York Universitywarming.apps01.yorku.ca/library/wp-content/uploads/... · NRTEE Ecosystem Needs of...

Ecosystem Needs of Water Resources

F i n a l R e p o r t Prepared for: N a t i o n a l R o u n d T a b l e o n t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a n d E c o n o m y 3 4 4 S l a t e r S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 0 0 O t t a w a , O N K 1 R 7 Y 3

Prepared by: G 3 C o n s u l t i n g L t d . 2 0 3 - 8 5 0 1 1 6 2 n d S t r e e t S u r r e y , B . C C a n a d a V 4 N 1 B 2 September 2009

i G3 Consulting Ltd.

Correct Citation G3 Consulting Ltd. 2009. Ecosystem Needs of Water Resources. Prepared for the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), Ottawa. 141 pp. ©G3 Consulting Ltd. 2009

NRTEE Ecosystem Needs of Water Resources Final Report

iii G3 Consulting Ltd.

C O N T E N T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________________ VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 1

1.1 NRTEE Mandate & Project Scope __________________________________________ 1 1.2 Ecosystems — Characteristics, Functions & Needs _____________________________ 2

Terrestrial Ecosystems ______________________________________________________ 3 Freshwater Aquatic Ecosystems _______________________________________________ 4 Wetlands _________________________________________________________________ 6 Marine & Estuarine Ecosystems _______________________________________________ 6

1.3 Aquatic Ecosystem Drivers ________________________________________________ 8 Flow Regime ______________________________________________________________ 8 Sediment & Organic Input ___________________________________________________ 10 Thermal & Light Characteristics ______________________________________________ 10 Chemical & Nutrient Characteristics ___________________________________________ 11 Biotic Assemblage _________________________________________________________ 12

1.4 Indicators of Aquatic Ecosystem “Health” ____________________________________ 13 1.5 Impacts of Climate Change _______________________________________________ 17 1.6 Use-Related Issues & Challenges _________________________________________ 18

1.6.1 Projected Issues __________________________________________________________ 18 1.7 Challenges Facing Natural Resource Sectors ________________________________ 18

2.0 METHODOLOGY & QUALITY ASSURANCE _____________________________ 20 2.1 Meetings & Communications _____________________________________________ 20

Start-up Meeting __________________________________________________________ 20 Communications __________________________________________________________ 20

2.2 Information Acquisition __________________________________________________ 20 2.3 Expert Input & Questionnaires ____________________________________________ 21 2.4 Information Verification, Meta Analysis & Data Synthesis _______________________ 21 2.5 Interim & Final Reporting ________________________________________________ 22

3.0 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT ___________________ 24 3.1 Balancing Human Need & Ecosystem Protection ______________________________ 24

3.1.1 The Ecosystem-Based Approach _____________________________________________ 25 Twelve Principles of Ecosystem Approach in Management _________________________ 25 Ecosystem-Based Water Management _________________________________________ 26

3.2 Co-Evolution of Society & Environment _____________________________________ 27 3.2.1 Ecosystem Resilience & Catchment-Based Management __________________________ 27

3.3 Integrated Watershed Management ________________________________________ 28 3.4 Ecologically Sustainable Water Management _________________________________ 30

3.4.1 Estimating Ecosystem Flow Requirements ______________________________________ 31 The Hydrologic Approach ___________________________________________________ 32 The Hydraulic Rating Approach ______________________________________________ 33 The Habitat Simulation Approach _____________________________________________ 33 The Holistic Approach ______________________________________________________ 34

3.4.2 Determining Human Influences on Flow Regime _________________________________ 37 3.4.3 Human & Ecosystem Incompatibilities _________________________________________ 37 3.4.4 Collaborative Solutions _____________________________________________________ 38 3.4.5 Water Management Experiments _____________________________________________ 41 3.4.6 Designing & Implementing Adaptive Water Management ___________________________ 44

4.0 WATER GOVERNANCE _____________________________________________ 46 4.1 Regional Water Governance ______________________________________________ 46


iv G3 Consulting Ltd.

5.0 SECTOR-SPECIFIC WATER MANAGEMENT ____________________________ 50 5.1 Agriculture & Ecosystems ________________________________________________ 50

5.1.1 Water Use - Best Management Practices & Technologies __________________________ 50 Case Studies & Examples ___________________________________________________ 51

5.1.2 Alternative Technologies & Practices __________________________________________ 53 5.2 Mining & Ecosystems ___________________________________________________ 54


5.2.2 Alternative & Recommended Technologies & Practices ____________________________ 57 5.3 Forestry & Ecosystems __________________________________________________ 58


Alternative & Recommended Technologies & Practices ________________________________ 60 5.4 Energy & Ecosystems ___________________________________________________ 61

5.4.1 Water Use, Best Management Practices & Technologies ___________________________ 61 Thermal Energy___________________________________________________________ 61 Oil Industries _____________________________________________________________ 62 Hydroelectric Power Generation ______________________________________________ 62 Biofuels _________________________________________________________________ 63 Case Studies & Examples ___________________________________________________ 63

5.4.2 Alternative & Recommended Technologies & Practices ____________________________ 67 6.0 DISCUSSION & LESSONS LEARNED __________________________________ 70 7.0 GAP ANALYSIS & RESEARCH NEEDS ________________________________ 82

7.1 Data Gaps & Research Needs in Canada ___________________________________ 82 8.0 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________ 83 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ___________________________________________________ 86 APPENDIX A1: List of Leading Experts & Respective Questionnaires

A2: Regional & National Water Governance

A3: Meta Analysis Review

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF fIGURES

Table 1: Global Water Consumption of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems

Table 2: Ecological Functions performed by Different River Flow Levels

Table 3: Ecological Indicators and Metrics

Table 4: Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) and associated Ecosystem Influences

Table 5: Water Governance Initiatives by Jurisdiction

Table 6: Daily Water Needs of Farm Animals

Table 7: IEP Energy-Water Technology Categories & Current Projects

Table 8: Potential Water Withdrawal and Consumption Reductions by IEP Technologies

Table 9: Watershed Management Approach Examples

Table 10: Lessons Learned by Sector

Figure 1: Environmental Flow Recommendations (Savannah River)


v G3 Consulting Ltd.

LIST OF ACRONYMS BAT Best Available Technology

BMP Best Management Practice

ESWM Ecologically Sustainable Water Management

EBM Ecosystem-Based Management

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EWA Environmental Water Allocation

FAO Food and Drug Organization of the United Nations

FBC Fraser Basin Council

HMA Histogram Matching Approach

IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

IEP Innovations for Existing Plants

IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

IFN Instream Flow Needs

IWMP Integrated Water Management Planning

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IWMI International Water Management Institute

MAF Mean Annual Flow

MCM Million Cubic Metres

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NRTEE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

NWC National Water Commission

OBWB Okanagan Basin Water Board

PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation

RVA Range of Variability Approach

SOW Statement of Work

SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

THAI Toe to Heel Air Injection

WB/WQRA Water Budget and Water Quantity Risk Assessment

ZLD Zero Liquid Discharge


vi G3 Consulting Ltd.

E XE CUTI VE SUM M ARY Water is the most essential resource in Canada. It is required to sustain life and plays an important role in the operation of most major natural resource sectors. Increasing and competing demands for the limited supply of accessible water has led to degraded ecosystems (Bakker, 2009; de Loë, 2009). Given that water resources are allocated differently in jurisdiction across Canada, there is much fragmentation in the rules governing natural resource activities (NRTEE, 2009b). Impacts arising from climate change (e.g., changes to rainfall, stream flow, water quality; Arnell et al., 2001) are likely to exacerbate existing challenges to water management and resource availability. Freshwater ecosystems are valuable from human and ecological perspectives and provide recreational use, means of navigation and transportation, dilution of pollutants, and vital habitat and structure for living resources. In general, there are five (5) dynamic environmental drivers regulating aquatic systems, with the relative importance of each depending on the system: flow regime; sediment and organic matter; thermal and light characteristics; chemical and nutrient attributes; and, biotic assemblage (Baron et al., 2002).

A holistic, integrative, ecosystem-based approach to water management is suggested to best address the needs of aquatic systems and human interests by recognizing social and ecological complexities, long-term sustainability, temporal and spatial scales, adaptive management; and, collaborative solutions (Gregersen, Ffolliott and Brooks, 2007; Calder, 2005; Lackey, 1998). Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) is one way to achieve successful watershed management through the application of a six-step framework that: estimates ecosystem flow requirements; determines human influences on flow; identifies human use and need and incompatibilities with the ecosystem; collaborates to reach solutions; conducts water management experiments; and, implements an adaptive management program (Richter et al., 2003). Ecological flow requirements can be determined through one of four general techniques: hydrologic; hydraulic rating; habitat simulation; and, holistic approaches. This holistic approach is most effective when large-scale water management decisions, involving multiple interests, are required (IWMI, 2007). Ecological indicators reflect biological, chemical or physical attributes of ecological condition, and should always be used when attempting to define environmental flow (US EPA, 2000b; Richter and Richter, 2000).

This study identified limited examples where ESWM components were successfully applied. The effective use of a holistic approach was exemplified by a Savannah River Case Study, where a multidisciplinary panel recommended an ecological flow regime that varied depending on seasonal and yearly patterns (Richter et al., 2006). Source Protection Committees mandated in Ontario and partnerships employed under the Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy illustrated effective and beneficial collaborative approaches between multi-stakeholder groups (OMOE, 2008). The Range of Variability and Histogram Matching approaches also provided a means to test the effectiveness of a prescribed environmental flow (Shiau and Wu, 2004; Shiau and Wu, 2008).

Implementation of Best Management Practices and Technologies in the resource sector has provided many examples to learn from, particularly in the energy and agriculture sectors. Case studies from the oil sands and thermal power industries illustrated strategies to significantly improve water reduction (Feeley III et al., 2008; CAPP, 2009c,d,e,f). Recommendations for water supply and quality challenges in the Okanagan and Lower Fraser Valley regions also provided insight as to how well informed, organized and focused management actions can improve freshwater resource protection (Shreier, 2009a).

Overall, research has emphasized that water management solutions are effective when attained through the use of adaptive and integrated ecosystem-based approaches that also incorporate collaborative dialogue from multiple stakeholder groups. Such approaches should consider governance of water through management of watersheds on more localized scales, but be considerate of larger implications regionally, nationally and internationally. The unique ambient ecological conditions of a given ecosystem should be appropriately defined and considered, both in terms of spatial and temporal scales as well as natural and anthropogenic variability, before implementation of any given strategy. Continued research and innovation of practices and technologies which aim to reduce water quantity and quality impacts brought about by natural resource sectors will further assist in addressing anticipated climate change impacts.


1 G3 Consulting Ltd.

1 . 0 I N T R O DU CT I O N Canada occupies 7% of the world’s land mass and possesses approximately 9% of its renewable freshwater (EC, 2008a). This includes over two (2) million lakes (NRC, 2009a) with an estimated 12% of Canada’s surface covered in water (StatCan, 2003). Actual freshwater supply is much smaller than the potential total given that sources are not evenly distributed over land surfaces and regions of human density tend to be proportionate to water availability (Wetzel, 2001). Although it appears that Canada has an abundance of water, much of the accessible source flows north to relatively remote regions, away from traditional users. For example, approximately 60% of Canada’s freshwater drains north, while 90% of Canada’s population lives within 300 km of the 39th parallel (EC, 2008a). As such, there are ever increasing and competing demands for the water that is accessible in Canada’s southern regions, where much of the country’s population resides (Bakker, 2009). Further, the degradation of ecosystems, contamination of waterbodies, and overuse of water in some areas is creating water quality and quantity issues, further complicating allocation of the resource (de Loë, 2009).

Challenges in dealing with water quality, quantity, and allocation are likely to intensify as impacts of climate change become fully realized. Many experts predict climate change will exacerbate water management challenges as availability is reduced due to changes in rainfall patterns and increased evapotranspiration (loss of water to the atmosphere). As water volumes decrease impacts to water quality will become more pronounced with less dilution of contaminants and alteration of aquatic ecological function (Bakker, 2009). As a result of water quality, quantity, and allocation issues, there is the potential for serious economic and operational impacts across all sectors (de Loë, 2009).

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Government of Canada acknowledge that climate change will have numerous and diverse effects on Canada’s water resources. Canadian winters are expected to be wetter and summers drier (McLaughlin, 2009). The IPCC anticipates that climate change will raise winter and summer temperatures in most areas, change the location and amount of precipitation, increase storm and drought intensity, and increase incidence of extreme high sea levels (IPCC, 2007a).

The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE) is an organization endeavouring to be at the forefront of sustainable water policy in Canada. Created in 1988, following the release of the Brundtland Report entitled “Our Common Future”, the Round Table is comprised of leading academics, industry representatives, environmental advocates, public sector experts, accomplished citizens, and community and labour leaders (NRTEE, 2008). The NRTEE’s mandate is “to generate and promote sustainable development solutions to advance Canada’s national environmental and economic interests simultaneously through the development of innovative policy research and advice” (NRTEE, 2009a).

1 . 1 N R T E E M a n d a t e & P r o j e c t S c o p e In its two-year program aimed at examining the sustainability of Canada’s natural resource sectors and water, the NRTEE is evaluating what policies, approaches and mechanisms can be utilized by governments, industry and water management authorities so that water can be better managed and foster both ecosystem health and the economic sustainability of the natural resource sector (Agriculture, Energy, Forestry, and Mining).

In February 2009, an NRTEE Program entitled “Water and Canada’s Natural Resources Sectors” identified four (4) key challenges to water sustainability (McLaughlin, 2009):

1) improving the link between water science and policy;

2) building upon existing examples of integrated water governance structures;

3) incorporating ecosystem security in water allocation decisions; and,



4) incorporating the true value of water in production costs.

This NRTEE-organized program is examining the sustainability of natural resource sectors from the perspective of reliance and demand for water. Climate change is a prime factor that will have an impact on water availability. Competing uses and allocation limitations (policy) are also important. The NRTEE intends to develop an understanding of the role (quality and quantity) of water in maintaining basic ecosystem function and what types of water management framework(s) are necessary to protect and maintain this function.

Report Objective The Statement of Work (SOW) defined by the NRTEE for the research presented in this report includes an evaluation of the above by reviewing existing practices and lessons learned in the natural resource sectors. Further, this report collates existing information on ecosystem needs as a basis for understanding how water is, could and should be managed and/or allocated as reflected by existing or proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Best Available Technologies (BATs) across Canada and internationally.

Tasks identified for research in this study included the following:

• type of ecosystem needs that should be incorporated in water management;

• best practices in ecologically sustainable water management (ESWM);

• examples and recommended practices of ESWM; and,

• lessons learned (what worked/what didn’t).

This report is intended to provide a more comprehensive understanding of policy issues and choices needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of Canada's water and economy. Research has been framed in the context of changes in availability and distribution of water, as a result of both climate change and rising demand.

1 . 2 E c o s y s t e m s — C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , F u n c t i o n s & N e e d s Ecosystems are defined as “a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment” (OED, 2009). Ecosystems may also be defined as a “set of interacting organisms and the solar driven system that they compose, comprising primary producers, consumers and decomposers” (Falkenmark, 2003). Described as “essential and dynamic factors of production for social and economic development” (Folke, 1997), all ecosystems are water-dependent and rely on the circulation of water through cycles (Ripl, 1995; FAO, 2000a). Ecosystems may be viewed from their overall sustainable productivity of a catchment (i.e., watershed or drainage basin) to their unique site-specific value which needs to first be understood, then maintained and protected (Falkenmark, 2003):

• the life support system on which welfare depends according to the ecological services it provides; and,

• site-specific biological landscape components of special social value for local inhabitants (e.g., a wetland, a forest, a lake, etc.).

Ecosystems provide ecological resources for terrestrial (e.g., timber, fuel, wood, crops, etc.) and aquatic (e.g., fish, aquatic plants, seafood, etc.) system productivity. Ecological services vital to the functioning of life support systems are driven by the water cycle and associated key functions and linkages (Ripl, 1995; Daily, 1997; FAO, 2000a).

Water dissipates solar energy variations in space and time through three main process properties with mutually balancing processes, including physical (e.g., evaporation and condensation), chemical (e.g., crystallization and dissolution) and biological processes (e.g., photosynthesis and respiration).



Falkenmark (2003) divides rainwater after it has fallen into two categories. “Green water” is vapour flow that supports terrestrial ecosystems and “blue water” is liquid flow that supports aquatic ecosystems and is accessible for human use. Falkenmark recommends that an approach incorporating the entire water cycle, in relation to human interaction with ecosystems and their environment, be considered in water management programs.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Terrestrial ecosystems can be quite different in character with a main distinction between grasslands and forests and characteristic vegetation with dominating species shifting with climate. Grasslands include steppe, prairie and grassland savannah, with water supply forming the dominant control on growth and maintenance of inhabiting plants (Falkenmark, 2003). Rainfall interception losses from foliage in forests and woodlands can be considerable, but differ between temperate and tropical zones. Interception losses are often less from seasonal canopies (Roberts, 1999).

Water moves from terrestrial environments to aquatic ecosystems through land areas known as drainage basins. Drainage basins, also known as watersheds or catchment areas, specifically refer to land drained by a river system. Water from all types of precipitation enters drainage basins, and is either moved or temporarily stored. Precipitation may be intercepted by vegetation and subsequently absorbed and transpired, or it evaporates from the plant surfaces. Precipitation may also be intercepted directly by soil (Wetzel, 2001). Most precipitation water infiltrates the soil; however, the level of infiltration is variable to soil depth, bulk density, structure, composition, and other factors (Todd, 1980).

Before flow of excess water to streams can occur, the soil water storage capacity must be exceeded. When water from precipitation or snow/ice melt is added to the soil at a greater rate than it can be absorbed, excess water will run down gradient by overland flow. Water flow through soils is often channeled by soil structure and voids. Dense or impermeable soils impede vertical movement or water and cause lateral flow of water at intermediate depths of soil (Wetzel, 2001).

The surface of the saturated zone of permeable soil is termed the water table. Water held by capillarity in the soil above the water table is referred to as vadose water, and saturated below the water table as groundwater. Groundwater flows laterally, intersecting and providing a moderately stable base flow input to stream channels. Groundwater may also provide some minimal influx to lake systems depending on elevation. Collectively the overland flow from excess precipitation water and lateral flows that infiltrate soils provide the main loading of streams during peak flows (Wetzel, 2001).

In relation to freshwater ecosystems, terrestrial landscapes provide food resources for animals (e.g., invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals), while streamside vegetation regulates water temperature, and stabilizes stream banks. Food, mostly derived as leaf litter, needles, cones, twigs, bark, and wood, provides energy to stream organisms. Driftwood from forested areas increases the diversity of habitats by forming dams, attendant pools and protected backwater areas. Driftwood also provides nutrients and a variety of foundations for biological activity while dissipating water energy and trapping sediments. Large dams of wood debris from landscape ecosystems act as sieves and zones of deposition for fine organic debris, allowing time for microbes to colonize the debris and for insects to process it (Maser and Sedell, 1994).

Terrestrial ecosystems play a fundamental role in the runoff process, given they consume large amounts (approximately two thirds of continental precipitation) of green water. Table 1 lists the average water consumption by terrestrial ecosystem type.



Table 1: Global Water Consumption of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems

Terrestrial Ecosystem Global Water Consumption (km3/year)

Croplands (including weeds and periphery) 6,800

Temperate and tropical grasslands 15,100

Temperate and tropical forests, woodlands 40,000

Bogs, fens, swamps and marshes 1,400

Tundra and desert 5,700

Other systems 2,000

Total 71,000

Reference: Rockström et al., 1999; Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000.

The 71,000 km3/year global water consumption constitutes the total green water flow from the continents (i.e., continental evapotranspiration). Put into perspective, these terrestrial water consumption values are significantly greater relative to global human water use. For example, overall human water withdrawals were estimated at 3,900 km3/yr, of which 2,600 km3/yr was consumptive use and the remaining 1,300 km3/yr constituted return flow (Falkenmark, 2003).

Freshwater Aquatic Ecosystems Water systems, and the aquatic ecosystems they support, provide recreational use, a means of navigation and transport, dilution of pollutants, and habitat and structure for living resources. Flowing freshwater environments are called lotic, with unidirectional water movement along a slope in response to gravity. By contrast, lentic systems are open and have very slow, but continuous through flows (i.e., water renewal rates; Wetzel, 2001).

Lotic Systems (Streams & Rivers) Water movement is considered the most important factor affecting plant and invertebrate distribution (primary and secondary production) in lotic systems (Large and Prach, 1999; Wood, Agnew and Petts, 2001). Dissipation of energy from moving masses of water affects the morphology of streams, sedimentation patterns, water chemistry, and biology of organisms inhabiting them (Wetzel, 2001).

Lotic systems constitute an insignificant amount (0.1%) of the Earth’s land surface and contain only 0.0001% the planet’s water (Wetzel, 2001). Nevertheless, running waters are of enormous significance, as rivers export a large percentage of eroded materials (e.g., dissolved and particulate matter) from the land to the sea. The continual down gradient movement of water, dissolved substances, and suspended particles in lotic systems stems primarily from drainage basins.

The basin or valley trough containing the flowing water is the stream or river channel, and can be described physically in terms of length, width, depth, cross-sectional area, slope, aspect, among other parameters (Wetzel and Likens, 1991). The channel is usually bordered by a flat area call the flood plain, with much of the flood plain soil connected hydrologically to the water of the channel (Wetzel, 2001).

Stream flow or discharge is the volume of water passing through the cross-sectional area of a stream channel per unit time. Discharge can vary significantly from season to season or within and following a



precipitation event. Stream discharge increases to a peak following a rainstorm or rapid snowmelt period. Discharges that exceed the bankful capacities of a river channel are called floods. A bankful discharge is a flow that fills entirely the cross-sectional stream channel without overflow onto the floodplain (Wetzel, 2001).

There are several characteristics that distinguish lotic systems from other inland ecosystems, including (Wetzel, 2001):

• flow is unidirectional, so downstream reaches are influenced by upstream reaches;

• running waters are linear in form and occupy a very small portion of the total drainage basin area;

• channel substrata and channel morphology tend to be unstable and undergo constant change as a result of the erosive and molar action of flowing water;

• much of the organic matter entering and supporting metabolism in streams on an annual basis originates from allochthonous sources (i.e., deposits from elsewhere);

• spatial and temporal heterogeneity is high among many parameters in river ecosystems;

• high variability of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics exists among different streams and rivers, making generalizations more difficult; and,

• stream biota have specialized adaptations to conditions with flowing water.

Lentic Systems (Lakes & Reservoirs) Lake ecosystems are closely linked to water and chemical inflows from the catchment (Wetzel, 1999). Vertical water exchange modifies lakes through a combination of precipitation and evaporation. The drainage basin then provides an ionic input that characterizes the chemical composition of the inflowing water.

Lake habitats differ according to the relative roles of horizontal and vertical water exchange. Lakes dominated by horizontal, as opposed to vertical water exchange, are characterized more by the through flow system with a relatively rapid overall renewal of the lake water mass (e.g., most reservoirs, mountain lakes). Lakes with small drainage basins are typically dominated by vertical water exchange, making them climate-controlled and more vulnerable to climate fluctuations. Biological structure and metabolism of lakes are strongly coupled with their chemical and physical characteristics (Wetzel, 1999). Lakes may also be influenced by the groundwater system originating from land-use changes in the catchment. The natural process of eutrophication (the natural infilling of a lake through increased productivity and sedimentation) may be exacerbated through human activity which may increase the rate and amount of nutrient input and erosion (e.g., agriculture, mining, forestry).

Extremely heterogeneous and productive wetland-littoral areas often lie at the interface between the terrestrial drainage basin and the open-water zone of lakes. These complex wetland-littoral areas are exceedingly important for regulating lake metabolism. Since the majority of lakes are small and relatively shallow, the metabolically active wetland and littoral components dominate the productivity of most lakes in the world (Wetzel, 2001).

The effects that terrestrial, wetland, and littoral biota have on the quality and quantity of inorganic and organic loading to a lake can be profound. Water, with inorganic and organic substances, flows from higher elevations to recipient lake basins both in groundwater and in surface streams. En route, chemical and biological reactions occur that selectively modify the quality and quantity of nutrients and organic substances entering the lake. Surface flows often pass through wetland-littoral areas, which can further selectively lose or gain inorganic and organic compounds before reaching the open water.



The total nutrient and contaminant loading to a lake system derives from each of these processes combined with the inorganic and organic loads contributed by human activities (Wetzel, 2001).

Wetlands Wetlands are multifunctional and dynamic systems that incorporate very specific hydrologic and ecologic conditions. They are biologically characterized by anoxia and low redox potential (Wheeler, 1999) and support typical wetland vegetation which differs from vegetation of well-drained land (Pielou, 1998). Aquatic wetlands (shallow waterbodies) are part of aquatic ecosystems, whereas telmatic wetlands are basically wet terrestrial systems. Wetlands are defined by their vegetation rather than by their hydrology (Falkenmark, 2003) and exist as bogs, fens, marshes and swamps (Pielou, 1998).

The main water determinants of wetlands include rainfall (bogs), lateral water flow (fens), flood water (swamps and marshes) and groundwater seepage (fens and wet meadows). Inhibition of rainfall infiltration through impermeable layers of soil or rock restring downward percolation of rainwater may create a wetland.

Wetlands provide important ecosystem functions including (Dennison and Schmid, 1997):

• conveyance and storage of floodwaters (i.e., store large amounts of stormwater, reduce flood levels, form natural floodways);

• prevention of erosion and saltwater intrusion (i.e., reduce erosional impact of tides and waves);

• sediment control (i.e., reduce the velocity of water, thereby reducing soil erosion);

• wildlife habitat formation;

• water supply and quality maintenance (i.e., recharge underground aquifers, serve as a source of surface water supply, improve water quality through denitrification, absorption of nutrients, metals and toxins); and,

• food production (produce large quantities of both plant and animal food).

A crucial factor leading to creation of all wetlands is a permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation for a significant period during the growing season in most years. Wetlands of all types are formed along rivers, lakes, and estuaries where flooding is likely to occur, or may be found in isolated depressions surrounded by upland where surface water collects. Water present in wetlands can fluctuate on annual, seasonal and daily periods (Dennison and Schmid, 1997). The water requirement for wetland vegetation is primarily from water consumption for assimilation, water storage, and evapotranspiration. The basic inhabiting and breeding needs of fish and waterfowl drive water requirements for habitat (e.g., depth, quantity, and period; Cui et al., 2009).

Marine & Estuarine Ecosystems Oceans and marine ecosystems represent approximately 70% of the Earth’s surface, playing a key role in the heat, water and carbon transports of the planet (Colette, 2009). Marine ecosystems are connected to groundwater and running water via estuaries, forming an indirect link between oceans and freshwater ecosystems; however, freshwater and marine water each have unique characteristics (e.g., temperature, density, chemistry, aquatic communities). As such, their mixing can potentially lead to the salinization of freshwaters and changes in freshwater communities. For example, a species of diatom from the Pacific Ocean, Neodenticula seminae, has been found in the St. Lawrence estuary, having migrated from the Atlantic Ocean (Starr et al., 2004).

An estuary is the wide, lower course of a river where its current is met and influenced by the ocean tides (Roberts, 1999). Estuaries rank among the most important ecosystems on earth in terms of their



ecologic and economic value. The biotic productivity of these coastal areas is extremely high, rivaling the most intensely cultivated farmlands. Factors accounting for this importance include (Alongi, 1998):

• abundant nutrients;

• conservation, retention, and efficient recycling of nutrients among benthic, wetland, and pelagic habitats (i.e., coupling of subsystems);

• consortia of phytoplankton, benthic microalgae and macroalgae, seagrasses, mangroves, and fringing saltmarsh vegetation that maximize available light and space; and,

• tidal energy and circulation.

Estuaries also serve important chemical and physical functions, such as trapping nutrients, filtering toxic pollutants, and transforming wastes that enter from watersheds, the near shore ocean, and atmosphere. Bottom sediments are a repository for numerous contaminants derived from these sources. Important physical functions include the amelioration of storm impacts, attenuation of flooding, and mitigation of erosion on bordering landmasses (Kennish, 2000).

The accumulation of sediments in former channels and on former floodplains is prevalent in estuaries. These sediments are usually derived from the silts and muds in the upper reaches of the rivers, which become sandier near their mouths. Estuarine tidal flats and marshes occupy the former floodplains along the submerged river valleys, which are now estuarine embayments (Roberts, 1999).

Estuaries, together with near shore habitat, are responsible for approximately 50% of the world fisheries harvest, although they comprise only approximately 8% of the total area covered by marine waters (Valiela, 1995). Having large food supplies, estuaries typically support high densities and biomasses of organisms; however, they are physically controlled systems subject to large fluctuations in environmental conditions and numerous anthropogenic stresses. Consequently, constituent biotic communities are generally characterized by low species richness. Yet, diverse habitats in open waters, tidal flats, and fringing wetlands act as a refuge for various freshwater and wildlife species who use the estuarine habitats for nesting, feeding, reproduction, or shelter (Kennish, 2000).

When considering potential impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, there are a number of likely impacts marine ecosystems can have on groundwater resources. These potential impacts include (UNSW, 2009a):

• seawater intrusion (i.e., progressive encroachment through the subsurface) and inland migration of the fresh-saline interface;

• seawater inundation (i.e., surface flow into low-lying areas) and flooding of unconfined aquifers;

• changing recharge due to variable rainfall and evapotranspiration, resulting in an altered distribution of freshwater in the aquifer;

• changing discharge patterns that can generate waterlogged conditions and may impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems; and,

• high water table effects on infrastructure, including leakage of septic tanks and sewer systems.

Seawater intrusion can also be the consequence of freshwater aquifer overexploitation (UL, 2004). When freshwater has salt water intrusion at concentrations of 5% or more, it is no longer suitable for many important uses, including drinking water, irrigation of crops, irrigation of parks and gardens, and sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems (UNSW, 2009b). Thus, it is quite evident that the ecologies of marine and estuarine ecosystems directly correlate to the integrity of freshwater resources in coastal areas.



1 . 3 A q u a t i c E c o s y s t e m D r i v e r s According to the NRC (1992) aquatic ecosystems are being significantly altered or degraded at a greater rate than at any other time in human history, and far more quickly than they are being restored The rational provided for this circumstance is that the needs of freshwater species and ecosystems have been largely neglected in an effort to manage water to meet human needs (Richter et al., 2003); however, there are limits to the amount of water that can be withdrawn from freshwater systems before natural function and productivity, native species and the services and products they provide become severely degraded. As such, the maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity need to be recognized as legitimate goals for freshwater and sustainable management (NRC, 1992).

One of the reasons cited for ecological degradation evident in natural water resources is a lack of understanding of the water flows necessary to sustain freshwater ecosystems. The flow regime of a river is the “master variable” that directly and indirectly drives variation in many other components of an aquatic ecosystem (e.g., biota abundance and diversity, floodplain and forest composition, nutrient cycling, etc.; Poff et al., 1997); however, there are other important drivers influencing freshwater ecosystems. Baron et al. (2002) identified five (5) dynamic environmental drivers that regulate the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems, each having varying relative importance depending on the ecosystem type. These environmental drivers are:

1) flow regime that defines the rates and pathways by which precipitation enters and circulates within river channels, lakes, wetlands, and connecting groundwaters, and residence time of water in the ecosystem;

2) sediment and organic matter that provide raw material inputs that create physical habitat structure, refugia, and nutrient storage and supply;

3) thermal and light characteristics that regulate organism metabolism, activity level, and ecosystem productivity;

4) chemical and nutrient characteristics that regulate pH, productivity and water quality; and,

5) biotic assemblage that influence ecosystem process rates and community structure.

In naturally functioning systems, all of these drivers display natural variation and annual periodicity according to seasonal changes in climate and day length. These changes ultimately define the type, frequency, range and duration of variability. These environmental divers must be considered holistically when evaluating and defining aquatic ecosystem integrity and function.

Flow Regime Certain aspects of flow regime are critical for regulating biotic production and diversity, particularly for rivers. These aspects include base flow, annual or frequent floods, rare and extreme flood events, seasonality of flows, and annual variability (Baron et al., 2002). Flow regime also influences circulation patterns, renewal rates, and types and abundances of aquatic vascular plants in lakes and wetlands. The flow regime of a lake or wetland imports a critical influence on biotic productivity and is important in defining the acceptable nutrient loads from surrounding areas (van der Valk, 1981, Vollenweider, 1976). Although freshwater ecosystems differ greatly from each other, depending on type, location, and climate, there are a number of important features shared between lakes, wetlands, rivers and associated groundwater. Each has a common need for water to be within a certain range of quantity and quality and each requires a range of natural variation to maintain viability and resilience (Baron et al., 2002).



Both seasonal and inter-annual variability in flow are needed to support biota and maintain natural habitat dynamics that support production and persistence of species in freshwater ecosystems (Poff et al., 1997, Stanford et al., 1996). The abundance of native plant and animal populations, age structures, presence of rare or highly specialized species, interactions of species with each other and the environment, and many ecosystem processes are strongly influenced by temporally varying hydrologic regimes that characterize these ecosystems. Furthermore, water quality, physical habitat conditions and energy sources are shaped by periodic and episodic water-flow patterns. A summary of the ecological functions performed by different river flow levels is provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Ecological Functions performed by Different River Flow Levels

Flow Component Ecological Roles

Low (base) flows Normal level • Provide adequate habitat space for aquatic organisms • Maintain suitable water temperatures, dissolved oxygen, and water chemistry • Maintain water table levels in floodplain, soil moisture for plants • Provide drinking water for terrestrial animals • Keep fish and amphibian eggs suspended • Enable fish to move to feeding and spawning areas • Support hyporheic organisms (living in saturated sediments) Drought level • Enable recruitment of certain floodplain plants • Purge invasive, introduced species from aquatic and riparian communities • Concentrate prey into limited areas to benefit predators

High Pulse flows • Shape physical character of river channel including pools, riffles • Determine size of stream bed substrates (sand, gravel, cobble) • Prevent riparian vegetation from encroaching into channel • Restore normal water quality conditions after prolonged low flows, flushing away waste products and

pollutants • Aerate eggs in spawning gravels, prevent siltation • Maintain suitable salinity conditions in estuaries

Floods • Provide migration and spawning cues for fish • Trigger new phase in life cycle (e.g., insects) • Enable fish to spawn on floodplain, provide nursery area for juvenile fish • Provide new feeding opportunities for fish, waterfowl • Recharge floodplain water table • Maintain diversity in floodplain forest types through prolonged inundation (i.e., different plant species

have different tolerances • Control distribution and abundance of plants on floodplain • Deposit nutrients on floodplain • Maintain balance of species in aquatic and riparian communities • Create sites for recruitment of colonizing plants • Shape physical habitats of floodplain • Deposit gravel and cobbles in spawning areas • Flush organic materials (food) and woody debris (habitat structures) into channel • Purge invasive, introduced species from aquatic and riparian communities • Disburse seeds and fruits of riparian plants • Drive lateral movement of river channel, forming new habitats (secondary channels, oxbow lakes) • Provide plant seedlings with prolonged access to soil moisture

Reference: Richter et al., 2006.



Sediment & Organic Input Sediment flux and organic matter input are important components of habitat structure and dynamics in riverine systems. Natural sediment regimes are those that accompany natural flow variation, while natural organic matter regimes include seasonal inputs from terrestrial environments (Baron et al. 2002). Organic matter found in freshwater systems can come from terrestrial ecosystems or be generated by the photosynthesis processes of phytoplankton and macrophyte communities (Ricklefs and Miller, 1999). Most of the organic matter found in freshwater ecosystems is allochtone (i.e., from anthropogenic sources). For example, Edwards and Meyer (1987) found in a small river study that primary production generated only 6% of the global amount of carbon, while 44% came from the surrounding environment and 50% came from upstream sources.

The degree of primary production depends on the size of a stream and on the surrounding environment. For example, a river surrounded by forested land will get much more allochthonous organic matter (that originated from another system) than a prairie river. Moreover, large streams typically host a greater amount of phytoplankton and macrophytes and can have a greater level of primary production (Edwards and Meyer, 1987). In lakes and wetlands, all but the finest inflowing particle size sediment is permanently stored (Baron et al., 2002). Invertebrates, algae, bryophytes (e.g., mosses, liverworts, etc.), vascular plants and bacteria that populate the bottoms of freshwater systems are responsible for much of the water purification, decomposition and nutrient cycling that subsequently can occur (Palmer et al., 2000).

Thermal & Light Characteristics Light and heat properties are influenced by climate and topography and by the chemical, suspended sediment and primary productivity composition of the waterbody. Water temperature directly regulates oxygen concentrations, organism metabolism, and associated life processes, while the thermal regime greatly influences organism fitness and, as a result, distribution of species in both space (e.g., along latitudinal and altitudinal gradients) and time (e.g., seasonal variation; Baron et al., 2002).

Particularly in lakes, absorption of solar energy and dissipation (as heat) are critical to the development of thermal structures and water circulation patterns, which subsequently influence nutrient cycling, distribution of dissolved gases and biota, and behavioural adaptations of organisms (Wetzel, 2001). Lakes undergo seasonal changes with respect to temperature-density profiles. These changes directly influence various characteristics in lakes. For example, water becomes less dense as it increases in temperature. The exception to this rule is when water reaches its maximum density (~4°C), below which water becomes less dense as it cools (Boehrer and Schultze, 2008).

Thermal stratification can be explained as the change in the lake temperature profile with depth. Temperature profile changes from one season to the next, creating a cyclical pattern that is repeated year-to-year. After surface ice melts in the spring, lake water is generally the same temperature from surface to the bottom. Circulation and mixing of lake water can be driven by wind, as surface water is forced to the lake bottom while water from the bottom rises to the surface. In doing so, large amounts of oxygen can reach the bottom. Without this wind-driven process, oxygen-rich water would rely on diffusion processes to eventually reach the bottom (Boehrer and Schultze, 2008).

After the spring overturn, air temperatures rise and the lake heats from the surface down. The warm water is less dense than the colder water below, resulting in a layer of warm water (epilimnion) that floats over the cold water (hypolimnion). These two layers are separated by a layer of water which rapidly changes temperature with depth (i.e., the thermocline or metalimnion). During the summer the epilimnion will reach a maximum depth and stratification is maintained for the remainder of the season (Boehrer and Schultze, 2008).



The warm water, abundant sunlight, and nutrients brought up from the lake bottom during spring turnover provide an ideal environment for algae growth within the epilimnion. Conversely, the lake bottom tends to have a very limited supply of oxygen during the summer, since there is a lack of mixing to provide dissolved oxygen and insufficient light for photosynthesis to occur. In addition, respiration by animals and bacteria further depletes the dissolved oxygen at the lake’s bottom. Dead algae sink to the bottom and are decomposed by bacteria, thereby accelerating the depletion of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion since aerobic bacteria use oxygen to decompose the wealth of organic material raining down from the epilimnion (Boehrer and Schultze, 2008).

During summer stagnation the lake bottom can become anoxic (i.e., without oxygen), enabling anaerobic bacteria to begin decomposing organic material without the aid of dissolved oxygen. If dead algae accumulate at a faster rate than bacteria can decompose the organic matter, sediment deposited in the lake will be rich in organics. This can occur when there is not thorough mixing to provide the surface water with nutrients from the bottom, thus, limiting the nutrients available in the epilimnion. As a result, there are large die-offs of algae which fall to the lake bottom, and add to the organic matter (Boehrer and Schultze, 2008).

As autumn approaches and temperatures decrease, the epilimnion begins to decrease in depth, eventually getting so shallow that it can no longer be maintained as a separate layer. Consequently, the lake loses its stratification. Thus, as in the spring, the lake water in autumn has generally uniform temperatures (approximately 4°C in late autumn), and wind can once again thoroughly mix the water. In addition, surface water gets cooled faster than the water below, as it is in direct contact with the cooler autumn air. This cold, dense water sinks and further helps to mix the lake, once again replenishing oxygen and nutrients throughout the lake. This process is known as the autumn overturn (Boehrer and Schultz, 2008).

As winter approaches, the surface water is eventually cooled below 4° C. As water temperatures at the surface reach 0°C, ice begins to cover the surface of the lake. During the winter, ice cover prevents wind from mixing the lake water. As such, stratification can occur with a layer of low density water colder than 4°C, but warmer than 0°C, forming just under the ice. This is known as the winter stagnation (Boehrer and Schultz, 2008). This overall process driven by thermal and light characteristics occurs in polymictic lakes (i.e., lakes with several mixings per year). However, some lakes have only one mixing per year (monomictic) or no mixing at all (amictic) (Lewis, 1983).

Chemical & Nutrient Characteristics Natural nutrient and chemical conditions are those that reflect local climate, bedrock, soil, vegetation type, and topography (US EPA, 2000a). Natural waters can vary between clear, nutrient-poor rivers and lakes on crystalline bedrock, to much more productive and chemically enriched freshwaters in catchments with productive soils or limestone bedrock (Baron et al., 2002).

Chemical attributes of a waterway are important indicators of water quality. They can affect aesthetic qualities, such as how water looks, smells, and tastes. Furthermore, chemical characteristics can influence the toxicity of water and its overall safety for use by humans and other biotic communities (Péry et al., 2003). The chemical composition of surface waters varies both spatially and temporally (John, 1985), depending on both reversible and irreversible chemical reactions (Graham and Farmer, 2007).

