WRIP: Conservation Ontario Report

Transcription

WRIP
Water Resources Information Project
Conservation Ontario Report
Prepared by: Ian Wilcox, Conservation Ontario, March 2001
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Conservation Ontario’s participation in
the Water Resources Information Project has
included a great deal of consultation among
conservation authorities. Support from all
conservation authority staff and managers has
been critical to the success of this phase of the
project. Several individuals contributed directly
to development of the project; their help and
guidance is appreciated:
Bonnie Fox
Jim Anderson
Richard Hunter
Conservation Ontario
The Conservation Authority Technical
Support Team assisted the author in organizing
workshops, developing final recommendations
and reviewing products. Their perspective and
assistance helped ensure the CAs produced a
credible product. Team members include:
Hazel Breton
Matthew Child
Chris Jones
Lyman Jones
Lorrie Minshall
Doug Ryan
Sean Watt
CVC
ERCA
NVCA
SNC
GRCA
ORCA
CRCA
Approximately 75 conservation authority
staff and managers provided insights and
opinions regarding our water information needs.
Their interest and participation is genuinely
appreciated.
Similarly, Conservation Ontario through the
Policy and Issues Management Committee and
Full Council have provided direction and support
for the CAs involvement in WRIP. Support from
this senior level has ensured CAs developed
recommendations based on broad support
from individual CAs and that there has been
commitment to move forward with improving
our own water information.
2
Finally, thanks is offered to Scott Christilaw,
WRIP Project Manager with the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources. Scott has been a strong
supporter of CA involvement in the WRIP and has
provided the resources and latitude to allow CAs
to design and develop a process that meets our
needs. Scott’s leadership and direction has
ensured CA participation in WRIP has been
productive and that CA recommendations
will move toward action.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ............................................... 2
Table of Contents................................................. 3
List of Tables ........................................................ 4
Executive Summary.............................................. 5
Introduction ......................................................... 6
1.0 Conservation Authority
Water Business Functions ............................. 8
1.1 Literature Review................................. 8
1.2 Interview Results ............................... 15
1.3 Summary of Conservation
Authority Water Business
Functions ........................................... 18
2.0 Water Information Needs............................ 21
2.1 Methods ............................................ 21
2.2 Water Information Priorities
and Action Plan ................................ 24
2.3 Conservation Authority Actions ......... 32
3.0 Observations and Next Steps ...................... 35
List of Conservation Ontario
WRIP Products ................................................... 37
Acronym Reference List ..................................... 38
Bibliography....................................................... 39
Appendix A:
WRIP Workshop Attendance List:
October 2000 ..................................................... 41
Appendix B:
Listing of Water Information Needs
Developed During Regional Conservation
Authority Workshops ......................................... 43
3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1:
Water Business Function Suggestions
from Interviews.................................................. 16
Table 1.2:
Conservation Authority
Water Business Functions .................................. 19
Table 2.1:
Conservation Authority WRIP Workshops,
October 2000 ..................................................... 22
Table 2.2:
Regional Workshop Priorities
Summary Table................................................... 23
Table 2.3:
Water Information Priorities............................... 24
Table 2.4:
Recommended Water Quality Actions................ 27
Table 2.5:
Recommended Groundwater Actions................. 29
Table 2.6:
Recommended Climate Actions ......................... 30
Table 2.7:
Recommended Digital Spatial
Information Actions ........................................... 31
Table 2.8:
Specific Water Information
Recommendations ............................................. 33
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Ontario and the group of
Ontario’s cluster ministries with mandates
related to water initiated the Water Resources
Information Project (WRIP) in January 2000.
Conservation Ontario was invited to partner with
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
in the development of the WRIP to ensure that the
project addressed conservation authority (CA)
water business functions. Direction, funding and
approval for WRIP was provided through the
Ontario Water Directors. Direction and approval
for the CA component of the WRIP was provided
through Conservation Ontario Policy and Issues
Management Committee and full council.
Conservation Ontario’s efforts were to
focus on:
1. identifying conservation authority water
business functions,
2. identifying priority water information
needs to support the water business
functions and,
3. developing recommendations to improve
the state of water information for
decision making.
A series of 11 interviews with conservation
authority general managers and 8 regional
workshops with senior technical staff was used
to gather the required information. Through this
broad consultation more than 75 conservation
authority staff assisted in developing the
recommendations included in this report.
Six conservation authority water business
functions were identified:
1. Protect Life and Property from Flood
and Erosion
2. Encourage Sustainable Water Supply
3. Inventory and Monitor Water Quality
4. Assess and Report on Water Conditions
5. Protect/Enhance Water Quality
6. Provide Recreation/Quality of
Life Opportunities
5
A large list of water information needs was
developed but four were selected as priority:
1. Enhance Water Quality Monitoring
2. Develop Groundwater Monitoring
Networks
3. Enhance Climate Information
4. Improve the Quality of Digital Spatial
Information
Detailed actions are included in the report
for each of these priorities. Costs associated with
these recommendations were also estimated.
These priorities reflect a gap in
Ontario’s fundamental baseline information
gathering. There is a lack of adequate
baseline water monitoring in Ontario to
support effective decision making. Baseline
monitoring solutions are required that are
long term and at a scale appropriate for
watershed management. These solutions
must also be implemented as part of a
broader provincial integrated water strategy
supported through stable funding.
INTRODUCTION
The Water Resources Information Project
(WRIP) has been designed to review the current
state of water information in Ontario and to
develop a strategy to ensure information is
readily available to support effective water
management. The WRIP is a cooperative project
with participation from the Ontario Ministries of
Natural Resources; Environment; Municipal Affairs
and Housing; Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs;
and from Conservation Ontario.
Conservation Ontario (CO) has participated in
the WRIP because it continues to be committed to
the development of a provincial sustainable water
management strategy. CO believes that the Water
Resource Information Project partnership can be
an important component of such a strategy.
The following report is specific to
Conservation Ontario. Its purpose is to:
1. identify conservation authority (CA)
water business functions,
2. identify priority water information needs
to support water business functions and,
3. present recommendations to improve
the state of water information for
decision making.
Similar reports are being developed for
each of the other agencies involved in WRIP.
These individual reports will be combined and
developed into a Provincial Water Resources
Information Strategy.
Section 1.0 of this report identifies
conservation authority water business functions.
Section 2.0 reviews problems and gaps in current
water information and suggests an action plan to
correct them. Section 3.0 presents some personal
observations from this project and next steps, and
summarizes the products developed as part of
Conservation Ontario’s involvement in the WRIP.
6
Section 1.0
Water Business Functions
7
1.0
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WATER BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
Identification of a clear set of water
business functions for conservation authorities is
challenging. Business functions have evolved over
the 50 year history of conservation authorities
and, by their very nature, authorities have been
designed to offer unique programs specific to the
needs of their local watershed. While this is one of
the greatest strengths of conservation authorities
it has resulted in a broad and varying spectrum
of programs making identification of one set of
business functions difficult.
Two methods were used to identify
conservation authority water business functions.
A literature review of government reports,
publications, unpublished reports and books
related to the history and evolution of
conservation authorities was completed.
Interviews with selected conservation authority
general managers and senior staff were also
conducted to gather opinions on the range of
current water business functions.
8
1.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Conservation Authorities Act was
first introduced in 1946. Since that time 38
conservation authorities have been formed,
33 in Southern Ontario and five in Northern
Ontario. Ninety percent of Ontario’s population
is included within the bounds of conservation
authorities.
The 50+ year history of conservation
authorities has included an evolution in water
management. The original motivation for the
creation of authorities was based on a number of
serious resource management issues. Recurring
floods had caused property damage and loss of
life on the Thames, the Grand, the Humber and in
other areas of the province while water supply
shortages were an issue in the Catfish Creek
watershed. There were concerns for poor water
quality from low summer flows, land degradation
and erosion problems, and implications for the
economy if the resource base of the province
was eroded further. Consideration was also
given to the need to employ soldiers returning
from Europe at the conclusion of World War II
(Richardson (1974), Mitchell and Shrubsole
(1992)).
With these resource management issues as
the principle motivators, a series of organizations,
conferences and studies explored opportunities
for enhanced water management in Ontario
during the 1930’s and 40’s (Federation of
Ontario Naturalists, the Ontario Conservation
and Reforestation Association, the Farmer’s
Advocate, the Guelph Conference (1941), the
London Conference (1944), the Ganaraska
Survey (1942), the Grand River Conservation
Commission). There was unanimous opinion at
that time that an holistic approach of broad land
and water conservation must be implemented.
As a result of these efforts, the Conservation
Authorities Act was passed in 1946 with the
following purpose specified:
“The objects of an authority are to establish
and undertake, in the area over which it has
jurisdiction, a program designed to further
the conservation, restoration, development
and management of natural resources other
than gas, oil, coal and minerals.”
(Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990)
The Act was based on three explicit principles:
1) the watershed would be the management unit,
2) local initiative would be required to form an
authority, and 3) financing would be based on
a provincial/municipal partnership. Three
other principles were implicit: 1) a healthy
environment is required for a healthy economy,
2) a comprehensive approach to resource
management is necessary (land and water), and
3) cooperation and coordination with and among
provincial agencies and municipalities is necessary
(Mitchell and Shrubsole (1992)). The Act has
been revised several times since its inception to
include broader responsibilities such as the 1954
amendment to add recreation as a function of
the authorities.
Responsibilities described in the Conservation
Authorities Act include flood control, hydro
electric power generation, irrigation, tourism
and water based recreation, wildlife conservation,
domestic and industrial water supply, low flow
augmentation, drainage, bank stabilization,
erosion control, channelization, the regulation
of filling or removal of material within the
floodplain, and research.
9
Flood Control
Flood control was one of the principle
motivators for many municipalities to form
conservation authorities. As such, flood control
became the principle water business function
for most authorities immediately following their
formation. As examples, the Shand Dam on
the Grand River was constructed in 1942 by
the Grand River Conservation Commission,
predecessor to the Grand River Conservation
Authority. The Ingersoll Channel and Fanshawe
Dam were constructed by the Upper Thames
River Conservation Authority following its
inception in 1947.
Hurricane Hazel lead to widespread and
severe flooding in 1954. In response to the
flooding, conservation authorities accelerated
their efforts to control high flows through dam
and reservoir construction. As an example, the
Upper Thames, Ausable and Metro Toronto Region
Conservation Authorities developed proposals for
construction of a total of 21 new dams (not all
were constructed).
Floodplain acquisition evolved as a new
and essential business function for conservation
authorities following Hurricane Hazel as homes
damaged by flooding were purchased by the
province and titles were eventually transferred
to the authorities. Flood forecasting and warning
also evolved following Hurricane Hazel.
A hydrometeorologist was hired and an
enhanced system of stream gauges and
weather monitoring was introduced
(Richardson (1974) pp. 35-37).
Regulations have been introduced to the
Conservation Authorities Act as another tool for
flood control. In 1956 the Act was changed to
enable regulations to restrict and regulate the use
of water from streams and other natural sources.
Regulations to prohibit or regulate the dumping
of fill in any area below the high water mark of
any creek, river or stream were introduced at
the same time. In 1970 the Act was changed to
enable regulations regarding alterations to
waterways to be developed. These regulations,
combined with plan review functions, have
become the key preventative tools for flood
control.
A farm pond program was introduced in the
1950’s to enhance domestic water supply. Spring
runoff would be captured by on-farm ponds for
use in watering livestock. This was considered a
remedy for drought, it would augment summer
low flows (on-line ponds), it would enhance
establishment of sod cover for soil conservation
and provide recreation opportunities for the pond
owner. It has been estimated that more than
5,000 ponds were created under this program.
In 1964 the program was transferred to the
Department of Agriculture changing this particular
business function for conservation authorities
(Richardson (1974) pp. 65-67).
10
Recreation
While recreation was never specified in
the 1946 Conservation Authorities Act, most
Conservation Reports recommended recreation
as a need and suggested reservoirs and public
lands owned by conservation authorities be used
for this purpose. Fanshawe Dam was the first
large project which incorporated recreation into
its design. Rather than include summer low flow
augmentation with annual reservoir draw down
as part of its function, Fanshawe would provide a
permanent lake as a focal point for recreation. The
Humber and Ausable also pursued opportunities
to incorporate recreation as a component of their
flood control schemes.
The Conservation Authorities Act was
amended in 1954 to give an authority power to
“... acquire lands, with the approval of
the minister and to use lands acquired in
connection with a scheme, for recreational
purposes, and to erect, or permit to be
erected, buildings, booths and facilities
for such purposes and to make charges for
admission thereto and use thereof.”
(Richardson (1974) p.82)
The management and development of lands
and water owned by conservation authorities now
included recreation as one of its principle business
functions.
Public Education and
Information
Public education has been a key focus of
authorities since their inception. Conservation
farm tours, displays, publications and competitions
have been used to promote conservation
practices in each watershed. In addition,
several conservation authorities developed
outdoor education programs and centres for
use by school classes. Camp Sylvan (ABCA) and
the Kortright Centre (TRCA) are two such
examples.
Public education is regarded as a primary
business function of conservation authorities,
including information related to water. Outdoor
education has had less support and was
specifically recommended for exclusion from
government funding (MNR (1987)). Despite this
controversy, outdoor education continues to
be offered very successfully and is valued by
stakeholders in a number of conservation
authorities.
11
Water Quality
Water quality emerged as a key management
interest for conservation authorities during
completion of the Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group Studies (PLUARG)
in the late 1970’s. Point source problems such
as municipal sewage treatment were being
addressed primarily by the newly created Ministry
of the Environment but the issue of non-point
pollution control was quickly embraced by many
conservation authorities. Pollution from soil
erosion, livestock access to streams, milkhouse
waste water discharges, faulty septic systems
and poor manure management practices were
targeted for remediation. Conservation authorities
have assisted in the delivery of a host of
provincial and federal grant programs designed
to correct these pollution sources (Ontario Soil
Conservation and Environmental Protection
Assistance Program (OSCEPAP), Soil and Water
Environmental Enhancement Program (SWEEP),
Land Stewardship, Land Stewardship II, Clean Up
Rural Beaches (CURB) and, most recently, Healthy
Futures).
Several of these programs also included
research components to test new technologies
(e.g., constructed wetlands for treatment of
manure runoff, experimental septic systems) as
well as comprehensive surveys of each authority’s
watershed to quantify pollution sources.
Water quality programs have also included
ambient monitoring. Conservation authorities
have assisted the Ministry of the Environment
in sample collection for the provincial Water
Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) and
many authorities operate their own water
monitoring programs (e.g., Essex Region,
Nottawasaga Valley, St. Clair, Ausable Bayfield
and the Upper Thames River Conservation
Authorities). Conservation authorities are
currently entering partnership agreements with
MOE for the re-establishment of a Provincial
Groundwater Monitoring Network.
Program Review
•
During 1987 the Ministry of Natural
Resources completed a review of the conservation
authorities program and made several
recommendations regarding key business
functions (MNR (1987)). There was recognition
that the mandate of authorities is extremely
broad as it is defined in the Act. The range of
existing authority programs was described in
the report and included flood control, erosion
control, outdoor recreation, Niagara Escarpment
protection, wetland protection, urban and rural
drainage, water quality monitoring and
enhancement, low flow augmentation, water
supply reservoirs, forest management, fish
and wildlife management, heritage conservation,
conservation education and public information
activities. The report recognized and criticized
CAs for their inconsistent and varying levels of
involvement in these programs across the
province. (There was no recognition that the
Conservation Authorities Act was designed to
promote unique programs according to local need
and that this is a strength of the CA program).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
responsibility for all aspects of flood control
responsibility for erosion control in riverine
and lake shore locations, but not on
agricultural lands or municipal drains
limited responsibility for non-point pollution
control (i.e., storm water management and
rural drain reviews but not agricultural lands)
responsibility for flow augmentation
no responsibility for water taking permits
limited responsibility for urban and rural
drainage (surveys and studies)
responsible for wetlands that act as
significant natural flood storage and
flow augmentation areas
responsible for collection of all Provincial
Water Quality Monitoring Network
(PWQMN) samples
limited responsibility for water supply
through reservoirs
responsible for regionally significant parks but
not provincially or locally significant parks
limited responsibility for forest management
(private, municipal and CA owned lands)
limited responsibility for fish and wildlife
management (CA owned lands)
limited responsibility for conservation
education (full cost recovery)
responsible for providing information to
the public on specific natural resource
management programs
In addition, the most significant
recommendation from the report was the
amalgamation of conservation authorities in
Southern Ontario to reduce numbers from
33 to 18.
No specific actions resulted from these
recommendations until 1991 when the Minister
of Natural Resources stipulated that:
•
The report provided recommendations
regarding what was felt should be, and should
not be, key conservation authority business
functions. Recommendations related to water
business functions included:
12
•
•
outdoor education programs would not be
viewed as a core mandate program
conservation information for the public was
part of the core mandate
small scale erosion and sediment control
projects on private land would be a core
mandate with cost sharing with the
landowner (Mitchell and Shrubsole (1992)).
13
Federal and International
Programs
Conservation Ontario Position
Statements
Several conservation authorities have, as
a result of their location on Great Lakes or the
US border, actively participated in national and
international water management programs.
