SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE
Connecticut River Fhh Tittue Contaminant toidy 1000
ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN
HEALTH RISK SCREENING
Are Connecticut River fhh afe to eat?
This study has confirmed earlier findings that mercury levels in Connecticut River fish
may pose a risk to people, particularly subsistence fishers, pregnant women, women
of childbearing age who might become pregnant, nursing mothers and children. People
should check with their state for specific advisories in their area. Advisory information
for each state is provided towards the end of this fact sheet.
What wai the Connecticut River Fhh Tittue Contaminant Study 1000?
The Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) was a joint federal and state screening level survey designed to
answer these questions:
1 What were the levels of contaminants (i.e., mercury, dioxin-like PCBs, dioxins, and chlorinated pesticides), in the year 2000, in
three common fish species (i.e., smallmouth bass, white sucker, and yellow perch)?
1 Is there a potential risk to human health from eating Connecticut River fish?
1 What threats does eating these fish pose to other mammals, birds, and fish?
The study has provided a starting point from which to determine future trends in contaminant levels and allow statistical
comparisons in ecological and human health risk screenings to support state fish advisories. However, screening level surveys,
such as this study, are often less detailed than those required by states for fish advisories.
The four New England states, which are part of the Connecticut River watershed (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire
and Vermont), in partnership with the Connecticut River Joint Commissions for VT and NH, requested the study. They wanted
an analysis that would provide consistent data about fish contamination in the river using one set of methods for target species
selection, fish collection, sample preparation and handling, and laboratory analysis.
The following sections contain specific information about how the study was designed, how data was analyzed, and discussion
of specific findings.
United States EPA-901-F-06-005
Environmental Protection SpntPmhpr 700fi
Agency New England September 2UU6
-------
Where were fiih collected?
Map i. Connecticut River Fiih Ti«ue Report templing Reaches (kgmenti)
The Connecticut River was divided into eight (8) sampling
"reaches" (i.e., segments), at major dams (Map I, Table I). Tidal
areas were not included in the study. Reach (segment) beginning
and end points were at major dams and presumably separate
fish populations. The exact location of fish collection within
each reach was not recorded so data analyses were done by fish
species and reach.
Whatfhh ipeci« were studied and what contaminant*
were analyzed?
The study targeted commonly caught recreational fish, as well as
other fish that are important in the river food chain. Smallmouth
bass, white suckers and yellow perch (Table 2) were collected
during 2000 from the mainstem of the Connecticut River (Table I)
and composite121 samples were analyzed for total mercury, coplanar
(dioxin-like) PCBspl and organochlorine pesticides, including DDT
and its breakdown products.
Additionally, in Reach 3, brown bullheads, American shad and striped
bass were sampled by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One fillet composite each of smallmouth bass, white sucker and yellow
perch from Reaches I, 4, 5, and 7, for twelve total samples, were also
analyzed for dioxins and furans, due to the cost and complexity of
current dioxin analytical techniques.
0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Miles
I i I i I i I i I i I
Table i. Connecticut River FHh Ti«ue templing Reach«, flatting at the wuthernmotf point near Long Wand found and moving upriver.
Reach -Latitude"1 -Longitude1'1 -Length ~% of
(Segment) -Top -Top (Miles) Mainstem Description
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
41.48N
41.95N
42.21 N
42.61 N
42.77 N
43.67 N
44.34 N
45.00 N
45.23 N
72.50 W
72.61 W
72.60 W
72.55 W
72.5 1W
72.30 W
71.87W
71.53W
71.20W
22
49
20
36
21
77
74
88
36
5
12
5
8
5
18
18
21
9
Clearly tidal area of CT River (not sampled)
Haddam,CTtoEnfield,CT
Enfield, CT to Holyoke dam, MA
Holyoke Dam, MA to Turners Falls dam, MA
Above Turners Falls dam, MAtoVernon dam,VT
Above Vernon dam, VT to Wilder dam
Above Wilder dam in Lebanon/Hanover, NH to Moore dam
Above Moore dam Littleton, NH to Canaan, VT dam
Above Canaan, VT dam in West Stewartstown/Clarksville, NH
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Total Mainstem Length 423 100
1 Latitude and longitude refer to the approximate top-most point in the reach (segment).
2
-------
Table i Primary sampled ipeciei of Connecticut River fhh.
Introduced species, frequents
bottom habitats. Young feed
on plankton (tiny animals
and plants) and immature aquatic insects while adults eat
crayfish, fishes, and aquatic and terrestrial insects. Preyed
on by smallmouth bass, yellow perch, catfish, sunfish,
suckers and turtles.
