Can BC's 40-Year-Old Water Quality Objectives Policy Solve Today's Challenges for Managing Cumulative Effects?

Home , Burrard Inlet, Pouce Coupe River

Can BC’s 40-Year-Old Water Quality Objectives Policy Solve Today’s Challenges for Managing Cumulative Effects?

Geneen Russo

B.Sc., University of Victoria, 1994

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in the Department of Geography

Supervisory Committee

Can BC’s 40-Year-Old Water Quality Objectives Policy Solve Today’s Challenges for Managing Cumulative Effects?

Geneen Russo

B.Sc., University of Victoria, 1994

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Michele-Lee Moore (Department of Geography) Supervisor

Dr. Denise Cloutier (Department of Geography) Departmental Member

iii

Abstract

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Michele-Lee Moore (Department of Geography) Supervisor

Dr. Denise Cloutier (Department of Geography) Departmental Member

Water quality is a critical component of aquatic ecosystems, and impairments caused by the cumulative effects of human activities can threaten water security, ecosystem health and biodiversity, and ecosystem services that support human livelihoods, health, and well- being. Protecting water quality and managing the human activities that can contribute to cumulative effects remains the most important, though poorly understood and under- researched problem facing sustainable water quality management in Canada (Johns &

Sproule-Jones, Schindler & Donahue, 2006) and around the world (Patterson, Smith, &

Bellamy, 2013; UN-Water, 2011). For decades, federal and provincial governments in

Canada have introduced, and experimented with, policy tools that are intended to assess and manage cumulative effects, yet, point source management approaches remain by far, the preferred policy tool. The results of this study indicate that part of the reason why cumulative effects assessment and management approaches have not evolved is because policy tools intended to address questions about environmental governance are being implemented as environmental management tools. Questions of environmental governance should be inclusive and focused on how the environment is used now and in the future for societal benefits. Conversely, management questions are narrower in scope and serve to operationalize these goals. This research highlights the challenge with identifying and developing critical relationships between the array of agencies and institutions responsible iv for governing and managing water quality, as well as the need to devise strategies to ensure these relationships are maintained over time if progress towards managing cumulative effects to water quality can be achieved.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures ...... x List of Acronyms and Terminology ...... xi Acknowledgements ...... xiii Dedication ...... xiv

Chapter 1 - Introduction: Study Context and Questions ...... 1 1.1. Introduction ...... 1 1.2. What are Cumulative Effects (CE)? ...... 5 1.3. How are cumulative effects to water quality currently managed? ...... 7 1.4. Current Initiatives to Advance SEA and CEA ...... 8 1.5. Theoretical Perspective ...... 9 1.6. Research Question ...... 10 1.7. Primary Data Source and Methodology ...... 11 1.8. Research Objectives ...... 12 1.9. Thesis Structure ...... 12

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework ...... 14 2.1. Introduction and Chapter Objectives ...... 14 2.2. Adaptive Governance as a Paradigm for Addressing Cumulative Effect? ...... 14 2.2.1. Researcher Positionality ...... 15 2.3. An Introduction to Adaptive Governance ...... 17 2.3.1. Cumulative Effects and Scale Mismatches in Complex Adaptive Systems ..... 17 2.3.2. Resilience Theory ...... 19 2.3.3. Complex Adaptive Systems and Scale Mismatches ...... 20 2.3.3.1.Functional and Structural Properties of CAS ...... 20 2.4. Study Contributions to the Adaptive Governance Theory ...... 21

Chapter 3 - Literature Review ...... 23 3.1. Chapter Objective...... 23 3.2. Introduction ...... 23 3.3. Pollution Prevention -Federal Level ...... 24 3.3.1. Fisheries Act, Northern Inlands Waters Act, Arctic Water Pollution Prevention ...... 24 3.3.2. Environmental Impact Assessments ...... 25 3.4. Pollution Prevention – Provincial Level ...... 28 3.4.1. Pollution Control Act ...... 28 3.4.2. Impact Assessment ...... 28 3.5. Integrated Water Resources Planning – Federal Level ...... 29 3.6. Integrated Water Resources Planning – Provincial Level...... 30 3.7. Strategic Environmental Assessment ...... 35 3.7.1. Cumulative Effects Framework and the Water Sustainability Act ...... 37 3.7.2. Background to CEF and WSA ...... 37 3.7.3. SEA Processes are Integrated Policy Strategies ...... 38 3.7.4.Gaps in Knowledge about Implementing SEA Strategies ...... 39

Chapter 4 - Methodology and Methods ...... 40 4.1. Chapter Objectives ...... 40 4.2. An Introduction to the Meta-Analysis Methodology ...... 40 4.2.1. Introduction ...... 40 4.2.2. Terminology for Meta-Analyses ...... 41 4.2.3. History ...... 42 4.2.4. The Model-Centered Approach to Meta-Analysis ...... 43 4.2.5. Main Steps in the Meta-Analytical Approach ...... 44 4.2.6. The What: The Phenomena of Interest and Critical Variables ...... 44 4.2.7. The Who and When: Developing a Sampling Strategy ...... 45 4.2.8. The How: Data Collection and Analysis, Coding Case Studies ...... 45 4.3. The Application of the Meta-Analysis Approach to this Research Project ...... 47 4.3.1. Rationale ...... 47 4.3.2. The What: Defining the Phenomena of Interest and Critical Variables ...... 48 4.3.3. The Who and When: Defining the Population of Interest ...... 52 4.3.4. Triangulation ...... 54 vii

4.3.5. Findings: The Meta-Summary and Meta-Synthesis ...... 54 Chapter 5 - Results ...... 56 5.1. Chapter Objectives ...... 56 5.2. Summary of Key Findings ...... 56 5.2.1. Classifying Case Studies and Emergent, New Variables ...... 56 5.2.2. Novel Impetrations: Loss of the ‘Strategic’ Lens and Persistence Over Time 58 5.3. Regional Planning Initiatives ...... 59 5.3.1. Comprehensive River Basin Planning ...... 60 5.3.1.1. Background ...... 61 5.3.2. Purpose Goals, and Values (Questions 1, 2, 3) ...... 62 5.3.2.1. What body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment? (Question 4) ...... 63 5.3.2.2. What types of measurable objectives are identified to meet the specified goals? (Question 5) ...... 64 5.3.2.3. What types of decisions does the assessment inform? (Question 6) ...... 66 5.3.2.4. What triggered the assessment? (Question 7) ...... 69 5.3.2.5. How is baseline defined? (Question 8) ...... 70 5.3.2.6. Is post-assessment monitoring a component of the assessment? (Question 9) ...... 71 5.3.2.7. The Synthesis of WQOs for Regional Planning: Scale Mismatches ...... 71 5.4. Sector-Based Planning Strategy ...... 72 5.4.1. What purpose does the assessment serve? (Question 1) ...... 73 5.4.1.1. Emergent Variables ...... 73 5.4.2. What are the desired goals for the assessment? (Question 2) ...... 74 5.4.3. How are the VEC’s chosen? (Question 3) ...... 75 5.4.4. What body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment? (Question 4) ...... 76 5.4.5. What types of measurable objectives are identified to meet the specified goals? (Question 5) ...... 76 5.4.6. What types of decisions does the assessment inform? (Question 6) ...... 79 5.4.7. What triggered the assessment? (Question 7) ...... 81 5.4.8. How is the baseline defined? (Question 8) ...... 82 5.4.9. Is post-assessment monitoring a component of the assessment? (Question 9) 83 5.4.10. The Synthesis of WQOs for Sector-based Planning Strategies: Scale Mismatches ...... 84 viii

5.5. Loss of a Strategic Lens for WQOs and Policy Persistence ...... 87 Chapter 6 - Discussion ...... 89 6.1. Chapter Objectives ...... 89 6.2. Summary of Key Findings ...... 89 6.3. WQOs Contribution to Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management ...... 91 6.4. Scale Mismatches Affecting WQO Effectiveness for CEAM ...... 93 6.4.1. Implications for Modern SEA Processes and the CEAM ...... 98 6.5. Persistence of WQOs and Implications for CEAM ...... 95 6.6. Theory ...... 100 6.7. Conclusions ...... 105 6.8. Opportunities for Further Research ...... 105

References ...... 108

Appendices ...... 140 ix

List of Tables

Table 1 The analytical framework used to classify Water Quality Objective reports ...... 49 Table 2 Results of classifying case studies into pre-defined categories contained in the analytical framework...... 57 Table 3 Summary of answers to 9 questions for WQOs (n=8) that function to operationalize regional planning initiatives ...... 72 Table 4 Summary of water quality objectives by year and purpose ...... 85 Table 5 Summary of 9 questions for WQOs used to fulfil two MOE mandates (a) to regulate waste and (b) set environmental quality objectives ...... 86 Table A1 Water quality objectives developed to support regional planning initiatives ...... 140 Table B1 Water quality objectives developed to establish ambient water quality objectives to inform decisions for major projects ...... 141 Table C1 Water quality objectives developed to support decisions in areas with existing multiple activities affecting water quality...... 142 Table D1 Water quality objectives developed to resolve conflicts and emerging contaminant issues ...... 145 Table E1 Water quality objectives developed to support local stewardship initiatives ...... 147

List of Figures

Figure 1 Strategic environmental planning units for strategic water resources planning in BC ...... 33 Figure 2 WQOs were designed as part of a two-tiered strategic planning process ...... 35 Figure 3 Barth and Thomas’s concept meta-analyses classifications into qualitative and quantitative inputs and outputs ...... 43 Figure 4 The range of data transformation in a meta-analysis ...... 46 Figure 5 The WQO development process and primary data for this study ...... 52 Figure 6 Red lines represent waterbodies where WQO have been established in the MOE’s administrative area, Okanagan Region ...... 53 Figure 7 The degree of data transformation used in this study includes both meta-summaries and meta-synthesis ...... 55 Figure 8 WQOs support regional planning initiatives, provides environmental benchmarks for environmental quality, and guides decisions to regulate waste 58 Figure 9 Major tributaries and municipalities located in the Okanagan River Basin ...... 65 Figure 10 Incorporating information from regional planning studies into decision instruments ...... 69 Figure 11 The Okanagan Basin Study assessed past, present, and future changes to phosphorus in Okanagan Lake ...... 71 Figure 12 An example of the measurable objectives in WQOs ...... 79 Figure 13 Incorporating information from WQOs into statutory decision making ...... 81

List of Acronyms and Terminology

Acronym or Term Definition Adaptive Governance A form of environmental governance that emerged in response to examples of (AG) environmental problems that were not solved by command and control approaches. Adaptive governance is sometimes referred to as ‘resilience-based governance’ because of its foundation in resilience theory and complex adaptive systems theory, both of which considers social and ecological systems as linked. Ambient environment Refers to natural background conditions in the surrounding environment outside the zone in which water quality may be influenced by a discharge or source of contamination BC British Columbia Case (in meta-analysis For the purposes of this study, a case is a social-ecological system which consists of research) the governance arrangements (individuals and institutions, the rules, behaviours, and norms, that are involved with making, influencing, or implementing decisions) and the aquatic ecosystem being influenced. Complex Adaptive Systems of people and nature in which complexity emerges from a small set of System critical processes that create and maintain the self-organizing properties of the system. Cultural Human-induced eutrophication of freshwaters, also called cultural eutrophication, Eutrophication is commonly a result of increased phosphorus inputs from sources such as agricultural fertilizers or partially treated sewage. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the accumulation of changes to environmental systems over (see also space and time in response to human actions that stem from repeated single actions, Environmental Effect) or, multiple unique actions that accumulate in unexpected synergistic, antagonistic, or additive ways resulting in unintended consequences that can permanently alter and compromise ecosystem services for present and future generations. Cumulative Effects The process of systematically analyzing the accumulated changes to environmental Assessment (CEA) systems over space and time. CEF The Province of BC’s Cumulative Effects Framework Policy Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) is recognized as an Assessment and important environmental management tool that has as its ultimate purpose, the goal Management (CEAM) of avoiding unintended, detrimental consequences to the environment that will compromise its use for future generations Diffuse Pollution See nonpoint source pollution. Ecological Resilience The magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed by an ecosystem before critical relationships are altered to an extent that the system’s function and behaviour is affected. Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Environmental Effects This refers to changes to the environment that is confined to local spatial scales and (see Cumulative timeframes. Environmental Effect) Environmental goods Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include and services (see provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and xii

Ecosystem Services) disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Environmental Environmental governance is about decision-making. It refers to the ways in which Governance decisions about the biophysical environment are made: how decision-makers are chosen, how interests are articulated, and how decision-makers are held accountable. Environmental On-the-ground activities that operationalize those decisions through for example, Management regulations or market-based incentives that serve to control the use and access to natural resources. Governance Governance is a process of steering or guiding human activities towards a desired outcome. Environmental governance is about decision-making. It refers to the ways in which decisions about the use, access and allocation of components of the biophysical environment are made: how decision-makers are chosen, how interests are articulated, and how decision-makers are held accountable. Indicator The term indicator is used to denote either (i) a biophysical component or variable which is monitored to detect change in that component or variable or (ii) a calculated index of the condition of all or part of an ecosystem Level Locations along a particular scale (see definition of scale) MOE BC Ministry of Environment Non-point source Constituents in water, including pollutants, originating from diffuse, land-based pollution sources and generally transported in runoff from precipitation, pollution discharged over a wide land are and not from one specific location. Scale The spatial, temporal, quantitative, or other analytical dimension used to measure and study objectives and processes. Scale Mismatch A situation where the scale of environmental variation and the scale of social organization responsible for management are aligned in such a way that one or more functions of the social-ecological system are disrupted, inefficiencies occur, and/or important components of the system are lost. Social-Ecological Social-ecological systems are complex, integrated systems in which humans are System (SES) part of nature. Stressor A human-induced novel perturbation that displaces an environmental parameter beyond its natural range of variation Resilience The ability of a system to adapt and transform to disturbances while maintaining its basic functions and functions. Tipping Point A breaking point between two different regimes of a social-ecological system Valued Ecosystem Valued ecosystem components (VECs) are simply elements of the environment that Component (VEC) people value for ecological, social, economic or aesthetic significance.

Water Quality The physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of water, biota, or sediment.

Water Quality A science-based policy developed by the BC Ministry of Environment used to fulfil Objectives (WQOs) its mandate to manage water quality. The WQOs are physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of water, biota, or sediment that protect the most sensitive designated use.

xiii

Acknowledgements

I am fortunate to have so many kind people in my life and to you all, I am very grateful.

To Michele-Lee Moore, my supervisor, thank you for your generosity with advice, conversations, and guidance on all aspects of this work. Denise Cloutier provided thoughtful insight on writing and analysis. I thank you both for your genuine contributions. I also thank Natasha, Jesse, Rosanna, and Jamie at the Water Innovation and Global Governance Lab for their willingness to support one another’s work and ideas.

I would like to thank Lynn, Celine and Kevin at the Water Proection and Sustainability Branch for supporting this work. I benefited from discussions with many of my dedicated and knowledgeable colleagues; I especially Kevin, Heather, Ali, Jolene, Angeline, Emi, Jon, Robin, Jennifer, Mike, and Celine.

Many thanks to my family and friends: the moms Marisa and Justine for endless interest; and, Gloria, Robert, Tony, John, Jill and Ted, for listening to me, walking with me, and granting me ‘rain checks.’ To my large ‘extended’ family (there’s too many of you to name), your thoughtful, encouraging, and humerous words were always so appreciated. And to the friends who I missed because of busyness, I hope you know that I am sorry for this. Lou, Jus, and Claire, you are my heroes and I am thankful for so much, but for now I’ll just say thanks for your infectious sense of humour that kept all of us going. Tom, your unwavering support is appreciated beyond words.

Financial support from the Government of British Columbia’s Pacific Leaders Scholarship Program is gratefully acknowledged.

xiv

Dedication

For Louie, who long ago, introduced me to sustainability ideas.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Study Context and Questions

1.1. Introduction

All environmental problems contain issues of scale. Traditionally, scale issues have largely focused on resolving the relevant spatial and temporal scales for scientific assessment activities (Cocklin, 1993; Dubé, 2003; Munkittrick et al., 2000; Spaling, 1994). Yet of equal importance is ensuring that the scales at which scientific assessments are conducted, can be incorporated into relevant policies and decision-making, so that action can be taken to ensure sustainability goals are achieved (McDaniels, Dowlatabadi, & Stevens, 2005; Young, 2002).

Proponents of adaptive governance (AG) theory use the term scale mismatches to refer to circumstances where the scale of the environmental problem and the scale of the social organization responsible for its governance and management, exist in such a way that one or more functions of the system, either ecological or social, are misaligned, disrupted, inefficient, and/or the components of the system are lost (Cumming, Cumming, & Redman,

2008). Scale mismatches can contribute to environmental degradation, over-exploitation of resources, and loss or reduced resilience when the social organization is not suited to the ecological scales involved in resource use (Berkes, 2008; Berkes & Ross, 2016a).

The way water quality is managed in Canada can be described as a scale mismatch.

For example, it is well known that effects to water quality are observed at spatial and temporal scales beyond point sources of pollution (Dube & Munkittrick, 2001; McLeay and

Associates Ltd., 1987; Schindler, 2001; Sidle & Hornbeck, 1991). Yet, there are few examples where there are effective federal or provincial policies and decision-making processes in place at relevant scales, to detect and respond to these problems (Johns & 2

Sproule-Jones, 2009; Kristensen, Noble & Patrick, 2013; Muldoon & McClenaghan, 2007;

Rabe, 1997; Ramin, 2004). As a result, the cumulative effects that human activities can have on water quality are not adequately addressed, thus threatening ecosystem services such as water security, ecosystem health and biodiversity, and services that support human livelihoods, health, and well-being (Patterson, Smith, & Bellamy, 2013; Scheffer &

Carpenter, 2003; Schindler, 2001). Water quality problems are a global phenomenon and are wide-spread across all Canadian provinces (Dessouki & Ryan, 2010; Fisheries and Oceans

Canada, 1997; Hass, 1999; Pollution Watch, 2004; Semeniuk, 2017). Yet, protecting water quality and managing human activities that contribute to cumulative effects remains the most persistent and under-researched phenomenon facing sustainable water quality management in

Canada (Johns & Sproule-Jones, 2009; Schindler, 2001; Schindler & Donahue, 2006) and around the world ( Patterson, Smith, & Bellamy, 2013; UN-Water, 2011).

The absence of strategic-level environmental assessment processes have been cited as part of the reason why environmental values like water quality are not adequately protected from cumulative effects (Arts, Tomlinson, & Voogd, 2005; Canadian Council of the

Ministers of the Environment, 2009; Dubé, 2003; Johns & Sproule-Jones, 2009; Noble,

2003). Ideally, strategic-level processes enable assessments beyond the scales of single projects, such as river basins, to understand of the full range of human activities that can contribute to environmental change and cumulative effects (Dubé et al., 2006; Loucks & van

Beek, 2005; Munkittrick et al., 2000). In addition, strategic-level environmental assessment

(SEA) processes provide the policy framework for addressing questions of environmental governance (Creasey, 2002; Parkins, 2011). Environmental governance is about how and who makes decisions about the use, access, allocation, and desired sustainability goals for the biophysical environment (Boyle, James & Kay, 2001; Dorcey & McDaniels, 2001). A SEA 3 can provide an overall ‘blueprint’ that guides multiple scales of environmental management decisions including specific projects, as well as relevant policies, programs, and plans to operationalize sustainability goals (Arts et al., 2005; Bardecki, 1990; White & Noble, 2013).

Governments across Canada have recognized that to adequately address the problem of cumulative effects, SEA processes need to be developed (Canadian Council of the

Ministers of the Environment, 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Noble, 2005). In British Columbia

(BC) for example, policy initiatives like the Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) introduced in 2014 aims to “move away from sector-focused approaches” and “towards a more integrated form of resource management” by establishing a common set of measurable objectives for all sectors and integrating assessment information into existing business and decision-making processes (Government of British Columbia, 2014, p. 1). Section 43 of

BC’s relatively new Water Sustainability Act (WSA) may provide the mechanism for developing common resource objectives and linking this to decision-making across multiple sectors impacting water resources (Government of British Columbia, 2013).

Strategic environmental assessment processes are integrated policy strategies (Rayner

& Howlett, 2009b). These attempt to create goals and objectives that are shared across sectors, or across government and non-government agencies and institutions in order to achieve common, desired sustainability outcomes (Arts et al., 2005; Harriman & Noble, 2008;

Meijers & Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). Integrated policy strategies (IS) are highly risky ventures because to share common sustainability goals, they need to create linkages both horizontally across multiple agencies and authorities, and vertically from strategic-level policy to operational, on-the-ground management policies. Scale mismatches across scientific assessment scales and social organization scales can occur due to many factors such as institutional reorganizations or economic downturns, and prevent proper 4 implementation, create inconsistencies, disorganization, or worse, conflicts (McDaniels et al.,

2005; Meijers & Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). According to Rayner and Howlett

(2009b), to assess the likely outcomes of proposed IS, like BC’s CEF and the WSA, studies must ideally account for potential inconsistences in policy design as well as implementation over time. Unfortunately, with respect to cumulative effects management implemented through SEA frameworks, there are few examples, and those that have been attempted have not been sustained over time (Parkins, 2011), and therefore existing scholarship on this topic is limited.

One example however, developed for a particular environmental value, water quality, may provide some learning opportunities. This is BC’s Water Quality Objectives Policy

(WQO), implemented in the 1980s as part of the Province’s strategic water resources planning experiment (Dorcey, 1987b; O’Riordan, 1981). Strategic water resources planning was developed as a hierarchical process where overarching goals and objectives for water- related resources within regional planning units would guide decisions at finer spatial scales such as point source pollution, water allocation, and fisheries management plans (BC

Ministry of Environment, 1978; Dorcey, 1987b; Ministry of Environment, 1981; O’Riordan,

1981). To this day, WQOs remains a fundamental policy used by the Ministry of

Environment to protect water quality and manage activities that threaten water quality (BC

Ministry of Environment, 2001b, 2016b; Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b). More importantly, WQO policies have recently attracted heightened attention because Indigenous governments and scientists are viewing these as a potential tool to assess cumulative effects in an effort to protect water-related values in BC watersheds. For example, as part of the

Tsleil-Waututh Action Plan for the Burrard Inlet, an update to Water Quality Objectives developed in the 1990s is a key action item (Lilley, deKoning, Konovsky, & Doyle, 2016). 5

From a scientific perspective, the Canadian Water Network considered using BC’s approach that is underway in the Murray River watershed in northeast BC, as one of seven case studies across the country that could inform a regional frameworks to support decision making

(Canadian Water Network, 2016).

This research examines the linkages across scales of scientific assessment and scales of policies and decisions, for BC’s WQO over a 40-year time period. The purpose of this examination is to inform potential outcomes of SEA-type policy initiatives such as BC’s CEF and WSA which are attempting to address the problem of cumulative effects through strategic-level, integrated policy strategies. This study is particularly timely in BC where modern SEA-type policies are needed to find solutions to cumulative effects not only from a sustainability perspective, but also from a legal point of view. Here, Indigenous governments have successfully challenged resource use decisions made by provincial agencies for not adequately considering the cumulative effects on aboriginal rights within the Province’s duty to consult obligation (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Lindsay et al., 2002; Promislow, 2013).

1.2. What are Cumulative Effects (CE)?

The definition of cumulative effects is not without debate (Duinker, Burbidge,

Boardley, & Greig, 2013). However, for the purposes of this thesis, cumulative effects refers to the accumulation of changes to environmental systems over space and time in response to human actions (Spaling, 1994). While it is possible that environmental change may be confined to local spatial and temporal scales (Holling, 1978), cumulative effects (CE) are changes that stem from repeated single actions, or multiple actions that accumulate in unexpected synergistic, antagonistic, or additive ways resulting in unintended consequences that can permanently alter and compromise, ecosystem services for present and future 6 generations (Cocklin, 1993; Holling, 2001; Spaling, 1994). Cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) is recognized as an important environmental management tool that has as its ultimate purpose, the goal of avoiding unintended, detrimental, cumulative environmental effects. Cumulative effects assessments (CEA) must be guided by the timing, intensity and spatial scale of the activities of concern, relevant ecological processes, and episodic events intersecting with human activities to sustain ecosystem services (Munkittrick et al., 2000; Sidle & Hornbeck, 1991). This is the rationale for implementing CEAM at large spatial scales such as river basins (Dubé, 2003; Gunn & Noble, 2009).

Human disturbances to water quality have traditionally been categorized as either point or nonpoint sources of pollution (BC Ministry of Environment, 2001a). Point sources are clearly identifiable sources arising from activities such as the release of municipal or industrial effluents, or major development projects, and typically involve a limited number of actors (BC Ministry of Environment, 2001b; Gunningham & Sinclair, 2005). On the other hand, nonpoint sources of pollution originate from multiple diffuse sources occurring across large spatial areas and timeframes and are transported into lakes and streams by surface runoff, contamination or air, rainwater, or snowmelt. The actors responsible for nonpoint source pollution are typically difficult to identify.

The rules and institutions to assess and manage point sources of pollution, whether this is a local, direct discharge of effluent into the aquatic environment (Spencer, Bowman, &

Dubé, 2008), a specific land-based activity such as forest harvesting (Weber, Krogman, &

Antoniuk, 2012), or major development projects defined under environmental impact assessment laws (Bonnell and Storey 2000; Chilima, Blakely, Noble, & Patrick, 2017; Johns,

2002; Kristensen, Noble, & Patrick, 2013; Spaling et al. 2000) have evolved over the past few decades and have resulted in significant improvements to water quality and public health 7

(Gunningham & Sinclair, 1999, 2005). However, rules and institutions have not evolved to address these plus nonpoint sources (NPS), despite the fact that NPS accounts for the largest proportion of adverse effects to water quality (Holdstock, Hagarty, & Reid, 1996; Poole et al.,

2004; Rosenbaum, 2011; Sarker, Ross, & Shrestha, 2008; Schindler, 2001). This means that not only are cumulative effects not being addressed from a scientific perspective, but more importantly, there are no arenas to answer governance questions about public choices and how to balance social, economic, and environmental benefits derived from the environment

(Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011; Parkins, 2011).

