metals in fish from the north fork of the …...north fork of the new river sampling areas for fish...

i

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES

TR: 05-01

METALS IN FISH FROM THE NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

March 2005

Environmental Monitoring Division 954/519-1240

ii

Table of Contents ________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. OBJECTIVE 1 B. BACKGROUND 4 1. NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER HABITAT CONDITIONS 4 2. TRACE METALS OF CONCERN 6 a. MERCURY 6 b. ARSENIC 6 II. METHODOLOGY 7

A. FISH AND CRAB CONSUMPTION SURVEY RESULTS AND DATA APPLICATION 7 B. SAMPLE COLLECTION 10 C. SAMPLE PROCESSING 10 D. SAMPLE PREPARATION & ANALYSIS 11 E. DATA ANALYSIS 11 III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 12 A. SPECIES COLLECTED 12 B. MERCURY DATA 12

C. ARSENIC DATA 16 D. CADMIUM, CHROMIUM, NICKEL, AND LEAD DATA 16 E. DATA COMPARISON AND VERIFICATION 17 IV. CONCLUSION 17 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 18 VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 18 VII. LITERATURE CITED 19

iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – BROWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTION FISH AND CRAB CONSUMPTION SURVEY: NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER 21

APPENDIX B - NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER FISH AND CRAB SPECIES CATCH NUMBERS 32

APPENDIX C - NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER FISH AND CRAB SIZE TABLE BASED ON SURVEY RESPONDENTS 35

APPENDIX D - SUMMARY OF FISH AND CRAB CONSUMPTION AND COOKING METHOD FOR NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER 38

APPENDIX E - TABLE OF FISH DATA FROM THE NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER FISH METALS STUDY 42

DOCUMENT SUMMARY SHEET

iv

List of Tables

1. FDOH Fish Consumption Advisories for the Fish Species Collected from the

North Fork of the New River. 16

v

List of Figures

1. The Broward County Urban Watershed 2 2. North Fork of the New River Sampling Areas

for Fish Toxicological Specimens 3 3. Aerial Photographs of the North Fork of the New River a. 1947 5 b. 2000 5 4. Summary of Species Caught by Local Fishers in the

North Fork of the New River 8 5. Summary of Fish Consumption Patterns of Fishers Surveyed Along

North Fork of the New River a. Body Parts 9 b. Cooking Methodology 9

6. A Digital Photograph Taken of the Sample Preparation Procedure

Depicting a Dorsal Dissection 10 7. The Native Fish Species Collected on the

North Fork of the New River 13 8. The Non-Native Fish Species Collected on the

North Fork of the New River 14 9. Mercury Concentrations in Fish Samples Collected from the

North Fork of the New River 15 10. Comparison and Verification of EMD Mercury Analysis 17

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Fork of the New River is an estuary system located in an urbanized area of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida which has undergone significant environmental restoration over the last ten years. A large portion of the restoration focused on the removal of sediments from the river via dredging because of potentially harmful effects to aquatic organisms. Other processes utilized in the restoration of the waterway included: shoreline revegetation, enhanced freshwater flows, stormwater quality improvements, trash and debris removal, and public outreach/participation. Over one million dollars of state funding and millions of dollars of County and local funds were spent on implementing these initiatives since 1996. The removal of sediments containing elevated levels of numerous heavy metals from the North Fork of the New River should have improved its fish habitat. A large number of residents, who live in the community, regularly fish along the river and consume the fish they catch as a sustainable food source. A fish and crab consumption survey was conducted to determine which species were being caught and consumed by local fishers on the North Fork of the New River. The potential for metal accumulation from the consumption of fish and the associated public health concerns is the subject of this study. In order to assess the potential for adverse public health impacts, a toxicological study was undertaken to analyze mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in Florida largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus), common snook (Centropomus undecimalis), black mullet (Mugil cephalus), big mouth sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor), blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus), spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae), and Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus). The fish were collected from an area of the North Fork of the New River between Broward Boulevard and Northwest 27th Avenue by the Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Reverend Samuel Delevoe Park’s shoreline was at the center of the sampling area. Metal concentrations in the flesh of the fish sampled during this study were low or below levels of detection. Mercury was detected in fourteen of the fifty-eight fish sampled at levels which the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) currently issues a reduced fish consumption advisory (i.e. > 0.1 mg/kg). The FDOH has concurred with the findings in this report and current consumption advisory information should be adhered to regarding fish consumed from the North Fork of the New River.

1

I. Introduction

Urban fisheries in southeast Florida are thriving and they are socioeconomically important (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation, FFWCC, 2001). This investigation was initially requested by leaders of the North Fork of the New River communities because a relatively large group of people regularly fish along the river and consume the fish they catch as a sustainable food source.

Before restoration efforts, an initial hardhead catfish (Arius felis) and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) toxicological study found mercury (and other metal) concentrations within levels of safe human consumption set by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), (Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, DNRP, 1994a). However, informal conversations with local fishers subsequent to the study revealed other species are preferentially targeted (e.g., mullet) along the river (personal communication). Furthermore, a qualitative survey by the FFWCC (formerly Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, FGFWFC) in 1998 (Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection, DPEP, 2001) showed a mixed population of freshwater (e.g., largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides) and marine (e.g., snook, Centropomus undecimalis) sportfish species. Thus, the current study is both a follow up and an expansion of the initial DNRP (1994a) study with more fish species being considered for the investigation.

The primary purpose of this investigation is to address the public health concerns regarding the human consumption of fish from the North Fork of the New River. Additionally, this study provides a snapshot of how ‘fishable’ the river is after the implementation of several environmental restoration initiatives (e.g., dredging) over the last ten years (see DPEP, 2001 http://www.broward.org/wti01600.pdf.). This report describes the metal concentrations of fish collected from the upper estuarine North Fork of the New River (Figure 1) on November 18, 2003 by the DPEP (formerly DNRP) and the FFWCC. The map in Figure 1 depicts the study area on a regional scale; the map in Figure 2 depicts the study area on a local scale.

A. Objective The primary objective of this study was to determine the metal concentrations in fish routinely caught and consumed by fishers in the North Fork of the New River and the public health concerns related to the subsequent metal concentrations in the fish consumed. Four main questions related to the objective were:

• What are the typical fish species caught and consumed by the fishers along the North Fork of the New River?

• What are the mercury levels in these fish species? • What are some levels of other metals of potential concern (e.g., arsenic)? • How do the observed concentrations relate to the FDOH advisory levels?

þ

þ

þ

þ

New River

þ

þ

þ

Everglades in Broward County (Water Conservation Areas)

Urban Broward County

Atlantic Ocean

C-13 Canal

C-14 Canal

Hillsboro Canal

North New River Canal

C-11 Canal

C-1

0 C

an

al

C-9 Canal

C-4

2 C

an

al

ICW

ICW

ICW

Dania Cut-off Canal

PortEverglades

Hillsboro Inlet

Old Pompano Canal

Middle River

þ

þ

þ

þ

þþ

þ

þ

C-12 Canal

L-35B

L-35A

L-3

6L-

36

þ

Palm Beach County

Miami-Dade County

South Fork

NorthFork

BROWARDCOUNTY

FLORIDA

Figure 1. The Broward County Urban Watershed. Approximately, two-thirds of Broward County is the Everglades (also termed Water Conservation Areas). The North Fork of the New River sampling area is shown by the red circle. Major South Florida Water Management District water control structures are shownwith both coastal (pink) and freshwater (blue) delineations represented. Waterways to the east of the pink structures are estuarine while those to the west are freshwater.

