Water quality in Canadian rivers

Access PDF (1.35 MB)

Healthy river ecosystems rely on clean water. The quality of water, and the health of rivers, depends on how people develop and use the surrounding land.

National results

National key results

  • For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality in rivers in Canada was fair to good at just over 75% of the monitoring sites. This classification means it can maintain healthy river ecosystems.
  • Water quality tends to be worse where there is agriculture, mining, or a combination of these with cities (mixed pressures).

Water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The column chart on the left presents water quality ratings for the 2014 to 2016 period for rivers in southern Canada.

The column chart on the right presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures, undeveloped and uncategorized. Good and excellent water quality was found more often in undeveloped areas. Poor and marginal water quality was usually found at sites with agriculture, mining, or a mix of agriculture, mines and cities (mixed pressures) around them.

Data for this chart
Water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 6 26 6 2
Mining 1 2 17 6 0
Mixed pressures 3 19 21 11 0
Undeveloped 0 1 8 40 7
Uncategorized 0 0 2 0 0
Total 4 28 74 63 9
Water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 3 15 3 1
Mining 1 1 10 3 0
Mixed pressures 2 11 12 6 0
Undeveloped 0 1 4 22 4
Uncategorized 0 0 1 0 0
Total 2 16 42 35 5

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.29 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How this indicator was calculated

Note: Water quality was evaluated at 178 sites across southern Canada using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index. Two sites have not had their land use categorized because they are close to the Canada-United States border or the ocean.
Source: Data assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from federal, provincial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality at 178 monitoring sites in southern Canadian rivers was rated:

  • excellent or good at 40% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 42% of sites
  • marginal at 16% of sites
  • poor at 2% of sites

By world standards, Canada has abundant, clean freshwater resources. The water in Canada's rivers varies naturally across the country based on the rocks and soil in the area and the climate. For example, water that flows through the rocky landscape of northern Ontario and Quebec is naturally different from water flowing through the deep soils of the Prairies. However, it is how people have developed the land around lakes and rivers that has the largest impact on water quality at each site.

Water quality is generally very good in undeveloped areas where native plants, trees and soils purify the water before it reaches the river. Adding manufacturing and cities to the landscape means hundreds of different chemicals are released into rivers every day. As well, many contaminants make their way into rivers after being released into the air through burning. Pollution from agriculture reaches rivers through run-off across the soil surface or by seeping into groundwater. All of these developments change water quality in a river and put pressure on the plants and animals that live there.

Water quality is reported in this indicator by measuring the levels of a number of chemicals and physical properties (parameters) in water. The levels of each parameter are compared to its water quality guideline. Water quality guidelines are thresholds designed to indicate when a chemical may become harmful to plants and animals. The more often a parameter's concentration is above its guidelines, the poorer the rating of water quality in a river will be.

Trends in water quality in Canadian rivers

Key results

  • Water quality has not changed between 2002 and 2016 at a majority of sites across southern Canada.
  • Where it has changed, it has improved slightly more often than it has gotten worse.

Trends in water quality, Canada, 2002 to 2016

Trends in water quality, Canada, 2002 to 2016 (see long description below)
Long description

The bar chart summarizes the trend results. It shows water quality at 10% of the sites (18 sites) have improving water quality and 9% (16 sites) have deteriorating water quality. No trend in water quality was found at 81% of sites (144 sites).

Data for this chart
Trends in water quality, Canada, 2002 to 2016
Change Number of sites Percentage of sites
Improving water quality 18 10
Deteriorating water quality 16 9
No change in water quality 144 81
Total 178 100

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 947 B)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How this indicator was calculated

Note: The trend in water quality between the first year that data were reported for each site and 2016 was calculated at 178 sites across southern Canada. A uniform set of water quality guidelines and parameters were used through time at each site for the trend analysis. A Mann-Kendall test was used to assess whether there was a statistically-significant increasing or decreasing trend in the annual guideline deviation ratios at a site.
Source: Data assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from federal, provincial and joint water quality monitoring programs.

More information

Water quality in a river tends to change slowly. Natural factors, such as snow and rainfall, affect water quality by washing pollution that builds up on the surface of roads and fields into the river. A dry year can mean better water quality because less pollution is washed into the river. A changing climate that results in longer wet periods may make water quality worse for longer periods of time.

How the landscape is developed also impacts how quickly water quality changes. Altered landscapes, industrial and sewage effluents, and air pollution deposited on the river surface can all affect water quality. Thus, any change in the amount or type of these inputs over time can also change water quality over the long-term.

Water quality in a river can be improved by modernizing wastewater treatment plants and factories, adopting environmental farming practices, or planting vegetation along river banks.

Regional results

Regional key results

  • Good or excellent water quality is more common in rivers in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mackenzie River regions.
  • Marginal or poor water quality is more common in rivers in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River regions.

Regional water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period

Regional water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of water quality at 197 water quality monitoring sites; the 178 core sites for southern Canadian rivers and 19 additional monitoring sites in the Mackenzie River and Pacific Ocean regions.

The inset column charts show the sites grouped by the major river or ocean system into which they drain: the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, Hudson Bay, the Mackenzie River and the Pacific Ocean. Of the 46 monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean, 4% had excellent water quality, 59% had good water quality, 26% had fair water quality, 11% had marginal water quality, and no sites had poor water quality. Of the 59 monitoring sites draining into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, 3% had excellent water quality, 25% had good water quality, 44% had fair water quality, 22% had marginal water quality, and 5% of sites had poor water quality. Of the 46 monitoring sites draining into Hudson Bay, 7% had excellent water quality, 26% had good water quality, 50% had fair water quality, 17% had marginal water quality, and no sites had poor water quality. Of the 21 monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Mackenzie River, 19% had excellent water quality, 52% had good water quality, 29% had fair water quality, and no sites had marginal or poor water quality. Of the 25 monitoring sites draining into the Pacific Ocean, 12% had excellent water quality, 32% had good water quality, 40% had fair water quality, 12% had marginal water quality, and 4% of sites had poor water quality.

Data for this chart
Regional water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period
Water quality category Atlantic Ocean
(number of sites)
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
(number of sites)
Hudson Bay
(number of sites)
Mackenzie River
(number of sites)
Pacific Ocean
(number of sites)
Excellent 2 2 3 4 3
Good 27 15 12 11 8
Fair 12 26 23 6 10
Marginal 5 13 8 0 3
Poor 0 3 0 0 1
Total 46 59 46 21 25
Regional water quality, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period
Water quality category Atlantic Ocean
(percentage of sites)
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
(percentage of sites)
Hudson Bay
(percentage of sites)
Mackenzie River
(percentage of sites)
Pacific Ocean
(percentage of sites)
Excellent 4 3 7 19 12
Good 59 25 26 52 32
Fair 26 44 50 29 40
Marginal 11 22 17 0 12
Poor 0 5 0 0 4
Total 100 100 100 100 100

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.47 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: For the regional indicator, water quality was assessed at 197 sites across Canada using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index. Compared to the national indicator, the Regional water quality in Canadian rivers indicator uses 19 additional monitoring sites to improve the coverage of the northern portions of the Mackenzie River and Pacific Ocean regions.
Source: Data assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from federal, provincial, territorial and joint water quality monitoring programs.