Chemical parameters play an important role in the health, abundance and diversity of aquatic life. Excessive amounts of some constituents, or the lack of others, can lead to the degradation of aquatic conditions and harm of aquatic life (Kurbatova, 2005). Some of the most common chemicals in freshwater systems include (Jackson and Harvey, 1993):



• Calcium – the most abundant ion in freshwater. Calcium is important in shell construction, bone building and plant precipitation of lime in aquatic communities (Jhingran, 1975). Rivers generally contain 1-2 ppm calcium; however, in rivers with considerable amounts of limestone, concentrations can reach 100 ppm. Calcium is largely responsible for water hardness, which makes aquatic organisms more sensitive to metal toxicity (Lenntech, 2009a);

• Magnesium – essential for chlorophyll bearing algae and plants (Jhingran, 1975). Rivers generally contain 4 ppm magnesium. Magnesium also contributes to the hardness of water (Lenntech, 2009b);

• Sodium – essential for animal life, allowing for the transmission of nerve impulses. Rivers generally contain 9 ppm sodium (Lenntech, 2009c); and,

• Potassium – involved in the growth and photosynthesis of algae (Cole, 1983). Potassium also plays a role in animal nerve functions and plant growth. Typically, rivers contain 2-3 ppm potassium (Lenntech, 2009d).

Nutrients move unidirectionally within running waters. As dissolved substances move downstream, they are bound or assimilated for a period of time, and then released later for further movement downgradient (Wetzel, 2001). Nitrogen and phosphorus are two nutrients that can provide a good measure of water quality (QG EPA, 1999). Specifically, nitrogen and phosphorus can have several origins, including sewage, agriculture, fossil fuels, and discharges from fish farms and other industries. Detergents containing large amounts of phosphates can be released through household sewage systems following wash cycles. Agriculture practices can lead to soil erosion from fertilized fields, thereby causing high levels of phosphorus to reach freshwater ecosystems with the displaced soil. As well, burning fossil fuels release phosphorus and nitrogen compounds into the atmosphere, where they accumulate and precipitate as rain and snow (US EPA, 2006).

Nitrogen and Phosphorus stimulate the growth of plankton and aquatic plants. Since plankton represents the base of the food chain, this increased productivity will initially cause an increase in the fish population and overall biological diversity of the system; however, as nutrient loading continues and builds up in the lake ecosystems, and productivity correspondingly increases, the eventual die-off of organic matter will result in enhanced lake sedimentation. This process is known as eutrophication, and can be more simply described as an enhanced production of primary producers which results in the reduced stability of an ecosystem (US EPA, 2006).

In situations where eutrophication occurs, the natural cycles become overwhelmed by an excess of one or more nutrients, such as nitrate, phosphate, or organic waste. Usually a result of human activity and development, excessive nutrient inputs increase the amount of phytoplankton and vegetation. This overproduction can lead to several problems, such as anoxic water, toxic algal blooms, and a decrease in aquatic community diversity, food supply and habitat destruction. Eutrophication can also lead to blue-green algal blooms in some fresh waters, where toxins harmful to humans, pets and farm animals may be produced (US EPA, 2006).

Biotic Assemblage The communities of species that inhabit aquatic ecosystems reflect the regional species pool and, as such, a species’ ability to colonize and survive. Environmental variations between the other four drivers (i.e., flow, sediment and organic, thermal and light, chemical and nutrient regimes), as well as the presence of and interaction with other species in a given system, dictate the suitability of an ecosystem for any particular species (Baron et al., 2002). As such, both biotic and abiotic controls and feedbacks operate to maintain a diverse range of species that are involved in the critical ecosystem processes of



primary production, decomposition, and nutrient cycling. Specifically, a high level of biodiversity helps to ensure that ecological function will continue during periods of environmental stress (Walker, 1992).

In addition to the environmental drivers discussed above, aquatic ecosystems can also be protected by recognizing the following factors (Baron et al., 2002):

• aquatic ecosystems are connected strongly to terrestrial environments, rather than isolated bodies or conduits;

• aquatic ecosystems are connected to each other;

• dynamic patterns of flow that are maintained within the historical range of variation will promote the integrity and sustainability of freshwater ecosystems; and,

• aquatic ecosystems additionally require sediments, thermal and light properties, chemical and nutrient inputs, and biotic populations to fluctuate within natural ranges, neither experiencing excessive deviations from their historical ranges, nor being held at constant and unnatural levels.

The ecological consequences that may arise from depriving aquatic systems of adequate water quantity, timing, and quality may only become apparent after interfering with societal uses of freshwater (Baron et al., 2002); however, it is important to recognize that once a critical threshold is reached, freshwater ecosystems may change rapidly to form new stable conditions that are then difficult to change back to the previous existing conditions (Holling, 1973).

1 . 4 I n d i c a t o r s o f A q u a t i c E c o s y s t e m “ H e a l t h ” Aquatic ecosystems are dynamic and ever-changing, comprised of numerous interrelated components. Non-linearity is a fundamental aspect of these systems. Evolutionary environmental processes which comprise the environment and interactions between components (ocean, atmosphere, land, atmosphere, and biosphere) are typically non-linear and highly complex. For these reasons, as well as scientific, political, cultural, and social conflict issues, agreement of an operational definition and means of accurately identifying representative indicators to measure and depict ecosystem condition is highly complicated and contentious.

Ecosystem “health” is a comparatively new concept (Shrader-Frechette, 1994) that attempts to integrate ecology, environmental management, medicine and ethics under the “normative influence of socially defined goals for the environment” (Rapport, 1992 and 1992a). The assessment of ecosystem health is complex and subjective by nature, involving opinions of relevance, proper testable questions, assessment criteria and role and degree of interface with non-scientific considerations, such as ethics, economics, culture, politics, etc. More recently, ecological "health" has been adopted to equate environmental condition in terms to which humans can better relate. As this need for a more accurate means to establish, represent and predict this ecosystem “health” grows, researchers are realizing that previous tools and terminology, though useful, are limited and ambiguous in definition. Health is a term highly steeped in controversy over the applicability of its use in describing ecological condition and related processes (e.g. Wicklum and Davies, 1995; Scrimgeour and Wicklum, 1996; Meyer, 1997). Karr et al. (1986) suggested that a “biological system, whether individual or ecological, can be considered healthy when its inherent potential is realized, its condition stable, its capacity for self repair when perturbed is preserved and minimal external support for management is needed".

Though overused and often generalized (colloquial), use of the term “health” simplistically conveys important concepts such as function and structure that are integral concepts in understanding and defining environment(s) and ecosystem(s) condition at a given place or time. Moreover, the term “health” also suggests that alteration of these factors, akin to human health, can result in chronic or



acute system disease or other undesired manifestations. As noted by Fairweather (1999), there is “no denying that the metaphor ‘river health’ resonates with the wider public, implying vitality, vigour, unimpaired function and other feelings of good health”. Numerous researchers worldwide support health terminology as a metaphoric, if not analogous, reference to ecological condition as it easily conveys complex concepts.

Indicators of Health can be described as readily measurable attributes that reflect the conditions and dynamics of broad, complex attributes of ecosystem health that may be difficult to measure directly (City of Portland, 2005). Furthermore, indicators may reflect biological, chemical or physical attributes of ecological condition. Freshwater indicators are primarily used to characterize current status and to track or predict significant change in aquatic ecosystems. With a foundation of diagnostic research, an ecological indicator may also be used to identify major ecosystem stress (US EPA, 2000b).

Ecosystem indicators are essential to water management processes, because they serve as links between goals and actions. In a well-designed watershed management plan, the overall set of management goals is divided into specific, measurable objectives, with each objective defined further by indentifying readily measureable indicators and desired conditions for those indicators (e.g., target values, range of values). Over time, ecosystem conditions can be monitored and compared to target values, enabling measurement of progress in relation to meeting objectives (City of Portland, 2005). Under ideal circumstances, ecological indicators should meet a broad range of criteria, including but not limited to, the following (US EPA, 1994):

• be relevant to ecologically significant phenomena and closely tied to management goals and objectives;

• be sensitive to stressors;

• have high “signal-to-noise” ratios, meaning that significant changes in an indicator are due to changes in stressors rather than stochastic variability;

• be quantifiable, accurate and precise;

• be representative of the larger resources of concern;

• provide measurements that can be interpreted unambiguously;

• be measurable at a scale and frequency that are feasible; and,

• be cost-effective to monitor.

When combined, a set of indicators should convey an understanding of how an ecosystem functions and the components most essential to that functioning (City of Portland, 2005). The indicators should provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships between environmental stressors and anticipated ecosystem responses (Mulder et al., 1999). The indicators chosen for a particular watershed management purpose should be based on a conceptual model that clearly links stressors, environmental indicators and ecosystem structure and function. The influence of stressors on indicators should be explicit, as should the effect of changes in indicators on ecosystem structure and function (NRC, 1995).

It is important to note that there are many different types of indicators used to gauge the “health” of an aquatic ecosystem, with the significance of each indicator depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem in question. Not all ecological indicators of relevance used to manage one watershed type necessarily apply to another catchment area. Nevertheless, consideration of a broad network of ecological indicators in initial planning stages can be extremely useful in determining which particular indicators are of greatest significance for a given watershed. For example, as part of their Framework for



Integrated Management of Watershed Health, the City of Portland (2005) compiled a comprehensive list of environmental indicators from which they will choose those most relevant to managing the watersheds in their region. All watershed indicators considered by the City of Portland are listed in Table 3 (below), along with associated metrics (i.e., the characteristics of an indicator that are measured to evaluate its condition). It should be noted that the metrics for some of the indicators have yet to be developed; however, recognizing the importance of such indicators, the City of Portland decided to include them pending metric development.

The ecological indicators are divided into four categories: hydrology; physical habitat; water quality; and, biological communities. These categories are chosen to recognize that healthy watersheds include healthy riparian-riverine and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as biological communities. The comprehensive set of indicators was chosen in an effort to describe the health of ecosystems in the following ways (City of Portland, 2005):

• by identifying the ecological functions currently being provided in the watershed (combining this information with data on landscape factors and evaluations of reference areas can help identify ecological functions lost as a result of anthropogenic influences);

• by revealing how the ecosystem responds to stressors; and,

• by representing components of watershed processes and habitat functions that are key to supporting healthy watersheds, as well as healthy, self-sustaining biological communities.

Table 3: Ecological Indicators and Metrics

Category Ecological Indicator Metrics

Hydrology

Hydrograph Alteration

• Peak flow • Baseflow • Seasonal patterns in hydrograph (e.g., mean monthly flows) • Diel and tidal variability • Percentage of the time that daily mean discharge exceeds annual mean

discharge • Coefficient of variation in the annual maximum flood

Floodplain Presence and Connectivity

• Area of historically connected floodplain/area of currently connected floodplain

• Frequency of overbank flow Groundwater • Yet to be developed

Physical Habitat

Floodplain Quality and Connectivity

• Vegetative composition of floodplain • Amount of fill in floodplain • Number of artificial structures in floodplain • Ecological risk assessment of contaminants in floodplain • Valley width index • Stream gradient • Entrenchment ratio • Land use

Riparian Condition: Width, Composition and Fragmentation

• Width of vegetated zone • Species composition (grasses, shrubs and trees), age structure and

percentage of tree canopy cover within the riparian area • Percentage of native vegetation • Number of breaks per reach length • Impervious area • Bank condition (hardened, landscaped, natural form)

Con’d…



Table 4: Ecological Indicators and Metrics (Con’d)Category Ecological Indicator Metrics

Stream Connectivity • Number and impact (totally, partially or temporarily impassible) of

culverts or other natural and artificial hydraulic breaks (waterfalls, stormwater pipes, flood control structures, etc.)

Habitat Types

• Proportion of wetted area composed of pools, glides, riffles, cascades, rapids, steps and piped creek beds

• Pool quality (% pool area or frequency, residual pool depth and pool complexity)

• Riffle quality (percentage of riffle area and substrate composition)

Bank Erosion • Percentage of bank actively eroding • Bank slope

Channel Substrate (Fine/Coarse)

• Substrate size and composition (boulders, cobbles, gravels, sands, fines and organics) by habitat type

• Embeddedness • Turbidity (and/or Total Suspended Solids)

Off-Channel Habitat • Currently accessible tributaries/historically accessible tributaries • Number of stream miles with secondary channels • Area of “off-channel” habitat per mile

Refugia

• Number of pools per mile (potentially broken out by pool types) • Evaluation of pool quality • Frequency distribution of depths • Area of shallow water (less than 20 feet for large rivers) • Percentage of undercut bank • Percentage of substrate composed of boulders (in pools) • Evaluation of large wood

Large Wood • Number and size of distribution of wood pieces per 100-metre stream

length • Key pieces per 100-metre stream length

Water Quality

Water temperature • Mean 7-day maximum

Dissolved Oxygen • mg/L DO • Percent saturation • Intergravel DO

Nutrients and Chlorophyll a • mg/L of ammonia, nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite), total phosphorus, orthophosphate and chlorophyll a

Total Suspended Solids • mg/L TSS • Turbidity

Toxic Contamination of Water, Sediments and Biota

• Area with contaminant levels exceeding risk-based effects thresholds • Number of species with tissue contaminant levels exceeding the risk-

based effects thresholds Groundwater Quality • The parameters listed above applied to groundwater inputs Other Total Maximum Daily Load Parameters Listed in the Federal Clean Water Act

• Specific to parameter

Biological Communities

Biotic Integrity (fish community structure)

• Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) and other community metrics (species richness, percentage of intolerant taxa, etc.)

Benthic Communities • Ephemeroptera-plecoptera-trichoptera (EPT) taxa • Algal community composition

Salmonid Population Structure

• Abundance • Productivity • Spatial structure • Diversity • Presence/absence

Species Interactions (predation, competition, exotic species, etc.)

• Native/exotic ratio • Number of exotic predators and competitors • Relative abundance and spatial distribution of predators and

competitors Riparian wildlife • Yet to be developed Terrestrial wildlife • Yet to be developed Plant communities • Yet to be developed

Reference: City of Portland, 2005.



1 . 5 I m p a c t s o f C l i m a t e C h a n g e Climate change has been internationally recognized as a major threat to global water resources. In Canada, the IPCC and federal government have acknowledged that climate change will have many diverse impacts on water resources across the country (McLaughlin, 2009). In 2001, the IPCC convened a working group to identify and assess likely impacts resulting from climate change. The working group identified a number of potential climate change impacts on hydrology and water resources, including (Arnell et al., 2001):

• both increased and decreased stream flow volumes for many regions;

• varied regional effects on stream flow and groundwater recharge, largely following projected changes in precipitation;

• altered peak stream flow from spring to winter in many areas due to early snowmelt, with lower flows in summer and autumn;

• continued glacier retreat, with many small glaciers likely to disappear;

• degraded water quality due to higher water temperatures;

• increased flood magnitude and frequency in most regions;

• decreased volumes of low flows in many regions; and,

• increased challenges to existing water management practices due to trends not previously experienced and added uncertainty.

In lakes and reservoirs, effects are largely a result of water temperature variations which are seen as a direct consequence of climate change or indirectly through an increase in thermal pollution as a result of higher demand for cooling water in the energy sector. Such temperature increases impact oxygen regimes, redox potentials, lake stratification, mixing rates and biota development (IPCC, 2007b).

Increasing water temperature also affects the self-purification capacity of lotic systems by reducing the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved and used for biodegradation. As well, increases in intense rainfall can result in more nutrients, pathogens, and toxins being discharged to water bodies (IPCC, 2007b). Examples of such trends have been identified. For example, Morrison, Quick and Foreman (2002) detected that longer river sections of the Fraser River in British Columbia have reached temperatures over 20ºC and which are considered a threshold beyond which salmon habitats are degraded. In another study, Chang, Evans and Easterling (2001) reported that enhanced precipitation resulted in increased nitrogen loads from rivers of up to 50% in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay regions of the United States.

Compared to other ecosystems, freshwater systems are anticipated to face the highest proportion of threatened species with extinction resulting from climate change (MEA, 2005). In cold or snow-dominated river basins, atmospheric temperature increases not only warm water, but also cause water-flow alterations (IPCC, 2007b). For example, in Northern Alberta, a decrease in ice-jam flooding due to a dramatic increase in the frequency, intensity and duration of mid-winter thaws may lead to the loss of aquatic habitat by reducing spring flows and exacerbating a drying trend already noted in the region (Beltaos et al., 2006).

Overall, Canadian water resources are expected to experience more prolonged, more frequent and more extreme alterations between low and high water, affecting both surface and groundwater (CCME, 2006). Predicted warmer temperatures will cause increased evaporation rates, which in turn would be expected to reduce the recharge of groundwater. These effects would translate to lower lake levels, thus, affecting hydroelectric production and shipping transportation, increased levels of erosion and forest fires, and impacts to agriculture and forest productivity (McLaughlin, 2009).



1 . 6 U s e - R e l a t e d I s s u e s & C h a l l e n g e s Canada’s natural resource sectors, defined as agriculture, mining, forestry, and energy, are dependent on access to freshwater. Combined, these sectors are the largest water users in Canada and, therefore, have a prominent influence on the sustainability of water resources (NRTEE, 2009b). In 2006, the natural resource sector contributed 13% of Canada’s real GDP, nearly 50% of total Canadian exports, and directly employed almost one million Canadians (NRC, 2008a); however, national estimates of lake volume, river and glacial runoff and groundwater are limited or unavailable as are estimates of use by each of the natural resource sectors (McLaughlin, 2009).

While the consumption and use of water in Canada is rising, climate change is altering the distribution and availability of water. The IPCC technical paper, Climate Change and Water (2008), states with high confidence that climate change will constrain the already over-allocated water resources of North America, thereby increasing competition among agricultural, municipal, industrial and ecological uses.

At present, the value of water as a production input within natural resource sectors in not well understood. Water withdrawal and consumption rates vary from sector to sector, as do the impacts on water use (e.g., changes in temperature, pollutant discharges). As population and economic growth in natural resource sectors rise, there will be further stress on Canada’s freshwater resources (NRTEE, 2009b). To achieve watershed and sector sustainability in the longer term, a range of policy, best practices and technological initiatives are necessary.

1 . 6 . 1 P r o j e c t e d I s s u e s The NRTEE discussion paper, Charting a Path (2009b) identifies the following assumptions and projected issues related to the management of water in Canada:

1. rising and competing demands for water resources create water quantity and quality issues as well as allocation challenges;

2. changing climate will affect groundwater, rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, wetlands, land-based and sea ice in different ways;

3. lack of water is expected to constrain future development and current sustainability in Canada’s energy, agricultural, forestry and mining sectors;

4. solutions grounded in an integrated approach to water management will meet competing demands and ecosystem needs;

5. existing policy and governance tools and mechanisms have inconsistent effectiveness (ongoing gaps exist); and,

6. policy solutions developed at the ground-level and provincial-level must be connected.

1 . 7 C h a l l e n g e s F a c i n g N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e S e c t o r s There are numerous interrelated water use and availability challenges facing the agriculture, mining, forestry and energy sectors. These shared challenges have an influence over present and future water use and include:

• competition;

• cumulative impacts;

• geographic variation;

• climate change; and,

• governance.



Natural resource sectors, municipalities and international demand all compete for Canada’s water resources. Given that water is essential to industrial operations and many sectors continue to expand, there is an ever-increasing demand on freshwater resources (NRTEE, 2009b). Adding to the degree of competition is the critical and substantial need by ecosystems for water.

Generally, Canadian companies do not factor the economic and ecological value of water into their cost-benefit management plans (McLaughlin, 2009). Also rarely considered are the cumulative impacts on the environment caused by natural resource sectors. To date, most research and work has been aimed at identifying and mitigating impacts in a specific sector with limited consideration to how such impacts may be influenced by the ecological effects of other sectors. In relation to water, although each sector may be required to meet their own water quality standards, the combined impact on water quality from all sectors may not be fully realized (NRTEE, 2009b).

Compounding the challenges faced among sectors, the variability and distribution of water resources differ between geographic regions in Canada. Where water scarcity may be an issue in one area, a relative abundance of water may prevail in another, thus, creating an imbalance between different sectors and users (NRTEE, 2009b).

Climate change will likely exacerbate these water use challenges. Present water-stressed areas are likely to expand due to decreased runoff from changes in precipitation patterns and greater evapotranspiration, while reduced water quality and quantity may be experienced across every region of Canada on a seasonal basis. Some of the anticipated effects on water as a result of climate change include: variable supply and distribution; increased demand for groundwater; more extreme weather events; and, declines in water quality (NRTEE, 2009b).

Finally, water governance differs between jurisdictions in Canada, meaning that water users in each sector are subject to different policies and legislated standards depending on the province or territory in which they operate. This fragmented approach is often complex and inefficient. In some jurisdictions, water is over-allocated, thus, causing conflict between users (NRTEE, 2009b). Such practices have the potential to adversely impact aquatic ecosystems through the allocation of water without consideration of environmental concerns. Further discussion of the water allocation practices across Canadian jurisdictions is provided in Section 4.0 (below).



2 . 0 M E T HO DOL O GY & Q U AL I TY AS S U R AN C E The following methods and considerations were employed during researched and analysis undertaken in this report. Tasks conducted throughout the study included (but were not limited to):

1. conducting a start-up teleconference meeting to review client expectations, project scope, deliverables, budget and timeframe, study approach and any related issues;

2. performing regular E-mail updates to inform the NRTEE Project Authority of project progress, preliminary results and any issues requiring input or consultation;

3. performing a thorough literature and research review to identify past, current and perspective research, technologies and practices related to the SOW;

4. based on research, establishing appropriate endpoint questions to be addressed through research analysis (and consultation with the NRTEE as appropriate);

5. identifying and submitting questionnaires to experts in-the-field and identifying Best Available Technologies (BATs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to water management use and applicability to the ecosystem(s) and climate change issues;

6. assimilating, screening and critically reviewing research results using applied Meta Analysis techniques and as applicable to the SOW and endpoint questions developed;

7. defining and detailing working examples and lessons learned representative of the issues, sectors, types and topics revealed using applied logic and meaningful order/organization (e.g., by region);

8. providing an Interim report/written update on research for submission to NRTEE by August 30, 2009; and,

9. writing the final report including meaningful approaches to adaptive management or practices, lessons learned, conclusions, recommendations, supporting appendices and an Executive Summary for submission to NRTEE by September 20, 2009.

2 . 1 M e e t i n g s & C o m m u n i c a t i o n s Start-up Meeting On July 24, 2009, G3 teleconferenced with the NRTEE to confirm scope of work and gather input. G3 prepared a meeting agenda, facilitated discussions, maintained meeting notes and generated follow-up minutes, action items and a Work Plan with schedule (sent on July 28, 2009).

Meeting discussions reviewed the background to this work, addressed the administrative requirements of the contract, confirmed the process and roles of NRTEE and G3, established priorities, discussed assumptions and issues and confirmed the schedule for key milestones and intended scope of work and approach. In addition, the methods for the effective review, comment, revisions and communication process were established.

Communications Project implementation was an iterative process throughout the study. As such, progress reporting and updating was completed on a regular basis. E-mail updates were provided on a weekly basis, with periodic telephone discussions. Updates provided a brief progress log (i.e., identifying work recently completed and work projected in an upcoming week), as well as updates to a work plan chart to show indicators of objectives, milestone tasks and progress on target timelines.

2 . 2 I n f o r m a t i o n A c q u i s i t i o n G3 employed a variety of public and proprietary search methods to access informational databases. G3 conducted a thorough and focused literature review of both published and unpublished (i.e., grey



literature) literature pertaining to ecosystem needs related (but not limited) to water management (and associated topics), BMPs and BATs (including consideration of ecosystem needs, reporting methods and systems, monitoring initiatives and related research/programs), adaptive management practices, definition and refinement of ecologically sustainable water management topics and working examples and lessons gleaned from this research.

Research was conducted by a variety of search-fields related to activity, sector, issue, region, cultural and social, political/regulatory, etc. G3 employed advance database search tools to identify primary literature, cross-referenced sources, secondary publications, consultant’s reports and references to key words, abstracts and phrases within other documents. Efforts were focused on BATs and BMPs currently and historically in use (both by sector as well as issue-specific), being researched or developed and inclusion of strengths and weakness associated with those practices and their relevance to water use and management, and enhancement or protection to ecosystems by evaluating key risk factors, pathways of effect and overall effectiveness and limitations.

Literature and data review examined practices and approaches in Canada and other international jurisdictions to ensure relevant and recent science, policy and applied technical information and protocols/practices are thoroughly examined for applicability to this process. In addition, G3 reviewed the existing related policy, legislation and regulations, and liaised with the Project Authority to gather and compare any existing or known federal or provincial BATs, BMPs, guidelines and policies. Based on information attained through researched literature, a number of appropriate endpoint questions were established to identify past, current and perspective research, as well as technologies and practices related to ecosystems and their management.

2 . 3 E x p e r t I n p u t & Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Research also included annotated, documented information gleaned from questionnaires provided to experts in the field of study, including those from appropriate water use sectors, agencies and university/academic institutions. Experts were identified through direct knowledge of G3, agency personnel, suppliers, academics and database search methods discussed above. The questionnaires were often tailored to an expert’s relevant field of study, and structured such that specific questions of use, appearance, tone, layout, navigation, recommended changes or improvements could be identified. The questionnaires were provided to the NRTEE Contract Authority in advance for review and comment, then sent out to the experts on September 3, 2009.

2 . 4 I n f o r m a t i o n V e r i f i c a t i o n , M e t a A n a l y s i s & D a t a S y n t h e s i s Research results, information and associated sources acquired were organized, prioritized and tabularized then verified through a robust method of cross-reference and Meta analysis. Meta-analysis is a quantitative method of combining, comparing and contrasting information from separate but related sources to synthesize summaries, develop conclusions and make recommendations. It introduces and identifies cross-study issues and weaknesses and additional topics for discussion with the NRTEE. Where limitations in approach or methods were identified, these were crossed-referenced with the information collected in the literature review and study questions to provide recommendations and to highlight lessons learned or provide working examples.

Using weight-of-evidence analysis (review and assimilation of multiple sources of information) and some simple comparative analyses, G3 identified some of the more subtle errors or discrepancies between jurisdictions, among regional treatments and in data or sources cited by other researchers. By combining as much of the existing evidence as possible on a specific topic into a common framework, Meta analysis was extremely useful in supporting and improving accuracy and assertions about



information, making it usable. As such, the Meta analysis completed in this study was instrumental in ensuring quality control and quality assurance.

The steps above were employed in identifying, defining and evaluating the issues and requirements outlined in the SOW for final distillation, analysis, interim and draft reporting and final write-up and reporting. A Meta analysis summary can be found in Appendix A3.

In reviewing literature sources, criteria applied for the acceptability of content was determined by a number of means. Some of the criteria used to determine acceptability included:

• author(s) and affiliation(s) (e.g., reputation, background, expertise, level of education, institutions or agencies with which they are affiliated);

• source(s) of information (e.g., peer reviewed journal, accredited body/agency, academic government institution publication, industry research organization, professional organization, etc.);

• whether the author(s) and/or work had been cited in other documents with regularity and context of citation; and,

• quality/quantity of applicable research related to topic and supporting materials/review;

• year of research and citation.

The information from a literature source had to be relevant and have specific application to the SOW of the study. In reviewing author(s) background, G3 sought to ensure there was no apparent bias that could influence work and that studies conducted were well conceived, funded and implemented with adequate quality checks and peer review.

Evaluating literature sources was also critical to determining levels of bias. Only works from peer-reviewed academic journals that are well known or have been recognized as balanced were used. In cases where industry documents were used, G3 acknowledges that some degree of partiality is evident; however, such documents were only used when illustrating new and emerging technologies that have been developed in support of different sectors. G3 has found that in many instances, the innovative research of interest to the NRTEE is currently being conducted by industry groups. As such, it was deemed important to include and qualify this work.

When a specific author or work was cited regularly in a particular field of study, G3 took this as an indication that their research is well-founded and accepted by scientific peers. The year of citation was also considered to be relevant, since the study attempts to identify the most up-to-date research relevant to water, aquatic ecosystems, and sectoral influences on freshwater resources. There are some cases where older citations have been used, but only when G3 was unsuccessful in locating more recent sources pertaining to the same area of research.

References used in the study were documented in the Bibliography using the Oxford-style referencing system and further catalogued in the Meta Analysis Summary Table (included in Appendix A3). In addition, primary literature sources that were more thoroughly researched, but excluded from use were also catalogued in the Meta Analysis Summary Table. In this summary table, a brief description is provided on how each literature source was used or reasons for exclusion.

2 . 5 I n t e r i m & F i n a l R e p o r t i n g G3 developed an Interim report based on research conducted. This document was edited, re-worked and updated with subsequent information received after delivery and review of the interim report to the NRTEE. From this a Draft and Final report were completed. The research process, findings, text and QA process involved were overseen by G3 Senior Scientist(s) and Project Manager to ensure the



product was commensurate with the anticipated project deliverables. Subsequent to receipt of NRTEE review comments, G3 incorporated necessary changes and produced this final report.

Included in this report are discussions of: the different types of ecosystems and their relation to freshwater systems; the indicators and drivers of aquatic ecosystems; the potential impacts of climate change on watersheds; the various ecosystem approaches to water management; the water governance structures present in different Canadian jurisdictions; the water use, BMPs and BATs employed by industrial sectors; and, the lessons learned from the overall research. In addition, supporting appendices and an Executive Summary are provided.

The Interim Report was delivered on August 30, 2009 and the Final Report delivered on September 20, 2009.



3 . 0 E CO SY S TEM AP P R O AC H TO WAT E R M AN AG EM E N T Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an accepted paradigm in the interdisciplinary field of natural resource policy, planning and management (Aley, 1998; Meffe et al., 2002; Quinn and Theberge, 2003). General consensus among scientists and practitioners of EBM include a core set of EBM principles that include (Botkin, Megonigal and Sampson, 1997; Brunner and Clark, 1997; Lackey, 1998; Yaffee, 1999; Quinn and Theberge, 2003):

• system approach that integrates the complexity of social and ecological elements;

• focus on long-term sustainability rather than on short-term outputs;

• ecologically derived boundaries (e.g. watershed level);

• commitment to adaptive management in the face of uncertainty;

• recognition of temporal and spatial scales; and,

• dedication to collaborative management processes.

EBM is an approach to guiding human activity using collaborative, interdisciplinary and adaptive methods with the long-term goal of sustaining desired future conditions of ecologically bounded areas that, in turn, support healthy and sustainable ecological and human communities (Quinn, 2002).

3 . 1 B a l a n c i n g H u m a n N e e d & E c o s y s t e m P r o t e c t i o n Landscape modifications are essential elements in the socio-economic development process. Natural processes lend to side-effects on water flow, pathways and quality and ultimately on water-dependent ecosystems (Falkenmark, 2003). These include the following water-related processes:

• rainwater partitioning in contact with vegetation;

• lift-up/carry-away function, mirroring water’s role as a unique solvent as an eroding agent; and,

• continuity-related ability of the water cycle to produce chain effects.

As a result, landscape modifications are often in conflict with preservation of existing ecosystems. According to Falkenmark (2003), water-related determinants of ecosystems may show direct or indirect impacts and disturbance by human action in the following ways:

• water flow;

• water pathways;

• flow seasonality;

• water table; and,

• water quality/chemical composition.

Falkenmark describes three entry points in the modifications of ecosystem water determinants:

1. flow control measures to fit flow seasonality to water demand seasonality;

2. land cover changes influencing soil permeability and rainwater partitioning, and consequently runoff generation; and,

3. water withdrawals and after use alterations in terms of consumptive water use and pollution load respectively.

Deforestation and dryland salinization are two major types of cover changes, both associated with wood clearing and which produce considerable changes in runoff (GWP, 1999).



3 . 1 . 1 T h e E c o s y s t e m - B a s e d A p p r o a c h The ecosystem-based approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promote conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. An ecosystem-based approach to water management includes the following characteristics according to the World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2001):

• water resources are derived from a catchment or river basin ecosystem;

• the ecosystem provides goods and services, such as fresh water, to users and uses;

• to maintain these goods and services, ecosystems need to be protected and wisely managed, which includes the need to allocate water to ecosystems such as forested slopes and downstream floodplain wetlands;

• protection of goods and services also require the prevention of negative impacts posed by land-use, agriculture, industry, mining and urban stresses;

• ecosystems further require the maintenance of rivers’ lateral and longitudinal connectivity to floodplains and upper catchment areas respectively; and,

• re-allocating water and protecting water sources imposes a restriction on other land and water uses and can lead to conflicts of interests as well as opportunities for benefit sharing and cooperation.

Quinn and Theberge (2003) conducted a nation-wide survey in 1999 to assess the state of ecosystem-based management (EBM) in Canada. Detailed interviews of at least 10 individuals in each region in Canada representing government, industry, non-governmental environmental and municipal agencies were conducted and reflected the primary sectors engaged in EBM (e.g., forestry, mining, municipal, model forest, federal parks, non-government, provincial agency and other).

The following conclusions were made:

• EBM lacks explicit definitions in most jurisdictions;

• explicit adoption of EBM terminology in policy and legislation occurs mainly at the federal level;

• provinces and territories have a wide disparity in the level of adoption of EBM;

• the forest industry has been an enthusiastic sector in advancing EBM, especially relating to the emulation of natural disturbances;

• development of research related to human dimensions lags far behind ecological dimensions; and,

• some form of an EBM approach is widely accepted between agencies, but their definitions differ.

The study was designed to be compared with a U.S. study by the University of Michigan (Yaffee et al., 1996) and it was noted that EBM in Canada has fewer grassroots initiatives and less formal institutional commitment than in the United States.

Twelve Principles of Ecosystem Approach in Management Twelve principles of the ecosystem approach as promulgated by the Food and Drug Organization of the United Nations (FAO) include (FAO, 2000b):

1. objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice;

2. management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level;

3. ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems;



4. recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management program should:

• reduce market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;

• align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and,

• internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

5. conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach;

6. ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning;

7. an ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales;

8. recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term;

9. management must recognize that change is inevitable;

10. an ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity;

11. an ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices; and,

12. an ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

The following five (5) points were proposed as operational guidance of the twelve (12) principles:

• focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems;

• enhance benefit-sharing;

• use adaptive management practices;

• carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralization to the lowest level, as appropriate; and,

• ensure intersectoral cooperation.

Ecosystem-Based Water Management The ecosystem-based approach to water management complements current thoughts on integrated water resources management. This form of EBM builds on the consensus reached in “Dublin” and “Rio” summarized in the seven principles of modern water management. These include, according to the World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2001):

• Equity: the equitable distribution of costs and benefits from water resources use and management and the explicit aim to alleviate poverty and create gender balance;

• Efficiency: promotion of the most efficient use that reflects the full value of the resource, including market, ecosystem and socio-cultural values;

• Sustainability: maintenance of a self-sustaining water management regime that readily adapts to changing conditions;

• Legitimacy: establishment of water management institutions with sound legal basis in which their decisions and actions are perceived as fair and legitimate by all stakeholders;

• Accountability: policies and practice, and roles and responsibilities lead to efficient, fair and legitimate uses of water resources and the different stakeholders are accountable for their actions;



• Subsidiarity: decision-making authority is devolved to the lowest appropriate level along with the power and resources to make and implement these decisions; and,

• Participatory: all stakeholders are given the opportunity to participate in water resources planning and management decision-making and to become involved in reducing water conflicts.

The mandate of such ecosystem approaches are too:

• secure long-term productivity of the life-support system;

• protect the local ecosystem; and,

• achieve or maintain internal catchment compatibility.

3 . 2 C o - E v o l u t i o n o f S o c i e t y & E n v i r o n m e n t In a recent paper of the Global Water Partnership, Falkenmark (2003) discussed how the equilibrium view of mere preservation of ecosystems is successively weakening in favour of a dynamic view for ecosystem-based management approaches. This follows the work of van der Leeuw (2000), Redman (1999) and the concept of “stability”. Within this new paradigm, rather than assume stability and analyzing change, one assumes change and analyzes stability. This view incorporates the given that human actions “have become a major structuring factor of the dynamics of ecological systems”; however, to accomplish a balance within the changing structure of ecosystems, it is important to understand and define function, process and value.

McLaughlin (2009) urges that a shift is required to a management system that is more reflective of ecological limits and the true value of ecological goods and services. Considering the full value of water in the natural resource sectors, the inclusion of pricing will likely have to be contemplated.

3 . 2 . 1 E c o s y s t e m R e s i l i e n c e & C a t c h m e n t - B a s e d M a n a g e m e n t Falkenmark (2003) and others recommend that managers adopt a catchment-based adaptive management model in which ecosystem resilience is protected and key functions are maintained. Ecosystem resilience (elasticity) provides the capacity to absorb change without losing function and basic properties under stress, and to recover from damage by the self-organizing ability for renewal and reorganization. When resilience declines, it takes progressively smaller external events to cause catastrophe and ecosystem collapse. Ecosystem resilience provides a buffer to disturbance and is provided through biological diversity. Biological diversity provides overlapping functions for restoring ecosystem capacity to generate essential ecological services. Folke (2002) recommended that a minimum composition of organisms representing primary producers, consumers, and decomposers be sustained to mediate the flow of energy, cycling of elements and spatial and temporal patterns of vegetation.

Falkenmark (2003) recommended managing catchments as assets that deliver bundles of water and ecological goods and services, with some services working in synergy and others in conflict. Falkenmark suggested that trade-offs will need to be made based on the view of humans within the defined eco-hydrological landscape. Falkenmark provided a scenario where landowners are given the task of managing the natural resources for the society as a whole and are compensated for it. Following this example, the Quebec National Assembly passed a Bill on June 12, 2009 affirming the collective nature of water resources in Quebec (i.e., Quebec’s water is collectively owned by all of its citizens).



3 . 3 I n t e g r a t e d W a t e r s h e d M a n a g e m e n t Watersheds are the most appropriate units for managing water, given that all activities that impact water quality, quantity or rate of flow at locations upstream, create impacts downstream (Gregersen, Ffolliott and Brooks, 2007; Manitoba Government, 2009; Calder, 2005). A watershed-based management approach considers everything that occurs within a watershed, including both naturally occurring activities and human activities. Watershed-based management provides the means to consider a wide range of issues and prepare plans that address water quality, quantity, community and habitat issues beyond the scope of single jurisdictions like towns or municipalities. Ultimately, watershed-based management enables the definition of action priorities by considering the cumulative impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

Integrated Watershed Management incorporates and coordinates social, environmental and technical aspects at several levels with a watershed focus (Viessman, Jr. and Welty, 1985). The National Water Commission (NWC) report “Water Policies for the Future” (NWC, 1973) suggested more than three decades ago that a more holistic approach to water management was needed. Integrated Watershed Management Planning (IWMP) brings together water residents, government representatives and stakeholder organizations.

According to Viessman, Jr. (1996), Associate Dean of Engineering at the University of Florida, issues which need to be addressed within the Integrated Watershed Management structure include:

• providing the right forums: two types of forums required include those related to resolving or avoiding conflicts (consent building) and those related to solving problems that transcend normal political and/or agency boundaries (system-encompassing);

• reshaping planning processes: such plans must be pro-active and recognize and address society’s goals, identify and confront the “right” problems, function effectively within prevailing legal/institutional frameworks, accommodate both short- and long-range scenarios, generate a diverse menu of alternatives, take into account the allocation of water for all needs including natural systems, be stakeholder-driven, take a global perspective, be flexible and adaptable, drive regulatory processes, be the basis for policy-making, foster coordination among planning partners and consistency among related plans, accommodate multiple objectives, be a synthesizer, recognize and deal with conflicts, and produce implementable recommendations;

• coordinating land and water resources management: there is no pervasive mandate or organizational arrangement that provides for these elements. Planners and managers need to be sensitive to impacts their proposals may have on other governments, agencies and programs; however there are few formal structures for requiring this. Viewing problems in all of their dimensions is crucial to effective resource management;

• recognizing water source and water quality linkages: where feasible, surface water and groundwater systems should be operated jointly (aquifer storage and recovery systems, for example) to take advantage of the specific attributes of each system. A functional conjunctive system is exemplified by the Los Angeles Coastal Plain in California (California Department of Water Resources, 1968). Groundwater and surface water need to be managed holistically, with due consideration given to water quality aspects;

• establishing protocols for integrated watershed management: special institutions are required to accommodate the regional and watershed planning and management. Wise and Pawlukiewicz (1996) identify three primary attributes to achieve a sound watershed management approach, including 1) a geographic focus (watershed), 2) action driven by



environmental objectives, solid science and good data, and 3) partnerships among the key stakeholders;

• addressing institutional challenges: the design and operation of workable regional, international, and global water management institutions are required. Providing flexibility in institutional design is an imperative, given that a uniformly acceptable format that works well under one circumstance may not work under another;

• protecting and restoring natural systems: protocols for making tradeoffs and establishing relative values for making water allocation decisions for environmental purposes are needed;

• reformulating existing projects: e.g., water projects originally designed for a single purpose or for specific multiple purposes;

• capturing society’s views: adopting proactive water management plans designed to influence policy that embody social goals and capture public views and perceptions. Sources of conflict should be identified early-on so that options for managing them can be defined before strong adversarial stances emerge;

• articulating risk: target risks and provide risk benefit analyses;

• educating and communicating: both are key in shaping water policy. This may comprise basin-wide or regional workshops and/or conferences to acquaint citizens with the true dimensions of water management problems and to identify potential courses of action;

• uniting technology and public policy: optimal technical approaches may be socially unacceptable, and compromises may have to be struck. Agreements would be based on a blending of technical options with public views of what it deems to be an acceptable solution;

• forming partnerships: this entails integrating stakeholder views and attitudes into planning and management processes. Differences in view and agenda among partners must be identified, accepted and commonalities in interest sought as the building blocks for consensus. This must include, therefore, compromise and tradeoffs to improve the collective whole. Mutual trust must be achieved through open and frank discussion; and,

• emphasizing preventative measures: pro-active measures are advantageous and will provide long-term savings in costs both to the ecosystem and to society.

One of the challenges is to guide water management decision-making into flexible, holistic, and environmentally sound directions (Ballweber, 1995; Bulkley, 1995; Deyle, 1995, Viessman, Jr. and Welty, 1985). Principal players in watershed-based management are watershed or basin organizations, which are composed of representatives of all involved in basin-scale water management (e.g., regional county municipalities, municipalities, users, environmental groups and citizens). A conceptual model for watershed management, as proposed by Hall (1996), embraces both natural and human-driven influences on the water cycle. Integrating features of the model depend on:

• water management programs being comprehensive and coordinated basin-wide;

• inverting the historical model of fragmented “top down” planning and management;

• recasting the water management roles of federal, provincial and local governments and stakeholders, by placing more responsibility for, and the cost of managing this resource at the local level;

• assuring a more equitable distribution of the resource;

• redefining priorities;

• working with nature;



• giving a new emphasis to conservation and reuse; and,

• adopting and adhering to the ideals of “sustainable development”.

To make the model work, Hall (1996) suggested that a “command and control team” be established to lead a debate on watershed issues such as:

• What futures seem most probable?

• Which of these is sustainable?

• Which of these sustainable futures is most desirable? and,

• How can that future be realized?

Moreau (1996) provides the following guiding principles for watershed management practice and design:

• use integrated hydrological units such as watersheds or river basins as spatial units for planning;

• plan comprehensively, consider all potential water use allocations, and exploit multiple use options;

• integrate planning for water and related land and ecological resources; and,

• formulate and evaluate plans consistent with standards and criteria that recognize economic efficiency, environmental quality, and relevant social objectives.

According to Viessman, Jr. (1996) challenges in achieving and implementing Integrated Watershed Management include:

• manageability of holistic approaches in a practical sense;

• agency, interest group, and political boundaries (boundaries of authority and space);

• government, agency and professional biases and traditions;

• lack of effective forums for assembling and retaining stakeholders;

• narrow focus, lack of implementation capacity, poor public involvement, and limited coordination attributes of many water resources planning and management processes;

• separation of land and water management, water quantity and water quality management, surface water and groundwater management, and other direct linkage actions;

• poor coordination and/or collaboration among provincial, local and federal water-related agencies;

• gaps in scientific knowledge related to ecosystem function;

• limited ability to value environmental systems on nomear or other scales;

• public perception of risk as opposed to the reality of risk associated with water management options;

• suspicion regarding the formation of partnerships; and,

• poor communications links among planners, managers, stakeholders and others.

3 . 4 E c o l o g i c a l l y S u s t a i n a b l e W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t A principal challenge in current water management is that traditional management approaches are generally aimed at reducing natural variability in flow regimes, so as to maintain steady and dependable water supplies for human use (e.g., domestic and industrial uses, irrigation, hydropower; Holling and Meffe, 1996).



When natural variability in flows is altered, significant changes in the physical, chemical and biological conditions and functions of the ecosystems can occur (Poff et al., 1997). Nevertheless, there is some degree and types of alteration that will not jeopardize the viability of native species and ability of an ecosystem to provide valuable products and services for human society.

Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) is one means of integrating human and natural ecosystem needs. ESWM “protects the ecological integrity of affected ecosystems while meeting intergenerational human needs for water and sustaining the full array of other products and services provided by natural freshwater ecosystems. Ecological integrity is protected when the compositional and structural diversity and natural functioning of affected ecosystems is maintained” (Richter et al, 2003).

According to Richter et al. (2003), the greatest challenge of ESWM is to design and implement a water management program that stores and diverts water to satisfy human needs without degrading or permanently altering the affected freshwater ecosystems. In an effort to address this challenge, Richter et al. have developed a framework for developing an ESWM program. Their six-step process includes:

1) developing initial numerical estimates of key aspects of river flow necessary to sustain native species and natural ecosystem functions;

2) accounting for human uses of water, both current and future, through development of a computerized hydrologic simulation model that facilitates examination of human-induced alterations to river flow regimes;

3) assessing incompatibilities between human and ecosystem needs with particular attention to their spatial and temporal character;

4) collaboratively searching for solutions to resolve incompatibilities;

5) conducting water management experiments to resolve critical uncertainties that frustrate efforts to integrate human and ecosystem needs; and,

6) designing and implementing an adaptive management program to facilitate ESWM for over the longer term.

Richter et al. (2003) contend that each of these steps is essential to achieving ecological sustainability.

3 . 4 . 1 E s t i m a t i n g E c o s y s t e m F l o w R e q u i r e m e n t s Determining the flow requirements for aquatic ecosystem is the first step in ESWM and enables water planners and managers to properly consider ecological needs throughout the entire planning and negotiating process (Richter et al., 2003). Many different aspects of hydrologic variability can influence freshwater biota and ecosystem processes; however, in constructing ecosystem flow prescriptions, aquatic scientists generally focus on the following key components of flow regime and variability of each (Trush, McBain, and Leopold, 2000):

• wet- and dry-season base flows;

• normal high flows;

• extreme drought and flood conditions (that do not occur every year); and,

• rates of flood rise and fall.

The primary objective for determining ecological instream flow requirements is to preserve freshwater ecosystem integrity. Depending on the method of instream flow assessment chosen, environmental flow recommendations can vary. For example, recommendations may be for a single annual flow volume, a minimum flow limit below which diversions are not permitted, or a distributive range of flows throughout the year (IUCN, 2003).



While flow recommendations need to address the whole river ecosystem, as well as floodplain and estuary systems where relevant, they are generally most effective when expressed as a range of magnitudes (e.g., 30-35 m3/s) for flow component at specific locations, at specific times during the year, and with a specified frequency of occurrence among years. Each specification of a desired flow magnitude and its associated timing and location can be used as a management target for water managers (Richter et al., 2006).

The natural flow regime of a river is a cornerstone for determining ecosystem flow requirements. Consequently, ecosystem flow prescriptions should always imitate natural flow characteristics to the largest extent possible (Poff et al., 1997). It is also important that flow-biota relationships, and the influence of flow on other ecosystem conditions (e.g., water quality, physical habitat), are explicitly linked to estimates of ecosystem flow requirements (Richter and Richter, 2000). For example, in prescribing appropriate flow regimes within the Kruger National Park (South Africa), some of the types of ecosystem indicators that were used included (Rogers and Bestbier, 1997):

• river flow (e.g., base flow and higher flows during drought);

• geomorphic conditions (e.g., proportion of channel types);

• vegetation (e.g., population structure of key species);

• fish (e.g., distribution of individual species, frequency of fish length);

• invertebrates (e.g., distribution and total number);

• birds (e.g., by habitat types, by functional representatives);

• water quality (e.g., ammonium, pH); and,

• water temperature.

Methods of environmental flow assessment have a wide range of complexity, with variations depending on study objectives, project funding, and the amount of data available. There are literally hundreds of calculations that can be used to determine the minimum flow necessary to protect the ecosystem integrity of a hydrosystem (Souchon, Valentin and Capra, 1998). A database of these methodologies can be found online at the International Water Management Institute website (IWMI, 2007). Techniques for determining ecological flow can generally be divided into four categories. Two techniques make use of quantitative parameters, through either hydrologic or hydraulic methods, while another technique employs qualitative parameters with the principal focus on protecting habitat (Souchon, Valentin and Capra, 1998). The fourth method is a holistic means of estimating ecological flow which often incorporates one or all of the other three techniques (IWMI, 2007). Each of these approaches is described in detail below.

The Hydrologic Approach The Hydrologic Approach is typically a simple method that uses historic hydrologic data to derive environmental flow recommendations, most often employing long-term monthly or daily flows records collected prior to development. The approach may incorporate various hydrological indices, include catchment variables, or be modified to consider hydraulic, biological and geomorphological criteria. The flow indices used are typically selected on the basis of professional judgment and/or by using a combination of statistical analysis and structured observations of rivers with similar hydrological/ecological characteristics (IWMI, 2007).

The approach leads to the derivation of a set proportion of flow (e.g., a minimum flow) necessary to maintain river condition, freshwater fisheries, or other highlighted ecological features at some designated acceptable level. This ecological flow can be set on an annual, seasonal, and/or monthly



basis. Overall, hydrological environmental flow recommendations are rapid and require few resources, but provide low resolution outputs and have low flexibility. As such, they are most appropriate at the planning level of water management processes, or in situations of low controversy where estimates may be used as preliminary flow targets (IWMI, 2007). In general, hydrologic approaches can produce valuable information if the limits of the models used are well known (Caissie, Bourgeois and El-Jabi, 1998).

Tennant (1976) devised one of the most used hydrologic methods, where recommended minimum flows depend on the stream width, depth and velocity. Minimum flows are provided as percent (%) average annual flow, with different percentages allocated for winter and summer months; however, this researcher does not provide the exact morphological characteristics of the streams assessed when this protocol was developed. As such, results generated using this method must be carefully analyzed since it is impossible to know if the morphological criteria of a studied site are the same as those used by Tennant.

The Hydraulic Rating Approach The Hydraulic Rating Approach uses a quantifiable relationship between changes in volumetric flow rate and quantity and quality of an instream resource (e.g., fishery habitat) to calculate an “environmental flow recommendation”. The approach uses the flow rate and changes in simple hydraulic variables (e.g., wetted perimeter, maximum depth, average velocity) to represent habitat factors known to be or assumed as limiting to target species/assemblages (e.g., fish, benthic invertebrates). The hydraulic variables are typically measured across single or multiple river cross-sections where maintenance of flow is considered to be most critical, or where instream hydraulic habitat is most responsive to flow reduction and potentially limiting to aquatic biota (e.g., riffles) (IWMI, 2007).

A relationship between habitat and water flow is used to derive the environmental flow recommendations by plotting a hydraulic variable against discharge, often using hydraulic models). In most cases, a breakpoint (i.e., a threshold below which habitat quality becomes significantly degraded) is identified on the habitat-water flow response curve, or a minimum ecological flow rate is set as the discharge, thereby producing a fixed percentage reduction in the particular habitat attribute. In general, hydraulic approaches have a low to moderate resource intensity and complexity, produce a low resolution flow recommendation output, and are of low flexibility. As such, such approaches are most appropriate for application in water management processes where limited negotiation of tradeoffs is required (IWMI, 2007).

Two examples of hydraulic rating approaches are the Wetted Perimeter and R2Cross methods. The Wetted Perimeter method is widely used and based on a direct relationship between the wetted perimeter and fish habitat of stream ecosystems (McCarthy, 2003). The R2Cross method is based on the assumption that a discharge that maintains habitat in a riffle is sufficient to maintain habitat for fish in nearby pools and runs for most life stages of fish and aquatic invertebrates (Parker, Armstrong and Richards, 2004).

The Habitat Simulation Approach Habitat Simulation Approaches uses hydrological, hydraulic and biological response data to derive environmental flow recommendations. This process is completed through analysis of the quantity and suitability of instream physical habitat available to target species or assemblages (e.g., fish, invertebrates) under different flow regimes. Essentially, flow-related changes in physical microhabitat are modeled in various hydraulic programs, using data on one or more hydraulic variables collected at multiple cross-sections within a river reach. The most common hydraulic variables are depth, velocity,



substratum composition and cover. More recently, complex hydraulic indices (e.g., benthic shear stress) have also been employed (IWMI, 2007).

Habitat modeling programs are used to simulate available habitat conditions, which are then linked with information on the range of preferred to unsuitable microhabitat conditions for target species, life stages, assemblages and/or activities. These linkages are often depicted using seasonally defined habitat suitability index curves. The resultant outputs, in the form of habitat-water flow curves for the biota or extended as habitat time and exceedence series are used to predict optimum ecological flows. There are some habitat simulation methods that consider ecosystem subcomponent (e.g., sediment transport, water quality, riparian vegetation, water dependent wildlife) in addition to instream biota (IWMI, 2007).

Data requirements for this approach are moderate to high, and include historical flow records, hydraulic variables for multiple cross-sections, and habitat availability and suitability data for various biota. Overall, habitat simulation methods are complex, highly resource-intensive, moderately flexible, and with a moderate to high resolution environmental flow recommendation output. Such approaches are best applied in cases of medium- or large-scale water management processes, involving rivers with economically important fisheries, of high conservation and/or strategic importance, and/or with complex, negotiated tradeoffs among water users. In many cases, habitat simulation methods are used as tools in holistic approaches (IWMI, 2007). In general, this approach is more inclusive when compared to hydrologic and hydraulic methods, as it considers the biological attributes of freshwater systems; however, methods typically focus on fish habitat assessments and could be improved with greater emphasis on benthic invertebrates (Wasson, Bonnan and Maridet, 1995).

The Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) computer model is an example of a habitat simulation approach. This tool is used to predict physical microhabitat changes associated with flow alterations (USGS, 2009a), and has been used by several habitat simulation methods. For example, Milhous (1979) used PHABSIM to develop a habitat simulation methodology through an evaluation of effects observed between different stream flows on salmonid habitat. Similarly, Bovee (1982) used the PHABSIM software as part of the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM). The IFIM is the most commonly used flow assessment method worldwide (Gordon et al., 2004). The method determines the relationship between flows and fish habitat, which can be ascertained by the variables of velocity, depth, substrate and/or cover (USGS, 2009b).

The Holistic Approach In the Holistic Approach important and/or critical flow events are identified in terms of select criteria defining flow variability for some or all major attributes of the riverine ecosystem (e.g., riparian vegetation, geomorphology, floodplain wetland). The foundation of most approaches is the systematic construction of a modified flow regime from scratch (i.e., bottom-up) on a month-by-month (or more frequent), element-by-element basis. Each element represents a well-defined feature of the flow regime intended to achieve a particular ecological, geomorphological, or water quality objective in a modified river. Other objectives are sometimes considered, such as social considerations. In top-down, scenario-based approaches, environmental flow recommendations are defined in terms of acceptable degrees of departure from the natural (or other reference) flow regime. As such, top-down approaches are less susceptible to any omission of critical flow characteristics or processes than their bottom-up counterparts (IWMI, 2007).

Estimating ecosystem flow requirements under the holistic approach typically necessitates input from an interdisciplinary group of scientists familiar with the habitat requirements of native biota (i.e., species, communities) and the hydrologic, geomorphic, and biogeochemical processes that influence



those habitats and support primary productivity and nutrient cycling (King and Louw, 1998). Such multidisciplinary expertise and input is often sought through workshops or expert panels (IWMI, 2007). Developing initial targets for ecosystem flow requirements draws upon existing hydrologic data, research results, ecological and hydrological models, and the professional judgment of relevant interdisciplinary scientists (King and Louw, 1998).

Holistic environmental flow methods are generally of moderate to high resource intensity, complexity and output resolution. The most advanced, highly flexible methods employ several tools within a modular framework, including hydrological, hydraulic rating and habitat simulation approaches for estimating ecological flows. In addition, social (e.g., flow-related ecosystem goods and services for dependent livelihoods) and economic data may also be incorporated into the modular framework. Most often, advance holistic approaches are applied in cases of medium- or large-scale water management processes which involve high conservation and/or strategic importance, including circumstances where complex, negotiated water use tradeoffs are necessary (IWMI, 2007).

In estimating ecological flow requirements for water management purposes, Richter et al. (2006) suggested the organization of a flow recommendations workshop involving scientists with expertise in hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, fisheries biology, riparian ecology and, where appropriate, estuarine ecology. Prior to the workshop, a comprehensive literature and summary report is completed by a group of relevant interdisciplinary researchers to describe qualitatively the annual and inter-annual hydrograph patterns necessary to restore or sustain ecosystem health. These patterns can be described using as few as three flow components (e.g., low flows, high pulse flows, and floods) and noting the desired timing of their occurrence in an annual or inter-annual hydrograph. In the workshop, scientist work together to quantitatively define the necessary dimensions of the flow component patterns. They must determine appropriate ranges for low flow, high pulse and flood levels, how long they should last, how often they should occur within the year or among years, and how rapidly flows can change from one condition to another.

No matter which approach is employed to define ecosystem flow requirements, initial estimates should be made without regard to the perceived feasibility of attaining them through near-term changes in water management. Ecological sustainability can be presumed to be attainable over the long run, until conclusive evidence suggests otherwise (Richter et al., 2003). At this stage of the ESWM program, comprehensive and exact estimates of the flows, required by particular species, aquatic and riparian communities, or the whole river ecosystem, cannot be determined. Instead, initial estimates of aquatic ecosystem flow requirements that will require subsequent testing and refinement are sufficient and expected.

Clearly, there are various methods for estimating ecosystem flow requirements with each having their advantages and disadvantages. The example presented below makes use of the holistic approach to ascertain optimal flow predictions over time. This example provides a detailed narrative of how ecological flows have been successfully identified, both spatially and temporally, for a complex watershed with multiple stakeholder interests. As such, the methods used in the example could be of benefit to similar water management processes in jurisdictions across Canada.

Interdisciplinary Flow Recommendations – Savannah River, USA Constructed in 1954, the Thurmond Dam is the furthest downstream of three large multipurpose dams on the Savannah River, each operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Forming the border between the states of Georgia and South Carolina, the Savannah River traverses more than 500 km in its path to the Atlantic Ocean. A rich variety of ecological systems can be found in the 27,000 km2



basin, including aquatic shoals, bottomland hardwood forests, tidal wetlands, longleaf pine forests, Carolina bays, granite outcrops and bluff forests (Richter et al., 2006).

In July 2002, a dam operational modification project focusing on Thurman Dam was initiated under a partnership between the US Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy, an international conservation organization. Efforts were intended to improve water management in the river and downstream river health, while continuing to meet human uses of water such as power generation, recreation, and flood control (Richter et al., 2006). To meet these objectives, a flow recommendations workshop was held over three days, bringing together 47 scientists and other technical experts from a variety of disciplines. Participants were asked to develop quantitative flow recommendations for the Savannah River that would sustain the river, floodplain and estuarine ecosystems. The resulting recommendations were based on information provided in a literature review and summary report developed just prior to the workshop by a group of interdisciplinary researchers.

At the workshop, participants were sub-divided into three working groups, with each group challenged to provide flow recommendations in one of three reaches of the river: the Augusta Shoals reach, a floodplain reach, and the estuary. Recommendations incorporated magnitude, frequency, timing, duration and rate of change, and considered each of the following components of the flow regime: low flow, high flow pulses, and flood events with a recurrence interval greater than two years. Further, recommendations were provided for each of the flow components with respect to dry, average and wet years (Richter et al., 2006).

The reach working group participants were then re-assigned to new working groups to combine the recommendations from each river reach into a unified flow recommendation for low flows, high flow pulses and floods. The unified flow recommendations were then discussed by the entire group of workshop participants. Throughout the entire process, participants identified critical data gaps and prioritized the most critical research needs for each section of the river. Further, key ecological objectives supported by the flow recommendations were identified by participants. Final recommendations from the workshop were considered to be a first approximation, meant to be evaluated as part of a long-term adaptive management program where flow regimes would be continually refined (Richter et al., 2006). These final recommendations, as noted in Figure 1 (below), suggest different flow prescriptions should be considered depending on the type of flow component, season and time of year.



Figure 1: Environmental Flow Recommendations (Savannah River)

Adapted from: Richter et al., 2006.

3 . 4 . 2 D e t e r m i n i n g H u m a n I n f l u e n c e s o n F l o w R e g i m e Human use necessarily modifies the natural flow of rivers. As such, it is essential that assessments of the nature, degree, and location of human influences on natural flow regimes be conducted for both current and projected levels of human use. These assessments should be expressed in both spatial and temporal terms that are consistent with the definition of ecosystem flow requirements (Richter et al., 2003). Hydrologic simulation modeling has become an essential tool for understanding human influences on river flows and designing ESWM approaches. Such models generally perform simultaneous calculations of all the many influences on water flows in a river system, and are used to evaluate river flow changes expected under proposed water management approaches.

3 . 4 . 3 H u m a n & E c o s y s t e m I n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s Areas of potential incompatibility in water management can be ascertained by comparing the ecosystem flow requirements identified in Step 1, with the flow regime necessary to meet human needs identified in Step 2. Efforts can then be focused on resolving incompatibilities once they have been well defined (Richter et al., 2003). Areas of potential incompatibility must be examined both within and among years. Within-year assessments will uncover the specific months or seasons during

Floods

High FlowPulses

Low Flows

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC



which ecosystem flow requirements may not be met. Evaluations of multiple years will enable a greater understanding of the frequency with which ecosystem flow requirements could be breached.

Areas of potential incompatibility between ecosystem and human needs should also be evaluated for each river reach of concern, since the nature and degree of conflict can vary significantly from upstream to downstream, or across a watershed (Richter et al., 2003). Statistical assessment of the differences between human-influenced flow conditions and eco-system requirements can also help to quantify the significance of potential conflicts (Richter et al., 1996).

3 . 4 . 4 C o l l a b o r a t i v e S o l u t i o n s Once areas of potential incompatibility have been well defined both in terms of time and space, options for reducing or eliminating conflicts between human and ecosystem needs can then be explored through open dialogue among stakeholders from multiple disciplines (e.g., industry, government, environmental groups, community groups; Richter et al., 2003). Rogers and Bestbier (1997) proposed a framework called “objectives hierarchy” to set goals that collectively represent stakeholder interests. This objectives hierarchy includes a broad management vision, specific management goals that help to define the vision and specific, quantified objectives which provide water managers with aquatic ecosystem management targets. Examples of quantified objectives may include thresholds of possible concern for ecosystem indicators, proposed levels of hydropower generation, delivery of water supplies, and management of reservoir lake levels.

Some of the most effective ways in which conflicts can be resolved entail changing the timing or location of human uses toward greater compatibility with natural hydrologic cycles or the seasonal or life cycle needs of native species (Richter et al., 2003). For example, many governments are implementing demand management strategies that place limits on allocated water from certain freshwater sources. Examples of water market transactions, such as the purchase of irrigation water rights and conversion to “instream flow rights” that allow the water to remain in the river (Gillilan and Brown, 1997), or compensating farmers to reduce or refrain from irrigating fields during drought periods, can be effective in keeping river flows from dropping to critically low levels (Michelsen and Young, 1993).

Collaborative approaches have been brought about through different means, such as voluntary initiatives, non-binding government policies, and legislated requirements. The example presented below provides a detailed account of how legislated requirements compel watershed communities in Ontario to work together in order to satisfy multiple stakeholder interests.

Source Protection Committee under the Clean Water Act, 2006 - Ontario

In 2006, the province of Ontario introduced the Clean Water Act to protect drinking water at the source, as part of an overall commitment to preserve the environment and human health. A key aspect of the legislation requires that a locally developed, science-based source water assessment report and protection plan be created for each source protection area (Clean Water Act, 2006, c.22, s.15(1),s.22(1)). To prepare the assessment report, teams of representatives from watershed communities in each Source Protection Area are to work together at the local level. These teams are known as Source Protection Committees and are made up of individuals reflective of the interests of local agriculture, commercial, and/or industrial sectors, conservation authorities, environmental and health groups, land owners, municipal and provincial government representatives, First Nation bands, and other watershed users (Source Protection Committees, O. Reg. 288/07, s.2, s6(2)). Representation on these committees varies depending on local circumstances.



A Water Budget and Water Quantity Risk Assessment (WB/WQRA) is completed as part of the assessment report process. The WB/WQRA is completed by (OMOE, 2008):

• estimating the quantity of water flowing through a watershed;

• understanding the pertinent processes and pathways water follows; and,

• assessing the reliability of water supply sources from a quantity and quality perspective through the identification of vulnerable watershed areas.

After developing a conceptual water budget understanding, a three-tiered approach provides the framework for the WB/WQRA, with each tier requiring more detail and greater certainty than the previous. Put simply, the tiered process will guide the Source Protection Committee(s) to complete the degree of assessment consistent with local water quantity issues (OMOE, 2008). In regions where water availability is far greater than demand, a simplified Tier One approach is likely sufficient for decision-making processes. More highly developed areas with significant water use demands may require more advanced and detailed assessments (i.e., Tier Two, Tier Three).

Under a Tier One approach, the water budget is developed using a geographic information system to assess the flows and levels of groundwaters and surface waters, as well as the interactions between them. A Tier Two approach develops a water budget using computer-based three-dimensional groundwater flow models and continuous surface flow models to assess the flows, levels and interactions between groundwater and surface water. Lastly, a Tier Three approach employs the same type of computer model processes as its predecessor, but must also consider the following circumstances (OMOE, 2008):

• current and future land cover within the area;

• hydraulic flow controls within the area;

• water taken by the surface water intakes and wells related to the area;

• other uses of water within and downstream of the area;

• steady and transient states in groundwater;

• drought conditions;

• the average daily supply and demand for surface water within the area; and,

• the average monthly supply and average monthly demand for groundwater in the area.

Once committees have determined a water budget, the use of physical data models is required to complete the water quantity risk assessment portion of the assessment report (OMOE, 2008). These physical models are developed under the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ Water Resources Information Program (OMNR, 2007).

Upon completion of an assessment report, a Source Protection Committee must prepare a “Protection Plan” for the source protection area. The source Protection Plan is to include the following (Clean Water Act, 2006, c.22, s.22(2)):

• most recently approved assessment report;

• policies to ensure activities in a given area never become significant drinking water threats;

• policies intended to assist in achieving targets set out to protect water quantity and/or quality;

• policies to ensure monitoring activities are undertaken for activities or conditions that are significant drinking water threats, especially in areas recognized as being vulnerable;

• policies to assist in the implementation of the source protection plan, as well as determining the effectiveness of every policy set out to achieve targets;



• policies to ensure monitoring of any drinking water issue identified in the assessment report, so long as such monitoring is advisable; and,

• any other matter required by the regulations.

The Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy – British Columbia Recognizing the need to work together to protect common freshwater resources, the Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB) was instituted in 1970 through a collaboration of the three Okanagan regional districts to provide leadership on water issues spanning the entire valley (OBWB, 2009). Using the provincial Water Living Smart and Green Communities initiatives to provide a framework and direction for convening action in the Okanagan, the OBWB developed the Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy in 2008. The strategy was designed to build on the jointly produced federal and provincial 1974 Okanagan Basin Study and seeks to ensure water resources are managed in a broader sustainability framework. In addition, the strategy is aimed at working towards a future where water quality and quantity does not compromise human, environment, or economic health (Waterbucket, 2009).

The Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy is based on twelve (12) high-level guiding principles for water management and policy. These principles are (OWSC, 2008):

1) recognize the value of water;

2) control pollution at its source;

3) protect and enhance ecological stability and biodiversity;

4) integrate land use planning and water resource management;

5) allocate water within the Okanagan water budget in a clear, transparent, and equitable way;

6) promote a Basin-wide culture of water conservation and efficiency;

7) ensure water supplies are flexible and resilient;

8) think and act like a region;

9) collect and disseminate scientific information on Okanagan water;

10) provide sufficient resources for local water management initiatives;

11) encourage active public consultation, education, and participation in water management decisions; and,

12) practice adaptive water and land management.

For the strategy to be successful, the OBWB contends the principles are interrelated and must be considered concurrently. Also identified are a variety of key actions necessary for proper implementation, divided into three sub-categories: protecting lakes, rivers, wetlands, and aquifers; securing water supplies; and, overall delivery of the strategy. Some of these key actions include (OWSC, 2008):

• work cooperatively to protect, restore, and enhance riparian and wetland areas;

• undertake individual source water assessments and prepare joint source water assessments;

• improve stormwater management;

• enact or amend land use policies and tools to protect water and surrounding land;

• develop and harmonize groundwater protection bylaws;

• establish conservation flows, preserve environmental baseflows, and designate environmental water reserves;



• review Basin water licensing and water uses;

• prepare and implement drought management plans for individual utilities and the Basin as a whole;

• develop an Okanagan Water Management Plan that includes groundwater licensing and monitoring, source water protection, and Basin-wide drought management planning;

• develop a collaborative Okanagan water conservation strategy;

• implement universal metering;

• measure and monitor water use, storage, and availability;

• support and foster collaboration through partnerships;

• identify knowledge gaps and encourage focused research to fill those gaps;

• develop a community engagement strategy that highlights water conservation and pollution prevention; and,

• revisit and reassess the strategy every five to seven (5-7) years.

3 . 4 . 5 W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t E x p e r i m e n t s During each of the preceding steps in the ESWM program, a number of uncertainties regarding ecosystem flow requirements or human uses are likely to arise. Such uncertainties commonly cause a divide among involved stakeholders and a cessation in collaborative dialogue; however, by framing critical uncertainties as hypotheses that can be tested and resolved through water management experiments, paralysis of the process can often be avoided (Richter et al., 2003). It is critical that the formulation of testable hypotheses be based on conceptual models of the expected response of the hydrologic and ecological systems to water management experiments (Richter and Richter, 2000). These experiments must be carefully measured or monitored, with adequate financial support being provided. Without appropriate design, evaluation, and funding, such water management experiments may introduce additional confusion about cause-and-effect, thus, inhibiting collaborative efforts.

One example of an uncertainty is the degree of influence anthropogenic flow maintenance activities have on aquatic systems. When human-induced changes to freshwater ecosystems are already present, Richter et al. (1996) have suggested the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) method as an effective approach for hydrologic assessments. This approach first defines a series of biologically relevant hydrologic attributes that characterize intra-annual variation in water conditions then uses an inter-annual variation in these attributes as the foundation for comparing hydrologic regimes of an aquatic ecosystem, both before and after human alteration. Consequently, this approach can result in the computation of a representative, multi-parameter suite of hydrologic characteristics, or indicators, for assessing hydrologic alteration. There are 32 IHA parameters in total (Table 5 below).



Table 5: Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) and associated Ecosystem Influences

IHA Group Regime Characteristics Hydrologic Parameters (units) Ecosystem Influences

Magnitude of monthly water conditions

• Magnitude • Timing

• Mean flow of each calendar month – i.e., 12 parameters (m3/s)

• Availability of water • Availability of habitat for aquatic

organism • Availability of soil moisture for plants • Reliability of water supplies for wildlife• Effects of water temperatures and

dissolved oxygen

Magnitude and duration of annual extreme water conditions (mean daily flow)

• Magnitude • Duration

• Annual 1-day minimum flow (m3/s) • Annual 1-day maximum flow (m3/s) • Annual 3-day minimum flow (m3/s) • Annual 3-day maximum flow (m3/s) • Annual 7-day minimum flow (m3/s) • Annual 7-day maximum flow (m3/s) • Annual 30-day minimum flow (m3/s) • Annual 30-day maximum flow (m3/s) • Annual 90-day minimum flow (m3/s) • Annual 90-day maximum flow (m3/s)

• Balance of competitive and stress-tolerant organisms

• Creation of sites for plant colonization • Structure of river channel morphology

and physical habitat conditions • Soil moisture stress in plants • Dehydration in wildlife • Duration of stressful conditions • Distribution of plant communities

Timing of annual extreme water conditions

• Timing • Julian date of annual 1-day minimum flow

• Julian date of annual 1-day maximum flow

• Predictability and avoidability of stress for organisms

• Spawning cues for migratory fish

Frequency and duration of high and low pulses

• Magnitude • Frequency • Duration

• Number of high pulses each year • Number of low pulses each year • Mean duration of high pulse (days) • Mean duration of low pulse (days)

• Frequency and magnitude of soil moisture stress for plants

• Availability of floodplain habitat for aquatic organisms

• Effects of bedload transport and channel sediment distribution, and duration of substrate disturbance

Rate and frequency of water condition changes

• Frequency • Rate of change

• Means of all positive differences between consecutive daily flows (m3/s/day)

• Means of all negative differences between consecutive daily flows (m3/s/day)

• Number of rises • Number of falls

• Drought stress on plants • Desiccation stress on low-mobility

streamedge organisms

Reference: Richter et al., 1996; Swanson, 2002; Shiau and Wu, 2008.

The 32 IHA parameters identified above are based upon five (5) fundamental characteristics of hydrologic regimes (magnitude, timing, frequency, duration and rate of change). The magnitude of water condition at any given time is a measure of the availability or suitability of habitat and defines such habitat attributes as wetted area or habitat volume, or the position of a water table relative to wetland or riparian plant rooting zones. The timing of occurrence of particular water conditions can determine whether certain life-cycle requirements are met, or can influence the degree of stress or mortality associated with extreme water conditions such as floods or droughts. The frequency of occurrence of specific water conditions such as droughts or floods may be tied to reproduction or mortality events for various species, thus influencing population dynamics. The duration of time over which a specific water condition exists may determine whether a particular life-cycle phase can be completed or the degree to which stressful effects can accumulate. The rate of change in water



conditions may be tied to the stranding of certain organisms along the water’s edge or in ponded depressions, or the ability of plant roots to maintain contact with phreatic (i.e., of or related to groundwater) supplies (Richter et al. 1996).

These hydrologic indicators can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a designated flow regime through several means. The academic research described below illustrates two possible approaches that use IHAs to assess ecological flow recommendations. Range of Variability Approach (RVA) represents a well-known and often-used method, while the Histogram Matching Approach (HMA) is a relatively new process aimed at addressing some of the RVA shortcomings. Both of these methods may be of significant use in assessing the effectiveness of ecological flows determined for watersheds in Canada.

Range of Variability Approach – Chi-Chi Diversion Weir (Taiwan) Chi-Chi diversion weir is on the midstream reach of the Chou-Shui Creek, the longest river in Taiwan. The system has a catchment of 3,157 km2 and an average annual runoff of approximately 6,100 million cubic metres (MCM). The Chi-Chi diversion weir was completed in 2001 to meet the increasing regional demand for water, with a design capacity for diversion of 160 m3/s. The water release priority for the weir is to meet the instream flow requirement first and then divert the remaining flow to other users; however, the minimum instream flow to be released for downstream water quality and environmental considerations is approximately 0.6 m3/s and based on a Japanese empirical formula (Shiau and Wu, 2004). Research indicated this instream flow release is inadequate, estimating that at least 40 m3/s is necessary to meet aquatic ecosystem needs (Wu and Lee, 1998).

To evaluate the effects of implementing different flow releases and demand reductions, Shiau and Wu (2004) used the Range of Variability Approach (RVA). RVA establishes flow-based river management targets that incorporate the concepts of hydrologic variability and aquatic ecosystem integrity using the 32 IHA parameters identified in Table 5 (above). A natural range of variations in each parameter is set as a flow management target. In the case of the Chou-Shui Creek, forty-three years of daily flow records collected prior to weir construction were used to set the natural range of variations for each IHA parameter. Of note, substantial inter-annual variations in natural flow characteristics were present in the creek before the weir was built, with an average non-attainment rate of 25.3% for the 32 hydrologic parameters (Shiau and Wu, 2004). The non-attainment rate for each IHA is defined as the percentage of time the hydrologic parameter is outside the RVA target ranges.

When evaluating the current instream flow release (0.6 m3/s), Shiau and Wu (2004) noted there were significant impacts to the natural hydrologic regime. Only 13 of the 32 hydrologic parameters, primarily high-flow characteristics, fell within the RVA targets, while the average non-attainment rate of the post-construction parameters reached 73.2%; an increase of nearly 50% non-attainment from pre-construction levels. Results also indicated that the Chi-Chi diversion weir had a greater influence on the low-flow regime than on that of the high-flow.

By increasing the instream flow release to 40 m3/s, most of the IHA parameters of the low-flow regime fell within the RVA target ranges, while a further reduction in the projected demand of 30% or greater substantially reduced the non-attainment rates of the high-flow regime, but reduced water supplies. Shiau and Wu (2004) also investigated the effects of a modified diversion scheme that reduced projected monthly demands on a variable basis, with higher reductions in demand for months during low-flow periods. This modified diversion scheme, together with a flow release of 40 m3/s, resulted in only three hydrologic parameters (i.e., low-pulse duration and fall and rise counts) extending beyond RVA targets. Further, the average non-attainment rate was reduced to 35.6%, which was much closer to the pre-construction value of 25.3%.



Histogram Matching Approach In most cases, the RVA uses an Indicator of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) range bracketed by the 25th- and 75th-percentile values, implying that 50% of pre-impact years would have values of the hydrologic parameter within the target range; however, there are limits to this approach. Specifically, the RVA only concerns the frequency of a hydrologic parameter falling in the target range, thus, variations within that range are not explicitly account for. Further, the value and frequency of hydrologic parameters fallings outside of the target range are completely ignored. Such limitations could result in false evaluations of the flow regime. To address these shortcomings, Shiau and Wu (2008) investigated the effectiveness of a histogram matching approach (HMA) against the range of variability approach (RVA).

The HMA attempts to resolve the limited flow variability, evident in the RVA, by using a dissimilarity metric to assess the flow regime alteration. The central idea behind the HMA is that two flow regimes (i.e., pre- and post-impact) would be similar if their frequency histograms of the 32 IHA resembled each other. Results of Shiau and Wu’s study (2008) suggested that the HMA eliminates some shortcomings of the existing RVA, and consistently outperforms RVA in preserving natural flow variability regardless of which type of similarity function is used. The HMA achieved these results by reducing the dissimilarities to the pre-impact histograms of the 32 IHA parameters. This approach was aimed at preserving the biodiversity and ecosystem integrity associated with the full range of natural flow regime. For cases where some aspects of the flow regime are of greater importance, weighting factors may be included. Furthermore, temporal variations may be incorporated in the HMA to account for the inter-annual variability of the natural flow regime.

3 . 4 . 6 D e s i g n i n g & I m p l e m e n t i n g A d a p t i v e W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t Adaptive water management is a systematic approach for improving environmental management and building knowledge by learning from management outcomes (Murray and Marmorek, 2003). Since its development in the 1970s, adaptive management has been defined in various ways including that by Bormann et al. (1994): “learning to manage by managing to learn.” The process may be described as a cycle consisting of essential steps: 1) assess problem; 2) design; 3) implement; 4) monitor; 5) evaluate; and, 6) adjust. Adaptive management recognizes the uncertainty about what policy or practice is ‘best’ for the particular management issue. It encompasses thoughtful selection of the policies or practices to be applied, carefully implements a plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge that is currently lacking; monitors key response indicators; then analyzes management outcomes against original objectives; and incorporates results in future decisions.

For an ESWM program to be effective, water management should be continually informed by monitoring, carefully targeted research, and further experimentation to address new uncertainties. In addition, management approaches require modification on a regular basis as increased understanding or changes in human and ecosystem conditions emerge (Richter et al., 2003). Some of the key elements of adaptive ecosystem management include:

• Monitoring program: during the initial determination of ecosystem flow requirements, a number of hypotheses are generated regarding the expected responses of various conditions to the ecosystem flow prescription. Many of these hypotheses are tested during water management experiments; however, others should be tested through the collection and analysis of monitoring data over longer time frames. Monitoring data should be collected for a suite of ecosystem indicators that reflect ecological integrity as a whole (Noss, 1990). Selecting these ecosystem indicators and defining targeted ranges of variation or critical thresholds requires a high level of understanding of the interaction among river flows, human activities, and



ecosystem response. As monitoring program results clarify these relationships, new indicators or target ranges may be need to be chosen;

• Adaptability: it is of utmost importance that an ESWM plan maintains the ability to respond to new information gained from water management experiments or a long-term monitoring program, and to alter the plan and related infrastructure operations accordingly (Richter et al., 2003). Factors influencing adaptation include the flexibility of water management infrastructure, regulatory and legal mechanisms controlling water use, and the political resolve to stay with the ever-evolving process;

• Governance: Water managers will need to continually respond to new information by modifying their ESWM plan. As such, the process and decision-making authorities must be clearly communicated in the plan. Richter et al. (2003) suggest that this governance include the formation of a scientific peer review committee to review the design and results of water management experiments and monitoring. The committee may also provide recommendations on sustainable water use and management to the ultimate decision-making authority; and,

• Secure Funding: the ESWM plan should also identify funding needs and sources, with an emphasis on sources that provide for long-term security. The success of monitoring programs relies on continuous, consistent measurements adequate to capture short-term and inter-annual fluctuations in flow and aquatic ecosystem conditions (Richter et al., 2003).



4 . 0 WAT E R G O V E R N AN C E Overall, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for long-term, as well as day-to-day, management of water resources (EC, 2008b). Yet, a common set of values between jurisdictions is lacking, as water allocation, permits, planning decisions and sector rules remain largely disparate. Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments have developed a number of approaches to protect and conserve water resources, including watershed and ocean strategies and policy instruments, domestic and international institutional arrangements and governance, and partnerships in action (EC, 2008b); however, no system currently exists that addresses the disparity of provincial/territorial boundaries with respect to water governance.

A regional example of an innovative and inclusive local governance structure is the Fraser Basin Council (FBC) in British Columbia, which includes all major stakeholders in an integrated governance (McLaughlin, 2009). The Fraser Basin Council was established in 1997 with an overall focus on advancing sustainability throughout the entire region (FBC, 2004a). Since regional ecosystems are not subject to jurisdictional boundaries the Council strives to make eco-driven policy decisions that take into account the interests of all affected stakeholder groups. As such, FBC representatives are appointed from various groups, including federal, provincial, and municipal government agencies, First Nations, academic institutes, various industrial sectors, labour organizations, small business owners, consulting firms and individual citizens (FBC, 2004b). When making policy decisions, the Council considers ecosystem needs and functionality in the context of social and economic conditions. Ultimately, all decisions are made by consensus.

Although the FBC governance model is the first such system applied in Canada and unique in its approach to policy development and application, a number of issues remain that influence its overall effectiveness. Such institutional challenges include issues of enforcement, transparency, consultation, and economic viability (BC WGPT, 2008). These challenges will be discussed in greater detail in Section 6.0.

4 . 1 R e g i o n a l W a t e r G o v e r n a n c e There are a number of disparities between provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada. Although each province and territory owns the water resources that flow within its borders, with the exception of Quebec whose citizens hold ownership of the water resources, all jurisdictions develop their own legislation and policy initiatives to govern water use. Table 6 (below) provides description of these initiatives for each jurisdiction, as well as nationally. Further explanation and details of each jurisdictional water governance structure can be found in Table A2 of the Appendix.



Table 6: Water Governance Initiatives by Jurisdiction

Region Permits/ Licenses Required

Regulations associated

with permit(s)?

Allocation Prioritization

Specific Planning Strategies

Sector specifics (exemptions, special

regulations, etc.)

