# CONSUMPTION OF

# FRESHWATER FISH 

# BY MAINE ANGLERS 

# RE Keenan ChiefHealth Scientist McLarenHart 

### ChemRisk® Portland Maine 

## USA
J

# W Knight Environ Scientist McLarenHart 

### ChemRisk® Portland Maine 

## USA 

# ABSTRACT ES Ebert Senior Health Scientist McLarenHart 

### ChemRisk® Portland Maine 

## USA 

# N

# W Harrington Environ Scientist McLarenHart 

### ChemRisk® Portland Maine 

## USA

In deriving a water quality standard that is protective of

## human health it is essential that realistic estimates of

### exposure be used For lipid

### soluble chemicals like 

### 2378tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin the 

### most important potential route of 

## human exposure is through direct ingestion offish Historically it has been stated that recreational anglersincur the greatest potential for 

### exposure due to their 

### presumed high levels of fish

### consumption 

## However a 

### number of sitespecific factors including species 

### preference availability 

### access length of fishing 

### season and cultural heritage 

### can greatly influence rates of freshwater fish 

### consumption within a single region ofthe United States It is inappropriate togeneralize 

### by applying a fish 

### consumption estimate 

### fromone region of the country to another region for the 

### purpose of deriving statespecific 

### water quality regulations as there is a potential to severely overestimate or 

### underestimate actual rates 

### of consumption 

## To avoid this deficiency astatewide mail survey 

### was undertaken to characterize current rates of freshwater fish 

### consumption by 

## Maines resident recreational anglers Results of the survey indicate that 

### consumption of freshwater fish is considerably lower in 

### Maine than has 

### been reported for other regions of the 

### country Findings of the study confirm that state orregionspecific estimates offish 

### consumption should be

### developed for use in establishing water quality regulations that are based 

### on the protection of

## human health 

# KEYWORDS 

# 2378TCDD dioxin fish 

### consumption water quality 

# INTRODUCTION

In recent 

### years a 

## number of states 

### have derived 

### ambient water quality standards for 

# 2378 tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin 

# TCDD using 

# EPAs 1984 default 

### value of 

## 65 gday for fish 

### consumption This 

### value used by the 

## EPA 1984 indeveloping its 

### AmbientWater Quality Criteria for 

# TCDD is a national percapita fish

### consumption rate 

### which includes all 

### commercially harvested and recreationally

### caught freshwater 

### and estuarine fish 

### and shellfish 

# EPA 1989a While this

### consumption rate 

## may be reasonable for certain regions of the 

### counts where

# TCDD affects 

### commercial freshwater 

### and estuarine fisheries 

### fromwhich fish are harvested for distribution to the general population it is not an appropriate rate for states in 

### which there are 

### no commercial fisheries 

### on impacted inland waters

In the state of

## Maine 

# TCDD hasonly 

### been detected in fish tissues collected 

### from certain 

### nonestuarine reaches 

### of a 

### few 

## warmwater rivers in the state 

### Because Maine has 

### no commercial fisheries 

### on the rivers potentially 

### impacted fish are not available to the general population but rather are only available to anglers 

## who fish these 

### waters and those individuals

## who share in theirharvest 

### Because this 

### was the only population potentially

### impacted by fish 

### from these rivers it 

### was believed that a region or statespecific estimate of

### consumption offreshwater fish 

### from rivers should 

### be used a the basis for a water quality standard for

# TCDD in 

### Maine

Published studies that specifically investigate or estimate freshwater fish 

### consumption in 

### Maine are nonexistent 

## The fish 

### consumption data that are available in the scientific literature are based 

### on national surveys or are specific to other regions of the country 

## Rupp et 

## al 1980 Humphrey 1978 Parsons et

## al 1991 Puffer et 

## al 1981 Pierce et 

## al 1981 Javitz 

## 1980 Honstead et 

## al 

# 1971 Many surveys 

## make no distinction 

### between the 

### consumption of commerciallyharvested and recreationally

### harvested fish 

### Javitz 

## 1980 

# EPA 1989a The mostfrequently used estimates offish 

### consumption are 

### of limited use for estimating freshwater fish 

### consumption from Maine rivers 

### because they are either 

### based on marine studies 

### Puffer et 

## al 1981 Pierce et 

## al 1981 orinclude a
1992 Environmental Conference 895combination ofboth saltwater 

### and freshwater species 

### and do not 

### consider the sources 

### of the fish 

### consumed in the diet 

### Javitz 

## 1980

# EPA 1989a Furthermore the useoffreshwater fish

### consumption studies 

### from one region of the 

# US may overestimate or underestimate the 

### consumption of freshwater fish in another region of the country as differences in preferred species availability access length offishing season 

