TECHNICAL REPORT 116

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL REPORT 116 Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions, British Columbia

2

3 Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions, British Columbia Rob Scherer, Todd Redding, Kevin Ronneseth, and Dave Wilford

4 The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the Government of British Columbia of any product or service to the exclusion of any others that may also be suitable. Contents of this report are presented for discussion purposes only. Funding assistance does not imply endorsement of any statements or information contained herein by the Government of British Columbia. Uniform Resource Locators (urls), addresses, and contact information contained in this document are current at the time of printing unless otherwise noted. ISBN Print version ISBN Digital version Citation Scherer, R., T. Redding, K. Ronneseth, and D. Wilford Research and information needs assessment to support sustainable watershed management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions, British Columbia. Prov. B.C., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep Prepared by Rob Scherer Department of Civil Engineering Technology Okanagan College Kelowna, B.C. Todd Redding Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Okanagan College Penticton, B.C. Kevin Ronneseth Ronneseth Hydrogeology Consulting Victoria, B.C. Dave Wilford Research Hydrologist, North Area B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Smithers, B.C. Copies of this report may be obtained, depending upon supply, from: Crown Publications, Queen s Printer 2nd Floor, 563 Superior Street Victoria, BC v8w 9v For more information on other publications in this series, visit hfdcatalog/index.asp 2018 Province of British Columbia When using information from this report, please cite fully and correctly.

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Watershed management issues are among the many challenges facing natural resource managers in British Columbia. The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRO) conducted a research and information needs assessment survey to help identify specific knowledge gaps and develop strategic priorities for research to support sustainable water resource management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions of British Columbia. In total, 224 individuals who were familiar with surface water and/or groundwater issues in these regions completed all or portions of the survey and identified priority topics for research, monitoring, data collection, and policy development. The survey was conducted from May 19 to September 30, This report is the fourth in a series of regional assessments that have been conducted across British Columbia. The first regional assessment was completed in northeastern British Columbia in 2014 (Lapp et al. 2015), the second regional assessment was completed in the Thompson/Okanagan region in 2015 (Scherer et al. 2016), and the third regional assessment was completed in the South Coast and West Coast regions in 2016 (Scherer et al. 2017). Survey respondents most frequently identified the following priority research and management information needs: surface water quantity research on peak flow magnitude, peak flow timing, snow accumulation and melt rates, low-flow magnitude, and low-flow timing; management and understanding of land use effects, as well as cumulative effects on all aspects of surface water, groundwater, aquatic ecosystems, and natural resource development hazards; climate change effects on all aspects of water quantity and water quality; determination, verification, and validation of environmental flow needs and development of scientifically defensible critical thresholds; water allocation effects on streamflows, including effects on small streams, timing of flows, low flows, fish, and fish habitat; glacier and snowpack changes over time and how these changes will affect water supply and fish populations; forest development and natural disturbance effects on streamflow and watersheds, including research related to hydrologic recovery after forest development and natural disturbances; groundwater quantity research on groundwater surface water interactions, and aquifer identification and characterization to quantify the availability and extent of groundwater resources; and water consumption/usage data to improve the understanding of water availability/withdrawals to ensure the sustainable allocation of both surface water and groundwater. More than 58% of the respondents identified online access to data, analysis results/products (e.g., interpreted data), and georeferenced data, as well as hydrometric monitoring data as a high priority. Written responses also highlighted the need for increased hydrometric monitoring of surface waters as being very important. iii

