Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB
analysis results and visual monitoring associated with the
Oriskany Reef, a decommissioned former Navy aircraft
carrier sunk in 2006 as an artificial reef in the Northeastern
Gulf of Mexico off Pensacola, Florida
Prepared by:
Jon Dodrill, Keith Mille, and Bill Horn
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Artificial Reef Program
Division of Marine Fisheries Management
620 S. Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
and
Robert Turpin
Escambia County Marine Resources Division
3363 West Park Place
Pensacola, FL 32505
Submitted April 13, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................
3
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................
4
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................
5
Part I. EPA Monitoring Requirements, Oriskany Reef Project Historical Background,
and Methodology for Field Sampling and Sample PCB Analysis Methodology
(A) Introduction........................................................................................................
6
(B) Overview of PCBs .............................................................................................. 10
(C) Oriskany Reef Project Background History ...................................................... 13
(D) Materials and Methods..................................................................................... 22
Part II. Results and Discussion
(A) Sampling Additions to the Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan
(1) Visual Monitoring on the Oriskany Reef .................................................... 39
(2) Nearby Site #1 Assessment ....................................................................... 46
(3) University of West Florida Underwater Video Surveys .............................. 49
(4) Oriskany Reef Post Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Dive Reconnaissance .. 50
(B) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project ................................................................. 51
(C) Overview of the First Eight Rounds of Oriskany Reef Fish Sampling and
Two Rounds of Nearby Reef Sampling ............................................................ 58
(D) PCB Analysis Results and Discussion for Each Species
(1) Red Snapper ............................................................................................... 64
(2) Vermilion Snapper ...................................................................................... 76
(3) Red Porgy .................................................................................................... 80
(4) Whitebone Porgy ......................................................................................... 84
(5) Gray Triggerfish ........................................................................................... 88
(6) Scamp.......................................................................................................... 92
(E) Distribution of PCB Congeners by Homologs ................................................... 96
(F) Other Discussion Issues .................................................................................... 96
(G) Summary ........................................................................................................... 106
Part III, Suggested options for future actions through December 2011 .......................... 107
References Cited .................................................................................................................. 108
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 115
Appendix 1, Tables ............................................................................................................... 116
Appendix 2, Sample FWC underwater fish census sheet .................................................. 136
2|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In compliance with the Tier 1 monitoring requirements of the risk-based PCB bulk
product waste disposal approval document issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to the U.S. Navy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC), and Escambia County, this report summarizes the results of the first four years
of reef fish sampling, PCB analysis, and dive assessment monitoring of the Oriskany
Reef, a decommissioned former aircraft carrier deployed in May 2006 as an artificial
reef in the Gulf of Mexico, 23.5 nm southeast of Pensacola, FL.
Between December 14, 2006, and November 18, 2010, eight reef fish sample collection
events funded by FWC were completed resulting in a total of 315 legal size reef fish
retained for skin-on congener-specific analysis of 209 PCB congeners (254 fish from the
Oriskany Reef, and 61 fish from the nearby Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef). The
254 retained reef fish from the Oriskany Reef included: 184 red snapper, 42 vermilion
snapper, 14 red porgy, 6 whitebone porgy, 4 scamp grouper, 2 gray triggerfish, and 1
red grouper. Initially the mean PCB level for fish samples from the Oriskany Reef
collected within the first two years post-deployment (sample rounds 1-4) had combined
mean total PCB values exceeding the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) screening
value of 50 ppb and the EPA screening value of 20 ppb. By sample round 5, collected at
2.9 years, the mean PCB level measured decreased to below the FDOH value and
slightly above the EPA value. By sample round 6 and 7, collected at 3.5 and 3.9 years,
the mean PCB levels were below both the FDOH and EPA thresholds. Sample round 8
samples (n=39), collected at 4.5 years are currently being processed and are expected by
June 2011.
Sample round 9 is scheduled for April 26, 2011 (4.9 years postdeployment). The species with the highest PCB levels observed included red snapper
(n=172), red porgy (n=7), and whitebone porgy (n=4). No samples of vermillion snapper
(n=28) or scamp (n=1) exceeded the FDOH or EPA thresholds. Overall, these results
indicate a declining trend during the last 2 years of sampling.
Additionally, 10 underwater visual assessments were conducted on the Oriskany Reef
by FWC divers, confirming the observed recreationally targeted species found on the
Oriskany are well represented among the fish retained for PCB analysis. Visual
observations by FWC divers also documented that the Oriskany Reef had settled into
the sediments about 10 ft at 2.5 years post deployment and sustained minor structural
change to the exterior covering of the smoke stack at 3.5 years post deployment
following the tropical storm events of 2007 and 2008, respectively. Results from 199
fish tagged and released on the Oriskany reef provide preliminary reef fish site fidelity
and considerations of localized fishing effort. Review of the results of other FWC funded
reef fish research projects in the vicinity are discussed as they relate to the fish species
sampled on the Oriskany Reef.
Options for consideration of future sample collection efforts at the Oriskany Reef
through the end of 2011 are provided.
3|Page
LIST OF TABLES Table Page No.
1. FWC dive assessments completed on the Oriskany Reef .......................... 44
2. Fish species observed on the Oriskany Reef (sorted by percent sighting
frequency and density) ................................................................................. 117
3. Fish species observed on the Oriskany Reef (sorted by density) .............. 118
4. Fish species observed on the Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1 .............. 119
5. UWF fish census data from Escambia East LAARS Refugia Reefs
(sorted by percent number).......................................................................... 119
6. UWF fish census data from Escambia East LAARS Refugia Reefs
(sorted by percent biomass)......................................................................... 121
7. Comparison of the ranking of the 9 fish species targeted for PCB
sampling observed during FWC and UWF fish census surveys ................. 50
8. Fish species tagged at the Oriskany Reef on April 21, 2009 .................... 56
8a. Fish species recaptured through March 28, 2011 .................................... 57
9. Fish discarded and not kept for PCB analysis ............................................ 123
10. List of sampling platform, gear, locations, and number of fish retained
for each sampling date ................................................................................. 58
11. Mean total length of red snapper by sample round ................................... 71
12. Correlation matrix of variables measured in red snapper samples from
the Oriskany Reef .......................................................................................... 74
13. PCB concentrations of reef fish from the Oriskany Reef collected during
sampling rounds 1-8 ..................................................................................... 126
14. PCB concentrations of reef fish from the Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing
Reef “Nearby Reef” collected during sampling rounds 3 & 4 ................... 131
15. Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs from fish collected
from the Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing Reef “Nearby Reef” ..................... 133
16a.Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs from fish collected
from the Oriskany Reef(OR-GT-175 through OR-RS-090) .......................... 134
16b.Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs from fish collected
from the Oriskany Reef(OR-RS-091 through OR-VS-178) .......................... 135
4|Page
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Page No.
Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola ................................................................
Oriskany Reef pre-sink sampling sites ........................................................
Location map of the Oriskany Reef .............................................................
Recovery of commercial chevron trap with red snapper catch .................
Commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” fishing gear ...........................
Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef............................
Species composition of fish samples retained from the Oriskany Reef
from sampling rounds 1-8 ............................................................................
7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany Reef samples by sample date from
sampling rounds 1-8 .....................................................................................
8. Species composition of fish samples retained from the Nearby Reef
from sampling rounds 3 of 4........................................................................
9. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper from the Oriskany Reef.........
10. PCB data for red snapper collected from the Oriskany Reef by fish
length through sample round #7 .................................................................
11. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper collected from the Nearby
Reef #1 during sample rounds #3 and #4 .................................................
12. Mean PCB by sample date for vermilion snapper from the Oriskany
Reef through sample round #7 ....................................................................
13. Mean PCB by sample date for red porgy from the Oriskany Reef
through sample round #7 ............................................................................
14. Mean PCB by sample date for whitebone porgy from the Oriskany
Reef through sample round #7 ....................................................................
15. Mean PCB by sample date for gray triggerfish from the Oriskany Reef
through sample round #7 ............................................................................
16. Mean PCB by sample date for scamp from the Oriskany Reef through
sample round #7...........................................................................................
17. Location of the Monsanto Plant 1960s PCB spill .......................................
5|Page
14
20
21
26
29
43
59
61
62
72
73
75
79
13
87
91
95
98
PART I. EPA MONITORING REQUIREMENTS, ORISKANY REEF PROJECT HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY FOR FIELD SAMPLING AND SAMPLE PCB ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Part I (A) Introduction
This progress report describes and discusses the status of eight reef fish sampling
rounds and associated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) sample analyses undertaken
between December 14, 2006 and November 18, 2010. It also describes all reef fish
monitoring activities associated with the former US Navy fast attack aircraft
carrier the ex-Oriskany (CVA-34) deployed as Oriskany Reef on May 17, 2006 in 212
feet of water and located 23.5 miles southeast of Pensacola Pass off Northwest
Florida, Gulf of Mexico. Two additional reef fish sampling rounds were also carried
out on a nearby artificial reef located about eight nautical miles northwest of the
Oriskany Reef. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC)
Division of Marine Fisheries Management and the Escambia County, Florida
Marine Resources Division (ECMRD) partnered in the Oriskany Reef postdeployment monitoring effort. This is the interim draft progress report submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia) and
the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) for their review, comment, and future
monitoring guidance.
For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the Oriskany Reef project, Part I of this
progress report includes a brief overview of EPA monitoring requirements,
ecological and health issues associated with PCBs and an ex-Oriskany reefing
background historical review. The Methods section that follows describes field
sampling operations and laboratory analysis procedures.
In Part II of this report, a Results and Discussion section describes results of
Oriskany Reef fish community visual monitoring efforts and provides the
recreationally targeted reef fish PCB sampling results available to date. The PCB
sampling and analysis results are presented and discussed by each reef fish species
sampled beginning with the most common reef fish sampled (red snapper) and
continuing in descending numerical order of fish species caught, retained and
sampled for PCBs. Target reef fish species ecological profiles are also included to
provide insight into PCB analysis results.
The report concludes with Part III, a brief summary and FWC-Escambia County
possible options for future actions through December 2011.
6|Page
I (A) (1) EPA Oriskany Reef PCB Tier 1 Screening Level Monitoring Requirements for FWC
and Escambia County
FWC and ECMRD conducted reef fish PCB monitoring at the Oriskany Reef in
compliance with a risk-based PCB bulk product waste disposal approval document
that EPA issued to the U.S. Navy, FWC, and Escambia County (as amended July
16, 2007) (USEPA 2006a). PCB bulk product waste is defined as “waste derived
from manufactured products containing PCBs in a non-liquid state at any
concentration where the concentration at the time of designation for disposal was ≥
50 ppm PCBs.” (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1 (EPA
authority) Part 761 (PCBs manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce,
and use prohibitions), section 761.3. The approval required FWC and Escambia
County to undertake a multi-year Tier 1 screening level monitoring assessment of
PCB levels in the lateral muscle fillet tissue of legal size recreationally targeted and
consumed reef fish caught at the Oriskany Reef.
The intent of the Tier 1 monitoring effort was to ensure that selected species of legal
size fish commonly caught and consumed at the Oriskany Reef remained safe for
human consumption. The requirement for fish collection at two additional reference
sites in accordance with the original February 15, 2006 EPA risk-based PCB bulk
product waste disposal approval document was dropped in the July 16, 2007 EPA
Revision #1 of that document. The Oriskany Reef was to be the primary Tier 1
monitoring PCB sampling location. The Revision #1 also named Escambia County
along with the Navy and FWC as parties responsible for supporting Oriskany Reef
monitoring efforts.
ECMRD and FWC were also tasked with drafting a “Combined Tier 1 Level
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Fish Tissue Screening Monitoring Work Plan and Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the Oriskany Reef” (hereinafter Monitoring Work Plan).
The Monitoring Work Plan provided the implementation guidance for the Tier 1
screening level monitoring program. The 88 page Monitoring Work Plan, final
Revision #4 of July 25, 2007 (Dodrill and Turpin 2007) was approved by EPA and
guided all ECMRD and FWC actions and efforts in the preparations, collection,
handling, shipping and PCB analysis of fish.
The EPA risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document defined a Tier 1
screening level monitoring program as “a fish sampling and analysis effort targeted
to selected species of commonly consumed fish expected to be present at the
Oriskany Reef site and other reference reef sites in the Escambia East Large Area
Artificial Reef Site (EELAARS), whose purpose is to determine if PCB
7|Page
concentrations in edible portions of such fish exceed a specified screening value”. In
paragraph 15 of the EPA risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document,
the EPA screening level value was given as 0.020 parts per million (20 ppb) total
PCBs, wet weight. This was defined as a mean value evaluated total PCB value for
a minimum of 15 legal size specimens of the same targeted reef fish species caught
during any given sampling round. In the same paragraph the EPA further stated:
“If the mean PCB concentration in any targeted fish species exceeds a screening
value of 0.02 parts per million (20 ppb) total PCBs, the FWC shall initiate a Tier 2,
intensive monitoring program and/or assess the need for establishing advisories as
determined by EPA”. A fish consumption advisory, if warranted, would be for the
purpose of protecting the human health of anglers and their families from any
unreasonable increased cancer risk due to PCB ingestion and bio-accumulation as a
result of consuming fishes caught on the Oriskany Reef.
The excess cancer risk from 30 years of consumption of Oriskany Reef caught fish
would be averaged over a 70 year period of an adult’s life. In their risk-based PCB
bulk waste approval document the EPA considered an excess cancer risk of one in
1,000,000 persons to be justifiable for a risk-based disposal project. However,
slightly greater excess cancer risks would be considered as acceptable when
evaluating other positive benefits of a project as a whole. The EPA considered the
excess cancer risk presented by PCBs on board the Oriskany Reef to represent a
risk sufficiently acceptable to approve the Oriskany Reef Project.
The EPA’s PCB risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document defined a
Tier 2 intensive monitoring program as “a focused effort to collect and analyze
samples of commonly consumed fish, other biota, or other media from the Oriskany
Reef site for purposes of determining if PCB concentrations in fish or shell fish are
at levels which warrant issuance of a health advisory, determining the critical PCB
fate and transport pathways and assessing the extent of PCB impact to the local
marine environment.”
In contrast to Tier 2 monitoring, the Tier 1 PCB screening level monitoring
implemented by this project in compliance with the risk-based PCB bulk product
waste disposal approval was narrowly focused and limited in ecological scope. FWC
and ECMRD funding resources were not allocated for, nor did the disposal approval
mandate sustained multi-year sampling of an array of multiple artificial reef
reference sites, monitoring and measuring PCB related ecological impacts to nontarget reef fish community residents, examining complex PCB fate and transport
interactions across trophic levels nor conducting additional PCB sampling of the
water column, sediments, and invertebrate fauna on or in benthic habitat adjacent
to the Oriskany Reef. The Tier 1 screening monitoring effort was not intended to
8|Page
validate the Navy developed PCB fate and transport models such as the PCB Time
Dynamic Release Rate (TDM) model predicting environmental impacts of pulsed
PCB release during the first two years from the Oriskany Reef, nor the PCB
Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) predicting impacts of post-two year
PCB leach rates as they were predicted to decline to a steady state low level release
(See Project Historical Review, below).
All sampling efforts required by the Monitoring Work Plan through sample round
#8 (November 18, 2010) have been completed with a ninth sampling effort planned
for late April 2011. Sample round #8 fish samples are expected to be analyzed by
late May 2011. Additional sampling and monitoring efforts were also undertaken
exceeding the requirements of the Monitoring Work Plan, such as sampling of a
nearby artificial reef site deployed in the same year as the Oriskany Reef, a small
scale pilot fish tagging effort on fish caught on the Oriskany Reef, and visual
monitoring efforts by FWC divers are discussed below in the monitoring Methods
section.
I (A) (2) Project Funding Support
FWC provided the funding for the EPA mandated Oriskany Reef monitoring effort
and prioritized it over all other artificial reef monitoring and assessment efforts
annually funded statewide by the FWC. Annually, between 2006 and 2011, FWC
has allocated to Escambia County between $40,000 and $53,000 in saltwater fishing
license revenues to support this monitoring project, with most of the funding going
toward laboratory PCB analysis of collected fish samples ($750 per fish for analysis
of all 209 PCB congeners). Additionally, Escambia County assisted with financing
charter vessel hires, equipment purchases, sample shipping costs as well as
supporting additional sampling and other monitoring efforts. ECMRD also deferred
application for artificial reef construction project money from FWC for five years to
help FWC ensure the EPA monitoring mandate would be met. FWC and ECMRD
jointly dedicated approximately $299,000 excluding salaries, volunteer time, travel
and administrative expenses to fund activities supporting collection and analysis of
a total of 345 fish (284 from the Oriskany Reef and 61 from the nearby reef site) for
the first five years of sampling (projected through April 2011).
The Oriskany Reef is presently the most intensively sampled PCB artificial reef for
reef fish PCB body burdens in offshore waters of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
Prior offshore reef fish PCB concentration monitoring in the general area offshore of
Pensacola were baseline artificial reef and sand bottom fish community PCB
burdens obtained by the University of West Florida under Navy contract during a
pre-reefing environmental assessment for the ex-Oriskany (Snyder et al. 2007).
9|Page
I (B) OVERVIEW OF PCBS
I (B) (1) PCBs Congeners and Homologs
PCBs are long-lived man-made organic chlorinated hydrocarbons. The PCB
molecule is an organic biphenyl structure composed of two covalently linked phenyl
rings with a generic formula of C12HaClb (where a+b =10). The number of hydrogen
(H) or chlorine (Cl) substitutions on a biphenyl ring can yield up to 209 unique
molecules (positional isomers or congers.) In turn these 209 unique organic
congeners can be grouped in ten homolog groups according to the number of
chlorine atoms in the biphenyl rings (Cl1-Cl10). The summation of all 10 homolog
groups corresponds to the total PCBs and is the same as the sum of all 209
congeners. Each of the 209 congeners has a specific identifier number (1-209)
assigned to it for international reference purposes. In the FWC/ECMRD Tier 1
monitoring study, each individual fish sample was sampled for all 209 congeners
and 10 homologs in order to obtain the most detailed information possible.
In this monitoring study individual skin-on muscle fillet tissue samples were
analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners (skin-on analysis is considered a more
conservative approach than skin-off analysis). The EPA defines a PCB congener as
“any single, unique well-defined chemical compound in the PCB category. The name
of a congener specifies the total number of chlorine substituents and the position of
each chlorine. For example: 4,4’-Dichlorobiphenyl is a congener comprising the
biphenyl structure with two chlorine substituents, one on each of the #4 carbons of
the two rings. In 1980, a numbering system was developed which assigned a
sequential number to each of the 209 congeners. Homologs are defined by the EPA
as subcategories of PCB congeners having equal numbers of chlorine substituents.
For example the tetrachlorobiphenyl homologues are all PCB congeners with
exactly 4 chlorine substituents that may be in any arrangement.” (EPA PCB
congener website http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/congeners/htm)
I (B) (2) Aroclors
Aroclors are one of the more common commercial PCB trade names, though PCBs
were manufactured and sold under over 100 other names. EPA states that “PCBs
were manufactured as a mixture of various PCB congeners until a certain target
percentage of chlorine by weight was achieved. Commercial mixtures with higher
percentages of chlorine contained higher proportions of the more heavily chlorinated
congeners, but all congeners could be expected to be present at some level in all
mixtures.” The most common trade name for PCBs synthetically manufactured
between 1929 and 1979 was the Aroclor series. Each Aroclor type has a
distinguishing suffix number that indicated the degree of chlorination. EPA states
10 | P a g e
that “the numbering standard for the different Aroclors is as follows: the first two
digits generally refer to the number of carbon atoms in the phenyl rings (for PCBs
this is 12), the second two numbers indicate the percentage of chlorine by mass in
the mixture. For example the name Aroclor 1254 means that the mixture contains
approximately 54% chlorine by weight.” Common Aroclor numbers included 1016,
1210, 1216, 1221, 1231, 1232, 1240, 1248, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1260, 1262, and 1268.
(EPA website http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/aroclor.htm)
The EPA on their basic PCB information website states: “Once in the environment,
PCBs do not readily break down and therefore may remain for long periods of time
cycling between air, water, and soil. PCBs can be carried long distances and have
been found in snow and sea water in areas far away from where they were released
in the environment. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over the world. In
general, the lighter the form of PCB, the further it can be transported from the
source of contamination. PCBs can accumulate in the leaves and above-ground
parts of plants and food crops. They are also taken up into the bodies of small
organism and fish. As a result, people who ingest fish may be exposed to PCBs that
have bio-accumulated in the fish they are ingesting.” (EPA Basic PCB information
website: (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm). The more
heavily chlorinated PCBs persist to a much greater extent in the environment, don’t
dissolve well in seawater and tend to adsorb to sediments, organic particulate
matter and also have a lipophilic tendency to accumulate in lipid-rich fatty tissues
or organisms (SPARWAR, 2006d)
On October 11, 1976 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law. TSCA
authorized the EPA to control any substances that were determined to cause
unreasonable risk to public health or the environment. TSCA, also referred to as
U.S. Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Subchapter I Section 2605, (Regulation of
hazardous chemical substances and mixtures), in paragraph (e) directed that PCBs,
were to be banned from manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce in
the U.S. by 1979. Non-liquid solid materials are considered PCB contaminated and
regulated for disposal as hazardous material if they contain PCBs at concentrations
≥ 50 ppm but < 500 ppm concentrations or where insufficient liquid material is
available for analysis, a non-porous surface having a surface concentration of >
10µg/100 square cm but < 100µg/100 square cm measured by a standard wipe test
as defined in 40 CFR §761.123.
I (B) (3) Potential PCB Health Issues.
The EPA’s peer reviewed PCB cancer assessment and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer have concluded, based on many laboratory mammal studies,
11 | P a g e
including primates, conducted over a period of years that PCBs are also probable
human carcinogens. Studies of PCB effects on humans have been inconclusive but
do not mean that PCBs are safe. The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health has also determined that PCBs are a potential occupational carcinogen.
The EPA states: “PCBs have been demonstrated to cause a variety of serious health
effects. PCBs have been shown to cause cancer and a number of serious non-cancer
health effects in animals, including effects on the immune system, reproductive
system, nervous system, and endocrine system. Studies in humans provide
supportive evidence for the potential carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenic effects of
PCBs. The different health effects of PCBs may be interrelated, as alterations in
one system may have significant implications for the other regulatory systems of
the body.” Additionally the types of PCBs likely to be bio-accumulated in fish
(particularly the fatty tissues since PCB are lipophilic) and bound in sediments are
the most potentially carcinogenic PCB mixtures. (EPA website, “Health Effects of
PCBs” http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pbcs/pubs/effects/htm.)
I (B) (4) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) on Board Military Vessels
PCBs were among the materials of concern on military vessels whose keels were
laid before 1979. PCBs, first synthetically manufactured in 1929, were utilized in
many commercially produced manufacturing products. They were primarily used
on military ships as heat resistant fire retardants because of their nonflammability, chemical stability, high boiling point and electrical insulating
properties. PCBs were also used as plasticizers and maintained flexibility in rubber
products like hatch gaskets, plastics etc. Potential PCB sources on military vessels
built prior to 1979 included thermal insulation material (fiberglass, felt, foam, and
cork), oil based paint, cable insulation, motor and hydraulic system oils,
transformers and capacitors, other miscellaneous electrical equipment (voltage
regulators, switches, electromagnets, etc); florescent light ballasts, caulking
materials, adhesives and tapes, and some plastics. The PCBs used in these
products were chemical mixtures such as the various Aroclors as discussed above
that were made up of a variety of individual chlorinated biphenyl components
(congeners).
SPARWAR (2006b) reported that in the late 1980’s through the late 1990’s, the
Naval Sea Systems Command PCB sampling program looked at a range of
decommissioned Naval vessels. Reported PCBs from suspect shipboard materials
were listed as Aroclors (1016, 1221, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, 1262 and 1268).
Aroclors 1242, 1254, 1260, 1262, and 1268 appeared to be the most prevalent.
Highest mean PCB concentrations came from Aroclors 1254, 1260 and 1268 in the
12 | P a g e
ship material leachate experiments (SPARWAR, 2006d). Aroclors 1254, 1260, 1262
and 1268 had the highest mean concentrations in the shipboard cable insulation.
Aroclors 1254 and 1260 had the most frequent presence in the cable samples
examined. Bulkhead insulation samples from the Navy ships were numerically
dominated by Aroclor 1254, an Aroclor which also had the highest mean PCB
concentration of any of the Aroclors found in that material.
In the environment, original Aroclor mixtures may be altered as a result of
environmental fate and transport processes such as vaporization and dissolution.
The degree of environmental change does not affect all congeners equally.
I(C) ORISKANY REEF PROJECT BACKGROUND HISTORY
I(C) (1) Oriskany History
The aircraft carrier ex-Oriskany (CVA-34) (now the Oriskany Reef) was an 888 feet
long 28,000 ton Korean War/Vietnam era large naval combatant. The ship, whose
construction began during the latter part of World War II, was completed in 1950
with subsequent major overhauls and modifications to maintain combat readiness
such as flight deck expansion to accommodate larger, heavier and faster jet aircraft.
The vessel saw 26 years of continuous service before it was decommissioned in
September 1976 and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in July 1989. The
ship was sold to be scrapped in 1994 but the company defaulted on the contract and
U.S. Government re-possessed the ship in 1997.
I(C) (2) Oriskany Reef Project Background
The Navy’s overall decommissioned military vessel disposal/transfer/recycling
objective is to pursue the most cost effective or “best value” means of reducing the
size of its inactive reserve fleet, thereby reducing long term inactive fleet
maintenance costs. Historically, obsolete decommissioned former naval combatant
vessels have been scrapped domestically, as well as sunk as targets in deep water (>
6000 feet depth) in military “Sink-Ex” fleet operations or in other experiments to
test vessel hull response to weapons. Decommissioned naval combatant ships have
also been made available for use by allied nations or occasionally donated to various
U.S. cities as museums. In 2001 the United States Navy sponsored a research
report conducted by RAND’s National Defense Research Institute to identify and
evaluate options for the disposal of U.S. Navy and U.S. Maritime Administration
ships (Hess, et al, 2001). Through the process of planning the reefing of the exOriskany as a pilot project, the Navy hoped to develop a vessel disposal framework
for a national reefing program that would provide the most cost effective means of
13 | P a g e
vessel disposal for the ex-Oriskany, and subsequent decommissioned Navy
combatants identified as appropriate for state reefing program use.
The ex-Oriskany was the first decommissioned naval combatant selected by the
Navy Sea Systems Command Inactive Ships Program Management Section
(NAVSEA PMS 333) for use as an artificial reef under federal law (United States
Code (USC) Title 10, Chapter 633, §7306b Section 1013. The law authorizes the
Navy to donate designated former combatant vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel
Register to state governments to be used as artificial reefs for fishing, diving, and
marine hard bottom enhancement. The above law also states: “Nothing in this
section shall be construed to establish a preference for the use as artificial reefs of
vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in lieu of other authorized uses of
such vessels, including the domestic scrapping of such vessels, or other disposals of
such vessels under this chapter or other applicable authority.”
In selecting the ex-Oriskany as their initial pilot artificial reefing project, the Navy
recognized that this ship, representing one of the largest, oldest vessels in the
inactive fleet inventory, would also be one of the most challenging vessels to
environmentally remediate and prepare for sinking as an artificial reef. The Navy
evaluated the substantial cost to subsidize the domestic scrapping of the exOriskany as well as remove and
dispose of all hazardous materials
when considering the option of
donating the ship as an artificial reef.
The Navy believed that the projected
subsidized domestic scrapping cost of
the ex-Oriskany (and possibly that of
some future Navy combatant vessels)
could be reduced if the vessel was
utilized by a state artificial reef
program. In the case of the exOriskany, the Navy anticipated that
this would require leaving some solid
PCB containing materials, mainly
Figure 1. Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola,
electrical cable insulation, fiberglass
Florida for final environmental clean-up and
bulkhead insulation, and paint and pre-sink preparations, March 21, 2005. Photo
rubber products on board the ship at by Bill Horn, FWC.
the time the vessel was reefed. These
14 | P a g e
solid PCB containing materials would be materials that the Navy believed could not
otherwise cost effectively be removed without completely dismantling the vessel and
in effect scrapping it.
Beginning in September 2003 the U.S. Navy, through its selected contractors,
Resolve Marine Group (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) and ESCO Marine (Brownsville,
Texas) began conducting environmental cleanup and materials salvage work in
Corpus Christi, TX on the decommissioned aircraft carrier ex-Oriskany (CVA-34)
(Figure 1). To accomplish this work, the ship was dead-ship towed to Texas Dock
and Rail shipyard in Corpus Christi, Texas from the inactive reserve fleet in
Beaumont, Texas.
Environmental cleanup work by the contractors was conducted on the ex-Oriskany
in accordance with draft EPA and U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) Best
Management Practices guidelines for preparing vessels as artificial reefs (USEPA
and MARAD, 2006). Section 3516 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 required the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime
Administration (MARAD) and the EPA to jointly develop guidance recommending
environmental best management practices (BMPs) to be used in the preparation of
vessels to be used as artificial reefs. Additionally under this Act, the Secretary of
the Navy is required to ensure that the preparation of a vessel stricken from the
Naval Vessel Registry for use as an artificial reef is conducted in accordance with
these BMPS and applicable environmental laws. The Naval Sea Systems Command
Inactive Ships Program Management Section (NAVSEA PMS 333) provided overall
“turn-key” project management oversight from initial planning and environmental
remediation to final reefing. Personnel from the Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding,
Conversion and Repair (SUPSHIP, Bath, Maine) provided the contract specific
management and continuous on site oversight of the environmental remediation
and salvage work (removal of nonferrous metals, and miscellaneous equipment for
recycling).
Meanwhile, Escambia County and FWC, representing the State of Florida,
partnered on November 20, 2003 with strong support from the local community to
submit an application to the Navy requesting donation of the ex- Oriskany to be
utilized as an artificial reef at the previously surveyed and selected sand bottom site
within the Escambia East Large Area Artificial Reef Site (EELAARS) in federal
Exclusive Economic Zone waters of the Gulf of Mexico eighteen miles nautical miles
south of the Northwest Florida panhandle coastline (Dodrill and Turpin, 2003).
The Florida application to receive donation of the ship was reviewed by the Navy
and approved in April 2004. The FWC and Escambia County Oriskany Reef project
objectives were to utilize the ex-Oriskany as an artificial reef to create a local and
15 | P a g e
regional recreational offshore fishing destination, a historically significant regional,
national and international diving destination and provide hard bottom reef
community habitat enhancement in an area off northwest Florida where only about
3% of the continental shelf seafloor is well developed natural hard bottom structure
(Thompson et al., 1999). Additionally there were expectations that the project would
provide an economic boost to Pensacola and adjacent coastal communities.
The Navy proposed to leave on board the ex-Oriskany some regulated solid PCB
containing material at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in difficult to access passageways
and compartments on deck levels below the carrier’s hanger deck at water depths
from 160-212 feet and deeper where the hull was expected to penetrate and settle
below the seabed. This triggered a requirement for a risk-based PCB bulk product
waste disposal approval from the EPA. The EPA/MARAD vessel cleaning BMPs
state, “Where there is reason to suspect manufactured products containing solid
PCBs greater than or equal to 50 ppm, remove the equipment or component from
the vessel or provide proof that the equipment or component is free of PCBs unless
a bulk product waste disposal approval has been obtained under Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulation (CFR) §761.62(c)” (USEPA and MARAD, 2006). As a result of
this requirement, the Navy requested a risk-based PCB bulk product disposal
authorization from EPA Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia).
I(C) (3) Navy Submittal of PCB Bulk Product Disposal Application to EPA
On April 28, 2004 the U.S. Department of the Navy submitted an application to the
EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator requesting to dispose of PCB bulk product
waste remaining on board the ex-Oriskany at the time of reefing in accordance with
the requirements of Title 40 CFR §761.62(c) (Glen Clark, NAVSEA PMS 333,
Oriskany Project Manager, personal communication). The Navy’s application had
to demonstrate that based on technical, environmental, or waste-specific
characteristics or considerations, the proposed storage or disposal methods or
locations would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. The EPA subsequently requested other information that it believed
necessary to evaluate the Navy’s application.
I(C) (4) Navy Development of PCB Risk Assessment Models and Documents for EPA
Review
The Navy spent several years developing a series of documents justifying their
request to sink the ex-Oriskany with some anticipated PCB bulk product left on
board. The document development process with accompanying laboratory and in
situ studies and model development began prior to and continued in tandem with
the environmental remediation work on the ship. The documents developed for
16 | P a g e
EPA review included: 1) a human health risk assessment (SPARWAR Systems
Center San Diego. 2006a); 2) an ecological risk-based assessment (Johnston et al.
2006); 3) a Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) that modeled the steady
state fate and transport of PCBs through the food chain (SPARWAR Systems
Center San Diego. 2006b); 4) a Time Dynamic Model (TDM) that modeled the
immediate short term release (over the first two years) of PCBs expected to be
released from the Oriskany (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c); 5) a
leach rate study based upon laboratory observations of PCBs leaching into sea
water from ship related PCB containing materials (SPARWAR Systems Center San
Diego. 2006d) and 6) a document providing estimates of PCB quantities and mean
concentrations in various materials on board the ex-Oriskany before and after
environmental remediation (Pape 2004). The Navy’s risk assessments analyzed
potential risks to human and ecological receptors based on predicted PCB
concentrations in the water and in close proximity to the Oriskany Reef once
created. Based on the models, studies and documents developed, the Navy
concluded that PCBs released from the proposed Oriskany Reef would not pose an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment.
I(C) (5) EPA Evaluation, Review and Subsequent Approval of Navy’s PCB Risk Based
Disposal Application and Supporting Documents
The EPA reviewed the Navy application and its accompanying supporting
documents to dispose of solid PCBs associated with the sinking of the ex-Oriskany.
Over the next 21 months the EPA reviewed, critiqued, and requested additional
information on the supporting documents provided by the Navy, including the
results of Navy computer model findings (both the Time Dynamic Model and the
Prospective Risk Assessment Model). The output from these models indicated there
was no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment if the Navy left
PCB containing materials in the quantities estimated on board the ship when
reefed. The EPA reviewed the Navy’s risk assessment documents not only
internally but with the assistance of an external independent scientific advisory
board (SAB) (Morgan and Rose 2005). The Navy in turn responded to the SAB’s
suggestions and questions.
EPA’s concluded that based upon the pre-sink modeling prediction data provided by
the Navy, no unreasonable risk to human health or the environment would occur
with the reefing of the ex-Oriskany. The EPA made available a draft risk-based
PCB bulk waste disposal approval document for review on the EPA Region 4 home
page website. Announcement of availability of a draft for review was advertised
December 19, 2005 in the Pensacola News Journal. On January 10, 2006, EPA also
held a public meeting in Pensacola to provide Pensacola area citizens another venue
17 | P a g e
for expressing their views on the draft PCB disposal approval and the Oriskany
Reef project. The meeting was attended by approximately 150 local residents.
Several participants made statements in support of the proposal to reef the exOriskany. Two individuals posed questions to the EPA panel members that were
pertinent to the proposed action. During the 30 day public comment period which
ended January 19, 2006, EPA received written comments from 143 individuals or
organizations. Most of the written comments were short statements in support of
the proposed action. Two comments, submitted by Pensacola area residents
expressed opposition to the proposed action. EPA also received lengthy comments
from the Basel Action Network (BAN), an environmental group, opposing the
proposed reefing action and expressing concerns about possible conflict with
international laws and treaties if regulated PCBs were left on board the exOriskany when it was reefed.
One concern raised was project costs. The
approximately $20 million project cost to which Escambia County contributed
$950,000 and Okaloosa County $50,000 was not a factor for EPA’s risk based
analysis. Based on scrap values at the time and other long range planning
considerations, the Navy determined the project was cheaper than subsidized
scrapping. Additionally 960 tons of metals were recycled from the ex-Oriskany
(Elizabeth Freeze, NAVSEA PMS 33 communication with EPA). There was a local
concern about potential diver dermal exposure to PCBs in the water column. EPA
considered this dermal exposure minimal when weighed against evaluation of
chronic PCB exposure risk from long term fish consumption. There was a question
about whether the PCB risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval also applied
to future vessels. EPA emphasized the approval was only applicable to ex-Oriskany.
EPA summarized and formally responded in writing to nine comments that also
included the principal concerns of BAN (USEPA, 2006a).
On February 15, 2006, in a document issued to the U.S. Navy and the FWC, the
EPA, Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia) approved the risk-based disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) bulk product waste associated with the reefing of
the decommissioned former Navy aircraft carrier ex Oriskany (CVA-34) (USEPA
2006b). The EPA approval to dispose of PCB bulk product associated with the
proposed sinking of the ex-Oriskany for use as an artificial reef was issued pursuant
to Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 USC § 2605(e), and
the federal PCB regulations at 40 CFR § 761.62(c). The approval for risk-based
disposal of PCB bulk product waste was revised (Revision #1) by EPA on July 16,
2007 to include Escambia County along with FWC and the U.S. Department of the
Navy Inactive Ships Program Office as a responsible party.
18 | P a g e
I(C)(6) PCB Containing Materials On Board ex-Oriskany Before and After Environmental
Remediation
PCB source term estimates for the ex-Oriskany were described by Pape (2004).
