Capacity for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management in the South Saskatchewan Watershed, Canada

Figures & data

Figure 1. The South Saskatchewan Watershed.

Table 1. Requisites and capacity indicators for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM).^a

A. Lead agency 1. Clear goals and priorities have been set for the watershed, including for future land use and overall watershed health. 2. There is an agency or group of agencies with a leadership role in the assessment and management of cumulative effects. 3. There is an agency or group of agencies with the ability (formal or informal) to influence decisions about land use and development. 4. There is an agency or group of agencies with authority to implement and/or enforce regulations across the watershed to support CEAM. 5. There is an agency or group of agencies with authority to allocate resources to support CEAM initiatives (e.g. monitoring, data collection).

B. Multi-stakeholder collaboration 1. There is a collaborative approach to setting goals and priorities for the watershed concerning land and water use and development. 2. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities (e.g. industry, watershed agencies, governments) with respect to CEAM and monitoring are clearly defined. 3. There is willingness amongst authorities to share data and to coordinate activities related to monitoring watershed conditions and managing effects. 4. Industrial proponents are willing to share their data (e.g. water quality, discharge, water use) with other industries and non-industry stakeholders. 5. Local communities are engaged in watershed planning, monitoring, environmental assessment and related decision-making processes.

C. Watershed baselines, indicators and thresholds 1. There is adequate baseline data to identify past trends or changes in water quality across the watershed. 2. There is adequate baseline data to identify past trends or changes in water quantity/flow across the watershed. 3. There is adequate spatial baseline data to identify past land cover and land uses across the watershed. 4. There is agreement on the most appropriate indicators of watershed health. 5. There is a scientific understanding of thresholds (e.g. loadings, minimum flows, etc.) at which river system functions are no longer ecologically viable.

D. Multi-scaled monitoring 1. Monitoring programs under regulatory-based environmental assessment provide an understanding of a project’s effects on watershed processes. 2. There are requirements for the monitoring of river system condition (e.g. water quality, flow, loadings) across the watershed. 3. Current monitoring programs provide a sound understanding of, and allow for detection of changes in, water quality conditions across the watershed. 4. Current monitoring provides a sound understanding of, and allows for detection of changes in, water quantity/flow conditions across the watershed. 5. Current monitoring provides a sound understanding of, and allows for detection of changes in, the dominant stressors to river system health (e.g. land use, disturbance patterns, discharge, etc.) across the watershed.

E. Data management and coordination 1. Data collection/monitoring are coordinated so as to allow a standardized approach to the establishment of baseline conditions. 2. Water quality and quantity data are available in an accessible, up-to-date and electronic format to industry, government and all watershed stakeholders. 3. Spatial data of land uses, disturbance or use patterns are available in an easily accessible, up-to-date and electronic format to industry, government and all watershed stakeholders. 4. There is consistency in project monitoring standards and indicators (used under environmental impact assessment or similar regulations/permits) for projects affecting similar components or for projects of a similar class (e.g. pulp mills, metal mines, agriculture, etc.). 5. Data (water quality, quantity, land use) are quality controlled such that data gaps, uncertainties or assumptions are reported and known to data users.

F. Vertical and horizontal linkages 1. Watershed or sub-watershed management plans influence the terms and conditions of project-specific environmental assessments. 2. Watershed or sub-watershed management plans influence policy and other decisions concerning land and water. 3. There is consistency in watershed management goals and objectives across sub-basins. 4. Results from project-specific monitoring are used to inform broader watershed assessment, evaluation and reporting processes. 5. Information generated from science programs or watershed monitoring and assessment is given due consideration in watershed management plans.

G. Enabling legislation 1. There is sufficient legislation or other regulatory means to establish a watershed-based framework for CEAM. 2. The terms of reference for projects under regulatory-based environmental assessment provide clear direction for indicators in project monitoring. 3. There is sufficient legislation or regulatory means to ensure that results generated from state-of-the-watershed assessments (e.g. monitoring programs, science studies) influence decisions about land use and development. 4. Legislation and other regulatory instruments concerning land and water use are consistent across the watershed and between levels of government. 5. There is sufficient legislation or regulations to enable the protection of sensitive or vulnerable areas of the watershed from human disturbance.

H. Financial and human resources 1. Scientific and technical expertise to develop and implement tools for CEAM is available, through government, the private sector or academia. 2. Funding is available for the development and implementation of source water protection plans and projects. 3. Financial resources are available at the provincial level to support watershed-based CEAM programs (i.e. data collection, reporting, enforcement). 4. Financial resources are available at the sub-watershed level to participate in watershed cumulative effects programs. 5. Education and training opportunities on CEAM tools and practice are available to government, watershed managers, land use planners and other stakeholders responsible for planning and assessment.

Note:

^a Requisites based on Sheelanere et al. (2013). Indicators based on: Peterson et al. (1987); Parker and Cocklin (1993); Reid (1993, 1998); Grindle and Hilderbrand (1995); Griffiths et al. (1998); Dubé and Munkittrick (2001); Braat (2002); de Loë et al. (2002); Kennett (2002); de Loë and Kreutzwiser (2005); Duinker and Greig (2006); Ivey et al. (2002, 2006); Schindler and Donahue (2006); Dubé et al. (2006); Therivel and Ross (2007); Timmer et al. (2007); Heathcote (2009); Zhao et al. (2009); Canter and Ross (2010); Davies and Hanley (2010); Noble (2010); Squires et al. (2010); Brinson and Eckles (2011); Canter and Atkinson (2011); Connelly (2011); Seitz et al. (2011); Noble et al. (2011); Ball et al. (2013a); Kristensen et al. (2013); Sheelanere et al. (2013); Noble et al. (2014).

Table 2. Study participants, by professional affiliation.

Current affiliation	n^a		%
Government sector	30	Federal government – 1.4	41.1
		Provincial government – 35.6
		Municipal government – 4.1
Academia and NGOs	29	Watershed agency – 4.1	39.7
		NGOs – 26.0
		Academia – 9.6
Private sector	13	Consultant – 11.0	17.8
		Other – 6.8

Note:

NGOs: non-governmental organizations.

^a One missing response.

Table 3. Current health of the South Saskatchewan Watershed.

Response category	Total^a		Alberta		Saskatchewan
	n	%	n	%	n	%
1 = unhealthy	6	8.2	2	6.9	4	9.8
2 = healthy but with problems	62	84.9	26	89.7	33	80.4
3 = healthy	5	6.9	1	3.4	4	9.8

Note:

^a Includes those participants who identified themselves as from neither Alberta nor Saskatchewan.

Table 4. Change in the health of the South Saskatchewan Watershed over the past 10 years.

Response category	Total^a		Alberta		Saskatchewan
	n	%	n	%	n	%
1 = declined	36	49.3	14	51.8	20	50.0
2 = remained about the same	31	42.5	11	40.8	19	47.5
3 = improved	3	4.1	2	7.4	1	2.5

Note:

^a Includes those participants who identified themselves as from neither Alberta nor Saskatchewan; n includes three missing responses.

Table 5. Perceived threat of cumulative effects to water quality and quantity in the South Saskatchewan Watershed.^a

There is a current threat to:	Aggregate	Province		Professional affiliation
		AB	SK	Government	NGOs and academia	Private sector
(a) Water quality	8.0 ± 0.50^b	8.0 ± 0.50	7.0 ± 0.50	7.0 ± 1.00	8.0 ± 0.75	8.0 ± 1.00
(b) Water quantity	8.0 ± 0.50	8.0 ± 0.50	8.0 ± 0.75	7.5 ± 1.00	8.0 ± 0.75	7.0 ± 1.00

Note:

NGOs: non-governmental organizations.

^a Responses scale of 1–9, where 1 = strongly disagree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 5 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = somewhat agree; 9 = strongly agree; 2, 4, 6, 8 = intermediate responses.

^b Median and 95% confidence interval.

Table 6. Primary threats to water quality in the South Saskatchewan Watershed.

Primary threat	AB (n)^a	%	SK (n)	%	Total (n)	(%)
Agriculture/intensive livestock operations and runoff (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers)	15	31.9	28	35	43	33.85
Urban settlement (e.g. runoff, sewage, waste water discharge, pharmaceuticals)	15	31.91	24	30	39	30.70
Industrial activity (e.g. pipeline crossings, shoreline disturbance, oil and gas spills)	5	10.63	14	17.5	19	14.96
Other (e.g. climate, invasive species)	5	10.63	9	11.25	14	11.02
Flow diversion (dams, withdrawals)	7	14.89	5	6.25	12	9.44
Σ	47		80		127

Note:

^a Number of times the threat was identified by study participants.

Table 7. Primary threats to water quantity in the South Saskatchewan Watershed.

Primary threat	AB (n)^a	%	SK (n)	%	Total (n)	(%)
Climate change (droughts, floods, glacier and snowpack loss)	11	26.19	15	23.07	26	24.29
Agriculture/irrigation use (withdrawals, use)	8	19.04	17	26.15	25	23.36
Poor planning and management practices (overallocation, lack of source water protection, lack of information on groundwater and use)	10	23.80	13	20	23	21.49
Industrial use (non-agriculture)	6	14.28	12	18.46	18	16.82
Other (municipal use, river diversion, loss of critical recharge areas)	7	16.66	8	12.30	15	14.01
Σ	42		65		107

Note:

^a Number of times the threat was identified by study participants.

Table 8. Median weight/points assigned to requisites for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM).^a

Province	Lead agency	Multi-stakeholder collaboration	Watershed baselines, indicators and thresholds	Multi-scaled monitoring	Data management and coordination	Vertical and horizontal linkages	Enabling legislation	Financial and human resources
AB	10	10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	8.5	9.0	10.0
95% CI	± 1.2	± 1.8	± 0.6	± 0.6	± 0.3	± 1.5	± 1.3	± 0.7
Total points (%)	291	374	332	257	284	185	289	297
	(12.6%)	(16.2%)	(14.4%)	(11.1%)	(12.3%)	(8.0%)	(12.5%)	(12.9%)
Rank	4	1	2	7	6	8	5	3
SK	12	10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	8.0	10.0	10.0
95% CI	± 1.0	± 0.8	± 0.6	± 0.3	± 0.6	± 1.8	± 0.8	± 0.5
Total points (%)	480	458	410	398	379	295	403	457
	(14.6%)	(14.0%)	(12.5%)	(12.1%)	(11.6%)	(9.0%)	(12.3%)	(13.9%)
Rank	1	2	4	6	7	8	5	3
Overall	10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	8.0	10.0	10.0
95% CI	± 1	± 0.9	± 0.6	± 0.5	± 0.5	1.6	0.8	0.4
Total points (%)	771	832	742	655	663	480	692	754
	(13.8%)	(14.9%)	(13.3%)	(11.7%)	(11.9%)	(8.6%)	(12.4%)	(13.4%)
Rank	2	1	4	7	6	8	5	3

Note:

^a AB = Alberta, SK = Saskatchewan; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval for the median.

Table 9. Participant assessment of watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) capacity indicators in the South Saskatchewan Watershed.^a

Requisites and indicator statements	Disagree……………...Agree			Median	95% CI
	1–3	4–6	7–9
A. Lead agency
A1. Clear goals and priorities have been set for the watershed, including for future land use and overall watershed health.	37.9%	22.7%	39.4%	5.0	± 0.8
A2. There is an agency or group of agencies with a leadership role in the assessment and management of cumulative effects.	24.2%	30.3%	45.5%	6.0	± 0.8
A3. There is an agency or group of agencies with the ability (formal or informal) to influence decisions about land use and development decisions.	19.7%	31.8%	48.5%	6.0	± 0.8
A4. There is an agency or group of agencies with authority to implement and/or enforce regulations across the watershed to support CEAM.	25.7%	30.3%	44%	6.0	± 0.8
A5. There is an agency or group of agencies with authority to allocate resources to support CEAM initiatives (e.g. monitoring, data collection).	21.7%	27.3%	51%	6.5	± 0.4
B. Multi-stakeholder collaboration
B1. There is a collaborative approach to setting goals and priorities for the watershed concerning land and water use and development.	39.1%	25%	36%	5.5	± 0.8
B2. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities (e.g. industry, watershed agencies, governments) with respect to CEAM and monitoring are clearly defined.	53.1%	25%	21.9%	3.0	± 0.8
B3. There is willingness amongst authorities to share data and to coordinate activities related to monitoring watershed conditions and managing effects.	32.8%	35.9%	31.3%	5.0	± 0.8
B4. Industrial proponents are willing to share their data (e.g. water quality, discharge, water use) with other industries and non-industry stakeholders.	39.1%	39.1%	21.9%	4.5	± 0.6
B5. Local communities are engaged in watershed planning, monitoring, environmental assessment and related decision-making processes.	43.7%	35.9%	20.3%	4.0	± 0.8
C. Watershed baselines, indicators and thresholds
C1. There is adequate baseline data to identify past trends or changes in water quality across the watershed.	42.2%	31.3%	26.5%	4.0	± 1.0
C2. There is adequate baseline data to identify past trends or changes in water quantity/flow across the watershed.	25%	34.4%	40.6%	6.0	± 0.8
C3. There is adequate spatial baseline data to identify past land cover and land uses across the watershed.	23.4%	37.5%	39.1%	5.0	± 0.6
C4. There is agreement on the most appropriate indicators of watershed health.	43.8%	36%	20.3%	4.0	± 0.6
C5. There is a scientific understanding of thresholds (e.g. loadings, minimum flows, etc.) at which river system functions are no longer ecologically viable.	39.1%	26.5%	34.4%	4.0	± 0.8
D. Multi-scaled monitoring
D1. Monitoring programs under regulatory-based environmental assessment provide an understanding of a project’s effects on watershed processes.	34.9%	31.8%	33.3%	5.0	± 0.8
D2. There are requirements for the monitoring of river system conditions (e.g. water quality, flow, loadings) across the watershed.	22.2%	44.4%	33.3%	5.0	± 0.6
D3. Current monitoring programs provide a sound understanding of, and allow for detection of changes in, water quality conditions across the watershed.	54%	34.9%	11.1%	3.0	± 0.4
D4. Current monitoring provides a sound understanding of, and allows for detection of changes in, water quantity/flow conditions across the watershed.	41.3%	38.1%	20.6%	4.0	± 0.6
D5. Current monitoring provides a sound understanding of, and allows for detection of changes in, the dominant stressors to river system health (e.g. land use, disturbance patterns, discharge, etc.) across the watershed.	58.7%	28.8%	12.7%	3.0	± 0.6
E. Data management and coordination
E1. Data collection/monitoring are coordinated so as to allow a standardized approach to the establishment of baseline conditions.	51%	38.7%	10.3%	3.5	± 0.6
E2. Water quality and quantity data are available in an accessible, up-to-date and electronic format to industry, government and all watershed stakeholders.	59.7%	24.2%	16.1%	3.0	± 0.6
E3. Spatial data on land uses, disturbance or use patterns are available in an easily accessible, up-to-date and electronic format to industry, government and all watershed stakeholders.	59.7%	32.3%	8.1%	3.0	± 0.6
E4. There is consistency in project monitoring standards and indicators (used under environmental impact assessment or similar regulations/permits) for projects affecting similar components or for projects of a similar class (e.g. pulp mills, metal mines, agriculture, etc.).	50%	38.7%	11.3%	3.5	± 0.6
E5. Data (water quality, quantity, land use) are quality controlled such that data gaps, uncertainties or assumptions are reported and known to data users.	46.8%	41.9%	11.3%	4.0	± 0.6
F. Vertical and horizontal linkages
F1. Watershed or sub-watershed management plans influence the terms and conditions of project-specific environmental assessments.	35%	30%	35%	5.0	± 0.8
F2. Watershed or sub-watershed management plans influence policy and other decisions concerning land and water.	28.3%	36.6%	35%	5.0	± 0.8
F3. There is consistency in watershed management goals and objectives across sub-basins.	37.3%	42.4%	20.3%	5.0	± 0.6
F4. Results from project-specific monitoring are used to inform broader watershed assessment, evaluation and reporting processes.	35%	45%	20%	5.0	± 0.6
F5. Information generated from science programs or watershed monitoring and assessment is given due consideration in watershed management plans.	23.3%	45%	31.6%	5.0	± 0.6
G. Enabling legislation
G1. There is sufficient legislation or other regulatory means to establish a watershed-based framework for CEAM.	21.3%	62.3%	16.4%	5.0	± 0.4
G2. The terms of reference for projects under regulatory-based environmental assessment provide clear direction for indicators in project monitoring.	47.5%	39.3%	13.1%	4.0	± 0.6
G3. There is sufficient legislation or regulatory means to ensure that results generated from state-of-the-watershed assessments (e.g. monitoring programs, science studies) influence decisions about land use and development.	47.5%	31.1%	21.3%	4.0	± 0.8
G4. Legislation and other regulatory instruments concerning land and water use are consistent across the watershed and between levels of government.	49.2%	27.9%	22.9%	4.0	± 1.0
G5. There is sufficient legislation or regulations to enable the protection of sensitive or vulnerable areas of the watershed from human disturbance.	39.3%	36.01%	24.6%	4.0	± 1.0
H. Financial and human resources
H1. Scientific and technical expertise to develop and implement tools for CEAM is available, through government, the private sector or academia.	13.6%	20.3%	66.1%	8.0	± 0.6
H2. Funding is available for the development and implementation of source water protection plans and projects.	63.3%	21.7%	15%	3.0	± 0.6
H3. Financial resources are available at the provincial level to support watershed-based CEAM programs (i.e. data collection, reporting, enforcement).	60%	26.6%	13.3%	3.0	± 0.6
H4. Financial resources are available at the sub-watershed level to participate in watershed cumulative effects programs.	55%	33.3%	11.7%	3.0	± 0.8
H5. Education and training opportunities on CEAM tools and practice are available to government, watershed managers, land use planners and other stakeholders responsible for planning and assessment.	49.2%	32.2%	18.6%	3.5	± 0.6

Note:

^a Response scale of 1–9, where 1 = strongly disagree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 5 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = somewhat agree; 9 = strongly agree; 2, 4, 6, 8 = intermediate responses. For ease of presentation, after completion of statistical analysis, response scale was condensed to three categories: disagree (1–3); neutral (4–6); agree (7–9).

Sheelanere, P., B. F. Noble, and R. Patrick. 2013. Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy 30: 67–75.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peterson, E. B., Y. H. Chan, N. M. Peterson, G. A. Constalbe, R. B. Caton, C. S. Davis, R. R. Wallace, and G. A. Yarranton. 1987. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: An agenda for action and research. Hull, QC: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

 Google Scholar

Parker, S., and C. Cocklin. 1993. The use of geographical information systems for cumulative environmental effects assessment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 17: 393–407.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reid, L. M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. General Technical Report. GTR 141. Albany, CA: Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.

 Google Scholar

Reid, L. M. 1998. Cumulative watershed effects and watershed analysis. In River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion, ed. R. J. Naiman, and R. E. Bilby, 476–501. New York Springer–Verlag.

 Google Scholar

Grindle, M. S., and M. E. Hilderbrand. 1995. Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: What can be done? Public Administration Development 15: 441–463.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Griffiths, A., E. McCoy, J. Green, and G. Hegmann. 1998. Cumulative effects assessment: Current practices and future options. Calgary, AB: Macleod Institute.

 Google Scholar

Dubé, M. G., and K. Munkittrick. 2001. Integration of effects-based and stressor-based approaches into a holistic framework for cumulative effects assessment in aquatic ecosystems. Human Ecological Risk Assessment 7: 247–258.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Braat, T. 2002. Regional cumulative effects management framework for Cold Lake, Alberta. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

 Google Scholar

de Loë, R., D. Di Giantomasso, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2002. Local capacity for groundwater protection in Ontario. Environmental Management 29: 217–233.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kennett, S. 2002. Lessons from Cheviot: Redefining government's role in cumulative effects assessment. In Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice, ed. A. Kennedy, 17–29. Calgary, AB: Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.

 Google Scholar

de Loë, R., and R. Kreutzwiser. 2005. Closing the groundwater protection implementation gap. GeoForum 36(2): 241–256.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duinker, P., and L. Greig. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2): 153–161.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ivey, J. L., R. de Loë, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2002. Groundwater management by watershed agencies: An evaluation of the capacity of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Journal of Environmental Management 64: 311–331.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ivey, J. L., R. de Loë, R. Kreutzwiser, and C. Ferreyra. 2006. An institutional perspective on local capacity for source water protection. Geoforum 37: 944–957.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schindler, D., and W. Donahue. 2006. An impending water crisis in Canada’s western prairie provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States 103: 7210–7216.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dubé, M., B. Johnson, G. Dunn, J. Culp, K. Cash, K. Munkittrick, I. Wong, et al. 2006. Development of a new approach to cumulative effects assessment: A northern river ecosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113: 87–115.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Therivel, R., and W. Ross. 2007. Cumulative effects assessment: Does scale matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 365–385.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Timmer, D. K., R. de Loe, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2007. Source water protection in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia: Lessons for building local capacity. Land Use Policy 24: 187–198.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heathcote, I. W. 2009. Integrated watershed management: Principles and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

 Google Scholar

Zhao, M., D. R. Becker, and M. A. Kilgore. 2009. Assessing cumulative impacts within state environmental review frameworks in the United States. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 390–398.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Canter, L., and B. Ross. 2010. State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: The good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28(4): 261–268.

 Google Scholar

Davies, H., and P. T. Hanley. 2010. 2010 state of the watershed report. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Watershed Authority.

 Google Scholar

Squires, A., C. Westbrook, and M. Dubé. 2010. An approach for assessing cumulative effects in a model river, the Athabasca River Basin. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 6(1): 119–134.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Brinson, M. M., and S. D. Eckles. 2011. US Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 21(Suppl. 1): S116–S127.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Canter, L., and F. Atkinson. 2011. Multiple uses of indicators and indices in cumulative effects assessment and management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(5): 491–501.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Connelly, R. 2011. Canadian and international EIA frameworks as they apply to cumulative effects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31: 453–456.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seitz, N., C. Westbrook, and B. F. Noble. 2011. Bringing science into river systems cumulative effects assessment practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(3): 172–179.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Noble, B. F., P. Sheelanere, and R. Patrick. 2011. Advancing watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from the South Saskatchewan River watershed. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(4): 1–23.

 Google Scholar

Ball, M., B. F. Noble, and M. Dubé. 2013a. Scaling-up valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects assessment: An analysis of environmental impact assessment practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(3): 469–479.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kristensen, S., B. F. Noble, and R. J. Patrick. 2013. Capacity for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from the Lower Fraser River Basin. Canada. Environmental Management 52(2): 360–373.

 Google Scholar

Noble, B. F., J. Skwaruk, and R. Patrick. 2014. Toward cumulative effects assessment and management in the Athabasca watershed. Canada. The Canadian Geographer 58(3): 315–328.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar