FINAL REPORT. Assessment Report Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects. May Submitted to:

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT Assessment Report Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects May 2013 Submitted to: Water Management Committee Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 123 Main Street, Suite 360 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1A3 Submitted by: WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, ON N2H 5C5 WESA Project Number: W-B PN 1571 This report contains information which has been prepared for, but not approved by, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). CCME is committed to reflect the highest standards of research and analysis in its publications, however it is not responsible for the accuracy of the data contained in this report and does not warrant the information herein. CCME or its member jurisdictions do not necessarily share or affirm, in any way, any opinions expressed herein. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2017

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Water Management Committee (WMC) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) approved, in principle, the preliminary assessment approach for groundwater sustainability. This report, otherwise referenced as the Gordon Report, provided the framework for the completion of five pilot projects across Canada. The pilot projects were selected to ensure the proposed model and indicators are applicable at a range of scales and issues in a variety of regions across the country. These pilot projects were completed in early WESA was tasked to prepare a report which synthesizes the results of the jurisdictions pilot project outcomes and document key findings, and based on the findings to highlight recommendations on the applicability, use and/or refinement of the assessment approach. The assessment model, as outlined in the Gordon Report, was tested through five pilot projects across Canada. The proposed assessment approach intent was to provide a scientifically valid tool to inform decision makers and policy developers on the status of groundwater sustainability in their area. This includes development of key data requirements, policy approaches and technical methods to ensure implementation of sustainable practices. These pilot projects were selected based on their differences in scale and complexity. For example, the scale of the pilot projects ranged from a municipal setting in the Town of Gibsons, British Columbia to a significantly larger study area (5636 km 2 ) within the provincial jurisdictional context of Prince Edward Island to a transboundary aquifer that spans across southwest British Columbia and northwest Washington State, United States of America (USA), which was completed within a federal jurisdictional context. The Canada-wide scope of this project is represented in the fact that the pilot project locations extend from the west coast in the Town of Gibsons in British Columbia to the east coast in the province of Prince Edward Island and include projects in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec. Similarly, the complexity of issues affecting groundwater sustainability that were targeted by the pilot studies range from the management of nitrate contamination associated with fertilizer use, to issues associated with stresses from rapid growth and aging infrastructure in the absence of a water governance structure being in place. WESA concluded that the assessment approach process allowed for the successful communication of groundwater sustainability issues to water managers and the public. The assessment approach considered the review of the groundwater sustainability goals including an assessment of the groundwater sustainability issues with respect to the Driving-Force-Pressure- State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework, and selection of indicators to determine Page i

3 groundwater sustainability as outlined in the Gordon Report. The assessment approach also provided a common language to discuss groundwater sustainability and related evaluation tools. Each pilot project was tasked to discuss their groundwater issue with respect to their study area for each of the five sustainability goals. The issues covered most of the five goals of sustainable groundwater management. Each goal and issue were analysed within the DPSIR Framework which is used internationally as described in the Gordon Report for groundwater reporting. The DPSIR Framework provides a logical thought process to aid in the selection of indicators. The indicators selected to determine groundwater sustainability were based on examples provided by the Gordon Report and those created by the pilot projects. The analysis of the pilot projects noted that it is important to ensure that indicators can be selected based on the groundwater issues. These indicators should reflect local conditions. Many of the pilot projects did not only use the indicators presented in the Gordon report (Bayegnak, 2013) (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) (Environment Canada, 2013) (Martin, A., et al., 2013). The only common Gordon Report indicator used by all of the pilot projects was for groundwater quality (the assessment of groundwater quality problem relative to the total studied area). It was noted by the pilot project contacts and the reviews of the draft report that the development, maintenance, and commitment to collect and maintain the data required by some of the indicators may be onerous for some users of the assessment approach in the future. In WESA s review, the largest challenges faced by the pilot projects seemed to be the amount of time involved to complete this process (including staff resources), the ability to develop indicators with the information available and understanding the components of the assessment approach. The pilot projects submitted assessment reports and tables varied in format, complexity and detail. This is positive in the sense that the assessment approach was flexible enough to be adapted to the various jurisdictions and over a range of project scales. However, the non-uniform reporting formats limited the ability to create a comparison between pilot projects and conclusions that could be made for this analysis. Two of the five pilot projects developed an additional step which included a way to summarize the indicators evaluation and/or evaluate the indicators themselves. For example, Environment Canada (2013) completed a weight-ofevidence assessment for each of the sustainability goals. This approach was used to provide a summary of the goals, DPSIR Framework elements, and indicators used to determine an outcome. The weight-of-evidence approach provided a synthesis of the indicators within the assessment approach and aided in the communication of the study results. Overall, the assessment approach met the outlined project goals set by WMC. It provided a common method to discuss and communicate groundwater sustainability issues. Further work could be undertaken to create a guide for future users on how to use the assessment model. This Page ii WESA

4 guide could include additional suggestions on the development of indicators by themes and provide additional example indicators to aid the user. Further information could also include guidelines on how to communicate the results of the studies to water managers and the public. Page iii

5 RÉSUMÉ Le Comité de gestion de l eau (CGE) du Conseil canadien des ministres de l environnement (CCME) a approuvé en principe la démarche proposée aux fins de l évaluation de la pérennité des eaux souterraines dans le rapport Gordon. Ce rapport établissait un cadre de travail pour la réalisation de cinq projets pilotes au Canada. Les projets pilotes avaient été choisis pour leur capacité de proposer des modèles et des indicateurs qui s appliqueraient à différentes échelles, à différentes problématiques et dans différentes régions du pays. Tous avaient été menés à terme au début de La firme WESA a été mandatée pour produire une synthèse des résultats des projets pilotes des autorités compétentes, en exposer les principales conclusions et, à partir desdites conclusions, faire des recommandations sur l applicabilité de la démarche d évaluation, son utilisation ou les améliorations à y apporter. Le modèle d évaluation décrit dans le rapport Gordon a été mis à l essai dans le cadre de cinq projets pilotes au Canada. La démarche d évaluation proposée devait fournir un outil scientifiquement valable pour renseigner les décideurs et les responsables de l élaboration des politiques sur la situation de la pérennité des eaux souterraines dans leur région. Il s agissait notamment de déterminer les principales données, politiques et techniques nécessaires pour garantir l adoption de pratiques durables. Les projets pilotes ont été sélectionnés en fonction de la diversité de leurs échelles et de leurs niveaux de complexité. Par exemple, on passe de l échelle municipale dans la Ville de Gibsons, à l échelle provinciale dans une zone beaucoup plus vaste (5636 km2) de l Île-du-Prince-Édouard, puis à l échelle fédérale dans un aquifère transfrontalier qui couvre le sud-ouest de la Colombie-Britannique et le nord-ouest de l État de Washington. Ensemble, ces projets ont une portée nationale puisqu ils vont de la côte Ouest avec la Ville de Gibsons en Colombie-Britannique jusqu à la côte Est avec la province de l Île-du- Prince-Édouard, en passant par l Alberta et le Québec. La complexité des problématiques de la pérennité des eaux souterraines qui sont ciblées dans les études varie elle aussi : on se penche aussi bien sur la gestion de la contamination par les nitrates imputable à l utilisation d engrais que sur les pressions exercées par une croissance rapide et un vieillissement des infrastructures en l absence de structure de gouvernance de l eau. La firme WESA a conclu que la démarche d évaluation a permis de communiquer efficacement les problématiques de la pérennité des eaux souterraines aux responsables de la gestion de l eau et au public. La démarche prenait en compte l examen des objectifs de la gestion durable des eaux souterraines (y compris une évaluation des problématiques de la pérennité des eaux souterraines fondée sur le cadre conceptuel forces motrices-pressions-état-impacts-réponses Page iv WESA

6 [FPEIR]) et la sélection d indicateurs pour déterminer la pérennité des eaux souterraines conformément aux instructions énoncées dans le rapport Gordon. Enfin, la démarche a établi une terminologie commune pour discuter de la pérennité des eaux souterraines et des outils d évaluation connexes. Chaque projet pilote devait analyser la problématique de l eau souterraine dans la zone étudiée pour chacun des cinq objectifs de la gestion durable des eaux souterraines. Les problématiques abordées couvraient la plupart de ces cinq objectifs. Le cadre FPEIR, utilisé à l échelle internationale, a servi à analyser chaque objectif et chaque problématique comme le décrit le rapport Gordon aux fins de la production de rapports sur les eaux souterraines. Le cadre FPEIR établit un processus de réflexion logique qui aide à la sélection des indicateurs. Les indicateurs choisis pour déterminer la pérennité des eaux souterraines étaient fondés sur les exemples fournis par le rapport Gordon ou ont été créés par les équipes de projets pilotes. L analyse des projets pilotes a révélé l'importance de faire en sorte que les indicateurs puissent être choisis en fonction des problématiques de la zone à l étude. Ces indicateurs devraient refléter les conditions locales. Plusieurs des projets pilotes ne se sont pas limités aux indicateurs présentés dans le rapport Gordon (Bayegnak, 2013) (ministère de l Environnement de l Île-du- Prince-Édouard, 2013) (Environnement Canada, 2013) (Martin, A. et al., 2013). Le seul indicateur proposé dans le rapport Gordon qui a été retenu par tous les projets pilotes concernait la qualité de l eau souterraine (évaluation d un problème de qualité de l eau souterraine par rapport à la superficie totale étudiée). Selon les personnes-ressources des projets pilotes et les commentaires reçus au sujet du rapport préliminaire, la détermination et la tenue des données requises pour certains des indicateurs, ainsi que l engagement à recueillir et à tenir ces données, risquent de se révéler onéreux pour certains utilisateurs de la démarche d évaluation dans l avenir. Selon l étude de la firme WESA, les principaux défis des projets pilotes semblaient être le temps nécessaire à la mise en œuvre complète de la démarche (y compris les ressources humaines), la capacité d élaborer des indicateurs à partir de l information disponible et la compréhension des composantes de la démarche. Les projets pilotes ont soumis des rapports d évaluation et des tableaux dont la structure, la complexité et le niveau de détail varient. D un côté, cela montre que la démarche d évaluation est assez souple pour être utile à diverses autorités compétentes et pour s'appliquer à des projets d envergure variable. Par contre, l absence d uniformité dans la structure des rapports complique l établissement de comparaisons entre les projets pilotes et limite la capacité d en tirer des conclusions pour la présente analyse. Deux des cinq projets pilotes ont intégré à leur démarche une étape supplémentaire qui devait permettre de résumer l évaluation des indicateurs ou d évaluer les indicateurs en tant que tels. Ainsi, Environnement Canada (2013) a procédé à une évaluation à l'aide d'une approche fondée sur le poids de la Page v WESA

7 preuve pour chacun des objectifs de gestion durable. Cette étape lui a permis de produire un résumé des objectifs, des éléments du cadre FPEIR et des indicateurs utilisés pour déterminer un résultat. L'approche fondée sur le poids de la preuve a fourni une synthèse des indicateurs dans le cadre de la démarche d évaluation et a facilité la communication des résultats de l étude. Dans l ensemble, la démarche d évaluation a permis d atteindre les objectifs fixés par le CGE. Elle a fourni une méthode commune pour analyser et communiquer les problématiques de la pérennité des eaux souterraines. D autres travaux pourraient être réalisés en vue de produire un guide d utilisation du modèle d évaluation à l intention des futurs utilisateurs. Ce guide pourrait donner des suggestions additionnelles sur l élaboration d indicateurs par thèmes et présenter des exemples supplémentaires d indicateurs pour aider l utilisateur. On pourrait aussi y ajouter des lignes directrices sur la communication des résultats des études aux responsables de la gestion de l eau et au public. Page vi

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I RÉSUMÉ... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....X 1. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE METHODOLOGY WESA Template KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS PILOT PROJECTS SUMMARY USE OF GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER OUTREACH AND MANAGEMENT FOR THE TOWN OF GIBSONS, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR ASSESSMENT FOR THE TRANSBOUNDARY ABBOTSFORD- SUMAS AQUIFER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE LOWER ATHABASCA REGION, ALBERTA: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER ATHABASCA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AND THE CCME DPSIR APPROACH, ALBERTA, CANADA GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY IN THE MONTÉRÉGIE EST REGION, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA SUSTAINABILITY OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN SELECTED WATERSHED IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-QUANTITY, QUALITY AND ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, CANADA SUMMARY OF PILOT PROJECT RESULTS DPSIR Framework Elements Reviewed Gordon Report Indicators ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY GOALS DPSIR FRAMEWORK GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS LESSONS LEARNED BY THE PILOT PROJECTS SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH Data Considerations, Gaps and Uncertainty Provided by the Pilot Projects EVALUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH Page vii

9 4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STATED OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH CONCLUSION WORKS CITED LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- Town of Gibsons (Gordon, 2013)... 9 Table 2: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer (Canadian Portion Only) (Environment Canada, 2013) Table 3: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- The Lower Athabasca Region (Bayegnak, 2013) Table 4: Proposed NAOS DPSIR Indicators (Bayegnak, 2013) Table 5: Groundwater sustainability indicators using PACES projects data, Montérégie Est Region, Québec Table 6: Development of indicators for the PACES program- Example Table 7: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- Prince Edward Island Table 8: Summary of DPSIR Framework Elements Reviewed by the Pilot Projects...41 Table 9: Summary of the Example Gordon Report Indicators Used by at Least Three or More of the Pilot Projects...43 Table 10: Theme for Indicators for the Groundwater Sustainability Goals- Examples LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT Figure 1: Figure 2: DPSIR Framework for CCA goal to Protect Groundwater Quality from Contamination for the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer (Environment Canada, 2013) DPSIR Framework for Groundwater Quantity issues caused by Urbanization and Agricultural Activity (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013)...39 Page viii

