Contaminants of Concern in Puget Sounds Food Web

Contaminants of Concern in Puget Sound’s Food Web presentation to the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center 24 October, 2012 James E. West, Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Today I will… • Describe PSEMP contaminant monitoring in Puget Sound • Provide three examples of chemical contaminants in the food web • Compare metrics of contaminant exposure or effects with “deleterious effects thresholds”

PSEMP In a Nutshell • An extensive network of regional scientists who monitor key indicators of ecosystem health. • Formed in 1988 to assess status and trends of Puget Sound health. • State funds, coordinated by the Puget Sound Partnership • Science linked to Management to support PS Recovery

PSEMP monitors toxics in sentinel species…. . Coho, chinook herring 3 spp of rockfish English sole PSAMP Toxics in Biota Component

……while striving for broad coverage in the Food Web • Plankton • Pacific cod • Lingcod • Sixgill shark • Herring eggs • Dungeness crab • …. and Mussels James E. West, Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program, April 18 th, 2008

Why monitor toxics in biota? • What/where is the harm from exposure to toxics? • Which chemicals are of most concern? • How are conditions changing over time? • Unexpected conditions

How do we measure exposure to these pollutants? Ø Some accumulate in organisms • measure in tissues = “tissue residues” Ø Some are metabolized • measure metabolites, e. g. , bile or blood Ø With some, it’s easy to see characteristic “toxicopathic” effects

Three types of pollutants we’ll mention today • Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs) – e. g. , PCBs, PBDEs, • Ongoing/current (PAHs) – Petroleum products – Products of combustion • Endocrine Disruptors – Esp. xenoestrogens – typically from pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Simplified pathway for PCBs entering and biomagnifying in the pelagic food web Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer “The Zone” thezone@seattlepi. com

Q. Charlottes Northern PS BC Central Vancouver Is. Central PS WA Coast San Francisco Puget Sound is a Regional Hot Spot of PCBs in the Pelagic Food web (Pacific herring) South PS Ocean herring data courtesy Sandie O’Neill, NOAA Fisheries

PCBs in the pelagic food web (cont’d) Puget Sound Chinook 3 to 5 x more contaminated than Pacific Coastal: 22% of PS Chinook exceed an effects threshold (O’Neill and West 2009) 2006 WADOH Report: recommends restricting intake of Puget Sound Chinook salmon to only 1 PCB levels in Puget Sound salmon may impair the health of killer whales Hickie et al. 2007 meal/week

Fish Health Target? PCBs in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) from Central Puget Sound Fish Health Threshold (Meador 2002)

Human Health Targets? PCBs in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) from Central Puget Sound Cal. EPA Advisory Tissue Levels “no consumption” <3 servings/ week ≥ 3 servings/ week

Brominated flame retardants in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) from Central Puget Sound (Human Health Target) <3 servings/week Cal. EPA Advisory Tissue level ≥ 3 servings/week

PAHs in bottom-dwelling species Exposure to PAHs causes characteristic liver disease in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) can metabolize PAHs

PAH-related liver disease in English sole from Elliott Bay

Adding measure of PAH-metabolites

Target <5% prevalence of liver disease

Endocrine disrupting chemicals … …a global environmental issue Chemicals capable of acting as hormone mimics or blocking hormone action Can alter the hormonal balance in animals and humans Effects include developmental, behavioral and reproductive abnormalities Slide courtesy Lyndal Johnson, NOAA Fisheries

Reproductive condition, female English Sole from 22 Puget Sound locations, April/May Washingto n Departmen t of Fish and Wildlife Elliott Bay spent or regressed vitellogenic Slide adapted from data used in: L. L. Johnson et al. 2008. Xenoestrogen exposure and effects in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Puget Sound, WA. Aquatic Toxicology 88: 29 -38. spawning

Percentage of male English sole blood samples with detected vitellogenin 100 Port Susan 75 50 25 0 100 75 Sinclair Inlet 50 Hood Canal (0%) 100 75 25 50 0 25 0 100 75 50 Nisqually Reach (0%) Port Gardner 75 Elliott Bay 50 25 0 Thea Foss Waterway 25 0 Source: James E. West, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program, james. west@dfw. wa. gov

Summary • Use organisms to help guide recovery goals • Insist on meaningful deleterious effects thresholds to use as recovery targets • Monitor appropriate exposure or effects metrics to evaluate success

Acknowledgements WDFW Jennifer Lanksbury Laurie Niewolny Stefanie Orlaineta Jim Beam Steve Quinnell Kurt Stick NOAA Fisheries Sandie O’Neill Lyndal Johnson Gina Ylitalo Mark Myers Nat Scholz John Incardona