EASTERN REGION HEADWATERS WORKHOP FEB 25 th 2011
- BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES
RESEARCH
Break-out Session 1
Top Priority Gaps: Research (HDF’s)
Cumulative effects of climate change and how they relate to HDF function
Quantifying sediment supply (transportation, outputs from headwater systems)
Natural spatial and temporal variability throughout the systems (that apply to the land use within the region)
Anthropomorphic alterations to landscape
-
Mitigation techniques for HDF’s as compared to alternate aquatic systems (types, amount)
Transference of research observations/trends to policy, regulation, decision makers and the general public
Changing perspectives – quantifying to landowners/stakeholders the value of protecting HDF’s (ecologically and socially)
Restoration goals and targets
Access restrictions and research opportunities
Establishing average catchment area based on soils, surficial geology and other comparative features
Methods to identify the extent of headwaters (an appropriate scale of comparison)
Availability of spatial data will determine/affect the potential methods for research/monitoring, etc.
-
How far do we need to go to evaluate HDF’s sufficiently
Determine an appropriate spatial scale
Community structure links with water quality, influences of sediment, habitat
Summary:
Identification, value of headwaters (temporally and spatially) as influenced by landscape, the local habitat, and the varying land-use
Model accuracy and the validation
Strategies for Addressing Research Gaps – Breakout Session 2
1) Quantify/Identify value of headwaters
– Use public as participants
- Data assembly (bringing together information)
-Assessment protocols (standardized approach)
- Ground truthing for models (validation)
- Identifying for what is applicable research
2) Communications
- Workshops (multiple – to cover several regions/demographics)
- Opportunities to link research and the application

- Equalizing the explanation of data/conclusions among all groups involved (Transdisciplinary – relay the message to a greater audience)
- Identifying key people
3) Cumulative linkages – habitat, community, mitigation measures and restoration
- Historical values
- Post impact monitoring (US and DS studies)
- Case studies (experimental sites)
- Assigning ecological value
MONITORING
Break-out Session 1
Top Priority Gaps: Research (HDF’s)
- monitoring is something you want to measure in the field to document change e.g.; water flow, sediment deposition and nutrients
- What are we collecting? Leads back to policy, fish habitat ( Fisheries Act doesn’t protect head waters) it is not the tool for HDF, how do we protect it.
- Base flow data is missing data pre-development conditions, all temperature data, sediment etc.
-pre impact, it’s hard to prosecute when there is no background data, baseline data a must.
- we don’t have headwaters mapped, it’s hard to tell headwaters when it has already been destroyed, you realize it’s a head water when it’s too late.
- we need to establish a historical database, most of us don’t have the funds for good
DEM’s
- how are we supposed to monitor if we don’t know where they are
- if we’re going to spend time and money we need to develop features forms
- research + monitoring they work together, knowing what the features are, we need a baseline inventory
-what are you going to measure when we are out in the field: flow, sediment loading and nutrients
- sediment is not easily monitored
-head waters can be more natural than agricultural and urban stream, need to reflect the features
- what’s missing, are the systems storing or moving nutrients, need ideas on how to measure for these parameters for rapid assessment, we need a better ways to capture what we need for the protocol
- need to look at a landscape level cumulatively, what do we have, how are policies working. Fresh management policies, we need a clear definition of what is a stream, and then map them out at a landscape level
-are we seeing changes that are related to the deterioration headwaters
-we need impacted, reference and control sites within the protocol

