1. 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

2. 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”

3. 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 In a Nutshell

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

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

6. 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

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

8. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. PAH-related liver disease in English sole from Elliott Bay

18. Adding measure of PAH-metabolites

19. Target <5% prevalence of liver disease

20. 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

22. spent or regressed vitellogenic spawning Reproductive condition, female English Sole from 22 Puget Sound locations, April/May Elliott Bay Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 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.

23. 0 25 50 75 100 Port Susan 0 25 50 75 100 Port Gardner 0 25 50 75 100 Elliott Bay 0 25 50 75 100 Thea Foss Waterway 0 25 50 75 100 Sinclair Inlet Percentage of male English sole blood samples with detected vitellogenin Hood Canal (0%) Nisqually Reach (0%) Source: James E. West, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program, james.west@dfw.wa.gov

24. 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

25. 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