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

2 | P a g e

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

3 | P a g e

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 post-deployment). 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.

4 | P a g e

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

5 | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure  Page No.

1. Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola ................................................................ 14 2. Oriskany Reef pre-sink sampling sites ........................................................ 20 3. Location map of the Oriskany Reef ............................................................. 21 4. Recovery of commercial chevron trap with red snapper catch ................. 26 5. Commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” fishing gear ........................... 29 6. Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef ............................ 43 7. Species composition of fish samples retained from the Oriskany Reef

from sampling rounds 1-8 ............................................................................ 59 7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany Reef samples by sample date from

sampling rounds 1-8 ..................................................................................... 61 8. Species composition of fish samples retained from the Nearby Reef

from sampling rounds 3 of 4 ........................................................................ 62 9. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper from the Oriskany Reef......... 72 10. PCB data for red snapper collected from the Oriskany Reef by fish

length through sample round #7 ................................................................. 73 11. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper collected from the Nearby

Reef #1 during sample rounds #3 and #4 ................................................. 75 12. Mean PCB by sample date for vermilion snapper from the Oriskany

Reef through sample round #7 .................................................................... 79 13. Mean PCB by sample date for red porgy from the Oriskany Reef

through sample round #7 ............................................................................ 13 14. Mean PCB by sample date for whitebone porgy from the Oriskany

Reef through sample round #7 .................................................................... 87 15. Mean PCB by sample date for gray triggerfish from the Oriskany Reef

through sample round #7 ............................................................................ 91 16. Mean PCB by sample date for scamp from the Oriskany Reef through

sample round #7 ........................................................................................... 95 17. Location of the Monsanto Plant 1960s PCB spill ....................................... 98

6 | P a g e

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 post-deployment 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.

7 | P a g e

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

8 | P a g e

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 non-target 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

9 | P a g e

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).

10 | P a g e

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

11 | 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,

12 | 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 non-flammability, 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

13 | 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 ex-Oriskany 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

14 | 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 ex-Oriskany 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 ex-Oriskany, the Navy anticipated that this would require leaving some solid PCB containing materials, mainly electrical cable insulation, fiberglass bulkhead insulation, and paint and rubber products on board the ship at the time the vessel was reefed. These

Figure 1. Ex-Oriskany at dock in Pensacola, Florida for final environmental clean-up and pre-sink preparations, March 21, 2005. Photo by Bill Horn, FWC.

15 | 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

16 | 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

17 | 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

18 | 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 ex-Oriskany. 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 ex-Oriskany 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.

19 | 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 ex-Oriskany 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

20 | 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 trawling and hook-and-line sampling for fish to obtain pre-sink 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).

Figure 2. Oriskany Reef Pre-sink trawl and hook and line sampling sites (from Snyder et al., 2007).

21 | 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 (IP-LCP)). Escambia County is now the title holder of the vessel 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

Figure 3. Location map of the Oriskany Reef and nearby Pensacola Bay Fishing Bridge Reef site located within the Escambia ELAARS.

22 | 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

23 | 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.

24 | 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.

25 | 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, 2006-November 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.

26 | P a g e

Fish sampling began on December 14, 2006, about seven months after the ex-Oriskany (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 effective collection of reef fish during 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

Figure 4. Recovery of commercial chevron fish trap with red snapper catch aboard the F/V Margie Ann. Photo by Kyle Miller.

27 | 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.

28 | 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.

29 | 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

Figure 5. Commercial vertical hook-and-line “bandit” fishing gear with red snapper catch aboard the F/V Margie Ann.

30 | P a g e

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-and- reel 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.

31 | 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 for-hire 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.

32 | 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 1400- 1500 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

33 | 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 June-early 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.

34 | 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

35 | 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.

36 | 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

37 | P a g e

actually shipped to GERG on February 17, 2007. No further repacking of fish specimens at night took place during the study.

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 de-ionized 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

38 | 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

39 | 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 mulit-species 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.

40 | 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

41 | 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

42 | 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

43 | 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.

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.

Figure 6. Damage observed to island structure on Oriskany Reef after Tropical Storm Ida. Outlined area in pre-sink photo (left) delineates subsequent storm- damaged area of Oriskany Reef (right).

44 | 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 #1- 33fish 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.

Date Bottom

Time Estimated Visibility FWC Divers Max Depth

Fish Census Video

Still Photo (Hi Res)

Field report

5/18/2006 7 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 76 n/a yes yes n/a

5/18/2006 36 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 135 n/a yes yes yes

8/3/2006 41 90 B. Horn, K.Mille, J Dodrill 136 yes yes yes n/a

8/3/2006 33 90 B. Horn, K.Mille, J Dodrill 100 yes yes yes yes

9/28/2006 42 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 116 no yes yes n/a

9/28/2006 37 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 117 yes yes yes yes

6/23/2007 40 60 B. Horn 136 yes no no n/a

6/23/2007 35 60 B. Horn 109 yes no no yes

10/16/2008 46 50 B. Horn, K.Mille 121 yes yes yes draft

11/19/2009 39 80 B. Horn, K.Mille 125 yes yes yes yes

45 | P a g e

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

46 | 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

47 | 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

48 | 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

49 | 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.

50 | 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 16

whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus not observed >#61* not observed >#61

** 6

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%

** 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

51 | 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 well-head. 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 #1-4, 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

52 | 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

53 | 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

54 | 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 re-captured 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

55 | 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).

56 | 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

Total 199 17 (8.5%) 13 (86.67%) 99.6 (128.9)

57 | P a g e

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)

Red Snapper Length

(TL) Expected (.2577

mm/day)

Red Snapper Length Discrepancy (Recaptured - Expected) (mm)

Length Discrep.

Recapture Location

Dist

Bearing

AJ 4/21/2009 5/29/2009 Public 38 1 732 848 unknown unknown n/a n/a n/a Oriskany 0 0

RS 4/21/2009 6/1/2009 Public 41 1 429 464 21 533 474.48 58.5 greater than Antares reef 6.8 nm 251 deg

VS 4/21/2009 6/1/2009 Public 41 1 495 545 unknown unknown 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 0

RS 4/21/2009 6/11/2009 Public 51 2 496 538 unknown unknown 551.04 unknown unknown private reef 0.132 nm 78 deg

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

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 18 458 n/a n/a n/a Oriskany 0 0

RS 4/21/2009 11/18/2009 FWC 211 1 493 535 n/a

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

58 | 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

3 2/3/2008 Day 627 F/V Chulamar Hook and Line

Oriskany Reef 31

Control Reef (PBFB Reef #1) 30

4 4/29/2008 Day 713 F/V Chulamar Hook and Line

Oriskany Reef 30

Control Reef (PBFB Reef #1) 31

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

59 | 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.

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

 

Figure 7. Species composition of fish samples retained from the Oriskany Reef from Sampling Rounds 1-8.

60 | 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.

61 | P a g e

Species Composition of Oriskany Samples by Sample Date (Rounds 1-8)

 

   

 

 

Figure 7a-7h. Species composition of Oriskany samples by sample date.

Red Snapper, N = 30100%

Red Porgy, N = 414%

Red Snapper, N = 2172%

Vermilion Snapper, N = 

414%

Red Snapper, N = 31100% Red Porgy, 

N = 13%

Red Snapper, N 

= 2997%

Red Snapper, N = 2997%

Scamp, N = 13%

Gray Triggerfish, 

N = 13%

Red Porgy, N = 13%

Red Snapper, N 

= 1757%

Vermilion Snapper, N 

= 1137%

Red Porgy, N=39%

Red Snapper, N=1543%

Vermilion Snapper, N=1337%

Whitebone Porgy, 

N=411%

Gray Triggerfish, 

N = 12% Red 

Grouper, N=13%

Red Porgy, N=513%

Red Snapper, N=1333%

Vermilion Snapper, N=1436%

Scamp, N=38% Whitebone 

Porgy, N=25%

a. Sample Date 12/14/2006 b. Sample Date 4/12/2007

c. Sample Date 2/3/2008 d. Sample Date 4/29/2008

e. Sample Date 4/21/2009 f. Sample Date 11/18/2009

g. Sample Date 4/27/2010 h. Sample Date 11/18/2010

62 | P a g e

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).

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 2006-November 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.

Figure 8. Species composition of fish samples retained from the nearby reef site from Sampling Rounds 3 and 4. 

Gag Grouper, N = 46%

Gray Snapper, N = 12%

Gray Triggerfish, N = 12%Red Porgy, N = 2

3%

Red Snapper, N = 4574%

Vermilion Snapper, N = 813%

63 | 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.

64 | 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

65 | 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 pre-sinking 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

66 | 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).

67 | 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, LA- southwest 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

68 | 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 substantial-

69 | 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

70 | 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.

71 | 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.

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.

Sample Round

Number of red snapper retained

Red snapper, mean total length (mm)

1 30 457 mm 2 21 450 mm 3 31 493 mm 4 29 487 mm 5 29 557 mm 6 17 533 mm 7 15 504 mm 8 13 496 mm

Table 11. Mean total length of red snapper by sample round. 

72 | P a g e

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.

Figure 9. Mean PCB by sample date for red snapper form the Oriskany Reef through sample round #7. 

73 | P a

Figure 10through

1,000,00ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

1,000,00

ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

1,000,00

ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

1,000,00

ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

1,000,00

ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

1,000,00

ΣPCB

 (pg/g) 

0

500,000

1,000,000

PCB (pg/g)

a g e

0. PCB data(e) present t

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

400 45

0

0

0

400 450

a for Red Snthe PCB data

50 500

0 500

apper colleca from Red S

550 60

550 60

ted from theSnapper coll

00 650

00 650

e Oriskany Rlected on eac

a. Sam

b. Sam

c. S

d. Sa

e. Sa

700 7

f. Sam

700 7

g. Sa

Reef by lengtch respective

mple Date 1

mple Date

Sample Dat

ample Date

ample Date

750 800

mple Date 

750 800

mple Date

th. Graphs (e sample dat

12/14/200

e 4/12/200

te 2/3/200

e 4/29/200

e 4/21/200

850 9

11/18/200

850

e 4/27/201

 

 

a) te.

06

07

08

08

09

900

09

900

10

74 | 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

Mass Lipid ΣPCB

Length 0.9728 <.0001

0.34899 <.0001

-0.08886 0.2684

Mass

0.36703 <.0001

-0.08091 0.3138

Lipid

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.

75 | 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.

76 | 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

77 | 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).

78 | 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

79 | 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. 

80 | 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

81 | 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).

82 | 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.

83 | 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

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.

Figure 13. Mean PCB by sample date for red porgy form the Oriskany Reef through sample round #7. 

84 | 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

85 | 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 reef-like 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

86 | 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 hard-bottom 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.

87 | 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. 

88 | 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

89 | 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

90 | 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).

91 | 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. 

92 | 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).

93 | 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).

94 | 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

95 | 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.

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)

Figure 16. Mean PCB by sample date for scamp form the Oriskany Reef through sample round #7.

96 | 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 congener-specific 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

97 | 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

98 | 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 recreational fishers (see section II(C)), it was documented that recreational hook-and-line 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

Figure 17. Location of the Monsanto Plant 1960’s PCB spill pollution point source in the Escambia River, located a distance of 48 nautical miles by water from the Oriskany Reef.