6 Key policy and regulatory needs that were identified included the following: improved cumulative effects legislation, policy, and guidelines that provide thresholds for resource development; increased government oversight and capacity related to landscape-level (or land use) planning to co-ordinate resource development in watersheds; increased riparian protection on all watercourses but especially headwater and small streams; development of environmental flow needs requires more operational guidance, development of locally applicable policies/guidance, and determination of critical thresholds that are scientifically defensible; more information about the implementation of the Water Sustainability Act and how the Act will maintain and/or protect water sources; increased monitoring of water consumption and usage to improve water allocation decisions related to surface water and groundwater; climate change policies related to enhancement, restoration, and future planning; and improved legislation to restrict/manage recreation, particularly in the Kootenay/Boundary region, to protect water quality, manage access into community/domestic watersheds, and manage backcountry access. A number of emerging pressures and issues were also identified, including the following: reducing uncertainty of climate change effects on water supply for both consumptive and aquatic ecosystem uses; cumulative effects planning and improved co-ordination among resource users; education, training, and/or extension; First Nations title as it relates to resource management; implementation of the Water Sustainability Act; landscape-level planning, domestic water intakes, and interaction with other watershed users; recreation; and insufficient funding, capacity, and resources for monitoring. The survey results identified many of the same themes and topics that were identified in previous reports (e.g., Hollstedt 2000; Redding 2011; Brandes and O Riordan 2014; Lapp et al. 2015; Nelitz et al. 2015; Scherer et. al. 2016; Scherer et al. 2017). In addition to this report, a database of data sources, information sources, and relevant research projects and publications from British Columbia and adjoining jurisdictions was compiled. The database is intended to provide a first stop for researchers and managers in locating key water resource information of regional relevance. The database is available at iv

7 CONTENTS Executive Summary... Introduction... 1 Project Purpose... 1 Report Format... 2 Methods... 2 Study Design... 2 Study Delivery... 3 Study Limitations... 3 Results... 3 Profile of Respondents... 3 Survey Response Summaries... 6 Surface Water Quantity Hydrologic Processes... 7 Management of Surface Water Quantity Groundwater Quantity Hydrogeologic Processes Management of Groundwater Quantity Surface Water Quality Management of Surface Water Quality Groundwater Quality Management of Groundwater Quality Groundwater Surface Water Interactions Management of Groundwater Surface Water Interactions Aquatic Ecosystems Management of Aquatic Ecosystems Natural Resource Development Hazards Management of Natural Resource Development Hazards Data and Information System Needs Research and Information Needs/Questions Key Policy and Regulatory Needs Emerging Pressures/Issues Summary Research and Monitoring Needs Surface water quantity Groundwater quantity Surface water quality Groundwater quality Groundwater surface water interactions Aquatic ecosystems Natural resource development hazards Key Priority Research, Policy, and Management Needs Literature Cited Appendices 1 Current and planned water-related research Client survey questionnaire and cover letter iii v

8 tables 1 Region(s) within which respondents practiced Number, affiliation, and primary work location of individuals who completed the survey for each of the six respondent groups Respondents field/area of primary practice in each of the natural resource regions Respondents primary water-related focus of professional practice in each of the natural resource regions... 7 FIGURES 1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions in British Columbia Percentage of total responses by primary location of work and sector affiliation for the six survey categories Respondent ranking of water-related themes in terms of relevance to the respondents primary areas of practice in each of the regions and overall Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes in each region and overall Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quantity Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity Management of groundwater quantity: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quality Surface water quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quality Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs vi

9 16 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quality Groundwater quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quality Management of groundwater quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater surface water interactions Groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater surface water interactions Management of groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to aquatic ecosystems Aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of aquatic ecosystems Management of aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to natural resource development hazards Natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of natural resource development hazards Management of natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Skeena and Kootenay/Boundary respondent groups Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Omineca and Provincial respondent groups Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Cariboo and Overall respondent groups General data and information systems needs: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs vii

10

11 INTRODUCTION Project Purpose Watershed management issues are among the many challenges facing natural resource managers in British Columbia. The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1 (FLNRO) has conducted a research and information needs assessment to support sustainable water resource management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions (Figure 1) of British Columbia. This report is the fourth in a series of regional assessments that have been conducted across British Columbia. The first regional assessment was completed in northeastern British Columbia in 2014 (Lapp et al. 2015), the second regional assessment was completed in the Thompson/Okanagan region in 2015 (Scherer et al. 2016), and the third regional assessment was completed in the South Coast and West Coast regions in 2016 (Scherer et al. 2017). Skeena Region Omineca Region Cariboo Region Kootenay/ Boundary Region kilometres IG E 1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions in British Columbia. 1 Note: At the time of writing this report, the name for this British Columbia government ministry was B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (flnro); therefore, this name and initialism was used throughout the report. In 2017, the British Columbia government changed this ministry s name to B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (flnr). 1

