T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T 0 9 5

Transcription

1 T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management in the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region, British Columbia

2 Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management in the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region, British Columbia Rob Scherer, Todd Redding, Kevin Ronneseth, and Dave Wilford The Best Place on Earth

3 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. Print edition: isbn Electronic/PDF edition: ISBN Citation Scherer, R., T. Redding, K. Ronneseth, and D. Wilford Research and information needs assessment to support sustainable watershed management in the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region, 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 B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Skeena Region Smithers, B.C. Copies of this report may be obtained from: Crown Publications, Queen s Printer PO Box 9452 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC v8w 9v For information on other publications in this series, visit Province of British Columbia When using information from this report, please cite fully and correctly.

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 (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 Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region of British Columbia. In total, 137 individuals who were familiar with surface water and/or groundwater issues in this region completed all or portions of the survey and identified priority topics for research, monitoring, data collection and policy development. The survey was conducted from October 15 to December 31, This report is the second in a series of regional assessments that are being conducted across British Columbia. The first regional assessment was completed in northeastern British Columbia (Lapp et al. 2015). Survey respondents most frequently identified the following priority research and management information needs: surface water quantity research on peak flow magnitude and timing; snow accumulation and melt rates; and low-flow magnitude and timing; understanding and management of cumulative effects and land use effects on all aspects of surface water, groundwater, aquatic ecosystems, and natural resource development hazards; climate change effects on all aspects of water resources and aquatic ecology; groundwater quantity research on surface water groundwater interactions, and aquifer identification and characterization to quantify the availability and extent of groundwater resources; water budgets to improve understanding of water availability/withdrawals to ensure sustainable allocation of both surface water and groundwater; environmental flow needs for fish-bearing streams, temperature-sensitive streams, and land use activities in riparian areas; and natural disturbance effects, and forest management and other land use effects on riparian areas, stream flows, and water quality. More than 70% of the respondents identified the need for increased monitoring of streamflow (hydrometric monitoring), groundwater (observation wells), and climate data to better characterize and identify surface water and groundwater quantity and quality and support sustainable allocation decisions. Priority data needs included online access to data, hydrometric monitoring data, online access to analysis results/products, snow survey data, and online analysis tools. Key policy and regulatory needs that were identified included groundwater regulation and groundwater resource inventory to determine resource availability, quality, and threats to sustainability. Allocation and use of surface water and groundwater to support sustainable water supply, and new models for governance and decision-making regarding water allocation were also identified as policy and regulatory priorities. iii

5 Government capacity and funding for resource management, monitoring, research, regulation, compliance, and water stewardship, along with climatechange effects, were considered to be emerging pressures and issues. Other emerging issues not identified in past needs assessments included threats from the introduction of zebra and quagga mussels to British Columbia. The survey results identified many of the same themes and topics that were identified in previous assessments (e.g., Hollstedt 2000; Alexander and Robson 2007; Redding et al. 2008; Redding 2011; Lapp et.al. 2015). 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 info-sources/. iv

6 CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Project Purpose Report Format Methods Study Design Study Delivery Study Limitations Results Profile of Respondents Survey Response Summaries Surface water quantity hydrologic processes 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 Surface water quantity Groundwater quantity Surface water quality Groundwater quality Groundwater surface water interactions Aquatic ecosystems Natural resource development hazards 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 iii v

7 APPENDICES 1 Average priority rankings of responses in relation to the main group affiliations Current and planned water-related research Client survey questionnaire and cover letter tables 1 Number and affiliation of individuals contacted, and the number of respondents and response rate by affiliation Respondents field/area of primary practice Respondents primary water-related focus of professional practice Respondent ranking of water-related themes in terms of relevance to the respondents primary areas of practice Regional watershed(s) within which respondents practice Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes. 8 7 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of surface water quantity Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater quantity Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to surface water quality Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of surface water quality Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater quality Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater quality Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater surface water interactions Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater surface water interactions Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to aquatic ecosystems Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of aquatic ecosystems Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to natural resource development hazards Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of natural resource development hazards Respondents priority rankings of general data and information system needs vi

