Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice
Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice
Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Progress</strong> <strong>report</strong> <strong>summarizing</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong>, <strong>PCB</strong><br />
analysis results and visual monitoring associated with <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef, a decommissioned former Navy aircraft<br />
carrier sunk in 2006 as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern<br />
Gulf of Mexico off Pensacola, Florida<br />
Prepared by:<br />
Jon Dodrill, Keith Mille, and Bill Horn<br />
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission<br />
Florida Artificial Reef Program<br />
Division of Marine Fisheries Management<br />
620 S. Meridian Street<br />
Tallahassee, FL 32399<br />
and<br />
Robert Turpin<br />
Escambia County Marine Resources Division<br />
3363 West Park Place<br />
Pensacola, FL 32505<br />
Submitted April 13, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Page No.<br />
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3<br />
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 4<br />
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 5<br />
Part I. EPA Monitoring Requirements, Oriskany Reef Project Historical Background,<br />
and Methodology for Field Sampling and Sample <strong>PCB</strong> Analysis Methodology<br />
(A) Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6<br />
(B) Overview of <strong>PCB</strong>s .............................................................................................. 10<br />
(C) Oriskany Reef Project Background History ...................................................... 13<br />
(D) Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 22<br />
Part II. Results and Discussion<br />
(A) Sampling Additions to <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan<br />
(1) Visual Monitoring on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef .................................................... 39<br />
(2) Nearby Site #1 Assessment ....................................................................... 46<br />
(3) University of West Florida Underwater Video Surveys .............................. 49<br />
(4) Oriskany Reef Post Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Dive Reconnaissance .. 50<br />
(B) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project ................................................................. 51<br />
(C) Overview of <strong>the</strong> First Eight Rounds of Oriskany Reef Fish Sampling and<br />
Two Rounds of Nearby Reef Sampling ............................................................ 58<br />
(D) <strong>PCB</strong> Analysis Results and Discussion for Each Species<br />
(1) Red Snapper ............................................................................................... 64<br />
(2) Vermilion Snapper ...................................................................................... 76<br />
(3) Red Porgy .................................................................................................... 80<br />
(4) Whitebone Porgy ......................................................................................... 84<br />
(5) Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> ........................................................................................... 88<br />
(6) Scamp .......................................................................................................... 92<br />
(E) Distribution of <strong>PCB</strong> Congeners by Homologs ................................................... 96<br />
(F) O<strong>the</strong>r Discussion Issues .................................................................................... 96<br />
(G) Summary ........................................................................................................... 106<br />
Part III, Suggested options for future actions through December 2011 .......................... 107<br />
References Cited .................................................................................................................. 108<br />
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 115<br />
Appendix 1, Tables ............................................................................................................... 116<br />
Appendix 2, Sample FWC underwater <strong>fish</strong> census sheet .................................................. 136<br />
2 | Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
In compliance with <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 monitoring requirements of <strong>the</strong> risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk<br />
product waste disposal approval document issued by <strong>the</strong> Environmental Protection<br />
Agency (EPA) to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Navy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission<br />
(FWC), and Escambia County, this <strong>report</strong> summarizes <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> first four years<br />
of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong>, <strong>PCB</strong> analysis, and dive assessment monitoring of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef, a decommissioned former aircraft carrier deployed in May 2006 as an artificial<br />
<strong>reef</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico, 23.5 nm sou<strong>the</strong>ast of Pensacola, FL.<br />
Between December 14, 2006, and November 18, 2010, eight <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> sample collection<br />
events funded by FWC were completed resulting in a total of 315 legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
retained for skin-on congener-specific analysis of 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners (254 <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef, and 61 <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> nearby Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef). The<br />
254 retained <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef included: 184 red snapper, 42 vermilion<br />
snapper, 14 red porgy, 6 whitebone porgy, 4 scamp grouper, 2 gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>, and 1<br />
red grouper. Initially <strong>the</strong> mean <strong>PCB</strong> level for <strong>fish</strong> samples from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
collected within <strong>the</strong> first two years post-deployment (sample rounds 1-4) had combined<br />
mean total <strong>PCB</strong> values exceeding <strong>the</strong> Florida Department of Health (FDOH) screening<br />
value of 50 ppb and <strong>the</strong> EPA screening value of 20 ppb. By sample round 5, collected at<br />
2.9 years, <strong>the</strong> mean <strong>PCB</strong> level measured decreased to below <strong>the</strong> FDOH value and<br />
slightly above <strong>the</strong> EPA value. By sample round 6 and 7, collected at 3.5 and 3.9 years,<br />
<strong>the</strong> mean <strong>PCB</strong> levels were below both <strong>the</strong> FDOH and EPA thresholds. Sample round 8<br />
samples (n=39), collected at 4.5 years are currently being processed and are expected by<br />
June 2011. Sample round 9 is scheduled for April 26, 2011 (4.9 years postdeployment).<br />
The species with <strong>the</strong> highest <strong>PCB</strong> levels observed included red snapper<br />
(n=172), red porgy (n=7), and whitebone porgy (n=4). No samples of vermillion snapper<br />
(n=28) or scamp (n=1) exceeded <strong>the</strong> FDOH or EPA thresholds. Overall, <strong>the</strong>se results<br />
indicate a declining trend during <strong>the</strong> last 2 years of <strong>sampling</strong>.<br />
Additionally, 10 underwater visual assessments were conducted on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
by FWC divers, confirming <strong>the</strong> observed recreationally targeted species found on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany are well represented among <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis. Visual<br />
observations by FWC divers also documented that <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef had settled into<br />
<strong>the</strong> sediments about 10 ft at 2.5 years post deployment and sustained minor structural<br />
change to <strong>the</strong> exterior covering of <strong>the</strong> smoke stack at 3.5 years post deployment<br />
following <strong>the</strong> tropical storm events of 2007 and 2008, respectively. Results from 199<br />
<strong>fish</strong> tagged and released on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany <strong>reef</strong> provide preliminary <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> site fidelity<br />
and considerations of localized <strong>fish</strong>ing effort. Review of <strong>the</strong> results of o<strong>the</strong>r FWC funded<br />
<strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> research projects in <strong>the</strong> vicinity are discussed as <strong>the</strong>y relate to <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species<br />
sampled on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Options for consideration of future sample collection efforts at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through <strong>the</strong> end of 2011 are provided.<br />
3 | Page
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table<br />
Page No.<br />
1. FWC dive assessments completed on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef .......................... 44<br />
2. Fish species observed on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (sorted by percent sighting<br />
frequency and density) ................................................................................. 117<br />
3. Fish species observed on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (sorted by density) .............. 118<br />
4. Fish species observed on <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1 .............. 119<br />
5. UWF <strong>fish</strong> census data from Escambia East LAARS Refugia Reefs<br />
(sorted by percent number) .......................................................................... 119<br />
6. UWF <strong>fish</strong> census data from Escambia East LAARS Refugia Reefs<br />
(sorted by percent biomass) ......................................................................... 121<br />
7. Comparison of <strong>the</strong> ranking of <strong>the</strong> 9 <strong>fish</strong> species targeted for <strong>PCB</strong><br />
<strong>sampling</strong> observed during FWC and UWF <strong>fish</strong> census surveys ................. 50<br />
8. Fish species tagged at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef on April 21, 2009 .................... 56<br />
8a. Fish species recaptured through March 28, 2011 .................................... 57<br />
9. Fish discarded and not kept for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis ............................................ 123<br />
10. List of <strong>sampling</strong> platform, gear, locations, and number of <strong>fish</strong> retained<br />
for each <strong>sampling</strong> date ................................................................................. 58<br />
11. Mean total length of red snapper by sample round ................................... 71<br />
12. Correlation matrix of variables measured in red snapper samples from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef .......................................................................................... 74<br />
13. <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef collected during<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds 1-8 ..................................................................................... 126<br />
14. <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing<br />
Reef “Nearby Reef” collected during <strong>sampling</strong> rounds 3 & 4 ................... 131<br />
15. Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs from <strong>fish</strong> collected<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing Reef “Nearby Reef” ..................... 133<br />
16a.Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs from <strong>fish</strong> collected<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef(OR-GT-175 through OR-RS-090) .......................... 134<br />
16b.Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs from <strong>fish</strong> collected<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef(OR-RS-091 through OR-VS-178) .......................... 135<br />
4 | Page
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Figure<br />
Page No.<br />
1. Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola ................................................................ 14<br />
2. Oriskany Reef pre-sink <strong>sampling</strong> sites ........................................................ 20<br />
3. Location map of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef ............................................................. 21<br />
4. Recovery of commercial chevron trap with red snapper catch ................. 26<br />
5. Commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” <strong>fish</strong>ing gear ........................... 29<br />
6. Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef ............................ 43<br />
7. Species composition of <strong>fish</strong> samples retained from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
from <strong>sampling</strong> rounds 1-8 ............................................................................ 59<br />
7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany Reef samples by sample date from<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds 1-8 ..................................................................................... 61<br />
8. Species composition of <strong>fish</strong> samples retained from <strong>the</strong> Nearby Reef<br />
from <strong>sampling</strong> rounds 3 of 4 ........................................................................ 62<br />
9. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red snapper from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef......... 72<br />
10. <strong>PCB</strong> data for red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef by <strong>fish</strong><br />
length through sample round #7................................................................. 73<br />
11. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Nearby<br />
Reef #1 during sample rounds #3 and #4 ................................................. 75<br />
12. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for vermilion snapper from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef through sample round #7.................................................................... 79<br />
13. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red porgy from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through sample round #7 ............................................................................ 13<br />
14. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for whitebone porgy from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef through sample round #7.................................................................... 87<br />
15. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through sample round #7 ............................................................................ 91<br />
16. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for scamp from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through<br />
sample round #7........................................................................................... 95<br />
17. Location of <strong>the</strong> Monsanto Plant 1960s <strong>PCB</strong> spill ....................................... 98<br />
5 | Page
PART I. EPA MONITORING REQUIREMENTS, ORISKANY REEF PROJECT HISTORICAL<br />
BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY FOR FIELD SAMPLING AND SAMPLE <strong>PCB</strong> ANALYSIS<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
Part I (A) Introduction<br />
This progress <strong>report</strong> describes and discusses <strong>the</strong> status of eight <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong><br />
rounds and associated polychlorinated biphenyl (<strong>PCB</strong>) sample analyses undertaken<br />
between December 14, 2006 and November 18, 2010. It also describes all <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
monitoring activities associated with <strong>the</strong> former US Navy fast attack aircraft<br />
carrier <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany (CVA-34) deployed as Oriskany Reef on May 17, 2006 in 212<br />
feet of water and located 23.5 miles sou<strong>the</strong>ast of Pensacola Pass off Northwest<br />
Florida, Gulf of Mexico. Two additional <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> rounds were also carried<br />
out on a nearby artificial <strong>reef</strong> located about eight nautical miles northwest of <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC)<br />
Division of Marine Fisheries Management and <strong>the</strong> Escambia County, Florida<br />
Marine Resources Division (ECMRD) partnered in <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef postdeployment<br />
monitoring effort. This is <strong>the</strong> interim draft progress <strong>report</strong> submitted<br />
to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia) and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Florida Department of Health (FDOH) for <strong>the</strong>ir review, comment, and future<br />
monitoring guidance.<br />
For <strong>the</strong> benefit of readers unfamiliar with <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef project, Part I of this<br />
progress <strong>report</strong> includes a brief overview of EPA monitoring requirements,<br />
ecological and health issues associated with <strong>PCB</strong>s and an ex-Oriskany <strong>reef</strong>ing<br />
background historical review. The Methods section that follows describes field<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> operations and laboratory analysis procedures.<br />
In Part II of this <strong>report</strong>, a Results and Discussion section describes results of<br />
Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> community visual monitoring efforts and provides <strong>the</strong><br />
recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> results available to date. The <strong>PCB</strong><br />
<strong>sampling</strong> and analysis results are presented and discussed by each <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species<br />
sampled beginning with <strong>the</strong> most common <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> sampled (red snapper) and<br />
continuing in descending numerical order of <strong>fish</strong> species caught, retained and<br />
sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s. Target <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species ecological profiles are also included to<br />
provide insight into <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results.<br />
The <strong>report</strong> concludes with Part III, a brief summary and FWC-Escambia County<br />
possible options for future actions through December 2011.<br />
6 | Page
I (A) (1) EPA Oriskany Reef <strong>PCB</strong> Tier 1 Screening Level Monitoring Requirements for FWC<br />
and Escambia County<br />
FWC and ECMRD conducted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> monitoring at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef in<br />
compliance with a risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product waste disposal approval document<br />
that EPA issued to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Navy, FWC, and Escambia County (as amended July<br />
16, 2007) (USEPA 2006a). <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product waste is defined as “waste derived<br />
from manufactured products containing <strong>PCB</strong>s in a non-liquid state at any<br />
concentration where <strong>the</strong> concentration at <strong>the</strong> time of designation for disposal was ≥<br />
50 ppm <strong>PCB</strong>s.” (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1 (EPA<br />
authority) Part 761 (<strong>PCB</strong>s manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce,<br />
and use prohibitions), section 761.3. The approval required FWC and Escambia<br />
County to undertake a multi-year Tier 1 screening level monitoring assessment of<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> levels in <strong>the</strong> lateral muscle fillet tissue of legal size recreationally targeted and<br />
consumed <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> caught at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
The intent of <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 monitoring effort was to ensure that selected species of legal<br />
size <strong>fish</strong> commonly caught and consumed at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef remained safe for<br />
human consumption. The requirement for <strong>fish</strong> collection at two additional reference<br />
sites in accordance with <strong>the</strong> original February 15, 2006 EPA risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk<br />
product waste disposal approval document was dropped in <strong>the</strong> July 16, 2007 EPA<br />
Revision #1 of that document. The Oriskany Reef was to be <strong>the</strong> primary Tier 1<br />
monitoring <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> location. The Revision #1 also named Escambia County<br />
along with <strong>the</strong> Navy and FWC as parties responsible for supporting Oriskany Reef<br />
monitoring efforts.<br />
ECMRD and FWC were also tasked with drafting a “Combined Tier 1 Level<br />
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Fish Tissue Screening Monitoring Work Plan and Quality<br />
Assurance Project Plan for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef” (hereinafter Monitoring Work Plan).<br />
The Monitoring Work Plan provided <strong>the</strong> implementation guidance for <strong>the</strong> Tier 1<br />
screening level monitoring program. The 88 page Monitoring Work Plan, final<br />
Revision #4 of July 25, 2007 (Dodrill and Turpin 2007) was approved by EPA and<br />
guided all ECMRD and FWC actions and efforts in <strong>the</strong> preparations, collection,<br />
handling, shipping and <strong>PCB</strong> analysis of <strong>fish</strong>.<br />
The EPA risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal approval document defined a Tier 1<br />
screening level monitoring program as “a <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> and analysis effort targeted<br />
to selected species of commonly consumed <strong>fish</strong> expected to be present at <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef site and o<strong>the</strong>r reference <strong>reef</strong> sites in <strong>the</strong> Escambia East Large Area<br />
Artificial Reef Site (EELAARS), whose purpose is to determine if <strong>PCB</strong><br />
7 | Page
concentrations in edible portions of such <strong>fish</strong> exceed a specified screening value”. In<br />
paragraph 15 of <strong>the</strong> EPA risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal approval document,<br />
<strong>the</strong> EPA screening level value was given as 0.020 parts per million (20 ppb) total<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s, wet weight. This was defined as a mean value evaluated total <strong>PCB</strong> value for<br />
a minimum of 15 legal size specimens of <strong>the</strong> same targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species caught<br />
during any given <strong>sampling</strong> round. In <strong>the</strong> same paragraph <strong>the</strong> EPA fur<strong>the</strong>r stated:<br />
“If <strong>the</strong> mean <strong>PCB</strong> concentration in any targeted <strong>fish</strong> species exceeds a screening<br />
value of 0.02 parts per million (20 ppb) total <strong>PCB</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> FWC shall initiate a Tier 2,<br />
intensive monitoring program and/or assess <strong>the</strong> need for establishing advisories as<br />
determined by EPA”. A <strong>fish</strong> consumption advisory, if warranted, would be for <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose of protecting <strong>the</strong> human health of anglers and <strong>the</strong>ir families from any<br />
unreasonable increased cancer risk due to <strong>PCB</strong> ingestion and bio-accumulation as a<br />
result of consuming <strong>fish</strong>es caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
The excess cancer risk from 30 years of consumption of Oriskany Reef caught <strong>fish</strong><br />
would be averaged over a 70 year period of an adult’s life. In <strong>the</strong>ir risk-based <strong>PCB</strong><br />
bulk waste approval document <strong>the</strong> EPA considered an excess cancer risk of one in<br />
1,000,000 persons to be justifiable for a risk-based disposal project. However,<br />
slightly greater excess cancer risks would be considered as acceptable when<br />
evaluating o<strong>the</strong>r positive benefits of a project as a whole. The EPA considered <strong>the</strong><br />
excess cancer risk presented by <strong>PCB</strong>s on board <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef to represent a<br />
risk sufficiently acceptable to approve <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef Project.<br />
The EPA’s <strong>PCB</strong> risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal approval document defined a<br />
Tier 2 intensive monitoring program as “a focused effort to collect and analyze<br />
samples of commonly consumed <strong>fish</strong>, o<strong>the</strong>r biota, or o<strong>the</strong>r media from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef site for purposes of determining if <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations in <strong>fish</strong> or shell <strong>fish</strong> are<br />
at levels which warrant issuance of a health advisory, determining <strong>the</strong> critical <strong>PCB</strong><br />
fate and transport pathways and assessing <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>PCB</strong> impact to <strong>the</strong> local<br />
marine environment.”<br />
In contrast to Tier 2 monitoring, <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 <strong>PCB</strong> screening level monitoring<br />
implemented by this project in compliance with <strong>the</strong> risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product<br />
waste disposal approval was narrowly focused and limited in ecological scope. FWC<br />
and ECMRD funding resources were not allocated for, nor did <strong>the</strong> disposal approval<br />
mandate sustained multi-year <strong>sampling</strong> of an array of multiple artificial <strong>reef</strong><br />
reference sites, monitoring and measuring <strong>PCB</strong> related ecological impacts to nontarget<br />
<strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> community residents, examining complex <strong>PCB</strong> fate and transport<br />
interactions across trophic levels nor conducting additional <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> of <strong>the</strong><br />
water column, sediments, and invertebrate fauna on or in benthic habitat adjacent<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. The Tier 1 screening monitoring effort was not intended to<br />
8 | Page
validate <strong>the</strong> Navy developed <strong>PCB</strong> fate and transport models such as <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> Time<br />
Dynamic Release Rate (TDM) model predicting environmental impacts of pulsed<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> release during <strong>the</strong> first two years from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, nor <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong><br />
Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) predicting impacts of post-two year<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> leach rates as <strong>the</strong>y were predicted to decline to a steady state low level release<br />
(See Project Historical Review, below).<br />
All <strong>sampling</strong> efforts required by <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan through sample round<br />
#8 (November 18, 2010) have been completed with a ninth <strong>sampling</strong> effort planned<br />
for late April 2011. Sample round #8 <strong>fish</strong> samples are expected to be analyzed by<br />
late May 2011. Additional <strong>sampling</strong> and monitoring efforts were also undertaken<br />
exceeding <strong>the</strong> requirements of <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan, such as <strong>sampling</strong> of a<br />
nearby artificial <strong>reef</strong> site deployed in <strong>the</strong> same year as <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, a small<br />
scale pilot <strong>fish</strong> tagging effort on <strong>fish</strong> caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, and visual<br />
monitoring efforts by FWC divers are discussed below in <strong>the</strong> monitoring Methods<br />
section.<br />
I (A) (2) Project Funding Support<br />
FWC provided <strong>the</strong> funding for <strong>the</strong> EPA mandated Oriskany Reef monitoring effort<br />
and prioritized it over all o<strong>the</strong>r artificial <strong>reef</strong> monitoring and assessment efforts<br />
annually funded statewide by <strong>the</strong> FWC. Annually, between 2006 and 2011, FWC<br />
has allocated to Escambia County between $40,000 and $53,000 in saltwater <strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
license revenues to support this monitoring project, with most of <strong>the</strong> funding going<br />
toward laboratory <strong>PCB</strong> analysis of collected <strong>fish</strong> samples ($750 per <strong>fish</strong> for analysis<br />
of all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners). Additionally, Escambia County assisted with financing<br />
charter vessel hires, equipment purchases, sample shipping costs as well as<br />
supporting additional <strong>sampling</strong> and o<strong>the</strong>r monitoring efforts. ECMRD also deferred<br />
application for artificial <strong>reef</strong> construction project money from FWC for five years to<br />
help FWC ensure <strong>the</strong> EPA monitoring mandate would be met. FWC and ECMRD<br />
jointly dedicated approximately $299,000 excluding salaries, volunteer time, travel<br />
and administrative expenses to fund activities supporting collection and analysis of<br />
a total of 345 <strong>fish</strong> (284 from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and 61 from <strong>the</strong> nearby <strong>reef</strong> site) for<br />
<strong>the</strong> first five years of <strong>sampling</strong> (projected through April 2011).<br />
The Oriskany Reef is presently <strong>the</strong> most intensively sampled <strong>PCB</strong> artificial <strong>reef</strong> for<br />
<strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> body burdens in offshore waters of <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico.<br />
Prior offshore <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> concentration monitoring in <strong>the</strong> general area offshore of<br />
Pensacola were baseline artificial <strong>reef</strong> and sand bottom <strong>fish</strong> community <strong>PCB</strong><br />
burdens obtained by <strong>the</strong> University of West Florida under Navy contract during a<br />
pre-<strong>reef</strong>ing environmental assessment for <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany (Snyder et al. 2007).<br />
9 | Page
I (B) OVERVIEW OF <strong>PCB</strong>S<br />
I (B) (1) <strong>PCB</strong>s Congeners and Homologs<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s are long-lived man-made organic chlorinated hydrocarbons. The <strong>PCB</strong><br />
molecule is an organic biphenyl structure composed of two covalently linked phenyl<br />
rings with a generic formula of C12H a Cl b (where a+b =10). The number of hydrogen<br />
(H) or chlorine (Cl) substitutions on a biphenyl ring can yield up to 209 unique<br />
molecules (positional isomers or congers.) In turn <strong>the</strong>se 209 unique organic<br />
congeners can be grouped in ten homolog groups according to <strong>the</strong> number of<br />
chlorine atoms in <strong>the</strong> biphenyl rings (Cl 1 -Cl 10 ). The summation of all 10 homolog<br />
groups corresponds to <strong>the</strong> total <strong>PCB</strong>s and is <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> sum of all 209<br />
congeners. Each of <strong>the</strong> 209 congeners has a specific identifier number (1-209)<br />
assigned to it for international reference purposes. In <strong>the</strong> FWC/ECMRD Tier 1<br />
monitoring study, each individual <strong>fish</strong> sample was sampled for all 209 congeners<br />
and 10 homologs in order to obtain <strong>the</strong> most detailed information possible.<br />
In this monitoring study individual skin-on muscle fillet tissue samples were<br />
analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners (skin-on analysis is considered a more<br />
conservative approach than skin-off analysis). The EPA defines a <strong>PCB</strong> congener as<br />
“any single, unique well-defined chemical compound in <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> category. The name<br />
of a congener specifies <strong>the</strong> total number of chlorine substituents and <strong>the</strong> position of<br />
each chlorine. For example: 4,4’-Dichlorobiphenyl is a congener comprising <strong>the</strong><br />
biphenyl structure with two chlorine substituents, one on each of <strong>the</strong> #4 carbons of<br />
<strong>the</strong> two rings. In 1980, a numbering system was developed which assigned a<br />
sequential number to each of <strong>the</strong> 209 congeners. Homologs are defined by <strong>the</strong> EPA<br />
as subcategories of <strong>PCB</strong> congeners having equal numbers of chlorine substituents.<br />
For example <strong>the</strong> tetrachlorobiphenyl homologues are all <strong>PCB</strong> congeners with<br />
exactly 4 chlorine substituents that may be in any arrangement.” (EPA <strong>PCB</strong><br />
congener website http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/congeners/htm)<br />
I (B) (2) Aroclors<br />
Aroclors are one of <strong>the</strong> more common commercial <strong>PCB</strong> trade names, though <strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
were manufactured and sold under over 100 o<strong>the</strong>r names. EPA states that “<strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
were manufactured as a mixture of various <strong>PCB</strong> congeners until a certain target<br />
percentage of chlorine by weight was achieved. Commercial mixtures with higher<br />
percentages of chlorine contained higher proportions of <strong>the</strong> more heavily chlorinated<br />
congeners, but all congeners could be expected to be present at some level in all<br />
mixtures.” The most common trade name for <strong>PCB</strong>s syn<strong>the</strong>tically manufactured<br />
between 1929 and 1979 was <strong>the</strong> Aroclor series. Each Aroclor type has a<br />
distinguishing suffix number that indicated <strong>the</strong> degree of chlorination. EPA states<br />
10 | P age
that “<strong>the</strong> numbering standard for <strong>the</strong> different Aroclors is as follows: <strong>the</strong> first two<br />
digits generally refer to <strong>the</strong> number of carbon atoms in <strong>the</strong> phenyl rings (for <strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
this is 12), <strong>the</strong> second two numbers indicate <strong>the</strong> percentage of chlorine by mass in<br />
<strong>the</strong> mixture. For example <strong>the</strong> name Aroclor 1254 means that <strong>the</strong> mixture contains<br />
approximately 54% chlorine by weight.” Common Aroclor numbers included 1016,<br />
1210, 1216, 1221, 1231, 1232, 1240, 1248, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1260, 1262, and 1268.<br />
(EPA website http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/aroclor.htm)<br />
The EPA on <strong>the</strong>ir basic <strong>PCB</strong> information website states: “Once in <strong>the</strong> environment,<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s do not readily break down and <strong>the</strong>refore may remain for long periods of time<br />
cycling between air, water, and soil. <strong>PCB</strong>s can be carried long distances and have<br />
been found in snow and sea water in areas far away from where <strong>the</strong>y were released<br />
in <strong>the</strong> environment. As a consequence, <strong>PCB</strong>s are found all over <strong>the</strong> world. In<br />
general, <strong>the</strong> lighter <strong>the</strong> form of <strong>PCB</strong>, <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r it can be transported from <strong>the</strong><br />
source of contamination. <strong>PCB</strong>s can accumulate in <strong>the</strong> leaves and above-ground<br />
parts of plants and food crops. They are also taken up into <strong>the</strong> bodies of small<br />
organism and <strong>fish</strong>. As a result, people who ingest <strong>fish</strong> may be exposed to <strong>PCB</strong>s that<br />
have bio-accumulated in <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>the</strong>y are ingesting.” (EPA Basic <strong>PCB</strong> information<br />
website: (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm). The more<br />
heavily chlorinated <strong>PCB</strong>s persist to a much greater extent in <strong>the</strong> environment, don’t<br />
dissolve well in seawater and tend to adsorb to sediments, organic particulate<br />
matter and also have a lipophilic tendency to accumulate in lipid-rich fatty tissues<br />
or organisms (SPARWAR, 2006d)<br />
On October 11, 1976 <strong>the</strong> Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law. TSCA<br />
authorized <strong>the</strong> EPA to control any substances that were determined to cause<br />
unreasonable risk to public health or <strong>the</strong> environment. TSCA, also referred to as<br />
U.S. Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Subchapter I Section 2605, (Regulation of<br />
hazardous chemical substances and mixtures), in paragraph (e) directed that <strong>PCB</strong>s,<br />
were to be banned from manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce in<br />
<strong>the</strong> U.S. by 1979. Non-liquid solid materials are considered <strong>PCB</strong> contaminated and<br />
regulated for disposal as hazardous material if <strong>the</strong>y contain <strong>PCB</strong>s at concentrations<br />
≥ 50 ppm but < 500 ppm concentrations or where insufficient liquid material is<br />
available for analysis, a non-porous surface having a surface concentration of ><br />
10µg/100 square cm but < 100µg/100 square cm measured by a standard wipe test<br />
as defined in 40 CFR §761.123.<br />
I (B) (3) Potential <strong>PCB</strong> Health Issues.<br />
The EPA’s peer reviewed <strong>PCB</strong> cancer assessment and <strong>the</strong> International Agency for<br />
Research on Cancer have concluded, based on many laboratory mammal studies,<br />
11 | P age
including primates, conducted over a period of years that <strong>PCB</strong>s are also probable<br />
human carcinogens. Studies of <strong>PCB</strong> effects on humans have been inconclusive but<br />
do not mean that <strong>PCB</strong>s are safe. The National Institute for Occupational Safety<br />
and Health has also determined that <strong>PCB</strong>s are a potential occupational carcinogen.<br />
The EPA states: “<strong>PCB</strong>s have been demonstrated to cause a variety of serious health<br />
effects. <strong>PCB</strong>s have been shown to cause cancer and a number of serious non-cancer<br />
health effects in animals, including effects on <strong>the</strong> immune system, reproductive<br />
system, nervous system, and endocrine system. Studies in humans provide<br />
supportive evidence for <strong>the</strong> potential carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenic effects of<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s. The different health effects of <strong>PCB</strong>s may be interrelated, as alterations in<br />
one system may have significant implications for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r regulatory systems of<br />
<strong>the</strong> body.” Additionally <strong>the</strong> types of <strong>PCB</strong>s likely to be bio-accumulated in <strong>fish</strong><br />
(particularly <strong>the</strong> fatty tissues since <strong>PCB</strong> are lipophilic) and bound in sediments are<br />
<strong>the</strong> most potentially carcinogenic <strong>PCB</strong> mixtures. (EPA website, “Health Effects of<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s” http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pbcs/pubs/effects/htm.)<br />
I (B) (4) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (<strong>PCB</strong>s) on Board Military Vessels<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s were among <strong>the</strong> materials of concern on military vessels whose keels were<br />
laid before 1979. <strong>PCB</strong>s, first syn<strong>the</strong>tically manufactured in 1929, were utilized in<br />
many commercially produced manufacturing products. They were primarily used<br />
on military ships as heat resistant fire retardants because of <strong>the</strong>ir nonflammability,<br />
chemical stability, high boiling point and electrical insulating<br />
properties. <strong>PCB</strong>s were also used as plasticizers and maintained flexibility in rubber<br />
products like hatch gaskets, plastics etc. Potential <strong>PCB</strong> sources on military vessels<br />
built prior to 1979 included <strong>the</strong>rmal insulation material (fiberglass, felt, foam, and<br />
cork), oil based paint, cable insulation, motor and hydraulic system oils,<br />
transformers and capacitors, o<strong>the</strong>r miscellaneous electrical equipment (voltage<br />
regulators, switches, electromagnets, etc); florescent light ballasts, caulking<br />
materials, adhesives and tapes, and some plastics. The <strong>PCB</strong>s used in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
products were chemical mixtures such as <strong>the</strong> various Aroclors as discussed above<br />
that were made up of a variety of individual chlorinated biphenyl components<br />
(congeners).<br />
SPARWAR (2006b) <strong>report</strong>ed that in <strong>the</strong> late 1980’s through <strong>the</strong> late 1990’s, <strong>the</strong><br />
Naval Sea Systems Command <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> program looked at a range of<br />
decommissioned Naval vessels. Reported <strong>PCB</strong>s from suspect shipboard materials<br />
were listed as Aroclors (1016, 1221, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, 1262 and 1268).<br />
Aroclors 1242, 1254, 1260, 1262, and 1268 appeared to be <strong>the</strong> most prevalent.<br />
Highest mean <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations came from Aroclors 1254, 1260 and 1268 in <strong>the</strong><br />
12 | P age
ship material leachate experiments (SPARWAR, 2006d). Aroclors 1254, 1260, 1262<br />
and 1268 had <strong>the</strong> highest mean concentrations in <strong>the</strong> shipboard cable insulation.<br />
Aroclors 1254 and 1260 had <strong>the</strong> most frequent presence in <strong>the</strong> cable samples<br />
examined. Bulkhead insulation samples from <strong>the</strong> Navy ships were numerically<br />
dominated by Aroclor 1254, an Aroclor which also had <strong>the</strong> highest mean <strong>PCB</strong><br />
concentration of any of <strong>the</strong> Aroclors found in that material.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> environment, original Aroclor mixtures may be altered as a result of<br />
environmental fate and transport processes such as vaporization and dissolution.<br />
The degree of environmental change does not affect all congeners equally.<br />
I(C) ORISKANY REEF PROJECT BACKGROUND HISTORY<br />
I(C) (1) Oriskany History<br />
The aircraft carrier ex-Oriskany (CVA-34) (now <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef) was an 888 feet<br />
long 28,000 ton Korean War/Vietnam era large naval combatant. The ship, whose<br />
construction began during <strong>the</strong> latter part of World War II, was completed in 1950<br />
with subsequent major overhauls and modifications to maintain combat readiness<br />
such as flight deck expansion to accommodate larger, heavier and faster jet aircraft.<br />
The vessel saw 26 years of continuous service before it was decommissioned in<br />
September 1976 and stricken from <strong>the</strong> Naval Vessel Register in July 1989. The<br />
ship was sold to be scrapped in 1994 but <strong>the</strong> company defaulted on <strong>the</strong> contract and<br />
U.S. Government re-possessed <strong>the</strong> ship in 1997.<br />
I(C) (2) Oriskany Reef Project Background<br />
The Navy’s overall decommissioned military vessel disposal/transfer/recycling<br />
objective is to pursue <strong>the</strong> most cost effective or “best value” means of reducing <strong>the</strong><br />
size of its inactive reserve fleet, <strong>the</strong>reby reducing long term inactive fleet<br />
maintenance costs. Historically, obsolete decommissioned former naval combatant<br />
vessels have been scrapped domestically, as well as sunk as targets in deep water (><br />
6000 feet depth) in military “Sink-Ex” fleet operations or in o<strong>the</strong>r experiments to<br />
test vessel hull response to weapons. Decommissioned naval combatant ships have<br />
also been made available for use by allied nations or occasionally donated to various<br />
U.S. cities as museums. In 2001 <strong>the</strong> United States Navy sponsored a research<br />
<strong>report</strong> conducted by RAND’s National Defense Research Institute to identify and<br />
evaluate options for <strong>the</strong> disposal of U.S. Navy and U.S. Maritime Administration<br />
ships (Hess, et al, 2001). Through <strong>the</strong> process of planning <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany as a pilot project, <strong>the</strong> Navy hoped to develop a vessel disposal framework<br />
for a national <strong>reef</strong>ing program that would provide <strong>the</strong> most cost effective means of<br />
13 | P age
vessel disposal for <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany, and subsequent decommissioned Navy<br />
combatants identified as appropriate for state <strong>reef</strong>ing program use.<br />
The ex-Oriskany was <strong>the</strong> first decommissioned naval combatant selected by <strong>the</strong><br />
Navy Sea Systems Command Inactive Ships Program Management Section<br />
(NAVSEA PMS 333) for use as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> under federal law (United States<br />
Code (USC) Title 10, Chapter 633, §7306b Section 1013. The law authorizes <strong>the</strong><br />
Navy to donate designated former combatant vessels stricken from <strong>the</strong> Naval Vessel<br />
Register to state governments to be used as artificial <strong>reef</strong>s for <strong>fish</strong>ing, diving, and<br />
marine hard bottom enhancement. The above law also states: “Nothing in this<br />
section shall be construed to establish a preference for <strong>the</strong> use as artificial <strong>reef</strong>s of<br />
vessels stricken from <strong>the</strong> Naval Vessel Register in lieu of o<strong>the</strong>r authorized uses of<br />
such vessels, including <strong>the</strong> domestic scrapping of such vessels, or o<strong>the</strong>r disposals of<br />
such vessels under this chapter or o<strong>the</strong>r applicable authority.”<br />
In selecting <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany as <strong>the</strong>ir initial pilot artificial <strong>reef</strong>ing project, <strong>the</strong> Navy<br />
recognized that this ship, representing one of <strong>the</strong> largest, oldest vessels in <strong>the</strong><br />
inactive fleet inventory, would also be one of <strong>the</strong> most challenging vessels to<br />
environmentally remediate and prepare for sinking as an artificial <strong>reef</strong>. The Navy<br />
evaluated <strong>the</strong> substantial cost to subsidize <strong>the</strong> domestic scrapping of <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany as well as remove and<br />
dispose of all hazardous materials<br />
when considering <strong>the</strong> option of<br />
donating <strong>the</strong> ship as an artificial <strong>reef</strong>.<br />
The Navy believed that <strong>the</strong> projected<br />
subsidized domestic scrapping cost of<br />
<strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany (and possibly that of<br />
some future Navy combatant vessels)<br />
could be reduced if <strong>the</strong> vessel was<br />
utilized by a state artificial <strong>reef</strong><br />
program. In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany, <strong>the</strong> Navy anticipated that<br />
this would require leaving some solid<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> containing materials, mainly<br />
electrical cable insulation, fiberglass<br />
bulkhead insulation, and paint and<br />
rubber products on board <strong>the</strong> ship at<br />
<strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> vessel was <strong>reef</strong>ed. These<br />
Figure 1. Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola,<br />
Florida for final environmental clean-up and<br />
pre-sink preparations, March 21, 2005. Photo<br />
by Bill Horn, FWC.<br />
14 | P age
solid <strong>PCB</strong> containing materials would be materials that <strong>the</strong> Navy believed could not<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise cost effectively be removed without completely dismantling <strong>the</strong> vessel and<br />
in effect scrapping it.<br />
Beginning in September 2003 <strong>the</strong> U.S. Navy, through its selected contractors,<br />
Resolve Marine Group (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) and ESCO Marine (Brownsville,<br />
Texas) began conducting environmental cleanup and materials salvage work in<br />
Corpus Christi, TX on <strong>the</strong> decommissioned aircraft carrier ex-Oriskany (CVA-34)<br />
(Figure 1). To accomplish this work, <strong>the</strong> ship was dead-ship towed to Texas Dock<br />
and Rail shipyard in Corpus Christi, Texas from <strong>the</strong> inactive reserve fleet in<br />
Beaumont, Texas.<br />
Environmental cleanup work by <strong>the</strong> contractors was conducted on <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany<br />
in accordance with draft EPA and U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) Best<br />
Management Practices guidelines for preparing vessels as artificial <strong>reef</strong>s (USEPA<br />
and MARAD, 2006). Section 3516 of <strong>the</strong> National Defense Authorization Act for<br />
Fiscal Year 2004 required <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime<br />
Administration (MARAD) and <strong>the</strong> EPA to jointly develop guidance recommending<br />
environmental best management practices (BMPs) to be used in <strong>the</strong> preparation of<br />
vessels to be used as artificial <strong>reef</strong>s. Additionally under this Act, <strong>the</strong> Secretary of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Navy is required to ensure that <strong>the</strong> preparation of a vessel stricken from <strong>the</strong><br />
Naval Vessel Registry for use as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> is conducted in accordance with<br />
<strong>the</strong>se BMPS and applicable environmental laws. The Naval Sea Systems Command<br />
Inactive Ships Program Management Section (NAVSEA PMS 333) provided overall<br />
“turn-key” project management oversight from initial planning and environmental<br />
remediation to final <strong>reef</strong>ing. Personnel from <strong>the</strong> Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding,<br />
Conversion and Repair (SUPSHIP, Bath, Maine) provided <strong>the</strong> contract specific<br />
management and continuous on site oversight of <strong>the</strong> environmental remediation<br />
and salvage work (removal of nonferrous metals, and miscellaneous equipment for<br />
recycling).<br />
Meanwhile, Escambia County and FWC, representing <strong>the</strong> State of Florida,<br />
partnered on November 20, 2003 with strong support from <strong>the</strong> local community to<br />
submit an application to <strong>the</strong> Navy requesting donation of <strong>the</strong> ex- Oriskany to be<br />
utilized as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> at <strong>the</strong> previously surveyed and selected sand bottom site<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Escambia East Large Area Artificial Reef Site (EELAARS) in federal<br />
Exclusive Economic Zone waters of <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico eighteen miles nautical miles<br />
south of <strong>the</strong> Northwest Florida panhandle coastline (Dodrill and Turpin, 2003).<br />
The Florida application to receive donation of <strong>the</strong> ship was reviewed by <strong>the</strong> Navy<br />
and approved in April 2004. The FWC and Escambia County Oriskany Reef project<br />
objectives were to utilize <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> to create a local and<br />
15 | P age
egional recreational offshore <strong>fish</strong>ing destination, a historically significant regional,<br />
national and international diving destination and provide hard bottom <strong>reef</strong><br />
community habitat enhancement in an area off northwest Florida where only about<br />
3% of <strong>the</strong> continental shelf seafloor is well developed natural hard bottom structure<br />
(Thompson et al., 1999). Additionally <strong>the</strong>re were expectations that <strong>the</strong> project would<br />
provide an economic boost to Pensacola and adjacent coastal communities.<br />
The Navy proposed to leave on board <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany some regulated solid <strong>PCB</strong><br />
containing material at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in difficult to access passageways<br />
and compartments on deck levels below <strong>the</strong> carrier’s hanger deck at water depths<br />
from 160-212 feet and deeper where <strong>the</strong> hull was expected to penetrate and settle<br />
below <strong>the</strong> seabed. This triggered a requirement for a risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product<br />
waste disposal approval from <strong>the</strong> EPA. The EPA/MARAD vessel cleaning BMPs<br />
state, “Where <strong>the</strong>re is reason to suspect manufactured products containing solid<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s greater than or equal to 50 ppm, remove <strong>the</strong> equipment or component from<br />
<strong>the</strong> vessel or provide proof that <strong>the</strong> equipment or component is free of <strong>PCB</strong>s unless<br />
a bulk product waste disposal approval has been obtained under Title 40 Code of<br />
Federal Regulation (CFR) §761.62(c)” (USEPA and MARAD, 2006). As a result of<br />
this requirement, <strong>the</strong> Navy requested a risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product disposal<br />
authorization from EPA Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia).<br />
I(C) (3) Navy Submittal of <strong>PCB</strong> Bulk Product Disposal Application to EPA<br />
On April 28, 2004 <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of <strong>the</strong> Navy submitted an application to <strong>the</strong><br />
EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator requesting to dispose of <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product<br />
waste remaining on board <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>reef</strong>ing in accordance with<br />
<strong>the</strong> requirements of Title 40 CFR §761.62(c) (Glen Clark, NAVSEA PMS 333,<br />
Oriskany Project Manager, personal communication). The Navy’s application had<br />
to demonstrate that based on technical, environmental, or waste-specific<br />
characteristics or considerations, <strong>the</strong> proposed storage or disposal methods or<br />
locations would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or <strong>the</strong><br />
environment. The EPA subsequently requested o<strong>the</strong>r information that it believed<br />
necessary to evaluate <strong>the</strong> Navy’s application.<br />
I(C) (4) Navy Development of <strong>PCB</strong> Risk Assessment Models and Documents for EPA<br />
Review<br />
The Navy spent several years developing a series of documents justifying <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
request to sink <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany with some anticipated <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product left on<br />
board. The document development process with accompanying laboratory and in<br />
situ studies and model development began prior to and continued in tandem with<br />
<strong>the</strong> environmental remediation work on <strong>the</strong> ship. The documents developed for<br />
16 | P age
EPA review included: 1) a human health risk assessment (SPARWAR Systems<br />
Center San Diego. 2006a); 2) an ecological risk-based assessment (Johnston et al.<br />
2006); 3) a Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) that modeled <strong>the</strong> steady<br />
state fate and transport of <strong>PCB</strong>s through <strong>the</strong> food chain (SPARWAR Systems<br />
Center San Diego. 2006b); 4) a Time Dynamic Model (TDM) that modeled <strong>the</strong><br />
immediate short term release (over <strong>the</strong> first two years) of <strong>PCB</strong>s expected to be<br />
released from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c); 5) a<br />
leach rate study based upon laboratory observations of <strong>PCB</strong>s leaching into sea<br />
water from ship related <strong>PCB</strong> containing materials (SPARWAR Systems Center San<br />
Diego. 2006d) and 6) a document providing estimates of <strong>PCB</strong> quantities and mean<br />
concentrations in various materials on board <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany before and after<br />
environmental remediation (Pape 2004). The Navy’s risk assessments analyzed<br />
potential risks to human and ecological receptors based on predicted <strong>PCB</strong><br />
concentrations in <strong>the</strong> water and in close proximity to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef once<br />
created. Based on <strong>the</strong> models, studies and documents developed, <strong>the</strong> Navy<br />
concluded that <strong>PCB</strong>s released from <strong>the</strong> proposed Oriskany Reef would not pose an<br />
unreasonable risk of injury to human health and <strong>the</strong> environment.<br />
I(C) (5) EPA Evaluation, Review and Subsequent Approval of Navy’s <strong>PCB</strong> Risk Based<br />
Disposal Application and Supporting Documents<br />
The EPA reviewed <strong>the</strong> Navy application and its accompanying supporting<br />
documents to dispose of solid <strong>PCB</strong>s associated with <strong>the</strong> sinking of <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany.<br />
Over <strong>the</strong> next 21 months <strong>the</strong> EPA reviewed, critiqued, and requested additional<br />
information on <strong>the</strong> supporting documents provided by <strong>the</strong> Navy, including <strong>the</strong><br />
results of Navy computer model findings (both <strong>the</strong> Time Dynamic Model and <strong>the</strong><br />
Prospective Risk Assessment Model). The output from <strong>the</strong>se models indicated <strong>the</strong>re<br />
was no unreasonable risk to human health and <strong>the</strong> environment if <strong>the</strong> Navy left<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> containing materials in <strong>the</strong> quantities estimated on board <strong>the</strong> ship when<br />
<strong>reef</strong>ed. The EPA reviewed <strong>the</strong> Navy’s risk assessment documents not only<br />
internally but with <strong>the</strong> assistance of an external independent scientific advisory<br />
board (SAB) (Morgan and Rose 2005). The Navy in turn responded to <strong>the</strong> SAB’s<br />
suggestions and questions.<br />
EPA’s concluded that based upon <strong>the</strong> pre-sink modeling prediction data provided by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Navy, no unreasonable risk to human health or <strong>the</strong> environment would occur<br />
with <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany. The EPA made available a draft risk-based<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal approval document for review on <strong>the</strong> EPA Region 4 home<br />
page website. Announcement of availability of a draft for review was advertised<br />
December 19, 2005 in <strong>the</strong> Pensacola News Journal. On January 10, 2006, EPA also<br />
held a public meeting in Pensacola to provide Pensacola area citizens ano<strong>the</strong>r venue<br />
17 | P age
for expressing <strong>the</strong>ir views on <strong>the</strong> draft <strong>PCB</strong> disposal approval and <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef project. The meeting was attended by approximately 150 local residents.<br />
Several participants made statements in support of <strong>the</strong> proposal to <strong>reef</strong> <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany. Two individuals posed questions to <strong>the</strong> EPA panel members that were<br />
pertinent to <strong>the</strong> proposed action. During <strong>the</strong> 30 day public comment period which<br />
ended January 19, 2006, EPA received written comments from 143 individuals or<br />
organizations. Most of <strong>the</strong> written comments were short statements in support of<br />
<strong>the</strong> proposed action. Two comments, submitted by Pensacola area residents<br />
expressed opposition to <strong>the</strong> proposed action. EPA also received lengthy comments<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Basel Action Network (BAN), an environmental group, opposing <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed <strong>reef</strong>ing action and expressing concerns about possible conflict with<br />
international laws and treaties if regulated <strong>PCB</strong>s were left on board <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany when it was <strong>reef</strong>ed. One concern raised was project costs. The<br />
approximately $20 million project cost to which Escambia County contributed<br />
$950,000 and Okaloosa County $50,000 was not a factor for EPA’s risk based<br />
analysis. Based on scrap values at <strong>the</strong> time and o<strong>the</strong>r long range planning<br />
considerations, <strong>the</strong> Navy determined <strong>the</strong> project was cheaper than subsidized<br />
scrapping. Additionally 960 tons of metals were recycled from <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany<br />
(Elizabeth Freeze, NAVSEA PMS 33 communication with EPA). There was a local<br />
concern about potential diver dermal exposure to <strong>PCB</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> water column. EPA<br />
considered this dermal exposure minimal when weighed against evaluation of<br />
chronic <strong>PCB</strong> exposure risk from long term <strong>fish</strong> consumption. There was a question<br />
about whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal approval also applied<br />
to future vessels. EPA emphasized <strong>the</strong> approval was only applicable to ex-Oriskany.<br />
EPA summarized and formally responded in writing to nine comments that also<br />
included <strong>the</strong> principal concerns of BAN (USEPA, 2006a).<br />
On February 15, 2006, in a document issued to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Navy and <strong>the</strong> FWC, <strong>the</strong><br />
EPA, Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia) approved <strong>the</strong> risk-based disposal of<br />
polychlorinated biphenyl (<strong>PCB</strong>) bulk product waste associated with <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>ing of<br />
<strong>the</strong> decommissioned former Navy aircraft carrier ex Oriskany (CVA-34) (USEPA<br />
2006b). The EPA approval to dispose of <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product associated with <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed sinking of <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany for use as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> was issued pursuant<br />
to Section 6(e) of <strong>the</strong> Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 USC § 2605(e), and<br />
<strong>the</strong> federal <strong>PCB</strong> regulations at 40 CFR § 761.62(c). The approval for risk-based<br />
disposal of <strong>PCB</strong> bulk product waste was revised (Revision #1) by EPA on July 16,<br />
2007 to include Escambia County along with FWC and <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of <strong>the</strong><br />
Navy Inactive Ships Program Office as a responsible party.<br />
18 | P age
I(C)(6) <strong>PCB</strong> Containing Materials On Board ex-Oriskany Before and After Environmental<br />
Remediation<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> source term estimates for <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany were described by Pape (2004).<br />
Pape estimated <strong>the</strong> total weights of <strong>the</strong> various <strong>PCB</strong> containing ship board<br />
materials identified by NAVSEA PMS 333, <strong>the</strong> estimated weights of solid <strong>PCB</strong>s in<br />
each material based upon results of <strong>the</strong> Navy’s routine <strong>sampling</strong> protocol and<br />
results for vessels during <strong>the</strong> inactivation process. Where direct material weight<br />
measurements were unavailable for materials aboard <strong>the</strong> Oriskany, such quantities<br />
were estimated using data from surrogate vessels (e.g. o<strong>the</strong>r ships in <strong>the</strong><br />
Essex/Ticonderoga carrier class). Some materials containing <strong>PCB</strong>s above regulated<br />
levels (at or above concentrations of 50 ppm) were targeted for partial removal.<br />
All <strong>PCB</strong> containing liquids and all lubricants, <strong>the</strong> latter estimated at 208,140 lbs,<br />
were removed (Pape, 2006). The solid phase <strong>PCB</strong>s were distributed on <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany primarily in wire cable insulation, fiberglass bulkhead insulation, paints,<br />
rubber products and vent gasket material left in place, following environmental<br />
remediation. The materials were in more difficult to access locations in <strong>the</strong> ship’s<br />
interior, primarily on decks below <strong>the</strong> hanger bay deck (beneath <strong>the</strong> flight deck) in<br />
compartments, passageways, and o<strong>the</strong>r spaces. There was no significant removal of<br />
rubber products (estimated at 11,898 lbs) or ventilation gaskets (2,680 lbs) due to<br />
unregulated average <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations in <strong>the</strong>se products (37.3 ppm and 20.3 ppm<br />
respectively; 50.9 ppm and 33.5 ppm at <strong>the</strong> 95% Upper Confidence Limit,<br />
respectively). About 5% or 44,000 lbs of <strong>the</strong> 298,999 lbs of paint coatings on board<br />
were removed in <strong>the</strong> form of loose, flaking paint. The average <strong>PCB</strong> concentration in<br />
<strong>the</strong> paints was <strong>report</strong>ed at 11.6 ppm (19.7 ppm at <strong>the</strong> 95% Upper Confidence Limit).<br />
Approximately 72.6% (83,995 lbs) of <strong>the</strong> estimated 115,695 lbs of bulkhead<br />
insulation were removed. Next to cable insulation which originally contained about<br />
95% of <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong>s prior to partial removal, <strong>the</strong> bulkhead insulation, prior to partial<br />
removal had <strong>the</strong> next highest total quantity of <strong>PCB</strong>s (3% or 24.9 lbs; 68.0 lbs at <strong>the</strong><br />
95% Upper Confidence Limit). The average <strong>PCB</strong> concentration in bulkhead<br />
material was 215 ppm (587.7 ppm Upper Confidence Limit). Pape (ibid.) estimated<br />
403,600 lbs of electrical cable insulation was originally on board <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany.<br />
This figure excluded <strong>the</strong> weight of <strong>the</strong> wiring housed by <strong>the</strong> insulation and any<br />
paint coating <strong>the</strong> insulation. Average cable insulation <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations were<br />
1493 ppm (2766.0 ppm, 95% Upper Confidence Limit). Approximately 10% of <strong>the</strong><br />
insulation was estimated to have been removed during environmental remediation<br />
with <strong>the</strong> accompanying nonferrous metal wiring salvaged and recycled. Electrical<br />
cable removal occurred primarily in <strong>the</strong> ship’s island (superstructure) and hanger<br />
bay below <strong>the</strong> flight deck. <strong>PCB</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> 90% of <strong>the</strong> remaining electrical cable<br />
19 | P age
insulation to be left on board accounted for 97.6% (705.5 lbs) of <strong>the</strong> 722.6 lbs of total<br />
solid <strong>PCB</strong>s estimated to remain on <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany after environmental<br />
remediation. Fiberglass bulkhead insulation was identified as contributing 6.8 lbs<br />
to <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> load remaining on board (.94%). Although paints had unregulated levels<br />
of <strong>PCB</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> remaining paint contributed an estimated 9.8 lbs of total <strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
remaining on board (1.36%). Rubber products and vent gaskets remaining on board<br />
contributed 0.4 lbs and 0.1 lbs of <strong>PCB</strong>s, respectively.<br />
Based on Pape’s (2004) analysis, of an estimated 832.2 lbs of solid <strong>PCB</strong>s on board<br />
<strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany prior to environmental remediation (1,559 lbs, at 95% Upper<br />
Confidence Limit), that amount was reduced by an estimated 13.2% to 722.6 lbs of<br />
solid <strong>PCB</strong>s (1,342 lbs at <strong>the</strong> 95% Upper Confidence Limit) at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> ship was<br />
ready for <strong>reef</strong>ing. This was based on <strong>the</strong> scenario of 5% paint removal, 10% cable<br />
removal, 72.6% bulkhead insulation removal, no rubber or vent gasket product<br />
removal and 100% lubricant<br />
removal.<br />
Additional ex-Oriskany<br />
environmental remediation<br />
included removal of <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
aircraft carrier flight deck down<br />
to clean bare metal. This was<br />
necessary to remove asphalt and<br />
underlying <strong>PCB</strong> contaminated<br />
wood and o<strong>the</strong>r materials (Jon<br />
Dodrill and Robert Turpin,<br />
personal observation).<br />
I(C) (7) Navy Sponsored Pre-Sink<br />
Monitoring<br />
Immediately prior to <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>ing<br />
of <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany, <strong>the</strong> Navy<br />
contracted with <strong>the</strong> University<br />
of West Florida to conduct<br />
trawling and hook-and-line<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> for <strong>fish</strong> to obtain presink<br />
baseline <strong>PCB</strong> data.<br />
Specimens for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis along with water and<br />
sediment samples were collected for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis from <strong>the</strong> immediate area of <strong>the</strong><br />
proposed sink site as well as several artificial <strong>reef</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> general area and some<br />
locations fur<strong>the</strong>r inshore (Figure 2) (Snyder et al., 2007).<br />
20 | P age<br />
Figure 2. Oriskany Reef Pre-sink trawl and hook<br />
and line <strong>sampling</strong> sites (from Snyder et al., 2007).
