DOCSLIB.ORG

Methyl Mercury and Heavy Metal Contaminant Levels in Alaskan Halibut

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methyl Mercury and Heavy Metal Contaminant Levels in Alaskan Halibut Methyl mercury and heavy metal contaminant levels in Alaskan halibut Claude L. Dykstra Abstract During the setline surveys in 2002, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) col- lected halibut muscle and liver tissue samples from locations within Alaska as part of a larger study on environmental contaminants in fish being conducted by the Alaska Department of Environmen- tal Conservation. In 2003, the principal samples were analyzed for heavy metals and the prelimi- nary data have been released and are reported here. Initial results support the Alaska Division of Public Healths belief that all Alaskans, including pregnant women and children, are not in danger when consuming fish from Alaskan waters. Introduction Recent reports from health officials and media have raised the profile of mercury contamina- tion in fish. In 2002, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in conJunc- tion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), launched an environmental contamination study looking into levels of organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, furans, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, PCB congeners, methyl mercury and heavy metals (arsenic, selenium, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium) within 13 Alaskan fish species, including halibut. During the setline surveys in 2002, the IPHC collected 60 halibut muscle and liver tissue samples from eight locations within Alaska for the principal ADEC study and 58 flesh samples for additional methyl mercury analyses. In 2003 the principal samples were analyzed for heavy metals and methyl mercury. A commercial lab is currently in the process of analyzing a subset of these halibut samples for levels of organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, furans, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and PCB congeners and these data will be reported, as they become available. Methods Halibut samples where collected from standard grid survey vessel operations during the sum- mer of 2002. Sampling focussed on stations in the following general locations: southeast of Ketchikan, southeast of Juneau, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Dutch Harbor and the Bering Sea. The goal at each site was to collect samples from four fish in the 20 to 40 pound category and four fish in the 40 to 100 pound category. All samples came from fish targeted for an age sample (otolith) and were free from any gross abnormalities or disease. After processing the fish in the usual manner and collecting an otolith from it, samplers collected a three to five pound fillet from behind the head while wearing nitrile gloves, and stored the sample in a food grade plastic bag. The liver was then removed, placed in a separate food grade plastic bag, sealed and labeled. Care was taken in all cases to avoid any gross contamination of the fish with bilge, waste- 323 IPHC REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 2003 water, fuel or exhaust emissions. Upon landing, all samples where shipped to ADECs Seafood and Food Safety Lab in Palmer, AK. As methyl mercury is currently a topical issue in seafood, ADEC agreed to analyze some addi- tional samples we provided. An additional 58 samples of muscle tissue (approximately 1/3 of a cup in size) where collected from six of the locations to be sampled for methyl mercury alone. ADEC prepared the samples for analysis using a standard protocol outlined in the Quality Assurance ProJect Plan established for the study (Gerlach, 2002). All samples where prepared from skinless fillets, and fatty tissue located between the skin and muscle was removed. The Seafood and Safety Lab analyzed the samples for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, methyl mercury and nickel. Those results are reported here. A commercial lab has been contracted to analyze the samples for pesticides, selected PCB congeners, dioxins, and furans following EPA approved meth- ods. The results from the commercial lab will be published, as they are available. Results While 64 samples where targeted for collection, a total of 60 samples where successfully col- lected from the target areas. Heavy metal concentrations for the samples are listed in Table 1. FDA Action levels exist only for crustacea and molluscan bivalves, and are listed as a base reference. A large percentage of the samples registered non-detectable levels of cadmium and chromium. Nickel readings came out below the detectable range (0.02 ppm at 95% confidence interval) for all of the samples tested. A total of 118 samples were tested for methyl mercury. Mean methyl mercury levels by region are listed in Table 2. All analyses were performed on skinless muscle tissue. The average methyl mercury level found in these samples was 0.2054 ppm. The FDA level of concern is 1.00 ppm, and the EPA action level is 0.50 ppm. The average levels of methyl mercury in these halibut are less than 50% and 25% of these reference levels, respectively. Discussion This Joint study with ADEC shows that