12 This assessment, along with a compilation of relevant research and data and information sources for the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/ Boundary Natural Resource Regions, will form the basis for the development of an applied research strategy to support sustainable water resource management in these regions. Individuals who are involved in water and natural resource management were asked to participate in a survey to help identify related research and information needs. The survey was divided into seven main themes: surface water quantity; groundwater quantity; surface water quality; groundwater quality; groundwater surface water interactions; aquatic ecosystems; and natural resource development hazards. To support sustainable water management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary regions, survey respondents were asked to identify: key research questions and information needs; knowledge gaps and data requirements; policy and regulatory needs; emerging pressures/issues and the expected new information required to address them; and current and planned water-related research activities that are directly relevant to water resource management in these regions. Report Format This report presents the data collection methods used in the survey, a profile of the respondents, the ranking (high, medium, low, not applicable, or not answered) of key research and information needs by topic area within each theme, and where applicable, a summary of the written comments for each of the seven main themes. Appendix 1 lists current and planned water-related research that was identified by the respondents. Appendix 2 presents the cover letter and survey questions that were sent to the respondents. A separate database of information and data sources, publications, and relevant research projects was also compiled and is available at The database includes historic and current water projects and publications, databases, and monitoring activities conducted within the four regions that are directly relevant to water resource management in those regions. METHODS Study Design A list of potential respondents was compiled and prioritized in conjunction with staff from FLNRO. Selection was based on the respondents profession and their experience within their organizations. All respondents were familiar with surface water and/or groundwater issues in one or more of the four regions of British Columbia. 2

13 Study Delivery Study Limitations An introduction to the project and a link to the survey questions was sent by to most respondents (Appendix 2). The survey was conducted from May 19 to September 30, In some instances, respondents forwarded the survey to other people, who also completed the survey (e.g., regional managers distributed the survey to staff members); therefore, the number of responses received cannot be compared with the number of respondents who were directly contacted by the survey team. This needs assessment is a qualitative, non-random survey of respondents who were identified as being interested or involved in water-related issues within the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, or Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions. This report does not offer any interpretation of the respondents input; it only presents and summarizes the results collected in the survey. RESULTS Profile of Respondents The identification of a respondent s region, affiliation, or sector helped determine where geographically and in which sectors research is being conducted, what research or monitoring needs exist, and what opportunities for future collaboration are possible. Approximately 600 individuals were contacted; 224 completed all or portions of the survey (a survey response rate of 37%). The survey analysis was divided into six categories ( respondent groups ) based on the identified region(s) in which the respondents practice. The categories included the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions; respondents who practice province-wide (or in all four regions); and an overall category (Tables 1 and 2). Thirty-five percent of the respondents practiced within the Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Region, 21% practiced within the Skeena region, 21% practiced within the Omineca region, and 20% practiced within the Cariboo region. Seventeen percent of the respondents practiced either within the entire province or in TABLE 1 Region(s) within which respondents practiced ( n = 224). (Note: Respondents could choose more than one region.) Region Response (%) One region Skeena 16 Omineca 12 Cariboo 13 Kootenay/Boundary 31 Two regions Skeena and Omineca 3 Omineca and Cariboo 2 Cariboo and Kootenay/Boundary 2 Omineca and Kootenay/Boundary 1 Three regions Skeena, Omineca, and Cariboo 2 Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary 1 All four regions and/or province-wide 17 3

