conservation ontario (2004) - watershed management best practices

AUSABLE BAYFIELD CATARAQUI REGION CATFISH CREEK CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CREDIT VALLEY

CROWE VALLEY ESSEX REGION GANARASK REGION GRAND RIVER GREY SAUBLE HALTON REGION

HAMILTON REGION KAWARTHA REGION KETTLE CREEK LAKEHEAD REGION LAKE SIMCOE

LONG POINT REGION LOWER THAMES VALLEY LOWER TRENT VALLEY MAITLAND VALLEY MATTAGAMI REGION

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY NIAGARA PENINSULA NICKEL DISTRICT NORTH BAY MATTAWA NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY

OTONABEE REGION QUINTE CONSERVATION RAISIN RIVER RIDEAU VALLEY SAUGEEN VALLEY

SAULT STE. MARIE REGION SOUTH NATION ST. CLAIR REGION TORONTO REGION UPPER THAMES RIVER

THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO

P R O J E C T P A R T N E R S

SERIESIINNNNOOVVAATTIIOONNSS IINN WWAATTEERRSSHHEEDD SSTTEEWWAARRDDSSHHIIPP

This guide was made possible by the Government ofOntario and Conservation Ontario in partnershipwith the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Grand River Conservation Authority and theToronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Watershed Management in Ontario: LESSONS LEARNEDand Best Practices

Watershed Management in Ontario:LESSONS LEARNED and Best Practices

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ontario has long been recognized as a world leader in watershedmanagement. The purpose of this report is to examine the lessons that havebeen learned in the last ten years and to identify the best practices currentlybeing used in watershed management. Watershed management is defined toinclude the development of watershed plans, the implementation of thoseplans, monitoring of progress, and periodic review of plans. The lessonslearned and best practices were identified by examining the experiences ofthree of Ontario's thirty-six conservation authorities - Credit ValleyConservation (CVC), the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and theToronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). These three conservationauthorities are among those that have had the most experience in watershedmanagement. The forerunner of the GRCA was, in fact, Ontario's firstwatershed-based management organization and it completed its first BasinStudy twenty years ago.

It was beyond the scope of this project to look comprehensively atwatershed management across the province of Ontario. There is a greatvariation in the province in the size and nature of its watersheds, in theissues that are important, and in the tools and approaches used.Nevertheless, we hope that the findings of this report - the lessons learnedand the best practices in watershed management - will be useful to andtransferable to other conservation authorities in the province, as well as tomunicipalities, interest groups and others working to maintain and restorethe health of Ontario's watersheds. We must emphasize that the report is notintended to be a "how to" manual. Effective watershed management is"place-based" and must reflect the distinct local environmental and socialcontext of a place.

Acknowledgement:

Conservation Ontario thanks theOntario Government for providing theinitial funding for our watershedmanagement projects. Wed like tothank the Ministry of NaturalResources and the Ministry of theEnvironment for their assistance inmaking these projects a success.

The partners of the watershed-baseddemonstration projects have beenworking collaboratively since April 2002 to produce the results contained inthis final report, released in May 2003.


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to the Report1.2 Purpose of the Report1.3 How the Report was Developed

2.0 THE STATUS OF WATERSHED PLANNING IN ONTARIO2.1 Watershed and Subwatershed Planning in Ontario2.2 Watershed and Subwatershed Planning in GRCA, CVC and TRCA

3.0 A GENERIC FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 3.1 The Watershed Management Process3.2 The Watershed Planning Process3.3 Watershed Planning at Different Scales3.4 Partnership Approaches and Public Involvement

4.0 LESSONS LEARNED: ASSESSING THE GENERIC FRAMEWORK4.1 Elements of Success4.2 Challenges and Barriers4.3 Trends

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION5.1 Introduction5.2 Step 1: Implementation Committee5.3 Step 2: Identify the Implementation Requirements

and Consider Options 5.4 Step 3: Develop a Workplan for Implementation5.5 Step 4: Allocate Resources5.6 Step 5: Develop a Schedule

6.0 MEASURING SUCCESS AND REVIEWING THE PLAN6.1 Monitoring and Reporting6.2 Periodic Review and Evaluation of Watershed Plans

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS

APPENDICESA Database Templates of Inventory on Status of Watershed

and Subwatershed PlanningB Case Study #1: Credit River Water Management Strategy C Case Study #2: Caledon Creek and Credit River Subwatershed Study D Case Study #3: Grand River Basin Water Management StudyE Case Study #4: Laurel Creek Watershed StudyF Case Study #5 Don Watershed Regeneration PlanG Case Study #6: West Humber Subwatershed StudyH CVC Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program 2001 Summary Report

1

5

14

24

39

51

6473777881


5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT

The Beginnings of Watershed Management

The origins of watershedmanagement in Ontario date back atleast seventy years. In 1932, theprovince passed legislation to createthe Grand River ConservationCommission, a partnership of eightmunicipalities that was established toaddress flooding, drought anddegraded water quality in the GrandRiver Basin. It soon becameapparent, however, that theseproblems were not restricted solelyto the Grand River. Across theprovince, rapid changes in land use -- including deforestation and urbandevelopment - were causing flooding,soil erosion, silting of streams,degraded water quality anddestruction of fisheries.

Growing concern about thesewidespread environmental problemsled to the passage in 1946 of theConservation Authorities Act. The Actallowed for the creation of a newkind of agency, watershed-basedconservation authorities, which weregiven a mandate to protect andmanage natural resources, includingwater. For the first time in Ontario,the watershed - an ecosystem-basedunit rather than a politically derivedunit - was to be used as a boundaryfor managing human activities. Thiswas to be accomplished by makingmunicipalities partners inconservation authorities, andtherefore partners in conservation. Inthe wake of the passage of theConservation Authorities Act,

conservation authorities sprang upacross the southern part of theprovince, and began the challengingtask of managing natural resourceson a watershed basis.

The Watershed as a Management Unit

The watershed has been recognizedas an appropriate unit for managingwater resources for at least 70 years.A recent review of internationalwatershed management experience1

identified a number of reasons whystructuring policy, planning,management and implementation onthe basis of watersheds makes goodsense. These include:

because of its uniqueproperties, water integrates andcatalyzes other biophysical processesin air, land and water environments;

watersheds define distinctbiophysical units;

watersheds are an easily-understood ecosystem unit;

the health of rivers and streamsis both influenced by and illustrativeof the health of the lands throughwhich they flow;

water systems demonstrate thecumulative effects of environmentalstresses;

quality of life is directly linkedto water quality in watersheds;

most management actions canbe integrated using watersheds, atsome scale, as a common planningunit; and

there is strong and growingpublic support for implementation atthe local watershed level.


6

In its submission to the 2001O'Connor Inquiry into the Walkertoncontaminated water tragedy,Conservation Ontario made theargument in this way. "Watershedmanagement is not so much aboutmanaging natural resources, butabout managing human activity as itaffects those resources. The drainagearea of the river provides the naturalboundary for managing andmitigating human and environmentalinteractions. Because human activityincludes actions by governments,municipalities, industries andlandowners, watershed managementmust be a cooperative effort.Effective watershed management canprevent community water shortages,poor water quality, flooding anderosion. The expense of undertakingwatershed management is far lessthan the cost of future remediation."2

The use of watersheds as amanagement unit has been endorsedwidely in many jurisdictions includingEngland, Wales, Australia, and inmany states in the US. Recently, thewatershed management approachreceived support in Ontario's"Managing the Environment" report.The "Managing the Environment"report identified best practices formanaging the environment andrecommended a number offundamental shifts that are neededto establish the province as a leadingenvironmental jurisdiction. Theseshifts, (see box below) are not onlyconsistent with a watershedmanagement approach, but in factare consistent with how watershedplanning and management is carriedout in Ontario right now.

FUNDAMENTAL SHIFTS NEEDED

A shift to a broader strategicapproach to managing the environment(as compared to the more traditionalregulated and reactive approach) whereimplementation is shared acrossjurisdictional agencies.

A shift towards continuousimprovement in environmentalperformance.

A shift to a "place-based"approach using boundaries that makeenvironmental sense and whichfacilitate a cross-media, cumulativeapproach.

A shift towards a comprehensive,more flexible set of regulatory and non-regulatory tools and incentives (e.g.,best management practices) instead ofa more traditional "command andcontrol" approach.

A shift to an approach based onshared responsibility with the regulatedcommunity, NGOs, the public and thescientific/technical community, andtransparent sharing of information withthe public.

Taken from: Executive Resource Group,2001. Managing the Environment: Areview of best practices. Prepared for theSecretary of Cabinet.