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(1987), Areas of Concern (AOCs) have been
identified due to various ‘beneficial use
impairments’ and have been targeted for
remedial action. Currently the Niagara Peninsula
CA, Toronto and Region CA and Quinte
Conservation/Lower Trent CA coordinate the
Remedial Action Plan efforts for their respective
AOCs. Funding and reporting for this work is
coordinated through Environment Canada and the
US Environmental Protection Agency.
Conservation Ontario recently participated
in provincial consultations on a Strategic Water
Policy Framework for Ontario (Conservation
Ontario (2000)). The position put forward by
Conservation Ontario included the following:
Efforts were also initiated during the 1990’s
to develop Lake Wide Management Plans (LaMPs)
for each of the Great lakes. This action is a
requirement of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (1987). The nine conservation
authorities with drainage areas as part of the
Lake Erie watershed united under the banner
of FOCALerie (Federation of Conservation
Authorities in Lake Erie) to become active
participants in the Lake Erie LaMP process
and have representation on three different
committees.
In both these instances there is a recognition
that water management at the watershed level is
key to improved water management at the federal
and international level i.e., Great Lakes health.
This work has evolved as a legitimate business
function for those authorities that border the
Great Lakes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the watershed is the best unit for water
management
water management requires an
understanding of watershed characteristics
and the water cycle
management of surface and groundwater
together is priority
water management requires identification,
protection and enhancement of significant
natural features including headwaters,
groundwater recharge and discharge areas,
wetlands and forest areas
monitoring is required to measure change
and to adapt policies and programs
accordingly
watershed planning across municipal
boundaries is essential
climate change must now be a serious
consideration in water management
Conservation authority roles should include:
•
•
•
•
•
operation of the monitoring network
analysis and interpretation of data on a
watershed basis
public reporting of monitoring results and
public education programs
a forum to work with municipalities to
deal with water (flood through drought)
on a watershed basis
working with municipalities to implement
watershed strategies as part of municipal
planning documents
It was also emphasized that sustainable
water management requires a stable
funding source.
Water Budget Proposals
Recent water management issues have
extended across the full spectrum from drought
to flood as extremes in climate are appearing
more pronounced. Water budgets have gained
popularity as a necessary tool for all aspects
of water management and watershed planning.
A recent proposal by the Grand River
Conservation Authority and Credit Valley
Conservation proposes a water budget modelling
process as a decision support system (DSS) to
support conservation authority water business
functions (GRCA, CVC (1999)). Included in the
proposal is a list of required data sets necessary
to support the DSS. These water information needs
effectively encompass many of the water business
functions described above. The list includes:
-
climate data
land cover
climate projections
catchments
base mapping
stream flow
soils
well logs
surficial geology
population census
topography
population projections
agricultural census
municipal water use
permit to take water records
water chemistry
waste water flow
waste water chemistry
A portion of the funding necessary to
support this proposal was provided by the
provincial government via MNR and MOE.
14
1.2
INTERVIEW RESULTS
A series of 10 interviews with senior
conservation authority managers was completed
between late July and early September 2000.
The focus of the interviews was to gather opinions
regarding conservation authority water business
functions.
Individuals interviewed include:
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority:
Russ Powell
Credit Valley Conservation:
Vicki Baron
Essex Region Conservation Authority:
Ken Schmidt, Stan Taylor, Matthew Child
Grand River Conservation Authority:
Lorrie Minshall, Dwight Boyd
Lakehead Region Conservation Authority:
Mervi Henttonen, Stephan Suke
Lower Trent Conservation:
Jim Kelleher
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority:
Wayne Wilson, Chris Jones,
Barbara Mackenzie-Wynia
Quinte Conservation:
Terry Murphy, Andrew Schmidt, Stephen Monet
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority:
Don Pearson
Conservation Ontario:
Jim Anderson
These individuals were selected to ensure
a representative sampling of conservation
authorities based on size, resources and
geographic region.
15
Questions posed during interviews were
directed towards clearly defining the water
business functions of all conservation authorities
as well as unique business functions of individual
authorities.
Individual interview results were surprisingly
consistent. While there was general agreement in
what responsibilities conservation authorities have
around water, difficulties arose in defining what
a ‘business function’ was specifically. What some
respondents described as a business function was
defined by others as a tool to achieve a business
function rather than being a function itself. Table
1.1 presents a list of possible business functions
developed from the interviews.
TABLE 1.1:
WATER BUSINESS FUNCTION SUGGESTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS
water budget
watershed protection
functions will and should differ with each CA
habitat
comprehensive water management on
a watershed basis
biodiversity
consider water in a holistic sense
protection of life and property
groundwater and surface water,
quantity and quality
quality of life
watershed based, big picture,
watershed management
manage to meet human and ecological needs
coordinate and implement activities of
the province and federal government
water budget, contaminant budget
goals need to be specified
clients are municipalities, landowners,
other agencies
integration of information
implement federal programs and policies
goal of healthy watersheds
recreation, access to water
water quality improvement
business is knowledge of the watershed
sustainable water supply
watershed management strategies
reduce flood and erosion damages
resource allocation
monitoring and reporting
education and public information
data collection
implementation of provincial programs/policies
technical resource for clients
watershed stewardship
long range planning
conservation land management
extension
environmental advisory services
flood forecasting and warning
Note: This list is presented in random order
16
In addition to questions regarding current
water business functions, interviewees were
asked their opinion on other water business
functions they felt conservation authorities
should be doing. In most cases, responses
described programs rather than business functions
but there were strong opinions expressed that
authorities be involved in these activities.
Suggested programs included:
-
groundwater monitoring
water budget modelling
watershed health monitoring and reporting
program integration and consistency among
conservation authorities
one window services for programs and
extension services
big picture, long term comprehensive
understanding of the watershed
research and scientific evidence to support
decisions and activities
information management
water allocation (PTTW)
stronger and more comprehensive
enforcement
17
1.3
SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY WATER BUSINESS
FUNCTIONS
The literature review and interviews provided
a range of possible water business functions.
There was some difficulty in understanding how
the information could be layered together as it
was obvious there are varying levels of business
functions. For example, ‘comprehensive water
management at a watershed scale’ was often
cited as CA business. “Flood forecasting and
warning” was also suggested but it is obvious
the two functions are part of a larger hierarchy.
Table 1.2 presents a hierarchy of CA water
business functions. The hierarchy provides a
context within which these business functions
operate as well as sufficient detail to move
toward describing water information needs.
This table was used as the basis for evaluating
the state of current water information and for
developing a list of water information priorities
in Sections 2.0 and 3.0.
The context for these business functions is
set through a philosophy of comprehensive
water management on a watershed basis,
a goal of managing water resources to meet
human needs and to maintain ecological integrity
and a focus of understanding surface and
groundwater resources at a watershed scale.
Clients are also specified as municipalities,
landowners, community groups, the federal
and provincial governments and other agencies.
18
Six specific water business functions are
presented under the categories of Water Quantity,
Water Quality and Public Access. Associated
programs are then described as examples of
tools and programs currently used to implement
the six business functions. These programs are a
necessary component of the hierarchy as it is at
this level that specific water information needs
are required.
These conservation authority water
business functions were reviewed and endorsed
by Conservation Ontario at its full council
meeting December 11, 2000.
19
TABLE 1.2:
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY WATER BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
Philosophy: Comprehensive Water Management on a Watershed Basis
Goal: Manage water resources to meet human needs and to maintain ecological integrity
Focus: Understanding of surface and groundwater resources at a watershed scale
Clients: Municipalities, landowners, community groups, federal and provincial governments, and other agencies
Water Quantity
Business Function
Examples of Associated Programs
1. Protect Life and Property
from Flood and Erosion
- build and maintain infrastructure (dams, dykes)
- wetland and floodplain protection/acquisition
- flood forecasting and warning
- fill line and alteration to waterways regulations
- plan review
- technical assistance (hydrology, erosion, etc.)
- education/public information
- other
2. Encourage a Sustainable
Water Supply
- watershed planning
- low flow augmentation
- drought response
- wetland protection/acquisition
- PGMN sample collection
- other
Water Quality
Business Function
3. Inventory and Monitor
Water Quality
- PWQMN sample collection
- PGMN sample collection
- supplemental chemical and bacterial sampling
- biological monitoring (fisheries and benthos)
- support for spills investigation
- watershed planning
- other
4. Assess and Report on
Water Conditions
- state of the watershed reporting
- other
5. Protect/Enhance
Water Quality
- promote stewardship through education/public information
- technical assistance
- implement provincial and federal programs (e.g., CURB, Healthy Futures, RAPs)
- tree planting (buffers, soil conservation)
- plan review
- storm water management
- research (constructed wetlands, lake aeration)
- other
Public Access
Business Function
6. Provide Recreation/Quality
of Life Opportunities
- campgrounds
- day use facilities
- land acquisition to provide public access to water
- other
Section 2.0
Water Information Needs
20
2.0
WATER
INFORMATION NEEDS
Six conservation authority water business
functions were identified in Section 1.3. Water
information is required for each of these business
functions to support effective decision making.