I(C) (8) Oriskany Reef Created<br />
In a cooperative effort between FWC and Escambia County through a Joint<br />
Memorandum of Agreement with <strong>the</strong> Navy, on May 17, 2006, Navy personnel and<br />
consultants conducted a well-planned carefully controlled sinking of <strong>the</strong> four point<br />
anchored ex-Oriskany (hereinafter <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef) as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> in <strong>the</strong><br />
nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico. The vessel was secured at <strong>the</strong> planned location with<br />
four 45,000 pound anchors and sank in 37 minutes at <strong>the</strong> planned location within<br />
<strong>the</strong> permitted site following <strong>the</strong> remotely controlled detonation of 22 strategically<br />
placed internal explosive charges that compromised sea chest valves and internal<br />
bulkheads, resulting in <strong>the</strong> controlled flooding of <strong>the</strong> ship. The ship sank upright by<br />
<strong>the</strong> stern and became <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, <strong>the</strong> largest ship intentionally deployed as<br />
a shallow water artificial <strong>reef</strong> in <strong>the</strong> United States.<br />
Figure 3. Location map of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and nearby<br />
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef site located within <strong>the</strong><br />
Escambia ELAARS.<br />
21 | P age<br />
The Oriskany Reef is<br />
located in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>ast<br />
corner of a 77 square<br />
nautical mile artificial<br />
<strong>reef</strong> area known as <strong>the</strong><br />
Escambia East Large<br />
Area Artificial Reef Site<br />
(ELAARS). The site is<br />
currently permitted to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Escambia County<br />
Board of County<br />
Commissioners by <strong>the</strong><br />
U.S. Army Corps of<br />
Engineers, Jacksonville<br />
District (Permit No.<br />
SAJ-1994-02365 (IP-<br />
LCP)). Escambia<br />
County is now <strong>the</strong> title<br />
holder of <strong>the</strong> vessel<br />
which <strong>the</strong>y received by<br />
transfer of <strong>the</strong> ACOE<br />
permit from <strong>the</strong> FWC in January, 2007. The Oriskany Reef rests upright, bow<br />
facing due south in 212 feet of water on an open sand bottom in federal waters of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Exclusive Economic Zone 23.5 nautical miles sou<strong>the</strong>ast of Pensacola Pass<br />
(Escambia County, northwest Florida, and USA) and 18.4 nautical miles south of<br />
<strong>the</strong> closest shoreline (Figure 3). The carrier’s flight deck as of 2010 is at a depth of
about 147 feet. The ship’s superstructure or “island” rises to within 80 feet of <strong>the</strong><br />
surface. The ship’s coordinates are Latitude 30º 02.6’ North and Longitude 87º 00.4’<br />
West.<br />
The Oriskany Reef is one of <strong>the</strong> largest single artificial <strong>reef</strong> structures in <strong>the</strong><br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico. There are 72 o<strong>the</strong>r public artificial <strong>reef</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> 77<br />
square mile EELAARS and an additional 123 concrete and/or steel artificial <strong>reef</strong><br />
patch <strong>reef</strong> sites most of which are unpublished refugia <strong>reef</strong>s, some of which have<br />
been utilized in scientific studies (FWC, 2011). Most of <strong>the</strong> artificial patch <strong>reef</strong>s in<br />
<strong>the</strong> EELAARS permit area are composed primarily of individual modules whose<br />
vertical reliefs are normally less than 10 feet (FWC, 2011). The Oriskany Reef<br />
initially in 2006 had 144 feet of vertical relief extending from <strong>the</strong> seafloor at a depth<br />
of 212 feet to within 68 feet of <strong>the</strong> surface. While many o<strong>the</strong>r smaller artificial <strong>reef</strong>s<br />
in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS permit area are concrete or concrete and steel in composition with<br />
individual foot prints of less than 100 square feet, <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef is a massive<br />
painted steel structure with a foot print of at least 90,000 square feet (two acres).<br />
I (D) MATERIALS AND METHODS<br />
I (D) (1) Selection of Targeted Fish Species and Sample Size<br />
Fish species identified for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis were recreationally targeted legal size <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> known from previous <strong>sampling</strong> studies in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS, from FWC and<br />
ECMRD assessments and from personal observations to be available for anglers to<br />
catch in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico off Northwest Florida in <strong>the</strong> general vicinity of <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef.<br />
I (D) (1) (a) Selection of Targeted Fish Species<br />
Reef <strong>fish</strong> composition, size and abundances on smaller established <strong>reef</strong>s in <strong>the</strong><br />
Escambia East LAARS were previously documented by several methods. Many<br />
smaller <strong>reef</strong>s were monitored with remotely operated video camera (ROV)<br />
(Patterson et al., 2010), pre-sink Oriskany survey work (Snyder et al 2007), early<br />
research studies (Bortone, et al. 1997), as well as <strong>the</strong> personal experience of <strong>the</strong><br />
ECMRD Project Co-Manager (Robert Turpin, personal communication). With this<br />
information <strong>the</strong> FWC staff could generally predict <strong>the</strong> ultimate presence on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef of most recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species expected to be found<br />
in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS. However <strong>the</strong>se studies could not predict <strong>the</strong> numbers of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
species available to capture during any given <strong>sampling</strong> period. These prior studies<br />
and personal observations enabled <strong>the</strong> development of a target list of legal size <strong>reef</strong><br />
22 | P age
<strong>fish</strong>es for <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan that would be retained for analysis if caught.<br />
This Monitoring Work Plan initially included <strong>the</strong> following <strong>fish</strong> in descending order<br />
of preference with <strong>the</strong>ir accompanying trophic position (after Patterson et al. 2010):<br />
1. Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) (invertivore/piscivore)<br />
2. Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> (Balistes capriscus) (invertivore)<br />
3. Gag Grouper (Micteroperca microlepis) (piscivore)<br />
4. Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus) (invertivore)<br />
5. Vermilion Snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens (invertivore/planktivore)<br />
6. Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio) (invertivore/piscivore)<br />
7. Scamp Grouper (Micteroperca phenax) (piscivore)<br />
8. Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus) (invertivore/piscivore)<br />
9. Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris) (invertivore/piscivore)<br />
A tenth target species, whitebone porgy, (Calamus leucosteus), an invertivore, was<br />
subsequently added during <strong>sampling</strong> round #7 when this specimen appeared in <strong>the</strong><br />
landings and no lane snapper had yet been seen or caught. In discussions with<br />
FWC Fisheries Dependent Monitoring Program personnel and ECMRD staff <strong>the</strong><br />
whitebone porgy was a good tasting <strong>fish</strong> that recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers caught and kept.<br />
The above list does not represent a complete list of all Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico<br />
<strong>reef</strong> associated <strong>fish</strong> that might be consumed by a recreational angler if caught in <strong>the</strong><br />
depth range of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. However, based on catch rates it was believed<br />
that <strong>the</strong> above recreationally targeted species were <strong>the</strong> species most likely to be<br />
encountered by hook-and-line <strong>fish</strong>ermen on artificial <strong>reef</strong>s offshore of Pensacola and<br />
ultimately likely to be ei<strong>the</strong>r immediately or eventually available for harvest at <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef. Any of <strong>the</strong> listed <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> of legal harvest length (“keeper” size if<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was no size limit), in addition to at least 15 red snapper, if caught, were also<br />
retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis as individual specimens until <strong>the</strong> minimum target<br />
number of 30 <strong>fish</strong> were collected during each <strong>sampling</strong> round.<br />
As noted in <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan, highly migratory species (sharks, tunas) and<br />
<strong>reef</strong> transient species (amberjacks, mackerels) were not retained for analysis<br />
because of <strong>the</strong>ir seasonally extensive movements and <strong>the</strong> limited time <strong>the</strong>se species<br />
were expected to spend near <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Great barracuda (Sphyraena<br />
barracuda), a common piscivorous predator on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and <strong>the</strong> Gulf of<br />
Mexico was not considered for retention because this species was not typically<br />
considered a food <strong>fish</strong> in Northwest Florida.<br />
23 | P age
I (D) (1) (b) Selection of Sample Size<br />
For each <strong>sampling</strong> round, a minimum of 30 legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> typically targeted by<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ermen were collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. The preferred<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> alternative as specified in <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan was to collect fifteen<br />
specimens of each of two different <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species, ideally representing two<br />
different trophic levels or feeding guilds, during each <strong>sampling</strong> round. Changes, if<br />
any, in <strong>the</strong> mean total <strong>PCB</strong> levels averaged from <strong>the</strong> sum of <strong>the</strong> individual total<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> values of each of <strong>the</strong> 15 specimens of <strong>the</strong> two different species would be<br />
evaluated over <strong>the</strong> initial five year <strong>sampling</strong> period. If mean total <strong>PCB</strong> values<br />
derived from individual values of 15 or more specimens of a particular species<br />
showed a trend over time of exceeding <strong>the</strong> screening value of 0.020 ppm total <strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
wet weight, monitoring efforts were to be expanded.<br />
After <strong>the</strong> initial two <strong>sampling</strong> rounds, in December of 2006 and April of 2007, it was<br />
realized that <strong>the</strong> current <strong>sampling</strong> regimes would be unable to achieve <strong>the</strong><br />
Monitoring Work Plan preferred alternative of securing a minimum of 15 legal size<br />
specimens of each of two different <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species during each <strong>sampling</strong> round. The<br />
two primary target species were initially proposed to be red snapper and gray<br />
trigger<strong>fish</strong>. At <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> were nei<strong>the</strong>r caught nor visually<br />
observed by SCUBA divers during <strong>the</strong> first three years of monitoring. The backup<br />
alternative was implemented to retain any additional legal size targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
species until a minimum number of 30 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> were caught during a particular<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> round in order to get a minimum sample size of 15 legal red snapper per<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> round.<br />
The minimum number of 30 legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> sought and analyzed per <strong>sampling</strong><br />
round was a statistically valid sample round number based on <strong>the</strong> ability of <strong>the</strong><br />
FWC and ECMRD to fund a Tier 1 <strong>PCB</strong> screening level <strong>sampling</strong> number that could<br />
be collected, twice a year, during two different seasons (typically fall and spring)<br />
over a period of at least five years. This target number of <strong>fish</strong> retained was<br />
increased for analysis to 35 in Sampling Round #7 and to 39 in Sampling Round #8<br />
in an effort to procure additional piscivores (e.g. grouper) and invertivores (e.g.<br />
trigger<strong>fish</strong> and porgies) for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis. When <strong>the</strong> target number of specimens<br />
had been collected in <strong>the</strong> order of <strong>the</strong>ir capture availability, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
operations were terminated and <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>ing vessel returned to port unless <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
some o<strong>the</strong>r specific additional objective such as a pilot tagging project or a nearby<br />
artificial <strong>reef</strong> to be sampled.<br />
24 | P age
I (D) (2) Fishing Vessel Sampling Platforms<br />
During <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Plan development process it was recognized that <strong>the</strong> large<br />
deck space required for <strong>fish</strong> specimen collecting and processing 23.5 nautical miles<br />
offshore of Pensacola Pass, working from one or two small vessels would not<br />
consistently meet our monitoring requirements. The FWC artificial <strong>reef</strong> program<br />
and <strong>the</strong> ECMRD program had available to <strong>the</strong>m respectively, a 22 foot and a 19 foot<br />
single engine outboard open console vessel. These vessels were mentioned as<br />
possible vessel <strong>sampling</strong> platforms in <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan. It was realized<br />
that <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> capture requirements and processing, packaging and storage of <strong>fish</strong><br />
along with data recording would be impractical due to limited deck space both for<br />
gear, and participating personnel. Use of <strong>the</strong>se smaller vessels would also reduce<br />
<strong>the</strong> wea<strong>the</strong>r/sea state window for safe offshore boating operations. It was decided<br />
that prior to <strong>the</strong> beginning of formal <strong>sampling</strong> to proceed with larger vessels to<br />
provide a greater deck space, more stable offshore work platform and to better<br />
ensure that <strong>the</strong> target of a minimum of 30 legal recreationally target <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> could<br />
be procured on <strong>the</strong> same <strong>sampling</strong> day. For <strong>sampling</strong>, particularly utilizing<br />
multiple personnel and recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing gear, optimal vessel configuration,<br />
equipment, and o<strong>the</strong>r attributes include: large deck space adequate for <strong>fish</strong><br />
collection and sample processing; sufficient capacity to store at least 800 quarts of<br />
food grade ice and six large (96-150 quart coolers), precise and accurate vessel<br />
electronics (i.e. Global Positioning System, fathometer, etc.); and a skilled captain<br />
able to hold an unanchored vessel in place at strategic locations at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef as <strong>fish</strong> are collected. Vessel hiring prices for <strong>the</strong>se larger vessels and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
availability were determined and <strong>the</strong> National Marine Fisheries Service was<br />
notified of our intent to use alternate vessels in this <strong>sampling</strong> program.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> first eight Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> rounds (December 14, 2006-<br />
November 18, 2010), four different vessel <strong>sampling</strong> platforms (55-85 ft. in total<br />
length) were utilized. These included a commercial snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing vessel, Margie<br />
Ann, with trap pulling capabilities that was home ported out of Panama City, FL<br />
(Round #1), an 85 ft. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Law Enforcement<br />
offshore patrol vessel JJ Brown, also able to retrieve traps, home ported out of<br />
Carrabelle, FL (Round #2), a for-hire Pensacola <strong>fish</strong>ing fleet charter vessel,<br />
Chulamar operating out of Gulf Breeze, FL (Rounds #3-4), and a second for-hire<br />
Pensacola <strong>fish</strong>ing fleet vessel, Entertainer, also operating out of Gulf Breeze, FL<br />
(Rounds #5-8) (Table 10). These vessels satisfied <strong>the</strong> requirements of having<br />
sufficient deck storage and work space, an experienced vessel captain and mate,<br />
and a large enough vessel to provide a stable <strong>sampling</strong> platform to operate safely 23<br />
nautical miles offshore.<br />
25 | P age
Fish <strong>sampling</strong> began on December 14, 2006, about seven months after <strong>the</strong> ex-<br />
Oriskany (CVA-34) was placed in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS site as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> on May 17,<br />
2006. Diver visual observations down to <strong>the</strong> depth of <strong>the</strong> flight deck (135 ft.) during<br />
<strong>the</strong> summer and early fall of 2006 after <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef was created indicated<br />
that recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> like red snapper and vermilion snapper were<br />
present at <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> but many were visually estimated to be of sublegal size (Horn<br />
and Mille 2006).<br />
I (D) (3) Commercial Chevron Trap Use<br />
To ensure that at least 30 legal size<br />
recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
species for analysis during each<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> round as <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> community<br />
was developing on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
during <strong>the</strong> first year, for <strong>the</strong> first two<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds, vessels capable of<br />
deploying and retrieving commercial<br />
chevron <strong>fish</strong> traps were utilized<br />
(Figure 4). FWC and ECMRD<br />
determined <strong>the</strong> most efficient and<br />
effective collection of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> during<br />
<strong>the</strong> first <strong>sampling</strong> round would be<br />
accomplished by using commercial<br />
chevron-shaped coated wire mesh <strong>fish</strong> traps and multi-hook vertical <strong>fish</strong>ing gear<br />
(“bandit rigs”) deployed aboard a commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing vessel, Margie Ann. The intent<br />
was to fully transition to <strong>the</strong> conventional hand held rod-and-reel gear normally<br />
utilized by recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers after sufficient numbers of legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> became<br />
available on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef for hand held rod-and-reel hook-and-line harvest.<br />
The second <strong>sampling</strong> effort (April 2007) was to represent a transitional <strong>sampling</strong><br />
effort where both rod and reel and chevron traps were used. From <strong>the</strong> third<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> round forward, only hand held rod-and-reels <strong>fish</strong>ed by FWC personnel,<br />
Escambia County staff and volunteers were also utilized to collect <strong>fish</strong> via hook and<br />
line from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis.<br />
FWC had custom built and rigged four commercial chevron <strong>fish</strong> traps specifically for<br />
Oriskany Reef monitoring using design specification provided by Florida State<br />
University marine ecologist Dr. Chris Koenig (Koenig, personal communication).<br />
An individual chevron trap measures 60 inches wide and 73 inches diagonal length<br />
measured from <strong>the</strong> corner of its greatest width to <strong>the</strong> top hip. The trap is 50 inches<br />
26 | P age<br />
Figure 4. Recovery of commercial chevron<br />
<strong>fish</strong> trap with red snapper catch aboard <strong>the</strong><br />
F/V Margie Ann. Photo by Kyle Miller.
long from <strong>the</strong> top to <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>the</strong> funnel. The funnel through which <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
access <strong>the</strong> trap is 15 inches wide. The trap, resting on <strong>the</strong> bottom, is 24 inches high.<br />
The trap “skin”, attached to a steel welded rebar frame is green plastic coated steel<br />
mesh with <strong>the</strong> mesh rectangles measuring 1.875 inches by 2.0 inches. The wire<br />
mesh making up <strong>the</strong> entrance funnel is a lighter gauge more flexible plastic coasted<br />
chicken wire. The trap has two access doors, one on <strong>the</strong> top and one on <strong>the</strong> side.<br />
The side door (15.9 inches across, 11.9 inches high, and 19.7 inches along <strong>the</strong><br />
diagonal) is attached to <strong>the</strong> trap frame with degradable twine and is rigged to fall<br />
open when <strong>the</strong> twine deteriorates to facilitate <strong>fish</strong> release in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>the</strong> trap is<br />
lost and cannot be immediately recovered. The nose door of <strong>the</strong> trap is secured with<br />
plastic clips attached to bungee cords. Fish are removed through <strong>the</strong> nose door<br />
upon recovery of <strong>the</strong> trap and release of <strong>the</strong> clips. The nose door dimensions are<br />
13.9 inches across, 9.8 inches high, and 17.1 inches along <strong>the</strong> diagonal. The doors,<br />
not accessible to <strong>fish</strong>, are used to place bait in <strong>the</strong> trap and remove trapped <strong>fish</strong>.<br />
Each trap was weighted with two metal bars about four feet long tied into <strong>the</strong> trap.<br />
One bar was tied in across <strong>the</strong> width of <strong>the</strong> trap top and one solid .75inch diameter<br />
four feet long heavier bar was tied across <strong>the</strong> width of <strong>the</strong> trap bottom. Tying <strong>the</strong>se<br />
bars in with .375 inch diameter polypropylene line, with <strong>the</strong> heavier bar on <strong>the</strong> trap<br />
bottom ensures <strong>the</strong> trap lands on <strong>the</strong> proper upright orientation on <strong>the</strong> sea floor.<br />
All traps had affixed to <strong>the</strong>m identification tags, identifying <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong><br />
research project, agency name, address, phone number and point of contact.<br />
Attached to a polypropylene loop on each trap was 400 feet of black .375 inch<br />
diameter polypropylene line. The line was attached to a swivel whose ring base was<br />
slipped onto a metal carabineer that was in turn clipped into <strong>the</strong> polypropylene loop<br />
tied into <strong>the</strong> trap. At <strong>the</strong> terminal end of <strong>the</strong> trap line was an international orange<br />
inflatable plastic buoy approximately 18 inches in diameter. Trailing from <strong>the</strong> buoy<br />
was ano<strong>the</strong>r 15 feet of poly line at <strong>the</strong> end of which was a white Styrofoam crab trap<br />
buoy. This six inch diameter buoy kept <strong>the</strong> 15 feet of line between it and <strong>the</strong> larger<br />
float up near <strong>the</strong> surface allowing <strong>the</strong> easier recovery of <strong>the</strong> floating end of <strong>the</strong> line<br />
with a boat hook when recovering <strong>the</strong> buoy line in preparation for trap retrieval.<br />
Each large 24 inch diameter orange trap buoy had “FWC Research” written on it in<br />
black indelible ink as well as a single number (one, two, three, or four) designating<br />
<strong>the</strong> trap that <strong>the</strong> trap <strong>the</strong> buoy was marking. Reflective tape was also added to <strong>the</strong><br />
buoy in <strong>the</strong> event night trap location recovery was required.<br />
Round #1<br />
For <strong>the</strong> first <strong>sampling</strong> round <strong>the</strong> commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing vessel <strong>the</strong> Margie Ann’s was<br />
contracted because <strong>the</strong> crew who were professional commercial <strong>fish</strong>ermen had prior<br />
first-hand experience utilizing <strong>fish</strong> traps when <strong>the</strong>y were still legal to use.<br />
27 | Page
Commercial <strong>fish</strong> trap use in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico has been banned for over a decade.<br />
Reef <strong>fish</strong> ecologist, Dr. Chris Koenig, PhD. (Florida State University faculty), who<br />
had previously conducted similar <strong>fish</strong> collections from <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico using<br />
similar gear, volunteered to accompany FWC and ECMRD staff for <strong>the</strong> first <strong>fish</strong><br />
<strong>sampling</strong> effort at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef in December 2006.<br />
The traps were baited with cut Boston mackerel and Peruvian squid secured to <strong>the</strong><br />
trap funnel and trap interior with plastic tie wraps. Traps were deployed on both<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef’s flight deck (initially135 feet deep.) and on <strong>the</strong> seafloor (212 feet)<br />
along-side <strong>the</strong> Oriskany and were recovered with an electric trap puller following a<br />
soak time of 2-3 hours. On one of <strong>the</strong> December 14, 2006 trap deployments, Dr.<br />
Koenig mounted a video camera on <strong>the</strong> top of one of <strong>the</strong> chevron traps and directed<br />
at <strong>the</strong> trap entrance to observe <strong>fish</strong> activity as <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> approached <strong>the</strong> trap<br />
entrance as it sat on <strong>the</strong> flight deck. All <strong>fish</strong> noted in this video were red snapper.<br />
The use of banned commercial chevron <strong>fish</strong> traps, out of season <strong>fish</strong>ing, and<br />
collecting <strong>fish</strong> over <strong>the</strong> recreational bag limit for research purposes in federal waters<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Exclusive Economic Zone where <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef is located required a<br />
Letter of Authorization (LOA) from <strong>the</strong> National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) Sou<strong>the</strong>ast<br />
Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. FWC secured <strong>the</strong> LOA on November 15,<br />
2006 and it was carried as required on all subsequent <strong>sampling</strong> trips by <strong>the</strong> FWC<br />
Project Manager. Subsequent amendments were made to <strong>the</strong> LOA as <strong>sampling</strong><br />
progressed to add additional vessel platforms as needed and to secure permit time<br />
extensions.<br />
Round #2<br />
The second <strong>sampling</strong> trip to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef on April 12, 2007 utilized an 85 foot<br />
offshore FWC law enforcement patrol vessel, J.J. Brown, with a mounted trap<br />
puller. This was intended to be a transitional trip utilizing both commercial<br />
chevron traps and hand held rod and reel angling gear, similar to <strong>the</strong> equipment<br />
used by private <strong>fish</strong>ermen or charter boats bottom <strong>fish</strong>ing in <strong>the</strong> area. If <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
sufficient rod-and-reel angling success on this trip, our objective was to move<br />
exclusively on subsequent trips to rod-and- reel <strong>sampling</strong> to better mimic <strong>the</strong> type of<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing activity that would normally take place on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
The traps were to be used as a hedge against failure to achieve <strong>the</strong> targeted 30 legal<br />
size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> on this second trip.<br />
28 | P age
During sample round #2 all four chevron traps <strong>fish</strong>ing on and immediately adjacent<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef became entangled in <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> and could not be recovered before<br />
dark and <strong>the</strong> later onset of rough wea<strong>the</strong>r. After <strong>the</strong> parting of one buoy line in<br />
efforts to retrieve a trap, all GPS trap locations were marked and <strong>the</strong> un-buoyed<br />
and three remaining buoyed traps were temporarily abandoned in <strong>the</strong> face of<br />
forecast deteriorating wea<strong>the</strong>r (9-13 foot. seas). A trap recovery effort to eliminate<br />
potential buoy and line navigational hazards and <strong>the</strong> traps continuing to passively<br />
<strong>fish</strong> short-term as “ghost” traps required writing a trap recovery plan, hiring two<br />
dive charter vessels and a team of technical divers to return to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
(Horn and Miller, 2007). Two <strong>fish</strong> traps were recovered by technical divers using<br />
lift bags to raise traps from 212 feet of water since nei<strong>the</strong>r dive boat had any<br />
mechanical trap retrieval capability. The traps were too heavy to be safely hauled<br />
up by from <strong>the</strong> bottom by hand. The o<strong>the</strong>r two chevron traps, one buoyed and one<br />
no longer buoyed were not located even though <strong>the</strong>ir coordinates had been<br />
previously recorded, <strong>the</strong> traps and buoys <strong>the</strong>mselves were marked, and <strong>the</strong><br />
technical diving community was alerted. FWC never recovered <strong>the</strong> two lost traps.<br />
Use of <strong>the</strong> two recovered chevron traps was discontinued in our monitoring<br />
program. The traps were donated to <strong>the</strong> FWC Fisheries Independent Monitoring<br />
Program at <strong>the</strong> Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg,<br />
Florida.<br />
I (D) (4) Commercial Bandit Fishing Gear<br />
On <strong>the</strong> first December 14, 2006 <strong>sampling</strong> trip,<br />
commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” <strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
gear was also employed (Figure 5). Bandit gear<br />
consisted of several hundred yards of stainless<br />
steel strand main line wound onto an open face<br />
metal drum about 14 inches in diameter attached<br />
to a hollow metal vertical pole mounted in <strong>the</strong><br />
vessel gunwale. The pole had a short (2.5 feet<br />
long) flexible horizontal arm with a pulley at <strong>the</strong><br />
end through which <strong>the</strong> steel line from <strong>the</strong> drum<br />
was run to be attached to a 300 pound test<br />
monofilament leader. Along <strong>the</strong> monofilament<br />
leader were a series of brass three-way swivels<br />
evenly spaced at two foot intervals along <strong>the</strong><br />
leader. From each of 15 three-way swivels tied into<br />
<strong>the</strong> main monofilament leader extended a one foot<br />
long monofilament side leader or ganglion<br />
Figure 5. Commercial vertical<br />
hook-and-line “bandit” <strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
gear with red snapper catch<br />
aboard <strong>the</strong> F/V Margie Ann.<br />
29 | P age
composed of two 125 pound test pieces of monofilament line twisted toge<strong>the</strong>r along<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir length. At <strong>the</strong> end of each of <strong>the</strong> 15 twisted one foot leaders or ganglions was<br />
attached a circle hook, about 13 mm from point to shank. Attached to <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong><br />
terminal 15 th triple swivel was an iron curtain sash weight of about eight pounds.<br />
Circle hooks were used to allow multiple <strong>fish</strong> to be self-hooked and brought to <strong>the</strong><br />
surface upon retrieval. The bandit rigs utilized hand cranking of <strong>the</strong> drum to<br />
retrieve <strong>fish</strong> but bandit rigs can also be hydraulically or electrically powered. The<br />
bandit rig gear was used as a secondary <strong>fish</strong>ing gear on <strong>the</strong> first <strong>sampling</strong> trip along<br />
with <strong>the</strong> chevron traps but was not used in any later <strong>sampling</strong> efforts. Rod-andreel<br />
gear was used to a limited extent but unsuccessfully on <strong>the</strong> first trip.<br />
I (D) (5) Transition to Hook-and Line Sampling<br />
Rounds # 3 through # 8<br />
Beginning with Sampling Round #3 and intended to continue through to <strong>the</strong> end of<br />
<strong>the</strong> monitoring study, <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef monitoring efforts transitioned away from<br />
restricted chevron trap commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing gear or “bandit” <strong>fish</strong>ing gear to <strong>the</strong><br />
exclusive use of hook-and-line rod and reel <strong>sampling</strong>. Hook-and-line <strong>sampling</strong> using<br />
<strong>the</strong> traditional hand-held rod-and-reel was expected to more closely reflect <strong>the</strong><br />
general catch composition of recreational <strong>fish</strong>ermen using similar equipment on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef. Additionally, utilizing at least 13 hook-and-line <strong>fish</strong>ers, <strong>the</strong><br />
required target sample minimum of 30 legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> caught by hook-and-line<br />
could be achieved more rapidly than with daylight chevron trap operations.<br />
The rod-and-reel outfits that FWC purchased for <strong>the</strong> first and second <strong>sampling</strong> trips<br />
to augment chevron trap activity were typical of <strong>the</strong> equipment used by <strong>the</strong> for-hire<br />
offshore <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> bottom <strong>fish</strong>ing charter vessels and private recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers off<br />
Northwest Florida. The rod-and-reel gear were Penn Senator 4/0 Model 1134 open<br />
faced hand cranked reels with a 3.25:1 gear ratio fitted to a 6.5 feet long fiberglass<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing rod. About 350-400 yards of forty pound test monofilament line was spooled<br />
on to <strong>the</strong> reels, though charter <strong>fish</strong>ing reels sometimes used 60 pound test<br />
monofilament line. Attached by a 75 pound test #7 barrel swivel to <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong><br />
40 pound test line was a ten foot long 30 pound monofilament fluorocarbon leader.<br />
One to three circle hooks from 10-16 mm (point to shank) were attached to <strong>the</strong><br />
leader. A typical two-three-hook rig used three Eagle Claw 4/0 (15 mm point to<br />
shank) non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks, each attached to a loop extending<br />
about five inches from <strong>the</strong> main 30 pound monofilament terminal leader. One hook<br />
is attached to each of <strong>the</strong> loops which are spaced at 20 inch increments along <strong>the</strong><br />
terminal leader.<br />
30 | P age
The rod and reel manpower <strong>sampling</strong> effort beginning with Sampling Round #3 and<br />
continuing on was provided by a mix of State, County and volunteer staff. Usually<br />
13-18 personnel rod-and-reel <strong>fish</strong>ed at <strong>the</strong> same time. Ano<strong>the</strong>r 4-5 personnel were<br />
non <strong>fish</strong>ers engaged in sample processing, moving <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>fish</strong>ing stations to ice<br />
slurry euthanizing cooler, recording and measuring discards and photo documenting<br />
representative landings. Angler experience ranged from that of <strong>the</strong> saltwater <strong>fish</strong>er<br />
who infrequently <strong>fish</strong>ed (1-3 times/year) to experienced personnel who saltwater<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ed on a more regular basis and had been <strong>fish</strong>ing for years. We believe this bias<br />
of variable skill level could also be found in <strong>the</strong> general cross section of local and<br />
visiting recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers who would venture 23.5 nautical miles offshore on a forhire<br />
charter or party boat to <strong>fish</strong> <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Fish landed by <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong>ers<br />
and retained for analysis could be expected to represent <strong>the</strong> typical catch<br />
composition of a for-hire charter boat or private recreational angler who <strong>fish</strong>ed <strong>the</strong><br />
site targeting <strong>fish</strong> in <strong>the</strong> snapper-grouper complex.<br />
Before vessel departure from shore, <strong>the</strong> Local FWC law enforcement office and U.S.<br />
Coast Guard station were notified of scientific <strong>sampling</strong> to be undertaken on board<br />
a designated vessel. A float plan was filed with FWC and Escambia County office<br />
staff. The Field Project Co-managers carried on board a copy of <strong>the</strong> Work<br />
Monitoring Work Plan, current federal recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing regulations, and a copy<br />
of <strong>the</strong> NOAA Fisheries Letter of Acknowledgement authorizing <strong>fish</strong> harvest over <strong>the</strong><br />
bag limit, out of season, and with restricted gear if applicable. Before leaving <strong>the</strong><br />
dock, recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers were briefed on <strong>the</strong> background and objectives of <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef monitoring project and told to avoid handling any <strong>fish</strong> brought<br />
aboard. Anglers were informed <strong>the</strong> activity was a scientific collecting trip, not a<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing activity and <strong>the</strong>y were forbidden to harvest and retain any <strong>fish</strong><br />
for personal consumption. Only those <strong>fish</strong> needed to fulfill <strong>the</strong> sample round<br />
requirement were to be retained. Fishing concluded immediately upon attaining<br />
<strong>the</strong> sample round collection objectives. After <strong>sampling</strong> processing was completed,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> vessel returned to shore.<br />
Bait and rod-and-reel <strong>fish</strong>ing gear were provided by <strong>the</strong> for-hire charter boat. The<br />
gear was typical of that used by o<strong>the</strong>r for-hire charter <strong>fish</strong>ing fleet vessels and<br />
private recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers and similar to <strong>the</strong> FWC rod-and-reel gear utilized<br />
during Sampling Rounds #1 and #2. The bait <strong>the</strong> participating anglers used was a<br />
mix of cut squid, Boston mackerel, or cigar minnows. Occasionally limited<br />
quantities of live bait such as pin<strong>fish</strong> were utilized and maintained in a circulating<br />
live well on board <strong>the</strong> charter boat.<br />
31 | P age
Fishing baits were positioned over <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef while <strong>the</strong> vessel maintained<br />
position with engines running and without anchoring. Baits were lowered to<br />
approximate depths of <strong>the</strong> flight deck (130-145 feet) and also on or near <strong>the</strong> seafloor<br />
adjacent to <strong>the</strong> ship at a maximum depth of 212 feet. Lines were reeled in<br />
periodically to allow <strong>the</strong> vessel to re-position itself over and immediately adjacent to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, just as commercial charter vessel would operate. The vessel<br />
remained on station until all <strong>fish</strong> were processed, and double checked to ensure <strong>the</strong><br />
target sample quota had been reached. The <strong>sampling</strong> vessel <strong>the</strong>n proceeded directly<br />
to port to allow for prompt offloading and storage of samples.<br />
Fishing commenced during daylight hours, usually beginning between 0830-0900<br />
Central Time once <strong>the</strong> vessel arrived on site and equipment was readied. Fishing<br />
immediately ended as soon as <strong>the</strong> minimum number of 30 recreationally targeted<br />
legal size <strong>fish</strong> were caught and retained, usually by 1200 hrs rarely as late as 1400-<br />
1500 hrs. Night <strong>sampling</strong> was not conducted since recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef would typically also have been a daylight endeavor. Sampling<br />
operations were postponed and rescheduled if sea conditions were predicted to<br />
exceed 2-4 feet or wind speeds exceeded 15 knots.<br />
The decision not to continue <strong>fish</strong>ing past <strong>the</strong> point when <strong>the</strong> required quota of<br />
targeted legal size <strong>fish</strong> were harvested was also intended to reduce unnecessary<br />
discard mortality caused by acute or chronic barotrauma injury and additional<br />
susceptibility of temporarily disabled <strong>fish</strong> to predators such as great barracuda,<br />
bottlenose dolphins and large greater amberjack. Unless <strong>the</strong>re was a specific<br />
secondary activity to be undertaken such as <strong>fish</strong> tagging, <strong>fish</strong>ing effort during <strong>the</strong><br />
first seven <strong>sampling</strong> rounds concluded immediately upon procuring <strong>the</strong> first 30 legal<br />
size <strong>fish</strong> that would have been typically caught by a recreational head boat or<br />
charter boat. There was no high grading of <strong>fish</strong>, which is <strong>the</strong> practice of discarding a<br />
previously caught and retained legal size dead <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> for a larger size specimen or<br />
a different species. All targeted <strong>fish</strong> were retained in <strong>the</strong> order caught, provided<br />
that <strong>the</strong> target number of at least 15 red snapper was procured out of <strong>the</strong> minimum<br />
thirty specimens <strong>sampling</strong> round quota. Sample round #8 (November 2010) was <strong>the</strong><br />
only <strong>sampling</strong> round in which multiple legal size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> (mainly vermilion<br />
snapper) were discarded live upon capture in an effort to stay within <strong>the</strong> target<br />
quota (increased to 39) and still attempt to procure a minimum of 15 red snapper.<br />
I (D) (6) Sampling Seasons<br />
Sampling was conducted in two seasons annually. Sampling was conducted during<br />
late fall/winter (4 events), usually in November, although a single December 2006<br />
and a February 2008 <strong>sampling</strong> round also took place. The cooler wea<strong>the</strong>r <strong>sampling</strong><br />
32 | P age
was intentionally scheduled after <strong>the</strong> normal late spring/summer conclusion of <strong>the</strong><br />
recreational red snapper season (season lengths were variable, but typically Juneearly<br />
August in 2007-2009). Sampling again took place in <strong>the</strong> spring (4 events),<br />
usually in April, prior to <strong>the</strong> opening of <strong>the</strong> recreational red snapper season. This<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> protocol was intended to avoid onsite <strong>fish</strong>ing conflicts with for-hire and<br />
private recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing vessels and dive charters, usually more active during<br />
<strong>the</strong> warmer months. Off-season hiring of local vessels also provided <strong>the</strong>ir Captains<br />
and mates additional revenue during <strong>the</strong> slower business period of for-hire charter<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing operations. The April <strong>sampling</strong> rounds in particular were intended to<br />
provide some idea of <strong>PCB</strong> body burden in red snapper prior to <strong>the</strong> start of <strong>the</strong><br />
recreational red snapper season which varied from April 30, 2006 to June 1 st in<br />
subsequent years of this study. An exception was <strong>the</strong> November 18, 2010 (Sampling<br />
Round #8) effort which overlapped with an ongoing postponed red snapper<br />
recreational season that included a series of three day weekends for recreational red<br />
snapper harvest. The truncated red snapper season ran from October 1, 2010<br />
through-November 21, 2010. It should be noted that this was <strong>the</strong> only <strong>sampling</strong><br />
round where 15 red snapper could not be caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
The fall 2010 red snapper season delay and overlap with our Sampling Round #8<br />
November 18, 2010 fall <strong>sampling</strong> effort occurred as a result of a federal waters <strong>fish</strong><br />
harvest prohibition safety closure that included <strong>the</strong> area around <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
This area, part of an expanding Gulf of Mexico <strong>fish</strong>eries closure that eventually<br />
encompassed over 83,000 square nautical miles that caused <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef to be<br />
inaccessible to all <strong>fish</strong>ing beginning around June 1, 2010, <strong>the</strong> scheduled time <strong>the</strong><br />
red snapper season would have been opening. The closure occurred as a result of <strong>the</strong><br />
British Petroleum leased Trans Ocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion,<br />
fire and collapse in 5,000 ft. of water off Sou<strong>the</strong>astern Louisiana. This resulted in<br />
11 oil platform fatalities and a major regional Gulf of Mexico oil spill beginning<br />
April 22, 2010 at <strong>the</strong> Macondo well head that persisted until <strong>the</strong> leak was brought<br />
under control and temporarily sealed on July 15, 2010. The Oriskany is located<br />
105.7 nautical miles NE of <strong>the</strong> Mississippi Canyon MS 252 (Macondo well) spill site.<br />
As a result of <strong>the</strong> federal red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing season closure during <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
scheduled summer 2010 recreational red snapper season, a short fall season was<br />
instituted by NOAA Fisheries. Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> April 27, 2010 Sampling Round #7 nor<br />
<strong>the</strong> November 18, 2010 Sampling Round #8 were affected by <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>eries oil spill<br />
closures since <strong>the</strong> closure in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef was not in force<br />
during ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>sampling</strong> rounds.<br />
33 | P age
I (D) (7) Sample Handling, Processing and Recording<br />
As traps and <strong>fish</strong>ing tackle were brought up to <strong>the</strong> vessel, <strong>fish</strong> were emptied from<br />
traps into plastic baskets, removed from hook and line gear with a hook remover.<br />
Each <strong>fish</strong> was identified to species and a determination was made regarding<br />
retaining <strong>the</strong> specimen for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis according to <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan.<br />
Fish retained for monitoring were <strong>the</strong>n transferred to ice-seawater slurry in a<br />
dedicated food grade 96-quart “Igloo” ice chest to be euthanized and to await<br />
measurement and processing. This was a deviation from our Monitoring Work<br />
Plan. The Plan required that <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> once de-hooked be placed in a plastic bag<br />
before immersing it in <strong>the</strong> seawater ice slurry. The <strong>fish</strong> were placed un-bagged<br />
directly into <strong>the</strong> sea water/ice slurry. It was felt that <strong>the</strong> subsequent removal of <strong>fish</strong><br />
from <strong>the</strong> slurry and rinsing <strong>the</strong>m again with ambient sea water followed by<br />
subsequent scaling and rinsing once at <strong>the</strong> analytical lab was sufficient to avoid<br />
additional <strong>PCB</strong> tissue contamination.<br />
Prior to measurement, each retained <strong>fish</strong> was removed from <strong>the</strong> ice slurry, and<br />
rinsed with ambient Gulf surface sea water collected alongside <strong>the</strong> vessel using a<br />
project dedicated five-gallon plastic bucket. Each <strong>fish</strong> retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis<br />
was assigned an alpha-numeric sample identification number (e. g., OR-RS-001) as<br />
part of a sample identification label. “OR” was used to designate <strong>fish</strong> samples<br />
collected from <strong>the</strong> “Oriskany Reef”; “RS” was <strong>the</strong> species specific identifier for red<br />
snapper. “001” represented <strong>the</strong> first of a sequential number of <strong>fish</strong> samples<br />
collected at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. The <strong>fish</strong> identification initials were based on <strong>the</strong><br />
first letter in each of <strong>the</strong> first and second scientifically accepted common names of<br />
<strong>the</strong> sampled <strong>fish</strong> (Nelson et al. 2004). For example, “RP” was <strong>the</strong> identifier for red<br />
porgy”; “VS” was <strong>the</strong> identifier for vermilion snapper, etc.<br />
Each <strong>fish</strong> total length (TL) was measured to <strong>the</strong> nearest millimeter (mm) on a<br />
standard <strong>fish</strong> measuring board. The ECMRD Project Co-Manager identified,<br />
inspected, and measured all <strong>fish</strong> retained as samples during all <strong>sampling</strong> rounds.<br />
Additionally, wearing powder-free nitrile gloves, he double-wrapped <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
individually in laboratory grade aluminum foil, dull side toward <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> and placed<br />
<strong>the</strong> completely foil wrapped <strong>fish</strong> in a food-grade plastic bag, sealing <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong><br />
bag with a plastic tamper-proof tie wrap closure attached to a Sample Identification<br />
Label filled out by <strong>the</strong> FWC Project Co-Manager who also served as <strong>the</strong> data<br />
recorder. Each packaged <strong>fish</strong> was <strong>the</strong>n placed in a second plastic bag and sealed<br />
with a plastic tamper-proof tie wrap attached to a Chain-of-Custody Label. The <strong>fish</strong><br />
measuring board and o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>sampling</strong> equipment were rinsed with <strong>the</strong> project<br />
dedicated bucket containing Gulf surface seawater collected amidships while bilges<br />
34 | P age
weren’t running after each <strong>fish</strong> was processed. All processing was conducted away<br />
from diesel vessel exhaust fumes.<br />
Field notes and results of all field <strong>sampling</strong> were recorded in a project dedicated<br />
water resistant field notebook with a waterproof “Sharpie” indelible ink pen by <strong>the</strong><br />
FWC Project Co-Manager. Each label was filled out as each <strong>fish</strong> was processed.<br />
Field notebook data included sample identification number, <strong>fish</strong> length, time of<br />
processing, date of capture, and any miscellaneous comments on <strong>the</strong> condition of<br />
each <strong>fish</strong>. The vessel name, time of departure on <strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> trip, time of arrival<br />
on station, commencement of <strong>fish</strong>ing activity, number of people <strong>fish</strong>ing, end of<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing activity, time of arrival back at <strong>the</strong> dock, sea and wea<strong>the</strong>r conditions,<br />
presence of o<strong>the</strong>r vessels <strong>fish</strong>ing or diving on or near <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, as well as<br />
any dolphin (mammal), marine turtle, or bird activity in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef were noted. Names of <strong>the</strong> Captain, crew and <strong>fish</strong>ing participants were also<br />
