Stella Swanson, Ph.D.

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