Rather than attempt to inventory the full range
of water information required to support these
business functions, attention was focussed
specifically on identifying problems with
current water information. Problems could
include a total absence of information, outdated
or poor quality data, inappropriate data formats
or inaccessible information. The WRIP has worked
to identify priority problems and to suggest
actions for their resolution.
2.1
METHODS
Regional Workshops
A series of seven regional conservation
authority workshops was hosted during
October 2000. Senior technical staff from each
conservation authority were invited. Workshop
goals and objectives were as follows:
Goal:
To suggest improvements for
water information in Ontario
Objectives: 1. Identify problems with current
water information
2. Identify water information needs
3. Identify priorities for improved
water information
Participants were asked to consider the
following aspects of water information during
the workshop:
-
water monitoring network design
data collection
data storage
data analysis
data distribution
integration with other data sets
21
22
Workshops were hosted at the following locations:
TABLE 2.1:
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY WRIP WORKSHOPS, OCTOBER 2000
Location
Date
Conservation Authorities Invited
1. Saugeen Valley
Tues. Oct. 3
Maitland, Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Nottawasaga
2. Credit Valley
Conservation
Thurs. Oct. 5
Hamilton, Halton, Credit, Toronto,
North Bay-Mattawa, Lakehead Region,
Sault Ste. Marie, Mattagami Region, Nickel District
3. St. Clair Region
Fri. Oct. 6
Ausable, St. Clair, Essex, Lower Thames, Kettle, Catfish
4. Otonabee Region
Tues. Oct. 10
Lake Simcoe, Kawartha, Otonabee, Ganaraska,
Crowe Valley, Central Lake Ontario
5. Cataraqui Region
Wed. Oct. 11
Lower Trent, Moira, Napanee, Prince Edward,
Cataraqui
6. South Nation
Conservation
Thurs. Oct. 12
Mississippi, Rideau, South Nation, Raisin
7. Long Point Region
Tues. Oct. 17
Grand, Upper Thames, Long Point, Niagara
In total, 65 senior technical staff
participated in the workshops and helped
develop the conservation authority water
information priorities. The full attendance
list is provided in Appendix A.
KAYAK Consulting was hired to design
a group process and facilitate each of the
seven regional workshops. Large group
brainstorming was used to develop a list
of water information ‘headaches’. On average,
25 ‘headaches’ were identified during each
workshop. Examples of headaches include
an inadequate number of precipitation
monitoring stations, errors and gaps in
digital Ontario Base Mapping and a total
absence of groundwater quality or quantity
information.
The ‘headaches’ were then prioritized
through voting and a short list of 4-5 used as
the focus for development of action plans. Small
break out groups were used to develop possible
actions to correct the specific water information
problems. These actions were then presented to
the larger group and further ideas added.
Outcomes from each workshop included a
list of ~25 water information ‘headaches’, a short
list of 4-5 priority items and an action plan for
those priority items. Outcomes from the seven
regional workshops were then combined and
synthesized. In total, 159 water information
‘headaches’ were offered (Appendix B). From this
large list, a short list of 19 priority ‘headaches’
was developed. This short list is presented
in Table 2.2.
23
TABLE 2.2:
REGIONAL WORKSHOP PRIORITIES SUMMARY TABLE
Category
‘Headache’
Number of Votes
for Priority Ranking
Water Information Specific ‘Headaches’
Long Term Baseline
Information
1. Lack of Baseline Water Information
2
Water Quantity Information
2. Water Budgets Needed
1
3. Improve Network Design for Multi-Purpose
3
4. Need Data Standards
1
Water Quality Information
5. Lack of Information
5
Groundwater Information
6. Lack of Information
4
Climate Information
7. Lack of Information, Required to Pay
2
Terrestrial Information
8. Link Natural Heritage Inventories to Water
1
Mapping/Air Photo
9. Flood Plain Mapping - Dated and Gaps
2
10. OBM Digital Base - Dated, Errors and Gaps
1
11. Need Standardized GIS among CAs
1
12. Need Standards to Monitor/
Assess Stream Health
1
13. Need Database Integration within CAs
1
14. Too Costly, Complicated and Restrictive
3
15. Need Central Water Quality/Quantity Data
1
16. Need for CA Information Management System
1
17. Need to Package Information for Decision Makers
1
Agency Roles and
Responsibilities
18. Clarify Roles and Responsibilities
2
Research Needs
19. Quantify Benefits of BMPs
1
Over-Arching ‘Headaches’
Need for Standards
Data Sharing
Communicating Information
Summary Workshop
A final workshop was hosted December 4,
2000 in Peterborough with the WRIP Conservation
Authority Technical Support Team (WRIP CATS
Team). KAYAK Consulting was hired to develop
a process and facilitate the day long session.
The purpose of this final workshop was to review
in detail the list of water information priorities
developed during the regional workshops.
The workshop started with a quick review
of the 19 priorities as identified during the seven
regional workshops (Table 2.2). Linkages and
nesting among the 19 priorities were also noted.
Criteria was then applied to converge to four
priorities. Criteria included:
•
•
•
•
•
positive impact for all conservation authorities
positive impact for provincial ministries
practical to implement within one
calendar year
practical to implement within current system
require new funds
Consensus was reached among the Technical
Team members regarding the priorities. These
priorities are detailed in Section 2.2.
24
2.2
CONSERVATION ONTARIO WATER
INFORMATION PRIORITIES AND
ACTION PLAN
Four priorities were developed during the
summary workshop. These priorities are presented
in Table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3:
WATER INFORMATION PRIORITIES
1. Enhance Water Quality
Monitoring
2. Develop Groundwater
Monitoring Networks
3. Enhance Climate
Monitoring
4. Improve Quality of
Digital Spatial Information
Four priorities were identified: 1) enhance
water quality monitoring, 2) develop groundwater
monitoring networks, 3) enhance climate
monitoring and, 4) improve the quality of digital
spatial information. Conceptually the four
priorities reflect a gap in fundamental
baseline information gathering. There is not
an adequate baseline water monitoring
program in Ontario to support effective
decision making. Baseline monitoring
solutions are required that are long term
and at a scale appropriate for watershed
management.
Linkages and nesting with other priorities
were recognized as well. Improvements to
baseline monitoring will allow re-design of
networks to be multi-purpose. Enhancements
can include the specification of monitoring
standards and ultimately these changes will
support increased data sharing and the need
for a central data warehouse as the baseline
information will be more valuable than it is
currently. Analytical tools (e.g., hydrological
models, water budgets, water quality models,
climate change models, etc.) and state-ofthe-watershed reporting will also be more
useful and accurate as a result of a more
comprehensive base of data. Improvements
to baseline monitoring are therefore viewed
as a means to an end (more effective resource
management decision making) rather than
an end in themselves.
Recommendations and action plans
developed during the final workshop are
presented in the following section. These
actions are not listed in any order of priority.
Budget values are very course and reflect the
best estimates of staff as developed during
the workshops. Further research is necessary
to more accurately estimate program costs.