14 TABLE 2 Number, affiliation, and primary work location of individuals who completed the survey for each of the six respondent groups (i.e., the four natural resource regions, province-wide, and overall) Number of responses Provincial (all four regions or province-wide) Sector/employment affiliation Skeena Omineca Cariboo Kootenay/ Boundary Provincial government FLNRO B.C. Ministry of Environment Forest Practices Board BC Oil and Gas Commission B.C. Ministry of Agriculture Health Authority BC Hydro B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Total Consulting (including surface water, geoscience, environmental, and fisheries) Natural resource industry Forest industry Ranching Total Local/regional government First Nations Community/stewardship/NGO Academic Federal government Fisheries and Oceans Canada Environment and Climate Change Canada Natural Resources Canada Total Water purveyor Total of all respondents a a Note: Respondents were able to choose more than one region; therefore, overall totals are not equivalent to the total sum of respondents in each of the natural resource regions. Overall totals all four regions (Table 1). It should be noted that 11% of the respondents practiced within two or three regions; these respondents were included in more than one region/respondent group. Table 2 lists the number of individual responses by each affiliation. The largest number of overall respondents was employed by the provincial government, followed by consulting firms, natural resource industries (primarily the forest industry), local/regional governments, First Nations, community and non-government organizations, academia, the federal government, and water purveyors (Figure 2). Also, a relatively high number of survey respondents was affiliated with the Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Region compared with the other three natural regions surveyed 4

15 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Water purveyor Federal government Academic Community/stewardship/NGO First Nations Local/regional government Natural resource industry Consulting Provincial government 30% 20% 10% 0% Skeena (n = 47) Omineca (n = 47) Cariboo (n = 45) Kootney/Boundary (n = 79) Provincial (n = 39) Overall (n = 224) FIGURE 2 Percentage of total responses by primary location of work and sector affiliation for the six survey categories. Note: Respondents were able to choose more than one region; therefore, overall totals are not equivalent to the total number of respondents in each of the natural resource regions. (Table 2). For example, 25 of the 41 consultants surveyed were situated in the Kootenay/Boundary region as compared with seven or eight consultants who were surveyed in the Skeena, Omineca, and Cariboo regions. It is important to note that this survey may not necessarily reflect the views of the overall population of contacted individuals, given a response rate of 37%; therefore, it is important for readers to consider the overall profile of respondents who completed the survey when reviewing this report. For example, individuals affiliated with various organizations (e.g., federal government, agricultural, fisheries, and First Nations) were underrepresented in this survey (Table 2). Given that the survey targeted individuals who had knowledge of natural resource management and surface water- or groundwater-related issues, most respondents (based on the overall totals) primary areas of practice were forest management, watershed management, land use planning, surface water hydrology, fisheries and aquatic ecology, research, and natural resource hazards (Table 3). The least common areas of practice were groundwater hydrology, waste water management, hydropower production, and oil and gas production. Many of the following figures list an Other category, which includes additional information that was not addressed in the original categories in the survey. The Other responses that were provided by respondents are listed below the respective tables. When more than one respondent provided the same new category, the number of times it was provided is noted in parentheses. 5

16 TABLE 3 Respondents field/area of primary practice in each of the natural resource regions. (Note: Respondents were able to select a maximum of three responses.) Results are sorted by Overall responses. Field/area of primary practice Skeena (n = 47) Omineca (n = 47) Response (%) Cariboo (n = 45) Kootenay/ Boundary (n = 79) Provincial (n = 39) Forest management Watershed management Land use planning Surface water hydrology Fisheries and aquatic ecology Research Overall (n = 224) Natural resource hazards (e.g., mass movements, floods) Community/stewardship/NGO Surface water management (allocation, licensing) Policy development Groundwater management (allocation, licensing) Water purveyor Geoscience and engineering Mining and minerals extraction Agriculture Energy (e.g., oil and gas, hydro, geothermal) Groundwater hydrology Waste water management Hydropower production Oil and gas production Other a a Other included hydrometric monitoring; operations; monitoring; First Nations consultation as it relates to water authorizations; natural resource enforcement; water chemistry; environmental monitoring; First Nations relations; safety management system development; biodiversity and old-growth management; primarily deal with Section 7 of Drinking Water Protection Act; forest development/layout; ecosystem restoration; environmental protection; natural resource compliance and enforcement for designated major projects under the Reviewable Projects Regulation; groundwater data and systems management; urban impacts on water; water quality monitoring; water quality; dam safety; lumber manufacturing; emergency management; public safety. Respondents identified the primary areas of their professional practice (Table 4). The five most common responses were stewardship and conservation, management, operations, monitoring, planning, and research. The least common responses were policy and regulation, data collection, allocation/ licensing, remediation, and compliance and enforcement. Based on the overall and the regional results, surface water quantity, fish and aquatic ecosystems, and surface water quality were ranked the highest of the seven themes related to the respondents primary areas of practice, followed by natural resource hazard and groundwater surface water interactions themes; groundwater quantity and groundwater quality themes ranked the lowest (Figure 3). Survey Response Summaries Respondents were asked to rank their priority information needs as high, medium, or low with respect to improving their ability to do their job. Respondents selected not applicable if an answer was not currently applicable 6

