{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023133543638275498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026288117770767614, 'mean_word_length': 6.181132075471698, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Water Quality Monitoring to Support Cumulative Effects Assessment and Decision Making in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, Canada

Project proponent‐ and government‐led environmental monitoring are required to identify, understand, and manage cumulative effects (CE), yet such monitoring initiatives are rarely mutually supportive. Notwithstanding the need for a more integrated and complementary approach to monitoring, monitoring efforts are often less effective than intended for addressing CE. This paper examines current monitoring programs in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, Canada, based on 7 attributes: consistency, compatibility, observability, detectability, adaptability, accessibility, and usability. Results indicate a tenuous link between and across proponent‐led monitoring requirements under project‐specific water licenses and government‐led monitoring of regional baseline conditions. There is some consistency in what is monitored, but data are often incompatible, insufficient to understand baseline change, not transferable across projects or scales, inaccessible to end users, and ultimately unsuitable to understanding CE. Lessons from the Mackenzie Valley highlight the need for improved alignment of monitoring efforts across programs and scales, characterized by a set of common parameters that are most useful for early detection of cumulative change and supporting regulatory decisions at the project scale. This alignment must be accompanied by more open and accessible data for both proponents and regulators, while protecting the sensitivity of proprietary information. Importantly, there must be conceptual guidance for CE, such that the role of monitoring is clear, providing the types of CE questions to be asked, identifying the hypotheses to be tested, and ensuring timely and meaningful results to support regulatory decisions. © 2019 SETAC