documented. This information was used to generate a written field <strong>report</strong> for each<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> trip. The original field notebooks are in <strong>the</strong> custody of FWC. Xerox copies<br />
of <strong>the</strong> field notes were provided to <strong>the</strong> ECMRD Project Co-Manager.<br />
Each foil wrapped double-bagged <strong>fish</strong> sample was placed in a project dedicated food<br />
grade ice chest and covered with food grade wet ice. Upon collection of <strong>the</strong> minimum<br />
thirty legal size recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>, as required by <strong>the</strong> Monitoring<br />
Work Plan, <strong>the</strong> charter vessel departed Oriskany Reef and returned to port. The<br />
individual bagged <strong>fish</strong> samples remained on wet ice in closed ice chests while <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were transported by <strong>the</strong> ECMRD project Co-Manager directly from <strong>the</strong> dock to a<br />
padlocked walk-in deep freeze (-20º F) facility located at <strong>the</strong> U.S. Environmental<br />
Protection Agency Gulf Breeze laboratory. Prior to placing <strong>the</strong> specimens in <strong>the</strong><br />
freezer, <strong>the</strong> wet ice was removed from ice chests containing <strong>the</strong> packaged specimens<br />
and <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> were repacked in coolers to be refrozen solid. The coolers remained<br />
secured in <strong>the</strong> EPA laboratory freezer until shipment to <strong>the</strong> analytical lab for <strong>PCB</strong><br />
analysis.<br />
Prior to shipment for lab analysis, frozen whole <strong>fish</strong> samples were packed in dry ice<br />
and sealed in plastic coolers inside of which was placed a chain-of-custody record<br />
form identifying <strong>the</strong> project, <strong>the</strong> collecting agency and Project co-manager, and<br />
contact information and <strong>the</strong> Project Identification Numbers of all specimens<br />
contained in <strong>the</strong> cooler. The coolers were <strong>the</strong>n secured with rope, reinforced tape,<br />
and a Chain-of-Custody seal, and <strong>the</strong>n shipped by <strong>the</strong> ECRMD project Co-Manager<br />
under chain-of-custody via “over-night” DHL or Federal Express to <strong>the</strong> analytical<br />
laboratory.<br />
35 | P age
Fish not retained for <strong>sampling</strong> (undersize, non-target, predator damaged <strong>fish</strong>) were<br />
identified, measured, documented in a logbook and released overboard. Non target<br />
<strong>fish</strong> released included transient <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> like amberjacks, species like great<br />
barracuda not typically consumed by <strong>the</strong> local <strong>fish</strong>ing population, and small <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> like bank sea bass and tomtates not normally retained by anglers for human<br />
consumption. In addition all sublegal target <strong>fish</strong> and all predator damaged <strong>fish</strong><br />
were discarded (Table 9).<br />
I (D) (8) Laboratory Sample Receipt and Sample Analysis<br />
The receiving analytical laboratory used for all of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> <strong>PCB</strong><br />
analyses was <strong>the</strong> Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) of <strong>the</strong><br />
College of Geosciences and Maritime Studies at Texas A & M University, 833<br />
Graham Road, College Station, Texas 77845 (http://gerg.tamu.edu ). Dr. Terry<br />
Wade, Deputy Director, Environmental Science is <strong>the</strong> interim Lab Director (ph.<br />
979.862.2323 x 134; email: terry@gerg.tamu.edu ). Dr. Wade took GERG former<br />
Lab Director, Dr. Guy Denoux’s place early in <strong>the</strong> study as our point of contact after<br />
Dr. Denoux passed away. Dr. Denoux had been our initial very helpful GERG<br />
contact and was so noted in <strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work Plan (Dodrill and Turpin, 2007).<br />
Laboratory sample handling, analysis and <strong>report</strong>ing procedures followed <strong>the</strong><br />
Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared by GERG for FWC and<br />
ECMRD and identified as GERG Manual 0401 in Appendix K of <strong>the</strong> Monitoring<br />
Work Plan.<br />
In accordance with GERG SOP 9706 (Procedure for Receiving Samples), upon<br />
receipt of <strong>the</strong> samples, GERG staff filled out a sample receiving/integrity <strong>report</strong>,<br />
noting sender, shipping company, time of sample receipt, number of containers<br />
received, condition of custody seals, presence of chain-of-custody records, general<br />
sample condition, number of samples received, name of <strong>the</strong> individual who checked<br />
<strong>the</strong> shipment in, any problems or discrepancies, and if so what <strong>the</strong> resolution was.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> eight rounds of collected <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> shipped to GERG, three discrepancies<br />
were noted. Two discrepancies involved incorrect transcription by of a Sample ID<br />
number onto <strong>the</strong> list of shipped specimens received by GERG. These discrepancies<br />
were corrected. A third discrepancy revealed that one of <strong>the</strong> packaged red snapper<br />
samples (OR-RS-057) had been inadvertently discarded at night during <strong>the</strong> process<br />
of removing wet ice and repacking and storing <strong>the</strong> samples in <strong>the</strong> EPA lab cooler<br />
prior to shipping to GERG. As a result only 29 instead of 30 specimens were<br />
36 | P age
actually shipped to GERG on February 17, 2007. No fur<strong>the</strong>r repacking of <strong>fish</strong><br />
specimens at night took place during <strong>the</strong> study.<br />
Tracking procedures were conducted in accordance with GERG SOP 9708. A<br />
laboratory sample identification number was assigned to each sample to correspond<br />
with <strong>the</strong> project’s Sample Identification Number. The ECMRD project Co-Manager<br />
was notified by GERG of sample receipt and condition and he in turn notified <strong>the</strong><br />
FWC Project Co-Manager. Samples were <strong>the</strong>n stored at GERG in accordance with<br />
GERG SOP 9707 (Procedures for storing samples) at -20º (plus or minus 10º) Celsius<br />
until analytical procedures began.<br />
When ready for analysis in <strong>the</strong> labratory, each <strong>fish</strong> was scaled, washed with deionized<br />
water and a minimum of 100 gram skin-on lateral muscle skin-on sample<br />
extracted from each <strong>fish</strong> was homogenized. Three sample aliquots of <strong>the</strong><br />
homogenate were weighed out and available for <strong>the</strong> sample of which about 10 grams<br />
wet weight of homogenized tissue was used for a sample analysis. The o<strong>the</strong>r two<br />
aliquots from each individual <strong>fish</strong> sample were used for Matrix Spike analysis or<br />
running a duplicate analysis sample if required. A duplicate sample is not from a<br />
separate homogenate or from different tissue areas of <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>. For a reanalysis, <strong>the</strong><br />
original homogenate is utilized, though a new homogenate can be made from <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r fillet if it is specifically requested. For sample duplicates, <strong>the</strong> first sample<br />
logged in for a sample batch is a duplicate and matrix spike, and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> first<br />
sample logged in of <strong>the</strong> second sample batch is similarly treated. The remaining<br />
sample homogenate amount for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r samples is available for a Matrix Spike<br />
analysis or duplicate sample analysis if requested.<br />
Samples were extracted using standard tissue extraction procedures. Surrogates<br />
for <strong>the</strong>se analyses were added prior to extraction. Samples were processed by<br />
standard GERG methods and analyzed for 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners by high resolution<br />
mass spectrometry. The tissue samples were extracted, purified and analyzed using<br />
<strong>the</strong> following protocols contained in <strong>the</strong> following Standard Operating Procedures<br />
(SOPs) used at GERG:<br />
SOP-9807- Extraction of Biological Tissues for <strong>the</strong> Analyses of Polynuclear<br />
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Organochlorine Pesticides.<br />
(Revision 1 as of October 27, 1998, See Appendix L of Monitoring Work Plan).<br />
EPA 1668A- Chlorinated biphenyls Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids<br />
and Tissues by High Resolution Gas Chromatography/ High Resolution Mass<br />
Spectrometer<br />
37 | P age
The tissue dry weights and percent lipid dry weights were determined following <strong>the</strong><br />
protocols contained in <strong>the</strong> following SOPs used at GERG:<br />
SOP-9415 (instrumental analysis) - Determination of Percent Dry Weight for<br />
Biological Tissues. Revision 1 as of October 1994<br />
SOP-9727 (instrumental analysis)/9807(Extraction purification) - Determination of<br />
Percent Lipids in Biological Tissues. Revision 3 as of June 30, 1998.<br />
Additional GERG SOPS followed included GERG 9709, Procedures for archival and<br />
final disposition of samples.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> conclusion of each Sampling Round analysis a <strong>report</strong> was generated by<br />
GERG in PDF and Excel spread sheet format. These analysis results were <strong>the</strong>n<br />
forwarded to FWC and ECMRD. The <strong>report</strong>s contained <strong>the</strong> following information on<br />
each sample: client sample identification number, corresponding GERG<br />
identification number, sample descriptor (congeners), sample dry weight (grams),<br />
sample wet weight (grams) %solids, %lipids, <strong>PCB</strong> concentration <strong>report</strong>ing units<br />
(picograms/gram (pg/g) parts per trillion), calculation basis (dry/wet-in this case<br />
wet), quality control batch identification number, method (gas chromatograph/mass<br />
spectrometer), sample receipt date, sample analysis date. In addition, a list of<br />
surrogate compounds used and %recovery of each were noted.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> concentrations were noted in pg/g (picograms per grams, parts per trillion, ppt)<br />
for each <strong>PCB</strong> analyte in all 10 chlorinations. Some <strong>PCB</strong> analyte values were for<br />
combined congeners, for example <strong>PCB</strong> 60/64/69 in Chlorination 4 or <strong>PCB</strong> 89/9-0/101<br />
in Chlorination 5 etc., were shown as a single value for several congeners combined.<br />
Total <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations summing <strong>the</strong> results of all detected <strong>PCB</strong> congener values<br />
were noted for each individual skin-on <strong>fish</strong> tissue fillet sample as well as combined<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> concentrations for each of 10 chlorination homologs.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> analyte <strong>report</strong>ing limits were indicated as .002 ng/g. based on 10 grams of wet<br />
tissue. Detectable values less than <strong>the</strong> mean detection limit were noted with a “J”<br />
and included in <strong>the</strong> summed total <strong>PCB</strong> concentration calculations for each <strong>fish</strong><br />
sample. Non-detect concentrations noted as “ND” were considered a “0”<br />
concentration value. This was a deviation from our Monitoring Work Plan which<br />
specified Non Detect values in <strong>the</strong> total <strong>PCB</strong> sum per specimen to be included as ½<br />
<strong>the</strong> mean detection limit. Escambia County did not specify in <strong>the</strong>ir contract with<br />
GERG that ½ <strong>the</strong> value of <strong>the</strong> <strong>report</strong>ing limits were to be listed when non-detect<br />
values were noted. The result was that total <strong>PCB</strong> values for each sample were<br />
slightly less than had <strong>the</strong> ½ non detect value been added. However, since all<br />
38 | Page
samples during Sampling Rounds 1-8 were handled consistently in this manner, we<br />
propose to continue with non-detects classified as a “0” value.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> GERG <strong>report</strong>s, any analysis anomalies or problems encountered were<br />
identified with statements made regarding whe<strong>the</strong>r any fur<strong>the</strong>r action was needed.<br />
PART II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />
The second part of this progress <strong>report</strong> discusses visual monitoring and assessment<br />
activities that took place at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and in <strong>the</strong> adjacent EELAARs. This<br />
is followed by results and discussion of an Oriskany Reef pilot tagging project, and<br />
overview of field <strong>sampling</strong> efforts, discussion of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species sampled, <strong>PCB</strong><br />
results and discussion for each species sampled, a summary of findings with<br />
conclusions and FWC and Escambia County possible options for future monitoring.<br />
By accepting an EPA issued risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste approval to create <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef, <strong>the</strong> Navy, FWC, and Escambia accepted <strong>the</strong> environmental<br />
monitoring requirements of <strong>the</strong> EPA’s risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste authorization<br />
approval. The creation of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany artificial <strong>reef</strong> was based on a risk-based<br />
evaluation of <strong>the</strong> Navy documents jointly presenting a case that <strong>PCB</strong>s remaining on<br />
board this former Navy combatant present no unreasonable risk to human health or<br />
<strong>the</strong> environment. The initial Oriskany Reef project monitoring responsibility was<br />
shared, with <strong>the</strong> Navy assuming financial responsibility for pre-<strong>reef</strong>ing baseline<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> level assessment of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>, sediments, <strong>the</strong> water column (Snyder et al. 2007),<br />
and <strong>the</strong> FWC funding <strong>the</strong> post-deployment monitoring.<br />
II (A) Sampling Additions to <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan<br />
There were an additional five primary <strong>sampling</strong> efforts implemented beyond <strong>the</strong><br />
requirements of <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan, reflecting a proactive, more<br />
comprehensive stepped up <strong>sampling</strong> and monitoring effort. These included:<br />
• Collection and analysis of additional <strong>reef</strong> samples during sample rounds 3<br />
and 4 from a nearby artificial <strong>reef</strong> site;<br />
• Collection and analysis of additional <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> samples beyond <strong>the</strong> 30<br />
minimum required;<br />
• Increase knowledge of <strong>fish</strong> movement at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef via a mulitspecies<br />
tagging initiative of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany;<br />
• Increase <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> frequency during years 3 and 4 to twice a year,<br />
instead of <strong>the</strong> minimum annual requirement; and<br />
• Increase information about <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species composition and structural<br />
changes of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through visual SCUBA and ROV assessments.<br />
39 | P age
These additions were intended to 1) add a nearby site for a year to address FWC<br />
and Florida Department of Health (FDOH) concerns about <strong>the</strong> possibility of<br />
regionally elevated <strong>PCB</strong> levels in <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>es on o<strong>the</strong>r large artificial <strong>reef</strong> structures,<br />
particularly shoreward of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef; 2) slightly increase numbers of <strong>fish</strong><br />
retained for analysis to attempt to capture under-represented invertivore (porgies,<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>) and piscivore (grouper); 3) attempt to gain through a one-time<br />
tagging effort, site fidelity information on targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef 4)<br />
return to a twice a year <strong>sampling</strong> regime at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef by adding back a<br />
late/fall <strong>sampling</strong> effort and 5) conduct visual SCUBA assessments of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef community as it developed and assess changes in <strong>the</strong> physical condition of <strong>the</strong><br />
ship.<br />
The US Navy models predicted <strong>the</strong> leaching behavior of <strong>PCB</strong>s aboard Ex-Oriskany<br />
to follow an initial “pulse” release, and <strong>the</strong>n diminish to a low-level steady state<br />
within two years after deployment. At <strong>the</strong> time of planning <strong>the</strong> third <strong>fish</strong> collection<br />
effort, FWC and ECMRD took <strong>the</strong> proactive measure of adding an additional <strong>fish</strong><br />
collection site to serve as a background check during Sampling Rounds #3 and #4.<br />
The Florida Department of Health wanted to ensure that elevated <strong>PCB</strong> levels in<br />
<strong>fish</strong> tissue weren’t typical of o<strong>the</strong>r area artificial <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> communities. Thus, <strong>the</strong><br />
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef #1 (PBFBR#1) was selected for similar <strong>fish</strong><br />
collection and analysis to provide an indication of “background” <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations<br />
in <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> on an artificial <strong>reef</strong> in <strong>the</strong> north central Gulf of Mexico on <strong>the</strong> same days<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef was sampled. PBFBR#1 was constructed during <strong>the</strong> same year as<br />
<strong>the</strong> creation of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (17 loads completed in December of 2006).<br />
PBFBR#1 was located about eight nautical miles to <strong>the</strong> northwest and inshore of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef in about 84 feet of water (see EELAARS Area Map, Figure 3).<br />
The PBFBR#1 Reef was constructed from approximately 8,140 tons of steel<br />
reinforced concrete bridge rubble from <strong>the</strong> demolition of <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Fishing<br />
Bridge across Pensacola Bay connecting Gulf Breeze to Pensacola. After two<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds at PBFBR#1, conducted on February 3, 2008 and April 29, 2008,<br />
<strong>the</strong> EPA recommended that FWC and Escambia County drop PBFBR#1 and use<br />
remaining limited funding resources to focus exclusively on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef as<br />
<strong>the</strong> Monitoring Work plan originally required (Personal communication with Dr.<br />
Roland Ferry, EPA Region 4).<br />
Target <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> numbers were pro-actively increased from 30 to 35 <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> samples retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis in Sampling Round #7 and from 30 to 39 in<br />
Sampling Round #8 in an effort to procure under represented invertivore (red<br />
porgies, whitebone porgies, gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>) and piscivore (groupers) while still<br />
40 | P age
harvesting at least 15 legal size red snappers and o<strong>the</strong>r targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> such as<br />
vermilion snappers as <strong>the</strong>y were encountered.<br />
Following procurement of <strong>the</strong> 30 <strong>fish</strong> quota for analysis, during Sampling Round #5<br />
(April 21, 2008) FWC staff worked with staff from <strong>the</strong> University of West Florida to<br />
tag 199 additional <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef to look at <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> site fidelity<br />
particularly for red snapper and confirm recreational harvest activity at <strong>the</strong> site<br />
and its relative intensity at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Proactively <strong>the</strong> project returned to a twice a year <strong>sampling</strong> program beginning with<br />
Sampling Round #6. The Monitoring Work Plan called for dropping back to once a<br />
year (spring) <strong>sampling</strong> after two years of twice a year <strong>sampling</strong> and continuing with<br />
once a year spring <strong>sampling</strong> through year five. Concerns about <strong>PCB</strong> levels above<br />
EPA screening levels in some analyzed <strong>fish</strong> prompted <strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> twice a year<br />
again (adding back a fall/winter sample event) after initially dropping one fall 2008<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> event. Additionally, <strong>PCB</strong> variations among individual specimens of <strong>the</strong><br />
same species were continued as well as having individual <strong>fish</strong> analyzed for all 209<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> congeners and 10 chlorination homologs as opposed to dropping to composites<br />
for total <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations alone as suggested as an option in <strong>the</strong> Monitoring<br />
Work Plan.<br />
FWC staff conducted ten visual SCUBA dive assessments from May 2006-November<br />
2009 to visually document <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> community and note physical changes in <strong>the</strong><br />
condition of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (Table 1).<br />
II (A) (1) Visual Monitoring on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
This section provides a general characterization of changes in physical condition of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany <strong>reef</strong> and resident <strong>fish</strong> populations observed from <strong>the</strong> flight deck to <strong>the</strong><br />
top of <strong>the</strong> island superstructure of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Observations were made by<br />
<strong>the</strong> FWC Division of Marine Fisheries Management (DMFM) during dive<br />
assessments performed on <strong>the</strong> vessel since it was deployed on May 17, 2006. The<br />
FWC dive assessment team performed 10 dives on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany with various<br />
objectives between 2006 and 2009 (Table 1). Due to FWC dive protocol depth<br />
limitations, all FWC assessment dives were conducted shallower than 140 feet. All<br />
<strong>fish</strong> surveys were <strong>the</strong>refore limited to <strong>the</strong> water column above <strong>the</strong> flight deck,<br />
currently at 145 feet adjacent to <strong>the</strong> ship’s superstructure or “island” and <strong>the</strong> island<br />
itself. The uppermost structure at <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> island portion of <strong>the</strong> ship is now at<br />
77 feet so all FWC assessments were taken between <strong>the</strong> depths of 77 to 136 feet.<br />
The ambient sea floor at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany site is 212 feet deep; however as of March<br />
41 | P age
2011 <strong>the</strong> stern scour hole reaches a maximum depth of 220 feet (Bryan Clark,<br />
personal communication).<br />
II (A) (1) (a) Oriskany Reef Storm Damage Assessments<br />
Two of <strong>the</strong>se dive assessments were intended to confirm possible damage or depth<br />
and orientation changes to <strong>the</strong> ship from major storms. On August 31, 2008,<br />
Hurricane Gustav, a Category 3 hurricane with 115 mph (185 km/h) winds passed<br />
offshore of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany and made landfall in Louisiana, sending large swells and<br />
tides into <strong>the</strong> Pensacola area. The first dive <strong>report</strong>s to FWC provided by local divers<br />
following <strong>the</strong> storm indicated that <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef had settled into <strong>the</strong> sediments.<br />
The Oriskany Reef had a greater navigational clearance than before and had a<br />
slight list of about 5° to starboard (MBT Dive and Surf shop web site). On October<br />
16, 2008 FWC divers made a dive on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany to conduct an annual <strong>fish</strong> census,<br />
confirm <strong>the</strong> change in navigational clearance, and check for structural damage.<br />
Based on dive computer depth measurements, FWC divers concluded <strong>the</strong> ship had<br />
subsided to an additional depth of about 10 to 11 feet depending on where <strong>the</strong><br />
measurements were taken <strong>the</strong> navigational clearance above <strong>the</strong> very top of <strong>the</strong><br />
island increased to 77 feet from <strong>the</strong> original 68 feet as measured one day after<br />
deployment (Horn and Mille, 2006). The flight deck measured 145 feet deep<br />
adjacent to <strong>the</strong> island instead of 135 feet as measured <strong>the</strong> day after sinking.<br />
Overall <strong>the</strong> ship had settled about 10 feet deeper into <strong>the</strong> sediments, but no<br />
additional damage was noted.<br />
On November 10, 2009, tropical storm Ida made landfall in Alabama very near<br />
Pensacola. The storm had attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane<br />
with winds of 105 mph (165 km/h) as it moved over <strong>the</strong> Gulf before being<br />
downgraded to a tropical storm upon land fall. Waves 17 to 20 feet were<br />
documented at <strong>the</strong> offshore NOAA data buoys during <strong>the</strong> storm. The first local dive<br />
<strong>report</strong>s following <strong>the</strong> storm event <strong>report</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong>re was structural damage to <strong>the</strong><br />
island portion of <strong>the</strong> ship (Jim Phillips, personal communication, 2009). On<br />
November 19, 2009, FWC divers confirmed that up to 1000 square feet of <strong>the</strong> thin<br />
sheet metal covering of both sides of <strong>the</strong> ship’s smokestack had become detached<br />
(Horn and Mille, 2009). The metal had become disassociated from that portion of<br />
<strong>the</strong> ship’s island which covered <strong>the</strong> funnels leading to <strong>the</strong> smokestack. The port side<br />
sheet metal ripped away had fallen onto <strong>the</strong> flight deck at <strong>the</strong> base of <strong>the</strong> port side<br />
of <strong>the</strong> island. The collapse of <strong>the</strong> exterior sheet metal resulted in a vertical opening<br />
measuring 10 ft wide by 50 ft tall on both sides of <strong>the</strong> smokestack, but did not result<br />
in major structural damage to <strong>the</strong> ship (Figure 6). The new east-to-west “swim<br />
through” opening penetrating all <strong>the</strong> way through <strong>the</strong> smokestack has increased<br />
complexity around <strong>the</strong> island. The opening also made <strong>the</strong> ship a better dive<br />
42 | P age
attraction as expressed by an increased interest among recreational divers (Jim<br />
Phillips, MBT Divers, Pensacola, Florida, personal communication, 2009).<br />
These two storm events were <strong>the</strong> only two major wea<strong>the</strong>r events occurring near <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany between December 2006 and November 2010. Despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se<br />
storms did not move directly over Oriskany Reef powerful wave and current forces<br />
were strong enough to structural damage to <strong>the</strong> island and move sediment around<br />
<strong>the</strong> base of <strong>the</strong> ship’s hull causing it to settle into <strong>the</strong> sediment. It is possible that<br />
any <strong>PCB</strong>s leaching out of shipboard materials, adsorbed to detritus or sediments<br />
may have been re-suspended and moved.<br />
Figure 6. Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef after Tropical<br />
Storm Ida. Outlined area in pre-sink photo (left) delineates subsequent stormdamaged<br />
area of Oriskany Reef (right).<br />
II (A) (1) (b) FWC Dive Assessment Fish Survey Data<br />
Typically during an FWC <strong>reef</strong> assessment dive one diver of <strong>the</strong> buddy pair will<br />
concentrate on <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> census collection while <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r diver focuses on <strong>the</strong><br />
permanent recording of <strong>the</strong> dive with ei<strong>the</strong>r video or still photography. When more<br />
than one set of <strong>fish</strong> census data was collected on a dive <strong>the</strong> data was pooled. The<br />
FWC scientific divers frequently utilize <strong>the</strong> Roving Diver method of <strong>fish</strong> census.<br />
The Roving Diver method best accommodates assessment dives that are usually<br />
single dives on a particular <strong>reef</strong> on any given day and multi-objective in nature.<br />
43 | Page
The Roving Diver <strong>fish</strong> census method (Schmitt and Sullivan, 1996) involves<br />
individual divers freely swimming around a <strong>reef</strong> structure limited only by safe<br />
bottom times and depths; recording <strong>fish</strong> species observed on pre-printed and<br />
standardized water proof paper (Appendix 2). For each species positively identified,<br />
a relative abundance level is assigned based on <strong>the</strong> estimated number of individuals<br />
of that species observed. The four relative abundance levels are: 1) ‘S’ is single- one<br />
individual observed; 2) ‘F’ or Few, for 2 to 10 individuals; 3) ‘M’ for many, from 11 to<br />
100 individuals; and 4) ‘A’ for Abundant- more than 100 individuals of that species<br />
observed. This method allows <strong>the</strong> divers to freely roam all areas of <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> (within<br />
safe diving standards) and cover <strong>the</strong> greatest area of <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> to be observed.<br />
Compared to o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>fish</strong> census methods conducted on large structures or across<br />
large areas, this method usually results in a higher species list per survey than<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r methods. However, no total abundance or size estimates are generated, so<br />
biomass per unit <strong>reef</strong> area calculations cannot be performed with <strong>the</strong>se data.<br />
Visual assessment dives were completed on <strong>the</strong> following dates: August 3, 2006, two<br />
dives (Dive #1-16 <strong>fish</strong> species observed and Dive #2- 22 <strong>fish</strong> species recorded),<br />
September 28, 2006 -27 <strong>fish</strong> species noted;, June 23, 2007, two dives (Dive #1-<br />
33<strong>fish</strong> species and Dive #2-38 species observed; October 16, 2008 (11 species) and<br />
November 19,2009 (21 <strong>fish</strong> species). Ano<strong>the</strong>r dive was completed one day after<br />
sinking, on May 18, 2006, but only three <strong>fish</strong> species were noted (round scad,<br />
seaweed blenny and pin<strong>fish</strong>) so it is not included in <strong>the</strong>se analysis. Completed field<br />
<strong>report</strong>s are available for <strong>the</strong> dives on May 18, 2006 (Horn and Mille, 2006a), August<br />
3, 2006 (Horn et al., 2006), September 28, 2006 (Horn and Mille, 2006b), June 23,<br />
2007 (Horn, 2007), and November 19, 2009 (Horn and Mille, 2009). Table 1 below<br />
summarizes <strong>the</strong> FWC Oriskany dive assessment information.<br />
Table 1. FWC dive assessments completed on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Date<br />
44 | P age<br />
Bottom<br />
Time<br />
Estimated<br />
Visibility FWC Divers Max Depth<br />
Fish<br />
Census<br />
Video<br />
Still Photo<br />
(Hi Res)<br />
Field<br />
<strong>report</strong><br />
5/18/2006 7 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 76 n/a yes yes n/a<br />
5/18/2006 36 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 135 n/a yes yes yes<br />
8/3/2006 41 90<br />
B. Horn, K.Mille,<br />
J Dodrill 136 yes yes yes n/a<br />
8/3/2006 33 90<br />
B. Horn, K.Mille,<br />
J Dodrill 100 yes yes yes yes<br />
9/28/2006 42 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 116 no yes yes n/a<br />
9/28/2006 37 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 117 yes yes yes yes<br />
6/23/2007 40 60 B. Horn 136 yes no no n/a<br />
6/23/2007 35 60 B. Horn 109 yes no no yes<br />
10/16/2008 46 50 B. Horn, K.Mille 121 yes yes yes draft<br />
11/19/2009 39 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 125 yes yes yes yes
Of <strong>the</strong>se 10 <strong>reef</strong> assessment dives, seven “Roving Diver” <strong>fish</strong> counts were conducted<br />
by FWC divers for use in this <strong>report</strong>.<br />
Table 2 (Appendix 1) lists a total of 53 species from all FWC Oriskany Reef dive<br />
surveys combined, sorted by percent (%) sighting frequency and density. The<br />
percent sighting frequency (%SF) parameter is defined in <strong>the</strong> paper “Surveying<br />
Coral Reef Fishes: A Manual for Data Collection, Processing and Interpretation of<br />
Fish Survey Information for <strong>the</strong> Tropical Northwest Atlantic (Schmitt et al.,<br />
1998). The %SF is <strong>the</strong> number of surveys in which a species (at least one<br />
individual) was observed on a dive, divided by <strong>the</strong> total number of survey dives on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany (seven), expressed in percent. Thus for each species, %SF is calculated<br />
as:<br />
%Sighting Frequency= S + F + M +A / Total number of Surveys<br />
Where S equals <strong>the</strong> total number of sightings in <strong>the</strong> Single category, F equals <strong>the</strong><br />
total number of sighing in <strong>the</strong> few category, M equals <strong>the</strong> total number of sightings<br />
in <strong>the</strong> many category, and an A equals <strong>the</strong> total number of sightings in <strong>the</strong><br />
Abundant Category. For instance, red snapper was observed on all 7 dives on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany for a 100% score, while <strong>the</strong> gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> was on seen on only one dive<br />
for a 14.29% sighting frequency score. This is an index of how common a species is<br />
on <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>, not how abundant a species is on <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>.<br />
Table 3 (Appendix 1) lists <strong>the</strong>se same 53 species but sorted by density. Density is<br />
defined as a measure of how many individuals of a particular species were observed<br />
when <strong>the</strong> species was present on a survey dive. It is calculated as:<br />
Density = (S*1) + (F*2) + (M*3) + (A*4) / # of surveys in which species was<br />
observed<br />
Density is a measure of relative abundance. For each species present this method<br />
measures approximately how many individuals of <strong>the</strong> species were observed on a<br />
relative scale of from 1 to 4. For <strong>the</strong> seven Oriskany <strong>fish</strong> surveys, <strong>the</strong> blue runner<br />
had <strong>the</strong> highest density of individuals but was only seen on three of <strong>the</strong> seven dives.<br />
Vermilion snapper was second on this density list with a score of 3.57 and red<br />
snapper was fourth with a score of 3.00, however, both of <strong>the</strong>se species were<br />
observed on 100% (7 of 7) of <strong>the</strong> dives.<br />
There were only five species of <strong>fish</strong> caught on <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> trips by hook-and-line<br />
or in <strong>the</strong> chevron traps that were not observed in water by <strong>the</strong> FWC divers. They<br />
were a little tunny, a red grouper, a snowy grouper (juvenile), six whitebone porgies<br />
45 | P age
all taken by hook and line. Also, an unidentified species of hake (Urophyces sp.)<br />
was caught in a chevron trap during sample round #1. The little tunny would have<br />
been a transient pelagic and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r four species would typically have been on or<br />
near <strong>the</strong> seafloor and beyond operational observational depth limits of <strong>the</strong> FWC<br />
divers.<br />
There have been several technical divers not affiliated with FWC who have <strong>report</strong>ed<br />
additional species from areas of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. These specimens were<br />
documented at depths greater than 140 feet that are not accessible to FWC because<br />
<strong>the</strong> depths exceeded FWC dive standard depth limitations. These areas were from<br />
below <strong>the</strong> flight deck (below 140 feet) and in interior overhead environments.<br />
Additional <strong>fish</strong> species observed were: Goliath grouper (Stanton, personal<br />
communication, 2007), two spot cardinal <strong>fish</strong>, several unidentified carcharhinid<br />
sharks, and a speckled hind (Bartel, personal communication, 2008).<br />
II (A) (2) Nearby Site #1 Site Assessment<br />
On November 19, 2009, FWC divers conducted a dive assessment on both <strong>the</strong><br />
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1 Reef (aged 2.92 years) and <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
(aged 3.51 years). Table 4 (Appendix I) lists <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species observed on <strong>the</strong><br />
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1, a <strong>reef</strong> sampled for 61 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> specimens for <strong>PCB</strong><br />
analysis during <strong>sampling</strong> rounds #3 (February 2008) and #4 (April 2008) and which<br />
served as an artificial <strong>reef</strong> reference site for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef monitoring project.<br />
Located in 84-85 feet of water, <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> is located approximately 8.2 nautical miles<br />
at bearing of 290° NW from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. The Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge<br />
#1 Reef was deployed from January 19, 2006 to December 18, 2006 and consisted of<br />
17 loads and a total of 8,140 tons of concrete pilings, decking, and railings from a<br />
damaged highway bridge (US-98) formerly spanning Pensacola Bay from Pensacola<br />
to <strong>the</strong> City of Gulf Breeze. This <strong>reef</strong> covers about 2 acres of bottom and has a<br />
maximum vertical relief of 16 feet.<br />
Of <strong>the</strong> 28 species observed by FWC divers during <strong>the</strong> assessment of <strong>the</strong> bridge <strong>reef</strong>,<br />
12 species were not observed on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef on that day. However, only two<br />
of those 12 species would be considered target species for anglers, <strong>the</strong> red grouper<br />
and lane snapper. A red grouper was eventually caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
during sample round #8, however has not yet been analyzed for <strong>PCB</strong><br />
concentrations. Lane snapper, <strong>the</strong> species on <strong>the</strong> lowest priority Monitoring Work<br />
Plan targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> list were nei<strong>the</strong>r seen nor caught during <strong>the</strong> first eight<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef The difference between species observed<br />
could be expected as a result of <strong>the</strong> ability to assess <strong>the</strong> sand bottom interface at <strong>the</strong><br />
concrete <strong>reef</strong> due to <strong>the</strong> shallower 84 foot depth as opposed to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
46 | P age
assessments which were limited to <strong>the</strong> extensive vertical structure of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef island jutting high in <strong>the</strong> water column and located more than 74 feet above<br />
<strong>the</strong> seafloor. Due to its comparable age, relatively large size and surface area and<br />
proximity to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS, <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Fishing<br />
Bridge #1 Reef served as a nearby reference <strong>reef</strong> for <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> during two<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds as well as a post Tropical Storm Ida assessment dive location<br />
(Horn and Mille, 2009).<br />
II (A) (3) University of West Florida Underwater Video Fish Surveys<br />
To broaden <strong>the</strong> list of documented general <strong>fish</strong> populations in <strong>the</strong> Escambia East<br />
Large Area Reef Site (EELAARS) in <strong>the</strong> general vicinity of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef we<br />
have included <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> underwater observational information collected over a four<br />
year period (2004 to 2008) by <strong>the</strong> University of West Florida (UWF) under <strong>the</strong><br />
direction of Dr. William Patterson, III. Funded by FWC, Dr. Patterson and his<br />
team have published several papers based on <strong>the</strong> data collected on <strong>the</strong>se <strong>reef</strong>s<br />
(Patterson 2008) and (Patterson 2009). Located 9.6 nautical miles west northwest<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>s monitored by Dr. Patterson are small concrete or<br />
concrete and steel module <strong>reef</strong>s placed inside <strong>the</strong> EELAARS in 2003. Dr.<br />
Patterson’s team has been monitoring 27 of <strong>the</strong>se patch <strong>reef</strong>s between depths of 102<br />
to 115 feet of water near <strong>the</strong> western center of <strong>the</strong> EELAARS site. These 27 patch<br />
<strong>reef</strong>s are one of three different types of structures: 1) A single “Walter Florida<br />
Special” unit consisting of steel lattice panels connected to a concrete tetrahedron<br />
frame about ten feet on a side 2) a pair of hollow four sided concrete pyramid<br />
shaped “Fish Haven” units with a smaller Fish Haven inserted inside of each and 3)<br />
a pair of igloo shaped hollow concrete “Goliath Reef Balls” whose exterior surface is<br />
penetrated by multiple holes from 6-10 inches in diameter.<br />
When deployed by <strong>the</strong> FWC in 2003 <strong>the</strong>se <strong>reef</strong> locations were not advertised to <strong>the</strong><br />
public in order to allow researchers to determine if <strong>the</strong>se <strong>reef</strong>s could serve as refugia<br />
<strong>reef</strong>s receiving lesser <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure, even though <strong>the</strong>y were placed in an area not<br />
closed to recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing. While <strong>the</strong> locations were unpublished, small, widely<br />
scattered <strong>the</strong>y were still subject to direct public <strong>fish</strong>ing if discovered by anglers.<br />
Nine formerly unpublished refugia <strong>reef</strong> locations were eventually advertised to <strong>the</strong><br />
public for <strong>fish</strong>ing in 2007 and evaluated for impacts of directed recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
that could be compared with pre-publication observations and with <strong>the</strong> remaining<br />
unpublished <strong>reef</strong> sites.<br />
Dr. Patterson’s team utilized a Remote Operating Vehicle (ROV) with video camera<br />
capabilities to conduct a standardized point census <strong>fish</strong> assessment of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>reef</strong>s<br />
quarterly for 4 years and conducted a total of 432 ROV point count surveys on <strong>the</strong>se<br />
47 | P age
eefs from fall of 1004 to summer of 2008. The point census methodology utilizes a<br />
fixed time and area approach that allows both total counts of <strong>the</strong> species present<br />
along with sizes estimates, using dual laser pointers set a fixed distance apart on<br />
<strong>the</strong> camera. From <strong>the</strong> video analysis it was possible to get both species abundance,<br />
size estimate for each species and biomass data. These data are taken from Table<br />
#4, on pages 25-26 in Patterson (2009).<br />
Table 5 and Table 6 (Appendix 1) list <strong>the</strong> 98 species of <strong>fish</strong> documented by <strong>the</strong><br />
University of West Florida’s team for <strong>the</strong> four year period of <strong>the</strong> FWC funded<br />
EELLAARS refugia <strong>reef</strong> module evaluation project (Patterson 2009).<br />
Table 5 (Appendix 1) presents <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species observed by Patterson sorted by<br />
percent number (<strong>the</strong> taxa-specific percentage of total individuals observed among<br />
all <strong>sampling</strong> events). Numerical ranking of individual species is only capable<br />
through <strong>the</strong> first 61 species listed since <strong>the</strong> biomass for <strong>the</strong> remainder of <strong>the</strong> last 37<br />
species all had percent biomass values of
not considered target species for anglers, with <strong>the</strong> exception of lane snapper which<br />
was ranked 17th in biomass percent. Lane snapper are targeted by anglers and this<br />
species was a <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> possibility. However no lane snapper were collected<br />
and none were observed during our sample rounds 1-8 on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
In addition to <strong>the</strong>se two <strong>fish</strong> survey data sets, <strong>the</strong> Reef Environmental Education<br />
Foundation’s (REEF) <strong>fish</strong> census database was queried for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef,<br />
REEF Geographic code 21010060 (REEF 2011). There were no expert rated<br />
observer <strong>fish</strong> census <strong>report</strong>s to REEF for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from <strong>the</strong> time of its May<br />
17, 2006 creation through March 16, 2011. Reports submitted to REEF from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef were by individuals rated as novice <strong>fish</strong> identification observers and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir results were not used in this paper. Perhaps in <strong>the</strong> future, through outreach<br />
and education with <strong>the</strong> local dive shops, recreational diver awareness and <strong>fish</strong><br />
identification could be improved for submittal of volunteer <strong>fish</strong> census <strong>report</strong>s to<br />
REEF for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
II (A) (3) (a) Comparison of <strong>the</strong> FWC and UWF Fish Census Data Sets<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> two data sets, <strong>the</strong> FWC scuba Roving Diver census data and <strong>the</strong> UWF<br />
Point Census by ROV data are not directly comparable due to different visual<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> methods, each data set can be sorted for selected parameters and a basic<br />
numerical rank can be assigned for each species based on that species’ contribution<br />
to <strong>the</strong> entire species lists. Table 7 lists <strong>the</strong> numerical rank for all nine species<br />
sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s for each of <strong>the</strong> 4 parameters of <strong>the</strong> two sets of <strong>fish</strong> survey data<br />
For instance, gag grouper has a rank of #4 for Percent Biomass from <strong>the</strong> UWF data<br />
(due to a few large sized individuals), however it only has a rank #15 on <strong>the</strong> FWC<br />
%sighting frequency list, due to it being observed on fewer surveys on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef.<br />
From a review of Table 7 below, it is clear that <strong>the</strong> first two species, red snapper<br />
and vermilion snapper, are <strong>the</strong> most common and abundant of <strong>the</strong>se target species<br />
sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> region. Both species are listed in <strong>the</strong> top five rankings<br />
across all four lists as indicated in Table 7 below. Ano<strong>the</strong>r consistent observation<br />
between <strong>the</strong> two surveys is that <strong>the</strong> whitebone porgy is not a very common or<br />
abundant species observed in <strong>the</strong> region. Whitebone porgy was not observed on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany surveys and only observed at less than 0.01% of <strong>the</strong> surveys on <strong>the</strong> UWF<br />
modules. There are no obvious trends for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r six species of <strong>fish</strong> that have been<br />
sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s during this project regarding abundance or density parameters.<br />
49 | P age
Table 7. Comparison of <strong>the</strong> ranking of <strong>the</strong> nine <strong>fish</strong> species targeted for <strong>PCB</strong><br />
<strong>sampling</strong> observed during <strong>the</strong> FWC and UWF visual <strong>fish</strong> census surveys.<br />
Common Name<br />
Scientific Name<br />
% Sightings<br />
Frequency (FWC-53<br />
species total)<br />
%No.<br />
(UWF-98<br />
species total)<br />
Density<br />
(FWC-53 species<br />
total)<br />
% Biomass<br />
(UWF-98 species<br />
total)<br />
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus #2 #1 #4 #1 256<br />
vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens #1 #5 #2 #5 53<br />
red porgy Pagrus pagrus #30 #14 #8 #16 16<br />
>#61<br />
whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus not observed >#61* not observed ** 6<br />
gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis #15 #18 #38 #4 4<br />
scamp Mycteroperca phenax #6 #23 #14 #15 4<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> Balistes capriscus #44 #9 #33 #3 3<br />
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus #23 #11 #7 #6 1<br />
red grouper Epinephelus morio not observed #24 not observed #10 1<br />
No. of<br />
samples<br />
* tied with 36<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r species at<br />
have had any PAH levels approaching human health screening levels to date. <strong>PCB</strong>s<br />
were not considered a concern since <strong>the</strong>y were not a chemical compound in oil<br />
coming up from 18,000 feet below <strong>the</strong> seafloor and released from <strong>the</strong> leaking wellhead.<br />
Consequently seafood has not been tested for <strong>PCB</strong>s during this ongoing post<br />
oil spill seafood safety <strong>sampling</strong> and testing effort.<br />
II (B) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project - overview<br />
During Sampling Round #5 (April 2009) at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany <strong>reef</strong>, <strong>the</strong> FWC staff<br />
conducted a pilot tagging program resulting in a one day mid-morning to late<br />
afternoon tagging and release of 199 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>. This effort took advantage of<br />
technical assistance from <strong>the</strong> University of West Florida (UWF) Department of<br />
Biology personnel since <strong>the</strong>y were already managing an existing FWC funded tag<br />
and recapture study of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> tagged at concrete artificial <strong>reef</strong> modules within <strong>the</strong><br />
EELAARS (Patterson, 2009). Fish not retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis during Sampling<br />
Round #5 were tagged and released. During <strong>the</strong> four previous Sampling Rounds #1-<br />
4, <strong>fish</strong> that were not kept for analysis (e.g., undersized <strong>fish</strong> or non-target species)<br />
were measured and released without being tagged. No additional tagging was<br />
conducted during Sampling Rounds #6-8.<br />
The purpose of this pilot project was to confirm that recreational hook-and-line<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ers were targeting <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and that recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers<br />
were landing <strong>the</strong> primary species being analyzed for <strong>PCB</strong>s. A secondary interest<br />
was to estimate <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure, exerted particularly during <strong>the</strong> red snapper<br />
season, and to get some sense of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> site fidelity on <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> particularly for <strong>the</strong><br />
primarily target red snapper and <strong>the</strong> second most commonly caught <strong>fish</strong>, vermilion<br />