### and cultural heritage 

### can greatly influence freshwater fish 

### consumption in a particular 

### region 

## Due to lack 

### of relevant data pertaining to 

### consumption of freshwater species 

### from rivers in 

### Maine orthe northeastern 

### United States a statewide 

### mail survey of licensed resident anglers 

### was undertaken 

## The purpose of this study 

### was to characterize the rates offreshwater fish 

### consumption by 

## Maines resident 

### anglers This study 

### was modeled after earliersurveysconducted 

### on behalf of the 

### Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 

### and Wildlife 

# IFW Boyle et 

## al 1989 These 

## IFW surveys assessed angler effort 

## The present investigation 

## was designed to 

### determine what amount and proportion of the fish catch harvested 

### from 

## Maines inland waters is 

### consumed daily 

### by licensed anglers 

# METHODS

Survey design 

### and implementation 

## A statewide mail survey 

### was developed with the assistance 

### of 

# HBRS in 

## Madison Wisconsin resource economists at the University of

## Maine and fisheries biologists 

### with 

# IFW A pretest 

### of the survey 

### was conducted in order to evaluate 

### whether respondents had difficulty in 

### understanding or responding to 

### any of the survey questions 

### Based on responses gathered in telephone interviews in the pretest

### and a

### review ofthe returned pretest

### surveys final revisions to the survey

### were

## made
The sample population consisted of

### Maine residents holding a valid 

### Maine fishing license in 

## 1989 

# A
total of

## 2500 surveys

### were mailedto 

### Maine resident anglers 

### whose names were randomly selected 

### from the 

### 1989 license files of

# IFW Because 

## IFW license files for 

### 1990 were incomplete at the time that the 

### samplewas selected 

### names were randomlyselected 

### from the complete 

### 1989

## IFW files ofresident fishing licenses 

## As open water fishing season for 

### most Maine waters closes 

### September 

## 30 surveys 

### were mailed in 

### midOctober of 

### 1990 Postcards 

### were sent 

### one 

## week later thanking those 

## who had already returned the 

### survey and asking those 

## who had not yet returned the survey to 

### do so 

## On November 

# 7 1990 a 

### followup survey packet 

## was mailed to 

### 1111 anglers 

## who had not yet 

### responded and the recipients 

### were asked to 

### complete and return the survey 

### by December

# 3 1990
Data Analysis 

# A numerical coding scheme 

## was used to record responses to each question in the mail

### survey Each returned survey 

### was translated to 

### numeric values 

### and edited 

### and the 

### numeric values 

### were then entered into a data base using the 

## SPSSPC

# V31 + Data Entry II 

### Program

# SPSS 1989 To verify that all data 

### were entered correctly each 

### completed survey 

## was entered twice 

### and the results 

## compared Response frequencies 

### were constructed for 

### each survey question as a final 

### check for data entry 

### accuracy Anglers were asked to report the 

## number of

### each species of fish 

### caught during the 

## 19891990 ice fishing season 

### and 1990 open water 

### season For those fish caught during

### open water

### season anglers 

### were asked to report

### and differentiate 

### between fish obtained 

### from standing waters 

### lakes and 

## ponds and those obtained 

### from flowing waters rivers 

### and 

## streams Of the total fish 

### caught anglers 

### were asked to estimate the total 

### number of fish 

### and the average length of 

### each fish that 

### was eventually 

## consumed In addition to those fish caught 

### by the responding angler the respondents 

### were also asked to describe the 

## number species 

### and average length of

### each 

## consumed fish 

### which 

## was obtained 

### from other 

## members of the 

### respondents household and from individuals outside of the 

### household
For analytical 

### purposes the population of interest 

### was defined as all respondents 

## who fished in either the 

## 19891990 ice fishing or 

### 1990 open water fishing 

### seasons and all respondents 

## who did not fish in either 

### season but 

## consumed Maine freshwater fish caught 

### by eitheranother 

## member of the 

### respondents household or

### by someone outside the respondents 

### household Respondents were also asked to report the 

### number ofother freshwater fish 

### consumer living in the 

### respondents household
The ice fishing season 

## may include the 

### end of

### one calendar year

### and the beginning ofthe next calendar 

### year 

## As it 

### was believed that ice fishermen

### would likely recall the season as a 

### whole rather than just
896 TAPPI Proceedingsthat portion occurring in 