Pape estimated the total weights of the various PCB containing ship board
materials identified by NAVSEA PMS 333, the estimated weights of solid PCBs in
each material based upon results of the Navy’s routine sampling protocol and
results for vessels during the inactivation process. Where direct material weight
measurements were unavailable for materials aboard the Oriskany, such quantities
were estimated using data from surrogate vessels (e.g. other ships in the
Essex/Ticonderoga carrier class). Some materials containing PCBs above regulated
levels (at or above concentrations of 50 ppm) were targeted for partial removal.
All PCB containing liquids and all lubricants, the latter estimated at 208,140 lbs,
were removed (Pape, 2006). The solid phase PCBs were distributed on the exOriskany primarily in wire cable insulation, fiberglass bulkhead insulation, paints,
rubber products and vent gasket material left in place, following environmental
remediation. The materials were in more difficult to access locations in the ship’s
interior, primarily on decks below the hanger bay deck (beneath the flight deck) in
compartments, passageways, and other spaces. There was no significant removal of
rubber products (estimated at 11,898 lbs) or ventilation gaskets (2,680 lbs) due to
unregulated average PCB concentrations in these products (37.3 ppm and 20.3 ppm
respectively; 50.9 ppm and 33.5 ppm at the 95% Upper Confidence Limit,
respectively). About 5% or 44,000 lbs of the 298,999 lbs of paint coatings on board
were removed in the form of loose, flaking paint. The average PCB concentration in
the paints was reported at 11.6 ppm (19.7 ppm at the 95% Upper Confidence Limit).
Approximately 72.6% (83,995 lbs) of the estimated 115,695 lbs of bulkhead
insulation were removed. Next to cable insulation which originally contained about
95% of the PCBs prior to partial removal, the bulkhead insulation, prior to partial
removal had the next highest total quantity of PCBs (3% or 24.9 lbs; 68.0 lbs at the
95% Upper Confidence Limit). The average PCB concentration in bulkhead
material was 215 ppm (587.7 ppm Upper Confidence Limit). Pape (ibid.) estimated
403,600 lbs of electrical cable insulation was originally on board the ex-Oriskany.
This figure excluded the weight of the wiring housed by the insulation and any
paint coating the insulation. Average cable insulation PCB concentrations were
1493 ppm (2766.0 ppm, 95% Upper Confidence Limit). Approximately 10% of the
insulation was estimated to have been removed during environmental remediation
with the accompanying nonferrous metal wiring salvaged and recycled. Electrical
cable removal occurred primarily in the ship’s island (superstructure) and hanger
bay below the flight deck. PCBs in the 90% of the remaining electrical cable
19 | P a g e
insulation to be left on board accounted for 97.6% (705.5 lbs) of the 722.6 lbs of total
solid PCBs estimated to remain on the ex-Oriskany after environmental
remediation. Fiberglass bulkhead insulation was identified as contributing 6.8 lbs
to the PCB load remaining on board (.94%). Although paints had unregulated levels
of PCBs, the remaining paint contributed an estimated 9.8 lbs of total PCBs
remaining on board (1.36%). Rubber products and vent gaskets remaining on board
contributed 0.4 lbs and 0.1 lbs of PCBs, respectively.
Based on Pape’s (2004) analysis, of an estimated 832.2 lbs of solid PCBs on board
the ex-Oriskany prior to environmental remediation (1,559 lbs, at 95% Upper
Confidence Limit), that amount was reduced by an estimated 13.2% to 722.6 lbs of
solid PCBs (1,342 lbs at the 95% Upper Confidence Limit) at the time the ship was
ready for reefing. This was based on the scenario of 5% paint removal, 10% cable
removal, 72.6% bulkhead insulation removal, no rubber or vent gasket product
removal and 100% lubricant
removal.
Additional
ex-Oriskany
environmental
remediation
included removal of the entire
aircraft carrier flight deck down
to clean bare metal. This was
necessary to remove asphalt and
underlying PCB contaminated
wood and other materials (Jon
Dodrill and Robert Turpin,
personal observation).
I(C) (7) Navy Sponsored Pre-Sink
Monitoring
Immediately prior to the reefing
of the ex-Oriskany, the Navy
contracted with the University
of West Florida to conduct Figure 2. Oriskany Reef Pre-sink trawl and hook
trawling
and
hook-and-line and line sampling sites (from Snyder et al., 2007).
sampling for fish to obtain presink baseline PCB data.
Specimens for PCB analysis along with water and
sediment samples were collected for PCB analysis from the immediate area of the
proposed sink site as well as several artificial reefs in the general area and some
locations further inshore (Figure 2) (Snyder et al., 2007).
20 | P a g e
I(C) (8) Oriskany Reef Created
In a cooperative effort between FWC and Escambia County through a Joint
Memorandum of Agreement with the Navy, on May 17, 2006, Navy personnel and
consultants conducted a well-planned carefully controlled sinking of the four point
anchored ex-Oriskany (hereinafter the Oriskany Reef) as an artificial reef in the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico. The vessel was secured at the planned location with
four 45,000 pound anchors and sank in 37 minutes at the planned location within
the permitted site following the remotely controlled detonation of 22 strategically
placed internal explosive charges that compromised sea chest valves and internal
bulkheads, resulting in the controlled flooding of the ship. The ship sank upright by
the stern and became the Oriskany Reef, the largest ship intentionally deployed as
a shallow water artificial reef in the United States.
The Oriskany Reef is
located in the southeast
corner of a 77 square
nautical mile artificial
reef area known as the
Escambia East Large
Area Artificial Reef Site
(ELAARS). The site is
currently permitted to
the Escambia County
Board
of
County
Commissioners by the
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville
District (Permit No.
SAJ-1994-02365
(IPLCP)).
Escambia
Figure 3. Location map of the Oriskany Reef and nearby
County is now the title
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef site located within the
holder of the vessel
Escambia ELAARS.
which they received by
transfer of the ACOE
permit from the FWC in January, 2007. The Oriskany Reef rests upright, bow
facing due south in 212 feet of water on an open sand bottom in federal waters of
the Exclusive Economic Zone 23.5 nautical miles southeast of Pensacola Pass
(Escambia County, northwest Florida, and USA) and 18.4 nautical miles south of
the closest shoreline (Figure 3). The carrier’s flight deck as of 2010 is at a depth of
21 | P a g e
about 147 feet. The ship’s superstructure or “island” rises to within 80 feet of the
surface. The ship’s coordinates are Latitude 30º 02.6’ North and Longitude 87º 00.4’
West.
The Oriskany Reef is one of the largest single artificial reef structures in the
Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. There are 72 other public artificial reefs in the 77
square mile EELAARS and an additional 123 concrete and/or steel artificial reef
patch reef sites most of which are unpublished refugia reefs, some of which have
been utilized in scientific studies (FWC, 2011). Most of the artificial patch reefs in
the EELAARS permit area are composed primarily of individual modules whose
vertical reliefs are normally less than 10 feet (FWC, 2011). The Oriskany Reef
initially in 2006 had 144 feet of vertical relief extending from the seafloor at a depth
of 212 feet to within 68 feet of the surface. While many other smaller artificial reefs
in the EELAARS permit area are concrete or concrete and steel in composition with
individual foot prints of less than 100 square feet, the Oriskany Reef is a massive
painted steel structure with a foot print of at least 90,000 square feet (two acres).
I (D) MATERIALS AND METHODS
I (D) (1) Selection of Targeted Fish Species and Sample Size
Fish species identified for PCB analysis were recreationally targeted legal size reef
fish known from previous sampling studies in the EELAARS, from FWC and
ECMRD assessments and from personal observations to be available for anglers to
catch in the Gulf of Mexico off Northwest Florida in the general vicinity of the
Oriskany Reef.
I (D) (1) (a) Selection of Targeted Fish Species
Reef fish composition, size and abundances on smaller established reefs in the
Escambia East LAARS were previously documented by several methods. Many
smaller reefs were monitored with remotely operated video camera (ROV)
(Patterson et al., 2010), pre-sink Oriskany survey work (Snyder et al 2007), early
research studies (Bortone, et al. 1997), as well as the personal experience of the
ECMRD Project Co-Manager (Robert Turpin, personal communication). With this
information the FWC staff could generally predict the ultimate presence on the
Oriskany Reef of most recreationally targeted reef fish species expected to be found
in the EELAARS. However these studies could not predict the numbers of these
species available to capture during any given sampling period. These prior studies
and personal observations enabled the development of a target list of legal size reef
22 | P a g e
fishes for the Monitoring Work Plan that would be retained for analysis if caught.
This Monitoring Work Plan initially included the following fish in descending order
of preference with their accompanying trophic position (after Patterson et al. 2010):
1. Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) (invertivore/piscivore)
2. Gray Triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) (invertivore)
3. Gag Grouper (Micteroperca microlepis) (piscivore)
4. Red Porgy (Pagrus pagrus) (invertivore)
5. Vermilion Snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens (invertivore/planktivore)
6. Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio) (invertivore/piscivore)
7. Scamp Grouper (Micteroperca phenax) (piscivore)
8. Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus) (invertivore/piscivore)
9. Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris) (invertivore/piscivore)
A tenth target species, whitebone porgy, (Calamus leucosteus), an invertivore, was
subsequently added during sampling round #7 when this specimen appeared in the
landings and no lane snapper had yet been seen or caught. In discussions with
FWC Fisheries Dependent Monitoring Program personnel and ECMRD staff the
whitebone porgy was a good tasting fish that recreational fishers caught and kept.
The above list does not represent a complete list of all Northeastern Gulf of Mexico
reef associated fish that might be consumed by a recreational angler if caught in the
depth range of the Oriskany Reef. However, based on catch rates it was believed
that the above recreationally targeted species were the species most likely to be
encountered by hook-and-line fishermen on artificial reefs offshore of Pensacola and
ultimately likely to be either immediately or eventually available for harvest at the
Oriskany Reef. Any of the listed reef fish of legal harvest length (“keeper” size if
there was no size limit), in addition to at least 15 red snapper, if caught, were also
retained for PCB analysis as individual specimens until the minimum target
number of 30 fish were collected during each sampling round.
As noted in the Monitoring Work Plan, highly migratory species (sharks, tunas) and
reef transient species (amberjacks, mackerels) were not retained for analysis
because of their seasonally extensive movements and the limited time these species
were expected to spend near the Oriskany Reef. Great barracuda (Sphyraena
barracuda), a common piscivorous predator on the Oriskany Reef and the Gulf of
Mexico was not considered for retention because this species was not typically
considered a food fish in Northwest Florida.
23 | P a g e
I (D) (1) (b) Selection of Sample Size
For each sampling round, a minimum of 30 legal size reef fish typically targeted by
recreational fishermen were collected from the Oriskany Reef. The preferred
sampling alternative as specified in the Monitoring Work Plan was to collect fifteen
specimens of each of two different reef fish species, ideally representing two
different trophic levels or feeding guilds, during each sampling round. Changes, if
any, in the mean total PCB levels averaged from the sum of the individual total
PCB values of each of the 15 specimens of the two different species would be
evaluated over the initial five year sampling period. If mean total PCB values
derived from individual values of 15 or more specimens of a particular species
showed a trend over time of exceeding the screening value of 0.020 ppm total PCBs
wet weight, monitoring efforts were to be expanded.
After the initial two sampling rounds, in December of 2006 and April of 2007, it was
realized that the current sampling regimes would be unable to achieve the
Monitoring Work Plan preferred alternative of securing a minimum of 15 legal size
specimens of each of two different reef fish species during each sampling round. The
two primary target species were initially proposed to be red snapper and gray
triggerfish. At the Oriskany Reef, gray triggerfish were neither caught nor visually
observed by SCUBA divers during the first three years of monitoring. The backup
alternative was implemented to retain any additional legal size targeted reef fish
species until a minimum number of 30 reef fish were caught during a particular
sampling round in order to get a minimum sample size of 15 legal red snapper per
sampling round.
The minimum number of 30 legal size reef fish sought and analyzed per sampling
round was a statistically valid sample round number based on the ability of the
FWC and ECMRD to fund a Tier 1 PCB screening level sampling number that could
be collected, twice a year, during two different seasons (typically fall and spring)
over a period of at least five years. This target number of fish retained was
increased for analysis to 35 in Sampling Round #7 and to 39 in Sampling Round #8
in an effort to procure additional piscivores (e.g. grouper) and invertivores (e.g.
triggerfish and porgies) for PCB analysis. When the target number of specimens
had been collected in the order of their capture availability, then the fishing
operations were terminated and the fishing vessel returned to port unless there was
some other specific additional objective such as a pilot tagging project or a nearby
artificial reef to be sampled.
24 | P a g e
I (D) (2) Fishing Vessel Sampling Platforms
During the Monitoring Plan development process it was recognized that the large
deck space required for fish specimen collecting and processing 23.5 nautical miles
offshore of Pensacola Pass, working from one or two small vessels would not
consistently meet our monitoring requirements. The FWC artificial reef program
and the ECMRD program had available to them respectively, a 22 foot and a 19 foot
single engine outboard open console vessel. These vessels were mentioned as
possible vessel sampling platforms in the Monitoring Work Plan. It was realized
that the fish capture requirements and processing, packaging and storage of fish
along with data recording would be impractical due to limited deck space both for
gear, and participating personnel. Use of these smaller vessels would also reduce
the weather/sea state window for safe offshore boating operations. It was decided
that prior to the beginning of formal sampling to proceed with larger vessels to
provide a greater deck space, more stable offshore work platform and to better
ensure that the target of a minimum of 30 legal recreationally target reef fish could
be procured on the same sampling day. For sampling, particularly utilizing
multiple personnel and recreational fishing gear, optimal vessel configuration,
equipment, and other attributes include: large deck space adequate for fish
collection and sample processing; sufficient capacity to store at least 800 quarts of
food grade ice and six large (96-150 quart coolers), precise and accurate vessel
electronics (i.e. Global Positioning System, fathometer, etc.); and a skilled captain
able to hold an unanchored vessel in place at strategic locations at the Oriskany
Reef as fish are collected. Vessel hiring prices for these larger vessels and their
availability were determined and the National Marine Fisheries Service was
notified of our intent to use alternate vessels in this sampling program.
During the first eight Oriskany Reef fish sampling rounds (December 14, 2006November 18, 2010), four different vessel sampling platforms (55-85 ft. in total
length) were utilized. These included a commercial snapper fishing vessel, Margie
Ann, with trap pulling capabilities that was home ported out of Panama City, FL
(Round #1), an 85 ft. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Law Enforcement
offshore patrol vessel JJ Brown, also able to retrieve traps, home ported out of
Carrabelle, FL (Round #2), a for-hire Pensacola fishing fleet charter vessel,
Chulamar operating out of Gulf Breeze, FL (Rounds #3-4), and a second for-hire
Pensacola fishing fleet vessel, Entertainer, also operating out of Gulf Breeze, FL
(Rounds #5-8) (Table 10).
These vessels satisfied the requirements of having
sufficient deck storage and work space, an experienced vessel captain and mate,
and a large enough vessel to provide a stable sampling platform to operate safely 23
nautical miles offshore.
25 | P a g e
Fish sampling began on December 14, 2006, about seven months after the exOriskany (CVA-34) was placed in the EELAARS site as an artificial reef on May 17,
2006. Diver visual observations down to the depth of the flight deck (135 ft.) during
the summer and early fall of 2006 after the Oriskany Reef was created indicated
that recreationally targeted reef fish like red snapper and vermilion snapper were
present at the reef but many were visually estimated to be of sublegal size (Horn
and Mille 2006).
I (D) (3) Commercial Chevron Trap Use
To ensure that at least 30 legal size
recreationally targeted reef fish
species for analysis during each
sampling round as the reef community
was developing on the Oriskany Reef
during the first year, for the first two
sampling rounds, vessels capable of
deploying and retrieving commercial
chevron fish traps were utilized
(Figure 4).
FWC and ECMRD
determined the most efficient and Figure 4. Recovery of commercial chevron
effective collection of reef fish during fish trap with red snapper catch aboard the
F/V Margie Ann. Photo by Kyle Miller.
the first sampling round would be
accomplished by using commercial
chevron-shaped coated wire mesh fish traps and multi-hook vertical fishing gear
(“bandit rigs”) deployed aboard a commercial fishing vessel, Margie Ann. The intent
was to fully transition to the conventional hand held rod-and-reel gear normally
utilized by recreational fishers after sufficient numbers of legal size reef fish became
available on the Oriskany Reef for hand held rod-and-reel hook-and-line harvest.
The second sampling effort (April 2007) was to represent a transitional sampling
effort where both rod and reel and chevron traps were used. From the third
sampling round forward, only hand held rod-and-reels fished by FWC personnel,
Escambia County staff and volunteers were also utilized to collect fish via hook and
line from the Oriskany Reef for PCB analysis.
FWC had custom built and rigged four commercial chevron fish traps specifically for
Oriskany Reef monitoring using design specification provided by Florida State
University marine ecologist Dr. Chris Koenig (Koenig, personal communication).
An individual chevron trap measures 60 inches wide and 73 inches diagonal length
measured from the corner of its greatest width to the top hip. The trap is 50 inches
26 | P a g e
long from the top to the mouth of the funnel. The funnel through which the fish
access the trap is 15 inches wide. The trap, resting on the bottom, is 24 inches high.
The trap “skin”, attached to a steel welded rebar frame is green plastic coated steel
mesh with the mesh rectangles measuring 1.875 inches by 2.0 inches. The wire
mesh making up the entrance funnel is a lighter gauge more flexible plastic coasted
chicken wire. The trap has two access doors, one on the top and one on the side.
The side door (15.9 inches across, 11.9 inches high, and 19.7 inches along the
diagonal) is attached to the trap frame with degradable twine and is rigged to fall
open when the twine deteriorates to facilitate fish release in the event the trap is
lost and cannot be immediately recovered. The nose door of the trap is secured with
plastic clips attached to bungee cords. Fish are removed through the nose door
upon recovery of the trap and release of the clips. The nose door dimensions are
13.9 inches across, 9.8 inches high, and 17.1 inches along the diagonal. The doors,
not accessible to fish, are used to place bait in the trap and remove trapped fish.
Each trap was weighted with two metal bars about four feet long tied into the trap.
One bar was tied in across the width of the trap top and one solid .75inch diameter
four feet long heavier bar was tied across the width of the trap bottom. Tying these
bars in with .375 inch diameter polypropylene line, with the heavier bar on the trap
bottom ensures the trap lands on the proper upright orientation on the sea floor.
All traps had affixed to them identification tags, identifying the name of the
research project, agency name, address, phone number and point of contact.
Attached to a polypropylene loop on each trap was 400 feet of black .375 inch
diameter polypropylene line. The line was attached to a swivel whose ring base was
slipped onto a metal carabineer that was in turn clipped into the polypropylene loop
tied into the trap. At the terminal end of the trap line was an international orange
inflatable plastic buoy approximately 18 inches in diameter. Trailing from the buoy
was another 15 feet of poly line at the end of which was a white Styrofoam crab trap
buoy. This six inch diameter buoy kept the 15 feet of line between it and the larger
float up near the surface allowing the easier recovery of the floating end of the line
with a boat hook when recovering the buoy line in preparation for trap retrieval.
Each large 24 inch diameter orange trap buoy had “FWC Research” written on it in
black indelible ink as well as a single number (one, two, three, or four) designating
the trap that the trap the buoy was marking. Reflective tape was also added to the
buoy in the event night trap location recovery was required.
Round #1
For the first sampling round the commercial fishing vessel the Margie Ann’s was
contracted because the crew who were professional commercial fishermen had prior
first-hand experience utilizing fish traps when they were still legal to use.
27 | P a g e
Commercial fish trap use in the Gulf of Mexico has been banned for over a decade.
Reef fish ecologist, Dr. Chris Koenig, PhD. (Florida State University faculty), who
had previously conducted similar fish collections from the Gulf of Mexico using
similar gear, volunteered to accompany FWC and ECMRD staff for the first fish
sampling effort at the Oriskany Reef in December 2006.
The traps were baited with cut Boston mackerel and Peruvian squid secured to the
trap funnel and trap interior with plastic tie wraps. Traps were deployed on both
the Oriskany Reef’s flight deck (initially135 feet deep.) and on the seafloor (212 feet)
along-side the Oriskany and were recovered with an electric trap puller following a
soak time of 2-3 hours. On one of the December 14, 2006 trap deployments, Dr.
Koenig mounted a video camera on the top of one of the chevron traps and directed
at the trap entrance to observe fish activity as the fish approached the trap
entrance as it sat on the flight deck. All fish noted in this video were red snapper.
The use of banned commercial chevron fish traps, out of season fishing, and
collecting fish over the recreational bag limit for research purposes in federal waters
of the Exclusive Economic Zone where the Oriskany Reef is located required a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) Southeast
Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. FWC secured the LOA on November 15,
2006 and it was carried as required on all subsequent sampling trips by the FWC
Project Manager. Subsequent amendments were made to the LOA as sampling
progressed to add additional vessel platforms as needed and to secure permit time
extensions.
Round #2
The second sampling trip to the Oriskany Reef on April 12, 2007 utilized an 85 foot
offshore FWC law enforcement patrol vessel, J.J. Brown, with a mounted trap
puller. This was intended to be a transitional trip utilizing both commercial
chevron traps and hand held rod and reel angling gear, similar to the equipment
used by private fishermen or charter boats bottom fishing in the area. If there was
sufficient rod-and-reel angling success on this trip, our objective was to move
exclusively on subsequent trips to rod-and- reel sampling to better mimic the type of
recreational fishing activity that would normally take place on the Oriskany Reef.
The traps were to be used as a hedge against failure to achieve the targeted 30 legal
size reef fish on this second trip.
28 | P a g e
During sample round #2 all four chevron traps fishing on and immediately adjacent
to the Oriskany Reef became entangled in the reef and could not be recovered before
dark and the later onset of rough weather. After the parting of one buoy line in
efforts to retrieve a trap, all GPS trap locations were marked and the un-buoyed
and three remaining buoyed traps were temporarily abandoned in the face of
forecast deteriorating weather (9-13 foot. seas). A trap recovery effort to eliminate
potential buoy and line navigational hazards and the traps continuing to passively
fish short-term as “ghost” traps required writing a trap recovery plan, hiring two
dive charter vessels and a team of technical divers to return to the Oriskany Reef
(Horn and Miller, 2007). Two fish traps were recovered by technical divers using
lift bags to raise traps from 212 feet of water since neither dive boat had any
mechanical trap retrieval capability. The traps were too heavy to be safely hauled
up by from the bottom by hand. The other two chevron traps, one buoyed and one
no longer buoyed were not located even though their coordinates had been
previously recorded, the traps and buoys themselves were marked, and the
technical diving community was alerted. FWC never recovered the two lost traps.
Use of the two recovered chevron traps was discontinued in our monitoring
program. The traps were donated to the FWC Fisheries Independent Monitoring
Program at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg,
Florida.
I (D) (4) Commercial Bandit Fishing Gear
On the first December 14, 2006 sampling trip,
commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” fishing
gear was also employed (Figure 5). Bandit gear
consisted of several hundred yards of stainless
steel strand main line wound onto an open face
metal drum about 14 inches in diameter attached
to a hollow metal vertical pole mounted in the
vessel gunwale. The pole had a short (2.5 feet
long) flexible horizontal arm with a pulley at the
end through which the steel line from the drum
was run to be attached to a 300 pound test
monofilament leader. Along the monofilament
leader were a series of brass three-way swivels
evenly spaced at two foot intervals along the
leader. From each of 15 three-way swivels tied into
the main monofilament leader extended a one foot
long monofilament side leader or ganglion
29 | P a g e
Figure 5. Commercial vertical
hook-and-line “bandit” fishing
gear with red snapper catch
aboard the F/V Margie Ann.
composed of two 125 pound test pieces of monofilament line twisted together along
their length. At the end of each of the 15 twisted one foot leaders or ganglions was
attached a circle hook, about 13 mm from point to shank. Attached to the end of the
terminal 15th triple swivel was an iron curtain sash weight of about eight pounds.
Circle hooks were used to allow multiple fish to be self-hooked and brought to the
surface upon retrieval. The bandit rigs utilized hand cranking of the drum to
retrieve fish but bandit rigs can also be hydraulically or electrically powered. The
bandit rig gear was used as a secondary fishing gear on the first sampling trip along
with the chevron traps but was not used in any later sampling efforts. Rod-andreel gear was used to a limited extent but unsuccessfully on the first trip.
I (D) (5) Transition to Hook-and Line Sampling
Rounds # 3 through # 8
Beginning with Sampling Round #3 and intended to continue through to the end of
the monitoring study, the Oriskany Reef monitoring efforts transitioned away from
restricted chevron trap commercial fishing gear or “bandit” fishing gear to the
exclusive use of hook-and-line rod and reel sampling. Hook-and-line sampling using
the traditional hand-held rod-and-reel was expected to more closely reflect the
general catch composition of recreational fishermen using similar equipment on the
Oriskany Reef. Additionally, utilizing at least 13 hook-and-line fishers, the
required target sample minimum of 30 legal size reef fish caught by hook-and-line
could be achieved more rapidly than with daylight chevron trap operations.
The rod-and-reel outfits that FWC purchased for the first and second sampling trips
to augment chevron trap activity were typical of the equipment used by the for-hire
offshore reef fish bottom fishing charter vessels and private recreational fishers off
Northwest Florida. The rod-and-reel gear were Penn Senator 4/0 Model 1134 open
faced hand cranked reels with a 3.25:1 gear ratio fitted to a 6.5 feet long fiberglass
fishing rod. About 350-400 yards of forty pound test monofilament line was spooled
on to the reels, though charter fishing reels sometimes used 60 pound test
monofilament line. Attached by a 75 pound test #7 barrel swivel to the end of the
40 pound test line was a ten foot long 30 pound monofilament fluorocarbon leader.
One to three circle hooks from 10-16 mm (point to shank) were attached to the
leader. A typical two-three-hook rig used three Eagle Claw 4/0 (15 mm point to
shank) non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks, each attached to a loop extending
about five inches from the main 30 pound monofilament terminal leader. One hook
is attached to each of the loops which are spaced at 20 inch increments along the
terminal leader.
30 | P a g e
The rod and reel manpower sampling effort beginning with Sampling Round #3 and
continuing on was provided by a mix of State, County and volunteer staff. Usually
13-18 personnel rod-and-reel fished at the same time. Another 4-5 personnel were
non fishers engaged in sample processing, moving fish from fishing stations to ice
slurry euthanizing cooler, recording and measuring discards and photo documenting
representative landings. Angler experience ranged from that of the saltwater fisher
who infrequently fished (1-3 times/year) to experienced personnel who saltwater
fished on a more regular basis and had been fishing for years. We believe this bias
of variable skill level could also be found in the general cross section of local and
visiting recreational fishers who would venture 23.5 nautical miles offshore on a forhire charter or party boat to fish the Oriskany Reef. Fish landed by these fishers
and retained for analysis could be expected to represent the typical catch
composition of a for-hire charter boat or private recreational angler who fished the
site targeting fish in the snapper-grouper complex.
Before vessel departure from shore, the Local FWC law enforcement office and U.S.
Coast Guard station were notified of scientific sampling to be undertaken on board
a designated vessel. A float plan was filed with FWC and Escambia County office
staff. The Field Project Co-managers carried on board a copy of the Work
Monitoring Work Plan, current federal recreational fishing regulations, and a copy
of the NOAA Fisheries Letter of Acknowledgement authorizing fish harvest over the
bag limit, out of season, and with restricted gear if applicable. Before leaving the
dock, recreational fishers were briefed on the background and objectives of the
Oriskany Reef monitoring project and told to avoid handling any fish brought
aboard. Anglers were informed the activity was a scientific collecting trip, not a
recreational fishing activity and they were forbidden to harvest and retain any fish
for personal consumption. Only those fish needed to fulfill the sample round
requirement were to be retained. Fishing concluded immediately upon attaining
the sample round collection objectives. After sampling processing was completed,
the sampling vessel returned to shore.
Bait and rod-and-reel fishing gear were provided by the for-hire charter boat. The
gear was typical of that used by other for-hire charter fishing fleet vessels and
private recreational fishers and similar to the FWC rod-and-reel gear utilized
during Sampling Rounds #1 and #2. The bait the participating anglers used was a
mix of cut squid, Boston mackerel, or cigar minnows. Occasionally limited
quantities of live bait such as pinfish were utilized and maintained in a circulating
live well on board the charter boat.
31 | P a g e
Fishing baits were positioned over the Oriskany Reef while the vessel maintained
position with engines running and without anchoring. Baits were lowered to
approximate depths of the flight deck (130-145 feet) and also on or near the seafloor
adjacent to the ship at a maximum depth of 212 feet. Lines were reeled in
periodically to allow the vessel to re-position itself over and immediately adjacent to
the Oriskany Reef, just as commercial charter vessel would operate. The vessel
remained on station until all fish were processed, and double checked to ensure the
target sample quota had been reached. The sampling vessel then proceeded directly
to port to allow for prompt offloading and storage of samples.
Fishing commenced during daylight hours, usually beginning between 0830-0900
Central Time once the vessel arrived on site and equipment was readied. Fishing
immediately ended as soon as the minimum number of 30 recreationally targeted
legal size fish were caught and retained, usually by 1200 hrs rarely as late as 14001500 hrs. Night sampling was not conducted since recreational fishing on the
Oriskany Reef would typically also have been a daylight endeavor. Sampling
operations were postponed and rescheduled if sea conditions were predicted to
exceed 2-4 feet or wind speeds exceeded 15 knots.
The decision not to continue fishing past the point when the required quota of
targeted legal size fish were harvested was also intended to reduce unnecessary
discard mortality caused by acute or chronic barotrauma injury and additional
susceptibility of temporarily disabled fish to predators such as great barracuda,
bottlenose dolphins and large greater amberjack. Unless there was a specific
secondary activity to be undertaken such as fish tagging, fishing effort during the
first seven sampling rounds concluded immediately upon procuring the first 30 legal
size fish that would have been typically caught by a recreational head boat or
charter boat. There was no high grading of fish, which is the practice of discarding a
previously caught and retained legal size dead reef fish for a larger size specimen or
a different species. All targeted fish were retained in the order caught, provided
that the target number of at least 15 red snapper was procured out of the minimum
thirty specimens sampling round quota. Sample round #8 (November 2010) was the
only sampling round in which multiple legal size reef fish (mainly vermilion
snapper) were discarded live upon capture in an effort to stay within the target
quota (increased to 39) and still attempt to procure a minimum of 15 red snapper.
I (D) (6) Sampling Seasons
Sampling was conducted in two seasons annually. Sampling was conducted during
late fall/winter (4 events), usually in November, although a single December 2006
and a February 2008 sampling round also took place. The cooler weather sampling
32 | P a g e
was intentionally scheduled after the normal late spring/summer conclusion of the
recreational red snapper season (season lengths were variable, but typically Juneearly August in 2007-2009). Sampling again took place in the spring (4 events),
usually in April, prior to the opening of the recreational red snapper season. This
sampling protocol was intended to avoid onsite fishing conflicts with for-hire and
private recreational fishing vessels and dive charters, usually more active during
the warmer months. Off-season hiring of local vessels also provided their Captains
and mates additional revenue during the slower business period of for-hire charter
fishing operations. The April sampling rounds in particular were intended to
provide some idea of PCB body burden in red snapper prior to the start of the
recreational red snapper season which varied from April 30, 2006 to June 1st in
subsequent years of this study. An exception was the November 18, 2010 (Sampling
Round #8) effort which overlapped with an ongoing postponed red snapper
recreational season that included a series of three day weekends for recreational red
snapper harvest. The truncated red snapper season ran from October 1, 2010
through-November 21, 2010. It should be noted that this was the only sampling
round where 15 red snapper could not be caught on the Oriskany Reef.
The fall 2010 red snapper season delay and overlap with our Sampling Round #8
November 18, 2010 fall sampling effort occurred as a result of a federal waters fish
harvest prohibition safety closure that included the area around the Oriskany Reef.
This area, part of an expanding Gulf of Mexico fisheries closure that eventually
encompassed over 83,000 square nautical miles that caused the Oriskany Reef to be
inaccessible to all fishing beginning around June 1, 2010, the scheduled time the
red snapper season would have been opening. The closure occurred as a result of the
British Petroleum leased Trans Ocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion,
fire and collapse in 5,000 ft. of water off Southeastern Louisiana. This resulted in
11 oil platform fatalities and a major regional Gulf of Mexico oil spill beginning
April 22, 2010 at the Macondo well head that persisted until the leak was brought
under control and temporarily sealed on July 15, 2010. The Oriskany is located
105.7 nautical miles NE of the Mississippi Canyon MS 252 (Macondo well) spill site.
As a result of the federal red snapper fishing season closure during the entire
scheduled summer 2010 recreational red snapper season, a short fall season was
instituted by NOAA Fisheries. Neither the April 27, 2010 Sampling Round #7 nor
the November 18, 2010 Sampling Round #8 were affected by the fisheries oil spill
closures since the closure in the vicinity of the Oriskany Reef was not in force
during either sampling rounds.
33 | P a g e
I (D) (7) Sample Handling, Processing and Recording
As traps and fishing tackle were brought up to the vessel, fish were emptied from
traps into plastic baskets, removed from hook and line gear with a hook remover.
Each fish was identified to species and a determination was made regarding
retaining the specimen for PCB analysis according to the Monitoring Work Plan.
Fish retained for monitoring were then transferred to ice-seawater slurry in a
dedicated food grade 96-quart “Igloo” ice chest to be euthanized and to await
measurement and processing. This was a deviation from our Monitoring Work
Plan. The Plan required that the fish once de-hooked be placed in a plastic bag
before immersing it in the seawater ice slurry. The fish were placed un-bagged
directly into the sea water/ice slurry. It was felt that the subsequent removal of fish
from the slurry and rinsing them again with ambient sea water followed by
subsequent scaling and rinsing once at the analytical lab was sufficient to avoid
additional PCB tissue contamination.
Prior to measurement, each retained fish was removed from the ice slurry, and
rinsed with ambient Gulf surface sea water collected alongside the vessel using a
project dedicated five-gallon plastic bucket. Each fish retained for PCB analysis
was assigned an alpha-numeric sample identification number (e. g., OR-RS-001) as
part of a sample identification label. “OR” was used to designate fish samples
collected from the “Oriskany Reef”; “RS” was the species specific identifier for red
snapper. “001” represented the first of a sequential number of fish samples
collected at the Oriskany Reef. The fish identification initials were based on the
first letter in each of the first and second scientifically accepted common names of
the sampled fish (Nelson et al. 2004). For example, “RP” was the identifier for red
porgy”; “VS” was the identifier for vermilion snapper, etc.
Each fish total length (TL) was measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) on a
standard fish measuring board. The ECMRD Project Co-Manager identified,
inspected, and measured all fish retained as samples during all sampling rounds.
Additionally, wearing powder-free nitrile gloves, he double-wrapped the fish
individually in laboratory grade aluminum foil, dull side toward the fish and placed
the completely foil wrapped fish in a food-grade plastic bag, sealing the top of the
bag with a plastic tamper-proof tie wrap closure attached to a Sample Identification
Label filled out by the FWC Project Co-Manager who also served as the data
recorder. Each packaged fish was then placed in a second plastic bag and sealed
with a plastic tamper-proof tie wrap attached to a Chain-of-Custody Label. The fish
measuring board and other sampling equipment were rinsed with the project
dedicated bucket containing Gulf surface seawater collected amidships while bilges
34 | P a g e
weren’t running after each fish was processed. All processing was conducted away
from diesel vessel exhaust fumes.
Field notes and results of all field sampling were recorded in a project dedicated
water resistant field notebook with a waterproof “Sharpie” indelible ink pen by the
FWC Project Co-Manager. Each label was filled out as each fish was processed.
Field notebook data included sample identification number, fish length, time of
processing, date of capture, and any miscellaneous comments on the condition of
each fish. The vessel name, time of departure on the sampling trip, time of arrival
on station, commencement of fishing activity, number of people fishing, end of
fishing activity, time of arrival back at the dock, sea and weather conditions,
presence of other vessels fishing or diving on or near the Oriskany Reef, as well as
any dolphin (mammal), marine turtle, or bird activity in the vicinity of the Oriskany
Reef were noted. Names of the Captain, crew and fishing participants were also
documented. This information was used to generate a written field report for each
sampling trip. The original field notebooks are in the custody of FWC. Xerox copies
of the field notes were provided to the ECMRD Project Co-Manager.
Each foil wrapped double-bagged fish sample was placed in a project dedicated food
grade ice chest and covered with food grade wet ice. Upon collection of the minimum
thirty legal size recreationally targeted reef fish, as required by the Monitoring
Work Plan, the charter vessel departed Oriskany Reef and returned to port. The
individual bagged fish samples remained on wet ice in closed ice chests while they
were transported by the ECMRD project Co-Manager directly from the dock to a
padlocked walk-in deep freeze (-20º F) facility located at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Gulf Breeze laboratory. Prior to placing the specimens in the
freezer, the wet ice was removed from ice chests containing the packaged specimens
and the fish were repacked in coolers to be refrozen solid. The coolers remained
secured in the EPA laboratory freezer until shipment to the analytical lab for PCB
analysis.