N

EW

S

0 4 8 12 Miles

2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles

Sunrise Blvd.

Broward Blvd.

NW

27t

h A

ve.

Mar

tin L

uthe

r K

ing

Blv

d. (N

W 3

1st A

ve.)

CS

X R

AIL

RO

AD

I-95

Sistrunk Blvd.'North'

Sampling Area

#SRev. Samuel Delevoe Park

Swap Shop

Î

%USFWMD

CONTROL STRUCTURES-33

Ave

nue

of th

e A

rts

(NW

7th

Ave

.)

SW

4th

Ave

.

NW

11t

h A

ve.

'South'Sampling Area

N

EW

S

Figure 2. North Fork of the New River Sampling Areas for Fish Toxicological Specimens. Two Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissionelectrofishing boats were used with one fishing north of the Reverend Samuel Delevoe Park boat dock (white dot) and the other fishing south. The estuarine reach of the North Fork of the New River begins east of the South Florida Water Management District's S33 salinity control structure (square).

3

4

B. Background

1. North Fork of the New River Habitat Conditions The North Fork of the New River watershed has changed dramatically over fifty years from being the eastern extent of the Everglades to a highly hydrologically modified urban drainage basin (Figure 3). Headwater flow was substantially restricted by the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project during the 1950s. The lack of freshwater flow and subsequent water column stagnation coupled with significant stormwater inputs are believed to be the reason for the eutrophic/hypereutrophic conditions existing within the North Fork of the New River (DNRP, 1993; DPEP, 1999a). Sediment chemical concentrations have been observed at levels believed to harm aquatic organisms (DNRP, 1993; DPEP, 1999a). However, no relationship was found between contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue and those levels found in the sediment (DNRP, 1994a).

An original restoration plan (DNRP, 1994b) and an updated plan (DPEP, 2001) both considered several elements for restoring the waterway including: sediment dredging, shoreline revegetation, enhanced freshwater flows, stormwater quality improvements, trash and debris removal, and public outreach/participation. Over one million dollars of state funding and millions in County and local government resources have been spent on implementing these initiatives since 1996.

A large portion of the restoration funding was focused on sediment removal via dredging because of potentially harmful effects to aquatic organisms (DNRP, 1993; DPEP, 1999a). A study (DPEP, 1999b) showed an increase in the presence of aquatic organism and a reduction of the pollutant levels within North Fork of the New River sediments after the 1997 dredging of a remnant wastewater treatment ‘sludge blanket’ north of Broward Boulevard. Subsequent dredging has focused on removing contaminated sediments and shoals from stormwater inputs and providing more tidal exchange and freshwater flow.

Overall, the North Fork of the New River restoration initiative should have improved its fish habitat compared to conditions found during the initial DNRP (1994) water and sediment quality assessment of the New River Basin. As larger areas of the North Fork were dredged, it is likely sediment quality improved river-wide over the last two years. Sediment chemistry samples have been collected to quantify the improvements but are currently being analyzed and not reported in this document. In addition, several stormwater retrofit projects have occurred as part of Broward County and the City of Fort Lauderdale respective neighborhood and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. Some work still remains but these public infrastructure improvements are designed to improve the quality of stormwater entering the river and provide an additional habitat improvement for the fish populations.

SFWMD CONTROL STRUCTURE

S-33

%U

Swap Shop

Sistrunk Blvd.

I-95

CS

X R

AIL

RO

AD

Mar

tin L

uthe

r K

ing

Blv

d. (N

W 3

1st A

ve.)

Broward Blvd.

Sunrise Blvd.

NW

27t

h A

ve.

a) 1947

b) 2000

N

EW

S

0 0.5 1 MilesNote: scale bar for b) 2000 only

Figure 3. Aerial Photographs of North Fork of New River from a) 1947 and b) 2000. The streetnames and CSX (railroad) lines in 1947 (a) refer to their present location.

5

6

2. Trace Metals of Concern Based on guidance documents, fish tissue studies, and fish consumption advisories prepared by federal, state, and research institutions, the trace metals constituents commonly investigated that have the potential to cause the greatest health risk in humans are: mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead. Mercury is the constituent of particular concern in South Florida water bodies, and in South Florida fish tissue studies. Arsenic was not previously studied in the North Fork of the New River hardhead catfish and blue crab toxicological study (DNRP, 1994a). Arsenic will be addressed in this investigation.

a. Mercury Methylmercury, an organic form of mercury, can accumulate in fish to levels that may be toxic to humans who eat them regularly over a prolonged period of time. The species of fish most susceptible to this accumulation of methylmercury are those that feed primarily on other fish such as largemouth bass. This is a problem in many areas of Florida and in many other areas throughout the United States and the world. The level of mercury in an individual fish depends upon its age and diet. Older, larger fish usually contain more mercury than younger, smaller fish from the same water. The amount of mercury in a fish’s diet depends upon what it eats and the level of contamination of the water it which it lives. Most of the mercury to which fish are exposed is deposited from the atmosphere by air currents and rain. Municipal incinerators, medical waste incinerators, the combustion of fossil fuels, mining and smelting are the principal sources of atmospheric mercury. These sources may be nearby or on the other side of the globe. Efforts are under way to control Florida sources. Whether mercury from the atmosphere will be incorporated into the diet of a fish depends mainly upon water quality. Mercury is a naturally occurring element for which human beings are believed to have some tolerance. Guidance concentrations for consumption are established by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The current consumption rate is two meals per week. Consumption should be limited to one meal per week for fish with concentrations greater than 0.1 parts per million of mercury in edible flesh (FDOH, 2005).

b. Arsenic Arsenic may exist in both an organic and inorganic form. The inorganic form is associated with toxicity. Fish and shellfish can bioaccumulate arsenic from the waterbody, but the arsenic in fish is mostly in an organic form that is not harmful (EPA, 2000). The organic forms of arsenic are absorbed and excreted unchanged in humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established human health criteria for fish consumption based on inorganic arsenic. The criteria are calculations based on factors such as risk factors, body weight, fish consumption rate, and the percent of total arsenic in the fish tissue that is inorganic (EPA, 2004a).

