Capacity for Watershed Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management: Lessons from the Lower Fraser River Basin, Canada

Abstract

This study examines the capacity to support the cumulative effects assessment and management for watersheds. The research is set in the Lower Fraser River Basin, a densely populated sub-watershed in British Columbia's lower mainland. Eight requirements or requisites for the watershed cumulative effects assessment and management are applied to evaluate current capacity for implementation in the Lower Fraser, and to identify the areas in need of capacity development. Results show that advancing watershed cumulative effects assessment and management requires not only good science but also leadership in the coordination of monitoring programs, and in ensuring the appropriate incentives and penalties for engagement and nonengagement. The lack of leadership in this regard is the result of existing governance structures arranged around the political boundaries, which have produced over time multiple agencies and jurisdictional fragmentation. Notwithstanding this, we argue that the watershed is the most appropriate scale for assessing and managing the cumulative effects to complex ecosystems.

Water Quality Monitoring to Support Cumulative Effects Assessment and Decision Making in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, Canada

“…There are existing platforms to accommodate and share monitoring data in the NWT, including the Discovery Portal and Mackenzie Data Stream. However, consistent with previous research (Duinker and Greig 2006;Kristensen et al 2013), there is limited sharing of proponent data. In the North Sea, for example, Murray et al (2018) report that many EAs and monitoring programs have been completed or are ongoing, but the data cannot be accessed, are difficult to collate, or are available in formats that are unusable.…”

Toward cumulative effects assessment and management in the Athabasca watershed, Alberta, Canada

“…And yet, the watershed scale presents many challenges. The mere size of certain watersheds combined with the diversity of land uses and political jurisdictions may necessitate a sub‐watershed approach (see Kristensen et al ). However, we argue that the advantages of a watershed (or sub‐watershed) approach outweigh the disadvantages; one key advantage is the nesting of all land uses and associated impacts under a holistic, coordinated, systematic impact review process.…”

Futures Analysis of Urban Land Use and Wetland Change in Saskatoon, Canada: An Application in Strategic Environmental Assessment

“…Overall, the 2043 simulation results for wet areas are close, which may indicate that the wetland conservation strategy, identified in the CDP, will have little overall effect on wet area when compared to business as usual under the zero alternative. Part of the challenge is that the City's planning initiatives, including wetland conservation strategies, are bounded by administrative units, which is often the case for urban development [64], as opposed to capturing wetland functional scales [17], which were considered in this analysis and may be considered minimal spatial units in terms of ensuring the ability of wetlands to maintain their long-term functions and resiliency in urban environments [2,51]. The Markov Chain technique itself is not an explicit spatial analysis method.…”