Summary of Responses to the 2010 National
Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
vvEPA
EPA-820-R-12-001
December 2011
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Uses of the Data 1-2
1.2 Current Data Collection Effort 1-2
1.3 Report Contents and Format 1-3
2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective 2-1
2.1 Fish Tissue Monitoring Program 2-1
2.2 Types of Fish Advisories 2-6
2.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis Procedures 2-12
2.4 State Advisory Program Funding 2-18
2.5 Other Uses of State Advisory Data 2-20
2.6 Risk Assessment Methodologies 2-22
2.7 Targeting Fish Consumers 2-34
2.8 Risk Management 2-37
2.9 Risk Communication Procedures 2-39
2.10 Health Effects Studies Related to Fish Consumption 2-45
Appendix A - Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Appendix B - Questionnaire Response Database
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures
2-1. Did your state conduct routine monitoring during 2010? 2-2
2-2. Number of sampling stations at which states collected fish tissue samples in 2010 2-4
2-3. Number of waterbodies in which fish tissue monitoring was conducted in 2010 2-5
2-4. Does your state or tribe issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals not
to consume certain fish from particular waterbodies? 2-7
2-5. Do you have legally enforced advisories or bans? 2-10
2-6. Does your state or tribe issue commercial fishing bans for chemically-
contaminated fish or shellfish? 2-11
2-7. Does your state or tribe issue fish and/or shellfish advisories for microbial
contamination? 2-12
2-8. Number of states using various types of fish tissue samples as a basis for fish
advisories 2-13
2-9. Does your state or tribe collect multiple size classes, by species, and submit these
individual sizes for residue analysis? 2-14
2-10. How many years of sampling are required before a fish consumption advisory can
be issued? 2-16
2-11. Number of states that screen for each pollutant and identify each pollutant as a
primary health concern 2-18
2-12. Amount spent annually on routine fish tissue field collection activities 2-19
2-13. If fish consumption advisories have been issued in your state, does your state
place these waterbodies on the state's 3 03 (d) list of impaired waters? 2-22
2-14. Does your state recommend a meal frequency format or number of meals over
time in its advisories? 2-27
2-15. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about meal size or
portion for adults? 2-28
2-16. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about meal size or
portion for children? 2-29
2-17. What assumption does your state make about the amount of pollutant absorbed by
the body after ingestion? 2-30
2-18. Does your state use "contaminant reduction factors" to account for contaminant
losses of PCBs from fish tissues during cleaning, preparation, and cooking of the
fish? 2-31
2-19. Does your state assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity values to different
populations? 2-33
2-20. Does your state screen for lead in its fish tissue samples? 2-34
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs iii
-------
Table of Contents
2-21. Are health risks being assessed in your state for target groups of people whose
culinary habits may differ from the customs of the majority of Americans? 2-35
2-22. Professional disciplines represented on state fish advisory committees 2-38
2-23. Who in your state makes the ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify,
or rescind fish advisories? 2-39
2-24. Sources of printed state fish advisory information available to the general public 2-40
2-25. Methods of communication used by states to disseminate fish advisory
information 2-41
2-26. Fish-consuming populations targeted by states to receive fish advisory
information 2-42
2-27. Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories distributed to the public in
languages other than English? 2-43
2-28. Languages other than English used to distribute information on fish advisories to
target populations 2-44
2-29. Methods used by states to evaluate the effectiveness offish advisories 2-45
List of Tables
2-1. Summary of Statewide Advisories by Waterbody Type and Year Issued 2-8
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs iv
-------
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Water, National Fish Advisory Program. EPA wishes to thank all of the state, U.S. territory, and
tribal organization representatives who provided information for this national effort. The EPA
Project Manager for this document was Samantha Fontenelle who provided overall project
coordination as well as technical direction. EPA was supported in the development of this
document by RTI International under EPA Contract Number GS-10F-0283K. Emaly Simone of
RTI International was the contractor's Project Manager. The survey was conducted under OMB
Control Number 2040-0226.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
-------
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.0 Introduction
In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began compiling information
on fish advisories provided by the states in their biannual 305(b) Water Quality Inventory
Reports; however, the EPA soon determined that some states did not report up-to-date
information about fish advisories in their 305(b) reports. In many states, the water quality or
environmental agencies were responsible for preparing the 305(b) report, whereas the state
health department generally was responsible for issuing the advisories. In 1994, the EPA Office
of Water (OW) began conducting a voluntary annual fish advisory program survey to obtain the
most up-to-date information on fish advisories and state advisory programs. The Agency began
surveying the state health departments or other state agencies directly responsible for the
issuance offish and wildlife advisories. Today, the EPA collects three distinct types of
information from the states regarding their fish consumption advisory programs:
1. Number and geographic extent offish advisories in each state,
2 Contaminant residue data from fish tissue analyses,
3. State methodology for fish tissue monitoring, analysis, and risk communication.
This report summarizes the results of the third data collection effort, a compilation of
information obtained from a survey of state methods and procedures called the National Survey
of Fish Advisory Programs. This survey is now conducted biannually through the use of a
dedicated survey website. The survey collects information on state fish advisory programs,
including differences in monitoring procedures used to collect and analyze fish samples, risk
assessment methodologies used to evaluate chemical residue data and issue advisories, risk
management approaches employed to protect the public, and risk communication procedures
used to communicate the human health risks associated with the consumption of chemically
contaminated species. From this information, the EPA can assess the implementation of EPA
guidance recommendations in state fish advisory programs and determine what steps are needed
to provide assistance to state, territorial, and tribal fish advisory programs. The results of the
survey are analyzed, compiled into a report, and shared with government agencies and the
general public.
In 2011 this survey report will be available via the newly redesigned National Listing of
Fish Advisories (NLFA) website, along with the other two categories of data. The NLFA website
(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories) provides information about
fish advisories, fish consumption advice, risk and benefits offish consumption, and mercury in
fish; a monthly fish advisory newsletter; and the NLFA database. The website also includes an
easy-to-use interactive mapping tool that allows the public to search for information about
advisories where they live, and advanced search options for more detailed advisory information
on advisory and fish tissue contaminant data for 49 states, territories, and tribes. By using the
website fishers can determine whether the waterbodies they want to fish have been monitored to
assess the level of chemical contamination in the fish and whether any advisories or bans have
been issued. This gives consumers information that they can use to make informed decisions
concerning the waterbodies they fish and the amount and types offish they consume.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 1-1
-------
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Uses of the Data
The EPA uses the National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs to accomplish the
following goals:
1. Enhance the public's understanding about the safety of consuming fish, shellfish, and
other water-dependent wildlife harvested from local waters by making this information
available on a national fish advisory website.
2. Improve the scientific and policy foundation in support of state, territorial, tribal, and
local actions.
3. Provide up-to-date sampling and analysis methods, and risk assessment, risk
management, and risk communication procedures for the states' use to better protect the
health of recreational and subsistence fishers.
The EPA uses the fish advisory survey information to determine whether recreational and
subsistence fishers are at additional risk of exposure to chemical contaminants through their
consumption of locally caught fish and shellfish. The survey results provide data on the types of
contaminants that trigger the issuance of advisories; the appropriateness of the state monitoring
effort design with respect to the number of samples collected and the number of stations
surveyed; the number of chemical contaminants being analyzed in the fish tissue; the risk
assessment methodology currently being used to evaluate the potential health risk to fish
consumers; the risk management approaches selected to protect public health; and the ways in
which advisory information is being communicated to the fish-consuming population.
The EPA is using and will continue to use National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
information to examine the success of current fish advisory programs and to evaluate scientific
research needs and policy implications. Information from the survey stimulates nationwide
dialogue on fish consumption advisories involving agencies and the public and is used to identify
and clarify issues that lead to the continued development of national guidance for states on
sampling and analysis, risk assessment procedures, risk management practices, and risk
communication procedures that will further protect human health.
1.2 Current Data Collection Effort
EPA OW prepared an initial information collection request (ICR) to cover fish advisory
program data collection for the 2000 through 2003 reporting periods. Several ICR extensions
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), most recently for the
period from 2010 - 2011 under OMB control number 2040-0226.
This report is a summary of responses obtained from state and tribal fish advisory
contacts to the 2010 National Fish Advisory Program Survey. The survey was conducted through
a password-protected website that was announced to the state contacts in February 2011 as part
of the annual update process for the EPA National Listing of Fish Advisories database. Unique
user names and passwords were sent to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, several Native
American tribes (the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission [GLIFWC], the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, the Aroostook Band of Micmacs of Maine, the St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota), and the U.S.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 1-2
-------
Section 1.0 Introduction
Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 2010
collection effort involved 60 potential respondents, and the survey covered fish advisory
information collected by the states and tribes from January 1 to December 31, 2010.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, four tribes (the Aroostook Band of Micmacs,
GLIFWC, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe), and the U.S.
Territory of Guam responded to the 2010 survey, for a total of 56 respondents. No responses
were received from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, or the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
1.3 Report Contents and Format
Section 2 of this document presents a narrative summary of the results of the 2010
survey. Appendix A includes a copy of the Questionnaire for the Fish Consumption Advisory
Program that appeared on the survey website. Appendix B provides spreadsheets with summaries
of each state's response to each question.
Section 2 provides the reader with a statement of each question asked in the survey,
followed by a short summary of the state responses. Appendix B supplements the national
summary by providing a complete listing of the individual state survey responses presented
alphabetically by state abbreviation using the following conventions:
• For each question the state, territory, or tribe response is listed after the
state/territory/tribal abbreviation.
• For questions in which states, territories, or tribes provided comments, their specific
remarks or information related to the question are also presented. For example, if "Other
methods" was an answer category and the state or tribe was asked to specify what other
methods were used, then the other methods described by the fish advisory contact appear
in the text following the primary response heading, "Other methods."
• If the question is not applicable to the state, territorial, or tribal fish advisory program, a
notation of "not applicable" was used.
• If no response to the question was provided by the state, territorial, or tribal contact, the
answer section is left blank.
Several of the questions request that respondents select all answers that apply. For this
reason, not all of the reported responses will add up to 56 (the number of respondents). In a small
number of cases, state, territorial, or tribal contacts entered responses in the "Other methods"
category that were actually listed as primary response choices. In these cases, information in the
"Other methods" category was counted in the appropriate primary choice selection category for
reporting in Section 2.
In some areas, respondents answered related questions inconsistently. In those cases, we
have reported the answers as given; as a result, some of the tallies in Section 2 may appear
inconsistent from one question to another. The interested reader can refer to Appendix B for
more detail on the answers of specific states.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 1-3
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
2.0 Summary of State Responses—National
Perspective
The 2010 National Survey of State Fish Advisory Programs was conducted through the
Internet using password-protected survey forms already populated with each state's responses to
the previous survey conducted in early 2009. The link to the survey web site along with a unique
user name and password was sent to the states in February 2011. Responses to the survey were
received from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U. S. Territory of Guam, and four tribes
(GLIFWC, Aroostook Band of Micmacs, St. Regis Mohawk, and Cheyenne River Sioux). Note
that the term "states" is used throughout this report to refer to respondents in general, including
the District of Columbia, territories, and tribes. The questionnaire covered nine basic areas:
• Fish tissue monitoring programs.
• Types of fish advisories.
• Sample preparation and analysis procedures.
State advisory program funding.
• Other uses of state advisory data.
• Risk assessment methodology.
• Targeting fish consumers.
• Risk management.
• Risk communication methods.
In addition, states provided information to EPA on any studies they were aware of that
focused on evaluating human tissue contaminant levels or health effects related to fish
consumption. Some of the state health agencies that participated in the survey had difficulty
providing information related to the monitoring aspects of their state's fish advisory programs. In
many states, monitoring and analysis offish tissue samples for chemical contaminants are
typically conducted by the state environmental protection agency or the fish and wildlife
department and are not under the purview of the health department. Therefore, the number of
total responses received for each question varied slightly. The following national perspective of
the fish advisory programs was developed based on state responses to the survey.
2.1 Fish Tissue Monitoring Program
This section summarizes responses to questions concerning each state's fish tissue
monitoring program, including information on the nature, extent, and frequency of the
monitoring effort by the state. In addition, the states provided information on their methods of
assessing fish contaminant problems, including their site selection criteria and the quantitative
extent of their monitoring programs in various waterbody types (e.g., rivers, lakes and reservoirs,
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-1
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
estuarine and coastal marine waters) that had been assessed as part of the fish advisory program.
This section includes responses to survey questions one through eleven.
