Watershed Report Cards:

An Overview

SNO Forum 2012 Celebrating Success and Innovation

June 12, 2012

Jo-Anne Rzadki, Conservation Ontario

Outline of Presentation

§ Conservation Authorities in Ontario § Purpose and Background: Need for Reporting

§ Standardized Watershed Report Cards § WRCs -Tool for Communicating Science and Assessment(Performance/Making decisions Influencing Actions)

§ WRC Benefits

§ Watershed-based agencies

§ Mandate to ensure the conservation of Ontario’s water, land and natural habitats

§ Governed by Board of Directors selected by Member Municipalities

12 million people live in a watershed managed by a Conservation Authority

36 Conservation Authorities in Ontario

§ Flood control § Land stewardship, Water Quality

Improvement § Watershed planning and regulation § Environmental monitoring § Education and public involvement § Natural heritage protection § Drinking water source protection § Recreation § others

Conservation Authorities Deliver Local Watershed Programs

Purpose of the Watershed Report Cards

§ A reporting process that gets scientific information to local decision-makers in watersheds across Ontario

§ Concise, visual, public-friendly reports produced every 5 years using standardized environmental indicators

§ Management and evaluation tool for CAs, municipalities and other partners to measure environmental change and target programs

§  Improve local knowledge and motivate action

Background

§  2003 - highly publicized issues around drinking water risks and drought/climate issues

§ Good scientific data through established monitoring programs

§  2003 Pilot Project funded by MOE Watershed Report Card guidelines produced

§  2007 - initial review of 2003 technical guidelines

§  2009 - CO reviewed WRCs §  2011 - CAs/CO reviewed and produced

2011 Updated Guidelines

Standardized Components of Watershed Report Cards

§ Scale § Indicators § Grading § Frequency § Format and Products

Fish Cr.

Medway Cr.

Black Cr.

Avon River

South Thames

Whirl Cr.

North Woodstock

Dingman Cr.

Flat Cr.

North Mitchell

Reynolds Cr.

Middle Thames

Glengowan

Cedar Cr.

The Forks

Oxbow Cr.

Waubuno Cr.

Trout Cr.

Otter Cr.

Mud Cr.

Wye Cr.

Plover Mills

Corridor

Dorchester

Gregory Cr.

River Bend

Stoney Cr.

Potte

rsbu

rg

Komoka Cr.

.

Upper Thames RiverWatershed

Watershed Boundary

Municipal Boundary

Legend:

Indicators

§  Indicators used are environmental measures related to CA business functions:

§ To protect and enhance water quality, preserve and manage natural areas

Criteria for selection: Ø Is the indicator relevant and understandable? Ø Is it responsive to change (improving, getting worse)? Ø Is it applicable across CA watersheds? Ø Is it at an appropriate scale? Ø Is long-term monitoring feasible?

2011 Indicators

Example: Surface Water Indicators § Key indicators of broad issues: nutrients,

bacteria/waste, aquatic health § Environmental measure of CA programs

delivered such as stewardship/non-point source programs

Surface Water Quality Forest Conditions

Groundwater Quality

Total Phosphorus % Forest Cover Nitrate + Nitrite

E. coli Bacteria % Forest Interior Chloride

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

% Riparian Zone Forested

Grading for Surface Water Indicators

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

E. coli  (CFU/

100 mL)  

Benthic Invertebrates (Modified Family Biotic Index

based on New York State  tolerance values)  

Point  Score   Grade  

<0.020   0 – 30   0.00 - 4.25   5   A  

0.020 - 0.030   31 – 100   4.26 - 5.00   4   B  

0.031 - 0.060   101 – 300   5.01 - 5.75   3   C  

0.061 - 0.180   301 – 1000   5.76 - 6.50   2   D  

>0.180   >1000   6.51 - 10.00   1   F  

§  Indicator ranges developed as a collaborative process with CAs and expert input from the province, other expertise

