Lake Simcoe. Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy

Transcription

1 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy

2 Cette publication hautement spécialisée Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy, n est disponible qu en anglais conformément au Règlement 671/92, selon lequel il n est pas obligatoire de la traduire en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir des renseignements en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère de l Environnement et de l Action en matière de changement climatique au ou par courriel à hamdi.jarjanazi@ontario.ca. The comprehensive monitoring strategy (CMS) was prepared in 2014 by Joelle Young from the Biomonitoring Section of the MOECC and Jake La Rose from the Biodiversity and Monitoring Section of the MNRF, with substantial input provided by the CMS working group that consisted of monitoring experts from MOECC, MNRF, LSRCA and EC.

3 COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS Table of Contents INTRODUCTION STATE OF MONITORING FOR LSPP Monitoring Recommendations STATE OF DATA MANAGEMENT FOR THE LSPP Data Management Recommendations General Recommendations Data Storage Recommendations Data Documentation Recommendations Data Sharing Recommendations STATE OF REPORTING FOR LSPP Reporting Recommendations BEYOND THE CMS NEXT STEPS GLOSSARY OF TERMS SUPPORTING DOCUMENT I: MONITORING Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G SUPPORTING DOCUMENT II: DATA MANAGEMENT 53 Appendix A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT III: REPORTING Appendix A

4 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 1 Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy Recommendations Monitoring, Data Management and Reporting Monitoring Recommendations 1 Existing monitoring should continue, as it has high importance to the LSPP and/or requires low 8 resources 2 LSPP partner agencies should enhance and continue to develop collaboration in monitoring 8 3 A terrestrial natural heritage monitoring program should be designed and implemented in the Lake 8 Simcoe watershed 4 The monitoring of terrestrial animal indicator species should be coordinated and promoted through citizen-science programs 9 5 LSPP partner agencies need to consider how to mitigate the risk of cancellation or alteration of monitoring that is led by external agencies but which LSPP implementation relies on 9 6 Consider monitoring high priority gaps in tributary, near-shore and offshore lake parameters 9 7 A small group of important aquatic parameters should be monitored at less frequent intervals 10 (every 5 10 years) than most other parameters 8 To address LSPP climate change information needs: 10 Monitoring of many existing long-term parameters should be continued Further analysis of existing monitoring data should be conducted Where possible, climate change monitoring should be standardized across other watersheds Data Management Recommendations 1 Data should be housed with the Primary Agency who performs monitoring 12 2 There is a requirement for clear lines of accountability by primary Agencies (data owner/steward) 12 for the management of data collected in support of monitoring Lake Simcoe 3 Ongoing resource requirements for data management should be recognized by primary Agencies 13 4 It is recommended that all data are transferred to and stored in a database management system 13 (DBMS) 5 Newly collected monitoring data should be regularly appended to appropriate existing databases within a defined time period after data preparation 13 6 Backing-up and archiving should be continued by following the Primary Agency s best practices, which should include off-site backing up and the use of universally recognizable software 13 7 Data management plans should be documented and kept current 13 8 All Lake Simcoe data should have a metadata record 14 9 Lake Simcoe data should continue to be openly shared, using the Freedom of Information and 14 Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as a guideline for access to data 10 Distributed data that is not QA-QCed should be properly identified 14 Page Reporting Recommendations 1 Continue to produce frequent scientific and technical reporting in order to meet LSPP information needs 2 Make existing reports more easily searchable and available to a variety of audiences (agencies, stakeholders, public) 3 Consider producing a collaborative multi-agency report that presents highlights of ecological and environmental state and trends of Lake Simcoe for public consumption

5 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 2 Introduction The Lake Simcoe Protection Act (LSPA) was passed in December 2008 with the primary objective to protect and restore the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The LSPA was followed by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) in June 2009, which laid out the plan for meeting the primary objective of the LSPA. The LSPP is based on ecosystem and adaptive management approaches, and is organized into several chapters, covering critical themes that include aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines, natural heritage, climate change and invasive species. Within the LSPP chapters, there are indicators and targets, and a category of policies that deal specifically with monitoring activities (the policies coded as M) (Table 1). Table 1. Examples of Indicators and Monitoring Policies in the LSPP Chapters LSPP Chapter Indicator Policy Aquatic Life Water Quality Water Quantity Native aquatic communities Key sensitive species Shifts in fish community composition TP concentration and loading Other nutrients Beach postings Total suspended solids Chlorides Heavy metals Base discharge 3.6-M: an annual aquatic community monitoring program for the Lake Simcoe watershed M: a scientific water quality monitoring program Natural Heritage and Shorelines Proportion of land in natural cover Degree of fragmentation Integrity of shoreline Key biological indicators Significant recharge areas 6.50-M: a monitoring program in relation to the targets and indicators associated with natural heritage and hydrologic features and areas Other threats Invasive species Newly introduced species 7.10-SA: an annual monitoring program for terrestrial invasive species (including pests/ wildlife diseases) Climate change Meteorological data Lake thermal structure Lake hydrodynamics River hydrology Timing of seasonal processes 7.11-SA: an integrated climate change monitoring program to inform decision making and model the impacts of climate change

6 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 3 These were designed by experts from the partner agencies involved in monitoring and the Lake Simcoe Science Committee to track the progress of actions for protecting and restoring the ecological health of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Indicators, targets and monitoring are a critical component of policy implementation and the adaptive management approach; monitoring information feeds directly into the policy cycle by helping to identify the need for new or adjusted management actions, measuring policy outcomes and helping to ensure that policy is evidence based. The adaptive management approach of the LSPP requires feedback on performance in order to measure its effectiveness. For ecological and environmental focussed policy and management, this feedback comes from the repeated monitoring of indicators over many years (i.e., long term), the proper management of the data collected, and prompt reporting to inform watershed partners on the findings of the monitoring results. As such, the LSPP called for a comprehensive monitoring strategy (CMS): collaborate to design and implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed. The Plan also provides for the development of new, or the enhancement of existing monitoring programs needed to fill current monitoring gaps. A comprehensive coordination strategy will help to ensure that required data are available in a suitable format and that monitoring efforts are not being duplicated. To meet this objective, a team of experts worked together to develop recommendations on monitoring, data management and reporting to inform management of a path forward for the comprehensive monitoring of Lake Simcoe. Who was involved The development of the CMS was a collaborative effort that took place from 2011 to A multi-agency working group was formed with the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change (MOECC) having overall responsibility for the project. A Steering Committee represented by MOECC and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (Supporting Document I, Appendix A) developed the terms of reference for the CMS and were responsible for providing guidance to the working group when needed. The working group was co-chaired by MOECC and MNRF, and was composed of monitoring experts from all agencies involved in LSPP implementation: MOECC, MNRF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and Environment Canada (EC) (Supporting Document I, Appendix A). For data management and reporting sections, the working group was divided in half based on member expertise, with additional experts added to the data management sub-working group. The Lake Simcoe Operational Management Committee and the Lake Simcoe Science Committee (LSSC) provided review and feedback on the CMS throughout its development, and four LSSC members were also on the CMS working group.

