&EBA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/R-00/107
February 2001
A Survey of Fish
Contamination in Small
Wadeable Streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratuhis)
Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
-------
EPA/600/R-01/107
February 2001
A Survey of Fish Contamination in
Small Wadeable Streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Prepared Under:
Contract No. 68-C6-0019
Contact Person:
M. Kate Smith, Ph.D., Director
Ecological Exposure Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
26 W. M.L.King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
80% Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
-------
Abstract
In 1993 and 1994, fish tissue samples were collected from first, second and third order streams
in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States. The tissue samples were prepared from
whole fish from prioritized lists of Small Target Species and Large Target Species. The two
types of samples were analyzed for 56 contaminants, of which 22 had median values that
were above the detection limits for at least one category offish. For this report, the data
analyses were conducted in order to determine 1) exposure to contaminants, 2) the magnitude
of exposure, and 3) the location of the sites which exceeded toxicological benchmark values.
All sites from which samples were taken showed exposure to at least one contaminant. In
order to determine the magnitude of this exposure, no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL)
benchmark values for 16 of the analytes were used. These NOAEL benchmark values are
estimates of the greatest concentration of contaminants at which it is unlikely that the belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori) would suffer adverse effects from consumption. These
NOAEL benchmark values were then compared to the concentration of contaminants found
in Small Target Species tissue sampled at each site. Maps were generated which showed the
locations of the sites that exceeded the NOAEL benchmark values. Seventy sites (100%)
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and twenty two sites (31.4%) exceeded four
or more NOAEL benchmark values. The number of sites exceeding multiple NOAEL bench-
mark values suggests a comprehensive study offish tissue contaminants is warranted for the
region.
-------
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Abstract ii
Tables v
Figures vii
Acknowledgements xv
Introduction 1
Background 1
Materials And Methods 2
Study Area and Sam pi ing Design 2
Collection of Samples 3
Laboratory Analysis 6
Data Analysis 10
Analysis of Data Sets 10
Objectives 11
Descriptive Statistics 11
Exposure 11
Magnitude of Exposure 12
Location of Sites Exceeding Toxicological Benchmark
Values 14
Results 14
Descriptive Statistics 14
Exposure 16
Magnitude of Exposure 17
Location of Sites Exceeding Toxicological Benchmark
Values 17
Discussion and Conclusions.. ..27
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
Literature Cited 33
Index 36
Appendix Page
Histogram Representations of the Proportion
of the Large Target Species Category made
up of White Sucker for Selected Analytes A-1
Histogram Representations of the Proportion
of the Small Target Species Category made
up of Blacknose Dace for Selected Analytes B-1
Box Plots Representing the Distribution of
Analyte Data Across Stream Order for
Blacknose Dace and White Sucker C-1
Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFS)
Showing the Proportion of the Four Fish
Categories that are at or below Varying
Concentrations of Selected Analytes D-1
Box Plots Showing the Level of Analytes
Detected in each of the Four Analyzed Fish
Categories E-1
-------
Tables
Table Page
1 The Small Target Species for the Mid-Atlantic Tissue
Analysis in Order of Priority. 2
2 The Large Target Species for the Mid-Atlantic Tissue
Analysis in Order of Priority. 2
3 List of analytes from the Mid-Atlantic Fish Tissue Analysis
Study. The Fish Categories for which the Median Analyte
Concentrations were Above Detection Limits are Noted 7
4 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Small Target Species Samples (N=70) 11
5 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Blacknose Dace Samples (N=33) 12
6 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Large Target Species Samples (N=47) 12
7 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in White Sucker Samples (N=24) 12
8 Toxicological Benchmark Values for the Belted Kingfisher
(Sample etal. 1996) 13
9 A Summary of the Number of Sites Visited, Number of Sites
where Tissue Samples were Collected, and the Number
of Sites at which no Tissue Samples were taken 14
-------
Tables (continued)
Table Page
10 The 90% Levels of Contaminant Concentrations in
Blacknose Dace Tissue Samples (N=33) 17
11 Percentage of sites at which Small Target Species
Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants Above Detection
Limits (N=70) 18
12 Percentage of sites at which Large Target Species Exhibited
Exposure to Contaminants Above Detection Limits (N=47). ... 18
13 Number of Sites at which Small Target Species, Large
Target Species, neither or both Exhibited Exposure to
Contaminants Above Detection Limits (N=35) 27
14 Percentage of Sites that were Less than or Exceeded the
NOAEL Benchmark Values and the Degree to which
they were Exceeded. These Percentages are Based on
Small Target Species Tissue Samples (N=70) 27
15 Numbers and Percentages of Sites with Varying Numbers
of Contaminants Exceeding the NOAEL Benchmark
Values 28
16 Sites which Exceeded Five or More NOAEL Benchmark
Values with their Respective Stream Orders and Selected
Contaminant Levels 28
-------
Figures
Figure
Page
1 A map of the fish tissue sample sites in the Mid-Atlantic
Region 4
2 A graphical representation of the fish collection priorities
used in the Mid-Atlantic fish tissue sampling 5
3 The number of blacknose dace, white sucker, Small
Target Species and Large Target Species collected for fish
tissue analysis by stream order 15
4 The location of the site at which the concentration of
arsenic in the Small Target Species tissue sample
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher. 19
5 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
chromium in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher 20
6 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
mercury in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded
the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher 21
7 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
lead in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded the
NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher 22
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
8 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
selenium in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher. 23
9 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
zinc in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded
the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher 24
10 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
DDT and its metabolites in Small Target Species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the
belted kingfisher 25
11 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
total PCBs in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher 26
12 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
contaminants in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and
the number of benchmark values that were exceeded 29
13 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
both organic and metal contaminants in Small Target
Species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL
benchmark value and the number of benchmark values
that were exceeded 30
14 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
both organic and metal (excluding Hg and Se)
contaminants in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and
the number of benchmark values that were exceeded 31
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
A-1 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for Al,
Cr, Cu and Fe A-2
A-2 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for Hg,
Ni, Zn, and o-p'-DDD A-3
A-3 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
p.p'-DDD, p.p'-DDE, p,p'-DDT and Total PCBs A-4
A-4 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, alpha-chlordane and
gamma-chlordane A-5
A-5 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane A-6
B-1 Histogram representations of the proportion of the
small target species category made up of blacknose
dace for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe B-2
B-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
Hg, Ni, Zn and o,p'-DDD B-3
B-3. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
o,p'-DDT, p.p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE and Total PCBs B-4
B-4 Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene and
alpha-chlordane B-5
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
B-5 Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
gamma-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and
oxychlordane B-6
C-1 Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd and
Cr data across stream order for blacknose dace C-2
C-2 Box plots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg
and Ni data across stream order for blacknose dace C-3
C-3 Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn
and o,p'-DDD data across stream order for blacknose
dace C-4
C-4 Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE,
o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data across stream
order for blacknose dace C-5
C-5. Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across stream order for
blacknose dace C-6
C-6 Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I,
endosulfan II, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
data across stream order for blacknose dace C-7
C-7 Box plots representing the distribution of hexachloro-
benzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane and
alpha-BHC data across stream order for blacknose dace. .. C-8
C-8 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data across
stream order for blacknose dace C-9
C-9 Box plots representing the distribution of trans-nonachlor,
oxychlordane, mirex and total PCB data across stream
order for blacknose dace C-10
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
C-10 Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd
and Cr data across stream order for white sucker C-11
C-11 Box plots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg
and Ni data across stream order for white sucker C-12
C-12 Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn
and o,p'-DDD data across stream order for white
sucker C-13
C-13 Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE,
o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data across stream
order for white sucker. C-14
C-14 Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across stream order
for white sucker C-15
C-15 Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I,
endosulfan II, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide data
across stream order for white sucker C-16
C-16 Box plots representing the distribution of hexachloro-
benzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane and
alpha-BHC data across stream order for white sucker C-17
C-17 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data
across stream order for white sucker C-18
C-18 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data
across stream order for white sucker C-19
D-1 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of Al. Note
that the value scales vary among CDFs D-2
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
D-2 CDF showing the proportion of white sucker that are at
or below varying concentrations of cadmium D-3
D-3 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of chromium.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-4
D-4 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of copper.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-5
D-5 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of iron.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-6
D-6 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of mercury.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-7
D-7 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of nickel.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-8
D-8 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of zinc.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-9
D-9 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of o,p'-DDD.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-10
D-10 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of p,p'-DDD.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-11
D-11 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of p,p'-DDE.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-12
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
D-12 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of o,p'-DDT.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-13
D-13 CDFs showing the proportion of two fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of p,p'-DDT.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-14
D-14 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of dieldrin.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-15
D-15 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
heptachlor epoxide. Note that the value scales vary
among CDFs D-16
D-16 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
hexachlorobenzene. Note that the value scales
vary among CDFs D-17
D-17 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of gamma-
chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-18
D-18 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of alpha-
chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-19
D-19 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of cis-
nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-20
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
D-20 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of trans-
nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-21
D-21 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
oxychlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-22
D-22 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of total PCBs.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-23
E-1 Box plots showing the level of lead, oxychlordane and
total PCBs detected in each of the four analyzed fish
categories E-2
E-2 Box plots showing the level of Al, Cd, Cr and Cu detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-3
E-3 Box plots showing the level of Fe, Hg, Ni and Zn detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-4
E-4 Box plots showing the level of p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDD,
o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT detected in each of the four
analyzed fish categories E-5
E-5 Box plots showing the level of p,p'-DDE, dieldrin,
heptachlor epoxide and hexachlorobenzene detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-6
E-6 Box plots showing the level of alpha and gamma-
chlordane and cis- and trans-nonachlor detected in
each of the four analyzed fish categories E-7
-------
Acknowledgments
A special thank you is extended to all the land owners who granted us permission
to sample from streams on their property.
-------
-------
Introduction
This report uses contaminant levels in fish
tissue samples as indicators of pollutant expo-
sure to the fish themselves and the predators
that might eat them. In 1993 and 1994, fish tis-
sue samples were collected from first, second
and third order streams in the Mid-Atlantic Re-
gion of the United States. These fish tissue
samples were analyzed for the concentration of
selected metals and organic compounds includ-
ing mercury, lead, and organochlorides (i.e.,
PCBs and DDT). The data provide an oppor-
tunity to screen for levels of contaminants that
may cause adverse effects to fish and wildlife.
The objectives of this report are to determine
1) exposure to contaminants, 2) the magnitude
of exposure, and 3) the location of the sites
which exceeded toxicological benchmark val-
ues.
Background
The analysis offish tissue samples mea-
sures the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals.
Bioaccumulation occurs when organisms incor-
porate and retain chemicals from the surround-
ing environment. In aquatic ecosystems, these
chemicals are associated with water, sediments,
suspended solids and prey organisms. If the in-
corporation of the chemical outpaces the me-
tabolism or excretion of the chemical, then bio-
accumulation occurs. The result is that the
concentration of the chemical inside the organ-
ism is greater than it is in the environment. There-
fore, tissue analysis can reveal the presence of
contaminants that may not be detected other-
wise that is, they have such low concentrations
in the environment that they cannot be observed
through chemical analysis of the water column
or sediments (USEPA 1992). When used in
combination with other diagnostic indicators
(e.g., physical habitat and water chemistry) and
response indicators (e.g., fish, benthic
macroinvertebrate and algae assemblages), fish
tissue analysis can be an effective tool in deter-
mining the overall condition of an aquatic eco-
system (USEPA 1995).