§  A - Excellent, B - Very Good, C - Good, D - Poor, F - Very Poor

Format and Products

Summarized Watershed Report Card § Short document (template) summarizes

standardized grades for all subwatersheds in a CA watershed

Format and Products

Individual Subwatershed Report Cards

§  Report card for each subwatershed with more information, detailed maps

§  Use standardized grading §  Locally relevant information

Accessible online §  Conservation Ontario and CA

websites feature products

Individual Subwatershed Report Cards Include Locally Relevant Information §  Additional text explaining grades §  Watershed features that describe the

resources and environmental stressors from many data sources – OMOE, OMNR, EC, DFO, OMAFRA, CAs, municipalities

§  Recommended actions §  Highlights of progress/watershed projects

Dingman Creek Watershed Strategy Upper Thames River CA Example

§  2001 report card: Ranked Dingman watershed poorest in water quality

§  Local group wanted to address problem §  Public meeting – municipalities,

stakeholders, CA, etc. §  Watershed group formed §  Coordinator hired (funding) §  Watershed plan - technical information §  Actions implemented

Today, 8 target watersheds have Community-based Subwatershed Strategies

2007 report card: water quality improved C to B in 5 years

High Grades Motivate Protection Ausable Bayfield CA example

§  North Gullies Watershed highlighted as an area for protection and enhancement in 2007 Watershed Report Card

§  Recognised at regional scale for watershed planning with 30% natural cover and future lakeshore development

§  Working with Municipality of Central Huron to identify areas for enhancement and protection

§  40 km2 area, 35 BMPs 2008/2009 §  Funding to evaluate BMPs at site and

watershed scale §  Test plots for erosion control structures

and reduced nitrogen application

Communicating the Science Considerations

§ Keep it Simple: report on three resource categories: surface water quality, forest conditions & groundwater quality

§ Profile the science in user-friendly format with good visuals

§ Use relevant messaging for target audiences § Make info accessible (online) and easy to use § One product will not tell the whole story –

complement with other products with more detailed local watershed information

WRCs as Measurement and Assessment Tool Influencing Action

§  Provide a picture of overall health of the watershed based on the indicators.

§  Can communicate about the relationship between improved health and increases in general BMP implementation.

§  Assessment of specific BMP performance needs intensive monitoring and study

§  WRCs can help to identify where intensive study, research is needed in subwatersheds

§  Communicating the results of monitoring data can motivate landowners and local groups to action and help to show environmental benefit for dollars invested.

§  .

WRCs as a Measurement and Assessment Tool Influencing Action

§  WRCs can identify where further monitoring and associated resources for monitoring can be directed in the subwatershed.

§  WRCs engage people - provide suggestions for what they can do

§  CA WRCs will evolve over time, including new indicators and information as data becomes available and our environmental priorities shift.

§  Current and future opportunities to collaborate with partners will help to improve and enhance monitoring, assessment of BMPs and reporting of watershed health.

Local Benefits of WRCs

§ Brings the watershed to life – translates the science and familiarizes people with their watersheds & conditions or issues that impact them. Engages people to Action

§ Recognizes local partnerships §  Informs decision-making and guides local

planning and implementation § Helps people to understand how broader issues

such as climate change impacts them locally

Broader Benefits of WRCs

§  Reporting creates value for investment in monitoring and in watershed implementation –eg. BMPs, stewardship actions

Review and

Evaluate

Plan

Implement

Monitor and

Report

Integrated Watershed

Management Plan

§  Long term commitment to reporting important – it reveals trends and enables us to track progress

§  Contributes to watershed planning process

Thank you and for more information… §  On Conservation Ontario and Conservation Authorities

–  www.conservationontario.ca

§  On Watershed Report Cards –  http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/

watershed_monitoring/index.html

§  An Evaluation of Water Resource Monitoring Efforts in Support of Agricultural Stewardship in Watersheds of the Great Lakes 2009

–  http://www.conservationontario.ca/healthy_great_lakes/pdf/CO-OMAFRA-workshop-lowres-complete.pdf

§  Access to the 2011 WRC Guidelines: Jo-Anne Rzadki jrzadki@conservationontario.ca or (905)895-0716 ext. 224

Other Watershed Report Cards § Muskoka Watershed Report Card http://www.muskokaheritage.org/mwc/

programs/watershed-report-card/ § Chesapeake Bay Report Card § http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/

Thank you § Karen Maaskant, Upper Thames River

Conservation Authority for information and contributions to the the development of this presentation.