average levels of heavy metals and methyl mercury in Alaskan Pacific halibut are well below levels of concern of both the FDA and EPA. Currently there is discrepancy between the levels of concern of these two agencies for methyl mercury (1.00 ppm and 0.5 ppm respectively) as well as how the two standards are calculated. The FDA is expected to update their reference level of concern in December of 2003. According to the Alaska Division of Public Health, the concentrations of heavy metals and methyl mercury detected in these samples are not a public health concern. The data support the Divisions belief that all Alaskans, including pregnant women and children, are not in danger when consuming halibut from Alaskan waters. These data appear to support the findings of Hall et al. (1976) in which the methyl mercury concentration increased in fish of the same size from the northern to the southern part of the geo- graphic range studied. The IPHC and ADEC are continuing to qualify the data with physical param- eters (age, size, and weight) and additional analyses will be done on the samples. This Joint proJect was continued in 2003 with a more focussed effort on three areas (Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, southeast Alaska). The data for these samples will add to our understanding of contaminant levels 324 IPHC REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 2003 in Pacific halibut, and how it relates to the commercial fishery. The IPHC anticipates working cooperatively with ADEC for the foreseeable future on this proJect. Acknowledgements We appreciate the cooperation and lab analysis performed by Bob Gerlach and his team at ADEC on this joint project. References Gerlach, R., Grimm R., Patrick-Riley, K., Beelman, J. 2002. Quality Assurance ProJect Plan: Fish Safety Monitoring Plan. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Seafood and Food Safety Laboratory, Palmer, Alaska. Hall, A. S., Teeny F. M., Lewis, L. G., Hardman, W. H., and Gauglitz, E. J. Jr. 1976. Mercury in fish and shellfish of the northeast Pacific. I. Pacific Halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis. Fishery Bulletin. Vol. 74: 783-789. 325 IPHC REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 2003 Table 1. Average heavy metal concentration (ppm) from Pacific halibut sampled in 2002. Number of Number FDA action levels Samples of non- Minimum Maximum Mean Standard (ppm) Analyzed detects Value Value Value Deviation Arsenic 76 (for Crustacea)1 60 0 0.2000 5.3000 1.5692 0.9860 Cadmium 3 (for Crustacea)1 60 38 <0.0020 0.0050 0.0017 0.0011 Chromium 12 (for Crustacea)1 60 49 <0.0060 0.0260 0.0046 0.0042 Lead 1.5 (for Crustacea)1 60 5 <0.0200 0.0500 0.0307 0.0086 Nickel 70 (for Crustacea)1 60 60 <0.0200 <0.0200 N/A N/A Selenium N/A 60 0 0.1000 0.6100 0.2607 0.1193 * The FDA Action/Guidance Levels exist only for Crustacea and molluscan bivalves. Table 2. Average methyl mercury concentration (ppm) by region from Pacific halibut sampled in 2002. Number of Mean Standard Region Samples Value* Deviation Cook Inlet 180.1009 0.0789 Aleutian 18 0.1036 0.0757 Kodiak 18 0.1551 0.0805 Prince William Sound 13 0.1559 0.1026 Bering Sea 18 0.1583 0.1539 Juneau 8 0.2309 0.1571 Cordova 70.3284 0.3356 Ketchikan 18 0.4854 0.3772 Total 118 0.2054 0.0211 *The FDA level of concern for methyl mercury is 1.0 ppm. This level is currently being reassessed, and may be adjusted down in December. Health Canadas guideline for total mercury is 0.5 ppm. 326 IPHC REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 2003 Project report: Understanding chalky halibut Charles Crapo, Robert Foy, and Donald Kramer University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fishery Industrial Technology Center (Kodiak) Abstract The International Pacific Halibut Commission, on behalf of the industry, contracted with Uni- versity of Alaska Fairbanks Fishery Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak to examine the causes of chalk, examining and describing the actual biochemical process that generates the chalky condi- tion, and the potential for mitigation or treatment of the condition. Their results of a laboratory simulation of catch-struggle and increased ambient temperature on 27 halibut failed to produce chalk. The inability to produce chalkiness was likely due to several factors. The fish were collected in late fall 2002 and had a high moisture, low protein and fat content, indicating perhaps recovery from spawning was one element. The test fish also had higher muscle pH and many of the females had well developed roe sacs. The authors suggest the experiments be repeated with fish collected at a different time of year. Introduction In the fall of 2002, IPHC contracted with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Fishery Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak to conduct research into the causes of chalk, examining and describ- ing the actual biochemical process that generates the chalky condition, and the potential for mitiga- tion or treatment of the condition in Pacific halibut.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries
    Final United States National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries Silver Spring, MD 20910 February 2001 Photograph of Short-tailed Albatross by Dr. Hiroshi Hasegawa DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Final United States National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries Silver Spring, MD 20910 February 2001 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Donald L. Evans, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Table of Contents Executive Summary . .1 Introduction . 2 Purpose . 4 Background . 5 Statutory Authority and Agency Responsibility . .6 International Fishery Management Measures to Conserve Seabirds . 9 U.S. Fishery Management Measures to Conserve Seabirds . .10 The U.S. National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (NPOA-S) . .11 Development of the NPOA-S . 11 Implementation of the NPOA-S . 12 Role of the Interagency Seabird Working Group . 12 Action Elements of the NPOA-S . .12 Table of Proposed Timeline for NPOA-S Implementation . 16 Table of Organizational Roles for Seabird Bycatch Reduction . .17 Appendices (Updated August 1, 2001) I. International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries II. Longline Fisheries of the United States: Seabird Bycatch Assessments, Descriptions, Regulations, Current Mitigation Efforts, Current Research Efforts, and Monitoring of Seabird Bycatch by Fishery Management Councils and International Agreements III. NMFS National Bycatch Plan Executive Summary IV. FWS Waterbird Bycatch Policy Statement V.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch Report on the Pacific Sardine
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Sardines Volume I image© Monterey Bay Aquarium Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax Alice Cascorbi Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium final 10 February 2004 Seafood Watch® Pacific Sardine Report February 10, 2004 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long- term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Management Approach The
    PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Management Approach The productivity of the North Pacific ecosystem is acknowledged to be among the highest in the world. For the past 25 years, the Council management approach has incorporated forward looking conservation measures that address differing levels of uncertainty. This management approach has, in recent years, been labeled the precautionary approach. The Council’s precautionary approach is about applying judicious and responsible fisheries management practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactively rather than reactively, to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations. Recognizing that potential changes in productivity may be caused by fluctuations in natural oceanographic conditions, fisheries, and other, non-fishing, activities, the Council intends to continue to take appropriate measures to insure the continued sustainability of the managed species. It will carry out this objective by considering reasonable, adaptive management measures as described in the Magnuson Stevens Act and in conformance with the National Standards, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable law. This management approach takes into account the National Academy of Science’s recommendations on Sustainable Fisheries Policy. As part of its policy, the Council intends to consider and adopt, as appropriate, measures that accelerate the Council’s precautionary, adaptive management
    [Show full text]
  • Global Standard for Responsible Supply of Marine Ingredients
    IFFO RS Global Standard for Responsible Supply of Marine Ingredients Global Standard for Responsible Supply of Marine Ingredients Fishery Assessment Methodology and Template Report V2.0 Version No.: 2.0 Date: July 2017 Page 1 IFFO RS Global Standard for Responsible Supply of Marine Ingredients Chilean jack mackerel, Jurel (Trachurus murphyi) Fishery Under Assessment Chile EEZ XV-X Date June 2020 Report Code 2020 - 101 Assessor Vito Romito Stock (s) Pass PASS Stock (s) Fail Application details and summary of the assessment outcome Name: Blumar and others Address: Country: Chile Zip: Tel. No.: Fax. No.: Email address: Applicant Code Key Contact: Chile Title: Certification Body Details Name of Certification Body: Assessment Initial/Surveillance/Re- Whole fish/ Assessor Name Peer Reviewer Days approval By-product Vito Romito Virginia Polonio 3 1st Surveillance Whole fish Assessment Period 2020 Scope Details SUBPESCA & SERNAPESCA, Chile EEZ; Management Authority (Country/State) SPRFMO International Waters Main Species Chilean jack mackerel Trachurus murphyi Fishery Location Chile EEZ VX-X Gear Type(s) Purse seine, hand-line Outcome of Assessment Peer Review Evaluation APPROVE Recommendation APPROVE SPRFMO International Waters Version No.: 2.0 Date: July 2017 Page 2 SPRFMO International Waters Assessment Determination The Northern Chile fishery (XV-II) is mostly within the Chilean EEZ; while the Central-Southern fishery (III-X) is within the Chilean EEZ and also straddles international waters. The Central-Southern fishery is used mainly for the reduction fishery for Chilean Jack mackerel. The IFFO RS assessment area fishing zones XV- X incorporate Management Units Region XV-II (North) and III-X (Central-South).
