Jon asks:

>Are bioassays being done on any of the birds? Wintering scoters, grebes,
>etc. would probably be worth looking at...

No, generally not. Fish tissue sampling protocols are fairly well defined.
Catching and measuring concentrations in birds, on the other hand, is not
common practice and few of the agency staff or consultants are experienced
at this. Scoters and other birds have been used as the target receptor in
food web models, and an attempt is made to collect fish of the appropriate
size range to use in the model.

>I am surprised that salmon would show effects of chemicals, given their
>life history of spending such a small amount of time feeding in the
>estuary. Chinook and coho can spend a year in freshwater prior to
>smolting, sockeye spend a year in Lake Washington (among other places),
>and chum and pink smolt soon after hatching. The estuary is a vital
>feeding area for all of these species, but they then head for the open
>seas (or at least out into Puget Sound for those that 'residualize').

>With the limited amount of time spent in the Elliott Bay situation, I
>wonder that the salmon can get enough toxins to so greatly affect them. If

>Elliott/Commencement Bays are in such bad shape, I'll never eat *any* Puget

>Sound bottomfish or mollusks again... I would certainly expect the
>benthic critters and bottom feeders to accumulate the crud.

The study was done on juvenile chinook and compared fish migrating through
urban estuaries to those migrating through clean areas. Chinook may have
been selected because of their relatively long residence time in the
freshwater/estuarine system prior to migration. Significant effects
included higher levels of contaminants in stomach contents, bile, and body
tissues, increased enzymatic activity (binding toxic chemicals to DNA),
suppressed immune competence in juveniles, and decreased growth and survival
of juveniles. These effects were seen in Elliott Bay and Commencement Bay
but not in the Snohomish Estuary (there's still hope!!) Yes, it's truly
amazing what a single year's residence in a contaminated area can due to a
juvenile salmonid. And it may be even less than that, since mostly its only
the lower parts of the estuary right at the mouth that are severely
contaminated. NOAA's work is opening our eyes to the range of sublethal
effects that can occur. This work was presented as part of the keynote
address at Puget Sound Research '95 in Bellevue.

>Could you please send me the citation of the NOAA report? Thanks.

The citation is:

Varanasi, U., E. Casillas, M. Arkoosh, T. Hom, D. Misitano, D. Brown, S.-L.
Chan, T. Collier, B. McCain, and J. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and
Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyncus
tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle WA. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NWFSC-8.

Copies can probably be had from the Montlake and/or Sand Point offices of
the NMFS in Seattle.

Teresa Michelsen
temi461 at ecy.wa.gov