17 TABLE 4 Respondents primary water-related focus of professional practice in each of the natural resource regions. (Note: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses.) Field/area of primary practice Skeena (n = 47) Omineca (n = 47) Response (%) Cariboo (n = 45) Kootenay/ Boundary (n = 79) Provincial (n = 39) Stewardship and conservation Management Operations Monitoring (e.g., trend, baseline, compliance) Planning Research Policy and regulation Overall (n = 224) Data collection (e.g., well log data, consultant reports) Allocation/licensing Remediation Compliance and enforcement Other a a Other included provide water to rural residential houses; First Nations consultation (2); water chemistry teaching; related to work as a project assessment officer; communications internal and external to government; staff training; environmental assessment for major project reviews; forest operations (2); impact assessment; fish conservation; consult to state agencies (e.g., Washington Department of Natural Resources) on riparian management along streams and wetlands; forecasting of water supply, floods, and low flows; safe operation of structures. to their job. Also, in some instances, the respondents did not provide a ranking for a particular category; these instances were grouped with the not applicable category. The number of responses (n value) also varies among the summaries of responses because survey questions that were left completely blank were omitted from the summary of responses; it was assumed that sections that respondents left completely blank were not relevant to their area of experience or practice. Categories in the even-numbered figures (Figures 4 32) are ranked by the number of high responses in descending order based on ranking the overall percent. Many of the following figures list an Other category, which includes additional information that was not addressed in the original categories in the survey. The Other responses that were provided by respondents are listed in the respective figure captions. Figures 5 33 (odd-numbered figures) show the FLNRO staff ranks and the overall average rank of all responses for each respondent group and category of survey questions. An average priority ranking was calculated by using the following numerical rankings: 3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered. This information was provided to highlight whether FLNRO staff responses differed from the combined overall response. Surface Water Quantity Hydrologic Processes Respondents identified peak flow magnitude, peak flow timing, snow accumulation and melt rates, low-flow magnitude, and low-flow timing as the highest-priority information needs related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes (Figure 4). The order of ranking was mostly consistent among the 7

18 Surface water quantity Fish and aquatic ecosystems Skeena (n = 47) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 79) Surface water quality Natural resource hazards Groundwater surface water interaction Groundwater quantity Groundwater quality Surface water quantity Fish and aquatic ecosystems Omineca (n = 47) Provincial (n = 39) Surface water quality Natural resource hazards Groundwater surface water interaction Groundwater quantity Groundwater quality Surface water quantity Fish and aquatic ecosystems Cariboo (n = 45) Overall (n = 224) Surface water quality Natural resource hazards Groundwater surface water interaction Groundwater quantity Groundwater quality High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 3 Respondent ranking of water-related themes in terms of relevance to the respondents primary areas of practice in each of the regions and overall. respondent categories; however, Skeena and provincial respondents ranked the peak flow timing category lower than the snow accumulation and melt rates and low-flow magnitude categories. The lowest-priority information needs included annual water yield, groundwater recharge, infiltration and soil moisture storage, and evaporation and transpiration rates. 8

