Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.20. Hazard quotients for contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern in Weaver and Adams sockeyeand Thompson chinook salmon populations 1 .Contaminant <strong>of</strong>ConcernToxicityReferenceValueFraser River Mouth Spawning GroundsMuscle Roe Muscle RoeMetals (mg/g)Mercury 0.4 mg/g 3 0.063 0.024 0.159 0.038Selenium 1.58 mg/g 4 0.095 1.52 0.487 1.01Chemical MixturesΣTEQ 2 3.0 pg/g lipid 5 NB 2.53 NB 1.48NB = No available benchmark; TEQ = toxic equivalent; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p- dioxin; PCDF = polychlorinated dibenz<strong>of</strong>uran;TCDD = tetraochlorodibenzo-p- dioxin.1 Data obtained from Siska Traditions Society 2009.2 ΣTEQ is calculated as the the sum <strong>of</strong> the PCB, PCDD, and PCDF TCDD-TEQ values.3 Toxicity reference value obtained from Dillon et al. (2010)4 Toxicity reference value obtained from USEPA (2010b); assuming 80% tissue moisture content.5 Toxicity reference value obtained from DeBruyn et al. (2004) and Giesy et al. (2002.)Bolded values indicate hazard quotients > 1.0.T-240
Table 5.21. Summary <strong>of</strong> muscle tissue data collected from Weaver and Adams sockeye and Thompson chinook salmon populations 1 .Contaminant <strong>of</strong>ConcernnnDetect% Non-DetectMeanSDGeometricMeanMinMaxPercentile Distribution5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95thSamples Collected at the Fraser River MouthMetals (mg/g)Arsenic 11 11 0.0% 0.421 0.259 0.346 0.1 0.85 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.625 0.76 0.805Cadmium 11 2 81.8% 0.026 0.019 0.023 < 0.03 0.08 0.015 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06Copper 11 11 0.0% 0.791 0.122 0.782 0.6 1 0.65 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.95Lead 11 11 0.0% 0.251 0.108 0.233 0.135 0.522 0.136 0.136 0.1905 0.234 0.289 0.314 0.418Mercury 11 11 0.0% 0.020 0.004 0.020 0.014 0.025 0.014 0.014 0.0155 0.021 0.0235 0.025 0.025Selenium 11 0 100.0% 0.141 0.020 0.139 < 0.2 < 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15Thallium 11 0 100.0% 0.002 0.000 0.002 < 0.004 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003Vanadium 11 10 9.1% 0.232 0.425 0.067 < 0.02 1.23 0.015 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.93 1.08Zinc 11 11 0.0% 8.51 4.13 7.95 5.9 20.5 5.94 5.98 6.34 7.32 8.39 9.18 14.8Pesticides (pg/g)Aldrin 17 1 94.1% 0.944 0.687 0.813 < 0.72 3.43 0.360 0.459 0.665 0.810 1.01 1.13 1.67a-HCH 16 15 6.3% 313 219 183 < 1.33 858 50.4 68.9 168 306 394 537 634b-HCH 17 14 17.6% 360 268 123 < 1.12 782 0.860 1.02 116 445 609 640 700Chlordane (total) 17 17 0.0% 985 268 940 378.11 1361 530 571 935 1046 1122 1251 1289Dieldrin 17 17 0.0% 709 244 656 241.12 1050 278 353 536 781 851 940 995g-HCH 17 10 41.2% 55.4 57.0 12.2 < 1.09 158 0.569 0.671 1.07 24.070 107 121 131Heptachlor 16 3 81.3% 1.75 0.834 1.59 < 1.54 < 7.13 0.793 0.963 1.30 1.47 1.95 3.12 3.23Moethoxychlor 17 0 100.0% 12.4 13.0 7.56 < 4.81 < 73.5 2.405 2.68 3.61 5.28 21.6 33.9 35.0Mirex 17 17 0.0% 53.8 18.2 51.3 28.5 102.52 36.0 38.3 41.7 48.9 64.5 72.0 86.6Sum DDD 17 17 0.0% 1047 348 989 366 2016 503 684 980 1055 1189 1273 1500Sum DDE 17 17 0.0% 4756 1979 4309 1261 8197 1930 2468 3575 4116 6431 7134 7729Sum DDT 17 17 0.0% 1362 1336 974 405 5757 429 436 440 978 1752 2251 3295T-241
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:
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 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Table 4.19. Evaluation of</
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Table 4.32. Frequency of</s
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382: Table 4.44. Frequency of</s
Page 383 and 384: Table 4.45. Summary of</str
Page 397 and 398: Table 4.51. Evaluation of</
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 413 and 414: Table 5.9. Hazard quotients <strong
Page 415 and 416: Table 5.11. Hazard quotients <stron
Page 431: Table 5.19. Hazard quotients <stron
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?