More information

Water quality varies widely across Canada. For the 2014 to 2016 period:

  • The highest percentage of sites rated good or excellent was found in rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean (63%) and the Mackenzie River (71%). Good or excellent water quality was found at undeveloped sites with very little human development upstream. The Atlantic Ocean and Mackenzie River regions have the highest proportion of undeveloped sites in Canada.
  • The highest proportion of sites rated marginal or poor was found in rivers draining into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River (27%). This area has a lot of urban development and agriculture.

blank space

Atlantic Ocean

Key results

  • Most sites in the Atlantic Ocean region are in undeveloped areas and have good or excellent water quality.
  • Water quality at monitoring sites close to cities, agriculture and/or mining (mixed pressures) usually have worse water quality.

Water quality by land use category, Atlantic Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality by land use category, Atlantic Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of freshwater quality at 46 water quality monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean.

The column chart presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures and undeveloped. Excellent and good water quality was found more often in undeveloped areas. Marginal water quality was found more often at sites with mixed land use pressures.

Data for this chart
Water quality by land use category, Atlantic Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 5 1 0
Mining 0 0 3 2 0
Mixed pressures 0 4 1 0 0
Undeveloped 0 1 3 24 2
Total 0 5 12 27 2
Water quality by land use category, Atlantic Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 11 2 0
Mining 0 0 7 4 0
Mixed pressures 0 9 2 0 0
Undeveloped 0 2 7 52 4
Total 0 11 26 59 4

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.24 KB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: Water quality was assessed at 46 sites on rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index.
Source: Water quality data were assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from existing federal, provincial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

Along the east coast of Canada, all rivers drain into the Atlantic Ocean. This region includes Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, along with part of eastern Quebec.

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality for 46 sites on rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean was rated:

  • excellent or good at 63% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 26% of sites
  • marginal at 11% of sites

Water quality tends to be good to excellent in this region of Canada because large areas are undeveloped, particularly in Labrador. The region is home to approximately 2.4 million people, or 7% of Canada's population. The majority of them live in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and on the island of Newfoundland.

Between the first year of data collection and 2016, water quality has improved on the Terra Nova River, Exploits River and Gander River in Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the Roseway River and Mersey River in Nova Scotia. These 5 sites have very little development around them. Water quality has deteriorated on the Saint John River in New Brunswick, the Mill River in Prince Edward Island, and the Annapolis River in Nova Scotia in areas where there is agriculture and industrial development. There has been no change in water quality at the remaining 38 sites.

Agriculture is mainly found in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, and New Brunswick where the soil and climate are suitable. Fertilizers and pesticides used to help crops grow can wash into nearby rivers or seep into groundwater, impacting water quality in these areas.

Mining is one of the region's largest industries. In Newfoundland and Labrador, iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt and gold are mined. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have many active aggregates, limestone and gypsum mines. Water pollution from mine effluent released to rivers and leaching from tailings and waste rock enclosures can have a local impact on water quality. Closed or abandoned metal mines may still be releasing substances to the water.

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River

Key results

  • Water quality in rivers in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River regions ranges from fair to poor in southwestern Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City. It is good or excellent in eastern Ontario.
  • Water quality at monitoring sites close to cities and agriculture (mixed pressures) tend to have worse water quality.

Water quality by land use category, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality by land use category, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region, Canada, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of freshwater quality at 59 water quality monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

The column chart presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures and undeveloped. Good and excellent water quality was found more often in undeveloped areas. Poor and marginal water quality was found more often at sites with mixed land use pressures.

Data for this chart
Water quality by land use category, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 4 5 3 1
Mining 0 0 6 1 0
Mixed pressures 3 9 13 3 0
Undeveloped 0 0 2 8 1
Total 3 13 26 15 2
Water quality by land use category, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 7 8 5 2
Mining 0 0 10 2 0
Mixed pressures 5 15 22 5 0
Undeveloped 0 0 3 14 2
Total 5 22 44 25 3

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.29 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: Water quality was assessed at 59 sites on rivers draining into the Great Lakes or St. Lawrence River using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index.
Source: Water quality data were assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from existing federal, provincial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality for 59 sites on rivers in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region was rated:

  • excellent or good at 29% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 44% of sites
  • marginal at 22% of sites
  • poor at 5% of sites

Between the first year of data collection and 2016, water quality has not improved on any rivers. Water quality has deteriorated on the Richelieu River in Quebec and the Credit River, the Nottawasaga River, the Ganonoque River, the North Raisin River, the Delisle River, and the Fall River in Ontario. Land use at these sites is mixed pressures or agriculture. There was no change in water quality at the remaining 52 sites.

Home to almost 60% of Canadians, almost 20 million people, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region contains 6 of the country's 10 largest cities: Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Mississauga, Brampton and Hamilton. Most human activity in this area is associated with urbanization. The impact of increasing population density can be seen in the diminished water quality at sites on rivers.

Fertile soils and a relatively mild climate combine to create productive agricultural land in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region. Fertilizers used to help crops grow and manure from livestock can wash into nearby rivers or seep into groundwater impacting water quality in these areas. Agricultural land is steadily being covered by cities changing the stresses on water quality in the region.

Mining in the region is dominated by feldspar and quartz mines. Feldspar is a type of quartz used to make glass.

Hudson Bay

Key results

  • Water quality in rivers close to the Rocky Mountains and north of Lake Winnipeg in the Hudson Bay region tends to be good or excellent. It is in these regions that there is very little development.
  • Water quality tends to be fair or marginal in others areas where there is agriculture, or a mixture of agriculture and mining.

Water quality by land use category, Hudson Bay region, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality by land use category, Hudson Bay region, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of freshwater quality at 46 water quality monitoring sites on rivers draining into Hudson Bay.

The column chart presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures and undeveloped. Marginal water quality was found more often at sites with agriculture or mixed land use pressures around them.

Data for this chart
Water quality by land use category, Hudson Bay region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 2 15 2 1
Mining 0 0 0 2 0
Mixed pressures 0 6 7 8 0
Undeveloped 0 0 1 0 2
Total 0 8 23 12 3
Water quality by land use category, Hudson Bay region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 4 33 4 2
Mining 0 0 0 4 0
Mixed pressures 0 13 15 17 0
Undeveloped 0 0 2 0 4
Total 0 17 50 26 7

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.24 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: Water quality was assessed at 46 sites on rivers draining into the Hudson Bay using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index.
Source: Water quality data were assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from existing federal, provincial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality for 46 sites on rivers in the Hudson Bay region was rated:

  • excellent or good at 33% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 50% of sites
  • marginal at 17% of sites

From the first year of data collection to 2016, water quality has improved on the North Saskatchewan River, the Bow River and the Elbow River in Alberta; the South Saskatchewan River and the North Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan; and the Pembina River and Cooks Creek in Manitoba. Land use at these sites is either agriculture alone or a mix of agriculture and mining (mixed pressures). Water quality has deteriorated on the Assiniboine River and the Carrot River in Saskatchewan. These 2 sites are surrounded by agriculture. There has been no change in water quality at the remaining 37 sites.