10 LIST OF FIGURES FOLLOWING TEXT Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Canada-wide location map of where the pilot projects are located Watershed scale map showing the Aquifer of Interest- Town of Gibsons Watershed scale map showing the Aquifer of Interest- Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer Watershed scale map showing the Aquifer of Interest- Lower Athabasca Watershed scale map showing the Aquifer of Interest- Montérégie Est Region Watershed scale map showing the Aquifer of Interest- Prince Edward Island LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Synopsis Summary of the Pilot Projects Appendix B: Summary and Analysis of Indicators Provided by the Pilot Projects Appendix C: WESA Template Provided to Pilot Projects Page ix

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors of this Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects report wish to thank the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) for funding this work. We would also like to thank members of the Groundwater Project Team including Mr. Andy Ridge, Water Management Committee (WMC) member and Project Authority for the support and input throughout the project. We wish to thank Ms. Jane Stewart and Ms. Laura Crawford, CCME Secretariat support to the project, for their ongoing coordination and communication efforts throughout the project, keeping the consulting team and pilot project participants informed of the project timeline, objectives and process. The authors also wish to thank the Pilot Project Contacts, for their input and participation at critical points during the project including their contributions through their detailed groundwater sustainability assessment reports. We would also like to thank all of the participating agencies for their assistance in reviewing the draft report and for their final edits and contributions which were incorporated into the final report. Finally, we would also like to thank members of the Water Management Committee (WMC) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for their commitment to the protection of Canada s groundwater resources. Page x

12 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 2007 the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) identified groundwater as a priority issue. Subsequently, in 2010, the CCME Water Management Committee (WMC) tasked their groundwater project team with developing an approach for assessing groundwater sustainability. The intent of the sustainability assessment is to provide: A standardized means by which jurisdictions can track the status of groundwater resources and the effectiveness of their groundwater management strategies over time. Continuity and a common language when communicating the sustainability of groundwater resources at a local, region, provincial/territorial, Canada-wide or international scale. A platform for developing shared policy instruments and technical tools for groundwater sustainability. Assistance to jurisdictions in better informing their decision-makers and policydevelopers on the status of groundwater sustainability and on key data requirements, policy approaches, time and resource commitments and technical methods required to help ensure that sustainably groundwater management practises are implemented. In 2010, WMC retained Gordon Groundwater Consultancy to develop the Preliminary Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of Groundwater (Gordon, 2011), otherwise referenced in this document as the Gordon Report. The Gordon Report outlined an approach for assessing the sustainability of groundwater resources at a local, regional or Canada-wide scale which consisted of five goals, an assessment model and example indicators. WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc., was retained by CCME in July WESA was tasked to help coordinate communication between the pilot projects and provide an analysis of the Preliminary Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of Groundwater (Gordon, 2011). WMC approved, in principle, the following two goals for the assessment approach to seek to understand the approach s applicability across the country. The goals for the pilot testing of the assessment approach were to: Determine whether the proposed model and indicators are applicable at a range of scales and issues and in a variety of regions across Canada; and Identify the need for revisions and refinement of the assessment approach. Page 1

13 The assessment approach outlined in the Gordon Report was tested by five pilot projects across Canada. The proposed assessment approach intent was to provide a scientifically valid tool to inform decision makers and policy developers on the status of groundwater sustainability in their area. This includes development of key data requirements, policy approaches and technical methods to ensure implementation of sustainable practices. The five pilot projects are described in Appendix A. These pilot projects were selected based on their differences in scale and complexity. For example, the scale of the pilot projects ranged from a municipal setting in the Town of Gibsons, British Columbia to a significantly larger study area (5636 km 2 ) within the provincial jurisdictional context of Prince Edward Island to a transboundary aquifer located in southwest British Columbia and northwest Washington State, United States of America (USA) which was completed within a federal jurisdictional context. Figures presenting the location and aerial extent of the five pilot projects are presented on Figures 1 through 6, following this report. The Canadawide scope of this project is represented in the fact that the pilot project locations extend from the west coast in the Town of Gibsons in British Columbia to the east coast in the province of Prince Edward Island and include projects in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec. Similarly the complexity of issues affecting groundwater sustainability range from the groundwater sustainability challenge of the management of nitrate contamination associated with fertilizer use (manure and synthetic sources) to groundwater sustainability issues as they relate to stresses from rapid growth and aging infrastructure in the absence of a water governance structure being in place. The report is divided into five sections. Section 1 is intended to inform the reader of the purpose of this report, describe the methodology used to prepare the report including a description of the templates provided to the pilot projects to help synthesize the pilot project results. For clarity purposes, Section 1 also provides short descriptions of key terms used in the report. Finally Section 1 also gives an overview of the objective and goals of the project and provides an overview of the differences in scope and scale of the five pilot projects. Section 2 provides a brief summary description of each pilot project including a brief background, their location, primary goals/challenges, which of the five sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework elements were used in their analysis and indicator selection criteria, where available. The tables in this section outline what the main sustainability issues were for each pilot project. This section also highlights which elements of the Driving-Force-Pressure-State-Impact- Response (DPSIR) Framework were used to develop the groundwater sustainability indicators described in Section 3 and Appendix B. This section also discusses the Gordon Report Indicators and provides a comparison on what was used by the pilot projects. Page 2

14 Section 3 is the assessment of the pilot project study results. This section includes descriptions of the groundwater sustainability goals, the DPSIR Framework and the groundwater sustainability indicators. This section also compiles the lessons learned as provided by the pilot projects in the individual summary reports. Finally, this section provides a summary of the assessment approach including a description of data considerations, gaps and uncertainties as noted within the pilot project reports. Section 4 presents an evaluation of the assessment approach and specifically seeks to address the Water Management Committee s goals and objectives to determine whether the proposed model and indicators are applicable at a range of scales and issues and in a variety of regions across Canada and to identify the need for revisions and refinement of the assessment approach. This section also presents some recommendations on the stated objectives of the assessment approach by summarizing descriptions, as provided, of how the projects managed to meet these specific objectives. Finally, Section 5 provides a brief summary of the main conclusions Purpose WESA was tasked to, prepare a report which synthesizes the results of the jurisdictions pilot project outcomes and document key findings, and based on the findings to highlight recommendations on the applicability, use and/or refinement of the assessment approach. This report provides an assessment of the findings from the pilot projects. The report identifies key lessons learned, issues and other items relevant to support the goals and objectives to this project to meet the requirements of Task 5 and 6 of the Request for Proposal (CCME, 2012) Methodology Five pilot projects locations were selected by CCME to test and provide an analysis of the assessment approach proposed within the Gordon Report. This final report assesses the findings of the pilot projects and provides an analysis of the key findings with respect to the assessment approach. This includes providing a review of the assessment approach, summary of indicators, identifying data gaps and lessons learned. This final report also reflects all comments received on the draft assessment approach report. This study is based on data collected through the review of the reports submitted by the pilot projects and review of the information provided by the pilot projects in the templates developed Page 3

15 by WESA. The templates were provided to the Pilot Project Contacts and are presented in Appendix C. The aim of these templates was to capture the information required to complete this analysis of the assessment approach. They were developed through a series of conference calls and reviews completed by the pilot projects contacts and WESA. Overall, it was important that the templates still allowed for the flexibility for the pilots to modify them based on their needs. Further details are provided in Section Throughout the process, WESA also participated in conference and one-on-one calls with the pilot project contacts. These conference calls allowed for additional insight into the pilot projects contacts assessment of groundwater sustainability as outlined by the Gordon Report. The following pilot project reports and tables were reviewed: Draft Groundwater Sustainability Assessment for the NAOS Alberta. (Bayegnak, 2013) Groundwater Sustainability in Prince Edward Island. (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) Draft Groundwater Sustainability Assessment for the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. (Environment Canada, 2013) Draft Pilot Testing of the Preliminary Approach for Assessing Groundwater Sustainability- Town of Gibson Tables. (Gordon, 2013) Draft Pilot Testing of the Preliminary Approach for Assessing Groundwater Sustainability- Prince Edward Island Tables. (Li, 2013) Évaluation d indicateurs de gestion durable des eaux souterraines. Projet pilote du CCME supporté par le MDDEFP. Version préliminarie transmise au CCME. (Martin, A., et al., 2013) Once submitted, WESA reviewed all materials and developed the summary tables presented in this report, specifically Appendix B for the indicators used. This provided an ability to create an initial analysis of the indicators and capture the comments provided by the pilot project contacts and authors of the reports submitted. Further information was collected on the analysis of the groundwater sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework. If information gaps were noted, WESA attempted to contact the pilot projects contacts. A draft report was provided to the CCME Groundwater Project Team for review. Comments received have been incorporated into this final report. Page 4

16 WESA Template WESA developed a template to help collect information to aid in the analysis of the draft assessment approach as per Task 2 of the RFP (CCME, 2012). The template is provided in Appendix C and was used by each of the pilot projects in one way or another. It should be noted that this template was provided to the pilots before the completion of their individual pilots; therefore, in some cases the template was modified to accommodate the specific aspects of the pilot projects. The information collected from Table 1 of the template provided a summary of the pilot projects. This included the title, lead contacts, location, aquifer and aquifer type, background information, scale, mapping and anticipated project completion data. This information was used to develop the pilot project summaries presented in Appendix A. Further, these tables allowed for a review of the pilots scale and complexity. Table 2 of the WESA template provided the specific issue with respect to the groundwater sustainability goal and which elements of the DPSIR Framework indicators were developed. This table was used to populate the tables presented in Section 2 of this report. The pilot projects modified this table, where indicated in Section 2, to reflect their own groundwater sustainability assessments. Table 3 of the WESA template provided an assessment of the example groundwater sustainability indicators as presented in the Gordon Report, where available. This table was modified to reflect which indicators were used by the pilot projects. The key information extracted from this table included the indicator used, data considerations (data gaps, uncertainty and assumptions), appropriateness of the indicators based on the DPSIR Framework and any additional comments. Figure 1 of the template was developed based on the request from the pilots to provide a graphical method to present the DPSIR Framework. This was not used by any of the pilot projects. Overall, the templates provided to the pilot projects were modified to reflect their needs, where applicable. They were flexible enough to do so in order to capture information for WESA to complete this assessment. Without these templates, a streamlining of information to complete this report would have been difficult; therefore, it was necessary to produce these in advance of submission of the pilot projects. Page 5

17 Modifications could be made to the templates, if deemed necessary, to reflect the information presented in Section 2 of this report. 1.3 Key Terms and Concepts The following key terms and concepts address the need for common groundwater sustainability language as noted by the WMC. All key terms and concepts are presented in the Gordon Report in detail and are summarized below. Groundwater Sustainability The definition of groundwater sustainability as provided in the Gordon Report (2011) is, The maintenance and protection of groundwater and related surface waters and aquatic ecosystems to balance current and future environmental, economic and human (social) requirements. Five Goals for Sustainable Groundwater Management In 2009, the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) presented a report entitled, Sustainable Management of Groundwater. The report concluded that sustainable management of groundwater encompasses the following five interrelated goals (CCA, 2009): 1. Protection of groundwater supplies from depletion (Groundwater Quantity) 2. Protection of groundwater quality from contamination (Groundwater Quality) 3. Protection of ecosystem viability (Ecosystems) 4. Achievement of economic and social wellbeing (Socioeconomic) 5. Application of good governance (Governance) The conceptual framework should help to identify what knowledge/ science (this term is used broadly) is needed to underpin sustainable groundwater management in Canada. DPSIR Conceptual Model Framework for Groundwater Sustainability Assessments The Driving-Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Conceptual Model Framework (DPSIR Framework) is an internationally recognised systems analysis approach in the development and reporting of environmental indicators. This framework is used by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2007). The DPSIR Framework (adapted for this groundwater sustainability assessment) is summarized in the Gordon Report as follows: Page 6

18 Driving Force indicators describe the social, demographic and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in lifestyles, overall levels of consumption and production patterns. Pressure indicators describe the developments by human activities that use groundwater supplies and release contaminants into groundwater. State indicators describe the groundwater in terms of physical, biological, and chemical phenomena in a certain area. Impact indicators that illustrate the effects of changes in the state of groundwater systems. Response indicators refer to responses by groups (and individuals) in society, as well as government efforts, to prevent, compensate, ameliorate or adapt to changes in the state of groundwater systems. Groundwater Sustainability Indicators The selection of indicators with pre-determined criteria that are rigorous and transparent ensures the scientific credibility of the assessment approach. Groundwater sustainability indicators were defined in the Gordon Report (2011) as: Measurable parameters that represent relevant information on trends in groundwater systems in a readily understandable way. The indicators should address linkages which exist between environmental, social and economic dimensions. For the purpose of this analysis the groundwater sustainability indicators must be (Gordon, 2011): Scientifically credible and accepted by experts in the field. Adapted from international recognized organisations for relevance in Canada. Measurable, representative of the issue, sensitive in the relevant time scale and easy to interpret. Amenable to application at different geographic scales and comparable with other indicators that describe similar area, sectors or activities. Relevant to the needs of policy developers, water managers and enable individuals to make meaningful decisions. Able to encourage jurisdictions to adopt or adapt these indicators and ensuring groundwater sustainability- regardless of the current state of their groundwater programs. Page 7