7 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 4 The focus of the CMS recommendations was on long term environmental and ecological monitoring, to support the primary objective of the LSPA. The general steps followed during the development of the recommendations were: 1) identifying the requirements of the LSPP, 2) inventorying the current state of monitoring within the Lake Simcoe watershed, allowing 3) the identification of successes and gaps to form the basis of new recommendations (Fig. 1). Steps for Monitoring, Data Management & Reporting Additional Monitoring Steps 1. Identify LSPP needs 2. Inventory of current (2013) state Identified overlap I duplication among agency monitoring programs Performed risk analysis Importance to LSPP Resource requirements 3. Identify successes & gaps Prioritized monitoring gaps using program approach 4. Develop recommendations Figure 1. Steps taken by the working group for gathering data to make recommendations. The steps originated from Actions outlined in the Terms of Reference. Additional steps were also taken that would support future decision making on monitoring. These were focussed on reducing overlap in monitoring efforts, risk analysis, and efficiently filling important monitoring gaps using a program approach. A brief summary of the process is provided below, and findings are summarized with the recommendations, while detailed descriptions are presented as Supporting Documents I-III.

8 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 5 State of Monitoring for LSPP Lake Simcoe has a long history of intensive environmental and ecological monitoring. In the 1970s and 1980s, these programs were fundamental in tracking declines in the lake s health, as well as identifying stressors. In recent years, the long term monitoring data has shown improvements in the lake as a result of protection and restoration efforts, and has detected emerging stressors, such as invasive species and climate change. Examples of Lake Simcoe Monitoring Programs Winter and Open Water Creel Surveys Lake Simcoe is one of Ontario s most intensively fished inland lakes, with a recreational fishery that spans all seasons. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has monitored Lake Simcoe s recreational fishery since the early 1960s using roving creel surveys conducted in the winter and open water (i.e., ice-free) seasons. These programs count the number of anglers fishing on the lake and survey anglers about their fishing trips in order to estimate total fishing effort as well as the numbers of each fish species caught and harvested. Creel survey information is used by MNRF to manage fisheries, and is combined with fish community parameters collected in other MNRF monitoring programs to report on LSPP aquatic life indicators, such as the presence and abundance of key sensitive species Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Lake Monitoring Monitoring of Lake Simcoe by MOECC in collaboration with the LSRCA began in the 1980s due to concerns of the water quality and its connection to declines in Coldwater fish species. Currently the MOECC collect water samples during the ice-free season every two weeks at up to 12 lake stations, and 3 near the mouth of the Holland River. The water samples are analyzed for chemical (e.g., total phosphorus and nitrogen) and biological (e.g., phytoplankton and zooplankton) parameters, which are key indicators used to track changes in the lake, and to examine the effects of multiple environmental stressors.

9 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 6 The CMS working group identified that there are 115 parameters (e.g., the dissolved oxygen content of the lake water), which should be monitored. The monitoring inventory found that half of these were sufficiently monitored to meet the requirements of the LSPP. Long-term ecological monitoring of the lake and tributaries (i.e., aquatic life and water quality) was well implemented, with much of this monitoring also contributing information on detecting and tracking climate change and invasive species indicators. On the other hand, there were significant gaps in the monitoring of natural heritage areas and shorelines (Fig. 2). For detailed information, please refer to Supporting Document I. Figure 2. The percent of parameters currently being fully ( yes ), partially ( partial ) or not ( no ) monitored from each of their primary LSPP chapters/themes (Chapter 3 = aquatic life, 4 = water quality, 5 = water quantity, 6 = natural heritage and shorelines, 7 = other threats, and 8 = implementation). NOTE: Chapter 5 had only three parameters and Chapter 8 had only one.

10 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 7 Key Monitoring Successes: Half of the monitoring required by the LSPP is being performed, especially for aquatic life and water quality This existing monitoring was ranked as extremely important to the LSPP, relatively cost efficient, or both Key Monitoring Gaps: Natural heritage and shorelines are significantly under-represented in current monitoring Results of the Program Approach Recommendations for filling important monitoring gaps were developed around high priority monitoring needs based on a cost-effective program approach. This approach assumed that a monitoring program could collect multiple samples on the same sampling trip thus increasing efficiency. The working group identified existing monitoring programs that could be enhanced to monitor parameters identified as gaps and suggested new programs designed to capture a suite of the important monitoring gaps that could not be covered within existing programs. Almost two-thirds of the gaps, many of which had high importance to the LSPP, were grouped into existing or new programs (for details, see Supporting Document I, Appendix F). These programs were prioritized by the working group as: 1. Large Scale Terrestrial Mapping (New Program) 2. Site Level Terrestrial Inventory (New Program) 3. Nearshore Monitoring (Additions to Existing Program) 4. Animal Indicator Species (Coordinated Program) 5. Base-discharge in Tributaries (New Program) 6. LSPP Lake Monitoring (Additions to Existing Program) 7. LSPP Tributary Monitoring (Additions to Existing Program) The working group also made suggestions for reclassifying five of the gaps as research projects rather than routine monitoring, given the infrequency of data collection required to fill them. For more details, see Supporting Document I.