## 1990 anglers 

### were asked about the entire 

## 19891990 ice fishing 

### season It 

### was assumed that the frequency 

### and success 

### of ice fishing trips in the late Fall 

### and early

### Winter of

### 1989 would be representative of trips to 

### be taken in the late Fall 

### and early

### Winter of 

## 1990 Therefore to avoid duplication anglers

### were not asked to estimate ice fishing trips planned forthe late Fall of

### 1990
Because 

## some Maine waters are 

### open for limited fishing until 

### October 

## 31 respondents 

### were asked whether they 

### planned to

## make any additional 

### open water fishing nips

### between the date ofcompletion of the survey 

### and the 

### end of 

### October a period of

### no more than 

### two 

## weeks If they did plan future trips they 

### were asked to indicate 

## how many future trips 

### were planned
Each respondent 

## was asked to report 

## how many fishing trips 

### had been 

## made to ice fishing standing 

### water and flowing water locations 

### during the 

### season 

## The total 

## number of reported trips 

### was calculated foreach angler as

### was the ratio oftrips to flowing waters to trips to standing waters 

### and ice fishing locations Future 

### consumption from all waters 

### and from flowing waters 

### was estimated 

### by assuming that

### consumption from future trips 

### would be directly proportional to reported 

### consumption fromcompleted trips Estimating Fish 

### Consumption Rates


### The total 

### massoffreshwater fish

### consumed by each 

### respondents household 

## was estimated 

### from the respondent

### provided information 

### on quantity 

### and average length of

### each consumed fish species 

### For 

## example the equation 

### used to estimate the 

### mass of freshwater fish

### consumed from ice fishing sources is presented 

## below 

# IMC = 

## QI x 10tCi +

## n log 

## LI x

# 0 x

# EP
where 

# 1MC = Total 

### massoffreshwater fish species i 

### consumed by angler 

### and household 

### from Maine ice fishing sources

# g QI = Quantity of fish species i 

## consumed from 

## Maine ice fishing sources 

# C = Constant in 

## lengthmass relationship forspecies i 

## log 

# g ni 

## LI



# EP = Slope in 

### lengthmass relationship forspecies i 

## logglog

# mm Average length 

### of 

## consumed freshwater fishspecies i 

### from Maine ice fishing sources 

# in conversion factor

# 254

# mmin Fraction of

### whole fish 

### mass that is edible forspecies i

# g consumedg whole fish


### For each fish species the 

### mass of

### each fish 

### was estimated 

### from the lengths reported 

### byeach angler using a standard length to 

## mass relationship expressed as a linearregression based 

### on logarithms 

### Nielsen and Johnson 

## 1983 Cone 

## 1989
log

# W
=

## C+n

## Log

# L

The parameters 

## C and n are speciesspecific constants 

### The exact value ofn is 

### dependent on the shape ofthe fish

## however it usually approximates 3 

### Nielsen and Johnson 

## 1983 The exact value of 

### each parameter is affected 

### by several variables including 

### season the type of

### waterbody in

### which the fish resides the 

### sex age 

### and sexual maturity ofthe fish 

### Because these parameters can vary 

### widely the relationshipfora particular species in a given river 

### lake or stream is 

### mostprecisely determined 

### by site specific sampling 

### and measurement
Forseveral species constants relating length to 

### mass were taken 

### from logarithmic regression equations specific to the state of

## Maine These constants 

### were obtained 

### from

## IFW and were derived 

### from length 

### and mass measurements compiled over several years 

### from numerous Maine rivers 

### and lakes 

### For those species for

### which Maine specific equations 

### were not available the 

### most appropriate relationship 

### was selected 

### from those reported in the available literature 

### Carlander

## 1969 

## 1977 Using the length

## mass relationship yields the 

### mass of the 

### whole fish based 

### on its length 

### Because not all of the fish is 

### edible it 

## was necessary to characterize the relationship 

### between the 

### mass of a 

### whole fish 

### and that portion considered to be edible 

### The 

## EPA 1989b recommends that 

### 30 percent be 

### used to estimate the edible portion of finfish Specific studies 

### were undertaken to determine the edible portion of

### smallmouth bass 

### and landlocked 

### salmon in 

### Maine 

## Ebert 

## 1991a In these 

### Maine studies the edible portion 

### was defined as being 

## synonymous with fillet 

### size Although it is recognized that a 

### number offish species 

## may not be

1992Environmental Conference 897filleted overall the use offillet data is a reasonable estimator forthe edible portion of the fish


