An effects-based assessment of the health of fish in a small estuarine stream receiving effluent from an oil refinery by Geneviève Vallières B.Sc. Biology, Université de Sherbrooke, 1998 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science In the Graduate Academic Unit of Biology Supervisors: Kelly Munkittrick, Ph.D. Department of Biology Deborah MacLatchy, PhD. Department of Biology Examining Board: Kenneth Sollows, Ph.D., Department of Engineering, Chair Simon Courtenay, Ph. D. Department of Biology External Examiner: Kenneth Sollows, Ph.D., Department of Engineering This thesis is accepted by the Dean of Graduate studies. THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK May, 2005 © Geneviève Vallières, 2005 ABSTRACT A large oil refinery discharges its effluent into Little River, a small estuarine stream entering Saint John Harbour. An effects-based approach was used to assess the potential effects of the oil refinery effluent on fish and fish habitat. The study included a fish community survey, a sentinel species survey, a fish caging experiment, and a water quality survey. The study showed that the fish community and the sentinel species, the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), were impacted in the stream receiving the oil refinery effluent. Lower abundance and species richness were found downstream of the effluent discharge whereas increased liversomatic index and MFO (females only) were measured in fish collected in Little River. Water quality surveys demonstrated that the receiving environment is subjected to extended periods of low dissolved oxygen levels downstream of the effluent discharge. The anoxic periods correlated with the discharge of ballast water through the waste treatment system. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors, Kelly Munkittrick and Deborah MacLatchy, for their support as well as the independence from which I benefited during the entire project. This experience would not have been so positive and formative without them. I would like the acknowledge Louise Stewart and Rick Russell, from the Irving Oil refinery, without whom the project would not have been possible. Funding came from the Industrial Postgraduate Scholarships program from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada as well as Irving Oil Ltd. I would like to thank all the graduate students in the Munkittrick and MacLatchy laboratories for their help in so many ways. Thank you for sharing the good and bad moments, for making the unending learning curve easier and of course babysitting the girls. A particular thanks to Kate Frego, Rémy Rochette and Matt Litvak for their help with fish community analysis and statistics. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support and their encouragement, particularly my husband Franck for being an extraordinary friend, husband, and father as well as my daughters, Raphaëlle and Élodie, for being my sunshine. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. xiii 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 1.1 Background Information............................................................. 4 1.1.1 EEM Methodologies and Challenges with Monitoring Small Estuarine Streams ................................................................... 4 1.1.2 Toxicity of Oil Refinery Waste Waters ......................................10 1.2 Statement of the Problem and Study Area .............................. 12 1.2.1 Oil Refinery...............................................................................20 1.3 Previous Studies in the Area.................................................... 23 1.4 Organization of Thesis............................................................. 25 1.5 Objectives and Hypothesis ...................................................... 26 2 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY.................................................. 27 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 27 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................ 28 2.2.1 Fishing with Minnow Traps .......................................................28 2.2.2 Seining Trials............................................................................29 2.2.3 Statistics ...................................................................................30 iv 2.3 Results..................................................................................... 32 2.3.1 Fishing with Minnow Traps .......................................................32 2.3.2 Seining .....................................................................................53 2.4 Discussion ............................................................................... 56 2.4.1 Seining Versus Trapping ..........................................................61 3 FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ............................................... 66 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 66 3.2 Methodology ............................................................................ 67 3.3 Results..................................................................................... 71 3.4 Discussion ............................................................................... 93 4 RESPONSE OF WILD MUMMICHOG TO THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGE 104 4.1 Introduction............................................................................ 104 4.2 Methodology .......................................................................... 108 4.2.1 Statistics .................................................................................109 4.2.2 Mixed Function Oxygenase Activity........................................110 4.3 Results................................................................................... 112 4.4 Discussion ............................................................................. 121 5 FISH CAGING EXPERIMENT ............................................... 126 5.1 Introduction............................................................................ 126 5.2 Methodology .......................................................................... 127 5.2.1 Mixed Function Oxygenase Activity........................................133 5.2.2 Testosterone Production ........................................................133 v 5.3 Results................................................................................... 135 5.4 Discussion ............................................................................. 139 6 GENERAL CONCLUSION..................................................... 146 7 REFERENCE......................................................................... 150 8 APPENDICES........................................................................ 159 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Measured endpoints for the fish survey and their indicator of performance in terms of reproduction, growth, energy storage and survival.............................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Habitat characteristics of studied sites: Marsh Creek Upstream (MCU), Marsh Creek Downstream (MCD), Little River Upstream (LRU), Little River Downstream (LRD), Hazen Creek Upstream (HCU), Hazen Creek Downstream (HCD), and West Quako Creek WC). Sampling seasons from June to November 2003 and May to September 2004. .........................................................................................................19 Table 3. Total number of fish caught per site (Marsh Creek Upstream [MCU], Marsh Creek Downstream [MCD], Little River Upstream [LRU], Little River Downstream [LRD], Hazen Creek Upstream [HCU], Hazen Creek Downstream [HCD], and West Quako Creek [WC]). Sampling from July to November 2003 and May to September 2004..............36 Table 4. Number of species and abundance per trap for the 2003 and 2004 sampling seasons and comparison between metal and plastic-coated traps. Mean ± standard error (sample size). Different letters represent statistical differences. ......................................................................54 Table 5. Abundance and percentage (in parentheses) of fish caught using a beach seine at Little River upstream site. July 22, 2003..................55 Table 6. Total number of recording hours from hydrolab sondes deployed in LRD and LRU and percentage of hours recording dissolved oxygen below 2 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L. Results from 2003 (A) and 2004 (B)..............75 Table 7. Maximum temperature recorded during extended sonde deployments in Little River Downstream (LRD) and Little River Upstream (LRU) in 2003 and 2004.................................................................................80 Table 8. Atlantic Coastal Action Program surface water quality monitoring program. Means, maximum and minimum values for sampling summer