Ql. Did your state or tribal agency conduct monitoring during this past year (2010)
to obtain information about the concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish
tissue for assessing human health risks?
Forty-five states conducted monitoring during 2010 to obtain information about the
concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish tissue. Eleven states did not conduct any
monitoring of contaminant levels in fish in 2010 (Figure 2-1).
QMEABM
Figure 2-1. Did your state conduct routine monitoring during 2010?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q2. What kind of data does your state or tribal agency collect to evaluate chemical
contaminant levels in fish?
To evaluate chemical contaminant levels in fish tissue, 55 of 56 respondents catch fish
and send tissue samples to a laboratory for analysis. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe does not
analyze tissue samples, but monitors water quality and uses data to estimate contaminant
concentrations in fish. Alaska, Iowa, Washington, and Maine's Aroostook Band ofMicmacs also
monitor water quality to estimate contaminant concentrations likely to occur in fish, in addition
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-2
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
to sampling fish tissue directly. Montana also monitors sediments and uses data to estimate
contaminant concentrations in fish. Four states also use other methods, such as biomonitoring
(Cheyenne River Sioux tribe), evaluating results of water and sediment sampling to determine
the need for additional fish sampling (Connecticut), identifying bioaccumulative pollutants in
samples from other studies or agencies to determine targeting of the area for fish tissue sampling
(Maryland), and continuing to collect water quality and fish contaminant data to try to develop
relationships to estimate contaminant concentrations (Florida).
Q3. How does your state or tribe conduct monitoring of contaminants in fish tissue
for fish advisories?
States use a number of different monitoring methods for sampling contaminants in fish
tissue. Forty-five states conduct one-time, nonrecurring monitoring or special surveys in
particular fishing areas; and forty states monitor the same fishing areas at regular intervals.
Nineteen states use a variety of other methods, such as targeting high-use areas, easily accessed
sites, areas of special concern, or areas of suspected contamination (e.g., hazardous waste sites);
sampling areas based on public requests; reevaluation monitoring of waterbodies where fish
advisories have been issued; conducting statewide rotating basin sampling programs over a
multi-year period; using data collected by other agencies or volunteers to locate areas in need of
fish tissue monitoring; monitoring same areas on a yearly basis if high contaminant level is
found; and commercial fish sampling.
Q4. During the past year, please estimate the number of stations from which your
state or tribal agency collected fish tissue that was analyzed for chemical
contaminants and was used for the fish advisory program?
When asked to estimate the number of stations from which their state agencies collected
fish tissue for chemical contaminant analysis (as part of the tissue monitoring program) in 2010,
eight states sampled no stations. Of the 48 states that reported sampling at least one station; 17
states sampled 1 to 10 stations; three states sampled 11 to 20 stations; six states sampled between
21 and 30 stations; ten states sampled 31 to 50 stations; nine states sampled 51 to 100 stations;
and three states (Minnesota, South Carolina, and Washington) sampled more than 100 stations
(Figure 2-2).
Q5. How frequently does your state resample fish from waterbodies where
advisories are in effect?
Five states reported that they typically resample waterbodies under advisory annually,
four states reported sampling every two to four years, and five states reported sampling every
five years. In 18 states, resampling followed no set schedule and was conducted on an as needed
basis. Twenty-three states reported sampling on other schedules; usually, sampling frequency
was variable. These states listed many factors used to determine the frequency of sampling,
including funding availability, contaminant levels, presence of an advisory, and the popularity of
the waterbody for recreational fishing.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-3
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
More than 100 stations
51-100 stations
31-50 stations
21-30 stations
11-20 stations
Number of States
Figure 2-2. Number of sampling stations at which states collected
fish tissue samples in 2010.
Q6. In approximately how many waterbodies was fish tissue monitoring conducted
within your state during the past year?
Seven states reported that they did not conduct any fish tissue monitoring in their
waterbodies during 2010. Nineteen states reported conducting fish tissue monitoring in one to 10
waterbodies during the past year. Seven states monitored 11 to 20 waterbodies, 10 states
monitored 21 to 30 waterbodies, six states monitored 31 to 40 waterbodies, and seven states
monitored more than 40 sites during the past year (Figure 2-3). Please refer to Appendix B for
the number of stations sampled by state.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-4
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Number of States
Figure 2-3. Number of waterbodies in which fish tissue monitoring was conducted in 2010.
Q7. How does your state determine which sites to monitor?
Most states use several different criteria to select sites for fish tissue monitoring. Forty-
nine states use the pollution potential of an area as a criterion, 46 states use the extent of angling
pressure at the site, 35 states sample in areas of concern, 31 states monitor at fixed stations, 28
states select sampling sites based on citizen or agency requests, 27 states monitor in major
fishery resource areas, 17 states select sites based on accessibility, and 26 states select sites at
random. Nineteen states also select sampling sites using other methods, including probabilistic
survey design; basin rotation; targeting waterbodies already under advisory, those that are
historically undersampled or have known contamination, or where water and sediment samples
indicating that there may be a problem at that location; using data from ongoing scientific studies
and collection efforts of other state and federal agencies; and where total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) are required.
Q8. How many river, stream, or canal miles were assessed at least once during the
last 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
Three states noted that they either do not collect this information or were not able to
calculate it for the survey. Of the remaining states, five assessed more than 2,000 miles at least
once in the past three years; eight states assessed from 1,000 to 2,000 miles; 27 states assessed
from one to 999 miles; and 13 states assessed zero miles.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-5
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q9. How many lake or reservoir acres were assessed at least once during the past 3
years specifically for the fish advisory program?
Three states noted that they either do not collect this information or were not able to
calculate it for the survey. Twelve states assessed zero acres. Of the states that reported assessing
some lake acres, 27 states assessed one to 99,999 acres, 13 states assessed from 100,000 to one
million acres, and Illinois assessed more than one million lake acres.
The Great Lakes are not included in the states' estimates of lake acres assessed. Some
states do report Great Lakes coastal shoreline miles assessed as a response to Question 11.
Indiana reported assessing 41 linear coastline miles of Lake Michigan for the fish advisory
program.
Q10. How many square miles of estuarine waters were assessed at least once during
the past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
Of the 56 states that responded to the survey, 39 states reported that they did not assess
any estuarine waters, either because they are not coastal states with estuarine waters, or because
they do not conduct fish monitoring programs in estuarine waters. Two states either do not
collect this information or were not able to calculate it for the survey. Eleven states assessed
from one to 999 square miles of estuarine waters, and three states assessed more than 1,000
square miles of estuarine waters.
Qll. How many miles of marine coastline (coastal waters) were assessed at least
once during the past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
Forty-two states and tribes reported that they did not assess any marine coastal waters,
either because they are not coastal states or they did not conduct fish monitoring programs in
coastal waters in the past three years, and four states reported the question was not applicable. Of
the remaining states, eight states assessed one to 1,000 coastline miles, and two states assessed
more than 1,000 coastline miles (Alaska and Florida).
2.2 Types of Fish Advisories
This section summarizes responses to questions concerning each state's fish consumption
advisories, including information on the types of advisories issued by the state. The types of
advisories include no consumption versus restricted consumption advisories and regionwide
(encompassing one or more watershed cataloging units) versus statewide advisories (including
blanket advisories for all lakes, all rivers, or all coastal estuarine or marine waters in a state). In
States also provided information on the enforcement status of their fish advisories, the nature of
their commercial fishing bans, and whether they issue fish or shellfish advisories for biological
contamination (e.g., bacterial and viral contamination) in addition to chemical contamination.
This section includes responses to survey questions 12 through 19.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-6
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q12. Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals to
restrict fish consumption?
When chemical contamination levels in fish tissue are moderate, all 56 states responding
to the survey issue advisories recommending that individuals restrict their fish consumption.
Q13. Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals not to
consume any fish or any fish of a particular species from a particular waterbody?
When chemical contaminant levels are high, 53 states issue advisories warning
individuals not to consume any fish or any fish of a particular species from a particular
waterbody. Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota responded that their advisories do not
contain "no consumption" advice (Figure 2-4).
DSD CRST
iQMEABM
Figure 2-4. Does your state or tribe issue fish consumption advisories advising
individuals not to consume certain fish from particular waterbodies?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q14. Fish consumption advisories issued in your state pertain to the following
(Please check all that apply):
Fish consumption advisories in most states typically are issued for more than one specific
category offish, depending on the extent of the contamination. Fifty-five states issue advisories
for specific fish species; 37 states issue advisories for specific size classes of the species
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-7
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
analyzed; 18 states issue advisories for selected trophic groups, specifically for predators and
bottom feeders, because of potential bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants in their tissues,
or for panfish, because they are typically less contaminated than larger predatory species; and 36
states issue advisories for the entire fish community (e.g., all fish). Eleven states reported that
consumption advisories issued in their state pertain to certain species offish purchased in stores
or restaurants. Seven states also reported using other methods, such as listing all species from
waterbodies with limited data; statewide advice for all fish and all waterbodies as well as site-
specific advice for tested waters; and advice based on whether or not the fish is resident
(excluding migratory fish such as salmon).
Q15. Does your state issue statewide or regionwide "blanket" advisories based on
your sampling effort?
As of December 31, 2010, 38 states (including the District of Columbia) had statewide
advisories in effect for chemical contaminants in one or more waterbody types (e.g., freshwater
lakes and/or rivers, or coastal marine waters) (Table 2-1). In 19 of these states, the statewide
advisories cover all coastal marine and estuarine waters (see Table 2-1).
In responding to the survey, however, several states did not accurately answer this
question relative to the situation in their state, usually because they did not classify an advisory
for all coastal marine waters as a statewide advisory. For clarification, the EPA defines a
statewide advisory as including all state waters of a particular waterbody type (such as all lakes,
rivers, or coastal marine waters), whereas a regionwide advisory is a state-defined area, such as
all river waters in a particular basin or a regional area. By this definition, 38 states had issued
statewide advisories as of December 31, 2010. However, on the survey, only 34 states reported
issuing statewide advisories.
Sixteen states reported issuing regionwide advisories, and 39 states have not issued
regionwide advisories. One state did not think the question was applicable to its fish advisory
program.
Table 2-1. Summary of Statewide Advisories by Waterbody Type and Year Issued
State
Alabama
Alaska
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Lake (issued)
—
—
Mercury (1996)
Multiple Pollutants (2007)
PCBs (1993)
Mercury (2002)
—
—
Mercury (2070)
Mercury (2002)
River (issued)
—
—
Mercury (1996)
Multiple Pollutants (2007)
PCBs (1993)
Mercury (2002)
—
—
Mercury (2070)
Mercury (2002)
Coastal Waters (issued)
Mercury (1996)
Mercury (2007)
PCBs (1993)
Mercury, PCBs (2006),
Multiple Pollutants (2007)
—
Mercury (1993)
Mercury (2000)
Mercury (2003)
—
—
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-8
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
State
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Lake (issued)
Mercury (2004)
Mercury (2000)
—
Mercury (1994)
Mercury (2007), PCBs
(2007)
Mercury (1996)
Mercury (1993), PCBs
(200P)
Mercury, PCBs (1999)
—
Mercury (2007)
Mercury (2003)
Mercury (1995)
Mercury (1995)
Multiple Pollutants (1994)
Mercury (2006)
Mercury (2007)
Mercury (1997)
Mercury (2005)
Mercury (2070), PCBs
(2070)
Not specified (2007)
Mercury (2002)
—
—
Mercury (1995)
Mercury (2003)
Mercury (2005), PCBs
(2006)
Mercury (2000)
Mercury (2070)
River (issued)
PCBs (1996), Mercury
(2004>
Mercury (2000)
—
Mercury (1994)
Mercury (2004), PCBs
(2007)
Mercury (1996)
PCBs (200P)
—
—
Mercury (2007)
Mercury (2003)
Mercury (1995)
Mercury (1995)
Multiple Pollutants (1994)
Mercury (2006)
Mercury (2007)
Mercury (1997)
Mercury (2005)
Mercury (2070), PCBs
(2070)
Not specified (2007)
Mercury (2002)
—
—
Mercury (1995)
Mercury (2003)
Mercury (2005), PCBs
(2006)
Mercury (2000)
Mercury (2070)
Coastal Waters (issued)
—
—
Mercury (1997)
Dioxins, Mercury, PCBs
(1994)
Mercury, PCBs (200P)
PCBs, Mercury (1994)
—
—
Mercury (1998)
—
—
PCBs, Mercury, Dioxin
(1994)
PCBs, Dioxins (1993)
Cadmium, PCBs, Multiple
pollutants (1995)
Mercury (2000)
—
—
—
—
—
PCBs, Mercury (1993)
Mercury (2007)
Mercury (1997)
—
—
—
—
—
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-9
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q16. Do you have legally enforced advisories or bans within your state (e.g., are
fines or citations given for fishing in posted waters)?