Prior to shipment for lab analysis, frozen whole fish samples were packed in dry ice
and sealed in plastic coolers inside of which was placed a chain-of-custody record
form identifying the project, the collecting agency and Project co-manager, and
contact information and the Project Identification Numbers of all specimens
contained in the cooler. The coolers were then secured with rope, reinforced tape,
and a Chain-of-Custody seal, and then shipped by the ECRMD project Co-Manager
under chain-of-custody via “over-night” DHL or Federal Express to the analytical
laboratory.
35 | P a g e
Fish not retained for sampling (undersize, non-target, predator damaged fish) were
identified, measured, documented in a logbook and released overboard. Non target
fish released included transient reef fish like amberjacks, species like great
barracuda not typically consumed by the local fishing population, and small reef
fish like bank sea bass and tomtates not normally retained by anglers for human
consumption. In addition all sublegal target fish and all predator damaged fish
were discarded (Table 9).
I (D) (8) Laboratory Sample Receipt and Sample Analysis
The receiving analytical laboratory used for all of the Oriskany Reef fish PCB
analyses was the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) of the
College of Geosciences and Maritime Studies at Texas A & M University, 833
Graham Road, College Station, Texas 77845 (http://gerg.tamu.edu ). Dr. Terry
Wade, Deputy Director, Environmental Science is the interim Lab Director (ph.
979.862.2323 x 134; email: terry@gerg.tamu.edu ). Dr. Wade took GERG former
Lab Director, Dr. Guy Denoux’s place early in the study as our point of contact after
Dr. Denoux passed away. Dr. Denoux had been our initial very helpful GERG
contact and was so noted in the Monitoring Work Plan (Dodrill and Turpin, 2007).
Laboratory sample handling, analysis and reporting procedures followed the
Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared by GERG for FWC and
ECMRD and identified as GERG Manual 0401 in Appendix K of the Monitoring
Work Plan.
In accordance with GERG SOP 9706 (Procedure for Receiving Samples), upon
receipt of the samples, GERG staff filled out a sample receiving/integrity report,
noting sender, shipping company, time of sample receipt, number of containers
received, condition of custody seals, presence of chain-of-custody records, general
sample condition, number of samples received, name of the individual who checked
the shipment in, any problems or discrepancies, and if so what the resolution was.
During the eight rounds of collected reef fish shipped to GERG, three discrepancies
were noted. Two discrepancies involved incorrect transcription by of a Sample ID
number onto the list of shipped specimens received by GERG. These discrepancies
were corrected. A third discrepancy revealed that one of the packaged red snapper
samples (OR-RS-057) had been inadvertently discarded at night during the process
of removing wet ice and repacking and storing the samples in the EPA lab cooler
prior to shipping to GERG. As a result only 29 instead of 30 specimens were
36 | P a g e
actually shipped to GERG on February 17, 2007.
specimens at night took place during the study.
No further repacking of fish
Tracking procedures were conducted in accordance with GERG SOP 9708. A
laboratory sample identification number was assigned to each sample to correspond
with the project’s Sample Identification Number. The ECMRD project Co-Manager
was notified by GERG of sample receipt and condition and he in turn notified the
FWC Project Co-Manager. Samples were then stored at GERG in accordance with
GERG SOP 9707 (Procedures for storing samples) at -20º (plus or minus 10º) Celsius
until analytical procedures began.
When ready for analysis in the labratory, each fish was scaled, washed with deionized water and a minimum of 100 gram skin-on lateral muscle skin-on sample
extracted from each fish was homogenized.
Three sample aliquots of the
homogenate were weighed out and available for the sample of which about 10 grams
wet weight of homogenized tissue was used for a sample analysis. The other two
aliquots from each individual fish sample were used for Matrix Spike analysis or
running a duplicate analysis sample if required. A duplicate sample is not from a
separate homogenate or from different tissue areas of the fish. For a reanalysis, the
original homogenate is utilized, though a new homogenate can be made from the
other fillet if it is specifically requested. For sample duplicates, the first sample
logged in for a sample batch is a duplicate and matrix spike, and then the first
sample logged in of the second sample batch is similarly treated. The remaining
sample homogenate amount for the other samples is available for a Matrix Spike
analysis or duplicate sample analysis if requested.
Samples were extracted using standard tissue extraction procedures. Surrogates
for these analyses were added prior to extraction. Samples were processed by
standard GERG methods and analyzed for 209 PCB congeners by high resolution
mass spectrometry. The tissue samples were extracted, purified and analyzed using
the following protocols contained in the following Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) used at GERG:
SOP-9807- Extraction of Biological Tissues for the Analyses of Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Organochlorine Pesticides.
(Revision 1 as of October 27, 1998, See Appendix L of Monitoring Work Plan).
EPA 1668A- Chlorinated biphenyls Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids
and Tissues by High Resolution Gas Chromatography/ High Resolution Mass
Spectrometer
37 | P a g e
The tissue dry weights and percent lipid dry weights were determined following the
protocols contained in the following SOPs used at GERG:
SOP-9415 (instrumental analysis) - Determination of Percent Dry Weight for
Biological Tissues. Revision 1 as of October 1994
SOP-9727 (instrumental analysis)/9807(Extraction purification) - Determination of
Percent Lipids in Biological Tissues. Revision 3 as of June 30, 1998.
Additional GERG SOPS followed included GERG 9709, Procedures for archival and
final disposition of samples.
At the conclusion of each Sampling Round analysis a report was generated by
GERG in PDF and Excel spread sheet format. These analysis results were then
forwarded to FWC and ECMRD. The reports contained the following information on
each sample: client sample identification number, corresponding GERG
identification number, sample descriptor (congeners), sample dry weight (grams),
sample wet weight (grams) %solids, %lipids, PCB concentration reporting units
(picograms/gram (pg/g) parts per trillion), calculation basis (dry/wet-in this case
wet), quality control batch identification number, method (gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer), sample receipt date, sample analysis date. In addition, a list of
surrogate compounds used and %recovery of each were noted.
PCB concentrations were noted in pg/g (picograms per grams, parts per trillion, ppt)
for each PCB analyte in all 10 chlorinations. Some PCB analyte values were for
combined congeners, for example PCB 60/64/69 in Chlorination 4 or PCB 89/9-0/101
in Chlorination 5 etc., were shown as a single value for several congeners combined.
Total PCB concentrations summing the results of all detected PCB congener values
were noted for each individual skin-on fish tissue fillet sample as well as combined
PCB concentrations for each of 10 chlorination homologs.
PCB analyte reporting limits were indicated as .002 ng/g. based on 10 grams of wet
tissue. Detectable values less than the mean detection limit were noted with a “J”
and included in the summed total PCB concentration calculations for each fish
sample. Non-detect concentrations noted as “ND” were considered a “0”
concentration value. This was a deviation from our Monitoring Work Plan which
specified Non Detect values in the total PCB sum per specimen to be included as ½
the mean detection limit. Escambia County did not specify in their contract with
GERG that ½ the value of the reporting limits were to be listed when non-detect
values were noted. The result was that total PCB values for each sample were
slightly less than had the ½ non detect value been added. However, since all
38 | P a g e
samples during Sampling Rounds 1-8 were handled consistently in this manner, we
propose to continue with non-detects classified as a “0” value.
In the GERG reports, any analysis anomalies or problems encountered were
identified with statements made regarding whether any further action was needed.
PART II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The second part of this progress report discusses visual monitoring and assessment
activities that took place at the Oriskany Reef and in the adjacent EELAARs. This
is followed by results and discussion of an Oriskany Reef pilot tagging project, and
overview of field sampling efforts, discussion of reef fish species sampled, PCB
results and discussion for each species sampled, a summary of findings with
conclusions and FWC and Escambia County possible options for future monitoring.
By accepting an EPA issued risk-based PCB bulk waste approval to create the
Oriskany Reef, the Navy, FWC, and Escambia accepted the environmental
monitoring requirements of the EPA’s risk-based PCB bulk waste authorization
approval. The creation of the Oriskany artificial reef was based on a risk-based
evaluation of the Navy documents jointly presenting a case that PCBs remaining on
board this former Navy combatant present no unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment. The initial Oriskany Reef project monitoring responsibility was
shared, with the Navy assuming financial responsibility for pre-reefing baseline
PCB level assessment of reef fish, sediments, the water column (Snyder et al. 2007),
and the FWC funding the post-deployment monitoring.
II (A) Sampling Additions to the Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan
There were an additional five primary sampling efforts implemented beyond the
requirements of the Tier 1 Monitoring Work Plan, reflecting a proactive, more
comprehensive stepped up sampling and monitoring effort. These included:
•
•
•
•
•
Collection and analysis of additional reef samples during sample rounds 3
and 4 from a nearby artificial reef site;
Collection and analysis of additional reef fish samples beyond the 30
minimum required;
Increase knowledge of fish movement at the Oriskany Reef via a mulitspecies tagging initiative of reef fish at the Oriskany;
Increase reef fish sampling frequency during years 3 and 4 to twice a year,
instead of the minimum annual requirement; and
Increase information about the the fish species composition and structural
changes of the Oriskany Reef through visual SCUBA and ROV assessments.
39 | P a g e
These additions were intended to 1) add a nearby site for a year to address FWC
and Florida Department of Health (FDOH) concerns about the possibility of
regionally elevated PCB levels in reef fishes on other large artificial reef structures,
particularly shoreward of the Oriskany Reef; 2) slightly increase numbers of fish
retained for analysis to attempt to capture under-represented invertivore (porgies,
gray triggerfish) and piscivore (grouper); 3) attempt to gain through a one-time
tagging effort, site fidelity information on targeted reef fish at the Oriskany Reef 4)
return to a twice a year sampling regime at the Oriskany Reef by adding back a
late/fall sampling effort and 5) conduct visual SCUBA assessments of the Oriskany
Reef community as it developed and assess changes in the physical condition of the
ship.
The US Navy models predicted the leaching behavior of PCBs aboard Ex-Oriskany
to follow an initial “pulse” release, and then diminish to a low-level steady state
within two years after deployment. At the time of planning the third fish collection
effort, FWC and ECMRD took the proactive measure of adding an additional fish
collection site to serve as a background check during Sampling Rounds #3 and #4.
The Florida Department of Health wanted to ensure that elevated PCB levels in
fish tissue weren’t typical of other area artificial reef fish communities. Thus, the
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef #1 (PBFBR#1) was selected for similar fish
collection and analysis to provide an indication of “background” PCB concentrations
in reef fish on an artificial reef in the north central Gulf of Mexico on the same days
the Oriskany Reef was sampled. PBFBR#1 was constructed during the same year as
the creation of the Oriskany Reef (17 loads completed in December of 2006).
PBFBR#1 was located about eight nautical miles to the northwest and inshore of
the Oriskany Reef in about 84 feet of water (see EELAARS Area Map, Figure 3).
The PBFBR#1 Reef was constructed from approximately 8,140 tons of steel
reinforced concrete bridge rubble from the demolition of the Pensacola Bay Fishing
Bridge across Pensacola Bay connecting Gulf Breeze to Pensacola. After two
sampling rounds at PBFBR#1, conducted on February 3, 2008 and April 29, 2008,
the EPA recommended that FWC and Escambia County drop PBFBR#1 and use
remaining limited funding resources to focus exclusively on the Oriskany Reef as
the Monitoring Work plan originally required (Personal communication with Dr.
Roland Ferry, EPA Region 4).
Target reef fish sampling numbers were pro-actively increased from 30 to 35 reef
fish samples retained for PCB analysis in Sampling Round #7 and from 30 to 39 in
Sampling Round #8 in an effort to procure under represented invertivore (red
porgies, whitebone porgies, gray triggerfish) and piscivore (groupers) while still
40 | P a g e
harvesting at least 15 legal size red snappers and other targeted reef fish such as
vermilion snappers as they were encountered.
Following procurement of the 30 fish quota for analysis, during Sampling Round #5
(April 21, 2008) FWC staff worked with staff from the University of West Florida to
tag 199 additional reef fish at the Oriskany Reef to look at reef fish site fidelity
particularly for red snapper and confirm recreational harvest activity at the site
and its relative intensity at the Oriskany Reef.
Proactively the project returned to a twice a year sampling program beginning with
Sampling Round #6. The Monitoring Work Plan called for dropping back to once a
year (spring) sampling after two years of twice a year sampling and continuing with
once a year spring sampling through year five. Concerns about PCB levels above
EPA screening levels in some analyzed fish prompted the sampling twice a year
again (adding back a fall/winter sample event) after initially dropping one fall 2008
sampling event. Additionally, PCB variations among individual specimens of the
same species were continued as well as having individual fish analyzed for all 209
PCB congeners and 10 chlorination homologs as opposed to dropping to composites
for total PCB concentrations alone as suggested as an option in the Monitoring
Work Plan.
FWC staff conducted ten visual SCUBA dive assessments from May 2006-November
2009 to visually document the reef fish community and note physical changes in the
condition of the Oriskany Reef (Table 1).
II (A) (1) Visual Monitoring on the Oriskany Reef
This section provides a general characterization of changes in physical condition of
the Oriskany reef and resident fish populations observed from the flight deck to the
top of the island superstructure of the Oriskany Reef. Observations were made by
the FWC Division of Marine Fisheries Management (DMFM) during dive
assessments performed on the vessel since it was deployed on May 17, 2006. The
FWC dive assessment team performed 10 dives on the Oriskany with various
objectives between 2006 and 2009 (Table 1). Due to FWC dive protocol depth
limitations, all FWC assessment dives were conducted shallower than 140 feet. All
fish surveys were therefore limited to the water column above the flight deck,
currently at 145 feet adjacent to the ship’s superstructure or “island” and the island
itself. The uppermost structure at the top of the island portion of the ship is now at
77 feet so all FWC assessments were taken between the depths of 77 to 136 feet.
The ambient sea floor at the Oriskany site is 212 feet deep; however as of March
41 | P a g e
2011 the stern scour hole reaches a maximum depth of 220 feet (Bryan Clark,
personal communication).
II (A) (1) (a) Oriskany Reef Storm Damage Assessments
Two of these dive assessments were intended to confirm possible damage or depth
and orientation changes to the ship from major storms. On August 31, 2008,
Hurricane Gustav, a Category 3 hurricane with 115 mph (185 km/h) winds passed
offshore of the Oriskany and made landfall in Louisiana, sending large swells and
tides into the Pensacola area. The first dive reports to FWC provided by local divers
following the storm indicated that the Oriskany Reef had settled into the sediments.
The Oriskany Reef had a greater navigational clearance than before and had a
slight list of about 5° to starboard (MBT Dive and Surf shop web site). On October
16, 2008 FWC divers made a dive on the Oriskany to conduct an annual fish census,
confirm the change in navigational clearance, and check for structural damage.
Based on dive computer depth measurements, FWC divers concluded the ship had
subsided to an additional depth of about 10 to 11 feet depending on where the
measurements were taken the navigational clearance above the very top of the
island increased to 77 feet from the original 68 feet as measured one day after
deployment (Horn and Mille, 2006). The flight deck measured 145 feet deep
adjacent to the island instead of 135 feet as measured the day after sinking.
Overall the ship had settled about 10 feet deeper into the sediments, but no
additional damage was noted.
On November 10, 2009, tropical storm Ida made landfall in Alabama very near
Pensacola. The storm had attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane
with winds of 105 mph (165 km/h) as it moved over the Gulf before being
downgraded to a tropical storm upon land fall. Waves 17 to 20 feet were
documented at the offshore NOAA data buoys during the storm. The first local dive
reports following the storm event reported that there was structural damage to the
island portion of the ship (Jim Phillips, personal communication, 2009). On
November 19, 2009, FWC divers confirmed that up to 1000 square feet of the thin
sheet metal covering of both sides of the ship’s smokestack had become detached
(Horn and Mille, 2009). The metal had become disassociated from that portion of
the ship’s island which covered the funnels leading to the smokestack. The port side
sheet metal ripped away had fallen onto the flight deck at the base of the port side
of the island. The collapse of the exterior sheet metal resulted in a vertical opening
measuring 10 ft wide by 50 ft tall on both sides of the smokestack, but did not result
in major structural damage to the ship (Figure 6). The new east-to-west “swim
through” opening penetrating all the way through the smokestack has increased
complexity around the island. The opening also made the ship a better dive
42 | P a g e
attraction as expressed by an increased interest among recreational divers (Jim
Phillips, MBT Divers, Pensacola, Florida, personal communication, 2009).
These two storm events were the only two major weather events occurring near the
Oriskany between December 2006 and November 2010. Despite the fact that these
storms did not move directly over Oriskany Reef powerful wave and current forces
were strong enough to structural damage to the island and move sediment around
the base of the ship’s hull causing it to settle into the sediment. It is possible that
any PCBs leaching out of shipboard materials, adsorbed to detritus or sediments
may have been re-suspended and moved.
Figure 6. Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef after Tropical
Storm Ida. Outlined area in pre-sink photo (left) delineates subsequent stormdamaged area of Oriskany Reef (right).
II (A) (1) (b) FWC Dive Assessment Fish Survey Data
Typically during an FWC reef assessment dive one diver of the buddy pair will
concentrate on the fish census collection while the other diver focuses on the
permanent recording of the dive with either video or still photography. When more
than one set of fish census data was collected on a dive the data was pooled. The
FWC scientific divers frequently utilize the Roving Diver method of fish census.
The Roving Diver method best accommodates assessment dives that are usually
single dives on a particular reef on any given day and multi-objective in nature.
43 | P a g e
The Roving Diver fish census method (Schmitt and Sullivan, 1996) involves
individual divers freely swimming around a reef structure limited only by safe
bottom times and depths; recording fish species observed on pre-printed and
standardized water proof paper (Appendix 2). For each species positively identified,
a relative abundance level is assigned based on the estimated number of individuals
of that species observed. The four relative abundance levels are: 1) ‘S’ is single- one
individual observed; 2) ‘F’ or Few, for 2 to 10 individuals; 3) ‘M’ for many, from 11 to
100 individuals; and 4) ‘A’ for Abundant- more than 100 individuals of that species
observed. This method allows the divers to freely roam all areas of the reef (within
safe diving standards) and cover the greatest area of the reef to be observed.
Compared to other fish census methods conducted on large structures or across
large areas, this method usually results in a higher species list per survey than
other methods. However, no total abundance or size estimates are generated, so
biomass per unit reef area calculations cannot be performed with these data.
Visual assessment dives were completed on the following dates: August 3, 2006, two
dives (Dive #1-16 fish species observed and Dive #2- 22 fish species recorded),
September 28, 2006 -27 fish species noted;, June 23, 2007, two dives (Dive #133fish species and Dive #2-38 species observed; October 16, 2008 (11 species) and
November 19,2009 (21 fish species). Another dive was completed one day after
sinking, on May 18, 2006, but only three fish species were noted (round scad,
seaweed blenny and pinfish) so it is not included in these analysis. Completed field
reports are available for the dives on May 18, 2006 (Horn and Mille, 2006a), August
3, 2006 (Horn et al., 2006), September 28, 2006 (Horn and Mille, 2006b), June 23,
2007 (Horn, 2007), and November 19, 2009 (Horn and Mille, 2009). Table 1 below
summarizes the FWC Oriskany dive assessment information.
Table 1. FWC dive assessments completed on the Oriskany Reef.
Bottom
Time
Estimated
Visibility
5/18/2006
5/18/2006
7
36
80
80
8/3/2006
41
90
8/3/2006
9/28/2006
9/28/2006
6/23/2007
6/23/2007
10/16/2008
11/19/2009
33
42
37
40
35
46
39
90
80
80
60
60
50
80
Date
44 | P a g e
FWC Divers
B. Horn, K.Mille
B. Horn, K.Mille
B. Horn, K.Mille,
J Dodrill
B. Horn, K.Mille,
J Dodrill
B. Horn, K.Mille
B. Horn, K.Mille
B. Horn
B. Horn
B. Horn, K.Mille
B. Horn, K.Mille
Max Depth
Fish
Census
Video
Still Photo
(Hi Res)
Field
report
76
135
n/a
n/a
yes
yes
yes
yes
n/a
yes
136
yes
yes
yes
n/a
100
116
117
136
109
121
125
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
n/a
yes
n/a
yes
draft
yes
Of these 10 reef assessment dives, seven “Roving Diver” fish counts were conducted
by FWC divers for use in this report.
Table 2 (Appendix 1) lists a total of 53 species from all FWC Oriskany Reef dive
surveys combined, sorted by percent (%) sighting frequency and density. The
percent sighting frequency (%SF) parameter is defined in the paper “Surveying
Coral Reef Fishes: A Manual for Data Collection, Processing and Interpretation of
Fish Survey Information for the Tropical Northwest Atlantic (Schmitt et al.,
1998). The %SF is the number of surveys in which a species (at least one
individual) was observed on a dive, divided by the total number of survey dives on
the Oriskany (seven), expressed in percent. Thus for each species, %SF is calculated
as:
%Sighting Frequency= S + F + M +A / Total number of Surveys
Where S equals the total number of sightings in the Single category, F equals the
total number of sighing in the few category, M equals the total number of sightings
in the many category, and an A equals the total number of sightings in the
Abundant Category. For instance, red snapper was observed on all 7 dives on the
Oriskany for a 100% score, while the gray triggerfish was on seen on only one dive
for a 14.29% sighting frequency score. This is an index of how common a species is
on the reef, not how abundant a species is on the reef.
Table 3 (Appendix 1) lists these same 53 species but sorted by density. Density is
defined as a measure of how many individuals of a particular species were observed
when the species was present on a survey dive. It is calculated as:
Density = (S*1) + (F*2) + (M*3) + (A*4) / # of surveys in which species was
observed
Density is a measure of relative abundance. For each species present this method
measures approximately how many individuals of the species were observed on a
relative scale of from 1 to 4. For the seven Oriskany fish surveys, the blue runner
had the highest density of individuals but was only seen on three of the seven dives.
Vermilion snapper was second on this density list with a score of 3.57 and red
snapper was fourth with a score of 3.00, however, both of these species were
observed on 100% (7 of 7) of the dives.
There were only five species of fish caught on PCB sampling trips by hook-and-line
or in the chevron traps that were not observed in water by the FWC divers. They
were a little tunny, a red grouper, a snowy grouper (juvenile), six whitebone porgies
45 | P a g e
all taken by hook and line. Also, an unidentified species of hake (Urophyces sp.)
was caught in a chevron trap during sample round #1. The little tunny would have
been a transient pelagic and the other four species would typically have been on or
near the seafloor and beyond operational observational depth limits of the FWC
divers.
There have been several technical divers not affiliated with FWC who have reported
additional species from areas of the Oriskany Reef. These specimens were
documented at depths greater than 140 feet that are not accessible to FWC because
the depths exceeded FWC dive standard depth limitations. These areas were from
below the flight deck (below 140 feet) and in interior overhead environments.
Additional fish species observed were: Goliath grouper (Stanton, personal
communication, 2007), two spot cardinal fish, several unidentified carcharhinid
sharks, and a speckled hind (Bartel, personal communication, 2008).
II (A) (2) Nearby Site #1 Site Assessment
On November 19, 2009, FWC divers conducted a dive assessment on both the
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1 Reef (aged 2.92 years) and the Oriskany Reef
(aged 3.51 years). Table 4 (Appendix I) lists the fish species observed on the
Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge #1, a reef sampled for 61 reef fish specimens for PCB
analysis during sampling rounds #3 (February 2008) and #4 (April 2008) and which
served as an artificial reef reference site for the Oriskany Reef monitoring project.
Located in 84-85 feet of water, the reef is located approximately 8.2 nautical miles
at bearing of 290° NW from the Oriskany Reef. The Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge
#1 Reef was deployed from January 19, 2006 to December 18, 2006 and consisted of
17 loads and a total of 8,140 tons of concrete pilings, decking, and railings from a
damaged highway bridge (US-98) formerly spanning Pensacola Bay from Pensacola
to the City of Gulf Breeze. This reef covers about 2 acres of bottom and has a
maximum vertical relief of 16 feet.
Of the 28 species observed by FWC divers during the assessment of the bridge reef,
12 species were not observed on the Oriskany Reef on that day. However, only two
of those 12 species would be considered target species for anglers, the red grouper
and lane snapper. A red grouper was eventually caught on the Oriskany Reef
during sample round #8, however has not yet been analyzed for PCB
concentrations. Lane snapper, the species on the lowest priority Monitoring Work
Plan targeted reef fish list were neither seen nor caught during the first eight
sampling rounds on the Oriskany Reef The difference between species observed
could be expected as a result of the ability to assess the sand bottom interface at the
concrete reef due to the shallower 84 foot depth as opposed to the Oriskany Reef
46 | P a g e
assessments which were limited to the extensive vertical structure of the Oriskany
Reef island jutting high in the water column and located more than 74 feet above
the seafloor. Due to its comparable age, relatively large size and surface area and
proximity to the Oriskany Reef, in the EELAARS, the Pensacola Bay Fishing
Bridge #1 Reef served as a nearby reference reef for the PCB sampling during two
sampling rounds as well as a post Tropical Storm Ida assessment dive location
(Horn and Mille, 2009).
II (A) (3) University of West Florida Underwater Video Fish Surveys
To broaden the list of documented general fish populations in the Escambia East
Large Area Reef Site (EELAARS) in the general vicinity of the Oriskany Reef we
have included reef fish underwater observational information collected over a four
year period (2004 to 2008) by the University of West Florida (UWF) under the
direction of Dr. William Patterson, III. Funded by FWC, Dr. Patterson and his
team have published several papers based on the data collected on these reefs
(Patterson 2008) and (Patterson 2009). Located 9.6 nautical miles west northwest
of the Oriskany Reef, the reefs monitored by Dr. Patterson are small concrete or
concrete and steel module reefs placed inside the EELAARS in 2003. Dr.
Patterson’s team has been monitoring 27 of these patch reefs between depths of 102
to 115 feet of water near the western center of the EELAARS site. These 27 patch
reefs are one of three different types of structures: 1) A single “Walter Florida
Special” unit consisting of steel lattice panels connected to a concrete tetrahedron
frame about ten feet on a side 2) a pair of hollow four sided concrete pyramid
shaped “Fish Haven” units with a smaller Fish Haven inserted inside of each and 3)
a pair of igloo shaped hollow concrete “Goliath Reef Balls” whose exterior surface is
penetrated by multiple holes from 6-10 inches in diameter.
When deployed by the FWC in 2003 these reef locations were not advertised to the
public in order to allow researchers to determine if these reefs could serve as refugia
reefs receiving lesser fishing pressure, even though they were placed in an area not
closed to recreational fishing. While the locations were unpublished, small, widely
scattered they were still subject to direct public fishing if discovered by anglers.
Nine formerly unpublished refugia reef locations were eventually advertised to the
public for fishing in 2007 and evaluated for impacts of directed recreational fishing
that could be compared with pre-publication observations and with the remaining
unpublished reef sites.
Dr. Patterson’s team utilized a Remote Operating Vehicle (ROV) with video camera
capabilities to conduct a standardized point census fish assessment of these reefs
quarterly for 4 years and conducted a total of 432 ROV point count surveys on these
47 | P a g e
reefs from fall of 1004 to summer of 2008. The point census methodology utilizes a
fixed time and area approach that allows both total counts of the species present
along with sizes estimates, using dual laser pointers set a fixed distance apart on
the camera. From the video analysis it was possible to get both species abundance,
size estimate for each species and biomass data. These data are taken from Table
#4, on pages 25-26 in Patterson (2009).
Table 5 and Table 6 (Appendix 1) list the 98 species of fish documented by the
University of West Florida’s team for the four year period of the FWC funded
EELLAARS refugia reef module evaluation project (Patterson 2009).
Table 5 (Appendix 1) presents the fish species observed by Patterson sorted by
percent number (the taxa-specific percentage of total individuals observed among
all sampling events). Numerical ranking of individual species is only capable
through the first 61 species listed since the biomass for the remainder of the last 37
species all had percent biomass values of <0.01 percent.
Red snapper was the most abundant species observed in 25.6% of the fish 432
surveys completed by Patterson from fall of 2004 though summer of 2008. Eight of
the nine species sampled for PCBs were in the top 25 most abundant species
observed. Whitebone porgy is the exception, being only observed in less than 0.01
percent of the total fish numbers. Most of the additional species listed in the top 25
in Table 5 (Appendix 1) are not considered target species for anglers, with perhaps
the exception of lane snapper (ranked 15th) and this species was targeted for PCB
sampling but none were collected and none were observed on the Oriskany Reef.
Table 6 (Appendix 1) lists the fish species observed by Patterson sorted by percent
biomass (the taxa-specific percentage of total biomass estimated among all
sampling events). Numerical ranking of individual species is only valid through the
first 61 species listed since the biomass for the remainder of the last 37 species all
had percent biomass values of <0.01 percent.
Red snapper had the highest biomass of any other species by far, contributing 42.9%
of the total biomass on these reefs. The next highest species for biomass percent is
the greater amberjack, a pelagic, non-resident species, at only 6.83% percent of the
total biomass. At these small modular reefs the red snapper was the most commonly
observed fish and the species with the highest biomass according to the data
provided by Dr. Patterson. Eight of the nine species sampled for PCBs were in the
top 16 species with the highest biomass on the EELAARS refugia reef sites.
Whitebone porgy is again the exception, present on these reefs at less than 0.01
percent of the total biomass. Most of the additional species listed in the top 20 are
48 | P a g e
not considered target species for anglers, with the exception of lane snapper which
was ranked 17th in biomass percent. Lane snapper are targeted by anglers and this
species was a PCB sampling possibility. However no lane snapper were collected
and none were observed during our sample rounds 1-8 on the Oriskany Reef.
In addition to these two fish survey data sets, the Reef Environmental Education
Foundation’s (REEF) fish census database was queried for the Oriskany Reef,
REEF Geographic code 21010060 (REEF 2011). There were no expert rated
observer fish census reports to REEF for the Oriskany Reef from the time of its May
17, 2006 creation through March 16, 2011. Reports submitted to REEF from the
Oriskany Reef were by individuals rated as novice fish identification observers and
their results were not used in this paper. Perhaps in the future, through outreach
and education with the local dive shops, recreational diver awareness and fish
identification could be improved for submittal of volunteer fish census reports to
REEF for the Oriskany Reef.
II (A) (3) (a) Comparison of the FWC and UWF Fish Census Data Sets
Although the two data sets, the FWC scuba Roving Diver census data and the UWF
Point Census by ROV data are not directly comparable due to different visual
sampling methods, each data set can be sorted for selected parameters and a basic
numerical rank can be assigned for each species based on that species’ contribution
to the entire species lists. Table 7 lists the numerical rank for all nine species
sampled for PCBs for each of the 4 parameters of the two sets of fish survey data
For instance, gag grouper has a rank of #4 for Percent Biomass from the UWF data
(due to a few large sized individuals), however it only has a rank #15 on the FWC
%sighting frequency list, due to it being observed on fewer surveys on the Oriskany
Reef.
From a review of Table 7 below, it is clear that the first two species, red snapper
and vermilion snapper, are the most common and abundant of these target species
sampled for PCBs in the region. Both species are listed in the top five rankings
across all four lists as indicated in Table 7 below. Another consistent observation
between the two surveys is that the whitebone porgy is not a very common or
abundant species observed in the region. Whitebone porgy was not observed on the
Oriskany surveys and only observed at less than 0.01% of the surveys on the UWF
modules. There are no obvious trends for the other six species of fish that have been
sampled for PCBs during this project regarding abundance or density parameters.
49 | P a g e
Table 7. Comparison of the ranking of the nine fish species targeted for PCB
sampling observed during the FWC and UWF visual fish census surveys.
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Sightings
Frequency (FWC-53
species total)
%No.
(UWF-98
species total)
Density
(FWC-53 species
total)
% Biomass
(UWF-98 species
total)
No. of
samples
red snapper
Lutjanus campechanus
#2
#1
#4
#1
256
vermilion snapper
Rhomboplites aurorubens
#1
#5
#2
#5
53
red porgy
Pagrus pagrus
#30
#14
#8
16
whitebone porgy
Calamus leucosteus
not observed
>#61*
not observed
#16
>#61
**
gag grouper
Mycteroperca microlepis
#15
#18
#38
#4
4
scamp
Mycteroperca phenax
#6
#23
#14
#15
4
gray triggerfish
Balistes capriscus
#44
#9
#33
#3
3
gray snapper
Lutjanus griseus
#23
#11
#7
#6
1
red grouper
Epinephelus morio
not observed
#24
not observed
#10
1
* tied with 36
other species at
<0.01%
6
** tied with 36
other species at
<0.01%
II (A) (4) Oriskany Reef Post Deepwater Horizon Oil spill Dive Reconnaissance
On August 15, 2010, FWC Florida Marine Research Institute (FWRI) scientist, Dr.
David Palandro, the agency’s chief technical scientist coordinating the FWC
response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill made a reconnaissance dive on the
Oriskany Reef with the support of six other technical divers. The dive objective was
to look for any gross physical impacts from oil product generated by British
Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill (April 22-July 15, 2010). The leaking well
head was 105.7 nautical miles southwest of the Oriskany Reef. Although weathered
oil that summer passed over or near the Oriskany Reef and eventually affected the
coastal shoreline beaches off Alabama and Escambia County, Florida as it washed
ashore, Dr. Palandro, in a limited one day visual survey, found no visual evidence of
oil product on the Oriskany Reef. He also noted nothing unusual about the reef’ fish
or invertebrate community (Dr. David Palandro, personal communication). These
observations of no visual oil impacts were also confirmed by Project co-Manager,
Robert Turpin, during a post-spill summer 2010 Oriskany Reef evaluation (Robert
Turpin, personal communication).
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill triggered extensive multi-state fish and shell fish
taste, smell, and chemical analysis which continue as of March 2011. Thousands of
fish and shellfish specimens from Louisiana to NW Florida have been tested for
petroleum product contamination. The primary chemical contaminants of concern
were poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of which very few offshore fish samples
50 | P a g e
have had any PAH levels approaching human health screening levels to date. PCBs
were not considered a concern since they were not a chemical compound in oil
coming up from 18,000 feet below the seafloor and released from the leaking wellhead. Consequently seafood has not been tested for PCBs during this ongoing post
oil spill seafood safety sampling and testing effort.
II (B) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project - overview
During Sampling Round #5 (April 2009) at the Oriskany reef, the FWC staff
conducted a pilot tagging program resulting in a one day mid-morning to late
afternoon tagging and release of 199 reef fish. This effort took advantage of
technical assistance from the University of West Florida (UWF) Department of
Biology personnel since they were already managing an existing FWC funded tag
and recapture study of reef fish tagged at concrete artificial reef modules within the
EELAARS (Patterson, 2009). Fish not retained for PCB analysis during Sampling
Round #5 were tagged and released. During the four previous Sampling Rounds #14, fish that were not kept for analysis (e.g., undersized fish or non-target species)
were measured and released without being tagged. No additional tagging was
conducted during Sampling Rounds #6-8.
The purpose of this pilot project was to confirm that recreational hook-and-line
fishers were targeting reef fish on the Oriskany Reef and that recreational fishers
were landing the primary species being analyzed for PCBs. A secondary interest
was to estimate fishing pressure, exerted particularly during the red snapper
season, and to get some sense of reef fish site fidelity on the reef particularly for the
primarily target red snapper and the second most commonly caught fish, vermilion
snapper. One hundred ninety-nine reef fish were tagged and released. This project
is described and discussed, below.
II (B) (1) Oriskany Reef Pilot Tagging Project- Methods
The methods described by Patterson et al. (2009) were used during this tag and
release study. The exception was that on this trip, hook-and-line fishing was
conducted using two-hook non-offset circle hook bottom rigs as required by
regulation as opposed to J-hooks used by the University of West Florida in their
collection efforts. Squid and cut fish were utilized for bait. Fish were brought to
the surface at an approximate rate of 1 meter per second. Fish were removed from
the hooks with the required de-hooking device and placed in large (approximately
500 gallon) bait well with flowing seawater prior to tagging. Fork length (FL) and
51 | P a g e
total length (TL) measurements were taken and fish were tagged with Floy 95M
internal anchor tags, and returned overboard. Fish were vented if there were
visible signs of barotraumas.
The 80 mm long orange “spaghetti” strand external portion of each tag was marked
with “UWF” (University of West Florida) followed by the number identifying the
fish. Also on the external portion of the tag was printed “Reward, UWF Reef Fish,
Toll Free 1-877-347-4824” to report tag recoveries. The green 5 mm wide x 16 mm
long elliptical hard plastic internal anchor portion of the tag had printed on one side
“TOLL FREE 1-877-347-4824” and on the opposite side REWARD UWF followed by
the tag number. The tagging study was widely advertised by UWF among
recreational and commercial fishing groups to encourage reporting of tag recoveries.
Fishermen who reported tags received a $5 reward per tag and were entered into a
$500 annual drawing of all tag returners.
Tagged fish were observed following their release to determine their approximate
release condition (condition 1-4). Condition 1 was assigned to fish that immediately
swam vigorously beneath the surface towards the bottom, release condition 2 was
assigned to fish that oriented toward the bottom but swam erratically, condition 3
was assigned to fish that swam very erratically but remained at the surface, and
condition 4 was assigned to fish that were unresponsive at the surface and were
presumed dead or near death.
