Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of historical changes in aquatic biota, water and sediment quality within a catchment at… Pappas, Sheena Charmaine 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_spring_pappas_sheena_charmaine.pdf [ 10.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066615.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066615-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066615-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066615-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066615-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066615-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066615-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066615-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066615.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL CHANGES IN AQUATIC BIOTA, WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY WITHIN A CATCHMENT AT A DEVELOPING URBAN FRONT  by SHEENA CHARMAINE PAPPAS B.Sc., McGill University, 2002  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 2008 © Sheena Charmaine Pappas, 2008  Abstract  Degradation of streams in urban-rural fringe regions occurs through complex interactions between hydrological, physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of the stream environment and surrounding landscape. Biological monitoring using macroinvertebrates may capture the complex and cumulative influences of land activity on the stream environment. The Salmon River catchment in the township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada straddles urban and rural environments in the Lower Fraser Valley. To date the Salmon River catchment has been subject to several environmental surveys. Following these earlier investigations, this study quantified relationships between the stream environment and changing land activity, across multiple scales, from 1975 to 2005, using macroinvertebrates as environmental integrators. Current and historical water, sediment, and macroinvertebrate information along with land use and land-cover evaluations were used to quantify relationships between the macroinvertebrate community and land activity in the catchment. Spatial and seasonal results for specific conductivity (a total dissolved ion indicator) and NO 3 "-N and PO4 3 (nutrient indicators) traced groundwater and overland inputs to the stream environment. Nitrate guideline exceedances occurred at groundwater-influenced sites. Elevated sediment trace metal concentrations and Zn guideline exceedances occurred mid-reach in the catchment. Peak total macroinvertebrate and sensitive taxa abundance occurred mid-reach in the catchment in 2005, while richness and proportional sensitive abundance peaks were seen at groundwater-influenced sites. The dominance of tolerant to moderately pollution tolerant taxa occurred throughout. Despite historical water quality concerns at groundwater-influenced sites, greater shifts in community composition occurred in headwaters regions. Patterns of land use and land cover changed in sensitive areas (i.e. above aquifer and in the headwaters). A greater number of correlations between land activity and macroinvertebrate measures occurred at streams sites with 100 m buffers. The abundance of sensitive taxa positively correlated with the amount of agricultural land use, while rarefaction declined. Several Macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups correlated positively to forest cover, while sensitive taxa abundance and Zn concentrations declined. Results suggest continued water quality and sediment trace metal concerns, while macroinvertebrate results point to nutrient enrichment and greater historical variability in headwaters regions. Agricultural activity appears to have a stronger influence on aspects of the stream environment despite the presence of urban-rural land activity. ii  Table of Contents Abstract ^  ii  Table of Contents ^ List of Tables ^  iii vii  List of Figures ^  ix  List of Abbreviations and Symbols ^  xi  Acknowledgements ^  xii  Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ^  1  1.1 Introduction^  1  1.2 Context ^  2  Salmon River Catchment ^ 1.3 Background ^  2 5  1.3.1 Land Activity Indicators and Non-point Source Pollution ^ 5 Land Activity Indicators ^ 5 Non-point Source Pollution ^  6  Water Quality Variables ^  8  Sediment Quality Variables ^  9  1.3.2 Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Stream Health ^ Methods of Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment ^  10 11  Macroinvertebrates in Urban and Semi-urban Environments ^ 12  Chapter 2 STUDY FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES ^  14  2.1 Framework ^  14  2.2 Objectives ^  14  Chapter 3 METHODS ^  16  3.1 Climate Data and Land Activity Indices Evaluation ^  16  3.1.1 Meteorological and Hydrometric Data ^  16  3.1.2 Geographic Information System (GIS) Data ^  16  3.2 Sample Site Selection ^  1'7 iii  3.3 Field Sampling ^  18  3.3.1 Overview of Sampling Methodology ^  18  3.3.2 Water Quality Sampling ^  20  3.3.3 Sediment Sampling ^  20  3.3.4 Macroinvertebrate Sampling ^  21  3.4 Laboratory Analysis ^  21  3.4.1 Water Sample Analysis ^  21  3.4.2 Sediment Sample Analysis ^  22  Particle Size ^  22  Trace Metals ^  22  3.4.3 Macroinvertebrate Sample Analysis ^ 3.5 Data Analysis ^  23 23  3.5.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control ^  23  3.5.2 Water Quality Data Analysis ^  24  Water Quality Guidelines ^ 3.5.3 Sediment Data Analysis ^  25 26  Sediment Quality Guidelines and Background Trace Metal Concentrations ^ 27 3.5.4 Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis ^  28  3.5.5 Relationships Between Land Activity and Environmental Quality ^ 30 Chapter 4 RESULTS ^  31  4.1 Climate Results ^  31  4.1.1 Meteorological and Hydrometric Data ^ 4.2 Land Use and Land Cover Results ^  31 35  4.2.1 Current and Historical Land Use in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 35 4.2.2 Current and Historical Land Cover in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 39 4.2.3 Populations Change in the Township of Langley, B.C. ^ 4.3 Water Quality Results ^  41 42  4.3.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control ^  42  4.3.2 Spatial and Seasonal Variation in Water Quality ^  42  Specific Conductivity: Spatial and Seasonal Trends ^  42  Nitrate (NO3"-N): Spatial and Seasonal Trends ^  44  Orthophosphate (PO4 3 -P): Spatial and Seasonal Trends ^ 46 iv  4.3.3 Relationships Between Nitrate (NO3 - -N), Total Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms, and Precipitation ^ 48 4.3.4 Historical Variation in Water Quality (1974/75 to 2004/05) ^ 51 Specific Conductivity: Historical Trends ^  51  Nitrate (NO3 - -N) Historical Trends ^  51  Orthophosphate (PO4 -3 -P) Historical Trends ^ 4.4 Sediment Results ^  52 54  4.4.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control (QA/QC) ^  54  4.4.2 Particle Size Distribution ^  54  4.4.3 Trace Metals in Sediments ^  54  4.4.4 Relationships Between Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments ^ 62 4.4.5 Relationship Between Particle Size Distribution and Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments ^ 62 4.4.6 Long-Term Variation in Sediment Quality (1974/75 to 2004/05) ^ 62 4.5 Macroinvertebrate Results ^ 4.5.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control (QA/QC) ^  63 63  4.5.2 Macroinvertebrate Total Abundance and Community Structure ^ 64 Macroinvertebrate Order and Family Level Composition ^ 67 Macroinvertebrate Taxa Characteristics ^  78  4.5.3 Historical Change in Macroinvertebrate Community Structure ^ 81 4.6 Land Activity and Environmental Quality ^  90  4.6.1 Sediment Quality and the Macroinvertebrate Community ^ 91 4.6.2 Land Use and Sediment Quality ^  91  4.6.3 Land Use and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics ^ 92 4.6.4 Land Cover and Sediment Quality ^  93  4.6.5 Land Cover and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics ^ 93 4.6.6 Historical Land Cover and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics ^ 94 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION ^  95  5.1 Climate and Land Activity in the Salmon River Catchment ^  95  5.1.1 Current Land Use in the Salmon River Catchment ^  95  5.1.2 Current Land Cover in the Salmon River Catchment ^  96  5.1.3 Historical Trends in Land Activity in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 97  5.2 Water Quality in the Salmon River Catchment ^  97  5.2.1 Current Water Quality Conditions in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 97 5.2.2 Historical Trends in Water Quality in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 99 5.3 Sediment Quality in the Salmon River Catchment ^  100  5.3.1 Current Sediment Quality Conditions in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 100 5.3.2 Historical Trends in Sediment Quality in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 101 5.4 Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 101 5.4.1 Current Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics in the Salmon River Catchment ^  101  5.4.2 Historical Trends in Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 105 5.5 Relationships between Land Activity and Environmental Variables in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 106 5.5.1 Land Use and Environmental Variables ^  107  5.5.2 Land Cover and Environmental Variables ^  108  Chapter 6 SUMMARY ^  110  6.1 Land Activity ^  110  6.2 Water and Sediment Quality ^  111  6.3 Macroinvertebrate Community^  112  6.4 Links between Land Activity and the Stream Environment ^  113  Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ^  115  LITERATURE CITED ^  117  APPENDICES ^  129  Appendix A: Summary of Historical Sampling in the Salmon River Catchment ^ 129 Appendix B: Land Activity Results ^  132  Appendix C: Water Quality Results ^  144  Appendix D: Sediment Quality Results ^  167  Appendix E: Macroinvertebrate Results ^  178  Appendix F: Land Activity and Environmental Quality Results ^  194  Appendix G: Site Photos ^  213 vi  List of Tables Table 3.1 Summary of sampling site location and historical site ID in the Salmon River catchment, by study ^ 19 Table 3.2 Water quality guidelines for selected physical, ion and nutrient variables. ^ 26 Table 3.3 Sediment trace metal guidelines, uncontaminated lake sediment trace metal concentrations and surficial material trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 28 Table 4.1 Seasonal total precipitation (mm), by sample period. ^ 34 Table 4.2 2004 Land use classification for the Salmon River catchment. ^ 36 Table 4.3 2004 Land use as percent coverage in a 30 m stream buffer, by site. ^ 38 Table 4.4 2004 Land use as percent coverage in a 100 m stream buffer, by site. ^ 38 Table 4.5 a-d Proportional impervious and forest cover in buffer widths, by site (1974, 1995 and 2004). ^ 40 Table 4.6 Population of Langley City and the Township of Langley 1976-2005. ^ 41 Table 4.7 Significant Mann-Whitney results for specific conductivity, by site (a = 0.05). ^ 44 Table 4.8 Significant Mann-Whitney results for NO3 - -N, by site (a = 0.05) ^ 46 Table 4.9 Significant Mann-Whitney results for PO4 -3 -P, by site (a = 0.05) ^ 48 Table 4.10 Significant Spearman rank correlation coefficients for precipitation intervals and selected water quality parameters (a = 0.1). ^ 50 Table 4.11 Summary of annual median specific conductivity from 1974/75-2004/05, by site ^ 51 Table 4.12 Summary of annual median NO 3 - -N concentrations from 1974/75-2004/05, by site..51 Table 4.13 Summary of annual median PO4 3 -P concentrations from 1994/95-2004/05, by site. 52 Table 4.14 Annual median values of water quality parameters in the Salmon River catchment, 1974/75-2004/05 ^ 53 Table 4.15 Median and quartile results for seasonal sediment trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 57 Table 4.16 Significant Mann-Whitney U test results for sediment trace metals concentrations, by stream region (a = 0.05). ^ 57 Table 4.17 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between trace metals (a = 0.1). ^ 62 Table 4.18 Significant Mann-Whitney results for temporal sediment trace metal concentrations, (1991 versus 2005), by stream region (a = 0.05). ^ 63 Table 4.19 Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate total abundance at selected sites in the Salmon River catchment, 1975-2005. ^ 81 Table 4.20 Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate EPT abundances at selected sites in the Salmon River catchment,1975-2005. ^ 84 Table 4.21 Summary of Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and principal components 1 and 2, for separate Principal Components Analyses (a = 0.1). ^ 90 Table 4.22 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between macroinvertebrate community characteristics and sediment quality characteristics (a = 0.1) ^ 91 Table 4.23 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment quality characteristics and land use type, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). ^ 91 vii  Table 4.24 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment characteristics and general land use categories, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). ^ 92 Table 4.25 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between macroinvertebrate community characteristics and land use by type, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1)^ 92 Table 4.26 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between macroinvertebrate community characteristics and general land use, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1) ^ 93 Table 4.27 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment quality characteristics and land cover, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). ^ 93 Table 4.28 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between macroinvertebrate community characteristics and land cover, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). ^ 94 Table 5.1 Summary of water quality guideline exceedances in the Salmon River catchment. .... 99 Table 5.2 Summary of sediment trace metal guideline or threshold exceedances in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 101  viii  List of Figures Figure 1.1 2004 Orthophotograph of the Salmon River catchment located in the Township of Langley, British Columbia ^ Figure 3.1 Sampling site locations in the Salmon River catchment ^  3 18  Figure 4.1 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 1973-1975 sample period ^ 33 Figure 4.2 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 1993-1995 sample period ^ 33 Figure 4.3 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 2003-2005 sample period ^ 34 Figure 4.4 Mean monthly flow and mean monthly flow normals for the Salmon River catchment, 1973-1975, 1993-1995, and 2003-2005 sample periods ^ 35 Figure 4.5 Summary of land use change in the Salmon River catchment between 1974, 1994 and 2004, based on land use category descriptions ^ 39 Figure 4.6 Specific conductivity (µS/cm) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site ^ 43 Figure 4.7 Specific conductivity (µS/cm) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites ^ 43 Figure 4.8 Nitrate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site ^ 45 Figure 4.9 Nitrate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites ^ 45 Figure 4.10 Orthophosphate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site ^ 47 Figure 4.11 Orthophosphate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites ^ 47 Figure 4.12 Dry season 24 hour total precipitation and NO3 -N concentrations at SAL 07 ^ 48 Figure 4.13 Wet season 24 hour total precipitation and total coliform counts at SAL 07 ^ 49 Figure 4.14 Dry season 48 hour total precipitation and fecal coliform counts at SAL 02 ^ 49 Figure 4.15 Spatial and temporal trends in Cr from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 58 Figure 4.16 Spatial and temporal trends in Cu from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 58 Figure 4.17 Spatial and temporal trends in Fe from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 59 Figure 4.18 Spatial and temporal trends in Mg from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 59 Figure 4.19 Spatial and seasonal trends in Mn from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 60 Figure 4.20 Spatial and temporal trends in Ni from sediments of the Salmon River catchment ^ 60 Figure 4.21 Spatial and temporal trends in Zn from sediment of the Salmon River catchment ^ 61 Figure 4.22 2005 Total macroinvertebrate abundance in the Salmon River catchmnet ^ 65 Figure 4.23 2005 Macroinvertebrate rarefied family richness in the Salmon River catchment ^ 66 Figure 4.24 2005 EPT total abundance in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 66 Figure 4.25 2005 EPT proportional abundance in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 66 Figure 4.26 2005 EPT rarefied richness in the Salmon River catchment ^ 67 Figure 4.27A-D 2005 Coleoptera and Diptera proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment ^ 70 Figure 4.27E-H 2005 Ephemeroptera and Oligochaeta proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 71 ix -  Figure 4.27I-L. 2005 Plecoptera and Trichoptera proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 72 Figure 4.28A-D. 2005 Baetidae and Emphemerellidae proportional abundance of Ephemeroptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 73 Figure 4.28E-H. 2005 Ephemerellidae and Leptophlebiidae proportional abundance of Ephemeroptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment ^ 74 Figure 4.29A-D. 2005 Capniidae and Nemouridae proportional abundance of Plecoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 75 Figure 4.29E-F. 2005 Perlidae proportional abundance of Plecoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 76 Figure 4.30A-D. 2005 Glossosomatidae and Hydropsychidae proportional abundance of Trichoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 77 Figure 4.31 2005 Proportional abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa according to functional feeding group in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 79 Figure 4.32 2005 Proportional abundance macroinvertebrate taxa of according to tolerance in the Salmon River mainstem ^ 80 Figure 4.33 2005 Proportional abundance macroinvertebrate taxa of according to tolerance in Salmon River tributary sites. ^ 80 Figure 4.34 Total macroinvertebrate abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River mainstem^ 82 Figure 4.35 Total macroinvertebrate abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek ^ 82 Figure 4.36 Rarefied family richness (1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River catchment ^ 83 Figure 4.37 EPT total abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River mainstem. ^ 85 Figure 4.38 EPT total abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek. ^ 85 Figure 4.39 EPT proportional abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River mainstem ^ 86 Figure 4.40 EPT proportional abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek. ^ 86 Figure 4.41 Rarefied EPT richness (1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River catchment. ^ 87 Figure 4.42 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1975, 1995 and 2005 ^ 88 Figure 4.43 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1975 and 2005. ^ 89 Figure 4.44 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1995 and 2005. ^ 89  List of Abbreviations and Symbols Al^Aluminum ALR^Agricultural Land Reserve As^Arsenic Ba^Barium BC CDC^British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Bo^Boron Cd^Cadmium Cr^Chloride Co^Cobalt Cr^Chromium Cu^Copper CV^Coefficient of Variation EPT^Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Fe^Iron GIS^Geographic Information System HDPE^High Density Polyethylene Hr^Hours ICP-AES^Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometer m^metre mm^millimetre Mg^Magnesium Mn^Manganese Mo^Molybdenum micro siemens per centimeter N^Nitrogen NH4 + -N^Ammonium as Nitrogen Ni^Nickel NO 3 "-N^Nitrate as Nitrogen NPS^Non-Point Source ORCBC^Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia P^Phosphorus Pb^Lead PO4 3 -POrthophosphate Se^Selenium Sr^Strontium U^Uranium !UM^micro metre Zn^Zinc  xi  Acknowledgements  I am grateful to following two agencies for providing research and financial support throughout the course of this study: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Water Network (CWN). There are also numerous people I would like to give thanks to for their support and would like them to know they played an important role in the completion this study and my stay at the University of British Columbia. To start my supervisor Dr. Hans Schreier for his continued commitment and advice, and my committee members Dr. John Richardson and Dr. Ken Hall for their guidance in the classroom and out in the field. I would also like to thank the following people for their patience, assistance and expertise in the lab: Pina Viola, Nancy Hofer, Carol Dyck, Gina Bestbier, Sandra Brown, and Les Lavkulich. Two additional people should not go unmentioned, field assistants extraordinaire: Trudy Naugler and Jonathan Ross to whom I am greatly indebted. Last but not least I am very grateful to my family, friends and recent colleagues for their unwavering support and encouragement and for helping me keep perspective throughout this process.  xi i  Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The expansion of urban areas and densification of populations in urban-rural fringe environments is a global phenomenon. In the Salmon River catchment, in the township of Langley, British Columbia such changes have come at the expense of the surrounding natural landscape by converting forest and wetland habitat into low density development and mixed high intensity land use (BC MOE, 2006). This is also associated with a variety of changes that impact the catchment environment such as increased impervious surfaces and non-point source pollution (NPS). An aerial view of the Lower Fraser Valley quickly reveals the eastward creep of urban sprawl from Vancouver. The Salmon River catchment straddles the boundary of urban and rural environments in the Fraser Valley. Like many other fringe environments, the Salmon River catchment is experiencing the pressures of development both from within its communities and from surrounding metropolitan areas. Ecologically important in terms of coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and other salmonid spawning habitat (Schreier per. comm., 2007 and BC MOE, 1996), the Salmon River area is also historically important as it is home to an early settlement in the province, Fort Langley (Cherrington, 1992). The degradation of streams in urban rural fringe regions occurs through complex interactions between the hydrological cycle, chemical and biological mechanisms of the stream environment. In turn the effects of urbanization are threefold, comprising physical, chemical and biological consequences to the stream environment (Paul and Myers, 2001). Physical changes include decreased riparian vegetation extent and quality (Coles et al., 2004 and Paul and Myers, 2001), changing temperature regimes (Hatt et al., 2004) and changing regimes of large woody debris (Larson et al., 2001). Shifts in impervious coverage, resulting from urbanization, can affect the physical stream environment through changing hydrology, including the magnitude and variability of both stream flow volume and velocity (Jennings and Jarnagin, 2002). From a chemistry standpoint both older (Benke et al., 1981) and newer catchment studies (Coles et al., 2004) have demonstrated that stream water and sediment quality may be altered by changing land activity. In terms of biological implications, in Washington State, biological indicators (both fish and aquatic insect indices) declined during the initial phase of urbanization (total impervious surface coverage of 5-10%) (May et al., 1997). Other authors (i.e. Fitzpatrick et al., 2004 and 1  Morse at al., 2003) have also noted that low levels of urbanization impact stream invertebrate communities. Traditional evaluation efforts have focused on water and sediment quality of the stream environment and, not surprisingly, the majority of data on urban streams is composed of these two types of information (Paul and Myers, 2001). Both critical features of the stream environment, water and sediment quality information offer little insight into another key aspect of streams: the biological community. Biological assessments have pointed out the inadequacy of water quality alone in accurately depicting the influence of land activity on the stream environment (Morse et al., 2005, Volez et al., 2005 and Duda et al., 1982). Furthermore, attempting to quantify all water and sediment characteristics necessary to truly measure land use impacts can prove both logistically and financially challenging (Duda et al., 1982). Due to the nature of macroinvertebrate communities, biological monitoring offers the opportunity to capture the complex and cumulative influences of land use on the stream environment (Reice and Wohlenberg, 1993). This thesis examines the cumulative spatial and temporal effects of land activity on the Salmon River using benthic macroinvertebrates as environmental integrators. Patterns in community response are further explored by examining historical trends in selected water quality and sediment variables over the similar time periods. 1.2 Context Salmon River Catchment Located in the Lower Fraser Valley of southwestern British Columbia, the Salmon River catchment is approximately 77 km 2 in expanse, with the majority of the catchment situated in the township of Langley. Peak elevations in this lowland system approach 140 m. The headwaters of the river originate northeast of the city of Aldergrove (refer to Figure 1.1). From here the 33 km of the river's mainstem flows in a northwesterly direction, before turning more directly northward and joining the Fraser River along its south bank, west of Fort Langley (Township of Langley, 2007). Several smaller tributaries are also a part of the drainage network of this catchment, including Coghlan, Davidson, Otter and Union Creeks (Township of Langley, 2007). Two of these tributaries are of particular interest in this study, the Coghlan and Davidson creeks.  2  Figure 1.1 2004 Orthophotograph of the Salmon River catchment located in the Township of Langley, British Columbia.  The headwaters of Coghlan Creek form along the border of the Township of Langley and the City of Abbotsford before meeting the Salmon River in Williams Park, at approximately the mainstem' s half way point. Davidson Creek, whose headwaters also occur along the border between Abbotsford and Langley, north of the origins of Coghlan Creek, joins the Salmon River south of Fort Langley. Additional important hydrological features of this catchment include the Aldergrove, Hopington and Fort Langley aquifers. The unconfined Hopington aquifer lies midreach in the catchment, influencing the both water quantity and quality of Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River mainstem, most prominently in the dry season (Schreier per. comm., 2007). 3  Surficial geology of the catchment is composed of a combination of glacio-fluvial, marine and river deposit materials. A detailed account of surficial geology, in terms of type and spatial extent is available in Beale (1976) and Cook (1994). Lowland and downstream portions of the catchment are characterized by podzol soils, while a mix of podzols and gleysols occur mid catchment and some brunisols are found in the upland regions. Typically, lowland areas are poorly to imperfectly drained, more readily drained soils occur in upland areas (Luttmerding, 1980). Further detailed explanations of soil characteristics of the Langley area are available in Luttmerding (1980). Like much of the Lower Fraser Valley the climate of the Salmon River catchment consists of cool wet winters followed by warm dry summers. Mean annual daily temperatures at the Langley climate station (Station ID: 1104555 (1957-1986), Latitude: 49° 3' N Longitude:,122° 34' W), range from 5°C to 13°C. Mean annual total precipitation is slightly less than 1500 mm on average, with the majority of precipitation occurring as rainfall. In terms of stream condition, peak flow generally occurs between November and February, while minimum flow conditions occur July through October (based on continuous data from 1969 and more intermittent records prior to this date) (WSC, 2007). According to Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia (ORCBC) (2007) the Salmon River is one of the few rivers in the Lower Fraser Valley to retain a natural course. Although the river does follow an unaltered course, it has not entirely escaped the influence of development as the banks and nearby riparian zones along many parts of the river are impacted by infrastructure associated with road crossings and drainage ditches. A further alteration to the Salmon River is a pump station near the mouth of the river, initially installed in 1949, which controls flooding from the Fraser River, typically between March and July each year (Cook, 1994). This pump was upgraded to a screw pump in spring 1999 to improve fish migration capacities (Jones, 1999). Based on the opinion of conservation and recreation groups, resource managers and river conservationists in British Columbia, the Salmon River tied for tenth position on the most endangered rivers list (ORCBC, 2007). This classification is based on concerns of nutrient loading, increased flow flashiness, and future concerns relating to dredging, headwater development and development above the three aquifers. Decreased low flow conditions, caused by excessive groundwater extraction, has also been identified as a concern by Golder and 4  Associates (2005). These concerns are particularly important in the context of the Salmon River catchment being considered a reference catchment for others in the Lower Fraser Valley (Richardson per. comm., 2006). 1.3 Background 1.3.1 Land Ativity Indicators and Non-point Source Pollution Land Activity Indicators  Two types of land use prevalent in the Salmon River catchment, agriculture and urban land use, are potential sources of NPS pollution and influences to stream macroinvertebrate communities. Wernick et al. (1998) concluded that a combination of residential and agricultural activity contributed to elevated nitrate conditions in the Salmon River catchment. Both urban and agricultural activity are also associated with landscape alterations. Two such alterations, known to impact the stream environment, are used in this study as indicators associated with both land uses; changing extents of imperviousness and forest cover. The first land use indicator, imperviousness is primarily considered an indicator of urbanization (Arnold et al., 1996, Coles et al., 2004, May et al., 1997, Morse et al., 2002). As evident in any urban or semi urban area imperviousness or impervious surfaces include roadways, sidewalks, parking lots, various types of infrastructure and compacted soils (Jennings and Jarnagin, 2002). In the agricultural context, imperviousness may occur to a lesser degree but includes soil compaction, often a secondary consideration in terms of soil degradation (Pierzynski et al., 1994). Increased imperviousness can affect the stream environment through several mechanisms beginning with changing catchment hydrology. This often entails change in the delivery pathways and storage of water through decreased soil-water infiltration. Lack of or reduced soilwater infiltration decreases lag time between rain events and peak stream flow for water that is delivered to the stream via this pathway, while at the same time reducing soil and ground water recharge. Peak flows (normal and extreme) often occur more frequently and are larger due to a larger amount of water delivered to the stream via surface runoff (Jennings and Jarnagin, 2002, Arnold et al., 1996). Low or base flows are reduced due to decreased soil and ground water recharge caused by increasing imperviousness (Jennings and Jarnagin, 2002). Generally the relationship between precipitation and stream flow becomes more direct with increasing 5  imperviousness (Arnold et al., 1996). This relationship is further exacerbated by directly connecting land use to the stream environment via gutters, pipes and storm sewer outflows, referred to as effective impervious area. Drainage networks may be a bigger factor to stream water quality than impervious area (Hatt et al., 2004). Change in ambient flow characteristics and water quality in turn impacts the physical instream structure and function. For example, increased flow volume and velocity may lead to erosion, increased sediment transport and loss of biological habitat. Increased development is associated with increased generation potential of pollutants. The nature of pollutants generated depends on the land use (Paul and Myers, 2001). An increase in the extent of impervious surfaces can facilitate the rate of transport of such pollutants to the stream environment. The extent to which pollutants reach the stream is further exaggerated by the limited pollution and nutrient processing capabilities of soils under intensive land use. Typically, these phenomena increase with development (Arnold et al., 1996, Hatt et al. 2004). The second land use indicator considered is forest cover. According to Coles et al., (2004) forest cover across multiple catchments becomes increasingly fragmented with urbanization. Benke et al. (1981) suggest that maintaining as much forest cover as possible is important to the promotion of stream health in an urbanizing environment. Furthermore, the conversion of forested land to agriculture (which may precede later urbanization) can release trace elements and nutrients from soil into the stream environment (Pierzynski et al., 1994). Non-point Source Pollution Agricultural activity and urbanization can impact the stream environment via similar land use indicators and physical pathways. However, the ways these two land uses influence the stream water and sediment quality, can be distinct. One general impact of agriculture on water quality in the stream environment is nutrient enrichment, mainly as increased nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations. Nutrient enrichment leading to eutrophication can contribute to bacterial and algal growth, reducing dissolved oxygen, and increasing turbidity (Pierzynski et al., 1994b). Inorganic N based fertilizers (such as ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulphate, and urea), anhydrous ammonia application to fields, N compound injection into livestock feed, and animal waste can be a sources of N compounds to the stream environment (CCME, 2003, CCME, 6  2000). Considering that N demand by agriculture has increased since the 1970s across Canada, N enrichment in aquatic environments is an increasing concern (CCME, 2003). Aside from fertilizer application, other significant sources of P include manure. Poultry manure has the highest nutrient content, while manure from swine and cattle (both dairy and beef cattle) may have the highest potential source of P. It is also noted that the availability of P may be partly dependent on the manure storage system. Generally, high density animal production is a source of P contamination to the stream environment (Kleinman et al., 2005). In terms of trace metal contamination, chicken, swine and cattle manure may be sources of calcium (Ca), copper (Cu) iron (Fe), aluminum (Al) and magnesium (Mg) (Kleinman et al., 2005, Nicholson et al., 1999). Copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) have also been detected in manure as a result of feed supplements (McBride and Spears, 2001 and Nicholson et al., 1999). Furthermore McBride and Spiers (2001) point out that agricultural fertilizer can contribute to increased cadmium (Cd), uranium (U), arsenic (As) and molybdenum (Mo) concentrations. Urban land use is also associated with NPS pollution. Urban and urbanizing land use change specific conductivity (an indicator of ions in water) and temperature regimes in the stream environment while contributing to elevated total loads or concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, phosphorus compounds (e.g. total and filterable reactive phosphorus), nitrogen compounds (e.g. ammonium), and trace metals (e. g. Cu, chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and Fe via increases in suspended sediments or total dissolved solids) (Choe et al, 2002, Grapentine et al., 2004, Lee and Bang, 2000, Sansalone and Christina 2004, Hatt et al., 2004). More specifically, roof top runoff, depending on the roofing material, may also contribute elevated trace metal concentrations including Cu, Pb and Zn. The corrosion of galvanized roofing and galvanized auto components is a source of Zn, while tar roofs and brake lining are potential sources of Cu (Schueler, 1994). Roadways and related transportation as well as other specific land use activity (i.e. residential or industrial land activity) may introduce a myriad of additional chemicals to the catchment (Maltby et al., 1995). Both base flow and storm flow may experience changes in the above constituents. Storm flow may do so episodically while base flows, may do so on an on-going basis (Hatt et al., 2004). The first flush concept refers to a disproportionately large amount (either in concentration (Choe et al., 2002, Lee and Bang, 2000) or mass (Sansalone and Christina, 2004) of constituent delivery during early portions of a precipitation-runoff event. This concept is particularly important in 7  terms of the delivery of suspended sediment and dissolved solids to the stream environment during storm events (Sansalone and Christina, 2004). Given the nature and type of pollutants generated from both urban and agricultural activity, several indicators of water and sediment quality will be used in this study with the intention of investigating the influence of mixed land activity in the Salmon River catchment. These include specific conductivity, CI, nutrients (forms of nitrogen such as ammonium (NI-14 + N), nitrate (NO 3 - -N), and orthophosphate (PO4 -3 -P) as a form of phosphorus), and two pathogen indicators, total and fecal coliforms. Sediment trace metal concentrations with also be investigated. Each variable considered in this study is naturally occurring; elevated levels may indicate human influence.  Water Quality Variables Several water quality variables used in this study are described in further detail below, including there importance to the stream environment and both natural and anthropogenic sources. Less toxic than other forms of nitrogen, the nitrate ion (NO 3 -) can affect organisms through osmoregulation and respiratory problems (CCME, 2003). This inorganic soluble form of nitrogen has natural sources via precipitation and atmospheric deposition and may be elevated by anthropogenic activities. Point sources of nitrate include municipal wastewater and septic tanks, while non-point sources include agricultural (e.g. inorganic and organic fertilizer, irrigation water) and urban run-off. (CCME, 2003).Nitrate appears in groundwater in agricultural catchments with excess inputs of this nutrient and when exported occurs mainly as nitrate (Gundersen and Bashkin, 1992). Nitrogen may not necessarily enter the stream environment directly as NO 3 - -N, but may be converted from ammonia through nitrification processes (CCME, 2003). Concentrations of NO3 - -N in water may also be combined with existing concentrations of nitrogen compounds in feed causing further concern for livestock health (Brown, 2006). A second nutrient, phosphorus in the PO4 -3 -P form was used in this study. Orthophosphate is an inorganic form of phosphorus, is used directly by aquatic biota. Phosphorus is often the limiting nutrient in aquatic environment having both natural and anthropogenic sources (e.g. wastewater, fertilizers) (CCME, 2004). Nitrogen in combination with P can contribute to eutrophication processes in aquatic environments, reducing dissolved 8  oxygen concentrations and indirectly affecting aquatic life (Pierzynski et al., 1994 (Ch.4), Nordin et al., 2001). Sediment Quality Variables Sediments can act as a repository for contaminants, such as trace metals and concentrations beyond natural levels may indicate human influence (Grapentine et al., 2004, Lee, 2000). The sediment environment is an important habitat to many benthic species. These species can act as a vectors transferring contamination through the stream food web. The proportion of fine particles (i.e. clays) is an important component of sediment quality in that it is the critical fraction of sediments in which absorption and transport of contaminants may occur due to the greater surface area-to-volume ratios of clays, compared to larger particles (Stone and Droppo, 1994). Trace metal concentrations in fine material is also important as these deposits may become long-term reservoirs in the stream environment (CCME, 2001). The re-suspension of sediment particles associated with trace metals may affect water quality or be re-deposited elsewhere along the watercourse. Several sediment trace metals which occurred in measurable amounts in this study are described below in 'alphabetical order. Firstly is Cr, which in the aquatic environment results naturally from weathering processes (Gauglhofer and Bianchi, 1991). In aerobic water Cr exists in its dissolved form, Cr +6 and under anaerobic conditions Cr+3 prevails, with the former being more toxic and dependent on pH conditions (CCME, 1999b, Gauglhofer and Bianchi, 1991). The Cr +3 form absorbs to particles strongly and may be more persistent in the sediment fraction (CCME, 1999b). A second trace metal, Cu, enters the soil environment and eventually the aquatic environment through leaching and runoff processes. The amount and toxicity of Cu depends on weathering, soil formation, redox potential, pH, hardness, organic matter content, complexing compounds and drainage. Copper occurs in higher concentrations in the presence of finer sediment fractions with high organic matter content (Scheinberg, 1991, Singleton, 1987) and has an affinity for fractions of Fe and Mn oxides, with which it forms compounds (CCME, 1999c). One of the more abundant elements, Fe, like Cu, can also enter the soil environment and ultimately the aquatic environment through weathering processes (Helmut, 1991). Higher concentrations of Mg are often found in rocks and minerals compared to overlying soils due to losses during weathering processes. Like Cu and Fe, Mg is an essential 9  element and is involved in organism metabolism, growth and photosynthetic processes (Aikawa, 1991). Manganese occurs in rock, soil and minerals and is released through the dissolution of these materials (Riemer, 1999). Anthropogenic inputs to the streams include atmospheric deposition, sewage and wastewater. Iron and Mn oxides can carry both organic and inorganic pollutants and can be considered sources of such (Schiele, 1991). Manganese in its inorganic form is relatively non-toxic and plays an important role in cellular processes (Schiele, 1991) and toxicity of Mn has been shown to depend on hardness (Riemer, 1999). Nickel (Ni) also enters the environment through the dissolution of rocks and soil and contributions from biological cycles. Like many of the other trace metals its toxicity depends on form and pH (Sunderman and Oskarsson, 1991). Finally, Zn occurs as part of many minerals in the environment. Anthropogenic Zn sources include sewage and wastewater, particularly in the presence of galvanized pipes. Zinc is often bound to clay and precipitates with Fe and Mn oxides (Ohnsorge and Wilhelm, 1991). The toxicity of Zn is dependent on numerous factors including hardness, salinity, temperature and the presence of other contaminants and organic matter, also soluble species of Zn tend to be more toxic (Nagpal, 1999, CCME, 1999d).  