Native species, frequents
bottom habitats. Usually
occurs in small, clear, cool
creeks and small to medium rivers. Young feed on plankton
and other small invertebrates, becoming bottom feeders
as they grow. Preyed upon by birds, fishes, lamprey, and
mammals.
^
•Jative species, frequents
bottom and mid-water
habitats, most commonly
found schooling in clear water
near vegetation. Primarily zooplankton (tiny aquatic animal)
feeders. Yellow perch are very cannibalistic when young are
abundant. Preyed upon by fishes and birds.
State of Connecticut hatchery-raised brook trout were used as a "control"
fish species against which contaminant levels in wild fish species were
compared.
What were the contaminant level* compared to?
Contaminant levels were compared in several ways:
1 To EPA human health risk screening criteria, including those for
recreational (sport) fishers and subsistence fishers (Table 3);
• To EPA and other ecological risk screening criteria for fish-eating
mammals, birds, and fish;
• Contaminant levels were statistically compared between reaches;
1 Contaminant levels of the different fish species were statistically
compared with each other; and,
1 Fish weight, length, 'condition' (a measure of health) and age
(of selected smallmouth bass) were assessed and compared with
contaminant levels.
Table ]. EPA Mercury Human Health Rftk Screening Criteria
EPA Mercury Human Health Criteria [4]
(parts per million in tissue)
Recreational/
Sport Fishers
(fillet only)
0.4
Subsistence Fishers
(whole fish and fillet)
0.049
Water Quality
Criterion
0.3
individual fish were separated into fillet and offal (skin, bones, organs, etc.).
Multiple fish from a segment were combined into composite fillet and offal
samples for lab analysis. Analytical results from fillet and offal composites were
added together to estimate whole fish concentrations. One consequence of
this approach is that extreme (high or low) values in individual fish tend to be
averaged with values that are more moderate.
3Non-coplanar (non-dioxin-like) PCBs are not considered further in this report
as their toxicity is much less than for the dioxin-like (coplanar) PCBs. Historically
total PCBs were summed in analyses, which provided no indication of the toxic-
ity of the mixture. However, the complete validated data set for non-coplanar
("non-dioxin-like") PCBs is available in the full report at: www.epa.gov/ne/lab/
reportsdocuments.html.
'States may use human health screening criteria that differ from EPA's values.
Human health screening levels did not consider vulnerable subpopulations,
such as women of child-bearing age and children.
Recreational fishers are noncommercial fishers who do not rely on their
catch as a major source of protein in their diet. EPA currently uses fish
consumption rates of 17.5 grams/day (~0.6 oz/day) to calculate the
health risk to recreational fishers.
Subsistence fishers rely on non-commercially caught fish and
shellfish as a major source of protein in their diets. EPA currently
uses fish consumption rates of 142.4 grams/day (~5 oz/day) to
calculate health risk to subsistence fishers. Consumption rates used
in state advisories may vary from these values.
-------
What were the key findings?
I. Total mercury concentrations in all three species of wild fish
(smallmouth bass, white sucker, and yellow perch) were significantly
higher in upstream reaches of the Connecticut River than in
downstream reaches and significantly higher than hatchery controls
(Table 4). Mercury levels in all three wild species pose a potential risk
to recreational and subsistence fishers and to fish-eating wildlife.
Table 4. Observed Range in Mercury (parts per million) in
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study Fillet and
Whole Fish Composites by Species
Smallmouth White
Bass Suckers
BrookTrout
(hatchery
control)
2. Risk from dioxin-like (coplanar) PCBs was generally lower in upstream
reaches than in downstream reaches, although this varied by fish
species and was different for the humans/mammals, birds or fish that
eat them. Levels of dioxin-like PCBs pose a potential risk to recreational
and subsistence fishers and to fish-eating mammals and birds, but not
to fish-eating fish.
3. Dioxin toxicity in the twelve fillet composites analyzed posed a varying
potential risk to both subsistence and recreational fishers, as well as to
fish-eating wildlife. Since there were only 12 samples analyzed for dioxin,
the study was not able to provide a complete estimate of human health
and ecological risk from consumption of Connecticut River fish.
4. DDT and related breakdown products from chemical, physical and
biological weathering, pose a potential risk to human subsistence fishers
and to fish-eating birds, but not to recreational fishers or fish-eating
mammals.
What are the sources of these contaminants in fish and what is
Fillets 0.17-0.74 0.06-0.62 0.07-0.54 0.03-0.04
Whole Fish 0.13-0.56 0.04-0.41 0.06-0.37 0.03-0.07
Figure i. How Mercury Enters the Environment (Source: USEPA1006)
being done about them?
