0000430 0.0617 0.001460 0.000395 0.2140 2012 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00049 0.000124 Bdl Bdl 0.00260 Bdl 0.00120 Bdl 0.0039 Bdl 0.000110 0.1110 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00076 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.00160 0.012 Bdl Bdl 0.0023 Bdl Bdl Bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE Bdl 0.00068 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.00160 0.014 Bdl Bdl 0.0029 Bdl Bdl Bdl 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00079 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.00200 0.076 0.00017 Bdl 0.0027 Bdl Bdl 0.0186 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE Bdl 0.00126 Bdl Bdl Bdl 0.00240 0.077 0.00039 Bdl 0.0037 Bdl Bdl 0.0040 1. SPRING SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY 0.0350 0.00652 0.000248 0.0095 0.00560 0.01410 0.589 0.00618 Bdl 0.0168 0.000490 Bdl 0.0492 SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE 0.0570 0.00947 0.000392 0.0140 0.00860 0.02160 0.621 0.00919 Bdl 0.0255 0.000680 0.000140 0.0748 2011 4. FALL SITE 1 - GREEN-WHITE BOUNDARY Bdl 0.00100 Bdl bdl Bdl 0.00140 0.190 0.00019 Bdl 0.0031 bdl Bdl bdl SITE 4 - PEACE RIVER CONFLUENCE Bdl 0.00104 Bdl bdl Bdl 0.00130 0.420 0.00019 Bdl 0.0026 bdl Bdl bdl

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 did not exceed the guidance limit (1000 MPN/100 mL) at any of the sites in 2017, with values generally falling below seasonal and historical averages (Figure 10). Concentrations in the summer were generally higher than in either the spring or fall sampling periods.

E. coli concentrations exceeded guidelines at the Peace River confluence (Site 4) in the summer sampling period (Figure 11) but were below guidelines and comparable to historical values for all other sites and seasons. Historically, E. coli levels have been low, with this event representing the first exceedance over the course of the monitoring program (Figure 11).

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 10. Total Coliforms in surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values for each site within the given year.

Figure 11. E. coli in the surface water at all sites. Left: bars represent 2017 values, points indicate seasonal averages across all years. Right: bars represent average values for each site by year, error bars indicate range of values 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.

Water samples were analyzed for 155 herbicides and pesticides in 2017, with only four having been detected across all years of sampling (Table 6). The only compound detected was 2,4 DB (2,4- dichlorophenoxy butyric acid) at sites 5 and 6 on the Keg River in the Fall period (Table 6). Concentrations at both sites were 0.4 µg/L, which is below the EQGASW guideline concentration of 25 µg/L. No other herbicides or pesticides were detected in 2017.

Table 6. Pesticide detections in the Notikewin and Keg rivers from 2011 to 2017. 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 2017 4. 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 3. SUMMER SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl 1. 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 4. 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 3. SUMMER SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 5 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 6 bdl bdl bdl bdl 1. 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 4. 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 1. 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 4. FALL SITE 1 bdl 0.51 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 0.52 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 0.52 bdl ns 1. SPRING SITE 1 bdl 1.3 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 1.44 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 1.33 bdl ns 2013 4. FALL SITE 1 bdl 0.72 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl 0.94 bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 0.78 bdl ns 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 bdl 0.36 bdl ns SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl ns SITE 5 bdl 0.4 bdl ns 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 bdl ns ns ns SITE 4 bdl ns ns ns SITE 5 bdl ns ns ns 1. SPRING SITE 1 bdl ns ns ns SITE 5 bdl ns ns ns 2012 4. FALL SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl 3. LATE SUMMER SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl 2. EARLY SUMMER SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl 0.00017 SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl 0.00016 1. SPRING SITE 1 bdl bdl 0.00013 bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl 0.00017 bdl 2011 4. FALL SITE 1 bdl bdl bdl bdl SITE 4 bdl bdl bdl bdl

3.6 River Water Quality Index

Water quality index calculations were performed for all sites and seasons separately 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. Individual and overall scores were ranked according to the criteria listed in Table 7.

Table 7. River water quality ranking categories. Percent Score Rating Excellent – Guidelines are always met, best quality 96-100

Good – Guidelines are occasionally exceeded, but usually by small amounts 81-95

Fair – Guidelines are sometimes exceeded by moderate amounts; occasionally 66-80 water quality is undesirable Marginal – Guidelines are often exceeded, sometimes by large amounts 46-65

Poor – Guidelines are always exceeded by large amounts, water quality is below 0-45 desirable levels, worst quality

Overall index scores averaged “Fair” to “Excellent” across all parameters at all sites in 2017 (Table 8). Scores were lower in the spring, with reduced scores for the Nutrients and Metals sub-indices driving this pattern, as has been the case in previous years. Scores for these categories recovered by summer for the Keg River sites, but remained low at the Notikewin River sites. By fall, all sites received scores of excellent for Nutrients and Metals.