Strategies for Addressing Research Gaps – Breakout Session 2
1) Mapping
- had the highest number for priority, but after discussing it we realized that we need monitoring objectives before anything else.
-everything is linked to monitoring objectives.
2) Monitoring objectives
- we don’t have a collective organized group, we need one to develop objectives based on the need of the agencies, needs at different scales for different agencies with research and policy.
-we need to link the planning objective and policies. We need to set up a multi agency approach to do this and have workshops.
-we need to develop a standard on how to do the mapping and tie all the agencies together.
- we need to have endorsements
- we need clear defined objectives and what they are providing us. 1-flow, 2- nutrients, sediment and 4- form.
- we need the MNR to develop good DEM’s
3) Cumulative overview
- we need to look at what’s impacted the headwaters it will help establish a scale, a detailed scale and a coarse scale depending on the needs of the agency, study design and for data collection.
- we need to monitor the downstream effects
POLICY/GUIDELINES
Breakout Session 1
Top Priority Gaps: Policy/Guidelines (HDF’s)
Turning results of research in better/stronger policy
Better definition of which areas to protect (e.g. Subwatershed studies, mapping and field-truthing)
-
Better definition of “significance” or “sensitive” with respect to headwaters (all functions- hydrology plus ecology)
Outreach/awareness of headwater importance at local level
Better evaluation of headwater functions to enable balancing of social/economic factors with environment
-
“Conservation of Lands” – How to use CA act to preserve headwater features
Financial means of managing headwaters
Strategies for Addressing Policy/Guideline Gaps – Breakout Session 2
1) Mechanisms needed to ensure the transfer of research outcomes into policy reviews
Strategically timed workshops/presentations to inform policy makers

Get guidelines endorsed/approved by politicians
Ensure strategic recruitment of groups like SMARTER
2) Invest in subwatershed studies, mapping (enshrine in planning policy)
Also need to consider significance; may need to prioritize protection/conservation/mitigation
Need finer level of detail (environment management plans)
Cumulative effects
Data management and integration
3) Public outreach and evaluation of headwater features
-
“Hinterland who’s who”
Adopt-a-swale
Community involvement (City Stream Watch, restoration, clean-ups)
Partnership with community associations, lake groups, etc.
Public access – policies for green-space and pathways
Agricultural outreach
Incentives for stewardship
RESTORATION
Break-out Session 1
Top Priority Gaps: Restoration (HDF’s)
-we don’t have the same tools and information available for eastern CA’s
-historical information as far as identification of headwater systems is not as well known or understood
-areas are not well identified for restoration in this area
-need money to finance some of this work
-historical wetland information is lacking
-we can’t possibly replace what we have lost
-competing things on the landscape
-integrating storm water function into development proposals that emphasize protecting
HDF’s
-we have SOLARIS and geology information in the city of Ottawa
-Ottawa is in good shape for wetlands when you look at the mapping
-agricultural systems how do we maximize ecological function when we have land use changes
-post effectiveness monitoring
-agricultural system change to a “Natural Channel Design” feature to maximize function
-don’t be constrained by the policies that we have when we have a proposed landuse change
-land ownership should attempt to quantify them
-private ownership is always going to be a problem
-National Capital Commission is a prime example of an opportunity as they are major landowner
-public awareness can be achieved by using private landowners

-restoration opportunities should be more holistic
-owning the creeks as municipal properties as they develop out
-how do you assess your restoration success
-what is the driver for your restoration
-define goal setting is required for the restoration project
-require restoration targets
-standardized so that we can cross compare success of projects
-should we use the current model of % success
-explore and enhance opportunities to share case studies with everyone
Strategies for Addressing Restoration Gaps – Breakout Session 2
1) Maximize ecological function with landuse change
-regulatory agencies that are stuck on the old way
-science better understood at the policy level
-quantify the ecological benefits from an economic perspective
-simplify approval process
-monitoring should not be based on the dev’t it should based on the watershed
-subwatershed studies should focus more on headwaters as they develop
-consistent between municipalities for development community
-document adaptive integrated management approaches
2) Qualify Restoration Objectives
-identify value of functions
-more science and monitoring
-use current science better and enhance the science as we progress
-stop using total length as the parameter and use function
-broader application of parameters/ecological units
3) Assess Restoration Success
-user pay effectiveness monitoring by the proponent
-on a multi project scale
-multi discipline (biology, engineering, geomorphology)
-tie back to the objectives of the subwatershed study
-identify a leader for collecting the restoration data