Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management ... ·...

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T 1 1 6

116

2 0 1 8

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

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

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 978-0-7726-7190-5 – Print versionISBN 978-0-7726-7191-2 – Digital version

Copies of this report may be obtained, depending upon supply, from:Crown Publications, Queen’s Printer2nd Floor, 563 Superior StreetVictoria, BC v8w 9v71-800-663-6105www.crownpub.bc.ca

For more information on other publications in this series, visit www.for.gov.bc.ca/scripts/hfd/pubs/hfdcatalog/index.asp

© 2018 Province of British Columbia

When using information from this report, please cite fully and correctly.

CitationScherer, R., T. Redding, K. Ronneseth, and D. Wilford. 2018. 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. 116. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr116.htm

Prepared byRob SchererDepartment of Civil Engineering TechnologyOkanagan CollegeKelowna, B.C.

Todd ReddingDepartment of Geography, Earth and Environmental SciencesOkanagan CollegePenticton, B.C.

Kevin RonnesethRonneseth Hydrogeology ConsultingVictoria, B.C.

Dave WilfordResearch Hydrologist, North AreaB.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural DevelopmentSmithers, B.C.

www.for.gov.bc.ca/scripts/hfd/pubs/hfdcatalog/index.asp

www.for.gov.bc.ca/scripts/hfd/pubs/hfdcatalog/index.asp

iii

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 sus-tainable 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 is-sues in these regions completed all or portions of the survey and identified priority topics for research, monitoring, data collection, and policy develop-ment. The survey was conducted from May 19 to September 30, 2016. This report is the fourth in a series of regional assessments that have been con-ducted across British Columbia. The first regional assessment was completed in northeastern British Columbia in 2014 (Lapp et al. 2015), the second re-gional 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 re-search 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 cumula-tive effects on all aspects of surface water, groundwater, aquatic ecosys-tems, 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 for-est development and natural disturbances;

• groundwater quantity research on groundwater–surface water interac-tions, 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, analy-sis 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.

iv

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 water-sheds;

• increased riparian protection on all watercourses but especially head-water and small streams;

• development of environmental flow needs requires more operational guidance, development of locally applicable policies/guidance, and de-termination of critical thresholds that are scientifically defensible;

• more information about the implementation of the Water Sustainabili-ty 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, includ-ing 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 www.bcwatertool.ca/info-sources/.

v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Project Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Report Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Study Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Profile of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Survey Response Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Surface Water Quantity Hydrologic Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Management of Surface Water Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Groundwater Quantity Hydrogeologic Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Management of Groundwater Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Management of Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Management of Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Management of Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . 26Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Management of Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Natural Resource Development Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Management of Natural Resource Development Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . 34Data and Information System Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Research and Information Needs/Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Key Policy and Regulatory Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Emerging Pressures/Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Research and Monitoring Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Surface water quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Groundwater quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Surface water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Groundwater quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Groundwater–surface water interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Aquatic ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Natural resource development hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Key Priority Research, Policy, and Management Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

CONTENTS

Appendices1 Current and planned water-related research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 Client survey questionnaire and cover letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

vi

FIGURES1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Skeena, Omineca,

Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions in British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Percentage of total responses by primary location of work and sector affiliation for the six survey categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quantity hydrologic processes in each region and overall . . 9

5 Surface water quantity hydrologic processes: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7 Management of surface water quantity: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . 12

8 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

9 Groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11 Management of groundwater quantity: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . 16

12 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to surface water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13 Surface water quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

14 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of surface water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

15 Management of surface water quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . 20

tables1 Region(s) within which respondents practiced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Number, affiliation, and primary work location of individuals

who completed the survey for each of the six respondent groups . . . . . . 43 Respondents’ field/area of primary practice in each of the natural

resource regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Respondents’ primary water-related focus of professional practice

in each of the natural resource regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

vii

16 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

17 Groundwater quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

18 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

19 Management of groundwater quality: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . 24

20 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater–surface water interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

21 Groundwater–surface water interactions: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . 26

22 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater–surface water interactions . . . . . . . . . . 27

23 Management of groundwater–surface water interactions: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

24 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to aquatic ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

25 Aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

26 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of aquatic ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

27 Management of aquatic ecosystems: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . 32

28 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to natural resource development hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

29 Natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . 34

30 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of natural resource development hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

31 Management of natural resource development hazards: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

32 Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Skeena and Kootenay/Boundary respondent groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

33 Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Omineca and Provincial respondent groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

34 Priority rankings of general data and information system needs by the Cariboo and Overall respondent groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

35 General data and information systems needs: average priority rankings for the flnro staff responses by each region and key information needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1

INTRODUCTION

Watershed management issues are among the many challenges facing natu-ral resource managers in British Columbia. The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations1 (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 northeast-ern British Columbia in 2014 (Lapp et al. 2015), the second regional assess-ment 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).

Project Purpose

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).

fur 1 Extent of the survey conducted within the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions in British Columbia.

Skeena Region

Omineca Region

Cariboo Region

Kootenay/Boundary Region

0 100 200 400 kilometres

�

2

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 develop-ment 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.

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 www .bcwatertool.ca/info-sources/. The database includes historic and current water projects and publications, databases, and monitoring activities con-ducted within the four regions that are directly relevant to water resource management in those regions.

METHODS

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 famil-iar with surface water and/or groundwater issues in one or more of the four regions of British Columbia.

Report Format

Study Design

http://www.bcwatertool.ca/info-sources


3

An introduction to the project and a link to the survey questions was sent by email to most respondents (Appendix 2). The survey was conducted from May 19 to September 30, 2016. In some instances, respondents forwarded the sur-vey 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 di-rectly 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 Re-gions. This report does not offer any interpretation of the respondents’ input; it only presents and summarizes the results collected in the survey.

RESULTS

The identification of a respondent’s region, affiliation, or sector helped deter-mine 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 cate-gories 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

Study Delivery

Study Limitations

Profile of Respondents

TABLE 1 Region(s) within which respondents practiced ( n = 224). (Note: Respondents could choose more than one region.)

Region Response (%)One region

Skeena 16Omineca 12Cariboo 13Kootenay/Boundary 31

Two regionsSkeena and Omineca 3Omineca and Cariboo 2Cariboo and Kootenay/Boundary 2Omineca and Kootenay/Boundary 1

Three regionsSkeena, Omineca, and Cariboo 2Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary 1

All four regions and/or province-wide 17

4

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

Sector/employment affiliation Skeena Omineca CaribooKootenay/Boundary

Provincial (all four regions or province-wide)

Overall totals

Provincial governmentFLNRO 14 17 11 13 6 54B.C. Ministry of Environment 1 1 1 4 14 20Forest Practices Board 0 0 0 0 6 6BC Oil and Gas Commission 1 2 0 0 0 2B.C. Ministry of Agriculture 1 0 0 1 1 3Health Authority 0 0 1 2 0 2BC Hydro 0 1 0 1 0 1B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 17 21 13 22 27 89Consulting (including surface water, geoscience, environmental, and fisheries) 7 7 8 25 6 41Natural resource industry

Forest industry 8 9 10 12 1 39Ranching 1 0 0 0 0 1

Total 9 9 10 12 1 40Local/regional government 4 1 2 9 0 15First Nations 6 2 5 0 0 12Community/stewardship/NGO 1 3 2 5 1 11Academic 2 3 4 2 1 7Federal government

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1 1 1 0 0 2Environment and Climate Change Canada 0 0 0 0 2 2Natural Resources Canada 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 1 1 1 0 3 5Water purveyor 0 0 0 4 0 4

Total of all respondents 47 47 45 79 39 224a

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.

all four regions (Table 1). It should be noted that 11% of the respondents prac-ticed 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 gov-ernment, and water purveyors (Figure 2). Also, a relatively high number of survey respondents was affiliated with the Kootenay/Boundary Natural Re-source Region compared with the other three natural regions surveyed

5

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.

Skeena(n = 47)

Omineca(n = 47)

Cariboo(n = 45)

Kootney/Boundary(n = 79)

Provincial(n = 39)

Overall(n = 224)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Water purveyor

Federal government

Academic

Community/stewardship/NGO

First Nations

Local/regional government

Natural resource industry

Consulting

Provincial government

(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 pro-file 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 underrepresent-ed 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 hy-drology, 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.

6

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.

Response (%)

Field/area of primary practiceSkeena (n = 47)

Omineca (n = 47)

Cariboo (n = 45)

Kootenay/Boundary

(n = 79)Provincial

(n = 39)Overall

(n = 224)Forest management 34 49 42 33 18 37Watershed management 23 19 31 27 10 21Land use planning 34 23 13 10 3 16Surface water hydrology 4 9 11 15 46 16Fisheries and aquatic ecology 26 17 20 10 15 16Research 21 23 20 9 15 13Natural resource hazards (e.g., mass movements, floods) 11 9 9 14 21 12Community/stewardship/NGO 13 11 11 11 3 10Surface water management (allocation, licensing) 9 6 16 11 3 10Policy development 13 4 9 10 10 9Groundwater management (allocation, licensing) 13 9 13 8 5 8Water purveyor 11 2 4 14 3 8Geoscience and engineering 4 4 4 9 15 7Mining and minerals extraction 9 4 4 5 10 6Agriculture 9 4 2 4 3 5Energy (e.g., oil and gas, hydro, geothermal) 9 4 0 4 8 4Groundwater hydrology 9 6 2 3 8 4Waste water management 9 0 0 3 5 4Hydropower production 0 4 0 4 5 3Oil and gas production 2 2 0 0 5 2Othera 0 9 2 14 18 10

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 conserva-tion, 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, fol-lowed by natural resource hazard and groundwater–surface water interactions themes; groundwater quantity and groundwater quality themes ranked the lowest (Figure 3).

Respondents were asked to rank their priority information needs as high, medium, or low with respect to improving their ability to do their job. Re-spondents selected “not applicable” if an answer was not currently applicable

Survey Response Summaries

7

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.)

Response (%)

Field/area of primary practiceSkeena (n = 47)

Omineca (n = 47)

Cariboo (n = 45)

Kootenay/Boundary

(n = 79)Provincial

(n = 39)Overall

(n = 224)Stewardship and conservation 49 28 44 34 23 36Management 28 23 24 47 36 34Operations 30 26 22 34 28 32Monitoring (e.g., trend, baseline, compliance) 40 32 22 22 51 31Planning 34 30 31 37 15 30Research 26 23 24 14 21 18Policy and regulation 15 2 7 16 26 15Data collection (e.g., well log data, consultant reports) 13 17 7 13 23 13Allocation/licensing 17 15 11 8 10 11Remediation 2 9 13 10 10 8Compliance and enforcement 4 2 9 5 13 7Othera 4 6 4 9 10 7

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 rank-ing 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 com-pletely 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 over-all percent.