7

More recently still, in the Part TwoReport of the Walkerton Inquiry,Justice O'Connor argued that theprovince needed to use a multiple-barrier system for the protection ofdrinking water safety. The first barrierin such a system, he argued, issource protection. Accordingly, thefirst recommendation made byO'Connor was that drinking watersources should be protected bydeveloping watershed-based sourceprotection plans, and these shouldbe required for all watersheds inOntario. He further argued that:

watershed-based sourceprotection plans should ideally formpart of a broader watershedmanagement plan;

where they exist, conservationauthorities should coordinatedevelopment of the plans;

where conservation authoritiesdo not exist, the Ministry of theEnvironment (MOE) shouldcoordinate development of sourceprotection plans; and

draft source protection plansshould be prepared through aninclusive process of localconsultation3 .

The provincial government hasrecently announced the creation ofan Advisory Committee to develop aframework for source protectionplanning. Conservation authoritieswill be represented on thecommittee.

The Framework for Watershed Management

The scope and thrust of watershedmanagement has evolvedsignificantly since Ontario's firstconservation authorities were createdin the late 1940s. In the 1950s,"watershed management" usuallymeant single-issue floodmanagement programs. In the 1980sand 1990s, these had evolved tomore complex Master DrainagePlans. Today, "watershedmanagement" means integrated,ecosystem-based watershedmanagement initiatives that includeconsideration of stream morphology,groundwater, terrestrial habitat,wetlands, woodlots, andenvironmentally significant orsensitive areas (see Figure 1-1)."State-of-the-art" watershedmanagement today not onlyaddresses a broader range ofresource and environmentalprotection issues than previousinitiatives, but also considers andevaluates the interrelationshipsamong these issues. For example,managers might consider theinterrelationships amonggroundwater recharge areas,wetlands and fish communities.

#3 Source: OConnor Report 2002


8

Walkerton InquiryRecommendations on DrinkingWater Source Protection

1. Drinking water sources should beprotected by developing watershed-based source protection plans.Source protection plans should berequired for all watersheds inOntario.

2. The MOE should ensure that draftsource protection plans are preparedthrough an inclusive process of localconsultation. Where appropriate, thisprocess should be managed byconservation authorities.

3. Draft source protection plansshould be reviewed by the MOE andsubject to ministry approval.

4. Provincial government decisionsthat affect the quality of drinkingwater sources must be consistentwith approved source protectionplans.

5. Where the potential exists for asignificant direct threat to drinkingwater sources, municipal plans anddecisions must be consistent withthe applicable source protectionplan. Otherwise, municipal officialplans and decisions should haveregard to the source protection plan.The plans should designate areaswhere consistency is required.

6. The provincial government shouldprovide for limited rights of appeal tochallenge source protection plans,and provincial and municipaldecisions that are inconsistent withthe plan.

7. The provincial government shouldensure that sufficient funds areavailable to complete the planningand adoption of source protectionplans.

8. Conservation authorities (or intheir absence, the MOE) should beresponsible for implementing localinitiatives to educate landowners,industry, and the public about therequirements and importance ofdrinking water source protection.

9. Septic systems should beinspected as a condition for thetransfer of a deed.

10. The MOE should not issueCertificates of Approval for thespreading of waste materials unlessthey are compatible with theapplicable source protection plan.

11. The MOE should take the leadrole in regulating the potentialimpacts of farm activities on drinkingwater sources. OMAFRA shouldprovide technical support to theMOE and should continue to advisefarmers about the protection ofdrinking water sources.

12. Where necessary, the MOEshould establish minimum regulatoryrequirements for agriculturalactivities that generate impacts ondrinking water sources.

13. All large or intensive farms, andall farms in areas designated assensitive or high-risk by theapplicable source protection plan,should be required to developbinding individual water protectionplans consistent with the sourceprotection plan.

14. Once a farm has in place anindividual water protection plan thatis consistent with the applicablesource protection plan, municipalitiesshould not have the authority torequire that farm to meet a higherstandard of protection of drinkingwater sources than that which is laidout in the farm's water protectionplan.


9

Figure 1-1: The Evolution of Watershed PlanningAdapted from: MOE and MNR, 1993. Subwatershed Planning


10

As practiced in Ontario, watershedmanagement can be defined as follows:

A consistent, provincial approach towatershed management andwatershed planning was articulated inthe trilogy of watershed managementguidelines prepared by the OntarioMinistries of Environment and Energyand Natural Resources in June 19934.These guidelines provided resourcemanagers, planners and stakeholderswith information on why and how tocarry out watershed andsubwatershed planning, and howthese plans should be integrated intothe conventional municipal land useplanning process.

An evaluation of watershed planningand management in Ontario wasdone in 1996 to examine howprojects were being carried out, theevolving practice of watershedmanagement, and the experience ofparticipants in pilot watershed andsubwatershed planning projects. Oneof the conclusions of this evaluationwas that watershed management wasneeded for the protection ofOntario's natural resources andenvironmental health. Stakeholderswho were consulted during theevaluation endorsed the concept ofwatershed management as acomprehensive tool for planning forwater and land uses in relation to theenvironmental, social and economicwell-being of the communities withinthe watershed5.

The basic thrust of watershedmanagement in Ontario today hasnot changed since 1993. Asillustrated in Figure 1-2, the processof watershed management has fourmain stages, and usually is carriedout because of an external trigger,such as public concern aboutenvironmental conditions. The fourstages of watershed managementare: planning; implementation;monitoring and reporting; andreviewing and evaluating. These aredescribed at length in Chapter 3.

Watershed management:

is the process of managinghuman activities and naturalresources in an area defined bywatershed boundaries;

aims to protect and managenatural resources (including theirfunctions and linkages) for this andfuture generations;

reflects the local environmentaland social context;

uses an integrated,interdisciplinary approach;

considers the environment, theeconomy and communities;

uses a partnership approach toplan and manage;

uses adaptive environmentalmanagement approaches that aimfor continuous improvement.


11

There are two other fundamentalelements of watershed management.One, is that it is by definition apartnership process involvingconservation authorities,municipalities and other keystakeholders. The secondfundamental element is publicinvolvement. Consultation with and involvement of the public occurs atevery stage of watershed

management (i.e., during thedevelopment of watershed plans,during implementation of projectsand programs, during monitoring andreporting on conditions in thewatershed, and reviewing watershedplans. These important aspects ofthe watershed management processare addressed in section 3.4 of thisreport.

Figure 1-2: The Watershed Management Process

MONITOR andREPORT

REVIEW andEVALUATE

PLAN

IMPLEMENT

TRIGGERIssues/Concerns


12

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

Conservation Authorities andmunicipalities have been using themost recent (1993) provincialguidelines for watershedmanagement for almost a decadenow. Over this period, conservationauthorities and municipalities havegained valuable experience in allaspects of watershed management.This has included how best todevelop and implement watershedand subwatershed plans. To a lesserdegree, experience has been gainedin the other two elements ofwatershed management --monitoring and reporting on progressmade and periodic review ofwatershed plans.

The purpose of this report is toexamine the lessons that have beenlearned in the last ten years and toidentify the best practices used inwatershed planning, implementationand monitoring. This is done byexamining the experiences of three ofOntario's 36 conservation authorities- Credit Valley Conservation (CVC),the Grand River ConservationAuthority (GRCA) and the Torontoand Region Conservation Authority(TRCA).

Specifically, the report addresses fiveissues:

1. It examines the status ofwatershed and subwatershedplanning in Ontario, including theextent of planning done, and thepurposes for which it wasundertaken, (Chapter 2). A closerexamination of the status ofwatershed and subwatershedplanning is carried out for CVC, GRCAand TRCA.

2. It updates the generic frameworkfor watershed management andwatershed/subwatershed planning,reflecting the changes in emphasisand practice that have taken placesince 1993. This includes theimportance aspects of partnershipapproaches and public involvement(Chapter 3).

3. Through the use of case studiesfrom CVC, GRCA and TRCA, itassesses the generic framework forwatershed management andwatershed and subwatershedplanning to identify factors forsuccess, barriers and trends (Chapter 4)

4. It examines the process ofimplementing watershed andsubwatershed plans and discussesimplementation mechanisms thathave been used in the CVC, GRCAand TRCA (Chapter 5).

5. It provides an evaluationframework for measuring progress inwatershed management (Chapter 6).

Conclusions and recommendationsare presented in Chapter 7. We hopethat the lessons learned by the CVC,GRCA and TRCA will be useful to andtransferable to other conservationauthorities in Ontario, as well as tomunicipalities, interest groups andothers working to maintain andrestore the health of Ontario'swatersheds. We should emphasize,however, that this report is notintended to be a "how to" manual.Effective watershed management is"place-based" and must reflect thedistinct local environmental andsocial context of a place.


13

Steering Committee

Hazel Breton (Chair) CVCLeslie Demal MNRBonnie Fox Conservation OntarioAdele Freeman TRCAJoanna Kidd Lura ConsultingDave Maunder Aquafor Beech LimitedSonya Meek TRCAJulie O'Brien MNRTony Smith GRCARay Tufgar Totten Sims Hubicki

Associates

The report was developed by aSteering Committee withrepresentation from MNR,Conservation Ontario, CVC, GRCA,TRCA and practitioners working in thefield of watershed and subwatershedplanning.