snapper. One hundred ninety-nine <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> were tagged and released. This project<br />
is described and discussed, below.<br />
II (B) (1) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project- Methods<br />
The methods described by Patterson et al. (2009) were used during this tag and<br />
release study. The exception was that on this trip, hook-and-line <strong>fish</strong>ing was<br />
conducted using two-hook non-offset circle hook bottom rigs as required by<br />
regulation as opposed to J-hooks used by <strong>the</strong> University of West Florida in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
collection efforts. Squid and cut <strong>fish</strong> were utilized for bait. Fish were brought to<br />
<strong>the</strong> surface at an approximate rate of 1 meter per second. Fish were removed from<br />
<strong>the</strong> hooks with <strong>the</strong> required de-hooking device and placed in large (approximately<br />
500 gallon) bait well with flowing seawater prior to tagging. Fork length (FL) and<br />
51 | P age
total length (TL) measurements were taken and <strong>fish</strong> were tagged with Floy 95M<br />
internal anchor tags, and returned overboard. Fish were vented if <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
visible signs of barotraumas.<br />
The 80 mm long orange “spaghetti” strand external portion of each tag was marked<br />
with “UWF” (University of West Florida) followed by <strong>the</strong> number identifying <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong>. Also on <strong>the</strong> external portion of <strong>the</strong> tag was printed “Reward, UWF Reef Fish,<br />
Toll Free 1-877-347-4824” to <strong>report</strong> tag recoveries. The green 5 mm wide x 16 mm<br />
long elliptical hard plastic internal anchor portion of <strong>the</strong> tag had printed on one side<br />
“TOLL FREE 1-877-347-4824” and on <strong>the</strong> opposite side REWARD UWF followed by<br />
<strong>the</strong> tag number. The tagging study was widely advertised by UWF among<br />
recreational and commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing groups to encourage <strong>report</strong>ing of tag recoveries.<br />
Fishermen who <strong>report</strong>ed tags received a $5 reward per tag and were entered into a<br />
$500 annual drawing of all tag returners.<br />
Tagged <strong>fish</strong> were observed following <strong>the</strong>ir release to determine <strong>the</strong>ir approximate<br />
release condition (condition 1-4). Condition 1 was assigned to <strong>fish</strong> that immediately<br />
swam vigorously beneath <strong>the</strong> surface towards <strong>the</strong> bottom, release condition 2 was<br />
assigned to <strong>fish</strong> that oriented toward <strong>the</strong> bottom but swam erratically, condition 3<br />
was assigned to <strong>fish</strong> that swam very erratically but remained at <strong>the</strong> surface, and<br />
condition 4 was assigned to <strong>fish</strong> that were unresponsive at <strong>the</strong> surface and were<br />
presumed dead or near death.<br />
II (B) (2) Pilot Tagging Project - Results<br />
A total of 199 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef were tagged and released on April<br />
21, 2009 (Table 8). Red snapper (n=113) represented <strong>the</strong> highest percentage<br />
(56.8%) of <strong>the</strong> 199 total <strong>fish</strong> tagged, followed by vermilion snapper (n=69, 34.7%),<br />
greater amberjack (n=7, 3.5%), red porgy (n=7, 3.5%), scamp (n=2, 1%), and gag<br />
(n=1, 0.5%).<br />
Of <strong>the</strong> 113 tagged red snapper, 82 (72.6%) were released in condition 1, fourteen<br />
(12.4%) were initially released in condition 2, ten (8.8%) were released in condition<br />
3, and seven (6.2%) were released in condition 4. Of <strong>the</strong> 14 recaptured red snapper,<br />
nine (64.3%) were released in condition 1, three (21.4%) were released in condition<br />
2, none were recovered in release condition 3, and two (14.2%) were released in<br />
condition 4.<br />
Twelve of <strong>the</strong> fourteen red snapper recaptured (85.7%) were recaptured at <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef (Table 8a). The two red snapper not recaptured at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
consisted of one recapture at <strong>the</strong> ‘Antares Reef’ located 6.8 nm southwest of <strong>the</strong><br />
52 | P age
Oriskany, and one recapture at a ‘private <strong>reef</strong>’ <strong>report</strong>ed at coordinates located 800<br />
feet sou<strong>the</strong>ast of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany. The Antares Reef is a 387 ft. steel coastal freighter<br />
deployed on September 27, 1995 at a depth of 130 ft. The Antares’s hull was broken<br />
into three pieces by Hurricane Opal several weeks after deployment. The<br />
composition of <strong>the</strong> private <strong>reef</strong> was not described when <strong>the</strong> recapture was <strong>report</strong>ed.<br />
Table 8a lists <strong>the</strong> recaptures in order of recapture date. Of <strong>the</strong> seventeen<br />
recaptures <strong>report</strong>ed between <strong>the</strong> period of April 21 through March 28, 2011,<br />
fourteen (82.4%) of those recaptures occurred within <strong>the</strong> first 20 days of <strong>the</strong> opening<br />
of <strong>the</strong> 2009 recreational red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing season (June 1, 2009 through August<br />
14, 2009 (75 day duration)).<br />
Red snapper length measured at recapture, as <strong>report</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> public and as<br />
<strong>report</strong>ed by FWC (Table 8a), was compared to <strong>the</strong> red snapper length expected at<br />
recapture. Red snapper expected length at recapture was determined by<br />
multiplying <strong>the</strong> number of days at liberty by a growth rate of 0.2577 mm/day (mean<br />
Red snapper growth rate <strong>report</strong>ed by Strelcheck 1998) and adding <strong>the</strong> length at<br />
release. Comparing <strong>the</strong> red snapper length measured by <strong>the</strong> public at recapture to<br />
<strong>the</strong> length expected at recapture (n=14) showed that 29% measured as expected<br />
(i.e., within <strong>the</strong> range expected using <strong>the</strong> Strelcheck 1998 red snapper growth rate),<br />
50% measured less than expected, 14% measured greater than expected, and 7%<br />
were un<strong>report</strong>ed. The single red snapper measured by FWC at recapture (n=1)<br />
measured as expected.<br />
II (B) (3) Pilot Tagging Project – Discussion<br />
The results of this preliminary tag and recapture study at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
documented a <strong>report</strong>ed recapture rate of 8.5% across all species and a recapture<br />
rate of 12.4% for red snapper. The 12.4% red snapper recapture rate of this study is<br />
greater than <strong>the</strong> 7.8% red snapper recapture rate <strong>report</strong>ed by Patterson et al. (2009)<br />
at o<strong>the</strong>r artificial <strong>reef</strong> locations within <strong>the</strong> same region.<br />
Release mortality might be expected to be fur<strong>the</strong>r improved in future studies<br />
provided volunteer <strong>fish</strong>ermen and <strong>the</strong> charter boat crew were to take additional<br />
precautions to increase survival rate such as slowed rate of ascent during <strong>fish</strong><br />
retrieval via hook & line, improved handling techniques, additional tagging<br />
manpower to keep up with <strong>the</strong> rate at which <strong>fish</strong> were boated, more efficient<br />
venting, and limiting <strong>fish</strong>ing to <strong>the</strong> shallower depths of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany (flight deck or<br />
shallower). The depth of water at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany artificial <strong>reef</strong> site was likely <strong>the</strong><br />
most adverse factor influencing release survivorship during this <strong>sampling</strong> trip (212<br />
feet to <strong>the</strong> sand, 147 feet to <strong>the</strong> flight deck, and 78 feet to <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> island<br />
53 | Page
superstructure). Due to <strong>the</strong> variable depth of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef structure, it is not<br />
known <strong>the</strong> depth of water that each <strong>fish</strong>erman was <strong>fish</strong>ing, although it is likely <strong>the</strong><br />
majority of <strong>fish</strong> (especially red snapper) were caught between <strong>the</strong> depths of<br />
approximately 140 and 200 feet.<br />
Reported total length measurements to <strong>the</strong> nearest inch (25.4 mm) of snappers recaptured<br />
by recreational <strong>fish</strong>ermen during <strong>the</strong> first 41-60 days post release did not<br />
present <strong>the</strong> degree of precision necessary to effectively capture any useful<br />
incremental size changes in total length during that time at large. There were five<br />
<strong>report</strong>s of snappers caught shorter than when released and six <strong>report</strong>s of snappers<br />
caught longer than when initially released. One lone red snapper recaptured<br />
during that time frame was <strong>report</strong>ed as measured to <strong>the</strong> nearest quarter inch (6.3<br />
mm). The value reflected a 4 mm increase in total length, a value less than <strong>the</strong> 6.3<br />
mm (quarter inch) precision level used. The two recaptured red snapper measured<br />
to <strong>the</strong> nearest half inch, showed extreme variability. One red snapper measured to<br />
<strong>the</strong> nearest half inch reflected a .55 inch (14 mm) total length increase. Ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>fish</strong><br />
measured to <strong>the</strong> nearest half inch showed a .63 inch (16 mm) decline in total<br />
length.<br />
The single red snapper, caught, tagged, measured and released by a researcher at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, recaptured at <strong>the</strong> same location 211 days later and also<br />
measured by a researcher reflected <strong>the</strong> most accurate total length change. The <strong>fish</strong>’s<br />
fork length and total length (tail pinched closed) were measured both times to <strong>the</strong><br />
nearest mm on a <strong>fish</strong> measuring board. The red snapper grew from 535 mm TL to<br />
593mm TL, a positive change of 58 mm (2.28 inches). This was an average daily<br />
incremental total length growth increase of .27 mm/day, which is generally<br />
consistent with <strong>the</strong> growth rate findings <strong>report</strong>ed by Strelcheck 1998 (0.2577<br />
mm/day). The observed growth rate of recaptured red snapper at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
suggests that those red snapper remaining any length of time on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany were<br />
increasing in size as a result of feeding activities taking place at or near <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef. More detailed review of red snapper growth rates can be found in<br />
Patterson et al 2001, Szedlmayer and Ship 1994, and Wilson and Nieland 2001.<br />
The most important aspect of this study as it relates to <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> analysis is <strong>the</strong> site<br />
fidelity of red snapper and high level of recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure early in <strong>the</strong><br />
red snapper season. During this study, red snapper were documented to have a<br />
high short-term site fidelity rate (83%, i.e., ten of <strong>the</strong> twelve red snapper<br />
recaptures) within <strong>the</strong> initial seven month period after release. All but three red<br />
snapper tag returns from Oriskany Reef tagged <strong>fish</strong> were from <strong>fish</strong> caught within<br />
<strong>the</strong> first twenty days of <strong>the</strong> 75 day 2009 red snapper season (June 1 through August<br />
14, 2009). Both vermilion snapper returns also occurred during <strong>the</strong> first 20 days of<br />
54 | P age
ed snapper season commencement. The single greater amberjack tag return at <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany occurred two days before <strong>the</strong> opening of <strong>the</strong> red snapper season<br />
Site fidelity and survival of recreationally targeted <strong>fish</strong> species at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
may have some influence on <strong>the</strong> period of exposure of <strong>fish</strong> to <strong>the</strong> presence of<br />
polychlorinated biphenyls (<strong>PCB</strong>s). However, potential long term <strong>PCB</strong> exposure of<br />
<strong>fish</strong> at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef due to high site fidelity at least at <strong>the</strong> level of weeks or<br />
months may be offset by high <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality where recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> immigrating to <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> are removed by <strong>fish</strong>ing and/or do not survive long<br />
enough to experience long term <strong>PCB</strong> exposure.<br />
The two vermilion snapper caught out of 69 vermilion snapper tagged reflects a low<br />
2.8% tag return rate. O<strong>the</strong>r tagging studies have indicated similarly low recovery<br />
rates in contrast to red snapper and suggested that vermilion snapper, a species,<br />
normally feeding and moving up in <strong>the</strong> water column, does not fare as well on <strong>the</strong><br />
bottom as red snapper while waiting for a ruptured swim bladder to heal. As a<br />
result vermilion snapper may be subject to greater mortality from predators and<br />
difficulty feeding as a zooplanktivore.<br />
The one greater amberjack tag return also suggests at least some short term (days,<br />
a few weeks) site specific <strong>reef</strong> presence, though <strong>the</strong> species is generally considered a<br />
seasonal <strong>reef</strong> transient. Review of greater amberjack tag and recapture data from<br />
1959-1995 (13,856 tagged <strong>fish</strong>) found that 92.7% of Gulf of Mexico greater<br />
amberjack traveled less than 100 miles, with a maximum movement of up to 3,600<br />
nm <strong>report</strong>ed (McClellen and Cummings, 1997).<br />
55 | P age
Table 8. List of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species tagged (n=199) at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Artificial Reef on<br />
April 21, 2009, and recaptured through March 28, 2011. Lengths are total length for<br />
all species except Greater Amberjack, for which fork length is <strong>report</strong>ed. SD =<br />
standard deviation.<br />
Species<br />
Common<br />
name<br />
Number<br />
Tagged<br />
Mean length<br />
at Tagging<br />
(SD)<br />
Reported<br />
recaptures (%<br />
of total<br />
tagged)<br />
Recaptures at<br />
Oriskany Reef<br />
Mean days<br />
free among all<br />
recaptures<br />
(SD)<br />
Lutjanus<br />
campechanus<br />
Rhomboplites<br />
aurorubens<br />
Seriola<br />
dumerili<br />
Red<br />
Snapper<br />
Vermilion<br />
Snapper<br />
Greater<br />
Amberjack<br />
113 467.1 (61.4) 14 (12.4%) 12 (85.7%) 111.1 (139.1)<br />
69 412.4 (38.6) 2 (2.8%) 2 (100%) 50.5 (13.4)<br />
7 719.9 (45.7) 1 (14.2%) 1 (100%) 38 (na)<br />
Pagrus pagrus Red Porgy 7 386.4 (26.6) 0 0 na<br />
Mycteroperca<br />
phenax<br />
Mycteroperca<br />
microlepis<br />
Scamp 2 390 (28.3) 0 0 na<br />
Gag 1 544 (na) 0 0 na<br />
Total 199 17 (8.5%) 13 (86.67%) 99.6 (128.9)<br />
56 | P age
Table 8a. List of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species recaptured through March 28, 2011 (in order of recapture date).<br />
Species<br />
Date Tagged<br />
Date<br />
Recaptured<br />
Recap<br />
by<br />
Time<br />
Free<br />
(days)<br />
Rel<br />
Cond<br />
(1-4)<br />
Length<br />
Tagged,<br />
FL (mm)<br />
Length<br />
Tagged,<br />
TL (mm)<br />
Length<br />
Recap.<br />
(inches)<br />
Length<br />
Recap.<br />
(mm)<br />
Red<br />
Snapper<br />
Length<br />
(TL)<br />
Expected<br />
(.2577<br />
mm/day)<br />
Red Snapper<br />
Length<br />
Discrepancy<br />
(Recaptured -<br />
Expected) (mm)<br />
Length<br />
Discrep.<br />
Recapture<br />
Location<br />
AJ 4/21/2009 5/29/2009 Public 38 1 732 848 unknown unknown n/a n/a n/a Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/1/2009 Public 41 1 429 464 21 533 474.48 58.5 greater than Antares <strong>reef</strong> 6.8 nm 251 deg<br />
VS 4/21/2009 6/1/2009 Public 41 1 495 545 unknown unknown n/a n/a n/a Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/7/2009 Public 47 2 473 511 19.5 495 523.02 -28.0 less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/7/2009 Public 47 1 409 441 17.25 445 453.02 -8.0 as expected Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/10/2009 Public 50 1 535 578 21 533 590.79 -57.8 less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/11/2009 Public 51 2 496 538 unknown unknown 551.04 unknown unknown private <strong>reef</strong><br />
0.132<br />
nm 78 deg<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/12/2009 Public 52 1 390 427 17 432 440.3 -8.3 as expected Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/14/2009 Public 54 4 399 430 18 457 443.81 13.2 greater than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/15/2009 Public 55 1 458 492 18-19 457 506.06 (-20.3 thru -46.3) less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/15/2009 Public 55 1 510 545 18-19 457 559.06 (-73.3 thru -99.3) less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/15/2009 Public 55 1 455 495 19 483 509.06 -26.1 less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 6/20/2009 Public 60 4 465 507 20.5 521 522.34 -1.3 as expected Oriskany 0 0<br />
VS 4/21/2009 6/20/2009 Public 60 1 411 463 18 458 n/a n/a n/a Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 11/18/2009 FWC 211 1 493 535 n/a<br />
593 mm<br />
TL; 559<br />
mm FL 588.95 4.0 as expected Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 12/10/2009 Public 233 2 630 680 28-30 737 690 -107 less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
RS 4/21/2009 10/17/2010 Public 544 1 499 539 27.5 699 639 -60 less than Oriskany 0 0<br />
Dist<br />
Bearing<br />
57 | P age
II (C). Overview of <strong>the</strong> First Eight Rounds of Oriskany Reef Sampling and Two Rounds of<br />
Nearby Reef Site Sampling.<br />
From December 14, 2006 to November 18, 2010, FWC and ECMRD personnel made<br />
eight offshore <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> trips to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. FWC generated<br />
individual field <strong>report</strong>s documenting <strong>the</strong> activities and outcome of each of <strong>the</strong> first<br />
eight field <strong>sampling</strong> rounds including <strong>the</strong> two control <strong>reef</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> efforts. These<br />
<strong>report</strong>s are available upon request but are not included with this status <strong>report</strong>. A<br />
Sampling Round summary for events 1-8 appears as Table 10.<br />
Table 10. List of <strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> platform, gear, location(s), and number of <strong>fish</strong><br />
retained for each <strong>sampling</strong> date.<br />
Sampling<br />
Date<br />
Days After<br />
Oriskany Reef<br />
Deployment<br />
Sampling<br />
Platform<br />
Sampling<br />
Gear<br />
Sampling<br />
Location(s)<br />
No. Fish<br />
Retained<br />
1 12/14/2006 Day 211 F/V Margie Ann<br />
Chevron Trap<br />
Hook and Line<br />
Oriskany Reef 30<br />
2 4/12/2007 Day 330 M/V JJ Brown<br />
Chevron Trap<br />
Hook and Line<br />
Oriskany Reef 29<br />
Oriskany Reef 31<br />
3 2/3/2008 Day 627 F/V Chulamar Hook and Line<br />
Control Reef<br />
(PBFB Reef #1)<br />
30<br />
Oriskany Reef 30<br />
4 4/29/2008 Day 713 F/V Chulamar Hook and Line<br />
Control Reef<br />
(PBFB Reef #1)<br />
31<br />
5 4/21/2009 Day 1070 F/V Entertainer Hook and Line Oriskany Reef 30<br />
6 11/18/2009 Day 1281 F/V Entertainer Hook and Line Oriskany Reef 30<br />
7 04/27/2010 Day 1441 F/V Entertainer Hook and Line Oriskany Reef 35<br />
8 11/18/2010 Day 1646 F/V Entertainer Hook and Line Oriskany Reef 39<br />
Harvested <strong>fish</strong> from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef were retained for analysis during <strong>the</strong> course<br />
of each of <strong>the</strong> eight one day daylight <strong>sampling</strong> efforts from a low of 29 to a high of 39<br />
legal size recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species for a total of 315 specimens<br />
through November, 18, 2011. In addition to <strong>the</strong> 199 <strong>fish</strong> tagged and released at <strong>the</strong><br />
58 | P age
Oriskany Reef during Sampling Round #5 (April 21, 2009), an additional 128 <strong>fish</strong><br />
were discarded over <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> first 8 <strong>sampling</strong> events (Table 9, Appendix 1).<br />
The discards included sublegal target species, non target <strong>fish</strong> species, predator<br />
damaged specimens, species caught immediately after <strong>the</strong> trip quota was reached,<br />
or in <strong>the</strong> case of Sampling Round #8 (November 2010), specimens caught and<br />
released while trying to reach <strong>the</strong> minimum 15 legal size red snapper quota (only 13<br />
red snapper specimens secured) while not exceeding <strong>the</strong> expanded target quota of<br />
39 specimens to be retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis.<br />
Figure 7. Species composition of <strong>fish</strong> samples retained from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from<br />
Sampling Rounds 1-8.<br />
These eight <strong>sampling</strong> rounds resulted in a total of 315 legal size or “keeper” (where<br />
no minimum size limit is established, e.g. red porgy in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico) <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
caught and retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis. Of <strong>the</strong> 315 <strong>fish</strong> retained, 254 <strong>fish</strong> were from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, and 61 <strong>fish</strong> were from <strong>the</strong> nearby Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge<br />
59 | P age
Reef. The 254 retained targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> from Sampling Rounds #1-8 from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef included: 184 (73%) red snapper, 42 (17%) vermilion snapper, 14<br />
(5%) red porgy, 6 (2%) whitebone porgy, 4 (2%) scamp grouper, 2 (1%) gray<br />
trigger<strong>fish</strong>, and 1 (0.4%) red grouper (Figure 7). Figure 7a – 7h provides <strong>the</strong> species<br />
composition by sample date.<br />
One <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> unknown faced was that <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef was initially sampled<br />
as a relatively new artificial <strong>reef</strong> (seven months post-deployment). The rate of<br />
invertebrate species colonization, <strong>fish</strong> recruitment and changes in <strong>reef</strong> community<br />
structure over time and with seasons, <strong>sampling</strong> gear bias and <strong>the</strong> behavior of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves affected <strong>the</strong> availability to capture of certain target species. Some<br />
<strong>fish</strong> like gray snapper tend to be more hesitant to enter a trap (are “trap shy”) or<br />
less aggressive in taking a baited hook than red snapper.<br />
The above factors combined with <strong>the</strong> challenge of <strong>fish</strong>ing a very large submerged<br />
structure with considerable gear hang potential created a situation that could not<br />
be predicted with certainty what <strong>the</strong> exact catch composition of <strong>the</strong> first 30 legal<br />
size <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> landed was going to be on any given <strong>sampling</strong> trip. As a result, over<br />
<strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> project <strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> round catch composition was variable and<br />
somewhat unpredictable, as illustrated in figure 7a-7h.<br />
60 | P age
Species Composition of Oriskany Samples by Sample Date<br />
(Rounds 1-8)<br />
a. Sample Date 12/14/2006 b. Sample Date 4/12/2007<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N = 30<br />
100%<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N = 21<br />
72%<br />
Vermilion<br />
Snapper, N =<br />
4<br />
14%<br />
Red Porgy, N<br />
= 4<br />
14%<br />
c. Sample Date 2/3/2008 d. Sample Date 4/29/2008<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N = 31<br />
Red<br />
Snapper, N<br />
100%<br />
= 29<br />
97%<br />
Red Porgy,<br />
N = 1<br />
3%<br />
e. Sample Date 4/21/2009 f. Sample Date 11/18/2009<br />
Vermilion<br />
Snapper,<br />
N=13<br />
37%<br />
Figure 7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany samples by sample date.<br />
61 | P age<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N = 29<br />
97%<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N=15<br />
43%<br />
Scamp, N<br />
= 1<br />
3%<br />
Whitebo<br />
ne Porgy,<br />
N=4<br />
11%<br />
Red<br />
Porgy,<br />
N=3<br />
9%<br />
Vermilion<br />
Snapper, N<br />
= 11<br />
Red 37%<br />
Snapper, N<br />
= 17<br />
57%<br />
g. Sample Date 4/27/2010 h. Sample Date 11/18/2010<br />
Vermilion<br />
Snapper,<br />
N=14<br />
36%<br />
Red<br />
Snapper,<br />
N=13<br />
33%<br />
Red Porgy,<br />
N=5<br />
13%<br />
Gray<br />
Trigger<strong>fish</strong>,<br />
N = 1<br />
3%<br />
Red Porgy,<br />
N = 1<br />
3%<br />
Scamp, N=3<br />
8% Whitebone<br />
Porgy, N=2<br />
5%<br />
Gray<br />
Trigger<strong>fish</strong>,<br />
N = 1<br />
2% Red<br />
Grouper,<br />
N=1<br />
3%
During sample round four, 30 <strong>fish</strong> were retained during field operations, but a 409<br />
mm TL red snapper, Oriskany Reef sample, OR-RS-57, was accidentally discarded<br />
prior to laboratory shipment. ECMRD shipped a total of 315 whole frozen <strong>fish</strong> from<br />
<strong>the</strong>se Oriskany Reef <strong>sampling</strong> trips to Texas A and M University’s Geological and<br />
Environmental Research Group (GERG analytical lab for <strong>PCB</strong> laboratory analysis.<br />
Of <strong>the</strong>se, 61 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> specimens caught at <strong>the</strong> 8,140 ton concrete bridge rubble<br />
nearby <strong>reef</strong> #1 (Figure 3) on <strong>the</strong> same <strong>sampling</strong> day as Oriskany Reef Sampling<br />
Rounds #3 (February 2008) and #4 (April 2008) were shipped to <strong>the</strong> same lab for<br />
analysis. The <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> analyzed from <strong>the</strong> nearby <strong>reef</strong> #1 included: 45 (74%) red<br />
snapper, 8 (13%) vermilion snapper, 4 (6%) gag grouper, 4 (6%) gag grouper, 2 (2%)<br />
red porgy, 1 (2%) gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>, 1 (2%) gray snapper (Figure 8).<br />
Vermilion Snapper,<br />
N = 8<br />
13%<br />
Red Snapper, N =<br />
45<br />
74%<br />
Gag Grouper, N = 4<br />
6%<br />
Gray Snapper, N = 1<br />
2%<br />
Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong>, N<br />
= 1<br />
Red Porgy, N = 2 2%<br />
3%<br />
Figure 8. Species composition of <strong>fish</strong> samples retained from <strong>the</strong> nearby <strong>reef</strong> site from<br />
Sampling Rounds 3 and 4.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> analysis results have been processed and received for <strong>the</strong> first seven<br />
of eight <strong>sampling</strong> rounds and will be discussed below by individual target <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
species. Specimens collected through <strong>the</strong> first six <strong>sampling</strong> rounds (December 2006-<br />
November 2009) have received some preliminary basic statistical analysis. The<br />
seventh (April 2010) <strong>sampling</strong> results have been received, and are noted in this<br />
<strong>report</strong>. The Sampling Round #8 (November 18, 2010) <strong>PCB</strong> laboratory analysis<br />
results are expected to be received by FWC from <strong>the</strong> GERG laboratory by <strong>the</strong> end of<br />
May 2011. ECMRD air-freighted on dry ice <strong>the</strong> frozen 39 Sampling Round #8 whole<br />
<strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> specimens to <strong>the</strong> Texas A&M GERG analytical lab on February 1, 2011.<br />
62 | Page
The GERG lab <strong>report</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>ir receipt in good condition on February 2, 2011. On<br />
March 15, 2011 <strong>the</strong> FWC Project-co Manager contacted GERG for an estimated<br />
Sampling Round #8 <strong>PCB</strong> analysis completion date. GERG <strong>report</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong><br />
samples were in <strong>the</strong> analysis queue with results to be provided to ECMRD and<br />
FWC by May 31, 2011. Unfortunately this data won’t be available before <strong>the</strong><br />
scheduled April 2011 implementation of <strong>sampling</strong> Round #9. To minimize<br />
turnaround time between sample collection and shipment, <strong>the</strong> Project co-Managers<br />
will strive for a goal of no more than seven days between specimen <strong>sampling</strong> and<br />
shipment to <strong>the</strong> analytical lab. Historically <strong>the</strong> typical turnaround time for sample<br />
analysis results from GERG once <strong>the</strong>y receive <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> specimens for analysis has<br />
been 90-120 days.<br />
II (D) Fisheries Management and Ecological Overview of Individual Oriskany Reef Sampled<br />
Reef Fish Species and <strong>PCB</strong> Analysis Results and Discussion for Each Species.<br />
The <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species whose skin-on lateral muscle fillets were analyzed for total<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s, all 209 individual congeners, homologue <strong>PCB</strong> concentration and percent<br />
lipids are discussed by individual species beginning with <strong>the</strong> most numerous<br />
harvested and analyzed <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> first (red snapper) and continuing in descending<br />
order.<br />
We provide a brief management overview of each target species, including <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
relative importance in <strong>the</strong> recreational <strong>fish</strong>ery. We next discuss for each species life<br />
history and ecology aspects, which include life cycle, age and growth, habitat<br />
utilization, site fidelity, feeding habitats. Finally we provide <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> analysis<br />
results for each species, examine trends over <strong>the</strong> 8 Sampling Round monitoring<br />
effort, compare with baseline pre deployment results of Snyder (2007) and nearby<br />
<strong>reef</strong> site findings where relevant.<br />
63 | P age
II (D) (1) Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus (Poey, 1860)<br />
Red Snapper Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (1) (a) Red Snapper Fisheries Management Overview<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size TL,<br />
SEASON: Open June 1 to July 23 (53 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 2 <strong>fish</strong> per person per day<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size TL,<br />
SEASON: Open June 1 to (to be determined during summer 2011)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 2 <strong>fish</strong> per person per day<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: Closed to possession or harvest<br />
SEASON: Closed to possession or harvest<br />
BAG LIMIT: Closed to possession or harvest<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 20 inch minimum size TL,<br />
SEASON: Open June 1 to July 23 (53 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 2 <strong>fish</strong> per person per day<br />
II (D) (1) (b) Red Snapper Life History/Biology Overview<br />
Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) has long pectoral fins and a truncate caudal<br />
fin. The first and second dorsal fins are continuous with a slight notch in between<br />
<strong>the</strong> two and <strong>the</strong> anal fin tapers to a point posteriorly. The pectoral fins are long and<br />
reach <strong>the</strong> anus when pressed against <strong>the</strong> body. They have a large head with small<br />
red eyes and a somewhat pointed snout. The body and fins are pinkish red in color,<br />
lightening to a white underside. At a size less than 14 inches (35 cm) red snapper<br />
have a dark spot on <strong>the</strong> upper sides below <strong>the</strong> anterior soft dorsal rays – similar to a<br />
number of o<strong>the</strong>r snappers. Although <strong>the</strong>y may most closely resemble <strong>the</strong> blackfin<br />
snapper (L. bucanella), <strong>the</strong> red snapper lacks <strong>the</strong> distinctive black spot found on <strong>the</strong><br />
64 | P age
pectoral fins of <strong>the</strong> blackfin snapper. Juvenile red snapper may also exhibit bluish<br />
stripes on <strong>the</strong>ir sides (Florida Museum of Natural history, 2010).<br />
Long triangular face with upper margin sloping more strongly than <strong>the</strong> lower; jaws<br />
are equal or <strong>the</strong> lower slightly projecting; some enlarged canine teeth; tend to be<br />
redder with deeper water (NMFS, 2010).<br />
Dorsal spines (total): 10; Dorsal soft rays (total): 14; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 8<br />
- 9. Scale rows on back rising obliquely above lateral line. Specimens under 30 to 35<br />
cm with have large dark spot on <strong>the</strong> upper sides, located below <strong>the</strong> anterior soft<br />
dorsal rays (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Length and Weight<br />
Max length: 100.0 cm TL male/unsexed; common length: 60.0 cm TL male/unsexed;<br />
Max. Published weight: 22.8 kg max. Reported age: 57 years (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Although red snapper exceeding 50 years of age and approaching a meter in length<br />
and 50 pounds in weight have been documented, due to intense over<strong>fish</strong>ing<br />
spanning decades for this species, <strong>the</strong> larger and consequently older red snapper are<br />
currently poorly represented in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico population.<br />
The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) world rod-and-reel record was a<br />
50 lbs 4 oz. specimen exceeding 1016 mm TL (40 inches) adjacent to an offshore<br />
Louisiana oil platform June 23, 1996 (IGFA, 2010).<br />
Most red snapper on small artificial <strong>reef</strong>s (< 5 cubic meters) off Alabama and NW<br />
Florida are two and three year old <strong>fish</strong> (Strelcheck et al. 2005; Patterson,<br />
unpublished data). Nieland and Wilson (2003) evaluated a random sample (n=300)<br />
of red snapper killed during <strong>the</strong> explosive removal of an obsolete oil platform off<br />
Louisiana and noted <strong>the</strong> majority of red snapper were age 2 (53%) and 3 year old<br />
<strong>fish</strong> (37%) respectively with almost no (n=2) age 1 <strong>fish</strong>. Snyder et al. (2007) in presinking<br />
baseline monitoring prior to <strong>the</strong> sinking of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef noted that <strong>the</strong><br />
red snapper specimens secured by hook-and-line were 2-5 years old based on otolith<br />
aging.<br />
The young age of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> in relation to <strong>the</strong>ir potential lifespan on artificial <strong>reef</strong>s<br />
could mean two things. Patterson (2007) thought it could be that thigmotaxis<br />
(movement of an organism in response to a direct tactile stimulus) or <strong>the</strong> threat of<br />
predation subsides with age and size; thus larger, older <strong>fish</strong> display lower site<br />
fidelity and greater movement. Alternatively high <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality rates at energy<br />
platforms and artificial <strong>reef</strong>s may remove snapper very quickly from <strong>the</strong> population<br />
65 | P age
once <strong>fish</strong> recruit to <strong>the</strong> commercial and recreational <strong>fish</strong>eries (Wilson and Nieland,<br />
2001).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> absence of funding to age <strong>fish</strong> during <strong>the</strong> Oriskany <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> study based<br />
on otolith aging, we predicted that <strong>the</strong> red snapper we caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
were between 2 and 5 years of age based on von Bertalanffy growth models<br />
developed by Nieland and Wilson (2001). The largest and smallest Oriskany Reef<br />
red snapper specimens were collected from chevron <strong>fish</strong> traps during Sampling<br />
Round #1 (December 14, 2006). The two largest red snapper specimens caught to<br />
date (through Round 8) were captured in <strong>the</strong> same chevron trap and measured 808<br />
mm TL (31.8”) and 795 mm (31.2”), with <strong>the</strong> latter containing a non-corroded heavy<br />
duty circle hook in its jaw. Both of <strong>the</strong>se large red snapper specimens, based on age<br />
and growth curves, could potentially have been as much as an average of 10 years of<br />
age. In o<strong>the</strong>r chevron trap deployments at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef <strong>the</strong> same day,<br />
sublegal red snapper as small as 330 mm TL (13”) were noted.<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
Western Atlantic: Gulf of Mexico and eastern coast of <strong>the</strong> USA extending northward<br />
to Massachusetts, coasts of Florida, but rare north of <strong>the</strong> Carolinas. They are also<br />
found throughout <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico. Adults are found over rocky bottoms.<br />
Juveniles inhabit shallow waters, common over sand or muddy bottoms (Fish Base,<br />
2010).<br />
They are found in depths from 33 to 623 feet. Free-swimming larval stages live in<br />
<strong>the</strong> water column. Juveniles inhabit shallow waters and are common over sandy or<br />
muddy bottom habitat. Adults are typically bottom-dwellers and usually associate<br />
with hard structures on <strong>the</strong> continental shelf that have moderate to high relief, such<br />
as coral <strong>reef</strong>s, artificial <strong>reef</strong>s, rocky hard-bottom substrates, ledges and caves,<br />
sloping soft-bottom areas, and limestone outcroppings. Long-lived; maximum age<br />
<strong>report</strong>ed is 57 years in Gulf of Mexico (NMFS).<br />
Feeding<br />
They feed mainly on <strong>fish</strong>es, shrimps, crabs, worms, cephalopods, and some<br />
planktonic items including urochordates and gastropods (McCawley, 2003).<br />
Feeds on free swimming larvae prey on zooplankton; adults prey opportunistically<br />
on <strong>fish</strong>, shrimp, crab, worms, cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc.), and some<br />
planktonic items (NMFS).<br />
66 | P age
Trophic level or position<br />
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I/F’ level. This level would<br />
be combination of invertivore and piscivore trophic positions. This species is also<br />
considered a resident species and a <strong>reef</strong> limited species for which <strong>reef</strong>s may function<br />
to increase growth or decrease natural mortality (Patterson et al., 2010).<br />
Trophic Level<br />
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for red snapper (based on food<br />
items) is 4.01 (standard error 0.59) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Site Fidelity<br />
Several red snapper tagging studies have occurred on artificial <strong>reef</strong>s in nearby<br />
Alabama coastal waters to <strong>the</strong> west and in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS in recent years. Site<br />
fidelity has been rated as high in <strong>the</strong> short term (weeks or months) but estimated to<br />
be low over a period of years at least on smaller modular <strong>reef</strong> structures off AL and<br />
NW FL.<br />
Szedlemayer and Shipp (1994) <strong>report</strong>ed 76% of tagged red snapper recoveries<br />
occurring within 2 km of where tagged.<br />
Strelcheck et al. (2007) <strong>report</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> tagging of 4,317 red snapper on two different<br />
types of concrete artificial <strong>reef</strong> modules off about 25 km due south of <strong>the</strong> mouth of<br />
Mobile Bay in <strong>the</strong> Hugh- Swingle General Artificial Reef Permit Area off Alabama,<br />
roughly 100 km West of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Mean TL at tagging for recaptures was<br />
335 mm (+/- 63.3 mm SD) and mean total length of known recaptures was 400 mm<br />
(+/- 69.8 mm SD). Fish were at liberty on average 401 days (+/- 280 days SD).<br />
Minimum and maximum days at liberty were 1 and 1,587 days, respectively. A<br />
majority of captures were at liberty 1 year or less (51.8%) however 34.5% of red<br />
snapper were at liberty 1-2 years and 13.7% were at liberty greater than two years.<br />
Mean distance moved for 479 specimens with known recapture sites was 2.08 km<br />
(+/- 0.46 km SD). Mean distance moved for recaptures <strong>report</strong>ed by <strong>fish</strong>ers was 2.86<br />
km (+/- 0.13 km SD). Maximum distance moved was 201 km east of <strong>the</strong> release site<br />
(off NW Florida). Nine <strong>fish</strong> moved greater than 80 km away from <strong>the</strong> release site: 8<br />
of which were captured between Pensacola, FL and Panama City, FL and only one<br />
was recaptured having moved to <strong>the</strong> west, west of <strong>the</strong> Chandelier Islands, LAsouthwest<br />
of Biloxi, MS. Patterson et al. (2001b) also indicated that most<br />
movement of red snapper in Alabama is to <strong>the</strong> east off Florida and very little red<br />
snapper movement and mixing occurs west of <strong>the</strong> Mississippi River. Two red<br />
snapper tagged on <strong>the</strong> same tetrahedron <strong>reef</strong> module were recaptured at <strong>the</strong> same<br />
67 | P age
location off Destin, FL (113 km from <strong>the</strong> release site) and two red snapper tagged on<br />
<strong>the</strong> same <strong>reef</strong> ball module were recaptured at <strong>the</strong> same location off Panama, City,<br />
FL (195 km from <strong>the</strong> release site). This would suggest that sub-cohort members<br />
may move out toge<strong>the</strong>r. Eighty six percent of Strelcheck et al. recaptures were<br />
recaptured within 2 km of <strong>the</strong>ir release site, 94.6% within 5m and 96.9% within 10<br />
km. Length at tagging and season did not significantly affect <strong>the</strong> distance red<br />
snapper moved. However, Strelcheck found that days at liberty had a positive effect<br />
on distance moved: i.e., <strong>the</strong> longer time at liberty, <strong>the</strong> greater <strong>the</strong> chance <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
would have moved. Site fidelity was estimated by modeling <strong>the</strong> nonlinear decay in<br />
recaptures made at tagging sites over time (Patterson and Cowan, 2003).<br />
Annual site fidelity was 51.5% per /year (ranging from 48.3% /year to 54.6%/year<br />
depending on <strong>the</strong> site location.<br />
Severe hurricane direct hits, or near direct hits, of Category III or higher seemed to<br />
trigger red snapper movement and it was in generally an easterly direction out of<br />
Alabama. Mean distance moved by tagged red snapper during Hurricanes Opal<br />
(1995) and Georges (1998) was 29.6 km (Patterson and Cowan 2003). However some<br />
red snapper move long distances in <strong>the</strong> absence of hurricanes.<br />
Patterson and Cowan (2003) estimated sample size for red snapper at large during<br />
non hurricane periods, but <strong>the</strong>ir sample size for recaptures was small (n=121)<br />
compared to Strelcheck (n=340) and <strong>sampling</strong> at original tagging sites was less<br />
frequent. Increased <strong>sampling</strong> allowed for increased tagging and increased chances<br />
that a red snapper would not have moved.<br />
No direct Florida panhandle hurricane hits occurred in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
<strong>reef</strong> from 2006-2007, although some structural changes were caused by offshore<br />
passage of a hurricane in <strong>the</strong> Gulf landing in o<strong>the</strong>r states.<br />
Szedlmayer (1997) <strong>report</strong>ed red snapper residence times ranging from 17 to 597<br />
days. Schroepfer and Szedlmayer (2006) <strong>report</strong>ed red snapper residence times<br />
ranging from 1 to 595 days with a mean residence time of 218 days.<br />
Strelcheck et al. 2007 concluded that site fidelity is relatively low for red snapper<br />
captured at small artificial <strong>reef</strong>s, especially given <strong>the</strong> fact that red snapper live in<br />
excess of 50 years (Wilson and Nieland, 2001). There was only a 50% probability of<br />
capturing a red snapper one year after release. His study largely tagged smaller<br />
sub-legal red snapper which have previously been shown to move less than larger,<br />
legal-sized red snapper (Patterson et al. 2001b). As red snapper size increases,<br />
movement is expected to increase resulting in even lower estimates of site fidelity.<br />
The cumulative effect of a 50%/yr decrease in site fidelity per year is substantial-<br />
68 | P age
that means after five years only 3% of <strong>the</strong> original tagged <strong>fish</strong> would be present and<br />
only 0.1% of <strong>the</strong> tagged red snapper would be present after 10 years. Patterson and<br />
Cowan estimated even lower site fidelity (only 25% of <strong>fish</strong> estimated to remain after<br />
one year). However, lower <strong>sampling</strong> tagging size and less frequent <strong>fish</strong>ing at<br />
original tagged location may have resulted in fewer on site recaptures.<br />
In Diamond et al. (2007), it is speculated that some red snapper may be “movers”<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>rs “stayers”. They suggested <strong>the</strong>re is some risk involved for a red snapper<br />
to undertake an extensive movement over an open area without cover or even<br />
foraging too far from <strong>the</strong> general shelter of an artificial <strong>reef</strong>. Some red snapper may<br />
be more inclined to remain in residence longer, particularly smaller specimens more<br />
prone to predation. Their diets may reflect organisms fed on in much closer<br />
proximity to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef since <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> might be less inclined to forage<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r from <strong>the</strong> shelter provided by a large structure such as <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
The wide range of <strong>PCB</strong> levels we observed between red snapper samples from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef could be due to individual diet differences, <strong>the</strong> new arrival of <strong>fish</strong> to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (<strong>fish</strong> that originated from o<strong>the</strong>r locations), and differences in<br />
benthic forage distances relation to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> exposure and uptake in red snapper tissues over a short period of time,<br />
particularly during <strong>the</strong> forecasted initial <strong>PCB</strong> pulse release period (SPARWAR<br />
Systems Center San Diego, 2006), during <strong>the</strong> first few years of a red snapper’s life of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef may also be a <strong>the</strong> result of a more rapid linear growth rate in<br />
younger <strong>fish</strong>. Red snapper growth rate is basically linear to about 500-600 TL,<br />
during <strong>the</strong> first few years of life (Patterson et al. 2001a). Since most <strong>fish</strong> on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef were less than 600 mm TL, <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> could have been at <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
maximum growth rate. Growth continues at a steady pace but by age ten red<br />
snapper growth slows. During this rapid growth smaller <strong>fish</strong> might be expected to<br />
accumulate <strong>PCB</strong>s at a more rapid rate than a larger <strong>fish</strong> arriving at <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> where<br />
<strong>the</strong> larger older <strong>fish</strong> had spent years of its life somewhere else but was only exposed<br />
to low background levels of <strong>PCB</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> food it had been eating. Strelcheck <strong>report</strong>ed<br />
that mean growth rate for all recaptures was 0.206 mm day.<br />
Strelcheck et al. (2007) <strong>report</strong>ed that on Alabama modular <strong>reef</strong>s, red snapper daily<br />
growth rates at tetrahedron artificial <strong>reef</strong>s were 0.215 mm/day, greater than red<br />
snapper recaptured at <strong>reef</strong> balls 0.194 mm (p=0.029). Mean growth rate of snapper<br />
that moved. 0.206 mm/day was similar to mean growth rate of red snapper<br />
recaptured at location of release. Strelcheck et al speculated that because a major<br />
portion of <strong>the</strong> red snapper diet was food/prey residing in <strong>the</strong> water column 41% and<br />
55% benthic prey by weight McCawley (2003) possibly <strong>the</strong> tetrahedron with <strong>the</strong><br />
69 | P age
higher vertical profile in <strong>the</strong> water column might attract more pelagic prey. The<br />
high profile of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef might do <strong>the</strong> same.<br />
Red snapper residence time on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef may be limited when red snapper<br />
are removed from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through a combination of heavy directed<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure and associated discard mortality. The Oriskany Reef is<br />
at a depth where barotrauma injury in red snapper, particularly swim bladder<br />
rupture and escaping gas into <strong>the</strong> body cavity re-arranging internal organs are not<br />
uncommon in <strong>fish</strong> brought up rapidly from <strong>the</strong> 145-212 feet depths where <strong>the</strong><br />
majority of red snapper have been visually observed.<br />
Emigrating larger <strong>fish</strong>es facing less natural predation due to increased size are<br />
capable of more safely undertaking movement-ei<strong>the</strong>r locally by foraging greater<br />
nightly distances from <strong>the</strong> ship or in some situations leaving permanently and<br />
moving beyond <strong>the</strong> immediate Oriskany Reef zone.<br />
The time period of a red snapper’s exposure residency on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef is<br />
limited in relation to its <strong>the</strong>oretical maximum age ei<strong>the</strong>r due to eventual emigration<br />
or higher <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality age. Red snapper probably aren’t immigrating to <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef until age 2 and appear to be uncommon on <strong>the</strong> artificial <strong>reef</strong> after<br />
age six ei<strong>the</strong>r due to emigration or <strong>fish</strong>eries mortality, with natural mortality due to<br />
predation playing a lesser role particularly as <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> gets larger. Therefore, we<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>size that <strong>the</strong> exposure time of red snapper to <strong>PCB</strong>s through dietary<br />
pathways would be limited, particularly over <strong>the</strong> life of a <strong>fish</strong> that could, especially<br />
under reduced <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure, reach an age of 50 or more years old.<br />
Fishing Mortality<br />
SEDAR (2005) indicated that <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality in <strong>the</strong> eastern Gulf of Mexico<br />
appeared to be well above maximum sustainable yield. Mortality was primarily<br />
recreational harvest and bycatch related.<br />
70 | P age
II (D) (1) (c) Red Snapper Discussion of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> Analysis Results<br />
During Sampling Rounds 1-8 at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef a total of 185<br />
red snapper measuring 401-808<br />
mm total length (TL) were<br />
retained for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis. The<br />
mean legal size of retained and<br />
analyze Oriskany Reef red<br />
snapper was 496 mm TL (+/- 75<br />
SD). Table 11 illustrates <strong>the</strong><br />
mean length of red snapper by<br />
sample round. No changes in red<br />
snapper mean total length<br />
measurements were observed.<br />
Sample<br />
Round<br />
Number of red<br />
snapper retained<br />
Red snapper, mean total<br />
length (mm)<br />
1 30 457 mm<br />
2 21 450 mm<br />
3 31 493 mm<br />
4 29 487 mm<br />
5 29 557 mm<br />
6 17 533 mm<br />
7 15 504 mm<br />
8 13 496 mm<br />
Table 11. Mean total length of red snapper by<br />
sample round.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> data for red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef by sample date<br />
