Columbia River Project Water Use Plan - BC Hydro

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological 

Productivity Monitoring – Progress Report Year 2 

Reference: CLBMON-3 

Columbia River Water Use Plan Monitoring Program: 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity 

Monitoring 

Study Period: 2009 

BC Hydro 

Water Licence Requirements 

January 2011

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring 

Progress Report Year 2 (2009) 

Wood River near confluence with Kinbasket Reservoir, July 8, 2009. 

Prepared by: 

Karen Bray, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. 


Revelstoke, B.C.

This is a progress report for a long term monitoring program and, as such, contains preliminary data. 

Conclusions are subject to change and any use or citation of this report or the information herein 

should note this status. 

Suggested Citation for Progress Report: 

BC Hydro. 2011. Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring. Progress 

Report Year 2 (2009). BC Hydro, Water Licence Requirements. Study No. CLBMON-3. 4pp. 

+ appendices. 

Suggested Citation for Individual Reports contained within: 

Harris, S. 2011. Primary Productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009. Prepared for 

BC Hydro, Water Licence Requirements. 21 pp.. Appendix 5 in BC Hydro. 2011. 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring. Progress Report 

Year 2 (2009). BC Hydro, Water Licence Requirements. Study No. CLBMON-3. 4pp. + 

appendices.

CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring 

2009 Progress Report 

Acknowledgements 

The successful implementation of such a large and complex project is due to the continuing efforts of 

many people and they are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable contributions. 

Field Crew 

Beth Manson, BC Hydro 

Pierre Bourget, BC Hydro 

Greg Andrusak, Redfish Consulting 

Study Team 

Dr. Ken Ashley, Ashley and Associates 

Dr. Roger Pieters, UBC 

Dale Sebastian, Ministry of Environment 

Eva Schindler, Ministry of Environment 

Shannon Harris, Ministry of Environment 

Specialised Analyses 

Darren Brandt, TG Eco-Logic 

Dr. John Stockner, TG Eco-Logic 

Dr. Lidlija Vidmanic, Limno Lab 

Erland MacIsaac, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Cultus Lake 

Kerry Parrish, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Cultus Lake 

BC Hydro Personnel 

Judy Bennett, BC Hydro, Mica 

Pat Vonk, BC Hydro, WLR 

John Kelly, BC Hydro, WLR 

Jim Van Denbrand, Fleet Services 



i





Table of Contents 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................ I 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1 

1.1 MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS..............................................................................................................1 

1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................1 

2.0 STUDY TEAM..............................................................................................................................2 

3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................4 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 1 

Hydrology of Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009 

Appendix 2 

Tributary Water Quality 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009 

Appendix 3 

CTD Surveys 


Appendix 4 

Reservoir Water Chemistry 


Appendix 5 

Primary Productivity 


Appendix 6 

Phytoplankton 


Appendix 7 

Zooplankton 


List of Tables 

Table 1: Study team members and affiliation, 2009..............................................................................2 

Table 2. Roles and responsibilities for implementation of CLBMON-3 in 2009. ...................................2 

Table 3. Summary of Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs field sampling program 2009. ................3 

ii



1.0 Introduction 

This report summarises the Year 2 (2009) implementation of CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring project (“the study”). This report contains preliminary 

data and conclusions are subject to change. Any citations of this report or the data contained herein 

must note this status. 

The Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) (BC Hydro 2007a) was concluded in 2004 following four 

years of public consultation (BC Hydro 2005). Water Use Plans were developed for each of BC 

Hydro’s facilities to achieve optimal balance among operations and environmental and social values. 

A lack of basic ecological data and information on Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs impeded 

informed decisions for any operational changes in the upper Columbia River system. The WUP 

Consultative Committee acknowledged the importance of understanding reservoir limnology and the 

influence of current operations on ecosystem processes for planning future water management 

activities. Therefore, a monitoring program was recommended to provide long-term data on reservoir 

limnology and the productivity of pelagic communities. This study is conducted in conjunction with 

CLBMON-2 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring and is scheduled 

for implementation over twelve years (2008-2019). 

1.1 Management Questions 

A Terms of Reference (TOR) (BC Hydro 2007b) for this study outlines the rationale, approach, and 

primary management questions to be addressed. The TOR also provides a framework for 

implementation. The study is to focus on: 

i) Reservoir trophic web mechanisms and dynamics; 

ii) Obtaining measurements of aquatic productivity that can be used as parameters for 

system modeling; and 

iii) Determining key indicators of change in pelagic production that would ultimately affect 

food availability and, thus, growth of kokanee. 

The management questions to be addressed by this study are as follows: 

i) What are the long-terms trends in nutrient availability and how are lower trophic levels 

affected by these trends? 

ii) What are the interactions between nutrient availability, productivity at lower trophic levels 

and reservoir operations? 

iii) Is pelagic productivity, as measured by primary production, changing significantly over 

the course of the monitoring period? 

iv) If changes in pelagic productivity are detected, are the changes affecting kokanee 

populations? 

v) Is there a link between reservoir operation and pelagic productivity? What are the best 

predictive tools for forecasting reservoir productivity? 

vi) How do pelagic productivity trends in Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs compare with 

similar large reservoir/lake systems (e.g., Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, 

Okanagan Lake, Williston Reservoir)? 

vii) Are there operational changes that could be implemented to improve pelagic productivity 

in Kinbasket Reservoir? 

1.2 Objectives 

The study objectives are to conduct reservoir pelagic productivity monitoring and establish long term 

sampling sites and consistent methodologies and analyses for comparison with other Columbia 

reservoir monitoring programs (e.g. Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Kootenay Lake). 



1



2.0 Study Team 

The study team (Table 1) met on November 6, 2009, to discuss progress on the management 

questions and evaluate the sampling program and initial results from 2008 and 2009. The monitoring 

program is being implemented in a phased approach in conjunction with the Kinbasket-Revelstoke 

Reservoirs Kokanee Population Monitoring program (CLBMON-2). Sampling is planned on a 4-year 

cycle, thereby taking advantage of information gained in each sampling period to define the data 

needs for future years. Each phase will conclude with a synthesis report with an annual progress 

report prepared in intervening years. The first phase of the study is focussing on the hydrology and 

nutrient budget and general biological data. Reservoir sampling stations were selected based on 

previous work, information needs, and logistical considerations. 

Table 1: Study team members and affiliation, 2009. 

Study Team Member Affiliation 

Karen Bray, Project Manager/Biologist BC Hydro, Water Licence Requirements 

Dr. Ken Ashley, Principal Ashley and Associates 

Dr. Roger Pieters, Associate Professor 



University of British Columbia, Dept. of Earth and 

Ocean Sciences 

Dale Sebastian, Ecosystems Biologist Ministry of Environment, Ecosystems Branch 

Eva Schindler, Fertilization Limnologist 

Ministry of Environment, Environmental 

Stewardship, Fish and Wildlife 

Shannon Harris, Limnologist Ministry of Environment, Ecosystems Branch 

Implementation of this study continues to follow the approach of using a combination of in house and 

external resources. Overall project management and field work is conducted using in house BC 

Hydro resources and external expertise is secured to provide analysis and reporting for specific 

components (Table 2). In 2009, analysis of primary production was assumed by the Ministry of 

Environment under a Collaborative Agreement with BC Hydro and Shannon Harris joined the Study 

Team. 

Table 2. Roles and responsibilities for implementation of CLBMON-3 in 2009. 

Component Personnel Affiliation 

Project Management 

Field Program Supervision 

Karen Bray BC Hydro 

Field Sampling Beth Manson, Pierre Bourget, BC Hydro 

Hydrology and Nutrient Budget Dr. Roger Pieters 

UBC, Earth and Ocean 

Sciences 

Primary Production 

Shannon Harris 

Greg Andrusak (field) 

Ministry of Envrionment 

Redfish Consulting 

Phytoplankton/Picoplankton 

Darren Brandt and Dr. John 

Stockner 

TG Eco-Logic 

Zooplankton Dr. Lidlija Vidmanic Limno Lab 

In Year 2 (2009) monthly sampling was started in May and concluded in October (Table 3). Depth 

profile data for May 2009 were not collected as the equipment had not yet been returned from 

calibration by the manufacturer (Table 3). This progress report presents a study overview followed by 

individual progress reports for the hydrology, water quality, and biological components of the 2009 

sampling year. More specific information is contained in these reports. A synthesis report is 

scheduled for Year 4 (2012). 

2



Table 3. Summary of Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs field sampling program 2009. 

Stations 

Tribs 

REV 

Forebay 

REV 

Middle 

REV 

Upper 

KIN Mid 

Pool 

KIN 

Col 

Reach 

KIN 

Wood 

Arm 

KIN 

Canoe 

Method Depths KIN 

Forebay 

Sampling 

Frequency 

Parameter 

(Parameter) 

Rev 

Dam 

crest 

Mica 

dam 

crest 

Fixed data 

logger 

Hourly/Daily 

Weather 

(temp, ppt, bp, 

RH, PAR, wind 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

0 to 60m+ 

(to within 5 m of 

bottom) 

Seabird 

Jun-Oct 

Monthly (5) 

(missed May) 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

2,5,10,15,20, 

60m and 5m off 

bottom 

Bottle, 

integrated 

tube 

May-Oct 

Monthly (6) 

0-20m for Si 

Surface grab √ 

Bucket, 

bottle 

One freshet 

sampling in July. 

Five reference 

tribs once in 

A/S/O/N and twice 

speed, direction) 

Profiles 

(DO, temp, cond, 

chl a, PAR, 

turbidity) 

Water Chem - 

Reservoir 

(TP, SRP, TDP, 

cond, NO2+NO3, 

alk, pH, turb) 

(silica on 

integrated) 

Secchi disk 

Water Chem - 

Tributary 

(TP, SRP, TDP, 

cond, NO2+NO3, 

pH, alk, turb, 

temp) 

0-20m √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Integrated 

tube 

in M/J/J 

May-Oct 

Monthly (6) 

Chl a 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

0-10m (2,5,10) & 

10-20m 

(12,15,20) 

Composites 

AND 

Bottle 

May-Oct 

Monthly (6) 

Phytoplankton 

2,5,10,15,20m 

May-Oct 

0-10m &10-20m 

Bacteria 

Bottle 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Monthly (6) 

composites 

May-Oct 

Wisconsin 

Zooplankton 

0-30m √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Monthly (6) net 3 hauls 

Primary 

June-Sep 

3 size 2,5,10,15,20m 

√* √ √ 

Production Monthly (4) fractions TBD on site 

*Note that station for PP is farther out towards the main pool than the regular sampling station in the forebay. 

3 


Water Licence Requirements



3.0 References 

BC Hydro. 2007a. Columbia River Projects Water Use Plan. Revised for Acceptance by the 

Comptroller of Water Rights. BC Hydro. 41 pp + appendix. 

BC Hydro. 2007b. CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity 

Monitoring Terms of Reference. BC Hydro dated October 24, 2007. 

BC Hydro. 2005. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Consultative Committee Report. Volumes 

1 and 2. Prepared on behalf of the Consultative Committee for the Columbia River Water 

Use Plan. July 2005. 



4



Appendix 1 




Roger Pieters, Dan Robb, and Greg Lawrence 

University of British Columbia


Roger Pieters 1,2 , Dan Robb 2 , and Greg Lawrence 2 

1 Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 

B.C. V6T 1Z4 

2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 

V6T 1Z4 

Revelstoke National Park, 23 Aug 2010 

Prepared for 

Karen Bray 

Biritsh Columbia Hydro and Power Authority 

1200 Powerhouse Road 

Revelstoke B.C. V0E 2S0 

January 26, 2011

Contents 

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 

2. Annual Water Balance .....................................................................................................1 

3. Columbia River at Donald ...............................................................................................4 

4. Columbia River at Mica Dam .........................................................................................5 

5. Columbia River at Revelstoke Dam ................................................................................6 

6. Local Metered Flows .......................................................................................................6 

7. Kinbasket Reservoir Water Level....................................................................................7 

8. Revelstoke Reservoir Water Level ..................................................................................8 

9. Summer 2009...................................................................................................................8 

Appendix 1 Gauging Stations in the Kinbasket/Revelstoke Drainage 

Appendix 2 Reference Elevations for the Mica and Revelstoke Projects 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 Upper Columbia River Basin 

Figure 1.2 Kinbasket Reservoir 

Figure 1.3 Revelstoke Reservoir 

Figure 3.1 Columbia River at Donald 

Figure 3.2 Columbia River at Donald, 2003-2009 

Figure 4.1 Columbia River at Mica Dam 

Figure 4.2 Columbia River at Mica Dam, 2003-2009 

Figure 5.1 Columbia River at Revelstoke Dam 

Figure 5.2 Columbia River at Revelstoke Dam, 2003-2009 

Figure 6.1 Beaver River 

Figure 6.2 Gold River 

Figure 6.3 Goldstream River 

Figure 6.4 Illecillewaet River 

Figure 6.5 Comparison of 2008 river flows 

Figure 6.6 Comparison of 2009 river flows 

Figure 7.1 Water Level: Kinbasket Reservoir at Mica Dam 

Figure 7.2 Water Level: Kinbasket Reservoir at Mica Dam, 2003-2009 

Figure 8.1 Water Level: Revelstoke Reservoir 

Figure 8.2 Water Level: Revelstoke Reservoir, 2003-2009 

i

1. Introduction 

The hydrology of Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs is described, focusing on 

observed flows in 2009. This report provides context for the ongoing BC Hydro project 

entitled “Kinbasket and Revelstoke Ecological Productivity Monitoring (CLBMON-3)”. 

The upper Columbia River is defined in Figure 1.1 as the flow of the Columbia River 

near the Canada-US border, excluding the Pend Oreille River which joins the Columbia 

just above the border. Also excluded are the Kettle, Okanagan and Similkameen Rivers 

which join the Columbia in Washington State. The upper Columbia accounts for only 

13% of the area of the Columbia River, but contributes 27% of the total flow. Kinbasket 

and Revelstoke reservoirs account for 4% of the area of the Columbia, and contribute 

11% of the flow, Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1 Drainage area, mean flow and yield of selected regions of the Columbia River 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs 

(WSC 08ND011 1955-1986) 

Upper Columbia, Figure 1.1 

(WSC 08NE058 minus 08NE010) 

Columbia River 

(Kammerer, 1990) 

1 

Drainage 

(km 2 ) 

Flow 

(m 3 /s) 

Yield 

(m) 

26,400 796 0.95 

89,700 2,047 0.72 

668,000 7,500 0.35 

The headwater of the Columbia River begins in wetlands adjoining Columbia Lake, 

Figure 1.1. The Columbia River flows north-west through Windermere Lake and into 

Kinbasket Reservoir. Just before Mica Dam the Columbia River turns almost 180 

degrees and flows south into Revelstoke Reservoir and then into the Arrow Lakes 

Reservoir. 

Basic characteristics of Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs are compared to other major 

lakes and reservoirs from the Upper Columbia in Table 1.2. Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

reservoirs are shown in greater detail in Figures 1.2 and 1.3, respectively. The length of 

the reservoirs and their reaches are given in Table 1.3. Data in italics are approximate 

and will be updated as detailed drainage and bathymetry data become available. 

2. Annual Water Balance 

Kinbasket Reservoir 

Kinbasket Reservoir is shown in Figure 1.2. To the southwest, the Columbia River enters 

the Columbia Reach about 20 km downstream of Donald Station. To the east, the Canoe 

River enters the Canoe Reach near the town of Valemount. These two long, narrow 

reaches join near Mica Dam.

Table 1.2 Characteristics of major lakes and reservoirs of the Upper Columbia 

Dam Dam 

Completed 

(year) 

Dam 

Height 

(m) 

2 

Max. 

Depth 

(m) 

Max. Res. 

Area 

(km 2 ) 

Mean 

Outflow 

(m 3 /s) 

Kinbasket Mica 1973 244 ~185 425 590 

Revelstoke Revelstoke 1984 175 ~125 115 750 

Arrow Keenleyside 1968 52 290/190 520 1,080 

Koocanusa Libby 1973 95 107 186 350 

Duncan Duncan 1967 39 147 75 90 

Kootenay Cora Linn 1931 38 154 390 780 

Drawdown 

(m) 

Drawdown 

Area 

(km 2 ) 

Drawdown 

Area 

(% full) 

Kinbasket 47 220 50% 

Revelstoke 1.5 2.4 2% 

Arrow 20 159 30% 

Koocanusa 52 

Duncan 28 

Kootenay 3 

The water balance for Kinbasket Reservoir is given in Table 2.1. Also given is the 

annual water yield from the drainage. The yield is the average annual outflow divided by 

the drainage area and represents the average depth of net annual precipitation over the 

drainage. The local inflow to Kinbasket Reservoir has about twice the yield as the 

Columbia River above Donald, indicating increased precipitation in the local drainage. 

Table 1.3 Length of reservoirs * 

Reservoir Length (km) 

Kinbasket Reservoir 190 

Columbia Reach 100 

Canoe Reach 90 

Revelstoke Reservoir 130 

Upper Revelstoke 80 

Lower Revelstoke 50 

Arrow Lakes Reservoir 240 

Revelstoke Reach 55 

Upper Arrow 70 

Narrows 25 

Lower Arrow 90 

Kootenay Lake* 107 

* Table 3.1, Pieters et al. (2003); values in italics are approximate

Local inflow to Kinbasket dominates the water balance contributing 66% of the inflow. 

In contrast, the Canoe River, while having a high yield contributes only 3% due to its 

relatively small drainage. 

Table 2.1 Annual water balance for Kinbasket Reservoir 

Area (km 2 ) 

Flow 

(m 3 /s) 

Yield 

(m/yr) 

Qin Columbia R. at Donald Station 9,710 172 0.56 

Qin Canoe River near Valemount 368 (2%) 19* (3%) 1.6* 

Qloc Local Flow into Kinbasket 11,422 (53%) 376 (66%) 1.0 

Qout 

Columbia River at Nagle Creek 

(Mica Dam Outflow) 

21,500 567 0.83 

*Estimated from partial data for 1966-1967. 

Prior to Mica Dam, most of Kinbasket Reservoir was river, with the exception of 

Kinbasket Lake which was approximately 10 km long, located near Kinbasket Creek on 

the Columbia Reach. Water Survey Canada had gauges at several sites along what would 

become Kinbasket Reservoir, shown in Figure 1.2. The data from these sites (Appendix 

1) allow the division of Kinbasket Reservoir into the regions given in Table 2.2. The 

inflow of the Upper Columbia Reach is particularly large, matching the inflow of the 

Columbia River at Donald. 

Table 2.2 Drainage, flow and yield of regions in Kinbasket Reservoir 

Canoe 

River 

Canoe 

Reach 

Wood 

Arm 

3 

Lower 

Columbia 

Reach 1 

Upper 


Reach 2 


River 

Above 

Donald 

Drainage (km 2 ) 368 2,922 956 3,250 4,290 9,710 

Inflow (m 3 /s) ~19 86 40 85 165 172 

Yield (m) ~1.6 0.93 1.3 0.82 1.2 0.56 

% of outflow 3% 15% 7% 15% 29% 30% 

1 Between Mica Dam and the Columbia River at Surprise Rapids 

2 Between the Columbia River at Surprise Rapids and Columbia River at Donald 

Revelstoke Reservoir 

Revelstoke Reservoir is shown in Figure 1.3. The entire length was formerly a river and 

the resulting reservoir is very narrow. The water balance for Revelstoke Reservoir is 

given in Table 2.3. For Revelstoke, the outflow from Mica Dam is the dominant (71%) 

inflow to the reservoir. While the local drainage to Revelstoke Reservoir is relatively 

small (19%), the higher yield of this drainage means that the local inflow still contributes 

29% to the total outflow.

Table 2.3 Annual water balance for Revelstoke Reservoir 

Area (km 2 ) Flow (m 3 /s) 

Yield 

(m/yr) 

Columbia River at Nagle Creek 

(Mica Dam Outflow) 

21,500 567 0.83 

Local Flow into Revelstoke 4,900 (19%) 229 (29%) 1.47 

Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids 

(Revelstoke Outflow) 

26,400 796 0.95 

Unlike Kinbasket Reservoir, no WSC data was available for the Columbia River along 

what would become Revelstoke Reservoir. While WSC lists a station “Columbia River 

above Downie Creek” (08ND010), no data was available at this site. We divide 

Revelstoke Reservoir just above Downie Creek (Figure 1.3) into upper and lower reaches 

assuming the same yield to each, see Table 2.4. Note the drainage to the lower 

Revelstoke reach is relatively small. 

Table 2.4 Drainage, flow and yield of regions in Revelstoke Reservoir 

Mica Outflow 

(Columbia 

above Nagle) 

4 

Upper 

Revelstoke 

Reach 1 

Lower 

Revelstoke 

Reach 

Drainage (km 2 ) 21,500 3,300 1,600 

Inflow (m 3 /s) 567 155 75 

Yield (m) 0.83 1.5 1.5 

Of outflow (%) 71% 19% 9% 

1 The boundary between upper and lower was chosen above Downie Creek. 

Values in italics are approximate. 

3. Columbia River at Donald 

Data 

Daily flow data were available for 1944-2009 from Water Survey of Canada (WSC) 

station 08NB005, entitled “Columbia River at Donald”. This station is located roughly 

20 km upstream of Kinbasket Reservoir. 

Results 

Figure 3.1(a) shows the daily flows for 1944-2009. The mean daily hydrograph shown in 

Figure 3.1(b) peaks from early June to mid-July at roughly 550 m 3 /s, tapering through the 

summer and fall to a base flow in the winter of approximately 35 m 3 /s. The mean annual 

flow for 1944-2009 was 171 m 3 /s. 

For 2003-2009, the daily flows are shown in Figure 3.2 along with the daily mean flow 

for 1944-2009. The flows for 2003-2009 generally followed the mean with a few

exceptions: in late fall of 2003 the flow rose to about 4 times the seasonal average; in 

2006 and 2007 the flows in the late spring were above average; in 2004 and 2009 the 

summer flows were below average. 

4. Columbia River at Mica Dam 

Data 

Data were available for 1947-1983 from WSC station 08ND007, entitled “Columbia 

River above Nagle Creek”. This station is located approximately 3 km downstream of 

Mica Dam. Data for the Mica Dam Outflow were available for 1971-2009 from BC 

Hydro. The data from “Columbia River above Nagle Creek” was used for 1947-1975 

and the BC Hydro data was used for 1976-2009. 

Results 

Pre- and post-impoundment flows are shown in Figure 4.1(a). The change in flow after 

completion of Mica Dam in 1973 is evident. Before impoundment, the hydrograph 

shown in Figure 4.1(b) had a large single peak of roughly 1600 m 3 /s from early June to 

mid-July. The flow gradually declined in the summer and fall until it reached a low base 

flow in the winter of around 120 m 3 /s. After Mica Dam was completed, the spring peak 

flow is reduced and replaced with a more variable flow throughout the year, Figure 

4.1(c). After impoundment, flow is retained during snowmelt in the spring, but once the 

impoundment fills, the tail of the freshet results in an increase in flow during the late 

summer. A second peak occurs as water is released during the winter for hydroelectric 

generation. 

The discharge from Mica Dam for 2003-2009 is shown in Figure 4.2, and generally 

followed the mean with the following notable exceptions: in most years outflow was 

below average from mid-May to mid-July; in 2004 the outflow was below average from 

August to October; and in 2008 flow was below average not only in early summer but in 

August and September as well. In 2009, outflow was slightly below average from mid 

July to mid August. 

5

5. Columbia River at Revelstoke Dam 

Data 

Daily flow data from two WSC stations were used for the Columbia River near 

Revelstoke Dam. For 1955-1985, data were available from WSC station 08ND011, 

entitled “Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids”. This station is located roughly 1.5 

km downstream of Revelstoke Dam. For 1986-2009, data was available from WSC 

station 08ND025, entitled “Revelstoke Project Outflow”. 

Results 

The daily discharge for 1955-2009 is shown in Figure 5.1(a). The change in flow due to 

the completion of the upstream Mica Dam in 1973 is evident. There is no obvious 

change in the flow upon the completion of Revelstoke Dam in 1984 as it is operated run 

of the river. The mean daily pre-impoundment hydrograph given by the data from the 

Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids is shown in Figure 5.1(b). The postimpoundment 

hydrograph given by the data from the Revelstoke Project Outflow is 

shown in Figure 5.1(c). 

Similar to that seen for the pre-impoundment flow at Mica Dam, the pre-impoundment 

outflow at Revelstoke showed a dramatic spring peak of about 2800 m 3 /s which declined 

through the summer and fall until it reached a low winter baseline of around 300 m 3 /s. 

Post-impoundment outflow shows the flow distributed more evenly throughout the year 

with minor peaks in the summer and winter. 

The Revelstoke discharge for 2003-2009 is shown in Figure 5.2, and generally followed 

the mean post-impoundment hydrograph. 

6. Local Metered Inflow 

Data 

Of the rivers and streams in the Kinbasket and Revelstoke drainage, few have been 

gauged by Water Survey Canada. Those that have been gauged are listed in Appendix 1. 

Beaver River, Gold River, and Goldstream River are all currently gauged and will serve 

as examples of tributary inputs. Although the Illecillewaet River enters the Columbia 

River about 10 km downstream of Revelstoke Dam, it is included as an example of a 

gauged tributary because of its proximity, size, and long record of water quality data. 

6

Results 

Daily flow data for the four tributaries are summarized in Table 6.1. Figures 6.1-6.4(a) 

show the (a) daily and (b) mean flow for each tributary. The hydrographs for 2008 and 

2009 are compared in Figures 6.5 and 6.6, respectively, along with those of the Columbia 

River at Donald and the Columbia River at Revelstoke. The hydrographs for the gauged 

tributaries are very similar, and generally resemble the flow of the uncontrolled Columbia 

River at Donald. 

Table 6.1 Gauged tributaries flowing into the Columbia River 

Station # Station Name Year 

Drainage 

Area 

(km 2 ) 

Mean 

Flow 

(m 3 /s) 

Yield 

(m/yr) 

08NB019 Beaver River near the Mouth 1985-2009 1150 41.5 1.15 

08NB014 Gold River above Palmer Creek 1973-2009 427 18.2 1.35 

Goldstream River below Old 

08ND012 

Camp Creek 

1954-2009 938 38.9 1.31 

08ND013 Illecillewaet River at Greeley 1963-1994 1170 52.6 1.42 

7. Kinbasket Reservoir Water Level 

Data 

Daily water level data were available for 1974-2009 from WSC station 08ND017, 

entitled “Kinbasket Lake at Mica Dam”. This station is located in Kinbasket Reservoir 

near Mica Dam. 

Daily water level data were also available for 1980-2009 from WSC station 08NB017, 

entitled “Kinbasket Lake below Garrett Creek”. This station is located about 55 km 

southeast of Mica Dam in the Columbia Reach. Since both stations are on Kinbasket 

Reservoir, the water levels are expected to be comparable. The difference between the 

two stations was generally less than 0.5 m (std 0.2 m), except for April 2-30, 2007, when 

data at Kinbasket Lake at Mica Dam had a large (3 m) offset; this data was replaced with 

that from Kinbasket Lake below Garrett Creek. 

Results 

Figure 7.1(a) shows the daily water level of Kinbasket Lake for 1974-2009. Note the 

change in water level due to the completion of the dam in 1973. Figure 7.1(b) shows the 

mean daily post-impoundment water level for 1977-2009. 

7

The Kinbasket Lake water level for 2003-2009 is given in Figure 7.2 and generally 

followed the post-impoundment mean level with a few exceptions: in 2003 the water 

level was below average for the entire year; in 2004, the water level was below average 

from January to September; in 2008 the water level was slightly below average from 

January to August and then above average for the rest of the year. 

8. Revelstoke Water Level 

Data 

Daily water level data were available for 1984-2009 from the BC Hydro station located in 

the Revelstoke forebay. 

Results 

Figure 8.1(a) shows the water level of Revelstoke Reservoir for 1984-2009. Note the 

change in water level due to the completion of the dam in 1984. Figure 7.1(b) shows the 

mean daily post-impoundment water level averaged from 1988-2009. The water level 

varies by only a few meters, as the reservoir is operated run of the river. 

The annual water levels for 2003-2009 are shown in Figure 7.2, together with the mean 

post-impoundment level averaged from 1988-2009. The water levels for 2003-2009 

generally followed the post-impoundment mean levels. The largest change in water level 

was a drop of 1.5 m in February of 2003. 

9. Summer 2008 and 2009 

The summer, including those of 2008 and 2009, can be divided into two periods. From 

May to mid-July inflow to Kinbasket Reservoir is stored resulting in a rapid increase in 

water level (Figure 7.2f,g) and little outflow (Figure 4.2f,g). For the downstream 

Revelstoke Reservoir, this means that the major inflow from May to mid-July is freshet 

inflow from its local drainage. Because Revelstoke Reservoir is operated as run of the 

river (Figure 8.2f,g), the outflow from Revelstoke Reservoir is driven by local freshet 

inflow during this period. In 2008, the freshet peaked in mid May and again in early July 

(Figure 6.5). In 2009, freshet peaked in May and June (Figure 6.6). 

The second period is mid-July to September, when Kinbasket Reservoir has almost filled 

and the tail of the freshet is discharged from Mica Dam (Figure 4.2f,g). This increased 

flow from Kinbasket to Revelstoke makes up for the decline in local freshet inflow to 

Revelstoke and as a consequence the discharge from Revelstoke is similar in both periods 

(Figure 5.2f,g). 

8


We gratefully acknowledge funding provided by B.C. Hydro and the assistance of A. 

Akkerman in preparation of the figures and tables. 

References 

Kammerer, J.C. 1990. Largest rivers in the United States. USGS Water Fact Sheet, 

Open File Report 87-242. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/ 

Pieters, R., L.C. Thompson, L. Vidmanic, S. Harris, J. Stockner, H. Andrusak, M. Young, 

K. Ashley, B. Lindsay, G. Lawrence, K. Hall, A. Eskooch, D. Sebastian, G. 

Scholten and P.E. Woodruff. 2003. Arrow Reservoir fertilization experiment, 

year 2 (2000/2001) report. RD 87, Fisheries Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and 

Air Protection, Province of British Columbia. 

Water Survey Canada. 2009. Hydat National Water Data Archive. Accessed at 

http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/products/hydat/main_e.cfm?cname=archive_e.cfm. 

9

Figure 1.1. Upper Columbia River Basin

Figure 1.2 Kinbasket Reservoir with gauging stations (RED) and 

sampled tributaries (YELLOW).

Figure 1.3 Revelstoke Reservoir with gauging stations (RED) and 

sampled tributaries (YELLOW).

Figure 3.1. (a) WSC station 08NB005, “Columbia River at Donald”, 1944-2009. (b) Mean flow for 

the years indicated. Mean (heavy line), maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± one 

standard deviation (light lines).

Figure 3.2. WSC station 08NB005, “Columbia River at Donald”, 2003-2009 (heavy line). Mean flow 

for 1944-2009 (light line) is shown for comparison.

Figure 4.1. (a) WSC station 08ND007, “Columbia River above Nagle Creek”, 1947-1975 and BC 

Hydro station “Columbia River at Mica Dam Outflow”, 1976-2009. (b) Mean pre-impoundment flow 

for the years indicated. (c) Mean post-impoundment flow for the years indicated. Mean (heavy line), 

maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± one standard deviation (light lines).

Figure 4.2. BC Hydro station “Columbia River at Mica Dam Outflow”, 2003-2009 (heavy line). 

Mean flow for 1976-2009 (light line) is shown for comparison.

Figure 5.1. (a) WSC station 08ND011, “Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids”, 1955-1985 and 

WSC station 08ND025, “Revelstoke Project Outflow”, 1986-2009. (b) Mean pre-impoundment flow 

for the years indicated. (c) Mean post-impoundment flow for the years indicated. Mean (heavy line), 

maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± one standard deviation (light lines).

Figure 5.2. WSC station 08ND025, “Revelstoke Project Outflow”, 2003-2009 (heavy line). Mean 

flow for 1986-2009 (light line) is shown for comparison.

Figure 6.1. (a) WSC station 08NB019, “'Beaver River near the Mouth”, 1985-2009. (b) Mean flow 

for the years indicated. Mean (heavy line), maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± one 


Figure 6.2. (a) WSC station 08NB014, “Gold River above Palmer Creek”, 1973-2009. (b) Mean flow 



Figure 6.3. (a) WSC station 08ND012, “Goldstream River below Old Camp Creek”, 1954-2009. (b) 

Mean flow for the years indicated. Mean (heavy line), maximum and minimum (medium lines) and 

mean ± one standard deviation (light lines).

Figure 6.4. (a) WSC station 08ND013, “Illecillewaet River at Greeley”, 1963-2009. (b) Mean flow 



Figure 6.5. Comparison of flows in 2008 for the stations indicated (heavy line). Mean flows for 

a) 1944-2009 b) 1985-2009 c) 1973-2009 d) 1954-2009 e) 1963-2009 f) 1986-2009 (light line).

Figure 6.6. Comparison of flows in 2009 for the stations indicated (heavy line). Mean flows for a) 

1944-2009 b) 1985-2009 c) 1973-2009 d) 1954-2009 e) 1963-2009 f) 1986-2009 (light line).

Figure 7.1. (a) WSC station 08ND017 “Kinbasket Lake at Mica Dam”, 1974-2009. (b) Mean daily 

water level for 1977-2009. Mean (heavy line), maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± 

one standard deviation (light lines).

Figure 7.2. Water levels for WSC station 08ND017 “Kinbasket Lake at Mica Dam”, 2003-2009 

(heavy line). Mean daily water level for 1977-2009 (light line) is shown for comparison. Data for 2-30 

April 2007 replaced with that from Kinbasket Lake below Garrett Creek.