7

II. Methodology

A. Fish and Crab Consumption Survey Results and Data Application A fish and crab consumption survey was conducted to determine which species were being caught by local fishers on the North Fork of the New River. While similar to a creel survey, fishing time and effort were not part of this survey. Additional information was collected to try and determine size of the species that were caught. However, this data proved to be quite varied and qualitative at best. The parts of fish consumed was another category of information collected to understand how fishers were preparing and consuming their catch. Additional information (e.g., fish eaten from other areas) was also collected for future reference should a broader scale human health study be performed. This survey was formulated by making modifications to several EPA fish surveys (EPA, 1998). Copies of the blank survey forms can be found in Appendix A. Overall, the survey data revealed specific fish species to be initially targeted for collection. The number one species (mullet, Figure 4) was mentioned by 51 of 54 respondents and became the highest priority species to collect. Bream (or sunfish) were the second most dominant ‘species’ collected (Appendix B). One concern with the results of the survey included the possible lumping of cichlids and tilapia species with bream by local fishers. Thus, it was decided to collect the most dominant of the ‘bream-like’ species. Appendix C lists the survey data based on estimated catch size. Popular sport fishes, snook and peacock bass, came in third and fourth respectively in the survey (Figure 4). With zero responses for largemouth bass, it is very probable the two species (peacock and largemouth) may have been confused. As such, both bass species and snook were on the placed on the original high priority list as ‘top-of-the-line’ predator species. These types of fish are believed to have the highest potential for high mercury concentrations because they have the highest biomagnification factor (FSU, 1998). In addition, 21 of 54 respondents reported catching freshwater catfish which had not been reported previously for this waterway. Thus, an initial effort was to collect the most common catfish from the previous study (DNRP, 1994a), the hardhead catfish (Arius felis). The most popular parts of the fish eaten were reported to be the fillet (Appendix D), apparently with the skin on (Figure 5a). Overall, frying fish was the most popular home cooking methodology with boiling fish ranked second (Figure 5b). Both of these methodologies may explain why skin was chosen at the same rate as the fillet. However, the inclusion of skin in samples has reportedly lowered metal concentrations (USGS, 2000). Thus, the fillet without the skin was the fish part sampled for this study to determine maximum potential exposure concentrations in the fish fillets.

Figure 4. Summary of Species Caught by Local Fishers in North Fork of the New River. These data are based on the survey's respondentsbelief of what fish species they were catching. Thus, some species (e.g., largemouth bass) were likely misrepresented. A total of 54 fisherswere questioned for this survey (See Appendices A and B).

Species

Mullet

Bream/Sunfish Snook

Peacock

Bass

Freshwater Catfis

h

Sheepsh

eadOsca

rsJacks

Blue Crab

Redfish

Sand Perc

h

Nile PerchTilapia

Tarpon

Hardhea

d Catfi

sh

Largem

outh B

ass

Blue Tilapia

Spotted Tilapia

Mayan C

ichlids Shad

# of

res

pond

ents

cat

chin

g sp

ecie

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

8

Figure 5. Summary of Fish Consumption Patterns of Fishers Surveyed Along North Forkof the New River. Fishers were asked what part of the fish they consumed and how they cooked the fish before consumption (Appendix A). Survey respondents were able to choosemore than one category if they typically ate more than one body part (e.g., fillet and bone)and/or cooked their fish in a variety of ways (e.g., boiled a fish one meal and fried a fish fortheir next meal, see Appendix D).

Body PartsFillet/M

eatSkin

Head Bone Eggs

# of

res

pond

ents

con

sum

ing

body

par

t

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cooking Method

FriedBoile

dBake

dSoup

Grilled

Steamed

# of

res

pond

ents

coo

king

0

10

20

30

40

50

a) Body Parts

b) Cooking Methodology

9

10

B. Sample Collection On November 18, 2003, the Environmental Monitoring Division (EMD) of the DPEP conducted field sampling on the North Fork of the New River. Two 16 foot Jon Boats with electro fishing equipment, supplied and staffed by the FFWCC, were deployed to the two sampling areas (northwest and southeast of Reverend Samuel Delevoe Park) on the North Fork of the New River (Figure 1). The targeted species were: peacock bass (Cichla ocellarius), Florida largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), common snook (Centropomus undecimalis), black mullet (Mugil cephalus), and hardhead catfish (Arius felis). Electro fishing began at 1030 hours and concluded at 1250 hours when it was determined that field personnel had collected a sufficient number of representative species within the proper size range from the respective sampling sites. Upon return to the launch area, the fish collected were weighed and measured, bagged and labeled, and put on ice in coolers for transport to the EMD laboratory for processing.

C. Sample Processing Two samples of muscle tissue weighing approximately 0.5 grams each were cut from the anterior and posterior dorsal edges of the fish (Figure 6).

Figure 6. A Digital Photograph Taken of the Sample Preparation Procedure Depicting a Dorsal Dissection.

A third sample was taken from 10 fish and shipped in ice packed coolers overnight to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Central Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida for comparison and verification of EMD analyses. One of the 0.5 gram tissue samples was split; each portion was placed in an appropriately labeled, tared polypropylene class “A” graduated digestion vessel and weighed to the nearest 0.01 grams on a Mettler analytical balance. All data was recorded in a laboratory logbook. The remaining piece from each sample was placed in a 100 ml WHIRL-PAK® bag and frozen for possible future analyses.

11

D. Sample Preparation & Analysis The fish tissue samples were analyzed for mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead. Two separate sample digestion procedures were performed. One set of fresh fish tissue samples was digested in acid utilizing a 48 position graphite block digestion system (DigiPrep)(method SW 846-3051 [US EPA, 2002]) to obtain a liquid sample. A mercury digestion was performed on the other set of fresh fish tissue samples using the same equipment and a similar digestion procedure that involves the addition of a potassium permanganate solution used to retain the mercury in the sample in a stabilized form.

Mercury analysis was performed on a Perkin Elmer FIMS 100 Flow Injected Mercury System (Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption). The method detection limit for mercury (solid matrix) established by EMD for their instrumentation and methodology is 0.053 parts per million (method SW 846-7471A [US EPA, 2002]). Metals analyses for the remaining parameters were performed using two analytical instruments. Arsenic was analyzed on a Perkin Elmer 5100 Zeeman Atomic Absorbtion Spectrophotometer (Heated Graphite Atomization). The method detection limit for arsenic (solid matrix) established by EMD for their instrumentation and methodology is 0.556 parts per million (method SW 846-7060A [US EPA, 2002]). Cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy using a Perkin Elmer Optima 3000 XL ICP. The method detection limits for these metals (solid matrix) (method SW 846-6010B [US EPA, 2002]) established by EMD for their instrumentation and methodology are as follows: cadmium = 0.341 parts per million, chromium = 0.287 parts per million, nickel = 1.31 parts per million, and lead = 1.06 parts per million.

E. Data Analysis The results of the EMD analyses were compared to the results generated by the FDEP Central Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida for comparison and verification. FDEP marks sample results that are between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit with data qualifiers. Qualified data will not be reported for purposes of this study.

All data from this current study will be compared to the initial DNRP toxicological study (DNRP, 1994a). Mercury (and other metal) concentrations will be compared to the levels of safe human consumption set by the FDOH, the EPA, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

This report was reviewed by Dr. Joseph Sekerke of the Tallahassee office of the FDOH and Howard Rosen, Environmental Administrator, from the Broward FDOH office for concurrence.

Data generated from this study was utilized by Dr. Serkerke of FDOH and Ted Lange of the FFWCC in compiling an update to the Florida Fish Consumption Advisory (FDOH 2005).

12

III. Results & Discussion

A. Species Collected The native species collected by the DPEP on the North Fork of the New River were: the black mullet, the common snook, the Florida largemouth bass, and the big mouth sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor) (Figure 7). A note of particular interest is that the big mouth sleeper is normally found in saltwater but is able to survive in freshwater. It is quite distinct compared to other freshwater species and is relatively uncommon to Florida (FFWCC 2000). The non-native species collected by the DPEP on the North Fork of the New River were: the blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus), the spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae), and the Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) (Figure 8). Appendix E lists a summary of all fish collected during the study. The proposed difference, in the species identified by the fish and crab consumption survey and the actual species that were collected, was that the anglers that were interviewed most likely misidentified the exotic species (blue tilapia, spotted tilapia, and Mayan cichlid) as one of the targeted native species.

B. Mercury Data Thirty-one (31) of the 58 samples analyzed had mercury levels below the EMD method detection limit of 0.053 parts per million. The remaining 27 samples had detectable levels of mercury. Figure 9 depicts the graphical data of samples that had detectable levels of mercury.

13

Figure 7. The Native Fish Species Collected on the North Fork of the New River.

Florida Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus)

Black Mullet (Mugil cephalus)

Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis )

Big Mouth Sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor)

14

Figure 8. The Non-Native Fish Species Collected on the North Fork of the New River.

Mayan Cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus)

Spotted Tilapia (Tilapia mariae)

Blue Tilapia (Oreochromis aureus)

15

Figure 9. Mercury Concentrations in Fish Samples Collected from the North Fork of the New River. Thirty one (31) of the 58 samples analyzed had mercury levels below the Environmental Monitoring Division method detection limit (0.053 ppm). Average concentrations per species are shown in parts per million (ppm).

Legend: The solid line denotes the FDOH Safe Consumption Limit of 0.1 mg/kg of mercury.

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

BigMouth

Sleeper

Snook MayanCichlid

SpottedTilapia

BlackMullet

BlueTilapia

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n m

g/kg

(ppm

)

16

Table I. FDOH Fish Consumption Advisories for the Fish Species Collected from the North Fork of the New River. All meals are six ounces of cooked fish. This is the same amount of fish as eight ounces of raw fish. The Sensitive Population includes women of childbearing age and young children. The General Population includes all other fish consumers. The FDOH does not recommend consuming fish more than twice a week because that is the recommendation of the American Heart Association. Note: Snook is depicted in Figure 9 having an average mercury concentration greater than 0.1 mg/kg. However, the median value is 0.08 mg/kg which allows it to be classified as “two meals per week” for the sensitive population. Mayan Cichlid is depicted as being below the 0.1 mg/kg threshold. However, the sample population was only five and it was suggested by the FDOH to classify it as “one meal per week” for the sensitive population.

Species Sensitive Population General Population Big Mouth Sleeper one meal per week two meals per week Black Mullet two meals per week two meals per week Blue Tilapia two meals per week two meals per week Mayan Cichlid one meal per week two meals per week Snook two meals per week two meals per week Spotted Tilapia two meals per week two meals per week

C. Arsenic Data The EPA has established calculations to determine the human health criteria for fish consumption based on the inorganic form of arsenic. The calculations are based on factors such as risk factors, body weight, fish consumption rate, and the percent of total arsenic in the fish tissue that is inorganic. Criteria based on inorganic arsenic are difficult to regulate and require additional resources for analysis (EPA, 2004a). EMD analyzed the fish samples for total arsenic which consists of both the organic form and the inorganic form of arsenic. Therefore, EMD data cannot be applied with confidence to these calculations. There are many uncertainties in the criteria derived from these calculations based on a lack of acceptable and useable data (EPA, 2003).

The method detection limit for total arsenic (solid matrix) established by EMD for their instrumentation and methodology is 0.556 parts per million. Fifty-five (55) of the 58 fish analyzed for total arsenic were non-detected. The three detectable concentrations (0.658, 0.592, and 0.585 parts per million) were found in black mullet.

D. Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel, and Lead Data These metals were not detected in all 58 fish samples. All results obtained were also below the FDA’s Environmental Chemical Contaminant and Pesticide Tolerances, Action Levels, and Guidance Levels (FDA, 2001).

17

E. Data Comparison and Verification The results of the fish samples that were analyzed by the FDEP Central Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida for comparison and verification of EMD analyses show good correlation. The FDEP mercury results showed reportable values for five out of the ten samples analyzed. The mercury results of these samples appear in Figure 10. The other five samples had mercury values that were between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit. FDEP listed these values with data qualifiers. Qualified data will not be reported for purposes of this study. The FDEP results for all ten samples for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead were all below the established FDEP method detection limits (non-detected) for these analytes.

Figure 10. Comparison and Verification of EMD Mercury Analysis. EMD mercury results plotted versus FDEP mercury results. Graph includes only samples that have a mercury concentration equal to or greater than the EMD MDL. Data not included are values that are between the FDEP MDL and PQL (practical quantitation limit).

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

84360 84372 84358 84374 84364

Sample #

Con

cent

ratio

n m

g/kg

, (pp

m)

EMD Result

DEP Result

IV. Conclusion Based on the latest FDOH Florida Fish Consumption Advisory consumption of fish from the North Fork of the New River should be limited to two meals per week for the general population. For the sensitive population (young children and women of childbearing age), consumption should be limited to one meal per week for the Big Mouth Sleeper, and the Mayan Cichlid; and two meals per week for the Black Mullet, Blue Tilapia, Snook, and the Spotted Tilapia.

Concentrations of other trace metals analyzed (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead) were also found to be low or below levels of detection. Based on literature from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food & Drug

18

Administration, there is not a human health concern for consumption of fish from the North Fork of the New River based on trace metal accumulation.

V. Recommendations Urban fisheries in southeast Florida are generate millions of hours of fishing pleasure for thousands of anglers and collectively represent resources valued in excess of $35 million annually (FFWCC 2001). Urban fisheries programs can provide fishing opportunities for mobility-impaired anglers, provide healthful recreation, often increase the value of aquatic resources and improve the quality of life in towns and cities, and recruit new anglers (Schramm, 1999). A major socioeconomic factor, which was obtained from the North Fork of the New River fish and crab consumption survey data, is that the fish that are caught are consumed as a sustaining food source. Based on these unique socioeconomic and ecological considerations, fish communities in metropolitan southeast Florida urban rivers and canals are valuable and worthy of protection, active management, and continued study.

Fish samples from the North Fork of the New River should be routinely monitored for metal bioaccumulation and fish consumption advisories should be reported to the public.

The data in this report was reviewed by the FDOH Tallahassee and Broward County offices. The FDOH concurs with our conclusions and have used the data in their fish consumption advisories (FDOH 2005). Persons who are interested in fish consumption and human health should routinely check with the FDOH for updates on advisories.

VI. Acknowledgements The EMD is extremely grateful for the field assistance and expertise of Barron Moody and Ralph LaPrairie of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission during the sampling phase of this project. The EMD would also like to thank Ted Lange the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for his collaborative efforts.

The EMD of the DPEP acknowledges Kathryn Brackett and the staff of the FDEP Central Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida for their hard work, diligent effort, and quick response in analyzing split samples.

Many thanks go out to Dr. Joseph Sekerke of the Tallahassee office of the FDOH for assisting in formulating the fish survey and reviewing this report and to Howard Rosen, Environmental Administrator, from the Broward FDOH office for his assistance in formulating the fish survey and final communication to the public.

The EMD would also like to acknowledge McKinley Hudson for his hard work in conducting the fish survey, and all the survey participants for all their valuable input.