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date of red snapper from <strong>the</strong> first seven sample<br />
rounds have been received and analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are<br />
presented in Figure 9. Results of <strong>the</strong> 172 red snapper analyzed through sample<br />
round #7 show that <strong>the</strong> mean total <strong>PCB</strong> levels from red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany within <strong>the</strong> first two years (sample rounds 1-4) exceeded both <strong>the</strong> FDOH<br />
and EPA <strong>PCB</strong> thresholds (50 ppb and 20 ppb, respectively). The highest mean <strong>PCB</strong>,<br />
and greatest standard error was recorded from red snapper collected during sample<br />
round #2. Red snapper mean <strong>PCB</strong> levels have declined since sample round #2, and<br />
by rounds 6 and 7 (collected at 3 yrs. 6 months and 3 yrs. 11 months, respectively),<br />
<strong>the</strong> standard errors were small and <strong>the</strong> mean total <strong>PCB</strong> levels for red snapper were<br />
below both <strong>the</strong> FDOH and EPA thresholds. Results from an additional 13 red<br />
snapper from sample round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end of May, 2011.<br />
71 | P age
Figure 9. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red snapper form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through<br />
sample round #7.<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> data for red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef by sample date<br />
and <strong>fish</strong> length<br />
Figures 10a-10g provide a more detailed illustration on <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> levels by length of<br />
red snapper by sample date through sample round #7. Review of figures 10a-10g<br />
shows <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> levels over <strong>the</strong> course of each of <strong>the</strong> seven <strong>sampling</strong> rounds, and<br />
illustrates <strong>the</strong> specific outlier samples collected during <strong>the</strong> first four sample rounds<br />
resulting in <strong>the</strong> greater standard error, and elevated mean <strong>PCB</strong> level observed<br />
during <strong>the</strong> first four sample rounds.<br />
Correlation analysis was used to analyze red snapper analyzed through sample<br />
round #6 (n=157) to examine relationships between <strong>fish</strong> mass, <strong>fish</strong> length, percent<br />
lipid in muscle tissue, and <strong>PCB</strong> loads (Table 12). No significant relationship was<br />
identified between <strong>PCB</strong> loads and <strong>fish</strong> mass, percent lipid in muscle tissue. This<br />
finding was in contrast to <strong>the</strong> pre-sink samples conducted by Snyder et al (2007),<br />
where <strong>fish</strong> length and mass were found to be significantly correlated. Snyder et al.<br />
found a relatively strong correlation between trophic position and <strong>PCB</strong><br />
concentration, and since trophic position increased with size/age (also significantly<br />
correlated with <strong>PCB</strong> concentration), Snyder et al. concluded an indication of<br />
bioaccumulation with age.<br />
72 | P age
1,000,000<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong><br />
(pg/g)<br />
a. Sample Date 12/14/2006<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g)<br />
0<br />
1,000,000<br />
0<br />
b. Sample Date<br />
4/12/2007<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g)<br />
1,000,000<br />
0<br />
c. Sample Date 2/3/2008<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g)<br />
1,000,000<br />
0<br />
d. Sample Date<br />
4/29/2008<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g)<br />
1,000,000<br />
0<br />
e. Sample Date<br />
4/21/2009<br />
00<br />
Σ<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g) 1,000,00<br />
0<br />
400 450 500<br />
550 600 650<br />
f. Sample Date 11/18/2009<br />
700 750 800 850 900<br />
1,000,0000<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> (pg/g)<br />
500,0000<br />
0<br />
400 450<br />
500<br />
550 600 650<br />
g. Sample Date<br />
4/27/2010<br />
700 750 800 850 900<br />
Figure 10. <strong>PCB</strong> dataa for Red Snapper collected from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef by length. Graphs ( a)<br />
through (e) present <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> dataa from Red Snapper collected on each respectivee sample date.<br />
73 | P a ge
Table 12. Correlation matrix of variables measured in red snapper samples<br />
collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (n=157) analyzed through sample round #6.<br />
Pearson’s r and <strong>the</strong> significance value are provided for each variable pair.<br />
Significance probabilities ≤ 0.05 are highlighted in yellow.<br />
Oriskany (Red Snapper) N=157<br />
Mass Lipid Σ<strong>PCB</strong><br />
Length<br />
0.9728<br />
The <strong>PCB</strong> levels measured from red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Nearby Artificial<br />
Reef Site #1 are show in figure xx. In general <strong>the</strong> Nearby Artificial Reef Site levels<br />
were similar to <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong> levels recorded during <strong>the</strong> pre-sink analysis <strong>report</strong>ed by<br />
Snyder et al (2007).<br />
Figure 11. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red snapper collected from <strong>the</strong> Nearby<br />
Reef #1 during Sample Round 3 and Sample Round 4.<br />
75 | P age
II (D) (2) Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829) (Also<br />
known in some locations as beeliners, mingo snapper, cajon snapper, night snapper)<br />
Vermilion Snapper Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (2) (a) Vermillion Snapper Fisheries Management Overview<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 10 inch minimum size TL,<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: Up to 20 (Included in <strong>the</strong> 20 <strong>fish</strong> per person <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: 10 inch minimum size TL,<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 10 <strong>fish</strong> harvester per day person (not included in <strong>the</strong> snapper<br />
aggregate)<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 12 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open April 1 to October 31 (214 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 5 per person per day<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 12 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open April 1 to October 31 (214 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 5 per person per day<br />
II (D) (2) (b) Vermillion Snapper Life History/Biology Overview<br />
Description and Biology<br />
Vermilion snapper have streamlined bodies, are pale to silver white below and<br />
vermilion above. Narrow yellow-gold streaks, some horozontal and o<strong>the</strong>rs oblique,<br />
occur below <strong>the</strong> lateral line. The dorsal fin is rosy colored with a yellow margin. The<br />
caudal fin is red , but has a faint black margin. (SAFMC)<br />
The dorsal spines (total): 12 - 13; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10 - 11; Anal spines: 3;<br />
anal soft rays: 8. Snout short, lower jaw slightly projecting. Mouth small. Pectoral<br />
76 | P age
fins relatively short, not reaching level of anus. Scale rows on back rising obliquely<br />
above lateral line. Back and upper sides vermilion, shading to silvery with reddish<br />
tinge ventrally, with narrow horizontal yellow lines below <strong>the</strong> lateral line. The<br />
dorsal and caudal fins are yellowish while <strong>the</strong> anal and pelvic fins whitish (Fish<br />
Base, 2010).<br />
Length and Weight<br />
Maximum <strong>report</strong>ed age of vermilion snapper is 13 years (FWRI, 2008). The oldest<br />
vermillion <strong>report</strong> to Fishbase is 10 year old (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Growth of vermilion snapper is highly variable, but expected lengths at age are 8.3–<br />
8.6 inches (21.1 -21.8 cm) TL at age 1 and only 11.4–19.5 inches (20.0-49.5) at age<br />
10 (FWRI, 2008)<br />
Common length is 13.78 inches or 35.0 cm (Allen, G.R., 1985).<br />
Maximum <strong>report</strong>ed length is 23.622 inches or 60.0 cm TL (Fish Base 2010).<br />
The world record weight for Vermillion Snapper according to <strong>the</strong> International<br />
Game Fish Association (IGFA) is 7 lbs. 3 oz. or 3.26 kgs taken off Alabama on<br />
5/31/1987 (IGFA, 1987).<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
Vermilion snapper are subtropical species with at a geographical range from 42°N<br />
to 33° S and 99° W-30°W, only found in <strong>the</strong> eastern coasts of <strong>the</strong> Western<br />
Hemisphere (Allen, G.R., 1985). They occur over shelf and upper-slope waters of<br />
<strong>the</strong> western Atlantic Ocean from Cape Hatteras south through sou<strong>the</strong>astern Brazil,<br />
as well as Bermuda, <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico, and <strong>the</strong> West Indies (FWRI, 2008).<br />
Of <strong>the</strong> 37 sighting in <strong>the</strong> FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database all but four (3 in<br />
Martin and 1 Lee county) or 89.2 % were in <strong>the</strong> North Florida region of <strong>the</strong> Gulf of<br />
Mexico. The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed vermilion snapper as<br />
shallow as 59 feet, with a maximum depth of 136 feet (maximum in diver database)<br />
and an average depth of 92.3 feet for 39 sightings (FWC-DMF, 2010).<br />
Found in moderately deep waters, most common over rock, gravel, sand bottoms or<br />
artificial <strong>reef</strong>s near <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> continental and island shelves. Young <strong>fish</strong> occur<br />
in shallower depths below 25 meter (82 feet). Often forms large schools, particularly<br />
<strong>the</strong> young. Fish Base <strong>report</strong>ed a maximum depth of 300 meters (984 feet); usually<br />
found around 100 meters (328 feet) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
77 | P age
Feeding<br />
Feeds on <strong>fish</strong>es, shrimps, crabs, polychaetes, o<strong>the</strong>r benthic invertebrates,<br />
cephalopods and planktonic organisms. Good food <strong>fish</strong>. (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
They feed on small, swimming crustaceans and mollusks. (FWC, 2010)<br />
It feeds on smaller animals, sometimes even <strong>the</strong> near invisible plankton animals,<br />
but will take small baits of <strong>fish</strong> and shell<strong>fish</strong> parts (Shipp, 1986)<br />
Vermilion snapper prey on <strong>fish</strong>es, shrimps, crabs, polychaetes and o<strong>the</strong>r benthic<br />
invertebrates, cephalopods and planktonic organisms. In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf,<br />
vermilion snapper prey on o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>fish</strong>es as well as benthic and pelagic invertebrates<br />
Off <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>astern U.S., it feeds small crustaceans, primarily copepods and<br />
decapods (especially planktonic species and larval stages) dominated <strong>the</strong> diet of<br />
small vermilion snapper (
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date from <strong>the</strong> first seven sample rounds have<br />
been received and analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are presented in Figure<br />
12. Results of <strong>the</strong> 28 vermilion snapper analyzed through sample round #7 show<br />
that none of <strong>the</strong> mean total <strong>PCB</strong> levels exceeded ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> EPA or <strong>the</strong> FDOH<br />
thresholds. Additionally, <strong>the</strong> low vermilion snapper mean <strong>PCB</strong> levels exhibit a<br />
declining trend. Results from an additional 14 vermilion snapper from sample<br />
round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end of May, 2011.<br />
Figure 12. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for Vermilion Snapper form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through sample round #7.<br />
79 | P age
II (D) (3) Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Also known as white snapper)<br />
Red Porgy Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (3) (a) Red Porgy Fisheries Management<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in <strong>the</strong> Gulf<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in <strong>the</strong> Gulf (Same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 14 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 3 per person per day<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal<br />
SIZE: 14 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: 3 per person per day<br />
II (D) (3) (b) Red porgy Life History/biology overview<br />
Description and Biology<br />
The red porgy Pagrus pagrus (Sparidae) is a protogynous species, <strong>the</strong> adults of<br />
which are typically associated with low-profile hard (live) bottom, rocky, or gravel<br />
habitats. It is one of <strong>the</strong> most abundant, exploited <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>es in <strong>the</strong> NE Gulf. In an<br />
annual video survey of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> in that area, it is one of <strong>the</strong> most frequently<br />
observed species (DeVries, 2006).<br />
(Dorsal spines (total): 12; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays:<br />
8. Pinkish silver with an indistinct yellow spot on each scale on about upper half of<br />
80 | P age
ody, <strong>the</strong>se spots giving a yellow-striped effect; a wedge of yellow across interorbital<br />
and some yellow on snout and upper lip; dorsal, caudal and pectoral fins pink . (Fish<br />
base, 2010).<br />
The red porgy has a shimmering silvery-white underside and rows of small blue<br />
spots pattern <strong>the</strong> upper body. It has a large head, with a distinctive sloping<br />
forehead, ra<strong>the</strong>r large eyes, and prominent teeth. Two blue streaks, one above and<br />
one below <strong>the</strong> eye, highlight <strong>the</strong> head, while <strong>the</strong> tail is edged in black and has white<br />
tips.<br />
Length and Weight<br />
The maximum length is about 91.0 cm TL male/unsexed, and <strong>the</strong> common length is<br />
about 35.0 cm SL male/unsexed, max. published weight: 7,720 g . Reported weights<br />
of caught individuals were between 9 to 17 kgs (Fish base). Most red porgy were<br />
mature by 225 mm (Hood and Johnson 2000).<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
This sparid occurs in warm temperate to subtropical waters on both sides of <strong>the</strong> N<br />
Atlantic, including <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and Mediterranean Sea, and<br />
in <strong>the</strong> SW Atlantic from Venezuela to Argentina (DeVries, 2006).<br />
Their range is Eastern Atlantic: Strait of Gibraltar to 15°N (rare southward 20°N),<br />
including Madeira and <strong>the</strong> Canary Islands; Mediterranean and northward to <strong>the</strong><br />
British Isles. Western Atlantic: New York, USA and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico to<br />
Argentina including <strong>the</strong> continental coast of <strong>the</strong> Caribbean Sea (Fish base, 2010).<br />
The red porgy occurs in <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean, including <strong>the</strong> Mediterranean Sea, from<br />
New York and Argentina in <strong>the</strong> west, to <strong>the</strong> British Isles and Senegal in <strong>the</strong> east.<br />
(Arkive.org, 2011).<br />
Found over rock, rubble, or sand bottoms (young frequently found on seagrass beds<br />
and <strong>the</strong> continental shelf down to about 250 m depth, often above 150 m. In<br />
southwest Brazil found in 160 m depth (Fish base, 2010).<br />
Adult red porgy are found on <strong>the</strong> deeper part of <strong>the</strong> continental shelf, but young<br />
may occur in water as shallow as 18 m (60ft.) (FWRI, 2008).<br />
Red Porgies are found along <strong>the</strong> inner continental shelf in depth between 10 and<br />
100 meters, this <strong>fish</strong> occurs over hard sand, rock and patch <strong>reef</strong> areas (Shipp, 1986).<br />
Red porgies are usually found near hard bottom area off <strong>the</strong> Western-central<br />
Florida coast and <strong>the</strong> Florida Middle Grounds and are most common over inshore<br />
live-bottom, rocky-rubble and rock outcrop habitats. (Hood and Johnson 2000).<br />
81 | P age
Feeding<br />
Red porgy are carnivorous <strong>fish</strong> which tend to feed in schools on a variety of marine<br />
animals found on <strong>the</strong> ocean floor. Their strong teeth enable <strong>the</strong>m to eat snails, crabs<br />
and sea urchins, as well as worms and small <strong>fish</strong>es (Arkive.org). It feeds on shelled<br />
bottom invertebrate animals and will take <strong>fish</strong> when available (Shipp, 1986), and<br />
tends to feed on crustaceans, <strong>fish</strong>es, and mollusks (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Trophic level or position<br />
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I’ level. This level would<br />
be <strong>the</strong> “Invertivore” trophic position. “Our stomach content data suggests red porgy<br />
is more of an invertivore than red snapper, and our stable isotope data definitely<br />
shows <strong>the</strong> latter to be about 1 trophic level above red porgies.” (DeVries personal<br />
communication).<br />
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for red snapper (based on food<br />
items) is 3.65 (standard error 0.61) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Site Fidelity<br />
“Based on very limited tagging work by o<strong>the</strong>rs, and my dissertation findings<br />
showing consistent temporally stable differences in life history and demographic<br />
traits at sites only 10's of km apart, I strongly suspect <strong>the</strong>y have very high site<br />
fidelity” (DeVries personal communication).<br />
Patterson el al. (ibid.) also considers <strong>the</strong> red porgy’s ‘residency ‘category to be that of<br />
a demersal or benthic shelf species, for which <strong>reef</strong>s may function to increase growth<br />
or decrease natural mortality.<br />
82 | P age
II (D) (3) (c) Red Porgy Discussion of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results<br />
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date from <strong>the</strong> first seven sample rounds have<br />
been received and analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are presented in Figure<br />
13. Results of <strong>the</strong> 7 red porgy analyzed through sample round #7 show that mean<br />
Figure 13. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for red porgy form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through<br />
sample round #7.<br />
total <strong>PCB</strong> levels exceeded both <strong>the</strong> EPA or <strong>the</strong> FDOH thresholds through sample<br />
round #6. Results from <strong>the</strong> one <strong>fish</strong> analyzed during round #6, and <strong>the</strong> one <strong>fish</strong><br />
during round #7, indicate a declining trend. Results from an additional 5 red porgy<br />
from sample round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end of May, 2011.<br />
83 | P age
II (D) (4) Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus (Jordan & Gilbert, 1885)<br />
Whitebone Porgy Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (4) (a) Whitebone Porgy Fisheries Management<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in <strong>the</strong> Gulf<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in <strong>the</strong> Gulf (Same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 <strong>fish</strong> (part of <strong>the</strong> 20 <strong>fish</strong> grouper/snapper complex aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal<br />
SIZE: none<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 <strong>fish</strong> (part of <strong>the</strong> 20 <strong>fish</strong> grouper/snapper complex aggregate)<br />
II (D) (4) (b) Whitebone Porgy Life History/Biology Overview<br />
Description and Biology<br />
The body of <strong>the</strong> whitebone porgy, also known in some locations as <strong>the</strong> white<br />
snapper, or sometimes chocolate porgy is silvery overall, with regular brown<br />
markings of varying intensity on <strong>the</strong> sides, more like splotches than spots. Brown<br />
markings also occur on <strong>the</strong> fins, and occasionally <strong>the</strong> sides bear brown crossbars.<br />
The species can be distinguished from two o<strong>the</strong>r frequently caught deepwater<br />
porgies, <strong>the</strong> red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), and knobbed porgy (Calamus nodosus). The<br />
former is predominantly pink; <strong>the</strong> latter has a very steep sloping forehead and<br />
84 | P age
cheeks that are speckled with bright blue and yellow. Although most members of<br />
<strong>the</strong> genus have 14 to 15 pectoral rays, <strong>the</strong> whitebone porgy has 16 (SAFMC, 2010).<br />
Length and Weight<br />
The Maximum total length of <strong>the</strong> Whitebone porgy is 46.0 cm TL (male/unsexed); a<br />
common adult length is 30.0 cm TL (male/unsexed); (Fish base)<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r references <strong>report</strong> a maximum length of 457 mm (18 inches) (SAFMC). The<br />
whitebone porgy matures at a little less than a foot, but may reach about 356 mm<br />
(14) to 406 mm (16 inches) in length (Shipp, 1986). Whitebone porgy are known to<br />
live as long as 12 years (SAFMC, 2010).<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
The whitebone porgy is a subtropical species found in <strong>the</strong> Western Atlantic from<br />
Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, in <strong>the</strong> Florida Keys (along with a multitude of<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r tropical porgies) and throughout <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico. It prefers habitats of<br />
high-and low-profile <strong>reef</strong>-like bottom in water ranging from 100-240 feet in depth.<br />
(SAFMC, 2010).<br />
Whitebone Porgy are found mainly on sedimentary bottoms from 10 and 100 m<br />
depth. (Fishbase). Whitebone porgy prefers habitats of high-and low-profile <strong>reef</strong>like<br />
bottom in water ranging from 100-240 feet in depth. (SAFMC). Whitebone<br />
porgy are found in depths of 11--88 m on <strong>the</strong> continental shelf of <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>astern<br />
coast of <strong>the</strong> United States. but <strong>the</strong>y are most abundant in depths< 30 m. The<br />
continental shelf at <strong>the</strong>se depths consists primarily of sandy bottom, with occasional<br />
scattered outcrops of sedimentary rock and, although whitebone porgy frequently<br />
occur on sand bottom <strong>the</strong>y are much more abundant in or adjacent to rocky <strong>reef</strong><br />
habitats. (Sedberry, 1989)<br />
Feeding<br />
Whitebone porgy feed on <strong>the</strong> bottom on <strong>the</strong> bottom, picking up crabs, shrimp or<br />
snails that live along rocks, sponges or corals (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
The whitebone feeds on bottom dwelling shell<strong>fish</strong>, which in crunches with its<br />
powerful teeth. It frequents most any bottom types, from near shore bottoms (10 m)<br />
out to <strong>the</strong> middle shelf in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico (Shipp).<br />
Whitebone porgy were found to feed mainly on small hard-shelled species of<br />
gastropods. Pagurid decapods. and sipunculids. Polychaetes. pelecypods. barnacles,<br />
echinoderms, anthozoans, amphipods and <strong>fish</strong>es were also eaten. Whitebone porgy<br />
selected invertebrate species that were not abundant in benthic samples taken<br />
85 | P age
directly from <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>. suggesting that <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> forage on primarily on sand bottom<br />
fauna. Decapods were <strong>the</strong> most important prey and ranked high in frequency,<br />
number and volume. Very small hermit crabs (Pagurus, spp., Dardanus spp.,<br />
Paguristes spp., Pylopagurus spp. O<strong>the</strong>r Paguroidea) were <strong>the</strong> dominant decapods<br />
in whitebone porgy stomachs. Whitebone porgy fed on a combination of motile<br />
invertebrates and <strong>fish</strong>es in addition to some hard bottom epifaunal species.<br />
(Sedberry, 1989). Whitebone porgy probably does nor forage directly on hard-bottom<br />
sessile <strong>reef</strong> species regardless of <strong>the</strong>ir size. Whitebone porgy would be classified as<br />
a generalized benthic predator, feeding on sandy habitats in immediate proximity to<br />
<strong>reef</strong>s.<br />
Whitebone porgy displayed a relatively high similarity in diet to red porgy and<br />
sheepshead (Sedberry, 1989). Whitebone porgy appear in numerically in greater<br />
association with <strong>reef</strong> or hard bottom areas but <strong>the</strong>y have little impact on hardbottom<br />
epifaunal <strong>reef</strong> communities and do not function as keystone predators in<br />
hard bottom <strong>reef</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> South Atlantic Bight (Sedberry, ibid.)<br />
The whitebone porgies caught at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef were caught on or very near <strong>the</strong><br />
bottom (around 212 feet) immediately adjacent to <strong>the</strong> ship’s hull.<br />
TROPHIC LEVEL or POSITION<br />
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 et al. to be level I. This level<br />
would be an invertivore trophic position. Patterson el al. (ibid.) also considers <strong>the</strong><br />
whitebone porgy’s ‘residency ‘category to be that of a demersal or benthic shelf<br />
species, for which <strong>reef</strong>s may function to increase growth or decrease natural<br />
mortality” (Patterson et. al., 2010).<br />
SITE FIDELITY<br />
No information is available on <strong>the</strong> site fidelity of Whitebone porgy.<br />
86 | P age
II (D) (4) (c) Whitebone Porgy Discussion of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results<br />
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date from sample round number seven (<strong>the</strong> only<br />
sample round where whitebone porgy was caught through sample round #7) have<br />
been received and analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are presented in Figure<br />
14. Results of <strong>the</strong> 4 whitebone porgy analyzed from sample round #7 show that<br />
mean total <strong>PCB</strong> levels exceeded both <strong>the</strong> EPA or <strong>the</strong> FDOH thresholds. Results<br />
from an additional 2 whitebone porgy from sample round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end<br />
of May, 2011.<br />
Figure 14. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for whitebone porgy form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through sample round #7.<br />
87 | P age
II (D) (5) Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong>, Baistes capriscuss (Gmelin, 1789) (Also known in<br />
some locations as include gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>, grey trigger<strong>fish</strong>, file<strong>fish</strong>, lea<strong>the</strong>rjacket,<br />
pig-faced, trigger-<strong>fish</strong>, trigger<strong>fish</strong>, common trigger<strong>fish</strong>, and turbot)<br />
Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (5) (a) Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> Fisheries Management<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 14 inch minimum size FL,<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: Up to 20 (Included in <strong>the</strong> 20 <strong>fish</strong> per person <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: 14 inch minimum size FL,<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 12 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 (included in 20 <strong>fish</strong> snapper/grouper aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal<br />
SIZE: 12 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open all year (365 days)<br />
BAG LIMIT: none<br />
II (D) (5) (b) Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> Life History/biology overview<br />
Description and Biology<br />
The Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> has large incisor teeth and a deep laterally compressed body<br />
covered with tough, sandpaper-like skin. Unlike <strong>the</strong>ir cousin, <strong>the</strong> file<strong>fish</strong>, trigger<strong>fish</strong><br />
have more than one dorsal spine. The action of this spine gives <strong>the</strong> trigger<strong>fish</strong> its<br />
88 | P age
(common) name. The first spine is large, and when erect it remains so until <strong>the</strong><br />
smaller second spine is deflexed, triggering <strong>the</strong> first. The gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> is easily<br />
distinguished by its drab color from <strong>the</strong> queen trigger<strong>fish</strong>, which is vividly colored.<br />
Trigger<strong>fish</strong>es are open water or structure-associated <strong>fish</strong>es with an enlarged first<br />
dorsal spine that can be locked in <strong>the</strong> upright position (SAFMC).<br />
The gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>, supports important <strong>fish</strong>eries in Florida, as, to a lesser extent,<br />
does <strong>the</strong> queen trigger<strong>fish</strong>, Balistes vetula. Gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> are found in tropical<br />
and temperate waters of <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean. In <strong>the</strong> western Atlantic, <strong>the</strong>y range<br />
from Massachusetts south to Brazil. Spawning occurs during <strong>the</strong> summer months.<br />
Females deposit demersal eggs and may guard <strong>the</strong>ir nests. Females get larger and<br />
live longer than males (FWRI, 2008).<br />
The Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> inhabits bays, harbors, lagoons, and seaward <strong>reef</strong>s. Juveniles<br />
may drift at surface among Sargassum. They are usually solitary or in small<br />
groups (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Length and Weight<br />
Overall, growth is to 8.9–11.7 inches fork length (FL) at age 2; trigger<strong>fish</strong> grow as<br />
large as 17.6–22.0 inches by age 10 (FWRI, 2008)<br />
IGFA record is 13 lbs. 9 oz. or 6.15 kg. caught off Murrells Inlet South Carolina,<br />
USA on May 3, 1989 (IGFA, 2010). Maximum published weight: 6,150 g (Fish Base<br />
2010)<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
Eastern Atlantic: Mediterranean to Moçamedes, Angola. Western Atlantic: Nova<br />
Scotia (Canada), Bermuda, and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico to Argentina Subtropical;<br />
58°N - 37°S, 98°W - 36°E (Fish Base, 2010). In <strong>the</strong> western Atlantic, <strong>the</strong>y range<br />
from Massachusetts south to Brazil (FWC, 2010).<br />
Preferring hard bottoms, <strong>reef</strong>s, and ledges, <strong>the</strong> gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> is abundant in<br />
nearshore and offshore locations. This <strong>fish</strong> inhabits bays, lagoons, and seaward<br />
<strong>reef</strong>s to depths of 180 feet (55 m). The adults drift along <strong>the</strong> bottom ei<strong>the</strong>r alone or<br />
in small groups, while <strong>the</strong> juveniles drift at <strong>the</strong> surface with sargassum. They are<br />
<strong>report</strong>ed at maximum depths to about 100 meters; usually found around 0 to 55<br />
meters (0-180 feet) (Fish Base).<br />
The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> as shallow<br />
as 8 feet, with a maximum depth of 133 feet (maximum in diver database) and an<br />
89 | P age
average depth of 59 feet for 127 sightings. There were 66 (51%) sightings on <strong>the</strong><br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf coast , while only 14 (11%) were on <strong>the</strong> east Coast, with <strong>the</strong><br />
remaining on <strong>the</strong> southwest Gulf Coast of Florida (FWC-DMF,2010).<br />
Feeding<br />
As a diurnal predator, <strong>the</strong> gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates<br />
such as shrimp, crabs, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea stars, sea cucumbers, and<br />
bivalve mollusks (FMNH, 2010).<br />
Feeds on benthic invertebrates like mollusks and crustaceans and are oviparous<br />
(Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Trophic level or position<br />
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I’ or Invertivore level. He<br />
also considers <strong>the</strong>ir ‘Residency ‘category to be R or “<strong>reef</strong> resident”, and <strong>the</strong>ir ‘Reef<br />
Limited’ category is”G” or “<strong>fish</strong>es for which <strong>reef</strong>s may function to increase growth or<br />
decrease natural mortality” (Patterson et al., 2010).<br />
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> (based on<br />
food items) is 3.55 (standard error 0.50) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Site Fidelity<br />
In a tagging study off Pensacola on <strong>the</strong> EELAARS site, Patterson concluded that<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> had much higher fidelity that o<strong>the</strong>r species like red snapper of<br />
(Patterson et al., 2010).<br />
Adult gray trigger off Alabama exhibit high site fidelity (Ingram, 2001). High site<br />
fidelity may result from <strong>the</strong> territorial nature of adult <strong>fish</strong> (Ingram, 2001). In <strong>the</strong><br />
case of gray trigger in Ingram’s (2001) study, loss of older age classes resulting from<br />
increases in <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure in publicly known <strong>fish</strong>ing grounds is apparent.<br />
Selective removal of large, fast-growing members of <strong>the</strong> population may be resulting<br />
in decreased growth rates of survivors on small spatiotemporal scales (Ingram,<br />
2001).<br />
90 | P age
II (D) (5) (c) Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> Discussion of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results<br />
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date from sample round number six (<strong>the</strong> only<br />
sample round where gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> was caught through round #7) has been<br />
received and analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are presented in Figure 15.<br />
Results of <strong>the</strong> one gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> analyzed from sample round #6 show that mean<br />
total <strong>PCB</strong> level exceeded both <strong>the</strong> EPA and <strong>the</strong> FDOH thresholds. Results from an<br />
additional 3 gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> from sample round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end of May,<br />
2011.<br />
Figure 15. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
through sample round #7.<br />
91 | P age
II (D) (6) Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax (Jordan & Swain, 1884) (Also known<br />
in some locations as Scamp grouper, Broomtail grouper)<br />
Scamp Results and Discussion<br />
II (D) (6) (a) Scamp Fisheries Management<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size FL,<br />
SEASON: Open all April 1 to January 31 (10 months )<br />
BAG LIMIT: Up to 4 (Included in <strong>the</strong> 4 <strong>fish</strong> per person grouper aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)<br />
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size FL,<br />
SEASON: Open all April 1 to January 31 (10 months )<br />
BAG LIMIT: Up to 4 (Included in <strong>the</strong> 4 <strong>fish</strong> per person grouper aggregate)<br />
Federal Regulations for <strong>the</strong> Atlantic Ocean for 2011:<br />
SIZE: 20 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open May 1 to December 31 (8 months)<br />
BAG LIMIT: up to 3 per person per day (included in 3 grouper aggregate)<br />
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal<br />
SIZE: 20 inch minimum size TL<br />
SEASON: Open May 1 to December 31 (8 months )<br />
BAG LIMIT: up to 3 per person per day (included in 3 grouper aggregate)<br />
II (D) (6) (b) Scamp Life History/Biology Overview<br />
Description and Biology<br />
Related to <strong>the</strong> gag and o<strong>the</strong>r slender-bodied groupers, <strong>the</strong> scamp are identified by<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir pronounced anal and soft dorsal ray extensions, a more concave profile of <strong>the</strong><br />
head, and by color. Scamp have a tan to grayish-brown body covered with sharply<br />
defined, well-separated dark spots, which are approximately an eighth of an inch in<br />
diameter.(SAFMC, 2010).<br />
92 | P age
The Scamp inhabits continental shelf waters from <strong>the</strong> Campeche Banks, in <strong>the</strong> Gulf<br />
of Mexico, to Florida and northward along <strong>the</strong> East Coast to North Carolina. These<br />
areas are characterized by profuse growths of soft corals and sponges populated by<br />
red grouper, white grunt, red porgy and numerous species of small, tropical <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong>. They have been recorded at age up to 21 years, but may live up to 30 years.<br />
They may reach a length of up to 43 inches and weight of up to 36 pounds (SAFMC,<br />
2010).<br />
Found over ledges and high-relief rocky bottoms in <strong>the</strong> eastern Gulf of Mexico; at<br />
low-profile bottoms at depths of 30 to 100 m in North Carolina; this species was <strong>the</strong><br />
most abundant grouper in areas of living Oculina coral formations at depths of 70 to<br />
100 m off <strong>the</strong> east coast of Florida. This species apparently moved inshore when<br />
bottom temperature fell below 8.6°C. Juveniles found in shallow water at jetties and<br />
in mangrove areas (Fish Base).<br />
Length and Weight<br />
Maximum length is 42.1 inches (107 cm) TL male/unsexed; common length is 11.8<br />
inches (30.0 cm) TL male/unsexed. Maximum published weight: 31.3 lbs (14.2 kg)<br />
(Fish Base 2010);<br />
They may reach a length of up to 43 inches (109.2 cm) and weight of up to 36 lbs<br />
(16.3 kg) (SAFMC, 2010).<br />
By 10 years of age, <strong>the</strong>y average 26 inches in length and over 8 pounds in weight.<br />
By age 20, <strong>the</strong>y average 35 inches long and 20 pounds (Rod n Reel, 2010).<br />
The world record weight for Scamp according to <strong>the</strong> International Game Fish<br />
Association (IGFA) is 29 lbs. x 10 oz. (13.4 kg) taken off Dauphin Island, Alabama<br />
on 7/22/1000 (IGFA, 2010). Florida record is 28 pounds (FWC, 2010).<br />
Distribution and Habitat Preference<br />
Western Central Atlantic: Gulf of Mexico and east coast of US from North Carolina<br />
to Key West and along <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn shore of <strong>the</strong> Caribbean Sea. Juveniles are<br />
occasionally found as far north as Massachusetts. Subtropical; 40°N - 7°N, 98°W -<br />
64°W (Fish Base.2010).<br />
Of <strong>the</strong> 82 sightings in <strong>the</strong> FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database 53 or 64.6 %<br />
were in <strong>the</strong> North Florida region of <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico. 16 or 19.5% were on <strong>the</strong><br />
Florida East Coast while ano<strong>the</strong>r 13 sightings were on <strong>the</strong> South West Florida gulf<br />
Coast (FWC-DMF, 2010).<br />
93 | P age
Although <strong>the</strong> species occasionally congregates over high-profile bottom, such as<br />
wrecks and rock outcroppings, <strong>the</strong> preferred habitat is low-profile, live bottom areas<br />
in waters 75 ft (22.9 m) to 300 ft (91.4 m) deep (SAFMC, 2010).<br />
The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed Scamp as shallow as 30 ft<br />
(9.1 m), with a maximum depth of 137 ft (41.7 m) (maximum in diver database) and<br />
an average depth of 77.5 ft (23.6 m) for 82 sightings (FWC-DMF, 2010).<br />
Reef-associated; oceanodromous ; brackish; marine; depth range 98.4 ft (30 m) to<br />
328.1 ft ( 100 m) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> species occasionally congregates over high-profile bottom, such as<br />
wrecks and rock outcroppings, <strong>the</strong> preferred habitat is low-profile, live bottom areas<br />
in waters 75 ft (22.9 m) to 300 ft (91.4 m) deep (SAFMC, 2010).<br />
Feeding<br />
Scamp can be aggressive predators, capturing crabs, shrimp, and <strong>fish</strong>es and<br />
swallowing <strong>the</strong>m whole. (SAFMC, 2010)<br />
Feeds on small <strong>fish</strong>, squid and crustaceans (FMRI, 2010)<br />
Trophic level or position<br />
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘F’ or Piscivore level. (Patterson et al.,<br />
2010).<br />
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for scamp (based on food<br />
items) is 4.47 (standard error 0.79) (Fish Base, 2010).<br />
Site Fidelity<br />
Patterson, 2010 considers Scamp to be in ‘Residency ‘ category “R” or “<strong>reef</strong> resident”,<br />
and <strong>the</strong>ir ‘Reef Limited’ category is ”G” or “<strong>fish</strong>es for which <strong>reef</strong>s may function to<br />
increase growth or decrease natural mortality”. (Patterson et al., 2010).<br />
II (D) (6) (c) Scamp Discussion of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis results<br />
94 | P age
Results of <strong>PCB</strong> analysis by sample date from sample round number five (<strong>the</strong> only<br />
sample round where scamp was caught through round #7) has been received and<br />
analyzed for all 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners, and are presented in Figure 16. Results of <strong>the</strong><br />
one scamp analyzed from sample round #5 show that mean total <strong>PCB</strong> level did not<br />
exceed ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> EPA or <strong>the</strong> FDOH thresholds. Results from an additional 3 scamp<br />
from sample round #8 are expected by <strong>the</strong> end of May, 2011.<br />
Figure 16. Mean <strong>PCB</strong> by sample date for scamp form <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef through sample<br />
round #7.<br />
II (D) (7) Gag Grouper (no gag grouper collected through sample round #7)<br />
II (D) (8) Red Grouper (no red grouper collected through sample round #7)<br />
II (D) (9) Lane Snapper (no lane snapper collected through sample round #7)<br />
95 | P age
II (E): Distribution of <strong>PCB</strong> Congeners by Homologs (Degree of <strong>PCB</strong> Chlorination)<br />
The results of <strong>PCB</strong> congener analysis of <strong>fish</strong> tissue samples analyzed to date is<br />
listed in Table 13 (Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> samples) and Table 14 (Nearby Reef <strong>fish</strong><br />
samples) (Tables 13 and 14, Appendix 1). Utilizing <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> congenerspecific<br />
analysis, <strong>the</strong> results from <strong>the</strong> 209 <strong>PCB</strong> congeners were grouped into <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
respective homologs (chlorinations 1 through 10). Utilizing <strong>the</strong> known<br />
concentration of <strong>PCB</strong> congers for <strong>the</strong> most common Arolchlors (Aroclor 1232, 1242,<br />
1248, 1258, 1254, and 1260) as presented by DeGrandechamp and Barron (2005),<br />
<strong>the</strong> percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by chlorination observed in <strong>the</strong> Oriskany <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> samples are compared to <strong>the</strong> commercial Arochlor data in Table 15, Table 16a,<br />
and Table 16b (Appendix 1). No obvious patterns of similarity between <strong>the</strong><br />
patterns of commercial Arolclor homologs, and <strong>the</strong> patterns of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
<strong>fish</strong> homologs are visually apparent.<br />
As stated by Snyder (2007), although some studies have shown homolog pattern<br />
matching to sources, several factors contribute to obscuring source patterns in biota.<br />
Wea<strong>the</strong>ring, degradation, environmental partitioning, and biological partitioning all<br />
change <strong>the</strong> homolog content of <strong>PCB</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> environment (DeGrandechamp and<br />
Barron, 2005).<br />
Additionally, of <strong>the</strong> estimated 722.6 lbs of solid <strong>PCB</strong>s left on board <strong>the</strong> Oriskany at<br />
<strong>the</strong> time of sinking, approximately 97.6% of <strong>the</strong> <strong>PCB</strong>s were represented in cable<br />
insulation which are comprised <strong>the</strong> most common commercial Arochlors in use at<br />
<strong>the</strong> time, and are <strong>the</strong> most common in <strong>the</strong> environment today (Pape, 2006).<br />
Therefore, likely as a result of wea<strong>the</strong>ring, degradation, and partitioning, combined<br />
with <strong>the</strong> lack of any unique Arochlors on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany, we were unable to detect<br />
any unqiue homolog ‘fingerprint’ from <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species analyzed from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef.<br />
II (F): O<strong>the</strong>r Discussion Issues<br />
II F (1) Gear Sampling Bias<br />
Hook-and-line <strong>sampling</strong> using traditional rod and reel reflected <strong>the</strong> type of catch<br />
that would be available to <strong>the</strong> recreational <strong>fish</strong>erman using similar equipment. The<br />
limited <strong>sampling</strong> for <strong>PCB</strong> analysis did not necessarily always include those<br />
recreationally targeted species that may have been present on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef at<br />
<strong>the</strong> time it was sampled. A case in point would be gray (mangrove) snapper.<br />
Although a number of gray snapper were visually observed, for example, by FWC<br />
divers on November 19, 2009 on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (Horn, and Mille, 2009), this<br />
96 | P age
species was not among <strong>the</strong> first 30 legal size specimens taken-on-hook and line at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef <strong>the</strong> previous <strong>sampling</strong> day (November 18, 2009). O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>fish</strong>, like<br />
grouper, more wary and less aggressive towards <strong>the</strong> hook than more abundant red<br />
snapper or vermilion snapper may have been present but also were not caught.<br />
Depending on prior feeding activity <strong>the</strong> previous 24 hours some species merely may<br />
not have been biting. For example, a scamp grouper was noted in <strong>the</strong> area of <strong>the</strong><br />
superstructure and a gag grouper observed around metal debris on <strong>the</strong> flight deck<br />
on November 19, 2009, though nei<strong>the</strong>r species were caught during rod-and-reel<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous day on November 18, 2009 (Horn and Mille, 2009). Spear<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ermen have observed large (30 pounds) gag grouper moving in and out of holes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef flight deck, though no gag grouper specimens of this size have<br />
been captured by hook and line during directed <strong>sampling</strong> efforts on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef to date.<br />
II F (2) Duplicating Recreational Fishing Effort<br />
By limiting <strong>the</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> to <strong>the</strong> time it took to catch a mix of <strong>the</strong> first 30-39 legal<br />
size recreationally targeted <strong>fish</strong> caught during hook and line <strong>sampling</strong>, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>sampling</strong> is most likely to duplicate <strong>the</strong> day trip activities of a for-hire or private<br />
recreational vessel. Anglers who would typically be expected to travel offshore to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, <strong>fish</strong> during daylight hours, but would include it as only as one of<br />
several <strong>fish</strong>ing stops and not spend <strong>the</strong>ir entire <strong>fish</strong>ing. The trade-off of<br />
terminating <strong>fish</strong>ing regardless of <strong>the</strong> mix of legal size <strong>fish</strong> caught is that <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
less of an opportunity to secure more difficult to catch or less common targeted <strong>fish</strong>,<br />
particularly if <strong>the</strong>re was an interest in ga<strong>the</strong>ring more <strong>PCB</strong> related data on <strong>the</strong>se<br />
specimens.<br />
II F (3) O<strong>the</strong>r Regional <strong>PCB</strong> Point Sources of Pollution<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> results from pre-<strong>reef</strong>ing <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>fish</strong> analysis from <strong>the</strong> area of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany sink<br />
site, on artificial <strong>reef</strong> structures to <strong>the</strong> west of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany within <strong>the</strong> EELAARS<br />
and at locations fur<strong>the</strong>r inshore (17 hook- and-line <strong>sampling</strong> sites on structures) as<br />
well as six trawl sites on sand bottom, showed only <strong>fish</strong>, a four year old grouper that<br />
only slightly exceeded <strong>the</strong> 20 ppb EPA screening level at 22 ppb (Synder et al.,<br />
2007). Additionally none of <strong>the</strong> 61 <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> sampled at <strong>the</strong> EELLAARS nearby<br />
Reef #1, northwest of and inshore of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef had total <strong>PCB</strong> levels<br />
exceeding <strong>the</strong> EPA screening limits. We have no indication that <strong>the</strong>re were any<br />
offshore sources of <strong>PCB</strong> pollution associated with any artificial <strong>reef</strong> materials placed<br />
in <strong>the</strong> EELAARS. The only known historic point source of pollution is located by<br />
water 48 nautical miles from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef to <strong>the</strong> north up in Escambia Bay<br />
97 | P age
and in <strong>the</strong> lower<br />
Escambia River where a<br />
Monsanto Plant once<br />
operated and <strong>the</strong>re was a<br />
known <strong>PCB</strong> spill in <strong>the</strong><br />
1960’s (Figure 17).<br />
II F (4) Commercial and<br />
Recreational Fishing<br />
Activity at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef<br />
As previously discussed<br />
during <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
pilot tagging project<br />
where all tag returns<br />
came exclusively from<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers (see<br />
section II(C)), it was<br />
documented that<br />
recreational hook-andline<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing activity occurred on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and probably dominated harvest<br />
activities at that site. Divers have <strong>report</strong>ed lost monofilament <strong>fish</strong>ing line hung in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong>. However spear <strong>fish</strong>ing operations were also observed on greater amberjack<br />
and divers who have also harvested gag grouper from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef with spear<br />
guns. At least two federal <strong>fish</strong>eries violations at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef were noted in a<br />
NOAA <strong>fish</strong>eries press release. The charges were filed following an investigation.<br />
The investigation was a follow-up to complaints received about spear <strong>fish</strong>ermen<br />
using spear guns and power heads (bang sticks) to harvest <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> off for-hire<br />
vessels that did not possess a federal <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> permit which is required in federal<br />
waters if paying passengers are harvesting <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>.<br />
Directed recreational hook-and-line red snapper harvest and associated sublegal red<br />
snapper recreational discard mortality have been <strong>the</strong> primary contributor in recent<br />
years to <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico, particularly off<br />
Alabama and Northwest Florida. Directed commercial red snapper harvest and<br />
sublegal discards, as well as Age 0-1 juvenile red snapper shrimp trawl by-catch<br />
dominates red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing mortality in <strong>the</strong> Western Gulf of Mexico.<br />
We could nei<strong>the</strong>r confirm nor discount <strong>report</strong>s that commercial <strong>fish</strong>ermen utilize <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef, though regular commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing activity at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef is<br />
98 | P age<br />
Figure 17. Location of <strong>the</strong> Monsanto Plant 1960’s<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> spill pollution point source in <strong>the</strong> Escambia<br />
River, located a distance of 48 nautical miles by water<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.
