Download Conservation Ontario Water Quality Discussion Paper

Conservation Ontario Discussion Paper:
Recommendations for Monitoring
Ontario’s Water Quality
March 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following water quality monitoring discussion paper offers
recommendations to 1) guide individual Conservation
Authorities (CAs) as they consider improvements to their water
quality networks and 2) serve as a focal point for discussions
with municipal, provincial and federal agencies toward the
development and implementation of a holistic water quality
monitoring system that supports watershed management.
Recommendations cover the full range of the information
management system: network design, data collection, data
storage, analysis and reporting.
A consultative process was used to identify Conservation
Authority water business functions and then to define both
surface water and groundwater health. Water quality
parameters, sampling frequencies, analysis methods and
reporting recommendations were then developed that support
both the aquatic health definitions and business functions.
Over 70 CA , provincial and federal agency staff participated
in the development of this paper.
In order to characterize surface water and groundwater quality
conditions, a consistent approach to monitoring an appropriate
suite of water quality parameters is required. The resulting
data must be interpreted and reported to local and provincial
water managers, and the public, to ensure access to adequate,
appropriate and scientifically sound water quality information
to support effective decisions in this province. While the intent
of this paper is to offer recommendations for consistent
monitoring by all CAs, individual Conservation Authorities
are expected to build upon this network to address specific
and unique water quality concerns within their watershed.
The paper concludes by offering broader recommendations
to ensure continued attention to the evolution of water quality
monitoring in Ontario, emphasizing the role CAs play within
that system.
PAGE 1 / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITOR ING ONTAR IO’S WATE R QUALITY 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
AC KNOWLE DGEMENTS
Development of this Discussion Paper relied on extensive
consultation with internal Conservation Authority monitoring
staff and external reviewers. This document is a synthesis
based on discussions that took place at three workshops (in
June 2002, September 2002 and January 2003) and a session
at the A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium in November
2002. The following Conservation Authority (CA) staff
participated in the workshops and reviewed this document:
• Erin Dolmage (ABCA);
• Sean Watt (CRCA);
• Jeff Anderson, Neil MacFarlane, Perry Sisson, and Jonathan
Staples (CLOCA);
• David Gale (Conservation Halton);
• Hazel Breton, Lynn Gatzke, Loveleen Grewal, and Alison
Humphrey (CVC);
• Mathew Child (ERCA);
• Mark Anderson, Dwight Boyd, Sandra Cooke, Phil Lenoir,
Laurie Minshall, Graham Smith, George Sousa, and Pat
Lapcevic (GrandRCA);
• John Bittorf and Doug Hill (GSCA);
• Rob Lindsay and Bryan Hall (KCCA);
• Don Goodyear and Mike Walters (LSRCA);
• Paul Gagnon and Jim Oliver (LPRCA);
• Mike Lovejoy, Glenda Rogers (LTRCA);
• Doug Hocking, Brian Luinstra, and Rick Steele (MVCA);
• John Price (MVC);
• Josh Diamond and Annie Michaud (NPCA);
• Chris Jones, Wayne Wilson, Glenn Switzer, and Paul Fry
(NVCA);
• Meredith Carter (ORCA);
• Jack Robertson (LTVCA);
• Pat Larson and Asher Rizvi (RVCA);
• Muriel Andreae, Heather Mackenzie, and Darren Bertrand
(SCRCA);
• Don Smith (Saugeen Conservation);
• Patricia Trainor (SNRCA);
• Scott Jarvie, Gary Wilkins, and Trista Barber (TRCA);
• Ian Wilcox, Karen Maaskant, Linda Nicks and Ted Briggs
(UTRCA); and
• Steve Holysh (Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition of
Conservation Authorities).
The following external reviewers also provided useful input:
• Aaron Todd, Keith Somers, Rachael Fletcher, Jenny Winter,
Ron Reid, and Dajana Grgic (Ontario Ministry of
Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Branch);
• Leslie Vancleif, (City of Ottawa);
• Brian Craig (Environment Canada, Ecological Monitoring
and Assessment Network);
• Dave Barton (University of Waterloo);
• Mark Palmer and Bill Coffey (Greenland International
Consulting Inc.);
• Peter Roberts and Stewart Sweeney (Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food, Environmental Management Unit);
• Lewis Molot and Daniella Molnar (York University);
• Janine Murray (Environment Canada, National Water
Research Institute);
• Scott Painter (Environment Canada, Canada Centre for
Inland Waters); and
• Christine Elwell (Canadian Institute for Environmental Law
and Policy).
This discussion paper was prepared by Chris Jones (NVCA)
and Ian Wilcox (CO).
Internal reviewers also included Conservation Ontario staff:
Jane Lewington and Bonnie Fox.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING ONTARIO’S WATER QUALITY 2003 / PAGE 2
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0
Purpose of the Paper .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.0
Why is Monitoring so Important? ................................................................................................................. 5
4.0
Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0
Aquatic Health Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 6
6.0
Recommendations for Conservation Authority Water Quality Monitoring ...................................................... 7
6.1 Recommendations for CA Surface Water Quality Monitoring .............................................................. 7
6.2 Recommendations for CA Groundwater Quality Monitoring ............................................................. 9
7.0
General Recommendations Regarding CA Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................... 10
8.0
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 10
9.0
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Components of a successful water information management system ........................................................... 5
Figure 2: Logical argument illustrating the role of water monitoring in an adaptive watershed management system ............... 5
Figure 3: Approach used in developing Conservation Ontario’s recommendations for water quality monitoring ......... 6
PAGE 3 / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITOR ING ONTAR IO’S WATE R QUALITY 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Conservation Ontario (CO), and the group of Ontario’s “cluster
ministries” with mandates related to water, initiated the Water
Resources Information Project (WRIP) in January 2000. The
WRIP was designed to identify Ontario’s water business
functions and to recommend and implement improvements
to water information. Conservation Ontario was invited to
join the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in the
development of the WRIP to ensure that the project addressed
Conservation Authority water business functions.
1.0
PURPOSE OF THE PAPER
WRIP identified six Conservation Authority water business
functions:
1. Protect life and property from flood and erosion
2. Encourage sustainable water supply
3. Inventory and monitor water quality
4. Assess and report on water conditions
5. Protect and enhance water quality
6. Provide recreation/quality of life opportunities
Ontario has a relatively long history of ambient water quality
monitoring (30+ years). Despite this experience, our
monitoring networks have been criticized on the basis of: too
few sampling stations, insufficient indicators, reliance on short
term stations, lack of analysis and reporting, and (probably
most damaging) having no direct link to program development
and evaluation. Monitoring has often been incorrectly As stated in the WRIP report, the context for these business
considered an end in itself and has therefore suffered during functions includes a philosophy of comprehensive water
times of constraint as a lower priority program.
management on a watershed basis, a goal of managing water
resources to meet human needs and to maintain ecological
The following Water Quality Monitoring Discussion Paper integrity, and a focus of understanding surface and groundwater
describes the monitoring system that Conservation Authorities resources at a watershed scale.
(CAs) believe should be in place to support watershed
management. The paper was developed through extensive Although WRIP identified a large number of water information
consultation with Conservation Authority and provincial and needs to support adaptive, results-based management in
federal agency staff. Rather than being prescriptive, relation to CA business functions, the following four were
recommendations in this paper were written to 1) guide considered of highest priority:
individual CAs as they consider network improvements, and 1. Enhance water quality monitoring
2) serve as a focal point for discussions with municipal, 2. Develop groundwater monitoring networks
provincial and federal agencies toward the development and 3. Enhance climate information
implementation of a holistic water quality monitoring system. 4. Improve the quality of digital spatial information
Key in these recommendations is ensuring that water quality
data are converted to information and reported to decision A key outcome of the WRIP 2001 Report identified an
makers and the public. Ultimately, this paper advocates a apparent lack of adequate baseline water monitoring in Ontario
network that is practical and cost effective to implement, to support effective decision making. Baseline monitoring
scientifically sound, and meets watershed management needs. solutions are required that are long term and at a scale
appropriate for watershed management. These solutions must
also be implemented as part of a broader provincial integrated
water strategy supported through stable funding.
This discussion paper addresses WRIP’s first priority: it
clarifies Conservation Ontario’s needs and offers a set of
recommendations for Conservation Authority water quality
monitoring. It was accepted by CO Council in March 2003.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING ONTARIO’S WATER QUALITY 2003 / PAGE 4
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
WHY IS MONITORING SO IMPORTANT?
