Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 2. Reviewer’s Comments and Response to CommentsReviewer #3Report Title: <strong>Potential</strong> <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> Contamination on Fraser River Sockeye SalmonReviewer Name: Ken AshleyDate: January 14, 20111. Identify the strengths and weaknesses <strong>of</strong> this report.The strength <strong>of</strong> this report is that it provides a detailed inventory <strong>of</strong> contaminants in theFraser River watershed, and conducted a risk based analysis using available literaturevalues to determine if various contaminants could have been responsible for thegradual decline in Fraser River sockeye stocks over the last 20 years, and the lowreturn <strong>of</strong> sockeye to the Fraser River in 2009. The analysis which plotted Rickerlife-cycle residuals against derived Water Quality Index (WQI) scores was innovative.Response: No response required.The weakness <strong>of</strong> the report is that it could only report on available data, and many <strong>of</strong>the potential contaminants in the Fraser river drainage have incomplete data, hence itwas not possible to assess the magnitude <strong>of</strong> their potential effects on various lifehistory stages <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon. For example, no data was available on the volume<strong>of</strong> effluent discharges from wood preservative (Table 3.4), seafood processing (Table3.6) and most major mining operations (Table 3.7).Response: Agreed, these data limitations represent a weakness <strong>of</strong> theevaluation <strong>of</strong> potential contaminant effects on sockeye salmon.In addition, the analysis relied on a variety <strong>of</strong> calculated toxicity indices, which weretypically based on traditional bioassay toxicity tests e.g., 96 hr LC 50 tests (i.e., theconcentration <strong>of</strong> a contaminant which would kill 50% <strong>of</strong> the test organisms in a 96 hourperiod). While these types <strong>of</strong> laboratory tests were the scientific and legal standardfor single contaminant testing <strong>of</strong> known toxic agents (e.g. pesticides) in the past, theemerging view is that newer and more sensitive tests are required to detect sub-lethaleffects <strong>of</strong> various contaminants and endocrine disrupting substances, eitherindividually, or in various combinations.Response: Agreed. The text was revised to clarify how the toxicity thresholdswere identified and to highlight the need for more sensitive indicators toevaluate effects on sockeye salmon and other aquatic organisms associatedwith exposure to emerging contaminants, such as endocrine disruptors.2. Evaluate the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the available data, and the validity <strong>of</strong> anyderived conclusions. Overall, does the report represent the best scientificinterpretation <strong>of</strong> the available data?The interpretation <strong>of</strong> the available data and the validity <strong>of</strong> the derived conclusions onA-11
the potential effects <strong>of</strong> contamination on Fraser River sockeye salmon are sound andscientifically defensible.The two core conclusions, subject to the availability <strong>of</strong> existing data, is:(1) that the exposure to various contaminants in surface water, sediments and fishtissues was not the primary factor responsible for the low returns <strong>of</strong> Fraser Riversockeye in 2009, and(2) that there is a possibility that exposure to various contaminants has contributed tothe decline <strong>of</strong> sockeye abundance in the Fraser River over the past 20 years.Overall, this report represents the best scientific interpretation on the effects <strong>of</strong>potential and known contaminants in the Fraser River basin on sockeye salmon,subject to the availability <strong>of</strong> existing data and conventional methodologies for derivingtoxicity thresholds and indices.Response: No response is required.3. Are there additional quantitative or qualitative ways to evaluate the subjectarea not considered in this report? How could the analysis be improved?Given the limitations on the available data, I do not believe there are any quantitative orqualitative ways to evaluate the potential effects <strong>of</strong> contamination on Fraser Riversockeye salmon that have not been considered in this report. The idea to plot Rickerlife-cycle residuals against derived Water Quality Index (WQI) scores was aninnovative combination <strong>of</strong> fisheries science and ecotoxicology.Response: No response is required.Subject to the availability <strong>of</strong> existing data, and the large number <strong>of</strong> potentialcontaminants, I do not believe the analysis could be substantially improved.Response: No response is required.Substantial improvements in the report could only be achieved by conducting newsub-lethal and cumulative effects tests; however, this was outside the scope and terms<strong>of</strong> reference for this report.Response: Agree. Such sub-lethal and cumulative effects tests wouldprovide valuable information for evaluating the effects <strong>of</strong> contaminantexposures on sockeye salmon.4. Are the recommendations provided in this report supportable? Do you haveany further recommendations to add?The recommendations provided in this report are supportable.Response: No response is required.A-12
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:
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:
Page 399 and 400:
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: Pg 110 Ln 4189 - now called Listene
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 603: Appendix 5. Data description and so
show all

Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?