    [Show full text]
  • Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries
    © Brian Skerry WASTED CATCH: UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN U.S. FISHERIES Authors: Amanda Keledjian, Gib Brogan, Beth Lowell, Jon Warrenchuk, Ben Enticknap, Geoff Shester, Michael Hirshfield and Dominique Cano-Stocco CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). © Brian Skerry ACCORDING TO SOME ESTIMATES, GLOBAL BYCATCH MAY AMOUNT TO 40 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S CATCH, TOTALING 63 BILLION POUNDS PER YEAR CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). CONTENTS 05 Executive Summary 06 Quick Facts 06 What Is Bycatch? 08 Bycatch Is An Undocumented Problem 10 Bycatch Occurs Every Day In The U.S. 15 Notable Progress, But No Solution 26 Nine Dirty Fisheries 37 National Policies To Minimize Bycatch 39 Recommendations 39 Conclusion 40 Oceana Reducing Bycatch: A Timeline 42 References ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Jennifer Hueting and In-House Creative for graphic design and the following individuals for their contributions during the development and review of this report: Eric Bilsky, Dustin Cranor, Mike LeVine, Susan Murray, Jackie Savitz, Amelia Vorpahl, Sara Young and Beckie Zisser.
    [Show full text]
  • Convention on Migratory Species
    CONVENTION ON UNEP/CMS/COP13/Inf.13b MIGRATORY 17 October 2019 Original: English SPECIES 13th MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Gandhinagar, India, 17 - 22 February 2020 Agenda Item 26.2.3 FAO TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES: FISHING OPERATIONS – BEST PRACTICES TO REDUCE INCIDENTAL CATCH OF SEABIRDS IN CAPTURE FISHERIES Summary: This document is referred to in UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.26.2.3 Bycatch, and contains ‘Best practices to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in capture fisheries’ (number 1, supplement 2) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. ISSN 1020-5292 FAO TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES 1 Suppl. 2 FISHING OPERATIONS These Guidelines have been produced to support implementation of the 2. Best practices to reduce International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline incidentalincidental catchcatch ofof seabirdsseabirds Fisheries (IPOA-Seabirds). They are addressed to decision-makers and policy-makers associated with conserving seabirds and with minimizing their interaction with fishing inin capturecapture fisheriesfisheries gears, but the Guidelines should also be of interest to fishing industries and other parties. ISBN 978-92-5-106423-8 ISSN 1020-5292 9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 6 4 2 3 8 I1145E/1/10.09/1000 Cover photo: Twin streamer (tori) lines to reduce seabird strikes with warp cables on a stern trawler in South Africa. Courtesy of Barry Watkins, BirdLife Albatross Task Force, South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Incidental Catch of Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: Captures, Mortality, Priorities
    INCIDENTAL CATCH OF MARINE TURTLES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: CAPTURES, MORTALITY, PRIORITIES INCIDENTAL CATCH OF MARINE TURTLES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: CAPTURES, MORTALITY, PRIORITIES By Paolo Casale WWF Mediterranean Marine Turtle Programme c/o WWF Italy Recommended citation: Casale P. (2008). Incidental catch of marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: captures, mortality, priorities. WWF Italy, Rome. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the above bibliographic reference. No photographs from this publication may be reproduced on the internet or elsewhere without prior authorization from the authors. The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Photo Credits. Cover: - Loggerhead turtle captured by a trawler, Italy (D. Freggi). - Loggerhead turtle with a hook in the mouth; captured by a longliner, Italy (P. Casale). - Loggerhead turtle captured by a set net, Tunisia (K. Chouikhi) Back cover: - Loggerhead turtle found adrift entangled with a net, Italy (P. Casale). - Green turtle hung on a tourist boat, Syria (M. Jony). - Loggerhead carapaces sold as guitars, Morocco (M. Aksissou) Drawings: F. Gemma Design: P. Casale For any comment or information please contact: P. Casale, WWF Mediterranean Marine Turtle Programme c/o WWF Italy, Via Po 25c 00198, Roma Italy E-mail: [email protected] www.wwf.it ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. Relevant parameters for assessing the impact of fishing activity on marine turtle populations.......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Whale Meat Markets Along South Korea's Coast (PDF)