Managing aquatic health information (as illustrated in Figure
1) is critical to adaptive watershed management. Each
component in this process requires trained staff, standards
and tools to be effectively implemented. Historically, water
quality monitoring in Ontario has been successful to the point
of data storage; analysis and reporting have been particularly
weak. Recommendations in this paper attempt to address
each component identified in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Components of a successful water information
management system.
Investing appropriate effort in each component of their water
information management system allows CAs to develop and
evaluate management programs to support surface and
groundwater business functions. This knowledge is
fundamental to managing for continuous improvement as
expressed in Figure 2.
Network Design
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
3.0
‹
Data Collection
Data Storage
Data Analysis
Reporting
Figure 2: Logical argument illustrating the role of water monitoring in an adaptive watershed management system.
Premise #1:
CAs are watershed management agencies, with many aspects of their business related to water
Premise #2:
Watershed management is a multi-step, strategic process.
Premise #3:
Watershed management involves balancing competing pressures, typically human/economic/cultural pressures
and sustenance of natural features.
Premise #4:
The complexities of watershed management necessitate an iterative, adaptive approach in which strategic
programs are changed as pressures acting against sustainability change and as the effect of past actions
are understood.
Premise #5:
Monitoring information facilitates adaptation by answering management relevant questions:
What is the status of watershed health and how does that status vary spatially and temporally?
Are implemented programs resulting in progress toward watershed management goals?
Premise #6:
In order for monitoring information to be used to adapt programs, appropriate information management
and reporting systems must be in place to provide a feedback loop to watershed managers.
Premise #7:
Issues and priorities vary from watershed to watershed
Conclusion:
Recognizing the complex nature of watershed management, CAs must rely on an adaptive watershed
management process in which monitoring information is used to improve programs. While the monitoring
approach must be a standardized framework, the indicators, information management and reporting
systems must be tailored to local watershed needs.
PAGE 5 / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITOR ING ONTAR IO’S WATE R QUALITY 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
4.0
APPROACH
A four step process was used to develop Conservation
Ontario’s recommendations for water quality monitoring. The
first step, completed during the WRIP process, was to clarify
CA water business functions. Next, surface water and
groundwater health were defined in relation to our water
business. In step 3, water quality indicators reflecting our
surface water and groundwater health definitions were chosen.
Finally, in step 4, recommendations that specified sampling
frequency, sampling protocols, data storage, analysis and
reporting methods for each indicator were developed. Each
step in the process was completed through consultation with
CA staff and external reviewers.
‹
CONSULTATION
‹ ‹ ‹
1. Clarify CA Water
Business Functions
Figure 3: Approach used in developing Conservation
Ontario’s recommendations for water quality
monitoring
2. Define Aquatic Health
3. Develop Indicators
4. Develop Minimum
Standard
5.0
AQUATIC HEALTH DEFINITIONS
Perhaps the greatest challenge faced during this initiative was
defining aquatic health on the basis of CA water business
functions. This was a vital step in developing Conservation
Ontario’s recommendations for water quality monitoring
because recommended indicators must follow logically from
our aquatic health definitions.
Healthy Groundwater Definition
Healthy groundwater sustains natural features, such as stream
base flow and wetlands, and poses a minimal risk to human
health if part of a multi-barrier system of drinking water supply.
Because CA water business functions can change, our aquatic
health definitions must be subject to periodic review. Individual
Conservation Ontario’s definitions of surface water and CAs may need to build on these definitions to best reflect the
unique values and conditions of their watershed.
groundwater health are as follows:
Healthy Surface Water Definition
Healthy surface waters (the waters of streams, lakes and
wetlands) support biological communities that closely match
those of minimally impacted reference sites; their water
chemistry meets water quality guidelines; they pose a minimal
risk to those using them for recreation (e.g. swimming); and
they pose a minimal risk to human health if part of a multibarrier system of drinking water supply.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING ONTARIO’S WATER QUALITY 2003 / PAGE 6
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY WATER QUALITY
MONITORING
Much of the consultation undertaken in this project focussed
on establishing recommendations for water quality monitoring
that specify sample collection, data storage, analysis and
reporting requirements for a suite of indicators that reflect our
surface water and groundwater health definitions. The intent
of the recommendations is to specify the minimum level of
water quality sampling and information management needed
to support CA water business.
The following recommendations describe a water quality
monitoring system Conservation Authorities believe should
be in place to support watershed management. The
recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive; rather
they are a starting point for discussions with partners and as a
guide for CAs attempting to develop and improve their own
monitoring systems.
6.1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CA SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Indicators reflect the CA definition of healthy surface water. These recommendations are to guide water quality sampling and
information management in support of CA water business. CAs are encouraged to enhance these recommendations to
address specific water quality concerns in their watersheds.
Water Chemistry
Assessment:
Recommended indicator parameters for watershed management include: total phosphorus, nitrate,
copper, lead, zinc, suspended solids and chloride. (PWQMN Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual (2003))
The Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) will be the foundation of this portion of the
monitoring system. Many other parameters are included in PWQMN reporting and CAs are encouraged to
utilize that information as necessary for local watershed needs.
Frequency:
12 samples per year including high and low flow conditions
Sampling Method: Grab samples methods described in the PWQMN Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual (2003)
Location:
Outlet of each major subwatershed (Specific locations will be determined through each CA’s watershed
network design)
Data Storage:
Databases (Both the PWQMN Provincial database managed by MOE and the local CA’s information
management system should be used to store this information, with standardized output formats)
Analysis:
Guideline exceedences and comparisons using non-parametric summary statistics as described in the
PWQMN Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual (2003)
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
Biotic Community
Assessment:
Benthic Invertebrate Assessment
Frequency:
One sample per year
Sampling Method: MOE standard PWQMN protocol (currently under development)
Location:
Outlet of each major subwatershed (Specific locations will be determined through each CA’s watershed
network design)
Data Storage:
Databases (Both the PWQMN Provincial database managed by MOE (currently under development) and the
local CA’s information management system should be used to store this information, with standardized
output formats)
Analysis:
MOE standard reference condition approach (currently under development)
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
PAGE 7 / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITOR ING ONTAR IO’S WATE R QUALITY 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
Pathogenicity
Assessment:
E.coli *(see note below) No provincial bacterial monitoring program exists at present
Frequency:
12 samples per year including high and low flow conditions
Sampling Method: Grab sample
Location:
Outlet of each major subwatershed (Specific locations will be determined through each CA’s watershed
network design)
Data Storage:
Database- CA information management system
Analysis:
Trends in geometric mean (current recreational swimming guidelines cannot be used with this sampling
protocol)
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
Toxic Contaminants Parameters will be selected reflecting local land use and activities (e.g., organic toxins and pesticides).
Assessment:
Sampling Method: Water, sediment and biota (according to dispersal pathway for each chemical)
Frequency:
Exploratory surveys for each CA with continued monitoring at the discretion of each CA
Location:
Outlet of each major subwatershed (Specific locations will be determined through each CA’s watershed
network design)
Data Storage:
Database- CA information management system
Analysis:
Guideline exceedences, bioassay
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
* Note: There is general agreement E.coli sampling as described here provides limited information due to it’s tremendous variability.
Scientifically, its inclusion is questionable. However, E.coli is included here as the best available indicator of human health
risk in source waters and as a ‘place holder’ to recognize monitoring must address this new business function. E.coli is
recommended here as a starting point with the understanding that a more meaningful indicator of human health risk is
required.
Note: Stream discharge and climate monitoring are not specified in these recommendations; however, their importance to water
quality interpretation is well understood. It is expected water quality station locations will be integrated with stream flow and climate
monitoring as part of each CA’s network design.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING ONTARIO’S WATER QUALITY 2003 / PAGE 8
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CA GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING
Indicators reflect the CA definition of healthy groundwater. These recommendations are to guide water quality sampling and
information management in support of CA water business. CAs are encouraged to enhance these recommendations to
address specific water quality concerns in their watersheds.
Water Chemistry
Assessment:
Recommended parameters include: standard set of PGMN indicators( pH, DO, temperature, conductivity,
chloride, fluoride, sulphate, carbonate, alkalinity, hardness, nitrate, nitrite, sodium, potassium, calcium,
magnesium, iron, dissolved solids)
Frequency:
Once per year
Sampling Method: PGMN sampling guidelines
Location:
Monitoring wells in locally important aquifers
Data Storage:
Databases (Both the PGMN Provincial database managed by MOE and the local CA’s information
management system should be used to store this information, with standardized output formats)
Analysis:
Guideline exceedences and comparisons using non-parametric summary statistics
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
Pathogenicity
Assessment:
E.coli (PGMN does not include bacterial monitoring at present. Private well submissions to Health Units
are a possible source of data)
Frequency:
Once per year at PGMN sites; results as submitted by private landowners to Health Units
Sampling Method: Ministry of Health guidelines
Location:
Monitoring wells in locally important aquifers; private well samples as submitted by landowners
Data Storage:
Databases (Provincial database managed by MOH and the local CA’s information management system
should be used to store this information, with standardized output formats)
Analysis:
Guideline exceedences, trends in geometric mean
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
Toxic Contaminants Parameters will be selected reflecting local land use and activities (e.g., organic toxins and pesticides)
Assessment:
Sampling Method: PGMN sampling guidelines
Frequency:
Exploratory surveys for each CA with continued monitoring at the discretion of each CA
Location:
Monitoring wells in locally important aquifers
Data Storage:
Databases (Both the PGMN Provincial database managed by MOE and the local CAs information
management system should be used to store this information, with standardized output formats)
Analysis:
Guideline exceedences
Reporting:
5 Year State of the Watershed Report as described in Conservation Ontario’ s Guide to Watershed
Reporting (2003)
PAGE 9 / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITOR ING ONTAR IO’S WATE R QUALITY 2003
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
7.0
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING CA WATER QUALITY
MONITORING
7.Conservation Ontario should solicit opportunites for input
on the design of the bioassessement components of the
PWQMN through the appointment of CA representatives
on the PWQMN bioassessment Steering Committee.
1.Water quality monitoring is a long term investment. The
value of information and support for business functions 8.The network of internal CA practitioners assembled to
develop this paper should organize more formally as a
increases with time. As such, there must be a commitment
discussion group to share expertise and discuss issues
from all partners to maintain and fund ambient water quality
pertinent to CA water quality monitoring.
monitoring networks for the long term (50+ years).
2.This Discussion Paper should be included as a standing 9.The water quality monitoring system recommended here
must be integrated with other monitoring networks (e.g.,
Work Plan item with Conservation Ontario’s Policy and
stream flow, climate, fisheries, etc.). This integration should
Issues Strategic Committee to ensure continued attention
occur at all stages: network design, sample collection, data
toward development of a holistic water quality monitoring
storage, data analysis and reporting.
network for Ontario.
3.Conservation Authorities are encouraged to participate as
active partners in both the PWQMN and PGMN. These
programs represent a cost effective means of gathering water
chemistry and bioassessment information. These networks
also identify provincial data collection and analysis standards
and provide staff training opportunities.
4.Where possible, Conservation Authorities are encouraged
to build on this baseline monitoring system with more
specific monitoring related to unique issues found in each
watershed.
8.0
CONCLUSION
This discussion paper has described the water quality
monitoring system Conservation Authorities feel should be in
place. These recommendations have been developed with
assistance from 58 Conservation Authority staff and 18
provincial, federal and academic representatives. These
recommendations are offered 1) to guide individual CAs as
they consider network improvements, and 2) to serve as a
focal point for discussions with municipal, provincial and
federal agencies toward the development and implementation
of a holistic water quality monitoring system.
5.Conservation Authorities should encourage continued staff
training for water quality sample collection methods,
database development and statistical data interpretation.
Ontario has actively monitored ambient water quality for nearly
40 years. The improvements suggested here will build on that
6.Conservation Authorities should ensure water quality results legacy to ensure all water management agencies and the public
are reported to key stakeholders and used as a means of have access to adequate, appropriate and scientifically sound
evaluating program effectiveness and as an incentive for water quality information to support effective water
adaptive watershed management. A communications plan management decisions in this province.
is required to ensure this happens.
9.0
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND
ACRONYMS
CA
CO
DO
MNR
MOE
PGMN
PISC
Conservation Authority
Conservation Ontario
Dissolved Oxygen
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network
Policies and Issues Strategic Committee
(Conservation Ontario)
PWQMN Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
WRIP
Water Resources Information Project
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING ONTARIO’S WATER QUALITY 2003 / PAGE 10