Smallmouth Bass
White Sucker
Yellow Perch
Connecticut River Fish Tissue
Contaminant Study (2000)
-Ecological and Human Health Risk Screening
Prepared for Connecticut River Fish Tissue Working Group
by Greg Hellyer
hellver.greg(a).epa.gov
617-918-8677
Ecosystem Assessment Unit
USEPA - New England Regional Laboratory
11 Technology Drive,
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
Mercury
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
DDT
Striped Bass
H H
American Shad
Dioxin and Furan
Brown Bullhead
R R R R
PCB
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments xxiii
Executive Summary xxv
1.0 Connecticut River Fish Tissue Project - Background 1
1.1 Connecticut River Watershed 1
1.1.1 Project Planning 2
1.1.2 Project Objectives, Sampling Design and Data Validation 3
1.1.3 Data Validation of the CT River Fish Data 7
1.1.4 Data Validation Tiers 9
1.1.5 Summary of the Data Validation Results 10
1.1.5.1 Mercury 10
1.1.5.2 Dioxin and Furans 11
1.1.5.3 Coplanar PCB Congeners 12
1.1.5.4 Chlorinated Pesticides and Non-Coplanar PCBs 12
1.1.6 Correct TEF Values for Dioxin/Furan and Coplanar PCB
DV Memos 13
1.2 Historical Fish Contaminant Data 19
1.2.1 State of Connecticut 19
1.2.2 State of Massachusetts 20
1.2.3 State of New Hampshire 22
1.2.4 State of Vermont 24
1.2.5 USGS NAWQA Basin Study 24
1.2.6 Connecticut River Reservoir Sampling 26
1.2.7 National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish 26
1.3 Contaminants in Connecticut River Sediment 28
1.4 Contaminants in Fish 32
1.5 Data Analysis Methods 33
2.0 Mercury 34
2.1 Environmental Sources and Cycling of Mercury 34
2.2 Ecological Risks of Mercury 38
2.3 Mercury in Fish Tissue 41
2.4 National Fish Tissue Contaminant Studies 42
2.5 EPA's Mercury Study Report to Congress 43
2.6 EPA's Human Health Screening Values for Mercury 44
2.7 EPA's Water Quality Criterion for Methylmercury 47
2.8 Current State of Mercury Science in the Northeast 48
2.9 Total Mercury by Reach and Species - Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening 49
2.10 Summary of Total Mercury Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening 70
2.11 Correlation of Total Mercury in Fillets and Whole Fish 78
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -ii-
-------
2.12 Total Mercury - Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) by Species and Reach.. . 79
2.12.1 Smallmouth Bass 83
2.12.2 Yellow Perch 85
2.12.3 White Sucker 87
2.12.4 Total Mercury - ANOVA Summary 89
3.0 Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like (Coplanar) PCBs 90
3.1 Dioxins and Furans 90
3.2 Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening for Dioxin/Furan
and Coplanar PCB TEQs in Fillets 99
3.3 Coplanar PCB TEQs - Human Health and Mammalian
Eco-Risk Screening 106
3.3.1 Coplanar PCB TEQs - Human Health and Mammalian
Eco-Risk Screening - Whole Fish 106
3.3.2 Coplanar PCB TEQs - Human Health Risk Screening - Fillets. . 110
3.4 Coplanar PCB TEQ - Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Bird
Eco-Risk Screening -Whole Fish 114
3.5 Coplanar PCB TEQs - Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish
Eco-Risk Screening -Whole Fish 118
3.6 Coplanar PCB TEQ Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening -
Summary 122
3.7 Correlation of Whole Fish Composite Total Weight and
Coplanar PCB TEQs 123
3.7.1 Smallmouth Bass 123
3.7.2 Yellow Perch 124
3.7.3 White Suckers 124
3.8 Coplanar PCB TEQs - ANOVA by Species and Reach 125
3.8.1 Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs 125
3.8.1.1 Smallmouth Bass 129
3.8.1.2 Yellow Perch 131
3.8.1.3 White Suckers 133
3.8.1.4 Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs -
ANOVA Summary 135
3.8.2 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs 136
3.8.2.1 Smallmouth Bass 138
3.8.2.2 Yellow Perch 139
3.8.2.3 White Suckers 140
3.8.2.4 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs -
ANOVA Summary 141
3.8.3 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs 142
3.8.3.1 Smallmouth Bass 144
3.8.3.2 Yellow Perch 145
3.8.3.3 White Suckers 146
3.8.3.4 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs -
ANOVA Summary 147
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -iii-
-------
4.0 Organochlorine Pesticides 148
4.1 Ecological and Human Health Risk Screening Criteria for
Organochlorine Pesticides 148
4.2 Organochlorine Pesticides in Fillets and Whole Fish by Reach 153
4.2.1 Smallmouth Bass Fillets 153
4.2.2 Whole Smallmouth Bass 160
4.2.3 Yellow Perch Fillets 167
4.2.4 Whole Yellow Perch 174
4.2.5 White Sucker Fillets 181
4.2.6 Whole White Suckers 189
4.2.7 Brook Trout 197
4.3 Summary of Total DDT Homolog Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening 199
4.4 Total DDT Homolog - ANOVA by Species and Reach 205
4.4.1 Whole Fish by Species and Reach 205
4.4.2 Filleted Fish by Species and Reach 207
4.4.3 Smallmouth Bass 209
4.4.4 Yellow Perch 211
4.4.5 White Suckers 213
4.4.6 Organochlorine Pesticides - Statistical Summary by Species. . . 215
4.4.6.1 Smallmouth Bass 215
4.4.6.2 Yellow Perch 215
4.4.6.3 White Suckers 215
4.5 Conclusions 216
4.5.1 Smallmouth Bass 216
4.5.2 Yellow Perch 216
4.5.3 White Suckers 217
4.5.4 Brook Trout 218
4.5.5 Summary 218
5.0 Weight, Length and Condition by Species and Reach 219
5.1 Condition Factors 219
5.2 Smallmouth Bass Weight and Length 222
5.3 Yellow Perch Weight and Length 230
5.4 White Sucker Weight and Length 237
5.5 Conclusions 242
6.0 Smallmouth Bass Age, Total Mercury and Coplanar PCB TEQs 243
6.1 Smallmouth Bass Age 243
6.2 Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass and Fillets 253
6.2.1 Whole Smallmouth Bass 253
6.2.2 Smallmouth Bass Fillets 258
6.2.3 Summary of Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass 262
6.3 Coplanar PCB TEQs and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 263
6.3.1 Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs and Age. . 263
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -iv-
-------
6.3.2 Fish Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs and Age 268
6.3.3 Bird Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs and Age 273
6.3.4 Summary of PCB TEQs and Whole Smallmouth Bass Age 276
7.0 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 278
7.1 Total Mercury 279
7.1.1 Total Mercury Human Health and Eco-risk Screening Summary
by Reach 279
7.1.2 Total Mercury Statistical Summary 280
7.1.3 Total Mercury Conclusions 281
7.1.3.1 Total Mercury Eco-Risk Screening 281
7.1.3.2 Total Mercury Human Health Risk Screening 281
7.2 Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like (Coplanar) PCBs
Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening Summary 283
7.2.1 Dioxins, Furans and Coplanar PCBs
Human Health Risk Screening Summary 283
7.2.2 Coplanar PCB TEQ Human Health and Eco-Risk
Screening Summary 283
7.2.3 Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
Statistical Summary 284
7.2.4 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
Statistical Summary 285
7.2.5 Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
Statistical Summary 285
7.2.6 Dioxin, Furan, and Coplanar PCB TEQs Conclusions 286
7.3 Organochlorine Pesticides 287
7.3.1 Organochlorine Pesticide Human Health and Eco-Risk
Screening Summary 287
7.3.2 Total DDT Homolog Human Health and Eco-risk Screening
Summary by Reach 287
7.3.3 Organochlorine Pesticides - Statistical Summary by Species. . . 289
7.3.3.1 Smallmouth Bass 289
7.3.3.2 Yellow Perch 289
7.3.3.3 White Suckers 289
7.3.4 Organochlorine Pesticide Conclusions 289
7.4 Weight, Length and Condition Factor Summary 291
7.5 Smallmouth Age 292
7.5.1 SMB Reconciled Age, Reach and Total Mercury
Non-Parametric Correlations 292
7.5.2 Reconciled Age by Reach - ANOVA Summary 292
7.5.3 Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass - Summary 292
7.5.4 Coplanar PCB TEQs and Whole Smallmouth Bass Age 293
7.6 Recommendations 293
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -v-
-------
8.0 References, Internet Resources, and Glossary 295
8.1 References 295
8.2 Internet Resources 309
8.3 Glossary 311
Maps
Map 1. CT River Fish Tissue Sampling Reaches 5
Map 2. Connecticut River (8-digit HUC) Sub-watersheds - EPA 1998 and 2000
Sediment Sampling Sites on the Connecticut River 31
Tables
Table 1. Connecticut River Fish Tissue Sampling Reaches 6
Table 2. CT River Fish Tissue Data Validation Summary 10
Table 3. Natural History of Sampled Species 14
Table 4. Summary of Observed Total Mercury Data in Selected Species from the
Connecticut River 1970 NH Fish Survey 22
Table 5. Summary of Mean Total Mercury in Fillet and Offal in Selected Species
from the Connecticut River 1989 Fish Survey 22
Table 6. Summary of Total DDT, Chlordane and PCBs in Whole Fish Composites
from the Connecticut River 25
Table 7. Mean Contaminant Levels found in Smallmouth Bass Fillets and Whole
White Suckers in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish.... 27
Table 8. Observed Concentration (ppm) of Mercury in Streambed Sediment
Samples from EPA's 2000 Superfund Study of the Connecticut River.. 30
Table 9. Monthly Fish Consumption Limits for Noncarcinogenic Health
Endpoint - Methylmercury 46
Table 10. Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening Criteria 48
Table 11. Total Mercury in Connecticut River Fish Species (Fillet, Offal, Whole Fish)
Sampled by Reach 67
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -vi-
-------
Table 12. Number of Composites by Species and Reach exceeding Mercury
Human Health Risk and Eco-Risk Screening Values 70
Table 13. Percentage of Fillet and Whole Fish Samples from all Reaches above
Mercury Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening Criteria 76
Table 14. Statistical Comparison of Total Hg in Fillets by Species and Reach 80
Table 15. Statistical Comparison of Total Hg in Whole Fish by Species and Reach.. 82
Table 16. Statistical Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury
in Smallmouth Bass Fillets 83
Table 17. Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury in Whole Smallmouth Bass 84
Table 18. Statistical Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury in Yellow Perch Fillets.. 85
Table 19. Statistical Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury in Whole Yellow Perch. 86
Table 20. Statistical Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury
in White Sucker Fillets 87
Table 21. Statistical Comparison by Reach of Total Mercury
in Whole White Suckers 88
Table 22. World Health Organization Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) for Dioxins,
Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs for Humans, Mammals, Fish and Birds. . 95
Table 23. EPA Human Health Carcinogenic Screening Values (CSVs)
for Coplanar PCB and Dioxin TEQs 98
Table 24. EPA Low and High Eco-Risk Screening Values for Fish-eating Mammals,
Birds and Fish exposure to Coplanar PCB and Dioxin TEQs 98
Table 25. Percentage of Fillet and Whole Fish Samples from all Reaches
above PCB TEQ Human Health and Eco-Risk Screening Criteria. ... 122
Table 26. Parametric Correlation (Pearson r) between Human/Mammalian,
Piscivorous Fish and Piscivorous Bird Total Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole and Filleted Fish by Species 123
Table 27. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted Fish by Species and Reach 126
Table 28. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Fish by Species and Reach 128
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -vii-
-------
Table 29. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 129
Table 30. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted Smallmouth Bass by Reach 130
Table 31. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 131
Table 32. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted Yellow Perch by Reach 132
Table 33. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole White Suckers by Reach 133
Table 34. Statistical Comparison of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted White Suckers by Reach 134
Table 35. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
by Species and Reach 137
Table 36. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 138
Table 37. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 139
Table 38. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 140
Table 39. Statistical Comparison of Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
by Species and Reach 143
Table 40. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 144
Table 41. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 145
Table 42. Statistical Comparison of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole White Suckers by Reach 146
Table 43. Human Health Screening Levels for Chlorinated Pesticides
for Recreational and Subsistence Fishers 149
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -viii-
-------
Table 44. Wildlife Toxicological Benchmarks for Belted Kingfisher and Mink
for Chlorinated Pesticides in CT River Fish 151
Table 45. Number of Filleted and Whole Fish Composites by Species and Reach
exceeding Total DDT Homolog Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening Values 201
Table 46. Percentage of Fillet and Whole Fish Samples from all Reaches
above Total DDT Homolog Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening Values 203
Table 47. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Fish
by Species and Reach 206
Table 48. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Filleted Fish
by Species and Reach 208
Table 49. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Smallmouth Bass
by Reach 209
Table 50. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Smallmouth Bass Fillets
by Reach 210
Table 51. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Yellow Perch
by Reach 211
Table 52. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Yellow Perch Fillets
by Reach 212
Table 53. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in Whole White Suckers
by Reach 213
Table 54. Statistical Comparison of Total DDT Homologs in White Sucker Fillets
by Reach 214
Table 55. Statistical Comparison of Individual Smallmouth Bass Condition (K-TL)
by Reach 229
Table 56. Statistical Comparison of Individual Yellow Perch Condition (K-TL)
by Reach 236
Table 57. Statistical Comparison of Individual White Sucker Condition (K-TL)
by Reach 241
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -ix-
-------
Table 58. Spearman Rank Order Correlations of Reach, Reconciled Age,
Total Mercury in Whole and Filleted Smallmouth Bass 245
Table 59. Comparison by Reach of Individual Smallmouth Bass Reconciled Age.. . 246
Figures
Figure 1. Cumulative Distribution Function of Low Level Mercury in EPA's 2000
Connecticut River Sediment Study 30
Figure 2. A New Model of Total Mercury Deposition to the Northeast 35
Figure 3. Simplified Freshwater Aquatic Mercury Cycle 36
Figure 4. A Simplified Aquatic and Terrestrial Mercury Cycle 37
Figure 5. Simplified Pathways of Mercury Methylation and Demethylation 41
Figure 6. Mercury Aquatic Food Chain 42
Figure 7. CT River Reach 1 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 49
Figure 8. CT River Reach 1 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 50
Figure 9. CT River Reach 2 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 51
Figure 10. CT River Reach 2 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 52
Figure 11. CT River Reach 3 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 53
Figure 12. CT River Reach 3 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 54
Figure 13. CT River Reach 4 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 55
Figure 14. CT River Reach 4 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 56
Figure 15. CT River Reach 5 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 57
Figure 16. CT River Reach 5 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 58
Figure 17. CT River Reach 6 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 59
Figure 18. CT River Reach 6 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 60
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -x-
-------
Figure 19. CT River Reach 7 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 61
Figure 20. CT River Reach 7 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 62
Figure 21. CT River Reach 8 - Total Mercury: Human Health Risk Screening 63
Figure 22. CT River Reach 8 - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 64
Figure 23. Brook trout (hatchery fish) - Total Mercury: Human Health
Risk Screening 65
Figure 24. Brook trout (hatchery fish) - Total Mercury: Eco-Risk Screening 66
Figure 25. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Total Mercury in Fillets
(Reaches 1-8): Human Health Risk Screening 73
Figure 26. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Total Mercury
in Whole Fish (Reaches 1-8): Human Health Risk Screening 74
Figure 27. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Total Mercury
in Whole Fish (Reaches 1-8): Eco-risk Screening 75
Figure 28. Correlation of Total Mercury in Whole and Filleted Smallmouth Bass. ... 78
Figure 29. Factorial ANOVA of Total Mercury in Fillets by Species and Reach 79
Figure 30. Factorial ANOVA of Total Mercury in Whole Fish
by Species and Reach 81
Figure 31. ANOVA of Total Mercury in Smallmouth Bass Fillets by Reach 83
Figure 32. ANOVA of Total Mercury in Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 84
Figure 33. ANOVA of Total Mercury in Yellow Perch Fillets by Reach 85
Figure 34. ANOVA of Total Mercury in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 86
Figure 35. ANOVA of Total Mercury in White Sucker Fillets by Reach 87
Figure 36. ANOVA of Total Mercury in Whole White Suckers by Reach 88
Figure 37. Fluxes Among Dioxin Reservoirs 91
Figure 38. Schematic Model of Dioxin Bioavailability and Trophic Transfer 92
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xi-
-------
Figure 39. Number of River Miles under Fish Advisory for Various Contaminants. . . 93
Figure 40. Percent of Total River Miles and Lake Acres under Fish Advisory from
1993-2004 93
Figure 41. Log10 Total Coplanar PCB and Dioxin/Furan TEQs for Human/Mammalian
Receptors in CT River Smallmouth Bass, White Sucker, and
Yellow Perch Fillets - Reaches 1, 4, 5, and 7 99
Figure 42. Linear Total Coplanar PCB and Dioxin/Furan TEQs for Human/Mammalian
Receptors in CT River Smallmouth Bass, White Sucker, and
Yellow Perch Fillets - Reaches 1, 4, 5, and 7 100
Figure 43. Percentage of Total Human Health Risk from Coplanar PCB and
Dioxin/Furan TEQs for Human/Mammalian Receptors in CT River
Smallmouth Bass, White Sucker and Yellow Perch Fillets
- Reaches 1,4,5 and 7 101
Figure 44. Human Health Risk Screening for Total Dioxin/Furan TEQs
in CT River Smallmouth Bass, White Sucker, and Yellow Perch
Fillets - Reaches 1, 4, 5, and 7 102
Figure 45. Eco-Risk Screening for Total Dioxin/Furan TEQs in CT River
Smallmouth Bass, White Sucker, and Yellow Perch Fillets
- Reaches 1,4,5, and 7 103
Figure 46. Human/Mammalian Dioxin/Furan TEQs in Smallmouth Bass,
White Sucker and Yellow Perch Fillets 104
Figure 47. Human/Mammalian Dioxin/Furan TEQs in CT River Fish Fillets
by Species and Reach 105
Figure 48. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Human/Mammalian
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole Fish (Reaches 1-8):
Human Health and Eco-risk Screening 106
Figure 49. Human Health/Mammalian Eco-Risk Screening for
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole Smallmouth Bass 107
Figure 50. Human Health/Mammalian Eco-Risk Screening for
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole Yellow Perch 108
Figure 51. Human Health/Mammalian Eco-Risk Screening for
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole White Suckers 109
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xii-
-------
Figure 52. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Human/Mammalian
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Filleted Fish (Reaches 1-8):
Human Health Risk Screening 110
Figure 53. Human Health Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Smallmouth Bass Fillets 111
Figure 54. Human Health Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Yellow Perch Fillets 112
Figure 55. Human Health Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River White Sucker Fillets 113
Figure 56. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Fish-eating Bird
Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole Fish
(Reaches 1-8) 114
Figure 57. Fish-eating Bird Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Smallmouth Bass 115
Figure 58. Fish-eating Bird Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Yellow Perch 116
Figure 59. Fish-eating Bird Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole White Suckers 117
Figure 60. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Piscivorous Fish Receptor
Coplanar PCB TEQs in CT River Whole Fish (Reaches 1-8) 118
Figure 61. Fish-eating Fish Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Smallmouth Bass 119
Figure 62. Fish-eating Fish Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Yellow Perch 120
Figure 63. Fish-eating Fish Eco-Risk Screening for Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole White Suckers 121
Figure 64. Factorial ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted Fish by Species and Reach 125
Figure 65. Factorial ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Fish by Species and Reach 127
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xiii-
-------
Figure 66. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 129
Figure 67. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Filleted Smallmouth Bass by Reach 130
Figure 68. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 131
Figure 69. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Yellow Perch Fillets by Reach 132
Figure 70. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in Whole White Suckers by Reach 133
Figure 71. ANOVA of Human/Mammalian Receptor Coplanar PCB TEQs
in White Sucker Fillets by Reach 134
Figure 72. Factorial ANOVA of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Fish by Species and Reach 136
Figure 73. ANOVA of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 138
Figure 74. ANOVA of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 139
Figure 75. ANOVA of Fish-eating Bird Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole White Suckers by Reach 140
Figure 76. Factorial ANOVA of Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Fish by Species and Reach 142
Figure 77. ANOVA of Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Smallmouth Bass by Reach 144
Figure 78. ANOVA of Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole Yellow Perch by Reach 145
Figure 79. ANOVA of Piscivorous (Fish-eating) Fish Coplanar PCB TEQs
in CT River Whole White Suckers by Reach 146
Figure 80. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 153
Figure 81. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 154
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xiv-
-------
Figure 82. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 155
Figure 83. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillet 156
Figure 84. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 156
Figure 85. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 158
Figure 86. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Smallmouth Bass Fillets 159
Figure 87. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 160
Figure 88. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 161
Figure 89. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 162
Figure 90. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 163
Figure 91. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 164
Figure 92. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 165
Figure 93. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Smallmouth Bass 166
Figure 94. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 167
Figure 95. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 168
Figure 96. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 169
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xv-
-------
Figure 97. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 170
Figure 98. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 171
Figure 99. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillets 172
Figure 100. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Yellow Perch Fillet 173
Figure 101. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 174
Figure 102. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 175
Figure 103. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 176
Figure 104. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 177
Figure 105. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 178
Figure 106. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 179
Figure 107. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole Yellow Perch 180
Figure 108. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 181
Figure 109. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 182
Figure 110. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 183
Figure 111. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 184
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xvi-
-------
Figure 112. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 185
Figure 113. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillet 186
Figure 114. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 187
Figure 115. CT River Reach 8 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
White Sucker Fillets 188
Figure 116. CT River Reach 1 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 189
Figure 117. CT River Reach 2 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 190
Figure 118. CT River Reach 3 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 191
Figure 119. CT River Reach 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 192
Figure 120. CT River Reach 5 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Sucker 193
Figure 121. CT River Reach 6 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 194
Figure 122. CT River Reach 7 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 195
Figure 123. CT River Reach 8 - Organochlorine Pesticides in
Whole White Suckers 196
Figure 124. Organochlorine Pesticides in Brook Trout Fillets 197
Figure 125. Organochlorine Pesticides in Whole Brook Trout 198
Figure 126. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Total DDT Homologs in
CT River Fish Fillets (Reaches 1-8): Human Health Risk Screening. . 199
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xvii-
-------
Figure 127. Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of Total DDT Homologs in
CT River Whole Fish (Reaches 1-8): Human Health and
Eco-Risk Screening 200
Figure 128. Factorial ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Fish
by Species and Reach 205
Figure 129. Factorial ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Filleted Fish
by Species and Reach 207
Figure 130. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Smallmouth Bass
by Reach 209
Figure 131. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Smallmouth Bass Fillets
by Reach 210
Figure 132. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Whole Yellow Perch by Reach. ... 211
Figure 133. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Yellow Perch Fillets by Reach 212
Figure 134. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in Whole White Suckers by Reach. . . 213
Figure 135. ANOVA of Total DDT Homologs in White Sucker Fillets by Reach 214
Figure 136. CT River Smallmouth Bass: Reaches 1-7 - Individual Fish
Whole Weight and Length by Reach 222
Figure 137. Individual Smallmouth Bass Weight by Reach 223
Figure 138. Individual Smallmouth Bass Length by Reach 224
Figure 139. Individual Smallmouth Bass Condition by Reach 225
Figure 140. Correlation between Individual Smallmouth Bass Length and Weight. . 226
Figure 141. Correlation between Individual Smallmouth Bass Weight and
Condition (K-TL) 227
Figure 142. Correlation between Total Hg in Whole Smallmouth Bass
and Condition 228
Figure 143. ANOVA of Individual Smallmouth Bass Condition (K-TL) by Reach.. . . 229
Figure 144. CT River Yellow Perch: Reaches 1-7 - Individual Fish Whole Weight
and Length by Reach 230
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xviii-
-------
Figure 145. Individual Yellow Perch Weight by Reach 231
Figure 146. Individual Yellow Perch Length by Reach 232
Figure 147. Individual Yellow Perch Condition by Reach 233
Figure 148. Regression of Individual Yellow Perch Length and Condition (K-TL). . . 234
Figure 149. Correlation between Total Hg in Whole Yellow Perch Condition 235
Figure 150. ANOVA of Individual Yellow Perch Condition (K-TL) by Reach 236
Figure 151. CT River White Suckers: Reaches 1-8 - Individual Fish
Whole Weight and Length 237
Figure 152. Individual White Sucker Weight by Reach 238
Figure 153. Individual White Sucker Length by Reach 239
Figure 154. Individual White Sucker Condition (K-TL) by Reach 240
Figure 155. ANOVA of Individual White Sucker Condition (K-TL) by Reach 241
Figure 156. CT River Smallmouth Bass Reconciled Age by Reach 243
Figure 157. Smallmouth Bass Reconciled Age and Total Length by Reach 244
Figure 158. Smallmouth Bass Reconciled Age by Reach 245
Figure 159. ANOVA of Individual Smallmouth Bass Reconciled Age by Reach 246
Figure 160. Reach 1 - Age of Individual Smallmouth Bass by Composite 247
Figure 161. Reach 2 - Age of Individual Smallmouth Bass by Composite 248
Figure 162. Reach 3 - Age of Individual Smallmouth Bass by Composite 249
Figure 163. Reach 5 - Age of Individual Smallmouth Bass by Composite 250
Figure 164. Reach 7 - Age of Individual Smallmouth Bass by Composite 251
Figure 165. Age and Number of Smallmouth Bass Sampled by Reach 252
Figure 166. Reach 1 - Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 253
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xix-
-------
Figure 167. Reach 2 - Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 254
Figure 168. Reach 3 - Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 255
Figure 169. Reach 5 - Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 256
Figure 170. Reach 7 - Total Mercury and Age of Whole Smallmouth Bass 257
Figure 171. Reach 1 - Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass Fillets 258
Figure 172. Reach 2 - Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass Fillets 259
Figure 173. Reach 3 - Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass Fillets 260
Figure 174. Reach 5 - Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass Fillets 261
Figure 175. Reach 7 - Total Mercury and Age of Smallmouth Bass Fillets 262
Figure 176. Reach 1 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Human/Mammalian
Receptor PCB TEQs 263
Figure 177. Reach 2 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Human/Mammalian
Receptor PCB TEQs 264
Figure 178. Reach 3 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Human/Mammalian
Receptor PCB TEQs 265
Figure 179. Reach 5 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Human/Mammalian
Receptor PCB TEQs 266
Figure 180. Reach 7 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Human/Mammalian
Receptor PCB TEQs 267
Figure 181. Reach 1 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Fish
Receptor PCB TEQs 268
Figure 182. Reach 2 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Fish
Receptor PCB TEQs 269
Figure 183. Reach 3 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Fish
Receptor PCB TEQs 270
Figure 184. Reach 5 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Fish
Receptor PCB TEQs 271
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xx-
-------
Figure 185. Reach 7 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Fish
Receptor PCB TEQs 272
Figure 186. Reach 1 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Bird
Receptor PCB TEQs 273
Figure 187. Reach 2 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Bird
Receptor PCB TEQs 274
Figure 188. Reach 3 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Bird
Receptor PCB TEQs 275
Figure 189. Reach 5 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Bird
Receptor PCB TEQs 276
Figure 190. Reach 7 - Whole Smallmouth Bass Age and Piscivorous Bird
Receptor PCB TEQs 277
Figure 191. Declining DDT Concentrations in Whole Fish from Nation-wide Rivers
and Streams in Mixed Land Use Watersheds 290
Appendices
Appendix A. Age Determination of Smallmouth Bass Sampled from the
Connecticut River in 2000 319
Appendix B. Comparison of Current Study Mercury Data in Reaches 6 and 7
and Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) Connecticut River
Reservoir Sampling 334
Appendix C. Target Analytes and Contaminants of Concern 346
Table C-1. Organic Pesticides - Project Action/Quantitation Limits,
Analytical Methods, and Achievable Laboratory Limits 346
Table C-2. Metals - Project Action/Quantitation Limits, Analytical Methods,
and Achievable Laboratory Limits 348
Table C-3. Dioxins and Furans - Project Action/Quantitation Limits,
Analytical Methods, and Achievable Laboratory Limits 349
Table C-4. "Dioxin-like" Coplanar Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - Project
Action/Quantitation Limits, Analytical Methods,
and Achievable Laboratory Limits 351
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxi-
-------
Table C-5. Non-"Dioxin-like" Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - Project
Action/Quantitation Limits, Analytical Methods,
and Achievable Laboratory Limits 352
Table C-6. Field and Quality Control Sample Summary Table 354
Appendix D1. Data Quality Assurance Reports 355
D-1. Total Mercury 355
D-2. Dioxins and Furans 364
D-3. "Dioxin-like" Coplanar PCBs 374
D-4. Chlorinated Pesticides and Non-Coplanar PCBs 384
Appendix E. USEPA - New England Regional Laboratory
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 412
E-1. Fish Tissue Processing SOP
E-2. Boat Electro-fishing SOP
Appendix F. CT River Fish Data Spreadsheets
F-1. Total Mercury
F-2. Dioxins and Furans
F-3. Coplanar PCBs
F-4. Organochlorine Pesticides
F-5. Weight, Length, Otoliths, Bile, Scales and Comments
1 Appendix D data validation spreadhseets in Excel and PDF format and all of
Appendices E and F are only on the CD version of the report
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxii-
-------
Acknowledgments
EPA gratefully acknowledges the authorized use of these fish pictures:
Smallmouth Bass - John F. Scarola and N.H. Fish and Game Department
White Sucker - John F. Scarola and N.H. Fish and Game Department
Yellow Perch - John F. Scarola and N.H. Fish and Game Department
Brown Bullhead - John F. Scarola and N.H. Fish and Game Department
Striped Bass - Don Flescher (NOAA retired)
American Shad - Don Flescher (NOAA retired)
Dr. Dave Evers, Executive Director of the Biodiversity Research Institute
(www.briloon.org) in Gorham, ME, provided Figures 2 and 4 and total mercury in
smallmouth bass, yellow perch and white sucker data from BRI reservoir monitoring
(Appendix B) in the upper Connecticut River.
Ms. Patti Tyler, currently Regional Science Liaison in EPA Region VIII (Denver, CO),
was instrumental in planning this project, preparing the QAPP, overseeing fish
processing in the EPA lab, and shipment offish tissue to external analytical labs.
Members of the Ecology Monitoring Team in the New England Regional Laboratory
assisted in fish sample collection and preparation (measuring, filleting, otolith collection,
etc.).
Mr. Peter Nolan, recently retired as the Senior Biologist and Ecological Monitoring
Team leader, in EPA's Regional Lab, was integrally involved in all steps of planning and
implementation of the project and lead EPA's electro-fishing crew.
Ernie Pizzuto lead CTDEP's fish sampling and provided Brook Trout controls from a
State fish hatchery.
Beth Card, of NEIWPCC (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission), was involved in project planning, grant coordination, and draft report
review.
Doug Smithwood, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Central New England Fishery
Resources Office, in Nashua New Hampshire, conducted smallmouth bass fish aging
and prepared the fish age report in Appendix A.
Drew Major and colleagues of the US Fish and Wildlife Ecological Field Services office
in Concord, NH conducted electro-fishing sampling in support of this project.
NH Fish and Game, CT Fish and Game, and VT Fish and Game Departments were
involved in project planning and sample collection.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxiii-
-------
Dr. Steve Stodola, of the USEPA - New England Regional Laboratory, oversaw this
project's protracted, complex data validation process.
Comments on the Draft Report were provided by:
Adair Mulligan, (adair.mulligan@crjc.org) Conservation Director, Connecticut River Joint
Commissions
Jane Rose, PhD, (jane.rose@state.ma.us), Office of Research and Standards, MADEP
Steve Stodola, PhD (Stodola.steve@epa.gov),Quality Assurance, USEPA - NERL,
North Chelmsford, MA
Dave McDonald, (McDonald.Dave@epa.gov), Ecosystem Assessment, USEPA -
NERL, North Chelmsford, MA
Alan VanArsdale (Vanarsdale.Alan@epa.gov), Ecosystem Assessment, USEPA -
NERL, North Chelmsford, MA
Susannah King, (Sking@neiwpcc.org),NEIWPCC, Lowell, MA
Keith Robinson,(kwrobins@usgs.gov), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Pembroke, NH
Drew Major, (andrew maior@fws.gov), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Ecological Services, Concord, NH
Brandon Mayes (brandon.m.mayes@dartmouth.edu) and Dr. Celia Chen
(Celia.Y.Chen@Dartmouth.Edu) of the Department of Biological Sciences,
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Peer review of the final draft was provided by:
Sharee Rusnak, Epidemiologist, Connecticut Dept of Public Health (CTDPH),
Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment Program,
410 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06134
Sharee.Rusnak@po.state.ct.us
Neil Kamman, Environmental Scientist,
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC),
Water Quality Division, 103 S Main 10N, Waterbury VT 05671-0408
Neil.Kamman@state.vt.us
All remaining deficiencies in the report remain the responsibility of the author.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxiv-
-------
Executive Summary
The Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) was a collaborative
federal and state project designed to provide a baseline of tissue contaminant data
from several fish species, to better understand the risk to human health from eating
Connecticut River fish, and to learn what threat eating these fish poses to other
mammals, birds, and fish. The study will also assist future trend analysis and current
statistical comparison, allowing ecological and human health risk screening in support
of consistent State fish advisories. This was one of the first such studies offish tissue
contamination in the mainstem of a large, multi-state river in the United States.
The project was undertaken at the request of the four Connecticut River watershed
states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) and the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions for VT and NH, to address limitations in previous
state-specific studies, including differing methods of target species selection, fish
collection, sample preparation and handling, and laboratory analysis.
Partners in the project included 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) the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the US Geological Survey
(USGS).
The Connecticut River was divided into eight (8) sampling Reaches (segments) for the
purposes of this project (Map 1, Table 1). Reach divisions were determined by EPA
and state biologists to correspond to major dams and presumably discrete fish
populations. The location of individual fish sampling within Reaches was generally not
recorded; thus, data analyses were done by species and Reach.
Smallmouth bass, yellow perch and white suckers were collected during 20002 from the
mainstem of the Connecticut River and composite3 samples were analyzed for total
2 Project data from a contract laboratory proved highly problematic, requiring
protracted data validation by EPA and its contractors. Final data validation for dioxins and
furans was ultimately only completed in the fall of 2004. Given the implications of this
study for human health and state fish advisories, data quality was considered one of the
highest priorities.
2
Individual fish were separated into fillet and offal. Multiple fish from a Reach
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 more moderate values.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxv-
-------
mercury, coplanar (dioxin-like) PCBs and organochlorine pesticides, including DDT and
its breakdown products4. Additionally, in Reach 3, brown bullheads, American shad
and striped bass were sampled by the State of Massachusetts. One fillet composite
each of smallmouth bass, yellow perch and white sucker fillets from Reaches 1, 4, 5,
and 7 (twelve samples in total) was also analyzed for dioxins and furans. This was due
to the cost and complexity of current dioxin analytical techniques. State of Connecticut
hatchery-raised brook trout were used as a "control" fish species against which to
compare wild species' contaminant levels.
Levels of contaminants5 were compared to EPA and other current human health
subsistence and recreational (sport) fisher and ecological risk screening criteria, and
also were statistically compared between Reaches and species. Fish weight, length,
'condition' (a measure of health) and age (of selected smallmouth bass) were also
assessed and compared with contaminant levels. Screening levels did not consider
vulnerable populations, such as women of child-bearing age and young children.
Key Findings
1. Total mercury concentrations in all three species of fish were significantly higher in
upstream Reaches than in downstream Reaches. Mercury poses a risk to recreational
and subsistence fishers and to fish-eating wildlife.
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. Dioxin-like PCBs pose a risk to
recreational and subsistence fishers and to fish-eating mammals and fish-eating birds.
3. Dioxin toxicity, in the twelve fillet composites analyzed, posed a varying risk to both
subsistence and recreational fishers and fish-eating wildlife, even when dioxin-like PCB
TEQs (a standardized measure of dioxin toxicity) were not included in the risk
calculations. Since risk associated with dioxin is not available for the remainder of the
fish samples, these PCB TEQs underestimate human health and ecological risk from
consumption of Connecticut River fish.
4 Cadmium was sampled in two northern Reaches and non-coplanar PCBs were
analyzed in all Reaches. Results are provided in the Appendices.
5 The current study decided to not follow the USEPA (2000b) recommendation
to assign all non-detects values of half the detection limit. Rather non-detects were given
a value of zero. In the case of TEQs, in particular, we believed this could falsely inflate
the apparent toxicity. Given our conservative screening assumptions we believe this
approach provided both a close approximation of the actual toxicity and was protective of
human health and the environment. The detection limits of all analyses are available in
Appendices C and D.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxvi-
-------
4. DDT and related breakdown products from chemical, physical and biological
weathering, pose a risk to human subsistence fishers and to fish-eating birds, but not to
recreational fishers or fish-eating mammals.
Mercury is mostly deposited in the Connecticut River watershed from the atmosphere.
Much of this mercury originates from Midwest power plant and urbanized eastern
seaboard emissions. EPA is currently reviewing its 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule, which
with the Clean Air Interstate Rule, may help to reduce these 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 1990's. Once
in the river, mercury bioaccumulates to high levels in the food chain. Saltwater and
freshwater fish are the primary source of methylmercury exposure for most people 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, in part, be a result
of water level manipulations, particularly in reservoirs.
