Developing Indicators for Regional Water Quality Assessment: An Example from British Columbia Community Watersheds

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of participating watersheds.

Table 1.  Study regions, watersheds and watershed partners.

Region	Watershed	Partner(s)
St. Mary River	Joseph	Joseph Creek Action Team
	Mark / Kimberley	Wildsight Kimberley Cranbrook; Environment Canada
	Cotton	BCMFR Nelson; UBC Forestry / Geography
Kootenay Lake	Anderson	BCMFR Nelson
	Redfish	BCMFR Nelson
	Sitkum	BCMFR Nelson
	Cottonwood	Nelson Rod & Gun; Columbia Kootenay Fisheries Renewal Partnership
Okanagan	Trout / Camp	District of Summerland
	Penticton	City of Penticton; BCMFR Kamloops
Nicola	Beak	BCMOE Kamloops
Thompson	Fishtrap	UBC Geography; BCMFR Kamloops, UNBC
	Jamieson	BCMFR Kamloops, UNBC
Quesnel	F1, F2, F3	UNBC

Figure 2. Selected water quality parameters (dl=detection limit).

Figure 3. Correlations between water quality parameters (Spearman r, =0.01).

Table 2.  Comparative rankings of selective water quality parameters by watershed (H=high, M=moderate, L=low). Shading relates to watershed classes.

Watershed	TOC	pH	EC	Ca	Fe	Turbidity	NOx	PO4
Redfish / Sitkum	M	L	L	L	L	L	M	M
Anderson	L	M	M	M	L	L	L	L
Cottonwood	L	M	M	M	L	L	L	L
Trout-Camp	M	M-H	M	M	M	L	L	L
Cotton	M	M	M-H	H	L	M	L	L
Penticton	H	L-M	L	L	H	L	L	L
Beak	H	M	M	M	L	L	L	M
Joseph	L	M	H	H	M	M	M	M
Quesnel	H	M	H	H	M	M-L	L	L-M
Fishtrap / Jamieson	M	M	H	H	M	M	L-M	L
Kimberley	M	M	M	M	H	M	L	L
Comparative	TOC	pH	EC	Ca	Fe	Turbidity	NOx	PO4
Rankings	mg/l		s/cm	ppm	ppm	NTU	mg/l	mg/l
Range	0.520	5.658.95	14366	1.8566	0.0020.93	<143	<0.020.55	<0.010.05
High	>15	>8.5	>250	>30	>0.5	n/a	n/a	n/a
Medium	515	78.5	50250	1030	0.250.5	1030	0.30.55	0.020.05
Low	<5	<7	<50	<10	<0.25	<10	<0.3	<0.02

Table 3.  Watershed characteristics physical factors. Shading relates to watershed classes.

Watershed	Area (ha)	Elevation Range (m)	Elevation Mean (m)	SOF (%)	SSF (%)
Anderson	1,393	1,467	1,453	4	27
Beak	8,508	827	1,442	24	6
Cotton	2,217	1,094	1,528	nd	nd
Cottonwood	6,391	1,675	1,407	10	14
Fishtrap	16,441	1,478	1,215	10	19
Jamieson	23,766	1,512	1,350	12	14
Joseph	23,000	1,399	1,198	nd	nd
Mark - Kimberley	15,185	1,741	1,641	15	13
Penticton	18,431	1,801	1,501	18	8
Quesnel F1	541	671	943	10	10
Quesnel F2	3,747	724	989	22	6
Quesnel F3	783	545	880	17	6
Redfish	2,865	1,836	1,653	16	13
Sitkum	2,857	1,823	1,624	15	18
Camp	3,734	971	1,431	15	13
Upper Trout	51,150	1,596	1,301	16	11
Comparative Ranking
H		>1,500		>20%	>20%
M		1,0001,500		1520	1020
L		<1,000		<15%	<10%
SOF = surface overland flow; SSF = sub-surface flow (Weiler et al., 2009)

Table 4.  Dominant rock type (% of area).

