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.

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 accumulating impacts from human development are threatening water quality and availability in the watersheds of Western Canada. While environmental impact assessment (EIA) is tasked with identifying such cumulative impacts, the practice is limited to individual projects, is not widely applied, overlooks activities occurring on the landscape, and fails to capture the effects of multiple projects over time. Limitations of the project-by-project approach are spurring the emergence of a regional framework for assessing aquatic cumulative effects within watershed boundaries. Watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA) will need a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators for assessment across the watershed, but it is not clear how such valued ecosystem components (VECs) and related measurable parameters should be identified. This study examined how aquatic VECs and indicators were used within project-based EIA in the South Saskatchewan River watershed and considered whether they could be scaled up for use in WCEA. A semi-quantitative analysis compared a hierarchy of assessment components and measurable parameters identified in the environmental impact statements of 28 federal screening, 5 federal comprehensive and 2 provincial environmental assessments from the South Saskatchewan River watershed, and examined factors affecting aquatic VEC selection. While provincial assessments were available online or at a central archive, federal assessments were difficult to access. Results showed that regulatory compliance was the dominant factor influencing VEC selection, followed by the preferences of government agencies with different mandates, and that provincial licensing arrangements interfered with VEC selection. The frequency of VECs and indicators used for aquatic assessment within EIA does not reflect the aquatic cumulative effect assessment (CEA) priorities for the watershed. The effective selection of VECs and indicators for aquatic cumulative effects assessment in practice requires both the implementation of WCEA and updating of guidelines for project-based EIA.

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 accumulating impacts from human development are threatening water quality and availability in the watersheds of Western Canada. While environmental impact assessment (EIA) is tasked with identifying such cumulative impacts, the practice is limited to individual projects, is not widely applied, overlooks activities occurring on the landscape, and fails to capture the effects of multiple projects over time. Limitations of the project-by-project approach are spurring the emergence of a regional framework for assessing aquatic cumulative effects within watershed boundaries. Watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA) will need a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators for assessment across the watershed, but it is not clear how such valued ecosystem components (VECs) and related measurable parameters should be identified. This study examined how aquatic VECs and indicators were used within project-based EIA in the South Saskatchewan River watershed and considered whether they could be scaled up for use in WCEA. A semi-quantitative analysis compared a hierarchy of assessment components and measurable parameters identified in the environmental impact statements of 28 federal screening, 5 federal comprehensive and 2 provincial environmental assessments from the South Saskatchewan River watershed, and examined factors affecting aquatic VEC selection. While provincial assessments were available online or at a central archive, federal assessments were difficult to access. Results showed that regulatory compliance was the dominant factor influencing VEC selection, followed by the preferences of government agencies with different mandates, and that provincial licensing arrangements interfered with VEC selection. The frequency of VECs and indicators used for aquatic assessment within EIA does not reflect the aquatic cumulative effect assessment (CEA) priorities for the watershed. The effective selection of VECs and indicators for aquatic cumulative effects assessment in practice requires both the implementation of WCEA and updating of guidelines for project-based EIA.

Wetlands are significant contributors to global biodiversity, supporting disproportionately high numbers of species relative to their area. Riparian areas associated with wetlands provide many services that are both ecologically and economically important, such as groundwater recharge, sediment capture and shoreline stabilization, flood mitigation, nutrient processing, increased water quality, carbon sequestration, and essential habitat for wildlife. Agricultural activity has resulted in the drainage or modification of between 40-70% of wetland basins within the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains. The impacts of human activity on the remaining wetlands are difficult to estimate and there is no one optimal indicator or assessment method that is applicable to all regions or situations. Locally developed riparian health assessments, designed to evaluate wetland function under different grazing regimes, are cost-effective with the potential for broader use in wetland environmental assessment, monitoring, and management or restoration activities. In this study I investigated the hypothesis that riparian health assessments can distinguish between wetlands in five categories of land use that represent different levels of anthropogenic modification: ungrazed cultivated cropland, ungrazed native grassland, grazed native grassland, ungrazed tame perennial forage, and grazed tame perennial forage. Noting that current riparian health assessment protocols lack a community composition component other than the presence and distribution of invasive and disturbance species, I also sampled plant species frequency at each of my study sites. I found that wetlands in cultivated croplands had significantly lower riparian health scores than wetlands in both tame and native grasslands. Among tame and native sites, grazing status was more important than upland cover type in determining wetland health, with grazed wetlands receiving significantly lower scores than their ungrazed counterparts. Despite their functional similarity to wetlands within native grasslands, species composition of wetlands within ungrazed tame perennial forage more closely resembled that of wetlands in cultivated uplands. Although grazing negatively affected riparian ground cover and soil stability, it significantly reduced both the overall cover and distribution of invasive plant species along wetland reaches. These results suggest that upland revegetation and restoration of function to degraded wetlands is not necessarily followed by re-establishment of original riparian species composition. If biodiversity is a desired outcome of wetland restoration efforts, additional measures must be taken to enable the establishment and persistence of preferred plant species.

Ecosystems in the modern world face a vast array of disturbances, from globally shifting abiotic conditions, to increasingly variable extreme natural events, to high intensity discrete human-caused disturbances. Well-developed, applicable theoretical frameworks on how ecosystems can respond to and withstand these disturbances are needed for adequate management of valued ecological systems. To date, the most promising theoretical development for understanding ecological response to complex sets of disturbances is resilience. Ecological resilience acknowledges non-linear ecosystem behavior, incorporates the role of slowly changing environmental parameters in ecological dynamics, and offers one of the few potential methods to predict, and avoid, impending ecological collapse. However, as ecological resilience has evolved conceptually to include social, political, and economic fields, it has become increasingly difficult to clearly define in, and apply to, managed ecosystems. This dissertation pairs ecological resilience with other, well-established attributes of ecological response to disturbance, namely resistance, persistence, and recovery. By doing so, we can clearly define and quantify each attribute in a range of ecosystem types and over a variety of ecological scales. In Chapter 1, we use microcosm communities to test the relationship between one potential mechanism, landscape connectivity, and multiple attributes of ecological response to disturbance including resistance, resilience, and recovery. We find that each attribute responds uniquely to connectivity, and that generalizing the role of connectivity over all three may give an inaccurate prediction of how ecosystems may respond to individual disturbances. In Chapter 2, we experimentally investigate the presence of early warning indicators of approaching critical thresholds. Using water table drawdown treatments in bog, we test for critical slowing and increased autocorrelation as the bog approaches a transition to forest. We find that critical slowing is clear in composition and moss cover, but that autocorrelation is not apparent. The decoupling of critical slowing and increased autocorrelation could be due to a number of complex ecosystem dynamics, all of which are common in ecosystem management globally. Thus, early warning indicators likely need further development if they are to become applicable. In Chapter 3, we observationally study how conservation management actions may increase or decrease ecological resilience. In particular, we explore how invasive species management intensity correlates with changes in functional redundancy, response diversity, and spatial occurrence of regime shifts in Garry oak meadows. We find that more intense management correlates with less area lost to woody encroachment and increases in functional redundancy through time. However, the relationship was strongly mediated by individual landscape settings. Finally, in Chapter 4, we scale up to a provincial study, investigating persistence of ecosystems and large mammal species in the face of the continuous pressures of land use change. In the results from all four chapters, it is clear that individual attributes of ecological response to disturbance, i.e. resistance, persistence, resilience, or recovery, all play unique roles in ecosystem dynamics. Additionally, the metric chosen to quantify each attribute can play a pivotal role in how we interpret observed dynamics. The work in this dissertation highlights that we cannot understand or predict ecological response to disturbance without clear, measurable concepts. Around a single state of interest, resilience is only one among a suite of attributes that are important to understand. Its additional strength, of potentially predicting the occurrence of ecological thresholds, is still being developed as we explore methods of quantification and application in individual ecosystems. / Graduate