The Bacteria and Pesticides sub-indices showed occasional impairment, with the Bacteria sub-index falling in the summer at Site 4 and the Pesticides sub-index decreasing in the fall at Sites 5 and 6. This follows the historical pattern of only sporadic exceedances for either bacteriological or pesticides.

Overall, both seasonal trends and averages for 2017 were representative of the patterns and values seen in previous years.

Table 8. Water Quality Index and sub-index scores from all sites, 2011 to 2017. Grey shaded values were not analyzed due to exceedance of hold times for these parameters. Year Sampling Period Site Nutrients Bacteria Metals Pesticides Average 2017 1. SPRING Site 1 50 100 48 100 74 Site 4 54 100 54 100 77 Site 5 50 100 51 100 75 Site 6 55 100 53 100 77 3. SUMMER Site 1 51 100 43 100 74 Site 4 58 60 53 100 68 Site 5 100 100 90 100 97 Site 6 100 100 100 100 100 4. FALL Site 1 100 100 100 100 100 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 Site 5 100 100 100 57 89 Site 6 100 100 100 57 89 2016 1. SPRING Site 1 74 100 82 100 89 Site 4 62 100 48 100 78 Site 5 40 100 100 100 85 Site 6 52 100 100 42 74 3. SUMMER Site 1 100 100 78 100 95 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 Site 5 70 100 100 100 93 Site 6 100 100 100 100 100 4. FALL Site 1 100 77 100 92 Site 4 100 54 100 85 Site 5 65 69 100 78 Site 6 74 67 100 80 2015 1. SPRING Site 1 43 100 40 100 71 Site 4 41 100 38 100 70 Site 5 50 100 45 100 74 Site 6 53 100 47 100 75 4. FALL Site 1 100 100 80 100 95 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 Site 5 79 100 84 100 91 Site 6 100 100 60 100 90 2014 1. SPRING Site 1 35 100 29 43 52 Site 4 35 100 29 43 52 Site 5 35 100 29 43 52 4. FALL Site 1 100 100 91 43 84 Site 4 100 100 100 43 86 Site 5 76 100 65 43 71 2013 1. SPRING Site 1 40 100 40 100 70 Site 5 36 100 29 100 66 2. EARLY SUMMER Site 1 100 47 100 100 87 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 Site 5 100 100 100 100 100 3. LATE SUMMER Site 1 100 100 75 44 80 Site 4 100 100 93 100 98 Site 5 100 100 84 44 82 4. FALL Site 1 100 100 100 43 86 Site 4 100 100 100 43 86 Site 5 100 100 66 43 77 2012 1. SPRING Site 1 40 100 41 100 70 Site 4 38 100 37 100 69 2. EARLY SUMMER Site 1 100 100 100 100 100 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 Site 1 100 100 100 100 100 Site 4 100 100 100 100 100 4. FALL Site 1 100 100 57 100 89 2011 4. FALL Site 1 60 100 100 100 90 Site 4 100 100 83 100 96

4 Discussion

4.1 Routine

Generally, the waters of both the Notikewin and Keg rivers were fresh, hard, and slightly alkaline. There was no strong evidence of human influences on water quality based on routine parameters (e.g., increased salinity due to road salting).

In 2017, there was a trend towards increasing concentrations of most routine ions from upstream to downstream on the Notikewin River, but were neither strong nor universal across all routine parameters. Across the sampling seasons there was a decrease in ion values between spring and summer with a steep increase towards fall. Typically, lower values were observed at the start of the sampling season and increased over the summer into the fall.

The Keg River showed the opposite pattern compared to the Notikewin River, with higher concentrations of several hardness-related variables observed upstream than downstream, possibly as a result of dilution factors, but again neither strong nor universal across all routine parameters. Between seasons there was an increase in ion concentrations throughout the year. Based on the associated seasonality of snowmelt and precipitation, the patterns observed appear primarily to be influenced by influxes of snowmelt and precipitation in the spring period, which result in the dilution of the associated ions and hence lower values at the start of the year and increasing through the remainder of the year.

The Keg River generally had higher concentrations of most routine ions compared to the Notikewin River, with correspondingly higher hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity. Both rivers appear to be well- buffered and resistant to changes in pH, and pH values all fell within EQGASW guidelines of 6.5 to 9.0.

There were no issues with water quality and the health of aquatic ecosystems based on measurements of routine water quality variables.

4.2 Nutrients

The frequency and magnitude of exceedances for nutrients has been historically dominated by phosphorus, including exceedances observed in 2017. 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.

In 2017, concentrations of both total nitrogen and total phosphorus were generally below historical averages on the Notikewin River. No exceedances of guidelines were observed for total nitrogen throughout the year, whereas total phosphorus exceeded guidelines at both sites in the spring and summer months. The Notikewin River has historically shown a mixed range of exceedances through previous years for both nitrogen and phosphorus. Lower concentrations for both compounds may be the result of lower precipitation throughout the year with less surface runoff occurring.

In the Keg River system, both total nitrogen and total phosphorus were generally below or equal to historical averages. No exceedances of guidelines were observed for total nitrogen throughout the year, whereas total phosphorus exceeded guidelines at both sites in the spring. The Keg River has historically shown a mixed range of exceedances through previous years for both nitrogen and phosphorus. Lower concentrations for both compounds may be the result of lower precipitation throughout the year with less surface runoff occurring.

Because of the generally low concentrations of nutrients outside of the spring freshet period, there currently appears to be limited risk of eutrophication of the Notikewin and Keg rivers.

The Nutrients & Related sub-index of the Water Quality Index indicate that water quality based on Nutrients generally falls into the “Marginal” to “Excellent” categories throughout the year. 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 during spring runoff, given the strong seasonal pattern of nutrient concentrations and exceedances from this sample period.

4.3 Metals

Seven metals exceeded their respective guidelines in 2017, compared to 13 over the course of the entire monitoring program. Exceedances were highest in the spring, similar to previous years. An elevated number of exceedances also occurred during the summer at the sites on the Notikewin River, but not the Keg River. By the fall sampling period, there were no exceedances for any metals at any site.

Metal concentrations represent one of the primary impediments to surface water quality in the Notikewin and Keg rivers, alongside nutrients. All of the metals encountered above guidelines have natural mineral/soil sources in addition to potential residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Based on seasonal patterns and a lack of apparent upstream point sources, the exceedances for metals appears likely to be due to the influx of soil, sediments, and mineral particulates into the rivers during spring runoff. There is a strong inverse relation between the Metals sub-index and total suspended solids concentrations, further supporting this hypothesis.

Elevated metal concentrations are likely driven by seasonal sediment loadings into the rivers, and may more broadly reflect issues with erosion and sedimentation rather than metals contamination per se. The difference in relative quality due to the most frequently encountered metals between the Notikewin and Keg rivers suggests differences in geological parent materials and/or land use practices, with greater frequencies of exceedances in the Notikewin River in the spring, but higher sustained concentrations of these metals in the Keg River in the fall.

4.4 Bacteria

Concentrations of total coliforms and E. coli have generally been low for all sites over the course of the monitoring program. Total coliform concentrations in 2017 were below seasonal averages in the spring and fall, and above seasonal averages in the summer possibly due to low flows. Total coliforms (of which E. coli forms a subset) are a broad group of bacteria found in water from both natural (e.g. sediment) and anthropogenic (e.g. human and/or animal waste) sources (Health Canada, 2006a). Elevated concentrations of total coliforms may be indicative of large amounts of decaying organic matter entering a given system. Elevated concentrations of total coliforms observed in spring/summer likely reflect naturally occurring coliform bacteria present in soil and decaying organic matter which is washed into the rivers with spring runoff. Total coliforms are not necessarily harmful, but they are indicative of contaminated or stagnant waters.

E. coli concentrations have historically never exceeded the guidelines at any sites until 2017 when they exceeded guidelines at the Peace River confluence during the summer sampling period. E. coli is a single species of bacteria that forms a subset of total coliforms; it is the most common bacterium in the human intestinal tract and is common in most warm-blooded animals (Health Canada, 2006b). The presence of E. coli indicates fecal contamination from warm-blooded animal sources. Sources of contamination include municipal sewage discharge, failing septic systems, livestock farming operations, and wildlife. Certain groups of E. coli are pathogenic, causing severe adverse health effects or even death when consumed in sufficient concentrations (Health Canada, 2006b). Results from the fall period at the Peace River confluence sampling site revealed no further contamination presence. This may have been a isolated incident, but continued monitoring may confirm this.

The Bacteria sub-index of the Water Quality Index indicates that water quality has almost exclusively fallen into the “Excellent” category for the sampling sites retained in the program, except for a “Moderate” noted exceedance in 2013 and for the E. coli exceedance in 2017.

The lack of any trend in bacterial concentrations combined with the infrequency of exceedances suggests that bacteria are of negligible concern to water quality in these systems. However, since sampling on the Keg River has occurred for a shorter period than on the Notikewin River, there is a greater degree of uncertainty in predicting trends from the Keg River. Despite the high-water quality from an ecosystem health perspective, any water drawn from either of these two systems will still require adequate treatment before use as a drinking water source.

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.