Use and manufacture of PCBs was banned 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 bioaccumulate 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 contaminants in
the 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 in Connecticut River fish reflect historic and
possibly current sources.
Current State Fish Advisories for the Connecticut River
State Departments of Health issue fish advisories based on studies of contaminant
risks to "at risk" and other populations6. The findings of this report have implications for
state fish advisories for the Connecticut River. The entire Connecticut River is covered
by state-wide advisories for mercury; however, current state fish advisories for PCBs
are variable and site-specific, and there are no advisories for dioxins or organochlorine
pesticides, such as DDT. Based on the information from this study, the state health
agencies will evaluate existing advisories and consider the need for others, to
adequately protect human health. Additional studies to assess the risks from dioxins
and other pollutants also need to be considered.
6 Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have slightly
differing definitions of "at risk" groups, that generally include children (of varying ages),
pregnant women or those who may become pregnant, and nursing mothers.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxvii-
-------
Mercury: All four states have state-wide advisories for mercury in fish for sensitive "at
risk" populations (i.e. women of child-bearing age and young children from 6-12 years
of age, depending on the state). Connecticut has a state-wide mercury advisory for all
waterbodies and all fish species, except stocked brook trout, for all populations.
PCBs: 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 pesticides: There are currently no advisories for organochlorine
pesticides, such as DDT, on the Connecticut River.
Chapter Content
Chapter 1 - Introduction summarizes information on the Connecticut River watershed,
project history, data validation, natural history of sampled fish species and results of
historical contaminant sampling by the four States. Information on Connecticut River
sediments is also provided. Statistical and graphical techniques used in subsequent
chapters are presented.
Chapter 2 - Mercury discusses sources, cycling, biaccumulation, bioconcentration,
ecological risks, human health screening, and the current state of the science in the
Northeast. Observed levels of total mercury are compared by Reach with ecological
and human health screening criteria and statistically between Reaches.
Chapter 3 - Dioxins, Furans, and Dioxin-like (Coplanar) PCBs discusses sources,
cycling, ecological and human health screening criteria. Observed levels of dioxins and
furans are shown. Coplanar PCBs are compared by Reach with ecological and human
health screening criteria by receptor (humans/mammals, birds and fish). Coplanar
PCBs are compared statistically between Reaches.
Chapter 4 - Organochlorine Pesticides are graphically compared with human health
and eco-risk screening criteria by Reach and statistically between Reaches for DDT
and its breakdown products.
Chapter 5 - Weight, Length and Condition are graphically depicted and statistically
compared between Reaches and with total mercury.
Chapter 6 - Smallmouth Bass Age, Total Mercury and Coplanar PCB TEQs are
graphically depicted and statistically analyzed.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxviii-
-------
Chapter 7 - Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the results
from Chapters 2-6 and suggests recommendations to improve similar studies.
Chapter 8 - References, Internet Resources, and Glossary contains a complete
bibliography, some internet references, and a glossary of technical terms used in the
report.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -xxix-
-------
1.0 Connecticut River Fish Tissue Project - Background
1.1 Connecticut River Watershed
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions of New Hampshire and Vermont
(www.crjc.org) describe New England's largest river, "From tiny Fourth Connecticut
Lake on the Canadian border, the Connecticut River flows south, linking the states of
Vermont and New Hampshire for 255 miles before entering Massachusetts and
Connecticut on its way to Long Island Sound. Its watershed covers a full third of New
Hampshire and two-fifths of Vermont. With the support of hundreds of valley citizens,
New Hampshire designated its longest river into the Rivers Management and Protection
Program in 1992. In 1998, President Clinton honored the Connecticut as an American
Heritage River, one of fourteen so designated nationwide"
(http://www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers/connecticut.html).
The Connecticut River Watershed Council (CRWC, http://www.ctriver.org/)
characterizes the watershed as:
"...80% forested, 12% agricultural, 3% developed, and 5% wetlands and
water. There are 390 towns, villages and cities, which are home to 2.3
million people. The River drops 2,400 feet from its source to the sea, and
has a daily average flow of nearly 16,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The
flow has ranged as high as 282,000 cfs and as low as 971 cfs The
Connecticut has 38 major tributaries, 26 of which drain 100 square miles
or more. All told, there are over 20,000 miles of streams in the
watershed."
The river has been extensively altered through damming. On the mainstem dams
created substantial warm-water habitat where little or none had previously existed
(Noon 2003).
EPA-New England (2002) notes the Connecticut River watershed encompasses about
11,260 square miles and the mainstem is approximately 410 miles long. The US Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) (http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/) has designated the entire 7.2
million acre watershed as the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge with a
goal of identifying and protecting it's biodiversity, through cooperative management with
the residents.
The FWS has identified numerous Species of Special Emphasis (birds, mammals, fish,
reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants in the Connecticut River watershed
(http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/sose.htm). Additionally ten federally listed Endangered or
Threatened species occur within the watershed, three birds (bald eagle, peregrine
falcon, piping plover), a fish (shortnose sturgeon), an insect (puritan tiger beetle), a
mussel (dwarf wedge mussel) and four plants (Jesup's milk-vetch, Robbin's cinquefoil,
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -1-
-------
small whorled pogonia, and northern bulrush)(http://www.fws.qov/r5soc/EndThrSp.htm).
The watershed also shelters numerous Species of Special Emphasis
(http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/sose.htm).
The CRWC notes "the watershed is home to a rich diversity of species: an estimated 59
species of mammals, 250 species of birds, 22 species of reptiles, 23 species of
amphibians, 142 species offish, at least 1,500 invertebrates, and 3,000 plant species."
The processes of agricultural abandonment, industrialization and urbanization in New
England lead to a marked impairment of the river's water quality. By the 1970's the
Connecticut River was referred to as a "landscaped sewer" (USEPA 2000c). Mullaney
(2004) provides a comprehensive review of thirty years (1968-1998) of water quality
data in the state of Connecticut portion of the river and a historical context for the
degradation of the entire river. New England's rivers were among the most polluted in
the nation, prior to the Clean Water Act and other pollution control legislation (Robinson
and others 2003).
In 1997 the CRJC produced a six volume Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan
(CRJC 1997). Among the recommendations were that fish tissue be sampled to
determine the human health and ecological risk. The New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), in 1998, published The Health of the
Watershed, which identified water quality problems with the river, including toxins, such
as PCBs, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), bio-accumulation of contaminants, and
nonpoint source pollution. NEIWPCC also noted the presence of public health
advisories for PCBs and mercury, on consumption of river fish in all four states.
Historical and ongoing pollution of the Connecticut River has had impacts on fish and
wildlife populations and on human health. Coincident with the founding of the USEPA
in 1970, the New Hampshire State government issued the first fish consumption
advisory (fish advisory) for mercury in Connecticut River fish. As fish contaminant
surveys expanded to the other states in the watershed, Federal and State governments
issued further fish advisories.
However, previously fish advisories have been characterized by data collected
individually by the four affected states within the watershed. Surveys have differed
substantially "in methods of target species selection, fish collection, sample preparation
and handling, and laboratory analysis"(Tyler, 2000). Furthermore, much of the data are
over ten years old.
1.1.1 Project Planning
The Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study was designed as a collaborative
federal and state project to address these previous deficiencies and "provide
comparable data on fish tissue contaminant levels throughout the watershed in support
of human health and ecological risk assessments and fish consumption advisories"
(Tyler, 2000).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -2-
-------
Partners in the project included 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), the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Geological Survey
(USGS). The University of Connecticut Environmental Research Institute (ERI)
(http://www.engr.uconn.edu/eri/) performed analyses for total mercury, chlorinated
pesticides and coplanar and non-coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). AXYS
Analytical Services, Ltd. (http://www.axysanalytical.com/) performed analyses for
dioxins and furans.
On March 8, 2000 a scoping meeting was held at the Lowell, Massachusetts offices of
the NEIWPCC (Tyler, 2000). This meeting among the partners established project
roles and responsibilities, a project timeline, field sampling protocols and analytical
requirements, including issues of laboratory detection levels, analytical methods and
other relevant issues. It was agreed that a post-hoc 'debriefing' among all field survey
partners would be held to identify problems and strengths of the current approach.
1.1.2 Project Objectives, Sampling Design and Data Validation
As described in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Tyler 2000):
"In the 1998 Report titled "Health of the Watershed - A Report of the
Connecticut River Forum" a series of recommendations were provided to
improve the collaboration between the four New England states (New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut) and their efforts
with respect to water quality monitoring and fish tissue contaminant
surveys. At the June 16, 1998 meeting of the Connecticut River Forum, a
sub-committee developed the four state comprehensive fish tissue
monitoring program for the Connecticut River. The overall objective of the
Connecticut River fish study is to perform a watershed wide fish tissue
monitoring program which would document current conditions with regard
to contaminant concentrations of representative fish from the mainstem of
the Connecticut River. The specific objectives of this survey are to serve
several purposes:
1. To establish a baseline of contaminant residues in fish species of
different trophic classes for future trend analysis of contaminant uptake by
fish in the river. Contaminant residue analyses are to include total
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -3-
-------
mercury, total PCBs, coplanar PCBs, PCB homologue analyses, dioxins and
chlorinated organic pesticides in fish fillet and offal samples.7
2. To determine species presence in relation to water quality8 and
ecological health, in addition providing baseline ecological data. The data
needs to support decision making based on ecological health and risk.
3. To generate an adequate baseline data set for comparative use to
future study efforts.
4. To collect and generate data for use in current and future ecological
risk assessment efforts. Data must be of a sufficient quality to support
decision making for ecological risks.
5. To produce data that can be utilized for making determinations on risks
to human health, based on the consumption offish in the watershed. Data
must be of a quality whereby state public health officials can reliably
update fish consumption advisories if deemed appropriate.
To meet these ends, these data will be drawn from various species offish
representing different trophic levels in the different river segments in the
Connecticut River watershed. Number of samples collected per species
will be such as to provide acceptable sample sizes for adequate
representation of the targeted species."
The Connecticut River was divided into eight (8) sampling Reaches for the purposes of
this project (Map 1; Table 1). Reach divisions were determined by EPA and State
biologists to correspond to major dams and presumably fairly discrete fish populations.
The location of individual fish sampling within Reaches was generally not recorded.
Thus data analyses are by species and Reach. Natural history information of sampled
fish species is provided in Table 3. Field sampling focused on smallmouth bass, yellow
perch, and white suckers in Reaches 1-7. These three species are among those
recommended by EPA's 1993 Fish Contaminant Workgroup. EPA (2000a) notes,
"Use of two distinct ecological groups of finfish (i.e., bottom-feeders and
predators) as target species in freshwater systems is recommended. This
Individual fish were separated into fillet and offal. Multiple fish from a Reach
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 more moderate values.
Q
No water quality parameters were monitored concurrently with fish collection.
See recommendations in Chapter 7.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -4-
-------
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Sampling Reaches
/WN Vi\" A
1:2.000,000
0 10 20 40
I I I I I I : I |_
60
BO 100 Miles
I :
Map 1. Connecticut River Fish Tissue Sampling Reaches
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-5-
-------
Table 1. Connecticut River Fish Tissue Sampling Reaches
Reach
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-Latitude9
- Top
41.48 N
41.95 N
42.21 N
42.61 N
42.77 N
43.67 N
44.34 N
45.00 N
45.23 N
-Longitude
- Top
72.50 W
72.61 W
72.60 W
72.55 W
72.51 W
72.30 W
71.87 W
71.53 W
71.20 W
Total Mainstem Length
-Length
(miles)
22
49
20
36
21
77
74
88
36
423
~% of
Mainstem
5
12
5
8
5
18
18
21
9
100.0
Description
Clearly tidal area10 of CT River
(not sampled)
Haddam, CT to Enfield, CT
Enfield, CT to Holyoke Dam, MA
Holyoke Dam, MA to Turners
Falls Dam, MA
Above Turners Falls dam, MA to
Vernon 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
permits monitoring of a wide variety of habitats, feeding strategies, and
physiological factors that might result in differences in bioaccumulation of
contaminants. Bottom-feeding species may accumulate high contaminant
concentrations from direct physical contact with contaminated sediment
and/or by consuming benthic invertebrates and epibenthic organisms that
live in contaminated sediment. Predator species are also good indicators
of persistent pollutants (e.g., mercury or DDT and its metabolites) that
may be biomagnified through several trophic levels of the food web."