elieved to be unlikely since most of <strong>the</strong> multi-day commercial grouper-snapper<br />
trips, even out of NW Florida <strong>fish</strong> on <strong>the</strong> mid and outer continental shelf off<br />
Louisiana and Texas. There are commercial landings offloaded and sold at NW<br />
Florida <strong>fish</strong> houses but <strong>the</strong>se did not necessarily represent red snapper caught on<br />
local artificial <strong>reef</strong>s. Trip ticket landing <strong>report</strong>s don’t provide area specific<br />
information that would have enabled us to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r red snapper were<br />
caught on or in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Commercial snapper-grouper<br />
vessels are required to have vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on board <strong>the</strong>ir vessels<br />
which allows NOAA <strong>fish</strong>eries to document <strong>the</strong>ir locations and tracks. Review of<br />
VMS tracks records is one potential method method of determining if commercial<br />
vessel activity has been taking place on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. In an effort to<br />
determine if any commercial <strong>fish</strong>ing is being conducted on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany a formal<br />
request will be made by <strong>the</strong> FWC to <strong>the</strong> National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)<br />
to get information on <strong>the</strong> frequency of commercial vessels that have stopped and<br />
were presumed to be <strong>fish</strong>ing over <strong>the</strong> Oriskany since May 2006. This information<br />
will be presented in <strong>the</strong> project’s final <strong>report</strong>.<br />
It is believed that because <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef is such a highly publicized artificial<br />
<strong>reef</strong> frequented by both recreational divers and recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers, commercial<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ers generally tend to avoid such <strong>reef</strong> sites. Commercial red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ermen<br />
<strong>fish</strong> under an individual <strong>fish</strong>ing quota (IFQ) system which allows <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>fish</strong> yearround<br />
in federal waters until <strong>the</strong>y fill <strong>the</strong>ir assigned annual quotas. They can retain<br />
red snapper as small as 13 inches total length. The smaller size kept (as opposed to<br />
<strong>the</strong> 16 inch TL minimum Gulf of Mexico recreational limit) is intended to reduce<br />
discard wastage since commercial <strong>fish</strong>ermen tend to <strong>fish</strong> for red snapper at greater<br />
average depths where barotraumas upon rapid ascent of a hooked <strong>fish</strong> results in a<br />
high discard mortality.<br />
II F (5) Oriskany Reef Human Health Fish Consumption Issues<br />
A scenario of recreational <strong>fish</strong>er red snapper consumption from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef during<br />
<strong>the</strong> first five years of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany deployment (May 2006-May 2011).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> absence of any available recreational <strong>fish</strong>er red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing frequency on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, <strong>the</strong> following conservative red snapper harvest and consumption<br />
scenario is suggested. This scenario describes a local recreational <strong>fish</strong>er with access<br />
to an offshore <strong>fish</strong>ing vessel over <strong>the</strong> first five years of <strong>the</strong> existence of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
Reef. This scenario is very conservative because it assumes that a <strong>fish</strong>er traveling<br />
offshore once a week during <strong>the</strong> federal red snapper season will <strong>fish</strong> exclusively on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef to catch and retain his maximum two red snapper limit. Any<br />
additional trips he took beyond this once a week red snapper trip to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
99 | P age
during red snapper season would be assumed to have been to o<strong>the</strong>r numerous<br />
natural or artificial <strong>reef</strong> locations inshore of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Based on <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> reasoning below, <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>er would have consumed no<br />
more than 6.9 oz of Oriskany Reef red snapper per week over <strong>the</strong> first 5.03 years of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef’s existence or 3.3 oz week if he shared his catch with ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
person. The recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing bag and season limits in place since <strong>the</strong> Oriskany<br />
was <strong>reef</strong>ed appear in Table 17 below.<br />
Table 17. Federal Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper daily bag limits<br />
per person and red snapper season length by year (2006-2011).<br />
Year Red Snapper Season Length Daily Red Snapper Bag Limit<br />
2006 April 30-October 31 (185 days) Four Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
2007 June 1-Sept. 15 (107 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
2008 June 1-August 5 (66 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
2009 June 1-August 14 (75 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
2010 Oct 1-November 21 (21 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
(Fri-Sun weekends only)<br />
2011 June 1-(end date TBD) Two Fish, 16” Total Length<br />
During <strong>the</strong> summer of 2006, based on FWC diver observations of juvenile red and<br />
vermilion snapper, <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> community wasn’t developed enough to<br />
be viewed as a priority red snapper recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing destination. Recreational<br />
bottom <strong>fish</strong>ing probably first began on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany with any regularity after <strong>the</strong><br />
opening of <strong>the</strong> red snapper season in June 2007. Over <strong>the</strong> four years from<br />
November 1, 2006-October 1, 2010 <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, due to federal recreational<br />
red snapper season closures was only accessible to recreational anglers <strong>fish</strong>ing for<br />
red snapper 248 days out of 1,430 days (17.3% of <strong>the</strong> time). Then over <strong>the</strong> next<br />
eight months (Oct 1 2010-June 1, 2011) <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> was only accessible to recreational<br />
red snapper harvest for 21 out of 243 days (8.6%) of <strong>the</strong> time. If <strong>the</strong> assumption was<br />
made that <strong>the</strong>re was no significant red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from<br />
May 18-October 31, 2006, (166 days) due to <strong>the</strong> slow development of <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
community on <strong>the</strong> new Oriskany Reef, as a result of a higher percentage of sublegal<br />
red snapper and high level of Oriskany Reef competing diver interest, <strong>the</strong> total<br />
number of days from May 18, 2006, <strong>the</strong> day after <strong>reef</strong>ing to May 31 2011, <strong>the</strong> day<br />
before <strong>the</strong> 2011 federal recreational GOM red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing season begins would<br />
be just over five years 1,839 days). During those 5.04 years <strong>the</strong>re would have been<br />
269 possible red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing days on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany (14.6% of <strong>the</strong> 1,839 days<br />
since <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef was created). Therefore in <strong>the</strong>ory, a recreational<br />
<strong>fish</strong>erman going to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany everyday could have done so only if he made a<br />
100 | Page
trip less than 15% of <strong>the</strong> time due to season closures or lack of <strong>reef</strong> community<br />
development on <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> during <strong>the</strong> first 2006 summer red snapper season. The<br />
typical recreational <strong>fish</strong>er typically makes no more than one offshore <strong>fish</strong>ing day<br />
trip a week. The captains and crews of for-hire vessels make more frequent trips,<br />
but if <strong>the</strong>y are carrying passengers, <strong>the</strong>y can’t retain <strong>the</strong> recreational bag limit.<br />
Assuming a recreational <strong>fish</strong>erman was able to make an offshore trip once a week to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef during <strong>the</strong> red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing seasons of <strong>the</strong> last five years he<br />
would have had access to 269 probable red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing days. Assume he made a<br />
weekly trip, once in seven days, requiring 45 nautical round trip mile run just to get<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from Pensacola Pass and back with an additional requirement<br />
for favorable wea<strong>the</strong>r (no small craft advisories or warnings). This leaves <strong>the</strong> angler<br />
with 38 days of <strong>fish</strong>ing access over <strong>the</strong> first five years of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef’s life.<br />
We assume he caught his two red snapper limit at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (and nowhere<br />
else) on every one of his 38 once a week offshore <strong>fish</strong>ing days over <strong>the</strong> five year<br />
period. The total red snapper harvest would be 76 red snapper retained over a five<br />
year period. An average 2-3 yr old red snapper weight of three pounds (1,361 g)<br />
would provide about 1.5 lbs of fillets. If <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>er achieved his two <strong>fish</strong> bag limit on<br />
each Oriskany Reef trip, <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>er would have 114 pounds of red snapper fillets<br />
taken from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany over a period of 1,839 days. Assuming <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>er was <strong>the</strong><br />
sole consumer of his red snapper, (114 lbs x 453.592 grams/lb) he would have<br />
consumed 51,709 grams of Oriskany Reef snapper over a 1,839 day period or 28<br />
grams of red snapper/day (51,709g/1,839 days). He would be consuming 28 grams of<br />
red snapper/day or 28 grams x 0.035 oz/g = .98 ounces of red snapper/day x 7 days or<br />
6.9 ounces of red snapper/week. If he shared equally his red snapper catch with one<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r person, he would have consumed over a period of 5.04 years 3.3 ounces of red<br />
snapper/week from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Any increased <strong>fish</strong>ing effort (say twice a<br />
week) presumes he would be <strong>fish</strong>ing for red snapper or o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species on<br />
some o<strong>the</strong>r more readily accessible <strong>reef</strong>. However, this modest Oriskany Reef red<br />
snapper consumption over a five year period would not take into account <strong>the</strong><br />
retention and consumption of o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>fish</strong> with different bag limits possibly caught at<br />
<strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef at <strong>the</strong> same time he caught red snapper, say for example<br />
grouper, porgies, or trigger<strong>fish</strong>.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> five years of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef’s existence, a reduced red snapper<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing season length, bag limit reduction, <strong>the</strong> increased price of both diesel and<br />
outboard engine fuel, <strong>the</strong> distance of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef offshore from <strong>the</strong> nearest<br />
recreational vessel launch facilities (25-30 nautical miles) and a general economic<br />
recession that began in 2008, have all acted to limit access by individual<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers and <strong>the</strong>ir families to <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong>, particularly red snapper, caught<br />
101 | Page
at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and o<strong>the</strong>r offshore sites in federal waters. Additionally,<br />
Escambia County has an extensive system of published artificial <strong>reef</strong>s closer<br />
inshore than <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. Those artificial <strong>reef</strong>s along with scores of historic<br />
unpublished private <strong>reef</strong>s and some natural hard bottom sites provide many<br />
alternate <strong>fish</strong>ing locales. Private recreational <strong>fish</strong>ers and for-hire charters normally<br />
have numerous <strong>fish</strong>ing locations to select from and will rarely spend entire day<br />
<strong>fish</strong>ing at one particular <strong>reef</strong> site.<br />
In conclusion, based on <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> above reasoning, <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>er would have<br />
consumed no more than 6.9 oz of Oriskany Reef red snapper per week over <strong>the</strong> first<br />
5.03 years of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef’s existence or 3.3 oz week if he shared his catch<br />
with ano<strong>the</strong>r person.<br />
Although tighter federal red snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing regulations during <strong>the</strong> first five years<br />
of <strong>the</strong> existence of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef played a major role in limiting access of <strong>the</strong><br />
individual <strong>fish</strong>er to <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef and o<strong>the</strong>r Gulf offshore <strong>fish</strong>ing sites,<br />
ultimately red snapper stock recovery will continue in response to this reduced<br />
Gulf-wide recreational <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure The future result may be a longer red<br />
snapper <strong>fish</strong>ing season and an average increase in <strong>the</strong> size of individual <strong>fish</strong> caught<br />
which may in <strong>the</strong> future increase <strong>the</strong> amount of red snapper <strong>fish</strong> tissue available to<br />
and consumed by a recreational <strong>fish</strong>erman from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
II F (6) Marine Fish Consumption Guidelines currently in place in coastal Florida Waters<br />
The Florida Department of Health (2009) states that it periodically publishes “Fish<br />
Consumption Advisories” to alert consumers about <strong>the</strong> possibility of chemically<br />
contaminated <strong>fish</strong> in Florida waters. The advisories are meant to inform <strong>the</strong> public<br />
of potential health risks of specific <strong>fish</strong> species from specific water bodies.”<br />
II F (6) (a) Marine Fish Mercury Advisories<br />
Red snapper along with dozens of o<strong>the</strong>r saltwater <strong>fish</strong> are under a mercury advisory<br />
for all Florida coastal waters. Red snapper would be classified as having low to<br />
medium levels of mercury which could be variable with <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong>. The<br />
Florida Department of Health (FDH) provides eating guidelines that recommend no<br />
more than one six ounce red snapper meal a week for women of childbearing age<br />
and children and two meals a week for everyone else (Florida Department of<br />
Health, 2009). The estimated 6.9 ounces a week red snapper intake from <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef over a five year period is just over half <strong>the</strong> amount allowed under <strong>the</strong><br />
mercury guidelines (12 ounces/week for men and women of non-childbearing age<br />
and about <strong>the</strong> allowable amount for women of childbearing age and children.<br />
(Florida Department of Health, 2009).<br />
102 | Page
II F (6) (b) Current Florida Marine/Estuarine <strong>PCB</strong> Advisories<br />
There are presently one freshwater and two estuarine/marine <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>fish</strong><br />
consumption advisories in place in Florida. The freshwater body for which <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> <strong>fish</strong> consumption advisory is Lake Munson in Leon County (Tallahassee, FL<br />
area). The advisory recommends only one meal per month of largemouth bass 19<br />
inches in length or greater. The two estuarine/marine <strong>PCB</strong> advisories are for <strong>the</strong><br />
lower Escambia River from SR 184 to <strong>the</strong> mouth of <strong>the</strong> river and for Upper and<br />
Lower Escambia Bays. Both advisories are for Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties<br />
and target striped mullet. The advisory directs that striped mullet (Mugil cephalus)<br />
should be eaten only for one meal a week and with <strong>the</strong> skin off (Florida Department<br />
of Health, 2009). The amount of a meal is considered to be six ounces of cooked <strong>fish</strong>.<br />
II F (6) (c) The Concept of a <strong>PCB</strong> Advisory for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef<br />
The Florida Department of Health is unsure of <strong>the</strong>ir authority outside state waters<br />
to issue a <strong>fish</strong> advisory for a location or a population offshore in federal waters (Dr.<br />
Kendra Goff, FDOH, personal communication, 2011). Presumably such an advisory<br />
would have to be proposed by <strong>the</strong> EPA, or some o<strong>the</strong>r federal agency. FDOH does<br />
issue <strong>fish</strong> advisories for multiple <strong>fish</strong> species in particular freshwater water bodies<br />
for state waters. Available data (Snyder et al. 2007, our nearby <strong>reef</strong> monitoring,<br />
and this <strong>report</strong>) does not indicate <strong>the</strong>re is a broad regional offshore problem with<br />
<strong>PCB</strong>s for any recreationally or commercially targeted marine <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> species<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> historic presence of a <strong>PCB</strong> spill in <strong>the</strong> Escambia River which<br />
subsequently has affected upper and lower Escambia Bays. The areas of concern<br />
are more than 48 miles inshore of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. There doesn’t appear to be<br />
any well defined mechanism of <strong>PCB</strong> transport out of Escambia Bay that is<br />
significantly affecting o<strong>the</strong>r offshore <strong>reef</strong> areas.<br />
For red snapper if <strong>the</strong>re were an Oriskany Reef specific advisory, <strong>the</strong> likely proposal<br />
would be one six ounce meal a week. However, since hardly more than that can be<br />
caught now, averaged over a multi-year period under current bag limits and<br />
<strong>fish</strong>eries closures, a possible Oriskany Reef specific advisory, would be to<br />
recommend that any red snapper caught on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany be prepared and eaten<br />
with skin off. Many, though not all <strong>fish</strong>ers currently prepare red snapper with <strong>the</strong><br />
skin off. If multiple <strong>fish</strong> are a concern at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef an advisory<br />
recommendation might be that consumption of any <strong>fish</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Snapper-Grouper<br />
complex from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany be limited to one six ounce meal a week with skin off.<br />
Escambia County and FWC encourage Florida Department of Health and EPA to<br />
consider all available data when contemplating establishing <strong>fish</strong> consumption<br />
advisory at or near Oriskany Reef. Although most previous advisories have been<br />
103 | Page
issued for individual species, various factors should be considered in this case. Most<br />
recreational <strong>fish</strong>es harvested at or near Oriskany Reef are regulated by National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); some species (e.g., red snapper, grouper) may<br />
only be harvested for a few weeks or months each year. Oriskany Reef is located<br />
more than 20 miles from Pensacola and Destin passes, requiring substantial<br />
financial expenditures for fuel and o<strong>the</strong>r vessel costs. To make such expenditures<br />
worthwhile, anglers may retain (for consumption) any/all <strong>fish</strong> caught. Thus, <strong>the</strong><br />
entire suite of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> is <strong>the</strong> operative unit for consideration. Utilizing <strong>the</strong> mean<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> concentration of all <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> typically harvested by anglers, provides a more<br />
realistic determination of actual exposure. Some <strong>fish</strong>es, such as red porgy, may only<br />
comprise a small proportion of <strong>the</strong> total catch, and including <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> when<br />
calculating mean tissue <strong>PCB</strong> concentration provides statistical confidence.<br />
II F (7) Comparison of results with Navy expected Invertivore and Piscivore Trophic level<br />
data.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> EPA risk-based <strong>PCB</strong> bulk waste disposal document issued to <strong>the</strong> Navy, FWC,<br />
and Escambia County on February 15, 2006, a table was displayed that showed <strong>the</strong><br />
Navy’s expected calculations of total <strong>PCB</strong> loads for grouper and trigger<strong>fish</strong> both at<br />
two years and at 2-32 years post sink for <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. The Navy’s<br />
calculations were that a piscivorous grouper (Trophic Level 4) residing 0-15 m from<br />
<strong>the</strong> ship would have a total <strong>PCB</strong> tissue wet weight load of 0.045 mg/kg during <strong>the</strong><br />
first two years, followed by a 2-32 year steady state total <strong>PCB</strong> wet weight tissue<br />
concentration increase to 0.11 mg/kg wet weight <strong>fish</strong> tissue concentration if residing<br />
in Zone of Influence 2. This latter concentration represented an excess cancer risk of<br />
7 in one million. A trophic level 3 invertivore represented by a trigger<strong>fish</strong> was<br />
estimated to have a total <strong>PCB</strong> tissue value of 0.036 mg/kg wet weight during <strong>the</strong><br />
first two years and a total <strong>PCB</strong> wet weight tissue concentration of 0.065 mg/kg, wet<br />
weight <strong>fish</strong> tissue under steady state conditions, 2-32 years post-sinking. This latter<br />
value for a trigger<strong>fish</strong> represented an excess cancer risk of 4 in a million. Both of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se steady state values for invertivore and piscivore exceed <strong>the</strong> Florida<br />
Department of Health <strong>PCB</strong> Screening Level of .050 mg/kg. However, EPA predicted<br />
that high <strong>fish</strong>ing pressure and Navy’s conservative nature of risk assessment<br />
assumptions would result in actual <strong>fish</strong> tissue concentrations that are significantly<br />
lower than those estimated by <strong>the</strong> Navy. EPA believed that <strong>the</strong> lower anticipated<br />
calculations would approach or be below <strong>the</strong> one additional cancer risk per<br />
1,000,000 people (1E-06 level). EPA states, “risks of less than 1E-06 are virtually<br />
always considered acceptable; risks somewhat above that level may be considered<br />
acceptable depending on factors such as <strong>the</strong> degree of conservatism in <strong>the</strong> risk<br />
104 | Page
assessment, technological feasibility, cost of disposal, and benefits to <strong>the</strong><br />
environment” (USEPA 2006a).<br />
As noted at <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> progress <strong>report</strong>, <strong>the</strong> likelihood that <strong>the</strong> project<br />
would be able to collect sufficient numbers of <strong>the</strong> Navy’s selected <strong>fish</strong>es (grouper<br />
category Trophic level 4, piscivore) and trigger<strong>fish</strong> (Trophic level 3, invertivore) with<br />
any regularity was uncertain, though three grouper species (gag, scamp, red) and<br />
<strong>the</strong> gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> were in <strong>the</strong> ten recreationally targeted species sought. After 8<br />
<strong>sampling</strong> rounds, insufficient numbers of grouper of any species or gray trigger<strong>fish</strong><br />
were collected to evaluate <strong>the</strong> Navy’s predictions based on <strong>the</strong> particular species<br />
<strong>the</strong>y utilized.<br />
However, it is suggested that o<strong>the</strong>r vertivores (red porgy, whitebone porgy) have<br />
total <strong>PCB</strong> values though limited by sample size, may, along with a lone gray<br />
trigger<strong>fish</strong> more closely reflect <strong>the</strong> Navy’s invertivore <strong>PCB</strong> loading value of 0.056<br />
mg/kg (56 ppb) for trigger<strong>fish</strong> at <strong>the</strong> commencement of a <strong>PCB</strong> steady state scenario<br />
at <strong>the</strong> Oriskany. It was unclear whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se predicted values were based on “skinon”<br />
or “skin-off” tissue analyses.<br />
The most commonly caught <strong>fish</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef, red snapper, had a broad diet<br />
that spanned multiple trophic levels included benthic Invertivore, Planktivore, and<br />
<strong>fish</strong>. Red snapper diet varied with <strong>the</strong> season, and to some extent with <strong>fish</strong> size. The<br />
next most commonly caught <strong>fish</strong>, in our project, <strong>the</strong> vermilion snapper, was a<br />
Planktivore/Invertivore and generally fed up in <strong>the</strong> water column, producing <strong>the</strong><br />
consistently lowest <strong>PCB</strong> levels, generally below EPA screening levels of .020 ppm.<br />
Although we have caught insufficient numbers of legal size grouper to make any<br />
determination regarding <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations, we did harvest four legal size gag on<br />
nearby bridge <strong>reef</strong> #1 and none of <strong>the</strong>m exceeded <strong>the</strong> EPA Tier 1 <strong>PCB</strong> screening<br />
level.<br />
There are three grouper species available for capture on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany, though<br />
perhaps in low enough numbers that during any one <strong>sampling</strong> event opportunities<br />
to secure 15 specimens of any one grouper species would be remote. However each of<br />
<strong>the</strong> three species, based on <strong>the</strong>ir feeding habits could be expected to provide<br />
different results. For example <strong>the</strong> red grouper, for which we have only one specimen<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (Sampling Round #8, analysis pending) tends to hang close<br />
to <strong>the</strong> bottom, and has been noted excavating burrows (Dr. Chris Koenig, Florida<br />
State University, personal communication). This grouper species is both an<br />
invertivore and piscivore. Gag are largely piscivores but <strong>the</strong>y eat not only <strong>fish</strong> on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> but also have been documented to feed on planktivorous foraging schooling<br />
105 | Page
<strong>fish</strong> up in to water column (Dr. William Lindberg, University of Florida Personal<br />
Communication). The seasonal presence of such water column planktivores might<br />
actually provide a food source, at least seasonally that have potentially low <strong>PCB</strong><br />
concentrations. So a gag grouper might give a different <strong>PCB</strong> loading picture than a<br />
red grouper. The only Oriskany Reef tested grouper to date, a scamp, had <strong>PCB</strong><br />
levels below <strong>the</strong> Tier 1 EPA screening levels.<br />
II (G) Summary<br />
Based on <strong>the</strong> information available to date, <strong>the</strong> water column<br />
zooplanktivore/invertivore feeder, vermilion snapper, was <strong>the</strong> trophic level <strong>fish</strong><br />
species having <strong>the</strong> lowest <strong>PCB</strong> body burdens with no individual <strong>fish</strong> values<br />
exceeding <strong>the</strong> EPA screening level. This was in contrast to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r snapper<br />
species, red snapper, classified as an invertivore-piscivore that also fed in <strong>the</strong> water<br />
column on invertebrates but also fed on benthic organisms, generally off <strong>the</strong> <strong>reef</strong> as<br />
well as on benthic <strong>fish</strong>. The first 157 Oriskany Reef red snapper analyzed from<br />
Sampling Rounds #1-6 had an overall mean total <strong>PCB</strong> muscle tissue concentration<br />
of 54,174 picograms/gram (54 ppb). This was in contrast to <strong>the</strong> mean red snapper<br />
nearby Site #1 total <strong>PCB</strong> value for 45 red snapper sampled across two <strong>sampling</strong><br />
rounds three months apart in winter and in spring. The mean total <strong>PCB</strong> value for<br />
<strong>the</strong> nearby Site #1 red snapper was 7,602 picograms/gram (7.6 ppb), considerably<br />
below <strong>the</strong> 20 ppb EPA Tier 1 screening value. The Oriskany <strong>reef</strong> six round red<br />
snapper mean <strong>PCB</strong> value and <strong>the</strong> two round red snapper nearby Reef #1 red<br />
snapper <strong>PCB</strong> means were significantly different (
III Oriskany Reef Monitoring Project Possible Options for Future Action<br />
FWC and Escambia County provide <strong>the</strong> following options for future consideration:<br />
1. Proceed with April 2011 Oriskany Reef <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> (sample round #9) as<br />
planned. Increase <strong>the</strong> number of samples of recreationally targeted <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> to 40.<br />
Retain <strong>the</strong> first caught 40 legal size or keeper <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> of all targeted species with<br />
<strong>the</strong> caveat that at least 15 of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>fish</strong> continue to be legal size red snapper. No<br />
discarding of legal size <strong>fish</strong> in attempts to save space for o<strong>the</strong>r species selectively<br />
targeted. Provide FDOH and EPA with field <strong>sampling</strong> <strong>report</strong> within 30 days.<br />
2, Inform EPA and FDOH of November 2010 analysis results due from lab in late<br />
May 2011.<br />
3. Proceed with November 2011 <strong>sampling</strong> (sample round #10). Same approach as<br />
item #1. Provide EPA and DOH with field <strong>sampling</strong> <strong>report</strong> within 30 days.<br />
4. By May 2012 with additional <strong>PCB</strong> <strong>fish</strong> tissue results from November 2010, April<br />
2011, and November 2011, present a full Ten Sampling Round Oriskany Reef<br />
Formal Report to EPA and meet again in person with EPA and FDOH after delivery<br />
of <strong>report</strong>.<br />
5. If <strong>PCB</strong> levels have not increased during above three <strong>sampling</strong> rounds, request<br />
dropping Oriskany Reef <strong>sampling</strong> to once a year (ei<strong>the</strong>r starting with April 2012 or<br />
November 2012).<br />
6. In summer 2011 <strong>the</strong> FWC would move forward with funding a University of West<br />
Florida proposal to develop a <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> daily movement project in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of an<br />
Escambia East LAARS artificial <strong>reef</strong> using an array of passive acoustic listening<br />
devices to monitor over a three month period continuous movement of red snapper<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>r selected <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> implanted with internal transponders.<br />
7. Investigate <strong>the</strong> costs of invertebrate <strong>sampling</strong> on Oriskany Reef (spiny oysters,<br />
scallops, o<strong>the</strong>r sessile benthic organisms) if EPA requests.<br />
107 | Page
REFERENCES CITED<br />
Allen, G.R. 1985 FAO species catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of <strong>the</strong> world. An annotated<br />
and illustrated catalogue of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop.<br />
125(6):208 p.<br />
Bortone, S. A., R. K. Turpin, et al. 1997. Factors Associated with Artificial-Reef Fish<br />
Assemblages. Gulf of Mexico Science. 15(1): 17-34.<br />
Cowan, J.H. Jr., C.B. Grimes, W.F. Patterson III, C.J. Walters, A.C. Jones, W.J.<br />
Lindberg, D.J. Sheehy, W.E. Pine III, J.E. Powers, M.D. Campbell, K.C. Lindeman,<br />
S.L. Diamond, R. Hilborn, H.T. Gibson, and K.A. Rose. 2010. Red snapper<br />
management in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico: Science- or Faith-based? Published on line 03<br />
April 2010 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. DOI:10.1007/s11160-010-9165-7. Springerlink.com<br />
DeGrandchamp, R. L. and M. G. Barron (2005). <strong>PCB</strong> Analysis and Risk Assessment<br />
at Navy Installations. Part A: Overview of <strong>PCB</strong> Mixtures. Portsmouth, VA, Navy<br />
Environmental Health Center: 21 pages.<br />
Devries, D.A 2006 The Life History Reproductive Ecology, and Demography of <strong>the</strong><br />
Red Porgy, Pagrus pagrus, In The Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico PhD Dissertation,<br />
Florida State University, Spring 2006.<br />
Diamond SL, Campbell MD, Olsen D, Wang Y, Zeplin J,Qualia S (2007) Movers and<br />
stayers: individual variability in site fidelity and movements of red snapper off<br />
Texas. In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH Jr, Fitzhugh GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red<br />
Snapper ecology and <strong>fish</strong>eries in <strong>the</strong> US Gulf of Mexico. American <strong>fish</strong>eries society,<br />
symposium 60, Be<strong>the</strong>sda, Maryland, pp 163–188 .<br />
Dodrill, J. and R. Turpin. 2003. Letter of application to <strong>the</strong> Department of<br />
Transportation, Maritime Administration for <strong>the</strong> transfer of an obsolete ship.<br />
November 11, 2003, 38 pages.<br />
Dodrill, J. and R. Turpin. 2007. Combined Tier-1 level polychlorinated biphenyl <strong>fish</strong><br />
tissue screening monitoring work plan and quality assurance project plan for <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef (ex-U.S.S. Oriskany (CVA-34) artificial <strong>reef</strong>). June 25, 2007. 88<br />
pages.<br />
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Whitebone porgy species summary.<br />
http://www.<strong>fish</strong>base.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=1225, March 25, 2011.<br />
108 | Page
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Red porgy species summary.<br />
http://<strong>fish</strong>base.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1756&AT=red+porgy, April 4, 2011.<br />
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Red snapper species summary.<br />
http://<strong>fish</strong>base.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1423&AT=red+snapper, April 4, 2011.<br />
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Whitebone porgy species summary.<br />
http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=7327, March 9, 2010.<br />
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Scamp species summary.<br />
http://www.<strong>fish</strong>base.com/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=1213. March 17, 2010.<br />
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Vermilion snapper species summary.<br />
http://<strong>fish</strong>base.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=213, March 3, 2010.<br />
Florida Department of Health. 2009. Your Guide to eating <strong>fish</strong> caught in Florida.<br />
Public Brochure. 33 pages.<br />
Florida Museum of Natural History Web Site –Red Snapper<br />
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/<strong>fish</strong>/gallery/descript/redsnapper/redsnapper.html,<br />
March 2011<br />
FWC Website MyFWC .com – Groupers: scamp<br />
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/saltwater<strong>fish</strong>_groupsca.htm, 3/17/2010.<br />
FWC Website MyFWC .com -Snappers: Vermilion Snapper.<br />
http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/saltwater<strong>fish</strong>_snapverm.htm<br />
FWC, Division of Marine Fisheries Management, Artificial Reef Program. 2011.<br />
State of Florida Artificial Reef Locations. 33 pages.<br />
Florida Fish and Conservation Commission, Division of Marine Fisheries<br />
Management 2010. Fish census data from dive assessment field <strong>report</strong>s-,<br />
unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>s 2010.<br />
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Red Porgy,<br />
Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,<br />
2 pages<br />
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Vermillion<br />
Snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829), Florida Fish and Wildlife<br />
Conservation Commission, 2 pages<br />
109 | Page
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong><br />
Baistes capriscuss (Gmelin, 1789), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation<br />
Commission, 2 pages<br />
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GOMFMC), 2004. Final Amendment<br />
23 to <strong>the</strong> Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan to set Vermilion Snapper sustainable<br />
<strong>fish</strong>eries act target and thresholds and to establish a plan to end over<strong>fish</strong>ing and<br />
rebuild <strong>the</strong> stock. 296 pages.<br />
Hess, Ron, Denis Rushworth, Michael V. Hynes, John E. Peters. 2001. Disposal Options for<br />
Ships. Rand Corporation. 148 pages.<br />
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1377<br />
Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard and J.M. Mckim, 1976. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.<br />
Hood, P.B., and A.K. Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red<br />
porgy, Pagrus pagrus from <strong>the</strong> eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 98:723-735.<br />
Horn, W. and K. Mille. 2006. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial Reef<br />
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, May 18,<br />
2006. Unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>, 12 pages.<br />
Horn, W., J. Dodrill, and K. Mille. 2006a. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial<br />
Reef Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, August<br />
3, 2006. Unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>, 20 pages.<br />
Horn, W. and K. Mille 2006b. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial Reef<br />
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, September<br />
28, 2006. Unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>, 17 pages.<br />
Horn, W. 2007. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef Assessment Dive Team<br />
Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, June 23, 2007. Unpublished FWC<br />
<strong>report</strong>, 13 pages.<br />
Horn, W. and K. Miller 2007. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef<br />
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Trap Recovery<br />
Reef, April 17, 2007. Unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>, 7 pages.<br />
Horn, W. and K. Mille. 2009. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef<br />
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, November<br />
19, 2009. Unpublished FWC <strong>report</strong>, 20 pages.<br />
Ingram, GW 2001. Stock structure of gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>, Ballistes capriscus, on<br />
multiple spatial scales in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico. PhD Dissertation, Department of<br />
Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama. 229 pages.<br />
110 | Page
Ingram, G.W., Jr. and W.F. Patterson, III. 1999. Movement patterns of red snapper<br />
(Lutjanus campechanus), greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), and gray trigger<strong>fish</strong><br />
(Balistes capriscus) in <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico and <strong>the</strong> utility of marine reserves as<br />
management tools. Proceedings of 52nd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Key<br />
West, Florida.<br />
Ingram, G.W., Jr. 2001. Stock structure of gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of<br />
Mexico. PhD. Dissertation, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. 228 pages.<br />
International Game Fish Association (IGFA). 2010. IGFA Online World Record<br />
Search. http://www.igfa.org/records/Fishing-World-Record-Search.aspx<br />
Johnston, R.K., George, R.D., Richter, K.E., Wang, P.F., and Wild, W.J. 2006.<br />
Artificial Reefing: Ex-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project, Ecological Risk<br />
Assessment. Final Report, Marine Environmental Support Office, Environmental<br />
Sciences and Applied Systems Branch, SPARWAR Systems Center. (Prepared for:<br />
Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 333), San Diego, California 92152-6326). 358<br />
pages.<br />
McCawley, J.R. 2003. Diet and prey demand of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus,<br />
on Alabama artificial <strong>reef</strong>s. Department of Marine Sciences, University of South<br />
Alabama, College of Arts and Sciences. M.S. Thesis. 206 pages.<br />
McCawley, J.R. and J.H. Cowan Jr. 2007. Seasonal and Size Specific Diet and Prey<br />
Demand of Red Snapper on Alabama Artificial Reefs. Pp. 70-104. In Red Snapper<br />
ecology and <strong>fish</strong>eries in <strong>the</strong> U.S. Gulf of Mexico 2007 W.H. Patterson III, J.M.<br />
Cowan, Jr, G. R. Fitzshugh and D. Neiland. Editors. American Fisheries Society<br />
Symposium 60 (San Antonio, TX Feb. 10-12 2006).<br />