11 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 8 Monitoring Recommendations 1. Existing monitoring should continue, as it has high importance to the LSPP and/or requires low resources Lake Simcoe and its watershed have had several long term, intensive monitoring programs in place for a number of years, in some cases decades. While the extent of these programs have fluctuated in some years, the information gathered is critical to meeting the objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. This monitoring fulfills many policy requirements within the LSPP, including meeting the intent of M-policies and tracking the defined targets and indicators of lake and watershed health. Key examples of these key long term initiatives are the monitoring of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and recreational fisheries. DO forms the basis of a target within the LSPP aquatic life chapter and is an indicator of water quality, while monitoring of the recreational fisheries informs us on the coldwater fish communities response to improved DO. To continue meeting the requirements of the LSPP, agencies must ensure that existing high priority monitoring continues. 2. LSPP partner agencies should enhance and continue to develop collaboration in monitoring Very little duplication and excellent collaboration was found among agencies monitoring Lake Simcoe and its watershed. To maintain an efficient monitoring program, agencies should continue to enhance and develop collaborations. Since regular communication is important to facilitate these collaborations, agencies should participate in annual or bi-annual meetings to share information, and discuss LSPP monitoring needs and how to meet them. 3. A terrestrial natural heritage monitoring program should be designed and implemented in the Lake Simcoe watershed A terrestrial natural heritage monitoring program that includes both site level inventory and large scale mapping components is a high priority need for the LSPP. Large scale mapping would use remote sensing to measure Extent and distribution and Fragmentation and Spatial Context of various habitat types that directly relate to plan targets, whereas the site level inventory directly measures the in-situ Habitat Structure and Species composition of habitat types allowing for reporting on ecological health. Together these components would serve LSPP policy 6.50-M, as well as important terrestrial aspects of the invasive species monitoring policy (7.10-M) and climate change monitoring needs (7.11c-SA) that are currently not implemented. In addition, repeated large-scale and site-level measurements will allow agencies to measure changes over time in indicators of natural heritage, invasive species and climate change, and report on whether targets and objectives are being met. Targets for natural heritage include a minimum of 40% high quality natural vegetative cover and an increase in large patches of cover, neither of which can be reported on without a monitoring program. LSPP partner agencies are currently involved in

12 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 9 designing and testing aspects of this program, which, if implemented could serve as the starting point for these measurements. 4. The monitoring of terrestrial animal indicator species should be coordinated and promoted through citizen-science programs Terrestrial animal indicator species need to be monitored as natural heritage indicators, and to support terrestrial invasive species and climate change monitoring programs. Some information on terrestrial animal species is currently collected through citizen science groups and other programs external to the LSPP. Although this information cannot fully meet LSPP monitoring needs, the promotion and coordination of technical details of citizen science programs, as well as partnering with external agencies and organizations to share data, could increase their viability in the watershed. For example, a program such as Bird Studies Canada s Marsh Monitoring Program, which is a standardized, nationally implemented volunteer program, could prioritize species and areas for monitoring within the watershed to help monitor the impacts of climate change (see Additional effort could be put towards promoting Lake Simcoe specific participation in the program. 5. LSPP partner agencies need to consider how to mitigate the risk of cancellation or alteration of monitoring that is led by external agencies but which LSPP implementation relies on. Some parameters that are very important to LSPP implementation are monitored by external agencies or are supported by external funding. For example, Environment Canada meteorological site data is used in phosphorus load calculations and to track climate change indicators. LSPP partner agencies should identify risks to their programs and plan potential ways to adapt or continue this essential work in the event that it was cancelled or altered significantly by an external agency or funding partner. 6. Consider monitoring high priority gaps in tributary, nearshore and offshore lake parameters Some high priority gaps were identified within existing aquatic monitoring programs, which are needed to report on indicators of water quality, measure progress on LSPP objectives and meet the requirements of the water quality monitoring policy 4.22-M. These gaps included total suspended solids in lake water, zebra and quagga mussel abundance, and organic contaminants. The need and frequency for each gap should be evaluated in order to further prioritize those to monitor. Many of these could be added to existing aquatic monitoring programs with marginal additional resource requirements (for details, see Supporting Document I, Appendix F).

13 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy A small group of important aquatic parameters should be monitored at less frequent intervals (every 5 10 years) than most other parameters Some LSPP information needs, such as contaminants in sediments, are expected to fluctuate over longer time scales; therefore, frequent (i.e., annual) monitoring would not be required. Many of these are explicitly called for within water quality policies such as 4.22-M and 4.23-SA. This monitoring should be on a periodic basis (e.g., every 5 10 years) that is implemented as a special need. 8. To address LSPP climate change information needs a. Monitoring of many existing long-term parameters should be continued b. Further analysis of existing monitoring data should be conducted c. Where possible, climate change monitoring should be standardized across other watersheds Many ecological parameters that were identified as important for climate change monitoring are currently monitored as part of other long-term monitoring programs, and thus climate change monitoring was identified in the Lake Simcoe Climate Change Adaption Strategy as part of the Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy. As long-term, continuous data is needed to determine the impacts of climate change, ongoing monitoring should continue, and some additional high priority monitoring should be initiated (e.g., lake trout phenology). Priority should be placed on analyzing existing data to help serve LSPP climate change policy needs. Lastly, because the impacts of climate change extend beyond the Lake Simcoe watershed, the monitoring of climate change parameters for Lake Simcoe should be standardized with similar work done across other watersheds and at larger scales.

14 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 11 State of Data Management for the LSPP The adaptive management approach of Lake Simcoe protection is critically dependent on the proper data management of the long term monitoring data. Therefore, recommendations on data management were made by the working group based on a set of guiding principles to protect and conserve data for continuing use, and make it discoverable, readily available and easily accessible to a broad audience of potential users. These involve following good practices for each of the components in a data flow model (Fig. 3), as well as maintaining data accountability. Figure 3. An idealized flow model for Lake Simcoe data, showing the preferred steps that the data travel from collection to reporting for each Agency s data. The first three Lake Simcoe data management guiding principles fall into: Data storage (all the tin cans on the model), Data documentation (the metadata can ), and Data sharing (the bottom line of the model).

15 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 12 Guiding principles of Lake Simcoe data management (similar to principles in MNRF s Information Management Strategy, 2006) 1. Protect and conserve data for continuing use, 2. Make data discoverable, 3. Make data readily available and easily accessible to a broad audience of potential users. Key Data Management Successes: For the most part, Lake Simcoe monitoring data are being: adequately stored regularly up-dated properly maintained, and appropriately shared. Key Data Management Gaps: Although much of the data are managed following commonly accepted good data management practices (Fig. 3), some data management practices require improvements, specifically regarding how the data are stored. An ongoing resource commitment is required to ensure data are updated, maintained, and remain accessible with currently supported software. There is insufficient documentation for approximately half of the datasets, which may limit how useable they are by others or into the future. Additionally, there is a lack of accessible documentation (e.g., metadata) of the datasets, which prevents them from being discoverable. Data Management Recommendations General Recommendations 1. Data should be housed with the primary Agency who performs monitoring The primary Agency has the relevant knowledge of the data and should accept responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the data. It is impractical for all data to be stored in a single central repository. 2. There is a requirement for clear lines of accountability by primary Agencies (data owner/steward) for the management of data collected in support of monitoring Lake Simcoe The primary Agency that collects and houses the long term monitoring data should formally assign a data custodian within the primary Agency, and should have a set succession plan so that the care