8 figures 1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region in south-central British Columbia Percentage of total responses for each main group affiliation Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings Management of groundwater quantity: average priority rankings Surface water quality: average priority rankings Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings Groundwater quality: average priority rankings Management of groundwater quality: average priority rankings Groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings Management of groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings Aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings Management of aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings Natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings Management of natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings General data and information systems needs: average priority rankings A1 Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings A2 Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings A3 Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings A4 Management for groundwater quantity: average priority rankings A5 Surface water quality: average priority rankings A6 Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings A7 Groundwater quality: average priority rankings A8 Management of groundwater quality: average priority rankings A9 Groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings.. 36 A10 Management of groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings A11 Aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings A12 Management of aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings A13 Natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings A14 Management of natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings A15 General data and information systems needs: average priority rankings vii

9 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 (FLNRO) conducted a research and information needs assessment to support sustainable water resource management in the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region (Figure 1) of British Columbia. This report is the second in a series of regional assessments that is being conducted across British Columbia. The first regional assessment was completed in northeastern British Columbia in 2014 (Lapp et al. 2015). FIGURE 1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Thompson Okanagan Natural Resource Region (boundary shown in red line) in south-central British Columbia. The general area of major regional watersheds is also shown. 1

10 This assessment, along with a compilation of relevant research, and data and information sources for the Thompson Okanagan region, will form the basis for the development of an applied research strategy to support sustainable water resource management in this region. Individuals 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. Survey respondents were asked to identify: key research and information needs/questions required to support sustainable water management in the Thompson Okanagan region; knowledge gaps and data requirements; policy and regulatory needs; emerging pressure/issues that are expected to require new information to support sustainable water resource management; and current and planned water-related research activities within the Thompson Okanagan region that are directly relevant to water resource management in the region. The identification of these information needs is intended to aid FLNRO in developing applied water research, monitoring, and tools to support sustainable water resource management. 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) of key research and information needs by topic area within each theme, and a summary of the written comments for each of the seven main themes. Appendix 1 presents average priority rankings of responses in relation to the main group affiliations that were surveyed. Appendix 2 lists current and planned water-related research that was identified by the respondents. Appendix 3 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 info-sources/. The database includes historic and current water projects and publications, databases, and monitoring activities conducted within the Thompson Okanagan region that are directly relevant to water resource management in the region. 2

11 METHODS Study Design Study Delivery Study Limitations A list of potential respondents was compiled and prioritized in conjunction with staff from Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (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 the Thompson Okanagan Region of British Columbia. An introduction to the project and link to the survey questions was sent by to the majority of respondents (Appendix 3). A small proportion of respondents were interviewed by telephone or in-person. The survey was carried out from October 15 to December 31, It should be noted that in some instances the survey was shared by other survey respondents for completion (e.g., regional managers distributed the survey to staff members); therefore, the number of responses received may exceed the number of respondents contacted. For this reason it is necessary to interpret the response rate data with care. 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 Thompson Okanagan region. 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 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. In total, 282 individuals were contacted; 137 completed all or portions of the survey (a survey response rate of 49%). Table 1 lists the number of individuals contacted at each affiliation, and the number of responses. Most respondents were employed by the provincial government, followed by consulting firms, the natural resource industry, and academia (Figure 2). Many of the following tables list an Other category, which includes additional information that was not addressed in the original categories in the survey. The Other responses 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. Given that the survey was targeted to individuals with knowledge of surface water or groundwater-related issues, and that provincial government employees dominated the number of respondents, most respondents primary areas of practice were surface water hydrology, research, geoscience and engineering, forest management, and fisheries and aquatic ecology (Table 2). 3

12 TABLE 1 Number and affiliation of individuals contacted, and the number of respondents and response rate by affiliation Sector/employment affiliation Response count Number contacted Response rate (%) Provincial government FLNRO a B.C. Ministry of Environment B.C. Forest Practices Board 2 2 B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines 1 1 B.C. Ministry of Agriculture 1 3 Interior Health 0 5 BC Hydro 0 2 Other (e.g., retired, other province) 1 1 Total % Consulting Hydrology Environmental (e.g., forestry, terrain stability) Total % Natural resource industry Forest industry 6 8 Range 8 6 Mining industry 1 2 B.C. Groundwater Association 1 1 Total % Academic % Local/regional government (incl. Okanagan Basin Water Board) % First Nations % Community/stewardship/NGO % Federal government Environment Canada 2 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2 8 Agriculture Canada 1 2 Total % Water purveyor % Agriculture industry/producer Total of all respondents % a B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 4