19 Example indicators were provided for each of the groundwater sustainability goals and for selected elements of the DPSIR Framework. These examples are outlined in the Gordon Report. 2.0 PILOT PROJECTS SUMMARY The following is a summary of the pilot projects. This summary outlines a brief background of each of the pilot projects, their location, primary goals/challenges, which of the five sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework elements were used in their analysis and indicator selection criteria, where available. Background information on each of the pilot projects is provided in Appendix A. The relative locations of the five pilot projects are presented in Figure 1 through 6, following this report. If required, the reader should contact the pilot project contact listed in Appendix A, or the CCME contacts for further information regarding their individual assessments. 2.1 USE OF GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER OUTREACH AND MANAGEMENT FOR THE TOWN OF GIBSONS, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA The Town of Gibsons is located in the southern portion of British Columbia as presented in Figure 2. This pilot project represents the smallest aquifer studied (approximately 5 km 2 ) and was completed within a municipal jurisdictional context. For review, this pilot project submitted the WESA template tables. No supplemental report was provided. Within the Town of Gibsons, several groundwater studies have been completed. However, an integrated approach to management of the groundwater supply has yet to be established. Currently studies are being undertaken to map the aquifer and further define the structure and goals for specific actions within the Town of Gibsons groundwater management program. Groundwater quality within the aquifer studied is unique as this small municipality. The municipality has good and ample quantity of water. The Town of Gibsons is facing stresses from rapid growth and aging infrastructure which has emphasised the importance of sustaining the groundwater resources and protecting the current supply. Currently, there is no water governance structure in place. Outreach, using the indicators selected in the groundwater assessment, is a tool to encourage sustainable groundwater management practices. The primary groundwater sustainability goal for this aquifer is to ensure the quality of the existing groundwater supplies remains good and demand for the resource does not exceed the supply. Page 8

20 The following is a summary of the five sustainability goals, DPSIR Framework elements and the indicators selected for the assessment of groundwater sustainability in the Town of Gibsons. Indicators developed specifically for the Town of Gibsons are bolded. Table 1: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- Town of Gibsons (Gordon, 2013) Page 9

21 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Groundwater Quantity Town requires greater certainty in recharge (location, processes and rates) and availability in order to plan for future development and infrastructure. Conservation awareness is also rising as an issue because Town is now metered. Renewable groundwater resources per capita m 3 /yr (UNESCO, 2007) (Total groundwater abstraction/recharge) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater depletion problem/ Total studied area) x100 (UNESCO, 2007) Resource for Water Infrastructure Upgrades Groundwater Quality Town wants to continue with an untreated groundwater supply. It has completed numerous infrastructure upgrades to support the continuance of this design. Ongoing updates to land use and various subsurface disturbances bylaws and zoning controls provide additional protection. (Σ Areas with specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x100 (UNESCO, 2007) Number of contaminated sites (Steinman et al., 2007) Resource for Water Infrastructure Upgrades Ecosystems Studies initiated, but are not the focus of this project. Groundwater contribution to base flow (not determined at this time) Page 10

22 Sustainability Goal Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response (Steinman, 2007) DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Socioeconomic A key issue in this community is to balance growth with sustainability of the groundwater supply. In just the past few years, potential effects on the aquifer are now considered with larger proposed developments. Restricted groundwater access: Percentage of population supplied by Town s groundwater wells (Steinman, 2007) Efficiency of groundwater Use (Steinman, 2007) Good Governance It is becoming more important as the community grows with changing demographics from a resource-based culture to more urban and older populace or a more politically active one. The Town is taking new initiatives to engage the community about their role in sustaining the aquifer. Public Outreach on Groundwater Sustainability (Gordon, 2011) Page 11

23 Indicators were selected to test each of the DPSIR Framework elements noted above. A final assessment of groundwater sustainability was not made available as this project is ongoing. All of the example indicators as outlined in the Gordon Report were used for the analysis of groundwater sustainability in the Town of Gibsons with the exception of the following: Groundwater sustainability goal Governance- Indicator: Groundwater Program Resources Groundwater sustainability goal Socioeconomic- Indicator: Dependence of agriculture population on groundwater = (# farmers etc / population) x100 WESA assumes that these two indicators were not used in the assessment as they did not apply to the study as outlined in Appendix A. For example, there is no agricultural related groundwater issue in the Town of Gibsons. Further, no groundwater programs are in place currently, therefore an assessment could not be made. The additional indicator bolded in Table 1 (resources for water infrastructure upgrades) was used by the pilot project due to the data available. This data included the amount spent on infrastructure planning, the ability to track water losses, and data which indicates if drinking water quality parameters are exceed. This pilot project also noted the need for an additional indicator for response to test if the implementation of outreach programs is achieving their stated goals. For example, an indicator could be used to evaluate implemented public outreach programs. 2.2 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR ASSESSMENT FOR THE TRANSBOUNDARY ABBOTSFORD- SUMAS AQUIFER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA The Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer (ASA) is a transboundary aquifer located in southwest British Columbia and northwest Washington State, USA. This study focused on the Canadian portion of the aquifer only. The outline of the entire aquifer is presented in Figure 3. This pilot project represents a large transboundary aquifer (Canadian portion only) and was completed within a Federal jurisdictional context, as this pilot project was completed by Environment Canada. A detailed draft groundwater sustainability assessment report was provided by Environment Canada in addition to the completion of the WESA template tables. Page 12

24 The study area is located within the Lower Fraser Valley and is extensively relied upon by agriculture. The main issue in this area is nitrate contamination associated with fertilizer use (manure and inorganic sources). This has resulted in concentrations of nitrate exceeding the Health Canada drinking water guidelines. Since groundwater in this transboundary aquifer is noted to flow towards the USA, this aquifer has significant environmental policy and management issues that need to be considered. Despite efforts to reduce the impact of nitrate of the aquifer over the past few decades, overall nitrate levels do not appear to have improved significantly or worsened relative to the drinking water guideline (Environment Canada, 2013). Therefore, the primary sustainability goal is associated with the amelioration of nitrate concentrations and the development of policy and management mechanisms to attain that goal (Environment Canada, 2013). A broader goal of tracking sustainability was also noted by Environment Canada. For this pilot project, sustainability was assessed with consideration of all five sustainability goals. An evaluation was completed for most of the Gordon Report indicators as noted below. The following is a summary of the five sustainability goals issues, DPSIR Framework, and the indicator selected for the assessment of groundwater sustainability. Indicators developed specifically for this assessment are bolded. This pilot project also provided a narrative description for each of the DPSIR Framework elements within a graphical format. An example of this is provided in Figure 1. Page 13

25 Figure 1: DPSIR Framework for CCA goal to Protect Groundwater Quality from Contamination for the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer (Environment Canada, 2013) Drivers: Climate and soil conditions that favour agriculture Market demand for berries and poultry Close proximity to transportation corridors Pressures: Intense agricultural development or intensification of production Management of overabundant manure Low biogeochemical transformation of nitrate Increased number of point sources of contamination State: Areal extent of nitrate contamination Number of wells with detected pathogens Areal extent of groundwater vulnerability Number of contaminated sites Use of pesticides or herbicides Responses: Stakeholder and industry collaboration to identify sources and investigate better management practices Long term monitoring of nitrate contamination coupled with studies to discern trends and potential impacts of BMPs and other management responses Provincial contaminated sites regulations and federal funding mechanisms for site remediation Notifications to homeowners of well water quality results Existing acts and regulations Response Drivers Impact Pressures State Impacts: Human health hazards associated with nitrate contamination or pathogen contamination Limitations to the development of additional groundwater supply wells Restrictions to use of existing municipal production wells Indicators: Pressure or State (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x100 State or Impact (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x100 Response # of contaminated sites Page 14

26 Table 2: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer (Canadian Portion Only) (Environment Canada, 2013) Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Groundwater Quantity Need to protect the groundwater supply from depletion. (Total groundwater abstraction/ recharge) x 100 Renewable groundwater resource per capita m 3 /yr (UNESCO, 2007) Narrative Provided in Detailed Report (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater depletion problem / total studied area) x 100 (Σ Areas with groundwater depletion problem / total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007)X Narrative Provided in Detailed Report (UNESCO, 2007) Groundwater Quality There is a risk to human health and concerns associated with elevated nitrate and nitrite Narrative Provided in Detailed Report (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100 (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100 (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, Number of Contaminated Sites (Steinman et al., 2007) Page 15

27 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response concentrations in the groundwater. (UNESCO, 2007) (UNESCO, 2007) 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) Page 16

28 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Ecosystems Address concerns over stream water quality and reduced seasonal baseflow. Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Number of species at risk associated with streams/ riparian habitat (BC Species and Indicator Explorer) Groundwater contribution to baseflow (Steinman, 2007) Groundwater Quality impacts on base flow Groundwater Quality impacts on base flow Number of species at risk associated with streams/ riparian habitat (BC Species and Indicator Explorer) Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Socioeconomic There is a heavy reliance on groundwater for irrigation and domestic water supply. Also, transboundary regulatory concerns. Dependence on groundwater supply = % of total water supply (UNESCO, 2007) *modified from example provided in the Gordon Report* Agricultural Reliance (BC Agriculture) Restricted Groundwater Access (Steinman, 2007) Groundwater Quality impacts on base flow Restricted Groundwater Access (Steinman, 2007) Price of Groundwater (City of Abbotsford 2011 general use water utility rate) Page 17

29 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Good Governance Creation of awareness of the issues and increased government action with respect to development and implementation of measures to promote infiltration and reduce water use. Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Narrative Provided in Detailed Report Government Action (various) Levels of Government with interest in the Aquifer (Golder 2011) Identified Lead Agency (various) # Municipal supply wells/ # of monitoring wells (various) Page 18

30 Indicators were selected to test each of the DPSIR Framework elements noted above. Indicators were not compared for each DPSIR component and sustainability goal; they were evaluated where methods and data were available to report on an indicator. Each indicator was evaluated against a suite of factors including data considerations, statistical properties, and management and reporting needs. Several indicators were used to communicate more than one DPSIR element. For example, the portion of the study area determined to have a groundwater quality issue was considered to be both a state and an impact indicator. All of the indicators proposed in the Gordon report were assessed with the exception of: Groundwater sustainability goal Socioeconomic- Indicator: Efficiency of groundwater usage Groundwater sustainability goal Governance- Indicator: Public Education on groundwater sustainability and Groundwater Program Resources Following the indicators evaluation, Environment Canada completed a weight-of-evidence assessment for each of the sustainability goals. This approach was used to provide a summary of the goals, DPSIR Framework elements, and indicators used to determine an outcome. The weight-of-evidence approach provided a synthesis of the indicators within the assessment approach and aided in the communication of the results of their study. The analysis of the groundwater resource for the Abbotsford- Sumas aquifer was consistent with other reports completed about the aquifer. The results are summarized below: Protect Groundwater Quality from Contamination: The current use and management of the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer and /or the land use above could be currently considered unsustainable due to poor groundwater quality. Protect Groundwater Supplies from Depletion: Reliance on other water supply options has increased due to concerns over groundwater quality. Protect Ecosystem Health: Concerns have been raised over stream water quality and measures have been implemented to reduce seasonal impacts to baseflow. Achieve Economic and Social Well-Being: Farmers heavily reliant on groundwater for both irrigation and domestic water supply are under pressure to minimize nitrate loading. Apply Good Governance: Although government action has been good insofar as development and implementation of measures to promote infiltration and reduce water use, the lack of Page 19

31 governance tools to limit and measure groundwater extraction, and to effectively address non-point source contamination are sources of concern for aquifer sustainability. The completion of the pilot project identified a number of opportunities for additional study or assessment. 2.3 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE LOWER ATHABASCA REGION, ALBERTA: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER ATHABASCA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AND THE CCME DPSIR APPROACH, ALBERTA, CANADA The North Athabasca Oil Sands (NAOS) is located in the Lower Athabasca Region located in northeast Alberta. The outline of the entire aquifer is presented in Figure 4. This pilot project represents the largest aquifer (93,000 km 2 ) assessed for this pilot project and was completed within a provincial jurisdictional context. A detailed draft groundwater sustainability assessment report was provided by the pilot project in addition to the completion of the WESA template tables. The development of oil sands is the major activity within the Lower Athabasca Region. However, other sectors such as metallic and industrial mineral extraction, forestry, agriculture, tourism and service providers also exist. In the mining areas, active mines need to be dewatered to allow safe development, which can lead to large drawdowns. The aquifer matrix is subsequently removed and processed to separate hydrocarbons from sand grains. With regards to groundwater quality, seepages and leaks may result in the release of substances in aquifers. The localized occurrence of acid-extractible organic matters is not unusual due to the presence of oil sands. Areas of groundwater discharge such as seep and springs have been identified along valley walls in the NAOS. Additional information is provided in Appendix A. The resources in the Lower Athabasca Region are developed either by mining or in-situ techniques. This poses the greatest challenge to the environment, including groundwater, and was the focus of this pilot project. The following is a summary of the five sustainability goals issues, DPSIR Framework elements, and the indicator selected for the groundwater sustainability assessment for the Lower Athabasca Region. Indicators developed specifically for this assessment are bolded. Page 20

