I

II

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF THE

HOUSATONIC RIVER CREEL SURVEY

I

I preporedfor:

General Electric Company 100 Woodlawn Avenue o

3 Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201

(413)494-2700

prepared by:

l/l Oon

ooo NJ

ChemRlsk®

A Division of McLaren/Hart

I

I

Stroudwater Crossing

1685 Congress Street

Portland, Maine 04102

(207) 774-0012

March 25,1994

A Division of McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering

II

I!

C.hemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering

I

I

I

I

I

!

1

i

ChemRisk* - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF THE CREEL SURVEY FOR THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DATA COLLECTION 3

2.1 Study Areas 3 2.2 Methodology 4 2.3 Data Analysis 5

2.3.1 AnglerEffort 5 2.3.2 Trip Length 8 2.3.3 AnglerDays 8 2.3.4 Fish Consumption Rates 8

3.0 RESULTS 11

3.1 AnglerEffort 11 3.1.1 Average Day Length 11 3.1.2 Number of Days Per Season 12 3.1.3 Total Angler Effort 12

3.2 Creel Survey 12 3.2.1 Trip Length 12 3.2.2 AnglerDays 13 3.2.3 Target Species 13 3.2.4 Species Caught 13 3.2.5 Frequency of Fishing 14 3.2.6 Fish Consumption 14 3.2.7 Consumption of Frogs and Turtles 15

4.0 DISCUSSION 17

5.0 REFERENCES 20

i

ChemRisk® ­ AMarch 25,1994

Division of McLaren/Hart

• METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF THE CREEL SURVEY FOR THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

I Figure 1 Study Area for Location 1

LIST OF FIGURES

3a

Figure 2 Study Area for Location 2 3b

Figure 3 General Creel Census Form (Part 1)General Creel Census Form (Part 2)

5a 5b

I

1

I

I

I

I

1

.

1

1

ChemRisk* - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25, 1994

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF THE CREEL SURVEY FOR THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Summer and Fall Weekdays, Weekends, and Holidays for 1992 . . . 6a

Table 2 Summary of Aerial Survey Observations lla

Table 3 Average Day Lengths (dm) Used in Estimating Daily Angler Efforts lib

Table 4 Summary of Angler Effort Calculations based on Aerial Survey Data 12a

Table 5 Summary of Fishing Durations for Previous Trips to the Housatonic River 12b

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994

I Pagel

I METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER CREEL SURVEY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ChemRisk* was retained by the General Electric Company (GE) to design and conduct certain

studies that could provide useful information for completing a human health risk assessment of

potential exposure to PCB mixtures in the Housatonic River. In order to obtain data to support the

risk assessment for anglers who fish the river, ChemRisk developed a study to identify the level

and location of fishing effort on the river and to characterize fish consumption behavior by those

anglers.

I There are no published studies that have specifically reported angler effort on or consumption of

fish from the Housatonic River or other similar rivers in Massachusetts. Fishing effort for a

specific waterbody is highly dependent upon the size of the waterbody, the species of fish present,

and the availability of public access. For this reason, it is important to collect site-specific data

when evaluating a specific waterbody. Like fishing effort, rates of fish consumption are also likely

to be variable, depending on the nature of the fishery.

While there are studies of freshwater fish consumption behavior reported in the scientific literature,

there are several reasons why fish consumption estimates for other locations may not be applicable

for inferring rates of fish consumption from small freshwater rivers in Massachusetts. First,

many of the available studies have not distinguished between the consumption of commercially

harvested and recreationally harvested fish (Javitz, 1980; Rupp et al., 1980; Pao et al., 1982;

NYSDEC, 1990). As there are no commercial fisheries on the Housatonic River, any estimate

based on the combined rates of consumption of commercially and recreationally harvested fish

1| would overestimate PCB exposure. Second, many estimates of fish consumption have been based

on marine studies rather than freshwater studies (Puffer et al., 1981; Pierce et al., 1981; Landolt et

al., 1985) or include a combination of saltwater and freshwater species (Javitz, 1980; Pao et al.,

1982; NYSDEC, 1990). Third, while some studies have reported consumption of freshwater fish

by anglers (Connelly et al., 1992; Fiore et al., 1989; West et al., 1989), only a few have focused

on sport-caught fish consumption from rivers (Soldat, 1970; Honstead et al., 1971; Turcotte,

I

I

I

i

1

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25, 1994 Page 2

1983; ChemRisk, 1991a; Ebert et al., 1993). Of these studies, only the Ebert et al. (1993) and

ChemRisk (1991a) studies of Maine's resident anglers were conducted in the New England region.

There is currently a consumption advisory on the Housatonic River. Given that advisory, it is

important to collect site-specific data on the actual level of effort and the consumption behavior of

those anglers who currently fish the Housatonic.