Figure 8.1. (a) BC Hydro station “Revelstoke Lake Forebay”, 1984-2009. (b) Mean daily water level 

for 1988-2009. Mean (heavy line), maximum and minimum (medium lines) and mean ± one standard 

deviation (light lines).

Figure 8.2. BC Hydro station “Revelstoke Lake Forebay”, 2003-2009 (heavy line). Mean daily water 

level for 1988-2009 (light line) is shown for comparison.

Appendix 1 Gauging Stations in the Kinbasket/ Revelstoke Drainage 

Type* Station # 


Abbr Station Name Year 

Drainage 

Area 1 

(km 2 ) 

Mean 

Flow 1 

(m 3 /s) 

Yield 

(m/yr) 

Q 08NA045 Columbia River near Fairmont Hot Springs 1944-1996 891 10.4 0.37 

WL 08NA004 Columbia River at Athalmer 1944-1984 1340 - - 

ND 08NA027 Columbia River near Athalmer - - - - 

Q 08NA052 Columbia River near Edgwater 1950-1956 3550 58.7 0.52 

Q 08NA002 Columbia River at Nicholson 1903-2008 6660 107 0.51 

Q 08NB005 coldo Columbia River at Donald 

Columbia River at Calamity Curve near 

1944-2008 9710 172 0.56 

ND 08NB008 Beavermouth - - - - 

Q 08NB006 colsu Columbia River at Surprise Rapids 1948-1966 14000 337 0.76 

WL 08NB017 lking Kinbasket Lake below Garrett Creek 

Columbia River at Big Bend Highway 

1980-2008 - - - 

Q 08NB011 colbb Crossing 1944-1949 16800 472 0.89 

WL 08ND017 lkinm Kinbasket Lake at Mica Dam 1974-2008 - - - 

Q 08ND007 colna Columbia River above Nagle Creek 1947-1983 21500 567 0.83 

ND 08ND010 Columbia River above Downie Creek - - - - 

Q 08ND025 revpo Revelstoke Project Outflow 1986-2008 - 773 - 

Q 08ND011 colsr Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids 1955-1986 26400 796 0.95 

Q 08ND002 Columbia River at Revelstoke 1912-1989 26700 854 1.01 

WL - lreff Revelstoke Reservoir 1984-2008 - - - 

Local Flow in Kinbasket Lake 

Q 08NB019 beavr Beaver River near the Mouth 1985-2008 1150 41.9 1.15 

Q 08NB014 goldr Gold River above Palmer Creek 1973-2008 427 18.3 1.35 

Q 08NC001 woodd Wood River near Donald 1948-1972 956 40.1 1.32 

Q 08NC003 canva Canoe River at Valemont 1966-1967 368 18.7 1.60 

Q 08NC002 cando Canoe River near Donald 1947-1967 3290 105 1.01 

Local Flow in Revelstoke Lake 

Q 08ND015 micac Mica Creek near Revelstoke 1964-1965 82.4 4.0 1.53 

Q 08ND012 golds Goldstream River below Old Camp Creek 1954-2008 938 39.0 1.31 

Q 08ND019 kirby Kirbyville Creek near the Mouth 1973-2005 112 6.14 1.73 

Q 08ND009 downi Downie Creek near Revelstoke 1953-1983 655 30.2 1.45 

Other 

Q 08ND013 illgr Illecillewaet River at Greeley 1963-2008 1170 53.5 1.44 

* Q - Flow, WL - Water Level, ND - No Data 

1 From Water Survey of Canada, values in italics were estimated

Appendix 2 Reference Elevations for the Mica and Revelstoke Projects 

Kinbasket Reservoir Elevations 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Elevation 

(m) 

Storage 

(Mm 3 ) 

Area 

(km 2 ) Comments 

2500.0 762.0 Crest of dam 

2486.5 757.9 26306.1 

DSI, Dam Safety Incident level when spill 

446.4 

gates are open 

Expected maximum reservoir level during 

2484.9 757.4 26083.5 444.2 the PMF inflow event (11,780 m 3 /s, 

246,000 cfs) 

Nmax, Normal maximum operating 

2475.0 754.4 24770.7 431.0 elevation. WLU, Water License Upper 

Limit 

2319.4 707.0 9875.8 

Nmin, Normal minimum pool level 

206.9 

WLL, Calculated water license limit 

2275.0 693.4 

Sill elevation of 3.0 m W x 5.49 m H (10' 

W x 18' H) outlet gates (2) 

2274.0 693.1 Top of intake conduit 

2252.0 686.4 

Sill elevation of power intakes (6) (Bottom 

of intake conduit) 

Revelstoke Reservoir Elevations 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Elevation 

(m) 

Storage 

(Mm 3 ) 

Area 

(km 2 ) Comments 

1894.0 577.6 Crest of dam 

1885.0 574.6 5449.4 118.2 

DSI, Dam Safety Incident level when spill 

gates are open. Expected maximum 

reservoir level during the PMF inflow 

event (7100 m3/s, 250,000 cfs) 

1880.0 573.0 5264.8 116.0 

Nmax, Normal maximum operating 

elevation. WLU, Water License Upper 

Limit 

1875.0 571.5 5089.9 113.6 Nmin, Normal minimum pool level 

1830.0 557.8 3692.7 88.7 Minimum pool level (power intake limit) 

1820.0 554.7 

Minimum pool level (water license storage 

limit) 

1772.6 540.3 Sill elevation of power intakes (6)



Appendix 2 



Roger Pieters, Hannah Keller, Greg Lawrence 




Roger Pieters 1,2 , Hannah Keller 2 and Greg Lawrence 2 


B.C. V6T 1Z4 


V6T 1Z4 

Revelstoke National Park, 23 Aug 2010 

Prepared for 

Karen Bray 




January 26, 2011

Contents 

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 

2. Methods............................................................................................................................1 

3. Results..............................................................................................................................4 

4. Discussion........................................................................................................................8 

5. Conclusions......................................................................................................................8 

Appendix 1 Summary of methods 

Appendix 2 Tributaries sampled 

Appendix 3 Tributary data 


Figure 1 pH of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 2 Conductivity of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 3 Nitrate and nitrite of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 4 Total dissolved phosphorus of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 5 Total phosphorus of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 6 pH of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 7 Conductivity of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 8 Nitrate and nitrite of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 9 Total dissolved phosphorus of tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008 & 2009 

Figure 10 Total phosphorus of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 2008 & 2009 

Figure 11 Water quality data, reference tributaries, 2009 

Figure 12 Water quality data, Columbia River, 2009 

Figure 13 Water quality data, Illecillewaet River, 1997-2001 

Figure 14 Flow, C25 and Nitrate in the Illecillewaet River, 1997-2001 

i


We report on water quality data collected from tributaries of Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

reservoirs in 2009. This is the second year of tributary sampling as part of the ongoing 

B.C. Hydro project entitled “CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Ecological 

Productivity Monitoring”. * Sampling consisted of (1) a survey of tributaries on 7-8 Jul 

2009 and (2) monitoring of the Columbia River and reference tributaries from May to 

Nov 2009. 

2. Methods 

All tributaries were sampled once on 7-8 Jul 2009. Four reference tributaries were 

sampled biweekly from May to July, and once a month from Aug to Nov. 

Samples were collected (1) by helicopter on 8 Jul 2009, or (2) from the point at which the 

tributary crossed a road. Tributaries entering the east side of Revelstoke Reservoir were 

sampled at Highway 23. The Columbia River at Donald was sampled near the Highway 

1 bridge. Water samples were either collected directly into sample bottles (helicopter) or 

collected first into a bucket and then into sample bottles. Filtration was done later the 

same day. Sampling and laboratory methods are summarized in Appendix 1. 

Temperature was measured with a handheld thermometer. Water samples were either 

frozen or kept on ice and shipped within 48 hours to the Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Cultus Lake Salmon Research Laboratory, 4222 Columbia Valley Highway 

Cultus Lake, British Columbia. 

Samples from Beaver River were collected and analyzed by Environment Canada. The 

Beaver River was sampled at the east gate of Glacier National Park, representing about 

half of the total drainage of the Beaver River. 

The samples were analyzed for the water quality parameters listed in Table 1. The 

tributaries samples in 2009 are listed in Appendix 2. Also given in Appendix 2 is the 

drainage area for each tributary. The drainage area was available from Water Survey 

Canada for a few of the tributaries, while for most the drainage area is a rough estimate. 

Drainage areas have been requested from B.C. Hydro and these values will be updated 

when they become available. 

We can use these approximate drainage areas to estimate the percentage of the local and 

total drainage that was sampled (Tables 2 and 3). For Kinbasket Reservoir, ~39% of the 

local drainage was sampled. Kinbasket Reservoir can be divided into three regions, 

Columbia Reach, Canoe Reach and Wood Arm. Of these approximately 1/3 of the 

drainage area was sampled in both the Columbia Reach and Wood Arm drainage, and 

approximately ½ sampled from the drainage of the Canoe Reach (Table 2). The total 

* 

In 2003, eight tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir were sampled as part of an embayment study (K. Bray, 

personal communication). 

1

drainage for Kinbasket Reservoir includes not only the local inflow but the flow from the 

Columbia River at Donald Station. Of the total drainage to Kinbasket Reservoir 67% 

was sampled (Table 3). 

Table 1 Parameters measured 

Parameter Units Symbol 

Detection 

Limit 

pH pH 

Conductivity μS/cm Cond 

Nitrate and Nitrite μg/L N NN 1 ug/L 

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus μg/L P SRP 0.5 ug/L 

Total Dissolved Phosphorus μg/L P TDP 

Total Phosphorus μg/L P TP 0.5 ug/L 

Total Phosphorus with 

color/turbidity correction 

μg/L P TP Turb 

Turbidity NTU Turb 

Alkalinity 

Water Temperature 

mgCaCO3/L 

o 

C 

Alk 

T 

For Revelstoke Reservoir, ~67% of the local drainage area was sampled. Revelstoke 

Reservoir can be divided into Upper and Lower Revelstoke of which approximately 73% 

and 50% were sampled, respectively (Table 2). Of the total drainage to Revelstoke 

Reservoir, which includes the outflow from Mica Dam, 94% was sampled (Table 3). 

Table 2 Percentage of the local drainage sampled 

KINBASKET RESERVOIR 

Drainage area local to Kinbasket Reservoir 11,790 km 2 

Drainage area of all sampled tributaries 

(except Columbia at Donald) ~4,600 km 2 

Percent Sampled 39% 

Drainage area local to Columbia Reach 7,540 km 2 

Drainage area of all sampled tributaries to Columbia Reach ~2,700 km 2 


Drainage area local to Canoe Reach 3,290 km 2 

Drainage area of all Sampled tributaries to Canoe Reach ~1,550 km 2 


Drainage area local to Wood Arm 956 km 2 

Drainage area of all Sampled tributaries to Wood Arm 360 km 2 


2

Table 2 con’t Percentage of the local drainage sampled 

REVELSTOKE RESERVOIR 

Drainage area local to Revelstoke Reservoir 4,900 km 2 

Drainage area of all sampled tributaries (except Columbia 

River at Mica Outflow) ~3,300 km 2 


Drainage area local to Upper Revelstoke Reservoir ~3,300 km 2 

Drainage of all Sampled tributaries to Upper ~2,500 km 2 


Drainage area local to Lower Revelstoke Reservoir ~1,600 km 2 

Drainage of all Sampled tributaries to Lower ~800 km 2 


Table 3 Percentage of the total drainage sampled 

KINBASKET RESERVOIR 

Columbia River at Donald 9,710 km 2 

Drainage area of all sampled tributaries ~4,600 km 2 

Total sampled ~14,310 km 2 

Drainage area of Kinbasket Reservoir 21,500 km 2 

Percent sampled 67% 

REVELSTOKE RESERVOIR 

Columbia River at Mica Dam 21,500 km 2 

Drainage area of all sampled tributaries ~3,300 km 2 

Total sampled ~24,800 km 2 

Drainage area of Revelstoke Reservoir 26,400 km 2 


3

3. Results 

The tributary chemistry data is given in Appendix 3. We first discuss the survey data 

collected on 7-8 Jul 2009 and then data from the Columbia River and reference tributaries 

for May to Nov. 

Survey of tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir 

The pH ranged from slightly acidic (6.58, Bulldog Creek) to slightly alkaline (7.91, 

Wood River), Figure 1. As in 2008, the tributaries of Canoe Reach generally had lower 

pH than those of the other regions. Not including the slightly lower values in the Canoe 

Reach, the range of pH in the tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir was comparable to that 

of the tributaries entering the Arrow Reservoir, 7.2 to 8.1 (Pieters et al. 2003). 

The alkalinity of the tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir ranged from a low of 9.5 mg/L 

(Bulldog Cr) to 181 mg/L (Prattle Cr). During the survey, the alkalinity of the Columbia 

River at Donald Station was 152 mg/L. As with pH, the alkalinity was generally lower in 

Canoe Reach. 

The conductivity at 25º (C25) varied from 24 μS/cm (Bulldog Creek) to 121 μS/cm (Bush 

River), Figure 2. The conductivity of the Columbia River at Donald Station was 130 

μS/cm. Similar to the pH and alkalinity, the conductivity was generally lower in Canoe 

Reach and higher in tributaries to Wood Arm and to the east side of the Columbia Reach. 

The range of conductivity was similar to that observed in tributaries to the Arrow 

Reservoir, 36 to 203 μS/cm (Pieters et al. 2003). 

The concentration of nitrate and nitrite (NN) was low to moderate ranging from 25 μg/L 

(Chatter Creek) to 113 μg/L (Windy Creek), Figure 3. The NN concentration of the 

Columbia River at Donald Station was 52 μg/L. The range of NN values was similar to 

the range in tributaries to Lower Arrow Reservoir (including the Narrows) of 3 to 133 

ug/L. However, the Upper Arrow received higher values of NN from several large 

tributaries such as the Illecillewaet (260 μg/L) and Incomappleux (280 μg/L), along with 

140 μg/L from the Columbia River at Revelstoke (Pieters et al. 2003). 

Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP, also known as orthophosphate) 

were low, ranging from 0.7 μg/L (Kinbasket River and Bulldog Creek) to 2.5 μg/L 

(Molson Creek). SRP in the Columbia River at Donald Station was 3.5 μg/L. This is 

very similar to the range of SRP observed in 2008 (0.8 to 2.6 μg/L) and comparable to 

that observed in tributaries to Arrow Reservoir (1 to 6.8 μg/L). 

Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations were moderate in all areas of the 

reservoir, ranging from 1.6 μg/L (Yellowjacket and Ptarmigan Creeks) to 8.8 μg/L 

(Kinbasket River), Figure 4. This range of TDP concentration was similar to that in 2008 

(1.5 to 6.3 μg/L). TDP in the Columbia River at Donald Station was at the higher end of 

4

the range at 7.2 μg/L. These values are comparable to the range of average TDP 

concentrations for tributaries to Arrow Reservoir, 2.8 to 16 μg/L (Pieters et al. 2003). 

Total phosphorus (TP) was highly variable, with concentrations ranging from 4.0 μg/L 

(Molson Creek) to 130 μg/L (Windy Creek), Figure 5. During the survey, the TP 

concentration in the Columbia River at Donald Station was 25 μg/L. These values are 

slightly larger than the range of average TP concentrations of tributaries to Arrow 

Reservoir, 7.4 to 52 μg/L (Pieters et al. 2003). 

For total phosphorus (TP), a correction was also provided for turbidity and colour. Both 

turbidity and colour can absorb light in the colorimeter, increasing the readings. A 

correction was determined by running the sample with the reducing reagent and 

ammonium molybdate solution replaced with distilled water. The correction was then 

subtracted from TP to give the corrected TP reading, Appendix 3. For many of the 

tributaries, the corrections were modest, ranging from 0 to 50% and averaging 20% of 

uncorrected TP. This was lower than the average correction of 50% in 2008. The 

corrected TP in 2009 ranged from 4.0 μg/L (Molson Creek) to 116 μg/L (Foster Creek). 

Particulate phosphorus can be estimated as the difference between total and total 

dissolved phosphorus, PP = TP - TDP. In glacially dominated systems, with high 

turbidity, much of the total phosphorus may be extracted from the particulate minerals 

(e.g. apatite) by the digestion. As a result, for tributaries with high PP, it is likely that 

much of this phosphorus is of low biological availability. 

Turbidity varied significantly, from very clear (0.43 NTU, Chatter Creek) to extremely 

turbid (96 NTU, Bush River). The turbidity in 2009 was higher than in 2008, when the 

upper limit was 21 NTU (Sullivan River). The turbidity of the Columbia River at Donald 

station was also high, 22 NTU. Turbidity was high for many of the tributaries entering 

the eastern side of the Columbia Reach, especially Wood River, Sullivan Creek, and 

Kinbasket River. 

The temperature of the tributaries sampled 7-8 Jul 2009 ranged from 6.0 to 8.0 ºC, with 

the Columbia River at Donald much warmer at 15 ºC. Other than the Columbia at 

Donald, the tributaries were cooler than those in the Arrow Reservoir, which ranged from 

8 to 15 ºC in July (Pieters et al. 2003). 

5

Survey of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir 

Revelstoke Reservoir can be divided into two reaches: Upper Revelstoke, that part of the 

Reservoir above Downie Creek, and Lower Revelstoke including Downie Creek. The 

creeks were sampled on 7-8 Jul 2009. 

The pH of tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir was close to neutral and ranged from 

slightly acidic (6.34, Soards Creek) to slightly alkaline (7.66 in Downie Creek), Figure 6. 

During the survey, the pH of the Columbia River at Mica Dam was 7.37. As in 2008, the 

range of pH in the tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir was slightly lower than that for 

Kinbasket. 

The alkalinity of the tributaries flowing into Revelstoke Reservoir ranged from 6.1 mg/L 

(Soards Creek) to 102.0 mg/L (Downie Creek). The alkalinity of the Columbia River at 

Mica Dam outflow was 86 mg/L. These values were slightly lower than the range of 

alkalinity values for Kinbasket tributaries. 

The conductivity (C25) of tributaries to the Revelstoke Reservoir ranged from 10 μS/cm 

(Bourne Creek) to 83 μS/cm (Downie Creek), Figure 7. The Columbia River at Mica 

Dam had a conductivity of 72 μS/cm. This range in conductivity was also slightly lower 

than that seen in both the Kinbasket and Arrow reservoirs. 

The concentration of nitrate and nitrite (NN) ranged from 1.6 μg/L (Martha Creek) to 146 

μg/L (Horne Creek), Figure 8. The NN concentration of the Columbia River at Mica 

Dam was 95 μg/L. Carnes and Martha creeks on the east side of the Lower Reach were 

particularly low, with NN concentrations of 3 and 1.6 μg/L, respectively. The 

concentrations of NN in tributaries to the Revelstoke Reservoir were more varied than 

those from Kinbasket, and were generally lower than those from Arrow Reservoir. 

Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations were low ranging from 0.9 μg/L 

(Goldstream River) to 5.7 μg/L (Scrip Creek). The SRP concentration of the Columbia 

River at Mica Dam was 1.5 μg/L during the tributary survey and averaged 2.3 μg/L from 

May to Nov, 2009. 

Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations ranged from 2.0 μg/L (Soards Creek) 

to 13 μg/L (Scrip Creek), Figure 7. The TDP concentration in the Columbia River at the 

Mica Dam outflow was 3.5 μg/L. As in 2008, the range of TDP concentrations in 

tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir was slightly higher than that to Kinbasket Reservoir. 

Total phosphorus (TP) ranged from 2.9 μg/L (Pitt and Martha creeks) to 78 μg/L (Big 

Eddy Creek), Figure 8. The TP concentration in the Columbia River at Mica Dam was 

5.7 μg/L. The TP correction is also shown in Appendix 3. The correction was slightly 

smaller for Revelstoke Reservoir, averaging ~16% compared to ~20% for Kinbasket 

Reservoir, suggesting less effect of turbidity and colour. The corrected values of TP 

6

anged from 2.5 (Soards Creek) to 49 (Big Eddy Creek), slightly lower than for 

Kinbasket. 

Turbidity was highly variable, ranging from exceptionally clear (0.14 NTU, Martha 

Creek) to very turbid (68 NTU, Big Eddy Creek). The turbidity of the Columbia River at 

Mica Dam was low, 0.42 NTU. There were fewer tributaries with high turbidity in 

Revelstoke Reservoir than in Kinbasket Reservoir. 

The temperature of the tributaries ranged from 6.0 – 10.5 ºC from 6-8 July 2009. The 

range of temperature in August was a little warmer than that in Kinbasket Reservoir and 

similar to that observed in the Arrow Reservoir. 

Columbia River and reference tributaries 

The Columbia River and two reference tributaries were sampled biweekly from May to 

Jul, and monthly from Aug to Nov (Appendix 3). Consider first the natural flows of the 

Columbia River at Donald, and the Beaver and Goldstream rivers; the flow for each is 

shown in Figure 11a. Note the flow for Beaver River is gauged near the mouth while the 

water quality sampling by Environment Canada was at the east gate of Glacier National 

Park, reporting about half the drainage. Freshet peaked in late May and mid Jun 2009 

and the hydrograph at all three locations had a similar shape. The Columbia at Donald, 

having wound its way through the Rocky Mountain Trench, was relatively warm peaking 

at 18 ºC in late Jul, Figure 11b. In contrast the Beaver and Goldstream rivers were 

relatively cold, with Jul temperatures of only 10-12 ºC. The conductivity of all three 

declined through the freshet to less than half by mid-summer, Figure 11c. Turbidity was 

highly variable (Figure 11d) while pH remained slightly alkaline (Figure 11e). 

Even more than conductivity, nitrate and nitrite (NN) concentrations declined by 3 to 10 

times from May to mid-summer, Figure 11f. On 19 May 2009, the Beaver River had 419 

μg/L NN which dropped to 39 μg/L on 4 Aug 2009. The concentrations of SRP were 

low (Figure 11g), with concentrations in the Beaver River at or below detection. While 

TDP was not available for Beaver River, TDP concentrations for the Columbia at Donald 

and Goldstream were low (2-7 μg/L) and relatively constant (Figure 11h). TP was highly 

variable (Figure 11i), likely reflecting phosphorus from particulate minerals typical of 

glacial fed systems and of low biological availability. The NN:TDP ratio (by weight) 

was > 10 through most of the year suggesting tributary nutrients are phosphorus limited, 

except for summer when the decline in tributary NN can reduce the NN:TDP ratio to just 

under 10 suggesting nitrogen and phosphorus co-limitation (Figure 11j). 

In Figure 12, the water quality parameters for the Columbia River at Donald are shown 

again along with the outflow from Kinbasket Reservoir (Columbia River at Mica) and the 

outflow from Revelstoke Reservoir (Columbia River above Jordan). The flow is variable 

(Figure 12a), and the temperature is cold (

Mica and Revelstoke was very low, < 2 NTU and averaging 0.6 and 0.7 NTU, 

respectively. Like the tributaries, the pH was relatively constant and slightly alkaline 

(Figure 12e). 

While nitrate and nitrite concentrations (NN) dropped from approximately 200 to 100 

μg/L in the outflow from Mica, the concentrations did not drop as low as in the reference 

tributaries. In the outflow from Revelstoke, NN was relatively constant, at approximately 

100 μg/L (Figure 12f). SRP concentrations were close to the detection limit (Figure 12g) 

and TDP and TP were low and relatively constant (Figures 12h,i). The NN:TDP ratio for 

the Mica and Revelstoke outflows was > 10 throughout the year, suggesting nutrients 

from these sources are phosphorus limited (Figure 12j). 

4. Discussion 

Caution should be applied to the survey results as they are based on only one sample. 

Most of the tributaries to Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs are remote and difficult to 

access, making it prohibitive to collect enough samples from each site to show the 

seasonal variation. An indication of seasonal variability is provided by the reference 

tributaries. 

Seasonal variability is also seen in the long record of water quality data available for the 

Illecillewaet River, which is located just south of the Revelstoke Reservoir. The 

Illecillewaet is the largest local inflow to the Arrow Reservoir, drains 1170 km 2 and 

includes flow of glacial origin. Water quality data for 1997 to 2001 are shown in Figure 

13. Also shown in grey is the flow from WSC Station 08ND013, Illecillewaet at Greeley. 

For C25 and NN there is a clear seasonal cycle, with concentrations high during the start 

of freshet and then decreasing rapidly to lower values during the summer. In late August 

the values increase again. Also shown for reference are SRP, TDP, TP, pH, NH3 and 

water temperature. 

Figure 14 compares the seasonal evolution of the flow, C25 and NN for five years, 1997- 

2001. The onset of freshet occurred between early and mid May. For example, in 1998 a 

large peak in freshet flow began at the start of May while freshet was delayed toward the 

end of May in 2001. There is a corresponding variation in the timing of the decline in 

C25 (Figure 14b). The decline in NN occurs more gradually through May and June to 

very low values in July and August (Figure 14c). Overall, NN declined from 420-480 

μg/L in May to 50-100 μg/L in mid-summer. A similar decline in NN is seen in other 

tributaries to the Arrow Reservoir (not shown). 

8

5. Conclusions 

Based on limited data, the tributaries to both Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs are low 

in nutrients. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) was very low in both basins, close to the 

detection limit. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) was also low, averaging about 5 μg/L. 

Total phosphorus (TP) was highly variable, reflecting the glacial origin of many of the 

tributaries. While correction of TP for colour and turbidity resulted in a modest reduction 

in TP concentrations, much of the corrected TP is likely of inorganic origin with low 

biological availability. With glacial inflow, TDP is preferred over TP as a measure of 

available phosphorus. 

In the presence of oxygen, concentrations of nitrate and nitrite (NN) are typically 

dominated by nitrate. Despite limited data, there appears to be a trend of increasing 

nitrate along the system from Kinbasket Reservoir (≈ 70 μg/L), Revelstoke Reservoir (≈ 

75 μg/L) to Arrow Reservoir (≈ 200 μg/L, Pieters et al. 2003). Further data, updated 

estimates of the drainage areas and flow weighted averages are the next steps to 

substantiating this trend. 

For an N:P ratio > 10 (by weight) phosphorus is expected to limit phytoplankton 

productivity (Horne and Goldman, 1994). The N:P ratio, based on nitrate and TDP, is 

greater than 10 for most of the tributaries which suggests phosphorus limitation. There 

are some exceptions such as the Columbia River at Donald in summer (NO3:TDP < 10), 

and smaller tributaries at the south end of Revelstoke Reservoir, the significance of which 

awaits further data and analysis. 


Samples were collected by Beth Manson, Pierre Bourget and Karen Bray. We thank A. 

Akkerman and A. Baysheva for preparation of tables and figures. Funding was gratefully 

provided by B.C. Hydro. We acknowledge support for A. Akkerman from the UBC 

Work-Study program. G. Lawrence is grateful for the support of the Canada Research 

Chair program. 

References 






Horne A. and C. Goldman, 1994. Limnology 2 nd Edition. McGraw Hill Inc., New York. 

9

6.80 

7.30 

Figure 1 pH of Tributaries to Kinbasket R., 2008, 2009 

6.94 

6.58 

7.23 

6.65 

6.97 

6.89 

7.42 

7.02 

8.11 

7.91 

7.34 

7.84 

7.79 

8.07 

7.72 

7.36 

7.34 

7.06 

6.91 

7.89 

8.13 

7.85 

7.86 

8.16 

7.66 

7.03 

7.29 

8.06 

7.83 

7.28 

7.72 

7.53 

7.81

33 

79 

42 

Figure 2 Conductivity (μs/cm) of Tributaries to Kinbasket R., 2008, 2009 

24 

45 

29 

77 

38 

65 

37 

119 

94 

53 

80 

85 

102 

69 

52 

51 

40 

36 

110 

118 

99 

121 

143 

78 

35 

49 

160 

130 

72 

76 

73

44.8 

39.9 

Figure 3 Nitrate and Nitrite (μg/L) of Tributaries to Kinbasket R., 2008, 2009 

33.0 

95.5 

39.1 

84.1 

73.5 

46.9 

39.4 

41.3 

63.9 

66.0 

57.0 

65.4 

89.5 

92.9 

52.0 

51.5 

52.2 

59.1 

87.5 

87.7 

61.3 

64.7 

105.9 

99.0 

24.8 

112.9 

104.8 

63.2 

51.8 

68.5 

68.5 

62.6 

57.0

1.6 

1.5 

2.5 

Figure 4 Total Dissolved Phosphorus (μg/L) of Tributaries to Kinbasket R., 2008, 2009 

5.0 

2.4 

1.6 

1.6 

3.9 

2.5 

2.8 

4.2 

3.0 

2.9 

4.0 

2.8 

6.3 

4.7 

2.6 

8.8 

3.4 

3.5 

4.2 

4.2 

3.1 

7.5 

5.2 

5.9 

4.5 

5.5 

10.7 

7.2 

5.0 

5.0 

5.2

Figure 5 Total Phosphorus (μg/L) of Tributaries to Kinbasket R., 2008, 2009 

17.5 

6.7 

3.6 

8.0 

29.9 

5.1 

15.5 

4.5 

11.0 

9.5 

53.2 

123.9 

5.3 

5.8 

4.0 

27.9 

13.5 

26.8 

15.6 

47.0 

39.4 

55.8 

31.5 

101 

90.9 

29.4 

6.9 

129.6 

47.4 

43.0 

25.4 

51.1 

27.1 

21.3

6.39 

6.50 

6.34 7.16 

6.97 

6.97 

Figure 6 pH of Tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008, 2009 

7.21 

7.23 

8.7 

7.25 

7.25 

6.99 

7.38, 7.38 

6.78 7.31 

7.07 

7.73, 7.69 

7.09 

7.56 

7.37 

6.67 

6.95 

6.69 

6.94 

6.84 

6.74 

6.99 

7.92, 7.97 

7.66 

7.06 

7.57 

7.94 

6.93 

7.22, 7.64 

7.08 

6.92

12 

24 

22 

12 

17 

Figure 7 Conductivity (μS/cum) of Tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008, 2009 

30 

34 

35 

27 

16 

26 

47 

72 

108 

10 

15 

11 

39 

33 

15 

32 

38 

31 

83 

32 

106, 108 

48, 58 

42 

94 

118 

56 

75, 78 

16 

40, 67 

16 

39

100.1 

133.8 

146.4 

99.2 

65.4 

46.3 

135.5 

144.9 

39.4 

Figure 8 Nitrate and Nitrite (μg/L) of Tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008, 2009 

146.3 

53.9 

40.6 

95.1 

114.0 

71.5 

56.7 

84.9 

107.1 

75.0 

68.5 

57.6 

44.7 

92.9 

39.3 

140.5, 102.9 

93.2 

99.2, 76.5 

134.9 

144.3 

79.7 

81.2 

71.8 

6.8 

2.2, 3.8 

1.6 

3.0

Figure 9 Total Dissolved Phosphorus (μg/L) of Tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008, 2009 

2.0 

13.0 

3.5 

3.3 

2.7 

3.0 

2.9 

2.6 

2.5 

2.4 

9.6 

2.3 

3.5 

5.8 

8.1 

10.1 

10.2 

7.1 

4.2 

6.3 

7.2 

3.4 

5.2 

3.8 

5.2 

8.7, 4.7 

4.8, 7.1 

4.8 

6.7 

8.6 

3.8 

18.3, 0.0 

5.8 

4.2, 4.5 

3.8 

6.7

3.5 

3.8 

4.8 

12.1 

5.3 

Figure 10 Total Phosphorus (μg/L) of Tributaries to Revelstoke R., 2008, 2009 

27.5 

6.3 

9.2 

8.7 

7.2 

6.9 

19.1, 25.1 

6.5 13.1 

4.8 

22.9, 20.8 

12.9 

4.4 

5.7 

77.6 

48.3 

78.1 

8.4 

27.2 

10.0 

6.7 

2.9 

25.9 

34.6, 29.8 

27.8 

5.2 

8.2 

9.2 

6.1, 3.4 

5.6 

2.9

Flow (m 3 /s) 

T (°C) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

Turb (NTU) 

pH 

600 

400 

200 

Figure 11 Flow and water quality of reference tributaries, 2009 

Columbia R at Donald 

Beaver R at East Park Gate 

Goldstream R 

(a) 

0 

May01 Jun01 Jul01 Aug01 Sep01 Oct01 Nov01 Dec01 

20 

10 

2008 

2009 

(b) 

0 


300 

200 

100 

(c) 

0 


200 

100 

(d) 

0 


8.5 

8 

7.5 

(e) 

7 


/ocean/rpieters/kr/chem/trib/plot/plotreftrib09.m fig= 1 2011−Jan−25

NN (μg/L) 

SRP (μg/L) 

TDP (μg/L) 

TP (μg/L) 

NN:TDP (by weight) 

400 

200 

Figure 11 con’t Flow and water quality of reference tributaries, 2009 

2008 

2009 


Beaver R at East Park Gate 

Goldstream R 

(f) 

0 


6 

4 

2 

0 

(g) 


15 

10 

5 

(h) 

0 


200 

100 

(i) 

0 


60 

40 

20 

(j) 

0 



Flow (m 3 /s) 

T (°C) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

1500 

1000 

Turb (NTU) 

pH 

500 

Figure 12 Flow and water quality of Columbia River, 2009 


Columbia R at Mica 

Columbia R above Jordan 

(a) 

0 


20 

10 

2008 

2009 

(b) 

0 


300 

200 

100 

(c) 

0 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(d) 


8.5 

8 

7.5 

(e) 

7 



NN (μg/L) 

200 

Figure 12 con’t Flow and water quality of Columbia River, 2009 

100 

2008 


2009 

Columbia R at Mica 

(f) 

Columbia R above Jordan 

0 


SRP (μg/L) 

TDP (μg/L) 

TP (μg/L) 

NN:TDP (by weight) 

6 

4 

2 

0 

(g) 


15 

10 

5 

(h) 

0 


15 

10 

5 

(i) 

0 


60 

40 

20 

(j) 

0 



NN (μg/L) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

TP (μg/L) 

Figure 13 Water quality of Illecillewaet River, 1997−2001 

200 

(a) C25 

100 

0 

J97 M97 S97 J98 M98 S98 J99 M99 S99 J00 M00 S00 J01 M01 S01 

1000 (b) NO and NO 

3 2 

SRP (μg/L) 

TDP (μg/L) 

500 

0 


10 

(c) SRP 

5 

0 


10 

(d) TDP 

5 

0 


100 

(e) TP ↑163 ↑135 

50 

0 


/ocean/rpieters/al97/chem/stream/plotillKINREV08.m fig= 1 2009−Apr−25

pH 

NH3 (μg/L) 

T (°C) 

8.5 

(f) pH 

8 

7.5 

Figure 13 Water quality of Illecillewaet River, 1997−2001 

7 


(g) NH 

3 

20 

10 

0 


15 

(h) Temperature 

10 

5 

0 


/ocean/rpieters/al97/chem/stream/plotillKINREV08p2.m fig= 1 2009−Apr−25

Flow (m 3 /s) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

NN (μS/cm) 

(a) Flow 

300 

200 

100 

Figure 14 Flow, C25 and NN in the Illecillewaet River, 1997−2001 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

0 

91 121 152 182 213 244 274 305 

l A l M l J l J l A l S l O l 

200 

(b) C25 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

400 

200 

91 121 152 182 213 244 274 305 


(c) NO +NO 

2 3 

600 

0 

91 121 152 182 213 244 274 305 


/ocean/rpieters/al97/chem/stream/plotillKINREV08p3.m fig= 1 2009−Apr−25

Appendix 1 

Summary of Methods 

A summary of selected laboratory methods is given as follows. Samples for NO3+NO2, 

SRP and TDP required filtration. Filtration was done using a 47 mm Swinnex holder with 

60 cc syringe. Filters were 0.8 μm glass-fiber (GFF), ashed and washed with distilled/ 

deionized water before use. The samples for NO3+NO2 and SRP were frozen. 

Nitrate and Nitrite 

This method was developed from the sea water technique of P. G. Brewer and J. P. Riley 

1965, and is similar to that described in APHA (1975). The buffered sample is passed 

through a cadmium column, which reduces nitrates to nitrites. The reduced sample is 

reacted with sulphanilamide and N-(1-Naphthyl)ethylenediamine Dihydrochloride 

(N.N.E.D.) to form a coloured azodye. The intensity of the colour produced is measured. 

The range of detection of this method is 1 to 224 μg NO2.N / litre. 

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus 

Orthophosphates are reacted with ammonium molybdate and stannous chloride and 

determined as the blue phospho-molybdenum complex. The range of detection of this 

method is 0.5 to 50 μg P / litre. 

Total and Total Dissolved Phosphorus 

The methods for total phosphorus (TP) and total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) are the same 

except for the filtration of the TDP sample. The sample is digested with a persulphatesulphuric 

acid mixture. Polyphosphates and organically bound phosphorus are converted to 

orthophosphate. Orthophosphates are reacted with ammonium molybdate and stannous 

chloride and determined as the blue phospho-molybdenum complex. The range of detection 

of this method is 0.5 to 50 μg P / litre. The values shown are not corrected for 

colour/turbidity. 

Total Phosphorus Colour/Turbidity Correction 

Colour or turbidity in the samples interferes with the determination. A correction of Total 

Phosphorus (TP) can be made for low levels of turbidity or colour by repeating the analysis 

of samples but replacing the reducing reagent and ammonium molybdate solution with 

distilled deionized water (DDW). These corrections are given in Appendix 3. Subtract 

these corrections from TP to obtain TP corrected for colour or turbidity. This correction is 

appropriate for use in coastal and glacial setting with fine sediments in which both colour 

and turbidity contributes to the absorption. 

Alkalinity 

A sulphuric acid titration was added incrementally to lower the sample’s pH. Relating the 

quantity and normality of sulphuric acid to a given change in pH provides the total alkalinity 

of the sample, presented here in mg of CaCO3/L.

References 

Appendix 1 

Summary of Methods (con’t) 

Brewer, P. G. and J. P. Riley 1965. The automatic determination of nitrate in sea water. 

Deep-Sea Research, v. 12, 765-772. 

APHA 1975. Standard Methods for the examination of Water and Wastewater. 14 th edn. 

American Public Health Association APHA-AWWA-WPCF. John D. Lucas Co. 

Baltimore.

Appendix 2 

Tributaries Sampled 

Table A2-1 Tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir sampled in 2009 

Drainage 

Area 

Name Lat (N)/Long (W) 

1 

(km 2 ) Date Sampled 

Columbia R. at 

Donald Station 51 o 29.0 117 o 10.5 9710 7-Jul-09 R 

Beaver River 51º 23 117º 27 600 3 

Table A3-6 

Gold River 51 o 41.5 117 o Bush Arm 

42.5 427 8-Jul-09 

Bush River 51 o 47.5 117 o 22.4 660 8-Jul-09 

Prattle Creek 3 

51 o 47.3 117 o 25.4 160 8-Jul-09 

Chatter Creek 3 

51 o 47.1 117 o Columbia Reach 

26.3 40 8-Jul-09 

Windy Creek 51 o 52.5 118 o 01.2 150 8-Jul-09 

Sullivan River 51 o 57.2 117 o 51.4 280 8-Jul-09 

Kinbasket Creek 51 o 58.5 117 o 57.5 160 8-Jul-09 

Cummins 52 o 03.1 118 o Wood Arm 

09.5 250 8-Jul-09 

Wood Creek 52 o 12.2 118 o Canoe Reach 

10.3 360 8-Jul-09 

Canoe River 52 o 46.4 119 o 09.6 368 8-Jul-09 

Dave Henry Creek 52 o 44.4 119 o 05.6 100 8-Jul-09 

Yellowjacket Creek 3 

52 o 42.1 119 o 03.1 60 8-Jul-09 

Bulldog Creek 3 

52 o 38.4 118 o 58.5 60 8-Jul-09 

Ptarmigan Creek 52 o 35.0 118 o 39.5 250 8-Jul-09 

Hugh Allan Creek 52 o 26.4 118 o 39.5 450 8-Jul-09 

Foster Creek 52 o 15.2 118 o 38.1 75 8-Jul-09 

Dawson Creek 3 

52 o 15.6 118 o 29.5 110 8-Jul-09 

Molson Creek 52 o 10.4 118 o 21.8 75 8-Jul-09 

1 

From Water Survey Canada; estimated values in italics 

2 2 

Beaver River near the mouth (WSC 08NB019 at 51º 30.58 N and 117º 27.70 W) drains 1,150 km . 

Tributary sampling by Environment Canada was upstream at Beaver River near East Park Gate 

(BC08NB00002) with approximately half the drainage. 

3 

New in 2009. 

R 

Reference tributary; see Table A3-3 for additional sampling dates.

Table A2-2 Tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir sampled in 2009 

Name Lat Long 2 

Drainage 

Area 1,2 

(km 2 ) 

Date 

Sampled 

Upper 

Columbia River at Mica 

Outflow 52 o 02.6 118 o 35.3 21500 8-Jul-09 R 

Nagle Creek 52 o 03.1 118 o 35.4 200 8-Jul-09 

Soards Creek 52 o 03.5 118 o 37.3 150 8-Jul-09 

Mica Creek 52 o 00.4 118 o 34.0 75 8-Jul-09 

Pitt Creek 51 o 57.3 118 o 33.5 5 8-Jul-09 

Birch Creek 51 o 55.2 118 o 33.5 20 8-Jul-09 

Bigmouth Creek 51 o 49.4 118 o 32.4 600 8-Jul-09 

Scrip Creek 51 o 49.4 118 o 39.2 150 8-Jul-09 

Horne Creek 51 o 46.4 118 o 41.2 100 8-Jul-09 

Hoskins Creek 51 o 41.6 118 o 40.1 100 8-Jul-09 

Goldstream River 51 o 40.0 118 o 38.6 1000 8-Jul-09 R 

Kirbyville Creek 51 o 39.1 118 o 38.3 100 8-Jul-09 

Lower 

Downie Creek 51 o 30.1 118 o 22.1 550 7-Jul-09 

Bourne Creek 51 o 23.5 118 o 27.5 35 8-Jul-09 

Big Eddy Creek 51 o 19.5 118 o 23.2 20 8-Jul-09 

Carnes Creek 51 o 18.1 118 o 17.1 150 7-Jul-09 

Martha Creek 51 o 09.2 118 o 12.0 50 7-Jul-09 

Columbia R. above Jordan 51 o 01.0 118 o 13.3 26700 7-Jul-09 R 

1 From Water Survey Canada; estimated values in italics 

R Reference tributary; see Table A3-3 for additional sampling dates.

Appendix 3 

Tributary Data 

Table A3-1 Tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008 

Table A3-2 Tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 2008 

Table A3-3 Tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir, 7-8 Jul 2009 

Table A3-4 Tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir, 7-8 Jul 2009 

Table A3-5 Columbia River and reference tributaries, 2009 

Table A3-6 Sampling location, water temperature and clarity, 7-8 Jul 2009 

Table A3-7 Sampling location, water temperature and clarity, reference tributaries, 2009 

Table A3-8 Beaver River, 2009

*Reference tributary, additional data in Table A3-5 

¹ TP corrected for color and turbidity, TPc = TP – TP Turb 

Table A3-3 Tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir sampled in 2009 

Site Date pH 

Cond 

(uhoms) 

NN 

(ug/L) 

SRP 

(ug/L) 

TDP 

(ug/L) 

TP 

(ug/L) 

TP Turb 

(ug/L) 

TPc¹ 

(ug/L) 

Turb 

(NTU) 

Alk 

(mgCaCO3/L) 

Columbia River at Donald* 7-Jul-09 7.83 130 51.8 3.5 7.2 25.4 5.8 19.6 19.20 151.7 

Gold River 8-Jul-09 7.28 53 68.5 1.4 5.0 51.1 7.5 43.6 13.4 53.9 

Bush Arm 

Bush River 8-Jul-09 7.86 121 105.9 1.4 7.5 90.9 34.7 56.2 95.9 161.2 

Prattle Creek 8-Jul-09 7.89 118 87.7 1.7 4.2 55.8 26.4 29.4 60.3 181.0 

Chatter Creek 8-Jul-09 7.66 78 24.8 2.3 5.9 6.9 0.2 6.7 0.43 101.0 

Columbia Reach 

Windy Creek 8-Jul-09 7.03 35 112.9 1.7 4.5 129.6 14.1 115.5 17.2 27.9 

Sullivan Creek 8-Jul-09 7.85 99 64.7 1.0 3.1 101.1 47.0 54.1 71.8 158.7 

Kinbasket River 8-Jul-09 7.79 85 89.5 0.7 8.8 26.8 7.0 19.8 29.2 112.5 

Cummins River 8-Jul-09 7.36 52 51.5 1.5 4.7 15.6 6.1 9.5 12.4 69.3 

Wood Arm 

Wood River 8-Jul-09 7.91 94 66.0 0.9 3.0 123.9 61.9 62.0 44.4 147.0 

Canoe Reach 

Canoe River 8-Jul-09 6.97 38 46.9 1.0 3.9 15.5 5.0 10.5 6.53 28.8 

Dave Henry Creek 8-Jul-09 6.94 42 33.0 0.9 2.5 6.7 0.8 5.9 2.58 23.0 

Yellowjacket Creek 8-Jul-09 6.80 33 44.8 0.9 1.6 17.5 2.4 15.1 1.38 15.2 

Bulldog Creek 8-Jul-09 6.58 24 95.5 0.7 5.0 8.0

Site Date pH 

* Reference tributary, additional data in Table A3-5 

¹ TP corrected for color and turbidity, TPc = TP – TP Turb 

Table A3-4 Tributaries to Revelstoke Reservoir sampled in 2009 

Cond 

(uhoms) 

NN 

(ug/L) 

SRP 

(ug/L) 

TDP 

(ug/L) 

TP 

(ug/L) 

TP Turb 

(ug/L) 

TPc¹ 

(ug/L) 

Turb 

(NTU) 

Alk 

(mgCaCO3/L) 

Upper 


at Mica Outflow* 

8-Jul-09 7.37 72 95.1 1.5 3.5 5.7

Table A3-5 Columbia River and reference tributaries sampled in 2009 

Site Date pH 

Cond 

(uhoms) 

NN 

(ug/L) 

SRP 

(ug/L) 

TDP 

(ug/L) 

TP 

(ug/L) 

TP Turb 

(ug/L) 

TPc¹ 

(ug/L) 

Turb 

(NTU) 

Alk 

(mgCaCO3/L) 

Columbia at Donald 12-May-09 8.26 220 142.3 3.2 6 12.8 3.1 9.7 6.08 261 

28-May-09 8.14 156 191.9 4.6 6.4 9.7 3.7 6 28 196.6 

9-Jun-09 8.05 135 100.6 2.6 7.2 46.5 na na 15.8 162.9 

30-Jun-09 7.78 135 48 2.5 6.8 18 3.4 14.6 3.8 156.1 

7-Jul-09 7.83 130 51.8 3.5 7.2 25.4 5.8 19.6 19.2 151.7 

27-Jul-09 7.97 112 44.3 2.3 6.1 68.3 41.6 26.7 59 147.6 

10-Aug-09 7.77 115 49.1 1.9 6.5 60.6 33.8 26.8 38.1 142.4 

8-Sep-09 7.83 127 60 1.7 6.3 28 17 11 29.6 153.8 

6-Oct-09 8 164 99.6 1.4 Tube empty 9.5 5.8 3.7 3.31 204.7 

2-Nov-09 8.06 190 83.7 1.9 2.5 4.8 1.9 2.9 1.7 226 

Columbia at Mica Outflow 11-May-09 7.83 108 183.2 4.8 6.1 5.9

Table A3-5 con’t Columbia River and reference tributaries sampled in 2009 

Date pH 

Cond NN SRP TDP TP 

TP 

Turb 

TPc¹ Turb Alk 

Site 

(uhoms) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (NTU) (mgCaCO3/L) 

Goldstream River 11-May-09 7.88 102 357.1 3.4 6.1 11.2 0.7 10.5 0.76 123.9 

27-May-09 7.72 69 380.7 4 7.8 46.6 3.1 43.5 9.26 87.5 

8-Jun-09 7.77 73 247.7 2.3 4.4 9.1 0.6 8.5 1.86 89.4 

29-Jun-09 7.28 61 104.2 1.6 4.7 10.4 0.8 9.6 1.38 77.7 

8-Jul-09 7.31 56 81.2 0.9 3.8 13.1 1.6 11.5 4.11 73.1 

28-Jul-09 7.64 65 57.2 2.2 9 177.3 116 61.3 189 78.6 

11-Aug-09 7.23 52 72.5 1 2.6 91.9 33 58.9 45.6 67.5 

9-Sep-09 7.58 79 100.8 1.2 2.5 13.3 3.7 9.6 2.55 99.9 

5-Oct-09 7.76 100 193.4 1.4 4.9 3.6 0.6 3 1.72 126.8 

3-Nov-09 7.81 103 138.6 1.6 1.6 2.2

Table A3-6 Sampling location, water temperature and clarity, survey 7-8 Jul, 2009 

Water T 

Sampled 

Date Site GPS 

(°C) Water Clarity by: 

6-Jul-09 Columbia @ Donald na 15 Turbid Brown/Whitish Road 

7-Jul-09 Martha Creek 51°09.163 118°12.040 10 Clear Road 

7-Jul-09 Carnes Creek 51°18.103 118°17.086 10.5 Clear Road 

7-Jul-09 Downie Creek 51°30.064 118°22.145 8 Turbid Milky Road 

7-Jul-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°01.023 118°13.138 7 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Mica Creek 52°00.435 118°34.020 7.5 Turbid Milky Road 

8-Jul-09 Soards Creek 52°03.539 118°37.285 6.5 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Nagle Creek 52°03.135 118°35.372 7 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.591 118°35.349 n/a n/a Road 

8-Jul-09 Pitt Creek 51°57.259 118°33.542 8 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Birch Creek 51°55.157 118°33.468 8 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Bigmouth Creek 51°49.413 118°32.360 7.5 Turbid Milky Road 

8-Jul-09 Goldstream 51°40.003 118°38.581 8 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Scrip Creek 51°49.42 118°39.20 6 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Horne Creek 51°46.42 118°41.16 6 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Hoskins Creek 51°41.58 118°40.06 6 Clear/Algae Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Kirbyville Creek 51°39.14 118°38.27 7.5-8 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Bourne Creek 51°23.47 118°27.53 6.5 Turbid Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Big Eddy Creek 51°19.54 118°23.22 63 Turbid Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Gold River 51°41.48 117°42.54 7 Turbid Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Bush River 51°47.45 117°22.37 6.5 Turbid Grey/white Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Prattle Creek 51°47.28 117°25.43 6 Turbid Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Chatter Creek 51°47.12 117°26.27 6.5 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Sullivan Creek 51°57.22 117°51.41 6.5 Grey/White/Green Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Windy Creek 51°52.52 118°01.16 6 Turbid Gray Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Kinbasket River 51°58.48 117°57.53 7 Turbid Greenish Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Cummins River 52°03.11 118°09.52 8 Turbid Grey/Green Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Wood River 52°12.18 118°10.26 7.5-8 Very Turbid Milky Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Molson Creek 52°10.36 118°21.75 6.5 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Hugh Allan Creek 52°26.41 118°39.46 7 Clear Lightly Turbid Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Ptarmigan Creek 52°35.01 118°50.02 7 Clear Lightly Turbid Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Dave Henry Creek 52°44.35 119°05.56 7 Clear very light turbidity Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Canoe River 52°46.41 119°09.59 7 Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Foster Creek 52°15.24 118°38.12 6.5 Turbid Grey Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Bulldog Creek 52°38.41 118°58.46 6.5 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Yellowjacket Creek 52°42.12 119°03.14 7 Clear Helicopter 

8-Jul-09 Dawson Creek 52°15.58 118°29.48 6.5 Clear Helicopter

Table A3-7 Sampling location, water temperature and clarity, reference tributaries, 2009 

Water T 

Sampled 

Date Site GPS 

(°C) Water Clarity by: 

11-May-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.757 118°37.137 3.5 Clear Road 

25-May-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.513 118°35.363 7 Clear Road 

8-Jun-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.590 118°35.340 6 Turbid Brown Road 

29-Jun-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.584 118°35.335 9 Clear Road 

8-Jul-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.591 118°35.349 n/a n/a Road 

28-Jul-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.586 118°35.337 7 Clear Road 

11-Aug-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.575 118°35.305 7 Clear Road 

9-Sep-09 Mica Outflow na 6 Clear Road 

5-Oct-09 Mica Outflow na 6.5 Clear Road 

3-Nov-09 Mica Outflow 52°02.586 118°35.337 6.5 Clear Road 

11-May-09 Goldstream 51°38.866 118°36.293 6.5 Clear Road 

27-May-09 Goldstream 51°40.001 118°36.502 6 Turbid Brown Road 

8-Jun-09 Goldstream 52°40.001 118°36.582 11 Turbid Brown Road 

29-Jun-09 Goldstream 51°40.003 118°36.582 10 Turbid Brownish Road 

8-Jul-09 Goldstream 51°40.003 118°38.581 8 Clear Road 

28-Jul-09 Goldstream 51°40.002 118°36.582 14 Turbid Brown Road 

11-Aug-09 Goldstream 51°39.591 118°36.573 10 Turbid Brown Road 

9-Sep-09 Goldstream na 8 Clear Road 

5-Oct-09 Goldstream na 4.5 Clear Road 

3-Nov-09 Goldstream 51°39.590 118°36.578 2 Clear Road 

12-May-09 Columbia @ Donald 51°29.014 117°10.832 10 Turbid Milky Road 

28-May-09 Columbia @ Donald 51°29.037 117°10.547 12 Turbid Brown Road 

9-Jun-09 Columbia @ Donald 51°29.036 117°10.549 11 Turbid Brown Road 

30-Jun-09 Columbia @ Donald na 14 Turbid Brown Road 

6-Jul-09 Columbia @ Donald na 15 Brown/Whitish Road 

27-Jul-09 Columbia @ Donald 51°29.042 117°10.568 17.5 Turbid Milky Road 

10-Aug-09 Columbia @ Donald 51°29.047 117°10.568 15 Turbid Milky Road 

8-Sep-09 Columbia @ Donald na 11 Milky/Brown Road 

6-Oct-09 Columbia @ Donald na 5.5 Clear Road 

2-Nov-09 Columbia @ Donald na 3 Clear Road 

12-May-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°01.035 118°13.227 4 Clear Road 

28-May-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°01.023 118°13.135 7 Clear Road 

9-Jun-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°00.594 118°12.577 7 Clear Road 

30-Jun-09 Columbia Above Jordan na 10 Clear Road 

7-Jul-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°01.023 118°13.138 7 Clear Road 

27-Jul-09 Columbia Above Jordan 51°01.020 118°13.135 9.5 Clear Road 

10-Aug-09 Columbia Above Jordan na 8 Clear Road 

8-Sep-09 Columbia Above Jordan na 9 Clear Road 

6-Oct-09 Columbia Above Jordan na 10.5 Clear Road 

2-Nov-09 Columbia Above Jordan na 5 Clear Road

Table A3-8 Water Quality For Beaver River 

Station: Beaver River near East Park Gate (BC08NB0002) 

Description: At Highway 1 bridge near east gate of Glacier National Park 

Latitude: 51.38338 Longitude: -117.45035 

SPECIFIC 

CONDUCT- 

ANCE 

NITROGEN 

DISSOLVED 

NITRATE 

PHOSPHORUS 

DISSOLVED 

ORTHO 

ALKALINITY 

TOTAL 

CACO3 

AMMONIA NITROGEN 

COLOUR 

PHOSPHORUS 

Sample Time PH 

DISSOLVED NITRITE 

TRUE 

TOTAL TURBIDITY 

Units pH units uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L Rel Units mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L C 

1/5/2009 10:44 7.97 207 0.019 0.158 7.5



Appendix 3 

CTD Surveys 


Roger Pieters and Greg Lawrence 


CTD Surveys 


Roger Pieters 1,2 and Greg Lawrence 2 


B.C. V6T 1Z4 


V6T 1Z4 

Revelstoke Reservoir, 23 Aug 2010 

Prepared for 

Karen Bray 




January 26, 2011

Contents 

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 

2. Methods............................................................................................................................1 

3. Results..............................................................................................................................4 

4. Discussion........................................................................................................................7 

Appendix 1 Station names 

Appendix 2 List of profiles collected 

Appendix 3 Casts collected during primary production 

i


Figure A1 Map showing approximate location of profile stations 

Figure A2 Water levels in Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs, 2009 

Figure A3 Temperature and conductivity of the Columbia River at Donald, 1984-1995 

Figure A4 Secchi depth and 1% light level 

Figures B Line plots in Kinbasket Reservoir 

B1 15-16 Jun 2009 

B2 13-14 Jul 2009 

B3 17-18 Sep 2009 

B4 31 Aug – 01 Sep 2009 

B5 31 14-15 Sep 2009 

B6 31 19-20 Oct 2009 

B7 Forebay K1 

B8 Middle K2 

B9 Columbia K3 

B10 Canoe Kca1 

B11 Wood Kwo1 

Figures C Contour plots in Kinbasket Reservoir 

C1 15-16 Jun 2009 

C2 13-14 Jul 2009 

C3 17-18 Sep 2009 

C4 31 Aug – 01 Sep 2009 

C5 31 14-15 Sep 2009 

C6 31 19-20 Oct 2009 

Figures D Line plots in Revelstoke Reservoir 

D1 23-24 Jun 2009 

D2 21-22 Jul 2009 

D3 25-26 Aug 2009 

D4 2 Sep 2009 

D5 22-23 Sep 2009 

D6 13-14 Oct 2009 

D7 Forebay R1 

D8 Middle R2 

D9 Upper R3 

Figures E Contour plots in Revelstoke Reservoir 

E1 23-24 Jun 2009 

E2 21-22 Jul 2009 

E3 25-26 Aug 2009 

E4 2 Sep 2009 

E5 22-23 Sep 2009 

E6 13-14 Oct 2009 

Figure F1 Line plot of all Kinbasket and Revelstoke profile data, 2009 

Figure A3 Casts collected during primary production 

ii


We report on CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth) profiles collected from Kinbasket 

and Revelstoke reservoirs in 2009. * This is the second year of data collected for the B.C. 

Hydro project “CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Ecological Productivity 

Monitoring”. 

2. Methods 

Sampling stations 

Sampling was conducted in both reservoirs monthly from May to Oct, 2009. Due to a 

delay in the return of the CTD from calibration, it was not available in May and monthly 

CTD surveys began in Jun, 2009. In order to sample more of the reservoir, a CTD survey 

was conducted on 31 Aug – 2 Sep 2009 with additional stations. 

Sampling Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs is a challenge because of their size. The 

Columbia and Canoe reaches of Kinbasket Reservoir stretch over 190 km long (Figure 

A1). Revelstoke Reservoir is not quite as long with 130 km from Mica to Revelstoke 

dam. Kinbasket is particularly difficult to sample because of limited road access, the 

frequency and severity of wind storms, and the absence of sheltered locations along much 

of the lake. 

The approximate location of the sampling stations is shown in Figure A1. Production of 

a more accurate map awaits shoreline and bathymetry data from B.C. Hydro. Station 

names are also provisional with stations numbered either from the dam or from the mouth 

of an arm. In Kinbasket there are five main stations: Forebay (K1fb), Middle (K2mi), 

Columbia Reach (K3co), Canoe Arm (Kca1), and Wood Arm (Kwo1). In Revelstoke 

there are three main stations: Forebay (R1fb), Middle (R2mi) and Upper (R3up). The 

main stations are marked with a heavy symbol in Figure A1. All stations sampled are 

given in Appendix 1. 

A list of all profiles is given in Appendix 2, and summarized in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. In 

addition to the main stations, casts were collected at additional stations during 31 Aug – 2 

Sep to provide a more detailed picture of the reservoir. Unlike 2008, when high wind, 

waves and excessive debris permitted only sampling of the south end of Canoe Reach, in 

2009 much of Canoe reach was accessible. Some regions of both reservoirs were not 

sampled, including the uppermost part of Canoe Reach, upstream of K4 in the Columbia 

Reach and the region in Revelstoke Reservoir below Mica Dam. (Figure A1). 

* Previous data include profiles from Revelstoke Reservoir and the Mica Forebay (Watson 1984; Fleming 

and Smith 1988). Monthly profiles at four stations in Kinbasket Reservoir (2003, 2004 and 2005) and three 

stations in Revelstoke Reservoir (2003) were collected with an YSI multiparameter probe (K. Bray, 

personal communication). 

1

Additional casts were also collected during measurement of primary production, and 

these data are shown in Appendix 3. 

Profiler 

Profiles were collected using a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 19plus V2 profiler with the 

following additional sensors: 

• Turner SCUFA II fluorometer and optical back scatter (OBS) sensor, 

• Biospherical QSP-2300L (4 pi) photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) sensor, 

• Sea-Bird SBE 43 dissolved oxygen sensor, and 

• Wetlabs CStar transmissometer (red with 25 cm path). 

Secchi depths were collected with a 20 cm black and white disk, lowered from the side of 

the boat away from the sun. The Secchi depth is given as the average of the depths at 

which the disk disappeared going down and reappeared going up. Multiplying the Secchi 

depth by 2.5 provides an estimate of the 1% light level (Figure A4). 

2

Date 

Table 2.1 Kinbasket surveys, 2009 

FB 

k1 

k1.5 

3 

MI 

k2 

CO 

k3 

CA 

kca1 

WO 

Kwo1 

15-16 Jun � � �x2 � � 

22 Jun* � 

13-14 Jul � � � � � 

20 Jul* � 

17-18 Aug � � � � � 

24 Aug* � 

31 Aug – 01 Sep** � � �+6 �+5 �+2 

14-15 Sep � � � � � 

21 Sep* � 

19-20 Oct � � � � � 

* Collected during measurement of primary production (see Appendix 3) 

** Additional casts 

Table 2.2 Revelstoke surveys, 2009 

Date FB MI UP 

23-24 Jun �* �* � 

21-22 Jul �* �*x2 � 

25-26 Aug �* �* � 

2 Sep** �+4 �+2 � 

22-23 Sep �* �* � 

13-14 Oct � � � 

* Primary production (see Appendix 3) 

** Additional casts

3. Results 

Before examining Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs, we first examine the water level 

during 2009 and the characteristics of the main inflow to Kinbasket Reservoir. The water 

level for both reservoirs is given in Figure A2. The first two surveys, on 15-16 Jun and 

13-14 Jul 2009, occurred at a time when Kinbasket Reservoir was filling (Figure A2a). 

The remaining surveys from Aug to Oct occur at relatively high water level. In 

Revelstoke Reservoir there is normally little variation in water level (< 1.5 m, Figure 

A2b). 

The main inflow to the Kinbasket Reservoir is the Columbia River. At Donald, about 20 

km upstream of Kinbasket Reservoir, water quality parameters were measured under the 

Canada - British Columbia Water Quality Monitoring Agreement. Data were collected 

every two weeks from 1984-1995 including during ice-cover in winter. Water 

temperature, conductivity and flow for this period are shown in Figure A3. Water 

temperature varied from 12 to 18 ºC in summer and cooled to 0-5 ºC in winter. 

The conductivity of the Columbia River at Donald varied significantly over the year. In 

winter the flow was more saline with a conductivity of 300-350 μS/cm. At the start of 

freshet in spring, the conductivity decreased rapidly to 150-200 μS/cm, about half of the 

winter value. During freshet, the contribution of more saline groundwater to the river is 

diluted by fresh snowmelt and rain. In the fall the conductivity gradually increased as the 

freshet flow declined. A similar pattern was seen for the Beaver, Goldstream and 

Illecillewaet rivers (Pieters et al. 2011a). This seasonal change in the conductivity of the 

inflow will assist in identifying water masses as discussed below. 

3.1 Kinbasket Reservoir 

Jun 2009 Line plots for the five monthly surveys of Kinbasket Reservoir plus the 

additional survey at the end of August are given in Figures B1-6. In Jun 2009, the 

surface temperature was 13-17 ºC, Figure B1b. There was no clearly defined surface 

mixed layer; instead there was a broad thermocline, which extended from the surface to 

30 m. During this time, the outlet from Kinbasket reservoir was 47 m below the surface, 

as marked in Figure B1. 

The conductivity varied from ~160 μS/cm near the surface to ~190 μS/cm at depth 

through most of the reservoir except for the Columbia reach (black, Stn K3co), which had 

a higher conductivity of ~200 μS/cm, Figure B1c. The station at K3co is located at the 

former Kinbasket Lake along the Columbia River and the conductivity of the deep water 

will remain distinctly different through Oct. In Canoe Reach (green, Stn Kca1), layers of 

reduced conductivity in the top 30 m suggest low-conductivity inflow. 

Dissolved oxygen is high (>9 mg/L) throughout the reservoir (Figure B1e). The 

solubility of oxygen is sensitive to temperature, decreasing as temperature increases. As 

4

a result, the concentration of oxygen in the warm surface layer is slightly lower. To 

remove the effect of temperature, dissolved oxygen is plotted as percent saturation in 

Figure B1f. Dissolved oxygen is close to 100% at the surface and decreases to 70% at 

depth, indicating that the water is well oxygenated as would be expected for an 

oligotrophic system. 

Below 20 m the reservoir was relatively clear, while in the top 20 m the turbidity was 

slightly higher especially in Wood Arm (Figure B1d). The nominal concentration of 

chlorophyll was generally low (< 2 ug/L) and confined to the top 20 m (Figure B1g). 

The 1% light level determined from PAR is marked with dashed lines. The 1% light 

level varied from 10 to 20 m, just below the chlorophyll layer. 

July 2009 In July, surface temperature varied from 15 to 17 ºC (Figure B2b). As in Jun, 

there was a broad thermocline extending from the surface now to 40 m, as the reservoir 

was 8 m deeper. The thermocline extended a little deeper in Canoe Reach. The 

stratification is reduced in the top 10 m suggesting some surface mixing. The average 

conductivity in the top 40 m is slightly reduced from that in Jun at all stations (Figures 

B2c, B7-11c). 

In Jul, turbidity remained similar to that in Jun except for a high turbidity layer around 30 

m in both Wood Arm and the Columbia Reach. Oxygen remained high (Figure B2e,f) 

and chlorophyll values were slightly reduced from Jun (Figure B2g). 

Aug 2009 While the temperature structure remains much the same as in Jul (Figure 

B3b), the conductivity of the top 40 m continued to decline (Figure B3c). The decline 

was generally small, except in the Columbia Reach where a large reduction in the 

conductivity of the top 40 m made it similar to that in the rest of the reservoir. Layers of 

turbidity, likely the result of inflow, continued in Wood Arm and Canoe Reach around 40 

m depth. 

31 Aug – 1 Sep 2009 While the surface temperature increased slightly by 1 or 2 ºC, the 

broad thermocline extends to 60 m depth and the temperature is remarkably similar 

across the reservoir (Figure B4b). The conductivity shows a strong gradient across 

Canoe Reach with lower conductivity further up the Reach (Figure B4c). 