Sampling difficulties in Reach 8 lead to only two white sucker composites. Reach 8,
unlike the other Reaches, is primarily a cold water fishery making it difficult to sample
Latitude and longitude refer to the approximate top-most point in the Reach.
These locations may be viewed from the air using Google Earth™
(http://earth.google.com/).
10
Although tidal effects in the Connecticut River extend at least to Hartford
(Donlon pers. comm. 2006).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-6-
-------
comparable species. In Reach 3, additionally, brown bullheads, American shad, and
striped bass were opportunistically sampled by the State of Massachusetts. State of
Connecticut fish hatchery raised brook trout were used as a "clean control" fish species
against which to compare contaminant levels in the wild fish species. These fish were
only exposed to contaminants in their food, atmospheric deposition and water while
being grown in tanks. It was thought that they would therefore reflect the lowest
attainable contaminant levels.
Sampled fish were transported either alive or, more typically, on ice to the EPA
Regional lab in Lexington, MA.11 Fish were typically frozen in the lab and thawed prior
to lab processing. In a few instances fish were processed on receipt, without being
frozen. Individual fish were weighed and their total length measured and recorded from
snout to end of the tail (caudal) fin. Fish were filleted and composited (offal and fillet
separately). In some instances otiliths and or scales were recovered and archived for
aging. Bile was also collected for some individuals allowing possible further analysis,
such as for estrogenic effects (Adolfsson-Erici 2005). Obvious external abnormalities
(i.e. deformities, lesion, tumours) were recorded on an ad-hoc basis as these can be an
indications of chemical exposure.12 The EPA SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures)
used in fish collection and processing may be found in Appendix D.
Map 1 provides an approximate delineation of the Reaches used in sampling and
analyzing Connecticut River fish in the current study. Below Reach 1 (-22 miles; -5%
of mainstem) the Connecticut River becomes tidal, excluding this area from the study.
Other Reach divisions were drawn at major dams following discussion among the study
participants. Reach 8 (-36 miles; -9% of mainstem) only yielded a small sample of
white suckers, allowing a very poor characterization of this more pristine stretch of the
Connecticut. Reaches 1-7 encompassed -364 miles (-86%) of the mainstem of the
Connecticut River.
1.1.3 Data Validation of the CT River Fish Data
According to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Tyler 2000), a third party data
validation was required for this project. This validation work was coordinated by Dr.
Steve Stodola of the Quality Assurance Unit of the USEPA New England Regional Lab.
The validation was performed with contractor support provided under the ESAT
(Environmental Services Assistance Team) contract.
Appendix D provides the data validation (DV) reports and the validated data for each
contaminant. Additional supporting information from the extensive data validation may
be obtained by contacting this report's author.
The former location of the EPA Regional lab until September, 2001.
12 See Appendix F - CT River Fish Data Spreadsheets.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -7-
-------
Data Validation is the first step in assessing the quality of a particular set of data. It is
defined as a standardized review process for judging the analytical quality and
usefulness of a discrete set of chemical data. It is standardized in the sense that it
uses specific evaluation procedures which are described in our Region I Data Validation
Functional Guidelines (USEPA 1996). Its main focus is to identify any problems that
the laboratory may have had in analyzing the samples, such as poor surrogate
recovery. Data validation can also help identify some sampling problems, such as
holding time violations, which are usually documented in the data package.
Data validation can be viewed as a decision making process during which established
quality control criteria are applied to the data . These quality control procedures and
criteria are typically agreed upon in the planning phase of the project and incorporated
by the laboratory into their analytical method as the samples are being processed.
Unfortunately in this project, this was not done and the data validation proved much
more complex and problematic13.
During the data validation decision making process, individual sample results are either
accepted, rejected or qualified. Data which meet all the validation QC (Quality Control)
criteria are accepted as unqualified and can be used as reported. Data which are
rejected (R) for not meeting one or more validation criteria cannot be used at all. For
these situations an "R" would be reported on the Data Summary Table for that
particular analyte in that particular sample. Some data will inevitably fall into the range
between the acceptable the limit and totally unacceptable limit. These data are
qualified as estimated (J) to indicate that one or more validation criteria were not met.
The numeric value report by the laboratory is recorded on the Data Summary Table
followed by a "J." Estimated data may or may not be usable depending on the intended
use of the data. In general, the estimated (J) data can be used after examining the
reason for the data qualification and the use to which the data will be put.
So in summary, the data validation process transforms analytical laboratory results and
some sampling input into useful information. The end product of data validation then is
information of known analytical quality. The purpose of data validation is to assess and
summarize the quality of the laboratory's analytical data for the end user, for example
site manager, risk assessor, hydrogeologist, statistician, etc. who then decides on the
usability of the data.
13
Project data from a contract laboratory proved highly problematic, requiring
protracted data validation by EPA and its contractors. The eventual cost for contractor
support for data validation was over $30,000, not including EPA staff time. Final data
validation for dioxins and furans was ultimately only completed in the fall of 2004. Given
the implications of this study for human health and state fish advisories, data quality was
considered one of the highest priorities.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -8-
-------
1.1.4 Data Validation Tiers
EPA Region 1 (EPA-New England) has three tiers of data validation:
Tier I - data package is checked for completeness and any Performance
Evaluation (PE) samples are checked for accuracy;
Tier II - quality control results are checked against criteria; reported results are
qualified as either acceptable, estimated (J) or rejected (R) data;
Tier III - in-depth examination of raw data for technical and analytical errors;
preferred level of validation for human health and ecological risk assessment.
In a Tier I validation, the data package is checked for completeness. Did the laboratory
supply all the documentation that they were required to under their contract? During a
Tier I validation the Performance Evaluation samples, if present, are evaluated to
assess any potential usability issues. A Tier I data validation report would consist of the
documentation of any missing information that could not be retrieved from the
laboratory, a discussion of the PE sample results, and a summary of the laboratory
results (unqualified).
For a Tier II validation, the results of the QC checks and the PE sample results are
assessed against the particular DV criteria and then applied to qualify the data set.
This results in the proper qualifiers being applied to the data. A Tier I validation is
required to be done before the Tier II validation is performed. So the product of the Tier
II validation would be a full DV report discussing the results of the QC checks and a
Data Summary Table with the proper qualification applied along with worksheets and
backup documentation.
A Tier III data validation includes: the Tier I Completeness Evidence Audit; the Tier II
assessment of the QC check results; and an in-depth review of the data to verify the
accuracy of the lab results. During Tier III the chromatograms, the spectra and
instrument out-put are examined in detail. The data set is checked for calculation and
transcription errors. Issues of proper compound identification are examined. The
product would be a full DV Report with all these items discussed and documented.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -9-
-------
1.1.5 Summary of the Data Validation
Table 2 summarizes the data validation findings for this study.
1.1.5.1 Mercury
The mercury results from forty-six fish samples were carried through a Tier III data
validation as representative of the whole group used in the study. The samples had
been analyzed by ERI in Connecticut. A Standard Reference material tissue sample
was analyzed in duplicate in conjunction with the samples. Recoveries of 94% and 84%
were acceptable.
Preservation and holding time criteria were met. Duplicate precision and lab fortified
blank recovery met acceptance criteria. There was low level blank contamination
typical of this type of analysis. One matrix spike recovery was slightly below the lower
acceptance limit resulting in the estimation (J) of five other samples in this group.
Forty-one mercury results were reported as acceptable. They ranged from 0.17 to
0.74ppm (mg/kg) (ppm) with a laboratory reporting limit of 0.008 ppm. The laboratory
did achieve the Project Quantitation Limit of 0.04 ppm.
The laboratory performed extra QC measures not required by the QAPP. They
analyzed post digestion spike and post digestion dilution samples. The QC results for
all these samples were within acceptable limits.
Overall the quality of the mercury data was quite acceptable for this project.
Table 2. CT River Fish Tissue Data Validation Summary
Contaminant
Data Validation Tier
(I, II, or III)
Description
Mercury
Modified Tier III
A modified Tier III data validation was performed
on the results from 46 fish tissue sample analyses,
selected as representative of the whole data set. A
separate Performance Evaluation (PE) sample was
found acceptable. The reported results were
determined to be usable for the project data quality
objectives. See the data validation (DV) report in
Appendix D-1 for details.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-10-
-------
Dioxins &
Furans
Modified Tier
A modified Tier II validation was performed on the
data from all 12 fish samples analyzed for dioxins/
furans by AXYS Analytical Services. A tissue PE
sample was not available. However, other PE
samples analyzed in the same time period were
acceptable. Other minor quality problems did not
impact the usability of the data for project
objectives. See the DV report in Appendix D-2 for
details.
Coplanar PCB
Congeners
Modified Tier
A modified Tier II validation was performed on the
results from 15 fish samples analyzed by ERI.
Validation identified several quality problems which
resulted in the estimation (J) of all of the data. The
results are usable for screening purposes only.
See the DV report in Appendix D-3 for details.
Chlorinated
Pesticides/
Non-Coplanar
RGBs14
Tier
A Tier III validation was performed on the results
from 44 fish samples analyzed by ERI. One tissue
Standard Reference Material (SRM) was
evaluated. A small percentage of the data was
rejected (R) and cannot be used due to low matrix
spike recoveries. The remaining results were
estimated (J) due to other quality problems.
However, these were not serious enough to
prevent the use of the estimated data for the
project objectives. See the DV report in Appendix
D-4 for details.
1.1.5.2 Dioxin and Furans
ERI subcontracted out 12 fish tissue samples to AXYS Analytical Services for
dioxin/furan analysis. AXYS is a very reliable laboratory that has a solid track record
with EPA. These samples were carried through a Tier II data validation. These were
the only samples analyzed for dioxins and furans.
The following QC checks were performed and found to be acceptable: sample
preservation and holding times, initial and continuing calibrations, peak resolution,
instrument sensitivity, matrix spike and duplicate recovery, and internal standard
recoveries.
The laboratory analyzed a Standard Reference Material for this project, but the data
was lost due to a computer failure. Fortunately, the lab had PE samples which had
been analyzed during the same time frame as the fish samples.
14Non-coplanar PCBs are not considered further in this report as toxicity is much
less than for the dioxin-like (coplanar) PCBs. Historically total PCBs were summed in
analyses, which provided no indication of the toxicity of the mixture. However, the
complete validated data set for non-coplanar ("non-dioxin-like") PCBs is available in
Appendix D-4.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-11-
-------
Low levels of dioxin/furans were found and ranged from 0.11 to 3.8 ppt (ng/kg) with a
reporting limit of 0.10 ppt. The laboratory did achieve the Project Quantitation Limit of
1.0 ppt.
Even though some of the results were close to the detection limit we believe that the
lab's analytical method provided reliable results.
1.1.5.3 Coplanar PCB Congeners
The data for 15 fish tissue samples analyzed for the 12 coplanar PCBs was available
for review from ERI. These results were carried through a Tier II data validation.
The following QC checks were performed and found to be within acceptable limits:
preservation and holding times, initial and continuing calibration, chromatographic
resolution check, and blank runs.
Eleven samples had acceptable surrogate recoveries; four of the samples had slightly
high surrogate recoveries and were estimated. The laboratory did not have a Standard
Reference Material sample or a matrix spike for this set of samples. As a consequence
all the results are estimated. But given the acceptable values for the other QC
parameters, it was decided that these estimated results could be used for screening
level comparisons in the Study.
The results ranged from 0.39 to 43 ppb (ng/g or ug/kg) well above the ~ 0.35 ppb
detection limit reported by the laboratory. The laboratory did achieve the Project
Quantitation Limit of 2 ppb.
1.1.5.4 Chlorinated Pesticides and Non-Coplanar PCBs
The data from 44 fish tissue samples analyzed for chlorinated pesticides was available
for review from ERI. A Tier III data validation was carried out on the data.
The following QC parameters were checked and found to be acceptable: sample
preservation and holding time, blank analyses, surrogate recoveries, and analyte
identification. Several of the other QC parameters were found to have exceedances.
For these instance the qualification actions recommended by the DV functional
guideline were applied to the results.
The chlorinated pesticide results ranged from a low of 0.24 ppb (ng/g or ug/kg) for
gamma-BHC to a high of 93 ppb for p,p'-DDE. Indeed p,p'-DDE was the major
contaminant, having been found in all the samples. The reported detection limits for the
chlorinated pesticides averaged around 0.6 ppb. The laboratory did achieve the Project
Quantitation Limit of 2 ppb.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -12-
-------
Validation resulted in the estimation (J) of all the PCB results. The results ranged from
a high of 92 ppb for PCB 153 down to values near the detection limit, e.g., 0.37 (ng/g or
ug/kg) for PCB 195. Significant hits were noted for PCB 118, PCB 153, PCB 138, and
PCB 187 in many of the samples. The detection limits for the PCBs averaged 0.6 ppb.