99 | 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 year-round 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

100 | 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 Red Snapper Season Length Daily Red Snapper Bag Limit 2006 April 30-October 31 (185 days) Four Fish, 16” Total Length 2007 June 1-Sept. 15 (107 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length 2008 June 1-August 5 (66 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length 2009 June 1-August 14 (75 days) Two Fish, 16” Total Length 2010 Oct 1-November 21 (21 days)

(Fri-Sun weekends only) Two Fish, 16” Total Length

2011 June 1-(end date TBD) 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

101 | 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

102 | 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).

103 | 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

104 | 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

105 | 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 “skin-on” 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

106 | 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.

107 | 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.

108 | 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.

109 | 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

110 | P a g e

Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute (FWRI) 2008 Species Account—Gray Triggerfish Baistes capriscuss (Gmelin, 1789), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 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.

111 | 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

112 | 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 ex-Oriskany (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 181-194 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.

113 | 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 (FWC-06120): 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

114 | 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. Pre-Reefing 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 Artifical-Reef 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.

115 | 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.

116 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1

Tables

117 | 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 Scientific Name Density # Surveys Observed % Sightings Frequency Rank

vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 3.57 7 100.00% 1 red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 3.00 7 100.00% 2 great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 1.86 7 100.00% 3 cocoa damselfish Pomacentrus variabilis 2.83 6 85.71% 4 yellowtail reeffish Chromis enchysurus 2.83 6 85.71% 5 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 2.50 6 85.71% 6 bar jack Caranx ruber 3.00 5 71.43% 7 Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 2.80 5 71.43% 8 seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus 2.40 5 71.43% 9 greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 2.21 5 71.43% 10 bank sea bass Centropristis ocyurus 2.20 5 71.43% 11 planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus 2.20 5 71.43% 12 slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus 2.20 5 71.43% 13 sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 1.80 5 71.43% 14 Gag Mycteroperca microlepis 1.60 5 71.43% 15 round scad Decapterus punctatus 3.25 4 57.14% 16 creole-fish Paranthias furcifer 2.75 4 57.14% 17 purple reeffish Chromis scotti 2.50 4 57.14% 18 blue angelfish Holocanthus bermudensis 2.25 4 57.14% 19 Bluehead Thalassoma bifasciatum 2.25 4 57.14% 20 blue runner Caranx crysos 3.67 3 42.86% 21 dusky damselfish Stegastes fuscus 3.00 3 42.86% 22 gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 3.00 3 42.86% 23 almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 2.33 3 42.86% 24 reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius 2.00 3 42.86% 25 spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 2.00 3 42.86% 26 Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus 1.67 3 42.86% 27 scrawled filefish Aluterus scriptus 1.00 3 42.86% 28 whitespotted filefish Cantherhines macrocerus 1.00 3 42.86% 29 red porgy Pagrus pagrus 3.00 2 28.57% 30 Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix 2.50 2 28.57% 31 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 2.00 2 28.57% 32 Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus 2.00 2 28.57% 33 High-hat Equetus acuminatus 2.00 2 28.57% 34 Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 2.00 2 28.57% 35 Trumpetfish Aulostomus maculatus 2.00 2 28.57% 36 banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus 1.50 2 28.57% 37 red barbier Hemanthias vivanus 1.50 2 28.57% 38 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 1.00 2 28.57% 39 redband parrotfish Scarus aurofrenatus 1.00 2 28.57% 40 spotfin hogfish Bodianus pulchellus 1.00 2 28.57% 41 belted sandfish Serranus subligarius 3.00 1 14.29% 42 brown chromis Chromis multilineata 2.00 1 14.29% 43 gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 2.00 1 14.29% 44 Sunshinefish Chromis insolata 2.00 1 14.29% 45 bicolor damselfish Stegastes partitus 1.00 1 14.29% 46 Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 1.00 1 14.29% 47 Remoras Echeneidae 1.00 1 14.29% 48 sand perch Diplectrum formosum 1.00 1 14.29% 49 Spanish hogfish Bodianus rufus 1.00 1 14.29% 50 whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculatus 1.00 1 14.29% 51 yellow goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus 1.00 1 14.29% 52 yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 1.00 1 14.29% 53

118 | P a g e

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 Scientific Name Density # Surveys Observed % Sightings Frequency Rank

blue runner Caranx crysos 3.67 3 42.86% 1 vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 3.57 7 100.00% 2 round scad Decapterus punctatus 3.25 4 57.14% 3 red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 3.00 7 100.00% 4 bar jack Caranx ruber 3.00 5 71.43% 5 dusky damselfish Stegastes fuscus 3.00 3 42.86% 6 gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 3.00 3 42.86% 7 red porgy Pagrus pagrus 3.00 2 28.57% 8 belted sandfish Serranus subligarius 3.00 1 14.29% 9 cocoa damselfish Pomacentrus variabilis 2.83 6 85.71% 10 yellowtail reeffish Chromis enchysurus 2.83 6 85.71% 11 Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 2.80 5 71.43% 12 creole-fish Paranthias furcifer 2.75 4 57.14% 13 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 2.50 6 85.71% 14 purple reeffish Chromis scotti 2.50 4 57.14% 15 Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix 2.50 2 28.57% 16 seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus 2.40 5 71.43% 17 almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 2.33 3 42.86% 18 blue angelfish Holocanthus bermudensis 2.25 4 57.14% 19 Bluehead Thalassoma bifasciatum 2.25 4 57.14% 20 greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 2.21 5 71.43% 21 bank seabass Centropristic ocyurus 2.20 5 71.43% 22 planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus 2.20 5 71.43% 23 slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus 2.20 5 71.43% 24 reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius 2.00 3 42.86% 25 spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 2.00 3 42.86% 26 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 2.00 2 28.57% 27 Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus 2.00 2 28.57% 28 Highhat Equetus acuminatus 2.00 2 28.57% 29 Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 2.00 2 28.57% 30 Trumpetfish Aulostomus maculatus 2.00 2 28.57% 31 brown chromis Chromis multilineata 2.00 1 14.29% 32 gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 2.00 1 14.29% 33 Sunshinefish Chromis insolata 2.00 1 14.29% 34 great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 1.86 7 100.00% 35 sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 1.80 5 71.43% 36 Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus 1.67 3 42.86% 37 Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis 1.60 5 71.43% 38 banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus 1.50 2 28.57% 39 red barbier Hemanthias vivanus 1.50 2 28.57% 40 scrawled filefish Aluterus scriptus 1.00 3 42.86% 41 whitespotted filefish Cantherhines macrocerus 1.00 3 42.86% 42 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 1.00 2 28.57% 43 redband parrotfish Scarus aurofrenatus 1.00 2 28.57% 44 spotfin hogfish Bodianus pulchellus 1.00 2 28.57% 45 bicolor damselfish Stegastes partitus 1.00 1 14.29% 46 Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus 1.00 1 14.29% 47 Remoras Echeneidae 1.00 1 14.29% 48 sand perch Diplectrum formosum 1.00 1 14.29% 49 Spanish hogfish Bodianus rufus 1.00 1 14.29% 50 whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculatus 1.00 1 14.29% 51 yellow goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus 1.00 1 14.29% 52 yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 1.00 1 14.29% 53

119 | P a g e

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 Scientific name Relative Abundance Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum Abundant: > 100 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Many: 11 to 100 cocoa damselfish Stegastes variabilis Many: 11 to 100 gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Many: 11 to 100 greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Many: 11 to 100 red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Many: 11 to 100 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Many: 11 to 100 banded butterfly Chaetodontidae striatus Few: 2 to 10 beaugregory Stegastes leucostictus Few: 2 to 10 belted sandfish Serranus subligarius Few: 2 to 10 blue angelfish Holocanthus bermudensis Few: 2 to 10 Cubbyu Equetus umbrosus Few: 2 to 10 Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Few: 2 to 10 gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Few: 2 to 10 great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Few: 2 to 10 lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Few: 2 to 10 Porkfish Anisotremus virginicus Few: 2 to 10 purple reeffish Chromis scotti Few: 2 to 10 red grouper Epinephelus morio Few: 2 to 10 slippery dick Halichoeres bivitattus Few: 2 to 10 spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus Few: 2 to 10 vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Few: 2 to 10 whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculates Few: 2 to 10 doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus Single: 1 French angelfish Pomacanthus paru Single: 1 orange filefish Aluterus schoepfi Single: 1 reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius Single: 1 sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 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 Scientific Name Percent Number Percent Biomass Rank

red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 25.60 42.79 1 mackerel scad Decapterus macarellus 15.35 3.86 2 tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 10.04 3.18 3 round sardinella Sardinella aurita 6.61 2.02 4 vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 5.28 5.14 5 blue runner Caranx crysos 4.38 3.72 6 pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 4.36 1.59 7 greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 3.43 6.83 8 gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 3.35 6.14 9 slippery dick Halichoeres bivittatus 3.28 0.50 10 gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 2.20 4.24 11 twospot cardinalfish Apogon pseudomaculatus 1.64 0.06 12 seaweed blenny Parblennius marmoreus 1.39 0.04 13

120 | P a g e

red porgy Pagrus pagrus 1.18 0.92 14 lane snapper Lutjanus synagris 1.08 0.92 15 bank seabass Centropristis ocyurus 1.08 0.87 16 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 0.94 0.36 17 gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis 0.77 5.19 18 cardinalfish Apogon sp. 0.69 <0.01 19 almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 0.69 1.16 20 whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculatus 0.54 0.18 21 damselfish Chromis sp. 0.53 <0.01 22 scamp Mycteroperca phenax 0.53 1.15 23 red grouper Epinephelus morio 0.41 3.09 24 jackknife fish Equetus lanceolatus 0.20 0.13 25 king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla 0.15 0.86 26 Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus 0.15 0.03 27 Caribbean sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 0.12 0.02 28 sandperch Diplectrum formosum 0.11 0.07 29 banded rudderfish Seriola zonata 0.10 0.52 30 cocoa damselfish Pomacentrus variabilis 0.08 <0.01 31 blue angelfish Holacanthus bermudensis 0.07 0.14 32 cubbyu Pareques umbrosus 0.07 0.02 33 lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata 0.06 0.18 34 unicorn filefish Aluterus monoceros 0.06 0.17 35 bluntnose jack Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus 0.06 0.04 36 orange filefish Aluterus schoepfii 0.03 0.06 37 bar jack Caranx ruber 0.03 0.02 38 cocoa damselfish Stegastes variabilis 0.02 <0.01 39 spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 0.02 <0.01 40 remora Echeneis naucrates 0.02 0.04 41 blackbar drum Equetus iwamotoi 0.01 <0.01 42 blenny Blenniidae 0.01 <0.01 43 pearly razorfish Xyrichthys novacula 0.01 <0.01 44 sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.01 1.29 45 nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum 0.01 0.90 46 blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus 0.01 0.52 47 porgy Calamus sp. 0.01 0.02 48 yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 0.01 0.02 49 snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus 0.01 0.01 50 requiem shark Carcharhinus sp. <0.01 0.20 51 cobia Rachycentron canadum <0.01 0.16 52 greater barracuda Sphyraena barracuda <0.01 0.11 53 red drum Sciaenops ocellatus <0.01 0.03 54 yellowtail reeffish Chromis enchrysura <0.01 0.04 55 spotted burrfish Chilomycterus atringa <0.01 0.02 56 cornet fish Fistularia tabacaria <0.01 0.02 57 planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus <0.01 0.02 58 gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta <0.01 0.01 59 rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata <0.01 0.01 60 southern stingray Dasyatis americana <0.01 0.01 61 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 Tied at >61 barred blenny Hypleurochilus bermudensis <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 barrelfish Hyperoglyphe perciformis <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 beaugregory Stegastes leucostictus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 belted sandfish Serranus subligarius <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectator <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 buffalo trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 creolefish Paranthias furcifer <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 damselfish Stegastes sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 dotterel filefish Aluterus heudelotii <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 French anglefish Pomacanthus paru <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61

