Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES1.2 Preliminary Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Chemicals <strong>of</strong> <strong>Potential</strong> ConcernIn the preliminary evaluation, the maximum concentrations <strong>of</strong> chemicals <strong>of</strong> potentialconcern in water and sediment were compared to toxicity screening values, which wereintended to represent no observed effect levels for aquatic organisms. The results <strong>of</strong> thepreliminary assessment indicated that a number <strong>of</strong> chemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concern exceededthe toxicity screening values in one or more environmental samples and, hence wereidentified as contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern. The water-borne contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern includedconventional variables (total suspended solids, turbidity, pH), nutrients (nitrate, nitrite,phosphorus), major ions (chloride, fluoride, sulfate), metals (aluminum, arsenic, boron,cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver); and,phenols. The sediment-associated contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern included metals (arsenic,cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, and nickel), phthalates[bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate] and, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [acenaphthalene,benz(a)anthracene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene]. These substances were retained forfurther evaluation in the detailed assessment <strong>of</strong> risks to sockeye salmon in the Fraser RiverBasin.Many other substances in the Inventory <strong>of</strong> Aquatic <strong>Contaminants</strong> have the potential toadversely affect Fraser River sockeye salmon, including organometals, cyanides,monoaromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated and non-chlorinated phenolic compounds, resinand fatty acids, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, hormone mimicking substances,pharmaceuticals, personal care products, wood preservation chemicals and nanoparticles.However, insufficient information was available to evaluate the hazards posed to sockeyesalmon in the Fraser River associated with exposure to these contaminants. Accordingly,these substances were identified as uncertain contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern and addressed in thequalitative evaluation <strong>of</strong> endocrine disrupting chemicals and contaminants <strong>of</strong> emergingconcern.ES1.3 Detailed Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Potential</strong> <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Contaminants</strong> <strong>of</strong> ConcernIn the next step <strong>of</strong> the process, the list <strong>of</strong> contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern was refined to eliminatethose substances that were unlikely to be risk drivers. Then, a detailed evaluation wasconducted to determine if the concentrations <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern insurface water, sediment, or fish tissues in the Fraser River or its tributaries were sufficientto adversely affect the survival, growth, or reproduction <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon. In thisevaluation, more realistic estimates <strong>of</strong> exposure to contaminants <strong>of</strong> concern (i.e., 95 thpercentile concentrations) were compared to toxicity reference values (toxicityii
Page 1: February 2011technical report 2<str
Page 7 and 8: uncertainties in the exposure asses
Page 9 and 10: 3.1.1.3 Wood Preservation Facilitie
Page 11 and 12: 7.4 Key Data Gaps..................
Page 13 and 14: Table 3.23 Estimated annual contami
Page 15 and 16: Table 4.29Table 4.30Table 4.31Table
Page 17 and 18: Table 5.8Table 5.9Table 5.10Table 5
Page 19 and 20: List of FiguresFig
Page 21: Figure 4.6Figure 4.7Figure 4.8Figur
Page 24 and 25: List of Appendices
Page 26 and 27: MeHg - methyl mercuryMS - Micros<st
Page 28 and 29: Chapter 1 Introduction1.0 Backgroun
Page 30 and 31: • Compare data on water quality c
Page 32 and 33: • Chapter 6 - Evaluation
Page 34 and 35: The eggs of sockey
Page 36 and 37: that is used to manage the use <str
Page 38 and 39: information is essential for select
Page 40 and 41: • Oil and gas developments;• Bu
Page 42 and 43: (i.e., with regulations initially t
Page 44 and 45: • Nutrients (such as ammonia and
Page 46 and 47: • Major ions (sodium, potassium,
Page 48 and 49: Absorbent Products Ltd. operates th
Page 50 and 51: Oil and gas developments can be ass
Page 52 and 53:
facilities were identified (Figure
Page 54 and 55:
and 27222 Developments Ltd. In addi
Page 56 and 57:
eleased to aquatic ecosystems due t
Page 58 and 59:
systems. However, data from other s
Page 60 and 61:
• Petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., o
Page 62 and 63:
with clear-cut logging. Such releas
Page 64 and 65:
In the South Thompson River and Tho
Page 66 and 67:
TSS, nutrients, and pesticides. In
Page 68 and 69:
Nevertheless, there are a number <s
Page 70 and 71:
• Monoaromatic hydrocarbons (i.e.
Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 4 Preliminary Evaluation <s
Page 74 and 75:
consumption of con
Page 76 and 77:
Listings of the to
Page 78 and 79:
assessments (CCME 1996; USEPA 1997;
Page 80 and 81:
concern, for each area of</
Page 82 and 83:
The results of thi
Page 84 and 85:
Each of these step
Page 86 and 87:
concern is intended to identify the
Page 88 and 89:
Toxicity Thresholds for Sediment -
Page 90 and 91:
quality index scores were also calc
Page 92 and 93:
exposure of sockey
Page 94 and 95:
analysis do not provide convincing
Page 96 and 97:
The results of thi
Page 98 and 99:
• Estimating realistic exposure p
Page 100 and 101:
Chapter 6 Evaluation of</st
Page 102 and 103:
• Disinfectants and disinfectant
Page 104 and 105:
hormones [such as the synthetic est
Page 106 and 107:
sludge in landfills (and subsequent
Page 108 and 109:
epellants, and in floorings, paints
Page 110 and 111:
River. Hence, this route of
Page 112 and 113:
In recent years, vitellogenin induc
Page 114 and 115:
competitive binding of</str
Page 116 and 117:
tetrachlorodibenzof</strong
Page 118 and 119:
including cessation of</str
Page 120 and 121:
susceptibility to disease. These au
Page 122 and 123:
al. (1997) exposed goldfish to conc
Page 124 and 125:
iver watersheds), and low for stock
Page 126 and 127:
potential) have also been reduced (
Page 128 and 129:
uses, it is reasonable to conduct a
Page 130 and 131:
a few cases, impaired gonad develop
Page 132 and 133:
Collectively, the results o
Page 134 and 135:
• Surfactants (i.e., APEOs, such
Page 136 and 137:
Contaminants <stro
Page 138 and 139:
Contaminants Posin
Page 140 and 141:
Exposure to endocrine disrupting ch
Page 142 and 143:
Peterman et al. (2011) also indicat
Page 144 and 145:
environment). Such effects have not
Page 146 and 147:
have been observed in recent years.
Page 148 and 149:
Chapter 7 Uncertainty and Data Gap
Page 150 and 151:
thresholds for fish tissues. Two ty
Page 152 and 153:
esults of this ass
Page 154 and 155:
7.4.3 Temporal Coverage of<
Page 156 and 157:
used, are persistent and bioaccumul
Page 158 and 159:
Chapter 8 Summary and Conclusions8.
Page 160 and 161:
8.2 Temporal and Spatial Scope <str
Page 162 and 163:
e unlikely to cause adverse effects
Page 164 and 165:
incubation habitats, and nutrients
Page 166 and 167:
limitations on the available data m
Page 168 and 169:
• Coordination among government a
Page 170 and 171:
BCMOE (British Columbia Ministry <s
Page 172 and 173:
Clarke, J.U. and D.L. Brandon. 1994
Page 174 and 175:
Environmental Health and Safety Onl
Page 176 and 177:
Haggarty, D.R., B. McCorquodale, D.
Page 178 and 179:
Jobling, S. and C.R. Tyler. 2003a.
Page 180 and 181:
Little, E.E. and R.D. Calfee. 2000.
Page 182 and 183:
McKim, J.M., G.F. Olson, G.W. Holco
Page 184 and 185:
Nirmala, K., Y. Oshima, R. Lee, N.
Page 186 and 187:
Scholz, S., and H.O. Gutzeit. 2000.