19 Skeena (n = 47) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 79) Peak flow magnitude Peak flow timing Snow accumulation and melt rates Low-flow magnitude Low-flow timing Rainfall timing and rates Groundwater surface water interaction Annual water yield Groundwater recharge Infiltration and soil moisture storage Evaporation and transpiration rates Omineca (n = 47) Provincial (n = 39) Peak flow magnitude Peak flow timing Snow accumulation and melt rates Low-flow magnitude Low-flow timing Rainfall timing and rates Groundwater surface water interaction Annual water yield Groundwater recharge Infiltration and soil moisture storage Evaporation and transpiration rates Cariboo (n = 45) Overall (n = 224) Peak flow magnitude Peak flow timing Snow accumulation and melt rates Low-flow magnitude Low-flow timing Rainfall timing and rates Groundwater surface water interaction Annual water yield Groundwater recharge Infiltration and soil moisture storage Evaporation and transpiration rates High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 4 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes in each region and overall. (Other responses included glacier inputs, impacts of forestry activities on surface water, and peak and low-flow return periods [i.e., Q 50, Q 100, 7-day low-flows once in 5 years]). FLNRO staff responses followed a similar trend in the overall average priority rankings (Figure 5); however, FLNRO responses from Skeena ranked peak flow timing lower than the other respondent categories. Also, low-flow magnitude and low-flow timing ranked higher in the Cariboo and Kootenay/ Boundary regions than in the other regions (Figure 5). Annual water yield was also ranked higher in the Kootenay/Boundary region than in the other regions. 9

20 3 2 Skeena (n = 14) Omineca (n = 17) Cariboo (n = 11) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 13) Provincial (n = 6) Overall (n = 224) Average rank 1 0 Rainfall timing and rates Low-flow timing Low-flow magnitude Snow accumulation and melt rates Peak flow timing Peak flow magnitude Evaporation and transpiration rates Infiltration and soil moisture storage Groundwater recharge Annual water yield Groundwater surface water interaction FIGURE 5 Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Management of Surface Water Quantity Respondents identified climate change effects on water supply, forest management effects, cumulative hydrologic effects, environmental flow needs, water availability/storage, and current allocation as the highest-priority information needs related to the management of surface water quantity (Figure 6). Lowerpriority information needs included agricultural/range effects, mining effects, hydropower generation, urban water management, and recreational uses. The general trend in priority information needs was shared among all the regions; however, forest management was identified as the highest in the Kootenay/ Boundary region, and environmental flow needs were ranked as the highest by provincial respondents. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 7); however, environmental flow needs were ranked much higher in the Cariboo and Kootenay/Boundary regions than in the other regions. Cumulative hydrologic effects, water availability/storage, and current allocation were also ranked higher in the Cariboo region. Forest management effects were ranked lower and hydropower generation was ranked higher by provincial respondents. 10

21 Skeena (n = 47) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 79) Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Cumulative hydrologic effects Environmental flow needs Water availability/storage Current allocation Agricultural/range effects Mining effects Hydropower generation Urban water management Recreational uses Omineca (n = 47) Provincial (n = 39) Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Cumulative hydrologic effects Environmental flow needs Water availability/storage Current allocation Agricultural/range effects Mining effects Hydropower generation Urban water management Recreational uses Cariboo (n = 45) Overall (n = 224) Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Cumulative hydrologic effects Environmental flow needs Water availability/storage Current allocation Agricultural/range effects Mining effects Hydropower generation Urban water management Recreational uses High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 6 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quantity. (Other responses included notification of planned regional hydrometric monitoring and notification of initiatives on streams in proximity to established hydrometric stations to protect the integrity of the hydrometric program, critical environmental flow needs, and high priority for fisheries-sensitive watersheds.) 11

22 3 2 Skeena (n = 14) Omineca (n = 17) Cariboo (n = 11) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 13) Provincial (n = 6) Overall (n = 224) Average rank 1 0 Mining effects Agricultural/range effects Current allocation Water availability/storage Environmental flow needs Cumulative hydrologic effects Forest management effects Climate change effects on water supply Recreational uses Urban water management Hydropower generation FIGURE 7 Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Groundwater Quantity Hydrogeologic Processes Respondents identified groundwater surface water interaction, water levels, recharge rates, aquifer mapping, and withdrawal amounts as the highest-priority information needs related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes (Figure 8). Lower-priority information needs included flowing artesian conditions, lithology, and saltwater intrusion. This general pattern in priorities was consistent among the regions, although there were slight differences in the percent of high priorities (Figure 8) FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings; however, rankings by respondent group varied (Figure 9). 12