13 FIGURE 2 Percentage of total responses (n = 137) for each main group affiliation. TABLE 2 Respondents field/area of primary practice (n = 137). (Note: Respondents were able to select a maximum of three responses.) Field/area of primary practice Response (%) Surface water hydrology 27 Research 22 Geoscience and engineering 19 Forest management 16 Fisheries and aquatic ecology 15 Surface water management (allocation, licensing) 14 Policy development 14 Groundwater hydrology 13 Natural resource hazards (e.g., mass movements, floods) 13 Land use planning 12 Agriculture 10 Community/stewardship/NGO 8 Groundwater management (allocation, licensing) 5 Water purveyor 4 Waste water management 3 Mining and minerals extraction 2 Hydropower production 2 Energy (e.g., oil and gas, hydro, geothermal) 1 Oil and gas production 0 Other a 18 a Other included aggregate/water supply; all matters pertaining to lands on and off reserve; ecohydrology; economics; education (2); environmental benchmarks for water quality; environmental monitoring (groundwater); First Nations consultation; groundwater water supply and quality assessments; inventory; irrigation efficiency; just interested in my environment ; modelling water supply and demand; professional development; range management (2); river engineering; stock assessment and fisheries management; water conservation; water quality (5); and wetland protection and enhancement. 5

14 The least common areas of practice were waste water management, mining and minerals extraction, hydropower production, and energy (e.g., oil and gas, geothermal). Respondents also identified the primary water-related focusses of their professional practice (Table 3). The five most common responses were management, monitoring, planning, research, and data collection. The least common responses were policy and regulation, remediation, allocation/licensing, and compliance and enforcement. TABLE 3 Respondents primary water-related focus of professional practice (n = 137). (Note: Respondents were asked to select a maximum of three responses.) Field/area of primary practice Response (%) Management 45 Monitoring (e.g., trend, baseline, compliance) 38 Planning 32 Research 27 Data collection (e.g., well log data, consultant reports) 25 Operations 22 Policy and regulation 19 Remediation 12 Allocation/licensing 11 Compliance and enforcement 6 Other a 19 a Other included all matters related to surface water and groundwater; community interests in watershed management; conservation; consulting to industry and government; education (2); emergency management (drought, floods); engineering design; fish habitat protection; forest development planning and co-ordination of assessments; impacts on water resources from wetland, riparian, and upland sources; irrigation; just interested in my environment ; knowledge transfer; mapping and quantifying; policy related to environmental benchmarks; preserving/protection/enhancement of the Penticton Oxbows (2); research on allocation, licensing, and policy regulation; soil mapping and data provision; soil moisture studies and irrigation efficiency study; water levels recorded during salmon enumeration projects (summer to winter) and tracking discharge/temperature with respect to upstream salmon migration; water purveyor; water source protection for water utility; and water supply watershed assessment. Surface water quantity and surface water quality ranked the highest of the seven themes related to the respondents primary areas of practice, followed by natural resource hazards and groundwater quantity themes; aquatic ecosystems, groundwater surface water interactions, and groundwater quality themes ranked the lowest (Table 4). Most respondents in the seven regional watersheds addressed in this survey (Figure 1) practiced in the Okanagan and Shuswap watersheds (Table 5). 6