121 | P a g e

frogfish Antennarius sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 graysby Epinephelus cruentatus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 hamlet Hypoplectrus sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 high-hat Equetus acuminatus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 knobbed porgy Calamus nodosus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 leopard toadfish Opsanus pardus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 littlehead porgy Calamus proridens <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 longspine porgy Stenotomus caprinus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 porkfish Anisotremus virginicus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 pygmy filefish Monacanthus setifer <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 queen anglefish Holacanthus ciliaris <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 queen triggerfish Balistes vetula <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 reef drum Equetus sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 scrawled cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 scrawled filefish Aluterus scriptus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 snakefish Trachinocephalus myops <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 spotted moray Gymnothorax moringa <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfii <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 tatler Serranus phoebe <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 triggerfish Balistidae <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus <0.01 <0.01 Tied at >61 wrasse Halichoeres sp. <0.01 <0.01 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 Percent Number

Percent Biomass Rank

red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 25.60 42.79 1 greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 3.43 6.83 2 gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus 3.35 6.14 3 gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis 0.77 5.19 4 vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 5.28 5.14 5 gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 2.20 4.24 6 mackerel scad Decapterus macarellus 15.35 3.86 7 blue runner Caranx crysos 4.38 3.72 8 tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum 10.04 3.18 9 red grouper Epinephelus morio 0.41 3.09 10 round sardinella Sardinella aurita 6.61 2.02 11 pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 4.36 1.59 12 sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.01 1.29 13 almaco jack Seriola rivoliana 0.69 1.16 14 scamp Mycteroperca phenax 0.53 1.15 15 red porgy Pagrus pagrus 1.18 0.92 16 lane snapper Lutjanus synagris 1.08 0.92 17 nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum 0.01 0.90 18 bank seabass Centropristis ocyurus 1.08 0.87 19 king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla 0.15 0.86 20 banded rudderfish Seriola zonata 0.10 0.52 21 blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus 0.01 0.52 22 slippery dick Halichoeres bivittatus 3.28 0.50 23 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 0.94 0.36 24 requiem shark Carcharhinus sp. <0.01 0.20 25 whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculatus 0.54 0.18 26

122 | P a g e

lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata 0.06 0.18 27 unicorn filefish Aluterus monoceros 0.06 0.17 28 cobia Rachycentron canadum <0.01 0.16 29 blue angelfish Holacanthus bermudensis 0.07 0.14 30 jackknife fish Equetus lanceolatus 0.20 0.13 31 greater barracuda Sphyraena barracuda <0.01 0.11 32 sandperch Diplectrum formosum 0.11 0.07 33 twospot cardinalfish Apogon pseudomaculatus 1.64 0.06 34 orange filefish Aluterus schoepfii 0.03 0.06 35 yellowtail reeffish Chromis enchrysura <0.01 0.04 36 seaweed blenny Parblennius marmoreus 1.39 0.04 37 bluntnose jack Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus 0.06 0.04 38 remora Echeneis naucrates 0.02 0.04 39 red drum Sciaenops ocellatus <0.01 0.03 40 Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus 0.15 0.03 41 cornet fish Fistularia tabacaria <0.01 0.02 42 planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus <0.01 0.02 43 spotted burrfish Chilomycterus atringa <0.01 0.02 44 Caribbean sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata 0.12 0.02 45 cubbyu Pareques umbrosus 0.07 0.02 46 bar jack Caranx ruber 0.03 0.02 47 porgy Calamus sp. 0.01 0.02 48 yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei 0.01 0.02 49 gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta <0.01 0.01 50 rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata <0.01 0.01 51 southern stingray Dasyatis americana <0.01 0.01 52 snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus 0.01 0.01 53 cardinalfish Apogon sp. 0.69 <0.01 54 damselfish Chromis sp. 0.53 <0.01 55 cocoa damselfish Pomacentrus variabilis 0.08 <0.01 56 cocoa damselfish Stegastes variabilis 0.02 <0.01 57 spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 0.02 <0.01 58 blackbar drum Equetus iwamotoi 0.01 <0.01 59 blenny Blenniidae 0.01 <0.01 60 pearly razorfish Xyrichthys novacula 0.01 <0.01 61 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 Tied for >61 barred blenny Hypleurochilus bermudensis <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 barrelfish Hyperoglyphe perciformis <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 beaugregory Stegastes leucostictus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 belted sandfish Serranus subligarius <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectator <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 buffalo trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 creolefish Paranthias furcifer <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 damselfish Stegastes sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 dotterel filefish Aluterus heudelotii <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 French angelfish Pomacanthus paru <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 frogfish Antennarius sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 graysby Epinephelus cruentatus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 hamlet Hypoplectrus sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 high-hat Equetus acuminatus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 knobbed porgy Calamus nodosus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 leopard toadfish Opsanus pardus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 littlehead porgy Calamus proridens <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 longspine porgy Stenotomus caprinus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 porkfish Anisotremus virginicus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 pygmy filefish Monacanthus setifer <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 queen anglefish Holacanthus ciliaris <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 queen triggerfish Balistes vetula <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61

123 | P a g e

reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 reef drum Equetus sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 scrawled cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 scrawled filefish Aluterus scriptus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 snakefish Trachinocephalus myops <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 spotted moray Gymnothorax moringa <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfii <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 tattler Serranus phoebe <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 triggerfish Balistidae <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61 wrasse Halichoeres sp. <0.01 <0.01 Tied for >61

Table 9. Listing of fish discarded and not kept for PCB analysis sorted by sampling round and common name.

Common name Scientific Name

Total Length (mm)

Fork Length (mm)

Condition (1-4) Date Round

Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana n/a 508 unk 12/14/2006 1 Hake spp. Urophycis spp. unk unk unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 254 n/a unk 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 343 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 381 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 381 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 356 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 356 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 356 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 381 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 381 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 387 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 343 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 337 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 375 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 381 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 356 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Red Snapper L. campechanus 394 n/a 4 12/14/2006 1 Little Tunny Euthynnus alletteratus N n/a ? 4/12/2007 2 Red Porgy Pagrus pagrus 345 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2

124 | P a g e

Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 368 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 395 n/a ? 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 394 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 360 n/a ? 4/12/2007 2 Snowy Grouper Epinephelus niveatus 254 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 392 n/a 4 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 360 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 402 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Red Snapper L. campechanus 400 n/a 1 4/12/2007 2 Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana n/a 480 unk 2/3/2008 3 Red snapper L. campechanus 539 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3 Red snapper L. campechanus 395 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3 Red snapper L. campechanus 396 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3 Red snapper L. campechanus 410 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3 Red snapper L. campechanus 482 n/a unk 2/3/2008 3 Red Snapper L. campechanus 392 n/a 1 4/29/2008 4 Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili n/a 814 1 4/29/2008 4 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 306 n/a 1 4/29/2008 4 Red Snapper L. campechanus 512 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4 Red Snapper L. campechanus 407 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4 Red Snapper L. campechanus 462 n/a 2 4/29/2008 4 Red snapper L. campechanus unk n/a (dead) 4/21/2009 5 Vermilion snapper R. aurorubens 357 335 (dead) 4/21/2009 5 Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 558 n/a unk 11/18/2009 6 Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 936 802 unk 11/18/2009 6 Red Snapper L. campechanus 408 376 4 11/18/2009 6 Red Snapper L. campechanus unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2009 6 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2009 6 Almaco Jack Seriola rivoliana 622 512 1 4/27/2010 7 Bank Seabass Centropristic ocyurus 203 n/a 1 4/27/2010 7 Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 806 692 1 4/27/2010 7 Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili 711 610 1 4/27/2010 7 Red Snapper L. campechanus 483 457 1 4/27/2010 7 Red Snapper L. campechanus 432 400 1 4/27/2010 7 Red Snapper L. campechanus 495 464 2 4/27/2010 7 Red Snapper L. campechanus 483 457 3 4/27/2010 7 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 381 356 1 4/27/2010 7 Whitebone Porgy Calamus leucosteus 368 317 1 4/27/2010 7 Whitebone Porgy Calamus leucosteus 381 368 1 4/27/2010 7 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 640 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 280 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 650 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 690 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 650 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 770 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 700 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 800 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Red porgy Pagrus pagrus 320 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Red porgy Pagrus pagrus 340 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Red snapper L. campechanus 300 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Tomtate grunt Haemulon aurolineatum 260 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 320 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 460 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 520 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 370 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 390 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8

125 | P a g e

Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 430 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 500 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 510 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 450 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 310 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 420 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 460 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 440 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 480 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 500 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 330 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 380 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 390 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 400 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 470 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens 370 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2010 8 Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens unk n/a (dead) 11/18/2010 8 Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 320 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8 Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 200 n/a 2 11/18/2010 8 Banks seabass Centropristic ocyurus 290 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8 Red snapper L. campechanus 370 n/a 3 11/18/2010 8 Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 380 n/a 1 11/18/2010 8

126 | P a g e

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 Common Name

Collection Date

Collection Gear

Fish Length (TL) mm

Fish Length (FL) mm

Wet Weight (g)

% Solid

% Lipid

Total PCB Congeners (pg/g)