The laboratory did achieve the Project Quantitation Limit of 2 ppb.
Even though some of the chlorinated pesticide data in this set had to be rejected due to
the QC exceedances, the positive results for p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT across all the
samples will have a significant impact and should not be ignored. However, the over
all quality of this data set was the lowest of the four that were considered.
1.1.6 Correct TEF Values for Dioxin/Furan and Coplanar PCB DV Memos
In the original DV memos for dioxin/furans (8/20/2002) and Coplanar PCBs
(12/26/2003), the TEF (Toxicity Equivalent Factor) values for fish were used rather than
the correct ones for humans and mammals. This error was not carried over into the
calculations performed in the body of this report. Data Summary Tables with the
correct TEF values are included in Appendix D-3.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -13-
-------
Table 3. Natural History of Sampled Species. Adapted from www.Fishbase.org (2002; 2005; 2006) and other sources,
as noted.
Common
Name
Species Name
Natural History
Smallmouth
Bass
(Reaches 1-7)
Micropterus
dolomieu
Introduced species. Demersal (frequenting bottom habitats); freshwater. Inhabits
shallow rocky areas of lakes, clear and gravel-bottom runs and flowing pools of
rivers, cool flowing streams and reservoirs fed by such streams. Young feed on
plankton and immature aquatic insects while adults take in crayfish, fishes, and
aquatic and terrestrial insects. Sometimes cannibalistic. Trophic level of adults
3.2±0.4(S.E.)15. Preyed upon by fishes and turtles. Preyed on by smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, catfish, sunfish, and suckers (Scott and Grossman 1973; Yamamoto
and Tagawa 2000; Billard 1997). Smallmouth bass were first reported in
Massachusetts in 1850. They were stocked in many of Massachusetts' reservoirs,
lakes, and streams, particularly in the middle of the last century, and can be
considered locally common. The majority of Massachusetts records are from the
western and southeastern portion of the state (Hartel and others 1996). Smallmouth
bass were introduced to New Hampshire in 1867 when flooding of Cold Spring Trout
Ponds by a Charlestown, NH fish culture business, transplanted Lake Champlain
fish into the Connecticut River (Noon 2003).
The trophic level (troph) offish is an inferred value based on their diet composition, and the trophic level of prey
organisms. "The troph of a given group offish (individuals, population, species) is then estimated from
Troph = 1 + mean troph of the food items
where the mean is weighted by the contribution of the different food items.
Following a convention established in the 1960s by the International Biological Program, we attribute primary producers and detritus
(including associated bacteria) a definitional troph of 1 (Mathews 1993)." (Froese and Pauly 2000).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-14-
-------
Common
Name
Species Name
Natural History
White Sucker
(Reaches 1-8)
Catostomus
commersoni
Native species. Demersal (frequenting bottom habitats). Inhabits a wide range of
habitats, from rocky pools and riffles of headwaters to large lakes. Usually occurs in
small, clear, cool creeks and small to medium rivers. May be found at a depth
greater than 45 m (Scott and Grossman 1973). Moves to shallower water near
sunrise and sunset to feed. Fry (1.2 cm in length) feed on plankton and other small
invertebrates; bottom feeding commences upon reaching a length of 1.6-1.8 cm.
Preyed upon by birds, fishes, lamprey, and mammals. One 1990 study from the
Juniata River, Pennsylvania found them feeding entirely on zoobenthos (Johnson
and Dropkin 1995) Trophic level of adults 2.8±0.3(S.E.). Preyed on by chain
pickerel, and small and largemouth bass (Scott and Grossman 1973). In
Massachusetts, white suckers are found in virtually every drainage system with the
exception of the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and several of the
smaller mainland coastal streams. This species is abundant in many locations
(Hartel and others, 1996).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-15-
-------
Common
Name
Species Name
Natural History
Yellow Perch
(Reaches 1-7)
Perca
flavescens
Native species. Benthopelagic; freshwater; brackish; depth range to 56 m. Inhabits
lakes, ponds, pools of creeks, and rivers. Also found in brackish water and in salt
lakes. Most commonly found in clear water near vegetation; tends to shoal near the
shore during spring (Frimodt 1995). Feed continually during the day with peak
feeding at sunrise and sunset. Inactive at night in shallow water. Winter in deep
water. Primarily zooplankton feeders, commencing with immature copepods and
rotifers, including cladocerans as they grow larger (Smithwood pers. comm. 2005).
Yellow perch are very cannibalistic when young perch are abundant. Trophic level
of juveniles and adults 3.7±0.6(S.E.). Preyed upon by fishes and birds (Scott and
Grossman 1973). Primarily a shoaling (schooling) species. Spawns between
February and July in the northern hemisphere and between August and October in
the southern hemisphere. In North America yellow perch are widely distributed and
common (Collette and others 1977). Historically yellow perch were present in New
Hampshire's southern waters, but they were introduced to more northern waters
(Noon 2003).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-16-
-------
Common
Name
Species Name
Natural History
American
Shad
(Reach 3)
>4/osa
sapidissima
Native species. Spend most of its life at sea, returning to freshwater streams to
breed. Newly hatched larvae are found in rivers during the summer; by autumn they
enter the sea and remain there until maturity. Feed on plankton, mainly copepods
and mysids, occasionally on small fishes. Feeding ceases during upstream
spawning migration and resumes during the downstream post-spawning migration.
Shad historically occupied the Connecticut River only as far up as Bellows Falls
(Noon 2003). In Massachusetts, the American shad historically entered virtually all
coastal streams. Damming, dredging, pollution, and other alterations of
Massachusetts waters, caused large declines in the mid-1800s. Shad were
eliminated from the Massachusetts portions of the Connecticut, Blackstone, and
Charles rivers and the Merrimack suffered declines. Since the mid-1950's, with new
or improved fishways and fish-lifts, shad numbers have increased dramatically,
especially in the Connecticut and Merrimack rivers (Hartel and others 1996).
Brown
Bullhead
(Reach 3)
Ameiurus
nebulosus
Native species. Occurs in pools and sluggish runs over soft substrates in creeks
and small to large rivers. Also found in impoundments, lakes, and ponds. Rarely
enters brackish waters. A nocturnal feeder that feeds mollusks, insects, leeches,
crayfish and plankton, worms, algae, plant material, fishes and has been reported to
feed on eggs of least Cisco, herring and lake trout. Juveniles (3-6 cm) feed mostly on
chironomid larvae, cladocerans, ostracods, amphipods, bugs and mayflies. Can
tolerate high carbon dioxide and low oxygen concentrations and temperatures up to
31.6 °C although experiments show upper lethal temp, to be 37.5°C; resistant to
domestic and industrial pollution. Has been observed to bury itself in mud to escape
adverse environmental conditions. Preyed on by chain pickerel. Brown bullheads are
common to abundant and found in every major drainage in Massachusetts, but are
generally absent from hillstream systems (Hartel and others 1996)
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-17-
-------
Common
Name
Species Name
Natural History
Striped Bass
(Reach 3)
Morone
saxatilis
Native species. Inhabits coastal waters and are commonly found in bays but may
enter rivers in the spring to spawn. Some populations are landlocked (Robins and
Ray 1986). Larvae feed on zooplankton; juveniles take in small shrimps and other
crustaceans, annelid worms, and insects; adults feed on a wide variety of fishes and
invertebrates, mainly crustaceans. Feeding ceases shortly before spawning. Prey
on nekton, finfish and bony fish. Historically, striped bass were very abundant and
probably entered most of Massachusetts' larger rivers before environmental changes
associated with dams and pollution. With the improvements in many of
Massachusetts' fishways during the last decade, non-reproducing stripers are now
migrating the length of the Connecticut and Merrimack rivers into New Hampshire.
Striped bass typically undergo natural population fluctuations that have been
documented since before the turn of the 20th century. The changes in abundance
have now been linked to peak years of successful reproduction followed by years of
less successful reproduction. In recent years these natural fluctuations have been
compounded by man-induced changes that effect water quality and thus
reproductive and larval success (Hartel and others 1996).
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-18-
-------
1.2 Historical Fish Contaminant Data
1.2.1 State of Connecticut
In Connecticut and bordering portions of Massachusetts surveys offish tissue
contamination in the Connecticut River have been conducted since at least 1976. From
1976 to 1984 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Contaminants
Biomonitoring Program collected approximately eight whole body samples by species of
white catfish (Ameiurus catus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and white perch
(Morone americana) from a site in Glastonbury, CT (Reach 1 in the current study).
These samples were analyzed for pesticides, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals.
In 1985 the USFWS, CT Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) and the
Massacusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (MADEQE) (now the
MADEP) surveyed two sites in Massachusetts and three sites in Connecticut. Thirteen
whole body composite samples were collected by species of white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) yellow perch, and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). They were analyzed for organo-chlorine pesticides, PCBs,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals.
In 1988-89 CTDEP surveyed the river from the Massachusetts state line to Lyme, CT
(Reaches 2 to 0) collecting 90 samples (eighteen individual fish each) of carp (Cyprinus
carpio carpio), channel catfish, large and smallmouth bass, and white perch. Fillets
were analyzed for total PCBs with mean concentration and range by species (ppm) of:
carp (2.43; 0.31-10.49), channel catfish (0.85; 0.20-2.60), largemouth bass (0.14; 0.01-
0.47), smallmouth bass (0.49; 0.04-1.76) and white perch (0.20; 0.01-0.96).
In 1989 the USFWS and CTDEP surveyed from Haddam to Lyme, CT (Reach 0 in the
current study) for white perch, yellow perch, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and largemouth bass. Whole body and fillet
composite samples were analyzed by species for organo-chlorine pesticides, a hydro-
carbon scan, total PBCs, PAHs, and heavy metals.
A subsequent survey in 1990 by CTDEP in Lyme, CT (Reach 0 in the current study) of
18 large specimens of carp were also analyzed for total PCBs (Total PCBs) in their
fillets. Total PCB concentrations ranged from 0.018-2.830 ppm with a mean
concentration of 1.08 ppm.
In 1991 and 1992 CTDEP continued surveys in Haddam and Lyme, CT (Reach 0 in the
current study) collecting 43 specimens of large and smallmouth bass and white perch,
analyzing fillets for heavy metals, including total mercury. Total Hg was found in
seventeen largemouth bass scaled fillets at a mean concentration of 0.20 mg/kg (ppm)
with a range from 0.09-0.29 ppm. Six smallmouth bass scaled fillets had total Hg mean
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -19-
-------
concentrations of 0.19 mg/kg (ppm), with a range of 0.09-0.30 ppm. In twenty white
perch total Hg concentrations averaged 0.23 and ranged from 0.08-0.39 ppm.
In 1995 the University of Connecticut Environmental Research Institute (ERI) analyzed
fillets from 28 specimens of largemouth bass caught by CTDEP from the
Massachusetts state line to E. Haddam, CT (Reach 2-0 in the current study) for total
mercury (Total Hg).
The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH) currently has fish advisories
only for common carp and catfish on the entire length of the Connecticut River based
only on PCBs. A state-wide advisory is in effect for mercury in fish for sensitive "at risk"
populations16. Connecticut has a state-wide mercury advisory for all waterbodies and
all fish species, except stocked brook trout, for all populations. Additional information
on Connecticut's fish advisories may be found by calling the CTDPH (860-509-7742)
and at: (http://www.dph.state.ct.us/BRS/EOHA/webfsh.htm).
Further information on the above studies may be obtained by connecting Mr. Ernie
Pizzuto of the CTDEP at 860-424-3715 or ernest.pizzuto@po.state.ct.us.
1.2.2 State of Massachusetts
In Massachusetts at least two historic surveys offish tissue contamination in the CT
River were conducted in the late 1980's (Maietta, 1988), in response to findings of
elevated PCB levels during a 1987 survey for channel catfish and white catfish (/. catus)
(Maietta, 1989). In 1987 ten channel catfish were collected below and above the
Holyoke Dam (Reaches 2 and 3 in the current study) and above the Turner's Falls Dam
(Reach 4 in the current study), since the dams are barriers to fish migration. Skin-off
fillets were analyzed for heavy metals, including total mercury (total Hg) and PCBs.
Aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and lead (Pb) were found
at or below unspecified detection limits in most fish. A ten year old catfish had the
highest levels of Al, iron (Fe), Ni, and zinc (Zn) of all fish analyzed. Total Hg, the metal
of greatest human health concern was observed at levels ranging from 0.07 to 0.88
ppm with an overall mean value of 0.41 ppm. Total Hg levels were significantly
correlated with fish age (r= 0.630; p = 0.001) for all stations combined. This effect was
not detectable at separate stations.
