National Assessment of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data: Findings from Cycles 1 through 3

In Cycle 3, data for 62 fish surveys were submitted electronically. A total of 54 of these surveys contained adult fish data that had sufficient replication to conduct statistical analysis. A small number of alternative studies (e.g., caged bivalves, mesocosms) were also conducted (Table 2), which, due to their unique nature, are not included in the following summary of results. Prior to analysis, the electronically submitted fish data were screened for errors and incomplete data. In both Cycles 2 and 3, the majority of mills encountered one or more problems with portions of the fish field survey, and these are summarized in Table 3. The types and numbers of problems reported were similar between these two cycles.

Overall, the majority of the submitted data were of good quality for both cycles, and it was possible to correct a number of the data submission problems manually. After accounting for problems with electronically submitted data, only six submitted fish studies in Cycle 2 and five submitted fish studies in Cycle 3 were omitted entirely due to the kinds of problems summarized in Table 3 (i.e., no valid fish comparisons available for the study). Note that a “comparison,” as used for the fish survey here and later in this report, refers to an exposure versus reference comparison for one fish species and gender. Thus, a mill that conducts a fish survey on two genders for two species would have data for four comparisons for each endpoint, assuming that all comparisons provided sufficient data.

Table 4 lists the fish species collected at all mills over three cycles. The two most commonly utilized species collected in Cycles 1 and 2 were the white and longnose suckers. The white sucker was also used frequently during Cycle 3. While this comparatively large species was the mostly commonly used, the proportion of small-bodied fish species increased substantially in Cycle 2, with this higher proportion carrying over to Cycle 3 (Table 4; Lowell et al. 2003). Increased use of small-bodied species has been encouraged due to concerns regarding large-bodied fish mobility and subsequent questions about movement of sampled fish in and out of exposure areas. It should be noted, however, that recent research has shown that white sucker mobility is often minimal, except during spawning periods (Doherty et al. 2004).

^a the data in this table include information from both successful and unsuccessful studies (modified from Environment Canada 1997; Courtenay et al. 2002 ; Munkittrick et al. 2002 ; Lowell et al. 2003).
^b Small-bodied fish are defined here as a fish species that has a median size (as sampled during the EEM study) of 150 mm or less (see also Environment Canada 2004a).