Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice

Recommendations

Info

concentrations in edible portions of such fish exceed a specified screening value”. In paragraph 15 of the EPA risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document, the EPA screening level value was given as 0.020 parts per million (20 ppb) total PCBs, wet weight. This was defined as a mean value evaluated total PCB value for a minimum of 15 legal size specimens of the same targeted reef fish species caught during any given sampling round. In the same paragraph the EPA further stated: “If the mean PCB concentration in any targeted fish species exceeds a screening value of 0.02 parts per million (20 ppb) total PCBs, the FWC shall initiate a Tier 2, intensive monitoring program and/or assess the need for establishing advisories as determined by EPA”. A fish consumption advisory, if warranted, would be for the purpose of protecting the human health of anglers and their families from any unreasonable increased cancer risk due to PCB ingestion and bio-accumulation as a result of consuming fishes caught on the Oriskany Reef. The excess cancer risk from 30 years of consumption of Oriskany Reef caught fish would be averaged over a 70 year period of an adult’s life. In their risk-based PCB bulk waste approval document the EPA considered an excess cancer risk of one in 1,000,000 persons to be justifiable for a risk-based disposal project. However, slightly greater excess cancer risks would be considered as acceptable when evaluating other positive benefits of a project as a whole. The EPA considered the excess cancer risk presented by PCBs on board the Oriskany Reef to represent a risk sufficiently acceptable to approve the Oriskany Reef Project. The EPA’s PCB risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document defined a Tier 2 intensive monitoring program as “a focused effort to collect and analyze samples of commonly consumed fish, other biota, or other media from the Oriskany Reef site for purposes of determining if PCB concentrations in fish or shell fish are at levels which warrant issuance of a health advisory, determining the critical PCB fate and transport pathways and assessing the extent of PCB impact to the local marine environment.” In contrast to Tier 2 monitoring, the Tier 1 PCB screening level monitoring implemented by this project in compliance with the risk-based PCB bulk product waste disposal approval was narrowly focused and limited in ecological scope. FWC and ECMRD funding resources were not allocated for, nor did the disposal approval mandate sustained multi-year sampling of an array of multiple artificial reef reference sites, monitoring and measuring PCB related ecological impacts to nontarget reef fish community residents, examining complex PCB fate and transport interactions across trophic levels nor conducting additional PCB sampling of the water column, sediments, and invertebrate fauna on or in benthic habitat adjacent to the Oriskany Reef. The Tier 1 screening monitoring effort was not intended to 8 | Page
validate the Navy developed PCB fate and transport models such as the PCB Time Dynamic Release Rate (TDM) model predicting environmental impacts of pulsed PCB release during the first two years from the Oriskany Reef, nor the PCB Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) predicting impacts of post-two year PCB leach rates as they were predicted to decline to a steady state low level release (See Project Historical Review, below). All sampling efforts required by the Monitoring Work Plan through sample round #8 (November 18, 2010) have been completed with a ninth sampling effort planned for late April 2011. Sample round #8 fish samples are expected to be analyzed by late May 2011. Additional sampling and monitoring efforts were also undertaken exceeding the requirements of the Monitoring Work Plan, such as sampling of a nearby artificial reef site deployed in the same year as the Oriskany Reef, a small scale pilot fish tagging effort on fish caught on the Oriskany Reef, and visual monitoring efforts by FWC divers are discussed below in the monitoring Methods section. I (A) (2) Project Funding Support FWC provided the funding for the EPA mandated Oriskany Reef monitoring effort and prioritized it over all other artificial reef monitoring and assessment efforts annually funded statewide by the FWC. Annually, between 2006 and 2011, FWC has allocated to Escambia County between $40,000 and $53,000 in saltwater fishing license revenues to support this monitoring project, with most of the funding going toward laboratory PCB analysis of collected fish samples ($750 per fish for analysis of all 209 PCB congeners). Additionally, Escambia County assisted with financing charter vessel hires, equipment purchases, sample