Environmental Water

Allocations (EWA)

Yuk

on

Yes Yes based on type,

sector and volume

Prior Appropriation

No formal planning strategies in place

No sector specific regulations; Emergency plans in place for temporary allocation

No EWAs or IFN; Licenses have terms intended to reduce environmental impacts

N.W

.T

Yes Yes based on sector and

volume

Prior Appropriation

No formal planning strategies in place; NWT Water Resources Management Strategy in development

Domestic, instream and emergency water users are exempt license restrictions

No specific EWA; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA

Nun

avut

Yes Yes fees in place

based on sector and

volume

Inuit use then Prior

Appropriation

No formal plans. Adopts strategies from the INAC water management plan

Inuit use is given priority over license holders

No EWAs; Environmental screening may require IFN be maintained

B.C

Yes – Groundwater withdrawals

are not currently licensed

Yes based on

volume and sustainability Monitoring is

required

Prior Appropriation

Freshwater strategy, district/watershed specific plans; Some emergency/drought measures

Sector-based water rent structure in place; “Quick-licensing” in place for small domestic and agricultural allocations

IFN are subtracted from availability prior to allocation

Alb

erta

Yes Yes based on

volume and sustainability

Domestic, Agricultural then Prior

Appropriation

Water Management Plans; Many are watershed specific

Small agricultural and riparian owning domestic users are exempt from license requirements

Unallocated water reserved and up to 10% of a license may be held back to meet IFN

Sas

katc

hew

an Yes Yes

based on type and sector

Volume monitoring required for

ground water

None Much of the

allocation policy in unwritten

Water conservation plan, water management framework, and watershed specific plans govern planning decisions

Riparian owning domestic users are exempt from license requirements. “Water sharing” regulations in place for emergency purposes

EWAs and IFN are being developed; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA

Man

itoba

Yes Yes based on

sector, use (for what

purpose) and volume

requirements

Domestic, municipal,

agricultural, industrial,

irrigation, other

Water stewardship is developing short and long-term planning strategies; Water protection act can enforce management plans. Specific plan in place for major systems

Small domestic users are exempt from license requirements; Fees are only required for industrial uses

IFN are in place for certain rivers and ecosystem allocations are considered before others

Ont

ario

Yes Yes based on

volume, type, sector,

duration and sustainability

None The Ontario water plan. Watershed specific plans; Emergency action plans for low water levels

Sector permits divided into three categories based on duration, location and volume

EWAs are part of the water classification system and are subtracted from availability

Que

bec

Yes Yes bases on volume,

sustainability, location and ministerial discretion

Recognizes riparian owners; Rights are civil

law “common to all”

The Quebec Water Policy lays out water management and specific watershed policies

Industry and large scale users regulated by volume; Domestic and emergency requirements may be exempt

Two types: Reserved flows for ecosystems based on flow indicators; and, aquatic reserves

Con’d…



Table 7: Water Governance Initiatives by Jurisdiction (Con’d)

Region Permits/ Licenses Required

Regulations associated with

permit(s)? Allocation

Prioritization Specific Planning

Strategies Sector specifics

(exemptions, special regulations, etc.)

Environmental Water

Allocations (EWA)

New

B

runs

wic

k

Yes Yes based on volume, use, water class and number of water course alterations

Not specified Provincial Watershed protection program and the Water Classification Regulation provide watershed planning

No sector specific regulations; Fees vary between sector type, volume and degree of alteration

Watershed specific; Water allocations must not pose unacceptable environmental impacts

Nov

a Sc

otia

Yes Yes based on volume, type, sector and sustainability; Ground water

extraction require monitoring

Not specified Currently developing a provincial water resource management strategy; Community watershed management plans in place for 6 major areas

Sustainability is a requirement for all sector licenses; License exemptions apply to low volumes and small duration users

No specific EWA; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA and must include IFN

P.E

.I

Yes Yes based on volume,

type and sustainability

Domestic, commercial, agricultural, industrial,

irrigation, other

Watershed specific groups govern most areas; Aided by Guide to Watershed Planning on Prince Edward Island

Ground water extraction for irrigation regulated by recharge rates; Moratorium on any new groundwater irrigation permits

EWAs are in place and based on a rough percentage scale of MAF and IFN

New

foun

dlan

d &

Lab

rado

r

Yes Yes based on volume,

sector and location;

Monitoring and reporting is

required

Domestic, municipal,

agricultural, commercial, institutional, industrial,

power, other

Environment and Conservation implements water management plans; Community based watershed plan in place in many areas

Riparian and domestic landowners are license exempt; Sector licenses may include environmental requirements

Licenses may include provision for EWA, but are not explicit

Can

ada

Provinces are

owners of their water

and governed as such.

Federal permits (CEAA, DFO etc.) generally apply to

larger projects; Restrictions are

based on volume, impact level,

sector , type, and use

Not specified but specific

branches (DFO, International

affairs, navigation etc.)

may take precedence

Fresh water planning is primarily a provincial responsibility; Federal plans in plans for emergency action, fisheries, international treaties, conservation, drinking, and navigation

Federal government plays a key role in sector specific regulations dealing with fisheries agriculture, science, international affairs and human and environmental health; Generally, specifics apply to whole sectors at large scales

DFO and CEAA have policies in place to protect the fish and the environment which may include restrictions on water allocation for IFN purposes

Reference: NRTEE, 2009c,d,e,f,g,h,I,j,k,l,m,n,o,p.

Across Canada there is variability in how water is governed between provinces and territories. All provinces and territories require some sort of permit or license for the use, allocation or diversion of freshwater. These are governed at the provincial/territorial government level with certain areas governing them at the watershed level. In addition, all of the provinces and territories regulate the issuance of permits and licenses based on a number of parameters including but not limited to:

• water type (surface or ground);

• volume required;

• sector (domestic, industrial etc.). Each province ranks each sector differently;

• sustainability (is the withdrawal sustainable);

• geographical location; and,



• discretion of the Governmental Minister. In many province licenses and permits are given and retracted at the discretion for Minister.

While each region views water resources as highly important, each allocates, regulates, plans and monitors use differently. As the governance of water is becoming increasingly more important, many provinces and territories are developing new mandates to improve and conserve this resource.

The allocation of water for environmental purposes such as ecosystem health or instream flow requirements is not a new concept, but has gained increasing attention with the environmental movement. Most provinces and territories have legislation in place requiring the allocation of water for environmental purposes; however, a handful of jurisdictions (i.e., YT, NWT, NU, NFLD, and NS) have no legislation or are in the process of adopting new legislation for environmental water allocations (EWA). While some provinces and territories do not have specific legislation in place for EWAs, all can require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for any project that has the potential to threaten the environment. Within this process, regulatory restrictions may be placed on a permit or license to allow for an EWA.

How a province or territory governs EWA varies greatly across Canada with some provinces using a percentage (%) system (i.e., AB), while others use mean annual flow (i.e., BC) or a combination of flow indicators combined with ecosystem water reserves (i.e., QB). While the mechanisms for EWA may differ greatly between provinces, it is evident across Canada that all provinces and territories are reassessing how they govern EWAs and how they can improve their own processes.



5 . 0 S E C TO R - S P E CI F I C WAT E R M AN AG E M EN T 5 . 1 A g r i c u l t u r e & E c o s y s t e m s

In 2006, over 67.5 million hectares of farm land existed in Canada (StatCan, 2006); however, “dependable” agriculture land, defined as land not hampered by constraints for crop production, is considered scarce. Approximately 5% of Canada’s land is free from severe constraints to crop production (Hoffman, Filoso and Schofield, 2005). Central and western Canadian provinces account for the majority of dependable agricultural crop land (i.e., land classified as Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 by the Canadian Land Inventory), with approximately three-quarters of such land being concentrated in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario (Hoffman, Filoso and Schofield, 2005). As such, the load on ecosystem services is highest in these areas.

As agricultural land use has increased nationally, the natural hydrology of the landscape has changed, consequently affecting both the relative quantity and quality of water resources. Due to increased loading from nutrients, pesticides and pathogens, it is widely recognized that the quality of surface and groundwater is likely deteriorating in agricultural areas (EC, 2008c). The production of crops in both irrigated and rain-fed systems also influences water flow in the landscape. For example, crop type and management can change infiltration and flow of water through the soil profile, thus, altering patterns of surface and subsurface flow. This can sometimes lead to increased peak runoff events and silt loading to rivers, decreased base flows in small streams and waterways, and reduced surface infiltration, potentially influencing wetlands and water supplies which rely on groundwater recharge (EC, 2008c).

5 . 1 . 1 W a t e r U s e - B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s & T e c h n o l o g i e s Agriculture is not the largest user of water in Canada; however, it is the largest net consumer. In 2005, approximately 50,810 MCM of surface water was withdrawn by major users from Canada’s rivers. Agriculture was responsible for approximately 9.4% of total withdrawals, while thermal power and manufacturing withdrew 63.2% and 15.3%, respectively. Across all sectors, only about 8.7% of water withdrawn is actually consumed; yet in agriculture, nearly 74.0% of water diverted is consumed (EC, 2008d). There are significant differences between water consumption even within the agriculture sector, primarily depending on the type of agriculture practice in use. For example, irrigation of crops requires significantly more water than does caring for livestock (Dale and Polasky, 2007). Approximately 92.4% of agriculture withdrawals (surface and groundwater) are used for irrigation, while 5.4% is used for watering livestock (EC, 2008e).

Regarding irrigation, much of the water required throughout the growing season must be captured during spring snowmelt and stored for later use; however, this storage leads to considerable evaporative losses throughout the year. Water losses are also evident due to evapotranspiration following crop irrigation, permeation below the rooting zone, and surface flow to river systems (EC, 2008c). In livestock production, most water used is drawn from groundwater resources (SCC, 1988). For the production of high-quality livestock, a stable supply of high-quality water is required (EC, 2008c). Table 8 illustrates the daily water needs of farm animals:



Table 8: Daily Water Needs of Farm Animals

Animal Type Water (L/day)

Beef feeder 35

Beef cow 55

Dairy cow 160

Lactating sow 20

Feed pig 10

Ewe 7

Chicken layer 0.25-0.30

Chicken broiler 0.15-0.20

Reference: AAFC, 2000.

In terms of future use, the cost of farming may lead to increased water consumption. Expensive farmland, not previously irrigated, is being converted to produce higher value crops that often require irrigation to ensure production levels can be maintained annually. As farmland becomes progressively more focused on planting higher value crops, it is likely that water demand will increase. Increased water use is also required for irrigation systems that now serve crop cooling and frost protection functions to ensure productivity and quality. In addition, nutrient delivery through irrigation, in an effort to improve nutrient management, may result in elevated water use (EC, 2000b).

Another increasingly important issue is the increasing demand for meat products, particularly in emerging countries like China and India. This increased demand has positioned British Columbia, as an efficient chicken producer, to increase global trade in meat (Schreier, 2009a). As such, large amounts of additional water will be required, given that meat production is far more water-intensive than staple crop production. This anticipated increase in demand may further exacerbate the water scarcity issues evident in some regions of B.C.

Given the abundance of water management issues relevant to the agriculture sector, a number of case examples have been examined below. These examples illustrate different water management struggles, and suggest best management practices and/or best available technologies that aim to eliminate adverse impacts.

Case Studies & Examples Okanagan Basin of BC – Water Quantity Issue Agricultural water use in British Columbia is comparatively small relative to other sectors; however, agriculture is currently the largest non-point source of pollution, next to urban land use (Schreier, 2009a) in BC. The Okanagan Basin of British Columbia is the driest watershed in the country and well known for its unique fruit and wine production. Seventy percent (70%) of the basin’s freshwater resources are currently allocated for agriculture. Rapid population growth, increasing demand for water from intensive agriculture and a large influx of tourists pose a potential water crisis (Schreier, 2009a) in the Okanagan.



Almost all streams entering the catchment are used at capacity and summer stream flows are most at risk. Many tributaries are over-allocated and suffer during drought cycles. Climate models for BC suggest that earlier snowmelt, earlier freshet and longer, drier summers will occur when the demand for water is highest. According to Schreier (2009a) the current Water Smart Living strategy does not address this issue. To meet the increasing demands, the BC Ministry of Agriculture is investigating the increased use of groundwater. According to Schreier (2009a) this poses three problems:

1) aquifers are poorly mapped, although an inventory is currently underway;

2) aquifer recharge has not been addressed; and,

3) there is no groundwater legislation in place that controls water extraction from aquifers (BC is the only political jurisdiction in North America that has no groundwater extraction regulation).

Under the new Water Smart Living strategy, the BC government proposes to impose groundwater metering in priority areas such as the Okanagan. The Okanagan Basin is one of the most vulnerable watersheds with respect to increased climatic variability. Although steps are currently underway to complete a comprehensive water balance assessment, a much more aggressive policy is suggested to be necessary to conserve water (Schreier, 2009a). This approach could include improving irrigation efficiency, and changing the crops grown in the basin based on use-efficiency. Models indicated that notable water savings could occur by developing real-time climate and soil moisture monitoring systems that would enable farmers to apply irrigation water in real-time (when it is needed). Selecting the most efficient irrigation system for orchards, vineyards and vegetable crops would also potentially save large quantities of water.

Lower Fraser Valley in BC – Water Quality Issue The Lower Fraser Valley is the most productive food-producing area in British Columbia, with the Sumas watershed having the highest livestock density in the country. In many areas between Langley and Chilliwack the stocking density is well above 4 AUE (animal unit equivalent) per hectare. By contrast, Denmark regulates livestock production at 2.5 AUE per hectare (Shreier, 2009). Excess manure and fertilizer application to the agricultural land (e.g., > 100 kg N; >50 kg P annually) has created widespread eutrophication in receiving waters. Current government policy is one of self-regulation by the farming community. Attempts at moving manure from surplus areas is an option being viewed, but not practiced generally given high cost and energy consumption.

The Abbotsford aquifer, which is the largest groundwater source in the Lower Fraser Valley, is a highly vulnerable unconfined aquifer used extensively for irrigated agriculture and drinking water. Nitrate levels have steadily risen and many wells contain levels above the national drinking water guidelines (Schreier, 2009a). Efforts to lower nitrate levels have been uncoordinated and counterproductive. Efforts to reduce fertilizer use were countered by increased chicken production, resulting in increased chicken manure. Efforts to remove chicken manure from the region were stymied by the already existing practice of manure composting.

Several actions are proposed to protect the water quality of receiving watersheds. Policies regulating stocking densities could lessen the livestock burden per hectare, while more appropriate manure management procedures could lessen the nutrient load impacting water quality. An example of an effective manure management procedure is to start treating manure for energy and nutrient recovery (Schreier, 2009a). Technologies for manure processing, energy extraction and converting nutrients into fertilizers have been well established in other jurisdictions, and with government incentive programs, could be a valuable tool in reducing the amount of surplus manure application carried out on



agricultural land. Such technologies could also provide an additional source of revenue for livestock farmers through the sales of energy generated from manure processing.

Essex County, Ontario – Water Quality and Quantity Issue Severe growing season drought and non-point source agricultural pollution are two of the many challenges facing areas of intense agricultural production, such as Essex County, Ontario. The existing network of drainage tiles and ditches in Essex County are designed to remove excess surface and soil water as quickly as possible; however, this approach can increase non-point source agricultural pollution by enhancing the movement of sediment, nutrients and pesticides into surface and groundwater resources (Tan et al., 2007). To reduce non-point agricultural pollution and reclaim drained water for future irrigation, Tan et al. conducted a study comparing the effectiveness of an integrated reservoir-controlled drainage/subsurface irrigation system with a traditional tile drainage system. The study was conducted between the spring of 2000 and the winter of 2004.

Controlled drainage involves installation of risers on tile outflows after planting to prevent excessive drainage of the crop root zone. Subsurface irrigation pumps water back into the tile drains during water deficit periods, providing irrigation water directly to the crop root zone. The wetland-reservoir component of the system captures and stores surface runoff and tile drainage water for future irrigation, and also serves as a sink to prevent off-farm movement of sediments and for intercepting and recycling leached agricultural nutrients and chemicals back into the crop root zone (Tan et al., 2007). During the growing season, water and dissolved nutrients are pumped out of the reservoir and into a specially constructed tile system that provides a highly efficient form of subsurface irrigation and fertilization for field and vegetable crops.

Results of the study showed the controlled drainage system reduced total tile nitrate loss by 41% and total dissolved phosphorus loss by 36%, relative to the traditional system. During dry years (i.e., 2001, 2002), irrigation using the controlled drainage system improved corn grain yield by 91% and soybean yield by 49%, relative to the traditional system (Tan et al., 2007). Thus, use of the combined reservoir-controlled drainage/subsurface irrigation system can result in a significant improvement in crop yields during water deficit situations, while simultaneously reducing non-point source pollution from agricultural fields.

5 . 1 . 2 A l t e r n a t i v e T e c h n o l o g i e s & P r a c t i c e s In many cases new or alternative technologies are not the issue; current technologies and practices are known and promulgated, if not financially or otherwise supported by incentives and active regulation. Rather, what is at issue is:

• promulgation of practices that take into account the whole context of regional environment, farmer’s practices in the region, area, watershed, aquifer in question; and,

• acceptance and actual practice by farmers of activities that in some cases are already formally regulated.

That said, a joint report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (IUCN and WBCSD, 2008) identified several ways in which water use and watershed management could be improved. Some of these management practices are as follows:

• using more efficient irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation);

• moving towards more precision agriculture;



• boosting rain-fed agriculture, upgrading rain-fed systems, as well as waste- and rainwater management;

• using conservation agriculture;

• using more water-efficient crops and assessing soil type;

• maintaining year-round vegetative cover of soils; and,

• using intercropping to maximize uptake of water and crop productivity in the agroecosystem.

Other means in which agricultural practices can improve and protect water resources include (Schreier, 2009a,b):

• leaving grassed buffer strips between fields and streams or drainage ditches to intercept sediment and nutrients;

• maintaining wetlands wherever possible as a means of water storage and filtration of nutrients, sediments and pathogens;

• preventing direct access of animals to stream system (e.g., by fencing) in order to reduce pathogen inputs;

• changing the crops to be grown in the basin based on use efficiency;

• allocating best-crops on an ecosystem-basis (e.g., crops vs. meat production, type of crop, etc.);

• applying groundwater regulations (British Columbia);

• introducing and managing a policy that regulates stocking densities and manure management procedures which do not contribute to widespread eutrophication of receiving waters;

• applying and auditing the practice of manure application to farmland in late fall; and,

• addressing the additions of antibiotics, hormones and trace metals in animal feed through the harmonization of federal guidelines and standards with provincial and territorial ones (e.g., with the Environment Canada National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative which provides new guidelines for pathogens in agriculture).

A new and emerging technology is surface and/or subsurface drip fertigation systems for high-value horticultural crops (e.g., vegetables and fruit trees). Drip fertigation enables the application of fertilizer uniformly and efficiently. This new technology has been tested in large commercial processing tomato fields for both sandy and clay loam soils. Results indicate that water use efficiency increases by over 20%, nutrient use efficiency increases by over 30%, and crop yields increases between 20 and 45%. The technology can be applied on a large-scale with potentially significant economic benefits. As such, government incentives and/or regulatory instruments may not be required to promote sectoral use of the technology (Tan, 2009).

With respect to the practice of treating manure for energy as a means of reducing excess manure application, researchers at the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of British Columbia are currently investigating the recovery of methane and phosphate from chicken and dairy manure (Schreier, 2009a).

5 . 2 M i n i n g & E c o s y s t e m s The extraction of non-renewable resources through mining activities is essential to the present functions of society. Metals and aggregates are used in homes, offices, and automobiles, while oil, gas and coal products provide heat and fuel. Overall impacts of mining are generally lower than other watershed uses (e.g., agriculture, fisheries); however, mining can have a significant impact locally on



water availability for other uses (EC, 2008f). Large volumes of water are used for various mineral extraction processes, with approximately 78% of waters being discharged back into freshwater bodies undergoing little beyond primary treatment (Scharf et al., 2002). Furthermore, large volumes of wastes are generated during resource extraction. Precipitation waters infiltrate these wastes, becoming highly contaminated and further degrading water quality (EC, 2008f).

Oftentimes, peak concentrations of contaminants discharged from mine sites occur many years after the peak of mining activity, or possibly after mine closure. This delay of contaminant release can occur because of natural mine flooding, temporary acid neutralization and contaminant attenuation, and long groundwater transport times. Such contamination, which leads to water of substandard quality, is the primary threat posed by the mining sector to freshwater availability. Water flows may also be influenced by mine closures. For example, are ore recovery has been completed, previously drained underground workings and open pits refill, thus diverting ground and surface water flows (EC, 2008f).

5 . 2 . 1 W a t e r U s e - B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s & T e c h n o l o g i e s The level of water use and discharge vary greatly depending on the type of mining being conducted; however, there are a number of standard water management practices to be employed irrespective of the type of mining conducted. For example, the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia (MEM, 2003) requires that where initial exploration activities or exploration access have the potential to impact the natural surface and subsurface drainage of an area, structurally sound and functional drainage systems must be constructed to minimize:

• water flowing uncontrolled onto the exploration site;

• erosion or destabilization of the exploration site;

• water being directed onto, or creating, potentially unstable slopes or soil materials; and,

• water flowing onto reclaimed areas unless the reclaimed areas are protected with the use of riprap or other effective means.

The Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, which was promulgated under the federal Fisheries Act in 2002, require an even greater level of standards in water management. This legislation not only regulates water discharges, but also requires mines to implement environmental effects monitoring programs to assess whether mine effluent affects fish, fish habitat or the usability of fisheries resources (MAC, 2007). These programs are aimed at ensuring the adequate protection of all receiving aquatic environments.

In general, water is used for a number of purposes during mining activities, including separating ore from rock, cooling drills, washing the ore during production, and carrying away unwanted material (EC, 2008g). To gain access to minerals, metal and non-metal mines must be dewatered through one or more processes. Using pumping wells to dewater can create large drawdown cones (i.e., conical depressions in the groundwater table) in the vicinity of the mine, while diversion techniques and drainage passages can prevent inflow of water into workings and redirect runoff to other watersheds. As a consequence, such dewatering practices may significantly reduce the volume of water available to other uses if water use is large enough or if the mine occupies the headwaters of a small watershed. Furthermore, extensive dewatering is required where water tables are high, which can affect local water supplies and water levels of adjoining surface water bodies (EC, 2008f).

Overall, the mining sector uses approximately half the water than that of the agricultural sector; however, mining accounted for only 1% of all national water in-take in 2005, compared to 9% in agriculture operations. This disparity has been explained by the higher level of water recirculation



applied in mining operations (EC, 2008g); however, given that water is often recirculated, the concentration of contaminants increases with each cycle (EC, 2008f).

Clearly, mining activities can have various influences on water resources, pertaining to both quantity and quality. The following two case examples examine best management practices and/or best alternative technologies aimed at improving mining sector interactions with aquatic ecosystems. Of note, although oil sands extraction is a form of mining, discussion relevant to such activities is provided in the Energy & Ecosystems section.

Case Studies & Examples BHP Billiton Olympic Dam in Australia – Water Efficiency Issue Water scarcity is a fundamental part of life throughout much of Australia, especially in semi-arid regions such as South Australia. As such, it is crucial to the communities and sectors in these areas to continually search for means of reducing water use.

BHP Billiton owns underground reserves of copper, uranium, silver and gold at Olympic Dam in South Australia. The mine is close to the rim of the Great Artesian Basin – a confined aquifer that contains the only reliable source of freshwater through much of inland Australia. The basin is one of the largest sedimentary basins in the world, covering 1.7 Mkm2 in Central Australia (Guerin, 2006). An estimated 425 ML of water flow into the South Australian section of the basin each day. Mining operations at Olympic Dam use approximately 13.4 ML of water a day.

Since 1997, a number of initiatives have been applied to reduce water consumption at Olympic Dam (Guerin, 2006). These initiatives are intended to:

• develop more efficient work practices;

• substitute lower quality recycled water where practicable; and,

• modify metallurgical processes to reduce water consumption or increase water recovery.

In addition, various processes have been modified to reduce water use in flotation and separation of the minerals from the ore (Guerin, 2006). These processes include:

• use of high density thickeners to reduce water passing to the tailings system;

• recycling the acidic liquids from mine tailings that historically had been evaporated;

• using highly saline water which seeps from the mine for drilling and dust control; and,

• implementing various other minor water conservation programs (e.g., re-use of wash waters).

BHP Billiton took further action by recognizing that reductions in water use by other sectors in the region could also contribute to overall water conservation efforts. For example, the cost of water conservation initiatives at the mine and plant were significantly greater than equivalent potential water savings in the agriculture industry. As such, the company offered to assist farmers in the region by aiding in the closure of boredrains and replace them with piping, tank and trough systems. The potential water savings identified were between 14.6 ML and 23.8 ML per day, a significantly greater reduction than was feasible at the mine (Guerin, 2006).

An elevated unit cost of water provided another incentive for Olympic Dam operations to minimize water use. For example, general purpose water cost 1.61 AUD per kL, while potable quality water cost 2.40 AUD per kL. These values are significantly greater than the cost of 0.88 AUD per kL that is charged by the South Australian Government to other users (Guerin, 2006).

There have been some barriers to these methods of water conservation. The continuous re-use of process water results in the build-up of salts and other contaminants, which may come from either the



original water source or from the ore or process chemicals used. Eventually the concentrations of some salts and other contaminants become so high that process efficiency is reduced (Guerin, 2006).

Colomac Mine, Northwest Territories – Water Quality Issue Storing large volumes of tailings water produced during mining activities can pose significant management and environmental concerns. In most cases, tailings water contains significant concentrations of numerous dissolved constituents, preventing direct release into aquatic ecosystems. Management is further complicated since treatment of these large volumes of fluids, to facilitate their release and reduce storage requirements, can be very costly. Spray freezing is an inexpensive method shown to be effective at removing significant amounts of dissolved constituents from very large amounts of water, specifically in areas where environmental conditions facilitate freezing in winter months and thawing in summer months (Biggar et al., 2005). The technique of spray freezing relies on the physics of ice crystal formation, concentrating contaminants in residual unfrozen liquids (Gao, Smith and Sego, 2000)

To examine the effectiveness of spray freezing for gold mine tailings water treatment, Biggar et al. (2005) conducted a field trial at the Colomac Mine tailings lake, Northwest Territories. Colomac Mine is an abandoned gold mine located 220 km north of Yellowknife. Results of the study showed removal of dissolved chemicals from the tailings lake of 87-99%, depending on the chemical species. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from approximately 19 µg/L to approximately 5 µ/L, the maximum allowable limit for the protection of aquatic life (CCME, 2007). Cyanide concentrations were reduced from a mean of 47,000 µ/L to 357 µ/L, a 99.2% removal; however, the cyanide concentration still remained well above the allowable limit for the protection of aquatic life of 5 µ/L (CCME, 2007). As such, spray freezing does not appear to be able to reach regulatory requirements for cyanide; however, it does provide an inexpensive pre-treatment option that could potentially reduce overall treatment costs (Biggar et al., 2005).

5 . 2 . 2 A l t e r n a t i v e & R e c o m m e n d e d T e c h n o l o g i e s & P r a c t i c e s There are a number of Best Management Practices in the mining sector that have gained recognition in recent years. These BMPs can generally be divided into five (5) subcategories (MEM, 2002):

• stormwater management;

• erosion control;

• noise and dust control;

• risk management; and,

• pollution prevention.

A number of management techniques are included within each of these subcategories. Not all practices are implemented with the intention of protecting environmental conditions, such as property fencing, lighting management and signage; however, many BMPs do consider ecological factors. For example, nearly all stormwater management and erosion control measures are designed to limit surface runoff into and sedimentation of aquatic ecosystems. Examples of stormwater and erosion management techniques include (MEM, 2002):

• buffer zones;

• constructed wetlands;

• ditches;

• silt fencing;

• backfilling;



• erosion control blankets;

• topsoil management; and,

• vegetation cover.

Risk management and pollution prevention also play a vital role in protecting freshwater systems. Environmental timing windows (risk management) and settling ponds (pollution prevention) are two good examples BMPs that can be effective at preventing the degradation of aquatic resources and ecosystem functions. An environmental timing window requires that mining operations adjust work schedules so to avoid conflict with critical life stages of biological communities (e.g., fish and wildlife). Settling ponds are permanent or semi-permanent structures, dugouts, impoundments or raised tanks that aid in removing silts and suspended clays from water used in washing aggregate and/or dirty stormwater. In many cases, settling ponds are constructed in a series of two or more, with the coarsest material removed in the first pond and the finer suspended solids in subsequent ponds.

5 . 3 F o r e s t r y & E c o s y s t e m s Approximately 10% of the world’s forests are in Canada (CFS, 2002). Forests recycle water to the atmosphere, thereby decreasing water transport into ground and surface water. Forests also filter air and water, moderate climate, provide habitat for wildlife and stabilize soils. As such, forests contribute a range of valuable services, including provision of clean stream water and support of healthy aquatic ecosystems. However, natural disturbances (e.g., insect defoliation, wildfires) and anthropogenic influences (e.g., fire suppression, timber harvesting) can alter the equilibrium of the hydrologic cycle by changing groundwater recharge and discharge dynamics, the position of the water table, and stream flow regimes (EC, 2008h).

The hydrologic cycle is comprised of three primary components: precipitation; surface and subsurface water flow and storage; and, evaporation from soil, vegetation, lakes, streams, and oceans. The amount of forest cover and the level of forest health and maturity are two major factors that influence the movement of precipitation to ground and surface waters. Forest cover maintains stability of the infiltration capacity of soil, decreases runoff, and increases precipitation interception, thus, significantly influencing the local microclimate and hydrologic cycle (EC, 2008h). In addition, certain tree species can be used as bioremediators to reduce pollution from reaching aquatic ecosystems by removing them from contaminated terrestrial ecosystems, a process known as phytoremediation (Dietz and Schnoor, 2001).

5 . 3 . 1 W a t e r U s e - B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s & T e c h n o l o g i e s The overall water withdrawal and consumption levels of timber harvesting practices are not considered to be primary water users in Canada (EC, 2008d). Nevertheless, forestry practices can significantly influence aquatic ecosystems in numerous ways. Research has shown that the most significant impacts to forested watersheds following timber harvest are changes in water table levels, stream flow, water quality, bank erosion and destablization and sedimentation (EC, 2008h).

In general, harvesting impact on stream flow regime and water quality are usually temporary and less severe than those of other land-use changes as long as forest soils are protected and vegetation recovery is rapid (EC, 2008h). The increase of sediment in water streams can be primarily linked to the building and use of forestry roads and direct disturbance to stream banks by machinery (Mattice, 1977).

Timber harvesting has the potential to pose both positive and negative effects on groundwater resources. For example, one positive impact is the increase in groundwater recharge that results from temporary reductions in evapotranspiration following harvest. Such effects are likely to be of greater



significance in drier areas which experience minimal groundwater recharge under full forest cover. Conversely, logging can result in adverse impacts on local groundwater flow in steep terrain, where road cuts may intercept lateral drainage, thus, exposing the groundwater to the surface drainage system and risking significant soil erosion and reduced slope stability (EC, 2008h). Erosion can also lead to further sedimentation of aquatic ecosystems.

Timber harvesting can also impart considerable impacts to stream flow quantity. By reducing interception of precipitation and evapotranspiration losses, logging practices increase the flow of water out of the watershed. The significance of this effect depends on the evapotranspiration loss per unit land area, which is a function of water availability, evaporative demand, and vegetative type. Absolute increases in stream flow quantity are greater in warm, wet areas and lesser in cool, dry areas. Conversely, relative increases in stream flow are larger in dry areas compared to in wet (EC, 2008h).

Forest removal can also increase stream flow rates, a positive effect for small streams in which low flows constrain the aquatic ecosystem (EC, 2008h). Increases in summer flow rates can be attributed to the rise of water tables in response to decreased precipitation interception and decreased evapotranspiration (Dubé, Plamondon and Rothwell, 1995). At the watershed scale, however, these increased flow rates are relatively insignificant and the potential impact on downstream flooding is likely to be limited so long as land-use changes are not permanent (Martin et al., 2000).

Given the lesser degree of water consumption in timber harvesting practices, the following case example is used to illustrate how Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been employed to reduce the water quality impacts of the forestry sector on aquatic ecosystems.

Case Studies & Examples Texas Intensive Silviculture Study – Water Quality Issue During the 1970s and 1980s, Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Texas, USA, did not call for streamside management zones on smaller headwater streams. Since that time, a number of significant BMP revisions and improvements have been made in forest practices. For example, BMPs now include streamside management zones on all perennial and intermittent streams and many ephemeral streams in Texas, while silvicultural practices increasingly involve the use of herbicides to control competing vegetation, as well as fertilization and soil amelioration practices such as ripping, bedding and tillage (McBroom et al., 2008). These practices are aimed at reducing the short-term increases in sediment concentrations in streams.

The Texas Intensive Silviculture Study was initiated to evaluate the effects of clearcut harvesting and contemporary site preparation techniques on water quality. The study was conducted on nine small and four large watersheds located in the encompassing Neches River Watershed in East Texas. The study sites were previously monitored in the late 1970s and early 1980s, thus, providing a basis for comparison between stream sedimentation effects evident with and without modern BMPs (McBroom et al., 2008).

Some of the improved BMPs applied in the watersheds studied include (McBroom et al., 2008):

• development of streamside management zones that are wider and more consistent with greater tree density providing for better rainfall interception, higher rates of evapotranspiration, and greater overall protection of stream channels and riparian flow source areas, resulting in lower rates of sediment loss;

• redistribution of logging slash into erosion sensitive areas like skid trails, where surface erosion is more likely;

• minimizing the number and size of skid trails to help reduce potential soil movement;



• use of site preparation practices to reduce the amount of bare soil near streams, minimizing potential soil detachment and movement; and,

• conducting ripping on the contour to prevent the development of preferential flow paths that act as direct conduits for sediment plumes to enter streams.

Study results indicated that first-year water quality effects of contemporary silvicultural practices that implemented these improved BMPs were significantly lower than those from harvesting and site preparation without BMPs in the early 1980s (McBroom et al., 2008). In general, storm runoff was found to increase significantly following harvest, with increases ranging from 0.94-13.73 cm in 2003; however, the level of sediment loss to stream systems following harvest was only one-fifth of that observed in 1981. In addition, the specific use of streamside management zones was also found to be effective in stabilizing stream channels and preventing direct application of silvicultural chemicals to streams.

A l t e r n a t i v e & R e c o m m e n d e d T e c h n o l o g i e s & P r a c t i c e s Best Management Practices have been implemented in the forestry sector for many years now. Oftentimes BMPs are used to prevent harmful impact to riparian and aquatic habitats and fish and wildlife species due to harvesting practices adjacent to streams, lakes and wetlands. BMPs are intended to meet a standard that no-net-loss of fish or fisheries habitat occur as a result of forestry activities. Further, it is important that harvesting trees is completed with minimum or no impact to surrounding riparian vegetation, the loss of which can influence erosion and sediment runoff into aquatic ecosystems (BCMOE, 2006).

Some Best Management Practices that aim to protect freshwater systems during timber harvests include (SCFC, 2009a):

• plan the harvest to reduce the number of stream crossings required;

• use locations for stream crossings where impacts are likely to be minimal;

• identify other sensitive areas (e.g., riparian areas, ephemeral streams, erosive soils);

• locate log decks away from sensitive areas;

• establish riparian buffers (also known as streamside management zones) adjacent to perennial, intermittent streams, and lakes;

• lay out skid trails to minimize impacts to water resources, and use debris or mats on trails when soils are excessively wet;

• take precautions to minimize excessive rutting in active floodplains, bottomland hardwood swamps, and erosive slopes;

• cease harvesting operations when overland water flow impairs beneficial uses of water bodies downstream from the harvesting operation; and,

• service equipment away from water bodies and wetlands.

There are various other BMPs related to forestry practices in addition to those applied during harvesting, such as for stream crossings and pesticide application. BMPs for stream crossings include (SCFC, 2009b):

• crossing streams at right angles, except where prevented by geologic features;

• maintain gentle approaches to stream crossings where practical;

• use drainage structures on both sides of a crossing to prevent road and ditch runoff from entering the stream;



• ensure proper sizing and installation of culverts to facilitate uninhibited water flow; and,

• consider use of portable bridges instead of culverts.

Protecting aquatic ecosystems is especially important when using pesticides as part of forestry operations. In many cases, significant releases of deleterious chemicals into aquatic systems can result in serious impacts to biological communities. Some BMPs intended to protect watersheds include (SCFC, 2009c):

• never apply pesticides directly to water bodies (e.g., stream, lakes, wetlands) unless specifically prescribed and approved for aquatic management needs;

• avoid broadcast applications of pesticides within primary riparian buffers;

• do all on-site pesticide handling (e.g., tank mixing) away from streams, ponds, and drainage areas; and,

• clean up and/or contain all pesticide spills immediately.

5 . 4 E n e r g y & E c o s y s t e m s The energy sector can be divided into four major subgroups: hydroelectric, fossil fuels, nuclear and biofuels. The division of energy sector industries can also be split up into subgroups of thermal energy (principally nuclear and coal), oil industry, hydroelectric and biofuels. The energy sector is the greatest water user in Canada by a significant margin and accounts for an estimated 76% of natural resource sector water use and 60% of total water use by major sectors (Scharf et al., 2002; StatCan, 2008; Tate and Scharf, 1992; Tate and Scharf, 1995; EC, 2008i).

Water and energy share numerous characteristics: both are limited in supply, essential to human survival, and subject to increasing demand. Water and energy are also intricately linked. For example, delivery of water depends on energy for pumping, while many forms of energy production required a dependable water supply (NRC, 2009b). Given elevated public concern, along with heightened public policy interest in water allocation and availability, there are likely to be serious repercussions on the future operations of energy industries (Feeley III et al., 2007).

5 . 4 . 1 W a t e r U s e , B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s & T e c h n o l o g i e s Although the energy sector uses greater volumes of water than any other user, there are significant differences between the water quantity and quality impacts associated with each major subgroup. A general description of different energy subgroups is provided below.

Thermal Energy Self-supplied, surface freshwater sources are the principal source of intake and discharge for thermal energy, particularly in the case of large users (EC, 2008j). Compared to other major water users, thermal power generation dominates total water withdrawals, extracting approximately 36,345 MCM in 2005. After use, approximately 31,247 MCM (i.e., ~86%) was discharged (EC, 2008d). In addition, reuse rates of water have increased significantly in recent years (EC, 2008j), with a total recirculation volume of 4207 MCM in 2005 (EC, 2008d).

Coal and nuclear power plants generate electricity by converting water into high-pressure steam to drive the turbines, and then using water as a coolant to condense the steam back into water (EC, 2008j). The main issues associated with water use by thermal power generating plants include the impacts of withdrawing large volumes from aquatic ecosystems, the effects of temperature change to these ecosystems following discharge (i.e., thermal pollution), and the potential release of impurities into watersheds (USGS, 2004).



Oil Industries Considerable volumes of water are used for the extraction of oil, with much of the water consumed not available for reuse (EC, 2008f). For example, in the oil sands water use is approximately 176 MCM per year. In Alberta, 5% of sectoral water allocations went to oil sands extractions in 2007, while 2% of allocations went to conventional oil and gas operations (CAPP, 2009a). In the oil industry, water is primarily used for (EC, 2008f):

• fluid make-up to maintain formation pressures for production of light crude;

• tertiary recovery methods; and,

• extracting heavy crude from oil sands.

For the extraction of light crude, both oil and water are pumped to the surface, which declines formation pressures. To counteract this decline in pressure, fluid (e.g., fresh, brackish, saline or recycled water) is injected “downhole”. When a well is first tapped, the percent of oil recovery can be quite high, requiring large volumes of fluid for injection downhole to replace the original subsurface formation of oil and water. As the recovery of oil lessens, less fluid may be required (EC, 2008f).

Tertiary methods that involve overpressurization techniques and injection of surfactant solutions, steam and other fluids can also require the use of water. Freshwater consumed in these activities usually become highly contaminated, making the water not available for future reuse (EC, 2008f). Tertiary techniques may also remove water completely from the hydrologic cycle by using water to replace oil that has been extracted. Freshwater used for these purposes cannot be recovered (CERI, 2004).

Extraction of oil can also lead to the degradation of groundwater reserves in shallow aquifers when there are leaks around well casings and pipelines, or there is shallow disposal of saline formation waters. Given the large number of wells and pipelines in certain regions of Canada, these types of water quality impacts could potentially expand from a local to a regional scale (EC, 2008f).

Hydroelectric Power Generation There are different types and sizes of hydropower installations in Canada, ranging from micro hydro plants to mega-installations. The amount of electricity generated from a hydro power installation depends on the volume of water flowing through the turbine and on the height from which the water falls (i.e., amount of head). In Canada, there are over 600 large dams and 54 inter-basin diversions (i.e., withdraws water from its basin of origin for use in another drainage basin) created mainly for the purpose of hydroelectric power generation (Bergkamp, Dugan and McNeely, 2000). Canada also has over 5,500 small hydro sites generating from 20-25 megawatts and contributing approximately 3% of the national hydroelectric capacity (ISHA, 2009).

Larger hydropower installations can influence aquatic ecosystems in numerous ways. Upon construction of a reservoir, the water area above the dam will change from a lotic system to a lentic system, with corresponding changes in hydrologic and ecological processes. In addition, diurnal and seasonal variations in the demand for water and/or energy cause both short- and long-term variations in discharge that are quite different from those in an undammed system (EC, 2008k).

Through impoundment and increased residency times, dams alter water temperatures and chemistry, thus, influencing rates of biological and chemical processes. Drawdown reservoirs can impart significant erosional and sedimentation effects. Dams also impact physical and biological exchange processes by creating barriers to the upstream-downstream movement of nutrients and organisms. Furthermore, dams change biogeochemical cycles, and the resulting structure and function of aquatic and riparian habitat, by altering the timing and magnitude of downstream fluxes of water, sediment and



ice. On large rivers, the physical and ecological effects of flow regulation can be experienced several hundreds of kilometres downstream, with compounding and cumulative effects occurring in watersheds with a series of dams (EC, 2008k).