23 Skeena (n = 45) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 77) Groundwater surface water interaction Water levels Recharge rates Aquifer mapping Withdrawal amounts Aquifer yield potential Aquifer permeability and porosity Flow direction Storativity Geological model Aquifer typing Flowing artesian conditions Lithology Saltwater intrusion Groundwater surface water interaction Water levels Recharge rates Aquifer mapping Withdrawal amounts Aquifer yield potential Aquifer permeability and porosity Flow direction Storativity Geological model Aquifer typing Flowing artesian conditions Lithology Saltwater intrusion Omineca (n = 47) Provincial (n = 39) Cariboo (n = 45) Overall (n = 218) Groundwater surface water interaction Water levels Recharge rates Aquifer mapping Withdrawal amounts Aquifer yield potential Aquifer permeability and porosity Flow direction Storativity Geological model Aquifer typing Flowing artesian conditions Lithology Saltwater intrusion High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 8 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes. (Other responses included improved data management systems [i.e., WELLS database] to help collect, store, and report on data that were identified in the survey question.) 13

24 3 2 Skeena (n = 13) Omineca (n = 17) Cariboo (n = 11) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 13) Provincial (n = 6) Overall (n = 218) Average rank 1 0 Aquifer typing Geological model Storativity Flow direction Aquifer permeability and porosity Aquifer yield potential Withdrawal amounts Aquifer mapping Recharge rates Water levels Groundwater surface water interaction Saltwater intrusion Lithology Flowing artesian conditions FIGURE 9 Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Management of Groundwater Quantity Respondents identified cumulative hydrologic effects, climate change effects on water supply, forest management effects, water well locations, current groundwater availability, and current groundwater withdrawals as the highest-priority information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity (Figure 10). The lowest-priority information needs included agricultural effects, mining effects, and urban water management. FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order; however, provincial respondents ranked cumulative hydrologic effects and forest management effects lower than the overall average. Omineca respondents ranked current groundwater availability and current groundwater withdrawals lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 11). 14

25 Cumulative hydrologic effects Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Water well locations Current groundwater availability Current groundwater withdrawals Agricultural effects Mining effects Skeena (n = 45) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 76) Urban water management Cumulative hydrologic effects Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Water well locations Current groundwater availability Current groundwater withdrawals Agricultural effects Mining effects Omineca (n = 47) Provincial (n = 39) Urban water management Cumulative hydrologic effects Climate change effects on water supply Forest management effects Water well locations Current groundwater availability Current groundwater withdrawals Agricultural effects Mining effects Urban water management Cariboo (n = 44) Overall (n = 218) High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 10 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity. 15

26 3 2 Skeena (n = 13) Omineca (n = 17) Cariboo (n = 10) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 13) Provincial (n = 6) Overall (n = 218) Average rank 1 0 Water well locations Forest management effects Climate change effects on water supply Cumulative hydrologic effects Mining effects Agricultural effects Current groundwater withdrawals Current groundwater availability Urban water management FIGURE 11 Management of groundwater quantity: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Surface Water Quality Respondents identified sediment, turbidity, temperature, biological water quality, and nutrients as the highest-priority information needs related to surface water quality (Figure 12). The lowest-priority information needs were organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and radiological agents. Priority rankings were generally consistent among the respondent groups. FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order but were ranked lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 13). The provincial FLNRO staff ranked water quality issues consistently lower than did the regional staff, which may be a result of the FLNRO staff who responded to the survey. FLNRO respondents job-related duties tended to be focussed more on surface water quantity than on surface water quality. 16

27 Sediment Turbidity Temperature Biological water quality Nutrients Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Pharmaceuticals Skeena (n = 45) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 74) Radiological agents Sediment Turbidity Temperature Biological water quality Nutrients Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Pharmaceuticals Omineca (n = 46) Provincial (n = 36) Radiological agents Sediment Turbidity Temperature Biological water quality Nutrients Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Pharmaceuticals Radiological agents Cariboo (n = 44) Overall (n = 212) High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 12 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quality. (Other responses included not aware of a concern with radiological agents in the Boundary region, maybe in the West Kootenay; metals; and quality is necessary only with respect to environmental flow needs.) 17