Fish tissue studies have traditionally fo-
cused on the bioaccumulation of contaminants
in large game fish because these fish are more
likely to pose health risks to humans (USEPA
1995,1997). Fish tissue studies have also fo-
cused on the bioaccumulation of toxic chemi-
cals in the fillets and livers offish as well as in
the whole fish (USEPA 1995). This study ana-
lyzed whole fish of both large and small species
and both game and non-game species. While
an analysis of the bioaccumulation of toxic
chemicals in the fillets of large game fish may
give a better indication of the risks to humans
from consuming these organisms, whole fish
analysis that also includes small non-game fish
will give a better indication of the risks to all
-------
potential predators, both humans and non-hu-
mans.
From each site that was visited in this study,
attempts were made to collect two categories
of fish tissue samples. One of these categories
(Small Target Species, Table 1) included fish
taxa of which the adults are small and the other
category (Large Target Species, Table 2) in-
cluded fish taxa of which the adults are large.
The use of smaller fish is advantageous because
1) the common species are more likely to be
widely distributed among first to third order
streams, 2) their large numbers may make it
possible to obtain a more representative sample
of bioaccumulation, 3) they are more likely to
be preyed upon by piscivorous fish and wildlife
and 4) they are less expensive and less time-
consuming to process in the field and in the labo-
ratory. The use of larger fish is advantageous
because they are longer lived and bioaccumu-
lation can occur over a longer time period.
Therefore, there may be an increased likelihood
of detecting the presence of contaminants in the
ecosystem when using larger fish for tissue analy-
sis. Although it is known that the rates of bioac-
cumulation vary between species (Rubinstein et
al. 1984; Williams and Eddy 1986; USEPA
1992,1993a), the relationship between large
and small fish with respect to bioaccumulation
of contaminants is not well understood. The prin-
cipal factor in determining the rate of bioaccu-
mulation is lipid content (USEPA 1991a, 1997),
thus, there may be no relationship between the
two fish categories in their rates of bioac-
cumulation. Therefore, it becomes neces-
sary to analyze the tissue from both fish cat-
egories and each category must be measured
separately (USEPA 1995). In this study, each
tissue sample represents a composite of indi-
viduals of a single species rather than a mixture
of species found at a site.
Table 1. The Small Target Species for the Mid-
Atlantic Tissue Analysis in Order of Priority
Priority
Small Target Species
1 Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus)
1 Another Dace species (Rhinichthys
spp., Phoxinus spp., Clinostomus spp.)
3 Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
orFallfish(S corporalis)
4 Slimy sculpin (Coitus cognatus) or
Mottled sculpin. (C bairdi)
5 Central stoneroller (Campostoma
anomalum)
6 A Darter species (F. Percidae)
7 A Shiner species (F. Cyprinidae)
Table 2. The Large Target Species for the Mid-
Atlantic Tissue Analysis in Order of Priority
Priority
Large Target Species
1 White sucker (Catostomus
commersoni)
1 Northern hogsucker (Hypentelium
nigricans)
3 A Bass species (F. Centrarchidae,
Micropierus spp.)
4 A Trout species (F. Salmonidae)
5 A Sunfish species (F. Centrarchidae,
Lepomis spp.)
6 Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Materials and Methods
Study Area and
Sampling Design
The Mid-Atlantic Region is in the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA's) Region III which encompasses the
states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
"Virginia and West Virginia and the District of
Columbia. The majority (63%) of the stream
kilometers (km) in the study area are made up
of first order streams. Second order streams
make up 15%, third order streams make up
11% and fourth order streams make up 11% of
the stream km in the study area (USEPA 1994).
-------
The sampling locations were selected using a
spatially-constrained, randomized design
(Overton et al. 1991; Herlihy et al. in press).
The randomization of the site selection increases
the likelihood that the level of contamination
detected in the sampled sites is representative
of the contamination in the overall population of
streams (USEPA 1997; Paulsen et al. 1991;
Olsenetal. 1999). Site select on was limited to
include only wadeable (first, second and third
order) streams. USGS topographical maps
(1:100,000 scale) were used to establish the
random placement of points within the popula-
tion of streams. These points were used as the
middle of each respective reach. USGS maps
of a finer resolution (1:24,000) were used by
the field crews in order to locate the sites to be
sampled. The latitude and longitude of the ran-
dom points were confirmed by the field crews
by global positioning system (GPS) instruments.
The locations of sample sites where fish tissue
samples were collected are shown in Figure 1.
Collection of Samples
Fish tissue samples were collected as a
part of the USEPA's Environmental Monitor-
ing and Assessment Program (EMAP). Fish
were collected using pulsed DC backpack
electrofishing equipment supplemented by
seining. The amount of sampling time and the
length of the sample reach used for the sam-
pling of streams were based on the standard-
ized EMAP protocol (USEPA 1997). The
length of each reach was 40 times the mean
width of the wetted channel at the designated
point. The minimum length of any reach was
150 meters (m) and the maximum length was
500 m. Sampling was conducted for a mini-
mum time of 45 minutes and a maximum time
of three hours.
Before collection began, two categories of
target taxa were established based upon their
anticipated distribution in the region. The two
categories of target taxa were Small Target Spe-
cies (Table 1) and Large Target Species (Table
2). The criteria for establishing the Small Target
Species list were that the adults of the species
be small (< 100 mm), short-lived, widely dis-
tributed and abundant. The criteria for estab-
lishing the Large Target Species list were that
the adults of the species be large (> 150mm),
that the species have a natural history of living
more than three years, and that the species be
likely to accumulate contaminants under pro-
longed exposure. The taxa on each list were
ranked according to their priority for collection
(Tables 1 and 2). The prioritization of the fish
was based on their anticipated common occur-
rence and abundance. An attempt was made to
collect one sample from each list at each sam-
pling site. Each sample was made up of multiple
individuals of the same species.
The optimum weight for each tissue sample
of Small Target Species was 400 grams (g) and
the sample could weigh no less than 50 g. The
Large Target Species samples were made up
of individuals from one category on the Large
Target Species list that were atleast 150 mm in
length. The optimum number of individuals to
make up a sample of Large Target Species was
five and the minimum number of individuals used
to make up a sample was three. There was no
weight requirement for the Large Ta rget Spe-
cies tissue samples.
The primary objective of this field effort
was the development of an Index of Biotic In-
tegrity (IBI) for the region (Figure 2). The sec-
ondary objective was the assessment of the
magnitude of contaminants in fish tissue samples
(Figure 2). Therefore, the Small Target Species
sample collected for tissue analysis at each site
was made up of individuals from the highest rank-
ing category on the Small Target Species list for
which there were enough individuals to meet the
50 g minimum requirement after the removal of
-------
Fish Tissue Sampling Sites
O Small Target Species
A Large Target Species
Both Species
Figure 1. A map of the fish tissue sample sites in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
-------
Fish Collected From Each Site
EMAP
First Priority
Development of Fish
Index of Biotic Integrity
25 Individuals of each
species preserved for
vouchering
25 Individuals <150 mm of
each species preserved for
vouchering
EMAP
Second Priority
Fish Tissue Analysis
\
Remaining Fish
I
Small Target Species
Fish Tissue Analysis
Large Target Species
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
50-400 gm blacknose dace
No
50-400 gm another dace species
No
50-400 gm creek chub/fallfish
No
50-400 gm slimy sculpin/mottled
sculpin
1
No
50-400 gm central stoneroller
No
| 50-400 gm darter species
I
No
I
50-400 gm shiner species
No
i
Chemical analysis No chemical analysis
3 to 5 white suckers at least
150 mm in length
Yes
No
A.
3 to 5 northern hogsuckers at least
150 mm in length
No
3 to 5 bass at least
150 mm in length
No
_L
3 to 5 trout at least
150 mm in length
No
A.
3 to 5 sunfish at least
150 mm in length
No
A.
3 to 5 common carp at least
150 mm in length
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No chemical analysis Chemical analysis
Figure 2. A graphical representation of the fish collection priorities used in the Mid-Atlantic fish tissue
sampling.
-------
25 voucher specimens for the IBI study. Be-
cause the individuals from the Large Target Spe-
cies list that were removed as voucher speci-
mens were less than 150 mm in length and the
individuals on the Large Target Species list that
were collected for tissue samples were more
than 150 mm in length, the vouchering aspect
probably had no impact on the collection of
these species for tissue analysis. Individuals
making up the samples were always from the
same species or group of species on the target
species lists.
The samples used for tissue analyses con-
sisted offish with similar lengths. The general
criterion used in order for fish to be considered
similar in length was that the length of the small-
est individual in the composite sample was no
less than 75% of the length of the largest indi-
vidual in the composite sample. If fewer than
the acceptable number of Large Target Species
of the acceptable size were collected, then
smaller individuals were added to the sample. If
an acceptable number of Large Target Species
was not collected, then only Small Target Spe-
cies were kept for tissue analysis. Likewise, if
too few Small Target Species were collected,
then only Large Target Species were kept for
tissue analysis. If neither the criteria for Small
nor Large Target Species were met, then best
professional judgement was used in determin-
ing what type offish tissue sample would be
submitted for analysis or if there would be no
fish tissue analysis for that particular site.
Fish were collected for tissue analyses from
27 April 1993 to 8 July 1993 and from 18 April
1994 to 24 June 1994. There were 102 sites
selected for fish tissue sampling and fish tissue
samples were collected at 77 of these sites.
There were 70 sites at which Small Target Spe-
cies fish tissue samples were collected, 47 sites
at which Large Target Species tissue samples
were collected. Of these, both Small and Large
Target Species tissue samples were collected
at 40 sites (Figure 1).
Small Target Species samples were
composited and wrapped in aluminum foil in the
field. Individuals making up the Large Target
Species samples were individually wrapped in
aluminum foil. Samples were then placed in a
labeled plastic bag which was placed within a
second plastic bag. The samples were then
sealed with tape and placed on dry ice or in a
portable freezer where they were kept frozen
until they were shipped to the laboratory via
overnight express mail (USEPA1994).
Laboratory Analysis
The tissue samples were analyzed by a
contractor, the Patuxent Analytical Control Fa-
cility located in Patuxent, Maryland. Fish
samples were held at -20°C until analysis. In
the laboratory, the aluminum foil was removed
from the fish samples and the outside of each
fish was thoroughly washed with distilled water
and then weighed. The fish in the samples that
contained three to five large fish (i.e., Large
Target Species) were weighed individually while
the fish in the samples that contained many small
fish (i.e., Small Target Species) were weighed
together The total weight and number offish in
each composite sample was recorded. Each
composite sample of Small and Large Target
Species from each site was analyzed separately.
Whole fish were analyzed to determine the over-
all ecological condition of the streams and the
consumption risks to piscivorus wildlife (USEPA
1994).
Laboratory analyses determined the con-
centrations of a suite of elemental and organic
contaminants (Table 3). These analytes were
taken from the EMAP Estuary Implementation
-------
Table3. List of Analytes from the Mid- Atlantic Fish Tissue Analysis Study. The Fish Categories for
which the Median Analyte Concentrations were above Detection Limits are Noted
Analy te CAS Number Category of fish for which the median
concentration of the respective analyte
was above the detection limit
*
#Aluminum
*Arsenic
*BHC- alpha
*BHC-beta
*BHC- delta
*BHC- gamma
*Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
2,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDD
*2,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
*2,4'-DDT
*4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
*Endosulfan-I
*Endosulfan-II
*Endrin
*Heptachlor
309-00-2
7429-90-5
7440-38-2
58-89-9
58-89-9
58-89-9
58-89-9
744043-9
744047-3
7440-50-8
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-6
72-55-9
789-02-6
50-29-3
60-57-1
959-98-8
33213-65-9
72-20-8
7644-8
None
All
None
None
None
None
None
White sucker
All
All
All
All
None
All
Small Target Species, Blacknose dace,
White sucker
Large Target Species, White sucker
All
None
None
None
None
*These compounds were not used in CDFs, histograms or box plots for at least one category of fish because
their median values were below detection limits.
#The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in the
packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis Sections).
(continued)
-------
Table3. (Continued)
Analyte
Heptachlor epoxide
*Hexachlorobenzene
Iron
*Lead
Mercury
*Mirex
Nickel
trans-Nonachlor
cis-Nonachlor
Oxychlordane
Chlordane (alpha and gamma)
* Selenium
Zinc
+PCB Congeners
2,4-Dichlorobiphenyl, #8
2,2',5-Trichlorobiphenyl, #18
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl, #28
2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #44
2,2',5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #52
2,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #66
2,2',4,5,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl,#101
2,3,4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl, #118
CAS Number
1024-57-3
118-74-1
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
2385-85-5
7440-02-0
3675-80-5
5103-73-1
27304-13-8
57-74-9
778249-2
7440-66-6
3488343-7
37680-65-2
7012-37-5
41464-39-5
35693-99-3
32598-10-0
37680-73-2
31508-00-6
Category of fish for which the median
concentration of the respective analyte
was above the detection limit
All
Small Target Species, Blacknose dace,
White sucker
All
None
All
None
All
All
All
All
All
None
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
These compounds were not used in CDFs, histogramsor box plots for at least one category of fish
because their medium values were below detection limits.
+Laboratory analysis was conducted for each of these PCB congeners. However, the data analysis for
this report only considered Total PCBs.
(continued)
-------
Table3. (Continued)
Analyte
CAS Number Category of fish for which the median
concentration of the respective analyte
was above the detection limit
+PCB Congeners
2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl,#153
2,3,3',4,4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl,#105
2,2',3,4,4',5-Hexachlorobiphenyl,#138
2,2',3,4',5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl,#187
2 2' 3 3' 4 4'-Hexachlorobiphenyl #128
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl,#180
2,2',3,3',4,4',5-Heptachlorobiphenyl,#170
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-Octachlorobiphenyl,#195
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Nonachlorobiphenyl,#206
Decachlorobiphenyl, #209
3,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #77
3,3',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl,#126
3,3',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl,#169
Total PCBs
35065-27-1
32598-144
35065-28-2
52663-68-0
38380-07-3
35065-29-3
35065-30-6
52663-78-2
40186-72-9
2051-24-3
32598-13-3
25429-29-2
32774-16-6
NA
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
+Laboratory analysis was conducted for each of these PCB congeners. However, the data analysis for this
report only considered Total PCBs.
Plan so that this study would be consistent with
the EMAP Estuary Fish Tissue Contaminant
P rogram, the EMAP Northeast Lakes Fish Tis-
sue Contaminant Program and the Office of
\\ater's National Contaminant Program. Tissue
samples were homogenized with a Teckmar
Tissumizer and sub-sampled. Tissue samples
were digested by a mixture of sulfuric and nitric
acids for mercury determination. For other el-
emental analyses, tissue samples were either
digested with nitric acid or dry ashed in a muffle
furnace. Metals were determined by one of three
techniques depending on the element and con-
centration. Mercury was determined by cold
vapor technique (USEPA method 245.6,
USEPA, 1991b) atomic absorption spectrom-
etry (AAS), in which stannous chloride was used
to reduce HgO. Arsenic, cadmium, selenium and
lead were determined by graphite furnace AAS,
in which electrical heating was used to produce
an atomic cloud. The remaining metals (also
cadmium and lead when in high concentration)
-------
were determined by atomic emission spectrom-
etry using an argon plasma.
Extractions of the tissue samples for the
analysis of organic contaminants (i.e., polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and
PCBs) were performed using the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Status and Trends method (MacLeod et al.
1985) with minor modification (Brooks et al.
1989; Wade et al. 1988). Briefly, an aliquot of
tissue homogenate (1-10 g) was dried with so-
dium sulfate and extracted with methylene chlo-
ride. The tissue extract was purified by silica/
aluminum column chromatography and high per-
formance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to iso-
late the desired organic fraction and to remove
interfering lipids. The quantitative analysis was
performed by gas chromatography (GC) with
mass spectrometer detector (MSD) in single ion
monitoring (SIM) mode for poly cyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and with electron capture detec-
tor (BCD) for pesticides and PCBs. Where
known co-elution occurred in GC/ECD (e.g.,
endosufan I and PCB congeners 114 and 117),
GC with MSD in SIM mode was used.
The Quality Assurance (Q A)/Quality Con-
trol (QC) for fish tissue analyses used in EMAP
for inland surface waters (EMAP-SW) proto-
cols (USEPA 1993b) is based on performance.
It uses a list of required elements and limits
(USEPA 1993b, 1994) of which a Standard
Reference Materials (SRM) is one of the prin-
ciple elements. This SRM must be made up of
a matrix of similar fish tissue, of natural origin
and contain several of the indicator values.
Data Analysis
Analysis of Data Sets
For all data analyses, analytes which had
concentration values below the detection limits
were given values of 50% of the detection limit.
This approach helped reduce either overesti-
mating or underestimating the concentrations of
these contaminants.
The analyses of the data from this study
were approached in two different ways. One
approach to analyzing the data was to consider
the Small Target Species and the Large Target
Species as groups and the other approach to
analyzing the data was to consider each indi-
vidual species or species group (e.g., creek
chub/fallfish) separately. When considering in-
dividual species or species groups, separate
subsets of the data were created for analysis of
the two most common species (i.e., blacknose
dace and white sucker). For these subsets, the
data used were from the first visit to a site in
which that particular species was collected.
White sucker made up a significant por-
tion of the Large Target Species and blacknose
dace made up a significant portion of the Small
Target Species. The proportions that these in-
dividual species contributed to the Large and
Small Target Species are shown in Appendices
A and B, respectively.
Sites that were visited more than once by
the field crews required subsetting of the data
for analysis. One subset was created to analyze
the Small Target Species data as a group.
Among the Small Target Species, there were
often two to three different species offish col-
lected during multiple visits. For those sites that
had more than one visit and more than one spe-
cies collected during those different visits, the
sample made up of the highest priority fish spe-
cies available was used for analysis. If this high-
est priority fish species was the same for more
than one visit, the sample collected during the
earliest visit was used. Another subset of data
was created to analyze Large Target Species
as a group. Because the same Large Target
-------
Species were collected during all visits to the
same site, this subset of data included all Large
Target Species samples that were collected dur-
ing the first visit to a site.
Objectives
The data were analyzed so that three ques-
tions could be answered:
1) Where were fish exposed to contami-
nants?
2) What was the magnitude of the
exposure?
3) Where were the sites that exceeded
toxicological benchmark values?
Descriptive Statistics
In order to interpret the data, several de-
scriptive statistics were generated. The propor-
tion of each fish category across the stream or-
ders was described and box plots representing
the distribution of analyte levels across stream
order for blacknose dace and white sucker were
generated. Histograms which show the propor-
tion of white sucker to Large Target Species
and the proportion of blacknose dace to Small
Target Species with their respective levels of
exposure to 22 analytes were also generated.
These histograms not only describe the level of
exposure for four categories offish but they also
describe the relative contribution of the white
sucker to the Large Target Species category and
the relative contribution of the blacknose dace
to the Small Target Species category.
Empirical cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs) were calculated for 22 analytes. A CDF
indicates, across the full range of values, the
proportion of samples at or below a given value.
CDFs are a useful descriptive tool in determin-
ing whether most of the values are very low,
with a few high values or whether values cover
a broader range. Finally, box plots showing level
of analytes detected for each of four categories
of fish were generated. Histograms, CDFs and
box plots were not generated for analytes which
had median values below the detection limits in
a particular category offish. Because of the in-
frequent detections of these analytes, histograms,
CDFs and box plots would provide very little
information. Those analytes for which histo-
grams, CDFs and box plots were not gener-
ated are summarized in Tables 4 through 7.
Exposure
The laboratory analyses provided the in-
formation necessary to determine that exposure
to contaminants had occurred based on the de-
tection of contaminants in the fish tissue samples.
The 90th percentile and 95% confidence
intervals were calculated for the contaminant
exposure of the most commonly occurring spe-
cies (blacknose dace) to each of the analytes
for which the median values were above the
Table 4. Analytes for which the Median Values
were Below the Detection Limits in Small Target
Species Samples (N=70)
Analyte
75th Detection
Percentile Maximum Limit
(ug/g) 0.0002
Arsenic (ug/g) 3.7500
Cadmium (ug/g) 0.1600
o,p'-DDE(ug/g) 0.0002
p,p'-DDT(ug/g) 0.0002
Endosulfanl(ug/g) 0.0004
Endosulfanll (ug/g) 0.0004
Endrin(ug/g) 0.0002
Heptachlor(ug/g) 0.0002
BHC- alpha (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC- beta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -delta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC - gamma (ug/g) 0.0002
Mirex(ug/g) 0.0002
Lead (ug/g) 1.2500
Selenium (ug/g) 3.7500
0.0004
5.1000
0.7200
0.0010
0.0070
0.0021
0.0041
0.0033
0.0006
0.0007
0.0005
0.0007
0.0022
0.0006
2.8900
5.5900
0.0002
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
1.2500
3.7500
-------
Table 5. Analytes for which the Median Values
were Below the Detection Limits inBlacknose Dace
Samples (N=33)
Analyte
75th Detection
Percentile Maximum Limit
(ug/g) 0.0002
Arsenic (ug/g) 3.7500
Cadmium (ug/g) 0.1500
o,p'-DDE(ug/g) 0.0003
p,p'-DDT(ug/g) 0.0002
Endosulfan I (ug/g) 0.0004
Endosulfan II (ug/g) 0.0004
Endrin(ug/g) 0.0002
Heptachlor(ug/g) 0.0002
BHC- alpha (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC- beta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -delta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC - gamma (ug/g) 0.0003
Mirex(ug/g) 0.0002
Lead (ug/g) 1.2500
Selenium (ug/g) 3.7500
0.0004
4.2800
0.6400
0.0010
0.0029
0.0009
0.0041
0.0008
0.0006
0.0007
0.0002
0.0007
0.0022
0.0003
1.2500
5.5300
0.0002
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
1.2500
3.7500
Table 6. Analytes for which the Median Values
were Below the Detection Limits in Large Target
Species Samples (N=47)
Analyte
75th Detection
Percentile Maximum Limit
(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002
Arsenic (ug/g) 3.7500 7.6700 3.7500
Cadmium (ug/g) 0.1000 0.6700 0.1000
o,p'-DDE(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0011 0.0002
o,p'-DDT(ug/g) 0.0006 0.0073 0.0002
Endosulfan I (ug/g) 0.0004 0.0107 0.0004
Endosulfan II (ug/g) 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004
Endrin(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0037 0.0002
Heptachlor(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002
Hexachloro- 0.0004 0.0014 0.0002
benzene (ug/g)
BHC-alpha(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002
BHC-beta (ug/g) 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
BHC-delta(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
BHC-gamma (ug/g) 0.0002 0.0012 0.0002
Mirex(ug/g) 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002
Lead (ug/g) 1.2500 2.4200 1.2500
Selenium (ug/g) 3.7500 6.6400 3.7500
Table 7. Analytes for which the Median
Values were Below the Detection Limits in White
Sucker Samples (N=24)
Analyte
75th Detection
Percentile Maximum Limit
(ug/g) 0.0002
Arsenic (ug/g) 3.7500
Cadmium (ug/g) 0.1500
o,p'-DDE(ug/g) 0.0002
Endosulfan I (ug/g) 0.0004
Endosulfan II (ug/g) 0.0004
Endrin(ug/g) 0.0002
Heptachlor(ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -alpha (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -beta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -delta (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC - gamma (ug/g) 0.0004
Lead (ug/g) 1.2500
Mirex(ug/g) 0.0002
Selenium (ug/g) 3.7500
0.0006
7.6700
0.6700
0.0110
0.0031
0.0009
0.0037
0.0009
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0012
2.4200
0.0005
6.6400
0.0002
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
1.2500
0.0002
3.7500
detection limits. These statistics help to describe
the level of exposure to contaminants. In addi-
tion, the percentages of sites at which Small
Target and/or Large Target Species showed
exposure to contaminants above detection lim-
its were calculated.
