Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.16. Summary <strong>of</strong> the available sediment chemistry data for the Fraser River Basin.Area <strong>of</strong> Interest/ ChemicalClass/AnalytennDetect% Non-DetectMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanMinMaxDistribution5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95thLower Fraser River (continued)Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs; mg/kg)PCBs (total) 74 21 71.62% 0.0067 0.0041 0.0042 0.0002 0.010 0.0003 0.0005 0.0015 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)Acenaphthene 31 15 51.61% 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.0003 0.0003 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004Acenaphthylene 31 7 77.42% 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.0003 0.0003 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003Anthracene 37 21 43.24% 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.039 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.014Benz(a)anthracene 37 24 35.14% 0.019 0.028 0.009 0.001 0.120 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.019 0.053 0.083Benzo(a)pyrene 37 23 37.84% 0.016 0.023 0.009 0.001 0.100 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.010 0.014 0.025 0.071Chrysene 37 22 40.54% 0.019 0.027 0.010 0.003 0.140 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.021 0.039 0.057Dibenz(a,h)anthracne 37 14 62.16% 0.019 0.062 0.003 0.0003 0.370 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005 0.002 0.010 0.026 0.067Fluoranthene 37 24 35.14% 0.026 0.028 0.015 0.004 0.120 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.017 0.032 0.063 0.082Fluorene 37 26 29.73% 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.023 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.010Naphthalene 37 22 40.54% 0.008 0.021 0.005 0.003 0.130 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.011Phenanthrene 37 23 37.84% 0.017 0.027 0.009 0.003 0.150 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.017 0.036 0.057Pyrene 37 22 40.54% 0.022 0.026 0.013 0.002 0.130 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.028 0.051 0.070Harrison RiverMetals (mg/kg)Chromium 1 1 0.00% 26 NA 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26Copper 1 1 0.00% 63 NA 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63Iron 1 1 0.00% 32600 NA 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600 32600Lead 1 1 0.00% 31 NA 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31Mercury 1 0 100.00% 0.025 NA 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025Nickel 1 1 0.00% 23 NA 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23Zinc 1 1 0.00% 98 NA 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98Lower Thompson RiverMetals (mg/kg)Mercury 1 1 0.00% 0.060 NA 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060T-140
Table 4.16. Summary <strong>of</strong> the available sediment chemistry data for the Fraser River Basin.Area <strong>of</strong> Interest/ ChemicalClass/AnalytennDetect% Non-DetectMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanMinMaxDistribution5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95thSouth Thompson RiverMetals (mg/kg)Chromium 1 1 0.00% 41.0 NA 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0Copper 1 1 0.00% 41.0 NA 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0Iron 1 1 0.00% 38100 NA 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100 38100Lead 1 0 100.00% 5.00 NA 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Mercury 1 1 0.00% 0.070 NA 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070Nickel 1 1 0.00% 61.0 NA 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0Zinc 1 1 0.00% 109 NA 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109n = number <strong>of</strong> samples; detect = detected; SD = standard deviation; NA = no data available; TSS = total suspended solids.No data were available for the following areas <strong>of</strong> interest within the Fraser River Basin:Upper Fraser River, Pitt River, Cultus Lake, Kakawa Lake, Nahatlatch River, Seton-Portage, North Thompson River, Chilko River, Quesnel River, Nechako River,Bowron River, ReferenceOne-half the detection limit was substituted for non-detect values in the distribution calculations.The minimum value shown is the lower <strong>of</strong> one-half the detection limit or the lowest detectable measurement.The maximum value shown is the higher <strong>of</strong> one-half the detection limit or the highest detectable measurement.T-141
Page 1:
February 2011technical report 2<str
Page 6 and 7:
thresholds), which represent lowest
Page 8 and 9:
Table of ContentsE
Page 10 and 11:
5.5 Summary of the
Page 12 and 13:
List of TablesTabl
Page 14 and 15:
Table 4.17Table 4.18Table 4.19Table
Page 16 and 17:
Table 4.47Table 4.48Table 4.49Table
Page 18 and 19:
Table 6.4Table 8.1Compounds for Nat
Page 20 and 21:
Figure 3.17 Map of
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 5.20 Late Stuart Sockeye Sal
Page 25 and 26:
List of Acronyms2,
Page 27 and 28:
AcknowledgementsThe authors would l
Page 29 and 30:
To assist it in fulfilling this man
Page 31 and 32:
• Development of
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 2 Geographic and Temporal S
Page 35 and 36:
life history of th
Page 37 and 38:
• Pitt River Area of</str
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 3 Inventory of</str
Page 41 and 42:
and Paper Mills - Canfor Pulp Limit
Page 43 and 44:
3.1.1.2 Sawmills, Plywood Mills and
Page 45 and 46:
(ENKON Environmental Ltd. 2001). Co
Page 47 and 48:
Effluent toxicity was also included
Page 49 and 50:
2011 for more information on the lo
Page 51 and 52:
facilities identified in Table 3.11
Page 53 and 54:
Inc.), poultry processing facilitie
Page 55 and 56:
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Page 57 and 58:
3.1.1.11 Municipal Wastewater Treat
Page 59 and 60:
• Personal care products (fragran
Page 61 and 62:
with oxytetracycline, ormetoprim, a
Page 63 and 64:
In summary, the contaminants that c
Page 65 and 66:
insecticides, such as phorate, terb
Page 67 and 68:
3.1.2.4 Runoff fro
Page 69 and 70:
the substances most amenable to lon
Page 71 and 72:
• Plastic-related compounds (i.e.