McClellan, D.B. and N.J. Cummings. 1997. Preliminary Analysis of Tag and<br />
Recapture Data of <strong>the</strong> Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>astern<br />
Unites Sates. Proc. 49th Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 49: 25–45.<br />
Morgan and Rose. 2005. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consultation on <strong>the</strong><br />
Polychlorinated Biphenyl - Artificial Reef Risk Assessment. United States<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. 2 pages.<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service WEB site FISH WATCH -<br />
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/<strong>fish</strong>watch/species/red_snapper.htm, March 9, 2010<br />
111 | Page
NEHC 2005. EX-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project: Human Health Risk<br />
Assessment. Draft Final Report June 2005, Prepared for Program Executive Office<br />
Ships (PMS333) Naval Sea Systems Command by BAH/MCA/URS for Navy<br />
Environmental Health Center, Norfolk, VA.<br />
Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N.<br />
Lea, and J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of <strong>fish</strong>es from <strong>the</strong><br />
United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication<br />
29, Be<strong>the</strong>sda, Maryland. 386 pages.<br />
Nieland DL, Wilson CA, Fischer AJ (2007) Declining size at age among red snapper<br />
in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico: recovery or collapse? In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH<br />
Jr, Fitzhugh GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red Snapper Ecology and Fisheries in <strong>the</strong> US<br />
Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, symposium 60, Be<strong>the</strong>sda, Maryland, pp<br />
329–336.<br />
Pape, L.T. 2006. Polychlorinated biphenyls (<strong>PCB</strong>) source term estimates for ex-<br />
Oriskany (CVA-34). Rev. 5, January 24, 2006. Prepared through CACI<br />
International Inc. for Program Executive Office (Ships), Navy Inactive Ships<br />
Program (PMS 333) 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20376-2101.<br />
Patterson, W.F., III, J.H. Cowan, Jr., C.A. Wilson, and R.L. Shipp. 2001a. Age and<br />
growth of red snapper from an artificial <strong>reef</strong> area in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico.<br />
U.S. Fishery Bulletin 99:617-627.<br />
Patterson, W.F., III, J.C. Watterson, R.L. Shipp, and J.H. Cowan, Jr. 2001b.<br />
Movement of tagged red snapper in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of <strong>the</strong><br />
American Fisheries Society 130:533-545.<br />
Patterson, W.F., III and J.H. Cowan. 2003. Site fidelity and dispersion of red<br />
snapper associated with artificial <strong>reef</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico. Pages 181-<br />
194 in D.R. Stanley and A. Scarborough- Bull, eds. Fisheries, Reefs, and Offshore<br />
Development. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 36,<br />
Be<strong>the</strong>sda, Maryland.<br />
Patterson WF III (2007) A review of movement in Gulf of Mexico red snapper:<br />
implications for population structure. In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH Jr, Fitzhugh<br />
GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red Snapper Ecology and Fisheries in <strong>the</strong> US Gulf of Mexico.<br />
American Fisheries Society, symposium 60, Be<strong>the</strong>sda, Maryland, pp 245–262.<br />
Patterson, W.F. III, D. T. Addis, and J.H. Tarnecki. 2010. The refuge effect of<br />
unpublished artificial <strong>reef</strong>s deployed on <strong>the</strong> northwest Florida shelf (Contract<br />
FWC07019). Final Report, March 1, 2010. 36 pp.<br />
112 | Page
Patterson, W. F., J. H. Cowan Jr, et al. 2001. "Age and growth of red snapper,<br />
Lutjanus Campechanus, from an artificial <strong>reef</strong> area off Alabama in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Gulf of Mexico." Fishery Bulletin 99: 617-627.<br />
Patterson, W.F., III, D.T. Addis, and M.A. Dance. 2008. The effect of unpublished<br />
artificial <strong>reef</strong>s deployed on <strong>the</strong> northwest Florida shelf. Final Report to Florida Fish<br />
and Wildlife Conservation Commission for FWC-06120. 116 pages.<br />
Patterson, W.F., Dustin T. Addis, and Michael A. Dance. 2009. The Refuge Effect<br />
of Unpublished Artificial Reefs Deployed on <strong>the</strong> Northwest Florida Shelf (FWC-<br />
06120): 2005-08 Modeling Report. Final <strong>report</strong> to Florida Fish and Wildlife<br />
Conservation Commission, Grant FWC-06120. 53 pages.<br />
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Whitebone Porgy<br />
Description.<br />
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/WhitebonePorgy/tabid/260/Default.aspx,<br />
Accessed April 5, 2011.<br />
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Scamp<br />
Description. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/Scamp/tabid/322/Default.aspx,<br />
Accessed April 5, 2011.<br />
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Vermilion<br />
Snapper<br />
Description.<br />
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/VermilionSnapper/tabid/335/Default.aspx,<br />
Accessed April 5, 2011.<br />
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Gray trigger<strong>fish</strong><br />
Description<br />
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GrayTrigger<strong>fish</strong>/tabid/292/Default.aspx.<br />
Accessed April 5, 2011.<br />
Schmitt.et al 1998. Surveying Coral Reef Fishes: A Manual for Data Collection,<br />
Processing, and Interpretation of Fish Survey Information for <strong>the</strong> Tropical<br />
Northwest Atlantic. Published by REEF and <strong>the</strong> Nature Conservancy 84 pages.<br />
Schmitt, E.F and K.M. Sullivan. 1996. Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting<br />
<strong>fish</strong> presence and abundance data in <strong>the</strong> Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science.<br />
59(2):404-416.<br />
Schroepfer, R.L. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2006. Estimates of residence and site fidelity<br />
for red snapper Lutjanus campechanus on artificial <strong>reef</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of<br />
Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 78:93-101.<br />
Sedberry, G.R. 1989. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87: 935-944<br />
113 | Page
Shipp, R.L. 1986. Guide to Fishes of <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Mexico, Marine Environmental<br />
Sciences Consortium of Alabama, 256 pages.<br />
Snyder, R.A., W.F. Patterson III, S. Givson, S. Jeffers, and A. Ren. 2007. Pre-<br />
Reefing Environmental Assessment for <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany. Center for Environmental<br />
Diagnositics and Bioremediation and Department of Biology. University of West<br />
Florida, Pensacola, Florida. 59 pp.<br />
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006a. Ex-Oriskany Artificial Reef Project:<br />
Human Health Risk Assessment. Final Report, Prepared for: Program Executive<br />
Office Ships (PMS 333). 411 pages.<br />
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006b. Artificial Reefing: Ex-ORISKANY<br />
Artificial Reef Project - Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) Version 1.4C.<br />
San Diego, California. Prepared for: Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 333),<br />
Navy Environmental Health Center, URS Corporation, SPARWAR Systems Center.<br />
408 pages.<br />
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c. Ex-Oriskany Project: Time Dynamic<br />
Model Documentation (TDM). Final Report, Prepared for: Program Executive Office<br />
Ships (PMS 333). 175 pages.<br />
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. (2006d). Ex-Oriskany Project: Investigation<br />
of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (<strong>PCB</strong>) Release-Rates from Selected Shipboard<br />
Materials Under Laboratory-Simulated Shallow Ocean (Artificial Reef)<br />
Environments. 1074 pages.<br />
Strelcheck, A. J. 1998. The Influence of Reef Design and Nearest-Neighbor<br />
Dynamics on Artificial-Reef Fish Assemblages. Department of Marine Sciences.<br />
Mobile, AL, University of South Alabama. Masters Thesis. 124 pages.<br />
Strelcheck AJ, Cowan JH Jr, Shah A (2005) Influence of Reef Location on Artifical-<br />
Reef Fish Assemblages in <strong>the</strong> Northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Bull Mar Sci 77:425–440<br />
Strelcheck, A.J, J.H. Cowan, Jr. and W.F. Patterson, III. 2007. Site fidelity,<br />
movement, and growth of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus: Implications for<br />
artificial <strong>reef</strong> management. Pages 135-148 in W.F. Patterson, III,<br />
Szedlemayer, S. T. and R. L. Shipp. 1994. "Movement and Growth of Red Snapper,<br />
Lutjanus Campechanus, from an Artificial Reef Area in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of<br />
Mexico." Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3): 887-896.<br />
Szedlmayer, S. T. 1997. Ultrasonic telemetry of redsnapper, Lutjanus campechanus,<br />
at artificial <strong>reef</strong> sites in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>ast Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 1997:846–850.<br />
114 | Page
Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Ecology of Live Bottom<br />
Habitats of <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile. U.S. Dept. of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR--<br />
1999-0001 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New<br />
Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 99-0004. 74 pages.<br />
USEPA. 2006a. Response to comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<br />
(EPA) Proposal to issue a polychlorinated biphenyl (<strong>PCB</strong>) disposal approval for<br />
deployment of <strong>the</strong> ex-Oriskany as an artificial <strong>reef</strong>, February 15, 2006.<br />
USEPA. 2006b. Approval for risk-based disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (<strong>PCB</strong>)<br />
bulk product waste. Issued to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of <strong>the</strong> Navy Inactive Ships<br />
Program Office and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, February<br />
15, 2006.<br />
USEPA and MARAD. 2006. National Guidance: Best Management Practices for<br />
Preparing Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs. 76 pages.<br />
Wilson, C.A., and Nieland, D.L. 2001. Age and growth of red snapper, Lutjanus<br />
campechanus, from <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana. Fishery Bulletin<br />
99(4): 653-664.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
We would like to thank <strong>the</strong> captains and crew of <strong>the</strong> F/V Margie Ann, M/V JJ<br />
Brown, F/V Chulamar, and F/V Entertainer, as well as <strong>the</strong> many volunteer anglers<br />
who assisted with <strong>the</strong> <strong>fish</strong> <strong>sampling</strong> trips.<br />
115 | Page
APPENDIX 1<br />
Tables<br />
116 | Page
Table 2. FWC Fish Census data taken on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from seven surveys,<br />
sorted by Percent Sightings Frequency. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are<br />
species that were sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Common Name Scientific Name Density<br />
# Surveys<br />
Observed % Sightings Frequency Rank<br />
vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 3.57 7 100.00% 1<br />
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 3.00 7 100.00% 2<br />
great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 1.86 7 100.00% 3<br />
cocoa damsel<strong>fish</strong> Pomacentrus variabilis 2.83 6 85.71% 4<br />
yellowtail <strong>reef</strong><strong>fish</strong> Chromis enchysurus 2.83 6 85.71% 5<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 2.50 6 85.71% 6<br />
bar jack Caranx ruber 3.00 5 71.43% 7<br />
Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 2.80 5 71.43% 8<br />
seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus 2.40 5 71.43% 9<br />
greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 2.21 5 71.43% 10<br />
bank sea bass Centropristis ocyurus 2.20 5 71.43% 11<br />
planehead file<strong>fish</strong> Monacanthus hispidus 2.20 5 71.43% 12<br />
slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus 2.20 5 71.43% 13<br />
sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 1.80 5 71.43% 14<br />
Gag Mycteroperca microlepis 1.60 5 71.43% 15<br />
round scad Decapterus punctatus 3.25 4 57.14% 16<br />
creole-<strong>fish</strong> Paranthias furcifer 2.75 4 57.14% 17<br />
purple <strong>reef</strong><strong>fish</strong> Chromis scotti 2.50 4 57.14% 18<br />
blue angel<strong>fish</strong> Holocanthus bermudensis 2.25 4 57.14% 19<br />
Bluehead Thalassoma bifasciatum 2.25 4 57.14% 20<br />
blue runner Caranx crysos 3.67 3 42.86% 21<br />
dusky damsel<strong>fish</strong> Stegastes fuscus 3.00 3 42.86% 22<br />
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 3.00 3 42.86% 23<br />
almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 2.33 3 42.86% 24<br />
<strong>reef</strong> butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon sedentarius 2.00 3 42.86% 25<br />
spotfin butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon ocellatus 2.00 3 42.86% 26<br />
Doctor<strong>fish</strong> Acanthurus chirurgus 1.67 3 42.86% 27<br />
scrawled file<strong>fish</strong> Aluterus scriptus 1.00 3 42.86% 28<br />
whitespotted file<strong>fish</strong> Can<strong>the</strong>rhines macrocerus 1.00 3 42.86% 29<br />
red porgy Pagrus pagrus 3.00 2 28.57% 30<br />
Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix 2.50 2 28.57% 31<br />
Atlantic spade<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodipterus faber 2.00 2 28.57% 32<br />
Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus 2.00 2 28.57% 33<br />
High-hat Equetus acuminatus 2.00 2 28.57% 34<br />
Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 2.00 2 28.57% 35<br />
Trumpet<strong>fish</strong> Aulostomus maculatus 2.00 2 28.57% 36<br />
banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus 1.50 2 28.57% 37<br />
red barbier Hemanthias vivanus 1.50 2 28.57% 38<br />
Pin<strong>fish</strong> Lagodon rhomboides 1.00 2 28.57% 39<br />
redband parrot<strong>fish</strong> Scarus aurofrenatus 1.00 2 28.57% 40<br />
spotfin hog<strong>fish</strong> Bodianus pulchellus 1.00 2 28.57% 41<br />
belted sand<strong>fish</strong> Serranus subligarius 3.00 1 14.29% 42<br />
brown chromis Chromis multilineata 2.00 1 14.29% 43<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> Balistes capriscus 2.00 1 14.29% 44<br />
Sunshine<strong>fish</strong> Chromis insolata 2.00 1 14.29% 45<br />
bicolor damsel<strong>fish</strong> Stegastes partitus 1.00 1 14.29% 46<br />
Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 1.00 1 14.29% 47<br />
Remoras Echeneidae 1.00 1 14.29% 48<br />
sand perch Diplectrum formosum 1.00 1 14.29% 49<br />
Spanish hog<strong>fish</strong> Bodianus rufus 1.00 1 14.29% 50<br />
whitespotted soap<strong>fish</strong> Rypticus maculatus 1.00 1 14.29% 51<br />
yellow goat<strong>fish</strong> Mulloidichthys martinicus 1.00 1 14.29% 52<br />
yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 1.00 1 14.29% 53<br />
117 | Page
Table 3. FWC Fish Census data taken on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef from seven surveys,<br />
sorted by density. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are species that were<br />
sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Common name Scientific Name Density<br />
# Surveys<br />
Observed % Sightings Frequency Rank<br />
blue runner Caranx crysos 3.67 3 42.86% 1<br />
vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 3.57 7 100.00% 2<br />
round scad Decapterus punctatus 3.25 4 57.14% 3<br />
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 3.00 7 100.00% 4<br />
bar jack Caranx ruber 3.00 5 71.43% 5<br />
dusky damsel<strong>fish</strong> Stegastes fuscus 3.00 3 42.86% 6<br />
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 3.00 3 42.86% 7<br />
red porgy Pagrus pagrus 3.00 2 28.57% 8<br />
belted sand<strong>fish</strong> Serranus subligarius 3.00 1 14.29% 9<br />
cocoa damsel<strong>fish</strong> Pomacentrus variabilis 2.83 6 85.71% 10<br />
yellowtail <strong>reef</strong><strong>fish</strong> Chromis enchysurus 2.83 6 85.71% 11<br />
Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 2.80 5 71.43% 12<br />
creole-<strong>fish</strong> Paranthias furcifer 2.75 4 57.14% 13<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 2.50 6 85.71% 14<br />
purple <strong>reef</strong><strong>fish</strong> Chromis scotti 2.50 4 57.14% 15<br />
Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix 2.50 2 28.57% 16<br />
seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus 2.40 5 71.43% 17<br />
almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 2.33 3 42.86% 18<br />
blue angel<strong>fish</strong> Holocanthus bermudensis 2.25 4 57.14% 19<br />
Bluehead Thalassoma bifasciatum 2.25 4 57.14% 20<br />
greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 2.21 5 71.43% 21<br />
bank seabass Centropristic ocyurus 2.20 5 71.43% 22<br />
planehead file<strong>fish</strong> Monacanthus hispidus 2.20 5 71.43% 23<br />
slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus 2.20 5 71.43% 24<br />
<strong>reef</strong> butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon sedentarius 2.00 3 42.86% 25<br />
spotfin butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon ocellatus 2.00 3 42.86% 26<br />
Atlantic spade<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodipterus faber 2.00 2 28.57% 27<br />
Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus 2.00 2 28.57% 28<br />
Highhat Equetus acuminatus 2.00 2 28.57% 29<br />
Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 2.00 2 28.57% 30<br />
Trumpet<strong>fish</strong> Aulostomus maculatus 2.00 2 28.57% 31<br />
brown chromis Chromis multilineata 2.00 1 14.29% 32<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> Balistes capriscus 2.00 1 14.29% 33<br />
Sunshine<strong>fish</strong> Chromis insolata 2.00 1 14.29% 34<br />
great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 1.86 7 100.00% 35<br />
sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 1.80 5 71.43% 36<br />
Doctor<strong>fish</strong> Acanthurus chirurgus 1.67 3 42.86% 37<br />
Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis 1.60 5 71.43% 38<br />
banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus 1.50 2 28.57% 39<br />
red barbier Hemanthias vivanus 1.50 2 28.57% 40<br />
scrawled file<strong>fish</strong> Aluterus scriptus 1.00 3 42.86% 41<br />
whitespotted file<strong>fish</strong> Can<strong>the</strong>rhines macrocerus 1.00 3 42.86% 42<br />
Pin<strong>fish</strong> Lagodon rhomboides 1.00 2 28.57% 43<br />
redband parrot<strong>fish</strong> Scarus aurofrenatus 1.00 2 28.57% 44<br />
spotfin hog<strong>fish</strong> Bodianus pulchellus 1.00 2 28.57% 45<br />
bicolor damsel<strong>fish</strong> Stegastes partitus 1.00 1 14.29% 46<br />
Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 1.00 1 14.29% 47<br />
Remoras Echeneidae 1.00 1 14.29% 48<br />
sand perch Diplectrum formosum 1.00 1 14.29% 49<br />
Spanish hog<strong>fish</strong> Bodianus rufus 1.00 1 14.29% 50<br />
whitespotted soap<strong>fish</strong> Rypticus maculatus 1.00 1 14.29% 51<br />
yellow goat<strong>fish</strong> Mulloidichthys martinicus 1.00 1 14.29% 52<br />
yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 1.00 1 14.29% 53<br />
118 | Page
Table 4. Fish census data taken by <strong>the</strong> FWC on <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge<br />
Reef, November 19, 2009. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are species that<br />
were sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s on <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Common Name Scientific name Relative Abundance<br />
Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum Abundant: > 100<br />
Atlantic spade<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodipterus faber Many: 11 to 100<br />
cocoa damsel<strong>fish</strong> Stegastes variabilis Many: 11 to 100<br />
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Many: 11 to 100<br />
greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Many: 11 to 100<br />
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Many: 11 to 100<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Many: 11 to 100<br />
banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus Few: 2 to 10<br />
beaugregory Stegastes leucostictus Few: 2 to 10<br />
belted sand<strong>fish</strong> Serranus subligarius Few: 2 to 10<br />
blue angel<strong>fish</strong> Holocanthus bermudensis Few: 2 to 10<br />
Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus Few: 2 to 10<br />
Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Few: 2 to 10<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> Balistes capriscus Few: 2 to 10<br />
great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Few: 2 to 10<br />
lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Few: 2 to 10<br />
Pork<strong>fish</strong> Anisotremus virginicus Few: 2 to 10<br />
purple <strong>reef</strong><strong>fish</strong> Chromis scotti Few: 2 to 10<br />
red grouper Epinephelus morio Few: 2 to 10<br />
slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus Few: 2 to 10<br />
spotfin butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon ocellatus Few: 2 to 10<br />
vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Few: 2 to 10<br />
whitespotted soap<strong>fish</strong> Rypticus maculates Few: 2 to 10<br />
doctor<strong>fish</strong> Acanthurus chirurgus Single: 1<br />
French angel<strong>fish</strong> Pomacanthus paru Single: 1<br />
orange file<strong>fish</strong> Aluterus schoepfi Single: 1<br />
<strong>reef</strong> butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon sedentarius Single: 1<br />
sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata Single: 1<br />
Table 5. University of West Florida <strong>fish</strong> census data taken on Escambia East<br />
LAARS Refugia Reefs (Patterson 2009), sorted by Percent Number. Bold text<br />
entries overlying a blue field are species that were sampled for <strong>PCB</strong>s on <strong>the</strong><br />
Oriskany Reef.<br />
Common Name<br />
Scientific Name<br />
Percent<br />
Number Percent Biomass Rank<br />
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 25.60 42.79 1<br />
mackerel scad Decapterus macarellus 15.35 3.86 2<br />
tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 10.04 3.18 3<br />
round sardinella Sardinella aurita 6.61 2.02 4<br />
vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 5.28 5.14 5<br />
blue runner Caranx crysos 4.38 3.72 6<br />
pin<strong>fish</strong> Lagodon rhomboides 4.36 1.59 7<br />
greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 3.43 6.83 8<br />
gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> Balistes capriscus 3.35 6.14 9<br />
slippery dick Halichoeres bivittatus 3.28 0.50 10<br />
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 2.20 4.24 11<br />
twospot cardinal<strong>fish</strong> Apogon pseudomaculatus 1.64 0.06 12<br />
seaweed blenny Parblennius marmoreus 1.39 0.04 13<br />
119 | Page
ed porgy Pagrus pagrus 1.18 0.92 14<br />
lane snapper Lutjanus synagris 1.08 0.92 15<br />
bank seabass Centropristis ocyurus 1.08 0.87 16<br />
Atlantic spade<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodipterus faber 0.94 0.36 17<br />
gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis 0.77 5.19 18<br />
cardinal<strong>fish</strong> Apogon sp. 0.69
frog<strong>fish</strong> Antennarius sp.
lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata 0.06 0.18 27<br />
unicorn file<strong>fish</strong> Aluterus monoceros 0.06 0.17 28<br />
cobia Rachycentron canadum
eef butterfly<strong>fish</strong> Chaetodon sedentarius
Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 368 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 395 n/a ? 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 394 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 360 n/a ? 4/12/2007 2<br />
Snowy Grouper Epinephelus niveatus 254 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 392 n/a 4 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 360 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 402 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2<br />
Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana n/a 480 unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 539 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 395 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 396 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 410 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 482 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 392 n/a 1 4/29/2008 4<br />
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili n/a 814 1 4/29/2008 4<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 306 n/a 1 4/29/2008 4<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 512 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 407 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 462 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus unk n/a (dead) 4/21/2009 5<br />
Vermilion snapper R. aurorubens 357 335 (dead) 4/21/2009 5<br />
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 558 n/a unk 11/18/2009 6<br />
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 936 802 unk 11/18/2009 6<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 408 376 4 11/18/2009 6<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2009 6<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2009 6<br />
Almaco Jack Seriola rivoliana 622 512 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Bank Seabass Centropristic ocyurus 203 n/a 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 806 692 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 711 610 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 483 457 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 432 400 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 495 464 2 4/27/2010 7<br />
Red Snapper L. campechanus 483 457 3 4/27/2010 7<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 381 356 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Whitebone Porgy Calamus leucosteus 368 317 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Whitebone Porgy Calamus leucosteus 381 368 1 4/27/2010 7<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 640 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 280 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 650 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 690 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 650 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 770 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 700 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 800 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Red porgy Pagrus pagrus 320 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Red porgy Pagrus pagrus 340 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 300 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Tomtate grunt Haemulon aurolineatum 260 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 320 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 460 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 520 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 370 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 390 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
124 | Page
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 430 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 500 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 510 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 450 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 310 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 460 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 500 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 330 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 380 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 390 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 400 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 470 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 370 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2010 8<br />
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2010 8<br />
Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 320 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8<br />
Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 200 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8<br />
Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 290 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8<br />
Red snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8<br />
Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 380 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8<br />
125 | Page
Table 13. Tissue sample characteristics and <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations by wet mass of skin-on fillets of <strong>fish</strong> lateral<br />
musculature of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> collected during sample rounds 1-8 from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef. <strong>PCB</strong> data is presented through<br />
sample round 7, sample round 8 <strong>PCB</strong> data is expected to be received by May 31, 2011 (notated as ‘tbd’).<br />
Fish<br />
Length<br />
(TL)<br />
mm<br />
Fish<br />
Length<br />
(FL)<br />
mm<br />
Wet<br />
Weight<br />
(g)<br />
Total <strong>PCB</strong><br />
Congeners<br />
(pg/g)<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> Homologs by Chlorination Level<br />
FWC<br />
Sample ID Common Name<br />
Collection<br />
Date<br />
Collection<br />
Gear<br />
%<br />
Solid<br />
%<br />
Lipid<br />
Chlor.<br />
1<br />
Chlor.<br />
2 Chlor. 3 Chlor. 4 Chlor. 5 Chlor. 6 Chlor. 7 Chlor. 8 Chlor. 9<br />
Chlor.<br />
10<br />
OR-RS-001 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 463 n/a 10.14 22.3 4.3 6739.0 0.0 0.0 181.7 484.2 3388.6 1547.5 1006.8 79.4 25.8 25.0<br />
OR-RS-002 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 431 n/a 10.69 23.2 5.4 29433.9 0.0 0.0 2708.6 3612.3 15078.2 4110.1 3495.2 331.4 98.2 0.0<br />
OR-RS-003 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 442 n/a 10.11 25.2 4.3 5789.5 0.0 0.0 171.9 243.3 2318.2 1928.5 895.2 182.1 32.8 17.5<br />
OR-RS-004 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 410 n/a 10.35 22.8 3.5 3249.7 0.0 0.0 126.7 147.2 1425.8 993.0 496.8 25.0 20.5 14.6<br />
OR-RS-005 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 460 n/a 10.96 25.7 14.5 44762.5 0.0 0.0 4051.7 7627.4 21031.8 6130.6 5163.7 551.2 165.4 40.5<br />
OR-RS-006 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 421 n/a 10.85 23.7 2.6 3753.1 0.0 0.0 43.3 143.4 1671.3 998.8 816.7 58.1 12.5 9.0<br />
OR-RS-007 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 417 n/a 10.78 22.4 1.0 1467.9 0.0 0.0 26.7 67.3 638.3 502.6 208.9 18.4 5.7 0.0<br />
OR-RS-008 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 452 n/a 9.98 25.7 10.2 68018.9 0.0 408.9 16660.3 10005.4 26849.2 9293.5 4045.9 582.5 139.2 34.0<br />
OR-RS-009 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 447 n/a 10.90 24.7 6.0 26017.4 0.0 0.0 1923.0 2155.9 11872.7 5889.0 3388.7 672.2 92.9 23.1<br />
OR-RS-010 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.82 24.5 6.0 20955.1 0.0 0.0 867.4 1489.2 10566.0 5805.5 1933.2 196.3 67.9 29.6<br />
OR-RS-011 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 413 n/a 10.03 25.3 5.6 9699.1 0.0 0.0 497.9 836.6 4386.4 2522.4 1267.5 108.4 53.1 26.9<br />
OR-RS-012 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 419 n/a 10.26 22.9 3.3 9955.0 0.0 0.0 322.9 681.2 4826.6 2655.9 1333.6 104.4 30.4 0.0<br />
OR-RS-013 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 455 Tiisue 10.02 25.9 9.2 87021.7 0.0 616.8 8571.6 8952.2 35002.0 22076.4 10078.9 1389.9 245.3 88.7<br />
OR-RS-014 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 404 n/a 10.24 24.0 3.5 9657.2 0.0 159.9 423.4 670.7 4442.1 2943.9 918.7 65.4 21.5 11.6<br />
OR-RS-015 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.54 24.6 4.4 10930.7 0.0 263.0 588.3 850.8 4635.9 3197.0 1197.1 140.9 37.8 19.9<br />
OR-RS-016 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 443 n/a 10.16 32.6 25.7 192970.4 124.5 495.3 11481.3 30735.1 107142.5 31859.0 9852.4 1032.2 185.0 63.0<br />
OR-RS-017 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 418 n/a 10.79 24.0 6.6 91650.7 0.0 407.5 9628.7 10378.8 37040.9 17442.6 12888.6 2400.4 1273.4 189.9<br />
OR-RS-018 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.22 23.3 5.0 21155.9 0.0 27.2 1401.2 3133.4 10315.4 4128.6 1867.4 213.3 53.4 16.1<br />
OR-RS-019 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 429 n/a 10.02 25.9 3.4 945181.4 0.0 4472.0 65212.1 96708.1 356372.4 302020.3 92969.7 21142.1 4051.4 2233.3<br />
OR-RS-020 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 475 n/a 10.41 27.7 13.6 67639.3 0.0 805.6 14999.3 12264.8 22497.2 11304.0 4504.2 829.6 367.1 67.5<br />
OR-RS-021 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 406 n/a 10.51 26.3 10.5 32715.4 0.0 100.7 4512.2 7336.1 8030.1 8701.4 3407.0 487.0 140.9 0.0<br />
OR-RS-022 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 411 n/a 12.02 22.2 1.5 9463.9 0.0 38.9 227.0 1130.1 1852.2 3092.6 2312.7 678.7 131.6 0.0<br />
OR-RS-023 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 435 n/a 10.63 22.8 2.5 5309.9 0.0 0.0 166.2 1581.9 1059.7 1777.2 625.4 73.5 26.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-024 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 428 n/a 12.93 25.6 12.8 15376.2 6.6 29.6 858.8 2469.7 2701.7 4637.0 2801.7 1555.7 315.5 0.0<br />
OR-RS-025 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 419 n/a 13.88 23.6 3.1 9985.7 0.0 0.0 986.5 2861.9 2667.2 2853.8 489.5 109.2 17.6 0.0<br />
OR-RS-026 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 440 n/a 10.95 31.6 18.8 109850.3 128.5 791.2 9920.9 24012.7 27474.4 27725.7 16179.3 2712.5 905.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-027 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 425 n/a 11.57 25.7 8.0 19902.1 0.0 882.7 2387.8 4801.2 5372.3 4578.4 1584.4 240.1 55.3 0.0<br />
OR-RS-028 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 808 n/a 10.94 27.2 13.4 43846.0 0.0 5.0 1092.9 14061.6 7259.0 13613.5 6765.8 717.5 330.7 0.0<br />
OR-RS-029 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 795 n/a 11.97 28.8 14.5 37317.2 3.6 30.1 2619.8 10094.6 6381.3 10453.4 6630.4 823.9 280.1 0.0<br />
OR-RS-030 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 445 n/a 13.24 33.0 22.0 121241.6 8.8 304.0 11478.3 24143.8 32148.2 27853.8 17760.7 4470.0 3074.1 0.0<br />
OR-RS-031 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 411 n/a 10.35 22.1 3.4 10954.2 0.0 47.4 419.8 636.5 6480.0 2436.5 546.3 286.5 66.1 35.1<br />
OR-RS-032 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 439 n/a 11.10 30.3 13.8 155438.9 27.8 157.1 11441.6 9828.9 108631.9 18072.4 3568.4 3054.2 512.8 143.8<br />
OR-RS-033 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 465 n/a 11.60 27.8 11.8 108273.5 23.1 119.9 4755.6 7151.2 59687.7 24979.9 3074.8 5176.5 2946.4 358.4<br />
OR-RS-034 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 445 n/a 10.60 25.0 4.2 39302.4 0.0 0.0 2350.5 1969.7 26368.5 5486.2 1434.7 1390.8 243.0 59.0<br />
OR-RS-035 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 453 n/a 10.04 25.5 9.6 20231.1 0.0 45.8 724.9 1225.9 12515.8 4680.1 664.7 296.1 44.0 33.8<br />
OR-RS-036 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 596 n/a 10.08 30.1 21.6 154966.7 0.0 61.6 9094.1 12629.5 90097.4 29091.2 5386.6 6445.3 1661.9 499.1<br />
OR-RS-037 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 520 n/a 11.06 34.0 16.6 67977.6 18.1 158.9 5979.7 4175.2 49800.6 6190.9 843.2 635.8 123.4 51.8<br />
OR-RS-038 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 508 n/a 10.09 28.5 7.1 48394.5 0.0 145.0 3482.6 4556.7 31018.4 7870.2 886.4 328.9 59.1 47.2<br />
OR-VS-039 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 352 n/a 10.06 25.8 11.4 23846.7 0.0 110.6 1453.8 1521.6 15448.9 4703.7 456.1 137.9 14.1 0.0<br />
OR-RS-040 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 406 n/a 10.05 23.5 5.0 160981.5 0.0 124.1 4196.9 7090.8 93807.6 33260.8 11363.2 9609.4 1264.2 264.5<br />
OR-RS-041 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 467 n/a 10.35 24.2 6.8 62392.4 0.0 53.2 1775.6 4003.2 37466.1 15164.2 2442.8 1247.3 166.0 74.0<br />
126 | Page
OR-RS-042 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 469 n/a 10.03 29.9 13.4 44205.4 14.5 39.4 2452.6 6858.0 17567.8 11824.8 4466.7 592.0 197.7 191.9<br />
OR-RS-043 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 452 n/a 10.22 28.2 10.7 113668.5 20.1 133.3 4756.7 7191.9 66120.5 24986.8 5827.7 3919.6 620.0 91.9<br />
OR-RS-044 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 406 n/a 10.39 23.9 3.1 487676.9 75.1 48.6 22117.9 24140.2 294858.8 76578.3 33590.6 29877.5 5518.5 871.4<br />
OR-RS-045 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 435 n/a 10.84 25.8 6.4 32547.1 60.6 93.6 970.9 1212.1 12606.0 14293.9 1893.7 1286.3 130.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-046 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 457 n/a 10.30 22.9 6.1 10828.1 0.0 0.0 796.7 454.1 5288.1 3355.8 659.7 242.9 30.8 0.0<br />
OR-RP-047 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 329 n/a 10.56 22.8 2.9 22640.3 110.3 97.0 609.3 1142.1 14470.0 3883.6 1210.6 970.3 110.6 36.5<br />
OR-VS-048 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 360 n/a 10.03 25.8 8.4 8022.2 2.9 63.5 665.7 1049.1 3794.4 1887.0 480.1 59.4 10.1 10.0<br />
OR-VS-049 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 361 n/a 10.71 28.4 18.5 13047.5 12.9 100.5 1336.9 1780.7 6938.7 2096.2 663.5 83.9 20.1 14.1<br />
OR-RS-050 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 422 n/a 10.06 24.1 7.0 36664.7 0.0 37.7 661.4 2130.9 19794.6 9819.0 2777.8 1113.0 225.8 104.5<br />
OR-VS-051 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 348 n/a 10.03 23.8 2.6 7217.0 1.7 29.0 223.0 474.7 3246.5 2006.5 996.2 190.1 25.9 23.4<br />
OR-RS-052 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 433 n/a 10.16 35.1 9.3 16054.9 11.8 74.3 1126.0 1996.2 6215.3 3819.1 2524.7 236.9 27.5 23.1<br />
OR-RS-053 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 418 n/a 10.05 23.8 4.2 5161.5 22.9 36.3 146.7 340.9 2260.4 1766.5 516.9 45.8 10.1 15.0<br />
OR-RP-054 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 302 n/a 10.09 23.4 1.4 19003.1 15.5 29.8 448.9 1666.3 7156.6 5724.2 2956.8 850.9 81.3 72.8<br />
OR-RP-055 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 296 n/a 10.23 28.0 4.2 54973.3 0.0 138.5 1483.3 2564.5 30817.9 14733.8 2393.9 1924.3 723.2 193.9<br />
OR-RS-056 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 427 n/a 10.01 29.8 10.5 591976.4 20.4 547.4 52045.4 103151.0 263664.2 90175.9 50719.5 23673.3 5650.0 2329.3<br />
OR-RP-058 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 278 n/a 10.24 22.1 0.8 16245.8 36.0 26.8 173.5 983.5 8479.1 3861.4 1976.6 573.5 69.2 66.2<br />
OR-RS-059 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 414 n/a 10.96 25.2 6.4 7032.8 98.2 139.4 610.4 473.3 4114.3 1302.5 231.3 48.4 15.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-060 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 416 n/a 10.31 23.4 4.9 56446.8 21.0 41.1 2280.5 5104.4 29501.5 12056.6 5113.2 1766.4 313.8 248.3<br />
OR-RS-061 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 509 n/a 9.85 23.3 5.0 5826.3 0.0 29.5 306.6 445.4 2023.8 2087.8 786.5 114.9 31.8 0.0<br />
OR-RS-062 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 480 n/a 10.56 23.7 1.5 4710.0 14.7 90.2 234.4 1380.7 1208.0 1031.6 582.9 125.1 42.4 0.0<br />
OR-RS-063 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 425 n/a 9.97 22.5 0.9 1948.4 18.7 43.1 174.9 193.1 694.4 581.8 219.3 17.4 5.7 0.0<br />
OR-RS-064 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 487 n/a 10.22 25.1 0.9 62665.8 11.2 81.5 2602.8 8198.0 22561.8 11393.4 12727.2 3756.3 1227.5 106.0<br />
OR-RS-065 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 622 n/a 10.10 24.1 2.9 17124.8 7.9 68.7 199.3 336.4 3873.8 4663.7 6228.0 1227.0 400.5 119.5<br />
OR-RS-066 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 511 n/a 10.11 28.6 4.2 618358.8 11.2 122.7 2929.7 24143.4 224068.1 137754.9 156763.1 51645.4 17890.4 3029.8<br />
OR-RS-067 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 513 n/a 10.03 28.2 11.2 8075.9 7.5 96.4 467.5 505.1 2920.0 2617.8 1238.8 140.6 45.2 37.0<br />
OR-RS-068 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 535 n/a 10.01 23.4 2.8 11980.3 24.0 67.8 555.0 889.6 4261.2 3709.2 2076.0 268.7 91.8 37.0<br />
OR-RS-069 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.21 24.3 3.6 4828.6 20.1 196.4 506.5 418.0 1547.5 1404.7 611.2 83.9 19.2 21.1<br />
OR-RS-070 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.17 22.8 0.8 5506.5 14.5 159.4 526.8 412.3 1700.7 1651.5 840.1 149.5 36.5 15.2<br />
OR-RS-071 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 462 n/a 10.07 25.5 1.1 6163.2 25.3 110.3 482.0 454.8 2537.2 1799.4 632.5 79.0 23.5 19.2<br />
OR-RS-072 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 533 n/a 10.00 24.5 5.4 26272.3 18.0 220.0 611.2 849.3 10847.1 7390.6 4647.1 1266.1 302.2 120.7<br />
OR-RS-073 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 424 n/a 10.07 24.5 1.0 4047.9 17.4 161.0 474.9 365.9 1450.1 1041.6 460.9 55.5 11.0 9.6<br />
OR-RS-074 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 442 n/a 9.97 22.4 2.4 15874.8 0.0 151.8 559.9 617.8 2730.6 3679.1 6237.8 1616.5 249.6 31.7<br />
OR-RS-075 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 528 n/a 9.99 24.1 2.5 79443.1 5.7 144.5 1215.4 2885.9 26164.5 25952.2 18135.6 3610.1 1095.5 233.7<br />
OR-RS-076 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 418 n/a 10.15 24.5 0.4 3652.5 5.9 134.4 417.4 358.1 1250.7 1035.5 383.9 48.1 12.4 6.2<br />
OR-RS-077 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 509 n/a 10.00 25.4 3.2 40956.6 14.4 100.1 1573.1 3364.6 17737.7 11622.1 5162.5 1027.8 266.6 87.7<br />
OR-RS-078 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 464 n/a 10.15 22.9 0.7 3852.8 0.0 120.8 507.3 397.3 803.2 1309.2 568.3 99.2 30.8 16.7<br />
OR-RS-079 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 532 n/a 10.01 22.3 1.0 3223.5 17.8 136.8 262.4 273.6 857.0 1016.1 504.3 92.2 40.7 22.6<br />
OR-RS-080 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 495 n/a 10.08 25.0 2.9 4040.3 34.4 60.6 320.0 274.7 1215.1 1374.6 639.3 93.7 28.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-081 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 533 n/a 5.16 23.6 2.3 7973.9 109.8 74.6 927.8 1242.0 2106.4 2235.3 1049.9 157.4 37.0 33.7<br />
OR-RS-082 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 558 n/a 5.90 22.9 4.6 7204.9 174.5 152.6 727.1 803.5 1670.2 2094.2 1371.8 129.6 45.6 35.8<br />
OR-RS-083 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 534 n/a 5.24 26.7 5.5 150978.3 96.0 191.6 3139.8 12044.4 42543.6 39722.7 40650.8 9713.9 2461.2 414.3<br />
OR-RS-084 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 433 n/a 5.09 22.5 1.0 3699.7 96.9 168.8 586.4 458.3 734.3 1157.8 439.0 41.6 8.5 8.1<br />
OR-RS-085 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 575 n/a 5.14 25.6 11.7 185207.2 154.5 275.8 5328.8 19167.1 56782.4 58904.5 35794.1 6587.4 1810.2 402.4<br />