25
1. Enhance Water
Quality Monitoring:
Recommendations
and Action Plan
26
Details:
• monitoring networks require more stations
and a broader range of measures
Recommendations:
1) Develop an hierarchical three-tiered
assessment approach:
1. biological assessments for screening,
2. chemical assessments for impaired
sites and,
3. toxicological assessments in areas
of special need (e.g., AOCs)
2) Develop and implement a biological
assessment network:
- agree on protocols, include database
development, training, information
sharing and automation
3) Develop and implement a chemical
assessment network:
- build on existing PWQMN, enhance to
meet watershed management needs,
coordinate design with the PGMN,
PWQMN and flood forecasting and
warning network
4) Develop information reporting for clients:
- include consistent surveillance reporting
(state of the resource) and performance
evaluation (are tools and programs
achieving environmental goals)
Key Benefits:
Addresses water quality business functions:
• inventory and monitor water quality
• assess and report on water conditions
• protect and enhance water quality
27
TABLE 2.4:
RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY ACTIONS
Action
Details
1) Develop
Three-tiered
Assessment Approach
Lead Organization
(See Acronym
Reference List)
Completion
Estimated
Cost
(New Funds)
- biological assessment for
MAIDS, MOE, MNR
screening, chemical assessment
for impaired sites, toxics
assessment areas of special need
2004
$500,000
2a) Biological
Assessment:
Design Reference
Community Database
- designed by existing
MAIDS group
- data collection and
development by CAs
MAIDS, CAs
2002
$1,000,000
2b) Biological
Assessment: Develop
Standardized Sampling
Methodology
- must reach consensus on
standardized approach
MAIDS start this
2c) Biological
Assessment: Develop
Staff Training and
Certification Program
- required to lend credibility
to results and to ensure
data quality when sharing
information
MAIDS
2d) Biological
Assessment:
Field Sampling
and Identification
- develop core monitoring
MNR, MOE, CAs
network
- coordinate design with
provincial groundwater
monitoring network,
provincial water quality
monitoring network and flood
forecasting and warning network
- conduct annual sampling
2003
$750,000/yr
2e) Biological
Assessment:
Data Sharing and
Maintenance
- Internet accessible data
- annual database
maintenance
MAIDS
2003
$100,000/yr
3) Chemical
Assessment:
Double Number of
PWQMN Stations
- pre 1996 PWQMN to be
maintained and benefit
from long term records and
meet needs for STP/CofA
monitoring
- new station location
discretionary for CAs to use
for subwatershed monitoring,
as further assessment of
impaired sites
MOE, CAs
2002
2.5Xs PWQMN
Costs
4a) Reporting:
Develop Consistent
Watershed Report
Format
- require consistent measures
and reporting among CAs
so clients may compare results
among watersheds
CAs
2002
$100,000
4b) Reporting:
Develop 5 Year
Watershed Reports
- to be developed every
5 years
CAs
2005
$2,500,000/5 yrs
?
?
2002
?
2. Develop Groundwater
Monitoring Networks:
Recommendations
and Action Plan
28
Details:
• need baseline groundwater quality and
quantity monitoring data
• need aquifer and recharge area delineation
Recommendations:
1) Clean up existing data sets:
- geology maps, well logs, OBM digital
base mapping, PTTW records, MOH
water quality data
2) Fill information gaps:
- well logs, observation well records
3) Remove barriers to data sharing:
- specifically cost barriers to obtaining
MOE well log data
4) Integrate data sets:
- fisheries data, wetland information,
groundwater discharge points, etc.
5) Develop monitoring and reporting methods:
- careful design of new provincial
groundwater monitoring network with
consideration for integration with existing
surface water and climate monitoring
networks
Key Benefits:
• water budgets are possible to assist in
ensuring a sustainable water supply
• allows for assessment and reporting on
the state of water to clients
• guides land use planning for sustainable
water management
29
TABLE 2.5:
RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER ACTIONS
Action
Details
Lead Organization
(See Acronym
Reference List)
Completion
Estimated
Cost
(New Funds)
1) Clean Up
Geology Maps
- make digital and clean
- common legend
- update based on MNDM
current knowledge
- use well log information
MNDM
2001/2002
$400,000
2) Update MOE
Well Log Database
- convert from paper to
electronic database
- GPS all well locations
- add MOH private well quality
information
MOE
2001/2002
$5/well
3a) PTTW:
Update Information
- convert from paper to
electronic database
- GPS locations, note season of
taking, actual volume and rate
of taking, note reason for taking
MOE
2001/2002
$400,000
3b) PTTW:
Develop Allocation
Framework
- develop water budget
(supply and demand) on a
watershed basis
CAs
2003-2010
$12,000,000
3c) PTTW:
Develop Compliance
Monitoring
- develop regulatory process for
reporting of actual taking
- actual takings become part of
PTTW database
MOE
2002/2003
?
4) Update Soils Data
- update based on standardized
field surveys
- convert to digital information
OMAFRA
Agriculture Canada
2002/2003
?
5) Update Land Cover
and Use Data
- use LANDSAT data
- train satellite data for
hydrologic modelling
MNR
2002/2003
6) Multi-Purpose
Rationalization of
Hydrometric Stations
- re-design network for multi-use
- coordinate design among
provincial groundwater
monitoring network, provincial
water quality monitoring
network and flood forecasting
and warning network
Stream Flow Committee 2002/2003
MNR
EC
MOE
CAs
OPG
Local Utilities
?
7) Remove Barriers to
Data Sharing
- remove cost and red tape
- include wetland and fisheries
data as part of water resource
management
MNR
OMAFRA
CAs
EC
MNDM
?
2001/2003
$250,000
3. Enhance Climate Monitoring:
Recommendations
and Action Plan
30
Details:
• gaps exist, databases are incomplete and
costly to access and the existing network
is inadequate
Recommendations:
1) Clean up existing data sets:
- precipitation, air and water temperature,
potential evaporation, wind speed and
direction, solar radiation
2) Review climate station adequacy:
- must meet watershed planning, regional
and national information needs
3) Address barriers to information sharing:
- cost, need to coordinate climate and
hydrometric networks
Key Benefits:
• protect life and property from flood and erosion
• ensure sustainable water supply
TABLE 2.6:
RECOMMENDED CLIMATE ACTIONS
Action
Details
Lead Organization
(See Acronym
Reference List)
Completion
1) Complete and
Clean 1961-1999
Climate Data Sets
- focus on precipitation, air and
water temperature, potential
evaporation, wind speed and
direction, solar radiation
- require daily to hourly estimates
- fill data gaps with estimates
- standardize database formats
for hydrologic studies and
modelling
EC
or as second choice
Province acquire and
partner with CAs
2001/2002
?
2) Rationalize
Climate Station
Network
- fill gaps in coverage
- rationalize with provincial
groundwater monitoring
network and PWQMN
EC
MOE
MNR
CAs
Municipalities
2002/2003
?
EC
Universities
CAS
2001-2005
LIO
Cluster Ministries
EC
CAs
2001
3) Applied Research
to Improve
Evapo-transpiration
Estimates
4) Remove Cost
Barriers to Sharing
Climate Data
- this must happen first
so data sets can be completed
Estimated
Cost
(New Funds)
$150,000
?
4. Digital Spatial Information:
Recommendations
and Action Plan
31
Details:
• OBM information is dated
• gaps in 1:2,000 coverage
• quality of digital information must be improved
(edge matching, missing contours)
• DEM/DTM required for every watershed
Recommendations:
1) Scheduled, periodic updates of the digital
OBM base mapping is required:
- based on aerial photography and
orthoimagery, satellite imagery, LIDAR, etc.
2) partnerships for ground-truthing remotely
sensed data is required
Key Benefits:
• will allow interpretation of water information
for all six CA water business functions
TABLE 2.7:
RECOMMENDED DIGITAL SPATIAL INFORMATION ACTIONS
Action
Details
Lead Organization
(See Acronym
Reference List)
Completion
Estimated
Cost
(New Funds)
1) Update of OBM
Mapping
- includes comprehensive update
of 1:10,000 and 1:2,000
- gaps in 1:2,000 urban coverage
must be addressed
- needs to be a provincial
product to ensure
standardization
MNR
2003
$15,000,000
2) Ground Truthing
Remotely Sensed Data
- CAs can provide good truthing
- includes input of new
information (drainage,
community types, etc.)
CAs
ongoing
$2,000,000
The Need for a Provincial
Water Strategy
The priorities presented here suggest
improvements to the foundation of water
information gathering in Ontario. While these
improvements are seen as essential, there is
recognition that any water monitoring program
must be used for decision making according to
a provincial water strategy. There is currently no
such strategy in Ontario. Conservation Ontario
believes strongly that the province must
provide leadership and guidance for the
management of Ontario’s water and that
this leadership be articulated through a
new provincial water strategy. This, in turn,
would provide clear direction and purpose for
water monitoring and analysis activities.
2.3
ACTIONS
Some of the water information problems
explored during this project were recognized as
specific to conservation authorities. These were
separated and flagged as being the business of
CAs and inappropriate for inclusion in the broader
Provincial Water Resources Information Strategy.
These CA specific water information needs include
(random order):
•
•
•
•
In its recent Walkerton Inquiry submission
“The Importance of Watershed Management in
Protecting Ontario’s Drinking Water Supplies”
(March 2001) Conservation Ontario recommends
that a provincial integrated water policy be
developed that:
•
•
•
•
Supports an adequate monitoring program
to measure change and adapt policies and
programs accordingly (i.e., adaptive
environmental management). Monitoring
networks need to be improved, maintained
and accessible for effective local watershed
management. A commitment must be made
to the long-term support of state-of-the-art
monitoring networks.
Supports the improvement, maintenance and
accessibility of resource data for effective
local watershed management. Modelling
complex water resource systems requires
extensive databases such as streamflow,
precipitation, water quality and land use.
The province should establish database
standards, facilitate data sharing mechanisms
and, where necessary, provide support for
database development and maintenance.