Biofuels Biofuel production can impact both freshwater quantity and quality in a number of ways; however, the means by which freshwater sources are used varies depending on where crops and biorefineries are located. For example, the water use requirements of biomass feedstock crops depend on the type of crops, the location in which they are grown, and how they are managed (Perlack et al., 2005). While the majority of crops are not irrigated, their yield is usually dependent on water availability (Linderson, Iritz and Lindroth, 2007). In addition, biofuel crops grown on marginal lands often require significant inputs of nutrients and water to maintain productivity (Schmer et al., 2008).

Studies have indicated that water requirements for biofuel crops can be met effectively through the use of municipal wastewater (Borjesson and Berndes, 2006). Similarly, contaminated groundwater can also be used for crop production. The groundwater can either be pumped out for irrigation, or be used through passive uptake by the roots of the feedstock crops, depending on the groundwater accessibility and the depth to which plant roots can penetrate (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2009). Of further benefit, restoration of contaminated groundwater has been demonstrated at several phytoremediation sites growing short crops (McCutcheon and Schnoor, 2003).

Biorefineries also require a significant amount of water to convert biomass to fuel (NRC, 2008). Water demands are primarily for process and cooling purposes, with some of the greatest consumptive losses coming from boiler blowdown and evaporation in the cooling tower (Aden, 2007). Of note, research has shown that biochemical conversion processes have greater projected water requirements (e.g., 6 gallons of fresh water per 1 gallon of ethanol produced) than do thermochemical conversion processes (e.g., 2 gallons of fresh water per 1 gallon of ethanol produced) (Williams et al., 2009).

Water quality impacts can also be associated with the agricultural processes required to generate biofuel feedstock. As land is converted to produce biomass feedstock, water quality in catchment areas could potentially be degraded further (TRS, 2008). Impacts from biomass crop production can be registered locally, such as with runoff and percolation of agrochemicals into local surface water and groundwater resources, and on a large scale, as has been witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico with an increase in its anoxic zone attributed to nitrate from the Mississippi River (Turner, Rabalais and Justic, 2008).

Given that the Canadian energy sector water withdrawals are greater than any other major user in the country, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Best Available Technologies (BATs) to make water use more efficient is essential to ensure the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems. The following two case examples examine different BMPs and BATs in use or currently being developed to achieve greater water efficiency in energy generation.

Case Studies & Examples Alberta’s Oil Sands – Water Quantity Issue Unlike conventional methods of oil recovery, where crude oil flows naturally or is pumped from the ground, oil sands must be extracted in place. Recovery processes for oil sands can be done either through open-pit mining or deep underground production (CAPP, 2009b), requiring significant amounts of water to remove the very heavy oil (i.e., bitumen) from sand through extraction and separation



systems. As a result, oil sands operations in Alberta are licensed to extract water for these purposes, much of which comes from the Athabasca River (Taylor, 2009).

With global energy demand growing, there is an increase of companies applying for oil sands development, and consequently, the ability to extract water from regional aquatic systems. The rate of industry growth in the oil sands has created a need for innovative solutions to deal with water use (Taylor, 2009). Oil sands mining projects are currently licensed to withdraw 370 MCM of freshwater per year from the Athabasca River; however, taking into account all planned oil sands projects, annual water withdrawal demands will increase to 529 MCM. There is general agreement among stakeholders that this volume of withdrawal would not be sustainable given the limited capacity of the Athabasca River to supply this volume of water. In addition, research suggests that climate change impacts may result in drier, warmer conditions, which could further limit freshwater supplies from the Athabasca River (NRC, 2009c).

To address the issue of freshwater conservation, various industry-driven solutions have been developed in recent years. Some of these solutions are as follows:

• Petrobank Energy and Resources have spent the past three years field testing a new THAITM technology (Toe to Heel Air Injection), which uses a unique in situ combustion process that is a net water producer. In addition, the system does not require natural gas to heat water into steam, as do other production processes such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD). The THAITM technology uses combustion instead of steam to liquefy bitumen deep underground, heating the bitumen to a point where the oil is partially upgraded. According to the developer, the technology enables bitumen to be pumped to the surface and allows for a higher recovery of the resource (from 70% to 80%), cuts greenhouse gas emissions by half, and uses negligible volumes of freshwater. Operations above ground require less surface area and provide easier reclamation. Capital and operating costs are reduced given that the THAITM technology only requires one horizontal well and does not need the large steam and water handling facilities associated with more conventional processes (CAPP, 2009c).

• In 2007, the Devon Energy Jackfish Project, located near Conklin, Alberta, became the first oil sands operator to use brackish water to create steam in its SAGD operations. Brackish water is highly saline water coming from deep underground that is not suitable for drinking or agriculture. More specifically, Devon used 100% saline water as an alternative to freshwater. There were upfront financial costs associated with using brackish water, such as finding a suitably saline aquifer through drilling and testing of water quality, as well as incorporating special provisions for coolers, chemical batching and make up water systems that would conventionally operate using freshwater; however, Jackfish now circulates over 20,000 cubic metres of saline water each day with over 95% being recycled and reused in steaming operations (CAPP, 2009d).

• Petro-Canada’s Gold Bar project at the company’s Edmonton refinery uses nine million litres of wastewater per day from the City of Edmonton’s Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Facility, rather than drawing water from the North Saskatchewan River. The Gold Bar plant uses membrane filtration to block solids and other high molecular materials dissolved in water, while allowing water and lower molecular particles to pass through, thereby supplying the clean water required in the process. The recycled water is sent along a 5.5 km pipeline to the refinery, supplying surplus water to ski clubs making snow in the winter and city parks and golf courses irrigating in the summer (CAPP, 2009e).



• Petro-Canada MacKay River in situ facility demonstrates the only fully-functional Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system in the oil sands industry. Unlike most in situ operators where water with a high saline content produced during extraction processes is pumped into an underground disposal well, the MacKay River facility treats the water to remove salts and recycles it to produce more injection steam used for further bitumen extraction. As such, more than 90% of required injection steam is recycled continuously, meaning very little freshwater withdrawal is necessary. The ZLD system is also cost-effective, helping Petro-Canada reach new production records, and saving significant costs typically reserved for third-party waste disposal (CAPP, 2009f).

Innovations for Existing Plants Program – Water Quantity Issue Thermoelectric power generation is a broad category of power plants consisting of coal, nuclear, oil, natural gas, and the steam portion of gas-fired combined cycles. Thermoelectric generation represents the largest segment of U.S. electricity production (Feeley III et al., 2008), and accounted for 39% of all freshwater withdrawals in 2000, which is primarily used for cooling purposes (USGS, 2004). Water withdrawals refer to the total water taken from a source, while water consumption represents the amount of water withdrawal that is not returned to the source.

Large volumes of cooling water are required for thermoelectric power plants to support the generation of electricity. Essentially, there are two types of cooling system designs: once-through (open loop) and recirculating (closed loop). In once-through systems, the cooling water is withdrawn from a local water body and the warm cooling water is subsequently discharged back to the same water body. There are three common varieties of recirculating cooling water systems, including wet cooling towers, cooling ponds, and air cooled steam condensers (Feeley III et al., 2008). Wet cooling towers are used to dissipate the heat from the cooling water to the atmosphere, while cooling ponds accomplish evaporation without the use of a mechanical device. Air-cooled systems, also referred to as dry recirculating cooling systems, use either direct or indirect air-cooled steam condensers. Direct condensers do not use cooling water, while indirect systems have minimal withdrawal and consumption.

Coal-fired power plants equipped with once through or cooling pond systems withdraw large amounts of water, but less than 5% is consumed. Conversely, wet cooling tower systems withdraw 30-50 times less water, but more than 75% of the water is lost during plant operations, meaning these systems consume almost 5 times the water consumed in once-through systems (Feeley III et al., 2008). Recent estimates show the thermoelectric generating capacity is expected to increase by nearly 22% between 2005 and 2030 (US DOE, 2006). Recognizing the emerging importance of water in the context of energy supply, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has begun developing advanced technologies aimed at reducing freshwater withdrawal and consumption associated with thermoelectric generation. These advanced technologies, categorized in Table 9, are part of the NETL’s Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) Program.



Table 9: IEP Energy-Water Technology Categories & Current Projects

Technology Category Description

Category A:

Provide alternate source of cooling water make-up

• Use of produced water in recirculated cooling systems at power generation facilities and development of an impaired water cooling system

• Development and demonstration of modeling framework for Assessing the Efficacy of using mine water for thermoelectric power generation

• Reuse of treated internal or external wastewaters in the cooling systems of coal-based thermoelectric power plants

Category B:

Increase cycles of concentration for wet recirculating systems, thereby

decreasing wet cooling tower blowdown requirements

• A synergistic combination of advanced separation and chemical scale inhibitor technologies for efficient use of impaired water as cooling water in coal-based power plants

• Application of pulsed electrical field for advanced cooling in coal-fired power plants

Category C:

Advanced cooling technology

• Use of Air2AirTM technology to recover freshwater from the normal evaporative cooling loss at coal-based thermoelectric power plants

Category D:

Reclaim water from combustion flue gas for use as cooling water make-up

• Water extraction from coal-fired power plant flue gas

• Recovery of water from boiler flue gas

• Reduction of water use in FGD system

Category E:

Reduce cooling tower evaporative losses via coal drying

• Use of coal drying to reduce water consumed in pulverized coal power plants

Reference: Feeley III et al., 2008.

The IEP Program is primarily focused on coal-fired power generation, but many of the technologies are transferable to other forms of thermoelectric power generation. The program had established two major objectives (Feeley III et al., 2008):

• Short-term : have technologies ready for commercial demonstration by 2015 that, when used alone or in combination, can reduce freshwater withdrawal and consumption by 50% or greater for thermoelectric power plants equipped with wet recirculating cooling technology at a levelized cost of less than $2.40 per thousand gallons freshwater conserved; and,

• Long-term: have technologies ready for commercial demonstration by 2020 that, when used in combination, can reduce freshwater withdrawal and consumption by 70% or greater at a levelized cost of less than $1.60 per thousand gallons freshwater conserved.



Although these technologies may be ready for deployment by 2015, it would likely require from 5 to 15 years for the technologies to be fully implemented across the industry. Based on research to date, the percent reduction in water withdrawal and consumption for each IEP technology category, and plausible combinations thereof, are presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Potential Water Withdrawal and Consumption Reductions by IEP Technologies

Category Combination

Freshwater Withdrawal Reduction % Freshwater Consumption Reduction %

A All generation types: 27.0% All generation types: 27.0% B All generation types: 11.1% All generation types: 0.0% C All generation types: 20.0% All generation types: 20.0%

D Coal: 3.8% Fossil/non-coal: 5.9% NGCC: 8.8% IGCC: 8.7%

Coal: 3.8% Fossil/non-coal: 5.9% NGCC: 8.8% IGCC: 8.7%

E Coal: 5.6% Coal: 5.6% AB All generation types: 38.1% All generation types: 30.4% AC All generation types: 47.0% All generation types: 47.0% BC All generation types: 28.9% All generation types: 20.0%

ABC All generation types: 55.9% All generation types: 50.4%

ABCDE



Adapted from: Feeley III et al., 2008. Note: Fossil/non-coal – inclusive of natural gas, oil and nuclear generation; NGCC – Natural Gas Combined Cycle; IGCC – Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.

5 . 4 . 2 A l t e r n a t i v e & R e c o m m e n d e d T e c h n o l o g i e s & P r a c t i c e s In addition to the industry-led case examples described above, there are other water conservation strategies being utilized or researched in the oil sands industry. These include (NRC, 2009c):

• recapture and reuse of mining tailings water; and,

• research in situ bitumen recovery methods that use solvents, and are non-thermal and do not require water for steam.

Water use efficiency is not the only challenge facing oil sands operations. After companies use hot water to separate bitumen from sand in open-pit mining operations, the water is sent to tailings ponds; often discontinued mine pits (CAPP, 2009b). Tailings ponds contain concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals and can pose risks through the potential contamination of groundwater and surface water supplies (Taylor, 2009). As such, a number of treatment options for handling tailings are being utilized and researched. However, treatment options that work best are often project-specific, meaning the tailings technologies that are most effective for one project may be less effective for another (Harrison, 2009). Some of the different treatment options currently in use or being researched are as follows:



• water capping involves covering a deposit of fine tails with a layer of water to form a lake. Tests have shown these lakes will evolve into natural ecosystems, eventually supporting healthy plants, animals and fish (Harrison, 2009);

• composite tails combines fine tails with gypsum and sand, causing the tailings to settle faster than they would on their own, thus, speeding up the process of developing landscapes of grass, trees and wetlands (Harrison, 2009);

• waste carbon dioxide (CO2) can be injected into the tailings slurry lines before the tailings enter a pond. The carbon dioxide reacts to form carbonic acid, which changes the pH of the tailings mixtures and allows the fine clays, silts and sand to settle quickly. The leftover water can be immediately recycled for reuse in the bitumen extraction process (Harrison, 2009);

• spray freezing of tailings ponds water can be used in colder climates to produce ice melt runoff of a significantly reduced toxicity, with effective reductions in organic and inorganic contaminants. The process is simple and can provide an economically and technically feasible wastewater treatment alternative (Gao, Smith and Sego, 2003);

• centrifuging entails the spinning out of water from fine tails. This method has been piloted twice in the past two years and research is ongoing. Results show that centrifuging is a fast, but costly treatment process (Harrison, 2009);

• thickened tails, or paste technology is being researched, where tailings discharged to ponds are first sent through a product separating vessel to thicken the mixture. The fine solids settle out rapidly and are pumped out as a viscous fluid with a paste-like consistency. This soft clay will be immediately used for reclamation into a finished landscape (Harrison, 2009); and,

• researchers at the University of Alberta are studying how micro-organisms may be able to assist in breaking down the chemical compounds of tailings ponds and turn them into methane gas. Results have shown that this treatment is feasible but further investigation is necessary to determine whether the process can be accelerated or increased in scope and impact (Taylor, 2009).

In hydropower, there has been a growing trend towards run-of-the-river (i.e., low head) installations (NRC, 2009b). These small hydro facilities require only sufficient upstream storage to balance flows and to develop the necessary head across the plant (EC, 2008k). Since low-head dams require a smaller impounded area than large hydro projects, there is less environmental impact; however, one of the limiting factors for run-of-the-river operations is economic feasibility. Given the lower hydro head means lower power output per unit of flow, run-of-the river projects must move greater volumes of water to produce the same amount of electricity as high head hydro. Typically, this requires larger equipment and civil structures, resulting in higher development costs (NRC, 2008b).

To address this issue of economic feasibility, Natural Resource Canada’s CanmetENERGY research group and the University of New Brunswick have partnered to develop a permanent magnet generator and power converter for low head hydro applications. This technology eliminates the need for some of the expensive equipment used in conventional turbines and enables turbines to operate at variable speeds to ensure maximum efficiency at all times. As a result, the technology can significantly improve the economics of developing run-of-the-river hydro sites (NRC, 2008b).

Many species of fish must migrate upstream and downstream of hydro facilities to complete their life cycle activities (e.g., feeding, spawning). Fish-friendly turbine technology is another means of reducing the impacts of low-head dams on aquatic ecosystems. This technology aims to minimize the risk of injury or death to fish by providing a safer approach for passage through hydraulic turbines. These



movements are often hampered by dams built on rivers and reservoirs for hydroelectric generation (NRC, 2008c).

The CanmetENERGY research group is investigating one example of a successful fish-friendly turbine that has been operational in France since 2007. Initial on-site tests have showed excellent energy performance and fish-friendliness (NRC, 2008c). For example, using eels to compare their fish-friendly turbine with an equivalent turbine in terms of head and capacity, tests have shown that this technology provides the highest survival rate of all hydraulic turbines and reduces induced mortality by a rate between five and ten times (Leclerc, 2008). At present, CanmetENERGY is planning on field testing this technology in Canada to evaluate its performance under Canadian winter conditions (NRC, 2008c).



6 . 0 D I S C US SI O N & L ES SO NS LE AR N E D There are several lessons that can be taken from the water allocation and ecosystem-based approaches described in this study. First, it is important to recognize that water use and human-induced landscape changes that influence water supply and quality are essential characteristics of socio-economic development (Falkenmark, 2003); however, as a society, it is also necessary to recognize that natural system variability, dynamic change and degradation are a function of numerous natural processes, including weather, entropy, erosion, fire, energy and nutrient cycles. Human activities can, and do, influence and interfere with natural systems but they are not the only drivers that require consideration (Thomas, 2009).

To effectively balance ecological and anthropogenic needs, an integrated and holistic approach in managing freshwater resources is necessary. The ecosystem approach to water management is recognized as an effective means to achieve the long-term sustainability of aquatic ecosystems. This strategy aims to manage land, water and biological communities in a way that promotes conservation and sustainable use through collaborative, interdisciplinary and adaptive methods (IUCN, 2001; Quinn, 2002; Thomas, 2009). Given that all activities impacting water quality, quantity or rate of flow have corresponding impacts downstream, it is most effective to use a watershed approach as a means to understand and manage water and its use. This means that every activity occurring in a watershed is considered, whether it be naturally occurring or human-induced (Gregersen, Ffolliott and Brooks, 2007). Limiting water management to single jurisdictions (e.g., towns, municipalities) inevitably fails to achieve full consideration of all influences on a watershed and the cumulative impacts that can occur with water movement downstream.

There are significant jurisdictional challenges that exist in Canada which can inhibit effective implementation of an ecosystem-based approach on larger scales. These challenges exist at general governance levels (i.e., municipal, provincial, federal) and between agencies (e.g., various provincial and federal departments of environment, fisheries, natural resources). When different agencies are responsible for separate aspects of the same ecosystems, it can be difficult to get the various regulators to define or agree on an appropriate ecosystem-level management approach. Since each jurisdiction has a different set of relationships between government agencies at the municipal, provincial and federal levels a single, generic approach to ecosystem-based management is neither practical nor scientifically meaningful; however, developing a general framework under which such ecosystem management approach could best convened, defined and implemented would be valuable, so long as there is opportunity to evaluate each ecosystem based on its own ecological components and drivers (Starzomski, 2009)

In designing a watershed management model, it is essential that ecosystem resilience be protected and key ecological functions be first adequately understood (defined), then maintained (Thomas, 2009). As such, the aquatic ecosystem has the capacity to adapt to natural changes and anthropogenic stresses without jeopardizing functions and key processes essential to ecosystem integrity (Falkenmark, 2003). Watershed management should also accommodated both short- and long term scenarios (both spatially and temporally), generate a range of alternatives, consider water allocation of water for all needs including natural systems, be stake-holder driven and be flexible and adaptive (Viessman, Jr., 1996; Thomas, 2009).

Water allocation and flow regime decisions are necessary in the short-term to accommodate water use demands from the public and industrial sectors; however, it is important to recognize that there are varying temporal scales and lag effects which characterize ecosystem processes. Consequently, objectives for ecosystem management should always also consider and be defined for the longer term (FAO, 2000b). Flexibility and adaptation are both imperative to the management design, since circumstances are constantly changing both in natural systems and with socio-economic development. In addition, management that is effective under one scenario may not work under another (Viessman, Jr., 1996).



Overall, the primary attributes of an effective watershed management approach include: a geographic focus, specifically on the watershed; action driven by environmental objectives, sound scientific research and good data; and, partnerships among key stakeholders influenced by management decisions (Wise and Pawlukiewicz, 1996). Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) is one method that incorporates all three of these attributes. ESWM aims to protect the ecological integrity of impacted ecosystems while meeting short- and long-term anthropogenic needs for water (Richter et al., 2003).

Richter et al. (2003) developed a six-step framework for ESWM that includes: 1) estimating ecosystem flow requirements; 2) determining human influences on the flow regime; 3) identifying human and ecosystem incompatibilities; 4) reaching collaborative solutions; 5) performing water management experiments; and, 6) designing and implementing adaptive water management processes. Each step is an integral part of this ecosystem-based management approach, providing additional information and insight into the needs of aquatic ecosystems, the impacts that may be associated with human activities, and the means with which sustainable and equitable solutions can be achieved.

Estimating ecosystem flow requirements allows for proper consideration of ecological needs throughout the entire planning and water management process (Richter et al., 2003), with an overall objective of preserving ecosystem integrity (IUCN, 2003). To the extent possible, environmental flow prescriptions should always imitate natural flow characteristics (Poff et al., 1997); however, it is important to recognize that the ambient ecological condition must be used as a comparative context when determining flow regimes to sustain aquatic ecological function (Thomas, 2009). How natural flow regimes vary in both spatial and temporal terms from season to season, and from year to year is critical to understanding ambient conditions. Otherwise, an ecological flow determined using only a single year’s data will not likely be reflective of the actual flow regime evident in the aquatic system over time (Thomas, 2009).

One of four general techniques can be applied to determine the minimum flow necessary to protect aquatic ecosystem integrity, with literally hundreds of different calculations available for use (IWMI, 2007). The hydrologic and hydraulic rating approaches are usually most appropriate in situations of low controversy and with limited negotiations of tradeoffs required. The habitat simulation and holistic approaches are generally best applied in medium- or large-scale water management processes with high conservation and/or strategic importance and involving complex, negotiated trade-offs. The holistic approach is the most comprehensive of the four techniques, oftentimes incorporating results from the other three methods.

Since human activities necessarily influence and modify the natural flow of aquatic systems, it is important that the nature, degree, and location of human influences on natural flow regimes are assessed for both current and future use both spatially and temporally (Thomas, 2009). This enables water managers to identify what the potential incompatibilities are between what humans need to maintain socio-economic processes and what aquatic ecosystems need to maintain their resilience. Once incompatibilities have been determined, open dialogue among stakeholders from multiple disciplines is necessary to reach collaborative solutions to water management issues. Oftentimes during these collaborative processes, a number of uncertainties are identified that can potentially obstruct further negotiations. As such, water management experiments can be conducted to resolve such uncertainties and facilitating continued discussions. Once water management decisions have been reached, recommendations must be continually revisited through an adaptive management approach. This ensures that future lessons can be learned from management successes and failures (Richter et al., 2003).

Research conducted in this study has identified various different means by which watersheds can be managed to provide for the long-term sustainability of aquatic ecosystems. Table 11 presents a few case examples that are representative of different components used in ESWM. Further discussion of the lessons learned from these examples is provided further below.



Table 11: Watershed Management Approach Examples

Water Management Instruments Description Outcomes

Interdisciplinary Flow Recommendations – Savannah River, USA

• Preliminary development of a literature review and summary report detailing information to the watershed

• Gathering of 47 scientist and technical experts in a flow recommendations workshop

• Participants asked to develop quantitative flow recommendations for the Savannah River that would sustain river, floodplain and estuarine ecosystems

• Participants sub-divided into working groups, each with the challenge of providing recommendations of a different reach of the river

• Participants re-assigned to new working groups to combine recommendations from each river reach into a unified set of flow recommendations

• Unified recommendations then discussed by the entire group of workshop participants

• Development of comprehensive set of ecological flow recommendations for the Savannah River

• Recommendations were given with respect to dry, average and wet years

• Recommendations incorporated magnitude, frequency, timing, duration and rate of change

• Recommendations considered the following components of the flow regime: low flow, high flow pulses, and flood events with a recurrence interval greater than two years

• Identification of key ecological objectives supported by the flow recommendations

• Identification of critical data gaps and prioritization of critical research needs for each section of river

• Final workshop recommendations considered as first approximation, with intent for long-term evaluation under an adaptive management program

Source Protection Committee under the Clean Water Act, 2006 - Ontario

• Creation of a Source Protection Committee under the Clean Water Act, 2006 to protect drinking water at the source

• Each committee comprised of representatives from watershed communities for every Source Protection area

• Committee members include individuals representative of the agriculture, commercial, and/or industrial sectors, conservation authorities, environment and health groups, land owners, municipal and provincial governments, First Nations, general public and other watershed users

• Committees are to prepare an Assessment Report and Protection Plan for each Source Protection Area they represent

• A Water Budget and Water Quality Risk Assessment (WB/WQRA) is completed as part of the assessment report

• WB/WQRA is completed by: 1) estimating the quantity of water flowing through a watershed; 2) understanding the pertinent processes and pathways water follows; and, 3) assessing the reliability of water supply sources from a quantity and quality perspective through the identification of vulnerable watershed areas

• Level of assessment is divided into a three-tier approach, where areas with water availability is far greater than demand require a less intensive assessment than do highly developed areas with significant water demands

• Tier Three requires consideration of anthropogenic influences, such as hydraulic flow controls, uses of water within and downstream of the area, and average supply and demand within the area

• Protection Plan is completed after the water budgeting and risk assessment, and includes a range of policies to address issues raised in the assessment and ensure implementation and monitoring of plan objectives

Con’d…



Table 12: Watershed Management Approach Examples (Con’d)

Water Management Instruments Description Outcomes

Range of Variability Approach – Chi-Chi Diversion Weir (Taiwan)

• Previous minimum environmental flow estimation of 0.6 m3/s; deemed inadequate by independent research (est. at >40 m3/s)

• Use of Range of Variability Approach (RVA) to evaluate effects of different flow releases and demand reductions

• RVA establishes flow-based river management targets that incorporate concepts of hydrologic variability and aquatic ecosystem integrity using 32 indicators of hydrologic alteration (IHA)

• Natural range of variations in each IHA is set as a flow management target

• 43 years of daily flow records from the Chou-Shui Creek prior to weir development were used to set the natural range of variations for each IHA

• Non-attainment of an IHA defined as percentage of time parameter is outside RVA target ranges

• Substantial inter-annual variations in natural flow characteristics present in creek before diversion weir was built, with average non-attainment rate of 25.3% for 32 IHAs

• Evaluation of flow release of 0.6 m3/s, significant impacts to natural hydrologic regime found; only 13 of 32 IHAs fell within RVA targets, with average non-attainment rate of 73.2%

• Increase of instream flow release to 40 m3/s combined with modified diversion scheme that reduced projected monthly demands on a variable basis (i.e., higher reductions in demand for low-flow periods) resulted in only 3 of 32 IHAs extending beyond RVA targets and an average non-attainment rate of 35.6%

• Implementation of increased flow release (40 m3/s) and modified diversion scheme found to be much more effective in attempts to return the creek’s flow regime to near pre-development conditions

• •

Histogram Matching Approach

• Alternative method to RVA, which only concerns the frequency of an IHA falling within 25th- and 75th-percentile values (i.e., variations within that range not explicitly considered and ignores frequency of IHA outliers)

• Histogram Matching Approach (HMA) attempts to resolve limited flow variability by using a dissimilarity metric to assess flow regime alteration

• Idea behind HMA is that two flow regimes (i.e., pre- and post-impact) would be similar if their frequency histograms of the 32 IHAs resembled one another

• HMA eliminates some of the shortcomings of the RVA

• HMA consistently outperforms RVA in preserving natural flow variability regardless of which type of similarity function is used

• HMA achieves results by reducing the dissimilarities of the pre-impact histograms of the 32 IHAs

• HMA more effective at preserving the biodiversity and ecosystem integrity associated with the full range of natural flow regime

• Weighting can be used when some aspects of a flow regime are of greater importance

• Temporal variations may be incorporated in the HMA to account for inter-annual variability of the natural flow regime

There are various means of achieving the different components of ESWM. The examples listed above provide some insight into methods for estimating ecological flow that consider human-induced impacts and for determining the effectiveness of recommended flow regimes in protecting ecological integrity. The case study examining the determination of ecological flow recommendations for the Savannah River is an excellent model from which Canadian jurisdictions can learn. In organizing a workshop bringing together 47 scientist and technical experts from multiple disciplines, a comprehensive set of ecological flow recommendations were given with respect to dry, average and wet years. The framework incorporated the fundamental characteristics of hydrologic regimes (i.e., magnitude, frequency, timing, duration, rate of change), considered different components of the flow regime and identified key ecological objectives. Workshop participants also identified critical data gaps and prioritized critical research needs for the future (Richter et al., 2006). In bringing together a group of multidisciplinary scientists to develop the ecological flow regime, consideration of environmental objectives and use of sound science were ensured. Although this



process is resource-intensive, it has been proven to produce thorough and inclusive results that take into account seasonal and annual variations in climatic and hydrologic conditions.

The Source Protection Committees mandated under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, 2006 are also an effective collaborative approach for protecting drinking water at its source. The committees are comprised of representatives from various stakeholder groups that are influenced by water management decisions in their respective Source Protection Areas. These groups are responsible for completing an assessment report and protection plan with the aim of determining the quantity of water flowing through a watershed, understanding hydrologic processes and pathways, and assessing the reliability of water supply sources both quantitatively and qualitatively. The level of assessment depends on the level of development and water demand in an area, with the highest level of assessment (Tier Three) requiring in-depth consideration of anthropogenic influences. The protection plan must also deliver a range of policies to address issues identified through committee work, as well as to ensure implementation and monitoring of the plan objectives (OMOE, 2008). By enabling participation of all stakeholders that have a legitimate interest in the watershed management process, a better understanding of the different water use requirements of the public and industrial sectors can be reached. Furthermore, all stakeholders are able to gain a greater appreciation of hydrologic processes and the need for a sustainable approach to protect aquatic ecosystems. Not only are committee members able to recognize and appreciate water needs they are also made aware of the limitations and value of freshwater resources in terms of quality and quanitity.

Both the Range of Variability Approach (RVA) and Histogram Matching Approach (HMA) are tools that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of an ecological flow that has previously been determined. Both approaches use the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) in their methodology. The RVA is a well-known and established method that can be used to either identify or assess ecological flow regimes by determining the degree of non-attainment a flow prescription has in relation to flow-based river management targets based on the IHAs (Shiau and Wu, 2004). However, the approach only takes into account the frequency of an IHA falling within 25th- and 75th-percentile values, failing to consider variations within that range and the frequency of outliers. The HMA is a relatively new technique that appears to address some of the RVA shortcomings by using a dissimilarity metric to assess flow regime alteration. The approach has consistently outperformed the RVA in preserving natural flow variability, and has been more effective in protecting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity (Shiau and Wu, 2008). As such, it would appear as though using the HMA is a more effective means of evaluating the effectiveness of a prescribed flow regime to maintain valuable functions and processes of an aquatic ecosystem. Yet, until the HMA becomes more established for water management experiments, practitioners should use caution when employing the technique. Although the RVA has its deficiencies, it remains a more accepted approach.

There are a number of noteworthy issues to consider when looking at how water governance is being applied in jurisdictions across Canada. Presently, there is great variance in how water is governed between the provinces and territories. While all provinces and territories require some type of permit or license to use or divert freshwater, each jurisdiction allocates, regulates, plans and monitors use differently (NRTEE, 2009c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p). As such, water allocation in Canada is highly fragmented, complex and inefficient (NRTEE, 2009b). Water users in each industrial sector (i.e., agriculture, mining, forestry, energy) are subject to different policies and legislative requirements depending on the area in which they operate. This fragmented approach clearly influences the socio-economic conditions of each sector and creates disparity between aquatic ecosystem protection measures. Since watersheds extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries, there remains a significant risk that over-allocation of water or inadequate pollution controls in one jurisdiction may have considerable downstream consequences. In addition, permits and licenses have generally been administered without sufficient knowledge of water balance within in a watershed. As a result, there are many basins that have been over-allocated, causing significant problems during drought since



most legislation governing water (e.g., prior appropriation) has not been designed to cope with variable hydraulic flows. Water management would be more effective if laws were designed to enable reduced allocations during periods of drought (Shreier, 2009b).

Most, but not all, provinces and territories have legislation in place necessitating the allocation of water for environmental purposes. For those jurisdictions that do not have specific legislation governing environmental water allocations (EWAs), regulatory restrictions under an environmental impact assessment may be placed on a permit or license to allow for an EWA; however, the means by which a province or territory determines an EWA can differ, with jurisdictions using either a percentage system, mean annual flows, or flow indicators combined with ecosystem water reserves (NRTEE, 2009c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p). Disparities between how a EWA is established are also of significant concern, given that allocations for watersheds crossing jurisdictional boundaries may be based on different criteria. In addition, it may be difficult to compare the effectiveness of one EWA approach to another when they apply different methodologies, examine different parameters and measured endpoints over different time periods and places.

Discussed previously, the Fraser Basin Council (FBC) in British Columbia is a unique example of water governance conducted on a regional, watershed-based scale. The FBC brings together all major stakeholders that are influenced by activities in the Fraser River basin to advance sustainability throughout the region (McLaughlin, 2009; FBC, 2004a). The Council strives to make eco-driven policy decisions that consider the interests of all affected stakeholder groups by considering ecosystem needs and functionality in the context of social and economic conditions; however, the FBC is not without its challenges, including issues of enforcement, transparency, consultation, and economic viability. Although the Council includes members from all three levels of government (i.e., municipal, provincial, federal), it operates independently of government authority. As such, water management plans developed by the Council are non-binding, making them difficult to enforce. The FBC has also recognized there is a lack of transparency regarding criteria for licensing and final use, while true consultation is limited in many areas. In addition, insufficient resources to plan and implement watershed management actions have been an ongoing challenge, limiting the economic viability of FBC operations (BC WGPT, 2008).

When these issues of national and regional water governance are compounded with the predicted effects of climate change (e.g., changes instream flow volumes, groundwater recharge, precipitation patterns, water quality; Arnell et al., 2001), it becomes more clear that issues of water scarcity, quality, and allocation will be of increasing importance in the near future. To address these issues, there is a need to increase water use efficiency and improve water quality protection measures. Implementing an ecosystem-based watershed management approach may be a practical starting point; however, action is also required on a sectoral level, where the majority of Canada’s water withdrawal and consumption demands exist. Table 13 presents a number of examples where BMPs or BATs have been recommended or employed to assist in dealing with issues of either water quantity or quality. Discussion of lessons that can be taken from these examples is provided further below.



Table 13: Lessons Learned by Sector

Sector Case Study Example

Management and Technological Initiatives Outcomes

Agriculture The Okanagan Basin of BC – Water Quantity Issue

• Exploring use of groundwater to address water demand issues

• Imposing groundwater metering in priority areas is proposed under the Water Smart Living strategy

• Development of comprehensive water balance assessment and program is underway

• Absence of sufficient aquifer mapping

• Lack of full consideration for aquifer recharge

• Absence of groundwater extraction legislation in BC

• Recommendation for improvements in irrigation efficiency

• Recommendation for a change in crops grown based on use efficiency

• Recommendation for real-time climate and soil moisture monitoring systems to identify when irrigation (and nutrients) is required

• Recommendation to select most efficient irrigation system based on type of crop being harvested

Lower Fraser Valley in BC – Water Quality Issue

• Self-regulation of livestock stocking densities and manure management procedures

• Moving manure from surplus areas to reduce excess application

• Self-regulation insufficient - stocking density well above 4 AUE per hectare

• Moving manure from surplus areas not practiced due to high cost and high energy consumption

• Excess manure and fertilizer application results in receiving water eutrophication

• Nitrate levels of many wells in the Fraser Valley aquifers are above national drinking water guidelines

• Recommendation for the development of policies regulating livestock stocking densities

• Recommendation for the use of technologies for manure processing, energy extraction and nutrient recovery to reduce surplus manure application (lessens water quality impacts and generates revenue for farmers)

Essex County, Ontario – Water Quality and Quantity Issue

• Implementation of a reservoir-controlled drainage/subsurface irrigation system

• Reclaim of drained water for future irrigation

• Significant reductions in nitrate and phosphorus losses from drainage tiles

• Significant increase in corn grain and soybean yields during water deficit situations

Con’d…



Table 13: Lessons Learned by Sector (Con’d)


Management and Technological Initiatives

Outcomes

Mining BHP Billiton Olympic Dam in Australia – Water Efficiency Issues

• More efficient operational practices

• Substitute lower quality recycled water where practicable

• Modify metallurgical processes to reduce water consumption or increase water recovery

• Use high density thickeners to reduce water passing to the tailings system

• Recycle acidic liquids from mine tailings that historically had been evaporated

• Use highly saline water which seeps from the mine for drilling and dust control

• Implement various other minor water conservation programs (e.g., re-use of wash waters)

• Offer assistance to other regional sectors in which water savings are more feasible

• Elevate unit cost of water for industrial purposes

• Overall water savings from combined conservation efforts at mine and plant

• Significant water savings when assisting water conservation efforts in other sectors

• Re-use of process water can cause build-up of salts and other contaminants, eventually impacting process efficiency

Colomac Mine, Northwest Territories – Water Quality Issue

• Use of spray freezing to reduce concentrations of dissolved constituents in tailings water generated as a result of mining operations

• Inexpensive method of significantly reducing contaminant concentrations in tailings pond water

• effective and inexpensive pre-treatment option (in this application)

• technique could prove useful as a full treatment option at tailings ponds of other mines, where a different set of contaminants and/or concentrations is evident

• Viable treatment option only in areas with freezing in the winter months and thawing in the summer months

Con’d…



Table 13: Lessons Learned by Sector (Con’d)


Management and Technological Initiatives

Outcomes

Forestry Texas Intensive Silviculture Study – Water Quality Issue

• Development of Streamside Management Zones that are wider and consistent with greater tree density

• Redistribution of logging slash into erosion sensitive areas like skid trails

• Minimizing the number and size of skid trails

• Use of site preparation practices to reduce the amount of bare soil near streams

• Conducting ripping on the contour to prevent the development of preferential flow paths

• Significant reduction in first-year water quality effects

• Storm runoff increased significantly following harvest, but corresponding sediment loss was only one-fifth of that observed in 1981, prior to use of improved BMPs

• Streamside management zones found to be effective in stabilizing stream channels and preventing direct application of silvicultural chemicals to streams

Energy Alberta’s Oil Sands – Water Quantity Issue

• Petrobank Energy and Resources have developed a Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAITM) technology, which uses combustion instead of steam to liquefy bitumen

• Uses negligible volumes of freshwater

• Allows for a higher recovery (from 70 to 80%) and partial upgrade of the oil

• Cuts greenhouse gas emissions by half

• Reduces capital and operating costs

• Above-ground operations require less surface area

• Devon Energy Jackfish Project uses brackish (highly saline) water in bitumen extraction processes

• Use of 100% saline water as an alternative to freshwater

• Upfront financial costs to drill and test quality of brackish water, as well as changes to infrastructure

• Petro-Canada’s Gold Bar project uses treated wastewater in the company’s Edmonton refinery

• Use of nine million litres of wastewater instead of drawing from the North Saskatchewan River

• Surplus water is used by ski clubs, parks and golf courses

• Petro-Canada MacKay River in situ facility uses a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system

• More than 90% of the required injection steam used for bitumen extraction is recycled continuously through the ZLD system

• The system is cost-effective, helping generate new production records and saving waste disposal costs

Innovations for Existing Plants Program – Water Quantity Issue

• Applicable to thermoelectric power generation

• Provide alternate source of cooling water make-up

• Increase cycles of concentration for wet recirculating systems

• Use advanced cooling technology

• Reclaim water from combustion flue gas for use as cooling water make-up

• Reduce cooling tower evaporative losses via coal drying

• Potential for significant reductions in freshwater withdrawal and consumption, variable to type and combination of technologies used

• Combining use of all five technology categories may result in water withdrawal reductions of 63.7% (coal), 65.7% (fossil/non-coal), 68.7% (NGCC), and 68.6% (IGCC)

• Combining use of all five technology categories may result in water consumption reductions of 59.1% (coal), 61.4% (fossil/non-coal), 64.7% (NGCC), and 64.6% (IGCC)



For Best Management Practices and Best Available Technologies to be effective at improving water efficiency and water quality protection measures on a national scale, they must be feasible/practical to apply on a larger-scale within the respective sector. To varying degrees, recommendations, practices and technologies presented in the above case examples each have some capacity for wider application.

In the case of the Okanagan Basin of British Columbia, water scarcity is an issue of critical importance. Innovative solutions are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of freshwater resources, both for ecological and anthropogenic purposes. Recommendations to improve irrigation efficiency and change the type of crops grown based on use efficiency are good first steps in addressing the regional problem; but it is the development of a comprehensive water balance assessment and program, along with real-time climate and soil moisture monitoring systems that would be influential in determining the level of water available for allocation and the most opportune times for crop irrigation (Schreier, 2009a). These management practices and technologies are seen as being of potential benefit in protecting the quantity and quality of Canada’s freshwater resources, no matter the region of interest.

Water quality impacts associated with the runoff of excessive manure application, as has been witnessed in the Lower Fraser Valley and are prevalent in various parts of Canada. In the long-run, impacts to water quality can eventually result in impacts to the quantity of useable freshwater available in the future. As such, it is important to identify means of protecting freshwater sources from degradation. The two primary drivers of excessive manure application relate to livestock stocking densities and current manure management procedures (Schreier, 2009a). Recommendations to regulate stocking densities and implement use of manure processing technologies for energy extraction and nutrient recovery would be useful in reducing the overall volume of manure; however, incentives may be required. Stocking density regulations are relatively easy to implement from a governance perspective, but are likely to be very controversial with farmers. For example, the European Union heavily subsidized farmers to provide for regulated livestock stocking densities in Denmark. Processing manure could generate benefits, such as alternative sources of energy and nutrients, and would also reduce manure transport costs; currently a prohibitive element for the disposal of livestock waste in areas other than on agricultural land. If regulations are made more flexible and processing facilities are more effectively located, use of such facilities would become much more attractive to farmers, thereby reducing the level of manure applied and better protection for aquatic systems from point and non-point source pollution (Schreier, 2009b).