shipping costs as well as supporting additional sampling and other monitoring efforts. ECMRD also deferred application for artificial reef construction project money from FWC for five years to help FWC ensure the EPA monitoring mandate would be met. FWC and ECMRD jointly dedicated approximately $299,000 excluding salaries, volunteer time, travel and administrative expenses to fund activities supporting collection and analysis of a total of 345 fish (284 from the Oriskany Reef and 61 from the nearby reef site) for the first five years of sampling (projected through April 2011). The Oriskany Reef is presently the most intensively sampled PCB artificial reef for reef fish PCB body burdens in offshore waters of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Prior offshore reef fish PCB concentration monitoring in the general area offshore of Pensacola were baseline artificial reef and sand bottom fish community PCB burdens obtained by the University of West Florida under Navy contract during a pre-reefing environmental assessment for the ex-Oriskany (Snyder et al. 2007). 9 | Page
Page 1 and 2: Progress report summarizing the ree
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In compliance wit
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page No. 1.
Page 7: I (A) (1) EPA Oriskany Reef PCB Tie
Page 11 and 12: that “the numbering standard for
Page 13 and 14: ship material leachate experiments
Page 15 and 16: solid PCB containing materials woul
Page 17 and 18: EPA review included: 1) a human hea
Page 19 and 20: I(C)(6) PCB Containing Materials On
Page 21 and 22: I(C) (8) Oriskany Reef Created In a
Page 23 and 24: fishes for the Monitoring Work Plan
Page 25 and 26: I (D) (2) Fishing Vessel Sampling P
Page 27 and 28: long from the top to the mouth of t
Page 29 and 30: During sample round #2 all four che
Page 31 and 32: The rod and reel manpower sampling
Page 33 and 34: was intentionally scheduled after t
Page 35 and 36: weren’t running after each fish w
Page 37 and 38: actually shipped to GERG on Februar
Page 39 and 40: samples during Sampling Rounds 1-8
Page 41 and 42: harvesting at least 15 legal size r
Page 43 and 44: attraction as expressed by an incre
Page 45 and 46: Of these 10 reef assessment dives,
Page 47 and 48: assessments which were limited to t
Page 49 and 50: not considered target species for a
Page 51 and 52: have had any PAH levels approaching
Page 53 and 54: Oriskany, and one recapture at a
Page 55 and 56: ed snapper season commencement. The
Page 57 and 58: Table 8a. List of reef fish species
Page 59 and 60:
Oriskany Reef during Sampling Round
Page 61 and 62:
Species Composition of Oriskany Sam
Page 63 and 64:
The GERG lab reported their receipt
Page 65 and 66:
pectoral fins of the blackfin snapp
Page 67 and 68:
Trophic level or position Trophic p
Page 69 and 70:
that means after five years only 3%
Page 71 and 72:
II (D) (1) (c) Red Snapper Discussi
Page 73 and 74:
1,000,000 ΣPCB (pg/g) a. Sample Da
Page 75 and 76:
The PCB levels measured from red sn
Page 77 and 78:
fins relatively short, not reaching
Page 79 and 80:
Results of PCB analysis by sample d
Page 81 and 82:
ody, these spots giving a yellow-st
Page 83 and 84:
II (D) (3) (c) Red Porgy Discussion
Page 85 and 86:
cheeks that are speckled with brigh
Page 87 and 88:
II (D) (4) (c) Whitebone Porgy Disc
Page 89 and 90:
(common) name. The first spine is l
Page 91 and 92:
II (D) (5) (c) Gray Triggerfish Dis
Page 93 and 94:
The Scamp inhabits continental shel
Page 95 and 96:
Results of PCB analysis by sample d
Page 97 and 98:
species was not among the first 30
Page 99 and 100:
elieved to be unlikely since most o
Page 101 and 102:
trip less than 15% of the time due
Page 103 and 104:
II F (6) (b) Current Florida Marine
Page 105 and 106:
assessment, technological feasibili
Page 107 and 108:
III Oriskany Reef Monitoring Projec
Page 109 and 110:
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011.
Page 111 and 112:
Ingram, G.W., Jr. and W.F. Patterso
Page 113 and 114:
Patterson, W. F., J. H. Cowan Jr, e
Page 115 and 116:
Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and
Page 117 and 118:
Table 2. FWC Fish Census data taken
Page 119 and 120:
Table 4. Fish census data taken by
Page 121 and 122:
frogfish Antennarius sp.
Page 123 and 124:
eef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedenta
Page 125 and 126:
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites auro
Page 127 and 128:
OR-RS-042 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL
Page 129 and 130:
OR-RS-155 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 Hn
Page 131 and 132:
Table 14. Tissue sample characteris
Page 133 and 134:
Table 15. Percent composition of to
Page 135 and 136:
Table 16b. Percent composition of t
show all

Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?