For these reasons, ChemRisk conducted a study of angler activity and consumption practices

among anglers who fish the Housatonic River. The main objectives of this study were to identify

the level of fishing effort that occurs along the Housatonic River, to identify the areas of highest

use, and to characterize rates of consumption of Housatonic River fish (if any) by anglers who use

the river. In addition, the study was intended to collect additional data on the fish species targeted

by anglers, to document the existence (if any) of subsistence individuals who may conceivably

consume fish from the river, and to characterize patterns of human consumption of turtles or frogs

collected from the river.

I

I

I

1

I

J

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page3

2.0 DATA COLLECTION

A two part survey of the Housatonic River was conducted in May through October of 1992. The

first component was an aerial survey that was designed to collect information on river areas and

times of highest fishing activity, and to derive estimates of angler effort. The second component

was a creel survey of anglers observed using the river. This survey was designed to collect

information from individual anglers as to their frequency of fishing trips to the river, the species

targeted, the species that were caught and creeled at the time of the interview, the size of the creeled

fish, and information on the final disposition of the creeled fish. In addition, anglers who were

interviewed were asked whether they ever caught and consumed frogs or turtles from the river.

2.1 Study Areas

For the purpose of both surveys, the Housatonic River was divided into two study areas

designated as Location 1 (Figure 1) and Location 2 (Figure 2) with Woods Pond Dam as the

dividing point. Woods Pond Dam acts as a physical barrier that affects both the population

dynamics of fish species found upstream and downstream from the dam, and the fate and transport

of PCBs (Stewart et al., 1980; Eitzer, 1993). Location 1, which extends between the Newell

Street Bridge and Woods Pond Dam, was divided into five segments that were identified

alphabetically. These segments were defined by recognized access areas as follows:

A Newell Street Bridge

B Fred Garner Park

C Canoe Meadows

D John Decker Canoe Landing

E Woods Pond

I

ChemRlsk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Pagc3a

PITTSFIELD NeweU A) Street

Bridge

Fred Gamer Canoe Park Meadows '

John Decker Canoe Landing

New Lenox Road

Scale » miles

Figure! Study Area for Location 1

ChemRisk* A Division of McLar»rVHmrt

ChemRlsk® • A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25.1994 PageSb

Lake Mahkeenac f~^\

STOCKBRTOGE

Glendale Dam

§>/Rising Pood Dam

GREAT HARRINGTON

Three Mile Pond

Sheffield Covered Bridge

Scale = miles SHEFFIELD

Figure 2 Study Area for Location 2

' i Bartholomew's Cobble

MASSACHUSETTS ChemRlsk® A Division of McLaren/HartCONNECTICUT

I

1

I

!

d1

I

ChemRiskS - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 PageS

Creel Survey

The creel survey clerk was present on the river for a minimum of three days per week, including at least one weekend day. Between six and eight hours were spent surveying each day. For Location 1, where access was essentially limited to the defined access points, the clerk was stationary, spending two or four hour blocks of time at the various access points, interviewing all

anglers wbo were accessible from shore. For Location 2, where access to the river was not limited to the defined access points, the creel clerk roved, interviewing all anglers who were encountered. Although the length of the survey day varied with the reach of river being surveyed, the average survey day for the creel clerk was approximately seven hours.

On survey days, all observed anglers were counted and, when possible, interviewed. The questionnaire used in conducting angler interviews (Figure 3) was designed to collect data on angler effort, including the location and time of the angler interview, as well as the date, location,

and duration of the previous fishing trips to the Housatonic River. Data were also collected to assess seasonal angler activity, including target fish species, frequency of fishing trips, months of the year spent fishing the Housatonic River, and whether anglers intended to consume the fish they had creeled. If the angler had creeled fish the day of the interview, the survey clerk weighed and measured each fish and recorded the information by species. Finally, anglers were asked to indicate whether they ever caught frogs or turtles intended for human consumption and, if so, to

characterize the size and frequency of those meals.

2.3 Data Analysis

2.3.1 Angler Effort

The basic unit of fishing effort is the angler-hour, which is described as one hour of active fishing by a single angler (Malvestuto, 1983). Because the creel clerk cannot be on the river continuously and cannot be at all river locations simultaneously, a complete picture of river use cannot be constructed from the creel clerk's data alone. Thus, aerial surveys were conducted to provide instantaneous angler counts at specific points in time to be used in calculating angler effort in

angler-hours for the survey period.

ChemRisk* • A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 PageSa

Figure 3. GENERAL CREEL CENSUS (Page 1 of 2)

Location. Date. Day of Week. Clerk. Weather

Stationary Census Census I Census Method: Vehicle Started Ended Left Census to

River Reach. Boat/Shore. Party Size. Age Of Individual Interviewed. I Interviewed Refused Target Species ,

Trip Over? Repeat Contact? Before? Interview

Mass. Resident?. . How Long?. . Zip Code. Time Started Time Now

How Often Do You Fish For Freshwater Specks (times/week)?. # Total Trips Taken So Far This Year?.