32
•
•
Standardize CA geographic information
systems
Need CA database integration
Need CA information management system
Need to package information for
decision makers
Clarify conservation authority roles
and responsibilities
Provide water information to municipalities
in a geographically seamless fashion
Develop consistent and seamless state-ofthe-watershed reporting for clients be capable of providing a regional picture
Ensure conservation authorities convert
data to information for ourselves and
our clients
These suggestions provide an opportunity
for conservation authorities to improve the state
of their own water information. The following
actions in Table 2.8 are recommended based
upon feedback from each of the eight
conservation authority workshops.
33
TABLE 2.8:
SPECIFIC WATER INFORMATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Category
Need
Links and Recommendations
Digital
Information
- standardize GIS
- links with existing and past projects: UTRCA/GRCA,
Ortho-imagery Project, DFO Drain Classification
Mapping Project, FOCALerie GIS Project
- use these projects as guides to methods for greater
standardization
- technical coordination is required from CO through a
GIS Technical Committee
Information
Management
- integrate CA databases
- develop CA information
management system
- links with water monitoring network inventory, Ontario
Geospatial Data Exchange membership discussion
and the DFO Drain Classification Project database
- use these projects as pilots to test broader scale
database integration
- technical coordination is required from CO through a
Technical Committee
Reporting
- convert data to
information for clients
- package information for
decision makers
- provide seamless water
information for municipalities
- standardize state-of-thewatershed reporting
- CO Technical Committee required to evaluate existing
state-of-the-watershed reports (e.g., UTRCA, TRCA, NVCA)
and make recommendations for enhanced reporting
Roles
- clarify and publicize
roles and responsibilities
regarding water
- initiated through CO Mandate/Goals pamphlet
- promote water business function model developed
through WRIP
Further effort is required to identify
opportunities and barriers to enhancement,
ranking of the various needs and action plans.
While the WRIP consultation process identified
that the first priority for CAs and the province
is the enhancement of baseline monitoring
programs, there was also support for ensuring
that we as CAs continue with efforts to improve
our own information management capabilities.
A Conservation Ontario Information Management
Committee is required to ensure this happens.
Approval for formation of this committee was
given by Conservation Ontario full council at
its March 26, 2001 meeting.
Section 3.0
Observations and Next Steps
34
3.0
OBSERVATIONS
AND NEXT STEPS
Observations Regarding
Involvement in WRIP
Conservation Ontario provided a full time
staff person via secondment from an authority
office to coordinate CA WRIP activities. This
position was funded through a partnership
agreement with the province (MNR). The following
subjective comments are offered by the author:
Dealings With The Province ...
1) Conservation Ontario’s participation
has been appreciated by the province.
We provided context and recommendations
for the practical, in-field component of water
information. This is recognized as the most
important area and the one where most
implementation activities will occur. There
has been strong encouragement for CO to
continue into the implementation phase.
2) Conservation Ontario’s WRIP products
have been very well received by the province.
Both the business function model and the
priorities were developed from very broad
CA consultation. This lends credibility to the
recommendations included in the Provincial
Water Resources Information Strategy.
Personal Views Regarding
The Secondment Position ...
3) The secondment/full time position
negotiated by Conservation Ontario has
worked very well. There has been sufficient
time and funding to plan and complete
the project effectively. The ability to include
broad consultation and the quality of the
final products demonstrate that the provincial
investment has been worthwhile. Future
Conservation Ontario projects would be well
served with a similar staffing arrangement
where possible.
4) Consultation with all conservation
authorities through interviews and
workshops has been very rewarding.
CA staff demonstrated a willingness to
help with the project, interest in the
outcomes and guarded optimism that
provincial funding would be forthcoming.
The consultation also highlighted the
similarities in CA programs and staff
expertise (as opposed to the differences
which are so often mentioned). However,
it is obvious CAs would all benefit from
better communication and coordination
regarding technical programs.
The Bigger Picture ...
5) Conservation Ontario should continue
to offer a coordination role to ensure the
groundwork established during WRIP is
continued into implementation.
6) WRIP has not been an exclusive project.
There are linkages to other projects
(e.g., Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange,
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Network, Eastern Ontario Water Resources
Management Study) and opportunities
that evolve as the project develops
(e.g., MOH well water record access).
Part of continuing coordination requires
an awareness of other projects and
opportunities that will arise during
implementation.
35
Next Steps
•
Conservation Ontario endorsed continued
participation in the Water Resources Information
Project for 2001/2002 at its March 26, 2001
meeting. Conservation Ontario will continue to
provide a full time staff person via secondment
from a CA office through a partnership agreement
funded through the province (MNR). It is expected
Conservation Ontario will lead and/or assist with
the following initiatives as part of the next stages
of the WRIP:
•
•
•
•
Develop an up-to-date inventory of water
monitoring networks conservation authorities
either own, operate or use. This inventory is
necessary to move toward enhancing and
integrating water monitoring. Several
inventories exist including the Flood Warning
and Forecasting Inventory completed by Dillon
Consulting (1996) and the 2000 Inventory of
Climate Observing Networks in Ontario
(ICONO). It is expected these inventories
will be updated for 2001 and be focussed
specifically on conservation authority
activities.
Catalogue information systems, tools, models
and decision support systems conservation
authorities currently use.
Identify gaps in water information networks
and consider opportunities for integration of
water information regarding its collection,
storage, analysis, reporting and distribution.
•
36
Develop a Conservation Authority Water
Information Management Strategy which
considers such issues as standardized GIS
platforms, integrated database structures and
formal information management systems as
well as synthesis and reporting of information
for stakeholders.
Assist in implementation of the Provincial
Water Information Strategy.
Provide support to ongoing initiatives
including conservation authority
consideration for joining the Ontario
Geospatial Exchange, Environment Canada’s
Water Use Study, input to Land Information
Ontario for information access and structure,
development and implementation of the
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Information System, discussions with the
Ontario Ministry of Health regarding private
well water sampling database structure
and integration with MOE well logs,
implementation of Ontario Low Water
Response, the Conservation Ontario
submission to the Walkerton Inquiry and
other issues as they arise.
WRIP Products
Products developed as part of Conservation
Ontario’s participation in the WRIP include:
•
•
•
•
a conservation authority water business
function model
a list of four priority water information
needs and suggested action plans as
suggested collectively by conservation
authorities
a conservation authority WRIP summary
fact sheet
a Water Resources Information Project
conservation authority report
Various posters and slide show presentations
were also developed as part of WRIP and will be
stored with paper files for future reference.
37
38
Acronym Reference List
ABCA
AOC
BMP
CA
CO
CRCA
CURB
CVC
DFO
DSS
EC
ERCA
FOCALerie
GIS
GRCA
ICONO
LaMP
LIO
MAIDS
MOE
MOH
MNDM
MNR
NVCA
OBM
OMAFRA
OPG
OSCEPAP
ORCA
PGMN
PLUARG
PTTW
PWQMN
RAP
SNC
SWEEP
TRCA
UTRCA
WRIP
WRIP CATS
Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
Area of Concern
Best Management Practices
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
Clean Up Rural Beaches
Credit Valley Conservation
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Decision Support System
Environment Canada
Essex Region Conservation Authority
Federation of Conservation Authorities of Lake Erie
Geographic Information System
Grand River Conservation Authority
Inventory of Climate Observing Networks in Ontario
Lake-wide Management Plan
Land Information Ontario
Multi-Agency Standards Committee (Environment Canada Lead)
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Ministry of Natural Resources
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Ontario Base Map
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ontario Power Generation
Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection and Assistance Program
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
Permit to Take Water
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
Remedial Action Plan
South Nation Conservation
Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
Conservation Authority Technical Steering Team
Bibliography
Conservation Ontario (2000) Conservation Ontario Submission: Provincial Consultations
on a Strategic Water Policy Framework for the Province. Unpublished.
Conservation Ontario (2001) The Importance of Watershed Management in Protecting
Ontario’s Drinking Water Supplies. Unpublished Submission to the Walkerton Inquiry.
Grand River Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation (1999) Developing a Framework
for Sustainable Water management on a Watershed Basis. Unpublished Proposal.
Mitchell, B., Shrubsole, D. (1992) Ontario Conservation Authorities: Myth and Reality.
Department of Geography Publication Series. University of Waterloo.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1987) A Review of the Conservation Authorities Program.
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Province of Ontario (RSO 1990) Conservation Authorities Act.
Richardson, A.H. (1974) Conservation by the People: The History of the Conservation
Movement in Ontario to 1970. University of Toronto Press.