Page 188 and 189:
Sylvestre, S., R. Brewer, M. Sekala
Page 190 and 191:
USEPA (United States Environmental
Page 192 and 193:
Tables
Page 194 and 195:
Table 2.1. Overview of</str
Page 196 and 197:
Table 2.2. Sampling sites for Early
Page 198 and 199:
Table 2.3. Sampling sites for summe
Page 200 and 201:
Table 3.1. Listing of</stro
Page 202 and 203:
Table 3.2. Chemicals of</st
Page 204 and 205:
Table 3.2. Chemicals of</st
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Table 3.9. Locations of</st
Page 222 and 223:
Table 3.11. Listing of</str
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Table 3.13. Overview of</st
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Table 3.16. List of</strong
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Table 3.18. Location of</st
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Table 3.20. Summary of</str
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Table 3.28. Inventory of</s
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Table 4.1. Selected toxicity screen
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Table 4.3. Summary of</stro
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Table 4.19. Evaluation of</
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Table 4.32. Frequency of</s
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Table 4.53. Identification
Page 402 and 403:
Table 5.1. Selected toxicity refere
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Table 5.4. Exposure point concentra
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Table 5.10. Hazard quotients <stron
Page 416 and 417:
Table 5.12. Hazard quotients <stron
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Table 5.18. Fraser River Basin surf
Page 432 and 433:
Table 5.20. Hazard quotients for co
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Table 6.1. Relative oestrogenic pot
Page 440 and 441:
Table 6.2. Effects
Page 442 and 443:
Table 6.3. Field studies of
Page 444 and 445:
Table 6.4. Compounds for National r
Page 446 and 447:
Table 8.1. Inventory of</st
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Figure 1.1. Productivity for the to
Page 462 and 463:
F-3
Page 464 and 465:
F-5
Page 466 and 467:
F-7
Page 468 and 469:
F-9
Page 470 and 471:
F-11
Page 472 and 473:
F-13
Page 474 and 475:
F-15
Page 476 and 477:
F-17
Page 478 and 479:
F-19
Page 480 and 481:
F-21
Page 482 and 483:
F-23
Page 484 and 485:
F-25
Page 486 and 487:
F-27
Page 488 and 489:
F-29
Page 490 and 491:
F-31
Page 492 and 493:
F-33
Page 494 and 495:
F-35
Page 496 and 497:
F-37
Page 498 and 499:
F-39
Page 500 and 501:
F-41
Page 502 and 503:
F-43
Page 504 and 505:
F-45
Page 506 and 507:
F-47
Page 508 and 509:
F-49
Page 510 and 511:
F-51
Page 512 and 513:
F-53
Page 514 and 515:
F-55
Page 516 and 517:
F-57
Page 518 and 519:
F-59
Page 520 and 521:
Figure 4.20. Mean Ricker Residuals
Page 522 and 523:
F-63
Page 524 and 525:
Figure 5.2. Expected relationship b
Page 526 and 527:
Figure 5.4. Fraser River Sockeye Sa
Page 528 and 529:
Figure 5.6. Harrison Sockeye Salmon
Page 530 and 531:
Figure 5.8. Birkenhead Sockeye Salm
Page 532 and 533:
Figure 5.10. Gates Sockeye Salmon P
Page 534 and 535:
Figure 5.12. Raft Sockeye Salmon Pr
Page 536 and 537:
Figure 5.14. Seymour Sockeye Salmon
Page 538 and 539:
Figure 5.16. Scotch Sockeye Salmon
Page 540 and 541:
Figure 5.18. Quesnel Sockeye Salmon
Page 542 and 543:
Figure 5.20. Late Stuart Sockeye Sa
Page 544 and 545:
Figure 5.22. Nadina Sockeye Salmon
Page 546 and 547:
Figure 6.1. Selected major endocrin
Page 548 and 549:
Appendix 1. Statement of</s
Page 550 and 551:
Appendix 2. Reviewer’s Comments a
Page 552 and 553:
5. What information, if any, should
Page 554 and 555:
Page 556 and 557:
salmon associated with exposure to
Page 558 and 559:
Page 560 and 561:
It is unlikely that conventional bi
Page 562 and 563:
This new approach, which combines t
Page 564 and 565:
Page 131, line 4958 - incomplete ci
Page 566 and 567:
$ Sub Alpine Avalanche Chutes,$ Alp
Page 568 and 569:
$ Water quality stations used for c
Page 570 and 571:
A3.8 Siska Salmon and Indigenous Pe
Page 572 and 573:
A3.14 References CitedENKON Environ
Page 574 and 575:
Table A3.1. Water quality stations
Page 576 and 577:
Table A3.1. Water quality stations
Page 578 and 579:
$ All DN2_CompDate years occurring
Page 580 and 581:
effects and exposure assessment. Th
Page 582 and 583:
$ Water quality data collected four
Page 584 and 585:
The CCME Water Quality Index (CCME
Page 586 and 587:
sockeye salmon or another salmonid
Page 588 and 589:
hazard quotients > 1.0 were conside
Page 590 and 591:
USEPA (United States Environmental
Page 592 and 593:
Appendix 5. Data description and so
Page 594 and 595:
Page 596 and 597:
Page 598 and 599:
Page 600 and 601:
Page 602 and 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?