Using a reservoir-controlled drainage/subsurface irrigation system can be an effective method of both protecting water quality and improving water use efficiency. This new and innovative closed-loop water management technology combines tile drainage, reservoir and controlled drainage with irrigation systems to reduce nutrient loss into the aquatic environment and reduce water use requirements (Tan et al., 2007). This process is equally effective in most productive agricultural regions, and thus, could be applied on a larger scale across Canada so long as the agricultural lands rely on the practice of drainage. It should be noted that the technology is most effective under relatively flat agricultural lands. Modified control structures would be required to ensure effectiveness under higher slope conditions. To ensure large-scale implementation of this new management system, an initial government incentive and/or regulatory instruments may be required to help agricultural producers adopt the technology (Tan, 2009). Nevertheless, the proven effectiveness to both protect water quality and reduce water use, especially during periods of drought, may help justify government support of this type of approach.

The case study examining the BHP Billiton Olympic Dam in South Australia provides an excellent example of BMPs and BATs that can be implemented to reduce water use in areas of freshwater scarcity. Through the use of practices (e.g., substituting lower quality recycled water, utilizing saline water from the mine for drilling and dust control, working with other regional sectors where water savings are more cost-effective) and



advanced technologies (e.g., employing modified metallurgical processes to reduce water consumption and improve water recovery, using high density thickeners to reduce water passing to the tailings system), BHP Billiton has been able to achieve considerable water savings. Of note, experience has shown that the re-use of process water can cause the build-up of salts and other contaminants, eventually impacting process efficiency (Guerin, 2006). Nevertheless, these practices and technologies are of value when water supply is a limiting factor to mining operations. Given the potential for climate change to increase uncertainty regarding water supplies, the BHP Billiton example may have benefit if considered under a Canadian mining application.

Contaminants present in tailings ponds water is another issue of importance to the mining sector. In most cases, these ponds store large volumes of tailings water with significant concentrations of ecologically deleterious contaminants. Treating tailings water is often very costly; however, the process of spray freezing has been shown to be an inexpensive and relatively effective method of significantly reducing contaminant concentrations. The method can be used as either a pre-treatment option or a full treatment option, depending on the set of contaminants and/or concentrations evident in the tailings water (Gao, Smith and Sego, 2000). In addition to treatment of outputs from traditional mining activities, research has shown spray freezing is also effective in remediating oil sands tailings ponds (Gao, Smith and Sego, 2003). It should be noted that spray freezing is a viable treatment option only in areas with freezing in the winter months and thawing in the summer months (Biggar et al., 2005); however, given the considerable amount of Canada’s geography located in such areas, and that mineral exploration and excavation activities are becoming more prevalent in the north, this BMP could be considered to potentially address tailings pond issues in northern regions of Canada.

There are a number of well-known and accepted Best Management Practices in the forestry sector that aim to protect aquatic ecosystems. The Texas Intensive Silviculture Study was initiated to evaluate the BMPs implemented in recent years. Some of the practices employed include developing streamside management zones that are wider and consistent with greater tree density, redistributing logging slash into erosion sensitive areas, minimizing the number and size of skid trails, and preparing sites so as to reduce the amount of bare soil near streams. Results of the study indicated a significant reduction in water quality effects and sediment loss (McBroom et al., 2008). Although the climatic and geographic conditions present in Texas may not be representative of many areas in Canada, the BMPs employed have universal application. Consideration to use of similar practices in Canada could help to protect aquatic ecosystems and assist in meeting the consumptive demands of downstream users.

Water efficiency measures are of greatest importance in the energy sector since its industries represent the largest source of freshwater withdrawals in Canada (EC, 2008i). Recent industry-led innovations in Alberta’s oil sands are excellent examples of the sector’s increased willingness to improve water use efficiency. These innovations include: Petrobank Energy and Resources’ THAITM technology, which improves oil recovery while using negligible volumes of freshwater (CAPP, 2009c); Devon Energy’s Jackfish Project, which uses brackish water as alternative to freshwater (CAPP, 2009d); Petro-Canada’s Gold Bar project, which uses treated wastewater as an alternative to freshwater and shares surplus water with other users (CAPP, 2009e); and, Petro-Canada’s Zero Liquid Discharge system, which continuously recycles 90% of the required injection steam used for bitumen extraction while simultaneously generating new production records and saving waste disposal costs (CAPP, 2009f). Although the technical details of these technologies remain proprietary to the developer they highlight recent approaches and technologies being developed for the protection of aquatic ecosystem integrity. By limiting the volume of freshwater withdrawals, industry can reduce ecological impacts associated with water use and discharge. With proliferation of these new technologies and continued scientific research, Canada’s oil sands industry can be a world leader in water use efficiency.



The U.S. Department of Energy’s Innovations for Existing Plants Program is a unique and groundbreaking strategy to improve water use efficiency in thermoelectric power generation, which is a broad category of power plants consisting of coal, nuclear, oil, natural gas, and the steam portion of gas-fired combined cycles. The program identifies five major groups of technologies to reduce both water withdrawal and consumption. These groups include technologies to: provide an alternate source of cooling water make-up; increase cycles of concentration for wet recirculating systems; achieve advance cooling; reclaim water from combustion flue gas; and, reduce cooling tower evaporative losses. Research results vary depending on the type and combination of technologies used; however, use of all five technological groups may result in water withdrawal and consumption reductions that are significant (Feeley III et al., 2008). These findings are very significant since thermal power generation accounts for approximately 60% of total water use by major sectors in Canada (EC, 2008i). Implementing some or all of these technologies would take time, as many may not be ready for full deployment (Feeley III et al., 2008); however, the potential benefit of the BATs for use on a large scale appears considerable.

Apart from improvements to the water use and water quality protection measures employed by each sector, there may be a need to examine other institutional solutions for periods of drought when water allocation conflicts may pose significant problems. As discussed previously, changing jurisdictional water laws to enable reduced water allocations during times of scarcity is one approach to this issue. Another approach may be to institute either a progressive or variable price structure. Under a progressive structure, a price per volume of water per day would be established with progressive increases in price based on additional volumes used (Shreier, 2009b). With a variable structure, cost per unit of water could depend on available water supplies (i.e., low flow vs. high flow periods) and /or water uses (i.e., industrial vs. residential). If based on available water quantities, the price structure could work within the laws of supply and demand. To discourage waste, a price could be established to support only use of amount needed (Yap, 2009). An example of varying prices based on water use was illustrated in the BHP Billiton Olympic Dam in Australia, where water used for industrial purposes was subject to an elevated unit cost (Guerin, 2006). The premise behind implementing these types of initiatives was that sectoral water users may seek to apply more water efficient processes if freshwater withdrawal costs influence their bottom-line. Thus, an overall reduction in water demand may result.



7 . 0 G AP AN ALY S I S & RE S E AR C H NE E DS 7 . 1 D a t a G a p s & R e s e a r c h N e e d s i n C a n a d a

There are several areas in aquatic ecology, specific to water use, allocation and related ecosystem-based management that are in need of further research. Across Canada, there is a need for knowledge regarding the volumes of water that exists, how quickly they recharge and the interplay between surface and ground water sources (McLaughlin, 2009). Furthermore, objective research, monitoring and data collection in areas of hydrometrics, mapping, and groundwater inventories is necessary to facilitate effective planning processes (BC WGPT, 2008).

There is also a need for an interactive knowledge base for ecosystem needs of water in all its forms. For example, improvements are required in methods to determine minimum flow for environmental services (Schreier, 2009a). As identified previously, there are hundreds of different calculations that can be used to determine ecological flow; however, none are universally accepted (Souchon, Valentin and Capra, 1998). Overall, defining ecosystem flow requirements presents many difficult challenges. A link between flows and the viability of various biota diversity, abundance and richness is not well understood and certainly not known for all populations of native riverine species. Population viability also depends on a number of other ecosystem conditions that are influenced by, or unrelated to, flow variations. Thus, the relationships between flow variables and population variability are further complicated (Richter et al., 2003). Nevertheless, continued research in this area to better understand flow, population relationships and underlying definition of ambient ecological is key to ensuring the effective management of watersheds (Thomas, 2009).

Development of research related to human dimensions lags far behind ecological dimensions (Quinn and Theberge, 2003). To effectively manage water in a catchment area, a more thorough and consistent knowledge of anthropogenic water use and impacts in different geographic regions and under varied climatic conditions is necessary. Without information and data in these areas, it is impossible to manage watersheds in a sustainable fashion. Examples where further study is required include research of nutrient budgeting for agricultural purposes, miniaturizing BATs to enable operation on an individual farm scale, and testing of the most promising BMPs in different climatic settings. In addition, conducting research pertaining to health- and water quality-related effects of pathogen transfer from livestock to water is especially important, given increases in climatic variability (Schreier, 2009b). In the mining sector, water that has been altered by extraction activities to the extent where further reuse is limited (during and post mine operation) requires quantification (EC, 2008f).

Regarding planning processes for ecosystem-based management, further research into the protocols for tradeoffs and establishing relative values to ecosystem function and water supply is required (Viessman, Jr., 1996). This includes economic measures, weights, qualitative indices, contingent valuation techniques, and other approaches. Establishment of such measures is a critical component of determining how best to allocate water for human purposes, while maintaining a sustainable aquatic environment that preserves ecological integrity.



8 . 0 S UM M ARY & RE C O M M E ND AT I O N S Water is the most essential resource in Canada. It is required to sustain life and plays an important role in the operation of most major natural resource sectors. An estimated 12% of Canada’s surface is covered in water (StatCan, 2003), providing an estimated 9% of the world’s renewable freshwater (EC, 2008a). Much of Canada’s accessible water flows north to relatively remote areas (EC, 2008a). Consequently, the ever increasing and competing demands of private and public interests is for a comparatively limited supply of accessible water and, as a result, led to the degradation of ecosystems, contamination of water bodies, and overuse of water in many regions. This behaviour has created water quality and quantity challenges which further complicate allocation of the resource (Bakker, 2009; de Loë, 2009).

Given that water use is allocated through different methods, depending on jurisdiction, there is a great deal of variability and fragmentation in rules governing individual operations and sectors as a whole (NRTEE, 2009b). Further, how jurisdictions determine the water requirements of aquatic ecosystems also differs significantly (NRTEE, 2009c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p). Impacts of climate change are likely to exacerbate challenges to water management to an even greater extent, with resource availability expected to reduce due to changes arising from factors such as altered rainfall patterns, increased evapotranspiration, altered stream flow regimes, and degraded water quality (Arnell et al., 2001).

In July 2009, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy retained the services of G3 Consulting Ltd. to complete this study on the essential needs of aquatic ecosystems and the use and allocation of freshwater for human purposes. Particular focus was afforded to identifying, researching and understanding the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Best Available Technologies (BATs). Specifically, examining practices and technologies aimed at achieving more sustainable management of freshwater systems through ecosystem-based approaches and improved operations in the natural resource sectors, in anticipation of water-related challenges imposed by climate change. To identify practices and technologies of significance, G3 completed a Meta analysis of both published and unpublished literature and sought knowledge and insight from experts in various fields of applied study.

Freshwater aquatic ecosystems are valuable from both anthropogenic and ecological perspectives, providing recreational use, a means of navigation and transport, dilution of pollutants, and habitat and structure for living resources. Such systems can be divided into two (2) main categories: fast-flowing and unidirectional waters (i.e., lotic), such as rivers and streams; and, open, very slow-moving waters (i.e., lentic), such as lakes and reservoirs (Wetzel, 2001). Terrestrial ecosystems, groundwaters, wetlands, estuaries and marine environments all share interactive roles with freshwaters, providing sources of water supply, quality maintenance, and nutrient inputs (Wetzel, 2001; Dennison and Schmid, 1997; Alongi, 1998; Kennish, 2000).

In general, there are five (5) dynamic environmental drivers that regulate the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems, with the relative importance of each depending on the ecosystem type. The flow regime defines the rates and pathways by which precipitation enters aquatic systems as well as the residency time. Sediment and organic matter provide raw material inputs, creating physical habitat, structure, refugia, and nutrient storage and supply. Thermal and light characteristics regulate organism metabolism, activity level, and ecosystem productivity, while chemical and nutrient attributes regulate pH, productivity and water quality. Last, biotic assemblage influences ecosystem process rates and community structure (Baron et al., 2002).

An ecosystem-based approach to water management is recognized as an effective means by which to address the needs of both aquatic ecosystems and human interests. Ecosystem approaches aim to: integrate social and ecological complexities; focus on long-term sustainability; recognize temporal and spatial scales; commit to adaptive management in the face of uncertainty; and, become dedicated to collaborative management processes (Gregersen, Ffolliott and Brooks, 2007; Calder, 2005; Brunner and Clark, 1997;



Yaffee, 1999; Lackey, 1998). Finding the balance between human and ecosystem needs and protection is key to this approach (Falkenmark, 2003).

Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) has been identified as one way of achieving successful management of a watershed. The method seeks to protect the ecological integrity of affected ecosystems while still addressing intergenerational human needs for water through a six-step framework: 1) estimating ecosystem flow requirements necessary to sustain ecological processes and function; 2) determining human influences on flow regime; 3) identifying human use and ecosystem incompatibilities; 4) collaborating in multi-stakeholder groups to reach solutions; 5) executing water management experiments to test uncertainties; and, 6) designing and implementing adaptive management processes (Richter et al., 2003).

Determining the minimum flow required to protect aquatic ecosystems is likely the most important and complicated step in ESWM, facilitating informed planning through the entire water management process (Richter et al., 2003). Ecosystem flows can be established using one of four general techniques: 1) hydrologic; 2) hydraulic rating; 3) habitat simulation; and 4) holistic approaches. Of these techniques, the holistic approach is considered effective when dealing with large-scale water management processes that exhibit high conservation and/or strategic importance and involve complex, negotiated trade-offs between multiple interests (IWMI, 2007). In many cases, holistic approaches incorporate one or more of the other techniques.

Ecological indicators should always be used when establishing environmental flows (Richter and Richter, 2000). Indicators are readily measurable attributes that reflect the conditions and dynamics of broad, complex attributes of ecosystem health (City of Portland, 2005). They reflect biological, chemical or physical attributes of ecological condition. Ecological indicators are also essential to testing the effectiveness of prescribed flow regimes and implementing adaptive management processes which monitor ecological processes (US EPA, 2000b). For aquatic ecosystems, indicators typically measure functions of hydrology, physical habitat, water quality, and biological communities (City of Portland, 2005).

Research identified a few key examples where ESWM components were successfully applied. For example, the effective use of a holistic approach for determining ecological flows was exemplified by the Savannah River case study, where a workshop was organized consisting of various scientist and technical experts from multiple disciplines. Among several deliverables, workshop participants recommended an ecological flow regime that varied discharge based on seasonal and yearly hydrologic and hydraulic patterns, and identified key ecological objectives (Richter et al., 2006). The Source Protection Committees mandated under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, 2006 and the partnerships employed as part of the Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy are excellent examples of a multi-stakeholder group collaborative approach, considering both ecological flow requirements and anthropogenic influences (OMOE, 2008). The Range of Variability and Histogram Matching approaches both provide valuable means of testing uncertainty and the effectiveness of a set environmental flow in protecting ecological integrity (Shiau and Wu, 2004; Shiau and Wu, 2008).

Implementation of an ecosystem-based approach is important to sustainably manage Canada’s freshwater resources; however, improvements in practices and technologies on a sectoral level are also required to address the water scarcity challenges posed by anticipated climate changes. Development and implementation of sector-specific BMPs and BATs has produced many lessons learned relating to reduced impacts and improved water use. Examples from the energy and agriculture sectors are particularly noteworthy. Given that energy and agriculture sectors represent the largest sources of water withdrawal and consumption, respectively (EC, 2008d), improvements to how these industries apply water management will have large and tangible results. Case examples from the oil sands and thermal power industries offer first-rate opportunities to reduce water withdrawals and consumption by significant margins (Feeley III et al.,



2008; CAPP, 2009c,d,e,f). Recommendations for water supply and quality challenges in the Okanagan and Lower Fraser Valley regions present a clear direction for how management actions can be improved to greater protect freshwater resources (Shreier, 2009a).

In summary, this research has emphasized that water management solutions are most effective when attained through the use of adaptive and integrated (holistic) ecosystem-based approaches that incorporate collaborative dialogue from multiple stakeholder groups. Further, this approach must include governance of water through management of watersheds on more localized scales, but be considerate of the larger implications regionally, nationally and internationally. The unique ambient ecological conditions of a given ecosystem should also be appropriately defined and considered, both in terms of spatial and temporal scales as well as natural and anthropogenic variability, before implementation of any given strategy. Implementation of adaptive management procedures that accommodate revision to the process or applied framework are also important as natural and anthropogenic conditions will change with time. Furthermore, continued research and innovation of practices and technologies which aim to reduce water quantity and quality impacts, brought about by resource sectors, will help to address anticipated impacts associated with climate change.



9 . 0 B I B L I OG RAP H Y Aden, A. 2007. Water usage for current and future ethanol production. Southwest Hydrology. 6(5): 22-23.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2000. The health of our water: toward sustainable agriculture in Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch. Ottawa, Canada.

Aley, J., W.R. Burch, B. Conover, and D. Field.1998. Ecosystem management: adaptive strategies for natural resource organizations in the twenty-first century. Taylor & Francis; Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Alongi, D.M. 1998. Coastal Ecosystem Processes. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Arnell, N.W., C. Liu, R. Compagnucci, L. da Cunha, K. Hanaki, C. Howe, G. Mailu, I. Shiklomanov, and E. Stakhiv. 2001. Hydrology and water resources. In: J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.

Bakker, K. 2009. Water Security: Canada’s Challenge. Policy Options. July-August 2009: 16-20.

Ballweber, J.A. 1995. Prospects for comprehensive, integrated watershed management under existing law. Water Resources Update, Universities Council on Water Resources, Issue No. 100, Summer. pp. 19-23.

Baron, J.S., N.L. Poff, P.L. Angermeier, C.N. Dahm, P.H. Gleick, N.G. Hairston, Jr., R.B. Jackson, C.A. Johnston, B.D. Richter, and A.D. Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications. 12(5): 1247-1260.

Beltaos, S., T. Prowse, B. Bonsal, R. MacKay, L. Romolo, A. Pietroniro and B. Toth. 2006. Climatic effects on ice-jam flooding of the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Hydrological Processes. 20(19): 4031-4050.

Bergkamp, G., P. Dugan, and J. McNeely. 2000. Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration. World Commission on Dams Thematic Review, Environmental Issues II.I. Cape Town, SA.

Biggar, K.W., R. Donahue, D. Sego, M. Johnson, and S. Birch. 2005. Spray freezing decontamination of tailings water at the Colomac Mine. Cold Regions Science and Technology 42: 106-119.

Boehrer, B. and M. Schultze. 2008. Stratification of lakes. Reviews of Geophysics. 46: 1-27.

Borjesson, P. and G. Berndes. 2006. The prospects for willow plantations for wastewater treatment in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy. 30: 428-438.

Bormann, B.T., P.G. Cunningham, M.H. Brookes, V.W. Manning, and M.W. Collopy. 1994. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-341; Portland, OR, USA.

Botkin, D.B., P. Megonigal, and R.N. Sampson. 1997. Considerations of the state of ecosystem science and the art of ecosystem research. Background paper for the SERDP-sponsored workshop on management-scale ecosystem research. Santa Barbara, CA. Center for the Study of the Environment. 38.

Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 5. U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/33. Fort Collins, CO, USA.

British Columbia Water Governance Project Team (BC WGPT). 2008. Water Governance Workshop Report: A summary of four regional conversations: Langley, Prince George, Nanaimo and Kelowna.



http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/programs/documents/water_governance/2008_water_governance_summary.pdf

Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark, 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conservation Biology. 11(1): 48-58.

Bulkley, J.W. 1995. Integrated water management: past, present, and future. Water Resources Update, Universities Council on Water Resources, Issue No. 100, Summer. pp. 7-18.

Caissie, D., G. Bourgeois, and N. El-Jabi. 1998. Instream flow evaluation by hydrologically-based and habitat preference (hydrobiological) techniques. Revue des Sciences de l’Eau. 11: 347-363.

Calder, I.R. 2005. Blue Revolution – Integrated Land and Water Resource Management. 2nd Edition. Earthscan; London, UK.

California Department of Water Resources, 1968. Planned utilization of ground water basin: coastal plain of Los Angeles County. Bull. 104, Sacramento, California.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009a. Water Use in Canada’s Oil Sands. http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=154986&DT=NTV

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009b. Tailings Ponds. http://www.capp.ca/environmentCommunity/land/Pages/TailingsPonds.aspx

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009c. A Revolution in Heavy Oil Technology. http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovationStories/Water/Pages/undergroundCombustion.aspx

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009d. Using Undrinkable Saline Water in SAGD. http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovationStories/Water/Pages/usingUndrinkableWater.aspx

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009e. Using Recycled Water Instead of River Water. http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovationStories/Water/Pages/usingrecycledwaterinsteadofriverwater.aspx

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 2009f. Recycling Water with Zero Liquid Discharge at MacKay River.

http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovationStories/Water/Pages/RecyclingWaterwithZeroLiquidDischargeatMackayRiver.aspx

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Canadian environmental quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life – summary table. Update 2007. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/222/

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2006. An Analysis of Canadian and Other Water Conservation Practices and Initiatives.

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/kinkead_fnl_rpt_2005_04_2.1_web.pdf

Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), Oil Sands Supply Outlook - Potential Supply and Costs of Crude Bitumen and Synthetic Crude Oil in Canada 2003-2017 (March 2004). Media briefing presentation available online at: http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/OilSandsSupplyOutlookPresentation.pdf

Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI). 2004. Oil Sands Supply Outlook: Potential Supply and Costs of Crude Bitumen and Synthetic Crude Oil in Canada 2003-2017. Media Briefing Presentation. http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/OilSandsSupplyOutlookPresentation.pdf

Canadian Forest Service (CFS). 2002. 2000-2001 The state of Canada’s forests. Sustainable forestry – a reality in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Ottawa, Canada.



Chang, H., B. Evans and D. Easterling. 2001. The effects of climate change on streamflow and nutrient loading. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37: 973-985.

City of Portland. 2005. Appendix G: Selecting Indicators of Watershed Health. In: Framework for Integrated Management of Watershed Health. Environmental Services, City of Portland. Portland, OR, USA.

Clean Water Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 22.

Cole, A.G. 1983. Textbook of limnology. 3rd Edition. CV Mosby Company; London, UK.

Colette, A. 2009. Etudes de cas: changement climatique et patrimoine mondial. UNESCO. Paris, FR.

Cosgrove, W.J. and F.R. Rijsberman. 2000. World Water Vision – Making water everybody’s business. EarthScan; London, UK.

Cui, B., N. Tang, X. Zhao, and J. Bai. 2009. A management-oriented valuation method to determine ecological water requirement for wetlands in the Yellow River Delta of China. Journal for Nature Conservation. 17: 129-141.

Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s services – Human dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press; Washington DC, USA.

Dale, V.H. and S. Polasky. 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 64: 286-296.

de Loë, R. 2009. A Canadian Vision and Strategy for Water in the 21st Century. Policy Options. July-August 2009: 21-24.

Dietz, A.C. and J.L. Schnoor. 2001. Advances in phytoremediation. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(Supplement 1): 163-168.

Dennison, M.S. and J.A. Schmid. 1997. Wetland Mitigation: Mitigation Banking and other Strategies for Development and Compliance. Government Institutes Inc.; Rockville, MD, USA.

Deyle, R.E. 1995. Integrated water management: contending with garbage can decision making in organized anarchies. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association. Vol. 31, No. 3, June 1995. pp. 387-398.

Dubé, S., A.P. Plamondon, and R.L. Rothwell. 1995. Watering up after clear-cutting on forested wetlands of the St. Lawrence lowland. Water Resources Research. 31(7): 1741-1750.

Edwards, R.T. and J.L. Meyer. 1987. Metabolism of a sub-tropical low gradient black water river. Freshwater Biology. 17(2): 251-263.

Environment Canada (EC). 2008a. Federal Water Policy. http://www.ec.gc.ca/Water/en/info/pubs/fedpol/e_fedpol.htm

Environment Canada (EC). 2008b. Governance of Water in Canada—Models of Water Management. http://www.ec.gc.ca/Water/en/info/pubs/wwf/e_chap1.htm

Environment Canada (EC), 2008c. Land Use Practices and Changes – Agriculture. http://www.ec.gc.ca/INRE-NWRI/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=12&toc=show

Environment Canada (EC). 2008d. Water Use in Canada, 2005. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_wuse.htm

Environment Canada (EC). 2008e. Water Use – Agriculture. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_agri.htm

Environment Canada (EC). 2008f. Land Use Practices and Changes – Mining and Petroleum Production. http://www.ec.gc.ca/INRE-NWRI/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=14&toc=show



Environment Canada (EC). 2008g. Water Use – Mining. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_mining.htm

Environment Canada (EC). 2008h. Land Use Practices and Changes – Forestry. http://www.ec.gc.ca/INRE-NWRI/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=13&toc=show

Environment Canada (EC). 2008i. The Management of Water, How Water Is Used. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/effic/e_how.htm

Environment Canada (EC). 2008j. Manufacturing and Thermal Energy Demands. http://www.ec.gc.ca/INRE-NWRI/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=11&toc=show

Environment Canada (EC). 2008k. Dams, Reservoirs and Flow Regulation. http://www.ec.gc.ca/INRE-NWRI/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=7&toc=show

Fairweather, P.G., 1999. State of environment indicators of ‘river health’: exploring the metaphor. Freshwater Biology, 41, 211-220.

Falkenmark, M. 2003. Water Management and Ecosystems: Living with Change. Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC) Background Paper, No. 9.

Feeley III, T.J., T.J. Skone, G.J. Stiegel Jr., A. McNemar, M. Nemeth, B. Schimmoller, J.T. Murphy, and L. Manfredo. 2008. Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry. Energy. 33(1): 1-11.

Folke, C. 1997. Ecosystem approaches to the management and allocation of critical resources. In: P.M. Groffman and M.L. Pace (eds.). Success, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science. Cary Conference, Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Millbrook and Springer Verlag; New York, NY, USA.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development 3, Paris, FR.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2000a. New dimensions in water security. J. Lundqvist (ed.). AGL/MISC/25/2000, FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2000b. Annex 7. The ecosystem approach and adaptive management. Conference of the Parties. Commission of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome. May 15-26, 2000.

Fraser Basin Council (FBC). 2004a. Who We Are. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/about_us/who.html

Fraser Basin Council (FBC). 2004b. Board of Directors. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/about_us/board.html

Gao, W., D.W. Smith, and D.C. Sego. 2003. Spray freezing treatment of water from oil sands tailing ponds. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science. 2(5): 325-334.

Gao, W., D.W. Smith, and D.C. Sego. 2000. Freezing temperatures of freely falling industrial wastewater droplets. Journal of Cold Regions Engineering. 14(3):101-118.

Gillilan, D.M. and T.C. Brown. 1997. Instream flow protection: seeking a balance in western water use. Island Press; Washington, D.C., USA.

Gopalakrishnan, G., M.C. Negri, M. Wang, M. Wu, S.W. Snyder, and L. Lafreniere. 2009. Biofuels, Land, and Water: A Systems Approach to Sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology. 43(15): 6094-6100.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, B.L. Finlayson, C.J. Gippel, and R.J. Nathan. 2004. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, USA.



Graham, M.C. and J.G. Farmer. 2007. Chemistry of Freshwaters. In: R.M. Harrison (eds.). Principles of Environmental Chemistry. RSC Publishing; Cambridge, UK.

Gregersen, H.M., P.F. Ffolliott, and K.N. Brooks. 2007. Integrated Watershed Management: Connecting People to their Land and Water. CAB International; Oxfordshire, UK, USA.

Guerin, T.F. 2006. A Survey of Sustainable Development Initiatives in the Australian Mining and Minerals Industry. Minerals & Energy. 3-4:11-44.

Hall, M.W. 1996. A conceptual model for integrated water management. Paper prepared for workshop on Total Water Environment Management for Military Installations. U.S. Environmental Policy Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Harrison, L. 2009. Oilsands Tailings Ponds Creators Respond to New Rules. New Technology Magazine. http://www.ntm.nickles.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000334165

Hoffman, N., G. Filoso, and M. Schofield. 2005. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin: The Loss of Dependable Agricultural Land in Canada. Agriculture Division, Statistics Canada; Ottawa, Canada.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: 1-23.

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology. 10(2): 328-337.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2008. Climate Change and Water. B.C. Bates, Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof (eds.). IPCC Secretariat; Geneva, Switzerland.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In: S. Solomn, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Fresh Water Resources and their Management. In: M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.

International Small-Hydro Atlas (ISHA). 2009. Canada: Country Brief. http://www.small-hydro.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=countries.country&Country_ID=13

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2003. Flow: The essentials of environmental flows. IUCN Publication Services; Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2001. The Ecosystem Approach to Water Management. IUCN Publication Services; Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (IUCN and WBCSD). 2008. Agricultural Ecosystems: Facts and Trends. http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/hecbd2TCBtPqRBOGXoi2/AgriculturalEcosystems.pdf

International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2007. Environmental Flow Methodologies – EFM Types. http://dw.iwmi.org/ehdb/efm/Visitors/ViewAllEFMType.asp

Jackson, D.A. and H.H. Harvey. 1993. Fish and benthic invertebrates: community concordance and community-environment relationships. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 50(12): 2641-2651.



Jhingran, V.G. 1975. Fish and fisheries of India. Hindustan Publishing Corporation; Dehli, India.

John, D. 1985. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. 3rd Edition. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Alexandria, VA, USA.

Karr J.R., Fausch K.D. and P.L., Angermeier. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rational. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5.

Kennish, M.J., editor. 2000. Estuary Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary Program. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA.

King, J. and D. Louw. 1998. Instream flow assessment for regulated rivers in South Africa using the building block methodology. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management. 1(2): 109-124.

Kurbatova, S.A. 2005. Response of Microcosm Zooplankton to Acidification. Biology Bulletin. 32(1): 85-92.

Lackey, R.T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 40: 21-30.

Large, A.R.G. and K. Prach. 1999. Plants and water in streams and rivers. In: A.J. Baird and R.L. Wilby (eds.). Eco-hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Routledge; London, UK.

Leclerc, M. 2008. Getting down with VLH turbine R&D. International Power & Dam Construction Magazine. http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2049758

Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, editors. 2008. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Lemmen, D.S. and F.J. Warren, editors. 2004. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Lenntech. 2009a. Calcium (Ca) and water. http://dev.lenntech.com/periodic/water/calcium/calcium-and-water.htm

Lenntech. 2009b. Magnesium (Mg) and water. http://dev.lenntech.com/periodic/water/magnesium/magnesium-and-water.htm

Lenntech. 2009c. Sodium (Na) and water. http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/sodium/sodium-and-water.htm

Lenntech. 2009d. Potassium (K) and water. http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/potassium/potassium-and-water.htm

Lewis Jr., W.M. 1983. A Revised Classification of Lakes Based on Mixing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40(10): 1779-1787.

Linderson, M.L., Z. Iritz, and A. Lindroth. 2007. The effect of water availability on stand-level productivity, transpiration, water use efficiency, and radiation use efficiency of field grown willow clones. Biomass Bioenergy. 31: 460-468.

Manitoba Government. 2009. Integrated Watershed Management Planning. http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/agencies/cd/pdf/iwmp_brochure.pdf

Martin, C.W., J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, and D.C. Buso. 2000. Impact of intensive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 57(Suppl. 2): 19-29.

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: The Ecology of Wood in Stream, Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans. St. Lucie Press; Delray Beach, FL, USA.

Mattice, C.R. 1977. Forest road erosion in northern Ontario: a preliminary analysis. Informal Report O-X-254. Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Research Centre. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.



McBroom, M.W., R.S. Beasley, M. Chang, and G.G. Ice. 2008. Storm runoff and sediment losses from forest clearcutting and stand re-establishment with best management practices in East Texas, USA. Hydrological Processes. 22: 1509-1522.

McCarthy, J.H. 2003. Wetted Perimeter Assessment – Shoal Harbour River, Shoal Harbour, Clarenville, Newfoundland. Amec Earth & Environmental Ltd; St. John’s, NL, Canada.

McCutcheon, S.C. and J.L. Schnoor. 2003. Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants. Wiley-Interscience Ind.; Hoboken, NJ, USA.

McLaughlin, D. 2009. Water and the future of Canada’s natural resource sectors. Policy Options. July-August 2009: 70-73.

Meffe, G.K., L. Nielsen, R.L. Knight, and D. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem management: adaptive community-based conservation. Island Press; Washington, D.C.

Meyer J.L 1997. Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16:439-47.

Michelsen, A. and R. Young. 1993. Optioning agricultural water rights for urban supplies during drought. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75(4): 1010-1020.

Milhous, R.T. 1979. PHABSIM system for instream flow studies. In: Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Society for Computer Simulation. La Jolla, CA, USA.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press; Washington, DC, USA.

Mining Association of Canada (MAC). 2007. Towards Sustainable Mining: Progress Report 2007. http://www.mining.ca/www/media_lib/TSM_Publications/TSM_2007_Eng/TSM_2007_eng.pdf

Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), Mining Division. 2003. Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. Victoria, BC.

Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM). 2002. Aggregate Operators Best Management Practices Handbook for British Columbia. Victoria, BC.

BC Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 2006. Best Management Practices for Hazard Tree and Non-Hazard Tree Limbing, Topping or Removal. Environmental Stewardship Division. Penticton, BC.

Moreau, D.H. 1996. Integrated water management at military bases: from principles to practice. Paper prepared for workshop on Total Water Environment Management for Military Installations. U.S. Environmental Policy Institute, Atlanta, Georgia.

Morrison, J., M. Quick, and M. Foreman. 2002. Climate change in the Fraser River watershed: flow and temperature projections. Journal of Hydrology. 263: 230-244.

Mulder, B.S., B.R. Noon, T.A. Spies, M.G. Raphael, C.J. Palmer, A.R. Olsen, G.H. Reeves, and H.H. Welsh Jr. 1999. The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-437. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR, USA.

Murray, C. and D. Marmorek. 2003. Adaptive management: a science-based approach to managing ecosystems in the face of uncertainty. In: N.W.P. Munro, J.H.M. Willison, T.B. Herman, K. Beazley and P. Dearden (eds.). Making Ecosystem-Based Management Work: Connecting Researchers and Managers. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, Victoria, BC, May, 2003.



National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the U.S.. National Academies Press; Washington, D.C., USA.

National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Review of EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. National Academies Press; Washington, D.C., USA

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. National Academies Press; Washington, D.C., USA.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009a. NRTEE – Who We Are. http://nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/about-us/who-we-are.php

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009b. Charting a Path: Water and Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors. Discussion Paper.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009c. Water Governance Structure – Alberta. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009d. Water Governance Structure – British Columbia. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009e. Water Governance Structure – Canada. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009f. Water Governance Structure – Manitoba. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009g. Water Governance Structure – New Brunswick. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009h. Water Governance Structure – Newfoundland and Labrador. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009i. Water Governance Structure – Northwest Territories. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009j. Water Governance Structure – Nova Scotia. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009k. Water Governance Structure – Nunavut. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009l. Water Governance Structure – Ontario. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009m. Water Governance Structure – Prince Edward Island. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009n. Water Governance Structure – Quebec. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009o. Water Governance Structure – Saskatchewan. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2009p. Water Governance Structure – Yukon Territory. Unpublished.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2008. NRTEE – Meet Our Members. http://nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/about-us/members/nrtee-members.php

National Water Commission (NWC),1973. Water Policies for the Future. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C., USA.



Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 2009a. The Atlas of Canada – Drainage Patterns. http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/distribution/drainage/1

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2009b. Freshwater: The Role and Contribution of Natural Resources Canada, Energy. http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/sd-dd/pubs/h2o/issque-2-eng.php

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2009c. Water Supply for Canada’s Oil Sands. http://sst-ess.rncan-nrcan.gc.ca/ercc-rrcc/theme1/t7_e.php

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2008a. Analysis of Program Activity by Strategic Outcome. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/rsn/rsn02-eng.asp

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2008b. Small Hydropower – Low Head and Very Low Head Hydro Power Generation. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/renewables/small_hydropower/low_head_hydro.html

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2008c. Small Hydropower – Fish-friendly turbine. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/renewables/small_hydropower/fishfriendly_turbine.html

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology. 4(4): 355-364.

Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB). 2009. Welcome to the Okanagan Basin Water Board. http://www.obwb.ca/index/

Okanagan Water Stewardship Council (OWSC). 2008. Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy – Action Plan 1.0. Hemlock Printers; Burnaby, BC.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE). 2008. Technical Rules: Assessment Report, Clean Water Act, 2006. Drinking Water Management Division. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/water/cleanwater/cwadocs/TechnicalRules-unsigned.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2007. Water Resource Information Program – What We Do. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/WRIP/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166865.html

Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 2009. Ecosystem definition. http://www.oed.com/

Palmer, M.A., A.P. Covich, S. Lake, P. Biro, J.J. Brooks, J. Cole, C. Dahm, J. Gibert, W. Goedkoop, K. Martens, J. Verhoeven, and W.J. van de Bund. 2000. Linkages between aquatic sediment biota and life above sediments as potential drivers of biodiversity and ecological processes. BioScience. 50(12): 1062-1075.

Parker, G.W., D.S. Armstrong, and T.A. Richards. 2004. Comparison of Methods for Determining Streamflow Requirements for Aquatic Habitat Protection at Selected Sites on the Assabet and Charles Rivers, Eastern Massachusetts, 2000-02. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5092. Reston, VA, USA.

Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D.C. Erbach. 2005. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Technical Report A357634. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Péry, A.R.R., V. Ducrot, R. Mons, and J. Garric. 2003. Modelling toxicity and mode of action of chemicals to analyse growth and emergence tests with the midge Chironomus riparius. Aquatic Toxicology. 65(3): 281-292.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience. 47(11): 769-784.



Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency (QG EPA). 1999. Water Quality Sampling Manual. 3rd Edition. Queensland, Australia.

Quinn, M.S. and J.C. Theberge. 2003. Ecosystem-based management in Canada: trends from a national survey and relevance to protected areas. In: N.W.P. Munro, J.H.M. Willison, T.B. Herman, K. Beazley and P. Dearden (eds.). Making Ecosystem-Based Management Work: Connecting Researchers and Managers. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, Victoria, BC, May, 2003.

Rapport D.J. 1992. Evaluating Ecosystem Health. J. of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 1, 15-24.

Rapport D.J. 1992a. Evolution of indicators of ecosystem health. Pages 121-134 In D.H. McKenzie D.E. Hyatt and V.J. McDonald (eds) Ecological Indicators. Elsevier, London.

Redman, C.L. 1999. Human impact on ancient environments. The University of Arizona Press; Tucson, USA.

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology. 10(4): 1163-1174.

Richter, B.D., R. Mathews, D.L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications. 13(1): 206-224.

Richter, B.D., and H.E. Richter. 2000. Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers. Conservation Biology. 14(5): 1467-1478.

Richter, B.D., A.T. Warner, J.L. Meyer, and K. Lutz. 2006. A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications. 22(3): 297-318.

Ricklefs, R.E. and G.L. Miller. 1999. Ecology. 4th Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company; New York, NY, USA.

Ripl, W. 1995. Management of water cycle and energy flow for ecosystem control. The energy-transport reaction (ETR) model. Ecological Modelling. 78: 61-76.

Roberts, J. 1999. Plants and water in forests and woodlands. In: A.J. Baird and R.L. Wilby (eds.). Eco-hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Routledge; London, UK.

Rockström, J., L. Gordon, M. Falkenmark, C. Folke, and M. Engwall. 1999. Linkages among Water Vapor Flows, Food Production, and Terrestrial Ecosystem Services. Conservation Ecology. 3(2): 5-14.

Rogers, K., and R. Bestbier. 1997. Development of a protocol for the definition of the desired state of riverine systems in South Africa. South African Wetlands Conservation Programme, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.

Scharf, D.N., D.W. Burke, M. Villeneuve, and L. Leigh. 2002. Industrial Water Use, 1996. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Schmer, M.R., K.P. Vogel, R.B. Mitchell, and R.K. Perrin. 2008. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for the United States of America. 105(2): 464-469.

Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 1994. Ecosystem health: a new paradigm for ecological assessment? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 456-457.

Schreier, H. 2009a. Agricultural water policy challenges in BC. Policy Options. July-August 2009: 48-52.



Schreier, H. 2009b. Email correspondence. University of British Columbia. September 2009.

Science Council of Canada (SCC). 1988. Water 2020: sustainable use for the water in the 21st century. Science Council of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Scrimgeour G.J. and D. Wicklum. 1996. Aquatic ecosystem health and integrity: problems and potential solutions. J. N. Am. Bentho, Soc., 15, 254-261.

Shiau, J.T. and F.C. Wu. 2008. A histogram matching approach for assessment of flow regime alteration: application to environmental flow optimization. River Research and Applications. 24: 914-928.

Shiau, J.T. and F.C. Wu. 2004. Assessment of hydrologic alterations cause by Chi-Chi diversion weir in Chou-Shui Creek, Taiwan: opportunities for restoring natural flow conditions. River Research and Applications. 20: 401-412.

Souchon Y., S. Valentin, and H. Capra. 1998. Peut-on render plus objective la determination des debits reserves par une approche scientifique? La Houille Blanche. 8: 41-45.

Source Protection Committees, O. Reg. 288/07.

South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 2009a. South Carolina Forestry Commission Best Management Practices – Timber Harvesting. http://www.state.sc.us/forest/rbth.htm

South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 2009b. South Carolina Forestry Commission Best Management Practices – Stream Crossings. http://www.state.sc.us/forest/rbsc.htm

South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 2009c. South Carolina Forestry Commission Best Management Practices – Pesticides. http://www.state.sc.us/forest/rbp.htm

Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, R.N. Williams, J.A. Lichatowich, and C.C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 12(4): 391-413.

Starr, M., L. St-Amand, L. Devine, L. Bérard-Therriault, and P.S. Galbraith. 2004. State of phytoplankton in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence during 2003. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document, 2004/123. Mont-Joli, Québec, Canada.

Starzomski, B.M. Email correspondence. University of Victoria. September 2009.