Forty-nine states do not legally enforce advisories or bans by the use of fines or citations
given for fishing in posted water. Only seven states legally enforce their fish advisories or bans
(Figure 2-5).
•MEABM
Figure 2-5. Do you have legally enforced advisories or bans?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, MEABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q17. Does your state issue commercial fishing bans for chemically contaminated fish
or shellfish?
Thirty-six states do not issue commercial fishing bans in their jurisdictional waters;
however, 20 states do issue commercial fishing bans (Figure 2-6).
Q18. If your state or tribe has commercial fishing bans in a waterbody, do they
include consumption information for sport and subsistence fishers?
Seventeen states include consumption information for sport and subsistence fishers in
their commercial fishing ban information, and only one state does not (or would not). The
question did not apply to the remaining 38 states.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-10
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
•ME ABM
Figure 2-6. Does your state or tribe issue commercial fishing bans for
chemically-contaminated fish or shellfish?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q19. In addition to chemical contaminants, does your state or tribe also issue fish
and/or shellfish advisories (closures) for microbial contamination (e.g., bacteria or
viruses)?
In addition to chemical contaminants, 28 states issue fish and/or shellfish advisories for
microbial contamination, such as contamination by bacteria or viruses. Twenty-five states do not
issue advisories based on microbial contamination, and three states said the question was not
applicable to their program (Figure 2-7).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-11
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
DDC
ME ABM
Figure 2-7. Does your state or tribe issue fish and/or shellfish
advisories for microbial contamination?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
2.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis Procedures
This section contains responses to questions concerning each state's fish tissue sample
preparation methods and assumptions and chemical analysis procedures used in the fish
consumption advisory program. Sample preparation methods include questions on the types of
fish samples used for both fish consumption advisories and commercial fishing bans, collection
of indicator species, collection of multiple size classes offish species, and use of composite and
individual samples to support issuance of an advisory. The survey also requests information on
the number of samples and number of years of sampling required to support issuance of a fish
advisory or commercial fishing ban, as well as the number of years of data that are required
before a fish advisory can be rescinded. In addition, the survey asks states to provide information
on the number of samples submitted for chemical analysis, the specific chemical contaminants
analyzed in the fish tissue samples, and the chemical contaminants of particular public health
concern within their jurisdictions. This section includes responses to survey questions 20
through 35.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-12
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q20. Fish consumption advisories (no consumption and/or restricted consumption
advisories) issued in your state are based on the analysis of the following.
Many states base fish consumption advisories on the chemical analysis of more than one
type offish sample. The largest number of states, 45, reported that they analyze fillet samples
with the skin off, whereas 31 states analyze fillet samples with the skin on (Figure 2-8). Twelve
states use whole fish, skin-on samples, and four states use whole fish, skin-off samples. Eleven
states use muscle plug samples to analyze for chemical contaminants, and 11 states reported
using other sample types such as carcass samples, edible portions, shucked shellfish, and crab
muscle and hepatopancreas tissues.
Fillet samples (skin off)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Whole-fish samples (skin off)
Figure 2-8. Number of states using various types of fish tissue samples
as a basis for fish advisories.
Q21. Does your state target the collection of particular indicator species, and on
what is this decision based?
Forty-six states base their decisions to target indicator species for monitoring on a
number of different factors, while nine states do not target the collection of indicator species, and
one state found the question not applicable. Of the states that target particular species, the
availability of the fish species is a key factor for 45 states. Forty states take into account the
desire to maintain consistency with past collections; 26 states follow EPA target species
recommendations; 19 states use angler survey data; and 14 states respond to citizen requests
when targeting indicator species. Twelve states consider other factors in the collection of
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-13
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
indicator species, including the following: species that are commonly used for commercial,
tribal, and/or subsistence purposes; species which are likely to be the most contaminated; and
specific trophic groups.
Q22. Does your state collect multiple size classes, by species, and submit these
individual size classes for residue analyses?
Forty-four states collect multiple size classes offish, by species, and submit them for
tissue residue analysis, either routinely or in special cases only. Ten states do not collect multiple
size classes for submission, and the question did not apply to two states (Figure 2-9).
> DME ABM
DDC
Figure 2-9. Does your state or tribe collect multiple size classes, by species, and
submit these individual sizes for residue analysis?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q23. Are individual fish samples or composite samples submitted for residue
analyses in your state?
For contaminant residue analysis offish tissue samples, six states submit only individual
fish samples, 10 states submit only composite fish tissue samples, and 39 states submit both
individual and composite samples. One state found the question not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-14
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q24. If individual fish samples are used, how many "individual fish" are needed to
support an advisory determination in a waterbody?
Four states require only one individual fish sample in exceedance of human health
criteria to support an advisory determination in a waterbody. Seven states require a minimum of
three fish, and 10 states require a minimum of five fish to support an advisory determination.
Eight states reported that six to 10 fish are needed to support an advisory determination, while
Virginia requires between 11 and 20 fish, and New York's St. Regis Mohawk Tribe requires
more than 20 fish. Seventeen states reported other numbers offish were required to support an
advisory in their state or that the number varies depending on site-specific considerations. The
question did not apply to eight states because they reported using only composite samples.
Q25. If composite samples are used, how many individual fish are typically
combined in each of your state's composite samples for residue analysis?
Of the states that use composite samples alone or in combination with individual
samples, 18 states reported that five fish is the target number of individual fish included in
composites submitted for residue analysis, while four states reported that three individual fish
per composite sample typically are used. Twenty-five states reported using a different number of
fish per composite sample or a range in the number of individual fish that are composited. Nine
states indicated that the question was not applicable to their program because they use only
individual samples.
Q26. If composite samples are used, how many composite samples are needed to
support an advisory determination in a waterbody?
Fourteen states require only one composite sample in exceedance of human health
criteria to support an advisory determination in a waterbody; eight states require two composite
samples; and six states require three composite samples. Four states report using variable
numbers of composite samples or that no set number of samples is required in their state.
Fourteen states reported using other numbers of samples depending on site-specific factors, the
size of the fish, and the level of contamination. Ten states indicated that the question was not
applicable to their programs because they do not use composite samples.
Q27. Assuming your state finds residue levels in exceedance of state criteria, how
many years of sampling are required at a given waterbody before a fish
consumption advisory can be issued?
After a state finds chemical contaminant residue levels in fish tissue that exceed the state
criteria, 24 states require only one year of sampling at a given waterbody before a fish
consumption advisory can be issued (Figure 2-10). Three states require two years of sampling,
and Kansas requires three or more years of sampling before an advisory can be issued. Ten states
reported that issuance of an advisory is a site-specific decision and that no set time period has
been established in their state. Fifteen states reported that they use other criteria for determining
when a fish advisory should be issued. For instance, seven states describe issuing an advisory
immediately or within the same year if the data support that decision. Three states found the
question not applicable to their programs.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-15
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
in ME ABM
Figure 2-10. How many years of sampling are required before
a fish consumption advisory can be issued?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q28. If commercial fishing bans are issued in your state, on which of the following
sample types are they based?
Among the states that issue commercial fishing bans, 14 states use fillet samples (skin
off) and nine states use fillet samples (skin on) as the basis for those bans. One state uses whole
fish samples (skin on), and one state uses whole fish samples (skin off). Four states use other
types of samples. The question did not apply to 38 states because they do not issue commercial
bans.
Q29. How many fish tissue samples must be analyzed and found to be in exceedance
of state criteria before a commercial fishing ban is issued?
Eight of the states that issue commercial fishing bans reported that chemical contaminant
levels in three or more samples must be found to exceed the state criteria before a commercial
ban can be issued. Kentucky requires two samples and Alabama requires one sample to be in
exceedance of the state criteria for contaminant levels before a commercial ban can be issued.
Seven states reported that the numbers of samples that must be in exceedance of state criteria
before a commercial fishing ban is issued is a site-specific decision and that no set number of
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-16
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
exceedances have been established. Thirty-nine states reported that the question was not
applicable to their program because their state has never issued a commercial fishing ban or for
other reasons.
Q30. How many years of sampling are conducted at a given waterbody before a
commercial fishing ban can be issued?
Seven states require only one year of sampling at a given waterbody before a commercial
ban can be issued. Four states require at least two years of sampling before a commercial ban is
issued. Five states indicated that the number of years of sampling required in a waterbody before
a commercial advisory can be issued is a site-specific decision and that no set number of years
have been established in their state. Forty states found the question not applicable to their
program because their state has never issued a commercial fishing ban or for other reasons.
Q31. Once an advisory is issued for a specific waterbody, what must occur for the
state to rescind the advisory?
Seven states require residue levels of chemical contaminants to decline below the state
criteria for at least one year for an advisory to be rescinded. Twelve states require the residue
levels of chemical contaminants to decline below the state criteria for at least two years for an
advisory to be rescinded. Kansas and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe require the contaminant
level to decline for at least three years before an advisory can be rescinded. Eighteen states report
that this is a site-specific decision and that no set protocol or schedule has been established for
rescinding advisories in their state. Fourteen states reported that the process is variable and case-
dependent, that they do not yet have a procedure, or that they use other procedures or schedules
for rescinding advisories. Three states found the question not applicable to their programs.
Q32. During this past year, please estimate the number offish tissue samples that
were submitted for chemical analyses by your state.
Most states (32) submitted more than 60 fish tissue samples for analysis in 2010, and
Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, and Washington each submitted 1,000 or more
samples last year. Eleven states submitted fewer than 60 samples and 12 states reported that they
did not submit any samples for chemical analysis in 2010.
Q33. What pollutants did your state screen for in fish tissue samples during this past
year?
Although there are advisories in the United States for almost 40 different chemical
contaminants, most advisories in effect in 2010 involved five bioaccumulative chemical
contaminants: mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT. Mercury is monitored in 50 states,
PCBs are monitored in 39 states, chlordane is monitored in 33 states, DDT and its derivatives are
monitored in 33 states, and dioxins/furans are monitored in 20 states (Figure 2-11). Seven states
marked the question as not applicable for the year 2010.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-17
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q34. Of the pollutants listed below, which ones are of primary health concern in
your state waters?
Fifty-five states identified mercury as a contaminant of primary human health concern in
their jurisdictions. Forty-six states listed PCBs, 24 states listed chlordane, 21 states listed DDT
and its metabolites, and 20 states listed dioxins/furans as additional pollutants of primary human
health concern in their jurisdictions (Figure 2-11). Note that some states are concerned about
chemical contaminants that they do not monitor for, usually due to budget constraints.
Not applicable
Other
Toxaphene
Terbufos
Selenium
Pentachloroanisole
PCBs
PAHs
Oxyfluorfen
Nonachlor
Mirex
Methoxychlor
Mercury
1 Lindane
Ł Hexachlorobenzene
Heptachlor or Heptachlor epoxide
Ethion
Endrin
Endosulfan
Disulfoton
Dioxins/Furans
Dieldrin
Dicofol
Diazinon
DDT and its metabolites
Chromium
Chlorpyrifos
Chlordane
Cadmium
Arsenic
Aldrin
^—
—
^~
^~—
—
—
—
•
Identify as
• Screen for
Zoncern
ollutant
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of States
Figure 2-11. Number of states that screen for each pollutant and identify each
pollutant as a primary health concern.
Q35. If your state analyzes for PCBs, what specifically is analyzed?
Fifteen states analyze individual congeners, 10 states analyze all Aroclor groups, 15
states analyze for selected Aroclor groups, and 14 states analyze for a combination of Aroclors
and congeners. Eleven states found the question not applicable to their state programs.
2.4 State Advisory Program Funding
This section contains responses to questions concerning state fish advisory program
funding levels and sources. States were questioned about the amount and sources of funding for
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-18
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
both their fish sample collection efforts and their chemical analysis programs. If states were not
conducting a fish advisory program because of resource constraints, the states were also
requested to provide information on whether they were seeking additional funding to enhance
their current fish advisory program. This section includes responses to survey questions 36
through 40.
Q36. How many dollars are spent annually in your state on routine fish tissue field
collection activities?
States provided information on the amount of money spent annually by their state on
routine fish tissue field collection activities. Fourteen states spend more than $50,000 annually
for routine fish tissue collection activities, although several of these states reported that the exact
amount was unknown or difficult to quantify (Figure 2-12). Four states (California, Florida,
Indiana, and New York) reported spending more than $100,000. Four states spend less than
$1,000; four states spend $1,000 to $4,999; five states spend $5,000 to $9,999; eight states spend
$10,000 to $24,999; and 11 states spend $25,000 to $50,000. Ten states found the question not
applicable to their programs.
