Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 130, Issue 1–3, pp 423–436 | Cite as

Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Guidance for Environmental Assessment Practitioners

  • B. W. Kilgour
  • M. G. Dubé
  • K. Hedley
  • C. B. Portt
  • K. R. Munkittrick
Article

Abstract

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) defines the federal environmental assessment (EA) process for evaluating the likelihood that development projects (e.g., roads, buildings, factories) will have impacts on the environment. Environmental effects monitoring (EEM) programs for mining and pulp and paper mills under the Federal Fisheries Act, define the process that is to be used to evaluate existing effects caused by liquid effluents discharged by operating facilities. The EA process occurs before a project is approved, and involves predicting whether the project is going to cause significant environmental impacts. The EEM process occurs after a project is operational, and involves determining whether an existing project has had or is continuing to have significant impacts on the environment. Ideally, the processes are complimentary, with the EA process identifying environmental attributes considered important, and the EEM process demonstrating whether predicted or unpredicted impacts occurred. The two processes are usually done in isolation so potential synergies are lost. The point of this manuscript is to justify bridging the two processes. We use the aquatic environment as the example, and briefly describe the EEM process, aquatic environment indicators, experimental designs, and typical environmental thresholds, to illustrate how the EEM and EA processes link.

Keywords

Effects monitoring Impact assessment Biocriteria Biological indicators 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, S. M., Ham, K. D., Greeley, M. S., LeHew, R. F., Hinton, D. E., & Saylor, C. F. (1996). Downstream gradients in bioindicator responses: Point source contaminant effects on fish health. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 2177–2187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axys Environmental Consulting Limited, Salmo Consulting Inc. (2003). Approaching cumulative impact management in northeast British Columbia. BC Oil and Gas Commission, Muskwa–Kechika Advisory Board.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. C., Kennedy, M. G., Dervish M. Z., & Taylor, R. M. (1998). Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: Comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwater Biology, 39, 765–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BAR Environmental (1993). Environmental Effects Monitoring: Predesign Historical Information. Kapuskasing, Ontario: Spruce Falls Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, B. J. F. (2000). New Zealand Periphyton Guideline: Detecting, Monitoring and Managing Enrichment of Streams. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment.Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (1999). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment.Google Scholar
  7. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAAgency) (1999). Options and tools for improving follow-up: A discussion paper. From http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/ 0007/0002/0002/ bkstd04_e.htm, Hull, QC, Canada.
  8. Capitol Regional District (CRD) (2000). The trigger process: An early warning of adverse environmental effects for the Clover and MacAulay Point Outfalls, May 2000. Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, P. A., & Guy, M. (2004). Setting nutrient guidelines for the northern rivers of Alberta. In Environment Canada, Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative: Collective Findings (CD-ROM). Compiled by F. M. Conly, Saskatoon, SK, 2004. (With Alberta Environment).Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, P. A., Guy, M., Roberts, E. S., Charlton, M. N., Kent, R., Gagnon, C., et al. (2001). Nutrients and their impact on the Canadian environment. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada and Natural Resources Canada (241 p).Google Scholar
  11. Dillon, P. J., & Rigler, F. H. (1975). A simple method for predicting the capacity of a lake for development based on lake trophic status. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 32, 1519–1531.Google Scholar
  12. Dubé, M. (2003). Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: A regional framework for aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 723–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubé, M. G., Culp, J. M., & Scrimgeour, G. J. (1997). Nutrient limitation and herbivory: Processes influenced by bleached kraft pulp mill effluent. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54, 2584–2595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubé, M. G., & Munkittrick, K. R. (2001). Integration of effect-based and stressor-based approaches into a holistic framework for cumulative effects assessment in aquatic ecosystems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Environment Canada (April 1998). Pulp and Paper Technical Guidance for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. EEM/1998/1.Google Scholar
  16. Environment Canada (2004). Metal mining guidance document for aquatic environmental effects monitoring. Gatineau, Quebec.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, D., Lanno, R. P., & Dixon, D. G. (1999). A comparison of a sentinel species evaluation using creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus Mitchill) to a fish community evaluation for the initial identification of environmental stressors in small streams. Ecotoxicology, 8, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, W. N., & Munkittrick, K. R. (1994). A sentinel monitoring framework for identifying fish population responses to industrial discharges. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 3, 327–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray, M. (2003). Assessing non-point source pollution in agricultural regions of the upper St. John River basin using the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). PhD thesis, The University of New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  20. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) (1997). A joint strategic plan for management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Michigan: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  21. Green, R. H. (1979). Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists (p. 257). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Hatfield Consultants Limited, Jacques Whitford Limited, Mack, Slack and Associates Incorporated, & Western Resource Solutions. (2005). Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP), 2004 Annual Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatifield Consultants Limited, West Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., & Omernik, J. M. (1986). Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potentials. Environmental Management, 10, 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurley, G., & Ellis, J. (2004). Environmental effects of exploratory drilling offshore Canada: Environmental effects monitoring, data and literature review. Prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Regulatory Advisory Committee, Gatineau, Quebec.Google Scholar