Many of the following figures list an “Other” category, which includes ad-ditional 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.

Respondents identified peak flow magnitude, peak flow timing, snow accu-mulation and melt rates, low-flow magnitude, and low-flow timing as the highest-priority information needs related to surface water quantity hydrolog-ic processes (Figure 4). The order of ranking was mostly consistent among the

Surface Water Quantity Hydrologic

Processes

8

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.

Surface water quantity

Fish and aquatic ecosystems

Surface water quality

Natural resource hazards

Groundwater–surface water interaction

Groundwater quantity

Groundwater quality







Groundwater quality







Groundwater quality

Kootenay/Boundary (n = 79)Skeena (n = 47)

High % Medium % Low % NA %

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 39)Omineca (n = 47)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall (n = 224)Cariboo (n = 45)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

9

FLNRO staff responses followed a similar trend in the overall average prior-ity rankings (Figure 5); however, FLNRO responses from Skeena ranked peak flow timing lower than the other respondent categories. Also, low-flow mag-nitude 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.

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., Q50, Q100, 7-day low-flows once in 5 years]).

Peak flow magnitude

Peak flow timing

Snow accumulation and melt rates

Low-flow magnitude

Low-flow timing

Rainfall timing and rates


Annual water yield

Groundwater recharge

Infiltration and soil moisture storage

Evaporation and transpiration rates



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Peak flow magnitude

Peak flow timing


Low-flow magnitude

Low-flow timing



Annual water yield





0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Peak flow magnitude

Peak flow timing


Low-flow magnitude

Low-flow timing



Annual water yield





0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

10

Respondents identified climate change effects on water supply, forest manage-ment 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). Lower-priority 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. Cu-mulative 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 provin-cial respondents.

Management of Surface Water

Quantity

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.

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Peak flow tim

ing

Peak flow m

agnitude

Snow accum

ulation and melt rates

Low-flow

magnitude

Low-flow

timing


Annual water yield

Groundw

ater rechargeInfiltration and soil m

oisture storage

Groundw

ater–surface water interaction


Skeena (n = 14)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 11)

Kootenay/Boundary (n = 13)

Provincial (n = 6)

Overall (n = 224)

11

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.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

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






Current allocation


Mining effects



Recreational uses






Current allocation


Mining effects



Recreational uses

12

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.

Respondents identified groundwater–surface water interaction, water levels, recharge rates, aquifer mapping, and withdrawal amounts as the highest-prior-ity information needs related to groundwater quantity hydrogeologic processes (Figure 8). Lower-priority information needs included flowing artesian con-ditions, 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 rank-ings; however, rankings by respondent group varied (Figure 9).

Groundwater Quantity

Hydrogeologic Processes

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Forest managem

ent effects

Climate change effects on w

ater supplyCum

ulative hydrologic effects

Environmental flow

needsW

ater availability/storageCurrent allocation

Mining effects

Hydropow

er generationUrban w

ater managem

entRecreational uses


Skeena (n = 14)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 11)


Provincial (n = 6)

Overall (n = 224)

13

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.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Groundwater–surface water interactionWater levels

Recharge ratesAquifer mapping

Withdrawal amountsAquifer yield potential

Aquifer permeability and porosityFlow direction

StorativityGeological modelAquifer “typing”

Flowing artesian conditionsLithology

Saltwater intrusion







Saltwater intrusion







Saltwater intrusion

14

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.

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 high-est-priority information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity (Figure 10). The lowest-priority information needs included agri-cultural effects, mining effects, and urban water management.

FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order; however, provin-cial 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).

Management of Groundwater

Quantity

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Aquifer mapping

Recharge rates

Water levels

Groundw

ater–surface water interaction

Withdraw

al amounts

Aquifer yield potential

Aquifer permeability and porosity

Flow direction

StorativityG

eological model

Flowing artesian conditions

LithologySaltw

ater intrusion

Aquifer “typing”

Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 11)


Provincial (n = 6)

Overall (n = 218)

15

10 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quantity.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Water well locations

Current groundwater availability

Current groundwater withdrawals

Agricultural effects

Mining effects









Mining effects









Mining effects


16

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.

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 rank-ings 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 re-gional 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.

Surface Water Quality

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Climate change effects on w

ater supply


Forest managem

ent effectsW

ater well locations


Current groundwater w

ithdrawals

Mining effects

Urban water m

anagement


Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 6)

Overall (n = 218)

17

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.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sediment

Turbidity

Temperature

Biological water quality

Nutrients

Inorganic chemicals

Organic chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Radiological agents

Sediment

Turbidity

Temperature


Nutrients

Inorganic chemicals

Organic chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Radiological agents

Sediment

Turbidity

Temperature


Nutrients

Inorganic chemicals

Organic chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Radiological agents

18

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 lowest-priority 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 quanti-ty than on surface water quality.

Management of Surface Water Quality

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.

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Turbidity

Sediment

Temperature


Nutrients

Inorganic chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Radiological agents

Organic chem

icals

Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 16)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 212)

19

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.)


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Activities in riparian areasCumulative effects

Forest management effectsClimate change effects

Activities in wetland areasAquatic ecosystem management

Mining effectsAgriculture effects

Range effectsOil and gas effects

Urban development effectsRecreation

Aquaculture effectsSaltwater intrusion
















20

Respondents identified biological water quality, inorganic chemicals, nutri-ents, organic chemicals, and temperature as the highest-priority information needs related to groundwater quality (Figure 16). The lowest-priority informa-tion 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).

Groundwater Quality

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.

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Climate change effects

Forest managem

ent effects

Cumulative effects

Activities in riparian areas

Activities in wetland areas

Aquatic ecosystem m

anagement

Mining effects

Agriculture effectsRange effectsO

il and gas effects

RecreationAquaculture effectsSaltw

ater intrusion

Urban development effects

Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 208)

21

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.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Inorganic chemicals

Nutrients

Organic chemicals

Temperature

Sediment

Turbidity

Radiological agents

Pharmaceuticals


Inorganic chemicals

Nutrients

Organic chemicals

Temperature

Sediment

Turbidity

Radiological agents

Pharmaceuticals


Inorganic chemicals

Nutrients

Organic chemicals

Temperature

Sediment

Turbidity

Radiological agents

Pharmaceuticals

22

Respondents identified cumulative effects, climate change effects, forest man-agement 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).

Management of Groundwater Quality

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.

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Inorganic chemicals


Nutrients

Organic chem

icalsTem

perature

Sediment

Radiological agentsPharm

aceuticals

Turbidity

Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 16)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 212)

23

18 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater quality.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cumulative effectsClimate change effects

Forest management effectsActivities in riparian areasActivities in wetland areas

Aquatic ecosystem managementAgriculture effectsOil and gas effects

Mining effectsUrban development effects

Range effectsRecreation

Saltwater intrusionAquaculture effects













24

19 Management of 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.

The highest-priority information needs related to groundwater–surface water interactions that respondents identified focussed on where the interactions occur, seasonal variations, and water quality (Figure 20).

FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order but were ranked either similarly or slightly lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 21).

Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k


Forest managem

ent effects


Cumulative effects


Aquatic ecosystem m

anagement

Agriculture effectsO

il and gas effectsM

ining effectsUrban developm

ent effectsRecreationSaltw

ater intrusionAquaculture effects

Range effects

Skeena (n = 13)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 208)

25

20 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to groundwater–surface water interactions. (Other responses included improved data management systems [i.e., WELLS database] to help collect, store, and report on water quality and pumping data.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 34)


Omineca (n = 42)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Where do they occur

Seasonal variations

Water quality

Flux magnitudes

Pumping data

Flux directions

Where do they occur

Seasonal variations

Water quality

Flux magnitudes

Pumping data

Flux directions

Where do they occur

Seasonal variations

Water quality

Flux magnitudes

Pumping data

Flux directions

26

21 Groundwater–surface water interactions: 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.

Respondents identified cumulative effects, activities in riparian areas, climate change, activities in wetlands, and forest management as the highest-priority information needs related to the management of groundwater–surface water interactions (Figure 22). The lowest-priority information needs were hydro-power generation, urban development, and range management.

FLNRO staff responses were somewhat similar to the overall average priori-ty rankings; however, there was considerable variation in priority rankings among the respondent groups (Figure 23). For example, the FLNRO responses from the Kootenay/Boundary region ranked aquatic ecosystem management, cumulative effects, and water withdrawals the highest, whereas FLNRO re-sponses from the Cariboo region ranked activities in wetlands, activities in riparian areas, and aquatic ecosystem management the highest. FLNRO re-sponses from the Omineca region ranked activities in riparian areas, climate change, and roads and stream crossings the highest.

Management of Groundwater–Surface

Water Interactions

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Seasonal variations

Where do they occur

Water quality

Flux magnitudes

Pumping data

Flux directions

Skeena (n = 11)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 188)

27

22 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of groundwater–surface water interactions.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 30)


Omineca (n = 42)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management

Roads and stream crossings

Water withdrawal

Aquatic ecosystem management

Mining

Agriculture


Urban development

Range management

Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management


Water withdrawal


Mining

Agriculture


Urban development

Range management

Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management


Water withdrawal


Mining

Agriculture


Urban development

Range management

28

23 Management of groundwater–surface water interactions: 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.

Respondents identified activities in riparian areas, environmental flow needs, activities in wetlands, temperature-sensitive streams, fish passage, and fish populations as the highest-priority information needs related to aquatic ecosys-tems (Figure 24). The fish passage and fish populations categories were ranked the highest in the Skeena region. The lowest-priority information needs were aquatic ecosystem health and activities in estuaries and coastal areas.

FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order but were mostly ranked lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 25). Environ-mental flow needs were ranked the highest in the Kootenay/Boundary region and lowest in the Omineca, Skeena, and provincial respondent groups. Activ-ities in wetlands ranked the highest in the Cariboo region and lowest in the Skeena region and provincial respondent groups. Most provincial FLNRO respondents identified most of these categories as low or “not applicable”; therefore, priority rankings were generally low for this group.

Aquatic Ecosystems

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k


Climate change


Cumulative effects

Forest managem

entRoads and stream

crossings

Water w

ithdrawal

Aquatic ecosystem m

anagement

Mining

Agriculture

Urban development

Range managem

ent

Hydropow

er generation

Skeena (n = 11)

Omineca (n = 16)

Cariboo (n = 9)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 175)

29

24 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to aquatic ecosystems. (Other responses included fish passage is easy and it’s covered; critical environmental flow needs is a high priority; critical environmental flow thresholds, presence, and environmental flow needs for non-fish species; and fish passage value is based on changing water levels, flow, and temperatures as impacted by climate change.)