Chlor. 1

Chlor. 2 Chlor. 3 Chlor. 4 Chlor. 5 Chlor. 6 Chlor. 7 Chlor. 8 Chlor. 9

Chlor. 10

OR-RS-001 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 463 n/a 10.14 22.3 4.3 6739.0 0.0 0.0 181.7 484.2 3388.6 1547.5 1006.8 79.4 25.8 25.0 OR-RS-002 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 431 n/a 10.69 23.2 5.4 29433.9 0.0 0.0 2708.6 3612.3 15078.2 4110.1 3495.2 331.4 98.2 0.0 OR-RS-003 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 442 n/a 10.11 25.2 4.3 5789.5 0.0 0.0 171.9 243.3 2318.2 1928.5 895.2 182.1 32.8 17.5 OR-RS-004 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 410 n/a 10.35 22.8 3.5 3249.7 0.0 0.0 126.7 147.2 1425.8 993.0 496.8 25.0 20.5 14.6 OR-RS-005 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 460 n/a 10.96 25.7 14.5 44762.5 0.0 0.0 4051.7 7627.4 21031.8 6130.6 5163.7 551.2 165.4 40.5 OR-RS-006 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 421 n/a 10.85 23.7 2.6 3753.1 0.0 0.0 43.3 143.4 1671.3 998.8 816.7 58.1 12.5 9.0 OR-RS-007 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 HnL-Bandit 417 n/a 10.78 22.4 1.0 1467.9 0.0 0.0 26.7 67.3 638.3 502.6 208.9 18.4 5.7 0.0 OR-RS-008 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 452 n/a 9.98 25.7 10.2 68018.9 0.0 408.9 16660.3 10005.4 26849.2 9293.5 4045.9 582.5 139.2 34.0 OR-RS-009 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 447 n/a 10.90 24.7 6.0 26017.4 0.0 0.0 1923.0 2155.9 11872.7 5889.0 3388.7 672.2 92.9 23.1 OR-RS-010 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.82 24.5 6.0 20955.1 0.0 0.0 867.4 1489.2 10566.0 5805.5 1933.2 196.3 67.9 29.6 OR-RS-011 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 413 n/a 10.03 25.3 5.6 9699.1 0.0 0.0 497.9 836.6 4386.4 2522.4 1267.5 108.4 53.1 26.9 OR-RS-012 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 419 n/a 10.26 22.9 3.3 9955.0 0.0 0.0 322.9 681.2 4826.6 2655.9 1333.6 104.4 30.4 0.0 OR-RS-013 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 455 Tiisue 10.02 25.9 9.2 87021.7 0.0 616.8 8571.6 8952.2 35002.0 22076.4 10078.9 1389.9 245.3 88.7 OR-RS-014 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 404 n/a 10.24 24.0 3.5 9657.2 0.0 159.9 423.4 670.7 4442.1 2943.9 918.7 65.4 21.5 11.6 OR-RS-015 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.54 24.6 4.4 10930.7 0.0 263.0 588.3 850.8 4635.9 3197.0 1197.1 140.9 37.8 19.9 OR-RS-016 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 443 n/a 10.16 32.6 25.7 192970.4 124.5 495.3 11481.3 30735.1 107142.5 31859.0 9852.4 1032.2 185.0 63.0 OR-RS-017 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 418 n/a 10.79 24.0 6.6 91650.7 0.0 407.5 9628.7 10378.8 37040.9 17442.6 12888.6 2400.4 1273.4 189.9 OR-RS-018 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 436 n/a 10.22 23.3 5.0 21155.9 0.0 27.2 1401.2 3133.4 10315.4 4128.6 1867.4 213.3 53.4 16.1 OR-RS-019 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 429 n/a 10.02 25.9 3.4 945181.4 0.0 4472.0 65212.1 96708.1 356372.4 302020.3 92969.7 21142.1 4051.4 2233.3 OR-RS-020 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 475 n/a 10.41 27.7 13.6 67639.3 0.0 805.6 14999.3 12264.8 22497.2 11304.0 4504.2 829.6 367.1 67.5 OR-RS-021 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 406 n/a 10.51 26.3 10.5 32715.4 0.0 100.7 4512.2 7336.1 8030.1 8701.4 3407.0 487.0 140.9 0.0 OR-RS-022 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 411 n/a 12.02 22.2 1.5 9463.9 0.0 38.9 227.0 1130.1 1852.2 3092.6 2312.7 678.7 131.6 0.0 OR-RS-023 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 435 n/a 10.63 22.8 2.5 5309.9 0.0 0.0 166.2 1581.9 1059.7 1777.2 625.4 73.5 26.0 0.0 OR-RS-024 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 428 n/a 12.93 25.6 12.8 15376.2 6.6 29.6 858.8 2469.7 2701.7 4637.0 2801.7 1555.7 315.5 0.0 OR-RS-025 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 419 n/a 13.88 23.6 3.1 9985.7 0.0 0.0 986.5 2861.9 2667.2 2853.8 489.5 109.2 17.6 0.0 OR-RS-026 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 440 n/a 10.95 31.6 18.8 109850.3 128.5 791.2 9920.9 24012.7 27474.4 27725.7 16179.3 2712.5 905.0 0.0 OR-RS-027 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 425 n/a 11.57 25.7 8.0 19902.1 0.0 882.7 2387.8 4801.2 5372.3 4578.4 1584.4 240.1 55.3 0.0 OR-RS-028 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 808 n/a 10.94 27.2 13.4 43846.0 0.0 5.0 1092.9 14061.6 7259.0 13613.5 6765.8 717.5 330.7 0.0 OR-RS-029 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 795 n/a 11.97 28.8 14.5 37317.2 3.6 30.1 2619.8 10094.6 6381.3 10453.4 6630.4 823.9 280.1 0.0 OR-RS-030 Red Snapper 12/14/2006 Trap-Chevron 445 n/a 13.24 33.0 22.0 121241.6 8.8 304.0 11478.3 24143.8 32148.2 27853.8 17760.7 4470.0 3074.1 0.0 OR-RS-031 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 411 n/a 10.35 22.1 3.4 10954.2 0.0 47.4 419.8 636.5 6480.0 2436.5 546.3 286.5 66.1 35.1 OR-RS-032 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 439 n/a 11.10 30.3 13.8 155438.9 27.8 157.1 11441.6 9828.9 108631.9 18072.4 3568.4 3054.2 512.8 143.8 OR-RS-033 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 465 n/a 11.60 27.8 11.8 108273.5 23.1 119.9 4755.6 7151.2 59687.7 24979.9 3074.8 5176.5 2946.4 358.4 OR-RS-034 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 445 n/a 10.60 25.0 4.2 39302.4 0.0 0.0 2350.5 1969.7 26368.5 5486.2 1434.7 1390.8 243.0 59.0 OR-RS-035 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 453 n/a 10.04 25.5 9.6 20231.1 0.0 45.8 724.9 1225.9 12515.8 4680.1 664.7 296.1 44.0 33.8 OR-RS-036 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 Trap-Chevron 596 n/a 10.08 30.1 21.6 154966.7 0.0 61.6 9094.1 12629.5 90097.4 29091.2 5386.6 6445.3 1661.9 499.1 OR-RS-037 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 520 n/a 11.06 34.0 16.6 67977.6 18.1 158.9 5979.7 4175.2 49800.6 6190.9 843.2 635.8 123.4 51.8 OR-RS-038 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 508 n/a 10.09 28.5 7.1 48394.5 0.0 145.0 3482.6 4556.7 31018.4 7870.2 886.4 328.9 59.1 47.2 OR-VS-039 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 352 n/a 10.06 25.8 11.4 23846.7 0.0 110.6 1453.8 1521.6 15448.9 4703.7 456.1 137.9 14.1 0.0 OR-RS-040 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 406 n/a 10.05 23.5 5.0 160981.5 0.0 124.1 4196.9 7090.8 93807.6 33260.8 11363.2 9609.4 1264.2 264.5 OR-RS-041 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 467 n/a 10.35 24.2 6.8 62392.4 0.0 53.2 1775.6 4003.2 37466.1 15164.2 2442.8 1247.3 166.0 74.0

127 | P a g e

OR-RS-042 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 469 n/a 10.03 29.9 13.4 44205.4 14.5 39.4 2452.6 6858.0 17567.8 11824.8 4466.7 592.0 197.7 191.9 OR-RS-043 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 452 n/a 10.22 28.2 10.7 113668.5 20.1 133.3 4756.7 7191.9 66120.5 24986.8 5827.7 3919.6 620.0 91.9 OR-RS-044 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 406 n/a 10.39 23.9 3.1 487676.9 75.1 48.6 22117.9 24140.2 294858.8 76578.3 33590.6 29877.5 5518.5 871.4 OR-RS-045 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 435 n/a 10.84 25.8 6.4 32547.1 60.6 93.6 970.9 1212.1 12606.0 14293.9 1893.7 1286.3 130.0 0.0 OR-RS-046 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 457 n/a 10.30 22.9 6.1 10828.1 0.0 0.0 796.7 454.1 5288.1 3355.8 659.7 242.9 30.8 0.0 OR-RP-047 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 329 n/a 10.56 22.8 2.9 22640.3 110.3 97.0 609.3 1142.1 14470.0 3883.6 1210.6 970.3 110.6 36.5 OR-VS-048 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 360 n/a 10.03 25.8 8.4 8022.2 2.9 63.5 665.7 1049.1 3794.4 1887.0 480.1 59.4 10.1 10.0 OR-VS-049 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 361 n/a 10.71 28.4 18.5 13047.5 12.9 100.5 1336.9 1780.7 6938.7 2096.2 663.5 83.9 20.1 14.1 OR-RS-050 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 422 n/a 10.06 24.1 7.0 36664.7 0.0 37.7 661.4 2130.9 19794.6 9819.0 2777.8 1113.0 225.8 104.5 OR-VS-051 Vermilion Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 348 n/a 10.03 23.8 2.6 7217.0 1.7 29.0 223.0 474.7 3246.5 2006.5 996.2 190.1 25.9 23.4 OR-RS-052 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 433 n/a 10.16 35.1 9.3 16054.9 11.8 74.3 1126.0 1996.2 6215.3 3819.1 2524.7 236.9 27.5 23.1 OR-RS-053 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 418 n/a 10.05 23.8 4.2 5161.5 22.9 36.3 146.7 340.9 2260.4 1766.5 516.9 45.8 10.1 15.0 OR-RP-054 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 302 n/a 10.09 23.4 1.4 19003.1 15.5 29.8 448.9 1666.3 7156.6 5724.2 2956.8 850.9 81.3 72.8 OR-RP-055 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 296 n/a 10.23 28.0 4.2 54973.3 0.0 138.5 1483.3 2564.5 30817.9 14733.8 2393.9 1924.3 723.2 193.9 OR-RS-056 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 427 n/a 10.01 29.8 10.5 591976.4 20.4 547.4 52045.4 103151.0 263664.2 90175.9 50719.5 23673.3 5650.0 2329.3 OR-RP-058 Red Porgy 4/12/2007 HnL 278 n/a 10.24 22.1 0.8 16245.8 36.0 26.8 173.5 983.5 8479.1 3861.4 1976.6 573.5 69.2 66.2 OR-RS-059 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 414 n/a 10.96 25.2 6.4 7032.8 98.2 139.4 610.4 473.3 4114.3 1302.5 231.3 48.4 15.0 0.0 OR-RS-060 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL 416 n/a 10.31 23.4 4.9 56446.8 21.0 41.1 2280.5 5104.4 29501.5 12056.6 5113.2 1766.4 313.8 248.3 OR-RS-061 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 509 n/a 9.85 23.3 5.0 5826.3 0.0 29.5 306.6 445.4 2023.8 2087.8 786.5 114.9 31.8 0.0 OR-RS-062 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 480 n/a 10.56 23.7 1.5 4710.0 14.7 90.2 234.4 1380.7 1208.0 1031.6 582.9 125.1 42.4 0.0 OR-RS-063 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 425 n/a 9.97 22.5 0.9 1948.4 18.7 43.1 174.9 193.1 694.4 581.8 219.3 17.4 5.7 0.0 OR-RS-064 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 487 n/a 10.22 25.1 0.9 62665.8 11.2 81.5 2602.8 8198.0 22561.8 11393.4 12727.2 3756.3 1227.5 106.0 OR-RS-065 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 622 n/a 10.10 24.1 2.9 17124.8 7.9 68.7 199.3 336.4 3873.8 4663.7 6228.0 1227.0 400.5 119.5 OR-RS-066 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 511 n/a 10.11 28.6 4.2 618358.8 11.2 122.7 2929.7 24143.4 224068.1 137754.9 156763.1 51645.4 17890.4 3029.8 OR-RS-067 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 513 n/a 10.03 28.2 11.2 8075.9 7.5 96.4 467.5 505.1 2920.0 2617.8 1238.8 140.6 45.2 37.0 OR-RS-068 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 535 n/a 10.01 23.4 2.8 11980.3 24.0 67.8 555.0 889.6 4261.2 3709.2 2076.0 268.7 91.8 37.0 OR-RS-069 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.21 24.3 3.6 4828.6 20.1 196.4 506.5 418.0 1547.5 1404.7 611.2 83.9 19.2 21.1 OR-RS-070 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.17 22.8 0.8 5506.5 14.5 159.4 526.8 412.3 1700.7 1651.5 840.1 149.5 36.5 15.2 OR-RS-071 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 462 n/a 10.07 25.5 1.1 6163.2 25.3 110.3 482.0 454.8 2537.2 1799.4 632.5 79.0 23.5 19.2 OR-RS-072 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 533 n/a 10.00 24.5 5.4 26272.3 18.0 220.0 611.2 849.3 10847.1 7390.6 4647.1 1266.1 302.2 120.7 OR-RS-073 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 424 n/a 10.07 24.5 1.0 4047.9 17.4 161.0 474.9 365.9 1450.1 1041.6 460.9 55.5 11.0 9.6 OR-RS-074 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 442 n/a 9.97 22.4 2.4 15874.8 0.0 151.8 559.9 617.8 2730.6 3679.1 6237.8 1616.5 249.6 31.7 OR-RS-075 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 528 n/a 9.99 24.1 2.5 79443.1 5.7 144.5 1215.4 2885.9 26164.5 25952.2 18135.6 3610.1 1095.5 233.7 OR-RS-076 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 418 n/a 10.15 24.5 0.4 3652.5 5.9 134.4 417.4 358.1 1250.7 1035.5 383.9 48.1 12.4 6.2 OR-RS-077 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 509 n/a 10.00 25.4 3.2 40956.6 14.4 100.1 1573.1 3364.6 17737.7 11622.1 5162.5 1027.8 266.6 87.7 OR-RS-078 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 464 n/a 10.15 22.9 0.7 3852.8 0.0 120.8 507.3 397.3 803.2 1309.2 568.3 99.2 30.8 16.7 OR-RS-079 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 532 n/a 10.01 22.3 1.0 3223.5 17.8 136.8 262.4 273.6 857.0 1016.1 504.3 92.2 40.7 22.6 OR-RS-080 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 495 n/a 10.08 25.0 2.9 4040.3 34.4 60.6 320.0 274.7 1215.1 1374.6 639.3 93.7 28.0 0.0 OR-RS-081 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 533 n/a 5.16 23.6 2.3 7973.9 109.8 74.6 927.8 1242.0 2106.4 2235.3 1049.9 157.4 37.0 33.7 OR-RS-082 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 558 n/a 5.90 22.9 4.6 7204.9 174.5 152.6 727.1 803.5 1670.2 2094.2 1371.8 129.6 45.6 35.8 OR-RS-083 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 534 n/a 5.24 26.7 5.5 150978.3 96.0 191.6 3139.8 12044.4 42543.6 39722.7 40650.8 9713.9 2461.2 414.3 OR-RS-084 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 433 n/a 5.09 22.5 1.0 3699.7 96.9 168.8 586.4 458.3 734.3 1157.8 439.0 41.6 8.5 8.1 OR-RS-085 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 575 n/a 5.14 25.6 11.7 185207.2 154.5 275.8 5328.8 19167.1 56782.4 58904.5 35794.1 6587.4 1810.2 402.4 OR-RS-086 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 512 n/a 5.21 23.7 2.0 5304.4 116.8 153.9 672.7 641.9 973.8 1753.6 821.0 113.0 34.3 23.4 OR-RS-087 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 497 n/a 5.34 26.5 2.1 23121.8 81.4 112.6 610.0 1517.8 5784.4 7042.1 6005.4 1520.4 368.1 79.6 OR-RS-088 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 500 n/a 5.08 22.9 3.6 10282.9 102.4 184.7 678.7 1029.4 2437.7 3905.7 1594.6 237.9 65.9 45.9 OR-RS-089 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 476 n/a 5.91 27.3 6.9 298521.4 74.0 180.9 16379.0 43250.9 77784.9 71326.8 71909.3 14106.4 2412.5 1096.7 OR-RS-090 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 443 n/a 5.49 24.0 1.7 4617.2 88.2 93.9 534.2 507.7 1034.5 1550.3 691.0 79.7 19.7 18.0 OR-RS-091 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 432 n/a 5.84 23.8 1.3 74866.8 39.7 82.6 1886.3 8219.0 21230.5 19066.1 15713.0 6701.0 1545.3 383.3 OR-RS-092 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 429 n/a 5.35 23.1 1.6 11884.0 1.8 168.4 913.0 1637.0 3987.5 2822.1 1848.9 230.5 162.4 112.4 OR-RS-093 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 415 n/a 5.29 24.9 5.9 10028.9 0.0 169.0 650.8 2040.6 2566.2 2516.2 1676.5 220.3 84.2 105.1 OR-RS-094 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 423 n/a 5.05 22.1 9.6 12111.9 0.0 0.0 1209.9 1895.5 3137.5 3375.6 1995.8 270.0 111.0 116.6 OR-RS-095 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 422 n/a 5.29 24.3 1.2 43521.6 3.3 245.6 1956.7 6603.6 16706.9 11280.6 5228.4 1021.1 297.8 177.6 OR-RS-096 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 5.14 22.1 2.2 5509.7 0.0 210.5 699.0 807.1 1696.3 1010.4 768.6 153.6 69.4 94.8 OR-RS-097 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 464 n/a 5.22 24.9 7.9 8954.9 0.0 237.6 711.2 2122.9 2408.3 2145.5 1036.4 110.6 75.9 106.5 OR-RS-098 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 5.31 23.4 2.8 7372.2 0.0 303.3 751.7 1108.4 2011.9 2049.2 826.7 126.8 86.5 107.7