1.3.2 Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Stream Health Due to complex physical and biochemical interactions in aquatic ecosystems, changes in the stream environment are seldom isolated. Native aquatic organisms which have adapted to conditions in the stream environment serve as integrative indicators of change. One such biological indicator is macroinvertebrates. In this study the term macroinvertebrate refers to lotic freshwater, substrate-dwelling insect and non-insect taxa. More technically, macroinvertebrates are defined as taxa retained in mesh sized 200 pm to 500 gm (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). According to Attrill (2002), macroinvertebrates are considered the most useful indicator for local community-level impact studies in lotic environments. Numerous characteristics of this community contribute to their value in stream monitoring, including their ubiquitous nature, the large number of species within the community, their relatively sedentary and long life cycles (generally 1 year, although instances of longer life histories exist for some taxa), they are taxonomically well known, and 10  environmental response relationships are well documented for a variety of effects. Furthermore sampling techniques and analysis are well developed (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). Overall, the intimate relationship that macroinvertebrates have with their environment, in terms of mechanisms and duration of exposure, as well as their functional roles in the stream ecology, make this group invaluable in characterizing stream health (Reice and Wohlenberg, 1993, Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). Research examining macroinvertebrate community response to environmental conditions extends to specific single point source impacts such as sediment metal contamination from mine drainage (i.e. Afri-Mehennaoui et al., 2004, Clements 2004, Clements, 1994, Clements et al., 2000, Maret et al., 2003, Marques et al., 2003), to evaluations of the complexities of stream recovery from restoration efforts (i.e. Friberg et al., 1998, Gore, 1979, Gortz, 1998, Laasonen et al., 1998, Muotka et al., 2002, Tikkanen et al., 1994). Other types of environmental disturbances investigated include organic enrichment (which may lead to increased abundance and taxa dominance), changing pH (where lowered pH increases trace metal availability and is followed by a decline in overall species richness and productivity) and other trace metal contamination (which may contribute to reduced abundance and richness and taxa dominance) (Jackson et al., 1993). Macroinvertebrate research has further evolved to measure the complex and multiple affects of land use change, particularly urbanization. One conceptual, regional model proposed by May et al. (1997) relates attributes of instream habitat and aquatic biota to catchment and riparian characteristics. As catchment and riparian characteristics experience the impact of urbanization the stream characteristics are affected both directly and indirectly, ultimately contributing to declining biological integrity. Methods of Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment Methods of biological assessment specific to stream macroinvertebrates are varied. They include single measures, such as total abundance, diversity, and richness, to complex community characterizations, such as taxa composition, functional feeding groups, presence of tolerant/intolerant taxa, and multivariate evaluations. Studies have investigated the ability of specific measures to capture response to disturbance gradients (Cao et al., 1996, Garcia-Criado,  11  1999, Mouillot and Lepretre, 1999), while Norris and Georges (1993) suggest a combination of two metrics; total abundance and richness, illustrates the state of the stream community. In this study, richness, defined as the number of different taxa at a given taxonomic level of identification, is used to compare macroinvertebrate communities spatially and temporally. One caveat in practice is, it is unlikely to enumerate every species in a community, particularly insect communities. It is also difficult to measure true richness when only a sample of the community is gathered. Furthermore, comparing different sized samples is complicated given that the number of species increases with sample size (Allan, 1995c, Krebs, 1999). Rarefied richness, also known as rarefaction, offers the opportunity to standardize richness across different sample sizes and addresses this issue. This statistical method estimates the number of species expected in random sample of individuals taken from a collection. Drawbacks of this technique include that comparisons be between taxonomically similar communities, similar habitats and similar sample methods (Krebs, 1999, Norris and Georges, 1993). Another assumption of rarefaction is that species are randomly dispersed within a community. In nature, specifically stream riffles, the clumping or grouping of species may occur and generate positive and negative correlations between species (Krebs, 1999, Norris and Georges, 1993). Computer simulation has suggested that the greater the degree of clumping in a community the greater the overestimate of the expected number of species using rarefaction. This may be countered by using larger sample sizes that more accurately represent a community (Krebs, 1999). Macroinvertebrates in Urban and Semi-urban Environments A limited number of urban stream biological assessments have occurred (Paul and Myers, 2001), however, macroinvertebrates are the most widely studied aquatic group in relation to the effects of urbanization on the stream environment. In the literature, tools used to characterize macroinvertebrate community structure subject to urban or urbanizing land uses, range from single measures such as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) richness (i.e. Freeman and Schorr, 2002), to complex multivariate analysis of relative abundance (i.e. Milner and Oswood, 2000), and regionally bound multimetric biotic indices (i.e. Morely and Karr, 2002, Roy et al., 2003).  12  Generally, research suggests that macroinvertebrate community structure tends towards declining community integrity at urban sites and with increasing gradients of urbanization (Volez et al., 2005, Fitzpatrick et al, 2004, Gage et al., 2004, Gray, 2004, Morley and Karr, 2002, Lenat and Crawford, 1994). Other studies take a more pointed approach, investigating specific factors related to urban land use including stream diversion (specifically reduced flow volumes) (McIntosh et al., 2002), storm water outflows (Robson et al., 2005), road construction (Fore et al., 1996), and organic pollution (Duda et al., 1982). The combination of high flow and sewage exposure in controlled lab experiments, which may mimic exposure in natural stream environments, demonstrated greater population loss than either parameter acting alone (Borchardt and Statzner, 1990). Similarly, studies conducted in two separate regions, both using total impervious area (%) as a single indicator of urban influence, demonstrated negative relationships with increasing impervious area and benthic index scores (i.e. May et al., 1997), and total and EPT taxa richness (i.e. Morse et al., 2002). Lenat and Crawford (1994) who investigated the influence of both agriculture and urban land use found agricultural land use associated with increased abundance and decreased richness of intolerant taxa. This was countered by increased richness of tolerant taxa. Urban land use was more closely associated with low abundance and richness of the macroinvertebrate community. Each of these studies further strengthens the assumption that increasing land use (both in terms of intensity and expanse) influences the stream environment in terms of shifts in macroinvertebrate community structure away from that found in less disturbed conditions. The two indices considered in this study, impervious and forest cover, are also investigated by other authors in terms of their influence on macroinvertebrate community richness measures (i.e. Coles et al., 2004, Freeman and Schorr, 2004, Black et al., 2004, Roy at al., 2003, USGS, 1998). The above studies generally demonstrate inverse relationships between richness and imperviousness, while positive relationships with forest cover occur. Decreased macroinvertebrate community integrity associated with an increase in human influence, such as urbanization, appears in the literature, some variance in terms of the strength of spatial relationships exists. For example Morely and Karr (2002) found stronger relationships between land activity and macroinvertebrates exist at the sub-basin scale (Morely and Karr, 2002) while the catchment scale proved more influential in work by Freeman and Schorr (2004). This will be an important consideration in the current study. 13  Chapter 2 STUDY FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 Framework The general framework of this study was to employ macroinvertebrate community characteristics as integrative stream monitoring tools in an urbanizing environment. In combination with water and sediment quality information, macroinvertebrate community measures are used to determine whether the environmental quality of the Salmon River has changed spatially or temporally as a result of land activity in the surrounding catchment. Additionally, this study investigates if change in the macroinvertebrate community reflects change in water and sediment quality characteristics. Data collection undertaken in this study is intended to follow-up and compliment macroinvertebrate research conducted by Hall (1975, unpublished) and Richardson (1995, unpublished), as well environmental surveys of the Salmon River catchment by Beale (1976), Cook (1994) and Wernick (1996). The latter three studies include evaluation of surface water quality (ions, nutrients and pathogens), trace metal concentrations in stream sediment, and land activity evaluation. Given the dates on which each of these studies was conducted (refer to Table 3.1), information can be grouped into three distinct time periods for comparison and analysis of longer-term environmental trends in response to temporal land activity gradients. These time periods are: mid-1970s: 1974-1975, early-mid 1990s: 1991, 1994-1995, and mid 2000s: 20042005 Water and sediment analysis, macroinvertebrate community characteristics, land use and cover, geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical analysis are used to determine relationships between land activity, the aquatic environment and the benthic macroinvertebrate community. 2.2 Objectives The goal of this study is to quantify relationships between the macroinvertebrate community, water and sediment quality and change in land activity, both in the broader catchment and the local riparian environment , over a three decade period in the Salmon River catchment. In order to achieve this goal there are several key objectives of this study, including: a) to quantify current land use and land cover and evaluate historical change in land cover (in defined buffer regions); b) to compare current and historical water and sediment quality; 14  c) to compare current and historical macroinvertebrate community characteristics; d) to examine current and historical spatial and temporal (seasonal) relationships and possible cause and effects between land activity, water and sediment quality, and the macroinvertebrate community using land use indicators and statistical techniques. In meeting the above objectives this study also generates additional background information specific to the Salmon River catchment that can be employed in future management and assessments of catchment health.  15  Chapter 3 METHODS 3.1 Climate Data and Land Activity Indices Evaluation 3.1.1 Meteorological and Hydrometric Data To assist in comparison and evaluation of catchment data, both meteorological and hydrometric datasets, from the three distinct time periods (1973-1975, 1993-1995 and 20032005), were examined. Precipitation data, particularly total monthly precipitation (mm) collected at the Abbotsford International Airport climate station (Station ID: 1100030, Latitude: 49° 1 'N, Longitude: 122°21'W), were gathered from Environment Canada's National Climate Archive (EC, 2006). Similarly, hydrometric data, mainly mean daily flow (m 3 /s) measured at 72" Avenue on the Salmon River (Station ID: 08MH090, Latitude: 49°8'2" N, Longitude: 122°35'40" W), were obtained from Water Survey of Canada, Archived Hydrometric Data (WSC, 2006 and unpublished data). The historical hydrometric and meteorological datasets were used to compare historical climate conditions in relation to 1970-1991 precipitation normals and 1960-2005 daily flow normals, and to spot climate anomalies for consideration in data interpretation. 3.1.2 Geographic Information System (GIS) Data The catchment boundary of the Salmon River, with the exception of a small headwaters portion (located in the Municipality of Abbotsford) was the main unit of focus in Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis. Spatial data, including both land use and land cover were analyzed using ArcMap, version 9.1 GIS (© ESRI, 2005). Contributing areas 500 m upstream of each sample site were delineated using a digitized contour map with a spatial resolution of 2 m. Thirty metre and 100 m buffer zones were subsequently applied to each contributing area. For the sake of this study buffer zones refer to a perimeter of land of a given width which runs parallel to the stream bank on either side. These buffers extended the respective widths on either side of the stream bank, 500 m upstream of the sample site. Land use information for 2004 was used to evaluate recent land use conditions in the catchment. A digitized 2004 land use survey based on parcel division was provided by the Township of Langley. Land use was calculated as a per m 2 and as a percent (%) area in each upstream contributing area at both buffer widths. Incompatibility of historical land use information with current GIS software limited spatial land use evaluations to 2004.  16  Land cover evaluation was conducted for impervious area (defined as paved areas and infrastructure) and forest cover within the described contributing areas, for all three time periods. The extent of both land covers in 1974 was estimated from hard copy aerial photos (scale 1:12, 000) taken by The Province of British Columbia (B.C.). These photos were scanned and later transformed to conform to reference points in the catchment using a rubber sheeting technique (ESRI, 2007). Imperviousness and forest cover were subsequently delineated and digitized. Information for 1995 and 2005 land cover was delineated from digital orthophotographs taken in the respective years. The 1995 forest cover information was interpreted and verified by Elliot (2003) and later clipped to the appropriate buffer widths. The remaining 1995 land cover layer (impervious area) and two layers for 1974 could not be verified due to their historical nature. Similarly to land use, land cover types were calculated as a per m 2 and as a percent area in each upstream contributing area at both buffer widths. Proportional land use and land cover was used in analysis to control for size differences between contributing areas at both buffer widths.  3.2 Sample Site Selection Sample locations were chosen based on locations sampled in the 1970s and 1990s environmental surveys conducted by Beale (1976), Cook (1994), and Wernick (1996), as well as earlier macroinvertebrate surveys by Hall (1975, unpublished) and Richardson (1995 unpublished). Several additional sites were considered to ensure greater spatial coverage of the watercourse (i.e. site SAL 03 and SAL 05) as well as the representation of regions of groundwater influence (SAL 06, SAL 07 and SAL 08) and non-groundwater influence above and below the aquifer. A summary of site location and historical ID is available in Table 3.1. The sampling of historic sites was an important consideration in this study as it facilitated temporal comparisons of water quality, sediment quality, and macroinvertebrate communities. As indicated in Appendix A, historical sampling for the parameters was not spatially or temporally consistent. The sites selected capture the entire watercourse of the Salmon River and its associated tributaries while remaining as consistent as possible with historical sample efforts (refer to Figure 3.1).  17  3.3 Field Sampling 3.3.1 Overview of Sampling Methodology The sampling program was three-fold in focus. Water, sediment and macroinvertebrate samples were collected to characterize current conditions and to facilitate historical comparisons in the catchment. When possible, samples were collected in the similar seasonal time frames and gathered and analyzed in a manner consistent with past studies in order to minimize variance between efforts.  British Columbia  SAL 06  Salmon  0^1.25^2.5^5 Kilometers I^I^I^,^I.^i  Figure 3.1 Sampling site locations in the Salmon River catchment.  18  Table 3.1 Summary of sampling site location and historical site ID in the Salmon River catchment, by study.  Original Study ID Water Quality^Sediment Quality^Macroinvertebrate Beale (1976) Wernick (1996) Cook (1994) Beale (1976) Hall (1975)* Richardson (1995)* Sampling Dates Site ID  SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  Description  04/06/74-31/03/75  02/03/94-01/02/95  21/08/91, 10/12/91  04/06/74-31/03/75  18/06/1975  09/1995 - 10/1995  Salmon River @ 88th Avenue Salmon River @ Ralvlison Crescent Davidson Creek @ Ralvlison Crescent Salmon River @ Highway #10 Salmon River @ 72nd Avenue Salmon River @ Williams Park Coghlan Creek @ Williams Park  2 14 3 6 4 5  Coghlan Creek @ 248th Street Coghlan Creek @ 64th Avenue Salmon River @ 55th Avenue Salmon River @ 248th Street Salmon River @ 48th Avenue  *unpublished data.  7 9  2 14 3 6 4 5 19 20 7 9 17  2 14 3 6 4 5 19 20 7 9 17  2 14 3 6 4 5 7 9 -  4  9 11 12 14 15 16 18  4 5 19 20 9  3.3.2 Water Quality Sampling In terms of water sampling frequency, a program for measuring the annual cycle in water quality parameters was concentrated at sites SAL 02, SAL 07, SAL 06 and SAL 11 on a biweekly basis (for a total of 29 sample occasions between March and December 2005). A second sampling regime was carried out at all sites on four occasions, with two sampling events falling in each of the wet and dry hydrological seasons (for specific dates refer to Appendix C), Water sampling facilitated analysis of physical, ion, nutrient and pathogen water quality parameters. For these two initial water sampling regimes water samples were collected and analyzed for the following parameters; conductivity (µS/cm), chloride (CI), total ammonia as ammonium (NH4 + -N), nitrate (NO3 - -N), and orthophosphate (PO4 -3 -P). All samples were collected in clean acid-washed 1L HDPE bottles, from stream flow after adequate rinsing of the sample bottle with stream water. Duplicate samples at site SAL 07 were taken for quality control purposes. Pathogen indicator sampling for total and fecal coliforms were analyzed at the BC Centre for Disease Control. In addition several In situ water quality measurements were taken during macroinvertebrate sampling events. Specific conductivity and temperature were measured using a YSI Environmental YSI 30 meter, and dissolved oxygen was measured using a YSI 95 meter (C) YSI, 2007). In situ measures of pH were conducted using a Hanna pHep4 Pocket p1-1 Tester TM (© Hanna Instruments, 2005 (accuracy: ±0.05pH/±0.5°C). Additionally, triplicate water samples were collected in clean acid-bather 200 mL HDP bottles for turbidity analysis. These were stored in a cooler for a later laboratory analysis. 3.3.3 Sediment Sampling Sediment samples were collected at sites on two occasions: September 6 th , 2005 and December 7 th , 2005 (with the exception of SAL 09 during the initial sediment survey). These dates occur during high and low sediment accumulation conditions in the catchment which coincide with post low and high flow conditions, respectively. A small stainless steel pot attached to pole was used to collect grab samples of the upper 5 cm of the substrate. Samples were placed in doubled plastic bags in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory. Samples were collected from depositional areas at each site. The coarse nature of the streambed limited sampling attempts outside these areas. To facilitate quality control duplicate and triplicate 20  samples were collected at randomly selected sites to calculate field sampling and spatial variability.  3.3.4 Macroinvertebrate Sampling In conjunction with benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, several environmental and water quality parameters were also measured to ensure comparability (in terms of environmental conditions) between biological samples. Protocol used for these procedures followed Environment Canada's Invertebrate Biomonitoring Methods (Sylvestre, 2004). These measured parameters included canopy coverage, macrophyte coverage and riparian zone estimates, flow depth, thalweg velocity, bankfull and wetted stream widths, and substrate particle size estimates (for results refer to Appendix E). Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at nine sites between September 19 th and 25 th , 2005 when similar flow and climatic conditions prevailed. These sites are SAL 01, SAL 05, SAL 6, SAL 10, and SAL 11 on the Salmon River mainstem, SAL 03 on Davidson Creek, and SAL 7, SAL 08, and SAL 09 on Coghlan Creek. This is typically the period in which taxa richness is greater and flows are low and stable in southwestern British Columbia. Sites selected for sampling were based on suitability for the sample method employed as well as accessibility and safety. At each site a Surber Sampler (>363 pm mesh, 0.1 m 2 frame) was used to collect five samples in the mid-line of five subsequent upstream riffles. The field procedure was completed by transferring each sample into a separate container, following the inspection and removal of larger rocks (length > 4 cm). The remaining sample was preserved in a solution of 70% buffered formalin  3.4 Laboratory Analysis 3.4.1 Water Sample Analysis In the laboratory a Radiometer Analytical CDM 2e Conductivity Meter (© APHA, 1976) was used to measure conductivity within two days of sample collection. Chemical parameters including CI, NH4 + -N, NO3 - -N and PO 4 " 3 -P were analyzed within two days at the UBC Pedology Laboratory. Samples were initially filtered using Whatman #41 filter paper prior to analysis on a Lachat XYZ QuickChemAE autoanalyzer (C) LaChat Instruments, 1990). The following methods were employed for nutrient analysis 10-117-07-1-A for Cr (detection limit 21  6.00 mg/L), 10-107-06-2-A for NH4 + -N (detection limit 0.10 mg/L), 12-107-04-1-B for NO3 - -N (detection limit 0.10 mg/L), and 10-115-01-1-A for PO4 3 -P(detection limit 0.02 mg/L). Blanks, replicates, and standards were used to verify the accuracy and precision of results. Bacterial samples were delivered to the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC) in Vancouver for distribution and later analysis of total and fecal coliforms. 3.4.2 Sediment Sample Analysis Particle Size In addition to trace metal analysis particle size determination was employed as a further step in sediment quality analysis. The Rapid Method proposed by Kettler et al. (2001) was used to do so. This method was designed using agricultural soils and was employed in this study using aquatic freshwater sediments given the existence of similar objectives. This simplified method, compared to traditional laboratory procedure uses a series of sieving and sedimentation steps to determine the percent sand (<2 mm), silt (<62 gm) and clay (<4 pm) in sediment samples. Trace Metals In the laboratory, sediment samples were wet sieved with distilled water using a sequence of 1.7 mm, 600 gm and 63 pm stainless steel sieves in order to obtain the <63 pm sediment fraction. This sediment fraction accounts for both silt (<62 pm) and clay (<4 gm) particles, a critical fraction for the absorption and transport of contaminants (Stone and Droppo, 1994). Following this, sieved sediments were transferred to separate acid-washed glass beakers and placed in drying ovens at approximately 70°C. Once constant mass was achieved samples were removed and cooled. Using a ceramic mortar and pestle dried samples were disaggregated. Samples were stored in sealed plastic containers until further processing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 200.2 was used to prepare sediment samples for the determination of total recoverable metals This method employs a hot, dilute mineral acid refluxing technique to extract metals from the samples, known as aqua regia (Martin, et al., 1991). Trace metal concentration tested for include aluminum (Al), arsenic (As) barium (Ba), boron (Bo), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), strontium (Sr), and zinc (Zn). Blanks, replicates and a certified standard reference material, 22  Priority PollutnTTM/CLP Lot No. D035-540, were used to verify the accuracy of laboratory results.  3.4.3 Macroinvertebrate Sample Analysis From each set of five replicate riffle samples, three samples were randomly chosen for further, independent processing. Whole samples were rinsed of formalin solution with water using a <63 gm sieve. Samples were then transferred to a sequence of 4 mm, 1.75 mm, 500 pm and <63 gm sieves for further separation before sorting and identification. All sorting and identification of organisms present in the 500 gm and larger sieves were conducted under a dissecting microscope. Organisms were initially separated from mineral and organic debris before being identified and tallied. Each sample was independently doubled checked to ensure minimal numbers of lost organisms. Taxonomic identification of benthic insects larvae was done to genus where practical, with the exception of Diptera and Oligochaeta which were classified to sub-family and family, respectively. The following references were used in taxonomic identification: Merritt and Cummins (1996), Stewart and Stark (2002) mainly for Plecoptera taxa, Wiggins (1977) for Trichoptera taxa, and Thorp and Covich (1991) for selected non-insect taxa. The identification of benthic non-insects was less consistent, varying between Order and Genus levels (refer to Appendix E). Non-benthic macroinvertebrates, pupae and terrestrial species were excluded from further sample analysis and data processing. Identification of organisms was independently verified throughout the process by taxonomists (Pina Viola and Nancy Hofer).  3.5 Data Analysis 3.5.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control The coefficient of variation (CV) was the primary statistical measure used to evaluate within site variability of each environmental parameter (measured as variability of replicate site samples). It was also used to determine broader spatial variability of sediment samples within a given sample reach. In addition to evaluating environmental variability, this measure was employed to assess error in laboratory analysis for water, sediment and macroinvertebrate data. During laboratory analysis a minimum of three randomly selected duplicates of water and sediment samples were used to evaluate variability caused in instrument analysis. Standards and 23  blanks were also run during analysis of both mediums to determine accuracy and possible contamination of samples during laboratory procedures and later analysis. 3.5.2 Water Quality Data Analysis Four sample sites were considered to represent the following regions of the watercourse for water quality sampling (listed from upstream to downstream direction): Salmon River Reach^Site ID^Sample Size Headwaters^SAL 11^(n = 32) Salmon River Mainstem^SAL 06^(n = 32) Coghlan Creek^SAL 07^(n = 18) Downstream^SAL 02^(n = 18) Wet and dry season division of the water quality data was based on hydrometric characteristics (as defined in the Results section below). A total of 4 complete sample occasions occurred at all sites (2 wet season and 2 dry season), while 19 values characterized wet season conditions and 14 fell in the dry season for the bi-weekly water sample occasions. Median values were calculated for each parameter and each site based on these divisions of the bi-weekly data to determine seasonal trends and to examine variation between sites. Median values were used based on the choice of non-parametric statistical tests as explained below. Initial water data analysis of bi-weekly data consisted of generating graphs to visualize trends in the measured parameters from upstream to downstream regions. Data series presented in these graphs represent wet and dry season trends based on calculated medians at each site. Preliminary investigation of the data included graphing raw data, comparison to existing water quality guidelines, generating descriptive statistics, examining distribution, and normality testing using SPSS v. 15 (SPSS, 2007). Box plots displaying water quality parameters annually by site were created using Grapher v.6 (© Golden Software, 2004). Investigation into the character of the data suggested non-normal distribution of several parameters. Transformation using the commonly applied In (y+1) was attempted (Townsend, 2002). However, this failed to produce normal distribution across all variables. As a result, further statistical interpretation of the water quality data was performed on non-transformed values using non-parametric statistical tests. Given that only two sets of comparisons were of interest in this analysis (mainly, headwaters versus downstream and the Salmon River mainstem versus Coghlan Creek) 24  comparisons were tested directly rather than performing a preliminary multi-comparison test, such as the Kruskal-Wallis test. The Mann-Whitney U test (a = 0.05) was used to evaluate if differences existed between specific regions (represented by sites), either annually or seasonally. This test is the non-parametric equivalent to the unpaired t-test and an a = 0.05 was used as only two comparisons were of interest and no additional comparisons which would otherwise necessitate a Bonferroni adjustment (the Bonferroni adjustment divides the initial a level (a = 0.05) by the possible number of pair-wise comparisons for the resulting significance level) (Townsend, 2002). Longer-term trends in water quality in the Salmon River were evaluated in two ways. Firstly, annual data for each parameter was plotted as a scatter plot. Linear trend lines were then calculated between the three sets of data (1974/75, 1994/95 and 2004/05). Secondly, the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test, a nonparametric alternative to the paired t-test, was used to test for annual differences at individual sites. This test, which is appropriate for comparing populations linked physically (in this case similar sample sites over time) was used to determine if concentrations showed significant change in time (Townsend, 2002). Finally, correlation between water quality parameters was evaluated both seasonally and annually in the most recent dataset using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. p a nonparametric alternative to the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. This was done to determine if any relationships existed between parameters and if such relationships changed between seasons or on an annual basis. Water Quality Guidelines Water quality guidelines for the selected variables are summarized in Table 3.2 These guidelines are a mix of federal and provincial benchmarks, reported as numerical limits for safe levels of a given water quality variable for a specific water use (Nagpal et al., 2001, CCME, 1999). Given the investigation of the macroinvertebrate community in the Salmon River catchment, water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life are of primary interest. It should also be noted that these are often the most restrictive of water quality guidelines and therefore may provide protection for multiple uses. Agricultural water use guidelines, for irrigation and livestock watering are also referenced given the dominant land use of agriculture 25  in the catchment. Note that in Table 3.2 guidelines that provide the greatest level of protection for a given use are listed. As it is understood that water from the Salmon River is not used for human consumption drinking water quality guidelines are not discussed. Table 3.2 Water quality guidelines for selected physical, ion and nutrient variables (CCME,  2005 1 , CCME, 1999 2 , CCREM 3 , 1987, Nagpal et al., 2003 4 , Nagpal et al., 2001, Nordin et al., 2001 5 , ON MOE, 1994 6 , Warrington, 2001 7 ). Water Use^Guideline Physical Parameters Specific Conductivity^aquatic life^ n/a (uS/cm)^ irrigation"^ 700-5000 livestock watering"^1400-4200 Dissolved Ions Chloride (Cr)^aquatic life l^600 (mg/L)^ irrigation4^ 100 livestock watering 4^600 Nutrients Nitrate (NO 3 --N)^aquatic life 2.93 (mg/L)^  irrigation livestock wateringa' 6  Total Ammonia (NH 3 +NH 4 +) aquatic life 1 . 6  n/a 100 pH and temperature dependent  (mg/L)  irrigation^ n/a livestock watering^ n/a Total Phosphorus aquatic life6^0.03 (mg/L) irrigation^ n/a livestock watering^ n/a Bacteriology Total Coliforms^aquatic life^ n/a (#/100mL)^ irrigation2^ 1000 livestock watering^ n/a Fecal Coliforms^aquatic life^ n/a (#/100mL)^ irrigationb'2•7^ 100 livestock watering^ 200  'general livestock use, bgeneral irrigation, soil and crop dependent, and dependent.  d  species  3.5.3 Sediment Data Analysis Mean particle size distribution of the <2 mm fraction of sediment is presented in table format across sample sites for the 2005 sample year. Secondly, a series of graphs were created to visualize recent trends in trace metal concentrations from upstream to downstream direction in the Salmon River mainstem, Coghlan and Davidson Creeks. These graphs include plotting trace metal results by sample site for both wet and dry seasons in 2005. Comparison to existing sediment quality guidelines, background sediment concentrations in the Salmon River catchment 26  and uncontaminated BC lakes for trace metals were also made. Descriptive statistics, box plots (annual concentrations by trace metal across all sample sites and stream reaches), and normality tests were created using SPSS v.15 (SPSS, 2007). Based on the non-normality of data distributions, even after transformation attempts using log transformation and the limited number of samples collected non-parametric statistical analyses, were employed. Given this, median values were used, which coincidentally reduce influence of erroneously high or outlying values. Due to the low annual sample size at each site (n = 2) and dependence among sample locations (as they occur in a downstream direction) only Mann-Whitney U-tests (a = 0.05) were used to make pair-wise comparisons of stream reaches. Sample sites were grouped to form four reaches as listed below: Salmon River Reach  Site ID  Headwaters Salmon River Mainstem Coghlan Creek Downstream  SAL 10, SAL 06, SAL 07, SAL 01,  Sample Size 11, 10, 08, 02,  12 11 09 03  (n = 6) (n = 6) (n = 6) (n = 6)  Spearman Rank correlations coefficients (a = 0.05) were also calculated for the 2005 sediment data, including dry and wet season, as well as mean annual concentrations to determine if relationships existed between trace metals and if such relationships change seasonally or annually. Seasonal and annual correlations between trace elements and percent clay were also run using this approach. To identify patterns in sediment trace metal concentrations between sample years the Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test (a = 0.05) was employed using the two sets of data organized by sample year (1991 and 2005). Due to different analytical techniques the earliest sediment survey (1974) was only considered on a qualitative basis. Only data from sites sampled consistently were compared using such analyses. Sediment Quality Guidelines and Background Trace Metal Concentrations Where possible, sediment trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment sediments were compared to CCME interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG) and probable effects levels (PEL) (CCME, 2001). In the absence of such criteria, concentrations are compared 27  to background concentrations found in surficial material of the Salmon River catchment (Cook, 1994). Finally, in the absence of this additional information, background concentrations found in uncontaminated British Columbian lake sediment were referenced (Rieberger, 1992). Sediment trace metal guidelines, background lake sediment concentrations and surficial material concentrations in the catchment are listed in Table 3.3 for trace metal which occurred in measurable quantities in this study. Table 3.3 Sediment trace metal guidelines, uncontaminated lake sediment trace metal concentrations  and surficial material trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment (CCME, 1999b 1 , CCME, 1999c 2 , CCME, 1999d 3 , Rieberger, 1992 4 , Cook, 1994 3 ). Guideline'  2' 3  trace metal  Al Ba Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Sr Zn  ISQG  PEL  n/a n/a 37.3 35.7 21200.0 n/a n/a 16.0 n/a 123.0  n/a n/a 90.0 197.0 43766.0 n/a n/a 75.0 n/a 315.0  Surficial Material s Glacial Glacial Outwash Marine Marine mg/kg 0.0198 72200 56700 60800 9.23E-05 0.0002 142 139 123 0.0006 100 57.9 70.2 0.2497 76800 51900 61800 3610.00 0.0450 5860.00 7540.00 0.0006 1720 643 920 1.27E-05 3.52 33.2 29.9 3.70E-05 8.87E-05 84.60 112.00 100.00  Background Lake Sediment4  Note: Sediment guidelines for Sr, as well as surficial concentrations in the Salmon River catchment do not currently exist.  3.5.4 Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis As with the previous three datasets, initial analysis of 2005 macroinvertebrate information involved generating graphs to visualize trends in the biological data. Initial aspects of the benthic community (based on means generated from replicate site samples) examined in this process included total abundance (# of individuals/m 2 ), rarefied family richness, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) abundance (# of individuals/m 2 ), EPT proportional abundance and EPT rarefied family richness. The EPT grouping of taxa was chosen as this is often considered representative of the more sensitive macroinvertebrates. The proportion of taxa occurring at each site based on order and family level identification was an additional approach. Following this, taxa were organized according to functional feeding groups based on categorizations and descriptions in Merritt and Cummins (1996) and Adams and Vaughan (2003). Taxa tolerance was based on tolerance values from 28  Hilsenhoff (1988), which are largely based on taxa response to organic pollution. Tolerant, moderately tolerant and sensitive thresholds are similar to Hilsenhoff Index categories (Hilsenhoff, 1988). These additional methods, of data organization were chosen to investigate possible trends in the functional structure of benthic communities between sites. As a final step in the data analysis Spearman Rank correlations coefficients (p) (a = 0.10) were calculated to determine relationships between taxa at the family level. This series of measurements is by no means exhaustive, however it is hoped that it will adequately capture response, explain mechanisms of community response and allow for appropriate comparisons to other literature and to historic data gathered in the catchment. Prior to further analysis, descriptive statistics and tests of normality were performed for each site based on values for total abundance, relative richness and taxa characteristics using SPSS software v. 15.0 (SPSS, 2007). As expected variables were not normally distributed. Log and relative abundance transformation of data proved unsuccessful across all variables. Given the low resolution of historical taxonomic datasets, in particular the 1975 dataset, historical comparisons were limited to total abundance and EPT measures across the 30 year period. Further examination of historical data using rarefied family richness was limited to the 1995 and 2005 datasets. Any conclusions related to historical trends in the macroinvertebrate community based on information from the 1975 period will be considered in terms of different patterns between sites as the 1975 macroinvertebrate sampling took place in June 1975. Principal Components Analysis (PCA), an ordination method, was also used as an exploratory tool to investigate patterns of historical change in the macroinvertebrate community. Principal Component Analysis is a method for separating sites along axes based on variance associated with variables (Poulton et al., 2007), in this case the variables are order level taxa counts across stream sites. A successful PCA analysis may explain a large portion of the data variability in a reduced number of linear combinations known as principal components (Manly, 2002 and James and McCulloch, 1990). Prior to PCA analysis using a correlation matrix, data were converted to relative abundances to reduce the possible influence of outliers in the datasets. Principal Component Analysis was completed using JMP 7 (SAS, 2007). Due to the inconsistency in sampling effort between the three studies, three separate PCA were conducted in order to analyze all available macroinvertebrate data. These three analyses include a) sites sampled consistently in all three studies, b) sites sampled consistently between 29  the 1975 and 2005 studies, and c) sites sampled consistently between the 1995 and 2005 studies.  3.5.5 Relationships Between Land Activity and Environmental Quality In evaluating relationships between land activity and environmental quality in the Salmon River catchment surface water quality, sediment quality, and macroinvertebrate community metrics were used to represent environmental quality while land use and cover were considered surrogates of land activity. Both groups of indicators were linked statistically. According to Addah (2003), buffers are preferable to similar contributing areas in characterizing relationships between water quality and land use in agriculture catchments with low topography. This suggestion is made in specific reference to the Sumas River catchment which is close proximity to the Salmon River catchment. Thus it was felt that the use of buffers was also appropriate in the Salmon River given it is similarly subject to a high degree of agricultural activity and has low topography. Again, Spearman Rank correlation coefficients (p) (a = 0.10) were calculated to determine relationships between water quality, sediment quality, macroinvertebrate metrics and land use and land cover within the two buffer widths. These values were calculated for each site using annual data for the various parameters.  