    A SURVEY OF WHALE MEAT MARKETS ALONG SOUTH KOREA'S COAST Sue Kang and Marcus Phipps, TRAFFIC East Asia July 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iii Executive summary............................................................................................................................... iv Background .............................................................................................................................................1 The current project .............................................................................................................................1 Korea and whales ....................................................................................................................................1 The history of Korean minke whaling................................................................................................1 The current regulatory situation - legislation and guidelines .............................................................1 Baleen whale bycatch in South Korea................................................................................................2 The 'J' stock of minke whale .........................................................................................................2 Catch figures ......................................................................................................................................3 Baleen
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Billfish Fisheries and Their Management in the Western Pacific Region
    No. 10, November 2020 History of the Billfish Fisheries and Their Management in the Western Pacific Region By Michael Markrich A ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michael Markrich is the former public information officer for the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources; communications officer for State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism; columnists for the Honolulu Advertiser; socioeconomic analyst with John M. Knox and Associates; and consultant/ owner of Markrich Research. He holds a bachelor of arts degree in history from the University of Washington and a master of science degree in agricultural and resource economics from the University of Hawai‘i. Disclaimer: The statements, findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). © Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2020. All rights reserved, Published in the United States by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council under NOAA Award #NA20NMF4410013 ISBN: 978-1-944827-55-7 Cover photo: Sports fishing for billfish, Kona, Hawai‘i. Photo courtesy of Kevin Hibbard. B CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PREFACE iii 1a–c. Shortbill spearfish, striped marlin and broadbill swordfish iv 1. Introduction 1 2. Pacific blue marlin 1 2. Big Game Fishermen 2 3. A marlin hangs in the window of the McDonald’s on Saipan 2 3. Hawai‘i Early Billfish History 3 4. Striped marlin caught by wealthy angler 3 4. Longline Expansion in the Post–World War II Era 7 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Science Meeting Southern New England Chapter American
    2020 Science Meeting Southern New England Chapter American Fisheries Society January 12-14, 2020 Hyatt Regency Cambridge Cambridge, MA SNEC AFS 2020 Science Meeting, Cambridge MA Abstracts (listed alphabetically by presentation type) Abstracts: Platform Presentations Fish Muscle Tissue Alone does not Indicate the Environmental Quality of a Historically Mercury Polluted River.* Anatone, Kayla, Barry Chernoff, Biology Dept, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT Mercury is a toxicant that is recognized as having deleterious effects on aquatic organisms. Mercury can remain in aquatic environments for decades after initial release. Hat-making factories active in the late 19th to early 20th centuries directly released mercury nitrate into the Still River and its various tributaries. Rhinichthys atratulus, Blacknose Dace, is a common non-migratory minnow that is abundantly found in the Still River, CT. The aim of the study is to use R. atratulus to evaluate the environmental quality of historically mercury contaminated sites in comparison to sites with no previous history of point source mercury pollution. Historical