128 | P a g e

OR-RS-099 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 677 n/a 5.66 32.0 26.5 94842.7 3.9 205.8 3255.7 19162.1 32859.4 22652.8 10571.6 3490.1 2270.9 370.4 OR-RS-100 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 512 n/a 5.02 22.7 7.5 536237.7 0.0 334.6 10110.9 42988.7 164313.3 170725.3 106070.3 28522.4 11160.0 2012.2 OR-RS-101 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 464 n/a 5.09 23.2 1.4 3565.8 3.0 140.4 739.1 779.9 763.3 690.7 298.8 40.9 61.5 48.2 OR-RS-102 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 503 n/a 5.26 26.2 6.8 5387.7 0.0 190.5 546.6 826.5 1485.9 1575.1 619.0 60.5 31.0 52.6 OR-RS-103 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 459 n/a 5.57 25.6 3.8 4499.6 0.0 137.3 556.5 612.7 1280.0 1263.4 451.7 91.9 36.0 70.1 OR-RS-104 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 480 n/a 5.15 26.3 5.6 8108.9 5.5 127.3 821.8 963.4 2711.4 2445.5 849.9 72.7 37.7 73.7 OR-RS-105 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 471 n/a 5.02 25.0 2.1 3715.3 0.0 161.8 530.8 582.7 954.4 996.6 314.5 97.0 36.1 41.4 OR-RS-106 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 493 n/a 5.08 24.7 7.4 67920.5 0.0 76.6 805.3 5143.6 22414.3 23388.5 12078.7 2906.5 916.4 190.6 OR-RS-107 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 480 n/a 5.30 23.5 2.6 10045.5 0.0 123.5 505.6 520.1 1076.6 3595.5 3216.7 769.9 117.4 120.2 OR-RS-108 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 461 n/a 5.09 26.3 3.5 3985.1 3.7 75.7 451.8 608.3 1224.4 1052.7 411.2 47.1 57.7 52.5 OR-RS-109 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 425 n/a 5.01 24.2 1.0 4787.0 4.5 238.1 777.0 634.5 1281.8 1110.9 431.5 169.7 79.7 59.3 OR-RS-110 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 531 n/a 5.07 26.3 3.6 5118.7 0.0 159.0 628.5 690.5 1408.0 1654.4 417.8 58.3 48.0 54.2 OR-RS-111 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 513 n/a 5.25 25.8 5.0 9217.0 0.0 239.3 456.5 560.9 1969.5 3914.8 1461.5 386.7 156.9 70.9 OR-RS-112 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 446 n/a 5.21 25.7 4.2 4345.9 0.0 0.0 447.1 521.7 1327.0 1433.6 432.4 95.7 41.5 46.9 OR-RS-113 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 483 n/a 11.31 24.9 4.9 697917.6 24.5 245.3 10478.3 67285.1 382911.8 106111.2 89208.7 33349.9 6488.1 1814.7 OR-RS-114 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 489 n/a 10.30 24.0 4.2 5574.6 15.8 150.3 124.8 447.6 2463.2 1692.0 545.6 59.1 20.6 55.6 OR-RS-115 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 466 n/a 10.34 25.4 4.0 10872.0 4.3 106.5 168.6 705.4 6920.4 2219.5 569.8 122.4 31.2 23.9 OR-RS-116 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 481 n/a 10.85 22.9 1.8 2494.4 23.3 167.2 129.0 129.6 819.9 786.5 309.0 84.2 26.2 19.5 OR-RS-117 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 482 n/a 10.98 22.6 3.9 3965.4 26.8 181.5 127.7 233.3 1592.2 1251.5 427.6 73.3 22.7 28.8 OR-RS-118 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 474 n/a 11.71 23.4 3.6 19990.0 2.3 80.0 193.1 1046.7 10259.0 4296.1 3256.3 661.2 147.1 48.2 OR-RP-119 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 351 n/a 10.93 29.0 16.2 1654738.8 4.3 155.2 18401.7 138422.5 845814.1 292816.1 289338.7 60429.8 6859.3 2497.1 OR-RS-120 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 541 n/a 10.63 27.2 2.2 6385.3 29.0 76.7 261.4 434.6 3079.9 1586.8 634.8 185.2 50.7 46.2 OR-RS-121 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 503 n/a 11.02 23.6 2.2 4611.5 5.9 162.8 85.5 231.1 2285.1 766.6 852.1 174.4 24.1 23.9 OR-RS-122 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 598 n/a 10.45 26.0 5.2 8628.6 0.0 0.0 263.5 1168.8 3635.4 2650.2 666.6 129.7 44.5 69.9 OR-RS-123 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 579 n/a 10.50 29.9 9.7 17029.2 0.0 0.0 236.0 1557.3 5109.6 7846.5 1702.3 437.3 83.1 57.1 OR-RS-124 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 521 n/a 10.44 29.6 3.8 3711.7 0.0 0.0 101.2 488.6 1324.1 1314.9 382.5 64.9 23.3 12.2 OR-RS-125 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 534 n/a 10.41 25.0 4.5 5242.9 0.0 0.0 692.4 1200.3 2021.3 1056.6 200.9 53.5 11.5 6.4 OR-RS-126 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 615 n/a 10.52 28.6 8.5 12539.9 0.0 0.0 236.6 1283.6 4555.2 4775.4 1279.5 284.7 89.3 35.6 OR-RS-127 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 590 n/a 10.53 26.7 7.6 12981.3 0.0 0.0 207.7 917.7 4042.2 5650.7 1627.1 403.4 93.7 38.8 OR-RS-128 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 491 n/a 10.11 23.5 7.7 75670.9 4.2 18.6 4694.6 13390.7 34040.8 15286.4 6359.3 1535.4 292.6 48.3 OR-RS-129 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 455 n/a 10.37 29.1 4.5 56999.4 0.0 24.2 9081.2 18177.9 20237.2 6654.5 2253.3 465.4 105.7 0.0 OR-RS-130 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 502 n/a 10.37 24.9 6.8 3799.5 0.9 0.0 182.9 452.3 1407.2 1209.0 457.4 63.7 19.0 7.1 OR-RS-131 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 569 n/a 10.43 28.1 8.7 9222.4 0.0 0.0 403.7 1364.2 3014.3 3578.4 706.6 104.4 38.9 11.9 OR-RS-132 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 560 n/a 10.15 26.9 5.0 6962.7 0.0 0.0 173.1 707.7 2553.5 2702.2 671.9 105.0 34.7 14.6 OR-RS-133 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 667 n/a 10.13 30.9 12.2 9176.1 0.0 0.0 233.8 755.4 2587.2 4139.3 1112.0 256.8 60.2 31.4 OR-RS-134 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 664 n/a 10.53 25.8 7.2 8780.3 0.0 0.0 136.3 874.1 2494.6 3891.0 1041.7 230.2 75.9 36.5 OR-SG-135 Scamp 4/21/2009 HnL 584 n/a 10.47 25.3 4.9 8751.9 0.0 0.0 157.2 889.6 2440.6 3491.4 1301.8 372.5 83.5 15.3 OR-RS-136 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 519 n/a 10.35 24.1 2.4 2685.1 0.0 0.0 147.5 443.9 964.1 774.8 289.6 50.9 10.4 3.9 OR-RS-137 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.33 28.0 8.1 45141.0 0.0 158.6 2152.7 3656.7 22076.8 10887.3 4723.7 1175.5 254.6 55.1 OR-RS-138 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 595 n/a 10.49 24.7 8.3 14086.2 0.0 22.8 121.0 672.4 7740.3 3666.8 1573.3 242.4 47.2 0.0 OR-RS-139 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 552 n/a 10.15 24.5 4.2 2528.4 0.8 7.9 60.1 182.5 1304.4 631.6 277.8 46.6 12.5 4.2 OR-RS-140 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 537 n/a 10.46 25.0 5.7 5300.7 0.0 13.3 216.8 298.6 2973.6 1309.9 396.2 77.5 14.8 0.0 OR-RS-141 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 540 n/a 10.10 26.7 6.8 9312.0 1.6 35.9 106.6 297.0 4813.9 2693.4 1001.5 268.7 71.7 21.7 OR-RS-142 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 744 n/a 10.33 28.5 13.5 2690.8 0.0 11.8 37.2 164.3 1042.8 1074.7 269.3 62.9 22.2 5.6 OR-RS-143 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 526 n/a 10.44 24.6 6.8 254738.6 0.2 35.1 1742.5 11929.5 119815.8 71418.3 36115.3 11329.7 2218.9 133.3 OR-RS-144 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 479 n/a 10.47 24.1 1.8 2182.4 0.0 0.0 12.4 124.4 1059.8 630.1 272.6 65.1 14.8 3.2 OR-RS-145 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 560 n/a 10.17 26.5 13.8 51730.1 0.0 0.0 961.2 5588.9 32705.8 8928.3 3158.4 285.4 102.1 0.0 OR-RS-146 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 475 n/a 10.15 24.0 4.6 14174.5 0.5 56.5 1092.2 1444.0 8548.3 1989.0 854.9 155.6 25.1 8.4 OR-RS-147 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.09 25.5 7.6 5232.0 0.3 13.4 39.7 267.4 2205.5 1862.7 665.0 139.8 32.4 5.8 OR-RS-148 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 557 n/a 10.42 23.9 5.9 5044.6 0.6 21.5 216.5 321.2 2336.1 1242.1 737.2 134.1 28.0 7.3 OR-RS-149 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 586 n/a 10.42 27.1 8.6 11213.6 1.0 34.5 222.4 699.0 5979.8 2593.1 1283.9 305.1 64.1 30.7 OR-RS-150 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 505 n/a 10.46 26.0 2.0 10789.7 0.7 13.4 413.6 1227.7 6220.7 1958.3 740.3 171.8 34.1 9.1 OR-RS-151 Red Snapper 4/21/2009 HnL 533 n/a 10.47 24.4 4.2 37422.6 0.0 151.7 2940.9 7346.5 16249.4 5714.0 3752.4 996.0 255.0 16.7 OR-RS-152 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 662 n/a 10.03 24.9 12.4 9286.6 1.1 50.3 434.8 1058.7 2760.4 3117.8 1135.5 489.5 238.5 0.0 OR-RS-153 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 520 n/a 10.04 29.8 7.1 5002.8 2.8 97.1 171.7 355.6 1793.1 1596.5 782.0 147.9 42.8 13.3 OR-RS-154 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 547 n/a 10.02 25.5 1.8 5347.6 3.3 25.7 375.4 977.8 1661.4 1639.3 432.2 190.3 42.2 0.0