How Often Do You Fish This River Reach (times/week)? . # Trips to this River Reach So Far This Year?_

How Often Do You Fish Other Reaches Of this River (times/week)?. # Trips To Other Reaches This Year? _

Which Reaches?. iJ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

What Months Of The Year Do You Fish The Housatonic River?

I Date of Last Trip to this River. How Many Hours Did You Fish?. .Where Did You Fish?.

Did You Catch Anything? Did You Eat Any Of The Fish You Caught?.

Comments: Today's Catch Species No. Caught No. Released Why Released

Do You Ever Catch Frogs In Or Near The River? Yes No Where?

Do You Eat Any Of The Frogs You Catch? Yes. _No If Yes, What Parts Do You Eat?

How Often Do You Eat Them? Meals Per _ How Many Frogs MakeA Meal?

Do You Ever Catch Snapping Turtles In Or Near The River? Yes No Where?

DoYooEatThem? Yes No If Yes, What Parts Do You Eat?

HowOften? MealsPtt How Much Turtle Meat Do You At At Each Meal?. ounces

I

I

CbemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 PageSb

I

I

1 I d

I

I

«

5*

o ri

33 U

3 &y.

i >»j£

u

«

2 «

a r-'

§ 00

"8 'o

CA i

I •I -'1

3

GO

:

I

I

I

I

i

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 6

The creel and flight surveys were begun on May 26, 1992 and continued through October 31,

1992. For this assessment, it was assumed that the summer fishing season began on the day after

Memorial Day (Tuesday, May 26, 1992) and ended with Labor Day (Monday, September 7,

1992), for a total of 72 summer weekdays and 33 summer weekend days or holidays (Table 1).

The Fall season was assumed to begin the day after Labor Day weekend and continue through

October 31, for a total of 38 weekdays and 16 weekend days or holidays. In 1992, Independence

Day (July 4) fell on a weekend. For some portion of the population, Friday was considered a

holiday while the remainder of the population was given Monday as the holiday. As a result, this

analysis assumed that both Friday and Monday were holidays.

The survey period did not include the winter or spring months. While it is recognized that ice

fishing and early spring open water fishing may occur on the river, it was believed that the highest

level of activity for the majority of anglers would occur between May and October. The survey

design permits the estimation of angler effort for the summer and fall months, but does not allow

direct estimates of year-round angler effort to be made. It does provide, however, a reasonable

characterization of the level of fishing pressure during the high activity summer months, as well as

information on the locations where that pressure is focused.

Total angler effort for the Housatonic River in the Summer and Fall of 1992 was estimated by

evaluating separate substrata of the data set generated from the flight surveys. As explained by

Malvestuto (1983), the gain in precision from stratifying the data set depends on the degree of

variability in the total population and the extent to which this variability is alleviated by the

! stratification scheme. For this analysis, the data were first stratified by season (Summer and Fall)

and location on the river (Location 1 and 2), since most of the variability in angler activity patterns

rj is likely to be caused by differences among these substrata. Activity patterns are expected to vary

between Locations 1 and 2 because Woods Pond Dam may impact the availability of target species

and because there are differences in the types of access available upstream and downstream of the

dam. Although the sampling plan also allowed for subdividing the data for each location by river

Ml reach, there were insufficient angler observations per reach to conduct such an analysis. However,

this information was used qualitatively to identify areas of highest activity.

1

i

ChemRlskS • A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page6a

I Table 1. Summary of Summer and Fall Weekdays, Weekends, and Holidays for 1992*

I Number Season Weekdays Weekend J3ays of Holidays

Summer (May 26 to Sept 7)

May 4 2 0

June 22 8 0

July 21 8 2

August 21 10 0

September 4 2 1

I TOTAL = 72 30 3

i Eall (SepL8toOct31)

September 17 6 0

j October 21 9 1

TOTAL = 38 15 1

a. Assumes Summer begins the day alter Memorial Day (May 26, 1992) and ends with Labor Day weekend (September 7,1992); assumes Fall begins after Labor Day weekend and ends with the last survey date (October 31,1992).

I

m

1

I

I

I

i

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page?

Variability due to differences in weekend and weekday activity patterns of anglers were reduced by

stratifying the data sets by day-type. The holidays occurring during this period were grouped with

the weekend substrata because angler activity patterns for weekends and holidays were expected to

be similar.

Each aerial angler count represented a count of angler-hours in progress. Using the methods of

Malvestuto (1983), the angler-hours in progress count for a given day in a given month, in

combination with the average number of daylight hours in that month, were sufficient to estimate

that day's total angler effort in angler-hours for each location. Total daily effort was calculated for

each day upon which a flight was made according to Equation (1):

D = ACxdm (1)

where: D = total daily effort (angler-hours)

AC = aerial count of angler-hoars in progress (angler-hours)

dm = the average number of available daylight hours for the month in which that flight

was taken (fraction)

An estimate of total angler effort for the summer and fall seasons was derived for each location

from daily estimates by considering relative day-type frequencies for the season. Daily effort

values were sorted into the four possible day-types: summer weekdays, summer weekend days and holidays, fall weekdays, and fall weekend days and holidays. Based on the assumption that

total daily angler effort estimates were independent of each other, the total angler effort for both

seasons was calculated as a weighted average of the average total daily effort values for each day-

type according to Equation (2):

TE = sum (i=l to 4) ni x Di (2)

where:

TE = total effort for summer and fall (angler-hours)

n; = number of days of type i in summer and fall periods

DJ = mean total daily angler effort for day-type i (angler-hours)

I

1

1I

I

!

ChtmRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25.1994 Page 8

Confidence intervals were also calculated for TE based on assuming a normal distribution for total daily angler effort for each day-type.

2.3.2 Trip Length

The average trip length (hours) for each season was estimated based on responses to interviews conducted by the creel clerk. Anglers encountered by the creel clerk were often interviewed before their trips had ended so that an estimate of trip length on the day of the interview could not be determined with accuracy. However, during the interview, each angler was asked to estimate the length of his or her previous fishing trip, as well as the date and location. Then it was assumed

that angler activity patterns during that previous trip would be similar to general patterns during other fishing trips, especially if those trips were taken on the same type of day and at the same location. Of the anglers interviewed at Location 1 river reaches who provided information regarding a previous fishing trip, 81 percent reported having fished the same location and 88 percent reported having fished on the same day-type. Similarly, of the Location 2 anglers interviewed who provided information regarding a previous fishing trip, all had fished the same location on that trip and 91 percent had fished on the same day-type. Based on the high

| consistency of fishing locations and day-types, the durations of the previous fishing trips were ' considered to be reliable indicators of trip length for this analysis. 1

2.3.3 Angler Days

Total angler days were estimated by dividing the total angler-hours for each location by the average trip length (Section 2.3.2).

j 2.3.4 Fish Consumption Rates

1 Because there is a consumption advisory on the Housatonic River, it was not known whether there • would be any anglers encountered who intended to consume creeled fish from the river. In the

event that such anglers were interviewed, a methodology was developed to estimate rates of consumption. An annual average fish consumption rate was derived for each angler interviewed

who held a fish in his or her creel. This rate was based on the number and weight of the creeled

fish and the reported frequency of fishing the Housatonic River, using Equation (3):

1

I

I

I

I

i

1

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 9

CR = M x E P x F i x S x F 2 x l / D x l / P (3)

where:

CR Annualized average daily consumption rate (g/angler-day)

M Whole body mass of creeled fish (g whole/angler-trip)

EP Edible portion (g edible/g whole)

FI Frequency of trips to Housatonic River per week (trips/week)

S Percent successful trips (unitless)

Frequency of trips (weeks/year) F2

D Days per year (days/year)

P Number of individuals who shared harvested fish (persons)

The whole mass of fish was the mass measured by the creel clerk. An edible portion of 30

percent, as recommended by EPA (1989) guidance, was used to adjust whole mass to edible mass.

Frequency of trips per week was based on the angler's reported frequency of fishing the

Housatonic River. Frequency of weeks fished per year was based on the total number of months

that the angler reported fishing during the year. The number of days per year was used to derive

an annualized daily estimate of consumption. The total mass of fish consumed was then equally

distributed among all individuals with whom the angler reported that he intended to share the

creeled fish.

Creel surveys generally collect detailed data only for the day of the interview. When a creel survey

is conducted over a number of months, it can also provide valuable data on the percentage of

successful fishing trips (i.e., trips on which fish were caught and/or harvested) for the sampled

population over time. This information is useful in estimating consumption because it allows the

estimation of the percent of trips taken on which the angler was successful at obtaining fish for

consumption. While the Housatonic River creel survey provided information on the number of

fish caught per trip, the number of fish harvested per trip cannot be considered representative of

harvest rates by consuming anglers because of the fish consumption advisory on the river. Thus,

it is necessary to rely on other surveys to derive this factor. A creel survey conducted on the West

Branch Penobscot River in Maine (ChemRisk, 199la) showed that despite higher catch rates,

1

I

I

J

I

i

1

I

ChetnRlsk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 10

harvest rates ranged from 0.26 fish per angler (four angler trips for every fish harvested) in June,

to 0.076 fish per angler (13 angler trips per fish harvested) during September. Thus, it is likely that anglers are not successful at creeling fish for consumption on every trip taken. To estimate the

success rate (S) to be used in the derivation of consumption rates, the upper end of this range

(0.26) was used in this analysis.

.1

I

I

ChemRiskS - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 11

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Angler Effort

A total of 43 flight surveys were conducted during the Summer and Fall of 1992. Each flight

included angler observations over both Location 1 and Location 2. There were two instances when

two flights were taken in a single day. For these two days, the number of anglers counted during

both fights were averaged and used as a single estimator for that day. In several instances, the

aerial survey clerk identified additional anglers when flying over the survey area on the return trip

to base. These additional anglers were not included in the aerial counts for that flight in order to

maintain the instantaneous nature of the original counts.

I

i

Table 2 summarizes the aerial survey observations. The number of flight surveys per day-type

ranged from a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 15 surveys. The number of angler-hours in

progress observed per aerial survey ranged from 0 to 9 for Location 1 and 0 to 8 for Location 2.

Not surprisingly, for both locations, the greatest number of anglers were observed during Summer

weekends and holidays, whereas the smallest number of anglers were observed on Fall weekdays.

Although there were insufficient data to derive reach-specific estimates of angler effort, a

qualitative evaluation of the data indicates that the reach with the highest level of activity was

I

!

Section D-E, between John Decker Canoe Landing and Woods Pond Dam. No anglers were observed in reaches A or B. Downstream of the Dam, the highest activity was reported for Section

E-F, with somewhat lower activity in all other reaches.

J 3.1.1 Average Day Length

V

•

To estimate total daily angler effort (in angler-hours) from aerial angler counts, it was necessary to

determine the average day length for each month. Table 3 summarizes average day lengths for

Pittsfield for both Locations 1 and 2. The average day length ranged from 12 to 15 hours.

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page lla

1 1

Table 2. Summary of Aerial Survey Observations

Number of Anglers Observed

Total over Location 1 Location 2 Day-Type Survey

Period Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average

Summer Weekdays 13 0 6 12 0 7 1.3

Summer Weekends/Holidays 15 0 9 2.5 0 8 3.1

Fall Weekdays 10 0 2 0.30 0 3 0.50 ] : 1 Fall Weekends/Holidays 5 1 6 3.6 0 4 2.2

All Day-Types Combined 43 0 9 1.7 0 8 1.8 1

I

2J

1

I

ChemRiskfc - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page lib

I

I

Table 3. Average Day Lengths (dm) Used in Estimating Daily Angler Efforts

Average Day Lengths Month (V (hours)

May

June

July

August

September

October

14.5

15

14.5

13.5

12.5

12

I

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994

I Page 12

3.1.2 Number of Days Per Season

I As presented in Table 1 and discussed in Section 2.3, the Summer season was determined to be

comprised of 72 weekdays and 33 weekend days or holidays. The Fall season was determined to

be comprised of 38 weekdays and 16 weekend days or holidays.

3.1.3 Total Angler Effort

I

Table 4 summarizes the results of the angler effort calculations based on the aerial survey data.

For Location 1, the total angler effort for summer and fall 1992 was estimated as 3,300 angler-

hours with a 95% confidence interval of ± 732 angler-hours. Location 1 extends for

approximately 14 river miles, resulting in an estimate of 236 angler-hours per river mile. A

separate estimate has been made for Woods Pond alone within Location 1. For Woods Pond alone

(which, with its backwaters, extends for approximately one river mile in Location 1), the estimate

of total angler effort is 926 angler-hours, with a 95% confidence interval of ± 317 angler-hours.

! Total angler effort estimates for Location 2 were similar to Location 1. A total of 3,535 angler-

hours were estimated for summer and fall 1992 with a 95% confidence interval of ± 769 angler-

hours. Because Location 2 extends for approximately 43 river miles, this results in an angler effort

estimate of 82 angler-hours per river mile.

3.2 Creel Survey

A total of 62 creel survey days were completed on the river. Location 1 was surveyed on 36 days

and Location 2 was surveyed on 29 days. Three of the 62 days were completed on both Location

1 and Location 2. During this time, a total of 85 anglers were interviewed: 41 in Location 1 and

44 in Location 2.

I 3.2.1 Trip Length

Estimates of trip length were based on "previous trip" data collected in the creel survey. These data

were grouped according to location and season (Table 5). The average trip length for anglers who

fished Location 1 was 2.7 hours while the average trip length for Location 2 anglers was 3.0

hours.

1

CbemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25, 1994 Page 12a

I

I

I

i

Table 4. Summary of Angler Effort Calculations Based on Aerial Survey Data

Number of Average Total Daily Angler Effort (Angler hours)

Day Type Days in Season Location 1 Woods Pond Only Location 2

Summer Weekend Day or Holiday 33 37 6 47

Summer Weekday 72 18 8 19

Fall Weekend day or Holiday 38 41 11 26

Fall Weekday 16 4 0 6

Total for Summer and Fall, 1992 159 3,300 926 3,535 95% Lower confidence limit 2,568 609 2,766 95% Upper confidence limit 4,032 1,243 4,305

•I

I

I

ChemRisk* - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Pagel2b

I

I

Table S. Summary of Fishing Durations for Previous Trips to the Housatonic River*

Number Average Duration Standard Location Day-Type of Anglers (hours) Deviation

Location 1 All Days Combined 33 2.7 1.9

Location 2 All Days Combined 37 3.0 1.7

Both Locations All Days Combined 70 2.9 1.8

I a. Data collected from anglers who reported a previous trip.

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

ChemRlsk® • A Dmsion of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 13

3.2.2 Angler Days

A total of 1,222 angler days were calculated for Location 1 based on a total of 3,300 angler hours

and an average trip length of 2.7 hours. For Location 2, a total of 1,178 angler days was estimated, based on a total of 3,535 angler hours and an average trip length of 3.0 hours.

3.2.3 Target Species

Of the 41 anglers interviewed in Location 1, 29 reported that they were targeting one or more

species. All of these anglers reported that they were fishing for bass, while six of them indicated that they were also fishing for trout, and one individual indicated that he was also fishing for pike. Of the 44 individuals who were interviewed in Location 2, 30 reported fishing for one or more target species. Of these, 22 individuals reported fishing for trout and 11 reported fishing for bass.

3.2.4 Species Caught

In Location 1, a total of 122 fish had been caught by the interviewed anglers at the time of the interview, resulting in a catch rate of 3.0 fish per angler. Of the fish caught, 69 percent were bass (including smallmouth, largemouth, and rock), 15 percent were sunfish (including bluegill,

pumpkinseed, and crappie), and seven percent were perch. Other species caught in Location 1 included trout (4 percent), pickerel (2 percent), sucker (2 percent), and fallfish (1 percent). None of the fish caught from Location 1 at the time of the interviews had been retained.

A total of 151 fish had been caught from Location 2 at the time of the interview, resulting in a catch rate of 3.4 fish per angler. Of the fish caught, 46 percent were bass (including rock, smallmouth, and largemouth), 19 percent were sunfish (including pumpkinseed, bluegill, and crappie), 14

percent were trout (including brown trout and brook trout), and 11 percent were perch. Other fish

caught from Location 2 included catfish (4.6 percent), carp (3.3 percent), and fallfish (2.6 percent). Only one of the anglers interviewed had creeled fish he had caught

I

I

I

I

I

1

1

1

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 14

3.2.5 Frequency of Fishing

During the creel survey, anglers were asked to indicate how many months of the year and how

frequently they fished the Housatonic River. In both Locations 1 and 2, anglers fished an average

of five months of the year. In Location 1, the most frequently fished month was August, followed

by July, August, May and September. Eighty percent of the respondents interviewed in Location 1

and 67 percent of anglers interviewed in Location 2 reported that they fished those reaches of the

river one time per week or less.

3.2.6 Fish Consumption

Of the 85 anglers interviewed on the river, 57 individuals had caught fish but only one of these had

retained any of his catch. Although 48 of the anglers interviewed reported that they fish the

Housatonic River more than 10 times per year and catch numerous fish on those trips, only one

individual, who was interviewed in the Glendale area, indicated that he regularly eats fish from the

river. A single fish consumption rate was estimated for that individual using the information

collected during his interview. Because that angler had creeled ten bluegills (total mass of 1,000

g), fished once every three weeks during eight months of the year, and intended to share the

creeled fish with one other individual, his annualized daily consumption rate was estimated as

follows:

CR = 1000 g whole x 0.3 g edible x 0.33 trips x 0.26 x 34 weeks x 1 vear x 1 trip l.Og whole week year 365 days 2 persons

CR = 1.2g/person-day

Although there were a few other individuals who reported that they occasionally eat certain types of

fish from the river, consumption estimates could not be derived for those individuals because they

had not creeled fish for consumption at the time of the interview. However, based on their

interview responses, it is reasonable to conclude that these individuals likely consume lesser

amounts of fish than the angler for whom a consumption estimate was derived, due to the

following reasons.

I

I

I

J

I

i

I

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 15

One angler interviewed at Woods Pond reported that he fishes frequently in both Locations 1 and 2

and that he consumes perch and bullheads when he is able to catch them. At the time this

individual was interviewed, he reported that he was fishing for bass, that he had not yet caught any

fish, and that he had not caught any fish on his previous trip to the Housatonic.

A second individual interviewed at Woods Pond indicated that he occasionally eats trout and that he

eats bass if they are larger than three pounds. At the time of the interview, this angler had caught

five bass but had released them all because they were too small. He indicated that he had caught

fish during a previous trip but had not eaten any of the fish he had caught.

A third individual interviewed at Woods Pond reported that he usually releases the fish he catches

but occasionally will eat them. At the time of the interview in early August, this individual had

caught and released one bluegill. This was his first trip to the Housatonic River in that season, his

previous trip occurring ten months earlier. Thus, he had a considerably lower frequency of fishing

trips.

Finally, one individual who was interviewed in Sheffield, reported that he eats perch and bass

from the river if they are large. He reported that he had taken only two trips to the river at the time

of his interview (July 30), and that he only fishes the river during June, July, and August. Thus,

he also had a much lower frequency of fishing trips.

Because of the low number of consuming anglers who fish the Housatonic River, only a single

rate of fish consumption could be derived from the creel survey. While it cannot be determined

whether this estimated rate is representative of rates of consumption by other consuming

Housatonic River anglers, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the available data for other anglers

sampled in the survey, that this individual represents a high rate consumer.

3.2.7 Consumption of Frogs and Turtles

All of the anglers interviewed were asked whether they ever caught and consumed turtles or frogs

from the Housatonic River basin. Of these anglers, none reported ever eating turtles. One

individual, who was interviewed in the Woods Pond area, reported that he catches enough frogs

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 16

from the river to provide a single meal per year. He stated that he consumes only the legs of the

frogs and that it requires about three dozen frogs to make a single meal.

I

I

I

i

1

I

I

I

I

1

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25, 1994 Page 17

4.0 DISCUSSION

The survey results indicate a moderate level of fishing pressure on the Housatonic River. It is

estimated that the average trip lengths for Locations 1 and 2 were 2.7 and 3.0 hours, respectively.

This compares favorably with creel survey data from other freshwater riverine fisheries. In

evaluating fishing effort in the upper Columbia River near Hanford Washington, Soldat (1970)

reported that the average fishing trip was 2.7 hours in duration. In a creel survey of the West

Branch Penobscot River fishery in Maine (ChemRisk, 199la), it was estimated that the average

angler day was 3.0 hours in length.

The level of angler effort per river mile varies substantially between Locations 1 and 2. Within

Location 1, angler effort was estimated as 236 angler-hours per river mile over the whole reach,

and 926 angler-hours per river mile within Woods Pond. In contrast, within Location 2

downstream of Woods Pond Dam, the effort was estimated as 82 angler-hours per river mile. The

difference between the two Locations can likely be attributed to accessibility. Woods Pond and its

headwaters are easily accessible due to two public boat launch areas, whereas downstream of

Woods Pond Dam, access is more limited. Privately owned pasture land and agricultural land abut

much of the river and so that access is limited to roadside areas.

The Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic River is small and shallow, with a slow flow, limited

accessibility, and numerous backwater areas, particularly upstream of Woods Pond. There are no

published creel survey statistics on other New England rivers with which to compare estimates of

effort. However, a creel survey conducted of the Saco River in Maine (unpublished data,

ChemRisk, 1991b) provides a point of comparison. Although the Saco River is similar to the

Housatonic in that it is relatively slow moving and winds through pasture land, it is substantially

deeper and more than twice the width of the Housatonic River between Pittsfield and Connecticut.

There are numerous boat launch areas and public park lands on the river providing a substantially

higher level of access than exists for the Housatonic.

Angler effort on the Saco River was estimated to be approximately 431 angler-hours per river mile.

If one combines all of Locations 1 and 2 in estimating angler effort, this results in an average effort

of 120 angler-hours per/river mile between Pittsfield and the Connecticut border. This is roughly

I

I

I

I

ChemRisk® • A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 18

28 percent of the effort demonstrated on the Saco River; this appears reasonable given the smaller

size and limited access available on the Housatonic.

These data also suggest that the vast majority of anglers on the Housatonic River between Pittsfield

and the Connecticut border practice catch and release fishing. Only three of the anglers interviewed

in Location 1 and two anglers interviewed in Location 2 reported that they ever consume fish from

the river. Four of those anglers indicated that consumption occurs on an infrequent basis.

The only angler interviewed who had creeled fish that he intended to consume was interviewed in

the Glendale area of Location 2, below Woods Pond Dam. It is estimated that this individual's rate

of consumption from the Housatonic River was 1.2 g/d. While it cannot be determined whether

this single consumption estimate is representative of fish ingestion rates for other consuming

Housatonic River anglers, it does appear reasonable to conclude, for the reasons given in Section

3.2.6, that this estimate represents the fish consumption rate of a relatively high rate fish consumer

from this stretch of the Housatonic. Moreover, this calculated consumption rate is consistent with

the consumption rates derived by Ebert et al. (1993) for anglers of freshwater river fish in Maine

(median value of 0.99 g/d), and with the rates derived by ChemRisk (1991a) for West Branch

Penobscot River anglers (median ranging from 0.49 to 1.3 g/d). It is also consistent with the

EPA's estimated range of 1.2 to 4.1 g/d for small waterbodies (EPA, 1992).

Although this survey only collected data for a portion of the year (late May through October), it is

believed that these data are generally representative of activities occurring at the time of year of

greatest fishing effort. Data collected in the creel survey of the West Branch Penobscot River

(ChemRisk, 199la) indicated that 50 percent of all angler trips to the river between April 1 and

September 30 occurred during the months of June (30 percent) and July (20 percent). The percent

of anglers was lower in May and August with the lowest number of anglers, 10 percent, observed

during each of the months of April and September. This survey demonstrated that the highest

levels of activity generally occur during the early summer months.

None of the anglers interviewed reported that they ever consumed turtles from the Housatonic River. Thus it appears that the consumption of turtles harvested from the river is highly unlikely. While one individual did report that he collects and consumes frogs from the river, he indicated that

I

I

I

j1

1

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25,1994 Page 19

he only consumes one meal per year. It is unlikely that one meal of frogs from the river per year

represents an exposure pathway of concern.

The lack of consumption of turtles and the extremely limited consumption of fish or frogs from the

Housatonic River indicate that there is not likely to be a subsistence population that relies upon

biota from the river for food. While some interviewed anglers indicated that they fished the river

with some frequency, none of the highest frequency anglers reported that they consumed any of

the fish they caught Rather, these anglers appear to practice catch and release fishing on the

Housatonic. Of all of the 85 anglers interviewed, only 5 individuals reported that they ever

consume fish from the river and, of those, only one had actually creeled fish for consumption

during the course of the survey.

The results of this survey indicate that the amount of fishing effort on the Housatonic River is

moderate and reasonable given the size of the river and the availability of access. While a number

of anglers reported that they fish the river regularly, none of the highest frequency anglers reported

that they consume fish from the river. These data thus indicate that nearly all anglers interviewed

on the river fish for sport rather than for food.

I

I

I

1

J

I •

!

I

ChemRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25, 1994 Page 20

5.0 REFERENCES

ChemRisk. 1991a. Creel Survey for the West Branch of the Penobscot River. ChemRisk - A Division of McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering. Portland, ME.

ChemRisk. 199Ib. Creel Survey for the Saco River. ChemRisk - A Division of McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering. Portland, ME.

Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and C.A. Bisogni. 1992. Effects of the Health Advisory Changes on Fishing Habits and Fish Consumption in New York Sport Fisheries. Human Dimension Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Femow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Report for the New York Sea Grant Institute Project NO. R/FHD-2-PD. September.

Ebert, E.S., N.W. Harrington, KJ. Boyle, J.W. Knight, and R.E. Keenan. 1993. Estimating consumption of freshwater fish among Maine anglers. North Am. J. Fisheries Management. 13(4):737-745

Eitzer, B. 1993. Comparison of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p­dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans to Sediments of the Housatonic River. Environmental Science and Technology 27:1632-1637.

EPA. 1989. Assessing human health risks from chemically contaminated fish and shellfish: a guidance manual. EPA-503/8-89-002, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.

EPA. 1992. Estimating exposure to dioxin-like compounds. EPA/600/6-88/005B, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August

Fiore, B. Jones, H.A. Anderson, L.P. Hanrahan, L.J. Olson, and W.C. Sonzogni. 1989. Sport fish consumption and body burden levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons: A study of Wisconsin anglers. Arch. Environ. Health 44(2):82-88.

Honstead, J.F., T.M. Beetle, and J.K. SoldaL 1971. A Statistical Study of the Habits of Local Fisherman and Its Application to Evaluation of Environmental Dose. A Report to the Environmental Protection Agency by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. (cited in Rupp, 1980).

Javitz, H. 1980. Seafood Consumption Data Analysis. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. EPA Contract 68-01-3887. September 24.

Landolt, M.L., F.R. Hafer, A. Nevissi, G. van Belle, KL Van Ness, and C. Rockwell. 1985. Potential Toxicant Exposure Among Consumers of Recreationally Caught Fish from Urban

Embayments ofPuget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 23. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.

I

I

I

!

ChcmRisk® - A Division of McLaren/Hart March 25.1994 Page 21

Malvestuto, S.P. 1983. Sampling the recreational fishery. In: Fisheries Techniques. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Besthesda, MD. L. Nielsen and D. Johnson, (eds). pp. 400-423.

NYSDEC. 1990. New York Statewide Angler Survey 1988. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. April.

Pao, E.M., K.H. Fleming, P.M. Guenther, and S.J. Mickle. 1982. Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals: Amount Per Day and Per Eating Occasion. U.S. Department of Agriculture. March.

Pierce, D., D. Noviello and S. Rogers. 1981. Commencement Bay Seafood Consumption Study. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Seattle, WA. December.

Puffer, H.W., S.P. Azen, M.J. Duda, and D.R. Young. 1981. Consumption Rates of Potentially Hazardous Marine Fish Caught in the Metropolitan Los Angeles Area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, University of Southern California School of Medicine for Environmental Research Laboratory, Wahington, D.C. Grant No. R 807 120010.

Rupp, E.M., F.L. Miller, and C.F. Baes. 1980. Some results of recent surveys of fish and shellfish consumption by age and region of U.S. residents. Health Physics 39:165-175.

Soldat, J.K. 1970. A statistical study of the habits of fishermen utilizing the Columbia River below Hanford. Chapter 25. In: Environmental Surveillance In the Vicinity of Nuclear Facilities: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Health Physics Society. January 24-26, 1968. William C. Reinig (eds.), Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 302-308.

Stewart et al. 1980. Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Volume 1 Final Report.. Stewart Laboratories, Inc. Knoxville, TN.

Turcotte, M-D.S. 1983. Georgia Fishery Study: Implications for Dose-Calculations. DuPont de Nemrus & Co., Arkeu, SC. Sponsored by Department of Energy, Washington, DC. DE86-008041. Augusts.

West, P.C., J.M. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989. Michigan Sport Anglers Fish Consumption Survey. Supplement II: Test for Stability of Consumption Rates Over Time. Michigan Toxic Substance Control Commission. October.

1