The objective of this assignment is to provide you with experience in designing and evaluating a (sub)watershed plan within an Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) framework. The assignment is worth 20% of your final mark.
This assignment consists of two parts. Total length is 6 pages double-spaced. Part is a description and summary of a (sub)watershed plan (SWP), total length is 3 pages. Part 2 is an evaluation of the SWP, total length is 3 pages.
Please use APA citation guidelines to cite any sources that you use. A useful site for APA –
You are assigned Rouge River Watershed Plan use the following links (eastern Toronto)
DO not describe the IWM.
Part 1. Describing the (Sub)watershed Plan (3 pages)
a) Describe the location of the (sub)watershed and the municipal and regional jurisdictions in
b) Summarize the (sub)watershed’s biophysical features, land use, climatic conditions, and
demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
c) Summarize the various environmental pressures facing the (sub)watershed, focusing on the types of impacts, the sources of the impacts and the projected future trajectories of each (will they worsen or improve in your opinion) if nothing is done, i.e., ‘business as usual’ scenario.
d) If the information is available, list the stakeholders, describe the governance structure and
describe how the Plan has been communicated to the public.
e) Summarize the major recommendations made in the (sub)watershed plan to address the
problems during the implementation phase. List some of the major milestones and specific
Part 2. Critically Evaluating the (Sub)watershed Plan (3 pages)
Choose three of the following topics:
a) Does the plan reflect all of the IWM principles? Which ones do not appear to have been
omitted? Is the plan comprehensive enough to suggest that implementation will successfully
address problems in the (sub)watershed? (Note: you might be able to glean some
information from the size and depth of the report). Justify your answers.
b) Was the governance structure inclusive? Were all stakeholders properly identified and
included? How often did/do they meet? Is there a website for public communication? Is there
evidence of inter-government (e.g., municipal – provincial) collaboration? Is there evidence
of extensive public consultation through the planning phase? Justify your answers.
c) Are the milestones and objectives sufficient? Were future monitoring and reporting
requirements adequately described? Is there an implementation plan? Is it financed? Who is
responsible for carrying it out? Justify your answers.
d) Are existing legislation and regulations adequate to achieve targets? If not, what
recommendations can be made, e.g., is new legislation needed to enable new policies &
programs? Justify your answers.
Some Useful References
Shrubsole, D., D. Walters, B. Veale & Bruce Mitchell (2016). Integrated Water Resources
Management in Canada: the experience of watershed agencies. International Journal of Water Resources Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2016.1244048
Scott, P., B. Tayler & D. Walters (2016) Lessons from implementing integrated water resource management: a case study of the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority, Ontario. International Journal of Water Resources Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2016.1216830
Environment Canada (2010) Integrated Watershed Management.
Conservation Ontario (2018). Website on ‘Watershed Management Futures for Ontario’ has
several relevant reports to help you understand IWM:
1. Summary report, ‘Integrated Watershed Management: Navigating Ontario’s Future’,
2. Overview of Integrated Watershed Management in Ontario.