In 1988 (Maietta, 1989) relatively small samples of several species were sampled:
Connecticut River (mile 80.0) (Reach 2 in the current study) yielded five American shad
(>4/osa sapidissima), a single white catfish, two channel catfish, three walleye
(Stitzostedion vitreum), two smallmouth bass, one largemouth bass, one white perch,
CT, MA, NH and VT have slightly differing definitions of "at risk" groups, that
generally include children (of varying ages), pregnant women or those who may become
pregnant, and nursing mothers.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -20-
-------
two white suckers, one American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and one rock bass (Ambloplites
rupesths). Connecticut River (mile 93.0) (Reach 2 in the current study) yielded an
unspecified number of carp, channel catfish, white suckers, largemouth bass, white
perch, yellow perch, rock bass, American eel, and black crappie. At mile 125.4 (Reach
3 in the current study) one white sucker, one chain pickerel (Esox niger), one white
perch, one American eel, and one smallmouth were sampled. This last small sample
was supplemented by fishing below the Vernon VT dam (mile 136.5) (Reach 4 in the
current study) collecting six white suckers, four walleyes, two smallmouth bass, one
yellow perch, and one American eel. Skin-off fillets were analyzed individually or as
composites for metals, PCB Arochlors (complex mixtures of PCB congeners) and
organic pesticides. Most species were also aged using scale impressions. Total Hg
concentrations averaged 0.24 mg/kg (ppm) and ranged from 0.02-0.65 ppm, well below
fish advisory levels at that time. Aroclor 1254 was present in 30 of 47 samples.
Aroclors 1260 and 1242 were found in 18 and 7 of the 47 samples, respectively. These
three Arochlors were summed to estimate total PCBs.17 Connecticut River mile 136.5
and mile 125.4 (Reach 4 in the current study) were considered the same segment and
had a mean total PCB level of 0.30 mg/kg (ppm). Connecticut River (mile 93.0) (Reach
3) fish had a mean total PCB concentration of 0.40 mg/kg (ppm).
In 2001 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issued a new statewide fish
consumption advisory in response to growing information and concerns about mercury
contamination. MDPH advised pregnant women, women of childbearing age who might
become pregnant, nursing mothers and children under 12 years of age to refrain from
eating certain marine fish and expanded its previously issued (1994) statewide fish
consumption advisory which cautioned pregnant women to avoid eating fish from all
freshwater bodies due to concerns about mercury contamination, to include women of
childbearing age who might become pregnant, nursing mothers and children under 12
years of age. MDPH also included advice on healthy eating habits to maximize
nutritional benefits while minimizing risks . In addition, MDPH issues waterbody-specific
advisories. In the early 1990s MDPH issued updated fish consumption advice for the
Connecticut River, based on PCBs, advising sensitive populations not to consume any
fish from the river. It also advises the general public against eating channel catfish,
white catfish, American eel or yellow perch. This advisory covers all towns from
Northfield to Longmeadow (i.e. 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
MDPH Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Toxicology Program at
617-624-5757 or at http://db.state.ma.us/dph/fishadvisory/.
Further information on all of the above studies may be obtained by connecting Mr.
Robert Maietta of the MADEP at 508-767-2793 or robert.maietta@state.ma.us.
This method is now known to significantly underestimate total PCBs in
environmental samples.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -21-
-------
1.2.3 State of New Hampshire
The State of New Hampshire first monitored their fish for total Hg in 1970, collecting
and analyzing over 1,000 samples from 10% of the State's waterbodies. Fish from the
Connecticut River at Moore Reservoir (Reach 7 in the current study), Bellows Pool and
Hinsdale (Reach 5 in the current study) had elevated levels of total mercury. Typically
elevated levels were observed in smallmouth bass, perch and pickerel. A post-hoc
summary of this data, by the author, for species in the current study is shown in Table
4.
In 1989 the USFWS and the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services
conducted a comprehensive assessment of metal and organic contaminants in
Connecticut River fish at five locations (Isaza and Dreisig, 1989). Smallmouth bass,
yellow and white perch, walleye, white suckers and chain pickerel were sampled. Skin
off fillets and offal were composited and analyzed for cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, DDT and Homologs, PCBs and PAHs. Table 5 depicts mean levels of total
mercury observed in fillet and offal samples. Concentrations of contaminants
approximated those observed in other New England river fish. PCBs and cadmium
exceeded levels considered safe for wildlife. PCB levels did not exceed the FDA action
level of 2 ppm and thus did not warrant an advisory, at that time.
Table 4. Summary of Observed Total Mercury Data in Selected Species from the
Connecticut River 1970 NH Fish Survey (Data from Houghton, 1971)
SPECIES
(# offish in sample)
Yellow Perch (16 fish)
Sucker (8 fish)
Smallmouth Bass
(11 fish)
Mean Total Hg
(ppm)
0.31
0.33
0.49
Minimum Total
Hg (ppm)
0.02
0.08
0.13
Maximum Total
Hg (ppm)
0.8
0.6
1.3
Table 5. Summary of Mean Total Mercury in Fillet and Offal in Selected Species from
the Connecticut River 1989 Fish Survey (Data from Isaza and Dreisig, 1989)
SPECIES
Yellow Perch
White Perch
Smallmouth Bass
Fillet
(ug/g - ppm, wet
weight)
0.16
0.16
0.13
Offal
(ug/g - ppm, wet
weight)
0.90
0.11
0.05
In 1994 New Hampshire and Vermont prepared a joint report on the Connecticut River's
water quality (NHDES and VTDEC 1994). However, no new sampling offish tissue was
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-22-
-------
conducted as part of this report. They recommended that "additional and ongoing fish
tissue analysis is needed."
Also in 1994 the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services published an
addendum report on mercury in fish in inland waters (Dreisig and Dupee 1994). Dreisig
and Dupee (1994) did not sample the Connecticut River, but their report, together with a
1996 addendum did increase the recommended consumption limit offish by women of
reproductive age and young children, based on mercury contamination and EPA's
revised reference dose. However, all fish sampled in this study were considered to
pose a health risk to "heavy fish consumers", analogous to the subsistence fisher
category in USEPA (2000b).
In August, 1996 and October, 1998 New Hampshire sampled fifteen smallmouth bass
from Moore Reservoir (Reach 7 in the current study) for mercury. Mean mercury in skin
off fillets was 0.93 ppm, with a range from 0.4 to 1.63 ppm. Three yellow perch
sampled from this reservoir in August, 1996 had a mean mercury in skin off fillets of 1.2
ppm, ranging from 1.09 ppm to 1.27 ppm.
In October, 1998 in Comerford Reservoir (Reach 6 in the current study) ten smallmouth
bass were sampled for mercury in skin off fillets. Mean mercury was 0.82 ppm with a
range from 0.46 ppm to 1.22 ppm. Seven yellow perch sampled in 1996 and 1998
contained a mean mercury level in skin off fillets of 0.99 ppm with a range from 0.62
ppm to 1.35 ppm.
In Mclndoes Reservoir (Reach 6) fifteen smallmouth bass were sampled in October
1998 for mercury in skin off fillets. Mean mercury was 0.65 ppm, ranging from 0.22
ppm to 1.33 ppm. Six yellow perch sampled in 1996 and 1998 had mean mercury in
skin off fillets of 0.23 ppm, with a range of 0.14 ppm to 0.39 ppm18.
New Hampshire rescinded an advisory for total PCBs in all species offish along a -260
mile long stretch of the Connecticut River on September 1, 2001. The rescinded
advisory had been established in 1992. A state-wide 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 (Reach 6) and Moore Reservoirs
(Reach 7) currently have specific advisories recommending 'at risk' populations avoid
consuming any fish and all others to limit consumption.
Further information may be obtained by contacting Ms. Pamela Schnepper
(Pschnepper@des.state.nh.us) 603-271-3994, Toxicologist at NHDES. Information on
current NH fish advisories:http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/fish consumption.htm.
1 ft
Results of sampling of smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and white suckers in the
Comerford, Moore and Mclndoes Reservoirs, by the Biodiversity Research Institute, in
2000-2003 is compared with data from Reaches 6 and 7 in Appendix B.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -23-
-------
1.2.4 State of Vermont
The State of Vermont has done very limited sampling in the mainstem of the
Connecticut River, as most of these are not Vermont state waters. Ewald and Mulligan
(2003) chronicle the complex, interesting history of the boundary dispute. Mulligan
(pers. comm. 2005) notes," the boundary was reaffirmed in 1934 as the ordinary low
water mark on the west bank. The boundary is identified with markers. In some places,
dam construction has inundated the state line, so much of Moore and Comerford
reservoirs19, for example, are Vermont waters."
In 1970 the Vermont Department of Fish and Game had edible portions from individual
fish analyzed for mercury from the Connecticut River near Windsor, VT (Reach 5 in the
current study). Three smallmouth bass were sampled with 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 ppm of Hg.
Additionally three yellow perch were sampled with 0.3, "trace", and 1.1 ppm of Hg
(VTANR-DEC, 1990).
In December 1975 and January 1976 fish were sampled for PCB Arochlor 1254 from
the Vernon Pool, either from the bottom of Reach 5 or top of Reach 4 in the current
study. Fifteen yellow perch were found to have an average value of 0.54 ppm.
However, seven white suckers and sixteen smallmouth bass had only a "trace" level
(VTANR-DEC, 1990).
The Vermont Department of Health 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 (Reach 6) and Moore Reservoir (Reach 7). Other fishers are
advised to limit meals. In Mclndoes Reservoir (Reach 6) Vermont advises limiting
consumption of all fish. Specific fish advisories in effect for Vermont waters may be
found at: (http://www.state.vt.us/health/fish.htm). 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.
1.2.5 USGS NAWQA Basin Study
In 1992-1993 the USGS analyzed organochlorine contaminants in white sucker
composites from five sites in the mainstem of the Connecticut River, as part of the
National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) (Coles 1996; 1998; 1999).
The size of Connecticut River white suckers sampled by the USGS were highly
comparable to those in the current study.
19
Mclndoes Reservoir is also jointly claimed by Vermont and New Hampshire.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -24-
-------
Coles (1998) observed that,
"The Connecticut River mainstem sites...whose drainage-basin population
densities increase progressively to about 10-fold, showed a downsream
trend of increasing total DDT concentrations from 0 (nd) to 260 ug/kg at...
(Longmeadow, MA) (highest in the CT River basin sites)."
Observed levels of DDT homologs were consistent with the historic pattern of DDT use.
Total DDT was not correlated with agricultural land use. However, there was a
significant difference between low, medium and high density population basins and total
DDT. Higher population basins had higher total DDT concentrations in whole white
suckers (Coles 1998).
Total chlordane was also related to drainage basin population density, consistent with
extensive use in urban areas prior to being banned. Total chlordane also was not
correlated with agricultural land use. Nonachlor was the most abundant and recalcitrant
form observed by Coles (1998; 1999).
Coles (1996) analyzed length-age relations and total PCB content of mature white
sucker composites. He found the Connecticut River fish were smaller at a given age
than those from Canadian lakes. White suckers displayed a linear growth rate
following maturity, but growth rate varied widely among sites. Young fish are known to
grow faster and female white suckers grow faster than males (Scott and Grossman
1973). Coles (1996) found age offish had no effect on the lipid fraction and did not
appear to relate to total PCB content.
Coles (1998) compared results from several previous Connecticut River fish tissue
studies (Table 6). Coles (1998) concluded there was a trend of increasing levels of
organochlorine contaminants downstream in the basin. Coles (1998) concluded total
DDTs and total PCBs had not declined, but total chlordane had decreased since earlier
studies.
Table 6. Summary of Total DDT, Chlordane and PCBs in Whole Fish Composites from
the Connecticut River (Adapted from Coles 1999). -- analysis not performed; Reaches
of current study shown in brackets
Site
near Lancaster, NH
(Reach 7)
at Hanover, NH
(Reach 6)
atW. Lebanon, NH
(Reach 5)
Year
1994
1986
1986
Spp
ws
SMB
SMB
DDT
(Total)
16
80
21
Chlordane
(Total)
nd
--
--
PCBs
(Total)
nd
380
300
Reference
Coles (1999)
Isaza and Dreisig, 1989
Isaza and Dreisig, 1989
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-25-
-------
at Claremont, N.H.
(Reach 5)
at South Charleston, NH
(Reach 5)
at Brattleboro, VT
(Reach 5)
N. of MA-NH Border
(Reach 4)
at Montague City, MA
(Reach 3)
at Holyoke, MA
(Reach 2 or 3)
at Chicopee, MA
(Reach 2)
near Longmeadow, MA
(Reach 2)
at Enfield, CT
(Reach 2)
near Portland, CT
(Reach 1)
above Middletown, CT
(Reach 1)
at Haddam, CT
(Reach 1)
1986
1993
1986
1986
1993
1985
1985
1993
1985
1993
1985
1985
SMB
WS
SMB
SMB
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
40
80
80
100
140
210
200
260
160
160
140
160
--
14
--
--
14
70
160
63
120
64
120
150
260
690
580
800
820
1,060
1,640
1,400
880
940
1,160
1,580
Isaza and Dreisig, 1989
Coles (1999)
Isaza and Dreisig, 1989
Isaza and Dreisig, 1989
Coles (1999)
USFWS, 1986
USFWS, 1986
Coles (1999)
USFWS, 1986
Coles (1999)
USFWS, 1986
USFWS, 1986
1.2.6 Connecticut River Reservoir Sampling
The Biodiversity Research Institute of Gorham, ME provided data collected in 2000-
2003 on mercury in whole and filleted smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and white
suckers from impoundments in Reach 6 (Mclndoe Falls Reservoir; Comerford
Reservoir) and Reach 7 (Moore Reservoir). This data is compared to that found in the
current study in Appendix C.
1.2.7 National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish
This USEPA (1992a; 1992b) study collected white suckers at 32 sites and smallmouth
bass at 26 sites from a total of 388 sites. 314 of these sites were selected because of
known point and non-point source problems, 39 were USGS National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) sites, and 35 were selected as ambient sites. Many
sites were selected because of known or suspected high dioxin levels.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-26-
-------
Table 7. Mean Contaminant Levels found in Smallmouth Bass Fillets and Whole White
Suckers in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (USEPA 1992a; 1992b)
Contaminant (ppb)
Mercury (ppm)
Total PCBs
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Mi rex
Oxychlordane
Total Chlordane
DDE
Total Nonachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Smallmouth Bass Fillets
0.34
496.22
0.36
0.15
2.34
ND
0.07
1.99
0.54
4.01
33.63
7.82
0.36
Whole White Suckers
0.11
1,697.81
3.31
1.66
22.75
0.24
1.09
4.35
3.10
18.43
78.39
20.83
3.62
Dioxin Congeners
2,3,7,8-TCDD20
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDD
OctaCDD
7.20E-04
ND
ND
7.90E-04
ND
6.70E-04
NA
8.08E-03
2.05E-03
1.03E-03
1.96E-03
8.80E-04
3.72E-03
NA
20
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) [dioxins] and chlorinated dibenzofurans
(CDFs) [furans].
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -27-
-------
Contaminant (ppb)
Smallmouth Bass Fillets
Whole White Suckers
Furan Congeners
2,3,7,8-TetraCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HeptaCDF
OctaCDF
Dioxin/Furan
Human/Mammalian TEQ21
Dioxin/Furan Fish TEQ
Dioxin/Furan Bird TEQ
1.93E-03
ND
5.10E-04
1.28E-03
1.23E-03
ND
ND
6.90E-04
ND
NA
1.51 £-03(0.0015)
1.34E-03(0.0013)
3.43E-03 (0.0034)
2.29E-02
1.10E-03
2.64E-03
2.21 E-03
1.29E-03
1.06E-03
1.09E-03
1.23E-03
1.13E-03
NA
1.51E-02 (0.0151)
1.38E-02(0.0138)
3.65E-02 (0.0365)
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
Whole white suckers had approximately an order of magnitude greater TEQs than
smallmouth bass fillets.
1.3 Contaminants in Connecticut River Sediment
Breault and Harris (1997) have noted that,
"The chemistry of streambed sediment influences the biotic quality of a
stream as aquatic organisms ingest particulate matter and accumulate
trace elements and organic compounds (Forstner and Wittmann, 1979;
Luoma, 1983). The accumulation of trace elements and organic
compounds in aquatic organisms can cause various physiological
problems and even death of the organisms. Subsequent ingestion of
21
TEQ toxicity is based on WHO consensus TEFs for humans/mammals, birds
-28-
and fish (Van den Berg and others 1998) (see Chapter 3);
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-------
aquatic organisms transfers the accumulated contaminants upward
through the food chain."
The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) for the Connecticut River basin
sampled sediment from 25 sites, 5 of which were in the mainstem of the river, most
others in proximal tributaries (Breault and Harris, 1997). Breault and Harris (1997)
observed that "although some streambed sediments in the CT River basin had high
trace-element concentrations, many were among the lowest observed...For example,
mercury concentrations were highest—about 15 times the average crustal
abundance—in streambed sediment at site 28 on the Hockanum River near East
Hartford, Connecticut, however, mercury concentrations generally were lowest in the
Connecticut River Basin compared to the other basins in the study" (i.e. Housatonic and
Thames river basins).
EPA has supported two recent assessments of sediment quality in the Connecticut
River. Nolan and Bridges (1999), of EPA's Regional Lab, sampled ten stations in 1998
along a 225 mile distance of the mainstem of the Connecticut, including the entire
Vermont and New Hampshire boundary (Map 222). Sites were selected to be
downstream of major tributaries and/or populated areas and considered potential "hot
spots". Mercury and PCBs were not found at any stations above the laboratory
reporting limits. DDT Homologs were only found at low concentrations at Stations
UTCR-3 and UTCR-8.
In 2000 EPA's Superfund program surveyed 100 sediment sites in the middle and
upper Connecticut River for 159 potential contaminants (Map 2). The results of this
much more substantial survey were presented to the interested communities in public
forums. Figure 1 displays the 'low level'23 mercury results from that survey as a
cumulative distribution function. Table 8 summarizes descriptive statistics for low level
mercury observed in EPA's 2000 Connecticut River study. Although maximum
concentrations were similar to those observed by Breault and Harris (1997), generally
much lower values were observed. It is not believed that Connecticut River sediments
are a significant source of mercury in fish.
22
Map 2 delineates the 8-digit NHD HUC 'watersheds' of the Connecticut River.
However, nationally, at all mapping scales, only about 45% or less of hydrologic unit
codes (HUCs) are true watersheds, in which the boundary delineates the surface and
subsurface drainage of a geographic area to a particular receiving point on a stream,
typically a stream confluence (Omernik 2003). It is not possible to delineate a continuous
coverage of 'true' watersheds across an entire region, inevitably areas have to be
included in the cataloguing units that are not hydrologically contained within the boundary
(Omernik 2005; pers. comm.). HUCs and most ostensible 'watershed' coverages are
delineated with such continuous coverages.
23
Low level refers to the analytical method, not the observed concentrations.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -29-
-------
Table 8. Observed Concentration of Mercury in Streambed Sediment Samples from
EPA's 2000 Superfund Study of the Connecticut River
Trace
Element
Mercury
Minimum
Cone.
(ppm)
0.0004
Lower
Quartile
(ppm)
0.008
Median
(ppm)
0.016
Upper
Quartile
(ppm)
0.037
Maximum
Cone.
(ppm)
0.93
The current EPA point-of-contact for this study (Savitski 2001) is Ms. Nancy Smith
(Smith.nancya@epa.gov) or 617-918-1436. Lori Siegel, Ecological Risk Assessor at
NHDES. 603-271-0699 (lsiegel@des.state.nh.us) is currently completing a risk
assessment of both EPA sediment data sets.
4
OQ -
n ft -
— A 7
£ °J
S- Afi -
OAR
J3 U.*l
H 03-
09
04
. \
-\
Cumulative Distribution Function of Low Level Mercury In
EPA's 2000 Connecticut River Sediment Study
i
•4
i
1
1
*«"
muuu tt1**
1 11 20 30 40 50 59 69 79 88 98
% of Samples
Figure 1. CDF of Low Level Mercury in EPA's 2000 Connecticut River Sediment Study
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000)
-30-
-------
Connecticut River (8-digit HUC) 'Watersheds' -
EPA 1998 and 2000 Sediment Sampling Sites
Legend
• EPA 1998 Sediment Sites
• EPA2000 Sediment Sites
Reach Markers
N
I
1:2,000,000
Bottom
25
50
100 Miles
I
Map 2. Connecticut River (8-digit NHD HUC) 'Watersheds' - EPA 1998 and 2000
Sediment Sampling Sites
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -31
-------
1.4 Contaminants in Fish
The contaminants in the current study are Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBTs)
Pollutants and/or Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). EPA (2002) notes that POPs
adversely affect humans and wildlife, are readily transported by wind and water, are
globally distributed, persist for long time periods and can bioaccumulate through food
chains.
USEPA (2002) concludes,
"PBTs..can build up in the food chain to levels that are harmful to human
and ecosystem health. They are associated with a range of adverse
human health effects, including effects on the nervous system,
reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, and genetic impacts"
"The (human) populations at risk, especially to PBTs such as mercury,
dioxins, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), are children and the
developing fetus."
As Breault and Harris (1997) note, many of the contaminants found in stream and river
sediments are resistant to biological, chemical or physical breakdown processes,
including chlordane, DDT and PCBs. Many of the contaminants found in streams and
rivers, such as the Connecticut, are present as a result of human activities. Breault and
Harris (1997) conclude,
"[As] many biological systems are not well adapted to the effects of these
constituents, they may be toxic or in some way harmful to aquatic
organisms at very low concentrations...Once in streams or streambed
sediments, trace elements and organic compounds can be absorbed or
be ingested by aquatic organisms. If benthic organisms become
contaminated, they can act as a source of contaminants to fish. Many of
the hydrophobic and lipophilic contaminants are readily stored in the fatty
tissue offish, where they tend to bioaccumulate, and commonly are not
readily metabolized. Fish biomagnify these compounds both through
uptake from food and directly from water passing over their gills. Fish-
eating mammals and birds consume the contaminated fish, and continue
to pass contaminants up the food chain. This accumulation of streambed
sediment contaminants in fish tissues increases the likelihood that these
contaminants will be detected; thus, tissue analysis can be used to
provide information about the occurrence and distribution of stream
associated contaminants at otherwise undetectable concentrations"
The current study confirms this as contaminants were observed in fish tissue at levels
considerably higher than were typically found in sediment.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -32-
-------
1.5 Data Analysis Methods
Chapters 2 through 6 analyze contaminants (mercury, coplanar PCBS/dioxins, organo-
chlorine pesticides, morphometric (weight and length) data, and smallmouth bass age.
Observed levels of contaminants were compared to EPA or other published human
health and ecological screening levels24.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically compare differences between
species and Reaches. EPA statistician, Dr. James Heltshe (pers. comm. 2005),
advocated use of parametric, rather than non-parametric tests, in all statistical analyses
of CT River fish data, given it's indeterminate (multivariate) distribution, the small
sample size, and lower power of non-parametric tests. An Analysis of Covariance of
total mercury by species and Reach, with length as the covariate, was also undertaken,
yielding results highly similar to those of the factorial and one-way ANOVAs. However,
in some samples fish size appears to be confounded with total mercury. Thus only the
results from the ANOVA are shown. Statistical analyses were performed in
STATISTICA versions 5 through 7.1 (StatSoft 2005).
Morphometric data were used to assess fish "condition" (i.e. health) and are compared
between Reaches using ANOVA. Smallmouth bass age is compared graphically with
contaminant levels. Parametric and non-parametric correlation and linear regression
are also used where appropriate.25
Empirical Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs)26 were generated for total mercury
in whole and filleted fish by species, over all Reaches, for coplanar PCB human/
mammalian, fish, and bird TEQs in whole and filleted fish by species, and for total DDT
Homologs in whole and filleted fish by species.
24The current study constitutes a human health and ecological risk screening and
not a full risk assessment. Ecological risk assessment is a "...process that evaluates the
likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of
exposure to one or more stressors"(USEPA 1998). Human health risk assessment, for
example, to mercury includes hazard identification and dose-response assessments and
assessment of exposure covered in Volumes 4 and 5 of EPA's Mercury Study Report to
Congress (USEPA 1997b; 1997c).
25
One reviewer recommended comparing this study's results with
watershed/HUC land use/cover data, but this proved to beyond the scope of the current
report. Additional exploration of this data set using such ancillary data may reveal
additional explanatory factors and relationships.
"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 determining whether most of
the values are very low, with a few high values or whether values cover a broader range"
(USEPA 2001e:11). CDFs in this report only display observed values from a small
sample offish species in each Reach and thus are not indicative of the entire population
offish within a Reach.
Connecticut River Fish Tissue Contaminant Study (2000) -33-
------- |