30  Chapter 4 RESULTS 4.1 Climate Results 4.1.1 Meteorological and Hydrometric Data Given that a key consideration of this study was to characterize current environmental and biological condition of the Salmon. River and its associated tributaries, it is necessary to ensure that the 2004-2005 sample events were conducted under relatively typical meteorological and hydrometric conditions. To achieve this, longer-term precipitation and flow data were obtained for examination. The time frame of data examination was also adopted under the consideration of generation time in benthic macroinvertebrate populations. The upper bound of this range can be approximately 2 years for some taxa (mainly semivoltine taxa, such as stoneflies) (Cushing and Allan, 2001). Hence, meteorological and hydrometric variables were examined, where possible, up to a two year time period in advance of the biological sample events. A second component of this study is the examination of historical environmental conditions in this catchment. In order to facilitate inter-annual comparability of sample periods (i.e., 1973-1975, 1993-1995, and 2003-2005), historical meteorological and hydrometric data were also examined to identify anomalies. Monthly precipitation totals and mean daily flow data from a nearby Environment Canada climate station and Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station are presented in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 for the three sample periods. Climate data relevant to the 1973-1975 sample events is displayed in Figure 4.1. Wet seasons, as determined from hydrometric records for this period spanned October 1973 through May 1974 and November 1974 to March 1975. The dry season relevant to sample events spanned June to October 1974. Peak precipitation occurred in January, February and December 1974. Low flow and precipitation conditions prevailed through August and September 1974. Precipitation was above normal values in winter months and total precipitation in 1974 was 1555.7 mm, slightly above the 1971-1990 normal total of 1199.2 mm. For the 1993-1995 climatic period (see Figure 4.2) wet conditions prevailed between October 1993 through April 1994, September 1994 to May 1995, and initiated again in October 1995. Dry conditions were present from May 1994 through August 1994 and April 1995 through September that same year. Peak precipitation occurred in December 1993 and November 1994, while peak flow occurred in December 1994. Low flow and low precipitation occurred in 31  summer months. Again, precipitation was higher than the historical average in winter months. Total precipitation for 1974 was also above 1971-1990 normal values, with 1461.4 mm recorded. In the 2003 to 2005 period, wet conditions occurred from October 2003 through March 2004 and September 2004 through April 2005 (refer to Figure 4.3). Drier periods reigned from April to August 2004 and May 2005 through September that same year. Peak precipitation occurred in October 2003 and November 2004. In 2003 peak flow also occurred in October, while peak flow occurred later in January 2005 for the second wet period. As with the previous two time periods total precipitation (1557.9 mm) for 2004 was greater than the 1971-1990 normal. Greater total precipitation and higher peak precipitation with higher resultant stream discharges occurred in the 1973-75 and 2003-05 periods compared to 1993-95. Average flow values for the respective sample periods followed the pattern of 1960-2005 normals. Exceedances of the normals occurred in October through March with values generally slightly below averages in summer months (as presented in figure 4.4). Generally, wet seasons began in either September or October of the respective time periods with the exception of 1974 when the season began in November. Dry seasons also followed similar annual patterns beginning in April or May, however with 1974 again being an exception with a June start to the drier conditions. Further examination of historical climate information included consideration of total seasonal precipitation and El Nirio/La Nina climate events. For seasonal precipitation totals, the wettest wet season occurs in the 1973-1975 period, while the driest dry season occurs in the 1993-1995 period (refer to Table 4.1). El Nirio and La Nina events are important considerations in interpreting historical climate data as they may cause deviation from normal climate conditions. According to Meteorological Service of Canada information each sample period began under neutral conditions which then progressed to moderate La Nina (1974-1975) or weak El Nirio events (1994-1995, 2004-2005) (MSC, 2005).  32  300  250  E  200 E  0  100  3 0  50  J- J- A- S- 0- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- 0- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J73 73 73 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 75 75  month Legend Gray bars represent total monthly precipitation, black circles represent mean daily flow and the line represents total monthly precipitation normals 1971-1990..E sediment sample; ♦ water quality sample;, ■ macroinvertebrate sample events. Figure 4.1 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 1973-1975 sample period. 25 -^  300  S- 0- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- 0- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- 093 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95  month Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.1.  Figure 4.2 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 1993-1995 sample period.  33  25 -^  300  250  20 ■ •  200  15  E E O  150  Q.  O  =  10-  C. 100  2 5 50  J- J- A- S- 0- N- ID- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- 0- N- Q J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S-0- N- D03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05  month Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.1.1. Figure 4.3 Total monthly precipitation, total monthly precipitation normals and mean daily flow for the Salmon River catchment, 2003-2005 sample period. Note: Water quality sample events are not shown for the 2003-2005 sample period as they occurred on a bi-weekly basis. Table 4.1 Seasonal total precipitation (mm), by sample period.  Sample Period 1973-1975 1993-1995 2003-2005 Total Precipitation (mm) wet season A 1545.20 928.00 1166.20 wet season B 915.50 1362.90 1501.00 dry season A 196.90 190.40 292.30 dry season B 367.60 317.90 Note: The 1973-1975 dry season B is not available due to limited data.  34  10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 (r)  6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec month  Legend Black squares represent mean monthly flow normals 1960-2005; bars represent flow range over this same period. Gray circles represent mean monthly flow for the 1973-1975 sampling period, grey triangles represent mean monthly flow for the 1993-1995 sampling period; and gray squares represent mean monthly flow for the 2003-2005 sampling period. Figure 4.4 Mean monthly flow and mean monthly flow normals for the Salmon River catchment, 1973-  1975, 1993-1995, and 2003-2005 sample periods.  4.2 Land Use and Land Cover Results 4.2.1 Current and Historical Land Use in the Salmon River Catchment A summary of recent land use in the portion of the Salmon River catchment within the Township of Langley is presented in Table 4.2 more detailed presentation of this information, in terms of spatial distribution and extent in buffer widths, is found in Appendix B. The dominant land use in the catchment was agricultural activity, with agricultural land combining to a total 45.43% of the catchment. This is followed by residential land use at 29.18%, impervious surfaces (e.g. roads and railways) at roughly 9%, and residential, civic/institutional, commericial, and industrial land use at 36%. The final land uses may be associated with variable levels of imperviousness. Agricultural land use within buffer widths was greatest at sites SAL 01, SAL 08 and SAL 12 (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). At these sites >60% coverage by agricultural land use existed 35  within both stream buffer widths. For the second dominant land use, residential land use, peaks occurred at numerous sites; SAL 03, SAL 05, SAL 07, SAL 09 and SAL 10, each with a greater than 60% extent. Site SAL 04 was the only site to have commercial/civic land use Table 4.2 2004 Land use classification for the Salmon River catchment. Land Use Type  2004 Land Use Code  Percent Area^Area of (km')^Catchment  (%) Grain and Forage Production Vegetable Production Fruit, Nut and Berry Production Vacant/Unused Agriculture Dairy Beef Poultry Other Livestock Other Agriculture Residential Civic/institutional Commerical Industrial Transportation Golf Courses Parks and Playing Fields Other Recreational Vacant/Unused Unclassified Salmon River Watershed  111 112 113 160 121 122 123 120 150 200 330 310 320 400 510 520 530 610 0  0.6 0.2 4.9 3.2 1.6 10.8 0.4 2.1 9.6 21.5 4.3 0.5 0.1 6.9 1.5 0.2 0.2 4.6 0.5 73.6  0.9 0.3 6.6 4.3 2.1 14.7 0.6 2.8 13.0 29.2 5.8 0.6 0.2 9.3 2.0 0.3 0.2 6.3 0.7 100.0  Note: Land use information does not include the portion to the Salmon River catchment that lies within the municipality of Abbotsford, BC.  occurring within the buffers, while according to the 2004 land use classification, no industrial or transportation land use occurred within the 30 m or 100 m buffered areas of any stream site. Coverage of vacant/unused area did not vary greatly between buffer widths and SAL 06 had the greatest coverage in both. Unclassified land use accounted for less than 20% coverage at all sites, in both buffer widths. Due to non-compatibility of software used in previous land use evaluations with recent GIS software, evaluation of historical land use change in the Salmon River catchment, as specific spatial extents, was not possible. Figure 4.5 offers a summary of historical land use change in the catchment based on descriptive information from Beale (1976), Wernick(1996) and the 2004 evaluation. Estimated percent area of land use categories by study, is available in Appendix B. As summarized in Figure 4.5, agricultural land use showed a slight decline in 36  extent from the mid 1970s to present. Contrary to this an increase in residential land use and to a lesser extent transportation, and institutional/commercial/industrial land use. Recreational land use increased while unclassified and/or vacant land declined over the three decades.  37  Table 4.3 2004 Land use as percent coverage in a 30m stream buffer, by site. 2004 Contributing Area Land Use (%) Site 2004 Land Use  SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  Category  Agricultural Residential Commercial/Civic Industrial Transportation Recreation Vacant/Unused Unclassified  76.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.8  9.4 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 19.0  0.0 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.1  3.2 18.5 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7  3.7 71.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.1  10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.2 1.7  15.5 59.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 3.4  96.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.9  12.5 68.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 8.8  16.8 80.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1  8.8 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7 1.1  67.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 11.0  Table 4.4 2004 Land use as percent coverage in a 100m stream buffer, by site. 2004 Contributing Area Land Use (%)  Site 2004 Land Use SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12 Code Agricultural 77.2 0.1 15.8 5.8 17.9 27.6 17.0 93.9 16.7 22.2 9.2 65.3 Residential 10.9 11.3 0.0 61.6 0.5 46.8 25.8 94.6 60.2 73.7 38.4 7.3 Commercial/Civic 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recreation 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 Vacant/Unused 0.0 1.2 0.0 21.4 71.8 15.7 0.0 27.2 0.0 48.2 19.0 Unclassified 2.9 13.9 4.1 14.8 0.6 0.6 2.3 5.7 4.1 9.3 6.1 4.2 Note: Respective stream buffer widths extend 500m upstream of each site.  50 45 4.6. 40 a) E 35 30 to' 0 25 46 20 as 15 ea 10 5 0 •`1). Jy  ca  land use category  Legend (Black bars represent Beale (1976); gray bars represent Wernick (1996); and dashed bars represent results from recent land use evaluation). Figure 4.5 Summary of land use change in the Salmon River catchment between 1974, 1994 and 2004,  based on land use category descriptions.  4.2.2 Current and Historical Land Cover in the Salmon River Catchment The extent of both impervious cover and forest cover is described below as percent cover at sample sites (refer to Table 4.5a through d). Spatial extent of land covers are listed in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 4.5a impervious cover increased at most sites within a 30 m buffer width over the 30 year period. Increases ranged from 0.2% (SAL 02) to 2.1% (SAL 08). It should be noted that no change was observed at sites SAL 01 and SAL 10 and while decreases ranged from 1.6% (SAL04) and 0.8% (SAL 11). In terms of forest cover within a 30 m buffer width (see Table 4.5b), all sites with the exception of SAL 06 and SAL 12 experienced overall decline, ranging from 2.9% (SAL 01) to 43.2% (SAL 08). At the 100 m buffer width impervious cover increased at all sites on the order of 0.02% (SAL 05) to a maximum of 4.4% (SAL 12) (refer to Table 4.5c). As summarized in Table 4.5d 39  forest cover declined at all sites with the exception of SAL 06 and SAL 12, which both experience a roughly 7% increase. Declines in forest cover in this larger buffer width range from 2.4% (SAL 04) to 44.5% (SAL 08). As expected, similar land covers between buffer widths are positively correlated, while inverse correlations exist between forest cover and impervious cover. Correlation values relevant to land use and land cover are summarized in Appendix B. Tables 4.5 a-d Proportional impervious and forest cover in buffer widths, by site (1974, 1995 and 2004). A Site SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  C Site SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  Contributing Area Impervious Cover (%) 30m Buffer 1995 1974 2004 0.2 4.4 1.2 6.2 0.1 1.5 5.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.3 6.5  0.2 4.4 1.9 4.4 0.1 0.7 6.0 0.9 1.6 0.0 2.2 8.6  1.3 6.9 2.5 9:5 2.8 0.4 9.4 2.5 2.5 7.3 8.6 10.5  Site  0.2 4.6 2.8 4.7 0.2 1.5 5.6 2.1 2.4 0.0 1.5 8.5  Contributing Area Impervious Cover (%) 100m Buffer 1974 1995 2004 0.4 6.7 1.6 9.9 2.8 0.4 7.0 0.3 0.6 3.6 7.3 6.4  B  1.5 7.9 4.1 10.4 2.8 0.4 9.8 3.4 4.6 7.5 8.5 10.7  SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  D Site SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  Contributing Area Forest Cover (%) 30m Buffer 1974 1995 2004 37.8 32.1 79.8 45.0 91.2 63.0 85.8 86.0 90.6 95.0 94.1 25.5  35.5 32.7 75.6 50.2 87.7 69.3 71.2 45.1 88.4 85.8 20.8 29.0  34.9 17.6 73.1 39.0 78.9 70.0 63.0 42.7 82.4 79.4 71.1 28.1  Contributing Area Forest Cove r (%) 100m Buffer 1974 1995 2004 39.8 37.4 65.7 30.9 69.7 74.1 81.8 75.1 65.0 72.4 70.1 18.7  37.9 37.7 64.3 33.2 70.2 81.5 58.6 33.2 67.9 66.0 12.6 26.7  35.4 27.3 60.7 28.5 66.1 81.1 52.9 30.5 58.5 63.4 60.5 25.9  40  4.2.3 Populations Change in the Township of Langley, B.C. Over the last 30 years (1976-2005) the population of the Township of Langley has increased dramatically from approximately 37,500 in 1976 to the 2005 estimate of 97,000 residents. This equates to a 260% population increase over the entire period. Similarly, nearby Langley City has also experienced a significant increase in residents from 10, 000 in 1976 to 25, 700 in 2005, or a 250% increase. Table 4.6 summarizes population change in both jurisdictions as reported by the Province of B.C. (2006). Table 4.6 Population of Langley City and the Township of Langley 1976-2005. Year Municipal Jurisdiction 1976 1985 1995 2005 Langley City  # of individuals Population increase (# of individuals) % population increase % population increase (1976-2005)  10402 17044 23870 25716 6642 6826 1846 63.9 40.0^7.7 247.2  Township of Langley  # of individuals Population increase (# of individuals) c/0 population increase % population increase (1976-2005) )  37555 53096 78909 97125 15541 25813 18216 41.4 48.6^23.1 258.6  It should be noted that a large portion of the Salmon River is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), which restricts development. There has also been a moratorium on development in existence over the Hopington Aquifer (relevant to sites SAL 06, SAL 07, SAL 08) since 1995. As a result the population growth in the catchment is not as rapid as indicated in Table 4.6 for the Township. An important aspect of population growth, which should be considered alongside the growth of both urban and rural areas, is how residential development occurs. According to 2001 British Columbia census results, approximately 70% of residential dwellings in the Township of Langley occur as single detached homes. Only 7% of all dwellings occur as high density developments, such as apartment buildings. Generally, development in the township tends to exceed provincial averages for low density dwellings including single detached homes, semidetached homes and row houses, while high density development is well below the provincial average (B.C. Stats, 2005). 41  4.3 Water Quality Results 4.3.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control The QA/QC results for water quality data were analyzed did not indicate any large deviations in duplicate field samples or triplicate lab analysis samples to necessitate omission of any water quality parameters from further analysis and interpretation. 4.3.2 Spatial and Seasonal Variation in Water Quality Data for the respective water quality parameters, along with tables, figures and box plots displaying annual trends in each parameter across sample sites are available in Appendix C. Results for parameters showing significant trends or patterns, mainly specific conductivity, NO3-N and PO 4 -3 -P, are listed below. The less spatially significant results for Cl - , NH4 + -N and pathogen indicators are available in Appendix C. Specific Conductivity: Spatial and Seasonal Trends Specific conductivity data from all sites is displayed in Figure 4.6, where water sampling took place on two occasions in each of the dry and wet seasons. Seasonal median conductivity from selected sites is summarized in Figure 4.7. Significant differences in specific conductivity between sites are summarized in Table 4.7. At the four sites sampled continuously specific conductivity ranged from 89 RS/cm (SAL 11, December 2004) to 213 µS/cm (SAL 02, August 2005), with an annual median value of 145 µS/cm. Highest median values of conductivity were found at site SAL 02 in both hydrological seasons, while • lowest median values of occurred at SAL 11 during the wet season. The continuous and seasonal sampling regimes presented similar patterns of specific conductivity in the catchment. Overall, higher values of conductivity were recorded during summer months at all sites. This time period also coincides with the lowest flows in the catchment and period of greatest groundwater influence. Conductivity generally increased in a downstream direction. Of note is a mid-reach increase in specific conductivity at SAL 07, which represents an area of groundwater influence. Specific conductivity values at SAL 07 are of similar magnitude to those measured downstream. No exceedances in the strictest specific conductivity guideline (for irrigation water use) occurred in the Salmon River catchment.  42  ^  250  200  100  50  0 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12 Downstream  ^  site^  Headwaters  Legend Open symbols represent wet season values and closed symbols represent dry season values,  measured on separate occasions. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.6 Specific conductivity (pS/cm) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. 250 ^  200  150  E c.)  Cl)  =- 100  50  SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11  ^Downstream^  Headwaters  Legend Open circles represent wet season medians and closed circles represent dry season median values. Bars represent 25 th and 75 th quartiles. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.7 Specific conductivity (pS/cm) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites.  Note: Insufficient data available to calculate dry season median value for SAL 11.  43  6.00 5.00 4.00 a)  E  z 3.00  6' 2.00 1.00 0.00 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12 Downstream  ^  site Headwaters  Legend Symbols and line as in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.8 Nitrate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. 12.00  10.00  8.00  E  6.00  •  QM  4.00  _  2.00  •_L  1 T  0.00 SAL 02  SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11  Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.9 Nitrate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites.  Note: Insufficient data available to calculate dry season median value for SAL 11.  45  ^  Table 4.7 Significant Mann-Whitney results for specific conductivity, by site (a = 0.05). Site  Conductivity ^ (pS/cm) ^ < or > In comparison to Probability  Headwaters SAL 11  annual  ^  Lower reach  ^  Salmon River SAL 06  ^  ^  SAL 02  ^  <0.0001  Coghlan Creek SAL 07  ^  0.009  wet season ^ Headwaters Lower reach SAL 11  ^  SAL 02  ^  0.003  Nitrate (NO3 N): Spatial and Seasonal Trends -  Nitrate data from all sites is displayed in Figure 4.8, where water sampling took place on two occasions in each of the dry and wet seasons. Seasonal median concentrations of NO 3 "-N from headwaters to downstream sites are displayed in Figure 4.9. Statistically significant differences in NO3 "-N median concentrations between sites are displayed in Table 4.8. The concentrations of NO 3 -N at continuously sampled sites ranged from a low of 0.06 mg/L (SAL 11, October 2005) to a maximum of 5.62 mg/L (SAL 07, August 2005), with a median NO 3 -N concentration of 2.93 mg/L. Similarly, highest median values of NO 3 "-N were -  recorded at SAL 07 during both seasons, while the lowest median NO3 -N value recorded -  occurred at SAL 11 during the wet season. Results from both sampling regimes were in agreement, with the seasonal sampling events illustrating regions of groundwater influence, via elevated NO3: -N concentrations in the catchment. Overall, higher concentration of NO 3 : -N tended to occur in the summer months, followed by lower concentrations in the wet season. Nitrate concentrations at sites on the mainstem of the Salmon River followed similar seasonal patterns and magnitude. This was especially true in summer months when these sites all exhibited much lower concentrations of NO3 -N than those recorded at SAL 07 on Coghlan -  Creek which is influence by groundwater inputs. Nitrate concentrations frequently exceeded aquatic life guidelines in the Salmon River catchment. This is most notable on Coghlan Creek (SAL 07), followed by the nearby Salmon River site (SAL 06). Both SAL 02 and SAL 06 exceed guidelines in slightly above 40% of sample events, while on Coghlan Creek guideline exceedances occurred over 80% of the time. No exceedances were recorded at the headwaters site. 44  Table 4.8 Significant Mann-Whitney results for NO3-N, by site (a = 0.05). Nitrate NO3 -N Site^(mg/L) < or >^In comparison to Probability -  annual Headwaters^  Lower reach  SAL 11^<^SAL 02^ 0.001  Salmon River^  Coghlan Creek  SAL 06^<^SAL 07^ 0.009  Headwaters SAL 11  wet season ^ Lower reach  ^  Salmon River SAL 06  ^  ^  SAL 02^ 0.008  Coghlan Creek SAL 07^ 0.005  Orthophosphate (PO4 3 P): Spatial and Seasonal Trends -  Orthophosphate data from all sites is displayed in Figure 4.10, where water sampling took place on two occasions in each of the dry and wet seasons. Seasonal median concentrations of PO4 3 -Pfrom the headwaters to downstream sites are displayed in Figure 4.11. Statistically significant differences in median PO 4 -3 -P concentration between sites are summarized in Table 4.9. Across the four continuously sampled sites the concentration of PO4 -3 -P ranged from 0.003 mg/L (SAL 06, September 2005) to 0.383 mg/L (SAL 11, October 2005), with a median value of 0.015 mg/L. The lowest median PO 4 -3 -P concentration occurred at SAL 02 during the dry season, while the highest median concentration occurred at SAL 11 during the wet season. As indicated by both sampling regimes generally lower concentrations of PO4 3 -Pprevailed during the summer months, while a distinct rise was recorded in the fall of 2005 (refer to Appendix C). Results do not indicate a groundwater input of PO 4 -3 -P in the Salmon River due a lacking distinction between groundwater and non-groundwater-influenced sites. Peak values in the headwaters suggest that an overland source of PO4 -3 -P is likely. It is recognized that the application of a total P guideline for PO4 -3 -P is conservative. Despite this, exceedances in the guideline were detected.  46  ^  0 12  01  0 08  0-^0.06 O a.  x  0.04  0.02  0 SAL01 SAL02 SAL63 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12  Downstream  site  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.10 Orthophosphate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site.  0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14  rn  0.12  or  0.10  Ot  0.08  E  0.06 0.04  0  0.02 0.00  SAL 02  ^  ^Downstream  SAL 06  ^  ^  SAL 07  ^  SAL 11 Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.11 Orthophosphate (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, at selected sites.  Note: Insufficient data available to calculate dry season median value for SAL 11.  47  Table 4.9 Significant Mann-Whitney results for PO 4-3 -P, by site (a = 0.05). Orthophosphate Site^PO4-3-13 (mg/L) < or >^In comparison to Probability  Headwaters SAL 11  annual Lower reach  ^  ^  SAL 02  ^  0.014  4.3.3 Relationships Between Nitrate (NO3 -N), Total Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms, and Precipitation -  Correlations between the amount of precipitation (mm) occurring in a given time interval prior to sampling (i.e. same day, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours and 96 hours) with annual and seasonal NO 3 -N and coliforms were determined at selected sites, representative of stream -  regions. Due to low sample numbers this analysis was limited to data from SAL 07 and SAL 02. All significant correlations between total precipitation and NO 3 -N concentrations were -  negative, while all significant correlations between coliform counts and total precipitation were positive. These results support a non-precipitation source of NO 3 -N, while coliform counts may -  be more closely related to the amount of precipitation and delivered to the stream environment via surface flows. Figures 4.12 through 4.14 and Table 4.10 display results for the strongest correlation with each variable. Complete correlation results are listed in Appendix D. 90 ^ 80 ^  0^  70  p = -0.888 a = <0.0001  E  E 60  0 To 50  0  .5 4 0  ED.  30 20 10  0 O  0 0 n 0 0000^Go 0^1^2^3^4^5  ow o  NO3-N mg/L Figure 4.12 Dry season 24 hour total precipitation and NO3-N concentrations at SAL 07.  48  10 9  0  8 p = 0.672 7  a = 0.0004  6  0  3 .2  0  3 2 1 0 0  ^  oo o  0  cRD  ®O 1000^2000^3000^4000^5000 total coliform #/100mL  Figure 4.13 Wet season 24 hour total precipitation and total coliform counts at SAL 07.  70  0  60  p = 0.854 a - 0.0001  E 50  E  • 40  0 • 30 ;5.  0  O 20  O 10 0  0  0  C)  0 0^500^1000^1500^2000^2500^3000 fecal coliform #/100mL  Figure 4.14 Dry season 48 hour total precipitation and fecal coliform counts at SAL 02.  49  ^  Table 4.10 Significant Spearman rank correlation coefficients for precipitation intervals and selected water quality parameters (a = 0.1). Nitrate NO 3 "-N (mg/kg) site same day  24 hr  48 hr  72 hr  SAL 02 SAL 07  -0.551  -0.641  -0.803  -0.816  SAL 02 SAL 07  -0.466  -0.888  -0.885  -0.788  SAL 02 SAL 07  -0.477 -0.496  -0.709  -0.755  -0.388 -0.760  Total Coliforms Fecal Coliforms (#/100 mL) (#/100 mL) Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients (p) precipitation (mm) 96 hr^same day^24 hr^48 hr^72 hr^96 hr same day 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr wet season -^ -^-0.848^0.484^0.672^0.638^0.598^0.640 0.683 0.534 0.472 dry season 0.641^0.624 0.537 0.788 0.854 0.819 -0.693^0.570^-^0.648 0.593 0.563 annual -0.381^0.444^0.503^0.390^0.454 0.376 0.624 0.689 0.618 -0.761^0.491^0.462^0.362^-^0.361 0.655 0.561 0.547  Note: The strongest correlation for each variable and precipitation in bold.  96 hr 0.525 0.506 0.832 0.740 0.719 0.639  ^  4.3.4 Historical Variation in Water Quality (1974/75 to 2004/05) Specific Conductivity: Historical Trends Median annual values of specific conductivity at the selected sites increased over the period of interest (1974-2005) (see Table 4.11). This increase is also true for the wet and dry season specific conductivity at the selected sites. The largest overall increase in specific conductivity occurred in the wet season data at sites SAL 06 and SAL 07. The largest dry season increase in specific conductivity also occurred at these two sites. Table 4.11 Summary of annual median specific conductivity from 1974/75-2004/05, by site. Sample period 1974/75^1994/95^2004/05 Site Specific conductivity (pS/cm) dry wet annual dry wet annual dry wet annual  n=9 n=6 n=17 n=4 n=4 n=8 SAL 02^135.0 77.5 130.0 175.0 88.0 166.0 180.0 152.5 164.0 SAL 06^95.0 50.0^80.0 122.5 72.0 110.0 159.5 137.0 139.5 SAL 07^95.0 65.0^80.0 140.0 102.0 135.0 176.0 151.0 161.5 SAL 11^65.0 40.0^60.0^95.0 62.0^85.0^-^114.0 114.0 Note: Sampling frequency for the 2004/05 period is as follows: dry season - SAL 02 n=13, SAL 06 n=2, SAL 07 n=13, and SAL 11 n=8, wet season - SAL 02 n=18, SAL 06 n=14, SAL 07 n=19, and SAL 11 n=8.  Nitrate (NO3-N): Historical Trends Median annual NO3"-N concentrations are summarized in Table 4.12. Results for NO3"-N across the selected sites were variable. Overall median NO3"-N concentrations decline at SAL 02 and SAL 06. Oppositely, an increase in median NO3 -N concentration is seen at SAL 07 and -  SAL 11. Site SAL 07 is the only site to have peak values occurring in the 1994/95 sample period. Increased median NO3 -N concentrations occur in the dry season at SAL 07 and SAL 11, -  while wet season NO3"-N concentrations only increase at SAL 07 over the 30 year period. Table 4.12 Summary of annual median NO3 N concentrations from 1974/75-2004/05, by site. Sample period 1974/75^1994/95^2004/05 Site^ NO3-N (mg/L) -  dry  wet  annual  dry  wet  annual  dry  wet  Annual  n=9 N=6 n=17 n=4 n=4 n=8 SAL 02 3.4 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 SAL 06 4.2 3.3 3.5 2.5 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 SAL 07 4.4 3.5 5.1 3.8 3.9 4.1 5.0 3.5 4.0 SAL 11 0.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.8 Note: Sampling frequency for the 2004/05 period is as follows: dry season SAL 02 n=13, SAL 06 n=2, SAL 07 n=13, and SAL 11 n=8, wet season - SAL 02 n=18, SAL 06 n=14, SAL 07 n=19, and SAL 11 n=8.  51  Orthophosphate (PO4 -3 -P): Historical Trends Median annual PO 4 -3 -P concentrations declined over the two more recent water quality data sets at all sites (refer to Table 4.13). This decrease is most notably at SAL 02 in the wet season data and SAL 07 in the dry season data. Table 4.13 Summary of annual median PO4 -3 -P concentrations from 1994/95-2004/05, by site. Sample period 1974/75^1994/95 ^2004/05 Site^ dry^wet  PO4 3 -P(mg/L) annual^dry wet annual  dry  wet  annual  n=9^N=6  n=17^n=4 n=4 n=8 SAL 02 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 SAL 06 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 SAL 07 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 SAL 11 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 Note: Sampling frequency for the 2004/05 period is as follows: dry season SAL 02 n=13, SAL 06 n=2, SAL 07 n=13, and SAL 11 n=8, wet season - SAL 02 n=18, SAL 06 n=14, SAL 07 n=19, and SAL 11 n=8.  In considering historical water quality results summarized across the catchment (refer to Table 4.14), median annual specific conductivity and NO3 - -N increase while a decline in median annual PO 4 - 3 -Pconcentrations is noted. Despite this overall trend, and as discussed previously, site specific results are more variable. Similar spatial and seasonal patterns total phosphorus, and NO 3 - -N are seen in results from Cook (1994) indicating that current conclusions also correspond to 1991-1993 water quality data.  52  Table 4.14 Annual median values of water quality parameters in the Salmon River catchment, 1974/75-2004/05.  Variable Specific conductivity (pS/cm) Nitrate NO;-N (mg/L) Orthophosphate PO4 -4-P (mg/L)  1974/75 75th 25th median quartile quartile median 79.00 55.00 95.75 100.00 2.10 0.00 4.65 2.20 0.04  Sample period 1994/95 25th 75th quartile quartile median 72.00 134.25 148.00 1.51 2.88 2.93 0.03  0.07  0.02  2004/05 25th quartile 131.50 2.34  75th quartile 178.50 3.61  0.01  0.02  4.4 Sediment Results 4.4.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control (QA/QC) In each round of sediment laboratory trace metal analysis blank sample values were well below trace metal concentrations detected in actual sediment samples (see Appendix D). As illustrated in Appendix D, there were no noticeable concerns with results for analytical duplicates in both rounds of sediment analysis. Similarly, triplicate field samples produced results within the acceptable range of relative variance for each trace metal. Results for the standard reference material also run as part of the QA/QC process, yielded an acceptable range of results with the exception of two out of three replicates for Fe and Mg. Values for both of these trace metals were below the acceptable range of concentrations. Oppositely, all three replicates for Pb yielded results above the acceptable concentration range (see Appendix D). Field sample results for As, Bo, Cd, Mo, and Se were consistently below respective detection limits in both dry and wet season sediment analysis. Results for Co and Pb also yield results below detection limit at numerous sites. Due to this, these metals are not considered further. 4.4.2 Particle Size Distribution Particle size distribution results are summarized in Appendix D, including dry and wet season values for the < 2mm fraction of deposited bed sediment. Sand was the dominant sediment fraction in all samples during both seasons, with the exception of the wet season at SAL 12, where clay was the dominant fraction. Of the finer sediment fraction, SAL 02 and SAL 12 yield the highest proportions of clay annually. Silt content varied seasonally with the highest proportions occurring in headwaters and downstream sites. 4.4.3 Trace Metals in Sediments Trace metal concentrations including Al, Ba, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Sr, and Zn measured consistently above their respective detection limits and were considered for further analysis. Analysis of sediment trace metal concentrations included descriptive statistics as well as spatial, temporal and historical trends. Temporal and annual sediment trace metal data by site and stream region are available in Appendix D. Descriptive statistics of seasonal trace metal concentrations are listed below in Table  54  4.15. Significant spatial differences in annual sediment trace metal concentrations between stream regions are listed in Table 4.16. The downstream region of the Salmon River mainstem has a significantly larger concentration of Cr, Fe and Mg in deposited sediments than the headwaters region, while only Mn differs significantly between Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River mainstem region. Seasonal differences in trace metal concentrations are displayed in Figures 4.15 through 4.21, although not all were statistically significant. Trace metals, including Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, and Ni appear to increase in concentration towards the downstream extent of the Salmon River mainstem, while results for Mn, and Zn were more variable between the Salmon River mainstem and Coghlan Creek stream regions. Aluminum, Ba and Sr showed little variation either spatially or temporally and are not shown. For the most part, wet season trace metal concentrations were lower than their dry season counterparts, particularly in upper portions of the catchment. Exceptions to this include, SAL 02 where wet season values surpassed those measured in the dry season and SAL 01, SAL 07, and SAL 08 where wet season Cu concentrations were greater. On Davidson Creek wet season concentrations were lower with the exception of Cr and Fe. Higher mean annual concentrations of Cr, Cu, Mn and Zn occurred in the Coghlan Creek region. Peak values for Cr and Cu occurred in a similar region during the dry season, while for Zn the peak value was recorded during the wet season at SAL 09 and for Mn the peak value was recorded at SAL 02, also in the wet season. The remaining trace metals, Fe, Mg, and Ni had highest median annual concentrations occur in the Salmon River mainstem region, although peak values occurred at SAL 06 during the dry season. Guideline, surficial and background concentration exceedances were noted for some trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment. Sediment concentrations of Cr did approach guideline values however, did not exceed guidelines or the thresholds of surficial concentrations found in the Salmon River catchment. The upper range of Cr concentrations found in surficial material in the catchment exceed current guidelines. One Cu guideline exceedance occurred over the sample period. This exceedance, although only slightly above the guideline, occurred at SAL 06 during the dry season. It should be noted that surficial background levels (in all materials) in the catchment exceed the ISQG. The Fe guideline was exceeded on several occasions, although exceedances were within the range of surficial concentrations. As 55  sediment guidelines do not exist for Mg, comparison to surficial concentrations were made. No exceedance of these levels was seen in Salmon River stream sediments, although Mg concentrations did exceed levels found in uncontaminated BC lakes. Manganese concentrations measured in Salmon River sediment generally fall within the range of concentrations measured in surficial materials. Nickel sediment concentrations measured in the Salmon River catchment exceeded both the ISQG and the highest surficial material concentration on two occasions, at sites SAL 04 and SAL 06 during the dry season. The final trace metal analyzed, Zn exceeded CCME interim guidelines on several occasions in both seasons.  56  Table 4.15 Median and quartile results for seasonal sediment trace metal concentrations in the Salmon River catchment. Trace Metal Concentration (mg/kg) Al Ba Cr Cu Fe^Mg Mn Ni Sr Zn  Median 25th quartile 75th quartile  12329.9 10690.2 14499.2  115.4 107.9 135.1  26.3 22.6 32.3  28.8 24.4 35.8  Median 25th quartile 75th quartile  10530.4 9878.9 12209.6  113.0 107.0 129.1  24.9 21.9  23.6 21.3 27.5  280  dry season 19463.0 5365.4 17289.8 3970.0 25010.3 7937.1 wet season 17068.8 4448.0 15544.0 3588.4 20478.2 5414.7  692.8 462.2 1197.5  27.8 20.9 39.7  30.0 24.9 39.6  103.4 79.5 131.7  767.8 536.5 1083.4  23.7 20.4 26.8  31.5 27.5 34.8  97.8 77.7 123.1  Table 4.16 Significant Mann-Whitney U test results for sediment trace metals concentrations, by stream  Region (a = 0.05). Stream Region  Trace Metal (mg/kg)  Headwaters  In comparison < or >^to Downstream  Cr Fe Mg Salmon River mainstem  Probability  0.025 0.025 0.037 Coghlan Creek  Mn  0.028  45 40 35 30 cn  zt. cn' 2 5 E  6 20 15 10 5 0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Circles represent sites on the Salmon River mainstem, squares represent sites on Coghlan Creek and the triangle represents the Davidson Creek site. Closed symbols represent dry season concentrations and open symbols represent wet season concentrations. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence.  Sites occur in the following order from headwaters (right) to downstream (left): Salmon River mainstem; SAL 12, SAL 11, SAL 10, SAL 06, SAL 05, SAL 04, SAL 02, and SAL 01 and Coghlan Creek; SAL 09, SAL08, and SAL07. Figure 4.15 Spatial and temporal trends in Cr from sediments of the Salmon River catchment.  45 40 35  JD  30 a)  cn  "":  25  ■^  ■  ',.  ....  .  E  = 20 (..) 15 10 5 0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 Spatial and temporal trends in Cu from sediments of the Salmon River catchment  58  30000 25000 20000 -NC  Ea 1 50 0 0  a)  LL  10000 5000 0 Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.17 Spatial and temporal trends in Fe from sediments of the Salmon River catchment  12000 10000 8000 E E 6000  a) 2  4000 2000 0 Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.18 Spatial and temporal trends in Mg from sediments of the Salmon River catchment.  59  2500  2000  0  21500 rn  E  2 1000  500  4• 0.0. 0  6^  .  ..._ _.....i.i.,1  / ,/ /fitLN \ \ ti 4  ../  N  a  0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.19 Spatial and seasonal trends in Mn from sediments of the Salmon River catchment.  50 45 40 35  2  30  13)  25  ♦^  U  A  Z 20  15 10 5 0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.20 Spatial and temporal trends in Ni from sediments of the Salmon River catchment.  60  180 160 140  Ii^  = 120  ^•  _Ne  -8) 100 80  A  60 40 20 0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.21 Spatial and temporal trends in Zn from sediment of the Salmon River catchment.  61  4.4.4 Relationships Between Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments As illustrated in Table 4.17 all significant correlations between trace metal concentrations were positive. Table 4.17 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between trace metals (a = 0.1). Sediment Trace Correlation Sediment Trace Metal^ Meta I  dry season • Cr and Cu • Mg, Si, Sr • Cu and Zn • Mg • Cr wet season Cu, Mg, Ni, Sr, Zn^+^Al, Ba, Cr Mg, Ni, Sr^+^Cu and Fe Fe and Mg^+^Al and Cr Sr^ +^Mn, Ni, Zn Al^ +^Ba and Cr Fe^ +^Cu Ni^ +^Mg, Ba mean annual Al, Sr, Zn^+^Ba Cu, Fe^ +^Al and Cr Fe, Mn, Ni, Sr^+^Cu Mg, Mn, Sr^+^Cr Ni, Sr^ +^Fe Ni, Zn^ +^Al Mg, Sr^ +^Ni Fe, Mg, Ni Fe Al Ni Sr  4.4.5 Relationship Between Particle Size Distribution and Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments As summarized in Appendix D, no statistically significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficients (p) (a = 0.1) were identified between sediment trace metals and mean annual percent clay content in the Salmon River catchment.  4.4.6 Long-Term Variation in Sediment Quality (1974/75 to 2004/05) As shown in Table 4.18 annual concentrations of selected trace metals have decreased significantly from 1991 to 2005 in stream regions of the Salmon River catchment. Aluminum, Cr, Cu, and Zn have decreased in the catchment. Iron has decreased in downstream and mainstem regions, while Mn and Ni have decreased significantly in the headwaters region. 