Sep 2009 The temperature and conductivity structure remains little changed from that at 

the start of September (Figure B5b,c). 

October 2009 In October, a surface mixed layer extends to almost 50 m as the reservoir 

cools (Figure B6b). The water is clearing with reduced turbidity (Figure B6d), a 1% light 

level reaching almost 30 m (Figure B6g), and nominal chlorophyll concentrations around 

0.5 μg/L (Figure B6g). 

Contour plots The profiles along the length of Kinbasket Reservoir are shown as contour 

plots in Figures C1-6. Each contour shows Canoe Reach (Kca1), the main pool (K2mi) 

5

and Columbia Arm (K3co), with additional profiles for the 31 Aug – 01 Sep surveys 

(Figure C4). Contour plots highlight variations along the reservoir; however, care must 

be taken when interpreting features between the stations marked. 

The most detailed contour plot was that for 31 Aug – 1 Sep 2009 when additional casts 

were collected (Figure C4); this figure will be the focus of the discussion as follows. As 

already noted, the temperature stratification was relatively uniform along the length of 

the reservoir at this time (Figure C4a). 

The conductivity shows a surface layer with reduced conductivity (0-50 m, Figure C4b). 

The conductivity of the surface layer is slightly lower at the north end, consistent with the 

lower conductivity of tributaries to the Canoe Reach (Pieters et al. 2011a). Also note the 

increased conductivity of the deep water in the Columbia Reach. 

Low light transmission shows regions of high turbidity, and several regions of high 

turbidity can be seen in the Columbia Reach (Figure C4c). These lenses of turbidity may 

have originated from the Columbia River at Donald, or from local tributaries. Dissolved 

oxygen is high throughout the reservoir, with a slight reduction at the surface due to 

warmer temperatures (Figure C4d). Chlorophyll is generally low, with a peak of 0.7-1.2 

μg/L from 10 to 20 m, just above the 1% light level (marked by black bars). 

Seasonal changes Seasonal changes at the Forebay (K1fb), Middle (K2mi), Columbia 

(K3co), Canoe (Kca1) and Wood (Kwo1) stations, are shown in Figures B7 to 11, 

respectively. To account for the increase in the water level, the casts are plotted relative 

to full pool, 754.4 mASL. In each case, changes in temperature and conductivity below 

60 m are small. Oxygen below 60 m declines only slightly (~0.5 mg/L) over the summer. 

3.2 Revelstoke Reservoir 

Jun 2009 On 15 Jun 2009 the surface temperature was 12 to 15 ºC, below which a broad 

thermocline extended to about 40 m (Figure D1b). The conductivity of the top 40 m was 

less than that of the water below (Figure D1c), while the turbidity was slightly higher in 

the top 40 m than at depth (Figure D1d), likely the result of freshet river inflow. 

Dissolved oxygen was high with 70 to 90% saturation throughout (Figure D1f). 

Chlorophyll fluorescence shows small peaks just over 1 μg/L around the depth of the one 

percent light level (Figure D1g). 

July to October 2009 

In Jul, Aug and early Sep, the surface temperature was 17 to 18 ºC (Figure 4Db) and the 

conductivity of the top 10 m remained < 100 μS/cm throughout this time. In Jul, water 

with increased conductivity (~130 μS/cm) was seen between 20 and 35 m at the upper 

station, R3up (Figure D2c). In Aug, the influence of this higher conductivity water is 

seen between 20 and 50 m at the mid (R2mi) and forebay (R1fb) stations (Figure D3c). 

6

This higher conductivity water is likely outflow from Mica dam, forming an interflow. 

The interflow can be seen in the layer of relatively uniform temperature between 20 and 

50 m (Figure D3b). This layer of high conductivity and relatively uniform temperature 

was also observed in early Sep (Figure D4b,c) and mid Sep (Figure D5b,c). By Oct, 

however, surface cooling has mixed the surface layer to 40 m (Figure D6). 

The interflow can also be seen in the contour plots. In Jul, Figure E2b, the top 50 m of 

Revelstoke reservoir is fresher, with only a small increase in conductivity around 30 m at 

the upper station. In mid-Aug, early Sep and mid-Sep, higher conductivity water at 30 m 

can be seen all the way to the outlet (Figures E3b, E4b and E5b). It appears that the 

inflow from Mica short circuits through Revelstoke Reservoir. 

Comparison of casts in the forebay (Figure D7) indicate slight changes to the deep water 

(> 60 m) through the summer, with a slight increase in temperature and a decrease in 

conductivity, likely due to a small degree of exchange with overlying water. The 

decrease in oxygen over the summer was larger than in Kinbasket, ~1 mg/L. 

4. Discussion 

Trophic Status 

As an indicator of trophic status, Wetzel (2001) gives the following general ranges for 

chlorophyll concentrations: 

• 0.05-0.5 μg/L ultraoliogotrophic; 

• 0.3-3 μg/L oligotrophic; and 

• 2-15 μg/L mesotrophic. 

The low concentrations of chlorophyll in both Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs (

The variation in the conductivity of the tributary inflows provides a tracer to identify 

water masses. Both Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs have a surface layer of reduced 

conductivity, which suggests surface waters are composed largely of freshet inflow. 

Based on the given data we can tentatively sketch the circulation of Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke Reservoirs and speculate on the supply of nitrate. As described in Pieters et 

al. (2011b), late spring and summer can be broken into two periods based on flow: May 

to mid-Jul and mid-Jul to Sep. In the first period of May to mid-Jul, the top 30 m of 

Kinbasket Reservoir is filled with freshet inflow and there is little outflow from Mica 

Dam. The lack of outflow from Mica Dam means that the circulation in Revelstoke 

Reservoir is dominated by local inflow during this time. During the second period of 

mid-Jul to Sep, the tail of the freshet is passed through Mica and this water appears to 

short circuit through Revelstoke Reservoir as an interflow directly to the outlet. Nutrients 

from Mica may pass below the photic zone until fall cooling mixes the interflow into the 

surface layer in Oct. 

At the start of freshet, inflow nutrients such as nitrate are higher and this, along with 

nutrients in the lake may feed spring productivity, if not create a bloom. However, the 

nutrient concentrations in the freshet inflows decline rapidly at the same time as the 

reservoir fills. The low conductivity of the water above the photic zone in Jul suggests 

that nutrient supply will be reduced through much of the first period. At the start of the 

second period, deep cold water is released from Kinbasket Reservoir. Based on 

conductivity, the initial water released from Mica may have relatively higher nutrient 

concentrations (cf. Figure B2c 40-50 m). However, this cold water plunges, and appears 

to short circuit to the outlet of Revelstoke Dam (cf Figure E3b). 

Also of interest is the way in which higher conductivity, and potentially higher nutrient 

water is mixed through the reservoir in winter, and to what degree this provides for the 

initial productivity in spring. 


Profiles were collected by Beth Manson, Pierre Bourget and Karen Bray. We are grateful 

to A. Akkerman, H. Keller and T. Moser for assistance with data processing. We 

gratefully acknowledge funding provided by B.C. Hydro. Salary subsidy was provided to 

A. Akkerman and H. Keller through the UBC Work Study program. 

8

References 

Fleming, J.O. and H.A. Smith. 1988. Revelstoke Reservoir aquatic monitoring program, 

1986, progress report. B.C. Hydro Report No. ER 88-03. 






Pieters, R., H. Keller and G. Lawrence. 2011a. Tributary water quality, Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009. Prepared for B.C. Hydro, Revelstoke, Jan 2011. 

42pp. 

Pieters, R. D. Robb, and G. Lawrence. 2011b. Hydrology of Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs, 2009. Prepared for B.C. Hydro, Revelstoke, Jan 2011. 30pp. 

Watson, T.A. 1985. Revelstoke Project Water Quality Studies 1978-1984. B.C. Hydro 

Report No. ESS-108, Jul 1985. 237pp. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology. Academic Press, San Diego. 

9

Figure A1 Map showning approximate location of profile stations 

Kca5 

Kca4 

Kca3 

Kca1 

K2mi 

K1fb Kwo1 

K2.6 

K3co 

K2.3 

Kca2 

Kca0 Kwo0 Kwo2 

K1.5→ 

↑ 

K2.1 

R3up 

R2.7 

R2.4 

R2.1 

R2mi 

R1.8 

R1.6 

R1.4 

R1.2 

R1fb 

K3.4 

K3.7 

K4bu 

l l l l l l 

0 1020304050 

km 

/ocean/rpieters/kr/bathy/map/map1REP09.m fig= 1 2011−Jan−26

Figure A2 Water level in Kinbasket and Revesltoke Reservoirs, 2009 

760 

(a) Kinbasket 

750 

740 

730 

720 

710 

700 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 

573.5 (b) Revelstoke 

573 

572.5 

572 

571.5 

571 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 

/ocean/rpieters/kr/sbe/info/krwlctd.m fig= 1 2011−Jan−24

T (°C) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

T (°C) 

C25 (μS/cm) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Figure A3 Columbia River at Donald, T and C25, 1984−1995 

−5 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 

400 

300 

200 

Flow 

(m 3 /s) 

100 

−0 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

/ocean/rpieters/kr/flow/ecan/plot/plotcoldo.m fig= 1 2009−Jun−01 

−500 

Mean flow (m −500 

−0 

3 /s)

1% Light level (m) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Figure A4 1% Light Level = 2.5 X Secchi Depth, 2008(BLK) 2009(BLU) 

0 

0 2 4 6 

Secchi depth (m) 

8 10 12

km 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

−10 

−15 

Kca1 

K1fb 

Kwo1 

K2mi 

K3co 

−20 

−20 0 20 40 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure B1 Kinbasket Reservoir, 15−16 Jun 2009 

Outlet 47m 

8 10 12 

Dissolved oxygen 

(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 

Specific Conductance 

(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 

O 2 (% saturation) 

(d) 

0 50 

% Transmission 

180 

100 

DASH line marks 1% light 

(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

06 K1fb 16−Jun 

05 K2mi 16−Jun 

04 Kca1 16−Jun 

01 K3co 15−Jun 


03 Kwo1 15−Jun 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 

Chla (Nominal μg/l) 

2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

−10 

−15 

Kca1 

K1fb 

Kwo1 

K2mi 

K3co 

−20 

−20 0 20 40 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure B2 Kinbasket Reservoir, 13−14 Jul 2009 

Outlet 55m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

15 K1fb 14−Jul 

14 K2mi 14−Jul 

12 Kca1 13−Jul 

11 K3co 13−Jul 

13 Kwo1 14−Jul 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

−10 

−15 

Kca1 

K1fb 

Kwo1 

K2mi 

K3co 

−20 

−20 0 20 40 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure B3 Kinbasket Reservoir, 17−18 Aug 2009 

Outlet 60m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

31 K1fb 18−Aug 

30 K2mi 18−Aug 

28 Kca1 17−Aug 

27 K3co 17−Aug 

29 Kwo1 18−Aug 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

50 

Kca5 

40 

Kca4 

30 

20 

10 

0 

−10 

−20 

−30 

Kca3 

Kca2.5 

Kca1.5 

Kca0 Kwo2 

Kwo0 

K2mi Kwo1 

K1fb K2.1 

K2.4 

K2.8 

K3.1 

K3.5 

K3.7 

−40 

K4 

−50 0 50 

km 

100 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B4 Kinbasket Reservoir, 31 Aug − 01 Sep 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 61m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

54 K1fb 01−Sep 

53 K2mi 01−Sep 


38 Kca1.5 31−Aug 

39 Kca2.5 31−Aug 




43 K2.1 01−Sep 

44 K2.4 01−Sep 

45 K2.8 01−Sep 

46 K3.1 01−Sep 

47 K3.5 01−Sep 

48 K3.7 01−Sep 

49 K4 01−Sep 

52 Kwo0 01−Sep 



60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

−10 

−15 

Kca1 

K1fb 

Kwo1 

K2mi 

K3co 

−20 

−20 0 20 40 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure B5 Kinbasket Reservoir, 14−15 Sep 2009 

Outlet 62m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 



66 Kca1 14−Sep 

64 K3co 14−Sep 


140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

10 

5 

0 

−5 

−10 

−15 

Kca1 

K1fb 

Kwo1 

K2mi 

K3co 

−20 

−20 0 20 40 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure B6 Kinbasket Reservoir, 19−20 Oct 2009 

Outlet 62m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

80 K1fb 20−Oct 

79 K2mi 20−Oct 

78 Kca1 20−Oct 

76 K3co 19−Oct 

77 Kwo1 19−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

−3.8 

−3.85 

−3.9 

−3.95 

−4 

K1fb 

K1fb K1fb 

K1fb 

K1fb K1fb 

−7.7 −7.6 −7.5 −7.4 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B7 Kinbasket Reservoir, Forebay, K1fb, 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 65m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

06 K1fb 16−Jun 

15 K1fb 14−Jul 

31 K1fb 18−Aug 



80 K1fb 20−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth from full pool (m) 

Depth from full pool (m)

km 

0.12 

0.1 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0 

−0.02 

K2mi 

K2mi 

K2mi 

K2mi 

K2mi 

K2mi 

−0.04 

−0.2 0 

km 

0.2 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B8 Kinbasket Reservoir, Middle, K2mi, 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 65m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

05 K2mi 16−Jun 

14 K2mi 14−Jul 

30 K2mi 18−Aug 



79 K2mi 20−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 



km 

−17.5 

K3co 

K3co 

−18 

K3co 

−18.5 

K3co 

K3co 

−19 

−19.5 

−20 

−20.5 

K3.1 

24 26 

km 

28 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B9 Kinbasket Reservoir, Columbia, K3co, 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 65m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 


11 K3co 13−Jul 

27 K3co 17−Aug 

46 K3.1 01−Sep 

64 K3co 14−Sep 

76 K3co 19−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 



km 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

Kca1.5 

9 

Kca1 

Kca1 

Kca1 

8 

−6 −4 

km 

−2 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B10 Kinbasket Reservoir, Canoe, Kca1, 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 65m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

04 Kca1 16−Jun 

12 Kca1 13−Jul 


38 Kca1.5 31−Aug 

66 Kca1 14−Sep 

78 Kca1 20−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 



km 

0.67 

0.66 

0.65 

0.64 

0.63 

0.62 

0.61 

0.6 

0.59 

0.58 

Kwo1 

Kwo1 

Kwo1 

Kwo1 

Kwo1 

Kwo1 

8.5 9 9.5 10 

km 

(b) 

(e) 

Figure B11 Kinbasket Reservoir, Wood, Kwo1, 2009 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Outlet 65m 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

03 Kwo1 15−Jun 

13 Kwo1 14−Jul 

29 Kwo1 18−Aug 



77 Kwo1 19−Oct 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 



depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca1 

Figure C1 Kinbasket Reservoir Jun 15−16, 2009 

(a) Temperature ( o C) 

K2mi 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

(b) Specific conductance 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

(c) Transmissivity 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

(d) Dissolved oxygen 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

(e) Chla fluoresence (black bars mark 1% light) 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

Distance between stations (km) 

K3co 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 

Transmission (%) 

100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca1 


Figure C2 Kinbasket Reservoir Jul 13−14, 2009 

K2mi 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 



−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


K3co 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca1 

Figure C3 Kinbasket Reservoir Aug 17−18, 2009 


K2mi 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


K3co 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca5 

Figure C4 Kinbasket Reservoir Aug 31 − Sep 01, 2009 

Kca4 

Kca3 


Kca2.5 

Kca1.5 

Kca0 

K2mi 

K2.1 

−40 −20 0 20 40 60 



−40 −20 0 20 40 60 

−40 −20 0 20 40 60 


−40 −20 0 20 40 60 


−40 −20 0 20 40 60 


K2.4 

K2.8 

K3.1 

K3.5 

K3.7 

K4 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca1 

Figure C5 Kinbasket Reservoir Sep 14−15, 2009 


K2mi 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


K3co 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

Kca1 

Figure C6 Kinbasket Reservoir Oct 19−20, 2009 


K2mi 

−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 


K3co 

20 

15 

10 

5 

T (°C) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

40 

70 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2mi 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D1 Revelstoke Reservoir, 23−24 Jun 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

10 R1fb 24−Jun 

08 R2mi 23−Jun 

09 R3up 23−Jun 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2mi 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D2 Revelstoke Reservoir, 21−22 Jul 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

20 R1fb 22−Jul 

17 R2mi 21−Jul 


18 R3up 21−Jul 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2mi 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D3 Revelstoke Reservoir, 25−26 Aug 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

36 R1fb 26−Aug 

34 R2mi 25−Aug 

35 R3up 25−Aug 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2.7 

R2.5 

R2.1 

R1.9 

R1.6 

R1.4 

R1.2 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D4 Revelstoke Reservoir, 02 Sep 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

55 R1fb 02−Sep 

56 R1.2 02−Sep 

57 R1.4 02−Sep 

60 

58 R1.6 02−Sep 

59 R1.9 02−Sep 

60 R2.1 02−Sep 

80 

61 R2.5 02−Sep 

62 R2.7 02−Sep 

63 R3up 02−Sep 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2mi 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D5 Revelstoke Reservoir, 22−23 Sep 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 


70 R2mi 22−Sep 


100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

R3up 

R2mi 

R1fb 

0 

−40 −20 0 20 

km 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D6 Revelstoke Reservoir, 13−14 Oct 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

75 R1fb 14−Oct 

74 R2mi 13−Oct 

73 R3up 13−Oct 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

3.1 

3.05 

R1fb 

3 

2.95 

2.9 

R1fb 

R1fb 

R1fb 

R1fb 

R1fb 

2.85 

0.8 0.9 

km 

1 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D7 Revelstoke Reservoir, Forebay 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

10 R1fb 24−Jun 

20 R1fb 22−Jul 

36 R1fb 26−Aug 

80 



75 R1fb 14−Oct 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

49 

R2.1 

48.5 

48 

47.5 

47 

46.5 

46 

45.5 

45 

44.5 

R2mi 

R2mi 

R2mi 

R2mi R2mi 

44 

−19.5 −19 −18.5 

km 

−18 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D8 Revelstoke Reservoir, Downie 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

08 R2mi 23−Jun 


34 R2mi 25−Aug 

80 

60 R2.1 02−Sep 

70 R2mi 22−Sep 

74 R2mi 13−Oct 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

km 

76.5 

76.45 R3up 

76.4 

76.35 

76.3 

76.25 

76.2 

76.15 

76.1 

76.05 

R3up 

R3up 

R3up 

R3up R3up 

76 

−31 −30.95 −30.9 

km 

−30.85 

(b) 

5 10 15 20 

(e) 

Temperature 

( o C) 

Figure D9 Revelstoke Reservoir, Upper 2009 

Outlet 36m 

6 8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

(c) 

50 100 150 


(μS/cm) 

(f) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


120 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

09 R3up 23−Jun 

18 R3up 21−Jul 

35 R3up 25−Aug 

80 



73 R3up 13−Oct 

100 

120 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

Figure E1 Revelstoke Reservoir 23−24 Jun, 2009 


R2mi 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

Figure E2 Revelstoke Reservoir 21−22 Jul, 2009 


R2mi 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

Figure E3 Revelstoke Reservoir 25−26 Aug, 2009 


R2mi 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

R2.7 


Figure E4 Revelstoke Reservoir Sep 02, 2009 

R2.5 

R2.1 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1.9 


R1.6 

R1.4 

R1.2 

R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

Figure E5 Revelstoke Reservoir Sep 22−23, 2009 


R2mi 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

depth (m) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

R3up 

Figure E6 Revelstoke Reservoir Oct 13−14, 2009 


R2mi 

−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


−80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 


R1fb 

20 

15 

10 

5 

50 

T (°C) 

150 

100 

40 

70 

3 

2 

1 

0 

C25 (μS/cm) 


100 

8 

10 

12 

O 2 (mg/L) 

F (mg/L)

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

(a) 

(g) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

5 10 


(mg/l) 

180 

15 

Figure F1 All Kinbasket (BLU) and Revesltoke (RED) Data, 2009 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

(c) 

180 

50 100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

(h) 

180 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 


0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

(e) 

180 

0 50 


100 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

10 0

Appendix 1 

Provisional Station Names 

Name* Description Approximate 

Location 

Kinbasket-Columbia Arm 

K1fb Forebay 52°05.673 118°32.902 

K1.5 Kin-PP 52°06.889 118°30.501 

K2mi Middle 52°07.858 118°26.363 

K2.1 Kin-Mouth of Columbia to Kinbasket 52°06.044 118°24.264 

K2.4 10 km from mouth of Columbia 52°03.246 118°16.766 


K3co Columbia Reach 51°58.438 118°05.030 




K4 60 km from mouth of Columbia 51°47.010 117°41.750 

Kinbasket-Wood Arm 

Kwo0 Mouth of Wood to Kinbasket 52°09.004 118°22.994 

Kwo1 Wood Arm 52°08.269 118°18.024 

Kwo2 End of Wood Arm 52°10.738 118°10.020 

Kinbasket-Canoe Arm 

Kca0 Mouth of Canoe to Kinbasket 52°10.631 118°27.049 

Kca1 Canoe Reach 52°12.547 118°28.516 

Kca1.5 10 km from mouth of Canoe 52°15.509 118°31.235 

Kca2.5 20 km from mouth of Canoe 52°20.025 118°35.804 

Kca3 30 km from mouth of Canoe 52°24.198 118°41.857 



Revelstoke 

R1fb Rev-Forebay 51°04.584 118°10.929 

R1.2 Rev-10 km from Forebay 51°09.988 118°12.677 




R2mi Rev-Mid 51°26.612 118°27.939 




R3up Rev-Upper 51°43.891 118°39.633 

* Main stations are bold

Appendix 2 

List of profiles 

No Date Location Time On Time 

Off 

GPS 

Depth 

(m) 

1 15/Jun/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 11:33 11:49 51°58.438 118°05.030 160 K3co 

2 15/Jun/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 11:52 12:08 51°58.438 118°05.030 115 K3co 

3 15/Jun/2009 Kin - Wood Arm 02:58 03:04 52°08.266 118°18.676 46 Kwo1 

4 16/Jun/2009 Kin - Canoe Reach 07:46 07:58 52°12.423 118°28.440 115 Kca1 

5 16/Jun/2009 Kin - Middle 09:11 09:24 52°07.889 118°26.441 120 K2mi 

6 16/Jun/2009 Kin - Forebay 10:44 11:00 52°05.664 118°32.906 153 K1fb 

7 22/Jun/2009 Kin - PP 08:28 08:42 52°06.894 118°30.074 135 K1.5 

8 23/Jun/2009 Rev - Middle & Downie PP 08:40 08:49 51°26.649 118°28.110 78 R2mi 

9 23/Jun/2009 Rev - Upper 11:00 11:06 51°43.697 118°39.548 33 R3up 

10 24/Jun/2009 Rev - Forebay and PP 10:20 10:30 51°04.619 118°10.828 90 R1fb 

11 13/Jul/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 10:43 11:00 51°58.472 118°05.149 160 K3co 

12 13/Jul/2009 Kin - Canoe Reach 02:23 02:35 52°12.547 118°28.516 115 Kca1 

13 14/Jul/2009 Kin - Wood Arm 08:07 08:14 52°08.300 118°18.683 55 Kwo1 

14 14/Jul/2009 Kin - Middle 10:17 10:33 52°07.829 118°26.540 150 K2mi 

15 14/Jul/2009 Kin - Forebay 10:56 11:13 52°05.707 118°32.878 160 K1fb 

16 20/Jul/2009 Kin - PP 07:56 08:13 52°06.899 118°30.121 160 K1.5 

17 21/Jul/2009 Rev - Downie PP 08:26 08:36 51°26.650 118°28.092 80 R2mi 

18 21/Jul/2009 Rev - Upper 10:11 10:17 51°43.782 118°39.583 35 R3up 

19 21/Jul/2009 Rev - Middle 12:54 01:02 51°26.598 118°28.111 75 R2mi 

20 22/Jul/2009 Rev - Forebay and PP 09:35 09:47 51°04.594 118°10.913 110 R1fb 

27 17/Aug/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 11:00 11:17 51°57.982 118°04.843 170 K3co 

28 17/Aug/2009 Kin - Canoe Reach 01:46 01:58 52°12.431 118°28.446 115 Kca1 

29 18/Aug/2009 Kin - Wood Arm 07:52 08:00 52°08.267 118°18.682 60 Kwo1 

30 18/Aug/2009 Kin - Middle 09:01 09:15 52°07.858 118°26.363 135 K2mi 

31 18/Aug/2009 Kin - Forebay 10:29 10:46 52°05.594 118°33.067 170 K1fb 

33 24/Aug/2009 Kin - PP 07:34 07:50 52°06.889 118°30.501 165 K1.5 

34 25/Aug/2009 Rev - Downie PP & Middle 08:48 08:57 51°26.689 118°28.181 80 R2mi 

35 25/Aug/2009 Rev - Upper 10:32 10:38 51°43.696 118°39.573 35 R3up 

36 26/Aug/2009 Rev - Forebay and PP 08:38 08:51 51°04.584 118°10.929 110 R1fb 

37 31/Aug/2009 Kin - Mouth of Canoe 10:15 10:29 52°10.631 118°27.049 145 Kca0 

38 31/Aug/2009 Kin - 10km from mouth of Canoe 10:47 10:58 52°15.509 118°31.235 100 Kca1.5 

39 31/Aug/2009 Kin - 20Km from mouth of Canoe 11:19 11:26 52°20.025 118°35.804 66 Kca2.5 

40 31/Aug/2009 Kin - 30km from mouth of Canoe 11:45 11:53 52°24.198 118°41.857 60 Kca3 



43 01/Sep/2009 Kin - Mouth of Columbia 07:49 08:01 52°06.044 118°24.264 115 K2.1 

44 01/Sep/2009 Kin - 10km from mouth of Columbia 08:17 08:28 52°03.246 118°16.766 90 K2.4 

45 01/Sep/2009 Kin - 20Km from mouth of Columbia 09:04 09:14 52°00.219 118°09.401 99 K2.8 




49 01/Sep/2009 Kin - 60km from mouth of Columbia 10:55 11:01 51°47.010 117°41.750 38 K4 

50 01/Sep/2009 Kin - End of Wood Arm 01:21 01:25 52°10.738 118°10.020 20 Kwo2 

51 01/Sep/2009 Kin - 10km from end of Wood Arm 01:40 01:47 52°08.269 118°18.024 60 Kwo1 

Stn

52 01/Sep/2009 Kin - Mouth of Wood Arm 01:59 02:05 52°09.004 118°22.994 45 Kwo0 

53 01/Sep/2009 Kin - Middle 02:13 02:27 52°07.905 118°26.377 130 K2mi 

54 01/Sep/2009 Kin - Forebay 02:43 02:59 52°05.664 118°32.939 165 K1fb 

55 02/Sep/2009 Rev - Forebay 09:22 09:34 51°04.538 118°10.953 110 R1fb 

56 02/Sep/2009 Rev - 10km from Rev Forebay 09:48 09:59 51°09.988 118°12.677 100 R1.2 







63 02/Sep/2009 Rev - 80km from Rev Forebay 12:34 12:40 51°43.891 118°39.633 33 R3up 

64 14/Sep/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 10:23 10:41 51°58.011 118°04.896 170 K3co 

65 14/Sep/2009 Kin - Middle 01:09 01:22 52°07.859 118°26.394 130 K2mi 

66 14/Sep/2009 Kin - Canoe Reach 01:37 01:50 52°12.425 118°28.450 125 Kca1 

67 15/Sep/2009 Kin - Wood Arm 07:43 07:51 52°08.269 118°18.673 69 Kwo1 

68 15/Sep/2009 Kin - Forebay 09:33 09:51 52°05.672 118°32.928 170 K1fb 

69 21/Sep/2009 Kin - PP 10:07 10:22 52°06.810 118°30.205 150 K1.5 

70 22/Sep/2009 Rev - Downie PP & Middle 08:23 08:31 51°26.612 118°27.939 70 R2mi 

71 22/Sep/2009 Rev - Upper 11:41 11:46 51°43.765 118°39.597 37 R3up 

72 23/Sep/2009 Rev - Forebay and PP 09:10 09:21 51°04.533 118°10.918 100 R1fb 

73 13/Oct/2009 Rev - Upper 09:36 09:42 51°43.759 118°39.586 35 R3up 

74 13/Oct/2009 Rev - Middle 11:58 12:06 51°26.729 118°28.167 53 R2mi 

75 14/Oct/2009 Rev - Forebay 08:40 08:52 51°04.631 118°10.981 100 R1fb 

76 19/Oct/2009 Kin - Columbia Reach 10:32 10:50 51°58.119 118°05.063 167 K3co 

77 19/Oct/2009 Kin - Wood Arm 01:25 01:33 52°08.250 118°18.884 60 Kwo1 

78 20/Oct/2009 Kin - Canoe Reach 08:40 08:52 52°12.482 118°28.455 110 Kca1 

79 20/Oct/2009 Kin - Middle 09:57 10:11 52°07.909 118°26.494 150 K2mi 

80 20/Oct/2009 Kin - Forebay 11:14 11:31 52°05.673 118°32.902 170 K1fb

Appendix 3 

Additional Profiles 

Profiles collected during measurement of primary production, see Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

km 

−1.66 

−1.68 

−1.7 

−1.72 

−1.74 

−1.76 

−1.78 

−1.8 

−1.82 

−1.84 

K1.5 

K1.5 

K1.5 

K1.5 

−1.86 

−5 −4.5 

km 

−4 

(b) 

(e) 

5 10 15 20 

Temperature 

( o C) 

8 10 12 


(mg/l) 

Figure A3 Kinbasket Reservoir, K1.5, 2009 

(c) 

(f) 

100 150 200 


(μS/cm) 

60 80 100 


(d) 

0 50 


180 

100 


(g) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

07 K1.5 22−Jun 

16 K1.5 20−Jul 

33 K1.5 24−Aug 

69 K1.5 21−Sep 

140 

160 

180 

0 1 


2 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m)



Appendix 4 



Karen Bray 

BC Hydro



BC Hydro Research Vessel NAIAD and field crew on Kinbasket Reservoir 

Prepared By: 

Karen Bray 


Revelstoke, B.C. 

January 2011




1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................2 

2. METHODS ................................................................................................................................................2 

3. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................3 

3.1 KINBASKET RESERVOIR..........................................................................................................................3 

3.2 REVELSTOKE RESERVOIR.......................................................................................................................4 

4. DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................6 

5. REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................7 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................7 


Figure 1. Location of reservoir sampling stations on Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009............8 

Figure 2. Kinbasket Reservoir elevation and sampling dates, 2009. Elevations for 2007 and 2008 shown 

for comparison. .............................................................................................................................................9 

Figure 3. Discrete depth nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ........................10 

Figure 4. Discrete depth total phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ........................11 

Figure 5. Discrete depth total dissolved phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ........12 

Figure 6. Discrete depth soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ......13 

Figure 7. DIN:TDP ratios at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009...............................................................14 

Figure 8. Average nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009.15 

Figure 9. Average total phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009.15 

Figure 10. Average total dissolved phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir 

stations, 2009..............................................................................................................................................15 

Figure 11. Average soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir 

stations, 2009..............................................................................................................................................16 

Figure 12. Average DIN:TDP in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ....................16 

Figure 13. Silica (mg/L) from a 0-20m integrated tube sample at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009.....17 

Figure 14. Secchi disk (m) readings at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. ............................................17 

Figure 15 Discrete depth nitrite and nitrate (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. .....................18 

Figure 16. Discrete depth total phosphorus (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. ....................19 

Figure 17. Discrete depth soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. ..20 

Figure 18. DIN:TDP ratios at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009...........................................................21 

Figure 19. Average nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

....................................................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 20. Average total phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

....................................................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 21. Average soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir 

stations, 2009..............................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 22. Average DIN:TDP in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. ..................23 

Figure 23. Silica (mg/L) from a 0-20m integrated tube sample at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009...23 

Figure 24. Secchi disk (m) readings at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. ..........................................23 


Table 1: Summary of Kinbasket Reservoir station coordinates, maximum sampled depths, and dates of 

2009 sampling...............................................................................................................................................2 

Table 2: Summary of Revelstoke Reservoir station coordinates, maximum sampled depths, and dates of 

2009 sampling sessions................................................................................................................................2 

Table 3. Average water chemistry values at four stations and all depths on Kinbasket Reservoir sampled 

May to October, 2009. Range of values shown in parentheses. .................................................................4 

Table 4. Average water chemistry values at three stations and all depths on Revelstoke Reservoir 

sampled May to October, 2009. Range of values shown in parentheses. ..................................................6 


BC Hydro Water Licence Requirements 

i




This report summarises Year 2 (2009) water chemistry information from Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoir sampling. These results are a component of the study CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs Ecological Productivity conducted by BC Hydro under the Columbia Water Use Plan. 

2. Methods 

Water samples were collected at four stations in Kinbasket Reservoir (Table 1, Figure 1) and three 

stations in Revelstoke Reservoir (Table 2) once a month from May to October, 2009. Five litre Niskin 

bottles were lowered by cable in series to collect discrete depth samples at 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 60m. An 

additional sample at 5m above bottom was collected at all stations except for REV Upper as it is



3. Results 

3.1 Kinbasket Reservoir 

Stations were sampled at reservoir elevations between 730.6m and 752.1m; full pool is 754m (Figure 2). 

The reservoir reached its minimum level (730.4m) for the year on May 9, 2009, and its maximum level 

(752.1m) on September 26, 2009. The range of elevation in 2009 was 21.7m whereas the maximum 

range possible is 47m. 

