1 / 20

Stella Swanson, Ph.D.

Stella Swanson, Ph.D. Monitoring Principles. Principle #1: Know Why We Are Monitoring. Four basic reasons to monitor : Compliance Monitoring : to demonstrate compliance with license requirements Monitoring in Support of Certification : e.g. ISO; reclamation certificate

marcus
Download Presentation

Stella Swanson, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Stella Swanson, Ph.D. Monitoring Principles

  2. Principle #1:Know Why We Are Monitoring Four basic reasons to monitor: • Compliance Monitoring: to demonstrate compliance with license requirements • Monitoring in Support of Certification: e.g. ISO; reclamation certificate • Operational Monitoring for Adaptive Management: e.g. effluent treatment data in support of continuous improvement goals of the Environmental Management Plan • Regional Cumulative Effects: e.g. joint industry/government studies of airsheds

  3. Principle #2:Monitoring Is Not Research Monitoring cannot answer all questions. It is important to know when a question must be answered by research.

  4. Research Versus Monitoring Research • Objective: investigate fundamental scientific questions • Focus: test theory • Outcomes: scientific papers, further development of theory • Applications: input to monitoring programs, models, design of mitigation, reclamation refinements to regulations Monitoring • Objective: demonstrate effectiveness of environmental management and regulations • Focus: specific questions regarding status, trends or compliance • Outcomes: databases, monitoring reports • Applications: feedback to operations

  5. Research Versus Monitoring Example Monitoring • Objective: test toxicity of pit lake water using standard test species • Focus: confirm predictions developed from research • Applications: feedback to EMS and decisions re: requirements for treatment and/or additional dilution of pit lake water Research • Objective: study the effects of naphthenic acids plus salinity • Focus: test Hypothesis that naphthenic acids plus salinity will act together to cause more effects than either one separately by conducting laboratory and field observations • Applications: predicting multiple stressor effects

  6. Research Versus MonitoringQuick-Check • If it’s an interesting “what if” question, it’s probably research • If it’s a question of “let’s check to be sure” it’s probably monitoring

  7. When Will Research Be Required? • examples of questions that cannot be answered without research: • Baseline: year-to-year variation in phytoplankton populations in regional lakes • Monitoring: what is the cause/effect relationship between variation in zooplankton community structure and exposure to OSPW

  8. Principle #3:Know the Questions We are Asking • Monitoring must address specific questions • Three main categories: 1. Status: point-in-time 2. Trends: temporal and spatial 3. Effects: project effects; cumulative effects

  9. Status Questions - Examples • Compliance monitoring: Are monthly means and yearly maximum within license limits? • Certification monitoring: Do littoral zone performance criteria (e.g. macrophyte biomass) meet design requirements? • Operational monitoring: Did the adjustment to the flow-through rate produce the expected results? • Regional monitoring: Did the unusually wet spring affect the length of time that turbidity persisted in the lake?

  10. Trend Questions - Examples • Compliance monitoring: Are there seasonal trends in parameters that are governed by license limits? • Certification monitoring: Is macrophyte cover and benthic invertebrate biomass in the lake increasing as predicted? • Operational monitoring: Has the flow-through rate adjustment made because of site-wide water management constraints affected naphthenic acid degradation rate? • Regional monitoring: Have there been similar year-to-year trends in zooplankton populations in regional lakes as has been observed in the pit lake?

  11. Effects Questions - Examples • Compliance monitoring: Do chronic toxicity test results using the required suite of tests stay within license requirements? • Certification monitoring: Do long-term monitoring quadrats in the littoral zone show the expected gradual build-up of a detrital layer on the sediments? • Operational monitoring: Does the number of waterfowl interactions with pit lake water and sediments warrant change in mitigation measures ? • Regional monitoring: Has there been a statistically significant change in fish growth rates or age distribution over the past 5 years in regional lakes compared to the pit lake?

  12. Principle #4:Be Clear About Purpose of Indicators • Intrinsic importance; e.g. waterfowl • Early warning; e.g. acute toxicity tests • minimal time lag in response to stress • discrimination low • screening tool: accept false positives • Sensitive indicator; e.g. proportion of metal-sensitive invertebrate species • high fidelity in showing adverse effect • must be relevant to state of ecosystem • Process/functional indicator; e.g. primary production

  13. Principle #5: Use Consistent Criteria for Selecting Indicators • High Signal-to-Noise Ratio • Rapid Response • Reliability/Specificity of Response • Ease/Economy of Monitoring • Ecological Relevance • Effectiveness of Feedback to Regulation and Adaptive Management

  14. Application of Criteria forIndicator Selection Varies • Compliance monitoring: rapid response • Certification monitoring: reliability • Operational monitoring: high signal-to-noise ratio; feedback to management • Regional monitoring: reliability; ecological relevance; feedback to management Ease/Economy is always an important criterion and is correlated with the state of knowledge

  15. Principle #6:Define Acceptable Change Definition will depend upon the type of monitoring: • Status • Trends • Effects

  16. Defining Acceptable Change:Status Monitoring • Compliance monitoring: compare to license limits • Certification monitoring: compare to certification requirements • Operational monitoring: compliance with Environmental Management Plan objectives • Regional monitoring: compare to baseline

  17. Defining Acceptable Change:Trend Monitoring • Compliance monitoring: e.g. spatial extent of water quality change within defined limits of mixing zone; temporal maxima within license limits • Certification monitoring: e.g. 5-year record of littoral development • Operational monitoring: e.g. consistent improvement in ability to predict seasonal lake water quality • Regional monitoring: e.g. consistent decline in metal concentrations with distance from point sources as predicted in EIAs

  18. Defining Acceptable Change:Effects Monitoring Statistical definitions: e.g. “critical effect size” of two standard deviations from a reference mean • require reliable data on natural variability from valid reference areas • require professional judgment because the links between observations or experimental results and effects on population persistence, community structure or ecosystem function can be highly uncertain.

  19. Defining Acceptable Change:Effects Monitoring • probabilistic definitions: e.g. “a 10% chance, or less, that 20% or more of the total population of forage fish would receive an exposure greater than the Ecological Benchmark Value” (Oregon DEQ 1998) • require the estimation of the probability of exposure • require estimation of local population abundance • require sufficient data to determine the EBV

  20. Summary • Know Why We are Monitoring • Monitoring is Not Research • Know the Questions We are Asking • Status; Trends; Effects • Be Clear about the Purpose of Indicators • Use Consistent Criteria for Selecting Indicators • Define Acceptable Change

More Related