II (B) (2) Pilot Tagging Project - Results
A total of 199 reef fish from the Oriskany Reef were tagged and released on April
21, 2009 (Table 8). Red snapper (n=113) represented the highest percentage
(56.8%) of the 199 total fish tagged, followed by vermilion snapper (n=69, 34.7%),
greater amberjack (n=7, 3.5%), red porgy (n=7, 3.5%), scamp (n=2, 1%), and gag
(n=1, 0.5%).
Of the 113 tagged red snapper, 82 (72.6%) were released in condition 1, fourteen
(12.4%) were initially released in condition 2, ten (8.8%) were released in condition
3, and seven (6.2%) were released in condition 4. Of the 14 recaptured red snapper,
nine (64.3%) were released in condition 1, three (21.4%) were released in condition
2, none were recovered in release condition 3, and two (14.2%) were released in
condition 4.
Twelve of the fourteen red snapper recaptured (85.7%) were recaptured at the
Oriskany Reef (Table 8a). The two red snapper not recaptured at the Oriskany
consisted of one recapture at the ‘Antares Reef’ located 6.8 nm southwest of the
52 | P a g e
Oriskany, and one recapture at a ‘private reef’ reported at coordinates located 800
feet southeast of the Oriskany. The Antares Reef is a 387 ft. steel coastal freighter
deployed on September 27, 1995 at a depth of 130 ft. The Antares’s hull was broken
into three pieces by Hurricane Opal several weeks after deployment. The
composition of the private reef was not described when the recapture was reported.
Table 8a lists the recaptures in order of recapture date. Of the seventeen
recaptures reported between the period of April 21 through March 28, 2011,
fourteen (82.4%) of those recaptures occurred within the first 20 days of the opening
of the 2009 recreational red snapper fishing season (June 1, 2009 through August
14, 2009 (75 day duration)).
Red snapper length measured at recapture, as reported by the public and as
reported by FWC (Table 8a), was compared to the red snapper length expected at
recapture.
Red snapper expected length at recapture was determined by
multiplying the number of days at liberty by a growth rate of 0.2577 mm/day (mean
Red snapper growth rate reported by Strelcheck 1998) and adding the length at
release. Comparing the red snapper length measured by the public at recapture to
the length expected at recapture (n=14) showed that 29% measured as expected
(i.e., within the range expected using the Strelcheck 1998 red snapper growth rate),
50% measured less than expected, 14% measured greater than expected, and 7%
were unreported. The single red snapper measured by FWC at recapture (n=1)
measured as expected.
II (B) (3) Pilot Tagging Project – Discussion
The results of this preliminary tag and recapture study at the Oriskany Reef
documented a reported recapture rate of 8.5% across all species and a recapture
rate of 12.4% for red snapper. The 12.4% red snapper recapture rate of this study is
greater than the 7.8% red snapper recapture rate reported by Patterson et al. (2009)
at other artificial reef locations within the same region.
Release mortality might be expected to be further improved in future studies
provided volunteer fishermen and the charter boat crew were to take additional
precautions to increase survival rate such as slowed rate of ascent during fish
retrieval via hook & line, improved handling techniques, additional tagging
manpower to keep up with the rate at which fish were boated, more efficient
venting, and limiting fishing to the shallower depths of the Oriskany (flight deck or
shallower). The depth of water at the Oriskany artificial reef site was likely the
most adverse factor influencing release survivorship during this sampling trip (212
feet to the sand, 147 feet to the flight deck, and 78 feet to the top of the island
53 | P a g e
superstructure). Due to the variable depth of the Oriskany Reef structure, it is not
known the depth of water that each fisherman was fishing, although it is likely the
majority of fish (especially red snapper) were caught between the depths of
approximately 140 and 200 feet.
Reported total length measurements to the nearest inch (25.4 mm) of snappers recaptured by recreational fishermen during the first 41-60 days post release did not
present the degree of precision necessary to effectively capture any useful
incremental size changes in total length during that time at large. There were five
reports of snappers caught shorter than when released and six reports of snappers
caught longer than when initially released. One lone red snapper recaptured
during that time frame was reported as measured to the nearest quarter inch (6.3
mm). The value reflected a 4 mm increase in total length, a value less than the 6.3
mm (quarter inch) precision level used. The two recaptured red snapper measured
to the nearest half inch, showed extreme variability. One red snapper measured to
the nearest half inch reflected a .55 inch (14 mm) total length increase. Another fish
measured to the nearest half inch showed a .63 inch (16 mm) decline in total
length.
The single red snapper, caught, tagged, measured and released by a researcher at
the Oriskany Reef, recaptured at the same location 211 days later and also
measured by a researcher reflected the most accurate total length change. The fish’s
fork length and total length (tail pinched closed) were measured both times to the
nearest mm on a fish measuring board. The red snapper grew from 535 mm TL to
593mm TL, a positive change of 58 mm (2.28 inches). This was an average daily
incremental total length growth increase of .27 mm/day, which is generally
consistent with the growth rate findings reported by Strelcheck 1998 (0.2577
mm/day). The observed growth rate of recaptured red snapper at the Oriskany
suggests that those red snapper remaining any length of time on the Oriskany were
increasing in size as a result of feeding activities taking place at or near the
Oriskany Reef. More detailed review of red snapper growth rates can be found in
Patterson et al 2001, Szedlmayer and Ship 1994, and Wilson and Nieland 2001.
The most important aspect of this study as it relates to the PCB analysis is the site
fidelity of red snapper and high level of recreational fishing pressure early in the
red snapper season. During this study, red snapper were documented to have a
high short-term site fidelity rate (83%, i.e., ten of the twelve red snapper
recaptures) within the initial seven month period after release. All but three red
snapper tag returns from Oriskany Reef tagged fish were from fish caught within
the first twenty days of the 75 day 2009 red snapper season (June 1 through August
14, 2009). Both vermilion snapper returns also occurred during the first 20 days of
54 | P a g e
red snapper season commencement. The single greater amberjack tag return at the
Oriskany occurred two days before the opening of the red snapper season
Site fidelity and survival of recreationally targeted fish species at the Oriskany Reef
may have some influence on the period of exposure of fish to the presence of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). However, potential long term PCB exposure of
fish at the Oriskany Reef due to high site fidelity at least at the level of weeks or
months may be offset by high fishing mortality where recreationally targeted reef
fish immigrating to the reef are removed by fishing and/or do not survive long
enough to experience long term PCB exposure.
The two vermilion snapper caught out of 69 vermilion snapper tagged reflects a low
2.8% tag return rate. Other tagging studies have indicated similarly low recovery
rates in contrast to red snapper and suggested that vermilion snapper, a species,
normally feeding and moving up in the water column, does not fare as well on the
bottom as red snapper while waiting for a ruptured swim bladder to heal. As a
result vermilion snapper may be subject to greater mortality from predators and
difficulty feeding as a zooplanktivore.
The one greater amberjack tag return also suggests at least some short term (days,
a few weeks) site specific reef presence, though the species is generally considered a
seasonal reef transient. Review of greater amberjack tag and recapture data from
1959-1995 (13,856 tagged fish) found that 92.7% of Gulf of Mexico greater
amberjack traveled less than 100 miles, with a maximum movement of up to 3,600
nm reported (McClellen and Cummings, 1997).
55 | P a g e
Table 8. List of reef fish species tagged (n=199) at the Oriskany Artificial Reef on
April 21, 2009, and recaptured through March 28, 2011. Lengths are total length for
all species except Greater Amberjack, for which fork length is reported. SD =
standard deviation.
Species
Common
name
Number
Tagged
Mean length
at Tagging
(SD)
Reported
recaptures (%
of total
tagged)
Recaptures at
Oriskany Reef
Mean days
free among all
recaptures
(SD)
Lutjanus
campechanus
Red
Snapper
113
467.1 (61.4)
14 (12.4%)
12 (85.7%)
111.1 (139.1)
Rhomboplites
aurorubens
Vermilion
Snapper
69
412.4 (38.6)
2 (2.8%)
2 (100%)
50.5 (13.4)
Seriola
dumerili
Greater
Amberjack
7
719.9 (45.7)
1 (14.2%)
1 (100%)
38 (na)
Pagrus pagrus
Red Porgy
7
386.4 (26.6)
0
0
na
Mycteroperca
phenax
Scamp
2
390 (28.3)
0
0
na
Mycteroperca
microlepis
Gag
1
544 (na)
0
0
na
17 (8.5%)
13 (86.67%)
99.6 (128.9)
Total
56 | P a g e
199
Table 8a. List of reef fish species recaptured through March 28, 2011 (in order of recapture date).
Species
Date Tagged
Date
Recaptured
Recap
by
Time
Free
(days)
Rel
Cond
(1-4)
Length
Tagged,
FL (mm)
Length
Tagged,
TL (mm)
Length
Recap.
(inches)
Length
Recap.
(mm)
AJ
4/21/2009
5/29/2009
Public
38
1
732
848
unknown
unknown
RS
4/21/2009
6/1/2009
Public
41
1
429
464
21
533
VS
4/21/2009
6/1/2009
Public
41
1
495
545
unknown
unknown
Red
Snapper
Length
(TL)
Expected
(.2577
mm/day)
Red Snapper
Length
Discrepancy
(Recaptured Expected) (mm)
Length
Discrep.
Recapture
Location
Dist
Bearing
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Oriskany
0
474.48
58.5
greater than
Antares reef
6.8 nm
251 deg
n/a
n/a
n/a
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/7/2009
Public
47
2
473
511
19.5
495
523.02
-28.0
less than
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/7/2009
Public
47
1
409
441
17.25
445
453.02
-8.0
as expected
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/10/2009
Public
50
1
535
578
21
533
590.79
-57.8
less than
Oriskany
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/11/2009
Public
51
2
496
538
unknown
unknown
551.04
unknown
unknown
private reef
0
0.132
nm
RS
4/21/2009
6/12/2009
Public
52
1
390
427
17
432
440.3
-8.3
as expected
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/14/2009
Public
54
4
399
430
18
457
443.81
13.2
greater than
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/15/2009
Public
55
1
458
492
18-19
457
506.06
(-20.3 thru -46.3)
less than
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/15/2009
Public
55
1
510
545
18-19
457
559.06
(-73.3 thru -99.3)
less than
Oriskany
0
0
78 deg
RS
4/21/2009
6/15/2009
Public
55
1
455
495
19
483
509.06
-26.1
less than
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
6/20/2009
Public
60
4
465
507
20.5
521
522.34
-1.3
as expected
Oriskany
0
0
VS
4/21/2009
6/20/2009
Public
60
1
411
463
18
n/a
n/a
n/a
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
11/18/2009
FWC
211
1
493
535
n/a
458
593 mm
TL; 559
mm FL
588.95
4.0
as expected
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
12/10/2009
Public
233
2
630
680
28-30
737
690
-107
less than
Oriskany
0
0
RS
4/21/2009
10/17/2010
Public
544
1
499
539
27.5
699
639
-60
less than
Oriskany
0
0
57 | P a g e
II (C). Overview of the First Eight Rounds of Oriskany Reef Sampling and Two Rounds of
Nearby Reef Site Sampling.
From December 14, 2006 to November 18, 2010, FWC and ECMRD personnel made
eight offshore reef fish sampling trips to the Oriskany Reef. FWC generated
individual field reports documenting the activities and outcome of each of the first
eight field sampling rounds including the two control reef sampling efforts. These
reports are available upon request but are not included with this status report. A
Sampling Round summary for events 1-8 appears as Table 10.
Table 10. List of the sampling platform, gear, location(s), and number of fish
retained for each sampling date.
Sampling
Date
Days After
Oriskany Reef
Deployment
Sampling
Platform
Sampling
Gear
Sampling
Location(s)
No. Fish
Retained
1
12/14/2006
Day 211
F/V Margie Ann
Chevron Trap
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
30
2
4/12/2007
Day 330
M/V JJ Brown
Chevron Trap
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
29
Oriskany Reef
31
Control Reef
(PBFB Reef #1)
30
Oriskany Reef
30
Control Reef
(PBFB Reef #1)
31
3
4
2/3/2008
4/29/2008
Day 627
Day 713
F/V Chulamar
F/V Chulamar
Hook and Line
Hook and Line
5
4/21/2009
Day 1070
F/V Entertainer
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
30
6
11/18/2009
Day 1281
F/V Entertainer
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
30
7
04/27/2010
Day 1441
F/V Entertainer
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
35
8
11/18/2010
Day 1646
F/V Entertainer
Hook and Line
Oriskany Reef
39
Harvested fish from the Oriskany Reef were retained for analysis during the course
of each of the eight one day daylight sampling efforts from a low of 29 to a high of 39
legal size recreationally targeted reef fish species for a total of 315 specimens
through November, 18, 2011. In addition to the 199 fish tagged and released at the
58 | P a g e
Oriskany Reef during Sampling Round #5 (April 21, 2009), an additional 128 fish
were discarded over the course of the first 8 sampling events (Table 9, Appendix 1).
The discards included sublegal target species, non target fish species, predator
damaged specimens, species caught immediately after the trip quota was reached,
or in the case of Sampling Round #8 (November 2010), specimens caught and
released while trying to reach the minimum 15 legal size red snapper quota (only 13
red snapper specimens secured) while not exceeding the expanded target quota of
39 specimens to be retained for PCB analysis.
Figure 7. Species composition of fish samples retained from the Oriskany Reef from
Sampling Rounds 1-8.
These eight sampling rounds resulted in a total of 315 legal size or “keeper” (where
no minimum size limit is established, e.g. red porgy in the Gulf of Mexico) reef fish
caught and retained for PCB analysis. Of the 315 fish retained, 254 fish were from
the Oriskany Reef, and 61 fish were from the nearby Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge
59 | P a g e
Reef. The 254 retained targeted reef fish from Sampling Rounds #1-8 from the
Oriskany Reef included: 184 (73%) red snapper, 42 (17%) vermilion snapper, 14
(5%) red porgy, 6 (2%) whitebone porgy, 4 (2%) scamp grouper, 2 (1%) gray
triggerfish, and 1 (0.4%) red grouper (Figure 7). Figure 7a – 7h provides the species
composition by sample date.
One fish sampling unknown faced was that the Oriskany Reef was initially sampled
as a relatively new artificial reef (seven months post-deployment). The rate of
invertebrate species colonization, fish recruitment and changes in reef community
structure over time and with seasons, sampling gear bias and the behavior of the
fish themselves affected the availability to capture of certain target species. Some
fish like gray snapper tend to be more hesitant to enter a trap (are “trap shy”) or
less aggressive in taking a baited hook than red snapper.
The above factors combined with the challenge of fishing a very large submerged
structure with considerable gear hang potential created a situation that could not
be predicted with certainty what the exact catch composition of the first 30 legal
size reef fish landed was going to be on any given sampling trip. As a result, over
the course of the project the sampling round catch composition was variable and
somewhat unpredictable, as illustrated in figure 7a-7h.
60 | P a g e
Species Composition of Oriskany Samples by Sample Date
(Rounds 1-8)
a. Sample Date 12/14/2006
b. Sample Date 4/12/2007
Red Snapper, N = 30
100%
Vermilion Snapper, N = 4
14%
Red Snapper, N = 21
72%
Red Porgy, N = 4
14%
c. Sample Date 2/3/2008
d. Sample Date 4/29/2008
Red Snapper, N = 31
100%
Red Snapper, N = 29
97%
Red Porgy, N = 1
3%
e. Sample Date 4/21/2009
Red Snapper, N = 29
97%
Scamp, N = 1
3%
g. Sample Date 4/27/2010
Vermilion Snapper, N=13
37%
Vermilion Snapper, N = 11
Red 37%
Snapper, N = 17
57%
Red Porgy, N=3
9%
Vermilion Snapper, N=14
36%
Red Snapper, N=13
33%
Figure 7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany samples by sample date.
61 | P a g e
Gray Triggerfish, N = 1
3%
Red Porgy, N = 1
3%
h. Sample Date 11/18/2010
Whitebo
ne Porgy, N=4
11%
Red Snapper, N=15
43%
f. Sample Date 11/18/2009
Scamp, N=3
8%
Whitebone Porgy, N=2
5%
Gray Triggerfish, N = 1
2%
Red Red Porgy, Grouper, N=5
N=1
13%
3%
During sample round four, 30 fish were retained during field operations, but a 409
mm TL red snapper, Oriskany Reef sample, OR-RS-57, was accidentally discarded
prior to laboratory shipment. ECMRD shipped a total of 315 whole frozen fish from
these Oriskany Reef sampling trips to Texas A and M University’s Geological and
Environmental Research Group (GERG analytical lab for PCB laboratory analysis.
Of these, 61 reef fish specimens caught at the 8,140 ton concrete bridge rubble
nearby reef #1 (Figure 3) on the same sampling day as Oriskany Reef Sampling
Rounds #3 (February 2008) and #4 (April 2008) were shipped to the same lab for
analysis. The reef fish analyzed from the nearby reef #1 included: 45 (74%) red
snapper, 8 (13%) vermilion snapper, 4 (6%) gag grouper, 4 (6%) gag grouper, 2 (2%)
red porgy, 1 (2%) gray triggerfish, 1 (2%) gray snapper (Figure 8).
Vermilion Snapper, N = 8
13%
Red Snapper, N = 45
74%
Gag Grouper, N = 4
6%
Gray Snapper, N = 1
2%
Gray Triggerfish, N = 1
Red Porgy, N = 2
2%
3%
Figure 8. Species composition of fish samples retained from the nearby reef site from
Sampling Rounds 3 and 4. PCB reef fish analysis results have been processed and received for the first seven
of eight sampling rounds and will be discussed below by individual target reef fish
species. Specimens collected through the first six sampling rounds (December 2006November 2009) have received some preliminary basic statistical analysis. The
seventh (April 2010) sampling results have been received, and are noted in this
report. The Sampling Round #8 (November 18, 2010) PCB laboratory analysis
results are expected to be received by FWC from the GERG laboratory by the end of
May 2011. ECMRD air-freighted on dry ice the frozen 39 Sampling Round #8 whole
reef fish specimens to the Texas A&M GERG analytical lab on February 1, 2011.
62 | P a g e
The GERG lab reported their receipt in good condition on February 2, 2011. On
March 15, 2011 the FWC Project-co Manager contacted GERG for an estimated
Sampling Round #8 PCB analysis completion date. GERG reported that the
samples were in the analysis queue with results to be provided to ECMRD and
FWC by May 31, 2011. Unfortunately this data won’t be available before the
scheduled April 2011 implementation of sampling Round #9. To minimize
turnaround time between sample collection and shipment, the Project co-Managers
will strive for a goal of no more than seven days between specimen sampling and
shipment to the analytical lab. Historically the typical turnaround time for sample
analysis results from GERG once they receive the fish specimens for analysis has
been 90-120 days.
II (D) Fisheries Management and Ecological Overview of Individual Oriskany Reef Sampled
Reef Fish Species and PCB Analysis Results and Discussion for Each Species.
The reef fish species whose skin-on lateral muscle fillets were analyzed for total
PCBs, all 209 individual congeners, homologue PCB concentration and percent
lipids are discussed by individual species beginning with the most numerous
harvested and analyzed reef fish first (red snapper) and continuing in descending
order.
We provide a brief management overview of each target species, including their
relative importance in the recreational fishery. We next discuss for each species life
history and ecology aspects, which include life cycle, age and growth, habitat
utilization, site fidelity, feeding habitats. Finally we provide the PCB analysis
results for each species, examine trends over the 8 Sampling Round monitoring
effort, compare with baseline pre deployment results of Snyder (2007) and nearby
reef site findings where relevant.
63 | P a g e
II (D) (1) Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus (Poey, 1860)
Red Snapper Results and Discussion
II (D) (1) (a) Red Snapper Fisheries Management Overview
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011:
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size TL,
SEASON: Open June 1 to July 23 (53 days)
BAG LIMIT: 2 fish per person per day
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)
SIZE: 16 inch minimum size TL,
SEASON: Open June 1 to (to be determined during summer 2011)
BAG LIMIT: 2 fish per person per day
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
Closed to possession or harvest
SEASON:
Closed to possession or harvest
BAG LIMIT: Closed to possession or harvest
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE: 20 inch minimum size TL,
SEASON: Open June 1 to July 23 (53 days)
BAG LIMIT: 2 fish per person per day
II (D) (1) (b) Red Snapper Life History/Biology Overview
Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) has long pectoral fins and a truncate caudal
fin. The first and second dorsal fins are continuous with a slight notch in between
the two and the anal fin tapers to a point posteriorly. The pectoral fins are long and
reach the anus when pressed against the body. They have a large head with small
red eyes and a somewhat pointed snout. The body and fins are pinkish red in color,
lightening to a white underside. At a size less than 14 inches (35 cm) red snapper
have a dark spot on the upper sides below the anterior soft dorsal rays – similar to a
number of other snappers. Although they may most closely resemble the blackfin
snapper (L. bucanella), the red snapper lacks the distinctive black spot found on the
64 | P a g e
pectoral fins of the blackfin snapper. Juvenile red snapper may also exhibit bluish
stripes on their sides (Florida Museum of Natural history, 2010).
Long triangular face with upper margin sloping more strongly than the lower; jaws
are equal or the lower slightly projecting; some enlarged canine teeth; tend to be
redder with deeper water (NMFS, 2010).
Dorsal spines (total): 10; Dorsal soft rays (total): 14; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 8
- 9. Scale rows on back rising obliquely above lateral line. Specimens under 30 to 35
cm with have large dark spot on the upper sides, located below the anterior soft
dorsal rays (Fish Base, 2010).
Length and Weight
Max length: 100.0 cm TL male/unsexed; common length: 60.0 cm TL male/unsexed;
Max. Published weight: 22.8 kg max. Reported age: 57 years (Fish Base, 2010).
Although red snapper exceeding 50 years of age and approaching a meter in length
and 50 pounds in weight have been documented, due to intense overfishing
spanning decades for this species, the larger and consequently older red snapper are
currently poorly represented in the Gulf of Mexico population.
The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) world rod-and-reel record was a
50 lbs 4 oz. specimen exceeding 1016 mm TL (40 inches) adjacent to an offshore
Louisiana oil platform June 23, 1996 (IGFA, 2010).
Most red snapper on small artificial reefs (< 5 cubic meters) off Alabama and NW
Florida are two and three year old fish (Strelcheck et al. 2005; Patterson,
unpublished data). Nieland and Wilson (2003) evaluated a random sample (n=300)
of red snapper killed during the explosive removal of an obsolete oil platform off
Louisiana and noted the majority of red snapper were age 2 (53%) and 3 year old
fish (37%) respectively with almost no (n=2) age 1 fish. Snyder et al. (2007) in presinking baseline monitoring prior to the sinking of the Oriskany Reef noted that the
red snapper specimens secured by hook-and-line were 2-5 years old based on otolith
aging.
The young age of these fish in relation to their potential lifespan on artificial reefs
could mean two things. Patterson (2007) thought it could be that thigmotaxis
(movement of an organism in response to a direct tactile stimulus) or the threat of
predation subsides with age and size; thus larger, older fish display lower site
fidelity and greater movement. Alternatively high fishing mortality rates at energy
platforms and artificial reefs may remove snapper very quickly from the population
65 | P a g e
once fish recruit to the commercial and recreational fisheries (Wilson and Nieland,
2001).
In the absence of funding to age fish during the Oriskany fish sampling study based
on otolith aging, we predicted that the red snapper we caught on the Oriskany Reef
were between 2 and 5 years of age based on von Bertalanffy growth models
developed by Nieland and Wilson (2001). The largest and smallest Oriskany Reef
red snapper specimens were collected from chevron fish traps during Sampling
Round #1 (December 14, 2006). The two largest red snapper specimens caught to
date (through Round 8) were captured in the same chevron trap and measured 808
mm TL (31.8”) and 795 mm (31.2”), with the latter containing a non-corroded heavy
duty circle hook in its jaw. Both of these large red snapper specimens, based on age
and growth curves, could potentially have been as much as an average of 10 years of
age. In other chevron trap deployments at the Oriskany Reef the same day,
sublegal red snapper as small as 330 mm TL (13”) were noted.
Distribution and Habitat Preference
Western Atlantic: Gulf of Mexico and eastern coast of the USA extending northward
to Massachusetts, coasts of Florida, but rare north of the Carolinas. They are also
found throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Adults are found over rocky bottoms.
Juveniles inhabit shallow waters, common over sand or muddy bottoms (Fish Base,
2010).
They are found in depths from 33 to 623 feet. Free-swimming larval stages live in
the water column. Juveniles inhabit shallow waters and are common over sandy or
muddy bottom habitat. Adults are typically bottom-dwellers and usually associate
with hard structures on the continental shelf that have moderate to high relief, such
as coral reefs, artificial reefs, rocky hard-bottom substrates, ledges and caves,
sloping soft-bottom areas, and limestone outcroppings. Long-lived; maximum age
reported is 57 years in Gulf of Mexico (NMFS).
Feeding
They feed mainly on fishes, shrimps, crabs, worms, cephalopods, and some
planktonic items including urochordates and gastropods (McCawley, 2003).
Feeds on free swimming larvae prey on zooplankton; adults prey opportunistically
on fish, shrimp, crab, worms, cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc.), and some
planktonic items (NMFS).
66 | P a g e
Trophic level or position
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I/F’ level. This level would
be combination of invertivore and piscivore trophic positions. This species is also
considered a resident species and a reef limited species for which reefs may function
to increase growth or decrease natural mortality (Patterson et al., 2010).
Trophic Level
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for red snapper (based on food
items) is 4.01 (standard error 0.59) (Fish Base, 2010).
Site Fidelity
Several red snapper tagging studies have occurred on artificial reefs in nearby
Alabama coastal waters to the west and in the EELAARS in recent years. Site
fidelity has been rated as high in the short term (weeks or months) but estimated to
be low over a period of years at least on smaller modular reef structures off AL and
NW FL.
Szedlemayer and Shipp (1994) reported 76% of tagged red snapper recoveries
occurring within 2 km of where tagged.
Strelcheck et al. (2007) reported the tagging of 4,317 red snapper on two different
types of concrete artificial reef modules off about 25 km due south of the mouth of
Mobile Bay in the Hugh- Swingle General Artificial Reef Permit Area off Alabama,
roughly 100 km West of the Oriskany Reef. Mean TL at tagging for recaptures was
335 mm (+/- 63.3 mm SD) and mean total length of known recaptures was 400 mm
(+/- 69.8 mm SD). Fish were at liberty on average 401 days (+/- 280 days SD).
Minimum and maximum days at liberty were 1 and 1,587 days, respectively. A
majority of captures were at liberty 1 year or less (51.8%) however 34.5% of red
snapper were at liberty 1-2 years and 13.7% were at liberty greater than two years.
Mean distance moved for 479 specimens with known recapture sites was 2.08 km
(+/- 0.46 km SD). Mean distance moved for recaptures reported by fishers was 2.86
km (+/- 0.13 km SD). Maximum distance moved was 201 km east of the release site
(off NW Florida). Nine fish moved greater than 80 km away from the release site: 8
of which were captured between Pensacola, FL and Panama City, FL and only one
was recaptured having moved to the west, west of the Chandelier Islands, LAsouthwest of Biloxi, MS. Patterson et al. (2001b) also indicated that most
movement of red snapper in Alabama is to the east off Florida and very little red
snapper movement and mixing occurs west of the Mississippi River. Two red
snapper tagged on the same tetrahedron reef module were recaptured at the same
67 | P a g e
location off Destin, FL (113 km from the release site) and two red snapper tagged on
the same reef ball module were recaptured at the same location off Panama, City,
FL (195 km from the release site). This would suggest that sub-cohort members
may move out together. Eighty six percent of Strelcheck et al. recaptures were
recaptured within 2 km of their release site, 94.6% within 5m and 96.9% within 10
km. Length at tagging and season did not significantly affect the distance red
snapper moved. However, Strelcheck found that days at liberty had a positive effect
on distance moved: i.e., the longer time at liberty, the greater the chance the fish
would have moved. Site fidelity was estimated by modeling the nonlinear decay in
recaptures made at tagging sites over time (Patterson and Cowan, 2003).
Annual site fidelity was 51.5% per /year (ranging from 48.3% /year to 54.6%/year
depending on the site location.
Severe hurricane direct hits, or near direct hits, of Category III or higher seemed to
trigger red snapper movement and it was in generally an easterly direction out of
Alabama. Mean distance moved by tagged red snapper during Hurricanes Opal
(1995) and Georges (1998) was 29.6 km (Patterson and Cowan 2003). However some
red snapper move long distances in the absence of hurricanes.
Patterson and Cowan (2003) estimated sample size for red snapper at large during
non hurricane periods, but their sample size for recaptures was small (n=121)
compared to Strelcheck (n=340) and sampling at original tagging sites was less
frequent. Increased sampling allowed for increased tagging and increased chances
that a red snapper would not have moved.
No direct Florida panhandle hurricane hits occurred in the vicinity of the Oriskany
reef from 2006-2007, although some structural changes were caused by offshore
passage of a hurricane in the Gulf landing in other states.
Szedlmayer (1997) reported red snapper residence times ranging from 17 to 597
days. Schroepfer and Szedlmayer (2006) reported red snapper residence times
ranging from 1 to 595 days with a mean residence time of 218 days.
Strelcheck et al. 2007 concluded that site fidelity is relatively low for red snapper
captured at small artificial reefs, especially given the fact that red snapper live in
excess of 50 years (Wilson and Nieland, 2001). There was only a 50% probability of
capturing a red snapper one year after release. His study largely tagged smaller
sub-legal red snapper which have previously been shown to move less than larger,
legal-sized red snapper (Patterson et al. 2001b). As red snapper size increases,
movement is expected to increase resulting in even lower estimates of site fidelity.
The cumulative effect of a 50%/yr decrease in site fidelity per year is substantial68 | P a g e
that means after five years only 3% of the original tagged fish would be present and
only 0.1% of the tagged red snapper would be present after 10 years. Patterson and
Cowan estimated even lower site fidelity (only 25% of fish estimated to remain after
one year). However, lower sampling tagging size and less frequent fishing at
original tagged location may have resulted in fewer on site recaptures.
In Diamond et al. (2007), it is speculated that some red snapper may be “movers”
and others “stayers”. They suggested there is some risk involved for a red snapper
to undertake an extensive movement over an open area without cover or even
foraging too far from the general shelter of an artificial reef. Some red snapper may
be more inclined to remain in residence longer, particularly smaller specimens more
prone to predation. Their diets may reflect organisms fed on in much closer
proximity to the Oriskany Reef since these fish might be less inclined to forage
further from the shelter provided by a large structure such as the Oriskany Reef.
The wide range of PCB levels we observed between red snapper samples from the
Oriskany Reef could be due to individual diet differences, the new arrival of fish to
the Oriskany Reef (fish that originated from other locations), and differences in
benthic forage distances relation to the Oriskany Reef.
PCB exposure and uptake in red snapper tissues over a short period of time,
particularly during the forecasted initial PCB pulse release period (SPARWAR
Systems Center San Diego, 2006), during the first few years of a red snapper’s life of
the Oriskany Reef may also be a the result of a more rapid linear growth rate in
younger fish. Red snapper growth rate is basically linear to about 500-600 TL,
during the first few years of life (Patterson et al. 2001a). Since most fish on the
Oriskany Reef were less than 600 mm TL, these fish could have been at their
maximum growth rate. Growth continues at a steady pace but by age ten red
snapper growth slows. During this rapid growth smaller fish might be expected to
accumulate PCBs at a more rapid rate than a larger fish arriving at the reef where
the larger older fish had spent years of its life somewhere else but was only exposed
to low background levels of PCBs in the food it had been eating. Strelcheck reported
that mean growth rate for all recaptures was 0.206 mm day.
Strelcheck et al. (2007) reported that on Alabama modular reefs, red snapper daily
growth rates at tetrahedron artificial reefs were 0.215 mm/day, greater than red
snapper recaptured at reef balls 0.194 mm (p=0.029). Mean growth rate of snapper
that moved. 0.206 mm/day was similar to mean growth rate of red snapper
recaptured at location of release. Strelcheck et al speculated that because a major
portion of the red snapper diet was food/prey residing in the water column 41% and
55% benthic prey by weight McCawley (2003) possibly the tetrahedron with the
69 | P a g e
higher vertical profile in the water column might attract more pelagic prey. The
high profile of the Oriskany Reef might do the same.
Red snapper residence time on the Oriskany Reef may be limited when red snapper
are removed from the Oriskany Reef through a combination of heavy directed
recreational fishing pressure and associated discard mortality. The Oriskany Reef is
at a depth where barotrauma injury in red snapper, particularly swim bladder
rupture and escaping gas into the body cavity re-arranging internal organs are not
uncommon in fish brought up rapidly from the 145-212 feet depths where the
majority of red snapper have been visually observed.
Emigrating larger fishes facing less natural predation due to increased size are
capable of more safely undertaking movement-either locally by foraging greater
nightly distances from the ship or in some situations leaving permanently and
moving beyond the immediate Oriskany Reef zone.
The time period of a red snapper’s exposure residency on the Oriskany Reef is
limited in relation to its theoretical maximum age either due to eventual emigration
or higher fishing mortality age. Red snapper probably aren’t immigrating to the
Oriskany Reef until age 2 and appear to be uncommon on the artificial reef after
age six either due to emigration or fisheries mortality, with natural mortality due to
predation playing a lesser role particularly as the fish gets larger. Therefore, we
hypothesize that the exposure time of red snapper to PCBs through dietary
pathways would be limited, particularly over the life of a fish that could, especially
under reduced fishing pressure, reach an age of 50 or more years old.
Fishing Mortality
SEDAR (2005) indicated that fishing mortality in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
appeared to be well above maximum sustainable yield. Mortality was primarily
recreational harvest and bycatch related.
70 | P a g e
II (D) (1) (c) Red Snapper Discussion of PCB analysis results
PCB Analysis Results
During Sampling Rounds 1-8 at
the Oriskany Reef a total of 185
red snapper measuring 401-808
mm total length (TL) were
retained for PCB analysis. The
mean legal size of retained and
analyze Oriskany Reef red
snapper was 496 mm TL (+/- 75
SD). Table 11 illustrates the
mean length of red snapper by
sample round. No changes in red
snapper mean total length
measurements were observed.
Sample
Round
Number of red
snapper retained
Red snapper, mean total
length (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
30
21
31
29
29
17
15
13
457 mm
450 mm
493 mm
487 mm
557 mm
533 mm
504 mm
496 mm
Table 11. Mean total length of red snapper by
sample round. PCB data for red snapper collected from the Oriskany Reef by sample date
Results of PCB analysis by sample date of red snapper from the first seven sample
rounds have been received and analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are
presented in Figure 9. Results of the 172 red snapper analyzed through sample
round #7 show that the mean total PCB levels from red snapper collected from the
Oriskany within the first two years (sample rounds 1-4) exceeded both the FDOH
and EPA PCB thresholds (50 ppb and 20 ppb, respectively). The highest mean PCB,
and greatest standard error was recorded from red snapper collected during sample
round #2. Red snapper mean PCB levels have declined since sample round #2, and
by rounds 6 and 7 (collected at 3 yrs. 6 months and 3 yrs. 11 months, respectively),
the standard errors were small and the mean total PCB levels for red snapper were
below both the FDOH and EPA thresholds. Results from an additional 13 red
snapper from sample round #8 are expected by the end of May, 2011.
71 | P a g e
Figure 9. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper form the Oriskany Reef through
sample round #7. PCB data for red snapper collected from the Oriskany Reef by sample date
and fish length
Figures 10a-10g provide a more detailed illustration on the PCB levels by length of
red snapper by sample date through sample round #7. Review of figures 10a-10g
shows the PCB levels over the course of each of the seven sampling rounds, and
illustrates the specific outlier samples collected during the first four sample rounds
resulting in the greater standard error, and elevated mean PCB level observed
during the first four sample rounds.
Correlation analysis was used to analyze red snapper analyzed through sample
round #6 (n=157) to examine relationships between fish mass, fish length, percent
lipid in muscle tissue, and PCB loads (Table 12). No significant relationship was
identified between PCB loads and fish mass, percent lipid in muscle tissue. This
finding was in contrast to the pre-sink samples conducted by Snyder et al (2007),
where fish length and mass were found to be significantly correlated. Snyder et al.
found a relatively strong correlation between trophic position and PCB
concentration, and since trophic position increased with size/age (also significantly
correlated with PCB concentration), Snyder et al. concluded an indication of
bioaccumulation with age.
72 | P a g e
1,000,00
00
ΣPCB (pg/g) a. Sam
mple Date 1
12/14/200
06
ΣPCB (pg/g) 0
1,000,00
00
b. Sam
mple Date
e 4/12/200
07
0
ΣPCB (pg/g) 1,000,00
00
c. SSample Datte 2/3/200
08
0
ΣPCB (pg/g) 1,000,00
00
d. Saample Date
e 4/29/200
08
0
ΣPCB (pg/g) 1,000,00
00
e. Saample Date
e 4/21/200
09
0
ΣPCB (pg/g) 1,000,00
00
f. Sam
mple Date 11/18/200
09
0
400
45
50
500
550
60
00
650
700
7
750
800
850
9
900
1,000,000
0
PCB (pg/g)
g. Sample Date
e 4/27/201
10
500,000
0
0
400
450
0
500
550
60
00
650
700
7
750
800
850
900
Figure 10
0. PCB data
a for Red Snapper collected from thee Oriskany Reef
R
by lengtth. Graphs (a)
through (e) present the
t PCB data
a from Red Snapper
S
colllected on eacch respectivee sample datte.
