National Assessment of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data: Findings from Cycles 1 through 3
- Publishing Information
- 1.0 Executive Summary
- 2.0 Introduction
- 3.0 Overview of Studies Conducted in Cycle 3
- 4.0 General Methods - Data Preparation and Analysis
- 4.1 General Methods - Procedure for Determining National Response
- 5.0 Fish Survey
- 5.1 Data Processing and Study Designs
- 5.2 Summary of Effect Sizes
- 5.3 Response Patterns and Meta-analyses
- 6.0 Fisheries Resources and Usability
- 7.0 Benthic Invertebrate Community Survey
- 7.1 Data Processing and Study Designs
- 7.2 Summary of Effect Sizes
- 7.3 Response Patterns and Meta-analyses
- 8.0 Sublethal Toxicity Testing - Introduction
- 8.1 Sublethal Toxicity Testing - Monitoring Changes in Effluent Quality Among Cycles
- 8.2 Sublethal Toxicity Testing - Summary and Future Considerations
- 9.0 Summary and Conclusions
- Acronyms / Abbreviations
3.0 Overview of Studies Conducted in Cycle 3
Overview of Studies Conducted in Cycle 3
In Cycle 3, 112 mills conducted EEM studies, including 29 marine/estuarine and 66 freshwater field surveys. Table 2 shows a regional summary of the number and type of field surveys as well as the sublethal toxicity studies conducted by mills for Cycle 3. There were 62 standard fish surveys, which included 4 studies using molluscs, and 87 standard benthic invertebrate surveys; all mills conducted sublethal toxicity studies. Very few mills used alternatives for fish and benthic surveys; these included caged bivalves, mesocosms and other research. In total, 24 mills were exempted from conducting a fish survey because the effluent concentration in the exposure area was less than 1% within 250 m of the point of discharge. In addition, conditions at numerous sites made conducting the surveys unfeasible for either the fish survey or the benthic invertebrate survey. At these mills, site-specific exemptions were given for various reasons, such as variability of habitat, extreme tides, unsafe conditions for sampling and lack of suitable reference areas. Due to these exemptions, there were 11 mills operating in Cycle 3 that did not conduct field surveys and submitted only sublethal toxicity data.
|Region||Number of mills that cond-ucted EEM studiesa||Fish surveys||Benthic invertebrate surveys||Number of mills that used alter-natives||Number of mills that cond-ucted only sublethal toxicity tests|
|Number of standard surveys||Number of dilution exemp-tions||Number of site specific exemp-tions||Number of standard surveys||Number of site specific exemp-tions|
|Atlantic||19||8||5||3||16||2||3 (fish research and benthic meso-cosm; fish research; caged bivalve)||0|
|Ontario||20||14||1||4||17||2||1 (1 fish meso-cosm)||1|
|Prairie and Northern||10||5||4||0||9||0||1 (fish and benthic meso-cosms)||0|
|Pacific and Yukon||21||6||4||7c||14||2||0||2|
a There were an additional 10 mills that were non-operational for a long period of time and did not conduct an EEM study in Cycle 3.
b There are three mills in the Quebec Region that are on a different monitoring timeline; therefore, their data for Cycle 3 are not available at this time.
c Four mills from the Pacific and Yukon Region conducted extended sublethal toxicity tests on topsmelt (growth and survival).
d Includes 1 joint study in the Pacific and Yukon Region. A joint study refers to a study that was completed concurrently by more than one mill that discharge in the same water body and share sampling areas.
e Includes a total of 4 joint studies, three in Pacific and Yukon Region and one in the Ontario Region.
- Date Modified: