Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies

Transcription

1 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies November 28, 2007 Matthew Zwiernik, PhD Professor Zoology/Vet Med. Michigan State University

2 Research Contributors Cooperating landowners Local resources The Dow Chemical Company

3 Research Contributors Matthew J. Zwiernik, Ph.D. Rita Seston Timothy B. Fredricks Sarah J. Coefield Dustin L. Tazelaar Jeremy N. Moore David W. Hamman Mike M. Fales Megan Barker Michael N. Nadeau Melissa S. Shotwell Steph Plautz William Folland Patrick W. Bradley John P. Giesy, Ph.D. (PI) and many more

4 Ecological risk assessment Study Objective Provide risk managers with a scientifically based, site-specific, risk of harm evaluation for valued ecological entities

5 Summary: Tittabawassee River (To date) Exposure The contaminants are entering the food web Tissue and dietary based exposure assessments agree Individual and Population Health (preliminary) Preliminary data suggests no differences between upstream and downstream individual health, population health, or abundance for the animals we studied along the river Toxicological Profile of Contaminant Mixture There is little to no data pertaining to the toxicological potency of the major contaminants (furans) to wildlife species.

6 Exposure, Effects, Population Health Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Exposure Toxicity Toxicity Laboratory Dose response Risk to Population Health

7 Exposure, Effects, Population Health Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Laboratory Dose response Exposure ToxicityToxicity Individual and Population health measurements

8 Exposure, Effects, Population Health Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Population Health and Sustainability Laboratory Dose response Individual and Population health measurements

9 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

10 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

11 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

12 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

13 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

14 Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink

15 Dietary exposure Stomach content Scat analysis Prey Remains Visual Observations Bolus Sampling

16 Dietary exposure Stomach content Scat analysis Prey Remains Visual Observations Bolus Sampling

17 Dietary exposure Stomach content Scat analysis Prey Remains Visual Observations Bolus Sampling

18 Dietary Exposure Food web dietary items Multiple time-points Multiple locations

19

20 Tittabawassee River Mink 4% 8% 9% Dietary exposure 19% 52% 8% Fish Crayfish Muskrat Small Mammals Amphibians Vegetation

21 Mink Dietary Items Mink dietary exposure 100 TEQ (ppt) Reference Area T-River 20 0 Sediment Forage fish Muskrat Crayfish Small mammal Vegetation Amphibian

22 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

23 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

24 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

25 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

26 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

27 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

28 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

29 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

30 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

31 Mink Tissue Based Exposure Mink Tittabawassee River (Sanford) Pine River Chippawa River Upstream Smiths Crossing Tittabawassee Township Park Mink liver TEQ WHO-mammalian (ng/kg) Freeland Festival Park Imerman Park

32 Exposure Assessment Results Dietary Exposure All animals selected had significant exposure to 2,3,7,8 dibenzofuran and 2,3,4,7,8 dibenzofuran. Tissue Based Exposure All animals selected had significant exposure to 2,3,7,8 dibenzofuran and 2,3,4,7,8 dibenzofuran.

33 Exposure, Effects, Population Health Exposure Effect Exposure Toxicity Population health Predicted Risk to Population Health

34 Individual and population health Measures of Individual and Population Health Clutch or litter size Hatching success Fledging success Productivity Abundance (occupancy rate) Long term survival Nestling growth rate Nest attentiveness Yearly return rates Habitat suitability Individual health measures Population demographics

35 Direct Measures of Mink Individual and Population Health Individual Health Population Health Measurement Body Weight Body Length Age Organ weights Nutritional Status Tissue histology Abundance Age Structure Male to Female ratio Placental Scaring Difference between Reference and Tittabawassee River animals No No No No No No No No No No No

36 Individual and population health Conclusions of Mink Study No difference between sites Mink appear healthy (size, age, nutritional status) No adverse measures for any endpoints Mink abundance is not different between sites Male to Female ratio not different between sites Abundance and demographics are indicative of stable lightly harvested population

37 Direct Measures of Passerine Individual and Population Health Individual Health Population Health Measurement General Health Nestling Weight Nestling Growth Clutch Size (eggs/nest) Productivity (Nestlings Fledged/nest) Abundance Productivity Nestling return rates (Long term survival) Adult return rates (long term survival) Difference between Reference and Tittabawassee River animals No No No No No No No No No

38 Conclusions of Passerine Study Individual and population health Expected species present ( ) High nest box occupancy ( ) Ref=82%, Target=87% No obvious differences in measures of individual health (05-07) No obvious differences in measures of population health (05-07) No obvious deformities (04-07) Nestling and adult return rates greater than expected (06-07)

39 Kingfisher Individual and population health Population Health Belted kingfisher productivity Area Nests Nests w/ eggs Eggs / nest Hatching success Fledging success Reference % 100% 32% - 56% Target % - 93% 55% - 70%

40 Individual and population health Great Horned Owl Population Health: Abundance and Productivity Location Reference Target Number breeding pairs Number confirmed successful nests

41 Great Horned Owl Results Individual and population health No difference in individual health measures (05-06) No difference in productivity on a per/nest basis (05-06) There do appear to be differences in abundance, density and productivity on a spatial basis

42 Exposure, Effects, Population Health Exposure Effect Exposure Toxicity Population Health Risk to Population Health

43 Effects Assessment Effects Assessment Identify dose response Presently there is minimal toxicological data for the two primary furans Available data is for 2,3,7,8 TCDD dosed to chickens and rodents Presently we are working on developing dose response relationships for the two furan congeners for relevant wildlife species

44 Summary: Tittabawassee River (To date) Exposure The contaminants are entering the food web Tissue and dietary based exposure assessments agree Individual and Population Health (preliminary) No abnormalities including those associated with dioxin like exposure have been seen (>3000 birds, >250 mammals, >150 amphibians) Species that should be present are there Preliminary data suggests no differences between upstream and downstream individual health, population health, or abundance for receptors of concern

45 Progress Summary Measures of exposure, individual and population health are complete or near complete with very strong data sets site-specific multiple line of evidence approach Presently the weak point in the ecological risk process is the characterization of relevant dose responses for the furans of concern and wild type species Studies are underway

46 Questions Contact Information Dr. Matthew Zwiernik