39
Appendices
40
APPENDIX A
WRIP WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE LIST: OCTOBER 2000
Date
Location
Attendees
Affiliation
Tuesday
October 3, 2000
Saugeen Valley
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Maitland Valley CA
Maitland Valley CA
Maitland Valley CA
Maitland Valley CA
Saugeen Valley CA
Grey Sauble CA
Saugeen Valley CA
Saugeen Valley CA
Nottawasaga Valley CA
Thursday
October 5, 2000
Credit Valley
Conservation
1. Sonya Meek
2. Tony Horvat
3. David Gale
4. Ray Guther
5. Charley Worte
6. Wayne Wilson
7. Hazel Breton
8. Brenda Axon
9. Scott Christilaw
10. Chris Gerstentcorn
11. Don Haley
Toronto Region CA
Halton Region CA
Halton Region CA
Halton Region CA
Nottawasaga Valley CA
Halton Region CA
Ministry of Natural Resources
Toronto Region CA
Toronto Region CA
Friday
October 6, 2000
St. Clair Region
1. Valerie Welsh
2. Matthew Child
3. Alec Scott
4. Stan Taylor
5. Brian McDougall
6. Christine Depuydt
7. Geoff Cade
8. Chris Durand
9. Patty Hayman
10. Rob Lindsay
11. Jack Robertson
Lower Thames Valley CA
Essex Region CA
Ausable Bayfield CA
Essex Region CA
St. Clair Region CA
Kettle Creek CA
St. Clair Region CA
St. Clair Region CA
St. Clair Region CA
Catfish Creek CA
Lower Thames Valley CA
Tuesday
October 10, 2000
Otonabee Region
1. Warren Coulter
2. Dick Hunter
3. Perry Sisson
4. Bonnie Fox
5. Tom Hogenbirk
6. Doug Ryan
7. Don Wright
8. Mark Majchrowski
9. John Merriam
10. Jim Gosnell
Ganaraska Region CA
Central Lake Ontario CA
Lake Simcoe Region CA
Otonabee Region CA
Central Lake Ontario CA
Kawartha Region CA
Otonabee Region CA
Otonabee Region CA
Jack McPherson
Doug Hocking
Dave Grummett
Rick Steele
Gary Senior
John Bittorf
Dave Pybus
Don Smith
Chris Jones
continued
41
APPENDIX A (continued)
WRIP WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE LIST: OCTOBER 2000
Date
Location
Attendees
Affiliation
Wednesday
October 11, 2000
Cataraqui Region
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Cataraqui Region CA
Lower Trent Region CA
Lower Trent Region CA
Quinte
Cataraqui Region CA
Cataraqui Region CA
Thursday
October 12, 2000
South Nation
Conservation
1. Alex Broadbent
2. Richard Pilon
3. Bruce Reid
4. Pat Piitz
5. Pat Larson
6. Gord Mountenay
7. Lyman Jones
8. Leslie Vanclief
9. Scott Smith
10. Marianne Wilson
Mississippi Valley Conservation
Rideau Valley CA
Rideau Valley CA
Mississippi Valley Conservation
Tuesday
October 17, 2000
Long Point Region
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Long Point Region CA
Niagara Region CA
Upper Thames River CA
Grand River CA
Grand River CA
Sean Watt
Mike Lovejoy
Glenda Rogers
Bryon Keene
Robert Gerritsen
Steve Knechtel
Bill Baskerville
Tony Damarin
Ted Briggs
Jeff Brick
Chris Eckstein
Terry Chapman
Dwight Boyd
Rick Goldt
42
APPENDIX B
Listing of Water Information
Needs (Headaches) Developed
During Regional Conservation
Authority Workshops
Note: The following information needs
have been transcribed from flip chart notes taken
during regional workshops. Many are very candid.
The suggestions have been categorized under
various topic headings by the author for ease of
interpretation and are presented in random order.
Water Quantity Information
Water Budget
- Link between land use and GW
- Lack recharge volumes/unit area
- How does change in terrain affect recharge
- Need better GW monitor network need better scale
- Have much of surface monitoring
- Lack of baseflow detail - don’t know relative
importance of recharge/Q. areas
- Need analysis tools in house
(expertise now is with proponent)
- Need to I.D./rank recharge areas
- Need detailed geologic mapping to predict
GW flow - fed. info isn’t getting to us
- Need watershed/cumulative understanding
Design of Current Water Monitoring Network
- Designed for report of monthly flows
- Use it for fish, low flow, flood forecast,
water budget
- Network needs changed if we want hourlies,
low flow, etc.
- Are not necessarily in the right locations
- any expansion would be beneficial should be targeted i.e., drought need small water courses
43
Stream Gauge Network
- Rating curves are old
- Focus is on flood on curves should be updated and low flow included
- Need to move back to full gauging stations
- Need more gauges - on major water
courses - need more dense network
- Need to redesign system - originally flood
only, now want multi-functional
re: parameters and issues i.e., drought, etc.
Not Enough Gauges
- For Q, precipitation, etc. - never had enough
- Have ice jam problems so need temp
gauges - other regions may not need this
- Now level of service is being reduced too
i.e., Q now just level
- Are our lifeline of information we should own them
- Some info is no longer reliable
- We don’t know water survey passwords
therefore limits access
- Inefficient use of loggers have ports but can’t use them (water survey)
- Partnership with Feds creates problems
Water Survey Data Analysis/Access, etc.
- No consistent data access procedures
- Use different methods to store the data
- Use different packages to display/analyse
- Need a consistent method/package for
access/storage/analysis - need provincial
standards/guidelines
- Small CAs can’t afford tools
- Need expertise to advise re: product
- Need technical transfer to CAs of
analysis products
- Should be available for GIS use
- Need to be cautious about technical
transfer (SPANS example)
Mapping/Air Photo Information
Poor Floodline Mapping/Flood Plain Mapping
- Need updated/expanded mapping
- Need resources - long term
- This is an ongoing information need,
not one shot
- Much is all still paper
- Is becoming a liability issue
- Parallels Walkerton - is a hazard not
being monitored
- Flood forecasting is the same issue need long term
- NOTE - Long Term
i.e., PGMN - MOE 2 years and then
walking - not good
- No updates since FDRP ended
- Huge gaps
- Land use has changed
- Updates are difficult and would be
expensive
- Not useful as information for community too awkward, out of date, embarrassing GIS would be an improvement
- Could be a liability
- Take time and dollars to update
subdivisions/culverts, etc.
OBM Base Too Old/Missing Digital
- Water layer outdated
- We can’t afford updates
- Need accurate water courses re: spills
follow up, watershed delineation
- Need satellite
- Access to information is restricted i.e., NRVIS
- Need accurate elevation information
- Are gaps in digital base i.e., contours
missing on some 0.3ms
- Some areas have no 1:2,000 digital
- OMAFRA drainage - errors
- Are developing DEMs - is still old info
GIS
- Require standardized platforms across
agencies - minimize data transfer problems
- Georeference everything
- Use same datum (NAD 83)
- Relates to Levy Apportionment
44
- Update/maintain map/air photo
- OBM bases are dated
- DEM project - useful for most CAs encourage project
- OBM should be updated with new
technology, i.e., continue 1:2,000 project
for urban areas
Data Sharing
Data Availability/Sharing
- How value data
- How much should it cost?
- Data sharing agreements inefficient
- Is # 1 problem
- Need totally free data
- Public should not pay twice (or more)
for data
- U.S. has free flow
i.e., use Buffalo Radar because it’s free
- Nothing else will happen until it’s free
- General public is beneficiary
- Becomes common knowledge
- Is for public good
- Shell game with taxes
Central Quality/Quantity Data
- Is spread among Province, CAs, Feds, Hydro
- Has different formats - not user friendly
- Difficult to access
- Includes highway maintenance COs
e.g. PWQMN Data
Data Acquisition/Sharing
- Data sharing
- Can’t get information no response to requests
- Strings attached
- Cost
- i.e., OBM Base - is public info agreements too complicated
- CAs viewed as outsiders by MNR viewed as a revenue source for data
Data Sharing/Exchange/IP
- What is public information? double paying for public property
- Data has value - some generate revenue
- Some costs pay for collection dangerous to tie those together
(cost driven data collection)
- Solution - need long term stable funding
for information collection/management
from Treasury board, i.e., MNR drops out
cost share, but still want information
- Currently responds to politics
- Need criteria (public good?) to evaluate
what is free data and what core provincial
data is
- Need consultation/notification of changes
to data format
- Have to accommodate evolution of data
management/use by clients - hard with
everyone at different levels, i.e., always
backward compatible, always meet
minimum standards
45
- Is a lot of private information - site specific
Hydrogeo - reports from consultants should
go to province/CAs
- No understanding of link between
groundwater and surface water or wetlands
- Well log info unreliable - no standards for
reporting among drillers
- Well logs good for broad context don’t need precise locations
- Implications for development - farming, etc.
