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

References

• 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
• Ball, M. A., G. Somers, J. E. Wilson, R. Tanna, C. Chung, D. Duro, and N. Seitz. 2013b. Scale, assessment components, and reference conditions: Issues for cumulative effects assessment in Canadian watersheds. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(3): 370–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, W., W. Ross, and H. Spaling. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19(4): 253–262.
   Google Scholar
• Braat, T. 2002. Regional cumulative effects management framework for Cold Lake, Alberta. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   Google 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
• Bruneau, J., D. R. Corkal, E. Pietroniro, B. Toth, and G. van der Kamp. 2009. Human activities and water use in the South Saskatchewan River basin. Prairie Forum 34: 129–152.
   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
• 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
• Carter, N., R. D. Kreutzwiser, and R. de Loë. 2005. Closing the circle: Linking land use planning and water management at the local level. Land Use Policy 22: 115–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilima, J., J. Gunn, B. F. Noble, and R. Patrick. 2013. Institutional considerations in watershed-scale cumulative effects assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 74–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   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
• Conservation Ontario. 2012. Integrated watershed management: Navigating Ontario’s future. Newmarket, ON: Conservation Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• Creasey, R. 2002. Moving from project-based cumulative effects assessment to regional environmental management. In Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice, ed. A. Kennedy, 3–16. Calgary, AB: Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.
   Google Scholar
• Culp, J., K. Cash, and F. Wrona. 2000. Cumulative effects assessment for the Northern River Basins Study. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 8: 87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, H., and P. T. Hanley. 2010. 2010 state of the watershed report. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Watershed Authority.
   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
• de Loë, R., and R. Kreutzwiser. 2005. Closing the groundwater protection implementation gap. GeoForum 36(2): 241–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubé, M. 2003. Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: A regional framework for aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23: 723–745.
   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
• 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
• 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
• Environment Canada. 2010. Integrated watershed management. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang1/4en&n1/413D23813-1 (accessed October, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Environment Canada. 2011. National Eenvironmental Effects Monitoring Office. http://www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem/default.asp?lang1/4En&n1/4453D78FC-1 (accessed October, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Gerard, P. D., D. R. Smith, and G. Weerakkody. 1998. Limits of retrospective power analysis. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 801–807.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., H. Benevides, D. Meinhard, and D. Kirchhoff. 2010. Strengthening strategic environmental assessment in Canada: An evaluation of three basic options. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 20(3): 175–211.
   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
• 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
• Heathcote, I. W. 2009. Integrated watershed management: Principles and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hoenig, J., and D. Heisey. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician 55(1): 19–24.
   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
• 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
• Kilgour, B., M. Dubé, K. Hedley, C. Portt, and K. Munkittrick. 2007. Aquatic environmental effects monitoring guidance for environmental assessment practitioners. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 130: 423–436.
   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
• Krzywinski, M., and N. Altman. 2014. Points of significance: Visualizing samples with box plots. Nature Methods 11: 119–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magee, J., and P. Carroll. 2006. Using tiered assessments to focus land use plans and management investments on the highest priorities. Environmental Practice 8(4): 218–227.
   Google Scholar
• Munkittrick, K., M. McMaster, G. Van Der Kraak, C. Portt, W. Gibbons, A. Farwell, and M. Gray. 2000. Development of methods for effects-driven cumulative effects assessment using fish populations: Moose River project. Pensacola, Florida: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, B. F. 2008. Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: A case study of the Great Sand Hills. Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(2): 78–90.
   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
• 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
• Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Oegema, B. 2012. South Saskatchewan River. In The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/south_saskatchewan_river.html. Regina, SK: Canada Plains Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. 2007. Post hoc power, observed power, a priori power, retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: Sorting out appropriate use of statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures 1(4): 291–299.
   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
• Parkins, J. R. 2011. Deliberative democracy, institution building, and the pragmatics of cumulative effects assessment. Ecology and Society 16(3): 20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partners for the Saskatchewan River Basin. 2009. Summary of the state of the Saskatchewan River Basin. Saskatoon, SK: Partners for the Saskatchewan River Basin.
   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
• Piper, J. M. 2000. Cumulative effects assessment on the middle Humber: Barriers overcome, benefits derived. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(3): 369–387.
   Google Scholar
• Pomeroy, J. W., D. de Boer, and L. W. Martz. 2005. Hydrology and water resources of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK: Centre for Hydrology.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, M. S., G. Greenaway, D. Duke, and T. Lee. 2004. A collaborative approach to assessing regional cumulative effects in the trans-boundary crown of the continent. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
   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
• Reid, L. M. 2010. Understanding and evaluating cumulative watershed impacts. RMRS-GTR-231. Albany, CA: Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, L. 2008. Making capacity building meaningful: A framework for strategic action. Environmental Management 42: 833–846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 243–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, R. 2011. Cumulative effects: A primer for watershed managers. Streamline, Watershed Management Bulletin 14(2): 14–20.
   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
• 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
• 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
• Squires, A., and M. Dubé. 2013. Development of an effects-based approach for watershed scale aquatic cumulative effects assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(3): 380–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998. Guidance on implementing the capacity development provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996. Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Water.
   Google Scholar
• Valentine, G. 2005. Tell me about using interviews as a research methodology. In Methods in human geography, eds. R. Flowerdew and D. Martin, 110–126. London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Warachan, B. 2011. Appropriate statistical analysis for two independent groups of Likert-type data. PhD thesis in Mathematics, American University: Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Water Framework Directive (WFD). 2001. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2001. Strategic Document as Agreed By The Water Directors Under Swedish Presidency 2 May 2001.
   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