$1,000 to $4,999
$10,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $50,000
Figure 2-12. Amount spent annually on routine fish tissue field collection activities.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-19
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q37. What was the funding source for your state's fish tissue collection activities
during the past year?
Thirty-two states reported that they use state general funds at least in part to fund their
fish advisory tissue collection program. Eleven states use revenue from fishing licenses, 18 states
use EPA Section 106 funds, two states use Section 205(j) funds, seven states use EPA grant
funds, and four states use EPA Regional funds. Tennessee receives funding from a state sales
tax. Twenty-nine states reported other sources for their program funding, including state
environmental trust funds and federal excise tax money from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Some states report that they also receive fish or data collected for other purposes from other state
agencies or scientific studies. Three states reported that the question was not applicable to their
program or funding sources were unknown.
Q38. How many dollars are spent annually in your state on laboratory analysis of
fish tissue samples?
Twenty-two states spend more than $50,000 annually on laboratory analyses offish
tissue samples. Six states spend less than $1,000 on laboratory analyses offish tissue samples;
five states spend $1,000 to $9,999; nine states spend $10,000 to $24,999; and five states spend
$25,000 to $50,000. Nine states reported the question was not applicable.
Q39. What was the funding source for your state's laboratory analyses offish tissue
samples during this past year?
Twenty-nine states reported that funding for laboratory analyses came from the state
general funds; four states reported funding from state fishing license revenues; six states reported
funding from EPA grant funds; five states reported funding from EPA Regional funds; 13 states
reported funding from EPA Section 106 funds; and one state reported funding from EPA Section
205(j) funds. Tennessee received state sales tax revenue to fund lab analyses offish tissue last
year. Twenty-six states reported other sources of funding, such as federal grants and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seven states reported the question was not applicable
to their program or funding sources were unknown.
Q40. If no funding is currently available, is your state seeking funding to conduct a
monitoring and assessment program?
Twenty-three states reported that they do not have sufficient funding currently available
to conduct a fish tissue monitoring and assessment program. Of these states, 17 are currently
seeking funding, and six states are not seeking funding. Thirty-three states found the question not
applicable because sufficient funding to conduct a monitoring program was available.
2.5 Other Uses of State Advisory Data
This section contains responses to questions concerning other uses of the state's fish
advisory data. States were asked about the use-support designation assigned to waterbodies
placed under a fish consumption advisory or a commercial fishing ban and whether the state
subsequently places these waters on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters. In addition, states
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-20
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
were asked whether "fish consumption" is an assigned beneficial use for waters in their state and
to identify where the criteria for beneficial use have been established. This section includes
responses to survey questions 41 through 45.
Q41. For your state's biennial 305(b) water quality report, what use-support
designation is assigned to waterbodies placed under fish consumption advisory?
Thirty states reported that they assign a waterbody to a use-support designation of "not
supporting" in their biennial 305(b) water quality report if a fish consumption advisory is in
effect for that waterbody. Fifteen states designate such waterbodies as "partially supporting,"
five states list them as "fully supporting," and Wisconsin and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
list them as "threatened." Three states do not make this type of assessment, and another eight
states reported the question was not applicable.
Q42. If fish consumption advisories have been issued for waterbodies in your state,
does your state place these waterbodies on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters?
Forty states place waterbodies under fish advisories on their 303(d) list of impaired
waters, and nine states do not list these waterbodies as impaired (Figure 2-13). Seven states
found the question not applicable to their program.
Q43. If commercial fishing bans have been issued for waterbodies in your state, does
your state place these waterbodies on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters?
Among the states that have issued commercial fishing bans, 10 states reported that
waterbodies under such a ban are placed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters, and four states
responded that such waterbodies are not placed on the 303(d) list. This question did not apply to
42 states because they have never issued a commercial fishing ban or for other reasons.
Q44. Is "fish consumption" an assigned beneficial use for waters in your state?
Fish consumption is an assigned beneficial use for state waters in 36 states. Twenty states
reported that fish consumption is not specifically assigned as a beneficial use.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-21
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
iDMEABM
J No
CH Yes
I I N/A
Figure 2-13. If fish consumption advisories have been issued in your state, does your state
place these waterbodies on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q45. If yes, where have these criteria for beneficial use been established?
The criteria for the assignment offish consumption as a beneficial use are listed in the
state water quality standards for 27 states, in the standard operating procedure (SOP) for
assessing beneficial uses for two states (North Carolina and Rhode Island), and in other
documents for six states (i.e., in the Listing Rationale for Delaware Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list; in the Guidelines for 305(b) Assessment Procedures for Illinois; a Tribal-EPA
Agreement (TEA) for the Aroostook Band ofMicmacs, the EPA for Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe; and addressed indirectly as recreational use for Tennessee and West Virginia). Oklahoma
uses a continuous planning process. Maine has no formal policy to assign fish consumption as a
beneficial use; however, state statutes do say state waters must be fishable. Twenty-one states
marked the question as not applicable.
2.6 Risk Assessment Methodologies
This section contains responses to questions concerning risk assessment methodologies
or other procedures used in the state's fish advisory program. States were asked about the
methods they use to calculate carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks for individuals who
consume fish harvested from state waters. For the carcinogenic and the noncarcinogenic risk
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-22
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
procedures, states were asked what risk level or procedures they used to post waterbodies, as
well as what resources they use to obtain cancer potency factors and reference doses (RfDs).
States were asked to identify the proportion of advisories issued by the state that have been
issued using the various methods they have identified and to indicate whether the state intends to
reevaluate data from sites where outdated methods were used to issue advisories. States were
also asked to identify default values that they are using in their risk assessments, including daily
fish consumption rates for recreational and subsistence fishers and for children; exposure
duration in cancer risk assessments; and estimated life expectancy. States also were asked if they
recommend a meal frequency format for their advisories, what assumptions they make about
meal size for adults and children, and what default body weight values they use for adult men,
adult women, and children (including the age range of children). States were queried about their
assumptions concerning the amount of a chemical absorbed by the body after ingestion; the
state's use of contaminant reduction factors for estimating contaminant losses from fish tissues
during cleaning, preparation, and cooking; and the factors used and their basis. States were also
asked what their procedures are for evaluating the health risks for fish samples contaminated
with multiple chemicals with the same human health endpoints, whether they assign different
noncarcinogenic toxicity values for mercury to different populations, what these mercury toxicity
values are, how the state handles non-detects in its risk assessments, whether they screen for
lead, and what assessment method is used for lead since no human health benchmark values are
currently available in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This section includes
responses to survey questions 46 through 76.
Q46. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate "carcinogenic"
health risks and to issue advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from
your state waters?
When asked what methods their state agency currently uses to calculate carcinogenic
health risks for individuals who consume fish, 43 states indicated that they use a risk assessment
methodology, and 34 of those states use only risk assessment and no other methods. Thirteen
states indicated that they use U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels, but of
these, 10 states use both the FDA values and a risk assessment method. Three states (Iowa,
Michigan, and South Dakota) use only FDA action levels. Other approaches used included
conducting risk management in conjunction with risk assessment and following EPA Guidance
on recommended meals/month. North Dakota indicated it does not calculate carcinogenic health
risks because all of its advisories are for mercury contamination. Five states indicated the
question was not applicable.
Q47. What carcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed
population) does your state use to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies?
In their risk assessment methodology, 11 states use a carcinogenic risk level of
1:10,000 (10"4), 15 states use a risk level of 1:100,000 (10"5), and five states use a risk level of
1:1,000,000 (10"6). The FDA action level is used by seven states to issue advisories. Six states
use other risk levels, risk levels vary with contaminant or level of restriction, or they use other
approaches to issue advisories. Twelve states reported the question was not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-23
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q48. What sources does your state use to obtain cancer potency factors to help
calculate "carcinogenic" health risks?
Most states use more than one source of information to obtain cancer potency factors to
help calculate carcinogenic health risks. Forty-three states use IRIS, 18 states use EPA's Health
Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST), 17 states use the EPA Fish Guidance documents,
15 states use the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles, 13 states use International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) monographs, 10 states use the Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from
the National Library of Medicine, five states use EPA's Toxicology One-Liners Database (Office
of Pesticide Programs), and four states use the Great Lakes Protocol. Fourteen states reported
they use other sources, such as scientific literature; Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) or California Environmental Protection Agency cancer potency factor
(CPF); Toxline and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) database; EPA Water Quality
Criteria 304(a)(l) documents; EPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV);
Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA); ATSDR; and Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Task Force (PCBs). Eight states reported the question is not applicable to their
program.
Q49. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate "noncarcinogenic"
health risks and to issue fish advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested
from your state's waters?
The Hazard Index is the ratio of estimated daily dose to the daily RfD for the
contaminant of interest. To calculate noncarcinogenic health risks for individuals who consume
chemically contaminated fish from state waters, most states (37) employ Hazard Index
calculations using a risk assessment methodology. Of these states, 11 states use only the Hazard
Index, while the others use the Hazard Index in addition to other approaches. Twenty-four states
report using the EPA Fish Guidance documents and nine states report using the Great Lakes
Protocol. Fifteen states use the FDA action levels, and of those, only Indiana and Nevada use the
FDA action levels alone while 13 states use the FDA action levels in addition to other methods.
Eighteen states use other approaches either alone or in addition to either the Hazard Index or
FDA action limits. Other methods include state-derived advisory levels and risk assessment
methods; ATSDR minimum risk levels; scientific literature (Madsen et al. 2008); and the Great
Lakes Protocol. Two states indicated the question was not applicable.
Q50. What noncarcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed
population) does your state use to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies?
When asked about the noncarcinogenic risk level used to issue advisories, 21 states
reported using only a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, four states used a Hazard Index equal to or
greater than 1.0, and two states used a Hazard Index less than 1.0. FDA action levels are used by
12 states to set advisories. Seventeen states use other methods, including the Great Lakes
Protocol and EPA guidance. Six states indicated the question was not applicable to their
program.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-24
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q51. What sources does your state use to obtain potency factors (reference dose) to
help calculate noncarcinogenic health risks?
EPA's IRIS database is used by the largest number of states (46) as a source to obtain
RfDs. Twenty-six states use ATSDR Toxicological Profiles, 16 states use the EPA's Fish
Guidance documents, 19 states use EPA's HEAST database, six states use EPA's Toxicology
One-Liners Database, eight states use the HSDB from the National Library of Medicine, and
eight states use the Great Lakes Protocol. Seventeen states reported that they use information
from other sources, such as the scientific literature; Toxline and the NTP database; TERA;
ATSDR documents; OEHHA or California EPA's reference exposure levels (RELs); EPA
guidance documents; and Great Lakes Task Force. Four states indicated the question was not
applicable to their program.
Q52. Enter the percentage of advisories now in effect which were issued using risk
assessment methods, FDA action levels, or other methods specified in question 46
and 49.
State contacts were asked what percentage of all the fish advisories currently in effect in
their jurisdiction, including those issued in 2010 and in earlier years, were issued using different
methods. Thirty-one states indicated that 100 percent of advisories now in effect were issued
using risk assessment methods. Four states (Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada, and South Dakota)
indicated that 100 percent of advisories now in effect in their states were issued using FDA
tolerances and/or action levels. Five states (GLIFWC, Maryland, North Dakota, New Mexico,
and Pennsylvania) indicated that 100 percent of the fish advisories were issued using other
methods. Four states indicated the question was not applicable to their programs.
Q53. Does your state or tribal agency have a plan to reevaluate data from sites
where outdated assessment methods were used to issue fish advisories?
Twenty-three states reported that they plan to reevaluate data from sites where outdated
assessment methods were used. Fourteen states do not plan to revisit these sites or reevaluate
data. Nineteen states indicated that the question was not applicable.
Q54. Is your state currently re-evaluating the method or approach used to establish
fish advisories?
Twenty-nine states are currently reevaluating their methods, and 26 states are not
currently reevaluating their methods. One state indicated that the question was not applicable.
Q55. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish
consumption rate for recreational fishers?
For recreational fishers, states use a wide range of daily fish consumption rates. For
example, four states use a default daily fish consumption rate value of 6.5 g/d, two states use 15
g/d, seven states use 17.5 g/d, and eight states use a value of 30 g/d. Twenty-four states reported
using a default value different from the five choices presented. The reported values included a
total range from 0 g/d up to 286 g/d, and states noted that they often use a range of values rather
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-25
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
than a single value for daily fish consumption rate. Eleven states responded that the question was
not applicable.