Nitrite and Nitrate (NO2 +NO3) – Average concentrations of NO2+NO3 were similar across stations in 

Kinbasket Reservoir (105-110µg/L), with values ranging from a low of 57µg/L in Columbia Reach to a 

high of 180µg/L in Wood Arm (Table 3, Figure 3). In the epilimnion, nitrite and nitrates generally declined 

throughout the sampling season (Figure 8) while in the hypolimnion (60+m) the reverse occurred. 

Total Phosphorus (TP) – Average concentration of TP was similar across Kinbasket Reservoir stations 

(4.6-5.7 µg/L) with total values ranging from 2.1µg/L in Wood Arm to 10.1µg/L at the Forebay (Table 3, 

Figure 4). Concentrations of TP were also quite similar throughout the epilimnion and hypolimnion across 

the months, reaching their peak in July (Figure 9), with the exception of a noticeable spike in Columbia 

Reach in October. Correcting for colour and turbidity was in most instances very minor at



Silica (Si) – Silica concentrations across all stations were very similar and showed a downward trend 

through the sampling season (Figure 13). The average concentration across the season ranged from 

1.13 to 1.20 mg/L (Table 3) and the greatest range of values, between 0.97 and 1.71 mg/L, occurring in 

Columbia Reach. 

Secchi – Secchi depths averaged from 7.0 - 8.2 m across the four Kinbasket Reservoir stations in 2009 

(Table 3). Lowest values occurred in June with then increasing values which peaked in September. 

October generally showed a decreased Secchi depth (Figure 14). 

Table 3. Average water chemistry values at four stations and all depths on Kinbasket Reservoir sampled 

May to October, 2009. Range of values shown in parentheses. 

STATIONS 

Parameter Units 

NO2+NO3 (NN) µg/L 

TP µg/L 

TP (corrected) µg/L 

TDP* µg/L 

SRP µg/L 

NN:TDP** 

Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 

pH 

Conductivity µohms 

Turbidity NTU 

Silica*** mg/L 

Secchi m 

KIN Forebay 

107 

(76 – 156) 

4.6 

(2.7 – 10.1) 

4.5 

(2.7 – 10.1) 

4.1 

(2.5 – 5.5) 

1.3 

(0.5 – 2.7) 

27.0 

(17.5 – 45.0) 

136 

(118 – 167) 

7.8 

(7.5 – 8.0) 

107 

(88 – 131) 

0.7 

(0.04 – 3.27) 

1.13 

(0.97 – 1.29) 

8.2 

(4.4 – 12.2) 

Canoe 

Reach 

109 

(75 – 146) 

5.2 

(2.2 – 9.5) 

5.1 

(2.2 – 9.5) 

4.4 

(2.1 – 7.0) 

1.4 

(0.6 – 3.2) 

26.6 

(13.4 – 57.2) 

130 

(106 – 162) 

7.8 

(7.5 – 8.1) 

103 

(87 – 127) 

0.7 

(0.04 – 4.7) 

1.18 

(1.02 – 1.35) 

7.4 

(4.5 – 10.5) 

*Some values of TDP removed. 

**NN:TP(corrected) used where TDP values were removed. 

***Silica values are from a single 0-20 integrated sample per month. 

3.2 Revelstoke Reservoir 

Wood Arm 

105 

(73 – 180) 

4.9 

(2.1 – 8.9) 

4.7 

(1.6 – 8.3) 

4.1 

(2.0 – 5.9) 

1.4 

(0.6 – 2.8) 

29.2 

(16.8 – 72.8) 

134 

(121 – 150) 

7.9 

(7.7 – 8.1) 

104 

(90 – 115) 

0.9 

(0.23 – 2.2) 

1.13 

(0.94 – 1.34) 

7.3 

(3.0 -12.4) 


Reach 

110 

(57 – 160) 

5.7 

(3.3 – 9.1) 

5.5 

(3.3 – 8.7) 

4.6 

(2.8 – 6.0) 

1.5 

(0.4 – 2.9) 

23.7 

(12.3 – 43.2) 

156 

(125 – 193) 

7.9 

(7.6 – 8.2) 

122 

(91 – 162) 

0.8 

(0.17 – 2.1) 

1.20 

(0.91 – 1.71) 

7.0 

(4.9 -12.0) 

Revelstoke Reservoir daily average elevations ranged by 1.3m between 571.6m and 572.9m in 2009. 

Full pool is 573m and while larger drawdowns can occur in certain circumstances (e.g. extreme weather 

events), the normal operating range is within 1.5m (to 571.5m). 

Nitrite and Nitrate (NO2+NO3) – Average concentration of NO2+NO3 were similar across stations in 

Revelstoke Reservoir, but ranged in a decreasing gradient along the reservoir from a low of 120 µg/L at 

the REV Forebay station to a high of 125 µg/L at the REV Upper station (Table 4). Spring (May/June) 

values were generally highest with August/September values usually the lowest (Figure 15). In the 



4



epilimnion, NN peaked in June at all three stations, declined into the summer months and increased 

slightly in fall (Figure 19). The high degree of mixing in the more riverine and shallow REV Upper station 

is evident in the more uniform profile. 

Total Phosphorus (TP) – Average concentrations of TP were very similar across the three stations, 

ranging from 4.3 to 4.8 µg/L (Table 4, Figure 16). Colour and turbidity corrections were



Table 4. Average water chemistry values at three stations and all depths on Revelstoke Reservoir 

sampled May to October, 2009. Range of values shown in parentheses. 

STATIONS 

Parameter Units 

REV Forebay REV Middle REV Upper 

NO2+NO3 (NN) µg/L 

TP µg/L 

TP (corrected) µg/L 

TDP* µg/L 

SRP µg/L 

NN:TDP** 

Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 

pH 

Conductivity µohms 

Turbidity NTU 

Silica*** mg/L 

Secchi m 

120 

(88 – 165) 

4.3 

(2.1 – 7.6) 

4.2 

(2.1 – 7.6) 

3.6 

(1.9 – 6.3) 

1.6 

(0.4 – 2.8) 

36.5 

(16.1 – 68.1) 

104 

(77 – 140) 

7.6 

(7.4 – 7.9) 

83 

(60 – 108) 

0.6 

(0.09 – 2.57) 

1.55 

(1.40 – 1.69) 

7.7 

(6.5 – 8.5) 

121 

(82 – 166) 

4.7 

(2.4 – 10.9) 

4.5 

(2.4 – 10.9) 

3.7 

(2.2 – 7.4) 

1.4 

(0.3 – 2.6) 

35.2 

(12.6 – 53.7) 

102 

(63 – 140) 

7.6 

(7.3 – 8.0) 

82 

(51 – 109) 

1.1 

(0.11- 3.9) 

1.52 

(1.33 – 1.99) 

6.2 

(4.0 – 7.9) 

*TDP means and ranges based on limited dataset. 

**NN:TP used where TDP values were removed. 

***Silica values are from a single 0-20 integrated sample per month. 

4. Discussion 

125 

(66 – 185) 

4.8 

(2.3 – 10.9) 

4.2 

(1.6 – 9.8) 

4.0 

(2.5 – 5.8) 

1.5 

(0.4 – 2.5) 

38.2 

(21.2 – 76.4) 

97 

(49 – 128) 

7.6 

(7.2 – 7.9) 

79 

(43 – 103) 

1.3 

(0.24 – 2.7) 

1.76 

(1.25 – 2.30) 

4.9 

(2.5 – 6.8) 

The 2009 results represent the first full sampling session on Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs and 

adds to the dataset begun in 2008. Total phosphorus in all samples ranged from 2.1 to 10.9 µg/L and 

confirms the ultra-oligotrophic status of both reservoirs (Wetzel 2001). All P fractions were generally 

higher in Kinbasket Reservoir than in Revelstoke Reservoir. Nitrates and nitrites were normally greater in 

Revelstoke Reservoir and it exhibited a greater degree of P limitation throughout the sampling season, 

although both showed increasing P limitation into the fall. 

Methods for field filtration of TDP will be reconsidered in light of the frequency of TDP values in excess of 

TP and may involve changing filtering systems provided no continuity in the data is lost. 

Future years of sampling will provide more information on seasonal and annual variability of pelagic water 

chemistry parameters. Several years of monitoring data are required to begin analysing for trends and it 

is expected this reservoir sampling program will continue as part of the project plan for several more 

years. 



6



5. References 

K.I. Ashley and J.G. Stockner. 2003. Protocol for applying limiting nutrients to inland waters. Pages 245-260. 

In: J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. 

American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland: 

Pieters, R., A. Akkerman, and G. Lawrence. 2010a. Tributary Water Quality Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs, 2008. University of British Columbia. Prepared for BC Hydro Water Licence 

Requirements. 8 pp. + figures and appendices. Appendix 2 In BC Hydro. 2009. Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring. Progress Report Year 1 (2008). BC 

Hydro, Water Licence Requirements. Study No. CLBMON-3. 4pp. + appendices. 

Pieters, R. and G. Lawrence. 2010b. CTD Surveys Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2008. 

University of British Columbia. Prepared for BC Hydro Water Licence Requirements. 8 pp. + 

figures and appendices. Appendix 3 In BC Hydro. 2009. Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring. Progress Report Year 1 (2008). BC Hydro, 

Water Licence Requirements. Study No. CLBMON-3. 4pp. + appendices. 

Wetzel, R. 2001. Limnology. Third Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, USA. 


Beth Manson and Pierre Bourget collected, field processed, and shipped water samples. The Cultus 

Lake Laboratory performed all the water chemistry analyses. Roger Pieters and Eva Schindler provided 

many helpful discussions on reservoir dynamics. 



7



Figure 1. Location of reservoir sampling stations on Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009. 

Canoe Reach 

KIN Forebay 

REV Upper 

REV Forebay 

Wood Arm 

REV Middle 

Columbia Reach 



8



Figure 2. Kinbasket Reservoir elevation and sampling dates, 2009. Elevations for 2007 and 2008 shown 

for comparison. 

Elevation (m) 

760 

755 

750 

745 

740 

735 

730 

725 

720 

715 

710 

705 

Maximum Elevation 754m 

2009 

2007 

2008 

Minimum Elevation 707m 

700 

1-Jan 31-Jan 1-Mar 31-Mar 30-Apr 30-May 29-Jun 29-Jul 28-Aug 27-Sep 27-Oct 26-Nov 26-Dec 



Day 

2009 Sampling Dates 

9



Figure 3. Discrete depth nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

KIN Forebay 

Nitrate&Nitrite (ug/L) 

0 50 100 150 200 

KIN Wood 


0 50 100 150 200 

26-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

26-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

KIN Canoe 


0 50 100 150 200 

KIN Columbia 


0 50 100 150 200 



Depth (m) 

25-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

25-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

10



Figure 4. Discrete depth total phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

KIN Forebay 

0 5 10 15 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

TP (ug/L) 

KIN Wood 

TP (ug/L) 

0 5 10 15 

26-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

26-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

KIN Canoe 

TP (ug/L) 

0 5 10 15 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 


TP (ug/L) 

0 5 10 15 



Depth (m) 

25-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

25-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

11



Figure 5. Discrete depth total dissolved phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

KIN Forebay 

0 2 4 6 8 10 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

TDP (ug/L) 

KIN Wood 

TDP (ug/L) 

0 2 4 6 8 10 

26-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

26-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

KIN Canoe 

TDP (ug/L) 

0 2 4 6 8 10 


TDP (ug/L) 

0 2 4 6 8 10 



Depth (m) 

25-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

25-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

12



Figure 6. Discrete depth soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

KIN Forebay 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

SRP (ug/L) 

KIN Wood 

SRP (ug/L) 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

26-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

26-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

KIN Canoe 



Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

SRP (ug/L) 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 


0.0 1.0 

SRP (ug/L) 

2.0 3.0 4.0 

25-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

25-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

13



Figure 7. DIN:TDP ratios at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

KIN Forebay 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

NN:TDP 

KIN Wood 

NN:TDP 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

26-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

26-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

14-Jul-09 

18-Aug-09 

15-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

KIN Canoe 



Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

NN:TDP 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 


0 10 20 

NN:TDP 

30 40 50 60 

25-May-09 

16-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

20-Oct-09 

25-May-09 

15-Jun-09 

13-Jul-09 

17-Aug-09 

14-Sep-09 

19-Oct-09 

14



Figure 8. Average nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Nitrate and Nitrite (ug/L) 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

KIN Forebay 

KIN Canoe Reach 

KIN Wood Arm 

KIN Columbia Reach 

Figure 9. Average total phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Total Phophorus (ug/L) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 


Figure 10. Average total dissolved phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir 

stations, 2009. 

Total Dissolved Phophorus 

(ug/L) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 




15



Figure 11. Average soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir 


Soluble Reactive Phophorus 

(ug/L) 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 


Figure 12. Average DIN:TDP in epilimnion (0-20m) at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

NN:TDP 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

S 

eptember 

October 

KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 




16



Figure 13. Silica (mg/L) from a 0-20m integrated tube sample at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Silica (mgSi/L) 

2.0 

1.8 

1.5 

1.3 

1.0 

0.8 

0.5 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 

Figure 

14. Secchi disk (m) readings at Kinbasket Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Secchi Depth (m) 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 


KIN Forebay 


KIN Wood Arm 




17



Figure 15 Discrete depth nitrite and nitrate (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

REV Forebay 

0 50 100 150 200 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 


REV Upper 

Nitrate &Nitrite (ug/L) 

0 50 100 150 200 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

20-May-09 

24-Jun-09 

22-Jul-09 

26-Aug-09 

23-Sep-09 

14-Oct-09 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

REV Middle 



Depth (m) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 


0 50 100 150 200 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

18



Figure 16. Discrete depth total phosphorus (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

REV Forebay 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

TP (ug/L) 

REV Upper 

0 2 4 

TP (ug/L) 

6 8 10 12 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

20-May-09 

24-Jun-09 

22-Jul-09 

26-Aug-09 

23-Sep-09 

14-Oct-09 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

REV Middle 



Depth (m) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

0 2 4 

TP (ug/L) 

6 8 10 12 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

19



Figure 17. Discrete depth soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

REV Forebay 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

SRP (ug/L) 

REV Upper 

0.0 

SRP (ug/L) 

1.0 2.0 3.0 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

20-May-09 

24-Jun-09 

22-Jul-09 

26-Aug-09 

23-Sep-09 

14-Oct-09 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

REV Middle 



Depth (m) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

SRP (ug/L) 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

20



Figure 18. DIN:TDP ratios at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Depth (m) 

Depth (m) 

REV Forebay 

0 20 40 60 80 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

NN:TDP 

REV Upper 

NN:TDP 

0 20 40 60 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

20-May-09 

24-Jun-09 

22-Jul-09 

26-Aug-09 

23-Sep-09 

14-Oct-09 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

REV Middle 



Depth (m) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

NN:TDP 

0 20 40 60 

19-May-09 

23-Jun-09 

21-Jul-09 

25-Aug-09 

22-Sep-09 

13-Oct-09 

21



Figure 19. Average nitrate and nitrite (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Nitrate and Nitrite (ug/L) 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 

Figure 20. Average total phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Total Phophorus (ug/L) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

May June July August September October 

Month 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 

Figure 21. Average soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir 


Soluble Reactive Phophorus 

(ug/L) 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

May 

June 

July 

August 

Month 

September 

October 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 



22



Figure 22. Average DIN:TDP in epilimnion (0-20m) at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

NN:TDP 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Month 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 

Figure 23. Silica (mg/L) from a 0-20m integrated tube sample at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Silica (mgSi/L) 

2.5 

2.3 

2.0 

1.8 

1.5 

1.3 

1.0 


Month 

Figure 24. Secchi disk (m) readings at Revelstoke Reservoir stations, 2009. 

Secchi Depth (m) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 


Month 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 

REV Forebay 

REV Middle 

REV Upper 



23



Appendix 5 




Ministry of Environment

PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN KINBASKET AND REVELSTOKE RESERVOIRS, 

2009 

by 


Ministry of Environment 

Vancouver, BC

Copyright Notice 

No part of the content of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including 

storage, reproduction, execution, or transmission without the prior written permission of the province of 

British Columbia. 

Limited Exemption to Non-reproduction 

Permission to copy and use this publication in part, or in its entirety, for non-profit purposes within British 

Columbia, is granted BC Hydro; and 

Permission to distribute this publication, in its entirety, is granted to BC Hydro for non-profit purposes of 

posting the publication on a publically accessible area of the BC Hydro website 

Primary productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009 Report pg. 2


Thanks to Pierre Bourget and Beth Manson of BC Hydro and Greg Andrusak of Redfish 

Consulting Ltd. for delivery of the field component of the project. Many thanks to Eva Schindler 

of the BC Ministry of Environment-Nelson office who provided field supervision and training 

during the first sampling trip and who provided critical logistical support throughout the field 

season. Thanks to Marley Bassett who also provided support during the September sampling 

session. Emma Jane Johnson of BC Ministry of Environment-UBC was responsible for arranging 

for the construction of the necessary field equipment and for sample preparation. Our gratitude 

is extended to Ming Guo of UBC for scintillation counting of the primary productivity samples. 

Thanks to Harvey Andrusak and Eva Schindler for review of this report. Funding was provided 

by the Columbia River Water Use Plan-Kinbasket Reservoir Fish and Wildlife Information Plan 

– Monitoring Program – study number: CLBMON-3, Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs 

Ecological Productivity Monitoring Program to MOE by a contribution agreement (#0046004). 


Introduction 

This report summarizes primary productivity studies carried out on Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs in 2009 and reports on the size structure of the phytoplankton community. This work 

is a component of the study CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological 

Productivity Monitoring conducted by BC Hydro under the Columbia Water Use Plan (WUP). 

The purpose of this monitoring program is to improve our understanding of the pelagic 

productivity of Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs by obtaining a long-term primary 

production dataset to describe trophic web mechanisms and dynamics. The study of productivity 

is critical to understanding trophic web dynamics because all trophic levels in aquatic systems 

depend directly or indirectly on primary production, which is the production of organic 

compounds through the process of photosynthesis. In many aquatic systems phytoplankton are 

primarily responsible for the majority of production particularly in Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

reservoirs where the functionality of the littoral zone is compromised by large reservoir 

fluctuations (Wetzel 2001). 

Primary productivity is typically measured by the incorporation of inorganic carbon-14 into 

particulate organic carbon over a given period of time (Steemann Nielsen, 1952). This 

methodology is highly sensitive which is of particular importance in ultra-oligotrophic reservoirs 

such as Kinbasket and Revelstoke. Many factors limit primary productivity but generally light 

and nutrients set the upper limits of production. The photic zone, the relatively thin upper 

portion of the water column where there is sufficient light for photosynthesis to occur is typically 

defined by the depth at which light reaches 1% of its surface value. The availability of light is 

influenced by dissolved and particulate organic matter and changes from one water body to 

another based on differing geology and varies seasonally based on heterogeneous physical, 

chemical and biological properties. This current study involves collection of data from the 

photic zone and examines the likelihood of light limitation in the two reservoirs. A separate 

study involves collecting physical and chemical data which will be analyzed in the final 

synthesis report on the interaction of nutrient availability and productivity. 

Ultimately, the performance measure of interest to the BC Hydro WUP consultative committee is 

the sustainability of fish populations under the current operating regimes (BC Hydro, 2007). 

Successful recruitment of fish depends partly on sufficient food supply (Beauchamp, 2004) and 

on food quality (Danielsdotter et al. 2007). Kokanee populations are studied in the two 

reservoirs because they are the key ecosystem driver for top predators as well as an important 

local sport fish species. The preferred food source for kokanee is Daphnia, a herbivorous 

zooplankton species (Thompson 1999). Daphnia sp. mainly ingest nanoplankton, phytoplankton 

that range in size from 2.0-20.0 µm hence the study and understanding of the phytoplankton 

community structure is key to our understanding of trophic web mechanisms and dynamics. 

This study examines three commonly studied fractions-the picoplankton (0.2-2 µm), 

nanoplankton (2.0-20 µm) and microplankton (>20 µm). 


Methods 

Field Sampling 

Primary productivity was measured each month during the growing season (June-September 

2009) on Kinbasket Reservoir at the Forebay station and on Revelstoke Reservoir at the Forebay 

station and Downie station. Water samples were collected between 8:00 and 9:00 am using 

Niskin bottles. Samples were collected from the surface to the 1% light depth as determined 

with a Licor LI-185A quantum sensor and meter. Two light and one dark 300 ml acid-cleaned 

BOD bottles were rinsed three times with lake water before filling. Disposable latex gloves were 

used for all sampling to avoid contamination. Care was taken to eliminate contact with latex 

since latex is toxic to phytoplankton (Price et al. 1986). The samples were maintained under low 

light conditions during all manipulations until the start of the incubation. Samples were 

inoculated with 0.185 MBq (5 µCi) of NaH 14 CO3 New England Nuclear (NEC-086H). The BOD 

bottles were attached to acrylic plates and were suspended in situ for 3-4 h, generally between 9 

am and 2 pm. Alkalinity samples were collected from the surface and the deepest sample depth 

in 125 ml polycarbonate bottles. Table 1 provides field and incubation information for the 2009 

study. 

Table 1. Field observations and incubation information for the 2009 primary productivity study. 

KB=Kinbasket-Forebay, RD=Revelstoke-Downie (also called middle), RF=Revelstoke-Forebay 

and AC=attenuation coefficient calculated from vertical profiles of photosynthetically active 

radiation. 

Date Stn Weather AC 

(cm -1 ) 

Primary productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009 Report pg. 5 

Inc. 

start 

Inc. 

end 

Total 

Inc Time 

(hr) 

Incubation 

depths (m) 

22 June 2009 KB overcast 0.27 10:50 14:50 4.0 0,1,2,5,10,15,20 

20 July 2009 KB sunny no clouds 0.31 9:10 12:15 3.08 0,1,2,5,10,15 

24 Aug 2009 KB sunny 0.27 9:10 12:20 3.17 0,1,2,5,10,15 

21 Sept 2009 KB overcast 0.22 11:49 15:05 3.27 0,1,2,5,10,15,20 

23 June 2009 RD overcast/light showers 0.43 9:50 14:00 4.17 0,1,2,5,10 

21 July 2009 RD Sunny no clouds 0.38 9:15 12:30 3.25 0,1,2,5,10,12 

25 Aug 2009 RD overcast 0.31 9:45 13:55 4.17 0,1,2,5,10 

22 Sept 2009 RD overcast/fog 0.33 9:18 14:41 5.38 0,1,2,5,10,15 

24 June 2009 RF breaking clouds 0.35 10:00 14:00 4.0 0,1,2,5,10,15 

22 July 2009 RF sunny but smoky 0.33 9:10 12:20 3.17 0,1,2,5,10,15 

26 Aug 2009 RF overcast/smoky 0.29 9:45 12:55 3.17 0,1,2,5,10,12 

23 Sept 2009 RF overcast/clearing 0.32 8:40 12:40 4.0 0,5,10,15 

Laboratory Analysis 

Alkalinity 

A Beckman 44 pH meter and electrode were used to determine total alkalinity according to the 

standard potentiometric method of APHA (1995). Each sample was titrated with 0.02 N H2SO4 

to pH 4.5. All samples had an initial pH of less than 8.3. Titrations were performed in duplicate 

or triplicate to check the analytical precision of the results.

Chlorophyll a 

Chl a corrected for phaeopigments was determined by in vitro fluorometry (Yentsch and Menzel, 

1963). It is important to correct for phaopigment concentrations which may equal or exceed 

functional pigment. Water samples (0.15-0.75 L) were filtered using parallel filtration onto 47mm 

diameter 0.2, 2.0 and 20.0 �m polycarbonate Nuclepore filters using a vacuum pressure 

differential of

eadings at Kinbasket Forebay and at Revelstoke Forebay in June and at Kinbasket Forebay in 

September (Figure 1). The low PAR measurements of

average, chlorophyll was 21.3 µg/m 2 in Kinbasket compared to 14.7 mg/m 2 and 19.3 mg/m 2 at 

Revelstoke Downie and Revelstoke Forebay respectively. The August 2002 study on Kinbasket 

by Stockner and Korman (2002) found depth integrated biomass concentrations of 14.8 mg/m 2 , 

very similar to the concentrations found in the current study. The concentrations measured in 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke were all low compared to those found in Kootenay Lake where 

summer concentrations can reach 143.8 mg/m 2 and mean summer concentrations were 90.5 

mg/m 2 (Wright, 2002) but were 2-3 fold higher than concentrations of 7.5 µg/m 2 found in 

Williston Reservoir (Stockner et al. 2001). 

On average, picoplankton sized cells (0.2-2 µm) accounted for 44% of the total phytoplankton 

biomass, followed closely by nanoplankton (2.0-20 µm) at 41% and microplankton (>20 µm) 

accounted for 15% (Figure 4). The size structure was relatively static with one notable exception 

in July when the relative importance of nanoplankton, the size fraction that is mainly consumed 

by herbivorous zooplankton, declined at all three stations. In turn the predominance of 

picoplankton increased at all stations and microplankton increased slightly at Kinbasket Forebay 

in July. Microplankton (>20 µm) accounted for the smallest proportion of biomass possibly due 

to the competitive advantage smaller cells have in low nutrient conditions (Stockner 1981), rapid 

sinking of larger sized cells or alternatively grazing pressure may explain the low contribution of 

microplankton. 

Depth (m) 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

Chlorophyll a (mg/m 3 ) 

KB RD RF 

June July Aug Sept. 

Figure 2. Vertical profiles of chlorophyll a (mg/m 3 ) for Kinbasket Forebay and Revelstoke 

Downie and Revelstoke Forebay in 2009. 


Chlorophyll a (mg/m 2 ) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

June July Aug Sept 

Kinbasket Revelstoke Downie Revelstoke Forebay 

Figure 3. Integrated chlorophyll a (mg Chl a/m 2 ) in Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 2009. 

% contribution of each fraction 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

47% 23% 47% 47% 47% 34% 46% 43% 44% 33% 40% 42% 

June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept 

Kinbasket Revelstoke Downie 

Microplankton 

Nanoplankton 

Picoplankton 

Revelstoke Forebay 

Figure 4. Relative contribution of picoplankton (0.2-2 µm), nanoplankton (2.0-20 µm), and 

microplankton (>20 µm) to chlorophyll in Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 2009. 



Total primary production of all algal size fractions, measure as the radioactive carbon retained on 

the 0.2 µm filter, was highest at Kinbasket Forebay at 17.5 mg C m -2 d -1 followed by Revelstoke 

Forebay at 16.2 mg C m -2 d -1 . The lowest productivity was measured in Revelstoke Downie at 

11.7 mg C m -2 d -1 (Table 2). This spatial productivity pattern mimicked the pattern observed for 

light attenuation where Kinbasket had the highest water transparency and highest productivity 

and where Revelstoke had the least transparent water and the lowest primary productivity. The 

highest rates of 29.5 and 29.8 mg C m -2 d -1 were observed in June at Kinbasket and in July at 

Revelstoke Forebay respectively (Figure 5). These slightly elevated production rates resulted in 

elevated concentrations of chlorophyll as shown in Figure 3. The rates measured for Kinbasket 

in 2009 are 2 fold lower than those found in 2002 or 2008 (Table 2), whereas the rates measured 

for Revelstoke in 2009 were similar to those measured in 2008. Further examination of the 

interannual differences in the physical and chemical properties of Kinbasket may explain the 

differences. Regardless of the differences amongst study years, these rates are all extremely low 

and are indicative of ultraoligotrophic conditions (Wetzel, 2001). 

In order to put these rates in perspective, it is informative to examine primary productivity rates 

obtained for other watersheds. Primary productivity is an order of magnitude higher on Upper 

Arrow Reservoir with a pre-fertilized rate of 131 mg C m -2 d -1 which increased 1.5 fold after 

fertilization to 196.5 mg C m -2 d -1 (Pieters et al. 2003). On Kootenay Lake, a fertilized system 

in the Columbia watershed, primary productivity rates of 353.3 mg C m -2 d -1 were found 

(Schindler et al. 2010). The rates in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoir are also substantially 

lower than mean values of 150-180 mg C m -2 d -1 measured in fertilized coastal lakes (Stockner, 

1987) but they are similar to those found by Stockner et al. (2001) for the pelagic region of 

Williston Reservoir in 2000. Primary productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoir were 

also similar to those found on Elsie Reservoir, which located on Vancouver Island, and is 

classified an ultra-oligotrophic fast flushing reservoir (Perrin and Harris 2005). Low rates of 

productivity are frequently determined by low availability of light or nutrients and an 

examination of limnological data should shed some light onto the control of the ecological 

dynamics of these two reservoirs. 

Table 2. Total daily primary productivity (mg C/m 2 /d) in Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 

2009, 2008 and 2002. *value not used in calculation of mean due to the sampling problems 

discussed in the methods section. 

2009 2008 2002 

Month KB RD RF KB RD RF KB 

June 29.5 11.6 6.9 - - - - 

July 11.0 12.1 29.8 84.4 33.6 51.8 - 

Aug. 16.5 12.6 11.9 42.2 9.6 13.4 77.6 

Sept. 13.1 10.4 0.5* 25.3 11.0 18.8 - 

Mean 17.5 11.7 16.2 50.6 6.04 9.32 77.6 


Primary Productivity (mg C/m 2 /d) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

June July Aug Sept 


Figure 5. Primary productivity (mg C/m 2 /d) in Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 2009. 

Nanoplankton was the most productive size fraction of phytoplankton, accounting for an average 

of 51% of the total primary production across all dates and stations (Figure 6). The contribution 

of nanoplankton was relatively consistently high across all stations and months with some 

variation observed at Revelstoke Forebay which varied from a low of 42% to a high of 63%. 

Generally there was less variation in the relative contribution of nanoplankton at Kinbasket 

Forebay which varied by only 8% and Revelstoke Downie which varied by 13%. It is important 

to remember that production measurements are free of grazing or sinking effects and measure the 

instantaneous uptake of carbon over a given time period. 

The second most common producer in Kinbasket and Revelstoke were microplankton which 

accounted for 31% of the total production. Microplankton are large and not easily grazeable and 

therefore they tend to either sink out of the euphotic zone or accumulate in the community. An 

accumulation of microplankton sized cells was not observed in the chlorophyll data (Figure 4) 

which suggests the cells are either sinking rapidly or are consumed by large macrozooplankton. 

Picoplankton production was the least productive fraction, accounting for 18% of the total 

production across all dates and stations (Figure 6). Picoplankton production ranged from a low 

of 5% in August to a high of 28% at Kinbasket Reservoir. On average, picoplankton production 

was the highest at Revelstoke Forebay, accounting for 20% of total production while at 

Revelstoke Downie and Kinbasket picoplankton accounted for 18% and 15% respectively, of 

total production. 


Size distribution of production 

(%) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

55% 47% 55% 49% 51% 50% 59% 46% 42% 48% 

June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept 


Microplankton 

Nanoplankton 

Picoplankton 

Figure 6. Relative contribution of picoplankton (0.2-2 µm), nanoplankton (2.0-20 µm), and 

microplankton (>20 µm) to primary productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 2009. 

Table 3. Depth integrated chlorophyll a and daily primary productivity for various lakes and 

reservoirs in BC. The shaded cells indicate fertilized systems. 

Chlorophyll a 

Reference 

(mg m -2 Primary 

Productivity 

) (mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Elsie Reservoir, ancouver 8.1 13.9 Perrin and Harris 2005 

Kinbasket Forebay 21.3 17.5 Current study 

Revelstoke Downie 14.7 11.7 Current study 

Revelstoke Forebay 19.3 16.2 Current study 

Williston, embayment 10.3 32.6 Harris et al. 2005 

Williston, pelagic 7.6 34.3 Stockner et al. 2001 

Slocan 26.3 59.3 Harris 2002 

Okanagan 27.2 72.2 Andrusak et al. 2004 

Alouette Reservoir 36.8 139.6 Wilson et al. 2003 

Arrow Reservoir 48.8 196.5 Pieters et al. 2003 

Kootenay Lake 90.5 353.3 Schindler et al. 2010 

Primary productivity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs, 2009 Report pg. 12 

63%

Discussion 

Given that primary productivity and fish productivity are highly correlated (Nelson 1958; 

Shortreed et al. 1998), it appears that the extremely low rates of productivity measured in 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs may only support limited productive capacity. The rates 

measured in the current study are lower than those found in 2002 and 2008 despite similar 

attenuation coefficients in the three studies. It appears that light conditions have remained 

somewhat similar over the three study periods which suggests that light is not controlling the 

lower production measured in 2009. A close examination of the physical and chemical 

conditions is necessary to determine what is controlling the ecosystem productivity of these two 

reservoirs. 

The size structure of the phytoplankton community is fundamentally important to the productive 

capacity of lakes and reservoirs (Malone, 1980). Food chains are relatively inefficient where 

only 10% of the carbon is “passed on” or assimilated in the next level of the food chain (Wetzel, 

2001). As such, lakes with short food chains are more efficient systems, as a higher proportion of 

the food chain base, the phytoplankton, are incorporated into biomass of the end consumer, 

kokanee salmon, in this case. At all stations, nanoplankton accounted for the greatest proportion 

of primary production in Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoirs which is encouraging because, 

although the rates of production are extremely low, the size class most easily grazed by 

herbivorous zooplankton is in fact the growing and available for consumption by higher trophic 

levels. These results are similar to those found in the 2008 study although due to changes in the 

study design (use of different filters) it is impossible to directly compare the two study results. 

Unfortunately the 2002 study did not complete size fractionation of primary productivity. It is 

somewhat puzzling that nanoplankton and microplankton were the most dominant producers 

since generally in low nutrient systems, picoplankton are the dominant producer due to their 

small surface area to volume ratios which allow for extremely efficient uptake of scarce 

nutrients. 