19

VII. Literature Cited Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection (DNRP). 1994a. Toxicological Screenings of the Hard-Head Catfish (Arius felis) and the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) in the North Fork of the New River, Broward County, Florida. Technical Report Series, TR 94-08. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection (DNRP). 1994b. New River Restoration Plan. Technical Report Series, TR 94-04. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. http://www.broward.org/wti01300.pdf. Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection (DPEP). 1999a. North Fork of the New River Restoration Projects: Final Report (submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection). Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection (DPEP). 1999b. North Fork of the New River Restoration Projects: North Fork of the New River Benthic Macroinvertebrate Recruitment Study (submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection). Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection (DPEP). 2001. New River Restoration Plan Update: Activities and Accomplishments from 1991 to 2000. Technical Report Series, TR 01-01. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. http://www.broward.org/wti01600.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidance for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys, EPA-823-B-98-007, Office of Water. http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish/fishguid.pdf. (22 August, 2003). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition, Office of Water. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Technical Summary of Information Available on the Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Aquatic Organisms, Office of Water. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/ecopro/watershd/standard/arsenic.htm. (1 March, 2004).

20

United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA). 2001. Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Controls Guidance. Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2005. Your guide to eating fish caught in Florida. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/fishconsumptionadvisories/Fish_consumption_guide.pdf (28 February, 2005). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee (FFWCC). 2000. Newsletter for the South Florida Canal and Urban Pond Angler: Volume 2; January through March 2000. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee (FFWCC). 2001. The Fisheries of Metropolitan Southeast Florida Canals with Special Reference to Exotic Species. Florida State University (FSU). 1998. Natural match: mercury and the everglades. Florida’s mercury menace issue. http://www.research.fsu.edu/ResearchR/fallwinter97/features/everglades.html (8 June, 2004). Schramm, Harold L. 1999. Urban Fisheries Programs: Can We Afford Them? Chattanooga, Tennessee. 1999 Southern Division of American Fisheries Midyear Meeting. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Mercury in the environment. http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00. (8 June, 2004).

21

APPENDIX A

Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection’s

Fish and Crab Consumption Survey: North Fork of the New River

22

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FISH and CRAB CONSUMPTION SURVEY: NORTH FORK NEW RIVER,

DATE:______________________________ SURVEY #:___________________TIME:______________________________ INTERVIEWER:______________LOCATION:_________________________ ___________________________________________________

TO INTERVIEWER: Approach the potential interviewee in a friendly manner and begin your conversationincluding: Hello, my name is (state your name) and I am conducting a survey for the Broward CountyDepartment of Planning and Environmental Protection on what kinds of fish and crabs people are catchingand eating from the North Fork New River and the large lake at Rev. Samuel L. Delevoe Park. May I askyou some questions about the types of fish and crabs you may be catching? If they say no, thank them andmove on to the next person. If they say yes, state that this survey is being conducted in accordance with thePrivacy Act of 1974, therefore you are not obligated to answer any questions if you find it to be an invasionof your privacy. Also ask if they have been interviewed by DPEP recently about fish consumption, if so,thank them and move on to next person.

DEMOGRAPHICS :

1. What is the gender of the interviewee (circle)? FEMALE or MALE

2. What is your birthday (if the person does not want to answer; put adult, teenager, or child)?

3. What is your zip code (see map on page 9 if necessary)?

4. Which city, neighborhood, and/or subdivision do you live in and how long have you livedthere?

5. What racial/ethnic group do you consider yourself to be in (circle, if no answer continue on toquestion 6)?African-AmericanAsianCaribbean (non-Hispanic, e.g., Haiti, Jamaica, etc.)Caribbean (Hispanic/Latin, e.g., Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc.)CaucasianHispanic/Latin (Mexico)Hispanic/Latin (Central America)Hispanic/Latin (South America)Other: Please list _________________________

23

FISHING INFORMATION:

6. Do you normally fish and/or crab at this spot or in other parts of North Fork New River (ifother areas, list if possible on North Fork map on page 10)?

7. How long have you fished and/or crabbed on the North Fork New River (approximate monthsor years)? Have you noticed any changes in the types and sizes of the fish you have caught overtime?

8. About how often do you fish and/or crab on North Fork New River (all places, circle)?a. 5 to 7 days a week b. 2 to 4 days a week c. once a weekd. 2 to 4 times a month e. once a month f. 2 to 4 times a yearg. other________________

9. What kinds and sizes of fish and do you normally catch in the North Fork New River (try toget approx. size with species identified)?

24

10. Do you fish at the large lake in Rev. Samuel L. Delevoe Park? If so, about how often (circle)?a. 5 to 7 days a week b. 2 to 4 days a week c. once a weekd. 2 to 4 times a month e. once a month f. 2 to 4 times a yearg. other________________

11. How long have you fished at the large lake in Rev. Samuel L. Delevoe Park (approximatemonths or years)?

12. What kinds and sizes of fish and do you normally catch at the large lake in Rev. Samuel L.Delevoe Park (try to get approximate size with species identified)? Have you noticed anychanges in the types and sizes of the fish you have caught over time?

13. Do you fish and/or crab in other areas of Broward County and/or Florida? If so, about howoften (circle)? a. 5 to 7 days a week b. 2 to 4 days a week c. Once a weekd. 2 to 4 times a month e. once a month f. 2 to 4 times a yearg. other________________ h. never

14. How long have you fished and/or crabbed in other areas of Broward County and/or Florida(approximate months or years)? Have you noticed any changes in the types and sizes of the fishyou have caught over time?

15. What kinds and sizes of fish and/or crabs do you normally catch in other areas of BrowardCounty and/or Florida (try to get approximate size with species identified)?

25

FISH and CRAB CONSUMPTION:

16. Do you eat fish and/or crabs from (circle all that apply)?

North Fork New River Delevoe Park Lake Other Areas/Broward County Other Areas/Florida Store/Market (fresh) Store/Market (canned)

Other:__________________

From which area do you eat the most fish and/or crabs?

17. Do others (family/friends) eat the fish and/or crabs you catch from (circle all that apply)?

North Fork New River Delevoe Park Lake Other Areas/Broward County Other Areas/Florida Other:__________________

From which area do they eat the most fish and/or crabs?

18. Do any children eat the fish/crabs you catch? If so, what are the approximate age of thechildren?

19. Do you have any comments or concerns on fishing and eating fish from the North Fork NewRiver and/or Rev. Samuel L. Delevoe Park? Would you like to receive the results of this survey?

NORTH FORK NEW RIVER/ DELEVOE PARK (CIRCLE WHICH WATER BODY) FISH CONSUMPTION TABLE

SURVEY #___________________

TYPE OF FISH/CRAB

Avg. # of meals per month

Fillet/ Meat

Skin

Head

Eggs

Bones

Other (list)

How do you cook it? (e.g., fried, grilled, soup, etc.)

BLUE CRAB

MULLET

>SAND PERCH=

SNOOK

CREVALLE JACK (JACKS)

26


SURVEY #___________________

TYPE OF FISH/CRAB


Fillet/ Meat

Skin

Head

Eggs

Bones

Other (list)


SHEEPSHEAD

HARDHEAD CATFISH (NORTH FORK ONLY)

FRESHWATER CATFISH

PEACOCK BASS

LARGEMOUTH BASS

27


SURVEY #___________________

TYPE OF FISH/CRAB


Fillet/ Meat

Skin

Head

Eggs

Bones

Other (list)


>BREAM= >SUNFISH= (BLUEGILLS, ETC.)