In developing the report, SteeringCommittee members drewextensively on their own experiencesand on relevant reports on watershedplanning and management. Atelephone survey was carried out toupdate the status of watershed andsubwatershed planning in theprovince (Chapter 2) and thisinformation was added to thatpreviously collected by MNR andConservation Ontario. Conservationauthority representatives developedcase studies of watershed andsubwatershed plans (included asAppendices B to G), selecting a rangeof studies for which implementationwas underway.

These case studies were used toguide the assessment of the genericframework for watershed planningand management (Chapter 4).Implementation (Chapter 5) isexamined by looking at the processand mechanisms used by the CVC,GRCA and TRCA. The evaluationframework for assessing progress inwatershed management (Chapter 6)was developed based on experiencein the three conservation authorities.

In draft form, the report wascirculated to peers working in thefield of watershed planning andmanagement for review. Where thecomments received fell within thescope of the report and weredeemed to be relevant, they havebeen incorporated into the finalreport.

1.3 HOW THE REPORT WAS DEVELOPED


14

2.0 THE STATUS OF WATERSHED PLANNING IN ONTARIO

2.1 WATERSHED ANDSUBWATERSHED PLANNING IN ONTARIO

Status of Planning

In 1995, MNR and MOE carried out asurvey to identify the extent ofwatershed and subwatershedplanning being carried out in theprovince. Conservation authoritieswere contacted and asked to fill outa detailed database template (seeAppendix A) for all watershedmanagement projects initiated withintheir watersheds between 1990 and1995. Twenty-three of 36conservation authorities respondedto the survey and the number ofprojects initiated are presented inTable 2-1. This number reportedincludes watershed andsubwatershed plans, plans andprojects of varying, size but cleardefinitions were not provided. Insome cases, the lead agencies forthese projects were municipalities, ordevelopers, but there was a localconservation authority involved in 81of 87 projects reported. Two of thesix projects reporting no CAinvolvement were MNR-led projectsthat were outside CA jurisdiction.The information gathered from thissurvey was published in 1997 by theMinistries of Environment andNatural Resources as "Inventory ofWatershed Management Projects inOntario, 1990-1995".

In 2000, using funding from MNRand MOE, Conservation Ontarioredeveloped the 1990-1995 reportas a map-referenced database on theinternet and repeated the survey.Conservation authorities were again

asked to fill out a detailed databasetemplate for all "watershedmanagement projects" initiatedbetween 1996 and 2000 and toupdate the database template forprojects initiated between 1990 and1995. It was beyond the scope ofthis update project to more clearlydefine "watershed managementprojects". However, the rule of thumbused was that a "watershedmanagement project" could not be asingle resource issue study(e.g. fisheries, forestry, groundwater)but had to integrate multipleresource issues with a water resourceemphasis/component(i.e., watershed-based analysis). Fullsurvey responses of new projectsand status updates to the 1990-1995projects were received from 11 of 36conservation authorities. Thisinformation was included in the map-referenced database athttp://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/iwmpo/index.htm. The geographic extent ofwatershed and subwatershedplanning activities is presented inmap form on this ConservationOntario Web site. It is important tonote that there is great variability inthe size and scope of the projectsreported -- one project mayrepresent a full watershed plan forthousands of square kilometers whileanother may only be a smallsubwatershed plan for a proposeddevelopment site. The total area ofeach reported project is not additivebecause, in some cases, the projectsare nested within each other.


15

As part of this demonstration projectand because of a concern that thelow response rate wouldmisrepresent the level of activity inOntario, MNR staff conducted a brieftelephone survey of thoseconservation authorities that did notrespond to the detailed 1996-2000survey. All conservation authoritiesthat had not responded to therequest for updated information in2000 were contacted and given theopportunity to indicate at least thenumber of projects initiated. Theresults are shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 shows that there werefewer projects initiated between1996 and 2000 than were initiatedbetween 1990 and 1995. It ispossible that this drop in activity maybe related to decreased funding toConservation Authorities.

Analysis of the Conservation Ontarioinventory database indicates thatmost watershed managementprojects appear to have been drivenby urban development pressures.Some were initiated to addressgeneral watershed managementissues, rehabilitation or regenerationneeds and/or agricultural pressures.

The development of watershed andsubwatershed plans is a voluntaryactivity, and there is no requirementfor them to be carried out, and norequirement for conservationauthorities to report on plandevelopment. Given the importanceof watershed planning in theprotection and restoration of water-related resources. In the Part TwoReport of the Walkerton Inquiry,Justice O'Connor recommended thatwatershed-based source protectionplans be a legislated requirementunder the Environmental Protection Act.

In the interim, to aid the province inimproving information on the statusof watershed and subwatershedplanning, we have developed asurvey instrument (see Appendix A)which builds on the survey previouslyused for the inventory. We believethat use of it will help improve theresponse rate by conservationauthorities and improve the qualityof information returned. Specifically,it more clearly defines watershed andsubwatershed plans and tributaryplans, environmental site plans andother types of projects carried out ona "watershed" basis, such as fisheryor forestry plans.


16

Table 2-1 Reported Number of Watershed Management Projects Initiated

1. Table has been updated with information collected during this study.2. Total number of projects for Grand River and Toronto Region for 1990-1995

have been updated since the original survey results (i.e. from 15 to 29 and from 10 to 12 respectively).

3. Quinte Conservation was formerly Moira, Napanee, and Prince Edward Conservation Authorities in the 1990-1995 survey.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY INVOLVED PERIOD1990-1995 1996-2000

Ausable-Bayfield 1 0Cataraqui Region 1 0Central Lake Ontario 3 5Credit Valley 6 13Ganaraska 0 1Grand River (2) 29 7Halton 10 4Hamilton 1 2Kettle Creek 4 2Lake Simcoe Region 7 3Lakehead Region 2 0Long Point Region 0 2Lower Thames Valley 0 1Lower Trent 1 1Maitland Valley 1 3Mattagami Region 1 1Mississippi Valley 1 3MNR 2 1Niagara Pennisula 2 2North Bay-Mattawa 2 1Nottawasaga Valley 1 1Otonabee Region 4 5Quinte (3) 2 1Raisin Region 0 5Rideau Valley 3 0St. Clair Region 0 4South Nation River 1 0Toronto Region (2) 12 11Upper Thames Region 6 4Number of projects initiated 103 83

Total Number of Projects Initiated and Reportedfor 1990 to 2000 = 186


17

2.2 WATERSHED ANDSUBWATERSHED PLANNING INGRCA, CVC AND TRCA

The objective of this section is tosummarize the extent of watershedand subwatershed plans that havebeen undertaken within each of thethree conservation authorities'jurisdictions, the timeframe in whichthey were conducted, and theapproach used.

One of the conclusions that can bedrawn is that, while the threeconservation authorities follow asimilar overall approach, the detailsvary. The reasons for the differencesare due to a number of factorsincluding the triggers for undertakingthe study, funding availability,willingness of municipalities toparticipate, degree of land usechange (urban and rural),rehabilitation and regenerationneeds, and the number ofwatersheds to be addressed. Theaccompanying figures illustrate wherewatershed and subwatershed planshave been undertaken within thethree conservation authorities'jurisdictions.

2.2.1 Grand River Conservation Authority

The GRCA initiated its watershedplan (the Grand River Basin WaterManagement Study) in 1977 andcompleted it 1982. The major watermanagement problems which wereaddressed in the plan included flooddamage, degraded water quality andwater supply shortages. (Details ofthe planning process are included asCase Study #3 in Appendix D).

In the late 1980s and throughout the1990s, a number of subwatershedstudies were initiated and to date,about 20 subwatershed plans havebeen completed (see Figure 2-1).Most of these were undertaken inurbanizing areas because ofdevelopment pressures. Theseinclude the Laurel Creek (included inAppendix E as Case Study #4),Stratsburg Creek and Hanlon Creekstudies. A few studies (Eramosa BlueSprings and Upper GrandSubwatershed) dealt primarily withrural land use and water supplyissues.

Upon completion of several of thesubwatershed plans, a number ofEnvironmental Management Plans(EMPs) were carried out. EMPstypically deal with a portion of thesubwatershed area and define, infurther detail, the environmentalresources and the appropriatemanagement alternatives to beundertaken within the study area.For example, five EMPs have beenundertaken within the Laurel CreekSubwatershed.

Presently, GRCA are focusing onupdating its watershed plan, and arecurrently undertaking or haverecently completed a number ofcomponent studies including a waterbudget analysis and assimilativecapacity study.


18

Figure 2-1: GRCA Subwatershed Studies


19

2.2.2 Credit Valley Conservation

The CVC initiated its watershedstudy, the Credit River WaterManagement Strategy (presented inAppendix B as Case Study #1)because of pending land use changesand associated concerns relating toflooding, water quality degradation,impairment of the fishery and loss ofwetlands. The study was undertakenin two phases: the first phase (1988-1990) focused on flooding anderosion, while the second phase(1990-1992) addressed waterquality, aquatic, groundwater andterrestrial issues.