129 | P a g e

OR-RS-155 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 601 n/a 10.09 24.7 7.0 9965.5 0.0 64.7 171.4 1774.7 3531.1 3339.3 904.4 120.6 59.3 0.0 OR-RP-156 Red Porgy 11/18/2009 HnL 339 n/a 10.06 27.3 10.6 118584.7 3.9 64.8 16029.6 44733.6 30875.4 16999.3 7193.8 2464.7 190.1 29.5 OR-VS-157 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 447 n/a 10.05 24.3 10.8 12354.2 1.8 68.9 385.2 1291.5 4884.1 3439.6 1764.5 395.0 123.6 0.0 OR-RS-158 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 448 n/a 10.04 25.6 2.6 79021.6 0.0 35.6 1326.5 4770.2 14595.0 24290.7 22337.2 10804.6 815.8 46.0 OR-VS-159 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 407 n/a 10.05 24.0 4.2 4009.8 0.5 0.0 169.3 590.1 1769.0 983.8 412.2 75.9 9.0 0.0 OR-RS-160 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 593 n/a 10.06 23.8 4.2 4359.7 0.0 0.0 120.9 473.0 1254.9 1669.9 657.8 164.4 12.5 6.3 OR-RS-161 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 565 n/a 10.07 22.9 3.2 9659.4 1.8 55.0 322.6 1022.4 3495.4 2971.7 1496.9 236.9 56.7 0.0 OR-VS-162 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 364 n/a 10.01 24.0 0.7 6098.6 0.0 27.8 458.1 1196.3 2570.3 1265.2 482.1 73.2 17.6 8.0 OR-RS-163 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 672 n/a 10.03 26.2 9.9 4514.9 0.9 13.2 156.0 473.6 1192.6 1885.5 692.4 100.7 0.0 0.0 OR-RS-164 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 592 n/a 10.05 28.2 10.8 13660.0 7.2 238.0 752.6 1580.3 4121.9 4937.2 1676.1 301.8 44.9 0.0 OR-VS-165 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 363 n/a 10.01 24.0 1.7 3483.3 0.0 15.1 124.8 425.4 1218.4 1246.2 387.5 65.9 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-166 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 412 n/a 10.01 27.2 1.8 3849.4 0.0 0.0 225.2 629.4 1300.7 1284.4 344.2 54.0 6.8 4.7 OR-VS-167 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 376 n/a 10.06 27.8 4.8 5631.8 0.0 5.9 268.1 765.7 1810.3 2120.8 537.5 119.9 3.6 0.0 OR-RS-168 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 499 n/a 10.05 25.5 8.5 9130.1 2.5 46.1 181.7 612.3 2869.1 3545.8 1461.9 278.6 102.3 29.8 OR-VS-169 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 380 n/a 10.01 25.3 7.0 14868.9 0.0 146.1 1349.8 2842.3 4927.9 3753.6 1356.5 431.2 61.5 0.0 OR-RS-170 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 483 n/a 10.03 24.7 5.1 10468.1 0.0 79.2 3129.2 3876.4 1562.0 1380.5 360.8 80.0 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-171 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 466 n/a 10.04 25.8 3.8 4403.2 1.6 69.8 261.5 675.5 1787.8 1178.0 350.1 63.6 15.3 0.0 OR-VS-172 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 492 n/a 10.05 24.1 3.5 3386.9 0.0 0.0 117.7 387.7 1198.5 1035.9 473.9 112.2 61.0 0.0 OR-RS-173 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 472 n/a 10.05 23.1 2.9 2956.0 0.0 0.0 80.6 252.1 925.2 897.6 615.7 107.1 61.2 16.5 OR-VS-174 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 463 n/a 10.08 26.6 9.9 8473.5 0.0 57.9 324.9 989.7 2562.6 2932.7 1412.5 143.6 49.6 0.0 OR-GT-175 Gray Triggerfish 11/18/2009 HnL 541 411 10.03 22.8 0.7 54210.5 0.3 45.4 870.9 3986.5 16439.7 9490.9 10666.1 7328.4 5169.9 212.4 OR-RS-176 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 422 n/a 10.06 23.3 1.2 3429.5 0.0 15.0 165.5 459.5 1227.7 1219.9 332.8 9.1 0.0 0.0 OR-RS-177 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 485 n/a 10.04 22.4 2.3 6194.7 5.1 50.4 325.0 845.1 2272.1 1724.4 740.7 177.0 38.5 16.4 OR-VS-178 Vermilion Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 394 n/a 10.07 23.4 1.5 2154.8 0.0 8.7 147.0 378.7 785.9 619.8 192.6 22.1 0.0 0.0 OR-RS-179 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 544 n/a 10.06 27.8 10.7 10694.1 0.0 45.0 367.6 964.3 2983.5 3928.1 1459.6 725.7 178.7 41.6 OR-RS-180 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 432 n/a 10.05 23.3 3.8 7137.2 1.5 128.8 465.7 517.3 1391.5 2901.9 1046.4 611.1 73.0 0.0 OR-RS-181 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 HnL 527 n/a 10.02 30.0 17.1 4015.5 0.0 25.2 96.0 393.1 1287.6 1527.2 602.2 84.2 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-182 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 424 n/a 10.06 26.9 1.0 1547.2 0.0 0.0 15.1 416.3 607.4 424.3 86.2 5.3 2.5 1.7 OR-VS-183 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 432 n/a 10.02 28.8 10.7 5336.8 1.6 0.0 443.0 948.3 1869.1 1413.6 593.0 57.3 7.0 3.9 OR-VS-184 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 465 n/a 10.15 26.1 3.3 2088.6 1.2 5.7 79.2 266.2 762.4 667.2 271.8 28.4 4.7 1.8 OR-VS-185 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 429 n/a 10.02 25.3 2.7 2038.2 0.0 0.0 113.5 429.1 752.3 574.9 156.3 23.4 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-186 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 470 n/a 10.09 28.2 8.1 6562.8 0.0 38.7 326.4 1055.7 2689.8 1825.2 572.5 61.1 6.9 3.2 OR-VS-187 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 434 n/a 10.00 27.1 9.5 3898.4 0.0 0.0 189.1 778.1 1328.9 1177.9 394.7 47.9 3.5 0.0 OR-VS-188 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 422 n/a 10.09 29.2 6.2 5075.8 0.0 13.8 171.8 763.3 2030.6 1507.6 521.7 71.3 4.5 0.0 OR-VS-189 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 417 n/a 10.12 25.0 1.0 607.1 0.0 0.0 40.2 101.7 219.1 176.5 68.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-190 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 460 n/a 10.04 24.5 5.8 2612.9 0.0 0.0 169.8 417.1 898.0 801.1 300.0 24.6 2.3 0.0 OR-RS-191 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 431 n/a 10.04 27.7 4.4 1428.2 0.0 0.0 55.5 143.5 361.8 575.5 267.0 19.6 3.8 1.5 OR-RS-192 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 614 n/a 10.07 29.0 5.5 7207.3 0.0 0.0 184.9 685.4 2377.0 3279.4 540.5 111.8 25.2 11.8 OR-RP-193 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 335 n/a 10.06 27.8 3.8 36833.1 0.0 19.2 2126.8 13492.0 11930.0 6332.0 2329.7 534.2 89.1 13.9 OR-RS-194 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 466 n/a 10.03 25.6 2.9 2564.6 0.0 0.0 184.1 499.3 664.6 978.0 225.1 22.4 0.0 0.0 OR-RS-195 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 698 n/a 10.15 27.6 16.8 73591.4 0.0 241.0 10825.3 22898.8 20557.0 12999.6 5396.4 571.5 81.6 20.2 OR-RS-196 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 419 n/a 10.02 24.6 2.1 1206.3 0.0 3.7 102.4 154.8 311.3 399.6 201.5 27.5 3.9 1.6 OR-RS-197 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 441 n/a 10.08 27.5 5.8 3180.4 0.0 7.2 135.1 355.6 964.7 1107.0 533.5 65.8 8.3 3.2 OR-RS-198 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 449 n/a 10.08 27.4 2.2 72319.0 0.0 0.0 1769.4 9842.3 22898.4 19254.5 15455.4 2586.7 418.5 93.8 OR-RS-199 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 491 n/a 10.08 27.2 4.2 3345.0 0.0 0.0 433.5 974.3 870.0 724.7 298.9 37.1 6.5 0.0 OR-RS-200 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 584 n/a 10.10 25.5 4.3 3321.0 0.0 0.0 426.6 650.4 873.6 749.3 465.6 132.2 19.3 4.0 OR-RS-201 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 494 n/a 10.01 27.7 4.5 2372.8 0.0 0.0 170.3 422.0 733.8 710.0 288.4 42.1 6.2 0.0 OR-RS-202 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 475 n/a 10.06 26.7 3.3 2912.1 0.0 4.2 208.0 561.2 709.5 829.3 527.7 59.0 9.8 3.4 OR-RS-203 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 452 n/a 10.07 26.4 4.9 2826.7 0.0 7.5 69.0 353.0 1056.9 959.8 323.5 55.0 7.5 3.4 OR-RS-204 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 515 n/a 10.07 25.6 1.4 2736.4 0.0 0.0 80.5 326.8 741.2 963.0 560.5 54.5 8.5 1.4 OR-RS-205 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 496 n/a 10.09 31.2 19.5 13727.8 0.0 23.0 674.3 2199.3 4508.9 4063.0 1982.3 239.0 38.0 0.0 OR-RS-206 Red Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 531 n/a 10.02 28.9 8.8 10958.5 0.0 0.0 1116.0 4284.3 3805.9 1326.5 376.2 46.5 5.2 3.2 OR-VS-207 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 425 n/a 10.01 26.3 2.5 1805.8 0.0 0.0 58.2 268.3 712.3 609.7 190.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 OR-VS-208 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 423 n/a 10.11 31.1 10.2 5515.1 0.0 0.0 310.1 714.3 2250.9 1538.3 614.9 74.6 8.7 3.3 OR-VS-209 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 339 n/a 10.08 26.2 3.7 2574.9 0.0 4.1 196.0 389.6 664.0 747.7 510.5 51.2 9.1 2.7 OR-VS-210 Vermilion Snapper 4/27/2010 HnL 395 n/a 10.13 25.2 3.0 10553.1 0.0 6.9 512.5 1935.0 4035.7 2721.7 1167.2 155.0 15.2 3.9

