Wetlands are among the most ecologically productive lands in the world, but every year they continue to be lost due to increasing pressures from agriculture, industrial development, urbanization and the lack of effective mitigation to deal with such pressures. Despite environmental assessment processes, policies, and regulations to ensure the mitigation of affected wetlands, wetlands continue to experience a loss in areal extent, but more importantly, a functional net-loss. This is attributed, in large part, to the lack of incorporating cumulative effects principles into project-based wetland impact assessment and mitigation. The majority of activities that affect wetlands are either assessed at the screening level, where cumulative effects are rarely considered, or are deemed insignificant and do not trigger any formal environmental assessment process. As a result, the mitigation of cumulative effects on wetlands is often insufficient or completely lacking in development planning and decision-making. Part of the challenge is that there currently does not exist methodological guidance as to how to identify wetland cumulative effects and corresponding mitigation needs early in the project design process. This research presents a methodological framework and guidance for the integration of cumulative effects in decision-making for project-based, wetland impact mitigation. The framework provides a means for the early indication, assessment, and mitigation of the potential cumulative effects of project developments on the wetland environment, with the objective of ensuring a no-net-loss of wetland functions.

Wetlands are among the most ecologically productive lands in the world, but every year they continue to be lost due to increasing pressures from agriculture, industrial development, urbanization and the lack of effective mitigation to deal with such pressures. Despite environmental assessment processes, policies, and regulations to ensure the mitigation of affected wetlands, wetlands continue to experience a loss in areal extent, but more importantly, a functional net-loss. This is attributed, in large part, to the lack of incorporating cumulative effects principles into project-based wetland impact assessment and mitigation. The majority of activities that affect wetlands are either assessed at the screening level, where cumulative effects are rarely considered, or are deemed insignificant and do not trigger any formal environmental assessment process. As a result, the mitigation of cumulative effects on wetlands is often insufficient or completely lacking in development planning and decision-making. Part of the challenge is that there currently does not exist methodological guidance as to how to identify wetland cumulative effects and corresponding mitigation needs early in the project design process. This research presents a methodological framework and guidance for the integration of cumulative effects in decision-making for project-based, wetland impact mitigation. The framework provides a means for the early indication, assessment, and mitigation of the potential cumulative effects of project developments on the wetland environment, with the objective of ensuring a no-net-loss of wetland functions.

No description available.

Protecting and managing Canadian water resources in the face of growing cumulative effects and non-point source pollution from development (industrial, agricultural, and urban), depends on defensible, scientifically founded, watershed assessments. The objectives of this research were to broadly characterize the spatial and temporal patterns in water quality (total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentration, export and yield) across a land use disturbance gradient (forest, agriculture, urban) to elucidate pressures on water quality from specific landscape regions within the three headwater sub-basins of the Oldman River basin. While the water quality in the Oldman basin, remains fairly pristine, important spatial differences in nutrient production were evident between the upstream (predominantly forested) and the downstream (mixed agricultural/forested) reaches within the sub-basins. Using the pressure state response model as a framework to link landscapes to observed water quality, it was also found that phosphorus contamination may be an issue in the headwaters. / Water and Land Resources

Watersheds in Canada are under increasing threats due to the cumulative environmental effects from natural and anthropogenic sources. Cumulative effect assessment (CEA), however, if done at all is typically done on a project-by-project basis. This project-based approach to CEA is not sufficient to address the cumulative effects of multiple stressors in a watershed or a region. As a result, there is now a general consensus that CEA must extend from the project to the more regional scale. The problem, however, is that while the science of how to do watershed CEA (W-CEA) is progressing, the appropriate institutional arrangements to sustain W-CEA have not been addressed. Based on a case study of the South Saskatchewan Watershed (SSW), this research is aimed to identify the institutional requirements necessary to support and sustain W-CEA.<p> The research methods include document reviews and semi-structured interviews with regulators, administrators, watershed coordinators, practitioners, and academics knowledgeable on cumulative effect assessment and project-based environmental assessments (EAs). The findings from this research are presented thematically. First, participants perspectives on cumulative effects, the current state of CEA practice, and general challenges to project-based approaches to CEA are presented. The concept of WCEA is then examined, with a discussion on the need for linking project-based CEA and W-CEA. This is followed by the institutional requirements for W-CEA. The Chapter concludes with foreseeable challenges to implementing W-CEA, as identified by research participants.<p> The key findings include that cumulative effect assessments under project-based EAs are rarely undertaken in the SSW, and the project-based EA approach is faced with considerable challenges. The project-based EA challenges suggested by interview participants are similar to the ones discussed in the literature, and are primarily related to the lack of guidance to proponents regarding boundaries of assessments and thresholds, the lack of data from other project EAs, and the lack of capacity of both proponents and regulators to achieve a good CEA under project EA. These challenges could be addressed by establishing regional objectives at a broader scale, which could provide better context to project-based approaches. Further, interview results revealed several opportunities for the government to take the lead in implementing and sustaining W-CEA, but a multistakeholder approach is essential to W-CEA success. The results also suggest that the establishments of thresholds and data management are necessary components of W-CEA, but that the need for legislation concerning such thresholds and W-CEA initiatives is not agreed upon. At the same time, research results emphasize that the coordination and education among various stakeholders will be difficult to achieve. The lack of financial commitment, political will, and difficulties in establishing cause-effect relationships currently impede the implementation of W-CEA.