Magnitude of Exposure
In order to determine the magnitude of
exposure, toxicological benchmarks from
Sample et al. (1996) were used. The bench-
mark values were based on the no observed
adverse effects level (NOAEL) for the belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori) for food con-
sumption. The NOAEL for the belted kingfisher
is the maximum concentration of the contami-
nant ( g contaminant/g fish) that could be found
in fish such that the belted kingfisher would be
likely to suffer no adverse effects by consuming
them. The methods used for the derivation of
the NOAEL benchmark values are detailed in
Sample et al. (1996). The exceedence of
NOAEL benchmark values and the degree to
which the NOAEL benchmark values were ex-
-------
ceeded were judged to be indicative of the mag-
nitude of exposure.
The belted kingfisher was chosen to be a
representative of the wildlife in the region be-
cause it is widely distributed throughout the re-
gion, lives near bodies of water and feeds pri-
marily on fish. It is likely that its prey would be
near the size of the fish that were on the Small
Target Species list (Terres 1980; Peterson and
Peterson 1998). Because the sites for this study
were chosen randomly, not all sites will be rep-
resentative of typical belted kingfisher habitat
and the fish from those sites, therefore, may not
realistically represent a part of a belted
kingfisher's diet. However, theNOAEL-based
toxicological benchmarks should serve ad-
equately as screening values for determining the
magnitude of exposure.
All analytes used in this study (Table 3)
for which there were NOAEL benchmark val-
ues reported in Sample et al. (1996) were used
in data analysis. These analytes include As, Cd,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn, DDT and metabo-
lites, endosulfan, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane,
gamma-BHC and total PCBs (Table 8). For
cases in which the benchmark values were cal-
culated for a particular form of an element (e.g.,
Methyl mercury dicyandiamide) and the labo-
ratory analysis for this study yielded only a value
for the element (e.g., Mercury), then the lowest
available benchmark was used. This was done
in order to represent the range of exposure to
these 16 contaminants.
For the calculation of these benchmark
values, it was assumed that there was no expo-
sure to contaminants by the ingestion of water.
The toxicological benchmark values for food
were used in order to best estimate the effects
of a belted kingfisher eating the fish that were
collected from these streams. Because the prey
of the belted kingfisher is likely to be small fish,
only the data from the Small Target Species were
considered.
Table 8. Toxicological Benchmark Values for
the Belted Kingfisher (Sample et al. 1996)
Chemical
Arsenic
Form
Referenced
Copper
acetoarsenite
NOAEL
(Food, ug/g)
4.9
Cadmium Cadmium chloride 2.86
Chromium Cr3+asCrK(SO4)2 1.97
Copper Copper oxide 92.7
Mercury Methyl mercury 0.013
dicyandiamide
Nickel Nickel sulfate 152.74
Lead Lead acetate 2.23
* Selenium Selanomethionine 0.789
Zinc Zinc sulfate 28.6
Dieldrin n/a 0.152
gamma-BHC n/a 3.95
DDT& n/a 0.006
metabolites
Chlordane n/a 4.20
Endosulfan n/a 19.7
Endrin n/a 0.020
TotalPCBs Arochlorl254 0.355
*The 50% value of the detection limit for Selenium
is greater than the reported NOAEL value.
For the magnitude of exposure analyses,
six DDT metabolites were summed to obtain a
single value for DDT. Endosulfan I and endosul-
fan II were totaled for total endosulfan. The
values for alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane,
oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor and trans-
nonachlor were summed for total chlordane.
Before summing, half the detection limit was used
for any values that were below the detection
-------
limits. For the contaminants not used in sum-
ming, half the detection limit was used if the value
was below the detection limit before comparing
it to the NOAEL.
Location of Sites Exceeding
Toxicological Benchmark
Values
The locations of the sites that yielded the
Small Target Species tissue samples that ex-
ceeded the NO AEL benchmark values were
mapped using GIS software. The maps were
constructed to illustrate the degree to which the
benchmark values were exceeded at each site
for each of the selected contaminants and to il-
lustrate the number of benchmark values that
were exceeded at each site.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The database containing the data collected
during this study is located atwww.epa.gov/
emap/html/datal/surfwatr/data/mastreams/
9396. Fish tissue samples were collected at 77
of the 102 sites selected for fish tissue sampling.
In 92 visits to these 77 sites, Small Target Spe-
cies were collected during 83 visits to 70 sites
and Large Target Species were collected dur-
ing 53 visits to 47 sites. Of these, both Small
and Large Target Species were collected dur-
ing 44 visits to 40 sites. The prediction that the
Small Target Species would be more widely
distributed in first through third order streams
within the region is supported by these data.
No Small Target Species tissue samples
were collected at 32 sites (Table 9). There were
no Small Target Species tissue samples collected
from 15 of these sites because either the sites
were not sampleable (e.g., no water present)
or no fish were present in the reach. At 13 of
Table 9. A Summary of the Number of Sites
Visited, Number of Sites where Tissue Samples
were Collected, and the Number of Sites at which
no Tissue Samples were taken
Number of Sites
Small Large
Target Species Target Species
Total Sites 102
Visited
Tissue Sample 70
Collected
No Fish Collected 15
No Target Fish 4
Collected
Target Fish Collected 13
but No Tissue Sample
Available
102
47
15
21
19
the remaining sites, at least one individual of the
Small Target Species was caught, but there
were either too few fish to take a fish tissue
sample or the sample was lost after the fish tis-
sue sample was collected. At four sites, fish were
collected but there were no Small Target Spe-
cies present. No Large Target Species tissue
samples were collected at 55 sites (Table 9).
There was no Large Target Species tissue
samples collected from 15 of these because ei-
ther the sites were not sampleable or no fish
were present in the reach. At 19 of the remain-
ing sites, Large Target Species were caught, but
there were either too few fish to take a fish tis-
sue sample or the sample was lost after the fish
tissue sample was collected. At the other 21
sites, fish were collected but there were no Large
Target Species present.
A series of histograms displays the num-
ber of four of the fish categories that were col-
lected in the three stream orders (Figure 3). Note
that the Small Target Species were collected in
fairly even numbers among the stream orders,
-------
30
20
cu
JD
E
10
Fish Category by Stream Order
Blacknose dace
1 2 3
Stream order
30
CO
cu
20
cu
I 10
White sucker
JTL
1 2 3
Stream order
Small target species
ou
CO
1 20
CD
CO
O
cu
1 10
z
n
-
i
i
-
1 2 3
Stream order
30
CO
1 20
CD
CO
cu
I 10
Large target species
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure3. The number of blacknose dace, white sucker, small target species and large target species
collected for fish tissue analysis by stream order.
however, very few of the Large Target Species
were collected in first order streams and the
greatest number were collected in third order
streams.
Although Small Target Species were ap-
proximately evenly distributed among first, sec-
ond, and third order streams (Figure 3),
blacknose dace were more common in first and
second order streams. Large Target Species
were least common in first order streams (about
20%) and most common in third order streams
(about 45%). However, white sucker samples
were collected primarily from second order
streams (about 50%), with another large pro-
portion in third order streams and only about
10% in first order streams.
Box plot representations of the distribu-
tion of various analytes across the stream or-
ders for blacknose dace and white sucker were
developed (Appendix C). For blacknose dace,
samples from third order streams generally
showed higher variability and often higher me-
-------
dians than samples from first and second order
streams. However, some of this variability may
be an artifact of a much smaller sample size
(n=5) for third order streams. The greatest val-
ues for DDT metabolites and organics were
usually found in samples from second or third
order streams. For white sucker, there were no
apparent differences among stream order for
pesticides (DDT and metabolites), most organ-
ics, total PCBs, or metals. However, chlordane
derivatives often showed slightly higher variabil-
ity among samples from first order sites (n=3).
Two sets of histograms were generated for
the analytes for which the median values were
above the detection limits. One set of histograms
shows the proportion of white sucker to Large
Target Species (Appendix A) and the other set
shows the proportion of blacknose dace to Small
Target Species (Appendix B). These histograms
describe the level of exposure of the four most
common categories offish to contaminants.
They also describe the relative contribu-
tion of the white sucker to the Large Target
Species tissue samples and the relative contri-
bution of the blacknose dace to the Small Tar-
get Species tissue samples.
Sets of CDFs were calculated for each of
the 22 analytes for which the median values were
above the detection limits (Appendix D). Box
plot representations of these data are presented
in Appendix E. The production of the CDFs
provides some key insights into the distribution
of the data. For example, the CDFs reveal that
all contaminants had distributions which were
skewed toward low values or the detection lim-
its. They also illustrate that metals were present
in relatively low concentrations at most sites, but
with a range of moderate to high values at some
sites. Cadmium was present in quantities less
than the detection limit for all groups except white
sucker, in which concentrations were relatively
high for a large proportion of sites. Some met-
als (i.e., Fe, Hg, Ni and Zn) had a maximum
concentration among blacknose dace which was
much lower than it was for the Small Target
Species group as a whole. However, this was
not true of white suckers in relation to the Large
Target Species group. For both Large and Small
Target Species, DDT and its metabolites were
largely below detection limits for most sites with
only a very small number of sites having rela-
tively high concentrations of a given metabolite.
The concentration of most organics were be-
low detection limits in most species at over 80%
of the sites.
The central part of the distribution of each
contaminant, except Zn, was similar among in-
dividual species and groups of species (i.e.,
Large and Small Target Species), but outliers
and maximum values varied greatly among the
categories depending on the contaminant (Ap-
pendix E). Zn values tended to be much greater
among Small Target Species than they were
among Large Target Species. For the remain-
der of the analytes, there was no consistency as
to whether the Large or Small Target Species
had the greatest values for concentrations of
contaminants.