62  Table 4.18 Significant Mann-Whitney results for temporal sediment trace metal  concentrations (1991 versus 2005), by stream region (a = 0.05). Stream Region Headwaters 1991  Downstream 1991  Trace Metal (mg/kg) Al Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Zn  Al Cr Cu Fe Zn Salmon River mainstem 1991 Al Cr Cu Fe Zn Coghlan Creek 1991 Al Cr Cu Zn  In comparison < or > to Headwaters > 2005 > > > > < > Downstream > 2005 > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Probability 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.046 0.028 0.028  0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.046 Salmon River mainstem 2005 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.017 0.012 Coghlan Creek 2005 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043  4.5 Macroinvertebrate Results 4.5.1 Quality Analysis and Quality Control (QA/QC) Relative variability of replicate riffle samples was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CV). This measure calculated within site variation in total abundance at each site. The CV is indicative of the representativeness of randomly selected replicate samples or precision of sampling effort and subsequent community estimates (Krebs, 1998, Resh and McElravy, 1993). Relative variability of total abundance for September 2005 samples ranged from 0.132 at SAL 11 to a maximum value of 0.672 at SAL 05 (refer to Appendix E).  63  4.5.2 Macroinvertebrate Total Abundance and Community Structure A complete list of taxa, identified to genus where possible, is displayed in Appendix E. At the family level, taxa were further identified according to functional feeding groups and tolerance/intolerance according to Merritt and Cummins (1996), Adams and Vaughn (2003) and Hilsenhoff (1988). The family level was used in further analysis due to the taxonomic resolution consistently achieved in sample identification. The first community measure, total macroinvertebrate abundance, displayed in Figure 4.22, peaked in upper reaches of the Salmon River mainstem (SAL 10) and Coghlan Creek (SAL 08). Otherwise, total abundance generally declined moving downstream. Peak total abundance of 21786.67 individuals/m 2 occurred at SAL 10, while the lowest total abundance was recorded in the lower reach on Davidson Creek (SAL 03). Mean total abundance across all sites was 8027.41 individuals/m2 . As noted above, total abundance of macroinvertebrates varied between sites. As a result of this rarified family richness was used to characterize the community given the different sample sizes (Krebs, 1998). Mean rarefied richness ranged from 23.72 expected families/m 2 (SAL 05) to 12.31 expected families/m 2 (SAL 01), with a median value of 19.67 expected families/m2 for the catchment. As illustrated in Figure 4.23 rarefied richness peaked at SAL 07 in Coghlan Creek and SAL 05 on the Salmon River. Sites within the upper reach of the Salmon River mainstem and Coghlan Creek displayed similar patterns in the expected number of families. EPT total abundance, proportional abundance (proportion of total macroinvertebrate taxa as EPT taxa) and rarefied richness were used to further evaluate the benthic community (refer to Figures 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26, respectively). Overall, EPT total and proportional abundance displayed similar upstream to downstream patterns as total macroinvertebrate abundance. Exceptions include a less distinct peak value at SAL 10 and greater proportional abundance of EPT taxa in the Coghlan headwater sites. EPT rarefied richness showed less variation across sample sites than rarefied family richness, peak values occurred at SAL 07. Similar patterns in total macroinvertebrate and total EPT abundance are due to the large proportion of taxa at each site being EPT taxa.  64  40000 35000 30000 E  c4  25000 20000  C  0  15000 10000 5000 0  ^A^  Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Circles represent Salmon River mainstem, squares represent Coghlan Creek and the triangle represents Davidson Creek. Bars represent 1 standard deviation (from site replicates). The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Sites occur in the following order from headwaters (right) to downstream (left): Salmon River mainstem; SAL 11, SAL 10, SAL 06, SAL 05, and SAL 01 on the Salmon River mainstem; SAL 03 on Davidson Creek; and SAL SAL 09, SAL 08 and, SAL 07 on Coghlan Creek. Figure 4.22 2005 Total macroinvertebrate abundance in the Salmon River catchment. 30  25  E  t 20  E  A  ra 15  B" 10 5  0 Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.22. Figure 4.23 2005 Macroinvertebrate rarefied family richness in the Salmon River catchment.  65  25000  20000  E "rn 15000  N  CC  13 C  10000 13 --^--. , .....^ --.. , ,..,  ....  ...,^  --.  5000  0  Downstream^  Meta/tat/M.44m  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.22 (SAL 03 absent). Figure 4.24 2005 EPT total abundance in the Salmon River catchment  1 0.9 0.8  E  U- . —  u 0.7 a  -  0  0.4  t0 0.3 0 0'  0.2 0.1 0 Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols, lines and site order as in Figure 4.22 (SAL 03 absent). Figure 4.25 2005 EPT proportional abundance in the Salmon River catchment.  66  14 12  Downstream^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.22.  Sites occur in the following order from headwaters (right) to downstream (left): Salmon River mainstem; SAL 11, SAL 10, SAL 06, and SAL 05 on the Salmon River mainstem; and SAL SAL 09, SAL 08 and, SAL 07 on Coghlan Creek (SAL 01 and SAL 03 absent). Figure 4.26 2005 EPT rarefied richness in the Salmon River catchment.  Macroinvertebrate Order and Family Level Composition Figures 4.27a through 1, display the proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrate taxa, according to order in the Salmon River catchment. Coleoptera taxa declined in a downstream direction at tributary sites, while results are more variable on the Salmon River mainstem. At sites not dominated by mayfly taxa (i.e. SAL 01 and SAL 03) Dipteran taxa predominated total macroinvertebrate abundance. Diptera increased downstream at tributary sites. With the exception of SAL 11, a similar pattern in Dipteran proportional abundance was seen on the Salmon River mainstem. Oligochaeta taxa abundance showed a similar downstream trend at tributary sites and less variation on the Salmon River mainstem. Overall, Ephemeroptera taxa had the greatest proportional abundance at upstream sites. Similar patterns in Plecoptera and Trichoptera proportional abundance were noted on both the Salmon River mainstem throughout. This includes a downstream decline in proportional abundance on the mainstem, while more variability was seen at tributary sites. A high proportional abundance of Trichopteran and 67  Ephemeroptera taxa occurred at SAL 10 and SAL 07. To further evaluate community structure, family composition within each order was examined. A total of 27 insect and 20 non-insect sub-families/familes were identified. Of the non-insects, five families were identified in the Oligochaeta class. As non-insect taxa composed less then 2% of the total abundance at the majority of sites, family level composition was not investigated within these groups. Exceptions to this lower presence of non-insect taxa include sites SAL 03 and SAL 01, where combined percent total abundance of such taxa was roughly 19% and 29%, respectively. The composition of the Coleopteran order was also not investigated, as only one family was identified. Discussion will focus on what are typically considered the more sensitive orders: Emphemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera. Where the proportional abundance of a given family within an order was low throughout sites, figures are available in Appendix E (i.e. for the Ameletidae, Capniidae, Leuctridae, Perlodidae, Philopotamidae and Rhyacophilidae families). Within the Ephemeropteran order, the proportional abundance of five families was examined. Baetidae proportional abundance increased in a downstream direction in the catchment. Ephemerellidae, the only sensitive taxa identified amongst mayflies, had the lowest proportional abundance of Emphemeroptera taxa at all sampling sites. The proportional abundance of Heptageniidae was somewhat stable in the upper reaches of the Salmon River and declined in a downstream direction on Coghlan Creek. Leptophlebiidae proportional abundance fluctuated on Coghlan Creek, and declined moving downstream in the Salmon River (refer to Figures 4.28a through h). For Plecopteran order, six families were identified and their proportional abundances within the order investigated. Generally, Nemouridae dominated the shredder population throughout with highest proportional abundance in the Salmon River headwaters and Coghlan Creek. Predatory Plecoptera, dominated by Chloroperlidae declined in a downstream direction. Overall, higher relative abundance of predatory stoneflies appeared to occur in Coghlan Creek (refer to Figures 4.29a through f). For Trichoptera, the proportional abundance of four families, within the order were examined. Hydropsychidae dominated the Trichopteran order throughout the catchment at or above 80% proportional abundance of Trichoptera. The lowest proportional abundance of this clinger/filterer taxa occurred at SAL 06, at slightly over 0.40 proportional abundance. The 68  examined. Hydropsychidae dominated the Trichopteran order throughout the catchment at or above 80% proportional abundance of Trichoptera. The lowest proportional abundance of this clinger/filterer taxa occurred at SAL 06, at slightly over 0.40 proportional abundance. The remaining Trichopteran taxa identified occurred in low proportional abundance of this order at each site (refer to Figures 4.30A through D). Nine families, the largest number of families identified in a group, were identified in the Dipteran order. Chironomidae proportional abundance of total Diptera was greatest downstream. SiMulidae also increased moving downstream with none identified in lower reach. This family was present to a lesser degree in Coghlan Creek. Tipulidae, another abundant Dipteran declined in Coghlan Creek, while peak values were seen at SAL 06 on the mainstem. The remaining five families occurred in minor abundances within the order in the upper catchment. Of the Oligochaeta, two families, Lumbriculidae and Naididae dominated throughout. The remaining four families occurred in minor abundances within this class.  69  0.15  0.15  11 0.12  0.12  .... E  c as Gs -0 II cc 0.09  0.09  0. .0 o (V  7) ro c 0.06  0.06  a 0.03  0.03  0 o  2  0. 0.00  0.00  0.70 C., E 0.60  0.70  =4 1 0.50  0.50  0.60  a) o  12 La. m 0.40 1.D. fa o. ^0.30  0.40 0.30  i32 .0  0.20  t 0.20  o o. o ,.. 0.10 o. 0.00  0.10 0.00 SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Headwaters  Downstream Salmon River mainstem  SAL 03 Downstream Davidson Creek  SAL 07  SAL 08 Headwaters Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.27A-D 2005 Coleoptera and Diptera proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment. o  •  0.70  0.70  E 0.60  0.60  t ) 0.50 cc e I-^co  0.50  0.  0.40  0.40  0.30  0.30  0.20  0.20  w o. 0 0.10  0.10  N  2  'g  2 .o  a) CC  E  -s o. o  E 72 0  Q.  0.00  0.00  0.25  0.25  ed 0.20  0.20  0.15  0.15  0.10  0.10  0.05  0.05  0.00  0.00  N  E s  co .c -0 c.) ° c 07 "  0  H  IL  0 • .E•  °0  .  2  SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Downstream  Headwaters Salmon River mainstem  ^  __AIL in  SAL 03^SAL 07^SAL 08^SAL 09 Downstream^  Headwaters  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.27E-H 2005 Ephemeroptera and Oligochaeta proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment.  ▪  0.25  0.25  0 0.20 6  0.20  J  E  -  CO "0  0.15  0.15  0.10  0.10  a 0.05  0.05  0.00  0.00  0.18  0.18  E  0.16  0.16  C)  0.14  0.14  0.12  0.12  0.10  0.10  0.08  0.08  0  0.06  0.06  0  0.04  0.04  O CL o  63  W2 C.)  t  2 0.  N  0. 0  0  F-  ea  0. 2 0.02 0.  0.02  0.00  0.00 SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Downstream  ^ Salmon River mainstem  Headwaters  SAL 03^SAL 07^SAL 08^SAL 09 Downstream^  Headwaters  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.271-L 2005 Plecoptera and Trichoptera proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates in the Salmon River catchment.  •  E 1  1 A  o c 0.8 as -0 ° g 0.6 03 -0 .0 co co 73 0.4  0.8  E Q.  0.2  ) °  0.6 0.4  0.2  20.  ■  0  SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 0.07 o 0.06  a) 0  0 ^  SAL 07  ^  SAL 08  ^  SAL 09  0.06 0.05  0.04  0.04  E_ `° 0.03  0.03  0.02  0.02  m  a: C 0. 0  ^  0.07  C  0.05  g  SAL 03  ■  Ef o 0.01 o.  2^ 0 0.  ^0.01 0  Downstream  ^ Salmon River mainstem  Headwaters^Downstream ^  ^  Headwaters  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.28A-D 2005 Baetidae and Emphemerellidae proportional abundance of Emphemeroptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment.  ^  • •  a7 Ir d 0.6 a)^c  0.7  E  0.6  0.5  0.5  0.4  0.4  a) co  '  rvi 0.3  0.  I^I  0 0.2  a 0.1 a "  0  0.3 0.2 0.1 0  SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11  SAL 03  .0 7  0.7 ^  0.6  0.6 ^  0.5  0.5 ^  0.4 as .c 0. To 0.3  0.4 ^  Z.  0.2 ^  "  -273  (1)^C M^CU  :0 m a  za, „I o  c  CDZE  ^  SAL 07  ^  SAL 08  ^  SAL 09  0.3 ^  0.2  0.1  °0.1 0.  2, 0 0  0 SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Downstream  ^ Salmon River mainstem  Headwaters ^  SAL 03^SAL 07^SAL 08^SAL 09 Downstream^  H eadwaters  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.28E-H 2005 Ephemerellidae and Leptophlebiidae proportional abundance of Emphemeroptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment.  •  0.7 E -063^0.6 c  0.7  A  0.6  0.5  0.5  0.4  0.4  0.3 2 7° c o 0 0.2 .c •.E ° a 0.1 2 o. 0  0.3  coo  :0  T.'. 0 12-  4 0  3 42 co  0.2  I. ■  ^I  0.1 0  SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11  SAL 03  0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  " 0.9 -E6- 0.8 0 c 0.7 ca i 0 .6 PcO 2as 0.5 o _ 0.4 i i 0 .3 Z E 0.2 c. 0.1 2 0. 0  ^ Salmon River mainstem  Headwaters  SAL 07  ^  SAL 08  ^  SAL 09  D  ,  SAL 03^SAL 07^SAL 08^SAL 09  SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Downstream  ^  ^  ^  Downstream^  Headwaters  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.29A-D. 2005 Capniidae and Nemouridae proportional abundance of Plecoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment.  • •  e. 0.25 0 •  0.25 E  0.2  0.2  M M 0.15  0.15  _ • re 0.1 a. c  0.1  .15  0  E 0.05 0. 0 0.  0  0.05 0 ^ ^ ^ SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 ^SAL 03 Downstream^ Salmon River mainstem  Headwaters^Downstream  ^  ^  Davidson Creek^Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.29E-F 2005 Perlidae proportional abundance of Plectoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment.  Headwaters  0.4  0.4 0.35 - A 0.3  0.35 0.3  0.25 0.2  0.25  0.15 0.1  0.15 0.1  0.05 0  0.05 0  0.2  1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 SAL 01 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 Downstream  Headwaters Salmon River mainstem  SAL 03 Downstream Davidson Creek  SAL 07  SAL 08  SAL 09 Headwaters  Coghlan Creek  Figure 4.30A-D 2005 Glossosomatidae and Hydropsychidae proportional abundance of Trichoptera taxa in the Salmon River catchment  Macroinvertebrate Taxa Characteristics To evaluate community structural composition, relative abundance of functional feeding groups and tolerance were described. Four functional feeding groups were identified; mainly collectors, shredders, predators and predator/parasites. The organization of family level taxa into functional feeding groups is available in Appendix D. The collectors group, which in this discussion includes taxa exhibiting collector, gatherer, filterer and scraper behavior (due to an inability to make further taxonomic distinction), increased in proportional abundance in a downstream direction on the Salmon River mainstem and dominated throughout the catchment. Overall, in Coghlan Creek the proportion of collectors increased moving downstream with a peak value occurring at SAL 08. Shredder relative abundance was more variable with the greatest proportion occurring at upstream sites. Peak predator/parasite proportional abundance was low throughout (refer to Figure 4.31).  78  1  0.8  ■ predator/parasite  0.6  predator shredder 0.4  ■ collector  0.2  0 SAL 01 SAL 03 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11  Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Figure 4.31 2005 Proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrate taxa according to functional feeding group in the Salmon River catchment.  The proportional presence of tolerant taxa, generally increased from a headwater to downstream direction (refer to Figure 4.32) in the catchment, with higher initial values at SAL 11. The presence of moderately tolerant taxa also increased in a downstream direction throughout the catchment. Sensitive taxa proportional abundance declined moving downstream with peak values occurring at SAL 10. Similar results were seen at tributary sites with the exception of declining proportional abundance of moderately tolerant taxa at the most downstream site, SAL 03 (refer to Figure 4.33).  79  •• 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 -0 0.60 -0 ,0 0.50 'c 0.40 0 E 0.30  o. 2 0.20 0.  0.10 0.00 SAL 01  SAL 05  SAL 06  SAL 10  SAL 11  site Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Black circles represent tolerant taxa, open circles represent moderately tolerant taxa and squares represent sensitive taxa. Bars represent 1 standard deviation (from site replicates). The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.32 2005 Proportional abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa according to tolerance in the Salmon River mainstem. 1.20 6.i  1.00  o 0.40 CL 0 t i  0.20 0.00  ^ ^ ^ SAL 03 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 ^ ^ site ^Downstream Headwaters Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.32. SAL 03 represents Coghlan Creek and SAL 07, SAL 08, and SAL 09 represent Coghlan Creek. Figure 4.33 2005 Proportional abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa according to tolerance in Salmon River tributary sites.  80  4.5.3 Historical Change in Macroinvertebrate Community Structure Total abundance, EPT total and proportional abundance as well and rarefied family richness were examined in the historical data to measure change in the benthic community. Total and proportional abundance comparisons were made, while, due to the limited taxonomic resolution of the 1975 macroinvertebrate data, rarefied family richness comparisons were only made between the most recent sample periods (1995 and 2005). Between the three sampling periods mean total abundance across the catchment was greatest in 2005 at 1067.14 individuals/m 2 . Differences between 1975 and 1995 total abundances were negligible. Table 4.19 displays total abundance summary statistics for the three datasets at selected sites. Total abundance declined more consistently moving downstream in the historical datasets (see Figure 4.34 and 4.35). Similar patterns in rarefied family richness are noted between the 1995 and 2005 in the catchment. Higher expected numbers of families occurred in the 1995 dataset at all sites (refer to Figure 4.36). Table 4.19 Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate total abundance at selected sites in the Salmon  River catchment, 1975-2005.  Site SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09  M ean Total Abundance  1975 Total st.dev. Abundance (# individuals/m 2)  5899.70^n/a 5381.00^n/a 7765.60^n/a 12998.70^n/a 6630.00^n/a 7755.20^n/a 7738.37 2750.94  Sample Period 1995 Total st.dev. Abundance (# individuals/m 2 )  2666.67  193.30  7003.33 3844.33 8673.33 15551.00 7547.73  2005 Total st.dev. Abundance (# individuals/m 2)  136.30 66.53 572.19 2169.97  5226.67 7310.00 21786.67 9253.33 7930.00 10983.33 7980.00  3513.64 2458.68 11773.16 1219.93 2600.52 6730.06 4309.40  5078.28  10067.14  5459.01  81  40000 35000 30000 25000 33 20000 > C 15000 ot  10000 5000 0 SAL 05  SAL 10  SAL 06  Downstream  SAL 11 Headwaters  Legend Squares represent 1975 values, diamonds represent 1995 values and circles represent 2005 values of total abundance. Bars represent 1 standard deviation (from site replicates). The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.34 Total macroinvertebrate abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River  mainstem. 20000 ^ 18000 16000 14000 "E  1-0 12000 as c :0 10000 5  _— _—— _—  8000 6000 4000  — —  II  •  2000 0^ SAL 07  Downstream  SAL 08  SAL 09  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.34. Figure 4.35 Total macroinvertebrate abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek.  82  •  30.00  25.00  ‘o. E  "a 20.00 • 15.00 -a  o. x 1 0.00  5.00  0.00  Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Open symbols represent 1995 values, closed symbols represent 2005 values of rarefied family richness, circles represent Salmon River mainstem, squares represent Coghlan Creek and the triangle represents Davidson Creek. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Sites occur in the following order from headwaters (right) to downstream (left): Salmon River mainstem; SAL 11, SAL 10, SAL 06, SAL 05, and SAL 01, and Coghlan Creek; SAL 09, SAL08, and SAL07. Figure 4.36 Rarefied family richness (1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River catchment.  Generally historic patterns in EPT total abundance and proportional abundance of total macroinvertebrates were similar to those seen in total macroinvertebrate abundance in the catchment. Summary statistics for historical EPT total and proportional abundance is available in Table 4.20. For sites on the Salmon River mainstem highest proportional abundance was seen in 1995, while highest total abundance of EPT taxa occurred in 2005 (refer to Figures 4.37 and 4.39). Similar trends occurred at sites on Coghlan Creek with the exception of higher total abundance at SAL 11 in 1995 and higher proportional abundance at SAL 08 in 2005 (refer to Figures 4.38 and 4.40). Little variation was seen in EPT rarefied family richness between datasets and sites. Overall 1995 values were highest at each site where comparisons were possible (refer" to Figure 4.41).  83  Table 4.20 Summary statistics for macroinvertebrate EPT abundances at selected sites in the Salmon River catchment,1975-2005. 1975 site ID  EPT total abundance  st. dev.  EPT proportional abundance  st. dev.  individuals/  mean total abundance  EPT total abundance  st. dev.  EPT proportional abundance  st. dev.  individuals/  m2  SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11  Sample Period ^ 1995  ^  n/a n/a n/a n/a  0.03 0.37 0.31 0.23  n/a n/a n/a n/a  3544.50 2297.90  n/a n/a  0.46 0.18  1975.82  1088.48  0.26  EPT total abundance  st.dev.  EPT proportional abundance  st. dev.  individuals/  m2  156.10 2011.00 2066.20 1779.20  2005  m2  n/a 2330.00 2606.67 5220.00 12136.67  n/a 195.00 60.00 443.36 1744.80  n/a 0.87 0.68 0.60 0.78  n/a 0.12 0.06 0.16 0.07  n/a n/a  4596.67  55.52  0.66  15.27  5378.00  3977.61  0.72  0.11  2970.00 5533.33 5210.00 8400.00 5753.33 19196.67 5630.00  256.64 99.76 334.35 1060.17 47.15 196.27 512.42  0.57 0.76 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.88 0.61  0.11 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04  0.11  7527.62  5382.03  0.71  0.11  25000  20000 CNI  15000 :13 10000  5000 —  0 SAL 05  SAL 06  SAL 10  Downstream  SAL 11 Headwaters  Legend Squares represent 1975 values, diamonds represent 1995 values and circles represent 2005 values of total abundance. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.37 Total EPT abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River mainstem.  14000 12000 10000 10^8000 -  is  .5^6000  4000 2000 0 SAL 07  SAL 08  Downstream  SAL 09 Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.37. Figure 4.38 Total EPT abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek  85  •  1.00  •  0.90 cs, 0.80 O 0.70 0 0.60 3 1 0.50  -  9  -  —  g 0.40  ....  ^-- --  —  ..,..  ■ •••.  /  o. 0.30 2 0- 0.20  / /  /  /  /  o'  \  .... --. .... ...  ■  /  N.  U  /  0.10  I. /  0.00 SAL 05  ^Downstream  ^  SAL 06  ^  SAL 10  ^  ^  SAL 11  Headwaters  Legend Squares represent 1975 values, diamonds represent 1995 values and circles represent 2005 values of total abundance. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure 4.39 EPT proportional abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River mainstem.  1.00 0.90 Cs1  E  0.80 0.70 0.60  3  coo  0.50 0.40  t  o cl  2  Q.  0.30  U  0.20 0.10 0.00 SAL 07 Downstream  ^  ^  SAL 08  ^  SAL 09 Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.39. Figure 4.40 EPT proportional abundance (1975, 1995 and 2005) in Coghlan Creek.  86  16.00 14.00 ^ N  12.00 E in  s  Ea' 10.00 co  -0 0  8.00 6.00  o 4.00  4t  2.00 0.00 Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Open symbols represent 1995 values, black symbols represent 2005 values of rarefied family  richness, circles represent Salmon River mainstem, squares represent Coghlan Creek and the triangle represents Davidson Creek. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Sites occur in the following order from headwaters (right) to downstream (left): Salmon River mainstem; SAL 11, SAL 10, SAL 06, SAL 05, and Coghlan Creek; SAL 09, SAL08, and SAL07 (SAL 03 and SAL 01 absent). Figure 4.41 Rarefied EPT richness (1995 and 2005) in the Salmon River catchment.  In an attempt to further evaluate historical trends in macroinvertebrate data PCA was conducted. This analysis was used to take into account all taxa present at a given site and examine relative changes in community composition at sites over the 30 year period. Due to the inconsistent macroinvertebrate sampling at sites between the three sampling event, separate PCA analysis were run so that all available data could be employed in evaluating spatial relationships (i.e. 1975-1995-2005, 1975 to 2005 and 1995 to 2005). Figures 4.42 through 4.44 display PCA results and Table 4.21 displays significant Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r > 0.50, a = 0.1) between orders and principal components. Further information related to the PCA analysis is available in Appendix E. A total of 5 principal components were required to explain 75% of variation in the 1975-1995-2005 comparison, while 6 and 4 principal components were required for similar levels of variation in the 1975-2005 and 1995-2005 comparisons, respectively. Interestingly, similar patterns of site 87  grouping appear in all three analyses. As displayed in Figure 4.42 sites SAL 06 and SAL 07 show closer association over the three sample periods compared to upstream and headwater sites (SAL08 and SAL11, respectively). In the second analysis, using 1975 and 2005 sites, SAL 06 and SAL 07 show similar distance and directional patterns. Other sites also show similar spatial movement in terms of distance, although in different directions. Downstream (SAL 01) and upstream (SAL 11) show the greatest spatial distances over the two sample periods (refer to Figure 4.43). The final PCA analysis (refer to Figure 4.44) displays results for the 1995 and 2005 sample surveys. In this analysis, also the strongest of the three in terms of the amount of variability accounted for in two principal components, results resemble those seen in initial analysis with the addition of SAL 09 on Coghlan Creek. Overall a grouping of groundwater and non-groundwater-influenced sites appears. 65  -  4  -  • SAL11  32-  .SAL11  O SAL08  1 SAL07  0SAL06  -1^  •  -  -2 -  46AL06  OSAL08 • SAL11 041_07 :SA46 SALON^O  SAL08  -4^-2^0^2^4  ^  8  Principal Component 1 (21.86%) Legend Squares represent 1975 order data, diamonds represent 1995 order data and circles represent 2005 order data. The dashed line represents the separation between groundwater and nongroundwater-influenced sites. Figure 4.42 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1975, 1995 and 2005.  88  6• SAL11  54  p.-  3 2-2 SAL01 c^  0 0.  0  SAL10  1^• SAL05  0  •  SAL10 • SAL05^•^• SAL11  0. .^ 2 -1 c  SAL01 111^SALO•07  °- -2-  • SAL08^■ SAL08  -3 -6^-4^-2^0^2^4 Principal Component 1 (20.09%) Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.42. Figure 4.43 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1975 and 2005.  5 4  OSAL08  c** ti  cc;  3 20• SAL09 SAL08  0 a.  E  0-  Ta a  -1 -  8  AL11 S_09  0  . r..=^-2 a  SAL11 3^ -4^-2^0^2^4^6^8 -4 Principal Component 1 (36.99%)  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure 4.42. Figure 4.44 Principal Component Analysis on relative abundance data, 1995 and 2005.  89  Table 4.21 Summary of Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and principal components 1 and 2 , for separate Principal Components Analyses (a = 0.1). 1975-1995-2005^1975-2005^1995-2005 PC 1 PC 2 PC 1 PC 2 PC 1 PC 2 Order 0.7884 0.1184 0.4554 -0.4585 0.4105 0.7975 COLEOPTERA 0.3405 0.7398 0.6496 0.4268 0.8076 -0.1566 DIPTERA -0.1526 0.3196 0.5833 0.8904 EPHEMEROPTERA 0.8061 -0.2713 n/a -0.2429 n/a HEMIPTERA -0.0821 0.6658 -0.2813 0.8968 0.1669 n/a n/a 0.2184 0.7555 HYMENOPTERA n/a n/a n/a 0.9103 n/a -0.2253 MEGALOPTERA -0.2764 -0.3706 n/a n/a ODONATA 0.8924 -0.2335 -0.0359 PLECOPTERA 0.5965 0.8192 0.2298 0.8574 -0.3082 0.0532 0.2841 0.6757 TRICHOPTERA 0.1469 -0.1595 0.9306 0.7693 0.3749 HYDRACARI NA 0.2172 0.6282 0.5961 0.4153 0.7598 AMPHIPODA -0.0200 -0.1642 -0.1303 0.7163 0.3496 MYSIDACEA 0.3842 -0.0168 -0.7602 0.1656 0.2803 0.1726 n/a n/a -0.6285 n/a n/a OSTRACODA 0.2509 0.8110 0.1682 ISOPODA -0.2852 0.7338 -0.015 -0.5372 n/a n/a PISCICOLA 0.3493 -0.1504 -0.0652 0.3415 OLIGOCHAETA 0.7435 0.3330 -0.0947 -0.2496 0.6816 0.5036 -0.3950 0.6186 TRICLADIDA 0.0792 0.7211 -0.2858 -0.5927 0.2394 HYDRA 0.2841 -0.0524 -0.0759 0.1281 -0.1431 0.2313 GASTEROPODA -0.0590 0.7798 0.7782 0.5313 -0.4735 VENEROIDA -0.1028 -0.1759 -0.5921 0.354 0.4943 -0.2531 -0.3346 -0.4174 NEMATODA 0.8090 0.2337 0.3055 0.8623 -0.2391 COLLEMBOLA 0.0359 -0.2747 0.2718 -0.3459 -0.2429 LEPIDOPTERA n/a n/a -0.1358 0.0121 n/a n/a NEUROPTERA 0.1776 -0.2763 -0.067 -0.3585 -0.1369 0.2234 -0.0821 0.0892 0.5166 -0.4687 Other n/a n/a  Note: Values r > 0.50 are in bold.  4.6 Land Activity and Environmental Quality Land use indices used in analysis of relationships between land activity and environmental quality include proportional land use type and proportional land cover. These indices were compared to sediment trace metal annual median concentrations, sediment percent clay content, and macroinvertebrate community characteristics (total abundance, rarefied family richness, EPT abundances and rarefied richness, and proportional and total abundance of functional feeding groups). Water quality parameters were not included in these comparisons due to statistical limitations.  90  4.6.1 Sediment Quality and the Macroinvertebrate Community Only two sediment quality characteristics correlated with measures of the macroinvertebrate community across the sites in the Salmon River catchment, clay (%) and annual concentrations of Mn. All correlations are negative with the exception of the proportional abundance of collector taxa and Mn which was positive (refer to Table 4.22). Table 4.22 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between  macroinvertebrate community characteristics and sediment quality characteristics (a = 0.1). Sediment Macroinvertebrate^ ^Quality Community Characteristic Correlation Characteristic  Total abundance^ Collectors (total)^ Shredders (total)^ Predators (total)^ Predator/parasites (total)^ Collectors (%)^ Shredders (%)^  Clay (%) Clay (%) Mn Clay (%) Mn Mn Mn  Correlation coefficients between sediment quality characteristics and the macroinvertebrate community are available in Appendix F. 4.6.2 Land Use and Sediment Quality Land use type and sediment quality characteristics correlation results are listed below in Table 4.23. General land use and sediment quality characteristics correlation results are displayed in Table 4.24. Table 4.23 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment  quality characteristics and land use type, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). Land Use Type (% coverage) Sediment Quality^Correlation^30 m^100 m Characteristic  Al Ba ^ Cu Mg Mn Zn Clay (%)  -^residential^residential vacant/unused beef, vacant/unused residential^residential beef beef other lifestock transportation residential residential other agriculture other agriculture civic/institutional  91  Table 4.24 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment  characteristics and general land use categories, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). General Land Use Category (% coverage) Sediment Quality Correlation Land Use 30 m Characteristic Al  Residential Vacant/Unused Residential Agricultural  Cr  + + -  Mg Mn  + -  Vacant/Unused  Zn Clay (%)  +  Residential  Ba  Land Use 100 m Residential Vacant/Unused Residential Agricultural Civic/Institutional/ Commercial Civic/Institutional/ Commercial Residential Civic/Institutional/ Commercial  Correlation coefficients between land use and sediment quality characteristics are available in Appendix F. 4.6.3 Land Use and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics Correlation results between land use type and the macroinvertebrate community are displayed in Table 4.25. All significant correlations were positive, except for rarefaction. Multiple land uses correlated to macroinvertebrate community characteristics using the general land use categories over the specific land use types (refer to Table 4.26). Table 4.25 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between  macroinvertebrate community characteristics and land use by type, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). Land Use Type (% coverage) Macroinvertebrate Correlation CornmunityCharacteristic Total abundance Rarefaction EPT abundance EPT abundance (%) Collectors (total) Predators (total) Predators (%) Predator/parasites (%)  30 m  100 m  +  other livestock  + + + + + +  other livestock, poultry other livestock, poultry other livestock  other agriculture  beef  dairy dairy unclassified, dairy  92  Table 4.26 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between  macroinvertebrate community characteristics and general land use, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). General Land Use Category (% coverage) Macroinvertebrate CommunityCharacteristic  Correlation  Land Use 30 m  + + +  Agricultural Agricultural  EPT abundance EPT abundance (%) Predators (total) Predators/parasites (total) Predators (%) Predator/parasites (%)  Land Use 100 m  Agricultural Transportation  Transportation + Transportation  Transportation Transportation  Correlation coefficients between land use and macroinvertebrate community characteristics are available in Appendix F.  4.6.4 Land Cover and Sediment Quality For land cover and sediment quality characteristics, all significant correlations were negative. Only mean annual concentrations of Cu and Mn correlated to impervious cover in the 100m stream buffer across sites. In terms of the forest cover, Zn and clay content were the only sediment characteristics to show correlation in both buffer widths (refer to Table 4.27 below). Table 4.27 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between sediment  quality characteristics and land cover, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). Sediment Quality  Correlation^Land Cover Type (%)  Cu^ Mn^ Zn^ Clay^  Impervious (100 m) Impervious (100 m) Forest (30 m), Forest (100 m) Forest (30 m), Forest (100 m)  Correlation coefficients between land cover and sediment characteristics are available in Appendix F.  4.6.5 Land Cover and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics In reference to land cover and macroinvertebrate community characteristics, only relative abundance of shredders and predator/parasite taxa were positively correlated to the extent of forest cover (at the 100 m buffer width). EPT abundance correlated negatively to the % forest cover (in the 100 m buffer width) (refer to Table 4.28). 93  Table 4.28 Significant Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results between macroinvertebrate community characteristics and land cover, in two buffer widths (a = 0.1). Macroinvertebrate^ Correlation Community Characteristic ^  EPT abundance^ Shredders (%)^ Predator/parasites (%)^  Land Cover Type (%)  Forest (100 m) Forest (100 m) Forest (100 m)  Correlation coefficients between land cover and macroinvertebrate community characteristics are available in Appendix F. 4.6.6 Historical Land Cover and Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics Due to limited taxonomic resolution of historical macroinvertebrate data only several community measures were considered for correlation analysis with land cover. For the 30 year period the community measures available include total abundance, and EPT abundance and proportional abundance. Rarefied family richness and EPT richness are considered for the 1995 and 2005 datasets. Land use, water and sediment quality information was not used in evaluating historical correlation relationships due to data availability and discrepancies in analytical techniques. In the absence of such information it is hoped that characteristics of the macroinvertebrate community may adequately integrate some of this environmental information. Only EPT abundance and forest cover (100m buffer width) showed significant correlation results, mainly a negative correlation (refer to Appendix F).  94  Chapter 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Climate and Land Activity in the Salmon River Catchment Both climate and land activity have the capacity to influence the stream environment. Examination of historical climate data, suggests no noticeably large or divergent trends expected to unusually influence stream conditions during the sampling periods in the Salmon River catchment. 5.1.1 Current Land Use in the Salmon River Catchment • In the context of land use in the catchment, several factors should be considered when interpreting results. Firstly, determination of a land use type was based on the land use occupying the majority of area in a given parcel. As a result a single land use was assigned to a parcel even if multiple uses were present. Following this approach, spatially inaccurate calculation of land use extents may have occurred, usually favoring an overestimated of extent. Evaluation of the two types of land cover in the catchment, from aerial or orthophotographs, is an alternative, and possible more spatially accurate description of land activity. Land cover may also be a useful land activity indicator as it integrates the effects on forest cover and imperviousness from multiple land uses. A second consideration is the inclusion of land use types associated with variable imperviousness in calculations of total imperviousness area, such as residential land use. Including such land use types causes the extent of impervious area to approach the extent of agricultural land use in the Salmon River catchment. This is likely an overestimation as the nature of residential activity occurs predominantly as low-density development in the catchment. This type of residential development may be associated with a lesser degree of imperviousness compared to more suburban residential development. Ground truthing and verification of historical land cover data would also strengthen related conclusions drawn in this study. The location of change in land activity can have a significant influence on the stream environment. This is particularly important given the unconfined nature of the Hopington aquifer and its know influence on water quality and quantity in the Salmon River catchment. Within stream buffer widths agriculture land use was highest downstream and at headwaters sites of both the Salmon River mainstem and Coghlan Creek in 2004. Residential land use was 95  distributed more broadly across sites, with somewhat higher extents occurring mid-reach in the catchment. The remaining land use types show less variation between sites. For the most land use extents were consistent between stream buffer widths.  5.1.2 Current Land Cover in the Salmon River Catchment In the absence of specific land use or land cover data, aerial photographs can provide historical record of urban coverage change, specifically impervious surfaces (Jennings and Jarnagin, 2002). Despite this, it is recognized that this may be a significant limitation in this study in terms of estimating actual aerial extents with little or no ground truthing. The compaction of soils is a further important characteristic of urban areas and may need greater consideration in evaluation land use impacts in the Salmon River catchment. Although not directly quantified in this study, the degree of effective impervious area or drainage connection may be an important variable in quantifying land use stream environment relationships. A reduction in drainage connection may minimize the impact of impervious areas to the stream environment (Hatt et al., 2004). It is recognized that percent imperviousness can be a blanket index in that it fails to address sources of impairment associated with urbanization in greater detail. Thresholds of imperviousness may be more useful in developing rather than developed areas where they have not been met and there is opportunity for flexibility in development plans. Other more specific indices may have stronger relationships to the stream environment and the spatial proximity of these stressors may also be an important factor to consider (Novotny et al., 2005). For example, drainage connection measured as percent effective impervious area (EIA) when compared to percent total impervious area better explained variation in dissolved organic carbon and conductivity resulting from urban NPS pollution (Hatt et al., 2004). For current land cover conditions impervious cover was greater in the Salmon River headwaters (SAL 12, SAL 11), lower Coghlan Creek (SAL 07) and lower Salmon River mainstem (SAL 04). Lower values are recorded upper to mid-reach on the Salmon River (SAL 10, SAL 06 and SAL 05) and downstream at SAL 01. Higher extents of forest cover occur on the Salmon River mid to upper-reach (SAL 06, SAL 09 and SAL 10) and just below the confluence of the Salmon River and Coghlan Creek (SAL 05). Lowest values for forest cover occur in the headwater and downstream sites of the Salmon River mainstem. 96  5.1.3 Historical Trends in Land Activity in the Salmon River Catchment General patterns in land activity over a 30 year period include a slight decline in agricultural land use and a more dramatic increase in residential land use (refer to Figure 4.2.2). The small change in agricultural extent is not surprising considering that much of the catchment is part of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The increase in residential land use follows the trend in urban land cover expansion in the province, which increased by 50% over a similar time period (Statistics Canada, 2005). With the exception of a few sites, impervious cover, measured as proportional area, increased in stream buffer widths, while forest cover generally declined. Patterns in land cover were more consistent across sites in the wider buffer. Notable patterns in land cover change for the 30 year period include the greatest increase in impervious cover (in the 30 m buffer) and decline in forest cover (in the 30 m and 100 m buffers) occurring at SAL 08. Higher increases in impervious cover were also noted at nearby headwaters sites at both buffer widths. In terms of forest cover, decreasing in extent was the general rule, with the exception of SAL 06 and SAL 12 where increases were seen at both buffer widths. Higher residential activity over the sensitive aquifer region was coupled with increasing impervious area and declining forest cover. Increased agricultural activity was also seen in the headwaters, however increased forest cover noted in this region may be tempered by an increase in impervious cover. The combination of these land activity trends in sensitive areas is a concern in terms of the potential to impact the stream environment. Overall, land cover was a useful indicator given the limitations in existing land use data. The integrative aspect of land cover gave additional insight into changing land activity in the catchment. 