One of the recommendations of thewatershed study was to furtherassess the watershed by addressingissues occurring in each of the 20subwatersheds. The subwatershedplans were to be undertaken in threephases:

Phase I: Subwatershed Characterization;Phase II: Impact Assessment; and Phase III: Implementation.

As illustrated in Figure 2-2, eightsubwatershed plans have beencompleted, eight have been partiallycompleted and four have yet to beinitiated. The subwatershed planshave been undertaken as a result of anumber of factors includingdevelopment pressures, aggregateextraction and restoration andregeneration of rural areas.

Tributary plans have been initiated aspart of the implementation of thesubwatershed plans that have beencompleted.

CVC is presently in the process ofaugmenting its original watershedwork. Work has started on awatershed water budget and a waterquality strategy. The aim of these isto assess the surface andgroundwater quality and availabilitywith a view to understanding howfuture growth may or may not affectwatershed conditions. To establishcurrent conditions, CVC has initiateda watershed-wide integratedmonitoring program. These threemajor initiatives, in conjunction withthe results of the subwatershed planswill feed into the update of thewatershed plan.


20

Figure 2-2: CVC Subwatershed Plans


21

2.2.3 Toronto and RegionConservation Authority

As illustrated in Figure 2-3, TRCA hasnine watersheds under itsjurisdiction. Land uses within thenine watersheds vary considerablyfrom the relatively undeveloped(Duffins Creek) to the highlyurbanized (the Don River which is80% urbanized).

TRCA's initial watershed studiesinvolved the Don River and RougeRiver. The Strategy to Improve DonRiver Water Quality was completed in1989, and addressed the impact ofexisting and proposed land uses onwater quality, recreation, aestheticsand aquatic resources. The RougeRiver Comprehensive BasinManagement Study was completed in1990. It addressed issues related towater quality, flooding, erosion,public health (related to use ofnatural resources), and aquatic andterrestrial resources. Watershed-widestrategies to address these issueswere presented.

In 1989, TRCA committed todeveloping a watershed managementstrategy for each of its ninewatersheds. A two-year timeframewas set for each study to providesome level of watershed-scaledirection and to help address thewidespread development pressuresand regeneration needs within theTRCA jurisdiction. Within timeframeand budget constraints related to therecession in the 1990s, somecomponents of the watershedstudies were completed in a greaterlevel of detail than others. For thisreason, TRCA has distinguishedbetween watershed "strategies" and"plans".

Watershed management strategiesand plans both provide strategicdirection for protection andregeneration activities for a broadrange of issues (i.e. flood hydrology,water quality, aquatic and terrestrialresources, recreational use, andheritage). TRCA's strategies differfrom plans in that the strategiesinclude detailed modeling andanalysis of only a few selectedcomponents (principally hydrologyand aquatic resources). Thestrategies also rely on a morequalitative approach, usingprofessional judgment andcommunity input to developmanagement strategies for theremaining issues. Completion of theremaining technical studies becomerecommendations of the strategies.TRCA's watershed plans involve amore quantitative assessment ofalternative land use and managementscenarios for a broad range of studycomponents. Both the strategiesand plans contain planning maps,targets and recommendedmanagement directions, at a level ofdetail commensurate with thesupporting studies.

Since 1990, TRCA has completedwatershed management strategies forthe Don River (1994), Humber River(1997), and Etobicoke and MimicoCreek watersheds (2002) and awatershed plan for the Duffins andCarruthers Creek Watersheds (2002).The Don Watershed RegenerationStrategy (included as Appendix F,Case Study #5) focused onregeneration/enhancement effortswithin already urbanized areas.


22

It was initiated, in part, because theDon River is one of the majorcontributors of pollutants to TorontoBay, and the Toronto waterfront wasdesignated in 1985 as one of44 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin.

After completion of its watershedstrategies and plans, TRCAestablishes the regular preparation ofa watershed report card to report onwatershed health and progress atimplementing the watershed strategy.To date, Report Cards have beenpublished for the Don Watershed(1997 and 2000) and HumberWatershed (2000). TRCA hasrecently established a RegionalWatershed Monitoring Program tofulfill its monitoring and reportingneeds at both watershed andsubwatershed scales.

Another recent, related initiativewithin TRCA's jurisdiction is the Cityof Toronto Wet Weather Flow MasterManagement Plan, which will providea comprehensive approach forrestoring water quality, hydrology,and aquatic habitat conditions withinthe City, in the context of the entirewatersheds.

TRCA's level of effort to completewatershed strategies, plans, andreport cards and cost have increasedover time, reflecting the adoption ofcommunity-based approaches,expanded technical complexity, andincreased efforts to coordinate withmunicipal planning initiatives.A limited number of subwatershedplans have been completed withinTRCA. Those that have beencompleted include the West HumberSubwatershed Study(Appendix G,Case Study #6),

Morningside Tributary Study and theCentennial Creek SubwatershedStudy. The focus within TRCA hasbeen on undertaking tributary plans(referred to by TRCA as MasterEnvironmental Servicing Plans).Generally, these plans have beenfunded by the private sector withTRCA acting primarily as an approvalagency. Furthermore, the geographicarea covered is more limited ascompared to a subwatershed plan(approximately 40 have beencompleted). The watershed-scaleComponent Studies and WatershedPlans that have been completed arebeing used to provide direction(e.g., flow targets, restorationinitiatives, habitat targets, targetaquatic species, natural heritagetargets) for subsequent EMPs.

The MESP approach is a lesspreferred alternative to thepreparation of full subwatershedplans, because of the limited abilityto understand cumulative effects ofland use proposals throughout asubwatershed. However, TRCA hasfound this approach to be the mostpractical means of providingenvironmental direction for urbandevelopment planning. The late1980s and early 1990s represented aperiod of rapid urban growth in themunicipalities surrounding Toronto.Due to the sheer volume ofdevelopment proposals, timingissues among neighbouringlandowners, a political climate thatpromoted development, and theexpected development delaysassociated with coordinationactivities, the preparation ofsubwatershed plans was not widelysupported by area municipalities orthe development community.


23

Development-related environmentalplanning was practiced primarily atthe large development block planstage (i.e. encompassing severalphases of a plan of subdivision)through "MESPs". Although earlierMESPS focused on water quantityconcerns, by the early 1990s, theirscope had typically been broadenedto include water quality, erosion,aquatic and terrestrial habitatconcerns as well.

The boundaries of the water-relatedcomponent studies were required tobe extended to the full subwatershedboundary, although all othercomponents were limited to thelandowners'property. Watershedscale guidance was provided byTRCA's watershed studies and plans.

Figure 2-3: TRCA Watershed, Subwatershed and MESP Studies


24

3.0 A GENERIC FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT This chapter of the report discussesthe generic framework for watershedmanagement and watershed planningthat is currently being used by theCVC, GRCA and TRCA.

The framework is considered by thethree conservation authorities to be"best practice". It both representscurrent practice and reflects theexperience gained over the last tenyears.

A clear distinction is made betweenwatershed planning, which is onecomponent of watershedmanagement, and watershedmanagement itself.

3.1 THE WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT PROCESS

A consistent, provincial approach towatershed management andwatershed planning was articulated inthe trilogy of watershed managementguidelines published by the MOEEand MNR in June 1993. The basicthrust of watershed managementremains the same today. Asillustrated in Figure 1-2, the processof watershed management has fourmain stages. These are:

Planning: developingwatershed, subwatershed or otherwatershed-based environmentalplans;

Implementation: implementingthe programs, policies or projectsthat arise from watershed,subwatershed or other watershed-based environmental plans;

Monitoring and Reporting:assessing whether plan goals,objectives and targets are being metand periodically communicating theresults to decision-makers and thepublic; and

Reviewing, Evaluating andUpdating: periodically reviewingwatershed management plansthemselves to see if changes areneeded and then altering targets,plans or actions as required.

This sequence of events is usuallyinitiated because of a trigger. Thewatershed management process isillustrated in a more detailed way inFigures 3-1 and 3-2 and describedbelow. Figure 3-2 illustrates theimportance and integrated nature ofstakeholder and public involvementin watershed management.

Watershed management is not just atechnical process of monitoring andmodeling and measuring, it is also asocial process. To be relevant,watershed management must notonly be based on solid science, butmust also acknowledge and reflectthe preferences of the people livingin the watershed. The preferencesmay be expressed as desired enduses, desired states (goals,objectives and targets), and desiredstrategies for achieving goals.Stakeholder and public involvementis discussed at length in section 3.4.


25

3.1.1 Watershed Management Stages

Triggers:As noted in the figures 3-1 and 3-2,the development of watershedmanagement plans is usually spurredon by one or more triggers. Thesecan include proposals that can havesignificant environmental effects,such as proposals for large-scaleurban development, gravel extractionor large water takings. Triggers canalso include updates of official plansor broad environmental concernssuch as loss of fish species ordegraded water quality in rivers.

Planning:As noted in Chapter 2.0 of thisreport, Ontario municipalities andconservation authorities haveamassed considerable experience inthe last decade in the developmentof Watershed and SubwatershedPlans. The generic steps in theWatershed or Subwatershed Planningprocess - how it is carried out -- aredescribed in section 3.2. Therelationship between Watershed andSubwatershed Plans (and the moredetailed Tributary Plans andEnvironmental Site Plans) isaddressed in section 3.3. In general,there has been more focus andattention placed on the planning partof the management cycle in theprovince than on theimplementation, monitoring, andreview parts of the cycle6.

Implementation:Watersheds are complex systems,and watershed management plansare necessarily multi-faceted. Theimplementation of plans, therefore,usually takes place on many frontsand can involve dozens of agenciesand organizations and thousands ofindividuals. Time spans forimplementation vary widely, withsmall projects such as building a fishladder at a weir, which might take afew weeks, to retrofitting stormwatermanagement ponds, which couldtake decades. Some projects (suchas remediating contaminated soil orsediments) require expertengineering, while others (such asplanting riparian vegetation) can becarried out with volunteer labour.Some items (such as expansion ofsewage treatment plants) can costmillions of dollars, while others (suchas community stewardship programs)can be carried out relatively cheaply.Most watershed plans involve bothregulatory approaches (municipalsewer use bylaws, for example withfines for those who don't comply),incentives (such as recognition ofgood corporate citizens), andeducation and awareness programsto involve the public.

To be effective, implementation plansneed to clearly identify the actions,the targets to be reached, theimplementing body or bodies, theschedule and the costs. A closer lookat implementation plans andmechanisms is provided in Chapter 5.0.


26

Monitoring and Reporting:Monitoring progress in terms ofmeeting goals, objectives or targetsand reporting to the public anddecision-makers are fundamentalelements of sound resourcemanagement. Simply put, monitoringallows us to see if we are achievingwhat we have set out to do. Giventhe complex nature of watersheds,comprehensive monitoring plans canbe quite extensive. Typically,monitoring programs look at stresseson the watershed (such as thenumber of combined seweroverflows), environmental conditions(such as phosphorus levels in riversand streams) and institutionalresponses (such as the number ofrain barrels installed in aneighbourhood). Monitoringframeworks are examined at length inchapter 6.0.

Reviewing, Evaluating and Updating:The fourth stage of watershedmanagement is to periodically - sayonce every five or ten years - reviewwatershed plans to see if they needto be updated in light of changingenvironmental conditions, changingland use pressures, or changingpublic attitudes. We make watershedplans using the best knowledgeavailable at the time, but theseshould not be static documents."Effective watershed management isan iterative process, [which shouldtake] full advantage of both thesuccesses and mistakes ofimplementation"7.

This reiteration - also called adaptiveenvironmental management (AEM)- is characterized by the following:

It recognizes that there isuncertainty in our ability tounderstand watersheds and predictfuture changes in them.

It also acknowledges that welearn through experimentation, andencourages us to change in the lightof experience gained.

It reflects the need for and useof continuous and deliberate learningand improvement.

It encourages us to expect"surprise" or natural variability in anecosystem.

It requires a system approachto planning, managing andmonitoring our activities.

It requires a partnershipapproach involving researchers,managers and other stakeholders.

Figure 3-1: Schematic of Watershed Management Process

Figure 3-2: Stakeholder, Public and Agency Involvementin the Watershed ManagementProcess


27

Trigger

Develop Plan

Implement

Monitor and Report

Review and Evaluate

Invo

lvem

ent

of

stak

eho

lder

s,

the

pu

blic

and

age

ncie

s

MONITOR andREPORT

REVIEW andEVALUATE

PLAN

IMPLEMENT

TRIGGERIssues/Concerns

WATERSHEDPLANNING STEPS

Scoping

Characterize the system

Set goals, objectives andworking targets

Develop managementalternatives

Evaluate managementalternatives

Select preferredmanagement alternatives

Finalize targets

Develop implementationand monitoring plans


28

3.2 THE WATERSHEDPLANNING PROCESS

This section of the report addressesthe planning process used for bothWatershed and Subwatershed Plans.The steps involved in developing aSubwatershed Plan are the same asthose used for developing aWatershed Plan, although asdescribed in section 3.3, the level ofdetail and the scale of analysis maybe quite different between the two.The generic steps used to developboth types of plans are illustrated inFigure 3-3 and the questions to beanswered within these planning stepsare listed in Figure 3-4. Individualmunicipalities or conservationauthorities may use different namesfor the various planning stepsinvolved.

Stakeholder and PublicInvolvement:

It is important to engage the publicand stakeholders when developingWatershed and Subwatershed Plans.As discussed in Chapter 4 (LessonsLearned), effective involvement ofthe public and stakeholders is key tothe development of a good plan, andis absolutely vital for implementationto succeed. How public andstakeholder involvement is carriedout varies widely, but the principlesare consistent with those used in theEnvironmental Assessment process.That is, the public and stakeholdersshould be involved early on, beforeany key decisions are made, andthroughout the process at keymilestones. Stakeholder and publicinvolvement is discussed at length insection 3.4 of this report.

Scoping:

Scoping is carried out in the veryearly stages of the watershedplanning process. Information anddata from existing sources are pulledtogether. These may come in theform of base resource maps,drainage plans, land use andplanning studies, fish and wildlifeinventories and other materials.Historical documents may also beuseful in terms of describinghistorical conditions and changesthat have occurred over time in thewatershed or subwatershed. Initialissue identification and informationgap analysis then allows fordevelopment of a workplan andallocation of resources (expertise,costs, schedule etc.) to complete theprocess.

Characterizing the System:

Planning for the future requiresstarting with a good understanding ofthe present. Characterizing awatershed typically begins with fillingdata and information gaps that wereidentified in the scoping exercise.The next step is usually to gain agood understanding of the existingconditions in the watershed orsubwatershed. This typically includescollecting information on:

surface water resources(including water budget, baseflows,peak flows and flood lines);

surface water quality(including nutrients, contaminants,temperature and other keyparameters in both wet and dryweather conditions);


29

groundwater resources(including the identification ofrecharge/discharge areas, geologicalconditions, the location and capacityof aquifers, flow direction andgradient, and existing wells);

stream morphology (including the classification ofstreams with respect to stability andsensitivity to land use changes);

terrestrial resources(including wetlands, woodlots,landforms, environmentally sensitiveareas and wildlife);

aquatic resources(including fish, amphibians, andaquatic reptiles, mammals, birds and insects);

land use(existing and proposed); and

demographics(population and other relevant social factors).

The next step is to integrate, to lookat the overall form, function andlinkages of the natural system. Theintegration step examines theinterrelationships among the aboveconstituents. The use of GIS overlayscan identify important areas forprotection: e.g., areas in which thereis not only good water quality, butalso a thriving fishery, significantbaseflow from groundwater andextensive riparian cover.

Setting Goals:

Once there is a good understandingof the natural system, goals,objectives and working targets are

set with stakeholders and the public.These goals, objectives and workingtargets reflect community values andsound science and will vary widely toreflect environmental conditions,issues and public preferences.Targets are generally very specificand measurable - for example,restoring riparian cover on a certainpercentage of the stream length of asubwatershed.

Developing ManagementAlternatives:

Once a good understanding of thenatural systems is obtained, andgoals, objectives and working targetsare defined, managers can developalternative management strategiesfor various future scenarios. (Thesemight reflect, for example, highgrowth, medium growth and lowgrowth scenarios). For thesescenarios, the alternativemanagement strategies might reflectdiffering levels of stormwater control,habitat and stream restoration,protection of natural areas, and otheractions that are already expressed inthe goals and objectives that havebeen set.

Evaluating ManagementAlternatives:

Once alternative managementstrategies are identified, they areevaluated against a common set ofcriteria. These typically include suchfactors as: the ability to meettargets, public acceptability, cost,technical feasibility, the potential toenhance the environment, and theimpact on future land uses.


30

Selecting a Preferred Management Alternative:

With input from the public andstakeholders, a preferredmanagement alternative is selected.Generally, this will be themanagement alternative that bestmeets the objectives set by thepublic and stakeholders.

Finalizing Targets:

Targets are amended if needed andfinalized for inclusion in theWatershed or Subwatershed Plan andother relevant municipal planningdocuments.

Developing Implementation and Monitoring Plans:

An Implementation Plan is developedfor the Watershed or SubwatershedPlan. This lists actions to beundertaken, the agency ororganization responsible, timelinesfor completion, and funding sources.The Monitoring Plan describes theextent of monitoring, timing,agencies or organizationsresponsible, and reporting frequency.

