Dr. Monique Dub

1
The Status of Aquatic Threshold Development and
Application

• Dr. Monique Dubé
• University of Saskatchewan, Toxicology Centre
• Thresholds From Theory to Practice
• Yellowknife, March 13 14, 2006

2
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

• What development do we have?
• What is the state of our environment?
• Has the state changed?
• Compared to what?
• Is the change important?
• What caused the change?
• What do we do about it?

Stressors Development
Environment
3
Where are we at with Water?

• Stressor-based Approaches (Approval, CCME, EA
  Process)
• Effects-based Approaches (EEM, LT Monitoring)
• What to measure (VECS, indicators, endpoints)
• How to measure
• What to compare to assess change
• Progressing towards integrated assessments
• Is the change important? (acceptable,
  ecologically meaningful, threshold)
• What is the role of science in the process?

4
Stressor-based vs Effects-based

• Identified response
• Change in water quality, sediment quality, biol.
  quality
• Cause unknown
• Monitoring programs

• Identified stressor
• Contaminant, project activity
• Assessing an identified cause
• Regulatory approvals, MMLER
• EA process

5
Stressor-based vs Effects-based
The Need for E-B
The Need for S-B

• Provides an integrated assessment from the body
  you are trying to protect tracking
• Currently embedded into our regulatory framework
• Protection from mistakes, underestimates, or
  overestimates
• May not tell you cause

• Provides Cause-Effect / Dose-Response
  Relationships
• Currently embedded into our regulatory framework
• If you know what it is you are dealing with
  then it is easier to consider solutions
• Assumes you know the stressors and interactions
  predictions accurate? Assimilative capacity?

6
Stressor-based Discharge Limits
7
Stressor-based Limits for Protection of Human
Uses
Goal
Objectives
Indicators
Benchmarks
8
It is one thing to show the data
All sites
ACBIS (active) Site No
9
Water Quality GUIDELINES (CCME) for evaluating DW
suitability - arsenic G - barium G - boron G -
cadmium G - chloride G - chromium G - copper G -
etc G
It is another to show a change in the data
relative to a benchmark
All sites
ACBIS (active) Site No
10
Relative to benchmarks
All sites
ACBIS (active) Site No
11
The CWQI

• Calculates an index that is defined by the user
  (variables and guidelines). Compare variables to
  their guidelines and then integrate to evaluate
  suitability. Active WIP
• Three factors
• F1 Scope (Number of failed variables)
• (Total number of
  variables) 100
• F2 Frequency (Number of failed tests)
• (Total number of tests)
  100
• F3 Amplitude amount which test values do not
  meet their objectives (3 steps)
• WQI 100 F12 F22 F32
• 1.732

12
The good of an index

• Allows synthesis of large amounts of variable
  data by need
• Compares each variable to a benchmark
• Allows for multiple variables and multiple
  benchmarks to be compared relative to a question
  of interest (e.g., DW suitability)
• Providing the use is directed for variable and
  guideline selection then the approach has
  scientific validity to show changes in key
  indicators relative to important benchmarks

13
The bad of an index

• It only tells a story based on the characters
  you create. It assumes you know everything (the
  downfall of S-B approaches).
• Constrained because not all variables that you
  think are important for DW assessment have a
  guideline.
• One global guideline does not fit all

14
Stressor-based Limits for Protection of Aquatic
Life
Goal
Objectives
Indicators
CCME/WHO
Benchmarks
SSO based on reference state
15
Water Quality GUIDELINES (CCME) for protection of
aquatic life? - aluminum G - ammonia G - arsenic
G - cadmium G - chromium G - copper G
Line does not discriminate from background
naturally bad
All sites
ACBIS (active) Site No
16
Reference Condition Benchmarks

• Allows you to use variables that you think are
  important even if they do not have a guideline
  (create one from the reference condition in space
  or time)
• It provides for a change in state from some
  baseline condition
• It allows for assessment of the quality of water
  for the protection of aquatic life in areas that
  would naturally exceed national guidelines at
  unimpacted sites