Wetzel (2001) lists ranges of primary productivity and related characteristics such as chlorophyll 

concentrations to classify different trophic categories ranging from ultraoligotrophic to 

hypertrophic types. Using this approach, the chlorophyll and primary productivity data clearly 

classify Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs as ultraoligotrophic. Among measurements to 

date, Kinbasket/Revelstoke Reservoirs supports the some of the lowest phytoplankton biomass 

and the lowest primary production among comparable lakes and reservoirs in British Columbia 

(Table 3). The high relative contribution of nanoplankton suggests efficient transfer of carbon up 

to higher trophic levels but it is important to stress that the extremely low productivity will 

ultimately determine the upper limit of productive capacity in Kinbasket and Revelstoke. 


References Cited 

Andrusak, H, S. Matthews, I. McGregor, K.Ashley, R.Rae, A. Wilson, D. Sebastian, G. 

Scholten, P Woodruff, L. Vidmanic, J. Stockner, G. Wilson, B. Jantz, J. Webster, H. 

Wright, C. Walters, and J. Korman. 2004. Okanagan Lake Action Plan Year 8 (2004). RD 

108. Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Province of 

British Columbia. 

APHA. 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 16th ed. 

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. 

BC Hydro. 2007. CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity 

Monitoring Terms of Reference. BC Hydro dated October 24, 2007. 

Beauchamp, D.A., C.J. Sergeant, M.M. Mazur, J.M. Scheuerell, D.E. Schindler, M.D. 

Scheuerell, K.L. Fresh, D.E. Seiler and T.P. Quinn. 2004. Spatial-temporal dynamics of 

early feeding demand and food supply for sockeye salmon fry in Lake Washington. Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc. 133:1014-1032. 

Danielsdottir, M. G., M. T. Brett and G.B. Arhonditsis. 2007. Phytoplankton food quality control 

of planktonic food web processes. Hydrobiologia 589: 29-41. 

Harris, S.L. 2002. Slocan Lake Primary Productivity Monitoring Program, 2000 & 2001. Report 

prepared for Redfish Consulting Ltd. Nelson, B.C. 32p 

Harris, S.L., A.R. Langston, J.G. Stockner and L. Vidmanic. 2005. A limnological assessment 

of four Williston Reservoir embayments, 2004. 2005. Prepared for the Peace/Williston 

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report. Prince George, BC. 55p. 

Ichimura, S., T.R. Parsons, M.Takahashi and H.Seki. 1980. A comparison of four methods for 

integrating 14 C-primary productivity measurements per unit area. J. Oceanogr. Soc. Jap. 

36: 259-262. 

Joint, I.R. and A.J. Pomroy.1983. Production of picoplankton and small nanoplankton in the 

Celtic Sea. Mar. Biol. 77(1): 19-27. 

Malone TC (1980) Size-fractionated primary productivity of marine phytoplankton. In: 

Falkowski PG (ed) Primary productivity in the sea. Plenum Press, New York, p 301–319 

Nelson, P.R. 1958. Relationship between rate of photosynthesis and growth of juvenile red 

salmon. Science, New Series, 128: 205-206. 

Parsons, T.K., Y. Maita and C.M. Lalli. 1984. A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods 

for Seawater Analysis. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 173 pp. 

Perrin, C.J. and S. Harris. 2006. Trophic status of Elsie Lake Reservoir, 2005. Report prepared 

by Limnotek Research and Development Inc. and Hupacasath First Nation for Bridge 

Coastal Restoration Program. 41p. 

Pieters, R. S. Harris, L.C. Thompson, J.G. Stockner, H. Andrusak, K.I Ashley, B. Lindsay, K. 

Hall, and D. Lombard. 2003. Restoration of Kokanee Salmon in the Arrow Lakes 

Reservoir, British Columbia: Preliminary results of a fertilization experiment, p. 177– 

196. In Stockner J.G. [ed.], Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: Sustaining production 

and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society. 

Price, N.M., P.J. Harrison, M.R Landry, F. Azam, and K.J.F. Hall. 1986. Toxic effects of latex 

and Tygon tubing on marine phytoplankton, zooplankton and bacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. 

Ser. 34: 41-49. 

Schindler, E.U., D. Sebastian, H. Andrusak L. Vidmanic, S. Harris, G.F. Andrusak, F. Pick, L.M. 

Ley, P.B. Hamilton, D. Johner, P. Woodruff, M. Bassett and K.I. Ashley. 2010. Kootenay 

Lake Nutrient Restoration Program, Year 16 (North Arm) and Year 4 (South Arm) 


(2007) Report. Fisheries Project Report No. RD 127, Ministry of Environment, Province 

of British Columbia. 

Shortreed, K.S., J.M.B. Hume, K.F. Morton and S.G. MacLellan. 1998. Trophic status and 

rearing capacity of smaller sockey lakes in the Skeena River system. Can. Tech. Rep. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2240. 

Steemann Nielsen, E. 1952. The use of radioactive carbon ( 14 C) for measuring organic 

production in the sea. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 18:117-140. 

Stockner, J.G. 1981 Whole lake fertilization for the enhancement of sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus merka) in British Columbia, Canada. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 

Vert. 21L 293-299. 

Stockner, J.G. 1987. Lake fertilization: The enrichment cycle and lake sockeye salmon 

Stockner, J.G. and J. Korman. 2002. Pelagic carbon production in Kinbasket, Revelstoke and 

Arrow Lakes Reservoirs. Report prepared for BC Hydro 

Stockner J.G., A.R. Langston, and G. Wilson. 2001. The Limnology of Williston Reservoir. 

Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation report No. 242. 51pp +appendices. 

Thompson, L.C. 1999. Abundance and production of zooplankton and kokanee salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) in Kootenay Lake, British Columbia during artificial fertilization. 

Ph.D. thesis, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British 

Columbia, 252 p. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology. 3 rd Ed, Academic Press, San Diego. 

Wilson, G., K. Ashley, M. McCusker, R. Land, J. Stockner, D. Dolecki, G. Scholten and D. 

Sebastian. 2003. The Alouette Reservoir Fertilization Project: Years 2000 and 2001 

Experiment, Whole Reservoir Fertilization. Fisheries Project Report No. RD 99. 

Wright, M.E., K.I. Ashley, H. Andrusak, H. Manson, R. Lindsay, R.J. Hammond, F.R. Pick, 

L.M. Ley, P.B. Hamilton, S.L. Harris, L.C. Thompson, L. Vidmanic, D. Sebastian, G. 

Scholten, M. Young and D. Miller. 2002. Kootenay Lake Fertilization Experiment Year 9 

(2000/2001) Report, Fisheries Project Report No. 105, Ministry of Water, Land and Air 

Protection, Province of British Columbia. 

Yentsch, C.S. and V.W. Menzel. 1963. A method for the determination of phytoplankton 

chlorophyll and phaeophytin by fluorescence. Deep-Sea Res. 10: 221-231. 


Appendix A Raw chlorophyll and primary productivity data for 2009. 

Station Date Fraction Depth Chl 

(µm) (m) (mg/m 3 PP 

) mg/C/m 3 PP 

/hr mgC/m 3 /day 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 0 1.07 0.35 8.15 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 1 1.07 0.12 2.74 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 2 1.13 0.11 2.47 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 5 0.74 0.09 2.16 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 10 1.23 0.05 1.27 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 15 1.60 0.02 0.36 

KB 22 June 2009 0.2 20 1.49 0.02 0.36 

KB 22 June 2009 2 0 0.63 0.13 3.05 

KB 22 June 2009 2 1 0.59 0.08 1.98 

KB 22 June 2009 2 2 0.54 0.10 2.41 

KB 22 June 2009 2 5 0.56 0.08 1.99 

KB 22 June 2009 2 10 0.67 0.04 1.05 

KB 22 June 2009 2 15 0.88 0.02 0.47 

KB 22 June 2009 2 20 0.82 0.01 0.24 

KB 22 June 2009 20 0 0.09 0.06 1.29 

KB 22 June 2009 20 1 0.10 0.03 0.72 

KB 22 June 2009 20 2 0.11 0.04 0.95 

KB 22 June 2009 20 5 0.08 0.03 0.63 

KB 22 June 2009 20 10 0.13 0.01 0.30 

KB 22 June 2009 20 15 0.20 0.01 0.19 

KB 22 June 2009 20 20 0.21 0 0 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 0 1.29 0.12 0.8 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 1 1.06 0.10 0.7 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 2 1.05 0.12 0.8 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 5 1.22 0.14 1.0 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 10 1.36 0.10 0.7 

KB 20 July 2009 0.2 15 1.53 0.05 0.3 

KB 20 July 2009 2 0 0.55 0.08 0.54 

KB 20 July 2009 2 1 0.56 0.09 0.65 

KB 20 July 2009 2 2 0.52 0.08 0.57 

KB 20 July 2009 2 5 0.60 0.11 0.74 

KB 20 July 2009 2 10 0.63 0.07 0.50 

KB 20 July 2009 2 15 0.70 0.04 0.25 

KB 20 July 2009 20 0 1.30 0.02 0.13 

KB 20 July 2009 20 1 0.12 0.03 0.18 

KB 20 July 2009 20 2 0.12 0.03 0.21 

KB 20 July 2009 20 5 0.09 0.04 0.29 

KB 20 July 2009 20 10 0.13 0.02 0.17 

KB 20 July 2009 20 15 0.16 0.02 0.12 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 0 1.45 0.20 1.4 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 1 1.26 0.17 1.1 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 2 1.18 0.16 1.1 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 5 1.03 0.16 1.1 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 10 1.40 0.16 1.1 

KB 24 Aug 2009 0.2 15 1.86 0.16 1.1 


KB 24 Aug 2009 2 0 0.67 0.14 0.98 

KB 24 Aug 2009 2 1 0.84 0.16 1.07 

KB 24 Aug 2009 2 2 0.68 0.14 0.93 

KB 24 Aug 2009 2 5 0.66 0.14 0.98 

KB 24 Aug 2009 2 10 0.70 0.16 1.11 

KB 24 Aug 2009 2 15 1.04 0.16 1.10 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 0 0.12 0.06 0.39 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 1 0.13 0.07 0.48 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 2 0.16 0.06 0.43 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 5 0.07 0.06 0.41 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 10 0.14 0.07 0.47 

KB 24 Aug 2009 20 15 0.19 0.06 0.44 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 0 1.62 0.17 0.79 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 1 1.42 0.19 0.89 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 2 1.48 0.18 0.83 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 5 1.29 0.18 0.84 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 10 1.52 0.16 0.75 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 15 1.57 0.09 0.44 

KB 21 Sept 2009 0.2 20 0.96 0.07 0.35 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 0 0.81 0.14 0.67 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 1 0.71 0.14 0.66 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 2 0.84 0.15 0.69 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 5 1.27 0.18 0.84 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 10 0.66 0.14 0.67 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 15 0.86 0.08 0.36 

KB 21 Sept 2009 2 20 0.63 0.05 0.24 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 0 0.09 0.05 0.24 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 1 0.13 0.07 0.32 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 2 0.20 0.06 0.30 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 5 0.17 0.07 0.32 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 10 0.21 0.07 0.31 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 15 0.24 0.03 0.16 

KB 21 Sept 2009 20 20 0.21 0.03 0.13 

RD 28 June 2009 0.2 0 0.95 0.07 0.84 

RD 28 June 2009 0.2 1 0.95 0.11 1.36 

RD 28 June 2009 0.2 2 0.43 0.09 1.08 

RD 28 June 2009 0.2 5 0.63 0.13 1.65 

RD 28 June 2009 0.2 10 0.76 0.04 0.44 

RD 28 June 2009 2 0 0.74 0.05 0.66 

RD 28 June 2009 2 1 0.33 0.10 1.21 

RD 28 June 2009 2 2 0.27 0.08 0.97 

RD 28 June 2009 2 5 0.36 0.11 1.32 

RD 28 June 2009 2 10 0.48 0.02 0.28 

RD 28 June 2009 20 0 0.15 0.02 0.22 

RD 28 June 2009 20 1 0.07 0.03 0.39 

RD 28 June 2009 20 2 0.04 0.03 0.41 

RD 28 June 2009 20 5 0.08 0.04 0.50 

RD 28 June 2009 20 10 0.10 0.01 0.07 


RD 21 July 2009 0.2 0 1.19 0.11 0.86 

RD 21 July 2009 0.2 1 1.36 0.09 0.76 

RD 21 July 2009 0.2 2 1.08 0.10 0.78 

RD 21 July 2009 0.2 5 1.13 0.12 0.95 

RD 21 July 2009 0.2 10 2.20 0.11 0.93 

RD 21 July 2009 0.2 15 1.23 0.04 0.37 

RD 21 July 2009 2 0 0.51 0.07 0.56 

RD 21 July 2009 2 1 0.59 0.08 0.68 

RD 21 July 2009 2 2 0.53 0.09 0.70 

RD 21 July 2009 2 5 0.65 0.10 0.78 

RD 21 July 2009 2 10 1.10 0.10 0.80 

RD 21 July 2009 2 15 0.84 0.03 0.25 

RD 21 July 2009 20 0 0.15 0.03 0.27 

RD 21 July 2009 20 1 0.17 0.03 0.26 

RD 21 July 2009 20 2 0.11 0.04 0.31 

RD 21 July 2009 20 5 0.17 0.03 0.28 

RD 21 July 2009 20 10 0.46 0.04 0.34 

RD 21 July 2009 20 15 0.38 0.01 0.09 

RD 25 Aug 2009 0.2 0 0.82 0.14 0.85 

RD 25 Aug 2009 0.2 1 0.53 0.20 1.21 

RD 25 Aug 2009 0.2 2 0.65 0.17 1.07 

RD 25 Aug 2009 0.2 5 0.71 0.20 1.23 

RD 25 Aug 2009 0.2 10 1.39 0.26 1.58 

RD 25 Aug 2009 2 0 0.41 0.12 0.72 

RD 25 Aug 2009 2 1 0.37 0.14 0.83 

RD 25 Aug 2009 2 2 0.31 0.15 0.93 

RD 25 Aug 2009 2 5 0.48 0.18 1.09 

RD 25 Aug 2009 2 10 0.80 0.25 1.57 

RD 25 Aug 2009 20 0 0.07 0.04 0.24 

RD 25 Aug 2009 20 1 0.08 0.05 0.31 

RD 25 Aug 2009 20 2 0.06 0.04 0.28 

RD 25 Aug 2009 20 5 0.10 0.04 0.23 

RD 25 Aug 2009 20 10 0.21 0.13 0.79 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 0 1.37 0.05 0.33 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 1 0.75 0.10 0.66 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 2 0.70 0.07 0.47 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 5 0.53 0.14 0.87 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 10 1.30 0.11 0.70 

RD 22 Sept 2009 0.2 15 0.54 0.10 0.65 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 0 0.46 0.05 0.35 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 1 0.46 0.09 0.57 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 2 0.29 0.06 0.38 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 5 0.39 0.12 0.76 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 10 0.74 0.09 0.60 

RD 22 Sept 2009 2 15 0.32 0.01 0.05 

RD 22 Sept 2009 20 0 0.07 0.01 0.09 

RD 22 Sept 2009 20 1 0.07 0.03 0.19 


RD 22 Sept 2009 20 2 0.07 0.02 0.11 

RD 22 Sept 2009 20 5 0.06 0.03 0.19 

RD 22 Sept 2009 20 10 0.20 0.05 0.34 

RD 22 Sept 2009 20 15 0.08 0.00 0.02 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 0 0.69 0.13 0.96 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 1 0.43 0.10 0.78 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 2 0.39 0.08 0.59 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 5 0.56 0.06 0.44 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 10 1.05 0.07 0.48 

RF 24 June 2009 0.2 15 0.42 0.01 0.10 

RF 24 June 2009 2 0 0.45 0.09 0.69 

RF 24 June 2009 2 1 0.28 0.08 0.57 

RF 24 June 2009 2 2 0.26 0.07 0.49 

RF 24 June 2009 2 5 0.38 0.08 0.56 

RF 24 June 2009 2 10 0.46 0.04 0.29 

RF 24 June 2009 2 15 0.32 0.01 0.05 

RF 24 June 2009 20 0 0.06 0.04 0.28 

RF 24 June 2009 20 1 0.09 0.03 0.25 

RF 24 June 2009 20 2 0.06 0.02 0.17 

RF 24 June 2009 20 5 0.09 0.04 0.31 

RF 24 June 2009 20 10 0.18 0.02 0.15 

RF 24 June 2009 20 15 0.15 0.00 0.03 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 0 1.86 0.09 0.72 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 1 1.66 0.07 0.58 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 2 1.01 0.06 0.50 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 5 1.51 0.35 2.88 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 10 1.42 0.35 2.82 

RF 22 July 2009 0.2 15 1.13 0.11 0.91 

RF 22 July 2009 2 0 0.79 0.06 0.48 

RF 22 July 2009 2 1 0.73 0.05 0.44 

RF 22 July 2009 2 2 0.69 0.04 0.34 

RF 22 July 2009 2 5 0.89 0.28 2.30 

RF 22 July 2009 2 10 0.57 0.22 1.79 

RF 22 July 2009 2 15 0.77 0.09 0.75 

RF 22 July 2009 20 0 0.27 0.02 0.15 

RF 22 July 2009 20 1 0.25 0.02 0.14 

RF 22 July 2009 20 2 0.22 0.01 0.12 

RF 22 July 2009 20 5 0.25 0.09 0.74 

RF 22 July 2009 20 10 0.30 0.07 0.60 

RF 22 July 2009 20 15 0.27 0.04 0.32 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 0 2.31 0.09 0.54 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 1 1.11 0.10 0.62 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 2 1.22 0.10 0.75 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 5 1.15 0.12 1.38 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 10 0.72 0.22 1.95 

RF 26 Aug 2009 0.2 15 0.55 0.32 0.49 

RF 26 Aug 2009 2 0 0.97 0.08 0.59 


RF 26 Aug 2009 2 1 na 0.10 0.58 

RF 26 Aug 2009 2 2 0.74 0.09 0.77 

RF 26 Aug 2009 2 5 0.49 0.12 1.04 

RF 26 Aug 2009 2 10 0.53 0.17 1.40 

RF 26 Aug 2009 2 15 1.22 0.23 0.49 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 0 0.30 0.03 0.18 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 1 0.19 0.03 0.17 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 2 0.22 0.02 0.15 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 5 0.18 0.03 0.17 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 10 0.31 0.04 0.27 

RF 26 Aug 2009 20 15 0.58 0.07 0.43 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 0 1.21 0.003 0.02 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 1 1.54 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 2 0.65 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 5 0.69 0.003 0.02 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 10 0.59 0.006 0.04 

RF 23 Sept 2009 0.2 15 1.47 0.008 0.05 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 0 0.41 0.001 0.01 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 1 0.41 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 2 0.27 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 5 0.52 0.002 0.01 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 10 0.47 0.004 0.02 

RF 23 Sept 2009 2 15 1.00 0.003 0.02 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 0 0.10 0.005 0.03 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 1 0.06 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 2 0.06 na na 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 5 0.06 0.004 0.03 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 10 0.11 0.000 0.00 

RF 23 Sept 2009 20 15 0.15 0.003 0.02 


Appendix B Integrated Chl a for Kinbasket and Revelstoke in 2009. 

Table B1 Integrated chlorophyll a for Kinbasket and Revelstoke reservoir in 2009. 

Chlorophyll a (mg Chl a/m 3 ) 

Month KB RD RF 

June 

24.7 10.1 10.3 

July 

19.3 23.5 37.1 

Aug 20.1 11.7 16.0 

Sept 28.2 14.8 14.0 

Mean 23.1 15.0 19.3 




Appendix 6 

Phytoplankton 


Darren Brandt 

TG-EcoLogic

PHYTOPLANKTON POPULATIONS IN KINBASKET 

AND REVELSTOKE RESERVOIRS, UPPER 

COLUMBIA BASIN, 

BRITISH COLUMBIA – 2009 

PREPARED FOR: 


1200 Powerhouse Rd. 

Revelstoke, BC 

V0E 2S0 

By 

TG Eco-Logic LLC. 

10905 East Montgomery, Suite 3 

Spokane Valley, WA 99206 

April 2010

This page intentionally left blank. 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................1 

1.1 Background & Study Purpose .....................................................................1 

SECTION 2.0 METHODS .....................................................................................2 

2.1 Sampling Protocol and Station Locations....................................................2 

2.2 Enumeration Protocol..................................................................................2 

SECTION 3.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................4 

3.1 Study Limitations .........................................................................................4 

3.2 Phytoplankton Abundance and Biovolume by Class – 2009 .......................4 

3.3 Vertical Distribution- Phytoplankton Abundance and Biovolume – 2009 ...15 

3.4 Phytoplankton in 2008 and 2009 ...............................................................17 

3.5 Bacteria and Pico-cyanobacteria Abundance in 2009 ...............................18 

SECTION 4.0 DISCUSSION...............................................................................24 

SECTION 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................25 

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................26 

TABLE OF TABLES 

Table 1 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and 

month for a 0-10 meter composite sample in 2009................................5 

Table 2 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and 


Table 3 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group 

and month for a 0-10 meter composite sample in 2009.........................8 

Table 4 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and 


Table 5 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and 

month for a 10-20 meter composite sample in 2009............................10 

Table 6 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and 


Table 7 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group 

and month for a 10-20 meter composite sample in 2009 .....................13 

Table 8 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and 


Table 9 Average seasonal phytoplankton abundance and biomass in Kinbasket 

Reservoir for July – October of 2008 and 2009 ...................................18 

Table 10 Average seasonal phytoplankton abundance and biomass in 

Revelstoke Reservoir for July through October of 2008 and 2009.......18 

iii

TABLE OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Kinbasket Reservoir 

between May - October 2009 derived from 0–10 meter composite 

samples .................................................................................................6 

Figure 2 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Kinbasket Reservoir 


samples .................................................................................................7 

Figure 3 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Revelstoke Reservoir 


samples .................................................................................................9 

Figure 4 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Revelstoke Reservoir 


samples .................................................................................................9 

Figure 5 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Kinbasket Reservoir 


samples ...............................................................................................11 

Figure 6 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Kinbasket Reservoir 


samples ...............................................................................................12 

Figure 7 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Revelstoke Reservoir 


samples ...............................................................................................14 

Figure 8 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Revelstoke Reservoir 


samples ...............................................................................................14 

Figure 9 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL), by depth, in Kinbasket 

Reservoir between May - October 2009 ..............................................15 

Figure 10 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L), by depth, in Kinbasket 


Figure 11 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL), by depth, in 

Revelstoke Reservoir between May - October 2009............................16 

Figure 12 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L), by depth, in Revelstoke 


Figure 13 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of heterotrophic bacteria at four 

sampling stations in Kinbasket Reservoir between the months of May 

through October 2009 ..........................................................................19 

Figure 14 Kinbasket Reservoir monthly average abundance (Cells/mL) of 

epilimnetic heterotrophic bacteria at four sampling stations in 2009....20 

Figure 15 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of heterotrophic bacteria at three 

sampling stations in Revelstoke Reservoir between the months of May 


Figure 16 Revelstoke Reservoir monthly average abundance (Cells/mL) of 

epilimnetic heterotrophic bacteria at three sampling stations in 2009..21 

iv

Figure 17 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of pico-cyanobacteria at four sampling 

stations in Kinbasket Reservoir between the months of May through 

October 2009 .......................................................................................22 

Figure 18 Average monthly abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic picocyanobacteria 

at four sampling stations in Kinbasket Reservoir ..........22 

Figure 19 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of pico-cyanobacteria at three 

sampling stations in Revelstoke Reservoir between the months of May 


Figure 20 Average monthly abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic picocyanobacteria 

at three sampling stations in Revelstoke Reservoir ......23 

v

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background & Study Purpose 

Kinbasket is the first of 3 large reservoirs on the upper reaches of the Columbia River 

Basin in Canada. It was created upon completion of the Mica Dam over 30 years ago 

and its discharge flows directly to the Upper reaches of Revelstoke Reservoir, the 

second in the series. Revelstoke Reservoir discharges to a short section of free-flowing 

Columbia River that enters the Upper Arrow Lakes Reservoir, the third in the series at 

the city of Revelstoke, BC. Both Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs are assumed to 

be oligotrophic, with low concentrations of total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), low 

phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass, and low fish production as is the case in the 

Arrow Lake Reservoirs which are immediate downstream of Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs (Pieters et al., 1998). It is hypothesized that one of the factors leading to the 

low production status of both ecosystems is ‘oligotrophication,’ or ‘nutrient depletion’, 

caused by reservoir aging; i.e. increased water retention increases rates of nutrient 

utilization within the reservoir as well as increased rates of sedimentation of organic and 

inorganic particulate carbon (C), i.e. nutrient trapping (Stockner et al. 2000, Pieters et al. 

1998, 1999). 

This study, is part of CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological 

Productivity Monitoring under BC Hydro’s Columbia River Water Use Plan. Results from 

2008 and 2009 in addition to the data from previous studies will permit further 

commentary on observed changes in phytoplankton abundance and biomass among 

depths, stations (sectors) and between years. 

1

SECTION 2.0 METHODS 

2.1 Sampling Protocol and Station Locations 

Samples were collected from discrete depths from four stations in Kinbasket Reservoir 

(Canoe, Columbia, Wood, and Forebay) and three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 

(Revelstoke-Forebay, Revelstoke-Mid and Revelstoke-Upper) monthly from May to 

October in 2009. Phytoplankton communities and abundance change with depth. Due 

to this characteristic, discrete samples were taken at depths of 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 

meters. An aliquot of each of these samples was preserved with Lugols for identification 

and enumeration. In addition to the discrete depth samples, a composite was created by 

mixing equal amounts of the 2, 5, and 10 meter samples. This was labeled as a 0-10 

meter sample. An additional sample was taken from 12 meters deep and was combined 

with equal amounts from the 15 and 20 meter samples to create a 10-20 meter 

composite sample. The composite samples were handled and analyzed identically to 

the discrete samples. 

Composite depth samples were used in the phytoplankton abundance and biovolume 

analysis. Two depth strata were assessed, the epilimnion and hypolimnion. The 

epilimnion was considered to be the samples taken from 0-10 meter while the 

hypolimnion was considered to be samples taken from 10-20 meter. 

At each station an aliquot of composited water was taken for bacterial and picocyanobacterial 

enumeration. Bacteria samples were preserved with three drops of 25% 

glutaraldehyde and placed in a small, brown polyethylene bottle. Bacterial and picocyanobacterial 

densities from composited water samples from the epilimnion (0-10 

meters) and hypolimnion (10-20 meters) were compared in the results. 

2.2 Enumeration Protocol 

2.2.1 Phytoplankton 

Phytoplankton samples were preserved in the field in acid Lugol’s iodine preservative 

and shipped to Eco-Logic Ltd. in West Vancouver, BC for enumeration. The samples 

were gently shaken for 60 seconds and poured into 25 mL settling chambers and 

allowed to settle for a minimum of 8 hrs prior to quantitative enumeration using the 

Utermohl Method (Utermohl 1958). Counts were done using a Carl Zeiss© inverted 

phase-contrast plankton microscope. Counting followed a 2-step process: first, several 

(5 to10) random fields were examined at low power (250X magnification) for large microphytoplankton 

(20-200 μ), e.g. colonial diatoms, dinoflagellates, filamentous blue-greens; 

and secondly, all cells within a random transect ranging from 10 to 15 mm were counted 

at high power (1560X magnification) that permitted a semi-quantitative enumeration of 

minute (

cells were enumerated in each sample to assure counting consistency and statistical 

accuracy (Lund et al. 1958). The compendium of Canter-Lund and Lund (1995) was 

used as a taxonomic reference. 

2.2.2 Bacteria and Pico-cyanobacteria 

Fifteen milliliters of sample water was filtered for pico-cyano bacteria density 

determination. A second aliquot of 5 mL was inoculated with a fluorescent dye (DAPI) for 

autotrophic picoplankton (heterotrophic bacteria) determination. Both of these subsamples 

were then filtered through pre-stained Irgalen black 0.2 polycarbonate 

Nuclepore filters. The bacteria become trapped on the surface of the filters. The number 

of cells in a given filter area was then used to determine bacteria densities. Pico-cyano 

bacteria densities were determined using direct count epiflourescence method described 

by MacIsaac et al. (1981) and heterotrophic bacteria was enumerated using the 

epiflourescence method described by MacIsaac and Stockner (1993). Eight to 32 

random fields on each of the filters were counted at 1000x magnification using either 

blue-band excitation filter (450-490nm) for pico-cyano bacteria or a UV wide-band 

excitation filter (397-560nm) for heterotrophic bacteria density determination. 

Heterotrophic bacteria and pico-cyanobacterial densities are reported as cells/mL. 

Densities of pico-cyanobacteria were not added to the total phytoplankton counts. The 

total density of autotrophs can be calculated by summing the phytoplankton and 

picoplankton. 

3

SECTION 3.0 RESULTS 

3.1 Study Limitations 

As a caveat, it should be noted that the number of stations sampled (four in Kinbasket, 

and three in Revelstoke), sampling frequency (monthly) provides only an approximation 

of phytoplankton population abundance, biomass, diversity, and spatiotemporal 

variability in two of the largest Upper Columbia Basin’s reservoirs. Interpretations in this 

report are made on observed patterns of only two variables, Abundance (cells/mL) of 

groups and their respective taxonomic Classes, and Biovolume (mm 3 

/L) or biomass of 

groups and Classes. Thus, this report should essentially be considered more as an 

‘overview’ of the current status of phytoplankton populations in Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke rather than a comprehensive ‘synthesis’ of phytoplankton community 

dynamics. We have attempted to provide our ‘best’ interpretation of the most notable of 

seasonal population trends without the support of additional data, e.g. zooplankton, 

primary production, physicochemical variables, etc., and therefore, interpretations within 

the discussion section of the report must, by necessity, remain preliminary and 

somewhat speculative. 

3.2 Phytoplankton Abundance and Biovolume by Class – 2009 

3.2.1 Epilimnion 

Kinbasket 

In Kinbasket Reservoir bacillariophytes were the most abundant group in the epilimnion, 

followed by chryso/cryptophytes, and cyanophytes, with chlorophytes and dinophytes 

the least numerous (Table 1 and Figure 1). In terms of biovolume, the major 

contributors throughout the season were bacillariophytes, chryso/cryptophytes, and 

cyanophytes, with dinophytes and chlorophytes only minor contributors (Figure 2). Peak 

phytoplankton abundance occurred at the Columbia Arm Station in June (3102 

cells/mL). The Columbia Arm Station also had the lowest phytoplankton density at 1308 

cells/mL during July, making the Columbia Arm Station the most variable of the sample 

locations in Kinbasket Reservoir. On a seasonal average the Forebay and Wood 

Stations had the highest mean phytoplankton abundance; however, the difference is 

very minimal. The Forebay Station had the highest seasonal mean biomass of the four 

stations (Table 2). This is due to a larger fraction of the phytopklankton community 

consisting of the flagellate groups, chrysophytes, and cryptophytes in the Forebay 

Station. Again, the differences in means between stations are unlikely to be statistically 

significant. 

4

Table 1 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and month for 

a 0-10 meter composite sample in 2009 

Seasonal 

Station Group May June July August September October Average 

Bacillariophyte 426 1419 426 1308 943 1044 928 

Chryso- & Cryptophyte 689 750 699 568 750 608 677 

Kin- Chlorophyte 101 253 101 71 142 152 137 

Forebay Dinophyte 81 61 51 51 81 30 59 

Cyanophyte 345 223 314 862 375 365 414 

Sum of all Groups 1642 2707 1591 2859 2291 2200 2218 



Canoe 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

112 

71 

81 

81 

152 

30 

162 

81 

51 

20 

122 

51 

113 

56 

Cyanophyte 365 416 172 730 1196 902 630 




Wood 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

132 

71 

142 

61 

71 

51 

274 

61 

61 

10 

61 

41 

124 

49 

Cyanophyte 395 710 395 466 862 791 603 





Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

142 

41 

345 

71 

61 

10 

101 

71 

112 

20 

51 

20 

135 

39 

Cyanophyte 375 547 101 1237 213 365 473 


5

Table 2 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and month for a 

0-10 meter composite sample in 2009 

Seasonal 


Bacillariophyte 0.073 0.168 0.052 0.166 0.163 0.128 0.125 

Chryso- & Cryptophyte 0.049 0.079 0.055 0.054 0.096 0.083 0.069 

Kin- Chlorophyte 0.017 0.039 0.009 0.013 0.008 0.011 0.016 

Forebay Dinophyte 0.049 0.038 0.034 0.034 0.058 0.025 0.040 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.005 

Sum of all Groups 0.193 0.327 0.155 0.275 0.329 0.251 0.255 



Canoe 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.016 

0.044 

0.004 

0.059 

0.013 

0.014 

0.011 

0.056 

0.002 

0.009 

0.016 

0.034 

0.010 

0.036 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.008 0.005 




Wood 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.011 

0.054 

0.007 

0.049 

0.003 

0.034 

0.066 

0.038 

0.008 

0.005 

0.012 

0.029 

0.018 

0.035 

Cyanophyte 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 





Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.007 

0.03 

0.032 

0.054 

0.008 

0.005 

0.004 

0.053 

0.012 

0.009 

0.005 

0.02 

0.011 

0.029 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.005 


Figure 1 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Kinbasket Reservoir between 

May - October 2009 derived from 0–10 meter composite samples 

Phytoplankton Abundance (Cells/mL) 

Bacillariophyte Chryso- & Cryptophyte Chlorophyte Dinophyte Cyanophyte 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Kin-Forebay Canoe Wood Columbia 

6

Figure 2 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Kinbasket Reservoir between May - 

October 2009 derived from 0–10 meter composite samples 

Phytoplankton Biovolume (mm 3 /L) 

0.30 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

Revelstoke 



The dominant taxonomic group in Revelstoke is chryso/cryptophytes rather than 

bacillariophytes. The density of the chryso/cryptophytes in Revelstoke Reservoir are not 

higher in Revelstoke than Kinbasket, but are dominant due to the lower abundance of 

bacillariophytes. Another dominant taxonomic group within Revelstoke Reservoir are 

the cyanophytes (Table 3 and Figure 3). Their abundance is similar to levels observed 

in Kinbasket, but due to the overall lower phytoplankton community density, they make 

up a larger fraction of the phytoplankton community than observed within Kinbasket 

Reservoir; however, the cyanophytes remain a small fraction of the phytoplankton 

community biovolume due to their small cell size. The community composition on a 

biovolume basis appears similar to the community observed in Kinbasket Reservoir with 

bacillariophytes making up the largest fraction of the biovolume followed by 

chryso/cryptophytes and dinophytes (Table 4 and Figure 4). 

