# Lake Livingston Fish Consumption Advisory - DSHS Presentation



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Tonight the Seafood and Aquatic Life Group of the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) presented and answered questions regarding the Lake Livingston Fish Consumption advisory that they issued in December. A number of you could not attend the meeting and asked for a debrief. I am not going to repeat the details of the advisory - they are listed here (Fish Consumption Advisories). If you are new to the subject, I encourage you to read the advisory, FAQ, and report which are all in the the table linked above.

My observations:

- The room was packed - I am guessing 120 people. Numerous representatives from DSHS and other agencies were there, as well as Texas House Representative James White.

- Just as they had done with the report, DSHS did an excellent job on the presentation and attempted to answer all of the questions, staying around until all questions were addressed. Michael Tennant, one of the main authors of the report, gave the presentation.

- The presentation was primarily just a reflection of the information in the report. The main "new" information came out in the Q&A, although clearly DSHS has been trained not to speculate or attempt to answer questions which are not directly pertinent to their immediate work (as is expected).

- The total budget for the work came from a $500,000 grant. This works out to about $1000/sample. Each fish is methodically filleted on a clean piece of aluminum foil. 2 fillets are taken from each fish, without the skin. No attempt is made to trim any red meat or fat off of the filet. The fillets of each fish are basically blended until homogeneous, and then the sample is taken.

- 6 sites around the lake were used for sampling. Although the samples from the Kickapoo Creek area tested significantly cleaner than the rest of the lake, DSHS cautioned not to read too much into this since the sample sizes were small and the species caught varied in numbers from site to site.

- The grant for this Lower Trinity River Basin study was made as a followup to testing on fish in the Upper Trinity River basin, where there have been advisories since 1990. The Hazard Indices for fish in the Upper Trinty are many (nominally 4x) higher than those in the Lower Trinity.

- No state money was used to test the fish (it was a grant, as stated above). Because this was a one time grant, there are no plans to do any future testing of the Lower Trinity Basin. Also, DSHS said that fish consumption advisories in the state of Texas related to PCBs have never been rescinded once they are issued, basically because it takes so long for PCBs to break down in the environment.

- DSHS said that the PCB and Dioxin levels in fish are roughly proportional to their lipid level, which explains why crappie and largemouth are low and gars are high.

- DSHS said that, when the sampling was done in 2012 and 2013, Lake Livingston was at its normal pool level. They would not speculate whether the recent flooding would make the problem better or worse. In fact, they would not even speculate on the source of the chemicals, although it seems obvious that it is from the Dallas area from the 50s and 60s. This would imply that people have been consuming fish for a long time without any advisories, but DSHS didn't say anything about that.

- DSHS said that they did not know of any plans to post any advisories around the lake or at the boat docks, and they said that it wasn't in their budget.

- There was some venting directed by a few people towards the DSHS, but overall I would say that they were well received and we expressed appreciation that they would make the effort to engage with us directly.

- DSHS said strongly that they would not expect the drinking water to be a problem, since the concentrations in water are thousands of times less than in fish. This statement is consistent with other studies I have seen for other water bodies besides LL.

- DSHS said that it would be logical to expect that fillets which are trimmed of the dark red meat would have lower levels of PCBs and toxins, and the younger (smaller) fish would also have lower levels. For white bass, since only a few of the 30 tested fish tripped the minimum level, I am sure that these fish would not be part of the advisory if fish were tested as I normally eat them (red meat trimmed using smaller size fish). The same would probably be true of catfish as well. It is a shame that DSHS didn't have the budget to do what they did on Sam Rayburn, which is to say that bass larger than a specific size (16 inches) should not be eaten (this was related to a mercury advisory, but the concept is the same).

- The real shame here is that it seems likely that Lake Livingston will continue to be under a fish consumption advisory for as long as we live. To me, it seems worthwhile for the lake area to try to raise money ($100,000?) to do a comprehensive testing of white bass and catfish to show that they are safe to eat, but that probably won't happen. Certainly, whatever it would cost to do the testing, it would be less than the impact will be for the next 30 years on the fishing, boating, real estate and tourist industry around the lake.

The bottom line for me is that I am not at all worried about eating white bass once a week, after trimming the red meat and using the smaller (10-14 inches) fish. For catfish, I have no issues with twice a month.

A number of you 2Coolers were also at the meeting - please also give your comments and observations on this important subject.


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

Thanks Gary !!


----------



## KevBow (Mar 18, 2011)

Thanks for a great report


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

The site says I must spread, but that is an excellent post!


----------



## BobBobber (Aug 29, 2015)

Thanks GaryI for a report that was written in a manner that I had a sense that I could have been there myself hearing the presentation. Since I live more than an hour away from LL and seldom fish there, the meeting was not on my "to do" list, so I did not attend. You did. Thanks for your post.


----------



## Chunknwind (Jul 28, 2015)

ThankYouGary.as you have always done.Informative and genuine. Again thanks for sharing.


----------



## DJ77360 (Jun 10, 2012)

Excellent summary of the DSHS meeting. I do appreciate you taking the time to write your report as I was unable to attend. 

Thank you


----------



## cwhitney (Sep 9, 2014)

Thanks for attending the meeting and taking the time write up this report for those of us that could not attend.


----------



## Ducktracker (Aug 1, 2011)

Great report Gary as always. Thanks for going and giving us that could not attend a report. Now let's go fishing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Just as a followup to my note below, regarding eating smaller fish:

I checked the report again, and I didn't see any smaller fish which tested higher than the DSHS minimum health consumption standard for white bass less than 15 inches, and blue catfish less than 23 inches. As I said below, it really is a shame that DSHS didn't pursue a minimum length approach to this, instead of an advisory covering the whole spectrum.


----------



## fishinganimal (Mar 30, 2006)

Thanks Gary. We have these advisory's in the bays and lakes and rivers. But the key word is (advisory) not warning. We just all need to eat like we normally do just don't eat fish 3-4 times a week which most don't eat fish 3-4 times a month. I will be keeping all the 10-12" Whites I choose to. I'm just not that mad at them anymore.


----------



## fishinganimal (Mar 30, 2006)

I have eaten fish from this lake for over 50 yrs and Im still kicking. That is a bunch of fish and I have never heard of anyone getting sick because of it either. If any of the locals knew of anyone you can bet we would know it.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Thanks Gary that was an excellent write up!!!!!

I too will continue to eat LL fish and serve it to my family with no concerns. I believe that you could probably test the fish just about any where and find at least a few that test over the line for some thing.


----------



## dbullard (Feb 13, 2008)

Thanks Gary . I will keep filleting and trimming all the fat and cutting out the blood line, disgarding the belly and soaking in ice water over night as always.


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> I believe that you could probably test the fish just about any where and find at least a few that test over the line for some thing.


 unfortunately, this is likely truth...
snookered


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

Thanks for the excellent writeup.


----------



## housewolf (Nov 24, 2014)

Thanks Gary for a well written report of the meeting.

My real concern (like many of us) over this report is the potential harm to the area economically. As for me; in all likelihood, I'll be living there until I die so I'm "all in". I don't think it's going to dry up and be a ghost town, in fact I suspect it'll be more like the coastal areas where fish advisories are seldom mentioned anymore and the areas continue to flourish.

After making it through all the foolish decisions I made in my misspent youth. If I die/get sick from eating fish I caught and ate. I'm okay with that, but do you mention it to guests? Guests with children?


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Housewolf,

I agree with you 100%. I will be here for the next 30 years or so (God willing!), so my interegation of the report and its findings is mainly to help us counter the harm already done by the media and public perception, and to help us present it to our family and lake visitors in an informative, nonthreatening way.

Like I have already said, I respect the DSHS and the quality of their report, but I think the implementation of the findings could have been done better (like having length limits, for example).

Also, something I didn't mention below is that during the Q&A last night DSHS was very careful in answering the question of how many other lakes have undergone the same degree of scrutiny. They said that others have been tested, but the example given was for the mercury testing of east Texas lakes which was done in the 1990s. The DSHS person who cleaned all 200+ fish for the Livingston testing just shook his head "no" when the question was asked if other Texas had been tested in this manner, but of course he wasn't their official spokesperson. DSHS did say that they have just recently (since 2010) started using Texas A&M for testing samples instead of their own state facility, because A&M has more advanced instruments and procedures for more detailed testing of more compounds and contaminants as was done in the Livingston report. My guess, and it is only a guess because DSHS didn't officially say, is that this 2012-2013 Livingston test may be the most through test for these substances that has been done in the state to date. So it begs the questions of how other lakes would compare, and was Livingston singled out only because there was grant money to do the analysis and find the results? Pretty amazing that there is no consistent program state-wide (or nation-wide) to test the health of the fish that millions eat each year. Seems like a dollar or two from our licenses could go towards that.