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 33)


Omineca (n = 42)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Temperature-sensitive streams

Fish passage

Fish populations

Aquatic ecosystem health (e.g., biomonitoring)

Activities in estuaries and coastal areas





Fish passage

Fish populations







Fish passage

Fish populations



30

25 Aquatic ecosystems: 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.

Respondents identified the highest-priority information needs related to the management of aquatic ecosystems as activities in riparian areas, cumulative effects, aquatic ecosystem management, climate change, roads and stream crossings, forest management, activities in wetlands, and water withdrawal (Figure 26). These priorities were generally consistent among the respondent groups; however, roads and stream crossings, and forest management were given a higher priority in the Omineca region. Roads and stream crossings were also given a higher priority in the Skeena region. The lowest-priority information needs were urban development, agriculture, and range management.

FLNRO staff responses for each respondent group followed a similar rank-ing order as the overall average priority rankings (Figure 27). Most provincial FLNRO respondents identified most of these categories as low or “not applica-ble”; therefore, priority rankings were generally low for this group.

Management of Aquatic Ecosystems

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Environmental flow

needs



Temperature-sensitive stream

sFish passage

Aquatic ecosystem health (e.g., biom

onitoring)


Fish populations

Skeena (n = 12)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 4)

Overall (n = 190)

31

26 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of aquatic ecosystems.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 30)


Omineca (n = 42)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management


Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Agriculture

Range management


Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management


Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Agriculture

Range management


Cumulative effects


Climate change


Forest management


Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Agriculture

Range management

32

27 Management of aquatic ecosystems: 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.

Respondents identified drought, surface erosion, floods, and slope mass movement as the highest-priority information needs related to natural resource development hazards (Figure 28). The lowest-priority information needs were snow avalanche, karst, and earthquake.

FLNRO staff responses were similar to the overall average priority rankings; however, staff in the Kootenay/Boundary region and provincial respondent group ranked floods higher than the overall average and the other respondent groups. Drought was ranked higher in the Cariboo and Kootenay/Boundary regions than the overall average. Also, the provincial respondent group ranked the earthquake and karst categories higher and surface erosion lower than the other respondent groups (Figure 29). These rankings appear to reflect the re-gional importance of these information needs.

Natural Resource Development Hazards

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Climate change

Aquatic ecosystem m

anagement

Cumulative effects



Forest managem

entActivities in w

etland areas

Water w

ithdrawal

Mining

Hydropow

er generation

AgricultureRange m

anagement

Urban development

Skeena (n = 11)

Omineca (n = 16)

Cariboo (n = 9)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 175)

33

28 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to natural resource development hazards.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 34)


Omineca (n = 43)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Drought

Surface erosion

Floods

Slope mass movements

Snow avalanche

Karst

Earthquake

Drought

Surface erosion

Floods


Snow avalanche

Karst

Earthquake

Drought

Surface erosion

Floods


Snow avalanche

Karst

Earthquake

34

29 Natural resource development hazards: 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.

Although there was some variation among the respondent groups, overall, respondents identified forest management, climate change, roads and stream crossings, cumulative effects, and activities in riparian areas as the top five highest-priority information needs related to natural resource development hazards (Figure 30).

FLNRO staff responses followed a similar ranking order as the overall average priority ranking but in some instances were ranked slightly lower than the overall average priority rankings (Figure 31).

Management of Natural Resource

Development Hazards

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Surface erosion

Drought

Floods

Slope mass m

ovements

Karst

Earthquake

Snow avalanche

Skeena (n = 11)

Omineca (n = 17)

Cariboo (n = 10)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 191)

35

30 Respondents’ priority rankings of key information needs related to the management of natural resource development hazards.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provincial (n = 30)


Omineca (n = 42)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Forest management

Climate change


Cumulative effects




Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Range management

Agriculture

Forest management

Climate change


Cumulative effects




Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Range management

Agriculture

Forest management

Climate change


Cumulative effects




Water withdrawal

Mining


Urban development

Range management

Agriculture

36

31 Management of natural resource development hazards: 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.

More than 58% of the survey responses identified online access to data, anal-ysis results/products (e.g., interpreted data), and georeferenced data, as well as hydrometric monitoring data as high priorities (Figures 32, 33, and 34). Most respondents (> 50% of the respondents within each respondent group) also identified climate monitoring data, online data standards (e.g., to facili-tate data sharing and use in GIS platforms), and snow survey data as high priorities. Lower-priority information needs included biological water quali-ty monitoring data, groundwater-level monitoring data, water consumption/usage data, chemical water quality monitoring data, aquifer mapping and characterization, and geological data. It is important to note that the lower-priority information needs likely reflect the survey respondents’ focus and interests, since very few environmental professionals who focus on water quality or groundwater responded to this survey.

The general trend in FLNRO staff responses was similar to the overall av-erage priority rankings (Figure 35); most scores were within 0.5 of the overall average rank values.

Data and Information System Needs

3

2

1

0

Ave

rage

ran

k

Cumulative effects


Climate change

Forest managem

ent



Aquatic ecosystem m

anagement

Water w

ithdrawal

Mining

Hydropow

er generation

Range managem

entAgriculture

Urban development

Skeena (n = 11)

Omineca (n = 16)

Cariboo (n = 9)


Provincial (n = 5)

Overall (n = 175)

37

fu

r 32

Pr

iorit

y ra

nkin

gs o

f gen

eral

dat

a an

d in

form

atio

n sy

stem

nee

ds b

y th

e Sk

eena

and

Koo

tena

y/Bo

unda

ry r

espo

nden

t gr

oups

. (O

ther

res

pons

es

incl

uded

hyd

rom

etric

and

sno

w s

urve

y da

ta a

re in

adeq

uate

; thi

s is

the

mos

t im

port

ant

defic

ienc

y.)

Koot

enay

/Bou

ndar

y (n

= 6

3)Sk

eena

(n

= 34

)

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%10

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o da

ta

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o an

alys

is r

esul

ts/p

rodu

cts

(e.g

., in

terp

rete

d da

ta)

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o ge

oref

eren

ced

data

Hyd

rom

etric

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Clim

ate

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Onl

ine

data

sta

ndar

ds (

e.g.

, to

faci

litat

e da

ta s

harin

g)

Snow

sur

vey

data

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t op

port

uniti

es (

e.g.

, con

fere

nces

, wor

ksho

ps)

Onl

ine

anal

ysis

too

ls (

e.g.

, sta

tistic

al a

naly

sis,

mod

els)

Onl

ine

data

rep

osito

ry (

e.g.

, gro

ups

can

uplo

ad d

ata

to s

hare

)

Hig

h-el

evat

ion

clim

ate

data

Wat

er t

empe

ratu

re m

onito

ring

data

Phys

ical

wat

er q

ualit

y m

onito

ring

data

Biol

ogic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Gro

undw

ater

-leve

l mon

itorin

g da

ta

Wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion/

usag

e da

ta

Che

mic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Aqu

ifer

map

ping

and

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n

Geo

logi

c da

ta

Hig

h %

Med

ium

%Lo

w %

NA

%

38

fu

r 33

Pr

iorit

y ra

nkin

gs o

f gen

eral

dat

a an

d in

form

atio

n sy

stem

nee

ds b

y th

e O

min

eca

and

Prov

inci

al r

espo

nden

t gr

oups

.Prov

inci

al (

n =

30)

Om

inec

a (n

= 4

2)

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%10

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o da

ta

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o an

alys

is r

esul

ts/p

rodu

cts

(e.g

., in

terp

rete

d da

ta)

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o ge

oref

eren

ced

data

Hyd

rom

etric

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Clim

ate

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Onl

ine

data

sta

ndar

ds (

e.g.

, to

faci

litat

e da

ta s

harin

g)

Snow

sur

vey

data

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t op

port

uniti

es (

e.g.

, con

fere

nces

, wor

ksho

ps)

Onl

ine

anal

ysis

too

ls (

e.g.

, sta

tistic

al a

naly

sis,

mod

els)

Onl

ine

data

rep

osito

ry (

e.g.

, gro

ups

can

uplo

ad d

ata

to s

hare

)

Hig

h-el

evat

ion

clim

ate

data

Wat

er t

empe

ratu

re m

onito

ring

data

Phys

ical

wat

er q

ualit

y m

onito

ring

data

Biol

ogic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Gro

undw

ater

-leve

l mon

itorin

g da

ta

Wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion/

usag

e da

ta

Che

mic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Aqu

ifer

map

ping

and

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n

Geo

logi

c da

ta

Hig

h %

Med

ium

%Lo

w %

NA

%

39

fu

r 34

Prio

rity

rank

ings

of g

ener

al d

ata

and

info

rmat

ion

syst

em n

eeds

by

the

Car

iboo

and

Ove

rall

resp

onde

nt g

roup

s.

Ove

rall

(n =

137

)C

arib

oo (

n =

37)

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%10

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o da

ta

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o an

alys

is r

esul

ts/p

rodu

cts

(e.g

., in

terp

rete

d da

ta)

Onl

ine

acce

ss t

o ge

oref

eren

ced

data

Hyd

rom

etric

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Clim

ate

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Onl

ine

data

sta

ndar

ds (

e.g.

, to

faci

litat

e da

ta s

harin

g)

Snow

sur

vey

data

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t op

port

uniti

es (

e.g.

, con

fere

nces

, wor

ksho

ps)

Onl

ine

anal

ysis

too

ls (

e.g.

, sta

tistic

al a

naly

sis,

mod

els)

Onl

ine

data

rep

osito

ry (

e.g.

, gro

ups

can

uplo

ad d

ata

to s

hare

)

Hig

h-el

evat

ion

clim

ate

data

Wat

er t

empe

ratu

re m

onito

ring

data

Phys

ical

wat

er q

ualit

y m

onito

ring

data

Biol

ogic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Gro

undw

ater

-leve

l mon

itorin

g da

ta

Wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion/

usag

e da

ta

Che

mic

al w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta

Aqu

ifer

map

ping

and

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n

Geo

logi

c da

ta

Hig

h %

Med

ium

%Lo

w %

NA

%

40

fu

r 35

G

ener

al d

ata

and

info

rmat

ion

syst

ems

need

s: a

vera

ge p

riorit

y ra

nkin

gs (

3 =

hig

h, 2

= m

ediu

m, 1

= lo

w, 0

= n

ot a

pplic

able

or

not

answ

ered

) fo

r th

e FL

NRO

sta

ff re

spon

ses

by e

ach

regi

on a

nd k

ey in

form

atio

n ne

eds.

The

ove

rall

aver

age

prio

rity

rank

ing

for a

ll th

e in

divi

dual

resp

onse

s is

also

pro

vide

d.