5.2 Water Quality in the Salmon River Catchment 5.2.1 Current Water Quality Conditions in the Salmon River Catchment An important consideration of a water quality study is the representativeness of sample sites in the context of the catchment. Based on recommendations from other research that investigated the variability of water quality in the Salmon River catchment exhaustively (i.e. Beale (1976) and Cook (1994)), the selected sites are considered appropriate in illustrating overall trends in water quality in stream regions. 97  A second important component of interpreting water quality information is the availability of natural background information. Due to the absence of reference sites in this study, it is not possible to make comparisons to natural water quality conditions in the catchment. Based on spatial and seasonal water quality results observed in this study a combination of specific conductivity (as a total dissolved indicator) and NO 3 .- -N and PO4 3 -P(nutrient indicators) may track groundwater and overland inputs to the stream environment. Despite a similar annual pattern in specific conductivity noted at all sites, significant differences in median concentrations were noted between headwaters and the downstream site as well as annual differences between the mid-reach site on the Salmon River and Coghlan Creek. Highest median specific conductivity was measured in the downstream extent of the Salmon River (SAL 02) during the dry season, while the lowest median values were noted in wet season measurements in the headwaters (SAL 11). Similar results were noted for Cl - concentrations in the catchment. These results are typical given the dry season coincides with a period of low flow, lower dilution capacity and greater groundwater influence in the catchment. Higher specific conductivity values recorded at SAL 07 are expected to be related to groundwater inputs at this site, particularly in the dry season. In the nearby Sumas River catchment specific conductivity also exhibited seasonal trends, with higher values recorded in summer months (Smith, 2004). Given that the majority of NO3. - -N guideline exceedances occurred in the dry season it is not surprising that the highest median values occurred at SAL 07 in the dry season and higher groundwater influence (refer to Table 5.1). Lowest median NO3. - -N concentrations occurred in the headwaters during wet season. These differences in NO3 - -N median concentrations were significant. Evaluation of the amount of precipitation prior to sampling and NO3. - -N concentrations produced negative correlations also further supports a groundwater source of NO3 - -.N in the Salmon River. Natural levels of NO3. - -N rarely exceed 0.903 mg/L in natural waters (CCME, 2003). Higher peak dry season NO3. - -N values, greater than 9 mg/L were found in the Sumas River catchment (Smith, 2004). Unlike the above water quality variables PO4 3 -P exhibited higher median concentrations in the wet season in the catchment along with guideline exceedances (refer to Table 5.1). Significantly, higher median concentrations were recorded in the Salmon River headwaters (SAL 11) during the wet season, while the lowest median value occurred at the downstream site in the 98  dry season. Lower runoff during summer months as indicated combined with increased biological uptake of phosphorus during the dry season (the growing season for many aquatic plants) may explain this, at least in part. The pattern of elevated PO 4 3 -Pfollowing initial fall runoff events was also noted in the Sumas River catchment (Smith, 2004). This may suggest a runoff process is operating in both catchments. Table 5.1 Summary of water quality guideline exceedances in the Salmon River  catchment. Water Quality Variable  Site  -3  NO3 --N PO4 -P # of exceedances^# of exceedances  dry season wet season dry season wet season SAL 02^8^2^ 4 SAL 06^3^2^ 4 SAL 07^14^11^SAL 11^ 5  5.2.2 Historical Trends in Water Quality in the Salmon River Catchment  When considering the Salmon River catchment as a whole, median values for the water quality parameters that permit historical comparison (i.e. specific conductivity, NO3 - -N, and PO4. -3 -P) increased, with the exception of median concentrations of PO 4 .-3 -P. The increasing trend was largely supported by site-specific patterns, again with a single exception, NO 3 - -N. Median seasonal and annual specific conductivity concentrations increased overall and to the greatest degree occurred in the mid-reach of the Salmon River catchment. Historical trends in median NO 3 .- -N concentrations were less consistent. Results do support an increase in NO3. - N at both groundwater and non-groundwater-influenced sites, however to a greater degree at groundwater sites. Declining PO4. -3-P median concentrations were noted. Overall two out of three water quality indicators (mainly NO 3 - -N and specific conductivity) show no historical improvement and are a continued concern particularly at groundwater-influenced sites. Beale (1976) noted exceedances in pH, water temperature and PO 4 3 -P in the Salmon River catchment in the mid 1970s. Approximately 15 years later Cook (1994) noted specific conductance, Cl - , and NO3. - -N increased in a downstream direction with overall NO 3 . - -N and bacterial concerns in the catchment. Wernick (1996) expressed similar concerns. In recent sampling (2004/05) increases greater than 20% from upstream to the downstream sites were noted for specific conductivity, and NO 3 .- -N. Although no exceedances were noted in the former 99  variable NO 3 . - -N exceedances did occur on numerous occasions, thus making it a continued concern. However this concern may also be expanded to include PO4: 3 -P, at least seasonally given exceedances of a conservative guideline. These results are not surprising given the known agricultural NPS pollution problem in the catchment (BC MOE, 1996). 5.3 Sediment Quality in the Salmon River Catchment 5.3.1 Current Sediment Quality Conditions in the Salmon River Catchment It should be recognized that discussion of trace metals is based on total extractable metals and does not necessarily indicate biologically availability, which is a separate, but important consideration. Furthermore, the occurrence of trace metals in isolation may not be realistic in the aquatic environment. It is more likely for metals to occur as compounds or in correlation with others. Further interaction effects between trace metals should also be considered (Ankley et al., 1996). Overall, the majority of sediment trace metal peak values occurred in the dry season with the exception of Mn and Zn. Instances where peak values were not recorded at SAL 06 (i.e. for Mn, Sr, and Zn), peak or secondary peak values were recorded on Coghlan Creek (at either SAL 08 or SAL 09). Significant differences, measured as declines in median annual sediment trace metal concentrations, were noted between headwater and downstream regions for Cr, Fe and Mg. Only Mn concentrations were significantly different between Salmon River headwaters region and Coghlan Creek with greater median concentrations occurring on Coghlan Creek. Guideline or threshold exceedances are summarized in Table 5.2 below. The greatest number of exceedances appeared mid-reach on the Salmon River mainstem and Coghlan Creek. Overall sediment trace metal concentration results (i.e. the occurrence of peak values, guideline or threshold exceedances along with highest median annual concentrations) point higher concentrations occurring mid-reach of the Salmon River catchment. Peak concentrations generally occurred at SAL 06 on the Salmon River mainstem, while guideline exceedances occurred at SAL 08 on Coghlan Creek.  100  Table 5.2 Summary of sediment trace metal guideline or threshold exceedances  in the Salmon River catchment. trace metal threshold dry season wet season  Cu^ISQG^SAL 06 background lake  Fe^concentration^SAL 06, SAL 08 SAL 02, SAL 08 background lake  Mg^concentration^  continuous  Ni^suficial concentration^SAL 04, SAL 06^SAL 02, SAL 08,  Zn^ISQG^SAL 08^SAL 09  Higher Fe Mg, Ni sediment concentrations were recently found in Sumas River sediment, while Cu Mn Zn median concentrations measured in the Salmon River catchment fall within the range on concentrations measured recently in sediments of the Sumas River (Smith, 2004). 5.3.2 Historical Trends in Sediment Quality in the Salmon River catchment  Due to advances in determination of sediment trace metal concentrations, statistical comparison of concentrations measured in the 1973 - 1975 period with more recent sediment trace metal results was not possible. A larger sediment size fraction used by Beale (1976) introduces further variability between comparisons. This is discussed in greater detail in Cook (1994). Loosely interpreting results from Beale (1976), it can be concluded that Al, Cr, and Ni concentrations were lower in 2005 compared to results from 1975. Given the above concerns current sediment trace metal concentration were only compared to sediment data from Cook (1994). Annual trace metal concentrations measured in this study have declined significantly from 1991 levels across stream regions in the Salmon River catchment. Only Ni concentrations in the headwaters exhibited a significant increase between the two time periods. Of the trace metals identified as of concern by Cook (1994) (i.e. Zn, Cr, Cu, Co, Ni and Mn) only Mn, Ni and Zn occurred in levels above background concentrations. Following conclusions in Cook (1994), Zn is also the greatest concern in this study given it exceeded the ISQG on several occasions. 5.4 Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Salmon River Catchment 5.4.1 Current Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics in the Salmon River Catchment  Biological monitoring is an important integrative measure of stream condition (Karr and (Karr and Chu, 2000, Karr, 1991). General measures of the macroinvertebrate community 101  used to characterize stream health in the Salmon River catchment included abundance (total, total EPT and proportional EPT) and rarefied family richness (all taxa and EPT taxa). A peak in total abundance appeared to occur in upper regions of the Salmon River catchment, on Coghlan Creek (SAL 08) and more notably at SAL 10 on the Salmon River mainstem. Both sites are upstream of known groundwater influence. Similar patterns in EPT total and proportional abundance were also noted, which is not unexpected as the majority of insects identified at sites were EPT taxa. In terms of family level rarefaction in the catchment the greatest expected number of families was found at sites closer to regions of known groundwater influence. For the Salmon River mainstem this occurred below the confluence at SAL 05, while for Coghlan Creek this occurred in its lower reach at SAL 07. The divergence patterns in total abundance and community richness suggest that an increase in macroinvertebrate numbers in the catchment is not necessarily followed by an increased number of families. This may point to fewer taxa dominating sites. Further investigation into community compositional structure revealed that Ephemeroptera taxa had the highest proportional abundance at most sites, with peak proportional abundance mid-reach on Coghlan Creek (SAL 08). In this order the dominance of a single family shifts moving downstream (from Heptageniidae and Leptophlebiidae in headwaters to Baetidae downstream). Alternatively both Plecopteran and Trichopteran orders were each dominated by a single family throughout (the Nemouridae and Hydropsychidae families, respectively). Peak proportional abundance of the latter two orders occurred at SAL 07 and SAL 10. The community structure at sites with peaks in total abundance was also noted; both SAL 08 and SAL 10 were dominated by three families; Nemouridae, Hydropsychidae and Heptageniidae. Functional feeding group composition can reveal the functional structure of a community and is expected to vary depending on food resource inputs to the stream environment (Allan, 1995b). Throughout sites in the Salmon River catchment collector taxa dominated the functional structure. Peak values occurred mid-reach on Coghlan Creek (SAL 08) and at SAL 06 on the Salmon River mainstem. Generally, proportional abundance of other functional feeding groups was low. Keeping this in mind, shredder taxa had higher proportional abundances in the Salmon River headwaters and mid-reach sites, while predator proportional abundance was higher in the Coghlan Creek headwaters. It should also be noted that the apparent dominance of the collector 102  functional feeding group observed throughout the catchment may be an artefact of the definition of group used in this study. More specifically, several functional feeding types (i.e. collector, gatherer, filterer and scraper behaviors) where placed into one category due to the taxonomic resolution achieved in identification. Taxa tolerance to organic pollution at the family levels was also considered as a means to investigate the macroinvertebrate community. Tolerant taxa increased in a downstream direction in the catchment. Throughout the sites both tolerant and moderately tolerant taxa dominated. Slightly higher proportional abundances of sensitive taxa appeared to occur on Coghlan Creek. A mid-reach rise in tolerant to moderately taxa is seen at SAL 07 and SAL 06, sites of known groundwater influence. At Missouri and Kansas urban stream sites, EPT abundance was weighted by the presence of tolerant Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera taxa. Hydropsychidae taxa also showed a particularly heavy presence at urban sites in these land use comparisons (Poulton et al., 2007). Similar dominance of these tolerant taxa were also noted in this current study. The measurement of environmental parameters can account for influences on community patterns (Attrill, 2002). However, across several other catchments influenced by urban and agricultural land use, minimal changes in water quality were measured in comparison to the moderate stress indicated in macroinvertebrate communities (i.e. Benke et al., 1981, Lenat and Crawford, 1994, Robson et al., 2005). From these results it appears that water quality alone was unable to capture the effects of land use. In this study water quality parameters also do not appear to account for all macroinvertebrate community patterns. In the Salmon River catchment nutrient and ion water quality indicators point to seasonal and spatial patterns in water quality with deteriorating water quality occurring at sites of groundwater influence. Eutrophication nutrient guideline exceedances indicate the potential for enriched water quality conditions. The additional exceedances of the NO3 -N toxicity guideline is a further concern for aquatic health. Results -  from the macroinvertebrate community suggest a rise in the expected number of families at groundwater-influenced sites where N guideline exceedances occur. However the patterns in peak total abundance at upstream sites and dominance of several taxa, a single functional feeding group and tolerant taxa throughout is not necessarily evident in water or sediment results based on spatial, seasonal and guideline analysis. Macroinvertebrate results point to possible additional regions of concern in the catchment. Elsewhere richness values detected organic pollution at 103  heavily polluted sites (Cao et al., 1996), while moderate organic enrichment can result in increased richness and abundance at effected sites (Reynoldson et al., 1997). The latter is suspected in the Salmon River catchment given on-going nutrient concerns. Sediment trace metal results also point to mid-reach concerns where elevated concentrations occur. In the 2005 data the macroinvertebrate community only showed correlation to two sediment characteristics; concentrations of Mn and the percent clay content (positive and negative correlations, respectively). As, percent clay content values were obtained from deposited sediment and not from the riffles where macroinvertebrate sampling occurred, it is difficult to interpret this correlation with great certainty. However sedimentation may decrease richness, abundance and biomass of macroinvertebrate taxa, depending on the duration of exposure. Sedimentation may also produce a dominance of more tolerant taxa including Oligochaeta and Diptera, such as some chironomids. This occurs through physical mechanisms including the obstruction of respiration, interference of feeding, and loss of preferred and/or stable habitat (Jackson et al., 1993). Interrupting the correlation relationship between macroinvertebrate and sediment Mn concentrations is equally difficult. As mentioned earlier Mn in its inorganic form is relatively non-toxic and plays an important role in cellular processes (Schiele, 1991). According to AfriMehennaoui et al. (2004) elevated concentrations of Mn from mining contamination was not expected to be influential on the macroinvertebrate community given it is a natural component of the sediment. In other instances stronger relationships between the macroinvertebrate community and sediment trace metal concentrations have been observed. In Atlanta streams, several macroinvertebrate community characteristics and multi-metric macroinvertebrate indices correlated with Cr, Cu and Ni trace metal concentrations in stream sediments (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004).Family richness of EPT taxa has been successful in detecting metal pollution according to Garcia-Criado et al. (1999), while additionally increased collector biomass and shift in collector type have been noted along metal pollution gradients (i.e. elevated stream water concentrations of Fe, Mn and Zn, Cr, Cu, Ni and Pb) by Woodcock and Huryn (2005). A response in both abundance and diversity to sediment metal contamination was documented by Gray (2004), however, this finding may be more a factor of cumulative impacts of longer-term exposure and not an immediate response. 104  Weaker response to sediment trace metal concentrations have also been noted in streams and community resistance may be a factor where macroinvertebrate response to metal contamination is not strong (Grapentine et al., 2004, Clements, 1999). Behavioral traits (related to both habitat and feeding) may allow for avoidance or enhancement of exposure to trace metal concentration in sediment and the overlying water column (Landrum and Robbin, 1990, McNurney, 1975). 5.4.2 Historical Trends in Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics in the Salmon River Catchment In this study order was the lowest common level of identification between the three sampling periods. Higher taxonomic resolution has proved useful in other studies, such as family level identification in characterising conditions in urban streams (Benke et al., 1981), and both genus and family level taxonomic resolution in distinguishing between extremes of impacted sites (Arscot et al., 2006). A higher level of taxonomic resolution could provide greater insight into the change in community composition that has occurred in the Salmon River catchment over the last three decades. Natural variability is another important consideration when trying to measure changes in the macroinvertebrate community over time. In comparing macroinvertebrate communities from two time periods and under undisturbed conditions, Townsend et al. (1987) found that community structure was most persistent in the presence of stable physical stream factors (i.e. temperature, pH and discharge). Similarly, climatic factors have also been found to influence the year-to-year, variability of stream communities by McElravy et al. (1989). Furthermore, it should be noted that a detectable difference in mean macroinvertebrate measures is noted 2030% of the time, due to natural annual variability (Resh and McElravy, 1993). Keeping in mind the above considerations, several historical trends appear in the macroinvertebrate community across sites. Total abundance is generally greatest in both the Salmon River and Coghlan Creek in 2005 (with the following exception of 1995 where higher total abundance was recorded in the Coghlan Creek headwaters).Similarly, 2005 EPT abundance was also highest. A slightly different pattern emerges with richness and proportional abundance of EPT taxa. Rarefied family and EPT richness were highest in 1995 at most sites. EPT proportional 105  abundance was also higher in 1995 compared to other years, with the exception of results for SAL 08. Overall an increase in total and EPT abundance has occurred with a more recent decline in community rarefied richness and the proportion of EPT taxa at sites. Different responses between total and proportional abundances of macroinvertebrate taxa have also been noted by Coles et al. (2004) in the context of catchment development. Principal Components Analysis was an additional measure used to examine historical change in the macroinvertebrate community. Given that PCA measures the difference between samples on a relative scale, such that results are dependent on the other sites included in the analysis separate PCA procedures were run to include sites not consistently samples during the three sample events (Cao et al., 1996). Patterns from PCA analysis suggest a closer association between sites of known groundwater influence over the 30 year period. Sites in upstream to headwaters regions exhibited a more dispersed pattern. Results from the two additional PCA (i.e. 1975-2005 and 1995-2005) support similar patterns in the macroinvertebrate community with additional spatial dispersion seen in downstream sites. Elsewhere the use of the relative abundance measure in PCA has proven successful in distinguishing heavily polluted urban and industrial sites with tolerant taxa (Thorne et al., 1999). Although heavy pollution is not suspected in the Salmon River catchment some distinction between sites appeared in PCA. In a study by Poulton et al. (2007) PCA using water and sediment chemistry information alongside macroinvertebrate multimetric site scores, grouped urban sites according to the presence or absence of wastewater discharges. Given the results from PCA in this study it appears that a combination of groundwater influence and land use trends (in specific regions of the catchment) may be important factors in explaining variation in macroinvertebrate communities. This may be due to elevated nutrient concentrations associated with both groundwater and land use practices in the catchment. 5.5 Relationships between Land Activity and Environmental Variables in the Salmon River Catchment In an attempt to relate the patterns seen in environmental variables and the macroinvertebrate community, to catchment land activity correlation analysis with land activity indicators were preformed. Overall a greater number of correlations between environmental parameters and land activity occurred in the 100 m stream buffer compared to the narrower 106  buffer width. Inconsistencies in terms of which spatial scale is most influential exists in the literature. In one instance macroinvertebrate community metrics were predicted with greater strength at the sub-basin versus local scale (Morley and Karr, 2002), while correlations between macroinvertebrate characteristics and urban land use were stronger at the catchment scale elsewhere (Freeman and Schorr, 2004). Roy et al. (2003) found the proportion of forest cover in a riparian buffer correlated to total and EPT richness better than forest cover in the larger catchment. Contradictory to both the above, Black et al. (2004) found little difference in the amount of variability of macroinvertebrate metrics explained by each spatial scale. 5.5.1 Land Use and Environmental Variables As water quality variables were only measured consistency at four sites, it was not possible to evaluate correlation relationships between these variables and land use. Water quality in agricultural catchments may be subject to higher nutrient concentration due to land use sources of N and P (Allan, 1995d). In the nearby Sumas River catchment levels of dissolved oxygen, ammonia and nitrate correlate to pig and chicken farms, as well as fertilizer applications, indicating potential sources of surplus nitrogen. These results were somewhat dependent on soil type and drainage (Berka et al., 2001). Similar relationships may be evaluated in the Salmon River catchment with expanded water quality sampling. Correlations between broader land use categories and sediment quality characteristics produced mixed results. Several metals showed negative correlation to land use (i.e. Al, Ba and Zn to residential land use and Cr and Mn to civic/institutional/commercial land use). Oppositely, positive correlation existed to vacant land use (Al and Mg), agricultural land use (Ba) and civic/institutional/commercial land use (percent clay). Additional land use-sediment trace metal relationships appeared in correlation analysis using specific land use types. This is mainly in reference to agricultural land uses (i.e. Al and Cu correlated positively to beef production, Zn to other agriculture, and Mg negatively to general livestock land use). Aside from agricultural related land use, a correlation between Mn and transportation was evident using these more specific land use types. Despite these results stream sediment concentrations of Cr, Cu and Ni have been found to correlate to increasing urban land cover (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004), while pollution loading has been found to occur to greater degrees in residential areas than in their industrial counterparts 107  (Choe et al., 2002). The mixed correlation relationship found above may be a result of using broad land use groups. Some characteristics of the macroinvertebrate community also showed correlation to land use. In considering general land use categories, only transportation and agricultural land use showed correlation to macroinvertebrate community characteristics (positive correlation between transportation and predator abundances, negative correlation between transportation and predator/parasite abundances and positive correlation between EPT measures and agricultural land use). As was the case with sediment characteristics, further correlations occurred between macroinvertebrate community characteristic and specific land use types. Total abundance, rarefied richness, total abundance of collectors, predators, predator/parasites correlated negatively to dairy livestock, other livestock and other agriculture, while EPT measures correlated positively to other agriculture and poultry. In the context of urban environments, total richness (Roy et al., 2003, Lenat and Crawford, 1994) and EPT richness have been documented to decline in relation to increasing urban land cover (Coles et al, 2004, Morse et al., 2003, Roy et al., 2003 and Freeman and Schorr, 2004). Similarly, total abundance, EPT abundance and overall community diversity have exhibited lower values related to urban land use (Robson et al., 2005, Freeman and Schorr, 2004, Gage et al, 2004, Gray, 2004). Loss of sensitive EPT taxa and declining overall community richness was noted by Throne et al. (1999) in response to mixed urban and industrial land use. Shifts from intolerant to tolerant taxa was also noted at urban sites, while both low abundance and low richness that occurred at urban sites was speculated to be caused by a shift in stream food sources resulting from the conversion of forested land (Lenat and Crawford, 1994). As part of the same study Lenat and Crawford (1994) also found that a decline in intolerant taxa richness was countered by an increase in tolerant taxa richness at agriculturally influenced sites. The authors also noted that at agricultural stream sites higher total abundance values was likely due to enrichment.  5.5.2 Land Cover and Environmental Variables Given the delineation of land use according to parcel division and the limitations, land cover was also used to characterize land activity in the Salmon River catchment. In terms of sediment trace metals concentrations, annual median concentrations of Cu and Mn had negative 108  correlation to impervious cover at the 100 m stream buffer width, while Zn and percent clay were negatively correlated to forest cover at both stream buffer widths. Only a couple of macroinvertebrate characteristics correlated with land cover indices. Both proportional shredder and predator/parasite abundance show positive correlation with percent forest cover at the 100 m stream buffer width, while EPT abundance was negatively correlation to forest cover in the larger buffer width. This last correlation relationship was also echoed in historical macroinvertebrate data and land cover. Despite the lack of correlation between macroinvertebrate characteristics and impervious cover seen in this study such correlation have occurred in other studies in the region. In the Lower Fraser Valley a benthic invertebrate index (mainly the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI)) and percent total impervious area (% TIA) showed a strong negative relationship (EVS, 1999). Benthic Index of Biological Integrity measures showed similar responses in studies by May et al. (1997) and Morely and Karr, (2002) found urban land cover to have a negative relationship to B-IBI scores. Along the same lines, the health of the macroinvertebrate community declined as imperviousness increased elsewhere (Homer et al., 1996). Under undisturbed conditions in the Pacific coastal region, forest cover is generally continuous along the stream length. These forested riparian zones are necessary for a healthy stream environment through light, temperature, food source and woody debris input processes (Naiman, 1992). A large scale study in New Jersey indicated that the forest cover and urban land cover are good predictors of unimpaired and impaired benthic communities, respectively (USGS, 1998). A positive relationship, albeit with questionable significance, existed between the number of families and percent wooded cover in Atlanta streams (Benke et al., 1981). Other relationships to forest cover include, increased sensitive taxa (Gage et al., 2004), increased total and EPT richness (Roy et al., 2003), and increased taxa abundance (Black et al., 2004).  109  Chapter 6 SUMMARY A well-balanced approach accounting for all aspects of the stream environment is needed to accurately depict stream health (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). To date the Salmon River catchment has been the subject to several environmental surveys dating to the mid 1970s, whose focus was primarily physical and chemical aspects of the stream environment. Considering the above concept, this study attempted to relate changing land use to both physical and biological aspects of the stream environment, with a goal of quantifying relationships between the macroinvertebrate community and changes in both the reach and local riparian environment, over a three decade period. Land use and land cover information, along with water, sediment and macroinvertebrate samples were collected and analyzed, and relationships between these variables were investigated. Comparisons were made between this data set and historical data from similar sites in the catchment to determine if significant changes had occurred. Although goals were achieved with mixed success, it is hoped that the information gathered, as well as gaps in data identified, will assist in future environmental assessments of the Salmon River catchment. 6.1 Land Activity Not unlike other parts of British Columbia, the Township of Langley has experienced a dramatic population increase over a relatively short time period. The impact that expanding human populations have on the stream environment depends on existing environmental conditions as well as the rate and pathway in which development occurs in the catchment. A first objective of this study was to document and quantify current land use and land cover, and evaluate historical change in land cover (in defined buffer regions) of the Salmon River catchment. Currently, higher residential activity over the sensitive aquifer region is coupled with increasing impervious area and declining forest cover. Higher extents of agricultural activity are also seen in the headwaters and downstream sites. Although increased forest cover was noted in both these regions this may be tempered by an increase in impervious cover. The dominating land use in the catchment continues to be agricultural despite a recent slight decline in the spatial extent of this land use, followed by residential land use. Other changes in catchment land use seen in the last 30 years include an increase in residential land use and a 110  decrease in vacant land use. The extent of forest cover and impervious area showed opposite historical trends in stream buffer widths, mainly with the proportion of impervious cover increasing and proportion of forest cover decreasing. The combination of these land activity trends in sensitive areas is a concern in terms of the potential to impact the stream environment. Overall, land cover was a useful indicator given the limitations in existing land use data. The integrative aspect of land cover gave additional insight into changing land activity in the catchment. 6.2 Water and Sediment Quality  Both water and sediment quality characteristics were analyzed in this study to depict current conditions and examine historical variability in these physical-chemical variables in the Salmon River and its associated tributaries. Evaluation of water quality conditions between stream regions and against aquatic life guidelines pointed to several patterns and reasons for concern in the catchment. Based on spatial and seasonal water quality results observed in this study a combination of specific conductivity (as a total dissolved indicator) and NO 3- -N and PO4 -3 -P (nutrient indicators) may track groundwater and overland inputs to the stream environment. Overall, median specific conductivity and Cl" results indicate higher concentrations in downstream regions during the dry season. Higher specific conductivity values recorded at SAL 07 are expected to be related to groundwater inputs at this site, particularly in the dry season. These results are typical given the dry season coincides with a period of low flow, lower dilution capacity and greater groundwater influence in the catchment. Nitrate concentrations are also a concern in the Coghlan Creek stream region during the dry season as this area experiences seasonal groundwater influence. Given that the majority of NO 3 - -N guideline exceedances occurred in the dry season it is not surprising that the highest median values occurred at SAL 07 in the dry season. Statistical analysis of NO3"-N concentrations in relation to precipitation support groundwater source of NO 3 "-N concentrations in the stream environment. Concern may also be expanded to include PO4 -3 -P, at least seasonally, given exceedances of a conservative guideline, particularly at the headwaters site. Both coliform variables proved less useful in water quality analysis in this study. These results reinforce existing water quality concern for the catchment with a particular emphasis on the Coghlan Creek region. Historically, median values 111  for the water quality parameters that permit historical comparison (i.e. specific conductivity, NO3"-N, and PO4 -3 -P) increased, with the exception of median concentrations of PO4 -3 -P. The increasing trend was largely supported by site-specific patterns, again with a single exception, NO3"-N. Median seasonal and annual specific conductivity concentrations increased overall and to the greatest degree mid-reach in the Salmon River catchment, while an increase in NO 3 - -N at both groundwater and non-groundwater-influenced sites. Further work is needed to verify these trends statistically. As two out of three water quality indicators (mainly NO 3 - -N and specific conductivity) show no historical improvement and are a continued concern, particularly at groundwater-influenced sites. For sediment, generally higher median trace metal concentration were recorded midreach in the catchment either at sites on the Salmon River mainstem or Coghlan Creek. Higher median concentrations of Cu, Al, Cr, Mn and Zn occurred on Coghlan Creek, while Fe and Ni median concentration were higher in the Salmon River mainstem region. Zinc concentrations are a continued sediment quality concern in the catchment given guideline exceedances. The significance of these exceedances are difficult to interpret given background surficial concentrations in the catchment. Concentrations of both Mn and Ni were also found above background concentrations. Historically, sediment trace metal concentrations generally declined across stream regions with the exception of Ni median concentrations in the headwaters which have increased over time. As found by Cook (1994), Zn is a continued concern in this study given ISQG exceedances on several occasions.  6.3 Macroinvertebrate Community An additional objectives of this study involved the investigation of biological conditions in the Salmon River catchment. Information on the state of the macroinvertebrate community, both past and present, was used as an integrative tool of environmental conditions as well as to compliment information on other environmental variables. Recently, peak macroinvertebrate abundance occurred in the upper stream regions of both Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River mainstem. Results for EPT taxa were similar and related to the dominance of EPT taxa at most sites. Peak rarefied richness values occurred slightly downstream closer to regions of groundwater influence. This suggests that as the number of individuals increases, community richness is not necessarily maintained. Functional 112  feeding group information along with proportional taxa composition within orders suggests the dominance of a few families and roles, (mainly collector-gatheres) within the macroinvertebrate community. Tolerant to moderately tolerant taxa also predominate the sites. These results combined with the dominant land uses and the water quality conditions measured in the Salmon River catchment, indicate that nutrient enrichment is probable. In comparison with historical data, total macroinvertebrate abundance and EPT abundance were greatest in the most recent dataset. Rarefied richness peaked in previous years. EPT proportional abundance also shows peaks in earlier datasets. Principal Components Analysis of historical data suggests closer association between groundwater-influenced sites in comparison to the headwaters region. Recent increased macroinvertebrate abundance and richness at selected sites may not be representative of improving stream conditions, however spatial references as well a better understanding of natural variability specific to this catchment is necessary. Despite these limitations, the use of multiple measures of the macroinvertebrate community has proven useful in deciphering how change has occurred both spatially and temporally in the Salmon River catchment. 6.4 Links between Land Activity and the Stream Environment  Through the combined analysis of the above water, sediment and biological information it was possible to achieve the final objective of this study, to examine spatial and temporal relationships between land activity, environmental quality and macroinvertebrate community using land use indicators, significance tests, trends and correlations. Using stream buffer widths, relationships between land activity and the above environmental variables were explored. The 100 m stream buffer width appeared to have the greatest number of correlation relationships between land activity and environmental parameters, which buffer explains the most variability in environmental parameters is less apparent. Correlations between land use and environmental parameters were depended on the grouping of land uses, with more correlations appearing when specific land use type were used as opposed to general land use categories. Despite the increase in residential land use over the 30 year period current sediment and macroinvertebrate characteristics show correlation to agriculture. However, this is not that surprising given the dominance of agricultural land activity in the catchment. 113  Notable sediment trace metal correlations to agricultural land use include: Al and Cu correlated positively to beef production, Zn to other agriculture, and Mg negatively to general livestock land use. For the macroinvertebrate community total abundance, rarefied richness, and total abundance of selected functional feeding groups correlated negatively to dairy livestock, other livestock and other agriculture land uses, while EPT measures correlated to increasing agricultural and poultry land use. A positive correlation between EPT measures and agriculture was also seen in the broader general land use categories. In terms of land cover, both trace metal and macroinvertebrate parameters showed correlation relationships, although fewer than was the case with land use. In terms of sediment trace metals concentrations, annual median concentrations of Cu and Mn had negative correlation to impervious cover at the 100 m stream buffer width, while Zn and percent clay were negatively correlated to forest cover at both stream buffer widths. Only a couple of macroinvertebrate characteristics correlated with land cover indices. Both proportional shredder and predator/parasite abundance show positive correlation with percent forest cover at the 100 m stream buffer width, while EPT abundance declined with forest cover in the most recent and the historical data sets. With the combination of the initial objectives it is hoped that additional background information as well as integrity relationships specific to the Salmon River catchment have been established, and can be employed in future management and assessment of resource health.  114  Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS To date the Salmon River catchment has been the subject of four extensive environmental surveys dating to as early as the mid 1970s. Information gathered in these surveys includes water quality, terrestrial and aquatic sediment quality, and land use information. In addition to these more traditional evaluations, this most recent study has included biological indicators, mainly macroinvertebrates, as an integrative tool in assessing stream health. The goal of each of these studies was to characterize environmental condition in the catchment and determine relationships between land activity and the stream environment. The general consensus amongst the studies is that non-point source pollution resulting from mixed land use, primarily agriculture, is influencing the stream environment. Each of these studies has also contributed to the longer-term monitoring of the catchment in providing important background information. This information is important in illustrating the capacity of a system to withstand stress based on physical, chemical, and biological properties (CCME, 1999). Continued environmental sampling of the stream environments through a multi-faceted approach is necessary to provide surveillance of development in the larger Salmon River catchment. This, paired with a managerial response mechanism to take action to minimize impacts in the event of environmental degradation, will help assure the health of the catchment on a long term basis. Given that generic guidelines have been used in this study and others (i.e. Beale (1976), Cook (1994) and Wernick (1996)) it is difficult to say with great certainty if environmental quality (i.e. water and sediment quality) is adequately protected in the catchment. Site-specific water quality guidelines, which are set for specific locations and or water bodies, may be a consideration given the background information available on the Salmon River catchment. Protocols for the development of guidelines are available both provincially (BC MOE, 1996b) and nationally (CCME, 1999). The development of such guidelines may set more restrictive or realistic thresholds for the Salmon River and its tributaries considering the natural characteristics of water and sediment quality in the catchment. However, it is recognized that this is a costly endeavour, both in terms of time and finances. Given the irreversible nature of imperviousness, which as found in this study, is approximately 9% of the catchment area, more manageable indices such as buffer width and percent forest cover should also be examined (Novotny et al., 2005). Appropriate levels of each may help maintain stable connections between stream components (both catchment and 115  instream) as well as natural spatial and temporal variability of such components required to maintain catchment health (Naiman, 1992). In the context of the Salmon River catchment this may include further expansion and/or enforcement of riparian buffers, which mitigate impacts to the stream environment (May et al., 1997). Another avenue regarding the use of buffers is the implementation of strategic buffer areas as suggested by Buttle (2002). This concept, which involves protecting regions based on their hydrological importance and not necessarily their proximity to the stream bank is particularly relevant in this context given the groundwater influence in the river and known contamination issues of the underlying aquifers.  116  LITERATURE CITED ADAMS, J. and VAUGHAN, M. 2003. Macroinvertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. ADDAH, J. 2003. The impact of agricultural land uses on water and sediment quality in the Agazzi/Harrison Hot Spring watershed, B.C. M.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. AFRI-MEHENNAOUI, F-Z., SAHLI, L., and MEHENNAOUI, S. 2004. Assessment of sediment trace metal level and biological quality of Rhumel river by using multivariate analysis. Environmetrics 15:435-446. AIKAWA, J. K. 1991. Magnesium p. 1025-1033. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. ALLAN, J. D. 1995a. Chapter 3, Physical factors of importance to the biota p. 45-82. In ALLAN, J. D. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, London. ALLAN. 1995b. Chapter 12, Organic matter in lotic ecosystems p. 276-281. In ALLAN, J. D. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, London. ALLAN. 1995c. Chapter 11, Lotic communities p.239-257. In ALLAN, J. D. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, London. ALLAN. 1995d. Chapter 13, Nutrient dynamics p. 283-303. In ALLAN, J. D. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, London. ANKLEY, G. T., DI TORO, D. M., HANSEN, D. J., and BERRY, W. J. 1996. Technical basis and proposal for deriving sediment quality criteria for metals. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry 15 (12): 2056-2066. ARNOLD, C. J. 1996. Impervious surface coverage. Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 243-259. ATTRILL, M. J. 2002. Community-Level Indicators of Stress in Aquatic Ecosystems p. 473506. In ADAMS, S. M. ed. Biological Indicators of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. BEALE, R. L. 1976. Analysis of the Effects of Land Use and Soils on the Water Quality of the Salmon River Watershed, Langley. M.Sc. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.  117  BENKE, A. C., WILLEKE, G. E., PARRISH, F. K., and STITES, D. L. 1981. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems. School of Biology: Environmental Resources Centre. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, Georgia. BERKA, C., SCHREIER, H., HALL, K. 2001. Linking water quality with agricultural intensification in a rural watershed. Water. Air and Soil Pollution 127: 389-401. BC MOE (British Columbia Ministry of the Environment). 2006. British Columbia's Coastal Environment: 2006. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/bcce/images/bcce report.pdf. BLACK, R. W. and MUNN, M.D. 2004. Using macroinvertebrates to identify biota-land cover optima at multiple scales in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23(2): 340-362. BORCHARDT, D. and STATZNER, B. 1990. Ecological impact of urban stormwater runoff studies in experimental flumes: population loss by drift and availability of refugia space. Aquatic Sciences 52 (4): 299-314. BC MOE (British Columbia Ministry of the Environment). 1996. Water Quality Status Report. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/public/bcwqsr/bcwqsrl.html. BC MOE (British Columbia Ministry of the Environment). 1996b. Developing Water Quality Objectives in British Columbia: A User's Guide. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/wq ob_user_guide/usersguide.html. BROWN, L. 2006. Livestock Watering Factsheet: Livestock Watering Requirements — Quantity and Quality. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL). Abbotsford, BC. CAO, Y., BARK, A. W., and WILLIAMS, W. P. 1996. Measuring the responses of macroinvertebrate communities to water pollution: a comparison of multivariate approaches, biotic and diversity indices. Hydrobiologia 341: 1-19. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2005. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Summary Table p. 1-9. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2004. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of Freshwaters p. 1-6. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2003. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Nitrate Ion p. 1-7. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 118  CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2001. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Introduction p. 1-3. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2000. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Ammonia p. 1-2. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Introduction p. 1-9. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999b. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Chromium p. 1-4. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999c. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Copper p. 1-4. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999d. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life — Zinc p. 1-5. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CCREM (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers). 1987. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. In CCME. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba. CHERRINGTON, J. A. 1992. The Fraser Valley a History. Harbour Publishing. Madeira Park, BC. CHOE, J. S., BANG, K. W., and LEE, J. H. 2002. Characterization of surface runoff in urban areas. Water Science and Technology 45(9): 249-254. CLEMENTS, W. H. 2004. Small-scale experiments support casual relationships between metal contamination and macroinvertebrate community responses. Ecological Applications 14(3): 954-967. CLEMENTS, W. H. 1999. Metal tolerance and predator-prey interactions in benthic macroinvertebrate stream communities. Ecological Applications 9(3): 1073-1084. CLEMENTS, W. H. 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13(1): 30-44.  119  CLEMENTS, W. H., CARLISLE, D. M., LAZORCHAK, J. M., and JOHNSON, P. C. 2000. Heavy metals structure benthic communities in Colorado mountain streams. Ecological Applications 10(2): 626-638. COLES, J. F. and CUFFNEY, T.F. 2004. The Effects of Urbanization on the Biological, Physical, and Chemical Characteristics of Coastal New England Streams, Professional Paper 1695. USGS, Reston, Virginia. COOK. K. E. 1994. An Evaluation of Water Quality and Land Use in the Salmon River watershed, Langley, BC, using GIS Techniques. M.Sc. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. CUSHING, C. E. and ALLAN, J. D. 2001. Feeding Roles and Food Webs p. 44-54. In CUSHING, C. E. and ALLAN, J. D. Streams: their ecology and life. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. DUDA, A. M., LENAT, D. R., and PENROSE, D. L. 1982. Water quality in urban streams — what we can expect. Journal WPCF 54(7): 1139-1147. EC (Environment Canada), 2007. Environment Canada — National Climate Archive. http://climate.weatheroffice.ec. gc.ca/. ELLIOT, Lea Christine. 2003. Quantifying the Effectiveness of Riparian Buffers in Three Lowland, Rural Watersheds in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, The University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC. ESRI, 2007. Online GIS Dictionary — rubber sheeting definition. http://support.esri.com/index.cfm?fa=knowledgebase.gisDictionary.search&searchTerm=r ubber%20sheeting. EVS Environmental Consultants. 1999. Environmental effects of stormwater discharges on small streams: Habitat and benthic assessment, Draft Report. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. FITZPATRICK, F. A, HARRIS, M. A., ARNOLD, T. L., and RICHARDS, K. D. 2004. Urbanization influences on aquatic communities in northeastern Illinois streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40: 461-475. FORE, L.S., KARR, J. R., and WISSEMAN, R. W. 1996. Assessing invertebrate response to human activities: Evaluating Alternative Approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2); 212-231. FREEMAN, P. L. and SCHORR, M. S. 2004. Influence of watershed urbanization on fine sediment and macroinvertebrate assemblage characteristics in Tennessee ridge and valley streams. Freshwater Ecology 19(3): 353-362.  120  FRIBERG, N, KRONVANG, B, HANSEN, H. 0., and SVENDSEN, L. M. 1998. Long-term, habitat specific response of a macroinvertebrate community to river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 87-99. GAGE, M. S., SPIVAK, A., and PARADISE, C. J. 2004. Effects of land use and disturbance on benthic insects in headwater streams draining small watersheds north of Charlotte, NC. Southwestern Naturalist 3(2): 345-358. GARCIA-CRIADO, F., TOME, A., VEGA, F. J., and ANTOLIN, C. 1999. Perfomance of some diversity and biotic indices in rivers affected by coal mining in northwestern Spain. Hydrobiologia 394: 209-217. GAUGLHOFER, J. and BIANCHI, V. 1991. Chromium p. 855-871. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. GOLDER and Associates Ltd. 2005. Comprehensive Groundwater Modelling Assignment: Final Report. Submitted to the Township of Langley, June 2005. GORE, J. A. 1979. Patterns of initial benthic recolonization of a reclaimed coal strip-mined river channel. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2429-2439. GORTZ, P.1998. Effects of stream restoration on the macroinvertebrate community in the River Esrom, Denmark. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:115-130. GRAPENTINE, L., ROCHFORT, Q., and MARSALEK, J. 2004. Benthic responses to wet weather discharges in urban streams in southern Ontario. Water Quality Resource Journal of Canada 39(4): 374-391. GRAY, L. 2004. Changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate communities resulting from urban stormflows in the Provo River, Utah, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 518:33-46. GUNDERSEN, P. and BASHKIN, V.N. 1992. Chapter 11, Nitrogen Cycling p. 255-277. In MOLDAN, B. and CERNY, J. eds.. Biogeochemistry of Small Catchments. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. HALL. K. J. 1975. Unpublished Macroinvertebrate Data for June 1975 from the Salmon River, Langley British Columbia. HATT, B. E., FLETCHER, T. D., WALSH, C. J., and TAYLOR, S. L. 2004. The influence of urban density of the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environmental Management 34(1): 112-124. HILSENHOFF, W. L. 1988. Rapid field bioassessment of organic pollution with a family level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:65-68. 121  HUEBERS, H. A. 1991. Iron p. 945-955. In MERIAN. E. (ed.). Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. KETTLER, T. A., DORAN, J. W., and GILBERT, T. L. 2001. Simplified Method for Soil Particle-Size Determination to Accompany Soil-Quality Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65:849-852. KLEINMAN, P. J. A., WOLF, A. M., SHARPLEY, A. N., BEEGLE, D. B., and SAPORITO, L. S. 2005. Survey of water extractable phosphorus in livestock manures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:701-708. KREBS, C. J. 1999. Species Diversity Measures, p. 410-454. In KREBS, C. J. Ecological Methodology, Second Edition. Benjamin/Cummins, Menlo Park, CA. JACKSON, D. A. 1993. Multivariate analysis of benthic invertebrate communities: the implication of choosing particular data standardizations, measures of association, and ordination methods. Hydrobiologia 268: 9-26. JAMES, F. C. and McCULLOCH, C. E. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora's box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 129-166. JENNINGS, D. B. and JARNAGIN, S. T. 2002. Changes in anthropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamflow discharge: a historical perspective in a mid-atlantic subwatershed. Landscape Ecology 17: 471-489. JONES, N. 1999 (January). The return of the coho. Langley Times. KARR, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource Management. Ecological Applications 1(1): 66-64. KARR, J. R. and CHU, E. W. 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423:1-14. LAASONEN, P., MUOTKA, T., and KIVIJARVI, I. 1998. Recovery of macroinvertebrate communities from stream habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 101-113. LANDRUM, P. F. and ROBBIN, J. A. 1990. Bioavailability of Sediment-Associated Contaminants to Benthic Invertebrates, p. 237-264. In BAUDO, R., GIESY, J., and MUNTAU, G. (Eds.). Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants. CRC Press. LARSON, M. G., BOOTH, D. B., and MORELY, S. A. 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecological Engineering 18: 211226. LEE, J. H. and BANG, K. W. 2000. Characterization of urban stormwater runoff. Water Resources 34 (6): 1773-1780. 122  LENAT, D. R. and CRAWFORD, J. K. 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia 294: 185-199. LUTTMERDING, H.A. 1980. RAB Bulletin 18, Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area, Report no. 15 British Columbia Soil Survey, Volume 1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Assessment and Planning Division. Kelowna, BC. MALTBY, L., FORROW, D. M., BOXALL, A. B. A., CALOW, P., BETTON, C. I. 1995. The effects of motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems: 2. Identifying major toxicants. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 14: 1093-1101. MANLY, B. F. J. 2002. Chapter 6, Principal Components Analysis, p. 75-90. In MANLY, B. F. J. Multivariate Statistical Methods, A Primer, Third Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. MARET, T. R., CAIN, D. J., MACCOY, D. E., and SHORT, T. M. 2003. Response of benthic invertebrate assemblages to metal exposure and bioaccumulation associated with hardrock mining in northwestern streams, U.S.A. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22(4): 598-620. MARQUES, M.J., MARTINEZ_CONDE, E., and ROVIRA, J. V. 2003. Effects of zinc and lead mining on the benthic macroinvertebrates of a fluvial ecosystem. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 148: 363-388. MARTIN, T. D., CREED, J. T., and LONG, S. E. 1991. Sample Preparation Procedure for Spectrochemical Determination of Total Recoverable Elements p. 15-24. In USEPA. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/clariton/c1html/pubtitleORD.html. MAY, C. W., HORNER, R. R., KARR, J. R., MAR, B. W and WELCH, E. B. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound ecoregion. Watershed Protections Techniques 2 (4): 483-494. MCBRIDE, M. B. and SPEARS, G. 2001. Trace element content of selected fertilizers and dairy manures as determined by ICP-MS. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32 (1&2)139-156. MCELRAVY, E. P., LAMBERTI, G. A., and RESH, V. H. 1989. Year-to-year variation in the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna of a northern California stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8(1): 51-63. McINTOSH, M. D., BENBOW, M. E., and BURKY, A. J. 2002. Effects of stream diversion on riffle macroinvertebrate communities in a Maui, Hawaii, Stream. River Research and Applications 18: 569-581. MCNURNEY, J. M., LARIMORE, R. W., and WETSEL, M. J. 1977. Distribution of lead in sediments and fauna of a small midwestern stream. Biological Implications of Metals in the Environment. EDRA Symposium Series 42. 123  MERRITT, R.W. and CUMMINS, K. W (Eds). 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Third Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, 10. MILNER, A. M. and OSWOOD, M. W. 2000. Urbanization gradients in stream of Anchorage, Alaska: a comparison of multivariate and multimetric approaches to classification. Hydrobiologia 422/433: 209-223. MORLEY, S.A. and KARR, J. R. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound Basin. Conservation Biology 16(6); 1498-1509. MORSE, C. C., HURYN, A. D., and CRONAN, C. 2003. Impervious surface area as a predictor of the effects of urbanization on stream insect communities in Maine, U.S.A. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 89: 95-127. MOUILLOT, D. and LEPRETRE, A. 1999. A comparison of species diversity estimators. Res. Popul. Ecol. 41: 203-215. MSC (Meteorological Service of Canada). 2005. El Nino. http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/elnino/index_e.cfm MUOTKA, T., PAAVOLA, R., HAAPALA, A., NOVIKMEC, M., LAASONEN, P. 2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105: 243-253. NAGPAL, N.K., LEVY, D. A., and MACDONALD, D. D. 2003. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Chloride — Overview Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Environmental and Resource Management Department. Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html. NAGPAL, N. K., POMMEN, L. W., and SWAIN, L. G. 2001. A Compendium of Working Water Quality Guidelines for British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Environmental and Resource Management Department. Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/working.html. NAIMAN, R.J., BEECHIE, T. J., BENDA, L. E., BERG, D. R., BISSON, P.A., MACDONALD, L. H., O'CONNOR, M. D., OLSON, P. L., and STEEL, E. A. 1992. Chapter 6, Fundamental Elements of an Ecologically Healthy Watershed in the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion p. 127-188. In Naiman, R. J. ed. Watershed Management, Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlay, New York. NICHOLSON, F. A., CHAMBERS, B. J., WILLIAMS, J. R., UNWIN, R. J. 1999. Heavy metal contents of livestock feeds and animal manures in England and Whales. Bioresource Technology 70: 23-31.  124  NIX, P. G., DAYKIN, M. M., and VILKAS, K. L. 1994. Fecal pollution events reconstructed and sources identified using a sediment bag grid. Water Environmental Resources 66: 81418. NORDIN, R. N. and POMMEN, L. W. 2001. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen (Nitrate, Nitrite, and Ammonia). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Environmental and Resource Management Department. http ://www. env. gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BC guidel ines/nitrogen/nitro gen. html NORRIS, R. H. and GEORGES, A. 1993. Analysis and Interpretation of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Surveys p.234-286. In ROSENBERG, D. M and RESH, V. H. eds. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York. NOVOTNY, V., BARTOSOVA, A., O'REILLY, N., and EHLINGER, T. 2005. Unlocking the relationship of biotic integrity of impaired waters to anthropogenic stresses. Water Research 39: 184-198. OHNSORGE, F. K. and WILHELM, M. 1991. Zinc p. 1309-1327. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. ON MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 1994 (July). Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario. http ://www. ene gov. on. ca/envi sion/gp/3303e .pdf ORC BC (Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia). 2007. 2007 BC Endangered Rivers list. http://www.orbc.ca/documents/endangered%2Orivers2Obkgrd%202007.pdf. PAUL, M. J. and MYERS, J. L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 32:333-365. PIERZYNSKI, G. M., SIMS, J. T., and VANCE, G. F. 1994. Soil Nitrogen and Environmental Quality, p. 55-102. In PIERZYNSKI, G. M., SIMS, J. T., and VANCE, G. F. Soils and Environmental Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. POULTON, B. C., RASMUSSEN, T. J., and LEE, C. J. 2007. Assessment of Biological Conditions at Selected Stream Sites in Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri, 2003 and 2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5108. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5108/ REICE, S. R. and WOHLENBERG, M. 1993. Monitoring Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Benthic Processes: Measures for Assessment of Ecosystem Health p. 287-301. In ROSENBERG, D. M and RESH, V. H. eds. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York.  125  RESH, V. H. and MCELRAVY, E. P. 1993. Contemporary Quantitative Approaches to Biomonitoring Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates p. 159-193. In ROSENBERG, D. M and RESH, V. H. eds. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York. REYNOLDSON, T. B., ROSENBERG, D. R., DAY, K. E., NORRIS, R. H., and RESH, V. H. 1997. The reference condition approach: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833-852. RICHARDSON. 1995. Unpublished Macroinvertebrate Data for September-October 1995 from the Salmon River, Langley British Columbia. RIEBERGER, K. 1992. Metal Concentrations in Bottom Sediments from Uncontaminated B.C. Lakes. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC. RIEMER, P.S. 1999. Environmental Effects of Manganese and Proposed Freshwater Guidelines to Protect Aquatic Life in British Columbia. M.Sc. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. http://www. env. gov.bc ca/wat/wq/B C guidelines/manganese/index.html. ROBSON, M., SPENCE, K., and BEECH, L. 2005. Stream quality in a small urbanized catchment. Science of the Total Environment 357(1-3): 194-207. ROSENBERG, D. M. and RESH, V. H. 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring abd Benthic Macroinvertebrates p.1-9. In ROSENBERG, D. M and RESH, V. H. eds. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York. ROY, A. H., ROSEMOND, A. D., PAUL, M. J., LEIGH, D. S., and WALLACE, J. B. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 48: 329-346. SANALONE, J. J. and CHRISTINA, C. M. 2004. First flush concepts for suspended sediment and dissolved solids in small impervious watersheds. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130 (11): 1301-1314. SCHEINBERG, H. 1991. Copper p. 893-905. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. SCHIELE, R. 1991. Manganese p. 1035-1043. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. SCHUELER, T. R., 1994. Is rooftop runoff really clean? Watershed Protection Techniques 1(2): 84-85. SINGLETON, H.J. 1987. Water Quality Criteria for Copper: Technical Appendix. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia. 126  SMITH, I. 2004. Cumulative Effects of Agricultural Intensification on Nutrient and Trace Metal Pollution in the Sumas River Watershed, Abbotsford, B.C. M.Sc., The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. SPSS, 2007. SPSS 15.0 for Windows. SPSS, Inc. www.spss.com . STATISTICS CANADA, 2005. The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada: Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin vol. 6 no. 1. Ottawa, Canada. STEWART, K. W. and STARK, B. P. 2002. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera), 2 nd Edition. Caddis Press, Columbus, OH. STONE, M. and DROPPO, I.G. 1994. In-channel surficial fine-grained sediment laminae. Part II: Chemical characteristics and implications for contaminant transport in fluvial systems. Hydrological Processes 8: 113-124. SUNDERMAN, F. W. and OSKARSSON, A. 1991. Nickel p. 1101-1111. In MERIAN. E. ed. Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment: Occurrence, analysis and biological relevance. VCH, New York. SYLVESTRE, S. (revisions) 2004. Invertebrate Biomonitoring Field and Laboratory Manual for running water habitats. Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network. Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region. THORNE, R. ST. J., WILLIAMS, W. P., and CAO, Y. 1999. The influence of data transformations on biological monitoring studies using macroinvertebrates. Water Resources 33(2): 343-350. THORP, H. H. and COVICH, A. P. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, London. TOWNSEND, C. R., HILDREW, A. G., and SCHOFIELD, K. 2002. Persistence of stream invertebrate communities in relation to environmental variability. The Journal of Animal Ecology 56(2): 597-613. USGS (United States Geological Service). 1998. Relation of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community to Basin Characteristics in New Jersey Streams. Fact Sheet FS-057-98. http://nj.usgs.gov/publications/FS/fs-057-98.pdf VOLEZ, N. J., ZUELLIG, R. E., SHIEH, S., and WARD, J. V. 2005. The effects of urban areas on benthic macroinvertebrates in two Colorado plains rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Management 101: 175-202. WARRINGTON, P. D. 2001. Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Environmental and Resource Management Department. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/microbiology/microbiology.html. 127  WIGGINS, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press, Toronto. WOODCOCK, T. S. and HURYN, A. D. 2005. Leaf litter processing and invertebrate assemblages along a pollution gradient in a Maine (USA) headwater stream. Environmental Pollution 134: 363-375. WSC (Water Survey of Canada). 2006. Water Survey of Canada - Archived Hydrometric Data. http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/index_e.cfm. WERNICK, B, G. 1996. Land Use and Water Quality Dynamics on the Urban-Rural Fringe: A GIS Evaluation of the Salmon River Watershed, Langley, B.C. M. Sc. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. WERNICK, B. G., COOK, K. E., and SCHREIER, H. 1998. Land Use and Streamwater NitrateN Dynamics in an Urban-Rural Fringe Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(3): 639-650. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION Hans Schreier  Professor Institute for Resources and the Environment The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia 2007  John Richardson  Professor Department of Forest Sciences The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia. 2006  128  APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Summary of Historical Sampling in the Salmon River Catchment Tables Table Al. Summary of water quality sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study. Table A2. Summary of sediment sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study. Table A3. Summary of macroinvertebrate sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study.  129  Table Al. Summary of water quality sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study. Water Quality Parameters a)L.^R ^0'^ 5^m vE^8^k 4.0^ O .0^-0 Study^Sample Sites Sample Dates =^xo.^ .81^ a)^IF: -o c  o g^o^iC.)^i-^u) co  Ei  15 ocassions 2 8 ocassions3  Beale (1976)^SAL 02-07,10, 11 Wernick (1996) SAL 02-12 Pappas (2007)^SAL 02, 06, 07,11  pmho/mS X X  X X  o R .e g '-'^ o. Elf *E^e 8 T' ',) 0 -pr^In ,-, E 2^E `±' i E.^ E < *0  g  2  .'  °C mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L mq/L mg/L #/100mL #/103mL X X^X^X X^X^X^X^X^X X  bWeekly4  X X X X X^X^X^X^X^X X SAL 09 was not sampled 2 04/06/74, 18/06/74, 03/07/74, 18/07/74, 31/07/74, 13/08/74, 27/08/74, 01/10/74, 28/10/74, 11/11/74, 28/11/74, 30/12/74, 30/01/75, 01/03/75, 31/03/75 3 2/03/94, 09/05/94, 29/06/94, 26/07/94, 24/08/94, 03/10/94, 24/11/94,01/02/95 1  1  Note: Measurements of pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen where taken as part of the macroinvertebrate sampling protocol for this study. Table A2. Summary of sediment sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study. Sediment Trace Metals Study^Al As B Ba Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Mo Ni Pb Se Sr Zn  Beale (1976)^X^ X X^X X X^X^X Cook (1994)^X^ X X X X X X^X X^X X Pappas (2007)^X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  Table A3. Summary of macroinvertebrate sampling in the Salmon River catchment, by study.  Sampling Sites Study^Sample Dates SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12  X^X^X^X^X^X X^ Hall (1975)^06/1975^ X^X^X^X^X Richardson (1995) 09/1995-10/1995^ Pappas (2007)^09/2005^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X  APPENDIX B: Land Activity Results Tables Table Bl. 2004 Land use by type in the Salmon River catchment, within a 30m buffer. Table B2. 2004 Land use by type in the Salmon River catchment, within a 100m buffer. Table B3. Summary of land use change in the Salmon River catchment based on general land use. Table B4. Land use type (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table B5. Land use type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table B6. Land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Figures Figure Bl. 2004 Land use in the Salmon River catchment, based on parcel division. Figure B2. 2004 Land use within 30 and 100m buffer widths in the Salmon River catchment, based on parcel division (SAL 08 as an example). Figure B3. Land cover within 30 and 100m buffer widths in the Salmon River catchment (1995 SAL 08 as an example).  132  1111  520 Parks and Playing Fields 530 Other Recreation  EU  610  Vacant/Unused  310  Commercial  III 200 Residential •^; 320 Industrial  330 civic/Institutional 400 Transportation 510 Golf Course 120 Other Livestock -  121 Dairy 122 Beef 123 Poultry 150 Other Agriculture 160 Vacant/Unused Agriculture 0^Unclassified 111 Grain and Forage Production  112 Vegetable Production 113 Fruit, Nut and Berry Production  Figure Bl. 2004 Land use in the Salmon River catchment, based on parcel division.  133  Legend Red (outer) line indicates 100m buffer width and orange (inner) line indicates 30m buffer width. Figure B2. 2004 Land use within 30 and 100m buffer widths in the Salmon River catchment, based on  parcel division (SAL 08 as an example).  134  SET  (oldwexa ue se 80 1VS 5664) luempleo JOAN UOWIeS^U! sillP!Aft -19101 C! W001- PUB OC uNiortJaA00 puei cs emBH -  Table B1. 2004 Land use type in the Salmon River catchment, within a 30m buffer. Land Use Category Grain and Forage Production Vegetable Production Fruit, Nut and Berry Production Vacant/Unused Agriculture Land Dairy Beef Poultry Other Livestock Other Agriculture Residential Civic/institutional Commerical Industrial Transportation Golf Courses Parks and Playing Fields Other Recreational Vacant/Unused Land Unclassified Contributing Area (km 2 )  2004 Land Use Code 111 112 113 160 121 122 123 120 150 200 330 310 320 400 510 520 530 610 0  30m Buffer 2004 Contributing Area Land Use (km`)  site SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12 11.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.34 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 2.95 0.00 0.00 5.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.32 0.00 71.43 4.92 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.07 0.00 7.05 0.00 43.19 8.71 13.78 49.41 7.09 23.84 0.00 22.57 0.00 20.98 43.18 13.72 3.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.80 25.08 0.64 0.00 8.25 8.10 0.00 3.17 0.00 14.75 15.88 0.00 113.44 44.48 50.05 32.72 33.33 29.23 37.83 72.90 27.98 52.26 31.26 79.36 113.44 44.48 50.05 32.72 33.33 28.75 36.54 72.90 27.98 52.26 31.26 79.36  Table B2. 2004 Land use by type in the Salmon River catchment, within a 100m buffer. Land Use Category Grain and Forage Production Vegetable Production Fruit, Nut and Berry Production Vacant/Unused Agriculture Land Dairy Beef Poultry Other Livestock Other Agriculture Residential Civic/institutional Commerical Industrial Transportation Golf Courses Parks and Playing Fields Other Recreational Vacant/Unused Land Unclassified Contributing Area (km 2 )  2004 Land Use Code 0 111 112 113 160 121 122 123 120 150 200 330 310 320 400 510 520 530 610  100m Buffer 2004 Contributing Area Land Use (km 2 ) site SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 12 5.58 15.04 0.54 0.35 5.47 5.27 7.53 3.82 15.41 11.12 22.17 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.41 0.00 53.65 0.00 0.00 8.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.05 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.97 13.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.62 16.62 0.00 93.31 0.00 0.00 13.67 0.00 6.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 -4.97 201.40 17.30 0.14 5.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 113.01 0.00 22.08 0.00 98.35 41.32 41.13 129.46 11.41 56.52 0.00 59.11 1.21 37.90 112.98 35.05 18.26 0.00 0.00 69.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.14 1.58 0.00 20.08 43.18 15.08 0.00 22.04 0.00 44.04 47.78 346.06 155.51 136.85 101.40 93.91 60.16 95.98 229.37 81.04 153.32 91.33 251.23  Table B3. Summary of land use change in the Salmon River catchment based on general land use.  Land Use Category Agriculture Residential Transportation Institutional/Commercial/Industrial Recreation No perceived use/vacant land  Study Beale (1976)^Wernick (1996) Pappas (2007) % area of the watershed 47.8 48.63 45.43 9.5 13.72 29.18 1.1 2.37 9.31 0.4 3.87 6.61 0.5 3.87 2.53 37.7 24.94 6.72  Table B4. Land use type (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient 0 0 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 111 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 113 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 160 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 121 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 122 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 120 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 150 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 200 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 330 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 400 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  ^  111  ^  113  ^  160  ^  121  ^  (p)  results (a = 0.1).  Land Use Code ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 122 120 150 200 330 400 510 610  1.000 . 12 -0.054 0.868 . 12  1.000  -0.371 0.235 12  0.393 0.207 12  1.000  0.064 0.843 12  -0.254 0.426 12  -0.254 0.426 . 12  0.131 0.685 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.172 0.593 . 12  1.000  -0.340 0.280 12  -0.254 0.426 12  -0.254 0.426 12  0.542 0.069 12  -0.172 0.593 12  1.000  0.100 0.758 12  -0.307 0.332 12  -0.307 0.332 12  0.273 0.391 12  -0.208 0.517 12  -0.033 0.919 . 12  1.000  0.108 0.738 12  0.123 0.702 12  0.221 0.490 12  0.137 0.671 12  -0.280 0.379 12  -0.147 0.649 12  0.675 0.016 . 12  0.200 0.534 12  -0.043 0.894 12  -0.145 0.652 12  -0.055 0.865 12  0.219 0.495 12  -0.354 0.259 12  -0.248^-0.480 0.437^0.114 . 12^12  0.306 0.334 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.172 0.593 12  -0.091 0.779 12  -0.172 0.593 12  -0.208^0.047^-0.131 0.517^0.886^0.684 . 12^12^12_  -0.218 0.495 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.134 0.677 12  -0.172 0.593 12  -0.091 0.779 12  -0.172 0.593 12  12  12 1.000 12  12  12  12 1.000 12 1.000 12 1.000  12 0.572^0.420^-0.437^-0.091 0.052^0.175^0.155^0.779 . 12^12^12^12  1.000 12  Table B4. continued. Land Use Code  510 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 610 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  0  111  113  160  121  122  120  150  200  330  400  -0.131 0.685 12  0.604 0.037 12  0.739 0.006 12  -0.172 0.593 12  -0.091 0.779 12  -0.172 0.593 12  -0.208 0.517 12  0.513 0.088 12  -0.219 0.495 12  -0.091 0.779 12  -0.091 0.779 12  1.000  -0.288 0.363 12  -0.134 0.678 12  -0.014 0.966 12  0.336 0.285 12  -0.044 0.891 12  0.505 0.094 12  -0.318 0.314 12  -0.615 0.033 12  -0.066 0.839 12  -0.356 0.257 12  -0.356 0.257 12  -0.356 0.257 12  510^610  12 1.000 12  Table B5. Land use type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient 0 111 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 113 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 160 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 121 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 122 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 120 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 150 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 200 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 330 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 400 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 510 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  ^  111  ^  -0.043 0.894 . 12  1.000  -0.145 0.653 12  0.393 0.207 . 12  113  ^  160  ^  121  ^  122  (p)  results (a = 0.1).  Land Use Code ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 120 150 200 330 400 510 520 610  12 1.000 12  0.064 0.843 12  -0.254 0.426 12  -0.254 0.426 . 12  1.000  0.038 0.908 12  -0.198 0.537 12  -0.198 0.537 12  -0.254 0.426 . 12  -0.483 0.111 12  -0.360 0.251 12  -0.360 0.251 12  0.471 0.122 12  0.312 0.323 12  -0.254 0.426 12  -0.254 0.426 12  0.482 0.113 12  -0.254 0.426 12  0.029 0.929 12  0.084 0.796 12  0.184 0.567 12  0.105 0.746 12  0.098 0.762 12  0.097 0.765 12  -0.145 0.653 12  0.532 0.075 12  -0.198 0.537 12  -0.198 0.537 12  12 1.000 12 0.168 0.602 . 12  1.000' 12 0.051 0.874 . 12  1.000  0.022 0.945 12  0.113 0.726 12  0.438 0.155 . 12  -0.110 0:733 12  -0.161 0.617 12  -0.616 0.033 12  0.073 0.821 12  0.289 0.362 12  -0.198 0.537 12  -0.030 0.926 12  0.212 0.509 12  12 1.000 12 -0.348 0.268 . 12  1.000 12  0.251^-0.312 0.432^0.324 . 12^12  1.000  12 -0.3333 -0.1983 -0.1983 -0.254 0.39256 0.26375 -0.254 0.29542 0.01075^-0.1983 1 0.28977 0.53659 0.53659 0.42564 0.20686 0.40748 0.42564 0.35121^0.97355 0.53659 . 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12^12^12 12 0.39304 -0.1343 -0.1343 0.40126 -0.1343 0.1461 0.40126 0.13585^-0.0437^-0.1343^-0.1343 0.20626 0.67736 0.67736 0.19608 0.67736 0.65051 0.19608 0.67377^0.8928 0.67736 0.67736 . 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12^12^12^12  1 12  Table B5. continued. Land Use Code  0 520 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N 610 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  111  113  160  121  122  -0.0437 -0.1343 -0.1343 -0.172 -0.1343 -0.2435 0.8928 0.67736 0.67736 0.59305 0.67736 0.44569 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.00356 0.99124 12  120  150  200  330  400  510  0.631 0.22642 0.39304 -0.1343 -0.1343 -0.0909 0.0279 0.47917 0.20626 0.67736 0.67736 0.77873 12 12 12 12 12 12  -0.2763 -0.0137 0.28031 -0.0629 0.25402 -0.0701 0.3846 0.96634 0.37752 0.84595 0.42563 0.82867 12 12 12 12 12 12  520^610 -  1 12  -0.675 -0.1281 -0.2545 -0.3748 0.31119 -0.3556 0.0159 0.69147 0.42481 0.22993 0.32484 0.25657 . 12 12 12 12 12 12  1 12  Table B6. Land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Forest Cover^Forest Cover Impervious Cover Impervious Cover (30m)^(100m)^(30m)^(100m) 1.000  Forest^Corr. Coef. Cover^a (2-tailed) . (30m)^N 12 Forest^Corr. Coef.^0.790 Cover^a (2-tailed)^0.002 .  1.000  (100m)^N^ 12 12 Impervious Corr. Coef.^ 0.517^ 0.706 1.000 Cover^a (2-tailed)^0.085^0.010 (30m)^N^ 12^12 12 Im pervious Corr. Coef.^ 0.294^ 0.601^0.720 Cover^a (2 tailed)^0.354^0.039^0.008 . -  -  -  -  1.000  -  (100m)^N^  12^12^12  12  143  APPENDIX C: Water Quality Results Tables Table Cl. Specific conductivity (µS/cm) results. Table C2. Chloride (mg/L) results. Table C3. Ammonium (mg/L) results. Table C4. Nitrate (mg/L) results. Table C5. Orthophoshate (mg/L) results. Table C6. Total coliform (#/100mL)results. Table C7. Fecal coliform (#/100mL) results. Table C8. Significant Mann-Whitney results for Cl", by site (a = 0.05). Table C9. SAL 02 dry season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C10. SAL 02 wet season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C 1 1. SAL 02 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C12. SAL 07 dry season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C13. SAL 07 wet season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C14. SAL 07 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table C15. SAL 10 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Figures Figure Cl. Boxplots of specific conductivity (tts/S) results, by site. Figure C2. Boxplots of nitrate (mg/L) results, by site. Figure C3. Boxplots of chloride (mg/L) results, by site. Figure C4. Boxplots of ammonium (mg/L) results, by site. Figure C5. Boxplots of orthophosphate (mg/L) results, by site. Figure C6. Boxplots of total coliforms (#/100mL) results, by site. Figure C7. Boxplots of fecal coliforms (#/100mL) results, by site. Figure C8. Specific conductivity (p.S/m) results, by date. Figure C9. Chloride (mg/L) results, by date. Figure C 10. Nitrate (mg/L) results, by date. Figure C11. Ammonium (mg/L) results, by date. Figure C12. Orthophosphate (mg/L) results, by date. Figure C13. Total Coliform (#/100mL) results, by date. Figure C14. Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) results, by date. 144  Figure C 15. Chloride (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C16. Chloride (mg/L) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C 17. Ammonium (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C 18 Ammonium (mg/L) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C19. Total Coliform (#/100mL) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C20. Total Coliform (#/100mL) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C21. Fecal Coliform^00mL) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Figure C22. Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site.  145  Table C1. Specific conductivity (pS/cm) results.  Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  13/12/04 121 140 118 89  Specific Conductivity (pS/cm) Sampling Dates 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 20/06/05 15/02/05 01/03/05 157 97 145 151 149 184 164 96 160 151 162 106 105 145 142 172 142 180 135 -  Table Cl. continued.  Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  Specific Conductivity (pS/cm) Sampling Dates 05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05 13/09/05 20/09/05 27/09/05 180 190 213 199 178 196 180 195 188 182 182 145 142 158 161 135 139 174 179 187 186 182 193 176 178 165 181 168  Table C1. continued.  Site ID SAL SAL SAL SAL  02 06 07 11  04/10/05 06/10/05 198 193 144 171 161 162 128  Specific Conductivity (pS/cm) Sample Dates 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 30/11/05 13/12/05 145 136 120 131 125 148 143 180 142 132 110 112 103 121 135 140 134 110 132 137 152 179 150 110 131 118 95 102 128  Table C2. Chloride (mg/L) results. Chloride CI' (mg/L) Sampling Dates  Site ID^13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 20/06/05 SAL 02^9.59^14.39^16.66^17.22^9.49^9.34^14.26^15.64^11.23^18.03^17.03 SAL 06^9.38 SAL 07^8.37^11.30^12.06^12.07^8.99^9.07^10.94^11.09^18.12^12.64^12.88 SAL 11^6.05  Table C2. continued. Chloride Cl' (mg/L) Sampling Dates  Site ID^05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 27/09/05 SAL 02^16.97^17.99^17.25^17.29^17.02^17.81^18.45^17.94^17.32^17.69^17.69 11.82^11.31^-^11.38^11.33^11.71^11.33 SAL 06^-^ SAL 07^11.47^11.43^11.47^11.56^11.54^11.24^11.05^11.21^11.11^-^11.20 SAL 11  Table C2. continued. Chloride CI' (mg/L) Sampling Dates  Site ID^04/10/05 06/10/05 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 30/11/05 13/12/05 SAL 02^23.44^17.83^16.27^15.47^13.77^14.05^13.79^17.31^16.51^21.39 SAL 06^14.02^11.20^13.70^13.75^11.83^10.46^10.49^13.28^-^14.21 SAL 07^13.45^11.55^14.19^13.47^10.98^12.23^12.42^15.16^15.68^19.02 SAL 11^ 10.23^-^13.40^11.20^10.26^9.90^11.22^14.47  Table C3. Ammonium (mg/L) results.  Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  Ammonium NH 4 + -N (mg/L) Sampling Dates 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 20/06/05 13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 0.476 0.166 0.093 0.072 0.236 0.192 0.096 0.121 0.101 0.075 0.084 0.130 0.391 0.147 0.107 0.144 0.394 0.180 0.081 0.162 0.097 0.080 0.035 0.078  Table C3. continued.  Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  Ammonium NH 4 + -N (mg/L) Sampling Dates 05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 27/09/05 0.086 0.096 0.086 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.147 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.060 0.052 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.057 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.114 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.062 0.055  Table C3. continued.  Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  04/10/05 <0.010 0.037 <0.010 -  06/10/05 0.082 0.075 0.065 0.050  Ammonium NH4 + -N (mg/L) Sampling Dates 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 30/11/05 13/12/05 0.329 0.282 0.121 0.182 <0.010 <0.010 <0.002 0.066 0.299 0.293 0.093 0.102 <0.010 <0.010 0.054 0.308 0.178 0.104 0.065 <0.010 <0.010 <0.002 0.017 0.397 0.218 0.124 <0.010 <0.010 0.056  Table C4. Nitrate (mg/L) results. Nitrate NO 3 "-N (mg/L) Sampling Dates 13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 20/06/05 Site ID^ SAL 02^2.75^2.55^2.86^2.34^1.59^1.33^2.52^2.88^4.18^2.86^2.97 SAL 06^3.29 SAL 07^2.93^2.78^3.86^4.00^2.25^1.93^3.81^4.13^2.32^4.63^5.05 SAL 11^2.03  Table C4. continued. Nitrate NO 3 "-N (mg/L) Sampling Dates Site ID^05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 27/09/05 SAL 02^3.03^2.93^3.12^2.87^2.73^2.91^3.01^3.08^3.04^3.35^3.35 2.92^2.78^2.97^2.98^2.92^3.07 SAL 06^ SAL 07^5.06^5.36^5.07^5.62^5.21^4.75^4.99^5.10^5.14^5.11^5.26 SAL 11  Table C4. continued. Nitrate NO3"-N (mg/L) Sampling Dates Site ID^04/10/05 06/10/05 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 30/11/05 13/12/05 SAL 02^2.40^3.13^2.83^3.01^2.07^2.42^2.06^2.13^2.13^2.80 SAL 06^2.26^5.48^2.14^3.01^1.76^2.34^2.30^2.08^-^2.69 SAL 07^4.20^3.82^3.18^3.28^2.38^2.83^3.25^3.45^3.54^3.91 SAL 11^ 0.06^2.92^2.05^2.24^1.55^1.08^-^1.67  Table C5. Orthophosphate (mg/L) results. Orthophosphate PO 4 .3 P (mg/L) Sampling Dates -  Site ID^13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 20/06/05 SAL 02^0.028^0.022^<0.009^0.020^0.021^0.021^0.029^<0.014^<0.017^<0.004^<0.004 SAL 06^<0.010 SAL 07^0.027^0.022^0.020^<0.008^<0.004 <0.0153^0.020^<0.016^0.022^<0.011^<0.009 SAL 11^0.040  Table C5. continued. Orthophosphate PO 4 3 P (mg/L) Sampling Dates -  -  Site ID^05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 27/09/05 SAL 02^<0.005^<0.004^<0.007^<0.006^<0.007^<0.018^<0.018^<0.014^<0.006^<0.008^<0.008 <0.004^<0.019^0.023^<0.006^<0.003^<0.007 SAL 06^ SAL 07^<0.005^<0.004^<0.008^<0.007^<0.007^<0.017^<0.017^<0.016^<0.008^<0.008^<0.008 SAL 11  Table C5. continued. Orthophosphate PO4 3 -P (mg/L) Sampling Dates  Site ID^04/10/05 06/10/05 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 30/11/05 13/12/05 SAL 02^<0.012^<0.015^0.067^0.091^0.090^0.101^<0.015^<0.015^<0.013^0.025 SAL 06^<0.007^<0.016^0.037^0.205^0.070^0.111^<0.014^<0.012^0.029 SAL 07^<0.007^<0.013^-^ -^-^ SAL 11^<0.013^0.260^0.383^0.136^<0.017^<0.016^0.033  Table C6. Total coliform (#1100mL) results. Total Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID^13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 07/06/05 SAL 02^540^380^730^1500^6800^7700^3200^85000^1500^640 750 SAL 06^220^ SAL 07^210^6300^4300^3800^2900^6900^1400^3000^3800^3000^930 SAL 11^1150^ 950  Table C6. continued. Total Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID^20/06/05 05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 SAL 02^5900^ 260^2000^370^2200^1220^2200^2300^2000^1400^1800 SAL 06 SAL 07^2500^2000^1300^800^1100^2040^2200^4000^2700^2600^4460 SAL 11^ .  -^  Table C6. continued. Total Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID^ 2 7 / 0 9 / 0 5 04/10/05 11/10/05 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 SAL 02^1800^4700^3570^8920^11460^17200^12600^1300^2100 -^SAL 06^-^ SAL 07^1600^3200^2000^13320^6200^17000^8500^1900^2100 -^15680^11600^8100^1500^3620 SAL 11^-^  -  Table C7. Fecal coliform (#/100mL) results. Fecal Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID SAL 02 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 11  07/06/05 13/12/04 15/02/05 01/03/05 15/03/05 29/03/05 12/04/05 26/04/05 10/05/05 24/05/05 06/06/05 53 49 72 9000 1000 39 19 20 700 91 57 75 49 183 80 86 48 1440 300 35 71 27 119 25 680 51  Table C7. continued. Fecal Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID^20/06/05 05/07/05 19/07/05 02/08/05 09/08/05 16/08/05 23/08/05 30/08/05 6/09/05/ 13/09/05 20/09/05 SAL 02^71^47^76^133^136^73^84^218^58^48^138 SAL 06 SAL 07^45^34^75^151^42^57^74^105^125^150^77 SAL 11^  Table C7. continued. Fecal Coliform (#/100m1) Sampling Dates Site ID^27/09/05 04/10/05 11/10/05 17/10/05 18/10/05 31/10/05 01/11/05 16/11/05 29/11/05 SAL 02^19^210^93^2300^1800^2700^1700^48^126 SAL 06^-^ -^ -^-^SAL 07^4^38^70^1070^700^3600^320^30^126 SAL 11^ -^ -^7700^2300^1500^58^91  240  n= 31^n=16^n=32^n=8  200  E u) 160  120  80 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11  Figure C1. Boxplots of specific conductivity (pS/cm) results, by site. 6  4  *  n=32^n=16^n=32^n=8 0 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11 Note: stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C2. Boxplots of nitrate (mg/L) results, by site.  153  24  ^  20  ^  16  ^  12  ^  Cf  E  8 n= 32^n=16^n=31  n=8  4 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11 Note: Stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C3. Boxplots of chloride (mg/L) results, by site. 0.5 n= 32^n=16^n=32  n=8  0.4  0.3 a)  is  0.2  0.1  0 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11 Note: Stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C4. Boxplots of ammonium (mg/L) results, by site.  154  0.4 n= 32  n=16^n=32  n=8  0.3  Tth 0.2  E  0 a. *  *  0.1  * A_  I  0  SAL 02  SAL 06^SAL 07  SAL 11  Note: Stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C5. Boxplots of orthophosphate (mg/L) results, by site. 20000 ^  *^  16000  *  n= 31^n=2^n=31  n=7  *  12000 is O O *  8000  4000  0 SAL 02  SAL 06  SAL 07^SAL 11  Note: Stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C6. Boxplots of total coliforms (#1100mL) results, by site. ^  155  • 10000  8000 *  J  6000  E  n= 30  0 0  n=2  n=31  4000  n=7  * * *  2000  * * *  * *  0 SAL 02  SAL 06  SAL 07  SAL 11  Note: Stars indicate outlier values.  Figure C7. Boxplots of fecal coliforms (#/100mL) results, by site. 250  200  E  150  U)  100  50  co 9 9 0 0 99 00 0009000 U C c C (!.) a) as co a) a) (0 as a 0_ co co^  g o  cno  kr, LO LO LC) LO LO 99 9 9 0 9 6) 6, 6_ 6_ > 0^0  LO LC) LO LO LO LO Lc) LO LO LO LO LO LC) 11)  )u-u-22<<2m  --  3  -  3  -  0000  0 0 0  3^Q< CO u uzzzo  -  Legend Black circles represent SAL 02, grey circles SAL 06, open grey circles SAL 11 and grey squares SAL 07. Figure C8. Specific conductivity (pS/cm) results, by date.  156  41,  O O  CJ1  O O O  Mar-05 Apr-05 Apr-05 May-05 May-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Sep-05 Oct-05  Oct-05 Oct-05  Mar-05 Apr-05 Apr-05 May-05 May-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 -  Nov-05 -  Mar-05 -  Feb-05 Mar-05 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  Dec-05  -  Nov-05 -  Nov-05  Feb-05 -  Feb-05 -  -  Jan-05 Feb-05 -  Jan-05 -  Dec-04 -  Dec-04 ^  O O O  Jan-05 -  O  Dec-04 Jan-05 -  O Dec-04 ^  O O  NO3--N mg/L O O  mg/L O^U1  ^  0.500 0.450 0.400 0.350 0.300 a) 0.250  E  0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000  t^t^t  to  U) to La U)  to  0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 ° o C 1 .o a) 03 13.) a5 LL 2^<^2 a a 0  11)  1.0 to  0 0  LL  LO  to  0 0 0^ C -3  to^Lo  in to to^to to in 0 0 0 0 0 0  a_ m  ^< <  )(1  0 0 0 zi z° 0(1)6  Legend Symbols as in Figure C8. Figure C11. Ammonium (mg/L) results, by date. 0.400 0.350 0.300 0.250 a) 0.200  E  or 0.150 a. 0.100 0.050 0.000  '17 '1' V' 1.0 to LainialaiaLouliniatolaia 0 0 0 0 0 9° .9 VUo 6 6 c c ^Q) ^al a a CO 03^7 7 o o CO 03 U- u_^< < 2 2 a^-)  „) z,  111 1.0 LC) 1.0^Ul 1.0^U)  9  .  < <^co  %-/  98 (3, 90 O OzzzO 9 8  Legend Symbols as in Figure C8. Figure C12. Orthophosphate (mg/L) results, by date.  158  ^  18000 16000 14000 12000 -J  E 10000 0 r. 8000 -  6000 4000 2000 0  T11111111^111111111  cr^1.0 u")^to^Ln^Lo Lc) to Lo Lo Lo^1.0 1.0^1.0^11^1.0 9 ° 9 a 9 9 ° 9 9 9 9 a ° a ° a 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ^>^> 9 9 ° 9 o^o^c _fa^" " s-^- - m o) a a °- 9-^M 7 7 7 ^a) a) a) a) a) as —)^u_ co a) a) _co _c° _,,. ^o o o a a -4. -.L. 2 2 -1^-3^< < (1) 000 zzz  Legend Symbols as in Figure C8. Figure C13. Total Coliform (#/100m1) results, by date.  4000 3500 3000 2500  E  g  2000 1500 1000 500 0 '7 '1' 47  LO^11)^  LO^LO 10^  Lf")^11) 1.0^1.0 14,^LO  a000cc^ l °I 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ° a 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 " " "^c c c^a) a) a, a. ti r > > > a) a) a) al ca a) a) m^9-^ca^3  0 0 0- u_ u_^-+ Q.  - )  0 0^0 0  o  2 2 -)^< < In woo zzz  Legend Symbols as in Figure C8. Figure C14. Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) results, by date.  159  ^  25.00  20.00  15.00  E  5  10.00  5.00  0.00 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12  Downstream  ^  site  Headwaters  Legend Open symbols represent wet season values and closed symbols represent dry season values. The box indicates the region of groundwater influence. Figure C15. Chloride (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site. 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 is) E 20.00 15.00  0 0  10.00  ^  o ^0  ^  ^  5.00 0.00 SAL 02  ^  ^Downstream  SAL 06  ^  SAL 07  SAL 11  Headwaters  Legend Open circles represent wet season medians and closed circles represent dry season median th th values. Bars represent 25 and 75 quartiles. Figure C16. Chloride (mg/L) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site.  160  Table C8. Significant Mann-Whitney results for Cl , by site (a = 0.05). -  Chloride CI" Site ID^(mg/L) < or >^In comparison to Probability  annual Headwaters^ Lower reach SAL 11^  SAL 02  ^  0.001 wet season ^ Headwaters Lower reach ^ ^ SAL 02 SAL 11 0.002  0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 a) E^0.1  z +, 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12  Downstream  ^  site Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C15. Figure C17. Ammonium (mg/L) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by site.  161  0.30 0.25 0.20 Zs')  0.15  E  •  z^0.10  0^O  0.05  0  0.00 -0.05 -0.10 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07^SAL 11 Downstream  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C16. Figure C18. Ammonium (mg/L) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment by  sample site. 9000 ^ 8000 7000 c, 6000 O  I  L  5000 4000  (.)  3000 0 4t 2000 1000 0 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12  site Downstream  ^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C15. Figure C19. Total Coliform (#/100mL) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by  site.  162  •  22000.00  17000.00  E  0 0  io 12000.00  .2 •  7000.00  13, 2000.00  -3000.00 SAL 02^SAL 06^SAL 07 Downstream  ^  ^  SAL 11  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C16. Figure C20. Total Coliforms (#/100mL) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site.  4000 3500 _1 3000 0  2 2500  E  `a 2000  O O 1500 co 4-  4t  1000 500 0 SAL01 SAL02 SAL03 SAL04 SAL05 SAL06 SAL07 SAL08 SAL09 SAL10 SAL11 SAL12 Downstream  ^  site^  Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C15. Figure C21. Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) spatial and seasonal trends of in the Salmon River catchment, by  site.  163  6000  _4 cf)  5000 4000 3000  E^2000  8  1000  •-  •  0 -1000 -2000 -3000 SAL 02  SAL 06  Downstream^  SAL 07  SAL 11 Headwaters  Legend Symbols and lines as in Figure C16. Figure C22. Fecal Coliforms (#/100mL) median spatial and seasonal trends in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Table C9. SAL 02 dry season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 24 hrs 48hrs 72hrs 96hrs Total Corr. Coef. 0.4622 0.4649 0.4594 0.6409 0.6243 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.1208 0.1094 0.0183 0.0226 0.1142 (#/100mL) N 13 13 13 13 13 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.5372 0.7881 0.8543 0.8185 0.8317 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.0476 0.0008 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 (#/100mL) N 14 14 14 14 0 Corr. Coef. -0.1560 0.2376 0.2321 -0.0413 0.8935 Nitrate a (2-tailed) 0.6108 0.4345 0.4455 0.8935 0.8935 (mg/L) N 13 13 13 13 13 Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  164  Table C10. SAL 02 wet season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 48hrs 24 hrs 72hrs 96hrs Total^Corr. Coef. -0.1695 0.0825 0.2888 0.2279 0.3942 Coliform^a (2-tailed) 0.5459 0.7700 0.2966 0.4139 0.1631 (#/100mL) N 15 15 15 15 14 Fecal^Corr. Coef. -0.0366 0.3351 0.3727 0.2182 0.5245 Coliform^a (2-tailed) 0.2221 0.1713 0.8980 0.4346 0.0542 (#/100mL) N^• 15 15 15 15 14 Corr. Coef. 0.0483 0.1813 0.1375 0.1165 0.1880 Nitrate^ a (2-tailed) 0.8642 0.518 0.625 0.6793 0.5198 (mg/L)^ N 15 15 15 15 14 Note: Significant correlations are in bold. Table C11. SAL 02 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 24 hrs 48hrs 72hrs 96hrs Total Corr. Coef. 0.2689 0.4444 0.5026 0.3902 0.4535 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.1665 0.0178 0.0064 0.0401 0.0175 (#/100mL) N 28 28 28 28 27 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.3755 0.6235 0.6894 0.6183 0.7186 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.0447 0.0003 <0.0001 0.0004 <0.0001 (#/100mL) N •^29 29 29 29 28 Corr. Coef. -0.2172 -0.2598 -0.4765 -0.3876 -0.3805 Nitrate a (2-tailed) 0.267 0.0104 0.1818 0.0416 0.0503 (mg/L) N 28 28 28 28 27 Note: Significant correlations are in bold. Table C12. SAL 07 dry season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 24 hrs 48hrs 72hrs 96hrs Corr. Coef. 0.5697 0.3012 0.0261 -0.1162 -0.1308 Total Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.0136 0.2245 0.9182 0.6460 0.6050 (#/100mL) N 18 18 18 18 18 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.3605 0.6480 0.5634 0.7390 0.5925 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.1084 0.0015 0.0047 0.0078 0.0001 (#/100mL) N 21 21 21 21 21 Corr. Coef. -0.4660 -0.8881 -0.8848 -0.7880 -0.6932 Nitrate (mg/L) a (2-tailed) 0.0217 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002 N 24 24 24 24 24 Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  165  Table C13. SAL 07 wet season total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 24 hrs 48hrs 72hrs 96hrs Corr. Coef. 0.4840 0.6718 0.6377 0.5983 0.6402 Total Coliform^• a (2-tailed) 0.0193 0.0004 0.0011 0.0026 0.0013 (#1100mL) N 23 23 23 23 23 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.3439 0.6826 0.5341 0.4718 0.5062 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.1080 0.0003 0.0087 0.0230 0.0162 (#/100mL) N 23 23 23 23 23 Corr. Coef. -0.5506 -0.6410 -0.8027 -0.8163 -0.8476 Nitrate (mg/L) a (2-tailed) 0.0079 0.0013 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 N 22 22 22 21 22 Note: Significant correlations are in bold. Table C14. SAL 07 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 72hrs 24 hrs 48hrs 96hrs Corr. Coef. 0.4912 0.2299 0.1483 0.4620 0.3624 Total. Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.0011 0.0024 0.0199 0.1481 0.3613 (#/100mL) N 41 41 41 41 41 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.3605 0.6552 0.5609 0.5468 0.6392 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.0162 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 (#/100mL) N 44 44 44 44 43 Corr. Coef. -0.4960 -0.7085 -0.7553 -0.7602 -0.7612 Nitrate (mg/L) a (2-tailed) 0.0005 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 N 46 46 46 46 45 Note: Significant correlations are in bold. Table C15. SAL 10 annual total coliform (#/100mL), fecal coliform (#/100mL), nitrate (mg/L) and precipitation (mm) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Precipitation (mm) prior to sampling same day 24 hrs 48hrs 72hrs 96hrs Corr. Coef. 0.1000 0.8000 0.8721 0.8000 0.9000 Total Coliform^•^• a (2-tailed) 0.8729 0.1041 0.0539 0.1041 0.0374 (#/100mL) N 5 5 5 5 5 Fecal Corr. Coef. 0.1000 0.8721 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000 Coliform a (2-tailed) 0.8729 0.1041 0.1041 0.0539 0.0374 (#/100mL) N 5 5 5 5 5 Corr. Coef. 0.4000 0.9747 1.0000 1.0000 0.9000 Nitrate (mg/L) a (2-tailed) 0.5046 0.0048 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0374 N 5 5 5 5 5 Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  166  APPENDIX D: Sediment Quality Results Tables Table Dl. QA/QC results for dry season sediment trace metal samples. Table D2. QA/QC results for wet season sediment trace metal samples. Table D3. QA/QC results for Priority PollutnT tm/CLP Lot No, D035-540 reference sediment trace metal sample. Table D4. Sediment trace metal dry season results. Table D5. Sediment trace metal wet season results. Table D6. Sediment trace metal mean annual results. Table D7. Trace metal dry season Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table D8. Trace metal wet season Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table D9. Trace metal annual Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table D10. Trace metal and % clay Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1).  167  Table Dl. QA/QC results for dry season sediment trace metal samples. Cu Fe Cr Al Ba Trace Metal mg/kg 09/06/2005 Salmon River 24.56 23.82 19439.60 10618.90 114.09 SAL 01 23.96 24.44 19349.70 10377.50 116.71 SAL 01 (duplicate) 24.26 24.13 19394.65 10498.20 115.40 mean 0.42 0.44 63.57 170.70 1.85 St.Dev. 1.83 1.60 1.74 0.33 1.63 CoV (%) Davidson Creek 27.69 22.73 19620.90 10710.30 93.62 SAL 03 9758.94 93.36 25.19 21.81 18447.30 SAL 03 (duplicate) 22.27 19034.10 10234.62 93.49 26..44 mean 1.77 0.64 St.Dev. 672.71 0.18 829.86 6.57 6.69 4.36 CoV (%) 0.20 2.90 Coghlan Creek 10656.70 96.08 25.31 24.06 16632.40. SAL 07 12854.10 125.37 28.63 32.71 21725.00 SAL 07 (duplicate) 11755.40 110.72 mean 26.97 28.39 19178.70 1553.80 20.71 2.34 6.12 3601.01 St.Dev. 13.22 18.70 8.68 CoV (%) 21.54 18.78  Mg  Mn  Ni  Sr  Zn  5463.18 5312.11 5387.65 106.82 1.98  890.47 905.08 897.78 10.33 1.15  905.06 923.60 914.33 13.12 1.43  30.00 30.45 30.23 0.32 1.06  104.63 105.56 105.10 0.66 0.63  5190.54 4697.75 4944.15 348.46 7.05  1108.98 1104.87 1106.93 2.91 0.26  752.02 732.06 742.04 14.11 1.90  31.94 31.24 31.59 0.49 1.55  79.28 75.83 77.55 2.44 3.15  4557.17 7888.42 6222.80 2355.55 37.85  496.79 600.87 548.83 73.59 13.41  684.91 828.79 756.85 101.74 13.44  28.32 35.13 31.73 4.82 15.18  73.52 91.24 82.38 12.53 15.21  Table D2. QA/QC results for wet season sediment trace metal samples. Trace Metal^Al 12/07/2005 Salmon River SAL 04^9479.25 SAL 04 (duplicate)^10442.38 mean^9960.82 St.Dev.^681.03 CoV (%)^ 6.84 Davidson Creek SAL 03^10901.24 SAL 03 (duplicate)^11298.78 mean^11100.01 St.Dev.^281.10 CoV (%)^ 2.53 Coghlan Creek SAL 07b^8915.04 SAL 07b (duplicate)^10463.43 mean^9689.23 St.Dev.^1094.88 CoV (%)^11.30 Salmon River Headwaters SAL 11^11178.52 SAL 11 (duplicate)^12254.77 mean^11716.65 St.Dev.^761.02 CoV (%)^ 6.50 SAL 12b^7800.02 SAL 12b (duplicate)^9498.32 mean^8649.17 St.Dev.^1200.88 CoV (%)^13.88  Cu  Fe mg/kg  Mg  Mn  Ni  Sr  Zn  Ba  Cr  109.67 105.22 107.45 3.15 2.93  21.63 24.15 22.89 1.78 7.77  22.71 18115.07 22.62 19637.70 22.66 18876.38 0.06 1076.66 0.27 5.70  4124.79 4764.50 4444.64 452.34 10.18  692.79 675.74 684.26 12.06 1.76  1084.36 1044.12 1064.24 28.45 2.67  30.20 29.03 29.62 0.82 2.78  93.25 94.61 93.93 0.96 1.02  102.06 94.04 98.05 5.67 5.78  28.39 29.35 28.87 0.68 2.36  24.41 20628.40 19.38 20913.61 21.89 20771.01 3.56 201.67 16.24 0.97  4380.59 4735.41 4558.00 250.89 5.50  455.84 434.49 445.16 15.09 3.39  781.17 730.60 755.88 35.76 4.73  26.04 24.26 25.15 1.26 5.02  68.08 67.23 67.65 0.60 0.88  103.77 120.01 111.89 11.48 10.26  24.59 27.00 25.79 1.70 6.59  23.60 15881.83 27.71 19488.69 25.65 17685.26 2.90 2550.43 11.31 14.42  3423.41 3847.87 3635.64 300.14 8.26  775.15 820.98 798.07 32.40 4.06  851.62 944.95 898.29 66.00 7.35  30.78 33.46 32.12 1.89 5.90  80.98 93.33 87.16 8.73 10.02  119.66 115.49 117.58 2.95 2.51 97.41 103.87 100.64 4.56 4.54  22.06 23.97 23.02 1.35 5.87 14.11 17.46 15.79 2.37 14.99  23.34 23.44 23.39 0.07 0.30 12.07 13.54 12.80 1.04 8.12  15175.31 15678.72 15427.01 355.96 2.31 9475.97 11658.53 10567.25 1543.30 14.60  4192.95 4864.65 4528.80 474.96 10.49 2135.51 2894.64 2515.07 536.79 21.34  716.22 646.70 681.46 49.16 7.21 254.25 253.23 253.74 0.73 0.29  890.87 818.55 854.71 51.14 5.98 995.16 996.18 995.67 0.72 0.07  33.37 30.78 32.07 1.83 5.69 21.67 21.84 21.75 0.12 0.56  83.06 88.41 85.74 3.78 4.41 70.04 86.20 78.12 11.43 14.62  Table D2. continued. Trace Metal  Al  12/07/2005 Salmon River 12151.10 SAL 06a 11276.76 SAL 06b 10833.50 SAL 06c 11420.45 mean 670.45 St.Dev. CoV (%) 5.87 Coghlan Creek 8477.78 SAL 07a 9689.23 SAL 07b 10235.24 SAL 07c mean 9467.42 899.48 St.Dev. 9.50 CoV (%) Salmon River Headwaters 10494.82 SAL 12a SAL 12b 8649.17 10039.55 SAL 12c mean 9727.85 St.Dev. 961.50 CoV (%) 9.88  Fe mg/kg  Mg  Mn  Ni  Sr  Zn  Cr  Cu  122.57 117.29 117.25 119.04 3.06 2.57  27.33 25.79 24.87 26.00 1.24 4.78  34.16 21906.61 29.88 20013.56 28.08 18598.14 30.70 20172.77 3.13 1659.97 10.18 8.23  8214.66 7465.38 6456.97 7379.00 882.02 11.95  586.14 586.48 627.25 599.96 23.64 3.94  33.46 29.56 26.45 29.82 3.51 11.77  34.78 34.16 32.44 33.79 1.21 3.58  84.27 82.76 84.93 83.99 1.11 1.32  94.18 111.89 110.21 105.43 9.77 9.27  22.64 25.79 26.70 25.04 2.13 8.51  21.21 25.65 25.98 24.28 2.66 10.97  14110.87 17685.26 18697.51 16831.21 2409.64 14.32  3506.98 3635.64 3955.14 3699.25 230.75 6.24  596.98 798.07 744.75 713.26 104.18 14.61  16.69 18.75 20.76 18.73 2.04 10.87  29.93 32.12 30.78 30.94 1.10 3.57  75.12 87.16 90.04 84.10 7.92 9.41  116.48 100.64 113.68 110.26 8.45 7.66  18.32 15.79 16.92 17.01 1.27 7.46  15.52 12.80 15.11 14.48 1.47 10.12  13051.95 10567.25 14675.28 12764.83 2069.01 16.21  2758.40 2515.07 2492.35 2588.61 147.48 5.70  658.43 253.74 556.54 489.57 210.49 43.00  11.71 11.51 11.17 11.47 0.27 2.38  27.05 21.75 21.54 23.45 3.12 13.31  91.44 78.12 83.02 84.20 6.74 8.00  Ba  Table D3. QA/QC results for Priority PollutnT tm/CLP Lot No, D035-540 reference sediment trace metal sample. Trace Metal  Al As B Ba Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni  Pb Se Sr Zn  Certified Value  6340 192 131 417 3370 125 56.8 113 93.9 11600 1890 2000 320 62.9 241 174 160 97 178 246  Acceptable Range  2760-9920 152-232 98.6-164 332-502 2550-4190 101-149 45-68.7 103-163 74.4-113 5500-17700 1200-2580 1410-2590 242-398 47.6-78.1 122-360 136-211 124-196 69.6-124 132-224 189-303  Standard a mg/kg  2270.82 175.13 131.95 381.58 3035.22 127.57 54.15 117.07 87.82 4328.03 883.41 1011.85 264.88 57.70 408.68 172.03 319.39 86.36 151.19 227.92  Standard b  Standard c  2470.83 168.24 125.55 361.58 3078.26 121.29 52.38 114.88 85.19 4857.44 945.91 1114.94 270.60 53.33 396.35 166.10 305.45 84.94 145.42 221.24  3569.25 168.21 128.26 370.69 2978.45 121.70 52.45 119.82 87.02 7235.02 1400.39 1513.61 278.13 57.07 404.56 166.65 305.53 89.55 148.74 228.16  Mean  2770.30 170.53 128.59 371.28 3030.64 123.52 52.99 117.26 86.68 5473.50 1076.57 1213.47 271.20 56.03 403.20 168.26 310.13 86.95 148.45 225.77  Table D4. Sediment trace metal dry season results. site ID trace metal Al Ba Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Sr Zn  SAL 01  SAL 02  SAL 03  SAL 04  SAL 05  10498.20 11526.80 10234.62 11702.60 11791.70 108.75 101.82 115.33 93.49 115.40 25.79 25.79 23.12 26.44 24.26 24.46 32.44 26.71 22.27 24.13 19394.65 18069.50 19034.10 19660.90 18360.80 5387.65 5343.16 4944.15 5558.50 4977.03 688.65 1106.93 494.17 697.02 897.78 23.11 37.77 28.09 24.17 24.29 29.25 25.17 29.71 31.59 30.23 105.10 84.88 77.55 95.67 84.34  SAL 08 SAL 06^SAL 07 mg/kg 15743.40^11755.40 13140.20 141.55 133.71^110.72 28.60 36.12^26.97 29.50 39.57^28.39 26761.20^19178.70 24782.90 9732.56^6222.80 4586.66 668.41^548.83 1502.47 47.56^27.67 27.53 38.61^31.73 42.95 103.25^82.38 152.48  SAL 09  SAL 10  SAL 11  SAL 12  10980.10 12868.00 11936.20 116.30 114.48 113.10 21.60 26.83 20.36 21.45 28.19 18.87 14325.80 19531.40 17016.70 4395.02 5694.12 3313.91 488.17 524.99 572.42 20.78 16.51 31.22 28.49 26.88 21.43 77.18 103.48 106.06  Table D5. Sediment trace metal wet season results. site ID trace metal Al Ba Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Sr Zn  SAL 01  SAL 02  SAL 03  SAL 04  SAL 05  9913.17 15302.32 11100.01 9960.82 9702.69 115.67 147.04 107.45 105.38 98.05 35.61 24.69 28.87 22.89 22.97 26.83 29.97 21.89 22.66 22.37 17306.48 26585.34 20771.01 18876.38 15940.53 4730.70 7184.70 4558.00 4444.64 4068.84 510.36 1930.14 445.16 684.26 751.70 29.18 22.82 21.64 18.85 18.14 39.07 30.08 25.15 29.62 29.66 107.13 130.55 67.65 93.93 73.28  SAL 06 SAL 08 SAL 10 SAL 11 SAL 07 SAL 09 SAL 12 mg/kg 11420.45 9467.42 12436.08 12869.25 8914.24 11716.65 9727.85 119.04 105.43 138.83 148.69 103.24 117.58 110.26 26.00 25.04 28.68 25.91 18.61 23.02 17.01 30.70 24.28 31.71 20.10 23.83 23.39 14.48 20172.77 16831.21 21816.51 16247.34 13393.77 15427.01 12764.83 7379.00 3699.25 3939.85 3728.44 3167.85 4528.80 2588.61 599.96 713.26 1400.85 843.07 667.76 681.46 489.57 29.82 18.73 21.13 15.45 18.04 19.79 11.47 33.79 30.94 39.00 38.12 26.53 32.07 23.45 83.99 84.10 146.01 183.50 65.18 85.74 84.20  Table D6. Sediment trace metal mean annual results. site trace metal Al Ba Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn Ni Sr Zn  SAL 01  SAL 02  SAL 03  SAL 04  SAL 05  10205.68 13414.56 10667.32 10831.71 10747.20 107.06 131.18 95.77 104.63 115.54 24.34 29.36 27.66 24.38 24.48 25.48 28.34 22.08 23.56 27.41 18350.57 22327.42 19902.55 19268.64 17150.66 5059.17 6263.93 4751.07 5001.57 4522.93 776.04 589.22 724.36 704.07 1309.39 23.11 23.49 26.14 22.96 28.31 27.42 34.39 28.37 29.43 30.16 94.80 78.81 106.11 107.72 72.60  SAL 06^SAL 07 SAL 08 mq/kg 13581.93^10611.41 12788.14 140.19 126.37^108.07 28.64 31.06^26.01 30.60 35.14^26.34 23466.98^18004.96 23299.71 8555.78^4961.02 4263.25 634.18^631.04 1451.66 38.69^23.20 24.33 40.98 36.20^31.34 149.25 93.62^83.24  SAL 09  SAL 10  SAL 11  SAL 12  9947.17 12292.32 10832.02 109.77 116.03 111.68 20.11 24.92 18.68 20.78 25.79 16.68 13859.78 17479.21 14890.76 3781.43 5111.46 2951.26 577.96 603.23 530.99 18.12 25.51 13.99 27.51 29.48 22.44 71.18 94.61 95.13  Table D7. Trace metal dry season Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Trace metal Mg^Mn^Ni^Sr^Zn Cu Fe Ba Cr Al Al  Ba  Cr  Cu  Fe  Mg  Mn  Ni  Sr  Zn  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  1.000 11 0.409 1.000 0.212 11 11 0.518 0.164 0.102 0.631 11 11 1 0.245 0.035 0.467 11 11 0.509 0.245 0.110 0.467 11 11 0.245 -0.027 0.467 0.937 11 11 -0.036 0.109 0.915 0.750 11 11 0.482 -0.118 0.133 0.729 11 11 0.091 0.382 0.790 0.247 11 11 0.564 0.427 0.071 0.190 11 11  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  1.000 11 1 0.755 11 0.845 0.001 11 0.627 0.039 11 0.236 0.484 11 0.773 0.005 11 0.727 0.011 11 0.136 0.689 11  1.000 11 0.627 0.039 11 0.600 0.051 11 0.245 0.467 11 0.745 0.008 11 0.436 0.180 11 0.127 0.709 11  1.000 11 0.636^1.000 0.035. 11 11 0.209 -0.20 1.000 0.537 0.555 . 11 11 11 0.791 0.773^-0.100 1.000 0.004 0.005^0.770 11 11^11 11 0.618 0.364^0.455^0.282 1.000 0.043 0.272^0.160^0.401 11^11^11 11 11 0.473 -0.027^0.309^0.045^0.064 1.000 0.142 0.937^0.355^0.894^0.853 . 11 11^11^11^11 11  ^ ^  Table D8. Trace metal wet season Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Trace metal  Al  Al  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Ba  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  N  N  Cr  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Cu  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Fe  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Mg  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  N  N  N  N  Mn  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Ba  Cr  Fe  Cu  Mg^Mn^Ni^Sr^Zn  1.000 11 0.764 0.006 11 0.673 0.023 11 1 0.035 11 0.718 0.013 11 0.627 0.039 11  0.282 0.401 11  1.000 11 0.400 0.223 11 0.773 0.005 11  0.445 0.170 11 0.427 0.190 11 0.427 0.190 11  1.000 11 1.000  0.682 0.021 11 0.882 0.000 11 0.645 0.032 11  0.700 0.016 11 0.564 0.071 11  0.273 0.417 11  0.500 0.117 11  11 1.000 11 0.645 0.032 11  1.000'  11 0.355 -0.018 0.285 0.958 11 11  1.000  N 11 Corr. Coef. 0.727 0.564 0.809 0.755 0.800 0.927^0.045 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.011 0.071 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.894 ^0.000^ N 11 11 11 11 11 ^11 11 ^11 Sr Corr. Coef. 0.664 0.809 0.645 0.918 0.591 ^0.509^ 0.682^0.645 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.026 0.003 0.032 0.000 0.056 ^0.110^ 0.021^0.032 N ^11 11 11 ^11^11 11 11 11 11 Zn Corr. Coef. 0.636 0.800 0.300 0.636 0.455 0.218^0.464^0.373^0.591 a (2-tailed) 0.035 0.003 0.370 0.035 0.160 ^0.519^0.151^0.259^ 0.056 N 11 11 ^11 11 11 11 ^11^11^11  Ni  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  1.000 11  Table D9. Trace metal annual Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Trace metal Fe Mg^Mn^Ni^Sr Ba Cr Cu Al 1.000 Corr. Coef. Al a (2-tailed) N 11 Corr. Coef. 0.636 1.000 Ba a (2-tailed) 0.035 N 11 11 Cr Corr. Coef. 0.582 0.500 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.060 0.117 N 11 11 11 Corr. Coef. Cu 1 0.591 0.800 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.039 0.056 0.003 N 11 11 11 11 Fe Corr. Coef. 0.618 0.409 0.864 0.682 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.043 0.212 0.001 0.021 11 N 11 11 11 11 Mg Corr. Coef. 0.445 0.318 0..636 0.555 0.582 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.170 0.340 0.035 0.077 0.060 N 11 11 11 11 11 11 Mn Corr. Coef. 0.300 0.318 0.736 0.655 0.673 0.255 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.370 0.340 0.010 0.029 0.023 0.450 N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Ni Corr. Coef. 0.636 0.427 0.600 0.682 0.718 0.836^0.273 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.035 0.190 0.051 0.021 0.013 0.001^0.417 N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11^11 Sr Corr. Coef. 0.500 0.682 0.836 0.791 0.809 0.591^0.564^0.718 1 .00 0 a (2-tailed) 0.117 0.021 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.056^0.071^0.013 N 11 11 11 11 11 11^11^11 11 Zn Corr. Coef. 0.527 0.682 0.236 0.327 0.436 0.209^0.318^0.418^0.509 1.000 a (2-tailed) 0.096 0.021 0.484 0.326 0.180 0.537^0.340^0.201^0.110 . N 11 11 11 11 11 11^11^11^11 11 -  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Table D10.Trace metal and % clay Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Sediment Trace Metal dry season wet season 2005 mean % clay Element 0.291 0.355 -0.245 Al Corr. Coef. 0.385 0.285 0.467 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N 0.027 -0.155 0.582 Ba Corr. Coef. 0.650 0.060 . 0.937 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.209 -0.536 -0.064 Cr Corr. Coef. 0.089 0.537 0.853 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.509 0.109 -0.218 Cu Corr. Coef. 0.110 0.750 0.519 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.555 -0.018 0.200 Fe Corr. Coef. 0.077 0.958 0.555 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.300 0.200 0.245 Mg Corr. Coef. 0.370 0.555 0.467 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N 0.064 -0.209 -0.055 Mn Corr. Coef. 0.537 0.853 0.873 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.427 0.109 0.173 Ni Corr. Coef. 0.190 0.750 0.612 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.409 0.127 -0.145 Corr. Coef. Sr 0.212 0.709 0.670 a (2-tailed) 11 11 11 N -0.255 0.564 0.500 Zn Corr. Coef. 0.450 0.071 0.117 a (2-tailed) 11 11 12 N  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  177  APPENDIX E: Macroinvertebrate Results Tables Table El. 2005 macroinvertebrate sample site descriptions. Table E2. 2005 macroinvertebrate sampling water quality conditions. Table E3. Relative variability of 2005 replicate macroinvertebrate samples in the Salmon River, by site. Table E4. Identification and enumeration of 2005 macroinvertebrate taxa in the Salmon River, by site. Table E5. Macroinvertebrate taxa characteristics. Table E6. 1995 and 2005 rarefaction results in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Table E7. 1995 and 2005 EPT rarefaction results in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Table E8. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis correlation matrix. Table E9. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis eigen value results. Table E10. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis eigen vector results. Table Ell. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis principal components.  178  Table El. 2005 macroinvertebrate sample site descriptions.  Site ID  Canopy Longitude^Elevation Coverage m %  Latitude  Average Water Depth m  Mean Thalweg Bankfull Width Velocity m m/s  SAL 01 SAL 02 SAL 04 SAL 05  49°09'45.3" 49°09'13.1" 49°08'00.5" 49°07'15.9"  122°35'46.8" 122°33'55.1" 122°35'47.1" 122°34'05.4"  8 11 12 39  1-25 51-75 1-25 26-50  0.2920 0.1300 0.1880 0.1280  0.1157 0.2158 0.2143 0.4865  18.50 3.00 9.40 9.88  SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10  49°07'17.8" 49°07'27.2" 49°07'07.1" 49°06'0.63" 49°05'06.6"  122°34'02.9" 122°3211.6" 122°31'37.6" 122°32'52.2" 122°32'11.6"  11 89 44 73 62  26-50 51-75 76-100 1-25 51-75  0.1460 0.0510 0.0660 0.0710 0.0460  0.4707 0.3383 0.1172 0.5064 0.1665  7.67 5.47 4.60 5.50 7.23  Table E2. 2005 macroinvertebrate sampling water quality conditions. Air Specific Dissolved Water Oxygen Site ID Temperature Temperature Conductivity °C  SAL 01 SAL 03 SAL 04 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10  .  °C  17.6 15.6 17.3 17.3 14 17.3 17.5  p.S/cm  10.8 9.7 12.6 13 12.2 12.4 10.4 13.23 13.9  147.9 148.17 147.23 123.67 144.53 121.77 121.3 109 107.4  mg/L  10.28 11.4 10.22 10.85 10.71 10.06 11.28 10.4 9.28  Dissolved Oxygen % sat.  93.37 101.15 97.15 103.14 101.81 93.49 99.91 101.15 90.18  Wetted^dominant Width^substrate m  14.70^sand 2.30^sand 6.73^sand 7.80^gravel 5.03 gravel/cobble 2.97 gravel/cobble 3.03 gravel/cobble 2.76 gravel/cobble 5.18 gravel/cobble  Table E3. Relative variability of 2005 replicate macroinvertebrate samples in the Salmon River, by site. SAL 11 SAL 06 SAL 07^SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 01 SAL 03 SAL 05 site ID # individuals/m 2 6370 5360 4270 6430 31730 8200 780 950 2240 replicate a 7870 10950 12850 1170 490 4350 5460 24900 10590 replicate b 1460 480 9100 10100 10560 17730 4660 8800 8970 replicate c 1136.67 640.00 5230.00 7310.00 7930.00 10983.33 7980.00 21810.00 9253.33 mean 341.22 268.51 3513.64 2458.68 2600.52 6730.06 4309.40 11773.16 1219.93 st. dev. 0.3002 0.4196 0.6718 0.5398 0.1318 CV (%) 0.3363 0.3279 0.6128 0.5400  Table E4. 2005 identification and enumeration of macroinvertebrate taxa in the Salmon River, by site. Taxonomic Identification Genus ORDER^Family COLEOPTERA^Elimidae Heterlimnius Lara Narpus Zaitzevia Elimidae - juv./dam. COLEOPTERA - adult DIPTERA^Ceratopogoniidae Chironomidae  Site ID SAL 07 0.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 116.67  SAL 08 0.00  SAL 09 0.00  530.00 0.00 0.00 353.33  SAL 10 0.00 63.33 0.00 0.00 150.00  183.33  160.00  263.33  750.00 3.33 0.00 83.33 213.33  46.67  33.33  116.67  3.33  23.33  16.67 40.00 113.33 503.33  30.00 70.00 890.00 506.67  36.67 10.00 63.33 186.67  10.00 3.33 46.67 110.00  66.67 6.67 223.33 1070.00 0.00 80:00 250.00  103.33  0.00 0.00 10.00  0.00 33.33 40.00  0.00 23.33 16.67  0.00 13.33 113.33  0.00 13.33 213.33  0.00  0.00  13.33 36.67  0.00 23.33  3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67  6.67 3.33 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33  10.00 0.00 0.00  20.00  13.33  3.33 0.00 0.00 10.00  3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  3.33  0.00  0.00  Oreogeton  0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00  3.33  0.00  Ptychoptera  0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00  0.00 16.67  0.00 283.33 313.33 113.33 33.33 0.00 123.33 0.00 26.67  93.33 0.00 100.00 56.67 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 3.33 26.67 56.67 13.33 6.67 0.00 26.67 3.33  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 6.67  0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.33 0.00  0.00 10.00 23.33 10.00 0.00 0.00 63.33 3.33  203.33  13.33  0.00  166.67  Dixa Meringodixa  Empididae Chelifera Clinocera  Prosimulium Simulium  Simuliidae - juv./dam. Simuliidae - pupae Stratyomidae Tipulidae Antocha Dicranota Hesperoconopa Hexatoma  00  6.67  116.67 0.00 6.67 50.00 370.00  SAL 06 0.00 46.67 0.00 6.67 90.00  0.00 16.67 76.67 66.67  Chironominae-Chironomini Chironominae-Tanytarsini Orthocladiinae  Chironomidae pupae Chironomidae - dam./juv.  Simuliidae  SAL 05 0.00  0.00 0.00 326.67 316.67 6.67  Podonominae  Psychodidae Ptychopteridae  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33  SAL 03 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67  53.33 6.67 0.00 30.00 146.67  Tanypodiinae  Dixidae  SAL 01 0.00  0.00 43.33 70.00 53.33 0.00 0.00 86.67 3.33 146.67  0.00 0.00  Table E4 continued. ORDER  DIPTERA - juv./dam. DIPTERA - pupae EPHEMEROPTERA  Taxonom is Identification Family^Genus Rhabdomastix Tipula  ODONA TA PLECOPTERA  SAL 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 3.33 0.00 1076.67 10.00  SAL 08 0.00 3.33 86.67  SAL 09 0.00 0.00 83.33  SAL 10 0.00 0.00  3.33  Site ID SAL 07 0.00 3.33 3.33  3.33 0.00 13.33 836.67 0.00  0.00 0.00 3.33 1343.33 0.00  13.33 3.33 93.33 920.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 156.67 0.00  SAL 06 3.33 0.00  33.33  0.00  A me letidae^Ameletus Baetidae^Baetis Procloeon  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  Baetidae - juv./dam.  0.00  3.33 3.33 0.00 66.67 3.33 13.33  1283.33  1010.00  696.67  273.33  306.67  0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1450.00  Ephemrellidae Ephemerella Ephemrellidae juv./dam.  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 3.33  0.00 0.00 16.67  0.00 0.00 36.67  0.00 0.00 120.00  3.33 0.00 170.00  0.00 0.00 150.00  0.00 0.00 710.00  Heptageniidae^Cinygma Cinygmula Epeorus Ironodes Rithrogena  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00 10.00 0.00 3.33 1103.33  0.00 3.33 0.00 3.33 476.67  40.00  26.67 0.00 0.00 26.67  76.67 13.33 0.00 3.33 0.00  10.00 20.00 0.00 160.00 1350.00  Heptageniidae - juv./dam.  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  23.33 83.33 6.67 0.00 10.00  666.67 356.67 83.33 40.00 56.67  Sialidae Sialidae^Sialis Cordulegastridae^Cordulegaster Capniidae A llocapnia Isocapnia  00  SAL 03 0.00 0.00 0.00  Tipulidae - juv./dam.  Leptophlebiidae^Paraleptophlebia Paraleptophlebia - juv./dam. Leptophlebiidae - juv./dam EPHEMEROPTERA - juv./dam. Saldidae HEMIPTERA HOMOPTERA HYMENOPTERA MEGLAOPTERA  SAL 01 0.00 0.00  16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  243.33 270.00 176.67 30.00 140.00 0.00  23.33 0.00 36.67 53.33 2816.67  2480.00  1100.00  1886.67 463.33 0.00 136.67  680.00 83.33 206.67 63.33  4083.33 2646.67 0.00 53.33  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00  Table E4. continued. ORDER  Taxonom ic Identification Family^Genus Paracapnia Capniidae - juv./dam. Chloroperlidae^Kathroperla Suw allia Sw eltza Chloroperlidae - other  Chloroperlidae - juv./dam. Leuctridae^Despaxia Megaleuctra Moselia Perlomyla Leuctridae - juv./dam. Nemouridae^Malenka Soyedina Visoka Zapada Nemouridae - juv. no gills Nemouridae - juv./dam. Perlodidae^Diploperla Isoperla Skw ala Perlodidae - juv./dam. Perlidae^Calineuria Doroneuria Perlidae - juv./dam. PLECOPTERA - juv./dam. Brachycentridae^Micrasema TRICHOPTERA Calamoceratidae^Heteroplectron Glossosomatidae^Glossosoma Glossosomatidae - juv./dam. Hydroptilidae^Oxyethira Hydropsychidae^Cheumatopsyche Hydropsyche Parapsyche  00  SAL 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  SAL 03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  SAL 05 0.00  3.33 0.00 0.00  20.00 3.33  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106.67 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 53.33 0.00 26.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.67 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.67 0.00  66.67 0.00 0.00  0.00  SAL 06 0.00 13.33 0.00 0.00 76.67 16.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 656.67 0.00 6.67 0.00 10.00 23.33 23.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33 3.33 0.00 166.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 153.33 6.67  Site ID SAL 07 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 203.33 3.33 36.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 10.00 13.33 33.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 326.67 0.00  SAL 08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 383.33 33.33  SAL 09 0.00  SAL 10 0.00  0.00 0.00 0.00 420.00 93.33  0.00 0.00 0.00 73.33 3.33  10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.67 10.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 546.67 0.00  40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 136.67 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 13.33 53.