Until 2017, only three pesticides had been detected over the course of the monitoring program: Malathion and Methidathion in 2012, and Glyphosate in 2013, 2014, and 2016. In 2017 2,4-DB was detected on both Keg River sites in the fall period. This compound is a selective, systemic herbicide used for controlling broadleaf weeds in crops.

The Pesticides sub-index of the Water Quality Index indicates pesticides generally fall into the “Excellent” category, having fallen to “Moderate” for two samples in 2017. Most pesticides have either been absent or 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 the Notikewin and Keg rivers is good, with Water Quality Index scores in 2017 averaging 82% and 88%, respectively. These average scores fall within the “Good” category, indicating that guidelines are occasionally exceeded by small amounts. Spring showed the lowest water quality with an average of 76%; summer 85% and fall at 95% across all parameters and sites. Overall water quality was comparable between the two rivers in the spring, higher in the Keg than in the Notikewin in the summer (71% versus 99%), and higher in the Notikewin than in the Keg in the fall (100% versus 89%). Exceedances due to metal concentrations contributed the most to reduced water quality, followed by nutrients and related compounds. A few exceedances for bacteria and pesticides were detected in 2017, which follows the historical pattern of only sporadic exceedances for these parameter groups.

Although more variable than some previous years, results from 2017 still agree with the general historical trend of the greatest impairment of water quality during the spring, with improvement through to the fall. 2014 continues to stand out as the year with the poorest water quality (with an average overall Water Quality Index score of 66% compared to the historical average of 84% across all sites). Notably, 2014 was also the year with the highest suspended solids concentrations (with an average of over 1000 mg/L compared to the historical average of 247 mg/L across all sites), supporting the idea that erosion and migration of suspended sediments are the driver of impaired water quality.

Despite the inverse relation between total suspended solids, nutrients, and metals (presumably driven by influxes of sediment due to erosion), water quality appears to correlate positively with precipitation rates. At the Notikewin River sites, the average Water Quality Index Score is highly positively correlated with annual precipitation (with an r2 value of approximately 0.70), indicating that high precipitation years also have the highest water quality. This result may indicate that snowmelt and early precipitation during the spring freshet drive reduced water quality early in the season, whereas higher precipitation later in the year result in the dilution of pollutants entering the system and preventing reduction in water quality. High precipitation during the growing season will generally also result in improved plant growth, which can both pull excess nutrients from surface runoff and reduce the incidence of erosion.

The trend at the Keg River sites is much weaker due to having fewer years of data at those sites (with an r2 value of approximately 0.35), but a positive relation is still present with precipitation.

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 continued with the results from 2017. The poorest water quality occurs in the spring, and overall quality improves and stabilizes by fall. The reduced water quality in the early part of the year appears to be driven by metals and nutrients brought into the rivers from increased surface runoff due to snow melt and early season precipitation. Based on comparisons of particulate versus dissolved fractions of the compounds of interest, the metals and nutrients are largely particulate and likely enter the system as organic matter (nutrients), bound to soil particles (nutrients and metals), or as components of soil and mineral particles (metals). Pesticides and bacteria have not been significant recurring pollutants to date.

River flows in the springtime and correlations of water quality with the concentration of total suspended solids indicates that impediments to water quality are driven by early-season erosion when there is little vegetation growth. Higher precipitation through the summer generally has a positive effect on water quality, likely due to dilution of pollutants within the rivers, and supporting lush vegetation in the riparian areas around them, which prevents the pollutants from entering these systems.

The addition of one site along the Keg River in 2015 allowed the water quality monitoring program a broader view of patterns of water quality and begin to identify regional differences that may contribute to patterns of aquatic health. Results from the Notikewin River have been largely consistent with expected seasonal and inter-annual variation in precipitation, run-off, and discharges. Results from the Keg River have showed similar patterns, but the additional years of monitoring at Sites 5 and 6 have allowed greater confidence in the results, and with continued sampling at these sites the patterns observed in 2017 can be explored with more detail and rigour. Addition of the summer sampling event provides information regarding patterns, showing seasonal fluctuations that were previously undetected in 2014 and 2015 by the spring and fall sampling events alone.

Based on the relatively weak upstream-to-downstream patterns observed for nutrient and metals exceedances, it is unclear whether the sources are natural, anthropogenic, or a combination of both. 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 parameter inputs. 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. However, it is recognized that river accessibility is a strong impediment in these areas, and that further upstream sampling may be too hazardous to undertake.

Based on the findings from 2017 and comparisons with previous years, we recommend that sampling continue in 2018 at all four sites to assess the differences between the two basins.

6 References 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 Parks. 2017. Alberta River Basins Web Application. Accessed online at https://rivers.alberta.ca/. Alberta Environment and Parks, Government of Alberta, 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.