On a density basis, the three monitoring locations within Revelstoke Reservoir have 

similar total abundance with the Forebay Station having the greatest density on a 

seasonal basis followed by the Upper Reservoir Station and the Middle Reservoir 

Station. When one looks at the data based on biovolume, there appears to be a 

gradient from higher productivity in the Forebay Station to the lowest productivity 

occurring in the Upper Reservoir Station. This is due to the fact that the taxa making up 

the community in the Upper Reservoir Station have a greater proportion of small sized 

taxa such as chrysophytes, cryptophytes, and cyanophytes compared to the Forebay 

and Middle Reservoir Stations. 

7

Table 3 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and month 

for a 0-10 meter composite sample in 2009 

Seasonal 




Forebay 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

132 

10 

193 

41 

284 

51 

142 

71 

182 

61 

132 

30 

177 

44 

Cyanophyte 335 395 2017 872 446 1328 899 




Middle 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

142 

71 

162 

61 

122 

41 

81 

112 

91 

61 

101 

30 

117 

63 

Cyanophyte 395 405 385 791 284 862 520 




Upper 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

324 

71 

193 

91 

132 

61 

51 

30 

101 

51 

51 142 

61 

Cyanophyte 365 497 416 335 710 710 505 


Table 4 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and month for a 


Seasonal 




Forebay 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.012 

0.005 

0.014 

0.029 

0.062 

0.068 

0.011 

0.054 

0.076 

0.085 

0.015 

0.025 

0.032 

0.044 

Cyanophyte 0.005 0.005 0.016 0.008 0.006 0.009 0.008 




Middle 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.018 

0.056 

0.016 

0.038 

0.011 

0.017 

0.013 

0.093 

0.019 

0.039 

0.009 

0.025 

0.014 

0.045 

Cyanophyte 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.006 0.006 




Upper 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.019 

0.044 

0.017 

0.051 

0.045 

0.026 

0.007 

0.014 

0.005 

0.034 

0.003 0.016 

0.034 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 


8

Figure 3 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Revelstoke Reservoir between 




2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Forebay Mid Upper 

Figure 4 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Revelstoke Reservoir between May 

- October 2009 derived from 0–10 meter composite samples 



0.30 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

3.2.2 Hypolimnion 

Kinbasket 


Hypolimnetic phytoplankton abundances in Kinbasket Reservoir were comparable to 

epilimnetic abundances, in terms of dominant groups. Bacillariophytes were the most 

abundant group, followed by chryso/cryptophytes, and cyanophytes. The most minor 

9

contributors to phytoplankton abundance were chlorophytes and dinophytes, 

respectively (Table 5 and Figure 5). In terms of biovolume, bacillariophytes and 

chryso/cryptophytes contributed the most. Dinophytes also contributed significantly to 

biovolume; chlorophytes and dinophytes contributed the least to biovolume (Table 6 and 

Figure 6). The Canoe Arm had the highest seasonal average phytoplankton abundance 

(2350 Cells/mL); however, Kin-Forebay had the highest seasonal average of biovolume 

(0.258 mm 3 /L). The month in which peak abundances and biovolumes occurred varied 

from station to station throughout the course of the sampling season. 

When results between the epilimnion and hypolimnion are compared, similarities are 

evident. The most abundant groups and those contributing the greatest biovolume are 

the same between the depth strata. In the hypolimnion there appears to be more 

variation between the stations than there was in the epilimnion. 

Table 5 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and month for 

a 10-20 meter composite sample in 2009 

Seasonal 




Kin- Chlorophyte 162 223 142 112 112 91 140 

Forebay Dinophyte 101 61 41 81 71 20 63 

Cyanophyte 284 395 314 355 882 405 439 




Canoe 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

193 

91 

142 

81 

122 

41 

132 

41 

172 

41 

152 

59 

Cyanophyte 274 446 1034 1318 801 774 




Wood 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

152 

81 

61 

71 

243 

30 

91 

41 

162 

41 

101 

30 

135 

49 

Cyanophyte 436 395 233 385 345 902 449 





Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

41 

30 

203 

41 

61 

30 

264 

41 

91 

20 

71 

20 

122 

30 

Cyanophyte 264 253 274 659 1379 355 530 


10

Table 6 Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and month for a 


Seasonal 




Kin- Chlorophyte 0.018 0.016 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.029 0.016 

Forebay Dinophyte 0.080 0.049 0.029 0.115 0.054 0.020 0.058 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.006 




Canoe 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.034 

0.064 

0.017 

0.059 

0.008 

0.019 

0.011 

0.030 

0.025 

0.030 

0.019 

0.041 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.006 




Wood 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.022 

0.059 

0.003 

0.044 

0.019 

0.014 

0.019 

0.029 

0.022 

0.030 

0.019 

0.024 

0.017 

0.033 

Cyanophyte 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.006 





Chlorophyte 0.002 0.015 0.003 0.148 0.043 0.006 0.036 

Dinophyte 0.014 0.029 0.014 0.030 0.020 0.020 0.021 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.009 0.004 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.006 


Figure 5 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Kinbasket Reservoir between 




2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 


11

Figure 6 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Kinbasket Reservoir between May - 

October 2009 derived from 10–20 meter composite samples 


0.300 

0.250 

0.200 

0.150 

0.100 

0.050 

0.000 

Revelstoke 



The most abundant group in the hypolimnion of Revelstoke Reservoir varied between 

station as either bacillariophyte or cyanophyte. Chryso/cryptophytes also contributed a 

substantial amount to abundance at all stations. The least abundant groups present 

were chlorophytes and dinophytes (Table 7 and Figure 7). The greatest contributors to 

biovolume at all stations were bacillariophytes followed by chryso/cryptophytes. 

Chlorophytes, dinophytes and cyanophytes contributed the least to biovloume (Table 8 

and Figure 8). Particularly high abundances of bacillariophytes and cyanophytes in the 

Forebay Station are likely responsible for that station having the highest seasonal 

average abundance and biovolume. Abundance of bacillariophytes in the Middle and 

Upper Stations were approximately half of what they were in the Forebay Station, giving 

the Middle Station the second highest abundance and biovolume, followed by the Upper 

Station. 

As with the epilimnion, a gradient in abundances appears in the hypolimnion with higher 

abundance at the Forebay Station to lower abundances occurring in the Upper Reservoir 

Station. Epilimnetic abundances and biovolumes at the Middle Reservoir and Upper 

Reservoir Stations are greater than those of the hypolimnion. The Forebay Station 

hypolimnion has a higher seasonal average abundance than the epilimnion, yet the 

seasonal average hypolimnetic biovolume is less than the epilimnetic. Larger taxa in the 

epilimnion are likely responsible for the increased biovolume. 

12

Table 7 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) by group and month 

for a 10-20 meter composite sample in 2009 

Seasonal 




Forebay 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

51 

51 

81 

41 

142 

30 

203 

41 

112 

41 

101 

41 

115 

41 

Cyanophyte 243 223 811 1703 710 760 742 




Middle 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

142 

41 

122 

41 

51 

20 

71 

51 

51 

10 

112 

10 

91 

29 

Cyanophyte 365 324 213 405 750 770 471 




Upper 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

101 

41 

162 

51 

41 

20 

122 

30 

71 

30 

81 

10 

83 

26 

Cyanophyte 294 284 213 233 294 345 276 


Table 8 Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) by group and month for a 


Seasonal 




Forebay 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.007 

0.035 

0.003 

0.029 

0.036 

0.014 

0.041 

0.019 

0.017 

0.030 

0.017 

0.029 

0.020 

0.026 

Cyanophyte 0.003 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.006 




Middle 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.018 

0.030 

0.008 

0.029 

0.007 

0.009 

0.008 

0.034 

0.002 

0.005 

0.021 

0.005 

0.011 

0.019 

Cyanophyte 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.005 




Upper 

Chlorophyte 

Dinophyte 

0.016 

0.019 

0.006 

0.032 

0.001 

0.009 

0.020 

0.025 

0.010 

0.025 

0.026 

0.005 

0.013 

0.019 

Cyanophyte 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.004 


13

Figure 7 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL) in Revelstoke Reservoir between 




2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Forebay Middle Upper 

Figure 8 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L) in Revelstoke Reservoir between May 

- October 2009 derived from 10–20 meter composite samples 



0.300 

0.250 

0.200 

0.150 

0.100 

0.050 

0.000 

Forebay Middle Upper 

14

3.3 Vertical Distribution- Phytoplankton Abundance and 

Biovolume – 2009 

Average abundance (Cells/mL) and average biovolume (mm 3 /L) of phytoplankton groups 

were calculated for individual depth strata for both Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs. 

The averages were based on every sample collected at each station within the 

respective reservoirs during the 2009 sampling season. 

Kinbasket 

In Kinbasket Reservoir, between May through October, the 5 meter depth category had 

the highest community density. Bacillariophytes were the group with the highest 

average abundance at all depths. The 2 meter depth category had the next highest 

community density. The community densities for the remaining depths decreased as 

depth increased. In general, chryso/cryptophytes were the second most abundant 

groups, followed by cyanophytes, chlorophytes, and lastly dinophytes. At 2 meters of 

depth cyanophytes appeared to be slightly more abundant than chryso/cryptophytes 

(Figure 9). 

Figure 9 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL), by depth, in Kinbasket Reservoir 

between May - October 2009 

Average Abundance (Cells/mL) 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Community 

Density 

2M 5M 10M 15M 20M 

Bacillariophyte 

Chlorophyte 

Chryso- & 

Cryptophyte 

Results for average biovolume were similar to that of the average abundance. The 5 

meter depth category had the greatest community biovolume. The 2 meter and 10 

meter categories had very similar biovolumes and were the second greatest; 15 meter 

and 20 meter had the two lowest average biovolumes, respectively. Bacillariophyte was 

the group with the highest average biovolume at all depths. Chryso/cryptophytes were 

the groups with the second highest average biovolume, followed by dinophytes, 

chlorophytes, and lastly cyanophytes (Figure 10). 

Cyanophyte 

Dinophyte 

15

Figure 10 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L), by depth, in Kinbasket Reservoir 


Average Biovolume (mm 3 /L) 

0.25 

0.2 

0.15 

0.1 

0.05 

0 

Revelstoke 

Community 

Biovolume 

2M 5M 10M 15M 20M 


Chlorophyte 

Chryso- & 

Cryptophyte 

In Revelstoke Reservoir the depth category with the highest community density and 

average abundance was 10 meters, followed by 5, 15, and 2 meters. The 20 meter 

depth had the lowest community density and average abundance. There was no one 

groups that dominated communities at all depths. Bacillariophytes, chryso/cryptophytes, 

and cyanophytes had very similar abundances to each other at each depth. 

Chlorophytes and dinophytes were the least abundant groups (Figure 11). 

Figure 11 Average phytoplankton abundance (Cells/mL), by depth, in Revelstoke 

Reservoir between May - October 2009 


2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Community 

Density 

Cyanophyte 

2M 5M 10M 15M 20M 


Chlorophyte 

Chryso- & 

Cryptophyte 

Cyanophyte 

Dinophyte 

Dinophyte 

16

The depths with the greatest average biovolume in Revelstoke Reservoir were 10 

meters, followed by 5 meters. Very similar average community biovolumes were 

observed for the 2 and 15 meter depths; and the 20 meter depth had the lowest average 

community biovolume. Bacillariophyte was the group with the highest average 

biovolume at all depths. Generally, chryso/cryptophytes, followed by dinophytes, were 

the groups with the second and third highest average biovolumes, respectively. 

Chlorophytes and cyanophytes were the groups with the lowest average biovolumes, 

respectively (Figure 12). 

Figure 12 Average phytoplankton biovolume (mm 3 /L), by depth, in Revelstoke Reservoir 


Average Biovolume (mm 3 /L) 

0.25 

0.2 

0.15 

0.1 

0.05 

0 

Community 

Biovolume 


Chlorophyte 

3.4 Phytoplankton in 2008 and 2009 

2M 5M 10M 15M 20M 

Chryso- & 

Cryptophyte 

To compare the 2008 and 2009 sampling seasons, phytoplankton cell counts and 

biovolume data from every sampling event at each station and depth were compiled. 

Since data collection on Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs did not commence until 

July, the May and June 2009 data from both Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs were 

omitted from the between year comparisons. 

Kinbasket 

Inter-annual comparison of the average total abundance and total biovolume of 

phytoplankton suggest that there was an increase in phytoplankton standing stock in 

2009. Every station sampled had an increase in average total phytoplankton abundance 

by at least 18%. Biovolume also appears to have increased at all stations, except for the 

Columbia Station in Kinbasket Reservoir where biovolume was unchanged between 

years (Table 9). 

Cyanophyte 

Dinophyte 

17

Table 9 Average seasonal phytoplankton abundance and biomass in Kinbasket Reservoir 

for July – October of 2008 and 2009 

Kinbasket Year 

Kin- 

Forebay 

Canoe Wood Columbia Reservoir 

Average 

Average Abundance 2008 1672 1284 1276 1238 1368 

(Cells/mL) 2009 1982 1930 1849 1838 1900 

Biovolume (mm 

2008 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.16 

3 /L) 

2009 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.20 

Revelstoke 

Comparison of the average total abundance of phytoplankton between 2008 and 2009 in 

Revelstoke Reservoir yielded irregular results. The Middle Reservoir Station was the 

only station that exhibited an increase in average abundance from 2008 to 2009. Both 

the Forebay and Upper Reservoir Stations exhibited lower mean abundance in 2009 

(Table 6). 

The total biovolume also varied irregularly between the 2008 and 2009 seasons. 

Although the Forebay Station experienced a decrease in average abundance in 2009, 

an increase in biovolume occurred. This can be explained by increased densities of 

larger-sized groups in 2009. The Middle and Upper Reservoir Stations biovolumes were 

consistent with the abundance results, with the Middle Reservoir Station exhibiting a 

slight increase in both abundance and biovolume between 2008 and 2009. The Upper 

Reservoir Station decreased in both abundance and biovolume (Table 10). The between 

year differences for all stations were relatively small. 

Table 10 Average seasonal phytoplankton abundance and biomass in Revelstoke 

Reservoir for July through October of 2008 and 2009 

Revelstoke Year Forebay Mid Upper Reservoir Average 

Average Abundance 2008 2604 1829 1544 1992 

(Cells/mL) 2009 2267 1973 1434 1891 

Biovolume (mm 

2008 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.15 

3 /L) 

2009 0.21 0.19 0.12 0.18 

3.5 Bacteria and Pico-cyanobacteria Abundance in 2009 

3.5.1 Bacteria. 

Kinbasket 

All stations sampled had relatively similar average abundances for epilimnetic 

heterotrophic bacteria. Of the four stations, Wood Arm had the highest average 

abundance, at over 500,000 Cells/mL. The Forebay, Canoe Arm, and Columbia Arm 

Stations had the most similar abundances, all of which were approximately 485,000 

Cells/mL (Figure 9). 

18

Hypolimnetic heterotrophic bacterial abundances between the sampling stations also 

showed little variation. The Canoe Arm and Columbia Arm Stations had the two greatest 

abundances, respectively. Canoe Arm and Columbia Arm also exhibited the greatest 

difference between epilimnetic and hypolimnetic abundances. The Wood Arm and Kin- 

Forebay stations had very similar abundances to each other, both with approximately 

500,000 Cells/mL (Figure 13). 

Figure 13 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of heterotrophic bacteria at four sampling 

stations in Kinbasket Reservoir between the months of May through October 2009 


600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 

Epilimnion Hypolimnion 


Monthly average abundance of epilimnetic heterotrophic bacteria in Kinbasket Reservoir 

showed a general increasing trend during the sampling season. Abundance increased 

consistently from June to August. A slight decrease in average abundance occurred 

early in the sampling season between the months of May and June. Between August 

and September stations Kin-Forebay and Canoe Arm experienced declines in average 

abundance, while Wood Arm remained relatively constant; Columbia Arm experienced a 

slight increase. A decline occurred at all sampling stations between September and 

October (Figure 14). 

19

Figure 14 Kinbasket Reservoir monthly average abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic 

heterotrophic bacteria at four sampling stations in 2009 


900,000 

800,000 

700,000 

600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 

Revelstoke 


May June July Aug Sept Oct 

All sample stations had very similar epilimnetic average heterotrophic bacteria 

abundances. The Middle Reservoir Station had the highest abundance, closely followed 

by Forebay. Upper Reservoir Station had the lowest abundance; however, it should be 

noted that the stations vary in abundance by fewer than 50,000 Cells/mL (Figure 11). 

Hypolimnetic heterotrophic bacterial abundances between the sampling stations were 

also very similar. Again, Middle Reservoir Station had the highest average heterotrophic 

bacterial abundance followed by the Forebay and Upper Reservoir Stations. The 

hypolimnetic average abundance of Upper Reservoir Station was nearly identical to that 

of the station’s epilimnetic abundance (Figure 15). 

Figure 15 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of heterotrophic bacteria at three sampling 

stations in Revelstoke Reservoir between the months of May through October 2009 


600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 



20

Monthly average abundance of epilimnetic heterotrophic bacteria in Revelstoke 

Reservoir showed a general increasing trend throughout the summer. All stations 

increased in average abundance between June through August or September. All 

stations also experienced a slight decrease in average abundance at the beginning of 

the season between May and June, as well as at the end of the season between 

September and October (Figure 16). 

Figure 16 Revelstoke Reservoir monthly average abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic 

heterotrophic bacteria at three sampling stations in 2009 


900,000 

800,000 

700,000 

600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 

3.5.2 Pico-cyanobacteria. 

Kinbasket 



Total seasonal average abundance of epilimnetic pico-cyanobacteria in Kinbasket 

Reservoir ranged between approximately 12,000 Cells/mL and 18,000 Cells/mL. Most 

stations had relatively similar average abundances. Wood Arm had the lowest average 

abundance of all stations (Figure 13). 

Hypolimnetic total seasonal average abundance of pico-cyanobacteria also had little 

variation, between approximately 19,000 Cells/mL and 21,000 Cells/mL. The Columbia 

sampling station had the lowest average abundance out of the four stations, which was 

very close to the abundance in Kin-Forebay (Figure 13). 

Average pico-cyanobactera abundance varied greatly between the epilimnion and 

hypolimnion. At all stations the hypolimnion had higher average abundances than the 

epilimnion. The Columbia Arm Station had the highest epilimnetic average abundance 

as well as the lowest hypolimnetic, while the Wood Arm Station had the lowest 

epilimnetic abundance and highest hypolimnetic abundance (Figure 17). 

21

Figure 17 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of pico-cyanobacteria at four sampling stations 

in Kinbasket Reservoir between the months of May through October 2009 


25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 



All sites in Kinbasket Reservoir showed a similar seasonal trend of pico-cyanobacterial 

abundance. Except for a slight decline in average abundance in June, abundance 

increased during the sampling season and peaked in August or September. A gradual 

decline in abundance followed this peak as fall progressed (Figure 18). 

Figure 18 Average monthly abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic pico-cyanobacteria at 

four sampling stations in Kinbasket Reservoir 


40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Revelstoke 



The average abundance in the epilimnion ranged from approximately 15,000 Cells/mL to 

18,000 Cells/mL across sampling stations in Revelstoke Reservoir. In the hypolimnion 

the average abundance had a greater range, between approximately 15,000 Cells/mL 

22

and 21,000 Cells/mL. The Forebay Station had the highest average abundance in both 

the hypolimnion and epilimnion, followed by the Middle Reservoir Station; the Upper 

Reservoir Station had the lowest average abundance. The Upper Reservoir Station was 

also the only station in which the epilimnetic average abundance was greater than the 

hypolimnetic (Figure 19). 

Figure 19 Average abundance (Cells/mL) of pico-cyanobacteria at three sampling stations 

in Revelstoke Reservoir between the months of May through October 2009 


25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 



Average abundance increased during the season and peaked in August or September. 

There was a slight decline in average abundance between May and June, then again in 

the fall from September to October (Figure 20). 

Figure 20 Average monthly abundance (Cells/mL) of epilimnetic pico-cyanobacteria at 

three sampling stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 


40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 



23

SECTION 4.0 DISCUSSION 

4.1 Phytoplankton 

In Kinbasket Reservoir phytoplankton was most abundant in August. Communities were 

dominated by bacillariophytes and cyanophytes. Out of all groups present, 

bacillariophytes also contributed the most biovolume. Phytoplankton abundance and 

biovolume was highest at the 5 meter depth strata. Again, at this depth bacillariophytes 

were dominant in abundance and biovolume. In general, as depth increased, 

phytoplankton abundance and biovolume decreased. When 2008 data is compared to 

2009 it appears that phytoplankton abundance and biovolume was slightly higher in 

Kinbasket in 2009. 

In Revelstoke Reservoir phytoplankton communities peaked in September. 

Communities were dominated by cyanophytes and chryso/cryptophytes. In terms of 

biovolume, bacillariophytes and chryso/cryptophytes contributed the most. 

Phytoplankton was most abundant between 5 and 10 meters of depth. Bacillariophytes 

were more abundant at 5 than at 10 meters; however, at 10 meters the biovolume of 

bacillariophytes was greater than that at 5 meters. In general, the deeper depths had 

lower phytoplankton abundance and biovolume. However, differences in abundances 

and biovolumes between the depth strata were not drastically distinct. Taking an 

additional phytoplankton sample from 25 meters could help explain how deep substantial 

phytoplankton densities like those found in 10 to 20 meters of water could be found in 

the reservoirs. A more refined determination of the vertical distribution of phytoplankton 

should allow for better characterization of the overall reservoir productivity. 

An inter-annual comparison between the 2008 and 2009 sampling seasons suggests 

that phytoplankton abundance may have decreased in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2009. 

Yet at the same time, the average biovolume of phytoplankton within Revelstoke 

Reservoir increased. This can occur when the abundance of smaller taxa decrease, 

while there is an increase in abundance of larger taxa. 

4.2 Heterotrophic Bacteria & Pico-cyanobacteria 

Trends in abundance of heterotrophic bacteria and pico-cyanobacteria appeared not 

only within each reservoir, but between the reservoirs. In Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs, both heterotrophic bacteria and pico-cyanobacteria were slightly more 

abundant in the hypolimnion than the epilimnion. This is most true for picocyanobacteria 

in Kinbasket Reservoir, where the greatest difference in abundance was 

seen between the epilimnion and hypolimnion. 

Abundances in both heterotrophic bacteria and pico-cyanobacteria increased throughout 

the course of the summer, peaked in August and September, then declined in the fall. 

Early in the sampling season, a decrease in both heterotrophic bacteria and picocyanobacteria 

abundances occurred at every sampling station in both Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke Reservoirs. Peak spring runoff, which occurred in late May and early June, 

likely flushes these reservoirs resulting in lower picoplankton densities. After the spring 

freshet the water column stabilizes and should allow for an increase in densities of 

planktonic organisms including the picoplankton. 

24

SECTION 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 

� Due to the similarity of information gathered from the composited samples and 

discrete depth sampling, we recommend that the compositing of samples for 

analysis be discontinued in 2010. This will reduce the sample analysis cost with 

no loss of data. The discrete samples can be electronically composited post 

analysis if BC Hydro desires to make comparison between this study and 

previous studies that collected composited samples. 

� We also recommend that an additional sample be taken at 25 meters. The 

phytoplankton community seen in the 20 meter samples contains a substantial 

phytoplankton community. In order to better ascertain the total phytoplankton 

productivity of the reservoirs, it would be advisable to collect an additional 

sample at greater depth. We are concerned that there could be a significant 

amount of production occurring deeper than 20 meters. An additional sample at 

25 meters would help determine the total productivity of the systems. 

25

REFERENCES 

Canter-Lund, H. and J.W.G. Lund. 1995. Freshwater Algae – their microscopic world 

explored. BioPress Ltd., Bristol, UK, 360p. 

Lund J.G., C. Kipling, and E.D. LeCren. 1958. The Inverted Microscope Method of 

Estimating Algal Numbers and the Statistical Basis of Estimations by Counting. 

Hydrobiologia. 11: 143-170. 

MacIsaac, E.R., K. S. Shortreed, and J.G. Stockner. 1981. Seasonal distribution of 

bacterioplankton numbers and activities in eight fertilized and untreated oligotrophic 

British Columbia lakes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 924. 

MacIsaac, E.R. and J.G. Stockner. 1993. Enumeration of phototrophic picoplankton by 

auto-fluorescence microscopy, p. 187-197. In: B. Sherr and E. Sherr [Eds.], The 

handbook of methods in aquatic microbial ecology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.. 

Pieters, R., L.C. Thompson, L. Vidmanic, S. Pond, J. Stockner, P. Hamblin, M. Young, 

K. Ashley, B. Lindsay, G. Lawrence, D. Sebastian, G. Scholten and D.L. Lombard. 

1998. Arrow Reservoir Limnology and Trophic Status - Year 1 (1997/98) Report. 

Fisheries Project Report No. RD 67. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Province 

of British Columbia. 

Pieters, R., L.C. Thompson, L. Vidmanic, M. Roushorne, J. Stockner, K. Hall, M. Young, 

S. Pond, M. Derham, K. Ashley, B. Lindsay, G. Lawrence, D. Sebastian, G. Scholten, F. 

McLaughlin, A. Wüest, A. Matzinger and E. Carmack. 1999. Arrow Reservoir Limnology 

and Trophic Status Report, Year 2 (1998/99). RD 72, Fisheries Branch, Ministry of 

Environment, Lands and Parks, Province of British Columbia. 

Stockner, J. G., E. Rydin, and P. Hyehstrand. 2000. Cultural oligotrophication: Causes 

and consequences for fisheries resources. Fisheries 25(5):7-14. 

Utermohl, H. 1958. Zur Vervollkommnung der Quantitativen Phytoplankton Methodik. 

Int. Verein. theor. angew. Limnologie, Mitteilung 9. 

26



Appendix 7 

Zooplankton 


Dr. Lidija Vidmanic 

Limno Lab

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs 

Zooplankton, 2009 

Dr. Lidija Vidmanic 

Limno Lab 

Vancouver, B.C. 

March 2010


1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1 

2. Methods..............................................................................................................................................1 

3. Results – Kinbasket Reservoir ...........................................................................................................1 

3.1 Species Present...........................................................................................................................1 

3.2 Density and Biomass ...................................................................................................................2 

3.3 Zooplankton Fecundity.................................................................................................................4 

4. Results – Revelstoke Reservoir ........................................................................................................4 

4.2 Species Present...........................................................................................................................4 

4.2 Density and Biomass ...................................................................................................................5 

4.3 Seasonal and Along-Lake Patterns .............................................................................................7 

4.4 Zooplankton Fecundity.................................................................................................................7 

5. Comparison to other BC lakes...........................................................................................................8 

6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................10 

7. References .......................................................................................................................................10 


Figure 1. Zooplankton density 1977-2009 at Mica Forebay in Kinbasket Reservoir............................12 

Figure 2. Seasonal average zooplankton density in Kinbasket Reservoir 2003-2009.........................13 

Figure 3. Density of cladoceran and copepod zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009....14 

Figure 4. Seasonal average % of zooplankton density composition at four stations in Kinbasket 

Reservoir in 2003-2009. .......................................................................................................................15 

Figure 5. Seasonal average zooplankton biomass in Kinbasket Reservoir 2003-2009......................16 

Figure 6. Biomass of cladoceran and copepod zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009...17 

Figure 7. Seasonal average % of zooplankton biomass composition at four stations in Kinbasket 

Reservoir in 2003-2009. .......................................................................................................................18 

Figure 8. Fecundity features of Diacyclops bicuspidatus in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009.........19 

Figure 9. Fecundity features of Daphnia spp. in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009..........................20 

Figure 10. Zooplankton density 1977- 2009 at Rev Forebay in Revelstoke Reservoir.......................21 

Figure 11. Seasonal average composition of zooplankton density in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 

2008 and 2009......................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 12. Seasonal average composition of zooplankton biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 

2008 and 2009......................................................................................................................................23 

i

Figure 13. Monthly average zooplankton density (top) and biomass (bottom) in Revelstoke Reservoir 

in 2003, 2008 and 2009........................................................................................................................24 

Figure 14. Zooplankton density at three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003, 2008 and 2009......25 

Figure 15. Zooplankton biomass at three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003, 2008 and 2009....26 

Figure 16. Fecundity features of Diacyclops bicuspidatus in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 2008 and 

2009......................................................................................................................................................27 

Figure 17. Fecundity features of Daphnia spp. in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 2008 and 2009. ....28 

Figure 18. Seasonal average total zooplankton and Daphnia density and biomass in some BC Lakes 

in 2008. .................................................................................................................................................29 

Figure 19. Percentage of Daphnia density and biomass in total zooplankton in some BC Lakes in 

2008......................................................................................................................................................30 

Figure 20. Seasonal average total zooplankton and Daphnia density and biomass in some BC Lakes 

in 2008. .................................................................................................................................................31 

Figure 21. Percentage of Daphnia density and biomass in total zooplankton in some BC Lakes in 

2008......................................................................................................................................................32 


Table 1. List of zooplankton species identified in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. .........................2 

Table 2. Seasonal average zooplankton density at four sampling stations in Kinbasket Reservoir in 

2009. Density is in units of individuals/L; biomass is in units of µg/L.....................................................3 

Table 3. Monthly average density and biomass of zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2009. 

Density is in units of individuals/L, and biomass is in units of µg/L........................................................3 

Table 4. Fecundity data for D. bicuspidatus thomasi in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. Values are 

seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between May - October 2003, 2005, 2009 May – 

December 2004 and July – October 2008..............................................................................................4 

Table 5. Fecundity data for Daphnia spp. in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. Values are seasonal 

averages, calculated for samples collected between May - October 2003, 2005, 2009, May – 

December 2004 and July – October 2008..............................................................................................4 

Table 6. List of zooplankton species identified in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003-2009. “+” indicates a 

consistently present species and “r” indicates a rarely present species. ...............................................5 

Table 7. Annual average zooplankton abundance and biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 

2008 and 2009. Data are averaged for May to October in 2003 and 2009, and July to October in 

2008........................................................................................................................................................6 

Table 8. Monthly average density and biomass of zooplankton in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2009. 

Density is in units of individuals/L, and biomass is in units of µg/L........................................................7 

ii

Table 9. Fecundity data for D. bicuspidatus thomasi in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003-2009. Values 

are seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between July and October in 2008 and May 

to October in 2003 and 2009. .................................................................................................................8 

Table 10. Fecundity data for Daphnia spp. in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003-2009. Values are seasonal 

averages, calculated for samples collected between May and October in 2008 and May to October in 

2003 and 2009........................................................................................................................................8 

Table 11. Seasonal average zooplankton density and biomass in Kinbasket and Revelstoke 

Reservoirs in 2009. Values from other lakes are shown for comparison. Values are seasonal 

averages, calculated for samples collected between May and October in Revelstoke and Kinbasket 

Reservoir, April and November in Arrow and Kootenay Lake, April and October in Alouette and June 

and October in Wahleach. Biomass is in units of µg/L...........................................................................9 

iii


This report summarises the zooplankton data collected in 2009, with comparisons to available 

data from previous years and other BC lakes as well as some historical data. The study of 

Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs macrozooplankton (length >150 µm), including their 

composition, abundance, and biomass helps to determine the current status of the reservoir. 

These results are a component of the study CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs 

Ecological Productivity conducted by BC Hydro under the Columbia Water Use Plan. 

2. Methods 

Samples were collected monthly at four stations in Kinbasket Reservoir during the highest 

production season. The Kinbasket sampling stations are located at Mica Forebay, Canoe Reach, 

Wood Arm and Columbia Reach. 

Samples were collected at three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir. The stations Rev Upper, Rev 

Middle, and Rev Forebay are located along the length of the main body in Revelstoke Reservoir. 

Samples were collected from May to October in 2009, with a vertically hauled 153 µm mesh 

Wisconsin net with a 0.2 m throat diameter. The depth of each haul was 30 m. Duplicate samples 

were taken at each site of the reservoir. 

Collected zooplankton samples were rinsed from the dolphin bucket and preserved in 70% 

ethanol. Zooplankton samples were analyzed for species density, biomass (estimated from 

empirical length-weight regressions, McCauley 1984), and fecundity. Samples were resuspended 

in tap water filtered through a 74 µm mesh and sub-sampled using a four-chambered 

Folsom-type plankton splitter. Splits were placed in gridded plastic petri dishes and stained with 

Rose Bengal to facilitate viewing with a Wild M3B dissecting microscope (at up to 400X 

magnification). For each replicate, organisms were identified to species level and counted until 

up to 200 organisms of the predominant species were recorded. If 150 organisms were counted 

by the end of a split, a new split was not started. The lengths of up to 30 organisms of each 

species were measured for use in biomass calculations, using a mouse cursor on a live television 

image of each organism. Lengths were converted to biomass (µg dry-weight) using empirical 

length-weight regression from McCauley (1984). The number of eggs carried by gravid females 

and the lengths of these individuals were recorded for use in fecundity estimations. Zooplankton 

species were identified with reference to taxonomic keys (Sandercock and Scudder 1996, 

Pennak 1989, Wilson 1959, Brooks 1959). 