Exposure
Blacknose dace was the most common
species in the study. The 90th percentile levels
of contaminants were calculated for the
blacknose dace (Table 10). This table only in-
cludes those analytes for which the median val-
ues were above their respective detection lim-
its. Because at least one contaminant was above
the detection limit at every site (Tables 11 through
13), exposure occurred at every site. When
considering the results of the Al portion of the
analysis, it is important to note that these results
may be artificially inflated because of the way in
which the field samples were processed and
stored (see Collection of Samples and Labora-
-------
tory Analysis Sections). It is possible that the
use of aluminum foil in the storage of samples
affected the results of the Al analysis. The per-
centage of sites at which exposure occurred for
both Small and Large Target Species was cal-
culated for each analyte (Tables 11 and 12, re-
spectively). For visits occurring in both the Large
and Small Target Species data sets, the number
of sites at which there was exposure for one or
both categories of target fish was also calcu-
lated (Table 13). For both categories of target
species, exposure to most contaminants oc-
curred at a moderate to high percentage of sites.
When considering only sites where Small and
Large Target species were collected, exposure
was fairly consistent between large and small
species.
Table 10. The 90% Levels of Contaminant
Concentrations inBlacknose Dace Tissue Samples
(N=33)
90thpercentile
Contaminant (ug/g) 95%CI
*Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
o,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
Dieldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
Oxychlordane
Total PCBs
180.58
1.51
1.23
141.57
0.0763
0.43
54.19
0.0015
0.0029
0.0019
0.0397
0.0109
0.0014
0.0006
0.0060
0.0054
0.0038
0.0130
0.0033
0.1971
(103.03,188.27)
(1.36,1.60)
(1.07,1.47)
(98.88,209.60)
(0.0582,0.0993)
(0.350,0.740)
(47.40,56.24)
(0.0007,0.0021)
(0.0010,0.0034)
(0.0007,0.0057)
(0.0099,0.0704)
(0.0028,0.0338)
(0.0007,0.0057)
(0.0004,0.0010)
(0.0014,0.0503)
(0.0015,0.0342)
(0.0014,0.0435)
(0.0037,0.1001)
(0.0012,0.0371)
(0.0660,0.4981)
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been
artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in
the packaging and storage of samples (See
Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
Magnitude of Exposure
The benchmark lexicological values for the
16 contaminants that were available from
Sample et al. (1996) are presented in Table 8.
Table 14 shows the percentage of sites in which
the NOAEL benchmark values were exceeded
by Small Target Species, by factors of 1 or 10,
and which NOAEL benchmark values were not
exceeded by Small Target Species. Figures 4
through 11 show the locations of the sites that
exceeded the benchmark values for As, Cr, Hg,
Pb, Se, Zn, DDT and metabolites and Total
PCBs. Because the NOAEL benchmark value
for Se was less than 50% of the detection limit
for Se, then the concentration of Se in the Small
Target Species tissue samples exceeds the
NOAEL benchmark value at all 70 sites. Thus,
the map for Se indicates the sites where NOAEL
values were exceeded but were below the de-
tection limit and those sites where NOAEL val-
ues were exceeded and were also above the
detection limit. Maps were not produced for
those analytes whose NOAEL benchmark val-
ues were not exceeded at any sites (i.e., Cd,
Cu, Ni, chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin
and gamma-BHC).
Location of Sites
Exceeding Toxicological
Benchmark Values
Of the sites from which Small Target Spe-
cies tissue samples were collected, 70 (100%)
exceeded at least one of the 16 NOAEL toxi-
cological benchmark values (Table 15). The lo-
cation of the sites and the number of NOAEL
benchmark values exceeded at those sites are
shown in Figure 12. Figure 13 shows the loca-
tions of the sites that exceeded the NOAEL
benchmark values for both metal and organic
contaminants. Note that this map reflects the
pervasiveness of DDT and its metabolites. Be-
-------
Table 11. Percentage of Sites at which Small
Target Species Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants
Above Detection Limits (N=70)
Table 12. Percentage of Sites at which Large
Target Species Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants
Above Detection Limits (N=47)
Contaminant
% of sites exposed
Contaminant
% of sites exposed
*Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
o,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfanll
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
BHC -alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
BHC-gamma
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
Oxychlordane
Miiex
100.0
5.7
38.6
100.0
100.0
51.4
84.3
70.0
4.3
100.0
71.4
28.6
62.9
75.7
10.0
100.0
15.7
100.0
7.1
18.6
11.4
14.3
65.7
81.4
12.9
7.1
2.9
25.7
77.1
72.9
88.6
100.0
90.0
11.4
*Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
o,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
8.5
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfanll
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
BHC -alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
BHC-gamma
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
Oxychlordane
Mirex
100.0
2.1
44.7
100.0
100.0
63.8
87.2
78.7
2.1
100.0
61.7
14.9
55.3
78.7
72.3
100.0
93.6
6.4
19.1
4.3
4.3
57.4
63.8
10.6
0.0
0.0
23.4
68.1
57.4
87.2
100.0
91.5
10.6
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been
artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in
the packaging and storage of samples (See
Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been
artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in
the packaging and storage of samples (See
Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
cause both Hg and Se exceed NOAEL values
at a large number of sites, they were removed
from the data set in order to produce the map
shown in Figure 14. There were four sites that
exceeded more than four NOAEL benchmark
values. One of these sites was a first order
stream, one was a second order stream and two
were third order streams (Table 16).
-------
Arsenic
O NOAEL
Ž >10xNOAEL
TT 50 0
I ^^^^^^5
50 Miles
Figure 4. The location of the site at which the concentration of arsenic in the small target species tissue
sample exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Chromium
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 5. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of chromium in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Mercury
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 6. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of mercury in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Lead
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 7. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of lead in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Selenium
0 > NOAEL, Below Detection Limit
> NOAEL, Above DL
Figure 8. The locations of sites at which the concentrations of selenium in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Zinc
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 9. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of zinc in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
DDTand Metabolites
O -cNOAEL
5) >NOAEL
MOxNOAEL
Figure 10. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of DDT and its metabolites in small
target species tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Total PCBs
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 11. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of total PCBs in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Table 13. Number of Sites at which Small Target
Species, Large Target Species, neither or both
Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants Above
Detection Limits (N=35)
Contaminant
Both None Small Large
Table 14. Percentage of Sites that were Less
than or Exceeded the NOAEL Benchmark Values
and the Degree to which they were Exceeded.
These Percentages are Based on Small Target
Species Tissue Samples (N=70)
*Aluminum
A I'cpnir'
rt-iaCiiiL-
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
o,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfanll
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
BHC -alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
BHC-gamma
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
Oxychlordane
Mirex
35
n
\j
10
35
35
21
22
24
0
35
19
4
19
25
3
27
2
32
2
6
1
1
19
20
1
0
0
7
23
22
30
35
28
3
0
TA
->T
15
0
0
9
3
6
32
0
7
23
8
3
9
0
29
0
29
27
32
28
9
4
32
34
35
26
3
8
2
0
2
28
0
n
\j
3
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
6
6
7
4
1
6
3
3
3
1
2
6
6
10
1
1
0
2
7
5
1
0
1
2
0
i
i
7
0
0
3
8
5
1
0
3
2
1
3
22
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
4
2
^ JYV ^ J.V/7V
Contaminant
-------
Table 15. Numbers and Percentages of Sites
with Varying Numbers of Contaminants Exceeding
the NOAEL Benchmark Values
Number of
contaminants
exceeding NOAEL
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number
of sites
0
1
15
32
18
4
Percentage
of sites
0.0
1.4
21.4
45.7
25.7
5.7
benchmark values at greater than 40% of the
sites where small target species were collected
(Table 14). The widespread occurrences of
these contaminants (Figures 12 through 14) sug-
gests the influence of non-point sources of pol-
lution (e.g., agriculture and atmospheric depo-
sition) should be investigated.
The number of sites exceeding NOAEL
benchmarks for mercury, DDT and PCB val-
ues (Table 14) suggests a comprehensive study
offish tissue contaminants is warranted for the
region. While the NOAEL values are very con-
servative estimations of the effects of a polluted
food source on belted kingfishers, they are use-
ful indicators of excess contamination.
Low values for fish contaminants do not
necessarily mean absence of contaminants and
their sources. Low values of contaminants in fish
tissue can occur when the exposure pathway is
incomplete. For instance, it is possible that even
when mercury sources are uniformly distributed
throughout a region, higher methylation and,
hence, higher bioaccumulation may occur in re-
sponse to the nutrient and dissolved organic
carbon (DOC) status of the stream.
(Krabbenhoft et al. 1999, Krabbenhoft and
Weiner 1999; Weiner and Krabbenhoft 1999;
Eisler2000).
Characterizing the presence of Se is prob-
lematic. More than half of the sites did not have
values that met or exceeded the detection limit
for Se. However, Se is highly toxic to wildlife.
In fact, the NOAEL benchmark value for Se
was less than half of its detection limit. Thus, no
measurements could be reported below the
NOAEL. As a precaution and because no
screening was possible, Se is reported at or
above its NOAEL at every site sampled for
small target species. To identify sites with safe
values of Se in fish tissues, analytical methods
are needed that have detection limits that are at
least ten times lower.
In using the information provided in this
report, several factors should be kept in mind.
One factor is that it is known that different fish
species bioaccumulate contaminants at differ-
ent rates. Rubinstein et al. (1984) demonstrated
in a controlled laboratory experiment that three
Table 16. Sites which Exceeded Five or More NOAEL Benchmark Values with their Respective Stream
Orders and Selected Contaminant Levels
No.
chemicals
over Stream Arsenic Chromium Mercury Lead Selenium Zinc
benchmark order
DDT Total PCBs
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
3
3.750*
5.1000
3.750*
3.750*
1.130
1.190
1.360
3.030
0.079
0.047
0.053
0.066
1.250*
2.640
0.080
0.030*
3.750*
4.880
3.750*
3.750*
36.430
34.140
45.930
30.700
0.018
0.004
0.055
0.016
0.498
0.088
0.508
0.069
*The concentration of the contaminant was below the detection limit. The value given is the detection limit.
-------
rrYlrflnts over the NOAEL
O 1 Contaminant > NOAEL Q 4 Contaminants > NOAEL
@ 2 Contaminants > NOAEL @ 5 Contaminants > NOAEL
@ 3 Contaminants > NOAEL
Figure 12. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of contaminants in small target
species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and the number of benchmark
values that were exceeded.
-------
Metals and organics
Metals and organics
Figure 13. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of both organic and metal
contaminants in small target species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value.
-------
Metals and organics -excluding
mercury and selenium
Metals and organics
^Y~~ 50 0
I ^^^^^^5
50 Miles
Figure 14. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of both organic and metal (excluding
Hg and Se) contaminants in small target species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL
bench mark value.
-------
different fish species bioaccumulated PCBs at
different rates. Williams and Eddy (1986) noted
that common carp and tench (Tinea tinea) had
low Cl uptake rates and were more resistant to
NO2 than rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
my kiss), perch (Perca spp.), and northern pike
(Esox Indus) which had higher Cl uptake rates.
Also, it is generally reported that for hydropho-
bic chemicals (e.g., chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides) and mercury, greater bioaccumula-
tion occurs in organisms with higher lipid con-
tent. This increases the importance of collecting
fish during a season in which reproductive ac-
tivities, feeding habits or other influences have
not affected the lipid content of the sampled
organisms (USEPA 1992, 1993a). In a study
by the USEPA's National Study of Chemical
Residues in Fish (NSCRF), it was found that
bottom-feeding fish and game fish bioaccumu-
lated different dioxins, furans and xenobiotic
compounds at very different rates (USEPA
1992). Therefore, the white sucker from the
Large Target Species list would accumulate
chemicals at a very different rate than a species
of bass or trout, which are also on the Large
Target Species list.