16 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 13 of datasets will be maintained when staff retire or leave the position to which the data custodian role was assigned. 3. Ongoing resource requirements for data management should be recognized by primary Agencies. Good data management practices require resources (e.g., staff and infrastructure), which should be clearly identified and prioritized by primary Agencies. Data Storage Recommendations 4. It is recommended that all data are transferred to and stored in a database management system (DBMS). Data for approximately one-quarter of Lake Simcoe parameters are currently stored on spreadsheets and not in a DBMS. Use of a DBMS will ensure data stability and reduce resource requirements in the long-term, as it will take less time to fulfill data requests, as well as ease data migration to newer software and hardware. 5. Newly collected monitoring data should be regularly appended to appropriate existing databases within a defined time period after data preparation. Approximately one-quarter of Lake Simcoe data are not regularly updated, and those that are regularly updated require an ongoing commitment of resources to stay up-to-date. 6. Backing-up and archiving should be continued by following the Primary Agency s best practices, which should include off-site backing-up and the use of universally recognizable software. Most of Lake Simcoe data are safely and securely backed-up and archived. Ideally, data should be housed on a network server but a local PC is sufficient if data are backed up regularly to an offsite network server. Some of Lake Simcoe stored, backed-up and/or archived data are at risk of becoming unusable. To ensure continued accessibility of data, all data should be stored, backed-up and archived using universally recognizable and current/compatible software, formats or platforms. If software used to manage the data are no longer in standard use, archives should be migrated to a new format to retain accessibility. Data Documentation Recommendations 7. Data management plans should be documented and kept current. Over half of the parameters have a data management plan, which ensure data are interpretable and properly analyzed by future or external users.

17 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy All Lake Simcoe data should have a metadata record. About half of the Lake Simcoe data have a metadata record. All data should have metadata records that: are in a common platform, such as M2, an open-source freeware hosted by the MNRF. Resources would be required for the migration of existing metadata to M2. are easily accessible by the public so that Lake Simcoe data are discoverable. include, at a minimum, basic information required to assist others in interpreting data in the future. Without this information, data will have limited long term value. have a link to data management plans to ensure proper analysis of the data, should be kept up-to-date. Responsibility of metadata refreshment should be assigned to a single agency who would remind other agencies to update metadata in M2. could be directly downloadable from a metadata management system (e.g., M2) or a data distribution site to accommodate an increase in the number of data requests that may occur due to increased discoverability; additional resources might be required. Data Sharing Recommendations 9. Lake Simcoe data should continue to be openly shared, using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as a guideline for access to data. Currently, almost all of Lake Simcoe data are openly shared as soon as they have been processed and are ready for dissemination. This sharing should continue following FIPPA guidelines, where there are two circumstances described when Lake Simcoe data could be withheld, specifically, sensitive species records (Section 21.1) and data soon to be published in reports or papers (Section 22): Distributed data that is not QA-QCed should be properly identified. Some of Lake Simcoe data are distributed without having been QA-QCed. In this case, a disclaimer should be included with the data that alerts the user that the data are not QA-QCed and requests that any discrepancies be reported to the data custodian within the responsible agency. Possible examples can be found at:

18 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 15 State of Reporting for LSPP Within the LSPP and LSPA, there are four well defined, science focussed, environmental and ecological reporting requirements. Each of these reporting requirements cover a wide range of topics that are intended to communicate findings to a wide range of audiences (i.e., from technical and scientific to the general public). LSPP partner agencies are successfully fulfilling these explicit reporting requirements by reporting the results of water quality monitoring, preparing subwatershed plans, holding the biennial Lake Simcoe Science Forum, and releasing a report that presents the results of all monitoring programs on the Lake Simcoe watershed. For more details on Reporting Results, see Supporting Document III. Ecological and environmental reporting requirements of the LSPP and LSPA: M (b): Performance monitoring and reporting that evaluates the effectiveness of protection measures specified in this Plan that are designated to improve water quality SA, (c): Monitoring and reporting in relation to subwatershed targets that may be established SA: Every two years the partner agencies will organize an event or events that focus on scientific monitoring and research 4. LSPA Section 12(2) / Pg. 78 of the LSPP: Every 5 years report on all Lake Simcoe monitoring programs In addition to meeting the explicit monitoring requirements of the LSPP, partner agencies have increased the frequency, scope and volume of ecological and environmental focused scientific reporting. A considerable body of technical scientific reporting has been produced, primarily targeting agency and academic audiences, since the introduction of the LSPP. Government reports, peerreviewed publications, fact sheets/information summaries and conference symposia contributions have been produced to report on water quality, phosphorus loading, aquatic plants, invasive species, tributary and lake fish communities, the sport fishery monitoring, among other topics (see Table 3 for details). This technical scientific reporting of monitoring information has supported many other functions of the LSPP including adaptive management, public reporting, science syntheses and research activities.

19 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 16 Key Reporting Successes: Partner agencies are meeting LSPA and LSPP reporting requirements LSPP investments in monitoring have resulted in a substantial increase in the frequency, scope and volume of technical reporting produced by agencies. Key Reporting Gaps: Existing reports could be made more easily available to a variety of audiences. Currently there is no central listing of monitoring reports and the mode of access to them often differs by agency. Public focussed reporting could be enhanced so that the information contained in technical reports is communicated in plain language and is more accessible to the public. Table 2. Characteristics and Examples of LSPP Partner Agency Reporting Reporting Format Areas of Focus Intended Audiences Examples Conference Session, Forum, Workshop Lake and Watershed Scientific and Technical staff, LSPP Partner Agency Staff Lake Simcoe Biennial Science Forum (2011, 2013) International Association of Great Lakes Research Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research - special session on Lake Simcoe (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014) Fact sheet, Update, Information Summary Lake and Watershed Public, LSPP Partner Agency Staff LSRCA Science Newsletter Series MNRF Aquatic Science Unit Updates Technical Scientific Report Lake and Watershed Scientific and Technical staff, LSPP Partner Agency Staff, Public Annual water balances and total phosphorus loads ( ) LSRCA watershed monitoring Report 2013 MOECC Lake Simcoe Monitoring Report 2014 Primary Literature Publications Lake and Watershed Scientific and Technical staff Journal of Great Lakes Research Special Issue on Lake Simcoe (Volume 37, Supplement 3) Inland Waters, Lake Simcoe Themed Issues (Volume 3, Issues 1-2)