TILAPIA >AFRICAN BREAM= >NILE PERCH=

OSCARS

MAYAN CICHLIDS

SHAD

28


SURVEY #___________________

TYPE OF FISH/CRAB


Fillet/ Meat

Skin

Head

Eggs

Bones

Other (list)


OTHER: LIST

OTHER: LIST

OTHER: LIST

OTHER: LIST

OTHER: LIST

29

I95

I595

I75

FLOR

IDA

TPKE

US2 7

GRIFFIN RD

SHERIDAN STTAFT ST

PINES BLVD

STIRLING RD

SAWGRASS EXPY

N SR 7S SR7

JOHNSON ST

W SAMPLE RD

SW 45TH ST

W SUNRISE BLVD

PEMBROKE RD

SR84

LYONS RD

W BROWARD BLVD

W ATLANTIC BLVD

WILES RD

S US27

ROCK I SL AND RD

NW 31 ST AV E

W OAKLAND PARK BLVD

NW 44TH ST

N UNI VE R SI TY DR

W COMMERCIAL BLVD

ARVIDA PKY

RIVERSIDE DR

S FLAMING

O RD

N DI

XIE

HWY

S POST RDBA

YVIE

W D

R

N ANDR E WS AV E

MIRAMAR PKY

WES

TON

RD

S PIN E I SLAN D RD

DAVI E RD

N NO

B HI

LL R

D

RE D RD

SW 10TH ST

W COPANS RD

W HILLSBORO BLVD

DAVIE BLVD

N FE

DERA

L HW

Y

S UN

IVE R

SITY

DR

HIATUS RD

SW 41ST ST

CORA

L RI

DGE

DR

PETERS RD

HOMESTEAD TPKE EXT

NE 6 T H AV E

ROYAL PALM BLVD

HOLMBERG RD

BANKS RD

NW 62ND ST

SOUTHGATE BLVD

W MCNAB RD

INDIAN TRCE

NW 19TH ST

NOVA DR

NW 6TH ST

N PA

RK R

D

SUNSET STRIP

NOB HILL RD

N OC

EAN

DR

N P OW

E R LIN E RD

N 46TH AVE

N 56TH AVE

NE 62ND ST

N US27

NE 3R D AV ESW

4T H A VE

NW 136TH AVE

N PALM AVE

S O

CEAN

DR

N FLA MING

O RD

NE 56TH ST

N 72N D AVE

NW 2 1S T AV E

SW 1 54TH AVE

HILL

SBO

RO M

ILE

FLAMING

O RD

SW 101S T AVE

SE 17TH ST

S DOUGLAS RD

SW 14TH ST

SW 160TH AVE

E SUNRISE BLVD

SW 172ND AVE

RAVEN SWOO

D RD

NW 56TH AVE

N O

CEAN

BLV

D

SW 81S T AVE

CLEARY BLVD

SW 184TH AVE

NE 13TH ST

NE 48TH ST

S O

CEAN

BLV

D

W HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD

NW 9T H AV E

SW 3

0TH

AVE

ELLER DR

N HI ATUS R D

RAMBLEWOOD DR

W PROSPECT RD

COLL

EGE

AVE

WASHINGTON ST

RIVERLAND RD

DAVIE RD EX

NW 1

6 0TH

AV E

SW 1

0 0TH

AV E

S FE

DERA

L HW

Y

SE 24TH ST

E DANIA BEACH BLVD

NW 50TH ST

SW 9TH AV E

SW 4

0TH

AVE

SW 31 S T AVE

S DIXI E HWY

LYON

S RD

S

NW 7TH AVE

NW 48TH ST

E HILLSBORO BLVD

HOLLYWOOD BLVD

SW 72ND AVE

JOHNSON RD

DIXIE

HW

Y

SE 10TH ST

HIATUS RD

N SR7HI

A TU S

RD

N US27

I75

SR84

N OC

EAN

BLVD

N F LAMING

O RD

W MCNAB RD

N FE

DERA

L HW

Y

HIAT

US R

D

S DI XIE HWY

N S R7S SR7

NOB

HILL

RD

NW 9TH AVE

3302933027

3333233331

33312

33025

33024

33064

33330

33311

33309

33067

33327

33023

33326

3331733324

33069

33076

33325

33328

33314

33063

33073

33065

33021

33321

33071

33004

33442

33323

33319

33060

33068

33020

33322

33028

33062

33315

33313

33351

33308

33019

33009

33441

33334

33026

33316

33304

33066

33301

3330533306

N

EW

S

Zip Code Map for Eastern Broward County for use in North Fork New River Fish and Crab Consumption Survey.

0 4 8 12 Miles

30

SISTRUNK

MIDDLE

C

WA

DAYTON

MARJORIE A DAVIS

AUBURN

ATEAU PARK

EVA

SUN

RIS

E B

LVD

NT

FRANKLIN

GRAND

LAS OLASARGYL

DR CALVIN H SHIRLEY

ARPEIKA

LAU

DER

DA

LE

4TH

1ST

15T H

10TH

36TH

35TH

15TH

4THA

CC

ESS1ST

10TH

17TH

13TH

21ST

7TH

13 TH

1ST

25 TH

5TH

10TH

1ST

28T

11 T H

5TH

1ST

27TH

7TH

11TH

34TH

9TH

7TH

9TH

33R

D

16TH7TH

SISTRUNK

34TH

13TH

11TH

10TH

33RD

35TH

29TH

28TH

14TH

6TH

2ND

5TH

23R

D

15TH

5TH5TH

24TH

29TH 3RD

4TH

36TH

7TH

12TH

25TH

SUN

SET

23RD

28TH 6TH

4TH

29TH

30 T H30TH

9TH

1ST

8TH

5TH5TH

9TH

10TH

1ST

8TH

24TH 17TH

4TH

18T H

25TH

5TH

11TH

32ND

2ND

27TH

11TH

6TH

8TH

5TH

20TH

10TH

6TH

28TH

2ND

3

4TH

3RD

6TH30TH

27TH

26T H

9TH

7TH

22N

D

16 TH

24TH

30 TH

14TH

9TH

4TH

29TH

I95

2ND

15TH

22ND

3RD

34TH

8TH

12TH10TH

20TH

12TH

9TH

33R

D

5TH

7TH

4TH

9TH

11TH

I95

21ST

3RD

5TH

9TH

22ND

2ND

1

6TH

9TH

þ

N

EW

S

0 1000 2000 3000 FeetParks and/or Schools

Water

Streets

North Fork New River Fisher Location Map for use in Fish and Crab Consumption Survey

31

S33 Control Structureþ

32

APPENDIX B

North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Species Catch Numbers as Reported by Survey Respondents

Appendix B. North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Species Catch Numbers as Reported by Fishers Surveyed.Survey Blue Mullet Sand Snook Jacks Sheepshead Hardhead Freshwater Peacock Largemouth Bream Blue Spotted Oscars Mayan Shad Nile Red Tilapia Tarpon