Watershed	Intrusive (Granite Granodiorite)	Volcanic (Basalt)	Sedimentary (Si-Dominated)	Sedimentary (Carbonate-Dominated)
Anderson	53	32	0	15
Beak	44	24	10	0
Cotton	0	0	14	86
Cottonwood	17	53	0	14
Fishtrap	0	0	100	0
Jamieson	1	16	82	0
Joseph	0	0	84	16
Mark - Kimberley	0	0	100	0
Penticton	54	0	0	0
Quesnel F1	17	61	22	0
Quesnel F2	98	2	0	0
Quesnel F3	100	0	0	0
Redfish	100	0	0	0
Sitkum	100	0	0	0
Camp	100	0	0	0
Upper Trout	95	2		0
Comparative Ranking
H	>80%	>80%	>80%	>80%
M	2080	2080	2080	2080
L	<20%	<20%	<20%	<20%
Source: Geological Survey Branch (2005).

Figure 4. Quesnel watersheds: mountain pine beetle infestation 19992005.

Table 5.  Land use/land cover characteristics.

Watershed	Forest (%)	Pine (%)	*MPB (%) 19992005	*MPB (%) 20052008	Roads (km/km^2)
Anderson	97	41	6.1	12.8	0.7
Beak	99	81	3.9	12.9	0.8
Cotton	94	47	0.5	0.9	3.2
Cottonwood	79	11	0.3	1.5	1.9
Fishtrap	91	23	0.3	3.2	1.6
Jamieson	94	34	1.2	5.2	1.1
Joseph	77	19	0.9	0.2	3.5
Mark - Kimberley	88	63	0.6	0.4	2.3
Penticton	89	56	0.6	0.0	2.1
Quesnel F1	100	51	15.6	12.7	2.0
Quesnel F2	96	51	20.1	10.1	1.2
Quesnel F3	98	41	11.1	6.5	1.6
Redfish	72	6	0.8	1.5	0.9
Sitkum	84	10	0.1	1.1	0.9
Camp	96	49	0.7	0.4	3.1
Upper Trout	93	59	0.6	0.4	2.2
Comparative Ranking
H	>90%	>50%	>10%	>10%	>3%
M	8090	2550	110	110	23
L	<80%	<25%	<1%	<1%	<2%
*MPB = Mountain Pine Beetle infestation						Source: BC Ministry of Forests and Range (2004, 2008); GeoBC (1995)

Table 6.  Correlations between water quality parameters (Spearman r, = 0.01).

	Elevation Range	%SOF	%SSF	Forest Cover	%Pine	MPB Recent	Granite-Granodiorite	Carbonate-Dominated Sedimentary	Si-Dominated Sedimentary
Ca	.640	.520					.653	.377
Mg	.586						.694		.593
K		.446				.525
pH	.525						.383		.306
EC	.618	.448					.583
Fe			.468		.434
NOx		.496	.562		.491
TOC		.548	.545	.347	.505
Turbidity	.483						.534

Figure 5. Selected water quality parameters by geological group.

Table 7.  Significant differences in water chemistry by rock type (Mann Whitney U-test, =0.10).

	Intrusive (Granite-Granodiorite)	Volcanic (Basalt)	Sedimentary (Si-Dominated)	Sedimentary (Carbonate-Dominated)
Intrusive (Granite-Granodiorite)		Al, Ca, Fe, K Mg, Na, pH EC, Turb. NOx PO4, Cl, TOC	Al, Ca Mg, Na, pH EC, Turb. NOx PO4, TOC	Al, Ca, Fe Mg, pH EC, Turb. Nox PO4, Cl TOC
Volcanic (Basalt)			Al, Ca, Fe K Mg, pH EC, Turb. NOx Cl, TOC	Ca, K Mg, Na, pH EC, Turb Cl.
Sedimentary (Si-Dominated)				Ca, Fe Na, EC, NOx, CI
Sedimentary (Carbonate-Dominated)

Figure 6. Selected water quality parameters by dominant runoff processes within the granodiorite-granite geological group.

Figure 7. Selective water quality parameters by % pine cover within the granodiorite-granite geological group.