Toward a Watershed Monitoring Framework for the Toronto Region

OUTPUT FROM ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSIONSON THE MONITORING FRAMEWORK, INDICATORS, AND APPROACHES

The workshop used facilitated round-table sessions to obtain feedback from all participants and generated considerable discussion. As noted in the workshop program in Appendix 2, the round- table discussions were used to address four main themes consistent with the workshop design:

  • monitoring indicators;
  • process for developing the monitoring framework;
  • main issues to consider in developing and implementing the monitoring network; and
  • potential role of the WQB and IJC in facilitating the successful implementation of a watershed monitoring network.

Presented below is a brief summary of the output from each of these breakout sessions.

Monitoring Indicators

Monitoring is a critical element in the management of watersheds. Participants pointed out the lack of good historical or baseline information on many indicators from both urban and rural reference sites. In the future more emphasis needs to be placed on the use of reference sites. In addition, experience has shown that follow up comparisons from one area to another are relevant and cost-effective. It was suggested that priority be given to indicators that make sense and are important to the public (they must be relevant and understandable). The RAP should consider using a similar indicator approach used in existing watershed report cards (e.g., Don River and Humber River). Indicators should give a quick snapshot of the existing condition at a particular time. There is a need to identify and understand the effects of change in the watersheds. Stressor indicators need more emphasis in monitoring, especially nonpoint sources. There must be a good understanding of the integration of and interaction among indicators. For example, more work should be undertaken to relate biomonitoring results with physio-chemical conditions and to consider the effects of energy flows through the system. Social, economic, and health indicators need to be added to future monitoring programs and must be seen in the "front line" (e.g., public health).

It was generally accepted that indicators must be prioritized based on resources, availability of existing programs, base growth, RAP priorities, and direction of monitoring results. More emphasis must be placed on tableland resources and associated indicators/measures (e.g., agricultural practices affect the habitat in these upland areas). Groundwater also needs more emphasis, especially in the area of Oak Ridges Moraine. Further, there should be a groundwater and surface water link. Participants noted that some IJC impaired uses are not being addressed (e.g., fish tumours/animal deformities). The aquatic invertebrate community is a good integrator/indicator. Algae may be particularly useful as an indicator as well. The terrestrial community should be broken down into more specific indicators, including sentinel plant and animal species. There is also a need to incorporate "land-use change"' as an indicator as this has a significant impact on ecosystem health, especially in the headwater areas of the watersheds. Another suggestion was to consider adding prevention-based indicators/measures.

Process for Developing the Monitoring Framework

Participants called for clarification of the consultation process (e.g., Who is being consulted?). For example, there is a need for clarification of public and NGO role/involvement in the framework development (e.g., consultation, community monitoring, education). Participants felt that the process should be inclusive (i.e., communities, scientists, agencies, etc.). Industry must also be part on an integrated monitoring network (e.g., discharge monitoring). It was also felt that the mechanism for implementation requires clarification. Issues which must be addressed include:

  • implementation details are lacking (e.g., How will information be accessible, integrated and reported?);
  • guidelines on where to find this information so others can retrieve it;
  • clarity of how reports guide or translate into management action; and
  • assurance that data will be used by management and result in municipal action (i.e., assess, set priorities, and take action in a continuous improvement process).

Again, participants identified the need to elucidate the link between monitoring results and watershed stresses/causes. It was also suggested that efforts be made to tie in public stewardship to the network (i.e., not separate from monitoring). For example, storm water management efforts could include public responsibility for disconnecting down spouts and use of low-volume toilets.

Larger agreements like the Canada-Ontario Agreement should have monitoring commitments tied to them. Key issues include:

  • there is a strong need to show feedback between results and the goals/targets of the monitoring network by incorporating the "adaptive management" concept into the framework;
  • stakeholders must be convinced that the network can still continue if resources become unavailable in certain programs; and
  • the framework must be flexible enough to change with the pace of knowledge, incorporate emerging methodologies, and continue even in the reality that an agency's capacities may change.

A mechanism for ongoing dialogue among stakeholders is required. Clear goals must be established (i.e., monitoring for what purpose). In the future there will undoubtedly have to be more community involvement or "grass roots" level action for smaller monitoring projects with standard methods and protocols. An inventory or directory of "who is doing what" should be readily available to stakeholders. It was suggested that instead of trying to satisfy many different goals and objectives with limited resources, try satisfying different issues in different time frames.

Main Issues to Consider During the Future Development and Implementation of the Monitoring Network

This breakout session also called for a clear definition of the purpose(s) of monitoring (e.g., protection of what we have, tracking changes, etc.). Funding is essential. Key funding issues include:

  • lack of commitments, such as a memorandum of agreement or understanding, between network stakeholders on what will be monitored, by whom, and for how many years so trends can be determined (the network has not yet been established); and
  • the need for stakeholders to explore alternative funding sources (e.g., foundations, NSERC grants).

As an initial step, gaps in monitoring activities need to be identified and filled. If some monitoring activities are not going to be completed, people need to know the consequences of not filling gaps.