20 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 17 Reporting Recommendations The following recommendations are presented to sustain and enhance science focused, environmental and ecological reporting for the LSPP. 1. Continue to produce frequent scientific and technical reporting in order to meet LSPP information needs The monitoring and reporting requirements of specific policies in the LSPP provide clear and essential direction to environmental management agencies. Significant and timely progress has been achieved towards meeting these requirements. It is vital to continue to meet these requirements and to produce the frequent, scientific and technical reporting that has supported the LSPP over the past 5 years. 2. Make existing reports more easily searchable and available to a variety of audiences (agencies, stakeholders, public) While many reports produced by agencies are made available to all audiences, seeking out these reports requires detailed knowledge of agency roles and organizational structures. There is a need for a single central listing of monitoring reports so that all audiences can search and discover this work for Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Currently the mode of access to reports also often differs by agency/organizational unit (e.g., by request, posted on internet, internal agency repository). Where possible, a central listing or repository of reports produced by all agencies would help ensure reports are accessible and archived for future accessibility. 3. Consider producing a collaborative multi-agency report that presents highlights of ecological and environmental state and trends of Lake Simcoe for public consumption Public focussed reporting for the LSPP could be enhanced by producing a regular, public facing report that presents key findings from Lake Simcoe`s lake and watershed monitoring programs. This kind of report could be produced as a collaborative multi-agency effort, which translates the information contained in technical reports into plain language for the public and stakeholders. The technical Lake Simcoe Monitoring Report 2014, which this CMS report is a companion to, and the upcoming public Minister s 5-year report present an opportunity to help to fine tune the topics and content for a regular multi-agency public report. The following options are suggested: regular frequency focusing on timely highlights of key monitoring results, even balance of lake and watershed topics geographical referencing where possible (e.g., the state of sub-watersheds)

21 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 18 formatting that considers how the public wants to receive information, which may require additional research using innovative ways for distributing information (e.g., web portal, use of social media) using hierarchical or nested levels of technical detail, where possible The following are potential requirements for reporting recommendation 3: additional resources to support enhanced reporting to the public a technical/scientific working group (similar to the CMS working group) communications expertise Beyond the CMS While the objective of CMS was to identify long-term ecological monitoring as presented in the LSPP, many related monitoring topics were discussed during the working group meetings. The following summarizes those topics: 1. Monitoring was characterized at the most practical level of detail, the parameter. The sampling effort, i.e., spatial and temporal scale of data collection, for each parameter was determined by the opinion of experts as opposed to reviewing detailed technical/statistical aspects of each parameter. More detailed recommendations for monitoring relating to sampling effort have been made in separate documents, such as sub-watershed plans, and through program reviews conducted by individual agencies. 2. Research needs were not itemized; however, many research initiatives were identified as having important links to monitoring. Monitoring data have proven central to answering key research questions. Research findings can also help to guide long-term monitoring programs, and there are research related policies in most chapters. Additionally, some monitoring originally identified as long term was reclassified as short term information needs (e.g., investigation of sources of pathogens), and some inventory and mapping needs, such as tributary barriers and channelization for policy 3.4-SA, were identified but not reported as long term monitoring requirements during the program prioritization exercise. 3. Through the course of the CMS development many other LSPP needs were identified that were peripherally related to long term environmental and ecological monitoring or related to other kinds of monitoring or evaluation (e.g., monitoring Plan implementation, effectiveness and performance monitoring). Many of these needs have or will be addressed by other concurrent LSPP initiatives: Implementation and performance monitoring for LSPP stewardship activities was being addressed by a Lake Simcoe Stewardship working group

22 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 19 Actions taken as part of the phosphorus reduction strategy and related initiatives will help guide the use of BMPs The upcoming public Minister s 5-year report will present the findings of long-term monitoring and review progress towards meeting LSPP targets The Minister s 10-year review of the LSPP could include a review of targets and indicators and consider the need for additional ones Lake Simcoe committees, such as Lake Simcoe Fisheries Management Committee and Lake Simcoe Science Committee, will continue to make suggestions on the ecological monitoring of Lake Simcoe. Next Steps Lake Simcoe CMS working group will continue to meet biannually or annually, bringing in the LSSC as necessary, to discuss: 1. Whether we are monitoring appropriate indicators given most recent findings, 2. Sharing of data and information, and 3. Reporting and messaging of findings, providing peer review of Lake Simcoe reports A future CMS review should be performed to align with 10 year review of the LSPP. The recommendations presented should be reviewed and prioritized by management for the short, medium and long term to ensure a monitoring strategy for Lake Simcoe that is comprehensive, i.e., is both aquatic and terrestrially focussed, and will enable the evaluation of the effectiveness of the LSPP. The rankings of the monitoring programs can be used to provide management with context when prioritizing the monitoring recommendations in this document.

23 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 20 Glossary of Terms As defined by the CMS working group for the development of the CMS Adaptive management approach: a systematic approach to improving management and accommodating change by learning from the outcome of management actions. Archive: a static, permanent copy of the data at a particular point in time so to keep record of its state in the past. It should always be stored securely offsite. Back-up: a temporary copy of data that can be retrieved in the case of a catastrophic event. It is replaced regularly and is generally stored off-site. Citizen science: scientific data collection, processing or reporting activities conducted by volunteers, often in collaboration or partnership with professional scientists or experts. Climate change: a change in the state of the climate that can be identified through statistical testing over an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes, external forces, or persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use Database: a collection of data that is organized (e.g., tables can be connected with relationships) Database Management System (DBMS): specially designed applications that interact with the user, other applications, and the database itself to capture and analyze data Data Custodians: The person formally assigned by the data owner as responsible for the safe custody, transport and storage of the data, and implementation of business rules. Data Management Plan: a formal document that outlines how data are handled during field collection, processing and afterwards. It includes field and/or lab procedures (e.g., sampling and/or analytical manuals) and information on use and storage of data (i.e., define fields and qualifiers in the database, and error characteristics of the data). Metadata: Description of and the details related to the creation (i.e., date, purpose of collection/creation, methods used, access/use constraints and ownership) and the on-going maintenance (i.e., frequency) of an information asset. Metadata are used for data discovery and to determine a products fitness for use. The advantages of Metadata are: 1. Makes the data discoverable by increasing awareness of what data are available and who to contact to request them, 2. Eases data dissemination, and 3. Ensures the worth of the data in the future and to external users

24 Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 21 Natural heritage: refers generally to terrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecosystems and features on the landscape (e.g., woodlands, wetlands and streams) and their ecological functions (e.g., wildlife habitat, shoreline stabilization) and processes (e.g., carbon and nutrients cycling, pollination, species reproduction). Overlap: instances where the same data was gathered in similar areas, at similar spatial and temporal scales and for fundamentally similar purposes by different agencies. There can be a variety of reasons for potential overlap including agencies collaborating to complete a monitoring program. Parameter: a base measurement of an indicator at a specific geographic scale, such as total phosphorus measured in the Tributaries Phenology: the phenomenon and study of periodic plant and animal life cycle events and the influence by seasonal and interannual variations in climate. Primary Agency: The data owner who are accountable and responsible for data content, context, and associated business rules. Program approach: Recommendations for filling high priority monitoring gaps with monitoring programs in order to ensure a cost-effective program approach. This approach assumed that a monitoring program could collect multiple parameters on the same sampling trip thus increasing efficiency. QA-QC: The process of quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC). QA is ensured by following all business rules and necessary collection and post-collection protocols. QC is ensured by checking data for outliers, erroneous data, and identifying incomplete/incorrect data. The degree to which data are adjusted (i.e., left alone, corrected, or flagged as use with caution ) varies among Agencies. Risk analysis: The process of scoring the importance of parameters for LSPP implementation, as well as the resources needed to monitor those parameters Terrestrial: growing or living on land (as opposed to aquatic).

25 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 22 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Monitoring is an important component of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), providing a scientifically-based source of state and long term trend information on the lake and watershed. References to monitoring of Lake Simcoe are present throughout the LSPP, and an objective on page 4 of Chapter 1 explicitly states: provide for ongoing scientific research and monitoring related to the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed At the outset of the Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy (CMS) project, the Steering Committee developed a series of actions that would provide the materials necessary for the working group (Appendix A) to create the CMS. Actions 1 5 are the monitoring focussed actions of the CMS: 1. Identify monitoring that is required by the LSPP. 2. Characterize the current state of monitoring in Lake Simcoe. 3. Identify monitoring overlap and duplication among partner agencies. 4. Identify monitoring gaps. 5. Recommend additional monitoring to fill gaps. Methods and Results for Actions 1 5 Action 1: Identify monitoring that is required by the LSPP Action 1 was broken down into 4 sub-tasks: 1a called for the identification of the monitoring needed to implement the LSPP. This included monitoring explicitly required by the LSPP including M-policies as well as monitoring needed to address LSPP targets and indicators. 1b sought to identify implied monitoring, which was monitoring that was not specified by the LSPP but is necessary for policy implementation. Environmental, resource management related policies often require monitoring to measure policy effectiveness and to ensure an adaptive approach. 1c and 1d called for rationale to be provided for each monitoring need, which were then ranked according to their importance to the LSPP and logistical requirements in order to support risk based management decisions. As Action 1d follows from Actions 1a c, its methods and results are provided after Actions 1a c. Methods (Action 1a c) The Working Group formed smaller teams based on expertise corresponding to each LSPP chapters. The teams included members from multiple agencies, and those involved in implementing the policies. The teams reviewed their respective LSPP chapters documenting all environmental and ecological monitoring needs that were explicitly mentioned or implicitly required. For the purposes of the CMS,

26 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 23 monitoring is defined as the collection of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward meeting a management objective (Elzinga et al 2001). Therefore, only long term, ongoing monitoring was identified. Monitoring was identified at the parameter level. A parameter was defined as a base measurement at a specific geographic scale, such as total phosphorus measured in the Tributaries. Monitoring is defined differently by the various agencies; by working with parameters it is possible to focus directly on the details of the data collection. In doing so we were able to parcel out and put aside discussion related to data management, analysis and reporting activities, which appear to differ greatly amongst parameters and policies. The CMS Working Group defined a list of specific attributes that would be recorded for each parameter, which were organized in a standard Excel table. The attributes provided an understanding of the parameter s origin within the LSPP, the nature of the monitoring and its logistical difficulty, as well as a description of the parameter s importance to the LSPP (see Appendix B for a full list with definitions). Team members were instructed to consider practicality and funding sustainability when identifying the parameter attributes; however, not to identify costing amounts. Chapter teams documented parameters as many times as they were called for in the LSPP, often identifying the same parameter many times within the chapter. Teams sought out expert advice from policy leads within the various agencies in order to understand the details of monitoring requirements. In many cases, teams were able to draw from ongoing Lake Simcoe monitoring programs, pilot programs or existing monitoring proposals. Chapter teams reported back to the Working Group on two separate occasions, where they compared findings amongst chapters and sought feedback to ensure consistency in table content. Chapter monitoring needs were then compiled into a single spreadsheet and reviewed in detail by the CMS Working Group for accuracy and consistency. To reduce redundancy, analyze parameter information and produce summary tables for latter steps of Action 1 (i.e., the ranking), the Working Group developed a relational database to house parameter attribute information. A copy of the database can be made available on request. The parameter database includes four tables relating to: 1. LSPP details (LSPP) 2. Parameters and their attributes (Unique parameters) 3. Each instance where the parameters were called for in the LSPP (Repeated parameters) 4. Monitoring program details (Program names). (Figure 1).

27 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 24 Figure 1. The four tables and their relationships within the CMS parameter database. Parameters were summarized in two ways: Repeated parameters: A list of all parameters identified, every time they are required in each chapter and policy, target or indicator of the LSPP. This helps describe how many parameters are needed to implement a given policy, target, indicator or chapter and counts a parameter as many times it is called for. For example, dissolved oxygen in the lake is a parameter encountered in multiple policies and chapters and so is recorded several times in the Repeated Parameter table. Unique parameters: A list of parameters identified within the LSPP, in their most relevant chapter or policy. These parameters are counted only once regardless of how many times they appear within the LSPP, e.g., dissolved oxygen in the lake is listed once in the Unique Parameter table under Chapter 4. Results (Action 1a c) There are 612 instances in the LSPP where a policy, target or indicator requires the long-term measurement of a parameter. Many parameters are required in more than one geographic scale (e.g., total phosphorus measurement is required in Tributaries, Atmosphere, Lake, etc.) Some parameters are required many times throughout the LSPP, and often in more than one chapter Because of the requirement of the same parameters within and across chapters, the 612 instances can be rolled up into 115 unique parameters Monitoring is required in Chapters 3 through 8 but the number of parameters required varies widely among chapters (Table 1). Chapters 3, 4 & 7 require the most monitoring parameters Chapters 5 & 8 require the least monitoring parameters