# Crab Perch Catfish Catfish Bass Bass Sunfish Tilapia Tilapia Cichlids Perch Fish1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 16 17 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 110 1 1 111 1 1 1 112 1 113 114 1 1 115 1 1 1 116 1 1 1 117 1 1 1 1 117 1 1 1 1 1 118 1 1 119 1 1 1 120 1 1 1 1 121 1 1 1 1 122 1 1 1 1 123 1 1 1 1 1 124 1 1 1 1 125 1 1 1 1 1 126 1 1 1 1 127 1 1 128 1 1 1 129 1 1 130 1 1 1 131 1 1 1 1 1 132 1 1 133 1 1 134 1 1 1 1 135 1 136 1 1 1 1 1 137 1 1 1 1 138 1 1 1 1 139 1 1 1 140 1 1 141 1 1 1 1 142 1 143 1 1 1 144 1 1 1 1 1 145 1 1 146 1 147 1 1 1 1 148 1 1 1 1 149 1

33

Appendix B (cont.). North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Species Catch Numbers as Reported by Fishers Surveyed.. Survey Blue Mullet Sand Snook Jacks Sheepshead Hardhead Freshwater Peacock Largemouth Bream Blue Spotted Oscars Mayan Shad Nile Red Tilapia Tarpon

# Crab Perch Catfish Catfish Bass Bass Sunfish Tilapia Tilapia Cichlids Perch Fish50 151 1 1 1 1 152 1 1 1 1 153 1 1 154 1 1 1 1

Catch # 4 51 2 31 9 13 0 21 30 0 42 0 0 12 0 0 1 4 1 1

34

35

APPENDIX C

North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Size Caught as Reported by Survey Respondents

Appendix C. North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Size Table Based on Survey Respondents.Survey Blue Mullet Sand Snook Jacks Sheepshead Hardhead Freshwater Peacock Largemouth Bream Blue Spotted Oscars Mayan Shad Nile Red Tilapia Tarpon

# Crab Perch Catfish Catfish Bass Bass Sunfish Tilapia Tilapia Cichlids Perch Fish1 4-5" ? 8-12" ?2 5" 5-10" ? ? ?3 5 " 8-18" 6-12" 12-15" 12" 8-12" 6-8"4 8-15" 8-10" 12-18" 12-18" 8-15 " 8-12"5 5" 8-15" 8-15" 5-8"6 5-8"7 1/2-15 lbs 1/2 -15 lbs 1/2-15 lbs 1/2-15 lbs

8 1-4 lbs 1-4 lbs 1-4 lbs 1-4 lbs 1-4 lbs

9 3 lbs 2-3 lbs 5 lbs

10 1/2-2 lbs 2-5 lbs 1/2-1 lbs11 1-6 lbs 1-6 lbs 1-6 lbs 1-6 lbs12 3 lbs 3 lbs

13 1-3 lbs14 ? ? ?15 1-5 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-5 lbs

16 2 lbs 3-5 lbs 2 lbs small17 1-5 lbs 3-8 lbs 1-3 lbs 1-10 lbs 1/2-2 lbs17 1-3 lbs 2-5 lbs 3-10 lbs 1-2 lbs 1 lb 1-2 lbs18 small small small19 small medium small small20 1-3 lbs 5 lbs 5 lbs 3 lbs 6 lbs21 1-3 lbs 3-5 lbs 3-10 lbs 1-2 lbs 1-2 lbs22 2-5 lbs 1-8 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-5 lbs small23 1-5 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-3 lbs 2-10 lbs 1/2-1 lbs 1/2-1 lbs24 1-5 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-3 lbs 2-8 lbs 1/2-1 lbs25 1-5 lbs 2-6 lbs 2-5 lbs 1-3 lbs 2-8 lbs 1/2-1 lbs26 1-4 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-2 lbs 1-3 lbs 1/2-1 lbs27 1-3 lbs 1-3 lbs 1/2-1 lbs28 1-3 lbs 1-3 lbs 1-4 lbs small29 2 lbs 1 lb small30 2-4 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-3 lbs31 1-5 lbs 2-8 lbs 1-6 lbs 2-6 lbs 1/2-1 lbs 1/2-1 lbs32 1-4 lbs 1-3 lbs 1/2-1 lbs33 medium small small34 1-3 lbs 2-8 lbs 1-5 lbs 1-3 lbs 1-6 lbs35 1 lb ?36 2-4 lbs 2-3 lbs 1-3 lbs 1-3 lbs small small37 small medium medium small small38 medium medium medium large small39 ? ? ? ?40 1-3 lbs 1-3 lbs small41 1-5 lbs 3-5 lbs 1-7 lbs small small42 ? ?43 1-4 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-2 lbs 1 lb

44 1-4 lbs 2-6 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-8 lbs 1/2-1 lbs 1/2-1 lbs45 2-6 lbs 2-5 lbs 2-8 lbs46 ? ?47 large large medium small medium

36 35

Appendix C (cont.). North Fork of the New River Fish and Crab Size Table Based on Survey Respondents.Survey Blue Mullet Sand Snook Jacks Sheepshead Hardhead Freshwater Peacock Largemouth Bream Blue Spotted Oscars Mayan Shad Nile Red Tilapia Tarpon

# Crab Perch Catfish Catfish Bass Bass Sunfish Tilapia Tilapia Cichlids Perch Fish48 2-10 lbs 2-12 lbs 2-10 lbs small49 small50 small51 medium large large medium small52 1-4 lbs 2-6 lbs 1-3 lbs 1-2 lbs 1-2 lbs53 medium medium small54 2-10 lbs 3-15 lbs 3-10 lbs 2-10 lbs

Note some respondents answered by weight in punds (lbs.) and some respondents answered by length in inches (").

37

38

APPENDIX D

Summary of Fish and Crab Consumption and Cooking Methods by Fishers of North Fork New River Based on Survey Results

Appendix D. Summary of Fish and Crab Consumption and Cooking Methods for North Fork of the New River Fishers.ShadMayanOscarsSpottedBlueBreamLargemouthPeacockFreshwaterHardheadSheepsheadJacksSnookSandMulletBlue SexEthnic Survey #

CichlidsTilapiaTilapiaSunfishBassBassCatfishCatfishPerchCrabF/M, FDF/M, SNF/M, FDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNFDMAA1

FDSPFDFD, BKBLF/M,SNF/M,SNF/M, SNBLMAA2

FDFDFDF/M, BNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNF/M, SNF/M, SNSN,BNF/M,SNBLMAA3FD,BKBN, FDBN,FDBN, FDFDFDFDFD

F/M, FDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNF/M, SNF/M, BNF/M,SNF/M, SNMAA4BN, FDFDFDFDFDFDBN,FDF/M, SNF/M, SPF/M, SNF/M, SNBLFAA5BN, FDFDFDBN,FD

F/M, SNMAA6FD

F/MF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDF/M,SN, SPF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNSM, BLMAA7FD, BKFDFDBK,FDBK,FDHD, BKFDFD

F/M, BKF/M, SN, HDFDF/M, HD,BNF/M, SNF/M, SN, HDF/M, SNF/M, SNBLMAA8FDFDFD, SPBK,FDEG, BK, GLFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, HD,BNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNBLMH9FDFD, SPHD, FDFDHD, FD

F/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA10FDHD, FD, BKFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNBK, FDF/M, SNMAA11FDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SNFAA12FDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/MFAA13FDFDFD

F/M FDF/M, SNBLMAA14FD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, HDF/M, SNMAA15FDFDFD, SPFD