Although it is known that fish bioaccumu-
late contaminants at different rates, it is not
known how the bioaccumulation rates among
the species used for this study may differ. The
American Fisheries Society's PCB subcommit-
tee advised against assuming that a bioaccumu-
lation factor that was developed for contami-
nants in one waterbody would be applicable to
other waterbodies. The authors state that the
amount of bioaccumulation that occurs for a
given concentration of a chemical in the water
column or in the sediments is usually site-spe-
cific and, therefore, should not be inferred to
remain the same at other sites (Veith et al.,
1979). Thus, it is difficult to accurately com-
pare sites when those comparisons are based
on the contaminant levels found in different spe-
cies. The life histories of large fish are generally
different from the life histories of smaller fish. It
would be imprudent to compare sites based on
different contaminant levels found in the two tar-
get categories offish or any two species.
Human health studies have taken a differ-
ent approach to measuring dietary exposure to
chemical contaminants (Thomas et al. 1997).
In this approach, composited samples that rep-
resent actual diet are analyzed for chemical con-
taminants. Sampling could be adapted for as-
sessments of wildlife that take into account that
different species offish may have different con-
centrations of contaminants and wildlife ingest a
variety of food items. The critical component is
obtaining a representative dietary sample. A
representative sample would consist of prey
items in the proportion likely to be caught by
the predator. A simplifying assumption is that
predators take prey in the proportion to the
occurrence in the total fish assemblage. This
approach would permit sites to be compared
on the basis of potential exposure of predators
to contaminants in fish.
This report describes fish tissue contami-
nant data collected from randomly-selected sites
in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The report is in-
tended to be used to screen exposure levels for
fish and wildlife. An alternative approach could
have used a subset of the data from the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands to represent the proportion
of stream miles with various levels offish tissue
contamination. However, this alternative ap-
proach was not used so that this report could
present all of the data collected in 1993 and
1994, including data from areas outside of the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands. These data also war-
rant further analysis of the associations offish
tissue contaminant levels with habitat and water
chemistry factors and with invertebrate and fish
assemblages.
-------
Literature Cited
Brooks, J.M., T.L. Wade, E.L. Atlas, M.C.
Kennicuttll, BJ. Presley, R.R. Fay, E.N.
Powell, and G. Wolff. 1989. Analysis of
bivalves and sediments for organic chemi-
cals and trace elements, Third annual report
for NOAA's National Status and Trends
Program, Contract 5-DGNC-5-00262.
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of chemical risk
assessment: Health hazards to humans,
plants and animals. Volume 1: Metals. CRC
Press LLC Printing, Boca Raton, Florida.
Herlihy, A.T.,D.P.Larsen, S.G. Paulsen,N.S.
Urquhart, andBJ. Rosenbaum. In Press.
Designing a spatially-balanced, randomized
site selection process for regional stream
surveys: the EMAP Mid-Atlantic pilot
study. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Krabbenhoft, D.P., J.G. Wiener, W.G.
Brumbaugh, M.L. Olson, J.F. DeWild, and
TJ. Sabin. 1999. A national pilot study of
mercury contamination of aquatic ecosys-
tems along multiple gradients. Pages 147-
160 inD.W. Morganwalp andH.T. Buxton,
eds. Proceedings of the U.S. Geological
Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program Technical Meeting, Charleston,
South Carolina, March 8-12, 1999.
Volume 2: Contamination of hydrologic
systems and related ecosystems: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 99-4018B.
Krabbenhoft, D.P., and J.G. Wiener. 1999.
Mercury contamination: A nationwide
threat to our aquatic resources and a
proposed research agenda for the U.S.
Geological Survey. Pages 171-178 in
D.W. Morganwalp and H.T. Buxton,
eds. Proceedings of the U.S. Geological
Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program Technical Meeting, Charleston,
South Carolina, March 8-12, 1999.
Volume 2: Contamination of hydrologic
systems and related ecosystems: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 99-4018B.
MacLeod, W.D., D.W. Brown, A.J.
Friedman, D.G. Burrow, O. Mayes,
R.W. Pearce, C.A. Wigren, and R.G.
Bogar. 1985. Standard analytical proce-
dures of the NO AA National Analytical
Facility 1985-1986. Extractable toxic
organic compounds. Second ed. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA/
NMFS, NOAA Technical Memo.
NMFS/NWRC-92.
-------
Olsen, A.R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C.A.
Gotway, W. Ligett, S.L. Rathburn, K.H.
Reckhow, andLJ. Young. 1999. Statistical
issues for monitoring ecological and natural
resources in the United States. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 1:1-45.
Overton, W.S., D.L. Stevens, and D. White.
1991. Design report for EMAP, Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment Program.
EPA/600/3-91/053. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R Kaufmann, T.R
Whittier, and J.R Baker. 1991. Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment Program:
EMAP-surface waters monitoring and re-
search strategy - Fiscal Year 1991. EPA/600/
3-91/022. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Peterson, RT. and V.M. Peterson. 1998. Afield
guide to thebirds: Acompletelynewguideto
all the birds of eastern and central North
America. Fourth ed. Houghton Mifflin
Company, 384pp.
Rubinstein, N.I., W.T. Gilliam,andN.R Gregory.
1984. Evaluation of three fish species as
bioassay organisms for degraded material
testing. Long Term Effects of Dredging
Operations Program, US Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mssissippi.
Sample, B.E.,D.M. Opresko, andG.W. SuterU.
1996. lexicological benchmarks for wildlife:
1996 revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. Depart-
ment of Energy, Office of Scientific and
Technical Information, OakRidge, Tennes-
see.
Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society
encyclopedia of North American birds.
Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1100pp.
Thomas, K.W., L.S. Sheldon, E.D. Pellizzari,
R.W. Handy, J.M. Roberds, and M.R.
Berry. 1997. Testing duplicate diet sample
collection methods for measuring personal
dietary exposures to chemical contami-
nants. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology. 7(1): 17-36.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 a.
Technical support document for water
quality based toxics control. EPA 505/2-
90-001. Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 199 Ib.
Methods for the determination of metals in
environmental samples. EPA/6004/4-91/
010. Office ofResearch and Development,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 1992.
National study of chemical residues in fish.
Volume I. EPA/823-R-92-008a. Office of
Science and Technology, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993 a.
Guidance for assessing chemical contami-
nant data for use in fish advisories. Volume
1: Fish sampling and analysis. EPA 823-R-
93-0 Office of Science and Technology,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program. Integrated quality assurance
proj ect plan for the surface waters resource
group. 1993 Northeast lakes demonstra-
tion survey. EPA/600/X-91/080, Rev.
1.01. Office ofResearch and Development,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 1994.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program. Surface Waters and Region 3
-------
Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. 1994 Pilot field
operations and methods manual for
streams. EPA/620/R-94/004. Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 1995.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Surface Waters: Field operations
and methods for measuring the ecological
conditions of wadeable streams. DJ.
Klemm. and J.M. Lazorchak(eds.). EPA/
620/R-94/004. Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 1997.
Guidance for assessing chemical contami-
nant data for use in fish advisories. Volume
2. Risk assessment and fish consumption
limits. Second ed. EPA/823/B-97/009.
Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology, Washington, D.C.
Veith, G.D., T.C. Carver II, C.M. Fetterolf,
G.F. Lee, D.L. Swanson, W.A. Willford,
andM.G. Zeeman. 1979. Polychlorinated
biphenyls. Pages 239 to 246 In: A review of
the EPA red book: Quality criteria for
water. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda,MD.
Wade, T.L., E.L. Atlas, J.M. Brooks, M.C.
Kennicutt II, R.G. Fox, J. Sericano, B.
Garcia, and D. DeFreitas. 1988. NOAA
Gulf ofMexico Status and Trends Program:
Trace organic contaminant distribution in
sediments and oyster. Estuaries 11:171-
179.
Wiener, J.G., and D.P. Krabbenhoft. 1999.
Methylmercury in aquatic food webs:
Consequences and management chal-
lenges. Pages 161-170inD.W.Morganwalp
andH.T. Buxton, eds. Proceedings of the
U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program Technical Meeting,
Charleston, South Carolina, March 8-12,
1999. Volume 2: Contamination of
hydrologic systems andrelated ecosystems:
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 99-4018B.
Williams, E.M.,andF.B. Eddy. 1986. Chloride
uptake in freshwater teleosts and its
relationship to nitrite uptake and toxicity.
Journal of Comparative Physiology
1568:867-872.
-------
Index
Subject
Page
Aldrin 7, 11, 12, 18,27, C6, CIS
Aluminum 6, 7, 10, 17, 18, 27, A2, B2, C2, Cll, D2, E3
Arsenic 7, 9, 11-13, 17-19, 27, 28, C2, Cll
Bass(F. Centrarchidae,M/'cropfems'spp.) 2, 5, 32
Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori) ii, 12, 13, 19-28
BenzeneHexachloride(BHC) 7, 11-13, 17, 18, 27, C8, C9, C17-19
Bioaccumulation 1, 2, 27, 32
rate of bioaccumulation 2, 28, 32
Cadmium 7,9, 11-13, 16-18, 27, C2, Cll, D3, E3
Carp, common (Cyprinus carpio) 2, 5, 32
Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) 2, 5
Chlordane 8, 13, 16-18, 27, A5, B5-6, C8, C17, D18-19, E7
Chromium 7, 13, 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, A2, B2, C2, Cll, D4, E3
Copper 7, 13, 17, 18, 27, A2, B2, C3, C12, D5, E3
Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) 2, 5, 10
Cumulative distribution functions (CDF s) 7, 8, 11, 16, AppendixD
Dace (Rhinichthys spp., Phoxinus spp., Clinostomus spp.) 2, 5
E\acknose(Rhinichthysatmtulus) 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15-17,
AppendixB, C2-C10, AppendixD, AppendixE
Darter (F.Percidae) 2, 5
ODD 7, 17, 18, 27, A3,-4, B3-4, C4-5, C13-14, D10-11, E5
DDE 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 27, A4, B4, C5, C14, D12, E6
DDT 1, 7, 11-13, 16-18, 25, 27, 28, A4, B4, C5-6, C14-15, D13-14, E5
Detection limits ii, 7-14, 16-18,27,28
Dieldrin 7, 13, 17, 18, 27, A5, B5, C6, C15, D15, E6
Dioxins 32
EMAP 3, 5, 6, 9, 10
Endosulfan 7, 11-13, 17, 18, 27, C7, C16
Endrin 7, 11-13, 17, 18, 27, C6, C15
-------
Index (continued)
Subject Page
Ta\\fish(Semotiluscorporalis) 2, 5, 10
Furans 32
Heptachlor 7, 11, 12, 18, 27, C7 C16
HeptachlorEpoxide 8, 17, 18, 27, B5, C7, C16, D16, E6
Hexachlorobenzene 8, 12, 17, 18, 27, A5, B5, C8, C17, D17, E6
Hogsucker, Northern (Hypentelium nigricans) 2, 5
Iron 8, 16, 17, A2, B2, C3, C12, D6, E4
Lead 1, 8, 9 11-13, 18, 22, 27, 28, C4, C13, E2
Mercury 1, 8, 9, 13, 16-18, 21, 27, 28, 31, 32, A3, B3, C3, C12, D7, E4
Mid-Atlantic ii, 1,2,4,5,32
Mirex 8, 11, 12, 18, 27, CIO
Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdf) 2, 5
Nickel 8, 13, 16-18, 27, A3, B3, C3, C12, D8, E4
NOAA 10
NOAEL ii, 12-14, 17, 19-31
Nonachlor 8, 13, 17, 18, 27, A6, B6, C9-10, C18-19, D20-21, E7
Oxychlordane 8, 13, 17, 18, 27, A6, B6, CIO, D22, E2
PCB 1, 8-10, 13, 16, 17, 26-28, 32, A4B4, CIO, D23, E2
Congeners 8-10, 27
Perch^Percaspp.) 32
Pike, Northern (Esox lucius) 32
Selenium 8, 9, 11-13, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 31, C4, C13
Shiner (F. Cyprinidae) 2, 5
Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) 2, 5
Sunfish(F Centrachidae, Lepomis spp.) 2, 5
Tench (Tinea tinea) 32
Trout (F. Salmonidae) 2, 5, 32
Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 32
White Sucker (Catostomus commersonf) 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 32,
-------
Appendix A
Histogram Representations of the
Proportion of the Large Target Species
Category Made Up of White Sucker for
Selected Analytes
-------
D Large species
White Sucker
30
100 200 300 400 500
Aluminum (|jg/g)
20
10
1 2 3
Chromium (|jg/g)
5 10 15
Copper (|jg/g)
20
40
8 30
Q.