Q56. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish
consumption rate for subsistence fishers?
For subsistence fishers, Tennessee uses a default daily fish consumption value of 6.5 g/d,
four states use 30 g/day, and two states use 142 g/d. Twenty-four states use other consumption
rates. The question was not applicable to 25 states.
Q57. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish
consumption rate for children?
Among the states using a daily fish consumption default value for children, two states use
a value of 4 g/d, and three states use a value of 6.5 g/d. Twenty-four states use other default
values or a range of values which vary depending on the site of the advisory, meal frequency,
age, and weight. Twenty-seven states reported the question was not applicable to their programs.
Q58. What default value does your state use for exposure duration in its cancer risk
assessments?
In cancer risk assessments, 30 states use 70 years as the default value for exposure
duration and 10 states use 30 years as the duration value. Two states reported using other
duration values (Delaware uses 30 years for adults and 6 years for children and Nebraska uses 10
years, 30 years, and 71 years (71 years for advisory status)). Fourteen states reported that the
question was not applicable.
Q59. What default value does your state use to estimate life expectancy in its risk
assessments?
The majority of states (32) also use 70 years as the default value to estimate life
expectancy in risk assessments. Delaware uses 75 years, and Nebraska uses 71 years. Colorado
uses chronic exposure for non-cancer endpoints. Twenty-one states responded that the question
was not applicable to their programs.
Q60. Does your state recommend a meal frequency format or number of meals over
time in its advisories (e.g., number of meals per month)?
Most states (54) recommend meal frequency values in their advisories, depending on the
severity of the chemical contamination (Figure 2-14). Tennessee does not recommend meal
frequencies, and Wyoming responded that the question was not applicable to its program.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-26
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
EH Yes
I | N/A
Figure 2-14. Does your state recommend a meal frequency format or
number of meals over time in its advisories?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q61. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in
its risk assessments about meal size or portion for adults?
When calculating health risks for all adults, most states (41) assume a meal size of 8 oz
(227 g) (Figure 2-15). Three states use a meal size of 4 oz (114 g). Georgia answered that meal
size assumptions of both 4 oz. and 8 oz. are used. Eleven states use other meal sizes, ranging
from 4 to 10 ounces. Three states found the question not applicable.
Q62. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in
its risk assessments about meal size or portion for children?
When calculating risk for children, 16 states assume a meal size of 4 oz (114 g) and five
states assume a meal size of 8 oz (227 g) (Figure 2-16). Twenty-four states reported that they use
other meal sizes for children, including 10 states that use 3 ounces or less. Eleven states
responded that the question was not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-27
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
DSDCRST
MEABM
Figure 2-15. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments
about meal size or portion for adults?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, ME
ABM:AroostookBandofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York, SD CRST:
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q63. What default value does your state use for body weight of an adult male
consumer in its risk assessments?
Forty-four states use a default value for the body weight of an adult male consumer of
70 kg. Two states assume a body weight of 71 kg for risk assessment calculations, and the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe uses a value of 65 kg. Four states use other values, and five states
indicated that the question was not applicable.
Q64. What default value does your state use for the body weight of an adult female
consumer (including pregnant women and nursing mothers) in its risk assessments?
Twenty-five states use a default value of 70 kg for the body weight of an adult female
consumer (including pregnant women and nursing mothers), three states use a value of 65 kg,
three states use a value of 62 kg, and nine states use a value of 60 kg. Six states reported that
they use other values, and nine states reported that the question was not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-28
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
I I SD CRST
ME ABM
Figure 2-16. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments
about meal size or portion for children?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q65. What default value does your state use for body weight of a child in its risk
assessments?
Six states use a child's body weight default value of 10 kg in their risk assessment
calculations, seven states use a value of 14.5 kg, and two states use a value of 15.5 kg. However,
the largest number of states (17) reported that they use other body weight values, ranging from
14 to 36 kg. Eleven states reported that they do not conduct risk assessments for children and 13
states said the question was not applicable.
Q66. Please specify what age range or ranges your state uses to calculate risk with
respect to children.
When asked what age range states use in their risk assessments for children, 16 states use
an age less than six years old, five states use an age less than seven years old, six states use an
age less than 12 years old, seven states use an age less than 15 years old, and two states use an
age less than 18 years. Seven states use other age ranges or more than one age range. Thirteen
states answered that they do not assess risks for children separately from those for adults, and
seven states reported that the question was not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-29
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q67. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about the
amount of the pollutant absorbed by the body after ingestion (percent absorption by
the gut) (e.g., in pharmacokinetic modeling)?
When asked what assumption is made in their risk assessment methods about the amount
of pollutant absorbed by the body after ingestion, most states (25) responded that they assume
100 percent absorption for all pollutants (Figure 2-17). Thirteen states said the assumption was
chemical-specific based on available data, and eight states reported using other assumptions. Ten
states indicated that the question was not applicable.
QSDCRST
ME ABM
100%
| Chemical Specific
[ | Other
I |NA
Figure 2-17. What assumption does your state make about the amount
of pollutant absorbed by the body after ingestion?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q68. Does your state use "contaminant reduction factors" in its risk calculations to
account for contaminant losses of PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants from
fish tissues during cleaning, preparation, and cooking of the fish?
Eighteen states use contaminant reduction factors in their risk assessment calculations to
account for contaminant losses of PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants from fish tissues
during food preparation and cooking (Figure 2-18). Thirty-one states do not use any contaminant
reduction factors and seven states found the question not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-30
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
> DME ABM
No
EH Yes
I | N/A
Figure 2-18. Does your state use "contaminant reduction factors" to
account for contaminant losses of PCBs from fish tissues during
cleaning, preparation, and cooking of the fish?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q69. If yes, what are the pollutants and their associated contaminant reduction
factors (% reduction in pollutant level resulting from cleaning, preparing, and
cooking of fish) assumed by your state?
Eighteen states reported contaminant reduction factor values. Two of these states use a
reduction factor of 30% for PCBs, while 16 use a factor of 50% for PCBs. Factors for other
contaminants can be found in Appendix B. Thirty-eight states reported that the question was not
applicable.
Q70. If contaminant reduction factors are used, what is their basis?
Nineteen states use a variety of information sources as the basis for contaminant
reduction factors. Eight states use the Great Lakes Protocol as the basis for the contaminant
reduction factors, twelve states use the scientific literature, and four states use the EPA Guidance
documents as the basis for the contaminant reductions. Florida uses the 2006 North Carolina
Risk Assessment Document. Thirty-six states reported that the question was not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-31
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q71. How does your state evaluate health risks for fish samples contaminated with
multiple chemicals with the same human health endpoints (e.g., two organochlorine
pesticides)?
When faced with fish samples that are contaminated with multiple chemicals with the
same human health endpoint, seven states use cumulative risk methods (adding individual risks
from each contaminant together). Three states calculate single contaminant risk based on the
most conservative carcinogenic risk value, 14 states use either the cumulative risk or the single
contaminant risk method, depending on the chemicals involved, and 22 states do not evaluate
health risks from multiple chemical contaminants. Five states use other methods, such as
calculating cumulative risk for chemicals with common mechanisms of carcinogenity; back-
calculating acceptable consumption rate based on most toxic chemical; and providing meal
frequency advice based on the most stringent advice for multiple chemicals present. Five states
found the question not applicable.
Q72. Regarding mercury, does your state assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity
values to different populations (e.g., does the state use an RfD of 1 x 10 4 mg/kg/day
for women of child-bearing age and/or children versus using an RfD of 3 x 10~4
mg/kg/day for adults in the general population)?
For mercury contamination, 23 states assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity values to
different populations, while 28 states do not assign different values (Figure 2-19). Five states
reported the question was not applicable to their programs.
Q73. What is the mercury toxicity value (i.e., RfD) used for each of the following
populations?
Most states (24) assigned a mercury toxicity value of 3 x 10"4 mg/kg/d to adults in the
general population, but 20 states assigned values of 1 x 10"4 mg/kg/d. Oklahoma assigns a value
of 2 x 10"4 mg/kg/d to adults, Alabama uses 3.3 x 10"4 mg/kg/d, and New Jersey uses 3.4
x 10"4 mg/kg/d. Alaska has not yet established an RfD for this population. Six states reported that
the question was not applicable to their programs.
For women of childbearing age and nursing mothers, 39 states assigned a toxicity value
of 1 x 10"4 mg/kg/d for this population, and four states assigned a mercury toxicity value of
3 x 10"4 mg/kg/d. Alaska assigns a value of 4 x 10"4 mg/kg/d for this population, while three
other states (Colorado, Indiana, and New Jersey) assign a value of 7.5 x 10"5 mg/kg/d or lower.
Seven states reported that the question was not applicable.
For children, 37 states assigned a toxicity value of 1 x 10"4 mg/kg/d and four states
assigned a mercury toxicity value of 3 x 10"4. Colorado and Indiana assign a value of 7.5 x 10"5
mg/kg/d or lower, and Alaska uses 4 x 10"4 mg/kg/d. Ten states reported that the question was
not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-32
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Figure 2-19. Does your state assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity
values to different populations?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q74. When your state receives method detection limits (MDLs) as the reportable
concentration for contaminants from the laboratory, what value do you use for non-
detects in your risk assessment?
When states receive MDLs from the laboratory, 25 states use a value of one-half the
pollutant's MDL for non-detects in risk assessment. Four states use the pollutant's MDL for non-
detects, which is the most conservative approach; and eleven states use a value of zero, which is
the least conservative approach. Three states use the maximum likelihood indicator. Three states
reported using other values or using more than one value, depending on the chemical being
analyzed. Ten states found the question not applicable.
Q75. Does your state screen for lead in its fish tissue samples?
Twenty-four states screen for lead in fish tissue samples and 32 states do not screen for
lead (Figure 2-20).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-33
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
HMEABM
Figure 2-20. Does your state screen for lead in its fish tissue samples?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q76. What assessment method do you use for lead since lead does not currently
have an associated reference dose in IRIS?
Seven states report using the EPA Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for
Lead in Children (IEUBK) approach. Ten states used other methods, such as screening for the
level present; comparing to the background level; ATSDR (oysters-shellfish program); FDA
total tolerable daily intake; and current scientific literature. Thirty-seven states found the
question not applicable because they do not screen for lead in fish tissue samples.
2.7 Targeting Fish Consumers
This section contains responses to questions concerning the state's assessment of health
risks to target groups offish consumers whose culinary habits differ from the customs of the
majority of Americans regarding meal preparation and consumption. States were asked about
whether they had identified the primary waterbodies where these target populations fish, whether
they had identified the fish species and the sizes offish consumed by these target populations,
and what procedures they use to obtain this information. The states were also asked if they had
altered their state monitoring program and, if so, to describe how they have altered the
monitoring program to better assess the health risks of target populations. Last, the states were
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-34
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
asked if they plan to address the needs of target populations in the future if they were not
currently doing so. This section includes responses to survey questions 77 through 83.
Q77. Are health risks being assessed in your state for target groups of people whose
culinary habits may differ from the customs of the majority of Americans regarding
meal preparation and consumption?
Twenty-four states are currently assessing health risks for target groups offish consumers
whose culinary habits differ from the majority of Americans and 32 states are not assessing the
health risks for target groups (Figure 2-21).
DMEABM
Figure 2-21. Are health risks being assessed in your state for target groups
of people whose culinary habits may differ from the customs of the
majority of Americans?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q78. Has your state identified the primary waterbodies fished by these target
populations?
Twenty-three states reported that they have identified the primary waterbodies fished by
the target populations in their jurisdictions. Twenty-four states reported that they have not
identified the primary waterbodies, either because they do not target specific populations or
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-35
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
because they use other methods. Nine states did not find the question applicable to their
programs.
Q79. Has your state made efforts to identify the fish species and the sizes of fish
consumed by these target populations?
Twenty-nine states have made efforts to identify the fish species and sizes offish
consumed by target populations. Twenty-four states have not identified fish species, either
because they do not target specific populations or because they use other methods. Seven states
did not feel the question was applicable to their programs.
Q80. If yes, has your state used any of the following procedures to obtain
information from these target populations?
Among states that have obtained some type of information about the fishing habits of
target populations, many have done so using several different methods: local fish consumption
surveys (creel surveys) (23 states), collection of anecdotal information from the populations of
interest (18 states), behavioral risk surveillance surveys funded by the CDC (four states), and
fishing license surveys (five states). Thirty states did not find the question applicable to their
programs.