3. Results – Kinbasket Reservoir 

3.1 Species Present 

Four calanoid copepod species were identified in the samples from the Kinbasket Reservoir 

(Table 1). Leptodiaptomus sicilis (Forbes) and Epischura nevadensis (Lillj.) were present in 

samples during each sampling season, while Leptodiaptomus ashlandi (Marsh) and 

Aglaodiaptomus leptopus (Forbes) were observed rarely. One cyclopoid copepod species, 

Diacyclops bicuspidatus thomasi (Forbes), was seen in samples during the study period. 

1

Table 1. List of zooplankton species identified in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Cladocera 

Bosmina longirostris + + + + + 

Chydorus sphaericus + + 

Daphnia galeata mendotae + + + + + 

Daphnia rosea + + + + + 

Daphnia schoedleri + + + + + 

Diaphanosoma brachiurum + + + 

Holopedium gibberum + + + 

Leptodora kindtii + + + + 

Macrothrix sp. + 

Scapholeberis mucronata + + + + + 

Copepoda 

Aglaodiaptomus leptopus + + 

Diacyclops bicuspidatus + + + + + 

Epischura nevadensis + + + + + 

Leptodiaptomus ashlandi + + + 

Leptodiaptomus sicilis + + + + + 

Nine species of Cladocera were present in 2009 (Table 1). Daphnia galeata mendotae (Birge), 

Daphnia schoedleri (Sars), Daphnia rosea (Sars) and Bosmina longirostris (O.F.M.) were 

common, while other species such as Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F.M.) and Holopedium 

gibberum (Zaddach), were observed sporadically. Daphnia spp. were not identified to species for 

density counts. 

The predominant copepods D. bicuspidatus thomasi and E. nevadensis, and cladocerans 

Daphnia spp., and B. longirostris were common during study years. 

3.2 Density and Biomass 

For comparison with historical data the average at Mica Forebay station in Kinbasket was used. 

Zooplankton density values in 2003-2009 are significantly higher then those reported by the 

Division of Applied Biology, BC Research in 1977, Watson 1985 and Fleming and Smith 1988 

(Fig. 1). 

The seasonal average zooplankton density observed in Kinbasket Reservoir decreased in 2009 

to 11.11 individuals/L from 16.77 individuals/L in 2008 (Fig. 2). The zooplankton density was 

numerically dominated by copepods, which averaged 78% of the 2009 community. Daphnia spp 

comprised 11%, the same as cladocerans other than Daphnia. Copepods were the most 

abundant zooplankton at all four stations. They numerically prevailed during the whole sampling 

season, with populations peaking in July (Fig. 3). The number of Cladocerans varied by season 

as well as along the reservoir. Cladocerans other than Daphnia were the most numerous in July 

at Canoe Reach and Mica Forebay (8.56 individuals/L), while at two other stations their number 

was lower (4.16 individuals/L at Columbia Reach and 2.04 individuals/L at Wood Arm). Monthly 

averaged density of Daphnia for the whole reservoir increased gradually during the sampling 

season reaching its peak in October with 2.62 individuals/L (Fig. 2). The highest density of 

Daphnia was found in September at Mica Forebay with 3.57 individuals/L. The proportion of 

Daphnia density was the highest at Mica Forebay (14%), while at other stations it varied between 

7 and 12%. (Fig. 6, Table 2) 

2

Table 2. Seasonal average zooplankton density at four sampling stations in Kinbasket 

Reservoir in 2009. Density is in units of individuals/L; biomass is in units of µg/L. 

Canoe Mica Columbia Wood 

Reach Forebay Reach Arm 

Density Copepoda 11.29 7.94 6.86 8.60 

Daphnia 1.03 1.57 1.12 1.06 

Other Cladocera 1.65 1.63 1.14 0.56 

Total 13.97 11.14 9.13 10.22 

Biomass Copepoda 18.02 14.81 14.06 16.54 

Daphnia 12.69 16.73 13.39 15.98 

Other Cladocera 2.12 2.27 1.87 0.72 

Total 32.83 33.81 29.31 33.24 

Seasonal average total zooplankton biomass in 2009 was 32.30 µg/L (Fig. 5). Copepods had the 

highest proportion of the total biomass in the whole reservoir 49%. Daphnia spp. made up 46%, 

while Cladocerans other than Daphnia comprised only 5% of the total zooplankton biomass. The 

highest total zooplankton biomass 88.76 µg/L was found at Wood Arm in September, when 

Daphnia comprised 68% of total biomass with 60.12 µg/L (Figs. 6, 7). Although Daphnia spp. was 

present in samples during the entire season, it made up a great proportion of the biomass in 

September and October, 68% and 81% respectively. Among the stations the highest Daphnia 

biomass was found at Wood Arm in September with 60.12 µg/L. Annual average biomass of 

Daphnia spp. counted 14.70 µg/L, copepods 15.86 µg/L, while Cladocera other than Daphnia 

were present with 1.74 µg/L (Fig. 7). The most stable zooplankton community was at Canoe 

Reach, where both density and biomass of all three zooplankton groups did not change much 

during the study years 2003-2009. Contrary to that, zooplankton composition, density, and 

biomass fluctuated along a great range during the study period at the other three stations (Fig. 7). 

In 2009 peak total zooplankton density occurred in July at 27.59 individuals/L while highest 

biomass was found in September at 52.82 µg/L (Table 3). Daphnia was the most numerous in 

September with 2.46 individuals/L and the highest biomass in the season with 35.84 µg/L. 

Table 3. Monthly average density and biomass of zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 

2009. Density is in units of individuals/L, and biomass is in units of µg/L. 

Density May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 

Copepoda 3.55 5.89 20.95 9.97 7.66 4.02 

Daphnia 0.05 0.05 0.81 1.18 2.46 2.62 

Other Cladocera* 0.02 0.08 5.83 0.55 0.37 0.62 

Total Zooplankton 3.62 6.03 27.59 11.69 10.49 7.27 

Biomass May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 

Copepoda 9.91 9.18 32.81 20.56 16.31 6.37 

Daphnia 1.18 0.76 7.06 12.74 35.84 30.60 

Other Cladocera** 0.05 0.16 7.78 1.04 0.67 0.78 


*Values do not include Daphnia spp. density. 

**Values do not include Daphnia spp. biomass. 

In comparison to data from previous years, total zooplankton densities decreased as a result of a 

significant decrease of numbers of copepods. Total zooplankton biomass also decreased in 2009, 

although Daphnia biomass slightly increased. Daphnia did not develop strong and numerous 

populations as in 2005, which would be mirrored in a significant biomass increase (Figs. 2, 5). 

3

3.3 Zooplankton Fecundity 

Fecundity features of two most common zooplankton species D. bicuspidatus thomasi and 

Daphnia spp. were studied during the sampling season. 

In Kinbasket Reservoir D. bicuspidatus thomasi females were gravid throughout the sampling 

period (Fig. 8). From May to October 2009 the proportion of gravid females averaged 0.17. The 

highest proportions have been found at Canoe Reach 0.47 in May. On average, gravid female 

carry 13.86 eggs. The number of eggs per water volume averaged 1.68 eggs/L, and the number 

of eggs per capita averaged 0.48 eggs/individual (Table 4). 

Table 4. Fecundity data for D. bicuspidatus thomasi in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

Values are seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between May - October 

2003, 2005, 2009 May – December 2004 and July – October 2008. 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Proportion of gravid females 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.17 

# Eggs per gravid Female 12.42 12.42 9.67 11.17 13.86 

# Eggs per Litre 1.42 0.29 0.47 2.58 1.68 

# Eggs per Capita 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.18 0.48 

In Kinbasket Reservoir gravid Daphnia spp. females were present during the entire sampling 

season at all four stations, with the highest numbers in June (Fig. 9). The proportion of gravid 

females averaged 0.19 May-October 2009 (Table 5). The seasonal average number of eggs per 

gravid female was 2.04. Across the sampling season the number of eggs per water volume 

averaged 0.18 eggs/L and the number of eggs per capita averaged 0.48 eggs/individual. 

Table 5. Fecundity data for Daphnia spp. in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. Values are 

seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between May - October 2003, 2005, 

2009, May – December 2004 and July – October 2008. 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Proportion of gravid females 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.19 

# Eggs per gravid Female 1.80 2.11 1.59 1.91 2.04 

# Eggs per Litre 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.13 0.18 

# Eggs per Capita 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.37 0.48 

4. Results – Revelstoke Reservoir 

4.2 Species Present 

Three calanoid copepod species were identified in the samples from Revelstoke Reservoir (Table 

6). Leptodiaptomus sicilis (Forbes) and Epischura nevadensis (Lillj.) were present in samples 

during the whole season while Leptodiaptomus ashlandi (Marsh) were observed rarely. One 

cyclopoid copepod species, Diacyclops bicuspidatus thomasi (Forbes), was seen in samples from 

the Revelstoke Reservoirs. 

Eight species of Cladocera were present in Revelstoke Reservoir during the study period in 2009 

(Table 6). Daphnia galeata mendotae (Birge), Daphnia pulex (Leydig), Daphnia longispina 

(O.F.M.), Bosmina longirostris (O.F.M.), Holopedium gibberum (Zaddach) and Leptodora kindti 

(Focke) were common. Other species such as Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F.M.), and 

Diaphanosoma brachiurum (Lievin) were observed sporadically. Daphnia spp. were not identified 

to species for density counts. 

4

The predominant copepod was D. bicuspidatus thomasi and among the cladocerans Daphnia 

spp. and B. longirostris were most common. 

Table 6. List of zooplankton species identified in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003-2009. “+” 

indicates a consistently present species and “r” indicates a rarely present species. 

2003 2008 2009 

Cladocera 

Acroperus harpae r 

Alona sp. r 

Biapertura affinis r r 

Bosmina longirostris + + + 

Ceriodaphnia sp. r 

Chydorus sp. r 

Chydorus sphaericus r r 

Daphnia galeata + + + 

Daphnia rosea + + + 

Daphnia pulex + + + 

Diaphanosoma brachiurum r 

Holopedium gibberum + + + 

Leptodora kindtii + + + 

Scapholeberis mucronata r r r 

Copepoda 

Diacyclops bicuspidatus + + + 

Epischura nevadensis + + + 

Leptodiaptomus ashlandi + + + 

Leptodiaptomus sicilis + + + 

4.2 Density and Biomass 

The seasonal mean zooplankton densities observed in 2003, 2008 and 2009 were much higher 

then those reported for years 1984 and 1986 by Watson 1985 and Fleming and Smith 1988 (Fig. 

10). For comparison with historical data the average at Rev Forebay in Revelstoke was used. 

The zooplankton community was primarily composed of copepods, which made up 77% of the 

zooplankton density and 33% of the zooplankton biomass during the studied period in 2009. 

Daphnia accounted for 11% of the density and 50% of the biomass during the same time period, 

while other cladocerans comprised 11% of density and only 17% of zooplankton biomass (Fig. 11 

and 12). 

The seasonal average zooplankton density in 2009 (May to October) was 6.41 individuals/L. 

Copepods were the most abundant with 4.96 individuals/L. Annual average density of Daphnia 

was 0.72 individuals/L, while density of other Cladocerans (mainly Bosmina and Holopedium) 

was 0.73 individual/L. (Table 7, Fig. 11). Total zooplankton biomass, averaged for the whole 

reservoir, was 24.54 µg/L, which was mainly made up of Daphnia which contributed 50% of the 

total zooplankton biomass with annual average biomass of 12.30 µg/L. Copepods made up 33% 

with 12.30 µg/L, while other cladocerans made up 17% with 4.22 µg/L of the total zooplankton 

biomass (Table. 7; Fig. 12). 

5

Table 7. Annual average zooplankton abundance and biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir in 

2003, 2008 and 2009. Data are averaged for May to October in 2003 and 2009, and July to 

October in 2008. 

Density 

ind/L 

2003 2008 2009 

Copepoda 5.49 7.08 4.96 

Daphnia 2.64 0.77 0.72 

other Cladocera 2.12 1.00 0.73 

Total 10.25 8.85 6.41 

Biomass 

µg/L 

2003 2008 2009 

Copepoda 10.79 17.32 8.02 

Daphnia 51.56 14.75 12.30 

other Cladocera 6.61 4.69 4.22 

Total 68.96 36.76 24.54 

The seasonal average zooplankton densities in Revelstoke Reservoir decreased over the course 

of the study period, from 8.85 individuals/L in 2008 to 6.41 individuals/L in 2009. Zooplankton 

density increased during the study season in 2009 from May to October. Densities averaged 1.19 

individuals/L at the beginning of the season in May, and then gradually increased to 10.51 

individuals/L by September (Fig. 13). Seasonal average zooplankton biomass also decreased in 

2009 in comparison to 2008. During the sampling season in 2009 zooplankton biomass increased 

from 3.77 µg/L in May to 46.37 µg/L in October (Fig. 13). The highest total zooplankton density 

was seen in October at Rev Middle station (14.03 individuals/L), while biomass was the highest at 

the Rev Upper station also in October with 62.90 µg/L (Fig. 14 and 15). 

An increase of copepod abundance was observed during the season in 2009. The number of 

Copepoda ranged between 0.27 individuals/L and 11.04 individuals/L consisting mainly of D. 

bicuspidatus thomasi. They numerically prevailed during the whole sampling season, with 

populations peaking in September-October at stations in Rev Upper and Rev Middle, while at Rev 

Forebay peaks were recorded in June and September (Fig. 14). 

The pattern of seasonal changes of density and biomass of other cladocerans was similar in 2008 

and 2009 sampling season. Numbers of Cladocerans changed during the season as well as 

along the reservoir. After a late spring peak a decrease of cladoceran density was recorded 

during the summer, followed by a slight increase in October (Fig. 14). Other cladocerans were 

composed mainly of Holopedium and Bosmina, averaging 0.38 and 0.34 individuals/L 

respectively, in the whole reservoir. At the beginning of the season, in June 2009, at station Rev 

Forebay the number of other cladocerans was the highest in the season due to a peak of 

Holopedium with 2.99 individuals/L. In terms of biomass, regarding to their small size, other 

cladocerans contributed only 17% to the total zooplankton biomass. Their biomass was less then 

7.5 µg/L at each station during the whole sampling season, except in June at Rev Forebay when 

the biomass of other cladocerans was 21.10 µg/L, and in July at Rev Middle station when the 

biomass of other cladocerans was 16.61 µg/L (Fig. 15). 

Numbers of Daphnia showed steady increase in Revelstoke Reservoir during the sampling 

season in 2009. Although Daphnia were present in samples during the entire season, they 

accounted for 1 to 32% of the zooplankton community from May to October. Its density was 

relatively low averaging 0.02 to 2.63 individual/L at all three stations from May to October (Fig. 

6

14). Daphnia biomass was also relatively low averaging 12.30 µg/L (Fig. 15). The highest 

Daphnia biomass during the study season was found at Rev Upper station with 53.64 µg/L in 

October, when Daphnia accounted for 85% of the total zooplankton biomass (Fig. 15). 

4.3 Seasonal and Along-Lake Patterns 

The seasonal development of zooplankton density and biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir follow 

the usual pattern of increasing copepods from spring toward the end of the season, and a 

cladoceran increase in the spring and early fall (Fig. 13). Copepods dominated numerically from 

May to October. Cladocerans were present in significant numbers in June and July, while 

Daphnia spp. density and biomass reached their peak in September and October. Although 

Daphnia spp. was present in samples during the whole season, it made up the majority of the 

biomass at the end of the sampling season. 

During 2009 peak total zooplankton density occurred in September with 10.51 individuals/L 

(Table 8, Fig. 13). The peak total zooplankton biomass occurred in October with 46.37 µg/L, 

when Daphnia spp. biomass reached its peak with 33.49 µg/L comprising 72% of the total 

zooplankton biomass. 

Along the length of Revelstoke Reservoir zooplankton densities as well as biomass tended to be 

higher in the southern part of the basin in June, while in July and October both zooplankton 

density and biomass was higher in the mid and the upper part of the reservoir (Fig. 14 and 15). 

Table 8. Monthly average density and biomass of zooplankton in Revelstoke Reservoir in 

2009. Density is in units of individuals/L, and biomass is in units of µg/L. 

Density May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 

Copepoda 0.81 4.01 2.85 6.58 8.50 6.98 

Daphnia 0.02 0.09 0.16 0.73 1.61 1.73 

Other Cladocera* 0.36 1.56 1.02 0.12 0.40 0.91 


Biomass May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 

Copepoda 2.32 8.75 5.24 9.32 12.52 9.98 

Daphnia 0.31 1.22 2.91 10.04 25.86 33.49 

Other Cladocera** 1.14 10.26 8.35 0.36 2.32 2.90 


*Values do not include Daphnia spp. density. 

**Values do not include Daphnia spp. biomass. 

4.4 Zooplankton Fecundity 

Fecundity features of two most common zooplankton species D. bicuspidatus thomasi and 

Daphnia spp. were studied during the sampling season. 

D. bicuspidatus thomasi females were gravid throughout the sampling period in 2009. Gravid 

females in Revelstoke Reservoir comprise 0-62% of the female population in 2009 (Fig. 16). 

From May to October the proportion of gravid females averaged 0.15. The highest proportions 

have been found at the Rev Upper station 0.62. On average, gravid female carry up to about 

15.17 eggs (Table 9). Across the sampling season the number of eggs per water volume 

averaged 1.06 eggs/L. The number of eggs per capita averaged 0.89 eggs/individual. 

7

Table 9. Fecundity data for D. bicuspidatus thomasi in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

Values are seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between July and October 

in 2008 and May to October in 2003 and 2009. 

2003 2008 2009 

Proportion of gravid females 0.19 0.18 0.15 

# Eggs per gravid Female 15.64 11.18 15.17 

# Eggs per Litre 3.18 1.54 1.06 

# Eggs per Capita 0.88 0.54 0.89 

Daphnia spp. gravid females were observed in Revelstoke Reservoir throughout the sampling 

season. The proportion of females that were gravid was variable across the season and along the 

reservoir. At the Rev Upper station and at the Rev Forebay it tended to be higher in early 

summer, while at Rev Middle station a higher proportion of gravid females was in September (Fig. 

17). The proportion of gravid females averaged 0.13 in 2009 (Table 10). The seasonal average 

number of eggs per gravid female was 2.00. Across the sampling season the number of eggs per 

water volume averaged 0.15 eggs/L, and the number of eggs per capita averaged 0.28 

eggs/individual over the study period in 2009. 

Table 10. Fecundity data for Daphnia spp. in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003-2009. Values are 

seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between May and October in 2008 

and May to October in 2003 and 2009. 

2003 2008 2009 

Proportion of gravid females 0.11 0.20 0.13 

# Eggs per gravid Female 2.67 2.66 2.00 

# Eggs per Litre 0.32 0.16 1.15 

# Eggs per Capita 0.35 0.46 0.28 

5. Comparison to other BC lakes 

We compared zooplankton data of Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs with the zooplankton 

from few other BC Lakes and Reservoirs. It is important to emphasise that all four reservoirs: 

Arrow, Kootenay, Alouette, and Wahleach are fertilised during the growing season (spring to fall), 

while Kinbasket and Revelstoke are not. Also, an important difference of Arrow and Kootenay 

Reservoirs is that they have dense mysid populations, which plays an important role in the food 

chain in those reservoirs. Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs do not contain Mysis. 

Kinbasket Reservoir has a moderate zooplankton density in comparison to several other 

oligotrophic BC lakes and reservoirs. From May to October in 2009, zooplankton density in 

Kinbasket Reservoir averaged 11.12 individuals/L. Zooplankton density in the Upper Arrow has 

similar value with 12.93 individuals/L, while in Lower Arrow zooplankton density was twice than 

that in Kinbasket Reservoir, and in Kootenay Lake three times more than that (Table 11, Fig. 18). 

The case is similar with the biomass. Seasonal average zooplankton biomass in Kinbasket 

Reservoir is at a similar level as in Upper Arrow Lake and more than twice lower than in Lower 

Arrow, or the North and South Arms of Kootenay Lake. Both Arrow and Kootenay Lakes are 

considered to be at the more productive end of oligotrophy since nutrient addition programs 

resulted in zooplankton community increases (Schindler et al. 2007a, 2007b). Although Kootenay 

Lake Daphnia density and biomass are much higher than in Kinbasket Reservoir, the percentage 

of Daphnia in total zooplankton density and biomass are numerically at a lower level. In the North 

and South Arm of Kootenay Lake Daphnia comprised 6% and 8% of density and 34% and 42% of 

8

iomass, while in Kinbasket reservoir Daphnia comprised 11% and 45% of the total zooplankton 

density and biomass respectively (Table 11, Fig.19). 

Table 11. Seasonal average zooplankton density and biomass in Kinbasket and 

Revelstoke Reservoirs in 2009. Values from other lakes are shown for comparison. Values 

are seasonal averages, calculated for samples collected between May and October in 

Revelstoke and Kinbasket Reservoir, April and November in Arrow and Kootenay Lake, 

April and October in Alouette and June and October in Wahleach. Biomass is in units of 

µg/L. 

Density 

(ind/L) 

Biomass 

µg/L 

Reservoir Total Daphnia spp. Daphnia 

% 

Fertilised Mysids 

Revelstoke 6.41 0.72 11 

Kinbasket 11.12 1.20 11 

Upper Arrow 12.93 1.05 8 + + 

Lower Arrow 23.18 2.08 9 + 

Kootenay North 37.15 2.12 6 + + 

Kootenay South 28.94 2.28 8 + + 

Alouette 25.03 2.51 10 + 

Wahleach 9.67 4.95 51 + 

Revelstoke 24.54 12.30 50 

Kinbasket 32.30 14.70 46 

Upper Arrow 38.63 19.02 49 + + 

Lower Arrow 79.11 46.58 59 + 

Kootenay North 84.76 28.54 34 + + 

Kootenay South 78.84 32.89 42 + + 

Alouette 142.89 64.30 45 + 

Wahleach 104.40 72.80 70 + 

Revelstoke Reservoir has a moderate zooplankton density in comparison to several other 

oligotrophic BC lakes and reservoirs (Fig. 20). May-October zooplankton density in Revelstoke 

Reservoir averaged 6.41 individuals/L. This is two times lower than in Kinbasket or the Upper 

Arrow Lake with average densities of 11.12 individuals/L and 12.93 individuals/L respectively, and 

almost four times less than in the Lower Arrow or Alouette Lake with 23.18 individuals/L and 

25.03 individuals/L respectively. In both the North and South Arm of Kootenay Lake total 

zooplankton density was more than five folds higher than in Revelstoke Reservoir with 37.15 

individuals/L and 28.94 individuals/L (Table 11, Fig. 20). In 2009 among the studied lakes and 

reservoirs total zooplankton density was the lowest in Revelstoke Reservoir, however the 

percentage of total zooplankton density accounted for by Daphnia in the Revelstoke Reservoir 

was the highest among those lakes (11%) except in Wahleach Reservoir where Daphnia made 

up 51% of the total zooplankton density (Fig. 21). There is a similar pattern with the biomass. In 

2009 Daphnia biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir was the lowest among the studied lakes, but at 

the same time Daphnia biomass in Revelstoke Reservoir comprised 50% of the total zooplankton 

biomass, which was higher than in the other lakes except in Wahleach Reservoir and Lower 

Arrow where it comprised 70% and 59% respectively (Table 11, Fig. 21). 

9

6. Conclusions 

Kinbasket Reservoir is oligotrophic with a moderate zooplankton density in comparison to several 

other oligotrophic BC lakes and reservoirs. The zooplankton community is diverse and has a 

relatively stable cladoceran population with a moderate proportion of Daphnia spp., considered as 

a favourable food for kokanee. Density and biomass of Daphnia spp. increased slightly in 2009 in 

comparison to the previous year. Zooplankton composition is more or less uniform and overall 

total zooplankton density and biomass, as well as that of copepods, cladocerans, and Daphnia do 

not differ much from station to station. 

In comparison to historical data it is notable that zooplankton abundance in Kinbasket Reservoir 

has increased over the time period. These changes have likely been due to combination of 

climatic changes, predation, nutrients availability, grazeable algae and shifting from riverine 

(before impoundment) toward the lake habitat. 

Revelstoke Reservoir is also oligotrophic with a moderate zooplankton density in comparison to 

several other oligotrophic BC lakes and reservoirs. The zooplankton community is diverse and 

has a relatively stable cladoceran population. Density and biomass of Daphnia spp. did not 

change much during the 2009 season. 

In comparison to historical data it is notable that zooplankton abundance in Revelstoke Reservoir 

has increased over the time period in comparison to data from 1984 and 1986. On the other 

hand, a decrease of total zooplankton and Daphnia density and biomass was noticed in the 

period from 2003 to 2009. These changes have likely been due to combination of climatic 

changes, predation, nutrients availability, grazeable algae and especially of shifting from riverine 

(before impoundment) toward lake habitat. 

7. References 

Brooks, J.L. 1959. Cladocera. pp. 586-656. In Edmondson, W.T. (Ed.) Fresh-Water Biology, 2nd 

Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Division of Applied Biology, BC Research, 1977. Limnology of Arrow, McNaughton, Upper 

Campbell and Williston Lakes. BC Hydro, Project No. 1-05-807. 

Fleming, J.O. and H.A. Smith, 1988. Revelstoke Reservoir Aquatic Monitoring Program, 1986 

Progress Report. BC Hydro, Report No. ER 88-03. 

McCauley, E. 1984. The estimation of the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in samples. In: 

A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. 

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. 3rd 

Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 628 p. 

Sandercock, G.A. and Scudder, G.G.E. 1996. Key to the Species of Freshwater Calanoid 

Copepods of British Columbia. Department of Zoology, UBC Vancouver, BC. 

Schindler, E.U., H. Andrusak, K.I. Ashley, G.F. Andrusak, L. Vidmanic, D. Sebastian, G. Scholten, 

P. Woodruff, J. Stockner, F. Pick, L.M. Ley and P.B. Hamilton. 2007a. Kootenay Lake 

Fertilization Experiment, Year 14 (North Arm) and Year 2 (South Arm) (2005) Report. 

Fisheries Project Report No. RD 122, Ministry of Environment, Province of British 

Columbia. 

10

Schindler, E.U., L. Vidmanic, D. Sebastian, H. Andrusak, G. Scholten, P. Woodruff, J. Stockner, 

K.I. Ashley and G.F. Andrusak. 2007b. Arrow Lakes Reservoir Fertilization Experiment, 

Year 6 and 7 (2004 and 2005) Report. Fisheries Project Report No. RD 121, Ministry of 

Environment, Province of British Columbia. 

Watson, T.A. 1985. Revelstoke Project, Water Quality Studies 1978-1984. BC Hydro, Report No. 

ESS-108. 

Wilson, M.S. 1959. Free-living copepoda: Calanoida. pp. 738-794. In Edmondson, W.T. (Ed.) 

Fresh-Water Biology, 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

11

density (#/L) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1972 

Mica Dam 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

Kinbasket Reservoir (Mica Forebay) 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

Figure 1. Zooplankton density 1977-2009 at Mica Forebay in Kinbasket Reservoir. 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1990 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

12

density (ind/L) 

density % 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

other Cladocera 

Daphnia 

Copepoda 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Copepoda Daphnia other Cladocera 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Figure 2. Seasonal average zooplankton density in Kinbasket Reservoir 2003-2009. 

13

density (#/L) 

density (#/L) 

density (#/L) 

density (#/L) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Canoe Reach 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Mica Forebay 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 

Colombia Reach 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Wood Arm 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 


Daphnia 

Copepoda 

Figure 3. Density of cladoceran and copepod zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003- 

2009. 

Oct-05 

May-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

14

composition % 

composition % 

composition % 

composition % 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Canoe Reach 

Copepoda Daphnia Other Cladocera 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Mica Forebay 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 


2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Wood Arm 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Figure 4. Seasonal average % of zooplankton density composition at four stations in 

Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

15

iomass (ug/L) 

biomass % 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 


2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Figure 5. Seasonal average zooplankton biomass in Kinbasket Reservoir 2003-2009. 

16

iomass (�g/L) 

biomass (�g/L) 



160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Canoe Reach 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Mica Forebay 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 


Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Wood Arm 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 


Daphnia 

Copepoda 

Figure 6. Biomass of cladoceran and copepod zooplankton in Kinbasket Reservoir in 

2003-2009. 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

17

composition % 

composition % 

composition % 

composition % 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Canoe Reach 

Mica Forebay 

Copepoda Daphnia Other Cladocera 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 


Wood Arm 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

2003 2004 2005 2008 2009 

Figure 7. Seasonal average % of zooplankton biomass composition at four stations in 

Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

18

# of eggs per gravid female 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Canoe Reach 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Mica Forebay 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 


Aug-03 

Wood Arm 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

# of eggs/grav.fem. 

prop.grav.fem. 

Figure 8. Fecundity features of Diacyclops bicuspidatus in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003- 

2009. 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

0 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

proportion of gavid female 




19





5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Canoe Reach 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Wood Arm 

Aug-03 

Oct-03 

Mica Forebay 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-04 

May-04 


May-04 

May-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Jul-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

Sep-04 

# of eggs/grav.fem. 


Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Jun-05 

Figure 9. Fecundity features of Daphnia spp. in Kinbasket Reservoir in 2003-2009. 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Aug-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

Oct-05 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 





20

density (#/L) 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1982 

Revelstoke Dam 

1983 

1984 

Revelstoke Reservoir (Dam Forebay) 

1985 

1986 

Figure 10. Zooplankton density 1977- 2009 at Rev Forebay in Revelstoke Reservoir. 

1990 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

21


density % 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 


2003 2008 2009 

2003 2008 2009 

Figure 11. Seasonal average composition of zooplankton density in Revelstoke Reservoir 

in 2003, 2008 and 2009. 

22

iomass (ug/L) 

biomass % 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 


2003 2008 2009 

2003 2008 2009 

Figure 12. Seasonal average composition of zooplankton biomass in Revelstoke 

Reservoir in 2003, 2008 and 2009. 

23

iomass (�g/L) 

density (#/L) 

12 

10 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 

May-03 

May-03 

Jun-03 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Daphnia Other Cladocera Copepoda 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-08 

May-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Figure 13. Monthly average zooplankton density (top) and biomass (bottom) in Revelstoke 

Reservoir in 2003, 2008 and 2009. 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

24

density (#/L) 

density (#/L) 

density (#/L) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

May-03 

May-03 

May-03 

Rev Upper 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Rev Middle 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Rev Forebay 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

May-09 


Daphnia 

Copepoda 

Figure 14. Zooplankton density at three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003, 2008 and 

2009. 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

25

iomass (�/L) 

biomass (�/L) 

biomass (�/L) 

150 

100 

50 

0 

150 

100 

50 

0 

150 

100 

50 

0 

May-03 

May-03 

May-03 

Rev Upper 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Middle 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Forbay 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

May-09 


Daphnia 

Copepoda 

Figure 15. Zooplankton biomass at three stations in Revelstoke Reservoir 2003, 2008 and 

2009. 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

26




40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

May-03 

Rev Upper 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Middle 

May-03 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Forebay 

May-03 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

#of eggs/grav.fem. 


Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Aug-08 

Figure 16. Fecundity features of Diacyclops bicuspidatus in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 

2008 and 2009. 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

May-09 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

proportio of gravid female 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 


27




8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Rev Upper 

May-03 

May-03 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Middle 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Rev Forebay 

May-03 

Jun-03 

Jul-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Aug-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Sep-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

Oct-03 

May-08 

May-08 

May-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jun-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Jul-08 

Aug-08 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

May-09 

#of eggs/grav.fem. 


Figure 17. Fecundity features of Daphnia spp. in Revelstoke Reservoir in 2003, 2008 and 

2009. 

Aug-08 

Sep-08 

Oct-08 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

Oct-09 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 




28


biomass (ug/L) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Upper Arrow 

Lower Arrow 

total Daphnia 

Kootenay North 

Kootenay South 

Kinbasket 

total Daphnia 

Figure 18. Seasonal average total zooplankton and Daphnia density and biomass in some 

BC Lakes in 2008. 

29

% - Daphnia density 

% - Daphnia biomass 

15 

10 

5 

0 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Upper Arrow 

Upper Arrow 

Lower Arrow 

Lower Arrow 

Kootenay 

North 


Kootenay 

South 

Kootenay 

South 

Figure 19. Percentage of Daphnia density and biomass in total zooplankton in some BC 

Lakes in 2008. 

Kinbasket 

Kinbasket 

30


biomass (ug/L) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

total Daphnia 

total Daphnia 

Upper Arrow 

Lower Arrow 



Alouette 

Wahleach 

Coquitlam 

Kinbasket 

Revelstoke 

Figure 20. Seasonal average total zooplankton and Daphnia density and biomass in some 

BC Lakes in 2008. 

31

% - Daphnia density 

% - Daphnia biomass 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Upper Arrow 

Upper Arrow 

Lower Arrow 

Lower Arrow 





Figure 21. Percentage of Daphnia density and biomass in total zooplankton in some BC 

Lakes in 2008. 

Alouette 

Alouette 

Wahleach 

Wahleach 

Coquitlam 

Coquitlam 

Kinbasket 

Kinbasket 

Revelstoke 

Revelstoke 

32

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan - BC Hydro

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?