E
o 20
I
E
i 10
100 200 300
Iron (|jg/g)
400
The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum
foil in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory
Analysis Sections).
Figure A-1. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe.
-------
Large species
White Sucker
30
CO
5.20
E
CD
CO
B
cu
-g 10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
0.20
2345
Nickel (ug/g)
40
or\
30
Q.
E
CD
CO
cu
JD
E
20
10
10 20 30 40
Zinc (ug/g)
50
o,p'-DDD(ug/g)
Figure A-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for Hg, Ni, Zn, and o-p'-DDD.
-------
D Large species
White Sucker
0.005 0.010
p,p'-DDD
0.015 0.020
20 30 40
p,p'-DDE
50 60
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total PCBs (|jg/g)
1.2
p,p'-DDT(|jg/g)
Figure A-3. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white suckerfor p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDT and total PCBs.
-------
Large species
White Sucker
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Dieldrin (ug/g)
0.05
CO
JU
Q.
E
CD
CO
cu
JD
E
^
20 -
10 -
0
0.0000
0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
Hexachlorobenzene (ug/g)
Q.
E
CD
CO
0.00
0.01
0.02 0.03
alpha-Chlordane (ug/g)
gamma-Chlordane (ug/g)
Figure A-4. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white suckerfordieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane.
-------
D Large species
White Sucker
cis-Nonachlor (pg/g)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (pg/g)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
Oxychlordane (pg/g)
Figure A-5. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane.
-------
Appendix B
Histogram Representations of the
Proportion of the Small Target Species
Category Made Up of Blacknose Dace for
Selected Analytes
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
500 1000 1500 2000
Aluminum (ug/g)
90
80
40
30
20
10
0
12345
Chromium (ug/g)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2345
Copper (ug/g)
Iron (ug/g)
The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in the
packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis Sections).
Figure B-1. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe.
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
JD
E
40
-§. 30
E
CD
CO
20
10
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
0.20
70
1 2
Nickel (ug/g)
Q.
E
CO
(0
JD
E
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Zinc (ug/g)
o,p'-DDD(ug/g)
Figure B-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for Hg, Ni, Zn and o,p'-DDD.
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
o,p'-DDT(|jg/g)
p,p'-DDD
tn
0)
o.
E
ro
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
150
Dieldrin (|jg/g)
150
to
Q>
E 100
CD
to
JD
E
50
Heptachlor epoxide (|jg/g)
150
0.001 0.002 0.003
Hexachlorobenzene (|jg/g)
100
CD
to
I 50
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
alpha-Chlordane (|jg/g)
Figure B-4. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
upofblacknosedacefordieldrin,heptachlorepoxide,hexachlorobenzeneandalpha-chlordane.
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
150
100 -
co
co
E
^
150
100
50
0
gamma-Chlordane (|jg/g)
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
cis-Nonachlor (|jg/g)
E
CD
to
120
100
80
E 40
0.00 0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (|jg/g)
0.15
JD
E
150
100
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Oxychlordane (|jg/g)
0.05
Figure B-5. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace forgamma-chlordane,cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlorand oxychlordane.
-------
Appendix C
Box Plots Representing the Distribution of
Analyte Data Across Stream Order for
Blacknose Dace and White Sucker
Key to Box Plots
-p 95th percentile
o
o
"ro
o
E
-------
Blacknose Dace
* 300
§
E
I
200
100
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
u. /
0.6
_ 0.5
3 0.4
E
I 0.3
ro
0 0.2
0.1
i i i
o
-
-
_ _
_
*
o
T
-
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
E
o
Ł
O
1 2 3
Stream order
The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil
in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
Figure C-1. Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd and Crdata across stream order for
blacknosedace.
-------
2.0
O)
O)
-3
Q.
Q.
O
o 1.0
n ^
-
i
*
\
1
i
i
*
T
T
1
i
i
T
Blacknose Dace
-
400
300
O)
3 200
o
100
n
i i i
o
-
*
T
. JL
-T- -r- \
1 1 1
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
H °-07
-^ 0.06
g 0.05
-------
Blacknose Dace
u. /
0.6
0.5
ro 0.4
IL
1 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
i
'
1
i
o
-
-
-
-
-
3
1 2 3
Stream order
o
c
N
60
50
40
30
20
_L
o
i
1 2
Stream order
b
5
S 4
E
^
c
-------
O)
O)
3.
LU
Q
Q
"o.
o"
U.UU IU
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
T I I
*
-
-
: JL JL . :
i i i
Blacknose Dace
0.020
1 2
Stream order
Q
Q
"o.
o"
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1 2 3
Stream order
u.uu/
0.006
0.005
5 0.004
Q
Q
9 0.003
CL
CL
0.002
Onm
.UU 1
n nnn
1
-------
0.003
-3 0.002
]5>
Q
Q
§: 0.001
0.000
0.07
0.06
0.05
S 0.04
.E
32 0.03
b
0.02
0.01
n nn
6 ' '
o
-
-
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
o
-
_
o
"
o
o
Blacknose Dace
0.0005
0.0004
§> 0.0003
O)
IL
32 0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
§> o.ooos
ZL.
^ 0.0004
^ 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
i i i
o -
- o -
- o -
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
T I T
-
-
- o o
- o
- o -
1 1 1
1 2
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-5. Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across
stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
-?
^5)
-S
c
M
3
(/)
o
T3
c
LLJ
O)
-i
O
(
o
ro
"§-
I
Blacknose Dace
0.0010
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
i i i
- o -
-
-
00-
_
-
-
1 1 1
0.005
0.004
O)
O)
0.003
-
Ł
5 0.001
o
^-j
0.002
0.000
i i i
_ o
_
-
_
* o
db 8
i i i
123 123
Stream order Stream order
.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
Onnrn
.UUU I
n nnnn
1 1 1
o -
- o
-
- o -
1 1 1
u.uo
_ °-07
O)
5 0.06
P 0.05
X
o
§- 0.04
o
-g 0.03
Ł
§- 0.02
i
0.01
n nn
i i 1
O
-
-
-
_
-
o
fi J- 1
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2
Stream order
Figure C-6. Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I, endosulfan II, heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide data across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
Blacknose Dace
0.003
0.002
JD
O
-§ 0.001
ro
x
0.000
1 2 3
Stream order
-21
S
0.0005
^ 0.0004
CQ
^ 0.0003
Q.
OT 0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
i i i
- 0 -
o -
-
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-7. Box plots representing the distribution of hexachlorobenzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-
chlordane and alpha-BHC data across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
Blacknose Dace
u.uuu^o
0.00020
"3
cb
3.
0 0.00015
CQ
ro
JD
0.00010
0.00005
0.0025
0.0020
O)
O)
B 0.0015
o
I
CQ
E 0.0010
E
ro
O)
0.0005
0.0000
i i i
- o -
-
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
o
-
0
- o
0 * | 1
0 I I *
i i T
1 2 3
u.uuuo
0.0007
0.0006
TO 0.0005
^ 0.0004
CQ
| 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.05
0.04
1
r o.os
o
0
ro
o 0.02
'o
0.01
0.00
1 1 1
- o
-
-
-
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
-------
0.15
2*
^ 0.10
o
ro
o
i 0.05
c
ro
0.00
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
0
0
_ o
0
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
00-
- o o
I I I
Blacknose Dace
0.05
0.04
"3
D)
^ 0.03
ro
i 0.02
o
>s
X
O
0.01
0.00
0.6
0.5
o> 0.4
O)
m 03
O
D.
"5 0.2
0.1
n n
i i i
0
0
-
T 8
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
- o
*
; JL
db D
' * ' T +
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-9. Box plots representing the distribution oftrans-nonachlor, oxychlordane, mirex and total
PCB data across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
White Sucker
"MOO
300
O)
O)
^.
I 200
c
E
100
1 2
Stream order
7
6
"3
TO 5
o
I 4
<
3
2
1
1 2
Stream order
O)
D)
ro
O
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 2
Stream order
E
o
5 1
1 2 3
Stream order
'The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil
in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
Figure C-10. Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd and Cr data across stream order for
white sucker.
-------
10
9
8
7
S! 6
IL
!_ 5
1 4
O
3
2
1
0
-
-
-
-
_
*
F=l
. lo
0.10
0.05
Onn
-
*
1
J
L
2
i
*
1
j.
i
3
Stream order
1
1
|
1
i
*
T
|
I
White Sucker
-
-
_
-
tuu
300
"3
O)
3: 200
o
100
0
_ _
j
' i
(
1 2 3
Stream order
-
I
2
|
3
Stream order
u
4
-? 3
0)
15 2
'-z.
1
n
*
-
1
JL
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-11. Boxplots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg and Ni data across stream orderfor
white sucker.
-------
Figure C-12. Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn and o,p'-DDD data across stream
order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
0.0011
0.0010
0.0009
_ 0.0008
D)
t| 0.0007
|ą| 0.0006
p^
-i 0.0005
o"
Or\r\r\/i
.0004
Or\r\r\o
.0003
Or\r\r\o
.0002
i i
- o -
-
-
-
I 0 "
1 1
u.uuo
0.007
0.006
0.005
"5)
5 0.004
H
Q
9 0.003
"o.
° 0.002
0.001
i i i
o
-
-
- T
O
-
T
i HH
0.0001 u.uuu
123 123
Stream order Stream order
.020
0.015
O)
O)
Q 0.010
Q
"o.
si
0.005
Ol"\r\r\
1 1 1
o
-
T T *
1 *
1
1 1 1 1 1
ou
50
-3 40
S
w 30
Q
"o.
d: 20
10
o
-
-
-
I J. 4,
123 123
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-13. Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data
across stream order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
U.UUD
0.005
^ 0.004
o)
Q 0.003
Q
1
Q.
d: 0.002
0.001
*
-
_
I
- JL
~
I
-
_
-
# _
Hh '
0.05
0.04
O)
"3) 0.03
gj 0.02
b
0.01
0.00
1 2 3
Stream order
u.uuu/
0.0006
0.0005
"3
"3) 0.0004
| 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.004
0.003
2*
f 0.002
c
LU
0.001
n nnn
i i i
- o -
-
- o -
-
o -
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
o
-
-
-
o
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-14. Boxplots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across
stream order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
0.004
0.003 -
ro 0.002 -
o
-a
0.001 -
0.000
1 1 1
_ o _
o
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
I I Y
-
-
-
i i i
U.UU IU
0.0009
0.0008
TO 0.0007
= 0.0006
^ 0.0005
-§ 0.0004
LU
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.020
"a 0.015
n.