The Nelson River originates at the northern tip of Lake Winnipeg and flows into the south-western corner of Hudson Bay. Its tributaries drain over 1 million km2 of land starting in the Rocky Mountains running through the Prairies and into Lake Winnipeg. Most of the 5.5 million people in the region live in its 5 major cities.

The prairies are the most altered landscape in Canada. Water quality in this region reflects the extensive human development. Agriculture covers almost all the land in the Prairies. Mining, particularly the production of potash and fuels, is the second most important industry. Water quality tends to be worse where rivers run through agricultural and mining areas.

Mackenzie River

Key results

  • Water quality in the Mackenzie River region is generally very good.
  • Water quality in the southern portion of the region is impaired by mining and oil and gas activity.

Water quality by land use category, Mackenzie River region, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality by land use category, Mackenzie River region, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of freshwater quality at 21 water quality monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Mackenzie River.

The column chart presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures, undeveloped and uncategorized. Good and excellent water quality was found more often in undeveloped areas. Marginal water quality was found more often at sites with mining in the area.

Data for this chart
Water quality by land use category, Mackenzie River region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0
Mining 0 0 4 2 1
Mixed pressures 0 0 0 0 0
Undeveloped 0 0 0 8 3
Uncategorized 0 0 2 1 0
Total 0 0 6 11 4
Water quality by land use category, Mackenzie River region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0
Mining 0 0 19 9 5
Mixed pressures 0 0 0 0 0
Undeveloped 0 0 0 38 14
Uncategorized 0 0 9 5 0
Total 0 0 29 32 19

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.29 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: Water quality was assessed at 21 sites on rivers draining into the Mackenzie River using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index.
Source: Water quality data were assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from existing federal, provincial, territorial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality for 21 sites on rivers draining into Mackenzie River was rated:

  • excellent or good at 71% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 29% of sites

Between the first year of data collection and 2016, water quality has not changed in this region.

The Mackenzie River watershed is the largest in Canada, covering nearly 20% of the country and is one of the least developed. Its 2 largest tributaries, the Peace River and the Athabasca River, drain much of north-central Alberta and the Rocky Mountains in northern British Columbia. The majority of the 450 000 people living in the watershed live in the southern portions of the watershed.

Much of the watershed consists of unbroken wilderness. The heaviest land use in the region is oil and gas extraction in central Alberta. This land use results in water quality in these areas being degraded relative to water in the undeveloped parts of the watershed.

Pacific Ocean

Key results

  • Water quality in the Pacific Ocean region is generally good.
  • Marginal or poor water quality is found where there is mining.

Water quality by land use category, Pacific Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period

Water quality by land use category, Pacific Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period (see long description below)
Long description

The map of Canada shows the state of freshwater quality at 25 water quality monitoring sites on rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean.

The column chart presents water quality ratings grouped into land use categories: agriculture, mining, mixed pressures, undeveloped and uncategorized. Good and excellent water quality was found more often in undeveloped areas. Poor and marginal water quality was found more often at sites with mining in the area.

Data for this chart
Water quality by land use category, Pacific Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(number of sites)
Marginal
(number of sites)
Fair
(number of sites)
Good
(number of sites)
Excellent
(number of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 1 0 0
Mining 1 2 4 1 0
Mixed pressures 0 0 0 0 0
Undeveloped 0 0 2 7 2
Uncategorized 0 1 3 0 1
Total 1 3 10 8 3
Water quality by land use category, Pacific Ocean region, 2014 to 2016 period
Land use category Poor
(percentage of sites)
Marginal
(percentage of sites)
Fair
(percentage of sites)
Good
(percentage of sites)
Excellent
(percentage of sites)
Agriculture 0 0 4 0 0
Mining 4 8 16 4 0
Mixed pressures 0 0 0 0 0
Undeveloped 0 0 8 28 8
Uncategorized 0 4 12 0 4
Total 4 12 40 32 12

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Download data file (Excel/CSV; 1.29 kB)

Access federal data files

Table descriptions (CSV; 10.5 kB)

Variable information (CSV; 16.5 kB)

Federal raw data (CSV; 38.7 MB)

Federal trend data (CSV; 200 kB)

Federal water quality index scores (CSV; 395 kB)

Navigate data using the interactive map
How is this indicator calculated

Note: Water quality was assessed at 25 sites on rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index.
Source: Water quality data were assembled by Environment and Climate Change Canada from existing federal, provincial, territorial and joint water quality monitoring programs. Population, mining and land cover statistics for each site's drainage area were provided by Statistics Canada.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality for 25 sites on rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean was rated:

  • excellent or good at 44% of monitoring sites
  • fair at 40% of sites
  • marginal at 12% of sites
  • poor at 4% of sites

Between the first year of data and 2016, water quality has improved at the Cheakamus River, the Skeena River, the Thompson River, the Kootenay River, the Columbia River, and the Kettle River in British Columbia, and declined at the Quinsam River, Elk River, and at Marguerite and Red Pass on the Fraser River. All of these sites had either no development upstream or had a mix of agriculture, mining and/or cities. There has been no change in water quality at the remaining 15 sites.

The landscape through which rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean flow varies from large areas with little development to one of Canada's largest cities, Vancouver. Roughly 4.4 million people, or 16% of Canadians, live in the watershed.

In the Okanagan Valley, soil conditions and climate are favourable for orchards, vineyards and cash crops. Cattle ranching are dominant throughout much of the other interior plateau and valley lands.

Mining is one of the region's largest industries. Coal, lead, zinc, copper, gold, silver, molybdenum and other precious metals are actively mined within the watershed. Soil erosion, water pollution from mine effluent released to rivers, and seepage from tailings and waste rock impoundments can have an impact on water quality.

About the indicators

About the indicators

What the indicators measure

These indicators provide a measure of the ability of river water across Canada to support plants and animals. At each monitoring site, water quality data are compared to water quality guidelines to create a rating for the site. If measured water quality is below the guidelines, it can maintain a healthy ecosystem.

Water quality at a monitoring site is considered excellent when substances in a river are very rarely measured above their guidelines. Conversely, water quality is rated poor when measurements are usually above their guidelines, sometimes by a wide margin.

Why these indicators are important

Clean freshwater is an essential resource. It protects aquatic plant and animal biodiversity. We drink it, use it for manufacturing, energy production, irrigation, swimming, boating and fishing. Degraded water quality damages the health of all freshwater ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. It can also disrupt fisheries, tourism and agriculture.

These indicators provide information about the state of surface water quality and its change through time, to support water resource management. They are used to provide information about the state and trends in water quality for the Canada Water Act report and Environment and Climate Change Canada's annual departmental performance reports. They are also used to assess progress toward the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.

Related indicators

The Nutrients in the St. Lawrence River and Nutrients in Lake Winnipeg indicators report the state of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in those two ecosystems.

The Phosphorus levels in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes indicator reports on the state of and trends in phosphorus levels in the open waters of the Canadian Great Lakes.