1.3. How are cumulative effects to water quality currently managed?

Given the current water quality problems stemming from cumulative effects in

Canada, it may be surprising to learn that attempts to implement SEA-type policies such as integrated water resources management which are capable of assessing and managing cumulative effects is not a new idea (Dorcey, 1987; Heathcote, 1998; Odum, 1982;

O’Riordan, 1971; O’Riordan, 1986b; Ramin, 2004). For example, at the federal level, Part 1 of the Canada Water Act, introduced in 1970 contains enabling powers to conduct comprehensive water resource management plans through federal and provincial cooperation agreements (Booth & Quinn, 1995; Harrison, 1996; Ramin, 2004). This legislation resulted in two pilot studies of comprehensive river basin planning in BC including the Okanagan

River Basin Study and Lower Fraser River Estuary Study, both of which included scientific studies that assessed cumulative effects at relevant spatial and temporal scales (Dorcey, 1987;

Stockner & Northecote, 1974; Water Quality Work Group, 1979).

British Columbia however, found comprehensive planning to be expensive and administratively cumbersome, and responded by introducing its own form of regional, 8 strategic water resources planning (O’Riordan, 1981; Shrubsole, 1990). The Province undertook a more systematic approach which was enabled under the Province’s then new,

Environmental Management Act (Dorcey, 1987b; O’Riordan, 1981). This initiative lay the foundation for instituting the Ministry of Environment’s Water Quality Objectives (WQOs).

Water Quality Objectives are quantitative, science-based benchmarks for physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of water quality and are intended to protect current and future uses, including aquatic life, drinking water, agricultural or irrigation for a particular body of water (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, 2013a). Water Quality Objectives were designed to “serve as a guide for issuing permits, licenses, and orders by the Ministry of Environment and for the management of the Province’s land base” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p.

1). This policy remains active today and WQOs have been established for several of the

Province’s waterbodies including for example, the Fraser River, Columbia River, Peace

River, Nechako River, Thompson River, Bulkley River, large lakes in the Okanagan River

Basin, and many Community Watersheds on Vancouver Island and the Okanagan River

Basin to name a few (Government of British Columbia, n.d.).

1.4. Current Initiatives to Advance Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) and

Cumulative Effects Assessments (CEA)

The realities of observed negative consequences to environmental values and legal challenges with Indigenous governments is driving governments to explore opportunities to improve the assessment and management of cumulative effects (Government of British

Columbia, 2014; Johnson et al., 2011). As mentioned, BC’s Cumulative Effects Framework

(CEF) and sections of the WSA are examples of large-scale policy initiatives that have the potential to address the cumulative effects problem. The CEF policy sets out to achieve several goals including addressing recent court decisions to consider cumulative impacts to 9

Aboriginal and treaty rights when making decisions around resource use and allocation, and to improve consistency and efficiency in natural resource decision-making (Government of

British Columbia, 2014). The policy has identified water quality as an initial recommended for attention within the CEF. The WSA also has the potential to improve CEAM. The WSA’s

Water Objectives (Section 43) is representative of an integrated approach that specifically targets diffuse sources of pollution that occur on the land base, and provides flexible options for setting objectives to protect water quality, quantity, and aquatic ecosystem health

(Government of British Columbia, 2013).

1.5. Theoretical Perspective

This research is approached through the lens of the adaptive governance (AG) paradigm. Adaptive governance is sometimes referred to as ‘resilience-based governance’ because of its foundation in resilience theory and complex adaptive systems theory, both of which considers social and ecological systems as linked (Chaffin, Garmestani, Gosnell, &

Craig, 2016; Garmestani & Benson, 2013). Resilience is a term used to describe the ability of a social-ecological system (SES) to tolerate disturbances, while still maintaining its fundamental structures and functions so as not to undergo a regime shift to a new, stable and possibly less desirable state (Walker and Salt 2006). Resilience theory attempts to create (or maintain) conditions that will not reduce a system’s natural self-organizing capacity and ability to respond and adapt to disturbance.

The AG paradigm was chosen because of its attention to scale mismatches. The importance of selecting the relevant spatial and temporal scales have been of a topic of intense debate in the design of scientific assessment activities (Cash & Moser, 2000; Spaling

& Smit, 1993), and this is also true for water quality cumulative effects assessments (Dube & 10

Munkittrick, 2001; Munkittrick et al., 2000). However, over the past two decades, proponents of AG have recognized the influence that scale mismatches between biophysical and policy scales contribute to environmental degradation, over-exploitation of resources, and loss or reduced ecological resilience (Berkes, 2008; Berkes & Ross, 2016). Within the

CEAM literature, it is widely agreed that policy tools designed to manage single sources of environmental impacts are being used to attempt to resolve the problem of cumulative effects, and ironically this is resulting in cumulative effects going unchecked in Canadian watersheds and a crisis of freshwater ecosystem sustainability (Duinker & Greig, 2006; Gummer, Conly,

& Wrona, 2006; Schindler, 2001; Seitz, Westbrook, & Noble, 2011).

1.6. Research Question

It is widely agreed that to address cumulative effects to water quality requires strategic-level frameworks (Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment, 2009;

Creasey, 2002; Dubé, 2003; Noble, 2005). In BC, the Provincial Government is exploring large-scale policy solutions including the Cumulative Effects Framework and Section 43 of the WSA (Water Sustainability Act, 2014). Yet, there is limited scholarship investigating the potential challenges, including scale mismatches across assessment and policy scales, with implementing and sustaining, such large-scale, integrated strategic policy experiments over time (Noble, 2015; Rayner & Howlett, 2009b).

This thesis will examine linkages and potential mismatches between scales of assessments and scales of policies and decisions within BC’s WQOs, a policy developed as part of the Province’s strategic water resources planning designed in the 1980s.The purpose of this research is to inform the outcomes of BC policy experiments interested in advancing 11

SEA-type processes which can facilitate the assessment and management of cumulative effects. Two research questions are addressed in this study:

1. In what ways do BC’s WQO policies align with SEA-type processes?

2. How do BC’s WQO policies contribute to the assessment and management of

cumulative effects to water quality?

1.7. Primary Data Source and Methodology

Since 1985, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has approved 74 WQO reports (i.e., policy guidelines) for waterbodies ranging from small urban lakes (Phippen, 2012a) to the entire length of the Fraser River which is greater than 1,200 km (Swain et al., 1998; Swain,

Walton, & Obedkof, 1997). These reports serve as “policy guidelines for resource managers to use in protecting water users in specific waterbodies. For example, they can be used to prepare waste management permits and plans, regulate water use, or plan fisheries management plans” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p. 1).

For each WQO policy, a report is produced which describes the study design, the water quality problem being addressed, the results of a water quality assessment, the recommended water quality objectives for a particular body of water, and a map of the area of interest (Government of BC, n.d.; Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b). These reports are provided to the public on the Ministry of Environment’s website. They serve as the primary data source for this study. A comprehensive analysis of these reports, particularly with a focus on their role in CEAM has never been completed. Therefore, these reports serve as the primary data source, and to synthesize data across the 74 reports, a meta-analysis approach was determined to be the most appropriate methodology (Larsson, 1993). 12

1.8. Research Objectives

To answer the research questions, the following objectives were identified as part of this study:

1. Describe the relationship and relevant history of water quality protection and

management in the context of point source pollution prevention and Strategic

Environmental Assessment type processes (i.e., integrated water resources planning) at

provincial and federal levels.

2. Develop an analytical framework and a sampling strategy that can be used in the meta-

analysis to evaluate how Water Quality Objectives align with Strategic Environmental

Assessment type processes and contribute to the assessment and management of

cumulative effects to water quality in British Columbia.

3. Discuss the findings of BC’s past experience with Water Quality Objectives in the

context of advancing cumulative effects assessment and management for sustainable

water quality management through modern policy initiatives.

1.9. Thesis Structure

Acronyms and Terminology

A list of abbreviations and terms follows the Table of Contents.

Chapter 1

Chapter one is the introduction to this thesis. Here, the reader is introduced to the current challenges to sustainable water quality protection and cumulative effects management and recent suggestions by AG proponents that scale mismatches may be a contributing factor. This chapter highlights the research purpose, questions, theoretical framework and methodology.

Chapter 2 13

This chapter provides an overview of the adaptive governance theoretical framework and why it is meaningful lens for examining water quality protection and cumulative effects management.

Chapter 3

This chapter describes the historical approaches, by federal and provincial governments to protect water quality using traditional, point source approaches as well as strategic environmental assessment approaches. A dominant SEA-type of perspective adopted in Canada at the federal and provincial levels is integrated water resources planning and management.

Chapter 4

Chapter four provides a brief description of meta-analysis, the research methodology used for this research project. One of the key elements of a meta-synthesis is the analytical framework which consists of a list of variables and their definitions used to evaluate the population of studies. An overview of the analytical framework is also presented in chapter four.

Chapter 5

The results of the meta-analysis are organized into three main sections. First the key highlights of the results of classification of WQO reports through the meta-analysis. For the main and sub-categories, the answers to the 9 questions from the analytical framework are summarized. Observed scale mismatches within categories and across all case studies are described.

Chapter 6

In Chapter six, a discussion of the key findings and the potential use of these findings to address some of the major barriers to advancing from a point source approach towards a cumulative approach to water quality protection. The chapter ends with a discussion of some potential future research topics.

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework

2.1. Introduction and Chapter Objectives

As mentioned in Chapter one, a fundamental problem facing water quality protection is that the scale at which effects may be observed are not matched with relevant governance or management arrangements. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reasoning for selecting the adaptive governance (AG) paradigm as the theoretical framework to view this problem. The objectives are to describe the function of a theoretical paradigm in research, to introduce the AG, and discuss why it is helpful for studying the ongoing problem of cumulative effects.

2.2. Adaptive Governance as a Paradigm for Addressing Cumulative Effect?

Research paradigms guide how researchers make decisions as research is carried out

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The term paradigm originates from the Greek work paradeigma meaning pattern. A research paradigm can be thought of as a system of thinking and practice that defines the nature of enquiry along three dimensions: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Ontology and epistemology are important concepts in research because these, help both the researcher as well those engaging in the researcher’s work, understand how the researcher constructs reality in order to arrive at the conclusions that were reached. In turn, the paradigm frames the problem being examined, its relationship to the current state of knowledge, and the proposed solutions (Leshem & Trafford, 2007).

A research paradigm is also called a person’s worldview (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

A person’s worldview reflects underlying beliefs and values about the world we live and 15 work within, or have lived and working within, and the institutions we have studied within.

Thomas Kuhn (1962) describes a research paradigm as a conceptual framework shared by a community of scientists that provides a convenient model for examining problems and developing solutions. Many scholars have acknowledged that different disciplines are strongly influenced by particular research paradigms (Rescher, 2003). Adaptive governance, for example is a meta-theory that has evolved from resilience theory and complex adaptive systems thinking and is a dominant paradigm in the field of sustainability science

(Agrawal, 2001).

2.2.1. Researcher Positionality

The significance of authorship and the characteristics of the researcher in shaping a person’s worldview, and the interpretation of findings, have become increasingly important in social and cultural geography (Baxter & Eyles, 1997). Considering this information helps the researcher and those engaged in the work identify, and possibly rationalize, potential biases.

For the past four years, I have worked for the Ministry of Environment as the Water

Quality Science Specialist, responsible for overseeing the science and policy that supports

WQO development. In this position, I am acutely aware that although from a scientific perspective, WQO policies are useful for CEAM, the policies not applied beyond MOE decision-making scales regardless of the fact that as a whole, government has been moving towards integrated decision-making (Government of British Columbia, 2014). This discrepancy led me toward my interest in research focused on WQOs and cumulative effects management. One of the most challenging aspects of this research was to be aware of my position as the Water Quality Science Specialist, the assumptions I bring to the research, and 16 how this might affect decisions I make along the way (Baxter & Eyles, 1997; Ferreyra, 2006;

Leshem & Trafford, 2007). I also continually questioned whether someone could repeat the steps I undertook in this study and arrive at similar conclusions. I believe the answer is yes, someone else could repeat these steps and have a logical path to my conclusions, which are always debatable, but at least justifiable.

I approached this research through the adaptive governance paradigm. Adaptive governance (AG) is a form of environmental governance that emerged in response to examples of environmental problems that were not solved by command and control approaches (Scholz & Stiftel, 2005). It is heavily influenced by resilience theory which is in turn rooted in complex adaptive systems theory (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Holling,

2001). For me, the consequence of adopting this thinking is accepting the notion that aquatic ecosystems (which are SES) can tolerate some amount of change before reaching a tipping point, beyond which changes can be irreversible, as well as potentially costly for society. It is the function of resource management professionals to try and predict what amount of change can be tolerated by a system, and work towards maintaining systems below these thresholds.

I believe that ideally, WQOs serve as indicators of tolerable levels of change that particular systems can withstand in order to balance social, environmental and economic benefits derived from these systems.

Adaptive governance also recognizes that strategies cannot be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model. Instead, strategies should be based on the ecological characteristics of the resource, the rule and institutions that have evolved around that resource, and the characteristics of the users of the resource (Ostrom & Cox, 2010; Pahl-Wostl & Knieper, 2014). This is a critical point because water management in Canada, and in particular BC, may need strategies that differ from other resource values. For example, water governance in Canada has been 17 described as the most highly decentralized example from amongst developed countries (Hill,

Furlong, Bakker, & Cohen, 2008). While many scholars support a more decentralized approach to resource management because it is thought to produce more effective solutions

(O ’Riordan, 2004), this may not lead to better environmental outcomes for water resources since it is arguably already too decentralized and fragmented (Bakker & Cook, 2011).

2.3. An Introduction to Adaptive Governance

Adaptive governance is heavily influenced by resilience theory and complex systems theory (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Holling, 2001). Systems theory, introduced in the

1930s, is an approach to viewing the natural environment through relationships, connectedness and wholeness rather than through a reductionist perspective (Bertalanffy,

1972). The application of systems theory to natural systems demonstrated that previously held beliefs and assumptions that systems progressed towards climax, and equilibrium states were not founded (Holling & Meffe, 1996; Parrott & Lange, 2013). It is now widely accepted in the field of environmental management that natural systems are in continual states of transition, and the persistence of a dominant regime is dependent on the structure and function of critical relationships (Biggs et al., 2012; Campbell et al., 2009; Folke, 2003;

Scheffer & Carpenter, 2003; Taylor, Kremaster, & Ellis, 1997). Adaptive governance creates strategies that encourage conditions that will not reduce a system’s natural capacity to self- organize, adapt, and transform in response to disturbances.

2.3.1. Cumulative Effects and Scale Mismatches in Complex Adaptive Systems

The AG literature makes the point of highlighting the distinction between the terms scale and level (Gibson et al., 2000). Scale refers to the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or other analytical dimension used to measure and study objectives and processes. Level refers 18 to locations along a particular scale. For example, decision-making can be considered a scale concept that occurs at levels of authority (i.e., federal and provincial).

Cumulative effects can be conceptualized as emergent properties in complex adaptive systems (Heckbert, Adamowicz, Boxall, & Hanneman, 2010). Complex systems are systems within systems, and interactions between components at one level of spatial or temporal organization can interact in synergistic, additive or antagonistic ways giving rise to unexpected structures, processes or functions at other levels in the ecosystem (Holland, 1992;

Liu et al., 2007; Parrott & Lange, 2013). These are ‘emergent properties’ of complex systems.

The interactions between natural ecological processes and human disturbances are never predictable, and for this reason, scientists and resource managers recommend monitoring changes to environmental systems at multiple levels in order to understand how a system may be responding (Boyle James Kay, 2001; Kilgour, Dubé, Hedley, Portt, & Munkittrick,

2007).

In the past two decades, sustainability scientists have begun to explore issues of mismatches between the scales at which environmental effects and assessments are conducted, with scales of social organization (Berkes, 2008; Cash et al., 2006; Young, 2002).

Scale mismatches can arise due to poor policy designs, or these can evolve over time if there are disruptions to the social organization or new environmental problems such as climate change (Cumming et al., 2008). Scale mismatches can result in decisions made about the use and allocation of environmental resources based on scientific assessments conducted at the wrong spatial or temporal scale, or because of decision-making gaps in circumstances where institutions are not available at the relevant scale (McDaniels et al., 2005). 19

2.3.2. Resilience Theory

In North America, including BC, complex systems theory and resilience theory drastically altered how resource managers viewed environmental change in the context of resource use (BC Ministry of Environment, 2016a; Halbert, 1993; Parrott & Lange, 2013;

Taylor et al., 1997). Scientists questioned the wisdom of natural resource management strategies, which focused on achieving specific targets such as specific number of returns of fish population, maintaining forests in the exact same mature state, or in the case of water quality, achieving public health standards for drinking water (Sidle and Hornbeck 1991;

Poole et al. 2004). This thinking forced natural systems to become highly stable, which paradoxically led to systems becoming more vulnerable to stress (Holling & Meffe, 1996).

Resilience theory which focuses on the dynamics, change, and response to human activities, represented a paradigm shift. Rather than viewing natural systems as evolving towards a climax and equilibrium, resilience theorists saw systems as possessing characteristics of variability, diversity, continual change, adaption, and unpredictability as the norm (Chapin, 2009; Holling & Meffe, 1996; Parrott & Lange, 2013). The key to resilience is understanding the relationships and feedback mechanisms which allow a social-ecological system (SES) to adapt and transform in response to disturbances, while still maintaining basic structures and functions so as not to undergo a regime shift to a new, stable and possibly less desirable state (Walker & Salt, 2006). Resilience theory attempts to create conditions (or maintain conditions) that will not reduce a system’s natural self-organizing capacity and abilities to respond and adapt to varying degrees of disturbance. 20

2.3.3. Complex Adaptive Systems and Scale Mismatches

Understanding properties of complex adaptive systems (CAS) is important when considering social arrangements designed for cumulative effects assessments and management where the primary goal is to understand and manage the system’s capacity to sustain itself and continue providing ecosystem services following human disturbance

(Holling, 1978; Holling & Meffe, 1996; Scheffer & Carpenter, 2003). Two properties of

CAS, emergence and hierarchies are of particular interest with respect to scale mismatches in

CEAM. Cumulative effects can emerge from human activities interacting with ecological processes at spatial and temporal scales in social-ecological systems that are not predictable

(McLeay and Associates Ltd., 1987; Munkittrick et al., 2000). The unpredictable response of ecosystems to human activities is why scientists and resource managers recommend monitoring, assessing, and responses at multiple scales including sites of known impacts (i.e., point sources), and well as spatial and temporal scales beyond known impacts, in order to identify early warning signals of potential regime shifts (MacDonald, 2000; Scheffer et al.,

2009).

2.3.3.1. Functional and Structural Properties of CAS

All complex adaptive systems share common structural and functional properties

(Parrott & Lange, 2013). Complex adaptive systems are described as open systems meaning there is a continuous inflow and outflow of energy, information, and material across the system’s boundaries. The patterns of inflow and outflow however is non-linear, and therefore the response of a system is not directly proportional to the magnitude of the stimuli (Chapin,

2009). As well, the response of individual components of the system is not necessarily similar because components are not organized in a homogenous way. Rather, components 21 will have different histories and relationships relative to other similar components and therefore will respond uniquely to stimuli. These are the properties of heterogeneity and diversity (Chapin, 2009; Parrott & Lange, 2013).

The response of CAS to energy and material crossing system boundaries, diversity, and hierarchy can be described as functional properties; these include self-organization, emergence, uncertainty, and adaptation (Chapin, 2009; Parrott and Lange, 2013). These properties are dependent upon one another and are discussed with this in mind. Self- organization describes how systems contain relationships that can persist in space or time regardless of energy and matter crossing boundaries. It can be described as the inherent ability of open systems to create order from disorder. Self-organization is the property that is behind emergence. This is the unexpected occurrences of structures, processes or functions at a spatial or temporal scale that is a result of aggregate interactions at different scales. The property of emergence is why monitoring environmental change at multiple spatial and temporal scales in ecological systems is a priority activity. One environmental variable may show little or no change over time, but it is possible that the system suddenly flips to an alternate state that is very stable and potentially undesirable (Parrott and Lange 2013).

Multiple indicators may provide feedback that there are structural or functional relationships that are changing (Scheffer, Carpenter, Foley, Folke, & Walker, 2001).

2.4. Study Contributions to the Adaptive Governance Theory

Adaptive governance is described by Hatfield-Dodds (2007) as an “empirically based approach to understanding the evolution of institutional arrangements for the management and use of shared natural resources” (p. 5). Scale mismatches can have a number of negative consequences that can reduce resilience when decisions that affect social-ecological systems 22 are made with information that does not fit the problem, or when the institutions do not fit the problem. Investigations into scale mismatches like this study, can provide empirical evidence about how SES respond to disruptions which can in turn, be used to design strategies that support resilience (Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016; McDaniels et al., 2005;

Young, 2002). Testing scale mismatches through the AG lens may provide some explanations of why water quality continues to be managed from a point source perspective despite attempts by Federal and Provincial governments to design nonpoint source policy tools such as BC’s WQO and comprehensive planning in the Canada Water Act (Canada

Water Act, 1985).

Chapter 3 Literature Review

3.1. Chapter Objective

The objective of this chapter is to describe historically, approaches taken by federal and provincial governments to protect water quality through the traditional, point source approaches as well as more strategic environmental assessment (SEA) approaches. A dominant SEA-type of perspective adopted in Canada at the federal and provincial levels is integrated water resources planning and management (Hirji & Davis, 2009; Ramin, 2004).

The way in which federal and provincial policies have incorporated principles of integrated water resources planning and management are discussed.

3.2. Introduction

In the early part of the 19th century, water quality was primarily viewed as a public health issue and the provinces managed it this way at least until the mid-1960s (McPhee,

1978). In BC, for example the Pollution Control Act was the primary instrument preventing water quality pollution and it did so by placing limits on a selective set of industries (Dorcey,

1981; Kolankiewicz, 1981). However, beginning in the mid-1960s, serious water quality issues were emerging across the country (Ramin, 2004; Shrubsole, 1990). In BC, previously unseen algal blooms began appearing in iconic Okanagan Lake, and in the lower mainland the public became concerned about toxic chemicals, low salmon population returns, and rapid development in the Lower Fraser River Estuary (Benidickson, 2017; Dorcey, 1987;

Hoos & Packman, 1974). 24

In the decade between 1965 through 1975, water policy came to the forefront in the

Canadian political agenda and arguably, this set the direction for how water continues to be managed across Canada (Harrison, 1996; Muldoon & McClenaghan, 2007; Ramin, 2004).

Both federal and provincial governments recognized the short-comings of the available tools to prevent pollution from major industries and point sources, as well as the challenge of protecting water quality from diffuse sources of pollution (Benidickson, 2017; Johns &

Sproule-Jones, 2009; Ramin, 2004). Key policies developed at both federal and provincial levels during or shortly after this decade include, policies strengthening pollution control, the beginnings of environmental assessments, the establishment of Ministries of Environment, and aspects of integrated water resources management.

3.3. Pollution Prevention -Federal Level

3.3.1. Fisheries Act, Northern Inlands Waters Act, Arctic Water Pollution Prevention

The federal government was active in defining its role and desired responsibilities related to water management from 1965 through 1975. Canada did not even have a national statute dealing specifically with water resources until the Canada Water Act was passed in

1970. During that same year the federal government passed new laws that restricted the use and dumping of waste into water in northern regions of the country through the Northern

Inlands Waters Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Act. As well, pollution abatement clauses were incorporated into the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act (Harrison, 1996;

Ramin, 2004).

Federal water policies developed during the 1980s were heavily influenced by the

Pearce Federal Inquiry on Water (Pearse, Betrand, & McLaren, 1985). The objectives of the inquiry were to make recommendations on the federal government’s role in water resource 25 management beyond the traditional geographic and jurisdictional boundaries, and instead tackle problems of toxic substances and inter-basin transfers and exports (Ramin, 2004). The

Federal Water Policy was released in 1987 and contained recommendations for five key strategies for the federal government: water pricing, public awareness, scientific leadership, integrated planning and legislation (de Loë & Kreutzwiser, 2007; Ramin, 2004).

Notwithstanding these good intentions in statutes and national strategies, it is argued that federal policies have had a limited impact on reducing pollution with respect to point sources because this responsibility falls to provinces and territories through issuance of permits and authorizations (Muldoon & McClenaghan, 2007). Similarly, while integrated approaches have been adopted in principle at federal and provincial levels which could in theory bring a strategic lens to water quality protection, experience demonstrates that integration across agencies as well as components of water quality and quantity, have been slow and ad hoc (Ramin, 2004).

3.3.2. Environmental Impact Assessments

Legal frameworks that outline a framework for environmental impact assessments of major resource development projects exceeding a specific size or production capacity has taken the concept of point sources of water quality pollution to regional spatial scales (Dubé,

2003). Within these legal frameworks, cumulative effects that pertain to the project in question may be addressed. However, these statutes do not include provisions to explicitly consider the contribution of multiple, smaller sized projects or activities, or natural processes that may be interacting with impacts stemming from major projects (Gibson, 2012;

Munkittrick et al., 2000). With respect to issues of governance, there is not agreement that considering the broader range of impacts beyond major project scales should or even 26 practically could be a role or responsibility of project proponents (Hegmann and Yarranton

2011). Therefore, while EIAs have improved the mitigation of major project impacts to water quality, they have not provided a strategic framework for deciding on sustainability goals, how much development should proceed to achieve these, and influencing decisions beyond project decisions (Duinker & Greig, 2006; Harriman & Noble, 2008; Parkins, 2011).

The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry is significant to the evolution of Canadian environmental policy because it is the event that introduced cumulative effects as a unique and separate class of environmental concerns (Berger, 1978; Spaling & Smit, 1993). It also marks the first time that the social, environmental, and economic impacts of such a large- scale development project were assessed before the project began (Berger, 1978). From this point, cumulative effects assessment and management has been a central topic of debate in environmental impact assessments (Duinker et al., 2013; Duinker & Greig, 2006; Seitz et al.,

2011). However, cumulative effects assessments were not formally required in legislation until 1995 when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was introduced (McCoy,

2002). Since this time, the formal requirements have changed little in the Act but several supporting guidance reports have been published to support the practice by proponents conducting assessments and regulators responsible for defining the scope of the assessment in order to address cumulative effects (Gibson, 2012; McCoy, 2002; Whitelaw & McCarthy,

2016).

It was in 1984 that environmental assessments were formalized through a Guidelines

Order and the responsibility of the Federal government to conduct environmental impact assessment for any undertaking, activity or initiative for which it would have decision- making responsibility was clarified (Noble, 2003). These included regions in northern

Canada where the Federal government had entered into land claim agreements with First 27

Nations. The Federal Ministry of Environment also established the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Research Council (CEARC) in 1984 to advise government, industry and universities on how to improve the scientific, technical, and procedural basis of environmental impact assessment in Canada (Sonntag et al., 1987). The CEARC placed the practice of cumulative effects assessment as a high priority and what followed was a series of projects and policies that eventually resulted in significant contributions to the awareness and importance of CEA in environmental management (Duinker & Greig, 2006; Hegmann et al.,

1999). In 1992, Canada introduced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which came into force by 1995, this required that an environmental impact assessment to consider cumulative effects if they are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects. This feature remains unchanged in the revised Canadian Environmental Assessment

Act (Gibson, 2012).

A review of the environmental assessment process in 1999 by the federal Auditor

General resulted in a revised Cabinet Directive on strategic environmental assessment in order to strengthen its role in policy, plan and program decision-making (Dalal-Clayton &

Sadler, 2005). The revisions clarified the connection between SEA and sustainable development strategies. Shortly after this audit, attention turned to the need to support the development of frameworks to support regional CEA which is a key foundation to the assessment of cumulative effects. Regional frameworks1 were the at the top of the agenda on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency research and development priorities from

2000-2003, and 2006-7 and was a noted priority for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment (Harriman & Noble, 2008).

1 These could be considered strategic environmental assessment processes with a spatial focus. 28

Major revisions to the Canadian Environmental Assessment were approved by

Cabinet in 2012 with the objective to streamline the approval process, and these effects are still to be understood (Gibson 2012). The revised Act does not address strategic level undertakings and likewise, few believe that the special issue of cumulative effects has been improved (Gibson, 2012).

3.4. Pollution Prevention – Provincial Level

3.4.1. Pollution Control Act

Water quality was viewed essentially as a public health issue in BC until the Water

Act prohibited the introduction of wood waste into lakes, rivers, and streams in 1911

(McPhee, 1978). In 1956, the Pollution Control Act was introduced and became the primary mechanism used to regulate municipal waste, although it was mainly focused on the Fraser

River (McPhee, 1978, Dorcey, 1978). In 1967 a new Pollution Control Act established a

Pollution Control Board within the Ministry of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources which was responsible for regulating all waste discharges in the Province. However, during this time, water quality was protected by specifying the quality of effluent rather than the quality of the environment (Dorcey, 1978; O’Riordan, 1981).

3.4.2. Environmental Impact Assessments

British Columbia introduced its Environmental Assessment Act in 1995 (Haddock,

2010). Prior to this, environmental procedures were developed separately for different sectors. For example coal and metal mining development had different process guidelines before these merged in 1984 into the Mine Development Review Process (Rutherford, 2016).

Provisions to require proponents to prepare environmental impact assessments were also included in the1981 Environmental Management Act (Haddock, 2010). In 1990, the Mine 29

Development Assessment Act required new mines that were capable of producing more than

10,000 tons of ore per year to obtain a mine development certificate and the application had to contain an environmental management plan that was acceptable to both the Minister of

Energy and Mines and the Minister of the Environment. Also in 1990, the Province introduced a ‘Major Projects Review Process’ that at the time applied to two high profile projects, the Celgar pulp mill expansion and the proposed ferrochromium plant on

Vancouver Island (Haddock, 2010). Most of the requirements that were contained in the BC

Utilities Commission Act, the Environmental Management Act, and the Mines Development and Assessment Act were adopted into the Environmental Assessment Act (Haddock, 2010).

In 1995 when the Environmental Assessment Act came into force, the Province also introduced the established the Environmental Assessment Office within the Ministry of

Environment to oversee the administration of the Act (Haddock, 2010). Under the

Reviewable Project Regulation, certain types of activities were required to have an environmental impact assessment prepared by the proponent if the project exceeded a threshold based on size or production capacity.

3.5. Integrated Water Resources Planning – Federal Level

Integrated water resources planning and management can be considered as a type of

SEA process as it shares key concepts and characteristics including its focus on sustainability goals, multi-sector and multi-level decision-making, and collaborative governance (Hirji &

Davis, 2009).

As early as the 1960s, integrated water resources planning and management in

Canada was viewed as a potential solution to the problem of managing diffuse sources of pollution, which can now be described more actuarily as managing cumulative effects 30

(Dorcey, 1981; Bruce & Maasland, 1968). Following the enactment of the Water Resources

Planning Act in the US in 1965, Canadians looked internally to how water was being managed and commission the Federal Science Secretariat to put forward a water research strategy (Bruce & Maasland, 1968). From this point onward, principles of integrated water resources management were incorporated into federal water policies (Ramin, 2004). These principles are contained in the Canada Water Act. For example, the Act permits the federal government to undertake management plans for waters of national significance, and with respect to water quality protection, there are provisions to take unilateral action for issues of urgent national concern (Saunders & Wenig, 2007). Management planning was attempted but not sustained in BC’s Okanagan and Fraser Rivers, while water quality management plans have remained silent.

3.6. Integrated Water Resources Planning – Provincial Level

The British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment was established in 1975 through the

Ministry of Environment Act (Dorcey, 1987). Of significance in this Act was the articulation that the Ministry’s mandate to establish and maintain optimum environmental quality. Long- term planning approaches to water resources management was enabled under the new

Environmental Management Act passed in 1981 (O’Riordan, 1981; Dorcey, 1987a).

Together, these Acts represented a significant change in how the province managed water quality, from one of pollution control towards that of establishing the desired conditions in the ambient environment (Dorcey, 1987; O’Riordan, 1981). Prior to this, the Ministry was criticized for focusing on the quality of pollution and effluent through objective setting for specific sectors including Forest Products, Mining and Milling, Food Processing and

Miscellaneous Industries, and the disposal of Municipal Wastes rather than concentrating on environmental quality. 31

Major revisions to the Environmental Management Act occurred in 2003 (Ezekiel &

Everett, 2003). Added to the Act at this time was the option to develop area-based plans. This mechanism was used in 2013 when the Ministry of Environment ordered Teck Metals to develop an area-based water quality plan (Overduin & Moore, 2017). A planning mechanism was also included in revisions to the Water Act 2003. The Water Act has since been replaced by the Water Sustainability Act which includes two mechanisms for planning (Water

Sustainability Act, 2014).

Planning abilities provided in BC’s Environmental Management Act was in part a response to its experience with comprehensive river basin planning spear-headed by the

Federal government under its new Canada Water Act (Shrubsole, 1990). Comprehensive planning process was viewed as cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming and BC set out to develop its own strategic planning framework for water resources that would be used to ‘guide long-term policy and management of all the natural resources under its jurisdiction’

(O’Riordan, 1983, p. 86).

The MOE developed a strategic planning process that was described as a “systematic and orderly process to prioritize and implement resource management policies for each of the

Ministry’s major programs at a regional level” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1981, p. 19).

Under this process, the Province’s land base was divided into 40 strategic planning units based on major watersheds (Figure 1). The MOE’s existing seven regional administrative boundaries closely aligned with these ecosystem boundaries (BC Ministry of Environment,

1981). The intention was to develop strategic management plans for all 40 planning units which would identify resource management goals and objectives and identify priority areas for planning activities. The process also intended to integrate all the water and water-related resource issues including surface and groundwater supply, water quality, fisheries and marine 32 resources (BC Ministry of Environment, 1978, 1981). Objectives for water quality, water quantity, and fisheries resources represented quantitative benchmarks that could be used to determine if goals were being achieved and also to functioned as a performance measure of the Ministry (BC Ministry of Environment, 1981; O’Riordan, 1981). Objectives would also serve to inform and guide Ministry of Environment decisions at finer scales such as individual permits, local water allocation decisions, and fisheries management plans (Figure

2). Finally, strategic plans were envisioned to be incorporated into Provincial integrated land and resource plans which were a priority at the time.

According to Dorcey (1987a) only a few management plans were developed before the recession in the 1980s resulted in significant fiscal reductions to the MOE and to this planning process. Three known management plans include the Fraser Delta Environmental

Management Plan (BC Ministry of Environment, 1985), the Cowichan-Koksilah Water

Management Plan (BC Ministry of Environment and Parks, 1986), the Similkameen Strategic

Environmental Management Plan (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986c). Another goal of the regional management plans was to integrate water quality, water quantity and fisheries management, however integration was not realized possibly as a result of an economic recession that shifted resources away from planning (Dorcey, 1987a). Instead, the policy frameworks and institutional settings for water quality, water quantity, and fisheries management in British Columbia evolved relatively independently (Creighton, 1999;

Ruggeberg & Thompson, 1984). The water quality value continues to be managed within this original planning framework (Ministry of Environment 2016). While water quality is the focus of this research project, the history and relationships between water quality, quantity, and fisheries management frameworks in British Columbia is an area of requiring further 33 research given the overwhelming consensus that effective water management will require strategies to integrate these values (Heathcote 1998, Mitchell, 2015).

Figure 1. Strategic environmental planning units for strategic water resources planning in BC. From Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Fraser-Delta Area. Fraser River Sub-Basin From Kanaka Creek to the Mouth. Technical Appendix (p. 123), by L.G. Swain and G.B. Holmes, 1985, Victoria. BC Ministry of Environment.

The planning approach was operationalized through what was described as a two- tiered hierarchy process (Figure 2). A core set of uses were developed, a type of classification system to group waterbodies, and the scientific methodology to conduct the assessments and set objectives. Values, goals and objectives were identified through regional assessments (Creighton, 1999; Dorcey, 1987; O’Riordan, 1981). Social, environmental, and economic values were articulated as five designated uses including drinking water, 34 recreational water, supplies for irrigation and livestock watering, and aquatic life and wildlife

(BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). The classification system consisted of two groupings: waterbodies of exceptional value where no change from background levels was the goal, and all others. Goals for the all other waterbodies were either to describe a limited amount of change that would be tolerated while still protecting the designated uses or waterbodies that had already degraded and that would require efforts to improve existing conditions.

Quantitative scientific benchmarks called ‘water quality objectives’ were provided that served to measure if the overarching goals were being achieved for a specific waterbody (BC

Ministry of Environment, 1986b).

Objectives are described as the concentrations of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics (i.e., temperature, metals, and nutrients) of water, biota, or sediment that protect the most sensitive designated water uses (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b,

2013a). The objectives provide policy guidelines for resource managers to use in protecting water uses (i.e., values) in specific waterbodies. Objectives are based on information about the local conditions (e.g., temporal and spatial variability, streamflow, antagonism or synergism with other substances and environmental fate of substances) and water quality guidelines. Water quality guidelines are concentrations of a physical, chemical, or biological characteristic of water, biota, or sediment, applicable province-wide, which “must not be exceeded to prevent specified detrimental effects from occurring to a water use, including aquatic life, under specified environmental conditions” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p. 8). 35

Figure 2. WQOs were designed as part of a two-tiered strategic planning process. From “New Strategies for Water Resources Planning”, Canadian Water Resources Journal, 6(4), p. 22, by J. O’Riordan, 1981,. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20.

3.7. Strategic Environmental Assessment

In the previous section, a strategic approach to water management has been described.

Yet, research demonstrates that strategic approaches are not being used to solve existing problems with water resources in BC (Kristensen, Noble & Patrick, 2013; Ramin, 2004).

Governments appear to agree and are exploring options for developing strategic-level policy that can address the problem of cumulative (Government of BC, 2013, 2014). This contradiction is what fueled the research question, are WQOs a SEA-type of process? If so, how does this policy contribute to cumulative effects assessment and management? 36

Recall that SEAs are described as an environmental planning tool that improves sustainability outcomes because environmental considerations are incorporated at strategic levels of polices and legislation, strategies, plans, programs, and of course individual projects

(Partidario & Fischer, 2004). Strategic environmental assessments are considered to be the preferred approach for addressing cumulative effects because it provides a future-focused, goal-oriented plan for environmental outcomes, and theoretically, it serves as the ‘north star’ for on-going decisions that are in keeping with this plan (Arts et al., 2005; Bardecki, 1990;

Noble, 2005). According to Tetlow and Hansch (2012), the notion of integrating environmental concerns into higher level decision processes was first established in the US

National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, and since this time has been associated with

EIA in both the US and Canadian environmental impact assessment policies and legislation

(White & Noble, 2013). Many authors report that SEA is not limited to EIAs, and can be applied to a geographical area, a particular sector (e.g., oil and gas activities, forestry, transportation), or a specific issue (e.g., climate change), or program area such as water management (Arts et al., 2005; Partidario & Fischer, 2004; Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012).

Although the idea that water planning is a type of SEA process (Hirji & Davis, 2009;

Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012), there have been few systematic investigations of this relationship.

Yet, the integrated approach to managing water resources including water quality possess the key characteristics described for SEA processes including the ability to address cumulative effects (Heathcote, 1998; Ramin, 2004; Stinchcombe & Gibson, 2001), adopting a system’s perspective (Gunn & Noble, 2011; Hooper, Mcdonald, & Mitchell, 1999; Ramin, 2004), and the notion that decisions at strategic levels need to trickle down to on-going decisions that have the potential to influence sustainability goals (Arts et al., 2005; Gunn & Noble, 2011). 37

3.7.1. Cumulative Effects Framework and the Water Sustainability Act

British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework and Water Objectives in Section

43 of the Water Sustainability Act are examples of SEA-type processes which will attempt to promote sustainability goals. In particular, both initiatives have identified the need to develop

‘common’ resource management objectives as a means of improving integrated resource management and decision-making, as well as improved outcomes for the environmental values and address the Province’s duty to consult obligation with Indigenous peoples

(Government of British Columbia, 2013, 2014). The development of common objectives raises questions about how these will affect existing resource management objectives such as

WQO. For example, will existing objectives be adopted as ‘common’ objectives across agencies? If so, which ones and what types of policies will need to be reformed or replaces so that agencies incorporate objectives into decision-making in regulations or resource plans?

3.7.2. Background to CEF and WSA

In 2014, the BC Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the BC Ministry of Forests,

Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) together, developed a Cumulative Effects and Management Framework (CEF) (Government of BC 2014). The CEF identifies two main elements: ‘core elements’ address the scientific and technical aspects of cumulative effects assessment whereas ‘enabling elements’ deal with organizational and policy requirements.

Intersecting the science and policy elements is the desire to develop common resource objectives for a core set of valued components. Aquatic ecosystems have been identified as one of these core values.

Section 43 of the Water Sustainability Act provides Government with the authority to establish objectives for water quality and water quantity to protect aquatic ecosystems (Water 38

Sustainability Act, 2014). A key feature of section 43 is that once objectives are developed, they must be considered by a wide range of statutory decision makers whose decisions have the potential to impact aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, while the CEF provides broad policy direction for common objectives and integrated decision-making, the WSA can be the mechanism to put this vision into action.

3.7.3. SEA Processes Are Integrated Policy Strategies

The Provincial CEF policy and the WSA can be viewed as what public policy theorists call integrated policy strategies (Meijers & Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009b).

These are efforts at policy reform where governments attempt to replace elements of existing policy mixes, for example those designed to manage forests or water, with common goals and objectives that will address the shortcomings of operating in ‘silos.’ Integrated strategies

(IS) have become an active area in integrated resource management as governments strive to address the cumulative impacts of multiple human activities and how these threaten environmental sustainability (Rayner & Howlett, 2009b).

A risk of integrated policy strategies is that reform efforts are not fully considered or completed from the macro-level (i.e., strategic-level sustainability goals) down to program and operational levels (i.e., controlling specific activities to align with goals). For example, integrating common resource objectives into existing program areas that may have evolved independently often over long-time periods, perhaps with existing objectives, is likely to present problems of vertical integration between various levels of government, as well as horizontal integration between agencies that have traditionally managed resources (e.g., forests, water, fisheries) independently (Hooghe & Marks, 2003). With respect to integrated land use planning in BC, research suggests that new goals and instruments were layered on 39 top of existing ones, rather than replacement, resulting in incongruent policy goals and instruments and sub-optimal policy outcomes (Thielmann & Tollefson, 2009).

3.7.4. Gaps in Knowledge about Implementing SEA Strategies

Strategic environmental assessment processes are widely accepted as the preferred framework in which cumulative effects could be addressed (Dubé, 2003; Bram Noble, 2005;

Stinchcombe & Gibson, 2001). In BC, the Provincial government is developing a large-scale policy initiative to respond to these recommendations and to address concerns from

Indigenous governments that cumulative effects are impacting treaty rights and the duty to consult (Government of BC, 2014; Promislow, 2011). Yet, there have been only a handful of documented SEA frameworks attempted in Canada (Harriman & Noble, 2008) and according to Parkins (2011), these have been “short-term bursts of activity and short-lived organizational commitments” (p. 20). Research is needed to understand how to ensure long- term viability of SEA processes that are so critical for beginning to address how to assess and manage cumulative effects (Noble, 2015). This research, which investigates BC’s WQOs, a policy that is described in MOE reports as having characteristics that appear to be consistent with SEA-type process, may provide some learnings about how to sustain these large-scale initiatives.

Chapter 4 Methodology and Methods

4.1. Chapter Objectives

The objective of this chapter is to describe the research methodology and methods. It is divided into two sections. The first section provides a background to the history and evolution of the meta-analysis methodology, and in particular the model-centric approach.

This is followed by a discussion of how this methodology was applied to this research project using BC’s WQO policies as the primary data source.

4.2. An Introduction to the Meta-Analysis Methodology

4.2.1. Introduction

In the last decade, there has been increased interest in using meta-analytical approaches for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental policy instruments intended on achieving sustainability goals and objectives (Barth & Thomas,

2012; Littell, Corcoran, & Pillai, 2008; Rudel, 2008). Meta-analysis is a rigorous, systematic approach to synthesizing information from seemingly disparate data sets, it can identify new trends and patterns that are not obvious when viewing data sets in isolation (Cox, 2014). The results can produce knowledge and conceptualizations that lead to new interpretations and perspectives for understanding environmental problems and environmental policies

(Carpenter et al., 2009; Newig & Fritsch, 2009). This methodology is also beneficial because it can provide a structure to a topic where none is currently present, thus creating information in a digestible format for the broader research community to guide future research in a particular topic area (Engel & Schutt, 2009; Rudel, 2008). 41

A challenge encountered by the researcher using the meta-analysis approach is the inconsistent terminology used across different disciplines using this methodology (Barth &

Thomas, 2012). For this research project, I have followed the terminology as well as protocols provided by Sandelowski & Barroso (2007) as this resource affords a well-utilized handbook that has been followed by many skilled researchers (Ludvigsen et al., 2016).

4.2.2. Terminology for Meta-Analyses

Following Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), this research adopts the term ‘meta- analysis’ as the term used to describe the systematic methodology of investigating patterns across studies, whereas meta-summaries and meta-syntheses represent descriptions of the degree of data transformation (i.e., the analysis) within this broader methodology.

The meta-analysis methodology makes a distinction between a ‘case’ from a ‘study’

(not to be confused with ‘case study methodology’). A case is a social-ecological system which consists of the governance arrangements (individuals and institutions, the rules, behaviours, and norms that are involved with making, influencing, or implementing decisions) and the ecosystem being influenced. A study on the other hand, refers to the published work (e.g., the WQO reports) that describes the case. A study may describe one or more cases, or there may be several studies produced for a single case. Therefore, cases represent the population of SES, while studies are the unit from which data can be collected.

For this thesis, a case is represented by a waterbody where the Ministry of

Environment has established WQOs. Water Quality Objectives are ‘rules’ established by an institution (i.e., MOE) for a body of water. Whereas, the WQO reports, which contain information about the uses and users of the waterbody, the water quality assessment, and science-based objectives, are the studies. 42

4.2.3. History

The meta-analysis approach was first used by medical scientists to synthesize quantitative data related to public health interventions in the 1970s to assess the effectiveness of new techniques (Littell et al., 2008; Yin & Heald, 1975). Methods for combining data from quantitative studies generally require that investigators use similar methods to collect data on the same variables (Rudel, 2008). Data from different studies are then pooled and statistical analysis is conducted on the pooled data. Techniques evolved to synthesize qualitative information. Gene Glass is credited with first formulating the concept of a qualitative meta-analysis in a 1976 to carry out a public education policy analysis for the

American Education Research Association (Littell et al., 2008), and since this time researchers have devised methods to integrate quantitative and qualitative information

(Figure 3). Glass combined qualitative data from a relatively small number of studies that used case study methodology to conduct analyses and produce integrated findings on a specific topic. Constant comparative analysis is good when there are just a few published studies to review, but this method cannot be used when the goal is to gather information from large numbers of case studies.

Figure 3. Barth and Thomas’s concept of meta-analyses classifications into qualitative and quantitative inputs and outputs. From M. Barth & I. Thomas, (2012). Synthesising case-study research – ready for the next step? Environmental Education Research., p. 25. http://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.665849.

4.2.4. The Model-Centered Approach to Meta-Analysis

Using the same principles, researchers develop methods to aggregate information from large numbers of published studies on the same topic, but where both the variables and the methods to collect the data differed from study to study (Cox, 2014; Rudel, 2008). To compare between studies, the analyst carries out model centered rather than data centered analyses. In this procedure, the analyst begins with a model that explains the phenomena of interest. Models are representations of critical variables that are responsible for a phenomenon of interest in a particular context; they make assumptions about a limited set of parameters (Ostrom, 2011). 44

4.2.5. Main Steps in the Meta-Analytical Approach

There are generalized steps that are typical amongst users of the meta-analysis methodology (Larsson, 1993; Rudel, 2008; Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). These steps result an analytical framework, which is a set of questions and pre-defined answers that serve as a yardstick to assess and evaluate information gathered from the sample population. The steps in the meta-analysis include: defining the phenomena of interest and the critical variables that will form the model, identifying the population of interest, delineating the temporal and spatial boundaries (the when), and the determining the method for collecting and analyzing the data.

4.2.6. The Phenomena of Interest and Critical Variables

The first step in a model-centric approach to meta-analyses is to have a clear definition of the research phenomena of interest, and a model represented by critical variables that are hypothesized (or known) to be responsible for this phenomenon

(Rudel, 2008).

The phenomena of interest for this study are the potential scale mismatches across scientific assessment scales and scales of organization. The model, which is a representation of the critical variables, can either be brought into the research from previous studies or the researcher may need to identify and define the variables as part of the research process

(Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). These variables generally take the form of a set of questions and pre-determined answer which form a sort of checklist; this is the analytical framework

(Lucas, 1974). The questions are then used to glean and compare and contrast answers from published studies describing cases that form the sample population. 45

4.2.7. Developing a Sampling Strategy

Determining the population of interest can be one of the most time-consuming aspects of conducting a meta-analysis (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). All case study literature, including grey and academic sources (e.g., government reports, journal articles, scientific studies) can be considered as the population of interest. These sources represent a non-random sample of observations of phenomena (Lucas, 1974). Therefore, the researcher will require a strategy to define the population of interest as well as the boundaries of the population of cases that could potentially be included in the meta-analysis.

There are three sources of bias to consider when determining case studies to include in a meta-analysis: temporal coverage, spatial coverage, and policy phases. Autocorrelation is a phenomenon where the values of the same variable are somehow correlated due to external dependencies. The problem with drawing the sample population from case studies is that it is possible to have a disproportionate number of published studies on a single case. This is common in policy studies where a policy piqued the interest of researchers because it was novel or viewed in a positive light. This could lead to biases for example, in regional coverage, temporal coverage, and within project policy phases such as when large numbers of studies are conducted in the early policy phases. Avoiding this requires the researcher to carefully consider if the populations sampled are independent or not, and how this can be addressed.

4.2.8. Data Collection and Analysis, Coding Case Studies

The end result of a qualitative meta-analysis can range from a meta-summary to a meta-synthesis depending on the degree of transformation of the data performed by the researcher (Figure 4). Meta-summaries represent the least degree of data transformation and 46 can simply be a count of the number of cases that are grouped into a topic. The frequency of topics reflects a quantitative logic to claim the discovery of a trend or pattern (Sandelowski

& Barroso, 2007). The meta-summaries can be the final product of a meta-analysis or the analyst may take the interpretation a step further and conduct a meta-synthesis; these offer novel interpretations of the findings that are the result of interpretive transformations of the data. This degree of transformation required in a meta-synthesis can produce results that are substantially different from the original data (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007).

Figure 4. The range of data transformation in a meta-analysis. Adapted from Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research (p. 163), by M. Sandelowski and J. Barroso, 2007, New York. Copyright: Springer.

In the meta-summary phase, content analysis is used to group studies into the broadest categories. Neuendorf (2002) describes content analysis as the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics. The technique is conducted within the scientific method and provides one way of systematically quantifying human production of messages. Meta-summaries may be problematic for the researcher interested in more refined comparisons between cases because it can obscure their differences. Rudel (2008) calls this the ‘least common denominator’ problem, where the analyst has been able to synthesize patterns across the population, but nuances of cases are lost. To correct for this, the researcher proceeds with an iterative process of creating new variables and recoding cases within the broad categories to identify unique themes. This procedure begins to resemble the 47

‘constant comparative analysis’ method that was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) when the number of studies or cases was small. The meta-summary provides the most coarse-grained analysis while the meta-synthesis will be more refined (for example, see

Figure 5).

The computer software, Nvivo (Version 10) for qualitative data analysis was used to store the WQO reports, perform content analysis and identify emergent variables and patterns.

Information on WQOs were also recorded in Microsoft Excel in order to quantify the classification of reports by categories, new variables, themes, and reports by year.

4.3. The Application of the Meta-Analysis Approach to this Research Project

4.3.1. Rationale for a Meta-Analysis

Selecting a model-centric meta-analysis for evaluating WQO policies is logical for two reasons. First, the phenomena of interest are cases of WQO policies which consists of 71 cases (represented by 74 WQO reports), and a meta-analysis is designed to handle large data sets. Second, there has been no formal evaluation of this policy despite the fact that it has been used to guide decisions in numerous lakes and rivers across the Province (Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b), and a meta-analysis can provide a structure to this topic area. where none exists.

Carpenter et al. (2009), state that a meta-analysis can take stock of what is known, can make vast amounts of information available to the broader research and policy community, and provide a path forward for future critical research questions, in-depth and comparative analyses. The model-centric approach in particular is capable of bridging data sets when the sample population is large (Cox, 2014; Rudel, 2008). Therefore, the meta- 48 analysis approach is helpful as it provides a way of aggregating a large body of knowledge into a structure that can then begin to be analyzed.

4.3.2. Defining the Phenomena of Interest and Critical Variables

Recall that the phenomena of interest for this study are potential mismatches across scales of scientific assessment and scales of policies and decisions for BC’s WQO policies.

For this research, the critical variables were adopted from the literature; primarily from a typology of CEAM approaches developed by Harriman & Noble (2008). These authors make the observation, that “many of the disappointments with EIA-based approaches to CEA are not the result of EIA-driven CEA per se, but rather the result of mismatched CEA frameworks and expectations” (Harriman & Noble, 2008, p. 46). Harriman and Noble identify 12 characteristics of CEAM which they term “aspects” that take on different forms and functions depending on whether the context is an EIA or a SEA process (p. 31).

Understanding these characteristics and how they will take on unique forms and functions depending on the decision-making context, can help reduce mismatches that may arise, and therefore improve the effectiveness of the assessment. For the purposes of this research study,

I adapted Harriman and Noble’s 12 aspects into nine questions, and developed pre- determined answers based on whether the assessment was conducted for an EIA or a SEA process. This set of questions and answers serve as the analytical framework used to obtain information from WQO assessment reports (Table 1). 49

Table 1. The analytical framework used to classify water quality objective reports

1. What purpose The purpose of the assessment The purpose of the assessment The purpose is to describe the The purpose is to describe the does the is to determine the likely is to determine the likely future state of the value of desired, future end-state of the VEC assessment potential environmental potential environmental effects concern and develop a sector- of concern and to ensure future land serve? effects (i.e., predicted) of new (i.e., predicted) of new based environmental and resource use are consistent with physical infrastructure for a physical infrastructure for development strategy. future vision. single project in order for multiple projects in order for

project initiation, approval, or project initiation, approval, or compliance. compliance.

2. What are the The goals are to avoid, reduce The goals are to avoid, reduce The goals are typically The goals are typically desired goals of or mitigate project impacts. or mitigate project impacts. sustainability goals. sustainability goals. the assessment?

3. How are the VECs that are predicted to be VECs that are predicted to be VECs that are predicted to be Ideally, there is a minimum VECs chosen? affected by the direct and affected by the direct and affected by the direct and core set of values that are assessed indirect project impacts are indirect impacts of multiple indirect impacts from sector in any CEA. VECs are the focal screened into the CEA. projects are screened into the activity are screened into the point and the broad range of CEA. CEA. stressors (known / unknown, human-induced, naturally occurring) that may affect the VEC are considered.

4. What body or Single Proponent- In EIA Single or many proponents Single industry sector, or Regional planning or administrative organization is approaches, proponents are working together. government agency regulating authority or governing body. responsible for clearly responsible for sector. For multi-project assessments, leading the demonstrating that project the questions are broader and assessment? impacts will be adequately begin to relate to ecological managed. thresholds and interactive effects. Problematic because information sharing may be left to “goodwill” in the absence of formal agreements.

5. What types of The objectives are to predict The objectives are to predict The objectives are measures of The objectives are measures of the 50

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Approach Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Processes Questions to Apply to WQOs (Single Project) (Multiple Projects) (Sector-based Strategy) (Regional Planning) measurable the likely impacts of the the likely impacts of the the state of the value of state of the value of concern; they objectives are project stressors on project stressors on concern; they are typically are assessed at an ecosystem-based identified to meet environmental components; environmental components; assessed at an administrative scale. specified goals? they are tied to the project’s they are tied to the spatial or scale). State of the environment objectives spatial or temporal temporal boundaries of the May begin to meet levels of at regional scales. boundaries. multiple projects. acceptable change in the Project specific objectives that Begin to depend, in part, on regional environment and sector are designed to prevent effects meeting levels of acceptable specific objectives related to beyond the projects spatial or change in the regional stressor activities. temporal footprint. These are environment. not “objective” focused.

6. What types of The CEA informs decisions CEA may inform project The evaluation is relative to CEA is used to inform the types of decisions does the related to technical project design, spatial or temporal objectives for a specific sector. land use and development activities assessment design (i.e., treatment configuration of projects. The The CEA is used to inform the that are consistent with regional inform? technology, location of links between CEA future, downstream, project- environmental goals and objectives. infrastructure). There is a information and the ability to based decisions within the Taking action to address the clear line of responsibility take action to avoid CE is sector. The CEA is focused on information in the CEA becomes between CEA information and weak. sector impacts and generally challenging because there is limited the ability to take action to there is an authority to take institutional capacity to support achieve goals of CEA (i.e., action to reduce, mitigate sector integrated decision-making. mitigation, reduce impacts) impacts at regional scales.

7. What triggered Initiated because of regulatory Initiated because of regulatory Evaluates the potential effects This becomes more similar to the assessment? policies, to initiate the project policies. Spatial and temporal of proposed and sector-based proactive regional planning that is or have the project approved. scales of assessment are initiatives and alternative in focused on evaluating strategic Focuses on the direct, indirect, expanded beyond single combination with impacts from planning or development scenarios and cumulative impact on and projects to include each previous, existing, and future and modeling the overall interactions with selected additional project within a activities of a similar type in cumulative impacts. environmental components region. The impacts resulting order to identify a preferred resulting from the actions of a from multiple disturbances sector-based environmental single project. over time and space are development strategy. While assessed. this type is somewhat restrictive in that it tends to deal with a single sector, it can be proactive in the planning perspective and 51

8. How is the True baseline conditions are True baseline conditions are True baseline conditions are not Baseline refers to the conditions at a baseline defined? not normally quantified. not normally quantified. normally quantified. Existing site that are expected when it is free Existing conditions of the Existing conditions of the conditions of the system is of the contaminants or stressors that system is quantified and system is quantified and quantified and usually based on are being investigated this takes usually based on short time usually based on short time short time periods (1-2 years). spatial and temporal dimensions periods (1-2 years). periods (1-2 years). into account.

9. Is post- Informs the need for Informs the need for Regional post-assessment Regional post-assessment assessment adjustments to mitigation adjustments to mitigation monitoring conducted to monitoring conducted to determine monitoring a strategies in permits. strategies in permits. determine if sector is achieving if objectives are being met and component of the its objectives. informs future project approval assessment? decisions.

4.3.3. Defining the Population of Interest

This research is focused specifically on potential mismatches across scales of assessment and scales of organization for one policy, the Ministry of Environment’s Water Quality

Objective (WQO), and how this policy has contributed to the assessment and management of cumulative effects to water quality in BC over its more than 40-year history (Figure 5).

Waterbody of Assessment & Public Products Interest Objectives

•Waterbody is •Determine •ASSESSMENT Identified for Goals REPORTS ON the •Create Maps MOE WEBSITE development •Monitor & •Location of of WQO assess Waterbody in DataBC •Set Objectives

Figure 5. The WQO development process and primary data for this study.

There is an obvious process in place that makes it easy to identify the population of interest. Each time a policy for WQO is approved, a report is produced and this is published on the MOE’s website, a total of 74 reports representing policy for waterbodies across BC have been approved since 1985 (Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b). The waterbodies where the

WQO have been developed, is also recorded in the Province’s corporate database which can be accessed through GIS tools like imapBC (Government of BC, n.d.). An example of map of

WQOs in the MOE’s Okanagan Region obtained through imapBC output is provided in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Red lines represent waterbodies where WQO have been established in the MOE’s administrative area, Okanagan Region (Courtesy of Theodore Back).

All 71 cases (represented by 74 reports) of WQOs were included in the meta-analysis; this eliminated the potential for bias associated with sampling a subpopulation. In a small number of cases, reports for a waterbody where WQO were approved was updated, these were not counted twice but were considered as two ‘studies’ published for one ‘case.’

4.3.4. Triangulation

Triangulation in the social sciences is described as the mixing of data sources or methods so that diverse viewpoints on a topic or opinion can be considered to establish validity (Olsen,

2004). This can help to validate data claims (Denzin, 1970). Snowballing (also called chain- referral sampling) is a non-random sampling technique where existing study subjects are used to identify and recruit future human subjects and acquaintances for interviews (Engel & Schutt,

2009). This type of approach was used in this study to determine what studies beyond the WQO could be included in the analysis.

4.3.5. Findings: The Meta-Summary and Meta-Synthesis

As mentioned, the degree of data transformation in a meta-analysis ranges from a meta- summary to a meta-synthesis (Figure 4). To answer questions in the analytical framework, content analysis was used to find answers within each of the WQO reports and group each study as an assessment within an EIA or a SEA type process (Figure 7). During the coding process used to classify case studies, new variables also emerged within the sub-categories. The technique of constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to systematically code these emergent variables.

Apply questions in analytical framework to Sample Population of Cases the population of (74 WQO Reports) interest

Meta-summary: use EIA Process SEA Process content analysis to (a) Single (a) Regional group cases into main (b) Multiple (b) Sector-Based and sub-categories

Meta-synthesis: use Emergent Emergent constant comparative Variables within Variables within analysis to identify (a) or (b) (a) or (b) emergent variables

Novel Interpretations?

Figure 7. The degree of data transformation used in this study includes both meta-summaries and meta-synthesis.

Chapter 5 Results

5.1. Chapter Objectives

The results of the meta-analysis classified all 71 WQO cases represented by 74 reports as

SEA-type process (Table 2). Within the SEA category, eight reports were classified into the sub- category, regional planning initiatives and 66 reports were classified into the sub-category, sector-based planning strategies. The objectives of this chapter are to (a) provide a highlight of the key findings based on answers to the nine questions from the analytical framework across the

74 reports (b) to summarize answers to the nine questions, emergent variables identified through constant comparative analysis, and observed mismatches between scales of assessment, policies and decision-making. The last section of this chapter provides an interpretation of patterns across all case studies. Here two themes emerged (a) the difficulty in maintaining a ‘strategic’ lens to

WQOs and (b) the ongoing development of WQO policies over time, despite observed scale mismatches. Appendices A, B, C, D and E, provide the lists of the WQO reports grouped according to emergent variables identified through the analysis.

5.2. Summary of Key Findings

5.2.1. Classifying WQO Reports and Identifying Emergent, New Variables

Recall, the most basic step in a meta-analysis is the meta-summary; this is where the studies are classified through content analysis into the main, pre-defined categories that make up the analytical framework. The two main pre-defined categories in the analytical framework are environmental impact assessments (EIA) processes and strategic environmental assessment

(SEA) processes (see Table 1 in Chapter 4). For all 74 WQO reports, answers to questions 1-4

(What purpose does the assessment serve? What are the goals of the assessment? How are the

VECs chosen? What body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment?), resulted in the report (i.e., the policy for a specific waterbody) being grouped within the SEA-type category as either a regional planning or sector-based planning strategy (Table 2). There was no evidence that any of the WQOs case studies were completed in order to obtain project approval through an

EIA process such as the BC Environmental Assessment Act, nor were any of the assessments led by a project proponent.

Table 2. Results of classifying reports into pre-defined categories contained in the analytical framework

Main Category Sub-Categories Emergent Variables n of 74 Reports Single Projects Not Applicable 0 EIA Processes Multiple Projects Not Applicable 0 Okanagan Basin Study 3* Regional Planning Fraser River Estuary Study 2 Fraser River Action Plan 3 Major Projects 9 SEA Processes Regulating Waste for Smaller 26** Sector-Based Planning Authorizations Strategy Conflicts and Emerging Issues 22 Stewardship 9 Total Number of Reports 74 Total Number of Cases 71 * Includes updates to WQO for Okanagan Lake (Nordin, 2005) and Osoyoos Lake (Jensen et al., 2012). ** Includes the update to WQOs for the Cowichan and Koksilah Rivers (Obee, 2011).

New variables within the pre-defined categories emerged through constant comparative analysis (Table 2). Within the SEA planning category, WQOs were completed for the Fraser

River Estuary Study, the Okanagan Basin Study, and the Fraser River Action Plan. Within the sector-based planning strategy category, case studies were defined further into major projects,

58 regulating waste for smaller authorizations, conflicts and emerging contaminant issues, and stewardship (Table 2; Figure 8). These themes are not mutually exclusive, for example, a WQO driven by a future major development project such as the Site C dam may also include in the assessment, impacts to water quality from smaller authorizations. However, I classified WQOs according to what I interpreted as the main driver (i.e., major project).

Stewardship 12%

Conflicts or Emerging Issues Conflicts or Emerging Issues 30% Major Projects Regional Planning Regulating Waste Regulating Waste 35% Stewardship Major Projects 12%

Regional Planning 11%

Figure 8. WQOs support regional planning initiatives, provides environmental benchmarks for environmental quality, and guides decisions to regulate waste.

5.2.2. Novel Impetrations: Loss of the ‘Strategic’ Lens and Persistent Development over

Time

Although conducting the meta-synthesis step in a meta-analysis is incredibly time consuming, the outcome of this degree of data transformation is the discovery of novel patterns and trends that may otherwise go unnoticed if case studies are examined individually or even through comparisons (Larsson, 1993). Two patterns that emerged from this analysis that may not

59 have been obvious without a synthesis across the full population of case studies. First, although

WQOs were intended as a policy tool that ‘operationalized’ strategic-level planning (BC

Ministry of Environment, 1981; O’Riordan, 1981), over time the policy did not maintain any connection to higher level strategic plans resulting in assessments at spatial scales and decision scales that made the policies ineffective at addressing cumulative effects. Evidence from this research indicates that Federal government initiatives have been a key driver to strategic-level implementation and during periods where the Federal government’s interest waned, WQOs lost their strategic function.

The second pattern observed is that despite the scale mismatches that are resulting in ineffectiveness, WQO policies have been continually developed, albeit not consistently, since

1985 to the present. This is notable since WQOs are a labour-intensive exercise requiring multi- year monitoring, data collation and assessment, report writing, approval processes, and incorporation into Provincial databases (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013a). As explained in more detail in the discussion section, one explanation for this is that these policies have attracted interest from diverse groups because it focuses on generating scientific information in what appears to have become, a collaborative governance space.

5.3. Regional Planning Initiatives

Eight WQO reports were developed to operationalize regional water resources planning initiatives driven by the federal government between 1985 and 2005 (Table A1). British

Columbia has been somewhat of a testing ground for water resource planning experiments. In the mid-1980s, Federal-Provincial funding partnerships were created through the Canada Water Act to conduct comprehensive river basin planning in the Okanagan River Basin and the Fraser River

Estuary (Dorcey, 1981; O’Riordan, 1971). In 1998, WQOs were updated for the Lower Fraser

River and new WQOs were created for the Salmon River (a Fraser River Tributary) through funds provided to the BC Ministry of Environment from Environment Canada’s Fraser River

Action Plan (Gwanikar et al., 1998; Swain et al., 1998, 1997). The Fraser River Action Plan was part of the larger Federal Green Plan (Harrison, 1996). These experiments set out to develop management frameworks for these regions of interest and through public consultation processes, economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals were defined. Water Quality Objectives were used to operationalize the goals defined under each process.

The answers to the questions 1-4 in the analytical framework confirms that the assessment methods used in the planning experiments for the Okanagan and Fraser River Basins are consistent with strategic approaches to CEAM in terms of purpose, goals, selection of VECs, and lead agency. As well, extensive monitoring and research studies supported regional planning initiatives in an effort to understand the accumulation of change to these systems indicating that the assessment methods (question 8) align with SEA-type approaches (see for example Dorcey,

1987; Gwanikar, 1998; Hoos & Packman, 1974; McPhee & Wiebe, 1986; O’Riordan & Wiebe,

1984; Stockner & Northecote, 1974; Water Quality Work Group, 1979).

5.3.1. Comprehensive River Basin Planning

The synthesis of answers to the nine questions in the analytical framework is presented in

Table 2, 3, and Table A1 consistent with guidance from Sandelowski & Barroso (2007) on presenting findings from a meta-analysis. These authors suggest presenting narrative summaries for a selection of case studies as a way of illustrating evidence. The WQO policies and reports that resulted from the Okanagan River Basin Study (OBS) are provided in detail below to illustrate how the Province incorporated the goals from the planning exercise into its WQO policies and how these link to decision-making. The answers to questions from the analytical

61 framework, illustrate that these regional planning initiatives and the assessments that support them, are consistent with SEA-type processes.

5.3.1.1. Background

The Okanagan River Basin is located in the southern interior of British Columbia and extends 210 km from the City of Vernon to the US-Canada Border at Osoyoos and covers an area of about 7,700 km2 (Figure 9). The basin is within an arid climate and demands for water from human activities is significant creating water quality problems, water shortages, and conflicts between users (Stockner & Northcote, 1974). Several local governments operate in the valley including three Regional Districts, and several municipalities and water improvement districts (Nowlan & Bakker, 2007; O’Riordan, 1971).

In the late 1960s, water quality problems emerged as an issue of national concern in

Canada (McPhee 1978, Mitchell 1986). To address the problem, the federal government identified regional basins of priority across the country to implement comprehensive water resource planning under the new federal legislation, the Canada Water Act (Booth & Quinn,

1995; Ramin, 2004). The intended outcomes of the regional studies were to incorporate economic, social and environmental goals into water resources planning to resolve the major regional water problems, to develop long-term management frameworks for major watersheds, to pilot public consultation techniques, and to establish national pollution prevention guidelines which are now referred to as water quality guidelines (O’Riordan, 1974; Dorcey, 1981, 1987b).

An agreement was signed between federal and provincial agencies in 1969 to initiate the exercise in the Okanagan Basin (Consultative Board 1974).

While some argue that these studies did not achieve the outcomes that they set out to do, it is also agreed that they did generate new information and in the case of BC, did make

62 improvements to some long-term water quality problems (Shrubsole, 1990; BC Ministry of

Environment 1986a). For example, the long-term studies initiated through comprehensive planning generated baseline information for the six large lakes in the basin which was subsequently used as the basis of WQOs in these lakes (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a).

The recommendations that came out of the OBS with respect to protecting water quality in the basin have had a long-term impact on decision making. For example, the Okanagan Basin is specified as a geographical area in the Municipal Sewage Regulation (2010) and the Municipal

Sewage Regulation (2012) where the decision-maker is not permitted to allow a discharge to exceed specified limits described in these regulations. As well, decision-makers under this regulation is required to ensure that any discharger meets water quality objectives using back- calculation methods, and that the receiving environment is monitored to ensure this happens.

5.3.2. Purpose Goals, and Values (Questions 1, 2, 3)

This section will answer the following questions: What purpose does the assessment serve?

What are the desired goals of the assessment? How are the VECs chosen?

The purpose of the OBS was to develop suitable water management practices that would serve to protect environmental values important to local residents while also considering the economic and social uses derived from the water and land resources in the basin (Canada-British

Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement, 1974)(Consultative Board 1974). At the time, the

Okanagan Valley was experiencing a dramatic growth in both the resident population and seasonal tourist population. This influx of people was accompanied by intensified and sometimes conflicting uses of the limited water and land resources of the basin.

The management goals for the basin were determined through an extensive public consultation process, which at the time was a novel approach to planning and environmental management (O’Riordan, 1976). Three sustainability goals were identified:

1. Economic Development: To develop water and related resources as required to ensure

a viable economic base in the Okanagan Basin,

2. Environmental Quality: To maintain and enhance the quality of the natural

environment through management and protection of water and related resource

systems such as fisheries, wildlife and recreational areas.

3. Social Betterment: To enhance social betterment in the Okanagan by creating a more

equitable distribution of income, employment and opportunity between regions within

the basin (Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement, 1974, p. iv).

The VECs were identified through a public consultation process. The major and most important water uses that were identified for long-term protection to achieve the “preferred future life-style for the valley community” related to ensuring water quality and quantity were available for the agricultural sector, tourism sector, and recreation-based activities (Canada-

British Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement, 1974, p. 103). The VECs and goals identified through this public consultation process provided direction for the water quality assessment which focused on protecting drinking water quality, recreation-based quality, and aquatic life.

5.3.2.1. What body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment? (Question 4)

The Okanagan River Basin Study was a joint partnership led by the BC Ministry of

Environment and Environment Canada (Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement,

1974). Several studies were completed during this process which took place from 1971to 1982, to characterize water quality in the 6 major lakes in the basin: Ellison Lake, Wood Lake,

Kalamalka Lake, Okanagan Lake, and Skaha Lake (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a;

Stockner & Northecote, 1974). These studies formed the basis of establishing WQOs for these lakes, and the process of establishing WQOs was led by the Ministry of Environment.

5.3.2.2. What types of measurable objectives are identified to meet the specified goals? (Question 5)

The Okanagan River Basin is one of the most intensely studies regions in BC with respect to water resources (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a; Nordin, 2005; Northcote, 2008).

As part of this agreement to develop a comprehensive management framework for the Okanagan

River Basin, the terms of reference included a preliminary four-year study in the basin.

Other studies followed this including the Provincial Wood-Kalamalka Study (1971-1974), the

Federal-Provincial Okanagan Basin Implementation Study (1977-1982), and numerous smaller studies conducted by the regional office. Phosphorus levels were found to be the key attribute responsible for observed algal blooms in the lakes in the Okanagan River Basin. High phosphorus levels can increase fisheries production while at the same time have a negative effect on drinking water and recreational opportunities. Thus, measurable objectives for phosphorus were developed to balance these opposing uses.

Figure 9. Major tributaries and municipalities located in the Okanagan River Basin. From Source from Ten-Year Summary of the Okanagan Lake Action Plan 1996-2005 (p. 6), by R. Rae, 2006, BC Ministry of Environment.

The main water quality finding from the first four-year study identified that increased levels of phosphorous from municipal sewage and diffuse sources of phosphorus from agriculture and forestry activities were causing algal blooms and rooted aquatic plant growth

(Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement, 1974). According to the BC Ministry of

Environment (1986a) two approaches can be used to address nutrient management and maintain good water quality. One is to calculate the allowable phosphorus loadings (Vollenweider’s Curve) to achieve the desired condition of water quality, and then “allocate” this amount amongst sources of phosphorus. This approach was seen as not appropriate for the Okanagan lake for two

66 reasons. First there was evidence that the relationship between phosphorus loadings and water quality did not hold for the Okanagan lakes because the lakes were much larger than those used to calculate the Vollenweider equation (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a). Second, the approach requires detailed calculations of phosphorus loadings, including non-point sources, and allocating this available loading amongst sources is very difficult to determine and manage. The second approach consists of defining end-state concentrations of water quality parameters that will to protect existing and future water uses, calculate loadings to estimate relative past, present, and future contributions to the lake, and implement post-assessment monitoring to determine if observed levels compared to ‘objective’ levels and if control efforts are effective (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). The use of objectives rather than critical loadings was first recommended in the OBS and subsequently adopted into the WQO protocol (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a; Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin

Agreement, 1974).

5.3.2.3. What types of decisions does the assessment inform? (Question 6)

The OBS resulted in eleven major recommendations, and according to Nowlan & Bakker

(2007) only three of these remain outstanding which include the creation of a single regional district for the basin, to establish management strategies for the main tributaries, and an integrated monitoring program that provided information on water quality, fisheries resources, and water supply.

The recommendations from the OBS that applied directly to water quality included:

 To prevent all municipal and industrial waste discharges causing pollution from

entering tributary streams,

 Require the Regional Districts, and Municipalities and private developers in the basin

to reduce phosphorus loadings from domestic and industrial waste discharges to the

main valley lakes through appropriate waste management programs,

 Encourage the Regional Districts and Municipalities to implement septic tank

regulations in the basin,

 To promote forestry practices that will reduce phosphorus loadings into the main

valley lakes (Alexander, 1982, pp. 22–26).

The OBS and subsequent implementation agreements between the Federal and Provincial governments were considered successful at both identifying the cause of algal blooms in

Okanagan lakes (i.e., phosphorus) and reducing phosphorus loading (primarily through treatment on municipal effluent. From 1970 to 1985, an estimated 70 percent reduction in phosphorus loading to Okanagan Lakes was realized as the Federal and Provincial governments entered into cost-sharing agreements to assist municipalities with advanced treatment facilities for municipal effluent (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a).

The recommendation that the MOE would continue to require local governments and private developers to reduce phosphorus loading from domestic and industrial waste discharges is currently reflected in the Province’s Municipal Wastewater Regulation under Section 97(1) which places limits on the amount of phosphorus that a decision maker can allow for any discharge into waterbodies in the Okanagan Basin.2 The Municipal Wastewater Regulation

(MWR) also acknowledges the use of Water Quality Objectives as providing “background water quality limits for the receiving environment” under section 8(2). The MWR provides an example

2 Unless a director gives notice of a maximum seasonal loading rate in respect of the body of water, a discharger must not discharge to the following bodies of water municipal effluent having a total annual average phosphorus content of more than 0.25 mg/L, (a) the Okanagan Basin;

68 of how regional cumulative effects assessments and non-legal policy tools such as WQO can be used to guide permit decisions to achieve broad regional goals (Figure 10).

The MOE’s assessment of water quality in 1985 noted that “phosphorus loading from diffuse sources need to be reduced in the future to meet water quality objectives” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986a, p. 1). The notable sources of phosphorus that required control included range use, agriculture, forestry, and private septic tanks. The report also provided recommended control options were also presented. The problem however is that these activities are regulated by agencies other than the MOE and the policy for WQO requires only that they are considered by MOE decisions (BC Ministry of Environment, 2001b). This leaves other agencies to consider these recommendations as a voluntary option. Research and opinion indicate that diffuse sources of pollution continue to be an issue in the Okanagan Valley (Northcote, 2008; Phippen, 2001).

Novel governance approaches were explored to resolve the need for coordinated decision-making at the Okanagan Basin scale to address the multiple sources of stress on water resources (Dorcey, 2004; Northcote, 2008; Linda Nowlan & Bakker, 2007). The OBS recommended establishing a single management jurisdiction for the basin such as an ‘authority’ or other level of government that would serve as a single management jurisdiction for water in the basin. However public opinion did not support this recommendation and this governance model was never realized (Alexander, 1982). Instead, the Okanagan Basin, the Okanagan Basin

Water Board (OBWB) which was formed in 1969 by the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act continued in its capacity as a coordinator of strategies to eradicate the invasive aquatic plants, and to improve local waste water infrastructure to reduce phosphorus loadings to the lakes

(Linda Nowlan & Bakker, 2007). The OBWB is unique in that it has taxation authority and is funded through annual property tax assessments on lands within the basin. However, the Board

69 does not exercise any decision-making powers that relate to licensing or regulating activities that influence water quality.

Water Quality •Values and goals Objectives •WQOs guide determined through consultation decisions in •WQOs adopt regulations •CEA studies information generated from regional planning studies

Regional Planning Decisions

Figure 10. Incorporating information from regional planning studies into decision instruments. Dotted lines represent informal governance spaces and solid lines represent formal decision-making in a regulatory framework.

5.3.2.4. What triggered the assessment? (Question 7)

As highlighted earlier, the OBS was initiated in response to water quality problems and conflicts in the basin due a dramatic growth in both the resident population and seasonal tourist population. The Federal Government’s new Canada Water Act enabled research, planning and implementation of programs to conserve and utilize water resources through improved knowledge, pollution control, and partnerships with Provincial governments (Consultative Board

1974). The assessments were co-led by several Provincial and Federal agencies. Therefore, also consistent with SEA processes, WQOs that support the OBS experiment are focused on operationalizing sustainability goals (Harriman & Noble, 2008).

5.3.2.5. How is baseline defined? (Question 8)

Determining baseline conditions in lakes requires the consideration of two characteristics of lake ecosystems. First is the concept of trophic states which describes the concentrations of nutrients driving lake ecosystems, typically these are phosphorus and nitrogen (Schindler, 1974).

Lakes naturally go through a slow evolutionary change from being clear and unproductive

(oligotrophic) to becoming turbid and productive (eutrophic) (Wetzel, 2001). Thus, eutrophication is regarded as a natural process. A second driver of eutrophication is in response to pollution from human activities (Schindler, 2006). This presented the need in water management to distinguish natural eutrophication from cultural eutrophication. There are four main approaches to assess baseline for aquatic ecosystems: time-series data created through direct historical measurements, space-for-time substitution which uses comparisons in water quality characteristics between affected and unaffected lakes which is usually very difficult because of the highly unique features of lakes, hindcasts using the combination of empirical and computer modelling, and paleolimnological reconstructions (Battarbee, Anderson, Jeppesen, &

Leavitt, 2005; Smol, 1992). The OBS applied two of these techniques to assess baseline, time- series from direct measurements and paleolimnological studies (Stockner & Northecote, 1974).

These methods served to determine changes to phosphorus loadings and concentrations in the lakes as a result of human activities, evaluate the response of the lake ecosystem and its ability to assimilate increased loadings, and what was needed to maintain optimal water quality with respect to identified values (Figure 11). Thus, the definition of baseline for the OBS is consistent with strategic, planning approaches to CEA.

Figure 11. The Okanagan Basin Study assessed past, present, and future changes to phosphorus in Okanagan Lake. From “Recent limnological studies of Okanagan Basin Lakes and their contribution to planning”, by J.G. Stockner and T.G. Northcote, 1974, Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Volume 31, Issue 5, p. 972, 1974 by NRC Research Press Journals.

5.3.2.6. Is post-assessment monitoring a component of the assessment? (Question 9)

All WQO policies contain commitments to conduct post-assessment monitoring to determine if objectives are being achieved, this is referred to as ‘attainment monitoring’. In the case of the Okanagan Basin, it appears that objectives are regularly monitored and the results are reported out on a regular basis (BC Ministry of Environment, n.d.).

5.3.2.7. The Synthesis of WQOs for Regional Planning: Scale Mismatches

Although the spatial and temporal scales of the scientific assessments were well matched to understanding the water quality problems in regional planning exercises, the social organization responsible for managing activities affecting water quality were never resolved

(Northcote, 2008; Nowlan & Bakker, 2007). Northcote has provided an account of the extensive ecological information generated, much directly about water quality, for lakes in the Okanagan

Basin, and provides a message that needs serious consideration, “We have great ecological

72 research, but most decisions are made independently of the science, while we learn little from our successes and failures” (p. 16). This statement by Northcote highlights that while the scientific information is available, the outstanding issue is that there are no rules and institutions in place to put this into action. Instead, the uses of information generated through these processes were limited to waste regulation (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of answers to 9 questions for WQOs reports (n=8) that operationalize regional planning initiatives

Questions Summary SEA Sub-category 1. What purpose does the assessment Future, end-state conditions Strategic (Regional) serve? 2. What are the desired goals of the Long-term sustainability goals Strategic (Regional) assessment? 3. How are the VECs chosen? VEC is central to the assessment and the Strategic (Regional) range of stressors were considered 4. What body or organization is BC Ministry of Environment Strategic (Regional) responsible for leading the CEA? 5. What types of measurable Quantitative, end-state objectives for Strategic (Regional) objectives are identified to the chemical, physical, and biological water meet specified goals? quality indicators 6. What types of decisions does the Limited to decisions within the MOE to Strategic (Sector-Based) assessment inform? regulate waste 7. How is baseline defined? Temporal and spatial trends in Strategic (Regional) phosphorus concentrations were assessed 8. Is post-assessment monitoring Monitoring recommended, updated Strategic (Regional) recommended? objectives set for 2 of 6 lakes in 2005, 2012. 9. What triggered the assessment? Concerns about the capacity of the system Strategic (Regional) to support future, regional growth. 5.4. Sector-Based Planning Strategy

British Columbia developed WQOs, as part of the Province’s strategic water resources planning strategy. As described below, the goals, VECs, lead agency, measurable objectives, baseline, and post-assessment monitoring (i.e., questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9) were ‘systematized’ to provide a timely, strategic, and fiscally responsible approach to water resources planning (BC

Ministry of Environment, 1981, p. 19). In part, the systematic approach was in response to the

Province’s experience with comprehensive river basin planning, which was found to be too slow and expensive (BC Ministry of Environment, 1981; O’Riordan, 1981).

Answers to the nine questions in the analytical framework are summarized and synthesized in Table 5, Table B1, Table C1, Table D1, and Table E1, consistent with guidance from Sandelowski & Barroso (2007) on presenting findings from a meta-analysis.

5.4.1. What purpose does the assessment serve? (Question 1)

As mentioned in the introduction, SEA processes can be developed for an area, a particular sector, or for a particular value, such as water quality (Harriman & Noble, 2008;

Partidario & Fischer, 2004). The Ministry of Environment used WQOs as a strategy to fulfill two mandates (a) to regulate the introduction of waste into the environment, and (b) to establish objectives for ambient environmental water quality.

Water quality objectives classified within the sector-based planning strategy identified the need for WQOs to support decisions made in the Waste Management Act (e.g., Swain, 1985,

1989), or to establish ambient water quality objectives as outlined in the Environmental

Management Act (e.g., Rieberger, 2007b; Singleton, 1990). Therefore, WQOs are characterized here as a ‘sector-based’ planning strategy from the perspective of the agency responsible for managing changes to the environment.

5.4.1.1. Emergent Variables

Four new variables emerged within the sector-based planning strategy category. These provide more detailed information about the circumstances in which WQOs were used by the

MOE. Related to waste management, WQOs were developed to guide decisions for major resource projects, and for waterbodies where there are numerous smaller authorizations to discharge waste. As the agency responsible for environmental quality, WQOs have been used for

74 three overarching purposes, to resolve conflicts between users, for assessing and setting benchmarks for emerging contaminants of concern, and to support lake stewardship activities.

1. Major Projects. Water quality objectives were developed for waterbodies where major

projects (e.g., Site C Dam, gold mining projects) were proposed (future-oriented), these

served to provide objectives for both MOE permitting decisions but also to articulate the

desired future state of water quality, regardless of what activities occurred in the future

(Table B1).

2. Small Authorizations for a Specified Waterbody. Water quality objectives were

developed for waterbodies where there were numerous smaller existing authorizations

and/or future authorizations were being proposed (Table C1). In both of these contexts,

there were direct links between WQOs and MOE’s permitting decisions within either the

Waste Management Act or the Environmental Management Act.

3. Conflicts and Emerging Contaminant Issues. Water quality objectives were developed for

waterbodies where the MOE did not have any specific statutory decisions, and there were

no existing policy tools to address conflicts between users or mechanism to set ambient

environment objectives (Table D1). The spatial scales were typically much smaller than

those for regional planning exercises, major projects, or waterbodies with numerous

smaller authorizations.

4. Stewardship. The MOE worked with local stewardship groups to establish water quality

objectives for several lakes (Table E1).

5.4.2. What are the desired goals for the assessment? (Question 2)

The goals of the water quality assessments followed two goals articulated in the WQO policy guidance documents (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). First, for waterbodies “with

75 exceptionally valuable resources of provincial significance and good existing water quality, the objectives are set to avoid degradation” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b), p 9). Second, for all other waterbodies, the objectives are set to protect the water quality for the designated uses

(BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p. 9). This latter approach allows some degradation of water quality up to limits based on water quality guidelines for drinking water, aquatic life, irrigation, or livestock watering. The goal of no degradation (i.e., no change from background for all water quality parameters) was used for only one case, WQOs for the Yakoun River on the

Queen Charlotte Islands, now Haida Gwaii. In this case, the WQOs were set at “no significant increase at the 95% confidence level” (Nijman, 1993, p. 19). The remaining WQOs case studies

(n=66) in this sub-category applied the ‘protected uses’ approach. This goal allows either some level of degradation or it maintains the existing water quality for waterbodies already impacted by human activities (Appendix B, C, D, and E). As an example, suppose selenium levels in a river are on average 0.2 µg/L prior to any impact from human activities. To protect uses, the levels may be permitted to increase up to 1 µg/L in the future to account for resource development projects. This is an example of allowing degradation but protecting uses.

5.4.3. How are the VEC’s chosen? (Question 3)

The process for selecting VECs for WQO classified in the sector-based sub-category is unique from those within regional planning. As mentioned, the Province was not satisfied with comprehensive planning, the process was found to be cumbersome and expensive (O’Riordan,

1981). The strategic planning process was described as “systematic and orderly” (BC Ministry of

Environment, 1981, p. 19). To this end, a core set of water quality values were created that were broad enough to use for any waterbody (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). These include drinking water, recreational water, supplies for irrigation and livestock watering, and aquatic life

76 and wildlife. Thus, when developing WQOs for a given waterbody, existing uses are identified and categorized as one of these five categories. For example, marine shellfish species are protected for human consumption in Bamfield Inlet under recreational use (Epps, 2014). Setting specific quantitative objectives required determining the most sensitive of these five uses and setting objectives for that particular use. The MOE uses the philosophy that setting objectives for the “most sensitive use” and life stage, then this would protect all uses (BC Ministry of

Environment, 1986b, p. 5).

5.4.4. What body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment? (Question 4)

In all 71 cases, the Ministry of Environment is the lead agency conducting the assessments for WQOs. However, the changing role of non-government entities in the WQO process is notable. Particularly for WQOs prepared in Community Watersheds and for lake stewardship activities. These reports noted that partnerships between the MOE and local municipalities and stewardship groups are a key component of the water quality network (Epps

& Phippen, 2011, p. 3; Barlak, 2011, p.5). Similarly, local Indigenous communities have increased participated in the process by defining the values derived from water quality of importance to them such as shellfish harvesting, or by providing assistance with monitoring

(Epps, 2014; Barlak, 2010).

5.4.5. What types of measurable objectives are identified to meet the specified goals? (Question 5) Cumulative effects assessments within a SEA-type process use methods that can assess how the system responds over time and space to the range of human activities (Dubé, 2003;

Munkittrick et al., 2000). These types of methods are referred to as ‘effects-based’ methods

(Munkittrick et al., 2000). In contrast, assessment methods within EIAs may use predictive

77 stressor-based methods, which do not incorporate site-specific information but tend to be desktop, predictive exercises based on known or predicted effects. How a particular development unfolds and the interactions with the local environment are never certain, and the accumulated change to the environment may not necessarily be monitored over time in EIAs (Munkittrick et al., 2000).

As well, residual effects stemming from project development activities that remain after mitigation efforts are implemented are not normally monitored as part of EIAs. This is especially problematic since these effects may be observed at spatial scales and timeframes well beyond the project footprint and life cycle (McLeay and Associates Ltd., 1987; Munkittrick et al., 2000).

Based on the description of effects-based and stressor-based methods (Munkittrick et al.,

2000), WQOs are consistent with effects-based. To assess the accumulation of environmental change, a monitoring and assessment program is designed for each waterbody to obtain site- specific information for “determining trends in water quality” (Cavanaugh, Nordin, Pommen, &

Swain, 1998, p. Introduction, para 3). Based largely on the information derived from a field- based monitoring program, a water quality assessment is conducted, and the water quality characteristics that are influenced by human activities and natural processes are identified. This information is generally provided at the beginning or end of each report under a heading of

‘Proposed Monitoring Locations.’

Following the assessment, measurable objectives are defined according to two types of goals (see Question 2). To achieve the goal of ‘no degradation,’ water quality objectives are set to prevent no significant change from background (Nijman, 1993). To achieve the goal of protecting uses, Federal or Provincial, generic, water quality guidelines form the basis of objectives (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). Water quality guidelines, are science-based levels of physical, chemical or biological parameters of water, sediments, or biota including

78 manmade pollutants (i.e., PCBs) that are designed for the protection of ecosystems and human health (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013a). Unlike WQOs however, guidelines do not take local biophysical factors into account such as how geology and biogeoclimatic variables influence levels of chemical, physical or biological properties of water, and are often referred to as ‘generic’ guidelines (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013a). All WQOs reports contain a section, typically in the introduction, that summarizes the ‘recommended water quality objectives,’ the location where the objectives should be met, and the time of year that the water should be monitored. An example is provided below to illustrate (Figure 12).

Figure 12. An example of the measurable objectives in WQOs. From “Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Shawnigan Lake”, by K. Rieberger, 2007b, BC Ministry of Environment.

5.4.6. What types of decisions does the assessment inform? (Question 6)

The WQOs developed to support decisions for major resource development projects, and regulating waste for smaller authorizations, directly influenced decisions under the Waste

Management Act before it was repealed, or the Environmental Management Act3 (Figure 13). In these reports, there was a common message that WQO would be used by regulatory agencies managing activities like acid rock drainage, effluent, and mine discharges. For example, in all the

WQO overview reports listed on the MOE’s website it states, “these objectives become legally enforceable when included as a requirement of a permit, license, order, or regulation, such as the

Forest Practices Code Act, Water Act regulations or Waste Management Act regulations”

(Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b).

The application of WQOs associated with major projects stopped after 1993. The analysis of information in reports does not explain why this happened, but it is likely because the

Provincial Environmental Assessment Act, passed in 1993, provided an alternative assessment tool (Haddock, 2010). Another explanation is that the emerging conflicts between water users and forestry activities that gained attention in the mid-1990s and eventually lead to strategic land use planning (Thielmann & Tollefson, 2009) may have shifted the focus of WQOs to this problem. Whatever the reason, the shift away from setting objectives prior to the development of major projects suggests that EIAs and in particular BC’s Environmental Assessment Act may have become the ‘tool of choice’ for conducting CEAs as has been suggested by some researchers (Dubé et al., 2006; Dubé, 2003).

For those WQOs classified within the emergent variables ‘conflicts and emerging issues’ and ‘Community Watersheds,’ the influence on decision-making is at best, voluntary. Within these variables, the reports make it clear that there are no activities occurring that require an authorization under the Environmental Management Act, therefore the MOE does not have a

3 In 2003, the Waste Management Act and the Environmental Management Act were consolidated.

81 statutory decision-making function related to waste management in these waterbodies. The activities of concern tend to be nonpoint source issues that the MOE is not directly responsible for regulating including road construction, agricultural activities, and forestry-related activities

(e.g., Barlak, 2010). For these waterbodies, the MOE uses WQOs to articulate, in science-based terms, what the acceptable water quality should be to protect the uses in these watersheds. For this reason, the direct links between the WQOs and decisions are not formalized in policy.

Therefore, the effectiveness of WQOs to address cumulative effects in these cases is dependent on the willingness of the parties whose activities are affecting water quality to voluntarily make changes.

Water Quality •Identify values and Objectives •Assessment determine goals information informs •Measure system permits and response using effects- regulations based methods Project Proposal, Emerging Issues, Decisions Conflicts

Figure 13. Incorporating information from WQOs into statutory decision making. Dotted lines represent informal governance spaces and solid lines formal decision-making through regulations.

5.4.7. What triggered the assessment? (Question 7)

According to the BC Ministry of Environment (1986b), WQOs are “prepared for specific bodies of fresh, estuarine, and coastal marine surface waters of the province, as a part of the

Ministry of Environment's mandate to manage water quality. To limit the scope of the task, objectives are only prepared for waterbodies and for water quality characteristics which may be

82 affected by man's activity, now or in the foreseeable future. This paper describes the role of these objectives in British Columbia and discusses factors which must be considered in preparing them”

(BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p.1).

As noted earlier, WQOs within the ‘major projects’ sub-category predates the passing of

BC’s Environmental Assessment Act in 1993 and were developed proactively because of proposed projects (Appendix B). For the WQOs developed for the remaining sub-categories, it is not clear how these waterbodies were selected for establishing WQOs given the number of activities that could be affecting water resources across the Province. Some reports noted that a process was established where the regional directors identified priority sub-basins within their jurisdiction. For example, in the Skeena region, WQOs were developed for four lakes of importance to the local community because “the local Planning Director of the Regional District of the Bulkley-Nechako, requested that the Ministry of Environment develop a monitoring program to determine changes in water quality” (Boyd, McKean, Nordin & Wilkes, 1985, p.1).

This type of detailed information regarding prioritizing waterbodies for WQOs was provided not provided in reports after 1993.

5.4.8. How is the baseline defined? (Question 8)

The MOE also clarified the concept of baseline for WQO regardless of the purpose in which they have been used (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). It does so by describing the need to assess the temporal and spatial variability of the water quality when developing objectives (Cavanaugh et al., 1998). Several factors need to be considered including the existing and potential quality of water, the temporal and spatial variability, the flow or circulation pattern of the waterbody and its relation to the quality of water, sediment, and aquatic life, and the existing and potential loadings of contaminants from point and diffuse sources, and their relation

83 to water movement and quality, including the behaviour of contaminants in the local water (BC

Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p. 6). The simultaneous use of both upstream and control sites and downstream or ‘test’ sites is recommended to account for ‘natural’ influences on water quality (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986). To assess cause-effect relationships and the significance of observed water quality, it is further recommended that coordinated monitoring should occur between areas that are being impacted and the receiving environment which is where objectives apply. The monitoring programs, including sampling frequency and locations, are outlined in all WQO reports (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013a).

The MOE’s policy guidance for the technical approach explicitly articulates the need to make the effort to understand the assimilative capacity of a waterbody recognizing that this concept is controversial and difficult to define. Nonetheless, according to the MOE policy guidance, understanding the aquatic ecosystem is required and this will be different for each contaminant and mixture of contaminants.

5.4.9. Is post-assessment monitoring a component of the assessment? (Question 9)

One of the steps of developing WQO is the recommendation of post-assessment monitoring, and if needed, additional studies. The purpose of this is to “determine whether objectives are being met or improvements are needed” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, p. 13). All the WQO reports contained a ‘recommended monitoring’ section which outlined the location for monitoring, sampling schedule, and parameters of interest (Figure 12). However, this study did not evaluate the compliance of post-assessment monitoring although it is a critical task for understanding the response of the system and making necessary adjustments to activities affecting water quality if objectives are not met (Munkittrick et al., 2000). Monitoring to determine if objectives are being met is also a key element of the Province’s CEF, and how to

84 design resilient systems that will meet the level of post-assessment monitoring necessary to respond adaptively to cumulative effects, is an area requiring further research (Boyle James Kay,

2001).

5.4.10. The Synthesis of WQOs for Sector-based Planning Strategies: Scale Mismatches

The application of WQOs as a strategy to deliver on the MOE’s mandate to regulate the introduction of waste into the environment may be the most effective use of WQOs because of the formal links between the science and the Municipal Sewage Regulation (2010) and the

Municipal Wastewater Regulation (2012) of the Environmental Management Act (2003).

However, 1993 was the last year that a WQO was developed to support a major development project decision (Table 4). This shift coincides with two events. The first is the introduction of

EIA legislation at both federal and provincial levels (Haddock, 2010). The second event was what is known as the “war in the woods” (Thielmann & Tollefson, 2009, p. 112). This was a period during the late 1980s through the 1990s of intense conflict centered around how forest- harvesting was viewed by environmentalists, Indigenous communities, and much of the public at large as being favored over other values of importance including the protection of drinking water

(Auditor General of British Columbia, 1999). In fact, from 1990 through to 2015, 14 WQOs reports were developed specifically for Community Watersheds. A Community Watershed is an administrative boundary of no more than 500 km2 as defined in the Forest and Range Practices

Act (Forest Practices Board, 2014).

Table 4. Summary of water quality objectives by year and purpose

Regional Major Regulate Conflicts & Emerging Year Planning Projects Waste Contaminant Issues Stewardship Total

1985 3 3 3 2 11

1986 2 2 4

1987 3 2 1 6

1988 1 1

1989 3 3

1990 5 1 6

1991 1 1

1992 2 1 1 4

1993 1 1 1 3

1994 1 1 2

1995 1 1

1996 1 1

1997 1 1 1 3

1998 2 3

2000 1 1

2005 1a 2 3

2007 2 1 3

2009 2 2

2010 1 1

2011 2 1 1 4

2012 1b 4 5

2013 1 1

2014 1 3 4

2015 1 1 2 a. Update to WQO for Okanagan Lake originally established in 1985. b. Update to WQO for Osoyoos Lake originally established in 1985.

In terms of an effective tool for assessing and managing cumulative effects, there are two scale issues of concern here. One, the spatial boundaries of the assessment is defined by the definition in the Forest and Range Practices Act, rather than the spatial scale necessary to address the full range of potential cumulative effects to water quality. Second, in all WQOs developed for Community Watersheds, the human activities of concern are related to forest harvesting and the Ministry of Environment has no authority to regulate this activity. Recall that information in WQOs guides Ministry of Environment decisions only; there are no mechanisms to require other agencies to consider WQOs in its decisions. Thus, in the case of Community

Watersheds, information in WQOs may not be having a direct influence on managing activities that contribute to cumulative effects (Table 5). This presents a scale mismatch in that the spatial scale of the assessment aligns with forestry activities, while the decision scales do not.

Table 5. Summary of 9 questions for WQOs used to fulfil two MOE mandates (a) to regulate waste and (b) set environmental quality objectives.

Questions Major Projects Smaller Conflict & Emerging Stewardship Authorizations Issues 1. What purpose does the Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic assessment serve? (Regional) 2. What are the desired Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic goals of the assessment? (Regional) 3. How are the VECs Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic chosen? (Regional) 4. What body or Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic organization is responsible (Regional) for leading the CEA? 5. What types of Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Sector- Strategic measurable objectives are based) (Regional) identified to the meet specified goals? 6. What types of decisions Strategic (Sector- Strategic (Sector- Project (Single and Strategic does the assessment inform? based) based) Multiple) (Sector-based) 7. What triggered the Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic assessment? (Regional) 8. How is baseline Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic defined? (Regional) 9. Is post-assessment Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic (Regional) Strategic monitoring recommended? (Regional) 10. What types of decisions Strategic (Sector- Strategic (Sector- Project (Single and Strategic does the assessment inform? based) based) Multiple) (Sector-based)

5.5. Loss of a Strategic Lens for WQOs and Policy Persistence

The applications of WQOs to operationalize regional planning experiments were all driven by Federal government policies. In the mid-1980s, WQOs were approved to support the

Federal-Provincial partnerships under the Canada Water Act to conduct comprehensive river basin planning in the Okanagan River Basin and the Fraser River Estuary. In 1998, WQOs were updated for the lower Fraser River and developed for the Salmon River through funds provided to the MOE from Environment Canada’s Fraser River Action Plan (Swain, 1998; Gwanikar et al.,

1998). The Fraser River Action Plan was part of the larger Federal Green Plan (Harrison, 1996).

These experiments set out to develop management frameworks for the regions of interest and through public consultation processes, economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals were defined. However, there was no evidence that WQOs were utilized for provincially driven planning policies. During periods where the federal government was not supporting BC’s WQOs, the strategic lens was lost, and the spatial scales and decision scales were no longer consistent with a SEA process.

The introduction in this thesis mentioned two current initiatives related to BC’s WQOs, one being to develop WQOs for the Murray River watershed in northeast BC, an area influenced by mining activities (Canadian Water Network, 2016; Province of British Columbia, 2016). The other initiative is occurring in the Burrard Inlet, which is focused on updating WQOs that were developed in 1990 (Lilley, deKoning, Konovsky, & Doyle, 2016). If sustained support for

WQOs is measured by the fact that monitoring and assessments are ongoing to determine if water quality is meeting objectives previously set (BC Ministry of Environment, n.d.), out of date policies are updated with recent monitoring information and assessments (Obee, 2011), and

88 new policies are being initiated for waterbodies without policies (Province of British Columbia,

2016), then there is evidence to indicate that WQOs policies have been sustained for over four decades (Table 4). This is an interesting pattern given that developing WQOs involves labour- intensive and costly tasks of monitoring, writing an assessment report, government approval, and processes to include this information in government databases and websites which are open to public consumption (Government of British Columbia, n.d.-a).

Although this analysis did not include a variable for examining the diversity of actors involved in developing WQOs, during the coding process, this theme began to emerge. In particular, partnerships were noted in the WQO reports completed on Vancouver Island since

2000. As an example, for Bamfield Inlet, the MOE partnered with the community of Bamfield, the Alberni Clayquot Regional District, Huu-ay-aht First Nation, and the Bamfield Marine

Sciences Centre, to set goals, and provide the opportunity for public input and to assist with field work (Epps, 2014, p. 9). The consistent development of WQOs over time, regardless of potential scale issues, may be occurring because of the increased number of actors involved in these processes.

Chapter 6 Discussion

6.1. Chapter Objectives

This chapter summarizes the key findings of the meta-analysis, the implications of these findings in relation to advancing SEA processes, and how this in turn influences water quality protection and cumulative effects assessments and management. Implications are discussed both from a theoretical and applied water quality management perspective.

6.2. Summary of Key Findings

This research asked the questions, in what ways do BC’s WQOs align with SEA-type processes, and how have these policies contributed to the assessment and management of cumulative effects to water quality? The purpose of this work is to inform outcomes of modern

SEA-type policy processes, such as the Province’s Cumulative Effects Framework and sections of the Water Sustainability Act that attempt to address cumulative effects and protect water quality and water quantity in an effort to sustain aquatic ecosystems (Government of British

Columbia, 2013, 2014). A meta-analysis approach was selected for this research because it allows the aggregation and synthesis of information from the large number cases of Water

Quality Objectives (71 cases represented by 74 reports) across diverse time periods, policy periods, and geographies (Larsson, 1993; Rudel, 2008). Three key findings emerged from this research.

First, this analysis demonstrates that, although scale mismatches are reducing its effectiveness, WQOs are an example of a SEA-type process for addressing cumulative effects to water quality. Strategic environmental assessment processes can be developed for an area, a

90 particular sector, or for a particular value, such as water quality (Harriman & Noble, 2008;

Partidario & Fischer, 2004). BC’s WQO can best be described as a SEA-type policy tool for a sector (i.e. a strategy to guide waste regulation by the Ministry of Environment), and as a strategy for the Ministry of Environment to fulfil its mandate outlined in the Ministry of

Environment Act and the Environmental Management Act to set policies, guidelines and objectives for ambient environmental quality.

The second pattern observed is that over the 40-year history of WQOs, this policy has not been maintained as a SEA-type process. As a result, there are timeframes where the contribution of WQOs to assessing and managing cumulative effects have not been effective. During periods when federal government policies provided support for development, the application occurred at basin-level spatial scales generating cumulative effects assessment information and directly influencing point source management decisions. However, in the absence of federal interest, the application of WQOs occurred at sub-watersheds (i.e., < 500 km2) and did not formally influence decisions affecting water quality. Thus, mismatches between decision scales and assessment scales are resulting in WQOs providing little contribution to the assessment and management of cumulative effects and the protection of water quality.

Finally, regardless of these noted scale mismatches, synthesizing information across 40 years demonstrates that the ongoing development of WQOs policies have been remarkably persistent over time in the sense that existing WQO policies are updated (Obee, 2011) and new

WQO policies are currently being developed such as those in the Murray River in northeast BC

(Canadian Water Network, 2016; Province of British Columbia, 2016). Understanding the factors that may have contributed to this ongoing support can help identify ways in which to institute policies and procedures that encourage resilient governance regimes (Chaffin &

Gunderson, 2016). Drawing on principles of adaptive governance, I suggest that two attributes of

WQOs have been fundamental in influencing its persistence. First is the fact that at its core,

WQOs produce a cumulative effects assessment. The final reports describe the current state of water quality using measurable objectives in relation to uses (e.g., drinking water, recreational water, aquatic life). This type of information is likely to be useful for anyone within and outside government using the particular waterbody in question. Second, the process is highly transparent in both the scientific process but also in how the information is used in decision-making. These are considered critical attributes of not only adaptive governance, but also good water governance (Brandes & O ’Riordan, 2014; Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016; Plummer et al., 2014; von der Porten & de Loë, 2013)

6.2.1. WQOs as a SEA Process Contributing to Cumulative Effects Management

The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate that WQOs are have three characteristics that are consistent with SEA-type processes. These policies provide a space for articulating sustainability goals for water quality, a scientific methodology that can assess cumulative effects, and although limited and inconsistent, it does provide some influence on decision-making that can control activities so as to align with the sustainability goals. However as will be discussed in the section on scale mismatches, these contributions have not always been effectively implemented.

One of the most important contributions of WQOs to CEAM is the fact that this policy provides a process for identifying the desired, future state of water quality in quantitative terms, in order to balance competing uses. The Ministry of Environment has been given a broad mandate to establish objectives for water quality in the ambient environment through the

Ministry of Environment Act (1996), and authority to develop long-term management plans in the

Environmental Management Act (2003). The analysis showed that there were periods where

WQOs were applied as a SEA-type planning tool that set out to articulate sustainability goals, and the assessments matched this purpose. Two examples include the use of WQOs for comprehensive river basin initiatives in the Okanagan and Fraser River basins (Table 2, Table 3).

The analysis also highlights the influence of federal government policies for keeping WQOs at a strategic level. It is during periods of limited interest from the federal government that scale mismatches for WQOs were amplified. It is noteworthy that similar strategic-level drivers originating from the Provincial level appeared to influence WQO development.

Scientific assessments that support CEAM within SEA processes, possess some unique characteristics which may not be observed in assessments interested in a specific activity or project (Dubé, 2003; Munkittrick et al., 2000). The analytical framework for the meta-analysis contained two questions to understand the WQOs scientific methodology: how is baseline defined, and what types of measurable objectives are identified to meet specific goals? The synthesis of answers to these questions demonstrates that the MOE has defined baseline for conducting assessments for WQOs as the conditions prior to human impacts (BC Ministry of

Environment, 1986b). Water quality is the focus of the assessments, and the policy defines spatial boundaries defined according to three factors: the water flows and circulation patterns, existing and future potential contaminants from point and nonpoint sources, and the behaviour of contaminants under local conditions (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b). Cumulative effects assessments within SEA processes place the valued environmental components (i.e., water quality) as the focal point of the assessment and are interested in the broad range of stressors including known and unknown (there is an assumption that it is not possible to predict all

93 interactions), and human-induced or naturally occurring influences (Dubé, 2003; Munkittrick et al., 2000). These characteristics were reflected in BC’s policies.

Strategic environmental assessment processes influence and guide decisions that can affect the achievement of sustainability goals (Arts et al., 2005; Bardecki, 1990; Gunn & Noble,

2011; Partidario & Fischer, 2004). Although the influence of WQOs on decision-making is restricted to the MOE, and even further restricted in regulations, the policy is intended to guide decision-making that affects water quality. Direction that WQOs are intended to “serve as a guide for issuing permits, licences, and orders by the Ministry of Environment and for the management of the Province's land base” is provided in general policy (MOE 1986b, p. 1;

Ministry of Environment, 2001). The application of this statement is clarified in the following policy statement, “objectives approved by the Assistant Deputy Minister, constitute official ministry policy on these aspects of water quality, and that they will be considered in any decisions affecting water quality made within the Ministry of Environment” (BC Ministry of

Environment, 2001b, p. 1). Water quality objectives are also referenced in the Municipal

Wastewater Regulation, thus requiring decision-makers working under this regulation to consider WQOs (Municipal Sewage Regulation, 2010). Therefore, if developed at relevant spatial scales as directed by the policy guidance to account for point and nonpoint sources, water movement, and the interaction of contaminants with natural processes (Ministry of Environment

1986b), WQOs can be an effective assessment tool for guiding at the least, waste management decisions.

6.2.2. Scale Mismatches Affecting WQO Effectiveness for CEAM

Proponents of resilience theory and adaptive governance define scale mismatches as situations where the scale of an environmental problem or dynamic and the scale at which the

94 social organization responsible for managing that resource are configured in a way that one or more functions of the system, social or ecological, are disrupted, inefficient, and/or the components of the system are lost (Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016; Cumming et al., 2008). Interest in scale mismatches has historically been concerned with conducting the scientific assessment at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales to match the multi-scalar problem of cumulative effects (Cash & Moser, 2000; Cocklin, 1993; Spaling, 1994). Scholars of CEAM research have recognized that expanding the spatial or temporal scales of an assessment will not necessarily produce the information necessary to solve the problems associated with cumulative effects because the question is not strictly a scientific one (Harriman & Noble, 2008; Hegmann &

Yarranton, 2011). Rather the scientific question must be guided first by questions of public preferences for how to balance the social, economic, and environmental values derived from water quality. These are governance questions, and the arena for answering these questions is not within a regulatory framework designed for controlling project impacts. Instead this should occur through processes that will engage the broader society and include questions about what the future state of the resource should be, how should social, environmental and economic interests be balanced, and what should be the process for making these decisions, and who should be involved in these decisions (Creasey, 2002; Duinker & Greig, 2006; Harriman & Noble, 2008;

Kennett, 1999; Nowlan & Bakker, 2010; Parkins, 2011).

Initiatives at the federal level are a key driver for not only the development of WQOs, but also for maintaining these at a more strategic level. Federal policies that supported WQOs include the Canada Water Act, environmental impact assessment policy prior to the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Federal Green Plan

(Appendix A, Table A1). Although only eight WQO reports were produced from these initiatives,

95 the spatial coverage is vast and includes the entire Fraser River and the Okanagan River Basin

(Table A1).

In the absence of federally-driven initiatives, there was no evidence that WQO policies supported similar, strategic-level policies emerging from Provincial agencies. For example, Land and Resource Management Planning was a major integrated natural resource management strategy that emerged in the early 1990s in British Columbia to address conflicts between resource users (Jackson & Curry, 2004; Thielmann & Tollefson, 2009). The process was led by the Ministry of Forests and was intended to provide strategic management and direction for

Crown land and resources including aquatic resources (Creighton, 1999). WQOs policies do not appear to have supported this initiative, nor is there evidence from this meta-analysis that WQO policies were realigned to support LRMPs.

6.2.3. Persistence of WQOs and Implications for CEAM

If sustained support for WQOs is measured by the fact that monitoring and assessments are ongoing to determine if water quality is meeting objectives previously set (BC Ministry of

Environment, n.d.), out of date policies are updated with recent monitoring information and assessments (Obee, 2011), and new policies are being initiated for waterbodies without policies

(Province of British Columbia, 2016), then there is evidence to indicate that WQOs policies have been sustained for over four decades. While scale mismatches cannot be overlooked since this can leave cumulative effects neither assessed nor managed, it is significant that WQOs have received continual support over such a long time period, given that developing WQOs involves labour-intensive and costly tasks of monitoring, writing an assessment report, government approval, and processes to include this information in government databases and websites which are open to public consumption (Government of British Columbia, n.d.-a).

One possible explanation for long-term support for WQOs is because of its focus on knowledge production, particularly because it is occurring at spatial and temporal scales that can, albeit voluntarily, be used for many levels of decision-making, both within and outside government. For example, water suppliers may use the information for infrastructure planning.

Although this research did not specifically investigate the diversity of actors involved in WQO development, when analyzing answers to question 4 (what body or organization is responsible for leading the assessment?) it became evident that many entities are becoming involved in the

WQO process (see also Section 6.7 Future Research). The interest in WQOs from provincial agencies, local government, communities, water suppliers, Indigenous communities, appear to be establishing a network of actors that share responsibilities and tasks necessary for CEAM.

According to Berkes (2009), while increasing SES resilience has typically focused on decision- making processes, knowledge production is also a critical task for sustainability, especially since it is rarely possible for a single agency to have sole responsibility for delivering this function.

It may also be the way in which this knowledge is produced, and the governance space in which it is produced, that is contributing to continued support to develop and maintain WQOs.

The MOE developed the rules and protocols for WQOs in the mid-1980s, and these have been transferred, unaltered, into an arena that seems to be occupied by a diverse set of government and non-government actors. The rules and protocols are contained in several documents that clearly outlines both the scientific assessment approach (BC Ministry of Environment, 1986b, 2013a), how the MOE goes about approving the WQO policies, and finally how this information will be used in decision-making processes (BC Ministry of Environment, 2001b). These documents are provided to the public on the MOE’s website (Government of British Columbia, n.d.-b). In addition, once they have been approved by MOE executive they are incorporated in spatial

97 databases, also available to the public (Government of BC, n.d.; Government of British

Columbia, n.d.-a). The result is that the process for establishing WQOs, is open, transparent, and therefore provides an accountability mechanism because the stated sustainability goals are quantified through specific benchmarks for water quality parameters (e.g., nutrients, metals), which again, is transparent to the public.

The transfer of the scientific process into a collaborative arena may be facilitating adaptive governance. Adaptive governance is a reaction to traditional, government led, top-down approaches to make decisions about how the environment should be used, and by who (Chaffin

& Gunderson, 2016). An important principle of AG is building diverse and dense networks of individuals and institutions that are able to continue providing the functions and structures necessary for the task at hand regardless of disturbances such as shrinking resources, institutional organizational changes, or policy changes (Biggs et al., 2012; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg,

2005). In order for the scientific functions of CEAM to occur, regardless of disruptions, there must be clear and agreed upon processes accepted and conducted by these networks of individuals and institutions. Traditionally, scientific expertise, decisions processes, and dialogue have tended to be held within governments or industry by elite groups of experts (Dietz, 1987;

Parkins, 2011). This tendency has been characterized as a ‘black box’ that contradicts democratic norms of openness, transparency, and accountability (Dietz, 1987; Parkins, 2011). It may be that the combination of a structured, open, and accountable scientific process within a collaborative governance process has contributed to the sustained support for WQOs over the past decades, and possibly the evolution of adaptive governance.

6.3. Implications of this Research

6.3.1. Implications for Sustaining Modern SEA Processes and CEAM

Governments in Canada are being encouraged to improve how cumulative effects are assessed and managed to achieve desired sustainability outcomes (Canadian Council of the

Ministers of the Environment, 2009). The Government of BC has introduced a Cumulative

Effects Framework (CEF) that will attempt to “move away from sector-focused approaches” and

“towards a more integrated form of resource management” by establishing a common set of measurable objectives for all sectors and integrating assessment information into existing business and decision-making processes (GBC 2014, p. 1). Similarly, the Water Sustainability

Act’s Water Objectives (Section 43) also has the potential to improve CEAM with its goal to develop an integrated, and consistent approach to achieve desired outcomes for water resources

(Government of British Columbia, 2013).

The WQOs, CEF, and WSA’s Water Objectives are all examples of SEA-type processes.

Strategic environmental assessment processes are forms of integrated resource management strategies that attempt to create goals and objectives that are shared within a sector, or across government and non-government agencies and institutions in order to achieve desired outcomes for a particular VEC, or multiple VECs (Arts et al., 2005; Harriman & Noble, 2008; Meijers &

Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a).

One of the challenges identified for SEA processes is that they are difficult to fully implement from the strategic-level, down to the operational policy levels because policy areas extend across multiple agencies and many factors can lead to disruptions such as reorganizations, or conflicts with existing policies (Meijers & Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). Failure to have these fully implemented can lead to scale mismatches both by design, or mismatches can

99 evolve over time and result in detrimental outcomes for ecosystems and ecosystem services

(Cumming & Norberg, 2008).

The results of this study demonstrate that keeping SEA processes ‘strategic,’ requires not only critically considering how to design these policies, but also identifying the critical relationships between agencies with relevant authorities to maintain that strategic lens. Scholars of integrated policy strategies have identified two overarching approaches for maintaining the structure and function of integrated strategies. One is conceptualized as being narrow, because it attempts to incorporate common goals into a high-level policy that will provide overall direction to multiple agencies (Meijers & Stead, 2004; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). The other strategy is conceptualized as being broad, and recently the term clumsy, is used to refer to these types of approaches (Ney & Verweij, 2015; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). Clumsy approaches resolve the problem from the ground up. These also design common goals, but to achieve integration, policy areas of different agencies, sectors, and institutions are altered to align with these common goals, and in this way create redundancies in the system so that if there is disruption to one policy area, others remain. The evidence from this study indicates that the latter approach, the clumsy one, may be more successful. In the case of WQOs, incorporating requirements in the Municipal

Wastewater Regulation and the Municipal Sewage Regulation to consider WQOs, in addition to general policy statements for the MOE, may be contributing to the use of WQOs in particular areas (i.e., Okanagan Basin).

Expanding this requirement in other statutes and regulations controlling activities that affect water quality could begin to address the problem of nonpoint source pollution not being influenced by information generated from MOE’s WQOs. Therefore, the clumsy approach that can build redundancy and overlap into policies at multiple levels is likely to be more successful.

100

This diverse approach is also consistent with adaptive governance and the idea that diversity and variation builds resilient SES (Berkes & Ross, 2016; Biggs et al., 2012).

6.3.2. ‘Strategic’ Water Quality Objectives and Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

In 2017, Premier John Horgan announced that the Government of British Columbia is committed to working with Indigenous peoples to implement the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). To meet this goal, provincial agencies are tasked with undertaking a review of policies, programs, and legislation to determine how principles of

UNDRIP may be put into action (Government of BC, 2017). In the Canadian context, UNDRIP’s principles of ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ as related to natural resource use and management are at the forefront (Favel & Coates, 2016). In particular, articles 19, 23, and 32 describe the need for states to consult and cooperate in good faith prior to resource development project approval on Indigenous lands and territories, and the rights of Indigenous peoples to develop priorities and strategies for the development and use of mineral, water, and other resources (Favel and Coates, 2017).

Implementing WQOs as strategic-level governance policy may provide opportunities to at least partially address UNDRIP articles 19, 23 and 32. Recall that ideally, strategic-level cumulative effects assessments aim to i) understand the full range of activities, past, present, and future, that have or will contribute to environmental change and cumulative effects, and ii) assess and plan in a proactive manner to guide all types of decisions that influence the ability to achieve sustainability goals. If conducted within an open, transparent, and collaborative governance setting, the WQO process could advance the ‘informed’ aspect of free, prior, and informed consent. This is because the assessment generates knowledge about historical and present-day changes to water quality which is an indicator of the condition of many

101 environmental values protected as Aboriginal rights including fishing, hunting, gathering and spiritual practices (Walkem, 2007). Collaborative approaches to knowledge production may enable new ways of understanding environmental change and how these changes may be affecting Indigenous cultures, which are so closely tied to lands and waters (Castleden, Hart,

Cunsolo, Harper & Martin, 2016; Walkem, 2007). The inclusion of ‘two ways of knowing’ and understanding how the aquatic ecosystem is responding to human development may also address the criticism faced by governments that rely predominantly on traditional western scientific methods which are often viewed as a ‘black box’ that can only be accessed by government

‘experts’ (Moore, Shaw, Castleden & Reid, 2016; Parkins, 2011).

From a legal standpoint, it seems prudent to implement WQOs as strategic-level governance policy where there is the space to advance integration and allow the ‘two ways of knowing’ to form the assessment process. Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, and treaty rights are recognized in the Canadian constitution and accordingly, federal and provincial governments are required to seek input from Indigenous peoples and seriously consider how decisions about resource use may affect these rights (Walkem, 2007). However, it has been widely argued that in practice, there is limited progress towards integration of Indigenous knowledge, perspectives, and understandings into western-designed policies and management frameworks (Castleden, Hart,

Cunsolo, Harper & Martin, 2016). The findings of the BC Court of Appeal in the case of the

West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines) clarified how the duty to consult and accommodate must be met when dealing with projects that cause environmental impacts (Kleer, 2012; Promislow, 2013). The finding is related to the scope of the

Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate when authority to make decisions are transferred through statutes and regulations to departmental officials. The court found that in order to respect

102 legal and constitutional limits, decision-makers operating within sector-specific regulations may be obligated to consider how historical decisions and activities contributed to the current state of the resource and what additional (i.e. cumulative) effects the decision-at-hand may create (Kleer,

2012). Therefore, the duty to consult and accommodate should ideally occur ‘upstream’ of the mandate of the statutory decision-maker, which supports the notion that there is a need to proactively assess cumulative effects in order to guide and constrain on-going decision-making

(Creasey, 2002).

6.3.3. Theory

This research was approached through the lens of the adaptive governance paradigm.

This theoretical framework is rooted in resilience theory but with a more focused view of the governance dimension (Folke et al., 2005; Olsson, Folke, Galaz, Hahn, & Schultz, 2007).

Adaptive governance embraces complex adaptive systems thinking where social and ecological processes are viewed as intricately linked systems (Berkes et al., 2003; Chapin et al., 2009). The adaptive governance framework is of particular relevance in the case of BC. While the adaptive management paradigm is widely incorporated into policies by agencies responsible for achieving sustainable resource management outcomes in this province (BC Ministry of Environment, 2016;

Taylor, 1997), there is little evidence to indicate that governance perspectives and strategies have been similarly developed. The lack of attention to the governance dimension of adaptive management may be contributing to the scale mismatches observed within WQOs, and the ineffective attention to cumulative effects. For example, while the diversity of actors involved in

WQOs has expanded, the spatial scales for WQOs have become much smaller, and have predominantly ‘issues-driven’ since around 2000. This raises the question as to whether WQOs have become a victim of the ‘local trap’ phenomenon. This is a term used to describe situations

103 where responsibilities for environmental governance is expanded to non-state actors, often at local levels in an effort to build social trust, empower local communities, or ensure local needs are addressed but ironically, these do not necessarily produce the desired outcomes (Bakker and

Cook, 2011, Brown and Purcell, 2005). While diverse involvement has many benefits, allowing

WQOs to serve local interests for assessments, may not generate information at relevant spatial and decision scales needed to address cumulative effects. Governments must maintain its

‘steering’ function of WQOs to ensure this policy is effective at supporting sustainability goals for water quality.

Adaptive governance draws attention to scale mismatches (Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016;

Garmestani & Harm Benson, 2013; Olsson et al., 2007). Large-scale, integrated policy strategies such as SEA-type processes may be more susceptible to scale mismatches than other types of environmental policies because they attempt to create policy harmony across multiple agencies and institutions. The challenge is that IS must somehow be implemented within existing governance regimes that have evolved independently over long-time periods. This can result in

IS not being fully implemented horizontally across agencies that have traditionally managed resources independently (i.e., forests, water quantity, water quality) or vertically within the various policies, plans, and programs (Hooghe & Marks, 2003b; Rayner & Howlett, 2009b). This is especially true for water management in Canada which has been described as the most decentralized water governance regime amongst developed countries (Hill et al., 2008).

Therefore, building resilient social structures may require one type of strategy for resilient policies and another type of strategy that will encourage resilient networks of actors with capacity to undertake labour-intensive and expensive tasks required for CEA.

104

This study supports the argument put forward by Westley (2002) that complex environmental problems (i.e., addressing cumulative effects through large-scale integrated strategies like SEA), will require ‘soft’ governance spaces that operate outside of ‘rigid’ regulatory frameworks. These processes must provide space for problem-solving, dialogue, shared learning, innovation and experimentation, and flexibility. Yet, it is also important that the right links need to be made at the right level, and for the right issues (Olsson et al., 2007;

Westley, 2002).

6.3.4. Future Research Opportunities

The analytical framework for this study did not include a variable that assessed the changes in the diversity of actors involved in the WQO development process over time.

Understanding how this evolved would be an interesting research question to explore how partnerships and collaboration are contributing to knowledge production, and in turn if this is a critical precursor to shared decision-making which as suggested Folke et al., (2003). Open and inclusive deliberation of scientific processes that inform decisions, is seen as a critical first step towards more democratic environmental governance (Dietz, 1987; Parkins, 2011). Participatory governance approaches are a foundational principle of AG (Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016;

Hatfield-Dodds, Nelson, & Cook, 2007).

The other question that arises from this research is why no evidence was found linking

WQOs, a foundational policy for the MOE, to other provincially-driven, strategic-level integrated resource management policies? Provincial efforts to improve water quality protection and address cumulative effects stemming from activities regulated by agencies other that the

Ministry of Environment, are unlikely to be successful without addressing what appears to be, a serious disconnect across provincial agencies with responsibilities related to water quality

105 protection. British Columbia’s relatively new Cumulative Effects Framework policy does recognize the desire to build on existing objectives and create organizational structures to improve interagency cooperation (Government of British Columbia, 2014), and therefore this may provide an opportunity to advance CEAM here in this province.

Water Quality Objectives are a valuable policy tool for British Columbia. The policies provide the space for collaboratively articulating sustainability goals that protect the social, economic, and environmental benefits obtained from good water quality. The policies also provide the assessment methodology which appears to be a unique characteristic compared to other provinces (Dubé, 2003; Munkittrick et al., 2000; Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011).

Opportunities to improve how WQOs are used in decision-making across other provincial agencies may be in the near future as a result of the Cumulative Effects Framework and provisions for setting objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in the Water Sustainability Act.

6.4. Conclusions

The highly-fragmented water governance landscape in Canada, where overlapping responsibilities are not clear or even worse, are sometimes in conflict, is often cited as a key barrier to advancing integrated policy strategies such as SEA that can theoretically help address the problem of cumulative effects to water quality (Bakker & Cook, 2011; Johns & Sproule-

Jones, 2009; Mitchell, 2005; Rayner & Howlett, 2009a). The adaptive governance paradigm, heavily influenced by resilience theory, draws attention to the problems that can arise when scale mismatches occur between the biophysical/temporal features of the environmental problem and social organizations responsible for resolving these (Chaffin & Gunderson, 2016; Olsson et al.,

2007). This research provides evidence that scale mismatches are occurring between environmental management and environmental governance policies, and this is having a negative

106 effect on the biophysical scale at which WQOs assessments occur, and the types of decisions that the assessment can inform. In the end, the original intent of WQOs, a SEA-type tool which is about governance is being utilized for on-the-ground management questions, resulting in the policies being applied to ineffective spatial and decision scales. Attention to ensuring policy tools are being used for the right questions, whether these are management or governance, is critical (Olsson et al., 2007; Westley, 2002). To sustain integrated policy strategies, there is a need to ensure relationships with critical agencies are both developed and maintained, and institutional changes to these agencies should result in a review to how this might affect the effectiveness of policies (Barg & Tyler, 2009).

Finally, the findings of this research align with Folke et al. (2003) that the persistence of processes like WQOs, is because it is a knowledge-driven process where the knowledge is useful for decision-making within and beyond government, and the process is collaborative. The transparency and accountability aspects of WQO may be responsible for facilitating a wide and diverse network of government and non-government actors willing to participate in the data- intensive process of cumulative effects assessment. This density is important in a fragmented governance regime if integration, a key aspect of water quality protection, is to improve (Hill et al., 2008).

The analysis of WQO policies over a 40-year history uncovered changes that would not have been seen using a case study or even a comparative study. The meta-analysis revealed the strong influence of federal water policies on a strategic application of WQOs, and how the original intent of WQOs as a planning tool rather than a regulatory management tool has been masked by issues of the day and a lack of integration across provincial agencies. The meta- analysis methodology is known to be especially useful for research topics where no structure is

107 presently available. While water is one of the most comprehensively studies natural resources, limited attention has been paid to water quality policies (Sarker, Ross & Shrestha, 2008) and at least in the BC context, no scholarship on the Province’s foundational water quality management policy of WQOs is available. This meta-analysis provides a structure to WQOs that now makes the information more readily available to future researchers and identifies themes for future exploration such as the role of the federal government in strategically addressing cumulative effects, and strategies for provincial agencies to sustain integrated policy strategies.

108

References

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8

Alexander, G. (1982). Summary of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the Okanagan Main Valley Lakes from Cultural and Natural Sources.Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/welcome.do.

Arber, J. C. (1992). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Sechelt Inlet (Sunshine Coast area). Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Arts, J., Tomlinson, P., & Voogd, H. (2005). EIA and SEA tiering: the missing link? Position paper presented at the international association for impact assessment conference. In Conference of the International Association of Impact Asstessment. International Experience and Perspectives in SEA (pp. 26–30). Prague: International Association of Impact Assessment.

Atlin, C., & Gibson, R. (2017). Lasting regional gains from non-renewable resource extraction: The role of sustainability-based cumulative effects assessment and regional planning for mining development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.01.005

Auditor General of British Columbia. (1999). Protecting Drinking-Water Sources. Retrieved from http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/1999/report5/protecting-drinking-water-sources

Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2011). Water Governance in Canada: Innovation and Fragmentation. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27(2), 275–289. http://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2011.564969

Bardecki, M. J. (1990). Coping with cumulative impacts: An Assessment of Legislative and Administrative Mechanisms. Impact Assessment, 8(1–2), 319–344.

Barg, S., & Tyler, S. (2009). Decentralization of Decision-making. In D. Swanson & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating Adpative Policies: a guide for policy-making in an uncertain world (pp. 80–94). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

109

Barlak, R. (2010). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives: Englishman River. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Barlak, R. (2011). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for China Creek Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Barlak, R. (2012). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the John Hart Lake Community Watershed and McIvor Lake. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Barth, M., & Thomas, I. (2012). Synthesising case-study research – ready for the next step? Environmental Education Research. http://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.665849

Battarbee, R. W., John Anderson, N., Jeppesen, E., & Leavitt, P. R. (2005). Combining palaeolimnological and limnological approaches in assessing lake ecosystem response to nutrient reduction. Freshwater Biology, 50(10), 1772–1780. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2427.2005.01427.x

Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography: Establishing “Rigour” in Interview Analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), 505–525. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00505.x

BC Ministry of Environment. (n.d.). Okanagan Large Lakes - Water Quality Monitoring Program. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land- water/water/waterquality/monitoringwaterquality/thompson-okanagan-wq-docs/ok-large- lakes-final.pdf

BC Ministry of Environment. (1978). Ministry of Environment Annual Report. Activities for all branches for the period 1980-1981. Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/welcome.do

BC Ministry of Environment. (1981). An information system to support strategic and operational planning in the Ministry of Environment. Victoria, B.C.

110

BC Ministry of Environment. (1985). Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan.

BC Ministry of Environment. (1986a). Phosphorus in the Okanagan Valley. Sources, water quality objectives and control possibilities. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/objectives/okphosphorus/okphosphorus.html

BC Ministry of Environment. (1986b). Principles for Preparing Water Quality Objectives. Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (1986c). Similkameen Strategic Environmental Plan.Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/welcome.do.

BC Ministry of Environment. (1987). Ambient Water Quality Objectives for the Bullmoose Creek Sub-Basin Peace River Area. Overview Report. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/objectives/bullmoose/bullmoose.html

BC Ministry of Environment. (2001a). Water Quality. Glossary of Terms. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/reference/glossary.html

BC Ministry of Environment. (2001b). Water Quality. Policy Statements. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/homesubs/policy.html

BC Ministry of Environment. (2013a). Guidance for the Derivation and Application of Water Quality Objectives in British Columbia. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (2013b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Brash Creek Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (2014a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Chemainus River Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

111

BC Ministry of Environment. (2014b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the French Creek Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (2015a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Coldstream Creek. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (2015b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Cusheon Lake, Maxwell Lake, St. Mary Lake, and Weston Lake: Salt Spring Island, B.C. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives.

BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). A User Guide for the Water and Air Baseline Monitoring Guidance Document for Mine Proponents and Operators. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/industrial- waste/industrial-waste/mining-smelt-energy/guidance- documents/ug_water_and_air_baseline.pdf

BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). Information Notice. A User Guide for the Water and Air Baseline Monitoring Guidance Document for Mine Proponents and Operators. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/industrial- waste/industrial-waste/mining-smelt-energy/guidance- documents/ug_water_and_air_baseline.pdf

BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). Technical Guidance 8 Environmental Management Act Applications.Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste- management/industrial-waste/industrial-waste/mining-smelt-energy/guidance- documents/tg8_framework_for_sbebs.pdf.

BC Ministry of Environment and Parks. (1986). Cowichan Koksilah Water Management Plan. Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=4031.

Benidickson, J. (2017). The Evolution of Canadian Water Law and Policy: Securing Safe and

112

Sustainable Abundance. McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law, 13(1), 61–104.

Berger, T. R. (1977). Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland. The report of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, volume one. Ottawa.

Berger, T. R. (1978). The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 16(3), 639–648.

Berkes, F. (2008). Commons in a Multi-level World. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.thecommonsjournal.org

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2016). Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy implications. Environmental Science and Policy. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.004

Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1972). The History and Status of General Systems Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001

Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., … West, P. C. (2012). Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-051211-123836

Booth, L., & Quinn, F. (1995). Twenty-five years of the Canada Water Act. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 20(2), 65–90.

Boyd, I. T., McKean, C. J. ., Nordin, R. N., & Wilkes, B. D. (1985). Skeena Nass Area. Kathlyn, Seymour, Round and Tyhee Lakes. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Victoria.

Boyle James Kay, M. J. (2001). Monitoring in Support of Policy: an Adaptive Ecosystem Approach. Encylopedia of Global Environmental Change, 4, 116–137. Retrieved from https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/assets/documents/monitor.pdf

Brandes, O. M., & O ’Riordan, J. (2014). A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British

113

Columbia. Victoria.

Bruce, J. P., & Maasland, D. E. (1968). Water Resources Research in Canada. Ottawa.

Butcher, G. . (1987a). Peace River Area. Bullmoose Creek Sub-basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Butcher, G. A. (1985). Peace River Area. Pouce Coupe River Sub-basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Butcher, G. A. (1987b). Peace River Area. Peace River Mainstem. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Butcher, G. A. (1992). Lower Columbia River. Hugh Keenleyside Dam to Birchbank. Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Objectives. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Campbell, E. ., Saunders, S. C., Coates, K. D., Meidinger, D. V., MacKinnon, A., O’Neill, G. A., … Morgan, D. G. (2009). Ecological resilience and complexity: a theoretical framework for understanding and managing British Columbia’s forest ecosystems in a changing climate (Technical Report 055). Victoria.

Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Agreement. (1974). The Main Report of the Consultative Board. Penticton.

Canada Water Act, Revised Statute of Canada (1985).

Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment. (2009). Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada Principles and Guidance. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Canadian Water Network. (2016). Synthesis of learnings of the Canadian Watershed Research

114

Consortium. Waterloo, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.cwn- rce.ca/assets/resources/pdf/2016-Watershed-Consortium-Report/CWN-CanadianWatershed- EN-2016-Web.pdf

Carpenter, S. R., Armbrust, E. V., Arzberger, P. W., Chapin, F. S., Elser, J. J., Hackett, E. J., … Zimmerman, A. S. (2009). Accelerate Synthesis in Ecology and Environmental Sciences. BioScience. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.11

Carpenter, S. R., Armbrust, V., Arzberger, P., Chapin, T., Elser, J., Hackett, E., … Smith, K. (2009). The Future of Synthesis in Ecology and Environmental Sciences.

Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., … Young, O. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11(2), art8. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208

Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0.

Castleden, H., Hart, C., Cunsolo, A., Harper, S., & Martin, D. (2016). Reconcilation and Relationality in Water Research and Management in Canada: Implementing Indigenous Ontologies, Epistemologies, and Methodologies. In S. Renzetti & D. Dupont (Eds), Water Policy and Goverance in Canada, Global Issues in Water Policy 17 (pp. 69-94). Switzerland: Springer.

Cavanagh, N., Nordin, R., & Bryan, J. (1994). Christina Lake. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Cavanaugh, N., Nordin, R. N., Pommen, L. W., & Swain, L. G. (1998). Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/risc/pubs/aquatic/design/index.htm

Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gosnell, H., & Craig, R. K. (2016). Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA. Environmental Science & Policy, 57, 112–121. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.008

115

Chaffin, B. C., & Gunderson, L. H. (2016). Emergence, institutionalization and renewal: Rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 165, 81–87. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.003

Chapin, F. S. I. (2009). Managing ecosystems sustainably: the key role of resilience. In M. C. Chapin (Ed.), Principles of ecosystem stewardship. Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. (pp. 29–54). New York, NY: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_2

Chilima, J. S., Blakely, J. A. E., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2017). Institutional arrangements for assessing and managing cumulative effects on watersheds: Lessons from the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 15. http://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2017.1292151

Chu, C., Minns, C. K., & Mandrak, N. E. (2003). Comparative regional assessment of factors impacting freshwater fish biodiversity in Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 60, 624–634. http://doi.org/10.1139/F03-048

Cocklin, C. (1993). What Does Cumulative Effects Analysis Have to do With Sustainable Development? Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 3(Autumn), 453–479.

Cox, M. (2014). Understanding large social-ecological systems: Introducing the SESMAD project. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 265–276. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.406

Creasey, R. (2002). Moving from project-based cumulative effects assessment to regional environmental management. Papers from a symposium held by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists. In A. A. Kennedy (Ed.), Cumulative environmental effects management: tools and approaches (pp. 3–16). Calgary, Alberta: Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.

Creighton, S. C. (1999). Learning to Plan for Integrated Water Managment in British Columbia (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/.

Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H. M., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Scale Mismatches in Social- Ecological Systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. Ecology and Society. Insight, Part of a Special Feature on Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, 11(1), 14.

116

Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/

Cumming, G. S., & Norberg, J. (2008). Scale and Complex systems. In J. Norberg & G. S. Cummings (Eds.), Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dalal-Clayton, D. ., & Sadler, B. (2005). Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. London: Earthscan. de Loë, R., & Kreutzwiser, R. (2007). Challenging the status quo: the evolution of water governance in Canada. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada (pp. 85–104). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Deniseger, J. H. (1995). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tsolumn River Basin, Vancouver Island. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Buttersworth.

Dessouki, T., & Ryan, A. (2010). Canada-British Columbia Water Quality Monitoring Agreement: Water Quality Assessment of the Kootenay, Elk, and Mary Rivers. Victoria.

Dietz, T. (1987). Theory and Method in Social Impact Assessment. Sociological Inquiry, 57(1), 54–69.

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1981). The Uncertain Quest for a Management Strategy in the Fraser Estuary. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 6(4), 95–118. http://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj0604095

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1987). CEA and management in the Fraser River. In Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development (pp. 43–56). Hull, Quebec: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1987). The Management of Super, Natural British Columbia. BC Studies, (73), 14–42.

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1987). The Myth of Interagency Cooperation in Water Resources Management. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 12 (January 2015), 17–26. http://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj1202017

117

Dorcey, A. H. J. (2004). Surfing the waves of transformation. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), Resource and Environmental Management in Canada. Addressing conflict and uncertainty (pp. 528–554).

Dubé, M. G. (2003). Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: A regional framework for aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0195- 9255(03)00113-6

Dubé, M., Johnson, B., Dunn, G., Culp, J., Cash, K., Munkittrick, K. R., … Storey, A. (2006). Development of a new approach to cumulative effects assessment: A Northern River Ecosystem example. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113, 87–115. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9098-0

Dube, M., & Munkittrick, K. R. (2001). Integration of Effects-Based and Stressor-Based Approaches into a Holistic Framework for Cumulative Effects Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems,. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7(2), 247–258.

Duinker, P. N., Burbidge, E. L., Boardley, S. R., & Greig, L. A. (2013). Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environmental Reviews, 21(1), 40–52. http://doi.org/10.1139/er-2012-0035

Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2006). The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5

Engel, R., & Schutt, R. (2009a). No Title (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Engel, R., & Schutt, R. (2009b). The Practice of Research in Social Work (Third). Los Angles: Sage.

Environment Canada (1992). Fraser River Action Plan Progress Report.

Environmental Management Act, SBC 2003, c. 53. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/03053_04.

Epps, D. (2008). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the McKelvie Creek Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Epps, D. (2009a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Newcastle Creek Community

118

Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Epps, D. (2009b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Tsulquate River Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Epps, D. (2014). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Bamfield Inlet. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Epps, D., & Phippen, B. (2011a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Comox Lake. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Epps, D., & Phippen, B. (2011b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Cowichan Lake. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Ezekiel, R., & Everett, D. (2003). BC Government Introduces Environmental Management Act (Bill 57). Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved from http://www.fasken.com.

Favel, B., and Coates, K. (2016). Understanding UNDRIP. Choosing action priorities over the sweeping claims about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Series 10, Aboriginal Canada and the natural resource economy series. Ottawa: Macdonald- Laurier Institute. Retrieved from https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI-10- UNDRIPCoates-Flavel05-16-WebReadyV4.pdf.

Ferreyra, C. (2006). Practicality, positionality, and emancipation: Reflections on participatory action research with a watershed partnership. Systemic Practice and Action Research. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9044-2

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (1997). Legacy for the Fraser. A Final Report on the Fraser River Action Plan. Vancouver.

Folke, C. (2003). Freshwater for resilience: a shift in thinking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 2027-2036. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1385

119

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour, 30, 441–73. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Forest Practices Board. (2014). Community Watersheds: From Objectives to Results on the Ground. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved from https://www.bcfpb.ca/sites/default/files/reports/SIR40-Community-Watersheds-From- Objectives-to-Results-on-the-Ground.pdf

Garmestani, A. S., & Harm Benson, M. (2013). A Framework for Resilience-based Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usepapapers

Gibson, R. B. (2012). In full retreat: the Canadian government’s new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(3), 179–188. http://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.720417

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research (Reprinted 2006). New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Aldine Transaction.

Government of BC. (n.d.). iMapBC. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/geographic-data-services/web-based- mapping/imapbc

Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-a). Open Data. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/open-data

Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-b). Water Quality Objectives. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives

Government of British Columbia. (2013). A Water Sustainability Act for B.C. Legislative Proposal. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved from https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/71/2013/10/WSA_legislative-proposal_web- doc.pdf

Government of British Columbia. (2014). Addressing Cumulative Effects in Natural Resource

120

Decision-•‐ Making A Framework for Success CEF Overview Report. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/cumulative- effects/overview_report_addressing_cumulative_effects.pdf.

Government of British Columbia. (2017, September 13). Statement from Premier John Horgan on the 10th Anniversary of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/Default.aspx.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163–194). Sage Publications.

Gummer, W. D., Conly, F. M., & Wrona, F. J. (2006). Northern rivers ecosystem initiative: Context and prevailing legacy. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113(1–3), 71–85. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9097-1

Gunn, J. H., & Noble, B. F. (2009). A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), 258–270. http://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X479440

Gunn, J., & Noble, B. F. (2011). Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003

Gunningham, N. (2009). Environment law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. Journal of Environmental Law, 21(2), 179–212. http://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqp011

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection. Law & Policy, 21(1), 49–76. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9930.00065

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2005). Policy instrument choice and diffuse source pollution. Journal of Environmental Law. http://doi.org/10.1093/envlaw/eqi003

Gwanikar, S., Cross, S., MacDonald, D., Brown, J. R., Tao, D. Q., & Berger, T. (1998). Salmon River: Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Objectives. Vancouver.

Haddock, M. (2010). Environmental Assessment in British Columbia About the Environmental

121

Law Centre. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved from file:///D:/Add to Home Computer/Haddock 2010 BC EAA.pdf

Halbert, C. L. (1993). How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 1, 261–283.

Hall, R. A. (1992). Sechelt Area. Pender Harbour Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Victoria.

Harriman, J. A. E., & Noble, B. F. (2008). Characterizing Project and Strategic Approaches to Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. http://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333208002944

Harrison, K. (1996). Passing the Buck: federalism and Canadian environmental policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hass, G. (1999). British Columbia’s Freshwater Fish, Species, and Ecosystems Are More at Risk and Less Protected. In L. Darling (Ed.), Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk (pp. 561–576). Kamloops: British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

Hatfield-Dodds, S., Nelson, R., & Cook, D. (2007). Adaptive governance: An introduction, and implications for public policy.

Heathcote, I. (1998). Integrated Watershed Management. Principles and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Heckbert, S., Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., & Hanneman, D. (2010). Cumulative Effects and Emergent Properties of Multiple-Use Natural Resources. In G. Di Tosto & H. Van Dyke Parunak (Eds.), Multi-agent Based Simulation X: (pp. 1–13). Budapest: Springer.

Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Kennedy, A., Kingsley, L., … Stalker, D. (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Ottawa.

Hegmann, G., Yarranton, G.A. (2011). Alchemy to reason: Effective use of Cumulative Effects Assessment in resource management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 484- 490. doi:1016/j.eiar.2011.01.011.

122

Hill, C., Furlong, K., Bakker, K., & Cohen, A. (2008). Harmonization Versus Subsidiarity in Water Governance: A Review of Water Governance and Legislation in the Canadian Provinces and Territories. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 33(4), 315–332.

Hillier, P. A., Edgeworth, L., & Lynch, A. J. (1983). Report to the Minister of Environment on the Public Inquiry into the Quinsam Coal Project. Campbell River.

Hirji, R., & Davis, R. (2009). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Improving Water Resources Governance and Decision Making Main Report, (9).

Holdstock, J., Hagarty, D., & Reid, W. (1996). Issues and Options Paper for Nonpoint Source Pollution Management in BC. Project Report. Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/bmps/kpmg.pdf

Holland, J. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Articifical Systems: An Intoductory Analysis and Applications in Biology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chinchester, NH: Wiley.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems, Ecosystems Ecosystems, 4(4), 390–405. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-00.

Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003a). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118206

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003b). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.

Hooper, B. P., Mcdonald, G. T., & Mitchell, B. (1999). Facilitating Integrated Resource and Environmental Management: Australian and Canadian Perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(5), 747–766.

Hoos, L. M., & Packman, G. . (1974). The Fraser River Estuary, status of knowledge to 1974. Special Estuary Series No. 1. Vancouver.

123

Jackson, T., & Curry, J. (2004). Peace in the Woods: Sustainability and the Democratization of Land Use Planning and Resource Management on Crown Lands in British Columbia Q1 A Heritage of Dualism in Provincial Land Use Planning. International Planning Studies, 9(1), 0–0. http://doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000234961

Jensen, V. (2000). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Keremeos Creek Watershed. Okanagan Area. Victoria.

Jensen, V., Sokal, M., St. Hilaire, D., Rieberger, K., & McQueen, D. (2012). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Osoyoos Lake: A First Update.

Johns, C. M. (2002). The Walkerton Inquiry. Commissioned Paper 11. Policy Instruments to Manage Non-point Source Water Pollution: Comparing the United States and Ontario. Toronto. Retrieved from https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/handle/1974/8501/Walkerton_CommissionedPa per11.pdf?sequence=16

Johns, C., & Sproule-Jones, M. (2009). Water pollution policy in Canada: Cases from the Past and Lessons for the Future. In D. L. VanNijnatten & R. Boardman (Eds.), Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics (Third, pp. 216–235). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D., Lalonde, K., McEachern, M., Kenney, J., Mendoza, G., Buffin, A., & Rich, K. (2011). Improving cumulative effects assessment in Alberta: Regional strategic assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.010

Kangasniemi, B. (1986). Finlay-Omenica Area. Upper Finlay Sub-basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Victoria.

Kangasniemi, B. J. (1989). Campbell River Area. Middle Quinsam Lake Sub-Basin Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Victoria.

Kennett, S. A. (1999). Towards a New Paradigm for Cumulative Effects Management. Occasional Paper #8. Calgary.

Kilgour, B. W., Dubé, M. G., Hedley, K., Portt, C. B., & Munkittrick, K. R. (2007). Aquatic environmental effects monitoring guidance for environmental assessment practitioners. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9433-0.

124

Kleer, N. (2012). Recent legal developments on consultation and accomodation relating to environmental and archaeological issues. In The Canadian Institute 6th Annual Forum on Aborignal Law, Consultation, and Accomodation. Toronto. Retrieved from http://oktlaw.com/drive/uploads/2016/10/njkCdnInst.pdf.

Kolankiewicz, L. J. (1981). Implementation of British Columbia’s Pollution Control Act, 1967, in the Lower Fraser River. University of British Columbia.

Kristensen, S., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Capacity for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from the lower fraser river basin, Canada. Environmental Management, 52(2), 360–373. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0075-z

Larsson, R. (1993). Case Survey Methodology: Quantitative Analysis of Patterns Across Case Studies. Management Journal Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1515–1546. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256820

Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081407

Lilley, P., deKoning, P., Konovsky, J., & Doyle, B. (2016). Toward a Shared Strategic Environmental Stewardship Agenda for Burrard Inlet. In Proceedings of the 2016 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference. Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved from http://cedar.wwu.edu/ssec/2016ssec/protection_remediation_restoration/19/

Lindsay, K. M., Svrcek, C. P., Smith, D. W., Lindsay, K. M., Svrcek, C. P., & Smith, D. W. (2002). Evaluation of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada and Land Use Planning Alternatives. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4(2), 151–169.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., … Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science, 317(14 September), 1513– 1517.

Loucks, D. P., & van Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management An Introduction to Methods, Models and Applications. Stockholm: UNESCO Publishing.

125

Ludvigsen M, Hall, E., Meyer, G., Fegran, L., Aagaard, H., & Uhrenfeldt, L. (2016). Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s Meta_Synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 320–329. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576493

MacDonald, L. H. (2000). Evaluating and Managing Cumulative Effects: Process and Constraints. Environmental Management, 26(3), 299–315. http://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010088

MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. (1997). Lower Columbia River from Birchbank to the International Border: Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Objectives. Technical Report. Vancouver.

McCoy, Elaine, J. (2002). Cumulative environmental effects: the legal framework. In A. Kennedy (Ed.), Cumulative environmental effects management: tools and approaches (pp. 61–76). Calgary: Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.

McDaniels, T. L., Dowlatabadi, H., & Stevens, S. (2005). Multiple scales and regulatory gaps in environmental change: The case of salmon aquaculture. Global Environmental Change. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.007

McKean, C. J. P. (1989). Cowichan-Koksilah Rivers Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

McKean, C. J. P. (1992). Saanich Peninsula Area. Elk and Beaver Lakes Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

McKean, C. J. P., & Nordin, R. N. (1985). Upper Columbia River Area. Columbia and Windermere Lakes Sub-Basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

McKean, C., Nagpal, N. K., & Zirnhelt, N. (1987). Williams Lake. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water-

126

quality-objectives.

McLeay and Associates Ltd. (1987). Aquatic toxicity of pulp and paper mill effluent: a review. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

McPhee, M. W. (1978). Water Quality Managment in BC, Pollution Control in the Pulp and Paper. Simon Fraser University.

McPhee, M. W., & Wiebe, J. D. (1986). Coordinating management activities in the Fraser River Estuary. In E. . Lang (Ed.), Integrated approaches to resource planning and managment (pp. 229–250). University of Calgary Press.

Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004). Policy integration : what does it mean and how can it be achieved ? A multi-disciplinary review. 2004 Berlin Confrerence on the Human Dimensions of Global Environment Change: Greening of Policies - Interlinkages and Policy Integration, Berlin, 1–15.

Ministry of Environment. (2014). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Little Qualicum River Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Mithcell, B. (2015). Innovations and Challenges Related to Resource and Environmental Management. In A.K. Dutt et al. (Eds.), Spatial Diversity and Dynamics in Resources and Urban Development (pp.113-128). Dordrecht: Springer.

Mitchell, B. (2005). Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land- use planning. Environment and Planning A, 37(8), 1335–1352. http://doi.org/10.1068/a37224.

Moore, M. Shaw, K., Castleden, H. and Reid, J. (2016). Patchy resources for the governance of Canada's resource patches: How hydraulic fracturing is illuminating the need to improve water governance in Canada. In S. Renzetti & D. Dupont (Eds), Water Policy and Goverance in Canada, Global Issues in Water Policy 17 (pp. 377-394). Switzerland: Springer.

Muldoon, P., & McClenaghan, T. (2007). The Tangled Web: Reworking Canada’s Water Laws. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada (pp. 245–262). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

127

Municipal Sewage Regulation, B.C. Reg. 87/2012, O.C. 230/2012. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/87_2012

Munkittrick, K. R., McMaster, M. E., Portt, C., Gibbons, W. N., Farwell, A., Ruemper, L., … Van der Kraak, G. J. (2000). The development of cumulative effects assessment tools using fish populations. In K. M. Scow, G. E. Fogg, D. E. Hinton, & M. L. Johnson (Eds.), Conference on From Cumulative Impacts Towards Sustainable Solutions - Critical Methodologies for the Study of Ecosystem Health (pp. 149–174). Davis, California: Lewis Publishers Inc.

Munkittrick K.R., McMaster M.E., Van der Kraak G., Portt C., Gibbons W.N., Farwell A., & Gray M. (2000). Development of Methods for Effects-Driven Cumulative Effects Assessment Using Fish Populations: Moose River Project. Pensacola: Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Nagpal, N. K. (1990). Campbell River Area. Oyster River Basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Nagpal, N. K. (1993). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for San Jose River Basin. Williams Lake Area. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level - And effective? Environmental Policy and Governance. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509

Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2015). Messy institutions for wicked problems: How to generate clumsy solutions? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614450

Nijman, R. (1985). Upper Columbia River. Toby Creek, Sinclair Creek, The Columbia River from Toby Creek to Edgewater, and the Spillimacheen River. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from

128

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Nijman, R. (1986). Skeena-Nass Area. Bulkley River Basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Nijman, R. (1993). Queen Charlotte Islands. Yakoun River and Tributaries. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Nijman, R., & Swain, L. G. (1990). Coquitlam-Pitt River Area. Burrard Inlet. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Noble, B. (2005). Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment: Toward a Strategic Framework. Research supported by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Research and Development Program. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from file:///D:/Add to Home Computer/CEAA 2005 Regional CEA_Toward a Strategic FW.pdf

Noble, B. F. (2003). Auditing strategic environmental assessment practice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(2), 127–147.

Nordin, R. N. (2005). Water Quality Objectives for Okanagan Lake. A First Update. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives.

Nordin, R. N., & Holmes, D. W. (1992). Thompson River Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Nordin, R., & Pommen, L. (1985). Peace River Area. Charlie Lake Sub-Basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Retrieved from

129

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Northcote, T. G. (1996). Effects of human population growth on the Fraser and Okanagan River systems, Canada: A comparative inquiry. GeoJournal, 401(2), 127–133.

Northcote, T. G. (2008). Okanagan Basin Study: Problems, Plans, Actions. The Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists Newsletter/Bulletin, 65(4), 12–19.

Nowlan, L., & Bakker, K. (2007). Delegating Water Governance: Issues and Challenges in the BC Context. Vancouver: UBC Program on Water Governance.

Nowlan, L., & Bakker, K. (2010). Practicing Shared Water Governance in Canada: A Primer. Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved from http://watergovernance.ca/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/PractisingSharedWaterGovernancePrimer_final1.pdf

O’Riordan, J. (1971). Canada - British Columbia Okanagan Basin Study. Task 207A. Comprehensive River Basin Planning with Reference to The Okanagan Basin Study. Vancouver.

O’Riordan, J. (1981). New Strategies for Water Resources Planning. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 6(4), 13–43. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

O’Riordan, J. (1986). Cumulative assessment and the freshwater environment. In Canadian Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective (pp. 55–66). Ottawa.

O’Riordan, J., & Wiebe, J. (1984). An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=43533.

O ’Riordan, T. (2004). Environmental science, sustainability and politics. Transactions of the Insitute of British Geographers, 29(2), 234–247.

Obee, N. (2011). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Cowichan and Koksilah Rivers. First Update. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in Social Research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in Sociology, 20, 103–118.

130

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Insight, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Enhancing the Fit through Adaptive Co-management: Creating and Maintaining Bridging Functions for Matching Scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 28. Retrieved from http://www.ecologya

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(4), 451–463. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834

Overduin, N., & Moore, M.-L. (2017). Social license to operate: Not a proxy for accountability in water governance. Geoforum. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.008

Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2014). The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Global Environmental Change, 29, 139–154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.003

Parkins, J. R. (2011). Deliberative democracy, institution building, and the pragmatics of cumulative effects assessment. Ecology and Society. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04236- 160320

Parrott, L., & Lange, H. (2013). An introduction to complexity science. In C. Messier, J. Puettmann, Klaus, & K. Coates, David (Eds.), Managing forests as complex adaptive systems (pp. 17–32). Abingdon, Oxon: Routedge.

Partidario, M. R., & Fischer, T. B. (2004). Follow-up in Current SEA Understanding. In A. Morrison-Saunders & J. Arts (Eds.), Impact Assessment, Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow- up (pp. 224–247). London: Earthscan.

Patterson, J., Smith, C., & Bellamy, J. (2013). Understanding enabling capacities for managing the “wicked problem” of nonpoint source water pollution in catchments: A conceptual framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 441–452. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.033

131

Pearse, P., Betrand, F., & McLaren, J. W. (1985). Currents of change: Final report: inquiry on federal water policy. Ottawa.

Phippen, B. (2001). The effects of recreation on drinking water within the Lambly, Kelowna, and Mission Creek Watersheds, Kelowna, British Columbia.

Phippen, B. (2012a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Kemp Lake Community Watershed. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Phippen, B. (2012b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Mercantile Creek Community Watershed. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Phippen, B., & Freyman, L. (2005a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Desolation Sound. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Phippen, B., & Freyman, L. (2005b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Okeover Inlet. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Phippen, B., & Obee, N. (2012). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tsolum River Watershed. Technical Report. First Update. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Plummer, R., Baird, J., Moore, M.-L., Brandes, O., Imhof, J., & Krievins, K. (2014). Governance of Aquatic Systems: What Attributes and Practices Promote Resilience? International Journal of Water Governance, 4, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.7564/14-IJWG51

Pollution Watch. (2004). Shattering the Myth of Pollution Progress in Canada: A National Report. Retrieved from http://www.cela.ca/publications/shattering-myth-pollution-progress- canada-national-report.

132

Poole, G. C., Dunham, J. B., Keenan, Druscilla, M., Sauter, S. T., McCullough, D. A., Mebane, C., … Deppman, M. (2004). The Case for Regime-based Water Quality Standards. BioScience, 54(155), 155–161.

Promislow, J. (2013). Irreconcilable? The Duty to Consult and Administrative Decision Makers. Constitutional Forum, 22(1), 63–78. Retrieved from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/constitutional_forum/article/view/19458

Province of British Columbia. (2016). Northeast Water Strategy 2016 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/northeast-water- strategy/news_2016_annual_report.pdf

Rabe, B. G. (1997). The politics of sustainable development: impediments to pollution prevention and policy integration in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 40(3), 415– 435. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.1997.tb01517.x

Rae, R. (2006). Ten-Year Summary of the Okanagan Lake Action Plan 1996-2005. BC Ministry of Environment. Retrieved from http://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/docs/olap_10yrsummary.pdf.

Ramin, V. (2004). The Status of Integrated Water Resources Management in Canada. In Canadian perspectives on integrated water resources management (pp. 1–32). Cambridge, Ontario: Canadian Water Resources Association.

Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009a). Conclusion: Governance arrangements and policy capacity for policy integration. Policy and Society, 28(2), 165–172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.005

Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009b). Introduction: Understanding integrated policy strategies and their evolution. Policy and Society, 28(2), 99–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.001

Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: an introduction to the theory of knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.

Rieberger, K. (2007a). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Langford Lake. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

133

Rieberger, K. (2007b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Shawnigan Lake. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives.

Rosenbaum, W. A. (2011). Environmental Politics and Policy (8th ed.). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Rudel, T. K. (2008). Meta-analyses of case studies: A method for studying regional and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 18–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.001

Ruggeberg, H. I., & Thompson, A. R. (1984). Water Law and Policy Issues in Canada. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia.

Rutherford, M. (2016). Impact assessment in British Columbia. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment. Practice and Participation (Thrid, pp. 299–324). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthisizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.

Sarker, A., Ross, H., & Shrestha, K. K. (2008). A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: An Australian case study. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 461–471. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.001.

Saunders J.O., & Wenig, M.M. (2007). The Tangled Web: Reworking Canada’s Water Laws. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada (pp. 245–262). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., … Sugihara, G. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 46(3), 53–59. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227

Scheffer, M., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: Linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(12), 648–656. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.002

Scheffer, M., Carpenter2, S., Foley3, J. A., Folke, C., & Walkerk, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413(11), 591–596.

134

Schindler, D. W. (1974). Eutrophication and Recovery in Experimental Lakes: Implications for Lake Management. Source: Science, New Series, 184(4139), 897–899. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1738185

Schindler, D. W. (2001). The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(1), 18–29. http://doi.org/10.1139/f00-179

Schindler, D. W. (2006). Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnol. Oceanogr, 51(2), 356–363.

Schindler, D. W., & Donahue, W. F. (2006). An impending water crisis in Canada’s western prairie provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601568103

Scholz, J. T., & Stiftel, B. (2005). Introduction: The Challenges of Adaptive Governance. In J. T. Scholz & B. Stiftel (Eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict (pp. 1–24). Washington: Resources for the Future.

Seitz, N. E., Westbrook, C. J., & Noble, B. F. (2011). Bringing science into river systems cumulative effects assessment practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.08.001

Semeniuk, I. (2017, June 17). Charting Canada’s troubled waters: Where the danger lies for watersheds across the country. The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-fresh-water-review- 1/article35262579/

Shrubsole, D. (1990). Canadian water management strategies. In Integrated water management: international experiences and perspectives (pp. 88–118). London: Belhaven Press.

Sidle, R. C., & Hornbeck, J. W. (1991). Cumulative effects: A broader approach to water quality research. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(4), 268.

Singleton, H. (1990). Okanagan Area. Hydraulic Creek. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives. Victoria.

135

Smol, J. P. (1992). Paleolimnology: an important tool for effective ecosystem management. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 1(1), 49–58. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044408

Sonntag, N. C., Everitt, R. R., Rattie, L. P., Colnett, D. L., Wolf, C. P., Truett, J. C., … Holling, C. S. (1987). Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development. Hull, Quebec.

Spaling, H. (1994). Cumulative effects assessment: concepts and principles. Impact Assessment, 12(3), 231–251.

Spaling, H., & Smit, B. (1993). Cumulative environmental change: Conceptual frameworks, evaluation approaches, and institutional perspectives. Environmental Management. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393721

Spencer, P., Bowman, M. F., & Dubé, M. G. (2008). A Multitrophic Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Metal Mining in Otherwise Pristine and Ecologically Sensitive Rivers in Northern Canada. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 4(3), 327–343.

Stinchcombe, K., & Gibson, R. (2001). Strategic environmental assessment as a means of pursuing sustainability: ten advantages and ten challenges. Jounral of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3), 343–272.

Stockner, J. G., & Northecote, T. G. (1974). Recent limnological studies of Okanagan Basin Lakes and their contribution to planning. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 31(5), 955–976.

Swain, L. G. (1985). Okanagan Area. Similkameen River Sub-Basin Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1986). Thompson-Bonaparte Area. Bonaparte River Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1987). Okanagan Area. Cahill Creek and its Tributaries. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from

136

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1989). Coquitlam-Pitt River Area. Tributaries to the Lower Fraser River Along the North Shore. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1990a). Okanagan Area. Similkameen River Sub-Basin Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. First Update. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1990b). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives, Okanagan Area, Tributaries to Okanagan Lake (Peachland, Trepanier, Westbank, Powers, Faulkner, and Lambly). Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1990c). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Okanagan Area. Tributaries to Okanagan Lake Near Kelowna (Kelowna, Brandt’s and Mission Creeks). Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1991). Shuswap-Mabel Area. Bessette Creek. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G. (1994). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tributaries to Okanagan Lake Near Vernon (Lower Vernon, Equesis and Deep Creeks). Okanagan Area. Victoria. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G., & Girard, R. (1987). Talka-Nechako Area. Nechako River. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Northern Region. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water-

137

quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G., & Holmes, G. B. (1985). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Fraser-Delta Area. Fraser River Sub-Basin From Kanaka Creek to the Mouth. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G., & Holms, G. B. (1985). Fraser-Delta Area. Fraser River Sub-Basin From Hope to Kanaka Creek Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water- quality/water-quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G., Walton, D. G., & Obedkof, W. (1997). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River From Moose Lake to Hope. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Swain, L. G., Walton, D. G., Phippen, B., Lewis, H., Brown, S., Bamford, G., … Lundman, I. (1998). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River from Hope to Roberts Banks. First Update. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Taylor, B. (1997). Adaptive Management of Forests in British Columbia. Victoria: BC Ministry of Forests.

Taylor, B., Kremaster, L., & Ellis, R. (1997). Adaptive management of forests in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: B.C. Ministry of Forests.

Tetlow, M. F., & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic environmental assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 15–24. http://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.666400

Thielmann, T., & Tollefson, C. (2009). Tears from an onion: Layering, exhaustion and conversion in British Columbia land use planning policy. Policy and Society, 28(2), 111– 124. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.006

Truelson, R. L. (1985). Finlay-Omenica Area. Lower Finlay Sub-Basin. Water Quality

138

Assessment. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives.

United Nations - Water. (2011). Policy Brief. Water Quality. von der Porten, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149– 160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001

Walkem, A. (2007). The Land is Dry. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada (pp. 303-319). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. A. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington: Island Press.

Warrington, P. D. (1987). Skeena-Nass Area. Lower Kitimat River and Kitimat Arm. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water- quality-objectives.

Water Quality Work Group. (1979). Fraser River Estuary Study Water Quality - Summary Report of the Water Quality Work Group. Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=43571.

Water Sustainability Act, SBC 2014, c. 15. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/14015

Weber, M., Krogman, N., & Antoniuk, T. (2012). Cumulative Effects Assessment : Linking Social , Ecological , and. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 22.

Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: adaptive management on the front lines. In H. Gunderson & C. . Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 333–360). Washington: Island Press.

Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology. Lakes and River Ecosystems. (Third Edition). Elsevier Academic Press.

White, L., & Noble, B. F. (2013). Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of academic research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

139

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.10.003

Whitelaw, G., & McCarthy, D. (2016). Cumulative effects assessment in the context of Canadian environmental governance. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment, practice and participation (Third, pp. 141–158). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

Wilkinson, C. (n.d.). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning Theory, 11(2), 148–169. http://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211426274

Yin, R. K., & Heald, K. A. (1975). Using the Case Survey Method to Analyze Policy Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 371–381. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391997

Young, O. (2002). Institutional Interplay:The Environmental Consequences of Cross-Scale Interactions. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. Weber (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 263–292). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

140

Appendix A

WQOs Developed to Support Regional Planning Initiatives

Table A1. Water quality objectives developed to support regional planning initiatives

Report Title Reference Fraser-Delta Area. Fraser River Sub-Basin from Hope to (Swain & Holms, 1985) Kanaka Creek Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Fraser-Delta (Swain & Holmes, 1985) Area. Fraser River Sub-Basin from Kanaka Creek to the Mouth. Technical Appendix. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser (Swain et al., 1997) River from Moose Lake to Hope Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser (Swain et al., 1998) River from Hope to Sturgeon and Roberts Banks. First Update. Technical Appendix. Phosphorus in the Okanagan Valley Lakes. Sources, Water (BC Ministry of Quality Objectives and Control Possibilities Environment, 1986a) Salmon River: Water Quality Assessment and (Gwanikar et al., 1998) Recommended Objectives. Technical Appendix - Volume 1 Water Quality Objectives for Okanagan Lake. A First (Nordin, 2005) Update. Prepared for MWLAP Penticton and Kamloops BC Water Quality Assessment and objectives for Osoyoos (Jensen, Sokal, St. Hilaire, Lake: A First Update Rieberger, & McQueen, 2012)

141

Appendix B

Water Quality Objectives Developed to Support Permitting Decisions for Major Development Projects

Table B1. Water quality objectives developed to establish ambient water quality objectives to inform decisions for major projects

Report Title Reference Peace River Area. Bullmoose Creek Sub-basin. Water (Butcher, 1987a) Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Finlay-Omenica Area. Lower Finlay Sub-basin. Water (Truelson, 1985) Quality Assessment. Upper Columbia River Area. Columbia and Windermere (McKean & Nordin, 1985) Lakes Sub-Basin. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Lower Columbia River from Birchbank to the International (MacDonald Environmental Border: Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Sciences Ltd., 1997) Objectives. Technical Report. Finlay-Omenica Area. Upper Finlay Sub-basin. Water (Kangasniemi, 1986) Quality Assessment and Objectives. Skeena-Nass Area. Bulkley River Basin. Water Quality (Nijman, 1986) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Peace River Area. Peace River Mainstem. Water Quality (Butcher, 1987b) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Talka-Nechako Area. Nechako River. Water Quality (Swain & Girard, 1987) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Queen Charlotte Islands. Yakoun River and Tributaries. (Nijman, 1993) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives.

142

Appendix C

Water Quality Objectives Developed to Support Decisions in Areas with Multiple Activities Affecting Water Quality

Table C1. Water quality objectives developed to support decisions in areas with existing multiple activities affecting water quality

Report Title References Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Fraser-Delta Area. (Swain, 1988) Boundary Bay and its Tributaries. Coquitlam-Pitt River Area. Tributaries to the Lower Fraser River (Swain, 1989) Along the North Shore. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Coquitlam-Pitt River Area. Burrard Inlet. Water Quality (Nijman & Swain, Assessment and Objectives. 1990) Okanagan Area. Similkameen River Sub-Basin Water Quality (Swain, 1985) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Thompson-Bonaparte Area. Bonaparte River Water Quality (Swain, 1986) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Okanagan Area. Cahill Creek and its Tributaries. Water Quality (Swain, 1987) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Okanagan Area. (Swain, 1990c) Tributaries to Okanagan Lake Near Kelowna (Kelowna, Brandt's and Mission Creeks). Water Quality Assessment and Objectives, Okanagan Area, (Swain, 1990b) Tributaries to Okanagan Lake (Peachland, Trepanier, Westbank, Powers, Faulkner, and Lambly). Okanagan Area. Similkameen River Sub-Basin Water Quality (Swain, 1990a) Assessment and Objectives. First Update. Technical Appendix. Shuswap-Mabel Area. Bessette Creek. Water Quality Assessment (Swain, 1991) and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Thompson River Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. (Nordin & Holmes, Technical Appendix. 1992)

143

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tributaries to (Swain, 1994) Okanagan Lake Near Vernon (Lower Vernon, Equesis and Deep Creeks). Okanagan Area. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Keremeos Creek (Vic Jensen, 2000) Watershed. Okanagan Area. Cowichan-Koksilah Rivers Water Quality Assessment and (McKean, 1989) Objectives. Technical Report. Campbell River Area. Middle Quinsam Lake Sub-Basin. Water (Dorcey, 1987b; Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Hillier, Edgeworth, & Lynch, 1983; Kangasniemi, 1989) Campbell River Area. Oyster River Basin. Water Quality (Nagpal, 1990) Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Tsolum River Watershed Water Quality Assessment and (Deniseger, 1995) Objectives. Technical Appendix. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Cowichan Lake (Epps & Phippen, 2011b) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives: Cowichan and (Obee, 2011) Koksilah Rivers. First Update. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Bamfield Inlet. (Epps, 2014) Technical Report. Upper Columbia River. Toby Creek, Sinclair Creek, The (Nijman, 1985) Columbia River from Toby Creek to Edgewater, and the Spillimacheen River. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Lower Columbia River. Hugh Keenleyside Dam to Birchbank. (Butcher, 1992) Water Quality Assessment and Recommended Objectives. Technical Report. Skeena-Nass Area. Lakelse Lake. Water Quality Assessment and (McKean, 1986) Objectives Skeena-Nass Area. Lower Kitimat River and Kitimat Arm. Water (Warrington, 1987) Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Peace River Area. Pouce Coupe River Sub-basin. Water Quality (Butcher, 1985) Assessment and Objectives

144

Appendix D

Water Quality Objectives Developed to Resolve Conflicts and Emerging Contaminant Issues

Table D1. Water quality objectives developed to resolve conflicts and emerging contaminant issues

Report Title Reference Sechelt Area. Pender Harbour Water Quality Assessment and (Hall, 1992) Objectives. Technical Appendix Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Sechelt Inlet (Arber, 1992) (Sunshine Coast area) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Desolation Sound. (Phippen & Freyman, Technical Report. 2005) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Okeover Inlet. (Phippen & Freyman, Technical Report. 2005b) Okanagan Area. Hydraulic Creek. Water Quality Assessment and (Singleton, 1990) Objectives. Technical Appendix. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Brash Creek (BC Ministry of Community Watershed Environment, 2013b) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Coldstream Creek. (BC Ministry of Technical Report. Environment, 2015a)

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tsolum River (Phippen & Obee, Watershed. Technical Report. First Update. 2012) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Holland Creek and (Pommen, 1996) Stocking Lake Watersheds Quatse Lake. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives (Nordin & Phippen, 1997) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the McKelvie (Epps, 2008) Creek Community Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Shawnigan Lake (Rieberger, 2007b)

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Newcastle Creek (Epps, 2009a) Community Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Tsulquate River (Epps, 2009b) Community Watershed

145

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives: Englishman River. (Barlak, 2010) Technical Report. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the China Creek (Barlak, 2011) Community Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for John Hart Lake (Barlak, 2012) Community Watershed and McIvor Lake Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Kemp Lake (Phippen, 2012a) Community Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Mercantile (Phippen, 2012b) Creek Community Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Chemainus (BC Ministry of River Watershed Environment, 2014a) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the French Creek (BC Ministry of Community Watershed. Technical Report. Environment, 2014b) Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Little (Ministry of Qualicum River Community Watershed Environment, 2014)

146

Appendix E

Water Quality Objectives Developed to Support Local Stewardship Initiatives

Table E1. Water quality objectives developed to support local stewardship initiatives

Report Title References Christina Lake. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. (Cavanagh, Nordin, & Technical Appendix. Bryan, 1994) Elk and Beaver Lakes Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. (McKean, 1992) Technical Appendix.

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Langford Lake (Rieberger, 2007a)

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Comox Lake (Epps & Phippen, 2011a)

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Cusheon Lake, (BC Ministry of Maxwell Lake, St. Mary Lake, and Weston Lake: Salt Spring Environment, 2015b) Island, BC. Williams Lake. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. (McKean, Nagpal, & Technical Appendix. Zirnhelt, 1987)

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for San Jose River (Nagpal, 1993) Basin. Williams Lake Area.

Skeena Nass Area. Kathlyn, Seymour, Round and Tyhee Lakes. (Boyd, McKean, Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. Nordin, & Wilkes, 1985) Peace River Area. Charlie Lake Sub-basin. Water Quality (Nordin & Pommen, Assessment and Objectives. Technical Appendix. 1985)