'x
§- 0.010
^3
o
ro
g- 0.005
I
n nnn
I I I
- O -
-
-
-
O -
-
-
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
0
_
" 1 0
1 2
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-15. Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I, endosulfan II, heptachlorand
heptachlorepoxide data across stream order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
U.UU15
^5)
V 0.0010
N
JD
O
O
-g 0.0005
ro
-------
I
CQ
(0
JD
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
1 2
Stream order
White Sucker
0.0003
0.0002
O
CQ
(0
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
1 2
Stream order
U.UU ID
"3
"5) 0.0010
3.
o
I
CQ
(0
E
| 0.0005
TO
O)
Onnnn
-
-
1
T
1
1
1
1 1
O
-
O
-
1 1
u.u/
0.06
ro 0.05
O)
3.
o 0.04
t
o
Ľ 0.03
o
z:
i
g 0.02
0.01
n nn
1 '
_
_
-
-
~
_
_
_
-
""
0
T 1-
23 123
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-17. Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-
nonachlor data across stream order for white sucker.
-------
0.15
"3
1 0.10
trans-Nonachlor
O
O
en
0.00
-
-
* o
1 2 3
White Sucker
0.03
"3
"3) 0.02
CD
-a
f, 0.01
X
O
0.00
1 1 1
-
i °
1 2 3
Stream order Stream order
0.0006
0.0005
fj 0.0004
x
| 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
u.o
0.7
_ 0.6
O)
S 0.5
CO
CQ n 4
O u'^
CL
15 0.3
0^
.2
0.1
n n
I I I
O
-
-
-
*
-
O
T -
i i 4. i i j. i
1 2
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-18. Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-
nonachlor data across stream order for white sucker.
-------
Appendix D
Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs)
Showing the Proportion of the Four Fish
Categories that are At or Below Varying
Concentrations of Selected Analytes.
If the median value of the analyte was below the detection limit in a cat-
egory offish, a CDF was not generated for that category offish (See Table 3).
Key to CDFs
Lower 95% bound
CDF
Upper 95% bound
-------
*Aluminum
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.5 f
500 1000 1500
Aluminum (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
2000 0
I
I
100 200
Aluminum (ug/g)
300
Large species
White sucker
o
Q.
O
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 100
I
I
I
200 300
Aluminum (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
400 500
\
I
I
I
100 200 300
Aluminum (ug/g)
400
The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of
aluminum foil in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples
and Laboratory Analysis Sections).
Figure D-1. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of Al. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Cadmium
Small species Blacknose dace
Median value was below the detection limit
Median value was below the detection limit
Large Species
White sucker
Median value was below the detection limit
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
J I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cadmium (ug/g)
Figure D-2. CDF showing the proportion of white suckerthat are at or below varying concentrations
of cadmium.
-------
1.5
1.0
o
1 0-5
o
0.0
-0.5
Small species
012345
Chromium (ug/g)
Chromium
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
1 2 3
Chromium (ug/g)
Large species
White sucker
1.5
1.0
g
1 0-5
o
0.0
-0.5
1 2
Chromium (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
3 0
1 2 3
Chromium (ug/g)
Figure D-3. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of chromium. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Copper
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.5
1.0
I °-5
o
CL
0.0
-0.5
J I I I I I
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
01234567
Copper (|jg/g)
0.5
I
I
1.0 1.5
Copper (|jg/g)
2.0
Large species
White sucker
1.5
1.0
g
1 0.5
o
0.0
-0.5
I
I
I
5 10 15
Copper (|jg/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
n r
20
I I I I I I I I I
0123456789 10
Copper (ug/g)
Figure D-4. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of copper. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Iron
Large species
Blacknose dace
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0
Iron (|jg/g)
I
I
I
100 200 300 400
Iron (|jg/g)
Small species
White sucker
1.5
1.0
o
1 0-5
o
CL
0.0
-0.5
0 100
200 300
Iron (|jg/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
400 0
100 200 300
Iron (|jg/g)
400
Figure 5. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of iron. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Mercury
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.5
1.0
o.
o
0.0
-0.5
0.00
0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
Large species
0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.20
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.20 0.00
n r
n r
Mercury (ug/g)
White sucker
0.05 0.10
Mercury (ug/g)
0.15
Figure D-6. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of mercury. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
I °'7
1 0.6
o
Ł 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.5
1.0
o 0.5
Q_
O
0.0
-0.5
Small species
1 2
Nickel (|jg/g)
Large species
\ i i i I
Nickel
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
3 0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0123456 0
Nickel (|jg/g)
Blacknose dace
0.5 1.0
Nickel (|jg/g)
White sucker
I
I
I
1 2 3
Nickel (|jg/g)
1.5
Figure D-7. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of nickel. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Zinc
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.5
1.0
g
1 0.5
o
0.0
-0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20
Zinc (|jg/g)
30 40 50
Zinc (|jg/g)
60
1.5
1.0
o 0.5
o
0.0
-0.5
Large species
White sucker
J I
I
10 20 30 40
Zinc (|jg/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
50 10
J I
I
20 30 40
Zinc (|jg/g)
50
Figure D-8. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of zinc. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
c 0.7
g
1 0.6
o
Ł 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.
Small species
_L
_L
_L
I
o,p'-DDD
1.2
Blacknose dace
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
I
I
I
I
000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
o,p'-DDD (|jg/g) o,p'-DDD
Large species
White sucker
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDD
Figure D-9. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of o,p'-DDD. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Small species
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
°-6
o
Ł 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
p,p'-DDD
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Blacknose dace
J I I I
p,p'-DDD i
Large species
I
I
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
p,p'-DDD(|jg/g)
0.0
-0.5
0.020 0.000
p,p'-DDD(ug/g)
White sucker
_L
I
0.005 0.010 0.015
p,p'-DDD (ug/g)
0.020
Figure D-10. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of p,p'-DDD. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
1.5
1.0
g
1 0.5
o
0.0
-0.5
Small species
p,p'-DDE
1.5
j L
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
I I
I I
1.5
1.0
o
Q.
O
0.0
-0.5
p,p'-DDE
Large species
\ I I I T
J I I I I
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
p,p'-DDE(ug/g)
White sucker
I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
p,p'-DDE (|jg/g) p,p'-DDE(|jg/g)
Figure D-11. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of p,p'-DDE. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
o,p'-DDT
Small species
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
o,p'-DDT(|jg/g)
Blacknose dace
0.1
0.020 0.000
0.005 0.010 0.015
o,p'-DDT(|jg/g)
0.020
Large species
White sucker
Median value was below the detection limit
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o,p'-DDT(|jg/g)
Figure D-12. CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of o,p'-DDT. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
p,p'-DDT
Small species
Blacknosedace
Median value was below the detection limit
Median value was below the detection limit
Large species
White sucker
1.
1.
0.
0.
I °'
1 0.
o
Ł 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I
I
I
000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
p,p'-DDT(ug/g)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
I
I
I
I
I
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
p,p'-DDT(ug/g)
Figure D-13. CDFs showing the proportion of two fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of p,p'-DDT. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
g
t
o
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Small species
\ r
j _ i
\r
i _ i
Dieldrin
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
\ r
J I I I I L
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Dieldrin (pg/g) Dieldrin (pg/g)
Large species
White sucker
1.5
1.0
o 0.5
o
0.0
-0.5
J I I I
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
J I I I
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04
Dieldrin (pg/g)
0.05 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Dieldrin (pg/g)
Figure D-14. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of dieldrin. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Heptachlor Epoxide
Small species
Blacknose dace
I.I
1.0
0.9
0.8
c
S 0.7
o
2 0.6
CL
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.(
i i i i i i i
r" '
-
i-
-
DO 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.(
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
38 0.(
1
f" """""""
_
-
-
-
30 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.
08
Heptachlor epoxide (pg/g)
Heptachlor epoxide (ug/g)
White sucker
Large species
Median value was below detection limit
0.000 0.005 0.010
Heptachlor epoxide (pg/g)
0.015
Figure D-15. CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of heptachlor epoxide. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Small species
1.2
1.0
0.8
o
CL
0.4
0.2
0.0
Hexachlorobenzene
1.2
0.000 0.001 0.002
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/g)
Large species
Blacknose dace
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.003 0.000
Median value was below detection limit
0.001 0.002
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/g)
White sucker
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/g)
I
I
0.003
0.0015
Figure D-16. CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of hexachlorobenzene. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
gamma-Chlordane
Small species
o
t
o
CL
O
CL
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
n 1
i i i i i i i i i
fc^^"
1
-
-
-
~
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Blacknose dace
/Ł
gamma-Chlordane (|jg/g)
gamma-Chlordane (|jg/g)
Large species
White sucker
0.00 0.01 0.02
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
0.1
0.03 0.00
0.01 0.02
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
0.03
Figure D-17. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of gamma-chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
o
t
o
Q.
O
CL
O
O
Q.
O
CL
alpha-Chlordane
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.(
Small species
' '
^"=" ;
-
-
~~ ~
_ _
DO 0.05 0.10 0.'
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
5 O.C
Blacknose dace
i i
-r^
-
~ ~
10 0.05 0.10 0.15
alpha-Chlordane (ug/g) alpha-Chlordane (ug/g)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
O.C
Large species
i i i i i i i
~(?r~~~~~~~~
/ (
-
-
~
-
i i i i i i i
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
D8 O.C
White sucker
i i i i i i i
/r""
(
_
_ _
i i i i i i i
)0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
alpha-Chlordane (M9/9)
alpha-Chlordane (M9/9)
Figure D-18. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of alpha-chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
cis-Nonachlor
8.
o
CL
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Small species
Blacknose dace
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
cis-Nonachlor (|jg/g)
Large species
i i
i i
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
\ r
-0.5
0.05 0.00
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
cis-Nonachlor (|jg/g)
White sucker
0.05
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
cis-Nonachlor (|jg/g) cis-Nonachlor (|jg/g)
Figure D-19. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of cis-nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
D.OO
1.5
1.0
o
I °-5
o
0.0
-0.5
0.00
Small species
0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
Large species
i
i
i
0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
trans-Nonachlor
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-O.i
0.15 0.00
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.20 0.00
Blacknose dace
0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
White sucker
i
i
i
0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
0.15
0.20
Figure D-20. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of trans-nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Oxychlordane
1.2
1.0
0.8
o
f 0.6
o
Q_
0.4
0.2
n n
Small species
f .
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
n c.
Blacknose dace
//
/
-
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Oxychlordane (|jg/g)
Large species
0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Oxychlordane (pg/g)
White sucker
0.00 0.01 0.02
Oxychlordane (pg/g)
0.03 0.00
0.01 0.02
Oxychlordane (pg/g)
0.03
Figure D-21. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of Oxychlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
1.5
1.0
g 0.5
t
o
o_
o
0.0
-0.5
1.5
-0.5
0.2
Small species
n r
Total PCBs
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Blacknose dace
j L
-0.5
n r
Large species
n r
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total PCBs (|jg/g)
White sucker
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.2
-0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total PCBs (pg/g) Total PCBs (pg/g)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.i
Total PCBs (|jg/g)
Figure D-22. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of total PCBs. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
------- |