15 TABLE 4 Respondent ranking of water-related themes in terms of relevance to the respondents primary areas of practice (n = 137) Theme Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Surface water quantity Surface water quality Natural resource hazards Groundwater quantity Aquatic ecosystems Groundwater surface water interactions Groundwater quality TABLE 5 Regional watershed(s) within which respondents practice (n = 137). (Note: Respondents could choose more than one regional watershed.) Regional watershed Response (%) Okanagan 73 Shuswap 59 South Thompson 53 North Thompson 46 Similkameen 44 Nicola 44 Middle Fraser (Lillooet, Cache Creek, Spences Bridge) 38 Province-wide 10 Other a 16 a Other included Canada; Cariboo; Kootenays (5) (e.g., Columbia, Kettle); formerly working in Ontario; Kamloops Lake/Thompson River; Lower Mainland; Lower Thompson; none at present; Saskatchewan; South Fraser; Thompson/Okanagan (2); Thompson/Bonaparte; Upper Fraser (Quesnel south and Chilcotin River); Vancouver Island; and previous practice not currently active. 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 to their job. Categories in Tables 6 through 20 are ranked by the number of high responses in descending order. Many of the following tables list an Other category, which includes additional information that was not addressed in the original categories in the survey. The Other responses 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. Figures 3 17 provide the FLNRO group affiliation and the overall average rank of all responses for each category. 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 7

16 response. Figures showing how responses varied between affiliations are also provided in Appendix 1. Surface water quantity hydrologic processes Respondents stated that peak flow magnitude and timing, snow accumulation and melt rates, and low-flow magnitude and timing were the highest-priority topics related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes (Table 6). The lowest-priority topics included infiltration and soil moisture storage, evaporation rates, and groundwater recharge. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 3). TABLE 6 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes (n = 133) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Peak flow magnitude Peak flow timing Snow accumulation and melt rates Low-flow magnitude Low-flow timing Surface water groundwater interactions Rainfall timing and rates Annual water yield Groundwater recharge Evaporation rates Infiltration and soil moisture storage a Other comments included shape of the annual hydrograph (e.g., not just peaks); equivalent clearcut area; daily hydrometric data; any information is useful for research, but I don t make management decisions ; transpiration rates for mature and regenerating stands; and all apply equally at my level but not in detail/depth for any specifically. FIGURE 3 Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 8

17 Management of surface water quantity Respondents identified cumulative hydrologic effects, water availability/storage, climate-change effects on water supply, environmental flow needs, and forest management effects as the highest-priority topics related to the management of surface water quantity (Table 7). Low-priority issues included hydropower generation, mining effects, and recreational uses. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 4). TABLE 7 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of surface water quantity (n = 130) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative hydrologic effects Water availability/storage Climate-change effects on water supply Environmental flow needs Forest management effects Current allocation Agricultural/range effects Urban water management Recreational uses Mining effects Hydropower generation a Other comments included hydrogeomorphic effects; geographic overlap of competing demands for water; consumptive and non-consumptive; and hydrologic recovery curves are current assumptions used in the forest industry correct? FIGURE 4 Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 9

18 Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes Respondents identified surface water groundwater interactions, water levels, withdrawal amounts, aquifer mapping, and aquifer yield potential as the highest-priority topics related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes (Table 8). Low-priority topics included flowing artesian conditions, geological model, and lithology. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 5). TABLE 8 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes (n = 130) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Surface water groundwater interaction Water levels Withdrawal amounts Aquifer mapping Aquifer yield potential Recharge rates Flow direction Aquifer permeability and porosity Aquifer typing Storativity Flowing artesian conditions Geological model Lithology a Other comments included focus on groundwater with respect to salmon use (e.g., redds, rearing); concerns about pipeline spills and effects on groundwater surface water and salmon; aquifer water budgets, aquifer characterization/assessment, groundwater sustainability; and all are equally important, but none directly, given the more strategic nature of my work. FIGURE 5 Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 10

19 Management of groundwater quantity Respondents identified cumulative hydrologic effects, water well locations, current groundwater availability, climate-change effects on water supply, and current groundwater withdrawals as the highest-priority topics related to the management of groundwater quantity (Table 9). The lowest-priority topics included agricultural effects, urban water management, and mining effects. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 6). TABLE 9 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater quantity (n = 131) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative hydrologic effects Water well locations Current groundwater availability Climate-change effects on water supply Current groundwater withdrawals Forest management effects Agricultural effects Urban water management Mining effects a Other comments included residential (septic systems) effects; development of numerical modelling in priority areas; aquifer database that holds all available hydrogeologic and source data; any information is useful for research, but I don t make management decisions ; and groundwater availability number reliability. FIGURE 6 Management of groundwater quantity: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 11

20 Surface water quality Respondents identified sediment, turbidity, nutrients, temperature, and biological water quality as the highest-priority topics related to surface water quality (Table 10). The lowest-priority topics included organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and radiological agents. FLNRO staff priorities were slightly different than overall survey priorities, with FLNRO staff identifying sediment, temperature, and turbidity as the top three main priorities (Figure 7). TABLE 10 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to surface water quality (n = 131) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Sediment Turbidity Nutrients Temperature Biological water quality Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Pharmaceuticals Radiological agents a Other comments included more data on invertebrate communities in the Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN); benchmarks are developed for all these variables for multiple uses (e.g., drinking, aquatic ecosystems); endocrine-disrupting compounds; hormones; personal care products; any information is useful for research, but I don t make management decisions ; and metals, total dissolved solids, ph, and conductivity. FIGURE 7 Surface water quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 12

21 Management of surface water quality Respondents identified cumulative effects, activities in riparian areas, forest management effects, activities in wetland areas, and agriculture effects as the highest-priority topics related to the management of surface water quality (Table 11). Climate change and ecosystem management were also ranked relatively high when considering the average overall ranking (Figure 8). The lowest-priority topics were recreation, mining effects, and urban development effects. FLNRO staff responses were relatively similar to the overall average priority rankings; however, FLNRO ranked climate change and aquatic ecosystem management as two of the top four priorities (Figure 8). TABLE 11 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of surface water quality (n = 121) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative effects Activities in riparian areas Forest management effects Activities in wetland areas Agriculture effects Climate-change effects Range effects Aquatic ecosystem management Urban development effects Mining effects Recreation a Other comments included pipeline spill and invasive species effects. FIGURE 8 Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 13

22 Groundwater quality Respondents identified nutrients, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, biological water quality, and temperature as the highest-priority topics related to groundwater quality (Table 12). The lowestpriority topics were sediment, radiological agents, and pharmaceuticals. FLNRO staff responses followed a similar trend as the overall average priority rankings (e.g., highest to lowest priority) (Figure 9) but were ranked lower. TABLE 12 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater quality (n = 131) Answer options Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Nutrients Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Biological water quality Temperature Turbidity Sediment Radiological agents Pharmaceuticals FIGURE 9 Groundwater quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 14

23 Management of groundwater quality Respondents identified cumulative effects, climate-change effects, agriculture effects, activities in wetland areas, and activities in riparian areas as the highest-priority topics related to the management of groundwater quality (Table 13). The lowest-priority topics were aquatic ecosystem management, mining effects, and recreation. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 10). TABLE 13 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater quality (n = 99) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative effects Climate-change effects Agriculture effects Activities in wetland areas Activities in riparian areas Forest management effects Urban development effects Range effects Aquatic ecosystem management Mining effects Recreation a Other comments included pipeline spills. FIGURE 10 Management of groundwater quality: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 15

24 Groundwater surface water interactions The highest-priority topics related to groundwater surface water interactions that were selected by respondents focussed on where the interactions occur, water quality, and seasonal variations (Table 14). FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 11). TABLE 14 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to groundwater surface water interactions (n = 120) Rank (Percent of respondents) Answer options a High Medium Low Not applicable Where do they occur Seasonal variations Water quality Flux magnitudes Flux directions Pumping data a Other comments included especially interested in areas with high agricultural use and high urban development with septic systems ; any information is useful for research, but I don t make management decisions ; didn t quite understand the question. FIGURE 11 Groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 16

25 Management of groundwater surface water interactions Respondents identified cumulative effects, water withdrawal, climate change, and forest management as the highest priority topics related to the management of groundwater surface water interactions (Table 15). The lowest priority topics were urban development, mining, and hydropower generation. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings, but forest management effects on groundwater surface water interactions was not identified as a top priority (Figure 12). TABLE 15 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of groundwater surface water interactions (n = 120) Answer options Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative effects Water withdrawal Climate change Forest management Agriculture Activities in riparian areas Activities in wetland areas Aquatic ecosystem management Range management Urban development Mining Hydropower generation FIGURE 12 Management of groundwater surface water interactions: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 17