130 | P a g e

OR-RP-211 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 341 n/a 10.03 26.5 1.8 10642.4 0.0 15.6 997.4 4896.1 2829.5 1298.3 460.2 118.6 31.7 9.4 OR-RP-212 Red Porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 323 n/a 10.02 25.3 1.1 31098.1 0.0 57.3 4741.3 18886.8 5812.6 1122.2 376.0 86.5 23.2 7.6 OR-WP-213 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 375 n/a 10.08 25.9 0.6 22986.2 0.0 0.0 304.3 4016.5 6550.7 8427.9 3086.7 532.2 63.8 13.8 OR-WP-214 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 365 n/a 10.00 22.2 1.1 58405.2 0.0 0.0 680.8 4958.3 12651.7 23077.4 13340.9 3059.3 552.5 84.3 OR-WP-215 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 370 n/a 10.07 25.0 0.6 68656.8 0.0 0.0 191.3 7575.9 20553.8 24757.7 13479.0 1825.4 239.4 34.3 OR-WP-216 Whitebone porgy 4/27/2010 HnL 384 n/a 10.06 24.4 0.9 95374.2 0.0 0.0 507.6 6521.2 23369.6 47633.8 13473.3 3326.6 461.1 96.8 OR-RS-217 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 442 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-218 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 391 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-219 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 395 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-220 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 394 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-221 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 601 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-222 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 443 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-223 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 438 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-224 Red Snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 606 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-225 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 535 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-226 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 444 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-227 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 682 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-228 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 425 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-229 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 393 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-230 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 471 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-231 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 403 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-SG-232 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 409 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-233 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 403 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RP-234 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 337 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RP-235 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 368 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RP-236 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 330 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-SG-237 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 449 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RG-238 Red Grouper 11/18/2010 HnL 564 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-SG-239 Scamp 11/18/2010 HnL 454 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-GT-240 Gray triggerfish 11/18/2010 HnL 436 380 tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-241 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 417 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-242 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 426 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-243 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 414 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-244 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 447 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RP-245 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 355 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-246 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 483 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-VS-247 Vermilion snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 441 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-248 Red Snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 556 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-249 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 481 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-250 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 549 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RP-251 Red porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 409 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-252 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 413 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-RS-253 Red snapper 11/18/2010 HnL 522 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-WP-254 Whitebone porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 390 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd OR-WP-255 Whitebone porgy 11/18/2010 HnL 388 n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

131 | P a g e

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 Common Name

Collection Date

Collection Gear

Fish Length (TL) mm

Fish Length (FL) mm

Wet Weight (g)

% Solid

% Lipid

Total PCB Congeners (pg/g)

Chlor. 1

Chlor. 2

Chlor. 3

Chlor. 4 Chlor. 5 Chlor. 6 Chlor. 7

Chlor. 8

Chlor. 9

Chlor. 10

CS1-RS-001 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 460 n/a 5.17 23.24 2.76 3883.8 70.7 145.1 517.1 515.0 798.1 1341.8 436.4 39.8 8.9 10.9 CS1-RS-002 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 433 n/a 6.32 25.23 2.89 3466.6 53.9 91.1 371.2 420.5 712.4 1254.4 482.7 56.2 12.3 11.9 CS1-RS-003 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 406 n/a 5.24 23.15 3.04 4527.4 61.0 116.9 416.4 737.8 1055.9 1393.6 631.6 74.5 23.5 16.2 CS1-RS-004 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 458 n/a 5.59 25.37 6.05 5233.9 63.9 112.3 486.1 639.9 1254.4 1794.4 755.2 87.8 22.2 17.7 CS1-RS-005 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 450 n/a 5.24 24.62 3.68 3896.2 70.1 106.8 441.9 611.1 876.4 1052.1 613.2 80.0 28.8 15.8 CS1-RS-006 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 426 n/a 5.18 24.94 4.86 4144.6 61.9 135.1 457.1 565.1 832.6 1442.8 561.6 58.0 15.8 14.6 CS1-GT-007 Gray Triggerfish 2/3/2008 HnL n/a 384 5.74 22.15 1.36 2790.7 73.8 132.8 433.7 506.2 514.9 848.6 260.1 15.2 2.6 2.8 CS1-RS-008 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 475 n/a 7.36 26.92 9.04 3585.1 47.1 80.8 310.1 447.6 795.8 1202.1 613.9 50.8 21.7 15.2 CS1-RS-009 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 452 n/a 4.99 24.05 3.30 4060.1 135.1 143.8 500.2 614.7 791.7 1352.3 449.0 50.1 13.0 10.2 CS1-RS-010 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 426 n/a 5.85 23.49 2.52 3229.9 102.4 87.9 376.2 517.0 627.6 1054.3 403.5 40.7 11.2 9.1 CS1-RS-011 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 473 n/a 5.16 23.90 2.95 3380.2 0.0 0.0 229.0 471.5 670.9 1421.7 442.9 89.7 29.6 24.9 CS1-RS-012 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 438 n/a 5.28 24.00 3.51 2561.7 27.9 38.9 227.1 390.8 537.9 986.1 287.6 42.2 11.5 11.7 CS1-GG-013 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 768 n/a 5.02 28.06 18.68 5974.0 75.8 84.7 340.9 612.4 1193.9 2481.7 924.9 181.9 44.8 33.0 CS1-GG-014 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 779 n/a 5.13 29.09 11.02 8164.8 79.6 81.8 380.7 656.7 1841.9 3405.3 1381.5 217.6 65.7 54.0 CS1-RS-015 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 431 n/a 5.43 24.13 8.85 6283.1 71.6 79.0 319.5 845.0 1655.8 2498.2 636.1 111.7 41.5 24.7 CS1-GG-016 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 623 n/a 5.44 25.35 17.99 6462.1 76.1 65.3 406.3 667.9 1452.0 2502.2 1077.7 148.5 35.3 30.8 CS1-VS-017 Vermilion Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 311 n/a 4.95 24.65 3.31 2587.5 70.5 90.1 319.1 387.7 557.9 783.5 343.0 28.3 3.5 3.9 CS1-RS-018 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 446 n/a 5.44 24.55 5.36 4752.6 72.4 83.1 415.5 588.3 1153.5 1515.3 757.3 118.5 25.1 23.6 CS1-RS-019 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 439 n/a 5.07 23.90 5.40 3514.1 72.3 37.4 385.4 431.5 715.9 1268.0 510.7 64.5 17.6 10.8 CS1-RS-020 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 486 n/a 5.51 23.41 3.02 3850.2 67.1 72.3 333.4 427.9 866.3 1332.8 598.5 93.8 21.7 36.4 CS1-RS-021 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 408 n/a 5.23 22.78 3.00 3221.7 88.8 40.5 359.7 404.0 668.0 1190.7 402.1 49.6 10.5 7.8 CS1-RS-022 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 435 n/a 5.15 24.07 5.64 5385.3 106.1 146.4 403.0 635.0 1094.6 2240.0 608.1 98.9 32.7 20.5 CS1-RS-023 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 471 n/a 5.05 24.65 8.48 3608.3 68.9 66.0 247.4 370.6 854.2 1380.9 505.9 78.1 20.1 16.2 CS1-RS-024 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 510 n/a 7.35 25.12 4.03 5135.0 54.4 83.4 256.2 765.8 1542.7 1743.2 557.9 90.4 20.4 20.6 CS1-RS-025 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 421 n/a 5.02 24.54 2.84 2650.2 170.0 165.4 388.6 295.3 554.9 771.8 259.7 27.4 7.9 9.2 CS1-RS-026 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 428 n/a 4.99 21.30 0.66 3093.3 112.9 125.9 385.6 485.3 673.9 974.7 277.1 34.9 11.8 11.2 CS1-RS-027 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 483 n/a 4.95 23.72 3.70 2786.7 73.9 68.6 341.1 355.8 544.9 993.9 344.3 45.9 7.4 10.9 CS1-RS-028 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 456 n/a 5.58 23.40 3.40 3326.4 82.9 108.1 345.8 452.4 712.8 1170.7 391.7 42.9 10.6 8.5 CS1-RS-029 Red Snapper 2/3/2008 HnL 704 n/a 5.52 25.17 7.27 5691.3 33.3 50.9 238.8 438.6 1319.0 2255.3 1086.5 181.4 41.2 46.3 CS1-GG-030 Gag Grouper 2/3/2008 HnL 764 n/a 5.89 26.84 8.82 2808.0 46.6 88.4 205.8 202.9 506.9 1161.6 484.9 75.2 20.1 15.6 CS1-RS-031 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 10.63 28.32 7.11 4875.8 4.1 101.2 77.6 309.5 2694.4 1199.6 428.0 16.3 20.4 24.7 CS1-RS-032 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 424 n/a 10.01 24.49 12.03 4375.6 7.9 135.7 94.4 201.8 1990.8 1297.2 568.8 40.5 17.6 20.9 CS1-RS-033 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 461 n/a 10.53 24.54 8.67 6846.6 9.6 131.3 78.4 444.8 3729.4 1873.6 415.9 120.0 19.7 23.9 CS1-RS-034 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 433 n/a 11.23 24.97 5.95 3070.1 4.3 77.7 61.3 228.7 1727.6 723.1 233.2 0.0 4.6 9.6 CS1-RS-035 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 442 n/a 11.29 26.76 16.57 36895.8 12.0 522.9 2609.7 3817.5 16165.6 6783.1 4974.9 1371.5 433.0 205.6 CS1-RS-036 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 427 n/a 10.08 25.77 9.30 13816.7 14.9 170.7 143.2 523.0 9457.6 2566.5 711.5 157.1 28.4 43.8 CS1-RS-037 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 455 n/a 11.29 23.26 4.98 3834.5 3.8 113.6 82.0 269.3 1730.9 1214.9 323.9 66.2 12.1 17.8 CS1-RS-038 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 491 n/a 10.23 25.81 9.87 13871.0 15.1 65.3 140.5 521.8 7046.6 4207.0 1541.2 217.5 60.1 55.9 CS1-RS-039 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 445 n/a 10.13 25.21 9.08 8292.3 8.1 183.7 103.0 371.4 4065.3 2609.0 787.1 99.8 28.4 36.5 CS1-RS-040 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 443 n/a 11.67 22.29 3.14 2344.9 0.9 0.0 49.4 90.2 1173.3 665.8 293.5 42.6 9.3 19.9 CS1-RS-041 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 416 n/a 10.86 27.23 6.19 3578.0 4.1 86.4 78.4 188.4 1838.9 965.4 338.3 57.3 6.6 14.2