28 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 25 Table 1. Number of unique and repeated parameters required per chapter. Unique parameters were assigned to a primary chapter based on the one it was most frequently requested in. Chapter Unique Repeated 3 Aquatic Life Water Quality Water Quantity Shorelines & Natural Heritage Other Threats & Activities Implementation 1 50 Total There was also a wide range in the number of parameters required by individual policies within the LSPP (Table 2). Monitoring policies in Chapters 3 & 7 require the greatest number of parameters for implementation. Table 2. The 8 LSPP Policies requiring the most repeated parameters for implementation. Chapter Policy Number of Parameters 3 Aquatic Life 3.1-SA Fish Community Objectives 72 7 Other Threats 7.11-SA Climate change monitoring 56 8 Implementation 8.1-SA Subwatershed plans 46 4 Water Quality 4.22a-M Water Quality monitoring 44 3 Aquatic Life 3.5-M Research on aquatic communities 39 4 Water Quality 4.22b-M Monitoring health of ecosystem 26 4 Water Quality 4.23a-SA Research on water quality 18 4 Water Quality 4.22c-M Monitoring biological indicators 14 Several shorter-term information needs were identified throughout the LSPP including research type projects. It was decided that the CMS will address short-term monitoring needs (i.e., special studies) and speak to their links to long term monitoring through discussion of some specific examples. Methods (Action 1d) The next step was to rank the parameters based on the rationale provided and the expertise of the Working Group. A set of criteria and a procedure for ranking the parameters were developed by the Working Group, seeking information from similar environmental indicator/parameter ranking exercises within the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and for Climate change monitoring (SOLEC 2011, Longstaff 2010, MNR 2009). Additionally, a test ranking procedure was performed to ensure that the parameter table contained sufficient information for ranking, there was a common understanding of criteria definitions and criteria were being applied consistently by Working Group members.

29 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 26 Two broad ranking categories were initially identified in Action 1d: Importance to the LSPP, and Logistical Requirement. These were broken down into specific criteria that would allow the Working Group to consider a single aspect of a parameter at a time when ranking (see Appendix C for a full list of criteria with definitions and Figure 2 for the list of criteria). The Importance to the LSPP criteria fell into two sub-categories (Figure 2). The first group Importance to LSPP & Management was intended to convey the risk to LSPP objectives of not measuring a given parameter. The second group Parameter Effectiveness provided some information on the technical aspects of a given parameter and its ability to support the LSPP objectives. The Logistical Requirement category included criteria designed to qualitatively describe the people, time, funding and resources required to measure a parameter. Two Ranking Categories Logistical Requirements Logistical Requirements Importance to LSPP & Management: 1. Importance to the LSPP (37.5%) 2. Frequency in LSPP (12.5%) Parameter Effectiveness 3. Responsiveness (12.5%) 4. Early Warning (12.5%) 5. Understandable (12.5%) 6. Confidence (12.5%) 7. Integrative (0%) 8. Field Requ irements (25%) 9. Temporal Requ irements (25%) 10. Analytical Requ irements (25%) 11. Program Constraint (25%) Figure 2. The two broad ranking categories, their sub-criteria, and the weighting given to each criterion (blue text in brackets). Nine of the criteria (1, 3 8 and in Figure 2) were ranked by the working group using an online survey tool. For every parameter required by the LSPP, a rank between 1 and 5 was assigned. Working group members were asked to rely on the details and attributes contained in the parameter table to inform their rankings and to only rank those parameters where they felt they had enough background information and/or expertise to produce an informed ranking. Criteria 2 and 9 were calculated rather than ranked, as they were quantifiable based on information provided in the parameter table. The raw parameter ranking results were reviewed by the Working Group, and a small number of issues associated with the parameter ranks were identified and addressed. A few of the parameters were insufficiently ranked (i.e., only 0 or 1 Working Group members provided a ranking). One parameter with

30 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 27 0 rankings was removed and the other was combined with an existing parameter based on expert advice. Parameters with 1 ranking remain in the results, but are identified as less reliable. A small number of parameters had vastly divergent ranks for some criteria (i.e., ranging from 1 to 5), indicating a potential misunderstanding in criterion definition or parameter attributes. Two criteria in particular were problematic; the term Integrative apparently had different interpretations and therefore was removed, and Program Constraints was re-ranked based on the opinion of the Working Group member responsible for the monitoring of the parameter. The median value was used to produce a single rank for each parameter for each of the 8 criteria. Next, criteria 1 6 were weighted to calculate an overall Importance to the LSPP ranking, and criteria 8 11 were weighted for a Logistical Requirement ranking. A criteria weighting system was developed by the Working Group in consultation with the CMS steering committee and members of the LSPP OMC, and were also presented to the LSSC. Each criterion was assigned a weighting value (percent weight is shown in brackets next to criteria in Figure 2) to contribute to the final two broad categories. Results (Action 1d) Parameters have been listed in order of their Importance to the LSPP in Appendix D for each primary chapter. The LSPP, in many instances, explicitly states monitoring requirements to achieve overall plan objectives (e.g., Monitoring M - policies) while other monitoring requirements may support Designated Policy or Strategic Action Policy implementation. Those parameters that ranked high Importance to LSPP could be interpreted as a priority based on their ability to implement the policies of the LSPP and monitor its success. Another potential way of supporting decision making is to use both the Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP criteria to facilitate a risk-based approach for prioritizing parameters. The graph below indicates the relative importance of the criteria outlined for each parameter (Figure 3). This could assist with management decision making, but should be considered within the context of the LSPP as a prioritization exercise. For example, a parameter that has high Importance and low Logistical Requirements could be seen as a priority for implementation due to its low resource requirements.

31 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 28 Figure 3. Rankings of Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP for all parameters, grouped by their primary chapter of the LSPP. The parameter rankings for Logistical Requirements were more spread out than Importance to LSPP rankings (Figure 3): The logistical requirement to measure a parameter ranged from relatively easy (1.3 for water level of the lake) to relatively difficult (4.1 for Insect phenology) Most parameters were ranked as relatively important to the LSPP, ranging from 2.6 (vertical current profiles of the lake) to 4.6 (dissolved oxygen in the lake) The high Importance to LSPP rankings could reflect: o the decisions made when the LSPP was written, as well as by the Working Group while identifying the parameters in Action 1a (i.e., while keeping practicality and sustainability in mind) resulting in the exclusion of less important parameters o a positive ranking bias amongst Working Group members

32 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 29 There are noticeable differences among Importance to LSPP rankings of parameters based on their primary chapter, which suggests that some points should be kept in mind when interpreting these results. Chapters 4 & 6 do not have any parameters ranked below 3, which makes it appear as though these chapters have greater importance over other chapters. Bias in the relative importance of chapters would most likely be a result of how the parameters were ranked. Working group members were instructed to only rank parameters they were most familiar with; therefore, most parameters from the same primary chapter were ranked by the same experts, and not all experts ranked all chapters As a result, the CMS Working Group recommends that parameters be compared within chapter groups to ensure that rankings differ due to parameter attributes and not differences in ranking between chapters. In addition to chapter groupings, parameters could be examined according to other common frameworks such as type of indicators they support (e.g., stressor or state indicators) or geographical distribution of parameters (e.g., lake, tributary or terrestrial) in order to look for additional gaps. The Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP are shown below for each chapter (Figure 4a d), with the ranking data displayed across the existing spread to facilitate the identification of individual parameters. Chapters 5 & 8 had very few parameters identified so they are not displayed graphically here. The parameters are colour coded for Actions 2, 4 & 5. Solid blue symbols represent a parameter that is currently monitored, light blue symbols represent partially monitored parameters, and open symbols are parameters that are not currently monitored.