3 2 1 0

Average rank

Hydrometric monitoring data

Online access t

o georeferenced data

Online access t

o analysis re

sults/products

(e.g., interpreted data)

Online access t

o data

Climate monitoring data

Online data standards (e

.g., to facilit

ate

data sharing)

Snow surve

y dataProfessio

nal development opportunitie

s

(e.g., conferences, w

orkshops)

Online analy

sis tools (

e.g., stati

stical a

nalysis,

models)

Online data repository (

e.g., groups ca

n upload

data to share)

Water temperature monitoring data

Physical w

ater quality

monitoring data

Biological w

ater quality

monitoring data

Groundwater-level m

onitoring data

Water consumption/usage data

Chemical w

ater quality

monitoring data

Aquifer mapping and ch

aracteriza

tion

Geologic data

High-elevation climate data

Skee

na (n

= 1

2)

Om

inec

a (n

= 1

7)

Car

iboo

(n =

10)

Koot

enay

/Bou

ndar

y (n

= 1

0)

Prov

inci

al (n

= 5

)

Ove

rall

(n =

188

)

41

Responses to the open-ended questions about research and information needs to support sustainable water management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions were organized by theme (surface water quantity, groundwater quantity, surface water quali-ty, groundwater quality, groundwater–surface water interactions, aquatic ecosystems, and natural resource development hazards) and were classified into research, extension, or monitoring/data needs. The following lists sum-marize the key needs identified.

The lists are ordered by the frequency of responses, with the highest number of overall responses listed first. The numbers in brackets denote the number of responses that were identified by each respondent group. For ex-ample, [S-6, O-3, C-3, KB-4, P-2, OT-15] identifies the number of responses from the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, Kootenay/Boundary, provincial groups, and all regions (overall total). It should be noted that in many instances, the overall total number of responses will not be equivalent to the sum of re-sponses in the remaining five respondent groups because respondents could identify that they worked within more than one region. The overall response total represents the actual number of times the open-ended responses were provided.

Research and Information Needs/

Questions

Surface Water Quantity

Research needs Extension needs Monitoring and data needs

• Climate change effects on water quantity and watershed processes, including prediction of future trends and natural disturbances [s-6, o-3, c-3, kb-4, p-2, ot-15]

• Cumulative effects of land use on water quantity [s-3, o-4, c-2, kb-6, p-1, ot-15]

• Water allocation effects on stream flows, including effects on small streams, timing of flows, low flows, various temporal scales (e.g., weekly, monthly, annually), long-term mean annual discharge (e.g., climate change effects), fish and fish habitat [s-2, o-0, c-2, kb-3, p-0, ot-7]

• Forest development (including equivalent clearcut area), roads, and natural disturbance effects on stream flow and watersheds (e.g., second-growth stands, old roads, cumulative effects) [s-0, o-2, c-1, kb-2, p-2, ot-7]

• Hydrologic recovery after forest development and natural disturbances (e.g., creation of region-specific hydrologic recovery curves) [s-0, o-2, c-2, kb-4, p-0, ot-6]

• Glacier and snow changes in British Columbia over time (e.g., modelling changes into the future and quantifying impact; impact of industry on glaciers) and the effects these changes will have on water supply and fish populations [s-4, o-2, c-1, kb-2, p-0, ot-6]

• Data availability and access for professionals and the public [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-4, p-0, ot-5]

• More funding support for research and education [s-2, o-2, c-2, kb-0, p-0, ot-4]

• Increased awareness and distribution of current research papers and studies [s-0, o-1, c-1, kb-0, p-1, ot-3]

• Access to watershed attribute information and metrics to assist resource development planning [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Public communication and outreach on watersheds, and watershed management to increase awareness of issues and importance of watershed management [s- o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Awareness of current monitoring related to placer mining [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Assisting community groups with monitoring (e.g., education on standards and methodologies for monitoring; education in the use of satellite data for assessment and monitoring) [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Increased surface water hydrometric monitoring network (e.g., small ungauged systems, determination of streamflows in ungauged watersheds, trend monitoring, improved understanding of regional hydrology differences, funding for ongoing monitoring, assessment of data gaps, and a more diverse monitoring network to capture differences in watersheds related to regions, aspects, elevation, geology, forest cover) [s-2, o-2, c-1, kb-9, p-4, ot-17]

• Mapping of licensed and/or unlicensed water intakes (e.g., Kootenay/Boundary region), current water use (licensed and unlicensed) versus current allocations, and updated water licence information [s-2, o-0, c-0, kb-4, p-1, ot-7]

• Monitoring and metering of water use [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-3, p-1, ot-5]

• Weather and climate monitoring, especially at high elevations [s-1, o-1, c-0, kb-2, p-1, ot-4]

• Snowpack accumulation, timing of snowmelt, and glacier monitoring [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Climate data on rainfall intensity and duration specific to the various regions of the province [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Increased distribution of regional weather stations [s-1, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-2]

42

Surface Water Quantity (continued)


• Hydrologic model development and testing to guide forest development planning [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Mining (e.g., placer mining) effects on water quantity and allocation (both surface water and groundwater) [s-0, o-1, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-2]

• Forest management effects on low flows (including modelling of low flows in small catchments) [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Quantification of evapotranspiration rates, potential evaporation rates, and soil moisture in relation to drought forecasting [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Identification of areas that could be used as surface water reservoirs for flow augmentation during key time of the year [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• LiDAR mapping of watersheds [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Independent third-party and year-round stream flow data for the Elk Valley coal block [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-0]

• Equivalent clearcut areas in domestic watersheds [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Monitoring of evaporation and evapotranspiration [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Metadata regarding reliability of data [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Real-time flood monitoring and flood alerts [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-1]

• Improved data archiving and access [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Improved access to, and data management of, short-term use approvals [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-1]


• Assessment of data gaps and improved monitoring to fill these gaps [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-1]


• Probable maximum precipitation determination for the regions [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-1]

Groundwater Quantity


• Aquifer mapping, characterization, and water budgets (e.g., monitoring of moderately and heavily used aquifers in the north and aquifers not covered by provincial observation wells) [s-3, o-2, c-1, kb-4, p-2, ot-9]

• Quantification of recharge rates [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-2, ot-2]

• Tools to assess the quantity of groundwater available [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Climate change effects on groundwater [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Communication about the function of watersheds and importance of water management to increase the general population’s awareness and knowledge [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Enhanced cross-region collaboration regarding data collection and data sharing [s-1, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Incorporating groundwater components into the BC Water Tool [s-1, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Increased groundwater monitoring or expansion of the Observation Well Network that includes private wells [s-1, o-2, c-0, kb-1, p-2, ot-5]

• Measurement and reporting of groundwater extraction and usage [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Surficial geology and aquifer maps that are available in .kmz and iMapBC files [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

43

Surface Water Quality


• Cumulative effects and land use effects on water quality, including forest management and mining [s-4, o-3, c-2, kb-2, p-2, ot-12]

• Climate change effects on water quality (including the effects of climate extremes, effects on stream temperature) [s-2, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-3]

• Roads and crossings effects on water quality [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Legacy mine effects on water quality (e.g., heavy metals, Cassiar Mine, McDame Mine, and others) [s-1, o-1, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Natural versus anthropogenic impacts on water quality [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Agriculture effects on water quality (e.g., health reports) [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Recreation effects on water quality [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• No comments provided • Increased water quality monitoring data for streams, rivers, and lakes, with a focus on community water sources. Identification of non-point pollution sources. Parameters to consider include nutrients, temperature, sediment, biological integrity, and biological pollutants [s-0, o-1, c-1, kb-3, p-0, ot-4]

• Glacier effects on stream temperature [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Chemical and isotopic composition of precipitation [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Inventory of current watershed data monitoring sites that includes georeferenced metadata that allow small data producers to provide data for use by scientists [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

Groundwater Quality


• Aquifer vulnerability to land use, and tools for determining changes in aquifer characteristics [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Temporal changes in groundwater quality, and are there correlations to other factors, such as climate change and land use [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Natural versus anthropogenic impacts on water quality [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• No comments provided • Increased groundwater quality monitoring [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Establish groundwater baseline data (e.g., physical and chemical data that include stable isotopes of water, groundwater age-dating tools, natural range of variability) [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Biosolids are currently being used without any groundwater monitoring [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions


• Connection between surface water and groundwater (includes the effects of land use or water withdrawals on groundwater–surface water interactions) [s-1, o-0, c-1, kb-4, p-1, ot-6]

• Glacier melt effects on groundwater– surface water interactions [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Groundwater extraction effects on low flows in streams [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Identification of where groundwater–surface water interactions are occurring (e.g., flux magnitude, direction, and connections) [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Groundwater recharge rates, and establishing baseline information on infiltration versus runoff amounts and how these rates may change with increased drought conditions [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• No comments provided • Data regarding groundwater–surface water interactions to improve groundwater allocation decisions [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

44

Aquatic Ecosystems

Research needs Extension needs Monitoring and data needs• Determination, validation, and verification of

environmental flow needs for fish-bearing streams (e.g., empirical relations between stream flow and biological responses, long-term research and monitoring sites, targeted funding for research, including non-fish biota, determination of critical thresholds) [s-3, o-2, c-3, kb-3, p-4, ot-11]

• Cumulative effects of land management on aquatic ecosystems, sustainable watershed management, and ability to support healthy aquatic ecosystems (e.g., anadromous salmonids) [s-4, o-2, c-0, kb-1, p-1, ot-7]

• Effects of forest development on riparian areas, water quality (e.g., stream temperature), and fish (e.g., ongoing assessment of best management practices to minimize effects on riparian functions; focus on how to enhance riparian functions and move away from regulated minimum requirements) [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-4, p-0, ot-4]

• Impacts of land use on riparian areas [s-0, o-2, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-2]

• Verification of the degree to which private sector data and information can be used for decision-making and policy development [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Cause and effects of the Kenney Dam on the Nechako River on fish and fish habitat [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Identification and vulnerability of streams to low flows [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Climate change effects on aquatic ecosystems [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Effects of watershed restoration on watershed health after large natural disturbances, such as mountain pine beetle or wildfire [s-1, o-1, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Fish passage through older road crossings [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Estuary management plan in the Skeena region [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• White sturgeon recruitment failure and habitat recovery [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Beaver dams and the relation to fish [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Drought impacts on fish passage and refuge [s-0, o-0, c-1, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Increased guidance on determining critical flow thresholds to ensure environmental flow needs are met [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• Improved linkages with First Nations monitoring programs and engagement in data collection, since there are many who are conducting extensive work [s-1, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Fish inventory and population surveys (e.g., improved fish inventory data in the Skeena Region, fish usage data in the Iskut River and Stikine River, identification of non–fish-bearing streams) [s-3, o-2, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-5]

• Monitoring of riparian area health [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-2]

• Access to previous and new data collected on streams that include stream morphology, reach breaks, and fish data to help determine trends [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

Natural Resource Development Hazards


• Erosion cause and effects [s-1, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-2]

• Climate change effects on hazards [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Meteorological conditions resulting in landslides [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Terrain stability research for central northern portion of British Columbia [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• Assessment of points of diversion (licensed/unlicensed) that could cause natural hazards (e.g., mass wasting, diversion of flows) [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-1, p-0, ot-1]

• More operational methods for managing alluvial fan units, and continued extension in educating forest professionals about alluvial fans and floodplains [s-0, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-1, ot-1]

• Analysis of gentle-over-steep terrain in the central interior of British Columbia, particularly as it relates to fisheries-sensitive watersheds in the Omineca [s-0, o-1, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

• LiDAR (light detection and ranging) data for mapping natural hazard assessment [s-1, o-0, c-0, kb-0, p-0, ot-1]

45

Respondents’ feedback on key policy and regulatory needs to support sus-tainable water management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/ Boundary Natural Resource Regions was reviewed and summarized based on common issues raised.

The following responses are ranked in order of frequency of response, with the highest number of overall responses listed first. The numbers in brackets denote the number of responses that were identified in each respondent group. For example, [S-2, O-3, C-1, KB-1, P-2, OT-8] identifies the number of responses from Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, Kootenay/Boundary, provincial or all regions, and overall total. It should be noted that in many instances, the overall total number of responses will not be equivalent to the number of responses in the other five respondent groups because respondents could identify that they worked within more than one region. The overall response total represents the number of times the open-ended responses were provided.

• Cumulative effects legislation/policy and guidelines regarding thresholds for resource development [S-2, O-3, C-1, KB-1, P-2, OT-8]

• Landscape-level (or land use) planning and more government oversight in co-ordinating resource development in watersheds [S-0, O-2, C-2, KB-3, P-2, OT-8]

• Higher level of riparian protection on all watercourses (e.g., headwater/small streams, and improved policies for recognition and mapping of headwater/small streams during harvesting operations; incentives for major resource industries, more training, and extension regarding how to manage small streams) [S-1, O-3, C-0, KB-3, P-0, OT-7]

• Environmental flow needs (e.g., operational guidance, locally applicable policy/guidance, critical flow thresholds, defensible and credible science to inform policy/regulations) [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-6, P-1, OT-7]

• Allocation and usage of surface water and groundwater (e.g., restrictions for aquifers with limited capacity, development of water balance models for aquifers and surface water to support water allocation decisions, water allocation in fishery-sensitive and temperature-sensitive watersheds, allo-cation based on ecological needs of aquatic ecosystems) [S-2, O-1, C-1, KB-2, P-1, OT-7]

• Implementation of the Water Sustainability Act (e.g., perceived lack of water quality management, practicality of enforcing this Act, local input into watershed planning, information support, understanding the new Act) [S-0, O-1, C-2, KB-2, P-1, OT-5]

• Climate change policies related to enhancement, restoration, and future planning (e.g., cold-water species, temperature-sensitive streams, cold-water refugia, and water allocation and policies that reflect future conditions) [S-3, O-0, C-0, KB-2, P-0, OT-5]

• Improved legislation to restrict/manage recreation (e.g., protect water quali-ty, restrict access into community/domestic watersheds, backcountry access management) and protect water quality [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-4, P-0, OT-4]

• Greater compliance and enforcement efforts by the provincial govern-ment [S-0, O-1, C-1, KB-3, P-0, OT-4]

• Delegated water governance and/or governance structure that enables broader water conservation [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-3, P-0, OT-3]

Key Policy and Regulatory Needs

46

• Higher priority put on community watersheds, domestic watersheds, and fisheries when planning any development [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-2, P-1, OT-3]

• Requirement for baseline monitoring of resource development, especially in areas with limited data [S-2, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-3]

• Continuation of Water Use Planning or development of water sustainabil-ity plans [S-0, O-1, C-1, KB-2, P-0, OT-3]

• Water Sustainability Act requires groundwater and surface water data to support and enforce the Act (e.g., aquifer mapping, current licensing lev-els, environmental flows, adequacy of current monitoring programs and predicted trends in flows) [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-2]

• Equivalent clearcut area targets or standards for hydrologic recovery [S-0, O-2, C-1, KB-1, P-0, OT-2]

• Measurable and verifiable objectives [S-0, O-1, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-2]• Delist unused community watersheds [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-2]• Strengthened regulations or strengthened water stewardship associated

with agriculture and range use [S-1, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-2]• Residential, commercial, and industrial water user metering [S-2, O-0,

C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-2]• Requirement for more stringent and standardized data collection and

storage [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-2, OT-2] • Ongoing provincial funding for monitoring and/or research [S-0, O-0,

C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-2]• Private land regulations related to riparian areas [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1,

P-0, OT-1]• Updated goals and vision for British Columbia government’s Water Stew-

ardship division, especially related to their mandate regarding water quality [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Co-ordinated access management strategy to ensure safe community water supplies [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

• Formal legal opinion is required to determine First Nations rights/title to groundwater in British Columbia [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Dam management and operations [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Less professional reliance [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]• More strategic and comprehensive network/system to monitor groundwater

and surface water [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Restoration/rehabilitation plans to recover highly disturbed watersheds

[S-1, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Access to, and inclusion of, existing information to assess new develop-

ment in watersheds [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Watershed-level planning for non-community watersheds (e.g., equivalent

clearcut area, snowmelt, and peak flows) [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Review Forest and Range Protection Act regulations related to community

watersheds [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]• Policy to protect wetlands and lakes [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]• Fish habitat should be added back into federal Fisheries Act [S-1, O-0, C-0,

KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Government guidelines on when and how to undertake watershed assess-

ments [S-1, O-1, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Angling closure due to high temperature or low flows [S-0, O-0, C-0,

KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

47

• Improved communication with community watershed stakeholders [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

• Data support services for data acquisition, processing, and updating of online data sources [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]

• Improved co-ordination between Forest and Range Practices Act and protection of drinking water [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-1]

• Review and inclusion of new science to improve policy or regulation [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Inspection and monitoring of points of diversion [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

• Estuary and watershed management plan for Skeena [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Education for wellhead protection [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Clarification on licensing requirements for wells [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1,

P-0, OT-1]• Update placer and mineral exploration policies [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-0,

P-0, OT-1]• Tertiary sewage treatment along major rivers (e.g., Skeena, Bulkley, and

Fraser Rivers) [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Polices requiring off-stream stock watering [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

Respondents’ feedback on emerging pressures/issues regarding sustainable water management in the four Natural Resource Regions is summarized by the common issues raised.

The lists are ordered by the frequency of responses, with the highest num-ber of overall responses listed first. The numbers in brackets denote the number of responses that were identified in each respondent group. For example, [S-2, O-2, C-2, KB-6, P-1, OT-9] identifies the number of responses from Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, Kootenay/Boundary, provincial or all re-gions, and overall total. It should be noted that in many instances, the overall total number of responses will not be equivalent to the sum of responses in the other five respondent groups because respondents could identify that they worked within more than one region. The overall response total repre-sents the number of times the open-ended responses were provided.

• Climate change [S-2, O-2, C-2, KB-6, P-1, OT-9]• Cumulative effects, cumulative effects planning, and improved co-ordina-

tion among resource users [S-2, O-2, C-0, KB-2, P-1, OT-7]• Education, training, and/or extension [S-2, O-2, C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-5]• First Nations title and resource management [S-2, O-1, C-2, KB-1, P-0, OT-5]• Implementation of the Water Sustainability Act, including clarification of

the government’s roles and responsibilities [S-1, O-1, C-1, KB-3, P-0, OT-5] • Landscape-level or land use planning, watershed management plans,

water sustainability plans, and/or adaptive management [S-2, O-0, C-0, KB-2, P-0, OT-4]

• Domestic water intakes and interaction with other watershed uses [S-1, O-1, C-0, KB-1, P-1, OT-4]

• Recreation (e.g., overuse, back country use, motorized vehicles) [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-4, P-0, OT-4]

Emerging Pressures/Issues

48

• Insufficient funding, capacity, and resources for monitoring (e.g., hydro-metric data, monitoring streamflows at high elevations, and monitoring of small catchments) [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-2, P-2, OT-4]

• Erosion and mass wasting (e.g., roads, failed culverts, beaver dams) [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-1, P-1, OT-3]

• Water licensing and allocation, including water use monitoring and reporting [S-0, O-0, C-2, KB-1, P-0, OT-3]

• Improved communication among all levels of government, industry, public, and stewardship groups [S-0, O-1, C-1, KB-1, P-0, OT-3]

• Drought [S-2, O-1, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-3]• Partnerships to deliver education, restoration, and science [S-0, O-1, C-1,

KB-1, P-0, OT-2]• Government capacity [S-1, O-0, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-2]• Groundwater regulations, licensing, and monitoring [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1,

P-1, OT-2]• Determination and management of environmental flow needs (e.g.,

critical flow thresholds) [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-2, P-0, OT-2]• Resource development impacts on water quality [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-1,

P-0, OT-2]• Poor infrastructure to cope with extreme events, and the need for

emergency management planning [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-2, P-0, OT-2]• Managing fish and aquatic values in drought conditions [S-1, O-0, C-0,

KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Stream temperature [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Water supply [S-1, O-1, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Restoration and rehabilitation [S-1, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]• Verification of well locations and access to groundwater information

collected by all sectors to assist in better understanding of groundwater [S-1, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as fracking) requires more answers and information [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Differences in standards between the Forest and Range Practices Act and Oil & Gas Commission regulations [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Riparian area management regarding the pressures to increase reserve zones and the effect on timber supply [S-1, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Government capacity to deal with water stewardship associated with agriculture and range [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Peak flows associated with large harvest areas in watersheds [S-0, O-1, C-0, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

• Hydrologic recovery (e.g., forest health, ecosystem-based understanding) [S-0, O-1, C-1, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

• Groundwater and surface water interaction [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]

• Hydrologic models to support decisions [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Co-ordination among government ministries [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0,

P-1, OT-1]• Loss of environmental values due to harvesting of fire interface areas

[S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Urbanization [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Biosolids effects on water quality [S-0, O-0, C-1, KB-0, P-0, OT-1]

49

• Water quality impacts associated with the oil and gas industry [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-0, P-1, OT-1]

• Downstream effects of private land activities [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Standardized data collection and storage by all parties that collect data

(e.g., government, industry, and non-government organizations) [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

• Floods [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]• Lack of compliance and enforcement leading to conflicts between water

users and stakeholders who are present within watersheds [S-0, O-0, C-0, KB-1, P-0, OT-1]

SUMMARY

The intent of this needs assessment survey was to identify specific knowledge gaps and provide guidance in the development of strategic priorities for water research and management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo, and Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Regions in British Columbia. These results are meant to be informative, not directive, and to prioritize future research and address knowledge gaps within the FLNRO mandate.