OR-RS-086 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 512 n/a 5.21 23.7 2.0 5304.4 116.8 153.9 672.7 641.9 973.8 1753.6 821.0 113.0 34.3 23.4<br />
OR-RS-087 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 497 n/a 5.34 26.5 2.1 23121.8 81.4 112.6 610.0 1517.8 5784.4 7042.1 6005.4 1520.4 368.1 79.6<br />
OR-RS-088 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 500 n/a 5.08 22.9 3.6 10282.9 102.4 184.7 678.7 1029.4 2437.7 3905.7 1594.6 237.9 65.9 45.9<br />
OR-RS-089 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 476 n/a 5.91 27.3 6.9 298521.4 74.0 180.9 16379.0 43250.9 77784.9 71326.8 71909.3 14106.4 2412.5 1096.7<br />
OR-RS-090 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 443 n/a 5.49 24.0 1.7 4617.2 88.2 93.9 534.2 507.7 1034.5 1550.3 691.0 79.7 19.7 18.0<br />
OR-RS-091 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 432 n/a 5.84 23.8 1.3 74866.8 39.7 82.6 1886.3 8219.0 21230.5 19066.1 15713.0 6701.0 1545.3 383.3<br />
OR-RS-092 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 429 n/a 5.35 23.1 1.6 11884.0 1.8 168.4 913.0 1637.0 3987.5 2822.1 1848.9 230.5 162.4 112.4<br />
OR-RS-093 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 415 n/a 5.29 24.9 5.9 10028.9 0.0 169.0 650.8 2040.6 2566.2 2516.2 1676.5 220.3 84.2 105.1<br />
OR-RS-094 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 423 n/a 5.05 22.1 9.6 12111.9 0.0 0.0 1209.9 1895.5 3137.5 3375.6 1995.8 270.0 111.0 116.6<br />
OR-RS-095 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 422 n/a 5.29 24.3 1.2 43521.6 3.3 245.6 1956.7 6603.6 16706.9 11280.6 5228.4 1021.1 297.8 177.6<br />
OR-RS-096 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 5.14 22.1 2.2 5509.7 0.0 210.5 699.0 807.1 1696.3 1010.4 768.6 153.6 69.4 94.8<br />
OR-RS-097 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 464 n/a 5.22 24.9 7.9 8954.9 0.0 237.6 711.2 2122.9 2408.3 2145.5 1036.4 110.6 75.9 106.5<br />
OR-RS-098 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 5.31 23.4 2.8 7372.2 0.0 303.3 751.7 1108.4 2011.9 2049.2 826.7 126.8 86.5 107.7<br />
127 | Page
OR-RS-099 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 677 n/a 5.66 32.0 26.5 94842.7 3.9 205.8 3255.7 19162.1 32859.4 22652.8 10571.6 3490.1 2270.9 370.4<br />
OR-RS-100 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 512 n/a 5.02 22.7 7.5 536237.7 0.0 334.6 10110.9 42988.7 164313.3 170725.3 106070.3 28522.4 11160.0 2012.2<br />
OR-RS-101 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 464 n/a 5.09 23.2 1.4 3565.8 3.0 140.4 739.1 779.9 763.3 690.7 298.8 40.9 61.5 48.2<br />
OR-RS-102 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 503 n/a 5.26 26.2 6.8 5387.7 0.0 190.5 546.6 826.5 1485.9 1575.1 619.0 60.5 31.0 52.6<br />
OR-RS-103 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 459 n/a 5.57 25.6 3.8 4499.6 0.0 137.3 556.5 612.7 1280.0 1263.4 451.7 91.9 36.0 70.1<br />
OR-RS-104 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 480 n/a 5.15 26.3 5.6 8108.9 5.5 127.3 821.8 963.4 2711.4 2445.5 849.9 72.7 37.7 73.7<br />
OR-RS-105 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 471 n/a 5.02 25.0 2.1 3715.3 0.0 161.8 530.8 582.7 954.4 996.6 314.5 97.0 36.1 41.4<br />
OR-RS-106 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 493 n/a 5.08 24.7 7.4 67920.5 0.0 76.6 805.3 5143.6 22414.3 23388.5 12078.7 2906.5 916.4 190.6<br />
OR-RS-107 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 480 n/a 5.30 23.5 2.6 10045.5 0.0 123.5 505.6 520.1 1076.6 3595.5 3216.7 769.9 117.4 120.2<br />
OR-RS-108 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 461 n/a 5.09 26.3 3.5 3985.1 3.7 75.7 451.8 608.3 1224.4 1052.7 411.2 47.1 57.7 52.5<br />
OR-RS-109 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 425 n/a 5.01 24.2 1.0 4787.0 4.5 238.1 777.0 634.5 1281.8 1110.9 431.5 169.7 79.7 59.3<br />
OR-RS-110 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 531 n/a 5.07 26.3 3.6 5118.7 0.0 159.0 628.5 690.5 1408.0 1654.4 417.8 58.3 48.0 54.2<br />
OR-RS-111 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 513 n/a 5.25 25.8 5.0 9217.0 0.0 239.3 456.5 560.9 1969.5 3914.8 1461.5 386.7 156.9 70.9<br />
OR-RS-112 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 446 n/a 5.21 25.7 4.2 4345.9 0.0 0.0 447.1 521.7 1327.0 1433.6 432.4 95.7 41.5 46.9<br />
OR-RS-113 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 483 n/a 11.31 24.9 4.9 697917.6 24.5 245.3 10478.3 67285.1 382911.8 106111.2 89208.7 33349.9 6488.1 1814.7<br />
OR-RS-114 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 489 n/a 10.30 24.0 4.2 5574.6 15.8 150.3 124.8 447.6 2463.2 1692.0 545.6 59.1 20.6 55.6<br />
OR-RS-115 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 466 n/a 10.34 25.4 4.0 10872.0 4.3 106.5 168.6 705.4 6920.4 2219.5 569.8 122.4 31.2 23.9<br />
OR-RS-116 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 481 n/a 10.85 22.9 1.8 2494.4 23.3 167.2 129.0 129.6 819.9 786.5 309.0 84.2 26.2 19.5<br />
OR-RS-117 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 482 n/a 10.98 22.6 3.9 3965.4 26.8 181.5 127.7 233.3 1592.2 1251.5 427.6 73.3 22.7 28.8<br />
OR-RS-118 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 474 n/a 11.71 23.4 3.6 19990.0 2.3 80.0 193.1 1046.7 10259.0 4296.1 3256.3 661.2 147.1 48.2<br />
OR-RP-119 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 351 n/a 10.93 29.0 16.2 1654738.8 4.3 155.2 18401.7 138422.5 845814.1 292816.1 289338.7 60429.8 6859.3 2497.1<br />
OR-RS-120 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 541 n/a 10.63 27.2 2.2 6385.3 29.0 76.7 261.4 434.6 3079.9 1586.8 634.8 185.2 50.7 46.2<br />
OR-RS-121 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 503 n/a 11.02 23.6 2.2 4611.5 5.9 162.8 85.5 231.1 2285.1 766.6 852.1 174.4 24.1 23.9<br />
OR-RS-122 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 598 n/a 10.45 26.0 5.2 8628.6 0.0 0.0 263.5 1168.8 3635.4 2650.2 666.6 129.7 44.5 69.9<br />
OR-RS-123 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 579 n/a 10.50 29.9 9.7 17029.2 0.0 0.0 236.0 1557.3 5109.6 7846.5 1702.3 437.3 83.1 57.1<br />
OR-RS-124 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 521 n/a 10.44 29.6 3.8 3711.7 0.0 0.0 101.2 488.6 1324.1 1314.9 382.5 64.9 23.3 12.2<br />
OR-RS-125 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 534 n/a 10.41 25.0 4.5 5242.9 0.0 0.0 692.4 1200.3 2021.3 1056.6 200.9 53.5 11.5 6.4<br />
OR-RS-126 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 615 n/a 10.52 28.6 8.5 12539.9 0.0 0.0 236.6 1283.6 4555.2 4775.4 1279.5 284.7 89.3 35.6<br />
OR-RS-127 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 590 n/a 10.53 26.7 7.6 12981.3 0.0 0.0 207.7 917.7 4042.2 5650.7 1627.1 403.4 93.7 38.8<br />
OR-RS-128 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 491 n/a 10.11 23.5 7.7 75670.9 4.2 18.6 4694.6 13390.7 34040.8 15286.4 6359.3 1535.4 292.6 48.3<br />
OR-RS-129 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 455 n/a 10.37 29.1 4.5 56999.4 0.0 24.2 9081.2 18177.9 20237.2 6654.5 2253.3 465.4 105.7 0.0<br />
OR-RS-130 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 502 n/a 10.37 24.9 6.8 3799.5 0.9 0.0 182.9 452.3 1407.2 1209.0 457.4 63.7 19.0 7.1<br />
OR-RS-131 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 569 n/a 10.43 28.1 8.7 9222.4 0.0 0.0 403.7 1364.2 3014.3 3578.4 706.6 104.4 38.9 11.9<br />
OR-RS-132 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 560 n/a 10.15 26.9 5.0 6962.7 0.0 0.0 173.1 707.7 2553.5 2702.2 671.9 105.0 34.7 14.6<br />
OR-RS-133 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 667 n/a 10.13 30.9 12.2 9176.1 0.0 0.0 233.8 755.4 2587.2 4139.3 1112.0 256.8 60.2 31.4<br />
OR-RS-134 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 664 n/a 10.53 25.8 7.2 8780.3 0.0 0.0 136.3 874.1 2494.6 3891.0 1041.7 230.2 75.9 36.5<br />
OR-SG-135 Scamp 4/21/2009 HnL 584 n/a 10.47 25.3 4.9 8751.9 0.0 0.0 157.2 889.6 2440.6 3491.4 1301.8 372.5 83.5 15.3<br />
OR-RS-136 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 519 n/a 10.35 24.1 2.4 2685.1 0.0 0.0 147.5 443.9 964.1 774.8 289.6 50.9 10.4 3.9<br />
OR-RS-137 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.33 28.0 8.1 45141.0 0.0 158.6 2152.7 3656.7 22076.8 10887.3 4723.7 1175.5 254.6 55.1<br />
OR-RS-138 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 595 n/a 10.49 24.7 8.3 14086.2 0.0 22.8 121.0 672.4 7740.3 3666.8 1573.3 242.4 47.2 0.0<br />
OR-RS-139 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 552 n/a 10.15 24.5 4.2 2528.4 0.8 7.9 60.1 182.5 1304.4 631.6 277.8 46.6 12.5 4.2<br />
OR-RS-140 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 537 n/a 10.46 25.0 5.7 5300.7 0.0 13.3 216.8 298.6 2973.6 1309.9 396.2 77.5 14.8 0.0<br />
OR-RS-141 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 540 n/a 10.10 26.7 6.8 9312.0 1.6 35.9 106.6 297.0 4813.9 2693.4 1001.5 268.7 71.7 21.7<br />
OR-RS-142 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 744 n/a 10.33 28.5 13.5 2690.8 0.0 11.8 37.2 164.3 1042.8 1074.7 269.3 62.9 22.2 5.6<br />
OR-RS-143 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 526 n/a 10.44 24.6 6.8 254738.6 0.2 35.1 1742.5 11929.5 119815.8 71418.3 36115.3 11329.7 2218.9 133.3<br />
OR-RS-144 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 479 n/a 10.47 24.1 1.8 2182.4 0.0 0.0 12.4 124.4 1059.8 630.1 272.6 65.1 14.8 3.2<br />
OR-RS-145 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 560 n/a 10.17 26.5 13.8 51730.1 0.0 0.0 961.2 5588.9 32705.8 8928.3 3158.4 285.4 102.1 0.0<br />
OR-RS-146 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 475 n/a 10.15 24.0 4.6 14174.5 0.5 56.5 1092.2 1444.0 8548.3 1989.0 854.9 155.6 25.1 8.4<br />
OR-RS-147 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.09 25.5 7.6 5232.0 0.3 13.4 39.7 267.4 2205.5 1862.7 665.0 139.8 32.4 5.8<br />
OR-RS-148 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.42 23.9 5.9 5044.6 0.6 21.5 216.5 321.2 2336.1 1242.1 737.2 134.1 28.0 7.3<br />
OR-RS-149 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 586 n/a 10.42 27.1 8.6 11213.6 1.0 34.5 222.4 699.0 5979.8 2593.1 1283.9 305.1 64.1 30.7<br />
OR-RS-150 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 505 n/a 10.46 26.0 2.0 10789.7 0.7 13.4 413.6 1227.7 6220.7 1958.3 740.3 171.8 34.1 9.1<br />
OR-RS-151 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 533 n/a 10.47 24.4 4.2 37422.6 0.0 151.7 2940.9 7346.5 16249.4 5714.0 3752.4 996.0 255.0 16.7<br />
OR-RS-152 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 662 n/a 10.03 24.9 12.4 9286.6 1.1 50.3 434.8 1058.7 2760.4 3117.8 1135.5 489.5 238.5 0.0<br />
OR-RS-153 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 520 n/a 10.04 29.8 7.1 5002.8 2.8 97.1 171.7 355.6 1793.1 1596.5 782.0 147.9 42.8 13.3<br />
OR-RS-154 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 547 n/a 10.02 25.5 1.8 5347.6 3.3 25.7 375.4 977.8 1661.4 1639.3 432.2 190.3 42.2 0.0<br />
128 | Page
OR-RS-155 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 601 n/a 10.09 24.7 7.0 9965.5 0.0 64.7 171.4 1774.7 3531.1 3339.3 904.4 120.6 59.3 0.0<br />
OR-RP-156 Red Porgy 11/18/2009 HnL 339 n/a 10.06 27.3 10.6 118584.7 3.9 64.8 16029.6 44733.6 30875.4 16999.3 7193.8 2464.7 190.1 29.5<br />
OR-VS-157 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 447 n/a 10.05 24.3 10.8 12354.2 1.8 68.9 385.2 1291.5 4884.1 3439.6 1764.5 395.0 123.6 0.0<br />
OR-RS-158 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 448 n/a 10.04 25.6 2.6 79021.6 0.0 35.6 1326.5 4770.2 14595.0 24290.7 22337.2 10804.6 815.8 46.0<br />
OR-VS-159 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 407 n/a 10.05 24.0 4.2 4009.8 0.5 0.0 169.3 590.1 1769.0 983.8 412.2 75.9 9.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-160 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 593 n/a 10.06 23.8 4.2 4359.7 0.0 0.0 120.9 473.0 1254.9 1669.9 657.8 164.4 12.5 6.3<br />
OR-RS-161 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 565 n/a 10.07 22.9 3.2 9659.4 1.8 55.0 322.6 1022.4 3495.4 2971.7 1496.9 236.9 56.7 0.0<br />
OR-VS-162 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 364 n/a 10.01 24.0 0.7 6098.6 0.0 27.8 458.1 1196.3 2570.3 1265.2 482.1 73.2 17.6 8.0<br />
OR-RS-163 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 672 n/a 10.03 26.2 9.9 4514.9 0.9 13.2 156.0 473.6 1192.6 1885.5 692.4 100.7 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-164 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 592 n/a 10.05 28.2 10.8 13660.0 7.2 238.0 752.6 1580.3 4121.9 4937.2 1676.1 301.8 44.9 0.0<br />
OR-VS-165 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 363 n/a 10.01 24.0 1.7 3483.3 0.0 15.1 124.8 425.4 1218.4 1246.2 387.5 65.9 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-166 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 412 n/a 10.01 27.2 1.8 3849.4 0.0 0.0 225.2 629.4 1300.7 1284.4 344.2 54.0 6.8 4.7<br />
OR-VS-167 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 376 n/a 10.06 27.8 4.8 5631.8 0.0 5.9 268.1 765.7 1810.3 2120.8 537.5 119.9 3.6 0.0<br />
OR-RS-168 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 499 n/a 10.05 25.5 8.5 9130.1 2.5 46.1 181.7 612.3 2869.1 3545.8 1461.9 278.6 102.3 29.8<br />
OR-VS-169 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 380 n/a 10.01 25.3 7.0 14868.9 0.0 146.1 1349.8 2842.3 4927.9 3753.6 1356.5 431.2 61.5 0.0<br />
OR-RS-170 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 483 n/a 10.03 24.7 5.1 10468.1 0.0 79.2 3129.2 3876.4 1562.0 1380.5 360.8 80.0 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-171 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 466 n/a 10.04 25.8 3.8 4403.2 1.6 69.8 261.5 675.5 1787.8 1178.0 350.1 63.6 15.3 0.0<br />
OR-VS-172 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 492 n/a 10.05 24.1 3.5 3386.9 0.0 0.0 117.7 387.7 1198.5 1035.9 473.9 112.2 61.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-173 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 472 n/a 10.05 23.1 2.9 2956.0 0.0 0.0 80.6 252.1 925.2 897.6 615.7 107.1 61.2 16.5<br />
OR-VS-174 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 463 n/a 10.08 26.6 9.9 8473.5 0.0 57.9 324.9 989.7 2562.6 2932.7 1412.5 143.6 49.6 0.0<br />
OR-GT-175 Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> 11/18/2009 HnL 541 411 10.03 22.8 0.7 54210.5 0.3 45.4 870.9 3986.5 16439.7 9490.9 10666.1 7328.4 5169.9 212.4<br />
OR-RS-176 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 422 n/a 10.06 23.3 1.2 3429.5 0.0 15.0 165.5 459.5 1227.7 1219.9 332.8 9.1 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-177 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 485 n/a 10.04 22.4 2.3 6194.7 5.1 50.4 325.0 845.1 2272.1 1724.4 740.7 177.0 38.5 16.4<br />
OR-VS-178 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 394 n/a 10.07 23.4 1.5 2154.8 0.0 8.7 147.0 378.7 785.9 619.8 192.6 22.1 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-179 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 544 n/a 10.06 27.8 10.7 10694.1 0.0 45.0 367.6 964.3 2983.5 3928.1 1459.6 725.7 178.7 41.6<br />
OR-RS-180 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 432 n/a 10.05 23.3 3.8 7137.2 1.5 128.8 465.7 517.3 1391.5 2901.9 1046.4 611.1 73.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-181 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 527 n/a 10.02 30.0 17.1 4015.5 0.0 25.2 96.0 393.1 1287.6 1527.2 602.2 84.2 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-182 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 424 n/a 10.06 26.9 1.0 1547.2 0.0 0.0 15.1 416.3 607.4 424.3 86.2 5.3 2.5 1.7<br />
OR-VS-183 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 432 n/a 10.02 28.8 10.7 5336.8 1.6 0.0 443.0 948.3 1869.1 1413.6 593.0 57.3 7.0 3.9<br />
OR-VS-184 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 465 n/a 10.15 26.1 3.3 2088.6 1.2 5.7 79.2 266.2 762.4 667.2 271.8 28.4 4.7 1.8<br />
OR-VS-185 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 429 n/a 10.02 25.3 2.7 2038.2 0.0 0.0 113.5 429.1 752.3 574.9 156.3 23.4 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-186 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 470 n/a 10.09 28.2 8.1 6562.8 0.0 38.7 326.4 1055.7 2689.8 1825.2 572.5 61.1 6.9 3.2<br />
OR-VS-187 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 434 n/a 10.00 27.1 9.5 3898.4 0.0 0.0 189.1 778.1 1328.9 1177.9 394.7 47.9 3.5 0.0<br />
OR-VS-188 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 422 n/a 10.09 29.2 6.2 5075.8 0.0 13.8 171.8 763.3 2030.6 1507.6 521.7 71.3 4.5 0.0<br />
OR-VS-189 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 417 n/a 10.12 25.0 1.0 607.1 0.0 0.0 40.2 101.7 219.1 176.5 68.3 1.3 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-190 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 460 n/a 10.04 24.5 5.8 2612.9 0.0 0.0 169.8 417.1 898.0 801.1 300.0 24.6 2.3 0.0<br />
OR-RS-191 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 431 n/a 10.04 27.7 4.4 1428.2 0.0 0.0 55.5 143.5 361.8 575.5 267.0 19.6 3.8 1.5<br />
OR-RS-192 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 614 n/a 10.07 29.0 5.5 7207.3 0.0 0.0 184.9 685.4 2377.0 3279.4 540.5 111.8 25.2 11.8<br />
OR-RP-193 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 335 n/a 10.06 27.8 3.8 36833.1 0.0 19.2 2126.8 13492.0 11930.0 6332.0 2329.7 534.2 89.1 13.9<br />
OR-RS-194 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 466 n/a 10.03 25.6 2.9 2564.6 0.0 0.0 184.1 499.3 664.6 978.0 225.1 22.4 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-195 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 698 n/a 10.15 27.6 16.8 73591.4 0.0 241.0 10825.3 22898.8 20557.0 12999.6 5396.4 571.5 81.6 20.2<br />
OR-RS-196 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 419 n/a 10.02 24.6 2.1 1206.3 0.0 3.7 102.4 154.8 311.3 399.6 201.5 27.5 3.9 1.6<br />
OR-RS-197 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 441 n/a 10.08 27.5 5.8 3180.4 0.0 7.2 135.1 355.6 964.7 1107.0 533.5 65.8 8.3 3.2<br />
OR-RS-198 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 449 n/a 10.08 27.4 2.2 72319.0 0.0 0.0 1769.4 9842.3 22898.4 19254.5 15455.4 2586.7 418.5 93.8<br />
OR-RS-199 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 491 n/a 10.08 27.2 4.2 3345.0 0.0 0.0 433.5 974.3 870.0 724.7 298.9 37.1 6.5 0.0<br />
OR-RS-200 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 584 n/a 10.10 25.5 4.3 3321.0 0.0 0.0 426.6 650.4 873.6 749.3 465.6 132.2 19.3 4.0<br />
OR-RS-201 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 494 n/a 10.01 27.7 4.5 2372.8 0.0 0.0 170.3 422.0 733.8 710.0 288.4 42.1 6.2 0.0<br />
OR-RS-202 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 475 n/a 10.06 26.7 3.3 2912.1 0.0 4.2 208.0 561.2 709.5 829.3 527.7 59.0 9.8 3.4<br />
OR-RS-203 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 452 n/a 10.07 26.4 4.9 2826.7 0.0 7.5 69.0 353.0 1056.9 959.8 323.5 55.0 7.5 3.4<br />
OR-RS-204 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 515 n/a 10.07 25.6 1.4 2736.4 0.0 0.0 80.5 326.8 741.2 963.0 560.5 54.5 8.5 1.4<br />
OR-RS-205 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 496 n/a 10.09 31.2 19.5 13727.8 0.0 23.0 674.3 2199.3 4508.9 4063.0 1982.3 239.0 38.0 0.0<br />
OR-RS-206 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 531 n/a 10.02 28.9 8.8 10958.5 0.0 0.0 1116.0 4284.3 3805.9 1326.5 376.2 46.5 5.2 3.2<br />
OR-VS-207 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 425 n/a 10.01 26.3 2.5 1805.8 0.0 0.0 58.2 268.3 712.3 609.7 190.4 3.5 0.0 0.0<br />
OR-VS-208 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 423 n/a 10.11 31.1 10.2 5515.1 0.0 0.0 310.1 714.3 2250.9 1538.3 614.9 74.6 8.7 3.3<br />
OR-VS-209 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 339 n/a 10.08 26.2 3.7 2574.9 0.0 4.1 196.0 389.6 664.0 747.7 510.5 51.2 9.1 2.7<br />
OR-VS-210 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 395 n/a 10.13 25.2 3.0 10553.1 0.0 6.9 512.5 1935.0 4035.7 2721.7 1167.2 155.0 15.2 3.9<br />
129 | Page
OR-RP-211 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 341 n/a 10.03 26.5 1.8 10642.4 0.0 15.6 997.4 4896.1 2829.5 1298.3 460.2 118.6 31.7 9.4<br />
OR-RP-212 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 323 n/a 10.02 25.3 1.1 31098.1 0.0 57.3 4741.3 18886.8 5812.6 1122.2 376.0 86.5 23.2 7.6<br />
OR-WP-213 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 375 n/a 10.08 25.9 0.6 22986.2 0.0 0.0 304.3 4016.5 6550.7 8427.9 3086.7 532.2 63.8 13.8<br />
OR-WP-214 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 365 n/a 10.00 22.2 1.1 58405.2 0.0 0.0 680.8 4958.3 12651.7 23077.4 13340.9 3059.3 552.5 84.3<br />
OR-WP-215 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 370 n/a 10.07 25.0 0.6 68656.8 0.0 0.0 191.3 7575.9 20553.8 24757.7 13479.0 1825.4 239.4 34.3<br />
OR-WP-216 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 384 n/a 10.06 24.4 0.9 95374.2 0.0 0.0 507.6 6521.2 23369.6 47633.8 13473.3 3326.6 461.1 96.8<br />
OR-RS-217 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 442 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-218 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 391 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-219 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 395 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-220 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 394 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-221 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 601 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-222 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 443 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-223 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 438 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-224 Red Snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 606 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-225 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 535 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-226 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 444 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-227 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 682 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-228 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 425 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-229 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 393 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-230 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 471 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-231 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 403 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-SG-232 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 409 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-233 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 403 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RP-234 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 337 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RP-235 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 368 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RP-236 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 330 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-SG-237 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 449 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RG-238 Red Grouper 11/18/2010 HnL 564 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-SG-239 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 454 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-GT-240 Gray trigger<strong>fish</strong> 11/18/2010 HnL 436 380 tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-241 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 417 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-242 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 426 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-243 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 414 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-244 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 447 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RP-245 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 355 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-246 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 483 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-VS-247 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 441 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-248 Red Snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 556 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-249 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 481 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-250 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 549 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RP-251 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 409 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-252 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 413 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-RS-253 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 522 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-WP-254 Whitebone porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 390 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
OR-WP-255 Whitebone porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 388 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd<br />
130 | Page
Table 14. Tissue sample characteristics and <strong>PCB</strong> concentrations by wet mass of skin-on fillets of <strong>fish</strong> lateral<br />
musculature of <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> collected during sample rounds 3 and 4 from <strong>the</strong> Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing Reef “Nearby<br />
Reef” located 8.2 nm northwest of <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef.<br />
Fish<br />
Length<br />
(TL)<br />
mm<br />
Fish<br />
Length<br />
(FL)<br />
mm<br />
Wet<br />
Weight<br />
(g)<br />
Total <strong>PCB</strong><br />
Congeners<br />
(pg/g)<br />
<strong>PCB</strong> Homologs by Chlorination Level<br />
FWC<br />
Sample ID Common Name<br />
Collection<br />
Date<br />
Collection<br />
Gear<br />
%<br />
Solid<br />
%<br />
Lipid<br />
Chlor.<br />
1<br />
Chlor.<br />
2<br />
Chlor.<br />
3<br />
Chlor.<br />
4 Chlor. 5 Chlor. 6 Chlor. 7<br />
Chlor.<br />
8<br />
Chlor.<br />
9<br />
Chlor.<br />
10<br />
CS1-RS-001 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 460 n/a 5.17 23.24 2.76 3883.8 70.7 145.1 517.1 515.0 798.1 1341.8 436.4 39.8 8.9 10.9<br />
CS1-RS-002 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 433 n/a 6.32 25.23 2.89 3466.6 53.9 91.1 371.2 420.5 712.4 1254.4 482.7 56.2 12.3 11.9<br />
CS1-RS-003 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 406 n/a 5.24 23.15 3.04 4527.4 61.0 116.9 416.4 737.8 1055.9 1393.6 631.6 74.5 23.5 16.2<br />
CS1-RS-004 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 458 n/a 5.59 25.37 6.05 5233.9 63.9 112.3 486.1 639.9 1254.4 1794.4 755.2 87.8 22.2 17.7<br />
CS1-RS-005 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 450 n/a 5.24 24.62 3.68 3896.2 70.1 106.8 441.9 611.1 876.4 1052.1 613.2 80.0 28.8 15.8<br />
CS1-RS-006 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 426 n/a 5.18 24.94 4.86 4144.6 61.9 135.1 457.1 565.1 832.6 1442.8 561.6 58.0 15.8 14.6<br />
CS1-GT-007 Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong> 2/3/2008 HnL n/a 384 5.74 22.15 1.36 2790.7 73.8 132.8 433.7 506.2 514.9 848.6 260.1 15.2 2.6 2.8<br />
CS1-RS-008 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 475 n/a 7.36 26.92 9.04 3585.1 47.1 80.8 310.1 447.6 795.8 1202.1 613.9 50.8 21.7 15.2<br />
CS1-RS-009 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 452 n/a 4.99 24.05 3.30 4060.1 135.1 143.8 500.2 614.7 791.7 1352.3 449.0 50.1 13.0 10.2<br />
CS1-RS-010 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 426 n/a 5.85 23.49 2.52 3229.9 102.4 87.9 376.2 517.0 627.6 1054.3 403.5 40.7 11.2 9.1<br />
CS1-RS-011 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 473 n/a 5.16 23.90 2.95 3380.2 0.0 0.0 229.0 471.5 670.9 1421.7 442.9 89.7 29.6 24.9<br />
CS1-RS-012 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 438 n/a 5.28 24.00 3.51 2561.7 27.9 38.9 227.1 390.8 537.9 986.1 287.6 42.2 11.5 11.7<br />
CS1-GG-013 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 768 n/a 5.02 28.06 18.68 5974.0 75.8 84.7 340.9 612.4 1193.9 2481.7 924.9 181.9 44.8 33.0<br />
CS1-GG-014 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 779 n/a 5.13 29.09 11.02 8164.8 79.6 81.8 380.7 656.7 1841.9 3405.3 1381.5 217.6 65.7 54.0<br />
CS1-RS-015 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 431 n/a 5.43 24.13 8.85 6283.1 71.6 79.0 319.5 845.0 1655.8 2498.2 636.1 111.7 41.5 24.7<br />
CS1-GG-016 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 623 n/a 5.44 25.35 17.99 6462.1 76.1 65.3 406.3 667.9 1452.0 2502.2 1077.7 148.5 35.3 30.8<br />
CS1-VS-017 Vermilion Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 311 n/a 4.95 24.65 3.31 2587.5 70.5 90.1 319.1 387.7 557.9 783.5 343.0 28.3 3.5 3.9<br />
CS1-RS-018 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 446 n/a 5.44 24.55 5.36 4752.6 72.4 83.1 415.5 588.3 1153.5 1515.3 757.3 118.5 25.1 23.6<br />
CS1-RS-019 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 439 n/a 5.07 23.90 5.40 3514.1 72.3 37.4 385.4 431.5 715.9 1268.0 510.7 64.5 17.6 10.8<br />
CS1-RS-020 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 486 n/a 5.51 23.41 3.02 3850.2 67.1 72.3 333.4 427.9 866.3 1332.8 598.5 93.8 21.7 36.4<br />
CS1-RS-021 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 408 n/a 5.23 22.78 3.00 3221.7 88.8 40.5 359.7 404.0 668.0 1190.7 402.1 49.6 10.5 7.8<br />
CS1-RS-022 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 435 n/a 5.15 24.07 5.64 5385.3 106.1 146.4 403.0 635.0 1094.6 2240.0 608.1 98.9 32.7 20.5<br />
CS1-RS-023 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 471 n/a 5.05 24.65 8.48 3608.3 68.9 66.0 247.4 370.6 854.2 1380.9 505.9 78.1 20.1 16.2<br />
CS1-RS-024 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 510 n/a 7.35 25.12 4.03 5135.0 54.4 83.4 256.2 765.8 1542.7 1743.2 557.9 90.4 20.4 20.6<br />
CS1-RS-025 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 421 n/a 5.02 24.54 2.84 2650.2 170.0 165.4 388.6 295.3 554.9 771.8 259.7 27.4 7.9 9.2<br />
CS1-RS-026 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 428 n/a 4.99 21.30 0.66 3093.3 112.9 125.9 385.6 485.3 673.9 974.7 277.1 34.9 11.8 11.2<br />
CS1-RS-027 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 483 n/a 4.95 23.72 3.70 2786.7 73.9 68.6 341.1 355.8 544.9 993.9 344.3 45.9 7.4 10.9<br />
CS1-RS-028 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 456 n/a 5.58 23.40 3.40 3326.4 82.9 108.1 345.8 452.4 712.8 1170.7 391.7 42.9 10.6 8.5<br />
CS1-RS-029 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 704 n/a 5.52 25.17 7.27 5691.3 33.3 50.9 238.8 438.6 1319.0 2255.3 1086.5 181.4 41.2 46.3<br />
CS1-GG-030 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 764 n/a 5.89 26.84 8.82 2808.0 46.6 88.4 205.8 202.9 506.9 1161.6 484.9 75.2 20.1 15.6<br />
CS1-RS-031 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 10.63 28.32 7.11 4875.8 4.1 101.2 77.6 309.5 2694.4 1199.6 428.0 16.3 20.4 24.7<br />
CS1-RS-032 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 424 n/a 10.01 24.49 12.03 4375.6 7.9 135.7 94.4 201.8 1990.8 1297.2 568.8 40.5 17.6 20.9<br />
CS1-RS-033 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 461 n/a 10.53 24.54 8.67 6846.6 9.6 131.3 78.4 444.8 3729.4 1873.6 415.9 120.0 19.7 23.9<br />
CS1-RS-034 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 433 n/a 11.23 24.97 5.95 3070.1 4.3 77.7 61.3 228.7 1727.6 723.1 233.2 0.0 4.6 9.6<br />
CS1-RS-035 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 442 n/a 11.29 26.76 16.57 36895.8 12.0 522.9 2609.7 3817.5 16165.6 6783.1 4974.9 1371.5 433.0 205.6<br />
CS1-RS-036 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 427 n/a 10.08 25.77 9.30 13816.7 14.9 170.7 143.2 523.0 9457.6 2566.5 711.5 157.1 28.4 43.8<br />
CS1-RS-037 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 455 n/a 11.29 23.26 4.98 3834.5 3.8 113.6 82.0 269.3 1730.9 1214.9 323.9 66.2 12.1 17.8<br />
CS1-RS-038 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 491 n/a 10.23 25.81 9.87 13871.0 15.1 65.3 140.5 521.8 7046.6 4207.0 1541.2 217.5 60.1 55.9<br />
CS1-RS-039 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 445 n/a 10.13 25.21 9.08 8292.3 8.1 183.7 103.0 371.4 4065.3 2609.0 787.1 99.8 28.4 36.5<br />
CS1-RS-040 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 443 n/a 11.67 22.29 3.14 2344.9 0.9 0.0 49.4 90.2 1173.3 665.8 293.5 42.6 9.3 19.9<br />
CS1-RS-041 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 416 n/a 10.86 27.23 6.19 3578.0 4.1 86.4 78.4 188.4 1838.9 965.4 338.3 57.3 6.6 14.2<br />
131 | Page
CS1-GS-042 Gray Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 293 n/a 10.43 24.90 0.58 13178.6 17.3 128.4 73.0 476.9 6070.7 5031.0 1083.2 200.0 39.8 58.3<br />
CS1-VS-043 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 395 n/a 10.17 34.77 15.87 30792.8 79.8 0.0 2350.9 2525.1 21851.9 2521.1 1184.2 156.0 46.3 77.5<br />
CS1-RP-044 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 331 n/a 10.60 24.32 2.41 826.5 0.0 45.7 111.7 55.3 193.9 299.5 105.1 0.0 3.7 11.6<br />
CS1-RS-045 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 470 n/a 10.24 24.27 7.57 9067.8 79.1 34.3 218.5 559.8 5944.6 1540.0 559.9 83.3 21.2 27.1<br />
CS1-RS-046 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 11.01 24.75 9.68 35038.4 0.0 0.0 1760.5 4302.2 24524.8 2776.1 1411.8 164.8 37.4 60.8<br />
CS1-RS-047 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 438 n/a 10.51 29.92 14.41 11499.1 0.0 89.2 3725.0 348.0 4513.0 1986.8 698.1 95.4 15.6 28.0<br />
CS1-VS-048 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 322 n/a 10.45 28.86 18.35 36266.3 0.0 80.0 98.0 4188.0 25198.3 4630.6 1653.7 253.1 50.2 114.3<br />
CS1-RP-049 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 276 n/a 10.32 23.65 2.46 2580.8 159.4 0.0 68.2 174.2 1531.7 416.8 188.5 15.2 6.4 20.4<br />
CS1-RS-050 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 465 n/a 10.20 28.15 7.60 7017.7 77.7 175.1 104.1 254.2 3982.8 1781.4 579.9 21.8 15.9 24.7<br />
CS1-VS-051 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 377 n/a 10.94 28.45 14.80 4866.8 0.0 15.5 115.4 308.0 2339.8 1539.7 486.1 25.0 14.1 23.2<br />
CS1-RS-052 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 10.24 24.21 9.11 8033.7 94.4 0.0 49.1 364.0 4974.9 1759.0 693.8 33.8 23.1 41.7<br />
CS1-RS-053 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 457 n/a 10.19 26.68 16.52 42851.5 0.0 0.0 477.4 1224.0 24679.4 11893.6 3645.2 606.1 170.1 155.7<br />
CS1-VS-054 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 340 n/a 10.25 27.00 7.46 3231.9 0.0 0.0 118.6 158.4 1920.5 709.2 265.9 30.5 13.0 15.8<br />
CS1-VS-055 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 391 n/a 10.52 27.59 11.65 4652.3 47.9 0.0 303.7 204.8 2839.2 848.5 316.1 71.5 10.3 10.4<br />
CS1-VS-056 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 333 n/a 10.42 28.08 7.37 6672.6 0.0 0.0 1068.5 733.2 3454.1 872.8 433.8 68.9 13.0 28.3<br />
CS1-RS-057 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.17 25.54 4.89 10883.9 0.0 0.0 231.4 415.0 7159.3 2134.8 689.1 155.1 40.4 58.8<br />
CS1-VS-058 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 401 n/a 10.34 28.89 17.83 7014.9 76.2 36.6 147.0 333.5 4059.3 1660.6 581.0 80.5 20.8 19.3<br />
CS1-RS-059 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 447 n/a 10.64 30.55 18.26 11701.3 0.0 68.2 184.5 368.3 6803.6 2987.2 1119.0 108.5 37.2 24.8<br />
CS1-RS-060 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 10.58 24.67 7.70 6003.5 0.0 0.0 100.5 102.8 2966.2 1859.6 812.0 98.8 28.8 34.8<br />
CS1-RS-061 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 462 n/a 5.06 23.51 3.32 2919.7 0.0 0.0 230.0 79.9 1448.1 850.5 229.6 73.1 8.5 0.0<br />
132 | Page
Table 15. Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs in <strong>fish</strong> tissues from <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> collected from <strong>the</strong> Nearby Reef (sorted by species and sample number) from<br />
sample rounds 3 and 4, compared with <strong>the</strong> percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by<br />
homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 (Arochlor<br />
data from Degrandechamp and Barron, 2005).<br />
Aroclor 1232<br />
Aroclor 1242<br />
Aroclor 1248<br />
Aroclor 1254<br />
Aroclor 1260<br />
Gag Grouper‐13<br />
Gag Grouper‐14<br />
Gag Grouper‐16<br />
Gag Grouper‐30<br />
Gray Snapper‐42<br />
Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong>‐7<br />
Red Porgy‐44<br />
Red Porgy‐49<br />
Red Snapper‐1<br />
Red Snapper‐2<br />
Red Snapper‐3<br />
Red Snapper‐4<br />
Red Snapper‐5<br />
Red Snapper‐6<br />
Red Snapper‐8<br />
Red Snapper‐9<br />
Red Snapper‐10<br />
Red Snapper‐11<br />
Red Snapper‐12<br />
Red Snapper‐15<br />
Red Snapper‐18<br />
Red Snapper‐19<br />
Red Snapper‐20<br />
Red Snapper‐21<br />
Red Snapper‐22<br />
Red Snapper‐23<br />
Red Snapper‐24<br />
Red Snapper‐25<br />
Red Snapper‐26<br />
Red Snapper‐27<br />
Red Snapper‐28<br />
Red Snapper‐29<br />
Red Snapper‐31<br />
Red Snapper‐32<br />
Red Snapper‐33<br />
Red Snapper‐34<br />
Red Snapper‐35<br />
Red Snapper‐36<br />
Red Snapper‐37<br />
Red Snapper‐38<br />
Red Snapper‐39<br />
Red Snapper‐40<br />
Red Snapper‐41<br />
Red Snapper‐45<br />
Red Snapper‐46<br />
Red Snapper‐47<br />
Red Snapper‐50<br />
Red Snapper‐52<br />
Red Snapper‐53<br />
Red Snapper‐57<br />
Red Snapper‐59<br />
Red Snapper‐60<br />
Red Snapper‐61<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐17<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐43<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐48<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐51<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐54<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐55<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐56<br />
133 | Page
Table 16a. Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs in <strong>fish</strong> tissues from <strong>reef</strong><br />
<strong>fish</strong> collected from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (sorted by species and sample number) from<br />
sample rounds 1 through 6 (“gray trigger<strong>fish</strong>-175” (Sample OR-GT-175) through<br />
“red snapper-90” (Sample OR-RS-090)), compared with <strong>the</strong> percent composition of<br />
total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and<br />
1260 (Arochlor data from Degrandechamp and Barron, 2005).<br />
Aroclor 1232<br />
Aroclor 1242<br />
Aroclor 1248<br />
Aroclor 1254<br />
Aroclor 1260<br />
Gray Trigger<strong>fish</strong>‐175<br />
Red Porgy‐47<br />
Red Porgy‐54<br />
Red Porgy‐55<br />
Red Porgy‐58<br />
Red Porgy‐119<br />
Red Porgy‐156<br />
Red Snapper‐1<br />
Red Snapper‐2<br />
Red Snapper‐3<br />
Red Snapper‐4<br />
Red Snapper‐5<br />
Red Snapper‐6<br />
Red Snapper‐7<br />
Red Snapper‐8<br />
Red Snapper‐9<br />
Red Snapper‐10<br />
Red Snapper‐11<br />
Red Snapper‐12<br />
Red Snapper‐13<br />
Red Snapper‐14<br />
Red Snapper‐15<br />
Red Snapper‐16<br />
Red Snapper‐17<br />
Red Snapper‐18<br />
Red Snapper‐19<br />
Red Snapper‐20<br />
Red Snapper‐21<br />
Red Snapper‐22<br />
Red Snapper‐23<br />
Red Snapper‐24<br />
Red Snapper‐25<br />
Red Snapper‐26<br />
Red Snapper‐27<br />
Red Snapper‐28<br />
Red Snapper‐29<br />
Red Snapper‐30<br />
Red Snapper‐31<br />
Red Snapper‐32<br />
Red Snapper‐33<br />
Red Snapper‐34<br />
Red Snapper‐35<br />
Red Snapper‐36<br />
Red Snapper‐37<br />
Red Snapper‐38<br />
Red Snapper‐40<br />
Red Snapper‐41<br />
Red Snapper‐42<br />
Red Snapper‐43<br />
Red Snapper‐44<br />
Red Snapper‐45<br />
Red Snapper‐46<br />
Red Snapper‐50<br />
Red Snapper‐52<br />
Red Snapper‐53<br />
Red Snapper‐56<br />
Red Snapper‐59<br />
Red Snapper‐60<br />
Red Snapper‐61<br />
Red Snapper‐62<br />
Red Snapper‐63<br />
Red Snapper‐64<br />
Red Snapper‐65<br />
Red Snapper‐66<br />
Red Snapper‐67<br />
Red Snapper‐68<br />
Red Snapper‐69<br />
Red Snapper‐70<br />
Red Snapper‐71<br />
Red Snapper‐72<br />
Red Snapper‐73<br />
Red Snapper‐74<br />
Red Snapper‐75<br />
Red Snapper‐76<br />
Red Snapper‐77<br />
Red Snapper‐78<br />
Red Snapper‐79<br />
Red Snapper‐80<br />
Red Snapper‐81<br />
Red Snapper‐82<br />
Red Snapper‐83<br />
Red Snapper‐84<br />
Red Snapper‐85<br />
Red Snapper‐86<br />
Red Snapper‐87<br />
Red Snapper‐88<br />
Red Snapper‐89<br />
Red Snapper‐90<br />
134 | Page
Table 16b. Percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs in <strong>fish</strong> tissues from <strong>reef</strong> <strong>fish</strong> collected<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Oriskany Reef (sorted by species) from sample rounds 1 through 6 (“red snapper-91”<br />
(Sample OR-RS-091) through “vermilion snapper-178” (Sample OR-VS-178)), compared<br />
with <strong>the</strong> percent composition of total <strong>PCB</strong>s by homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242,<br />
1248, 1254, 1260 (Arochlor data from DeGrandechamp and Barron, 2005).<br />
Aroclor 1232<br />
Aroclor 1242<br />
Aroclor 1248<br />
Aroclor 1254<br />
Aroclor 1260<br />
pp<br />
Red Snapper‐91<br />
Red Snapper‐92<br />
Red Snapper‐93<br />
Red Snapper‐94<br />
Red Snapper‐95<br />
Red Snapper‐96<br />
Red Snapper‐97<br />
Red Snapper‐98<br />
Red Snapper‐99<br />
Red Snapper‐100<br />
Red Snapper‐101<br />
Red Snapper‐102<br />
Red Snapper‐103<br />
Red Snapper‐104<br />
Red Snapper‐105<br />
Red Snapper‐106<br />
Red Snapper‐107<br />
Red Snapper‐108<br />
Red Snapper‐109<br />
Red Snapper‐110<br />
Red Snapper‐111<br />
Red Snapper‐112<br />
Red Snapper‐113<br />
Red Snapper‐114<br />
Red Snapper‐115<br />
Red Snapper‐116<br />
Red Snapper‐117<br />
Red Snapper‐118<br />
Red Snapper‐120<br />
Red Snapper‐121<br />
Red Snapper‐122<br />
Red Snapper‐123<br />
Red Snapper‐124<br />
Red Snapper‐125<br />
Red Snapper‐126<br />
Red Snapper‐127<br />
Red Snapper‐128<br />
Red Snapper‐129<br />
Red Snapper‐130<br />
Red Snapper‐131<br />
Red Snapper‐132<br />
Red Snapper‐133<br />
Red Snapper‐134<br />
Red Snapper‐136<br />
Red Snapper‐137<br />
Red Snapper‐138<br />
Red Snapper‐139<br />
Red Snapper‐140<br />
Red Snapper‐141<br />
Red Snapper‐142<br />
Red Snapper‐143<br />
Red Snapper‐144<br />
Red Snapper‐145<br />
Red Snapper‐146<br />
Red Snapper‐147<br />
Red Snapper‐148<br />
Red Snapper‐149<br />
Red Snapper‐150<br />
Red Snapper‐151<br />
Red Snapper‐152<br />
Red Snapper‐153<br />
Red Snapper‐154<br />
Red Snapper‐155<br />
Red Snapper‐158<br />
Red Snapper‐160<br />
Red Snapper‐161<br />
Red Snapper‐163<br />
Red Snapper‐164<br />
Red Snapper‐168<br />
Red Snapper‐170<br />
Red Snapper‐173<br />
Red Snapper‐176<br />
Red Snapper‐177<br />
Red Snapper‐179<br />
Red Snapper‐180<br />
Red Snapper‐181<br />
Scamp Grouper‐135<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐39<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐48<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐49<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐51<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐157<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐159<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐162<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐165<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐166<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐167<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐169<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐171<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐172<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐174<br />
Vermilion Snapper‐178<br />
135 | Page
Appendix 2. Sample FWC underwater field sheet used for <strong>fish</strong> census data<br />
collection.<br />
136 | Page