The Household use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers indicator reports on how many people in Canada use pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns and gardens.

FSDS icon. Pristine lakes and rivers

Pristine lakes and rivers

These indicators support the measurement of progress towards the following 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy long-term goal: Clean and healthy lakes and rivers support economic prosperity and the well-being of Canadians.

Data sources and methods

Data sources and methods

Data sources

Water quality data for 2002 to 2016 for 322 monitoring sites are gathered from federal, provincial and territorial monitoring programs from across Canada. The complete list of data sources from Federal and Provincial monitoring networks can be found in Annex A.

Water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life are used to calculate the indicator. They come from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and provincial and territorial government sources. A complete list of water quality guidelines used by each jurisdiction can be found in Annex B.

Additional information from Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada are used to assess land use.

More information

For the 2014 to 2016 period, water quality data from 178 sites were used to compile the national indicator. These data were drawn from monitoring sites in Canada's 16 southernmost drainage regions.

Geographic extent of the 16 drainage regions selected for the national water quality indicator

Geographic extent of the 16 drainage regions selected for the national water quality indicator (see long description below)
Long description

The partial map of Canada shows the drainage regions included in the national water quality indicator. Of Canada's 25 drainage regions, 16 are used to report on water quality nationally.

Data for 4 additional sites in Yukon, 4 sites in Alberta, 1 site in Saskatchewan, and 10 sites in the Northwest Territories were used to improve coverage of the Mackenzie River region and the Pacific Ocean region in the regional indicator.

Water quality is evaluated at an additional 125 monitoring sites across Canada. Water quality results for all 322 sites can be explored using the interactive water quality map.

Data includes concentrations of a total of 40 measured chemical substances, physical parameters, and data, such as pH, temperature or hardness, required to calculate certain guidelines. Sample timing and frequency are set by monitoring programs and vary among sites.

Each data record is tagged with the site name, the date the sample was collected, the name and chemical form of the parameter. Land use and ecological information are also collected for each site. Water quality data, along with water quality indicator scores and site information from the monitoring programs, are stored in a central water quality indicator dictionary housed within a larger database at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Land use characterization for all monitoring sites was completed in 2008. At that time, land use at each site was determined using:

  • population density from Statistics Canada's 2006 Census of Population
  • mine locations using Natural Resources Canada's 2006 Census of Mines
  • point-source pollutant releases from industrial and commercial facilities using Environment Canada's 2007 National Pollutant Releases Inventory
  • agricultural activity locations using Statistics Canada's 2006 Census of Agriculture
  • land cover using Natural Resources Canada's land cover mapsFootnote 1Footnote 2

Data quality assurance and quality control

Data quality assurance/quality control is performed by the monitoring program providing data for the water quality indicators. Each monitoring program follows standardized methods for sample collection in the field. Chemical analyses are performed in Canadian laboratories accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation or the Standards Council of Canada.

Environment and Climate Change Canada performs further quality assurance/quality control to ensure datasets meet minimum data requirements for the analysis and that calculation standards are respected. This process verifies the number of samples, sample timing, location of monitoring sites, and calculations. It can lead to the removal of water quality data due to low sampling frequencies, erroneous measurements, or where analytical detection limits are higher than the guidelines used in the calculation. Unusually high or low values in the monitoring datasets are double-checked and confirmed through consultation with the data provider.

Minimum data requirements

Calculating the water quality status for most sites requires a minimum of 4 samples per year collected over 3 years. A minimum of 3 samples per year is permitted for northern and remote sites, as access during winter months can be difficult, dangerous and costly. A sensitivity analysis found that there was no significant difference in the water quality index score when mid-winter samples were excluded.Footnote 3

Minimum sampling requirements for the 2014 to 2016 period were not met at 8 sites for the national and regional indicators: 1 in Ontario, 2 in Alberta, 4 in Manitoba and 1 in Saskatchewan. The results for these sites were evaluated by local water quality experts who concluded the data could be included because they were consistent with previous years and were considered representative of local water quality.

For a parameter to be included in the calculation of the indicators, a sample value must be available for each year for at least 33% of the total number of samples.

Data timeliness

The indicators were calculated using data from 2014 to 2016, the most recent data available from all monitoring programs. For 18 sites, data from late December 2013 or early January 2017 were used to meet the requirements for minimum number of samples.

Methods

These indicators are calculated using the water quality index as endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.Footnote 4 For each site, 5 to 15 water quality parameters are compared to their guideline value using the index calculation. The index produces a score between 1 and 100. Sites are assigned a water quality category based on the score. The results are grouped into 5 regions for presentation in the Regional water quality in Canadian rivers indicator.

Trends in water quality are evaluated using a guideline deviation ratio calculated using data from the first year of data collected at the site to 2016. To calculate the guideline deviation ratio, the concentration of each water quality parameter result at a site was divided by its guideline and averaged annually to obtain the guideline deviation ratio at a site. A Mann-Kendall test was used to assess whether there was a statistically significant increasing (improving water quality) or decreasing (deteriorating water quality) trend in the annual guideline deviation ratios at a site.

Annex B contains a complete list of parameters and guidelines used in each jurisdiction. Information on water quality parameters and guidelines used at individual sites can be found in the interactive water quality map.

More information

Parameter selection

Federal, provincial and territorial water quality professionals select the chemical substances and physical properties to be assessed at each site based on their knowledge of local water quality stressors. Typically, at least one form of the following parameter groups is reported at each monitoring site: nutrients (for example, phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen), metals (for example, zinc, copper, lead), and physico-chemical parameters (for example, pH, turbidity), as well as 2 to 4 regionally specific parameters (for example, chloride, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, pesticides).

The exceptions are British Columbia and Yukon. In these regions, a common set of parameters is assessed at all sites with site-specific parameters added as required. Dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, pH, nitrogen and water temperature are included at sites when data are available.

Water quality guideline selection

Water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life are recommended limits or statements for a variety of chemical substances and physical parameters, which, if exceeded, may impair aquatic life. These guidelines are based on existing knowledge of a substance's environmental fate, behaviour, and chronic or acute toxicity. The water quality indicator uses chronic water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, except for Quebec, where acute water quality guidelines for metals are used.

Federal, provincial or territorial water quality experts select the guidelines to use in the calculation of the water quality indicator based on their local relevance. The Canadian Freshwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life are recommended if locally relevant. Annex B provides a complete list of guidelines used by provinces and territories and their source.

Background concentrations of naturally-occurring substances and other local river characteristics can impact the measured concentration and toxicity of some substances. In these cases, site-specific guidelines are developed using procedures based on background concentrationsFootnote 5 or a rapid assessment approach. The rapid assessment approach uses long-term monitoring data and adjusts for natural events, such as high flows, that may influence results.Footnote 6

Selection of national core sites for the development of the national indicator

Among Canada's 25 drainage regions, 16 were selected based on population and land use to create the water quality indicator core network for national water quality reporting. Within the 16 selected drainage regions, core sites were selected to ensure site drainage areas do not overlap and are independent of one another. The upstream drainage area of each monitoring site was delineated by Statistics Canada using the National Hydro Network.Footnote 7 Where the upstream drainage areas of monitoring sites overlapped, the site furthest downstream was retained for the core network, as the downstream site is impacted by the maximum area in the river basin and, to some degree, reflects the cumulative impact of all upstream stresses. For 14 large rivers, core sites were chosen in the upper, mid and lower portions of the main river and at the most downstream sites on each tributary, when available. Additional core sites were included on these rivers, because water travels thousands of kilometres from the source to the mouth of these rivers. Water quality changes along the way and cannot be summarized by a unique downstream monitoring site. The final selection of core sites ensures monitoring sites are well distributed among provinces and drainage regions.

The number of core sites changes from year to year because samples are missed or lost and, as a result, the site may not have the minimum data required to be reported.

Classification of sites

Land use was assessed in the drainage area of core sites and classified according to the criteria presented in Table 1 using the drainage area of each monitoring site.Footnote 8 For this analysis:

  • Agricultural land cover corresponds to land cover classes 26, 27, 28 and 29
  • Undisturbed land cover corresponds to land cover classes 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 38

Land use upstream of 16 core sites in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec was defined based on knowledge by local water quality professionals. Land use for 8 sites in Northwest Territories and Yukon was not classified because (1) they are trans-boundary sites and the United States portion of the sites is challenging to classify or (2) they are close to the ocean.

Table 1. Criteria for the classification of human activity at monitoring sites
Land use Criteria
Agriculture > 20 % of drainage area is agricultural land cover
Mining Presence of at least 1 mine
Mixed pressures Agriculture and mining OR
Agriculture and population density > 25 persons/km2 or
Mining and population density > 50 persons/km2
Undeveloped > 95 % of drainage area is undisturbed land cover

Calculating Water Quality Status

The water quality indicators are calculated using the water quality index, as endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The water quality index calculation considers 3 factors to summarize water quality at a site: scope, frequency and amplitude (Equation 1). Scope (F1) is the percentage of parameters for which the water quality guidelines are not met. Frequency (F2) is the percentage of samples for which the water quality guidelines are not met. Amplitude (F3) refers to the amount by which the water quality guidelines are not met. The score is normalized to yield a score between 1 and 100.Footnote 9 The full set of equations for the water quality index is described in Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index 1.0 Technical Report (PDF; 1.40 MB).

Equation 1.

formula to calculate the water quality index (see long description below)
Long description

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index score is calculated as 100 minus the square root of the ratio of the sum of the scope (F1) squared plus the frequency (F2) squared plus the amplitude (F3) squared divided by 3.

Water quality scores are grouped into 5 categories following the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index (Table 2).

Table 2. Score rankings for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's water quality index
Ranking Interpretation
Excellent
(95.0 to 100.0)
Water quality is protected with a virtual absence of threat of impairment; conditions are very close to natural.
Good
(80.0 to 94.9)
Water quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from natural or desirable levels.
Fair
(65.0 to 79.9)
Water quality is usually protected but occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels.
Marginal
(45.0 to 64.9)
Water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels.
Poor
(0 to 44.9)
Water quality is almost always threatened or impaired; conditions usually depart from natural or desired levels.

The 3-year roll-up is intended to dampen temporal variability in the results caused by annual fluctuations in weather and hydrology to make the water quality indicators more representative of how humans are impacting water quality in rivers.Footnote 10

Calculation of trends in the water quality

To investigate if water quality at a site has changed through time, a separate set of calculations and metrics from the water quality index were carried out. The trend analysis allows for the detection of improving or deteriorating trends in water quality at a site, whether they occur above or below guideline values. The water quality index formulation can only detect change once parameter values exceed their guidelines, making it a metric that is much less sensitive to change over time.

For each year a guideline deviation ratio was calculated by dividing each parameter concentration (C) by its guideline value (G) for each sampling date. The logarithm of the ratios was calculated and averaged for each year to produce a mean annual value (Equation 2). The ratios were multiplied by -1 to invert the values so improving water quality has a positive slope to match how water quality is portrayed with the water quality index.

Equation 2.

For each year:

guideline deviance ratio formula (see long description below)

where,

i = parameters

j = samples

n = total number of samples

p = total number of parameters

C = measured concentration

G = guideline value

As the concentration of a parameter gets closer its guideline, the guideline deviation ratio gets closer to zero. A ratio below zero means the parameter is above its guideline. When parameters are well below the guideline, the ratio is close to 1.

Long description

The guideline deviation ratio is calculated as minus 1 multipied by the sum of the logarithm of the annual average of the measured concentration (i) of parameter (j) divided by its guideline and divided by the total number of measurement and parameters over parameters (j) and measurements (i).

Three parameters were exceptions:

  • Dissolved oxygen and total alkalinity have guidelines for which measurements must be above, rather than below like the majority of parameters. The guideline deviation ratio for dissolved oxygen was calculated by dividing the guideline by the concentration.
  • pH measurements must lie within a range of generally 6.5 and 9. For this parameter, measurements within the guideline range were given a value of 1. The guideline deviation ratio for pH values less than 6.5 was calculated by dividing the guideline by the concentration. For pH values greater than 9, the guideline deviation ratio was calculated by dividing the concentration by the guideline.
  • Where temperature was used as a parameter, the absolute value of the guideline deviation ratio was used if temperatures were below zero.

Current parameters and guidelines at each site were used through the entire record to avoid mistaking methodological changes in the water quality indicator for water quality change. When historical data were missing for a parameter, the parameter was dropped from the trend analysis. In one case, there was a change in the analytical form of a parameter. In 2012, Quebec began reporting un-ionized ammonia instead of dissolved ammonia. The ammonia data in the older data set were left as dissolved ammonia for this analysis because there is no way to convert between the two forms.

A Mann-Kendall test using the Kendall package of the statistical software R was used to detect the presence of statistically-significant trends in the guideline deviation ratios. A count of sites with increasing, declining and no trends in the water quality indicator was compiled for the indicator of change through time.

The year in which sampling started at each site varies: 2002 for 73 sites, 2003 for 54 sites, 2004 for 12 sites, 2005 for 7 sites, 2006 for 29 sites and 2007 for 3 sites.

Recent changes

These indicators have undergone minor changes since they were last published in July 2017.

  • How trends in pH are evaluated has changed. In the last update, pH measurements outside the guideline range were given a 1 and those within the range were given a 0. In this update, the pH measurements and guideline ranges were back transformed into the hydrogen concentration. These concentrations were then treated like the other concentrations in the trend analysis, with one minor exception. Values less than or equal to 7.75, the mid-point of the pH guideline range, were compared to the lower end of the range, or pH 6.5. Values greater than 7.75 were compared to the upper end of the range, or pH 9.
  • Ammonia values for the sites monitored by Environment and Climate Change Canada were converted to un-ionized values using the equation in the guideline documents.
  • Null values report for Ontario metals that were below the analytical detection limit were replaced by detection limits appropriate to the analytical method. This data replacement had no effect on the water quality scores as in all cases the concentrations were below the guideline. They did add information to the trend analysis as the cases were no longer eliminated because the logarithm of 0 is an impossible number.

Caveats and limitations

These indicators reflect the state of water quality in rivers in southern Canada. Northern Canada is under-represented.

An additional 19 non-core sites were included in the regional indicator to allow for coverage of the Mackenzie River region and the Pacific Ocean region, which are not included in the national water quality indicator.

The indicators only use data for which guidelines exist. They do not cover all potential water quality issues in Canada.

The indicators are based on the impacts of a concentration of a number of chemicals at each site. These concentrations do not show the effect of spills or other transient events unless samples were collected right after the spill happened or their effect on water quality is long-lasting.

More information

Water quality guidelines are derived from laboratory studies that do not consider, among other things, the impact of flow on sediment loads in a river. Although site-specific guidelines try to take into account the impact of elevated flows on parameter concentrations, elevated levels of naturally-occurring substances, such as minerals, nutrients, glacier deposits and soils, can lower water quality ratings.

The water quality indicators do not directly measure biological integrity; it measures whether physical and chemical characteristics of freshwaters are acceptable for aquatic life. Although physical and chemical measurements provide good proxies of biological integrity, only biological information provides a direct measurement of conditions for aquatic life.

The water quality indicators only assess the quality of surface waters. Groundwater is not considered in these indicators.

The trends reported are based on annual ratios that aggregate parameter data. In the aggregation, negative and positive trends may cancel each other out. The trends may be different from analyses performed on a parameter by parameter basis.

It can be difficult to compare water quality index scores among sites due to flexibility in the selection of parameters and guidelines to reflect local and regional water quality concerns. The water quality categories assigned based on the scores, however, are comparable. A site classified as marginal has water quality guidelines that are being exceeded frequently and by a considerable margin, even if the parameters and guidelines used to make that classification are not exactly the same at all sites.

Only parameters for which water quality guidelines exist can be included in the indicators. The absence of a water quality guideline for a parameter does not mean the parameter is unimportant.

The water quality indicator scores are sensitive to the number of parameters and samples used in their calculation. The number of parameters used in the indicators varies from 5 to 15 depending on the monitoring site, and between 9 and 36 samples can be used for a given parameter. In general, as the number of parameters, or samples, used to calculate the index increases, the score decreases because there is a greater chance of a guideline exceedance.Footnote 11

Water quality varies naturally with weather and hydrological cycles. Although the water quality indicators use a 3-year average to dampen the influence of specific rain fall and snow melt events on the water quality indicator scores, care must be taken in comparing one period to another.

Resources

Resources

References

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2001) CCME Water Quality Index 1.0 Technical Report (PDF; 1.4 MB). Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2001) CCME Water Quality Index 1.0 User's Manual (PDF; 84.3 kB). Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2006) A Sensitivity Analysis of the Canadian Water Quality Index (PDF; 515 kB). Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2009) Reducing the Sensitivity of the Water Quality Index to Episodic Events (PDF; 2.78 MB). November 4, 2016.

Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Indicator Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Henry M et al. (2009) Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Water Quality Index Representivity Report, Statistics Canada.

Natural Resources Canada (2005) Multi-Temporal Land Cover Maps of Canada Using NOAA AVHRR 1-km Data from 1985-2005, 1st Edition, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Natural Resources Canada (2007) National Hydro Network. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Natural Resources Canada (2008) Land Cover Map of Canada 2005, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Painter S and Waltho J (2004) Canadian Water Quality Index: A Sensitivity Analysis. Environment Canada.

Statistics Canada (2007) Behaviour Study on the Water Quality Index of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Statistics Canada (2009) Standard Drainage Area Classification (SDAC) 2003. Retrieved on November 4, 2016.

Annexes
Table A.1. Monitoring programs providing data on ambient water quality
Province/territory Monitoring program Organization(s)
All Canada Environment and Climate Change Canada's water quality monitoring network (NWT, YK, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS, NL, PEI - transboundary and interprovincial monitoring sites, federal lands) Environment and Climate Change Canada
Alberta Long-term river network monitoring program Alberta Environment and Parks
British Columbia Canada-British Columbia Water Quality Monitoring Agreement British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada
Manitoba Ambient water quality monitoring network Manitoba Sustainable Development
New Brunswick Canada-New Brunswick Water Quality Monitoring Agreement Environment and Climate Change Canada, New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government
New Brunswick Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants Program Environment and Climate Change Canada
New Brunswick Surface water monitoring network New Brunswick Department of Environment and local government
Newfoundland and Labrador Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Water Quality Monitoring Agreement Environment and Climate Change Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment
Nova Scotia Long-range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants Program Environment and Climate Change Canada
Nova Scotia Nova Scotia Automated Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network Nova Scotia Environment
Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network with the Conservation Authorities Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Prince Edward Island Canada-Prince Edward Island Water Quality Agreement Environment and Climate Change Canada, Prince Edward Island Department of Communities, Land and Environment
Quebec Canada-Quebec Water Quality Agreement Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement et Lutte contre les changements climatiques du Québec
Quebec Réseau-Rivières Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement et Lutte contre les changements climatiques du Québec
Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Water Security Agency Water Quality Monitoring Program Saskatchewan Water Security Agency
Northwest Territories and Nunavut Parks Canada Western Arctic parks water quality monitoring program (Aulavik and Tuktut Nogait); Environment and Climate Change Canada-Parks Canada water quality monitoring program in Eastern Arctic parks (Quttinirpaaq and Auyuittuq); Environment and Climate Change Canada-Parks Canada water quality monitoring program in Nahanni National Park; Government of Northwest Territories water quality programs in the Northwest Territories basins (Coppermine, Yellowknife, Lockhart, Slave, Hay, Liard, Peel, Snare, Burnside River basins) Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada, Government of Northwest Territories (Environment and Natural Resources)
Yukon Canada-Yukon Water Quality Monitoring Network; Parks Canada Western Arctic parks water quality monitoring program (Ivvavik National Park) Yukon Environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada

Annex B. Water quality guidelines used by each province and territory

Abbreviations used in the following tables:

  • 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
  • 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA)
  • calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
  • hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI))
  • litre (L)
  • microgram (µg)
  • milligram (mg)
  • nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU)
  • nitrogen (N)
  • site-specific guidelines (SSG)
Alberta
Table B.1. Water quality guidelines used in Alberta
Parameter Form Guideline Source
2,4-D[A] total 4 μg/L 1
Aluminium[A] dissolved 0.005 mg/L for pH < 6.5
0.1 mg/L for pH ≥ 6.5
1
Ammonia un-ionized 19 μg/L 1
Arsenic total 5 μg/L 1
Cadmium[A] total e1.0166*ln[hardness]-3.924 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Chloride[B] dissolved 120 mg/L 1
Copper[A] total 7 μg/L 3
Copper[B] total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 μg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
4
Lead[A] total e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness > 5.3 mg [CaCO3]/L and ≤ 360 mg [CaCO3]/L 3
Lead[B] total 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
4
MCPA[A] n/d 2.6 μg/L 1
Mercury[A] total inorganic 0.026 μg/L 1
Nickel[B] total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
4
Nitrogen total 1 mg N/L 3
Oxygen dissolved 6.5 mg/L

1
3

pH[B] n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total 0.05 mg/L

3
5

Selenium[A] total 2 μg/L 4
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
4

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] Applies to sites monitored under provincial monitoring programs.
[B] Applies to sites monitored under federal monitoring programs, including the Prairie Provinces Water Board.