This section includes two main subsections. The first summarizes the re-search and monitoring needs identified under the seven main themes of the survey: surface water quantity, groundwater quantity, surface water quality, groundwater quality, groundwater–surface water interactions, aquatic eco-systems, and natural resource development hazards. The second subsection provides a synthesis of the re-occurring and key research, policy, and moni-toring needs that were consistently identified in the survey.

Surface water quantity Peak flow magnitude, peak flow timing, snow accu-mulation and melt rates, low-flow magnitude, and low-flow timing were the highest-priority research and information needs related to surface water quantity. In the management of surface water quantity, the highest-priority topics identified were climate change effects on water supply, forest manage-ment effects, cumulative hydrologic effects, environmental flow needs, water availability/storage, and current allocation. These priorities were consistent among all four Natural Resource Regions.

These priorities were also emphasized in the written responses. The most frequently identified research needs referred to climate change effects on water quantity, which included the need for research related to the prediction of future trends and natural disturbances, cumulative effects of land use on water quantity, water allocation effects on stream flows (e.g., effects on small streams, timing of flows, low flows, fish and fish habitat), forest development, roads and natural disturbance effects on stream flows and watersheds, hydro-logic recovery after forest development and natural disturbances, and glacier and snow changes in British Columbia over time and the effects these changes will have on water supply and fish populations. For the most part, the written responses were generally consistent among all four Natural Resource Regions.

Increased hydrometric monitoring (e.g., small ungauged watersheds, determination of streamflows in ungauged watersheds, trend monitoring, identification of regional hydrology differences, funding for ongoing

Research and Monitoring Needs

50

monitoring, assessment of data gaps, and a more diverse monitoring network to capture differences in watersheds related to regions, aspects, elevation, geol-ogy, and forest cover) was highlighted as an important monitoring need in all four Natural Resource Regions. Mapping of licensed and/or unlicensed water intakes in the Kootenay/Boundary region, monitoring of current water use versus current allocations, and metering of water use were also highlighted as important monitoring needs. The Kootenay/Boundary region was also the only region to identify recreation as an issue for water quantity and quality.

Groundwater quantity Groundwater–surface water interactions, water levels, recharge rates, aquifer mapping, and withdrawal amounts were the highest-priority research and information needs related to groundwater quantity. Information needs for the management of groundwater quantity were related to cumulative hydrologic effects, climate change effects on water supply, forest management effects, water well locations, current groundwater availability, and current groundwater withdrawal. Written responses empha-sized the need for improved understanding of the location and characteriza-tion of groundwater sources (i.e., aquifer mapping) and better understanding of water budgets/allocation of groundwater sources. Monitoring and data needs included the need for increased groundwater monitoring and/or ex-pansion of the Observation Well Network to include private wells.

Surface water quality Research on sediment, turbidity, temperature, biologi-cal water quality, and nutrients were the highest-priority needs for surface water quality. In the management of surface water quality, key information needs were related to activities in riparian areas, cumulative effects, forest management effects, climate change effects, activities in wetland areas, and aquatic ecosystem management. Written responses emphasized the need for understanding cumulative effects and land use effects (including forest man-agement and mining) and climate change effects on water quality. Numerous written responses also emphasized the need for increased water quality moni-toring data for streams, rivers, and lakes, with a focus on community water sources and the identification of non-point sources.

Groundwater quality The highest-priority research and information needs for groundwater quality were related to biological water quality, inorganic chemicals, nutrients, organic chemicals, and temperature. The highest-priority information needs for the management of groundwater quality were related to cumulative effects, climate change effects, forest management effects, activ-ities in riparian areas, and activities in wetlands. Only a few written responses related to groundwater quality were provided; they were related to aquifer vulnerability to land use, tools for determining changes in aquifer character-istics and temporal changes in groundwater quality, and the correlation of changes associated with climate change and land use. Monitoring and data needs that were identified included the need for increased groundwater quali-ty monitoring, the need to establish groundwater baseline data, and the effects that land application of biosolids could have on groundwater.

Groundwater–surface water interactions The highest-priority informa-tion needs for groundwater–surface water interactions focussed on where the interactions occur, seasonal variations, and water quality effects. The

51

highest-priority information needs for the management of groundwater–surface water interactions were cumulative effects, activities in riparian areas and wetlands, climate change, and forest management. Written responses highlighted the need to better understand the connection between surface water and groundwater, including water withdrawal and land use effects. Few written responses regarding monitoring were provided; however, more data on groundwater–surface water interactions to improve groundwater al-location decisions was identified as a monitoring need.

Aquatic ecosystems Activities in riparian areas, environmental flow needs, activities in wetlands, temperature-sensitive streams, fish passage, and fish populations were the highest-priority research and information needs identi-fied for aquatic ecosystems. The highest-priority needs for the management of aquatic ecosystems were activities in riparian areas, cumulative effects, aquat-ic ecosystem management, climate change, roads and stream crossings, forest management, activities in wetland areas, and water withdrawal. Written re-sponses emphasized the need for better determination of environmental flow needs and the validation and verification of environmental flow needs for fish-bearing streams. The written responses related to environmental flow needs included the need to establish empirical relationships between stream flow and biological responses, long-term research and monitoring, targeted funding focussed on environmental flow needs, and determination of critical thresholds for fish and non-fish biota. Cumulative effects and forest develop-ment effects on aquatic ecosystems were also commonly identified in the written responses as a research need. Monitoring and data needs that were highlighted included the need for more fish inventory and population sur-veys, especially in the Skeena and Omineca regions.

Natural resource development hazards The four highest-priority research needs for natural resource development hazards were related to drought, surface erosion, floods, and slope mass movement. Forest management, cli-mate change, roads and stream crossings, cumulative effects, and activities in riparian areas were the top five priority needs related to the management of natural resource development hazards. Written responses emphasized the need for more research on erosion causes and effects, effects of climate change on natural resource development hazards, meteorological conditions resulting in landslides, terrain stability research in the central northern por-tion of British Columbia, and assessment of points of diversion on natural hazards in the Kootenay/Boundary region. LiDAR data for mapping of natu-ral hazards was also identified as a monitoring need.

In summary, the survey respondents most frequently identified the following key priority research and management 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 cumulative effects and land use effects on all aspects of surface water, groundwater, aquatic ecosystems, and natural resource development hazards;

Key Priority Research, Policy, and Management Needs

52

• climate change effects on all aspects of water quantity, water supply, 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;

• forest development and natural disturbance effects on streamflow and watersheds, including research related to hydrologic recovery after for-est development and natural disturbances;

• glacier and snowpack changes over time and how these changes will affect water supply and fish populations;

• groundwater–surface water interactions, and aquifer identification and characterization to quantify the availability and extent of groundwater resources; and

• water consumption/usage data are required to improve the under-standing of water availability/withdrawals to ensure the sustainable allocation of both surface water and groundwater.

For a more detailed summary of research and management needs by region, the reader is encouraged to review the Research and Information Needs/Questions section in this report.

More than 58% of the respondents identified online access to data, analy-sis 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.

Key policy and regulatory needs included the following:• improved cumulative effects legislation, policy, and guidelines that

provide thresholds for resource development;• increased government oversight and staff capacity to co-ordinate

resource development in watersheds (or land use planning); • 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 Sustainabili-ty 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 (e.g., withdrawal restrictions for aquifers with limited capacity, devel-opment of water balance models for aquifers and surface water to support allocation decisions and water allocation based on ecological needs of aquatic ecosystems);

• climate change policies related to enhancement, restoration, and future planning; and

• improved legislation to manage/restrict recreation, particularly in the Kootenay/Boundary region to protect water quality, restrict access into community/domestic watersheds, and/or manage backcountry access.

53

A number of emerging pressures and issues were identified, including the following:

• reducing uncertainty of climate change effects on water supply for both consumptive and aquatic ecosystem uses;

• cumulative effects, cumulative effects planning, and improved co-ordi-nation 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 and capacity and resources for monitoring.

The results of this survey 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 from British Columbia and adjoin-ing jurisdictions has been 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 www.bcwatertool.ca/ info-sources/.

LITERATURE CITED

Brandes, O.M. and J. O’Riordan. 2014. A blueprint for watershed governance in British Columbia. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, Univ. Victoria, Victoria, B.C. poliswaterproject.org/files/2014/01/POLIS-Blueprint-web1.pdf

Hollstedt, C. 2000. Science, innovation, and sustainability: investing in Brit-ish Columbia’s knowledge based natural resource sector. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. SIFERP Ser. 2.

Lapp, S., T. Redding, K. Ronneseth, and D. Wilford. 2015. Research and in-formation needs assessment to support sustainable watershed management in northeast British Columbia. Prov. B.C., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 090. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr090.htm

Nelitz, M., R. Smith, and P. de la Cueva. 2015. Surface water allocation in a changing climate: data gaps, needs and priorities. Prepared for B.C. Min. For., Lands, Nat. Resource Ops., Victoria, B.C. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. and WaterSmith Research Inc., Kelowna, B.C.

Redding, T. 2011. A summary of recent British Columbia watershed manage-ment information needs assessments. Streamline Watershed Manag. Bull. 14(2):20–23.



http://poliswaterproject.org/files/2014/01/POLIS-Blueprint-web1.pdf

poliswaterproject.org/files/2014/01/POLIS-Blueprint-web1.pdf

www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr090.htm

54

Scherer, R., T. Redding, K. Ronneseth, and D. Wilford. 2016. 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. 095. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr095.htm

______. 2017. Research and information needs assessment to support sustainable watershed management in the South Coast and West Coast Natural Resource Regions, British Columbia. Prov. B.C., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 110. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/ Tr/Tr110.htm

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr110.htm



55

Respondents were asked to identify current and planned water-related research undertaken by their organization, by a partner organization, or in their local area. This list should not be considered as an exhaustive account of all research being conducted in the four Natural Resource Regions that are included in this survey.

As already noted, in addition to this report and appendix, a database of data sources, information sources, and relevant research projects and publi-cations 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 data-base is available at www.bcwatertool.ca/info-sources/.