73 | P a g e
Table 12. Correlation matrix of variables measured in red snapper samples
collected from the Oriskany Reef (n=157) analyzed through sample round #6.
Pearson’s r and the significance value are provided for each variable pair.
Significance probabilities ≤ 0.05 are highlighted in yellow.
Oriskany (Red Snapper) N=157
Length
Mass
Lipid
Mass
Lipid
ΣPCB
0.9728
<.0001
0.34899
<.0001
-0.08886
0.2684
0.36703
<.0001
-0.08091
0.3138
0.13528
.0912
Red Snapper PCB levels from the Pensacola Fishing Bridge Reef (Nearby
Artificial Reef Site #1)
During sample round #3 (02/03/08;1154-1340 hrs); and sample round # 4 (04/29/08;
1055-1231 hrs) red snapper were collected at the Pensacola Fishing Bridge nearby
artificial reef site #1 during the same day as red snapper were collected from the
Oriskany Reef. The nearby artificial reef site #1 is in 85 feet of water at Latitude 30º
05.900’ N; Longitude 87º 09.00’ W and located 8.2 nautical miles NW of and
shoreward of the Oriskany Reef on a bearing of approximately 290° degrees from
the Oriskany Reef.
During sample round #3 at nearby reef site #1, 24 red snapper (406-704 mm total
length) were retained for analysis (mean size 459 mm). During sample round #4 at
nearby reef site #1, 21 red snapper 416-491 mm total length (mean size 446 mm)
were caught and retained for analysis.
74 | P a g e
The PCB levels measured from red snapper collected from the Nearby Artificial
Reef Site #1 are show in figure xx. In general the Nearby Artificial Reef Site levels
were similar to the PCB levels recorded during the pre-sink analysis reported by
Snyder et al (2007).
Figure 11. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper collected from the Nearby
Reef #1 during Sample Round 3 and Sample Round 4.
75 | P a g e
II (D) (2) Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829) (Also
known in some locations as beeliners, mingo snapper, cajon snapper, night snapper)
Vermilion Snapper Results and Discussion
II (D) (2) (a) Vermillion Snapper Fisheries Management Overview
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011:
SIZE:
10 inch minimum size TL,
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: Up to 20 (Included in the 20 fish per person reef fish aggregate)
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)
SIZE:
10 inch minimum size TL,
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: 10 fish harvester per day person (not included in the snapper
aggregate)
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
12 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open April 1 to October 31 (214 days)
BAG LIMIT: 5 per person per day
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
12 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open April 1 to October 31 (214 days)
BAG LIMIT: 5 per person per day
II (D) (2) (b) Vermillion Snapper Life History/Biology Overview
Description and Biology
Vermilion snapper have streamlined bodies, are pale to silver white below and
vermilion above. Narrow yellow-gold streaks, some horozontal and others oblique,
occur below the lateral line. The dorsal fin is rosy colored with a yellow margin. The
caudal fin is red , but has a faint black margin. (SAFMC)
The dorsal spines (total): 12 - 13; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10 - 11; Anal spines: 3;
anal soft rays: 8. Snout short, lower jaw slightly projecting. Mouth small. Pectoral
76 | P a g e
fins relatively short, not reaching level of anus. Scale rows on back rising obliquely
above lateral line. Back and upper sides vermilion, shading to silvery with reddish
tinge ventrally, with narrow horizontal yellow lines below the lateral line. The
dorsal and caudal fins are yellowish while the anal and pelvic fins whitish (Fish
Base, 2010).
Length and Weight
Maximum reported age of vermilion snapper is 13 years (FWRI, 2008). The oldest
vermillion report to Fishbase is 10 year old (Fish Base, 2010).
Growth of vermilion snapper is highly variable, but expected lengths at age are 8.3–
8.6 inches (21.1 -21.8 cm) TL at age 1 and only 11.4–19.5 inches (20.0-49.5) at age
10 (FWRI, 2008)
Common length is 13.78 inches or 35.0 cm (Allen, G.R., 1985).
Maximum reported length is 23.622 inches or 60.0 cm TL (Fish Base 2010).
The world record weight for Vermillion Snapper according to the International
Game Fish Association (IGFA) is 7 lbs. 3 oz. or 3.26 kgs taken off Alabama on
5/31/1987 (IGFA, 1987).
Distribution and Habitat Preference
Vermilion snapper are subtropical species with at a geographical range from 42°N
to 33° S and 99° W-30°W, only found in the eastern coasts of the Western
Hemisphere (Allen, G.R., 1985). They occur over shelf and upper-slope waters of
the western Atlantic Ocean from Cape Hatteras south through southeastern Brazil,
as well as Bermuda, the Gulf of Mexico, and the West Indies (FWRI, 2008).
Of the 37 sighting in the FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database all but four (3 in
Martin and 1 Lee county) or 89.2 % were in the North Florida region of the Gulf of
Mexico. The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed vermilion snapper as
shallow as 59 feet, with a maximum depth of 136 feet (maximum in diver database)
and an average depth of 92.3 feet for 39 sightings (FWC-DMF, 2010).
Found in moderately deep waters, most common over rock, gravel, sand bottoms or
artificial reefs near the edge of the continental and island shelves. Young fish occur
in shallower depths below 25 meter (82 feet). Often forms large schools, particularly
the young. Fish Base reported a maximum depth of 300 meters (984 feet); usually
found around 100 meters (328 feet) (Fish Base, 2010).
77 | P a g e
Feeding
Feeds on fishes, shrimps, crabs, polychaetes, other benthic invertebrates,
cephalopods and planktonic organisms. Good food fish. (Fish Base, 2010).
They feed on small, swimming crustaceans and mollusks. (FWC, 2010)
It feeds on smaller animals, sometimes even the near invisible plankton animals,
but will take small baits of fish and shellfish parts (Shipp, 1986)
Vermilion snapper prey on fishes, shrimps, crabs, polychaetes and other benthic
invertebrates, cephalopods and planktonic organisms. In the Northern Gulf,
vermilion snapper prey on other fishes as well as benthic and pelagic invertebrates
Off the Southeastern U.S., it feeds small crustaceans, primarily copepods and
decapods (especially planktonic species and larval stages) dominated the diet of
small vermilion snapper (<= 50 mm or 2 inches SL). Larger vermilion snapper
shifted their diet to larger amphipods, decapods and teleost fishes (GOMFMC, Oct
2004).
Trophic level or position
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I/P’ level. This level would
be combination of invertivore and planktivore trophic positions. This species is
probably a planktivore feeding higher in the water column in schools while in the
younger juvenile stages and developing into an invertivore feeding closer to the
bottom in later stages of life (Patterson et al., 2010).
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for vermilion snapper (based
on food items) is 4.33 (standard error 0.56) (Fish Base, 2010).
Site Fidelity
Little information is available on the site fidelity of the vermilion snapper. Addis,
et al. tagged 66 vermilion snapper and although they had a very poor return of 4.5
% total recaptures, the percent of total recaptures “on-site” or no movement was
25% (1 fish) was higher than red snapper (23.7%), but much lower that gray
triggerfish (58.3%), indicating moderate site fidelity (Addis et. al., 2007). Patterson
determined them to be ‘Residency ‘category to be R or “reef resident”, and their
‘Reef Limited’ category is ”G” or “fishes for which reefs may function to increase
growth or decrease natural mortality” (Patterson et al., 2010).
II (D) (2) (c) Vermilion snapper discussion of PCB analysis results
Vermilion snapper PCB results by sample date
78 | P a g e
Results of PCB analysis by sample date from the first seven sample rounds have
been received and analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are presented in Figure
12. Results of the 28 vermilion snapper analyzed through sample round #7 show
that none of the mean total PCB levels exceeded either the EPA or the FDOH
thresholds. Additionally, the low vermilion snapper mean PCB levels exhibit a
declining trend. Results from an additional 14 vermilion snapper from sample
round #8 are expected by the end of May, 2011.
Figure 12. Mean PCB by sample date for Vermilion Snapper form the Oriskany Reef
through sample round #7. 79 | P a g e
II (D) (3) Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Also known as white snapper)
Red Porgy Results and Discussion
II (D) (3) (a) Red Porgy Fisheries Management
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in the Gulf
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in the Gulf (Same as Federal)
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
14 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: 3 per person per day
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal
SIZE:
14 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: 3 per person per day
II (D) (3) (b) Red porgy Life History/biology overview
Description and Biology
The red porgy Pagrus pagrus (Sparidae) is a protogynous species, the adults of
which are typically associated with low-profile hard (live) bottom, rocky, or gravel
habitats. It is one of the most abundant, exploited reef fishes in the NE Gulf. In an
annual video survey of reef fish in that area, it is one of the most frequently
observed species (DeVries, 2006).
(Dorsal spines (total): 12; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays:
8. Pinkish silver with an indistinct yellow spot on each scale on about upper half of
80 | P a g e
body, these spots giving a yellow-striped effect; a wedge of yellow across interorbital
and some yellow on snout and upper lip; dorsal, caudal and pectoral fins pink . (Fish
base, 2010).
The red porgy has a shimmering silvery-white underside and rows of small blue
spots pattern the upper body. It has a large head, with a distinctive sloping
forehead, rather large eyes, and prominent teeth. Two blue streaks, one above and
one below the eye, highlight the head, while the tail is edged in black and has white
tips.
Length and Weight
The maximum length is about 91.0 cm TL male/unsexed, and the common length is
about 35.0 cm SL male/unsexed, max. published weight: 7,720 g . Reported weights
of caught individuals were between 9 to 17 kgs (Fish base). Most red porgy were
mature by 225 mm (Hood and Johnson 2000).
Distribution and Habitat Preference
This sparid occurs in warm temperate to subtropical waters on both sides of the N
Atlantic, including the northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and Mediterranean Sea, and
in the SW Atlantic from Venezuela to Argentina (DeVries, 2006).
Their range is Eastern Atlantic: Strait of Gibraltar to 15°N (rare southward 20°N),
including Madeira and the Canary Islands; Mediterranean and northward to the
British Isles. Western Atlantic: New York, USA and northern Gulf of Mexico to
Argentina including the continental coast of the Caribbean Sea (Fish base, 2010).
The red porgy occurs in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Mediterranean Sea, from
New York and Argentina in the west, to the British Isles and Senegal in the east.
(Arkive.org, 2011).
Found over rock, rubble, or sand bottoms (young frequently found on seagrass beds
and the continental shelf down to about 250 m depth, often above 150 m. In
southwest Brazil found in 160 m depth (Fish base, 2010).
Adult red porgy are found on the deeper part of the continental shelf, but young
may occur in water as shallow as 18 m (60ft.) (FWRI, 2008).
Red Porgies are found along the inner continental shelf in depth between 10 and
100 meters, this fish occurs over hard sand, rock and patch reef areas (Shipp, 1986).
Red porgies are usually found near hard bottom area off the Western-central
Florida coast and the Florida Middle Grounds and are most common over inshore
live-bottom, rocky-rubble and rock outcrop habitats. (Hood and Johnson 2000).
81 | P a g e
Feeding
Red porgy are carnivorous fish which tend to feed in schools on a variety of marine
animals found on the ocean floor. Their strong teeth enable them to eat snails, crabs
and sea urchins, as well as worms and small fishes (Arkive.org). It feeds on shelled
bottom invertebrate animals and will take fish when available (Shipp, 1986), and
tends to feed on crustaceans, fishes, and mollusks (Fish Base, 2010).
Trophic level or position
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I’ level. This level would
be the “Invertivore” trophic position. “Our stomach content data suggests red porgy
is more of an invertivore than red snapper, and our stable isotope data definitely
shows the latter to be about 1 trophic level above red porgies.” (DeVries personal
communication).
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for red snapper (based on food
items) is 3.65 (standard error 0.61) (Fish Base, 2010).
Site Fidelity
“Based on very limited tagging work by others, and my dissertation findings
showing consistent temporally stable differences in life history and demographic
traits at sites only 10's of km apart, I strongly suspect they have very high site
fidelity” (DeVries personal communication).
Patterson el al. (ibid.) also considers the red porgy’s ‘residency ‘category to be that of
a demersal or benthic shelf species, for which reefs may function to increase growth
or decrease natural mortality.
82 | P a g e
II (D) (3) (c) Red Porgy Discussion of PCB analysis results
Results of PCB analysis by sample date from the first seven sample rounds have
been received and analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are presented in Figure
13. Results of the 7 red porgy analyzed through sample round #7 show that mean
Figure 13. Mean PCB by sample date for red porgy form the Oriskany Reef through
sample round #7. total PCB levels exceeded both the EPA or the FDOH thresholds through sample
round #6. Results from the one fish analyzed during round #6, and the one fish
during round #7, indicate a declining trend. Results from an additional 5 red porgy
from sample round #8 are expected by the end of May, 2011.
83 | P a g e
II (D) (4) Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus (Jordan & Gilbert, 1885)
Whitebone Porgy Results and Discussion
II (D) (4) (a) Whitebone Porgy Fisheries Management
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in the Gulf
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: Not Regulated in the Gulf (Same as Federal)
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 fish (part of the 20 fish grouper/snapper complex aggregate)
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal
SIZE:
none
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 fish (part of the 20 fish grouper/snapper complex aggregate)
II (D) (4) (b) Whitebone Porgy Life History/Biology Overview
Description and Biology
The body of the whitebone porgy, also known in some locations as the white
snapper, or sometimes chocolate porgy is silvery overall, with regular brown
markings of varying intensity on the sides, more like splotches than spots. Brown
markings also occur on the fins, and occasionally the sides bear brown crossbars.
The species can be distinguished from two other frequently caught deepwater
porgies, the red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), and knobbed porgy (Calamus nodosus). The
former is predominantly pink; the latter has a very steep sloping forehead and
84 | P a g e
cheeks that are speckled with bright blue and yellow. Although most members of
the genus have 14 to 15 pectoral rays, the whitebone porgy has 16 (SAFMC, 2010).
Length and Weight
The Maximum total length of the Whitebone porgy is 46.0 cm TL (male/unsexed); a
common adult length is 30.0 cm TL (male/unsexed); (Fish base)
Other references report a maximum length of 457 mm (18 inches) (SAFMC). The
whitebone porgy matures at a little less than a foot, but may reach about 356 mm
(14) to 406 mm (16 inches) in length (Shipp, 1986). Whitebone porgy are known to
live as long as 12 years (SAFMC, 2010).
Distribution and Habitat Preference
The whitebone porgy is a subtropical species found in the Western Atlantic from
Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, in the Florida Keys (along with a multitude of
other tropical porgies) and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. It prefers habitats of
high-and low-profile reef-like bottom in water ranging from 100-240 feet in depth.
(SAFMC, 2010).
Whitebone Porgy are found mainly on sedimentary bottoms from 10 and 100 m
depth. (Fishbase). Whitebone porgy prefers habitats of high-and low-profile reeflike bottom in water ranging from 100-240 feet in depth. (SAFMC). Whitebone
porgy are found in depths of 11--88 m on the continental shelf of the southeastern
coast of the United States. but they are most abundant in depths< 30 m. The
continental shelf at these depths consists primarily of sandy bottom, with occasional
scattered outcrops of sedimentary rock and, although whitebone porgy frequently
occur on sand bottom they are much more abundant in or adjacent to rocky reef
habitats. (Sedberry, 1989)
Feeding
Whitebone porgy feed on the bottom on the bottom, picking up crabs, shrimp or
snails that live along rocks, sponges or corals (Fish Base, 2010).
The whitebone feeds on bottom dwelling shellfish, which in crunches with its
powerful teeth. It frequents most any bottom types, from near shore bottoms (10 m)
out to the middle shelf in the Gulf of Mexico (Shipp).
Whitebone porgy were found to feed mainly on small hard-shelled species of
gastropods. Pagurid decapods. and sipunculids. Polychaetes. pelecypods. barnacles,
echinoderms, anthozoans, amphipods and fishes were also eaten. Whitebone porgy
selected invertebrate species that were not abundant in benthic samples taken
85 | P a g e
directly from the reef. suggesting that these fish forage on primarily on sand bottom
fauna. Decapods were the most important prey and ranked high in frequency,
number and volume. Very small hermit crabs (Pagurus, spp., Dardanus spp.,
Paguristes spp., Pylopagurus spp. Other Paguroidea) were the dominant decapods
in whitebone porgy stomachs. Whitebone porgy fed on a combination of motile
invertebrates and fishes in addition to some hard bottom epifaunal species.
(Sedberry, 1989). Whitebone porgy probably does nor forage directly on hard-bottom
sessile reef species regardless of their size. Whitebone porgy would be classified as
a generalized benthic predator, feeding on sandy habitats in immediate proximity to
reefs.
Whitebone porgy displayed a relatively high similarity in diet to red porgy and
sheepshead (Sedberry, 1989). Whitebone porgy appear in numerically in greater
association with reef or hard bottom areas but they have little impact on hardbottom epifaunal reef communities and do not function as keystone predators in
hard bottom reefs of the South Atlantic Bight (Sedberry, ibid.)
The whitebone porgies caught at the Oriskany Reef were caught on or very near the
bottom (around 212 feet) immediately adjacent to the ship’s hull.
TROPHIC LEVEL or POSITION
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 et al. to be level I. This level
would be an invertivore trophic position. Patterson el al. (ibid.) also considers the
whitebone porgy’s ‘residency ‘category to be that of a demersal or benthic shelf
species, for which reefs may function to increase growth or decrease natural
mortality” (Patterson et. al., 2010).
SITE FIDELITY
No information is available on the site fidelity of Whitebone porgy.
86 | P a g e
II (D) (4) (c) Whitebone Porgy Discussion of PCB analysis results
Results of PCB analysis by sample date from sample round number seven (the only
sample round where whitebone porgy was caught through sample round #7) have
been received and analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are presented in Figure
14. Results of the 4 whitebone porgy analyzed from sample round #7 show that
mean total PCB levels exceeded both the EPA or the FDOH thresholds. Results
from an additional 2 whitebone porgy from sample round #8 are expected by the end
of May, 2011.
Figure 14. Mean PCB by sample date for whitebone porgy form the Oriskany Reef
through sample round #7. 87 | P a g e
II (D) (5) Gray Triggerfish, Baistes capriscuss (Gmelin, 1789) (Also known in
some locations as include gray triggerfish, grey triggerfish, filefish, leatherjacket,
pig-faced, trigger-fish, triggerfish, common triggerfish, and turbot)
Gray Triggerfish Results and Discussion
II (D) (5) (a) Gray Triggerfish Fisheries Management
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011:
SIZE:
14 inch minimum size FL,
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: Up to 20 (Included in the 20 fish per person reef fish aggregate)
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)
SIZE:
14 inch minimum size FL,
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
12 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: up to 20 (included in 20 fish snapper/grouper aggregate)
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal
SIZE:
12 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open all year (365 days)
BAG LIMIT: none
II (D) (5) (b) Gray Triggerfish Life History/biology overview
Description and Biology
The Gray Triggerfish has large incisor teeth and a deep laterally compressed body
covered with tough, sandpaper-like skin. Unlike their cousin, the filefish, triggerfish
have more than one dorsal spine. The action of this spine gives the triggerfish its
88 | P a g e
(common) name. The first spine is large, and when erect it remains so until the
smaller second spine is deflexed, triggering the first. The gray triggerfish is easily
distinguished by its drab color from the queen triggerfish, which is vividly colored.
Triggerfishes are open water or structure-associated fishes with an enlarged first
dorsal spine that can be locked in the upright position (SAFMC).
The gray triggerfish, supports important fisheries in Florida, as, to a lesser extent,
does the queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula. Gray triggerfish are found in tropical
and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In the western Atlantic, they range
from Massachusetts south to Brazil. Spawning occurs during the summer months.
Females deposit demersal eggs and may guard their nests. Females get larger and
live longer than males (FWRI, 2008).
The Gray Triggerfish inhabits bays, harbors, lagoons, and seaward reefs. Juveniles
may drift at surface among Sargassum. They are usually solitary or in small
groups (Fish Base, 2010).
Length and Weight
Overall, growth is to 8.9–11.7 inches fork length (FL) at age 2; triggerfish grow as
large as 17.6–22.0 inches by age 10 (FWRI, 2008)
IGFA record is 13 lbs. 9 oz. or 6.15 kg. caught off Murrells Inlet South Carolina,
USA on May 3, 1989 (IGFA, 2010). Maximum published weight: 6,150 g (Fish Base
2010)
Distribution and Habitat Preference
Eastern Atlantic: Mediterranean to Moçamedes, Angola. Western Atlantic: Nova
Scotia (Canada), Bermuda, and northern Gulf of Mexico to Argentina Subtropical;
58°N - 37°S, 98°W - 36°E (Fish Base, 2010). In the western Atlantic, they range
from Massachusetts south to Brazil (FWC, 2010).
Preferring hard bottoms, reefs, and ledges, the gray triggerfish is abundant in
nearshore and offshore locations. This fish inhabits bays, lagoons, and seaward
reefs to depths of 180 feet (55 m). The adults drift along the bottom either alone or
in small groups, while the juveniles drift at the surface with sargassum. They are
reported at maximum depths to about 100 meters; usually found around 0 to 55
meters (0-180 feet) (Fish Base).
The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed Gray Triggerfish as shallow
as 8 feet, with a maximum depth of 133 feet (maximum in diver database) and an
89 | P a g e
average depth of 59 feet for 127 sightings. There were 66 (51%) sightings on the
northern Gulf coast , while only 14 (11%) were on the east Coast, with the
remaining on the southwest Gulf Coast of Florida (FWC-DMF,2010).
Feeding
As a diurnal predator, the gray triggerfish feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates
such as shrimp, crabs, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea stars, sea cucumbers, and
bivalve mollusks (FMNH, 2010).
Feeds on benthic invertebrates like mollusks and crustaceans and are oviparous
(Fish Base, 2010).
Trophic level or position
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘I’ or Invertivore level. He
also considers their ‘Residency ‘category to be R or “reef resident”, and their ‘Reef
Limited’ category is”G” or “fishes for which reefs may function to increase growth or
decrease natural mortality” (Patterson et al., 2010).
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for gray triggerfish (based on
food items) is 3.55 (standard error 0.50) (Fish Base, 2010).
Site Fidelity
In a tagging study off Pensacola on the EELAARS site, Patterson concluded that
gray triggerfish had much higher fidelity that other species like red snapper of
(Patterson et al., 2010).
Adult gray trigger off Alabama exhibit high site fidelity (Ingram, 2001). High site
fidelity may result from the territorial nature of adult fish (Ingram, 2001). In the
case of gray trigger in Ingram’s (2001) study, loss of older age classes resulting from
increases in fishing pressure in publicly known fishing grounds is apparent.
Selective removal of large, fast-growing members of the population may be resulting
in decreased growth rates of survivors on small spatiotemporal scales (Ingram,
2001).
90 | P a g e
II (D) (5) (c) Gray Triggerfish Discussion of PCB analysis results
Results of PCB analysis by sample date from sample round number six (the only
sample round where gray triggerfish was caught through round #7) has been
received and analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are presented in Figure 15.
Results of the one gray triggerfish analyzed from sample round #6 show that mean
total PCB level exceeded both the EPA and the FDOH thresholds. Results from an
additional 3 gray triggerfish from sample round #8 are expected by the end of May,
2011.
Figure 15. Mean PCB by sample date for gray triggerfish form the Oriskany Reef
through sample round #7. 91 | P a g e
II (D) (6) Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax (Jordan & Swain, 1884) (Also known
in some locations as Scamp grouper, Broomtail grouper)
Scamp Results and Discussion
II (D) (6) (a) Scamp Fisheries Management
Federal Regulations for the Gulf of Mexico for 2011:
SIZE:
16 inch minimum size FL,
SEASON:
Open all April 1 to January 31 (10 months )
BAG LIMIT: Up to 4 (Included in the 4 fish per person grouper aggregate)
State regulations for Gulf of Mexico for 2011: (same as Federal)
SIZE:
16 inch minimum size FL,
SEASON:
Open all April 1 to January 31 (10 months )
BAG LIMIT: Up to 4 (Included in the 4 fish per person grouper aggregate)
Federal Regulations for the Atlantic Ocean for 2011:
SIZE:
20 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open May 1 to December 31 (8 months)
BAG LIMIT: up to 3 per person per day (included in 3 grouper aggregate)
State regulations for Atlantic Ocean for 2011: Same as Federal
SIZE:
20 inch minimum size TL
SEASON:
Open May 1 to December 31 (8 months )
BAG LIMIT: up to 3 per person per day (included in 3 grouper aggregate)
II (D) (6) (b) Scamp Life History/Biology Overview
Description and Biology
Related to the gag and other slender-bodied groupers, the scamp are identified by
their pronounced anal and soft dorsal ray extensions, a more concave profile of the
head, and by color. Scamp have a tan to grayish-brown body covered with sharply
defined, well-separated dark spots, which are approximately an eighth of an inch in
diameter.(SAFMC, 2010).
92 | P a g e
The Scamp inhabits continental shelf waters from the Campeche Banks, in the Gulf
of Mexico, to Florida and northward along the East Coast to North Carolina. These
areas are characterized by profuse growths of soft corals and sponges populated by
red grouper, white grunt, red porgy and numerous species of small, tropical reef
fish. They have been recorded at age up to 21 years, but may live up to 30 years.
They may reach a length of up to 43 inches and weight of up to 36 pounds (SAFMC,
2010).
Found over ledges and high-relief rocky bottoms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico; at
low-profile bottoms at depths of 30 to 100 m in North Carolina; this species was the
most abundant grouper in areas of living Oculina coral formations at depths of 70 to
100 m off the east coast of Florida. This species apparently moved inshore when
bottom temperature fell below 8.6°C. Juveniles found in shallow water at jetties and
in mangrove areas (Fish Base).
Length and Weight
Maximum length is 42.1 inches (107 cm) TL male/unsexed; common length is 11.8
inches (30.0 cm) TL male/unsexed. Maximum published weight: 31.3 lbs (14.2 kg)
(Fish Base 2010);
They may reach a length of up to 43 inches (109.2 cm) and weight of up to 36 lbs
(16.3 kg) (SAFMC, 2010).
By 10 years of age, they average 26 inches in length and over 8 pounds in weight.
By age 20, they average 35 inches long and 20 pounds (Rod n Reel, 2010).
The world record weight for Scamp according to the International Game Fish
Association (IGFA) is 29 lbs. x 10 oz. (13.4 kg) taken off Dauphin Island, Alabama
on 7/22/1000 (IGFA, 2010). Florida record is 28 pounds (FWC, 2010).
Distribution and Habitat Preference
Western Central Atlantic: Gulf of Mexico and east coast of US from North Carolina
to Key West and along the southern shore of the Caribbean Sea. Juveniles are
occasionally found as far north as Massachusetts. Subtropical; 40°N - 7°N, 98°W 64°W (Fish Base.2010).
Of the 82 sightings in the FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database 53 or 64.6 %
were in the North Florida region of the Gulf of Mexico. 16 or 19.5% were on the
Florida East Coast while another 13 sightings were on the South West Florida gulf
Coast (FWC-DMF, 2010).
93 | P a g e
Although the species occasionally congregates over high-profile bottom, such as
wrecks and rock outcroppings, the preferred habitat is low-profile, live bottom areas
in waters 75 ft (22.9 m) to 300 ft (91.4 m) deep (SAFMC, 2010).
The FWC Artificial Reef Assessment database showed Scamp as shallow as 30 ft
(9.1 m), with a maximum depth of 137 ft (41.7 m) (maximum in diver database) and
an average depth of 77.5 ft (23.6 m) for 82 sightings (FWC-DMF, 2010).
Reef-associated; oceanodromous ; brackish; marine; depth range 98.4 ft (30 m) to
328.1 ft ( 100 m) (Fish Base, 2010).
Although the species occasionally congregates over high-profile bottom, such as
wrecks and rock outcroppings, the preferred habitat is low-profile, live bottom areas
in waters 75 ft (22.9 m) to 300 ft (91.4 m) deep (SAFMC, 2010).
Feeding
Scamp can be aggressive predators, capturing crabs, shrimp, and fishes and
swallowing them whole. (SAFMC, 2010)
Feeds on small fish, squid and crustaceans (FMRI, 2010)
Trophic level or position
Trophic position was estimated by Patterson, 2010 to be ‘F’ or Piscivore level. (Patterson et al.,
2010).
The Fish Base calculated trophic level determination for scamp (based on food
items) is 4.47 (standard error 0.79) (Fish Base, 2010).
Site Fidelity
Patterson, 2010 considers Scamp to be in ‘Residency ‘ category “R” or “reef resident”,
and their ‘Reef Limited’ category is ”G” or “fishes for which reefs may function to
increase growth or decrease natural mortality”. (Patterson et al., 2010).
II (D) (6) (c) Scamp Discussion of PCB analysis results
94 | P a g e
Results of PCB analysis by sample date from sample round number five (the only
sample round where scamp was caught through round #7) has been received and
analyzed for all 209 PCB congeners, and are presented in Figure 16. Results of the
one scamp analyzed from sample round #5 show that mean total PCB level did not
exceed either the EPA or the FDOH thresholds. Results from an additional 3 scamp
from sample round #8 are expected by the end of May, 2011.
Figure 16. Mean PCB by sample date for scamp form the Oriskany Reef through sample
round #7.
II (D) (7) Gag Grouper (no gag grouper collected through sample round #7)
II (D) (8) Red Grouper (no red grouper collected through sample round #7)
II (D) (9) Lane Snapper (no lane snapper collected through sample round #7)
95 | P a g e
II (E): Distribution of PCB Congeners by Homologs (Degree of PCB Chlorination)
The results of PCB congener analysis of fish tissue samples analyzed to date is
listed in Table 13 (Oriskany Reef fish samples) and Table 14 (Nearby Reef fish
samples) (Tables 13 and 14, Appendix 1). Utilizing the results of the congenerspecific analysis, the results from the 209 PCB congeners were grouped into their
respective homologs (chlorinations 1 through 10).
Utilizing the known
concentration of PCB congers for the most common Arolchlors (Aroclor 1232, 1242,
1248, 1258, 1254, and 1260) as presented by DeGrandechamp and Barron (2005),
the percent composition of total PCBs by chlorination observed in the Oriskany reef
fish samples are compared to the commercial Arochlor data in Table 15, Table 16a,
and Table 16b (Appendix 1). No obvious patterns of similarity between the
patterns of commercial Arolclor homologs, and the patterns of the Oriskany Reef
fish homologs are visually apparent.
As stated by Snyder (2007), although some studies have shown homolog pattern
matching to sources, several factors contribute to obscuring source patterns in biota.
Weathering, degradation, environmental partitioning, and biological partitioning all
change the homolog content of PCBs in the environment (DeGrandechamp and
Barron, 2005).
Additionally, of the estimated 722.6 lbs of solid PCBs left on board the Oriskany at
the time of sinking, approximately 97.6% of the PCBs were represented in cable
insulation which are comprised the most common commercial Arochlors in use at
the time, and are the most common in the environment today (Pape, 2006).
Therefore, likely as a result of weathering, degradation, and partitioning, combined
with the lack of any unique Arochlors on the Oriskany, we were unable to detect
any unqiue homolog ‘fingerprint’ from reef fish species analyzed from the Oriskany
Reef.
II (F): Other Discussion Issues
II F (1) Gear Sampling Bias
Hook-and-line sampling using traditional rod and reel reflected the type of catch
that would be available to the recreational fisherman using similar equipment. The
limited sampling for PCB analysis did not necessarily always include those
recreationally targeted species that may have been present on the Oriskany Reef at
the time it was sampled. A case in point would be gray (mangrove) snapper.
Although a number of gray snapper were visually observed, for example, by FWC
divers on November 19, 2009 on the Oriskany Reef (Horn, and Mille, 2009), this
96 | P a g e
species was not among the first 30 legal size specimens taken-on-hook and line at
the Oriskany Reef the previous sampling day (November 18, 2009). Other fish, like
grouper, more wary and less aggressive towards the hook than more abundant red
snapper or vermilion snapper may have been present but also were not caught.
Depending on prior feeding activity the previous 24 hours some species merely may
not have been biting. For example, a scamp grouper was noted in the area of the
superstructure and a gag grouper observed around metal debris on the flight deck
on November 19, 2009, though neither species were caught during rod-and-reel
sampling the previous day on November 18, 2009 (Horn and Mille, 2009). Spear
fishermen have observed large (30 pounds) gag grouper moving in and out of holes
in the Oriskany Reef flight deck, though no gag grouper specimens of this size have
been captured by hook and line during directed sampling efforts on the Oriskany
Reef to date.
II F (2) Duplicating Recreational Fishing Effort
By limiting the sampling to the time it took to catch a mix of the first 30-39 legal
size recreationally targeted fish caught during hook and line sampling, the
sampling is most likely to duplicate the day trip activities of a for-hire or private
recreational vessel. Anglers who would typically be expected to travel offshore to
the Oriskany Reef, fish during daylight hours, but would include it as only as one of
several fishing stops and not spend their entire fishing.
The trade-off of
terminating fishing regardless of the mix of legal size fish caught is that there is
less of an opportunity to secure more difficult to catch or less common targeted fish,
particularly if there was an interest in gathering more PCB related data on these
specimens.
II F (3) Other Regional PCB Point Sources of Pollution
PCB results from pre-reefing PCB fish analysis from the area of the Oriskany sink
site, on artificial reef structures to the west of the Oriskany within the EELAARS
and at locations further inshore (17 hook- and-line sampling sites on structures) as
well as six trawl sites on sand bottom, showed only fish, a four year old grouper that
only slightly exceeded the 20 ppb EPA screening level at 22 ppb (Synder et al.,
2007). Additionally none of the 61 reef fish sampled at the EELLAARS nearby
Reef #1, northwest of and inshore of the Oriskany Reef had total PCB levels
exceeding the EPA screening limits. We have no indication that there were any
offshore sources of PCB pollution associated with any artificial reef materials placed
in the EELAARS. The only known historic point source of pollution is located by
water 48 nautical miles from the Oriskany Reef to the north up in Escambia Bay
97 | P a g e
and
in
the
lower
Escambia River where a
Monsanto Plant once
operated and there was a
known PCB spill in the
1960’s (Figure 17).
II F (4) Commercial and
Recreational
Fishing
Activity at the Oriskany
Reef
As previously discussed
during the Oriskany Reef
pilot
tagging
project
where all tag returns
came exclusively from Figure 17. Location of the Monsanto Plant 1960’s
recreational fishers (see PCB spill pollution point source in the Escambia
section II(C)),
it was River, located a distance of 48 nautical miles by water
documented
that from the Oriskany Reef.
recreational
hook-andline fishing activity occurred on the Oriskany Reef and probably dominated harvest
activities at that site. Divers have reported lost monofilament fishing line hung in
the reef. However spear fishing operations were also observed on greater amberjack
and divers who have also harvested gag grouper from the Oriskany Reef with spear
guns. At least two federal fisheries violations at the Oriskany Reef were noted in a
NOAA fisheries press release. The charges were filed following an investigation.
The investigation was a follow-up to complaints received about spear fishermen
using spear guns and power heads (bang sticks) to harvest reef fish off for-hire
vessels that did not possess a federal reef fish permit which is required in federal
waters if paying passengers are harvesting reef fish.
Directed recreational hook-and-line red snapper harvest and associated sublegal red
snapper recreational discard mortality have been the primary contributor in recent
years to fishing mortality in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, particularly off
Alabama and Northwest Florida. Directed commercial red snapper harvest and
sublegal discards, as well as Age 0-1 juvenile red snapper shrimp trawl by-catch
dominates red snapper fishing mortality in the Western Gulf of Mexico.
We could neither confirm nor discount reports that commercial fishermen utilize the
Oriskany Reef, though regular commercial fishing activity at the Oriskany Reef is
98 | P a g e
believed to be unlikely since most of the multi-day commercial grouper-snapper
trips, even out of NW Florida fish on the mid and outer continental shelf off
Louisiana and Texas. There are commercial landings offloaded and sold at NW
Florida fish houses but these did not necessarily represent red snapper caught on
local artificial reefs. Trip ticket landing reports don’t provide area specific
information that would have enabled us to determine whether red snapper were
caught on or in the vicinity of the Oriskany Reef. Commercial snapper-grouper
vessels are required to have vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on board their vessels
which allows NOAA fisheries to document their locations and tracks. Review of
VMS tracks records is one potential method method of determining if commercial
vessel activity has been taking place on the Oriskany Reef. In an effort to
determine if any commercial fishing is being conducted on the Oriskany a formal
request will be made by the FWC to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to get information on the frequency of commercial vessels that have stopped and
were presumed to be fishing over the Oriskany since May 2006. This information
will be presented in the project’s final report.