32 Table 3: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- The Lower Athabasca Region (Bayegnak, 2013) Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response* Groundwater Quantity Groundwater quantity may be affected by dewatering and the removal of overburden, which increases the rate of leachate release. Further, affects may be noted by the process which may release chemicals into the aquifer. Global Population Growth Global Energy Demand Oil Prices Overall authorized groundwater extraction Groundwater elevation Regional Transmissivity Cost of pumping water Number of well damage/ reclaimed/ recompleted due to water level decline Aquifer compaction Land subsidence Change in groundwater gradient * Page 21

33 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response* Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality may be affected by the release or increase of leachate from mining activities to the aquifer. Redox Potential Water suitability for use Number of ongoing development projects Number of approved development projects Heteroaromatic compounds Hydrocarbon compounds Metals Free gas Inventory of hypogean community structure Changes in structure of invertebrates communities Decline in groundwater dwelling organism population Penetration of alien cosmopolitan epigean species Ecosystems Ecosystems that depend on groundwater may be affected including the health of dependant species. Ecosystem dependence on groundwater Page 22

34 Sustainability Goal Socioeconomic Brief Description of the Issue Development within the oil sands generates revenues for the province and country, provides employment and has an impact on the lifestyle of local communities. DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response* Lower Water Levels Page 23

35 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response* Good Governance Governments have several tools including licensing conditions, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and financial incentives to respond to different issues. In the case of the oil and gas development, pressure is driven. Therefore, a single jurisdiction may not be able to address this issue and a global strategy is warranted. Government Pressure to implement measures to alleviate pressure on groundwater resources. Mandatory Monitoring * For this pilot project, the four other elements of the DPSIR Framework were used to derive the proposed responses. This includes the following: Pressure: Planning and Policy Measures State: Policy Measures and Knowledge Development Impact: Policy Measures, Knowledge development, and Planning Page 24

36 The pilot project notes that in order to select appropriate indicators, it is important to understand the oil sands development process. This understanding includes how the resource is recovered extracted and processed with respect to groundwater resources. This understanding forms the basis for selecting the DPSIR indicators for the NAOS project. The assessment provided by the pilot project discussed each element of the DPSIR Framework with respect to the overall issue (oil sands development). This approach allowed the pilot to identify indictors specific to the DPSIR Framework element and not specific to a groundwater sustainability goal. For example, a discussion was provided for the driving force element. After this discussion, a conclusion was made that the NAOS DPSIR Driving Force indicators would be global population growth, global energy consumption and oil prices. This is presented in Table 3 and detailed in Appendix B. Therefore, this pilot project approached the assessment of the DPSIR Framework with the five sustainability goals differently than the other pilot projects. The five goals were used within the DPSIR Framework (i.e., socioeconomic and governance was discussed under the heading of driving force), and not completed as presented in Table 3. Table 3 was created to aid in the comparison between the pilot projects. This pilot project took advantage of the flexibility of the DPSIR Framework which allowed the assessment to meet the unique requirements of the pilot project. An example of the pilot projects analysis and modification of Table 3 is presented in Table 4. Page 25

37 Table 4: Proposed NAOS DPSIR Indicators (Bayegnak, 2013) Issue Indicators Related CCA Sustainability Goal DPSIR Framework Driving Force Pressure State Impact See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report Socioeconomic Governance Groundwater Quantity Governance See Table 3 of this report See Table 3 of this report Socioeconomics Groundwater quantity Response (1) - Planning Policy Measures: Policy Measures Ecosystem Governance Policy Measures Knowledge development Planning Note: Text has been removed from this table in order to provide this example. The reader should contact the pilot project contact for additional information. Indicators were selected to test each of the DPSIR Framework elements noted above. Indicators were not compared for each DPSIR Framework element and CCA goal; they were evaluated where methods and data were available to report on an indicator, and where an indicator was developed. Several indicators were used to communicate more than one DPSIR Framework element. None of the indicators proposed in the Gordon report were specifically used. Variations of the indicators presented in the Gordon Report and those developed are presented in detail in Appendix B. Page 26

38 2.4 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY IN THE MONTÉRÉGIE EST REGION, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA The Montérégie Est Region is located in the St-Lawrence Lowland, south-east of Montreal as presented on Figure 5. This pilot project represents a medium sized aquifer (9000 km 2 ) for this study and was completed within a provincial jurisdictional context. A detailed groundwater sustainability assessment report was provided by Martin et al, 2013 in addition to the completion of the WESA template tables. This study was completed within the framework of the PACES program. For this pilot project, le Ministère du Développement durable, de l Environnement, de la Faune et des Parc (MDDEFP) has chosen to evaluate how the PACES program could be used to produce indicators. The contacts listed in Appendix A should be contacted for further information. The Montérégie Est Region includes three watersheds (Richelieu, Yamaska and Missisquoi Bay), nine regional county municipalities and 106 municipalities with a population of approximately 792,000 (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Within this region almost 30% of water supplied is from groundwater (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Additional information is presented in Appendix A. Groundwater quality and quantities are the main issues for this pilot project due to the following: The ambient groundwater quality over much of this region is poor (brackish water). There are concerns with respect to groundwater quality due to the continued degradation of resources from intensive agriculture coupled with issues arising from the impact of the shale gas industry. Groundwater withdrawals in this region are increasing to meet the needs of municipal, industrial and agricultural users. Impacts of climate change are a further concern. As this pilot was completed within the PACES program, there were four types of participants who were responsible for the project completion. These were the program managers, research team, regional resource managers and the Yamaska watershed group. Therefore, the feedback provided on this assessment approach encompasses their comments. Their comments were collected over a series of four workshops and project meetings. Page 27

39 The following (Table 5) is a summary of the five sustainability goals issues, DPSIR Framework elements, and the indicators assessed by the Montérégie Est Region. For the pilot projects assessment, the Driving Force/Pressure, State/Impact DPSIR Framework elements were combined. Therefore, they used the flexibility of the DPSIR Framework to address their pilot projects needs and because the pilot project team thought that the indicators could be grouped to represent the two elements of the DPSIR Framework. Page 28

40 Table 5: Groundwater sustainability indicators using PACES projects data, Montérégie Est Region, Québec (Martin, A., et al., 2013) Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver & Pressure State and Impact Response Groundwater Quantity Recharge and abstraction rates vary greatly across the vast study area. Some Towns and Cities are already experiencing resource use conflicts, while others are considering increasing groundwater use as pressure on surface water quality and quantity amounts. Renewable groundwater resource per capita m 3 /yr (UNESCO, 2007) (Total groundwater abstraction/recharge) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater depletion problem / total studied area) x 100 Groundwater Quality Several areas in which groundwater use is prevalent and/or in which natural groundwater quality is quite good coincide with high natural variability. Brackish groundwater covers a 2,200 km 2 swath of the northwest part of the study zone. The provincial government is on the cusp of implementing a drinking water source protection strategy. (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 Number of Contaminated Sites (Steinman et al., 2007) (UNESCO, 2007) Page 29

41 Sustainability Goal Ecosystems Brief Description of the Issue A complete groundwater flow model was created as part of the PACES. This model locates groundwater discharge zones and will allow resource planners and managers to consider the relationships between groundwater and surface water, and in some cases, groundwater and wetlands. It is expected to be challenging to make use of the indicator(s) associated with this goal, as it is often unclear what flow level is required to ensure ecosystem health and information about changes to base flow are not always readily available. DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver & Pressure State and Impact Response Groundwater contribution to baseflow (Steinman, 2007) Socioeconomic More than half the study zone area is dedicated to farming activities and almost all agricultural producers outside of the area affected by brackish groundwater depend solely or mostly on groundwater. Groundwater is also heavily used in the agri-food business and tourism industry. It is the main source of drinking water in 58% of the towns with a population of less than 5,000 people. Dependence on groundwater (UNESCO, 2007) Restricted Groundwater Access (Steinman, 2007) Efficiency of groundwater Use (Steinman, 2007) Restricted Groundwater Access (Steinman, 2007) Good Governance Jurisdiction over groundwater management is shared among local, regional, and provincial government bodies. Until recently, however, groundwater knowledge was insufficient to allow resource Public outreach on groundwater sustainability Page 30

42 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue management decisions to be integrated into regional sustainable development planning. It is hoped that the PACES ME and the pilot project will create opportunities for education and awareness campaigns, the dissemination of decisions aid tools and heighted collaboration among researchers, managers and users. DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver & Pressure State and Impact Response (Gordon, 2011) Groundwater Program Resources (Gordon, 2011) Page 31

43 As presented by the grouping of the DPSIR Framework elements, this pilot project approached the assessment of the DPSIR Framework with the five sustainability goals differently, then the template provided. An example of this analysis is presented in Table 6. Table 6: Development of indicators for the PACES program- Example (Martin, A., et al., 2013) Goal of sustainable management and link with the pilot project Issue (s) PACES data linked to the objective Quantity Use e.g. Total Water Use Driving Force- Pressure Population State- Impact Municipa l supply problem Potential Responses New sources of supply s Note: Text has been modified from this table in order to provide this example. The reader should contact the pilot project contact for additional information The focus of the report submitted by the pilot project was a review of the indicators provided in the Gordon Report and not specifically on the DPSIR Framework or five groundwater sustainability goals. Therefore, an analysis of all the example indicators as provided in the Gordon Report was provided (Appendix B). After their review, the pilot project suggested the development of the following new indicators. It was unclear from the pilot project report provided where they were to be placed within the DPSIR Framework, therefore they are listed below: Maximum Development Density- This indicator could assess the density of residential development. This indicator could look at the relationship between the maximum density and current density of an area. This indicator could assess the quantity and quality sustainability goals. Water level- This indicator would provide a review in the change of groundwater levels. This was currently not possible in the region, as these monitors were only recently installed. This indicator may also aid to develop thresholds for water levels that are lower than usual. Wetlands and groundwater relationship- This indicator would highlight the impacts on both from development activities, and may help to determine groundwater quality. Page 32

44 Further recharge could also be determined from this indicator. Wetlands are very important to groundwater recharge and should be protected. Influence on climate change on groundwater- An indicator should be developed to flag the effects to long-term climate change on the availability and quality of groundwater. 2.5 SUSTAINABILITY OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN SELECTED WATERSHED IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-QUANTITY, QUALITY AND ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, CANADA Prince Edward Island is located in eastern Atlantic Canada. The province is divided into three counties and approximately 240 different watersheds as presented in Figure 6. This pilot project represents a larger study area (5636 km 2 ) and was completed within a provincial jurisdictional context. For the purposes of the pilot project, an evaluation was completed for the entire Province and for three selected watershed (Winter River, Wilmot River and Mill River watersheds) across Prince Edward Island. These watersheds represent areas under different quantity and quality stresses. Prince Edward Island has a very thin overburden with an underlying fractured sandstone bedrock aquifer. Therefore, this aquifer is very susceptible to contamination (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Groundwater quantity and quality are of great importance to the Province. The groundwater users rely on this resource as their primary source of fresh water for domestic, municipal and industrial supply. Groundwater supplies almost two thirds of the water flowing in the province s streams and estuaries (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Therefore, the protection of this resource in important to maintain their health and ensure the survival of aquatic life. An analysis of groundwater sustainability will help to ensure that groundwater can continue to form the basis for healthy islanders, a healthy environment and a productive economy (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). As noted by the pilot project, although it is clear that groundwater resources are very important to the province, there is a lack of methodology for measuring, at a high level, the heath of this resource. Therefore, the goal of this project is to complete a groundwater sustainability assessment which has not previously been undertaken in the province. A detailed groundwater sustainability assessment report was provided by The Department of Environment, Labour and Justice in addition to the completion of the WESA template tables. Page 33

45 The following is a summary of the five sustainability goals issues, DPSIR Framework elements, and the indicators selected for the assessment. Indicators developed specifically for this assessment are bolded. Page 34

46 Table 7: Summary of Pilot Project Sustainability Goals and DPSIR Framework Elements Tested- Prince Edward Island (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) (Li, 2013) Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response Groundwater Quantity Water stress was noted in some of the watersheds due to intensive extraction Population Increase (Published statistics data) Urbanization : Urban vs. Rural (provincial civic address data and others) Potato crop Trend/ Potato crop acreage (estimation of Water Use per Capita (Environment Canada, Municipal Survey) Irrigation trend/ irrigation withdrawal (groundwater extraction permit data) Water level trend/ change (provincial long-term monitoring well data) Percentage of Available water utilized (extraction data estimated from permitted data and household number/consum ption) Renewable groundwater resources (estimated from stream (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) Regulations on water use/disposal (Federal or provincial government) Page 35

47 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response crop acreage) baseflow data) Percentage of areas with stream flow below maintenance flow Groundwater Quality Nitrate contamination in the groundwater supply due to the high acreage of potato farming and nutrient loading. Potato crop Trend/ Potato crop acreage Fertilizer Use per acre (estimation of crop acreage) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) Indicators with respect to monitoring of contaminates (e.g., pesticides and Ecolab) (estimation of crop acreage) Salt use on roads (Provincial, Municipal Data) Salt concentration in stream base flow (Federal or provincial Page 36

48 Sustainability Goal Brief Description of the Issue DPSIR Framework Element Considered Driver Pressure State Impact Response documentation) Ecosystems Socioeconomic Good Governance Not included or developed for this pilot study. Page 37