Watersheds in Canada are under increasing threats due to the cumulative environmental effects from natural and anthropogenic sources. Cumulative effect assessment (CEA), however, if done at all is typically done on a project-by-project basis. This project-based approach to CEA is not sufficient to address the cumulative effects of multiple stressors in a watershed or a region. As a result, there is now a general consensus that CEA must extend from the project to the more regional scale. The problem, however, is that while the science of how to do watershed CEA (W-CEA) is progressing, the appropriate institutional arrangements to sustain W-CEA have not been addressed. Based on a case study of the South Saskatchewan Watershed (SSW), this research is aimed to identify the institutional requirements necessary to support and sustain W-CEA.<p> The research methods include document reviews and semi-structured interviews with regulators, administrators, watershed coordinators, practitioners, and academics knowledgeable on cumulative effect assessment and project-based environmental assessments (EAs). The findings from this research are presented thematically. First, participants perspectives on cumulative effects, the current state of CEA practice, and general challenges to project-based approaches to CEA are presented. The concept of WCEA is then examined, with a discussion on the need for linking project-based CEA and W-CEA. This is followed by the institutional requirements for W-CEA. The Chapter concludes with foreseeable challenges to implementing W-CEA, as identified by research participants.<p> The key findings include that cumulative effect assessments under project-based EAs are rarely undertaken in the SSW, and the project-based EA approach is faced with considerable challenges. The project-based EA challenges suggested by interview participants are similar to the ones discussed in the literature, and are primarily related to the lack of guidance to proponents regarding boundaries of assessments and thresholds, the lack of data from other project EAs, and the lack of capacity of both proponents and regulators to achieve a good CEA under project EA. These challenges could be addressed by establishing regional objectives at a broader scale, which could provide better context to project-based approaches. Further, interview results revealed several opportunities for the government to take the lead in implementing and sustaining W-CEA, but a multistakeholder approach is essential to W-CEA success. The results also suggest that the establishments of thresholds and data management are necessary components of W-CEA, but that the need for legislation concerning such thresholds and W-CEA initiatives is not agreed upon. At the same time, research results emphasize that the coordination and education among various stakeholders will be difficult to achieve. The lack of financial commitment, political will, and difficulties in establishing cause-effect relationships currently impede the implementation of W-CEA.

The construction and operation of hydroelectric projects consist of multiple activities in a single watershed, which can generate significant impacts on the surrounding biophysical environment and on the health and well-being of local communities. The impacts of those activities may be insignificant individually, yet together may have an important cumulative effect. The impacts of hydroelectric development on human health and well-being have been widely documented. Current practices of cumulative effects assessment (CEA), however, as conducted under project-based environmental assessment (EA), often fail to address the deeper issues of human health and social well-being. This thesis was developed to examine how health effects, including cumulative health effects, are considered within regulatory EA practices in the hydroelectric sector in Manitoba. This was achieved by reviewing the EAs of three recent hydroelectric projects –Wuskwatim Generating Station, Bipole III Transmission Project, and Keeyask Hydroelectric Generating Station – located in the Nelson River watershed in northern Manitoba. Results indicate that the consideration of human health issues in EA has gradually improved over time; however, the assessment of health impacts was invariably limited to physical health components and often lacked due consideration of broader social health issues. The inadequacy of the practice of health impact assessment (HIA) was also evident by the lack of health-related indicators and the poor consistency in the use of indicators across projects and over time for measuring and predicting changes in the health conditions of the communities due to project development. An in-depth analysis regarding the assessment of cumulative health effects was carried out in the CEA of the most recent hydroelectric development – the Keeyask project. The findings show that cumulative health effects were not adequately considered in each of the basic components of CEA – scoping, retrospective analysis, prospective analysis, and management measures. Improving the consideration of health in EA requires paying more attention to broader range of health determinants, including both biophysical and social determinants and their interconnectedness in EA. Moreover, there is a need to improve greater consistency in the use of health indicators across projects and over time. It can be assisted by developing standardized terms of reference (ToR) for project proponents to ensure the consideration and monitoring of those indicators used for development projects built within the same geographic region and affecting the same communities and environments. Approaching cumulative health effects in a more regional and strategic framework of CEA, beyond the scale of individual projects, is likely to provide the best mechanism to understand and monitor the cumulative impacts of project development on the health and well-being of the affected communities.

The cumulative effects of watershed development and large water withdrawals are placing the sustainability of freshwater resources at risk due to alteration of watershed hydrology, stream geomorphology, groundwater recharge, and adverse effects to the aquatic ecology of water resources. The consideration of cumulative environmental effects in development decisions under current project-specific assessment does not fully encompass the interacting effects of multiple stressors over space and time. As a result, the cumulative effects of land uses and development on watershed processes are not properly assessed and managed. There is a recognized need to shift from local, project-scale cumulative effects assessments to broader, landscape, or regional scale assessments to accurately assess cumulative effects to watershed processes and river system condition. The problem is that there is little understanding of the current capacity to do so. This research: i) developed a set of indicators for evaluation of regional capacity to support watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) requisites, ii) applied those indicators to the South Saskatchewan Watershed (SSW), iii) identified capacity needs and constraints to watershed CEAM in SSW, and iv) identified lessons learned and opportunities for capacity building to support watershed CEAM principles and practice. Capacity indicator questions were developed for a set of eight institutional requirements for watershed CEAM, identified from a previous study of watershed CEAM in the SSW. Research methods included a web-based survey of academics, regulators, industry and environmental organizations, which consisted of both closed ended and open-ended questions based on the capacity indicators. Survey results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and qualitative methods. Results indicate that the primary threats to water quality and quantity in the SSW, as identified by study participants, are broad-scale stressors that are not subject to project-specific environmental assessment regulations. To address these broad-scale stresses, cumulative effects assessment at the regional level needs to be done; however, it was identified that there is currently a lack of mechanisms to support watershed CEAM. The need for a lead agency, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and financial and human resources were identified as the most important requisites from the research results for implementing and sustaining watershed CEAM programs. Research results revealed that watershed CEAM cannot be driven solely ‘bottom-up’ and government must lead watershed CEAM activities. Participants noted that there is collaboration ongoing in the SSW to meet CEAM objectives, but it is limited. There is a lack of clarity around common goals for watershed and sub-watershed management, and a lack of transparency in sharing data. Many participants commented that expertise is available for watershed CEAM, but there is a lack of organizational and financial resources to develop successful plans and actions.

In Canada, interest in regional strategic environmental assessment as a framework for assessing cumulative environmental effects is growing. Strategic environmental assessment, and in particular regional strategic environmental assessment, is generally regarded as the preferred assessment framework within which to address cumulative effects due to its broad scale of assessment and its focus on influencing future development. However, very little research has been done to confront the challenges, either conceptually or methodologically, in operationalizing strategic environmental assessment at a regional scale and in assessing cumulative environmental effects in this regional and strategic context. This dissertation advances work in this area by defining a conceptual framework and generic methodology for regional strategic environmental assessment that deliberately integrates cumulative effects considerations.<p> The research methodology includes a literature review, framework and case reviews, and three sets of interviews with Canadian and international practitioners, academics, and administrators knowledgeable on strategic environmental assessment and cumulative effects assessment issues. The research results are reported in four manuscripts. The first manuscript presents a typology of current approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment. The second manuscript reviews lessons from recent attempts at regional-scale, strategically-focused environmental analysis in Canada that include an impact assessment component and explicit attention to cumulative environmental effects. The third manuscript presents a structured framework for regional strategic environmental assessment in Canada, and the fourth manuscript discusses conceptual and methodological challenges that accompany the integration of strategic environmental assessment and cumulative effects assessment.<p> Significant findings include that cumulative effects assessment does indeed represent a significant conceptual and methodological challenge in a strategic assessment context and that cumulative effects assessment in this context requires more than simply adding up direct effects. Further, this research indicates that the seminal contribution of regional strategic environmental assessment is to determine the pace and nature of future development in a region, including significant regional environmental thresholds, targets, and limits; and to inform decision makers of the broader, the slower-moving, the farther-reaching, and perhaps the more insidious currents of environmental change. Moving forward, there is a need to further develop and demonstrate approaches to cumulative effects assessment in a strategic context, develop a supportive legislative and regulatory framework for regional strategic environmental assessment in Canada, and define the unique contribution of regional strategic assessment in relation to regional planning and management.

The pace of development in Canada's North has renewed concerns about the potential cumulative effects of increasing industrial growth on fragile northern ecosystems. Recent developments in the diamond industry in the Slave Geological Province have highlighted the potential additive and synergistic effects of such development. For example, Aboriginal communities are worried about the health of the Bathurst caribou herd, which is considered central to their way of life. This concern is compounded by the lack of integration of environmental assessment and planning efforts, which could serve to better protect the environment. This research considers the challenges associated with the assessment of cumulative effects, and various approaches to meet these challenges. Diamond mining in the Slave Geological Province, including the BHP and Diavik diamond mines, is used as a case study. Four sustainability-based criteria are developed to evaluate the past and existing situation in the diamond region, and to form the basis for recommendations that would contribute to a more holistic approach to integrating cumulative effects considerations into environmental assessment and regional planning. The analysis demonstrates that although several mechanisms are currently in place to assess cumulative environmental effects, no single initiative fully meets each of the four criteria. However, existing tools can be used and supplemented to identify appropriate response options. The sustainability-based criteria developed here can contribute to further research on cumulative effects assessment and sustainability. The sustainability-based criteria developed here can be adopted for other case studies, to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to develop case specific recommendations for a more holistic approach to integrating cumulative effects considerations into environmental assessment and regional planning. This examination of how cumulative effects assessment has been approached in the Slave Geological Province also provides insight into the broader implications of regional cumulative effects management.