17
WQI Development for the North
EEM Mine Sites
Coppermine Sites
Coppermine CCME Approach before and after
mining Reference Condition Approach
90th perc. of pre-mining Mining EEM CCME Ref
vs Exp Reference Condition Approach regional
geology
18
Coppermine River Basin
19
EEM Metal Mining Project
1) Categorized mine sites by surficial geology 2)
Used CCME guidelines and cal. WQI for each
Ref/Exp diff. 3) Used 90th perc. of
geological ref and calc. WQI for each Ref/Exp
diff Result Approaches communicated two very
different outcomes
20
Reference Condition
Normalizes the comparison relative to a
reference point in time or space when things
were better to see if they are now worse
2SD of Reference
Reference
CCME G
All sites
ACBIS (active) Site No
21
Stressor-based vs Effects-based
The Need for E-B
The Need for S-B

• Provides an integrated assessment from the body
  you are trying to protect tracking
• Currently embedded into our regulatory framework
• Protection from mistakes, underestimates, or
  overestimates
• May not tell you cause

• Provides Cause-Effect / Dose-Response
  Relationships
• Currently embedded into our regulatory framework
• If you know what it is you are dealing with
  then it is easier to consider solutions
• Assumes you know the stressors and interactions.
  Predictions accurate? Assimilative capacity?

22
EEM Program Model

• EEM is a sequential series of monitoring and
• interpretation cycles conducted to identify and
  evaluate any effects of effluents on fish, fish
  habitat (benthic invertebrates), and the use of
  fisheries resources in the receiving water.

23
Unique 1) Biological Benchmarks

• Benthic Invertebrate EFFECT Endpoints
• Total invertebrate density
• Taxon richness
• Simpsons Diversity Index
• Bray-Curtis Index
• Sentinel Fish EFFECT Endpoints
• Survival (Age)
• Energy Use (Size-at-age, gonad size)
• Energy Storage (Condition, liver size)

24
Unique 2) Definition of effect
Statistically significant difference between
effect endpoint measurements taken from an
exposure area and measurements taken from a
reference area for fish, benthic invertebrates or
fish usability
Level 1) Statistical Significance (presence of
change) Level 2) Critical Effect Size (magnitude
of change)
Selected fundamental indicators, selected a
starting benchmark, goal to measure change and
its magnitude NOT TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT ON
ACCEPTABILITY This allowed us to get on with the
science to bring information to the stakeholder
table
25
Is there a change?

Important Indicator
Reference
Statistical Significance
26
How big a change?
Magnitude /- 2 SD of reference
27
How big are the changes?
28
Effect Summary
29
THREATS Software Results - 2006
30
What we have for water

• Data (albeit fragmented across sources quality
  quantity levels of development)
• Know how to collect it
• Know how to analyze it
• Existing benchmarks for both S-B and E-B
• We have the science to measure change and infer
  cause
• Existing regulatory instruments to implement
• We lack the capacity to integrate at the level
  necessary
• We need to improve consistency of use across our
  regulatory instruments

31
Conceptual Integration
S-B
S-B
E-B
32
Integration Tools
S-B E-B EA EEM Approvals AEMP
THREATS
33
Challenges

• Created a perception that it is more difficult
  than it needs to be
• Started with the most difficult question
• Underestimated how much we already have
• We are not moving on existing opportunities
• Management thresholds are technically or
  socially-based standards that identify the point
  at which an indicator changes to an unacceptable
  condition.

34
Break it into manageable steps
Aquatics
Measure change
Evaluate change
S-B E-B
Vision for the Land/LUP
Existing limits/benchmarks
Thresholds
Measure change, direction, magnitude
Evaluate the acceptability of the change
socially/ecol
Role of science
Multi-stakeholder implementation
Two supportive processes that can develop in
parallel
35
How do we Implement?

• Pillars are out. To date no one entity has the
  capacity nor the mandate to integrate at the
  level necessary to track changes or to plan for
  them

Water Quantity
Environmental Protection
Water Quality
Landscape Ecologists
CEA, IWRM, SD
Fisheries