  25. International Joint Commission and Great Lakes Fishery Commission (IJC and GLFC) (1992). Strategic vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the Decade of the 1990s.Google Scholar
  26. Kilgour, B. W., & Barton, D. R. (1999). Associations between stream fish and benthos across environmental gradients in southern Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology, 41, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilgour, B. W., Dixon, D. G., Bailey, R. C., & Reynoldson, T. B. (2000). Development of a reference condition approach (RCA) to assess fish and benthic communities and in-stream habitat attributes of the Moose River Basin. Final report submitted to the Forest Ecosystem Science Co-operative Inc., Thunder Bay.Google Scholar
  28. Kilgour, B. W., Dixon, D. G., & Paine, M. D. (2002). Alternative approaches to deriving water quality provincial objectives. Prepared by Water Systems Analysts Inc., for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Etobicoke.Google Scholar
  29. Kilgour, B. W., Munkittrick, K. R., Portt, C. B., Hedley, K., Culp, J., Dixit, S., et al. (2005). Biological criteria for municipal wastewater effluent monitoring programs. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 40, 374–387.Google Scholar
  30. Kilgour, B. W., Somers, K. M., & Matthews, D. E. (1998). Using the normal range as a criterion for ecological significance in environmental monitoring and assessment. Écoscience, 5, 542–550.Google Scholar
  31. Larsson, J. D. G., Hallman, H., & Forlin, L. (2000). More male fish embryos near a pulp mill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19, 2911–2917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowell, R. B. (1997). Discussion paper on critical effect size guidelines for EEM using benthic invertebrate studies. Report to the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (33 pp).Google Scholar
  33. Maude, S. H., & Di Maio, J. (1996). Benthic macroinvertebrate communities and water quality of headwater streams of the Oak Ridges Moraine: Reference conditions. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, PIBS 3520E.Google Scholar
  34. McBride, G. B., Loftis, J. C., & Adkins, N. C. (1993). What do significance tests really tell us about the environment? Environmental Management, 17, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Munkittrick, K. R., & Dixon, D. G. (1989a). An holistic approach to ecosystem health assessment using fish population characteristics. Hydrobiologia, 188/189, 122–135.Google Scholar
  36. Munkittrick, K. R., & Dixon D. G. (1989b). Use of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) populations to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems exposed to low-level contaminant stress. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 46, 1455–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munkittrick, K. R., McMaster, M. E., Van Der Kraak, G., Portt, C., Gibbons, W. N., Farwell, A., et al. (2000). Development of methods for effects-driven cumulative effects assessment using fish populations: Moose River project, SETAC Technical Publication Series. Pensacola, Florida: SETAC.Google Scholar
  38. Munkittrick, K. R., McGeachy, S. A., McMaster, M. E., & Courtenay, S. C. (2002). Overview of freshwater fish studies from the pulp and paper Environmental Effects Monitoring program. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 37, 49–77.Google Scholar
  39. Peterman, R. M. (1990). Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 47, 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Portt, C., Rogozinski, G., Kilgour, B., & Turpin, C. (2004). Complex study designs utilizing small, short-lived species reveal complex patterns; are we gaining insight or just muddying the waters? Proceedings of the 29th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Worskshop: September 28 to October 1, 2003, Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Google Scholar
  41. Reynoldson, T. B., Norris, R. H., Resh, V. H., Day, K. E., & Rosenberg, D. M. (1997). The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynoldson, T. B., & Rosenberg, D. M. (1998). Benthic invertebrate community structure. In C. Gray & T. Tuominen (Eds.), Health of the Fraser River Aquatic Ecosystem, vol. 1. A Synthesis of Research Conducted under the Fraser River Action Plan. DOE FRAP 1998-11.Google Scholar
  43. Ryan, P. M., MacGregor, R., Hoopes, R., Knight, R., Towns, G., & Culligan, W. (2003). Fish-community goals and objectives for Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special Publication 03-02.Google Scholar
  44. Schamberger, M., Framer, A. H., & Terrell, J. W. (1982). Habitat suitability index models: introduction. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Report FWS/OBS-82/10.Google Scholar
  45. Schindler, D. W. (1987). Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44, 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanfield, L. W., & Kilgour, B. W. (2006). Effects of percent impervious cover on fish and benthos assemblages and in-stream habitats in Lake Ontario tributaries. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Influences of landscapes on stream habitats and biological assemblages. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society Symposium 48.Google Scholar
  47. Underwood, A. J. (1994). On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications, 4, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright, J. F. (1995). Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, J. F., Moss, D., Armitage P. D., & Furse, M. T. (1984). A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macroinvertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology, 14, 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. W. Kilgour
    • 1
  • M. G. Dubé
    • 2
  • K. Hedley
    • 3
  • C. B. Portt
    • 4
  • K. R. Munkittrick
    • 5
  1. 1.Stantec Consulting Ltd.OttawaCanada
  2. 2.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  3. 3.Environment CanadaGatineauCanada
  4. 4.C. Portt and AssociatesGuelphCanada
  5. 5.University of New BrunswickSaint JohnCanada

Personalised recommendations