I følge adresseliste

Dato: 06.11.02
Vår ref.: 02/802-1

Forespørsel om innspill/kommentarer til metodikk for overvåking av effekter i vannsøylen offshore 

SFT inviterer til diskusjonsmøte om program for effektovervåking av vannsøylen relatert til petroleumsvirksomheten offshore

Operatørene offshore er i henhold til forskrift om utføring av aktiviteter i petroleumsvirksomheten (aktivitetsforskriften vedlegg 1 Krav til miljøovervåking av petroleumsvirksomheten på norsk kontinentalsokkel) pålagt å bidra til å utvikle standardiserte metoder for effektstudier i vannsøylen. Som et bidrag til dette har industrien blant annet bidratt økonomisk og praktisk gjennom arbeidet i ICES-workshopen Biological effects of contaminants in pelagic ecosystems (BECPELAG) i 2001 og gjennom wrap-up conference i København 19.-21. august 2002.

Det er opprettet en arbeidsgruppe med representanter fra industrien og myndighetene, samt en sekretær, som også var leder for ICES-workshopen. Arbeidsgruppen har, på bakgrunn av tidligere resultater fra vannsøyleovervåkingen offshore og fra workshopen foreslå et program for vannsøyleovervåking i 2003.

SFT ønsker med dette å invitere relevante institusjoner til å komme med konstruktive innspill og kommentarer til vedlagte utkast til program for vannsøyleovervåkingen i 2003, samt å komme med eventuelle forslag til tilleggsundersøkelser til det foreslåtte programmet.

På bakgrunn av ønsket om en best mulig effektovervåking offshore inviterer SFT med dette til diskusjonsmøte hos SFT på Helsfyr på tirsdag den 3. desember fra kl. 09:30 til kl. 14:00.

Vi ønsker tilbakemelding på deltakelse, senest innen 21. november til Ingunn Nilssen på telefon 22 57 35 57 eller e-post ingunn.nilssen@klif.no

Med vennlig hilsen

Marie Nordby (e.f.)
Avdelingsdirektør

Ingunn Nilssen
Overingeniør

Vedlegg:
- Adresseliste
- Forslag til program for vannsøyleovervåkingen offshore 2003

Referanse:
http://www.niva.no/pelagic/web/

Adresseliste
Akvamiljø, Mekjarvikveien 12, 4070 Randaberg
Akvaplan-niva, Hjalmar Johansens gate 14, 9296 Tromsø
Aquateam, Postboks 6875, Rodeløkka 0504 Oslo
Biosense, Thormøhlens gate 55, 5008 Bergen
Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, Tungasletta 2, 7047 Trondheim
NIVA, Postboks 175, Kjelsås 0411 Oslo
Nordlandsforskning, Mørkvedtråkket 30, 8049 Bodø
NTNU, Fakultet for naturvitenskap og teknologi, 7491 Trondheim
SINTEF Kjemi, 7010 Trondheim
SINTEF, Postboks 124, Blindern 0314 Oslo
Universitetet i Bergen, Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet, Harald Hårfagres gate 1, 5007 Bergen
Universitetet I Oslo, Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet, Postboks 1032, Blindern 0315 Oslo
Universitetet i Tromsø, Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet, Breivika  9037 Tromsø

Biological effects in water column monitoring

Background document

Introduction
Three approaches to determine biological effects of contaminants in pelagic systems were tested during the BECPELAG¹ workshop. Field sampling, caging and in situ extraction with subsequent bioassay testing are three complementary approaches with different pro's and con's (Table 1).

Field sampling of pelagic organisms is subject to the uncertainty of previous exposure and life history. Such sampling always needs to be complemented with an assessment of general condition (e.g. condition index for fish), migratory behaviour and hydrographical data (including current direction and velocity). In situ measurement of contaminants (e.g. by the use of in situ fluorescence) is seen as a valuable tool to assess recent exposure. Water temperature must always be registered in the water column in relation to sampling.

Table 1. Overview of monitoring approaches.

General design for the 2003 water column monitoring
The main activity in 2003 will be caging of organisms. Caged organisms have a known exposure history, but only represent exposure in a certain period of time/ a single location. Caged blue mussels will be deployed at multiple sites for spatial monitoring (e.g. to determine the area of influence), supplemented by the use of caged fish at a few sites (for endpoints not available in mussel, e.g. estrogenicity).

In addition to caging, it is planned to include selected, long-term biological effects measurements for fish collected during regional surveys.

Selection of methods
In the following a distinction is made between "core" methods - recommended for inclusion in the water column monitoring programme - and "testing" methods - to be tested for suitability. It will be possible to suggest further testing methods. The set of testing methods is expected to change following evaluation following monitoring each year. Methods are shown below for fish (Table 2) and blue mussel (Table 3).

Table 2. Methods for fish (field-collected and/or caged); QA - method has been subject to an international QA activity and/or intercalibration.

*short-term response for caged fish; adducts or similar for field-collected fish;
** field-collected fish only.

Table 3. Methods for caged blue mussel; QA - method has been subject to an international QA activity and/or intercalibration.

*hepatopancreas; **gills

In addition to the contaminant-related endpoints, measures of general health /condition status of test organisms should be evaluated. For blue mussels, body condition index (BCI) is a relevant parameter. For fish, condition index (CI), gonadosomatic index (GSI) and liver somatic index (LSI) need to be determined. In most instances, age is not critical. The organism should be screened for parasites, abnormalities and gross diseases.

It is essential that a quality assurance system exists for methods that are selected for monitoring. At the present, the programme BEQUALM is being developed to include relevant methods.

Selection of species
The species to be selected causes the largest problem for field sampling studies. There is no "universal" species found in all relevant geographical regions. It must probably be accepted that different species are used in different areas, but work should be initiated to "calibrate" the selected species in relation to each other. In the northern and central North Sea gadoids predominate. If a truly pelagic species is used (e.g. herring, mackerel), migration patterns and hence the area integrated over should be assessed. Saithe is somewhere in-between as it feeds in the water column, but has less extensive migrations. Some other gadoids, e.g. haddock and cod, are predominantly demersal feeders. Biological effects analyses of field-collected specimens will be linked to routine sampling for other purposes.

Blue mussel and Atlantic cod are the two species proposed for the 2003 programme. Although not directly ecologically relevant, blue mussel is a useful species as it integrates contamination in the water column. A range of biological effects can be assessed in blue mussel, but it needs to be supplemented by the use of fish to detect specific groups of contaminants. Until now, Atlantic cod has been used in most studies in the North Sea. The availability of farmed cod has made it possible to have a stock of fish with similar life history and cod is a representative for an ecologically and economically important fish family. Gadoids are not necessarily the most sensitive species for some endpoints, but are similar in sensitivity to salmonids for e.g. vitellogenin response to estrogens.

Cost concern
In the middle term objective of implementing the biomonitoring as a regular environmental survey tool, it is very important to take the cost concern into account. This should, for example, have influence on the choice of several analysis methods like the one for short term DNA damage measurements. Attention should be paid, in addition, to the possible synergy with the current sediment survey campaigns. For these purposes, the experience of the invited institutions can be of help.

1 BECPELAG - ICES workshop on biological effects of contaminants in pelagic ecosystems (2000-2002); http://www.niva.no/pelagic/web