### For smallmouth bass collected 

### from two 

## Maine rivers the 

## mean edible portion 

## was approximately 

### 30 percent of the 

### whole fish 

### mass 

## Ebert 1991a Landlocked salmon demonstrated a 

## mean edible portion of 

### 37 percent 

## Ebert 

## 1991a Based on recommendations by

## EPA1989b and the results of the 

## Mainespecific studies 

## Ebert 1991a conservative edible portions of 

### 40 percent for landlocked 

### salmon and Atlantic 

### salmon and 30 percent for all other species except smelt 

### were selected to estimate 

### consumable 

## mass Forsmelta higher edible portion estimate 

### of78 percent 

### was used Selection of this higher multiplier

### was based on the 

### knowledge that

## somesmelt 

### consumers eat all butthe 

### head of the fish while others

### do not eat the viscera orthe 

### head Data on the relative weight of 

### head and viscera as recorded during the analysesof landlocked 

### salmon edible portion 

## Ebert 

## 1991b were used to estimate the edible portion forsmelt


### The freshwater fish 

### massconsumed from Maine ice fishing sources 

### by the angler 

### and his or her 

### household was then calculated as the 

## sum of

## IMCi over the fifteen species 

### Analogous equations 

### were developed forcalculating 

### consumption from lakes 

### and 

## ponds rivers 

### and streams other 

### household sources and nonhousehold sources based on reported quantities 

### and lengths of fish 

### consumed fromeach ofthese sources


### For those 

### 88 respondents indicating that future fishing trips 

### were planned the freshwater fish 

### consumption rate 

### from these future trips 

### was estimated on the plausible 

### assumption that 

### consumption of fish 

### from future trips 

### would be proportional to 

### consumption from trips already 

### completed and reported 

## The average daily 

### freshwater fish 

### reported consumption rate 

### from all 

## Maine sources for individual 

## members of a 

### respondents household was computed by 

## summingthe source specific 

### and computed future 

### mass of fish 

### consumed and then dividing 

### by household size using the following equation

## FCA = 

# IMCT +

# SMCT +

# FMCT + 

# HMCT +

# OMCT +

# MCF x 

## 1HS x

## 1T where 

## FCA = 

## IMCT =


# SMCT =


# FMCT =


# HMCT=


# OMCT =


# MCF =



## HS = 

# T= Freshwater fish 

### consumption from
all 

### Maine sources 

## gpersonday Total 

## mass of freshwater fish 

### consumed from Maine ice fishing sources

# g Total 

## mass of freshwater fish 

## consumed from 

## Maine standing water sources

# g Total 

## mass of 

## consumed from water sources

# g Total 

## mass of 

## consumed from
sources

# g Total 

## mass of freshwater fish 

## consumed from other 

## non household Maine sources

# g Total 

## mass of 

### freshwater fish estimated to 

### be 

## consumed from future fishing trips

# g Number of persons in 

### anglers household reported to 

## consume freshwater fish

## persons Time over 

## which fish 

## was consumed 

## 365 days freshwater fish 

## Maine flowing
freshwater fish other 

### household

Household size 

## was calculated as the 

### number of 

### persons in the 

### anglers household 

## who were reported to eat the freshwater fish

### caught 

## The mass of fish 

### consumed per 

### household 

## member was then divided 

### by 365 days to yield an annualized 

### per person per

## day fish 

### consumption estimate

Estimates of freshwater fish 

### consumption from flowing water only 

### were computed using a similar 

## method Future 

### consumption attributable toflowing waters 

## was estimated 

### by multiplying the future 

### consumption estimated for all sources 

### by the ratio of the 

## number of fishing trips reported for flowing waters to the total 

### number offishing trips reported 

### The portion of

### consumption from other 

### household and nonhousehold sources attributable to flowing waters 

### was estimated based 

### on the ratio ofreported 

### consumption from flowing water to reported 

### consumption from ice fishing standing 

### water and flowing water

### combined 

# RESULTS A total of 

## 1612 surveys 

### were completed and returned 

## Of these 

## 1369 reported 

### having fished during the 

## 198990 ice fishing season orthe 

### 1990

898 TAPPI Proceedings

### open water season or 

### having 

## consumed Maine freshwater fish caught duringthe 

## 19891990 season 

# A total of

## 1251 respondents reported 

### having fished during either the ice fishing season orthe 

### open water 

### season or 

### both 

## Of the 

### 599 individuals 

## who indicated that they 

### had gone ice fishing 

### 508 

## 85 percent reported 

### having caught fish 

## Ofthe 

## 1127 individuals 

## who went open water fishing 

## 1053 reported 

### having fished in 

### ponds or lakes 

### and 745 reported having fished in streams

### and rivers

# A total of 

### 976 individuals 

## 87 percent reported 

### having caught fish 

### on at least 

### one open water fishing trip duringthe 

### 1990 season While 352 respondents did not fish in either

### season 109 ofthese did

### consume freshwater fish 

### from other 

## Maine sources These 109

### respondents with the 

### 1251 

## who fished in 

## 1989 

## 90 made up the 

## 1369 anglers defined as the population of interest 

## Due to the large 

### sample size statistical analysis 

### was conducted without 

### assuming a distributional 

## model Table 1 presents the 

### median 50th percentile 

### 66th 

## 75th 90th and 95th percentiles 

### which were calculated 

### by rank to 

### summarizefish 

### consumption rates 

## Consumption of fish 

### caught in all types of waterbodies including 

### lakes 

## ponds streams 

### and rivers is 

### designated as 

## All Waters whereas consumption of fish 

### from flowing waters only is designated as 

### Rivers and 

## Streams Within the

## All 

## Waters category there are 

### two subgroups identified 

## All Anglers representing the total 

### respondent population of interest 

### and their 

## households including non

## consumers and 

## Consuming Anglers representing fish

## consuming angler 

### households only In addition to the 

## All Anglers and 

## Consuming Anglers designations within the 

## Rivers and 

## Streams category a third 

### subgroup was identified This 

### group designated as 

## River Anglers includes 

### survey respondents consumersand non

## consumers who indicated that theyfished 

### on rivers or streams at least 

### once during the 

### 1990 open water 

### season or

## who consumed fish attributable to rivers 

### and streams


### The median consumption rate for All Anglers 

### from All 

### Waters was 

## 11 gday while the 75th percentile forthis 

### group was

## 42gday and the 95th percentile 

### was 21 

## gday Median consumption for

### Consuming Anglers

### was 

## 20gday with a 75th percentile of 

## 58 gday and a95th percentile of

### 26

## gday Forflowing waters 

### only the 

### median consumption rate for all anglers

### consuming and not

### consuming was 0

## gday with a 75th percentile 

### of

## 037 gday and a 95th percentile 

### of

## 44 gday For all 

### River Anglers including consumers and non

## consumers the 

### median consumption rate 

### was 0 

## gday with a 75th percentile of

## 081 gday and a95th percentile of

## 57 

## gday For 

## Consuming Anglers only the 

### median consumption rate 

## was 

## 099 gday with a 75th percentile of

## 25 gday and a 95th percentile of 12 

## gday 

# DISCUSSION

The 

## EPA has stated that 

## whenever possible data 

### on local 

### consumption patterns should 

### be collected or obtained 

### from a current 

### database 

# EPA 1989b This survey 

### was undertaken in 

### an effort to provide information 

### on the freshwater fish 

### consumption habits of 

### Maine anglers 

## The results of this study 

### provide the 

### most accurate 

### and only 

## known characterization of freshwater fish 

### consumption habits 

### by Maines anglers 

# A significant finding of this survey is that 

## many anglers

### do not

### consume any freshwater fish

## Twenty three percent of all anglers surveyed reported that they 

### consumed no freshwater fish caught in 

## 1990 Fiftyfive percent of the river anglers 

### surveyed reported that they ate 

### no freshwater fish during the 

### 1990 season

In this 

### statewide mail 

## survey the 

## median consumption rate for all anglers 

### and for river anglers 

### on flowing 

### waters including 

### non

## consumers was 0 

## gday while the 

### median for 

### consuming anglers 

### on flowing waters 

### was 

## 099 

## gday For all 

### waterbody types the 

### median for all anglers 

### was 11 

## gday and the 

### median for 

### consuming anglers only 

### was 

## 20 gday

It is 

### important to note that 

### because the fish 

### consumption rates are positively 

### skewed rather than symmetricallydistributed the arithmetic 

## mean is not the 

### most appropriate descriptive 

### measure of the center of the distribution 

## The median or 50th percentile is a 

## more physically relevant central tendency 

### measure fora

### skewed dataset as 

### 50 percent of

### consumption rate estimates lie 

### above the 

### median and 50 percent fall 

### below the 

## median Thus the 

### median values 

### provide the 

### most representative 

### consumption rate estimate for 

### each of the angler populations

It is likely that these fish

### consumption rates

## may be overestimated 

### due to survey biases 

### Chase and

1992 Environmental Conference 899

### Harada 

# 1984 have reported that participants responding to selfreport surveys tend to overreport their actual participation in recreational activities Similar results 

### were reported 

### by Soldat

## 1970 in his survey of

### Columbia River anglers In a study 

### done forthe

# US Fish 

### and Wildlife Service 

### Westat Inc 

# 1989 reported that a 

## oneyear recall 

### period produced substantial 

### overestimates of fishing statistics 

### Westat Inc 

# 1989 stated that factors that can affect reporting include the length ofthe recall 

### period the frequency ofthe fishing trips interest in or

### importance ofthe activity to the individual 

### and the perceived social desirability 

### of the activity Similarbiases 

### have been reported in other studiesof recreational activities 

# Ghosh 1978 Chase 

## Godbey 

## 1983 The results 

### of this 

### survey indicate that the 

### consumption of freshwater fish 

### by

## Maines anglers is 

## low The consumption rate estimates for the 

### median consumers in each ofthe angler groups

### were well 

### below the 

# EPAs 1984 recommended per capita estimate of

## 65 giday In fact the 

# EPAs estimate represents the 

### 96th percentile 

### of consumption for all river anglers 

### and the 

### 92nd percentile of

### consuming river anglers Results of this study indicate that rates 

### ofconsumption of freshwater fish 

### from

## Maines rivers are considerably lower than those 

### from 

## Maines lakes 

### and ponds or 

### from rivers in other regions ofthe 

### country

900 TAPPI ProceedingsTable 

## 1 Analysis ofFish Consumption Rates

All Watersa Rivers and Streams 1

All Consuming All River Consuming Anglersc Anglersd Anglersc Anglers e Anglersd 

## N ofCases 1369 1053 1369 745 464

Median 50th percentilefg 11 

### 20 0 

### 028 099

66th percentile fg 

### 26 

## 40 0 

### 085 18

75th percentile fg 

### 42 58 037 14 25

Arithmetic 

### Mean f 

### 50 64 12 23 37

Percentile atthe

### Mean g 79 77 85 83 81

90th percentile fg 11 13 

### 21 42 61

95th percentile fg 21 26 

### 44 67 12

Percentile at

### 65gday gh 83 77 97 95 92

a All Waters based on fishobtained from all lakes ponds streams and rivers inMaine from other household sources and from other
nonhousehold sources 

## b Rivers andStreams based on fishcaught onlyfrom rivers and streams inMaine 

### c All Anglers includes survey respondents consumers and nonconsumers who fished during the 19891990 ice fishing or 1990 open water seasons as well as those anglers who did not fish but reported consuming freshwater fish caught from Maine sources during those
seasons 

## d Consuming Anglers refers to only those anglers who consumed freshwater fish obtained from Maine sources during the 19891990 ice fishing or 1990 open water fishing season 

### e River Anglers is a subset ofAll Anglers River Anglers includes survey respondents consumers and nonconsumers who indicated that they fishedon rivers or streams during the 1990 open water season f Fish consumption rates areexpressed ingpersonday and are the average consumption perday byfreshwater fishconsumers in the household Fish consumption rates underAll Waters arebased on reported consumptionfrom all Maine sources and estimated consumption during 1990 after the survey was completed Rates summarizedunder Rivers andStreams arebased on reported consumption from rivers and streams estimated consumption during 1990 after the survey was completed and estimated consumption from other household and nonhousehold sources attributable to rivers and streams 

### g Calculated by rank without any assumption of statistical distribution 

## h Fish consumption rate recommended by

### EPA1984 for use in establishing ambientwater quality standard

1992 Environmental Conference 901

# REFERENCES
1 

# KJ Boyle

# ML Phillips 

### and

# SD Reiling 

## Department of Agricultural and Resource 

## Economics Staff 

### Paper Series in 

### Resource Economics Highlights fromthe 

### Survey ofAnglers 

### Holding a 

### 1987 Maine Fishing 

### License 

# ARE 398 June 

# 1989 2 

# DR Chase and

# M Harada Journal ofLeisure 

## Research Response Error in Self

## Reported Recreation Participation 15

# 4 322329 

# 1984 3 

# DR Chase and

# GCGodbey Leisure 

### Studies 

## Research note 

## The Accuracy of Self

### Reported Participation 

## Rates Vol

# 2 231235 

# 1983 Cited in

# USFWS 1989 4 

# RS Cone Trans

# Am Fish 

## Soc

# The Need to 

### Reconsider the 

## Use of Condition Indices in Fishery

### Science 

## 118 

## 510514 

# 1989 5 

# ES Ebert Edible Portion of

### Smallmouth Bass Landlocked Salmon and White Perch 

### from Maine Rivers 

## Memorandum from

# ES Ebert to Project file January 

## 11 1991a 

## 6 

# ES Ebert Analysis of Fish

### from the 

### Penobscot River 

## Memorandum to the Project File 

### March 

## 22 199

## lb 

## 7 

# EPAAmbientWater Quality Criteria for

# 2378 tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin Office of 

### Water Regulations 

### and Standards

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency Washington 

# DC EPA440584007 1984 

## 8 

# EPA Exposure Factors 

## Handbook Office of 

### Health and Environmental 

## Assessment 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency Washington 

# DC EPA600889043 July 1989a 

# 9 

# EPA Assessing 

## Human Health Risks 

### from Chemically Contaminated Fish 

### and Shellfish 

# A Guidance 

## Manual 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency Office 

### ofMarine and Estuarine Protection Office 

### of 

## Water Regulations and Standards Washington

# DC EPA

# 503889002 September 1989b 

## 10

# DN Ghosh Optional Recall for Discrete 

## Events American Statistical 

### Association 1978 Proceedings of the Section 

### on Survey Research 

## Methods 

## 615616 1978 Cited as

## Ghosh 1977 in 

# USFWS 1989 11

# JF Honstead

# TM Beetle and

# JKSoldat 

# A Statistical 

### Study ofthe Habits 

### of Local Fishermen and Its Application to Evaluation of

### Environmental 

## Dose 

# A Report to the 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency by Battelle Pacific 

### Northwest Laboratories 

### Richland

# WA 1971 12

# HEB Humphrey Private 

## Communication 1978 Cited in

## Rupp et

## al 

## 1980 13

# H Javitz 

### Seafood Consumption Data Analysis SRI International Final report prepared forOffice 

### of 

## Water Regulations and Standards 

# US Environmental Protection 

## Agency Washington 

# DC EPA Contract 

## 68013887 1980 Cited in 

# EPA 1989a 14 

# LA Nielsen and 

# DL Johnson Fisheries 

### Techniques American Fisheries 

### Society Bethesda 

## 1983 15

# AH Parsons

# SL Huntley

# ES Ebert

# ER Algeo and 

# RE Keenan Chemosphere Risk Assessment for 

### Dioxin in 

### Columbia River 

## Fish 

## 231112 17091717 

# 1991 16

# RS Pierce

# DT Noviello and

# SH Rogers 

## Commencement Bay Seafood Consumption Report Preliminary 

### Report 

## Tacoma

# WA Tacoma Pierce County Health 

### Department 1981 

## 17

# H Puffer Consumption Rates of Potentially 

### Hazardous Marine Fish

### Caught in the Metropolitan 

### Los Angeles 

## Area 

## EPA Grant

# R807 120010 1981 18

# EM Rupp 

# FL Miller and 

# ICF Baes Health Physics 

# Some Results of 

### Recent Surveys Fish 

### and Shellfish

### Consumption by

## Age and Region of

# US Residents 

## 39 165175 

# 1980

902 TA

## PPProceedings

## 19

# JKSoldat

# A Statistical 

### Study ofthe 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 

# 2426 1968 William

# C Reinig

# ed Springfield 

## IL Charles

# C Thomas 1970

# p302308
20 

## SPSS SPSSPC+Tm Update for

## V31 SPSS Data Entry 

### IIrm Chicago 

## IL 1989 

## 21 Westat Inc Investigation of Possible RecallReference Period Bias in National Surveys of 

### Fishing 

## Hunting and Wildlife

## Associated Recreation Final 

### Report Contract 

## no 1416009 87008 Prepared for the

# US Fish 

### and Wildlife Service 

### by Westat Inc Rockville 

# MD December 1989

1992 Environmental Conference 903

## Session

# 31 PosterSession



## The following 

## papers Session 

# 31 have 

## been reviewed by the Technical 

## Program Committeeofthe

# TAPPI Environmental Division 

## and approved for publication 

## based on two criteria

# 1 the ideas 

## appear to 

### be 

## new and

# 2 the 

## papers present technical information ratherthan a

## commercial

904 TAPPI Proceedings