Do scientists and fishermen collect the same size fish? Possible implications for exposure assessment.

Recreational and subsistence fishing plays a major role in the lives of many people, although most Americans obtain their fish from supermarkets or other commercial sources. Fish consumption has generally increased in recent years, largely because of the nutritional benefits. Recent concerns about contaminants in fish have prompted federal and state agencies to analyze fish (especially freshwater fish targeted by recreational anglers) for contaminants, such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and to issue fish consumption advisories to help reduce the public health risks, where warranted. Scientists engaged in environmental sampling collect fish by a variety of means, and analyze the contaminants in those fish. Risk assessors use these levels as the basis for their advisories. Two assumptions of this methodology are that scientists collect the same size (and types) of fish that fishermen catch, and that, for some contaminants (such as methylmercury and PCBs), levels increase with the size and age of the fish. While many studies demonstrate a positive relationship between size and mercury levels in a wide range of different species of fish, the assumption that scientists collect the same size fish as fishermen has not been examined. The assumption that scientists collect the same size fish as those caught (and eaten) by recreationalists or subsistence fishermen is extremely important because contaminant levels are different in different size fish. In this article, we test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in the sizes of fish collected by Aleut fishermen, scientists (including divers), and commercial trawlers in the Bering Sea from Adak to Kiska. Aleut fishermen caught fish using rod-and-reel (fishing rods, hook, and fresh bait) from boats, as they would in their Aleutian villages. The scientists collected fish using rod-and-reel, as well as by scuba divers using spears up to 90 ft depths. A fisheries biologist collected fish from a research/commercial trawler operated under charter to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The fish selected for sampling, including those caught commercially in the Bering Sea, represented different trophic levels, and are species regularly caught by Aleuts while fishing near their villages. Not all fish were caught by all three groups. There were no significant differences in length and weight for five species of fish caught by Aleuts, scientists, and fisheries trawls, and for an additional 3 species caught only by the Aleut and scientist teams. There were small, but significant, differences in the sizes of rock greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus) and red Irish lord (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus) caught by the scientist and Aleut fishermen. No scientists caught rock greenling using poles; those speared by the divers were significantly smaller than those caught by the Aleuts. Further, there were no differences in the percent of males in the samples as a function of fishing method or type of fishermen, except for rockfish and red Irish lord. These data suggest that if scientists collect fish in the same manner as subsistence fishermen (in this case, using fishing rods from boats), they can collect the same-sized fish. The implications for exposure and risk assessment are that scientists should either engage subsistence and recreational fishermen to collect fish for analysis, or mimic their fishing methods to ensure that the fish collected are similar in size and weight to those being caught and consumed by these groups. Further, total length, standard length, and weight were highly correlated for all species of fish, suggesting that risk assessors could rely on recreational and commercial fishermen to measure total lengths for the purpose of correlating mercury levels with known size/mercury level relationships. Our data generally demonstrate that the scientists and trawlers can collect the same size fish as those caught by Aleuts, making contaminant analysis, and subsequent contaminant analysis, representative of the risks to fish consumers.

Science, policy, and stakeholders: developing a consensus science plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska.

With the ending of the Cold War, the US Department of Energy is responsible for the remediation of radioactive waste and disposal of land no longer needed for nuclear material production or related national security missions. The task of characterizing the hazards and risks from radionuclides is necessary for assuring the protection of health of humans and the environment. This is a particularly daunting task for those sites that had underground testing of nuclear weapons, where the radioactive contamination is currently inaccessible. Herein we report on the development of a Science Plan to characterize the physical and biological marine environment around Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain of Alaska, where three underground nuclear tests were conducted (1965-1971). Information on the ecology, geology, and current radionuclide levels in biota, water, and sediment is necessary for evaluating possible current contamination and to serve as a baseline for developing a plan to ensure human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Other information required includes identifying the location of the salt water/fresh water interface where migration to the ocean might occur in the future and determining groundwater recharge balances, as well as assessing other physical/geological features of Amchitka near the test sites. The Science Plan is needed to address the confusing and conflicting information available to the public about radionuclide risks from underground nuclear blasts in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the potential for volcanic or seismic activity to disrupt shot cavities or accelerate migration of radionuclides into the sea. Developing a Science Plan involved agreement among regulators and other stakeholders, assignment of the task to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, and development of a consensus Science Plan that dealt with contentious scientific issues. Involvement of the regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (U S Fish and Wildlife Service), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, and other stakeholders was essential for plan development and approval, although this created tensions because of the different objectives of each group. The complicated process of developing a Science Plan involved iterations and interactions with multiple agencies and organizations, scientists in several disciplines, regulators, and the participation of Aleut people in their home communities, as well as the general public. The importance of including all parties in all phases of the development of the Science Plan was critical to its acceptance by a broad range of regulators, agencies, resource trustees, Aleutian/Pribilof communities, and other stakeholders.