Environmental Management

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 545–555 | Cite as

Evolution of environmental impact assessment as applied to watershed modification projects in Canada

  • Herman J. Dirschl
  • Nicholas S. Novakowski
  • M. Husain Sadar
Environmental Auditing

Abstract

This article reviews the application of environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures and practices to three watershed modification projects situaled in western Canada. These ventures were justified for accelerating regional economic development, and cover the period during which public concerns for protecting the environment rapidly made their way into the national political agenda. An historical account and analysis of the situation, therefore, seems desirable in order to understand the development of EIA processes, practices, and methodologies since the start of construction of the first project in 1961. This study concludes that there has been good progress in predicting and evaluating environmental and related social impacts of watershed modification proposals. However, a number of obstacles need to be overcome before EIA can firmly establish itself as an effective planning tool. These difficulties include jurisdictional confusions and conflicts, division of authority and responsibility in designing and implementing appropriate mitigative and monitoring measures, lack of tested EIA methodologies, and limited availability of qualified human resources. A number of conclusions and suggestions are offered so that future watershed modification proposals may be planned and implemented in a more environmentally sustainable fashion. These include: (1) EIA processes must be completed before irrevocable decisions are made. (2) Any major intrusion into a watershed is likely to impact on some major components of the ecosystem(s). (3) Mitigation costs must form part of the benefit-cost analysis of any project proposal. (4) Interjurisdictional cooperation is imperative where watersheds cross political boundaries. (5) The EIA process is a public process, hence public concerns must be dealt with fairly. (6) The role of science in the EIA process must be at arms length from project proponents and regulators, and allowed to function in the interest of the protection of the environment and public health and safety.

Key words

Environmental impact Assessment process Watershed modification Impoundment River diversion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bailey, R. E. 1971. Recent hydrological investigations in the delta and possible water level control measures. Pages 110–136in Proceedings of the Peace-Athabasca Delta symposium, 14–15 January 1971. Water Resources Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  2. Beanlands, G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax. 132 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bodaly, R. A., T. W. D. Johnson, R. J. P. Fudge, and J. W. Clayton. 1984a. Collapse of the lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) fishery in Southern Indian Lake, Manitoba, following lake impoundment and river diversion.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:692–700.Google Scholar
  4. Bodaly, R. A., R. E. Hecky and R. J. P. Fudge. 1984b. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes flooded by the Churchill River diversion, northern Manitoba.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:682–691.Google Scholar
  5. Collier, E. P. 1960. Report No. 11 on Peace River investigations. Water Survey of Canada, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Coulson, A., and R. H. Clark. 1962. The effect of regulation of the Peace River, Interim Report No. 1. Water Resources Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, 12 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Dirschl, H. J. 1970. Ecological evaluation of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, Annual Progress Report 1969–70. Canadian Wildlife Service, Prairie Migratory Bird Research Center, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 66 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Dirschl, H. J. 1972. Evaluation of ecological effects of recent low water levels in the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Department of the Environment, Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 13, Ottawa, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Dirschl, H. J., D. L. Dabbs, and G. C. Gentle. 1974. Landscape classification and plant successional trends: Peace-Athabasca Delta. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No. 30. Ottawa, 34 pp. + 3 maps.Google Scholar
  10. Farley, D. W., and H. Cheng. 1986. Hydraulic impact of flow regulation on the Peace-Athabasca Delta.Canadian Water Resources Journal 11:26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FEARO (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office). 1978. Federal environmental assessment and review process. Bulletin No. 3. FEARO, Hull, Quebec.Google Scholar
  12. Hecky, R. E. 1984. Thermal and optimal characteristics of Southern Indian Lake before, during and after impoundment and Churchill River diversion.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:579–590.Google Scholar
  13. Hecky, R. E., and G. K. McCullough. 1984. Effect of impoundment on the sediment budget and nearshore sedimentation of Southern Indian Lake.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:567–578.Google Scholar
  14. Hecky, R. E., R. W. Newbury, R. A. Bodaly, K. Patalas, and D. M. Rosenberg. 1984. Environmental impact prediction and assessment: The Southern Indian Lake experience.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:720–732.Google Scholar
  15. Hirsch, A. 1980. The baseline study as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Pages 84–93in Proceedings of biological evaluation of environmental impacts symposium. FWS/OBS-80/26. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Kellerhals, R. 1971. Factors controlling the level of Lake Athabasca. Pages 57–109in Proceedings of the Peace-Athabasca Delta symposium. Water Resources Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  17. Krotz, L. 1991. Dammed and diverted.Canadian Geographic Journal 111:36–44.Google Scholar
  18. Lehman, J. T. 1986. Raising the level of a subarctic lake. Pages 317–330in Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-solving. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Newbury, R. W., G. K. McCullough, and R. E. Hecky. 1984. The Southern Indian Lake impoundment and Churchill River diversion.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:558–566.Google Scholar
  20. Northern Diseased Bison Environmental Assessment Panel. 1990. Northern diseased bison. Report No. 35, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. Hull, Quebec, 47 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Novakowski, N. S. 1967. Anticipated ecological effects of possible changes in the water levels of the Peace-Athabasca Delta as a result of the damming of the Peace River. Canadian Wildlife Service internal report. Ottawa, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  22. PADIC (Peace-Athabasca Delta Implementation Committee). 1987. Peace-Athabasca Delta water management works evaluation: A report prepared under the Peace-Athabasca Delta Implementation Agreement. Department of the Environment, Ottawa, 4 vols.Google Scholar
  23. Peace-Athabasca Delta Committee. 1970. Death of a delta. A brief to government of Alberta. Edmonton, June 1970. 19 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Peace-Athabasca Delta Project Group. 1973. Technical report. Peace-Athabasca Delta Project, Edmonton, 176 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Rafferty-Alameda Environmental Assessment Panel. 1991. Rafferty-Alameda project. Report No. 41. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec, 67 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenberg, D. M., R. A. Bodaly, R. E. Hecky, and R. W. Newbury. 1987. The environmental assessment of hydroelectric impoundments and diversions in Canada. Pages 71–104in M. C. Healy and R. R. Wallace (eds.) Canadian aquatic resources.Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 215. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  27. Sadar, M. H. and D. R. Cressman. 1993. The role of technical experts in support of public review panels established under the federal environmental assessment and review process (EARP).Journal of the International Association of Impact Assessment (in press).Google Scholar
  28. Sadar, M. H., and W. J. Stolte. 1993. The application of the Canadian environmental assessment process to dams: A case study of the Rafferty-Alameda Project. Proceedings of 45th Annual Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association, June 1992. Kingston, Ontario (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Souris Basin Development Authority. 1987. Rafferty-Alameda Project: Environmental impact statement. Submitted to Saskatchewan Department of the Environment and Public Safety. Regina, Saskatchewan, 19 vols.Google Scholar
  30. Wagner, M. W. 1984. Post-impoundment change in financial performance of the Southern Indian Lake commercial fishery.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walsh, A. A. M., W. A. Ross, and M. Yergeau. 1988. Public review: Neither judicial nor political but an essential forum for the future of the environment. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec, 71 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herman J. Dirschl
    • 1
  • Nicholas S. Novakowski
    • 1
  • M. Husain Sadar
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental-Social Advisory Services (ESAS) IncorporatedOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Federal Environmental Assessment Review OfficeHullCanada

Personalised recommendations