Participants also noted the importance of identifying the benefits of a monitoring network. There must be stakeholder buy-in for the monitoring network and the network must be set up in a way to document improvements. Monitoring priorities and a "core program" must be established.

Coordination of monitoring efforts will be essential. Participants suggested a coordinator of the monitoring network be established to consider logistical issues covering a large, complex area with many stakeholders. Another option would be to select an agency to be responsible for coordinating all monitoring activities, but this would not be consistent with the network model.

Monitoring approaches/methodologies should be "shopped around" to make sure that municipal jurisdictions agree with and in fact, will use the proposed approaches. Monitoring needs to be tailored to each watershed or subwatershed (i.e., not all indicators and measures may make sense in every watershed, therefore approaches must be flexible). Efforts will be required to resolve issues related to the storage of information/data, data access, etc. Municipal agreement on consistent methodologies will be essential. The network can be built on existing monitoring initiatives. Participants noted there is a need to clarify reporting procedures (e.g., institutionalize the report card so everyone feels it's "theirs", not just a report card of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority).

How decisions get made is essential. Key decision-making needs include:

  • determine and articulate how the information will be used for decision-making; and
  • obtain commitments in the political agenda to ensure management decisions will look at monitoring results.

Community involvement and understanding/education should be built in (e.g., public consultation and education is essential in order to get personal commitments, which in turn will generate political and economic support). Implementing the network for one "trial" watershed was suggested. This allows learning from the success/failure before attempting efforts on all watersheds. Participants suggested including those who oppose monitoring in discussions in order to convince them of its importance. This may require economic analysis (e.g., What does clean water and healthy fisheries mean to tourism, development, etc.?). Targets/criteria to evaluate results of monitoring need to be defined from baseline data (e.g., consider setting area-specific targets like sustainable loads for each watershed or total daily intakes).

A communication strategy is essential. Stakeholders (e.g., provincial, municipal, community level) need to have access to information regarding previous and existing monitoring activities. This information could be placed on the Internet, with a monitoring directory. The information should be easily understood and useful to the public. Other suggestions regarding communication included:

  • public awareness/education efforts should include, among other things, providing phone numbers to call for reporting aesthetics concerns such as dumping, establishing Internet addresses to report spills, and implementing specific public outreach activities to explain why monitoring data are important and long-term commitments are necessary;
  • mechanisms for reporting/demonstrating results need to be defined and followed (e.g., Will a central clearing house be established? Will all results be posted/made available on one Internet site?);
  • baseline data will be required for decision-makers; and
  • reporting on progress should be completed on a frequent and regular basis.

Potential Role of the WQB and IJC in Facilitating the Successful Implementation of a Watershed Monitoring Network

Participants noted that the WQB and IJC are in unique positions to help deliver local messages to senior levels of government. There is a need to emphasize that land use is critical to the health of the Great Lakes, including habitats, surface water, and groundwater. Efforts must be made to highlight the impact of runoff on watershed health. The WQB and IJC can help stress to municipal stakeholders the importance of watershed initiatives in supporting the health of the Great Lakes, as well as how watershed efforts complement lakewide management plans (LaMPs). This subsequently can help raise the profile and importance of watershed efforts. Other suggestions (please note that these were suggestions from participants of the workshop and do not necessarily represent the views of the WQB) on how the WQB and IJC can help establish and sustain a watershed monitoring network include:

  • funding and expertise from the Provincial and Federal government for trend monitoring;
  • publicize the importance/value of monitoring, thereby increasing the interest and support of the general public;
  • support programs which foster behavioral change (e.g., social marketing, down spout disconnect programs, rain barrels);
  • recommend that the Parties do more public communication on the state of the lakes;
  • provide a link between government monitoring programs and local/municipal monitoring;
  • advocate that governments find innovative sources of funding to help get through financially and/or politically "lean years" (e.g., put greater tax on water use to encourage conservation and use some of the proceeds for monitoring; add a mandatory monitoring fee to Certificates of Approval);
  • assist with making sure data are interpreted and explained;
  • assist in the development of a system to share information among Areas of Concern (e.g., the WQB and IJC can serve as a broker of information on useful approaches and techniques in other Areas of Concern and by establishing "SWAT" teams to take good ideas from one Area of Concern to another);
  • recommend that public environmental education be re-instated to political and policy agendas;
  • support protection of resources in more pristine areas of the Area of Concern such as the Oak Ridges Moraine (e.g., groundwater, baseflow, etc.);
  • encourage enforcement of laws and regulations;
  • recommend use of small-scale, low impact sewage treatment operations;
  • recommend effective land use planning to curb urban sprawl;
  • raise key environmental protection issues during elections;
  • consider including municipal representatives on the WQB, especially after the municipal downloading that has recently taken place;
  • be a catalyst for coordinating groups involved in monitoring in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern;
  • document and broadly communicate the decline of government resources and expertise required for monitoring, analysis, and interpretation, as well as for implementing the RAP;
  • provide a detailed "delisting" process and set of "delisting" criteria; and
  • make better use of community newspapers and media, not only the national press, when issuing news releases and reports to reach local communities (i.e., be more creative in public outreach that targets different cultures/languages by using radio or video spots with language voice-overs).

Back Table of Contents Next