28 3 2 Skeena (n = 13) Omineca (n = 16) Cariboo (n = 10) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 10) Provincial (n = 5) Overall (n = 212) Average rank 1 0 Sediment Turbidity Temperature Nutrients Biological water quality Radiological agents Pharmaceuticals Organic chemicals Inorganic chemicals FIGURE 13 Surface water quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Management of Surface Water Quality Respondents identified activities in riparian areas, cumulative effects, forest management effects, climate change effects, activities in wetland areas, and aquatic ecosystem management as the highest-priority information needs related to the management of surface water quality (Figure 14). The lowestpriority information needs were recreation, aquaculture effects, and saltwater intrusion. FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order but were ranked slightly lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 15). Most provincial FLNRO respondents identified these categories as not applicable ; therefore, priority rankings were very low for this group (Figure 15). These low rankings from the provincial FLNRO respondents are likely a reflection of their job-related duties, which are focussed more on surface water quantity than on surface water quality. 18

29 Skeena (n = 44) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 73) Activities in riparian areas Cumulative effects Forest management effects Climate change effects Activities in wetland areas Aquatic ecosystem management Mining effects Agriculture effects Range effects Oil and gas effects Urban development effects Recreation Aquaculture effects Saltwater intrusion Activities in riparian areas Cumulative effects Forest management effects Climate change effects Activities in wetland areas Aquatic ecosystem management Mining effects Agriculture effects Range effects Oil and gas effects Urban development effects Recreation Aquaculture effects Saltwater intrusion Omineca (n = 45) Provincial (n = 35) Cariboo (n = 42) Overall (n = 208) Activities in riparian areas Cumulative effects Forest management effects Climate change effects Activities in wetland areas Aquatic ecosystem management Mining effects Agriculture effects Range effects Oil and gas effects Urban development effects Recreation Aquaculture effects Saltwater intrusion High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 14 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quality. (Other responses included cumulative surface water and groundwater withdrawals on surface water temperature, mud bogging, invasive species management, and oil and gas effects only in northeastern British Columbia.) 19

30 3 2 Skeena (n = 13) Omineca (n = 17) Cariboo (n = 10) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 9) Provincial (n = 5) Overall (n = 208) Average rank 1 0 Activities in wetland areas Climate change effects Forest management effects Cumulative effects Activities in riparian areas Saltwater intrusion Aquaculture effects Recreation Urban development effects Oil and gas effects Range effects Agriculture effects Mining effects Aquatic ecosystem management FIGURE 15 Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Groundwater Quality Respondents identified biological water quality, inorganic chemicals, nutrients, organic chemicals, and temperature as the highest-priority information needs related to groundwater quality (Figure 16). The lowest-priority information needs were sediment, turbidity, radiological agents, and pharmaceuticals. FLNRO staff responses showed a similar ranking trend but were generally ranked lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 17). 20

31 Biological water quality Inorganic chemicals Nutrients Organic chemicals Temperature Sediment Turbidity Radiological agents Skeena (n = 45) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 74) Pharmaceuticals Biological water quality Inorganic chemicals Nutrients Organic chemicals Temperature Sediment Turbidity Radiological agents Omineca (n = 46) Provincial (n = 36) Pharmaceuticals Biological water quality Inorganic chemicals Nutrients Organic chemicals Temperature Sediment Turbidity Radiological agents Pharmaceuticals Cariboo (n = 44) Overall (n = 212) High % Medium % Low % NA % FIGURE 16 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quality. (Other responses included not aware of a concern with radiological agents in the Boundary region, maybe in the West Kootenay; and metals.) 21

32 3 2 Skeena (n = 13) Omineca (n = 16) Cariboo (n = 10) Kootenay/Boundary (n = 10) Provincial (n = 5) Overall (n = 212) Average rank 1 0 Nutrients Inorganic chemicals Biological water quality Temperature Organic chemicals Sediment Turbidity Pharmaceuticals Radiological agents FIGURE 17 Groundwater quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO staff responses by each region and key information needs. The overall average priority ranking for all the individual responses is also provided. Management of Groundwater Quality Respondents identified cumulative effects, climate change effects, forest management effects, activities in riparian areas, and activities in wetlands as the highest-priority information needs related to the management of groundwater quality (Figure 18). The lowest-priority information needs were range effects, recreation, saltwater intrusion, and aquaculture effects. FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order but were generally ranked lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 19). 22