49 Not all five sustainability goals were assessed by Prince Edward Island. As noted above, this was the first attempt to analyse groundwater sustainability. This pilot project, in their submitted supplemental report, described their selection of indicators, as presented above, for each element of the DPSIR Framework. A summary is provided below. As noted by the pilot project, in Prince Edward Island, there are two main driving forces which result in common environmental issues: agricultural activity and urbanization (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Pressure indicators were selected to describe activities that use groundwater supplies or activities which may release contaminants into groundwater (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). State indicators were selected to describe groundwater in terms of current conditions for both quantity and quality (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Impact indicators were selected to illustrate the effects of changes in groundwater systems on usage of the groundwater (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). For example, in Prince Edward Island, nitrate contamination has become a major concern for drinking water quality and causes eutrophication in estuaries (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Response indicators were selected to capture the responses by groups and individuals in society. This included a review of government efforts to prevent, compensate, ameliorate or adapt to changes in the state of groundwater (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). In the pilot project, this selection of indicators was completed differently when compared to the other projects. An example of the thought process in which the groundwater sustainability goal quantity was assessed using the DPSIR Framework is presented below. Page 38

50 Figure 2: DPSIR Framework for Groundwater Quantity issues caused by Urbanization and Agricultural Activity (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) Therefore, the indicators selected were very specific to the issue of groundwater quality and quantity in Prince Edward Island. The indicators selected did not reflect the examples provided in the Gordon Report. In the review of the pilot, it was assumed by WESA that the indicator (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) was modified to suit the needs of the project. Overall, the Prince Edward Island pilot project noted that the DPSIR Framework was found to be well suited for the assessment of groundwater sustainability in Prince Edward Island. Page 39

51 2.6 SUMMARY OF PILOT PROJECT RESULTS Each pilot project presented their assessment of groundwater sustainability and assessment of the proposed approach outlined in the Gordon Report in slightly different ways. Four out of the five pilot projects submitted draft/ final reports to supplement the WESA template tables provided as described in Section 1. This provided a narrative description of the project to help WESA with the collection of data for this analysis. Although each of the pilots presented their method of assessment in different ways, WESA does not consider one method better than the other. This observation is made based on the review of what was submitted. This includes only three of the five pilot projects presenting a draft or final summary report of their completed groundwater assessment. One of the five pilots only submitted a report based on the review of example indicators. In all three cases where a report was submitted, the pilots were able to determine if the aquifer of interest was sustainable. Further analysis methods specific to their jurisdiction beyond what was provided in the Gordon Report were used to make an overall conclusion. For example, the Abbotsford- Sumas pilot used a weight-of-evidence approach using the indicators as specific lines of evidence to prove an overall statement of sustainability for the study area (Environment Canada, 2013). This requirement should be further reviewed by WMC DPSIR framework elements reviewed A summary of the DPSIR Framework Elements reviewed by the pilot projects with respect to the groundwater sustainability goals is presented below. A summary of the specific indictors used by the pilot projects is presented in Appendix B. Page 40

52 Table 8: Summary of DPSIR Framework Elements Reviewed by the Pilot Projects Sustainability Goal Quantity Quality Ecosystem Driving Force All pilot projects Prince Edward Island Lower Athabasca Lower Athabasca Socioeconomic Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Lower Athabasca Governance Lower Athabasca DPSIR Framework Element Pressure State Impact Response* Prince Edward Island Montérégie Est Region Town of Gibsons Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Prince Edward Island Abbotsford- Sumas Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Town of Gibsons Lower Athabasca All pilot projects All pilot projects Town of Gibsons Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Lower Athabasca Abbotsford- Sumas Lower Athabasca Lower Athabasca Town of Gibsons Abbotsford- Sumas All pilot projects Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Lower Athabasca Abbotsford- Sumas Lower Athabasca No indicator developed Town of Gibsons Town of Gibsons Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Prince Edward Island * Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Town of Gibsons Abbotsford- Sumas Montérégie Est Region Lower Athabasca *The response indicator was assessed by the pilot projects, but not easily formatted into this table. See the assessment completed in Section 2 and 3.2 for additional information. All of the pilot projects used indicators were developed by the pilot projects and/or presented in the Gordon Report for the following sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework Elements: Page 41

53 Groundwater sustainability goal Quantity- DPSIR Framework elements: Driving Force and State Groundwater sustainability goal Quality- DPSIR Framework elements: State and Impact Note, that indicators for response were developed outside of this matrix. This assessment was completed for either each of the groundwater sustainability goals or was found to be in a relationship with each of the remaining elements of the DPSIR Framework. Examples of this are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2. It is assumed that if no indicator was developed for each element of the DPSIR Framework, thought was still given to this process. An example of this thought process was provided by the Environment Canada (2013) pilot project as presented in Figure 1. WESA notes that this lack of the development of the indicators could be a function of the data available, the issue focus of the pilot project or time available to complete the assessment. Further assessment is provided in Section Gordon Report Indicators All of the Gordon Report example indicators were assessed by at least one pilot project. The following example indicators provided in Table 9 were used by three or more pilot projects in their assessment. A summary of all of the indicators and comments provided by the pilot project contacts is presented in Appendix B. This may be due to the amount of data available for the example indicators or the pilots desire to test them. This is unclear and should be taken into account when reviewing the analysis. Page 42

54 Table 9: Summary of the Example Gordon Report Indicators Used by at Least Three or More of the Pilot Projects Sustainability Goal Quantity Quality DPSIR Framework Element (# of pilots who used this indicator) Driving Force (3) State (3) Pressure (3) State (3) Impact (4) Response (3) Ecosystem State (3) Socioeconomic Pressure (3) Governance Indicator Renewable groundwater resource per capita m 3 /yr (UNESCO, 2007) (Total groundwater abstraction/recharge) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) Number of Contaminated Sites (Steinman et al., 2007) Groundwater contribution to baseflow (Steinman, 2007) Restricted Groundwater Access (Steinman, 2007) No Gordon Report example indicators were selected by three or more pilot projects. There was not one specific indicator used by all of the pilot projects. However, for the groundwater sustainability goal quality, DPSIR Framework Element State, several of the Gordon Report indicators discussing the areas with a groundwater quality problem was used. This included using the Gordon Report indicator exactly as presented and/or modifying it slightly (e.g., using water quality data to determine application rates and concentrations in base flow) based on the needs of the pilot project s specific groundwater issue. Specific comments were made on the above noted indicators as presented in Appendix B. The following is a summary of what was noted by the pilot projects: Groundwater Quantity- Driving Force Indicator (Renewable groundwater resource per capita m 3 /year): This indicator is very useful to communicate the important groundwater Page 43

55 concerns for future decision makers (Gordon, 2013). Environment Canada (2013) noted that although an interesting indicator, it may not be of interest to Canadian users due to the dependence on alternative drinking water sources. Further, this indicator should take into account the area of usable groundwater as a resource (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Therefore, WESA concludes that this indicator was not very challenging to quantify and could be useful for future assessments where groundwater is the primary source of drinking water. This indicator should take into account areas, such as the Montérégie Est Region, where brackish water limits the available groundwater for use. Sustainability Goal Groundwater Quantity- State Indicator ((Total groundwater abstraction/ recharge) x100)): This indicator is useful to help communicate the need to conserve groundwater resources and is helpful to decision makers (Gordon, 2013). This indicator lacks the ability to link groundwater quality with water use (Environment Canada, 2013) (Martin, A., et al., 2013). This comment is similar to the one made above for the Driving Force indicator, where it should be taken into account how much of the aquifer is actually of suitable quality for use. This aspect of the indicator may be hard to determine. Therefore, WESA concludes that this indicator could be used for further assessments if it is taken into account how much of the aquifer is actually suitable for use. Sustainability Goal Groundwater Quality- Pressure Indicator ((Σ Areas with a specific class of groundwater vulnerability/ Total studied area) x 100): This indicator provides a communication tool to better inform the public about protecting the aquifer. It could lead to informing planning decisions based on where higher risk activates should be located (Gordon, 2013). It was further noted that aquifer vulnerability is a relative and non-measurable dimensionless property of the aquifer (Environment Canada, 2013). Concerns were raised over the issue of the assessment of vulnerable areas from the perspective of integrated water resource management (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Therefore, WESA concludes based on the assessment and previous experience that this is a good indictor in order to help with planning decisions based on science. For example, this type of assessment has been the main driver for policy development in the Ontario Source Water Protection Program (OMOE, 2011). The pilot s analysis indicates that there could be concerns with integrated water management. This should be assessed further. Sustainability Goal Groundwater Quality- State and Impact Indicator ((Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100): The Environment Canada (2013) pilot notes that groundwater quality problem should be defined. This would allow for Page 44

56 comparison between aquifers. This indicator is often easily understood by the public, government and can create public awareness (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Concerns were raised on how this indictor would fit into an integrated water resource management model (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Further, this indicator may not reflect subtle changes in one monitoring location (Gordon, 2013). Although only three of the five pilot projects used this indicator directly, indirectly four of the five pilots used this indictor by modifying it slightly. The only case where this indicator was not used was in the Town of Gibson s pilot project for the state element of DPSIR, as groundwater quality in this area is not a concern to date. Therefore, WESA concludes this is a good indicator to determine the state of groundwater quality and should be used in future assessments. Sustainability Goal Groundwater Quality- Response Indicator (Number of Contaminated Sites): This indicator may not be useful in locations where the municipality (or user of the assessment approach) does not have the jurisdiction over contaminated sites (Gordon, 2013). If this indicator was to be used in the future, it should be represented as a fraction of the total area (e.g., areal extent of the aquifer) (Environment Canada, 2013). This indictor could incorporate potentially polluting activities and assess these based on the potential for contamination (Martin, A., et al., 2013). From the assessment provided, WESA was unable to determine if this was a good indicator or not for the state of groundwater quality. The largest factor would be the availability of information if the sites exist, as well as, being able to access future information if the sites have been remediated. Sustainability Goal Ecosystems- State Indicator (Groundwater contribution to baseflow): Baseflow is critically important to species that rely on it in groundwater fed streams (Environment Canada, 2013) (Gordon, 2013). Limitations exist with the availability of data and could be presented as an average of the total flow, therefore allowing comparisons to be made (Martin, A., et al., 2013). WESA agrees that this information is critical to determine if species in groundwater fed streams and rivers are affected. If the data is available, this would be a good indicator to pursue. Sustainability Goal Socioeconomic- Pressure Indicator (Restricted Groundwater Access): Of the three pilots who used this indicator, only one provided any specific analysis. The analysis noted that restrictions would indicate problems in the protection, use and management of groundwater resources (Environment Canada, 2013). Page 45

57 There was not enough information presented for WESA to draw any conclusions. For the remaining Gordon Report example indicators, there was not enough information presented by the pilot projects for WESA to provide a comparison. Therefore, it was not possible for WESA to draw out any further conclusions specific to the Gordon Report indicators. A general analysis of the groundwater sustainability goals, DPSIR Framework and indicators are presented in Sections 3 and 4. A compilation of the indicator analysis provided by the pilot projects contacts is presented in Appendix B. 3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH All pilot projects were challenged with more than one groundwater sustainability issue. These issues provided the driver necessary to complete the thought process framed by the DPSIR Framework. The DPSIR Framework then allowed for the development of indicators that were in most cases specific to the groundwater issue. With the exception of one pilot project, the example indicators were used in some capacity to complete this assessment. The assessment approach provided each of the pilot projects with a common framework to assess the sustainability of the groundwater resource. WESA provided the pilot projects with a template to aid in the collection of data for this assessment. Aspects of the template were used by the all of pilot projects and, in some cases, were modified to meet their specific needs as presented in Section 2. The tables provided in Section 2 of this report reflect one of the templates provided to the pilot projects for the collection of data. During discussions with the pilot projects contacts, it was noted that the DPSIR Framework could be presented graphically. Appendix B provides three examples. Both the tables and graphics included in this report are potential tools to support jurisdictional use of the assessment approach. The following is an analysis of each of the three main elements of the assessment approach as outlined in the Gordon Report. 3.1 Groundwater Sustainability Goals The groundwater sustainability goals outlined in the Gordon Report were selected from the Council of Canadian Academies 2009 report. The goals provided a method to identify the science needed to evaluate groundwater sustainability (CCA, 2009). Further, an evaluation against these goals helped to facilitate the identification of science needs. For example, the Page 46