Mercury occurring in the Connecticut River watershed continues to
be deposited mostly from the atmosphere (Figure I). Much of this
mercury originates from emissions from coal-fired power plants and
Mercury Exposure Pathway
Lake Ocean
Atmospheric
deposition
Emissions
From Power
Plants and Other
Sources
\
Wet and Dry
Deposition
methylation methylation
Mercury transforms into methylmercury
in soils and water, then can
bioaccumulate in fish
Fishing
* commercial
• recreational
• subsistence
Humans and
wildlife affected
primarily by
eating fish
containing
mercury
Effects
• Best documented
effects on the
developing fetus:
impaired motor and
cognitive skills
• Possibly other effects
EmissionsX Atmospheric
\ and \ Transport and
Speciation/ Deposition
Ecosystem Transport,
Methylation, and
Bioaccumulation
Consumption
Patterns
Health
Effects
4
-------
incinerators in the eastern United States. Federal and state rules adopted in
the late 1990s have significantly reduced mercury emissions from municipal
and medical waste incinerators. On March 15,2005, EPA issued its Clean Air
Mercury Rule, which with the Clean Air Interstate Rule, will reduce power
plant emissions and ultimately the amount of mercury in fish. EPA New
England has worked with all New England states to substantially reduce
regional mercury emissions since the late 1990s, The Northeast region has
reduced its mercury emissions by more than 50 percent since 1998.
Once in the river, mercury concentrates to high levels in the food chain. Saltwater
and freshwater fish are the primary source of mercury exposure for humans and
fish-eating wildlife. Older fish tend to have higher levels of mercury and other
contaminants. Higher levels of mercury in the upper reaches may partly be a
result of water level manipulations in reservoirs. EPA and state scientists are
conducting cutting-edge research to study the movement of mercury throughout
the environment and its effects on humans and wildlife.
EPA banned the use and manufacture of PCBs in the U.S. in 1977 after
production of over 1.5 billion pounds. DDT use was severely restricted by
EPA in 1972 after application of over 1.3 billion pounds during the previous
thirty years. Dioxins and PCBs break down very slowly in the environment
and concentrate in food chains. Similarly, DDT is very long-lived in the
environment in either its original or breakdown forms. There are no known
current sources of PCBs or DDT to the Connecticut River so current levels
in fish result from historical contamination in the watershed. However,
dioxins are produced in nature and inadvertently by humans, often through
combustion processes such as at waste incinerators. Levels of dioxins in
Connecticut River fish reflect historic and possibly current sources.
"
;
ow do I find out if the fhh I catch in the Connecticut River are
wft to eat? What are the current tfate fhh advHoriei for the
Connecticut River?
our state public health or environmental agency issues fish
onsumption advisories based on estimates of potential risks to "at
risk" and other populations using data on contaminant levels in fish
sampled in the state. Some advisories limit the number of fish meals
per month while others recommend avoiding certain species. The
entire Connecticut River is covered by statewide advisories for mercury;
however, current Connecticut River state fish advisories for PCBs are
variable and site-specific, and there are no advisories for dioxins or
organochloride pesticides, such as DDT. Based on the information from
this study, the state health agencies may evaluate existing advisories
and consider whether others are needed to adequately protect human
health. Additional studies to assess the risks from dioxins and other
pollutants may also be considered.
Current state consumption advisories summarized by contaminant are:
Mercury
All four states have statewide advisories for mercury in fish for sensitive
"at risk" subpopulations (i.e., women of child-bearing age and children
younger than 12 years, depending on the state). Connecticut has a
statewide mercury advisory for all populations, for all waterbodies and
all fish species, except stocked brook trout.
PCBj
Massachusetts and Connecticut have PCB advisories for some fish species
for all Connecticut River waters in their states. However, Massachusetts
and Connecticut provide differing fish consumption advice for sensitive
"at risk" and general consumers. New Hampshire and Vermont currently
have no PCB advisories for Connecticut River waters.
Dioxin
There are currently no advisories for dioxin for the Connecticut River.
Organochlorine perticidtt
There are currently no advisories for organochloride pesticides, such
as DDT, in the Connecticut River.
Current Jtate-jpecific advisories are:
Connecticut
The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH) currently has
fish advisories for common carp and catfish on the entire length of
the Connecticut River based on PCBs. A statewide advisory is in effect
for mercury in fish for all populations. Information on Connecticut
fish advisories is available by calling the Connecticut Department
of Health at (860) 509-7742 or at: www.dph.state.ct.us/BRS/EOHA/
webfsh.htm.
The current statewide fish advisory by the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health (MADPH) cautions pregnant women, women of
childbearing age who might become pregnant, nursing mothers and
children less than 12 years to avoid eating fish from all freshwater
bodies due to concerns about mercury contamination. It also cautions
these groups to refrain from eating certain marine fish and includes
advice on healthy eating habits to maximize nutritional benefits while
minimizing risks. MADPH also issues water body specific advisories.
