Potential Effects of Contaminants on Fraser River Sockeye Salmon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Listings <strong>of</strong> the toxicity screening values that were selected for evaluating surface waterquality data collected and sediment quality within the study area are provided in Tables 4.1and 4.2, respectively.4.4 Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Exposure to Chemicals <strong>of</strong> <strong>Potential</strong> ConcernExposure is defined as the co-occurrence or contact <strong>of</strong> a stressor with an ecologicalreceptor, both in time and space (USEPA 1997). In this study, exposure was evaluatedfor each life stage <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon within each area <strong>of</strong> interest using data on theconcentrations <strong>of</strong> chemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concern that have been measured in surface waterand sediment. These data were obtained from multiple sources and assembled in a GIScompatible,relational database (see Appendix 3 for additional information).Subsequently, the locations <strong>of</strong> the sampling sites were mapped on an area <strong>of</strong> interest-byarea<strong>of</strong> interest basis. The resultant maps were examined and used to identify the stationsthat could be grouped to characterize conditions within spawning and incubation areas,juvenile rearing areas, smolt out-migration corridors, and adult up-stream migrationcorridors. Figures 4.1 to 4.4 illustrate the distribution <strong>of</strong> stations that were selected tocharacterize conditions within each <strong>of</strong> these four habitat types within the study area.Figures 4.5 to 4.19 illustrate the distribution <strong>of</strong> the selected sampling stations for each area<strong>of</strong> interest. While all <strong>of</strong> the stations used to characterize conditions in spawning andrearing habitats are included on the individual area <strong>of</strong> interest maps, conditions withinmigration corridors were evaluated using the data for identified stations on the area <strong>of</strong>interest maps and the data for all downstream stations on the Fraser River and/orThompson River mainstem, as applicable.To evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon to chemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concern in the FraserRiver Basin, the available water chemistry data were compiled for each life history stagefor each brood year. For example, the data needed to evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> the 1991brood year <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon for the Quesnel River Area <strong>of</strong> Interest were compiled asfollows:• Data collected for spawning and incubation areas between August 1, 1991 andMay 31, 1992 were compiled to evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> eggs and alevins tochemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concern during spawning and incubation;• Data collected for rearing areas between April 1, 1992 and March 31, 1993were compiled to evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> fry to chemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concernduring rearing in nursery lakes;49
• Data collected for migration corridors between May 1, 1993 and June 30, 1993were compiled to evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> smolts to chemicals <strong>of</strong> potentialconcern during outmigration;• Data collected for migration corridors between June 1, 1995 and September30, 1995 were compiled to evaluate exposure <strong>of</strong> adults to chemicals <strong>of</strong>potential concern during upstream migration.This approach to summarizing the available surface-water chemistry data is based onseveral assumptions. First, it assumes that the general life history pattern is the same forall stocks (i.e., one year <strong>of</strong> freshwater rearing followed by two years <strong>of</strong> ocean residence).In addition, it assumes that the timing for each life history stage is the same for all sockeyesalmon stocks. While both <strong>of</strong> these assumptions are not precisely correct, they aresufficiently reasonable to support evaluations that facilitate comparisons <strong>of</strong> exposure overtime and space.Due to limitations on the availability <strong>of</strong> sediment chemistry it was not possible to sort thedata in a way that would support spatial or temporal trend assessment for most <strong>of</strong> theareas <strong>of</strong> interest and most <strong>of</strong> the life history stages. Therefore, the data were grouped intotwo categories for each area <strong>of</strong> interest to determine if the concentrations <strong>of</strong> chemicals <strong>of</strong>potential concern exceeded toxicity screening values during the pre-1990 and post-1990time frames. These two time periods were identified for several reasons. First,examination <strong>of</strong> the general trends in sockeye salmon abundance show marked declinesover the past 20 years (Figure 1.1). Accordingly, the available productivity data (i.e.,mean Ricker residuals were plotted for the pre-1990, and post-1990 time periods (Figure4.20). These results showed that most <strong>of</strong> the Fraser River sockeye salmon stocks hadmean Ricker residuals (i.e., positive values) indicative <strong>of</strong> increasing productivity prior to1990. However, marked declines in productivity (as indicated by negative mean Rickerresiduals) for most stocks was observed after 1990. Hence examination <strong>of</strong> water qualityconditions for these two periods could provide information relevant for explaining declinesin the abundance <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon in the Fraser River Basin.In this study, exposure <strong>of</strong> sockeye salmon to chemicals <strong>of</strong> potential concern was quantifiedby calculating exposure point concentrations. More specifically, exposure pointconcentrations were estimated for each <strong>of</strong> the habitat types (e.g., spawning and incubationhabitat) contained within each area <strong>of</strong> interest (e.g., Chilko River Area <strong>of</strong> Interest) foreach time period (e.g., August 1, 1991 and May 31, 1992) by determining the maximumconcentration <strong>of</strong> each chemical <strong>of</strong> potential concern. This is consistent with the availableguidance for estimating exposure point concentrations in screening-level ecological risk50
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: warrants further assessment to dete
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 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?