Q81. Has your state altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these
target populations?
Eighteen states reported that they have altered their monitoring approaches in some way
to address the needs of target populations offish consumers. Twenty-nine states reported they
did not alter their monitoring approach. Nine states did not find the question applicable to their
program.
Q82. If your state has altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these
target populations, what actions have been taken?
Twenty states have altered their monitoring approaches in some way to address the needs
of target populations offish consumers, primarily by targeting species consumed by the
population for residue analysis (16 states) and by adding monitoring stations in waterbodies
where these populations frequently fish (12 states). Seven states use other methods, including
sampling fishing sites used by target populations; issuing special advisories or addressing unique
practices within advisories; and analyzing whole fish samples for contaminants. One state
commented that analyzing whole fish samples is important to adequately assess the risks to
target populations. Thirty-six states responded that the question did not apply because they have
not altered their monitoring approaches.
Q83. If your state is not currently addressing the concerns of populations with a
higher perceived risk, is there a plan to do so in the future?
Twenty-one states are currently planning to begin targeting certain populations with a
perceived higher health risk from consumption of contaminated fish. Seventeen states currently
do not have plans to do so, and 18 states found the question not applicable.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-36
-------
Section 2.0 Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
2.8 Risk Management
This section contains responses to questions about the agency in each state that is
responsible for preparing risk assessments on behalf of the state fish advisory program, the
state's written procedures for evaluating health risks associated with consumption of chemically
contaminated fish, the existence of a committee or group that oversees the fish advisory process,
and the professional disciplines that are represented on that committee. The states were also
asked who in the state government has the ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify,
or rescind fish consumption advisories. This section includes responses to survey questions 84
through 88.
Q84. Who prepares risk assessments on behalf of your state or tribal fish advisory
program?
In most states (33), risk assessments are prepared by the state or tribal public health
department. In 19 states, risk assessments are prepared by the state or tribal environmental
department. Two states use risk assessments prepared by consultants, and one state reports that a
university helps prepare their risk assessments. Nine states use risk assessments prepared by
other sources, including assessments prepared jointly by two or more state agencies (agriculture,
health, environmental, natural resources, and fisheries departments). Three states reported that
the question was not applicable to their programs.
Q85. Does your state or tribe have written procedures for evaluating the health risks
associated with consumption of chemically contaminated fish?
Forty-two states have written procedures for evaluating the health risks associated with
chemical contaminants in fish. Fourteen states have no written procedures.
Q86. Does your state or tribe have a group or committee that oversees the fish
advisory program/processes?
Forty-five states have a group or committee that oversees the fish advisory processes;
eleven states do not have a committee.
Q87. If the answer to question 86 is yes, what professional disciplines are
represented on that committee?
Forty-two states have toxicology/epidemiology representatives, 42 states have fisheries
representatives, 35 states have water pollution assessment/control representatives, 32 states have
risk communication representatives, 22 states have analytical chemistry representatives, and
seven states have hazardous waste management representatives (Figure 2-22). Eleven states also
have members with expertise in other areas, including representatives of the food safety sector,
public health risk managers, physicians, university researchers, members of the state wildlife
federation, health educators, elected officials, and private citizens. Eleven states reported that the
question was not applicable to their programs.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs 2-37
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Toxicology/epidemiology
Water pollution
assessment/control
Hazardous waste
management
Analytical chemist
Risk communication
Other disciplines
Notapplicable
Number of Stall
Figure 2-22. Professional disciplines represented on state fish advisory committees.
Q88. Who in your state or tribe makes the ultimate risk management decision to
issue, modify, or rescind fish advisories?
In most states (25), the head of the public health agency or department makes the
ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify, or rescind fish advisories. The head of the
environmental agency makes these decisions in 10 states. In Iowa, the head of the fisheries
agency makes this decision, and the Tribal Chief/President's Office makes the ultimate decision
for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, and the St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe. In 17 states, individuals in other departments make the decision, or individuals
from more than one of these agencies make a joint decision (Figure 2-23).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-38
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
ME ABM
D
I | Head of Environmental Agency
| | Head of Public Health Agency
^^ Head of Fisheries Agency
| | Other
Figure 2-23. Who in your state makes the ultimate risk management
decision to issue, modify, or rescind fish advisories?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRA/fT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
2.9 Risk Communication Procedures
This section contains responses to questions concerning the frequency with which states
revise their fish consumption advisory listings, the release of this information to the public, the
ways the public obtain copies of the printed advisories, and the media and methods used to
communicate the fish consumption advisories to the public. In addition, states were asked to
indicate whether their state distribution plan specifically targets some populations to receive
advisory information, which populations are targeted, and to identify the languages in which
their advisories were distributed. States were also asked whether they evaluate the effectiveness
of the fish consumption advisories, and if so, what methods are used to evaluate the effectiveness
of the message. This section includes responses to survey questions 89 through 97.
Q89. How often does your agency revise the fish consumption advisory listings and
release the information to the general public?
Fish consumption advisory listings are revised and released to the public whenever data
become available (on an as-needed basis) in thirty-five (35) states. Some states (15) typically
release updated information annually, and most do so in the spring or early summer. Nine (9)
states reported revising and releasing advisory listings on other schedules. Wyoming reported
that the question was not applicable to its program.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-39
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Q90. Where can the public obtain copies of your agency's printed advisory
materials?
Typically, the general public can obtain printed copies of state agency fish advisory
materials from several different sources. The most common sources of these materials are state
public health departments (46 states), state fisheries offices (38 states), state Internet sites (36
states), businesses that issue fishing licenses (34 states), other state agencies (33 states), Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) clinics (32 states), and local health departments (26 states) (Figure
2-24). Twenty states also make these materials available through other sources, such as through
material posted at public fishing sites or monitoring sites, mailings to fish retailers, state parks,
state fair booths or expositions, media outlets, public requests, national and state parks,
conservation organizations, public service announcements, pharmacies, churches, schools, town
halls, libraries, and fishing regulations guidebooks. Wyoming indicated that the question was not
applicable to its program.
-
8
•
i Doctors' offices
Tribal organizations
Organizations
Tourist offices
Town halls
Law enforcement officers
Local businesses
Welfare offices
Not applicable
—
^m
M
•
•
•
—
^
•
^H
^H
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of States
Figure 2-24. Sources of printed state fish advisory information available
to the general public.
Q91. How are your agency's fish advisories communicated to the public?
In addition to making written advisory materials available at many locations, the states
communicate fish advisory information in a variety of different ways. The most common
methods of communication are Internet sites (52 states), press releases (49 states), mailings to
the public upon request (45 states), annual fishing regulations booklets (44 states), and printed
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-40
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
pamphlets or fact sheets (42 states) (Figure 2-25). Sixteen states reported that they used other
methods of communicating advisory information to the public, including state fair exhibits,
hospitals and physicians, mailings to couples at marriage, mailings to churches, fish markets, and
grocery stores, physician association newsletters, Indian Affairs, Cooperative Extension, public
health newsletters, direct contacts with anglers, Geographic Information System (GIS) web
applications, and fishing shows. One state indicated that the question was not applicable to its
program.
Internet Site
Press Releases
Mailed Upon Request
Fishing Regulations Booklet
Pamphlets or Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
Newspaper Stories
State 305(b) Report
-a Posted signs
o
"f Agency hotlines
^ Radio Announcements
o
S
'= Radio/TV talk shows
cGeneric Statewide Booklet
0
u Posted information
TV Announcements
Agency Monitoring Reports
Postersin public places
Agency magazine
Ethnic Newspapers
State Medical Journal
Videos for ethnic groups
GIS maps
Not applicable
Flyers
^p
"
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of States
Figure 2-25. Methods of communication used by states to disseminate fish advisory
information.
Q92. Does your state or tribal fish advisory distribution plan specifically target
some populations to receive advisory information?
The fish advisory distribution plans of 45 states specifically target certain populations to
receive advisory information. Eleven states do not target specific populations.
Q93. If yes, please identify all populations that are targeted.
The most targeted populations are pregnant or nursing women (37 states), women of
child-bearing age (34 states), sport fishers (32 states), subsistence fishers (19 states), and
members of the general population (26 states) (Figure 2-26).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-41
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Thirteen states target specific racial or ethnic groups. Ten states reported that the question
was not applicable to their programs.
Members of the general populati
Specific racial/ethnic group;
Figure 2-26. Fish-consuming populations targeted by states to receive fish advisory
information.
Q94. Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories distributed to the public in
languages other than English?
Twenty-nine states distribute fish consumption advisories to the public in languages other
than English, and 27 states distribute advisories in English only (Figure 2-27).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-42
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
>QMEABM
Figure 2-27. Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories distributed to
the public in languages other than English?
Native American tribe acronyms are GLIFWC: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, ME ABM: Aroostook Band ofMicmacs of Maine, NY SRMT: St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe of New York, SD CRST: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Q95. If yes, please specify all languages that apply.
The most common language used to communicate advisories other than English is
Spanish (26 states). Other languages reported by more than one state include Vietnamese
(8 states), Chinese (7 states), Cambodian (7 states), Laotian (7 states), Hmong (6 states), Korean
(5 states), Russian (5 states), Japanese (3 states), Tagalog (3 states), Thai (2 states), and
Portuguese (2 states). Six states issue advisories in other languages, including Haitian Creole,
Chamorro, French, Serbo-Croatian, Native American languages, Arabic, and Somalian. The
Cheyenne River Sioux tribe does not distribute written advisories in languages other than
English, but the tribe does hire people to present the advisories in Native languages. Twenty-six
states that issue fish advisories only in English reported the question was not applicable (Figure
2-28).
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-43
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Ojibwa
askan Languages
Number of State
Figure 2-28. Languages other than English used to distribute information on fish
advisories to target populations.
Q96. Does your state or tribe evaluate the effectiveness of the fish consumption
advisories?
Only 24 states evaluate the effectiveness offish consumption advisories. Thirty states do
not, and two states reported that the question was not applicable to their programs.
Q97. If yes, how is their effectiveness determined?
Only 24 states reported that they evaluate the effectiveness offish consumption
advisories; however, many of these states use more than one method to do so. The most common
methods include focus groups (7 states), mailed questionnaires (7 states), questions included in
creel surveys (7 states), telephone surveys (6 states), feedback forms/postcards included in
regulation pamphlets (6 states), and questions included in state Behavior Risk Factor Surveys (2
states) (Figure 2-29). Thirteen states also use other methods, including site visits to subsistence
villages; informal conversation with citizens; responses to pier questionnaires; Health
Department surveys, and surveys of licensed anglers. Thirty-two states reported that this
question was not applicable to their fish advisory programs.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-44
-------
Section 2.0
Summary of State Responses—National Perspective
Other Methods
Mailed Question:
Creel Census Pn
Behavior Risk Factor Survey
15 20
Number of States
30 35
Figure 2-29. Methods used by states to evaluate the effectiveness of fish advisories.
2.10 Health Effects Studies Related to Fish Consumption
This section contains responses of the state fish advisory contacts as to whether there
have been any studies conducted in their state that evaluate human tissue contaminant levels or
adverse health effects related to consumption of chemically contaminated fish. This section
includes answers to question 98.
Q98. To your knowledge, have there been any studies in your state (including
federal, tribal, and university-based studies) to evaluate human tissue contaminant
levels (e.g., in blood, urine, breast milk, or adipose tissues) or adverse human health
effects related to fish consumption?
Thirty-two states reported that they were aware of studies to evaluate human tissue
contaminant levels or adverse human health effects related to fish consumption in their state, and
19 states reported that they had no knowledge of such studies. Five states reported that they did
not know of any studies conducted in their state. See Appendix B, Question 98, for the specific
references given by the states in regard to the studies they identified.
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
2-45
-------
Appendix A
Questionnaire for Fish Consumption
Advisory Program
-------
OMB Control Number 2040-0226
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY PROGRAMS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
SURVEY YEAR 2010
Please provide the following information about the agency in your state or
tribe that is responsible for issuing noncommercial (sportfishing/subsistence)
advisories or closures for chemical contamination in fish and shellfish.
Agency name
Agency address
Agency fish advisory contact
Contact's e-mail address
Contact's phone number
Contact's fax number
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Fish Tissue Monitoring Program
1. Did your state or tribal agency conduct monitoring during this past year to obtain information
about the concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish tissue for assessing human health
risks?