Figure 3-3: Steps inWatershed/Subwatershed Planning

SCOPE

CHARACTERIZE THE SYSTEM

SET GOALS, OBJECTIVES ANDWORKING TARGETS

DEVELOP MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

SELECT PREFERRED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE

FINALIZE TARGETS

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION ANDMONITORING PLANS

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

wit

h s

take

ho

lder

s, t

he

pu

blic

and

age

ncie

s


31

Figure 3-4: Questions to be answered in the planning process

Scoping

Characterize the system

Set goals, objectives andworking targets

Develop managementalternatives

Evaluate managementalternatives

Select preferredmanagement alternative

Finalize targets

Develop implementationand monitoring plans

WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS

PLANNING STEPS QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED

What are the issues of concern?What information exists and where are the gaps?What additional work needs to be done to fill gaps?What are the resource needs to do the study?

What are the resources?What are the functions & linkages?What are the key management issues?What are the information gaps?

What are the goals for the watershed?What are the objectives?What are the potential targets?

What are the stressors?What are the opportunities?What are the management alternatives?

How will impacts/watershed response be evaluated?What are the impacts/watershed responses associated with each management alternative?What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

What are the criteria for selecting the preferred management alternatives? What is the preferred plan?

What are the final targets?

What management actions are recommended?Where are the recommendations applicable?Who should address the recommendations and when?How much will implementation cost?


32

3.3 WATERSHED PLANNING AT DIFFERENT SCALES

As practiced in Ontario, watershedplanning is carried out at fourdifferent scales, with the level ofdetail increasing as the size of theplanning area decreases. The nestednature of these plans is illustrated inFigures 3-5 and 3-6.

The most logical and efficient way tocarry out watershed planning is tobegin with the watershed plan, thendevelop subwatershed plans on apriority basis, and then carry on withtributary plans and finallyenvironmental site plans as needed.This is the most effective way ofplanning, as each stage providesdirection and information for thefollowing stage. This approach alsoavoids the potential for duplicationof effort (for example, avoidingduplicating the development ofhydrologic models for asubwatershed).

In practice, however, because offinancial constraints manymunicipalities and conservationauthorities develop subwatershedplans first, and later integrate theminto an overall watershed plan8.Likewise, tributary plans may bedeveloped before subwatershedplans are created. This is indicated inFigure 3-5 by the double-endedarrows. (As noted below, if tributaryplans are developed beforesubwatershed plans, somecomponents such as hydrology muststill be studied at the subwatershedscale).

Watershed Plans:

Watershed plans typically cover largeareas (1,000 km2 or more) andcorrespond to the drainage basins ofmajor rivers such as the Thames,Credit, Grand or Humber. Theycontain goals, objectives and targetsfor the entire watershed anddocument both environmentalresources and environmentalproblems. They also providewatershed-wide policy and directionfor protecting surface andgroundwater, natural features,fisheries, open space systems,terrestrial and aquatic habitats andother factors. Where resources aredegraded, watershed plans addressrestoration needs. Watershed planstypically include both implementationplans (specifying who will do what bywhen) and monitoring plans(describing how monitoring of thewatershed and reporting is to takeplace).

Recommendations arising fromwatershed plans, such as thedelineation of natural areas orrecharge zones to be protected fromdevelopment, are typically includedin official plans. Typical current costsfor a watershed plan range from$300,000 to $1 million.

Subwatershed Plans:

The area covered by a subwatershedis typically in the range of 50 to200 km2. At this smaller scale, thereis enhanced detail that allows localenvironmental issues to beaddressed. Subwatershed Planscontain goals, objectives and targetsfor management of thesubwatershed. They also:


33

identify the form, function andlinkages of the natural system(including surface and groundwater,aquatic and terrestrial habitats,fisheries and wildlife communities,soils and stream morphology);

identify environmentallysensitive or hazard lands;

identify existing and proposed land uses;

identify areas wheredevelopment may be permitted;

provide direction for BestManagement Practices (e.g., foragriculture, aggregate extraction,development servicing, woodlots,etc.);

provide direction andconsistency for approval ofdevelopment for municipalities;

address cumulative impacts ofchanges on the natural environment;and

include both implementationand monitoring plans.

Subwatershed plans are tailored toaddress specific subwatershed issuesand local municipal concerns. Theplan for a highly urbanizedsubwatershed may differ markedlyfrom that for a rural area, reflectingthe different environmental conditionand stresses between the two.

Recommendations contained insubwatershed plans may be includedin official plans, secondary plans,growth management strategies, orother municipal planningmechanisms. Typical current costs fora subwatershed plan range from$200,000 to $500,000.

Figure 3-5: Nested WatershedPlanning

Watershed Plan

Subwatershed Plan

Tributary Plan

Environmental Siteplan

Incr

easi

ng

leve

l o

f d

eta

il


34

Tributary Plans:

Proposals for significant land usechanges (such as proposals forsubdivisions, large-scale watertaking, gravel extraction or intensiveagriculture) may require thedevelopment of a tributary plan. (Invarious places, these are calledEnvironmental Management Plans,Environmental Impact Reports,Environmental Area Plans, or MasterEnvironmental Servicing Plans).Tributary plans are carried out on aportion of a subwatershed, andusually address an area of between 2to 10 km2 in size. Although it is notalways the current practice, theboundaries of a tributary plan shouldmatch the drainage basin of atributary.

Tributary plans may be preparedbefore or after a subwatershed plan.If carried out after the subwatershedplan has been developed, a tributaryplan will benefit from the datacollected and directions set out inthe subwatershed plan. If asubwatershed plan has not beendeveloped, the tributary plan shouldbe done at a level of detailequivalent to that which would becontained in the subwatershed plan.Tributary plans typically:

document the environmentalresources in a tributary withsupporting detailed studies;

set environmental protectiontargets for ground and surface water,aquatic and terrestrial communitiesand stream morphology;

identify Best ManagementPractices to be used includingstormwater management;

refine/define areas to beprotected and/or restored;

identify locations for futurestormwater management facilities;and

identify future site-specificstudies and monitoring needs.

Recommendations arising from aTributary Plan are generally reflectedin secondary plans, official planamendments, conditions for draftplan approval or conditions for siteplan approval. Typical current costsfor a tributary plan range from$75,000 to $100,000.

Environmental Site Plans:

At a still finer level of detail is theenvironmental site plan, sometimesreferred to as an Environmental /Stormwater Management Report(ESWM). These are usually preparedto meet conditions set out in a DraftPlan of Approval. An environmentalsite plan provides details onproposed environmental andstormwater management measures,and is usually submitted with plansfor grading, erosion/sediment controland site servicing.

The specific requirements for anenvironmental site plan tend to vary.Some of the typical key deliverablesinclude:

detailed designs of stormwatermanagement facilities;


35

detailed designs ofenvironmental restoration works(e.g., stream protection works);

delineation of constraints (e.g.,significant woodlots, wetlands orhazard lands);

sediment and erosion control plans;

detailed geotechnical and waterresource reports;

delineation of grading limits andtree preservation plans;

revegetation and landscaping plans;

access routes and disposalareas for operation and maintenance;and

landscape features includingtrails, parkland and other recreationalamenities.

The recommendations arising froman environmental site plan are usuallyincluded in the engineering designdrawings for the draft approvedplans of subdivision. Typical currentcosts for a site plan range from$25,000 to $50,000.

Figure 3-6: Nested WatershedPlanning in the Credit River

Taken from:StormwaterPlanning andDesign Manual(unpublished)


36

3.4 PARTNERSHIPAPPROACHES AND PUBLICINVOLVEMENT

3.4.1 Partnership Approaches

The use of partnership approaches isembedded in the idea and practiceof watershed planning andmanagement. There are at least fourreasons why this is so. First,watershed boundaries often crossmunicipal, regional and sometimesprovincial and national boundaries.Where this is the case, differentagencies need to work together inorder to effectively conserve andprotect the watershed's resources.Second, watershed management isthe responsibility of conservationauthorities and watershed planning ismost often carried out byconservation authorities.Conservation authorities are bydefinition partnership agencies,formed from their constituentmunicipalities. Third, watershedmanagement is an integratedapproach to management thatconsiders all aspects of theenvironment. Accordingly, it requiresdifferent agencies with differentinterests to work together in orderfor integration to take place.Municipal planners work alongsidewater managers, fisheries biologists,water quality experts and others.Fourth, there is widespreadacceptance that partnershipapproaches (also called "roundtable"or "stakeholder" approaches) are themost effective ways to manageresources and make decisions.

The jurisdictional framework forprotecting the environment andmanaging natural resources hasevolved over decades and ischaracterized by fragmentation,overlap in some areas and gaps inothers. Partnership approaches aimto break through this fragmentationby bringing key decision-makerstogether to address issuescooperatively (see figure 3-7).Roundtable decision-making replacessequential, one-on-one interaction.With all parties at the table,representatives gain anunderstanding of different points ofview and needs. Experience hasshown that partnership approacheslead to more flexibility, increasedcooperation, creative problem-solving and faster decision-makingthan is found in linear approaches.

As noted in Chapter 4 of this report,effective partnership approacheshave been central to the success ofwatershed planning and managementin the province. Successful watershedplans have been those in which keystakeholders (member municipalities,agencies such as MOE, MNR andOMAFRA and the communityrepresentatives) have been involvedin a focused and targeted mannerfrom the earliest stages. Thisincludes representation on steering,technical and implementationcommittees. The experience in GRCA,CVC and TRCA is that effectivepartnership approaches lead tosuccessful completion of watershedplans, encourage "buy in" forimplementation, and create a climatefor effective monitoring andreporting.


37

Forging strong links to municipal staffand gaining the active participationand leadership of municipalpoliticians and citizens help create aconstituency that cares about thewatershed and which becomes achampion for it.

3.4.2 Stakeholder and Public Involvement

Public involvement in watershedplanning and management is anintegral part of both processes. Thepublic - or rather, publics, becausethere are a great many of them - playa number of important roles inwatersheds. The "public" includestaxpayers, landowners, workers,users of recreational resources, school children, churchgoers and others. The public includes allsectors: business, institutional,environmental, recreational andagricultural. Stakeholders are

a sub-set of the general public andinclude anyone with a "stake" in theprocess. They may be directlyaffected by a particular issue, or mayrepresent the interests of a particularsector or organization. Stakeholdersare self-defined and can includebusinesses, developers, recreationalusers groups, residents and others.Because of their greater stake in anissue, stakeholders tend to be willingto invest more time and energy inprocesses such as watershedplanning, and more likely tovolunteer for committees or taskswhich require a significantinvestment of time.

Figure 3-7 Contrasting Decision-Making Processes

taken from: Barrett, S. and J. Kidd. 1991. Pathways: Towards an ecosystemapproach. Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.


38

The experience of GRCA, CVC andTRCA in watershed planning andmanagement is that effective publicinvolvement is a key factor forsuccess (see Chapter 4). Inwatershed planning, publicinvolvement:

starts early in the process andcontinues throughout;

is focused at key milestones inthe process;

captures the public'spreferences in terms of watershedgoals, objectives and targets (helpingto answer the question, "Where dowe want to be?");

provides direction foridentification, evaluation andselection of management options;

creates local "ambassadors"who act as watchdogs, advocates,educators and catalysts for action;and

encourages citizens to act asstewards - to get involved inprotection, restoration, cleanup andmonitoring projects in the watershed.

In practice, the scale of a publicinvolvement program and thetechniques and tools used differdepending on the scale of awatershed planning study, the levelof interest, and the issues involved.For a relatively small, rural watershed,public involvement may be limited totwo meetings, one to develop goalsand one to select a preferredmanagement alternative.

For a larger, more complex study, likethe Don Watershed Strategy, publicinvolvement might include dozens ofpublic meetings and the formation ofa multi-stakeholder group like theDon Watershed Task Force to guidethe process along.

Some of the elements that contributeto effective public involvement inwatershed planning are:

clear Terms of Reference for thestudy that describe roles,responsibilities, deliverables, timelines and opportunities for publicinvolvement;

effective facilitation;

clear, understandable andtimely study reports and documents

clear, accessible and attractivenewsletters and other tools thatprovide updates on the planningprocess;

the use of graphic ways todepicting information such as GISand air photos;

accessible and timelyopportunities for involvement;

the provision of a variety ofways for people to participate in theprocess, according to their level ofinterest;

openness and transparency; and

clear documentation of theinput received and how it affectedthe planning process.


39

4.0 LESSONS LEARNED: ASSESSING THE GENERIC

This section of the report examinesthe lessons learned by CVC, GRCAand TRCA. In a decade of watershedplanning (twenty five years in thecase of GRCA), much has beenlearned about the factors thatcontribute to success in watershedplanning and management, thechallenges and barriers, and trends inplanning and management. These areexamined through the six casestudies contained in Appendices C toH. The case studies were selected toprovide a spectrum of scales andtype of area (e.g., the heavily urbanDon Watershed and the Grand River,which still contains large areasdevoted to agriculture). The reader isencouraged to read these casestudies which provide a wealth ofdetail about how these complexplans were developed.

In this section of the report, wherean element of success, a barrier or atrend references a particularconservation authority or a particularcase study, it is denoted with squarebrackets (e.g., TRCA CS #6 refers toTRCA's Case Study #6 on the WestHumber Subwatershed Study, whichis presented as Appendix G). Inpractice, many of the points made inthis section are applicable to all threeconservation authorities. Compiledlists of elements of success, barriersand trends that are applicable to allthree conservation authorities arefound in Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3respectively.

4.1 ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS

4.1.1 Watershed Planning

Designing the Planning Process

It is important to tailor thewatershed/subwatershed planningprocess to the particular watershed(i.e., to respect the particular naturaland social environment). [TRCA]

There is a need for clear Termsof Reference to guide thedevelopment of watershed andsubwatershed plans. This shouldclearly define the roles andresponsibilities of the agencies andpartners involved and describe theformal review and approval process[TRCA CS#6]

Building understanding andcommitment of the project SteeringCommittee is vital for success.[TRCA]

Characterizing the System

Up front data collection isneeded for effective watershed andsubwatershed planning. [CVC CS #1)

Effective characterizationrequires looking at rivers, tributaries,upland areas and how these arelinked through the hydrologic cycle.[CVC CS #1)

GIS mapping is an effective toolthat can be used to depict data,information and recommendations.[CVC CS #1)


40

To effectively characterize thesystem, analysis and findings fromeach discipline need to beintegrated. [CVC CS #1)

Setting Goals, Objectives andTargets

The development of clear andunderstandable goals and objectiveswas a key factor for success in thedevelopment of the Grand RiverBasin Water Management Study.Elaborate and rather unwieldy goalswere reduced to three easilyunderstood objectives for "publicconsumption". [GRCA CS #3]

Developing, Evaluating andSelecting Management Alternatives

To effectively analyze thepotential impacts of variousmanagement alternatives, theanalysis and findings from eachdiscipline need to be integrated.[CVC CS #1)

Consideration of a wide rangeof alternative strategies - 26 in all --was a key factor for success in theGrand. [GRCA CS #3]

In the Grand, having adequateexpertise and decision support toolsto be able to do evaluate the relativeeconomic, social and environmentalcosts and benefits of the differentmanagement alternatives was a keyto success. [GRCA CS #3 and GRCACS #4]]

4.1.2 Implementing Watershed Plans

Effective implementationrequires the identification of clear,discrete actions and responsibilitiesand clear accountability fordeliverables. [CVC CS #1)

A key contributor to effectiveimplementation is the "buy in" of keypartners, such as membermunicipalities, from the beginning.[CVC CS #1)

In the Laurel CreekSubwatershed Study, the support ofmunicipal politicians and staff (andtheir continuity with the planningstage) was a key factor for successfulimplementation. [GRCA CS #4]

The ability of the GRCA to stitchtogether various programs to helpimprove rural water quality, in spiteof shifting provincial priorities,illustrates how important it is to havea coordinating agency forimplementation. [GRCA CS #3]

In the Don, illustrating how thewatershed management objectivesapply at all scales helped promotepublic understanding and acceleratedimplementation. This wasaccomplished through the use ofsubwatershed scale RegenerationPlans, neighbourhood scale ConceptSite Plans, and examples of"backyard" actions for residents,businesses, and schools. [TRCA CS #5]


41

The use of Detailed ConceptSite plans significantly acceleratedthe implementation of several largeregeneration projects throughout theDon Watershed, which providedsome "early successes",demonstration projects, andpartnerships that could be used tomotivate further action. ConceptSite plans had already engaged anumber of stakeholders in theprocess, so these working groupswere already together. Having theplans already available provided atangible focus for all partners inassembling the necessaryfinancing/resources. [TRCA CS #5]

A key factor for success in theDon was the setting of "do-able"short term milestones, as well aslonger term challenging objectives inorder to build momentum with small,immediate successes. [TRCA CS #5]

4.1.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Celebrating success isconsidered a key factor for successin watershed management, in that itallows people to understand thatprogress is being made. Although notdirectly related to the Basin Study,the health of the Grand has beencelebrated by being declared aHeritage River in 1994 and beingawarded the Theiss River Prize forexcellence in river management in2000. Coverage of the Grand's troutfishery - one of the best in NorthAmerica - has highlighted theimprovements in the river's waterquality. [GRCA CS #3]

4.1.4 Periodic Review of Plans

Watershed plans need to beupdated over time as follow-upmonitoring takes place andwatershed conditions change. [CVC CS #1]

GRCA has initiated a continuousreview of all components of theBasin Study, upgrading andmaintaining its components on acontinuous basis, rather than at a setinterval. [GRCA CS #3]

4.1.5 Partnership Approaches

Key partners (such as membermunicipalities and ministries such asMOEE, MNR and OMAFRA) wereinvolved from the beginning in a veryfocused and targeted manner in thedevelopment of the Credit RiverWater Management Strategy. Thiswas a key element of success in theprocess, leading to "buy in" for theimplementation phase. [CVC CS #1]

