July 2014 Final
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bridge River Project Water Use Plan Bridge-Seton Metals and Contaminant Monitoring Program Implementation Year 1 Reference: BRGMON-12 Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Metals in Fish Study Period: 2013 Prepared by: Azimuth Consulting Group Partnership 218-2902 West Broadway Vancouver, BC V6K 2G8 July 2014 Final BRGMON-12: Bridge River Contaminants Monitoring Program, 2013 Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Metals in Fish Prepared for St’at’imc Eco-Resources Box 2218 Lillooet BC V0K 1V0 July 2014 Azimuth Consulting Group Partnership 218-2902 West Broadway Vancouver, BC V6K 2G8 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. iii APPENDICES...................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... v PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY STATEMENT ........................................................ vi ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ..................................................................................... 1 1.2. Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 2 1.3. History of Environmental Investigations ........................................... 3 1.4. Objectives and Management Questions .......................................... 5 2. METHODS ................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................... 8 2.2. Fish ................................................................................................ 10 2.2.1. Study Design ................................................................................. 10 2.2.2. Fish Capture .................................................................................. 11 2.2.3. Tissue Sampling ............................................................................ 12 2.2.4. Data Analysis ................................................................................ 12 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................ 15 3.1. QA/QC ........................................................................................... 15 3.2. Fish Meristics ................................................................................ 16 3.2.1. Number and Size Distribution ........................................................ 16 3.2.2. Basic Meristic Data ........................................................................ 17 3.3. 2013 Mercury Data Summary ........................................................ 18 3.3.1. Mercury – Length Relationship ...................................................... 18 i 3.3.2. Spatial Patterns between Waterbodies .......................................... 19 3.3.3. Species Differences ....................................................................... 20 3.3.4. Temporal Trends in Fish Mercury Concentration .......................... 22 3.3.5. Summary ....................................................................................... 24 3.4. Metals other than Mercury ............................................................. 26 4. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 27 ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. LABORATORY QA/QC RESULTS FOR FISH TISSUE CHEMISTRY. ............................................. 30 TABLE 2. LENGTH (MM), WEIGHT (G), K FACTOR, AND MERCURY CONCENTRATION (PPM) STATISTICS FOR BULL TROUT, RAINBOW TROUT, MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH AND KOKANEE FROM DOWNTON AND CARPENTER RESERVOIRS, SETON LAKE, AND LOWER BRIDGE RIVER, 2013. ............................... 32 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF HISTORIC ARITHMETIC MEAN LENGTH, WEIGHT, AND MUSCLE MERCURY DATA FOR CARPENTER RESERVOIR FISH. ...................................................................................... 33 TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF HISTORIC ARITHMETIC MEAN LENGTH, WEIGHT, AND MUSCLE MERCURY DATA FOR SETON LAKE FISH. ..................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF HISTORIC ARITHMETIC MEAN LENGTH, WEIGHT, AND MUSCLE MERCURY DATA FOR LOWER BRIDGE RIVER FISH. ........................................................................................ 35 TABLE 6. LOG10[MERCURY] ON LOG10[LENGTH] REGRESSION STATISTICS FOR STANDARDIZED SIZE MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH, RAINBOW TROUT, BULL TROUT, AND KOKANEE, AND FROM CARPENTER AND DOWNTON RESERVOIRS, SETON LAKE, AND LOWER BRIDGE RIVER, 2013. ................................ 36 TABLE 7. STANDARDIZED TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN FISH FROM 2001 – 2013. .................. 37 TABLE 8. TOTAL METALS CONCENTRATION (MG/KG WW) IN MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH RELATIVE TO REGIONAL FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS (RIEBERGER 1992) FOR CARPENTER RESERVOIR AND SETON LAKE, FROM 2000, 2008 AND 2013......................................................................................... 38 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. BRIDGE RIVER SITE LOCATION.................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 2. BRIDGE RIVER FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS, 2013. ........................................................ 41 FIGURE 3. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR FISH CAUGHT IN 2013, BY RESERVOIR. .. 42 FIGURE 4. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR BULL TROUT CAUGHT IN 2013, BY RESERVOIR. ................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 5. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR RAINBOW TROUT CAUGHT IN 2013, BY RESERVOIR. ................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 6. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH CAUGHT IN 2013, BY RESERVOIR. ............................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 7. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR BULL TROUT CAUGHT AT CARPENTER, BY YEAR. ........................................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 8. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR BULL TROUT CAUGHT AT SETON, BY YEAR. ................................................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 9. LOG(MERCURY) – LOG(LENGTH) RELATIONSHIP FOR FISH FROM CARPENTER RESERVOIR, SETON LAKE, AND LOWER BRIDGE RIVER IN 2000, 2008, AND 2013. .............................................. 48 iii APPENDICES Appendix A. Length, weight, condition, tissue mercury and metals concentrations for individual fish caught in 2013 Appendix B. ALS Laboratory Analytical Results iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS St’at’imc Eco-Resources and in particular Ms. Bonnie Antcliffe is thanked for her administration support of this program. Dr. David Levy is also thanked for project coordination and document review. Special thanks is due to Mr. Gene Tisdale (Tisdale Environmental) for his care and dedication in acquiring the vast majority of fish tissue samples collected from the system in 2013. His efforts are greatly appreciated. ALS Laboratories, Vancouver conducted analysis of metals fish tissue and we acknowledge their diligence with handing and analysis of biopsy tissue samples. Randy Baker wrote this report with assistance from Maggie McConnell of Azimuth. v PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY STATEMENT This report has been prepared by Azimuth Consulting Group Partnership. (“Azimuth”) for the use of St’at’imc Eco-Resources (the “Client”). The Client has been party to development of terms of reference for the scope of work and understands its limitations. In providing this report and performing the services in preparation of this report Azimuth accepts no responsibility in respect of the site described in this report or for any business decisions relating to the site, including decisions in respect of the management, operation, or any other aspect of the site. This report and the assessments and recommendations contained in it are intended for the sole and exclusive use of the Client. Any use of, reliance on, or decision made by a third party based on this report, or the services performed by Azimuth in preparation of this report is expressly prohibited, without prior written authorization from Azimuth. Without such prior written authorization, Azimuth accepts no liability or responsibility for any loss, damage, or liability of any kind that may be suffered or incurred by any third party as a result of that third party’s use of, reliance on, or any decision made based on this report or the services performed by Azimuth in preparation of this report. The findings contained in this report are based, in part, upon information provided by others (e.g., laboratory results). In preparing this