In the early 1990s, MADPH issued updated fish consumption advice
for the Connecticut River, based on total PCB levels, advising
sensitive populations not to consume any fish from the river. In
addition, it advises the general public not to eat channel catfish,
white catfish, American eel or yellow perch. This advisory covers all
towns from Northfield to Longmeadow, including Agawam, Chicopee,
Deerfield, Easthampton, Gill, Greenfield, Hadley, Hatfield, Holyoke,
Longmeadow, Northampton, Northfield, Montague, Springfield, South
Hadley, Sunderland, Whatley, and West Springfield. Information on
Massachusetts fish consumption advisories may be obtained from the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Center for Environmental
Health, Environmental Toxicology Program at (617) 624 5757 or at:
db. state. ma. us/dph/fishadvisory/.
hew Hampshire
A statewide advisory is in effect for mercury in fish. "At risk" and
other populations are advised to limit consumption of NH freshwater
fish. In addition to the state wide advisory, Comerford (Segment 6)
and Moore Reservoirs (Segment 7) currently have specific advisories
recommending "at risk" populations avoid consuming any fish and all
others to limit consumption. Further information on New Hampshire
fish advisories may be obtained by contacting Ms. Pamela Schnepper
at Pschnepper@des.state.nh. us (603) 271 3994, a toxicologist at the
-5-
-------
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES).
Information on current NH fish advisories is available on the web
at: www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/fish_consumption.htm.
Vermont
The Vermont Department of Health (VTDOH) currently has fish
advisories for mercury in all fish in all state waters. "At risk"
populations are cautioned to not consume any fish from Comerford
Reservoir (Segment 6) and Moore Reservoir (Segment 7). Other
fishers are advised to limit meals. In Mclndoes Reservoir (Segment
6), Vermont advises limiting consumption of all fish. Ms. Razelle
Hoffman-Contois Rhoffma@vdh.state.vt.us (802-863-7558) may be
contacted for additional information on Vermont's fish advisories.
The public may also call 1-800-439-8550. Specific fish advisories in
effect for Vermont waters may be found at: www.healthvermont.
gov/enviro/fish_alert/fish_alert.aspx.
Who conducted the Connecticut River fijh Tittue
Contaminant Study?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I (EPA New England);
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP);
Connecticut Fish and Game (CTF&G);
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP);
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES);
New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G);
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC);
Vermont Fish and Game (VTF&G);
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC).
Why did it take until 1006 to release the finding?
Given the implications of this study for human health and state
fish advisories, data quality was considered one of the highest
priorities. Questions about data from a contract laboratory required
an unusually protracted data validation by EPA and its contractors.
Final data validation for dioxins/furans was ultimately completed in
the fall of 2004.
What next tfepi do« thh tfudy Mggetf?
• Continued monitoring of contaminant levels in Connecticut
River fish tissue by the states, possibly including assessment of
coplanar (dioxin-like) PCBs, dioxins/furans and 'emerging' fish
tissue contaminants, such as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl
ethers)'5';
• Review of and revision of state fish advisories as warranted by
monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge; and,
• Continued efforts by EPA New England and the New England
states to substantially reduce mercury emissions and contributions
from all regional sources.
5 PBDEs are widely used as fire retardants in furniture, carpeting, au-
tomobiles and computers, among other uses. PBDE industrial use has
increased dramatically since the 1970s, as have the observed levels in
biological "compartments", including fish tissue and mother's milk.
A
Continued outreach by the states, non-profits and EPA New
England, particularly to sensitive populations, including
subsistence fishers, women of child-bearing age and young
children;
How would I obtain the full report?
The complete report:
Hellyer, G. 2006. Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant
Study - Ecological and Human Health Risk Screening,
Ecosystem Assessment Unit, USEPA - New England Regional
Laboratory, North Chelmsford, MA., May 31, 2006. 411 pp.
+ data appendices
is available to download at: www.epa.gov/ne/lab/
reportsdocuments.html.
WhomdolcontactiflhavequetfioM
about thintudy?
All pre« inquiries
David Deegan
EPA New England Office of Public Affairs
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
www.epa.gov/ne
deegan.dave@epa.gov
617-918-1017
617-918-0017 (Fax)
Other inquiries
Greg Hellyer, Environmental Scientist
EPA New England Regional Laboratory
Ecosystems Assessment Unit (Ecological Monitoring Team)
II Technology Drive
North Chelmsford, MA 01863-2431
www.epa.gov/ne/lab
hellyer.greg@epa.gov
617-918-8677
617-918-8577 (Fax)
-6-
------- |