DYes DNo
2. What kind of data does your state or tribal agency collect to evaluate chemical contaminant
levels in fish? (Please check all that apply.)
d Captures fish and sends tissues to a lab to determine contaminant concentrations
D Monitors water quality and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
D Monitors sediments and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
d Other methods (please specify)
D Not applicable
3. How does your state or tribe conduct monitoring of contaminants in fish tissue for fish
advisories? (Please check all that apply.)
D Conducts one-time, nonrecurring or special surveys in particular fishing areas, watersheds, or
basins
D Monitors the same fishing areas, watersheds, or basins at regular intervals
D Other methods (please specify)
d Not applicable
4. During the past year, please estimate the number of stations from which your state or tribal
agency collected fish tissue that was analyzed for chemical contaminants and was used for the
fish advisory program. (Please check only one answer.)
D 0 stations
d 1-10 stations
D 11-20 stations
d 21-30 stations
d 31-50 stations
D 51-100 stations
D >100 stations (please specify number)
5. How frequently does your state resample fish from waterbodies where advisories are in effect?
(Please check only one answer.)
D Every year
D Every 2 years
d Every 3 years
D Every 4 years
D Every 5 years
d Every 6-10 years
D On an as needed basis (no set schedule)
D Other schedule (please specify)
d Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-3
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
6. In approximately how many waterbodies was fish tissue monitoring conducted within your
state during the past year?
D 0 waterbodies
D 1-10 waterbodies
d 11-20 waterbodies
D 21-30 waterbodies
d 31-40 waterbodies
D >40 (please specify total number sampled—NO TEXT)
7. How does your state determines-which sites to monitor (please check all that apply).
d Accessibility of site
D Area of concern
D Citizen or Agency request
D Degree of angling pressure the site receives
D High pollution potential at the site
D Fixed-station sites
D Randomly selected sites
d Major fishery resource
D Other method (please specify)
D Not applicable
Answers to questions 8 through 11 should be based on your Agency's evaluation offish tissue
monitoring data. Sediment analysis or water quality monitoring data may be included in your
evaluation only if they are used as the basis for determining when an advisory is needed. Note:
For these questions, you may need to consult with other individuals in your state or tribal
organization.
8. How many river, stream, or canal miles were assessed at least once during the last 3 years
specifically for the fish advisory program?
miles
9. How many lake or reservoir acres were assessed at least once during the past 3 years
specifically for the fish advisory program?
acres
10. How many square miles of estuarine waters were assessed at least once during the past 3 years
specifically for the fish advisory program?
square miles
11. How many miles of marine coastline (coastal waters) were assessed at least once during the
past 3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
miles
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-4
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Types of Fish Advisories
12. Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals to restrict fish
consumption? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
13. Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals not to consume any fish
or any fish of a particular species from a particular waterbody? (Please check only one
answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
14. Fish consumption advisories issued in your state pertain to the following (please check all that
apply):
D Specific fish species analyzed (e.g., largemouth bass)
d Specified size class(es) for the given species analyzed (e.g., largemouth bass 15-20 inches)
D Select trophic groups (e.g., game fish, bottom feeders, or panfish)
d The entire fish community (e.g., all fish)
d Certain fish species purchased in stores or restaurants
D Others (please specify)
D Not applicable
15. Does your state issue statewide or regionwide "blanket" advisories based on your sampling
effort? (Note: A statewide advisory may be issued for all lakes, all rivers, or all coastal waters
within state jurisdiction. A regionwide advisory may be issued for an individual HUC, river
drainage basin, or a portion of the state). (Please check only one answer for statewide and one
for regionwide.)
Statewide: DYes CUNo d Not applicable
Regionwide: DYes DNo D Not applicable
16. Do you have legally enforced advisories or bans within your state (e.g., are fines or citations
given for fishing in posted waters)? (Please check only one answer.)
DYes DNo
17. Does your state issue commercial fishing bans for chemically-contaminated fish or shellfish?
(Please check only one answer.)
DYes DNo
18. If your state or tribe has commercial fishing bans in a waterbody, do they include consumption
information for sport and subsistence fishers? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
19. In addition to chemical contaminants, does your state or tribe also issue fish and/or shellfish
advisories (closures) for microbial contamination (e.g., bacteria or viruses)? (Please check only
one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-5
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Sample Preparation and Analyses Procedures
20. Fish consumption advisories (no consumption and/or restricted consumption advisories) issued
in your state are based on the analysis of the following (please check all that apply):
d Whole-fish samples (skin on)
D Whole-fish samples (skin off)
D Fillet samples (skin on)
d Fillet samples (skin off)
D Muscle plug samples
D Other sample types (please specify)
d Not applicable
21. Does your state target the collection of particular indicator species, and on what is this decision
based? (Please check all that apply.)
D Angler survey data
D Availability of the species
d Desire to maintain consistency with past collections
D EPA target species recommendations based on bioaccumulation potential/trophic group
D Citizen requests
d State does not target collection of indicator species
d Other reasons (please specify)
D Not applicable
22. Does your state collect multiple size classes by species and submit these individual size classes
for residue analyses? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
23. Are individual fish samples or composite samples submitted for residue analyses in your state?
(Please check only one answer.)
D Individual fish samples only
D Composite samples only
d Both individual and composite samples are used
D Not applicable
24. If individual fish samples are used, how many individual fish are needed to support an
advisory determination in a waterbody? (Please check only one answer.)
D 1 fish
D 3 fish
D 5 fish
D 6 to 10 fish
D 11 to 20 fish
D > 20 fish
D Other number (please specify)
Not applicable; state uses only composite fish samples
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-6
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
25. If composite samples are used, how many individual fish typically are combined in each of
your state's composite samples for residue analysis? (Please check only one answer.)
D 2 fish
D 3 fish
D 4 fish
D 5 fish
D Other number (please specify)
LJ Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples
26. If composite samples are used, how many composite samples are needed to support an
advisory determination in a waterbody? (Please check only one answer.)
D 1 composite sample
D 2 composite samples
d 3 composite samples
d Variable; no set number used
D Other number (please specify)
LJ Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples
27. Assuming your state finds residue levels in exceedance of state criteria, how many years of
sampling are required at a given waterbody before a fish consumption advisory can be issued?
(Please check only one answer.)
D 1 year
n 2 years
D 3 or more years
D Site-specific decision; no set time period established
D Other (please specify)
D Not applicable
28. If commercial fishing bans are issued in your state, on which of the following sample types are
they based? (Please check all that apply.)
D Whole-fish samples (skin-on)
d Whole-fish samples (skin-off)
D Fillet samples (skin-on)
D Fillet samples (skin-off)
D Other sample types (please specify)
D Not applicable
29. How many fish tissue samples must be analyzed and found to be in exceedance of state criteria
before a commercial fishing ban is issued? (Please check only one answer.)
D 1 sample
D 2 samples
D 3 or more samples
D Site-specific decision; no set number established
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-7
-------
Appendix A
Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
30.
31.
How many years of sampling are conducted at a given waterbody before a commercial fishing
ban can be issued? (Please check only one answer.)
D 1 year
D 2 years
d 3 or more years
D Site-specific decision; no set number established
D Not applicable
Once an advisory is issued for a specific waterbody, what must occur for the state to rescind
the advisory? (Please check only one answer.)
d Residue levels of the chemical must decline below the state criterion for at least 1 year
D Residue levels of the chemical must decline below the state criterion for at least 2 years
D Residue levels of the pollutant must decline below the state criterion for at least 3 years
d Site-specific decision; no set time period established
D Other schedule or procedure (please specify)
D Not applicable
32.
During this past year, please estimate the number of fish tissue samples that were submitted
for chemical analyses by your state agency? (Please check only one answer.)
d 0 samples
D <20 samples
d 21-30 samples
d 31-40 samples
d 41-50 samples
d 51-60 samples
d >60 samples (please specify number)
d Not applicable
33. What pollutants did your state screen for in fish tissue samples during this past year? (Please
check all that apply.)
d Aldrin
d Arsenic
d Cadmium
d Chlordane
d Chlorpyrifos
d Chromium
d DDT and its metabolites
d Diazinon
d Dicofol
d Dieldrin
d Dioxins/Furans
d Disulfoton
d Endosulfan
d Endrin
d Ethion
d Heptachlor or Heptachlor epoxide
d Other (please specify)
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nonachlor
Oxyfluorfen
PAHs
PCBs
Pentachloroanisole
Selenium
Terbufos
Toxaphene
Tributyltin
Trifluralin
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
A-8
-------
Appendix A
Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
34.
Of the pollutants listed below, which ones are of primary human health concern in your state
waters (please specify up to 5 pollutants).
D Heptachlor or Heptachlor epoxide
35.
Aldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
DDT and its metabolites
Diazinon
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Dioxins/Furans
Disulfoton
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethion
Tributyltin
Other (please specify) _
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nonachlor
Oxyfluorfen
PAHs
PCBs
Pentachloroanisole
Selenium
Terbufos
Toxaphene
If your state analyzes for PCBs, what specifically is analyzed? (Please check all that apply).
d Individual congeners
D All Aroclor groups
D Selected Aroclor groups
d A combination of both Aroclors and congeners
d Others (please specify)
D Not applicable
State Advisory Program Funding
36. How many dollars are spent annually in your state on routine fish tissue field collection
activities? (Please check only one answer.)
D <$i,ooo
D $1,000 to $4,999
D $5,000 to $9,999
D $10,000 to $24,999
D $25,000 to $50,000
D >$5 0,000 (please specify)
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs
A-9
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
37. What was the funding source for your state's fish tissue collection activities during the past
year? (Please check all that apply)
D State general funds
D State fishing license revenues
d State sales tax
D EPA Section 106 funds
D EPA Section 205j funds
d EPA Region funds
D EPA Grant funds
D Other (please specify)
D Not applicable
38. How many dollars are spent annually in your state on laboratory analyses of fish tissue
samples? (Please check only one answer.)
D <$i,ooo
D $1,000 to $4,999
D $5,000 to $9,999
D $10,000 to $24,999
D $25,000 to $50,000
D >$5 0,000 (please specify)
d Not applicable
39. What was the funding source for your state's laboratory analyses of fish tissue samples during
this past year? (Please check all that apply)
D State general funds
D State fishing license revenues
d State sales tax
D EPA Section 106 funds
D EPA Section 205j funds
d EPA Regional funds
D EPA Grant funds
D Other (please specify)
d Not applicable
40. If no funding is currently available, is your state seeking funding to conduct a monitoring and
assessment program? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Other Uses of State Advisory Data
41. For your state's biennial 305(b) water quality report, what use support designation is assigned
to waterbodies placed under fish consumption advisory? (Please check only one answer.)
D Fully supporting
D Threatened
D Partially supporting
d Not supporting
D No assessments were made
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-10
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
42. If fish consumption advisories have been issued for waterbodies in your state, does your state
place these waterbodies on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters? (Please check only one
answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
43. If commercial fishing bans have been issued for waterbodies in your state, does your state
place these waterbodies on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters? (Please check only one
answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
44. Is "fish consumption" an assigned beneficial use for waters in your state? (Please check only
one answer.)
DYes DNo
45. If yes, where have these criteria for beneficial use been established? (Please check only one
answer.)
D State water quality standards
D SOP for assessing beneficial uses (or related document)
d Other (please specify)
D Not applicable
Risk Assessment Methodology
46. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate "carcinogenic" health risks and to
issue advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from your state waters? (Please
specify all current methods used).
D Risk assessment methodology
D Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels
D None
d Other approach (please specify)
D Not applicable
47. What carcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your state
use to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies? (Please check only one answer.)
D 1:10,000 (lO'4)
D 1:100,000 (lO'5)
D 1:1,000,000(10-6)
d FDA action level
D Other (please specify)
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-11
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
48. What sources does your state use to obtain cancer potency factors to help calculate
"carcinogenic" health risks? (Please check all that apply.)
d ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
D EPA Fish Guidance documents
d EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
d EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
D EPA Toxicology One-Liners Database (Office of Pesticide Programs)
D Great Lakes Protocol
d Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine
d IARC Monographs
D Other sources (please specify)
d Not applicable
49. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate "noncarcinogenic" health risks and
issue fish advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from your state waters?
(Please specify all methods used.)
D EPA Fish Guidance Document
D Great Lakes Protocol
d Hazard Index calculations using risk assessment methodology (IRIS RfD)
d FDA Action Levels
d None
d Other approach (please specify)
d Not applicable
50. What noncarcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your
state use to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies?
D Hazard index is > 1)
D Hazard index is > 1)
d Hazard index is < 1)
d FDA action levels
D Other (please specify)
d Not applicable
51. What-source does your state use to obtain potency factors (reference dose) to help calculate
noncarcinogenic health risks? (Please check all that apply.)