Statistics Canada (StatCan). 2008. Industrial Water Use, 2005. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-401-x/2008001/5003964-eng.htm

Statistics Canada (StatCan). 2006. Total farm area, land tenure and land in crops, by province. http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/agrc25a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada (StatCan). 2003. Human Activity and the Environment, Annual Statistics 2003. Environment Accounts and Statistics Division, System of National Accounts. Ottawa, Canada.

Swanson, S. 2002. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. Resource Notes. National Science and Technology Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/respdf/RN58.pdf



Tan, C.S., T.Q. Zhang, C.F. Drury, W.D. Reynolds, T. Oloya, and J.D. Gaynor. 2007. Water Quality and Crop Production Improvement Using a Wetland-Reservoir and Drainage/Subsurface Irrigation System. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 32(2): 129-136.

Tan, C.S. Email correspondence. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. September 2009.

Tate, D.M. and D.N. Scharf. 1995. Water Use in Canadian Industry, 1991. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Tate, D.M. and D.N. Scharf. 1992. Water Use in Canadian Industry, 1986. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Taylor, L. 2009. Water challenges in oil sands country: Alberta’s Water for Life strategy. Policy Options. July-August 2009: 44-47.

Tennant, D.L. 1976. Instream Flow Regimes for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Related Environmental Resources. In: J.F. Orsborn and C.H. Allman (eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium and Specialty Conference on Instream Flow Needs. Volume 2. American Fisheries Society; Bethesda, MD, USA.

The Royal Society (TRS). 2008. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. Science Policy Section, The Royal Society. London, UK. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28914

Thomas, G. Personal communications. G3 Consulting Ltd. September 2009.

Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater hydrology. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, USA.

Turner, R.E., N.N. Rabalais, and D. Justic. 2008. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: Alternate states and a legacy. Environmental Science & Technology. 42(7): 2323-2327.

Université Laval (UL). 2004. Les Eaux Souterraines. http://www.ggl.ulaval.ca/personnel/bourque/s3/eaux.souterraines.html

University of New South Wales (UNSW). 2009a. Potential impacts of sea-level rise and climate change on coastal aquifers. http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/resources/articles/coastal_aquifers.html

University of New South Wales (UNSW). 2009b. Welcome to the University of New South Wales Connected Waters Web Site. http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). 2006. Annual energy outlook 2006 with projections to 2030. Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. 2nd Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA. http://www.epa.gov/nep/monitor/pdf/manual.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000a. Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual: lakes and reservoirs. EPA-822-B00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/lakes/lakes.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000b. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators. Jackson, L.E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher (eds.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/620/R-99/005. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Indicator Development Strategy. Barber, M.C. (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA/620/R-94/022. Athens, GA, USA.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009a. Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) Software. Fort Collins Science Center. http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/phabsim/

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009b. The Five Phases of IFIM. Fort Collins Science Center. http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/ifim/5phases.asp

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/

Valiela, I. 1995. Marine Ecological Processes. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag; New York, NY, USA.

van der Leeuw, S.E. 2001. Land degradation as a socio-natural process. In: R.J. McIntosh, I.A. Tainter & K. McIntosh (eds.). The way the wind blows: climate, history and human action. Columbia University Press; New York, NY, USA.

van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology. 62: 688-696.

Viessman, Jr., W. 1996. Integrated Water Management. Water Resources Update. 106: 2-12.

Viessman, Jr., W. and C. Welty. 1985. Water management: technology and institutions. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc; New York, NY, USA.

Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Memoirs of the Institute of Hydrobiology. 33: 53-83.

Walker, B.H. 1992. Biological diversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology. 6(1): 18-23.

Wasson, J.G., R. Bonnan, and L. Maridet. 1995. Réponses globales des invertébrés benthiques aux conditions d’habitat physique dans les cours d’eau salmonicoles: perspectives d’intégration dans les modèles habitat/poisons. Bulletin Français de Pêche et de Pisciculture. 3371338/339: 291-299.

Waterbucket. 2009. Living Water Smart: The Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy. http://www.waterbucket.ca/wcp/index.asp?sid=44&id=610&type=single

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology. 3rd Edition. Saunders; New York, New York, USA.

Wetzel, R.G. 1999. Plants and water in and adjacent to lakes. In: A.J. Baird and R.L. Wilby (eds.). Eco-hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Routledge; London, UK.

Wetzel, R.G. and G.E. Likens. 1991. Limnological Analyses. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag; New York, NY, USA.

Wheeler, B.D. 1999. Water and plants in freshwater wetlands. In: A.J. Baird and R.L. Wilby (eds.). Eco-hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Routledge; London, UK.

Wicklum, D. and R.W. Davies. 1995. Ecosystem health and integrity? Canadian Journal of Botany, 73:997-1000.



Williams, P.R.D., D. Inman, A. Aden, and G.A. Heath. 2009. Environmental and Sustainability Factors Associated with Next-Generation Biofuels in the U.S.: What Do We Really Know? Environmental Science and Technology. 43(13): 4763-4775.

Wise, M. and W.B. Pawlukiewicz. 1996. The watershed approach: an institutional framework for action. In: Total water environment management for military installations, U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, Atlanta, GA.

Wood, P.J., M.D. Agnew, and G.E. Petts. 2001. Hydro-ecological variability within a groundwater dominated stream. In: M.C. Acreman (eds.). Hydro-ecology: linking hydrology and aquatic ecology. IAHS Publication 266. IAHS Press; Wallingford, UK.

Wu, F.C. and K.S. Lee. 1998. Assessment of instream flow for Chi-Chi common diversion weir. Proceedings of Water Resources Management Conference, Taipei, Taiwan; 216-237 (in Chinese).

Yaffee, S.L..1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology. 13(4): 713-725.

Yaffee, S.L., A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, S.M. Maleki, and B.E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem management in the United States: an assessment of current experience. Island Press; Washington, D.C., USA.

Yap, R.W. Email correspondence. Ontario Power Generation

APPENDIX

A1: List of Leading Experts & Respect ive Quest ionnaires

A2: Regional & Nat ional Water

Governance A3: Meta Analysis Review

APPENDIX A1 List of Leading Experts

& Respective Questionnaires

A 1 L i s t o f L e a d i n g E x p e r t s & R e s p e c t i v e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Agriculture: Contact: Dr. Chin Tan Affiliation: Research Scientist, Water Management, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research

Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Water Quality and Crop Production Improvement Using a Wetland-Reservoir and Drainage/Subsurface Irrigation System”

a. Would this irrigation system be equally effective in other geographic regions of Canada? b. Would this irrigation system be applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across Canada)? c. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic

benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

d. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of this irrigation system in jurisdictions across Canada?

e. Where do you see current and future research going with this type of irrigation system? 2. Can you provide insight on the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water

users within a watershed? 3. Can you cite specific examples of any other new and emerging Best Management Practices

and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the agriculture sector, and the respective lessons learned which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?

a. If yes, how would these practices and/or technologies specifically improve water and ecosystem quality?

b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across Canada)?

c. Do you see specific industries within the agriculture sector benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?

d. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., mining, forestry, energy)? Please provide examples.

e. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

f. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies in jurisdictions across Canada?

g. Where do you see current and future research going with these practices and/or technologies?

4. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the agriculture sector?

5. Can you provide contact information for other known experts in this field of study?

Contact: Dr. Hans Schreier Affiliation: Professor, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Agricultural Water Policy Challenges in BC,” you discuss how the excessive application of manure on agricultural land in the Sumas watershed eventually leads to widespread eutrophication of receiving waters. One possible solution identified to reduce the surplus manure is the implementation of technologies for manure processing, energy extraction and conversion of nutrients into fertilizers, which you say is well established in other areas.

a. Can you provide specific examples of current/emerging technologies for manure processing, energy extraction and conversion of nutrients into fertilizers to that are well established in these other jurisdictions, thereby enabling a reduction in surplus manure discharge into receiving waters?

b. Are these technologies applicable on a large scale (i.e., across Canada)? c. Do you see specific industries within the agriculture sector benefitting from these

technologies? d. Do you see any cross-sector applications of this technology, where farmers can offload

their surplus manure to another industry for processing? e. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic

benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

f. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these technologies in jurisdictions across Canada?

g. If large-scale implementation of manure processing technologies were to occur, do you believe regulatory instruments regulating livestock stocking densities would also be necessary to effectively protect the aquatic ecosystem?

h. Where do you see current and future research going with these technologies? 2. Can you provide insight on the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water

users within a watershed? 3. Can you cite specific examples of other Best Management Practices and/or Best Available

Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the agriculture sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?









5. Do you believe that a water pricing system where water costs are variable depending on available water quantities (i.e., low flow vs. high flow) and/or water uses (i.e., industrial vs. residential) is feasible in Canada?

Contact: Dr. Robert C. Bailey Affiliation: Vice-President, Academic and Research, Cape Breton University Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Effectiveness of best management practices in improving stream ecosystem quality”

a. Are you aware of any recent examples where improvements in government-funded conservation programs have been successfully used by farmers in applying Best Management Practices and Best Available Technologies as they relate to watershed and ecosystem management?

2. Can you provide insight on the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water users within a watershed?

3. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at addressing livestock impacts from the agriculture sector on water quality and/or overall ecosystem integrity/quality, and the respective lessons learned?









Mining: Contact: Dr. Janice Zinck Affiliation: Research Scientist, CANMET Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Natural Resources

Canada Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the mining sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., different geographic regions across Canada, larger-scale operations, different types of mines)?

c. Do you see specific industries within the mining sector benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?

d. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., agriculture, forestry, energy)? Please provide examples.




3. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the mining sector?



Contact: Ms. Elizabeth Gardiner Affiliation: Vice-President, Technical Affairs, The Mining Association of Canada Email: [email protected] Questions:




b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., different geographic regions across Canada, larger-scale operations, different types of mines)?









Contact: Dr. Clint McCullough Affiliation: Research Associate, Centre for Ecosystem Management, School of Natural Sciences, Edith

Cowan University, Australia Email: [email protected] Questions:




b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., different geographic regions, larger-scale operations, different types of mines)?




f. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies?




Forestry: Contact: Mr. Jean-Pierre Martel Affiliation: Senior Vice-President, Sustainability, Forest Products Association of Canada Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the forestry sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic regions)?

c. Do you see specific industries within the forestry sector benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?

d. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., agriculture, mining, energy)? Please provide examples.




3. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the forestry sector?



Contact: Mr. Jeffery L. Vowell Affiliation: Forest Hydrologist, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Forestry

Division Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the forestry sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic regions)?








Contact: Dr. Douglas A. Burns Affiliation: Research Scientist, US Geological Survey Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect to the paper entitled “Nitrogen immobilization by wood-chip application: Protecting water quality in a northern hardwood forest”

a. Are you aware of any research that looks at whether the application of wood-chips is effective in immobilizing other nutrients, thereby preventing water quality impairments? Please provide specific details.

b. Is the practice of wood-chip application applicable on a large scale (i.e., across different geographic regions, different types of forestry operations)?

c. Do you see any benefits of this practice crossing over into other sectors (i.e., agriculture, mining, energy)? Please provide examples.

d. Can this practice be used to increase productivity/economic benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

e. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of this practice?

f. Where do you see current and future research going with this practice? 2. Can you provide insight on the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water

users within a watershed? 3. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or

Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the forestry sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographical regions)?








Energy: Contact: Dr. Lorne Taylor Affiliation: Chair, Alberta Water Research Institute Email: [email protected], [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Water challenges in oil sands country: Alberta’s Water for Life strategy”

a. Can you further detail the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water users within a watershed?

b. How can these challenges be managed within the current Water for Life initiative? 2. Can you provide insight on the issues of water allocation, usage, and competition between water

users within a watershed? 3. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or

Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the energy (i.e., fossil fuels, nuclear, hydropower) sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?



c. Do you see specific industries within the energy sector benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?

d. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., mining, forestry, agriculture)? Please provide examples.




4. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the energy sector?



Contact: Mr. Steve Coupland Affiliation: Director, Environmental Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the nuclear energy sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Do these practices and/or technologies specifically address effects of water consumption, temperature change caused by thermal plant water discharges, or potential release of impurities into aquatic ecosystems?

c. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across Canada)? d. Do you see other industries within the energy sector (i.e., fossil fuels, hydropower)

benefitting from these practices and/or technologies? e. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other

sectors (i.e., mining, forestry, agriculture)? Please provide examples. f. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic benefit

to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

g. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies in jurisdictions across Canada?

h. Where do you see current and future research going with these practices and/or technologies?

3. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the nuclear energy sector?

4. In some areas of the world there has been a trend towards water pricing on different payment scales (e.g., Australia), where various industry sectors pay a higher premium for water usage compared to the general public. Do you believe this practice would be a feasible means of managing water use in Canada given our country’s jurisdictional set-up?



Contact: Dr. Christopher R. Barnes Affiliation: Commission Member, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the nuclear energy sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Do these practices and/or technologies specifically address effects of water consumption, temperature change caused by thermal plant water discharges, or potential release of impurities into aquatic ecosystems?

c. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across Canada)?

d. Do you see other industries within the energy sector (i.e., fossil fuels, hydropower) benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?

e. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., mining, forestry, agriculture)? Please provide examples.

f. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

g. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies in jurisdictions across Canada?


3. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the nuclear energy sector?



Contact: Mr. Robert W. Yap Affiliation: Director of Water Resources, Ontario Power Generation Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the hydropower sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Do these practices and/or technologies specifically address chronic water fragmentation of running water habitats, water quality in terms of temperature, nutrient loading, mobilization of mercury from soils, and changes to sediments and the amount of silt in water?

c. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic areas)?

d. Do you see other industries within the energy sector (i.e., fossil fuels, nuclear) benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?



g. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies?


3. Do you see a multiple stakeholder watershed management approach working to address the water-related issues associated with the hydropower sector?



Contact: Dr. Helen Locher Affiliation: Sustainability Forum Coordinator, International Hydropower Association Email: [email protected] Questions:


2. Can you cite specific examples of any new and emerging Best Management Practices and/or Best Available Technologies aimed at protecting water quality and/or improving water use efficiency in the hydropower sector, and the respective lessons learned, which are working to protect aquatic ecosystems?


b. Do these practices and/or technologies specifically address chronic water fragmentation of running water habitats, water quality in terms of temperature, nutrient loading, mobilization of mercury from soils, and changes to sediments and the amount of silt in water?

c. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic areas)?

d. Do you see other industries within the energy sector (i.e., fossil fuels, nuclear) benefitting from these practices and/or technologies?



g. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies?




Contact: Dr. Martyn C. Lucas Affiliation: Senior Lecturer, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Availability of and access to critical habitats in regulated rivers: effects of low-head barriers on threatened lampreys”

a. Are you aware of any Best Management Practices or Best Available Technologies that can be employed in the hydropower sector to reduce impacts on aquatic species sharing a river system with low-head dams?

i. If yes, how would these practices and/or technologies specifically reduce impacts on aquatic species?

ii. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic regions)?

iii. Do you see any benefits of these practices and/or technologies crossing over into other sectors (i.e., mining, forestry, agriculture)? Please provide examples.

iv. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

v. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies?

vi. Where do you see current and future research going with these practices and/or technologies?

b. What solutions do you see in addressing chronic fragmentation of running water habitats? Please be specific.

i. How would these practices and/or technologies specifically chronic fragmentation of running water habitats?

ii. Are these practices and/or technologies applicable on a large-scale (i.e., across different geographic regions)?

iii. Can these practices and/or technologies be used to increase productivity/economic benefit to the industry, or are government incentives and/or regulatory instruments required to ensure large-scale implementation?

iv. Are there other geographic, regulatory or economic impediments to the application of these practices and/or technologies?

v. Where do you see current and future research going with these practices and/or technologies?



Ecosystem-based Water Management/Governance: Contact: Dr. Michael S. Quinn Affiliation: Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Ecosystem-based management in Canada: trends from a national survey and relevance to protected areas”

a. Can you elaborate more specifically on how the sectors of agriculture, mining, forestry and energy can be appropriately integrated into an ecosystem-based management approach?

i. How should water use priorities be determined among sectors? ii. Can ecosystem quality be protected effectively given cumulative effects from

numerous private and public watershed users? b. Please discuss some of the specific challenges (e.g., jurisdictional, economic) that exist

in implementing an ecosystem-based management approach in regions across Canada? i. Can the same general approach be applied in all regions of Canada? ii. Should the ecosystem-based management approach be regulated, or is it

effective in only a voluntary capacity? c. Are you aware of any new case studies of ecosystem-based management, with

accompanying successes and failures from which lessons learned can be taken? If yes, please describe in detail.

i. Are the lessons learned applicable in other geographical regions? ii. Are the lessons learned applicable under different economic conditions?




Contact: Ms. Jannette C. Theberge Affiliation: Pukaskwa National Park, Ontario Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Ecosystem-based management in Canada: trends from a national survey and relevance to protected areas”

a. Can you elaborate more specifically on how the sectors of agriculture, mining, forestry and energy can be appropriately integrated into an ecosystem-based management approach?

i. How should water use priorities be determined among sectors? ii. Can ecosystem quality be protected effectively given cumulative effects from

numerous private and public watershed users? b. Please discuss some of the specific challenges (e.g., jurisdictional, economic) that exist

in implementing an ecosystem-based management approach in regions across Canada? i. Can the same general approach be applied in all regions of Canada? ii. Should the ecosystem-based management approach be regulated, or is it

effective in only a voluntary capacity? c. Are you aware of any new case studies of ecosystem-based management, with

accompanying successes and failures from which lessons learned can be taken? If yes, please describe in detail.





Contact: Dr. Brian M. Starzomski Affiliation: Assistant Professor, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “What science tells us about ecosystems, for ecosystem-based management” from 2004

a. Can you elaborate/update your discussion on ecosystem-scale experiments at large and small scales?

i. What are some specific challenges (e.g., jurisdictional, economic) that exist in implementing an ecosystem-based management approach in regions across Canada?

ii. Can the same general approach be applied in all regions of Canada? iii. Should the ecosystem-based management approach be regulated, or is it

effective in only a voluntary capacity? b. Can you provide any practical examples and associated lessons learned (from successes

and failures), particularly in relation to the sectors of agriculture, mining, forestry, and energy?





Contact: Dr. Karen Bakker Affiliation: Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “Water Security: Canada’s Challenge” a. Can you elaborate on groundwater challenges in management, considering there is

currently limited information on its use and amount? b. What are your thoughts on the following management challenges:

i. Competition among users of water resources? ii. Vertical coordination between the multiple scales at which water is used and

managed? iii. The mismatch between geopolitical and administrative boundaries and hydrological

boundaries? 2. Can you provide any particular examples/case studies of lessons learned (from successes and

failures) in Canada and elsewhere? a. If yes, are lessons learned from the example(s) relevant to other geographical regions? b. Are the lessons learned applicable under different economic conditions? c. Are there any other impediments that exist to inhibit application in other areas? Please

describe in detail. 3. Do you believe that a water pricing system where water costs are variable depending on available

water quantities (i.e., low flow vs. high flow) and/or water uses (i.e., industrial vs. residential) is feasible in Canada?


Contact: Dr. Rob de Loë Affiliation: University Research Chair, Water Policy and Governance, Environment and Resource

Studies, University of Waterloo Email: [email protected] Questions:

1. With respect the paper entitled “A Canadian vision and strategy for water in the 21st Century” a. Can you expand on the challenging concept for an all-inclusive national water policy (i.e.,

pan-Canadian vision and strategy for water that harmonizes with provinces, territories and all other levels of governance)?

i. How do you see the jurisdictional challenges being resolved given the resource rights of Canadian provinces?

ii. What sort of economic challenges would exist in implementing such a policy given the different conditions present in provinces and territories in Canada?

b. Can you provide any particular examples/case studies of lessons learned in multi-level, cross-boundary water governance and watershed-based management?

i. If yes, are lessons learned from the example(s) relevant to other geographical regions?

ii. Are the lessons learned applicable under different economic conditions? iii. Are there any other impediments that exist to inhibit application in other areas?

Please describe in detail. c. What solutions do you think are most effective in addressing the challenge of managing

water competition among water users within a watershed? Please describe these solutions detail.




APPENDIX A2 Regional & National Water Governance

A 2 R e g i o n a l & N a t i o n a l W a t e r G o v e r n a n c e

Table A1: Regional and National Legislation and Policy Initiatives Governing Water Use

Region Water Allocation Planning Decisions Sector-specific Rules & Environmental Water Allocations (EWA)

Yuko

n Te

rrito

ry

• Permits and licenses issued by Yukon Water Board, under the Water Rights Act

• Yukon Environment and Energy and Mines are responsible for enforcement

• Allocation system based on principal of prior appropriation through licenses, based on amount and type of use

• All watersheds are governed by Yukon Environment in conjunction with Yukon Water Board

• Water management areas designated under the Waters Regulation, and cover all of Yukon’s major river basins

• No formal plan for addressing climate change or drought management

• No formal plan for addressing climate change or drought management

• There are no environmental water allocations (EWAs) in the Yukon

• No sector-specific regulations • Emergency plans in place for the temporary

allocation of water • No EWAs or IFN; Licenses have terms intended to

reduce environmental impacts

Nor

thw

est T

errit

orie

s

• 5 water boards are established to issue licenses for water use according to use and amount (Northwest Territories Water Act & Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act)

• Priorities established through first in time principle • Governor in Council may reserve water from

allocation • Applicant required to provide information in regards

to potential impacts of allocation on its quality and quantity

• Licenses are transferable with Board approval

• All watersheds in the Northwest Territories are governed by the Northwest Territories Water Board (Northwest Territories Water Act & Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act)

• These acts provide planning frame work for transboundary allocation

• No specific planning to understand impacts of climate change on allocation schemes

• Licensees maintain records, on quantity and quality of water used under the license and type of any waste deposited

• The NWT is in the process of devising a new Water Resources Management Strategy

• Fees are in place for agricultural, industrial and hydroelectric sectors based on m3 used or kW generated

• Provisions are made by Governor in Council to reserve water and prohibit use if considered to advance the public interest or for protection purposes (Northwest Territories Water Act)

• No specific EWA; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA

Nun

avut

• The Nunavut Water Board (Public Authority Management) issues water licenses and permits under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

• Priority of use is first in time • Inuit use is given priority over licensed use or

mineral right • The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) carries

out environmental screening either before of or in parallel to the water license review

• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is responsible for all legislation and policy relating to water management

• There are no formal plans in place to address climate change

• No special provisions for environmental water allocations

• Planning/coordination of water allocation across jurisdictional boundaries are included in the Nunavut Waters and Surface Rights Tribunal Act

• The Northwest Territories Waters Regulations sets out fees for specific sectors (agriculture, mining and hydroelectric)

• Sector Applicant responsible for detailed water use monitoring and reporting upon Board’s request

• No EWAs; Environmental screening may require IFN be maintained

Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a

• Permits and licenses issued by MOE, Water Stewardship Division (WSD) under the Water Protection Act

• Other agencies that play a role in allocation include: Environmental & Land use Committee, DFO, Public Bodies and Oil and Gas

• BC’s water allocation system is based on the principle of prior appropriation

• Reduce allocation to preserve fish • Not reallocated independently of land transfer

• Freshwater Strategy for British Columbia (1999) Governs planning decisions

• Includes plan for emergency measures (drought, flood etc.)

• Developed drought response manuals • Old plan is based on static environment and BC’s

climate change plans is going to influence new decisions

• Rankings (highest to lowest) of respective purposes for water allocation are: domestic, waterworks, mineral trading, irrigation, mining, industrial, power, hydraulicking, storage, conservation, conveying and land improvement purposes (Water Act s.15)

• Quick-licensing for small domestic (max 500 gallons/day) and irrigation and agriculture (max 2,500 gallons/day) allocations

• Sector-based water rent structure enforced (2006) • IFN are subtracted from availability prior to

allocation

Alb

erta

• Permits and licenses issued by Alberta Environment (AE) and are subject to Water (Ministerial) Regulation. Other agencies influencing water allocation include: Ministry of Mines, MoSRD, and DFO

• Terms and conditions include: volumes, timing and expiry dates

• Done on the principal of prior appropriation (with exemptions)

• Required to formulate and coordinated a Water Management Plan

• Enables AE to authorize and approve plans developed by other agencies, NGO’s and stake holders

• Province relies on issuance of licenses for water withdrawal under Section 11 of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation

• Traditional agricultural water diversions (<6,250m3/year) for livestock and pesticides don’t require a license

• Riparian landowners diverting water for household purposes are exempt from the need for a license

• Under the water act, restrictions can be placed on a license to protect stream flows

• Unallocated water reserved and up to 10% of a license may be held back to meet IFN

Sask

atch

ewan

• Permits and licenses issued by Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (SWA), under the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority

• Other agencies influencing allocation include: Agriculture and Food, Watershed Advisory Committees SaskWater, and DFO

• Allocation is based on a review of available water volumes, and considers all possible uses

• Much of the allocation policy is unwritten • Water is re-allocated if sufficient volumes exist

and/or allocation is relinquished by a former water user

• The SWA can cancel licenses and re-allocate them accordingly

• Saskatchewan Watershed Authority and planning model manages all watersheds in Saskatchewan

• Saskatchewan Watershed Authority monitors and reports climate conditions and soil moisture to guide water management planning

• SWA recently made a commitment in their Water Conservation Plan to revise water allocation policies to address instream flow needs

• Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement govern and plan inter-provincial water sharing

• Saskatchewan does not have a system of priority uses or priority by type of use

• Water users are entitled to take their full allocation if it is physically available, regardless of potential downstream impacts

• No specific legislative requirement to establish instream flow needs or environmental water allocations

• Licensees shall maintain monthly records of water use and water levels

• SWA maintains a schedule of charges for the use of water by industries according to use and source of water that ranges

• Agriculture and Industries users supplied by the municipality are exempt from charges

• EWAs and IFN are being developed; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA

Man

itoba

• Permits and licenses issued by Manitoba Water Stewardship, under the Water Rights Act

• Other agencies influencing allocation include: Intergovernmental Affairs, Agriculture and Food, Water Council, Manitoba Conservation and Round Table for Sustainable Development

• Allocation system is based on the principle of prior appropriation

• Minister has the power to cancel or restrict existing licenses if a new application is for a higher priority use

• Minister may reserve water from allocation for any purpose

• Apportionment agreements in place for allocation of flows across borders (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba)

• Manitoba Water Strategy 2003 - increasing understanding of impacts of climate variability on water resources

• Moving to an integrated approach • Manitoba Water Stewardship manages water

resources, fish resources and clean water initiatives

• Rankings (highest to lowest) of respective purposes for water allocation are: Domestic purposes, Municipal purposes, Agricultural purposes, Industrial purposes, Irrigation purposes and other purposes

• Domestic users (<25,000 L/day) of surface water or groundwater are exempt from the need for a license

• Water reserves have mostly been set up for municipal and industrial use purposes

• IFN are in place for certain rivers and ecosystem allocations are considered before others

Ont

ario

• Permits and licenses for withdrawals > 50,000 L/day are issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) under the Ontario Water Resources Act

• Director may place terms and conditions on permits • Environmental water allocations (EWAs) are built in

to the watershed classification system

• Planning guidance is provided under the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation

• Ontario Low Water Response (OLWR) program sets out a non-regulatory drought contingency plan

• Water Use and Supply Project, a federal-provincial assessment of water supply and demand use for the Great Lakes basin

• Water quantity management policy is to ensure fair sharing, conservation and sustainable use of the province water (PTTW)

• There are no formal priorities of water uses in the legislation or regulation

• Priority uses are indicated indirectly through exemptions and high use restrictions

• In practice, importance ranking is as follows: domestic, farm and fire protection followed by municipal water supply then industrial, commercial and irrigation (Permit to Take Water Program)

• New permits and renewals are classified by the level of detail required for the EIA (3 categories)

• Fees are in place for sector permits, Agricultural applications are exempt

• EWAs are part of the water classification system and are subtracted from availability

Que

bec

• Water allocation system is based in civil law “common to all”

• Authorization for surface withdrawals issued by the Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP) (Environment Quality Act)

• MDDEP is responsible for implementation of the regulatory framework governing water allocation

• Water allocations cannot be transferred in Quebec • Groundwater allocations (>75m3) subject to

ministerial or municipal environmental authorizations

• Centre d’Expertise Hydrique du Quebec (CEHQ) manages the province’s water regime

• Groundwater regulation and planning done under the Environment Quality Act (Groundwater Catchment Regulation)

• Quebec Action Plan on Climate Change has sparse links to water use planning

• Quebec’s regulatory framework recognizes riparian rights of landowners adjacent to water bodies

• Occasional uses, such as irrigation during drought, may not require an authorization

• No water priorities have been established at the present time

• Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife governs hydraulic power rates and charges

• Certain withdrawals (public suppliers, bottling operations and withdrawals exceeding 75m3 per day, are subject to fees

• A policy on reserved flows for ecological purposes (e.g., fish protection) is in place

• Water for agricultural cannot be withdrawn unless done in a watercourse and does not exceed 15% of the flow at the pumping sit

• Two types of EWA: Reserved flows for ecosystems based on flow indicators; and, aquatic reserves

New

Bru

nsw

ick • Permits and licenses issued by Department of

Environment, under the Clean Water Act • Allocation system is based uses deemed for the

common good • Regional Minister governs water extraction

• The Department of Environment administers legislation and programs relating to environmental management (air, land, and water), and provides integrated stewardship through planning and management

• No mention of multi-stakeholder participation or consultation during the creation of water allocation policy or legislation

• Fees are in place for alterations of a water course and the amount is based on the number of alterations (1, >1 or emergency alteration)

• Watershed specific; Water allocations must not pose unacceptable environmental impacts

Nov

a Sc

otia

• Department of Environment and Labor (NSDEL) issues water withdrawal approvals for surface and groundwater withdrawals of more than 23,000 L/day under the (Environmental Act)

• Minister has supervision of the uses/allocation of all water resources and watercourses in the Province

• Allocations based on “first-come, first-served” with priority given to drinking water (groundwater)

• Allocations may be transferred with Minister’s approval

• There are no environmental water allocations however mechanisms exist to protect the environment

• The NSDEL developed a Guide to Surface and Groundwater Withdrawal Approvals to assist in planning for water use

• No specific investments aimed at understanding the impacts of climate change on water allocation

• A monitoring plan is not required for surface water withdrawals but is required for groundwater withdrawals

• Community-based water quality programs ensure long-term records for rivers

• No apparent plan for coordination of water allocation across political boundaries

• Work is underway to develop a water resource management plan

• Water use “activities” require permits • The use of more then 23,000L/day or storage of

more then 25,000L is an “activity” • Use of salt or brackish water is an activity” • Withdrawals must be sustainable and must not

cause negative effects to existing water courses • No specific investments aimed at understanding the

impacts of climate variability and change on water allocation schemes

• A withdrawal approval fee does not apply to agriculture, aquaculture, conservation or recreational water withdrawal approval activities

• No specific EWA; Environmentally detrimental projects must undergo and EIA and must include IFN

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

• Permits and licenses issued by Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry (surface water) under the Environmental Protection Act

• Permits only required for withdrawal rates > 50gpm or total daily of 1,000 gallons

• Maintenance flows are 70% of the flow rate that is exceeded 50% of the time at any month

• Excess of the maintenance flow is considered allocable

• Water not given for more than intended use to avoid speculation of water rights

• Well water rights can be reallocated to encourage multiple users

• Groundwater withdrawals regulated under Water Well Regulations through issuance of groundwater extraction permits

• Allocations may be changed and/or cancelled in accordance with low flow conditions

• Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry: Water Management Division responsible for managing and planning

• Planning aided by A Guide to Watershed Planning on Prince Edward Island

• There are no forums to enable sustained and meaningful stakeholder involvement and public participation

• No official sectoral prioritization measures in place under the act or regulations

• General priority is domestic use, then commercial and industrial uses, and finally irrigation

• Lack of competition for groundwater in PEI, which normally prevents prioritization

• Water withdrawal allocations are not transferable from one farmer to another (storage ponds exempt)

• Groundwater extraction for irrigation cannot exceed 50% of the annual recharge under any circumstances (Agricultural Irrigation Policy)

• In 2002, the Province announced a moratorium on any new groundwater irrigation permits

• EWAs are in place and based on a rough percentage scale of MAF and IFN

New

foun

dlan

d &

Lab

rado

r

• Permits and licenses issued by Department of Environment and Conservation, under the Water Resources Act

• Compliance governed by water use protocol in some municipalities and Lower Churchill Basin are exempt

• Allocation system is based on riparian landowners first

• The minister may retract a license based on an application with higher priority

• The minister to determine the rate at which groundwater is to be withdrawn from a well in order to minimize the risk of lowering the water table

• Planning decision are made by the Department of Environment and Conservation Water Resource Management Division

• The Climate Change Action Plan (NLDEC, 2005) highlights water use restrictions

• Applications for water use within the Labrador Inuit Lands must first be approved by the Nunatisiavut Government, and only then by the minister in order to be granted

• Riparian landowners do not need a license to divert or use water for domestic purposes

• Licenses are required to divert surface, ground and shore waters for all non-domestic uses under the discretion of the minister

• Rankings (highest to lowest) of respective purposes for water allocation are: Domestic purposes, Municipal purposes, Agricultural purposes, Industrial purposes, and hydro energy

• Fees are in place for municipal, commercial, industrial and hydroelectric water use applications

• Water licenses may include provisions to ensure environmental protection

• Licenses may include provision for EWA, but are not explicit

Can

ada

• Under the Constitution Act (1867), the provinces are "owners" of the water resources

• For water governance in Canada, the federal government has jurisdiction related to fisheries, navigation, federal lands, and international relations

• All levels of government hold key policy and regulatory levers which apply to water management

• Canada is a signatory to several treaties and agreements with the United States dealing with waters that flow along or across the common boundary

• Inland Waters Directorate provides national leadership for freshwater management

• The Federal Water Policy addresses the management of water resources and balancing water uses

• Canada Water Act calls for joint consultation between federal and provincial governments

• Responsibility for providing water and wastewater services to First Nations is shared among Band Councils, Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)

• International River Improvements Act provides for licensing of activities that may alter the flow of rivers flowing into the United States

• DFO is responsible for the management of fresh and marine fish-bearing water and has a large role in any water use project affecting these

• NRCan's role in freshwater management is to provide policy and science expertise to better understand the resource, and minimizing the environmental impacts of mining, energy and forestry activities

• DFO and CEAA have policies in place to protect the fish and the environment which may include restrictions on water allocation for IFN purposes

APPENDIX A3 Meta Analysis Review

A 3 M e t a A n a l y s i s R e v i e w

Table A2: Meta Analysis Review of Researched Materials

Author(s), Year Document(s)/Study Meta

Analysis Applied

Comments

General Natural Resource Sector InformationNatural Resources Canada 2008

Analysis of Program Activity by Strategic Outcome Webpage

Yes • Description of various sector contributions to the Canadian economy

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2009

Charting a Path: Water and Canada�s Natural Resource Sectors Discussion Paper

Yes • Used in the introductory section of the report to provide context for the overall report objectives

• Used as a source of background information on water resources, climate change, and industrial sectors

Water and EcosystemsAlongi, D.M. 1998

Coastal Ecosystem Processes Yes • Used in description of estuary values

Baron, J.S. et al. 2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater Publication: Ecological Applications

Yes • Research paper that identifies the requirements of functionally intact freshwater ecosystems

Boehrer, B. and M. Schultze 2008

Stratification of lakesPublication: Reviews of Geophysics

Yes • Used to describe lake ecosystems and their stratification processes

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2007

Canadian environmental quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life � summary table.

Yes • Description of various environmental quality guidelines • Specific to aquatic life

Cole, A.G 1983

Textbook of limnology3rd Edition

Yes • Used in discussion of chemical characteristics of aquatic ecosystems, specifically to do with the importance of potassium

Colette, A. Etudes de cas: changement Yes • Used to describe the functions of marine ecosystems, as well as

2009 climatique et patrimoine mondial potential impacts associated with climate changeCosgrove, W.J. and F.R. Rijsberman 2000

World Water Vision � Making water everybody�s business

Yes • Source identified through Falkenmark (2003) paper • Used to illustrate water consumption in different terrestrial

ecosystems Cui, B. et al. 2009

A management‐oriented valuation method to determine ecological water requirement for wetlands in the Yellow River Delta of China Publication: Journal for Nature Conservation

Yes • Used to describe different water requirements within a wetland ecosystem

Daily, G. 1997

Nature�s services � Human dependence on natural ecosystems

Yes • Used in discussion of how vital ecological services are driven by the water cycle and associated functions and linkages

Dennison, M.S. and J.A. Schmid 1997

Wetland Mitigation: Mitigation Banking and other Strategies for Development and Compliance

Yes • Text used to identify wetland functions

Edwards, R.T. and J.L. Meyer 1987

Metabolism of a sub‐tropical low gradient black water river Publication: Freshwater Biology

Yes • Used to discuss how primary production in freshwater systems varies depending on the type of system

• Used to provide an example of how organic matter in freshwater ecosystems predominantly comes from anthropogenic sources

Environment Canada 2008

Federal Water PolicyWebpage

Yes • Used to illustrate the size of Canada�s land mass and availability of freshwater resources

• Used to provide statistics on water availability in relation to population

Falkenmark, M. 2003

Water Management and Ecosystems: Living with Change Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC) Background Paper, No. 9

Yes • Used to describe different types of ecosystems • Used to describe the difference between �green water� and

�blue water� • Used to illustrate how human actions can impact ecosystems • Suggests the use of a catchment‐based adaptive management

model for managing water resources Folke, C. 1997

Ecosystem approaches to the management and allocation of

Yes • Used to provide a partial description of an ecosystem

critical resourcesIn: Success, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000

New dimensions in water security Yes • Used to describe how ecosystems are water‐dependent • Used in discussion of how vital ecological services are driven by

the water cycle and associated functions and linkages

Graham, M.C. and J.G. Farmer 2007

Chemistry of FreshwatersIn: Principles of Environmental Chemistry

Yes • Used in discussing chemical compositions of surface waters

Holling, C.S. 1973

Resilience and stability of ecological systems Publication: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

Yes • Used in brief discussion of critical thresholds and how passing thresholds can lead to new stable environments that differ from previous natural conditions

Jackson, D.A. and H.H. Harvey 1993

Fish and benthic invertebrates: community concordance and community‐environment relationships Publication: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Yes • Used in discussing chemical composition of surface waters, including some of the most common chemicals in freshwater systems

Jhingran, V.G. 1975

Fish and fisheries of India Yes • Used to provide specific information on chemicals important to freshwater systems

John, D. 1985

Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water 3rd Edition

Yes • Used in discussing chemical compositions of surface waters

Kennish, M.J. 2000

Estuary Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary Program

Yes • Used to provide description and values of estuaries

Kurbatova, S.A. 2005

Response of Microcosm Zooplankton to Acidification Publication: Biology Bulletin

Yes • Used in discussing chemical characteristics of freshwater systems

Large, A.R.G. and K. Plants and water in streams and Yes • Used to discuss of the importance of water movement in lotic

Prach 1999

rivers In: Eco‐hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments

systems

Lenntech 2009

Calcium (Ca) and waterWebpage

Yes • Used to provide general information regarding calcium in freshwater systems

Lenntech 2009

Magnesium (Mg) and waterWebpage

Yes • Used to provide general information regarding magnesium in freshwater systems

Lenntech 2009

Sodium (Na) and waterWebpage

Yes • Used to provide general information regarding sodium in freshwater systems

Lenntech 2009

Potassium (K) and waterWebpage

Yes • Used to provide general information regarding potassium in freshwater systems

Lewis Jr., W.M. 1983

A Revised Classification of Lakes Based on Mixing Publication: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Yes • Used to describe the different types of lakes based on their mixing processes

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell 1994

From the Forest to the Sea: The Ecology of Wood in Stream, Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans

Yes • Book used to describe effects of terrestrial ecosystems on aquatic ecosystems

• Used to describe the functions of an estuary Natural Resources Canada 2009

Atlas of Canada � Drainage Patterns Webpage

Yes • Used to provide an approximate value for the number of lakes in Canada

Oxford English Dictionary 2009

Ecosystem definitionWebpage

Yes • Used to provide a general definition of ecosystem

Palmer, M.A. et al. 2000

Linkages between aquatic sediment biota and life above sediments as potential drivers of biodiversity and ecological processes Publication: BioScience

Yes • Used to discuss organic matter inputs and their influence on aquatic ecosystems

Péry, A.R.R. et al. 2003

Modelling toxicity and mode of action of chemicals to analyse

Yes • Used to describe the value and influence of chemical attributes in freshwater ecosystems

growth and emergence tests with the midge Chironomus riparius Publication: Aquatic Toxicology

Poff, N.L. et al. 1997

The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration Publication: BioScience

Yes • Frequently cited work in other academic papers • Used to describe value of a river�s flow regime in driving in other

components of a river ecosystem

Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency 1999

Water Quality Sampling Manual3rd Edition

Yes • Used to describe importance of nitrogen and phosphorus as a measure of water quality

Ricklefs, R.E. and G.L. Miller 1999

Ecology 4th Edition

Yes • Used in discussion of organic matter sources

Ripl, W. 1995

Management of water cycle and energy flow for ecosystem control. The energy‐transport reaction (ETR) model Publication: Ecological Modelling

Yes • Used to describe how ecosystems are water‐dependent • Used in discussion of how vital ecological services are driven by

the water cycle and associated functions and linkages

Roberts, J. 1999

Plants and water in forests and woodlands In: Eco‐hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments

Yes • Source identified through Falkenmark (2003) paper • Used to describe forests and woodlands in terrestrial ecosystem

section • Used in description of estuaries

Rockström, J. et al. 1999

Linkages Among Water Vapor Flows, Food Production, and Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Publication: Conservation Ecology

Yes • Source identified through Falkenmark (2003) paper • Used to illustrate water consumption in different terrestrial

ecosystems

Stanford, J.A. et al. 1996

A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers Publication: Regulated Rivers: Research and Management