Skeena Natural Resource Region

• Most of our research is focussed on salmon. Specific projects include Babine River water temperature, North Coast Juvenile Salmon Monitor-ing Program, energetics of juvenile salmon migration, glacial retreat and salmon habitat. Contact: www.jonwmoore.org

• Nadina River watershed temperature sensitive stream – Government Ac-tions Regulation implementation: monitoring studies looking at sub-basin vulnerabilities, understanding the influence of additional riparian reserve width on stream temperature regulation, accessing the role of tributaries in overall system temperature regulation. Partners: FLNRO – Ecosystem Sec-tion, FLNRO – Forest Sciences Section, Canfor – Houston, University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) – potential partner for data analysis and reports

• Current: Dasque Creek Fluvial Geomorphology Project – assessing down-stream fluvial geomorphic effects of a run-of-river hydroelectric power project near Terrace. Current: Ecosystem and geomorphology research on snow cover and plant communities; implications for low-flow manage-ment. Future: Pine Creek slump earthflows – fine sediment sourced from Pine Creek strongly influences the turbidity of the Telkwa River and the Bulkley River, as well. This project is in the design phase. Contact: Matt Sakals (FLNRO)

• Wellhead committee – board members, FLNRO, Northern Health Author-ity (representatives), Kala Geosciences consultants, and Regional District of Kitimat Stikine staff (Planning). Discussion includes Water Conserva-tion Act and wellhead protection (development in and around these areas, decommissioned wells, treatment of existing wells currently not in use).

• Upper Bulkley River Climate Change Monitoring Program – partnership with Salmonid Enhancement Program (Fisheries and Oceans Canada), Wet’suwet’en, A Rocha Canada – Houston Streamkeepers – baseline mon-itoring of water quality and quantity, laboratory analysis of nutrients, fish presence/absence, water temperature continuous monitoring. Objective is to have water allocation for fish in the Upper Bulkley watershed. Feasibili-ty for water augmentation is being researched. Partially funded by Pacific Salmon Commission.

APPENDIX 1 Current and planned water-related research


https://www.jonwmoore.org

56

• The Kitsumkalum Indian Band is currently in the process of designing a water-related research program that includes monitoring the flows of sever-al rivers and streams in our traditional territory. As part of this research, we are planning to develop a glacier monitoring program to study how climate change is affecting the integrity of the glaciers that impact the Kitsumkalum River and its tributaries. We are planning to install hydrometric stations in some of the rivers and streams, and we will be using drone technology for the mapping of the glaciers in the region. At this time, we are looking at a small glacier as a starting point, but we plan to expand this to the main gla-ciers in the region. The full research plan has not been finalized, but we are working on it. Contact: Mark Biagi, Fish & Wildlife Operations, Manager Kitsumkalum Indian Band, 14303 Highway 16, West Terrace, BC V8G 0C8. Ph-250-635-5000; Fax 250-635-6613; Mob. 250631.7379

Omineca Natural Resource Region

• UNBC Contact: Barry Booth (UNBC); Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society (NEWSS), www.newssociety.org; Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative (NWSRI), nechakowhitesturgeon.org

• Current and planned – We are monitoring streams in the Vanderhoof area. As part of the Stoney Creek Watershed Project, we are monitoring two lakes and streams in the Stoney Creek watershed. This year, we initi-ated a project to expand the monitoring network to include four more streams. This will be used to monitor drought. I find the difficulty with our research is finding time to manage data, analyze results, and report out on findings. First Nations have asked for results, and we aren’t able to provide a report or data at this time, given limited capacity. This is a big issue, in my opinion. I think we need more support from managers that this work is important. Contact: Phillip Krauskopf (FLNRO)

• Public Conservation Assistance Fund (Habitat Conservation Trust Fund) (PCAF [HCTF]) Project # 933, Years 2012, 2013, Project title: Hansard Creek: Stream and Riparian Restoration, and Fish Passage Improvement; PCAF (HCTF) Project # 1063, Years 2016–2018, Project title: Healthy Headwaters Project, Aleza Lake Research Forest. Contact: Mike Jull RPF (Manager, Aleza Lake Research Forest Society)

• There is very little research activity in the Robson Timber Supply Area (TSA)• Work being done by John Rex and Dave Wilford• Small stream management has been explored and is currently practiced

on a block-by-block basis to do more than what is expected in the forest stewardship plan or by legislation where it makes sense to do so.

• Omineca Watershed Health Tool. Contact: John Rex (FLNRO)• Murray River cumulative effects monitoring. Contact: Lana Miller (B.C.

Ministry of Environment [MOE]). CABIN benthic sampling. Contact: Robyn Roome (MOE)

Cariboo Natural Resource Region

• We are currently engaged in research related to the stocking of barren and contained lakes within the Chilcotin for extensive aquaculture purposes. Contact: Richard Holmes (Cariboo Envirotech Ltd.)

http://nechakowhitesturgeon.org

57

• Broad-level cumulative effects analyses of several variables affecting hydrological stability within Cariboo Region. Contact: Rick Dawson (Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society)

• Quesnel River Research Station, sediment and water related to the Mount Polley Mine tailings storage facility breach. Contact: Phil Owens and Ellen Petticrew (UNBC)

• Mount Polley Mine tailings breach health assessment of local First Na-tions first draw sampling for copper and lead at First Nations childcare facilities. Contact: Sylvia Struck (First Nations Health Authority Drinking Water Officer)

• Collection of hydrometric data and exploration in stream flow attenua-tion. Contact: Dave Weir (FLNRO)

Kootenay/Boundary Natural Resource Region

• Columbia Wetlands Waterbird Survey (CWWS); Columbia River Wetlands Marsh Bird Monitoring Program; Columbia Basin Water Quality Moni-toring Program; sensitive habitat mapping for higher elevation wetlands; Aquatic Invasive Plant Species Inventory on Lake Windermere. Contact: Rachel Darvill (Golden Columbia Wetlands Waterbird Survey program biologist)

• The Regional District of East Kootenay just finished working with the Elk River Alliance on the Elk River Flood Strategy and Concept Designs. Both reports will be available on our website in the near future: www.rdek.bc.ca. Contact: Lee-Anne Walker (Elk River Alliance)

• My current workload revolves mostly around the Elk Valley cumulative effects, identifying fisheries-sensitive watersheds, and stream manage-ment (e.g., restoration). The only research I am currently conducting is collecting water temperature data across the Kootenay for temperature-sensitive streams. Contact: Alan Davidson (FLNRO). There has been a lack of research hydrologists in the Kootenay for too many years. Sarah Crookshanks of the Nelson office has carried on some projects left over after Peter Jordan’s retirement. Peter would be a better contact than me for research issues. Contact: Peter Jordan (FLNRO retired)

• Current: Comprehensive Water Temperature Monitoring Program. Key indicators – species monitoring: bull trout (redd counts), rainbow trout (snorkel surveys); water quality monitoring (Sheep Creek); Biometric data are gathered annually in Sheep Creek and lower Salmo River, but periodically in the south Salmo River. Contact: Gerry Nellestijn (Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society, coordinator)

• Implementation of the Kettle River Watershed Management Plan through a 0.4 full-time equivalent contractor working for the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. The position covers management of the project; however, additional funds are required to move some of the ac-tion items forward, such as developing a local Drought Management Plan and preparing educational materials for our local area. A similar Watershed Management Plan has not been prepared for the Kootenay side of the Koo-tenay Boundary Regional District. Contact: Donna Dean (Regional District of Kootenay Boundary)

• I am currently mapping the aquifers between Slocan Lake and the confluence of the Slocan and Kootenay Rivers, as time permits. I have

58

no contract for this; I just know it needs to be done. I am also working on relating the hydrology of areas to the aquifers related to the wetlands we have mapped through the Slocan Wetlands Assessment and Mapping Project (SWAMP) and the benthic invertebrate data we are gathering. I am also teaching QGIS as an adult education program this fall. And I am also working on methods to integrate ASTER data, Landsat data, and digital elevation models to do predictive wetland mapping. I plan on integrating Sentinel data as well. This research is also volunteer. I do have a contract for a hydrogeological study of the Silverton Creek watershed and the Silverton Aquifer as the start of an eco-asset mapping program for the village. Contact: Richard Johnson (Opus Petroleum Engineering)

• North Kootenay Lake Water Monitoring Project, Kootenay Centre for Forestry Alternatives Society. Contact: Greg Utzig (Kutenai Nature Inves-tigations Ltd.), Martin Carver (Aqua Environmental Associates)

• Installation of temperature logs in streams to better regulate angling closures. Contact: Heather Lamson (FLNRO)

• We are currently working on the Elk Valley Cumulative Effects Manage-ment Framework and implementing simulation tools to simulate land-scape, hydrologic, and climatologic changes and their effects on valued components. We are working on water quality and streamflow research in headwater catchments in partnership with Canfor. We are conducting research related to climate and land use change effects on streamflow in the Elk Valley. Contact: Ryan MacDonald (MacDonald Hydrology Consultants Ltd.)

• Fish trapping is currently being undertaken on a tributary of Findlay Creek near Canal Flats, B.C. No other trapping is required for the foreseeable future. Contact: Louis Fuchs (Canfor)

• Snowmelt and hydrological processes in a burned forest. Contact: Sarah Crookshanks (FLNRO)

• Climate change and its impact on water supplies in mountain communi-ties in the Columbia Basin. Contact: Hans Schreier (Faculty of Land & Food Systems, UBC)

• Water demand model. This model is undertaken once the Agriculture Area Plan is completed in each regional district. The Regional District of East Kootenay has their Agriculture Area Plan done. Water demand model work is to be initiated soon. The Regional District of Central Koo-tenay is in the process of conducting an Agriculture Land Use Inventory (ALUI) in 2016, which will then be the basis of a water demand model. I suspect the water demand model work will be undertaken for the Region-al District in 2017. Contact: Darrell Smith (B.C. Ministry of Agriculture)

• Columbia Basin Trust: researching the state of glaciers in the Columbia Basin. Contact: Kindy Gosal (Columbia Basin Trust); analysis of current and missing data on water quality and quantity in the Columbia Basin. Contact: Tim Hicks (FLNRO)

• Source Water Protection Plan and Emergency Response Plan (Request for Qualifications in progress); QGIS mapping of infrastructure; Capital Asset Management studies and mapping. Contact: Warren Leigh (Director of Operations, Village of Nakusp)

• Flow monitoring for drought response and allocation decision-making in Kootenay–Boundary by Water Stewardship Division. Planning to install

59

up to either medium to long-term flow monitoring stations throughout the region. Contact: Kristina Anderson (FLNRO)

• Columbia Basin Watershed Network members research surface water quality and quantity, and conduct some groundwater monitoring, and several are working on activity impacts. Contact: cbwn.coordinator@gmail .com for more information

• LiDAR snow depth and mass balance monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. Contact: Frank Weber (BC Hydro)

Provincial (includes two or more regions)

• Snowlines as they influence peak flows. Variability. Moving beyond base elevations, which do not capture complexities. Influence of climate change (temperatures, storms, etc.). Contact: Randy Spyksma (Forsite Consultants Ltd.)