D ATSDR toxicological profiles
d EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
D EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
D EPA Toxicology One-Liners Database (Office of Pesticide Programs)
d EPA Fish Guidance
D Great Lakes Protocol
D Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine
D Other sources (please specify)
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-12
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
52. Of all the fish advisories currently in effect in your jurisdiction, including those issued last year
and in earlier years, what percentage were issued based on each of these methods? (Please
enter your best estimate of the percentage for each method.)
% of advisories now in effect were issued using risk assessment methods.
% of advisories now in effect were issued using FDA action levels.
% of advisories now in effect were issued using other methods specified in question 46 and 49.
D Not applicable
53. Does your state or tribal agency have a plan to reevaluate data from sites where outdated
assessment methods were used to issue fish advisories? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
54. Is your state currently re-evaluating the method or approach used to establish fish advisories?
(Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
55. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate
for recreational fishers? (Please check only one answer.)
D 6.5 g/day
d 12 g/day
D 15 g/day
D 17.5 g/day
D 30 g/day
D Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
D Not applicable
56. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate
for subsistence fishers? (Please check only one answer.)
d 6.5 g/day
D 15 g/day
D 30 g/day
D 87 g/day
D 124 g/day
D 142 g/day
d Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
d Not applicable
57. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate
for children? (Please check only one answer.)
D 2.0 g/day
d 4.0 g/day
d 6.5 g/day
D Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
d Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-13
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
58. What default value does your state use for exposure duration in its cancer risk assessments?
(Please check only one answer.)
D 30 years
D 70 years
d 75 years (the value EPA is currently recommending).
D Other exposure duration (please specify value in years)
D Not applicable
59. What default value does your state use to estimate life expectancy in its risk assessments?
(Please check only one answer.)
d 70 years
D 75 years
D 80 years
D Other life expectancy (please specify value in years)
d Not applicable
60. Does your state recommend a meal frequency format or number of meals over time in its
advisories (e.g., number of meals per month)? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
61. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in its risk
assessments about meal size or portion for adults? (Please specify all that apply.)
D 4oz(114g)
D 8 oz (227 g)
D 12oz(341g)
D 16 oz (454 g)
D Other (please specify value in grams)
D Not applicable
62. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in its risk
assessments about meal size or portion for children? (Please specify all that apply.)
D 4oz(114g)
D 8 oz (227 g)
D 12oz(341g)
d Other (please specify value in grams)
d Not applicable
63. What default value does your state use for body weight of an adult male consumer in its risk
assessments? (Please check only one answer.)
D 71kg
D 70kg
D 65 kg
D Other weight (please specify value in kg)
d Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-14
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
64. What default value does your state use for body weight of an adult female consumer (including
pregnant women and nursing mothers) in its risk assessments? (Please check only one answer.)
D 70kg
D 65kg
D 62kg
D Other weight (please specify value in kg)
D Not applicable
65. What default value does your state use for body weight of a child in its risk assessments?
(Please check only one answer.)
D 10 kg
D 14.5 kg
D 15.5kg
D Other weight (please specify value in kg)
LJ Risk assessments are not conducted for children
D Not applicable
66. Please specify what age range or ranges your state uses to calculate risk with respect to
children. (Please specify all age ranges used in your state's risk assessments for children.)
d <1 year
d <6 years
D <7 years
d < 12 years
d <15 years
D <18 years
D Other age ranges (please specify age)
LJ Risk assessments are not conducted for children
D Not applicable
67. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about the amount of the
pollutant absorbed by the body after ingestion (percent absorption by the gut) (e.g., in
pharmacokinetic modeling)? (Please check only one answer.)
D 100% for all pollutants
D 75% for all pollutants
D 50% for all pollutants
d Chemical-specific percentage based on available data
D Other (please specify percent absorption assumed)
D Not applicable
68. Does your state use "contaminant reduction factors" in its risk calculations to account for
contaminant losses of PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants from fish tissues during
cleaning, preparation, and cooking of the fish? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-15
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
69. If yes, what are the pollutants and their associated contaminant reduction factors (%
reduction in pollutant level resulting from cleaning, preparing, and cooking of fish) assumed
by your state?
%chlordane
%DDE
%DDT
%dieldrin
% heptachlor epoxide
% mercury
% mirex
% total PCBs
% toxaphene
% other (please specify)
D Not applicable
70. If contaminant reduction factors are used, what is their basis? (Please check only one answer.)
d EPA Guidance Documents
D Great Lakes Protocol
d Scientific literature review
d Conducted own research
d Other (please specify)
d Not applicable
71. How does your state evaluate health risks for fish samples contaminated with multiple
chemicals with the same human health endpoints (e.g., two organochlorine pesticides)? (Please
check only one answer.)
d Cumulative risk (add individual contaminant risks from each chemical together)
d Calculate single contaminant risk based on the most conservative carcinogenic risk value
d Either cumulative risk or single contaminant risk depending on the chemicals involved
d Other method (please specify)
d State does not evaluate health risks for multiple contaminants
d Not applicable
72. Regarding mercury, does your state assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity values to
different populations (i.e., does the state use an RfD of 1 x 10~4 mg/kg/day for women of child-
bearing age and/or children versus using an RfD of 3 x 10~4 mg/kg/day for adults in the general
population)? (Please check only one answer.)
d Yes d No d Not applicable
73. What is the mercury toxicity value (i.e., RfD) used for each of the following populations?
Adults in the general population (please choose only one):
d 3 xlO'4 mg/kg/day
d 2 xlO"4 mg/kg/day
d IxlO"4 mg/kg/day
d 7.5 x 10~5 mg/kg/day
d 7 x 10~5 mg/kg/day
d Other (please specify):
d Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-16
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
Women of childbearing age and nursing mothers (please choose only one):
D 3xlO"4mg/kg/day
D 2xlO"4mg/kg/day
D Ixl(r4mg/kg/day
d 7.5 x 10"5 mg/kg/day
D 7 x 10~5 mg/kg/day
D Other (please specify):
D Not applicable
Children (please choose only one):
D 3 xlO'4 mg/kg/day
D 2 xlO"4 mg/kg/day
D IxlO'4 mg/kg/day
D 7.5 x 10~5 mg/kg/day
D 7 x 10~5 mg/kg/day
D Other (please specify):
D Not applicable
74. When your state receives method detection limits (MDLs) as the reportable concentration for
contaminants from the laboratory, what value do you use for non-detects in your risk
assessment?
d Zero
D Pollutant's MDL
D Half the pollutant's MDL
d Other value (please specify)
LJ Maximum likelihood indicator
D Not applicable
75. Does your state screen for lead in its fish tissue samples? (Please check only one answer.)
DYes DNo
76. What assessment method do you use for lead since lead does not currently have an associated
reference dose in IRIS? (Please specify assessment method used.)
D Method used (please specify)
D Not applicable
Targeting Fish Consumers
77. Are health risks being assessed in your state for target groups of people whose culinary habits
may differ from the customs of the majority of Americans regarding meal preparation and
consumption? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
78. Has your state identified the primary waterbodies fished by these target population(s)? (Please
check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-17
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
79. Has your state made efforts to identify the fish species and the sizes offish consumed by these
target populations? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
80. If yes, has your state used any of the following procedures to obtain information from these
target populations? (Please check all that apply).
D Local fish consumption surveys (creel surveys)
d Fishing license surveys
D Anecdotal information from populations of interest
D Behavioral risk surveillance surveys funded the Centers for Disease Control
d Not applicable
81. Has your state altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target
populations? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
82. If your state has altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target
populations, what actions have been taken? (Please check all that apply.)
d State has added stations in waterbodies where the targeted populations frequently fish
D State has targeted species consumed by the targeted populations for residue analyses
D Other actions (please specify)
d Not applicable
83. If your state is not currently addressing the concerns of populations with a perceived higher
risk, is there a plan to do so in the future? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Risk Management
84. Who prepares risk assessments on behalf of your state or tribal fish advisory program? (Please
check all that apply.)
D State or Tribal Environmental Agency/Department
d State or Tribal Public Health Agency/Department
D State or Tribal Fisheries Agency/Department
D Consultant
d University
D Other (please specify)
D Not applicable
85. Does your state or tribe have written procedures for evaluating the health risks associated with
consumption of chemically-contaminated fish? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
86. Does your state or tribe have a group or committee that over sees the fish advisory
program/processes? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-18
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
87. If the answer to question 86 is yes, what professional disciplines are represented on that
committee? (Please check all that apply.)
LH Toxicology/epidemiology
D Fisheries
d Water pollution assessment/control
D Hazardous waste management
D Analytical chemist
d Risk communication
D Other disciplines (please specify)
D Not applicable
88. Who in your state or tribe makes the ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify, or
rescind fish advisories? (Please check only one answer.)
d Head of Environmental Agency/Department
D Head of Public Health Agency/Department
D Head of Fisheries Agency/Department
d Governor's Office or Tribal Chiefs/President's Office
D Other official (please specify by title)
D Not applicable
Risk Communication Procedures
89. How often does your Agency revise the fish consumption advisory listings and release the
information to the public? (Please specify all that apply.)
d Annually; released on (specify date: day/month)
D Whenever data become available (on an as-needed basis)
D Other schedules (please specify)
D Not applicable
90. Where can the public obtain copies of your agency's printed advisory materials? (Please check
all that apply.)
D Local public health departments
D State public health departments
d Other State agencies
D Doctors' offices
D Local businesses (e.g., hair styling salons)
D Businesses that issue fishing licenses (e.g., bait and tackle shops)
d WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) clinics
d Welfare offices
D Organizations (e.g., sporting or women's clubs)
d Tourist offices
D State fisheries offices
D Tribal organizations
d Town halls
D Law enforcement officers
D State Internet site
d Other sources (please specify)
D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-19
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
91. How are your Agency's fish advisories communicated to the public? (Please check all that
apply.)
D Mailed to public upon request
D Press releases distributed to media sources
D Targeted newspaper stories
D Published articles in ethnic newspapers
D Videos for ethnic groups
D Radio announcements
d Television announcements
D Radio/television talk shows
d Internet site
d Agency telephone information service (i.e., hotlines)
D Agency magazine
d Posted signs (at boat launches, stream access points, public docks, etc.)
D Posted information where fishing licenses issued
D Posters in public places (libraries, town halls, etc)
d Annual fishing regulations booklet
D Generic statewide listing booklet separate from fishing regulations
D Printed pamphlets or fact sheets
d Information presented at public meetings
D Publication of articles in state medical journal
D Publication of articles in agency annual monitoring report
d Publication of information in state 305(b) report
d Flyers distributed with trout and salmon stamps
D GIS maps posted for tribal members
D Other methods (please specify)
d Not applicable
92. Does your state or tribal fish advisory distribution plan specifically target some populations to
receive advisory information? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
93. If yes, please identify all populations that are targeted.
D Sport fishers
d Subsistence fishers
D Specific racial/ethnic groups (please specify)
D Women of child-bearing age
d Pregnant or nursing women
d New parents
D Tourists
d Members of the general population
d Others (please specify)
D Not applicable
94. Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories distributed to the public in languages
other than English? (Please check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-20
-------
Appendix A Questionnaire for Fish Consumption Advisory Program
95. If yes, please specify all languages that apply.
d Alaskan native languages
D Bosnian
D Cambodian
d Chinese
D Creole
d Hmong
D Japanese
D Korean
D Laotian
D Llacano
D Ojibwa
D Portuguese
D Russian
D Spanish
D Tagalog
D Thai
d Vietnamese
D Others (please specify)
D Not applicable
96. Does your state or tribe evaluate the effectiveness of the fish consumption advisories? (Please
check only one answer.)
D Yes D No D Not applicable
97. If yes, how is their effectiveness determined? (Please check all that apply.)
d Feedback form/postcard in regulation pamphlet
D Questions included in creel census program
D Questions included in state BRFS (Behavior Risk Factor Survey)
d Focus groups
D Mailed questionnaires (to whom?)
D Telephone surveys (of whom?)
d Other methods (please specify
D Not applicable
98. To your knowledge, have there been any studies in your state (including federal, tribal, and
university-based studies) to evaluate human tissue contaminant levels (e.g., in blood, urine,
breast milk, or adipose tissues) or adverse human health effects related to fish consumption?
(Please check only one answer.)
d Don't know
D No
d Yes (please specify organization or agency)
Summary of Responses to the 2010 National Survey of Fish Advisory Programs A-21
------- |