sites have more mercury present in their sediment (~10% greater) which should lead to a higher accumulation of mercury in fish. Fish muscle tissues were used as indicators of mercury bioavailable to organisms at study sites. Other biological parameters (i.e. condition factors, age, and population size) were used to assess environmental quality but were found to be similar among populations. Mercury concentrations were unexpectedly highest in sites with no previous history of mercury pollution. These results shed light on the complexity of the mercury cycle and evolutionary processes that may be at play. If mercury is not bioavailable to fish, then muscle measurements will not accurately represent environmental quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Vessel Monitoring System Discussion Paper April 2012
    Agenda Item D-1(b) April 2012 Overview of Vessel Monitoring System Discussion Paper April 2012 I. Introduction Since 2000, the Council has been extending requirements for Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) coverage to new categories of commercial fishing vessels, in order to enforce new regulations primarily pertaining to Steller sea protection measures and protection measures for EFH and HAPC. In October 2011, the Council approved a motion to initiate a discussion paper to review the use of and requirements for VMS in the North Pacific fisheries and other regions of the U.S. The Council stated that while there is uncertainty regarding whether a major change to or expansion of VMS requirements is necessary in the North Pacific, there is interest in reviewing the current state of the North Pacific VMS requirements in addition to other regions’ application of VMS. The Council also specified that the Council’s IFQ Implementation Committee should review the paper and provide recommendations prior to Council review. Per the Council, the intent of the committee review is to provide depth to the discussion paper, specifically on implementation issues associated with the potential for VMS requirements in the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries. In December 2011, the Council recommended that Council review of the discussion paper be scheduled for the April 2012 meeting. The discussion paper includes a description of VMS and its benefits, a review of existing VMS requirements in the North Pacific, a summary of the most recent 2007 Council action related to expanding VMS requirements, a summary of VMS coverage in the North Pacific, cost estimates for VMS, and a review of VMS applications in other regions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Methodologies for Mitigating Incidental Catch of Seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries
    A review of methodologies for mitigating incidental catch of seabirds in New Zealand fisheries Leigh S. Bull DOC RESEArcH & DEVELOPMENT SERIES 263 Published by Science & Technical Publishing Department of Conservation PO Box 10420, The Terrace Wellington 6143, New Zealand DOC Research & Development Series is a published record of scientific research carried out, or advice given, by Department of Conservation staff or external contractors funded by DOC. It comprises reports and short communications that are peer-reviewed. Individual contributions to the series are first released on the departmental website in pdf form. Hardcopy is printed, bound, and distributed at regular intervals. Titles are also listed in our catalogue on the website, refer www.doc.govt.nz under Publications, then Science & technical. © Copyright January 2007, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 1176–8886 ISBN 0–478–14148–3 This report was prepared for publication by Science & Technical Publishing; editing by Helen O’Leary and layout by Ian Mackenzie. Publication was approved by the Chief Scientist (Research, Development & Improvement Division), Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. In the interest of forest conservation, we support paperless electronic publishing. When printing, recycled paper is used wherever possible. ContEnts Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Fisheries 6 1.1.1 Longlining 6 1.1.2 Trawling 7 1.1.3 Gillnet, driftnet, and purse seine fisheries 8 1.1.4 Other fisheries 8 1.2 Seabirds 8 1.2.1 Biology 8 1.2.2 Foraging behaviour 9 1.3 Seabird interactions with fishing gear 10 1.3.1 Longlining 10 1.3.2 Trawling 10 1.3.3 Gillnetting 10 1.3.4 Other fisheries 10 1.4 Successful mitigation 11 1.5 Scope and objectives of this review 11 2.
    [Show full text]