Groundwater Information Gaps
- Need local scale groundwater information
for things like intensive agriculture issue siting of barns
- Existing information is regional - not useful
- PGMN won’t meet our needs - scale is same with PWQMN - not right scale
- Solution - design multi-purpose to meet
local needs first
- PGMN - question design - use of existing
wells
- Regional efforts may mask the local needs
Groundwater Information
Groundwater - Complete Lack of Information
Need - Aquifer delineation
Recharge area delineation
Design of monitoring network
Design for quality and or quantity
Lack of continuity
- Possible to resurrect old network
- Issue of scale
Groundwater - Lack of Info Quality and Quantity
- No recharge area delineation
- No contextual info
- No in house expertise
- Concerns re: PGMN seems like downloading
- Some CAs don’t want to pay
Void with Groundwater
Quantity and Quality
- Outdated information
- No current collection other than
municipal wells
- Quality has nothing
- May know water table, some quantity
- Shallow/deep groundwater - nothing
- No clue re: abandoned wells
- Well drillers need GPS - NAD 83 they need standards
- Groundwater information hydrology cycle
i.e., recharge areas, aquifers, contamination
movement
- Groundwater is dealt with in chunks,
but needs more comprehensive
understanding - add temporal aspect
- Improve management of C of As i.e., landfill
information (wells) - needs to be organized
and made digital - municipal well data is
the same state
- Aquifer, mapping - perhaps is
better as top down project
Climate Information
Climate Information (Not Climate Change)
Lack of Info, Sources, Have to Pay for It
- Sources of info aren’t integrated
(EC, CA, landowners)
- Need standards
- Gaps in air temp, water temp, wind speed,
direction, solar radiation, precipitation
- Is foundation of models
(flood, H20 budgets, etc.)
- Closure of EC monitoring sites no new local data available
- Hard to verify climate change
- Is federal mandate
- Copyright limits information sharing
Precipitation (Climate) Plus MET Sensors More Dense Network
- Small, intense weather
- Need advances in weather radar or
larger network
- Water temp - min/max
- Real time
- Wind data for lakes - speed/direction
(require 3 for Essex (fairly dense))
Roles and Responsibilities
Clarify Roles and Responsibilities
- Who’s doing what (who should be?)
- What’s missing
- Who’s duplicating
- Need to coordinate roles of municipality,
CAs, federal, provincial, etc.
(this may be a higher decision)
i.e., 1. roles re: water management
2. roles re: standards
(is a hierarchy)
46
Roles/Responsibilities
- Need clarification among federal/
provincial/municipalities/CAs, etc.
- Federal government involved in local pilots,
not big picture
- Need bottom up, but politics supercedes
- Some programs are downloaded to CAs
with specific administration i.e., cost share carries liability too for CAs
- Province is able to react and cover liability,
we can’t - have to be proactive
Water Quality Information
Lack of Baseline Surface Water Quality Data
- Need provincial standards for design,
parameters, locations, frequency, etc.
- Demise of PWQMN since cuts (’95)
- Need more than PWQMN
Surface Water Monitoring Enhancement
- Lack of standards - design, storage, analysis,
data sharing
- Need standards for interpretation
(drinking water vs. aquatic life ...
swimming, recreation)
- Are no provincial objectives for many
parameters
- Discharge monitoring network good for
high flow and flood, stations poorly
located and rating curves not developed
for low flow
- Fed funding cuts have reduced standards for
analysis (e.g., going from discharge values
to water level only)
- Rehabilitation work is driven by funding
rather than environmental need based
on data
- Need to use data to develop rehabilitation
targets
- Water info needs to be used as performance
indicator
- Distinguish between data and information
for public communication
- Need to answer basic public questions baseline, can we swim?, fish?, etc.)
- Need bacteria in PWQMN
Surface Water Quality Data/PWQMN
- Hard to get from MOE - poor format,
have to chase data
- No formal agreement to get data
- Can’t move sites to where it should be
(design) - STP monitoring vs. watershed
health
- Need to revisit network design
- Lack of sites generally - no bacteria data
now - need E. coli, Pseud, ...
- New locations, new parameters, better
sharing
- Good example of sharing - CAs and MOE
- Need tools for analysis, guidelines for
interpretation
- Need Q data
- Need to integrate with bio data cause and effect
- Need standard water quality targets across
province - current water quality guidelines
are all exceeded - private sector collection standards?
- Need all CAs involved
- Continuous collection needs standards
Declining Provincial PWQMN Support for
Quality Stations
- PWQMN - reduction in stations
- No negotiation re. parameters, frequency
- Can’t add stations
- No summary report of trends
- Is barely ‘better than nothing’
- MOE doesn’t want us to summarize data
- Network design is inadequate were located for STP monitoring
- Now trying to use it for baseline water
quality conditions
- Takes 6 - 8 months to get data
- Have changed analysis procedures
- Need 2 people to sample for health
and safety
47
- No support for ‘add on’ samples
- Analysed information - reduces value
of results because of travel time
- Questionable
- Design - no sampling whole flow range miss winter
- Seems to meet only political needs
- Is good historical information, but needs
long term analysis - trends
- Solution - rotating intensive sampling
- Good for long term baseline
- Had a link to CURB which was good
(province sucks us in and then bails)
Water Quality Data Sources
- PWQMN Stations - are at outlets - no u/s
- No good water quality programs for lakes
(lake partner program inadequate)
- Need more stations
- No interp/analysis of PWQMN data is just raw data - useless for SOE reporting
- Many CAs not sampling anymore
- Parameters good for general
characterization
- More intensive sampling on a 3 year
rotation may be a solution
- Need lake capacity tool that considers entire
system - MOE hasn’t/won’t release it
- Too many water courses with no info costs too high (lab analysis) to make
additional sampling feasible
- Solution - use lake association to facilitate
bulk sampling/analysis/interp
Long Term Baseline Information
Establish Baseline Watershed Conditions
- Lack information - have high Q data
- Missing low Q information, pathways,
evaporation, infiltration, recharge, discharge
- Need data to develop information
What is state of watershed?
What is potential goals for watershed?
What do we want?
Lack of Baseline Water Information
- Quality and quantity
- More detailed scale than province
- Need for response to public,
consultants - clients
- Need more stations
- Need resources - time to analyse and
report on base conditions
- Inhibits long term planning
- Information needs to be documented
- Is part of SOE reporting
1) water quality i.e., BIOMAP as screening
2) flow - continuous
3) chemistry/physical water quality PRECIP
4) long term consistency
5) water temp
6) maximize ports on loggers incremental costs
7) cost sharing makes this possible
8) changes need to be communicated to
the public as useful information
9) could use volunteer network for
collection and dissemination are examples with cottage association
Communicating Information
Information Management
- CAs need complete system - GIS is part of it
- Gives hypothesis tool
- Link with counties (GIS)
- Sharing arrangements (solution?)
Simcoe (link)
- Data sharing
48
- Re: GIS - no consistency with software
- Problems with boundaries
(municipal, watershed, ...)
- How do you share info you created?
(credibility)
- Data sharing alliance
Need to Package Information for
Decision Makers
- What information do they need?
we don’t know - how do we package it?
- Watershed information
- How do we assess effectiveness
- Audience? municipality, landowners, ...
Need for Standards
Standards
- Collection, format, storage, - see chart standards are important in each minimum number of monitoring systems
per watershed
- Greatly influences data quality and decisions
- Capabilities of data must be specified i.e., use 1:50,000 for property inquiry
Need Standards to Monitor/Assess
Stream Health
- Could be benthos/fish/chem/bact/ ...
- Would be provincial approach
- Need integration tool to combine pieces
of info (need $)
Need Database Integration Within CAs
- Use different databases, different database
structure
- i.e., water quality, stream flow, regulations,
precipitation, part VIII
- i.e., we can’t give basic information
i.e., how many fill permits per year
- Has to meet multiple objectives
- Need some standard fields
- Redundant data
- Not necessarily formatted for models
- Need specific fields for integration i.e., roll #
- Use GIS - point and click for all information
- Different GIS platform prevent
integration i.e., MNR ARC
information, CAs
Terrestrial Information
Natural Heritage Inventories
- Need updates/inventories
- Is link to water
- Are probably more wetlands
- No funding - isn’t considered hazard
Research Needs
Buffers/BMPs
- Lack of science to prove water quality
benefits
- Need economic information to prove
benefit, costs and benefits
- Is some information, needs to be collected
and coordinated
- Science, e.g., tiles undermine some value
of buffers
49
Notes
50

WRIP: Conservation Ontario Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest

Kids Committed to Conservation

AN EXPERIENCE OF TARUN BHARAT SANGH

COMMUNITY - Ol Pejeta Conservancy

Fire-bellied Toads

AN EXPERIENCE OF Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS)

EDAMS Demand Management

with Andrew Knight, Angelika Wilhelm

Palmate Newt