It is believed that because the Oriskany Reef is such a highly publicized artificial
reef frequented by both recreational divers and recreational fishers, commercial
fishers generally tend to avoid such reef sites. Commercial red snapper fishermen
fish under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) system which allows them to fish yearround in federal waters until they fill their assigned annual quotas. They can retain
red snapper as small as 13 inches total length. The smaller size kept (as opposed to
the 16 inch TL minimum Gulf of Mexico recreational limit) is intended to reduce
discard wastage since commercial fishermen tend to fish for red snapper at greater
average depths where barotraumas upon rapid ascent of a hooked fish results in a
high discard mortality.
II F (5) Oriskany Reef Human Health Fish Consumption Issues
A scenario of recreational fisher red snapper consumption from the Oriskany Reef during
the first five years of the Oriskany deployment (May 2006-May 2011).
In the absence of any available recreational fisher red snapper fishing frequency on
the Oriskany Reef, the following conservative red snapper harvest and consumption
scenario is suggested. This scenario describes a local recreational fisher with access
to an offshore fishing vessel over the first five years of the existence of the Oriskany
Reef. This scenario is very conservative because it assumes that a fisher traveling
offshore once a week during the federal red snapper season will fish exclusively on
the Oriskany Reef to catch and retain his maximum two red snapper limit. Any
additional trips he took beyond this once a week red snapper trip to the Oriskany
99 | P a g e
during red snapper season would be assumed to have been to other numerous
natural or artificial reef locations inshore of the Oriskany Reef.
Based on the results of the reasoning below, the fisher would have consumed no
more than 6.9 oz of Oriskany Reef red snapper per week over the first 5.03 years of
the Oriskany Reef’s existence or 3.3 oz week if he shared his catch with another
person. The recreational fishing bag and season limits in place since the Oriskany
was reefed appear in Table 17 below.
Table 17. Federal Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper daily bag limits
per person and red snapper season length by year (2006-2011).
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Red Snapper Season Length
April 30-October 31 (185 days)
June 1-Sept. 15 (107 days)
June 1-August 5 (66 days)
June 1-August 14 (75 days)
Oct 1-November 21 (21 days)
(Fri-Sun weekends only)
June 1-(end date TBD)
Daily Red Snapper Bag Limit
Four Fish, 16” Total Length
Two Fish, 16” Total Length
Two Fish, 16” Total Length
Two Fish, 16” Total Length
Two Fish, 16” Total Length
Two Fish, 16” Total Length
During the summer of 2006, based on FWC diver observations of juvenile red and
vermilion snapper, the Oriskany Reef fish community wasn’t developed enough to
be viewed as a priority red snapper recreational fishing destination. Recreational
bottom fishing probably first began on the Oriskany with any regularity after the
opening of the red snapper season in June 2007. Over the four years from
November 1, 2006-October 1, 2010 the Oriskany Reef, due to federal recreational
red snapper season closures was only accessible to recreational anglers fishing for
red snapper 248 days out of 1,430 days (17.3% of the time). Then over the next
eight months (Oct 1 2010-June 1, 2011) the reef was only accessible to recreational
red snapper harvest for 21 out of 243 days (8.6%) of the time. If the assumption was
made that there was no significant red snapper fishing on the Oriskany Reef from
May 18-October 31, 2006, (166 days) due to the slow development of the reef fish
community on the new Oriskany Reef, as a result of a higher percentage of sublegal
red snapper and high level of Oriskany Reef competing diver interest, the total
number of days from May 18, 2006, the day after reefing to May 31 2011, the day
before the 2011 federal recreational GOM red snapper fishing season begins would
be just over five years 1,839 days). During those 5.04 years there would have been
269 possible red snapper fishing days on the Oriskany (14.6% of the 1,839 days
since the Oriskany Reef was created).
Therefore in theory, a recreational
fisherman going to the Oriskany everyday could have done so only if he made a
100 | P a g e
trip less than 15% of the time due to season closures or lack of reef community
development on the reef during the first 2006 summer red snapper season. The
typical recreational fisher typically makes no more than one offshore fishing day
trip a week. The captains and crews of for-hire vessels make more frequent trips,
but if they are carrying passengers, they can’t retain the recreational bag limit.
Assuming a recreational fisherman was able to make an offshore trip once a week to
the Oriskany Reef during the red snapper fishing seasons of the last five years he
would have had access to 269 probable red snapper fishing days. Assume he made a
weekly trip, once in seven days, requiring 45 nautical round trip mile run just to get
to the Oriskany Reef from Pensacola Pass and back with an additional requirement
for favorable weather (no small craft advisories or warnings). This leaves the angler
with 38 days of fishing access over the first five years of the Oriskany Reef’s life.
We assume he caught his two red snapper limit at the Oriskany Reef (and nowhere
else) on every one of his 38 once a week offshore fishing days over the five year
period. The total red snapper harvest would be 76 red snapper retained over a five
year period. An average 2-3 yr old red snapper weight of three pounds (1,361 g)
would provide about 1.5 lbs of fillets. If the fisher achieved his two fish bag limit on
each Oriskany Reef trip, the fisher would have 114 pounds of red snapper fillets
taken from the Oriskany over a period of 1,839 days. Assuming the fisher was the
sole consumer of his red snapper, (114 lbs x 453.592 grams/lb) he would have
consumed 51,709 grams of Oriskany Reef snapper over a 1,839 day period or 28
grams of red snapper/day (51,709g/1,839 days). He would be consuming 28 grams of
red snapper/day or 28 grams x 0.035 oz/g = .98 ounces of red snapper/day x 7 days or
6.9 ounces of red snapper/week. If he shared equally his red snapper catch with one
other person, he would have consumed over a period of 5.04 years 3.3 ounces of red
snapper/week from the Oriskany Reef. Any increased fishing effort (say twice a
week) presumes he would be fishing for red snapper or other reef fish species on
some other more readily accessible reef. However, this modest Oriskany Reef red
snapper consumption over a five year period would not take into account the
retention and consumption of other fish with different bag limits possibly caught at
the Oriskany Reef at the same time he caught red snapper, say for example
grouper, porgies, or triggerfish.
During the five years of the Oriskany Reef’s existence, a reduced red snapper
fishing season length, bag limit reduction, the increased price of both diesel and
outboard engine fuel, the distance of the Oriskany Reef offshore from the nearest
recreational vessel launch facilities (25-30 nautical miles) and a general economic
recession that began in 2008, have all acted to limit access by individual
recreational fishers and their families to reef fish, particularly red snapper, caught
101 | P a g e
at the Oriskany Reef and other offshore sites in federal waters. Additionally,
Escambia County has an extensive system of published artificial reefs closer
inshore than the Oriskany Reef. Those artificial reefs along with scores of historic
unpublished private reefs and some natural hard bottom sites provide many
alternate fishing locales. Private recreational fishers and for-hire charters normally
have numerous fishing locations to select from and will rarely spend entire day
fishing at one particular reef site.
In conclusion, based on the results of the above reasoning, the fisher would have
consumed no more than 6.9 oz of Oriskany Reef red snapper per week over the first
5.03 years of the Oriskany Reef’s existence or 3.3 oz week if he shared his catch
with another person.
Although tighter federal red snapper fishing regulations during the first five years
of the existence of the Oriskany Reef played a major role in limiting access of the
individual fisher to the Oriskany Reef and other Gulf offshore fishing sites,
ultimately red snapper stock recovery will continue in response to this reduced
Gulf-wide recreational fishing pressure The future result may be a longer red
snapper fishing season and an average increase in the size of individual fish caught
which may in the future increase the amount of red snapper fish tissue available to
and consumed by a recreational fisherman from the Oriskany Reef.
II F (6) Marine Fish Consumption Guidelines currently in place in coastal Florida Waters
The Florida Department of Health (2009) states that it periodically publishes “Fish
Consumption Advisories” to alert consumers about the possibility of chemically
contaminated fish in Florida waters. The advisories are meant to inform the public
of potential health risks of specific fish species from specific water bodies.”
II F (6) (a) Marine Fish Mercury Advisories
Red snapper along with dozens of other saltwater fish are under a mercury advisory
for all Florida coastal waters. Red snapper would be classified as having low to
medium levels of mercury which could be variable with the age of the fish. The
Florida Department of Health (FDH) provides eating guidelines that recommend no
more than one six ounce red snapper meal a week for women of childbearing age
and children and two meals a week for everyone else (Florida Department of
Health, 2009). The estimated 6.9 ounces a week red snapper intake from the
Oriskany Reef over a five year period is just over half the amount allowed under the
mercury guidelines (12 ounces/week for men and women of non-childbearing age
and about the allowable amount for women of childbearing age and children.
(Florida Department of Health, 2009).
102 | P a g e
II F (6) (b) Current Florida Marine/Estuarine PCB Advisories
There are presently one freshwater and two estuarine/marine PCB fish
consumption advisories in place in Florida. The freshwater body for which there is
PCB fish consumption advisory is Lake Munson in Leon County (Tallahassee, FL
area). The advisory recommends only one meal per month of largemouth bass 19
inches in length or greater. The two estuarine/marine PCB advisories are for the
lower Escambia River from SR 184 to the mouth of the river and for Upper and
Lower Escambia Bays. Both advisories are for Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
and target striped mullet. The advisory directs that striped mullet (Mugil cephalus)
should be eaten only for one meal a week and with the skin off (Florida Department
of Health, 2009). The amount of a meal is considered to be six ounces of cooked fish.
II F (6) (c) The Concept of a PCB Advisory for the Oriskany Reef
The Florida Department of Health is unsure of their authority outside state waters
to issue a fish advisory for a location or a population offshore in federal waters (Dr.
Kendra Goff, FDOH, personal communication, 2011). Presumably such an advisory
would have to be proposed by the EPA, or some other federal agency. FDOH does
issue fish advisories for multiple fish species in particular freshwater water bodies
for state waters. Available data (Snyder et al. 2007, our nearby reef monitoring,
and this report) does not indicate there is a broad regional offshore problem with
PCBs for any recreationally or commercially targeted marine reef fish species
despite the historic presence of a PCB spill in the Escambia River which
subsequently has affected upper and lower Escambia Bays. The areas of concern
are more than 48 miles inshore of the Oriskany Reef. There doesn’t appear to be
any well defined mechanism of PCB transport out of Escambia Bay that is
significantly affecting other offshore reef areas.
For red snapper if there were an Oriskany Reef specific advisory, the likely proposal
would be one six ounce meal a week. However, since hardly more than that can be
caught now, averaged over a multi-year period under current bag limits and
fisheries closures, a possible Oriskany Reef specific advisory, would be to
recommend that any red snapper caught on the Oriskany be prepared and eaten
with skin off. Many, though not all fishers currently prepare red snapper with the
skin off. If multiple fish are a concern at the Oriskany Reef an advisory
recommendation might be that consumption of any fish in the Snapper-Grouper
complex from the Oriskany be limited to one six ounce meal a week with skin off.
Escambia County and FWC encourage Florida Department of Health and EPA to
consider all available data when contemplating establishing fish consumption
advisory at or near Oriskany Reef. Although most previous advisories have been
103 | P a g e
issued for individual species, various factors should be considered in this case. Most
recreational fishes harvested at or near Oriskany Reef are regulated by National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); some species (e.g., red snapper, grouper) may
only be harvested for a few weeks or months each year. Oriskany Reef is located
more than 20 miles from Pensacola and Destin passes, requiring substantial
financial expenditures for fuel and other vessel costs. To make such expenditures
worthwhile, anglers may retain (for consumption) any/all fish caught. Thus, the
entire suite of reef fish is the operative unit for consideration. Utilizing the mean
PCB concentration of all reef fish typically harvested by anglers, provides a more
realistic determination of actual exposure. Some fishes, such as red porgy, may only
comprise a small proportion of the total catch, and including these fish when
calculating mean tissue PCB concentration provides statistical confidence.
II F (7) Comparison of results with Navy expected Invertivore and Piscivore Trophic level
data.
In the EPA risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal document issued to the Navy, FWC,
and Escambia County on February 15, 2006, a table was displayed that showed the
Navy’s expected calculations of total PCB loads for grouper and triggerfish both at
two years and at 2-32 years post sink for the Oriskany Reef. The Navy’s
calculations were that a piscivorous grouper (Trophic Level 4) residing 0-15 m from
the ship would have a total PCB tissue wet weight load of 0.045 mg/kg during the
first two years, followed by a 2-32 year steady state total PCB wet weight tissue
concentration increase to 0.11 mg/kg wet weight fish tissue concentration if residing
in Zone of Influence 2. This latter concentration represented an excess cancer risk of
7 in one million. A trophic level 3 invertivore represented by a triggerfish was
estimated to have a total PCB tissue value of 0.036 mg/kg wet weight during the
first two years and a total PCB wet weight tissue concentration of 0.065 mg/kg, wet
weight fish tissue under steady state conditions, 2-32 years post-sinking. This latter
value for a triggerfish represented an excess cancer risk of 4 in a million. Both of
these steady state values for invertivore and piscivore exceed the Florida
Department of Health PCB Screening Level of .050 mg/kg. However, EPA predicted
that high fishing pressure and Navy’s conservative nature of risk assessment
assumptions would result in actual fish tissue concentrations that are significantly
lower than those estimated by the Navy. EPA believed that the lower anticipated
calculations would approach or be below the one additional cancer risk per
1,000,000 people (1E-06 level). EPA states, “risks of less than 1E-06 are virtually
always considered acceptable; risks somewhat above that level may be considered
acceptable depending on factors such as the degree of conservatism in the risk
104 | P a g e
assessment, technological feasibility, cost of disposal, and benefits to the
environment” (USEPA 2006a).
As noted at the beginning of the progress report, the likelihood that the project
would be able to collect sufficient numbers of the Navy’s selected fishes (grouper
category Trophic level 4, piscivore) and triggerfish (Trophic level 3, invertivore) with
any regularity was uncertain, though three grouper species (gag, scamp, red) and
the gray triggerfish were in the ten recreationally targeted species sought. After 8
sampling rounds, insufficient numbers of grouper of any species or gray triggerfish
were collected to evaluate the Navy’s predictions based on the particular species
they utilized.
However, it is suggested that other vertivores (red porgy, whitebone porgy) have
total PCB values though limited by sample size, may, along with a lone gray
triggerfish more closely reflect the Navy’s invertivore PCB loading value of 0.056
mg/kg (56 ppb) for triggerfish at the commencement of a PCB steady state scenario
at the Oriskany. It was unclear whether these predicted values were based on “skinon” or “skin-off” tissue analyses.
The most commonly caught fish on the Oriskany Reef, red snapper, had a broad diet
that spanned multiple trophic levels included benthic Invertivore, Planktivore, and
fish. Red snapper diet varied with the season, and to some extent with fish size. The
next most commonly caught fish, in our project, the vermilion snapper, was a
Planktivore/Invertivore and generally fed up in the water column, producing the
consistently lowest PCB levels, generally below EPA screening levels of .020 ppm.
Although we have caught insufficient numbers of legal size grouper to make any
determination regarding PCB concentrations, we did harvest four legal size gag on
nearby bridge reef #1 and none of them exceeded the EPA Tier 1 PCB screening
level.
There are three grouper species available for capture on the Oriskany, though
perhaps in low enough numbers that during any one sampling event opportunities
to secure 15 specimens of any one grouper species would be remote. However each of
the three species, based on their feeding habits could be expected to provide
different results. For example the red grouper, for which we have only one specimen
from the Oriskany Reef (Sampling Round #8, analysis pending) tends to hang close
to the bottom, and has been noted excavating burrows (Dr. Chris Koenig, Florida
State University, personal communication). This grouper species is both an
invertivore and piscivore. Gag are largely piscivores but they eat not only fish on
the reef but also have been documented to feed on planktivorous foraging schooling
105 | P a g e
fish up in to water column (Dr. William Lindberg, University of Florida Personal
Communication). The seasonal presence of such water column planktivores might
actually provide a food source, at least seasonally that have potentially low PCB
concentrations. So a gag grouper might give a different PCB loading picture than a
red grouper. The only Oriskany Reef tested grouper to date, a scamp, had PCB
levels below the Tier 1 EPA screening levels.
II (G) Summary
Based on the information available to date, the water column
zooplanktivore/invertivore feeder, vermilion snapper, was the trophic level fish
species having the lowest PCB body burdens with no individual fish values
exceeding the EPA screening level. This was in contrast to the other snapper
species, red snapper, classified as an invertivore-piscivore that also fed in the water
column on invertebrates but also fed on benthic organisms, generally off the reef as
well as on benthic fish. The first 157 Oriskany Reef red snapper analyzed from
Sampling Rounds #1-6 had an overall mean total PCB muscle tissue concentration
of 54,174 picograms/gram (54 ppb). This was in contrast to the mean red snapper
nearby Site #1 total PCB value for 45 red snapper sampled across two sampling
rounds three months apart in winter and in spring. The mean total PCB value for
the nearby Site #1 red snapper was 7,602 picograms/gram (7.6 ppb), considerably
below the 20 ppb EPA Tier 1 screening value. The Oriskany reef six round red
snapper mean PCB value and the two round red snapper nearby Reef #1 red
snapper PCB means were significantly different (<0.0001 two-sided t-approximation
test). As the sampling moved through time, the red snapper PCB values at the
Oriskany Reef declined and the mean sample standard error decreased.
By Round #7, however, red snapper PCB values were showing a declining trend
with only two of 15 red snapper exceeding EPA screening level values and the mean
PCB concentration of the 15 red snapper samples falling below the PCB Tier 1
Screening Level. Receipt of Sampling Round #8 PCB analysis data by late May
2011 should help determine if this lower mean red snapper PCB level remains
below the PCB Tier 1 screening level.
In summary it may be that the fish who feed most heavily on benthic invertebrate
organisms and not necessarily directly on the reef itself may be the species that
receive the greatest PCB exposure in the early years after the sinking of the
Oriskany Reef with bulk waste PCBs at regulated levels left on board. PCBs
adhering to organic material in the sediments around the ship to which benthic
organisms are exposed, which are in turn eaten by foraging invertivores, may enter
the food chain relatively quickly but decrease over time.
106 | P a g e
III Oriskany Reef Monitoring Project Possible Options for Future Action
FWC and Escambia County provide the following options for future consideration:
1. Proceed with April 2011 Oriskany Reef fish sampling (sample round #9) as
planned. Increase the number of samples of recreationally targeted reef fish to 40.
Retain the first caught 40 legal size or keeper reef fish of all targeted species with
the caveat that at least 15 of these fish continue to be legal size red snapper. No
discarding of legal size fish in attempts to save space for other species selectively
targeted. Provide FDOH and EPA with field sampling report within 30 days.
2, Inform EPA and FDOH of November 2010 analysis results due from lab in late
May 2011.
3. Proceed with November 2011 sampling (sample round #10). Same approach as
item #1. Provide EPA and DOH with field sampling report within 30 days.
4. By May 2012 with additional PCB fish tissue results from November 2010, April
2011, and November 2011, present a full Ten Sampling Round Oriskany Reef
Formal Report to EPA and meet again in person with EPA and FDOH after delivery
of report.
5. If PCB levels have not increased during above three sampling rounds, request
dropping Oriskany Reef sampling to once a year (either starting with April 2012 or
November 2012).
6. In summer 2011 the FWC would move forward with funding a University of West
Florida proposal to develop a reef fish daily movement project in the vicinity of an
Escambia East LAARS artificial reef using an array of passive acoustic listening
devices to monitor over a three month period continuous movement of red snapper
and other selected reef fish implanted with internal transponders.
7. Investigate the costs of invertebrate sampling on Oriskany Reef (spiny oysters,
scallops, other sessile benthic organisms) if EPA requests.
107 | P a g e
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, G.R. 1985 FAO species catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of the world. An annotated
and illustrated catalogue of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop.
125(6):208 p.
Bortone, S. A., R. K. Turpin, et al. 1997. Factors Associated with Artificial-Reef Fish
Assemblages. Gulf of Mexico Science. 15(1): 17-34.
Cowan, J.H. Jr., C.B. Grimes, W.F. Patterson III, C.J. Walters, A.C. Jones, W.J.
Lindberg, D.J. Sheehy, W.E. Pine III, J.E. Powers, M.D. Campbell, K.C. Lindeman,
S.L. Diamond, R. Hilborn, H.T. Gibson, and K.A. Rose. 2010. Red snapper
management in the Gulf of Mexico: Science- or Faith-based? Published on line 03
April 2010 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. DOI:10.1007/s11160-010-9165-7. Springerlink.com
DeGrandchamp, R. L. and M. G. Barron (2005). PCB Analysis and Risk Assessment
at Navy Installations. Part A: Overview of PCB Mixtures. Portsmouth, VA, Navy
Environmental Health Center: 21 pages.
Devries, D.A 2006 The Life History Reproductive Ecology, and Demography of the
Red Porgy, Pagrus pagrus, In The Northeastern Gulf of Mexico PhD Dissertation,
Florida State University, Spring 2006.
Diamond SL, Campbell MD, Olsen D, Wang Y, Zeplin J,Qualia S (2007) Movers and
stayers: individual variability in site fidelity and movements of red snapper off
Texas. In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH Jr, Fitzhugh GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red
Snapper ecology and fisheries in the US Gulf of Mexico. American fisheries society,
symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 163–188 .
Dodrill, J. and R. Turpin. 2003. Letter of application to the Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration for the transfer of an obsolete ship.
November 11, 2003, 38 pages.
Dodrill, J. and R. Turpin. 2007. Combined Tier-1 level polychlorinated biphenyl fish
tissue screening monitoring work plan and quality assurance project plan for the
Oriskany Reef (ex-U.S.S. Oriskany (CVA-34) artificial reef). June 25, 2007. 88
pages.
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Whitebone porgy species summary.
http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=1225, March 25, 2011.
108 | P a g e
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Red porgy species summary.
http://fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1756&AT=red+porgy, April 4, 2011.
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Red snapper species summary.
http://fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1423&AT=red+snapper, April 4, 2011.
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Whitebone porgy species summary.
http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=7327, March 9, 2010.
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Scamp species summary.
http://www.fishbase.com/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=1213. March 17, 2010.
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011. Vermilion snapper species summary.
http://fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=213, March 3, 2010.
Florida Department of Health. 2009. Your Guide to eating fish caught in Florida.
Public Brochure. 33 pages.
Florida Museum of Natural History Web Site –Red Snapper
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/redsnapper/redsnapper.html,
March 2011
FWC Website MyFWC .com – Groupers: scamp
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/saltwaterfish_groupsca.htm, 3/17/2010.
FWC Website MyFWC .com -Snappers: Vermilion Snapper.
http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/saltwaterfish_snapverm.htm
FWC, Division of Marine Fisheries Management, Artificial Reef Program. 2011.
State of Florida Artificial Reef Locations. 33 pages.
Florida Fish and Conservation Commission, Division of Marine Fisheries
Management 2010.
Fish census data from dive assessment field reports-,
unpublished FWC reports 2010.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Red Porgy,
Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2 pages
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Vermillion
Snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829), Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, 2 pages
109 | P a g e
Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Gray Triggerfish
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Baistes capriscuss (Gmelin, 1789),
Commission, 2 pages
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GOMFMC), 2004. Final Amendment
23 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan to set Vermilion Snapper sustainable
fisheries act target and thresholds and to establish a plan to end overfishing and
rebuild the stock. 296 pages.
Hess, Ron, Denis Rushworth, Michael V. Hynes, John E. Peters. 2001. Disposal Options for
Ships. Rand Corporation. 148 pages.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1377
Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard and J.M. Mckim, 1976. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
Hood, P.B., and A.K. Johnson. 2000. Age, growth, mortality, and reproduction of red
porgy, Pagrus pagrus from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 98:723-735.
Horn, W. and K. Mille. 2006. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial Reef
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, May 18,
2006. Unpublished FWC report, 12 pages.
Horn, W., J. Dodrill, and K. Mille. 2006a. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial
Reef Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, August
3, 2006. Unpublished FWC report, 20 pages.
Horn, W. and K. Mille 2006b. Division of Marine Fisheries, Artificial Reef
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, September
28, 2006. Unpublished FWC report, 17 pages.
Horn, W. 2007. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef Assessment Dive Team
Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, June 23, 2007. Unpublished FWC
report, 13 pages.
Horn, W. and K. Miller 2007. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Trap Recovery
Reef, April 17, 2007. Unpublished FWC report, 7 pages.
Horn, W. and K. Mille. 2009. Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef
Assessment Dive Team Reef Assessment Field Report, Oriskany Reef, November
19, 2009. Unpublished FWC report, 20 pages.
Ingram, GW 2001. Stock structure of gray triggerfish, Ballistes capriscus, on
multiple spatial scales in the Gulf of Mexico. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama. 229 pages.
110 | P a g e
Ingram, G.W., Jr. and W.F. Patterson, III. 1999. Movement patterns of red snapper
(Lutjanus campechanus), greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), and gray triggerfish
(Balistes capriscus) in the Gulf of Mexico and the utility of marine reserves as
management tools. Proceedings of 52nd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Key
West, Florida.
Ingram, G.W., Jr. 2001. Stock structure of gray triggerfish in the northern Gulf of
Mexico. PhD. Dissertation, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. 228 pages.
International Game Fish Association (IGFA). 2010. IGFA Online World Record
Search. http://www.igfa.org/records/Fishing-World-Record-Search.aspx
Johnston, R.K., George, R.D., Richter, K.E., Wang, P.F., and Wild, W.J. 2006.
Artificial Reefing: Ex-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project, Ecological Risk
Assessment. Final Report, Marine Environmental Support Office, Environmental
Sciences and Applied Systems Branch, SPARWAR Systems Center. (Prepared for:
Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 333), San Diego, California 92152-6326). 358
pages.
McCawley, J.R. 2003. Diet and prey demand of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus,
on Alabama artificial reefs. Department of Marine Sciences, University of South
Alabama, College of Arts and Sciences. M.S. Thesis. 206 pages.
McCawley, J.R. and J.H. Cowan Jr. 2007. Seasonal and Size Specific Diet and Prey
Demand of Red Snapper on Alabama Artificial Reefs. Pp. 70-104. In Red Snapper
ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 2007 W.H. Patterson III, J.M.
Cowan, Jr, G. R. Fitzshugh and D. Neiland. Editors. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 60 (San Antonio, TX Feb. 10-12 2006).
McClellan, D.B. and N.J. Cummings. 1997. Preliminary Analysis of Tag and
Recapture Data of the Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the Southeastern
Unites Sates. Proc. 49th Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 49: 25–45.
Morgan and Rose. 2005. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consultation on the
Polychlorinated Biphenyl - Artificial Reef Risk Assessment. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 2 pages.
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
WEB
site
FISH
WATCH
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/red_snapper.htm, March 9, 2010
111 | P a g e
-
NEHC 2005. EX-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project: Human Health Risk
Assessment. Draft Final Report June 2005, Prepared for Program Executive Office
Ships (PMS333) Naval Sea Systems Command by BAH/MCA/URS for Navy
Environmental Health Center, Norfolk, VA.
Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N.
Lea, and J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication
29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pages.
Nieland DL, Wilson CA, Fischer AJ (2007) Declining size at age among red snapper
in the northern Gulf of Mexico: recovery or collapse? In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH
Jr, Fitzhugh GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red Snapper Ecology and Fisheries in the US
Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland, pp
329–336.
Pape, L.T. 2006. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) source term estimates for exOriskany (CVA-34). Rev. 5, January 24, 2006. Prepared through CACI
International Inc. for Program Executive Office (Ships), Navy Inactive Ships
Program (PMS 333) 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20376-2101.
Patterson, W.F., III, J.H. Cowan, Jr., C.A. Wilson, and R.L. Shipp. 2001a. Age and
growth of red snapper from an artificial reef area in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
U.S. Fishery Bulletin 99:617-627.
Patterson, W.F., III, J.C. Watterson, R.L. Shipp, and J.H. Cowan, Jr. 2001b.
Movement of tagged red snapper in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 130:533-545.
Patterson, W.F., III and J.H. Cowan. 2003. Site fidelity and dispersion of red
snapper associated with artificial reefs in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Pages 181194 in D.R. Stanley and A. Scarborough- Bull, eds. Fisheries, Reefs, and Offshore
Development. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 36,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Patterson WF III (2007) A review of movement in Gulf of Mexico red snapper:
implications for population structure. In: Patterson WF, Cowan JH Jr, Fitzhugh
GR, Nieland DL (eds) Red Snapper Ecology and Fisheries in the US Gulf of Mexico.
American Fisheries Society, symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 245–262.
Patterson, W.F. III, D. T. Addis, and J.H. Tarnecki. 2010. The refuge effect of
unpublished artificial reefs deployed on the northwest Florida shelf (Contract
FWC07019). Final Report, March 1, 2010. 36 pp.
112 | P a g e
Patterson, W. F., J. H. Cowan Jr, et al. 2001. "Age and growth of red snapper,
Lutjanus Campechanus, from an artificial reef area off Alabama in the northern
Gulf of Mexico." Fishery Bulletin 99: 617-627.
Patterson, W.F., III, D.T. Addis, and M.A. Dance. 2008. The effect of unpublished
artificial reefs deployed on the northwest Florida shelf. Final Report to Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission for FWC-06120. 116 pages.
Patterson, W.F., Dustin T. Addis, and Michael A. Dance. 2009. The Refuge Effect
of Unpublished Artificial Reefs Deployed on the Northwest Florida Shelf (FWC06120): 2005-08 Modeling Report. Final report to Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Grant FWC-06120. 53 pages.
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Whitebone Porgy
Description.
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/WhitebonePorgy/tabid/260/Default.aspx,
Accessed April 5, 2011.
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Scamp
Description. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/Scamp/tabid/322/Default.aspx,
Accessed April 5, 2011.
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Vermilion
Snapper
Description.
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/VermilionSnapper/tabid/335/Default.aspx,
Accessed April 5, 2011.
SAFMC. Web Site South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Gray triggerfish
Description
http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GrayTriggerfish/tabid/292/Default.aspx.
Accessed April 5, 2011.
Schmitt.et al 1998. Surveying Coral Reef Fishes: A Manual for Data Collection,
Processing, and Interpretation of Fish Survey Information for the Tropical
Northwest Atlantic. Published by REEF and the Nature Conservancy 84 pages.
Schmitt, E.F and K.M. Sullivan. 1996. Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting
fish presence and abundance data in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science.
59(2):404-416.
Schroepfer, R.L. and S.T. Szedlmayer. 2006. Estimates of residence and site fidelity
for red snapper Lutjanus campechanus on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 78:93-101.
Sedberry, G.R. 1989. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87: 935-944
113 | P a g e
Shipp, R.L. 1986. Guide to Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Marine Environmental
Sciences Consortium of Alabama, 256 pages.
Snyder, R.A., W.F. Patterson III, S. Givson, S. Jeffers, and A. Ren. 2007. PreReefing Environmental Assessment for the ex-Oriskany. Center for Environmental
Diagnositics and Bioremediation and Department of Biology. University of West
Florida, Pensacola, Florida. 59 pp.
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006a. Ex-Oriskany Artificial Reef Project:
Human Health Risk Assessment. Final Report, Prepared for: Program Executive
Office Ships (PMS 333). 411 pages.
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006b. Artificial Reefing: Ex-ORISKANY
Artificial Reef Project - Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) Version 1.4C.
San Diego, California. Prepared for: Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 333),
Navy Environmental Health Center, URS Corporation, SPARWAR Systems Center.
408 pages.
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c. Ex-Oriskany Project: Time Dynamic
Model Documentation (TDM). Final Report, Prepared for: Program Executive Office
Ships (PMS 333). 175 pages.
SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. (2006d). Ex-Oriskany Project: Investigation
of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Release-Rates from Selected Shipboard
Materials Under Laboratory-Simulated Shallow Ocean (Artificial Reef)
Environments. 1074 pages.
Strelcheck, A. J. 1998. The Influence of Reef Design and Nearest-Neighbor
Dynamics on Artificial-Reef Fish Assemblages. Department of Marine Sciences.
Mobile, AL, University of South Alabama. Masters Thesis. 124 pages.
Strelcheck AJ, Cowan JH Jr, Shah A (2005) Influence of Reef Location on ArtificalReef Fish Assemblages in the Northcentral Gulf of Mexico. Bull Mar Sci 77:425–440
Strelcheck, A.J, J.H. Cowan, Jr. and W.F. Patterson, III. 2007. Site fidelity,
movement, and growth of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus: Implications for
artificial reef management. Pages 135-148 in W.F. Patterson, III,
Szedlemayer, S. T. and R. L. Shipp. 1994. "Movement and Growth of Red Snapper,
Lutjanus Campechanus, from an Artificial Reef Area in the Northeastern Gulf of
Mexico." Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3): 887-896.
Szedlmayer, S. T. 1997. Ultrasonic telemetry of redsnapper, Lutjanus campechanus,
at artificial reef sites in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 1997:846–850.
114 | P a g e
Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Ecology of Live Bottom
Habitats of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0001 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New
Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 99-0004. 74 pages.
USEPA. 2006a. Response to comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Proposal to issue a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal approval for
deployment of the ex-Oriskany as an artificial reef, February 15, 2006.
USEPA. 2006b. Approval for risk-based disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
bulk product waste. Issued to the U.S. Department of the Navy Inactive Ships
Program Office and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, February
15, 2006.
USEPA and MARAD. 2006. National Guidance: Best Management Practices for
Preparing Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs. 76 pages.
Wilson, C.A., and Nieland, D.L. 2001. Age and growth of red snapper, Lutjanus
campechanus, from the northern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana. Fishery Bulletin
99(4): 653-664.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the captains and crew of the F/V Margie Ann, M/V JJ
Brown, F/V Chulamar, and F/V Entertainer, as well as the many volunteer anglers
who assisted with the fish sampling trips.
115 | P a g e
APPENDIX 1
Tables
116 | P a g e
Table 2. FWC Fish Census data taken on the Oriskany Reef from seven surveys,
sorted by Percent Sightings Frequency. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are
species that were sampled for PCBs on the Oriskany Reef.
Common Name
vermilion snapper
red snapper
great barracuda
cocoa damselfish
yellowtail reeffish
Scamp
bar jack
Tomtate
seaweed blenny
greater amberjack
bank sea bass
planehead filefish
slippery dick
sharpnose puffer
Gag
round scad
creole-fish
purple reeffish
blue angelfish
Bluehead
blue runner
dusky damselfish
gray snapper
almaco jack
reef butterflyfish
spotfin butterflyfish
Doctorfish
scrawled filefish
whitespotted filefish
red porgy
Bermuda chub
Atlantic spadefish
Cubbyu
High-hat
Sharksucker
Trumpetfish
banded butterfly
red barbier
Pinfish
redband parrotfish
spotfin hogfish
belted sandfish
brown chromis
gray triggerfish
Sunshinefish
bicolor damselfish
Graysby
Remoras
sand perch
Spanish hogfish
whitespotted soapfish
yellow goatfish
yellow jack
117 | P a g e
Scientific Name
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Lutjanus campechanus
Sphyraena barracuda
Pomacentrus variabilis
Chromis enchysurus
Mycteroperca phenax
Caranx ruber
Haemulon aurolineatum
Parablennius marmoreus
Seriola dumerili
Centropristis ocyurus
Monacanthus hispidus
Halichoeres bivitattus
Canthigaster rostrata
Mycteroperca microlepis
Decapterus punctatus
Paranthias furcifer
Chromis scotti
Holocanthus bermudensis
Thalassoma bifasciatum
Caranx crysos
Stegastes fuscus
Lutjanus griseus
Seriola rivoliana
Chaetodon sedentarius
Chaetodon ocellatus
Acanthurus chirurgus
Aluterus scriptus
Cantherhines macrocerus
Pagrus pagrus
Kyphosus sectatrix
Chaetodipterus faber
Equetus umbrosus
Equetus acuminatus
Echeneis naucrates
Aulostomus maculatus
Chaetodontidae striatus
Hemanthias vivanus
Lagodon rhomboides
Scarus aurofrenatus
Bodianus pulchellus
Serranus subligarius
Chromis multilineata
Balistes capriscus
Chromis insolata
Stegastes partitus
Epinephelus cruentatus
Echeneidae
Diplectrum formosum
Bodianus rufus
Rypticus maculatus
Mulloidichthys martinicus
Caranx bartholomaei
Density
3.57
3.00
1.86
2.83
2.83
2.50
3.00
2.80
2.40
2.21
2.20
2.20
2.20
1.80
1.60
3.25
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.25
3.67
3.00
3.00
2.33
2.00
2.00
1.67
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
# Surveys
Observed
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
% Sightings Frequency
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
85.71%
85.71%
85.71%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
57.14%
57.14%
57.14%
57.14%
57.14%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
42.86%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Table 3. FWC Fish Census data taken on the Oriskany Reef from seven surveys,
sorted by density. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are species that were
sampled for PCBs on the Oriskany Reef.