26 Aquatic ecosystems Respondents identified environmental flow needs, temperature-sensitive streams, and activities in riparian areas as the highestpriority topics related to aquatic ecosystems (Table 16). The lowest-priority topice were fish populations and aquatic ecosystem health. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 13). TABLE 16 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to aquatic ecosystems (n = 120) Answer options Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Environmental flow needs Temperature-sensitive streams Activities in riparian areas Activities in wetland areas Fish populations Aquatic ecosystem health (e.g., biomonitoring) FIGURE 13 Aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 18

27 Management of aquatic ecosystems Respondents identified cumulative effects, activities in riparian areas, aquatic ecosystem management, activities in wetlands, and climate change as the highest-priority topics related to the management of aquatic ecosystems (Table 17). The lowest-priority topics were urban development, mining, and hydropower generation. FLNRO staff responses differed from the overall average priority rankings by identifying climate change and water withdrawals as the top two priorities (Figure 14). TABLE 17 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of aquatic ecosystems (n = 108) Answer options Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative effects Activities in riparian areas Aquatic ecosystem management Activities in wetland areas Climate change Water withdrawal Forest management Agriculture Range management Urban development Mining Hydropower generation FIGURE 14 Management of aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 19

28 Natural resource development hazards Respondents identified floods, drought, and surface erosion as the highest-priority topics related to natural resource development hazards (Table 18). The lowest-priority topics were slope mass movements and snow avalanches. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 15). TABLE 18 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to natural resource development hazards (n = 120) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Floods Drought Surface erosion Slope mass movements Snow avalanche a Other comments included not applicable to my job but effects can jeopardize fish and their habitat so then would be interested in all ; contaminant pollution (e.g., air, water, soil); karst; earthquake; permafrost; loss of permafrost ice/snow; and climate-change effects. FIGURE 15 Natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 20

29 Management of natural resource development hazards Respondents identified cumulative effects, climate change, forest management, activities in riparian areas, and aquatic ecosystem management as the highest-priority topics related to natural resource development hazards (Table 19). The lowestpriority topics were agriculture, mining, range management, and hydropower generation. FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 16). TABLE 19 Respondents priority rankings of key information needs for selected topics related to the management of natural resource development hazards (n = 104) Answer options Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Cumulative effects Climate change Forest management Activities in riparian areas Aquatic ecosystem management Activities in wetland areas Urban development Water withdrawal Agriculture Mining Range management Hydropower generation FIGURE 16 Management of natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings (3 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low, 0 = not applicable or not answered) for the FLNRO group affiliation and all the combined individual responses for key information needs. 21

30 Data and information system needs Respondents identified a wide range of data and information system needs as a high priority. Most respondents identified online access to data, hydrometric monitoring data, online access to analysis results/products (e.g., interpreted data), snow survey data, and online analysis tools (e.g., statistical analysis, models) as high priorities (Table 20). More than 70% of these responses identified online access to data and hydrometric monitoring data as a high priority. Lower-priority topics included chemical water quality and water temperature monitoring, biological water quality monitoring, and geological data. In general, FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings (Figure 17), except that the need for hydrometric monitoring was identified as the highest priority, and data and information needs related to physical and chemical water quality were ranked lower than the overall average priority rankings. This difference is likely a reflection of the FLNRO respondents focus on water quantity. Most FLNRO staff surveyed were involved in water allocation and licensing, not water quality monitoring or research. TABLE 20 Respondents priority rankings of general data and information system needs (n = 121) Answer options a Rank (Percent of respondents) High Medium Low Not applicable Online access to data Hydrometric monitoring data Online access to analysis results/products (e.g., interpreted data) Snow survey data Online analysis tools (e.g., statistical analysis, models) Online data repository (e.g., groups can upload data to share) Climate monitoring data High-elevation climate data Water consumption/usage data Groundwater-level monitoring data Physical water quality monitoring data Chemical water quality monitoring data Water temperature monitoring data Biological water quality monitoring data Geologic data a Other comments included the following: in priority areas, completion of (1) aquifer water budgets, (2) compilation of aquifer properties into an aquifer database, (3) characterization and assessment of regional aquifers, (4) cumulative effects of water extractions, and (5) climate-change effects; events, conferences, and face-to-face opportunities to collaborate across the Southern Interior; connection to BC Water Use Reporting Centre database; and, unless included in water quality, an isotope database. 22