Fish Tumors and Deformities (BUI #3) Preliminary Workgroup Meeting

Tuesday, November 4, 2003
6:30 - 8:30 pm
DeWitt-Seitz 3rd floor conference room

Attending: J. Howard McCormick, Nan Stokes

• RAP/AOC process overview
- handout

• status of all Great Lakes AOCs according to IJC (ijc.org)
- IJC says the restoration work of AOCs is greater in U.S. than Canada. Two Canadian AOCs have been delisted, one Canadian/one U.S. in process of restoration.
- 7/10 Canadian AOCs have chosen natural restoration. No clear guidelines for selecting this.
- IJC wants U.S. government to provide the IJC with a schedule of restoration targets for each AOC within two years.
- Reason for these meetings. CAC board in May said would like to do meetings locally to decide restoration goals rather than having someone in Chicago or Washington decide them for us.

• review of contents of folder
- Calendar/timeline: September 2004 forward restoration goals to EPA.
- Goals of RAP
- Historical Background
- Development of the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
- Problems in the St. Louis River AOC Identified in the Stage I RAP
- Map: Shows AOC and some selected sites within it. AOC includes the Nemadji, Cities of Superior, Duluth, Cloquet, and the nearshore waters of Lake Superior.
- Restoration Goals and Milestones worksheet: This is what we will be submitting to EPA.
- BUI Rational for Removing from the Impairment List: This is what we are trying to develop tonight.
- Preliminary Workgroup Meeting Schedule
- Agenda
- General Guidelines for Restoration Goal Development
* Might recognize deficiencies in BUIs but won't be editing them.
* Consensus
- compromise is highly desirable.

• IJC Criteria: An impairment will be listed when incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities exceed rates at unimpacted control sites or when survey data confirm the presence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumors in bullheads or suckers.

• SLR RAP Rational for Listing: Observations suggest that fish tumors and deformities represent an impaired use in the St. Louis River estuary. However, at present, there are no studies that document the incidence rates of tumors in fish. Additional work is needed to fully determine the incidence of fish tumors and deformities in the Area of Concern.

* John Lindgren: Not significantly higher rates of tumors in SLR than other fish in lakes. No formal study.

* Annette Trowbridge, USFW: 2001 preliminary report indicates higher lesions at SLRIDT Superfund site than in other parts of SLR. North Bay/Keene Creek show no lesions.

* Nan Stokes: 1993 study showed no liver tumors, some parasites and skin lesions at Newton Creek.
- Was August so hot. Could account for the skin lesions.
- Maybe temperature would have been different in Bay entrance so no lesions.
- Boy Scout Landing to Bong Bridge showed no problems.
- Pokegama Bay fish were slighter shorter.

* Not enough info. Some sites suggest they might have a problem but generally not a problem overall.

* Toxic Tuesday. Mary Ann Kroft did study?
- 1991
- Showed clogging of gills, hemorrhaging liver tissue in 80% of fish from harbor.
- Clogging of gills could be problems with oxygen or parasites
- Where did she get fish and what time that showed hemorrhaging liver tissue?

* Need to have more info on where it is, how widespread, how persistent. Need to know problem before we fix it. Fish biologists just do general examination. Not specific enough.

* John Lindgren: When asked about fraying, deformed fins on sturgeon said it could be caused by nutrition and crowding in the fish hatchery.

* 1991 unpublished study
- 32 fish from Allouez Bay
- 2 showed outside lesions
- 1 fish had liver lesion

* August 2, 1995 report by Dennis Pratt, John Sullivan at Crawford Creek said spinal deformities and outside lesions.

* Sites exist in SLR AOC with PAH levels comparable to other sites with documented fish tumors.

* 1993 Study between Apostle Islands vs. SLR Harbor
- 80% of the Harbor fish showed significant lesions, fibrosis, hemorrhaging liver tissue, clogging in gills, alteration in serum protein levels
- Conclusion: Fish from Duluth/Superior Harbor have significant signs of stress. Need full formal study.
- too many different types of fish?
- Serum protein: BAO? Transamanase - stress induced. Hauling fish out of water causes stress. Only takes a few minutes to get elevated levels. One possible explanation.

* IJC uses bottom fish because closest to sediment (bullheads, suckers) rather than sport fish.

* Control sites
- North Bay: Good control site? It's a sheltered bay. Not all of the estuary is this type of habitat. Also is a comparison within AOC.
- Any outside? Chequamegon Bay but they have a lot of PAHs.

* Where is cutoff? What is limit? Should BUI be walleyes since that is what public use? Can't sample walleyes though. Fishermen get upset.

* What are other AOCs doing? NY at first didn't differentiate between outside/inside abnormalities.

* One approach: No one that uses the fishery (fishermen, fish biologists, etc) report abnormalities so this is a nonproblem until someone comes forward with a problem.
- These goals will be sent to local people for review.
- Sampling/analyzing has not been conducted with any degree of confidence to say there is or is not a problem with deformities and tumors. No reports from public/DNR. However, we reserve the right to change our minds.
- We would welcome additional studies to confirm.
- Histologies are expensive which is why they aren't done often.

* Until reports of gross problems become common, don't worry about it.
- One report a day not enough.
- We have a nationally recognized walleye fishery in the estuary so hard to say we have an impaired fish population.

* We recognize there are isolated spots that the data suggests there are isolated problems (e.g. Crawford Creek, Koppers contaminated wetland, USX) but these are not the majority of estuary. They do not constitute a hazard to the fishery as a whole.
- Any duck/geese studies?

* At this time, randomized stratified sampling has not occurred and reports are not being received by citizens or fish biologists of gross problems. So when reports become common (i.e. Dennis Pratt's phone rings 10 times a day) this BUI is not impaired. We recognize that there are isolated sites that suggest problems (e.g. Crawford Creek, USX, SLRIDT, Koppers wetland), but these sites are not the majority of the estuary and do not constitute [an impairment][a deleterious impact][reduction in ongoing quality] on the fishery.

* Fish were bigger after opening of WLSSD. Reduction in fishing since then?
- Technically better fishing. There were bigger fish and more of them.
- Would make you sick. They smelled.

* Fish are for eating not just catching.

* Would like more info on this still.