F/MF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDFDMAA16FDFDFD, BKSP

F/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SN, HDF/M, FDMAA17FDEG, FD, GL

F/M, FDF/M, FDF/MF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNBLMJ17FDFD, GLFD, BKFDFD

F/M, FDF/M, FDF/M, FDF/MBK, BLMCB18FD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SNFAA19FDFDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SN, HDF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA20HD, FDFDFD, SP, BLFD, BKFD

F/M, HDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNFDMAA21

FDFDFDFD, BKF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SN, HDBL, FDMC22

FDFDFDEG, BK, FD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNFDMAA23

FDBK,FDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, HDFDF/M, SNMAA24

FDFDFD, SPFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SN, HDF/M, SNFD, BLFAA25

FDFDBK, FDFD

39

Appendix D (cont.). Summary of Fish and Crab Consumption and Cooking Methods for North Fork of New River Fishers.ShadMayanOscarsSpottedBlueBreamLargemouthPeacockFreshwaterHardheadSheepsheadJacksSnookSandMulletBlue SexEthnic Survey #

CichlidsTilapiaTilapiaSunfishBassBassCatfishCatfishPerchCrabF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNFDFAA26

FDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA27

FDFDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SN,HDF/M,SNBLMAA28

FDFDBK,FDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNFD,BLFAA29

FDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SN, FDMC30

FDHD, FDBK, GLF/M, FDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SN, HDF/M,SNBL, FDMAA31

FDFDFDFD, BKFDF/M, SNF/M, SN, HDFD,BLMC32

FDEG,GL, FDF/M,SNF/M, SNF/M, SNAA33

FDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNBLMAA34

FDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA35

FDFDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNF/M, SNBLFAA36

FDFDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDFDFAA37

FDFDFDF/M, SNFDFDF/M, SN,F/M, SNBLMAA38

FDHD, FDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA39

FDFDFDFDBLF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNFD, BLMAA40

FDFDFDFDF/MF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SNMAA41FDFDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, FDF/M, SNMAA42FDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/MFAA43FDFDHD, BK, FDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMJM44FDFDFDFDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA45FDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNMAA46FDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA47FDFDHD, FDFDFD, BKFD

F/M,SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNMAA48FDFDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M,SNBLFAA49FDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNF/M,SNMAA50FDFDFDFD

SN, HDSN, HDSN, HDSN, HDMAA51FDFDFDFD

F/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNBLMH52FDFDFDFD

40

Appendix D (cont.). Summary of Fish and Crab Consumption and Cooking Methods for North Fork of the New River Fishers.ShadMayanOscarsSpottedBlueBreamLargemouthPeacockFreshwaterHardheadSheepsheadJacksSnookSandMulletBlue SexEthnic Survey #

CichlidsTilapiaTilapiaSunfishBassBassCatfishCatfishPerchCrabF/M, SNF/M, SNSN, HDMAA53

FDFDFDF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M, SNF/M,SNMAA54

FDFDFDFD

Key BoxAfr.AmericanAAEthnic:

HaitianHCaribbeanCBJamaicanJMCaucasianC

MaleMSex:FemaleF

Fillet/MeatF/MBody Parts:SkinSNHeadHDEggsEGBoneBNFriedFDCooking:

BoiledBLBakedBKSoupSP

SteamedSMGrilledGL

41

42

Appendix E. Table of Fish Data from the North Fork of the New River Fish Metals Study (listed in decreasing order of mercury concentration).

84410 Big Mouth Sleeper 0.270 ND 315 280 Franklin Park


84360 Snook 0.215 ND 625 1854 Delevoe Park


84393 Snook 0.156 ND 376 382 Franklin Park



84388 Big Mouth Sleeper 0.132 ND 317 322 Delevoe Park




84402 Largemouth Bass 0.115 ND 212 121 Franklin Park

84368 Largemouth Bass 0.105 ND 205 112 Delevoe Park

84399 Mayan Cichlid 0.095 ND 206 145 Franklin Park




84374 Mayan Cichlid 0.078 ND 261 362 Delevoe Park









84413 Spotted Tilapia ND ND 170 134 Franklin Park

84366 Black Mullet ND ND 500 976 Delevoe Park

84394 Black Mullet ND 0.592 394 495 Franklin Park

84359 Snook ND ND 385 423 Delevoe Park

43

Sample Fish Mercury Arsenic Length Weight Sample

# Species Conc. (ppm) Conc. (ppm) (mm) (g) Location

84406 Mayan Cichlid ND ND 206 179 Franklin Park











84377 Spotted Tilapia ND ND 240 282 Delevoe Park


84379 Blue Tilapia ND ND 185 127 Delevoe Park


84386 Black Mullet ND 0.658 256 123 Delevoe Park








84384 Black Mullet ND 0.585 284 197 Delevoe Park




ND = Non-detected, see text for applicable detection limits.

Note: Results for Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel, and Lead are all ND.

(Not included in table).

Total # of samples = 58

Ave. length (mm) = 304

Ave. weight (g) = 405

Note: Delevoe Park refers to the sampling area from Rev. Samuel Delevoe Park south and east

to Broward Boulevard.

Franklin Park refers to the sampling area from Rev. Samuel Delevoe Park north and west

to Lewis Chisolm Park (NW 27th Avenue bridge).

1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE METALS IN FISH FROM THE NORTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

2. REPORT DATE March 2005

3. CONTRIBUTORS WILLIAM A. BARTO, KEVIN S. CARTER, DR. NANCY I. CRAIG, DR. NANCY J. GASSMAN

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES TR:05-01 6. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

5. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT 115 S. ANDREWS AVENUE, ROOM A-240 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301

7. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

8. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT 115 S. ANDREWS AVENUE, ROOM A-240 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301

9. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED TECHNICAL

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT The North Fork of the New River is an estuary system located in an urbanized area of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida which has undergone significant environmental restoration over the last ten years. A large portion of the restoration focused on the removal of sediments from the river via dredging because of potentially harmful effects to aquatic organisms. Other processes utilized in the restoration of the waterway included: shoreline revegetation enhanced freshwater flows, stormwater quality improvements, trash and debris removal, and public outreach/participation. The North Fork of the New River restoration initiative has improved its fish habitat. A large number of residents, who live in the community, regularly fish along the river and consume the fish they catch as a sustainable food source. The potential for metal accumulation from the consumption of fish from the North Fork of the New River and the associated public health concerns is the subject of this study. In order to assess the potential for adverse public health impacts, a toxicological study was undertaken to analyze mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in Florida largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus), common snook (Centropomus undecimalis), black mullet (Mugil cephalus), big mouth sleeper (Gobiomorus dormitor), blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus), spotted tilapia (Tilapia mariae), and Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) obtained by the Broward County Department of Planning and Environmental Protection (DPEP) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) from the North Fork of the New River. To address potential human risks, the data generated was compared to the Florida Department of Health FDOH) fish consumption advisory limits. 12. KEY WORDS North Fork of the New River toxicology fish health mercury metals

15. NO. OF PAGES 43

13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT UNLIMITED

14. NO. COPIES IN FIRST PRINTING POSTED AT BROWARD.ORG URL:http://www.broward.org/ xxxxxx.pdf

16. COST PER UNIT

metals in fish from the north fork of the …...north fork of the new river sampling areas for fish...

Documents