58 Abbotsford-Sumas pilot project assessed environmental conditions relative to each sustainability goal. The five groundwater sustainably goals were analysed by each of the pilot projects. A written assessment of each of the groundwater sustainability goals was completed by each of the pilot projects with the exception of Prince Edward Island. This was not completed for Prince Edward Island as the last three sustainability goals (ecosystems, socioeconomic and governance) was not the current focus of their studies, however they may be assessed at a later date. Where complete, each pilot was able to identify a key issue for each of the goals. This suggests that the five groundwater sustainability goals are relatable to a variety of groundwater management issues in Canada and provide a framework for the analysis of groundwater sustainability. The Gordon Report notes that the five sustainability goals should be considered as a whole in order to fully understand groundwater sustainability. It is worthwhile to use some of the goals for those jurisdictions that do not have the capacity or resources to assess all five goals. For example, for Prince Edward Island, is a partial assessment still useful or will it influence the overall result? Or, is this a governance issue, meaning, that current groundwater management is not complete and sustainable. In the case of Prince Edward Island, it was noted by the pilot project contact that this was the first time this type of assessment has been undertaken and was very useful to determine what next steps are required. Therefore, WESA concludes that even if a groundwater assessment has never been initiated before, a review of the groundwater suitability goals is a useful exercise. For the pilot projects that completed their assessment (i.e. provided a written report), all five sustainability goals were addressed and were important in their final analysis of groundwater sustainability. The pilot projects were selected due to the range of scales across a variety of jurisdictions to test this aspect of the assessment approach. For example, the pilot project was completed for the smaller aquifer located in the Town of Gibsons, a transboundary aquifer in Alberta and the entire province of Prince Edward Island. From the completion of the pilot projects it can be concluded that the goals can be applied across Canada at a different range of scales. 3.2 DPSIR Framework The DPSIR Framework contains five elements (as described in Section 1). These elements create a feedback management loop to describe and analyze environmental concerns (Gordon, 2011). A summary of which elements of the DPSIR Framework was assessed by each of the pilots is presented in Section 2. Page 47

59 The DPSIR Framework itself provides a logical method to select indicators by describing the groundwater system with respect to a specific issue. This model is a method to organize information in a way that describes the relationships between causes and consequences of sustainable groundwater management challenges (Environment Canada, 2013). Further, the DPSIR Framework allows the development of scientifically credible indicators to help decision makers evaluate the potential stress on a groundwater system (Bayegnak, 2013).This analysis could be presented in a narrative, tabular or graphical format. Examples of graphical formats are presented in Figure 1 (Environment Canada Example), Figure 2 (Prince Edward Island Example) and Appendix C (WESA template). The analysis helps to identify where efforts should be focused and how to communicate the issues to water managers. The benefit of the DPSIR Framework is that aids in the simplification of complex issues and ensures the user reflect on a variety of issues. It could also be argued that a more holistic, systems-based approach is needed rather than focusing on one element in particular. As the sustainable management of groundwater is very complex, it was noted by the pilot projects that the DPSIR Framework alone does not clearly answer the groundwater sustainability question and cannot be used as the only tool for evaluating groundwater sustainability. It was noted by Abbotsford- Sumas pilot project contact in their review of WESA s draft assessment report that the response element of the DPSIR Framework was a challenge for all pilot projects to assess, especially quantitatively. The pilot projects noted that framing the groundwater issues/ indicators into the DPSIR Framework itself can be complex and challenging (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) (Environment Canada, 2013) (Martin, A., et al., 2013). For example, more than one indicator can be used for more than one DPSIR element and some indicators do not seem to always belong where they may be intuitively assigned. Also, the placement of indicators was subjective even with the definitions provided. This was pointed out by the review of the draft assessment report where pilot project contacts noted that in some cases the indicators presented did not follow their interpretation of the definitions of each DPSIR Framework element. This is presented in Appendix B. This could be influenced by a variety of indicators which are affecting each other and contributing to sustainable groundwater management as a whole. Further the selection of indicators can be influenced by the user s interpretation of the DPSIR Framework element definitions. For example, the Prince Edward Island pilot project noted, the assignment of the indicators for the number of wells with E. coli and the number of wells with nitrate above 10 mg N/L. Both of these first appear to be a Page 48

60 state indicator as they are directly related to water quality. Upon reflection, E. coli detection in wells requires the knowledge of the causes to understand that it is a result of infrastructure status and thus a response indicator for infrastructure. Likewise, the number of wells with nitrate above 10 mg N/L is better utilized as a reflection of the well owners that must adapt to nitrate concentration in some way. Therefore, it is better considered an impact indicator instead of a state indicator. These examples illustrate that care must be taken when choosing indicators for the components of the DPSIR [Framework]. (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) Therefore, WESA concludes that where the DPSIR Framework is not well understood, time did not allow for the full assessment of the DPSIR Framework, or there was no perceived need to review each element of the DPSIR Framework, there could be issues with assigning indicators for each of the five DPSIR elements. The Montérégie Est Region pilot project noted that taking into account the sustainability goals, DPSIR Framework, and indicators seemed to complicate the approach (Martin, A., et al., 2013). When the DPSIR Framework is coupled with indicators, the method becomes hard for the user to understand and correlate the necessary data requirements. This could be a function of the indicators presented in the Gordon Report. Also, it could be function of the understanding of the relationships between the five DPSIR elements, and/or the many factors contributing to sustainable groundwater management as a whole. For example, pilot projects modified the approach to better reflect this relationship within the groundwater sustainability goals (Bayegnak, 2013) (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) (Martin, A., et al., 2013). One pilot project noted that the DPSIR Framework should be complimented with a way to identify baseline conditions and policy targets/objectives (Bayegnak, 2013). It was suggested to include statistical tools to distinguish between variation in process resulting from common causes and variation resulting from special causes. Further, trend analysis would provide an assessment in the direction and rate of indicator change. Overall, using the DPSIR Framework is complementary to the groundwater sustainability goals and can be useful in the development of sustainability indicators. It is a method to facilitate the wide assessment of issues covering aspects of human activity that have an impact on groundwater resources, the impacts that cause the issue, and determines whether there are measures in place to guard against further impacts or restore damages that have taken place (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). It provides a method to communicate Page 49

61 the issue to water managers. For example, it could be used as a consistent method to prepare for an assessment of groundwater sustainability but not the sustainability analysis itself. There was not one groundwater sustainability goal where the DPSIR Framework was well presented. WESA concludes that this maybe a function of the users understanding of the sustainability goal/ model or that the Framework was not relevant for the pilot project. For example, if the user of the assessment approach is not familiar with indicators for Governance, it may be difficult for them to assess this groundwater sustainability goal using the DPSIR Framework. Therefore, the DPSIR Framework is a method to understand how different elements/issues/factors are inter-related and can support the assessment of sustainable groundwater management. It was difficult for the pilot projects to determine a single response indicator that is relevant, available and acceptable for all elements of the DPSIR Framework. 3.3 Groundwater Sustainability Indicators The summary of indicators used in the assessment of groundwater sustainability and the analysis of these indicators completed by the pilot projects are presented in Appendix B. The pilot projects used a variety of the indicators; both proposed by the Gordon Report and/or developed ones based on the needs of their projects. Incorporation of additional indicators was necessary to reflect the local issues. The only common Gordon Report indicator used by all of the pilot projects was for groundwater quality (the assessment of groundwater quality problem/ the total studied area). No indicators were presented in the Gordon Report or produced by the pilot projects for the DPSIR Framework Elements noted in Table 8. It should be noted that although no specific indicator was identified, a narrative was provided by the Abbotsford-Sumas pilot project. Further, WESA assumes that these elements of the DPSIR Framework were discussed during the completion of the pilot project. For example, once pressure is applied to a groundwater system, it can also be applied to the ecosystem. If this groundwater is contaminated then the dependant ecosystem would maybe also be contaminated. This could be determined by indicators that assess the state of an ecosystem. Therefore, even though the indicators were not specifically developed for the DPSIR Framework element, there is still a relationship between the indicators and may not need to be explicitly presented. WESA concludes that in some cases, indicators were not developed as they were not necessary for completion of the analysis of groundwater sustainability, not a priority item of discussion, or Page 50

62 the data did not exist for the development of specific indicators. Further, this may be because there was no reason to have indicators for all the groundwater sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework elements. This should be discussed further with the pilot projects. Further, it was noted by the Montérégie Est Region pilot project that a discussion of groundwater management issues with stakeholders and the public often allows for a clear description of which indicators could be selected with a specific set of reference conditions and targets in mind. This is emphasized by the lessons learned from the Abbotsford Sumas pilot project discussed in Section 3.4. WESA determined that there are two main issues noted in the pilot projects analysis of indicators. WESA notes that it would be challenging for one agency to collect, analyze, and maintain the data necessary for the completion of a scientific analysis To determine groundwater sustainability, it is important to have historical data, or the ability to compare data over time to assess sustainability. For example, one pilot project argues that the indicators themselves are not a measure of sustainability and that indicators must be pre-defined based on a set of relative baseline conditions or other policy target values (Bayegnak, 2013). These policy target values can be developed using a variety of statistical tools including control charting (a statistical tool to distinguish between various in process resulting from common causes and various resulting from special causes) (Bayegnak, 2013). The use of baseline conditions would then allow for comparison of the data over time. This would require maintenance of the data and continual updates when new data is made available, if it is assumed that this assessment is not a snapshot in time but should be updated as new information is available. Therefore, the ability to report on groundwater sustainability through indicators depends strongly on the degree of available methods and data (Environment Canada, 2013). For example, the Prince Edward Island project noted that an indicator could be envisaged for a DPSIR Framework element; however there is inadequate data to utilize it at this time (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). This was noted by the pilot project as a flaw with the model. However, it seems that there are still a sufficient number of situations where data is available. The Gordon Report cautioned that the dependence on data for indicator development can lead to situations where data availability directs the selection of indicators and in turn reinforces the collection of the same data (UNESCO, 2007) (Gordon, 2011). Further, the Prince Edward Island pilot noted that the implementation of the model requires a significant understanding of the jurisdiction and issues (Department of Environment, Labour and Page 51

63 Justice, 2013). Environment Canada (2013) notes that the ability to report on groundwater sustainability using the indicators depends strongly on the availability of data and methods to complete this assessment. This will allow for the user to develop indicators that are relevant to the groundwater situation in the specific jurisdiction. Also, this would provide the necessary information to assess all aspects of the DPSIR Framework. To overcome this challenge, WESA determines there is a greater need for the sharing of groundwater data among parties who have an interest in aquifer sustainability. This was also highlighted in the comments provided on the draft assessment report by the Abbotsford-Sumas pilot project contacts. Further, to assess all five groundwater sustainability goals, it may be necessary to develop a team or network of experts to provide the necessary input for this assessment. This may help to elevate some of the financial and staffing stresses. WESA s past experience with groundwater sustainability assessments and water resources management strategies has indicated that this collaboration of effort often is successful in overcoming some of the outlined challenges. WESA concludes that the example indicators, as outlined in the Gordon Report, could not be used alone to assess groundwater sustainability Stakeholder input is required to address local issues and should drive the selection of indicators used for the assessment of groundwater sustainability. For example, if nitrate concentrations or oil sands development are the main issue and driver of the issue then the indicators selected would reflect this issue. The examples provided by the Gordon Report could be modified to allow for this flexibility and be supplemented with additional indicators which reflect local conditions. This modification was completed by all of the pilot projects. Further, indicators should be selected based on the project framework and/or policy target goals and/or outcomes in addition to those presented in the Gordon Report. This would allow for the development of indicators which would reflect the direction of the project and provide meaningful data to all stakeholders involved. The majority of the pilot projects did this by developing their own indicators as summarized in Appendix B. The indictors that were developed addressed local issues based on the appropriate scale of the investigation. An important aspect to remember in the selection of indicators is to ensure that the results can be communicated to stakeholders, water managers and the public. If the indicators are based on the local issue(s), the results become more meaningful and easier to communicate. The indicators developed through the DPSIR Framework are dependent on the groundwater sustainability goals and which components of the study are being addressed. Therefore, there may be indicator gaps. The Abbotsford-Sumas pilot suggests that these gaps be filled with Page 52

64 narrative descriptions and supplementary data. In their assessment, this was completed by the creation of a supplemental report and graphical flow model of the process (Figure 1). The examples indicators provided in the Gordon Report provided a solid basis for the preliminary assessment. This was noted by the project completed in PEI, where this was in essence the first time they have completed this type of assessment. Therefore, it can be concluded that they provide a good starting point. However, an in-depth analysis is required if more details are required. Appendix B provides a review and comments on each of the Gordon Report example indicators. There were varying degrees of comments provided. No one indicator was presumed to be inappropriate for this assessment; however, a few were noted to be more appropriate for different elements of the DPSIR Framework as highlighted in Section 2.6. The following key comments were provided by the pilot projects regarding the indicators or noted while completing the review of the submitted reports. Additional comments are provided in Appendix B. Environment Canada (2013) notes that the state indicator (number of contaminated sites) as proposed in the Gordon Report provides no insight into the areal extent or the volume of contaminated soil or groundwater in relation to the aquifer as a whole. This indicator is okay to be used for a first cut screening tool. It is recommended that this indicator be modified to include the overall areal extend of the aquifer (i.e., number of contaminated sites/areal extent of the aquifer= #.## site/km 2 ). Environment Canada (2013) notes that the state and impact indicator with respect to areas with groundwater depletion should be assessed using long-term monitoring data to ensure that temporal and climatic variability is accounted for. Prince Edward Island in their assessment used the indicator, (Σ Areas with groundwater quality problem/ Total studied area) x 100 (UNESCO, 2007) for both sustainability goals Quantity and Quality. It was noted by Prince Edward Island that it was difficult to find an indicator for the DPSIR Framework element of impact due to the current data limitations of the pilot project. In groundwater quantity, the same challenge was encountered; it was difficult to find an indicator for the DPSIR Framework pressure element (Li, 2013). The Lower Athabasca project chose the SMART criteria to evaluate the indicators in conjunction with using the DPSIR Framework to derive credible indicators. Page 53

65 The Montérégie Est Region pilot project noted that several of the indicators provided in the Gordon Report could be considered as an indicator for more than one element of the DPSIR Framework (Martin, A., et al., 2013). WESA notes that the response element of the DPSIR framework was often developed by the indicators themselves. This was noted in three of the five pilots completed, where the development of this indicator did not fit exactly into the template and was modified to suit the needs of the project. 3.4 Lessons Learned by the Pilot Projects The pilot projects were asked by WESA to provide lessons learned. A summary is provided below based on the information submitted to WESA and the review completed of the submitted reports by the pilot projects. No comments were received from the Town of Gibsons pilot project contacts. Abbotsford- Sumas (personal communication A, 2013) Interagency Cooperation Supports Data Access To meet mandates and responsibilities, many agencies collect and manage data related to groundwater management. Therefore, information sharing and communication between these agencies is necessary to enable the assessment of groundwater indicators. This process could be defined with broad, long-term information sharing agreements that could improve groundwater management. Accessing the data for each of the indicators required a good understanding of the governance structure for groundwater management and healthy cooperative interagency relationships. Integrating the Information In the presentation of indicators, the DPSIR framework is helpful in identifying opportunities for responses to a specific set of drivers and pressures. However, it should be noted that the DPSIR framework is intended to conceptualize causal linkages. Often correlative rather than causal relationships are described in this study s application of DPSIR as the complex mechanisms between DPSIR components are not well understood. For instance, the relative influences of intense agriculture, manure management practices and low biogeochemical transformation of nitrate on the areal extent of nitrate contamination are unknown and the balance of responses rather than separate actions are expected to contribute to sustainable groundwater management overall. Organizing the DPSIR information according to groundwater sustainability goals increases focus on the specific issue challenging sustainability. Further communication of indicators through a weight of evidence Page 54

66 approach on the primary challenges to groundwater sustainability supports a more direct consideration of the issues than disparate streams of data. Supplemental Information and Data Gaps Indicators are reported among all DPSIR components in this study. However, depending on the groundwater sustainability goal to which they are relevant, there are indicator gaps that are filled by narrative descriptions and supplementary data. The importance of continued data availability to characterize the primary issue of nitrate contamination in the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer must be underscored. The value of indicators increases with the time span over which they are maintained because it is difficult to detect and interpret trends in components of the environment and to know whether variations fall outside the normal range without long-term data. Data gaps can contribute to higher levels of uncertainty for risk management decisions. Lower Athabasca (personal communication B, 2013) The notion of groundwater sustainability is a place-based issue. The DPSIR Framework provides a very good high level functional scheme to describe cause-effect relationship between various sector of human activity and the environment as a causal chain of links. It helps think logically, however, the DPSIR Framework in itself does not or may not help identify or select indicators. Every single component of the DPSIR Framework needed a complementary approach, rooted in science and stakeholders involvement, to help select the appropriate indicators. The DPSIR Framework was not conceived specifically for groundwater sustainability, and therefore has to be (re)adapted to fit groundwater/aquifer environment. It appears that initiating the DSPSIR Framework based on the sustainability goals was not a logical start. However, the sustainability goals were a good way to classify sustainability components affected at various stage of the DPSIR Framework. Therefore, this pilot project arrived at the conclusion that, in ideal circumstances, the groundwater issues, and specific set of desired conditions must be established first, taking into account the social, economic, environmental, and possible tradeoff local reality. This was referred to this as policy target value (PTV). Groundwater may be affected by systemic (global) causes upon which affected jurisdictions may have little control. Such causes require concerted effort to address. Typically it has been difficult to land on a single response (thus response indicator) that is altogether relevant, available and acceptable. More often than not, societal responses are a combination of more than one application. Page 55

67 Montérégie Est Region (Martin, A., et al., 2013) The DPSIR Framework was useful for developing the approach and could be used in the future as a method to prepare for a uniform method of the assessment of groundwater sustainability, but not part of the method presented to local managers. Prince Edward Island (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013). Some of the example indicators presented in the Gordon Report do not always belong where they might first be intuitively assigned with respect to the DPSIR Framework element and/ or sustainability goal. There are a number of cases where an indicator is envisaged but there is inadequate data to utilize it. However, there seems to be a sufficient number of situations where data is available that the assessment model can largely be implemented. In addition, there are a few cases where gathering data may be feasible for future iterations of this assessment approach. A significant observation of the assessment approach is that it requires the user to select indicators that are relevant to the groundwater situation in the location being assessed. In order to implement the assessment approach, a significant understanding of the groundwater situation in a jurisdiction is required. A key feature of the DPSIR Framework is that it facilitates a wide assessment of issues covering aspects of human activity that degrade or over utilize groundwater resources, the impacts that they cause and whether there are measures in place to guard against future contamination, as well as, restore already degraded situations. The DPSIR Framework can help to identify problems, and analyze the extent of natural processes and human impacts on groundwater system in space and time, and also help in assessment of the effectiveness of the responses to improve groundwater resource quantity and quality. Overall, WESA observed that the greater lessons learned about the groundwater sustainability of the aquifer studied were found for the pilot projects that did not have a history of this type of analysis. For example the Town of Gibsons, Prince Edward Island and Montérégie Est Region found that this process will aid in determining the focus of future studies and assessments. 3.5 Summary of Analysis of the Assessment Approach The following is a summary of the analysis of the assessment completed above. Specific recommendations are presented in Section 4 of this report. The five sustainability goals provide the framework necessary for the assessment of groundwater sustainability. In all cases but one, all five goals were assessed by the pilot Page 56

68 projects. The goals provide a common framework for the comparison of projects and can be applied in a variety of situations across a variety of different scales. This was indicated by the completion of the pilot projects selected to test this aspect of the approach. The Lower Athabasca pilot project noted that caution should be taken that the notion of sustainability is a societal issue. Therefore, what one region may consider sustainable may not be considered suitable in another region (Bayegnak, 2013). The DPSIR Framework is an easy concept to understand and follows a logical approach. This was an important step for each of the pilot projects and it forced the pilot projects to link policy and socioeconomics to traditional science. However, by itself the DPSIR Framework is not an evaluation of groundwater sustainability (Bayegnak, 2013) (Martin, A., et al., 2013). Therefore, it could be used in the preparation of a uniform method for assessing groundwater sustainability. The indicators suggested in the Gordon Report were applicable to many of the pilot projects but could not be used entirely on their own for the assessment of groundwater sustainability. The pilot projects discussed the need for indicators to reflect local conditions, requirements, issues and access to data. These indicators should be developed within the outlined project framework and/or project goals. Consultation with stakeholders is important to the development process as it will ensure that the indicators selected are able to communicate the results to the public. The cost of developing, implementing, obtaining and maintaining the data required for the indicators is a barrier to the approach. Therefore, data management requirements are not operationally simple (Environment Canada, 2013). Before indicators are selected, it is important to ensure that there is capacity to maintain the data over time to meet the individual sustainability management needs. This could include developing relationships with stakeholders to improved data sharing methods. Indicator gaps maybe filled with narrative descriptions and supplementary data as presented in the Environment Canada example in Figure 1. The Gordon Report suggested indicators for each of the Groundwater Sustainability goals. However, indicators were not presented for each element of the DPSIR Framework elements. In order to help guide this process for future users it would be useful to have example indicators for each DPSIR Framework element or allow for a qualitative assessment to be included as part of the process. No specific indicator was developed for the groundwater sustainability goal good governance, DPSIR Framework element impact. However, it was discussed as part of the overall assessment approach by selected pilot projects (Bayegnak, 2013) (Environment Canada, 2013). The pilot projects provided an assessment of the Gordon Report indicators. WESA reviewed the indicators where three or more pilots provided comment. In this review it Page 57

69 was determined that where three or more pilots used a common indicator that these should be provided to future users to aid in their assessment approach. It should be noted, that the remainder of the indicators could still be used, however, there was insufficient detail provided to WESA to provide an analysis. The preliminary assessment approach was applied by all five pilot projects. Each took a slightly different approach to their analysis, thereby adapting the approach to their individual needs. This flexibility is an important observation as it indicates the assessment approach can be applied across Canada on a variety of different scales. If pursed further, it will be important to provide direction on how to complete the analysis and provide the necessary tools/ direction to do so. There was not one groundwater sustainability goal where the DPSIR Framework was well presented. WESA assumes that this is more of a function of the users understanding of the sustainability goal, time allotted for the completion of this assessment, or desire to investigate/ discuss each of the sustainability goals. Further analysis methods specific to their jurisdiction beyond what was provided in the Gordon Report were used to make an overall conclusion. This requirement should be further reviewed by the WMC Data Considerations, Gaps and Uncertainty Provided by the Pilot Projects The pilot projects were asked to provide information on their data considerations, gaps and uncertainty while completing their analysis. The following information was extracted from the WESA template completed by the pilot projects. Where data gaps exist, this can contribute to higher levels of uncertainty in making risk management decisions (Environment Canada, 2013). The following is a summary of their comments, with respect to data gaps noted within their studies, and not directly related to the overall assessment approach. Town of Gibsons (Gordon, 2013) Uncertainties were noted with respect to vulnerability mapping and assessment. These would be discussed in a report. This assessment may include recommended actions to reduce them. The values calculated by the indicators are dependent on the adequacy of the monitoring program. Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer (Environment Canada, 2013) As the indicators were assessed for current circumstances, they would not reflect temporal changes. These temporal changes may provide an improved assessment of groundwater sustainability. Page 58

70 Considerations could be made to include the various layers of an aquifer. For example, assessments of the nitrate concentrations in this study were completed regardless of well depth. Further, it may be necessary to determine impacts from upstream and surface water runoff. Groundwater- surface water interaction monitoring would help to complete an assessment of impacts to ecosystems. Improved estimate of water use and economic evaluations would aid in further defining groundwater sustainability. It is important to ensure that the method of analysis is repeatable and can be updated. Cost effectiveness may reflect the value of decisions made based on the indicator. Indicator selection should be relevant to management needs. Lower Athabasca (Bayegnak, 2013) The main assumption made was that data was reliable because it was generated by creditable and competent organizations with appropriate resources devoted to collecting and processing data. There was some effort required to process the information to be used in the selected indicators based on what was available. Most of the existing data for the state indicators is privately owned. Therefore, to obtain this data and consolidate it to provide a larger picture required effort. These efforts would include integration of data through numerical modelling or hydraulic tomography. The existing information is not designed specifically for the completion of an impact assessment. It was noted that converting this data may not be too onerous. The pilot project noted that it was typically difficult to determine a single response indicator that was relevant, available and acceptable. More often than not, societal responses are a combination of more than one indicator. The split between availability and acceptability recognizes that an operational response may exist, but may not be practice in a given situation than one application. Montérégie Est Région (Martin, A., et al., 2013) Indicators specific to groundwater use do not take into account accessibility and quality of the groundwater for use. Water level data contains estimates, therefore creates a level of uncertainty. Indicators will evolve over time which will reduce the overall uncertainty. Groundwater quality issues are not always related to an impact. This is particularly the case with respect to brackish water. A distinction in natural groundwater quality and contamination is necessary. The groundwater resources program indicator would be relevant on a Canadian scale to demonstration the importance of groundwater governance in different regions. Page 59

71 Prince Edward Island (Department of Environment, Labour and Justice, 2013) (Li, 2013) In some cases there may be inadequate data to use a specific indicator. This was not a major hindrance to this pilot project, but could be an overall limitation. Generally, it was noted that for the indicators selected there is, in some cases, a lack of detailed data, a data lag, or data that is not specific enough. Uncertainty is created based on data quality. 4.0 EVALUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT APPROACH WMC approved, in principle, the following two goals for the assessment approach to seek to understand the approach s applicability across the country. The goals for the pilot testing of the assessment approach were to: Determine whether the proposed model and indicators are applicable at a range of scales and issues and in a variety of regions across Canada; and Identify the need for revisions and refinement of the assessment approach. These two goals provided the outline for the ultimate evaluation of the completed pilot projects submitted to WESA for review and analysis. 1. Determine whether the proposed model and indicators are applicable at a range of scales and issues in a variety of regions across Canada The proposed model and indicators outlined in the Gordon Report were applicable at a range of scales and issues for the selected pilot project locations. As noted by Environment Canada (2013), the advantage to applying the assessment approach is that it guides the synthesis of information within each of the five groundwater sustainability goals. As indicated by the pilot projects, the five sustainability goals, DPSIR framework and indicators provided a method to communicate groundwater sustainability. The approach also allowed for the flexibility to adapt to their local conditions, needs, and policy targets. Once specific indicators were developed for the project, it became an effective way to communicate groundwater sustainability issues. 2. Identify the need for revisions and refinement of the assessment approach As presented, the assessment approach is very detailed and requires a great deal of effort to complete. This may limit the ability for water managers to complete the assessment due to organizational capacity or limited access to data. Environment Canada (2013) noted in their assessment that the indicators within the groundwater sustainability goals provided a more Page 60