Common name
blue runner
vermilion snapper
round scad
red snapper
bar jack
dusky damselfish
gray snapper
red porgy
belted sandfish
cocoa damselfish
yellowtail reeffish
Tomtate
creole-fish
Scamp
purple reeffish
Bermuda chub
seaweed blenny
almaco jack
blue angelfish
Bluehead
greater amberjack
bank seabass
planehead filefish
slippery dick
reef butterflyfish
spotfin butterflyfish
Atlantic spadefish
Cubbyu
Highhat
Sharksucker
Trumpetfish
brown chromis
gray triggerfish
Sunshinefish
great barracuda
sharpnose puffer
Doctorfish
Gag grouper
banded butterfly
red barbier
scrawled filefish
whitespotted filefish
Pinfish
redband parrotfish
spotfin hogfish
bicolor damselfish
Graysby
Remoras
sand perch
Spanish hogfish
whitespotted soapfish
yellow goatfish
yellow jack
118 | P a g e
Scientific Name
Caranx crysos
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Decapterus punctatus
Lutjanus campechanus
Caranx ruber
Stegastes fuscus
Lutjanus griseus
Pagrus pagrus
Serranus subligarius
Pomacentrus variabilis
Chromis enchysurus
Haemulon aurolineatum
Paranthias furcifer
Mycteroperca phenax
Chromis scotti
Kyphosus sectatrix
Parablennius marmoreus
Seriola rivoliana
Holocanthus bermudensis
Thalassoma bifasciatum
Seriola dumerili
Centropristic ocyurus
Monacanthus hispidus
Halichoeres bivitattus
Chaetodon sedentarius
Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodipterus faber
Equetus umbrosus
Equetus acuminatus
Echeneis naucrates
Aulostomus maculatus
Chromis multilineata
Balistes capriscus
Chromis insolata
Sphyraena barracuda
Canthigaster rostrata
Acanthurus chirurgus
Mycteroperca microlepis
Chaetodontidae striatus
Hemanthias vivanus
Aluterus scriptus
Cantherhines macrocerus
Lagodon rhomboides
Scarus aurofrenatus
Bodianus pulchellus
Stegastes partitus
Epinephelus cruentatus
Echeneidae
Diplectrum formosum
Bodianus rufus
Rypticus maculatus
Mulloidichthys martinicus
Caranx bartholomaei
Density
# Surveys
Observed
% Sightings Frequency
Rank
3.67
3.57
3.25
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.83
2.83
2.80
2.75
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.33
2.25
2.25
2.21
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.86
1.80
1.67
1.60
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3
7
4
7
5
3
3
2
1
6
6
5
4
6
4
2
5
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
7
5
3
5
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42.86%
100.00%
57.14%
100.00%
71.43%
42.86%
42.86%
28.57%
14.29%
85.71%
85.71%
71.43%
57.14%
85.71%
57.14%
28.57%
71.43%
42.86%
57.14%
57.14%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
71.43%
42.86%
42.86%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
100.00%
71.43%
42.86%
71.43%
28.57%
28.57%
42.86%
42.86%
28.57%
28.57%
28.57%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
14.29%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Table 4. Fish census data taken by the FWC on the Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge
Reef, November 19, 2009. Bold text entries overlying a blue field are species that
were sampled for PCBs on the Oriskany Reef.
Common Name
Tomtate
Atlantic spadefish
cocoa damselfish
gray snapper
greater amberjack
red snapper
Scamp
banded butterfly
beaugregory
belted sandfish
blue angelfish
Cubbyu
Gag
gray triggerfish
great barracuda
lane snapper
Porkfish
purple reeffish
red grouper
slippery dick
spotfin butterflyfish
vermilion snapper
whitespotted soapfish
doctorfish
French angelfish
orange filefish
reef butterflyfish
sharpnose puffer
Scientific name
Haemulon aurolineatum
Chaetodipterus faber
Stegastes variabilis
Lutjanus griseus
Seriola dumerili
Lutjanus campechanus
Mycteroperca phenax
Chaetodontidae striatus
Stegastes leucostictus
Serranus subligarius
Holocanthus bermudensis
Equetus umbrosus
Mycteroperca microlepis
Balistes capriscus
Sphyraena barracuda
Lutjanus synagris
Anisotremus virginicus
Chromis scotti
Epinephelus morio
Halichoeres bivitattus
Chaetodon ocellatus
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rypticus maculates
Acanthurus chirurgus
Pomacanthus paru
Aluterus schoepfi
Chaetodon sedentarius
Canthigaster rostrata
Relative Abundance
Abundant: > 100
Many: 11 to 100
Many: 11 to 100
Many: 11 to 100
Many: 11 to 100
Many: 11 to 100
Many: 11 to 100
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Few: 2 to 10
Single: 1
Single: 1
Single: 1
Single: 1
Single: 1
Table 5. University of West Florida fish census data taken on Escambia East
LAARS Refugia Reefs (Patterson 2009), sorted by Percent Number. Bold text
entries overlying a blue field are species that were sampled for PCBs on the
Oriskany Reef.
Common Name
red snapper
mackerel scad
tomtate
round sardinella
vermilion snapper
blue runner
pinfish
greater amberjack
gray triggerfish
slippery dick
gray snapper
twospot cardinalfish
seaweed blenny
119 | P a g e
Scientific Name
Lutjanus campechanus
Decapterus macarellus
Haemulon aurolineatum
Sardinella aurita
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Caranx crysos
Lagodon rhomboides
Seriola dumerili
Balistes capriscus
Halichoeres bivittatus
Lutjanus griseus
Apogon pseudomaculatus
Parblennius marmoreus
Percent
Number
25.60
15.35
10.04
6.61
5.28
4.38
4.36
3.43
3.35
3.28
2.20
1.64
1.39
Percent Biomass
42.79
3.86
3.18
2.02
5.14
3.72
1.59
6.83
6.14
0.50
4.24
0.06
0.04
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
red porgy
Pagrus pagrus
1.18
0.92
lane snapper
Lutjanus synagris
1.08
0.92
bank seabass
Centropristis ocyurus
1.08
0.87
Atlantic spadefish
Chaetodipterus faber
0.94
0.36
gag grouper
Mycteroperca microlepis
0.77
5.19
cardinalfish
Apogon sp.
0.69
<0.01
almaco jack
Seriola rivoliana
0.69
1.16
whitespotted soapfish
Rypticus maculatus
0.54
0.18
damselfish
Chromis sp.
0.53
<0.01
scamp
Mycteroperca phenax
0.53
1.15
red grouper
Epinephelus morio
0.41
3.09
jackknife fish
Equetus lanceolatus
0.20
0.13
king mackerel
Scomberomorus cavalla
0.15
0.86
Warsaw grouper
Epinephelus nigritus
0.15
0.03
Caribbean sharpnose puffer
Canthigaster rostrata
0.12
0.02
sandperch
Diplectrum formosum
0.11
0.07
banded rudderfish
Seriola zonata
0.10
0.52
cocoa damselfish
Pomacentrus variabilis
0.08
<0.01
blue angelfish
Holacanthus bermudensis
0.07
0.14
cubbyu
Pareques umbrosus
0.07
0.02
lesser amberjack
Seriola fasciata
0.06
0.18
unicorn filefish
Aluterus monoceros
0.06
0.17
bluntnose jack
Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus
0.06
0.04
orange filefish
Aluterus schoepfii
0.03
0.06
bar jack
Caranx ruber
0.03
0.02
cocoa damselfish
Stegastes variabilis
0.02
<0.01
spotfin butterflyfish
Chaetodon ocellatus
0.02
<0.01
remora
Echeneis naucrates
0.02
0.04
blackbar drum
Equetus iwamotoi
0.01
<0.01
blenny
Blenniidae
0.01
<0.01
pearly razorfish
Xyrichthys novacula
0.01
<0.01
sandbar shark
Carcharhinus plumbeus
0.01
1.29
nurse shark
Ginglymostoma cirratum
0.01
0.90
blacktip shark
Carcharhinus limbatus
0.01
0.52
porgy
Calamus sp.
0.01
0.02
yellow jack
Caranx bartholomaei
0.01
0.02
snowy grouper
Epinephelus niveatus
0.01
0.01
requiem shark
Carcharhinus sp.
<0.01
0.20
cobia
Rachycentron canadum
<0.01
0.16
greater barracuda
Sphyraena barracuda
<0.01
0.11
red drum
Sciaenops ocellatus
<0.01
0.03
yellowtail reeffish
Chromis enchrysura
<0.01
0.04
spotted burrfish
Chilomycterus atringa
<0.01
0.02
cornet fish
Fistularia tabacaria
<0.01
0.02
planehead filefish
Monacanthus hispidus
<0.01
0.02
gulf flounder
Paralichthys albigutta
<0.01
0.01
rainbow runner
Elagatis bipinnulata
<0.01
0.01
southern stingray
Dasyatis americana
<0.01
0.01
Cannot be ranked below this level all have same %number and %biomass - tied at rank > 61, sorted alphabetically
Atlantic bigeye
Priacanthus arenatus
<0.01
<0.01
barred blenny
Hypleurochilus bermudensis
<0.01
<0.01
barrelfish
Hyperoglyphe perciformis
<0.01
<0.01
beaugregory
Stegastes leucostictus
<0.01
<0.01
belted sandfish
Serranus subligarius
<0.01
<0.01
Bermuda chub
Kyphosus sectator
<0.01
<0.01
buffalo trunkfish
Lactophrys trigonus
<0.01
<0.01
creolefish
Paranthias furcifer
<0.01
<0.01
damselfish
Stegastes sp.
<0.01
<0.01
doctorfish
Acanthurus chirurgus
<0.01
<0.01
dotterel filefish
Aluterus heudelotii
<0.01
<0.01
French anglefish
Pomacanthus paru
<0.01
<0.01
120 | P a g e
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
frogfish
graysby
hamlet
high-hat
inshore lizardfish
knobbed porgy
leopard toadfish
littlehead porgy
longspine porgy
porkfish
pygmy filefish
queen anglefish
queen triggerfish
reef butterflyfish
reef drum
scrawled cowfish
scrawled filefish
snakefish
speckled hind
spotted moray
striped burrfish
tatler
triggerfish
whitebone porgy
wrasse
Antennarius sp.
Epinephelus cruentatus
Hypoplectrus sp.
Equetus acuminatus
Synodus foetens
Calamus nodosus
Opsanus pardus
Calamus proridens
Stenotomus caprinus
Anisotremus virginicus
Monacanthus setifer
Holacanthus ciliaris
Balistes vetula
Chaetodon sedentarius
Equetus sp.
Lactophrys quadricornis
Aluterus scriptus
Trachinocephalus myops
Epinephelus drummondhayi
Gymnothorax moringa
Chilomycterus schoepfii
Serranus phoebe
Balistidae
Calamus leucosteus
Halichoeres sp.
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Tied at >61
Table 6. University of West Florida fish census data taken on Escambia East
LAARS Refugia Reefs (Patterson 2009), sorted by Percent Biomass. Bold text
overlying blue field entries are species that were sampled for PCBs on the Oriskany
Reef.
Common Name
Scientific Name
red snapper
greater amberjack
gray triggerfish
gag grouper
vermilion snapper
gray snapper
mackerel scad
blue runner
tomtate
red grouper
round sardinella
pinfish
sandbar shark
almaco jack
scamp
red porgy
lane snapper
nurse shark
bank seabass
king mackerel
banded rudderfish
blacktip shark
slippery dick
Atlantic spadefish
requiem shark
whitespotted soapfish
Lutjanus campechanus
Seriola dumerili
Balistes capriscus
Mycteroperca microlepis
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Lutjanus griseus
Decapterus macarellus
Caranx crysos
Haemulon aurolineatum
Epinephelus morio
Sardinella aurita
Lagodon rhomboides
Carcharhinus plumbeus
Seriola rivoliana
Mycteroperca phenax
Pagrus pagrus
Lutjanus synagris
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Centropristis ocyurus
Scomberomorus cavalla
Seriola zonata
Carcharhinus limbatus
Halichoeres bivittatus
Chaetodipterus faber
Carcharhinus sp.
Rypticus maculatus
121 | P a g e
Percent
Number
Percent
Biomass
Rank
25.60
3.43
3.35
0.77
5.28
2.20
15.35
4.38
10.04
0.41
6.61
4.36
0.01
0.69
0.53
1.18
1.08
0.01
1.08
0.15
0.10
0.01
3.28
0.94
<0.01
0.54
42.79
6.83
6.14
5.19
5.14
4.24
3.86
3.72
3.18
3.09
2.02
1.59
1.29
1.16
1.15
0.92
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.86
0.52
0.52
0.50
0.36
0.20
0.18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
lesser amberjack
Seriola fasciata
0.06
0.18
unicorn filefish
Aluterus monoceros
0.06
0.17
cobia
Rachycentron canadum
<0.01
0.16
blue angelfish
Holacanthus bermudensis
0.07
0.14
jackknife fish
Equetus lanceolatus
0.20
0.13
greater barracuda
Sphyraena barracuda
<0.01
0.11
sandperch
Diplectrum formosum
0.11
0.07
twospot cardinalfish
Apogon pseudomaculatus
1.64
0.06
orange filefish
Aluterus schoepfii
0.03
0.06
yellowtail reeffish
Chromis enchrysura
<0.01
0.04
seaweed blenny
Parblennius marmoreus
1.39
0.04
bluntnose jack
Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus
0.06
0.04
remora
Echeneis naucrates
0.02
0.04
red drum
Sciaenops ocellatus
<0.01
0.03
Warsaw grouper
Epinephelus nigritus
0.15
0.03
cornet fish
Fistularia tabacaria
<0.01
0.02
planehead filefish
Monacanthus hispidus
<0.01
0.02
spotted burrfish
Chilomycterus atringa
<0.01
0.02
Caribbean sharpnose puffer
Canthigaster rostrata
0.12
0.02
cubbyu
Pareques umbrosus
0.07
0.02
bar jack
Caranx ruber
0.03
0.02
porgy
Calamus sp.
0.01
0.02
yellow jack
Caranx bartholomaei
0.01
0.02
gulf flounder
Paralichthys albigutta
<0.01
0.01
rainbow runner
Elagatis bipinnulata
<0.01
0.01
southern stingray
Dasyatis americana
<0.01
0.01
snowy grouper
Epinephelus niveatus
0.01
0.01
cardinalfish
Apogon sp.
0.69
<0.01
damselfish
Chromis sp.
0.53
<0.01
cocoa damselfish
Pomacentrus variabilis
0.08
<0.01
cocoa damselfish
Stegastes variabilis
0.02
<0.01
spotfin butterflyfish
Chaetodon ocellatus
0.02
<0.01
blackbar drum
Equetus iwamotoi
0.01
<0.01
blenny
Blenniidae
0.01
<0.01
pearly razorfish
Xyrichthys novacula
0.01
<0.01
Cannot be ranked below this level all have same %number and %biomass - tied at rank > 61, sorted alphabetically
Atlantic bigeye
Priacanthus arenatus
<0.01
<0.01
barred blenny
Hypleurochilus bermudensis
<0.01
<0.01
barrelfish
Hyperoglyphe perciformis
<0.01
<0.01
beaugregory
Stegastes leucostictus
<0.01
<0.01
belted sandfish
Serranus subligarius
<0.01
<0.01
Bermuda chub
Kyphosus sectator
<0.01
<0.01
buffalo trunkfish
Lactophrys trigonus
<0.01
<0.01
creolefish
Paranthias furcifer
<0.01
<0.01
damselfish
Stegastes sp.
<0.01
<0.01
doctorfish
Acanthurus chirurgus
<0.01
<0.01
dotterel filefish
Aluterus heudelotii
<0.01
<0.01
French angelfish
Pomacanthus paru
<0.01
<0.01
frogfish
Antennarius sp.
<0.01
<0.01
graysby
Epinephelus cruentatus
<0.01
<0.01
hamlet
Hypoplectrus sp.
<0.01
<0.01
high-hat
Equetus acuminatus
<0.01
<0.01
inshore lizardfish
Synodus foetens
<0.01
<0.01
knobbed porgy
Calamus nodosus
<0.01
<0.01
leopard toadfish
Opsanus pardus
<0.01
<0.01
littlehead porgy
Calamus proridens
<0.01
<0.01
longspine porgy
Stenotomus caprinus
<0.01
<0.01
porkfish
Anisotremus virginicus
<0.01
<0.01
pygmy filefish
Monacanthus setifer
<0.01
<0.01
queen anglefish
Holacanthus ciliaris
<0.01
<0.01
queen triggerfish
Balistes vetula
<0.01
<0.01
122 | P a g e
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
reef butterflyfish
reef drum
scrawled cowfish
scrawled filefish
snakefish
speckled hind
spotted moray
striped burrfish
tattler
triggerfish
whitebone porgy
wrasse
Chaetodon sedentarius
Equetus sp.
Lactophrys quadricornis
Aluterus scriptus
Trachinocephalus myops
Epinephelus drummondhayi
Gymnothorax moringa
Chilomycterus schoepfii
Serranus phoebe
Balistidae
Calamus leucosteus
Halichoeres sp.
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Tied for >61
Table 9. Listing of fish discarded and not kept for PCB analysis sorted by sampling
round and common name.
Common name
Almaco jack
Hake spp.
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Little Tunny
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
123 | P a g e
Scientific
Name
Seriola rivoliana
Urophycis spp.
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Euthynnus alletteratus
Pagrus pagrus
L. campechanus
Total
Length
(mm)
n/a
unk
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
343
381
381
356
356
356
394
381
381
387
343
337
375
381
400
356
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
N
345
400
Fork
Length (mm)
508
unk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
(1-4)
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
?
1
1
Date
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
Round
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Scamp
Scamp
Snowy Grouper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Almaco jack
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red Snapper
Greater Amberjack
Scamp
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red snapper
Vermilion snapper
Greater Amberjack
Greater Amberjack
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion snapper
Almaco Jack
Bank Seabass
Greater Amberjack
Greater Amberjack
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Scamp
Whitebone Porgy
Whitebone Porgy
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Greater amberjack
Red porgy
Red porgy
Red snapper
Tomtate grunt
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
124 | P a g e
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Mycteroperca phenax
Mycteroperca phenax
Epinephelus niveatus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Seriola rivoliana
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Seriola dumerili
Mycteroperca phenax
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
R. aurorubens
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Seriola rivoliana
Centropristic ocyurus
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
L. campechanus
Mycteroperca phenax
Calamus leucosteus
Calamus leucosteus
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Seriola dumerili
Pagrus pagrus
Pagrus pagrus
L. campechanus
Haemulon aurolineatum
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
400
368
395
370
370
394
360
254
392
360
402
400
n/a
539
395
396
410
482
392
n/a
306
512
407
462
unk
357
558
936
408
unk
unk
622
203
806
711
483
432
495
483
381
368
381
640
280
650
690
650
770
700
800
320
340
300
260
320
460
440
480
520
370
390
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
480
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
814
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
335
n/a
802
376
n/a
n/a
512
n/a
692
610
457
400
464
457
356
317
368
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
1
?
1
1
1
?
1
4
1
1
1
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
1
1
1
2
2
2
(dead)
(dead)
unk
unk
4
(dead)
(dead)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Banks seabass
Banks seabass
Banks seabass
Red snapper
Scamp
125 | P a g e
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Rhomboplites aurorubens
Centropristic ocyurus
Centropristic ocyurus
Centropristic ocyurus
L. campechanus
Mycteroperca phenax
430
440
500
440
510
450
440
420
310
420
480
420
460
440
480
500
330
380
390
400
470
370
unk
unk
320
200
290
370
380
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(dead)
(dead)
3
2
3
3
1
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Table 13. Tissue sample characteristics and PCB concentrations by wet mass of skin-on fillets of fish lateral
musculature of reef fish collected during sample rounds 1-8 from the Oriskany Reef. PCB data is presented through
sample round 7, sample round 8 PCB data is expected to be received by May 31, 2011 (notated as ‘tbd’).
PCB Homologs by Chlorination Level
FWC
Sample ID
OR-RS-001
OR-RS-002
OR-RS-003
OR-RS-004
OR-RS-005
OR-RS-006
OR-RS-007
OR-RS-008
OR-RS-009
OR-RS-010
OR-RS-011
OR-RS-012
OR-RS-013
OR-RS-014
OR-RS-015
OR-RS-016
OR-RS-017
OR-RS-018
OR-RS-019
OR-RS-020
OR-RS-021
OR-RS-022
OR-RS-023
OR-RS-024
OR-RS-025
OR-RS-026
OR-RS-027
OR-RS-028
OR-RS-029
OR-RS-030
OR-RS-031
OR-RS-032
OR-RS-033
OR-RS-034
OR-RS-035
OR-RS-036
OR-RS-037
OR-RS-038
OR-VS-039
OR-RS-040
OR-RS-041
Common Name
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
126 | P a g e
Collection
Date
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/14/2006
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
Collection
Gear
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
HnL-Bandit
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
HnL
HnL
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
Trap-Chevron
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
Fish
Length
(TL)
mm
463
431
442
410
460
421
417
452
447
436
413
419
455
404
436
443
418
436
429
475
406
411
435
428
419
440
425
808
795
445
411
439
465
445
453
596
520
508
352
406
467
Fish
Length
(FL)
mm
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tiisue
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Wet
Weight
(g)
10.14
10.69
10.11
10.35
10.96
10.85
10.78
9.98
10.90
10.82
10.03
10.26
10.02
10.24
10.54
10.16
10.79
10.22
10.02
10.41
10.51
12.02
10.63
12.93
13.88
10.95
11.57
10.94
11.97
13.24
10.35
11.10
11.60
10.60
10.04
10.08
11.06
10.09
10.06
10.05
10.35
%
Solid
22.3
23.2
25.2
22.8
25.7
23.7
22.4
25.7
24.7
24.5
25.3
22.9
25.9
24.0
24.6
32.6
24.0
23.3
25.9
27.7
26.3
22.2
22.8
25.6
23.6
31.6
25.7
27.2
28.8
33.0
22.1
30.3
27.8
25.0
25.5
30.1
34.0
28.5
25.8
23.5
24.2
%
Lipid
4.3
5.4
4.3
3.5
14.5
2.6
1.0
10.2
6.0
6.0
5.6
3.3
9.2
3.5
4.4
25.7
6.6
5.0
3.4
13.6
10.5
1.5
2.5
12.8
3.1
18.8
8.0
13.4
14.5
22.0
3.4
13.8
11.8
4.2
9.6
21.6
16.6
7.1
11.4
5.0
6.8
Total PCB
Congeners
(pg/g)
6739.0
29433.9
5789.5
3249.7
44762.5
3753.1
1467.9
68018.9
26017.4
20955.1
9699.1
9955.0
87021.7
9657.2
10930.7
192970.4
91650.7
21155.9
945181.4
67639.3
32715.4
9463.9
5309.9
15376.2
9985.7
109850.3
19902.1
43846.0
37317.2
121241.6
10954.2
155438.9
108273.5
39302.4
20231.1
154966.7
67977.6
48394.5
23846.7
160981.5
62392.4
Chlor.
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
128.5
0.0
0.0
3.6
8.8
0.0
27.8
23.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Chlor.
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
408.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
616.8
159.9
263.0
495.3
407.5
27.2
4472.0
805.6
100.7
38.9
0.0
29.6
0.0
791.2
882.7
5.0
30.1
304.0
47.4
157.1
119.9
0.0
45.8
61.6
158.9
145.0
110.6
124.1
53.2
Chlor. 3
181.7
2708.6
171.9
126.7
4051.7
43.3
26.7
16660.3
1923.0
867.4
497.9
322.9
8571.6
423.4
588.3
11481.3
9628.7
1401.2
65212.1
14999.3
4512.2
227.0
166.2
858.8
986.5
9920.9
2387.8
1092.9
2619.8
11478.3
419.8
11441.6
4755.6
2350.5
724.9
9094.1
5979.7
3482.6
1453.8
4196.9
1775.6
Chlor. 4
484.2
3612.3
243.3
147.2
7627.4
143.4
67.3
10005.4
2155.9
1489.2
836.6
681.2
8952.2
670.7
850.8
30735.1
10378.8
3133.4
96708.1
12264.8
7336.1
1130.1
1581.9
2469.7
2861.9
24012.7
4801.2
14061.6
10094.6
24143.8
636.5
9828.9
7151.2
1969.7
1225.9
12629.5
4175.2
4556.7
1521.6
7090.8
4003.2
Chlor. 5
3388.6
15078.2
2318.2
1425.8
21031.8
1671.3
638.3
26849.2
11872.7
10566.0
4386.4
4826.6
35002.0
4442.1
4635.9
107142.5
37040.9
10315.4
356372.4
22497.2
8030.1
1852.2
1059.7
2701.7
2667.2
27474.4
5372.3
7259.0
6381.3
32148.2
6480.0
108631.9
59687.7
26368.5
12515.8
90097.4
49800.6
31018.4
15448.9
93807.6
37466.1
Chlor. 6
1547.5
4110.1
1928.5
993.0
6130.6
998.8
502.6
9293.5
5889.0
5805.5
2522.4
2655.9
22076.4
2943.9
3197.0
31859.0
17442.6
4128.6
302020.3
11304.0
8701.4
3092.6
1777.2
4637.0
2853.8
27725.7
4578.4
13613.5
10453.4
27853.8
2436.5
18072.4
24979.9
5486.2
4680.1
29091.2
6190.9
7870.2
4703.7
33260.8
15164.2
Chlor. 7
1006.8
3495.2
895.2
496.8
5163.7
816.7
208.9
4045.9
3388.7
1933.2
1267.5
1333.6
10078.9
918.7
1197.1
9852.4
12888.6
1867.4
92969.7
4504.2
3407.0
2312.7
625.4
2801.7
489.5
16179.3
1584.4
6765.8
6630.4
17760.7
546.3
3568.4
3074.8
1434.7
664.7
5386.6
843.2
886.4
456.1
11363.2
2442.8
Chlor. 8
79.4
331.4
182.1
25.0
551.2
58.1
18.4
582.5
672.2
196.3
108.4
104.4
1389.9
65.4
140.9
1032.2
2400.4
213.3
21142.1
829.6
487.0
678.7
73.5
1555.7
109.2
2712.5
240.1
717.5
823.9
4470.0
286.5
3054.2
5176.5
1390.8
296.1
6445.3
635.8
328.9
137.9
9609.4
1247.3
Chlor. 9
25.8
98.2
32.8
20.5
165.4
12.5
5.7
139.2
92.9
67.9
53.1
30.4
245.3
21.5
37.8
185.0
1273.4
53.4
4051.4
367.1
140.9
131.6
26.0
315.5
17.6
905.0
55.3
330.7
280.1
3074.1
66.1
512.8
2946.4
243.0
44.0
1661.9
123.4
59.1
14.1
1264.2
166.0
Chlor.
10
25.0
0.0
17.5
14.6
40.5
9.0
0.0
34.0
23.1
29.6
26.9
0.0
88.7
11.6
19.9
63.0
189.9
16.1
2233.3
67.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
143.8
358.4
59.0
33.8
499.1
51.8
47.2
0.0
264.5
74.0
OR-RS-042
OR-RS-043
OR-RS-044
OR-RS-045
OR-RS-046
OR-RP-047
OR-VS-048
OR-VS-049
OR-RS-050
OR-VS-051
OR-RS-052
OR-RS-053
OR-RP-054
OR-RP-055
OR-RS-056
OR-RP-058
OR-RS-059
OR-RS-060
OR-RS-061
OR-RS-062
OR-RS-063
OR-RS-064
OR-RS-065
OR-RS-066
OR-RS-067
OR-RS-068
OR-RS-069
OR-RS-070
OR-RS-071
OR-RS-072
OR-RS-073
OR-RS-074
OR-RS-075
OR-RS-076
OR-RS-077
OR-RS-078
OR-RS-079
OR-RS-080
OR-RS-081
OR-RS-082
OR-RS-083
OR-RS-084
OR-RS-085
OR-RS-086
OR-RS-087
OR-RS-088
OR-RS-089
OR-RS-090
OR-RS-091
OR-RS-092
OR-RS-093
OR-RS-094
OR-RS-095
OR-RS-096
OR-RS-097
OR-RS-098
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
127 | P a g e
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
4/12/2007
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
469
452
406
435
457
329
360
361
422
348
433
418
302
296
427
278
414
416
509
480
425
487
622
511
513
535
449
449
462
533
424
442
528
418
509
464
532
495
533
558
534
433
575
512
497
500
476
443
432
429
415
423
422
441
464
441
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.03
10.22
10.39
10.84
10.30
10.56
10.03
10.71
10.06
10.03
10.16
10.05
10.09
10.23
10.01
10.24
10.96
10.31
9.85
10.56
9.97
10.22
10.10
10.11
10.03
10.01
10.21
10.17
10.07
10.00
10.07
9.97
9.99
10.15
10.00
10.15
10.01
10.08
5.16
5.90
5.24
5.09
5.14
5.21
5.34
5.08
5.91
5.49
5.84
5.35
5.29
5.05
5.29
5.14
5.22
5.31
29.9
28.2
23.9
25.8
22.9
22.8
25.8
28.4
24.1
23.8
35.1
23.8
23.4
28.0
29.8
22.1
25.2
23.4
23.3
23.7
22.5
25.1
24.1
28.6
28.2
23.4
24.3
22.8
25.5
24.5
24.5
22.4
24.1
24.5
25.4
22.9
22.3
25.0
23.6
22.9
26.7
22.5
25.6
23.7
26.5
22.9
27.3
24.0
23.8
23.1
24.9
22.1
24.3
22.1
24.9
23.4
13.4
10.7
3.1
6.4
6.1
2.9
8.4
18.5
7.0
2.6
9.3
4.2
1.4
4.2
10.5
0.8
6.4
4.9
5.0
1.5
0.9
0.9
2.9
4.2
11.2
2.8
3.6
0.8
1.1
5.4
1.0
2.4
2.5
0.4
3.2
0.7
1.0
2.9
2.3
4.6
5.5
1.0
11.7
2.0
2.1
3.6
6.9
1.7
1.3
1.6
5.9
9.6
1.2
2.2
7.9
2.8
44205.4
113668.5
487676.9
32547.1
10828.1
22640.3
8022.2
13047.5
36664.7
7217.0
16054.9
5161.5
19003.1
54973.3
591976.4
16245.8
7032.8
56446.8
5826.3
4710.0
1948.4
62665.8
17124.8
618358.8
8075.9
11980.3
4828.6
5506.5
6163.2
26272.3
4047.9
15874.8
79443.1
3652.5
40956.6
3852.8
3223.5
4040.3
7973.9
7204.9
150978.3
3699.7
185207.2
5304.4
23121.8
10282.9
298521.4
4617.2
74866.8
11884.0
10028.9
12111.9
43521.6
5509.7
8954.9
7372.2
14.5
20.1
75.1
60.6
0.0
110.3
2.9
12.9
0.0
1.7
11.8
22.9
15.5
0.0
20.4
36.0
98.2
21.0
0.0
14.7
18.7
11.2
7.9
11.2
7.5
24.0
20.1
14.5
25.3
18.0
17.4
0.0
5.7
5.9
14.4
0.0
17.8
34.4
109.8
174.5
96.0
96.9
154.5
116.8
81.4
102.4
74.0
88.2
39.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.4
133.3
48.6
93.6
0.0
97.0
63.5
100.5
37.7
29.0
74.3
36.3
29.8
138.5
547.4
26.8
139.4
41.1
29.5
90.2
43.1
81.5
68.7
122.7
96.4
67.8
196.4
159.4
110.3
220.0
161.0
151.8
144.5
134.4
100.1
120.8
136.8
60.6
74.6
152.6
191.6
168.8
275.8
153.9
112.6
184.7
180.9
93.9
82.6
168.4
169.0
0.0
245.6
210.5
237.6
303.3
2452.6
4756.7
22117.9
970.9
796.7
609.3
665.7
1336.9
661.4
223.0
1126.0
146.7
448.9
1483.3
52045.4
173.5
610.4
2280.5
306.6
234.4
174.9
2602.8
199.3
2929.7
467.5
555.0
506.5
526.8
482.0
611.2
474.9
559.9
1215.4
417.4
1573.1
507.3
262.4
320.0
927.8
727.1
3139.8
586.4
5328.8
672.7
610.0
678.7
16379.0
534.2
1886.3
913.0
650.8
1209.9
1956.7
699.0
711.2
751.7
6858.0
7191.9
24140.2
1212.1
454.1
1142.1
1049.1
1780.7
2130.9
474.7
1996.2
340.9
1666.3
2564.5
103151.0
983.5
473.3
5104.4
445.4
1380.7
193.1
8198.0
336.4
24143.4
505.1
889.6
418.0
412.3
454.8
849.3
365.9
617.8
2885.9
358.1
3364.6
397.3
273.6
274.7
1242.0
803.5
12044.4
458.3
19167.1
641.9
1517.8
1029.4
43250.9
507.7
8219.0
1637.0
2040.6
1895.5
6603.6
807.1
2122.9
1108.4
17567.8
66120.5
294858.8
12606.0
5288.1
14470.0
3794.4
6938.7
19794.6
3246.5
6215.3
2260.4
7156.6
30817.9
263664.2
8479.1
4114.3
29501.5
2023.8
1208.0
694.4
22561.8
3873.8
224068.1
2920.0
4261.2
1547.5
1700.7
2537.2
10847.1
1450.1
2730.6
26164.5
1250.7
17737.7
803.2
857.0
1215.1
2106.4
1670.2
42543.6
734.3
56782.4
973.8
5784.4
2437.7
77784.9
1034.5
21230.5
3987.5
2566.2
3137.5
16706.9
1696.3
2408.3
2011.9
11824.8
24986.8
76578.3
14293.9
3355.8
3883.6
1887.0
2096.2
9819.0
2006.5
3819.1
1766.5
5724.2
14733.8
90175.9
3861.4
1302.5
12056.6
2087.8
1031.6
581.8
11393.4
4663.7
137754.9
2617.8
3709.2
1404.7
1651.5
1799.4
7390.6
1041.6
3679.1
25952.2
1035.5
11622.1
1309.2
1016.1
1374.6
2235.3
2094.2
39722.7
1157.8
58904.5
1753.6
7042.1
3905.7
71326.8
1550.3
19066.1
2822.1
2516.2
3375.6
11280.6
1010.4
2145.5
2049.2
4466.7
5827.7
33590.6
1893.7
659.7
1210.6
480.1
663.5
2777.8
996.2
2524.7
516.9
2956.8
2393.9
50719.5
1976.6
231.3
5113.2
786.5
582.9
219.3
12727.2
6228.0
156763.1
1238.8
2076.0
611.2
840.1
632.5
4647.1
460.9
6237.8
18135.6
383.9
5162.5
568.3
504.3
639.3
1049.9
1371.8
40650.8
439.0
35794.1
821.0
6005.4
1594.6
71909.3
691.0
15713.0
1848.9
1676.5
1995.8
5228.4
768.6
1036.4
826.7
592.0
3919.6
29877.5
1286.3
242.9
970.3
59.4
83.9
1113.0
190.1
236.9
45.8
850.9
1924.3
23673.3
573.5
48.4
1766.4
114.9
125.1
17.4
3756.3
1227.0
51645.4
140.6
268.7
83.9
149.5
79.0
1266.1
55.5
1616.5
3610.1
48.1
1027.8
99.2
92.2
93.7
157.4
129.6
9713.9
41.6
6587.4
113.0
1520.4
237.9
14106.4
79.7
6701.0
230.5
220.3
270.0
1021.1
153.6
110.6
126.8
197.7
620.0
5518.5
130.0
30.8
110.6
10.1
20.1
225.8
25.9
27.5
10.1
81.3
723.2
5650.0
69.2
15.0
313.8
31.8
42.4
5.7
1227.5
400.5
17890.4
45.2
91.8
19.2
36.5
23.5
302.2
11.0
249.6
1095.5
12.4
266.6
30.8
40.7
28.0
37.0
45.6
2461.2
8.5
1810.2
34.3
368.1
65.9
2412.5
19.7
1545.3
162.4
84.2
111.0
297.8
69.4
75.9
86.5
191.9
91.9
871.4
0.0
0.0
36.5
10.0
14.1
104.5
23.4
23.1
15.0
72.8
193.9
2329.3
66.2
0.0
248.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
106.0
119.5
3029.8
37.0
37.0
21.1
15.2
19.2
120.7
9.6
31.7
233.7
6.2
87.7
16.7
22.6
0.0
33.7
35.8
414.3
8.1
402.4
23.4
79.6
45.9
1096.7
18.0
383.3
112.4
105.1
116.6
177.6
94.8
106.5
107.7
OR-RS-099
OR-RS-100
OR-RS-101
OR-RS-102
OR-RS-103
OR-RS-104
OR-RS-105
OR-RS-106
OR-RS-107
OR-RS-108
OR-RS-109
OR-RS-110
OR-RS-111
OR-RS-112
OR-RS-113
OR-RS-114
OR-RS-115
OR-RS-116
OR-RS-117
OR-RS-118
OR-RP-119
OR-RS-120
OR-RS-121
OR-RS-122
OR-RS-123
OR-RS-124
OR-RS-125
OR-RS-126
OR-RS-127
OR-RS-128
OR-RS-129
OR-RS-130
OR-RS-131
OR-RS-132
OR-RS-133
OR-RS-134
OR-SG-135
OR-RS-136
OR-RS-137
OR-RS-138
OR-RS-139
OR-RS-140
OR-RS-141
OR-RS-142
OR-RS-143
OR-RS-144
OR-RS-145
OR-RS-146
OR-RS-147
OR-RS-148
OR-RS-149
OR-RS-150
OR-RS-151
OR-RS-152
OR-RS-153
OR-RS-154
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Scamp
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
128 | P a g e
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
4/21/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
677
512
464
503
459
480
471
493
480
461
425
531
513
446
483
489
466
481
482
474
351
541
503
598
579
521
534
615
590
491
455
502
569
560
667
664
584
519
557
595
552
537
540
744
526
479
560
475
557
557
586
505
533
662
520
547
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.66
5.02
5.09
5.26
5.57
5.15
5.02
5.08
5.30
5.09
5.01
5.07
5.25
5.21
11.31
10.30
10.34
10.85
10.98
11.71
10.93
10.63
11.02
10.45
10.50
10.44
10.41
10.52
10.53
10.11
10.37
10.37
10.43
10.15
10.13
10.53
10.47
10.35
10.33
10.49
10.15
10.46
10.10
10.33
10.44
10.47
10.17
10.15
10.09
10.42
10.42
10.46
10.47
10.03
10.04
10.02
32.0
22.7
23.2
26.2
25.6
26.3
25.0
24.7
23.5
26.3
24.2
26.3
25.8
25.7
24.9
24.0
25.4
22.9
22.6
23.4
29.0
27.2
23.6
26.0
29.9
29.6
25.0
28.6
26.7
23.5
29.1
24.9
28.1
26.9
30.9
25.8
25.3
24.1
28.0
24.7
24.5
25.0
26.7
28.5
24.6
24.1
26.5
24.0
25.5
23.9
27.1
26.0
24.4
24.9
29.8
25.5
26.5
7.5
1.4
6.8
3.8
5.6
2.1
7.4
2.6
3.5
1.0
3.6
5.0
4.2
4.9
4.2
4.0
1.8
3.9
3.6
16.2
2.2
2.2
5.2
9.7
3.8
4.5
8.5
7.6
7.7
4.5
6.8
8.7
5.0
12.2
7.2
4.9
2.4
8.1
8.3
4.2
5.7
6.8
13.5
6.8
1.8
13.8
4.6
7.6
5.9
8.6
2.0
4.2
12.4
7.1
1.8
94842.7
536237.7
3565.8
5387.7
4499.6
8108.9
3715.3
67920.5
10045.5
3985.1
4787.0
5118.7
9217.0
4345.9
697917.6
5574.6
10872.0
2494.4
3965.4
19990.0
1654738.8
6385.3
4611.5
8628.6
17029.2
3711.7
5242.9
12539.9
12981.3
75670.9
56999.4
3799.5
9222.4
6962.7
9176.1
8780.3
8751.9
2685.1
45141.0
14086.2
2528.4
5300.7
9312.0
2690.8
254738.6
2182.4
51730.1
14174.5
5232.0
5044.6
11213.6
10789.7
37422.6
9286.6
5002.8
5347.6
3.9
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.5
15.8
4.3
23.3
26.8
2.3
4.3
29.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.0
1.1
2.8
3.3
205.8
334.6
140.4
190.5
137.3
127.3
161.8
76.6
123.5
75.7
238.1
159.0
239.3
0.0
245.3
150.3
106.5
167.2
181.5
80.0
155.2
76.7
162.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.6
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
158.6
22.8
7.9
13.3
35.9
11.8
35.1
0.0
0.0
56.5
13.4
21.5
34.5
13.4
151.7
50.3
97.1
25.7
3255.7
10110.9
739.1
546.6
556.5
821.8
530.8
805.3
505.6
451.8
777.0
628.5
456.5
447.1
10478.3
124.8
168.6
129.0
127.7
193.1
18401.7
261.4
85.5
263.5
236.0
101.2
692.4
236.6
207.7
4694.6
9081.2
182.9
403.7
173.1
233.8
136.3
157.2
147.5
2152.7
121.0
60.1
216.8
106.6
37.2
1742.5
12.4
961.2
1092.2
39.7
216.5
222.4
413.6
2940.9
434.8
171.7
375.4
19162.1
42988.7
779.9
826.5
612.7
963.4
582.7
5143.6
520.1
608.3
634.5
690.5
560.9
521.7
67285.1
447.6
705.4
129.6
233.3
1046.7
138422.5
434.6
231.1
1168.8
1557.3
488.6
1200.3
1283.6
917.7
13390.7
18177.9
452.3
1364.2
707.7
755.4
874.1
889.6
443.9
3656.7
672.4
182.5
298.6
297.0
164.3
11929.5
124.4
5588.9
1444.0
267.4
321.2
699.0
1227.7
7346.5
1058.7
355.6
977.8
32859.4
164313.3
763.3
1485.9
1280.0
2711.4
954.4
22414.3
1076.6
1224.4
1281.8
1408.0
1969.5
1327.0
382911.8
2463.2
6920.4
819.9
1592.2
10259.0
845814.1
3079.9
2285.1
3635.4
5109.6
1324.1
2021.3
4555.2
4042.2
34040.8
20237.2
1407.2
3014.3
2553.5
2587.2
2494.6
2440.6
964.1
22076.8
7740.3
1304.4
2973.6
4813.9
1042.8
119815.8
1059.8
32705.8
8548.3
2205.5
2336.1
5979.8
6220.7
16249.4
2760.4
1793.1
1661.4
22652.8
170725.3
690.7
1575.1
1263.4
2445.5
996.6
23388.5
3595.5
1052.7
1110.9
1654.4
3914.8
1433.6
106111.2
1692.0
2219.5
786.5
1251.5
4296.1
292816.1
1586.8
766.6
2650.2
7846.5
1314.9
1056.6
4775.4
5650.7
15286.4
6654.5
1209.0
3578.4
2702.2
4139.3
3891.0
3491.4
774.8
10887.3
3666.8
631.6
1309.9
2693.4
1074.7
71418.3
630.1
8928.3
1989.0
1862.7
1242.1
2593.1
1958.3
5714.0
3117.8
1596.5
1639.3
10571.6
106070.3
298.8
619.0
451.7
849.9
314.5
12078.7
3216.7
411.2
431.5
417.8
1461.5
432.4
89208.7
545.6
569.8
309.0
427.6
3256.3
289338.7
634.8
852.1
666.6
1702.3
382.5
200.9
1279.5
1627.1
6359.3
2253.3
457.4
706.6
671.9
1112.0
1041.7
1301.8
289.6
4723.7
1573.3
277.8
396.2
1001.5
269.3
36115.3
272.6
3158.4
854.9
665.0
737.2
1283.9
740.3
3752.4
1135.5
782.0
432.2
3490.1
28522.4
40.9
60.5
91.9
72.7
97.0
2906.5
769.9
47.1
169.7
58.3
386.7
95.7
33349.9
59.1
122.4
84.2
73.3
661.2
60429.8
185.2
174.4
129.7
437.3
64.9
53.5
284.7
403.4
1535.4
465.4
63.7
104.4
105.0
256.8
230.2
372.5
50.9
1175.5
242.4
46.6
77.5
268.7
62.9
11329.7
65.1
285.4
155.6
139.8
134.1
305.1
171.8
996.0
489.5
147.9
190.3
2270.9
11160.0
61.5
31.0
36.0
37.7
36.1
916.4
117.4
57.7
79.7
48.0
156.9
41.5
6488.1
20.6
31.2
26.2
22.7
147.1
6859.3
50.7
24.1
44.5
83.1
23.3
11.5
89.3
93.7
292.6
105.7
19.0
38.9
34.7
60.2
75.9
83.5
10.4
254.6
47.2
12.5
14.8
71.7
22.2
2218.9
14.8
102.1
25.1
32.4
28.0
64.1
34.1
255.0
238.5
42.8
42.2
370.4
2012.2
48.2
52.6
70.1
73.7
41.4
190.6
120.2
52.5
59.3
54.2
70.9
46.9
1814.7
55.6
23.9
19.5
28.8
48.2
2497.1
46.2
23.9
69.9
57.1
12.2
6.4
35.6
38.8
48.3
0.0
7.1
11.9
14.6
31.4
36.5
15.3
3.9
55.1
0.0
4.2
0.0
21.7
5.6
133.3
3.2
0.0
8.4
5.8
7.3
30.7
9.1
16.7
0.0
13.3
0.0
OR-RS-155
OR-RP-156
OR-VS-157
OR-RS-158
OR-VS-159
OR-RS-160
OR-RS-161
OR-VS-162
OR-RS-163
OR-RS-164
OR-VS-165
OR-VS-166
OR-VS-167
OR-RS-168
OR-VS-169
OR-RS-170
OR-VS-171
OR-VS-172
OR-RS-173
OR-VS-174
OR-GT-175
OR-RS-176
OR-RS-177
OR-VS-178
OR-RS-179
OR-RS-180
OR-RS-181
OR-VS-182
OR-VS-183
OR-VS-184
OR-VS-185
OR-VS-186
OR-VS-187
OR-VS-188
OR-VS-189
OR-VS-190
OR-RS-191
OR-RS-192
OR-RP-193
OR-RS-194
OR-RS-195
OR-RS-196
OR-RS-197
OR-RS-198
OR-RS-199
OR-RS-200
OR-RS-201
OR-RS-202
OR-RS-203
OR-RS-204
OR-RS-205
OR-RS-206
OR-VS-207
OR-VS-208
OR-VS-209
OR-VS-210
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Gray Triggerfish
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
129 | P a g e
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
601
339
447
448
407
593
565
364
672
592
363
412
376
499
380
483
466
492
472
463
541
422
485
394
544
432
527
424
432
465
429
470
434
422
417
460
431
614
335
466
698
419
441
449
491
584
494
475
452
515
496
531
425
423
339
395
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
411
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.09
10.06
10.05
10.04
10.05
10.06
10.07
10.01
10.03
10.05
10.01
10.01
10.06
10.05
10.01
10.03
10.04
10.05
10.05
10.08
10.03
10.06
10.04
10.07
10.06
10.05
10.02
10.06
10.02
10.15
10.02
10.09
10.00
10.09
10.12
10.04
10.04
10.07
10.06
10.03
10.15
10.02
10.08
10.08
10.08
10.10
10.01
10.06
10.07
10.07
10.09
10.02
10.01
10.11
10.08
10.13
24.7
27.3
24.3
25.6
24.0
23.8
22.9
24.0
26.2
28.2
24.0
27.2
27.8
25.5
25.3
24.7
25.8
24.1
23.1
26.6
22.8
23.3
22.4
23.4
27.8
23.3
30.0
26.9
28.8
26.1
25.3
28.2
27.1
29.2
25.0
24.5
27.7
29.0
27.8
25.6
27.6
24.6
27.5
27.4
27.2
25.5
27.7
26.7
26.4
25.6
31.2
28.9
26.3
31.1
26.2
25.2
7.0
10.6
10.8
2.6
4.2
4.2
3.2
0.7
9.9
10.8
1.7
1.8
4.8
8.5
7.0
5.1
3.8
3.5
2.9
9.9
0.7
1.2
2.3
1.5
10.7
3.8
17.1
1.0
10.7
3.3
2.7
8.1
9.5
6.2
1.0
5.8
4.4
5.5
3.8
2.9
16.8
2.1
5.8
2.2
4.2
4.3
4.5
3.3
4.9
1.4
19.5
8.8
2.5
10.2
3.7
3.0
9965.5
118584.7
12354.2
79021.6
4009.8
4359.7
9659.4
6098.6
4514.9
13660.0
3483.3
3849.4
5631.8
9130.1
14868.9
10468.1
4403.2
3386.9
2956.0
8473.5
54210.5
3429.5
6194.7
2154.8
10694.1
7137.2
4015.5
1547.2
5336.8
2088.6
2038.2
6562.8
3898.4
5075.8
607.1
2612.9
1428.2
7207.3
36833.1
2564.6
73591.4
1206.3
3180.4
72319.0
3345.0
3321.0
2372.8
2912.1
2826.7
2736.4
13727.8
10958.5
1805.8
5515.1
2574.9
10553.1
0.0
3.9
1.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.9
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.7
64.8
68.9
35.6
0.0
0.0
55.0
27.8
13.2
238.0
15.1
0.0
5.9
46.1
146.1
79.2
69.8
0.0
0.0
57.9
45.4
15.0
50.4
8.7
45.0
128.8
25.2
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
38.7
0.0
13.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.2
0.0
241.0
3.7
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
7.5
0.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
6.9
171.4
16029.6
385.2
1326.5
169.3
120.9
322.6
458.1
156.0
752.6
124.8
225.2
268.1
181.7
1349.8
3129.2
261.5
117.7
80.6
324.9
870.9
165.5
325.0
147.0
367.6
465.7
96.0
15.1
443.0
79.2
113.5
326.4
189.1
171.8
40.2
169.8
55.5
184.9
2126.8
184.1
10825.3
102.4
135.1
1769.4
433.5
426.6
170.3
208.0
69.0
80.5
674.3
1116.0
58.2
310.1
196.0
512.5
1774.7
44733.6
1291.5
4770.2
590.1
473.0
1022.4
1196.3
473.6
1580.3
425.4
629.4
765.7
612.3
2842.3
3876.4
675.5
387.7
252.1
989.7
3986.5
459.5
845.1
378.7
964.3
517.3
393.1
416.3
948.3
266.2
429.1
1055.7
778.1
763.3
101.7
417.1
143.5
685.4
13492.0
499.3
22898.8
154.8
355.6
9842.3
974.3
650.4
422.0
561.2
353.0
326.8
2199.3
4284.3
268.3
714.3
389.6
1935.0
3531.1
30875.4
4884.1
14595.0
1769.0
1254.9
3495.4
2570.3
1192.6
4121.9
1218.4
1300.7
1810.3
2869.1
4927.9
1562.0
1787.8
1198.5
925.2
2562.6
16439.7
1227.7
2272.1
785.9
2983.5
1391.5
1287.6
607.4
1869.1
762.4
752.3
2689.8
1328.9
2030.6
219.1
898.0
361.8
2377.0
11930.0
664.6
20557.0
311.3
964.7
22898.4
870.0
873.6
733.8
709.5
1056.9
741.2
4508.9
3805.9
712.3
2250.9
664.0
4035.7
3339.3
16999.3
3439.6
24290.7
983.8
1669.9
2971.7
1265.2
1885.5
4937.2
1246.2
1284.4
2120.8
3545.8
3753.6
1380.5
1178.0
1035.9
897.6
2932.7
9490.9
1219.9
1724.4
619.8
3928.1
2901.9
1527.2
424.3
1413.6
667.2
574.9
1825.2
1177.9
1507.6
176.5
801.1
575.5
3279.4
6332.0
978.0
12999.6
399.6
1107.0
19254.5
724.7
749.3
710.0
829.3
959.8
963.0
4063.0
1326.5
609.7
1538.3
747.7
2721.7
904.4
7193.8
1764.5
22337.2
412.2
657.8
1496.9
482.1
692.4
1676.1
387.5
344.2
537.5
1461.9
1356.5
360.8
350.1
473.9
615.7
1412.5
10666.1
332.8
740.7
192.6
1459.6
1046.4
602.2
86.2
593.0
271.8
156.3
572.5
394.7
521.7
68.3
300.0
267.0
540.5
2329.7
225.1
5396.4
201.5
533.5
15455.4
298.9
465.6
288.4
527.7
323.5
560.5
1982.3
376.2
190.4
614.9
510.5
1167.2
120.6
2464.7
395.0
10804.6
75.9
164.4
236.9
73.2
100.7
301.8
65.9
54.0
119.9
278.6
431.2
80.0
63.6
112.2
107.1
143.6
7328.4
9.1
177.0
22.1
725.7
611.1
84.2
5.3
57.3
28.4
23.4
61.1
47.9
71.3
1.3
24.6
19.6
111.8
534.2
22.4
571.5
27.5
65.8
2586.7
37.1
132.2
42.1
59.0
55.0
54.5
239.0
46.5
3.5
74.6
51.2
155.0
59.3
190.1
123.6
815.8
9.0
12.5
56.7
17.6
0.0
44.9
0.0
6.8
3.6
102.3
61.5
0.0
15.3
61.0
61.2
49.6
5169.9
0.0
38.5
0.0
178.7
73.0
0.0
2.5
7.0
4.7
0.0
6.9
3.5
4.5
0.0
2.3
3.8
25.2
89.1
0.0
81.6
3.9
8.3
418.5
6.5
19.3
6.2
9.8
7.5
8.5
38.0
5.2
0.0
8.7
9.1
15.2
0.0
29.5
0.0
46.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
29.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.5
0.0
212.4
0.0
16.4
0.0
41.6
0.0
0.0
1.7
3.9
1.8
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
11.8
13.9
0.0
20.2
1.6
3.2
93.8
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
1.4
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.3
2.7
3.9
OR-RP-211
OR-RP-212
OR-WP-213
OR-WP-214
OR-WP-215
OR-WP-216
OR-RS-217
OR-VS-218
OR-VS-219
OR-VS-220
OR-RS-221
OR-RS-222
OR-VS-223
OR-RS-224
OR-VS-225
OR-RS-226
OR-RS-227
OR-VS-228
OR-VS-229
OR-VS-230
OR-VS-231
OR-SG-232
OR-VS-233
OR-RP-234
OR-RP-235
OR-RP-236
OR-SG-237
OR-RG-238
OR-SG-239
OR-GT-240
OR-VS-241
OR-VS-242
OR-RS-243
OR-RS-244
OR-RP-245
OR-VS-246
OR-VS-247
OR-RS-248
OR-RS-249
OR-RS-250
OR-RP-251
OR-RS-252
OR-RS-253
OR-WP-254
OR-WP-255
Red Porgy
Red Porgy
Whitebone porgy
Whitebone porgy
Whitebone porgy
Whitebone porgy
Red snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Vermilion snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Scamp
Vermilion snapper
Red porgy
Red porgy
Red porgy
Scamp
Red Grouper
Scamp
Gray triggerfish
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red porgy
Vermilion snapper
Vermilion snapper
Red Snapper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Red porgy
Red snapper
Red snapper
Whitebone porgy
Whitebone porgy
130 | P a g e
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
4/27/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
11/18/2010
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
341
323
375
365
370
384
442
391
395
394
601
443
438
606
535
444
682
425
393
471
403
409
403
337
368
330
449
564
454
436
417
426
414
447
355
483
441
556
481
549
409
413
522
390
388
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
380
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.03
10.02
10.08
10.00
10.07
10.06
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
26.5
25.3
25.9
22.2
25.0
24.4
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
1.8
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
10642.4
31098.1
22986.2
58405.2
68656.8
95374.2
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
15.6
57.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
997.4
4741.3
304.3
680.8
191.3
507.6
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
4896.1
18886.8
4016.5
4958.3
7575.9
6521.2
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
2829.5
5812.6
6550.7
12651.7
20553.8
23369.6
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
1298.3
1122.2
8427.9
23077.4
24757.7
47633.8
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
460.2
376.0
3086.7
13340.9
13479.0
13473.3
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
118.6
86.5
532.2
3059.3
1825.4
3326.6
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
31.7
23.2
63.8
552.5
239.4
461.1
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
9.4
7.6
13.8
84.3
34.3
96.8
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
Table 14. Tissue sample characteristics and PCB concentrations by wet mass of skin-on fillets of fish lateral
musculature of reef fish collected during sample rounds 3 and 4 from the Pensacola Bay Bridge Fishing Reef “Nearby
Reef” located 8.2 nm northwest of the Oriskany Reef.
PCB Homologs by Chlorination Level
FWC
Sample ID
CS1-RS-001
CS1-RS-002
CS1-RS-003
CS1-RS-004
CS1-RS-005
CS1-RS-006
CS1-GT-007
CS1-RS-008
CS1-RS-009
CS1-RS-010
CS1-RS-011
CS1-RS-012
CS1-GG-013
CS1-GG-014
CS1-RS-015
CS1-GG-016
CS1-VS-017
CS1-RS-018
CS1-RS-019
CS1-RS-020
CS1-RS-021
CS1-RS-022
CS1-RS-023
CS1-RS-024
CS1-RS-025
CS1-RS-026
CS1-RS-027
CS1-RS-028
CS1-RS-029
CS1-GG-030
CS1-RS-031
CS1-RS-032
CS1-RS-033
CS1-RS-034
CS1-RS-035
CS1-RS-036
CS1-RS-037
CS1-RS-038
CS1-RS-039
CS1-RS-040
CS1-RS-041
Common Name
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Gray Triggerfish
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Gag Grouper
Gag Grouper
Red Snapper
Gag Grouper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Gag Grouper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
131 | P a g e
Collection
Date
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
2/3/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
Collection
Gear
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
Fish
Length
(TL)
mm
460
433
406
458
450
426
n/a
475
452
426
473
438
768
779
431
623
311
446
439
486
408
435
471
510
421
428
483
456
704
764
434
424
461
433
442
427
455
491
445
443
416
Fish
Length
(FL)
mm
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
384
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Wet
Weight
(g)
5.17
6.32
5.24
5.59
5.24
5.18
5.74
7.36
4.99
5.85
5.16
5.28
5.02
5.13
5.43
5.44
4.95
5.44
5.07
5.51
5.23
5.15
5.05
7.35
5.02
4.99
4.95
5.58
5.52
5.89
10.63
10.01
10.53
11.23
11.29
10.08
11.29
10.23
10.13
11.67
10.86
%
Solid
23.24
25.23
23.15
25.37
24.62
24.94
22.15
26.92
24.05
23.49
23.90
24.00
28.06
29.09
24.13
25.35
24.65
24.55
23.90
23.41
22.78
24.07
24.65
25.12
24.54
21.30
23.72
23.40
25.17
26.84
28.32
24.49
24.54
24.97
26.76
25.77
23.26
25.81
25.21
22.29
27.23
%
Lipid
2.76
2.89
3.04
6.05
3.68
4.86
1.36
9.04
3.30
2.52
2.95
3.51
18.68
11.02
8.85
17.99
3.31
5.36
5.40
3.02
3.00
5.64
8.48
4.03
2.84
0.66
3.70
3.40
7.27
8.82
7.11
12.03
8.67
5.95
16.57
9.30
4.98
9.87
9.08
3.14
6.19
Total PCB
Congeners
(pg/g)
3883.8
3466.6
4527.4
5233.9
3896.2
4144.6
2790.7
3585.1
4060.1
3229.9
3380.2
2561.7
5974.0
8164.8
6283.1
6462.1
2587.5
4752.6
3514.1
3850.2
3221.7
5385.3
3608.3
5135.0
2650.2
3093.3
2786.7
3326.4
5691.3
2808.0
4875.8
4375.6
6846.6
3070.1
36895.8
13816.7
3834.5
13871.0
8292.3
2344.9
3578.0
Chlor.
1
70.7
53.9
61.0
63.9
70.1
61.9
73.8
47.1
135.1
102.4
0.0
27.9
75.8
79.6
71.6
76.1
70.5
72.4
72.3
67.1
88.8
106.1
68.9
54.4
170.0
112.9
73.9
82.9
33.3
46.6
4.1
7.9
9.6
4.3
12.0
14.9
3.8
15.1
8.1
0.9
4.1
Chlor.
2
145.1
91.1
116.9
112.3
106.8
135.1
132.8
80.8
143.8
87.9
0.0
38.9
84.7
81.8
79.0
65.3
90.1
83.1
37.4
72.3
40.5
146.4
66.0
83.4
165.4
125.9
68.6
108.1
50.9
88.4
101.2
135.7
131.3
77.7
522.9
170.7
113.6
65.3
183.7
0.0
86.4
Chlor.
3
517.1
371.2
416.4
486.1
441.9
457.1
433.7
310.1
500.2
376.2
229.0
227.1
340.9
380.7
319.5
406.3
319.1
415.5
385.4
333.4
359.7
403.0
247.4
256.2
388.6
385.6
341.1
345.8
238.8
205.8
77.6
94.4
78.4
61.3
2609.7
143.2
82.0
140.5
103.0
49.4
78.4
Chlor.
4
515.0
420.5
737.8
639.9
611.1
565.1
506.2
447.6
614.7
517.0
471.5
390.8
612.4
656.7
845.0
667.9
387.7
588.3
431.5
427.9
404.0
635.0
370.6
765.8
295.3
485.3
355.8
452.4
438.6
202.9
309.5
201.8
444.8
228.7
3817.5
523.0
269.3
521.8
371.4
90.2
188.4
Chlor. 5
798.1
712.4
1055.9
1254.4
876.4
832.6
514.9
795.8
791.7
627.6
670.9
537.9
1193.9
1841.9
1655.8
1452.0
557.9
1153.5
715.9
866.3
668.0
1094.6
854.2
1542.7
554.9
673.9
544.9
712.8
1319.0
506.9
2694.4
1990.8
3729.4
1727.6
16165.6
9457.6
1730.9
7046.6
4065.3
1173.3
1838.9
Chlor. 6
1341.8
1254.4
1393.6
1794.4
1052.1
1442.8
848.6
1202.1
1352.3
1054.3
1421.7
986.1
2481.7
3405.3
2498.2
2502.2
783.5
1515.3
1268.0
1332.8
1190.7
2240.0
1380.9
1743.2
771.8
974.7
993.9
1170.7
2255.3
1161.6
1199.6
1297.2
1873.6
723.1
6783.1
2566.5
1214.9
4207.0
2609.0
665.8
965.4
Chlor. 7
436.4
482.7
631.6
755.2
613.2
561.6
260.1
613.9
449.0
403.5
442.9
287.6
924.9
1381.5
636.1
1077.7
343.0
757.3
510.7
598.5
402.1
608.1
505.9
557.9
259.7
277.1
344.3
391.7
1086.5
484.9
428.0
568.8
415.9
233.2
4974.9
711.5
323.9
1541.2
787.1
293.5
338.3
Chlor.
8
39.8
56.2
74.5
87.8
80.0
58.0
15.2
50.8
50.1
40.7
89.7
42.2
181.9
217.6
111.7
148.5
28.3
118.5
64.5
93.8
49.6
98.9
78.1
90.4
27.4
34.9
45.9
42.9
181.4
75.2
16.3
40.5
120.0
0.0
1371.5
157.1
66.2
217.5
99.8
42.6
57.3
Chlor.
9
8.9
12.3
23.5
22.2
28.8
15.8
2.6
21.7
13.0
11.2
29.6
11.5
44.8
65.7
41.5
35.3
3.5
25.1
17.6
21.7
10.5
32.7
20.1
20.4
7.9
11.8
7.4
10.6
41.2
20.1
20.4
17.6
19.7
4.6
433.0
28.4
12.1
60.1
28.4
9.3
6.6
Chlor.
10
10.9
11.9
16.2
17.7
15.8
14.6
2.8
15.2
10.2
9.1
24.9
11.7
33.0
54.0
24.7
30.8
3.9
23.6
10.8
36.4
7.8
20.5
16.2
20.6
9.2
11.2
10.9
8.5
46.3
15.6
24.7
20.9
23.9
9.6
205.6
43.8
17.8
55.9
36.5
19.9
14.2
CS1-GS-042
CS1-VS-043
CS1-RP-044
CS1-RS-045
CS1-RS-046
CS1-RS-047
CS1-VS-048
CS1-RP-049
CS1-RS-050
CS1-VS-051
CS1-RS-052
CS1-RS-053
CS1-VS-054
CS1-VS-055
CS1-VS-056
CS1-RS-057
CS1-VS-058
CS1-RS-059
CS1-RS-060
CS1-RS-061
Gray Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Porgy
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Vermilion Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
Red Snapper
132 | P a g e
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
4/29/2008
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
HnL
293
395
331
470
434
438
322
276
465
377
441
457
340
391
333
449
401
447
434
462
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.43
10.17
10.60
10.24
11.01
10.51
10.45
10.32
10.20
10.94
10.24
10.19
10.25
10.52
10.42
10.17
10.34
10.64
10.58
5.06
24.90
34.77
24.32
24.27
24.75
29.92
28.86
23.65
28.15
28.45
24.21
26.68
27.00
27.59
28.08
25.54
28.89
30.55
24.67
23.51
0.58
15.87
2.41
7.57
9.68
14.41
18.35
2.46
7.60
14.80
9.11
16.52
7.46
11.65
7.37
4.89
17.83
18.26
7.70
3.32
13178.6
30792.8
826.5
9067.8
35038.4
11499.1
36266.3
2580.8
7017.7
4866.8
8033.7
42851.5
3231.9
4652.3
6672.6
10883.9
7014.9
11701.3
6003.5
2919.7
17.3
79.8
0.0
79.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
159.4
77.7
0.0
94.4
0.0
0.0
47.9
0.0
0.0
76.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
128.4
0.0
45.7
34.3
0.0
89.2
80.0
0.0
175.1
15.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.6
68.2
0.0
0.0
73.0
2350.9
111.7
218.5
1760.5
3725.0
98.0
68.2
104.1
115.4
49.1
477.4
118.6
303.7
1068.5
231.4
147.0
184.5
100.5
230.0
476.9
2525.1
55.3
559.8
4302.2
348.0
4188.0
174.2
254.2
308.0
364.0
1224.0
158.4
204.8
733.2
415.0
333.5
368.3
102.8
79.9
6070.7
21851.9
193.9
5944.6
24524.8
4513.0
25198.3
1531.7
3982.8
2339.8
4974.9
24679.4
1920.5
2839.2
3454.1
7159.3
4059.3
6803.6
2966.2
1448.1
5031.0
2521.1
299.5
1540.0
2776.1
1986.8
4630.6
416.8
1781.4
1539.7
1759.0
11893.6
709.2
848.5
872.8
2134.8
1660.6
2987.2
1859.6
850.5
1083.2
1184.2
105.1
559.9
1411.8
698.1
1653.7
188.5
579.9
486.1
693.8
3645.2
265.9
316.1
433.8
689.1
581.0
1119.0
812.0
229.6
200.0
156.0
0.0
83.3
164.8
95.4
253.1
15.2
21.8
25.0
33.8
606.1
30.5
71.5
68.9
155.1
80.5
108.5
98.8
73.1
39.8
46.3
3.7
21.2
37.4
15.6
50.2
6.4
15.9
14.1
23.1
170.1
13.0
10.3
13.0
40.4
20.8
37.2
28.8
8.5
58.3
77.5
11.6
27.1
60.8
28.0
114.3
20.4
24.7
23.2
41.7
155.7
15.8
10.4
28.3
58.8
19.3
24.8
34.8
0.0
Table 15. Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs in fish tissues from reef
fish collected from the Nearby Reef (sorted by species and sample number) from
sample rounds 3 and 4, compared with the percent composition of total PCBs by
homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 (Arochlor
data from Degrandechamp and Barron, 2005).
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Gag Grouper‐13
Gag Grouper‐14
Gag Grouper‐16
Gag Grouper‐30
Gray Snapper‐42
Gray Triggerfish‐7
Red Porgy‐44
Red Porgy‐49
Red Snapper‐1
Red Snapper‐2
Red Snapper‐3
Red Snapper‐4
Red Snapper‐5
Red Snapper‐6
Red Snapper‐8
Red Snapper‐9
Red Snapper‐10
Red Snapper‐11
Red Snapper‐12
Red Snapper‐15
Red Snapper‐18
Red Snapper‐19
Red Snapper‐20
Red Snapper‐21
Red Snapper‐22
Red Snapper‐23
Red Snapper‐24
Red Snapper‐25
Red Snapper‐26
Red Snapper‐27
Red Snapper‐28
Red Snapper‐29
Red Snapper‐31
Red Snapper‐32
Red Snapper‐33
Red Snapper‐34
Red Snapper‐35
Red Snapper‐36
Red Snapper‐37
Red Snapper‐38
Red Snapper‐39
Red Snapper‐40
Red Snapper‐41
Red Snapper‐45
Red Snapper‐46
Red Snapper‐47
Red Snapper‐50
Red Snapper‐52
Red Snapper‐53
Red Snapper‐57
Red Snapper‐59
Red Snapper‐60
Red Snapper‐61
Vermilion Snapper‐17
Vermilion Snapper‐43
Vermilion Snapper‐48
Vermilion Snapper‐51
Vermilion Snapper‐54
Vermilion Snapper‐55
Vermilion Snapper‐56
133 | P a g e
Table 16a. Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs in fish tissues from reef
fish collected from the Oriskany Reef (sorted by species and sample number) from
sample rounds 1 through 6 (“gray triggerfish-175” (Sample OR-GT-175) through
“red snapper-90” (Sample OR-RS-090)), compared with the percent composition of
total PCBs by homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and
1260 (Arochlor data from Degrandechamp and Barron, 2005).
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Gray Triggerfish‐175
Red Porgy‐47
Red Porgy‐54
Red Porgy‐55
Red Porgy‐58
Red Porgy‐119
Red Porgy‐156
Red Snapper‐1
Red Snapper‐2
Red Snapper‐3
Red Snapper‐4
Red Snapper‐5
Red Snapper‐6
Red Snapper‐7
Red Snapper‐8
Red Snapper‐9
Red Snapper‐10
Red Snapper‐11
Red Snapper‐12
Red Snapper‐13
Red Snapper‐14
Red Snapper‐15
Red Snapper‐16
Red Snapper‐17
Red Snapper‐18
Red Snapper‐19
Red Snapper‐20
Red Snapper‐21
Red Snapper‐22
Red Snapper‐23
Red Snapper‐24
Red Snapper‐25
Red Snapper‐26
Red Snapper‐27
Red Snapper‐28
Red Snapper‐29
Red Snapper‐30
Red Snapper‐31
Red Snapper‐32
Red Snapper‐33
Red Snapper‐34
Red Snapper‐35
Red Snapper‐36
Red Snapper‐37
Red Snapper‐38
Red Snapper‐40
Red Snapper‐41
Red Snapper‐42
Red Snapper‐43
Red Snapper‐44
Red Snapper‐45
Red Snapper‐46
Red Snapper‐50
Red Snapper‐52
Red Snapper‐53
Red Snapper‐56
Red Snapper‐59
Red Snapper‐60
Red Snapper‐61
Red Snapper‐62
Red Snapper‐63
Red Snapper‐64
Red Snapper‐65
Red Snapper‐66
Red Snapper‐67
Red Snapper‐68
Red Snapper‐69
Red Snapper‐70
Red Snapper‐71
Red Snapper‐72
Red Snapper‐73
Red Snapper‐74
Red Snapper‐75
Red Snapper‐76
Red Snapper‐77
Red Snapper‐78
Red Snapper‐79
Red Snapper‐80
Red Snapper‐81
Red Snapper‐82
Red Snapper‐83
Red Snapper‐84
Red Snapper‐85
Red Snapper‐86
Red Snapper‐87
Red Snapper‐88
Red Snapper‐89
Red Snapper‐90
134 | P a g e
Table 16b. Percent composition of total PCBs by homologs in fish tissues from reef fish collected
from the Oriskany Reef (sorted by species) from sample rounds 1 through 6 (“red snapper-91”
(Sample OR-RS-091) through “vermilion snapper-178” (Sample OR-VS-178)), compared
with the percent composition of total PCBs by homologs from commercial Arochlors 1232, 1242,
1248, 1254, 1260 (Arochlor data from DeGrandechamp and Barron, 2005).
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
pp
Red Snapper‐91
Red Snapper‐92
Red Snapper‐93
Red Snapper‐94
Red Snapper‐95
Red Snapper‐96
Red Snapper‐97
Red Snapper‐98
Red Snapper‐99
Red Snapper‐100
Red Snapper‐101
Red Snapper‐102
Red Snapper‐103
Red Snapper‐104
Red Snapper‐105
Red Snapper‐106
Red Snapper‐107
Red Snapper‐108
Red Snapper‐109
Red Snapper‐110
Red Snapper‐111
Red Snapper‐112
Red Snapper‐113
Red Snapper‐114
Red Snapper‐115
Red Snapper‐116
Red Snapper‐117
Red Snapper‐118
Red Snapper‐120
Red Snapper‐121
Red Snapper‐122
Red Snapper‐123
Red Snapper‐124
Red Snapper‐125
Red Snapper‐126
Red Snapper‐127
Red Snapper‐128
Red Snapper‐129
Red Snapper‐130
Red Snapper‐131
Red Snapper‐132
Red Snapper‐133
Red Snapper‐134
Red Snapper‐136
Red Snapper‐137
Red Snapper‐138
Red Snapper‐139
Red Snapper‐140
Red Snapper‐141
Red Snapper‐142
Red Snapper‐143
Red Snapper‐144
Red Snapper‐145
Red Snapper‐146
Red Snapper‐147
Red Snapper‐148
Red Snapper‐149
Red Snapper‐150
Red Snapper‐151
Red Snapper‐152
Red Snapper‐153
Red Snapper‐154
Red Snapper‐155
Red Snapper‐158
Red Snapper‐160
Red Snapper‐161
Red Snapper‐163
Red Snapper‐164
Red Snapper‐168
Red Snapper‐170
Red Snapper‐173
Red Snapper‐176
Red Snapper‐177
Red Snapper‐179
Red Snapper‐180
Red Snapper‐181
Scamp Grouper‐135
Vermilion Snapper‐39
Vermilion Snapper‐48
Vermilion Snapper‐49
Vermilion Snapper‐51
Vermilion Snapper‐157
Vermilion Snapper‐159
Vermilion Snapper‐162
Vermilion Snapper‐165
Vermilion Snapper‐166
Vermilion Snapper‐167
Vermilion Snapper‐169
Vermilion Snapper‐171
Vermilion Snapper‐172
Vermilion Snapper‐174
Vermilion Snapper‐178
135 | P a g e
Appendix 2. Sample FWC underwater field sheet used for fish census data
collection.
136 | P a g e