Examination of recent hydroelectric dam projects in Canada for alignment of baseline studies, predictive modeling, and postdevelopment monitoring phases of aquatic environmental impact assessments

Abstract

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been widely criticized by the aquatic science community for poorly aligned approaches when selecting endpoints and collecting data during baseline, predictive modelling, and post‐development monitoring phases. If these critical phases of the EIA process are not properly aligned, it can be difficult to evaluate the presence of post‐development effects. Examples of the misalignment of these phases include baseline studies failing to measure indicators that are monitored post‐development; predictive assessments that don't quantitatively predict conditions or potential impacts post‐development; and the failure to identify relevant indicators that may detect effects post‐development. For aquatic assessments, understanding how to protect critical ecosystem attributes to satisfy regulatory concerns could help to better align aquatic science monitoring activities across EIA phases. In this paper we investigated recent Canadian hydroelectric dam EIAs to evaluate how well recent assessment approaches are meeting these necessary conditions of good aquatic EIA practice through the lens of ecosystem services from a fish's perspective. We found that larger facilities generally had baseline studies and modelling that better supported post‐development monitoring, but improvements in structure, linkages, and expectations would better align EIA phases in a manner that would improve assessments and environmental protection.