All parties affected by theGrand River Basin WaterManagement Study and itsimplementation were represented onkey committees (the Grand RiverImplementation Committee and itsTechnical Committee). [GRCA CS #3]Similarly, all parties affected by theLaurel Creek Watershed Plan wereinvolved in the Roundtable andTechnical Committee. [GRCA CS #4]

Having strong leadership atboth the political and staff level atthe City of Waterloo and GRCA wasconsidered a key factor for success.[GRCA CS #4]


42

Strong linkages to otherprograms (including monitoringprograms and local and regional landuse planning) optimized the use ofavailable information and minimizedduplication of effort. [GRCA CS #3]

Involvement of municipalpoliticians on the Don Task Forcehelped expedite endorsement andimplementation of the Strategy bymunicipal councils and supported thecontinued, active participation bymunicipal staff throughout theprocess. [TRCA CS #5]

The use of a consensus based-based approach in the developmentof the Don Watershed Strategy was akey factor in its success. By creatingan environment of consensus-building, the Task Force was able todescribe a shared vision for a healthyurban watershed that wascompellingly "practical" and thereforegot the attention of a broaderaudience, including former skeptics.The Task Force vision deliberatelystates that "we do not wish todismantle...the urban areas...torecreate a pristine Don River..." andthe report deliberately coined theterm "regenerate" to suggest somehealthier new condition shaped bythe resource potential and the urbanfabric. [TRCA CS #5]

The Don Watershed Task Forceadopted a common philosophy ofcollaboration in planning andrecognition of the need for multipleimplementors rather than the"pointing fingers" approach of thepast. This acceptance of sharedresponsibility was essential to effectimplementation. [TRCA CS #5]

4.1.6 Public Involvement

Public participation indetermining the study objectives andin the formation, evaluation andselection of the final managementplan was a key factor in the successof the Grand River Basin WaterManagement Study and the LaurelCreek Watershed Study. The processused by GRCA -- inclusive, open andunbiased - helped build trust in theplanning process. [GRCA CS #3 andGRCA CS #4]

In the Don, the involvement ofcitizens, NGOs, and politicians in theTask Force process, created a groupof "local ambassadors" who havecontinued to educate, motivate andserve as watchdogs in their ownneighbourhoods. This has helpedmultiply limited governmentresources many times over. [TRCA CS #5]

Empowering a strong,enthusiastic, dedicated, and wellrespected citizen with the role ofChair in the Don Watershed TaskForce helped to engage and empowerother citizen members, gave theprocess more transparency, andmade it clear that the product was ashared product and not just anotheragency report. [TRCA CS #5]


43

4.1.7 Communication

Good visual products, such asGIS mapping and photos, areessential communication tools forcommunicating the plan andinvolving the public. [TRCA CS #5]

In the Don, considerable effortwas put into developing a "readable",interesting, and illustrated strategydocument. This document (FortySteps to a New Don) appealed to abroader audience and was widelyread. Involvement of a professional(journalistic) writer was essentialthroughout the process, in order tobe able to accurately communicatethe Task Force discussions andconvey the subtleties of the conceptsthey were trying to express.

Even for technical users,watershed study reports can beimposing. Usability can be improvedby separating out implementationand monitoring plans from processdocumentation on goals, backgroundenvironmental conditions, andidentification , analysis andevaluation of alternatives. [GRCA CS #4]

It is important to celebratesuccesses. Celebration events, likePaddle the Don, attract mediaattention, and profile the work of theTask Force and their public, private,and political partners. [TRCA CS #5]

4.1.8 Institutional Aspects of Watershed Planning and Management

Coordination of Planning,Implementation and Monitoring

Having a coordinator at thewatershed level (i.e., in theconservation authority) was a keyfactor for success in the Grand RiverBasin Water Management Study.[GRCA CS #3]

Similarly, for the Don WatershedStrategy, the existence of acoordinating agency (in this case, theCA) was necessary to bring everyonetogether during both the planningand implementation stages. In theDon, TRCA has been successful atbringing interested volunteers,groups, and agencies together withfinancial and technical resources toassist them in achieving theirenvironmental objectives. Often thisis an opportunity to pool resourcesand achieve larger commonobjectives than any one group couldachieve on its own. [TRCA CS #5]

Watershed managers shouldcarry out watershed/subwatershedstudies themselves in order to ensurethat there is an institutionalunderstanding and memory of theprocess and the findings. [CVC CS#1]

Setting an ambitious schedulefor the project and having a definedmandate for the Don Watershed TaskForce, kept the participants engagedin the development of the Strategy.Clear lines of accountability withinthe process contributed to theadherence to deadlines. [TRCA CS #5]


4444

Resources

For both planning andimplementation, the GRCA found thathaving adequate resources (time andmoney) was key to success. [GRCACS #3 and GRCA CS #4]

Figure 4-1 Key Elements of Successin Watershed Management

In the Don, TRCA found thathaving dedicated staff (both personaland corporate dedication of stafftime) was essential to maintainenthusiasm, meet timelines, andfulfill expectations of volunteers.[TRCA CS #5]

FACTORS FOR SUCCESSTailor planning process to particular watershedDevelop clear Terms of Reference that define process, roles andresponsibilitiesBuild understanding and support of Steering CommitteeCollect baseline data up frontEffectively characterize the system by integrating information from eachdisciplineUse GIS to communicate data, information and recommendationsSet clear, understandable goals, objectives and targetsConsider a range of alternativesHave expertise and decision support tools for evaluating alternativesIdentify clear, discrete actions and responsibilitiesEnsure clear accountability of deliverablesEnsure "buy in" from key partners from the beginningGain support of municipal politicians and staffInclude actions at different scales (i.e., watershed, subwatershed, siteand individual actions)Set "do-able" short term milestones as well as longer-term targetsCelebrate successReport on a regular basisInvolve the public in developing monitoring plans, monitoring andreportingLink monitoring to watershed goals, objectives and targets.Update at 10 year intervals to reflect changes in environmentalconditions, stressors, and public preferencesInvolve key partners from the beginning of the process in SteeringCommittee and others (i.e., Technical Committees)Seek strong leadership fat the political and staff level from key partnersForge strong links to other programs and processes to maximize the useof informationUse consensus-based approaches to develop a shared visionAdopt a philosophy of collaboration in planning and implementationInvolve the public in determining the study objectives, goals andselection of the preferred planBe inclusive, open and unbiasedAim to create "local ambassadors" - public participants in the processwho can educate, motivate and serve as watchdogs in their own neighbourhoodsFind a strong, enthusiastic and respected citizen to chair the projectSteering CommitteeUse effective visual tools such as GIS mapping and photosDevelop reports that are engaging, easy to read and appealingConsider the needs of users (e.g., make Implementation Plans stand-alone documents)Celebrate successesHave strong coordination at the local level (e.g., in the CA)Have watershed managers develop watershed/subwatershed plans Setan ambitious schedule and keep to itFind dedicated staff to develop the watershed/subwatershed plan

ASPECTWatershed /SubwatershedPlanning

ImplementingWatershed Plans

Monitoring andReporting

Periodic Review ofPlansPartnershipApproaches

Public Involvement

Communication

Institutional Aspects


45

4.2 CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS

4.2.1 Watershed Planning

Characterizing the System

To date, there has been onlylimited integration of economic andsocial aspects in watershed planningin the Credit River. These need to bebetter addressed in watershed andsubwatershed planning. [CVC CS #1)

The science of integration hasimproved tremendously in the lastdecade or so. However, there is stilla lack of tools that allow watershedand subwatershed information to beintegrated across disciplines. [CVCCS #1)

Despite advances indevelopment of surface andgroundwater models, there is still aneed for user-friendly holistic modelsthat combine surface andgroundwater). [CVC, CS #2]

Quantitative models need to bedeveloped that relate fishcommunities to water qualityconditions. [CVC, CS #2

Quantitative models need to bedeveloped for the relationshipbetween fish communities and flowregimes (upwellings, low flows,bankfull, overbank flows, etc.) [CVC,CS #2]

Technical practitioners did notalways understand the link betweenthe Don Watershed Strategydocument, which was written for ageneral audience, and the

background technical studies thatformed the basis for the Strategy'sdevelopment and implementation.This could have been avoided withbetter coordination of the technicalwork into a clear compendium oflinked background reports andimplementation guidelines/criteria.[TRCA CS #5]

Groundwater management wasnot addressed in a comprehensiveway when the Don WatershedStrategy was being developed , dueto financial and schedulingconstraints together with the beliefthat adequate information wasavailable relative to the concerns.[TRCA CS #5]

Although a qualitativeunderstanding of the linkages andissues between various scientificdisciplines was provided in theSubwatershed RegenerationManagement Plans, the practice of"integrated watershed management"was somewhat rudimentary in theDon Watershed Strategy. As thescience has evolved considerably,this will be addressed during theperiodic r

conservation ontario (2004) - watershed management best practices

Documents

province of ontario

atwatershed management

marie region south nation

development of watershed

based management organization

best practices currentlybeing

watershedmanagement

beenworking c