Page 73 and 74:
were used in the effects and exposu
Page 75 and 76:
warrants further assessment to dete
Page 77 and 78:
• Data collected for migration co
Page 79 and 80:
Hazard quotients were calculated fo
Page 81 and 82:
Many other substances have the pote
Page 83 and 84:
Chapter 5 Evaluation of</st
Page 85 and 86:
For surface water and sediment, the
Page 87 and 88:
3. For hardness-dependent water qua
Page 89 and 90:
• 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents
Page 91 and 92:
concern by area of
Page 93 and 94:
0.05 mg/L; Glew and Hames 1971). As
Page 95 and 96:
least time rearing in freshwater ha
Page 97 and 98:
The results of thi
Page 99 and 100:
Interest and in the South Thompson
Page 101 and 102:
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxi
Page 103 and 104:
glycoproteins, polypeptides, peptid
Page 105 and 106:
In-use herbicides in the Fraser Riv
Page 107 and 108:
and home wood heating; Johannessen
Page 109 and 110:
Pulp and paper mills, saw mills, an
Page 111 and 112:
salinity tolerance were significant
Page 113 and 114:
and gonadosomatic index scores were
Page 115 and 116:
the lowest observed effect concentr
Page 117 and 118:
Spitsbergen et al. (1991) reported
Page 119 and 120:
Chakravorty et al. (1992) observed
Page 121 and 122:
observed in saltwater gobies (Chasm
Page 123 and 124:
(See Chapters 4 and 5 for further i
Page 125 and 126:
emoval efficiency of</stron
Page 127 and 128:
point and non-point source discharg
Page 129 and 130:
Location of NatalS
Page 131 and 132:
Nevertheless, it is possible that e
Page 133 and 134:
concern relative to human or enviro
Page 135 and 136:
these substances to aquatic ecosyst
Page 137 and 138:
• Alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs;
Page 139 and 140:
chemicals of poten
Page 141 and 142:
productivity data, it is apparent t
Page 143 and 144:
• Sufficiency - For a cause and e
Page 145 and 146:
infection by various disease agents
Page 147 and 148:
magnitude, and spatial extent <stro
Page 149 and 150:
potential concern were documented a
Page 151 and 152:
pathways and the intensity and exte
Page 153 and 154:
Chilko River, Quesnel River, Nechak
Page 155 and 156:
• The majority of</strong
Page 157 and 158:
7.4.6 Information on Interactive <s
Page 159 and 160:
• Development of
Page 161 and 162:
8.4 Preliminary Evaluation
Page 163 and 164:
8.5 Evaluation of
Page 165 and 166:
the low returns of
Page 167 and 168:
8.9 RecommendationsThis evaluation
Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 9 References CitedAdams, R.
Page 171 and 172:
Braune, B., D. Muir, B. DeMarch, M.
Page 173 and 174:
EIP Associates. 1997. Polychlorinat
Page 175 and 176:
Gallaugher, P. and L. Wood (Eds). P
Page 177 and 178:
Hinch, S.G. and E.G. Martins. 2011.
Page 179 and 180:
Kemble, N.E., D.K. Hardesty, C.G. I
Page 181 and 182:
MacLatchy, D., L. Peters, J. Nickle
Page 183 and 184:
Milston, R.H., M.S. Fitzpatrick, A.