33 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 30 Figure 4 a & b. Rankings of Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP for primary chapters 3 (a; Aquatic Life) and 6 (b; Shorelines & Natural Heritage).

34 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 31 c) Figure 4c. Rankings of Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP for primary chapter 4 (Water Quality).

35 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 32 Figure 4d. Rankings of Logistical Requirements and Importance to LSPP for primary chapter 7 (Other Threats).

36 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 33 Some exclusions and additional considerations: One parameter that was identified by the Working Group was not included in the ranking process; Policy 4.11-DP requires stormwater management operators to monitor stormwater influent and effluent from stormwater works. The Working Group elected not to rank this parameter because its implementation was not a responsibility of this group, and therefore considered outside of the scope of the CMS. Actions 1 a c identified several parameters required by the LSPP that are currently monitored outside the purview of the LSPP/LSPA. In the CMS, we will dedicate a section to these parameters highlighting our dependence on their measurement and how monitoring and the LSPP would be impacted if their collection were to be terminated. Action 2: Characterize the current state of Monitoring in Lake Simcoe Action 2 called for an inventory of ecological and environmental monitoring that is underway in the Lake and watershed in support of the LSPP. This inventory was to be completed at the parameter level, similar to the approach taken in Action 1. As part of this inventory, the Working Group was asked to identify the monitoring program and agency responsible for measuring parameters as well as spatial and temporal coverage of the parameters. Methods (Action 2) While reviewing the LSPP for Action 1, Working Group members also identified whether a parameter was being monitored and if so, identified the name of the program, the agency responsible, and the program s spatial and temporal extent. Based on their expert opinion, and keeping practicality and sustainability in mind, the Working Group also identified whether the parameter was being monitored to an extent that satisfied LSPP policies/targets/indicators. A Yes was indicated in the database for parameters that would, and Partial was written for those that would not. Partially implemented parameters may have been conducted on a trial or research basis only, or not conducted with adequate temporal or spatial resolution to support full policy/target/indicator implementation. Results (Action 2) Overall, 58 or almost half of the unique parameters required by the LSPP are thought to be monitored sufficiently, and another quarter are partially monitored (Figure 5; Table 3). The established programs that monitor these parameters are listed in Appendix E. In Chapters 3 & 4, about three-quarters of the unique parameters are currently being fully monitored In Chapters 5 & 7, about a third of the parameters are currently monitored In Chapters 6 & 8, no unique parameters were identified as fully monitored.

37 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 34 To inventory current monitoring, working group members classified parameters as fully, partially or not monitored based on their expert opinion. Yes refers to fully monitored parameters whose current spatial and temporal measurement provides sufficient information for full implementation of all policies, targets and/or indicators that require this parameter. Partial refers to parameters monitored within the past four years without enough spatial or temporal coverage to allow full policy implementation. Parameters identified as partially monitored span a wide range: some require significant temporal and spatial improvements (i.e., they are measured very infrequently with little spatial coverage) others might only require minor improvements to become fully monitored. No refers to parameters that are not monitored in any way within the lake or watershed but are required for the implementation of LSPP policies, targets and/or indicators. Table 3. The number of unique parameters currently being fully ( yes ), partially ( partial ) or not ( no ) monitored from each of their primary chapters. Chapter Yes Partial No Total 3 Aquatic Life Water Quality Water Quantity Shorelines & Natural Heritage Other Threats & Activities Implementation Total

38 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 35 Figure 5. The percent of unique parameters currently being fully ( yes ), partially ( partial ) or not ( no ) monitored from each of their primary chapters in the LSPP. Some LSPP policies/targets/indicators call for the measurement of multiple parameters; as a result, an individual parameter may be called for several times throughout a chapter and across the entire plan. The percent of parameters currently monitored increases when looking at these repeated parameters (Figure 6; Table 4). This is most apparent in Chapter 7 & 8. In Chapter 7, many climate change and invasive species parameters are ones that were identified in another primary chapter; for example precipitation and air temperature were called for in the Water Quality chapter. In Chapter 8, many of the parameters that were identified for Subwatershed plans (8.1-SA) come from other primary chapters. Many parameters identified in Chapter 6 are not required in other chapters, so there are no parameters that are fully monitored Table 4. The number of repeated parameters that are currently fully ( yes ), partially ( partial ) or not ( no ) monitored within each chapter. Chapter Yes Partial No Total 3 Aquatic Life Water Quality Water Quantity Shorelines & Natural Heritage Other Threats & Activities Implementation Total

39 Supporting Document I: Monitoring Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy 36 Figure 6. The percent of repeated parameters currently being fully ( yes ), partially ( partial ) or not ( no ) monitored from each of their primary chapters in the LSPP. Action 3: Identify monitoring overlap and duplication among partner agencies The work completed for Action 2 documented an extensive suite of ongoing monitoring that measures parameters required throughout the LSPP. Action 3 builds on these findings, requiring the identification of duplication and overlap between agencies in their respective monitoring work. To evaluate the ongoing monitoring for overlap and duplication, Action 3 called for consideration of spatial coverage, methodology and purpose of parameter measurement. Methods (Action 3) A starting assumption of the Working Group was that overlap and duplication referred to the same thing, thus work on Action 3 was referred to solely as overlap. We defined overlap as cases where the same data was gathered in similar areas, at similar spatial and temporal scales and for fundamentally similar purposes by different agencies. The database table identifying Program Names was examined, as it identified monitoring programs collecting the same parameters in similar areas of the lake or watershed. Programs collecting similar parameters were discussed with the Working Group to understand the nature of apparent areas of overlap. Results (Action 3) Apparent overlap in monitoring programs was observed in 4 possible cases: 1. Benthic invertebrate community monitoring in the Lake 2. Hydrometric monitoring in the watershed 3. Lake water quality monitoring in the Holland River 4. Large scale and site level terrestrial natural heritage monitoring in the watershed Working group discussions led by agency experts with knowledge of the 4 cases revealed the following details and conclusions on apparent overlap: 1. Ministry of Natural Resources conducted benthic invertebrate community research on Lake Simcoe from Research objectives of this work were to test hypotheses about the effects of