132 | P a g e

CS1-GS-042 Gray Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 293 n/a 10.43 24.90 0.58 13178.6 17.3 128.4 73.0 476.9 6070.7 5031.0 1083.2 200.0 39.8 58.3 CS1-VS-043 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 395 n/a 10.17 34.77 15.87 30792.8 79.8 0.0 2350.9 2525.1 21851.9 2521.1 1184.2 156.0 46.3 77.5 CS1-RP-044 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 331 n/a 10.60 24.32 2.41 826.5 0.0 45.7 111.7 55.3 193.9 299.5 105.1 0.0 3.7 11.6 CS1-RS-045 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 470 n/a 10.24 24.27 7.57 9067.8 79.1 34.3 218.5 559.8 5944.6 1540.0 559.9 83.3 21.2 27.1 CS1-RS-046 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 11.01 24.75 9.68 35038.4 0.0 0.0 1760.5 4302.2 24524.8 2776.1 1411.8 164.8 37.4 60.8 CS1-RS-047 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 438 n/a 10.51 29.92 14.41 11499.1 0.0 89.2 3725.0 348.0 4513.0 1986.8 698.1 95.4 15.6 28.0 CS1-VS-048 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 322 n/a 10.45 28.86 18.35 36266.3 0.0 80.0 98.0 4188.0 25198.3 4630.6 1653.7 253.1 50.2 114.3 CS1-RP-049 Red Porgy 4/29/2008 HnL 276 n/a 10.32 23.65 2.46 2580.8 159.4 0.0 68.2 174.2 1531.7 416.8 188.5 15.2 6.4 20.4 CS1-RS-050 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 465 n/a 10.20 28.15 7.60 7017.7 77.7 175.1 104.1 254.2 3982.8 1781.4 579.9 21.8 15.9 24.7 CS1-VS-051 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 377 n/a 10.94 28.45 14.80 4866.8 0.0 15.5 115.4 308.0 2339.8 1539.7 486.1 25.0 14.1 23.2 CS1-RS-052 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 441 n/a 10.24 24.21 9.11 8033.7 94.4 0.0 49.1 364.0 4974.9 1759.0 693.8 33.8 23.1 41.7 CS1-RS-053 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 457 n/a 10.19 26.68 16.52 42851.5 0.0 0.0 477.4 1224.0 24679.4 11893.6 3645.2 606.1 170.1 155.7 CS1-VS-054 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 340 n/a 10.25 27.00 7.46 3231.9 0.0 0.0 118.6 158.4 1920.5 709.2 265.9 30.5 13.0 15.8 CS1-VS-055 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 391 n/a 10.52 27.59 11.65 4652.3 47.9 0.0 303.7 204.8 2839.2 848.5 316.1 71.5 10.3 10.4 CS1-VS-056 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 333 n/a 10.42 28.08 7.37 6672.6 0.0 0.0 1068.5 733.2 3454.1 872.8 433.8 68.9 13.0 28.3 CS1-RS-057 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 449 n/a 10.17 25.54 4.89 10883.9 0.0 0.0 231.4 415.0 7159.3 2134.8 689.1 155.1 40.4 58.8 CS1-VS-058 Vermilion Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 401 n/a 10.34 28.89 17.83 7014.9 76.2 36.6 147.0 333.5 4059.3 1660.6 581.0 80.5 20.8 19.3 CS1-RS-059 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 447 n/a 10.64 30.55 18.26 11701.3 0.0 68.2 184.5 368.3 6803.6 2987.2 1119.0 108.5 37.2 24.8 CS1-RS-060 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 434 n/a 10.58 24.67 7.70 6003.5 0.0 0.0 100.5 102.8 2966.2 1859.6 812.0 98.8 28.8 34.8 CS1-RS-061 Red Snapper 4/29/2008 HnL 462 n/a 5.06 23.51 3.32 2919.7 0.0 0.0 230.0 79.9 1448.1 850.5 229.6 73.1 8.5 0.0

133 | P a g e

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 1260Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1248Aroclor 1242Aroclor 1232

Vermilion Snapper‐56Vermilion Snapper‐55Vermilion Snapper‐54Vermilion Snapper‐51Vermilion Snapper‐48Vermilion Snapper‐43Vermilion Snapper‐17

Red Snapper‐61Red Snapper‐60Red Snapper‐59Red Snapper‐57Red Snapper‐53Red Snapper‐52Red Snapper‐50Red Snapper‐47Red Snapper‐46Red Snapper‐45Red Snapper‐41Red Snapper‐40Red Snapper‐39Red Snapper‐38Red Snapper‐37Red Snapper‐36Red Snapper‐35Red Snapper‐34Red Snapper‐33Red Snapper‐32Red Snapper‐31Red Snapper‐29Red Snapper‐28Red Snapper‐27Red Snapper‐26Red Snapper‐25Red Snapper‐24Red Snapper‐23Red Snapper‐22Red Snapper‐21Red Snapper‐20Red Snapper‐19Red Snapper‐18Red Snapper‐15Red Snapper‐12Red Snapper‐11Red Snapper‐10Red Snapper‐9Red Snapper‐8Red Snapper‐6Red Snapper‐5Red Snapper‐4Red Snapper‐3Red Snapper‐2Red Snapper‐1Red Porgy‐49Red Porgy‐44

Gray Triggerfish‐7Gray Snapper‐42Gag Grouper‐30Gag Grouper‐16Gag Grouper‐14Gag Grouper‐13

134 | 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 1260Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1248Aroclor 1242Aroclor 1232

Red Snapper‐90Red Snapper‐89Red Snapper‐88Red Snapper‐87Red Snapper‐86Red Snapper‐85Red Snapper‐84Red Snapper‐83Red Snapper‐82Red Snapper‐81Red Snapper‐80Red Snapper‐79Red Snapper‐78Red Snapper‐77Red Snapper‐76Red Snapper‐75Red Snapper‐74Red Snapper‐73Red Snapper‐72Red Snapper‐71Red Snapper‐70Red Snapper‐69Red Snapper‐68Red Snapper‐67Red Snapper‐66Red Snapper‐65Red Snapper‐64Red Snapper‐63Red Snapper‐62Red Snapper‐61Red Snapper‐60Red Snapper‐59Red Snapper‐56Red Snapper‐53Red Snapper‐52Red Snapper‐50Red Snapper‐46Red Snapper‐45Red Snapper‐44Red Snapper‐43Red Snapper‐42Red Snapper‐41Red Snapper‐40Red Snapper‐38Red Snapper‐37Red Snapper‐36Red Snapper‐35Red Snapper‐34Red Snapper‐33Red Snapper‐32Red Snapper‐31Red Snapper‐30Red Snapper‐29Red Snapper‐28Red Snapper‐27Red Snapper‐26Red Snapper‐25Red Snapper‐24Red Snapper‐23Red Snapper‐22Red Snapper‐21Red Snapper‐20Red Snapper‐19Red Snapper‐18Red Snapper‐17Red Snapper‐16Red Snapper‐15Red Snapper‐14Red Snapper‐13Red Snapper‐12Red Snapper‐11Red Snapper‐10Red Snapper‐9Red Snapper‐8Red Snapper‐7Red Snapper‐6Red Snapper‐5Red Snapper‐4Red Snapper‐3Red Snapper‐2Red Snapper‐1Red Porgy‐156Red Porgy‐119Red Porgy‐58Red Porgy‐55Red Porgy‐54Red Porgy‐47

Gray Triggerfish‐175

135 | 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 1260Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1248Aroclor 1242Aroclor 1232

Vermilion Snapper‐178Vermilion Snapper‐174Vermilion Snapper‐172Vermilion Snapper‐171Vermilion Snapper‐169Vermilion Snapper‐167Vermilion Snapper‐166Vermilion Snapper‐165Vermilion Snapper‐162Vermilion Snapper‐159Vermilion Snapper‐157Vermilion Snapper‐51Vermilion Snapper‐49Vermilion Snapper‐48Vermilion Snapper‐39Scamp Grouper‐135

Red Snapper‐181Red Snapper‐180Red Snapper‐179Red Snapper‐177Red Snapper‐176Red Snapper‐173Red Snapper‐170Red Snapper‐168Red Snapper‐164Red Snapper‐163Red Snapper‐161Red Snapper‐160Red Snapper‐158Red Snapper‐155Red Snapper‐154Red Snapper‐153Red Snapper‐152Red Snapper‐151Red Snapper‐150Red Snapper‐149Red Snapper‐148Red Snapper‐147Red Snapper‐146Red Snapper‐145Red Snapper‐144Red Snapper‐143Red Snapper‐142Red Snapper‐141Red Snapper‐140Red Snapper‐139Red Snapper‐138Red Snapper‐137Red Snapper‐136Red Snapper‐134Red Snapper‐133Red Snapper‐132Red Snapper‐131Red Snapper‐130Red Snapper‐129Red Snapper‐128Red Snapper‐127Red Snapper‐126Red Snapper‐125Red Snapper‐124Red Snapper‐123Red Snapper‐122Red Snapper‐121Red Snapper‐120Red Snapper‐118Red Snapper‐117Red Snapper‐116Red Snapper‐115Red Snapper‐114Red Snapper‐113Red Snapper‐112Red Snapper‐111Red Snapper‐110Red Snapper‐109Red Snapper‐108Red Snapper‐107Red Snapper‐106Red Snapper‐105Red Snapper‐104Red Snapper‐103Red Snapper‐102Red Snapper‐101Red Snapper‐100Red Snapper‐99Red Snapper‐98Red Snapper‐97Red Snapper‐96Red Snapper‐95Red Snapper‐94Red Snapper‐93Red Snapper‐92Red Snapper‐91

pp

136 | P a g e

Appendix 2. Sample FWC underwater field sheet used for fish census data collection.