Page 185 and 186:
Peterman, R.M., D. Marmorek, B. Bec
Page 187 and 188:
Smith, D.B., R.A. Zielinski, H.E. T
Page 189 and 190:
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of</
Page 191 and 192:
Walker, M.K., J.M. Spitsbergen, J.R
Page 193 and 194:
Table 2.1. Overview of</str
Page 195 and 196:
Table 2.2. Sampling sites for Early
Page 197 and 198:
Table 2.3. Sampling sites for summe
Page 199 and 200:
Table 2.4. Sampling sites for river
Page 201 and 202:
Table 3.1. Listing of</stro
Page 203 and 204:
Table 3.2. Chemicals of</st
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Table 3.8. Major pipelines transpor
Page 221 and 222:
Table 3.10. Locations of</s
Page 223 and 224:
Table 3.11. Listing of</str
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3.16. List of</strong
Page 243 and 244:
Table 3.17. List of</strong
Page 245 and 246:
Table 3.18. Location of</st
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Table 3.20. Summary of</str
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3.23. Estimated annual contam
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Table 3.28. Inventory of</s
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282: Table 3.28. Inventory of</s
Page 283 and 284: Table 4.1. Selected toxicity screen
Page 285 and 286: Table 4.2. Selected toxicity screen
Page 287 and 288: Table 4.3. Summary of</stro
Page 309 and 310: Table 4.10. Summary of</str
Page 331: Table 4.16. Summary of</str
Page 337 and 338: Table 4.19. Evaluation of</
Page 361 and 362: Table 4.32. Frequency of</s
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Table 4.51. Evaluation of</
Page 399 and 400:
Table 4.52. Frequency of</s
Page 401 and 402:
Table 4.53. Identification
Page 403 and 404:
Table 5.1. Selected toxicity refere
Page 405 and 406:
Table 5.2. Selected toxicity refere
Page 407 and 408:
Table 5.3. Exposure point concentra
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Table 5.9. Hazard quotients <strong
Page 415 and 416:
Table 5.11. Hazard quotients <stron
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Table 5.19. Hazard quotients <stron
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Table 5.23. Mean concentrations <st
Page 439 and 440:
Table 6.2. Effects
Page 441 and 442:
Table 6.3. Field studies of
Page 443 and 444:
Table 6.4. Compounds for National r
Page 445 and 446:
Table 8.1. Inventory of</st
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Figures
Page 461 and 462:
F-2
Page 463 and 464:
F-4
Page 465 and 466:
F-6
Page 467 and 468:
F-8
Page 469 and 470:
F-10
Page 471 and 472:
F-12
Page 473 and 474:
F-14
Page 475 and 476:
F-16
Page 477 and 478:
F-18
Page 479 and 480:
F-20
Page 481 and 482:
F-22
Page 483 and 484:
F-24
Page 485 and 486:
F-26
Page 487 and 488:
F-28
Page 489 and 490:
F-30
Page 491 and 492:
F-32
Page 493 and 494:
F-34
Page 495 and 496:
F-36
Page 497 and 498:
F-38
Page 499 and 500:
F-40
Page 501 and 502:
F-42
Page 503 and 504:
F-44
Page 505 and 506:
F-46
Page 507 and 508:
F-48
Page 509 and 510:
F-50
Page 511 and 512:
F-52
Page 513 and 514:
F-54
Page 515 and 516:
F-56
Page 517 and 518:
F-58
Page 519 and 520:
F-60
Page 521 and 522:
F-62
Page 523 and 524:
Figure 5.1. Water Quality Index sco
Page 525 and 526:
Figure 5.3. Fraser River Sockeye Sa
Page 527 and 528:
Figure 5.5. Pitt Sockeye Salmon Pro
Page 529 and 530:
Figure 5.7. Weaver Sockeye Salmon P
Page 531 and 532:
Figure 5.9. Cultus Sockeye Salmon P
Page 533 and 534:
Figure 5.11. Portage Sockeye Salmon
Page 535 and 536:
Figure 5.13. Fennell Sockeye Salmon
Page 537 and 538:
Figure 5.15. Late Shuswap Sockeye S
Page 539 and 540:
Figure 5.17. Chilko Sockeye Salmon
Page 541 and 542:
Figure 5.19. Early Stuart Sockeye S
Page 543 and 544:
Figure 5.21. Stellako Sockeye Salmo
Page 545 and 546:
Figure 5.23. Bowron Sockeye Salmon
Page 547 and 548:
Appendices
Page 549 and 550:
SW4 Deliverables4.1 The Contractor
Page 551 and 552:
obtained on one species, sometimes
Page 553 and 554:
• For substances for which the se
Page 555 and 556:
WeaknessesThere is a lot of
Page 557 and 558:
Pg 110 Ln 4189 - now called Listene
Page 559 and 560:
the potential effects of</s
Page 561 and 562:
A-14
Page 563 and 564:
4. Fish processing plants are fewer
Page 565 and 566:
Appendix 3. Environmental Data Sour
Page 567 and 568:
4. Keyword searches for water quali
Page 569 and 570:
A3.5 Contaminant Spill ReportsData
Page 571 and 572:
River Pulp, Kamloops Cellulose Fibr
Page 573 and 574:
Table A3.1. Water quality stations
Page 575 and 576:
Table A3.1. Water quality stations
Page 577 and 578:
Appendix 4. Data Treatment and Meth
Page 579 and 580:
when multiple samples were reported
Page 581 and 582:
$ Early rearing of
Page 583 and 584:
i) The number of t
Page 585 and 586:
In addition, some sockeye salmon (e
Page 587 and 588:
• Selecting probable effect conce
Page 589 and 590:
deBruyn, A.M., H. deBruyn, M.G. Iko
Page 591 and 592:
Appendix 5. Data description and so
Page 593 and 594:
Page 595 and 596:
Page 597 and 598:
Page 599 and 600:
Page 601 and 602:
Page 603:
show all

Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?