72 deliberate assessment of sustainability as a whole than reporting solely within the DPSIR Framework. The DPSIR Framework is a good way to conceptualize a groundwater suitability issue. However, when coupled with the challenge of defining specific indicators it becomes hard for the user to understand and potentially correlate the necessary data as described in Section 3.2. The DPSIR Framework allowed for a consistent method to select indicators. WESA noted that the pilot project s found it challenging to develop/ select indicators for each of the DPSIR Framework elements, where appropriate. This was due to some indicators being able to be used for two or more DPSIR elements. This could be a function of training or understanding of the assessment approach, time restrictions, or the users need/want to complete a full sustainability analysis. WESA concludes that it then would be necessary to ensure that experts are consulted for each of the groundwater sustainability goals to help develop specific indicators. For example, the Montérégie Est Region consulted stakeholders in their review of the indicators, and in this process had additional indicators suggested to be included in their analysis. As noted by the pilot projects, allowing for the selection of indicators that relate specifically to their specific issue and project goal, allowed the assessment approach to work more easily. This is an important point to note if this approach is pursued further. The difficulty with allowing the pilot projects to select their own indicators is that this will limit the ability to compare the indicators directly between assessments. For example, it would be difficult to compare two assessments if the indicators for the elements of the DPSIR Framework were completely different. This could be compensated with the development of themes of indicators for each one of the groundwater sustainability goals. These themes would provide additional guidance for the selection of indicators and may help to frame commonality in the assessment of sustainability. It would be important that these themes be as simple/ basic as possible in order to allow for the use of indicators in jurisdictions where data availability may be limited. The following themes are based on the indicators developed by the pilot projects. A brief example of what could be developed is provided below. Table 10: Theme for Indicators for the Groundwater Sustainability Goals- Examples Groundwater Sustainability Goal Water Quantity Potential Themes for Indicator Development Assessment of water levels and water use Discussion Water level data is usually accessible by many organisations. This is an easy and effective way to communicate changes due to water use activities. This indicator was used by two of the pilot projects. This indicator theme may only be able to relate to the driving force, pressure, Page 61

73 Groundwater Sustainability Goal Water Quality Ecosystems Socioeconomic Governance Potential Themes for Indicator Development Assessment of groundwater quality Ecosystem dependence on groundwater including groundwater contribution to baseflow Dependence and restriction to groundwater Government action and public outreach Discussion state and impact elements of the DPSIR Framework. This indicator could be framed to a specific groundwater quality issue. For example this could be nitrate levels within monitoring wells or drinking water wells within the study area. This was completed by all of the pilot projects, as well as suggested by the Gordon Report. Indicators can be developed within the theme for many of the DPSIR Framework elements. These indicators were used by the majority of pilot projects. If data was available, baseflow calculations were able to assess stream quality as well. Ecosystem dependence on groundwater allows for a logical connection to all elements of the DPSIR Framework. This is an important aspect to consider when looking at the health of an ecosystem that relies on groundwater. For this sustainability goal, the majority of the pilot projects used the example indicators provided in the Gordon Report. The additional indicators recommended would fall into this theme by looking at specific species dependence on the groundwater systems, including human dependence (e.g., price of water). The theme for these indicators would be an assessment of the level of government action/ involvement in groundwater programs as well as public outreach programs. In some cases this might be more of a qualitative assessment. Where the Gordon Report indicators were used in the pilot projects, this information is comparable. If this is a priority for the WMC, this aspect of the assessment approach should be evaluated. However, as noted by the pilot project, depending on data availability, understanding of the groundwater system, and issues noted, this may not be achievable. The determination of groundwater sustainability can be very specific and locally driven. The Lower Athabasca pilot project recommended specifically that, a response framing attribute process allowing stakeholders inputs be adopted to complement the DPSIR, and that control Page 62

74 charting and trend analysis be used to define baseline conditions and policy target values (Bayegnak, 2013). In order to provide a final synthesis of the assessment approach goals, indicators and DPSIR elements, the Abbotsford- Sumas pilot project used a weight-of-evidence approach. This provided a synthesis of the indicators within the assessment approach and aided in the communication of the results of their study. This concept should be discussed further by the WMC. An outline on how to complete the assessment approach would help future users. The five pilot projects submitted five very different reports. If the WMC wishes to create a common assessment approach then the creation of a how to guide would help other water managers. An important aspect of this guide would be to provide methods on how to effectively engage and communicate the results to stakeholders and the public. This guide could include information on the importance of seeking experts to aid in the analysis of the DPSIR Framework for each of the sustainability goals. Further it could provide information on the importance of engaging stakeholders, if appropriate, in the thought process of the DPSIR Framework and review of the indicators selected. The following are examples of information that could be included in a how to guide to assess groundwater sustainability. The level of detail in this guide should be assessed based on the desire to ensure that this process is still flexible. Information on the importance of the creation/ development of a groundwater sustainability assessment team. This team would aid in the review of the assessment approach and indicator development. Information on the assessment process as outlined by the Gordon Report. Key concepts and definitions for each aspect of the assessment approach. This could include example indicators for all elements of the DPSIR Framework for each groundwater sustainability goal, and/or the development of themes to aid the user. A draft outline for reporting on groundwater sustainability to provide guidance of what should be included. This may include examples, such as the weight evidence approach, to make an overall statement of groundwater sustainability for the aquifer of interest. Elements of an effective communication strategy to provide the key information to water managers and the public. Discussion on the importance of stakeholder input, if available. Page 63

75 Overall, the assessment approach piloted did provide the information/steps necessary to complete an assessment of groundwater sustainability. This was regardless of the scale and jurisdiction where the pilot project was located. The groundwater sustainability goals and DPSIR Framework helped to frame the thought process for the selection of indicators. Indicators presented in the Gordon Report were used by at least one of the pilot projects, but not used by all of them to complete their assessments. 4.1 Recommendations on the Stated Objectives of the Assessment Approach WMC outlined specific objectives for the testing of the assessment approach. This has been summarized below with a description of how the pilot projects managed to meet these specific objectives. A standardized means by which jurisdictions can track the status of groundwater resources and the effectiveness of their groundwater management strategies over time The assessment approach as outlined in the Gordon Report provided the pilot projects with the framework to track the status of their groundwater resources and the effectiveness of their water management strategies over time. However, the ability to track this was only available if baseline conditions existed. Where baseline conditions did not exist, the approach allowed for the pilot project to develop these parameters for future use. It is important for the user of this assessment approach to determine the project goals within the specific groundwater sustainability goal. Therefore, it may be difficult for the users to retrofit old data into this process if specific indicators are selected for the assessment approach. Lastly, organizational capacity to complete ongoing assessments was raised as a concern. Ongoing commitments would be required by the organisation completing the assessment to track the status of groundwater sustainability over time. Continuity and common language when communicating the sustainability of groundwater resources at a local, regional, provincial/territorial, Canada-wide or international scale Based on the results of the pilot projects and feedback received, the common language presented in the Gordon Report was easily adopted and understood. It is recommended that specific examples be provided to future users, such as outlined in the Gordon Report, on how each of the DPSIR Framework elements are defined and how they relate to each other. This information should be carried forward to any further documents produced. Page 64

76 A platform for developing shared policy instruments and technical tools for groundwater sustainability The assessment approach allows for a common discussion framework for groundwater sustainability issues. The indicators used were developed in many cases specifically for the issues outlined by the pilot project. This limits the ability to directly compare the developed indicators. However, this process still allows for the sharing of policy instruments and technical tools as some of the indicators could be used in other jurisdictions. For example, some of the indicators developed could be modified to allow for this sharing to occur. The WMC should consider suggesting common indicators, beyond those presented in the Gordon Report that could be used for the assessment of groundwater sustainability to facilitate the comparison of projects. A platform could be developed to provide users with the necessary tools to successfully complete their projects. This would provide information on the assessment approach, methods to complete the assessment, sample indicators and tools for communicating the results to water managers. Assistance to jurisdictions to better inform their decision makers and policy-developers on the status of groundwater sustainability and on the key data requirements, policy approaches, time and resource commitments and technical methods required to help ensure that sustainable groundwater management practise are implemented The assessment approach provides a method to better inform decision makers and policy developers on the status of groundwater sustainability. The sustainability goals, DPSIR Framework and indicators provide the tools necessary to complete an assessment of groundwater sustainability. It ensures the users include key data requirements and policy approaches. The development of indicators specific to the jurisdictional groundwater sustainability issue will allow involvement of stakeholders and the public. To complete and maintain the assessment requires a certain level of organizational capacity that may not be available in all jurisdictions. The main limitation of the proposed approach is that the resources or technical methods required by the indictors may not be accessible or may be beyond the scope of the user to develop and/or use. Page 65

77 In order to assess groundwater sustainability it is important to have baseline conditions to allow for the comparison of data over time. Without this baseline data, an assessment might be difficult to achieve. Page 66

78 5.0 CONCLUSION Overall, the assessment approach outlined in the Gordon Report was applied successfully by the pilot projects. This indicates that the approach has the flexibility required for it to be modified and used on a variety of scales and in different jurisdictions across Canada. In order to ensure the success for future users, the WMC may consider the development of guidelines on how to complete the assessment of groundwater sustainability and provide specific examples on what tools could be used to convey this information to water managers, stakeholders and the public. It is important to note that future projects should be framed with the goals and issues of the local community/ watershed in mind. This will ease the process of developing indicators and help communicate the results. Respectfully submitted, WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. Electronic signatures used Ian Macdonald, M.Sc., P.Geo., EP(CEA) Project Manager /Senior Hydrogeologist Tiffany Svensson, M.Sc., P.Geo. Branch Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist François Richard, PhD. géo., P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist Emily Stahl, B.Sc., P.Geo. Intermediate Hydrogeologist Page 67

79 WORKS CITED Bayegnak, G. (2013). Draft Groundwater Sustainability Assessment for the NAOS Alberta. CCA. (2009). The Sustainable Management of Groundwater in Canada. Council of Canadian Academies. Ottawa.: Council of Canadian Academies. CCME. (2012, May 29). Request for Proposal: Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects. Water Management Committe. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. (2013). Groundwater Sustainability in Prince Edward Island. The Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. Environment Canada. (2013). DRAFT Groundwater Sustainability Assessment for the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer. Environment Canada. Gavrielsen, P., & Bost, P. (2003). Environmental Indicators: Tyopology and Use in Reporting Working Paper. European Environmental Agency. Gordon, S. (2013). Draft Pilot Testing of the Preliminary Approach for Assessing Groundwater Sustainability- Town of Gibson Tables. Gordon, S. (2011). DRAFT Sustainable Groundwater Management: Preliminary Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of Groundwater. Gordon Groundwater Consultancy. Li, Q. (2013). Draft Pilot Testing of the Preliminary Approach for Assessing Groundwater Sustainability- PEI Tables. Martin, A., et al. (2013). Évaluation d indicateurs de gestion durable des eaux souterraines. Projet pilote du CCME supporté par le MDDEFP. Version préliminarie transmise au CCME.. OMOE. (2011, January 18). Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from Source Water Protection: personal communication A. (2013, April 25). Cecilia Wong. personal communication B. (2013, May 1). Guy Bayegnak. personal communication. (2013, April 17). Qing Li. UNESCO. (2007). Groundwater Resources Sustainability Indicators. IHP-VI Series on Groundwater No. 14:123. United Nations Environment, Scientific and Cultural Organization. WADC. (2010). Water Advisory Development Committee, Groundwater Sub-Committee Workshop Report. Edmonton: Water Advisory Development Committee. Page 68

80 Page 69 FIGURES

81 LEGEND Pilot Project Locations Athabasca Oil Sands! 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK Town of Gibsons! Abbotsford-Sumas REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS ,000 Kilometers Prince Edward Island Montérégie Est Region!! CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Groundwater Pilot Project Locations WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Page 70 Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DRAWN YL CHECKED ES DATE April 17, 2013 FIG NO. 01 REV 0

82 LEGEND Pilot Project Location! 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS ,500 Meters Upper Gibsons CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Lower Gibsons Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Town of Gibsons Study Area British Columbia, Canada WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DATE April 17, 2013 DRAWN YL CHECKED ES FIG NO. 02 REV 0 Page 71

83 LEGEND Pilot Project Location Abbotsford-Suma Aquifer! 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED -Aldridge, J. and Wong, C., Dr aft Groundwater Sustainability Assessment WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS. for the Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer (ASA). February Source "Groundwater Sustainability Assessment for the Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer", Environment Canada, Kilometers CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Transboundary Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer British Columbia, Canada (Canadian portion only) WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Page 72 Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DRAWN YL CHECKED ES DATE March FIG NO. 03 REV 0

84 LEGEND Pilot Project Location Athabasca Oil Sands! 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS Kilometers CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Lower Athabasca Region Study Area Alberta, Canada WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DATE April 17, 2013 DRAWN YL CHECKED ES FIG NO. 04 REV 0 Page 73

85 LEGEND Pilot Project Location Montérégie Est Region Aquifer! 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS Kilometers CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Montérégie Est Region Study Area Province of Québec WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DATE April 17, 2013 DRAWN YL CHECKED ES FIG NO. 05 REV 0 Page 74

86 LEGEND Pilot Project Location Prince Edward Island Aquifer Kings County Prince County! Queen County 1 REV. DESCRIPTION YY/MM/DD BY CHK REFERENCES PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON MAY NOT BE REPRODUC ED OR DIVULGED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDIC ATED ARE BASED ON 8.5" x11 " FORMAT DRAWINGS Kilometers CLIENT Water Management Committee: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment PROJECT Analysis of Groundwater Pilot Projects TITLE Prince Edward Island Study Area Canada WESA, a division of BluMetric Environmental Inc. 171 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5 C5 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) info@ blumetric.ca Web: Blu Metric includes W ESA, Seprotech, WESAtech, Envir- Eau, OEL- HydrosSys, WESAtechnologias PROJECT # W-B DATE April 17, 2013 DRAWN YL CHECKED ES FIG NO. 06 REV 0 Page 75