Environmental benchmarks vs. ecological benchmarks for assessment and monitoring in Canada: Is there a difference?

Environmental benchmarks are widely used in Canadian environmental assessment as a standard against which to monitor air or water quality in response to human activities in the environment. Recent work in Canada has developed the concept of ecological benchmarks as a complement to environmental benchmarks. However, implementation of ecological benchmarks may be challenging. This paper presents an analogy between ecological benchmarks and the more commonly used environmental benchmarks, as an attempt to increase understanding and use of ecological benchmarks in resource management, assessment, and monitoring. Ecological benchmarks, and their corresponding indicators, will be challenging to identify and use. However, through the use of the principles of adaptive management, effective ecological indicators and benchmarks can be established. Although it is essential that ecological benchmarks are site-specific, the analogy and general principles outlined here are applicable to assessment and monitoring in any part of the world.     

A modular approach to Integrated Assessment modeling

In this paper, we present a new approach to model coupling that probably forms the methodological basis of a new generation of Integrated Assessment models. This approach respects the knowledge and expertise that is embodied in existing models and encourages their gradual evolution. Modularity is the guiding principle. Our approach is distinguished by the way modules are coupled which is based on an interplay of a job control module, a numerical coupling module, and a couple of stand-alone functional modules. The numerical coupling module - the core component - serves to treat the feedbacks between the functional modules. A first implemented example that couples an economic and a climate module by means of a two-phase meta-optimization is presented here. The algorithm and mathematical structure behind are discussed as well as important features such as convergence behavior and reliability.     

EPA's monitoring program at Love Canal 1980

Summary As stated at the beginning of this paper conclusions reached thus far cannot be discussed in this paper. However, a great deal of information is available for examination.EPA displayed its ability to coordinate widely separated laboratories, both Federal and private, into a smooth working team in a very short period of time. A very comprehensive study plan was also developed and implemented quickly. EPA was fortunate to have already had GCA under contract when the emergency arose. In no small part the success of the field effort was due to the managerial and technical abilities of the GCA team.Within a period of 6 weeks a plan was developed, a prime contractor retained, subcontractors hired, and field activities begun. Within a period of 3 months in excess of 8600 field samples were collected and over 12,000 field and QC samples were analyzed. During this same period 2 major data systems were developed, debugged, and placed into operation.In short this EPA project was probably the most comprehensive multimedia field project ever attempted by EPA and certainly the data is being subjected to the most strenuous quality control measures ever imposed by this Agency. The entire program is presently under peer review and the results are being prepared for publication by EPA Headquarters.Note. Originally intended to be published as part of the special issue on Exposure Monitoring: An International Workshop (Las Vegas, Nevada, October 19–22, 1981).     

A ten year summary of concurrent ambient water column and sediment toxicity tests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: 1990-1999

The goal of this study was to identify the relative toxicity ofambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a suiteof concurrent water column and sediment toxicity tests at seventy-five ambient stations in 20 Chesapeake Bay rivers from1990 through 1999. Spatial and temporal variability was examinedat selected locations throughout the 10 yr study. Inorganicand organic contaminants were evaluated in ambient water andsediment concurrently with water column and sediment tests toassess possible causes of toxicity although absolute causalitycan not be established. Multivariate statistical analysis wasused to develop a multiple endpoint toxicity index (TOX-INDEX) at each station for both water column and sediment toxicity data. Water column tests from the 10 yr testing period showed that49% of the time, some degree of toxicity was reported. The mosttoxic sites based on water column results were located inurbanized areas such as the Anacostia River, Elizabeth River andthe Middle River. Water quality criteria for copper, lead,mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of thesesites. Water column toxicity was also reported in localizedareas of the South and Chester Rivers. Both spatial and temporalvariability was reported from the suite of water column toxicitytests. Some degree of sediment toxicity was reported from 62% of the tests conducted during the ten year period. The ElizabethRiver and Baltimore Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas based on sediment results.Sediment toxicity guidelines were exceeded for one or more of thefollowing metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. At the Elizabeth Riverstations nine of sixteen semi-volatile organics and two of sevenpesticides measured exceeded the ER-M values in 1990. Ambientsediment toxicity tests in the Elizabeth River in 1996 showedreduced toxicity. Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor sites; pyrene anddibenzo(a,h)anthracene were particularly high at one of thestations (Northwest Harbor). Localized sediment toxicity was alsoreported in the Chester, James, Magothy, Rappahannock, andPotomac Rivers but the link with contaminants was not determined.Both spatial and temporal variability was less for sedimenttoxicity data when compared with water column toxicity data. Acomparison of water column and sediment toxicity data for thevarious stations over the 10 yr study showed that approximatelyhalf the time agreement occurred (either both suite of testsshowed toxicity or neither suite of tests showed toxicity).     

The Variability of Estimates of Variance, and Its Effect on Power Analysis in Monitoring Design

Power analysis can be a valuable aid in the design of monitoringprograms. It requires an estimate of variance, which may come from a pilot study or an existing study in a similar habitat. For marine benthic infauna, natural variation in abundances canbe considerable, raising the question of reliability of varianceestimates. We used two existing monitoring programs to generatemultiple estimates of variance. These estimates were found to differ from nominated best estimates by 50% or more in 43% of cases, in turn leading to under or over-estimation of samplesize in the design of a notional monitoring program. The twostudies, from the same general area, using the same samplingmethods and spanning a similar time scale, gave estimatesvarying by more than an order of magnitude for 25% of taxa.We suggest that pilot studies for ecological monitoring programsof marine infauna should include at least two sampling times.