Yes • Used to discuss how water flow variability is critical to maintaining sustainable aquatic ecosystems

Starr, M. et al. 2004 State of phytoplankton in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence during 2003

Yes • Used to provide an example of how freshwater salinization has lead to changes in aquatic communities

Statistics Canada 2003

Human Activity and the Environment, Annual Statistics 2003

Yes • Used to illustrate the amount of renewable freshwater in Canada

Todd, D.K. 1980

Groundwater hydrology2nd Edition

Yes • Source identified through Wetzel (2001) • Text used to describe precipitation infiltration into soils

Université Laval 2004

Les Eaux SouterrainesWebpage

Yes • Used to discuss seawater intrusion in freshwater aquifers

University of New South Wales 2009

Potential impacts of sea‐level rise and climate change on coastal aquifers Webpage

Yes • Used to provide a description on how oceans can potentially influence groundwater resources

University of New South Wales 2009

Welcome to the University of New South Wales Connected Waters Web Site Webpage

Yes • Used to discuss how seawater intrusion can influence the usability of freshwater resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006

Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual 2nd Edition

Yes • Used to describe influences of nitrogen and phosphorus in freshwater ecosystems


Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual: lakes and reservoirs

Yes • Used in discussion of chemical and nutrient characteristics of influence on aquatic ecosystems

Valiela, I. 1995

Marine Ecological Processes2nd Edition

Yes • Used to describe estuaries and food production

Van der Valk, A.G. 1981

Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach Publication: Ecology

Yes • Used to describe flow regime influences on wetlands

Vollenweider, R.A. 1976

Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication Publication: Memoirs of the

Yes • Used to describe flow regime influences on lakes

Institute of HydrobiologyWalker, B.H. 1992

Biological diversity and ecological redundancy Publication: Conservation Biology

Yes • Used to describe the importance of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems

Wetzel, R.G. 2001

Limnology 3rd Edition

Yes • Comprehensive limnology text • Used in several sections to describe functions in aquatic

ecosystems Wetzel, R.G. 1999

Plants and water in and adjacent to lakes In: Eco‐hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments

Yes • Used to provide a description of lentic systems (lake ecosystems) and their natural function

Wetzel, R.G. and G.E. Likens 1991

Limnological Analyses2nd Edition

Yes • Source identified through Wetzel (2001) • Used to provide explanation of parameters to describe stream

channel morphology Wheeler, B.D. 1999

Water and plants in freshwater wetlands In: Eco‐hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments

Yes • Used as part of a description of wetland ecosystems, specifically in how they are biologically characterized

Wood, P.J., M.D. Agnew, and G.E. Petts 2001

Hydro‐ecological variability within a groundwater dominated stream In: Hydro‐ecology: linking hydrology and aquatic ecology

Yes • Used to discuss of the importance of water movement in lotic systems

Water Management and the Ecosystem ApproachAbderrahman, W.A. 2005

Groundwater Management for Sustainable Development of Urban and Rural Areas in Extremely Arid Regions: A Case Study Publication: Water Resources Development

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use examples that are more representative of

Canadian climatic conditions; however, there may be some application in terms of during periods of extreme drought

Aley, J. et al. 1998

Ecosystem management: adaptive strategies for natural resource

Yes • Used to introduce the concept of ecosystem‐based management as an accepted method for resource policy,

organizations in the twenty‐first century

planning and management

Bakker, K. 2009

Water Security: Canada�s Challenge Publication: Policy Options

Yes • Used to discuss challenges facing Canada in dealing with competing water demands in the face of climate change

Ballweber, J.A. 1995

Prospects for comprehensive, integrated watershed management under existing law Water Resources Update, Universities Council on Water Resources

Yes • Used in the discussion of challenges facing integrated watershed management

Bormann, B.T. et al. 1994

Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest

Yes • USDA Forest Service Technical Report • Used to provide a succinct definition of adaptive management

and essential steps Botkin, D.B., P. Megonigal, and R.N. Sampson 1997

Considerations of the state of ecosystem science and the art of ecosystem research Background paper for the SERDP‐sponsored workshop on management‐scale ecosystem research

Yes • Used to aid in discussing the core set of ecosystem‐based management principles

Bovee, K.D. 1982

A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology

Yes • Used as an example of a habitat simulation method that uses the PHABSIM computer model

Bradford, A. 2008

An Ecological Flow Assessment Framework: Building a Bridge to Implementation in Canada Publication: Canadian Water Resources Journal

Yes • Did not use in the study • Presents similar arguments as many other works cited • Opted to use research from more renowned authors (e.g.,

Richter)

British Columbia Water Governance Project Team 2008

Water Governance Workshop Report: A summary of four regional conversations: Langley, Prince George, Nanaimo and

Yes • Used to illustrate some of the institutional challenges that influence the effectiveness of the Fraser Basin Council�s water governance model

Kelowna Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark 1997

A practice‐based approach to ecosystem management Publication: Conservation Biology


Bulkley, J.W. 1995

Integrated water management: past, present, and future Water Resources Update, Universities Council on Water Resources


Calder, I.R. 2005

Blue Revolution � Integrated Land and Water Resource Management 2nd Edition

Yes • Used to provide a brief description of why watersheds are the most effective units for managing water

California Department of Water Resources 1968

Planned utilization of ground water basin: coastal plain of Los Angeles County

Yes • Source identified through the Viessman, Jr. (1996) paper • Provides an example where water source and water quality

linkages are recognized

Cardwell, H., H.I. Jager, and M.J. Sale 1996

Designing instream flows to satisfy fish and human water needs

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent work in the area of ecological flow

determination City of Portland 2005

Appendix G: Selecting Indicators of Watershed Health In: Framework for Integrated Management of Watershed Health

Yes • Used to aid in discussing aquatic ecosystem indicators • Provides detailed description of various indicators and their

importance

de Loë, R. 2009

A Canadian Vision and Strategy for Water in the 21st Century Publication: Policy Options

Yes • Used to discuss challenges facing Canada in dealing with water quality and quantity issues in the face of climate change

Deyle, R.E. 1995

Integrated water management: contending with garbage can decision making in organized anarchies Publication: Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association



Governance of Water in Canada �Models of Water Management Webpage

Yes • Used to provide an initial description of water governance structures in Canada

Folke, C. et al. 2002

Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development 3

Yes • Used to illustrate how Folke recommended sustaining a minimum composition of organisms to aid in ensuring ecosystem resiliency

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000

The ecosystem approach and adaptive management Conference of the Parties, Commission of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Yes • Used to provide description of the FAO�s Twelve Principles of Ecosystem Approach in Management

Gillilan, D.M. and T.C. Brown 1997

Instream flow protection: seeking a balance in western water use

Yes • Used to briefly discuss effectiveness of water market transactions to manage river flows

Gordon, N.D. et al. 2004

Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists 2nd Edition

Yes • Used to express the popularity of the instream flow incremental methodology worldwide

Government of Ontario 2007

Source Protection CommitteesRegulation of Ontario (under Clean Water Act, 2006)

• Used in providing an example of collaborative approaches to water management

• Regulation identifying the types of representatives required on Source Protection Committees

Government of Ontario 2006

Clean Water Act, 2006Statute of Ontario

Yes • Used in providing an example of collaborative approaches to water management

• Legislation necessitates the creation of localized Source Protection Committees to protect regional watersheds

Gregersen, H.M., P.F. Ffolliott, and K.N. Brooks 2007

Integrated Watershed Management: Connecting People to their Land and Water


Hall, M.W. A conceptual model for integrated Yes • Provides a conceptual model for watershed management,

1996 water managementPaper prepared for workshop on Total Water Environment Management for Military Installations

embracing both natural and human‐driven influences on the water cycle

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe 1996

Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management Publication: Conservation Biology

Yes • Frequently cited work in other academic papers • Used to describe how human water management has run

counter to natural variability in river flow regimes

International Water Management Institute 2007

Environmental Flow Methodologies � EFM Types Webpage

Yes • Used to provide a comprehensive listing and description of the different methods for ecological flow determination, including hydrologic, hydraulic rating, habitat, and holistic

International Union for Conservation of Nature 2003

Flow: The essentials of environmental flows

Yes • Used to describe how environmental flow recommendations can be represented in different terms

International Union for Conservation of Nature 2001

The Ecosystem Approach to Water Management

Yes • Used to provide a description of the characteristics evident in an ecosystem‐based approach to water management

• Used to provide a description of the seven principles of modern water management

King, J. and D. Louw 1998

Instream flow assessment for regulated rivers in South Africa using the building block methodology Publication: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management

Yes • Used to provide background on the types of knowledge and scientists necessary to identify sustainable flow regimes

Lackey, R.T. 1998

Seven pillars of ecosystem management Publication: Landscape and Urban Planning


Manitoba Government

Integrated Watershed Management Planning


2009 McCarthy, J.H. 2003

Wetted Perimeter Assessment �Shoal Harbour River, Shoal Harbour, Clarenville, Newfoundland

Yes • Used to provide a general description of the Wetted Perimeter method, which is a hydraulic rating approach for estimating ecological flow recommendations

Meffe, G.K. et al. 2002

Ecosystem management: adaptive community‐based conservation

Yes • Used to introduce the concept of ecosystem‐based management as an accepted method for resource policy, planning and management

Michelsen, A. and R. Young 1993

Optioning agricultural water rights for urban supplies during drought Publication: American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Yes • Used to briefly discuss effectiveness of water market transactions to manage river flows

Milhous, R.T. 1979

PHABSIM system for instream flow studies In: Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Toronto, Ontario

Yes • Used to provide an example of a habitat simulation method that uses PHABSIM software

Moreau, D.H. 1996

Integrated water management at military bases: from principles to practice Paper prepared for workshop on Total Water Environment Management for Military Installations

Yes • Used to provide guiding principles for watershed management practice and design

Mulder, B.S. et al. 1999

The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest Forest Plan General Technical Report

Yes • Used in discussing ecological indicators, and their role in watershed management

Muñoz‐Erickson, T.A., B. Aguilar‐González, and T.D. Sisk 2007

Linking Ecosystem Health Indicators and Collaborative Management: a Systematic Framework to Evaluate Ecological and Social Outcomes

Yes • Did not use in the study • Instead of using a range of ecological indicators, the authors

presented a single holistic ecosystem health indicator; not specifically relevant to our research

Murray, C. and D. Marmorek 2003

Adaptive management: a science‐based approach to managing ecosystems in the face of uncertainty In: Making Ecosystem‐Based Management Work: Connecting Researchers and Managers

Yes • Used to provide a general description of adaptive management

National Research Council 1995

Review of EPA�s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation

Yes • Used to provide a description of how ecological indicators should be tied to stressors and ecosystem structure and function


Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy

Yes • Used to provide a description of present use of freshwater resources and the lack of environmental consideration


Water Governance Structure �Alberta Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Alberta

• Used to illustrate jurisdictional differences in water governance structures employed by Canada and its provinces and territories


Water Governance Structure �British Columbia Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in British Columbia



Water Governance Structure �Canada Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed by the federal government of Canada



Water Governance Structure �Manitoba Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Manitoba



Water Governance Structure �New Brunswick Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in New Brunswick



Water Governance Structure �Newfoundland and Labrador Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Newfoundland and Labrador



Water Governance Structure �Northwest Territories Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in the Northwest Territories



Water Governance Structure �Nova Scotia Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Nova Scotia



Water Governance Structure �Nunavut Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Nunavut



Water Governance Structure �Ontario Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Ontario



Water Governance Structure �Prince Edward Island Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Prince Edward Island



Water Governance Structure �Quebec Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Quebec



Water Governance Structure �Saskatchewan Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in Saskatchewan



Water Governance Structure �Yukon Territory Unpublished

Yes • Used to provide a description of the unique water governance structure employed in the Yukon Territory


National Water Commission 1973

Water Policies for the Future Yes • Used to illustrate that the notion of a holistic approach to water management has been around for more than three decades

Noss, R.F. 1990

Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach Publication: Conservation Biology

Yes • Used to aid in discussing ecosystem indicators and their application within a monitoring program under ESWM

Okanagan Basin Water Board 2009

Welcome to the Okanagan Basin Water Board

Yes • Used in describing the roots of water management in the Okanagan Basin

Okanagan Water Stewardship Council 2008

Sustainable Water Strategy �Action Plan 1.0

Yes • Used as a case study to illustrate successful application of collaborative approaches

• Identified 12 high‐level guiding principles and a number of key actions for strategy implementation

Ontario Ministry of Environment 2008

Technical Rules: Assessment Report For: Clean Water Act, 2006


• Provides a detailed description of how water budgeting and water quantity risk assessment process is to be completed

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2007

Water Resource Information Program � What We Do Webpage


• Provides information on physical data models to be used for completing Assessment Reports

Parker, G.W., D.S. Armstrong, and T.A. Richards 2004

Comparison of Methods for Determining Streamflow Requirements for Aquatic Habitat Protection at Selected Sites on the Assabet and Charles Rivers, Eastern Massachusetts, 2000‐02

Yes • Used to provide a general description of the R2Cross method, which is a hydraulic rating approach for estimating ecological flow recommendations

Plummer, R. et al. The expanding institutional Yes • Did not use in the study

2005 context for water resources management: the case of the Grand River Watershed Publication: Canadian Water Resources Journal

• Opted to use other Canadian examples of water governance and collaborative management

Quinn, M.S. and J.C. Theberge 2003

Ecosystem‐based management in Canada: trends from a national survey and relevance to protected areas In: Making Ecosystem‐Based Management Work: Connecting Researchers and Managers

Yes • Used in general discussion of ecosystem‐based management • Used to aid in discussing the core set of ecosystem‐based

management principles • Discussed nation‐wide survey examining the state of ecosystem‐

based management in Canada

Redman, C.L. 1999

Human impact on ancient environments

Yes • Source identified through Falkenmark (2003) • Used to illustrate work that sought to promote ecosystem‐

based management approaches Richter, B.D. and G.A. Thomas 2007

Restoring Environmental Flows by Modifying Dam Operations Publication: Ecology and Society

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use other works by Richter

Richter, B.D. et al. 2006

A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations Publication: River Research and Applications

Yes • Used to describe a case study where variable ecosystem flow requirements are derived for a U.S. river system

• Used to provide an explanation of different ecological functions performed by different river flow levels


Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity Publication: Ecological Applications

Yes • Research paper that identifies a framework for developing an ecologically sustainable water management program


A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration within a river network Publication: Regulated Rivers: Research & Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use other, more relevant works by Richter


A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems Publication: Conservation Biology

Yes • Used to provide a summary of hydrologic parameters used in the Indicators of Hydrologic Alternation (IHA)

• Used to discuss how statistical assessments can be used to quantify the magnitude of potential conflicts in water management

Richter, B.D. and H.E. Richter 2000

Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers Publication: Conservation Biology

Yes • Used to discuss how biotic and abiotic indicators should be utilized when estimating ecosystem flow requirements

Rogers, K. and R. Bestbier 1997

Development of a protocol for the definition of the desired state of riverine systems in South Africa

Yes • Used to identify an example of one area�s use of ecological indicators to prescribe flow regimes in South Africa

Sankarasubramanian, A. et al. 2009

The Role of Monthly Updated Climate Forecasts in Improving Intraseasonal Water Allocation Publication: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

Yes • Did not use in the study • Could be useful research for the future, but is presently limited

and focuses mostly on modeling without concrete examples of how it would actually be applied

Shiau, J.T. and F.C. Wu 2008

A histogram matching approach for assessment of flow regime alteration: application to environmental flow optimization Publication: River Research and Applications

Yes • Used as a case example to illustrate the Histogram Matching Approach (HMA) for investigating the effectiveness of different environmental flow regimes in regulated rivers through the attainment of flow‐based river management targets

• Used to identify appropriate units of measurement for indicators of hydrologic alteration

Shiau, J.T. and F.C. Wu 2006

Compromise programming methodology for determining instream flow under multiobjective water allocation criteria Publication: Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Yes • Did not use in the study • Uses the Range of Variability Approach to determine ecological

flow • Opted to use other research by Shiau and Wu

Shiau, J.T. and F.C. Wu

Assessment of hydrologic alterations cause by Chi‐Chi

Yes • Used as a case study to illustrate the use of the Range of Variability Approach (RVA) for investigating the effectiveness of

2004 diversion weir in Chou‐Shui Creek, Taiwan: opportunities for restoring natural flow conditions Publication: River Research and Applications

different environmental flow regimes in regulated rivers through the attainment of flow‐based river management targets

Souchon Y., S. Valentin, and H. Capra 1998

Peut‐on render plus objective la determination des debits reserves par une approche scientifique? Publication: La Houille Blanche

Yes • Used to describe some of the different methods for determining ecological flow requirements

Starzomski, B.M. 2009

Email correspondence Yes • Used in discussing the challenges that exist in applying ecosystem‐based management in Canada

Swanson, S. 2002

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Yes • Used to identify ecosystem influences caused by changes in the indicators of hydrologic alteration

• Source is from Resource Notes developed through the National Science and Technology Centre, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Tennant, D.L. 1976

Instream Flow Regimes for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Related Environmental Resources In: Proceedings of the Symposium and Specialty Conference on Instream Flow Needs, Volume 2

Yes • Used to provide a brief example of a hydrologic approach for estimating ecological flow requirements

Thomas, G. 2009

Personal communications Yes • Used in discussing natural variability, and human influences on natural systems

• Used to discuss how ambient ecological conditions should be defined

Tilmant, A., Q. Goor, and D. Pinte 2009

Agricultural‐to‐hydropower water transfers: sharing water and benefits in hydropower‐irrigation systems Publication: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Yes • Did not use in the study • Focused primarily on economic aspects of this collaborative

approach to water management

U.S. Environmental Evaluation Guidelines for Yes • Used in discussing the importance of ecological indicators

Protection Agency 2000

Ecological Indicators


Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Indicator Development Strategy

Yes • Used to illustrate some of the criteria an ecological indicator should meet

U.S. Geological Survey 2009

Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) Software Webpage

Yes • Used to briefly describe the PHABSIM software


The Five Phases of IFIMWebpage

Yes • Used to briefly describe the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

van der Leeuw, S.E. 2001

Land degradation as a socio‐natural process In: The way the wind blows: climate, history and human action

Yes • Source identified through Falkenmark (2003) • Used to illustrate work that sought to promote ecosystem‐

based management approaches

Viessman, Jr., W. 1996

Integrated Water ManagementPublication: Water Resources Update

Yes • Used to provide description of some of the issues and challenges associated with the integrated watershed management structure

Viessman, Jr., W. and C. Welty 1985

Water management: technology and institutions

Yes • Used to aid in describing integrated watershed management • Used in the discussion of challenges facing integrated watershed

management Wasson, J.G., R. Bonnan, and L. Maridet 1995

Réponses globales des invertébrés benthiques aux conditions d�habitat physique dans les cours d�eau salmonicoles: perspectives d�intégration dans les modèles habitat/poisons Publication: Bulletin Français de Pêche et de Pisciculture

Yes • Used to provide discussion on the habitat simulation approach to estimating ecological flow recommendations

Waterbucket 2009

Living Water Smart: The Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy Webpage

Yes • Used to illustrate the link between the Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy and BC�s Water Living Smart and Green Communities initiatives

Wise, M. and W.B. The watershed approach: an Yes • Source identified through the Viessman, Jr. (1996) paper

Pawlukiewicz 1996

institutional framework for actionIn: Total water environment management for military installations

• Identifies three primary attributes to achieve a sound watershed management approach

Wu, F.C. and K.S. Lee 1998

Assessment of instream flow for Chi‐Chi common diversion weir

Yes • Document in Chinese, but co‐written by a previously cited author

• Used to provide a determined ecological flow value from earlier research

Yaffee, S.L. 1999

Three faces of ecosystem management Publication: Conservation Biology


Yaffee, S.L. et al. 1996

Ecosystem management in the United States: an assessment of current experience

Yes • Used only to illustrate how the Quinn & Theberge (2003) study was completed as a comparison to corresponding U.S. ecosystem‐based management approaches

Yang, Z.F. et al. 2009

Environmental flow requirements for integrated water resources allocation in the Yellow River Basin, China Publication: Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation

Yes • Did not use in the study • A good example of determining an exact percentage required

for ecological flow; however, it did not explain adequately how the value was estimated

• Opted to use other estimations of ecological flow

Yap, R.W. 2009

Email correspondence Yes • Used in discussing the option of a variable price structure to aid in allocating water resources

Climate ChangeArnell, N.W. et al. 2001

Hydrology and water resourcesIn: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Yes • Used to identify some of the climate change impacts on hydrology and water resources

Beltaos, S. et al. 2006

Climatic effects on ice‐jam flooding of the Peace‐Athabasca

Yes • Used to identify an example of the influence of climate change impacts on aquatic habitat

Delta Publication: Hydrological Processes

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2006

An Analysis of Canadian and Other Water Conservation Practices and Initiatives

Yes • Used to provide description of how climate change effects are expected to influence water levels of both surface and groundwater

Chang, H., B. Evans, and D. Easterling 2001

The effects of climate change on streamflow and nutrient loading Publication: Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Yes • Used to identify an example of how climate change effects can lead to increased nutrient loads due to enhanced precipitation

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007

Fresh Water Resources and their Management In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Yes • Used to provide a description of observed and predicted trends in climate change


Summary for PolicymakersIn: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Yes • Used to provide a description of observed and predicted trends in climate change


Climate Change and Water Yes • Used to provide description of climate change effects on sectors of the North American economy

McLaughlin, D. 2009

Water and the future of Canada�s natural resource sectors

Yes • Used to provide a description of observed and predicted trends in climate change, as well as their impacts on various industrial

Publication: Policy Options and land‐use sectorsMillennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Synthesis

Yes • Used to describe how freshwater systems face effects to climate change to a greater extent than do other ecosystems

Morrison, J., M. Quick, and M. Foreman 2002

Climate change in the Fraser River watershed: flow and temperature projections Publication: Journal of Hydrology

Yes • Used to describe an example of how climate change impacts are increasing temperatures to an extent that is detrimental to salmon habitats

AgricultureAgriculture and Agri‐Food Canada 2000

The health of our water: toward sustainable agriculture in Canada

Yes • Used to provide water requirements of different livestock

Bjornlund, H., L. Nicol, and K.K. Klein 2009

The adoption of improved irrigation technology and management practices � A study of two irrigation districts in Alberta, Canada Publication: Agricultural Water Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Paper focused more on how most BMPs have already been

applied, and further application is likely unfeasible economically• Did not bring anything new to the forefront

Dale, V.H. and S. Polasky 2007

Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services Publication: Ecological Economics

Yes • Used to illustrate that water consumption varies depending on the type of agriculture being conducted


Land Use Practices and Changes �Agriculture Webpage

Yes • Used in general discussion of water use and consumption in the agriculture sector, with focus on both irrigation and livestock watering


Water Use � AgricultureWebpage

Yes • Used to identify differences in agricultural water use between irrigation and watering livestock


Water Use in Canada, 2005Webpage

Yes • Used to compare differences in water consumption between sectors

• Used to identify agriculture water use Hoffman, N., G. Rural and Small Town Canada Yes • Used to provide a brief description of dependable agricultural

Filoso, and M. Schofield 2005

Analysis Bulletin: The Loss of Dependable Agricultural Land in Canada

crop land in Canada, and its distribution

Hurditch, W. 2005

Applying Technology for Sustainable Water Management � The Pratt Water Experience Publication: Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Yes • Did not use in the study • Produced by an industry and project advisor to Pratt Water • Focused more on economic side of water management � less

relevant to study research

International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development 2008

Agricultural Ecosystems: Facts and Trends

Yes • Used to identify different means by which water use and watershed management could be improved in the agriculture sector

Kulshreshtha, S.N. and C. Grant 2007

An Estimation of Canadian Agricultural Water Use Publication: Canadian Water Resources Journal

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent and reliable statistics generated by

Environment Canada

Nicol, L. A., H. Bjornlund, and K.K. Klein 2008

Improved Technologies and Management Practices in Irrigation � Implications for Water Savings in Southern Alberta Publication: Canadian Water Resources Journal

Yes • Did not use in the study • Paper focused more on financial aspects of improved

technologies and practices

Schmutzer, A.C. et al. 2008

Impacts of cattle on amphibian larvae and the aquatic environment Publication: Freshwater Biology

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use a different example for water quality effects • Focus of our research more on issues of water quantity

Schreier, H. 2009

Agricultural Water Policy Challenges in BC Publication: Policy Options

Yes • Used to provide two case studies for the agriculture sector • First case study examined groundwater use in the Okanagan

region

• Second case study looked at excess manure application and consequences in the Fraser Valley

Schreier, H. 2009

Email correspondence Yes • Used in discussing the applicability of agricultural practices and technologies

• Used also to discuss the limits of Canada�s water governance structure

Science Council of Canada 1988

Water 2020: sustainable use for the water in the 21st century

Yes • Used in discussion of water use for livestock purposes


Total farm area, land tenure and land in crops, by province Webpage

Yes • Used to illustrate the amount of farmland in Canada in 2006

Tan, C.S. 2009

Email correspondence Yes • Used to provide insight into additional BMPs and BATs • Used to discuss the large‐scale application of an alternative

irrigation system Tan, C.S. et al. 2007

Water Quality and Crop Production Improvement Using a Wetland‐Reservoir and Drainage/Subsurface Irrigation System Publication: Canadian Water Resources Journal

Yes • Academic journal article discussing study of an alternative irrigation system

• Used as a case study for the agriculture sector

Wang, H. et al. 2001

Improving water use efficiency of irrigated crops in the North China Plain � measurements and modelling Publication: Agricultural Water Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Research was not the most up‐to‐date • Identified a more recent Canadian example

Yates, A.G., R.C. Bailey, and J.A. Schwindt 2007

Effectiveness of best management practices in improving stream ecosystem quality Publication: Hydrobiologia

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use a more recent example examining water quality

issues in the agricultural sector

Mining

Aguilar, J. et al. 2004

Application of remediation techniques for immobilization of metals in soils contaminated by a pyrite tailing spill in Spain Publication: Soil Use and Management

Yes • Did not use this paper • Little information specifically related to water contamination

Biggar, K.W. et al. 2005

Spray freezing decontamination of tailings water at the Colomac MinePublication: Cold Regions Science and Technology

Yes • Used as a case study in the mining sector, specifically on spray freezing as a method for reducing contaminant concentrations in tailings water

Clausen, S. and M.L. McAllister 2001

A comparative analysis of voluntary environmental initiatives in the Canadian Mineral Industry Publication: Minerals & Energy

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent work • This paper focused exclusively on voluntary actions


Water Use � MiningWebpage

Yes • Webpage identifying how water is used in the mining sector • Describes water intake levels in comparison to the agriculture

sector Environment Canada 2008

Land Use Practices and Changes �Mining and Petroleum Production Webpage

Yes • Used in general discussion of water use and consumption in the mining sector

Gao, W., D.W. Smith, and D.C. Sego 2000

Freezing temperatures of freely falling industrial wastewater droplets Publication: Journal of Cold Regions Engineering

Yes • Used to provide description of spray freezing technique to treat mining tailings ponds

Guerin, T.F. 2006

A Survey of Sustainable Development Initiatives in the Australian Mining and Minerals Industry Publication: Minerals & Energy

Yes • A compilation of 13 case studies from the mining industry in Australia

• Author is associated with Shell Australia • Used one case study � BHP Billiton • Original source material was from government‐published

research Hilson, G. 2000

Sustainable development policies in Canada�s mining sector: an

Yes • Source originally used in report, but removed due to lack of relevance to report objectives

overview of government and industry efforts Publication: Environmental Science & Policy

• Originally used in discussing the history of environmental degradation from mining in Canada

Hilson, G. and J. Haselip 2004

The Environmental and Socioeconomic Performance of Multinational Mining Companies in the Developing World Economy Publication: Minerals & Energy

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent work • Did not go into detail on practices and technologies

Liang, Y. 2007

Study on Critical, Modern Technology for Mining in Gassy Deep Mines Publication: Journal of China University of Mining & Technology

Yes • Did not use in the study • Specific to Chinese mines, but may have application for some

gassy deep mine in Canada • Opted to use other examples from the mining sector

McCullough, C.D. 2008

Approaches to remediation of acid mine drainage water in pit lakes Publication: International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment

Yes • Did not use in the study • Provided details on various methods of acid mine drainage

remediation • Opted to use other examples from the mining sector

Mining Association of Canada 2007

Towards Sustainable Mining: Progress Report 2007

Yes • Industry association • Discusses sustainability initiatives applied by the mining sector

across Canada • Used in part of mining sector background discussion

Ministry of Energy and Mines, Mining Division 2003

Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, 2003

Yes • Government policy handbook for the mining sector • Used to identify water management policies for exploration

activities and exploration access

Ministry of Energy and Mines 2002

Aggregate Operators Best Management Practices Handbook for British Columbia

Yes • Government policy handbook for the mining sector • Used to identify BMPs used to protect aquatic ecosystems

Ripley, E.A., R.E. Redmann, and A.A. Crowder

Environmental Effects of Mining Yes • Source originally used in report, but removed due to lack of relevance to report objectives

• Novel on the mining sector and its impact on the environment

1996 • Originally used to describe the environmental effects from placer mining operations

ForestryAndersson, F.O. et al. 2000

Forest ecosystem research �priorities for Europe Publication: Forest Ecology and Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent work specific to North America

BC Ministry of Environment 2006

Best Management Practices for Hazard Tree and Non‐Hazard Tree Limbing, Topping or Removal

Yes • Government policy document • Used to provide application of BMPs in the forestry sector

Canadian Forest Service 2002

2000‐2001 The state of Canada�s forests. Sustainable forestry � a reality in Canada

Yes • Used to provide percentage of world�s forests in Canada

Dietz, A.C. and J.L. Schnoor 2001

Advances in phytoremediationPublication: Environmental Health Perspectives

Yes • Identified source through Environment Canada literature • Used to briefly describe process of phytoremediation

Dubé, S., A.P. Plamondon, and R.L. Rothwell 1995

Watering up after clear‐cutting on forested wetlands of the St. Lawrence lowland Publication: Water Resources Research

Yes • Identified source through Environmental Canada literature • Used to provide a description of how forest harvesting can

affect streamflow rates


Land Use Practices and Changes �Forestry Webpage

Yes • Used to describe forests with respect to their influence on aquatic ecosystems

• Used to describe water use in the forestry sector Homyak, P.M. et al. 2008

Nitrogen immobilization by wood‐chip application: Protecting water quality in northern hardwood forest Publication: Forest Ecology and Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Originally intended for use as a case study • After communicating with one of the authors (D.A. Burns), we

identified that this method can not be applied on a large‐scale right now

Lemmen, D.S. and F.J. Warren 2004

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective

Yes • Found through NRTEE report • Used in discussion of the forestry sector�s response to climate

change

Lemmen, D.S. et al. 2008

From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007

Yes • Found through NRTEE report • Used in discussion of the forestry sector�s efforts to reduce

impacts on water quality Martin, C.W. et al. 2000

Impact of intensive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests Publication: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Yes • Identified source through Environmental Canada literature • Used to provide a description of how increased flow rates due

to timber harvesting have minimal influence on a watershed scale

Mattice, C.R. 1977

Forest road erosion in northern Ontario: a preliminary analysis

Yes • Identified source through Environmental Canada literature • Used in discussing the general causes of sedimentation in

aquatic ecosystems (as a result of forestry practices) McBroom, M.W. et al. 2008

Storm runoff and sediment losses from forest clearcutting and stand re‐establishment with best management practices in East Texas, USA Publication: Hydrological Processes

Yes • Used as a case study on the effectiveness of BMPs on forestry impacts to water quality, specifically relating to storm runoff of sediment

Saint‐Germain, M. and D.F. Greene 2009

Salvage logging in the boreal and cordilleran forests of Canada: Integrating industrial and ecological concerns in management plans Publication: The Forestry Chronicle

Yes • Did not use in the study • Work focused primarily on salvage logging, not traditional

harvesting

South Carolina Forestry Commission 2009

South Carolina Forestry Commission Best Management Practices � Timber Harvesting Webpage

Yes • Use to describe forestry sector BMPs for timber harvesting

South Carolina Forestry Commission 2009

South Carolina Forestry Commission Best Management Practices � Stream Crossings Webpage

Yes • Use to describe forestry sector BMPs for stream crossings

South Carolina South Carolina Forestry Yes • Use to describe forestry sector BMPs for pesticide application

Forestry Commission 2009

Commission Best Management Practices � Pesticides Webpage

Vowell, J.L. and R.B. Frydenborg 2004

A biological assessment of Best Management Practice effectiveness during intensive silvicultural and forest chemical application Publication: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus

Yes • Did not use in the study • Work focused primarily on biological attributes, and did not

specifically relate to other characteristics of water

Vowell, J.L. 2001

Using stream bioassessment to monitor best management practice effectiveness Publication: Forest Ecology and Management

Yes • Did not use in the study • Work focused primarily on biological attributes, not completely

relevant to our research

EnergyAden, A. 2007

Water usage for current and future ethanol production Publication: Southwest Hydrology

Yes • Used to provide description of water use and losses in bioenergy production

Allen, E.W. 2008

Process water treatment in Canada�s oil sands industry: I. Target pollutants and treatment objectives Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science

Yes • Did not use in the study • Provided more of a summary of the chemicals in contaminated

oil sands water • Does not go into significant detail on treatment options

Bergkamp, G., P. Dugan, and J. McNeely 2000

Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration World Commission on Dams Thematic Review, Environmental Issues II.I

Yes • Used in discussing the number of large hydropower stations in Canada

Borjesson, P. and G. Berndes

The prospects for willow plantations for wastewater

Yes • Used in describing how wastewater can be used to produce biofuel crops

2006 treatment in SwedenPublication: Biomass Bioenergy

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 2009

Water Use in Canada�s Oil Sands Yes • Used to provide specific values of water use by the oil industry


Tailings Ponds Webpage

Yes • Description of tailings ponds and strategies to deal with them • Used in case study description of Alberta�s oil sands


A Revolution in Heavy Oil Technology Webpage

Yes • Description of new THAITM technology, designed to reduce water consumption in oil sands operations

• Used in case study description of Alberta�s oil sands


Using Undrinkable Saline Water in SAGD Webpage

Yes • Description of Devon Energy�s use of brackish water as an alternative to freshwater



Using Recycled Water Instead of River Water Webpage

Yes • Description of Petro‐Canada�s use of wastewater as an alternative to freshwater



Recycling Water with Zero Liquid Discharge at MacKay River Webpage

Yes • Description of innovative solution (ZLD) to reduce freshwater consumption in oil sands extraction


Canadian Energy Research Institute 2004

Oil Sands Supply Outlook: Potential Supply and Costs of Crude Bitumen and Synthetic Crude Oil in Canada 2003‐2017 Media Briefing Presentation

Yes • Used to illustrate how water can be removed from the hydrologic cycle when used in tertiary methods of oil extraction


The Management of Water, How Water Is Used

Yes • Used to illustrate how much water the energy sector uses compared to other major users

Webpage Environment Canada 2008

Manufacturing and Thermal Energy Demands Webpage

Yes • Used in describing the water use and impacts associated with thermal energy production


Dams, Reservoirs and Flow Regulation Webpage

Yes • Used in describing the water impacts associated with hydroelectric power generation

Feeley III, T.J. et al. 2008

Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry Publication: Energy

Yes • Used as a case study of a U.S. program to develop water efficient technologies in the thermoelectric power industry

Gao, W., D.W. Smith, and D.C. Sego 2003

Spray freezing treatment of water from oil sands tailing ponds. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science

Yes • Used to provide description of spray freezing technique to treat oil sands tailings ponds

Gopalakrishnan, G. et al. 2009

Biofuels, Land, and Water: A Systems Approach to SustainabilityPublication: Environmental Science & Technology

Yes • Used in describing how contaminated groundwater can be used to produce biofuel crops

Harrison, L. 2009

Oilsands Tailings Ponds Creators Respond to New Rules Publication: New Technology Magazine

Yes • Article from magazine specializing in oil patch innovation • Discusses new rules for oil sands tailings ponds • Includes discussion of different technologies and treatments

available for tailings ponds Inhaber, H. 2004

Water Use in Renewable and Conventional Electricity Production Publication: Energy Sources

Yes • Did not use in the study • Study focused more on renewable energies not relevant to our

research (e.g., solar, wind)

International Small‐Hydro Atlas 2009

Canada: Country BriefWebpage

Yes • Used to provide information on the level of small hydro installations in Canada, and their capacity relative to hydropower in general

Jager, H.I. and B.T. Smith 2008

Sustainable reservoir operation: Can we generate hydropower and preserve ecosystem values Publication: River Research and

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use other source regarding ecological flows

Applications Klimpt, J.E. et al. 2002

Recommendations for sustainable hydroelectric development Publication: Energy Policy

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to use more recent work on hydropower that focuses

more on science than policy Leclerc, M. 2008

Getting down with VLH turbine R&D Publication: International Power & Dam Construction Magazine

Yes • Industry‐written article • Used to illustrate the effectiveness of a particular fish‐friendly

turbine that is of interest to Natural Resources Canada�s CanmetENERGY research group

Linderson, M.L., Z. Iritz, and A. Lindroth 2007

The effect of water availability on stand‐level productivity, transpiration, water use efficiency, and radiation use efficiency of field grown willow clones Publication: Biomass Bioenergy

Yes • Used to discuss how biomass crop yield is typically dependent on water availability

Lucas, M.C. et al. 2009

Availability of and access to critical habitats in regulated rivers: effects of low‐head barriers on threatened lampreys Publication: Freshwater Biology

Yes • Was originally going to be used as a case study • Opted to not use this work after a shift in focus to issues of

water supply

McCutcheon, S.C. and J.L. Schnoor 2003

Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants

Yes • Used to describe how phytoremediation sites growing crop that can be used for biofuel are effective in restoring contaminated groundwater


Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the U.S.

Yes • Used to provide general discussion of biorefineries use of water

Natural Resources Canada 2009

Freshwater: The Role and Contribution of Natural Resources Canada, Energy Webpage

Yes • Used in a general discussion of the shared characteristics and the interconnections between water and energy

• Used to aid in the discussion on thermal energy and hydroelectric industries


Water Supply for Canada�s Oil Sands Webpage

Yes • Description of water use of and supply for oil sands • Used in case study description of Alberta�s oil sands

Natural Resources Small Hydropower � Low Head and Yes • Used to provide a description of a CanmetENERGY project to

Canada 2008

Very Low Head Hydro Power Generation Webpage

make low head dams more economically feasible


Small Hydropower � Fish‐friendly Turbine Webpage

Yes • Used to provide a description of a CanmetENERGY research into fish‐friendly turbines for use in hydropower generation

Pembina Institute 2006

Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability

Yes • Did not use in the study • After reviewing information from the report, found

contradictory statements in other works Perlack, R.D. et al. 2005

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion‐Ton Annual Supply Technical Report

Yes • Used to describe how water use in biomass energy production depends on different variables

Scharf, D. et al. 2002

Industrial Water Use, 1996 Yes • Source identified through NRTEE paper, �Charting a Path� • Used to determine energy water use

Schmer, M.R. et al., 2008

Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass Publication: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for the United States of America

Yes • Used to describe how marginal lands used to produce biofuel crops often require significant nutrients and water to maintain productivity


Industrial Water Use, 2005 Yes • Source identified through NRTEE paper, �Charting a Path� • Used to determine energy water use

Steel, E.A. and I.A. Lange 2007

Using Wavelet Analysis to Detect Changes in Water Temperature Regimes at Multiple Scales: Effects of Multi‐Purpose Dams in the Willamette River Basin Publication: River Research and Applications

Yes • Did not use in the study • Opted to focus on issues to do more with water supply • Paper provides excellent knowledge of thermal changes from

dams

Tate, D.M. and D.N. Scharf 1995

Water Use in Canadian Industry, 1991

Yes • Source identified through NRTEE paper, �Charting a Path� • Used to determine energy water use

Tate, D.M. and D.N. Scharf 1992

Water Use in Canadian Industry, 1986

Yes • Source identified through NRTEE paper, �Charting a Path� • Used to determine energy water use

Taylor, L. 2009

Water challenges in oil sands country: Alberta�s Water for Life strategy Publication: Policy Options

Yes • Review of Alberta�s Water for Life strategy in the context of the oil sands


The Royal Society 2008

Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges

Yes • Used to describe how land conversion to enable biofuel crop production can degrade water quality

Turner, R.E., N.N. Rabalais, and D. Justic 2008

Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: Alternate states and a legacy Publication: Environmental Science & Technology

Yes • Used in describing how biofuel crop production can produce water quality impacts both locally and on a large scale

U.S. Department of Energy 2006

Annual energy outlook 2006 with projections to 2030

Yes • Used in a case study to identify estimated increase in thermoelectric generating capacity between 2005 and 2030


Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000

Yes • Used in a case study to identify thermoelectric water use in the U.S.

Williams, P.R.D. et al. 2009

Environmental and Sustainability Factors Associated with Next‐Generation Biofuels in the U.S.: What Do We Really Know? Publication: Environmental Science and Technology

Yes • Used to describe the different water demands between biochemical and thermochemical conversion processes used in biorefineries

MiscellaneousFraser Basin Council 2008

Board of DirectorsWebpage

Yes • Used to describe the types of members on the FBC Board of Directors

Fraser Basin Council 2008

Who We Are Webpage

Yes • Used in the description of when the FBC was established, as well as their overall focus

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

NRTEE � Meet Our MembersWebpage

Yes • Used to identify the types of representatives present on the NRTEE

2008 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2009

NRTEE � Who We AreWebpage

Yes • Used to identify the NRTEE mission

York Universitywarming.apps01.yorku.ca/library/wp-content/uploads/... · NRTEE Ecosystem Needs of...

Documents

Transcript of York Universitywarming.apps01.yorku.ca/library/wp-content/uploads/... · NRTEE Ecosystem Needs of...