• There is extensive work being done through the Water Use Planning pro-cess. I was involved throughout the planning phase, but implementation is being done by BC Hydro. For the Peace River, there is additional, and sub-stantial, work being done with regard to Site C. My involvement in that work is via a multi-party committee (i.e., government and BC Hydro), and involves addressing fish and fish habitat monitoring needs. The work I am most directly involved with regards white sturgeon recruitment restora-tion. However, I’m not sure this work is considered “water-related” because it is focussed on habitat restoration. There is a clear link to local hydraulics, and therefore to water flow. Our work is focussed more on the habitat (e.g., reach-specific fluvial geomorphology) and fish use (e.g., habitat needs of spawning white sturgeon). Contact: Steven McAdam (B.C. Ministry of En-vironment)

• Snow monitoring and rainfall interception in mountain pine beetle-affect-ed stands in the Omineca, Contact: Vanessa Foord and Dave Spittlehouse (FLNRO). Baseline climate and climate change monitoring (including al-pine) in the Omineca and Skeena. Contact: Vanessa Foord (FLNRO)

• Investigation of Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in the Stoney Creek Watershed (FLNRO, UNBC joint research, funded by MOE Groundwater Science Program); conceptual groundwater model develop-ment in Terrace area (FLNRO supported research project) Contacts: Jun Yin (FLNRO), Jianbing Li (UNBC)

• (1) Development of bioenergetic-based habitat suitability curves for instream flow modelling. (2) Seasonal and flow-related changes in inver-tebrate drift (prey for juvenile salmonids) (MOE/UBC collaboration). Contact: Jordan Rosenfeld (B.C. Ministry of Environment)

• Ongoing water use planning monitoring or independent power producer monitoring that test specific hypotheses related to flow management tar-gets or presumed flow needs. See BC Hydro website, using appropriate search words. Additional contact: Scott Babakaiff (FLNRO) – He may have links to IPP monitors and learning.

• My organization is working to assess spatial and temporal trends in wet-land occurrence in some of the study regions in question, primarily using remotely sensed imagery. Contact: Bruce Harrison (Ducks Unlimited Canada)

60

Cover Letter:

Watershed management issues are among the many challenges facing natu-ral resource managers in British Columbia. The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) is conducting a needs assessment to identify specific information gaps in four of FLNRO’s natural resource regions. These natural resource regions include the Cariboo, Koote-nay/Boundary, Omineca and Skeena natural resource regions (refer to the following url for the location of these regions: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/maps/regdis/regdismap.pdf). This assessment will be used to inform the development of an applied research strategy to support sustainable water re-source management in B.C. Similar needs assessments have already been completed in the Northeast, Thompson-Okanagan and both Coast regions of B.C.*; therefore, your support in completing this survey will greatly help to develop a comprehensive applied research strategy for B.C.

We have compiled a list of key persons to participate in a survey to help identify these information needs. Participation in this survey will promote applied water research that is regionally focused, resource efficient, strategic and provides opportunities for collaboration. We are requesting your help in this process by completing the survey (link below).

To complete the survey, please click on this link or paste the following URL into your browser: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TVZKWNF.

The survey takes about 20 minutes to complete. Fill in only those sections relevant to your area of experience and practice. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Please share the survey with colleagues or employees you feel can provide helpful feedback.

You can complete the survey online, or an in-person interview can be arranged by phone.

Please complete the survey by June 30, 2016.

If you have questions about this survey, please contact myself, Rob Scherer at [email protected], Todd Redding at [email protected] or Kevin Ronneseth at [email protected].

For more information about the development of the research strategy, please contact Dave Wilford ([email protected]) at the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Thank you for your consideration.

* Similar assessments have been completed for the Northeast (n), Thompson-Okanagan (t-0) and Coast Area (South and West Coast) regions of B.C. The n and t-0 reports are available at: www.bcwatertool.ca/info-sources and the Coast report is in review for publishing. To support these assessments, a searchable database with information relevant to water in the n, the t-0 and Coast regions of B.C. was developed. The searchable database for these regions is available now at the above website. Your support to this project will help make the database for the Cariboo, Kootenay/Boundary, Omineca and Skeena regions more complete.

APPENDIX 2 Client survey questionnaire and cover letter

61

Survey:

1. Name

2. Title

3. Affiliation (e.g., government ministry, company name)

4. Survey completion method

Online individually

Interview with survey team member

Other (please specify)

5. What is your primary employment affiliation? (Please select only one)

Provincial government

Federal Government

Local/regional government

First Nations

Community/Stewardship/NGO

Academic

Water purveyor

Industry

Consulting

62


6. In Which field/area do you primarily practice? Select a maximum of 3.

Surface water management (allocation, licensing)

Surface water hydrology

Groundwater management (allocation, licensing)

Groundwater hydrology

Watershed management

Fisheries and aquatic ecology

Forest management

Geoscience and engineering

Agriculture

Water purveyor

Mining and minerals extraction

Oil and gas production

Hydropower production

Waste water management

Land use planning

Research

Community/Stewardship/NGO

Energy (e.g., oil & gas, hydro, geothermal)

Natural resource hazards (e.g., mass movements, floods)

Mining and mineral extraction

Policy development

63


7. What is the primary water related focus of your professional practice? Select a maximum of 3.

.

Management

Allocation/licensing

Monitoring (e.g., trend, baseline, compliance etc.)

Remediation

Operations

Planning

Policy and regulation

Compliance and enforcement

Research

Data collection and inventory (e.g., well log data, consultant reports, etc.)

Stewardship and conservation

High Medium Low Not Applicable




Groundwater quality

Groundwater–surfacewater interactions

Fish and aquaticecosystems

Natural resourcehazards

8. Please rank the following themes in terms of their relevance to your primary areas of practice (asidentified in Question #6)

64


9. Please indicate the FLNRO regions within which you practice. Please select all that apply.

Skeena

Omineca

Cariboo

Kootenay/Boundary

65

Peak flow timing

Peak flow magnitude

Low flow timing

Low flow magnitude

Annual water yield

Evaporation andtranspiration rates

Infiltration and soilmoisture storage

Surface groundwaterwater–interactions


Snow accumulation andmelt rates



10. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to surface water quantity hydrologic processes.


66

Current allocation

Wateravailability/storage

Climate change effectson water supply

Forest managementeffects

Environmental flowneeds

Mining effects


Agricultural/rangeeffects

Cumulative hydrologiceffects

Urban watermanagement

Recreational uses


11. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to management for surface water quantity.


67

Water levels

Aquifer yield potential

Recharge rates

Aquifer permeability andporosity

Storativity

Flow direction

Geological model

Aquifer mapping

Aquifer “typing”

Lithology

Withdrawal amounts

Flowing artesianconditions

Saltwater intrusion


12. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to ground water quantity hydrogeologic processes.


Surface groundwaterwater–interactions

68

Currentgroundwater withdrawls

Current groundwateravailability


Climate change effectson water supply


Mining effects


Cumulative hydrologiceffects

Urban watermanagement


13. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to management of ground water quantity.


69

Surface Water Quality Groundwater Quality

Nutrients

Organic chemicals

Inorganic chemicals

Temperature

Sediment

Turbidity


Pharmaceuticals

Radiological agents


14. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to surface water and ground water quality.

70



Mining effects

Agriculture effects

Range effects

Cumulative effects

Urban developmenteffects

Recreation

Activities in riparianareas

Activities in wetlandareas

Aquatic ecosystemmanagement

Oil and gas effects

Saltwater intrusion

Aquaculture effects


15. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to management of surface and ground water quality concering effects from:

Surface Water Quality Groundwater Quality

71

Where do they occur

Flux magnitudes

Flux directions

Water quality

Seasonal variations

Pumping data


16. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to ground water - surface water interactions.

Fish populations

Environmental flowneeds



Activities in estuariesand coastal areas

Temperature- sensitivestreams

Aquatic ecosystemhealth (e.g.,biomonitoring)

Fish passage


17. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to aquatic ecosystems.



72


Surface erosion

Floods

Drought

Snow avalanche

Karst

Earthquake


18. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to natural resource development hazards.


73

Ground water – Surface Water

Interactions Aquatic EcosystemsNatural Resource Development

Hazards

Water withdrawal

Aquatic ecosystemmanagement



Climate change

Forest management

Mining

Agriculture

Range management


Cumulative effects

Urban development

Roads and streamcrossings

19. Please rank the information needs with respect to improving your ability to do your job relating to management for groundwater – surface water interactions, aquatic ecosystems,and natural resource development hazards as concerning the effects of:

Hydrometric monitoring data

Groundwater-levelmonitoring data

Climate monitoring data

High-elevation climate data

Snow survey data

Chemical water qualitymonitoring data

20. Please rank the general data and information system needswith respect to improving your ability to do your job.


74

Physical water qualitymonitoring data

Biological water qualitymonitoring data

Water temperaturemonitoring data

Geologic data

Aquifer mapping andcharacterization

Waterconsumption/usage data

Online data repository(e.g., groups can uploaddata to share)

Online access to data

Online access toanalysisresults/products (e.g.,interpreted data)

Online access to geo-referenced data

Online data standards(e.g., to facilitate datasharing and use in GISplatforms)

Online analysis tools(e.g., statistical analysis,models etc.)

Professionaldevelopmentopportunities (e.g.,conferences,workshops)



75

21. Please identify research and information needs/questions to support sustainable water management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo or Kootenay/Boundary regions of BC. Provide as many as necessary and be as specific as possible.

22. Please identify key policy and regulatory needs to support sustainable water management in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo or Kootenay/Boundary regions of BC. Provide as many as necessary and be as specific as possible.

76

23. Please identify current and planned water-related research being undertaken either by your organization, a partner organization or in the study regions. Please provide a descriptive title, contact person, and contact information (e.g., email or web link) if possible.

24. Please identify any emerging pressures/issues, not captured in the survey questions, that you forsee requiring information to support sustainable water resource management (e.g., such as water sustainability act) in the Skeena, Omineca, Cariboo or Kootenay/Boundary regions of BC.

77

25. Please provide the names and contact information (if available) of colleagues or interested people who could provide further input to the survey.

Thank you for your time and assistance. If you have further questions, please contact Dr. Dave Wilford at the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations ([email protected]).

116

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Research and Information Needs Assessment to Support Sustainable Watershed Management ... ·...

Documents