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 .6.67 0.00 0.00 583.33 0.00  10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2740.00 10.00 80.00 0.00 196.67 16.67 153.33 20.00 0.00 3.33 26.67 0.00 0.00 43.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 2033.33 0.00  Table E4. continued.  Taxonom ic Identification ORDER^Family^Genus Hydrosychidae - juv./dam. Philopotamatidae^Wormaldia Rhyacophilidae^Rhyacophila TRICHOPTERA - juv./dam. TRICHOPTERA - pupae HY DRACARINA Oribatida AMPHIPODA ISOPODA Assellidae^Caecidotea MYSIDACEA^Mysidae OSTRACODA HIRUDINEA PISCICOLA^Salmositica TUBIFICIDA^Enchytraeidae Naididae Lumbricidae Tubificidae LUMBRICULIDA^Lumbriculidae OLIGOCHA ETA - unidentified TRICLA DIDA^ Polycelis HYDRA GASTEROPODA Ancylidae Lymnaeidae Physidae^Physa Planobidae VENEROIDA^Sphaeriidae NBV1A TODA COLLEMBOLA LEPIDOPTERA NEUROPTERA^Sisyridae Total Abundance (# of individuals/m 2 )  SAL 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 43.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.67 0.00 20.00 23.33 36.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.67 6.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 1293.33  SAL 03 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 676.67  SAL 05 10.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 43.33 0.00 20.00 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.33 3.33 10.00 313.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 6.67 20.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 5276.67  SAL 06 40.00 0.00 0.00 90.00 10.00 70.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 7523.33  Site ID SAL 07 SAL 08 313.33 210.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 10.00 53.33 3.33 16.67 3.33 43.33 13.33 0.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 26.67 3.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 3.33 273.33 323.33 13.33 13.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 3.33 6.67 0.00 13.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 8410.00 11273.33  SAL 09 SAL 10 60.00 1000.00 0.00 16.67 30.00 20.00 13.33 243.33 0.00 83.33 3.33 153.33 0.00 0.00 96.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 26.67 0.00 186.67 6.67 6.67 0.00 3.33 0.00 373.33 30.00 43.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 16.67 10.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8186.67 23323.33  Table E5. Macroinvertebrate taxa characteristics. Taxonomic Identification^Le ntic (LE)/  ^ORDER^Family ^COLEOPTERA^I Bimidae  DIPTERA  I  Habitat Related  Genus^Lotic (LO)^Be havoir  Functional Feeding Group Tolerance  collector/gatherer/scraper^moderate I LE^clinger/climber ^ clinger Heterlimnius ^ ^ shredder/detritivore clinger/burrow er Lara ^ clinger Narpus ^ clinger Zaitzevia LE  Ceratopogoniidae Chironomidae  spraw ler/burrow er  LO^burrow er Chironominae Orthocladiinae Podonominae Tanypodiinae  I Dixidae  burrow er/clinger  predator collector/predators  sensitive tolerant  collector/gatherer collector/gatherer/scraper  spraw ler/sw inirner LE/LO LE/LO^sw immers/climbers  predator collectors/gathers  LO^spraw ler/burrow er  predator/collector/gatherer^tolerant^I  moderate I  Dixa Meringodixa Empididae Chelifera Clinocera Oreogeton Psychodidae Ptychopteridae^Ptychoptera Simuliidae  clinger LO/LE LO LO  burrow er burrow er clinger  predator collector/gatherer collector/gather/shredder collector/filterer  tolerant moderate  Pros imulium Simulium I Tipulidae  LE ^ A ntocha ^ Dicranota Hesperoconopa ^ Hexatoma Rhabdomastix  burrow er shredder/collector/gatherer tolerant^I ^ clinger collector/gatherer ^ spraw ler/burrow er predator burrow er/spraw ler/clingi predator  shredder/detritivore/collector/ ^ Tipula gatherer ^ EPHEMEROPTERA I A meletidae^A nneletus LO^sw irrmer/clinger^collector/gatherer^sensitive I  Table E5. continued. Taxonom is Identification ORDER^Family^Genus  I Baetidae  Lentic (LE)/^Habitat Related Lotic (LO)^Behavoir  Functional Feeding Group  Tolerance  moderate I collector/gatherer sw immers sw immer/climber/clinger collector/gather/scraper collector/gather/scraper collector/gatherer sensitive I LO clinger Ephemrellidae cliner/sw irnmer collector/gatherer/scraper Ephemerella ^ ^ ^ LO clinger scraper/collector/gatherer moderate I Heptageniidae Cinygma Cinygmula Epeorus Ironodes Rithrogena ^ ^ ^ collector/gatherer sensitive I Leptophlebiidae LO^sw immer/clinger Paraleptophlebia shredder sensitive I PLECOPTERA^J Capniidae LO^spraw ler/clinger Allocapnia clinger lsocapnia Paracapnia ^ ^ ^ ^ Chloroperlidae LO clinger predator sensitive I ^ Kathroperla collector/gatherer/scraper Suw allia Sw eltza ^ ^ ^ Leuctridae LO^spraw ler/clinger shredder sensitive I Des pax ia Megaleuctra Moselia Perlomy la LO I Nemouridae clinger shredder sensitive I Malenka Soyedina Visoka Zapada spraw ler/chnger Perlodidae LO^clinger^predator^sensitive I Diploperla LO  Baetis R ocloeon -  I  1••■•  00  'Cr■  Table E5. continued. ORDER  Taxonomic Identification Family  Genus Isoperla Skw ala  LO  Perlidae Calineuria Doroneuria TRICHOPTERA  Lentic (LIE)/ Lotic (LO)  I Glossosomatidae  Habitat Related Behavoir  clinger  ^  Functional Feeding Group  predator  Tolerance  sensitive^I  ^ clinger/climber shredder/collector ^ clinger scraper  tolerant  clinger  collector/filterer  moderate I  moderate  moderate  Glossosonre I Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche Hydropsyche Parapsyche Philopotamatidae  Wormalde  clinger  collector/f itterer  Rhyacophilidae  Rhyacophila  clinger  predator  moderate  sw inner/clinger clinter/sw inner spraw ler  predator/scavenger collectro/gatherer collector/gatherer  tolerant tolerant tolerant  climber/sw inner  collector/gatherer  tolerant  burrow er  gollector/gatherer  tolerant  clinger burrower burrow er ^ clinger LO LO^climber/clinger/burrow er  scraper collector/filterer predator/parasite scraper predator/parasite  tolerant tolerant tolerant tolerant  HYDRA CA RINA A MPHIPODA ISOPODA MYSIDACEA OSTRACODA PISCICOLA OLIGOCHA ETA TRICLADIDA HYDRA ^ GASTEROPODA ^ V ENEROIDA ^ NBvATODA ^ LEPIDOPTERA ^ NEUROFTERA  Table E6. 1995 and 2005 rarefaction results in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Site ID  SAL 01 SAL 03 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11  2005 rarefaction st. dev.  12.31 15.97 23.72 18.45 23.21 19.67 21.33 17.80 22.18 19.41  0.74 0.17 1.69 1.54 1.70 1.46 1.56 1.74 1.68 3.71  1995 rarefaction st. dev.  19.60 26.27 23.27 23.50  1.35 1.73 1.61 2.12  23.37 23.20  1.67 0.28  Table E7. 1995 and 2005 EPT rarefaction results in the Salmon River catchment, by site. Site ID  SAL 01 SAL 03 SAL 05 SAL 06 SAL 07 SAL 08 SAL 09 SAL 10 SAL 11  2005 rarefaction st. dev.  n/a n/a 10.05 10.66 11.96 9.73 10.34 10.47 10.74 10.56  n/a n/a 0.72 0.79 0.91 0.63 0.57 1.11 0.74 0.71  1995 rarefaction st. dev.  11.86 13.64 12.31 11.05  0.35 0.85 0.88 1.03  12.11 12.19  1.02 0.94  188  Table E8. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Compone nts Analysis correlation matrix. Coleoptera Coleoptera Diptera Ephemeroptera Hemiopters Hymenoptera Odonata Plecoptera Trichoptera Hydracarina Amphipoda Mysidacea Isopoda Piscicola Oligochaeta Tricladida Hydracarina Gasteropoda Veneroida Nematoda Collembola Nueroptera Other  1 0.1708 0.7409 -0.1752 0.7419 -0.2534 -0.0336 0.0348 0.5517 0.5016 -0.0565 -0.1547 -0.0903 0.8 -0.3307 -0.0123 -0.0133 -0.2045 0.0399 -0.2782 0.1847 0.3749  Ephemeroptera Diptera 0.7409 0.1708 1 -0.0459 1 -0.0459 -0.2305 -0.2448 0.3303 0.6907 -0.4887 -0.2003 0.8107 -0.2342 0.5715 -0.1601 0.4394 0.4777 0.1665 0.5381 0.3892 0.1189 0.3001 -0.4052 0.2121 0.0252 0.4572 0.4376 0.2168 -0.5311 0.1328 0.108 0.3376 -0.2844 -0.1928 -0.2877 0.2634 -0.4007 -0.0021 -0.3012 -0.278 0.2626 0.1165 0.0432  Hemiopters -0.1752 -0.2305 -0.2448 1 -0.0909 -0.0909 -0.3507 0.1339 -0.1883 -0.021 -0.0159 -0.0909 0.4779 0.1522 -0.1655 -0.1393 0.148 0.9952 -0.1676 -0.1267 -0.0909 -0.1684  Hymenoptera 0.7419 0.3303 0.6907 -0.0909 1 -0.0909 -0.1435 0,062 0.9027 0.5928 0.191 -0.0909 0.2011 0.7793 -0.1655 0.2667 0.148 -0.1083 -0.1676 -0.1267 -0.0909 -0.1684  Odonata -0.2534 -0.4887 -0.2003 -0.0909 -0.0909 1 -0.3482 -0.0978 -0.1883 -0.2256 -0.1114 -0.0909 -0.0757 -0.302 -0.1655 -0.1528 -0.1423 -0.1083 -0.1676 -0.1267 -0.0909 -0.1684  Plecoptera -0.0336 0.8107 -0.2342 -0.3507 -0.1435 -0.3482 1 0.5834 -0.0722 -0.1928 0.3174 0.2699 0.0575 0.0726 0.0355 -0.0464 0.1531 -0.316 0.3377 -0.2054 -0.2179 0.4314  Trichoptera 0.0348 0.5715 -0.1601 0.1339 0.062 -0.0978 0.5834 1 -0.0965 -0.1581 -0.134 -0.007 -0.0496 0.4101 -0.214 -0.2869 0.0379 0.1206 -0.056 -0.2665 -0.1625 0.3273  Table E8. continued. Coleoptera Diptera Ephemeroptera Hemiopters Hymenoptera Odonata Plecoptera Trichoptera Hydracarina Amphipoda Mysidacea Isopoda Piscicola Oligochaeta Tricladida Hydracarina Gasteropoda Veneroida Nematoda Collem bola Nueroptera Other  Hydracarina 0.5517 0.4394 0.4777 -0.1883 0.9027 -0.1883 -0.0722 -0.0965 1 0.5791 0.2711 0.1443 0.205 0.6163 0.1762 0.5076 0.3341 -0.1776 0.0113 0.0907 -0.1249 -0.3489  Amphipoda 0.5016 0.1665 0.5381 -0.021 0.5928 -0.2256 -0.1928 -0.1581 0.5791 1 0.3497 -0.0839 0.3272 0.5386 -0.1012 0.1002 0.0774 -0.0071 -0.222 -0.0512 0.6243 -0.4179  Mysidacea -0.0565 0.3892 0.1189 -0.0159 0.191 -0.1114 0.3174 -0.134 0.2711 0.3497 1 -0.1273 0.8638 -0.0396 -0.2318 0.3595 -0.0369 0.0157 -0.2347 -0.1774 -0.1273 -0.2359  Isopoda -0.1547 0.3001 -0.4052 -0.0909 -0.0909 -0.0909 0.2699 -0.007 0.1443 -0.0839 -0.1273 1 -0.1708 -0.0132 0.6288 -0.1596 0.9361 -0.0074 0.8657 -0.1267 -0.0909 -0.1684  Piscicola -0.0903 0.2121 0.0252 0.4779 0.2011 -0.0757 0.0575 -0.0496 0.205 0.3272 0.8638 -0.1708 1 0.0898 -0.311 0.2521 0.0457 0.4999 -0.3149 -0.238 -0.1708 -0.3165  Oligochaeta 0.8 0.4572 0.4376 0.1522 0.7793 -0.302 0.0726 0.4101 0.6163 0.5386 -0.0396 -0.0132 0.0898 1 -0.1291 -0.1164 0.2225 0.1393 0.0591 -0.1524 0.041 0.1624  Tricladida -0.3307 0.2168 -0.5311 -0.1655 -0.1655 -0.1655 0.0355 -0.214 0.1762 -0.1012 -0.2318 0.6288 -0.311 -0.1291 1 0.0741 0.5262 -0.109 0.6144 0.6917 -0.1655 -0.3066  Hydracarina -0.0123 0.1328 0.108 -0.1393 0.2667 -0.1528 -0.0464 -0.2869 0.5076 0.1002 0.3595 -0.1596 0.2521 -0.1164 0.0741 1 -0.1105 -0.1463 -0.2941 0.2427 -0.1596 -0.2956  Table E8. continued. Gasteropoda -0.0133 Coleoptera 0.3376 Diptera -0.2844 Ephemeroptera 0.148 Hemiopters 0.148 Hymenoptera -0.1423 Odonata 0.1531 Plecoptera Trichoptera 0.0379 0.3341 Hydracarina Amphipoda 0.0774 Mysidacea -0.0369 Isopoda 0.9361 Piscicola 0.0457 Oligochaeta 0.2225 Tricladida 0.5262 Hydracarina -0.1105 1 Gasteropoda Veneroida 0.2263 Nematoda 0.7591 Collembola -0.1982 -0.1423 Nueroptera Other -0.2636  Veneroida -0.2045 -0.1928 -0.2877 0.9952 -0.1083 -0.1083 -0.316 0.1206 -0.1776 -0.0071 0.0157 -0.0074 0.4999 0.1393 -0.109 -0.1463 0.2263 1 -0.0998 -0.1322 -0.0881 -0.2007  Nematoda 0.0399 0.2634 -0.4007 -0.1676 -0.1676 -0.1676 0.3377 -0.056 0.0113 -0.222 -0.2347 0.8657 -0.3149 0.0591 0.6144 -0.2941 0.7591 -0.0998 1 -0.0202 -0.1676 0.2254  Collembola -0.2782 -0.0021 -0.3012 -0.1267 -0.1267 -0.1267 -0.2054 -0.2665 0.0907 -0.0512 -0.1774 -0.1267 -0.238 -0.1524 0.6917 0.2427 -0.1982 -0.1322 -0.0202 1 -0.1267 -0.2347  Nueroptera 0.1847 -0.278 0.2626 -0.0909 -0.0909 -0.0909 -0.2179 -0.1625 -0.1249 0.6243 -0.1273 -0.0909 -0.1708 0.041 -0.1655 -0.1596 -0.1423 -0.0881 -0.1676 -0.1267 1 -0.1684  Other 0.3749 0.1165 0.0432 -0.1684 -0.1684 -0.1684 0.4314 0.3273 -0.3489 -0.4179 -0.2359 -0.1684 -0.3165 0.1624 -0.3066 -0.2956 -0.2636 -0.2007 0.2254 -0.2347 -0.1684 1  Table E9. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis eigen value results. PC 1^PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5 PC 6 PC 7 PC 8 PC 10 PC 9 Eigenvalue 4.8098 3.9927 3.0047 2.8178 2.3813 1.5605 1.3566 1.0147 0.629 0.394 Percent 21.8629 18.1484 13.6578 12.8084 10.8242 7.0933 6.1662 4.6122 2.8591 1.7907 Cummulative Percent 21.8629 40.0113 53.6691 66.4775 77.3017 84.395 90.5613 95.1735 98.0326 99.8234  PC 11 0.0389 0.1766 100  Table E10. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis eigen vector results. Coleoptera Diptera Ephemeropter Hemiopters Hymenoptera Odonata Plecoptera Trichoptera Hydracarina Amphipoda Mysidacea Isopoda Piscicola Oligochaeta Tricladida Hydracarina Gasteropoda Veneroida Nematoda Collembola Nueroptera Other  PC 1 0.3595 0.1552 0.3676 -0.0374 0.4089 -0.1260 -0.0164 0.0242 0.3508 0.3465 0.1752 -0.1300 0.1593 0.3390 -0.1801 0.1295 -0.0269 -0.0469 -0.1526 -0.1090 0.0810 -0.0375  PC 2 0.0592 0.3702 -0.1358 -0.1216 0.0836 -0.1855 0.2985 0.1422 0.1876 -0.0100 -0.0084 0.4059 -0.0753 0.1667 0.3096 -0.0262 0.3903 -0.0881 0.4049 0.0180 -0.1383 0.0447  PC 3 -0.2266 -0.0388 -0.1586 0.3137 0.0415 0.0004 -0.2178 -0.2113 0.1649 0.1534 0.2300 0.1320 0.3612 -0.0653 0.1922 0.1992 0.2334 0.3394 -0.0298 0.1225 -0.0569 -0.4568  PC 4 -0.0506 0.1826 -0.1183 0.3488 -0.0769 -0.0827 0.2595 0.3830 -0.1875 -0.1176 0.1798 -0.0638 0.3189 0.1142 -0.2945 -0.1630 0.0168 0:3484 -0.0649 -0.3164 -0.1563 0.1943  PC 5 0.2099 -0.2670 0.0645 0.2891 0.0654 0.0428 -0.3208 0.0020 -0.0477 0.1102 -0.4028 0.1646 -0.1922 0.2495 -0.0115 -0.3691 0.2368 0.2875 0.1782 -0.1676 0.2232 0.0140  PC 6 0.0506 0.0725 -0.0830 0.2229 0.1447 -0.1595 -0.1362 0.1954 0.1293 -0.2153 -0.3029 -0.2579 -0.1476 0.2391 0.1917 0.1508 -0.1735 0.1831 -0.1374 0.4841 -0.3780 0.1143  PC 7 -0.0659 0.1494 -0.0559 0.0605 -0.2520 -0.5323 0.1433 0.0762 -0.1840 0.3397 -0.0007 -0.0962 -0.0321 0.0352 0.1492 -0.0924 -0.1427 0.0719 -0.0727 0.2797 0.5395 -0.0413  PC 8 -0.2291 0.1662 -0.1656 -0.1031 0.1156 0.4885 0.0459 0.5135 0.0590 0.1657 -0.1147 -0.0087 -0.1044 0.1162 0.0366 -0.1960 -0.0118 -0.1069 -0.2660 0.0548 0.1456 -0.3863  PC 9 0.1231 0.0139 -0.1104 -0.0589 0.0205 0.2649 -0.0278 -0.2295 -0.0812 0.1749 0.3059 -0.1494 0.2559 0.1749 0.1571 -0.5849 -0.1444 -0.0468 0.1899 0.3392 -0.1556 0.1752  PC 10 0.2353 -0.0659 -0.5059 0.0551 -0.0875 0.3643 0.0563 -0.0084 0.0541 0.1285 0.0074 -0.0387 0.0537 0.1844 -0.0144 0.4959 -0.0459 0.0543 0.1418 0.0177 0.3194 0.3259  PC 11 -0.3019 0.0662 0.0957 -0.0384 0.0640 0.0184 -0.3557 0.1435 0.1277 0.1665 0.0867 0.2013 0.0625 -0.1879 0.1671 -0.0324 0.2090 -0.0139 -0.3384 0.0262 0.0678 0.6469  Table Ell. 1975, 1995 and 2005 Principal Components Analysis principal components. PC 1 PC 2 75SAL06 -0.6233 -1.1185 -0.6159 -0.8861 75SAL07 -0.1574 0.1933 75SAL08 1.5642 75SAL11 -0.3005 -2.3517 -1.9246 95SAL06 -1.5415 95SAL07 -0.5718 6.2454 1.0593 95SAL08 0.9467 -0.2259 95SAL11 -0.6619 05SAL06 -0.9137 05SAL07 -1.3357 0.5761 05SAL08 1.2368 -1.7529 05SAL11 -1.9860 5.1455  APPENDIX F: Land Activity and Environmental Quality Results Tables  Table F 1. Annual sediment quality and land use by category (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F2. Annual sediment quality and general land use (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F3. Annual sediment quality and land use by type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F4. Annual sediment quality and general land use (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F5 Annual sediment quality and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F6. Macroinvertebrate and annual sediment quality Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F7. Macroinvertebrate and land use by type (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F8. Macroinvertebrate and general land use (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F9. Macroinvertebrate and land use by type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F 10. Macroinvertebrate and general land use (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F11. Macroinvertebrate and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Table F12. Macroinvertebrate and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1) (1974, 1994 and 2005).  194  Table Fl. Annual sediment quality and land use by type (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). 0 111 Trace Metal -0.136 -0.512 Corr. Coef. Al 0.689 0.107 a (2-tailed) 11 11 N -0.327 -0.094 Corr. Coef. Ba a (2-tailed) 0.326 0.783 11 11 N Corr. Coef. -0.018 0.013 Cr a (2-tailed) 0.958 0.969 11 11 N Corr. Coef. -0.455 0.013 Cu a (2-tailed) 0.160 0.969 11 11 N Corr. Coef. 0.145 -0.081 Fe a (2-tailed) 0.670 0.813 11 11 N Corr. Coef. -0.082 0.135 Mg a (2-tailed) 0.811 0.693 11 11 N Mn Corr. Coef. -0.018 -0.013 a (2-tailed) 0.958 0.969 11 11 N Corr. Coef. Ni -0.155 -0.081 a (2-tailed) 0.650 0.813 11 11 N Corr. Coef. Sr -0.109 0.229 a (2-tailed) 0.750 0.498 11 11 N Zn Corr. Coef. 0.055 0.040 a (2-tailed) 0.873 0.906 11 11 N Clay (%) Corr. Coef. 0.491 -0.189 a (2-tailed) 0.125 0.578 11 11 N Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  113 -0.189 0.578 11 0.216 0.524 11 -0.081 0.813 11 -0.081 0.813 11 -0.135 0.693 11 0.364 0.271 11 -0.054 0.875 11 0.135 0.693 11 0.081 0.813 11 0.243 0.472 11 0.094 0.783 11  160 0.220 0.516 11 0.017 0.960 11 -0.295 0.379 11 -0.092 0.787 11 -0.335 0.313 11 -0.295 0.379 11 -0.040 0.906 11 -0.347 0.296 11 -0.474 0.141 11 0.168 0.622 11 0.457 0.158 11  122 0.387 0.239 11 0.069 0.839 11 -0.046 0.893 11 0.162 0.634 11 -0.035 0.919 11 -0.046 0.893 11 -0.214 0.528 11 -0.046 0.893 11 -0.225 0.505 11 -0.104 0.761 11 0.214 0.528 11  Land Use Code 150 120 0.126 -0.133 0.711 0.696 11 11 0.474 0.400 0.141 0.222 11 11 -0.126 -0.286 0.711 0.394 11 11 -0.095 -0.229 0.782 0.499 11 11 -0.105 -0.057 0.758 0.867 11 11 -0.569 -0.343 0.068 0.301 11 11 0.021 0.000 0.951 1.000 11 11 -0.316 -0.181 0.344 0.594 11 11 0.042 0.067 0.902 0.845 11 11 0.326 0.620 0.327 0.042 11 11 -0.105 0.238 0.758 0.480 11 11  200 -0.620 0.042 11 -0.674 0.023 11 -0.237 0.483 11 -0.405 0.216 11 -0.478 0.137 11 -0.210 0.536 11 -0.050 0.884 11 -0.483 0.132 11 -0.515 0.105 11 -0.765 0.006 11 -0.351 0.290 11  610 330 400 510 0.000 0.300 -0.400 0.586 1.000 0.370 0.223 0.058 11 11 11 11 -0.400 0.500 0.100 0.265 0.223 0.117 0.770 0.431 11 11 11 11 -0.300 0.300 -0.100 0.461 0.370 0.370 0.770 0.154 11 11 11 11 -0.200 0.400 -0.100 0.489 0.555 0.223 0.770 0.127 11 11 11 11 0.100 0.400 0.000 0.158 0.770 0.223 1.000 0.642 11 11 11 11 0.100 -0.300 0.200 0.558 0.770 0.370 0.555 0.074 11 11 11 11 -0.300 0.500 0.100 0.070 0.370 0.117 0.770 0.838 11 11 11 11 0.400 0.100 0.000 0.340 0.223 0.770 1.000 0.307 11 11 11 11 -0.100 0.500 0.100 0.167 0.770 0.117 0.770 0.623 11 11 11 11 0.100 0.500 0.300 -0.102 0.770 0.117 0.370 0.765 11 11 11 11 0.300 -0.300 0.200 0.088 0.370 0.370 0.555 0.796 11 11 11 11  Table F2. Annual sediment quality and general land use (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). General Land Use Transportation  Trace Metal Al  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Ba  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  Cr  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  0.055 0.873  11  N  -0.173 0.612  11  N  Cu  Fe  Mg  0.100 0.770 11 -0.309 0.355 11 0.309 0.355 11 -0.145 0.670  Ni  Sr  Zn  Clay (%)  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  -0.064 0.853 11 0.073 0.832 11 -0.064 0.853 11 -0.300 0.370  -0.237 0.483 11 -0.405 0.216 11 -0.478 0.137 11 -0.210 0.536  Vacant/U Civic/Commercial/Industrial Recreation^nused 0.000 -0.400 0.586 1.000 0.223 0.058 11 11 11 -0.400 0.100 0.265 0.223 0.770 0.431 11 -0.300 0.370 11 -0.200 0.555 11 0.100 0.770 11 0.100 0.770  11 -0.100 0.770 11 -0.100 0.770 11 0.000 1.000 11 0.200 0.555  11 0.461 0.154 11 0.489 0.127 11 0.158 0.642 11  11  11  11  11  11  0.558 0.074 11  0.155 0.650 11 -0.082 0.811 11 0.027 0.937 11 0.227 0.502 11 0.473 0.142 11  -0.036 0.915 11 -0.191 0.574 11 0.300 0.370 11 0.473 0.142 11 -0.173 0.612 11  -0.050 0.884 11 -0.483 0.132 11 -0.515 0.105 11  -0.300 0.370 11 0.400 0.223 11 -0.100 0.770 11 0.100 0.770 11 0.300 0.370 11  0.100 0.770 11 0.000 1.000 11 0.100 0.770 11 0.300 0.370 11 0.200 0.555 11  0.070 0.838 11 0.340 0.307 11 0.167 0.623 11 -0.102 0.765 11 0.088 0.796 11  N Mn  Agriculture^Residential -0.620 -0.055 0.873 0.042 11 11 0.609 -0.674 0.047 0.023 11 11  ,- Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  -0.765 0.006 11 -0.351 0.290 11  Table F3. Annual Sediment quality and land use by type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Land Use Code Trace Metal Al  Ba  Cr  Cu  Fe  Mg  Mn  Ni  Sr  Zn  Clay (%)  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  0 0.009 0.979 11 -0.136 0.689 11 -0.282 0.401 11 -0.436 0.180 11 -0.164 0.631 11 0.045 0.894 11 -0.436 0.180 11 0.064  111 -0.512 0.107 11 -0.094 0.783 11 0.013 0.969 11 0.013 0.969 11 -0.081 0.813 11 0.135 0.693 11 -0.013 0.969 11 -0.081  113 -0.189 0.578 11 0.216 0.524 11 -0.081 0.813 11 -0.081 0.813 11 -0.135 0.693 11 0.364 0.271 11 -0.054 0.875 11 0.135  0.853  0.813  0.693  11 11 -0.136 0.229 0.689 0.498 11 11 0.227 0.040 0.502 0.906 11 11 0.464 -0.189 0.151 0.578 11 11  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  160 121 122 120 150 0.220 0.300 0.674 -0.104 -0.181 0.516 0.370 0.023 0.761 0.593 11 11 11 11 11 0.017 0.500 0.540 0.133 0.298 0.960 0.117 0.086 0.697 0.374 11 11 11 11 11 -0.295 0.300 0.352 -0.410 -0.261 0.379 0.370 0.289 0.210 0.439 11 11 11 11 11 -0.092 0.400 0.610 -0.462 -0.316 0.787 0.223 0.046 0.152 0.343 11 11 11 11 11 -0.335 0.400 0.382 -0.474 -0.014 0.313 0.223 0.247 0.141 0.968 11 11 11 11 11 -0.295 -0.300 -0.094 -0.410 -0.381 0.379 0.370 0.783 0.210 0.247 11 11 11 11 11 -0.040 0.500 0.397 -0.410 0.060 0.906 0.117 0.227 0.210 0.860 11 11 11 11 11 -0.347 0.100 0.169 -0.462 -0.251  0.296  0.770 0.620  11 11 11 0.081 -0.474 0.500 0.813 0.141 0.117 11 11 11 0.243 0.168 0.500 0.472 0.622 0.117 11 11 11 0.094 0.457 -0.300 0.783 0.158 0.370 11 11 11  0.152  11 11 0.292 -0.387 0.383 0.239 11 11 0.372 -0.040 0.260 0.906 11 11 0.030 0.150 0.931 0.659 11 11  0.456  200  330  -0.645 0.067 0.032 0.844 11 11 -0.655 -0.324 0.029 0.332 11 11 -0.218 0.519 11 -0.418 0.201 11 -0.464 0.151 11 -0.227 0.502 11 -0.055 0.873 11 -0.491  0.125  400 0.108 0.752 11 0.067 0.844 11 0.378 0.252 11 0.121 0.722 11 0.458 0.156 11 -0.310 0.353 11  510 0.400 0.223 11 0.400 0.223 11 0.400 0.223 11 0.300 0.370 11 0.300 0.370 11 0.400 0.223 11 0.400 0.223 11 0.300  520 -0.500 0.117 11 -0.100 0.770 11 -0.400 0.223 11 -0.400 0.223 11 -0.500 0.117 11 -0.400 0.223 11 -0.400 0.223 11 -0.400  0.722  0.370  0.223  -0.580 0.062 11 -0.499 0.118 11 -0.189 0.578 11 -0.256 0.447 11 -0.580 0.607 0.062 0.048 11 11 -0.013 -0.121  0.969  11 11 11 11 0.019 -0.455 -0.418 0.270 0.957 0.160 0.201 0.423 11 11 11 11 0.558 -0.727 0.216 0.135 0.074 0.011 0.524 0.693 11 11 11 11 0.284 -0.382 0.580 -0.175 0.398 0.247 0.062 0.606 11 11 11 11  610  0.623 0.040 11 0.284 0.398 11 0.405 0.217 11 0.433 0.184 11 0.130 0.703 11 0.512 0.108 11 0.033 0.924 11 0.302  0.366  11 11 11 0.300 -0.300 0.102 0.370 0.370 0.765 11 11 11 0.400 -0.500 -0.065 0.223 0.117 0.849 11 11 11 0.400 -0.500 0.172 0.223 0.117 0.613 11 11 11  Table F4. Annual sediment quality and general land use (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1).  Trace Metal Al Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Ba a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Cr a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Cu a (2-tailed) N Fe Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Mg a (2-tailed) N  Ni  Sr  Zn  Clay (%)  VD '00  Transportation Agriculture 0.227 0.055 0.502 0.873 11 11 0.036 0.573 0.915 0.066 11 11 -0.091  -0.045  0.790 11  0.894 11  -0.209  0.209  0.537 11  0.537 11  0.091  0.000  0.790 11  1.000 11  -0.036  -0.291  0.915 11  0.385 11  Corr. Coef.  -0.173  0.055  a (2-tailed) N  0.612 11  0.873 11  General Land Use Civic/Commercial/I Vacant/U Residential^ndustrial Recreation^nused 0.067 -0.013 0.623 -0.645 0.844 0.032 0.969 0.040 11 11 11 11 0.284 -0.324 0.256 -0.655 0.332 0.029 0.447 0.398 11 11 11 11 -0.218 -0.580 0.405 0.054 0.519 0.062 0.875 0.217 11 11 11 11 -0.418 -0.499 -0.027 0.433 0.201 0.184 0.118 0.937 11 11 11 11 -0.464 -0.189 -0.094 0.130 0.151 0.578 0.783 0.703 11 11 11 11 -0.227 -0.256 0.054 0.512 0.447 0.502 0.875 0.108 11 11 11 11 -0.055 -0.580 0.054 0.033 0.873 0.062 0.875 0.924 11 11 11 11 -0.491 -0.013 -0.027 0.302 0.125 0.969 0.937 0.366 11 11 11 11  Corr. Coef.  0.155  -0.145  a (2-tailed) N  0.650 11  0.670 11  Corr. Coef.  0.091  0.227  -0.455  -0.418  0.040  0.102  a (2-tailed) N  0.790 11  0.502 11  0.201 11 0.216 0.524 11 0.580 0.062 11  0.906 11 -0.013 0.969 11 -0.013 0.969  0.765 11 -0.065 0.849 11 0.172 0.613  11  11  Corr. Coef.  0.473  0.418  a (2-tailed) N  0.142 11  0.201 11  0.160 11 -0.727 0.011 11  Corr. Coef.  0.436  -0.136  -0.382  a (2-tailed) N  0.180 11  0.689 11  0.247 11  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Table F5. Annual sediment quality and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Trace Metal Corr. Coef. Al a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Ba a (2-tailed) N Cr Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Cu Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Fe Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. Mg a (2-tailed) N Mn Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Ni Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Sr Corr. Coef. a (2 tailed) N Zn Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Clay Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  Forest Cover -0.373 0.259 11 -0.409 0.212 11 -0.100 0.770 11 -0.073 0.832 11 -0.318 0.340 11 -0.227 0.502 11 -0.082 0.811 11 -0.291 0.385 11  -  ,-- Note: Significant correlations are in bold. ■g)  Land Cover Forest Cover Impervious -0.173 0.255 0.612 0.450 11 11 -0.209 -0.100 0.537 0.770 11 11 0.200 0.009 0.555 0.979 11 11 0.245 -0.173 0.467 0.612 11 11 -0.027 0.145 0.937 0.670 11 11 0.145 -0.055 0.670 0.873 11 11 0.064 -0.145 0.853 0.670 11 11 0.000 0.018 1.000 0.958 11 11  Impervious -0.055 0.873 11 -0.264 0.433 11 -0.482 0.133 11 -0.536 0.089 11 -0.418 0.201 11 -0.282 0.401 11 -0.573 0.066 11 -0.209 0.537 11  -0.309 0.355 11  -0.036 0.915 11  0.036 0.915 11  -0.364 0.272 11  -0.855 0.001 11 -0.736 0.010 11  -0.745 0.008 11 -0.618 0.043 11  0.355 0.285 11 0.500 0.117 11  0.073 0.832 11 0.273 0.417 11  Table F6. Macroinvertebrate and annual sediment quality Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Trace Metal Macroinvertebrate  Rarefaction Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Total^Corr. Coef. Abundance a (2-tailed) N collectors^Corr. Coef. (total)^a (2-tailed) N shredders^Corr. Coef. (total)^a (2-tailed) N  predators^Corr. Coef. (total)^a (2-tailed) N predators/^Corr. Coef. parasites^a (2-tailed) (total)^N collectors^Corr. Coef. (%)^a (2-tailed) N shredders^Corr. Coef. (%)^a (2-tailed) N predators^Corr. Coef. (%)^a (2-tailed) N  predators/^Corr. Coef. parasites^a (2-tailed) (%)^N  t■.)  O '0  Al 0.357 0.385 8 0.024 0.955 8 -0.048 0.911 8 0.048 0.911 8 0.214 0.610 8 0.048 0.911 8 -0.214 0.610 8 0.071 0.867 8 0.476 0.233 8 0.262 0.531 8  Ba -0.048 0.911 8 0.524 0.183 8 0.405 0.320 8 0.190 0.651 8 0.524 0.183 8 0.262 0.531 8 -0.381 0.352 8 0.048 0.911 8 0.548 0.160 8 -0.048 0.911 8  Cr -0.048 0.911 8 -0.143 0.736 8 -0.286 0.493 8 -0.214 0.610 8 0.071 0.867 8 -0.357 0.385 8 0.024 0.955 8 -0.071 0.867 8 0.429 0.289 8 -0.048 0.911 8  Cu 0.524 0.183 8 0.048 0.911 8 0.000 1.000 8 -0.024 0.955 8 0.167 0.693 8 0.024 0.955 8 -0.071 0.867 8 -0.167 0.693 8 0.524 0.183 8 0.238 0.570 8  Fe -0.310 0.456 8 -0.310 0.456 8 -0.452 0.260 8 -0.452 0.260 8 -0.143 0.736 8 -0.524 0.183 8 0.286 0.493 8 -0.333 0.420 8 0.167 0.693 8 0.071 0.867 8  Mg -0.048 0.911 8 -0.381 0.352 8 -0.500 0.207 8 0.000 1.000 8 -0.405 0.320 8 0.000 1.000 8 -0.119 0.779 8 0.214 0.610 8 -0.048 0.911 8 0.595 0.120 8  Mn -0.071 0.867 8 -0.476 0.233 8 -0.429 0.289 8  -0.810 0.015 8  -0.262 0.531 8 -0.786 0.021 8 0.738 0.037 8 -0.786 0.021 8  -0.095 0.823 8 -0.071 0.867 8  Ni 0.143 0.736 8 0.071 0.867 8 -0.048 0.911 8 0.048 0.911 8 0.119 0.779 8 0.095 0.823 8 -0.262 0.531 8 0.071 0.867 8 0.429 0.289 8 0.310 0.456 8  Sr 0.048 0.911 8 0.071 0.867 8 -0.048 0.911 8 -0.262 0.531 8 0.190 0.651 8 -0.310 0.456 8 0.048 0.911 8 -0.286 0.493 8 0.571 0.139 8 -0.167 0.693 8  Zn Clay (%) 0.000 -0.524 0.183 1.000 8 8 0.071 -0.810 0.867 0.015 8 8 0.024 -0.857 0.955 0.007 8 8 -0.357 -0.619 0.385 0.102 8 8 0.119 -0.786 0.779 0.021 8 8 -0.262 -0.548 0.531 0.160 8 8 0.119 0.548 0.779 0.160 8 8 -0.405 -0.357 0.320 0.385 8 8 0.357 -0.619 0.385 0.102 8 8 -0.048 0.595 0.911 0.120 8 8  Table F6. continued. Trace Metal Macorinvertebrate  EPT Total Abundance EPT (%) EPT Rarefaction  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  Al Ba Cr Cu Fe Mg Mn 0.036 0.750 -0.179 -0.071 -0.179 -0.357 -0.429 0.939 0.052 0.702 0.879 0.702 0.432 0.337 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0.000 0.714 0.000 0.107 0.000 -0.357 -0.321 1.000 0.071 1.000 0.819 1.000 0.432 0.482 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 -0.200 -0.257 0.086 -0.314 0.086 0.600 -0.600 0.704 0.623 0.872 0.544 0.872 0.208 0.208 6 6 6 6 6 6 6  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Ni Sr Zn Clay (%) 0.107 0.286 0.250 -0.607 0.148 0.819 0.535 0.589 7 7 7 7 0.071 0.393 0.143 -0.679 0.879 0.383 0.760 0.094 7 7 7 7 0.257 -0.029 -0.086 0.086 0.623 0.957 0.872 0.872 6 6 6 6  Table F7. Macroinvertebrate and land use by type (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Land Use Code 0 111 113 160 121 122 120 150 200 400 510 610 Macroinvertebrate  Rarefaction  Total Abundance collectors (total) shredders (total) predators (total)  predators/ parasites (total) collectors (%) shredders (%) predators (%)  predators/ parasites (%)  t■.)  O  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  -0.417 0.265 9 -0.133 0.732 9 -0.300 0.433 9 -0.333 0.381 9 0.100 0.798 9 -0.536 0.137 9 0.217 0.576 9 -0.167 0.668 9 0.083 0.831 9 -0.550 0.125 9  -0.023 0.954 9 -0.274 0.476 9 -0.160 0.681 9 -0.251 0.515 9 -0.365 0.334 9 -0.275 0.474 9 0.365 0.334 9 -0.251 0.515 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.046 0.907 9  -0.274 0.476 9 -0.160 0.681 9 -0.160 0.681 9 -0.183 0.638 9 -0.365 0.334 9 -0.069 0.860 9 0.091 0.815 9 -0.091 0.815 9 -0.365 0.334 9 0.320 0.402 9  0.548 0.127 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.000 1.000 9 0.000 1.000 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.138 0.724 9 0.274 0.476 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.411 0.272 9  0.137 0.725 9 0.137 0.725 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.137 0.725 9 0.548 0.127 9 -0.206 0.594 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.548 0.127 9 -0.411 0.272 9  0.251 -0.183 -0.574 0.008 0.000 -0.548 0.515 0.638 0.106 0.983 1.000 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 -0.297 0.707 0.218 -0.167 0.411 -0.411 0.438 0.033 0.573 0.667 0.272 0.272 9 9 9 9 9 9 -0.228 0.707 0.218 -0.075 0.411 -0.411 0.555 0.033 0.573 0.847 0.272 0.272 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.228 0.137 -0.337 0.067 -0.274 -0.548 0.555 0.725 0.376 0.864 0.476 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 -0.297 0.525 -0.030 -0.100 0.411 -0.548 0.438 0.147 0.940 0.797 0.272 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.321 0.195 -0.184 -0.038 -0.206 -0.413 0.400 0.615 0.636 0.923 0.594 0.270 9 9 9 9 9 9 -0.046 -0.160 0.317 0.092 0.137 0.548 0.907 0.681 0.406 0.814 0.725 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.137 -0.068 -0.495 0.209 -0.411 -0.548 0.725 0.861 0.175 0.589 0.272 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 -0.183 0.251 -0.238 -0.310 0.411 -0.548 0.638 0.515 0.538 0.417 0.272 0.127 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.730 -0.548 -0.208 -0.084 -0.548 0.274 0.025 0.127 0.591 0.831 0.127 0.476 9 9 9 9 9 9  0.576 0.104 9 -0.170 0.663 9 -0.153 0.695 9 0.458 0.215 9 -0.085 0.828 9 0.417 0.264 9 -0.424 0.256 9 0.525 0.146 9 0.170 0.663 9 0.542 0.131 9  Table F7. continued. Land Use Code Macorinvertebrate EPT Total Corr. Coef.  Abundance EPT (%) EPT Rarefaction  0 111 113 160 121 122 120 150 200 400 -0.048 -0.247 0.082 -0.412 0.247 -0.343 0.733 0.733 -0.299 0.412 a (2-tailed) 0.911 0.555 0.846 0.31 0.555 0.406 0.039 0.039 0.471 0.31 8 8 8 8 8 8 N 8 8 8 8 Corr. Coef. -0.024 -0.082 -0.247 -0.412 0.082 -0.062 0.733 0.733 -0.395 0.412 a (2-tailed) 0.955 0.846 0.555 0.31 0.846 0.883 0.039 0.039 0.333 0.31 8 8 8 8 8 N 8 8 8 8 8 Corr. Coef. 0.143 0.612 0.408 -0.408 -0.204 -0.089 -0.535 -0.535 -0.072 -0.612 a (2-tailed) 0.76 0.144 0.363 0.363 0.661 0.849 0.216 0.216 0.878 0.144 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 N  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  520  610 -0.443 0.272 8 -0.371 0.365 8 0.487 0.268 7  Table F8. Macroinvertebrate and general land use (30m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Land Cover Agriculture Residential^Transportation^Recreation Vacant/U Macroinvertebrate 0.576 -0.267 0.008 -0.367 -0.548 Corr. Coef. Rarefaction  Total Abundance collectors (total) shredders (total) predators (total)  a (2-tailed)  0.488  0.983  0.332  0.127  N Corr. Coef.  9 0.500  9 -0.167  9 0.000  9 -0.411  a (2-tailed) N  0.170 9  0.667 9  1.000 9  0.272 9  0.104 9 -0.170 0.663 9  Corr. Coef.  0.433  -0.075  -0.183  -0.411  -0.153  a (2-tailed)  0.244 9  0.847 9  0.637 9  0.272 9  0.695 9  N Corr. Coef.  -0.117  0.067  -0.450  -0.548  0.458  a (2-tailed) N  0.765 9  0.864 9  0.224 9  0.127 9  0.215 9  Corr. Coef.  0.350  -0.100  0.283  -0.548  -0.085  a (2-tailed)  0.356 9  0.797 9  0.460 9  -0.033  -0.038  0.932 9  0.923 9  0.127 9 -0.413 0.270 9  0.828 9 0.417 0.264 9  N Corr. Coef.  predators/ parasites a (2-tailed) (total) N collectors Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) (%) N  shredders (%) predators (%)  predators/ parasites (%)  O  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  0.033  0.092  -0.628 0.070 9 0.250  0.548  -0.424  0.932 9 -0.400 0.286 9  0.814 9 0.209 0.589 9  0.516 9 -0.317 0.406 9  0.127 9 -0.548 0.127 9  0.256 9 0.525 0.146 9  Corr. Coef.  0.267  -0.310  0.283  -0.548  0.170  a (2-tailed) N  0.488 9  0.417 9  0.460 9  Corr. Coef.  -0.483  -0.084  a (2-tailed) N  0.187 9  0.831 9  0.127 9 0.274 0.476 9  0.663 9 0.542 0.131 9  -0.733 0.025 9  Table F8. continued. Macroinvertebrate EPT Total Abundance EPT (%) EPT Rarefaction  Corr. Coef.  a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef.  a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef.  a (2-tailed) N  General Land Use Agriculture Residential^Transportation Recreation Vacant/ 0.024 -0.443 -0.299 0.810 0.471 0.955 0.272 0.015 8 8 8 8 0.024 -0.395 -0.371 0.881 0.955 0.333 0.365 0.004 8 8 8 8 -0.179 -0.072 -0.179 0.487 0.702 0.878 0.702 0.268 7 7 7 7  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Table F9. Macroinvertebrate and land use by type (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Land Use Code Macroinvertebrate  Rarefaction  Total Abundance collectors (total) shredders (total) predators (total)  predators/ parasites (total) collectors (%) shredders (%) predators (%) predators/ parasites (%)  0 0.100 0.798 9 0.333 0.381 9 0.167 0.668 9 0.183 0.637 9 0.483 0.187 9 0.000 1.000 9 -0.383 0.308 9 0.233 0.546 9 0.483 0.187 9  111 Corr. Coef. -0.023 a (2-tailed) 0.954 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.274 a (2-tailed) 0.476 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.160 a (2-tailed) 0.681 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.251 a (2-tailed) 0.515 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.365 a (2-tailed) 0.334 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.275 a (2-tailed) 0.474 9 N Corr. Coef. 0.365 a (2-tailed) 0.334 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.251 a (2-tailed) 0.515 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.137 a (2-tailed) 0.725 9 N Corr. Coef. -0.583 -0.046 a (2-tailed) 0.099 0.907 9 9 N  113 -0.274 0.476 9 -0.160 0.681 9 -0.160 0.681 9 -0.183 0.638 9 -0.365 0.334 9 -0.069 0.860 9 0.091 0.815 9 -0.091 0.815 9 -0.365 0.334 9 0.320 0.402 9  160 0.548 0.127 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.000 1.000 9 0.000 1.000 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.138 0.724 9 0.274 0.476 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.274 0.476 9 0.411 0.272 9  121 122 0.114 0.188 0.770 0.628 9 9 0.388 0.099 0.302 0.800 9 9 0.160 0.149 0.681 0.703 9 9 -0.297 -0.040 0.438 0.919 9 9 0.730 0.099 0.025 0.800 9 9 -0.309 0.085 0.418 0.829 9 9 -0.023 0.069 0.954 0.859 9 9 -0.502 -0.218 0.168 0.573 9 9 0.730 0.188 0.025 0.628 9 9 -0.707 0.129 0.033 0.741 9 9  120 -0.274 0.476 9 0.548 0.127 9 0.548 0.127 9 0.548 0.127 9 0.274 0.476 9 0.550 0.125 9 -0.411 0.272 9 0.411 0.272 9 -0.137 0.725 9 -0.137 0.725 9  150  -0.749 0.020 9  0.018 0.963 9 0.018 0.963 9 -0.493 0.178 9 -0.183 0.638 9 -0.394 0.294 9 0.475 0.197 9 -0.493 0.178 9 -0.402 0.284 9 -0.219 0.571 9  200 0.033 0.932 9 -0.117 0.765 9 0.017 0.966 9 0.083 0.831 9 -0.100 0.798 9 -0.059 0.881 9 0.100 0.798 9 0.250 0.516 9 -0.250 0.516 9 -0.217 0.576 9  400 -0.274 0.476 9 -0.023 0.954 9 -0.023 0.954 9 -0.502 0.168 9 0.068 0.861 9 -0.539 0.135 9 0.388 0.302 9 -0.342 0.367 9 0.068 0.861 9 -0.456 0.217 9  510 610 -0.274 0.492 0.476 0.179 9 9 0.548 -0.102 0.127 0.795 9 9 0.548 -0.203 0.127 0.600 9 9 0.548 0.407 0.127 0.277 9 9 0.274 0.085 0.476 0.828 9 9 0.550 0.349 0.125 0.357 9 9 -0.411 -0.492 0.272 0.179 9 9 0.411 0.458 0.272 0.215 9 9 -0.137 0.305 0.725 0.425 9 9 -0.137 0.424 0.725 0.256 9 9  Table F9. continued. Macorinvertebrate EPT Total Corr. Coef. Abundance  a (2-tailed)  0  (%)  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  8  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  8  160  Land Use Code 122 150 120  121  0.082 -0.412 0.846 0.31  0.483 0.225  0.082 0.847  0.577 0.134  8  8  8  8  0.071 -0.082 -0.247 -0.412 0.867 0.846 0.555 0.31  0.343 0.406  0.3 0.47  0.577 0.134  8  8  8  8  8  0.429 0.337  0.612 0.144  7  7  N EPT Rarefaction  113  0.286 -0.247 0.493 0.555  N EPT  111  N Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  8  8  8  0.408 -0.408 -0.579 -0.591 0.363 0.363 0.173 0.162  7  7  7  7  200  0.436 0.28  8  520  8  8  0.436 -0.357 -0.031 0.28 0.385 0.942  8  0 -0.535 1 0.216  7  400  -0.31 -0.031 0.456 0.942  7  8  610  0.577 -0.275 0.134 0.509  8  8  0.577 -0.275 0.134 0.509  8  8  8  0.179 -0.612 0.702 0.144  0 1  0.378 0.403  7  7  7  7  Table F10. Macroinvertebrate and general land use (100m buffer width) Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). General Land Use Macroinvertebrate Agriculture Residential^Transportation^Recreation Vacant/U Rarefaction 0.033 0.200 -0.274 0.492 -0.250 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) 0.516 0.476 0.179 0.606 0.932 9 9 9 9 9 N -0.117 0.417 0.548 Total -0.102 0.217 Corr. Coef. Abundance a (2-tailed) 0.576 0.265 0.127 0.795 0.765 9 9 9 9 9 N collectors 0.017 0.250 0.548 0.233 -0.203 Corr. Coef. (total) a (2-tailed) 0.546 0.966 0.516 0.127 0.600 9 9 9 9 9 N shredders -0.133 0.083 -0.067 0.548 0.407 Corr. Coef. (total) a (2-tailed) 0.732 0.831 0.865 0.127 0.277 9 9 9 9 9 N predators -0.100 0.667 0.274 0.085 0.017 Corr. Coef. (total) a (2-tailed) 0.966 0.798 0.050 0.476 0.828 9 9 9 9 9 N -0.059 -0.234 0.050 0.550 0.349 Corr. Coef. predators/ parasites a (2-tailed) 0.898 0.544 0.881 0.125 0.357 (total) 9 9 9 9 9 N collectors 0.100 -0.217 0.183 -0.411 -0.492 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) 0.637 0.798 0.576 0.272 0.179 (%) 9 9 9 9 9 N shredders 0.250 0.411 -0.433 -0.067 0.458 Corr. Coef. (%) a (2-tailed) 0.244 0.516 0.865 0.272 0.215 9 9 9 9 9 N predators -0.250 -0.033 0.767 -0.137 0.305 Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) 0.932 0.516 0.016 0.725 0.425 (%) 9 9 9 9 9 N 0.033 -0.217 -0.867 -0.137 Corr. Coef. 0.424 predators/ parasites a (2-tailed) 0.932 0.576 0.002 0.725 0.256 9 9 9 9 9 (%) N  O  Table F10. continued. General Land Use Macroinvertebrate  EPT Total Abundance  Corr. Coef.  a (2-tailed) N  EPT (%)  Corr. Coef.  EPT Rarefaction  Corr. Coef.  a (2-tailed) N  a (2-tailed) N  Agriculture Residential Transportation ^Recreation Vacant/ -0.310 0.286 0.577 -0.275 0.500 0.207 0.456 0.493 0.134 0.509 8 8 8 8 8 0.119 0.577 -0.275 -0.357 0.762 0.385 0.779 0.028 0.134 0.509 8 8 8 8 8 -0.500 0.179 0.143 0.000 0.378 0.253 0.702 0.760 1.000 0.403 7 7 7 7 7  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Figure F11. Macroinvertebrate and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1). Land Cover Macroinvertebrate  Rarefaction  Total Abundance  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  N  collectors (total)  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N shredders Corr. Coef. (total) a (2-tailed) N predators Corr. Coef. (total) a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. predators/ parasites a (2-tailed) (total) N  collectors (%)  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed)  N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N predators Corr. Coef. (%) a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. predators/ parasites a (2-tailed) (%) N  shredders (%)  Forest 0.233 0.546 9 0.200 0.606 9 0.117 0.765 9 0.383 0.308 9 0.383 0.308 9 0.310 0.417 9 -0.383 0.308 9 0.333 0.381 9 0.150 0.700 9 -0.083 0.831 9  Forest Impervious 0.167 0.100 0.668 0.798 9 9 -0.167 -0.167 0.668 0.668 9 9 -0.133 -0.250 0.732 0.516 9 9 0.533 -0.317 0.139 0.406 9 9 -0.217 0.150 0.576 0.700 9 9 0.527 -0.527 0.145 0.145 9 9 -0.333 0.133 0.381 0.732 9 9 0.583 -0.100 0.099 0.798 9 9 -0.317 0.467 0.406 0.205 9 9 0.667 -0.517 0.050 0.154 9 9  Impervious 0.383 0.308 9 0.483 0.187 9 0.517 0.154 9 0.433 0.244 9 0.467 0.205 9 0.268 0.486 9 -0.467 0.205 9 0.483 0.187 9 0.433 0.244 9 -0.567 0.112 9  Table F11. continued. Land Cover Macroinvertebrate  EPT Total Abundance EPT (%) EPT Rarefaction  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  Forest -0.251 0.316 18 -0.391 0.108 18 -0.301 0.342 12  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Forest  -0.536 0.022  18 -0.282 0.257 18 -0.182 0.572 12  Impervious Impervious 0.281 0.102 0.259 0.686 18 18 0.102 0.102 0.686 0.687 18 18 0.350 0.245 0.265 0.443 12 12  Table F12. Macroinvertebrate and land cover Spearman Rank correlation coefficient (p) results (a = 0.1) (1974, 1994 and 2005). Land Cover  Macroinvertebrate  Total Abundance Rarefaction  EPT Total Abundance EPT (%) EPT Rarefaction  Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N Corr. Coef. a (2-tailed) N  Forest 0.160 0.526 18 0.077 0.812 12 -0.251 0.316 18 -0.391 0.108 18 -0.301 0:342 12  Note: Significant correlations are in bold.  Forest Impervious Impervious -0.356 0.005 0.223 0.147 0.374 0.984 18 18 18 -0.238 0.399 0.322 0.457 0.308 0.199 12 12 12 -0.536 0.102 0.281 0.686 0.259 0.022 18 18 18 -0.282 0.102 0.102 0.257 0.687 0.686 18 18 18 -0.182 0.350 0.245 0.572 0.265 0.443 12 12 12  Appendix G: Site Photos Figures Figure G1. Upstream view, below site SAL 05 on the Salmon River mainstem. Figure G2. Upstream view of site SAL 06 on the Salmon River mainstem, William's Park. Figure G3. Downstream view below site SAL 10 on the Salmon River mainstem. Figure G4. Site SAL 11 on the Salmon River mainstem. Figure G5. Downstream view below site SAL 07 on Coghlan Creek, William's Park. Figure G6. Upstream view of site SAL 08 on Coghlan Creek. Figure G7. Downstream view below site SAL 09 on Coghlan Creek.  213  Figure 01. Upstream view, below site SAL 05 on the Salmon River mainstem.  Figure G2. Upstream view of site SAL 06 on the Salmon River mainstem, William's Park.  214  .  3  CD  3 3'  0  3  CD  0  0  at (n  CD 0  0  cu 3 .  0  a  5,4  11 cs3  Figure G5. Downstream view below site SAL 07 on Coghlan Creek, William's Park.  Figure G6. Upstream view of site SAL 08 on Coghlan Creek.  216  LIZ  .NaaJo uelq6o0 uo 60 ivs eps moiaq mayx weagsumoa LO amBIA .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0066615/manifest

Comment

Related Items