1 / 7

Enhancing Alaska's Water Quality: Bioaccumulation in Marine Mammals Inquiry

This publication delves into the debate on utilizing bioconcentration or bioaccumulation rates for assessing contaminant levels in Alaskan waters and marine life, raising concerns over the efficacy of generic BAF values in reflecting pollutants. The issue of marine mammals' role in bioaccumulation, EPA's BAF methodology, and variations in uptake across species and regions are explored. The dialogue also touches upon the complexities of incorporating marine mammal data into water quality regulations.

darinw
Download Presentation

Enhancing Alaska's Water Quality: Bioaccumulation in Marine Mammals Inquiry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Issue 3: Should Alaska use Bioconcentration or Bioaccumulation Rates? • GA indicates support for use of bioaccumulation rates • Concern that generic use of BAF doesn’t reflect contaminates in Alaskan waters and aquatic life. • Where do whales fit in? (Issue 2b) • Inclusion as RSC may not protect individuals if they are exposed via higher BAFs than current EPA values. Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  2. DEC asked EPA/Dr. Gobas to consider how marine mammals could be accounted for in the HHC Equation • Dr. Gobas was instrumental in developing the EPA recommended 2015 BAF values • Questions 1. What marine mammals are bioaccumulating contaminants from waters under CWA jurisdiction (i.e. near shore marine, estuarine, and fresh water)? 2. Do some marine mammals have a fraction of their body burden that comes from CWA jurisdiction waters?  How would we address fractional uptake? 3. How would we incorporate consideration of marine mammals in EPA’s current BAF methodology? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  3. Questions Cont. 4. How do we take into account variation in bioaccumulation by life stage or season in developing BAFs for use in AWQC development? 5. Do you have any thoughts as to how we would deal with differences in diet and bioaccumulation across Alaska in developing AWQC? 6. What are we missing? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  4. 2b. Treatment of marine mammals • GA did not determine consensus • Challenging issue as consumption varies widely • Exposure may also vary widely • Options raised in GA • Establish a consumption threshold • Differentiate between nearshore and marine foraging species (FCR v. RSC) Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  5. What does the ADF&G data tells us? • Consumption varies across the state • Varies by species Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  6. Questions to consider • Should the consumption of marine mammals be considered in the HHC formula- discussion to date indicates YES. • If so, does the consumption of marine mammals equate to consumption of fish/aquatic life (part of FCR) • Yes/No? • 1:1 relationship or something else? • If not, then is it adequately addressed when considered part of the RSC? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

  7. Recommendations on the Tx of Marine Mammals • Consensus? • Dissenting opinion? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

More Related