 

Alberta Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. Document EPA 822-R-01-001. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Alberta Environment (2014) Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (PDF; 1.8 MB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  4. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  5. Prairie Provinces Water Board (1992) Master Agreement on Apportionment. Schedule E: Agreement on Water Quality. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
British Columbia
Table B.2. Water quality guidelines used in British Columbia
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Alkalinity n/d 20 mg [CaCO3]/L 1
Arsenic total 5 μg/L 2
Cadmium total 10(0.83(log10[hardness])-2.46) μg/L for hardness > 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.09 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
SSG[A] (certain sites)

2
3

Chloride total dissolved 120 mg/L 2
Chromium total SSG[A]

2
3
4
5
6
7

Copper total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 μg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
SSG[A] (certain sites)

3
6
8
9
10

Cyanide total 5 μg/L 2
Fluoride total [-51.73+92.57log10(hardness)] X 0.01 ug/L (BC08NM001)
0.35 mg/L (BC08NN0021)
11
Iron total 0.3 mg/L 9
Lead total 1 µg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness > 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
SSG[A] (certain sites)

3
9
10

Manganese total dissolved 50 μg/L 12
Molybdenum total 50 µg/L
73 µg/L (BC08MH0027)
2
Nickel total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
9
Nitrate total dissolved 2.93 mg N/L 9
Nitrite total 0.02 mg N/L 9
Nitrogen total,
total dissolved
1.1 mg N/L 13
Oxygen dissolved SSG[A]

2
10
14
15
16

pH n/d SSG[A]

2
3
14

Phosphorus total and total dissolved 0.025 mg/L

9
17

Selenium total dissolved SSG[A] 11
Silver total 0.05 μg/L for hardness ≤ 100 mg [CaCO3]/L
1.9 μg/L for hardness > 100 mg [CaCO3]/L
SSG[A] (certain sites)
9
Sulphate dissolved 309 mg/L (BC08MH0027)
218 mg/L (BC08NM0001)
9
Temperature n/d SSG[A] 18
Thallium total 0.8 µg/L 2
Uranium total 10 µg/L 1
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L
SSG[A] (certain sites)

3
4
6
12
19

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. For details on the derivation of site-specific guidelines, consult BCMOE (1997).

British Columbia Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (2015) Working Water Quality Guidelines for British Columbia (2015) (PDF; 773 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Butcher GA (1992) Lower Columbia River, Hugh Keeleyside dam to Birchbank water quality assessment and objectives: Technical appendix. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks (PDF; 9.87 MB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  4. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (2000) Ambient Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Lower Columbia River: Birchbank to the US border. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  5. Environment Canada (2005) Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the Liard River at Upper Crossing for the Purpose of National Reporting (PDF; 444 kB). Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  6. Environment Canada (2005) Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the Skeena River at Usk for the Purpose of National Reporting (PDF; 709 kB). Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  7. Environment Canada (2005) Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the Kootenay River at Kootenay Crossing for the Purpose of National Reporting (PDF; 591 kB). Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  8. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (1987) Water Quality Criteria for Copper: Overview Report (PDF; 215 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  9. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  10. McKean CJP (1989) Ambient Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Cowichan and Koksilah Rivers Vancouver Island. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Branch. Victoria, BC. Overview report. Technical Appendix (PDF; 3.94 MB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  11. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (2017) British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture (PDF; 1.0 MB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  12. Swain LG (1990) Okanagan Area, Similkameen River Sub-basin Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  13. Nordin RN and Pommen LW (2009) Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen (Nitrate, Nitrite, and Ammonia): Overview Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks (PDF; 508 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  14. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (1998) Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Objectives for the Salmon River. MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  15. Swain LG (1987) Takla-Nechako Areas, Nechako River Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  16. Environment Canada (2005) Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the Sumas River at the International Boundary for the Purpose of National Reporting (PDF; 414 kB). Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  17. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (1994) Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  18. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (2001) Water Quality Guidelines for Temperature: Overview Report (PDF; 222 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  19. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (1999) Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Zinc: Overview Report (PDF; 191 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Manitoba
Table B.3. Water quality guidelines used in Manitoba
Parameter Form Guideline Source
2,4-D n/d 4 µg/L 1
Ammonia total as N Calculation based on pH and temperature

2
3

Ammonia un-ionized 19 μg/L

1
4

Arsenic[A] extractable, total 150 µg/L 5
Arsenic[B] total 5 µg/L 1
Cadmium[A] extractable, total e1.0166*ln[hardness]−3.924 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
6
Chloride[B] dissolved 120 mg/L 1
Copper[A] extractable, total [e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.702]*(0.96) µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Copper[B] total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*[e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465] μg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
4
Iron[A] total 0.3 mg/L 4
Lead[A] extractable, total (e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705) * (1.46203 - (ln[hardness]*0.145712)) μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Lead[B] total 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
4
MCPA n/d 2.6 µg/L 1
Nickel[A] extractable, total e0.8460*ln[hardness]+0.0584 µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
5
Nickel[B] total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
4
Nitrate[A] total dissolved 2.9 mg N/L 4
Nitrogen[B] total 1 mg N/L 7
Oxygen[A] dissolved 5 mg/L 4
Oxygen[B] dissolved 6.5 mg/L 1
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total 0.05 mg/L

2
7

Suspended sediments[A] total Maximum increase of 25 mg/L for high flow and turbid waters above background levels 4
Zinc[A] total e(0.8473*ln[hardness]+0.884)*0.986 µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L

2
6

Zinc[B] total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
4

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] Applies to sites monitored under provincial monitoring programs.
[B] Applies to sites monitored under federal monitoring programs (Prairie Provinces Water Board).

Manitoba Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Manitoba Water Stewardship (2011) Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines (PDF; 905 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. Document EPA 822-R-99-014.
  4. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  5. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2016) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria – Aquatic Life Criteria Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. Document EPA 822-R-01-001 (PDF; 126 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  7. Prairie Provinces Water Board (1992) Master Agreement on Apportionment. Schedule E: Agreement on Water Quality. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
New Brunswick
Table B.4. Water quality guidelines used in New Brunswick
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Ammonia un-ionized 19 μg/L 1
Arsenic total 5 μg/L 2
Chloride total 120 mg/L 2
Copper total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 μg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
1
Iron total 0.3 mg/L 1
Nitrate total 2.9 mg N/L 1
Oxygen dissolved 6.5 mg/L 2
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 2
Phosphorus total 0.03 mg/L 1
Turbidity n/d 10 NTU (SSG[A]) 2
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
1

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. Specific site information is available upon request.

New Brunswick Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Newfoundland and Labrador
Table B.5. Water quality guidelines used in Newfoundland and Labrador
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Chloride dissolved 120 mg/L 1
Copper total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Iron total SSG[A]

2
3

Lead total 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Nickel total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Nitrate total dissolved 3 mg N/L 2
Oxygen dissolved between 5.5 and 9.5 mg/L 1
pH   SSG[A]

1
3

Phosphorus total 0.03 mg/L 2
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness >90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. Specific site information is available upon request.

Newfoundland and Labrador Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. December 6, 2016.
  3. Khan AA et al. (2005) Application of CCME Procedures for Deriving Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the CCME Water Quality Index. Water Quality Research Journal 40(4):448-456.
Northwest Territories
Table B.6. Water quality guidelines used in the Northwest Territories
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Ammonia un-ionized, dissolved SSG[A](mean + 2 standard deviations) 1
Arsenic total SSG[A] 2
Chloride dissolved Lentic-lotic sites: 150 mg/L
Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

1
2

Copper total Lentic-lotic sites: 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

1
3

Iron total Lentic-lotic sites: 0.3 mg/L
Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

1
3

Lead total Lentic-lotic sites: 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

1
3

Nitrate and nitrite total dissolved SSG[A] 1
Oxygen dissolved 5 mg/L 2
pH n/d Lentic-lotic sites: between 6.5 and 9
Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

1
2

Phosphorus total Lentic-lotic sites: 0.03 mg/L
Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

2
3

Zinc total

Lentic-lotic sites: 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness >90 mg [CaCO3]/L

Lotic sites: SSG[A] (mean + 2 standard deviations)

2
3

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. Specific site information is available upon request.

Northwest Territories Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Lumb A et al. (2006) Application of CCME Water Quality Index to Monitor Water Quality: A Case Study of the Mackenzie River Basin, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113:411-429.
  2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Nova Scotia
Table B.7. Water quality guidelines used in Nova Scotia
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Chloride total 120 mg/L 1
Copper extractable 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Iron extractable 0.3 mg/L 2
Lead extractable 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Nitrate dissolved 3 mg N/L 2
Oxygen dissolved 6.5 mg/L 1
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total 0.03 mg/L 2
Zinc extractable 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2

Note: n/a = not applicable.

Nova Scotia Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Ontario
Table B.8. Water quality guidelines used in Ontario
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Ammonia un-ionized 19 μg/L

1
2

Chloride total 120 mg/L 1
Chromium total 2 μg/L
guideline for Cr(VI) adjusted to total chromium
1
Nickel total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Nitrate total dissolved 2.93 mg N/L 2
Phosphorus total 0.03 mg/L

2
3

Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2

Ontario Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (1994) Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Prince Edward Island
Table B.9. Water quality guidelines used in Prince Edward Island
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Chloride total 120 mg/L 1
Copper extractable 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
1
Nitrate total dissolved SSG[A] 2
Oxygen dissolved 6.5 mg/L 1
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total SSG[A] 3
Suspended sediments total 29 mg/L (SSG[A]) 1
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
1

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. Specific site information is available upon request.

Prince Edward Island Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Bugden G, Jiang Y, van den Heuvel MR, Vandermeulen H, MacQuarrie KTB, Crane CJ and Raymond BG (2014) Nitrogen Loading Criteria For Estuaries In Prince Edward Island. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3066. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
  3. Van den Heuvel MR (2009) Site Specific Guidelines for Phosphorus in relation to the Water Quality Index Calculations for Prince Edward Island. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of Prince Edward Island. 35pp.
Quebec
Table B.10. Water quality guidelines used in Quebec
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Ammonia un-ionized 0.05 mg/L 1
Ammonia un-ionized 19 µg/L 1
3
Atrazine[A] n/d 1.8 µg/L 1
Bentazone[A] n/d 0.51 mg/L 2
Chlorophyll a n/d 8 mg/L 3
Copper[A] extractable 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
3
Dicamba[A] n/d 10 µg/L 1
Mercury[A] total 0.05 µg/L  
Metolachlor[A] n/d 7.8 µg/L 1
Nickel[A] total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 µg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
3
Nitrate and nitrite total dissolved 2.9 mg N/L

1
3

pH n/d between 6.5 and 9

1
2

Phosphorus total 0.03 mg/L 2
Turbidity n/d 10 NTU 3
Zinc[A] total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
3

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] Only applies to sites monitored under federal monitoring programs.

Quebec Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement, Faune et Parcs (2009) Critères de la qualité de l'eau de surface (in French only). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Saskatchewan
Table B.11. Water quality guidelines used in Saskatchewan
Parameter Form Guideline Source
2,4-D n/d 4 µg/L 1
Ammonia un-ionized 19 μg/L 1
Arsenic total 5 μg/L 1
Chloride dissolved 120 mg/L 1
Copper total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 μg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Lead total 1 μg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness ≥ 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
2
MCPA n/d 2.6 µg/L 1
Nickel total e0.76*ln[hardness]+1.06 μg/L
where hardness is measured as mg [CaCO3]/L
2
Nitrogen total 1 mg N/L  
Oxygen dissolved 6.5 mg/L 1
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total 0.05 mg/L

3
4

Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
2

Note: n/a = not applicable.

Saskatchewan Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Alberta Environment (2014) Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (PDF; 1.8 MB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  4. Prairie Provinces Water Board (1992) Master Agreement on Apportionment. Schedule E: Agreement on Water Quality. Retrieved on December 17, 2014.
Yukon
Table B.12. Water quality guidelines used in the Yukon
Parameter Form Guideline Source
Arsenic total 5 μg/L 1
Chromium total 2.3 μg/L 2
Copper total 2 μg/L for hardness < 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
0.2*e0.8545*ln[hardness]-1.465 µg/L for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
3
Lead total 1 µg/L for hardness < 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
e1.273*ln[hardness]-4.705 μg/L for hardness > 50 mg [CaCO3]/L
3
Nitrate total dissolved 2.93 mg N/L 3
Nitrite total 0.02 mg N/L 4
Nitrogen dissolved 0.7 mg N/L 3
Oxygen dissolved 8 mg/L 5
pH n/d between 6.5 and 9 1
Phosphorus total 0.025 mg/L 3
Selenium total 1 μg/L 3
Silver total 0.05 μg/L for hardness < 100 mg [CaCO3]/L
1.9 μg/L for hardness > 100 mg [CaCO3]/L
3
Temperature n/d SSG[A] 3
Zinc total 7.5 μg/L for hardness ≤ 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
7.5 + 0.75*(hardness-90) for hardness > 90 mg [CaCO3]/L
3

Note: n/a = not applicable.
[A] SSG denotes that different site-specific guidelines or formulas were used at sites. Specific site information is available upon request.

Yukon Water Quality Guideline Sources:

  1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Summary Table. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  2. Environment Canada (2005) Site-specific Water Quality Guidelines for the Liard River at Upper Crossing for the Purpose of National Reporting, Tri-Star Environmental Consulting (PDF; 444 kB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  3. Government of Canada (2008) Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Index Practitioners Reporting Under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative 2008. Environment Canada and Statistics Canada. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  4. Nordin RN and Pommen LW (2009) Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen (Nitrate, Nitrite, and Ammonia): Overview Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks (PDF; 508 KB). Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
  5. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (1997) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (PDF; 852 kB). British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Water Management Branch. Victoria, BC. Retrieved on December 6, 2016.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: