Principles and Challenges for Multi-Stakeholder Development of Focused, Tiered, and Triggered, Adaptive Monitoring Programs for Aquatic Environments

Abstract

In Canada, there is almost 30 years of experience in developing tiered and triggered adaptive monitoring programs focused on looking at whether environmental concerns remain when pulp and paper mills, or metal mines, are in compliance with their discharge limits. These environmental effects monitoring programs were based on nationally standardized designs. Many of the programs have been developed through multi-stakeholder working groups, and the evolution of the program faced repeated frictions and differing opinions on how to design environmental monitoring programs. This paper describes key guidance to work through the initial steps in program design, and includes scientific advice based on lessons learned from the development of the Canadian aquatic environmental effects monitoring program.

A critical review of the ecological status of lakes and rivers from Canada's oil sands region

“…Studies of streams have been slow to adopt this approach, but among the studies suggesting an influence of OSIA, a site‐specific approach has been used (Alexander & Chambers, 2016 ; Schwalb et al, 2015 ). While a site‐specific approach for examining change in studies of streams has not been widely adopted, coupling these collections with some environmental covariates (Kilgour, Munkittrick, et al, 2019 ) and industrial performance data may allow influence to be tracked and to overcome the persistent challenge of natural confounds in the OSR (Arciszewski, Munkittrick, Scrimgeour, et al, 2017 ), and the false‐negative problem common in monitoring studies (Munkittrick et al, 2019 ). Additionally, these approaches can be combined with a priori integrated monitoring designs (e.g., Arciszewski et al, 2021 ) to address the potential linkages between known stressors and measurement endpoints, such as atmospheric deposition and physicochemical status, rather than a posteriori techniques already used (Wasiuta et al, 2019 ).…”

Challenges and Benefits of Approaches Used to Integrate Regional Monitoring Programs

“…Administratively, all types of integrated monitoring are best served by a strategic planning framework (Liu et al, 2012). While an integrated design requires deep foresight (Culp et al, 2000), it can also be onerous and difficult to initially plan, especially in a multi-stakeholder environment (Munkittrick et al, 2019). Failing to plan properly prior to the initiation of monitoring may lead to increased management and operational costs and loss of institutional or sectoral support (Reynolds et al, 2011).…”

“…In addition to the difficulties associated with integrated monitoring, which may discourage researchers from participating in such programs, there are also conceptual and operational advantages of isolating some or many studies. Where the criteria to clearly indicate degradation or meaningful changes are absent, interpreting the results from monitoring systems and making regulatory decisions can be challenging (Munkittrick et al, 2019). Having separate data collections and/or analyses examining similar program components or questions can be beneficial for making stronger inference via multiple lines of independent evidence.…”

“…While needed to inform the larger strategic goals of reducing, eliminating, or controlling the impacts of those activities, multiple approaches are available for measuring environmental attributes and assessing status. However, monitoring may not always be straightforward and may not always provide widely-accepted and certain evidence showing the presence of impacts (leading to effective interventions), or their absence (and reassurance of safety; Munkittrick et al, 2019). For example, monitoring programs must often translate high-level management questions, such as "Are there effects?"…”

Considering Fish as Recipients of Ecosystem Services Provides a Framework to Formally Link Baseline, Development, and Post-operational Monitoring Programs and Improve Aquatic Impact Assessments for Large Scale Developments

“…Fish are a common component of EIA evaluations (Ball et al 2013 ) because of their relevance for subsistence (including Indigenous harvest), recreational, and commercial fisheries, the assumption that protecting the highest aquatic trophic level will protect the majority of ecosystem levels (Kilgour et al 2005 ), and because the abundance, diversity, and health status of fish integrate local environmental conditions (Kilgour et al 2005 ), as well as the quality of different habitats used across their life cycle (Schiemer 2000 ). Pre-development baseline fish data are often restricted to community or biodiversity responses that are difficult to interpret in terms of potential direct effects of the proposed development on fish populations (Munkittrick et al 2019 ).…”