Gary


----------



## SetDaHook (Oct 21, 2010)

Thanks for the report Gary


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

"DSHS was very careful in answering the question of how many other lakes have undergone the same degree of scrutiny"

This has been a question on my mind from the beginning. If the suspected source of PCB's is Dallas area run off and LL is the last lake in the chain what must the all the lakes right out of Dallas be like? How contaminated are those fish? 

If I suspected I had a potential problem with fish being contaminated by Dallas run off I would have started testing the lakes closest to the source first not the last one in line.

Why Lake Livingston? When logic says that it is more likely the fish in lakes closer to the source would test at higher levels.


----------



## catfishtail (May 2, 2014)

It was also asked when the next testing would be! Which will be never!! So now this Lake like many others will remain under an advisory for who knows how many years??? For all we know these levels were higher years ago and have gotten better and will continue to get better and we will never know!! Also these levels could have been like this for many many years with the usual human consumption with no affects! I will continue to fish this lake and eat fish as I always have! If the DSHS is really that concerned with levels they would test regularly! Amen


----------



## rglide09 (Mar 21, 2012)

Excellent report Gary, thank you for attending and reporting. Seems not fair to post an advisory and don't plan to retest.... Who drives the DSHS to test anyway? This may have been answered already. 
I agree the 10-12" fish are probably OK to eat, I won't normally keep any fish under 12" but that may change. With good fish cleaning practices we should be fine. 
I would pay a buck or two more for my fishing license if that would go for more testing. 
Fish On!


----------



## lx22f/c (Jun 19, 2009)

Thanks for the update.


----------



## catfishtail (May 2, 2014)

It also would have been more of a thorough of a survey that while they had already gotten to the point of testing the fish to go ahead a test it raw like that was done and compared it be being cooked. I'm not a scientist but believe that the levels would dissipate with the heat!


----------



## Gofish2day (May 9, 2006)

The WB 11 to 12 inch fish are the best to eat.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

Outstanding write up GaryI....

I agree with your assessment 110%. 

I am a long way from LL but I do eat WB from there about once a month and will continue to do so. At first the advisory really ticked me off. Now I am more take it for what its worth. Canyon Lake is close to me. It also had an advisory issued on it in 2005. Most folks around here will tell you what advisory? It was limited to Striped Bass and Long nose Gar. 

My hope for those that live by LL is this advisory will fade into the sun. If for some reason it does not than getting a group of folks together to draw up a battle plan would be my advise. Or find a non-profit with a vested interest to assist. More than one way to skin a catfish!


----------



## fishinganimal (Mar 30, 2006)

Is the boundary the LL dam? So all fish below the dam that have cleared the gates are good to consume!! SMH. If this issue is in the lake then it is all the way thru Trinity Bay to the Jetty's IMO.


----------



## trihullranger (Dec 19, 2015)

fishinganimal said:


> Is the boundary the LL dam? So all fish below the dam that have cleared the gates are good to consume!! SMH. If this issue is in the lake then it is all the way thru Trinity Bay to the Jetty's IMO.


 Never thought of that. Yea it would have to be.


----------



## GaryI (Mar 18, 2015)

Sorry I wasn't clear on the extent of the advisory. It states:

"The Trinity River and all contiguous waters from the U.S. Highway 287 Bridge downstream to the U.S. Highway 90 Bridge including Lake Livingston."

Which is a bit ridiculous. It only extends that far south because they didn't have the money to test it the rest of the way south to the Gulf. I can just imagine fishermen out there staying to the south side of the 90 bridge to catch fish because of the advisory!

By the way, extending to the north, there is a different advisory (maps attached) which states not to eat ANY fish taken from:
"The Clear Fork of the Trinity River from the Benbrook Reservoir Dam and the West Fork of the Trinity River from the Lake Worth Dam including the main stem of the Trinity River downstream to the U.S. Highway 287 Bridge."

Note that Lake Livingston is the only lake in this entire stretch of water on the Trinity. A number of other lakes feed INTO the Trinity, but only LL is fed BY the Trinity. That is an important distinction, since the main sources are likely in the Dallas area. There was some work done a while back to identify the exact "source", but no real hot spots were found to my knowledge.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Thanks Gary, I never really thought it about like that. The upper basin lakes are not fed from the Trinity but feed into the Trinity never recognized that so it makes sense now.


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

Good report Gary. Thanks 

I have preferred the 10 to 12 inch fish for a long time now. The smaller fish seem to taste better to me. I have caught a lot of the bigger fish for other people.


----------



## goodable (Feb 27, 2015)

wonderful report, thank you Gary.


----------

